ML20051V487
| ML20051V487 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1982 |
| From: | WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20051U945 | List: |
| References | |
| ENVR-820506, NUDOCS 8205180111 | |
| Download: ML20051V487 (600) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ - _ - _ - _ _ . - -
- SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCLEAR PROJECTS NOS.1 & 4 ENVIRONMENTAL :
0 REPORT l OPERATING LICENSE STAGE DOCKET NOS. 50-460 50-513 9 i WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER ! O SUPPLY SYSTEM l
- 82051801\\1}
WNP-1/4 ER-OL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Title Page No. 1 PURPOSE OF THE FACILITIES 1.0-1 2 THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES 2.1-1 2.1 Geography and Demography 2.1-1 2.2 Ecology 2.2-1 2.3 Meterology 2.3-1 2.4 Hydrology 2.4-1 2.5 Geology 2.5-1 2.6 Regional Historic, Scenic, Cultural, 2.6-1 and Natural Features 2.7 Noise 2.7-1 3 THE PLANT 3.1-1 3.1 External Appearance 3.1-1 3.2 Reactor and Steam-Electric System 3.2-1 3.3 Station Water Use 3.3-1 3.4 Heat Dissipation System 3.4 3.5 Radwaste Systems ,and Source Term 3.5-1 3.6 Chemical and Biocide Wastes 3.6-1 ' 3.7 Sanitary and Other Wastes 3.7-1
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) O Chapter Title Page No. 3.8 Reporting of Radioactive Material 3.8-1 Movement 3.9 Transmission Facilities 3.9-1 4 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PLANT AND TRANSMISSION 4.1-1 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION 4.1 Site Preparation and Plant Construction 4.1-1 4.2 Transmission Facilities Construction 4.2-1 4.3 Resources Comitted 4.3-1 4.4 Radioactivity 4.4-1 4.5 Construction Impact Control Programs 4.5-1 5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION 5.1-1 5.1 Effects of Operation of Heat Dissipation 5.1-1 System 5.2 Radiological Impact from Routine Operation 5.2-1 5.3 Effects of Liquid Chemical and 5.3-1 Biocide Discharges 5.4 Effects of Sanitary Waste Discharges 5.4-1 5.5 Effects of Operation and Maintenance 5.5-1 of the Transmission System 5.6 Other Effects 5.6-1 5.7 Irretrievable Comitments of Resources 5.7-1 5.8 Decommissioning of Reactor Buildings 5.8-1 ii e
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Chapter Title Page No. 6 EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT 6.1-1 AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 6.1 Preoperational Environmental Program 6.1-1 6.2 Operational Environmental Program 6.2-1 6.3 Related Environmental Measurement 6.3-1 and Monitoring Programs 6.4 Preoperational Environr:tental 6.4-1 Radiological Monitoring Data 7 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS 7.1-1 7.1 Plant Accidents Involving Radioactivity 7.1-1 i 7.2 Transportation Accidents Involving Radioactivity 7.2-1 7.3 Other Accidents 7.3-1 8 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF PROJECT OPERATION 8.1-1 AND OPERATION 8.1 Benefits 8.1-1 8.2 Costs 8.2-1 9 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES 9.1-1 9.1 Alternatives not Requiring the Creation 9.1-1 of New Generating Capacity 9.2 Alternatives Requiring the Creation of 9.2-1 New Generating Capacity 10 PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 10.1-1 10.7 Liquid Radwaste Systems 10.7-1 10.8 Gaseous Radwaste Systems 10.8-1 iii
--- e , , -, .,,, , , ----
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Chapter Title Page No. 11 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS 11.1 General Purpose and Approach for Power H.1-1 Plant Cost-Benefit Analysis 11.2 Need for Power 11.2-1 11.3 Selection of Power Plant Capacity 11.3-1 11.4 Selection of Power Plant Fuel and Site 11.4-1 11.5 Selection of Best Power Plant Components 11.5-1 11.6 Benefit-Cost Balance 11.6-1 12 ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATION 12.1-1 APPENDICES Appendix I NPDES Permit Appendix II State Historic Preservation Officer Statement Appendix III General Information and Assumptions used to Calculate Radwaste Realeases Appendix IV WNP-1/4 GASPAR Input Parameters Appendix V WNP-1/4 LADTAP Input Parameters ! iv
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure No. 2.1-1 HANFORD SITE B0UNDARY MAP 2.1-2 LAND USAGE MASTER PLANNING 2.1-3 PROJECT AREA MAP - 10 MILE RADIUS 2.1-4 PROJECT AREA MAP - 50 MILE RADIUS 2.1-5 DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSIENT POPULATION WITHIN 10 MILES OF SITE 2.2-1 DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR PLANT COMMUNITIES (VEGETATION TYPES) ON THE DOE HANFORD SITE, BENTON COUNTY, WA 2.2-2 FOOD-WEB 0F COLUMBIA RIVER 2.2-3 SEASONAL FLUCTUATION OF PLANKTON BIOMASS , 2.2-4 SEASONAL FLUCTUATION OF NET PRODUCTION RATE OF PERIPHYTON O. 2.2-5 DENSITY OF COLUMBIA RIVER BENTHIC MACROFAUNA COLLECTED AT STATION 1 NEAR WNP 1, 2 and 4 (RM 352) 2.2-6 TIMING 0F UPSTREAM MIGRATIONS IN THE LOWER' COLUMBIA RIVER 2.3-1 WIND ROSE FOR WNP-1/4 FOR 4-74 TO 3-76 AT THE 33 FT LEVEL 2.3-2 WIND ROSE FOR WNP-1/4 FOR 4-74 TO 3-76 AT THE 7 FT LEVEL 2.3-3 WIND ROSE FOR WNP-1/4 FOR 4-74 TO 3-76 AT THE 245 FT LEVEL 2.3-4 WIND ROSES AS A FUNCTION OF HANFORD STABILITY AND FOR l BALL STABILITIES OF HMS BASED ON WINDS AT 200 FT AND AIR TEMP. STABILITIES BETWEEN 3 FT AND 200 FT FOR THE PERIOD 1955 THR00GH 1970 l l l l l O ,
WNP-1/4 ER-OL LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) Figure No. 2.3-5 SURFACE WIND ROSES FOR VARIOUS LOCATIONS ON AND SURROUNDING THE HANFORD SITE BASED ON FIVE-YEAR AVGS. (1952-1956, SPEEDS ARE GIVEN IN MILES PER HOUR) 2.3-6 MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY 2.3-7 MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY 2.3-8 MDNTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY 2.3-9 ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGE OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY 2.3-10 . AVERAGE MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AMOUNTS BASED ON THE PERIOD 1912-1970 AT HMS 2.3-11 RAINFALL INTENSITY, DURATION, AND FREQUENCY BASED ON THE PERIOD 1947-1969 AT HMS 2.3-12 PEAK WIND GUST RETURN PROBABILITY DIAGRAM AT HMS 2.3-13 METRIC MEAN TSP CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE PERIOD 1976-90 WALLULA AND HANFORD 2.3-14 TOP 0 GRAPHIC CROSS SECTION OF REGION SURROUNDING PLANT SITE 2.3-15 SITE TOP 0 GRAPHY INCLUDING 5 MILE RADIUS 2.4-1 UPPER AND MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN 2.4-2 DISCHARGE DURATION CURVES OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, WA 2.4-3 COLUMBIA RIVER AT PRIEST RAPIDS, WA
SUMMARY
AND 1978 HYDR 0 GRAPHS vi
uWNP-1/4 ER-OL LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) Figure No._
?.4-4 FREQUENCY CURVE OF MOMENTARY PEAK FLOWS FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, WA .
2.4-5 FREQUENCY CURVES OF HIGH AND LOW FLOWS FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, WA 2.4-6 CROSS SECTIONS OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER IN THE PLANT VICINITY 2.4-7 LOCATION OF INTAKE AND DISCHARGE lit!ES WNP-1, WNP-4, AND WNP-2 2.4-8 RIVER WATER SURFACE PROFILES FOR SEVERAL FLOW DISCHARGES IN THE VICINITY OF THE PLANT SITE 2.4-9 AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURE COMPARIS0N FOR PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, AND RICHLAND, FOR 10-YEAR PERIOD 1965-1974 2.4-10 COMPUTED LONG TERM TEMPERATURE ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER AT ROCK ISLAND DAM (1938-1972) 2.4-11 SIMPLIFIED GE0 LOGICAL CROSS SECTION OF THE HANFORDD RESERVATION WASHINGTON 2.4-12 GROUNDWATER CONT 0URS AND LOCATIONS OF WELLS FOR THE HANFORD RESERVATION, WASHINGTON SEPTEMBER, 1973 2.4-13 liATER TABLE MAP IN VICINITY OF WNP-1 AND 4, DECEMBER 1978 2.4-14 POINTS OF GROUNDWATER WITHDRAW IN THE VICINITY OF WNP-1 3.1-1 AERIAL OBLIQUE 9/81 LOOKING NORTH 3.1-2 EFFLUENT RELEASE POINTS l 3.4-1 COOLING TOWER AND BUILDING LAYOUT, WNP-1 1 ! 3.4-2 MAKE-UP WATER PUMP HOUSE DETAIL s-3.4-3 MAKE-UP WATER INLET DETAIL vii l l
l I WNP-1/4 ER-OL LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) Figure No. 3.4-4 INTAKE AND OUTFALL CONFIGURATION 3.4-5 BLOWDOWN DISCHARGE DETAIL 3.6-1 SCHEMATIC 0F WATER FLOW, WNP-1 3.6-2 SCHEMATIC 0F WATER FLOW, WNP-4 3.7-1 SANITARY WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM , 5.1-1 PLUME EXCESS TEMPERATURE DECAY CURVE 5.1-2 PLUME EXCESS TEMPERATURE DECAY FOR WNP-1/4 AND WNP-2 EFFLUENTS 5.1-3 PLAN VIEW 0F WNP-2 AND WNP-1/4 BLOWDOWN PLUME IS0 THERMS 5.1-4
SUMMARY
OF TEMPERATURE EXPOSURE AND THERMAL TOLERANCE OF JUVENILE SALM0NIDS 5.1-5 EQUILIBRIUM LOSS AND DEATH TIMES AT VARIOUS TEMPERATURES FOR JUVENILE CHIN 0OK SALMON 5.2-1 NEAREST HANFORD FACILITIES, POPULATION CENTER AND AREA 0F HIGHEST X/Q 5.2-2 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TO MAN 5.2-3 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TO BIOTA 5.3-1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TOTAL HARDNESS OR ALKALINITY AND COPPER T0XICITY 5.3-1 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TO MAN 6.1-1 AQUATIC BIOTA AND WATER QUALITY SAMPLING STATIONS NEAR WNP-1, 2, AND 4 6.1-2 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY STUDY SITE IN THE VICINITY OF WNP-1/4 viii
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) Figure No. 6.1-3 MEAN HERBACE0US COVER (PERCENT) IN VICINITY OF WNP-1/4 AND WNP-2 ~ 6.1-4 AVERAGE DRY WEIGHT OF LIVE AB0VE-GROUND HERBACEOUS PHYT 0 MASS IN THE VICINITY OF WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 6.1-5 DEER, RABBIT AND BIRD SAMPLING LOCATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 6.1-6 RADIOLOGICAL SAMPLE STATION LOCATIONS 6.3-1 HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL AIR SAMPLING LOCATIONS DURING 1975 I 6.3-2 RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING STATIONS AT HANFORD OPERATED BY l NE 6.3-3 STATEWIDE SAMPLING LOCATIONS 7.1-1 SCHEMATIC OUTLINE CONSEQUENCE MODEL 1 7.1-2 PROBABILITY VERSUS ACUTE FATALITIES 7.1-3 PROBABILITY VERSUS LATENT CANCER FATALIT.IES 7.1-4 PROBABILITY VERSUS LATENT THYROID EFFECTSi 7.1-5 PROBABILITY VERSUS DIRECT COSTS OF MITIGATION , 7.1-6 PROBABILITY VERSUS WHOLE BODY POPULATION DOSE 7.1-7 PROBABILITY VERSUS PERSONS IN DOSE RANGES 7.1-8 DOWNWIND WHOLE BODY DOSE 11.1-1 GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS O . u u
WNP-1/4 ER-OL h J CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE OF THE FACILITY This Environmental Report-0perating License Stage (ER-OL) is submitted in support of the application filed in Docket Nos. 50-460 and 50-513 by the Washington Public Power Supply System (hereafter referred to as the "Sup-ply System") for a nuclear power generation unit designated as Nuclear Projects Nos.1 and 4 (WNP-1/4). These 1250-MWe units are being con-structed by the Supply System to satisfy the power needs of the Pacific Northwest region. The scheduled fuel load dates are December 1985 for Unit 1 and December 1986 for Unit 4. The scheduled commercial operation dates are June 1986, and June 1987 respectively. The Supply System is a joint operating agency formed in 1957 under Chapter 43.52 of the Revised Code of Washington. As a joint operating agency, the Supply System is legally empowered "to generate, produce, transmit, trans-fer, exchange or sell electric energy and to enter into contracts for any or all such purposes" (RCW 43.52.300). The Supply System sells electric-ity only to other electric utilities or to government agencies. These utilities and agencies in turn distribute the electricity to customers throughout most of the Pacific Northwest. The management and control of. the Supply System is vested in a Board of Directors composed of a repre-sentative of each of its members, which are 19 public utility districts h v and the cities of Ellensburg, Richland, Seattle and Tacoma, all located in the State of Washington. The Supply System owns and operates the 27-MWe Packwood Hydroelectric Project near the town of Packwood and the 860-MWe Hanford Generating Proj-ect (HGP) located on the Hanford Site of the United States Department of Energy (D0E). Steam for the HGP turbines is provided by DOE's N Reactor. The Supply System is also building a nuclear electric generating plant near Satsop in Grays Harbor County (WNP-3). i ( Applications for construction permits and operating licenses for twin units, WNP-1 and WNP-4, were filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Consnission l (NRC) on October 18, 1973 for WNP-1 and on August 5, 1974 for WNP-4. Con-struction was comenced in August 1975 with issuance of a Limited Work Authorization. Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-134 and CPPR-174 were subse-quently issued on December 23, 1975 for WNP-1 (Docket No. STN 50-460) and February 27, 1978 for WNP-4 (Docket No. STN 50-513), respectively. l This chapterER-OL is organized,
/section/ with subsection very of fonnat few exceptions, Regulatory accordigg)to Guide 4.2.U thesug-As l
gested update ofbythe 10 Environmental CFR Part 51.21, the content of thisPermit Report-Construction document Stageis(ER-CP).l2 largely gn) However, this ER-0L is more than an epdate; it contains the information essential to an assessment of the environmental effects of plant operation 1.0-1 1
WNP-1/4 ER-OL independent of the ER-CP. Reference herein to the ER-CP is for the pur-pose of providing a source of supplementary infonnation. Content of the document also reflects NRC rulemaking on the relevance of issues such as power need and alternative energy sources in OL proceeding.(3,4) REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 1
- 1. Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations, Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion, Washington, D. C., July 1976.
- 2. Environmental Report-Construction Permit State, WPPSS Nuclear Project Numbers 1/4, Amendment 1, Docket Nos. 50-460/513, Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, Washington,1974.
- 3. " Alternative Site Issues in Operating License Proceedings", Federal Register, 46(102):28630-28632, May 28,1981.
- 4. "Need for Power and Alternative Energy Issues in Operating License Proceedings", Federal Register, 47(59):12940, March 26, 1982.
O O 1.0-2
l l WNP-1/4 l l ER-OL CHAPTER 2 THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES 2.1 GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHY 2.1.1 Site Location and Description 2.1.1.1 Specification of Location The Washington Public Power Supply System (Supply System) Nuclear Project Number 1 (WNP-1) and Number 4 (WNP-4) are located on the Hanford site in Benton County, Washington, on property leased from the United States Depart- I ment of Energy (DOE). The Hanford site is comprised of 134 square miles (86,050 acres) in Grant and Franklin Counties, and 425 square miles (271,930 { acres) in Benton County, Washington. Boundaries for the Hanford Site are shown in Figure 2.1-1. The plants are approximately 2.5 miles west of the Columbia River at river mile 352 in Sections 3, 4, 33, and 34, Townships 11N and 12N, Range 28 East, Willamette Meridian. The center of the WNP-1 containment is located at lati-tude 46028'04"N and longitude 119018'52"W. The coordinates of the WNP-4 containment are latitude 46028'34"N and longitude 119019'05"W. 2.1.1.2 Site Area A map of the WNP-1 and WNP-4 site area is shown in Figure 2.1-2. The leased property areas for WNP-1 and WNP-4 are contiguous with property leased for WNP-2. These areas total 2061 acres. WNP-2 is located 4750 feet west and 1300 feet north of WNP-1, and 3750 feet west and 1650 feet wouth of WNP-4. Other f acilities in the site area include Supply System warehouses east of WNP-2, the Makeup Water Pumphouse for WNP-2, the Central Sanitary Waste Water - Treatment Facility southwest of WNP-2, and the Security Forces Qualifications j Facility, east of WNP-4. Bonneville Power Administration's (BPA) H. J. Ashe Substation lies north of WNP-2, and the Supply System Meteorological Tower and DOE's Wye Burial Ground lie west of WNP-2. The Wye Burial Ground is a nine acre plot containing solid radioactive waste material and is under the control of DOE's waste management program. The DOE's Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), and Fuel Materials Examination Facility (FMEF) are located approximately three miles southwest of the site. The nearest incorporated comunity is the city of Richland,12 miles to the south. 2.1.1.3 Boundaries for Establishing Effluent Release Limits The rectangular areas around WNP-1 and WNP-4 as shown in Figure 2.1-2 have been established as the limit of the restricted area for which effluent con-centrations have been calculated to be in conformance with 10 CFR 20. These boundaries conform for the most part with the site boundaries for units WNP-1 and WNP-4. The distance between the WNP-1 and WNP-4 release points and the l % 2.1-1
WNP-1/4 ER-0L restricted area boundaries is approximately 0.5 mile (800 meters), except in the northern sectors where the boundary is about 0.25 mile (400 meters) from the WNP-4 release points. The eastern edge of the restricted area is slightly less than two miles west of the Columbia River. 2.1.1.4 Exclusion Area Authority and Control As shown in Figure 2.1-2, the 1930 meter radius exclusion area extends outside the plant property. All land outside the plant property but within the exclu-sion area is managed by USDOE as part of the ilanford Site. In recognition of requirements specified in 10 CFR 100.3 (a), that require a licensee to have control over access to the exclusion area, the following terms have been made a part of the site property lease agreement between the Supply System and DOE. Quoting from page 8, item 7 " Exclusion Area":
"The Administration recognizes the exclusion area as provided for in the operating license and will undertake no action or activity which would interfere with or restrict the Supply System's right to fully comply with this condition of the operating license."
Any actions taken within the exclusion area but outside the plant property are under the control of DOE. All rail shipments on the track which traverses the property (Figure 2.1-2) are also under control of DOE and are also subject to the above quoted provisions of the Lease. The only road which traverses the exclusion area of WNP-1/4 is the f acilities access road shown in Figure 2.1-2. Access by land from outside the Hanford l Site to the project site is by other DOE roads. Travel within the exclusion l area on the access road will be restricted by the Supply System. In the event that evacuation or other control of the exclusion area should become necessary, appropriate notice will be given to the DOE-Richland Operations Office for control of non-Supply System originated activities. The above provisions provide the necessary assurances that the exclusion area will be properly controlled. If at some time in the future, the Supply System should decide that an easement would be helpful in ensuring continued control, there is a provision in Paragraph 5(b) of the lease as follows:
" Subject to the provisions of Section 161(q) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Commission has authority to grant easements for the rights-of-way for roads, transmission lines and for any other purpose and agrees to negotiate with the Supply System for such rights-of-way over the Hanford Operations Area as are necessary to service the Leased Premises."
9 2.1-2
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O Pursuant to this provision, the Supply System could obtain from DOE an ease-ment over the exclusion area in question which would assure that neither the construction of permanent structures nor the conducting of activities incon-sistent with the exclusion area would be carried on therein. 2.1.1.5 'C ontrol of Activities Unrelated to Plant Operation The exclusion area will encompass the WNP-1 and WNP-4, their respective access roads, and the H. J. Ashe Substation and a small portion of the Warm Water Utilization Project. Other than these f acilities there are no activities un-related to the operation of WNP-1/4 within the exclusion area. Both WNP-1 and 4 and their respective access roads will be owned and operated by the Supply System. The H. J. Ashe Substation will be owned by the Bonneville Power Ad-ministration and is considered a part of WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 normal operation. 2.1.2 Population Distribution Table 2.1-1 presents the compass sector population estimates for 19g0 and the forecasts for the same compass sectors by decade from 1990 to 2030. Cumu-lative totals are also shown in Table 2.1-1. This table may be keyed to Fig-ures 2.1-3 and 2.1-4 which show the sectors and major population centers with-in 10 and 50 miles of the site. The population centers, within 50 miles of the site are the Tri-City area of Richland, Pasco and Kennewick, and the com-munities lying along the Yakima River from Prosser to Wapato. It can be seen O from Figure 2.1-3 that there are no towns located within 10 miles of the site, with the exception of a small part of Richland. There are no residents of incorporated Richland within the 10-mile radius. The 1990 to 2030 forecasts presented here(2) are based on: a) 1979 popula-tion figures provided by the Washington State Office of Financial Management; b) Benton and Franklin County Traffic Analysis Zone population distributions; c) computed annual average area growth rates from 1975 through 1979 which were e ad utilized to obtainprepared county forecasts the total by 1980 the population estimated Bonneville Power for each ar(3f,'(43 Administration. ; d) 2.1.2.1 Population Within 10 Miles l The nearest inhabitants occupy farms which are located east of the Columbia River and are thinly spread over five compass sectors. There are no permanent l inhabitants located within three miles of the site. Only about 80 persons I reside between the 3-mile and 5-mile radii and all are east of the Columbia
- Population estimates out to 50 miles were derived to serve the li-censing requirements of WNP-1, 2, and 4. Therefore, estimates were made relative to the centroid of the triangle formed by the three reactors. This point is located 2800 feet east of WNP-2 and has t coordinates Long 119019'18"W, Lat 46028'19" N. This shift does not affect the overall accuracy or applicability of the population distribution projections.
2.1-3
WNP-1/4 ER-OL River. Within a 5-mile radius of the site, there are no proposed public fa-cilities (schools, hospitals, etc.), business f acilities, or primary transpor-tation routes for use by large numbers of people. In 1980, an estimated 1,306 persons, 65% of whom were in the NE to SE sectors in Franklin County east of the Columbia River, resided within a 10-mile radius of the site. This number represents only 0.5% of the total population within a 50-mile radius. The population within the 10-mile radius is estimated at 2,676 in 1990, 3,614 in 2000, and 3,877 in 2010. By 2020, the population within the 10-mile radius is estimated at 4,073 which is a 212% increase over 1980. No signi,icant changes in land use within five miles are anticipated. The Hanford Site is expected to remain dedicated primarily to industrial use with-out private residences. No change in the use of the land east of the Columbia River is expected since it currently is irrigated to about the maximum amount practi cable. The industrial areas in the northern part of Richland and the residential area SSW of the Yakima River near the Horn Rapids Dam are within the 10-mile radi-us. The residential area near the Horn Rapids Dam is unincorporated. The primary increase in population within the 10-mile radius is expected to be in this area. 2.1.2.2 Population Between 10 and 50 Miles As indicated in Table 2.1-1, about 251,684 people were estimated to be living within a 50-mile radius of the WNP-2 project in 1980. Beginning with the 10-mile radius, the population count increases rapidly because of the Tri-City region to the south and south-southeast. Total population within the 20-mile radius was estimated to be 91,734 in 1980 or about 37% of the total within 50 miles. When the 30-mile radius is reached, another 52,000 persons within the entire 30-mile radius total 143,735. Most of this zone's population count stems f rom the contribution of compass sectors containing the Tri-Cities and the residents of the fringe areas. Based on 1950 census reports, the Tri-Cities are the only significantly large population centers located in the 10 entire 30-mile radius total 143,735. Most of this zone's population count stems from the contribution of compass sectors containing the Tri-Cities and the residents of the fringe areas. Based on 1980 census reports, the Tri-Cities are the only significantly large population centers located in the 10 to 30-mile zone: Richland (33,578), Kennewick (34,397) and Pasco (17,944). The next 10 miles (to the 40-mile range) adds another 41,135 persons for a total 40-mile radius count of 184,870 while the 50-mile range adds the final 66,814 persons for a total of 251,684 persons living within a 50-mile radius of the construction site in 1980. The primary future increase in population is expected to be in the SE to SSW sectors which include the entire Tri-Cities and adjoining areas. Little in-crease is generated westward. The population increases in the rural areas are 2.1-4
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O based on the expected increase in irrigated agriculture. The rest of the pop-ulation is primarily in the Tri-City area as a result of increased activity on the Hanford Site and expansion of agricultural activities throughout the general region. From the estimated 1980 population of 251,684, the population is projected to be 301,943 in 1990, 336,115 in 2000, and 360,395 in 2010 within the 50-mile radius. By 2020, the population within the 50-mile radius is estimated at 379,930, and by 2030 at 383,828, which is a 53% increase over 1980. 2.1.2.3 Transient Population The transient population consists of agricultural workers needed for harvest-ing crops produced in the region, industrial and construction workers both on and off the Supply System's WNP-2 project site, and sportsmen engaged in hunt-ing, fishing, and boating. Figure 2.1-5 shows the distribution of the transi-ent population. Table 2.1-2 lists industrial employment within ten miles of the project site. The majority of these individuals are directly involved with research and op-eration of various programs and facilities for the Department of Energy and its contractors on the Hanford Site. Most of this workday population reside within 10 to 30 miles of the project and are included in the totals discussed j in Subsection 2.1.2.2. The workday population total of approximately 19,500
*/ includes the WNP-1/4 construction work force. Also included is the WNP-2 work force which will be reduced to operating levels by the time of OL issuance.
Agricultural workers within the 50-mile radius during early spring and late fall months, consist mostly of pemanent residents numbering between 2,000 and 3,000 laborers. In the sunner months during peak harvest, the agricultural labor force is an estimated 34,000.ld Within the 10-mile radius an esti-mated 1,000 migrant workers are employed during the peak months of May and June. These workers are concentrated in the north to south-southeast sectors on the.jrti (il Approximately County.t6;,ggted f am units located east workers 925 of these of the Columbia River inbe-reside temporarily Franklin tween the 5-10 mile radii; the remaining 75 are located within 5 miles of the site. Hunting and fishing activities within the 10-mile radius are also centered in the north to south-southeast sectors along the Columbia River. The number of fishermen and hunters in this area varies with the season, the weather, the day of the week, and the time of day. The main hunting season is from June througn November. The heaviest use of the area for both sports is on weekends and holidays in the early morning hours. It is estimated that the of hunters and/or fishermen present in the area would total 1,000.(oeak 6),(8) number It is estimated that, on the average,10 hunters are present in the area on j weekdays; the number increases to 50 on weekends and holidays. The average number of fishermen present are 50 and 100 for weekdays, and weekends and hol-idays, respectively. Hunters and fishermen also have access to the Yakima River in the SW and SSW sectors where they may total 50. 2.1-5 i
,--f ._
_y. , - ,.7 . - - p -
i WNP-1/4 E R-0!. 2.1.3 Uses of Adjacent Lands and Waters Land use within a three (3) mile radius of the WPPSS Nuclear Projects includes the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) and the Fuel Material Examination Facility (FMEF). Also included are the associated roadways and railroads, circulating water pumphouses on the Columbia River, the Supply System's Emergency Response / Plant Support Facility, the Security Forces Qualification Facility, and Cen-tral Sanitary Waste Treatment Facility. No other facilities are located in this area. Between the three (?) and five (5) mile radii, in the five eastern sectors, is an area devoted to agriculture. Significant changes in land use outside five miles include urban residential and irrigated agricultural development. Most major new irrigation develop-ments have occurred in the Hermiston-Boardman area in Oregon and in the Plymouth area in Washington. Other new developments are the hills adjacent to the Snake River east of Pasco, along the Yakima River west and north of West Richland, and in the hills northwest of the Hanford Site. Significant new irrigation development is expected in the Horse Heaven Hills southwest of the Tri-Cities (about 300,000 acres) and in the Columbia Basin Project north and east of the Columbia River (now totaling 570,000 acres). The principal sources of water for the irrigated areas south and west of the Tri-Cities are the Columbia, Snake, and Yakima Rivers. Groundwater is being pumped in the hills northwest of the Hanford Site and is expected to be used for new areas surrounding Pasco. New irrigation in the Columbia Basin Project will receive its water from Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River. Scattered throughout the area within 50 miles of the project are a number of livestock and dairy operations. The number of individual livestock animals per location ranges from one to 250 and are utilized for both personal and comnercial beef processing, as well as for breeding. There are eight beef processing plants located within 50 miles that provide beef to outlets outside the area, with the largest plant processing approximately 1,000 head per day. The area within 50 miles is predominantly a feeder area during non-growing season, and (Luses the number of livestock to fluctuate on a seasonal basis. There are three (3) dairy operations located within ten (10) miles of the site. An estimated 95 additional milk producers are located within the area between the 10 and 50 mile radii.(9) The milk produced from these dairins is col-lected and transported to processing plants located as f ar away as Portland, Oregon and Spokane, Washington. Table 2.1-3 provides distances to the nearest livestock, dairy animals, and vegetable gardens. Hunting and fishing is extensive within the fifty (50) mile radius. Much of the f armland is open to hunters, with upland bird and waterfowl being the most popul ar. Fishing occurs on the Columbia, Snake, Yakima, and Walla Walla Rivers, as well as in isolated lakes and ponds. The Columbia River is the closest area in which hunting and fishing can occur. Fishing and hunting can G . 2.1-6
1 1 WNP-1/4 ! ER-OL O occur on both banks of the river as f ar upriver as the Hanford Townsite. Within 10 miles of the site is an area designated as Controlled Hunting Area B. This area contains the Ringold Wildlife Refuge and the Wahluke Wildlife Refuge, consisting of approximately 4,000 acres of Department of Energy land managed by the Washington State Department of Game. l.ocated adjacent to this area's southern boundary and within five miles of the site is the Ringold Fish Hatchery. This facility encourages steelhead fishing within one mile of its location. These three areas experienced a total of 291,000 user-days hunters and fishermen in a one (1) year period between 1978 and 1979.(gy) u REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.1
- 1. Letter, Appendix 2.P, Atomic Energy Commission, Richland Operations Office, to Managing Director of the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, Washington, November 25, 1970.
- 2. Yandon, K. E., Projections and Distributions of Populations Within a 50-Mile Radius of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Projects Nos.1, 2, and 4 by Compass Direction and Radii Intervals, 1970-2030, October 1980.
- 3. Bonneville Power Administration, U. S. Department of Energy, Washington Population, Employment and Household Projections to 2000 by County.
- 4. Bonneville Power Administration, U. S. Department of Energy, Oregon Population, Employment and Household Projections to 2000 by County.
- 5. Personal Comunication, J. R. Zuniga, Supply System, with Job Service Representatives, Washington State Department of Employment Security, November 20, 1979.
- 6. Hansen, Warren, Feasibility of 10-Mile Emergency Planning Zone Evacuation Hanford Site, Consultant's Report to Washington Public Power Sunply System, December 1980.
f 7. Migrant Farmworker Ten-Mile Radius Survey, prepared by Washington State Migrant Education Identification and Recruitment Program,1981. I
- 8. Personal Communication, Warren Hansen, Supply System Consultant, with Gary Scrivener, Game Warden for Franklin County, and John McIntosh, Game Warden for Benton County, April 28 to May 2,1980.
- 9. Letter, E. Thompson, Cooperative Extension Service, to J. R. Zuniga, Supply System, January 25, 1980.
- 10. Personal Communication, J. R. Zuniga, Supply System, with J. Benson, I Washington State Department of Game, November 8,1979.
l !O 2.1-7 l L -_ _. . . __ - ...- - -
A j - TABLE 2.1-1 (SHEET 1 OF 2) j POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY COMPASS SECTOR AND DISTANCE FROM THE SITE 1 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Direction Distance (Compass Cumulative Cumulative C a lative Cumula tive Cumula tive Cumulative (Miles) Se2'Eni Number Total hunt >er Total Number Total Number Total Number Total Number Total 0-3 All 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 O O O O 3-5 N-NNE O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE 10 10 35 35 48 48 52 52 55 55 Eht 22 32 43 86 86 78 56 104 60 112 63 E 22 54 118 61 150 43 128 56 160 60 172 63 ESE 22 76 181 64 214 43 164 56 216 60 232 63 4 244 64 278 SE 80 6 170 9 225 11 243 SSE-NNW 0 11 255 12 290 80 0 170 0 225 0 243 0 255 0 290 5-10 N 26 106 58 228 302 77 83 326 87 342 88 NNE 83 189 126 354 373 152 4 54 162 488 170 NE 155 344 512 172 550 198 552 224 678 240 728 252 ENE 764 254 804 114 458 157 709 177 855 190 918 E 135 593 200 200 %4 202 1006 m 909 257 1112 276 1194 290 1254 ESE 168 161 276 293 1299 3*y 1185 341 1453 366 1560 385 1639 SE 190 951 406 389 1688 1591 536 1989 575 2135 604 2243 0 .a SSE 45 9% 253 610 2293 1844 308 2297 330 2465 347 2590 I\ 5 50 1046 272 350 264S SSW 235 2116 483 2780 518 2983 544 3134 550 3198 O 1281 535 2651 809 3589 867 SW 3850 911 4045 920 4118 25 1306 25 2676 25 3614 27 3877 28 4073 29 4147 W5W-NNW 0 1306 0 2676 0 3614 0 3877 0 4073 0 4147 10-20 N 332 1638 371 3047 398 4012 427 4304 449 4522 MME 328 1966 454 4601 371 3418 397 4409 426 4730 NE 399 447 4969 452 5053 2365 562 3980 588 4991 630 5360 662 5631 669 5722 ENE 192 3157 835 4815 855 5852 917 E 461 3618 6277 %4 6595 974 66 % 479 5294 544 63 % 583 6860 613 ESE 192 3810 7208 619 7315 430 '5724 576 6972 618 7478 650 SE 4155 7965 7858 657 7972 5221 10945 5821 12793 6242 13720 6561 SSE 49178 57143 14419 6627 14599 63483 74428 70917 83710 16043 89763 79932 5 28943 86086 94351 80734 95333 37672 112100 45434 129144 48717 138480 51208 SSW 1592 87678 145559 51722 147055 1772 113872 1922 131066 2061 140541 2166 SW 3106 90784 147725 2188 149243 3597 117469 ;8 94 134 % 0 4175 144716 4389 W5W 950 152114 4433 153676 ', 91734 104S 118517 1108 136068 1188 145904 W 0 1248 153362 1260 154936 91734 0 118517 0 136068 0 145904 0 WNW 0 91734 0 153362 0 154936 118517 0 136068 0 145904 0 153362 i NW 0 91734 0 0 154936 118517 0 136068 0 145904 0 153362 NNW 0 91734 0 0 154936 118517 0 136068 0 145904 0 153362 0 154936 7
TABLE 2.1-1 (SHEET 2 OF 2) 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Direction 01 stance (Compass Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cusulative Cuaulative {MM Segment) Number Total Number Total Number Total Number Total Nunber 70tal Number Cumulative Total 20-30 N 1501 93235 1837 120354 2055 138123 2203 148107 2316 155678 2339 NhE 5759 98994 6487 126841 157275 7123 145246 7638 155745 8029 163707 NE 2015 101009 2174 8110 165385 129015 2274 147520 2438 158183 2563 166270 ENE 1717 102726 1760 2589 167974 130775 1786 149306 1915 160098 2013 E 151 102877 168283 2033 170007 194 130969 220 149526 236 160334 248 168531 250 170257 ESE 153 103030 240 131209 305 149831 327 160661 344 168875 348 170605 SE 6138 109168 6512 137721 6738 !$6569 7225 167886 - 7594 176469 7670 178275 SSE 24116 133284 ?'559 170280 36360 192929 38987 206873 42032 5 187 218501 42454 220729 133471 678 170958 975 193904 1045 207918 55W 875 1098 219599 1109 221838 134346 1218 172176 1426 195330 1529 SW 209447 1607 221206 1623 223461 6165 140511 7147 179323 7737 203067 WSW 8296 217743 0720 229926 8808 232269 1626 142137 1799 181122 1908 204975 W 2046 219789 2151 232077 2173 234442 1191 143328 1325 182447 1429 206404 1532 WNW 221321 1610 233687 1626 236068 185 143513 280 182727 297 206701 318 221639 334 234021 338 236406 NW 40 143553 44 182771 48 206749 hNW 51 221690 54 234075 55 236461 182 143735 200 182971 218 206967 234 221924 246 234121 249 236710 30-40 N 980 144715 1096 184065 1127 iO8094 1208 223132 1270 235591 1283 237993 NNE 3198 147913 3663 127728 3983 212077 4271 227403 44s0 NE ENE 650 421 148563 148984 800 188528 745 212822 799 228202 846 240081 240927 4536 850 242529 243379 g E 128 149112 447 136 188975 189111 475 141 213297 509 228711 535 241462 540 243919 mZ D 213438 152 228863 160 241622 162 244081 [SE 167 149279 176 189287 SE 464 149743 484 189771 182 497 213620 214117 195 229058 205 241827 208 244289 O a? SSE 592 150335 844 533 229591 560 242387 566 244855 FN 190615 955 215072 1023 230614 1076 243463 1087 A 5 4680 155015 5653 196268 245942 6368 221440 6828 237442 7172 250635 55W 256 155271 424 7250 253192 196692 529 221 % 9 567 238009 596 251231 SW 473 155744 602 253794 661 197353 786 222755 842 238851 885 W5W 21871 177615 252116 894 254688 24729 222082 26890 249645 28833 267684 30362 2824;8 W 3578 181193 30665 285353 3949 226031 4273 253918 4582 272266 4816 WNW 1399 287294 4864 290217 182592 1459 227490 1579 255497 1693 NW 273959 1780 289074 1798 292015 703 183295 770 223260 836 NNW 1575 256333 8% 274855 942 290016 952 292967 184870 1738 229998 1399 258232 2036 276891 2140 292156 2161 295128 40-50 N 17872 202742 19730 249728 21572 219804 23130 300021 24312 316468 24556 319684 NNE 893 203635 1019 250747 1121 280925
- 1202 301223 1263 317731 1275 320959 NE 926 204561 1139 251886 1275 282200 1367 302590 1437 319168 1451 322410 ENE 213 204774 243 252129 375 282575 402 302992 423 319591 427 322837 E 241 205015 258 252387 268 282843 287 864 303279 302 319893 305 323142 ESE 205879 925 253312 961 283804 1030 304309 2084 1083 320976 1095 324237 SE 207963 2245 255557 2349 286153 2518 306827 2646 323622 2673 326910 SSE 1740 209703 1920 257477 2072 288225 2222 309049 2336 325958 2359 329269 5 16540 226243 16406 273883 17708 305933 18987 328036 19958 345916 20158 349427 SSW 2610 228853 2895 276778 2972 308905 3186 331222 3349 349265 3428 352855 SW 421 229274 443 277221 476 309381 509 W5W 809 331731 535 349800 541 353396 230082 892 278113 %5 310346 1035 332766 W 1088 350888 1099 354495 18515 248598 20481 298594 22179 332525 23780 356546 24996 375884 25247 379142 WNW 1742 250340 2511:,2 1903 300497 2043 , 334568 2191 358737 2303 378187 2326 382068 NW 612 859 301356 905 335473 970 359707 1020 379207 1030 383098 NNW 532 251684 587 301943 642 336115 688 360395 723 379930 730 383828 e O O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O TABLE 2.1-2 INDUSTRY WITHIN A 10-MILE RADIUS OF SITE NO. OF EMPLOYER EMPLOYEES Department of Energy 400 Area (HEDL-FFTF) 1,187 300 Area (HEDL) 2,918 3000 Area (PNL) 2,016 1100 Area (Rockwell) 440 600 Area (Rockwell) 220 Pacific Northwest Laboratory (non-00E) 380 Exxon - Horn Rapids Road Facility 750 George Washington Way Facility 90 UNC Commercial 80 Nortec 80 U. S. Testing 55 Sigma 30 Olympia Associates 18 g Western Sintering 14 Q Futronix, Inc. Quadrex 12 9 Miscellaneous 60 Washington Public Power Supply System Headquarters Conplex 1,021 WNP-2 Site (Construction Force) 3,000 WNP-1/4 Site (Construction Force) 7,000 WNP-2 Site (Projected Operations Personnel) 295 WNP-1/4 Site (Projected Operations Personnel) 588 Note: DOE employment outside the 10-mile radius includes: 200 Area (Rockwell, E-1779, W-1361) 3,140 100 Area (UNC) 993 700 Area (DOE) 1,800 Employment totals are as of January 1981. 1 O l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.1-3 l DISTANCES FROM CENTROID OF WNP 1, 2 AND 4 TO VARIOUS ACTIVITIES Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW N;l NNW Site Boundary 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 Milk Animal 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Nearest Residence 5 - - - 3.2 4.4 3.2 3.8 - - - - - - - - - Nearest Vegetable 5 - - - 3.2 4.4 3.4 3.8 - - - - - - - - - Garden Nearest Dairy 10 - - - - - 6.4 5.8 - - - - - - - - - Nearest Livestock 10 - - 5.8 4.5 4.7 - - 7.1 9.5 8 8 - - - - - O O O
I I I ! i . I E $ ! O ! _ , , ,a 2. c. ! a. m c. a.as cs m i a es t; a. zu. a z,e c I JWi l NLtu,1 i W-M ve'm, G R A lN T C O !U N T Y hQa) e ,
.. ... -m ^
w ' s i i N i I i aye i p_ g> f1f) 3,..... .~.. - 1_ a ,7-gL I N -o, comi' %sp_
~-- ,
,., i-i i or,e to- 4 i-3
/
/? %
E 1 I Wi c--d - % IA iD A M'S C 0 \ t
,= Wii /i TM,-A-'+.m. ~- -n <=n -3 ix rL LI iS- i ,r ; , j [ .c, ""' i _ 1
._: / )__.-e u.c ma h '
% i. IrF mv. . . .. ) , ,5% a, 8
AE* j g~~ JC :.,- ' N.,J , , NV /1 a 30 E.I 3)\% iA *N 1 (~ i~, , ,,OEN si i
/*I
_F __ \ !\ r!if rFj7 gg, "" 7 '- . .' Y)\ g i f' m a mp Q / m_i 31 i (.
.=
I _._ , .N ,,,,,,,,, rF /L_._ _ -FO/ M'Tr, =rs - I i V DI ":_ E /_yW il i
\ 'A ...at i f\1 /?vfftpl\t '
\- i
,i U N/ I VF SI ! /I II 'I ! !
- l!noAi k.I\ld I M r#I W S I ! C=1M/ J N K \' q l si I ) !
l t VMP W / / \ \ Mq Lil I / z Y A K 1 'M A sa.stanom N/ ) N \ l% F2R IA N K L i IN j C O U NIT h &[ C .O U N T Y [N ) ijN_ ' ' ' M_! IN @ W bM [tsi_ l I/ \ M 4
"'**n" d"M i O"flL- ich i i i , /t ~/I iI l ,
./ Sea --
g -' l l -NN 1 N / Jl I~l i y p 3 i , 7 l x i w % - A- - k# h 7 \! ' I i
\ I
\ M 8/ ! z,.
i
/ 8 E N T O N \CD4.LI N iT Y A \
# 5 er t w i I N m
xs .o. WNP-4 x; s n ( < >
. . . i .o . .g? s ii ri
, . . i ,6 ,, ,a ,,%.,*? i NE--WN P-MN Ni' .x - -mWNP-1, x i n < ci.e i a
- i. ,, ijs 3 L i - \ if A y qu Ij/L1 o to ri/ 23 24 % -
N f rm g g - J ji =1 so es! .ja, asias .d' I \ j ! Nt f (X) / "_.! s, salpise ssise A6 % A la ,,,,4, - J Si j hh* a 4' ca** *' oam
"""-~
J I. .
! I/
W// Tlei d6 M 8 i W m q
;- :ntaam N
=
,,6( V f s l m,a i
[ N aaract hl_ i% M . d 5 I I I I XI i i \Y X MsoS EO J ! I ' I I i
%_l I f M l Mf IMh : 01 1 ? ! ! l I i x' % l I armen
- 7' \ l f%.1x) Elaoumo (l ! I s_ i% i g 7 h"m$ ___m W%.:CP4 Il <4 \j j M*
t WW Ac'3
%WQ t I i--&of ~.
4__WT l '@ ~~~.-AT A4 i L '%J*Mt_J lWh i IN /kJ" 'i i i l\ l W. IN /[A N.1 1 I I%l iIW t ! I I i I i1 i ! I I ! l ! \i I ! i M_ l l i. ! ! ka y p#rsi~s.cn 8 u'a'two' UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION HANFORD RESER$ J ATION
- b. ., MANFOa0
" "D'"Y RESER VATION BOUNDARY MAP
. , , ............a
..a .
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM HANFORD SITE WNP-1/4 BOUNDARY MAP ER-OL FIG. 2.1 1
C , n b , as i e i O m e Z Z
*,=
w j e. E E
.
- i 3 &
" 8 e
d
.' \ f E
-- N~~ ~~ .y s
s E g m v ~ ~ . 5 i
' I
~
. ,-,. - = :
-)
/-
" - I I s s a J'l
- i. a I
/
hl =LiI! - lb UI s 5 _ . a.
. ~ b. I,[ i;! :
I=
. I II$
~
Ihj.h I ;, IY (LI/ 8 8 n*% \ .i, fy a t-I - 4, )* I ,
b'; f ; E
.f ,
}- n w.'
y
,a
,e
.1
- l}1 l,
g* / 1 -
.,. ,I
\ [ ~. .of
)
=
;r Ai,hs'--}- ii
),
.: ,. Liv i
'q i!l /
x
- s .r. Nml4 -
i
- i N m f*
l ks / w#
,! /
%\
w .~
' // N f
Y
/
/
/
/
/
O E i d I & 5 Its 8 Q i Q I S (
g .
. *-- . ". .i.i . . .
.\.-.i......~.L,..i...I.i.+'s=a -
;,(.\.j
. - .- _a. . . ,
l . , . l N _._ < .._
~
- i. . . . .
l.I. . Ox -
. . . . . ~ . . , . < s ..7 s
, .N e{, .' . . , M
- .e
.j 1
'c-NNe i- < '
M .. [ , ..... ,,,, -
, - -i e
.3l-4~;;c q N .
.9' ' Iy ~ ~ * * ~
Nt" A g .. ' ~ B . \ u.. . 6-c! .. K,- ..2/4,,
- NE- - .' -
-)g
_. = :.)
.\.., .\._, - - - w g, W . l , . K, 4.:.. ..
.: q\
].
~
. i . TvNW[..%. . .i ..
.. ,7,,,g ggg ..p;
.l
..j ; b ._., :. ..
7.l ; g ..,,, p . , - -
.c ,
.m -
_ .2 .
.. .. ; g3
*'~
W1.. "3.e:p%Mg...
'*"."\-\
., .s.. .... _ " M. Is; . .c
~
.i. t I .
... Us x
; .i -
l*l*;- * *!* *
, j *
- f* ? - h.'.*N
.-\ .. ..
, 6 , % !. cO r r; L :. 33 m
-:9wsw\
y ...~ q ... t _t_
.x : .; ..
.. jess q.j _ _
- s. '- - .,. !.;- .j. y. ,
/ Ql ! .' f,
. - -- _ g. -y.. .: :yw .; .y.
,. y o.
.I.J. ..sw- ' ' -
f ; _N ; f.sf :. ' -u _l lJ _ -
/
w 1 ,
.s. r .
l l
.. 'r/ : .. e ..Ss ..xN . = <.. ..
._.. .. \. !.
s ,. 4
-. ... .i .)
j I : .. ;/ . . .
.- s ,,i"- 1 , _
t l l.
.w
_y_.
-l_ ~l ^i _i
.2
.x. ,+ ,
, . .. r y I
. w.- /._ '
V '
--- +- / [_
N z..s. p -- ' " m, k$i ,
'-Q. 'l __
.,,'* u, ..-. .,,
c BENTON
.*.q,.,
N x
,< y"rl.f j
% ~. . . , ,
COUNTY
- =.g % s . .
s
/ f-j :'
3 ( . . . .
. . v '-% .
. ~
k h. { l l/ l l -N O . - WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM PROJECT AREA MAP - 10 MILE RADIUS WNP-1/4 l ER-OL FIG. 2.1-3
l
=
A N ~ I I
- /- w
===)
} GRANT co, }
J b Yu's ' ) _
., 7 t d\
"* 4a D -
E
.n I
3 AMS CO. s
/
l p
- N LN ~
V / iww W/, _
~~
ew.: L a
~ .
FR n, X et ... g g >. q s [' a &,,, b 1 YAKIMA CO. '- it
*ae, WSW ...
i W/ - - WALLA ( LA O.
\2 '~ -- -
, BENTNCO/. su w , ,
?!!gi_ )
[
-4 -
KLICKITAT CO- ,,, aan-
) .
a 7 t/ wo,, o s so 20 MsL ES
' UMATILLA CO.
SCALE [ MORROW CO. WASPINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM PROJECT AREA MAP - 50 MILE RAOlUS WNP-1/4 ER-OL FIG. 2.1-4 l
N NNW NNE NW
@ NE A A O WNW ENE W 10 MILES 5 2 3000 o @A@ E 25 20 WSW
- s @ ESE O A A SW
\g SE 7443 SSW SSE S
KEY Industrial Employees 3000 Migratory Agricultural Werkers Sportsmen O v WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WNP-1/4 DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSIENT POPULATION WITHIN 10 MILES OF SITE ER-OL FIG. 2.1-5
WNP-1/4 ' ER-OL k 2.2 EC0 LOGY 2.2.1 Terrestrial Ecology The sagebrush - bitterbrush vegetation type surrounds and occupies about 100 square miles on the Department of Energy Hanford Reservation. The WNP-1/4 exclusion zone and corridor to the Columbia River occupies about 2.0 square miles of the same vegetation (Figure 2.2-1). Although sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) are the conspicuous plants in stands without a fire history, much of the land in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 is devoid of shrubs because of an extensive wildfire ( 17,000 acres) which oc-curred in the suniner of 1970. (1) The conspicuous vegetation on the burned acreage congi tectorum). k )sts of about Other 30 herbaceous important species, herbs are bursage especially (Ambrosia cheatgrass (Bromus acanthicarpa), Russian thistle (Salsola kali) ad Sandberg bluegrass (Poa sandbergii). Even without the stresses imposed by wildfire, the vegetation is not represen-tative of pristine conditions. The widespread occurrence of cheatgrass, an introduced alien weed, suggests that overgrazing by sheep and cattle in past years has been instrumental in the spread of cheatgrass. There are no plans to reintroduce livestock grazing to the WNP-1/4 area, nor is there any evi-dence to expect that cheatgrass will be replaced by native plant species over a 30 to 40 year time span. Cheatgrass does play an important role in consnu-nity function by retarding wind erosion, providing seed for birds and pocket mice, and herbage for insects. Thus, the WNP-1/4 site occupies a small part of a common vegetation type that demonstrates the effects of man's agricultural activities (livestock grazing) in an era prior to 1943. Past experience and field observations indicate that the soil is very sandy and susceptible to wind erosion, especially following events that destroy the sparse vegetation cover. Vegetation distrubances must therefore be kept to minimal acreage. Reseeding of distrubed soil requires special attention to the selection of plant species and planting season to successfully reestablish a suitable vegetative cover in a reasonable time period. Table 2.2-1 presents a list of terrestrial organisms identified near the WNP-1/4 site. Five vegetation study locations were selected in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 be-fore construction activities began. Most of the land immediately around the i construction zones had been burned in the 1970 fire, leaving only small un-burned patches of shrubs. Three stands were selected as " unburned" shrub study locations. The other two sites were selected as representative of
" burned" grass study location. Four new vegetation sites were sampled along with the five existing sites starting in 1980. Two grass (burned area) and two shrub (unburned area) sites were added to more adequately sample vegeta-tion l
0.1m{ntheprevalentwinddirectionsectors.
, were harvested to obtain an estimate ofAn additional peak five plots,her-live above-ground each baceous phytomass during the years 1975-1980. Plots were read at a time that was judged to be the peak of vegetation development (i.e., April-June).
2.2-1
l WNP-1/4 ER-OL Four shrub species occurred at the study sites in 1980.(3) These were bit-terbrush, sagebrush, and two species of rabbitbrush, Chrysothamnus nauseoseus and C. viscidiflorus. Snow buckwheat (Eriogonum niveum), a sub-shrub and a cactus (0puntia polyacantha) were also present. In 1980, two of the five shrub study sites were dominated' by sagebrush, one by bitterbrush, and two were mixtures of sagebrush, bitterbrush and rabbitbrush. Total mean shrub canopy cover ranged from 7.4 to 29.9 percent, with an average of 19.1 percent. Average percent canopy coyqr for similar vegetation in east-ern Washington ranges from 5 to 25 percent.p,5) Shrub densities ranged from approximately 500/ha to 2,000/ha per sampling site. In 1980, thirty-eight species of herbaceous plants were observed in the study area. These were grouped into four categories (1) annual grasses, (2) annual forbs, (3) perennial grasses and (4) perennial forbs. Cheatgrass was clearly the dominate species. It had an average cover of 50.8 percent and was gener-ally higher at grassland than shrub sites. The second most abundant species was Sandberg's bluegrass, a perennial grass, with an average cover of 17.4 percent. This is one of the few grass species which can compete relatively successfully with cheatgrass. During 1980, average cover of forbs was approximately 14 percent, and was nearly the same in grassland as shrub comunities. Most forbs were annuals, accounting for 11.6 percent of the herbaceous cover. The most common annual herb species were jagged chickweed (Holosteum umbellatum), pink microsteris (Microsteris gracilis), tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), and western tansy mustard (Descurainia pinnata). Perennial forb cover, represented by nine species, was the lowest of the four herbaceous categories ranging from zero to nearly five percent. A review of six years of field observations (1975-1980) shows that the small-est amount of canopy cover was produced in 1977. It was also by far the dri-est of the six years with only 1.21 inches of rain between October 1976 and April 1977. This was the only year in which cheatgrass failed to dominate canopy cover. The 1978 growing season was wetter than usual and cheatgrass promptly regained vegetative dominance. Annual forbs also contributed more canopy cover in 1978 than in previous years. Average production of herbaceous phytomass in 1980 was 72 g/m2 dry weight. The 1980 value was well below values reported in 1975, 1976 and 1978, but higher than those for 1977 and 1979. The animal populations are sparse and characteristic of the shrub-steppe eco-systems of the Hanford Reservation.(6,7) The most numerous big game mamal is the mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). It appears that deer use the area around WNP-1/4 as a foraging zone, retiring to the sand dune area a mile or so north of WNP-1/4 where they are infrequently disturbed by human trespass. The nearest surface water available to deer is e 2.2-2
WNP-1/4 ER-0L the Columbia River. The sparse riparian shrub-willow comunity also provides deer forage but little cover. The bulk of the Hanford Reservation mule deer herd subsists in the bitterbrush and riparian hahitats near the abandoned vil-lage of Hanford, about 7 miles north of WNP-1/4.\71 Densities i habitats are estimated to be 2.23 mule deer per square mile.(65 River thin these islands provide important f awning habitat for the local deer her Maximum densities of f awns per island are found north of WNP-1/4 and 2.(d) 7 Fur-bearing mamals found in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and 2 are the coyote (Canis latrans) and badger (Taxidea taxus). These animals are wanderers and use the WNP-1/4 area as a foraging ground. Average densities of coyotes and badgers tively. D)(gnCo the Hanford Reservation are 0.48 and 0.08 per square mile, respec-ford Site.(8) yotes are important predators of mule deer fawns on the Han-Other fur bearing mamals that occur along the river but for which there is no specific infonnation are beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat (0adatra zibethi-ca), a mink (Mustela vison), raccoon (Procyon lotor), skunk (Mephitis mephitis), weasels ({tiustela frenata and m. erminea) and bobcat (Lynx rufus). ) An important medium - sized mamal is the black-tailed hare (Lepus californi-cus). Populations of hares in steppe regions fluctuate widely from year to year depending upon a number of environmental variables including weather, p predation and disease. The population of,b ack-tailed hares on the Hanford Site was estimated at 9.22 per square mile. 6) Cottentail rabbits (Sylvil-v ague nuttallii) comunities havesagebrush-grass adjoin been observed incomunities. the edge h(9aQitats 1 where riparian Small mamal populations (i.e., mice) were investigated in burned and unburned portions of the bitterbrush-cheatgrass ecosystem from 1974 to 1979 using a live trap recapture method. Trapping was conducted in spring to record peak activity during the breeding season and again in late sumer to record any recruitment of young into the population. Mice were individually marked by toe amputations and released near the point of capture. Individual animals were weighed alive using a spring tension scale accurate to 0.5 grams. A total of 11,600 trap nights were conducted from 1974 to 1978. Five hundred and six individual animals representing five species were trapped, macked and rel eased. The great basin pocket mouse (Perognathus parvus) was the most abundant animal trapped with 418 individuals captured. Second was the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) with 65 individuals. The northern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys leucogaster) was represented by 15 individuals, the western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) by eight individuals, and the Town-send ground squirrel (Spermophilus townsendii) by one individual. There were more animals trapped in the unburned vegetation than on the grid with a recent fire history. Clearly the most abundant small mamal in the bitterbrush cheatgrass ecosystem in terms of population numbers and food chain dynamics is the pocket mouse. J 2.2-3
WNP-1/4 ER-OL The yearly cycle of activity for this species begins in March and April as the adults emerge f rom winter torpor to breed. The period of peak spring activity for the study sites in 1975 was April. A second peak is normally seen in late sumer with the recruitment of young into the population. In 1974 this oc-curred in late August and early September. Birds were surveyed monthly from August 1974 through June 1975 along five miles of dirt road in the vicinity of the WNP-1/4 and 2 site. The most comon species were the white crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys): 31.1 per-cent), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta): 29.1 percent), and horned lark (Eremophila alpestrisi): 22.6 percent). In 1976, a 20-acre plot was established in shrub habitat just west of WNP-2. Surveys were performed dur-ing the spring breeding season of 1976-1979. The results of these surveys were similar to those reported for 1974-1975. None of the species observed are listed as threatened or endangered. The number of birds counted in the 20-acre plot were 61, 79, 95 and 58 in 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979, respectively.(10-13) Based on this information, there is an average of 72.7 birds per year on the 20-acre plot or 3.69 birds / acre / year. The long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) is an important species that nests principally in dry cheatgrass fields on the Hanf Site. Approximately 100 birds occur west of the river on the Hanford Site. Ten indi were observed near WNP-1,2 and 4 in the studies perfonned 1974-1979.gug California quail (Lophortyx californicus) and ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) occur along the river in riparian and flood plain habitats. Other upland game birds reported for the Hanford Reservation are mourning doves (Zenaida macroura_), sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), and chukar ( Alectoris graeca). The habitat on the WNP-1/4 and 2 site is not suitable for these species. The red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaiceusis) and Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) arepprhapsthemostcommonbirdsofpreyobservedontheHanfordReserva-tion. l 91 Tall trees, utility towers and the White Bluff cliffs provide nesting areas for these species. The bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus) and peregrine f alcon (Falco peregrinus) are the only species observed near the Hanford f3gspryation that are federally listed as threatened and endangered species. p ,iS1 Habitat significant to any of these species will not be disturbed by the WNP-1/4 and 2 project. Twenty islands located both upstream and downstream cf the site have mixed composition with a substrate of either sand with gravel or cobblestone and gravel. Sagebrush comunities and willows are established on the dunes of the larger islands. From 1977-1980, approximately 280 pair of nesting Canada geese (Branta) canadensis moffitti) produced 490 goslings annually on these islands.Wim 2.2-4 l
. 1
WNP-1/4 ER-OL The Columbia River is a natural migration route for the Pacific Flyway water-fowl. Several million ducks-and geese use the Columbia River Basin during movement to and from the northern breeding grounds. The waterfowl comon to the area are shown in Table 2.2-1. In 1979, the wintering waterfowl popula-tion in ttje mallards.l9)Hanford reach of the river was about 100,000 ducks, mostly Two islands, one near Ringold and another near Coyote Rapids, were used as rookeries by colonies of California (Larus californicus) and ring-billed gulls (L. delasarensis). Approximately 6000 nesting pairs produce 10,000 to 20,000 you'ng annually in the 1950's and 1960's. In the 1970's gulls abandoned these islands and colonies are now present on two islands just north of the City of Richland. Recent surveys show approximately 5,25 5,100 ring-billed gulls nest on the two islands.1g) California gull pairs and i The most abundant reptile in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and 2 is the northern side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) and the great basin gopher snake (P'tuophis melanoleucus deserticola) is common. Insects have seldom been studied in shrub steppe vegetation but it is clear that ground-dwelling beetles (Carabidae and Tenebrionidae) are important con-stituents of the invertebrate biota. Invertebrates were sampled monthly April through August in a cheatgrass com-O v mun ity. (17) The most abundant invertebrates were mites (37%), beetles (18%) and thrips (15%). Two taxa, beetles and grasshoppers accounted for 71% of the total estimated invertebrate biomass. In terms of construction effects and irretrievable commitments of resources, approximately 10 acres will be removed from the large desert-steppe habitat of this region and converted to an irrigated grass environment. Measures taken for erosion and fire protection during construction and subsequent operation will protect the surrounding area from these encroachments. The pipeline right-of-way to the river will be substantially restored through grading and l seeding of an annual cover such as cereal rye ta stabilize the surface and l provide thatch to enhance natural reseeding of cheatgrass brome. Threatened and Endangered Species The plants and animals living in the WNP-1/4 and 2 area are widespread and common in steppe vegetation (rangeland) in the dry parts of Eastern Oregon and l Eastern Washington. However, rangeland acreage diminishes each year primarily as a result of an expanding agricultural use of land through extension of ir-I rigation systems. As the land is converted from rangeland to irrigated agri-l culture, native plant and animal populations diminish. One function of the 100 square mile area of Arid Lands Ecology (ALE) Reserve (Rattlesnake Hills g Research Natural native plants Area) on tpc)Hanford and animals.t Reservation is to provide a refugium for O 2.2-5
WNP-1/4 ER-OL The Bald Eagle is an endangered animal specie (Federal designation) known to occur in the WNP-1/4 and 2 Site Area. The population on the Hanford Reserva-tion has increased over the years from six birds in the 1960's to 20 birds in the late 1970's. Eagles generally arrive during mid-November with peak abun-dance occuring late November through early February. Eagles generally depart in mid-February. They do not nest in the area. There are no other Federally designated threatened or endangered animals or plants living in the WNP-1/4 and 2 Site area. The American peregrine falcon is an endangered specie which may at times appear along the corridors although their exact ranges are not known. The construction and operation of the nuclear facility is not expected to re-sult in the damage or loss of any species presently regarded as endangered or threatened. 2.2.2 Aquatic Ecology Comprehensive evaluations of the ecological characteristics of the Columbia River are presented in references 19 through 23. Studies concerned with the various aquatic organisms in the Columbia River, relating mainly to influence of reactor operation, were conducted for over 30 years a bibliography with abstracts of these investigations was published in 1973(I4) and updated in 1979.(25) The following paragraphs sunmarize the essential ecological characteristics of the major communities. Figure 2.2-2 is a simplified diagram of the food-web relationships in selected Columbia River biota and represents probable major energy pathways. The Columbia River presents a very complex ecosystem in terms of trophic reh ionships due to its size, the number of man-made alterations, the diversity of the biota, and the size and diversity of its drainage basin. Streams in general, especially smaller ones, depend greatly upon allocthonous input of organic matter to drive the energetics of the system. Large rivers, particularly the Columbia because it is a series of lentic reservoirs, contain a significant population of autochthonous primary producers (phytoplankton and periphyton) which contribute the basic energy needs. The dependence of the free-flowing Columbia River in the Hanford area upon an autochthorous food base is reflected by the f aunal constituents, particularly the herbivores in the second trophic level. Filter-feeding insect larvae such as caddisfly lar-vae, and periphyton grazers such as limpets and some mayfly nymphs rre tyoical forms present. Shredders and large detrital feeders (such as the large stone-fly nymphs) which are typical of smaller streams are absent. The presence of large numbers of the herbivorous suckers also attests to the presence of a significant periphytic population. Carnivorous species are numerous, as would be expected in a system of this size. A list of aquatic organisms identified from the Columbia River is presented in Table 2.2-2. 0 2.2-6 ) l I 1
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 2.2.2.1 Phytoplank ton Diatoms are the dominant algae in the Columbia River, usually representing over 90% of the population. The main genera in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 include Cyclotella, Asterionella, Melosira, and Synedra; lentic forms that originate in the impoundments behind the upstream dams are dominant in this section of the river. The phytoplankton also contain a number of species derived from the periphyton or sessile algae community. This is particularly true of the Columbia River in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 because of the fluctuat-ing daily water levels due to operation of Priest Rapids Dam imediately up-stream from Hanford. Periphytic algae exposed to the air for part of the day may dry up and become detached and suspended in the water when the river level rises again. Peak biomass of net phytoplankton is a in May and winter values are less than 0.1 g dry wt/m3. bout 2.0 g dry wt/m3( lustrates the seasonal fluctuations in plankton biomass. A spring increase with tion aofsecond pulse River the Columbia in lateinsumer previous andstudies. autumn'7,w g opof The spring pulse isgrved in probably related to increasing light and warming of the water rather than to availability of nutrients. The coincident decrease of P04 and NO3 , essen-tial nutrients fo.r algae growth, may be partially related to uptake by the increasing phytoplankton populations but is also highly influenced by the di-lution of these nutrients by the increased flows due to high runoff . The extent of dilution depends upon the concentration of these nutrients in the l runoff waters. However, these nutrients do not decrease to concentrations D limiting algae growth at any time of the year. Green and blue-green algae ( occur mainly in the warmer months but in substantially fewer numbers than the diatoms. , Aquatic studies 1974 through were March perf rmed)in 1980. 9-34 the Thevicinity Columbiaof WNP-1/4 and WNP-2, River phytoplankton September communi-ties passing WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 have been examined to determine species compo-sition, relative abundance and pigment concentration. Comunity composition was similar 1975 through 1979. Seasonal trends for phytoplankton pigment con-centrations and density (No/ml) were also similar. Micrograms of chlorophyll a per liter ranged from 1.3 to 20.2 wh from 119 in January to 2878 in May.(33)ile density values ranged 2.2.2.2 Periphyton Dominant diatom genera include Melosira and Gomphonema and in spring and sum-mer luxuriant growths of the filamentous green algae Stigeoclonium and Ulo-thrix occur. Net Production Rate (NPR), as measured from 14-day colonization l of artificial substrates, varied from 0.07 mg dry wt/cm2/Q lessthan0.01mgdrywt/cm2/dayinDecemberandJanuary.Wg)inAugustto Figure 2.2-4 shows the seasonal pattern of NPR. This represents the 14-day growth on clean glass slides and not the increment on an established comu-nity. NPR was hiijhly correlated with solar energy and chlorophyll a concen-tration on the slides during the 2-week exposure. The colonization conditions !O 2.2-7
l WNP-1/4 1 ER-OL l obtained in these studies began from a bare surf ace, and af ter 2 weeks the comunities were probably still in the log-growth phase. Correlations among biomass measurements were highest between dry weight and ash weight, due mainly to the high population of diatoms with silica frustules. 2.2.2.3 Macrophytes Macrophytic substrates along the river bed and shoreline in the vicinity of the project site consists mainly of Ringold fonnation with sand, gravel, and ! larger boulders on the surface. The widely varying diurnal flows cause large areas along the river shoreline to be alternately flooded and dry during each day. These characteristics have precluded the development-of a rooted macro-phyte comunity such as is comonly found in sloughs and backwaters. In re-cent years, macrophytes have been observed across the river and approximately 1/4 mile downstream of the WNP-1, 2 and 4 intake structures. Comon macro-phytic species identified in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River include pondweed (Potomugetan spp.) ushes (Juncus spp.), sedges (Carex spp.) and cattails (Typha latifolia). 2.2.2.4 Zooplankton The zooplankton population in the Columbia River at WNP-1/4 and 2 is low in number and varies pgpponally. Seasonal trends for microcrustacea are similar 1974 through 1980. W 1 Copepods dominate in the late f all, winter and spring. Cladocerans dominate in the sumer and early f all. Bosmina sp. the dominant cladoceran observed at WNP-1/4 and 2. Thedensity,(number /mjs ) of zooplankters was similar 1974 t'nrough 1980. The density ranged from 22 in November to 776 in August.(39 Zooplankton form only a minor dietary item ( 0.35 river.t3gi the total diet) for young salmon in the Hanford portion of the 2.2.2.5 Benthos Dominant organisms presently found in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 site include insect larvae, sponges, molluscs, flatworms, leeches, crayfish, and oligo-l chaetes. The daily fluctuating water levels, due to the manipulation of flow by an upstream hydroelectric dam, have destroyed a part of this f auna in the littoral rone. Near the old Hanford townsite, ten miles upstream, midge lar-vae (Chironomidae) and caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera)2are the most nugerous benthic organisms, averaging 121 and 208 organisms /ft , respectively.(19) Caddisfly larvae and molluscs (Mollusca) are predominant in terms of biomass, 2 averaging 2.24 and 1.23 g wet wt/ft averaged 375/ft2 and 3.59 g wet wt/ft ,2respectively. Total during 1951-52. benthic These crganisms figures are l approximations of these populations due to the difficulty in sampling all of the bottom in a large river such as the Columbia. Sampling was restricted to l the shallow shoreline, and even there variations between replicate samples l were sometimes greater than seasonal variations. l 0 2.2-8 l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL V Since September,1974 benthic macrof auna and microflora samples have been collected in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and 2.(29-34) Benthic microflora are dominated by diatoms and the most comon genera are Navicula, Nitzschia and Synedra. The highest density (number /m2) wa ob pennate diatoms dominated the benthic flora. 34) served in March when small Benthic macrofauna populations near WNP-1/4 and 2 are dominated by midge fly (Chironomidae) and caddisfly (Trichoptera) larvae. These two taxa comprise 90% of the benthic macrof auna with other taxa never accounting for more than a few percent of the total comunity. The highest density have been observed in Sep tember. The seasonal trend is for densities to increase between June and September and decrease between September and December (Figure 2.2-5). The Asiatic clam (Corbicula sp.) has been collected both up and downstream of the WNP-1, 2 and 4 intakes during qualitative surveys in 1980 and 1981. 2.2.2.6 Fish Forty-four specJgs)of Columbia River,W7 fishofhave none been which are identified presently in the Hanford considered rarearea of the or en-dangered. Table 2.2-2 lists the species present and although most are resi-dent, the anadromous salmon and steelhead trout represent the species of greatest commercial and recreational importance; hence, most fisheries re-search has been concerned with the salmonids. S Salmon spawn in the fall, leaving eggs to incubate in the redds from late fall (
/) to mid-winter. From midto late winter the eggs hatch into fry which emerge from the gravel f rom February through April. Following emergence, the juve-niles begin their migration to the Pacific Ocean. The peak seaward migration of all juvenile salmonids in the lower Columbia River, including those pro-duced in the Hanford reach, occurs in mid-April to mid-June. However, the out-migration of salmonids produced in areas upstream of Priest Rapids Dam is i now'later than in the past, apparently because of delays in passage through l the reservoir complex.
The salmonids all have a similar life cycle but each species and ' race matures at a different rate. This results in differences in timing and duration of life stages and activities. Timing and numbers of upstream migrants are shown in Figure 2.2-6. These data were obtained at, and in the vicinity of, Bon-neville Dam. . Corps of Engineers fish counts at other dams - River and major tributaries also show timing of migration.(on)the 39 OnlyColumbia slight variations will be noted in timing of migration pulses depending on river miles traveled and migratcry pathway, i.e., main channel migrants or tributary migrants. Adult salmonids move through the Hanford portion of the river dur-ing all months of the year, but the greatest numbers pass through during the spring to early fall. Peak adult migration periods are generally as follows: Sockeye - July-August Chinook - April-May, July-September O O 2.2-9 l -. . _
l WNP-1/4 ER-OL Coho - September-October Steelhead - August-October Studies on the routes of migration through the Hanford stretch of the river indicate the preference for the east-northeast bank (across the river from the WNP-1/4 downstream sitetoand intake) 8$ pattern sich persists from Priest Rapids Dam Richland.d The Hanford reach of the Columbia River serves as a migration route to and from upstream spawning grounds; fall chinook salmon and steelhead trout also spawn in the Hanford section of the river. Population estimates were made of the locally spawning chinook salmon redds in the section of river from Rich-land to Priest Rapids Dam (Table 2.2-3). generally increased from 1947 to present.(gg number
/ The of fall average chinook redd count redds from has 1962 to 1978 was 2,618. Based on a redd to adult fish ratio of seven, the average estimated fall chinook spawning population near Hanford was 18,326.(41)
In 1978 the f all chinook spawning population for Hanford was estimated at 21,196, which accounts for pgpply half of the f all chinook spawning in the middle Colum-bia River drainage. W 1 The chinook juveniles move through the Hanford sdction of the Columbia in two age classes, young-of-the-year and yearlings. The young-of-the-year in par-ticular inhabit the areas near shore where they feed as they move downstream. They are present from late winter through midsumer, with greatest numbers in April, May, and June. Average annual steelhead spawning population estimates for the years 1962-1971 are about 10,000 fish.(42) Counts in 1976 and 1977 were about 9800 and 9200 fish, respectively. The annual estimated 1963-1968 sport catch in the section of river from Ringold, just downstream from the Hanford site boundary, to the mouth of the Snake River (a distance of about 30 miles) was approximately 2700 fish. The shad, another anadromous species, may also spawn in the Hanford section of the river. Young-of-the-year of this fish are collected during the summer. The uptream range of the shad has increased since the mid 1950s, possibly as the result of increased impoundment of. water in the lower and middle river. In 1956 fewer than 10 adult shad ascended McNary Dam; in 1966 about 10,000 passed upstream. The whitefish are resident in the Hanford section of the river and support a winter sport fishery. During the period of maximum plu-tonium production reactor operation, upstream movement of whitefish and other resident species was demonstrated by the capture of fish containing greater than background leels of radionuclides at Priest Rapids Dam, upstream of the Hanford Reservation. Other game species such as sturgeon, 5:nallmouth bass, crappie, and sunfish are also f airly abundant in the Hanford section of the Columbia, and are important game species. O 2.2-10
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O V A total of 37 species representing 12 families of fish have been collected from September 1974 through March 1980 in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and 2. Greatest catches and, hence, assumed abundance of most fish species near WNP-1/4 and 2 occur in spring and sumer and coincide with spawning, fry emergence and increased movement due to warmer water temperatures. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Northern squawfish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus), sculpins (Cottus spp.), suckers (Catostomus spp.), and chiselmouth (Acrocheilus alutsceus) com-prised 90 % of the annual total catch. These percentages probably reflect the specific areas sampled and selectivity of sampling gear. Most Hanford fishes are opportunistic and utilize juvenile and adult aquatic insects, mainly cad-disflies and midge flies, smaller fish and occasionally zooplankton for food. Bottom feeders ingest periphyton. REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 . Section 2.2
- 1. O'Farrell, T. P., W. H. Rickard and K. R. Price, Energy Flux During the 1970 Wildfire, p. 12, In: Pacific Northwest Laboratory Annual Resort for 1970, BNWL-1550, vol.1, pt. 2, Battelle-Northwest, Richland, Was11ngton, T97T.
- 2. Rickard, W. H. and K. A. Gano, Terrestrial Ecology Studies in _the Vicinity of Washington Public Power Su) ply System Unclear Projects 1 and 4, Progress Report for 1978, Battelle 'acific Northwest Laboratories, Richland WA, August 1979.
- 3. Terrestrial Monitoring Studies Near WNP-1, 2, and 4 May throuch December 1980. Beak Consultants Incorporated, Portland, OR. Printed March 1981.
- 4. Daubenmire, R. Steppe vegetation of Washington. Wash. Agric. Exp. Sta.
Tech. Bull . 62. 1970.
- 5. Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dryness. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-8. 1973.
- 6. Rick ard , W. H. . Densities of Large and Medium-Sized Mamals on the i
Hanford Reservation. p. 4.33. In: Pacific Northwest Laboratory Annua" l Report for 1976, BNWL-2100 - Part 2. Battelle-Northwest, Richland, WA. l 1977.
- 7. Eberhardt, L. E., J. D. Hedlund, and W. H. Rickard. Tagging Studies of Mule Deer Fawns on the Hanford Site, 1969-1977, PNL-3147/UC-11, Battelle-Northwest, Richland, WA. 1979.
O l 2.2-11
WNP-1/4 ER-OL REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 (Contd.)
- 8. Steigers, W. D. and J. T. Flinders. " Mortality and movements of mule deer f awns in Washington", J. Wild 1. Manage., Vol. 44(2). pp. 381-388.
1980.
- 9. Fickeisen, D. H., R. E. Fitzner, R. H. Sauer and J. L. Warren. Wildlife Usage, Threatened and Endangered Species and Habitat Studies of the Hanf ord Reach, Columbia River Washington. Battells-Northwest, Richland, WA. 1980.
- 10. Terrestrial Ecology Studies in the Vicinity of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Plants 1 and 4, Progress Report for the Period July 1974 to June 1975. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1976.
- 11. Terrestrial Ecology Studies in the Vicinity of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Plants 1 and 4, Progress Report for 1976.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA,1977.
- 12. Terrestrial Ecology Studies in the Vicinity of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Plants 1 and 4, Progress Report for 1977.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA,1979.
- 13. Terrestrial Ecology Studies in the Vicinity of Washington Public Power .
Supply System Nuclear Power Plants 1 and 4, Progress Report for 1978. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1979.
- 14. Fitzner, J. N. The ecology and behavior of the long-billed curlew, Numenius americanus, in southeastern Washington. Ph.D. Thesis, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 1978.
- 15. Republication of the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species and Correction of Technical Errors in Final Rules, 50CFR Part 17, Federal Register, 45(99), May 20, 1980.
- 16. Hanson, W. C. and L. L. Eberhardt. "A Columbia River Canada Goose Population, 1950-1970," Wildlife Monograph, 28, December 1971.
- 17. Rickard, W. H. and L. E. Rogers. Invertebrate Density and Biomass Distribution in a Cheatgrass Community, p.1.10, In: Pacific Northwest Laboratory Annual Re) ort for 1976, BNWL-2100 - Part 2.
Battelle-Northwest, Richland, WA, 1977.
- 18. Dryness, C. T., et al., Research Natural Area Needs in the Pacific, Northwest, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, 1975.
O 2.2-12
WNP-1/4 ER-OL REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 (Contd.)
- 19. Robeck, G. G., C. Henderson and R. C. Palange, Water Quality Studies on the Columbia River, PHS, R. A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center,1954.
- 20. Davis, J. J., D. G. Watson and C. C. Palmiter, Radiobiological Studies of the Columbia River Through December 1955, HAP 0, HW-36074, 1956.
- 21. Watson, D. G., C. E. Cushing, C. C. Coutant and W. L. Templeton, Radioecological Studies on the Columbia River, Parts I and II, BNWL-1377, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA,1970.
- 22. Final Report on Aquatic Ecological Studies Conducted at the Hanford Generatin(I Project, 1973-1974, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies, Vol.
1, Batteli e, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, March 1976.
- 23. Supplemental Information on the Hanford Generating Project in Support of a 316(a) Demonstration, Washington Public Power Supply System, November 1978.
- 24. Becker, C. D., Aquatic Bioenvironmental Studies in the Columbia River at Hanford 1945-1971, A Bibliography with Abstracts, BNWL-1734, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA,1973.
- 25. Neitzel, D. A., A Sunmary of Environmental Effects Studies on the
, v Columbia River 1972 through 1978, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, August 1979.
- 26. Cushing, C. E., " Concentration and Transport of 32P and 62Z n by Columbia River Plankton," Limnol. Oceanogr. , vol.12, pp. 330-332,1953.
- 27. Coopey, R. W., " Radioactive Plankton from the Columbia River," Trans.
Amer. Microscop. Soc., vol. 72, pp. 315-327,1953.
- 28. Cushing, C. E., " Plankton-Water Chemistry Cycles in the Columbia River,"
Hanford Biology Research Annual Report for 1963, HW-80500, p. 212-218, 1964.
- 29. Aquatic Ecological Studies Conducted Near WNP 1, 2 and 4, September 1974 Throug h Se)tember 1975, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 2, Batte'le, 'acific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, May 1977.
- 30. Aquatic Ecological Studies near WNP 1, 2 and 4, September 1975 Through March 1976, WPPSS Columbia River Ecol-ogy Studies Vol. 3, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, July 1977.
- 31. Aquatic Ecological Studies near WNP 1, 2 and 4, March Through December, 1976, WPP55 Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 4, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, July 1978.
2.2-13
WNP-1/4 ER-OL REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 (Contd.)
- 32. Aquatic Ecological Studies near WNP 1, 2 and 4, January Through December, 1977, WPP55 Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 5, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, March 1979.
- 33. Aquatic Ecological Studies near WNP 1, 2 and 4, January 1978 Through August, 1978, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 6, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, June 1979.-
- 34. Aquatic Ecological Studies near WNP 1, 2 and 4, August,1978 Through March 1980, WPP55 Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 7, Beak Consultants, Inc., Portland, OR, June 1980.
- 35. Cushing, C. E., "Periphyton Productivity and Radionuclide Accumulation in the Columbia River, Washington, U.S.A.," Hydrobiologia, vol. 29, pp.
125-139, 1967.
- 36. Becker, C. D., Food and Feeding of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Central Columbia River in Relation to Thermal Discharges and Other Environmental Features, BNWL-1528, USAEC, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1971.
37 . Gray, R. H. and D. D. Dauble, " Checklist and Relative Abundance of Fish Species f rom the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River," Northwest Science, Vol . 51 (3 ), pp. 208-215,1977.
- 38. Becker, C. D. and C. C. Coutant, Temperature, Timing and Seaward Migration of Juvenile Chinook Salmon from the Central Columbia River, BNWL-1472, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA,1970.
- 39. Columbia River Thermal Effects Study, Vol.1; Biological Effects Studies, Environmental Protection Agency, Atomic Energy Commission, and National Marine Fisheries Service, January 1971.
- 40. Watson, D. G., " Fall Chinook Salmon Spawning in the Columbia River near Hanford 1947-1969" Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, BNWL-1515, 1970.
- 41. Watson, D. G. Fall Chinook Spawning Near Hanford, 1978, Pacific Northwest Laboratory Annual Report for 1979 to the DOE Assistant Secretary for Environment, Part 2, Ecological Sciences, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, 1980.
- 42. Watson, D. G., Estimate of Steelhead Trout Spawning in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, Contract No. DACW67-72-C-0100, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1973.
O 2.2-14
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.2-1 TERRESTRAL FLORA AND FAUNA NEAR WNP-1/4 and 2 Plants Shrubs Big Sagebrush Artemesia tridentata Bitterbrush Purshia tridentata~ Green rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Gray rabbitbrush C. nauseosus Spiny hopsage lIrayia spinosa
< Snow Eriogonum Eriogonum niveum Forbs Longleaf phlox Phlox longifolia Balsamroot Balsamorhiza careyana Sand dock Rumex venosus Scurt pea Psoralea lanceolata Lupine Lupinus laxiflorus Pale evening primrose Oenothera pullida Sphaeralcea munroana O Desert mallow Cluster lily Sego lily Brodiaea douglasii Calochortus macrocarpus Tansy mustard Descurainea pinnata Tumble mustard Sisymbrium altissimum Cryptantha Cryptantha circumscissa Russian thistle Salsola kali Fleabane Erigeron TTTifolius Grasses ,
Sandberg bluegrass Poa sandbergii Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum Indian ricegrass Oryzopsis hymenoides Squirrel tail Sitanion hystrix Six weeks fescue Festuca octoflora Thicksnike wheatgrass Agrophyron dasystachum O l l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.2-1 (Contd.) Riprarian Vegetation Willow Salix exigua and others Cottonwood Populus trichocarpa Sedges Carex spp. Rushes Juncus sp. Horsetail Equisetum sp. Cocklebur Xanthium sp. Wild onion Allium sp. Birds Mall ard Anas platyrhynchos Green-winged teal Nettion carolinense Blue-winged teal Querquedula discors Cinnamon teal _Q. cyanoptera Gadwall Chaulelasmus streperus Baldpate Mareca americana Pintail Dafila acuta tzitzihoa Shoveller Spatula clypeata Canvas-back Nyroca valisineria Scaup N. affinis American goldeneye Buffle-head Blaucionetta clangula americana Charitonetta albeola g Ruddy duck Erismatura jamaicensis rubida American merganser Mergus merganser _ americanus Coot Fulica americana Horned grebe Colymbus auritus Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps Canada goose Branta canadensis Snow goose Chen hyperborea White-fronted goose Anser albifrons Whistling swan _Cygnus columbianus Graat blue heron Ardea herodius White pelican Pelicanus erythrorhynchos Cormarant Phalacrocorax auritus California gull Larus californicus Ring-billed gull L. delewarensis Common tern Yterna hirundo Foster's tern S. forster Killdeer Uxyechus vociferus Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Chukar partridge Alectoris graeca California quail Loohortyx californica Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus torquatus O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O (V TABLE 2.2-1 (Contd.) - Sage hen Centrocercus urophasianus Mourning dove Zenzidura macroura Red-tailed hawk Buteo borealis Swainson's hawk B. swainsoni Sparrow hawk Falco sparverius Golden eagle Iq'uTTa u chrysaetos canadensis Bald eagle Haliaetus leucocephalus Osprey Pandion haliaetus carolinensis Burrowing owl Speotyto cunicularia Horned owl Pubo virginianus Raven Corvus corax American magpie Pica pica hudsonia Red-shafted flicker foTaptes o cafer Horned lark Octocoris alpestris Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Eastern kingbird Tyranus verticalis White-crowned spr.rrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Sage sparrow Melospiza melodia Say's phoebe Sayornis saya saya A Mamals V Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Coyote Canis latrans Bobcat L nx rufus Badger axidea taxus Skunk Mephitis mephitis Weasel Mustela frenata Raccoon Procyon lotor Beaver Castor canadensis Muskrat Ondatra zibethica Porcupine Erethizon dorsa Blacktail jackrabbit Lepus californicus Cottontail rabbit Sylvilagus floridanus Ground squirrel Citellus townsendi i Pocket mouse Peromyscus parvus Deer mouse P. maniculatus Harvest mouse lieithrodontomys megalotis Grasshopper mouse Onchomys leucogaster Pocket gopher Thomomys sp.
WNP-1/4 ER-OL l TABLE 2.2-1 (Contd.) Reptiles Northern Pacific Rattlesnake Crotalus viridus oreganus Great Basin gopher snake (bull snake) Pituophis melanoleucus deserticola Western yellow-bellied racer Coluber constrictor monnon Northern side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana stansburiana Western fence lizard Teeloperus occidentalis Short-horned lizard Phrynosoma douglassi Great basin spadefoot toad Scaphiopus intermontanus O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.2-2 COLUMBIA RIVER BIOTA (a) Organism Organism Phylum Acanthocephala Class Oligochaeta Necechinorhynchus rutili Xironogiton instabilis N. cristatus Triannulata montana Fomphorhynchus bulbocolli Chaetogaster sp. Bulbodactnitis sp. Class Hirudinea Phylum Bryozoa Placobdella montifera Plumatella sp. Illinobdella moorei Pectinatella sp. Erpobdella punctata Theromyzon rude Phylum Mollusca Piscicola sp. Helobdella stagnalis Class Gastropoda Phylum Arthropoda Stagnicola nuttalliana Physa nuttallii Class Arachnida Os Fluminicola nuttalliana Fisherola nuttallii Hydracarina sp. Stagnicola apicina Aranedia sp. Radix japonica Gyraulis vermicularis Class Crustacea Parapholyx effusa costata P. e. neritoides Order Anostraca Eymnaea stagnalis l Lymnaea sp. Steptocephalus seali l Planorbis sp. Order Diplostraca Class Bivalvia Leptodora kindtii Diaphanosoma brachyurum Anodonta nuttalliana Alona rectangula l Corbicula fluminea A. affinis Margaritifera margaritifera X. quadrangularis Pisidium columbianum X. costata Anodonta compressum fhydoris sphaericus Anodonta californiensis Pleuroxus denticularis Sida crystallina Phylum Annelida TuTe' cercus lemallatus Camptocercus rectirostris Daphnia galeata mendotae Scacholebercis kingi O Ceriodachnia pulchella
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.2-2 (Contd) Organism Organism Phylum Arthropoda (Cont.) Phylum Arthropoda (Cont.) Bosmina sp. Paraleptophlebia B. longirostis bicornuta T11yocryptus sordidus Baetis sp. I. spinifer Ephoron album Macrothrix laticornis Ephemerella yosemite Monospilus dispar E. sp. Leydigia quadrangularis Rexagenia sp. Pleuroxus trigonellus Stenonema sp. Order Calanoida Order Plecoptera Canthocamptus sp. Arcynepteryx paralla C. staphylinoides Pteronarcys californica
- f. vernalis Isogenus sp.
C. biscuspidatus thomasi Perlodes americana Diaptomus sp. D. ashlandi Order Trichoptera Eryocamptus zschokket Glossosoma velona & Order Cyclopoida Hydropsyche cockerelli W Hydropsyche sp. Cyclops sp. H. californica Eeptocella sp. Order Amphipoda Limnophilus sp. Hydroptila argosa gammarus sp. Brachycentrus occidentalis Rhacophila coloradensis Order Decapoda Psychomy'a flavida Cheumatopsyche enomis Pacif asticus (leniusculus) C. campyla trowbridgii Eeucotrichia pictipes Arthripsodes annulicornis Class Insecta Mystacides alafimbriata _Lepidostoma strophis Order Coleoptera Order Lepidoptera Gyrinus sp. Argyractis angulatalis Order Ephemeroptera Order Diptera O
d WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.2-2 (Contd) i Organism Organism Phylum Arthropoda (Cont.) Phylum Chrysophyta Tipuli dae Hydrurus foetidus Chironomidae Botrydium granulatum Simulium vittatum Eunotia pectinalis Simulium sp. Melosira granulata l M. varians Order Hemiptera , fyclotella bodanica C. glomerata Notonecta sp. f. melosiroides } Gerris sp. - 5tephanodiscus astraea Sigara sp.
- 5. a. var. minuta
- 'T. niagarea Order Collembola Khizosolenia eriensis Tabellaria fenestrata i Family Hypogasturidae Diatoma vulgare Fragilaria crotonensis Phylum Tardigrada F. harrisonii T. construens Macrobiotus sp. F. virescens Xsterionella formosa Phylum' Chlorophyta Synedra ulna
! 5. u. var. danica 1 Ulothrix zonata Y. acus l 5ticeoclonium lubricum T. rumpens, Clacophera crispata i C. glomerata S. pulchella ! Toochlorella parasitica 5. parasitica Chara Braunii Gmelin focconeis placentula C. vulgaris Tetraspora sp. C. pediculus Oedogonium sp. Frustulia rhomboides i Spirogyra sp. F. vulgaris Plesdorina sp. Redium productum ) Pediastrum sp. Diploneis elliptica
, Staurastrum sp. Navicula oblonga Coelastrum sp. Cymbella prostrate Ankistrodesmus sp. C. turgida Pandorina sp. f. leptoceros Scenedesmus sp. f. naviculiformis , Rhizoclonium fontanum f. cistula l E. ventriocosa C. tumida Uomphonema parvulum G. olivaceum O Epithemia turgida l
I l WNP-1/4 l ER-OL I TABLE 2.2-2 (Contd) g Organism Organism Phylum Chrysophyta (Cont.) Phylum Cyanophyta (Cont.) Rhopalodia gibba Calothrix parietana Nitzschia dissipata Gloeotrichia echinulata N. palea G. natans feratoneis sp. Kudouinella violacea Cymatopleura solea C. elliptica Phylum Pyrrhophyta Turiella linaaris
~
Ceratium sp. Phylum Cyanophyta Phylum Tracheophyta Aulosira implexa . Oscillatoria anquina Family Najadaceae
- 0. chalybea D. limosa Potomogeton sp.
O. proboscidea D. princeps Family Hydrocharitaceae D. spendida D. tenuis Anacharis sp. O, t. var. natans Elodea sp. Fhormidium autumnale P. f avosum Family Lemnaceae F. inundatum F. retzii Lemna sp. P. subfuscum F. tenue Family Polygonaceae F. uncinatum Eyngbya aerugineocaerulea Polygonum sp. L. aestuarii E. Diguetii Family Ceratophyllaceae E. versicolor Tymploca muscorum Ceratophyllum demersum Anabaena oscillarioides Family Cyperaceae Nostoc caeruleium N. ellipsosporum Family Juncaceae N. sphaericum Xphanizomenon flos-aquae Animals Tolypothrix distorta T. lanata Phylum Protozoa T. tenuis Plectonema nostocorum Acanthocystis sp. Amphithrix janthina Actinosphaerium sp. O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL C] TABLE 2.2-2 (Contd.) Organism Organism PhylumProtozoa(Cont.) Phylum Platyhelminthes (Cont.) Vorticella sp. Class Cestoidea Epistylis sp. Corallobothrium fimbriatum Phylum Porifera Proteocephalus ambloplitis P. ptychocheilus Spongilla lacustris F. salmonidicola Thyllobothrium sp. Phylum Coelenterata Caryophyllaeus sp. Ligula intestinalis Craspedacusta sowerbii Diphyllobothrium sp. Hydra sp. Bothriocephalus sp. Schistocephalus solidius Phylum Platyhelminthes Eubothrium salvelini C1 ass Turbellaria Phylum Aschelminthes Dugesia dorocephala Class Rotifera Dapidia sp. Class Trematoda Kellicatia sp. Syncheata sp. Actinocleidus sp. Notholca sp. Urocleidus sp. Polyarthra sp. Dactylogyrus spp. Trichocerca sp. Gyrodactylus spp. Keratella sp. Phyllodistomum sp. Class Nematoda Lecithaster salmonis l F1plostomum sp. Rhabdochona sp. Posthodiplostomum minimum .Contracaecum sp. Brachyphallus crenatus Philonena onchorhynchi l Neascus spp. Bulbodacnitus sp. Allocreadium sp. Metabronena sp. Crepidostomum farionis Cystidicola sp. Crepidostomum sp. Camallanus sp. Octomacrum sp. Cestrahelmins rivularus Plagioporus spp. l l l
\
l V l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.2-2 (Contd.) Organism Organism Phylum Chordata Class Cyclostomata Entosphenus tridentatus Pacific Langrey Lampetra dyrest River Lartprey Class Osteichthyes Acipenser transmontanus White Sturgeon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Chinook Salmon
- u. nerne Sockeye or Blueback Salmon U. lits 0Tch Coho or Silver Salmon Talmo gaardneri Steelhead or Rainbow Trout
- 3. clarzt Cutthroat Trout Talveitnus malma Dolly Varden Prosopium wTTT Famsoni Mountain Whitefish Alosa sapidissima Anerican Shad Udristomus platyrynchus Mountain Sucker
- c. columbianus Bridgelip Sucker U. macrocheilus Largescale Sucker Typrinus carpio Carp innca cinca Tench RTcKardsonius balteatus Redside Shiner Ptychnchetlus oregonensis Northern Squawfish Acrochetlus aiutaceus Chiselmouth Mylocnen sus caurinus Peamouth R. cataractae Longnoso Dace R. oscuius Speckled Dace R. falcatus Leopard Dace Tctaturus nebulosus Brown Bullhead I. meias Black Bullhead T. iiirJTis Yellow Bullhead T. punctatus Channel Catfish Uasterosteus aculeatus Threespine Stickleback Perta f alvescens Yellow Perch 5t zostedion vitreum Walleye Lepomis macrocnirus Bluegill L. giooosus Pumpkinse d Tomoxts annularis White Crappie P. nigromaculatus Black Crappie Micropterus sain61 des Largemouth Bass M. celomieul Smallmouth Bass Tota tota Burbot CoTrus asper Prickly Sculpin C. beldingti Piute Sculpin U. perplexus Reticulate Sculpin U. rnotneus Torrent Sculpin U. batrdt Mottled Sculpin Fertopsis transmountana Sand Roller Coregonus clupeaformis Lake Whitefish ta) t,tassirication af ter - T. I. Storer, R. L. Usinger, R. C. Stebbins, J. W. Wybakken, General Zoology, Fifth edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, i m .
O
i WNP-1/4 ER-OL O V TABLE 2.2-3 NUMBER OF SPAWNING FALL CHIN 0OK SALMON AT HANFORD, 1947-1977 (population estimate based on 7 fish per redd) Numb9 r Population Year Reddta)of _ Estimate 1947 240 1680 1948 785 5500 1949 330 2310 - 1950 316 2210 1951 314 2200 1952 539 .3770 1953 149 1040 1954 157 1100 1955 64 490 1956 92 640 1957 872 6100 1958 1485 10400 1959 281 1970 1960 295 2070 1961 939 6570 1962 1261 8830 1963 1303 9120 1964 1477 10300 1965 1789 12500 1966 3101 21700 < 1967 3267 22900 1968 3560 24900 1969 4508 31600 1970 3813 26700 1971 3600 25200 1972 876 6130 1973 2965 20800 1974 728 5100 1975 2683 18800 1976 1951 13657 l 1977 3240 e2eco (a) Redd counts obtained by aerial' surveys. O
- {'
. SAGEBRUSH /BLUEBUNCH WHEATGRASS O M SAGEBRUSH-BITTERBRUSH SAGEBRUSH
- e.
1 l
/ -
48 COLUMBIA RIVER
;ll&
,. c. .
e:i:-:: Ms ... WN P-4
.bI
- - ' i,h.It;. g -WN P-2
' s.".??? i _-
" k. :.. .;.')
~ ~
i,7,... WNP-1
'* f Et.l'$372 h.',"';.,' ~
[ , . ~h M 14
-N-i I
YAKIMA
/
RIVER MILES W DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR PLANT WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM COMMUNITIES (VEGETATION TYPES) ON THE l WNP-1/4 DOE HANFORD SITE, BENTON COUNTY, WA. ER-OL FIG. 2.2-1
O
.. l I
b WATERF0WL , SWALLOWS CARNIVOROUS FISH
/
FORAGE FISH o ADULT INSECTS HERBlVOROUS FISH j o CRAWISH f DEATH AND FECES
/ (BACTERI AL BREAKDOWft MOLLUSCS ZOOPLANKTON IN ECT LAR AE MACROPHYTES PHYTOPLANKTON WA ER l
BACTERIA SEDIMENTS l (INORGANIC AND ORGANIO t WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM FOOD WEB OF COLUMBIA RIVdR
- WNP-1/4 ER-OL l FIG. 2.2-2
l I 2.0 1.8 - 1.6 - 25 ts 1,4 - s 21.2 - E 52 1.0 - E 2 0.8 - g - Q g0.6
- 0.4 I I 0.2 -
0
. 0 On._____.nn00 0 - $
AIS I O I N IDI J l F I M I AI M I J I J I Al 5 1%3 1964 1 O WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM SEASONAL FLUCTUATION OF PLANKTON BIOMASS WNP 1/4 ER OL FIG. 2.2-3
l l l 1 0.08 0 DRY WEIGHT _ _ - -- ASH-FREE DRY WElGHT g 0.06 32 m E u E a - 4 a: 0.04 - z 9. C) E n o g ;; p ,-- - ii l 9 0.02 -ri
'1i - ! l; E lh
; ,_ , ___i la i,
_ U 8 g l I I I I I
- """g _ _ - .
l l__I l l 0 AUG DEC JAN MAY 1%3 1964 w WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM SEASONAL FLUCTUATION OF NET WNP 1/4 PRODUCTION RATE OF PERIPHYTON ER-OL FIG. 2.2 4 i
0 11 -
- 7 .
7 - s 6 li! 5 - E
= >2 a:a 4 _
3 - 2 - 1 i,,,. ,ii.Iiii,eieii ei liiiieiiiei i JFM AMJ J AS O N DJ FM AMJJ ASO NOJ F M AMJJ AS O N D 1975 1976 1977 O WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WNP 1/4 DENSITY OF COLUMBIA RIVER BENTHIC MACROFAUNA COLLECTED AT STATION 1 NEAR WNP 1,2 AND 4 (RM 352) ER-OL FIG. 2.2-5
~
l I l 4 I CHUM --- e, M C0ho ---- 2 ac
.0oo W --
3it 0 1%6 COMMERCI AL CHI ;-: 6 FISHING SEASONS
- YNu '
OPEN -
.. :. 2 SUMMER STEELHEAD
- (p.m g.x .
lllIIIIIIIll SHAD W a====- llllllllllll dc SOCKEYE ----
.p p ..... --
80 SUMMER ?"
" ~
CHINOOK o
, 70 -
SPRING /\ _ g CHINOOK y gg , , . - - - - - - - 2 , a g 50 - WATER TEMPERATURE. BONNEVILLE. DAM - 10g5 it 1%5 3 40 Ma WINTER STEELHEAD '~
=
5= SMELT i 0 i I l I f 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC i e Dotted - Bonneville Dam Fishway data 1966 e Slant - estimated based on gill netting in lower river e Crosshatch - estimated based on 17-yr average run size and timing of gill net catches e Vertical - Bonneville Dam data (min.imum estimate, not quantitative) WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM TIMING OF UPSTREAM MIGRATIONS WNP-1/4 IN THE LOWER COLUMblA RIVER ER-OL FIG. 2.2-6
l WNP-1/4 ! ER-OL I 2.3 METEOROLOGY l 2.3.1 Regional Climatology l The site is located in a mid-latitude semi-arid (steppe) climatic region in the Lower Columbia Basin which is the lowest elevation in central Was hing ton. A major factor influencing this climatological region is its location in the continent, well away from the windward coast and pro-tected to the west by the 4,000 to 7,000-foot average elevation Cascade Mountains. Dominent air masses affecting the region are of maritime polar origin as modified by the presence of these mountains. Modified , continental tropical and polar air masses also periodically affect the climate. In winter, there is a succession of cyclones as the westerlies and the polar front prevail in these latitudes. The mountain barriers comonly induce these storms to occlude by delaying air mass movement. Fewer frontal passages occur during the sumer months since subtropical oceanic high cells reach their highest latitudes thereby diverting cy-clonic storms poleward. Along the eastern margin of the Pacific anti-cyclone, an outflow of stable subsiding air brings distinctly drier con-ditions to the North American Pacific Coast. The regional temperatures, precipitation, and winds are greatly affected by the presence of the mountain barriers. The Rocky Mountains and ranges in Southern British Columbia are effective in protecting the inland basin from the more severe winter storms and associated cold polar air masses (V]. moving southward across Canada. Occasionally, an outbreak of cold air will pass through the Basin and result in low temperatures or a damaging spring or fall frost. Maritime polar air traveling eastward from the coastal zone cools as it rises along the western slope of the Cascade Range. These orographic effects cause heavy precipitation on the wind-ward and light precipitation on the leeward slopes. The prevailing west-
. erly winds are normally strongest during winter and spring due to the presence of cyclonic scale disturbances and associated frontal activity.
During those months, foehn or chinook winds (a warm, dry wind on the lee side of a mountain range; the warmth and dryness of the air is due to adiabatic compression upon descending the mountain slopes) occur whenever 1
*This section is based on records kept at the Hanford Meteorology Station es the 1978tl;J, northwest 100-Nofarea the ssite t9 elevation 733 feet MSL) 2;,(supplemented with from 1945 to and(14 rpi precipitation temperature data taken by U.S. Weather Bureau cooperative observers at a site about 25 miles north of period from 1912 to 1944(1,3)the , and present region station location during the ered during the period from 1931 to 1960. ) climatological Other references dataare gCh-as indicated.
O 2.3-1
WNP-1/4 ER-OL cyclonic circulation is sufficiently strong and deep to force air com-pletely across the Cascades in a short period of time. At other times during the winter, warm front occlusions can force moist air over the Cascade Range. The mixing of this moist air with relatively cooler air in the Basin results in considerable cloudiness and fog. The percent of possible sunshine ranges from 20 to 30 percent in winter, 50 to 60 per-cent in spring and f all, and 80 to 85 percent in mid-sumer. Because the site is on the lee side of the Cascade Mountains, annual av-erage precipitation decreases from about 100 inches near the sumit of the Cascades to about 6 or 7 inches in the Basin. Approximately 70 per-cent of the annual total precipitation occurs from November through April and about 10 percent occurs during July through September. Rainfall amounts are normally light in the sumer and gradually increase in late fall, reaching a peak of about one inch each month in mid-winter due to cyclonic storm and frontal activity. Rainfall amounts decrease in Spring, increase somewhat in June, and again sharply decrease in July. During mid-sumer, it is not uncommon to have 3- to 6-week periods with trace rainf all. There are only two occurrences per year of 24-hour amounts of 0.50 inch or more, while occurrences of 24-hour amounts of 1.00 inch or more number only four in the entire 25 years of record (1946 to 1970). One of these was the record storm of October 1 through 2, 1957 in which rainfall totaled 1.08 inches in three hours,1.68 inches in six hours, and 1.88 inches in twelve hours. At the other extreme, there have been 81 consecutive days without measurable rain (June 22 through Sep-tember 10, 1967), 139 days with only 0.18 inch (June 22 through November 7,1967), and 172 days with only 0.32 inch (February 24 through August 13,1968). Regional annual total snowf all amounts have ranged frcm less than 1/2 inch in 1957 to 1958 to 44 inches in 1915 to 1916; the annual average total is about 14 inches. Snow rarely remains on the ground longer than two to four weeks or reaches a depth at any time in excess of four to six inches, as rapid melting, which often contributes to local stream flood-ing, can cccur from rain or Chinook winds. The record greatest depth of 21 inches occurred in February 1916. Thunderstorms have been observed in the area in every month except No-i vember. Although severe ones are rare, lightning strikes have occa-sionally ignited grass fires which burned thousands of acres of the Han-ford Reservation and resulted subsequently in considerable wind erosion of soil. The most notable of these occurrences were in August 1961, July 1963, and July 1970. The continental-type climate not only affects precipitation in the Basin but also results in wide ranges and variations in annual temperature con-ditions. While the regional annual average temperature is about 530F, 9 2.3-2
I WNP-1/4 i ER-OL : the coldest month, January, has a mean of about 290F; the warmest i month, July, has a mean of about 760F, Although the presence of the i l Cascades contributes to the wide differences in. monthly average tempera-tures, other mountain ranges shield the area frcan many of the arctic
~
surges, and half of all winters are free of temperatures as low as
; 00F. However, six winters in 66 of record have contributed a total of ,
a 16 days with temperatures of -200F or below; and in January to February !
- 1950, there were four consecutive such days. There are ten days of rec-ord when even the maximum temperature f ailed to rise above zero. At the f other extreme, in the winter of 1925 to 1926, the lowest temperature all
! season was +220F. ! Although winter minima have varied from -270F to +220F, sumer maxima have varied only f rom 1000F to 1150F. However, there is considerable 4
variation in the frequency of such maxima. In 1954, for example, there was only one day with a maximum as high as 1000F. On the other hand, i there have been two sumers (1938~ and.1967) when the . temperature went to
- 1000F or above for 11 consecutive days. Although temperatures reach l 900F or above on about 56 days a year, there are only about seven an-i nual occurrences of overnight minima 700F or above. The usual cool !
nights are a result of gravity winds, i The channeling of air by the Cascade Mountains and surrounding terrain j produces a prevailing WNW and NW regional flow. Local topographic fea-tures can cause other channeling effects and formation of local diurnal ; i wind circulation systems which produce a greater degree of variability in
; winds at locations within the Basin. For example, the WNP-1/4 sites ex-perience a bimodal wind direction distribution from approximately south and also northwest; at the Hanford Meteorological Station (HMS) about 14 miles northwest, the direction distribution displays a single peak at
! approximately WNW to NW. i Drainage (gravity) winds channeled by topographic features produce a marked effect on diurnal range of wind speed and cause the highest month-ly average speeds of about 9 mph to occur during the sumer months. In July, for example, hourly average speeds range from a low of 5.2 mph from 9 to 10 a.m. to a high of 13.0 mph from 9 to 10 p.m. In contrast, the corresponding speeds in January are 5.5 and 6.3 mph. These warm season diurnal winds, resulting from relatively cold air draining from the Cas-cade Mountains, occur in response to pressure gradients created between surface-heated warm, dry basin air and cooler air situated over the moun-tains and costal region. This f avors an outbreak of stronger winds dur-ing the afternoon and evening hours. Although the gravity wind occurs with regularity in summer, it is never strong unless reinforced by fron-tal activity. In June, the month of highest average speed, there are - fewer instances of hourly averages exceeding 31 mph than-in December, the ; month of lowest average speed. [ O 2.3-3 b
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 2.3.2 Site Meteorology The primary source of metorological data for WNP-1/4, as for WNP-?, is the 240-ft tower located approximately 2500 feet west of WNP-2. It is equipped with a complete meteorological data system, which operated be-tween March 1974 and June 1976 as reported in the WNP-2 ER-OL, and from October 1979 through September 1980 as reported herein. The Hanford Me-teorology Station (HMS) and the 410-f t Hanford Meteorology Tower located about 14 miles northwest of the WNP-1/4 site provided the data for the construction permit Environmental Report. A 23-ft temporary meteorology tower was operated at the site for 2 years previous to the installation of the 240-ft tower for the purpose of evaluating cooling tower orienta-tion. The meteorological equipment located at these sites is discussed Subsection 6.1.3. A complete sumary of the monthly averages and ex-tremes of climatic elements at the Hanford Reservation up to and includ-ing 1975 appears in Table 2.3-1 A and B. Tables 2.3-1C, D, E, F, and G present this same data for 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980, respec-tively. More comppphensive climatological sumaries of Hanford data are presented by StoneUI based on observations up to 1970. The data for the following subsections are detailed in the tables and figures. 2.3.2.1 Stability, Wind Speed and Direction A'nnual average wind roses for the site are given in Figures 2.3-1 to -3. The wind roses in Figures 2.3-1, -2 and -3 are for onsite data for the three measurement heights (7, 33, and 245 ft). Tables 2.3-2 A through D give the percent joint frequency of occ.urrence by seven Pasquill stabil-ity classes at the 33-ft level including the base data period 4/73 through 3/76 and 10/79 through 9/80, expressed as three year joint fre-quencies. HMS wind roses for the 200-ft level derived from 15 years of data (1955-1970) are given in Figure 2.3-4. Surface winds at various stations in the region are sumarized as 8-pcint roses in Figure 2.3-5. The onsite joint frequency of wind speed, direction and stability data for winds at 33 ft are contained in Tables 2.3-3A through H fr.r the Pas-quill stability classes while Tables 2.3-4A and B contains a annual sumaries for 33 and 245 feet (10 and 75 meters, respectivelj) for direc-tion and speed. Tables 2.3-5A through L present joint distributions of wind speed and direction on a monthly basis (October 1979 through Septem-ber 1980) for the onsite data. Table 2.3-SM contains a sumary of these last twelve monthr. of onsite data. Table 2.3-6A through E shows the joint distribution of stability, wind speed and direction derived from 15 years (1955-1970) of data taken at the HMS tower by season. These seasonal and annual . tables are based on winds at 200 ft and stability defined by the temperature difference be-tween the surface and 200 ft. O 2.3-4
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O General climatological representativeness of the two years of ensite data compared to long tenn HMS data is given in Table 2.3-7. Table 2.3-8 presents a sumary comparison of diffusion elements computed from two years of WNP-2 data with similar elements computed from 15 years HMS data: The difference in the number of recorded calms is primarily the result of the lower threshold of the onsite instruments, these dif-ferences may also be partly the result of topographic influ1nces. The wind direction frequencies cannot be expected to necessarily be compa-rable because of the separation between the stations. Comparison of the HMS and orsite data demonstrate differences which may be attributable to local topographical effects such as the orientation of the river bluffs near the site. Although the differences in the stability classes are partly the result of the layer used for the stability definition, there is some evidence that part of the greater percentage of stable conditions at WNP-1/4 may be a real difference. The nearest routine radiosonde data that may be applied to this region are obtained at Spokane, the only station located in the relatively flat basin region between the Cascade Mountain Range to the west and the Rocky Mountains to the east. These data will be representative in a regional sense, but cannot be expected to be exact in near surface atmospheric structure as a result of the distance (180 km) and elevation differences , (site 440'MSL, Spokane 2350'MSL). Table 2.3-9 gives the monthly aver-age daily maximum and minimum mixing height data for Srdane. l 2.3.1.2 Temperature Table 2.3-10 contains a temperature comparison between the WNP-1/4 site and HMS. These onsite temperatures a're from the 8-ft level on the new meteorological system. By assuming an adiabatic lapse rate of 0.5480F/100 ft, over the 283-ft elevation difference between HMS and the WNP-1/4 site, a temperature difference can be expected of about l 1.50F between the dry bulb temperature data measured at the two sites. l l 2.3.1.3 Humidity Table 2.3-11 gives a comparison of monthly wet bulb temperatures from the 2 years of onsite data and HMS. Table 2.3-12 contains the frequency oc-currence of wet bulb values as a function of time of day based on data-from the onsite meteorological system. Figures 2.3-6 to -9 indicate di-urnal and monthly and annual averages and extremes of temperature and humidity at HMS. Summaries of onsite humidity data have been prepared. both on a monthly and annual basis in joint frequency wind speed direc-tion formats. In addition, computer tapes of hourly sumarized operation including humidity data have been generated. O 2.3-5
WNP-1/4 ER-OL I During July 1975 the moisture in the lower atmosphere at both WNP-1/4 and O HMS was abnomally high. In the period of record at HMS, 1957-1970, hourly wet bulb te.mperatures in a range 70 to 740F had occurred an av-l erage of three times each July. In the period July 4 through July 12, t 1975, there were 104 hourly observations in the range 70 to 740F, On July 9 there were 17 consecutive hours in that range. Wet bulb tempera-tures cf 750F have not occurred in the Hanford area until this epi-sode. On July 8, 9, and 10 there were a total of seven such hourly ob-servations. The air temperatures were also high during this period. The HMS average relative humidity for July 1975 was 37.5% compared to the record of 40.5 set in 1955. Table 2.3-1 and Tables 2.3-13 present additional climatological humidity infonnation from the HMS. 2.3.1.4 Precipitation Precipitation data are presented in Figures 2.3-10 and -11, and Tables 2.3-14 and -15. Tables 2.3-16A through F are joint wind direction and speed sumnaries of rainfall intensities over the two years of onsite data. No deviation from the regional low precipitation pattern was found . Figures for precipitation-wind roses are not included because of the large amount of zero value data. 2.3.1.5 High Velocity Winds Surveys of data on high winds over this region indicate that higher winds tend to occur at the higher, more exposed elevations, although all sites in this region have experienced relatively high winds. High wind speeds result from squall lines, frontal passages, tight pressure gradients and thunderstorms. One small tornado has been observed unsubstantiated on the Hanford Reservation. There is weak evidence that this area has been affected by hurricanes, but no complete statistics are readily available that present f requency of occurrence of high winds produced or accom-panied by a particular metorological event. The highest reported winds produced at HMS by any cause are tabulated in Table 2.3-17. The Hanford tower is at a slightly higher elevation and hence might be expected to experience higher winds than at the WNP-1/4 site. Although based on dif-ferent periods this tendency may be inferred from Tables 2.3-7 and 2.3-8. Figure 2.3-12 indicated the return probability ofany peak wind gust at HMS again due to any cause. The highest recorded peak gust at the 50-ft level at HMS in the period 1945 to the present was 80 mph. 2.3.1.6 Severe Weather Since the submission of the construction permit Environmental Report the local climatology for thunderstorms and tornados has not significantly changed. No additional observations of tornados have been made in the Hanford region. The frequency of occurrence of thunderstorms has been updated in Table 2.3-18. 2.3-6 .
WNP-1/4 ER-OL b 2.3.1.7 High Air Pollution Potential (APP) and Dust Storm Potential Larson(5) has concluded that "considaration of the general weather pa-rameters indicates a significantly high average annual APP over south-eastern Washington". Holzworth(6) has estimated that the mean maximum January mixing depth in the Hanford area is about 250 meters, which is , nearly the lowest in thq contiguous United States, and for July about 2,000 meters. Hoslerl71 has indicated a significantly high frequency of low-level inversion in winter over this area - on the order of 43 per-cent with bases below 150 meters. The occurrence of very stable and mod-erately stable conditions between the surf ace and 60 meters in winter at the Hanford Meteorology Tower is 66.5 percent. Both of the two most not-able Hanford stagnation periods experienced during this time occurred in November and December 1952. The first period was from November 15 to December 3 (19 days). Then, af ter five days of ventilation, stagnation set in again December 9 and lasted through December 28 (20 days). Aver-age winds speeds during the two periods were respectively, 2.6 and 2.9 miles per hour. There were 13 days of fog in each period. Although stagnation lasting for 20 days can be expected only one season in twenty, a 10-day stagnation period can be expected every other season. Only one season in three will fail to produce a stagnation period of at least eight days. For the year 1971, S02 measurement in Richland averaged less than 0.02
) ppm. At other sampling stations, the concentrations were below the de- / tection limit of C.01 ppm. In 1974, all 24 hour sequential samples of S02 measured in the vicinity of Richland, North Richland, and Hanford 300 Area had concentrations below the detection limit of .005 ppm which is 25% of the annual average ambient air standard of .02 ppm. The 1971 and 1974 measurements for N02 and suspended particulates are shown in Tables 2.3-18. Fig. 2.3-13 depicts 1976-1980 TSP.
The major cause of air pollution in the Hanford area is dust occurring during windy periods. The most significant sources are cultivated fields in the surrounding area. Measurement of the particulate burden in air at a specific observation point in the 200 Areas at Hanford showed values of around 100 micrograms per cubic meter of air when the wind was less tnan 8 mph. The particu-late content increased when higher winds were present, averaging 1,000 micrograms per cubic meter with wjnQs of 12 mph, and 3,000 micrograms per cubic meter with winds of 16 mph.t8; 2.3.1.8 Topographic Description The plant is located at a grade elevation of 451 feet MSL in a basin area fonned by the Saddle Mountains to the northwest, White Bluffs and hills rising to about 900 feet MSL to the north and east, the Horse Heaven Hills to the south and the Rattlesnake Hills and Yakima, Umtanum and Manastach ridges to the west. Topographic cross-sections plotted out to 2.3-7 l
WNP-1/4 ER-0L 80 kilometers by sector from the plant are given in Figure 2.3-14. Ex-cept for the White Bluffs toward the east across the Columbia River, the region within this circumference is basically flat and featureless and slopes gradually toward the Columbia River. Site topography within a five mile diameter is given in Figure 2.3-15. REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.3 (1) Stone, W. A., et al. Climatography of the Hanford Area, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, BNWL-1605, Richland, Washington, June 1972, as updated through 1978 by W. Sandusky, BNWL, Nov. 1981. (2) Baker, D. A., Diffusion Climatology on the 100-N Area, Hanford Wash-ington, Douglas United Nuclear Company, DUN-7841, Richland, Washing-ton, January 1972. (3) Stone, W. A., Meteorological Instrumentation of the Hanford Area, General Electric, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, HW-62455, Rich-land, Washington, March 1964. (4) Phillips, E., Tri-City Area, Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, Washington Narrative Climatological Summary, Climatography of the United States No. 20-45, U.S. Department of Commerce and Economic Development. (5) Larson, L. B., Air Pollution Potential Over Southeastern Washington, & U.S. Weather Bureau, Walla Walla, Washington, May 1970 (unpublished W Presentation). (6) Holzworth, G. C., " Estimates of Mean Maximum Depths in the Contigu-ous United States", Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 92, pp 235-242, May 1964. (7) Hosler, C. R., " Low-Level Inversion Frequency in the Contiguous United States", Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 89, pp 319-339, Sep-tember 1961. (8) Droppo, J. G., "Hanford Dust Storm Climatology" Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, January,1978. l 1 t O 2.3-8 l
J ( . s TABLE 2.3-1 A AVERAGES AND EXTREMES OF CLIMATIC ELEMENTS AT HANFORD ~ t (BASED ON ALL AVAILABLE RECORDS TO AND INCLUDING THE YEAR 1975)
.t .p t . .... I a . .t..it..........,*,. p.i t 7, ,. .. ..p p.t .,
,..J...n.....4, ,,,..t.,t...l..,
g,
- ,g g g ,,, g ggg g,g H.F HM u%., ... H .. ,8. . .t g . . 8.C.
.........a ......t....s. ....,,,,....L. ..,,,,....L. . . .. . Cl 9 8. . E , , . M , . ..
,, r. .s. L A, s9.
I I.
, _ m ,
- 5 s r s -
1 :. = g s. I l l l l t. i i. [ . - - .
- ! ! i = = g g g i I I i 1 l, = 1 .
1 i 1 ! l I i l i e i s i s a i i i i I i I 3 i i i I i = 3 i l i i i 1 i 3
~ "*
- . .. .. . , , . .. . . ,,,, , ,, .. ., - . . - . - .. , - .. - u .. u - - ~ = = ..,
. - u.. ~
. . , i.
u,, ~. u .
.u, .. u ..
- u. - . . . . ..
,u ,. u. .. u
.,,. . . .u. .. ,,,.,. ,
- . . . . . . . , . , . ,, , - .. u . ~ .. .. , , - .
.. .. .. ~. .. - . . - .,, . . - ,.,, . . .
- . ., .. .. .. ~
.. .. .. ., - .,o. ~
,sz
, i. .. .. . .. , . . . . - -
- n . ,
--a, -m, . .. - . .
o
===~.. - -
.u, - u u .
. . .u. ~ .
u a . - 6 m
.. . . u, .. - o .. , . . u , .u u -
s, a
... , ., .. .. ., . ,, .., ,,,, . .. . . .. .. . . , .. .. .. ... n .. - _ . . - - -uu-.
........ .n................ u ,. ...u o.... ..a . u.. .n. -.un u* =,,,,,,, g -.
............... ......... .4.......... ................, ............... ........... . . ... .. .. .. .. .,. ,. .. . . . . , .
,u,-,....
. _ _ m ..
l [ l [= [= .,._ .. u P1 = = = -
=
il n. ! = i ! i ! =! 3 i ! 5 ! 1 ! I i i i ! 3 i i l =! 3 1 3 ! 3 1 3 " " " , ' ,~, ' ' , ' - ' ' ,
- 2. .- - --
_ ,.o., . .,. .
., ~ . - . . . . .
- u. .,, .,u.,
u
.. o . - ..
. . ,. . .. ., ,,, . o .,,. . . - -
~ _
. o , .
.. . .. u ,, . ,. .o. . .. . -. . . u ,,. ., . .. . .
WNP-1/4 ER "JL
.. ,. .a .. =, .a El il II fl II Et il II il Il IE $1 la
< 3e e 3 e se e
- ls*I8i g l:chekij]8 !le I ge! ij !a! !!eg , he llei li 3 ?& ! ?"a 1a :
i:.,g l !. .!s,, I ia= 3 al! ! g=! ma a] s! i Isl m s a g, !g ,n !I
.=
1: ig!.2, g!s 1:
= =a 8 gs11s s g!
,ssa : ,a 8 2aa2.5a 52 f im i 52 i ts g 52 a2 . 52
= " 3a
- 2a "1 5a 52 E
; s2 1 52 g 5a .j 5a - 53 5a 35a 5a,53 " !a " 5a
. G I - r a 1 a a s
- s. !!!!!! !ii!!! !
s .w,.,, n. ............ . s
- e. til il i ii!!ilif
= aur,,, ..........-3 .
g =i=1e i t j i i =e if -
- == i .w --.........- . -
2
.s
. .w., a. ............ .
a
'. IEi!!! !lfili i a=!
I5,i:j: 3 -e I -
- . = 1 Iii!!!ltilal .w., n. .-........., .
- 3. 5. s g a g. i
_ ao., ..-......-.. . ; ggg;;;i;gggg,;
.., . . . . - . . . . = . . .
. ,s g
I _ =.
= 1i1111!!!ialli . - - - ===-------=.s
!. ! i s!..Ps,i m
m j.
.w , a.,, ............ .
3
. a
,. gggi;; ;;;ggi , na!g.. ,1 s;. -
r *O 5
.e
- 111111:1111 1 I =
i s
. ............ . =>i
@s- .-
a n - g y . .,_ u - - - - . - - - - . . . - ; grii! !!ing:33 3 3 gggi
.=-......... . r ii.s:
m 42 - - - - - - - - - - - - . .w,.,,a,,,,, n ... . .. g g m o ! Ili!!!iifitz i . =-........~. . < .ca . p a
;i!iggggg; r ., .i_. a. ...........- . ; , ,.
3 ! !! 5' tiliti iattirar ! n
.w, . , ==------.=== ;;;ijggggi;;3g
;= ,,
. . .w, - - - . . . . . . - . . . .
. .,_a,,,,, ....- ..-... .
a = idiiii titi:i ! -- - . . - - - . . . . . .
._ a., ............ . .. ;;;ggggggg ; ;
j !iitti isti!ils. ; . . . ....... .... . e iw.an , - - - - - - - . . - . - . s ,. ;!!ggi gggg;; gg 1
.w . ...---- -... - = . ,,,. au.i., ....==...... . ,
= 111111lifilifi 3
. , . - . . - - . . - . . . l
.. a. = = . . . - - . - . . . . .
,. ggggggjggggj ,
g i IIaiIiin1 1211 5
. no ..-......... . I !
.%n =....e.==... . j i, '* Iilii!iiiiii!E ! !nl !
=
=====.-.-=..a
.w .aum, =..-... .... =
- r -
6
= 5 s Is s .
E- ..,,, --.==.--..... - ~g
.w,,,,, .-----------. g gg g j
= iiii!i II!!iili !. 1
.. !!iiii 'i(i I..55 !I
. .w. a., . - - - - - = = . - - - .
. s .i.,_ n.i, ............ . .
5 = iiilil211:1111 ! l .. It!!ii !i!! Ital
.- a ., - ===......- . ; ,_a,,,,, ............ .
6 .w,,,, ...........- .
-- -.... .. 3 8!31!!fi!32: ! Itil!!f!!al: !
/
Dr j ( r% * /P'\
/ NY NY TABLE 2.31C OATTELLE - PACIFIC NORTHWEST tasonatomias - nachland, h4 HANTORD METEOROLOCY STATION. 25 MILES N.W. OF RICutAND, WAORINCTON Latitude 46*34'N, Longitude 119*36'N. Elevation 133 Test CLIMATOs.octCAL SUMMAny TEAR - 1976 Tesverature (*rl Degree Days Averages Estremes Base:45'r Prectritation (Inches) Numidtty snow. Ice Pel ete (Inches) J [_
s
- :=
- d e #5 #l e :-
; 8
! :n ' g ..
- n :
3 u; 39.6
- s OE E 8 m 8 e
j . o a 5 a u li e o e S um 3 e. I
- a J 24.4 32.0 e2.6 59 27 16 9 ca o 4 8 r 40.1 27.1 37.6 40.2 59 1024 -70 0 0 6.56 -0.41 0.20 23 le 7* 196 +10 7e 6.0 +0.7 2.4 7 07 M 54.1 20.0 41.4 -2.0 69 30 0 0 0.36 -0.22 0.30 26 0.2 ott A 63.0 37.0 50.0 11 5 735 +93 0 0 0.23 -0.15
-1.6 0.2 3 65 -5
-1.7 to 30 25 2 422 +44 0 0.14 33 7 -0.5 T 56 N 75.0 45.2 60.5 -1.2 to 16 35
-1 0.41 -0.03 0.10 19 T 2 0 J 00.0 29 159 +6 22 -27 4 T 53 51.2 65.6 -3.6 800 20 37 2 74 0.00 -0.45 0.03 29 0 0 0 I +6 J 90.4 59.0 15.1 -L.5
+40 91 -101 0.11 -0.59 0.06 43 el tot 16 47 30 0 0 0 A 94.0 56.0 70.0 90 1 5 *2 319 -05 0.13 -0.02 0.09 7-0 39 -t
-3.0 31 44 26 15 +10 195 0 0 0 5 04.2 53.7 69.0 +2.0 102 -143 0.96 +0.15 0.40 24-25 0 35 +3 1 42 06 23 -44 141 0 0 - 40 0 66.1 30.6 52.4 -0.6 et 20
+34 .7 -0.30 T 11* 0 0 ell 50.7 10.4 i 236 392 +19 3 +1 0.04 -0.57 0 + -
42 +3 18 40.6 e0.4 ft 17 13 30 736 0.03 24 0 0 0 D is.0 22.4 30.i -2.4 57
-le 0 0 ? -0.00 7 21e 4
52 -6 0 12 3+ 1065 +t4 0 0 0 -1.1 0 ' - 63 -B0 0.11 v .4.i 39.i 52.2 -i.0 iO2 Sept Feb
-0.ie 0.06 73 0.2 -3.9 0.2 l' 2 3- si 1
- i. io 7. 5446 ent m -3n 2.99 -3.49 Aug 0.40 24-25 6.. -6.4 2.4 l Jan 7 55.3 .2 z 8 .u ob Mean Sky Solar maJiation l La ngleysl3 s CoveII 50 Ft. Wind (MPH) Number of Days 6
(Teethat g Peak Guate (MPill g" $ Man. Temp. Min Temp.
;; a *
- -
- _ gg ,
.33 3 :" E a : F 34 -. e O S
e
- . :# *# :Y 3
L 1H* 6 6 6 P 2
. . e . . ,. P :1 b L L a la 2 33 3 32 3 4.g 9 . .. '8" . e n .t' 3 I 3 3 f. A tu im u =
J 7.6
= =
-0.2 112 -6 204 23 16 21 F 6.9 - 0. 5 4.9 -1.4 43 55w 30 0 207 +7 376 29 21 10.0 15 3 3 0 M 7.2
- 0. 5 330 3 +3.0 57 wsw 27 0 7 30 0
-2 490 20 91 9.6 0 1 0 0 A 7.3 #0.9 433 -17 34 +1.2 65 Sw 24 0 0 0 22 0 n 6 31 29 111 0 9.9 40.9 43 1 0 0 0 19 6.1 + 0. 3 551 -20 117 le 160 Lesc 26 0 0 2 0 0 0
J 5.3 27 9.3 es.3 55 Wsw 16 0 6 e
+0.4 610 -16 760 2 229 0 0 0 0 J 4.7 42.0 592 -67 15 10.4 +1.2 42 HW 22 1 0 3 0 0 0 721 2 310 10 9.5 40 0 0 4 0 0 A 5.4 *2.8 476 -75 620
+0.9 Nw 26 2 0 0 0 ly 0
8 3. 3 -0.0 411 -5 le All 1 7.6 -0.4 30 wsw 16+ 4 0 0 0 0 532 2 let 14 7.2 -0.3 4 0 9 0 0 0 0 5.5 -0.4 303 +44 425 30 Nw 1 O e 0 W 20 06 24 5.9 -0.0 32 0 4 0 0 0 , 7. 2 -0.3 ISS +20 235 13 kW 16+ 2 2 0 0 a 0.4 66 4 5.4 -0.0 43 Nw 0 0 0 0
+0.3 09 -2 369 1 17 5
!? O 4 0 0 0 0 4.9 -1.1 45 ssw 26 0 10 17 0 Juno 6- 0 0 12 30 0 6.2 Jan . Har Y +0.3 357 -13 760 2 16 23 0.0 +0.3 65 sw 24 9 31 11 3 35 19 132 0 6.Er6hENCE NOTESS + Also en earlier datees ISunties to Sunsets ICaterles/cmI t Vielb$tity 1/4 mile er lese
WNP-1/G ER/CL TABLE 2.3-1D siA:fr0RD METEOROLOG".* STATION, 25 MILES M.w. Cr RICHLAND, WASHINCTON Latitude 46*34'N. Congitude 119'36'w, Elevation 733 rest SATTELLE - PACIFIC NokTHWEST CLIMATC W ICAL
SUMMARY
LAaQRATC A!ES - Racniand WA YEAR - 1977 Temperature (*f) Degree Days precipitation (Inches) I(msidity Ave race s Extremes Base 4l'F l Snow, Ice Pellets (g) (In.) 0 $
! ! ! ! we ! .e e !
5 1 3 ' T
- * "; 3 3 5 t '. 3'c 5 "
1 1o e
-. "! .e. e
- 2 :
0 1 O a.
%a e .e.
. s 48 e .
- e ".
2 _22 27 1E 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 8 2 & 8 a 2 2 2 as 2 a 2 J 30. 6 19.8 25.2 -4.2 61 IS 4 7 1232 +138 0 0 0.00 -0.09 0.04 11 2.9 -2.4 0.9 10 02 +4 F S0.9 30.1 40.1 + 3.1 TO 12 21 24 644 - 94 0 0 0.31 -0.61 0.44 27-28 7 -L. 8 T 7+ 70 0 M $7.1 33.7 45.4 *1.2 73 22 24 14 60s - 34 0 0 0.41 +0.03 0.15 3 ? -0.5 T 12 52 -4 A 72.6 42.0 57.3 +4. 8 94 24 31 14 253 -L2a 24 +23 T -0.44 T 26+ 0 0 0 - 40 -7 M 49.9 43.9 14.9 -4.s 62 1 34 S 254 + 105 5 -44 0.65 +0.1J 0.29 3 0 0 0 - $4 -J' J 87.7 57.5 72.6 + 3. 4 100 7 29 2 22 - 12 253 +41 0.37 -0.31 0.29 1 0 0 0 - 37 -3 J 88.9 St.4 73.7 -2.9 101 27 49 7+ S + 2 274 *)29 0.04 =0.01 7.01 17 0 0 0 - 33 +1 A 93.7 64.6 79.2 +4.4 101 18 48 31 7 + 2 447 + 109 1. 36 +1.11 0.89 29-30 0 0 0 - 25 0
$ 73.4 49.4 61.3 -4.7 87 13 36 26 153 + to 44 - 61 0.66 +0. 34 0.25 23-24 0 0 0 - 54 +15 0 65.3 38.6 31.9 -1,1 75 24 28 31 401 + 28 0 - 2 0.19 -0.44 0.14 20-29 0 0 0 - 57 -1
- 3 4e. 3 29.4 38.9 -L.3 ta 1 9 21+ 7s3 + 37 0 0 0.43 -0.11 0.34 24-25 2.1 +1.0 1.s 23 Se -$
D 41.3 26.2 33.4 +0.7 44 2 -3 31 947 - 24 0 0 1.47 +0. 64 0.00 12-13 3.4 -0.7 2.5 29 74 -4 Aug aec Aug Dec Y 65.0 41.2 $3.1 -L.2 107 14 -3 31 $373
- Lot 1051 - 42 6.41 -0.01 0.89 29 -30 0.4 -4.4 2.5 29 $$ +1 Mean sky Solar Radiation (Langleyst ' f Sort. wind (MPM) l Number of Days (Tenths) peakGusts(MPH)l MaI Temo. Mia Temp.
, I g e c
, 3
. 2 .
'2 2
} ,
- g 3
;g i , s _ I :$ :. , , m . , : :_ e m_ .- : :
4 , e. n - - - - k y 1 2 as 1 h
.3 3 33 3?
3 j i 2, ! -* i :" 0" 2 0
- 2 CB 2 2 < 8 2 2 2 il a t ;*a &~ m ~ u ~
J 4.9 l*L.1 94 - 24 214 25 32 30 4.3 -2. 0 33 tres le 0 2 0 0 0 20 30 0 F 4.9 +1.1 177 - 23 311 24 26 5 4.0 -0.2 S1 Wsw to 0 0 0 0 3 3 19 0 33 0.2
- L. S 304 - 34 490 30 116 7 10.7 +2.3 47 5 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 to 0 A S.4 -0.a $20
- SG 677 24 31 6 9 0.6 -3.4 47 usu 0 25 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 M 7.7 *L.9 552 - 19 434 29 213 10 9. 3 =0. 2 37 sw 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 J S.S 4.J 444 + 40 a14 a 300 3. 2 3.3 41 eens 29 L 2 0 1 0 13 J 0 0 J 4.3 *1.4 4 14 - 43 744 6 Joe L7 9.L +0.5 3e end 12 , L 0 0 0 le 0 0 0 A 4.J 0.7 101 - SJ 421 L 249 29 4.3 +0.3 39 m 21 1 0 3 0 22 0 0 0
$ S.7
- L. 6 326 - 12 112 1 ?? 23 6.2 -1.3 35 m.w 14 1 1 S 0 0 0 3 0 0 S.4 '-0. 5 JS4 - 4 34 9 47 21 4.3 44 3 -c . 4 vsw 24 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 N 7.8 i*:. 3 123 - 12 219 7 4.2 42 23 *2.3 19 ssw 1l 0 2 2 1 0 S 18 J
_D '. s 33 t? g - to !tso 7 l 15 13 7.3 .g.e 12 usw 3 e 4 S 1 0 9 25 L l l l r , ..e 3. - 05, l L, . 3.
- l 19 2, l a**
l
+2. 3 19 l ,,w w! l l 7
! l l l
. l 1 , e 2 Sa to t 1
1 l l ln AIG8 ENC 3 '80T!3s - Also on ear 11er datee r $.;artse to S an set s ;t.al rtes/cM r /ts to A11t r 1/4 sale or less.
WNP-1/4 ER/CL TABLE 2.3-1E MANFORD MTEORDIAGT STATION. 25 MILES N.w. OF RICNEAND. wA. Ratitud. 46' 34' N. tantitud.119' 3.' W. Elev. tion 733 Fe.t (N SATTEL12 - PACIFIC NON7WWEs? CLIMATOf4GICAL
SUMMARY
j LAmonarony - arcNr.ANo. wA. rzan - 197e {Q T. perature. f*rt D.91.e o.y. Pr.etatt.eton f rnen.e Ia.14tiv. Nu=udity l s. 65 i'r, s , ze. p.11.t. Av.r.... s.tr . 1 ..., m 2 x :- : . r a- r- ! ! :- a- :- 5 ! e . !. I. e, 1 3 1
= -
1 : 1 :1 ; 1 :] :. I 22 32 2 2 E 2 1 3 3 2 3 I u & a 3 3 2 A 2 GA. 3 A J 34.2 26.4 32.5 +3.1 $1 5 -9 2 1001 -93 u o 1.72 40.*! 2.46 14-19 2.9 -2.4 2.2 2-3 87 +11 r 45.5 30.3 37.9 +0.5 57 23 17 2 761 -17 0 0 0.92 +0.34 0.24 23 24 0.9 -0.9 0.0 2 42 +12 N $9.0 35.9 47.4 +3.2 14 22+ 25 15+ $50 -92 0 0 0.30 -0.0a 0.23 23 7 -0.S T 5+ 61 +5 A 43.5 40.0 $1.9 -0.6 76 to 3J 23* 393 +12 0 -1 0.46 +0.02 0.28 27 0 0 0 * $3 +4 N 72.4 44.7 54.6 -3.1 87 20 37 12+ 203 +50 S -44 0.41 -0.12 0.27 14-15 0 0 0 - 49 +7 J 66.0 34.7 70.3 +1.1 101 5 44 14 22 -12 102 -10 0. D9 -0.61 0.05 24 0 0 0 - 43 +3 J 91.2 60.2 75.7 -0.9 106 23 So 10 1 -2 332 -72 0.52 +0.37 0.31 3 0 0 0 - 34 +4 A 87.2 58.2 72.7 -1.9 104 9 47 27+ 10 +5 244 -90 0.57 +0.36 0.19 24 0 0 0 - 42 +7 3 76.7 $0.9 63.8 -2.4 90 3+ 41 20+ 76 +9 41 -66 0.11 -0.19 0.06 S-6 0 0 0 = $2 +11 0 67.5 37.2 $2.4 -0.6 81 9 21 26 390 +17 0 -2 T -0.41 T 28 0 'O O - $2 -6 m 41.4 23.2 32.3 -7.9 69 7 7 14 901 +235 0 0 1.21 +0.41 0.67 18-19 10.1 +9.0 8.3 18-19 72 -1 D 35.9 19.1 27.3 .$.6 $4 22 -10 30 l 1162 +171 0 0 0.26 -0.S$ 0.10 4 1. 4 -2.7 1.0 27 75 -$ Aut. D. Nov. 3iov. 63.7 40.1 31.9 -1.3 106 9+ -10 30 $350 +263 00sj-285y 6.57 +0.9 0.67 18-19 13.3 +2.5 8.3 18-19 $9 +3 lT n..a sky sol.r m.di.ttoc frangley.1 2 50 root wine l m.e.r et D.y. C> ... u ..t. .,-. m., ,. f,.nt,,, l <- <,
. I 1 0 1 7 3 a tj
- : .s : 7, -
e s : r 5
&* : :"
- E- -
-o . . 6 ea :
g s Of g- i t. *h 32 q
. 31, g
- a 1 g =
1 P g j"o ja 'o e a a o i , 2 . 2 - .3 2 o3 2 33- a .. a . o 2 .J. = . . * . . . .* .. .. i e 6.2 1.4 I ?* **a 3M 1 25 13+ l 4.1 -0.2 37 ssw $ 0 2 6 1 0 6 22 2 r 0.5 +1.1 142 -58 257 23 29 7 6.3 -0.7 32 sw e 0 2 3 0 0 2 17 0 m 7.3 + 1.1 293 -47 452 26 60 4 7.2 -1.2 36 usu 13 0 1 1 0 0 0 11 0 A 7.6 +1.2 391 -79 593 29 84 27 8.9 -0.1 64 Sw 19 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 M 6.0 +0.2 540 -11 693 16 220 13 9.7 +0.9 40 .M 28+ 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 J 4.1 -1.1 622 -4 728 19 166 24 9.1 -0.1 49 NNw le 2 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 J 3.8 +1.1 603 -Se 711 10 145 24 7.4 -0.0 43 Nw 15 5 0 2 0 17 0 0 0 A S.8 +2.5 441 -70 653 $ 142 ~ 31* 7.6 -0.4 34 Nu S. 1 0 3 0 11 0 0 0 5 6. 7 *2.6 362 -56 527 1 ee ? 8.2 +0.7 39 sSu 9 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5.0 -0.9 279 +17 380 1 140 27 S.4 -0.9 34 NNw 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 rr / 'N 7. 6 +0.3 117 -18 237 4 33 18 5.9 0.3 52 rw 4 0 4 4 3 0 7 26 0 N O 6.4 -1.7 h132 +11 158 7 17 4 6.4 +0.4 18 w 22 0 3 1 1 S 11 31 3 t 0 l ll .. Apr. i T l 6.6 1I +0.7 f 334 - 36 l l Jane s, l
- l Dec. 4 g*4 a.: Kw 19 12 1 12 l
22 l
, 42 l l 5
I 3 l74. l l. l ! . ! ! 9 ? l 5 t . l 26 l 114 rerrarNcr ieres. + At ..rti.e 4.t.., 1 s n, .. e. son..e, 2c. tort..es4. cm. , 3vt.ailier 1/4 .il. .,1....
WNP-1/4 ER TABLE 2.3-1F nAssrogg ogygonotoGT STAT 1 Cal. 25 N!!As W.W. OF 92CNLAm0. MA. 14tatet. 44' 34' B.1.ngates.119' 36' u. et. taa. 723 F t BAffT122 - PACIFIC N0fffftEs? 1AsumA70ef
- 81CW1AssO. WA. CLIMA7CED32CAI. sCIW'A87
??A4 - 1979 7*se.r.tur., **F1 0.gr 0.y. Pr.e t sit.t len f inch..I !h.1.tiv.
A.*,-.. .. ,, , . , , .1.. ,.u.- -, 1, i., a a
- 3 : : ! ! !
-l - 3 2 ..] - - - - s e
i : : -
- 1. Ja . . as 1 4
t s a 5 a 1 a t o
, a t
- I a:. : ]a 2 a: a . a J 31.s 6. 3 14.0 -19.4 37 21 *11 1 1982 *4ee 0 0 0.54 -0.43 0.31 10-11 10.3 +5.0 5.0 to 64 *e r 43.6 24.9 34.2 -3.2 42 26 -12 1 et! *e3 0 0 0.17 -0.41 0.00 12 0. 5 -1. 3 0. 3 20 76 +4 m 19.5 33.5 44.S *2.2 76 24 20 2 $71 -71 0 0 0. $4 +0.16 0.43 27 0.1 -0.4 0.1 3 Se to A ed .1 39.6 S2.s =0. 2 03 29 29 19 l 34 9 -12 1 ,0 0.52 *0.00 0.23 16-17 0. 2 +0.2 6. 2 3 $2 *S 4 74.0 49.4 64.1
- 2. 4 94 22 3e 2e 94 -99 65 *16 0.10 -0.43 0.00 1 0 0 0 = to -2 J 96.4 SS.2 70.4 *1.6 102 2e el G 21 al) 197 *S ? =0. 70 ? 17 0 0 0 + 35 -S J 98.7 40.0 77.2 *0. 4 110 20 39 2 13 +10 394 *10 0.09 0.06
-4.06 10-11 0 0 0 - 34 +2 4 90.6 14.6 74.4 0.0 101 to S3 24 0 -S 299 -19 0.34 *0.17 0.11 30 0 0 0 - 40 *S s e4.0 13.7 69.2 +3.0 De 15 42 29 to -97 130 + 31 0.20 -0.10 0.14 23 0 0 0 - 42 +1 0 49.3 41.7 S6 S + 5. S 64 7+ 32 31 264 -107 5 +3 0.47 +0. 04 0.40 14-19 0 0 0
- SS -3 a 40.7 27.7 14 . 2 -4. 0 19 4 13 29 924 *179 0 0 1. J6 *0. S6 0.42 16 S.6 +4. 5 3.4 24 99 +16 0 42.0 2* 9 34.4 + 3. 3 19 9 19 11 te? -104 0 0 0.99 *0.1e 0.22 23=24 7.J +3.2 3. 6 13-24 43 +1 Jet F.e m J.a f 64.4 40.3 12.5 -0.7 110 20 *12 1 SSte +331 1999 +4 S.S6 -0.92 0.42 16+ 24.C *11.2 S.O 10 $7 +3 A I m.se sky Sol ar .ediation f14agt.v.p *O 7%.c wind N - -_ - . . f S.v.
P t es.t. M.a. Nta. 7.sy.
.t en.i T.,.y.
< *v f et
~ ~ I I
- ~
z s
- j j .5 -
8 l l 9
- j t
T
;3 3" -.
- g a
- a 5 . :- t
- e so u e
a g* 1 :: 1 :
. e. :-
.o 5-ro d . 3 .3 3 32 2 33 J J a 2 3 3 4 3 2. 1. $. = a a J 4. 6 *0. 4 til -3 214 as SS 11 3. e -2. 5 20 Nu 21 0 14 3 2 0 30 31 e P 4. 9 *1.5 ISS -45 290 24 41 12 7. 0 *0 44 ssu 13 0 2 0 0 0 4 21 2
.1 S.S -1.2 32 4 -16 467 31 44 27 4.9 - 1. 5 to wu ? O O 1 0 0 0 13 3 l 4 '.3 *0. 9 414 .S6 592 .6 157 4 4. 7 -0. 3 30 su 13 3 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 4 4. 0 +0. 2 See al 496 31 234 4 9.9
- 1.1 14 ssu 22 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 J 4. 3 -0. 9 SSO +24 716 13 277 16 9.7 +0. 5 44 um is 1 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 J 2.6 -0.1 637 -22 716 3 315 1 9.0 +0.4 49 usu 9 9 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 4 4.3 *1.0 124 +27 651 2 249 13 9.3 *0.3 36 e 0 0 20 0 0
'fu 5 1 0 8 3.4 -0. 3 411 -7 494 S 251 25 6. 0 +0. 5 S4 vsu 1 2 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 S.7 -0. 2 232 -30 3s0 3 34 le i 7.0 +0.3 36 usu 25 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 4 6. 3 +0. 4 97 - le als 1 20 , 15 4. 9 - 1. 3 22 uu 24 0 12 3 2 0 7 23 0 0 9. 7 *0. 4 64 *27 149 10 19 23* 4. s *0. 8 14 2w 14 , 0 9 3 2 0 2 22 0 Jet D.e I Jul l V 6. 2 *0.3 34 8 all 716 3* 19 23* 7. 5 -0.1 49 usu 9 18 3e 17 7 64 44 113 10 l
,m - .. . . . ..m.. .. .. 19 .o t. .. t . 2:.i.o..m. .. 2.1. u u, v4 .u. .. . ... .
WNP.1/4 ER p)
\
v - TABLE 2.31G
. . n .u .... . . .
s.u . u ..i ,u in M .. s 7 n e.= m._.._, _.....:_. . . . ,9 0
.......... i 0 0. . . . . . . . . . , , _ . , t .
. u. u
,,,,,,,,,, a- . p. ., ,
A A i uiji 2 i I r ' i r 1' :I
! iji :
5 i
- 3. 51 1 .n s3 a 1 3 1 1 a
a .I a 1 a 3 a 1 a n 4 i x 4 .* . I i
, 30. 3 n.. n, ..., u a 3 iG un .in . O i.n .. a .. n u. .., .... .3 .. n ..
l
, n.. a.3 .... 2. . .9 a it i. .. .ue . O i. . .. n 0. = n ... .2. , i. , o.u u .a
.... n. , ... 2 n a n. u, . 0 0. . .. G.a u. . 0. 3 3 2. 3 i n .L
, ., .... u.2 2., e n n , 3a 7, , 0. .. 3 .. s. a.a 0 0 m ..
. ,. 3 ... s u. , ., ., ,0 3. , u. .o n .n s. .s ... 0.90 n.a 0 0 u ,,
4 n. . . . . .4., .... e. . .0 .. .a n. .u. 0. 9. .. a .. u u.o 0 0 . J #0. 3 5e e 74.7 - L. 9 Las 22 of 1 S 2 let -99 T . 13 T 31. 0 0 35 8
. s.. a 54.2 71.2 3. 4 9e La 42 28 1. 42 207 L36 0.02 . 19 0.02 at 0 0 54 *L
. 79.4 $2. 3 44.4 .e. 2 ts 6 41 22 $3- 44 .0 37 3.85 *. Sl 0.79 12 62 0 0 of *e w 64.9 ed. 4 12.6 0.4 et 4 M 29 394 21 9 .7 0.33 . 24 4.10 24 2S 0 0 44 2
. .? H.e 41.@ 0.e 6S 7 18 24 73 3 22 0 0 0.44 . 36 0.33 47 0. 3 4.6 0. 2 14 70 .S u . l. 5 69 26 9 e43 .Los 0 e t. es .n.M 0. Se 34 2.. -4. 9 1. 9 2 e4 .4
} -
42.3 ad. D M.6 7 g 1
%)
- 2.s 2 ,,,
4.2 a-*
..2 4. 2 s2. 2 .t.e noe 22 .: 60 s3a7 .ue ett 402 9. 6. 3.20 0.90 as Is is.o es.2 st .s
, ....u....w...' n .. a . a . o ...
" *t ecu .. e . ....e.
l t.es . . e, er oi., i f 2 8
- 3
; .1 1
3 i 2 e l . r s .j s* 3 t~ e :- - s* l : -. 2.
- 1 . .
3 q g . g. 1 i. t. I. *f g 1 I
. r. Se "8." $ .
e. I . 3 .2 1 33 3 JJ 3 ; .. 3 a J 4 J c. J. . . . J f. 2 .-. 109 4 20 7 29 29 4 6. 4 .1 % su L2 0 7 % 3 4 le in & I r 9. 3
- L. 9 Las 83 3e3 29 3e 12 4 4.e ..e u w 3e 4 7 $ L 4 6 22 0
. .. . . 30 .. ... n u. i ... ..2 . . 3 0 0 ., 0 0 o .
i
. l. 7 3 53 67 . 30 29 131 20 e. 7 .3 43 see 14 1 0 4 0 0 0 3 @
- 4. 7 .. e 471 .9 .46 L4 LAS 26 4. $ .3 4e sw $ 3 J e e 0 0 0 4 8
.. A +4.e 137 ees 7271 LP 123 o 4. 3 .9 a uns Le 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 8. . .. .us .S4 707 & 276 LA 9. 0 .. e 40 mw 22 2 0 4 0 10 0 W e t
- 3.6 .3 &&& .M .59 3 Ju? Le 4.0 .L 0 39 usu 17 1 0 0 0 e 4 3 0 l
6 4.. *? Me *S2 117 3 64 13 ; s. 4 .9 M asas 19 & 4 L 4 2 4 4 3 l
- n 0 j i. 3
.. i .. u. 2. n1 6 .4 .i. 4 .3 . 0 , i 2 2 . .
. ... ... . .o 20. . n u:i i.4 ... u n i . . t 0 e i a 2 A i
- 6a .t., sv 637 19 si i s. 3 .a.a at zu :s I o 7
- J 6 is 3 (v) 34 2. t
... .s n ta a a n 29 t0s 22 . n?
ln 7.s in 12
. tr it .. t i t
. - . - . . . . . . . . . . . i..--.. L.. . , . c.. 8,. . n., u. .. i .
x l
WNP-1/4 ER/OL I') v TABLE 2,.3-2A PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER '_EVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS A SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 NE 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 l ENE 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 t E 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 ESE 0.00 0.06 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 SE 0.00 0.02 0.18 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 SSE 0.00 0.04 0.23 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 S 0.00 0.02 0.24 0.44 0.21 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.93 SSW 0.00 0.01 0.23 0.32 0.27 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.84 SW 0.00 0.01 0.18 0.14 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.00 0 44 USW 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.35 W 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.36 WNW 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.33 NW 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.42 NHW 0.00 0.01 0.16 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 , H 0.00 0.03 0.16 0.12 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 VAR 0.00 0.03 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.08 TOTAL 0.00 0.32 2.31 1.85 1.04 0.37 0.11 0.01 6.00 l () PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCEe WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS B SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 NE 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 ENE 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 E 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 ESE 0.00 0.03 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 SE 0.00 0.03 0.18 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 SSE 0.00 0.02 0.23 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 S 0.00 0.05 0.19 0.34 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.67 SSW 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.13 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.45 l SW 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.35 USW 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.31 W 0.00 0.02 0.18 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.36 UNW 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.32 Hu 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.39 NNW 0.00 0.02 0.26 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.42 M 0.00 0.03 0.29 0.09 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.49 VAR 0.00 0.05 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.07 TOTAL 0.00 0.40 2.81 1.29 0.65 0.24 0.06 0.03 5.49 O
WN P-1/4 ER/OL TABLE 2.3-2B PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS C SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.04 0.22 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 NE 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.06 0 01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 ENE 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 E 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 ESE 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 SE 0.00 0.05 0.16 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 SSE 8:88 8:8! 8:!! 8:11 8:8s 8:88 8:!8 8:88 8:18 SSW 0.00 0.02 0.17 0.25 0.12 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.61 SW 0.00 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.41 USW 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.41 W 0.00 0.03 0.14 0.11 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.39 UHW 0.00 0.03 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.33 NW 0.00 0.06 0.18 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.44 HNW 0.00 0.06 0.24 0.12 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.49 N 0.00 0.05 0.33 0.20 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.66 VAR 0.00 0.10 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 TOTAL 0.00 0.66 2.80 1.83 0.78 0.25 0.09 0.02 6.44 PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THRU 9/80 h AT WPPSS H T FOR 10 METER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS D SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.22 0.58 0.24 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.01 1.19 NE 0.00 0.19 0.33 0.10 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.65 ENE 0.00 0.15 0.32 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 E 0.00 0.17 0.24 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 ESE 0.00 0.28 0.35 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 SE 0.00 0.30 0.69 0.14 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.17 SSE 0.00 0.35 0.93- 0.46 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.85 S 0.00 0.24 0.76 0.82 0.35 0.05 0.00 0.00 2.22 SSW 0.00 0.32 0.59 0.34 0.70 0.21 0.13 0.00 2.80 SW 0.01 0.32 0.37 0.33 0.44 0.23 0.10 0.00 1.80 USW 0.00 0.24 0.33 0.29 0.26 0.13 0.04 0.01 1.29 0 0.01 0.30 0.35 0.28 0.21 0.06 0.03 0.01 1.24 UNW 0.00 0.42 0.79 0.71 0.49 0.26 0.03 0.00 2.71 NU 0.00 0.56 1.33 0.98 0.59 0.21 0.09 0.05 3.81 HNW 0.00 0.52 1.08 0.60 0.22 0.02 0.00 0.02 2.46 H 0.00 0.36 0.64 0.42 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.59 VAR 0.00 0.28 0.20 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKND 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.24 TOTAL 0.03 5.24 9.90 6.42 3.65 1.22 0.46 0.30 27.23 O
WNP-1/4 ER/OL O TABLE 2.3-2C PERCENT FREQUENCY 'RRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THRU 9/80 SS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL oSOUILL STABILITY CLASS E SPEED CLASS (MPH) CAL 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.0 . 0.25 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.70 NE 0.00 19 0.31 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.55 ENE 0. 0'_ 0.16 0.25 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.47 E 0.00 0.17 0 18 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 ESE 0.01 0.22 0.19 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 SE 0.00 0.32 0.56 0.22 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 SSE 0.00 0.30 0.92 0.73 0.16 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.12 S 0.00 0.37 0.79 0.69 0.33 0.05 0.00 0.00 2.24 SSW 0.00 0.33 0.57 0.48 0.57 0.25 0.10 0.03 2.34 SW 0.00 0.31 0.56 0.33 0.35 0.13 0.04 0.02 1.73 WSW 0.01 0.33 0.56 0.31 0.11 0.06 0.02 0.01 1.40 W 0.01 0.32 0.55 0.38 0.15 0.04 0.01 0.02 1.48 WNW 0.01 0.51 1.04 1.18 0.56 0.11 0.00 0.02 3.43 NW 0.00 0.55 1.48 1.23 0.35 0.05 0.00 0.00 3.65 NNW 0.01 0.49 0.85 0.42 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.84 N 0.00 0 39 0.41 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.94 VAR 0.00 0 17 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0 00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.16 TOTAL 0.06 5.42 9.61 6.35 2.72 0.72 0.23 0.24 25.36 PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS F SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.34 0.38 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 NE 0.00 0.24 0.32 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 ENE 0.00 0.21 0.14 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.40 E 0.00 0.16 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.25 ESE 0.00 0.17 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29
.SE 0.00 0.19 0.43 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.70 SSE 0.00 0.20 1.02 0.51 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.79 S 0.00 0.27 0.88 0.47 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.71 SSW 0.00 0.30 0.63 0.29 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31 SU 0.00 0.24 0.37 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.75 USU 0.00 0.28 0.30 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 W 0.00 0.20 0.30 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.72 UNW 0.02 0.33 0 46 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 NW 0.00 0.35 0.79 0.33 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 1.49 NNW 0.00 0.40 0.71 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 1.20 N 0.00 0.44 0.38 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.85 VAR 0.00 0.23 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29
! CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 l UNKNO 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.09 TOTAL 0.03 4.57 7.37 2.63 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.20 15.06 l
WNP-1/4 ER/OL TABLE 2L3-2D till 1 l I l PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCEe WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL ! PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS G ' SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.01 0.46 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 NE 0.01 0.46 0.32 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 ENE 0.00 0.31 0.17 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.50 E 0.00 0.30 0.04 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 ESE 0.00 0.24 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 SE 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 SSE 0.00 0.22 0.74 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.19 S 0.00 0.22 0.65 0.30 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.22 SSW 0.00 0.18 0.27 0.09 0 01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 SW 0.00 0.21 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 USW 0.00 0.17 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 W 0.00 0.19 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 WNW 0.00 0.28 0.21 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.54 NW 0.00 0.38 0.57 0 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.08 NNW 0.00 0.52 0.62 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.19 N 0.00 0.55 0.45 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 VAR 0.00 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 CALI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 TOTAL 0.05 5.18 4.98 0 92 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.19 11.37 PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL h PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS UNKND SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 NE 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 ENE 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 E 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 ESE 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 SE 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 SSE 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06 S 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.08 SSW 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.14 SW 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.07 WSW 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.09 W 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.12 WNW 0.00 0.01 0.03 0 03 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.23 NW 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.17 NNW 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 N 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 VAR 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.76 1.82 . TOTAL 0.00 0.14 0.36 0.24 0.22 0.09 0.04 1.95 3.05 l O l
WNP-1/4 ER/OL O TABLE 2.3-3A PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FRCM 10/79 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS N T FOR 10 METER LEVEL PASGUILL STABILITY CLASS A TPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.02 0.17 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 NE 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 ENE 0.00 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 E 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 ESE 0.00 0.17 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 SE 0.00 0.05 0.35 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 SSE 0.00 0.11 0.52 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.74 S 0.00 0.05 0.60 0.73 0.39 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.78 SSW 0.00 0.02 0.56 0.88 0.57 0.05 0.00 0.00 2.07 SW 0.00 0.03 0.40 0.35 0.13 0.03 0 . ~, . 0.00 0.96 WSW 0.00 0.02 0.23 0.25 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.72 W 0.00 0.03 0.18 0.11 0.16 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.54 WNW 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.07 0.17 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.55 NW 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.09 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.38 NNW 0.00 0.01 0.17 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 N 0.00 0.06 0.24 0.14 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.52 WR 0.00 0.08 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.C0 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 i TOTAL 0.00 0.84 4.41 2.99 1.76 0.42 0.03 0.01 10.47 l lO l l
WNP-1/4 ER/OL l TABLE 2.3-3B PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 10/79 TliRU 9/80 AT WPPSS M T FCR 10 METER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS B SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 , NE 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 ENE 0.00 0.03 0.16 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 E 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 ESE 0.00 0.09 0.18 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 SE 0.00 0.07 0.32 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 SSE 0.00 0.05 0.34 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 1 S 0.00 0.11 0.33 0.25 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.81 SSW 0.00 0.06 0.27 0.17 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.61 SW 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.08 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.35 WSW 0.00 0.11 0.17 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.39 W 0.00 0.02 0.20 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.33 WNW 0.00 0.03 0.18 0.16 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.50 NW 0.00 0.05 0.24 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.52 NNW 0.00 0.06 0.35 0.10 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 N 0.00 0.06 0.40 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.67 VAR 0.00 0.08 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 0.00 0.90 3.h 1.28 0.71 0.25 0.06 0.00 7.13 9
WNP-1/4 ER/OL !O TABLE 2.3-3C PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCC!stRENCE WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 10/79 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS N T FOR 10 METER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS C SPEED CLASS (NPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NME 0.00 0.M 0.23 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.36 NE 0.00 0.03 0.11 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 ENE 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 E 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 ESE 0.00 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 SE 0.00 0.13 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.26 SSE 0.00 0.09 0.24 0.15 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 l S 0.00 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.63 SSW 0.00 0.05 0.17 0.20 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.56 SU 0.00 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.34 WSW 0.01 0.05 0.13 0.16 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.48 W 0.00 0.08 0.18 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.38 WNW 0.00 0.05 0.l6 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.47 NW 0.00 0.08 0.22 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 NNW 0.00 0.06 0.24 0.17 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.58 - N 0.00 0.08 0.33 0.19 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.69 VAR 0.00 0.13 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 TOTAL 0.01 1.13 2.74 1.49 0.72 0.26 0.06 0.02 4.43 0
WNP-1/4 ER/OL TABLE 2.3-3D O PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION V5 . EED FROM 10/79 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS D SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.25 0.45 0.18 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.00 1.25 NE 0.00 0.19 0.44 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 ENE 0.00 0.13 0.23 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 E 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 ESE 0.00 0.24 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 SE 0.00 0.28 0.67 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 SSE 0.00 0.40 0.89 0.52 0.16 0.02 0.00 0.00 1.99 S 0.00 0.28 0.60 0.58 0.24 0.07 0.01 0.00 1.79 SSW 0.00 0.34 0.41 0.40 0.35 0.17 0.22 0.00 1.89 SW 0.02 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.14 0.08 0.01 0.00 1.01 WSW 0.00 0.23 0.32 0.23 0.19 0.10 0.01 0.00 1.08 W 0.02 0.42 0.35 0.23 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.13 WNW 0.01 0.51 1.31 1 25 0.60 0.19 0.00 0.00 3.83 NW 0.00 0.91 2.15 1.74 0.84 0.06 0.01 0.01 5.73 NNW 0.00 0.66 1.43 0.87 0.42 0.02 0.00 0.02 3.43 N 0.00 0.39 0.79 0.41 0.17 0.03 0.00 0.00 1.79 VAR 0.00 0.28 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 TOTAL 0.06 5.98 11.21 6.82 3.35 0.84 0.27 0.55 29.08 9
WNP-1/4 ER/OL O TABLE 2.3-3E PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FRON 10/79 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS N T FOR 10 METER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS E SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.01 0.34 0.39 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 NE 0.00 0.14 0.34 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 ENE 0.00 0.15 0.14 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 E 0.00 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 ESE 0.01 0.13 0.15 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 SE 0.00 0.33 0.74 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.24 SSE 0.00 0.30 0.99 0.49 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.89 S 0.00 0.36 0.76 0.48 0.18 0 05 0.01 0.00 1.84 SSW 0.00 0.41 0.49 0.28 0.27 0.11 0.06 0.01 1.64 SW 0.00 0.35 0.55 0.23 0.10 0.03 0.00 0.00 1.26 WSW 0.00 0.35 0.57 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 1.13 W 0.01 0.43 0.54 0.28 0.16 0.02 0.00 0.01 1.46 WW 0.00 0.51 1.20 1.06 0.24 0.03 0.00 0.01 3.05 NW 0.00 0.64 1,74 1.18 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 3.63 NW 0.01 0.58 0.76 0.28 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 N 0.00 0.41 0.44 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 VAR 0.00 0.17 0.08 0.01 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 16 0 16 TOTAL 0.05 5.73 10.01 4.84 1.22 0.30 0.07 0.20 22.40 0
. _ . . - , - - . . _ _ . ,. - ~ _ _ - ... . - - , . _ - -, - _ ~ . . , . - -
WNP-1/4 ER/OL TABLE 2.3-3F el-i PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE: WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 10/79 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS F SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.40 0.41 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.83 NE 0.00 0.31 0.32 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 ENE 0.00 0.20 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 E 0.00 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 - ESE 0.00 0.17 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 SE 0.00 0.19 0.48 0.03 0.01 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.72 SSE 0.00 0.26 1.26 0.43 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 S 0.00 0.34 1.00 0.32 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.74 SSW 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.13 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07 SW 0.00 0.28 0.38 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.74 WSW 0.01 0.25 0.28 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 W 0.00 0.22 0.27 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.57 WNW 0.02 0.24 0.41 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 NW 0.00 0.34 0.82 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.39 NNW 0.00 0.39 0.69 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.10 N 0.00 0.54 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 VAR 0.00 0.23 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 TOTAL 0.03 4.78 7.58 1.67 0.17 0.01 0.00 0.10 14.36 e
WNP-1/4 ER/OL O TABLE 2.3 3G s PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIL CTION VS SPEED FROM 10/79 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS M i FOR 10 METER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS G SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.28 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 NE 0.01 0.23 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 ENE 0.00 0.15 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 E 0.00 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 ESE 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 13 SE 0.01 0.22 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 O. SSE 0.00 0.17 0.83 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 1.22 S 0.00 0.17 0.51 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.80 SSW 0.00 0.15 0.19 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 SW 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.00 0.'00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.17 WSW 0.00 0.10 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 W 0.00 0.19 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.27 WNW 0.00 0.22 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 NW 0.00 0.20 0.38 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.65 NNW 0.00 0.33 0.49 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 N 0.00 0.43 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.79 VAR 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 TOTAL 0.02 3.45 3.60 0.48 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.19 7.76 O
WNP-1/0 ER/OL TABLE 2.3-3H PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 10/79 T}RU 9/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 NETER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS UNKNO SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NME 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 NE 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 ENE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 E 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 ESE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SE 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 SSE 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 S 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 SSW 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 SW 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06 WSW 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 W 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 WNW 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 NW 0.00 0.02 0.03 0 08 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 NNW 0.00 0.00 0.02 v.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 N 0.00 0.01 0.00 C 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 VAR 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 CALn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.51 1.51 TOTAL 0.00 0.15 0.43 0 15 0.11 0.00 0.00 1.53 2.37 O
WNP-1/4 ! ER/OL l O TABLE 2.3-4A PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 10/79 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS N T FOR 10 NETER LEVEL SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.01 1.38 2.07 0.44 0 13 0.09 0.01 0.01 4.14 NE 0.01 0.96 1.70 0.31 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.09 ENE 0.00 0.74 0.82 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.70 E 0.00 0.58 0.57 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 ESE 0.01 0.94 1.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.14 SE 0.01 1.28 2.83 0.46 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 4.64 SSE 0.00 1.39 5.09 1.87 0.42 0.05 0.00 0.02 S.83 S 0.00 1.41 4.04 2.66 1.10 0.17 0.02 0.01 9.43 O SSW 0.00 1.32 2.73 2.15 1.41 ,0.40 0.27 0.02 8.31 V SW 0.02 1.24 1.96 0.96 0.42 0.22 0.05 0.03 4.90 WSW 0.02 1.13 1.84 0.94 0.41 0.31 0.05 0.00 4.70 W 0.03 1.41 1.86 0.83 0.50 0.10 0.02 0.03 4.79 WNW 0.03 1 58 3.69 2.93 1.17 0.38 0.05 0.01 9.84 NW 0.00 2.29 5.67 3.44 1.28 0.22 0.02 0.03 12.97 NNW 0.01 2.08 4.17 1.48 0.61 0.05 0.00 0.03 8.44 N 0.00 1.97 2.94 0.93 0.42 0.10 0.00 0.01 6.38 -- VAR 0.00 1.25 0.80 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.07 CALK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.38 2.39 TOTAL 0.17 22.95 43.92 19.72 8.06 2.08 0.49 2.61 100.00 O
WNP-1/4 ER/OL TABLE 2.3-4B O PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE: WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 10/79 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 75 METER LEVEL SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.42 1.71 0.72 0.18 0.13 0.01 0.00 3.16 NE 0.00 0.24 1.35 0.88 0.26 0.06 0.10 0.00 2.89 ENE 0.00 0.32 1.12 0.61 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.00 2.21 E 0.00 0.35 0.99 0.52 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.92 ESE 0.00 0.46 1.12 0.63 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.27 SE 0.00 0.34 1.79 1.04 0.22 0.02 0.02 0.00 3.47 SSE 0.00 0.57 2.33 2.42 0.80 0 17 0.02 0.00 6.32 S 0.01 C.81 2.60 2.91 2.13 0.48 0.10 0.00 9.04 SSW 0.00 0.83 2.48 2.37 2.41 0.92 0.63 0.02 9.67 SW 0.01 0.85 1.89 1.23 0.92 0.50 0.55 0.01 5.97 WSW 0.00 0.72 1.97 1.29 0.69 0.44 0.40 0.00 5.51 W 0.01 0.82 1.95 1.47 0.79 0.39 0.13 0.02 5.57 WW 0.01 0.80 1.92 2.09 2.65 1.91 0.69 0.00 10.28 NW 0.00 0.73 3.21 4.33 3.36 0.90 0.19 0.00 12.72 NW 0.00 0.64 3.34 3.27 1.74 0.42 0.01 0.00 9.44 N 0.00 0.54 2.42 1.16 0.47 0.41 0.05 0.00 5.04 VAR 0.00 0.55 0.80 0.10 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.48 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.17 0.30 0.27 0.19 0.00 0.00 2.12 3.05 ! TOTAL 0.05 10.17 33.30 27.33 17.11 4.76 3.11 2.17 100.00 l t O l
VVNP-1/4 ER OL O . i
- TABLE 2.3-5A FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED DURING 10/79 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL SPEED CLASS (MPH)
CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE O 12 11 -2 1 0 0 0 26 NE O 11 8 1 0 0 0 0. 20 ENE O 9 12 0 0 0 0 0 21 E O 12 9 0 0 0 0 0 21 ESE O 19 14 1 0 0 0 0 34 ] SE 1 17 29 8 0 0 0 0 55
- SSE O 14 42 42 4 0 0 0 102 l S 0 15 33 23 16 0 0 0 87 l SSW 0 16 13 12 17 3 0 0 61 O 0 7 9 6 3 0 0 0 25 SW WSW 0 2 10 5 0 0 0 J 17 W 0 15~ 10 3 1 0 0 0 29 i UNW 0 18 22 18 9 0 0 0 67 l NW 0 9 23 17 2 0 0 0 51
! NNW 0 18 22 11 2 0 0 0 53 N O 30 15 7 2 0 0 0 54 l 21 ~ VAR 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNNNO O O O O O O O 0 0 TOTAL 1 245 282 156 57 3 0 0 744 O
l VVNP-1/4 l ER/OL l TABLE 2.3-5B FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED DURING 11/79 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 HETER LEVEL SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE O 16 17 3 0 0 0 .0 36 NE O 14 32 2 0 0 0 0 48 ENE O 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 17 E O 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 ESE O 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 18 SE O 16 10 0 0 0 0 0 26 SSE O 13 19 4 0 0 0 0 36 S 0 10 7 6 0 0 0 0 23 SSW 0 15 6 0 0 0 0 0 21 SW 0 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 17 USW 2 9 7 1 0 0 0 0 19 W 2 11 14 4 1 0 0 0 32 WNW 0 22 45 33 1 0 0 0 101 NW 0 30 77 45 2 0 0 0 154 NNW 0 21 36 8 6 0 0 0 71 N O 21 20 4 1 0 0 0 46 VAR 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNKNO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 38 TOTAL 4 243 314 110 11 0 0 38 720 l l 1 l l l _ - - - - _ -_ -
VVNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.3 5C i FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED DURING 12/79 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 HETER l.EVEL SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0 7 9 2 0 0 0 0 18 NE O 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 11 ENE O 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 E O 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 ESE O 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 15 SE O 8 28 8 0 0 0 0 44 ESE O 17 52 24 10 1 0 0 104 S 0 7 18 19 21 10 1 0 76 SSW 0 5 6 8 10 15 21 1 66 i O WSW SW W 0 0 0 22 9 6 16 12 8 5 2 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -40 30 16
- WNW 0 12 45 14 7 3 0 0 81 NW 0 27 53 12 5 0 0 2 99 NNW 0 15 21 2 1 0 0 0 39 N 0 14 9 0 1 0 0 0 24 VAR 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 CALH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNKNO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 62 62 TOTAL 0 177 293 101 57 29 22 65 744 i
O 4 _-.__.-._______,___.___,__,_......_,._,..,_,,_,_____.____,,.,__-,_,,,__.,,,,m._- . , , _ _ . . . . , _ , _ . , , , . . . . , - _ _ . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ . , . _ , _ _ _ _ . . _ . . ,
VVN P-1/4 ER OL O TABLE 2.3-5D FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED DURING 1/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKN0 TOTAL NNE O 19 37 7 0 7 1 0 71 NE O 7 18 7 0 0 0 0 32 ENE O 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 12 E O 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 ESE O 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 SE O 7 8 1 0 0 0 0 16 SSE O 11 21 6 3 0 0 0 41 S 0 11 16 2 0 0 1 0 30 SSW 0 10 9 2 3 1 3 0 28 SW 2 9 7 0 4 1 0 0 23 s WSW 0 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 18 - W 1 17 17 1 0 0 0 0 36 WNW 0 24 25 20 2 0 0 0 71 NW 0 20 51 49 12 0 0 0 132 NNW 0 34 42 38 12 2 0 0 128 \ ^ N 0 13 32 12 13 7 0 0 77 VAR 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNNNO O O O O O O O 2 2 TOTAL 3 219 303 145 49 18 5 2 744 e u
MfNP-1/4 ER CL I 1 l O 3 TABLE 2.3 5E l FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED DURING 2/80 l AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL
- SPEED CLASS (MPH) l CALM 1-3 4-7 8-1'2 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0 12 19 4 1 0 0 1 37
- NE O 5 10 1 0 0 0 0 16 ENE O 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 E O 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 7.
ESE O 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 8 SE O 14 18 7 1 0 0 0 40 SSE O 8 19 6 1 0 0 0 34 S 0 9 11 0 0 0 0 26 SSW 0 7 5 1 0 0 0 14 l l SW 0 12 6 1 0 0 0 0 19 is WSW 0 11 6 3 1 0 0 0 21 W 0 12 5 0 1 0 0 2 20 l '4 WNW 0 21 46 25 2 0 0 1 209 95 NW 0 45 105 51 8 0 0 0 NNW 0 26 44 7 16 1 0 3 97 l s N 0 14 12 6 3 0 0 1 36 VAR 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 to CALN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNKNO O O 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 TOTAL 0 213 317 120 35 1 0 10 496 4 O
- - , - - . - - - - _ _ - _ _m .e e - - , , . . - - - . - . .w..r--+,---,,--,r,,--.-m--w. . . - , - - - , ry-r,,w. .-<.-,--,,..-4m., .-w,.,,---,-,
WNP 1/0 ER OL . O TABLE 2.3 5F FRCOUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED DURING 3/80 AT WPPSS M i FOR 10 METER LEVEL SPEED CLASS (NPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKND TOTAL NNE O 4 5 0 4 0 0 0 13 NE O 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 5 ENE O 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 E O 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 ESE O 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 SE 0 6 28 1 1 0 0 0 34 SSE O 9 52 29 8 2 0 0 100 S 0 11 30 28 18 4 0 0 91 SSW 0 11 13 25 21 14 0 1 85 SW 0 10 12 15 9 4 2 1 53 WSW 0 11 16 15 9 7 1 0 59 W 0 10 7 9 6 3 2 0 37 WNW 0 8 22 29 16 14 2 0 91 NW 0 12 22 7 3 0 1 0 45 NNW 0 8 20 14 7 1 0 0 50 N 0 9 12 5 5 2 0 0 33 VAR 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNKNO O O 1 0 0 0 0 24 25 TOTAL 0 125 249 177 108 51 8 24 744 i 1 0 1
WNP 1/4 ER CL O TABLE 2.3 5G FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED DURING 4/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 1 7 15 5 3 < 1 0 0 32 NE O 8 4 1 6 0 0 0 21 ENE 0 2 2 4 1 0 0 0 9 E O 3 6 3 0 0 0 0 12 ESE 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 10 SE O 8 21 0 0 0 0 0 29 SSE O 3 33 10 2 0 0 0 48 S 0 5 29 27 1 0 0 0 62 SSW 0 8 20 11 5 0 0 0 44 O SW WSW W 0 0 0 9 8 5 15 12 13 6 7 5 6 10 6 9 17 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 47 57 31 WNW 1 9 21 20 10 0 0 0 61 NW 0 18 28 14 3 0 0 0 43 NNW 0 18 39 4 0 0 0 0 61 N 0 17 26 3 0 0 0 0 46 VAR 0 12 9 1 0 0 0 0 22 CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNKNO O O O O O O O 65 65 TOTAL 2 145 300 121 53 29 5 65 720 9 O
VVN P' 1/O ER OL e a TABLE 2.3 5H FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED DURING 5/80 AT WPPSS N T FOR 10 NETER LEVEL SPEED CLASS (HPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE O 5 16 5 1 0 0 0 27 NE 1 6 9 2 1 0 0 0 19 ENE O 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 12 E O 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 ESE 1 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 15 SE 0 3 22 6 1 0 0 0 32 SSE 0 8 42 14 0 0 0 2 66 S 0 9 44 22 1 0 0 1 77 SSW 0 10 37 32 13 1 0 0 93 SW 0 13 31 8 1 0 0 2 55 USW 0 9 25 12 0 0 0 0 46 W 0 6 25 14 4 1 0 1 51 WNW 1 2 17 18 17 10 1 0 66 NW 0 9 26 18 7 1 0 1 42 NNW 1 11 30 5 0 0 0 0 47 N 0 5 20 18 0 0 0 0 43 VAR 0 6 11 1 0 0 0 0 18 CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNKNO O O O O 0 0 0 8 8 TOTAL 4 112 378 175 46 13 1 15 744 O
VVNP 1/4 ER OL O TABLE 2.3 51 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED DURING 6/80 AT WPPSS N T FOR 10 NETER LEVEL SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE O 10 10 3 0 0 0 0 23 NE O 2 12 3 0 0 0 0 17 ENE 0 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 8 E O 1 6 2 0 0 0 0 9 ESE O 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 15 SE 0 5 22 4 0 0 0 0 31 SSE O 11 42 15 3 1 0 0 72 S 0 11 44 ~31 19 0 0 0 105 SSW 0 6 40 26 18 1 0 0 91 O SW WSW 0 0 10 8 23 24 10 9 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 47 28 W 0 5 17 4 WNW 0 9 14 18 8 1 0 0 50 NW 0 9 27 23 12 5 1 0 77 NNW 0 6 25 10 0 0 0 0 41 N 0 13 26 5 1 0 0 0 45 VAR 0 5 12 0 0 0 0 0 17 CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNNNO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 TOTAL 0 116 361 164 69 8 1 1 720 l i I i i L
MINP-1/4 ER-OL O TABLE 2.3 5J FREGUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED DURING 7/80 AT WPPSS H T FOR 10 NETER l.EVEL SPEED CLASS (NPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL j NNE 0 10 19 0 0 0 0 0 29 NE O 4 13 5 0 0 0 0 27 ENE 0 8 15 2 0 0 0 0 25 E O 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 11 ESE O 5 21 0 0 0 0 0 26 SE O 13 25 ,1 1 1 0 0 41 SSE 0 9 27 3 5 0 0 0 44 S 0 12 39 16 6 1 0 0 74 SSW 0 7 31 75 5 0 0 0 68 SW 0 7 17 13 3 0 0 0 40 WSW 0 6 23 8 2 0 0 0 39 , W 0 9 13 5 11 3 0 0 41 WNW 0 4 25 21 16 3 0 0 69 NW 0 5 25 27 27 5 0 0 89 NNW 0 11 29 9 1 0 0 0 50 N 0 7 30 5 0 0 0 0 42 VAR 0 9 17 0 0 0 0 0 26 CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l UNNNO O O O 0 0 0 0 4 4 TOTAL 0 130 377 143 77 13 0 4 744 1 l 1
i VVNP-1/4 ER/OL TABLE 2.35K I ' FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED DURING 8/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL 4 SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-ilP UNKNO TOTAL NNE O 11 12 6 1 0 0 0 30 NE O 8 15 2 2 0 0 0 27 ENE O 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 13 E 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 ESE 0 11 9 1 0 0 0 0 21 SE 0 9 13 1 0 0 0 0 23 SSE O 8 55 7 0 0 0 0 70 S 0 10 43 33 3 0 0 0 89 60 () SSW 0 9 22 22 7 0 0 0 SW 0 9 16 10 3 1 0 0 39 WSW 0 9 14 11 3 ? 0 0 39 W 0 7 15 19 6 0 O 0 47 I WNW 0 5 24 24 12 2 1 0 68 NW 0 7 27 19 20 3 0 0 76 NNW 0 6 39 11 4 0 0 0 60 N 0 13 29 9 5 0 0 0 56 VAR 0 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 19 CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNKNO O O O O O O O O O TOTAL 0 144 350 175 66 8 1 0 744 l l l l l 0
VVNP 1/4 ER/CL O TABLE 2.35L FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED DURING 9/80 AT WPPSS N T FOR 10 NETER LEVEL , SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALN 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE O 8 13 2 0 0 0 0 23 NE O 13 13 2 0 0 0 0 28 ENE O 4 10 4 0 0 0 0 18 E O 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 11 ESE O 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 12 SE O 6 25 3 1 0 0 0 35 SSE O 11 43 4 1 0 0 0 59 S 0 14 41 21 12 0 0 0 88 SSW 0 12 38 25 24 0 0 0 99 SW 0 5 12 10 8 4 0 0 39 USW 0 9 10 10 5 1 0 0 35 W 0 5 15 5 4 0 0 0 29 WNW 1 5 18 17 3 0 0 0 44 NW 0 10 34 22 11 5 0 0 82 NNW 0 9 19 11 5 0 0 0 44 N 0 17 27 8 6 0 0 0 56 VAR 0 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 13 CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNNNO O O O O O O O 3 3 TOTAL 1 147 334 145 80 10 0 3 720 l O
Y VVNP-1/4 ER/OL O TABLE 2.3-5h4 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 10/79 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 1 121 182 39 11 8 1 1 364 NE 1 84 149 27 10 0 0 C 271 ENE O 65 72 11 1 0 0 0 149 E O 51 50 9 0 0 0 0 110 ESE 1 83 100 4 0 0 0 0 188 SE 1 112 249 40 5 1 0 0 408 SSE 0 122 447 164 37 4 0 2 776 S 0 124 355 234 97 15 2 1 828 SSW 0 116 240 189 124 35 24 2 730 O SW WSW 2 2 109 99 172 162 84 83 37 36 19 27 4 4 3 0 430 413 W 3 124 163 73 44 9 2 3 421 WNW 3 139 324 257 103 33 4 1 864 NW 0 201 498 304 112 19 2 3 1139 NNW 1 183 366 130 54 4 0 3 741 N 0 173 258 82 37 9 0 1 560 VAR 0 110 70 2 0 0 0 0 182 CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNKNO O O 1 0 0 0 0 209 210 TOTAL 15 2016 3858 1732 708 183 43 227 8784 O
O O O TABLE 2.3-6A SEASONAL PERCENT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND WIND DIRECTION AT HMS VS. ATMOSPIIERIC STABILITY USING TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 3 AND 200 FOOT LEVELS AND WINDS'AT 200 FEET FOR THE PERIOD 1955-1970 (Windspeeds are in MPH in the left column.) l i SEASCN _.Ef. RING . NNE NE. ENE E ,ESE SE $$E ,s _ .s sW, .. SW .WSW ,,.,,,NW W W , , .NW NNW. , .N , V A R , C Al.t' . T G T Al.
-e-3 J3_gt15 e 13 0 n9 es o.bi '6'.iri,.r Y_g1.4 1
0,21 0 233 e isdieF6 0N3 e.14.'s.21 02 3s e 27 e.31 27 e.22 ny e n,23 3 !' e.16 e.fre.26 i 4Tod e.15 (3oe e.o? e.fritoTi Ied3.F4 e.12 c.orn.63 ' il55sk-- 1 .h. is 15 n 15 o.10.e,2e u o.51 e.7o e.39 o.12.e.14 e.46 c.29o,2e c.31 o.19 0.12 s.of.e.of c.2eeo.14os.e.07 s.14s,93.e e.11 12.e..qe_e e.14 s.17 s.Se 13.p.34.e.22
- e. e.6to,56' 4 n..g7 .e1 2,5a $.
l i ' 4"- Y" ~ vs o ; is i .13 a . i 2 o .15 o . t a o ; 3 o o; 2 e o . 24 ' n ; 2 6' i . 35"e'.$ 2 's';9 s ~i; 99' s!9'2" W,53 "o 34 T. ol' 4'. "" 4 ;26' l - Ns o.oS e.12 0.to e 16 c.18 c.33 ot16 o 18 o.15 0.19 a.27 e.44 0 37 0.37 e2 23 e.22 og et n. 3.57
- h-~ i . o o a .1 s o . nTo.3.is n.irT;25 5.ide. re-~47' stir 6.fe e.IT i,iis o.zt o.re o.is n.sz n. z,ir j ... U...1.,0 0.1 .09 3. o . 6 9 .p . (1. s.,5.2 .o ,71. o .4 s 4 . p .,6 q . o . 5 6, q ,6 5., g . 3 89 0 .4.e. e ,5 8,,} 2.8. , t .19,1,2 ? ,n . 2 3 .a . _ _12,15, m 5 e -12 vs citi s.15 e.t4 o.to a.ca o.13 o.22 c.14 a.14 0.24 a;41 1 29 2.o6 1.54 o
~ """'"Ms"o.11 o ;10 6.0 4 '0 ; e 6' 0 ;o?' 0;~2a"o.21 'o ;18 5;28"6;'37' ti$t"1;i'3'Y;'45"S.96 ' t'51 a.22 c.25'B;i4"a;" si ~~ 4'Y$'
- n. 7 47- ?z' S-a i
k- ot F F;44 u "6.$o7 e.o* o.n5a.19 o ca se o.1o of e 0.25 e5 0.I2772C6.23
- s. h4 t
o.06 T.~5Fi! 14 e' c.09 e. do e.is 72 e.18 c.43 e.316.77 1 a.39 52-o. se e.as e*5T I;55 n. a.se n. n. 1,9a s.on
)
I 13-1a' ~ vs "o'; 6'6 e.c'4' o.n4 '6?6F o ;c~s"o; o$ 'o;~ir676i' W;ht"i.o7~i;34"s';$V"1';26"i'.3C6','it~e ,iY"a;'""n;"" W;i'4 i Hg .o ,0 9 e , o ? o ,02 a.e3 0,02 0,09 c.16 go 12 o ,26 s ,58 1;12 1,75 3,43 1.89 e 14 0',12 o,"" n '"" 9'55. 8e { ' ' " "N o.o9'O.02'6.et'6.6i o di'o.o5"6.05't.68"6.id'O.2a"6'.29 6.2 Fe.39's.~3C o 04 o.04"o. A. 1. u 0141_nA Lg3 a t jt, g 2..G. 11_010 3._1. c a n . i t o.37 a.e4 1.03 g,41 n.sa L 1; e.12 s.22 c. a. 5 4.3. 19-24 vs e, 0.00 0.o0 e.01 c. o.01 a.02 og - e.01 e.e4 o,02 o 06 c.20 0 e n. e.sn
- ns'o,os a;o2 6.01'6,oi o;oo'o;o4's,66"o.gi o,o 7 o ;i4 a . ii '6~. 72" o . W5' 3,. 9 F i!3'6 o ,01 ~
63 ec.o, i"o,.'""n . "" 5 ;'5 2' N o s. o.01 o 02 o.o7 o.ie o.'19 a.2e e,os o ~ .o1 o.o1 o n. 1,41
s;" 'o,oril6'4"e:ta' e;43 M72'Tiii"o',so e.35 o.5'2"d'.'75"6!62 's ;6 4"o ,.""'i;"
"""u" o.i2 , o 2a.s6 e . o'sici"6.si~o;"
2c.ato. -
"'3.'46' I T KR 24 vs o. o. on o. o. o. o. a. o. o.co e.o1 c. e.no s. 8 o. a. a. o.oi-j .. Hs 0.01.e,e1 o n. o, n. o.. .o,ot.e,os.o.19.e,24 45 e;26 .n, .._2;62 N o.o1 e.no Geos o.co c. o.o1 0.01 0.o7 e. 0.14 e.e6.e.,75..e,s4.s;...
e.o3 e.24 c.26 6.. e.st_n;.
~
1 o. c. O, n. 1. e 1.
- .. .....U o . 0 2. 0. 9 3_ o H 2 e , . 0. . . 0 .... .Q ... ..e ,0 2 .9.i17.. o e 4 e ; 59..e .13. e 34. A J 4. 4.A1..t ti . .n . ....n . .. . . 2. 7A.
) .10.T.A_Lt .ys _Di 47 Mso.42!.,46_e.,19_q,4d4 47 72
'35 !!W!,76 !254_tdO_titei.i65_12h2 5 nt
.42 a.25 0.3 69 .47 1.15 2.1T .62 34de 9 4i. eFS 47_e.asaNra.b3._2$113 e.62 e 2 .61 i .....N..o,35,.g.38 a.24,,g,33 c.39.0,61..o 37. s pg 4 o . o ,_48. 0,91.0. 95.e ,7% .t ,.4a. t.7.2.,e 48 e ,45,.e 1? , s o7 1e ,,59, U 2.62 2.46 1 35 1.23 e.93 1 32 0.90 1.23 2.07 3.89 3.52 1 74 3.25 5.58 2.25 2.76 0,.74 e.01 37.83
) , i j 4
l TAB' E 2.3 6B (sheet 2 of 5) l gracau SuMffiA_.
.... .... .. . . . . . NN E . .. NE . . .E N E. . E.... ESE SE .SSE .S .SSW SW .WSW W WNW .NW. NNW . N VAR CAU' TOTAL a.s v.: n.na n.n7 n.na n.na n.na e.10 0.R5 b 11_0:ns a.it. a.13 a.ts n.16_A 16 n,nt_L 12._D 16..L if 1.68.
MS 0.05 0 04 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.04 1.07 0.06 4.05 1,16
...........N. 0.10 0.10.0 09.0 12.0.10.0 15 0.07 0.06.0.07 0 06 0 00.0.07 0.07 0.11 0.10 0.15 0.10 n.05 1.64 0 0.42 0.65 0.78 0.37 0.36 0.37 0.18 0.31 0.16 0.32 0.21 0.24 0.18 0.35 0.37 0.57 0.93 n.02 6;2A
' ~
"4 =~" 'VS 0.14 0.13'O.10"0.13 0.12 0.21 0.14 0.11 0.1'3O.18 0.35 0.78 0.81 0.51 0.38 C.21 0.01 n. 4.4%
! lis._c a8 0. 0 8_tda n . i n s .16. 0 19,.g. 07_ hit _LQ2_0.17.. 0.22.0. 4 0_b 27. 0.22. 0.13 0. n3 0. 01. n . 2.3a
! N t 09 0 07 0.n8 0.08 0.16 0.21 0.08 0 09 0.07 0 10 0 09 0.17 0.16 0.22 0.15 0.12 0.03 n. 1.9n
.0 .1.58 1.55 0,88.1.08.0.89 1 16 0.76 0,98 0.92 1.11 0 84 0.88 0.85 1 66 1.47 1.79 0.87 n. 19.27
- 8. .?l2. . .VS 0.14 0.16 0 09 0.09 0.11 0.08.0.16 0 09 0.06 0 13 0 49 1.1s 2.04 1.28 0.44 0.18 c. n. 6.71 NS 0.09 0 10 0.03 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.10 0 05 0.06 0 19 0;48 1.25 1.49 0.63 0.13 0.12 n. n. 5.04 N. hn.5_R. 03_.Adi_S 14_A 0 5._ a 0 6 0. 0 4 0 . 2 2. 0. 0 4_.a .A 0._0 .15_A .18_0 .10 Q.29_D Q5 0 . 0 3 _E . . O . . .. 1. 4 6 m : ;g U 0.78 0.54 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.23 0.15 0.22 0.53 1.21 1.06 0.62 0.99 1.95 0.66 0.66 0.01 n. 10.17 g
?1 O .'.
13-18 VS 0.04 0.04 0.n2 0.03 0. 0.02 0.08 0 01 0.01 0.02 0 11 0 30 1.36 1.44 0.15 0.03 0 a. 3.65
- ..Ns 0.06 0.05 0 ::4 0.04.0.01 0.03.0.05 0.03 0.07 0 18.0.62.1.47.4.79 2.03 0.13 0.05 O. 8. 9.64 P) i h 0.02 0 02 0 n1 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.29 0.24 0.44 0.36 0.02 0.02 c. n. 1.64 i
n D . 2 4_0216_b.O.6_t 0.4_.t 0.2_.0.J1 1.15_.0...O s_0 . i 8 . 0 . 81._1.0 4._b.3.7 b.91_1 6.9. _0 1.0__0 13 0. n ._ _ .4 0 2.
.19-24...VS O' . 0.01.0.00 0.. .0. O. . O .. . .O.. C....0....0 01.0...0.03.0.22.0.00 0....P.. 4 .0.27 MS 0,02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.18 0.29 2.77 2.70 0.02 0.31 0 n. 6.1*
.N O.01 0 03.0s01.0.01.0... 0... 0s....0.... 0.02.0.07.0 16.0 0.7.0.51.0 58.0.01 0.00.n. .n.
I ....... . 1.47
- U 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.01 C. O. 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.27 0.45 0.15 0.48 1.27 0.02 0.01 n. n. 2.8*
l OVER 24 VS 0 0.00 6 O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O d. 0.00 8. 0 0. n, n. 0.01
.. . .. ..... .. . .N 1. 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 01. .e s . . . . 0 .. .. 0.. . .0.0Q.0.00.0.00.0.01.0.03.0,.03.0,02.1.02.1 63.0 00. O. O. 8 . 2.77 h 0.30 0.01 6. O. O. O. 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.02 e,49 0.79 0,00 c. c. 1, 1.44 i .............D..0, 0.03.0.01.0.....01...0... 0... 0... 0.03.0.15.0424.0.07.0.26.1.02.0.01.O. O. n. 1.8n TOTAt s vs o'.40 0.40 e.27 a.31 a.29_D 40_.t.42 0.29.0 25._.3144 1. o9 2. 45 4. 39 3 61 1.06 0 a53_Q Q6..fl.it_14t.2.I NS 0.30 0.31 0 19 0.27 0.37 0 46 0.27 0 27 0.27 0.70 1;58 3.5410.44 7.33 0.46 0.30 0.07 n.05 27.1*
- ..............B.. 0.29.0.25..Os23.0.25.b 32.D.44.0.23.0.21.R.23.0.43.0.85.0.76.1.96 2.35. 0.33 0.31 0.12 0.05. 9.62 U 3.08 3.00 1 45 1.67 1.45 1.81 1.15 1.57 1.88 3.94 3.83 2.32 3.73 7.93 2.63 3.17 1.81 A.02 46.42 4
- 9 9 9
l l O O O t i I { TABLE 2.3-6C (sheet 3 of 5) r
,$EASOM n TALL.
.. NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW. SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N VAR. Call' TOTAL o - 1_...VS.O.31.0.31 Os25 0.32.0.43 0 60.0,34 0.35 0.32 0.31 0.31.0.55 0.54 0.66 0.63 0.52 0.30 0.87 7;91 MS 0.20 0.21 0 19 0.27 0.38 6 54 0.23 0.20 0.12 0.12 0 18 0 17 0.23 0.37 0.29 0.39 n.15 n.60 4.84 i N 0.37 0.43 0 30 0.41 0.40 0.51 0.21 0.16 0.15 0.11 0.08 0.13 0.16 0.35 0 46 0.37 0.16 a.39 5.24
- U 0.71 0.97 0.57 0.63 0.48 0.31 0.14 0.11 0.06 0.13 0 09 0 11 0.15 0.31 0 53 0.70 n.36 A.08 6.42 4-7 VS 0.28 0.23 0 17 0.18 0.28 0.50 0.47 0.43 0.38 0.49 0 67 1.20 1.53 1.48 0.92 0.49 n.02 n. 9.73 3
_.-. .MS 0.19 0.12 0 16 0.15 0.27 0.44 0.29 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.19 0.33 0.51 0.70 0.47 0.32 n.01 0 4.71 4 N 0,13 0.13 0.n6 0.12 0.25 0.31 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.21 0.54 0.36 0.15 0.01 n. 2.85 l e U 0.88 0.74 0.46 0.48 0.60 0.52 0.23 0.18 0.25 0.24 0.21 0.17 0.36 0.94 1.23 1.22 n.08 n. 8.81 l 8 -12 VS 0.17 0.08 0.n6 0.06 0.04 0 17 0.31 0 11 0.13 0 32 0 68 1 50 2,49 2.37 0.77 0.27 n. n. 9.55 i MS 0.10 0.05 0 03 0.03 0.10 0.23 0.27 0.16 0.22 0.43 0 48 0.76 1.26 1.45 0.41 0 13 n, n. 6.in ! N 0.05 0.05 0.n5 0 nl 0.03 17 0.06 n. n. 1.85 g : l U 0.45 0.26 0 030.03 0.050.09 0 11 0.06 0.04 0.07 0 08 0.05 0.17 0.07 0 28 0;15 0 35 0.11 0.20 0.23 0.32 0.60 1.11 00.56 0.44 4.00 n. 4.5n mz ! 33 13 . 13-18 VS 0.06 0 03 0.n1 0.02 0.00 0 05 0.10 0.03 0.02 0 08 0 25 0 43 1.54 1.93 0.21 0.04 n. n. 4.7e o 2. MS 0.09 0.05 0 00 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.31 0.63 0.87 0.97 2.18 1.85 0,17 0.12 n, c. 7.7a FN . N 0.04 0.02 0.no 0.00 c. 0.04 0,04 0.07 0.09 0.14 0.21 0.11 0.26 0.37 0.09 0.05 n. 4 1.55 j .... _U 0.25.0.32 0 01 0. O. 0 03 0.03 0.03 0.10.0.34 0.45 0 14 0.42 0 63 0.09 0.13.0. n. 2.7a , I 19-24 VS 0 0.00 0.nD 0. O. O. O,01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.09 0 19 0 0.00 n, n. O.3n { PS 0.05 0 03 0.n3 0. 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.18 0.27 0.57 0 54 0 24 0.99 1.04 0.03 0.n2 n. a. 4.04 l h 0.00 0.01 0.41 0 O. 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.19 0.20 0.02 0,13 0.23 0.01 0.02 n. n. 1.0a i U 0.04 0 03 0.n1 0. O. O. 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.32 0.34 0.08 0.23 0.37 0.01 0 02 n. n. 1,55 j _ . _ . . _ . . .OVER 24 VS O
- 0. 8 O. O. O. O. . . . . .0.01 0.01 0. 0.00 0, 8 O. O. O. n. n. 0.02 NS 0. 0.01 De D. O. O. 0.02 0.08 0.30 0.43 0 21 0 07 0.31 0.40 0,01 0. De n .. 1.84
- N 0.01 0.01 0.00 0 O. O. 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.03 0.07 0.13 0.00 0.00 n, n. 0.66 l . U 0.01 0.05 Ceni 0. G. 0. O. 0.01 0.09 0.39 0.24 0.07 a.09 0.21 0.01 0. D. 4 1.16 ,
- i
. TOTALS..VS 0.83 0.66 0 49 0.58 0.76.1.32.1.22 0.94 0.07 1.21 1.95 3.70 6.18 6.63 2.52 1.32 0.32 n.87.32.3a l HS 0.63 0.46 0.40 0.46 0.76 1 32 1.02 0.98 1.40 2.38 2.48 2.53 5.49 5.82 1.37 0.97 4.16 n.60 29.24 k O.60 0.64 n.47 0.56 0.68 0.96 0.49 0.46 0.56 0.78 0.n2 0.54 1.08 2.23 1 l U 2.342.171101.141.130.970.450.420.751.711,690.771.573.562l090.650.16n,3913.16 43 2,50 n.44 n.Os 25,23 I
a l ,
TABLE 2.3-6D (sheet 4 of 5) SEASON- WINTER
.. ..... ..... ... .. . . N N E ,_ N E , _ E l(E. ,, E _ E S E _ , .S E SSE_S._.j5$W,_ .RW_WlW_ W._ W,N W_,MW_ NJg._,N ,, V Ai!),,C,A}M_ T.o y A,L,,
e3 VS o.29_o.35 c.73 c.30 a.36 c.58 c.39 o.37 o.27 o.3o a;31 c.48 c.41 a.61_ol o o.54 0.35 n.73 7;36 NS o.38 c.36 c.34 c.42 o.69 c.82 o.48 c.39 c.24 o.24 c.20 c.4a o.46 c.66 o,6 G .59 o.23 1.3o 8 83 66_o,74 55 21.0,3.9 s O 56
.............. .D.u.. o 6s 2, o ,6 4_c e 51. ,0 go.3o a.2$ c oo.2o
? o .o.15 c.oS o.d4 o.12_Q,.11,ot o3,0.g 3 4..o a.o3' o.o1
; 23.,g,22,g t 0 06.o.45.,0f75 0.oS o.14 o a.89..o,9t_e a o.23 6.olt4..t.42,)2 s
n.66 on, i
.... ..... .,.... 9. . 3..,.. g . g . .g . .g ,..g. 6'. 21' b" M - A' 6','8" b . 3 d ' o-' M ' ~i' 'H~ ~6'.~u~' ~o'3 3 ' ~@' ~i'd o~ ~@ "6 5 3 ~ ~d '.'n"6 .' '""C~H '
HS o.33._o.29 a.22 o,21 0.26 c.47 o.31 0.23 0.2o c.27 c.27 c.53 c.84 1.42 1go8 o.65 3 o3 1 n. 7.62 N o.2o a.21 0 18 c.16 c.23 c.28 c.23 0 09 o.o? o.14 c.16 c.23 0,53 1 23 o 0,00 n. 4,93
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V. . . o. i31. o. ,2 5..g 316. .g,12. o., .10. o , o ?. g,A1.919 3. o., o.5..o ,A2. 9,9 2...o g.op., o. .12 .o 61.p.' 6 6 0. 3 4,5 5..
. . 8....12.....V S . .o go 9. .a o S..o o 3. .c . 0 3 0. 0 5. .o 13. 0,.15. . c. 12. 0.13.'.0 2 9..c . 5 9. . c . 9 5 1,41 1. 7 9 . o ,7 o 0. , .15. .o ' .
. . . .. . . .. . .o .. .. ... 6 ' .6 7. .
N o 07 0.06 o.n3 0.01 0.03 0.o9 o 06
$ iT638T.~5 F5~51 0. 5F oD 2 Ohl-do 03 c 52 . 05COM c . 0770CB o 08 c . t o a 86 1. 87 o 28 o 09 c .FE57'II25 l~5T5h9
- n. 3,7A 0;TT o.
j u o n. 2.4n-Y3"it ""s5 6;ofo ;V3"6s""6To o"Y;"~o;14"67dO7bf V!FM;Y9"673f"o'. 51"o",89"i'.'4i"oiif"o ici' 0 ;"~d;"""3 8i-
~ ~
............ N S. . p 15. 0, 0 5 se 01. 0. o 1. 0,0 5 . 0,0 8..o ,16 .o (2 6..o . 3 6..Q ,7 8..o ,8 8 .0,7 6.1 7 3. 3.16 .o 29 . o ,12. 0,.....n ,..... 8 8 5 mh
- n .g g .
U o.13 0.03 o.o0 0.00 o. o. o.oo 0.01 0.08 o.to o.2e o.11 e 26 c.44 o 06 o.08 c. n. 1 51 rs s
...1.9. .2 4. . ...V s . o . 0, . ..o . ....o . .. o. .. ....g s.01..g . g R.9, g t o . o i..q, o 7..g o s.. o , p s..o , o 8..g . i t.oj o g 4,._.o j..._e .....g .4 5 Ns o,o4 0.03 c.. o. o.o1 0.03 o.1o c.18 o.36 a.96 0.56 c.35 c.44 0.7o o n... 3 85
...............N ,9:0 3 0. 01..o p . ,,0 0 0.. o , o1, .o . 0 9. .o1 o,06 ~o 70 c.1.o 0.14
, .1,3.,g .12.. o.t o 3, c ,0o,,,_n......o 7..on. .18..o o 67 , o s o . 0 3 o 01 o . 3 ..o. 4 s
.g.co. 4 ,0 0~6.01 0 0.c4 u o.03 0;o4 0.nl o. o. . c.03 o.o6 0.14 .
I o, o.co 0.01 a.o1 0.o4 a.e4 0.o1 o.01 c.
~
OVER 24 VS o. os o. o. o. o 0. 0, n. o;12
..... .. .. MS o.02 0.00 o, o .. . _ . o . .o.02.o.06 0.2t o.69.o.99.0,.41 0 11 o.12.0.13 o 01 0 02 o.os o, c.... 4...... 2i7.a.
4 ' N o.03 0.02 on o. o. c. 0.01 0.03 0.14 0.23 0.o5 0.02 c.o1 0 02 c. n. 0.61
. .... . .. . . .. ... u . o . 0 4 0 . g o . o , . . . ..o , . .o , e,. o, . o.ot.g.ot o.20.0;16 o.02 p.01 0.04 o;o0 0.01.o;.....n.... .g ; p 7..
1QTALS._YS_L Z2_Da es_o_i4 3_n,u_h6Lh19. g491_ g a 9 2_O d1.h26_1,7 L2. 92. 3, 79..hg 3_g MS 1,o? a.81 0 59 a.70 1.12 1.73 1.30 1.39 2.1o 3.61 2.77 2.85 5.26 9.17 2 30_1:25_.o.41 ,77 1.59 c.26 n.73 1.30 26,12. do 30
...............h..is o 2.0,96..op72.0.83.1,01.1,30 0,87. 0.52 o,66 0,93 0 77 0 85 2,60 5.26 1 93.1,49 0,14.1.42.23 20 8 a
- u o.95 c.46 o 41 0.29 0.23 0.18 0.08 0.13 0.36 0.53 0.64 c.34 c.80 2'46 1.13 0.91 0.06 a.06 to 26 .
O O O
1 TABLE 2.3-6E (sheet 5 of 5) ANPJUAL N k E . . . N E. . , Eh E, . . ,E . ' E S E . , S E, S S E,,,,','S, _ S S W__ SW,,, S W W,,_ W,,,_ NW_,, W NW _ N_h W_,,,N_,,, V AR ., C ALM , T,0 T,A L._ 0-3 VS 0.21 0 21 0 15 0.20 0 26 0.38 0.23 0 23 0 20 0.23 0.22 0.40 0 34 0 43 0 37 0.35 0.21 0.48 5.11 H5 0 TIT 0 15 0.16 07I"5 3rF47 B.zo 0.is 0 1z o.1z 0.is o.zl o.zz o.st o.zr o.zw o.14 c.no *.12
, N 0.30 0.J4 0.27 0.33 0.36 0.44 0 22 0.15 0 13 0.11 0 10 0.18 0 18 0.33 0.41 0.41 0 13 0.48 4.87
...g.. 0.49 '0.64" 0'.36 ' 0 ;4 0 0 :31"0.2T 0?i2 0;1T 0710"0'.'16 'D';10"0;14"0"iC0';2T 5;37 T.54"0746 0 04 "510**
j 4 r y~"qs"g ;21 T.~18"6714 0'.17 ' 0 ;20"0;33 T.25 F.286;74"0 35"0 ;5 F0 ;96"1708"l'io'0 V;69"0i39"070T' O'.""" 7702" i' HS 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.22 0.36 0.21 0.17 0.15 0.21 0.24 0.42 0.50 0.6s 0.47 0.31 0.02 0. 4.56 N E IN T U.10 U .1M It 0 2N 4 0770WP Utis u . i A sno 4.z7 6.55 s.45 v.iG- 6.6; -6. z.ie
. . . . . . . . . . . .U. . . 0. 9 4 0. 90.. 0. 55.0. 58.0 53..0. 62.. 0. 3.7.0.45..0. 45.. 0. 51. 0. 3.7..0. 38.0. 48. 1 1.3. 1 11 1 38. 0. 3.0.6 .. ...10. 8 4.....
VS 0.13 7.65 0.08 0 11 0.08 8 -12 0.20 0. O.
""""""Ns ' 0;11 'O.03 '0 07 0 07 0.13 0.21 0.11 0 12 0,24 0.59 1 23 2 00 1.74 0 600;06- 0.10 0.21 0 J19 0;13 v;20"0.34 0;50~ 0;96'1;47 1;53 0.
N 0.06 0 04 0.03 0.03 0 04 0.09 0.07 0.04 0 06 0.09 0.14 0 14 0.42 0.78 0 15 C.06 0. O. - 2.26 j u- 0745133 d.12 0;0r0 Ur0!i3 T.11 0.14~T 34 Vi59 0750 0.ss B a9 1.TTT;52 074r'0 co c. a.si-i Y371 F""V5 ' g' ."05 "g .~03"6792" 0'. 0f '0T0'0"0 ;'Q 4"g .T0" Fi b3 "6 :0'3 "0 ~ 0 9"072 r fi 43 "1'; 25"f .3 T0 li7 ~0'; b5 "6 ;-""0 '."""'4; 13" @Z HS u.10 U.05 0.v2 0.02 0.o2 0.v7 v.13 0.15 0.25 0 54 0.87 1.24 3.04 2.23 0.te 0.10 0 , O. 9.03 .?
-""" "Y 'O.05 0 01 0 01' O.01 0:00"0;03"0704 0;o5 0:57' 0;14"0.24 Oi16~0:44 0 ;58 '0 ; 0e 0.c4"O r 0." -" 1;94~ Q;*
l u 0.26 0.13 0.03_0.01 0 01 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.18 0.54 0.68 0.26 0 64 0.98 0.09 0.14 0. O. 4.07 a ! * *4-4!-8:04-8:818:8f8:888:00-8:818:-8!-8:-i1-8:11- 8i818:-88-8:81-f 884:-l! 8:8.L8:i1-8-:----8:---4:h'-
....Ng 0.0.02 O. 1 17
; 06 ' O0 .02 0 00 01' 0.00 O . 0 00' 00 U ;""0.01 0 ; 00 0101"O0.03iO0.08 0.15 0.1741"0 Ei12 05 0' 0;32 25 0.34 0 4610.01D iO10.02 D i O c.
1 ...... 05"0'. 0"0'. 2 U;11 0;J4"0'. 3 0 ;""'O .""" 2713" I DVER 24 VS 0. 0.0'O 0. 64 0. 0.15 0.02 0.01 0.00 0 0.08 00 0 0.3001 0 0 01 47 0.00 0.22 n0 00 8 o. c. O. O. 0.g4 06 0.g)5 0.5 0.76 0.00 0.01 0. i 4 HS 0.01 0.01 0. O. O. . 6. 2.5n
- .............g 0 ; 01 0 ; 01"O . 0 0~ 0. 0 0 07"- ' 0 ;' -"0i O 1"0 iO 2 ' fi O 8 W il7"0;~ 0 9 0103 0 21"0 4 7 OV0 0 ' O . 01 1I;""'0'. "" 11;9 3"
.............U. 0.02 0.03 0.01
.. ...... 0.... O. O. ........1
. O..... ..... 0.0 0 09 0. 40 0. 31 0.08.0 17 8.46 0.01 0.00 0.
- 6. 1.57 TOTALS VS 0.60 0 54 0 39 0 47 0 53 0.88 0 83 0 67 0 61 9 95 1.61 3.05 4.73 4 89 1 83 1.Og 0 23 0.48 24.29
- MS 170 5 U;50 0736"T.-45 O r87 t.08 3782 gr83-1-22 s.21 2.46-3T23-tv-33-h96"1T34 g;8 r i--r4 0.93-3175P-i ............N0~ 2.25 0.56 0.55 0 42 0.49 0.60 0.82 0.49 0.40 0.48 0.76 0.85 0.72 1.78 2.88 0.95 0.72 0.15 c.48 14.11 2;08'1 08'i.09 0 94 1.07 0.65'0.84 1.27 2'53 2.43 1.30 2;35 4.90 2 11 2.34 0.77 0 04 30.03' i
e i
O O O TABLE 2.3-7 CLIMATOLOGICAL REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE YEAR USED IN THE DIFFUSION COMPUTATIONS (These data are based on climatological observations at the Hanford Meteorology Station located 14 miles northwest of the site) l 3' Average Air l Month Insolation 50' Wird Speed Temperattfre Precipitation Relative Htunidity 1M LT(23) IM LT(31) IM LT(59) IM LT(59) IM LT(30) 4-74 4401y 4751y 10.3 MPH 9.1 MPH 52.9 *F 53.2 *F 0.46" 0.40" 50.4% 46.5% 5-74 590 576 9.0 8.9 57.9 61.8 0.28 0.45 43.5 42.3 I 6-74 685 628 9.0 9.2 72.6 69.4 0.12 0.57 30.4 39.5 7-74 639 659 8.1 8.6 74.5 76.4 0.71 0.14 32.0 31.8 8-74 578 558 7.5 8.0 75.5 74.2 T 0.19 33.0 34.8 9-74 456 423 7.3 7.5 68.0 65.2 0.01 0.30 33.0 40.6 10-74 287 262 5.6 6.7 52.5 53.1 0.21 0.58 46.0 57.0 m 11-74 107 132 5.5 6.2 41.6 40.0 0.71 0. E'S 74.7 73.5 Y? 12-74 90 92 5.9 6.0 36.2 32.6 0.97 0.86 78.7 80.1 ( ! 1-75 113 120 6.4 6.6 32.5 29.4 1.43 0.93 79.0 75.2 2-75 208 202 7. 5 7.1 33.7 36.2 0.98 0.62 74.0 70.0 3-75 348 340 8.9 8.4 42.5 45.2 0.33 0.36 56.0 55.8 AVERAGE 378 372 7.6 7.7 53.4 53.1 6.21 6.25 52.6 53.9 l 1(EY: LT(N) - long term for N years for entry
- IM - single month as listed at left T - Trace
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-8 COMPARISON OF ONSITE AND LONG-TERM O!FFUSION ELEENTS (Annual Percent and f requency of occurrence) Hanford Regulatory Guide 1.23 WNP-1/4 Onsite Data (a) Stability Hanford Meteorology (b) Stability Classification 2 Years Class Station (15 Years) Extremely Stable 13.14 Very Stable 24.29 Moderately Stable 15.82 Moderately Stable 31.58 Slightly Stable 26.08 Neutral 14.21 Neutral 26.07 Unstable 30.01 Slightly Unstable 9.13 federately Unstable 3.96 Extremely Unstable 3.50 Wind Direction 33' 50' NNE 4.60 3.6 NE 3.24 3.4 ENE 2.70 2.1 E 2.01 2.4 ESE 2.35 2.6 SE 4.24 3.7 SSE 8.10 2.8 5 10.25 3.2 SSW 9.69 4.1 SW 6.60 7.2 WSW 5.06 8.5 W 5.27 9.8 WW 8.93 16.0 W 11.02 16.6 NW 7.89 4.9 N 5.89 4.5 Var 2.13 2.4 Calm 0.01 2.2 Wind Speed (mph) Calm 0.01 2.20 1-3 32.44 25.43 4-7 39.40 33.30 8-12 23.16 23.89 13-18 10.29 11.58 19-24 3.42 4.45 25-up 1.30 1.36 (a)4/74 to 3/75 winds at 33 ft, stability based on change in air temperature between 33 and 245 ft. Values normalized to 100% data. (b)1955-1970 winds at 50 ft, stability based on change in air temperature between 3 and 200 ft. O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-9 (J') MONTHLY MEANS OF DAILY MIXING HEIGHT AND AVERAGE WIND SPEED (a) Average Daily Minimum Average Daily Maximum (Morning) (Afternoon) Meters Meters /sec Meters Meters /sec January 302 4.8 295 4.6 February 341 4.8 658 5.3 March 388 5.6 1331 5.6 April 350 5.4 1966 6.7 May 288 4.7 2243 5.9 June 263 4.3 2440 5.7 July 208 3.9 2703 5.2 August 235 4.1 2439 4.8 September 189 3.6 1922 4.9 g) ( October 192 3.8 1076 5.2 November 300 4.3 505 4.6 December 367 4.5 316 4.6 (a) Spokane, WA, Radisonde Data, Period of Record 1/60 - 12/64. l
WNP-1/4 ER OL TABLE 2.3-10 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY AVERAGE AND EXTREMES OF HOURLY AVERAGE AIR TEMPERATURES WNP-1/4(a) HMS(3') Two Years of Data Long Term sumary(b) Average Max Min Average Max Min Jan 32.5 59.1 14.0 29.4 66 Feb 35.8 63.8 6.2 36.2 71 -23 Mar 41.4 67.7 8.3 45.2 83 26 Apr 50.4 76.7 17.7 53.2 95 12 May 58.7 89.3 30.2 61.8 103 28 Jun 69.9 103.5 37.5 69.4 110 33 Jul 76.9 111.6 44.9 76.4 115 41 Aug 72.8 103.8 43.3 74.2 113 40 O Sep 65.7 95.6 38.5 65.2 102 25 Oct 51.2 83.0 25.4 53.1 90 6 Nov 40.5 75.1 12.1 40.0 73 -1 Dec 35.3 62.8 10.1 32.6 68 -27 Annual 52.6 111.6 6.2 53.1 115 -27 (a)Two years of data at 7', 4/74 to 3/76. All values are hourly averages. (b) Surface air temperature observations at Hanford townsite and HMS for period 1912-1970. Maximums and minimums are observed values. O
WNP-1/4 ER/OL TABLE 2.3-11 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY AVERAGES OF WET BULB TEMPERATURES WNP-1/4 HMS Two Years (a) Long Term (b) Jan 30.3 27.9 Feb 31.9 33.6 Mar 35.2 37.3 Apr 42.3 42.8 May 47.7 49.1 Jun 54.3 54.5 Jul 59.5 42.3 Aug 56.9 42.8 Sep 52.3 52.6 Oct 44.5 45.4 Nov 37.4 36.4 Dec 33.2 31.2 Year 43.8 43.8 (a)Two years of WNP-1/4 data at 7', 4/74 to 3/76 (b)20 years of HMS data at 3', 1950-1970. O
TABLE 2.3-12 F riOU* 4C F OF OCCLTRTNC[e WEI BULR ICMPERATURE (DEG# ifs FD v5 TIME OF DAF FRO 1 */F5 IHMOUGH 3/F6 41 WNP.1#4 Fod 33.Fi LIvtL TINC OF DAT DEGRCES F . 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 tt 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2. ?! 22 23 24 Total 29 . . . ? : . ; 4 3 1 e 4 e ; 1 ? ! e i 1 20 15
- r
- f J 3 e * * '
0 ; s J 8 1 1 C . 6 J
- 15. * '
2 0 i C 2 : 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 ( i
- O 10 5 . ; 4 C . C C 1 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 3 9 5 * ?
C C *
- 0 1 1 3 0 0 3 3 C
- 3 0
. . ? 0 0 C 3 ; !
2 g L -
- C . G . 1 0 J , J G S r 1 ? 3 5 11 i
L 0 : ; C 1 ; O 0 : C & D 3 0 : C e J 1 m 1C 15 3 5 4 7 6 F 6 5 1 G 1 1 1 6 4 4 1 0 e 1 1 46 33 2E 15 2 7 1: 11 8 14 13 13 11 11 0 1 1 0 0
- O 2 4 5 8 9 2C 25 ?! .1 21 23 23 22 23 21 14 17 15 11 1
6 6 7 1 32 %sl3 5 4 7 8 12 11 14 IS 17 18 354 () .4 25 3* lt 39 41 44 45 42 38 34 31 11 24 2 'e 23 22 21 24 28 36 2s 32 32 34 34 31 781 r= Ns
!! 35 SF 54 SF SF 6* 61 56 48 48 35 29 2% 15 32 34 29 31 SJ 33 44 48 47 55 61 13FJ Ob 55 41 48 47 45 46 4. *2 39 44 39 49 91 54 53 49 48 46 49 50 6; 56 !! 35 49 46 1157
- 45 45 43 47 51 57 63 58 53 33 34 41 45 49 48 52 49 15 48 45 39 46 44 4t 43 46 1137 45 5: 13 56 54 56 52 53 55 41 43 46 44 42 31 38 42 34 39 42 3h 31 46 33 55 56 111%
5J 55 61 62 57 45 41 45 45 46 54 53 55 52 5! 5t 48 51 47 49 5: $; 51 49 59 56 1226 55 6; 21 15 13 14 :: 11 23 36 48 53 55 56 56 SC 53 52 46 45 47 52 49 48 31 28 917 6C 65 5 5 6 6 6 6 F 6 9 22 25 29 39 45 49 51 55 46 2e 2P 12 8 7 6 531 65 F) 4 3 2 2 4 5 6 7 6 7 7 8 9 8 9 5 6 2 5 2 6 6 6 1 56 FC Fa 1 1 1 i ( , i ; 2 3 4 6 7 7 8 8 9 8 7 6 1 2 1 1 34 75 8: . 1 . . s % 1 1 C 0 2 9 - 1 0 f C C 1 et ? ? t f C 3 C
- a
- 1 4 3 0 3 J . P 1 0 3 : .?
uhm t40 ; I 1 1 1 3 3 34 21 9 6 5 5 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 119 TOTAL Jt6 3e6 356 546 266 366 366 366 366 366 !E6 366 566 366 366 366 366 366 366 266 744 366 366 366 d it e
.O O O
w &l / TABLE 2.3-13 MONTHLY AVERAGES OF PSYCHROMETRIC DATA BASED ON PERIOD OF RECORD 1950-70 AvraAGEs
.la n Feb Mar Ag Mg Jun Jul Ag Sg Oct Nov Dec YE'AI Dry Bulb 30.3 37.5 44.0 52.5 61.4 69.9 77.5 75.3 67.0 53,2 40.1 33.4 53.5 Het Bulb 27.9 33.6 37.3 42.8 49.1 54.5 57.9 57.3 52.6 45.4 36.4 31.2 43.8 Re t , lium. 76.0 69.7 55.0 46.4 41.8 39.4 31.5 34.9 39.9 57.7 72.6 80.4 53.8 Dewpoint 23.2 27.4 27.3 30.4 36.0 41.2 42.3 42.4 39.5 36.9 31.1 27.5 33.8 I ! DRY BUIJ ; F10NTHLY AVERAGE EXTREMES Highest 43.0 44.0 48.7 56.2 68.7 15.5 82.8 82.5 72.0 59.1 45.8 38.8 56.3 Year 1953 1958 1963 1956 1958 1969 1960 1967 1967 5952 1954 1953 1958 lowest 12.9 25.8 39.6 48.3 57.2 64.2 73.2 70.6 61.6 50.3 32.3 26.5 51.0 Year 1950 1956 1955 1955 1962 1953 1963 1964 1970 1968 1955 1964 1955+
m k WET BULB 3 I MONTHLY AVEsrAGE EXTT' EMES Nf O" Highest 39.3 40.7 40.0 45.1 54.6 58.6 61.2 61.1 56.5 47.7 42.3 35.8 46.5 rN Year 1953 1950 1968 1962 1950 1958 1958 1961 1963 1962 1954 1966 1958 A lowest 12.4 23.4 32.9 39.3 45.4 51.4 55.6 54.9 48.3 42.4 29.6 25.0 41.8 Year 1950 1956 1955 1955 1959 1954 1954 1964 1970 1960 1955 1964 1955 l ! REL. HUM. MONTHLY AVERAGE TXTREMES Highest 89.0 87.0 66.0 64.0 *S2.0 54.0 40.0 44.0 55.0 74.0 80.0 90.0 58.0 Year 1960 1963 1950 1963 1962+ 1950 1955 1968 1959 1962 1956 1950 1950+ lowest 60.0 54.0 44.0 37.0 31.0 34.0 22.0 24.0 34.0 42.0 64.0 69.0 49.0 Year 1963 1967 1965 1966 1966 1960 1959- 1967 1952 1952 1963+ 1968 1967 l DDdPOINT MONTHLY AVERACE EXTREntES Highest 34.4 36.7 34.0 37.1 43.8 47.5 46.6 46.9 45.C 43 5 38.3 34.3 37.7 Year 1953 1958 1961 1953 1957 1958 1958 1961 1963 1962 1954 1950 1958 lowest 6.5 17.3 20.3 26.2 30.4 17.5 35.4 38.4 33.8 32.1 24.0 21.0 31.5 , Year 1950 1956 1965+ 1955 19(4 1954 1959 1955 1970 1970 1959 1951 1955 4 + Also in earlier years
- Although not included in these tables, an average of 634 was recorded in 194 3
) a
TABLE 2.3-14 MISCELLANEOUS SNOWFALL STATISTICS: 1946 THROUGH 1970 AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS WITil DEPTH AT 0400 PST Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Season Oct 5 10 5
- 21 l 1* or More 0 1 5 3 0 11 )
3" or More 0 1 2 3 1 0 5 6" or More 0 0 1 0 *
- O O 12" or More 0 RECORD GREATEST NUMBER OF DAYS WITH DEPTH AT 0400 PST 0 (1955) 11 (1964+) 17 (1969) 31 (1950) 17 (1951) 3 (1955-56) 54 I 1* or More 0 (1955) 10 (1955) 14 (1969) 23 (1950) 16 0 (1949-50) 33 l 1" or More (1964) 12 (1965) 23 (1969+) 8 0 (1949-50) 23 6" or More 0 3 &
12" or More 0 0 (1964) 4 (1969) 1 0 0 e (1964-65) 4 $2 s? j
- 7. g I PFCORD GREATEST DEPTil b (1946) 5.1 (1964) 12.1 (1969) 12.0 (1969) 10.0 (1957) 2.3 (Dec 1964) 12.1 ]
(1957) 0. 3 GREATEST IN 24 HOURS (1955) 4.8 (1965) 5.4 (1954) 7.1 (1959) 5.2 (1957+) 2.2 (Jan 1954) 7.1 (1957) 0.3 AVERAGE PERCENT OF WATER EQUIVALENT OF ALL PRECIPITATION 48 29 14 26 2 14 46 () Denotes year of occurrence Denotes also in earlier years
+
- Denotes less than 1/2 day 9 -
, O O
O O O TABLE 2.3-15 AVERAGE RETURN PERIOD (R) AND EXISTING BECORD (ER) FOR VARIOUS PRECIPITATION AMOUNTS AND INTENSITY DURING SPECIFIED TIME PERIODS AT HANFORD (BASED ON EXTREME VALUE ANALYSIS OF 1947-1969 RECORDS) AMOUNT (INCHES) INTENSITY (INCHES PER HOCR) TIME PERIOD TIME PERIOD R (Yea g 20 Min 60 Min 2 Hrs 3 Hrs 6 Hrs 12 Hrs 24 Hrs W Min 60 Min 2tus 3 Hrs 6 Hrs 12 Hrs 24 Hrs 2 0.16 0.26 0.30 0.36 0.48 0.62 0.72 0.49 0.26 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.052 0.030 5 0.24 0.40 0.48 0.55 0.77 0.95 1.06 0.72 0.40. 0.24 0.18 C.13 0.079 0.044 10 0.37 0.50 0.59 0.67 0.96 1.17 1.28 1.1 0.50 0.30 G.22 0.16 0.098 0.053 25 0.47 0.62 0.74 0.83 1.21 1.45 1.56 1.4 0.62 0.37 0.28 0.20 0.121 0.065 50 0.53 0.72 0.85 0.96 1.40 1,66 1.77 1.6 0.72 0.42 0.32 0.23 0.138 0.074 100 0.60 0.81 0.96 1.07 1.59 1.87 1.99 1.8 0.81 0.48 0.36 0.27 0. 56 C.083 250 0.68 0 93 1.11 1.22 1.82 2.13 2.26 2.0 0.93 0.55 0.41 0.30 0.177 0.094 500 0.73 1.02 1.22 1.33 2.00 2.34 2.47 2.2 1.02 0.61 0.44 0.33 0.195 0.103 $g2 1000 0.80 1.11 1.33 1.45 2.20 2.55 2.63 2.4 1.11 0.67 0.48 0.37 0.212 0.112 h-N b ER
- 0.59 0.88 1.08 1,68 1.88 1.91
- 0.59 0.44 0.36 0.28 0.157 0. 0 N 6/12 10/1 10/1 10/1-2 10/1-2 10/1-2 6/12 10/1 10/1 10/1-2 10/1-2 10/1-2 1 DATE -- 1969 1957 1957 1957 1957 1957 -- 1969 1957 1957 1957 1957 1957
- No records have been kept for time periods of less than 60 minutes. However, the rain gage chart for 6-12-69 shows that 0.55 inch occurred during a 20-minute period from 1835 to 1855 PST. An additional 0.04 inch occurred between
, 1855 and 1910 to account for the record 60-minute amount of 0.59 inch. t
/
l
WNPo1/4 ER/OL TABLE 2.3-16A WNP=1/4 ONSITE 40thT FREQUENCY DISTRIRUTION --- 0F WINO 3 FOR RAIN INIENSIT T CL ASSES, R AIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN 04 EQUAL TO .J16 INCNES PER HOUR SPEED CL ASS (PPH) CALM 1- 3 4- 7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNOWN TOTAL N 3 2 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 Nht r 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 5 4
- NE i 1 1 O O O 5 ChL 9 2 3 1 1 0 0 3 6 E C 2 4 1 3 0 0 0 7 ESE 7 2 1 1 0 C 0 10 4
- J SE 1 1 2 3 G 12 SSE- C 4 7 7 ! 1 0 0 24 5 3 2 3 19 1 0 0 0 16 SSW : 3 7 6 2 1 0 C 20 Sb C 1 3 3 1 1 0 3 9 WSW 3 1 5 2 3 1 0 0 9 b O 4 2 0 3 1 0 7 WNW ? 2 4 1J 1 1 C 0 17 Ab- 4 - 12 6 2 0 0 0 24 NNW J 2 1C 3 2 1 0 0 1R WAR :* 4 1 1 3 0 C 3 5 CALM 1 C 3 O C C 0 UN4N0kh : 3 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 TOTAL Q 43 77 57 17 5 2 0 198 O
TABLE 2.3-168 4NP-1/4 ONSITE JOINT FREQUENCY OISTRIBUTION OF WINGS FOR RAIN IATENSITY CLASSESe RAIN INTEhSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO .353 INCHES PER HOUR SPIEC CL ASS (PFH) CALM 1- 3 4- 7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNOWN TOTAL N 3 3 1 3 3 0 C 0 1 NNE : 1 1 3 C C C 3 2 NE 9 1 1 0 3 0 0 C 2 EAE S 1 1 ' : C 0 1 E 1 1 0 3 0 3 0 2 E: 0 : 1 : 1 0 0 0 1 I SE : 3 3 1 3 0 C 0 4 SSE 1 3 3 3 J 1 0 C 9 5 2 2 2 3 3 0 ; 6 SSW 2 S 5 1 0 C C 6 Sb 3 3 0 1 1 0 0 C 1 WSb 0 J 1 1 0 0 C 3 2 h ; 3 1 1 3 0 0 0 2 WNb
- 3 1 2 1 0 0 J 4 NW 0 1 1 5 1 1 0 : 7 N% : 3 1 3 1 0 0 0 2 VAR 1 7 3 0 Q C 0 CALP 3 0 1 0 0 0 ?
UNNNOWh J 3
*
- 1 1 0 : 1 1 TOTAL 3 6 18 21 6 J 0 1 52
WNP 1/4 ER/OL s TABLE 2.316C (sheet 2 of 3) kNP-1/4 ONSITE 4Cthf FREQUEhCT CISTRIBUTION OF WINDS FOR RAIN INTENSITT CL AS$CS, R AIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO .13 INCHES PER HOUR SPEED CLASS (PPHI CALM 1- 3 4- T 8-12 13-18 11-24 25-UP UNKNOWN TOTAL h 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 - NNE 3 3 C 3 3 C 0 0 NC 3 3 . 0 3 0 O O Eht 1 C D 0 0 3 0 0 0 E : 2 3 3 1 0 0 0- 0 ESE 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 SC C 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 SSE 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 5 3 0 1 3 0 3 C. O SSW 3 3 1 1 1 0 G 3 1 SW 1 0 3 3 J J 3 1 0 WSW : 3
- 1 3 0 C 0 0 W G 2 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 JNb O 1 2 3 3 0 0 3 2 NW G 3 3 1 3 C 0 1 NNb C 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 3 VAR 1 3 3 3 1 0 0 0 3 CALP : 3 C 3 3 0 3 0 3 UNKN0hh 3 0 3 1 0 C 3 0 TOTAL 3 1 5 2 2 1 0 13 TABLE 2.3-16D WNP-1/4 ONSITE 40!NT FREQUENCT CISTRI80 TION _
0F WINOS FOR RAIN INTENSIT T CL ASSES, R AIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO .253 INCHES PER HOUR SPEEC CL ASS (PFH) CALM 1- 3 4- T 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNOWN TOTAL A : 3 0 3 3 C 0 1 NNE 3 $ 1 3 0 0 0 3
- f. E 1 2 3 ? O O 2 0 Ehl 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 E 1 3 1 2 3 0 3. 3 ESE : 0 J 3 3 C 0 SE 3 3 ? O 3 0 0 0 0 SSE :* 3 0 C J 3 C 3 0 5 3 0 3 1 3 0 0 0 SSk C 3 1 2 3 0 0 C 0 SW 3 3 C 1 1 3 C 0 1 WSh C : C 3 3 J : 0 0 W 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 WNb c 1 2 3 3 3 0 0 NW 3 3 1 C 3 0 O 3 NNb 3 J 1 1 0 3 C 0 0 VAR 3 2 3 0 0 0 CALP 7 0 : O 3 3 C 3 UNKNOWN 1 0 2 ? 3 C 0 0 TOTAL 0 3 C 1 0 0 0 0 1
WNP-1/4 ER/OL TABLE 2.3-16E - (sheet 3 of 3) - WNP-1/4 ONSITE JOINT FREQUEhCY DISTRIBUTION OF WINOS FOR R4tN INTENSIT T CL ASSES, R AIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR ECUAL TO .5J3 INCHES PER HOUR SPEED CLASS (PFH3 CALM 1- 3 9- T 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNOWN TOTAL N 2 3 3 3 2 2 0 0 1 NNE 1 3 $ 1 3 G 0 0 0 hE J 2 C C 0 0 0 C 0 ENE 3 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 E J 1 0 0 1 3 C 0 0 ESL 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 SE 2 3 3 1 3 0 0 0 SSE C 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 0
$ 0 1 0 3 3 2 0 0 0 SSh 1 C 3 0 0 0 J 0 Sb 3 3 ? 1 3 1 C 0 0 WSh 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 WhW 2 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 NW 1 2 3 J 1 3 3 0 NNb J 1 ? 3 3 1 0 0 $
VAR 0 3 1 J 0 3 0 0 CALP G 2 ? 1 3 3 C 0 0 UNKN0bh 3 1 0 2 2 0 0 G 0 TOTAL 0 1 G 1 0 0 C 0 0 l l t O 1 l I l
WNP-1/4 ER/OL TABLE 2.316F REPRESENT JOINT FREQUENCY OF WIND AND PRECIPITATION TABLE OF ZERO FIELDS INCHES PER HOUR MONTH 0.016 0.050 0.100 0.250 0.500 JAN X X FEB X X X MARCH X X X O APRit x x x MAY~ X X JUNE X X JULY X X AUG X X SEPT X X X X oCT X X X Nov X DEC X X X o O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-17 MONTHLY AND ANNUAL PREVAILING DIRECTIONS AVERAGE SPEEOS, AND PEAK GUSTS: 1945-1970 AT HMS (56 foot level) PREi!OUS AVERAGE HIGHEST LOWEST PEAK GUST MONTH OENSITY SPEED AVERAGE YEAR AVERAGE YEAR settu utMdIIT YtAR Jan NW 6.4 9.6 1953 3.1 1955 65 5 1967 Feb NW 7.0 9.4 1961 4.6 1963 63 SW 1965 Mar WNW 8.4 10.7 1964 5.9 1958 70 SW 1956 Apr WW 9.0 11.1 1959 7.4 1958 60 WSW 1969 May WNW 8.8 10.5 1965+ 5.8 1957 71 SSW 1948 Jun WNW 9.2 10.7 1949 7.7 1950+ 72 SW 1957 Jul WNW 8.6 9.6 1963 6.8 1955 55 WSW 1968 Aug WNW 8.0 9.1 1946 6.0 1956 66 SW 1961 Sep WNW 7.5 9.2 1961 5.4 1957 65 SSW 1953 Oc t WNW 6.7 9.1 1946 4.4 1952 63 SSW 1950 Nov NW 6.2 7.9 1945 2.9 1956 64 SSW 1949 Dec NW 6.0 8.3 1968 3.9 1963+ 71 SW 1955 YEAR WNW 7.6 8.3 1968+ 6.3 1957 72 SW 1957 (Jun) (a)The average speed for January,1972, was 10.3 mpt. (b)0n January 11, 1972, a new all-time record peak gust of 80 mph was established. l ( 1 I O l
WNP-1/4 ER/OL O TABLE 2.3-18 Air Quality Measurements-Annual Averages for 1971 and 1974 (these data are based on 24 hour integrated samples) NO2 (ppm) No. of Location Samples Max. Min. Avg. Richland (747 Building) 49 6.8 0.06 0.86 opposice Richland 17 0 0.019 <.001 0.005 (Hobkirk Ranch) ( 78) (0.022) (0.001) (0.006) Opposite N. Richland 157 3.0 <.001 0.024 (Gilliam Ranch) (130) (0.020) (0.001) 10.006) Opposite 300 Area 170 0.025 0.001 0.005 (Sullivan Ranch) ( 77) (0.014) (0.001) (0.005) Ringold 166 0.028 0.001 0.006 (Keys Ranch) White Bluffs 149 0.028 0.001 0.006 (McLane Ranch) i Suspended Particulate (uq/m3) No. of Location Samples Max. Min. Avg. Richland (747 Building) 42 440 25 120 (125) (572) ** ( 8) ( 57)
- Concentrations in parentheses are for 1974
** High value due to a local dust storm.
e N O - l i W = E O -!. { 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 t . . , , I WIND SPEED GROUPS (MPH) 0-3 LINE 4-7 SHADE 8 - 12 OPEN 13 - 18 SHADE 3 j 19 - 24 OPEN - 25 UP SHADE l WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WIND ROSE FOR WNP 1/4 FOR WNP-1/4 4-74 TO 3-76 AT THE 33 FT. LEVEL ER-OL FIG. 2.3-1 , e L.
9
\
O L 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 WIND SPEED GROUPS (MPH) 0-3 LINE 4-7 SHADE 8-12 OPEN 13-18 SHADE 19 - 24 OPEN 25 UP SHADE WNP-1/4 4-74 TO 3-76 AT 7 LEVEL ER-OL FIG. 2.3-2
am, _ , .. as m.ma,.-_--._.e_ . - _- = . - - - = . .e- .a.- ---L - - . - --- - N O f O 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WIND SPEED GROUPS (mph) 0-3 LINE 4-7 SHADE 8 - 12 OPEN S 13 - 18 SHADE 19 - 24 OPEN 25 UP SHADE O WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WNP-1/4 WIND ROSE FOR WNP-1/4 FOR 4-74 TO 3-76 AT THE 245 FT. LEVEL ER-OL FIG. 2.3-3
O [ f E- "" 4 13 ROI
~
e r _ k UN5fA83
, A.
- A i 4 e VERY STAld MODERATELY STA8d STAtluTYDEFINiil0N& Af 01200f8 uN5tA83, ar < u l )y NEUTRAla
-45) AT} -U
-N- "O*'RY 57^8m u> 6r3 e VERY STA8tfa af2M i i t i f 0 ED QS ED 1 La i PERCENT SCAD elN0 ROSES BY STA81UTY AIND SPEED CROJP5 (MPH) a +
1 f I f f f AR 5fA61LiflE5 0 1 2 3 4 5 PERCENT PER$15TENCE SCAM FOR AR STA81UTIES WIND ROSES AS A FUNCTION OF HANFORD STABluTY A
- WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM FOR BALL STABluTIES OF HMS BASED ON WINDS AT 20 l' WNP-1/4 AND AIR TEMP. STABluTIES BETWEEN 3 FT. AND 200 FT FOR WE PERIOD 1965 mROUGH 1970 ER OL FIG. 2.3-4~ l a
a O gg rd '1 2 gg gg rd [ W AMLUKf
- 3.9 La r-r- k LO (t!
( r* 2.5 S [ p 5 '* ' '
', hy I '
- i. 4 , r' 5'[ (8 3.9 2.9 l
-N-L l----! <
g
'--- , i ~
w ,on0 i b1 (3 u l 1 I u 8 ' 5 I~l 1.1 g"I ~ m l '8 u u k7 I " " U 7.1
" 5.4 "
F.3 yg IJ E RosGOLD 2.s U l y I u i F.1 4.2 ' 7.4 I o u O- l I u g u u 42 0 .sCAu I.T.?'7.7.7 t- y_ u "' t, t r- - u u Ca
""[u" 3 l o,rw
!!L9- "'5m0
* ' ' '*' .1 SCAlf -MIE5 u3 e, ,_, u L.
# k w_ \ >
15
- 7.7 u" j u s
F.0 s 3.F 1
* . 41-<
RICHLAND gosince " 8.0 7,7 CITY e .0 u PA5co i a-@ 's RQ:j KDINEWICK SURFACE WIND ROSES FOR VARIOUS LOCATIONS ON AND WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPt.Y SYSTEM SURROUNDING THE HANFORD SITE BASED ON FIVE-YEAR WNP-1/4 AVGS.(19521956) SPEEDS ARE GIVEN IN MILES PER HOUR ER OL FIG. 2.3-5
1 l O' MONTHLY AND ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGES OF ORY BULB (D.B.l AND WET BULB 4W.B.) TEMPERATURE RELATIVE HUMIDITY IR.H.), AND TEMPERATURE OF THE DEW POINT (D.P.I
' t1957-1970)
JANUARY g 80
... ...----- ..,~., R. H.
FEBRUARY g 70
' ., .. 70
'\ .,,
60 60 - '.
+ %
.. . s '/
~
g - E e
- 40 9 40 - W. B. TEMP D.B.
i T o"
~ ~ ~ ~ -- "
'- EMP. O.B- D. B .
, 33 30 - -
-----. _. - W.B.-- -.. 2 . .,,,, ---- -.- _,,
20 ------__.--D.P.
--~~ ....___ 20 -
1 10 10 - 0
' ' ' ' ' i , , , , ,, ' ' ' ' '
02 08 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 l0 l2 ld l6 l8 h3 l PST PST l l' 90 90
/
MARCH APRIL 80 - g , 70 ~- 10 -
,..,,,.. ** s.,
'. =.
R. H.
. . . . . . .\ -.,
60 . 60
\., ,. ****... TEMP. U.B. R.H;
,g '
50 - ...= a * *' 2
< 40 TEMP. D.B- \. ---
o
\.
.q% --B*---
W.
..t'
,_____**==",s#",-:'~~...* .,.'~~ ___ $ 40 ,,.,#
- . , ~. .,
,%.s .<*
i 30 W,3*
-------e--~~_.
30 = ~ - - - " ~ ~ ~ ~ -t =:::: .'" - - -- .. D. P. D. P. 20 20 - l 10 10 - t , 0 ' i i e r , , , , , , 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 10 12 14 16 18 22 24 PST PS1 l WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF WNP 1/4 TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY ER OL FIG. 2.3-6
1 MONTHLY AND ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGES OF DRY BUL8 (0.B.1 AND WET 8ULB IW.B.) TEMPER REL ATIVE HUMIDITY IR.H. l. AND TEMPE A ATURE OF THE DEW POINT to.P.I (1957-1970) ' l l MAY JUIE EMP. D.B.
~
TEMP. D.B. 40 - g -
, - /- . y. ~~ , . ,- n " a- ~,~~ --
- 3. .,,= -- - X.
N- _ -
- -D. ,. - - - . . , c . .
- %.-~
- 02. .. , _
.,~
R. H. 5 - 3 - R. M. i m - 0
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' i E 88 5 GB 10 12 14 le la 3 3 3 3 08 m a 10 12 14 M 13 3 3 3 m m
= . AUGUST MY TEMP. D.B.
N - g - TEMP. D.B. N 70
. .0 -
- W. . W. .. _
g 5 58
; . . ..s=n.-- - . y - - ------
, w::-- -x-- ~~g-------
= -
m
...._ s,,
_~.....
...,.... , . y .~, ,
a _ N - 10 - 0 0 GE of m a 10 12 14 u 13 3 3 3g OE 08 M GB 10 12 .14 le la 3 3 m PST PST WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF WNP-1/4 TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY ER-OL FIG. 2.3-7
MONTHL) AND ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGES OF DRY BULB (D.B.i AND WET BULB IW.B.I TEMPERATURE RELATIVE HUMIDITY tR.H.l. AND TEMPERATURE OF THE DEW POINT (0 P.) (1957-19706 19 ggpygyggg
- MR
, _ m -
ItMP. D.B. N N # [R.H.'.
.0 te -
N " N. pr** ~. .~,,X.,,.-W.E.
-s'~__ ,
TEMP. D.B. IN _____.-.--,-.-_._:.=,.< 5
. = _.__,,/p,,....,
. W.B. , -.
3--___
, _ LK a -
m - W -
, , , , , , , g , f , i f i i t f f '
0 g hh a, to 12 1A 14 13 3 22 y a a aa m 12 14 M M 3 3 m m gg 98 m - . . . M G MBER m m -
...-~...-.' g n .
' .. , ,,**** ,. s N -
/.
- R. H.
== , _
1M ... , . ..
-~,-~~___ - -
--_-- _,,, w.g.
________._.u,.,.__-----
- 10 -
10 l , t i f f f f f f f 5 5 N U @ m " 2 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF . WNP.1/4 TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY ER-OL FIG. 2.3 8 l
?
MONTHLY AND ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGES OF DRY BULB (D.B.I AND WET BULB (W.B.I TEMPERATURE RELATIVE HUMIDITY tR.H.), AND TEMPERATURE OF THE DEW POINT ID.P.) 1195T-1970) 90 ANNUAL g - M TEMP.10. B. I es
**,,,.--., R. H.
'. ..=..... l
*8 **
- N % . -
a .:
.,W Ig ::: -
5 -----~~~~A,~~~~~~~----- E '- 3 - 10 t t t t I t t * ? E 08 06 (B 10 12 14 le la 3 22 24 PST WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGE OF WNP.1/4 TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY ER-OL .. l FIG. 2.3-9
.i m a z S O 1.00 2 &% E!5 % - OLO 0.85 0.86 rsg j 9 .80 - ! m i C ! y .70 - i, m i 0.62 I s .60 - 0.57 0.58 A m l E E i g
.50 -
0.45 0.40 i
>g .40 -
0.36 Em 8E zO .30 - 0.30
;a!
!! . 20 - 0.19 J
1
- ame o o ,- -
0.14 l ) l .10 - i R@E z-i "go r m i i5 l g JAN FEB MAR A~PR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC s o 8lz 5
- -_e o __
e
O . O O 5 N z z
$ 8.0 g(
o z 6.0 2 h\\ __ _ . __ l gE \\\ h 100 ' 2.0 hB RETURN PER100(YEARS) I r- "' E
*g N M 'io / g TO USE THIS CHART SELECT ANY DESHIED l
- m
\\ \
/ C
) RAINFALL INTENSITY AND DDRATION AND READ FROM THE DIAGONAL LINES THE
! c 12 g3 ( 22 --+-
'A \-Ykw h D: 500 - EXPECED FREQUENCY OF SUCH INTENS1TY j
% y 0.8
- A x 7-- 1000 AND DURATION. FOR EXAMPLE, RAINFALL j
Q e y g 0.6
'*/
25
\' f N ,
g gy, g( / INTENSITY OF 1.3 INCifS PER HOUR FOR 10 MINUTES CAN BE EXPECTED TO OCCUR, 1
-4 3
2 x# \ q \wgg ON AVERAGE, ONCE EVERY 5 YEARS (POINT 0.4 A). HOWEVER, SUCH INTENSITY CAN BE 10
\ \\,Yb N EXPECTED FOR 30 MINUTES DURAT10N ONLY s '
\ \\Mk l \
5 ABOUT ONCE IN 100 YEARS (POINT Bl. THE j
$ 0.2
\ s N d& RETURN PERIOD FOR THIS INTENSIFY FOR
! 3 K2 ^ \'g NN\N' 60 MINUTES DURATION IS GREATER THAN n !E 1000 YEARS (POINT Cl. N \NN
'E>E s x sx N g
& THERE ARE, OF COURSE, VARI ATIONS IN 1 Om 0.1 x x m USE OF THE CHART. SUPPOSE, FOR 4
mh az-0.0g x ' Y NNY ,s EXAMPLE, IT IS DESIRED TO FIND THE i IO$ W t A ' sh "100-YEAR STORM" FOR 60 MINUTES. 9 a, m THIS IS 0.8 INCH (POINT DI. I
- N T
! $$h ' N i 384 zE 0.02 2 g Eyj 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 2 3 4 56 8 1012 18 24 9 i *h g ,z MINUTES HOURS
- .[ DURATION L 6>
0f 4 1
lii m a x E FIGURE 45 S PEAK WIND GUST RETURN PROB ABILITY DI AGRAM O e
- 1 o - = , <
2 iniriv'linierten ti ,iiiini li, . ,,t,,,,, , 1 , , , , ., i ,i,.,,,,i,,,,.,i,i,,i.,,,,_ , , , . s a i mi e is v i nr. i gt, .1,
.i si
*p. ,g
, , i
.. ,, g ., ,. ,; , , ,. , , e, , , , , , 3 y iv i
ji
.i ,
3 lE
] "_-,,3,'. +
~ ' " ~
78 i,' 5a
' ' ~'
.s Tgh
~ ~
C E II"~ E ".. l i :G 3 3" m ,a o - 7 a - - o _I
-o ogt..1[ ..
-- ~ T, ~.~ .
i A y (. ..'-.f" . .Tu g.go
.7, i ,
!" I 1 .! '
p l' - . ! g <. ! _[.. .
} c m$C
_T j
'! ' I 3 2O
! ~
5 1m !i f' ;j l
~
1[ l ; ! ib ' se "*\l 7 j l -
- [ '! !i ;!
", Ytt -
01 O T pi i a ! , al p a i : i t- i , i - 3 : 1, FN$ 7 ~4 T"'t9D Z f. 1 J :l i! ni ! ;! I i l i 1 f i p
!" ' ' -a I Am p
' ' 4
.n i i .
I g i i , i i r_ i j
' I .
4 *A g ;p s ri [ ',.j.i.
'Il it . _ _
3 ' m .-- j 4,v, F
/ a gs -
"3'M .i 4 ,
C i
.; i , ; ;
; j j gi .,,
, L gcP l ;I ,
i* lj i 100
' ' ' i i ! : F ' #. I -A ' !
\"ge}i i 9 i.i r-
' !I ' ' I ! #' i / PI 6 I i T l si- -
-< [ l l' -
j- .p , 'j -4f 1 .
}i.i' . ~sp : ! I i d l i~
m ri; g, i _{.j,hva'
- fW % t 4 - --
n i i j
~~
T~~7 g
- y 90 l
!d C ' '
1 8, i /' ui 'i i ai- '
- i. ~
3
~2I
' ~ ~~
i d F .ii m . ,
.y f '
!. i i... 'jl !I- 4: 1 3 E g Ih 1 J
M
^ l,'
'T'
. j L o, o
{ ] , a ' T i :n n r i 2* I 3*7 " ~
~
80 i I ' '" "i ' ' a ' i' l -{p .dk ! q / p WR,! , p i L iti lp_..{ '_ li : p 5 b- p'g.,g g.[ g t g g j{._ . ; .. g.. r- , spq q . f . 7. __ iL ___. ..
,,{ 3 m c l!!L Mum t Tit?
1 ' I ' i !
..4. ,
m' # . M ....."- i i
' I m v 70
' N ' I h4 -
' #I" i ' I l
is- 2
, i' i J I i u:1" in' '
e ini e , i . a, i. iii i , i , i un *
,t un i!:
! ;m; . ! 9 1 m -
- i n 'iim' i i l e m '
U ' r ! i D! lii .3 !' ~T li g hlll n' i ' ' im i iii g & _ . lh. 'l g f-f-] {' #CooalrC'l- n 41 :r i i i ! U1 91 i I
. :!! ii !
I!'
;j ,
4
' I
.T i
i: h 'ti v3 d, d l ' l U 'D ' ' ' ! ' ' "" i i 2 60 - - - i'
~','
g i L z l1.' min':gr- 7. m p ip; e' pi ! ., i ; i:i p' q g ! ./ _
, a!, l ! 1 l ! i i i .;1 ; ;i
-O ! L e I i. ! ,h i ! I i a i ,
, p -
ii
>C !! .4 If.oum di" 'I
- I i ! i i!h 3 i I 'i l .
Om 50
' I i
, "I ,
' ' ! i
- 33 -t i i 1 .
gru. _.._.. l
; i i j p ,
y 7, ..7.., , g .7 7
- 4. .
!L ___ j !
' n D .
i ii i i i 4 ' h3 I ' ! 40 1 I u a .i T' ' ZZ { .f '
, 4 O 2! Ei - -
t
-~
q -l-s -
- ; i ,
q , i j O mm F , it
, -.t g , j ; 7 i sil u n 'ain,in .ii q
o isi i i ,mm u .iii,uio o . , u nii,i,i a , i n i a. u m mon , v i n, i . s o in,i s i ino m s iin , is $ N m "a 5 c* 8"" "8"g "38 5 8 C3 . . . .s - I l 9 m I2 3 8 s 3 3833 38 8 8 8 I 88 l b8 N 2 Average number of years between occurrence of a given speed and that of an equal or greater speed l
--O- O O
- x E
. S 8 ! a j g 100 - I 5$m ! bk$ W - WALLULA 80 - H - HANDFORD W w 70 - h
- # w 60 -
w . w - - ! ,M 40
~
n [ -l 1 h*I I , W z g SN W IL ' w f ,i ; H 30 A w
@ g ,
k ,] I - w _H,, . J
- , 16
- , : _.H,_7 q ;
20 i hz -
, s , { H W ! M. '5
- h i l JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC ANN
-4 2 2 o,
i oo
.W hh ! $ l;j osm -
i ninnii 3 nininip unlii 3 _titw3 nning I . =
. 1 .. ,a :
z i i I 8 1 35 2
/
;I 2 g 1 i
.. .. , .. .. .. gg og _
/
i . ll -
.. g .. I .I 41 1 ll Bu
.. . .. 4
.. 3 2
.. .. . . . 5 lls
. .. . .. . j
. l . .
3
.o
. , . .. 229 Illlilig Illinigg lliiig, gg5 g
. l E g
[ .. .. l ! 8 ig
/ .. g
.. .. s
..[ 7.l .. [
\ .. ..
, ( ,
[ . . . : .
. .. . , , i .
l l 4] l .l .l ~ .) .] f .. .. . . .. .. l
- .. 1 . . .,
n.mu
. m.r u
M.9 m..ru wru.. d..u
l g .,, -. q; , - -
-_.. ~. > -
>' ~ *
- ( 4,
' ,,,s.'
=- ~
's
~
3*'
- .-:: r',
.s-7.. g
,' , ,~'i*,*'
^
;4 M ,. i' - -
, Y4w'I ,13 % -' . . ,
., w,p" o u -m ,
q 'L f ;,,,' g' . .
*~*' s
. \ 9.-4 . - '."E,
,,/
7
- t. , _ . ./ y
.j 3 7 ~
y -
} } , '.. #
' ?.;L \ 9,(
3 ff ,ff 7
/ 2
, ;' n: n d. \ d W5 3*
-N'%
.(- .+
y% ;N
\ , ' 4: ;
/ , s
', ,< ' . jJi" .q/
, - i .. -
,.: .a. -1 ; ,
- 26' 3' y s .
y:- y I % f, - :n s . n . ,A . i
.k ,f(. ~
.' 1 . -
.,' .. - * -; +
-- pa* N. ,--,
,\
, / ,
,- ' " ,, d j *, Y,s
--\
~
x f N .j ~ - - s. I 3 -\ , f ...2-I,
/s % ;
- i
,, / / RESTRICTED AREA \4 ---WNP-4 6 i 7 V' u u--
,/ BOUNDARY
\ 1930 METER 4-LOW POPULATION
! WhN2 4 .
/ ' EXCLUSION AREA
~
i ZONE. TER '{r y'p,, 7 +,
-l1950 EXCLUSI AREA . _,, 4 W. I P-% BO RDEy, ,
g ,; *j, . 4__ , MILE RADIUS a I BpRDER ,!_ - i - i e i , ; g i t ?.. . f,
~
.f 3 g g W MFh I j, 'N -
v
, \ ,,
\ / *
/; d.
[s',
\ '
s, , s s / l:) - s'T y~s/ .,,', ,
\ / ..
?
,' \\ ~
.\ '~
\ \ WNP-1 '
y
.[. ,*
2 1930 METER a
' \ '
\
EXCLUSION AREA BORDER l 'k ' s .,,'
, , \ s /
/
\ . ~s N s' /
% ~#( '
SCALE 1:62500 O in 1 2 3 4 \ l i l i I l \ MILES l M WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM SITE TOPOGRAPHY WNP-1/4 INCLUDING S MILE RADIUS ER-OL FIG. 2.3-15
WNP-1/4 ER-OL s 2.4 HYDROLOGY The WNP-1 and WNP-4 site is located at an elevation of 445 ft above mean sea level (MSL) about 2.5 miles west of the Columbia River at River Mile 351.75 and about 8 miles northeast of the Yakima River at Horn Rapids Dam. The major waters that could be affected or influenced by plant operation are the Columbia River and the groundwaters of the site and the immediate environs. 2.4.1 Surface Water 2.4.1.1 Columbia River Hydrology and Physical Charac'. eristics The Columbia River and its tributaries are the dominant water systems in the Pacific Northwest region (Figure 2.4-1). The main stem of the Columbia River originates at Columbia Lake on the west slope of the Canadian Rockies and flows into the hci#ic Ocean near Astoria, Oregon. The river drains a total area of approxim telya 258,000 square miles in Canada, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, and Nevada. The Columbia River drainagg miles.U) upstream Since aoflarge the WNP-1/4 site part of the is approximately Columbia 96,000 square River originates as runoff caused by snowmelt, high discharges are experienced in late spring or early summer while low discharges occur in winter. Numerous dams and reservoirs have been constructed in the Columbia River Basin for power production, irrigation, navigation, flood control, and re-n v creation. Table 2.4-1 lists the major Columbia River tributaries and main stem d9 mq with their location by river mile above the Columbia River mou th . t 21 The reservoirs maintain approximately 46.7 million acre-ft of activ9 ptorage of which 37.5 million acre-ft are upstream of the WNP-1/4 site.g3 1 Arrow and Mica Dams in Canada and Grand Coulee and John Day dams in the United States are the only main stem projects providing sufficient storage for seasonal flow regulation, while the remaining main stem dams are run-of-river projects providing only daily flow control. Much of the ac-tivities of flood control and hydroelectric power production are presently control under the Columbia Treaty between Canada and the United l States. The Columbia River is tide-affected froin the mouth to Bonneville Dam (River Mile 146). The only other free flowing stretch of the river is the 49-mile reach downstream from Priest Rapids Dam (River Mile 397) to the head (ap-proximately River Mile 348) of the reservoir behind McNary Dam. The pro-posed Ben Franklin hydroelectric dam site on the Columbia River is about 4 mDes downstream from the WNP-1/4 site. The most recent planning studies for this project were reinitiated by the Corps of Engineers in October 1979 l and were terminated in November 1981. The Benton and Franklin Public Utili-ty Districts have conducted independent studies that have disclosed economic and environmental impediments. While the PUD's have shown a recurring in-l terest in revitalizing the project, there is little probability that it will be built in the foreseeable future. l O b 2.4-1 l l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL The flows in the Columbia River in the vicinity of the site are highly re-gulated by Priest Rapids Dam located approximately 45 river miles upstream from the site. The momentary minimum discharge of the Columbia River at Priest Rapids was recorded to be 4120 cfs in 1936 before the construction of Priest Rapids Dam which was built in 1956. After the construction of the dam, the daily river discharge at Priest Rapids has never been below 36,000 cfs, the minimum flow administratively set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission License. The annual average discharge for 61 years measured at the United (634.8 km)States Geologicalfrom just downstream Survey thegauging station at dam is 120,200 8{yer cfs.t Milethe 1 For 394.5 water year of 1978 (October 1977 to September 1978), the mean discharge was 106,600 cfs, while the maximum and minimum daily discharges were 182,000 and 39,000 cfs, respectively. The observed mean monthly discharges below Priest Rapipg) Dam for the 1960 Dischar through 1978 tion curves for water years the period are -presented 1928 1958 in Table 2.4-2. 9areshowninFigure2.4-2.(gg Measured flows used in this figure were adjusted to reflect flow regulation by dams and diversions existing in 1970. Because of the regulation, it is estimated that the minimum and maximum mean monthly flows will be 60,000 ands 260,000 cfs in the vicinity of the site. The flow in this reach varies not only due to seasonal floods but also due to daily regulation by the power-producing Priest Rapids Dam. Flows at the dam during the late summer, fall, and winter may vary from a low of 36,000 cfs to as much as 160,000 cfs during a single day. The four largest known floods occurred in 1876, 1894, 1948 and 1956. The 1894 flood was the maximum known flood on the Columbia River near the pro-posed site and had an estimated discharge of 740,000 cfs. The largest re-corded flood occurred in 1948; a flow of 692,600 cfs was recorded at Hanford. The 100-year flood and the Standard P 351 are 440,000 and 570,000 cfs, respectively.(qqject') TheFlood at River Probable Maximum Mile Flood (PMF)ofunder U.S. Corps present Engineers toregulated conditions be 1,440,000 cfs athas been(River Ringold estimated Mileby the(8) 357). Shown in Figure 2.4-3 is the sumary of Columbia River hydrographs at Priest Rapids. Figure 2.4-4 shows the exceedance frequency for momentary peak flows below Priest Rp ds Dam derived from 1913 to 1965 records adjusted for 1970 con-ditions.tpi The frequency curves for both high and low flows for the period 1929-1958 adjusted for 1970 conditions are given in Figure 2.4-5. The minimum 7-day average flow between 1960 and 1972 was 46,000 cfs. CrosssectionsbetweenRiverMile(s)351and352areshowninFigure2.4-6 for the minimum flow condition.191 The river width normally varies between 1200 and 1800 ft, depending on the flow and location. Figure ?.4-7 shows the relative location of the intake / discharge structures and the west bank of the river for the low flow of 36,000 cfs and for the average annual flow of 120,00C cfs. River water surface profijp f vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 2.4-8.M;i or Theseveral depth atflows the in the deepest part of the measured cross sections varies from approximately 2.4-2
WNP-1/4
/3 ER-OL V ,
10 to 40 ft and averages about 25 ft. Diurnal depth fluctuations caused by Priest Rapids Dam regulation can be as much five feet. The maxi'num veloc-ities measured vary from less than three feet per second (fps) to over 11 fps, again depending on the river cross section a. ')w rate. WNP-1/4 are at an approximate elevation of 445 ft above MSt., which is ap-proximately 70 ft above the water surf ace of the maximum recorded flood, approximately 55 ft above the water surface of the probable maximum flood, and approximately 23 ft above the water surface elevation estimated for a Grand Coulee Dam failure (see WNP-1/4 FSAR Section 2.4). The pumphouse for the WNP-1/4 plant water intake is at an elevation of 375 ft above MSL, which is the approximate water surface elevation of the maximum recorded flood. 2.4.1.2 Columbia River Water Quality Characteristics The Columbia River is classified as " Class A (Excellent)" from g) mouthThisto Grand Coulee Dam by the Washington State Department of Ecology. means that the water is generally satisfactory for use as water supply (do-mestic, industrial, agricultural), wildlife habitat, stock watering, general recreation and aesthetic enjoyment, commerce and navigation, and fish and shellfish reproduction, rearing and harvest. Applicable water quality stan-dards and regulations imposed by the State of Washington are presented in Sections 5.1 and 5.3. Table 2.4-3 shows the chemical characteristics of the river water measured at 100-F Area (River Mile 374) of the Hanford Site in 1970. A summary of U.S. Geological Survey water quality measurements of the river below Priest Rapids Dam (River Mile 394.5) for the 1978 and 79 water years and 1980 (as a separate entry) is presented in Table 2.4-4. Water quality data from a special 12-month study conducted at the vicinity of the WNP-1/4 intake structure is sumarized in Table 2.4-5. Tables 2.4-6 and 2.4-7 present the monthly average temperatures just below Priest Rapids Dam (1961-1974) and at Richland (1965-1974), respectively. l Monthly average river temperatures at the two locations range from 1.50C j (34.70F) to 20.20C (68.40F), with the lowest temperatures generally occurring in February and the highest in August. Average monthly temper-atures for the 10-year period (1965-1974) below Priest Rapids Dam and at Richlaad are compared in Figure 2.4-9 which indicates a slight warming from Priest Rapids Dam to Richland. Average daily temperatures at the two loca-tions show a low of 0.30C (32.50F) and a high of 20.20C (FA.40F) below Priest Rapids Dam and a low of 0.20C (32.40F) and a high of 21.50C (70.70F) at Richland. A diurnal variation in water temperature of about 40C (2.20F) in the spring and sumer, and 20C (1.10F) in the fall and winter, can be expected to occur as a result of diurnal reser-voir discharge variations from Priest Rapids Dam. , p 2.4-3 ( l , _ - . _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _
WNP-1/4 ER-OL The free flowing stretch of river along the Hanford reach responds more rapidly to thermal modification from both weather and industrial inputs than impounded regions. Hence, in'this stretch of river, warming in the summer and cooling in the winter occur more rapidly. Studies indict'e that about 65%oftheheatinputintheHanfordreachof({2ht time it reaches the Washington-Oregon border. river is dissipated by the 1 The temperature rise from natural heating along the Hanford stretch during August and September is about 0.5 to 0.750C (0.9 to 1.350F). Upstream impoundments have influenced water temperatures by delaying the arrivalofpeaksummerwatertemperatures, reducing 3gummerwatertemper-atures, and increasing winter water temperatures.t , The change in average annual water temperatures, however, has been less than 10C (20F) over the past 30 years. These trends are shown in Figure 2.4-10 for the years 1938-1972 at Rock Isl.and Dam. 2.4.1.3 Characteristics of Effluents in the Hanford Reach Fourteen liquid effluent lines from H9nfgrd facilities discharge their con-tents directly to the Columbia River.il43 Pertinent data on quantities and constituents for each discharge are given in Table 2.4-8. The Columbia River has been thermally modified since 1944 by the operation of up to nine plutonium production reactors at Hanford. This modification was quite significant since the heat additions from man-made thermal energy sources were over 23,000 MW. A portion of the heat load was added to the river by reactor effluents in excess of 850C. In addition, numerous " warm springs" were created along the shoreline by disposing of warm waste water in trenches that paralleled the shore. Only one reactor, 100-N, at Rivar Mile 380 remains in operation. At present, the only thermal discharges of sufficient magnitude to affect Columbia River temperat'ures occur either from the 100-N Reactor or from the associated Supply System Hanford Generating Plant (HGP) when the N Reactor is operating. The largest heated water discharge stream from this operation is the cooling water from HGP, which has a thermal capacity of 3780 MW and an electrical capacity of 860 MW. The cooling water flow rate is 940 to 1260 cfs depending on incoming river temperature, and is discharged at 19 to 240C (35 to 430F) above ambient river temperature (see Table 2.4-8). The calculated temperature increment for complete mixing (about 2-1/2 miles downstream) at the minimum river flow rate of 36,000 cfs would be 0.60C (1.10F). 2.4-4
WNP-1/4 p ER-OL V During operation, the N Reactor, located ininediately downstream from HGP, discharges a cooling water stream of about 140 cfs, with a temperature up to 160 C (28.80 F) above anbient river temperature, to the river. This dis-charge increates the river temperature by only 0.140 C (0.250F ) at the 0 minimum river flow rate of river flow rate of 120,000 cfs. 36,0gqfs 1 and 0.04 C (0.080F) at the average Chemicals are released to the Columbia River at three ]ocations: 1) the i 100-N Area, 2) the 100-K Area, and 3) the 300 Area.llH The primary source of chemicals released to the river is the 100-N Reactor operation. The quantities of chemicals released are shown in Table 2.4-9. In addition to those chemicals, impurities removed from the river water by the treatment plants also are returned to the river. The intermittent filter backwash contains suspended solids, principally an aluminum hydroxide floc, plus an accumulation of suspended solids removed from the raw river water during the filtration orocess. Several of the smaller effluent streams, consisting largely of treated water, may contain free chlorine at concentrations up to a maximum of 1 mg/1. Other chemical concentrations in treated water are mostly the result of the use of alum (aluminum sulfate) and small quantities of polyacrylamide filter aids in the water filtration plant. While the production reactors have been shutdown, the HanfoiJ Site still has several sources of low level radioactive effluents. These include cooling (g] water ting toatthe 100-N, river animal f arm waste from with groundwater at 100-Fthe 200and Area 300 Areas, tritiuy1 gra-andsites. disposal 2.4.2 Groundwater The Hanford Site is underlain by three principal formations, from top to bottom: 1) unconsolidated silts, sands, and 2) semiconsolidated lake and stream sediments (Ringold formation) ; 3) gravels; dense, hard basalt which forms the bedrock beneath the area (see Section 2.5). The lithologic char-acter and water bearing properties of the several geologic units occurring in the Hanford area are summarized in Table 2.4-10. In general, groundwater in the superficial sediments occurs under unconfined conditions, while water in the basalt bedrock occurs mainly under confined conditions. In some areas the lower zone of the Ringold formation is a confined aquifer, sepa-rated from the unconfined aquifer by thick clay beds,and possesses a dis-tinct hydraulic potential. Figure 2.4-11 shows a simplified geological cross section of the Hanford Reservation. Wells 699-9-E2, 699-10-E12, 699-14-E6, shown in this figure are located in the vicinity of the project site. The Ellensburg Formation (beds between basalt flows) and Ringold Formation beds are flood plain and shallow lake deposits. The glaciofluvial sediments are largely the result of several catastrophic floods. These sediments (actually Pasco Gravels) are about 100 times as permeable as the Ringold Formation gravels, both of which exist at the plant site. Field h , 2.4-5
i i WNP-1/4 ER-OL permeabilities, determined by a variety of methods, for the Ringold For-mation gravel, the glaciofluvial sediments (Pasco Gravels) and mixes of the two are given in Table 2.4-11. The values were obtained on materials com-parable to those at the FFTF and WNP-2 sites, and, of course are appreciably higher than at sites where the Touchet silts and Ringold silts and clays predominate. The median specific yield or available porosity is estimated to range between 4.8 to 11% and is most often assumed to be about 10%. Ad-ditional information on aquifer properties is provided in Section 2.4 of the WNP-1/4 FSAR. Since 1944 the Hanford chemical processing plants have discharged more than 160 billion gallons (4 x 105 acre-ft) of wastewater and process cooling water to the ground with a profound effect on the regional water table. Figure 2.4-12 shows the unconfined water table contours over the area inter-preted from measurements in September 1973. It also indicates the locations of wells. As shown in this figure, the impermeable aquifer boundaries are the Rattlesnake Hills, Yakima Ridge, and Umtanum Ridge on the west and southwest sides of the Reservation. Gable Mountain and Gable Butte also impede the groundwater flow. The current estimate of the maximum saturated thickness of the unconfined aquifer is about 230 ft. In the vicinity of the project site this thickness is approximately 100 ft to 160 ft. The depth to the water table varies greatly from place to place depending chiefly on local topography, ranging from less than one to more than 300 ft below the land surface. The ground surface is about 70 ft above the water table at the WNP-1/4 site. Water table contours in the WNP-1/4 site vicinity are shown in Figure 2.4-13. The groundwater flows in the unconfined aquifer are in a direction perpendicular to the contour lines and toward the Columbia River which acts as a discharge boundary. The natural recharge due to precipitation over the low lands of the Hanford Reservation is not measurable. The major artificial recharge of groundwater to the unconfined aquifer occurs near the 200 East and 200 West Areas. As is clearly shown in Figure 2.4-12, the large volumes of processed water dis-posed to ponds at this site have caused the formation of significant mounds in the water table. Upon reaching the water table, chemical and radioactive contaminants from ed in the direction of groundwater the 200 Area movement. disposal Nitrpte NO sites 3 ) and tritium ( are convecgH) ions had reached the WNP-2 site in 1972 (la,16(; However, the plume of gross beta emitters, cal-culated as 1D6pU does not reach the site at the present time, is in a decayr9gejsionphase,andwillnotlikelyreachthesiteinthe future.L 4 1
+
i 2 4-6 0
WNP-1/4
~N ER-OL (J
An underground disposal site for radioactive wastes is located immediately adjacent to the northwest corner of the WNP-2 site (Figure 2.1-2). The dis-posal site covers an area of 8.6 acres and was used between 1962 and 1967 to dispose of a broad spectrum of low ta high-level radioactive was.tes, primar-ily fission products and plutonium. Cartoned low-level waste was buried in trenches, anj medium to high-level saste was buried in caissons or pipe The buried wastes are approximately 45 ft above the water facilitgi table.t The points of groundwater withdrawal in the vicinity of the WNP-1/4 site are shown in Figure 2.4-14. Two on-site wells, (372 and 465 feet deep), draw from the unconfined aquifer in the Ringold formation or from the confined interbeds. During construction these wells supply potable / sanitary water requirements and provide water to support construction activities (concrete, dust control, pipe flushing, fire suppression, etc.). Well water consump-tion for these purposes is not expected to exceed 10,000 gpd for the balance of construction. When the plant is operating, normal water supply will be from the river and the wells will serve as a stand-by supply for service and supplemental fire protection. REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 Section 2.4 Q 1. U.S Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Washington, Volume 2, Eastern Washington, Water Year 1978, Water Data Report WA-78-2, 1979.
- 2. Pacific. Northwest River Basin Commission, Hydrology and Hydraulic Com-mittee, River ~ Mile Index--Main Stream Columbia River, July 1962.
- 3. Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission, Main Report, " Comprehensive Framework Study of water and Related Lands." Vancouver, WA, September 1972.
- 4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Columbia River Treaty Flood Control l Operatina Plan, North Pacific Division, Portland, OR, October 1972.
- 5. Historical Streamflow Storace-Change, Summation of Storage Change and Adjusted Streamflow 1928 - 1978, Columbia River and Coastal Basins, Deoletions Task Force, Columbia River Management Group, Draf t Report, i
September 1980.
- 6. Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission, Water Resources, Comprehensive Framework Study of water and Related Lands, Appendix V, Vol. 1, Vancouver, WA, April 1970.
- 7. Letter, M. L. Nelson, North Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers, to V.
S. St. Clair, N Reactor Branch, Atomic Energy Commission, dated November 2, 1970. O 2.4-7
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 (continued) Section 2.4
- 8. Letter, David Sweger, Seattle District, Corps of Engineers, to R. A.
Cnitwood, Washington Public Power Supply System, dated May 30, 1980.
- 9. Columbia River Basin, Lower Columbia Standard Project Flood and Probable Maximum Flood, Memorandum Report, North Pacific 'vivision, Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR., September 1969.
- 10. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Environmental Statement Related to the Proposed Hanford Number Two Nuclear Power Plant, Washington Public Power Supply System, December 1972.
- 11. State of Washington Department of Ecology , Washington State Water Quality Standards, December 1977.
- 12. Jaske, R.T., and D.G. Daniels, Simulation of the Effects of Hanford at the Washington-Oregon Border, BNWL-1344, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richiand, WA, 1970.
- 13. Jaske, R.T., and J.F. Goebel, A Study of the Effects of Dam Construction on Temperatures of the Columbia River, BNWL-1345, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland, WA, November 1970.
- 14. U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Final Environmental Statement, Waste Management Operations, Hanford Reservation, Richland, WA, December 1975.
- 15. Eddy, P.A., Radiological Status of the Groundwater Beneath the Hanford Project, January-December 1978, BNWL-1737, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratc, ries, Richland, WA, April 1979.
- 16. Bramson, P.E., J.P. Corley, and W.I. Nees, Environmental Status of the Hanford Reservation for CY-1972, BNWL-B-278, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, September 1973.
2.4-8 O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.4-1 COLUMBIA RIVER MILE INDEX 1 Description River Mile River Mouth 0.0
- Bonneville Dam 146.1 The Dalles Dam 191.5 John Day Dam 215.6 McNary Dam 292.0 Snake River 324.2 Yakima River 335.2 J
WNP-2 Intake and Discharge 351.75 i WNP-1 and -4 Intake and Discharge 351.85 Hanford Generating Plant 380.0 Priest Rapids Dam 397.1 4 Wanapum Dam 415.8 Rock Island Dam 453.4 l() Wenatchee River 468.4 i Rocky Reach Dam 473.7 Chelan River 503.3 Wells Dam 515.6 Chief Joseph Dam 545.1 Grand Coulee Dam 597.6 Spokane River 638.9 United States-Canadian Boundary 745.0 P l - 4
, , _ _ . .- _, _ _ . _ _ _ .L___._._....,____.__.._.._.._.__...,..-.,.__....,_.._-.._..,._,..._
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.4-2 MEAN DISCHARGES (CFS), OF COLtNBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, WASHINGTON Water Year Oct. h. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. 1960 118,100 108,900 92,760 77,340 75,130 68,940 163,600 193,800 278,900 251,700 122,400 74.190 1961 66,663 66,500 58,050 63,270 90,180 92,680 103,700 227,400 461,500 196,100 100,500 65,000 1962 61,600 59,460 52,570 65,040 74,180 58,170 108,900 182,100 270,300 192,500 123,000 65.980 1963 65,380 70,140 79,950 83,090 84,480 75,950 98,320 141,000 270,300 200,900 104,700 69,470 1964 61,550 56,100 59,480 55,070 72,700 61,220 63,100 167,600 388,300 294,300 130,200 74,570 1965 88,820 90,940 69,470 78,050 101,500 91,530 114,100 237,500 315,200 219,900 129,600 78,330 1966 64,540 70,590 74,740 68.230 81,340 77,630 76,270 183,500 274,000 227,600 110,500 73,590 1967 66,660 65,470 73,700 75,730 76,290 89,960 90,660 139,500 432,500 228,200 126,100 82.110 1968 73,220 75,820 89,770 78,780 74,660 109.000 100,300 127,000 271,400 226,600 114,100 91,260 1969 77,670 78,800 92,060 104,600 119,700 106,800 186,100 232,500 234,100 187,900 101,000 75,430 1970 82.110 89,060 96,700 87.160 76,690 85,220 91,760 129,600 181,700 123.900 100,700 74,470 1971 75,180 74,540 77,120 70,240 95,030 133,100 121,500 269,800 298,200 207,600 131,900 74,430 1972 71,340 81,000 98,800 92,120 105,000 152,400 158,000 236,900 ;88,800 238,400 152,800 94,570 1973 80,540 83,140 102,100 93,030 96,790 101.200 99,070 79,060 87,390 106,000 101,600 71,320 - 1974 78,680 66,560 96,120 142,200 147,200 115,300 145,600 196,900 260,800 213,100 136,800 104,900 1975 95,430 95,730 97,440 105.100 118,300 137,100 120,600 163,500 161,900 118,800 99,100 69,980 1976 81,010 101,800 109,900 15.2.400 143,600 142,400 136,600 185,100 166,900 185,600 191,000 126,700 1977 105,500 96,910 97,360 113,300 97,710 97,900 69,480 95,700 78,810 71,850 78,950 79,990 1978 66,390 82,870 81,800 101,800 103,700 96,290 138,400 150,600 129,100 126,000 95,680 107,800 I O O O
D (
\ \
TABLE 2.4-3 CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COLUMBIA RIVER WATER AT 100-F AREA 1970 (RESULTS IN PARTS /MILLION) Dist Phth MO Hard-Date M_ 2 Fe Cu Ca SO 4 PO 4 CI _02 Alk Alk ness Solids 1/6 6.0 0.03 0.002 20. 15. 0.00 0.33 NA 2.0 68. 74. 93. 1/20 4.0 0.01 0.004 22. 15. 0.05 0.36 7.8 2.0 71, 73. 84. 2/3 5.0 0.01 0.002 21. 13. 0.06 0.33 12. 2.0 69. 72. 100 2/17 5.0 0.01 0.004 22. 19. 0.01 0.33 11. 2.0 68. 75. 100 3/3 5.4 0.02 0.002 22. 17. 0.04 0.26 8.3 1.0 65. 76. 96, f 3/17 6.2 0.03 0.004 19. 17. 0.02 0.50 13. 1.0 65. 73. 81.
, 3/31 6.2 0.07 0.005 20. 17. 0.02 0.39 12. 2.0 69. 76. 81.
4/14 4.4 0.22 0.002 24. 20. 0.05 0.60 12. 1.0 66. 77. 100 4/28 6.3 0.12 0.005 22. 24. 0.02 0.56 12. 1.0 70. 82. 120 m 5/12 5.5 0.02 0.02 25. 2'. 0.005 0.40 12, 2.0 72. 85. 100 ? o m? 6/16 4.6 0.00 0.01 22. 13. 0.04 0.29 11. 2.0 56. 68. 74. rs s b 7/21 4.2 0.09 0.007 23. 15. 0.02 0.16 9.6 1.0 61. 76. 75. 8/4 3.9 0.02 0.007 25. 17. 0.02 0.46 9.6 .l.0 70. 78. 86. 8/18 4.0 0.03 0.004 24. 13. 0.02 0.26 8.9 1.0 70.! 77. 110 9/8 4.8 0.03 0.005 23. 15. 0.08 0.43 9.0 3.0 70. 77 73. 4 9/22 5.3 0.02 0.002 17. 13. G.03 0.26 9.4 2.0 63. 65. 87. 10/6 4.0 0.03 0.003 21. 20 0.02 3.66 8. 2 2.0 66. 70. 99. 10/20 5.4 0.02 0.006 16. 12. 0.01 0.32 11. 0.0 92. 66. 80. I 11/3 5.3 0.01 0.001 19. 18. 0.11 0.49 NA 2.0 70. 68. 80. 11/16 4.9 0.02 0.003 20, 15. 0.11 0.58 9.8 6.0 69. 70. 86. 12/1 3.8 0.01 0.002 20. 16. 0.01 0.46 NA 2.0 66. 65. 92. 12/15 6.6 0.01 0.000 18. 16. 0.11 0.53 NA 2.0 76. 73. 97. A""y*I y , 5.0 0.04 0.006 22. 16. 0.04 0.40 10. 1.8 68. 74. 90. I NA Indicates there was no analysis made. Analysis was made from sing. grab samples.
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.4-4 AVERAGE CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER AT VERNITA BRIDGE Water Quality Data Data from 10/77 to 9/79 Data from 10/79 to 7/81 CALCUIM; total recoverable; as Ca 19.8 mg/l 15.975 mg/l MAGNESIUM; total recoverable; as Mg 4.31 mg/l 7.35 mg/l S0DIUM; total recoverable; as Na 2.26 mg/l 2.05 mg/l POTASSIUM; total recoverable; as K 0.81 mg/l .43 mg/l CHROMIUM; total recoverable; as Cr 0 0.0062 mg/l COPPER; total recoverable; as Cu 0.0115 mg/l 0.0083 mg/l LEAD; total recoverable; as Pb 0.030 mg/l 0.0063 mg/l MERCURY; total recoverable; as Hg 0.0002 mg/l 0.00024 mg/l ZINC; total recoverable; as 7.n 0.043 mg/l 0.033 mg/l ALKALINITY; as CACO 3 55.4 mg/l 57. mg/l SULFATE; dissolved; as 50 4 12.8 mg/l 13.45 mg/l CHLORIDE; dissolved; as C1 1.7 mg/l 1.29 mg/l TOTAL NIGR0 GEN; as N 0.519 mg/l .57 mg/l AMMONIA NITROGEN; as N 0.013 mg/l .02 mg/l NITRITE + NITRATE NITROGEN; as N 0.093 mg/l .102 mg/l ORTH 0 - PHOSPHORUS; as P 0.013 mg/l .017 mg/l TOTAL PH0SPHORUS: as P 0.026 mg/l .22 mg/l HARDNESS; as CACO 3 67.3 mg/l 67.04 mg/l NONCARBONATE HARDNESS; as CACO 3 11*9 *9/I 9* "9/I SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE mho/cm 139 mho/cm 137.5 mho/an i pH (units) 7.67 8.03 units TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS mg/l 80.2 mg/l 82.4 mg/l Source: USGS Water Quality Data O
I l WNP-1/4 ER-OL ( TABLE 2.4-5 COLUMBIA RIVER WATER QUALITY
SUMMARY
IN VICINITY OF WNP-1/4 INTAKE STRUCTURE ^ No. of Parameter Data Points Average: Range l Alkalinity, mg/l as CACO 3 52 59.2 53-64 Aluminum, mg/l 1 0.15 - Amoni a, ug/l as N 12 10.1 5-28 Antimony, mg/l 1 0.15 - Arsenic, ug/l -1 1 - Barium, mg/l 12 0.1 - ! Derjllium, ug/l 1 3.0 - Boron, mg/l 12 0.01 - Bromide, mg/l 1 0.14 - Cadmium, Total, ug/l 52 0.53 0.1-8.4 Cadmium, Dissolved, ug/l 39 0.42 0.1-6.6 Calcuim, mg/l 12 18.5 16.2-20.4 Carbon, Total Organic, mg/l 1 2 j' Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg/l 1 5 - ! Chloride, mg/l 12 1.0 1.0-1.8 l' l Chromium, Total, ug/l 52 0.78 0.5-2.6 Chromium, Dissolved, -ug/l 37 0.5 0.5-1.6 Cobalt, ug/l 12 1.5 1-11 Color, PCU 12 12.5 5-25 Copper, Total, ug/l 52 3.5 1-16 Copper, Dissolved, ug/l 44 2.0 1-7 i Cyan ide, ug/l l' 2.0 - Fluoride, mg/l 12 0.17 0.13-0.29 Hardness, mg/l as CACO 52 68.6 56-80 3 Iron, Total, ug/l 52 55.7 27-140 1 O
WNP-1/4 E R-0'. TABLE 2.4-5 (Contd.) No. of Parameter Data Points Average Range Iron, Oissolved, ug/l 47 18.1 1-50 Lead, Total, ug/l 52 1.8 1-24 Lead, Dissolved, ug/l 50 1 1-2 Magnesium, mg/l 12 4.0 3.2-4.9 Manganese, ug/l 12 9.9 6-15 Mercury, Total, ug/l 52 0.52 0.2-4.1 Mercury, Dissolved, ug/l 50 0.2 0.2-1.0 Molybdenum, ug/l 1 2.0 - Nickel, Total, ug/l 52 1.8 1-10 Nickel, Dissolved, ug/l 39 1.1 1-3.4 Nitrate, ug/l as N 12 129. 10-290 Nitrogen, Total Organic, mg/l 12 0.5 0.5-0.5 011 & Grease, mg 12 1.5 1-6 0xygen, Dissolved, mg/l 51 10.9 8.7-13 pH 50 7.85 7.4-8.4 Phenol, ug/l 1 8.4 - Phosphorus, Total, ug/l 12 27.5 14-44 Phosphorus, Ortho, ug/l 12 17.9 6-38 Potassium, mg/l 12 0.77 0.52-0.91 Radioactivity, , pCi/ 1 0.56 - Radioactivity, , pCi/ 1 3.99 - Selenium, ug/l 1 2. - Settleable Matter, m / 12 0.1 - Silica, mg/l as SiO 2 10 4.46 1.9-6.2 Silver, ug/l 1 0.3 - Sodium, mg/l 12 2.0 1.2+2.4 Solids, Total Dissolved, mg/l 12 93.2 54-131 Solids, Total Suspended, mg/l 12 4.0 1-10 0
. . .- ~ -
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.4-5 (Contd.) No. of Parameter Data Points Average Range Specific Conductance, mho/cm 12 140.0 122-169 Sulf ate, mg/l 12 12.4 8.9-16.7 Sulfide, mg/l 1 0.10 - Thallium, ug/l 1 1. - Tin, ug/l 1 30. - Titanium, ug/l '. 6. - Turbidity, FTU 12 2.5 0.46-12 Zinc, Total, ug/l 52 19.0 5-47 Zinc, Dissolved, ug/l 47 13.7 5-39 O l Note: For averaging purposes, data reported as less than some value was assumed to be that value divided by two. In a few instances, the dissolved metals data exceeded the corresponding total metals values. These data were judged to be in error and were not included in determination of the range and average figures above. O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Table 2.4-6 MONTHLY AVERAGE WATER TEMPERATURE (OC) AT PRIEST R7 PIOS DAM (RM 394)(a) Nnth Annual Year J_an M M g g g g g g M g Dec Average 1961 5.4 4.7 4.7 7.4 10.4 13.7 17.3 18.9 17.8 14.9 10.4 6.6 11.0 1962 4.1 3.6 3.6 6.5 10.0 13.7 16.1 17.4 17.1 14.8 11.9 8.9 10.6 1963 5.3 3.8 4.6 6.5 10.4 14.0 16.6 10.4 18.3 16.3 11.9 7.7 11.2 1964 5.5 4.6 4.7 7.2 9.7 12.8 15.3 17.1 16.3 14.6 10.8 6.3 10.4 1965 4.4 3.3 4.1 6.6 10.0 13.3 16.1 18.4 17.3 15.3 11.9 7.8 10.7 1966 4.8 4.1 4.5 7.8 10.6 12.4 15.3 17.5 17.5 14.6 11.6 8.4 10.8 1967 5.9 5.7 5.0 6.8 10.1 13.3 16.1 18.5 18.2 15.4 11.3 7.2 11.1 1968 4.6 3.3 4.6 7.1 11.1 13.4 16.1 17.5 17.2 14.2 10.9 6.8 10.6 1969 2.4 1.5 3.4 7.2 10.8 14.6 17.1 18.2 17.7 14.8 11.5 7.6 10.6 1970 4.3 4.1 4.8 6.8 10.9 14.8 18.0 19.2 17.5 15.2 10.6 6.2 11.0 1971 4.0 3.5 3.6 6.6 10.7 12.6 15.3 18.4 17.2 15.2 11.3 6.8 10.4 1972 3.6 1.9 4.0 7.2 10.6 12.9 15.2 17.3 16.8 15.4 11.3 7.3 10.3 1973 2.3 2.9 4.8 7.7 12.5 15.4 17.6 18.8 17.8 15.2 10.3 7.7 11.1 1974 4.0 3.0 4.9 7.7 10.8 13.6 17.2 18.7 18.4 15.5 11.8 8.6 11.2 1975 4.5 2.5 3.5 5.8 10.0 13.5 17.0 17.0 18.5 15.5 11.5 6.5 10.6 1976 3.5 3.0 4.0 6.5 10.5 13.0 15.5 18.0 16.5 15.0 11.5 7.0 10.3 1977 4.0 3.0 4.5 8.0 10.5 15.0 16.5 19.5 18.0 15.5 10.5 6.5 11.0 1978 4.0 2.5 4.0 6.5 10.5 12.5 17.0 18.5 18.0 17.1 12.1 6.0 10.7 Averages 1965-78 4.3 3.4 4.3 7.0 10.6 13.6 16.4 18.2 17.6 15.3 11.3 7.2 10.8 (a) Records since August 1960. Recorded values adjusted by computer-simulation to compensate for measurement errors and missing data. O O O
_ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _. _ __.__ _ ._. _ ._._ _ _ . . _ . . - _. ._. . _ _ _ _ m . . _ . . _ + O O I i WNP-1/4 l ER-OL . i Table 2.4-7 MONTHLY AVERAGE WATER TEMPERATURE (OC) AT RICHLAND, WA (RM 343)(a) 4 i % nth Annual Year Jan Feb Mar g N Jun Jul M g Oct Nov Dec Average i 1965 6.1 5.4 6.3 9.1 11.0 14.2 17.3 19.8 18.5 16.4 12.6 8.4 12.1 1966 5.9 6.2 6.8 10.3 12.1 13.5 16.2 18.8 19.4 15.6 12.6 9.5 12.2 1967 7.4 7.0 6.6 8.8 12.0 13.9 17.0 20.2 19.4 16.1 12.0 7.8 12.4 I 1968 5.7 5.0 6.0 8.8 12.8 14.3 17.0 18.7 18.3 15.0 11.4 7.4 11.7 1969 2.7 1.9 4.3 8.0 11.4 15.3 17.9 19.3 18.6 15.2 11.7 7.0 11.1 1 1979 5.3 4.9 5.7 7.9 11.7 15.4 19.0 19.9 17.5 14.9 10.6 5.9 11.6 4 1971 4.2 3.4 3.8 7.0 11.1 12.9 16.4 19.5 17.8 15.0 10.7 6.2 10.7 1972 3.3 2.2 3.7 7.0 11.0 .13.3 15.5 18.1 16.9 14.0 10.5 6.1 10.1' ' ? 1973 3.2 3.0 4.7 7.8 12.9 15.6 18.3 19.6 18.3 15.0 9.9 7.6 11.3 1974 3.2 3.2 5.2 8.2 11.3 13.7 17.4- 19.4 18.8 15.4 11.5 7.9 11.3
- 1975 4.5 3.0 4.0 6.8 11.0- 14.5 '18.3 18.8 19.3 15.0 11.5 6.5 11.1 1976 4.0 3.5 4.5 7.0 11.0 13.5 16.0 16.9 17.5 14.5 11.0 7.0 10.5
- 4 1977 3.5 3.5 5.0 9.0 11.5 16.0 17.5 20.0 18.0 15.5 10.5 6.5 11.4 1978 4.0 3.0 .4.5 7.5 11.0 14.5 17.5 19.5 18.0 17.1 11.5 6.0 11.2 i Averages
! 1965-78 4.5 3.9 5.1 8.1 11.6 14.3 17.2 19.2 18.3 15.3 11.3 7.1 11.3 ! (a) Records since June 1964. 4 k I
e TABLE 2,4-8 DISCIIARGE LINES TO COLUMBIA RIVER FROM IIANFORD RESERVATION aree_ pt ocheroe L_inee Discher3e Bates, cf e ,, Quentsta m coe Toms er stere other Potent ial Water Quality E f f ect e lee-e/C 12-&e. steel pape 4,688 gallone sectflesh pump &alet screene Ambteet sue = entreated raw stwer water 8 64-h/C 42-an. eteel pape 2.2 orenes and filter hechwach 2. t *C, above Toten solade Turbadaty, alumlaus, sen ta te, above embleet Chlor 84e ite.se 1.1 S.See gallone sockflush pump talet screene and su 3 times a year amb t eet saune
- untreated r&wer water l ee- se Two 44- Aa. steel papes 3.1 and su preses, overflow and coolleg water 2. S*C above Total Son &de. Turbse'.ty, Aleataus. Self ate, for compressore and pumpe embteet Chlertee, Chlostee st.2S ag/tl 144-s 15,848 gettone meshflush pump &alet screene 3 esees e day Ambtent shame
- untreated r&wer water 196-m 3- by 4-f t concrete chute 1.5 overflow from filtered water and in to 24*C Tbtet solide, Ammonia (as well se redae*
raw water storage tente, condon- above emblent act&we weste) Chlos tae (0.45 og/t) Turbidity este from medtum pressere stees erstem, f <er neckweek lee-u 42-aa. eteel pape 0.65 Faltered water overf t,bu, and weste 6 to 8*C Self ate, Chlerade, Ck sortae it.SS ag/ED f rom floor dreans shove emblent too-e est an. page' to 12-f t oncret. les T rbane condea or coettag water le*C ekove it e on uswerbena Aluman=, T.th&daty and erechase meet eschenger oo a- esenaat tag water 104-u I42-la. steel pipe 300 (eetromes let and steen madanser cooltag water S.5'c above Turhaetty, neeonte, sulf ate, Iron, Sod &um. ele efel eahteet toccean Chlor &a.emally
- a to 4.3 to og/t peb orthophoephete).
WPPSS 152-aa, steel pape 949 when r&wer
- Stese condenser cooltag water 15 to 20*C (Sees as ahowel m2*g a2ae when r&wer2.25*C s *C ebow. eensent 4 00-o 'La 4 2-im. steel pape 6,000 gallone sectflush pump ta&et screene Ambteet enone = untreated river water O once a month once a month pN 104-0/0a Two 42-te. eteel papee 4.4 (2.2 to 22) Falter backweek and process Am
- 2. e *C above Total Solide, Turbidtty, Aluetaum, coeleet and week) water, hydree- enheent Sel f ete, Cher ade, Chierine (8.14 og/I)
R&e test loop water) (mes &am 2.2 ag/El 300 24-in. concrete pape teres- e to 12/ day noting se a 30-tm. half-round 2.2 (everage) r<er backwesh (from water treet- Ambient Total Sol 6de, Terh&dtty, Alussaue, Sultate, batches of meat plant) *Sepa ron * (a proprietary polyecrylee&de f cos regated notel pipe 82,Ge8 gallone f alter and) Chlostae (4.5 mg/I) let 36-te. eteel pipe 8.04 Aar conda tioner cooltag water and JS*C enowe Alumanum, self ate, Chiertae (s4. 5 mg/t 3 floor drease emb& eat 300 8 2-in. eteel pipe 1.1 (0.04 to 2. 33 Dressage from roof and part&ag 2 to 3*C Total Son &ds, Turbidity, orgente entrogen not, tente for aguette esgentees shove ambtees e
~
G G
. - . . . . . - - = _ _ ~ - _ - . ..- _ _ ._. . - ___ -. .
i O , i WNP-1/4 ER-OL -l
-l i
1 I j TABLE 2.4-9
- TOTAL ANNUAL DIRECT CHEMICAL DISCHARGE FROM l HANFORD RESERVATION TO COLUMBIA RIVER
! Quantity from All Facilities Materials (tons) i Aluminum Sulfate 260 Chlorine 20 i Po1yacry1 amide 0.8 , 4 Salt (rock) 22 Sodium Dichromate 2 i Sulfuric Acid 650 Anunonium Hydroxide 60 ! Hydrazine 8 i Morpholine 1.5 ! Sodium Hydroxide 230 ? I 4 I Source: Reference 2.4-14 n .i 4 i O I i i \ .
--,,,,,.,----v-,-,+-,m,c y**,-,- - - - - - , - _w+--,-e,m,w,,-*Wt-e*w=*-nyw-<----+-+--- - -w vyt----=m---- =r e ew e-.m . w-w wer ---g ery,om---
TABLE 2.4-10 MAJOR GEOLOGIC UNITS IN THE HANFORD RESERVATION AREA AND THEIR WATER BEARING PROPERTIES System Series Geologic Unit Material Water-Bearing Properties Fluviatile and glacio- Sands and gravels occur- Where belnw the water table, such deposits fluviatile sediments ing chiefly as glacial have very high permeability and are capable and the Touchet forma- outwash. Unconsolidated, of storing vast amounts of water. Highest Lion. tending toward coarse- permeability value determined was ness and angularity of 12,000 ft/ day. (0-200 ft thick) grains, essentially free of fines. Pleistocene Palouse soil Wind deposited sitt. Occurs everywhere above the water tablo. (0-40 ft thick) Quaternary Ringold .armation Well-bedded lacustrine Has relatively low permeability 3 values silts and sands and range f rom -I to 200 f t/ day. Storage capa-(200-1,200 ft thick) local beds of clay and city correspondingly l low. In very minpr gravel. Poorly sorted, part, a few beds of gravel and sand are m locally semi-consolidat- sufficiently clean that permeability is 2J 2 ed or cemented. Gener- moderately larges on the other hand, some N7 O -a ally divided into the beds of silty clay or clay are essentially lower ' blue clay" por-tion which contains con-impermeable. Py siderable sand and gravel, the middle con-glomerate portion, and the upper silts and fine sand portion. Miocene and columbia River basalt Basaltic lavas with Rocks are generally dense except for numur-Pliocene series. interbedded sedimentary ous s!. sinkage cracks, interflow scoria zones, rocks, considerably de- and interbedded sediments. Permeability of (>10,000 ft thick) formed. Underlie the rocks is small (e.g., 0.002 to 9 ft/ day) but unconsolidated sedi- transmissivity of a thick section may be con-ments. siderable (70 to 700 ft / 2 day)
? ? Rocks of unknown age, Probable metasediments ?
type, and structure. and metavolcanics. O O O
l WNP-l/4 ER-OL 1 1 . . i TABLE 2.4-11 AVERAGE FIELD PERE ABILITY (FT/ DAY) Specific i Pumping Capacity Tracer Cyclic Gradient i Tested Tests Tests ' Tests Fluctuations Method
. Flaciofluvial 1700-9000 1300-900 8000 2200-7600 ---
j- (gravels) i Glacial and 120-670 130-530 --- 130-800 --- Ringold (Gravels) l Ringold 1-200 8-40 --- 20-66 13-40 1 i J i I i i
)
O 1 l 1 r f
.I
. . . . . - - . - - - . . - . . , . . - . - . ~ - - . . . -_ _ . - - . - - . . . - . - - . _ _ ,
--- CANADA I O:
UNITED STATES , Northport I i I e d 2 E g
- f. d I og Chief Joseph O e Dam Grand D Spokane River g i
Wells Dam I Rocky Reach Dam ** 2 oI Rock Island Dam 2 i e < I A
*g.
l 3* Wanapum Dam
*. Lower Granite Priest Rapids Dam j De g Lower Monumental Dam i Hanford ,we @*
" * **** *# " $ l Uttle Goose Richland D" Lewiston Pesco g ice Harbor Dam i Kennewick
~~
WASHINGTON
~~'
p *' ORE 56N John Day Dam cow g McNary Dam Dams in the Columbia River Basin The Dalles Dam
- Temperature Monitoring Station g Other Temperature Stations WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM UPPER AND MIDDLE COLUMBIA WNP 1/4 RIVER BASIN ER-OL FIG. 2.4-1 l
l O - i i i i i i i i i 300 _ PERIOD: WATER YEAR 1929-1958 _ m 200 - o o - o MONTHLY o e- _ ul l - I _ O I m ANNUAL 5 100 - Im RW G
- e O I I I I I I I I I O 20 40 60 80 100 PERCENT OF TIME EQUALED OR EXCEEDED DISCHARGE DURATION CURVES OF THE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW WNP 1/4 PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, WA ER-OL FIG. 2.4-2
600 - 650 -
=g.
,;. 'Y' ..
500 -
- a.. ..
DAILY MAXIMUM *a
- u. 4s0 U .a= ...g"'f ;. .
O
.' y ".** ,,y, .... .
c Q 400 - ' E
- u '"2*og..
. ,,,f *,*;*.
* *E "E * .'.**? ..
350
- o . /::;..
m * "" 4 300 -
==
o DAILY MEAN e .# o 2so - p 'v* d g 200 -
~~
y .. OBSERV D 1978 W 150 -
;E f) -l N 7 t
y $ I _, DAILY MINIMUM i i I i i i i i l i i I i i I i i l i i l 10 20 10 20 10 20 i l i i i I i i l i i i i i 10 20 10 20 10 20 10 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM COLUM8BA river AT PRIEST RAPIOS. WA. WNP-1/4
SUMMARY
AND 1978 HY GRAPitS ER-OL
O O O 5 E i a z O EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY PER HUNDRED YEARS O z i 99.899.599 95 90 80 50 20 10 5 2 E I I I I I I i 1 1 I I I I I 8 r-m2 5 1000 -
- o *,.s= i O O rN$
am x E z m 500 - r-
- u.
- O
$ o
% o m o l E e PERIOD OF RECORD: 1913-1965 i
$ 200 -
n Om x 4 so I I mE O 0) o@'2 n O g 100 - !' NE EoE I - 5$E j =z g g l l 1 1 I I I I m_ .m. P qE2 2 10 50 500 , u > 9 >, I gE OA EXCEEDENCE INTERVAL, YEARS 5E
E i E z i S o PERIOD OF RECORD 1929-1958 PERIOD z c'
~
m O m im 6Lo HIGH FLOWS rssbm u) LL m O
$ 0 m O
? O 300 -
< e-1 MONTH m -
3 MONTHS g m 200 -
-4 0 6 MONTHS m oc 3 12 MONTHS q MEAN 114,100 CFS o 100 12 MONTHS U) 6 MONTHS n$
i g - 3 MONTHS o$ m c 2 50 - 1 MONTH m nm 4 2 m
-i g@.O
$ s gng LOW FLOWS
'5 OEm "EO
- ? !;". i i i i i i i n
' $$ 1.1 1.5 2 3 5 10 20 30 50 P pes y a hh RECURRENCE INTERVAL, YEARS i
e O O
l l O E = 342.2 MSL 0 e-------------------- MILE 352 10 -
. ' s' E = 342.0 MSL 0 q---
MILE 351.8 10 - s s N E = 341.7 MSL 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MILE 351.5 O ,0 -
's E = 341.5 MSL o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MILE 351.3 ' s 10 -
/
COLUMBIA RIVER O.=36,000 CFS I I I i 1 0 200 400 600 800 1000 DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK, ft WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM CROSS SECTIONS OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER O WNP-1/4 ER-OL IN THE PLANT VICINITY FIG. 2.4-6
- E g E15500 E16000 E16500 E17000 2 1\ )
- n;9- l S N13000 -
( . _ z \ ,n i \ . : .e g . m g}} ) m!E / '$NN [ INTAKE l ?mo WNP-1/4 -.\). ' i *. Okj PUMP HOUSE _ . - RIVER MILE 351.86 o ! *g ]} \ ' ' .'
.c d,4 ' '-
- DISCHARGE S c
w ' C j,i \ 'f
,( E A \ l 'c:*' . .
' R I ' i'.I; \.' >
E N12500
/I I -
I ) e' (- 2 a / l 1 ,,P.
- t si 6 INTAKE i o WNP-2 g ,
.h) h. .
CO PUMP HOUSEb .
'=
RIVER MILE 351.75
- a. i 2
s
\ t..IW[.9 WA ' ^
3o* N12000 -
/#I I \-hf4_
1 .T :e
?5 / g .
- "E j 370 3 5 0 . ., . 9 i 380 360 . ,$I a> I l _
l m zo
/
l
\ \
EDGE OF
/N3 :,
l' ii. ' EDGE OF RIVER AT REGULATED LOW FLOW l 5 g 23 \ l RIVER AT 120,000 cfs ) /d. i.Ct. (36,000 cis) l N z@ N i s ?> y \Ii.'.d'.d, sl 4 "gm N11500 \ l! l
-A O e
\
u D ta l 2 l E ! O t a l O 2 m c m
<C m y. o -
"im 1 01.0 l FN5 Am t
-480 l l I m ~
g 480-en GROUND ELEVA' TION AT WNP-1/4 slTE -y 1 E _a --460 ' Ei iiE 460- ! T u) _ " _ " ' '*" main,, E Ig I E (A 2 tu
-440- = '3kq'" '
= , ,
""""=% ""===.
5g 440-
- y > -420 e.200.ooo cFs-
"""' ==== =
H O l mus 969. coo cFs 420-A CD GROUND ELEVATION 4 4,800.000 CFS-- j E q -400 - -- AT WNP.1/4 INTAKE a -400-PUMP H USE 2 " l ,, O -380 1.360.000 ces- - - 380-I m F =- -- - 72s.000 cFsi-
< :n 4 -360 --- __
~ ~
00.000 CFs h W
- o g -340 _.. _ _ . -- 38.'000 cFs_. _ - -
340-OD -320 - 320-
, O $ 'il i aO2 -300 "
300-1 2 Ui (A j ggn 358 355 350 345 340 335 5 > RIVER MILES z o w m in in m Q EO sn e sa OO
!! :D i
20 18 - [lL_ i , i I _ _ _I I 16 - l l 1 j ._ I 14 - j 1 U l
. 12 -
i w I e r=, o - __J
& l 4 10 -
I m m I a - l 8 - h _ r_J l 6 - l
- l l _ _ _I 4 -, i RICHLAND I-- _I
- --- PRIEST RAPIDS DAM l 2 -
l ~ l l l I I I I I I I I l J F M A M J J A S O N D
~
l AVER AGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM COMPARISON FOR PRIEST RAPIDS DAM l WNP 1/4 RICHLAND, FOR 10-YEAR PERIOD ER-OL 1965-1974 l I FIG. 2.4-9
O ~
' l ' i ' '
I I I l 70 - - UPPER EXTREME
%An V V -
v' g .^A ^/ 3 g 60 - - y _ _ x w MEAN c. b A l O g so
-e
\
v~ v - v - LOWER EXTREME - 40 - A _\ v v-x s v _ 32 i l i l i I ' I ' I 1940 1948 1956 1964 1972 CALENDAR YEARS COMPUTED LONG TERM TEMPERATURE ON O WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WNP-1/4 ER OL THE COLUMBIA RIVER AT ROCK ISLAND DAM (1938 1972) FIG. 2.4-10 m--. , . - - , , - - - - - , , , - , _ - - , - - - - ---.----,----..,--n-- - . , - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E m I_. z O
-4 O
z C m EC m 3 zO mm Wwers stures 0ky NW SE
*g :wr -~
m .' 5.'T - a,a m == a aa8 aw,.- -~ m 8'" [T
- j. . . . -l -.,,. J. ;.,m_ ,
l]GLACIOFLUVIAL'DEPOS{S "i"
' *u
,,', .. . . . co
}?h.[i '
'~
~ "
- m .
r .tuu,,sA,, . n --. .'5 ,f
,. L. . , -r , - .
w/i,, . . - . m E g' pg y /,' ' s[ K v.
/ i
' . gy
'l '/
m : , m. l i -
'"'~
.. . ,t tu M ' " *
, ,,,,7fcff,,,gj, j,y,ff,,,,p RINGOLD FORM ATION ww[h q$. 6 "
~
I w---
' ca, r f - sa g
7, ,
'~
y .
,,u q ,, ,,o
.gsg.,,.
- s. A L.-
), ! ((((((((((/[!!/' - 'I -
OE 4.' 83 f WELL DRAWN WELL TO 8N PLANE TM g, w # L!j s. , 4 8 PLANE or sacTsom or sec ton ~ 8"
-e ' ~~,;ffpMd(y;M. -
g 2M ;;;g <
~._~.
.3 d
.,' " Inonr40pW' - ', Att Watt muusans sHOuLD SE PREelRE .'. SY 899 - aos y . , ,
gI O I)m statuts uaLEs Z 2-r oyO BASALT FLOWS
-t m O O
z OO 3 3> 9 $r-m 33 0 t' 3O s* <m
>m
- d O
z 4 9 9
O - i : = :- \ 'N
-" r.
/.y ... N.%,_ l.c -
~..g-
.**t-3. j....,
m - .em. ...- . . . 9J .
/
'v.q:..- ] ,{. j ..
. . -h.,
. . -..v 1, .s
/ / .=,/ ,,
p..J..n. Yf.TC 9E,' W.-. I\- Y I.::
/
d[lM.=u .
- .".!,h\"yf\-[\'::...
'\ . .-
"\
s l j ,/ // i' //hh,/m, $I .."f.,.k. -
) * -'{ .
, ..\}~
// '? .. ,,'
.-),
' ~
3.. ' \ I'
- j .
.b l ; g
$, / ,/, , ,. --
\ . ,,/ . ...
'~'~
.-.' \
4 ,' h' f'b h
/
o / < l/// f/r/j
- e-.m ..s.t . . ..ov, a.rt, r..a i a.ge,r.,sgrams a mr .sovt w
j'
. .sa '// .
, ,,, v.cm. eivin //
was GROUNDWATER CONTOURS AND LOCATIONS
\ WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM OF WELLS FOR THE HANFORD RESERVATION, WNP.1/4 WASHINGTON SEPTEMBER,1973 ER.0L FIG. 2.412
^
l l O Ib COLUMBIA RIVER
/
390 (
)
l g 380 1 < WYE BARRICADE l l 400 j, {WNP- \
}WNP-1 @
O ROUTE 10 1 360 l \ g\N ROUTE 4 g\\g SOUTH f \'s\s ' s\\ 350
\ \s g s\' & 4 \ f
\\s \
\
4
\ \\ c !
\\\\ l l Source: Data by Rockwell Hanford I ij Energy Systems Group December 1973 300 Elevations in Feet above MSL \ AREA WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WNP-1/4 OF WNP 1 AN 4 DE M 3ER 1 78 I
FIG. 2.4-13
\
l l O CONSTRUCTION / OPERATION SUPPORT WELLS 10,000 GPD WNP-4 CONSTRUCTION O SUPPORT WELLS O O 10.000 GPD es WNP-2 O O 1 O WNP-1 A NORTH O l FFTF v O s000 t i e i ,i f SCALE IN FEET t CONSTRUCTION / OPERATION SUPPORT WELLS 100,000 GPD l p WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM E V CIN OF W
\ WNP-1/4 ER OL i
FIG. 2.414 - (
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 2.5 GEOLOGY The WNP-1 and WNP-4 site is located in the Pasco basin which lies within the Columbia plateau province of south-central Washington. The Pasco Basin is a physiographic depression consisting of approximately 1600 square miles of un-dulating shrub steppe with low-lying hills, dunes and intermittent streams. It is bordered on the north by the Saddle Mountains, on the south by the Rattlesnake Hills, and on the west by the eastely end of Umtanum and Yakima Ridges. There is no well-defined surface feature bordering the Pasco basin on the east. The basin merges into a vast expanse of dunes, dissected flatlands and coulees northwest of the Snake River. Structural features within the basin include Gable Mountain and Gable Butte which are in line with the Umtanum anticline. The trend of the folds in the Columbia Plateau is west-northwest. The mecha-nism of folding, which tends to form in some places very tight asymmetrical anticlines which may be overturned or faulted on the north, is not well under-stood. Small faults have been identified in the basalt on anticlinal ridges. Longitudinal faults postulated on the steep north side of Umtanum Ridge and the Saddle Mountains are miles in length. However, these structures do not appear to have a well-defined relationship with reported earthquake epicenters. The Rattlesnake Mountain-Wallula alignment of anticlines and discontinuous f ault segments is the major tectonic structural feature of the area. The oldest rocks exposed in the Pasco basin are volcanic flows of late Miocene to early Pliocene age. A 10,000+ foot deep hole drilled on the Hanford Site encountered Eocene age sediments and possibly older basalts. Most of the basalt flows range from 130 feet to 150 feet thick and the interbeds of tuff-aceous ash, sand, silt or clay range from 5 to 130 feet thick and are not con-tinuous for more than a few miles. Overlying the basalt group is the Ringold Formation of late Pliocene-Pleistocene age. Sediments assigned to the Ringold Formation were deposited in a fluvial / flood plain environment and consist of stream-channel conglomerates, point-bar sandstones, fine-grained overbank flood deposits, and minor lacustrine sediments. In the Pasco Basin, sediments of the Ringold Formation accumulated to a maximum thickness of about 360 m. The Ringold Formation has been div;ded into five textural units: 1) basal gravel; 2) lower sand, silt, and clay; 3) middle gravel or conglomerate;
- 4) upper sand and silt; and 5) a 1ccal f anglomerate facies. The middle, upper, and fanglomerate units crop out in the Pasco Basin. Information on the nature and distribution of the basal and lower units is based only on borehole data. The basal gravels may be equivalent to interbeds beneath younger basalt flows (lower-to-middle Pliocene Ellensburg Formation) outside the northcentral portion of the Pasco Basin, rather than Ringold deposits. The fanglomerates occur only along the margins of synclinal basins adjacent to the basaltic ridges that were the source for the fan deposits. The fanglomerates are in-cluded as members of the Ringold Formation on the basis of their time equiv-alency rather than similarity of depositicmal environments.
O 2.5-1
WNP-1/4 ER-OL l ) U Glaciofluvial sediments of late Pleistocene age lie on an eroded surface of the basalt flows and the Ringold Formation resulting from catastrophic floods of glacial origin. The largest of the late Pleistocene floods was produced by the sudden emptying of glacial Lake Missoula. This flood extensively modified the drainage in central and eastern Washington. It plucked out large blocks of basalt; created hanging valleys and waterfalls; deposited huoa gravel bars and ripple marks; and reworked and redepgsited vast quantities of gravel, sand, and silg. An area of some 7200 km was stripped to bedrock, while about 2300 km was buried by flood deposits. Hydraulic daming of Wallula Gap and perhaps the Columbia River Gorge southwest of the Umatilla Basin, and the subsequent surging of floodwater back upstream produced a marked sepa-ration of the sediment load into a coarse-grained facies and a fine-grained slackwater f acies. These two principal facies of flood deposits are recog-nized throughout the Pasco, Walla Walla, Yakima and Umatilla basins. The coarse grained facies consist of gravel, sand, and minor silt deposits, which are known as the Pasco Gravel . The silty, fine sand facies is known either as ' the Touchet beds or as slackwater deposits, particularly around the edges of the Pasco and Walla Walla Valley. Imediately after the last late Pleistocene flood (about 13,000 YBP) hundreds of square kilometers of recently deposited bare Pasco Gravels and Touchet beds would have been exposed to wind erosion. Wir;ds would easily have carried the O V finer sediments, which had been derived largely from either basalt or from the older loess deposits such as the Palouse. As a result, much of the Pasco Basin and adjacent areas are covered by a mantle of latest Pleistocene and Holocene loess deposits. The loess is pale brown and has an AC soil horizon. Borings at the center of the WNP-1 and WNP-4 containment buildings were used to determine the thicknesses of the principle geologic units beneath the site. The uppermost glaciofluival unit is comprised primarily of basaltic sands (Pasco gravels) and is approximately 50-60 feet thick. Underlying this unit is the Ringold Formation upon which the plant structures are founded. The Ringold is approximately 400 feet thick in the site vicinity and unconformably rests upon the Columbia River basalts. The basalts in the Pasco Basin are known to be over 10,000 feet thick based on data from a well located on nearby Rattlesnake Mountain. Additional detailed geoiogic and seismic studies of the site area and the sur-rounding region have been conducted in support of construction and safety studies for WNP-1 and WNP-4. The results and conclusions of these studies are documented in Chapter 2.5 of the WNP-1/4 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). a 2.5-2
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 2.6 REGIONAL HISTORIC, SCENIC, CULTURAL, AND NATURAL FEATURES 9 Within a twenty mile radius of the WPPSS Nuclear Projects Nos.1, 2 and 4, there are eleven properties Jisted or Registe of Historic Places.lla,1b,, Ic)cligible for listing, The locations on the relative the National nuclear projects are listed below: Archaeological District Distance and Direction from WNP-1, 2 & 4 Wooded Island 3.5 miles SW Savage Island 7 miles N Hanford Island 10 miles NNW Hanford North 15 miles NNW Locka Island 18 miles NNW Rattlesnake Springs 18 miles WNW Snively Canyon 18 miles W Ryegrass 18 miles NW Paris Archaeological Site 19 miles NNW James Moore House 18 miles SSE Pasco-Kennewick Bridge 20 miles SSE There are no areas within twenty miles which are designated as Natural Land-marks or are regarded as scenic areas. The Wooded Island Archaeological Dis-trict is located about two miles south of the WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 makeup water pumphouses which will be visible from the north end of the island. Other than this specific visual alteration, nc,ne of the properties will be adverse-ly affected by the projects. The State Historic Preservation Officer's re-view of the anticipated impact of the operation of WNP-2 (pumphouse) on the Wooded Island site is contained in Appeadix II. The archaeology of the middle Columbia River, and particularly the Hanford Reach, is largely unknown. Archaeological surveys of the Hanford Site and the proposed Ben Franklin Reservoir area were conducted in 1967 and 1968.(2,3) These reconnaissance studies provided the first comprehensive inventory of ar. chaeological sites in the area which should be salvaged or preserved. Nearly all of the identified sites contain evidence of habitation by the Wanapum Indians, or River People, who aboriginally occupied the banks of the Columbia River from Vantage to Pasco. A more detailed field and laboratory investiga-tion of a site near the Hanford Generating Project was conducted by Ricel41 under contract with the Washington Public Power Supply System. This study provided a comparative collection of artif acts from an area that had not been studied for over 40 years. It also provided archaeological evidence that demonstrated aboriginal culture stability and continuity for at least 6500 years. It further demonstrated that the archaeological resource within the Hanford area is considerable and warrants further investigation and preserva-tion. O 2.6-1
WNP-1/4 ER-OL [qt v Dr. David G. Rice, a professional archaeologist and Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Idaho, was retained to determine whether or not archaeological and historical resources would be disturbed by construction of the Supply System projects. Field exam ect area was conducted on May 3,1974.(igation of the complete 31 No archaeological WNP-1/4 features were proj-observed at the reactor site. Geological work indicated that there were no sediments at the reactor site or in the pipeline corridor which were likely to contain archaeological deposits. Two archaeological sites (45-BN-113 and 45-BN-114) were identified about 700 feet southeast of the WNP-1/4 make-up water pumphouse. These sites were not disturbed by construction. Dr. Rice recommended no further archaeological work except when the excavation in the river bank area was initiated.t5) Construction of the make-up water pumphouse and associated pipelines was com-menced in July 1977. Between that time and March 1978, Dr. Rice made five separate field examinations with the commencement of different phases of the construction.(6) This monitoring work resulted in the recovery of a small fragment of a Chinese rice bowl and a prehistoric aboriginal hearth area (Site 45-BN-257). However, no concentration of archaeological resources was uncovered by construction of WNP-1/4. WNP-1/4 will be connected to the Howard J. Ashe substation by individual 500kV transmission lines and a common 230kV emergency power transmission line. WNP-l's 500kV line is approximately 1.4 miles, and WNP-4's 500kV line is approximutely one mile in length. The common 230kV line is approx h ately 1.6 miles in length. Except for a small section of each line, the lines will be on DOE land leased for WNP-2 and WNP-1/4. These short transmission lines are located in the plagt area which was judged to be devoid of archaeological resources.tS) proper, The an Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is constructing the transmission lines from Ashe to HGP gnq has addressed archae-logical impacts in its environ-mental statement.l71 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.6 1( a). National Register of Historic Places, Heritage Conservation and Recrea-l tion Service, Department of the Interior, Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 26, Pages 7415-7649, February 6, 1979. (b) Vol. 45, No. 54, Pages 17446 & 17485, March 18,1980. l (c) Vol. 46, No. 22, Pages 10622 & 10667, February 3, 1981.
- 2. Rice, D. G., " Archaeological Reconnaissance - Hanford Atomic Works",
Washington State University, Laboratory of Anthropology, Pullman,1968.
- 3. Rice, D. G., " Archaeological Reconnaissance - Ben Franklin Reservoir Areas,1968", Washington State University, Laboratory of Anthropology, j
Pu llman, 1968. l l 1 O l 2.6-2 l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O,
- 4. Rice, D. G., " Archaeological Investigations at the Washington Public Power Supply System Hanford No.1 Nuclear Power Plant, Benton County, Washington", Department of Sociology / Anthropology, University of Idaho, Moscow, October 1, 1973.
- 5. Letter from D. G. Rice, University of Idaho, to R. B. Brocklebank, United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., subject: " Archaeological /
Historical Reconnaissance at relocated WNP-1", May 9,1974.
- 6. D. ice, D. G., "Sumary of Archaeological Field Work Related to the Con-struction of the WPPSS WNP-1/4 Water Intake System and Pumphouse, Han-ford Works, Washington, 1977-78", University of Idaho, Laboratory of Anthropology, Moscow, Idaho, December 29, 1978.
- 7. Bonneville Power Administration,1975 Fiscal Year Proposed Program, Environmental Statement Facility Evaluation Supplement O
O 2.6-3
l WNP 1/4 ER-OL 2.7 NOISE As discussed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, the plants are located in a relatively remote sagebrush and bitterbrush biotic comunity at least four miles from the nearest residence. Because of the remoteness of the site, noise generated by plant operation is not expected to be a problem and comprehensive ambient noise surveys were not conducted in the surrounding area. The principal noise sources will be mechanical draft cooling towers (see Section 3.4) and outside transformers. Typically, these cooling towers create a sound level of about 60 dB(A) at 1000 feet with calm winds.ll) Cursory noise measurements at the site perimeter during plant construction registered between 40 and 70 dB(A). REFERENCE FOR SECTION 2.7 (1) Teplitzky, A. M., " Controlling Power-Plant Noise", Power, 122(8): 23-27, August 1978 n V 2.7-1 l l
WNP-1/4 x ER-OL CHAPTER 3 THE PLANT 3.1 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE Figure 2.1-2 shows the property line and the relative locations of the WNP-1/4 stations, including cooling towers, :nakeup water lines, and nearby roads, railroads, transmission f acilities, electrical substations, and sup-port f acilities. Figure 3.4-1 shows the building layout for the WNP-1 pl ant. A recent oblique aerial photograph of the site is presented in Figure 3.1-1. The site is relatively flat and semi-arid with vegetative cover consisting of sagebrush interspersed with desert grasses. All of the structures are func-tional in design, and maximum use of straight-line architecture and appro-priate colors and textures has been made to achieve an aesthetically pleasing appearance which blends naturally with the characteristics of the landscape. Wherever possible, visual shielding of plants, f acilities, and structures has been accomplished utilizing natural topographic relief. The plant yard is covered with suitable surf aces, mainly grass and gravel, to enhance the in-tegration of the f acilities into the environmental setting. The location and elevation of release points for liquid and gaseous wastes is indicated by a system of (x,y) cocrdinates related to the centerlines of the containment for WNP-1. These locations are shown in Figure 3.1-2. O 3.1-1
j ; h [ [ [ J hl!NQ 3$ Q V:h pQ&, j
, ,P ,;
}& +
hh Vl?lhr 4 ) Y % ,' t-if i? ' :p ' , p lJ: Iff c s
'c , [ F + ., ) 6,; f 't3 ;
b */ l@ 4' f ) #Y s ..# ,; ,
%[;d l I q T + ,J
, , ,k ,, T , li '
'I ' N h, $j'kif:I ;[,ehN N bk)h UNf(('b N)$
{ . d
),' s i
/ i 0'i. b $* C j ,1 p;Gia "Q'j%,:I nt v M._i4 kM %
gd,d {3_h ' p@q:m y p s % g g_, M P'q . c nQ p!)u
,y %u y,ffe %a ,f # Ig..a .
y.qQ p.Eq? & iM $ i k' t y'
;{ , Oj h, e'td k E f
?j k'~ Mal,J h(jMD!h
^*It I L ) M 4
~~vO$
'g[ i n i [,} Q ' M 'p f.+Jyg335%g j i7.gipn4
- *q b 'ti p, v ,1- y v ~
'c i r/j& p c j .M. a 1 Fmp,L, as,.yg.
qp. &p ha@f.M C W ',fsg5[k$d{g}LE 9951 J
,9[ il.3 *,( !-
,>ls. J lfk, $ % s/)'i h. j N W %.[. y y
,, s. . , .,. . a ; g, .y c ,.-- . - - . ,
g. I '
.l h$ ,
!; . y r A ,f' d; Q &;f.' 4 pp qiggiiggg2: d t
L L.y, M Y vl$ ofgypfll$bkkw.-i k,hhk _ M n a ahffh p q.o tlbh!$5%' , , NM:,, e b k k h \ j s~ Yk : li !- t : iii p ..y t y ,' d dd ,I , /S.Y .. ,.~ ', , .4 4 ?. , u ; 8 ) [. 4 ; I f, iI i
.,.,H f .
' i Ng , , , .
a M%g 7; [-;'F Nj]Ij .dj ! f.h, 'I qy.i ' '
- Ji'0p "
k
$w:1y.n1' b.Q @a M< O,A fA9 Y.h Y % Q[.
4 w.ual ; f .I i D) i
- s
, \ bf9 .h ,
,. cit
. h.
t ( ,s + i - a,. ..c
^
~, .b 4
! 1 i.- 1N*
),N; i .. ;d,$
a ,5 'i .i ' fx .. - ,
~ 'eb ' s
# #. v l1 's 4 ^
- f. gu ad.iN.M1 D} NDiMit) sM M ' M*
" ~
O i AERI AL OBLIOUF 9 81
' \\ ASHINGTON PUBLIC POWEH SUPPLY SYSTE.\1 i I
LOOKING NORTH I WNP 1 4 f FIG 31-1
i t
... i 4-
, rt.
_ .. . . n 3 s1 6 l'n') (
~
1& -t h w C p ilf,~ q l . *
/ i - en v <
3
,,,.. - k M'l $1- -
E -
- llt'I
.Yylijll a y
11 B
- ll:
~
/
} 1 l a g
g a
-l lT.
tt m!1"[I'l_I4-. .I l 3 11 l A
%/ g ]g, n gi 3
e I *e 7- we, ts_ _ . ,, e/
' .Vgg / N 11 ,I ru a,gw i
a , li 8
- a IiI /
k .
. l < z a - o a .-
l ) s ,# n: n O 6 l' f 49. j~ ~) { i c=-
- lI IhV - II h 1 L!f "x, y d s_. E I I
-: =.: ; ;
swww wls wwwwww 656 wwww wwwww w wwwww 9.w' n hwA 1W 5 4le.pf pi *i i il i w:w: : i i s iE i i i i i -- 4 t i i i 4 4 4----- 3 ':::::lw:T:g: .vi:M d!:p.%Fglj
; je. -. 4 --h 7q';::q :,:.r{:-::::::-
l g ; - ap - r:,-:: :::: . r:gA:.t.e. .: . 3. . :...: : :e..:. .. s.a.ge..-:. : : . . :: : 2 -
. x : :: t :: .
l~qs.':.J. ..A..l.
. . .l. .!. .. . .l. . . . :
. ...:2..
;? . . . . .b . . . ... g . .i. . . .. . .. .. . . .. . .... . .
. n . .t .t.a..ta :
?.
.a. & :,as 3.:. a-n- -a a,3 e-
.. aa a a.a,3 ; a.g
. .31
. .s
- . ..s $ s-a-a. 5 2 s- .e.e.
* ' ! *,.!f.! * * ** *
,_..i.!f:* :* ?:f'h *h :*: :*: r :*:*:*:*:*:* :*
; t
.j.
M . ...: .: : ::: :..: ; e e.s. ':*:*:* :*-:*:*:*:*:*
'* :* ':.: ::: :. : *3
; - :.: d: 4 : t: 1, tu t 1 : : :::.:. .:: : u - - - - - * . - - - -
- : d
- :. :. t. ;b. .. : :.,.. 2 2 .::;e : :: ::: :: s.e.e.n.:4 -- -
- 3 4: :r r ::: ::
p .
. . . . . . . . . .l.
1 - -
- ) It
[f.--fj[:f
-1g L:i 2.. ........
tt n.c.; j a- .u .4 4ys v
. . . }ilrf.:j a f }.lfi.i!.l.li.:j:f.1-1
,ii i a.a y
-- -.- -- --- -- r a
- . 2 . - i- -- :- -
T* jT T* th-I ,! } v!T ht!t i!:v Thy e t i TIII8 S;T I I I II I I II 8.T 2;sl h-l-'tY t rv gy
!gl "
k "5 1 Y1I1 f'qi i lul!lh. flTI tt 1 lS{jijili s ifl1iij}djf W8 };*,11 trarr r i 8 8 5 5{55I rr ry. 5 s r,r5 5,{I YIrjrI(Cli,i'kIIIIi3lg ! 8I rjr a5r 5{'rr r'Sji g ,,* * .l1%': ! .I!!itltp!It:315!'d 8,ar i
}[3g
- 2. h,.g ! ! .g t It- I
! ! !!!t la = 1:5't.3:3.5 I I t ! I tj ;
iM .g E iev r !le r
- r r!!!
< g t,g;; g'g g g gg'ggyrggg gg g g wl '.h.M--4.!g'g m ..!.m gm:qi....iu.. r r4 r!!$3 ..y... .i. oj,...
n n o n in.M;i a3,n .
,.nt. i :4Jm i n n i
nnn
- n. nu-m,1.',.J...ta,1. :::s ;t Ao+ s t i h,*':. n -+
- . s 3 ;:A;d t- ala : a4
- lal.; teg s 46. 4,d ej.i dla,,e . 4 4 ..d4e as44 eaJ.
* :1 J 7!717.7 L17 7 !g 4 , ,, , , , ,, , ,, , ,,,,, ,,
7 7 Ti7 7777 f! Th 7l7 Tf7 --5 5,s
****3 5 gt:**{,,,4 3
;* gi-8
**y8g33 S
- g3$* , Ef; 3l,8 *' .!... .. s at
..s. .a..g.t'.;gt:t .t .t,.tj
- 6 x _h.{d,;d.d. . . .
d d. l IT i'.ij r tg.j7l7 .. . I l 3 3.
) 5 Ih:::,::.: :;;3,l4::.zi; isi.iiiiii's iavv vv vv vwv vvvv vv vvvSis k
() M,k k t
.I. .h. .b. t
--%j h.ph -': :::_. :
e _.L..... r.r. .- r.r. _.';. q.g.p.; .w a - u.c e 9.,:m:g. .. .,. . a n. u . (( - a uu a - - m .. . [
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 3.2 REACTOR AND STEAM-ELECTRIC SYSTEM WNP-1/4 are of the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) type, as manufactured by the Babcock & Wilcox Company. United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., is the architect-engineer for the two units. Each Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) is connected to a Westinghouse (TC6F-44 in.) tandem compound turbine-generator. The reactor cores are made up of 205 fuel assemblies arranged in a square lattice. The fuel is in cylindrical pellets (0.324 inches in diameter) of sintered low-enriched uranium dioxide. The pellets are clad in Zircaloy-4 tubing and sealed by Zircaloy-4 end caps, welded at each end. The rated core power level at which each plant will be operated is 3760 MWt. An additional 20 MWt from nonreactor sources, primarily pump heat, results in an NSSS rating of 3780 MWt for each unit. The design core power level is 3800 MWt for each unit. The net plant electrical output for 3760 and 3800 MWt is 1259 MWe and 1266 MWe respectively. The relationships of station heat rate to the expected variation of turbir:e backpressure for 100 percent, 75 percent, and 50 percent unit load at design flow are provided in Table 3.2-1. The relationships for 80 percent and 60 percent unit load are not available. Continuous operational variation between 25 percent and 105 percent is possible. The operating life of the facility is anticipated to be 40 years. O k l 3.2-1 i I I
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 1 TABLE 3.2-1 RELATIONSHIP OF STATION HEAT RATE TO TURBINE BACKPRESSURE (a) 100% 75% 50% Turbine Unit Load Unit Load Unit Load Backpressure Heat Rate Heat Rate Heat Rate (in-Hg) (btu /KW-hr) (btu /KW-hr) (btu /KW-hr) 2.0 9,441 9,490 10,028 2.5 9,538 9,646 10,133 3.0 9,634 9,763 10,446 3.5 9,750 9,939 10,634 4.0 9,846 10,056 10,801 4.5 9,865 10,173 11,016 5.0 9,962 10,310 11,198 5.5 10,154 10,427 11,386 O (a) Based on NSSS power rating and gross generator output. O
1 WNP-1/4 ER-OL O 3.3 STATION WATER USE , Water flow diagrams showing estimated maximum and monthly average flow rates for WNP-1 and WNP-4 are shown in Figure 3.6-1 and 3.6-2 respectively. Water : usage at both units is the same except that the water pretreatment system at WNP-1 supplies both plants. Consumptive water flows are those associated with cooling tower evaporation and drift, grounds irrigation, evaporative cooling of air conditioning and plant equipment; main steam relief, sanitary wastewater and solidification of liquid wastes. The maximum anticipated consumptive water use for WNP-1 and WNP-4 is 75 cfs, whereas the minimum regulated Columbia River flow is 36,000 cfs. Table 3.3-1 sumarizes the maximum anticipated water use by WNP-1 for full power operation, 25 percent operation and normal shutdown. Seasonal vari-ations in water use and consumption by the condenser cooling water system are discussed in Section 3.4 O O 3.3-1
WhP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.3-1 MAXIMLN ANTICIFATED PLANT WATER USE FOR ONE UNIT Full Power Operation 25% Power Operation Normal Shutdown Intake wtlet intake uutlet intake uutlet System Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Ouantity Quantity Cooling Tower 24,140 gpm 16,505 gpm 6,000 gpm 4,000 gpm 0 0 - Make-Up Water (CT and SP) Evaporated Evaporated 7,615 gpm 2,000 gpm Blowdown Blowdown Fire Protection 6,000 gpm N/A 6,000 gpm N/A 6,000 gpm N/A Water When Needed When Needed When Needed Demineraitzed 100 gpm N/A 300 gpm N/A 300 gpm N/A Water Potable and 150 gpm 50 gpm to 150 gpm 50 gpm 150 gpm 50 gpm Sanitary Water Ground (& to Ground to Ground Evaporated) Liquid Waste N/A 192 gpm N/A 192 gpm 0 0 Treatment Radwaste N/A 75 gpm N/A 75 gpm N/A 75 gpm Treatment Auxiliary N/A 2 gpm N/A 2 gpm N/A 2 gpm Boiler O O O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O 3.4 HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM The heat dissipation system for the steam-to-electric conversion process for each unit consists of the circulating water system (includin cooling towers and cooling water pumps and piping), intake (g condenser, or makeup water) syste'n, and discharge (or blowdown) system. In addition to servicing the main condenser, the heat dissipation system rejects minor amounts of heat from auxiliary equipment coolers. Important operating parameters for the heat dissipation system are given in Table 3.4-1. 3.4.1 Circulating Water System The four circulating cooling water pumps for each unit take suction from a common sump which receives water from the cooling tower basins. These pumps develop sufficient head to pump water through the condenser up to the top of the tower fill. The service water system pumps and the fire pumps also take suction from the circulating water pumphouse sump and are located in the same pump house structure as the main condenser circulating water pumps. The tur-bine condensers for each unit have a surface area of slightly over one mil-lion square feet (see Subsection 3.6.4). Operational aspects of the biocide system required to maintain heat transfer properties in the condenser system are described in Section 3.6. At full-load conditions, all four circulating water pumps, all three con-densers, and all three cooling towers must be in operation. If one of the-
~
four circulating water pumps is out of service, a unit can operate at a load range of approximately 50 to 80 percent. If one of the three remaining cir-culating water pumps are out of service, one of the three cooling towers must be isolated frnm the circulating water system, and the unit can operate at loads of up to 50. percent. The two remaining circulating water pumps have a total capacity of 320,000 gpm. The mechanical draft evaporative cooling tower arrangement for one generating unit is shown in Figure 3.4-1. There are three circular counterflow mechan-ical draft cooling towers serving each unit. Each tower has a height of 65 feet above plant grade and a diameter of 243 feet. Each tower unit is composed of 19 cells, arranged symetrically in a circular array. A 28-foot diameter, 6-blade fan, which is driven by a 150-horsepower motor coupled to a speed reducer, can deliver air at a rate of 1,032,140 ACFM to each cell. The major design parameters for the cooling towers are: ,
- a. Circulating water flow-rate--640,000 gmp
- b. Inlet circulating water temperature--108.40F
- c. Outlet circulating water temperature--82.40F
- d. Wet bulb temperature--66.40F
- e. Dry bulb temperature--89.50F 3.4-1 4
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Operating ch3racteristics of the heat disipation system as a function of am-bient conditions are given in Table 3.4-2. The evaporative and drift losses from the cooling towers for a single unit are shown in Table 3.4-3 for each month of the year. Maximum water loss occurs during July or August at an average rate of 13,900 gpm. The highest expected water loss is 14,500 gpm, assuming the unit operates continuously at its maximum rating. Water loss by I evaporation and drif t is anticipated to be 6,109 million gallons per year if the unit operates continuously at its 100 percent capacity rating. The above cooling tower losses are calculated on the basis of 20 years (1950 through 1970) of meteorological data taken at the Hanford Meteorology Station. ; l 3.4.2 Intake System The makeup water pumphouse supplies makeup water from the Columbia River to both WNP-1 and WNP-4 and is located approximately 2.5 miles from these units. The pumphouse contains three 10,000 gpm pumps for each unit. Two 1,000 gpm diesel-driven pumps rated at 60 horsepower each for each unit and one 1,000 gpm motor-driven pump, common to both units, are provided to supply the smaller quantities of makeup water required when the unit is not operating. A vertical sectional view of the pumphouse is shown in Figure 3.4-2. 3.4. 3 Discharge System In order to maintain the desired cycles of concentration of river water in O the circulating water system, a small portion of the circulating water is bled off and replaced with river water. This cooling tower blowdown water is removed from the circulating water system at the discharge of the main con-denser circulating water pumps. A blowdown line, serving both generating units, runs parallel to and downstream of the buried makeup-water intake lines and discharges the blowdown water to the Columbia River. At the river, the blowdown line is buried under the riverbed, emerging at a point which is i downstream of the makeup-water line inlets. The outfall of the blowdown line l is 917 feet from the makeup-water pumphouse and at low-river stage is 480 feet from the shoreline. The outfall configuration is presented in Figure 3.4-4. Riprap is placed around the outfall to prevent erosion of the l river bed, as shown in Figure 3.4-5. The blowdown line is designed for a maximum capacity of 7,500 gpm from each unit. However, it is expected that the normal blowdown rate will be approxi-mately 3,800 gpm for each unit, corresponding to design conditions of five cycles of river water concentration and operation at 100 percent unit l rating. Seasonal variations in cooling tower makeup and blowdown for each I unit are shown in Table 3.4-4. 3.4-2 l O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O The maximum expected blowdown temperature (cooling tower cold water temper-ature) is 87.1 F. At design conditions of five0 cycles of river water con-centration and a wet bulb temperature of 66.4 F, the blowdown temperature is 82.40F Other temperatures of the air and water environments that are likely to be encountered during cooling tower operation are presented in Table 3.4-2. During the startup of a unit under winter conditions, icing is prevented by keeping the cooling tower inlet valves closed until the circulating water temperature reaches 50 to 550F. The heated circulating water is diverted to a bypass line which discharges the water directly into the cooling tower basins during this time. If icing occurs during cooling tower operation, it is controlled by shutting off cooling tower fans and/or diverting a portion of the heated circulating water from the cooling tower. inlets to the bypass line. O V D O 3.4-3
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.4-1 OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR ONE UNIT AT DESIGN CONDITIONS (a) h 100% Rating Total NSSS Thermal Power, MWt 3,780 Turbine-Generator Guaranteed Gross Output, MWe 1,361 Turbine-Generator Guaranteed Net Output, MWe 1,339 Net Heat Rate, BTU /kW-br. 9,634 Heat Dissipated to Atmosphere, BTU /hr. 8.25 x 109 Heat Dissipated to River (b), BTU /hr. 3.23 x 107 Circulating Water Flow Rate, gpm 640,000 Total Evaporation and Drif t(c), gpm 15,185 Blowdown Requirement (c), gpm 3,796 Total Makeup Requirement (c), gpm 18,981 Temperature Rise Across Condenser, OF 26 l (a) Design conditions are based on a wet bulb temperature of 66.4 0F which is exceeded 5% of the time; a dry bulb temperature of 84.50F. (b) The difference between cooling tower blowdown and ambient river temper-atures is assumed to be 170F. (c) Blowdown requirements are based on five cycles of river water l concentration.
O O WNP-1.4 O ER-OL TABLE 3.4-2 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS FOR EXPECTED AMBIENT CONDITIONS (a) Total Wet Bulb Time Dry Bulb Cold Water Evaporation Gross Turbine Total Heat Temperature D2 ration Temperature Temperature Drift Blowdown Make Ib Heat Rate Output Backpressure Rejected (OF) (Hours /Yr) (OF) (OF) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (Btu /kWh) (MWe) (in Hg) (Btu /hr x 109) 76.00 5.2 106.00 87.14 16490 4123 20613 9646 1.337 3.46 8.332 70.00 301.2 96.50 83.81 15827 3957 19784 9593 1.334 3.16 8.307 66.40 3C6.6 89.50 82.40 15185 3796 18982 9571 1,347 3.03 8.297 64.00 306.6 84.50 80.66 14729 3682 18411 9549 1,350 2.89 8.286 62.00 394.2 79.50 79.66 14258 3564 17822 9537 1,352 2.81 8.280 59.50 547.7 74.00 78.45 13759 3440 17199 9523 1,354 2.72 8.274 55.50 766.5 68.00 76.58 13282 3320 16602 9505 1,357 2.58 8.265 52.00 766.5 52.00 75.01 12769 3192 15961 9491 1,359 2.47 8.258 48.50 756.5 57.00 73.50 12369 3092 15461 9479 1,360 2.37 8.252 45.00 766.5 52.00 72.05 11966 2992 14958 9469 1,362 2.27 8.247 42.50 766.5 47.50 71.04 11570 2892 14462 9463 1,363 2.21 8.244 40.00 766.5 43.00 70.06 11176 2794 13968 9457 1,364 2.15 8.241 37.50 766.5 39.00 69.10 10835 2709 1'M44 9452 1,364 2.09 8.239 1 34.50 657.0 35.50 67.97 10574 2643 13217 9447 1,365 2.03 8.236 31.50 438.0 32.00 66.87 10310 2577 12887 9442 1,366 1.97 8.234-26.00 438.0 26.50 64.92 9926 2482 12408 9435 1,367 1.87 8.230 4 (a) Design wet bulb, 51 condition (66.400F wet bulb temperature) ?
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.4-3 MONTHLY EVAPORATIVE AND DRIFT LOSSES FOR ONE GENERATING UNIT'S COOLING TOWERS Highest (a) Evaporation (b) Average (a) Evaporation (b) Lowest (a) Evaporaticn(b) Month Wet Bulb and Drift Wet Bulb and Drift Wet Bulb and Drift (OF) (106 gal.) (OF) (106 gal.) (OF) (106 gal.) January 39.3 486 27.9 440 12.4 414 February 40.7 448 33.6 416 23.4 391 March 40.8 497 37.3 474 32.9 457 April 45.1 511 42.8 495 39.3 471 May 54.6 581 49.1 549 45.4 529 June 58.6 585 54.5 562 51.4 543 July 61.2 628 57.9 601 55.6 588 August 61.1 624 57.3 598 54.9 583 September 56.5 574 52.6 550 48.3 527 October 47.7 541 45.4 529 42.4 508 November 42.3 491 35.4 444 29.6 431 December 35.8 474 31.2 451 25.0 437 6,440 6,109 5,879 (a) The highest, lowest, and average wet bulb temperatures for each month of the year are based on a period of record from 1950 through 1970. (b) Calculated evaporative and drif t losses are based on 100 percent unit rating. O O O
O O O i a 1 j Wif-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.4-4
- SEASONAL VARIATION IN CDOLING TOWER MAKEUP AND l BLOWDOWN REQUIREMENTS FOR ONE UNIT I
i' Highest (a) Average (a) Lowest (a) Season Makeup (b) Blowdown (b) Makeuo(b) Blowdown (b) Makeup (b) Blowdown (b) (106 gal.) (106 gal.) (106 gal.) (106 gal.) (106 gal.) (106 gal.) Dec. - Feb. 1,760 352 1,634 327 1,553 311 March - May 1,986 397 1,898 380 1,821 364 June - Aug. 2,296 459 2,201 440 2,143 419 Sept. - Nov. 2,008 _4g 1,904 381 1,833 367 i ' 8,050 1,610 7,637 1,528 7.350 1,471 4 (a) Highest, lowest, and average values refer to the wet bulb temperatures measured for each season during the period from 1950 through 1970. - ! (b) Calculated makeup and blowdown values assume operation at 1005 unit rating and five cycles of river concentration. t .i e l l i
R 8 8 8 8 8
$ S U @ 2 U z ? E i z Z O 'r,
= -
-g E 5000 O
m WASTE TREATMENT N r. 4 se, ss s E_ a n"P m t K
)
/ \ / ) \E 4000 W '
/ 4, D,. .
WN P-1
< n
<O "
G.S. b. N y SPRAY PCN) N 9425.00 E 3414.17/ r - 9 ) ,w 's J s CONTAINMENT l l '( WHSE WH5E
< [I P
_P.,
. m 7
G NG Pgl E 3000 l L - _ 4 (2N O WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM COOLING TOWER AND BUILDING LAYOUT, WNP-1/4 WN P-1 ER-OL FIG. 3.4-1 l l
3hVENT W81RD 5CRffN y STAND-SY MAKE -W Q MAKE-UPHIAftt PUdP
' W F' h.
, VAf tR PUAW fCUIPMENT REMOWA L e V [ [ HATCHWifMCCNER t
1 t,
, l l k ._
! l! ' ,
I il ll
+
==m=
l g, -gt, ' g n.39s'-r 1i Jf AE
- h -
1l BAf7tRY lg
' ll .,
n 3 io.e E l! . l 4 py , f t 385'-0*
\ Il kl *I h-- -- w MLOCA'fL 345'-o*
i l!I
~ . d .' ': U U ! !l i'. *>I J.:
l 6
'- t. -
u .r-
, 1 ( eL3st;o- -
; . .?
g S ' A ,( ** 'L
!p, iPL
=-
ev . ,, : n j2 s ~ , _ y 1
' Q: <6 11 H2*-"+-- stoetet ra-o-
.N b. l l 3%H H:' ~
.- -, - s/.
i I ., e
~
,F q n. 272'-o- N pt l
I
\
O I i 4 5ttsCE Gft,11 lSY lu i
*. 1. * ; *
..- e
. . . . e . . ,. .. .. ..
~ ~-
i e
.,c.9 StulCeGATE $
i e I I
! II ...
l l '{ g, ,,y---y_ -
' i q EC 177-l ' ...
I 8 g- p i: g g
'INLE T FIIOM RNtR)
.?.. , . . '
' T l'i '_J ' '. c. .
'*2 3 notroMoe suw et str-o-J'e c .- _
. : . .r .
I.*. ,h '* ' _. - ll WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM MAKE-Ut WATER PUMP HOUSE DETAIL 8 WNP-1/4 EFI-OL l , FIG. 3.4-2 I
, a n.rmeio. - .m n-m..e.
ro. w e . uin n .
' r. e l __t (n) g j .os -ea.'= n o.
ea e wee surn rt *, i 7 r . .o-i _ _ r ..e_ ! _ r ..e c i
- r. ,e
; a ... r u .r.o-
%- l r i fi3** "8t! 33, 3
'M.',? < m _ &g*231 bE552'- 0L-M9YhvenjFy5 ! NyMM%{e #i"F o wve>
I't*N II'OMa l: % 4i' *i N E"s*w*' e y f: ll o u ass noe tssd!i i , .-- MUM \ escwo.r itve e etacss saca ass',i t I, , , is . g< z. f*M] ,l*Ef-(j rljj
'l o rc l .e .e re b o
'} 3 ~}.
; sese g oGo l !! 0 4 us p Y-4 %- CC i-s_
SECT'ON "D-0"(TYP) s 0e 0 j g .1 ci
- Q.. C\o s:aa v. . . -e o Qc:, i gj n; \
9 , t 1
- i, { 1d
. a Jy.
r--y , s 4., _Of hs
~
,q ----g---- -=
c---
,y--y;3,^ m
- 5. i s -q Lj4 -{- t
' g i
,m,L i ga y ui q j
m._g- y' --L.;L:.M" '"""> y ; \----- m ". ,.Ly d,y; Si
-5 5; , .,1
!- 1._-----_____ r3 -_
.$7-
\g@ 1 fg .] .J ., Q .
JL'*2 { '[ . .
.; , g j; .- Nh is L3.--- ----
.}: - --. .;I___ .e jk g f 6
] b N'
. i
.f m 3e ECC. etD W O SAYv* s 8 tacts b
lat ih
'L ...' { i ^*
lU@-W 'g Q Of CO 1 ,4 %
;p-*""' *C '
\: ; / ! W (V b 1
g'*;rl-L32-$l(N '
,s --
\[:1 1 ?t . ; U/
g
%'pc o t_} .my'. _ pr + ,g g
- _ z7 N, =lil--_ -
i,i
,I, g h i a c ,o f =Nl i
- h, l
h %g :.. :.
- l i (
w" dp i j< _. ., vier he i i lj j g ' " " 7 I J i ==
' r.<r 4 s.e_ __s.es,. . ee le ,s.c
*f0 e?> , s. c
_irvei ,rv , t, ;rv.. i , v., M ac o ' PL AN "A" MAKE-UP WATER INLET DETAll i we ==surn m .e. overa sura
,a ..
dg CJHJ- ' r N" p,, t.- -s . j
/
A l m l
,_ s.
p eo supeoet esta s y.e-. J J.,1 SECTION "C-C"(TYP.)
.: .a . . . . r g.
b WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM MAKE-UP WATER INLET DETAIL WNP-1/4 EP CA FIG. 3.4-3
O 2 I .[ _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ q S g
' "c. "' Y'.... s - ,
'gf, y . fN w"N$*'
J- .T s \ r run".
~"
l\51O*' / W~.cl,**,
~"
/q.. L =n h 'L<; \'y,,, . . . ,
'\--{e g~.gg ,
\a. e me =. */ ..
r,.. .. .
*
- s +-s w=
min. - g g3
.x
- SO g
- 3
*n90 -
I Q .w-e saa I"
-enese E & E 0- -
.c:::
gy,- i - - ~= -- um,r _~-=_.- e .,.-- n.
. . . . --a it!';
- t , emor
~_ - -
-. - _ . =., -
d - - - j E t. 3 .- SECTION A-A xxu r.w e s WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM INTAKE AND OUTFALL - WNP-1/4 CONFIGURATION ER OL FIG. 3.4-4 l
r' N (% j) Z 5. a , T . LL E L ' N res cu_trun _, e . y y_______ _ _ _ _ _. ._._ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ 7;s 4 ,, ,,
%'.L1______ ______~__ ____ _____ A - F ."
ll,.7'1* a % B @ ~* M B c o, PLAN "B" yy BLOWDOWN DISCHARGE DETAll 3 hh NO SCAlf (x
%M LOW 467,4 EL34f-0"
\
4 ,MJ ,, . <.,,.. .-
.~ g ,_
" ,,e -
cc o ta , w oC*
, EL.329'- 0
~
[ _ f yb at F I
%s ett.
SECTION "B-B" 40 Scat t 0% U l WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM BLOWDOWN DISCHARGE DETAIL WNP 1/4 ER OL FIG. 3.4-5
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O 3.5 RADWASTE SYSTEMS AND SOURCE TERM The transport of radioactivity from the primary coolant system to various parts of the plant during nonnal operation has been traced and evaluated in order to determine the performance of each process interposed between the source of radioactivity and subsequent pathways to the environment. Leakage and perforgMce effectiveness parameters f or cleanup systems suggested in flVREG-0017 tU are utilized extensively. The parameters suggested in NUREG-0017 are deduced from operating experience and are considered to re-present the average performance of systems and components. There are three radwaste systems: the Radioactive Liquid Waste System (RLW), the Radioactive Gaseous Waste System (RGW), and the Radioactive Solid Waste System (RSW). Radioactive and potentially radioactive liquids, gases and solids are collected and processed according to physical and chemical prop-erties, and radidactive concentrations. The RLW system has been designed to process radioactive or potentially radio-active liquid waste for recycle and reuse in the plant so that minimum off-site release of radioactive liquids is expected. The RGW System provides a 60 day holdup capability for decay of gases prior to release to the environment. There will be a small amount of gaseous leakage with the e::timate of leakages based on values suggested in NUREG-0017. The RSW System collects and processes all radioactive solid wastes and packages the waste in approved D.0.T. shipping containers for shipment off-site to ap-proved burial grounds. The RLW and RGW Systems have been designed such that the effluents meet the release requirements of 10CFR20 and dose design objectives specified in Appendix I of 10CFR50. The requirements of cost benefit analysis described in Section II.D. of Appendix I to 10CFR50 has been replaced by the Design Objective of " Concluding Statement of Position of Regulatory Staff - ALAP LWR Effluents (RM-50-2)." This approach has been ratified by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) as noted in RAI-75/12 922, 934 (Dec. 22,1975). 3.5.1 Source Terms l 1 All radioactive wastes originate from either fission products produced in the fuel or activation products produced in the reactor coolant and in the Con-l tainment atmosphere. Although essentially all fission product activity is l contained within the fuel rods, minute quantities may enter the reactor l coolant system. These fission products, together with activation products I produced in the reactor coolant, are transported throughout much of the plant ! by the reactor coolant, and are thus the source of radioactivity for other j systems. l 3.5-1 l
l WNP-1/4 ER-OL Design basis reactor coolant activities are derived from analytical models or are based on conservative limiting cases of pertinent operating experience. Expected source terms are calculated according to the methodology dest.ribed in NUREG-0017. The fission product activity in the fuel, fuel rod gap, and reactor coolant is calculated by a digital computer code that solves the rate equations for fis-sion product build-up in the fuel and leakage from the fuel to the fuel rod gap. The code considers 181 isotopes in 80 decay chains with a maximum chain length of five isotopes. The activity can be calculated for up to 100 time intervals; for each interval, the core power, thermal flux, and the fraction of power produced from U-235 and Pu-239 fissions can be changed. General rate equations for the inventory of radioactive nuclides in fuel, fuel gap and reactor coolant are described in Section 11.1 of WNP-1/4 FSAR. Tables 3.5.1-1 through 3.5.1-8 provide the calculated actlvities. Tritium is generated by several mechanisms, but only three are significant: a) Ternary fission in the fuel with subsequent leakage into the reactor coo lant, b) Neutron activation of boron in the reactor coolant passing through the core, and c) Neutron activation of lithium in the reactor coolant passing through O the core. The calculated amount of tritium produced in/or entering the reactor coolant during an equilibrium cycle is given in Table 3.5.1-9 and the expected tritium concentration in the primary and secondary coolant is given in Table 3.5.1-10. The quantity of tritium described in Table 3.5.1-9 becomes uniformly distri-buted in the Reactor Coolant System, the Makeup and Purification System and the Chemical Addition and Baron Recovery System. During refueling operations, the tritium is further diluted when the refueling canal is filled with borated water from the Borated Water Storage Tank. Total tritium release per year per unit by liquids is 370 Ci/yr and by gaseous release 1100 Ci/yr. The in-plant design basis corrosion product activities shown in Table 3.5.1-11 are appr(oximately pl ants. 2,3) . This a is fto actor of five higher compensate than observed for short periods ofvalues from operating high corrosion product activity (" crud bursts"). The expected corrosion product activities in the primary and secondary coolant are given in Table 3.5.1-10. O ! 3.5-2 l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL \ ) Nitrogen-16 (16N ) is a concern only during operation because of its short half-life, 7.1 seconds. It is produced by the reaction 160 (n,p) 16N The 16N activity at various ppints in the Reactor Coolant System is given in Table 3.5.1-12 and expected 2N activity in the primary and secondary coolant is given in Table 3.5.1-10. Argon-41 (41A r) is produced by 40A r activation. The 40A r, which may be present in the makeup tank's nitrogen cover gas, enters the reactor coolant in the makeup water. The equilibrium reactor coolant 41A r activity at a core power of 3800 MWt is 0.48 Ci/g. 41A r has a half-life of 1.83 hours. Activities in the secondary coolant are calculated assuming a 100 lb/ day (from Table 2-13 of NUREG-0017) primary-to-secondary leak rate. Prior to the primary-to-secondary leakage, tFe operating reactor coolant system activity is assumed to be the maximum equilibrium activities corresponding to the values listed in Table 3.5.1-7 and Table 3.5.1-11. Total steam flow rate, fraction of steam generator feedwater processed through the condensate demineralizer, and the decontamination f actors are listed in Table 3.5.1-13. Calculated in-plant design secondary coolant activities in the steam generator feedwater and the main steam are given in Table 3.5.1-14. Secondary coolant corrosion product activities are listed in Table 3.5.1-15. Estimates of the various leakage rates that serve as sources of airborne 3 ' radioactive and liquid waste are determined from experience of operating pressurized water reactors per NUREG-0017. The following assumed gaseous leakage rates are to in-plant areas which are subsequently released to the environment through the building ventilation systems. a) 1% of the noble gas inventory and 0.001% of the iodine inventory in the reactor coolant is released to the containment atmosphere daily and subsequently released through a charcoal /HEPA filter. b) 160 lb/ day of reactor coolant is released to the Primary Auxiliary Area of the GSB with an iodine partition f actor of 0.0075 and sub-sequently released through a charcoal /HEPA filter. c) Leakage to the Turbine Generator Building atmosphere is 1700 lb/hr of secondary steam with a partition f actor of 1.0 for iodines. These values for leakage are based on values suggested in NUREG-0017. Actual plant leakage is expected to be less due to utilization of double mechanical seals, closed loop seal pressurizer systems for pumps, and plug valve to minimize leakage. Such gaseous sources as periodic atmospheric steam dumps or gland seal releases are considered negligible. Isotopic contributions from these leakage sources are detailed in Section 11.3 of WNP-1/4 FSAR. O v 3.5-3
l MNP-1/4 ER-OL Liquid leakage, except for leakage into the Turbine Generator Building, is collected and processed through the RLW System. The Turbine Generator Building OlI l leakage is collected in a sump that is continuously monitored for activity and ! upon reaching an alarm point the sump contents will be transferred to the RLW System. There are no expected releases of reactor coolant from the Boron Recovery System (BRS) necessary to maintain plant water inventory or control of plant tritium levels. For design purposes, however, there is an assumed BRS release af ter processing with a maximum flow rate equal to 18% of the average bleed flow rate. The BRS is also designed to transfer, if necessary, a portion of the recovered distillate downstream of the distillate test tanks to the RLW System. A sumarized description of the RLW System is provided in Section 11.2 WNP-1/4 FSAR. The fuel pool cooling system consists of the Spent Fuel Pool, Fuel Transfer Canal, and Refueling Canal along with two Spent Fuel Pool Heat Exchangers, Spent Fuel Pool Surge Tank and Refueling Purification Cleanup Train. The Spent Fuel Pool holds approximately 343,000 gallons of borated water, the Fuel Transfer Canal holds approximately 71,000 gallons of borated water and the Refueling Canal holds approximately 537,000 gallons of borated water. Normal makeup to the system is from either the Borated Water Storage Tank or Demin-eralized Water Storage Tank. Spent Fuel Pool and Fuel Transfer Canal volumes are based on measurements of each found in FSAR Section 9.1. Due to the Refueling Purification Cleanup Train processing the water through O filters and demineralizers, the primary radioactive material is tritium. Over several years of operation the tritium level will eventually equal that in the reactor coolant. Estimated normal airborne activity for tritium is 2.01 x 10-6 Ci/cc which is .402 MPC fraction. 3.5.2 Liquid Radwaste Systems The RLW System is designed to collect and treat all radioactive and poten-tially radioactive liquid wastes which are generated in the course of normal plant operations, including anticipated operational occurrences. The component design parameters are listed in Table 3.5.2-1. The RLW System is designed to collect on a continuous basis and process'on a batch basis. The collection tanks are designed to provide a 30-day holdup capacity for the maximum flow rates listed in Table 3.5.2-2. The requirements of General De-sign Criteria 60 are met by the above holdup capacity together with the redun-dance and flexibility incorporated in system / component design. The RLW consists of three collection tanks, two identical processing trains cnd four holdup tanks. There are no subsystems or components in the RLW that are shared between WNP-1 and WNP-4 The RLW system is designed with the O 3.5-4
WNP-1/4 ER-OL A V ability to bypass any piece of process equipment, or cross-connect the re-dundant trains upstream or downstream of any piece of process equipment. The RLW system must be manually lined up prior to any bypassing or cross-connecting evolution. Estimated quantities, flow rates and decontamination factors are provided in Table 3.5.2-3. PCA fraction refers to Primary Coolant Activity, which can be found in Table 3.5.1-4.
- The estimated quantity of radioactivity to be potentially released in liquid effluents is described below for nomal plant operation including anticipated operational occurrences. In addition, radioactive liquid systems releases assuming design basis fuel failure of 0.25% is discussed.
The RLW for WNP-1/4 has been designed such that the effluent meets the release requirements specified in 10CFR20 and 50 and the dose design objectives speci-fied in Appendix I to 10CFR50. In particular, the following release require-ments are met:
- 1) The calculated normal quantity of radioactive material released froin each reactor at the site to unrestricted areas will not result in an estimated annual dose or dose ccmitment from liquid effluents for any
, individual in an unrestricted area in excess of 3 mrem to the total body or 10 mrem to any organ, per Appendix I of 10CFR50.
- 2) The concentrations of radioactive materials in liquid effluents re-leased to an unrestricted area does not exceed limits listed in Table II, Column 2 of 10CFR50, Appendix B.
Table 3.5.2-4 shows expected annual radionuclide release inventories and com-pares the expected effluent release concentrations of 10CFR20 concentration limits. The requirements of cost benefit analysis described in Section II. D. of Ap-pendix I to 10CFR50 has been replaced by the Design Objectives of " Concluding Statement of Position of Regulatory Staff-ACAP LWR Effluents (RM-50-2)". This approach has been ratified by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) as noted in RAI-75/12 922, 934 (Dec. 22,1975). [ l 3.5.3 Gaseous Radwaste Systems. The Radioactive Gaseous Waste System (RGW) is designed to receive, process and hold radioactive off-gases such that, when released to the environment, the combined effluent from the RGW and the plant ventilation system meets the de-sign objectives of Appendix I to 10CFR50 and concentration limits given in 10CFR 20. t Gases are directed to the RGW where they are diluted by a 40 SCFM ~recircu-( lating nitrogen gas flow in order to maintain a hydrogen concentration below the flamability point. The gases are then compressed to 100 psig in a gas 1 3.5-5 ,
WNP-1/4 ER-OL compressor and then sent through a hydrogen recombiner unit to remove hydrogen. The gaseous waste stream is then directed to one of four waste gas decay tanks. The contents of the tank are used as a recirculation flow. Af ter the tank is isolated from the recirculation path, the contents may be held for 60 days to allow for the decay of short half-lived isotopes prior to release. The RGW can handle transient surges by bypassing the recombiner and storing the gases in a waste gas decay tank. When time peraits the contents can then be recirculated through the recombiner until the hydrogen has been removed. Tables 3.5.3-1 and 3.5.3-2 provide sources to the RGW and RGW components and system design parameters. There are no shared systems between units WNP-1 and WNP-4 for gaseous releases. Assumptions and parameters used to detennine annual gaseous effluent releases are presented in Table 3.5.3-3. Curies per year per unit released are pre-sented in Tables 3.5.3-4 and 3.5.3-5. The RGW has been designed such that the effluent meets the release require-ments of 10CFR20 and the dose design objectives specified in Appendix I of 10CFR50. Specifically, the calculated total quantity of radioactive gaseous release will not result in an annual external dose to any individual in un-restricted areas in excess of 5 millirem to the total body or 15 millirem to the skin. In addition, the calculated total quantity of radioactive particu-late and/or radioactive iodine release to the atmosphere will not result in an & estimated annual dose exceeding 15 millirem to any organ. W The release points for the RGW come together in a comon exhaust plenum which vents at General Service Building 519' level (approximately 65 feet above grade). Release is assumed to be at ground level with no plume rise at a velocity of approximately 1000 FPM. The requirements of a cost benefit analysis described in Section II.D of Ap-pendix I to 10CFR50 has been replaced by the design objective of " Concluding Statement of Position of Replating Staff-ACAP LWR Effluents (RM-50-2)." This approach has been ratifiec' by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) as noted in RAI-75/12 922, 934 (December 22,1975). 3.5.4 Solid Radwaste System The Radioactive Solid Waste System (RSW) is designed to process various liquid and solid radioactive wastes to the extent that they may be shipped off-site for disposal. The wastes handled by the RSW System include:
- 1. Dry, light weight, compactable items such as clothing, paper, glass-ware, etc.
- 2. Spent resin beads from various plant demineralizers. g 3.5-6
WNP-1/4 ER-OL
- 3. Spent powdered resin from the Condensate Polishing System (if radio-active).
- 4. Spent filter cartridges and filter backflush fluids containing resin fines, corrosion products, and particulates from various plant process sys tems.
- 5. Highly concentrated liquid wastes:
a) BRS Bleed Evaporator Concentrates y b) RLW Evaporator Concentrates c) RLW Filter Backwash Water d) RUD Chemical Drain Tanks s
\. 6. Dry, noncompactible wastes, HEPA filters, wood, steel, etc. + Liquidwastesaresclidifiedineither50or100ftkcontainersor55 gallon drums by mixing with (or in the case of filter cartridges encapsulating in) a Portland cement /sodiura silicate solidification agent. Resin beads and pow-dered rc : ins are first dewatered and mixed with the. concentrated wastes prior to solidification. Solidified wastes containers may'beLstored in the RSW con-tainer room storage area to allow for decay prior to off-site disposal.
( Dry wastes that are to be compacted will be bulky but light. A standard in-L dustrial ram device is used to compact the material in containers in order to save space in shipping. When a container of material is accumulated, it is placed under the compactor and the waste is compacted into 55 gallon steel drums. Subsequent wastes are_ compacted until the drum is full of solidly compacted material. The container is then capped, monitored, dacontaminated if necessary, and held for subsequent off-site shipment. The radiation level is expected to be low enough to permit manual capping, however-drums can be capped remotely if radiation leveis are' high. The option is to use DOT ap-proved cartons is also available. - Each unit on site has its own' solid radwaste system. Solid radioactive wastes are stored in boxes', 55 gallon drums, 50 ft3 and 100 ft3 shipping containers in the shfelded~ storage room on the 455' level of the Radwaste Area and in the Radior.ctive' Material Storage Area on the 479' level of the General Services Building. The containers can be stored for ap-proximately four months in the storage room for decay of radionuclides before shipping assuming a solidification system processing rate of one 100 ft 3 l l container every 5 days. Storage for approximately 2 weeks is available at the design basis processing rate, and approximately 3 days storage is available if
~
the system is operating at maximum throughput. These storage times assume that r.o shipments take place until the storage room is. filled to capacity. y g Table 3.5.4-1, 3.5.4-2, and 3.5.4-3 provide additional informa-ion on inputs, r .O. activities and expected annual volumes of solid rsdwaste. i (/ 1 . 3.5-7 J
- , , -- ,e-.
WNP-1/4 ER-0L Table 3.5.4-4 provides RSW system component capacities. Table 3.5.4-5 lists O the assumptions and parameters used to calculate RSW activity. More detailed information is available in WNP-1/4 FSAR section 11.4. 3.5.5 Process and Effluent Monitoring The Process and Effluent Monitoring Systems provide the means for continuously monitoring all paths by which significant amounts of radioactivity may be re-leased to the environment during normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences. The systems are designed in compliance with General Design Cri-teria 60, 63, and 64 of 10CFR50, Regulatory Guides 1.21 and 1.97 (Revision 2). The recomendations and guidelines of ANSI N13.10-1974, and ANSI N13.1-1969, have also been incorporated into the design. The Process and Effluent Monitoring systems are divided into three main categories,1) the Process Radioactivity Monitoring and Sampling System (PRM),
- 2) the Effluent Gaseous Radioactivity Monitoring System (EGM), and 3) the Effluent Liquid Radioactivity Monitoring System (ELM).
The Proces: Radioactivity Monitoring System (PRM) is designed to monitor the gross radioactivity in a particular process stream, and inform the olant operator of the level of radioactivity and of any deviation from normally ex-pected levels. There are twelve monitors associated with tne process streams of the radioactive waste systems, the reactor coolant systems, nuclear service water system and the component cooling water systems. The Effluent Gaseous Radioactivity Monitoring System (EGM) consists of twelve monitors designed to monitor the radioactivity levels in a particular gaseous effluent stream, and inform the control room operator of the level of radio-activity, and of any deviations from normally expected levels. The Effluent Liquid Radioactivity Monitoring System (ELM) consists of eight monitors designed to monitor the gross radioactivity levels in a particular effluent stream, and inform the control room operator of the level of radio-activity, and of any deviation from normally expected levels. More information on the Process and Effluent Radiological Monitoring System is available in section 11.5 of WNP-1/4 FSAR. Table 3.5.5.1 identifies all radioactive effluent release points, points that are continuously monitored, effluent point monitors that automatically termi-nate discharges upon alam and effluent point monitors that automatically divert streams upon alarm. REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.5
- 1. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0017, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR-GALE Code)", April,1976.
3.5-8
___.y
, l 1
WNP-1/4 l
- ER-OL l O REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.5 (Contd.)
- 2. A.J. Kennedy, Memorandum to J.H. Hicks, " Status Report for Crud Deposition Studies Program", Babcock and Wilcox, File 2A2, 2411, March 11,1976.
- 3. D.L. Uhl, et al, Oconee Radiochemistry Survey Program Semiannual Reports, LRC-9042, January-June,1974, ppk-1 to k-3; LRC-9047, July-December,1974, pp J-2 to J-4; LRC-9053, January-September,1975, Appendix E; Babcock and Wilcox, Lynchburg, Virgin ia.
4 l l I l0 4 i i i O . l 3.5-9 l
R 3 r TABLE 3.5.1-1 TOTAL CORE FISSION PRODUCT AND GAP ACTIVITY vs TIME - EQUlllBRIUM CYCLE Activity, C1 4 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 230 254 Isotope EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD BR84 2.27+07(a) 2.27+07 2.27+07 2.27+07 2.27+07 2.27+07 2.27+07 2.27+07 2.27+07 2.27+07 BR85 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 KR83M 1.35+07 1.35+07 1.35+07 1.35+07 1.35+07 1.35+07 1.35+07 1.35+07 1.35+07 1.35+07 KRB5M 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 KR85 5.28+05 5.58+05 5.93+05 6.27+05 6.62+05 6.96+05 7.30+05 7.63+05 7.86+05 8.12+05 KR87 5.74 +07 5.74 +07 5.74+07 5.74 +07 5.74+07 5.74+07 5.74 +07 5.74+07 5.74+07 5.74+07 KR88 8.06+07 8.06+07 8.06+07 8.06+07 8.06+07 8.06+07 8.06+07 8.06+07 8.06+07 8.06+07 RB88 8.12+07 8.12+07 8.12+07 8.12+07 8.12+07 8.12+07 8.12+07 8.12+07 8.12+07 8.12+07 SR89 6.97+07 8.09+07 8.98+07 9.56+07 9.95+07 1.02+08 1.04+08 1.05+08 1.05+08 1.06+0S SR90 3.96+06 4.19+06 4.45+06 4.72+06 4.98+06 5.24+06 5.50+06 5.76+06 5.93+06 6.14+06 SR91 1.40+08 1.40+08 1.40+08 1.40+08 1.40+08 1.40+08 1.40+08 1.40+08 1.40+08 1.40+08 SR92 1.38+08 1.38+08 1.38+38 1.38+08 1.38+08 1.38+08 1.38+08 1.38+08 1.38+08 1.38+08 Y90 3.94+06 4.16+06 4.42+06 4.68+06 4.94+06 5.21+06 5.47+06 5.73+06 5.90+06 6.11+06 Y91 9.39+07 1.07+08 1.18+08 1.25+08 1.31+08 1.34 +08 1.37+08 1.39+08 1.40+08 1.41+08 M099 1.22+08 1.90+08 1.91+08 1.91+08 1.91+08 1.91+08 1.91+08 1.91+08 1.91+0S 1.91+08 RU106 2.18+07 2.38+07 2.59+07 2.80+07 2.99+07 3.17+07 3. 34 +07 3.51+07 3.61+07 3.73+07 XE131M 3.21+05 5.01+05 6.28+05 6.58+05 6.63+05 6.64+05 6.64+05 6.64+05 6.64+05 6.64+05 XE133M 2.45+06 4.47+06 4.47+06 4.47+06 4.47+06 4.47+06 4.47+06 4.47+06 4.47+06 4.47+06 XE133 7.05+07 1.82+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 XE135M 4.74 +07 4.74+07 4.74+07 4.74 +07 4.74+07 4.74+07 4.74+07 4.74+07 4.74+07 4.74+07 XE135 2.67+07 2.67+07 2.67+07 2.67+07 2.67+07 2.67+07 2.67+07 2.67+07 2.67+07 2.67+07 XE138 1.73+08 1.73+08 1.73+08 1.73+08 1.73+08 1.73+08 1.73+08 1.73+08 1.73+08 1.73+08 1129 1.76+00 1.87+00 2.00+00 T.13+00 2.27+00 2.40+00 2.53+00 2.66+00 2.75+00 2.85+00 1131 4.80+07 1.05+08 1.11+08 1.12+08 1.12+08 1.12+08 1.12+08 1.12+08 1.12+08 1.12+08 1132 7.51+07 1.28+08 1.28+08 1.28+08 1.28+08 1.28+08 1.28+08 1.28+08 1.28+08 1.2P+08 1133 1.79+08 1.87+08 1.87+08 1.87+08 1.87+08 1.87+08 1.87+08 1.87+08 1.87+08 1.87+08 1134 2.38+08 2.38+08 2.38+08 2.38+08 2.38+08 2.38+08 2.38+08 2.38+08 2.38+08 2.38+08 1135 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 CS134 1.32+06 1.42+06 1.54+06 1.67+06 1.81+06 1.95+06 2.10+06 2.25+06 2.36+06 2.48+06 CS136 5.59+05 1.13+06 1.28 +% 1.32+06 1.32+06 1.36 06 1.32+06 1.32+06 1.32+06 1.32+06 CS137 4.91+06 5.23+06 5.59+06 5.95+06 6.31+06 6.58+06 7.04+06 7.39+06 7.63+06 7.92+06 CS138 1.84 +08 1.84 +08 1.84+08 1.84+08 1.84+08 1.84+08 1.84+08 1.84+08 1.84+08 1.84+08 BA137M 4.59+06 4.89+06 5.23+06 5.57+06 5.90+06 6.24+06 6.5S+06 6.91+06 7.14+06 7.41+06 BA140 8.75+07 1.61+08 1.81+08 1.84+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 LA140 8.01+07 1.60+08 1.82+08 1.87+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+03 1.88+08 CE144 7.59+07 8.05+07 8.53+07 8.99+07 9.41+07 9.80+07 1.02+08 1.05+08 1.07+08 1.10+08 (a) 2.27+07 = 2.27 x 10 7
TABLE 3.5.1-2 TOTAL CORE FUEL ROD GAP ACTIVITY vs TIME - EQUILIBRIUM CYCLE Activity. Ci 4 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 230 254 Isotope EfPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EF PD 8R84 8.11+02(a) 8.11+02 8.11+02 8.11+02 8.11+02 8.11+02 8.11+02 8.11+02 8.11+02 8.11+02 BR85 1.07+02 1.07+02 1.07+02 1.07+02 1.07+02 1.07+02 1.07+02 1.07+02 1.07+02 1.07+02 KR83M 1.06+04 1.06+04 1.06+04 1.06+04 1.06+04 1.06+04 1.06+04 M 6+04 1.06+04 1.06+G4 KR85M 4.69+04 4.69+04 4.69+04 4.69+04 4.69+04 4.69+04 4.69+04 4.69+04 4.69+04 4.69+04 KR85 3.75+05 3.97+05 4.23+05 4.51+05 4.79+05 5.09+05 5.39+05 5.70+05 5.90+05 6.15+05 KR87 2.46+04 2.46+04 2.46+04 2.46+04 2.46+04 2.46+04 2.46+04 2.46+04 2.46+04 2.46+04 KR88 7.61+04 7.61+04 7.61+04 7.61+04 7.61+04 7.61+04 7.61+04 7.61+04 7.61+04 7.61+04 RB83 7.78+04 7.78+04 7.78+04 7.78+04 7.78+04 7.78+04 7.78+04 7.78+04 7.78+04 7.78+04 SR89 6.47+03 7.05+03 7.73+03 8.32+03 8.82+03 9.22+03 9.52+03 9.76+03 9.88+03 1.00+04 SR90 1.13+03 1.22+03 1.33+03 1.45+03 1.57+03 1.70+03 1.84+03 1.98+03 2.08+03 2.21+03 SR91 2.82+02 2.83+02 2.83+02 2.83+02 2.83+02 2.83+02 2.83+02 2.83+02 2.83+02 2.83+02 SR92 4.04+01 4.04+01 4.04+01 4.04+01 4.04+01 4.04+01 4.04+01 4.04+01 4.04+01 4.04+01 Y90 1.12+03 1.21+03 1.32+03 1.44+03 1.56+03 1.69+03 1.83+03 1.97+03 2.07+03 2.19+03 Y91 1.21+03 1.23+03 1.38+03 1.48+03 1.57+03 1.65+03 1.72+03 1.78+03 1.81+03 1.84+03 M099 3.69+04 1.32+05 1.33+05 1.33+05 1.33+05 1.33+05 1.33+05 1.33+05 1.33+05 1.33+05 RU106 6.68+02 7.16+02 7.77+02 8.43+02 9.13+02 9.87+02 1.06+03 1.14+03 1.20+03 1.26+03 XE131M 2.41+04 3.R5+04 5.64+04 6.35+04 6.54+04 6.58+04 6.59+04 6.59+04 6.59+04 6.59+04 XE133M 2.07+04 8.65+04 8.66+04 8.66+04 8.66+04 8.66+04 8.66+04 8.66+04 8.66+04 8.66+04 XE133 1.41+06 7.22+06 7.90+06 7.93+06 7.93+06 7.93+06 7.93+06 7.93+06 7.93+06 7.93+06 XE135M 1.16+04 1.16+04 1.16+04 1.16+04 1.16+04 1.16+04 1.16+04 1.16+04 1.16+04 1.16+04 XE135 1.71+05 1.72+05 1.72+05 1.72+05 1.72+05 !.72+05 1.72+05 1.72+05 1.72+05 1.72+05 XE138 1.36+04 1. 36 +04 1. 36 +04 1.36+04 1.36+04 1.36+04 1.36+04 1.36+04 1.36+04 1.36+04 1129 4.96-01 5.35-01 5.82-01 6.32-01 6.85-01 7.40-01 7.98-01 8.59-01 9.01-01 9.53-01 1131 3.54+05 1.13+06 1.40+06 1.44+06 1.44+06 1.44+0C 1.44+06 1.44+06 1.44+06 1.44+06 1132 2. 30+04 6.96+04 7.03+04 7.03+04 7.03+64 7.03+04 7.03+04 7.03+04 7.03+04 7.03+04 1133 2.18+05 2.65+05 2.65+05 2.65+05 2.65+05 2.65+05 2.65+05 2.65+05 2.65+05 2.65+05 1134 1.46+04 1.46+04 1.46+04 1.46+04 1.46+04 1.46+04 1.46+04 1.46+04 1.46+04 1.46+04 1135 8.51+04 8.51+04 8.51+04 8.51+04 8.51+04 8.51+04 8.51+04 8.51+04 8.51+04 8.51+04 05134 5.97+05 6.56+05 7.30+05 8.09+05 8.93+05 9.84+05 1.08+06 1.18+06 1.25+06 1.34+06 CS136 8.19+03 1.72+04 2.40+04 2.64 +04 2.73+04 2.73+04 2.73+04 2.73+04 2.73+04 2.73t04 CS137 1.37+06 1.48+06 1.60+06 1.74+06 1.88+06 2.03+06 2.19+06 2.35+06 2.46+06 2.60+06 CS138 2.03+04 2.03+04 2.03+04 2.03+04 2.03+04 ?.03*04 2.03+04 2.03+04 2.03+04 2.03+04 8A137M 1.28+06 1.38+06 1.50+06 1.63+06 1.76+06 1.90+06 2.04+06 2.20+06 2.30+06 2.43+06 BA140 1.22+03 2.24+03 2.96+03 3.20+03 3.27+03 3.28+03 3.29+03 3.29+03 3.29+03 3.29+03 LA140 1.23*03 2.20+03 2.99+03 3.25+03 3.33+03 3.35+03 3.35+03 3.35+03 3.35+03 3.35+03 CE144 2.33403 2.46+03 2.63+03 2.78+03 2.95+03 3.13+03 3.31+03 3.49+03 3.61+03 3.75+03 (a) 8.11 + O2 = 8.11 x 102 O O O
IABLE 3.5.1-3 AVERAGE FISSION PRODUCT FUEL INVENTORY INCLUDING GAP ACTIVITY OF SINGLE O FUEL ASSEMBLY FOR VARIOUS DECAY TIMES Activity, Curies End of Isotope Cycle 3 Days 100 Hrs. 7 Days 14 Days 30 Days 1 Year 2 Years BR84 9.42+04(a) 1.37-36 2.12-52 4.19-91 1.6-186 0. 0. O. BR85 1.31+05 0. D. O. O. O. O. O. KR83M 5.86+04 2.65-04 8.56-08 2.43-16 2.08-37 1.45-85 0. O. KR85M 1.31+05 1.57+00 1.96-02 4.27-07 1.38-18 7.46-45 0. O. KR85 5.14+03 5.14+03 5.14+03 5.13+03 5.13+03 5.13+03 4.82+03 4.52+03 KR87 2.31+05 1.81-12 4.38-19 2.78-35 3.31-75 1.8-166 0. O. KR88 3.29+05 6.00-03 6.11-06 2.88-13 2.52-31 1.34-72 0. O. RB88 3.32+05 6.71-03 6.83-06 3.22-13 2.82-31 1.50-72 0. O. SR89 4.28+05 4.11+05 4.04+05 3.89+05 3.53+05 2.84+05 2.89+03 1.95+01 SR90 3.95+04 3.95+04 3.95+04 3. 94+04 3.94+04 3.94+04 3.85+04 3.76+04 SR91 5.77+05 3.38+03 4.62+02 3.55+00 2.19-05 2.68-17 1.0-266 0. SR92 6.06+05 5.71-03 4.50-06 1.13-13 2.12-32 3.32-75 0. O. Y90 3.93+04 3.94+04 3.94+04 3.94+04 3.94+04 3.94+04 3.85+04 3.76+04 Y91 5.79+05 5.63+05 5.55+05 5.37+05 4.95+05 4.10+05 8.02+03 1.10+02 M099 9.27+05 4.40+05 3.30+05 1.63+05 2.87+04 5.41+02 4.16-34 1.86-73 RU106 2.72+05 2.71+0S 2.70+05 2.68+05 2.65+05 2.57+05 1.37+05 6.68+ f-~g XE131M 3.54+03 3.48+03 3.42+03 3.24+03 2.64+03 1.36+03 5.56-06 2.73-V XE133M 1.97+04 1.18+04 8.61+03 3.75+03 4.44+02 3.29+00 8.04-45 1.99-93 XE133 8.16+05 6.51+05 5.67+05 3.96+05 1.59+05 1.94+04 1.43-15 2.05-36 XE135M 2.35+05 4.80+01 2.69+00 2.34-03 6.64-11 3.75-28 0. O. XE135 1.34+05 9.97+03 1.32+03 8.19+00 2.64-05 7.28-18 7.8-281 0. XE138 8.19+05 1.05-87 1.2-123 1.4-211 0. O. O. O. 1129 1.99-02 1.99-02 1.99-02 2.00-02 2.00-02 2.00-02 2.02-02 2.02-02 1131 5.95+05 4.66+05 4.22+05 3.31+05 1.81+05 4.57+04 1.37-08 3.08-22 1132 6.11+05 3.19+05 2.49+05 1.36+05 3.06+04 1.01+03 9.55-29 1.51-62 1133 8.22+05 7.88+04 3.15+04 3.32+03 1.30+01 4.07-05 2.3-120 6.7-246 1134 1.15+06 4.89-19 1.05-28 2.26-52 1.0-110 4.7-244 0. O. 1135 9.08+05 5.30+02 2.98+01 2.58-02 7.34-10 4.14-27 0. O. CS134 2.07+04 2.07+04 2.07+04 2.06+04 2.05+04 2.02+04 1.48+04 1.06+04 CS136 9.40+03 8.01+03 7.53+03 6.48+03 4.46+03 1. 90+03 3.33-05 1.18-13 CS137 5.45+04 5.45+04 5.45+04 5.45+04 5.44+04 5.44+04 5.33+04 5.20+04 CS138 9.03+05 6.42-35 1.56-50 9.32-89 5.6-183 0. O. O. l BA137M 5.10+04 5.09+04 5.09+04 5.09+04 5.09+04 5.09+04 4.98+04 4.87+04 BA140 8.77+05 7.45+05 7.00+05 6.00+05 4.11+05 1.73+05 2.29-03 6.00-12 LA140 8.96405 8.25+05 7.85+05 6.85+05 4.73+05 1.99+05 2.64-03 6.91-12 CE144 5.66+05 5.62+05 5.60+05 5.56+05 5.47+05 5.26+05 2.32+05 9.53+04 (a) 9.42 + 04 = 9.42 x 104 i l* i , . - -
?
e 9 TABLE 3.5.1-4 AVERAGE FISSION PRODUCT INVENTORY IN FUEL R00 GAP 0F SINGLE FUEL ASSEMBLY FOR VARIOUS DECAY TIMES Activity, Curies End of Isotope Cycle 3 Days 100 Hrs. 7 Days 14 Days 30 Days 1 Year 2 Years BR84 3.37+00 4.39-41 6.82-57 1.35-95 5.3-191 0. O. O. BR85 4.42-01( a) 0. O. O. O. O. O. O. KR83M 4.62+01 3.94-08 1.27-11 3.61-20 3.08-41 2.15-89 0. O. KR85M 1.95+02 2. 31-F1 2.88-05 6.28-10 2.02-21 1.10-47 0. O. KR85 4.34+03 4.33+0a 4.33+03 4.33+03 4.33+03 4.31+03 4.07+03 3.81+03 KR87 9.89+01 7.67-16 1.86-22 1.18-38 1.40-78 7.7-170 0. O. KR88 3.11+02 5.66-06 5.76-09 2.72-16 2.38-34 1.26-75 0. O. RB88 3.17+02 6.34-06 6.45-09 3.04-16 2.66-34 1.41-75 0. O. SR89 4.04+01 3.88+01 3.82+01 3.67+01 3.84+01 2.68+01 2.73-01 1.84-03 SR90 1.95+01 1.95+01 1.95+01 1.94+01 1.94+01 1.94+01 1.90+01 1.85+01 SR91 1.15+00 6.71-03 9.19-04 7.06-06 4.34-11 5.33-23 2.1-272 0. SR92 1.69-01 1.59-09 1.26-12 3.17-20 5.93-39 9.26-82 0. O. Y90 1.94+01 1.94+01 1.94+01 1.94+01 1.94+01 1.94+01 1.90+01 1.85+01 Y91 7.63+00 7.37+00 7.27+00 7.03+00 6.48+00 5.37+00 1.05-01 1.45-03 M099 6.45+02 3.06+02 2.30+02 1.13+02 2.00+01 3.76-01 2.89-37 1.30-76 BU106 1.04+01 1.04+01 1.04+01 1.03+01 1.02+01 9.87+00 5.25+00 2.63+00 XE131M 3.51+02 3.01+02 2.13+02 2.44+02 1.68+02 6.98+01 2.21-07 1.08- M XE133M 3.81+02 1.57+02 1.11+02 4.66+01 5.45+00 4.04-02 9.87-47 2.44- W XE133 3.49+04 2.37+04 2.04+04 1.41+04 5.62+03 6.85+02 S.06-17 7.23-38 XE135M 5.63+01 2.17-02 1.22-03 1.06-06 3.00-14 1.69-31 0. O. XE135 8.48+02 7.98+00 1.02+00 6.21-03 2.00-08 5.51-21 5.9-284 0. XE138 6.45+01 8.27-92 9.9-128 1.1-215 0. O. O. O. 1129 8.27-03 8.27-03 8.27-03 8.27-03 8.27-03 8.27-03 8.27-03 8.27-03 1131 7.67+03 5.92+03 5.36+03 4.20+03 2.30+03 5.79+02 1.73-10 3.90-24 l 1132 3.33+02 1.29+02 1.01+02 5.50+01 1.24+01 4.08-01 3.87-32 6.11-66 I133 1.17+03 1.08+02 4.33-01 4.56+00 1.78-02 5.60-08 3.2-123 9.2-249 1134 7.04+01 8.37-24 1.80-33 3.87-57 1.7-115 8.1-249 0. O. 1135 4.11+02 2.39-01 1.35-02 1.17-05 3.32-13 1.87-30 0. O. l CS134 1.34+04 1.33+04 1.33+04 1.33+04 1.32+04 1.30+04 9.54+03 6.82+03 l CS136 1.94+02 1.65+02 1.55+02 1.34+02 9.20+01 3.92+01 6.88-07 2.44-15 CS137 2.22+04 2.21+04 2.21+04 2.21+04 2.21+04 2.21+04 2.16+04 2.12+04 CS138 9.73+01 6.14-39 1.50-54 8.92-93 5.4-187 0. O. 0. BA137M 2.07+04 2.07+04 2.07+04 2.07+04 2.07+04 2.07+04 2.02+04 1.98+04 CA140 1.55+01 1.32+01 1.24+01 1.06+01 7.25+00 3.05+00 4.05-08 1.06-16 , LA140 1.58+01 1.46+01 1.39+01 1.21+01 8.34+00 3.51+00 4.66-08 1.22-16 l CE144 2.43+01 2.41+01 2.41+01 2.39+01 2.35+01 2.26+01 9.98+00 4.10+00 (a) 4.42 - 01 = 4.42 x 10-1 O l l l
TABLE 3.5.1-5 "ARAMETERS USED TO CALCULATE IN-PLANT DESIGN BASIS FISSION PRODUCT INVENTORIES FOR THE PRIMARY & SECONDARY COOLANT Core thermal power, Wt 3800 Cladding defects as percentage of rated core thermal power 0.25 being generated by defective rods (In-Plant Design Basis): Reactor coolant mass circulating during operation, g 2.31 (+08)(a) Reactor coolant average density, g/cc 0.690 Equilibrium core cycle time, EFPD 254 Equilibrium core cycle thennal flux, ncm-23-1 6.16 (+13) Average purification flow rate at 70F,14.7 psia, gpm 42.5 Average processing rate through purification deminera-lizers and bleed processing system Table 3.5.1-6 Escape Rate Coefficients Elements Coefficients, s-1 Xe, Kr 6.5(-8) Br, Rb, I, Cs 1.3(-8) Mo 2.0(-9) Sr, Ba 1.0(-11) Te 1.0(-9) All others 1.6(-12) Mixed-bed demineralizer removal efficiency, % Xe, Kr 0 Rb, Cs 50 All others 90 Cation bed demineralizer removal efficiency, % Xe, Kr 0 Cs, Rb 90 All others 90 Removal efficiency of RC bleed for all isotopes, % 0 - 232 days 99.9 232 - 254 days 0.0 (a) 2.31 (+08) = 2.31 x 108
TABLE 3.5.1-6 AVERAGE PROCESSING RATE (a) THROUGH PURIFICATION DEMINERALIZERS AND BLEED PROCESSING SYSTEM Time Interval For Base-Loaded Operation Load-Follow Operation Equilibrium Cycle Days Purification Bleed Purification Bleed 0-4 1.157-05(b) 1.032-06 1.157-05 2.029-06 4-25 1.157-05 3.383-08 1.157-05 2.200-06 25-51 1.157-05 4.129-08 1.157-05 2.369-06 51-76 1.157-05 4.731-08 1.157-05 2.603-06 76-102 1.157-05 5.073-08 1.157-05 2.899-06 102-127 1.157-05 6.872-08 1.157-05 3.310-06 127-152 1.157-05 6.983-08 1.183-05 3.882-06 152-178 1.157-05 1.045-07 1.270-05 4.968-06 178-203 1.157-05 1.424-07 1.418-05 6.778-06 203-229 1.157-05 1.987-07 1.832-05 1.162-05 229-232 1.157-05 5.153-07 1.932-05 1.276-05 232-254 1.157-05 0 1.157-05 0 (a) Expressed in terms of fraction of coolant (in the RCS) processed per second (b) 1.157-05 = 1.157 x 10-5 0 O
/~%
U J v TABLE 3.5.1-7 IN-PLANT DESIGN FISSION PRODUCT ACTIVITY IN REACTOR 000LANT VS TIME FOR 8ASE-LOADED OPERATION WITH 0.25% FAILED FUEL - EQUILIBRIUM CYCLE ACTIVITY, p Ci/gm 4 25 51 76 102 127 152 178 203 229 232 254 Isotope EFPD EFF0 EFPD EFP0 EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD BR84 8.52-03(a) 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 BR85 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 KR83M 1.11-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 KR85M 4.96-01 5.07-01 5.07-01 5.07-01 5.07-01 5.06-01 5.06-01 5.06-01 5.06-01 5.05-01 5.01-01 5.07-01 KR85 6.84-01 8.39-01 1.01+00 1.16+00 1.30+00 1.38+00 1.45+00 1.42+00 1.30+00 1.08+00 9.82-01 1.25+00 KR87 2.64-01 2.66-01 2.66-01 2.66-01 2.66-01 2.66-01 2.66-01 2.66-01 2.66-01 2.66-01 2.65-01 2.66-01 KR88 8.11-01 8.22-01 8.22-01 8.22-01 8.22-01 8.22-01 8.22-01 8.22-01 8.21-01 8.21-01 8.17-01 8.23-01 RB88 8.20-01 8.33-01 8.32-01 8.32-01 8.32-01 8.32-01 8.32-01 8.32-01 8.31-01 8.31-01 8.27-01 8.33-01 SR89 1.25-03 1.39-03 1.47-03 1.53-03 1.58-03 1.61-03 1.63-03 1.64-03 1.65-03 1.66-03 1.65-03 1.67-03 SR90 4.01-05 4.35-05 4.59-05 4.81-05 5.05-05 5.27-05 5.50-05 5.73-05 5.95-05 6.18-05 6.19-05 6.42-05 SR91 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 SR92 3.80-04 3.81-04 3.81-04 3.81-04 3.81-04 3.81-04 3.81-04 3.81-04 3.81-04 3.81-04 3.80-04 3.81-04 Y90 1.33-05 1.50-05 1.58-05 1.66-05 1.74-04 1.82-05 1.90-05 1.98-05 2.05-05 2.13-05 2.13-05 2.22-05 Y91 1.71-04 1.96-04 2.13-04 2.25-04 2.34-05 2.41-04 2.45-04 2.49-04 2.52-04 2.54-04 2.53-04 2.56-04 M099 1.66-01 3.09-01 3.10-01 3.10-01 3.10-01 3.10-01 3.10-01 3.10-01 3.09-01 3.09-01 3.09-01 3.10-01 RU106 3.47-05 3.86-05 4.18-05 4.46-05 4.75-05 5.01-05 5.26-05 5.51-05 5.73-05 5.95-05 5.96-05 6.17-05 XE131M 1.56-01 3.07-01 4.71-01 5.48-01 5.74-01 5.70-01 5.69-01 5.48-01 5.24-01 4.91-01 4.55-01 5.80-01 XE133M 1.94-01 8.86-01 8.89-01 8.88-01 8.87-01 8.82-01 8.82-01 8.74-01 8.65-01 8.52-01 8.09-01 8.99-01 XE133 1.19+01 7.00+01 8.13+01 8.16+01 8.14+01 8.05+01 8.04+01 7.88+01 7.70+01 7.44+01 6.97+01 8.33+01 XE135M 1.03-01 1.04-01 1.04-01 1.04-01 1.04-01 1.04-01 1.04-01 1.04-01 1.04-01 1.04-01 1.04-01 1.04-01 XE135 1.53+00 1.61+D0 1.61+00 1.61+00 1.61+00 1.61+00 1.61+00 1.61+00 1.60+00 1.60+00 1.58+00 1.62+00 XE138 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1129 1.67-08 1.81-08 1.90-08 2.00-08 2.10-08 2.19-08 2.28-08 2.37-08 2.45-08 2.5$-08 2.54-08 2.62-08 1131 5.08-01 1.22+00 1.34+00 1.35+00 1.36+00 1.36+00 1.36+00 1.36+00 1.36+00 1.35+00 1.35+UJ 1.36+00 1132 1.54-01 2.82-01 2.84-01 2.84-01 2.84-01 2.84-01 2.84-01 2.83-01 2.83-01 2.83-01 2.83-01 2.84-01 1133 1.23+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1134 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1135 6.73-01 6.75-01 6.75-01 6.75-01 6.75-01 6.75-01 6.75-01 6.75-01 6.75-01 6.75-01 6.74-01 6.75-01 CS134 1.60-02 2.06-02 2.19-02 2.31-02 2.45-02 2.58-02 2.73-02 2.86-02 3.00-02 3.13-02 3.08-02 3.33-02 CS136 9.16-03 2.26-02 2.69-02 2.80-02 2.82-02 2.83-02 2.83-02 2.82-02 2.81-02 2.80-02 2.75-02 2.84-02 CS137 6.98-02 8.95-02 9.44-02 9.90-02 1.04-01 1.08-01 1.12-01 1.16-01 1.20-01 1.23-01 1.21-01 1.29-01 CS138 2.15-01 2.16-01 2.16-01 2.16-01 2.16-01 2.16-01 2.16-01 2.16-01 2.16-01 2.16-01 2.15-31 2.16-01 BA137M 6.51-02 8.35-02 8.81-01 9.24-02 9.67-02 1.01-01 1.05-01 1.08-01 1.12-01 1.15-01 ' 13'01 1.20-01 BA140 9.77-04 1.69-03 1.94-03 2.00-03 2.01-03 2.01-03 2.02-03 2.01-03 2.01-03 2.01-03 2.01-03 2.02-03 LA140 3.69-04 6.99-04 8.12-03 8.39-04 8.46-04 8.47-04 8.48-04 8.47- 04 8.47-04 8.46-04 8.43-04 8.49-04 CE144 1.21-04 1.31-04 1.39-04 1.45-04 1.51-04 1.57-04 1.62-04 1.67-04 1.72-04 1.77-04 1.77.04 1.81-04 (a) 8.52-03 = 8.52 x 10-3
TABLE 3.5.1-8 IN-PLANT DESIGN FISSION PRODUCT ACTIVITY IN REACTOR COOLANT VS TIME FOR LOAD FOLLOW OPERATION WITH 0.25% FAILED FUEL - EQUILIBRILH CYCLF ACTIVITY. pCi/gm 4 25 51 76 102 127 152 178 203 229 232 254 Isotope EFPD Eggl EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFP0 EFPD EFPD EFP0 BR84 8.52-03(a) 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.51-03 8.51-03 8.51-03 8.49-03 8.45-03 8.36-03 8.34-03 8.52-03 BR85 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 KR83M 1.10-01 1.10-01 1.10-01 1.09-01 1.09-01 1.09-01 1.08-01 1.07-01 1.05-01 9.94-02 9.83-02 1.12-01 KR85M 4.85-01 4.83-01 4.81-01 4.79-01 4.76-01 4.72-01 4.66-01 4.56-01 4.39-01 4.01-01 3.93-01 5.07-01 KR85 1.34-01 5.34-02 5.06-02 4.79-02 4.45-02 4.00-02 3.49-02 2.78-02 2.07-02 1.23-02 1.12-01 2.83-01 KR87 2.62-01 2.62-01 2.62-01 2.61-01 2.61-01 2.60-01 2.59-01 2.58-02 2.55-01 2.47-01 2.45-01 2.66-01 KR88 7.99-01 7.97-01 7.95-01 7.93-01 7.90-01 7.d5-01 7.79-01 7.67-01 7.49-01 7.04-01 6.94-01 8.23-01 RB88 8.08-01 8.06-01 8.04-01 8.02-01 7.98-01 7.94-01 7.87-01 7.74-01 7.54-01 7.05-01 6.95-01 8.33-01 SR89 1.23-03 1.36-03 1.44-03 1.50-03 1.53-03 1.56-03 1.54-03 1.44-03 1.28-03 9.82-04 9.29-04 1.67-03 SR90 3.98-05 4.26-04 4.49-05 4.70-05 4.91-05 5.11-05 5.20-05 5.01-05 4.62-05 3.66-05 3.48-05 6.42-05 SR91 1.99-03 1.99-03 1.99-03 1.99-03 1.98-03 1.98-03 1.96-03 1.91-03 1.82-03 1.62-03 1.57-03 2.00-03 SR92 3.80-04 3.80-04 3.80-04 3.79-04 3.79-04 3.79-04 3.78-04 3.74-04 3.67-04 3.50-04 3.46-04 3.81-04 Y90 1.32-05 1.45-05 1.53-05 1.60-05 1.67-05 1.74-05 1.75-05 1.63-05 1.44-05 1.02-05 9.53-06 2.22-05 Y91 1.70-04 1.92-04 2.08-04 2.19-04 2.28-04 2.33-04 2.32-04 2.17-04 1.94-04 1.48-04 1.40-04 2.56-04 M099 1.65-01 3.04-01 3.04-01 3.04-01 3.03-01 3.02-01 2.96-01 2.78-01 2.52-01 2.01-01 1.91-01 3.10-01 RU106 3.44-05 3.78-05 4.08-05 4.36-05 4.62-05 4.86-05 4.97-05 4.82-05 4.45-05 3.53-05 3.35-05 6.17-05 XE131M 1.05-01 9.83-02 1.27-01 1.27-01 1.19-01 1.07-01 9.35-02 7.54-02 5.71-02 3.45-02 3.17-02 4.64-01 XE133M 1.79-01 5.5?-01 5.39-01 5.19-01 4.95-01 4.65-01 4.29-01 3.74-01 3.08-01 2.09-01 1.94-01 8.99-01 XE133 9.78+00 3.23+01 3.27+01 3.09+01 2.88+01 2.64+01 2.36+01 1.96+01 1.53+01 9.63+00 8.88+00 7.99+01 XE135M 1.03-01 1.03-01 1.03-01 1.03-01 1.03-01 1.03-01 1.02-01 1.01-01 9.85-02 9.30-02 9.19-02 1.04-01 XE135 1.47+ 00 1.46+00 1.45+00 1.43+00 1. 41 +00 1.39+00 1.35+00 1.29+00 1.18+00 9.71-01 9.30-01 1.62+00 XE138 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.46-01 1.46-01 1.46-01 1.46-01 1.45-01 1.45-01 1.47-01 1129 1.65-08 1.77-08 1.86-08 1.95-08 2.04-08 2.12-08 2.15-08 2.07-08 1.90-08 1.50-08 1.42-08 2.62-08 1131 5.05-01 1.20+00 1.32+00 1.33+00 1.32+00 1.32+00 1.29+00 1.20+00 1.07+00 8.31-01 7.88-01 1.36+00 1132 1.54-01 2.80-01 2.81-01 2.81-01 2.81-01 2.80-01 2.78-01 2.70-01 2.58-01 2.32-01 2.27-01 2.84-01 1133 1.22+00 1.33+00 1.33+00 1.32+00 1.32+00 1.32+00 1.30+00 1.2 5+00 1.16+00 9.79-01 9.44-01 1.34+00 1134 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.50-01 1.50-01 1.50-01 1.49-01 1.46-01 1.45-01 1.51-01 1135 6.71-01 6.71-01 6.71-01 6.71-01 6.70-01 6.69-01 6.65-01 6.50-01 6.27-01 5.70-01 5.58-01 6.75-01 CS134 1.51-02 1.74-02 1.82-02 1.90-02 1.97-02 2.02-02 2.01-02 1.89-02 1.67-02 1.23-02 1.15-02 3.33-02 CS136 8.72-03 1.94-02 2.28-02 2.33-02 2.31-02 2.26-02 2.15-02 1.93-02 1.64-02 1.17-02 1.09-02 2.84-02 CS137 6.60-02 7.55-02 7.87-02 8.12-02 8.33-02 8.45-02 8.32-02 7.68-02 6.70-02 4.85-02 4.55-02 1.29-01 CS138 2.15-01 2.15-01 2.15-01 2.14-01 2.14-01 2.14-01 2.14-01 2.13-01 2.12-01 2.08-01 2.08-01 2.16-01 BA137M 6.15-02 7.04-02 7.34-02 7.58-02 7.77-02 7.88-02 7.76-02 7.16-02 6.24-02 4.52-02 4.23-02 1.20-01 BA140 9.69-04 1.66-03 1.90-03 1.95-03 1.96-03 1.96-03 1.91-03 1.77-03 1.58-03 1.22-03 1.15-03 2.02-03 LA140 3.65-04 6.79-04 7.87-04 8.11-04 8.15-04 8.12-04 7.02-04 5.94-04 4.05-04 3.75-04 8.49-04 CE144 1.20-04 1.29-04 1.36-04 1.42-04 1.47-04 1.52-04 1.47-04 1.34-04 1.05-04 9.93-05 1.81-04 (a) 8.52 - 03 x 8.52 x 10-3 O O O
TABLE 3.5.1-9 TRITIUM PRODUCTION Tritium Source Tritium Activity per Cycle, Ci Initial Subsequent Nonnal Operation 457EFPD 254EFPD Ternaij Fission 4.48+02(1)* 9.21+02(2) Boron Activation 1.25+03 5.21+02 Lithium Activation 2.78+02 1.47+02 Total 1.98+03 1.59+03 Inplant Design Operation Ternary Fission 7.84+02(3) 1.11+03(4) Boron Activation 1.25+03 5.21+02 Lithium Activation 2.78+02 1.47+02 Total 2.31+03 1.78+03 (1) 1.2% of the total ternary fission produced tritium (D=0.012), i.e., 1.1% diffusion through the cladding and 0.1% from defective fuel clad. (2) 4.3% of the total ternary fission produced tritium (D=0.043), i.e., 4.2% diffusion through the cladding and 0.1% defective fuel clad. (3) 2.1% of the total ternary fission produced tritium (D=0.021), i.e., 1.1% diffusion through the cladding and 1.0% from defective fuel clad. (4) 5.2% of the total ternary fission produced tritium (D=0.052), i.e., 4.2% diffusion through the cladding and 1.0% from defective fuel clad.
*4.48+02 = 4.48x102 l
l l O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O) (-s TABLE 3.5.1-10 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY COOLANT ACTIVITY (EXPECTED - 0.12% FAILED FUEL) PRIMARY COOLANT ACTIVITY SECONDARY COOLANT ACTIVITY ISOTOPE ( CI/GM) ( CI/GM) Kr83M 2.4E-02 6.6E-09 Kr85M 1.3E-01 3.5E-08 Kr85 1.9E-01 5.3E-08 Kr87 6.8E-02 1.8E-08 Kr88 2.3E- 01 6.3E-08 Kr89 5.7E-03 1.6E-09 Xe131M 1.3E-01 3.6E-08 Xe133M 2.5E-01 7.1E-08 Xe133 2.1E+01 5.8E-06 Xe135M 1.5E-02 4.1E-09 Xe135 4.0E-01 1.1E-07 Xe137 1.0E-02 2.9E-09 Xe138 5.0E-02 1.4E-08 Br83 5.9E-03 2.8E-09 Br84 3.0E-03 1.4E-09 i Br85 3.4 E-04 1.6E-10 I I 130 3.1E-03 1.9E-09 I 131 5.1E-01 2.5E-07 I 132 1.2E-01 5.8E-08 I 133 6.0E-01 2.8E-07 I 134 5.5E-02 2.6E-08 I 135 2.6E-01 1.2E-07 Rb86 1.5E-04 1.3E-10 Rb88 2.3E-01 2.3E-07 Sr89 6. 8E-04 3.9E-10 Sr90 1.9E-05 9.7E-12 Sr91 9.1E-04 4.2E-10 Y 90 2.1E-06 1.1E-12 Y 91M 4.2E-04 2.3E-10 Y 91 1.2E-04 5.8E-11 Y 93 4.9E-05 2.8E-11 Zr95 1.2E-04 5.8E-11 Nb95 9.6E-05 3.8E-11 Mo99 1.5E-01 7.0E-07 Tc99M 6.4E-02 2.7E-07 Rul03 8.7E-05 3.9E-11 Rul06 1.9E-05 9.7E-12 Rh103M 5.3E-05 2.4E-11 Rh106 1.1E-05 5.7E-12 O
P WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5.1-10 (Contd.) PRIMARY COOLANT ACTIVITY SECONDARY COOLANT ACTIVITY IS0 TOPE ( CI/GM) ( CI/GM) Tel25M 5.6E-05 1.9E-11 Tel27M 5.4E-04 1.9E-10 Tel27 1.2E-03 5.6E-10 Tel29M 2.7E-03 1.3E-09 Tel29 1.9E-03 9.5E-10 Te131M 4.1E-03 8.1E-10 Te131 1.3E-03 5.8E-10 Te132 4.8E-02 1.8E-08 Cs134 4.6E-02 3.7E-08 Cs136 2.3E-02 1.8E-08 Cs137 3.3E-02 2.8E-08 Ba137M 1.8E-02 9.1E-09 Ba140 4.2E-04 1.9E-10 La140 2. 5E-04 1.2E-10 Cel41 1.3E-04 5.8E-11 Cel43 6.6E-05 3.3E-11 Cel44 6.4E-05 3.9E-11 Pr143 9.5E-05 3.8E-11 Pr144 3.8E-05 2.3E-11 Np239 2.1E'03 1.0E-09 Cr51 3.6E-03 1.7E-09 Mn54 6.0E-04 3.9E-10 Fe55 3.1E-03 1.6E-09 Fe59 1.9E-03 9.6E-10 CoS8 3.1E-02 1.5E-08 Co60 3.9E-03 1.7E-09 N 16 4.0E+01 1.0E-06 H3 1.0E-00 1.0E-03 O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL-TABLE 3.5.1-11 IN-PLANT DESIGN BASIS ) CORROSION PRODUCT ACTIVITIES l IN REACTOR COOLANT (0.25% FAILED FUEL) j IS0 TOPE ACTIVITY (C1/gm) , Cr-51 5.2-03(a) Mn-54 5.8-04 Mn-56 1.7-02 s Fe-55 3.0-03 Fe-59 5.8-04 I Co-58 3.0-02 Co-60 4.0-03 Zr-95 5.0-04 (a) 5.2-03 = 5.2 x 10-3 1 1 l (O 1 i _ . _ . - , _. - . . . . - _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ , . _ , . . .._,_._ _ . _ ..~. _ .... _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ ._. _ ._ _... ,. _ , ... ._
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5.1-12 IN PLANT DESIGN NITR0 GEN - 16 ACTIVITY REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM Location Activity, Ci/gm Reactor Vessel Outlet 292 OTSG Inlet 255 OTSG Outlet 172 Reactor Vessel Inlet 152 O O
WNP-1/4
. ER-OL O TABLE 3.5.1-13 PARAMETERS USED TO CALCULATE INPLANT DESIGN SECONDARY COOLANT SOURCE TERMS Reactor thermal core power, MWt 3800 Primary to secondary leak rate, lb/ day 100 Total steam flow rate, lb/hr 1.67E+7 Fraction of steam generator feedwater 0.65 processed through condensate demineralizer Londensate demineralizer decontamination factors Rb and Cs 2 Noble gases 1 All others 10
() Main condenser decontamination factors _. - Noble gases 0 l All others 1 i l O
TABLE 3.5.1-14 SECONDARY COOLANT SYSTEM ACTIVITIES (b) Activity, gCf /gm IN - PLANT DESIGN BASIS (0.25% FAI_ LED FUEL) Steam Isotope Generator Steam Feedwater Br 84 5.76-9 1.51-9(a) Br 85 7.78-10 2.04-10 Kr 83m 7.09-8 1.51-8 Kr 85m 3.21-7 6.81-8 Kr 85 7.92-7 1.68-7 Kr 87 1.68-7 3.58-8 Kr 88 5.21-7 1.10-7 Rb 88 8.47-7 4.32-7 Sr 89 1.13-9 2.96-10 Sr 90 d.34-11 1.14-11 Sr 91 1.35-9 3.54-10 Sr 92 2.58-10 6.74-11 Y 90 1.50-11 3.93-12 Y 91 1.73-10 4.53-11 Mo 99 2.10-7 5.49-8 Ru 106 4.17-11 1.09-11 Xe 131m 3.67-7 7.80-8 Xe 133m 5.69-7 1.21-7 Xe 133 5.28-5 1.12-5 Xe 135m 6.59-8 1.40-8 Xe 135 1.03-6 2.18-7 Xe 138 9.31-8 1.98-8 I 129 1.77-14 4.64-15 I 131 9.19-7 2.41-7 I 132 1.92-7 5.03-8 I 133 9.06-7 2.37-7 I 134 1.02-7 2.67-8 I 135 4.56-7 1.19-7 Cs 134 3.39-8 1.73-8 Cs 136 2.89-8 1.47-8 Cs 137 1.31-7 6.68-8 Cs 138 2.20-7 1.12-7 Ba 137m 8.11-8 2.12-8 Ba 140 1.37-9 3.58-10 La 140 5.74-10 1.50-10 Ce 144 1.22-10 3.20-11 (a) 1.51 - 9 = 1.51 x 10-9 (b) Values in this table were calculated using formulas found in Section 11.1.4.1 of the WNP-1/4 FSAR.
4 1 TABLE 3.5.1-15 SECONDARY COOLANT INPLANT DESIGN CORROSION PRODUCT ACTIVITIES Activity, Ci/gm , Steam Generator Isotope Steam Feeduater Cr 51 3.52-09 9.25-10(a) Mn 54 3.93-10 1,03-10 Mn 56 1.15-08 3.02-09 Fe 55 1.20-09 5.32-10 Fe 59 3.93-10 1.03-10 , Co 58 2.03-08 5.31-09 Co 60 2.71-09 7.09-10 Zr 95 3.38-10 8.83-11 (a) 9.25-10 = 9.25X10-10 f l j O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5.2-1 RLW COMPONENT DESIGN PARAMETERS
, Collection Tank A Number 1 Type Vertical Volume, gal. 2,400 Design pressure Atmospheric Design temperature, OF 200 Material of Construction SA 304 S.S.
Special characteristics Heat traced, Sparged Collection Tank B Number 1 Type Vertical Volume, gal. 12,000 Design pressure Atmospheric s Design temperature, OF 200 Material of Construction SA 304 S.S. Special characteristics Sparged. Collection Tank C Number 1 Type Vertical Volume, gal. 35,000 Design pressure Atmospheric Design temperature, OF 200 Material of Construction SA 304 S.S. Special characteristics Sparged Batch Feed Tanks Number 2 Type Vertical Volume, gal. 4,000 Design pressure Atmospheric Design temperature, OF 200 Material of Construction SA 304 S.S. Special characteristics Sparged O
i I WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5.2-1 (Contd.) RLW COMPONENT DESIGN PARAMETERS Holdup Tanks Number 4 Type Vertical Volume, gal. 7,000 Design pressure Atmospheric Design tempe"ature, OF 200 Material of Construction SA 304 S.S. Special characteristics Sparged Liquid Waste Backflush Tank (or Filter Backflush Tank) Number 1 Type Vertical Volume, gal. 560 Design pressure, psig 65 Design temperature, OF 200 Material of Construction SA 304 S.S. Special characteristics Sparged Collection Tank A Output Pump (' A' Pump) Number 1 , Type Centrifugal Flow rate, gpm @ 125' 75 Design pressure, psig 150 Design temperature, OF 200 Material of Construction SA 316 S.S.
'B' Pump Number 1 Type Centrifugal Flow rate, gpm @ 150' 200 Design pressure, psig 150 Design temperature, OF 200 Material of Construction SA 316 S.S.
l O
l WNP-1/4 ER-OL O TABLE 3.5.2-1 (Contd.) RLW COMPONENT DESIGN PARAMETERS , 'C' Pump Number 1 Type Centrifugal Flow rate, gpm @ 150' 200 Design pressure, psig 150 Design temperature, OF 200 Material of Construction SA 316 S.S. Filter Feed Pumps Number 2 Type Centrifugal Flow rate, gpm @ 160' 90 Design pressure, psig 150 Design temperature, OF 200 Material of Construction SA 316 S.S. 1 Filter Backflush Tank Pump Number 1 Type Centrifugal Flow rate, gpm @ 125' 75' Design pressure, psig 150 Design temperature, OF 200 Material of Construction SA 316 S.S. Holdup Tank Pumps Number 2 Type Centrifugal Flow rate, gpm @ 150' 200 Design pressure, psig 150 Design temperature, OF 200 Material of Construction SA 316 S.S. O -
WNP-1/4 ) ER-OL l TABLE 3.5.2-1 (Contd.) 9ll l RLW COMPONENT DESIGN PARAMETERS Forced Circulation Evaporators Number 2 Type Forced Circulation Flow rate, gpm 10 Design pressure, psig 50 (Vapor Budy) Design temperature, OF 250 (Vapor Body) Material of Construction Incology 825 (Vapor Body) Special Characteristics Multi-component Subsystem Filters Number 2 Type Backflushable Flow rate, gpm 0 50 paid 10 Design pressure, psig 375 Design temperature, OF 110 Material of Construction SA 304 S.S. g Demineralizers Number 4 Type Mixed Bed Flow rate, gpm 10 Design pressure, psia 150 Design temperature, DF 110 Material of Construction SA 304 S.S. Special Characteristics Nonregenerable Demineralizer Filters Number 4 Type Cartridge Flow rate, gpm 10 Design pressure, psig 150 Design temperature, OF 110 Material of Construction SA 304 S.S. O
TABLE 3.5.2-2 RADI0 ACTIVE LIQUID WASTE SYSTEM INPUT Collection Flow Rate Source Tank (gpd) Activity (I)
- 1) Containment Sumps Waste Collection '
Tank 'B' (WCT'S') 40 1
- 2) Containment Equipment WCT'B' 15 1 Drains
- 3) Evaporator Flush Water WCT'B' 60 0.5
- 4) GSB Sumps WCT'C' 900 0.03
- 5) Equipment Decontamination Decon 60 0.3
& Ultrasonic Cleaning Drain Tank (DCNT)
- 6) Demineralizer and Demin. Flush 70 0.1 Filter Drains Tank (DFT)
- 7) Deborating Demineralizer DFT 150 0.08(2)
Regeneration
- 8) Lab Drains DFT 60 0.1
- 9) Laundry, Shower & Laundry and Hot Shower 450 NUREG 0017 Sinks Drain Tank (LST) Table 2-20
- 10) Reactor Coolant Drain WCT'A' 15(3)
Tank & Forced Circu-lation evaporator Concentrate i (1) Activity expressed as fraction of Reactor Coolant Activity (2) Excluding Iodine (3) WCT' A' content is expected to be processed through RSW system. O l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5.2-3 ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETERS USED TO DETERMINE ANNUAL LIQUID EFFLUENT RELEASES PLANT SF'ECIFIC DATA Power Level 3800 MWt Capacity Factor 80% Failed Fuel Fraction Equivalent to 0.12% (per NUREG 0017) PROCESS PARAMETERS Primary Coolant Mass 540,000 lbs. Secondary Coolant Mass 1,000,000 lbs. Primary to Secondary Leakrate 100 lbs/ day Mass of Steam per Steam Generator 10,000 lbs Mass of Liquid per Steam Generator 100,000 lbs Number of Steam Generators per unit 2 Steam Flow at Rated Power 1.67 x 107 lbs/hr Primary Coolant Letdown Rate 50 gpm , Letdown Cation Demineralizer Flow 12.0 gpm Radwaste Dilution Flow 3,230 gpm Condensate Demineralizer Flow Fraction .65 Fission Product Carry over 100% Halogen Carry Over 100% RADWASTE PARAMETERS Shim Bleed Flow Rate 630 gpd PCA Fraction 1.00
- Discharge Fraction 18%
Collection Time 139 days Processing T1me 3.04 days l l Equipment Drains . l 115 gpd
- Flow Rate
! PCA Fraction .739 Discharge Fraction 100% Collection Time 41.7 days Processing Time 0.33 days l l Clean Waste Flow Rate 960 gpd PCA Fraction .047 Discharge Fraction 100% Collection Time 14.6 days Processing Time 0.97 days l i
TABLE 3.5.2-3 O RADWASTE PARAMETERS (contd.) Dirty Waste Flow Rate 250 gpd PCA Fraction .089 Discharge Fraction 100% Collection Time 21.4 days Processing Time 0.42 days RADWASTE SYSTEM COMPONENT DF'S Decontamination Factors
- Component Cs, Rb 1 Others Filter 1 1 1 Evaporator 103 104 104 Mixed Bed Demineralizer 102 2 102 Boron Recovery System Component DF's Decontamination Factors
- Component Cs, Rb 1 Others
^
Fil ter 1 1 1 Evaporator 102 103 103 Mixed Bed Demineralizer 10 2 10 DF's For Effluent Streams Decontamination Factors
- Stream 1 Cs, Rb Others Shim Bleed 105 8x103 106 Equipment Drains 105 2x104 106 Clean Waste 105 2x104 106 Dirty Waste 105 2x104 106
- Note that a second mixed bed demineralizer in series can be employed to provide an additional DF of up to 10.
O
s 9 2 cc. 072 k" tR$ 4449Iy449 4944Yi49444494499999955444444 *
"g. ww* m **w g ww~w g *ww wws m W
- sw w*s w ww wx* xs * ** *
$8W q**,mw -~*9* .S* ~~~i*
- 9 ~~-~-.~--.--.~.
- * , ~ 9
- i ~ ~ * * *.~ ~. n. s ~ o ~ =
g- --~--..-- ~--- ..-- ~ d 8 Ekc3945$*0444 444bY*?494?ii44494444444Y4444 g-E2 888888888 88888888888888888888888888888 AaaJa4Ad:AdaAda.;Aad as4daAa:A
-g33 add;&ad 8
^
e
-- . :S. :. :. k 8. 29. :. 22222.c8.:.9.:.=.2.;.;.;.;.829.k2.k888.k282 9 f Y
* ****mer**swwwwmwwwww**ys*ws**
**wert***
- 5 mo S*"*9~ia*
~-u---~--
~99999979997-"~,~*99".o
~-.---.~..-~~--- u---....---.
~~*an .*
Ya 8
*~
WE ~ 282 2 38 -~ ""888EE:S*** 8 ~8 828@*8
~-~ .~ ~ 28.8R* g ESSE an $8$ 8 88 888883E~E88:$8 8888 8883838888888 ~
"" ddddddddd dddddddddddddddddddddddddddde d I
8.2 -g gooE
~
.o.
~23 $ $
g o 0
. 3 8 88o oooooooE88aooooo8aooosooaeo8e a 3*
g eE _"Wt ggs ddddddddd o8eoE$: ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd d I 7
=
= em
.-~
8-H~. ~ 8 s~a-~s-:Ha ss e ~s.-~.sE s 8s :.g~s.~...
.s seres a. 8 Se 50 $8$88$oo8 888888888o88$8883883838888888 5 2 gRgaddddddda g dadddddddddddddddddddddddddda &
}
;;;g sgkkiEhook --~- -
as --- g=ag g=:re .- g i f 8 #-
=
88 o hhhh8$$88$$$$ h 3 : y mig 35 daddddddd dadddddddddddddddddddddddddds 4 y 9 b a EE 8 88--28 s
.5 8 88$8ee8 a aa**af8 888888 a----2:
8sss 23 888888$$ a0$088$$$$$a 2 2
. 8
{ js 88 3 -
- g. g" ddddddddd dddddddddddddddddddddddddddda d 8
0 g; %
, c. 2, ,,,,,,,,, 3' g 8v ooooooooo ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i, ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o
. Y /
& N . .-
i ddddddddd Mg Illillool 111111111o111111111111111115 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd 1 g. i8 u" 4 E 25 8' it s
- a
==liilliool
=g
$~ ddddddddd 111111111o111111111:11~~,111i dddddddddddddddjddddddddddddd d g i$
t"
- 8E%.. -
3 l:g = 899944 ? 8:?????:~ ??4?i?9449849888?:9 8 a l' I o5 =w=*wcm,~,n,,, * *wwww====,wwwemww*wgg=ss,g,*www, we
*s r=.ejxm y=
- , 8
- m. ~----oo. ~.~-~.~~~o-....n.--
sym,n~9, ,,-~9,,..
~~~--~.-~~
. 9 e 2: -
~d 8 9 "
9 3.43.9.9.9.
- 3 8 *8 3." 9 3.3.8."s.8 9 3.93.35.8.8.~3.*s.
9 9 8-f go 'y u e.3. "8.s,,, 3 w3
-= 99xun H 88g wwwww*s mwwwwwww x,e is a.
me - ~-~,~oo-i
. ~~se,~,g*sen,~998,,gxwnwymm*ww.
~- - . . . .~ ~ , - o - ~ -. ~ ~ . . - .9 .- ~-
;~
l r .: - r~ 533533338
-- g 3535. 3. 8333339s*38882.9 5. 8333 3s. sa -
.3 a
l T c &M 5 N L: *
-~ g ---.-~~--~---..-.-..s- ,-~~----~,
_3 ~-
~=yg*MgBN
.me n, M gwg*,wagdW*N,MWNwMMMwww**B,s,www
.9. x .9me 9-~-~,~*, ~9 = 22 g .~-
. .- e. .:
ut , 3 30:3S3* 5 r g
; 23 ssa.28gg%~g*RA ~
x 4%" *=4222* x 5E #s5: d5 2 1 emerseess E ==sa~seiliEEEE:E:E:::B:555555EE E E E-
x ,- s
~
~
's -g .
.?
s
^
LABLE3.5.3-1 l MAJOR VOLUMETRIC INPUTS TO THE RGW s
< L. Expected Maximum Flow Rate (scfm)
Mode of . Base loaded Load Annual Input Source i Plan t s 0per3 tion, < Normal Following. Shutdown Refueling Startup (scf/yr) RC Bleed Degasifier H2 1.46E-02(2) 1.65E-01 1.48E+00 - 5.88E-01 2.78E+04 , N2 8.80E-3 ,9.89E-02 8.87E-01 - 3.53E-02 1.70E+04 Kr, Xe - 6.19E-07 2.64E-05 2.00E-04 - - 8.81E+00 RC Bleed Evapo.ator 'N N2 8.30E-02 9.34E-02 8.40 - 6.02E-02 1.58E+04 s Make-up Tank N2 ! ,.' l \ - H. 2 - 4.00E-00 , 4.00E-00 - - 4.00E+00(1) 2.30E+03 3,- l
- l. Nitrogen u;anketing. s s y
;N2 4.2E+01 4.20E+01 4.20E+01 -
6.38E+00 1.43E+04 f System (1) H2 4.00E+03 i Failed Fuel Detection N2 _ 4.20E+01 - 3.42E+03 (1) Includes input from the Reactor Coolant System and the Pressurizer (2)' '1.46E-02 = 1.46 x 10-2
.s
~
TASLE 3.5.3-2 COMPONENT DESIGN PARAMETERS O Gas Decay Tank Numbtr 4 Voluma 600 cubic feet Design Pressure 200 psig Design Temperature 200F Normal Operating Pressure 0-85 psig Nonnal Operating Temperature 120F Dimensions 102" Dia. x 145" high Material of Construction Carbon Steel Special Characteristics Each tank holds 4400 SCF at 85 psig tank pressure Compressor Number 2 Design Pressum 150 psig Design Temperature 200F Operatina Temperature 70-150F Suetien Pressurc 0.5 psig (N2 at (140F) Discharge Prassure 100 psig Design Flow 42 SCFM (N2 at 140F) Material Carbon Steel Hydrocen Recombiner Number 2 Design Flow 42 SCFM Hydrogen Recombination Rate 1.4 SCFM Design Inlet Temperature 250F Design Inlet Pressure 150 psig Discharge Pressure 90 psig Waste Gas Filter System Nember 1 Capacity 0-40 SCFM Type HEPA
l WNP-1/4 ER-OL l TABLE 3.5.3-3 ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETERS USED TO DETERMINE ANNUAL GASEOUS EFFLUENT RELEASES PLANT SPECIFIC DATA Power Level 3800 Mwt Capacity Factor 80% Failed Fuel Fraction Equivalent to 0.12% (per NUREG 0017) PROCESS PARAMETERS Primary coolant mass 540,000 lbs Secondary coolant mass 1,000,000 lbs Primary to secondary leak rate 100 lbs/ day Mass of steam per steam generator 10,000 lbs Mass of liquid per steam generator 100,000 lbs Number of steam generators per unit 2 Steam flow at rated power 1.67 x 107 lbs/hr Primary coolant letdown rate 50.0 gpm Letdown cation demineralizer rate 12.0 gpm Radwaste dilution flow , 3,230 gpm i Condensate demineralizer flow fraction .65 Fission pmduct carryover 100% Halogen carryover 100% GASEOUS RADWASTE PARAMETERS Containment Building: Containment volume 3.09 x 106 ft3 High volume purging; Frequency 4 times /yr Cleanup and purge rate 27,000 cfm Cleanup time prior to purging 16 hrs. HEPA/ charcoal filter efficiency: Halogens 90% Particulates 99% Low volume purging; Purge rate 1500 cfm HEPA/ charcoal filter efficiency: Halogens 90% Particulates 99% O O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5.3-3 (Contd.) Turbine Building: Steam leakage rate 1700 lbs/hr Air Ejector charcoal adsorber efficiency Halogens 90% Gas Waste System: Xenon hold-up time 60 days Krypton hold-up time 60 days Decay tank fillup time 25 days HEPA filter efficiency: Particulates 99% Auxiliary Building: HEPA/ charcoal filter efficiency: Halogens 90% Particulates 99% Note: There is not continuous stripping of full letdown flow. O 1 1 1 O l
O O O TABLE 3.5.3-4 GASEOUS RELEASE RATE - CURIES PER YEAR PER UNIT Gas Stripping Building Ventilation Blowdown Air Condenser Shutdown Continuous Reactor GSB Turbine Vent Offgas Exhaust Total l KR-83M G. O. 1.0E 00 1.0E 00 0. O. O. 2.0E 00 KR-85M 0. O. 1.4E 01 3.0E 00 0. O. 2.0E 00 1.9E 01 KR-85 1.8E 02 3.1E 02 2.7E 02 8.0E 00 0. O. 5.0E 00 7.7E 02 KR-87 0. O. 3.0E 00 1.0E 00 0. O. 1.0E 00 5.0E 00 KR-B8 0. O. 1.7E 01 5.0E 01 0. O. 3 0E 00 2.5E 01 4 KR-89 0. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. XE-131M 2.0E 00 2.0E 00 9.8E 01 3.0E 00 0. O. 2.0E 00 1.1E 02 XE-133M 0. O. 1.3E 02 6.0E 00 0. O. 3.0E 00 1.4E 02 XE-133 4.0E 00 2.0E 00 1.3E 04 4.6E 02 0. O. 2.9E 02 1.4E 04 XE-135M 0. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. i XE-135 0. O. 8.1E 01 9.0E 00 0. O. 5.0E 00 9.5E 01 XE-137 0. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. XE-138 0. O. O. 1.0E00 0. O. 1.0E 00 2.0E00 TOTAL N0BLE GASES 1.5E 04 I-131 0. O. 2.7E-0E 6.9E-03 1.0E-03 0. 4.3E-03 3.9E-02 1-133 0. O. 1.8E-02 8.6E-03 1.2E-03 0. 5.4E-03 3.3E-02 TRITIUM GASE0US RELEASE 1100 CURIES /YR Note: "0." appearing in the table indicates release is less than 1.0 Ci/yr for noble gas. 0.0001 Ci/yr for I. 3
TABLE 3.5.3-5 AIRBORNE PARTICULATE RELEASE RATE - CURIES PER YEAR PER REACTOR Waste Gas Building Ventilation Nuclide System Reactor GSB Total MN-54 4.5E-05 2.1E-04 1.8E-04 4.4E-04 FE-59 1.5E-05 7.3E-05 6.0E-05 1.5E-04 C0-58 1.5E-04 7.3E-04 6.0E-04 1.5E-03 C0-60 7.0E-05 3.3E-04 2.7E-04 6.7E-04 SR-89 3.3E-06 1.7E-05 1.3E-05 3.3E-05 SR-90 6.0E-07 2.9E-06 2.4E-06 5.9E-06 CS-134 4.5E-05 2.1E-04 1.8E-04 4.4E-04 CS-137 7.5E-05 3.7E-04 3.0E-04 7.5E-04 0 O
1 .i WNP-1/4 ER-OL 1 TABLE 3.5.4-1 l INPUTS TO RSW SYSTEM l l Expected Annual Volume, cu. ft./yr i Sources Dry Wastes (non-compacted volume) 22,000
- Spent Demineralizer Resins 4
a) Deborating 378 b Purification 300 c Spent Fuel Pool 310 d RC Bleed Evap. & Dist. 200 e) Radwaste 80 Subtotal 23,270 i Solidified Liquid Wastes 2,000 RC Bleed Evap. Bottoms 780 Powdered Resins 1,220
! Filter Cartridges & Filter Backflush 820 TOTAL 28,090
- O O
- , . , - - - ,,--,r,m.--, ----me - , _ - - ,, , , , . ,,,ew. , , , , _._ . _ . , - , - - _ . - - - - , . . _ . -
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5.4-2 EXPECTED
- ACTIVITY IN SOLID WASTE INPUTS Activity Concentration Annual Activity Source Ci/cc Ci/yr Dry Wastes 6.88 - 02 4.87 + 00 Spent Demineralizer Resins 4.02 + 02 1.44 + 04 Solidified Liquids 3.75 + 01 2.13 + 02 BRS Evaporator Bottoms 6.78 - 01 1.50 + 01 Powdered Resins 2.65 - 01 9.11 + 00 Filter Cartridges and 1.32 + 02 3.03 + 03 Filter Backflush TOTAL 5.39 + 02 1.77 + 04
- Based on the equivalent of 0.12% fuel failure.
O 1 l 9 l
- l -
O WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5.4-3 RADI0 ACTIVE SOLID WASTE VOLUMES FOR OFFSITE SHIPMENT (1) Waste Expected Annual Volume, cu. ft./ year (2) Dry Wastes (compacted volume) 4,000 , Dry Wastes (noncompactible volume) 10,000 Spent Demineralizer Resins 2,100
, Solidified Liquid Wastes 3,300 Boron Recovery Evaporator Bottoms 1,300 Powdered Resins 2,000 Filter Cartridges & Filter Backwash 1,200 TOTAL 23,900 (1) Dry wastes are compacted into 55 gall drums. Filters and the remaining wastes are solidified in 50 or 100 ft containers or 55 gallon drums.
(2) Includes cement binder. O V l i O
WHP-1/4 EP-0L TABLE 3.5.4-4 SOLID RADWASTE EQUIPMENT PARAMETERS Tanks Phase Separator Tanks Number 2 Capacity 13,500 gallons (each) Size 12'D x 14'H with dish-bottom Material Stainless Steel Maximum Operating Temperature 200 F Operating Pressure Atmospheric Resin Decay Tanks Number 1 Capacity 4,200 gallons Size 12'D x 11'5"H with dish-bottom Material Stainless Steel Maximum Operating Temperature 200 F Operating Pressure Atmospheric Measuring Tanks Number 3 Capacity 700 gallons (each) Size 48"D x 78"H with dish-bottom Material 304 Stainless Steel Operating Temperature 150 F (heat traced) Operating Pressure Atmospheric Waste Blending Tanks Number 1 Capacity 1,000 gallons Size 60"D x 95"H with dish-bottom Material Stainless Steel Operating Temperature 150 F (heat-traced) Operating Pressure Atmospheric Sodium Silicate Bulk Tanks Number 1 Capacity 5,000 gallons Size 6'D x 24'H Material - Carbon Steel Operating Temperature 70 F Operating Pressure Atmospheric O
WNP-1/4 ER-0L TABLE 3.5.4-4 (Contd.) SOLID RADWASTE EQUIPMENT PARAMETERS Sodium Silicate Day Tanks Number
- 1 Capac ity 500 gallons Size 4'D x 6'H Material Carbon Steel Operating Temperature Ambient Operating Pressure Atmospheric Cement Silo Number 1 Capacity 1,000 cubic feet Size 10'W x 30'H Material Carbon Steel Operating Temperature Ambient Operating Pressure Atmospheric Cement Day Tank Number 1 Capacity 50 cubic feet O Size Material 4'W x 10'H Carbon Steel Operating Temperature Ambient Operating Pressure Atmospheric Pumps Resin Sluice Pump Number 1 Type Centrifugal Design Flow Rate 150 gpm Resin Transfer Pump Number 1 Type Centrifugal Design Flow Rate 30 gpm Decant Pump Number 2 Type Centrifugal Design Flow Rate 200 gpm O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5.4-4 (Contd.) SOLID RADWASTE EQUIPMENT PARAMETERS Sludge Pump Number 1 Type Centrifugal Design Flow Rate 150 gpm Radwaste Processing Pump Number 1 Type Progressing Cavity Design Flow Rate 20 gpm Sodium Silicate Pump Number 1 Type Progressing Cavity Design Flow Rate 1 gpm Centrifuge Liquid Discharge Pump Number 1 Type In Line Centrifugal Design Flow Rate 20 gpm Waste Measuring Tank Recirc Pump Number 1 Type In Line Centrifugal Design Flow Rate 50 gpm Centrifuge Type Horizontal Solid Bowl Capacity 20 gpm Material Wotted Parts of Stainless Steel Filters Decant Filter Number 1 Filtration Ratira 5 micron Type Backflushable Design Flow Rate 200 gpm Maximum Operating Temperature 120 F O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O TABLE 3.5.4-4 (Contd.) SOLID RADWASTE EQUIPMENT PARAMETERS Filters (contd.) Sluice Pump Discharge Filter Number 1 Filtration Rating 25 micron Type Expendable Cartridge Design Flow Rate 150 gpm Maximum Operating Temperature 140 F Other Components Solidification Screw Feeder Number 1 Feed Rate 1 cu. ft./ min Type Vibra Screw Controlled Vibration Solidification Fillport Module humber () 1 Actuation Mechanism Pneumatically lowered; Spring raised Shipping Containers Type 55 gallon druns,3 50 fta or 100 ft Liners with associated shield 4 4 I
, . - . - , . . ~ . _ _ , , _ _ . . - , . - . , - . _ . . _ _ . . - - - _ _ - . .-. ._ ~ , _ _ _ . . . .
TABLE 3.5.4-5 ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETERS - SOLID WASTE SYSTEM ACTIVITY General Coolant activities failed fuel fraction 0.12% Primary coolant Density 0.69 gm/cc Primary to secondary leak rate 100 lbs/dgy Main Steam Flow Rate 1.67 X 10' lbs/hr DF's per NUREG-0017 RLW activities per NUREG-0017 Days demineralizer resins decay 120 days Days waste (other than resins) deacy 60 days Spent Fuel System System Purification Flow Rate 150 gpm No. of Demineralizers 2 No. of Vacco Prefilters 2 No. of Cartridge Afterfilters 2 Demineralizer Resin Volume per Unit 78.5 ft3 Vacco Prefilter Volume per Backflush 8 ft3 Cartridge Afterfilter Volume 4.3 ft3 Liquid Waste System System Flow Rate 10 gpm No. of Evaporators 2 No. of Demineralizers 2 No. of Vacco Prefilters 2 [ No. of Cartridge Afterfilters 2 V] Demineralizer Resin Volume per Unit Condensate Polishers 10 ft3 No. of Units 4 Percentage of Condensed Main Steam Thru Units 65% Dry Wastes Activity for dispcsal is assumed to be an average of measured data per NUREG/CR-0144. MVS System Operational mode Batch RC letdown flow rate 50 gpm No. of purification demineralizer prefilters 2 No. of ourification demineralizers 3 No. of purification demineralizer filters 2 No. of deborating demineralizers 3 No. of deborating demineralizer filters 2 Days deborating demineralizers operate 30 BRS System RC bleed flow rate 630 gpd No. of RC bleed hold-up tanks 2 Volume of RC bleed hold-up tank 14,650 ft3 Operational mode Batch No. of RC bleed evaporator demineralizer 2 No. of RC bleed evaporator filters 2 No. of RC bleed evaporator package 2
"- ' d' " "' d**'"" '*"'
C' No. of distillate demineralizer filters Flow rate downstream from hold-up tank 2 20 gpm
O O O WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5.5.1 EFFLUENT RELEASE POINTS AND MONITORING CAPABILITIES Effluent Release Point Monitor Number %nitor Function Component Cooling Water PRM-4 Upon alarm closes the Component Cooling Water surge tank i Supply header vent valve. Radioactive Liquid Waste PRM-7 Terminates release of liquid to the Condensate System upon Hold-up tank alam. Radioactive Solid Waste PRM-8 Terminates release of liquid to the Condensate System upon i Decant alam. Nuclear Service Water PRM-9 Closes shutdown cooling water subsystem water surge tank PRM-10 vent valves upon alam. Radioactive Liquid Waste PRM-11 Continuously monitors and upon alarm diverts process stream Demineralizers "A", "B", PRM-12 f rom hold-up tanks back to liquid waste collection tank "C". 4 "C" and "D" Containment Purge
- 1) 27,000 cfm cleanup train E M-1 Continuously monitors the 27,000 cfm cleanup train and will
- 2) 1,500 cfm cleanup train EGM-6 teminate release upon alarm.
Continuously monitors the 1,500 cfm cleanup train. Condenser Air Removal System
- 1) Main Condenser Vacuum pumps EGM-2 Continuously monitors release from both systems.
- 2) Gland Seal Steam exhaust EGM-5 Ventilation Exhaust Plenum E(N-3 Continuously monitors release from the exhaust plenum located on the top of the General Services Building.
Radioactive Gaseous Waste EGM-4 Upon alarm teminates release from waste gas decay tanks. System ventilation Exhaust line from E(N-7 Continuously monitors the common ventilation exhaust line Primary Auxtlary Areas and from the primary auxiliary areas. Radiation Maintenance and i Test Facility Radioactive Vents and Drains E(N-8 Continuously monitors input from the RVD system to the Systems ventilation exhaust system. ] f
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5.5.1 (Contd.) Effluent Release Point Monitor Number Monitor Function Nuclear Service water to spray ELM 1A Continuously monitors level of radioactivity in the nuclear ponds or cooling towers ELM 18 service water before discharge into the spray pond or cooling towers. Sump J - Turbine Generator ELM-2 Terminates transfer of liquid to the Non-radioactive Waste Building drain Drainage System settling basin. Cooling Tower Blowdown line ELM-3 Continuously monitors cooling tower blowdown Radioactive Liquid Waste dis- ELM-4 Terminates release automatically upon alarm charge line from hold-up tanks Backwash Collection tank of the ELM-5 When set point is reached, any flow of liquids is diverted Condensate Polishing System from Sump G of the Non-radioactive Waste Drainage System to the phase separators in the Radioactive Solid Waste System. General Services Building ELM-6 Shuts off pumps transferring liquid to the settling basin Drains of the Non-radioactive Waste Drainage System upon alarm. Water Treatment Area ELM-7 Nnitors level of radioactivity in the sump prior to the Sump G release of the effluent streas to the settling basin of the Non-radioactive Waste Drainage System. O O O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O 3.6 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE WASTES During the operation of WNP-1 and WNP-4, waste water streams are produced from a number of sources. Broken down according to the categories defined in 40 CFR 423, " Effluent Limitations, Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Elec-tric Power Generating Point Source Category," these waste sources are as follows:
- 1) Low-Volume Waste a) Backwash and regenerant from the water treatment plant.
b) Blowdown from plant air conditioning systems and equipment cooling water. c) Equipment and floor drains, including bearing and seal leakage and oily wastes. d) Waste from the radioactive liquid waste treatment system. e) Backwash from condensate polishing system. f) Pre-operational fluid system cleanliness verification . flush.
- 2) Metal-Cleaning Waste
- 3) Auxiliary Boiler Blowdown
- 4) Circulating Water System Waste a) Cooling tower blowdown b) Cooling tower drift c) Spray pond blowdown Each of these waste categories is addressed in detail below. Chemicals used in treatment of water and wastes are given in Table 3.6-1, and discharge com-positions of each waste stream are given in Tables 3.6-2 and 3.6-3. Schematic representations of the water flow at WNP-1 and WNP-4 are shown in Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2. In Sections 5.3 the resulting in-river concentrations are compared with ambient concentrations and the applicable effluent limitations or water quality criteria.
3.6.1 Low-Volume Waste All low-volume waste streams, except radioactive liquid wastes and some flush-ing wastes, (see 3.6.1.3), are collected in sumps in the General Services Building, the Turbine Generator Building, the Water Treatment Building, Valve Isolation House and the Circulating Water pumphouse and directed to the non-radioactive waste treatment system. The non-radioactive waste treatment system consists of an inlet / surge chamber, a chemical addition chamber, two settling basins, an oil skimer and associ-ated chemical treatment equipment. The effluents from the various building sumps are collected in the inlet / surge chamber. When this chamber is full, it overflows into the chemical addition chamber where sodium hydroxide and/or q sulfuric acid are added to adjust the pH to 6.5 - 8.5. A flocculant aid is h added periodically to assist in coagulation and sedimentation of suspended 3.6-1
WNP-1/4 ER-OL soli ds. The neutralized effluent then overflows into one of the two waste settling basins, where suspended solid materials are allond to settle out. The waste water then overflows into an oil skimer unit where oil is removed and discharged to an oil storage tank. The treated waste water then flows into one of two sample pits equipped with a pH monitor. If the pH is acceptable (6.5 - 8.5), the effluent is discharged to the cooling tower blowdown line. If the pH is not acceptable, the effluent is recirculated back to the inlet / surge chamber for further treatment. The settling basins are periodically drained and accumulated solids are removed for landfill disposal. The chemical composition of the effluent from the non-radioactive waste treat-ment system is given in Tables 3.6-2 and 3.6-3. 3.6.1.1 Water Treatment System A single water treatment system is installed at WNP-1 to condition Columbia River water for use as potable and process water for both plants. The water treatment system consists of three distinct physical / chemical processes:
- 1) the pretreatment system which includes disinfection, clarification and filtrat. ton; 2) the demineralization system, which includes activiated carbon adsorption, mechanical degasification and demineralization by ion exchange; and 3) the potable water system, which includes activated carbon adsorption and disinf ection.
3.6.1.1.1 Pretreatment System The purpose of the pretreatment portion of the water treatment system is to remove, or reduce to acceptable levels, specific constituents of the raw water supply. Capacity of this system is 900 gpm. The process stream is first sub-jected to highshear mixing to f acilitate the liberation of supersaturated air. The stream is then chlorinated for disinfection purposes. Suspended solids are removed in a solids-contact clarifier. A flocculant aid is proportionally added to the influent stream to promote coagulation, followed by separation of suspended solids by gravity settling. The clarifier effluent is polished by gravity filtration. An average of about 20 lb/ day (225 lb/ day max.) of solids is removed by the pretreatment system, roughly equally divided between clarifier sludge and gravity filter backwash. These solids are sluiced to the WNP-1 non-radioactive waste treatment f acility by service water (ave. 7.5 gpm, max.15 gpm). Discharge of total suspended solids from the latter f acility as a re-sult of water treatment activities is about 10 lb/ day ave.,115 lb/ day max. About 10-110 lb/ day of suspended solids are removed by settling in the non-radioactive waste treatment f acility. O 3.6-2
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O 3.6.1.1.2 Demineralization System The demineralization portion of the water treatment system consists of two 300 gpm trains, each of which consists of an activated carbon filter, a cation bed demineralizer, a anion bed demineralizer and a mixed bed polisher. The cation and anion units are separated by a vacuum degasifier which is common to both trains. During normal operation, average flow through the system is 80 gpm. The activated carbon filter is provided to. eliminate odoriferous and/or dis-tasteful compounds from the potable water supply, and to remove chemicals that may adversely effect the perfonnance of the demineralizer units. The cation, anion and mixed bed demineralizer units are provided to reduce the total dis-solved solids in the water to very low levels. The purpose of the vacuum de-gasifier is to reduce the concentration of dissolved gases, particularly oxy-gen and carbon dioxide, to within acceptable limits for corrosion control. When exhausted, the cation and anion resins in the demineralizer units are regenerated w;th sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide respectively. Capacity of each cation and anion units between regenerations is about 360,000 gallons; the units are regenerated about once per week. Regeneration of each cation units requires 846 lb of 98 wt.% sulfuric acid; regeneration of each anion units requires 532 lb of 50 wt.% sodium hydroxide. Capacity of each mixed bed units between regenerations is about 2,500,000 gallons; these units are re-generated about 10 times per year. Regeneration of each mixed bed unit re-quires 476 lb of 98 wt.% sulfuric acid and 405 lb 50 wt.% sodium hydroxide. Following each regeneration, the regenerant solutions are collected and neu-tralized prior to discharge to the non-radioactive waste treatment system. The intennittent regenerant flow ranges from 15 - 30 gpm and contributes an average of 400 lb/ day (3360 lb/ day max.) of total dissolved solids to the non-radioactive waste treatment system. 3.6.1.2 Air Conditioning and Equipment Cooling Systems The heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in the General Services Building, Turbine Generator Building, ',:ater Treatment Building Circu-lating Water Pumphouse, Spray Pond Pump House and Valve Isolation House are provided with evaporative coolers. Water used in these coolers is provided from the potable water system. When the coolers are operating, water is bled from them continuously to prevent solids accumulation. This bleedoff contrib-utes up to 5 gpm to the non-radioactive waste treatment system. Each plant has various pieces of non-nuclear associated equipment which re-quire cooling to protect components. The water used comes from the potable water system and is discharged to the non-radioactive waste treatment pond at approximately 200F above ambient temperature. Flow averages approximately 20 gpm continously. O v 3.6-3
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 3.6.1.3 Equipment and Floor Drains This waste consists of water that has been used for miscellaneous equipment and/or floor washings. The water is filtered river water containing occa-sional traces of oil, dirt and detergent accumulated during the washings. The flow is intennittent and averages approximately 3-5 gpm at ambient tempera-ture. This stream is discharged to the non-radioactive waste treatment system. In addition, the floor drains collect water that has leaked out of the mechan-ical equipment glands and seals. The flow is basically condensate but it may contain a trace amount of bearing lubricating oil. This flow is continuous and averages approximately 15 gpm each from the Turbine Generator and the Gen-eral Services BuilFligs at ambient temperature. The stream is treated in the non-radioactive waste treatment system. If the water which leaks through equipment glands and seals in the secondary steam system contains radioactivity, the water, which is collected and moni-tored in floor sumps, is diverted and pumped to the radioactive waste treat-ment system for processing. Concerning oily wastes, the turbine oil storage area, the turbine oil purifi-cation unit, etc. are provided with storge type sumps to collect oil leakage and fire deluge. These sumps are designed to skim oil to a holding tank for subsequent disposal. Water and oil from major spills are pumped to the non-radioactive waste treatment system, which is designed to remove oil, g Transfonners are provided with sumps of sufficient size to contain a trans-former oil spill. Oily wastes from the transformers are not directed to the treatment system but are collected and disposed of separately. Oil used in the transformers contains no polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) compounds. 3.6.1.4 Radioactive Liquid Waste System This system is equipped with filters, evaporators, demineralizers and hold-up tanks to remove radioactivity by physical separation, chemical separation, and natural decay. Treated water is stored in liquid waste holdup tanks, where it is sampled and analyzed prior to reuse or discharge. If the water is of the necessary chemical purity, and if the plant water inventory can acconinodate it, this water is pumped back to the makeup system by way of the condensate degasifier. This is the normal pathway for this water. However, if the plant water inventory is excessive, the water is analyzed to assure compliance with release limits and is discharged directly to the river by way of the cooling tower blowdown line. A radiation monitor is provided on this line to further assure that the discharge does not exceed applicable state and federal regula-tions. Maximum discharge from this source is 75 gpm. O 3.6-4
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 3.6.1.5 Condensate Polishing System Each plant is equipped with a full-flow condensate polishing system to remove particulate and dissolved ionic material from the condensate so that it can be reused as steam generator feedwater. This treatment is accomplished by the use of powdered ion exchange resin precoated onto cylindrical stainless steel filter septa contained in six service vessels. Four of these vessels are nor-mally on line with one in standby and one being backwashed. Termination of a run through an individual service vessel is indicated by high differential pressure or resin exhaustion. When either of these conditions occur, the vessel is taken out of service and backwashed. During normal plant operation, an average of five vessels are backwashed over a one-week period. Each vessel backwash takes about 45 minutes and flushes about 300 pounds of powdered ion exchange resin to a backwash collection tank in 4435 gallons of water. Radiation monitors and diversion valves are associated with the backwash col-lection tank so the backwash slurry can be routed to the radwaste system in the event of detectable radioactivity. Normally the backwash will be trans-ferred to the non-radioactive treatment f acility where the ion exchange resin will be removed for disposal by landfilling. 3.6.1.6 Pre-operational Fluid System Cleanliness Verification Flush Construction specifications require that all fluid system piping be erected in a manner that will maintain the specification cleanliness criteria. To assure such cleanliness, the majority of all plant fluid systems are, following erec-tion, filled with water and operated to circulate the water throughout the respective systems in a closed loop flow arrangement. Temporary filters re-move the majority of any construction residue such as dirt, sand, weld slag and grinding grit. During the fluid circulation, water is expelled from low point drains in the systems to remove foreign material while fresh water re-places the loss. The expelled water is either routed to building sumps with discharge to the non-radioactive waste disposal system or is drained directly onto the ground in close proximity to the plant and absorbed into the soil. The verification flush program is an intermittent activity that occurs at ap-proximate two month intervals over a period of approximately 18 months, with individual system flush durations lasting an average of 48 hours. Maximum estimated water discharge directly into the ground and to the non-radioactive waste disposal system in any given 24 hour period is 96,000 gallons and 288,000 gallons respectively. Prior to direct water discharge into the soil, the water is visually examined to assure that no significant traces of oil are present. If unacceptable quantities of oil are found, discharge is restricted to the non-radioactive I waste disposal system. O 3.6-5
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 3.6.2 Metal Cleaning Wastes During the course of the pre-operation fluid system cleanliness verification flush activity, some fluid systems may be found to contain excessive traces of oil attributable to mist deposits from air operated grinders or inadvertant contamination by lubrication products. If it becomes necessary to chemically remove oil contam!nant from a system, an alkaline cleaning solution consisting of 2000 ppm trisodium phosphate (Na3 P04 ) and 1000 ppm disodium phosphate (Na3 HP0 4 ) is circulated through the system and waste water discharged either to the sanitary waste system or to a holding pond on site. There is no discharge of this waste to the river. The maximum estimated discharge during any given 24-hour period is 288,000 gallons. During plant operation it is occasionally necessary to clean components that have been replaced, repaired, retubed, etc. The wastes resulting from these infrequent cleaning operations are discharged either to the sanitary waste system, an on-site holding pond, or the non-radioactive waste treatment facility. 3.6.3 Auxiliary Boiler Blowdown Each plant is equipped with two immersion-electrode auxiliary boilers to pro-vide steam for plant startup. Operation of these boilers requires that the boiler water conductivity be maintained at 50 pmho/cm; this conductivity is maintained by use of about 23 mg/l tri-sodium phosphate (4.3 mg/l phosphorus). In addition, about 1.0 mg/l hydrazine is used in the boiler water to scavenge excess oxygen. Blowdown of these boilers is necessary to prevent excessive solids buildup in the boiler water. During a plant startup, blowdown flow ranges from 1.6 - 2.0 gpm and results in discharge of 0.08 - 0.10 lb/ day of phosphorus and 0.02 lb/ day of ammonia (hydrazine decomposes to ammonia). This waste stream is directed to the non-radioactive waste treatment system. 3.6.4 Circulating Water System The circulating water system, described in Section 3.4, circulates cooling water to the main condenser:i to remove waste heat from the steam cycle. A l side stream (service water) circulates cooling water to auxiliary heat ex-l changers in the General Services Building. The heated water is then cooled by mechanical draft cooling towers. Makeup is provided to the system directly l from the Columbia River to replenish water losses due to evaporation, drift l and blowdown. l Since the cooling towers are constantly evaporating water, the dissolved solids concentration in the circulating water increases with time. This con-centration is controlled by blowing down a portion of the circulating water to O 3.6-6
WNP-1/4 ER-OL
/%
k' the river. During normal operation, the concentration of dissolved solids in the circulating water is maintained at five times the concentration of the makeup water (five cycles of concentration). The system can be operated at ten cycles of concentration if circumstances so dictate. To minimize the deposit of alkr.line scale materials, sulfuric acid is con-tinuously fed to the system to control the pH and alkalinity of the cir-culating water. Depending on the calcium concentration and alkalinity of the makeup water 660 Baume (98%) sulfuric acid is injected at a rate of about 0.48 - 0.73 gpm. This rate of acid injection controls the pH of the cir-culating water in the range of 7.8 - 8.0. No other scale or corrosion inhibitors are used. The condensers are tubed with 90/10 copper nickel (91.5%) and 70/30 copper-nickel (8.5%) alloy tubes. Total surface area exposed to the cir-culating water is slightly more than one million square feet. Corrosion and/or erosion of the condenser tubes could contribute copper and nickel corrosion products to the blowdown; the chemical composition of the blowdown given in Table 3.6-3 includes this contribution. Miscellaneous heat exchangers in the plant, tubed with copper-nickel alloy and stainless steel, also contribute a small amount of corrosion products, also included in the figures given in Table 3.6-3. Biological fouling in the circulating water system is controlled by inter-mittent chlorination. The chlorine addition rate is controlled to maintain a residual of approximately 2.5 mg/l through the condenser for a period of 30 minu tes . Chlorination takes place a maximum of three times per day during the warm sumer months when biological activity is at its peak. To ensure that no chlorine is discharged to the river, blowdown is terminated during chlori-nation and is not resumed until total residual chlorine in the circulating water has dropped to less than 0.1 mg/1. Chlorination of the two plants does not occur simultaneously. 3.6.4.1 Cooling Tower Blowdown During normal full-power operation, a blowdown rate of 3800 gpm from each plant is required to maintain the circulating water at five cycles of con-centration. At ten cycles of concentration, the expected maximum, the blow-down rate is 1690 gpm from each plant. The chemical composition of the combined cooling tower blowdown from both plants at 5 cycles (average values) and 10 cycles (max. values) is given in Tables 3.6-2 and 3.6-3. l l 3.6-7
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 3.6.4.2 Cooling Tower Drift Drif t is composed of small water droplets er. trained in the air passing through the cooling towers. The drift rate is about 0.05% of the circulating water flow rate or about 300 gpm from each plant at full power operation. The chemical composition (mg/1) of the drift is the same as that of cooling tower blowdown as given in Tables 3.6-2 and 3.6-3. During chlorination, the cooling tower drift contains a maximum cf 2.5 mg/l total residual chlorine. At the maximum chlorination rate (3 times per day for 30 minutes), discharge of chlorine to the atmosphere amounts to about 1.125 lbs/ day. 3.6.4.3 Spray Pond Blowdown Each plant is provided with a seismically-qualified spray pond to serve as the ultimate heat sink in the event of an earthquake in which the cooling towers are disabled. These ponds are blown down occasionally to control solids buildup. Average blowfown flow is 16 gpm (both plants); chemical composition (mg/1) is the same as that given in Tables 3.6-2 and 3.6-3 for cooling tower blowdown. O O 3.6-8
WNP-1/4 ER-OL (r) Table 3.6.1 Water and Waste Treatment Chemicals used at WNP-1/4 Annual Quantity. Ibs Description Chemical Frequency Ave Mix of use Sodium Aluminate As Needed 4.5 x 104 2.3 x 105 Coagulant Aid Polyelectrolyte As Needed 3.3 x 103 1,7 x 104 Coagulant Aid , Calcium Hydroxide As Needed 2.8 x 104 1.4 x 105 Coagulant Aid Chlorine, gaseous (a) Continuous 250 800 Potable Water Disinfectant Sulfuric Acid, 981 Once Per Week 1.0 x 104 2.0 x 104 Demineralizer Regeneration Sodium hydrox Me, 501 Once Per Week 6.0 x103 1.2 x 104 Demineralizer Regeneration Lithium hydroxide (a) As Needed 20 20 pH Control, Reactor Coolant Boric acid (a) As Needed 1.5 x 104 1.2 x 105 Neutron Activity Control, Reactor Coolant Amnonia, 28% (a) As Needed 3.8 x 103 8 x 103 pH Control, Steam Generator Feedwater Hydrazine, 35% (a) As Needed 4.0 x 103 8.5 x 103 0xygen Scavenger, Steam Generator and S Boiler Feedwater Component Cooling Tri-sodium phosphate As Needed 5 10 Boiler Water Electrolyte Sulfuric acid, 981 -Continuous 3.2 X 106 3.9 x 106 Scale Control, ! Circulating Water System Chlorine, gaseous (a) 3 Times / day max. 2.1 x 104 1.1 x 105 Algicide Circulating Water System Tri-sodium Phosphate (b) As Needed 2.5 x 104 2.5 x 104 Pre-operational Cleaning; misc. Cleaning Ot-sodium Phosphate (b) As Needed 1.2 x 104 1.2 x 104 Pre-operational Cleaning; mise. Cleaning Morpholine (c) As Needed 20 50 Corrosion Control Component Cooling Water (a) Only trace amounts are discharged. (b) Phosphate cleaning wastes are not discharged to the river. (c) Morpholine is used in a completely closed system within the plant and will r.ot be discharged. O V
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TA8LE 3.6-2 GENERAL CHEMICAL CDMPOSITION OF COLLNBI A RIVER WATER AND PLANT EFFLUENTS RIVER (a) NON-RADWASTE TREATMENT EFFLUENT COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN W NP-1 WNP-4 WPP-1/4 Avg: 92 gpm; Max: 192 gpm Avg: 70 gpm; Max: 147 gpm Avg: 7616 gpm; Min: 3380 gpm
---mg /1 ----- - ----mg/1------ ---lb/ day----- -----mg/1----- ----lb/ day---- ----mg/1------ -----lb/ day----
Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Aq. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Ave. Max. __ Alkalinity, as CACO 3 59.2 64 10 75 - - 10 75 - - 17.7 36.0 - - Ammonia, as N 0.010 0.028 0.899 0.914 0.993 2.11 1.17 1.17 0.982 1.90 0.050 0.280 4.57 11.4 Calcium (c) 18.5 20.4 30.7 97.2 ?3.9 224 17.2 41.6 14.4 73.4 92.5 204 8454 8454 Chloride (Total residual) 1.0 1.8 1.66 8.57 1.83 19.8 0.929 3.67 0.78 6.47 10.5 33.4 957 1355 Chlorine - - - - - - - - - - 0,0 0.1 0.0 9.14 Fluoride (c) 0.17 0.29 0.282 1.38 0.311 3.18 0.158 0.591 0.133 1.04 0.850 2.90 77.7 118 Hardness, as CACO (c) *
- 3 *
- Magnesium (c) 4.0 4.9 6.63 23.4 7.32 53.8 3.71 9.99 3.12 17.6 20.0 49.0 1828 1987 Nitrate, as N(c) 0.129 0.290 0.214 1.38 0.236 3.18 0.120 0.591 0.101 1.04 0.645 2.9 58.9 118 Nitrogen, Total Organic (c) 0.5 0.5 0.829 2.38 0.915 5.49 0.464 1.020 0.390 1.80 2.50 5.0 228 228 011 and Grease 1.5 6 15 20 16.6 46.1 15 20 12.6 35.3 7.55 20 690 811 pH 7.85 8.4 6.5-8.5 - - -
6.5-8.5 - - - 7.9 8.5 - - Phosphorus 0.0275 0.044 0.120 0.254 0.133 0.586 0.124 0.148 0.104 0.262 0.138 0.440 12.6 17.8 Potassium (c) 0.77 0.91 1.28 4.34 1.41 9.99 0.716 1.86 0.601 3.27 3.85 9.10 352 369 Silica, as SiO (c) 4.46 6.2 7.39 29.5 8. 68.1 4.15 12.6 3.48 22.3 22.3 62.0 2038 2515 2 Sodium 2.0 2.4 72.2 259 79.7 597 1.86 4.89 1.56 8.63 10.0 24.0 914 973 Solids, Total Dissuived 93.2 131 405 1525 447 3513 866 267 72.8 471 849 2044 77 580 82,890 Solids, Total Suspended 4.0 10 10 50 11.0 115 10 50 8.40 88.2 20.0 100 1828 4056 Sulfate 12.4 16.7 217 797 240 1836 31.0 118 26.0 207 334 781 30,525 31,680 fa River concentrations based on a pre-operational water chemistry study. See Table 2.4-5. (b Maximum concentration of materials in cooling towers blowdown occurs at minimum flow (ten cycles of concentration). (c These materials are concentrated but not added by operation of the plants. O O O
I O O O WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.6-3 ETALS CONCENTRATION OF COLtMBI A RIVER WATER AND PLANT EFFLUENTS RIVER (a) NON-RADWASTE TREATMENT EFFLUENT COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN WW-1 WW-4 WW-1/4 Avg: 92 gpe; Max: 192 gpa Avg: 70 gpe; Max: 147 gpm Avg: 7616 gpe; Min: 3380 gpa
---og/1----- -----ag/1------ ----ag/1----- -----og/1---- -----og/1---- -----og/1----- -----ag/1------
Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Am Max. Ave. Max. Barium (c) 100 100 166 477 0.183 1.10 92.9 204 0.078 0.36 500 1000 45.7 45.7 f Boron (cj 10 10 16.6 47.7 0.0183 0.110 9.3 20.4 0.0078 0.036 50 100 4.57 4.57 CadmiumLc) .53 8.4 .879 40.0 0.00097 0.0922 .49 17.1 0.00041 0.0302 2.65 84 0.242 3.41 Chromium .78 2.6 1.30 12.4 0.00143 0.0285 .73 5.29 0.00061 0.00934 8.39 36.1 0.766 1.46 Cobalt (c) 1.5 11 2.45 52.4 0.00271 0.121 1.39 22.4 0.00117 0.03 % 7.50 110 0.685 4.46 Copper 3.5 16 16.4 118 0.0181 0.273 17.1 87.9 0.0144 0.155 216 606 19.7 24.6 Iron 56 140 93.1 667 0.103 1.54 52.1 286 0.0438 0.504 307 1460 28.1 59.3 Lead (c) 1.8 24 2.99 114 0.0033 0.263 1.68 48.9 0.00141 0.0863 9.0 240 0.823 9.73 Manganese (c) 9.9 15 16.5 71.5 0.0182 0.0165 9.29 30.6 0.0078 0.054 49.5 150 4.52 6.08 Mercury (c) .52 4.1 .870 19.5 0.00096 0.0450 .49 8.36 0.00041 0.0147 2.60 41 0.238 1.66 Nickel 1.8 10 4.95 56.0 0.00546 0.129 4.25 31.3 0.00357 0.0552 44.6 180 4.07 7.31 Zinc 19 47 31.4 224 0.0347 0.516 17.6 95.9 , 0.0148 0.169 95.0 470 8.68 19.1 (a) River concErations based on a pre-operational water chemistry study conducted for the Supply System by An-Test, Inc. (b) Maximum concentration of materials in cooling tower blowdown occurs at minimum flow (ten cycles of concentration). (c) These materials are concentrated but not added by operation of the plants.
I l
)
l i I l l
)
i l l To .=e 4 SCHEMATIC OF WATER FLOW, WNP-1 " . ' . " " * . * ~ i .a o _., . . {
.ot.e sfona.e sustaws g
- a. . pas
.a.s av e orts - ,,,, a.o a .ao.a w oene esen.uaan . . . , , , , ,
. asis ras.nimo CON FINOUS - ..a e op. resamt ime .C.ste ren l
FLOW g I 4 5 i se co=o.a.s, ,,
** "" " ptowINTERMITTENT.am .~
=,
g g*,,,,,,, CO*oems. smaa e ate susq ,,, I l , , , , , , , , , 1 av. an .ees e.sta..t g . e. g l l "'**
~ 6 ii g
l sor.m.a J h :
- o. -_ ; i ,a m
, 1
='a 8
-a.~,,,e
. o
. . . ,0.,.,
.a..,
. . . . ~
- ..~
=i..- ,
j , i
. - i i l .p. l i g
, r== =a.s
- a. . .. . . ..
- h
' ,8 ' ',y,, ,,,,,,,,, l l - g l
... ..a a .a
. o~ , .as~ .a.u.
.- , -a ~
, i ,
g i i =a n ~
,,o.,.,.,,,,
" -a ~ i .. .
l , i ,,,,,, l l
.',"c',e., !! .'* ;;>;;-'
4
, ! !! l l l
l' l _ _ , tut. i it l
' 1i ' " " ~ , '. " ' -> I i 4 l i i ,
i, t,..L
.i o.a..n..
c.
.~i ii~. l i
m.-- , i j i i
,.- - - ..~Ii ~ f e.a.
; 8 L-_3 ..3 .. . .. .- o _ , 6 o / i s ,
,= 4
,-_3--___-==.. ., ..
l-
, - . . .~ .~ .. ~ a .~ i
. . . C.. ..a..
.a...~, . . . .
0
' ' W
'- - -T- .
a ...n awar.omarionl ., l
, s .a.....~
- a. .. m e
esaA M R3.. pes C1AC,L .e.e. ..f t e , CototessE R s C.oM.M..
~.
. . .~
,,,, t a.. .-
a
.v.. M... Pee
. Pee
- A sea., coa o g h.o.oo.*e
. a no .p.
_____ m.
. . . . . . ~ .. . C..
.as
( av.3.,.30aea Pee
.spes
.v. . . Pts asa.s.
.w 1-79P4e
., 3 Q. . Apes ,
1 TO C.Aet m oWYW ALL SSRI.L leo , a l l
~
SCHEMATIC OF WATER FLOW, WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WN P-1 WNP-1/4 ER.0L FIG. 3.6-1 : l 1 l 1
I /
- SCHEMATIC OF WATER FLOW, WNP 4
"* os.easen.ur.a " mes.a. -
..ess.toa.es ..st'm g
~
8','"""*"," ,' L."*m* s ,,,, s.o...vu ew.n.mus
- .e :. om. o.u.o.v.io.., . --
FLOW _ ,
-e= - .aCo o m 4 5 ,,,,,,,,,,
INTF 8tWTTE Psf C". ma*.*.*a" . s.sn
"" " " pt w ,
, , , l , , , , , , , , ,
1 I t , i
., - e.. .oa.re. ,
es.E 13. GPee gm AE [h l "N gegwang, 'O N 4 es.a 2 GN l
- ...,o., -. .- ,
i l y "*.,',", Co o!. a ! i (.,,,.
, , . ,an
,C..--
Co* == .t.o
,. 3. a.o
.C ..
. wam g
3 I
..a 3 4748 8 8 88 !
I IP ..g te Gees l 33 I
- g. . . , .veses l g
. -C l gg n i .
p 3 g z. I ,
, L 8
----~g l tet.Teng.T g s l g $ I g I
, to snow o I
g L8800" g l 9 I g es.a 00. GPes = l l 0 I
- i. .. I , , L , f l 8
g --=g To G#ouseg <p h Ir~ y 0 l Is l
# 0 l f es.a 2. Gate 1 7 Gregg
-l ,
. . ~ . .. . . _ ,,,,
-~ .
. ..t o..o. . ..
- - ~ ,
1 0 0 I
.--<(--
g . . .. 10o. t g
.ano o#M ,L gg, t -
g ( ..a e a .a..no.o.e.see a
. Cet M 730 .
cms..e n deC.W.e.A.i ou.. ese ..tse g Cool.Ne.G ve. . ~ , i _ f an a .5 cent
, , I[A .tP4 R Gpts .
... n .
\, +==. &
.o
- -i.a.m- - - - + eme.v po o '- g .co*o.o es.m 7 o. ones
- ..--- .w a
, art. . l eso.1.n e-4 epes oe.CM.AGS
..a e,. .e
.a .1.ere.m
..G se. 3 9 048o*. n
..Ga 37n.n.am to Conseso ope 8 ouT*.4L
.E mi.L . 001 i
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM SCHEMATIC OF WATER FLOW, WNP-1/4 WN P-4 ER-OL FIG. 3.6-2 l
UNP-1/4 ER-OL O
~
3.7 SANITARY AND OTHER WASTES _ 1 3.7.1 Sanitary Waste A septic tank / drain field sy' stem wa's originally' selected for treatment and disposal of sanitary wastes. Early constructien2 phase wastes were treated in temporary septic tank / tile fieldsior hauled offsite to a sewage lagoon. Later, (Nov.1981), the Supply System built a central waste treatment system to serve all three plants and the Emergency Respcnse/ Plant Support Facility. This sys-tem will also provide treatment during maintenance / refueling outages when much
. larger-than-normal work forces are on site.
The sanitary waste treatment system uses aerated lagoens in series with lined f acultative stabilization ponds. Flow.from the ponds' is alternately dosed to four percolation / evaporation beds with a combined area of about two acres. The percolation beds are located about 45 feet above the water table and there ib is no discharge to a surf ace water course. Wastes are delivered to the treat-ment plant via a gravity collection system._ ' The tr'eatment system is' sized (0.17 mgpd) to accommodate the largest anticipated combined construction / op-eration work force for the three nuclear plants. During normal power plant operation, when the flow will average 0.05 mgpd, the aerated lagoons can be bypassed. The location of the facility and arrangement of the ponds are shown
'. in Figure 3.7-1.
v O() - 4 3.7.2 Other Waste Systems
- Under normal operating conditions, the nuclear powar ple will not burn any fossil fuels; however, there are standby diesel units '...dt will burn fossil fuel and emit gaseous wastes to the environment on an intermittent basis.
Twcx 7000 KW diesel generators per plant, rated at 10,000 HP each, are on site to provide electricity on a standby' basis. These two generators are test-operated for two hours every month (a total of 24 hours per year, each unit) as a normal test procedure. During these' testing periods, each diesel genera-tor consumes approximately 510 gallons /hr. of No. 2 diesel fuel. The emer-gancy generators emit approximately 31,000 cfm cf flue' gas per unit at a tem-perature of 5500F during their periodic tests. The estimated exhaust emis-sions are: 6 6 Btu, particulates
-0.10lbs/10px-3.45lbs/10 Btu. Btu,50x-0.33/lbs/10 One 1200 KW diesel, rated at 1600 HP, is also located at ecch plant to insure balance of plant power (lighting, instrument service air) in the event of loss of off-site power. One 150 KW diesel rated at 200 HP. is also located at each site for fire protection. Both diesels use No. 2 diesel fuel at consumption rates of 105 and 13 gallons per hour, respectively.
m 3.7-1 l
,n. - -- - - -
4 j .' i> Wa ~ a Y ll j ', jY--{}g@N ( ' er l i l
'/'
.ly t
@ @! W e a jv&:=n
,o x= .
=
y
?
\he -./0. ,a!
- ' l ,j }l & y Id ll n
tl \L -
~~"
! s
-/u) - == _ ._
I ,ta a; - k .JA/ - av
., e jf f j Qi R 1 o (
)
,J' 1% , ';
T " i k b y t
~. J,.,.' -
- .~
1 ll k g g7c',kl,/' ' O
~
I d ar ec)c
- x. -
w I
,A v%
ws y $kE: A l/~4\[A.'{.b~ja~.&.hb ,I) { .
~~-
Q* - y / t ,E t. B
- a. 2 B WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM 8^N AY ST REA EN EM ER OL '
FIG. 3.7-1 l
WNP-1/4 ER-0L 3.8 REPORTING 0F RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT As provided in Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, the Supply System anticipates that the transportation of nuclear fuel ard radioactive waste to WNP-1/4 is within the scope of paragraph (g) of 10 CFR 51.20, and e.e anticipated envi-ronmental impacts do not exceed those normal conditions set forth in Sumary Table S-4 therein. Consequently, no further discussion of those environmental effects is required.
- 3. 9 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES Several transmission lines are planned which will connect these projects to the nearby Howard J. Ashe substation. The 500 KV lines to Lower Monumental,
~
Slatt, Marion, Hanford and WNP-2 would have been installed regardless of the construction of WNP-1 and 4. The same is true of the 230 KV lines connecting the Ashe, Midway and White Bluffs Substations. The BPA has prepared an evi-ronmental statement concerning these f acilities. Therefore, these lines are not considered in this discussion. WNP-1 and WNP-4 will each have a 500 KV line to convey power from the plant to the Ashe Substation. Each plant will also have a 230 KV connection to the Ashe Substation. This 230 KV line will provide backup power to each plant. The routes for these lines are shown on Figure 2.1-2. I Narrow base steel pole towers are planned for line support. The 230 KV lines feature a single pole with davit arms while the 500 KV lines use double pole bmV) gull wing cross arms. The area crossed is shrub steppe with a land use designation of "unclassi-4 fied". Right-of-way will be 100 feet wide for the 230 KV lines and 160 feet for the 500 KV lines. No new access or maintenance roads are planned. Main-tenance access will be infrequent and will be obtained by four-wheel drive vehicle across the natural terrain adjacent to the line. No permanent clearing of vegetation is required. No topographical changes are involved. These lines will not be visible from any frequently traveled public road. Radiated electrical interference is insignificant beyond 1000 feet from the rights-of-way and no receptors are anticipded within this range due to the land classification. Ground currents, both induced and conducted, are insignificant in normal oper-ation. The magnitude of such currents depends on the magnitude and balance of the load current in the conductors. Procedures for grounding metal structures and equipment, along with other precautions used by BPA substantially elimi-nates the possible hazard and nuisance from conducted currents. Under fault conditions (wires down on the ground) the current can reach 23 KA in the imme-diate vicinity for a maximum of one half second until the line protection de-vices operate. O 3.8-1
WNP-1/4 ER-OL The magnitude of induced currents beneath the transmission lines can be esti-mated f rom BPA design criteria. One design criterion is that the electric field strength, as measured one meter above the ground, not exceed 9 KV/M under typical maximum operating conditions. It is additionally specified that the field strength at the edge of the right-of-way not exceed 5 KV/M. In such a field, the short-circuit current under the lines could be 0.14 mA in a per-son and about 5 mA for a large trailer truck. No shortor long-term effects on humans in fields of this magnitude have been documented. High voltage transmission lines exhibit corona discharge which is associated with the fonnation of ozone. Because corona discharge represents a power loss, transmission lines are designed to minimize this loss for economic reasons. The ozone fonnation per mile of three-phase 500 KV transmission line would be approximately 0.9 lb/ day, and will be considerably less for the 230 KV line. The effects of this ozone fonnation are difficult to evaluate since the natu-ral formation rate is high in comparison. Over the rights-of-way the natural ozone generation is one or two orders of magnitude above that caused by corona discharge from transmission lines. Field measurements of ozone concentrations in the vicinity of transmission lines have failed to record any increases that were attributable to the power lines. For these reasons, ozone formation is expected to cause no significant environmental effect. O O 3.8-2
WNP-1/4 ER-0L ( CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION, PLANT & TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION 4.1 SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION The primary environmental effects of plant construction are those which are associated with the utilization of the land and disruption of the riverbed and river bank areas. The environmental effects of site preparati 9n evaluated in the Environmental Report - Construction Permit Stage.tl)were During construction there have been no signWnnt environmental impacts that were not previously evaluated. Approximately 885 acres of land have been disturbed by the construction of WNP-1/4. About 150 acres will be utilized during the life of the plants for buildings, cooling towers, parking lots, roads, landscaped grounds, etc. The remainder has been temporarily disrupted to provide areas for construction laydown, excavation storage, fill borrow, refuse disposal, parking lots, con-struction roads, etc. For most of these purposes, utilization of the land involves disturbing the surface layer. For all the uses, whether permanent or temporary, the principal impact is the removal of flora and the destruc-tion of habitat for birds and small maninals. The . land which is only used to support construction will be graded to blend with the natural terrain and allowed to revegetate. Based on observations of fire-disturbed areas in the (Vcl vicinity of the site (see Subsection 2.2.1), it is expected that the shrub steppe vegetation will reestablish itself in a few years. Therefore, the effects on the plant and animal coninunities are not expected to be signifi-cant or lasting. Disturbance of the river bank area was limited to the period of construction of the makeup water pumphouse and the installation of the intake and dis-charge pipes in the bed of the river (see Section 3.4). The excavation of the riverbed was confined to an area approximately 20 feet by 375 feet. After the pipe trench was backfilled, a protective layer of riprap was placed. The construction plans and schedule were submitted to the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council and the Corps of Engineers for approval prior to the start of construction (see Chapter 12). A surveillance program during the period of in-river excavation and backfilling (August 1, 1978 - October 20,1978) showed that, at a point 300 feet downstream, the turbidity was increased an average of 1.0 JTU and the suspende polids con-centration was increased an average of 3.0 mg/l above ambient. 2, Additional minor environmental effects of site preparation include those associated with dust generation and abatement, refuse disposal, sanitary waste disposal, vehicular movement, water consumption, and possible distur-bance of archaeological resources. A surveillance program has been imple-mented to assure that construction impacts are minimized (see Section 4.5). The initial phasus of earthmoving activities in archaeologically sensitive areas were monitored by the Supply System's consultant archaeologist (see Section 2.6). 4.1-1
WNP-1/4 ER-OL REFERENCES SECTION 4.1
- 1. Washington Public Power Supply System, WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1, Environmental Report, Vol. 1, no date.
- 2. Beak Consultants, Inc., Final Report for Turbidity and Suspended Solids Studies in the Columbia River at the WNP-1/4 Intake and Discharge Con-struction Site, Document No. FRTSS-03, no date.
O O I 4.1-2 h
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 4.2 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has responsibility for the con-struction of the H. J. Ashe Substation and the 500 KV transmission line and 230 KV startup lines (see Section 3.9). BPA has prey' Qusly prepared an environmental statement discussing these f acilities.t 1 The environmental effects of installing transmission towers are similar to those associated with plant construction, i.e., removal of flora and temporary habitat destruc tion. REFERENCES SECTION 4.2
- 1. Bonneville Power Administration,1975 Fiscal Year Proposed Program, Environmental Statement, Facility Evaluation Appendix.
O i 2
- O 4.2-1
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 4.3 RESOURCES COMMITTED The environmental effects of committing resources to construct WNP-1/4 were discussed in the Environmental Report - Construction Permit State (see Refer-ence 4.1-1). There have been no significant changes in the resource com-mitments which would alter the earlier assessment. O 4.3-1
. . . - - . - . . . . . = - _ - - . . - . - . - . - . - . - - = . - .. . _ .-- _
1 1 1 WNP-1/4 i ER-OL j O 4.4 RADI0 ACTIVITY f Estimated annual doses to construction personnel from the operation of FFTF, i WNP-1 and WNP-2 are included in Section 12.4 of the FSAR. ! i i i t, , i i i ! l i 4 ? I 'r i i I. l b I t i s I 4.4-1 s e-m -e SW T W W'Nw-- (FT, Ne**'*wN*"*ew**N- - = = = " ' - - - " ' ' " " * "
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 4.5 CONSTRUCTION IMPACT CONTROL PROGRAMS Guidance for the control of construction impacts is provided by the Site Certification Agreement between the State of Washington and the Supply System, the NRC Construction Permits for WNP-1/4, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dredge and Fill Permit, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the State Environmental Policy Act. Principal commitments are related to aesthetics and revegetation, dust abatement, erosion and sediment control, materials and waste handling, and protection of archaeological or historical sites. Controls are implemented and maintained through adherence to construction contract specifications and procedures developed by both the Supply System and the Architect / Engineer. Contractors are provided direction through contract specifications and correspondence to implement environmental commitments. Routine surveillance of the construction activities is made by the Supply System Engineer / Contract Supervisors. In accordance with construction management procedures, the site is periodically inspected by field engineering personnel. Deficiencies are brought to the immediate attention of the Contract Supervisors, and a monthly inspection report is prepared based on these periodic inspections. Supply System procedures and instructions also assign responsibilities to the central environmental staff to ensure compliance with environmental commitments during construction. The the Supply System Environmental Engineer is responsible for conducting inspections of the WNP-1/4 site and reporting deficiencies to the WNP-1/4 Program Director. In addition, environmental or quality assurance staff conduct semi-annual audits to verify adherence to procedures and reporting requirements. l l l 4.5-1
WNP-1/4 I' ER-OL CHAPTER 5 i ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION j 5.1 EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF HEAT DISSIPATED SYSTEM 5.1.1 Effluent Limitations and Water Quality Standards The Water Quality Standards of the State of Washington (l) classify the Columbia River from its mouth to Grand Coulee Dam (River Mile 595) as " Class A Excellent". Different water temperature standards are formulated for various reaches of the river. Since operation of WNP-1 and WNP-4 is not ex-pected to affect the water temperature of the Columbia River downstream of the Washington-Oregon border (River Mile 309), only the standards applicable for the reach from that point to Priest Rapids Dam are described here. The standards specify that water temperatures, outside a specified mixing zone, shall not exceed 200C (680F) due in part to measurable (0.30C) increases resulting from human activities and that temperature increases from human activities at any time shall not exceed t = 34/(T+9), where t is the permissible increase and T is the water temperature in OC due to all causes combined. Applicable guidelines of 40 CFR 432.25(2) state that there shall be no
> discharge of heat from the main condensers; however, heat may be discharged in blowdown from recirculated cooling water systems or cooling ponds. This is allowed if the temperature of the blowdown water does not exceed the low-est temperature of the recirculated cooling water prior to the addition of the makeup water.
Discharges from WNP-1 and WNP-4 to the river are controlled by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Pennit (No. WA-002504-6) issued by the State of Washington in compliance with Chapter 155, Law of 1973 (RCW 90.48) as amended and the Clean Water Act, as amended, Public Law 95-217. The above incorporates by reference State of Wa;hington Water Quality Criteria contained in Washington Administrative Code 173-201. The mixing zone specified extends from 50 ft upstream to 300 ft downstream of the discharge with lateral boundaries separated by 100 ft. Vertically the mixing zone extends from the surf ace to the river bottom. The discharge from WNP-2, located approximately 650 feet downstream, has a mixing zone of the same dimensions. O v 5.1-1
WN"-1/4 ER-OL 5.1.2 Physical Effects 5.1.2.1 Sumary System Description The heat dissipation system is discussed in detail in Section 3.4. Only a few of the operating parameters which determine the environmental effects of operation will be sumarized in this section. The waste heat generated by WNP-1/4 will be dissipated to the environment by two paths: 1) heat transfer to air through the use of mechanical draft wet cooling towers and 2) cooling tower blowdown discharged to the Columbia River. The components of the cooling system which might have some effect on the environment are: 1) the intake structure, 2) the blowdown water discharge system, and 3) the cooling tower vapor plume. The environmental effects of these are discussed in the following subsections. Figure 3.4-4 depicts the location of intake and discharge lines. 5.1.2.2 Intake Effects The intake for the makeup water of the cooling system of WNP-1/4 consists of three 42 inch diameter perforated pipes placed parallel to the river flow above the river bottom (see Subsection 3.4.2). The top of the pipes will be submerged about one foot below the water surface for the lowest regulated flow of 36,000 cfs. The combined maximum pumping rate of 48,000 gpm (106 cfs) is about 0.3% of the lowest regulated flow and 0.09% of the average river flow (120,000 cfs). The average makeup water requirement will be about 15,500 gpm (34.4 cfs). Detailed hydraulic model studies of the type of int e structure used by WNP-1/4 were done by Lasalle Hydraulic Laboratory.lpi These studies con-cluded that the perforated pipe inlet with an internal sleeve would give l uniform flow distribution. At design conditions (see Table 3.4-1) the with- , drawal rate through each intake is about 12,650 gpm. Under these condi-l tions, the inlet velocity at the external screen surface will be approxi-mately 0.5 fps, but at a distance of one (1) inch from the outer screen sur-f ace the velocity will be approximately 0.1 fps. It is noted that intake velocities will generally be below these values since the normal withdrawal
- rate will be approximately 10,100 gpm at each intake. These low velocit.as l would offer maximum protection from entrainment of small fish during all l
operating conditions. Undesirable debris is not expected to pass through the outer perforations with these low velocities. O 5.1-2 1 l l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O Virtually all the aquatic organisms that enter the intake structure will V perish in the recirculating water system. The loss of plankton and drif t , organisms is insignificant in relation to the total mass of this material i and its small contribution to the production of desired species of fish. Of somewhat greater concern is the potential for the impingement or entrainment of eggs, larvae, and juvenile fish. The types of resident fish that have eggs and larvae which are most likely to be drawn into the intake include the minnows, suckers, and the mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni). This section of the Columbia River is a popular sport fishing area for whitefish and it is quite probable that some of them spawn in this reach during the fall. The whitefish deposit adhesive eggs on the gravel of the river bed, and the tiny larvae, which hatch in a few days, drift downstream with the current. On the basis of the fraction of the river flow used by the plant it is expected the numbers of whitefish larvae that may be drawn into the intake will be no more than about one-half of one percent of the recruitment produced in the region. Of particular importance are the juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead trout that hatch from eggs spawned in the Hanford reach of the Columbia, upriver from the intake. Inasmuch as the eggs are deposited and the larvae develop in gravel beds, they are not vulnerable. However, the young fry that emerge from the gravel (generally from March to mid-May for the fall spawning chi-nook salmon) are not strong swimers at this stage and are swept downstream by the current. Some of these young fry will likely pass the intake struc-g ture and be vulnerable to it; however, the very low entrance velocities and swift river current (greater than 3 fps) tend to wash the juvenile fish (and debris) clear of the intake. Another mitigating factor is that most of the very small fish from local spawning will pass the intake for WNP-1 and WNP-4 during the spring freshet when the risk of impingement is especially low because of the relatively great flow of the river. An impingement / entrain-ment study has been performed on the WNP-2 intake, which has the same design as the WNP-1/4 intakes. Results of the study are detailed in Section . 5.1.3.1 and are referenced therein. 5.1.2.3 Blowdown Discharge Effects The blowdown discharge pipe is buried in the river bottom and has a 8 x 48 inch diffuser outlet discharging perpendicular to the river flow direction and at an upward angle of 150 from the horizontal. The exit flow velocity will be approximately 10.7 fps at the maximum blowdown rate of 15,500 gpm and 5.3 fps at the average blowdown rate of 7600 gpm. Riprap has been placed around the discharge to prevent riverbed erosion. 5.1-3 O e-. - - _ . - _
WNP-1/4 ER-OL River velocities were measured during 1972 near the location of the WNP-2 outfall. Surface velocities varied between 2.5 and 3.3 fps for river flows varying from 36,000 to 50,000 cfs. A river velocity transect was also made during March 1974, in which current meter measurements were made at three depths for four cross-river locations. Based on the Ringold gauging sta-tion, river flow during the survey was estimated at 130,000 cfs. Measure-ments in the vicinity of the proposed discharge for WNP-1 and -4 indicated the river velocity to be about 4.2 fps and to be near constant with depth. Measurements made in December 1979 at the WNP-2 dispggrge location showed velocities of about 5 fps at a flow of 135,000 cfs.t 1 Mathematical predictions of the blowdown plume dispersion were conducted for a combination of case" situation.(gqnditionswhichareconsideredrepresentativeofa" l The river flow was taken as 36,000 cfs, the minimumworst regulated flow. While this flow may be attained for short durations at Priest Rapids Dam, it will rarely, if ever occur, at the discharge site 45 miles downstream. Depth and velocity at the discharge structure at this flow rate are 5.8 feet and 2.5 fps, respectively. The ambient river temper-ature was assumed to be 200C (680F), the baseline maximum specified by water quality standards. Maximum blowdown, 15,500 gpm, was assumed with a temperature of 29.20C (84.50F). This temperature corresponds to a wet bulb of 21.10C (700F). Historically, wet bulbs greater than 700F have an annual frequency of occurrence of about 0.05% although such events oc-curred with a much greater frequency in 1975 (see Section 2.3.3). To consider the additive effects of the blowdown from WNP-2 it was assumed that this unit was discharging at the maximum combined rate of 6,500 gpm. The point of discharge is about 650 feet downstream from the WNP-1/4 out-fall. It was also assumed that the WNP-1 and -4 plume centerline was car-ried directly over the WNP-2 discharge. A description of the thermal plume model and its assumptions is given in Calculations are based on an eddy diffusivity of Sect {on6.1.1.1. 4 ft /sec. which was derived from a review of the data from a dye dis-persion study at the outfall site.(5) Results of the mathematical simulations are shown in Figures 5.1-1 and 5.1-2. Under the assumed critical conditions, the temperature increase 300 feet downstream of the WNP-1/4 discharge is estimated to be 0.50F, the limit specified b the water quality standards. Within 20 feet the temper-atureexcessis2gF. With the concurrent maximum discharge from WNP-1 and
-4, the temperature increase at the end of the WNP-2 mixing zone is esti-i mated to be 0.50F. As shown in Figure 5.1-3, temperature increases of I more than 0.50F are confined to a distance of about 20 feet on either side of the plume centerline.
I 5.1-4 O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL i O O The above predications are for a combination of extreme conditions most likely to occur in late sumer. Seasonal variation of meteorological and hydrological conditions will result in greater initial temperature excesses (blowdown temperature minus river temperature) at other times of the year. These higher initial temperature diffe entials would, however, be offset by the greater plume dilution associated with the higher river flow. Gener-ally, at distances beyond the point of complete vertical mixing, the pre-dicted excess temperature at a point downstream will vary directly with ini-tial excess temperature and discharge flow, inversely with river depth, and as the inverse square root of river velocity and diffusion coefficient. Absolute river temperatures downstream from the discharge would be less than for the critical condition which was modeled. The maximum combined thermal load f rom WNP-2 and WNP-1 and -4 is expected to be less than 75,000 Btu /sec. This heat load would raise bulk river temperature less than 0.0330F at minimum river flow and by about 0.010F under average flow cond' ions. REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.1
- 1. Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Water Quality Standards, December 19, 1977.
- 2. Federal Effluent Guidelines and Standards, Steam Electric Power Plants, O\ 40 CFR 423.25, Federal Register, October 8,1974.
- 3. Alam, S., F.E. Parkinson, and R. Hauser, Hanford Nuclear Project No. 2 -
Air and Hydraulic Model Studies of the Perforated Pipe Inlet and Protective Dolphin, LHL-599 Lasalle Hydraulic Laboratory Ltd. to Washington Public Power Supply System and Burns and Roe, Inc., February 1974.
- 4. Beak Consultants, Inc., Data Report for Task B09, December 1979:
Velocity-Depth Measurements, Document No. DRB09-01-01, January 10, 1980.
- 5. Kannberg, L.D., Mathematical Modeling of the WNP-1, 2, and 4 Cooling Tower Blowdown Plumes, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, March 1980.
O m 5.1-5
l TABLE 5.1-1
- TIMING OF SALMON ACTIVITIES IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER NEAR HANFORD FROM L. O. ROTHFUS TESTIMONY IN TPPSEC 71-1 HEARINGS (Exhibit 62)
Month j Species Fresh-Water Life Phase Jan Feb Mar y A Mja Jun Jul y A Sy Oct Nov Dec Spring Chinook Upstream migration X X X Spawning Intragravel development Fresh-water rearing X X X X X X X X X X X X i Downstream migration X X X X Summer - Fall Upstream migration X X X X X l Chinook Spawning X X X l Intragravel development X X X X X X X j Fresh-water rearing X X X X X X X X X X X X i Downstream migration X X X X X X Coho Upstream migration X X X I 2 Spawning mg Intragravel development X Wy X X X 3 f. Fresh-water rearing X X X X X X X N Downstream migration Y X X X -* Pink . Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel development Presh-water rearing i Downstream migration I 1 Chum Upstream migration ! Spawning Intragravel development Fresh-water rearing Downstream migration Sockeye Upstream migration X X X
- Spawning 1 Intragravel development I
Fresh-water rearing Downstream migration X X X X X X I
0 0 0 1 i 0 0 8 0
/ i 0
6 0 i 0 4 T 0 F i 0 E 2 G R i s m p A c g H 0 0 C 0 0 S 0 I 0, 5, i 0 D 6 5 1 3 1 4 i 0 8 DN 0 A i 6 1 W O N P L W O N F D i 0 W 4 R M E V W O O I L R R B F M A 0 E i 2 R T S p%J N W O D i 0 E 1 C N i 8 A T S I P i 6 D M P E T M E E C i 4 T A M F O R T T U [S . O B i 2
\
\
\
\g\
d
- - - - - - -- - - - - - 1 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 1 1 u mW5$Eh 5gd y "$d o
q m c! 9S$ aglDe= SEazSo2 cEo mom" c3< hME o o$ em5 _ szma A m?o" _ ,5 s aI I
E D a 5 o" z 6 - c m C mha o" DB ~5 "22m ? W
$ 5 RIVER FLOW 36,000 cfs j $4 -
g WNP-2 BLOWDOWN - 6500 gpm g OTTOM TEMP a m s 5 3 ~ d s D W 8 5$ 2 - s / WNP-2 WITH WNP 1 AND 4 OPERATING 4 W l
" SURFACE s
$;H g TEMP J Gm 1 -
N WNP-2 WITHOUT WNP 1 AND 4 __ h$ OPERATING j ll o i i i i i i i i i I i i i i-2;R 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 800 ', n 5 "m E DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM FROM WNP-2 DISCHARGE- FT e y Em u m
-4 m
I l
- O
l.
! ; !, -i uYP 'O m FO 3m 3 _
uE3myOC-s 3 mgC m ZkOOkO 0 D 3 ALTzI m<g 4rTTCg 3mIOT oCCCmD 2O4Oz3i>k s(?2k@N?2 *O km5 bT' 3 n
<$:a4m g Oui ammF i l o 8 6 4 2 2 4 8 a
=- o 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 e 0 os 1 _ 0 _ F 2 0 e 0 WE E S RI T E M _ UA _ N ET IF 4 O R 20.D 0 i 0 M 5 D L ' I Y F S RI T E SO A D T N U C _ C HE E E D R
. F M R I F
O W M N D 6 E 0i P P W 0 - 2 T N 0 H P 1 U
/
T F 4 _ l A 0 O L
- U L F RI S T I F VO A E T L RH E 8 F R
.L 0 i L F 0 OM E WFL E =
O T 3 T 6 F 0O 0 0 R CW F S N P-i 1 _ f 4 00 i 0 A 0 N 2 D 5 F 0 W N P. 2 P _ L _ U M E 1 S 2 0 i 0
WNP-1/4 ER-OL f~ V) 5.1.3 Biological Effects 5.1.3.1 Effects of Intake Structure The effects of the intake structure upon aquatic biotic populations are ex-pected to be insignificant. Only those small fish that cannot escape the approximate maximum intake velocity of 0.5 fps at the 3/8-in. intake screen openings will probably be impinged and lost. Essentially all of the drift-ing biota occuring in the water column (phyto- and zooplankton, drif ting in-sects, fish fry or larvae) which are drawn into the intake structure will be kill ed . This loss, however, will be so slight in comparison to the total populations of these organisms in the river water passing the site that the loss will not significantly affect the ecosystem. It is estimated that the maximum river water withdrawal will be less than 0.30% of the river volume, at the lowest regulated fleet of 36,000 cfs. Sport and coninercial fish species which may be affected are the whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri), and salmon (On-corhynchus sp.). The whitefish deposit adhesive eggs, thus only the driTt-ing larvae may encounter the intake structure. Juvenile salmonids (e.g., chinook fry) emerging from the gravel upstream from the intake structure may also be vulnerable to impingement; again, however, the fact that such a small volume is impacted renders the total impact minimal. The fact that most young salmon pass through the area of the intake structure during the t' spring runoff when flows are high and the velocity greater than 3 fps fur-( ther decreases their relative susceptibility to impingement. The WNP-2 intake structure was inspected for fish impingement in December 1978 and May - December,1979. observed on the intake screens.(gyring 1 the inspections no impinged fish were Fish entrainment sampling and ;ollection efficiency testing at WNP-2 was perfonned May 1979 through Ma/1980. Analysis of 69 revealed no fish eggs or fish larvae were collected.(pgtrainment U During thesesamples tests the makeup water pumps were operated in a manner that approximated actual plant operating conditions. 5.1.3.2 General Effects of Thermal Effluents Thermal effects of the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 blowdown discharge are expected to be negligible from either a thermal increase effect or from " cold shock". Thermal effects involve two f actors: 1) the change in water temperature above or below ambient and 2) the duration of exposure of the organisms to the change in temperature. Because of its direct and/or indirect effects, temperature is a prir.cipal f actor determining the suitability of a habitat I v 1 , 5.1-6 l l l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL for aquatic organisms. The introduction of heated water into an aquatic ecosystem will cause some biological changes with effects on metabolism, developmegt,growthandreproduction,andmortalitydocumentedintheliter-ature.t2, 1 The tolerance of organisms to any thermal increment is spe-cies specific, depending on the magnitude of the thermal increment and the duration of the exposure, as well as previous temperature acclimation. 5.1.3.3 Thennal Effects on Periphyton Periphyton comunities in the Hanford reach of the river are typically at a subclimax level of growth, with turbulent river-flow and seasonally low water temperatures being f actors limiting the biomass in the main chan-nel.(4) In both the periphyton and phytoplankton populations, diatoms are the dominant forms. The discharge of heated water may cause an increase in the growth of periphyton in the immediate vicinity of the outf all in an area within the 1.40C isotherm, but such an effect is expected to be small and negated by loss f r In Columbia River studies by Coutant and Owens, ) turbulent river flow. thennal increments of 100C increased the standing crop of periphyton by diatom only during species persisting. a short(ppriod Patrick 01 reported in winter withtemperatures that water the domination less than 10 to ISOC limited the growth and reproduction of phytoplankton populations dominated by diatom forms, while higher temperatures increased the biomass until the temperature of the water reached 28.9 to 300C. Tem-peratures exceeding 30 to 340C caused a measurable decrease in the number of species and population size as compared to that between 18 to 22.30C. 5.1.3.4 Thermal Effects on Benthos The upper temperature limits for the major)ty of benthic organisms reported to occur in the Hanford reach of the river,7,8) appear to be in the range of 29.4 to 33.30C, with tolerance dependent pqqiewhat o $hespecies, stage of development, and acclimation temperature.W1 Curry 91 found the up-per thermal tolerance of several families of aquatic dipterans to be temper-atures between 30 and 330C. Caddisfly larvae, and stonefly and mayfly nymphs acclimated to 100C had a 96-hour median tolerance to temperatures rangina cies.(10)from Beck21.1({g)30.50C, er 1 reported with thatmayflies being caddisfly the acclimated larvae most sensitive to aspe-river temperature of 19.50C had a 50% mortality (LC50) after a 68-hour exposure to a 100C increment, whereas, mortality to temperatures 7.50C above ambient were insignificant. Thermal increase up to a temperature dif-ferential of 100C rggyjted in well-d9figed increases in growth for all of the species tested,W) and Coutantt 121 has reported a 2-week earlier emergence in heated zones as compared to ambient temperatures in the Colum-bia River. O 5.1-7 i
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O V 5.1.3.5 Thermal Effects on Plankton Although prolonged exposures to elevated temperatures have been reported to affect the growth rate and species composition of phytoplankton and zoo-plankton in the area of thermal discharges, the time interval in which plankton will be entrained in the thermal plume is considered too brief to cause significant changes. During low flow and with a 14.20C temperature differential at the point of blowdown, the time intervals in which organisms would be exposed to temperatures greater than 1.40C above ambient in the WNP-1 and 4 and WNP-2 plumes would be approximately 16 and 4 seconds respec-tively. effects.(These 3,6,13)exposure levels are below those reported to have measurable The ecological consequences of thermal discharges on planktonic and benthic organisms are expected to be negligible, with lethal effects, if realized, being (withinrestricted to sessile 15 ft of the benthic outf all), and anorganisms in effects blethal an area12,14) (of initial mixing to the small area within the 1.40C isotherm.1 Such changes would have no measurable effect on the abundance and composition of food organisms in the stream drif t, and no impact on the fish resources. 5.1.3.6 Thermal Effects on Fishes Temperature, through both direct and indirect action, is one of the impor-Q V tant parameters influencing the fishery resources in the Columbia River. The anadromous fish, particularly the salmonids, are the fish with the greatest sport and comercial value. A review of the tolerance and thermal requirements of fish indicates that in the Hanford reach of the river, salmonids ar discharges.(e 16) the species most sensitive to and directly affected by thermal The Hanford reach of the Columbia River is used extensively as a spawning and rearing area by chinook salmon and steelhead trout, as well as a major migration route for other adult and juvenile salmonids. A description of the salmon activities in the Hanford reach of the river is shown in Table 5.1 -1. Steelhead are essentially present throughout all periods year, with spawning activity comencing from late March to June.(y)the The optimum temperatures most conducive to salmonid activities have been re-ported as: 7.2 to 15.50C for migration, 7 areas, and 10 to 15.50C for rearing areas.(2 to ambient
- 13) The 12.80C water for spawning tea-peratures in the Hanford reach are typically below the preferred levels in March and April during the initial emergence of chinook fry, while tempera-tures during May and June are within those levels reported optimum and the preferred temperature of juvenile salmonids. The most critical period is during the months of July through September, when temperatures rise into the upper zone of the salmonids thermal tolerance.
O v 5.1-8
WNP-1/4 ER-0L The thermal plume from the discharge of c ng tower blowdown does not in-tersect with any reported spawning areas. The nearest chinook and steelhead spawning areas are approximately 3/4 mile downstream and the ther-mal increment in the river after mixing is expected to have no measurable effect on spawning or on the gmwth and development of egg and larval stages in these areas. In a study on the effects of temperature on varying devel-opmental stages of salmon eggs and fry, no adverse effects were noted when the thermal increments were less than 1.60C and only a slight increase in mortality was noted when temperatures averaged less than 2.70C above a 5-year megn ambient water temperature in the Hanford reach of the Columbia River. (19 1 If minimum river flow were to occur during the spring spawning period concurrently with a maximum initial temperature excess of 15.50C, a differential of 0.70C would occur, approximately 150 ft downstream of the outf all and in an area where no spawning or rearing would be anticipated because of water turbulence and cobble substrate. The thermal increment at the nearest reported chinook and steelhead redds, as well as in areas within approximately 200 ft of the western shoreline, will be less than 0.030C. During movement in the main channel, juvenile salmonids could be involun-tarily carried through the effluent plume, with their downstream velocity assumed to be essentially that of the riverflow, e.g.,2.5 to approximately 5.0 fps, during minimum and average flow rates. Figure 5.1-4 sumarizes the average monthly thermal increment at the ooint of discharge and after ini-tial mixing with respect to ambient river temperatures and the thennal re-quirements and tolerance of juvenile salmonids.(13,20) During May through September the temperatures of the receiving water will be above the upper incipient lethal temperature (21.00C) at the point of discharge. However, even under worse-case conditions (i.e. periods of low river flow, an ambient river temperature of 200C, an effluent temperature of 29.10C and a si-multaneous discharge from WNP-2), temperatures in the Columbia River would be below the upper incipient lethal temperature (210C) af ter approximately 11 seconds. The prgfprred temperatures fcr juvenile salmonids are reported as 5 to 170C. u3 ; Temperatyre juvenjlg)salmonids,(13g 1 and 210C is the upper above incipient 200C arelethal tempera-considered to be adv ture t 2 (i.e., that temperature which will kill a stated fraction of the population when brought rapidly to it from a lower temperature, within an indefinite prolonged exposure). Brett reported that juvenile salmonids (five species of the genus Oncorhynchus), when acclimated to temperatures of 5 to 240C, hadabove temperatures a preferred temperature 150C except underrange of 12of conditions tofeeding 140C and avoidgd) stimuli.b_0 In the same study, the ultimate incipient lethal temperature was 23.8 to 25.10C with juvenile chinook and coho exhibiting the greater thermal re-l sistance. Figure 5.1-5 shows the geometric mean time for loss of equili-brium and death when juvenile chinook are exposed to temperatures above e 5.1-9 l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL fh Q the ultimate incipient lethal temoerature.(21) A minimum of 3.00C below the ultimate incipient temperature has been recomended as the maximum al-lowable for juvenile salmonids "to avoid significant curtailment of activ-ity," with temperatures near 170C considered the upper optimum tempera-ture.(13) Mear survival time curves, based on a review of experimental data on the thermal tolerance of juvenile salmonid to variable temperature increments above the incipient lethal temperature as a functigg of exposure duration png) acclimation, 1 Snyder and Blahmt2 reported thatwere sumarized juvenile chinook in a 1971 salmon report.ll3 at acclimated 12.80C exhibited no mortality within a 72-hour observation period after being sud-denly exposed to a temperature of 21.10C for 1 hour, while fish exposed to Lo.60C exhibited the first mortality after 100 seconds of exposure. Juvenile chum salmon acclimated at higher temperatures (15.50C) had no mortality when subjected to temperatures of 23.90C; at a temperature of 26.60C the first mortality was observed after a 44-minute duration. The study by Bush, Welch, and Mar (23) presents data relating preferred and suboptimal temperatures to the expected effects of increasing water tem-peratures upon Columbia River fishes. These data indicate that temperatures of 2400 (75.20F), if present continuously, would erradicate the salmon species in the Columbia River and that temperatures of 320C (89.60F) would eliminate the remaining salmonids. Temperatures of this magnitude will occur only briefly in time and space, as previously discussed. ~' Although the temperature increments in the plume at the determined exposures are less than those reported to cause direct lethal effects, indirect ef-fects have been reported to cur at sublethal thermal doses. In prelimi-nary studies by Schneidert24 juvenile rainbow trout acclimated at 150C were exposed to temperatures ranging from 20.4 to 300C to determine the eff ect of sublethal thermal exposures on the vulnerability of juvenile to predation. Exposure to an elevated temperature of 210C had no effect on the susceptibility of juveniles to predation. At temperatures of 22 to 230C an exposure duration of 12 minutes was required to increase the vul-nerability of juveniles above the control, while exposures for 2.5 to 4 minutes were required when temperatures were 27 to 280C. In another study, the thermal dose (temperature and exposure duration) that first ini-tiated differential predation was ab99 median dose for loss of equilibrium.Mg)10 to 11% There of that was no reported evidence of anfor en-the hanced incidence or infection of Chondrococcus columnaris disease in fish in areas below the thennal discharges from the early Hanfo d reactors as com-pared to areas not influenced by the thermal plumes.(25(; Although juvenile salmonids would encounter potentially lethal temperatures if their route of passage coincided with the area of initial mixing, it seems unlikely that the thermal discharges as a result of the operation of n-5.1-10
WNP-1/4 ER-OL WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 will have any measurable impact. This is because the tem-peratures and dJration of exposure are less than those reported to have any direct lethal or sublethal effects. During periods of migration, adult anadromous fish would be expected to avoid the themal plume and the potentially lett)q) temperatures with the areas of initial mixing. Cherry et al k associated reported that adult rainbow trout avoid temperatures of 190C. Ambient water temperatures which(gxceed 21.10C are tion. 131 The thermal reported increment is to impede to expected or be block adult salmonid approximately migra-0.60C above maximum ambient temperatures (20 to 21.10C), approximately 80 ft and 50 ft downstream of the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 outf alls respectively. During the periods of peak adult salmonid migration, the maximum cross-sectional area of the river which would be expected to evoke an avoidance response is less than 3% of the main channel during worse-case conditions, and assures free passage of adult migrants. Temperatures between 10 and 21.10C were re-ported to cause no avoidance or blockage of migration near the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers, whereas when the ambient temperatures ex-ceeded 21.10C, migration preference was in the lowest temperature zone.(13, 22) In a study on the Hanford reach of the river, adult salmo-nids demonstrated a general preference for migration along the eastern RapidsDamdownstreamtoRichland.125}1 shoreline The study also (across indicatedthe thatriver the from Wt)P- /4 themal discharges from the early Hanford reactors had no significant ef-fects on migration. From the above discussion, it is evident that temperatures considered to have lethal or sublethal effects on Columbia River fish will occur only very briefly in time and space in the area downstream from the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 d is charges . From predictions of the near-field temperatures and incremental additions to the bulk river temperature, it is concluded that thermal ef-fects upon the Columbia River ecosystem will be insignificant. " Cold shock" is an additional concern at some nuclear power stations utiliz-ing natural bodies of water as cooling sources. Cold shock problems stem from the sudden cessation of thermal discharge upon plant shutdown, since the themal plume issuing from power plants acts as an attractant to aquatic j organisms, particularly fishes. These organisms reside in the artificially heated waters for long periods, becoming acclimated to the elevated tempera-tures and, in f act, dependent on them for survival. Fish mortalities have occured at a few plants following shutdowns and much effort has recently gone into devising ways to eliminate these fish kills. Cold shock is never expected to occur at WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 because of their location on a swif t-ly flowing reach of the Columbia River. For fish to become acclimated to the wamer temperatures of the plume they would have to occupy these O 5.1-11
WNP-1/4 ER-OL waters for several days, which is not expected to happen in the strong river currents. Fish populations downstream from the mixing zone, i.e., where the river has become thermally homogenous, will experience temperatures that are essentially natural. The only other aquatic connunity that might have a continuous exposure to the effluent and thus become acclimated to the higher temperatures is the benthic community. However, any impact on this population from cold shock would be minimal in terms of the aquatic comunity in the vicinity of the site since the potentially affected area is so small (i.e., for WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 total area with a T 0.60C is 0.18 acre) REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.1.3
- 1. Preoperational Environmental Monitoring Studies near WNP 1, 2 and 4, August 1978 through March 1980. WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies, Vol 7, Beak Consultants, Inc., Portland, OR, June,1980.
- 2. Coutant, C. C., "Themal Pollution - Biological Effects," J. Water Pollution Control Fed., vol. 43, p. 1292, 1971.
- 3. Jensen, L. D., et al., The Effects of Elevated Temperatures Upon Aquatic Invertebrates, Edison Elec. Inst. Res. Report, Project RP-49, pp. 232, 1969.
J
- 4. Owens, B. B., Columbia River Periphyton Communities under Thermal Stress, BNWL-1550, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, Vol. 1, no. 2, p. 2.19, 1971.
- 5. Coutant, C. C. and B. B. Owens, Productivity of Periphyton Comunities under Themal Stress, BNWL-1306, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, vol.1, part 2, p. 3.1,1970.
- 6. Patrick, R., "Some Effects of Temperature on Freshwater Algae,"
Biological Aspects of Thermal Pollution, P. A. Krenkel and F. A. Parker (eds.), Vanderbilt Univ. Press, pp. 199-213, 1969.
- 7. Applicant's Environmental Report, as amended, Section 2.3.6.1.
- 8. Becker, C. D., Food and Feeding of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Central Columbia River in Relation to Thermal Discharges and Other Environmental Features, BNWL-1528, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington,1971.
- 9. Curry, L. L., "A Survey of Environmental Requirements for the Midge (Diptera: Tendipedidae)," Biological Problems in Water Pollution, C.
M. Tarzwell (ed.), P. H. S. Publ . No. 999-WP-25,1%5. p G 5.1-12
l I I, WNP-1/4 ER-OL REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.1.3 (contd.)
- 10. Nebeker, A. W. and A. E. Lemke, " Preliminary Studies on the Tolerance i of Aquatic Insects to Heated Waters," J. Kansas Ent. Soc. , vol. 41, p. I 413, 1968.
- 11. Becker, C. D., Response of Columbia River Invertebrates to Thermal Stress, BNWL-1550, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 2.17, 1971.
- 12. Coutant, C. C., The Effects of Temperature on the Development of Bottom Organisms, BNWL-714, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, 1968.
- 13. " Columbia River Thermal Effects Study," Vol. I: Biological Effects Studies, Envircnmental Protection Agency, pp.102, January 1971.
- 14. Pearson, W. D. and P. R. Franklin, "Some Factors Affecting Drif t Rates of Bactis and Simuliidae in a large River," Ecology, vol. 49, p. 75, 1968.
- 15. Kannberg, L. D., Mathematical Modeling of the WNP-1,2 and 4 Cooling W h ng pr 8b.
- 16. " Supplemental Information on the Hanford Generating Project in Support of a 316(a) Demonstration," Washington Public Power Supply System, November 1978.
- 17. Testimony of D. R. Eldred, Dept. of Game, in hearing on Application TPPSEC 71-1 before State of Washington Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council, Exhibit 62.
- 18. Salo, E. O. and R. E. Nakatani, in hearings on Application TPPSEC 71-1 before State of Washington Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council, Exhibit 26.
- 19. Olson, P. A., Effects of Thermal Increments on Eggs and Young of Columbia River Fall Chinook, BNWL-1538, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, 19/1.
- 20. Brett, J. R., " Temperature Tolerance of Young Pacific Salmon, Genus Oncorhynchus," J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, vol. 9, p. 265,1952.
- 21. Nakatani, R. E., in hearings on Application TPPSEC 71-1 before State of Washington Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council, Figure 13, Exhibit 49.
O 5.1-13
WN'P-1/4
; ER-OL REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.1.3 (contd.)
- 22. Snyder, G. R. and T. H. Blahm, " Effects of Increased Temperature on Cold-Water Organisms," J. Water Pollution Control Fed., vol. 43, p.
890, 1971.
- 23. Bush, R. M., E. B. Welch and B. W. Mar, " Potential Eff ects of Thermal Discharges on Aquatic Systems," Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 8, p. 561, 1974.
- 24. Schneider, M J., Vulnerability of Juvenile Salmonids to Predation Following Thermal Schock, BNWL-1150, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, vol. 1, part 2, 2.19, 1971.
- 25. Templeton, W. L. and C. C. Coutant, " Studies on the Biological Effects of Thermal Discharges from the Nuclear Reactors to the Columbia River at Hanford." IAEA-SM-146/33, Environmental Aspects of Nuclear Power Stations, pp. 591-612, 1971.
- 26. Cherry, D. S., K. L. Dickson and J. Cairns, Jr. Temperatures Selected and Avoided by Fish at Various Acclimation Temperatures.- J. Fish Res.
Board Canada 32: 485-491, 1975. O O
/
/ /
s 0
%r.
O- ' 5.1-14 ,
. c. -
- - - a- _ _ , _ . - - --- - -
s 4 m I z , O b ' 2 2' le mh6
?yy A PREFERRED TEMPERATURE O .'., O rs5 bm 8 ZONE OF THERM AL TOLERANCE 18 - C INCIPIENT LETHAL TEMPERATURE t E 30- ~~% D TEMPERATURE AT POINT OF BLOWDCWN
$I $9 's \
A TEMPERATURE AT POINT OF BLOWDOWN
~ ~
g gA s e TEMPERATURE 15 FT. BELOW THE OUTFALL H CO w EO sg m o w - E h3 20- $o3 \ 4N . y3m pO 10 - s 'D(77.28 F : 25.1* C m p m % A C am _ am - g E II II % C(69.88 F : 21.08 C) ag &H HH \ A I k z 0-z zO-z 6 - A \ s m m A 23 EH 10- EH B g E<O w$ w$ - A \Ag
%n Og Og _
N--- Af 43.8 *-57,.2 *F : 6.4 *-14.O *C) 80 mog b F
-4 M mm
$E
>o nu 4z w
>g z 2
e 0
, 8 G
g N g\ \ \
\
mm 4- al l I i 4 I i iN I I l gy O. '4 8 12 16 20 24 ' 2 n -i 5mE mom AMBlENT RIVER TEMPERATURE *C o 3 [Q cm s 40 i 50 i e 60 i I 8 70 I I 80
<O
$$ AMBIENT RIVER TEMPERATURE. *F a :a>
z O
O
- --- DEATH (D) f -- EQUILIBRIUM LOSS (EL)
_
- GEOMETRIC MEAN DEATH TIME
_ o GE0 METRIC MEAN EQUlllBRIUM LOSS TIME
\
\
10,000
\
1\ hg ' 6 8
\. _a m
N ui 3 w 1,000 _-
\ E
- IN D = 9.06-1.05 (x) N I IN El = 8,82-1.15 (x)/ Nh b g
WHERE x = TEST TEMPERATURE - 25 \ q g .. 100
\
g JINENILE CHINOOK SALMON,1970 E\
\nf
\
0 F \"
-i i i i i i 74 76 78 80 82 84 10 4 i i i i i !
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 TEST TEMPERATURE, UC EQUILIBRIUM LOSS AND DEATH TIMES AT - WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUFs tV SYSTEM VARIOUS TEMPERATURES FOR JUVENILE WNP-1/4 CHINOOK SALMON ER-OL FIG. 5.1-5
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 3 (V 5.1.4 Effects of Heat Dissipation Facilities The application of the for operation effects of a Construction Permit of the heatfordissipation WNP-1/4 included pn) assessment facilities.tl At that time it was expected that linear mechanical draft (LMD) cooling towers would be employed. The LMD configuration has been changed to an 18-f an per tower circular configuration (CMD) (see Section 3.4). The LMD configuration is more conservative with respect to plume rise, therefore the prior analysis is still applicable for bounding the effects of system operation. Additional detail of the meteorological effects from the cooling towers is contained in Section 2.3.2.1.7 of the FSAR. 5.1.4.1 Methods Used for Modeling Plume A computer program was developed utilizing diffusion and cumulus cloud models to estimate the environmental effects of the mechanical draft evaporative cooling tower. The plume characteristics were calculated for individual observations and the results sunnarized in monthly and annual tables. Plume Rise Models. The plume rise from Linear Mechanical Draft (LMD) cooling towers at WNP-1 and mended by BrP J gs.(2)WNP-4 Sensiblewasheatcalculated alone was using plume used in rise relationships the calculations. The recom-heat input term was varied with ambient meteorological conditions based on the operating characteristics and physical erientation of the cooling tower 3 units. The former was based on a relationship with (O the latter based on relationships proposed by Briggsbgt 1 furbulb plumetemperature rise from and multiple sources. This includes accounting for plume combinations frcm the individual cells as a function of wind direction. The plume rise from the circular mechanical draft cooling towers of WNP-2 was calculated using a modified heat input term into the Briggs plume rise equa-tions David (4)This heatcloud cumulus input model term was calculated at 0400 based and 1600 on each hours the Weinstein and day. The cumulus cloud model and the Briggs model predictions were compared and correction fac-tors calculated for the heat input to the Briggs model. The correction fac-tors were then linearly interpolated between 0400 and 1600 hours and applied to the Briggs model predictions at the intervening hours. The plume rise estimates were used to define the centerline of the plume. The prevailing wind direction defined the direction of movement. It was assumed that for a given set of design and meteorological conditions, vapor leaving a cooling tower will diffuse outward from the center of a plume by the Gaussian plume formula, regardless of whether some of the vapor con-denses to fog. The Gaussian plume formula gives the following expression (3 V 5.1-15
WNP-1/4 ER-OL for the vapor concentration at ground level as a function of distance downwind from the tower: h= a a u exp yg (1/2)(h/'z) In this equation, the quantity E is the concentration of water vapor in the plume at ground level, minus the water vapor in the ambient atmosphere in weight per unit volume, and is the rate of discharge of water from the tower in weight per unit time. The quantities ey and ez are measures of the la'teral and vertical spread of the plume; they are determined as a func-tion of distance downwind by the Hilsmeier and Gifford version of Pasquill graphs as given in Figures A.2 and A.3 of Reference 5. The quantity u is the average wind speed. The quantity h is the sum of the height of the tower plus the plume rise above the tower. Plume rise as a function of downwind distance was calculated. Plume rise models were used as described earlier. Water vapor concentration was calcu-lated at heights of interest above ground level at downwind distances. The criteria for visible plume fonnation and subsequent dissipation were based on a comparison of the calculated water vapor concentration of the plume and the orresponding value from a curve of saturation vapor pressure as a func-tion of temperature. Whenever the latter was the greater quantity, the plume was assumed to be no longer visible. A more detailed description of this por-tion of this model may be found in Reference 6. If ground fog is predicted to be present at a given distance, the width of the plume at ground level is determined by the relation Y = 2 2(ey) In (Emax/Es)1/2 , When Y is the plume width, E x is the centerline value of E and Es is the minimum humidity associated Nth fogging based on ambient conditions. The analysis was performed for an entire year of data. The results of visible plume lengths, widths, and ground interactions as a function of distance and direction were tabulated for all conditions and for freezing conditions (air temperature 320F or below). Local topographical features were used in defining ground level as functions of distance. No credit was tcken for rise or fall of the plume centerline cver topography unless the visible plume in-tersected ground level. In such cases, the plume was allowed to travel along the topography. O 5.1-16
WNP-1/4 ER-OL b V The top of the tower was used for the release height. Allowance was made for downwind and building wake effects under high wind speed con observations and relationships presented in papers by Hanna.gttgQnsusing
.1 The diffusion from the multiple units was added geometrically, taking into account the spacing and orientation relative to the prevailing wind direction I and the relative plume rise.
Data Sources. The data sources used in the cooling tower plume calculations were hourly measurements of air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and wind direction taken onsite; temperature profiles from the Hanford Meteor-ological Station; and radiosonde soundings taken twice a day from Spokane, Washington, each fer the period of June 1,1972 to May 1,1973. 5.1.4.2 Physical Description of Cooling Tower Plume Mechanical draft evaporative cooling towers will produce visible plumes of liquid water droplets under certain atmospheric conditions. These plumes will extend from the cooling towers to distances and deviations dictated by pre-vailing meteorological conditions. Length of Plumes. Table 5.1-2 contains sumnaries of the annual percent per-sistence of plume length for operating mechanical draft cooling towers at the present site. The values for WNP-1 alone are as a function of both direction and distance. Plumes will reach 1 km about 40 percent of the time; 2 km, 24%; (\- and 9 km,1% of the time, and may occasionally extend to distances on the order of 30 km. The longest predicted plumes occurred in January, and the shortest maximum monthly (5 km) in August. January was the only month when the plumes extended beyond 10 km. At the bottom of Table 5.1-2, the persistences for all directions are given as a function of distance for operation of WNP-1; WNP-1 and WNP-2 (two plants); and WNP-1, WNP-2, and WNP-4 (three plants). The incremental effects on per-sistence of plume lengths from operation of additional units are relatively small . Effects of the operation of all three units are given in Table 5.1-3. The persistence of the plumes reaching certain distances from the center of the site are given. These represent lengths of single plumes and of combined plumes. The degree of combination depends primarily on the prevailing wind l direction. The incremental change in plume persistences from Table 5.1-2 is small and is slightly directional, depending on the physical orientation of the towers with respect to various wind directions. The results of two units are bracketed by the results in Tables 5.1-2 and 5.1-3. rh i l t 5.1-17 l y
WNP-1/4 ER-0L The predicted annual frequencies of all ground level fogging out to 10 km from the operation of either WNP-1 or WNP-4 alone are given in Table 5.1-4. These h are based on the frequencies of intersection of the visible plume with the higher topographic features in each annular segment. The frequencies of ! freezing conditions at ground level are in Table 5.1-5. The probabilities of ) increased ground fogging from the operation of more than one unit was found to i be very close to being a multiple of the number of units times the effect of a single unit. Ground level interaction of the plumes on or near the site may result from aerodynamic downwash of the plume. The results indicate that downwash plumes will not generally extend beyond several Pm of the cooling towers and will only on rare occasions, if ever, extend out to distances of 5 km. Potential downwash conditions, coupled with freezing temperatures, occurred in 98 hours for the one year of onsite data. Ground level interaction may also occur as the result of diffusion of the plume down to the ground or intersection with higher ground surfaces. The latter comprises the rest of the ground fogging res ul ts . In addition, an array of heights of potentially sensitive locations surround-ing the site were input and the fogging and icing potential calculated. The results are given in Table 5.1-6. The plume width and object width have been accounted for in these probabilities for ground fogging from WNP-1 alone, and WNP-1 and WNP-4 together. l Natural Occurrence of Fog and Ice. It is appropriate to place the preceding estimates of cooling tower predicted occurrencds in perspective by noting the h natural occurrences of fog and icing. Natural occurrences at locations for i which data is available are shown in Table 5.1-7. Some of the tower-produced fog and ice will coincide with other natural occurrences locally. However, even if it is conservatively assumed that this is not the case, it is apparent that the estimated incremental occurrences of fog due to the towers are small compa 'd to the natural occurrences. 5.1.4.3. Effect of Fogging and Icing on Commercial Operations No interference from operation of one or three units is predicted at either the Pasco or Kennewick airports. The Richland airport may be affected by ground fog or elevated plumes for a few hours occasionally. The probabilities in Table 5.1-6 for the Richland airport show 0.5 hours of ground fogging and 15 hours of elevated plumes if one limits the impact to the area defined by a 2 km square area for airport operations. Hence, the actual interference is expected to be relatively small. O 5.1-18
WNP-1/4 ER-0L (3 V Harvesting grain crops in the vicinity continues through the night until the work is complete unless dampness halts the work. During this harvesting period, which lasts from mid-July until the end of August, the relative humi-dity is lower and the temperature higher than at any other time of the year. Evaporation associated with the irrigation of lands in the Yakima River Valley, just west of the Hanford Reservation, amounts to about 2,000,000 gpm in the summertime. The additional evaporation, up to 33,000 gpm from cooling tower operation (two units), will cause a very small increase in humidity downwind from the plant after the vapor plume has been dispersed. No measurable effect of the incrementally higher humidity on moisture content of harvested crops is expected. 5.1.4.4 Effect of Fogging and Icing on Traffic The nearest public highway to the site is State Highway 240, which runs about 10 km southwest of the site. In this section, fogging or icing at ground level are expected to occur about 0.04% of the time. Other roads closer to the site are on the Hanford Reservation, and access by the public is con-tro ll ed. Workers traveling the project road to the FFTF site, to the Hanford operations, and to the WNP-1/4 site can expect to encounter ground level fogging about 2 percent of the time and freezing 0.8% of the time from one unit operation. REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.1.4 Q 1. Environmental Report, WPPSS Nuclear Project No.1, prepared by the Washington Public Power Supply System, no date, Subsection 5.1.4.
- 2. Briggs, G. A. Plume Rise, AEC Critical Review Series, USAEC Report TID-25075, November 1969, p. 81.
- 3. Briggs, G. A., Plume Rise From Multiple Sources, Environmental Research Laboratories, ATDL Contr. No. 91, March 1974.
- 4. EG&G, Inc., Potential Environmental Modifications Produced by Large Evaporative Cooling Towers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series,16130-DNH-01/71,1971.
- 5. Slade, D. H., Meteorology and Atomic Energy, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, July 1968.
l
- 6. Woodruff, R. K., D. E. Jenne, C. L. Simpson, and J. J. Fuquay, Final Report on a Meteorological Evaluation of the Effects of the Proposed Cooling Towers at the Hanford Number Two "C" Site on Surrounding Areas, to Burns & Roe, Inc. Hempstead, NY, prepared by Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, September 1971.
- 7. Hanna, S. R., " Meteorological Effects of Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers at the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant", Environmental Research Laboratories, ATDL Contr. 89, March 1971.
- 8. Hanna, S. R., " Fog and Drif t Deposition from Evaporative Cooling Towers,"
Nuclear Safety, vol. 15, ra. 2, March-April 1974. 5.1-19
i WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.1-2 ANNUAL PERCENT PERSISTENCE OF PLUPE LENGTHS FROM EITHER WW-1 OR WNP-4 COOLING TOWER ALONE AS A FUNCTION OF OISTANCE AND DIRECTION Distance (km) Direction 1 2 4 6 8 to 14 15 24 30 N 3.81 3.04 1.60 0.87 0.17 0 0 0 0 0
- 3.96 2.30 0.83 0.18 0.05. 0 0 0 0 0 NE 3.05 1.08 0.59 0.19 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 2.80 0.69 0.46 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0
- E 2.18 0.60 0.22 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0
- 3.37 1.14 0.52 0.22 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 SE 4.36 1.68 1.06 0.62 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 4.70 3.22 1.66 0.72 0.08 0.02 0 0 0 0 S 2.96 2.44 1.47 0.51 0.17 0.13 0.10 0.06 0 0 2.29 1.73 1.34 0.56 0.16 0.12 0.02 0 0 0 SW 2.05 1.56 1.01 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.47 0.35 0.24 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0.38 0.38 0.30 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 i
- 0.70 0.54 0.29 0.02 0 0 0' O O O NW 0.96 0.77 0.25 0.08 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 2.60 2.31 1.40 0.59 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 WNP-1 40.6 23.8 13.23 5.20 1.10 0.17 0.12 0.06 0 0 i
x With WNP-2 41.5 23.9 13.23 5.32 1.21 0.17 0.12 0.06 0 0 Three Plants 41.7 24.5 13.64 5.67 1.39 0.35 0.29 0.06 0.06 0 I 1 I O l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.1-3 A.3NUAL PERCENT PERSISTENCE OF PLUME LENGTHS FROM WW-1 COOLING TOWER AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE AND DIRECTION WITH THE ADDED EFFECT OF WNP-2 AND WNP-4 Distance (km) Direction 1 2 4 6 8 10 14 18 24 30 N 3.81 3.04 1.60 0.87 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 3.96 2.30 0.83 0.18 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 NE 3.05 1.08 0.59 0.19 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 2.80 0.69 0.46 0.14 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 E 2.18 0.60 0.32 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.37 1.26 0.54 0.22 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 SE 4.36 1.75 1.05 0.69 0.18 0.06 0.06 0 0 0 4.72 3.32 1.77 0.77 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 S 3.00 2.44 1.47 0.51 0.17 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.06 0 2.29 1.73 1.34 0.56 0.16 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 SW 2.05 1.56 1.01 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.07 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 W 0.95 0.45 0.30 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.06 0 0 0 0.81 0.82 0.45 0.23 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 NW 0.96 0.77 0.26 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.06 0 0 0 2.60 2.31 1.40 0.59 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 41.7 24.5 13.64 5.67 1.39 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.06 0 1 0
O O O
, WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.1-4 ANNUAL PERCENTAGES OF GROUND F0GGING FROM A SINGi.E PLANT AT WNP-1/4 SITE Distance (meters)
Sector 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 N 0.436 0.937 0.866 0.6 04 0.381 0.222 0.092 0.044 0.000 0.000
- NNE 0.303 0.698 0.514 0.366 0.292 0.170 0.057 0.013 0.000 0.000
, NE 0.260 0.445 0.344 0.236 0.127 0.076 0.015 0.006 0.000 0.000 ENE 0.046 0.332 0.284 0.236 0.153 0.098 0.083 0.037 0.000 0.000 E 0.024 0.199 0.161 0.133 0.118 0.061 0.061 0.037 0.00f, 0.009 ESE 0.030 0.268 0.236 0.211 0.155 0.120 0.092 0.052 0.040 0.006 SE 0.002 0.246 0.260 0.244 0.235 0.205 0.129 0.094 0.020 0.017 SSE 0.181 0.408 0.349 0.248 0.181 0.140 0.098 0.054 0.024 0.018 S 1.286 1.225 0.962 0.678 0.432 0.294 0.157 0.091 0.076 0.048 i SSW 1.044 0.933 0.826 0.569 0.353 0.229 0.091 0.030 0.017 0.006 SW 0.898 0.711 0.532 0.357 0.268 0.168 0.113 0.046 0.030 0.030 WSW 0.445 0.392 0.334 0.198 0.135 0.063 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 W 0.308 0.275 0.218 0.151 0.091 0.063 0.039 0.015 0.000 0.000 WNW 0.255 0.216 0.177 0.109 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 NW 0.094 0.091 0.131 0.122 0.163 0.030 0.015- 0.000 0.000 0.000 NNW 0.462 0.512 0.484 0.283 0.225 0.131 0.065 0.015 0.000 0.000 TOTAL 6.074 7.876 6.679 4.744 3.236 2.069 1.138 0.532 0.222 0.133
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.1-5 ANNUAL PERCENTAGES OF GROUND F0G AT FREEZING TEMPERATLRES FROM A SINGLE PLANT AT WNP-1/4 SITE Distance (meters) Sec tor 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 N 0.172 0.347 0.332 0.281 0.203 0.150 0.068 0.044 0.000 0.000 NNE 0.006 0.120 0.120 0.100 0.094 0.066 0.031 0.013 0.000 0.000 NE 0.000 0.039 0.039 0.024 0.024 0.022 0.007 0.004 0.000 0.000 ENE 0.000 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.046 0.018 0.000 0.000 E 0.000 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.028 0.028 0.009 0.009 ESE 0.000 0.052 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.037 0.037 0.031 0.006 SE 0.000 0.144 0.177 0.177 0.157 0.142 0.081 0.065 0.020 0.017 SSE 0.085 0.190 0.183 0.163 0.124 0.118 0.087 0.054 0.024 0.018 S 0.582 0.480 0.408 0.325 0.233 0.185 0.124 0.091 0.076 0.048 SSW 0.464 0.382 0.345 0.248 0.150 0.131 0.076 0.030 0.017 0.006 SW 0.349 0.225 0.207 0.157 0.126 0.094 0.094 0.046 0.030 0.030 WSW 0.039 0.020 0.020 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 W 0.096 0.072 0.072 0.048 0.039 0.030 0.031 0.015 0.000 0.000 WNW 0.039 0.026 0.026 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 NW 0.020 0.018 0.035 0.031 0.017 0.015 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 NNW 0.203 0.218 0.216 0.159 0.124 0.105 0.059 0.015 0.000 0.000 TOTAL 2.054 2.438 2.350 1.906 1.463 1.227 .783 0.458 0.207 0.133 O O O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.1-6 FREQUENCY OF FOGGING AND ICING PREDICTED FROM THE OPERATION OF LINEAR MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER SYSTEM FOR UNIT 1 AND UNITS 1 AND 4 COMBINED (The Numbers in Parentheses are Numbers of Hours Per Year) Fogging Frequency Icing Frequency Direction Distance (Fraction of Time) (Fraction of Time) location Sector Segment 1 1 and 4 1 1 and 4 (km) FFTF SSW, SW 5 .00055 .00113 .00023 .00048 (5hr) (10 hr) (2 hr) (4 hr) State Highway 240 SW 10 .0004 .0008 .0004 .0008 (4hr) (7hr) (4hr) (7hr) 300 Area Building SSE 11 .00005 .0001 .00005 .0001 Tops (0.5 hr) (1hr) (0.5hr) (1hr) Exxon Facility SSE 14 .00001 .00003 .00001 (0.1hr) (0.3hr) (0.1 hr) 200-E Building WNW 14 0 0 0 0 Tops Richland Airport S 20 .00006 .00012 .000057 .00011
- Ground Level (0.5 hr) (1hr) (0.5 hr) (1 hr)
Richland Airport S 20 .0017 .0034 .0017 .0034 Elevated Plumes (15 hr) (30hr) (15 hr) (30 hr) Pasco Airport at SE 29 0 0 0 0
+200 ft.
Pasco Airport SE 29 0 0 0 0 Elevated Plumes (a) Probability that the plume is in the width of the 22.50 sector containing the location listed. All other probabilities in this table are based on the width of the location named. O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.1-7 F0G AND ICE OCCURRENCES Naturally Occurring Fog Ice Pasco Airport (1) 63 hours 72 hours Hanford Meteorology Station (2) 101 hr 23 days Richland 20 days 20 days N. Richland 20 days 20 days O i l (a) Based on fogs with visibility 1/2 mile. (b) Based on fogs with visibility 1/4 mile. i l O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 5.2 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT FROM ROUTINE OPERATION Radioactive materials are routinely released from nuclear plants. Potential radionuclide releases and exposure pathways are identified and evaluated to assure plant operation within the design criteria of. 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, and applicable sections of 10 CFR 20. Details of the radwaste system are described in Section 3.5. 5.2.1 Exposure Pathways All significant exposure pathways have. been considered in the design of these nuclear power plants. Radionuclides released to the atomosphere travel offsite, impacting the population via external radiation from the plume and/or deposited material on the ground or foliage, inhalation, and ingestion of food products containing radioactive materials. Liquid effluents to the Columbia River impact people via drinking water, irrigated foodstuffs, wildlife, and recreational activities such as fishing, swimming, boating and occupying the shoreline. Figure 5.2-1 shows the relationship of the WNP-1/4 plants with WNP-2, Hanford site boundary, nearest population center and nearest residential area with the highest offsite airborne concentration. Radionuclides released from the plant can be generally identified as to O their most probable offsite dose impact. For example, noble gases are C primarily an external exposure hazard since they generally do not enter the food chain through deposition on soil or foliage. Radioiodines are most significant through the pasture-cow-milk pathway. Tritium is assumed to behave identically as water. Other radionuclides, such as airborne particulates, are transferred through the environment by complicated relationsilips involving radionuclide deposition, uptake, accumulation, and transfer. Figures 5.2-2 and 5.2-3 illustrate generalized exposure pathways to man and animals, respectively. (1) 5.2.2 Radioactivity in the Environment l Liquid effluent radionuclide concentrations are shown in Table 5.2-1 at the WNP-1/4 plant discharge point for an average blowdown dilution flow of 7.2 cfs, the downstream slough area where extensive fishing is possible, the nearest public drinking water withdrawal point downstream, and the calculated radionuclide concentration in drinking water following treatment. Water used for irrigation would have the same concentration as determined for the potable i water forebay. The removal efficiency for the potable water treatment per element is shown in Table 5.2-2. This infonnation is based on historica lata accumulated by the government in support of their activities at Hanford.)t2(1 The downstream public water treatment facilities at Richland and Pasco have i efficient alum-floc treatment plants for which the removal efficiencies have been determined. O O 5.2-1
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O Information regarding airborne effluent radionuclides at 5 locations are shown in Table 5.2-3. These locations were as follows:
- 1. At the plant release points.
- 2. At the Columbia River shoreline, 2.4 miles ESE.
- 3. At T'aylor Flats, 3.3 miles ESE = the nearest significant residence in the southern direction.
- 4. At Ringold, 3.1 miles ENE = the nearest significant residence in the northern direction where few farms are located.
- 5. Restricted area = Site boundary, 0.5 mile SE.
cgncentration: were determin9d These(3 1.111 1 and computer code X0QD0Q.(4)using Ta the methodology of Regulatory Guide relative concentrations (Chi /Q in sec/m3)ble for5.2-4 each issector summary of the at several distances from the plant site. Table 5.2-5 provides the relative annual deposition (D/Q in Ci/m2-yr) factors for each sector and several distances. These tables were output from X0QD0Q, given the two-year meteorological sunmaries (joint frequency data). 5.2.3 Dose Rate Estimates For Biota Other Than Man Doses potentially received by biota from WNP-1/4 effluents are very small relative to the natural background dose received. Source terms for liquid and airborne releases are included in Tables 5.2-1 and 5.2-3, respectively. These source terms along with the guidelines in Regulatory Guides 1.109 and 1.111 were used to estimate the dose received, using NRC codes X0QD0Q, GASPAR, and LADTAP. Animals, birds and fish which obtain a living from the Columbia River receive an internal dose from radionuclides in their diet and an external dose from radionuclides in the air, water, or sediments.* Table 5.2-6 suninarizes the dose received by several types of biota living in or near the Columbia River f,om liquid effluents. 1 Animals such as deer, coyotes, and field mice that do not consume aquatic food or spend much time near the rivershore will receive their radiation exposure j through direct radiation from the plant's gaseous effluent plume, inhalation, ' ingestion of terrestrial vegetation, and external doses to exposure from contaminated ground. The total dose received from all of these pathways will i be very small. An animal such as a deer, spending 50% of its time 2.4 miles l l l'
- The average river flow rate is 120,000 CFS. Hence, sedimentation and expo-sure due to sediments is negligible.
O 5.2-2
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 3 (d SSE of the WNP-1 plant near the river, would receive an annual dose of less than 0.1 mrad / year from external radiation. Additional exposure would be received from inhalation and ingestion. However, the total annual dose from all pathways would still be less than 0.1 mrad / year. Previous U. S. government supported studies at Hanford have shown that , irradiation of salmon eggs at a rate of 500 mrad / day did not affegt of adult fish returning from the ocean or their ability to spawn.tS)the number Previously, when all the Hanford single-pass cooling production reactors were operating, studies were made on the effect of the released radionuclides on spawning salmon. These studies have shown no discernible pffect to these salmon by dose rates in the rage of 100 to 200 mrad / week.(N The estimated doses to biota from WNP-1/4 effluents will be orders of magnitude less than the doses experienced by biota from operation of the Hanford production reactors. Considering that no distinguishable affect on the biota from radiation was observed during operation of these reactors over many years, no perceptable effect from WNP-1/4 operation is expected. 5.2.4 Dose Rate Estimates For Man Estimated doses to the population within 50 miles of the WNP-1/4 plants and doses to individuals expected to rueive maximum doses because of their place of residence Guides 1.109(pq life-style 11 and 1.111(3)were using calculated using theGASPAR NRC codes X0QD0Q, guidance andin Regulatory LADTAP. (v) Table 5.2-7 sumarizes the annual radiation doses to an individual from WNP-1 effluents included in Tables 5.2-1 and 5.2-2. The dose from the WNP-4 plant is assumed to be equal to that from WNP-1, although in reality the doses will be slightly less because of the greater distance of WNP-4 from areas off the Hanford site. The cumulative doses from all plants (WNP 1, 2, and 4) are shown in Tables 5.2-11 and 5.2-12. 5.2.4.1 Liquid Pathways People may be exposed to the radioactive material released in the liquid effluent from WNP-1 or WNP-4 by drinking water, eating fish, eating irrigated f arm products and by participating in recreational activities on or along the Columbia River. l Drinking Water The population within 50 miles of the site, utilizing Columbia River water for drinking includes primarily the Tri-Cities area of Pasco, Kennewick and Richland. Registered upers of Columbia River water downstream of WNP-1 are shown in Table 5.2-8.(71 The dilution factor at the locations where the reactor treatment f acilities obtain the water is 17,000. With 24 hours i , O o i 5.2-3
WNP-1/4 l ER-OL
)
treatment time. Historically, Kennewick has obtained its water from groundwater drawn from collectors placed along the Columbia River. This water contained significantly lower concentrations of radionuclides of Hanford origin during operation of the once-through production reactors. This was attributed to the dilution provided by groundwater flows from the Kennewick Highlands into the acuifers adjacent to the river. However, during 1980, Kennewick began obtaining part of its water directly from the river. All of the Tri-cities (Richland, Pasco and Kennewick) have efficient alum-floc water treatment f acilities capable of removing a significant fraction of the radionuclides in the incoming water. Samples of water entering and leaving the Richland and Pasco treatment plants were collected and analyzed for several years under the government (AEC, ERDA, DOE) environmental monitoring program at Hanford. Results efficiencies in Table 5.2-2.(g(4these studies were used to define the removal Information pertaining to usage of Columbia River vater downstream of the site indicates withdrawal rights, other than Supply Sysum, of about 1,000,000 acre-ft/yr as determined from information in Table 5.2-8. The annual river flow is about 120,000 cfs or about 87,000,000 acre-ft/yr. Dose to an individual from drinking water was obtained from the NRC LADTAP computer code, and is listed in Table 5.2-7. The Input parameters used to calculate the individual dose from liquid effluents are shown in Table 5.2-9. Fish and Waterfowl Because fish will concentrate most radionuclides from the water they inhabit, the potential radiation dose from consumption of Columbia River fish was estimated for both the individual and the population within 50 miles of the plant. There is some waterfowl hunting around the perimeters of the Hanford Reservation. Some of these waterfowl could conceivably derive part of their diet from fish or aquatic plants from the water downstream of the plant. Based on the assumptions included in Table 5.2-9, the dose to an individual from fish consumption was calculated. This dose is included in Table 5.2-7. The dose potentially received from consumption of waterfowl would be relatively insignificant. Water Recreation Aquatic recreation is a popular pastime in the stretch of the Columbia River below the plant site. Swimming, boating, water skiing and picnicking along the shore or on islands could result in very small doses to the local population. These doses have been calculated, using the assumptions in Table 5.2-9 and are included in Table 5.2-7. O 5.2-4
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Irrigated Foodstuffs The Columbia River is used for irrigation several miles downstream of the WNP-1 outfall. The Riverview Area, approximately 12 miles downstream, is presently the nearest area using Columbia River water producing significant foodstuffs for the local population. The Riverview Area is about 5300 acres. Much of the irrigation water used to irrigate the extensive cropland near the Hanford Site is obtained from the Columbia River upstream of the Henford Site through the south Columbia Irrigation District canal system. Individual doses from irrigated foodstuffs is included in Table 5.2-7 using the assumptions shown in Table 5.2-9. 5.2.4.2 Gaseous Pathways People may be exposed to radioactive material released to the atmosphere via inhalation, external radiation and ingestion of f arm products. The maximum ground level concentration at a possible residence off the government controlled Hanford Site occurs approximately 3.3 miles from WNP-1 in the ESE sec tor. This area, Taylor Flats, is shown in Figure 5.2-1 and presently has essentially continuous occupancy. The area along the river and nearby bluffs is slightly closer than Taylor Flats but it is unlikely that anyone would establish a residence there. The bluffs rise steeply between 200 and 350 feet above the river elevation. The Ringold Area, about 3.1 miles ENE of the . g plant, is closer to WNP-1 than Taylor Flats but the annual average X/Q value g is slightly lower. Inhalation An individual living at Taylor Flats would potentially receive a very small dose due to inhalation of tritium, radioiodines and particulates as well as absorption of tritium through the skin. This dose is included in Table 5.2-7. All other dose estimates to people off the Hanford Site would be less than this estimate, including the dose potentially received by fishermen or people residing at Ringold. External Radiation External radiation from the plume or ground contamination would contribute an additional very small dose of radiation as shown in Table 5.2-7. The estimate for all plants are included in Tables 5.2-11 and 5.2-12. Farm Products Radiation doses potentially received from ingestion of foodstuffs contaminated with radionuclides deposited on the soil or foliage were calculated using the h (L.) 5.2-5 l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL GASPAR computer code. Food products considered in the analysis were vegetables, meat, cow milk and goat milk. Factors necessary to calculate the transfer of radionuclide from air to ground or foliage, foliage to animal, and animal to meat or milk are given in Table 5.2-10 and Appendix IV. The dose potentially received from f arm products is included in Table 5.2-7 . The dose to the infant thyroid from ingestion of cow or goat milk is apparently the limiting pathway compared to the 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, design criteria. This is sumarized in Section 5.2.5. 5.2.4.3 Direct Radiation From Facilit / WNP-1/4 is located in an area relatively remote from nearby residences, schools, hospitals, etc. The reactors, as shown in Figure 5.2-1, are located in the government controlled Hanford Site and are several miles from the nearest public f acilities (schools, hospitals) and private residences. Potential doses from effluent to the nearest residence have been analyzed in Sections 5.2.4.1 and 5.2.4.2. Possible direct radiation from the reactor f acilities to the general public would not add measurably to the doses estimated because of the low dose rates expected at the f acilities and the relatively large distances involved. 5.2.4.4 Annual Population Doses From Liquid and Gaseous Effluents Using the GASPAR and LADTAP computer codes, the population total body and thyroid doses were calculated to the people living within an approximate 50-mile radius for several pathways. Input parameters necessary to run the GASPAR code are shown in Table 5.2-10 and Appendix IV. Input parameters necessary to run the LADTAP code are shown in Table 5.2-9 and Appendix V. Table 5.2-11 lists the calculated annual total body dose to population within 50 miles of the site. The calculated annual thyroid dose to population within 50 miles of the site is shown in Table 5.2-12. The population distribution projected for the year 2000 was used in the calculations. The distributions for the distance from the site plant of 1-10 miles and 0-50 miles are shown in Tables 5.2-13 and 5.2-14, respectively. Dose received by the population of the contiguous United S+ ' :s beyond 50 miles from WPPSS operations would be an imea3 arable increment to the dose already received from natural background rad i ati c'1. 5.2.5 Sumary of Annual Radiation Doses Information contained in Sections 5.2.4.1 through 5.2.4.4 is sumarized herein and, in the case of individual doses, compared with design objectives included in Appendix I to 10 CFR 50. Tables 5.2-7, 5.2-11 and 5.2-12 sumarized the individual and population doses for the population residing within 50 miles of the WNP-1 plant. Table 5.2-15 provides a comparison of the O 5.2-6
WNP-1/4 . ER-OL calculated dose to the same population fron other sources of radiation. It is evident that the dose from operation of the WNP-1/4 reactors is a very small fraction of the dose routinely received from several other sources. The dose is actually less than the variability in population dose attributable to differences in natural background radiation received by members of the population. Individual doses are compared per reactor design with the design objectives of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, in Tables 5.2-16a and 5.2-16b. Comparison with the per site criteria of Docket RM-50-2 are also given (Table 5.2-16a and Table 5.2-16b). REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.1
- 1. Nuclear Regulatory Commis.sion, Calculation of Annual Doses to Man From Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10CFR Part 50, Apoendix 1, Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revision 1, October,1977.
- 2. David H. Slade, Meteorology and Atomic Energy,1968, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, July, 1968.
- 3. J. K. Soldat, et al., Models and Computer Codes for Evaluating Environmental Radiation Doses, BNWL-1754, Battelle-Northwest, Richland, .
) Washington, February,1974.
- 4. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Light - Water - Cooled Power Reactors, Regulatory Guide 1.112, April,1976.
- 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Metheds for Estimating Atmospheric, Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous t ffluents From Liaht - Water - Cooled Reactors, Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1, July,1977.
- 6. Washington Public Power Supply System, WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2, Environmental Report - Operating License Stage. Table 5.2-11, kmmendment 3, January,1979.
- 7. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, The Potential Radiological Implications of Nuclear Facilities in the Upper Mississippi River in the Year 2000, WASH-1209, January,1973.
1 A 5.2-7
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.2-1 RADIONUCLIOE CONCENTRATIONS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN COLlMBIA RIVER WATER
~
Concentration ( Ct/ml) at WNP-1 Annual Olscharge(a) Slough Richland Drinking Radlonuclide Release (a) Point Area River Water H-3 3.7E+02 5.7E-05 3. 4E -08 3.4E-09 3. 4E -09 CR-51 1.4E-04 2.2E-11 1. 3E -14 1. 3E-15 1. 2E-15 Mn-54 1.0E-03 1.6E-10 9.4E-14 9. 4E-15 4. 7E-15 Fe-55 1.2E-04 1.9E-11 1.1E-14 1.1E-15 2. 2E-16 Fe-59 8.0E-05 1.2E-11 7.1E-15 7.lE-16 1.4E-16 Co-58 5.2E-03 8.1E-10 4.8E-13 4.8E-14 9.6E-15 Co-60 8.8E-03 1.4E-09 8.2E-13 8.2E-14 1.6E-14 Br-83 4.0E-05 6.2E-12 3.6E-14 3.1E-16 2.9E-14 Rb-86 2.0E-05 3.lE-12 1.E-15 1.E-16 1.6E-16 SR-89 3.0E-05 4.7E-12 2.8E-15 2.8E-16 5.6E-17 Sr-90 5.0E-05 7. 7E-12 4.5E-15 4.5E-16 9.0E-17 Sr-91 2.0E-05 3.1E-12 1.8E-15 1.8E-16 3.6E-17 Y-91M 1.0E-05 1.6E-12 9. 4E-16 9,4E-17 1.9E-17 Zr-95 1.4E-03 2.2E-10 1.3E-13 1. 3E-14 1.3E-14 Mb-95 2.0E-03 3.1E-10 1. E-13 1.E -14 1.8E-14 Mo-99 5.2E-02 8.1E-09 4.8E-12 4.8E-13 4.3E-13 Tc-99m 3.5E-02 5.4E-09 3.2E-12 3. 2E-13 2. 2E-13 Ru-103 1.4E-04 2.2E-11 1. 3E-14 1. 3E-15 6.5E-16 Ru-106 2.4E-03 3.7E-10 2.2E-13 2.2E-14 1.1E-14 Ag-110s 4.4E-04 6.82-11 4.0E-14 4.0E-15 4.0E-15 Te-127m 2.0E-05 3.1E-12 1.E.15 1. E-16 1.4E-16 Te-127 4.0E-05 6.2E-12 3.6E-15 3.6E-16 2.9E-16 O Te-129m Te-129 Te-131m 1.1E-04 7.0E-05 6.0E-05 1.7E-11 1.lE-11
- 9. 3E-12 1.0E-14
- 6. 5E-15 5.5E-15 1.0E-15 6.5E-16 5.5E-16 8.0E-16 5.2E-16 4.4E-16 Te-131 5.0E-05 7.8E-12 4.6E-15 4.6E-16 3.7E-16 Te-132 1.3E-03 2.0E-10 1. 2E-13 1. 2E-14 9.6E-15 I-130 9.0E-05 1.4E-11 8.2E-15 8.2E-16 6.6E-16 I-131 2.2E-02 3.4E-09 2.0E-12 2.0E-13 1.6E-13 I-132 2.0E-03 3.1E-10 1.8E-13 1.8E -14 1.4E-14 I-133 1.9E-02 3.0E-09 1.8E-12 1.8E-13 1.4E-13 I-134 2.0E-05 3.1E-12 1.8E-15 1.8E -16 1.4E-16 I-135 5.6E-03 8.8E-10 5.1E-13 5.lE-14 4.1E-14
- Cs-134 2.3E-02 3.6E-09 2.1E-12 2.lE-13 1.9E-13 Cs-136 2.6E-03 4.1E-10 2.4E-13 2. 4E-13 2. 2E-13 Cs-137 3.2E-02 5.0E-09 2.9E-12 2.9E-13 2.6E-13 Ba-137m 7.1E-03 1.lE-09 6.5E-14 6.5E-14 2.6E-14 Ba-140 1.0E-05 1.6E-12 9. 4E-16 9.4E-17 3.8E-17 La-140 5.0E-05 7.8E-12 4. 6E-15 4. 6E-16 9.2E-17 Ce-144 5.2E-03 8.lE-10 4.8E-13 4.8E-14 9.6E-15 Np-239 U.0E-05 1. 3E-11 7. 6E-15 7.6E-16 5.3E-16 (a)7.2 ft /sec 3 average discharge flow (equivalent to 6.44 x 1/2 cc/yr)
O 1 l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.2-2 FRACTION OF ELEMENT PASSING THROUGH WATER TREATMENT PLANT ELEMENT FRACTION ELEMENT FRACTION ELEMENT FRACTION ELEMENT FRACTION H 1.0 SB 1.0 C0 .2 IR 1.0 HE 1.0 TE .8 NI .2 PT 1.0 LI 1.0 I .8 CU .6 AU 1.0 BE 1.0 XE 1.0 ZN .4 HG 1.0 S 1.0 CS .9 GA 1.0 TL 1.0 0 1.0 BA .4 GE 1.0 PB 1.0 N 1.0 LA .2 AS 1.0 BI 1.0 0 1.0 CE .2 SE 1.0 P0 1.0 F 1.0 PR .2 BR .8 AT 1.0 NE 1.0 ND 1.0 KR 1.0 RN 1.0 NA .9 PM 1.0 RB .9 FR 1.0 MG 1.0 SM 1.0 SR .2 RA 1.0 AL SI 1.0 1.0 EU GD 1.0 1.0 Y ZR
.2 1.0 AC TH 1.0 1.0 h
P .4 TB 1.0 NB 1.0 PA 1.0 S 1.0 DY 1.0 M0 .9 U 1.0 CL 1.0 H0 1.0 TO .7 NP .7 AR 1.0 ER 1.0 RU .5 PU 1.0 K 1.0 TM 1.0 RH .5 AM 1.0 CA 1.0 YB 1.0 PD 1.0 CM 1.0 SC 1.0 LU 1.0 AG 1.0 BK 1.0 il 1.0 HF 1.0 OD 1.0 CF 1.0 V 1.0 TA 1.0 IN 1.0 ES 1.0 CR .9 W .9 SN 1.0 FM 1.0 MN .5 RE 1.0 FE .2 OS 1.0 0
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.2-3 AIRBORNE RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS AT 4 SPECIAL LOCATIONS __ Concentration ( Ci/CC)(a)(b) WNP-1 Restricted Annual Area River Taylor R adionuclide Release Boundary Shoreline Flats Ringold H-3 1.1E+03 7.3E-10 2.2E-11 1.3E-11 1.2E-11 C-14 8.0E+00 5.3E-12 1.6E-13 9.1E-14 8.6E-14 Ar-41 2.5E+01 1.7E-11 4.9E-13 2. 9E-13 2.7E-13 Mn-54 4.3E-04 2.9E-16 8.5E-18 4.9E-18 4.6E-18 Fe-59 1.5E-04 1.0E-16 3.0E-18 1.7E-18 1.6E-18 Co-58 1.5E-03 1.0E-15 3.0E-17 1.7E-17 1.6E-17 Co 6.7E-04 4.5E-15 1.3E-17 7.7E-18 7.2E-18 Kr83m 2.0E+00 1.3E-12 3.9E 2.3E-14 2.2E-14 Kr-85m 1.9E+01 1.3E-11 3.7E-13 2.2E-13 2.1E-13 Kr-85 7.7E+02 5.1E-10 1.5E-11 8.8E-12 8.3E-12 Kr-87 5.0E 00 3.3E-12 9,8E-14 5.7E-14 5.4E-14 Kr-88 2.5ET01 1.7E-11 4.9E-13 2.9E-13 2.7E-13 Sr-89 3.3E-05 2.2E 6.5E-19 3.8E-19 3.6E-19 O Sr-90 Xe-131m Xe-133m
- 5. 9E-06 1.1E 02 1.4ET02 3.9E-18 7.3E-11 9.3E-11 1.2E-19 2.2E-12 2.8E-12 6.7E-20 1.3E-12 1.7E-12 6.4E-20 1.2E-12 1.5E-12 Xe-133 1.4E+04 9.3E-09 2.8E-10 1.6E-10 1.5E-10 Xe-135 9.5E+01 6.3E-11 1.9E-12 1.1E-12 1.0E-12 Xe-138 2.0E+00 1.3E-12 3.9E-14 2.3E-14 2.2E-14 I-131 3.9E-02 2.6E-14 7.7E-16 4.5E-16 4.2E-16 I-133 3.3E-02 2.2E-14 6.5E-16 3.8E-16 3.6E-16 Cs-134 4.3E-04 2.9E-16 8.5E-18 4.4E-18 4.6E-18 Cs-137 7.4E-04 4.9E-16 1.5E-17 8.5E-18 8.0E=18 (a)X/Q values were used as follows: Restricted Area Boundary 2.1x10-5 ec/m3 River Shoreline 6.2x10- sec/m3 Taylor Flats 3.6x10- sec/m3 Ringold 3.4x10- sec/m3 (b) Radionuclides with annual release less than 1.0 Ci/ year for noble gas, and less than 0.001 C1/ year for Iodine and particulates are not listed in Table 5.2-3.
O
TABLE 5.2-4 l DISPERSION 8 DEPOSITION XOODOQTABLES FOR WNP-1 . WAP-1..AL(.PELEASE, POINTS _ . SITC ANNUAL..M/O D AT A. SEC/M3 f DIR 0.0-1. l.-2. 2.-3. 3.-4. 4.-5. 5.-10. 10.-20. 20.-30. 30.-48. 40.-58. l .N 9 492E-06 3 960 E-06,6.3 32E -C T 3 3 2 0E - O F_2.ll AE.-01_9. l i3C-9 8_3. T 35E.-08.1.9 30E- 08 1. 2 600-0 8 9 195E-0 9_ l NNE 7.110 E - 0 6 1 659E-06 5.33tE-C7 2.772C-07 1.756E-07 9 022E-09 3.014E-04 1.537C-38 9 953E-09 7.219E-49 i NC 5. 60 3E - 0 6 I.30tt-06 4 1710-C7 2.173E-OF 1.378E-0 7 6.313C-0 4 2 38 2E-et 1.219E-88 7.912E= e9 5.7 49E-09
.ENE 5. 063E r 06 .1 5 83 E-06. 3.P 2 0E SCT. I .9 94 E-0 7_1 267E-0 T_5 8190-s t .2 20 2E-O s .l.12 SE-08. F. 3 31E-89.5.3 2 SE-09.
d E 4.745E-06 1 105E-06 3 556E-t7 1.854E-07 1.177E-07 *,.399E-03 2 041E-08 1.045E-Os 6.798E-09 4s936E-89 f ESE 9 144E-06 1 929E-06 6 227E-t r 3.2 45E-O F 2.0590-0 7 9.419E-e m 3.54 2C-Os 1.OOSE- 09 1.16aE-e e s.4 66E-09 SC 1 855E -05 2 4 47 E-06 .7 916E-C T. 4.153C-0 7 2.648[-07 1 222E-07.9 664C-c5 2.403E-89 1.567E-05 1 142C-88. i SSE 1 009 E -05 2.3 09 E-06 7 500E-E7 3.9 62C-0 7 2.5 380-07 1 182E-0 7 4 57 BE-Os 2 38 0E-88 1.5E2[-O s 1.143E-O s , S P.017E-06 1 0 3 3F-06 5 961E -O F 3.162E-0 7 2.03tE-0 7 9.506E-0 9 3. 78 9E-Os 1 945E-88 1.282E-te 9 418E-01 1 _SSW 6.54 FE- 96. 3.4 76 E-06 4.e25E-57 .2.572E-0 7.1.658E-87. T.797E-08.3. 065E -e s. t.615E-Oe 1. etet-ce 7.8 58E-09 , SW 5.699 E-06 1 2 7 F E-06 4 209E-8 7 2.264E-0 7 1.468[-0 7 6 9 72E-OS 2. 7F6E-0 8 1 475E-es 9.793E-49 7 230E-09 l WSW 4 361E-06 9.89tE-OF 3 241E-C7 1.728E-OF 1.114E-07 5.2 4eE-08 2 056E-te 1.091E-Ed 7.135E-89 '5.2 45E-09 I ! W ,. 3. 959 E - 0 6 M . 7 3 7 E_g0 7 2 454 E- C f .) .5 2 tE- 07.9.9 0 0E-O s _4.6 05E-0 5.1.Se 6E-Os .9.9 91E- 89 6.262[-89 4.6 83E-0 9. WNW 4 051L-04 9.282E-07 2 9970-C 7 1 578E-0 7 1.008E -07 4.6 FTE-O S 1 79 9E-04 9.337E-09 6 115E-89 4.47tE-89 i NW 5. 0 9 8 E - 0 6 1.181[-06 3 800E-C7 1.986E-87 1.2620-07 5.864E-09 2.20 2C-ee 1 130E-88 7.355E-39 5.352[-09 I ,NNW F.940E-0G 1.817[-06.5 87?[-CT_3.092E-OF 3.964E-07_9 060E-OS,3.454E-08.1.F88E-08.1.161E-es e.45eE-99, ) WNP=l ALL RELEASE POIN75 i SITE ANNUAL DECA 7ED m/0 FOR >[dl33P. .SEC/P3, . . . . _ DIR 0.0-1 1.-2. 2.-3. 3.-4. , 4.-5. 5.-10. 10.-20. 20.-38. 30.-40. 40.-50. ' N 5 461E-06 1 950 E-06 6.2 70E-0 F 3 2 74E*3 F 2 079E-0 7 9.4 92E-O S 3.520E-08 1.F46E-08 1 056E-08 F.692E-09 i NNE,F.099E-06 1.650E-06 5.215E-07 2.73tE-07 1.722E-OF F. 7 7 4 E-0 9 2. $260 -0 e 1.3 7 8E- 08 8. 5 4 2E- 89 5 933E-09 NE 5.5d40-06 1 292E-06 4 12tE-07 2.135E-DF 1 34 FE-O F 6.0 9 F E-0 9 2.2t tE -0 8 1 0 7 4 E- 08 6.6 22E-0 9 4.5 7 30-0 9 LNE 5 045E-06 1 175E-06 3. 7 71E-0 7 1.95aE-S F 1.2 37E-O F 5.591[-0 3 2.035E-0e 9 3 73E-09 6.0 780-09 4 189E-01 pt aE 3B gg j E 4. 721[-06 1. 09 A E-06_ 3.513 E-0 7.1.8 22E- O F ,1 1510-O F 5.2 06E-0 9 1. 89 5C-0 5 9.217E-09 5.691[-09 3.9 34 E-09 y i ESE *.157E-06 1 917 E-06 6.154 E -C7 3.19 tt-0 F 2.014E-0 7 9.094 E-O S 3. 29 FC-0 3 1.59ht-OS 9.849E-09 6.802E-09 {g;, 50 1.053E-05 2 432E-06 F.627E-C7 4.0870-8F 2.593E-0F 1 1A2E-07 4.354C-08 2.139E-09 1.331E-Os 9.259E-09 p. %s 4, SSE 1 005 E-05 2. 293(-0 6_7. 4 0 4 E-C 7 3.8 90E-0 7. 2 179E-0 7.1.13 FC-0 7.4. 22 FE -08 2.0860-08 1 298E-Os 9 018E-09. & I S A.065E-06 1.919E-06 5.E79E-C7 3 099E-07 1 980E-07 9 117C-09 3.406E-OS 1 685E-08 1 0 49E-Os 7.2 74E-09 SSW 6 521E-06 1 465E-06 4.75RE-87 2.521E-OF 1 615E-07 T.476L-08 2 812C-08 1.397E-Os e.710E-09 6 0 49E-09 SW 5 675C-06_t.267E-06 4.1500-t7,2.219E-07 1 4 3 t E-0 7 6.6 82[-0 9 2. 54 6E = 0s 1.2 7 5E-0 5 7.9 E90-09 5.5 E IE-0 9 ] WSW 4.343[-06 9.814E-07 3.196E-C7 1.694E-OF 1 096E-07 5 022C-04 1.SS6E-08 9.34tE-89 5.st1E-09 4 028E-09 W 3.9410-06 9.662E-07 2 810E-0 7 1 4 8 FC -07 9.522E-0 9 4.395C-09 1 641E-08 9 072[-e9 4.90EE-09 3 432[-09 l WNW 4.042E-06 9.203[-87 2 752E-ti 1 5440-OF 9 904[-08 4.46)E?09 1 64eC-08 7.9780-09 4 902C-09 3.364E-09 NW 5.0300-06 1.17JE-06 3.753E-C7 1 95tE-07 1 2 34[-0 F 5.592C-0 8 2. 04 tC-0 8 9.942[-09 6 143C-89 4 2490-09 . NNW 7. 91 S [ - 06.1. 8 0 3 r .n s s.assr-cf 1.o11r-07 1.929E-0 7 9. F 91E-0 9 3 25 5E-0 8 1 61tE-05 1 009C-08 7.575E-09 1 WNP-1 ALL RELE ASE POINTS , , _. l SITE ANNUAL DECATED . DLPLETED >#Q nata. SEC/M3 j D14 0s0-1. 1.-2. 2.-3. 3.-4. 4.-5. 5.-10. 10.-20. 20.-30. 38.-40. 48.-50. j .N 7.613C-06,1.676E-06 5 133E-C7,2 586E-GF 1 594E-07 6.899E-08 2 3t eE-es.1.e43E-08 6.13eE-09 4 086E-07. NNE 6 3F3E-06 1.420E-06 4.321E-0 7 2. t S9E-0 7 1.322[-O F 5.662E-0 9 1.86 20-8 8 a.283C-89 4.8 23E-8 9 3.192E=e9 l NE 5.022[-06 1 133E-06 3. 3 2 0E - t i 1 690E-07 1 0 37E-0 7 4.448 E-89 1.46 7E-0 5 6.536E-09 3.G eFE-89 2.519E-0 9 ENE 4.539E-06 1.012E-06 3 094E-07 1 551E-0 7_9.527E-08. 4.0 97E-e s 1. 355E-08 6.041[-09 3 519E-09 2.327E-09 E 4 2530-06 2.461E-OF 2.RMIE-OF t.442E-07 4.8520-04 3.8 04[-0 9 1.257E-08 5 60SE-09 3.265[-e9 2 164E-09 ESE F.334E-06 1.t S E E-06 5. 0 46E -C F 2.5 25E-O F 1 54mE-e7 6.6 40E-O S 2.19 4C-09 9.694E-09 5.632E-09 3.719E-8 9
, SE 9.4520-06 2 095 E-06 6.415t-87 3 2 32E-0 7,1.992E -0 7 4 6190:0 9. 2 8 7 FC-06 .1 2 93E708 F.5 71E-09 5 0 29E-89 SSE 9 044 E-06 1 976E-06 6. 0 75E - t 7 3 0810 -0 7 t .909E-0 7 8 319E-Os 2. 811E-88 1.274E-te F.5ee[-89 4.99aE-89 i 5 7.259E-06 1 569E-06 4.827E-07 2 459E-07 1 526[-0F 6.685E-04 2 276E-88 1 0 38E- 08 6 130E-09 4.093E-0 9 SSW 5 969E-06 1.263E-06 3.906E-07 1 991E-0 7.1 246E =0 F 5.482E-09 1 990E *0 s ,8.617E-09 5 10lE-89 3 412E-9 9 ! SW 5.10 3 E - 06 1 093E-06 3.4 08E-ti 1.760E-e i 1.10 3[-O F 4.900E-0 9 1 70 2C-se 7.866E-89 4.677E-e9 3 138E-09
- WSW 3 909E-06 8 462E-07 2.624f-C7 1 344[-07 A.3F30-09 3 684E-0 9 1 26 tC-Os 5.766E-09 3 4 0 7E-09 2 2 76E-09
! W 3. 453 E-06 7. 4 74 E-0 7, 2. 310E - ti 1 181Ert r F.35aE-OR,3.2 34E-09.1 185E -04 5.et eE-09 2 9 72[-99.1 9 81E-89 WNW 3.639E-06 F.940E-07 2.426E-CF 1 226E-ei 7.573C-08 3 2eFE-09 1 182E-88 4 966E-09 2.S etE-89 1 959E-99
- NW 4.569 E-06 1. Ol l E -0 6 3. 0 78E-t i 1.5 45E-0 F i.495E-On 4.089E-89 1 356E-te 6.86eE- 09 3.5 37E= e9 2.3 44E-09 NNW 7.028E-06 1.556E-06 4. 766E-C7 2 4 00C=0 E 4 479E-8 7 6 396E-09 2 136E-08 9.62eE-09 5.646E-09 3.759E-89
TABLE 5.2-5 DEPOSITION XOQDOQ TABLE FOR WNP-1 W f;P - 1 AEL REEEASE POINis SITE ANNOAL DEPOSIT!CN DATA. N-2 . . 014 0.0-1. l.-P. 2.-3. 3.-4. 4.-5. 5.-10. 10.-20. 20.-30. 30.-40. 40.-50. N 1.971E-03 7.970E-09 2 081 E -09 a .3 45r - 10 5.2* FE-10 2.0 3 3E-10 5. 841E-11 2.331E-11 1 2 45E-11 7.7 05E-12 NNE 3. 44 FE -0 4 7.471E-09 1.9*0E-t9 8.760E-10 4.9560-10 1 9060-10 5.513E-11 2 18 5E- 11 1 16 f E-11 7.222 E-12 NE 2 412E-03 5 104E-02 1 333E-C9 5.9850-10 3.396E-10 1 302E-10 3.766E-11 1 493E-11 F.972E-12 9 934E-12 ENE 1 7060-03 3.90SE-09 1 019E -f 9 4.5 7 AE -10 2.59 0E-10 9.9 60 E-11 2. 841E-11 1.14 2E- 11 6. 01 EE- 12 5.7 7
- E-12 E E 1 9T10-04 4.050E-09 1 057E-C9 4.749E-10 2 6960-10 1 033E-10 2 989E-11 1 18 4E- 11 6. 32*C-12 3.915E-12 2!
ESE SE
- 3. 4 0 4 E -0 4 6.472E-09 1 820E-09 a.175E-10 9.624E-10 1.T7AE-10 5.145E-11 2 039E-11 1 089C-11 6.F40E-12 4 153E-03 9.51af-09 2.224E-C9 9.987E-10 5.650E-10 2.173E-10 5.245E-11 2 491E-11 1.3300-11 8.2 3 4 E-12 '
ss C) =* SSE 2. M 3 E -0 4 6 111 E-0 9 1.595E-09 T.1650-10 4.053E-10.1 5510-10 4. 50 ?C -11_ !. 78 7E- 11 9. 5 4 3E- 12 5.9 0 F E-12 F ); S 2 244E-04 4.59FE-0* 1 200E-t9 5.390E-10 3.04*E-10 1.1730-10 3.392C-11 1.34 4[- 11 7.18 0E-12 4.4 4 4 E-12 SSW 1 74)C-08 3.*RJE-0? 9.3530-10 9 201E-10 2 376E-10 9 133E-11 2 64 4E-11 1 0 4eE- 11 5.59'E-12 3.4 63E-12 ' SW 3 219E-09 2.496E-09 6. 515 E - 10 2.926E-10 1.655E-10 6.366E-11 1.S42E-11 7.299E-12 3 8SEE-12 2 413[-12 USW 3.010E-03 2 069E-09 5.402E-10 2.4260-10 1.3F2E-10 5.2F9E-11 1.52 FE -11 6.051E- 12 3.2 31E-12 2.0 00E-12 ' W 7.461E-02 1.530E-02 3.993E-10 1 793E-10 1.015E-10 3.502C-11 1.129E-11 4.4 7 4[- 12 2. 3 e9E-12 1.9 79E-12 WNW 9.362E-09 1.*36E-09 4. 792T -10 2.152C-)0_1 71RE ,10 .4.682E-!! .1.355E -11. 5.368E-12 2.8 67E-12 1 7 74 E-12 NW l.615E-09 3.309E-09 S.638E-10 3.8 0 0E-10 2 195E-10 3.4 40E- 11 2 4 4 2E-11 9.677E-12 5 16dC-12 3 199E-12 NNW 3.066E-03 6.280E-09 1 639E-E9 7.3630-10 4.165E-10 1.602E-10 4 . 614E - 11 1.83FE-11 9.809E-12 6.0700-12 O O O
TABLE 5.2-6 ANNUAL DOSE TO BIOTA FROM WNP-1/4 LIQUID EFFLUENTS Dose (mrad /yr) Biota Dilution Factor Internal External Total Fish 1/1700 6.6E-03 7.1E-03 1.4E-02 Invertebrate 1/1700 6.8E-03 1.4E-02 2.1E-02 Algae 1/1700 1.1E-02 1.8E-05 1.1E-02 Muskrat 1/1700 3.3E-02 4.7E-03 3.8E-02 Raccoon 1/1700 2.1E-03 3.5E-03 5.6E-03 Heron 1/1700 1.8E-01 4.7E-03 1.8E-01 Duck 1/1700 2. 9E-02 7.1E-03 3.6E-02 O Y O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.2-7 ESTIMATED ANNUAL MAXIM!N DOSE TO AN INDIVIDUAL FROM WIP-la Annual Dose (mrem) to an Adult Annual Dilution Total Pathway Exposure Location Factor Skin Body GI-LLI Thyroid Bone Liquid Drinking water 814 1 Richland 1/17,000 4.0E-04 3.8E-04 6.3E-04 2.8E-05 Fish 48 kg Richland 1/I,700 4.5E-02 7.1E -03 3.0E-03 3.5E-02 Shoreline 298 hr Richland 1/17,000 5.6E-05 4.8E-05 4.8E-05 4.8E=05 4.8E-05 Food Productsb Vegetables 529 kg Richland 1/17,000 2.5E-04 2.4E-04 2.4E-04 1.6E-05 Leary vegetation 29 kg Richland 1/17,000 1. 4E-05 1. 3E-05 1. 3E-05 1. 2E-06 Milk 224 1 Richland 1/17,000 1.lE-04 9.7E-05 1.2E-04 1.GE-05 Nat 119 kg Richland 1/17,000 5. 5E-05 7.0E-05 5. 9E-05 1. 9E-06 Totaid 3, eg _o3 g,5E UI i.vt-U3 T TE UT 3. St -02 Air _ Siamersion Taylor Flats 3.6E-07 1. 2E-01 3.8E-02 3.8E-02 3.8E-02 3.eE-02 Inha:ation 8766h5 8000 m Taylor Flats 3.6E-07 1.6E-02 1.6E-02 1.6E -02 2.1E-02 2.3E-05 Ground Contamination 8766 hr Taylor Flats 3. 6E-07 9. 0E-04 7. 7E-04 7. 7E-04 7. 7E-04 7. 7E-04 Food Products vegetables 555 kg Taylor Flats 3.6E-07 5.3E-02 5.3E-02 5.3E-02 6.2E-02 7.6E-02 Cow Milk 274 1 Taylor Flats 3.6E-07 2.0E-02 2.1E -02 2.1E-02 2.lE-02 5.6E-02 InfantC 346 1 Taylor Flats 1.lE-01 1.lE-01 1.lE-01 3.8E-01 3.0E-01 Goat Milk 274 1 Taylor Flats 3.6E-07 3. 5E -02 3.fE-02 3.5E-02 7.8E-02 3. 4E-02 Infante 346 1 Taylor Flats 1.5E-01 1. 5E-01 1.5E-01 4.8E-01 3.IE-03 Meat 98 kg Taylor Flats 3. 6E-0/ 1.2E-02 1.2E-02 1. 2E-02 1. 3E-02 3.1E-02 Totald z. zt -u i 1.4t-ui s.et-UI i.bt-UU z. ut -U (a) Annual exposures, except for air submersion, inhalation and grourd contamination are for a maximum individual. An average population member is assumed to consume one-half of those quantities resulting in anneal adult dose rates which are one-half of the annual dose to the maximum individcal. (b) Annual exposures listed for the liquid effluent are different from the values listed for the gaseous effluent due to the averaging technique used to calculate LADTAP consumption input parameters. (c) Consumption of goat milk by an infant is assumed to be the same as the consumption of cow milk. It is also assumed that infant milk consumption is the same as chlid consumption. A consumption rate of 346 liter / year used in LADTAP is listed here. (d) Adult consnulative dose from all pathways, excluding goat milk. O O O
WNP-1/4. ' ER/OL T BLE 5.2 3 , WATER USAGE 50 MILES' DOWNSTREAM OF WNP-1m
/3s Registered Columbia River. Surface Water Withdrawals
'V Loestion of Diversion Quantity type Name tru ehtpy Range gtg tefe) U e.
Washirgton Public Power Supply System L. L. Bailey 11 ' 28 *2 90 In 11 28 24 2 I M. D. Lloyd 11 28 24 0.99 D.I Central ' Premix Concrete Company 11 28 26 1.78 In Pac!.fic Nor thwest LaLocatories 10 - 28 14 4.4 I University of waanington 10 ' 28 23 1.75 2 City of Richlan.1 ~10 28 24 0.67 D
- n. J. 31oal .10 28 26 0.01 I city of nichland 10 28 25 54.25 o E. C. watts 9 El 1 0.31 D,2 B. S. Petty 9 28 1 0.48 I N. N. .and M. 7.. Matchersid 9 28 1 1.66 -I G. C. W41kley '( 28 1 2.32 I L. morrigan -
-9^ 28 11&12 2.54 "I Premi n 'Cor.c r e te , Inc. 9 28 12 1.10 In City of Richland(Msmorial Park Colf C1c) 9 28 13 2.0 I Benton County 9 29 28 1.0 I City of Pasco _ 9 30 31 35.0 D
- r. J. Henckel 8 30 14 0.015 I Allied Chea1 cal and Dye i.ompany , 8 30 14 3.55 In '
Phillips Pacific Chemical Company S 30 24 82 ' In Phillips Pacit ic Chemical Cc apany 8 30 ' 24 20 In U.S. Department of the Interior - 8 31 ' 5 1.0 I U.S. Department of the Interior 8 ~71 21 0.85 I - - - U.S. Department of thn ' Interior 8 31 21 0.91 I-U.S. D?partment of tlx: Interior 8 31 21 0.5 I U.S. Bureau of Peelamation '_
,8 31 20 S0.0 I soise Cascade Corporation -
7' 31 10 24.5 'la L.D. Mcyt, et al.' 7 31 15 -179.8 . .!' 1rrigro Limiteds Partnership 5 30 6 13.66 I l- Irrigro'Limitad Partnership ' 5 30 6 10.2 1 t frrigro'L'aitkd Partnership 3 30 6 37.4 I I i [%' ( Irrigro Limit ad Partnership kashington Stat.e Dept. of Natural Res. 5 5 30 30 6 6 27.8 15.0 I I l C. & H. Cox , 5 29 2 55.1 I N.R. Anderson, et al . 5 29 5 N.r. Anderson, e t- al. 5. 29 9 242. I
- N.T .' Ander son, e t al. 5 28 2 WA State- Came Cepsttaant 12 28 3 1.90 I WA Stato Came Depar tment 12 28 23 0.86 I J.J. Weicon.e Const.'Co. 11 28 2 -- 0. 8 0 r0 Ivan L. Huffman 10 29 25 0.01 I Franklin Co. Irr. Dist. 9_ 29 , 18627 83.0 I Benton Co. for U.S. Corps of Engineers 9 29 - 20 0.448 * 'I Benton Co. for 9.S. Corps of Engineers 9 29' 20 0.672 2 Benton Coc Parks and Recreation Dept. 9 29 35 0.50 I Fort of Pasco -
8 30 4 14.5 rp Chevron Chemical Co. 3 30 23 49.0 I!6rP U.S. Department of* Interior
'8 31 21 4.46 1
, v.L. Layto.g ' 7 31 5 1.00 I I Her ry Tsmieu Sr. Trust -1 31 15 227.0 I l Cact1 S. Cunoming s ., -7 31 26 5.2 2 WA State Came Gepartment 7 31 30 1.4 I N.a. Fisher
's. -
7 32 30 1.8 I E.J. Lynch 7 32 30 9. 0~ I E.J. Lynch 7 32 30 24.0 -Ze Marion C. Fielding 6 30 27 32.80 I, B+rbarosa Farms 6 30 27 27.62 1 {plications - Not A1rrored as of Jinuary 3, 1978 * -
-cueston '
5 28 > '2 757.5 I Hnr oe Heaven l'.irrw 5 29 6 82.0 I. -r Horne lleaven F.aris 5 29 6 550.0 I llorse Heaven rarms ,,.5 ' 29 6 290.0 I ', U.S. Dureau of 'fwl.pa tion 8 31 20 10.0 - I r.ohlenbacher Yatra ' 9 21 28 0.44 I WA Nate Univica n ty,' ' 11 24 11 2.25 I
~ . . _ , .
kn-- i- bomci. tac or Hunicipal Uses , s ! ' Irrigation amt ot her agricultitr.1 uscs i fu - Indur.tri.nl gj TP - Firu Prot ect son, 1:0 - tuvis onn nl ei o.zality Il - Itcat 1;a c ha n.)O
- k. -
4
. *t .
/
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.2-9 INPUT PARAETERS USED TO CALCULATE MAXIMlN INDIVIDUAL DOSE FROM LIQUID EFFLUENTS
.Orinking Water River Dilation: 17,000 River Trer. sit Time: 12 hours WaterTreatment and Delivery Time: 24 hours Usage Factors: Adult = 814 1/yr Teenager = 567 1/yr Child a 567 1/yr Infant = 567 1/yr Fish River Dilution: 17,000 for Richland 1,700 for WNP-1 Slough Time To Consumption: 24 hours Usage Factors: Adult = 48 kg/yr Teenager = 36 kg/yr Child = 15 kg/yr Infant =0 Recreation River Dilution: 17 000 Shoreline Width Factor: 0.E Usage Factors: Shoreline Activities: Adult = 238 hr/yr Teenager = 1665 hr/yr Child = 349 hr/yr Infant =0
~
Swimming: Adult = 59 hr/yr Teenager = 336 hr/yr Child = 68 hr/yr _ Boating: Adult = 145 hr/yr
~
Teenager = 31 hr/yr Child . = 0 hr/yr Infant =0 Irrigated For>dstuffs River Dilution: 17,000 River Transit Time: 12 hours Leafy Vegetables Milk Meat Vegetable Food Delivery Time: 60 days 48 hours 20 days 24 hours Usage factors: Adult 520 kg/yr 224 1/yr 119 kg/yr 29 kg/yr Teentger 670 kg/yr 408 1/yr 74 kg/yr 36 kg/yr Child 559 kg/yr 346 1/yr 46 kg/yr 29 kg/yr Infant 0 0 0 0 Monthly Irrigation Rate: ?50 1/n2 jypifm2 160 1/m2 200 1/m2
- Annudl Yield: $ h pv2 i." 1/m2 2.0 kg/m 2 1.5 kg/m2 Annual Growing Period: It s'; t+ ?0 days 130 days 70 days Annual 50-mile production ' SE+07 7. 3E +06 2.6E 46 8.0E+05
+
0 m-
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O TABLE 5.2-10 INPUT PARAMETERS USED TO CALCULATE INDIVIDUAL AND POPULATION DOSE FROM GASE0US EFFLUENTS METEOROLOGY GASPAR meteorological Input received from X0QD0Q a.e shown in Tables 5.2-4 and 5.2-5. SOURCE TERMS GALE-Gaseous output. Data shown in Table 5.2-3. DEMOGRAPHY Used data shown in Tables 5.2-13 and 5.2-14. USAGE FACTOR All usage f actors used in GASPAR code are listed in Table 5.2-7. TRANSFER FACTORS i { All environmental transfer f actors pertaining to GASPAR code are listed in Table 5.2-10a, 5.2-10b and 5.2-10c. DOSE FACTORS All dose f actors used in GASPAR code were the ones listed in Reg. Guide 1.109. FOODSTUFF PRODUCTION WITHIN 50 MILES Vegetation (leafy vegetables included) 2.0E+07 kg Milk 9.9E+06 liters Meat 3.5E+06 ko O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.2-10a G0AT MILK TRANSFER FACTORS GOAT MILK TRANSFER PARAMETERS ELEMENT PARAMETER H .17000 8 .01200 0 .10000 MG .04200 P .25000 CL .50000 K .05700 CA .47000 FE .01300 CU .01300 SR .01400 T .06000 CS .30000 P0 .00180 TABLE 5.2-10b FOODSTUFF TRANSPORT PARAMETERS Parameter TRANSPORT TIME (SEC) MEAT PREPARATION 1.73E+06 MILK PREPARATION 3.46E+05 FRUITS GRAINS AND VEGETABLES PREPARATION 1.21E+06 VEGETATION HOLDUP TIME AFTER HARVEST 5.18E+06 TIME ELAPSED FOLLOWING C0W FEEDINGS 1.73E+05 i HOLDUP TIME FOR LEAFY VEGETABLES , 8.64E+04 1 EXPOSURE TIME OF PASTURE GRASS TO PLUME 2.59E+06 STORAGE TIME FOR STORED FORAGE 7.78E+06 O l
't WNP-1/4 ER-OL TA8LE 5.2-10c STABLE ELEENT TRANSFER DATA ELEM VEG/ SOIL MILK (D/L) EAT (D/KG) - EL EM VEG/ SOIL MILK (D/L) EAT (D/KG)
H' 4.80E+00 1.00E-02 1.20E-02 58 1.10E-02 1.50E-03 '4.00E-03 HE 5.00E-02 2.00E-02 2.00E-02 TE 1.30E+00 1.00E-03 17.70E-02 LI -8.30E-04 5.00E-02 1.00E-02 I 2.00E-02 6.00E-03 2.90E-03 8E 4.20E-04 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 XE 1.00E+01 2.00E -02 2.00E-02 8 1.20E-01 2.70E-03 8.00E-04 CS 1.00E-02 1.20E-02 4.00E-03 C 5.50E+00 1.20E-02 3.10E-02 BA 5.00E-03 4.00E-04 3.20E-03 N 7.50E+00 2.20E-02 7.70E-02 LA 2.50E-03 '5.00E-06 2.00E-04 0 1.60E+00 2.00E-02 1.60E-02 CE 2.50E-03 6.00E-04 1.20E-03 F 6.50E-04 1.40E-02 1.50E .PR 2.50E-03 5.00E-06 4.70E-03 NE I.40E-01 .2.00E-02 2.00E-02 NO 2.40E-03 5.00E-06 3.30E-03 NA 5.20E-02 4.00i~ -02 3.00E-02 . PM 1.50E-03 5.00E-06 4.80E-03 MG 1.30E-01 1.00E-02 5.00E-03 SM 2.50E-03 5.00E-06 5.00E-03 AL 1.80E-04 5.00E-04 1.50E-03 EU 1. 50E-03 5.00E-06 4.80E-03 SI 1.50E-04 1.00E-04 4.00E-05 GD 2.60E-03 5.00E-06 3.60E-03 P 1.10E+00 2.50E-02 4.60E-02 TB 2.60E-03 5.00E-06 4.40E-03 S 5.90E-01 1.80E-02 1.00E-01 OY 2.50E-03 5.00E-06 '5.30E-03 CL 5.00E+00 5.00E-02 8.00E-02 H0 2.60E-03 5.00E-06 4.40E-03 AR 6.00E-01 2.00E-02 -2.00E-02 ER 2.50E-03 5.00E-06 '4.00E-03 K 3.70E-01 1.00E-02 1.20E-02 TM 2.60E-03 5.00E-06 4.40E-03 CA 3.60E-02 8.00E-03 4.00E-03 Y3 2.50E-03 5.00E-06 4.00E-03 SC 1.10E.03 5.00E-06 1.60E-02 LU 2.60E-03 5.00E-06 4.40E-03 TI 5.40E-05 5.00E-06 3.10E-02 HF 1.70E-04 5.00E-06 4.00E-01 V 1.30E-03 1.00E-03 2.30E-03 TA 6.30E-03 2.50E-02 1.60E+00 CR 2.50E-04 2.20E-03 2.240E-03 W 1.80E-02 5.00E-04 1.30E-03 MN 2.90E-02 2.50E-04 '8.00E-04 RE 2.50E-01 2.50E-02 8.00E-03 FE 6.60E-04 1.20E-03 4.00E-02 05 5.00E-02 5.00E-03 4.00E-01 C0 9.40E-03 1.00E-03 1.30E-02 IR 1.30E+01 6.00E-03 1.50E-03 O NI CU ZN 1.90E-02 1.20E-01 4.00E-01 6.70E-03 1.40E-02 3.50E-02 5.30E-03 8.00E-03 3.00E-02 PT AU HG 5.00E-01 2.50E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 3.80E 3.80E-02 .2.60E-01 4.00E43 8.00E-03 GA 2.50E-04 5.00E-05 1.30E+00 TL 2.50E-01 2.20E-02 4.00E-02 GE 1.00E-01 5.00E-04 2.00E+01 PB 6.80E-02 6.20E-04 2.90E-04 AS 1.00E-02 6.00E-03 2.00E-03 - BI 1. 50E-01 5.00E-04 1.20E-02 ~ SE 1.30E+00 4.50E-02 1.50E-02 P0 1.50E-01~ 3.00E-04 1.20E-02 BR 7.60E-01 5.00E-02 2.60E-02 AT 2.50E-01 5.00E-02 8.00E+00 KR 3.00E+00 2.00E-02 2.00E-02 RN 3.50E+00 2.00E-02 2.00E-02. RB 1.30E-01 3.00E-0?. 3.10E-02 FR 1.00E-02 5.00E-02 2.00E-02 SR 1.70E-02 8.00E-04 6.00E-04 RA 3.10E-04 8.00E-03 3.40E-02 Y 2.60E-03 1.00E-05 4.60E-03 AC 2.60E-03 5.00E-06 6.00E-02' ZR 1.70E-04 5.00E-06 3.40E-02 TH 4.20E-03 5.00E-06 2.00E-04 N8 9.40E-03 2.50E-03 2.80E-01 PA 2.50E-03 -5.00E-06 8.00E+02 i M0 1.20E-01 7.50E-03 8.00E-03 U 2.50E-03 5.00E-04 3.40E-04 TC 2.50E-01 2.50E-02 4.00E-01 NP 2.50E-03 5.00E 2.00E-04 ! RU 5.00E-02 1.00E-06 4.00E-01 PU 2.50E-04 2.00E-06 1.40E-05 i RH 1.30E+01 1.00E-02 1.50E-03 AM s.50E-04 5.00E-06 2.00E-04 i PD 5.00E+00 1.00E-02 4.00E-03 CM ~ 2.50E-03 5.00E-06 2.00E-04 i AG 1.50E-01 5.00E-02 1.70E-02 BK 2.50E-03 5.00E-06 2.00E-04 CD 3.00E-01 1.20E-04 5.30E-04 CF 2.50E-03. 5.00E-06 2.00E-04 l IN 2.50E-01 1.00E-04 8.00E-03 ES 2.50E-03 5.00E-06 2.00E-04 SN 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 8.00E-02 FM 2.50E-03 5.00E-06 2.00E-04 l lO I l _ - . _ _ _ . - . . _ - ~ , , . . . _ , - _ _ . _ _ . . - . _ _ _ _ . , . . . _
WNP-1/4 4 ER-OL O' TABLE 5.2-11 , CALCULATED ANNUAL TOTAL BODY DOSE TO POPULATION WITHIN 50 MILES OF WNP-1, WNP-2 and WNP-4 (MAN - REM) Man Rem Pathway WNP-1 WNP-2 WNP-4 Total 4
- Air i
- Submersion 5.5E-01 2.4E-01 5.5E-01 1.3E+00 Ground Contamination 4.8E-03 4.3E-02 4.8E-03 5.3E-02 Inhalation 3.6E-01 1.1E-02 3.6E-01 7.3E-01 Farm Products Milk 5.5E-02 -9.2E-03 5.5E-02 1.1E-01 Meat 2.7E-02 1.9E-03 2.7E-02 5.6E-02 Vegetation 1.9E-01 1.9E-02 1.9E-01 4.0E-01
~ Water Drinking Water 9.1E-03 8.6E-04 9.1E-03 1.9E-02 Fish 1.0E-03 5.6E-04 1.0E-03 2.6E-03 hd Water Recreation
- Farm Products 5.3E-04 2.0E-04 5.3E-04 1.3E-03 Milk 8.9E-04 1.0E-03 8.9E-04 2.8E-03 Meat 2.3E-03 1.0E-03 2.3E-03 5.6E-03 Vegetation ** 4.6E-03 3.7E-04 4.6E-03 9.6E-03 TOTAL: 1.2E+00 3.3E-01 1.2E+00 2.7E+00
- Shoreline activities, swimming and boating combined.
** Vegetation and leafy vegetables combined.
O :
)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.2-12 CALCULATED ANNUAL THYROID DOSE TO POPULATION WITHIN 50 MILES OF WNP-1, WNP-2 and WNP-4 (THYROID - REM) Man Rem Pathway WNP-1 WNP-2 WNP-4 Total Air Submersion 5.5E-01 2.4E-01 5.5E-01 1.3E+00 Ground Contamination 4.8E-03 4.3E-02 4.8E-03 5.3E-02 Inhalation 4.8E-01 1.3E-00 4.8E-01 2.3E-00 Farm Products Milk 1.1E-01 1.8E-00 1.1E-01 2.0E-00 Meat - 2.9E-02 6.9E-02 2.9E-02 1.37E-01 Vegetation 3.0E-01 2.7E-00 3.0E-01 3.3E-00 Water Drinking Water 1.4E-02 4.0E-03 1.4E-02 3.2E-02 Fish 3.9E-05 1.6E-05 3.9E-05 9.4E-05 Water Recreation
- 5.3E-04 2.0E-04 5.3E-04 1.3E-03g Farm Products Milk 2.7E-03 1.7E-03 2.7E-03 7.1E-03 Meat 9.6E-04 8.7E-04 9.6E-04 2.3E-03 Vegetation ** 4.4E-03 2.0E-04 4.4E-03 9.0E-03 TOTAL: 1.5E+00 6.2E+00 1.5E+00 9.2E+00
- Shoreline activities, swimming and boating combined.
** Vegetation and leafy vegetables combined.
9
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.2-13 PERMANENT RESIDENT POPULATION WITHIN TEN MILES OF THE SITE IN THE YEAR 2000 Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sector N 19 29 29 NNE 9 15 18 55 55 NE 48 22 29 65 43 65 ENE 25 31 16 22 16 39 85 j E 56 105 114 19 19 ESE 56 41 71 87 91 51 SE 9 14 141 169 113 99 SSE 68 68 68 104 S 483 SSW 465 344 SW 25 WSW W
- WNW NW NNW Total 25 200 207 460 461 922 1,315 Accumulated Total 25 225 432 892 1,353 2,275 3,590 4
) e O
..r---,..._.._...--,--..-,,,_m .-_-......m_,.,. __,-,,._..c.,.., _ , _ . _ - . _ . , . _ - - , . - , . . - _ - . - _ - - _ _ - . . _ - , . , , , - - , . . . - . , _ . . . - . . , .
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.2-14 PERMANENT RESIDENT POPULATION WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE SITE IN THE YEAR 2000 RADII INTERVAL IN MILES Compass Direction 0-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 Total NORTH 0 77 398 2,055 1,127 21,572 25,229 NNE 0 152 397 7,123 3,983 1,21 12,776 NE 48 224 588 2,274 745 1,275 5,154 ENE 56 177 855 1,786 475 375 3,724 EAST 56 257 544 220 141 268 1,486 ESE 56 341 576 305 182 961 2,421 SE 9 536 5,821 6,738 497 2,349 15,950 SSE 0 308 70,917 36,360 955 2,072 110,612 SOUTH 0 483 45,434 975 6,368 17,708 70,968 SSW 0 809 1,922 1,426 529 2,972 7,658 SW 0 25 3,894 7,737 786 476 12,918 WSW 0 0 1,108 1,908 26,890 965 30,871g WEST 0 0 0 1,429 4,273 22,179 27,881 WNW 0 0 0 297 1,579 2,043 3,919 NW 0 0 0 48 836 905 1,789 NNW 0 0 0 218 1,899 642 2,759 TOTAL 225 3,389 132,454 70,899 51,265 77,883 336,115 CUMULATIVE TOTAL 225 3,614 136,068 206, % 7 258,232 336,115 I CUMULATIVE PERCENT -- 0.1 40.4 61.6 76.8 100.0 i O l
l l l i WNP-1/4 , ER-OL ! TABLE 5.2-15 COMPARATIVE TOTAL BODY DOSE ESTIMATES i FROM TYPICAL SOURCES OF RADIATION-INDIVIDUAL PCPULATION(a) SOURCE DOSE DOSE (mrem) (man-rem) Natural Background Radiation in Hanford Area 100 33,612 Typical Per Capita Medical Dose 4 in U.S.(G.I. dose) 72 24,200 Transcontinental U.S. Comercial Jet Flight 5 1,681 l WNP-1 Operation 0.5(b) 1.2(c) O (a) Total population of 336,115 in the year 2000 multiplied by average individual doses for each category except for WPPSS operation (i.e., near greater than f ar). (b) Cumulative dose from all pathways in Table 5.2-7. (c) Cumulative dose from all pathways in Table 5.2-11. l [ O t l
O O O
- WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.2-16a ANNUAL DOSE COMPARED WITH 10 CFR 50 APPENDIX ! AND RM-50-2 Gaseous Effluent - Adult 10 CFR 50 Limits Per Reactor Appendix I Rm-50-2 WNP-1 WNP-2 WNP-4 Total I-131 1 C1/yr/ reactor 0.04 C1/yr 0.46 C1/yr 0.04 Cl/yr 0.54 C1/yr Site Ganna Air Dose 10 mrad /yr -- 1.3 mrad /yr 1.5 mrad /yr 1.3 mrad /yr 4.1 mrad /yr a
Boundary Beta Air Dose 20 mead /yr -- 3.8 mrad /yr 0.88 mead /yr 3.8 mead /yr 8.48 mead /yr Total Body Dose
- 5 mrem /yr 1.1 mres/yr 0.98 mrem /yr 1.1 mrem /yr 3.18 mrem /yr Total Body Dose 5 mres/yr -- 0.14 mres/yr 0.04 mrem /yr 0.14 mres/yr 0.32 arem/yr Taylor Skin Dose 15 mres/yr -- 0.22 ares /yr 0.06 mrem /yr 0.22 mrem /yr 0.5 mrem /yr Flats Any Organ' 15 mres/yr -- 0.2(0.13) mrem /yr 0.56(0.32) 0.2(0.13)mres/yr 0.58 mrem /yr l Gama Air Dose 10 mrad /yr -- 0.06 mrad /yr 0.04 mrad /yr 0.06 mrad /yr 1.24 mrad /yr Beta Air Dose 20 mead /yr -- 0.19 mead /yr 0.038 mrad /yr 0.19 erad/yr 0.218 mrad /yr i
i l a Residency at the site boundary is prohibited by the Department of Energy which controls all land immediately adjacent to - i the site boundary. Doses at site boundary are limited to submersion and inhalation exposure for 40 hrs / week, 50 weeks / year. l b Total dose from submersion, ground contamination, inhalation vegetables, meat, and cow milk. ! c Thyroid exposure from all pathways. Numbers in parenthesis represent exposure from radioiodine and particulates only.
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.2-16b ANNUAL DOSE COMPARED WITH 10 CFR 50 APPENDIX ! AND RM-50-2 LIQUID EFFLUENT - Adult LOCATION: Richland, Washingt^n 10 CFR 50 Limits Per Reactor Appendix I Rm-50-2 WNP-1 WNP-2 WNP-4 Total Total Releasea -- 5 C1/yr/ reactor 0.23 Ci/yr 0.17 Cl/yr 0.23 C1/yr 063 Ci/yr Total Bodyb 3 mrem /yr -- 0.05 mrem /yr 0.001 mrem /yr 0.05 mrem /yr 0.101 mrem /yr Any Organc 10 mrem /yr -- 0.004 mrem /yr 0.0002 mren/yr 0.004 mrem /yr 0.008 mrem /yr Limits Per Site Total Releasea -- 5 Cf/yr/ reactor 0.23 Ci/yr 0.17 C1/yr 0.23 C1/yr 0.63 C1/yr Total Bodyb -- 5 mrem /yr 0.05 mrem /yr 0.001 mrem /yr 0.05 mreelyr 0.101 mrem /yr Any Organc -- 5 mrem /yr 0.004 mrem /yr 0.0002 mrem /yr 0.004 mrem /yr 0.008 mrem /yr a Total release except for tritium and dissolved gases, b For maximum individual in Ricriand. Dilution factor: 1:17,000 - from all pathways. c Thyroid of maximum individual residing in Richland. Dilution factor: 1:17,000, all pathways combined. O O O
e-- . . . , H + H
& w Pod w=e va % %
O e- - m
.f.- '
W 7
,J
__. , V. j w 's \: HANFORD r,, > w% g y .,
/=
sense AasA 4 f eso.oooo w Z / iewnW roomy / *
]
yM % p ,s . ft.usj~ / -
<)
s(sl
, =. i :
'l s' 4 I
'l ' **
t::::: N . ,, . . xi w nNW A3fAi M64 44fA \' r, . T
.- [ N %ln 1 a 4E?:.% '
! ,N l '%
. k 8,"'s=*
I
/. s,.,
T a '
, r AREA OF g
g% ~y MAXIMUM
,! < % ~' " c.8.wNed
/
t a , e , i O r
'g'/ '
/
g 2 FAST FLUX l b,__------ # p s TEST FACIUT7 '\ j w g, ;
#L w am.
. eArtau '
*g% "*, OessaVAToef y "*" "
1 358 AAEA m aMem
./ . , ,
e- EXION ' NoCu4a y 9 ,A,,T,T,EL,I.I'5 IS cn coaRICH.L,ANO uX E lg
*p ]!h.- _ ;
WASHtNCTON PUSUC m wen e n n w POmf OF BENTON hh [ *: *:E l. A. JONES ll westamoeme q:s-fd= -j ROCKWELL HANFORD
- =
e e s e a
- p. e _-
^----- '
- OPERATIONS mas ** NMN
,/' l 3 FeoenAt suarnNc E -
,.. - - - - , s_ _
s . ._ O WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WNP-1/4 NEAR EST H ANFOR D FACILITIES, POPULATION CENTER AND AREA OF HIGHEST X/Q ER 0L FIG. 5.2-1
GASEOUS EFFLUENTS WNP-1 and WNP-4 ~
, o u _ac f F LIQUID 7,; EFFLUENTS d
- h1 s e, b !, -
Q D Direct
*s,0 .
9 lrT8diation ,,' ' C
, CX) O g /,UEL -m- ^-S,.o.T .c i
- e. ;.;;3 4
;'$$iW e{g ie-: < "ll. Q ,
#be.JMA 282&&
Milk j c 4,4 To J' A Consumption _ g[g / Deposition r N%. l
*f d *b eQp .Q / ss J#.+
"oo ,,, -
.' 16 r
. 1 eumuuluutuus - e WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TO MAN WNP-1/4 ER OL FIG. 5.2 2 l
O GASEOUS EFFLUENTS
.wse-i..a wse-4 O i
' " Lioulo P--
EFFLUENTS
' f1..t k~~_.'
e, *f _-_ l o .h o i
,.- l
'I Fish Consumption p
Consumption o * ^ F' immersion immersion 3k
& 4. *.~? '
J. - _ - - - g . _ o_ _ s N Ingestion , Subm,ersion # .._ 7 Direct N' leradiatior. , a WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TO BIOTA WNP 1,'4 ER-OL l FIG. 5.2 3 i
- WNP-1/4 ER-0L U(3 5.3 EFFECTS OF LIQUID CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE DISCHARGES The expected impacts of chemical and biocide discharges at the construction permit stage were presented in the ER-CP in Sections 5.4.3 and 5.4.4 and in the USNRC Final Environmental Statement (FES). Since that time additional water quality data have been collected and are presented in Sections 2.4 and 3.6. The expected chemical releases to the Columbia River via the cooling tower blowdown from both WNP-1 and -4 are described in Section 3.6 and sumarized in Table 5.3-1.
Table 5.3-1 presents the potential discharge concentrations and changes in concentration of chemical constituents in the Columbia River at the downstream mixing zone boundary (see Subsection 5.1.1). The table shows th'at the expected discharge concentrations are less than the effluent limitation guidelines (40 CFR 423) and the NPDES limitations. The pH of the discharge and the pcllutant parameters specifically regulated such as, total chromium, total zinc and total phosphorous are less than the guideline values. In addition, the WNP-1/4 NPDES permit contains stricter effluent limitations for chlorine in the cooling water blowdown than those in the federal guidelines. Specifically, a total residual chlorine (TRC) limitation is imposed rather than free avilable chlorine with a daily maximum of 0.1 mg/l applying at all times. This limitation is more restrictive than the two hour discharge period p allowed in the effluent guidelines. V A comparison betygen the present Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) water quality criteria u ,2) and the chemical concentration at the edge of the WNP-1/4 mixing zone (Table 5.3-1) reveals that all parameters for which criteria exist, are less than the criteria with the exception of total cadmium, average total lead, total mercury and total copper. In regard to the concentration of cadmium lead and mercury, operation of WNP-1/4 does not include the chemical addition of these parameters. Furthermore, the upstream I ambient Columbia River values for cadmium, average lead, and mercury exceed EPA's water quality criteria (Table 5.3-1). Also, the concentrations of cadmium, average lead, and mercury at the edge of the WNP-1/4 mixitig zone are, 0.1 ug/1, 0.2 ug/1, and 0.01-0.02 ug/1, respectively, above ambient levels upstream of the discharge. As stated in Section 3.6, the WNP-1/4 condensers are constructed with copper and nickel alloy tubes. Therefore, copper and nickel releases in the discharge originate from two sources, the influent Columbia River water and corrosion and/or erosion of the condenser tubes. Copper levels in the Columbia River, upstream of the intake, range from 1.0-16.0 ug/l(see Section 2.4 ) . The discharge level for copper may range from 211-561 ug/l (Table 5.3-1). The copper concentrations at the edge of the mixing zone are greatly reduced as a result of rapid dilution. Specifically, the copper concentration ranges from 5.2- 23.0 ug/l at the edge of the mixing zone. O d 5.3-1 l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL A review of the literature on copper in aquatic envirpnments and its O biological effects was prepared in 1978 by Chu et al.13). In assessing chemical discharge impacts, the anadromous fish, particularly the salmonids, are the most economically and recreationally important species. Furthermore, a review of copper toxicity data indicates that the salmonids, particularly' steelFead/ rainbow tested, important andtrout (Salmo sensitive gairdneri}).are among the most frequently speciest Most toxicity studies on salmonids have been performed with the early life stages ranging from egg to juvenile. As noted in Subsection 5.1.3.6 the plume resulting from the WNP-1/4 cooling tower blowdown does not intersect any reported spawning areas. The nearest potential chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawning area is approximately 3/4 mile downstream and 1000 feet east of the discharge plume centerline. The copper level at this point in the river is estimated to be 0.26 - 1.10 ug/l above ambient levels. Ultimately, the significance of chemical concentrations are the effects on aquatic organ isms . In this regard, Columbia River water, and therefore, its chemical composition does not appear to adversely effect the production of salmonids. Specifically, chinook salmon incubated in Columbia River water at the Priest Rapids Hatchery, approximately 45 miles upstream of WNP-1/4, have shown over a nine y9aq period of record (1963-1970), an overall incubation success of 87.1%.141 The level of incubation success at the Priest Rapids Hatchery is comparable to other salmonid hatcheries where mortalities attributed to chemical toxicity have yet to be reported. Therefore, copper levels which closely approximate ambient levels are not expected to have a significant effect on incubation success of salmonids. Shaw and Brown (5) observed that rainbow trout eggs could hatch after fertilization in a solution containing 1000 ug/l copper, however this level of exposure increased time to hatching. In comparing the effects of copper sulf ate trutta) (Salmo on eggs and and fry in the Atlantic yolk-sac salmon (Salmostage of rainbow salar), Grande(g(1out, brown trout demonstrated a reduction in egg hatching with copper. Furthermore, copper inhibited egg development at about t:' same concentration it was toxic to fry 60 ug/l at 21 days. Concentrations as low as 20 ug/l appeared to have a sublethal
. In another study, which compared egg effect (e.g., unwillingness and yolk-sac to feppi concluded that eggs were mcre resistant fry, Hazel and Meithi than fry to the toxic effects of copper. By employing a continuous flow bloassay system and using chinook salmon, the authors reported that copper concentrations of 80 ug/l had little effect on hatching success of eyed eggs, but that acute toxicity to fry was observed at 40 ug/1, while increased mortality and inhibition of growth was shown at 20 ug/1.
O 5.3-2
. WNP-1/4 ER-OL
/O b . Chapman (8), also using a continuous-flow bioassay method, tested the relative resistance to copper, zinc, and cadmium of newly-hatched alevins, swim-up fry, parr, and smolts of chinook salmon and steelhead trout. The investigator found steelhaad trout to be consistently more sensitive to these metals than were chinook salmon. Newly hatched alevins in both species were less resistant to copper than later juvenile forms (Table 5.3-2). Finlayson and Verrue(9) determined an 83 day LC10 of 64 ug/l total copper for chinook salmon eggs alevins and swim-up fry. Similar studies by Finlayson and Ashuckian{10) determined a 60 day LC10 of 33 ug/l total copper for steelhead trout eggs, alevins and swim-up fry. All of these studieg(6-10) were performed using water with .,Jalities different f rom the Columbia River. Specifically, the pH, alkalinity and hardness ranged from 0.3-7.5, 21-25 mg/l and 21-65 mg/l respectively. The same parameters; pH, alkalinity and hardness in Columbia River water range (Section 2.4) from 7.4-8.4, 53-64 mg/1, and 56-80 mg/1, respectively. Thus Columbia River w is considered " harder" than the water used in the cited toxicity studies ). A number of studies have demonstrated that copper toxicity is related to water hardness. In gen r inverse]v proportional to water hardness.(7,1p_{) copper The worktoxicity of Lloyd is roughly and Herbert (15') illustrates the relationship between lethality and total hardness or alkalinity (Figure 5.3-1). When hardness increases over a range J of 15-320 mg/l a corresponding increase in the LC 50 is observed with r9 in trout and chinook salmon. In suninary, the toxicity levels cited abovet6 gi are probably lower (approximately 10-20 ug/1) than those applicable to the Columbia River (Figure 5.3-1). Based upon the rapid dilution of the discharge, the minimal increases in copper predicted at the closest potential salmonid spawning area and the relative hardness of the Columbia River no chronic mortality of these life stages is expected. Juvenile salmonids may lack the swimming speed of adults and thus pass through the discharge plume and be exposed to copper concentrations higher than ambient. Assuming the fish are passively carried through the plume with the downstream velocity, 2.5 and 5.0 feet per second at minimum and average river flow rates, their exposure to total copper concentrations from 545 to 0.27 ug/l above ambient would occur for 26.4-13.2 minutes, respectively (Table 5.3-3). Under low flow conditions, 3.3 % or less of the surface cross-sectional area (158,400 ft2 - 3.4 acres) in the 3960 feet downstream of the WNP-1/4 discharge may have copper concentrations from 545 to 1.1 ug/l above ambient. Assuming no fish avoidance and an even distribution of these fish, only 3.3% are therefore expected to be exposed to these copper concentrations. Juveniles most likely exposed to these chemical Most concentrations are downstream migrating salmonids and steelh9g) downstream migrant 0-age chinook salmon are found near shoret , trout. however, A V 5.3-3 _ _- ~ .
WNP-1/4 ER-OL some may pass through the plume.(17) Other data indicate migrating juvenile O spring chinook, sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) and coho salmon (0ngorbyochus kisutch) and steelhead trout are more abundant in deeper water.uo.m Limited studies have been performed on short time exposures (1-30 migutgs) of fish to higher copper concentrations (200-1000 ug/1). Holland et altll> studied juvenile chinook salmon and report that after 24 hours of exposure to cupric nitrate 0, 21 and 46 percent mortality occurred at ionic copper concentrat{onsof 178, 563 and 1,000 ug/1, respectively. Unpublished data by Chapman (20 1 indicates that the 90 minute LCi g (lethal concentration to 10 percent of the organisms) for juvenile salmonids exposed to copper is approximately forty times the 96 hour LC50 value (19.3 ug/1), or a total copper concentration of 770 ug/l. Chapman's studies have been performed in water that is 2-3 times softer (hardness = 20-25 mg/1) than that found in the vicinity of WNP-1/4. Under the most extreme conditions, the highest copper concentration predicted for the WNP-1/4 discharge is 561 ug/l (Table 5.3-1). Based on this infonnation, no appreciable direct mortality is predicted for salmonids that would passively drif t through the WNP-1/4 discharge plume. Larger juvenile and adult salmonids have the swimming ability to maintain position in the river and thus the potential exists for their presence in or near the WNP-1/4 discharge plume for longer periods of time (i.e., greater than 2 minutes). However, avoidance of 9opper in both laboratory and field situations.t21-23)byChapman salmonjds)has beenthat (2J observed observed eighty percent of the non-acclimated juvenile steelhead trout tested avoided copper at 10-20 ug/1. Laboratory tests have demonstrated olfactory response of Atlar;tig salmon parr to both copper and zinc in a continuously flowing system.t21) Strength of avoidance was measured by the relative length of time in both control waters and waters modified by the metal. A threshold concentration of 2.3 ug/l was estimated for copper; 53 ug/l for zinc; and 0.42 ug/l copper plus 6.1 ug/l of zinc in a mixture. The probability of adult salmonids encountering the WNP-1/4 discharge plume is low because chinook salmon and steelhead trout naturally migratel 2g6 o shore and would thereby pass the mid-river discharges unaffected Other tracking studies confinn this natural shoreline movement.(f7-28) In addition to fish, the sessile, benthic biota may be effected by copper d is charges. The maximum area of river bottom potentially exposed to copper concentrations greater than or equal to 1.2-0.2 7 ug/l above ambient, is approximately 160,000 square feet (40' wide by 4000' long = 3.4 acres). Resistant organisms can be expected to survive within this area, however the more sensititive will not be protected. The 3.4 ccres potentially impacted is a relatively small area compared to the total available habitat within the Columbia River. Cor.sequently, such a change should have no measurable effect on the total abundance and composition of benthic organisms. O 5.3-4
WNP-1/4 ER-OL n v Nickel discharge levels from WNP-1/4 may range from 44-168 ug/l (Table 5.3-1). As a result of dilution, the concentrations at the edge of the mixing zone are reduced to 2.1 -12.0 ug/1. Limited data exist for nickel in aquatic ewironments and its biological effects. Anderson et al(29), using rainbow trout, found the 96 hour LC50 for nickel was in the range of 22,000-24,000 occurred at concentrations from 4,000-8,500 ug/l (30ug/l and31) Hale that zero) percent (mort using rainbow trout f n 50 for nickel nitrate was 35,500 ug/1. Brown and Dalton 3g)the 96 hour found, LC for nickel sulf ate in hard ground water (total hardness = 240 mg/1), that the 48 hour LC50 to juvenile rainbow trout was 32,000 ug/1. Based on this infonnation it seems unlikely that the nickel discharges from WNP-1/4 will have any measurable impact. This is because the nickel ccncentrations and duration of exposure are less than those reported to have any direct lethal effect. Chlorine is the biocide used in the treatment of the WNP-1/4 circulating water mg/1.(1)ThefreshwaterqualitycriteriaforTRClistedbyEPAis0.002 With a discharge level of 0.1 mg/1, the TRC concentration in the l WNP-1/4plumeisreducedto0.002mgf3)in14secondsandatg) feet downstream f rom the discharge.l Page and Hulsizer(3a distance predict 100 that with a 0.1 mg/l chlorine discharge all aquatic life traveling through the WNP-1/4 plume is protected and the area of benthos effected would amount to about 0.37 acres of river bottom. The area affected is small relative to the
'- total habitat available in the Columbia River and should not affect the aquatic omunity as a whole. To sunnarize, research to date muld not predict a mg; o toxic impact on biota at the WNP-1/4 site as a result of TRC d ischarges. u 3(,
Sulf ates occur in the WNP-1/4 discharge as a result of concentration of river water and the use of sulfuric acid to regenerate ion exchange resins and l neutralize alkaline water. Sulf ate concentrations in the Columbia River I average ic.4 mg/l with a maximum recorded value of 16.7 mg/l (Table 5.3-1). l At the edge of WNP-1/4 mixing zone, sulf ate levels are estimated to be from 2.6 to 9 Becker and Thatcher (j4gg/l 1 haveabove upstream compiled dataambient on theconcentrations. toxicity of certain sulf ates to aquaticlife,andstatethatsulfatesexhibitjgwtoxicitytoaquatic organisms. A comparison of research to datet3 1 and the WNP-1/4 mixing zone l concentrations results in a prediction of no major impact on Columbia River j biota at the WNP-1/4 site. f l 5.3-5
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O . REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.3
- 1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality criteria for water. Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., 256 p.
- 2. Federal Register, Volume 45. No. 231, November 28, 1980 Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Criteria Documents, 79318-79379.
- 3. Chu, A., T. A. Thayer, B. W. Floyd, D. F. Unites and J. F. Roetzer.
1978. Copper in the aquatic environment: a literature review for Washington Public Power Supply System. Envirosphere Company, Bellevue,
- WA., 179 p.
- 4. Allen, R. L. and T. K. Meekin. 1973. An Evaulation of the Priest Rapids Chinook Spawning Channel, 1963-1971. State of Washington Department of Fisheries, Technical Report No.11, 52 p.
- 5. Shaw, T. L. and V. M. Brown. 1971. Heavy metals and the fertilization of rainbow trout eggs. Nature 230(5291):251.
- 6. Grande, M. 1967. Effects of copper and zine on salmenid fishes. Pages Q
V 97-111 In: Advances in Water Pollution Research., Vol. 1. Pollution Control Federation, Washington, D. C. Water l 7 Hazel, C. R. and S. J. Meith. 1970. Bioassay of king salmon eggs and sac fry in copper solutions. California Fish and Game. 56(2):121-124.
- 8. Chapman, G. A. 1978. Toxicities of cadmium, copper, and zine to four juvenile stages of chinook salmon and steelhead. Trans. Am. Fish Soc.
107(6): 841-847.
- 9. Finlayson, B. J. and K. M. Verrue 1980. Estimated safe zinc and copper levels for chinook salmor. (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the upper Sacramento River, California. California Fish and Game. 66(2): 68-82.
- 10. Finlayson, B. J. and S. H. Ashuckian. 1979. Safe zinc and copper levels from the Spring Sacremento Creek River, Drainage for California. steelhead California Fishtrout andinGame.
the upp(er65 2):80-99.
- 11. Holland, G. A., J. E. Lasater, E. D. Newmann and W. E. Eldridge. 1960.
Toxic effects of organic pollutants on young salmon and trout. State of Washington, Department of Fisheries, Res. Bull. No. 5, 264 p. O 5.3-6
ENP-1/4 ER-OL
- 12. Lorz, H. W. and McPherson, B. P. 1976. Effect of copper or zinc in ,
freshwater on the adaptation to seawater and Atpase activity, and the l effects of copper on migratory disposition of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus , kisutch). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 33:2023-2030. '
- 13. Calamari, D. and R. Marchetti. 1973. The toxicity of mixtures of metals and surfactants to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri Rich). Water Res.
7:1453-1464.
- 14. Howarth, R. S. and J. B. Sprague. 1978. Copper lethality to rainbow trout in waters of various hardness and pH. Water Res. 12:455-462.
- 15. Lloyd, R. and N. M. Herbert. 1962. The effect of the environment on the toxicity of poisons to fish. T. Inst. Public Health Eng. 132-143.
- 16. Mains, E. M. and J. M. Smith. 1%4. The distribution, size, time and current preferences of seaward migrant chinook salmon in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Fish. Res. Papers, Washington State Department of Fisheries, 2:5-43.
- 17. Coutant, C. C. 1969. Effects of thermal shock on vulnerability to predation in juvenile salmonids, I single shock temperatures.
BNWL-1521. Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Wa.
- 18. Mcdonald, J. 1960. The behavior of Pacific salmon fry during their downstream migration to freshwater and saltwater nursery areas. J. Fish.
Res. Board Can. 17(5):655-676.
- 19. Becker, C. D. 1970. Temperature timing and seaward migration of juvenile chinook salmon from the central Columbia River. BNWL-1472.
Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Wa.20.
- 20. Personal communicaton, Dr. G. A. Chapman. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; Western Fish Toxicology Station. Corvallis, OR., February, 1980.
- 21. Sprague, J. B. 1964. Avoidance of copper-zinc solutions by young salmon in the laboratory. Jour. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 36:990-1004.
- 22. Sprague, J. B. and R. L. Saunders. 1963. Avoidance of sublethal mining pollution by Atlantic salmon. Proc. 10th Ontario End. Waste Contr.
Ontario Water Res. Comm. Toronto, Ont. Canada, 221 p.
- 23. Chapman, G. A. 1978, Toxicological consideration of heavy metals in the aquatic environment. Pages 69-77. In: Toxic materials in the aquatic environment. Water Resources Res. Inst. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
O 5.3-7 1
WNP-1/4 ER-OL [\ U
- 24. Coutant, C. C. 1968. Behavior of adult chinook salmon and steelhead trout migrating past Hanford thermal discharges. In: Annual Report for 1967, Vol. 1, Biological Sciences. BNWL-714. Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA.
- 25. Coutant, C. C. 1969. Behavior of sonic-tagged chinook salmon and steelhead trout migrating past Hanford thermal discharges. In: Pacific Northwest Laboratory Annual Report for 1968, Vol. 1, Pt. 2. BNWL-1050.
Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA. 15 pp.
- 26. Coutant, C. C. 1970. Behavior of ultrasonic tagged chinook salmon and steelhead trout migrating past Hanford thermal discharges (1967).
BNWL-1530. Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA.15 pp.
- 27. Monan, G. E., K. L. Liscom and J. K. Smith. 1970. Final Report, sonic tracking of adult steelhead in Ice Harbor Reservoir 1969. Biological Laboratory Bureau Commercial Fisheries, Seattle, WA. 13 pp.
- 28. Falter, C. M. and R. R. Ringe. 1974. Pollution effects on adult steelhead migration in the Snake River. EPA-660/3-73-017. 100 pp.
- 29. Anderson, D. R., S. A. Barraclough, C. D. Becker, T. J. Connors, R. G.
Genoway, M. J. Schneider, K. O. Schwarzmiller and M. L. Wolford. 1977. The combined effects of nickel, chlorine and temperature in rainbow trout and coho salmon. p. 7.38. In: Pacific Northwest Laboratory Annual Report for 1976. BNWL-2100. Pt. 2. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA.
- 30. Anderson, D. R., C. D. Becker, and M. J. Schneider. 1978. The combined effects of nickel, chlorine and temperature on rainbow trout and coho salmon. P. 7.14. In: Pacific Northwest Laboratory Annual Report for 1977. PNL-2500, Pt. 2. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA.
- 31. Hale, J. G. 1977. Toxicity of metal mining wastes. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 17:66.
- 32. Brown, V. M. and R. A. Dalton. 1970. The acute lethal toxicity to rainbow trout of mixtures of copper, phenol, zinc and nickel. J. Fish Biol. 2:211-216.
- 33. Page, T. L. and E. J. Hulsizer (Eds.). 1977. Biofouling control in open recirculation cooling water systems - a review. Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA. 111 p.
- 34. Becker, C. D. and T. O. Thatcher. 1973. Toxicity of Power Plant Chemicals to Aquatic Life. Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA. 221 p.
5.3-8
f' O ( V V WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.3-1 POTENTIAL CHANGE IN COLLMBIA RIVER WATER QUALITY RESULTING FROM WNP-1/4 CHEMICAL O!SCHARGES TOTAL COMBINED (c) EDGE OF MIXING ZONE (d) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONSI'ef) WATER QUALITY CRITERIA (g.h,1) RIVER (a) DISCHARGE 36,000 cts 120,000 cfs ag/l ag/l mg/l ag/l og/l og/l Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Range Max. Avg. Range M. Alkalinity (asCaCO3 ) 59.2 64 18 36 58.1 63.6 58.9 63.9 0.010 0.028 0.0701 0.345 0.012 0.032 0.010 0.029 Ammonia Calciwn l (bsN 18.5 20.4 91.1 196 20.5 22.7 19.1 21.1 Chicride 1.0 1.8 10.3 31.0 1.3 2.2 1.1 1.9 .002 Tctal Residual - 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0001 0.0 0.0004 0.1 Chlorine Flu ride (b) 0.17 0.29 0.837 2.74 0.19 0.32 0.18 0.30 Hardnsss, as CACO3 (b) 68.6 80 338 753 76.0 89 70.8 83 Magntsium (b)(b) 4.0 4.9 19.7 46.1 4.4 5.4 4.1 5.1 Mitrata, as N 0.129 0.290 0.635 2.74 0.143 0.32 0.133 0.300 Nitrog:n,gtal Org nic 0.5 0.5 2.46 5.27 0.55 0.56 0.52 0.52 011 & Grease 1.5 6 7.71 20 1.7 6.2 1.6 6.1 pH (st'd, units) 7.85 8.4 7.9 8.5 7.86 8.4 7.85 8.4 6.5-8,5 6.5-9.0 Phosphorus 0.0275 0.044 0.138 0.418 0.0305 0.049 0.0284 0.045 5.0 5.0 Patassiumlb ) 0.77 0.91 3.79 8.57 0.85 1.01 0.80 0.94 Silica,asSiO2(b) 4.46 6.2 22.0 58.4 4.94 6.9 4.fi 6.4 Sodium 2.0 2.4 10.7 35.4 2.2 2.8 2.1 2.5 i Solids (Tot. Diss.) 93.2 131 837 1947 113.7 155 99.4 138 2 Solids (Tot. Susp.) 4.0 10 19.8 95.4 4.4 11 4.1 10 Sulfate 12.4 16.7 330 756 21.1 26.4 15.0 19.6 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l
- Cadmium (b) h.78 $2.6 h8.22h.2 33.6 .98 3.0 .84 2.7 200 200 2
100 3
- Chromiue Ccbsit (b ) 1.5 11 7.38 104 1.7 12 1.5 11 Copper 3.5 16 211 561 9.2 23 5.2 18 5.60 15.64 Ircn 56 140 303 1370 63 156 58 145 1.59 108.85 Letd (b) 1.8 24 8.87 226 2.0 27 1.9 25 Manganesp 9.9 15 48.7 138 11 17 10.2 15 Mercury t b )(b)
.52 4.1 2.56 38.5 .58 4.6 .54 4.2 0.2 4.1 Nicks) 1.8 10 43.7 168 3.0 12 2.1 11 72.24 1394.09 Zinc 19 47 93.5 443 21 52 20 49 1000 1000 47.00 235.10 I a l Based on a pre-operational water chemistry study (see Table 2.4-5).
I ;by; These materials are concentrated but not added during operation of the plants. dcp Nonradioactive waste and cooling tower blowdown (see Section 3.6). Ldp From Reference 5.1-5. Lej Reference 5.1-2. (f) WNP-1/4 NPDES Permit (see Appendix 1).
g i Reference 5.3-1.
l hL Reference 5.3-2. (th Calculated using an average river hardness of 68.6 ug/1.
WNP-l/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.3-2 VALUE OF 96 HOUR AND 200 HOUR LC50, 200 HOUR LC10 FOR VARIOUS LIFE STAGES OF STEN _ HEAD TROUT AND CHIN 0OK SALMON EXPOSED TO COPPER AND ZINC (I) Copper (ug/1) Zinc (ug/l) LC50 LC10 LC50 LC10 Species Life Stage 96 HR 200 HR 200 HR 96 HR 200 HR 200 HR Alevin 28 . 19 815 555 256 Swim-up 17 1, 9 93 93 54 Steelhead Trout Parr 18 15 8 136 120 61 Smolt 29 21 7 651 278 84 Alevin 26 20 15 661 661 364-661 Swim-up 19 19 14 97 97 68 Chinook Salmon Parr 38 30 17 463 395 268 Smolt 26 26 18 701 367 170 (1) Chapman, (1978) O O O
O O O WNP-1/4 i ER-OL TABLE 5.3-3 EXPECTED COPPER CONCENTRATIONS IN THE '
. VICINITY OF THE WNP 1/4 DISCHARGE 3,960 Feet i Columbia WNP-1/4 300 Feet 3,960 Feet Downstream River Discharge Downstream
- Downstream
- Shoreline **
, Average i !
Total Copper,ug/l 3.5 211 5.2 3.77 3.76 i
- Maximum Total Copper, ug/l 16.0 561 18.0 17.12 17.10
! t Travel Time Average I 1 minute I _ _ 13.2_ minutes _ _ _I
- Maximum I 2 minutes I _ _ 26_.4_m_inute_s_ _ _I i
4
- Plume centerline
**Significant figures extended to depict concentrations throughout river cross section 4
4
h - 48 hr. LC 5,0, R AIN80W TROUT (LLOYO 8 HER8ERT,1962)(T. HARD) B - 48 hr. LC 50, CHINOOK SALMON r s. 998 (T. HARD.) C - 96 hr. L C 5 0, CHINOOK S ALMON r = .998 (T. H ARD.) I.0 - D - 96 hr.4.b 50, CHINOOK SALMON r = .998 (T. AL'K) A i 1 O.5 - i i 0.3 - D 8 0.2 - R E O 0.1 - S o.
@ 0.05 -
o m (qj 2 0.03 - . O.02 - I I ' I I I ' 0.01 200 300 500 20 30 50 10 0 (mg/ liter Caco 3) TOTAL HARDNESS OR ALKALINITY i O
~
..selNeTemeu.mc.e. Rso. Lvevere. RemTio~eHi..e e. To m s.Ro ..
WNP 1/4 OR ALKALINITY AND COPPER TOXICITY ER-OL FIG.5.3-1
.v.. _ . . , , - . , _ , _ - , , , _ . , , _ _ , . __ , . , , , , . -- .- ,, - - , - ., , , , . , , -
.--_,,.-..-.y ----m.- -..,- . _ .-y,.
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O kl s 5.4 EFFECTS OF SANITARY WASTE DISCHARGES The disposal of sanitary wastes to either septic tanks / drain fields or facul . tative lagoons (see Section 3.7) have no adverse effect on quality of the Columbia River or the groundwater. The amount of sanitary waste processed at the plant (less than 120 gpm at maximum flow) is snall relative to the capa-city of the soil to accommodate these wastes. The. arid climate and porous soils result in satisf actory drainage without water surf acing due to ground saturation or plugging. The organic wastes are decomposed long before reach-ing the river (21/2 miles to east) so that no biochemical oxygen demand is exerted on the river. Similarly, the nutrient loading on the river is negli - gible. The groundwater in the vicinity of the tile fields or lagoons may have a higher concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds than the surround-ing areas. However, much of the liquid does not reach the water table (45-65 feet deep) because moisture at the shallow depths moves toward the surf ace due to evaporation and evaportranspiration. Contamination of the ground-water, if it occurs, will be restricted to within a few feet of the point of disposal where saturated flow conditions exist. All the water from normal operation comes from the Columbia River rather than groundwater sources. Because of the limited use of groundwater at the project and because of the' , limited zone of potential contamination of groundwater, the on-site disposal , . of sanitary wastes has no measurable effect on the groundwater resource. l O
\ml The design and operation of the sanitary waste disposal system conforms to applicable State regulations. -
C b
=
bNg O l 5.4-1
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 5.5 EFFECTS OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM The transmission lines are situated in '8hrub Steppe terrain as described in Section 3.9. Access to transmission towers- is .over unimproved terrain, with no roads anticipated. Since 1_ocal vegetation does not exhibit growth detri-- mental to transmit;sion lines, herbicides or other means of controlling the flora are nct required or enployed. Pesticides for ne.st and vermin control . are not required since the transmission lines will be supported by steel structures. . There are no long-term detectable effects on plant life, wildlife' hab'Itat, land resources or scenic values. There are no electrical effects of environmental significance. Ozone produc-tion, electrical and ac6ustic noise, and ground currents, are discussed in Section 3.9.
~
D
=
g I
~Y.
f I e 5.5-1 O
t u i 5' i
~
i WNP-1/4 ! i ER-OL f
~6
- 5. OTHER EFFECTS i All known effects of plant operation are discussed in other- sections. Be- (
i cause of the isolated-locati6n of the plants, noise from plant operation (principally dooling towers) will cause no adverse impacts. i l j l i i i
- t 5
l- . I t l { i I i O l L i l-i h
. i O
T < h i 5.6-1 't 4
. , ~ . _ _ _ . . . - . . . . , - . . - . - _ _ . - . . . - . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ . - - . _ - _
WNP-1/4 ER4L 5.7 IRRETRIEVABLE C0fHITMENTS OF RESOURCES Plant decommissioning (see Section 5.8) would probably involve the salvage and possible reuse of non-radioactive equipment and material. However, plant structural materials and components which are contaminated during operation would be sealed and left in place. These are resources which, while not con-suued, cannot be expected to be useful at the end of plant life. Operation will also require the nonnal industrial use of operation and maintenance materials such as paper, wood, plastics, and metals. Some of these materials will become radioactive and be essentially irretrievable because the recovery cost will exceed the value of the used materials. Operation of WNP-1 and WNP-4 will require an irretrievable coamitment of uranium fuel in quantities which will depend upon the fuel management prac-tices adopted and the use made of the plant to meet power requirements. The uranium commitment is expected to be about 58 tonnes per year, if none of the fuel is reprocessed. If the spent fuel is reprocessed, the annual recovery of these materials would be about 56 tonnes of uranium and 400 kilograms of plutonium would be recovered annually. The new commitment in that case would be about 2 tonnes of uranium per year. Plant decommissioning (see Section 5.8) may make a portion of the site area available, however the land dedicated for the plant structures must be con-sidered an irreversible commitment. However, as explained in Section 2.1, this represents a very small fraction of a large tract of unproductive land dedicated to energy research and production. The ecological resources of the site are presented in Section 2.2 and impacts from plant operation on these resources are discussed earlier in this Chap-ter. From these discussions it is apparent that plant operation will not result in irreversible effects on ecological resources. Environmental moni-toring during plant operation will identify and document changes in the quan-tity and quality of the plant effluents and the resultant effects, if dis-cernible, on the biotic community. l Plant water use is described in Section 3.3. Operation of each plant will consume by evaporation and drift from the cooling towers approximately 33.9 cfs (15,200 gpm) on the average. This is about 0.028 percent of the mean annual flow of the Columbia River. O 5.7-1 1
-- - . _ _ - - - - - - - - .=- - -..- . _ . - - _ .
i WNP-1/4 ER-OL 5.8 DECOPMISSIONING OF REACTOR BUILDINGS {
- 5. 8.1 Introduction At the end of the useful life of the plant, the reactors will be decomis-
! sioned in a manner which .is acceptable to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (IRC). Selection of the specific mode of decomissioning to be utilized for these f acilities will depend upon the regulatory requirements which exist at that time, the interests of the ratepayers of the Pacific Northwest and the needs of the owners. 5.8.2 Site Lease Considerations l - The lease for the Mte reads, in part, "The Supply System shall have a peri-- od of one year following expiration or termination of this lease to move, dismantle and salvage any of its property whether affixed to the land or T l not, provided that with respect to the removal, dismantling and salvaging of property affixed to the land, if requested by the Administration, the prem-ises shall be returned as nearly as possible to its original condition at the time of execution of this lease". This contract wording.will be used
- extensively by the Supply system as a guide in developing its detailed plans for reactor decomissioning. The contract wording represents a fundamental, irrevocable, commitment by the Supply System to appropriate. plant decommissioning.
The necessity for complete dismaatling of the reactor complex and return of the site to its former appearance may be both unnecessary and impractical. , The site selection process for these projects has a long, continuous history
- which dates back to January 1943 when the Manhattan District of the Corps of i Engineers selected the Hanford area for nuclear development. Among con-l siderations in the selection of Hanford were isolation of the area; tne j number of residents to be displaced; the general nature of the area; and ,
abundant sources of electric energy and cooling water. i In considering the future, following the useful life of WNP-1 and WNP-4, the site within the Hanford Reservation, originally selected for its isolation, ecological simplicity and abundant. cooling water and coupled with its his-torical " reinforcement" and connection to _important transmission networks will become even more viable than it is today. Therefore, it would likely be a logical site for the installation of future power stations, whether nuclear or fossil. It is a site. too valuable to abandon. l O 5.8-1 t t
. .,ce,- %w_._m....--~,...,.,m-,._,m ,.m.%.- . . , ~ . , . . . . v s.m . . . . ,.,,.,.,,_,y,_. nem....---.v_...w_,,, . ~ . . - - . , , - , . _ _ , . , , , , , >-,.yv
WNP-1/4 ER-OL
- 5. 8 '. 3 Decommissioning Options The NRC recognizes four alternatives for retirement of excess nuclear reac-tor f acilities as being acceptable. They are:
o Mothballing/ Protective Custody This procedure consists of partial decontamination and removal of radioactive material from the f acility after shutdown. In the case of mothballing, the residual activity is confined by locked doors and in the case of protective storage the residual material is sealed in place. Continuous surveillance of the decommissioned facility is utilized in the case of mothballing and remote continual surveillance is employed in the case of protective storage. o Entombment Af ter shutdown a major decontamination of the f acility takes place. Then the residual radioactivity is entombed in a concrete monolith sich has a design life consistent with the half life of the residual activ ty and which is designed consistent with anticipated accident conditions. Non-radioactive buildings and materials may be removed from the site as per normal salvage procedures. Infrequent surveil-lance is utilized and the site is usually considered open to the public. o Dismant lement Af ter shutdown of the plant, all systems are decontaminated and all radioactivity is removed f rom the site. This involves the demolition and burial, off site, of all contaminated and activated systems and structures. At the conclusion of this process, no surveillance is required and the site can be opened to the general public. o Conversion The least utilized option to date, this procedure involves conversion of the f acility into a new power plant or into a power plant of dif- ferent design. The one outstanding application is the conversion of the Pathfinder power plant into a coal-fired unit. In the future this procedure may involve refurbishment of the mechanical portion of a power plant. Each of the decomissioning options has been demonstrated on one or more actual nuclear power plants. Therefore, the technology for exploiting these methods has been developed, tested, and is readily available. In addition O 5.8-2
WNP-1/4 ER-OL ( to this background of experience, there is an ongoing research, development, G) demonstration and application effort being carried out by the Department of Energy (DOE). One significant part of this program is the effort to decom-mission in excess of 600 nuclear facilities owned by the DOE. This program which will stretch many years into the future, will provide a constant flow of technology and expertise into the nongovernmental area. Therefore, in the case of decomissioning, the situation is not only one of developing technology, it also consists of selecting the most applicable and cost-effective approach frem among the several options. When decomissioning a nuclear power plant, the choice exists between prompt and delayed final decomissioning. If decomissioning is delayed, the plant is either mothballed or placed in protective custody for a number of years before it is finally decomissioned. The advantages of delay include a sig-nificant decrease in radioactivity levels due to radioactive decay. This results in significant cost savings and marked lessening of the health haz-ard to the workers. The disadvantages of delay include the rising costs due to inflation and the cost of the interim surveillance. Studies to date show marked economic and health and safety advantages to delaying decomissioning with the optimum delay time being found to be at least fifty years. Some or all of the following activities could take place in the decomis-sioning process:
- a. Remove the structural steel framing and metal siding of the O
v turbine-generator building, salvage the crane and all equipment, leave the non-removable parts of the turbine-generator foundation and block all entrances.
- b. In the general Services Building, salvage the equipment as practi-cable, raze the structural walls and block the entrances. The dis-position of other auxiliary structures will be dependent upon the future use to be made of the site.
- c. In the containment and fuel storage area, remove all fuel, control rods and accessories, and salvage the cranes and other equipment.
For these buildings, detailed plans will have to be established im-mediately preceding the decomissioning to allow maximum re-use of site land areas while eliminating any radioactive hazard. The degree of building demolition, the demolition, the extent of practi-cable decontamination, the possible re-use of certain equipment or structures, and the subsequent use to be made of the site, all must be evaluated in establishing these plans. O 5.8-3
WNP-1/4 ER-OL In the above operations, equipment would be decontaminated where necessary and practicable or transported with suitable precautions. 5.8.4 Nonradiological Impact on the Environment Decomissioning the plants would have many of the same impacts on the en-vironment as the original site preparation and station construction, but the degree of impact would be less. Car, truck and rail traffic would in-crease, as would the noise level. Some land would have to be used for lay-down area. 5.8.5 Radiological Impact on the Environment The decomissioning of the reactor buildings would have radiological impacts characteristic of transporting from the site irradiated fuel and radioactive wastes. Af ter decomissioning is complete, however, it is expected that the proposed action would have no further significant radiological impact on the environment. The amount of land irretrievably comitted by this action will be minimal and probably negligible. The exact amount awaits development of detailed deccmmissioning plans. 5.8.6 Decomissioning An overall work plan, including cost estimates, may be prepared near the end of the reactors' useful lives. The decommissioning operations would be con-ducted in accordance with detailed procedures, specifications and sched-ules. The specifications would define the scope, methods and sequence of accomplishing major talks. Where detailed work procedures are required to supplement the specifications they would be developed to meet the existing field conditions, state-of-the-art technology and shipping and burial ground requirements. All procedures would be reviewed with the NRC. Prior to decomissioning, certain preparatory work would be initiated. This includes:
- a. Preparation of detailed plans and accumulation of tools and equipment.
- b. Selection and qualification (if required) of necessary personnel,
- c. Maintaining security precautions to keep out unauthorized personnel.
- d. Construction of an enlarged change room and personnel decontamina-tion area.
5.8-4
WNP-1/4 ER-OL
/^ e. Establishing storage areas for contaminated and uncontaminated wastes,
- f. Establishing radioactivity monitoring procedures for the additional personnel and areas involved.
All spent fuel will be withdrawn and transported to a licensed nuclear fuel processing plant or permanent storage site. Shipments of radioactive mate-rials would be governed by the same precautionary regulations stipulated in Section 3.8. Steam generators and other components likely to be contami-nated by " detectable radioactivity" would be decontarainated, cut if neces-sary, or shipped whole with protective coverings. The cutting of radio-active components would be done within the containment and with monitoring. Immediate work areas would be enclosed within a contamination control enve-lope to prevent release of activity to the environment. Tanks, machines and other components capable of being decantaminated would be so treated and shipped to salvage dealers. Solid wastes will be properly packaged in approved containers which will be sealed and thoroughly surveyed for er.ternal contamination before they are removed. The sub-grade levels of all buildings would be decontaminated and sealed. Provisions would be made so that inleakage of ground water can be detected. 5.8.7 Systems to be Utilized During Decommissioning Typical plant systems which would likely need to be kept activated during decommissioning are: demineralizer, gaseous waste disposal, fuel element storage well system, ventilation, air conditioning and heating, service water, emergency electrical, service air and plant communication systems, as well as radwaste systems. 5.8.8 Post-Decommissioning Survey After program completion, but prior to any backfitting operations, a thor-ough radiation survey of the plant site would be performed to verify that any detectable radioactivity does not represent a source of contamination and is within established regulatory limits. 5.8.9 Routine Inspection and Maintenance After completion of the decommissioning or securing of the reactor build-ings, they would be inspected as needed at appropriate intervals to insure that the secured buildings remain sealed. !O
- 5.8-5
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 5.8.10 Costs of Decommissioning The plant decommissioning costs occur at the end of the project life, cur-rently estimated to be 35 years. Cost calculations if made now, would be highly speculative. Certain pieces of equipment, such as water tanks and pumps, if only slightly radioactive, could probably be decontaminated and sold for a price possibly covering their costs of removal. Other equipment, more radioactive, would probably be shipped to the closest burial ground, the cost of removal and delivery resulting in a total loss. Demolition of concrete buildings is a significant cost. Shipping and burial of concrete, if necessary, would contribute additional costs. O 5.8-6
WNP-1/4 ER-OL v CHAPTER 6 EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 6.1 PRE 0PERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM 6.1.1 Surface Water 6.1.1.1 Physical and Chemical Parameters Previous Studies. Numerous studies have been conducted for approximately 35 years in connection with the Hanford Site activities concerning the physical and chemical characteristics of the Columbia River in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2. These studies have included both general observations and de-tailed analyses of the effects on the river of effluents from the plutonium production reactors. These r marized by Becker and Waddel,9pprts, G1 and Neitzel which w9rganreviewed, M1 provide evaluated, and su accurate and comprehensive historical picture of the river. Measurements by Others. Stage and discharge of the Columbia River are mea-sured continuously at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gp ng station below Priest Rapids Dam, 45 miles upstream of the project site.\ The USGS also routinely monitors river temperature and water chemistry at the Vernita bridge six miles below the dam, and at the intake of the City of Richland water supply treatment plant about 11 miles downstream of the project site. Samples for chemical analyses of the Columbia River are taken routinely at Priest Rapids Dam, Vernita Bridge, the 300 Area, and Richland by Battelle-Northwest with and the United the Hanford States DepartmentEnvironmental of Energy.l4 Health) Foundation under a contra i Measurements by Applicant. Water quality studies were performed in the vi-cinity of WNP-1/4 in an effort to obtain baseline information for ultimate use in the evaluation of operational impacts. From July 1980 through June 1981, water chemistry samples were collected upstream of the WNP-1/4 intake (Figure 6.1-1). The samples were analyzed weekly for alkalinity, cadmium, chromium, copper, hardness, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, dissolved oxygen, pH and zinc. In addition samples were measured monthly for ammonia-nitrogen, barium, baron, calcium, chloride, cobalt, color, floride, magnesium, manga-nese, nitrate-nitrogen, total organic nitrogen, oil and grease, total O l V 6.1-1 t l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL phosphorus, orthophosphorus, potassium, settleable matter, sodium, total dis, 9 solved solids, total suspended solids, specific conductance, sulfate and tur-bidity. In most cases the methods o mentalProtectionAgencyProcedures.{Spnalysis were in accord with Environ-i Dye dis,,usion studies and velccity measurements have been performed by the Supply System to determine hydraulic characteristics of the Columbia River in the vicinity of the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 sites. Four dye releases were made on February 2 1972, at RM 351.75 in 5 to 7 ft of water off the west bank of the river. River flows were low during the releases and ranged from 36,000 to 50,000 cfs. The studies showed that complete vertical mixing oc-curs rapidly at this location, and that dye releases made from the river bot-tom mix more rapidly than releases from mid-depth and the surface. For all releases, complete vertical mixing occurred within 250 ft downstream of the release point. Velocities ranging from 2.5 to 3.3 fps were measured at the water surface during these tests. River velocities were also measured by the Supply System on March 14, 1974 at four locations (three dep} at each location) at a river transect downstream of the WNP-1/4 discharge.tp1Three of tnese locations were in the right (west and main) channel, and the fourth location was in the middle of the left (east and secondary) channel. The river flow at the time of the mea-surements was about 130,000 cfs, and measurements were made between 3.3 ft and 19.7 ft from the water surface in the right channel and between 3.3 ft and 13.1 ft in the left channel. The velocities near the water surface g ranged from 4.2 to 4.6 fps in the right channel and were 0.8 fps in the lef t channel. Velocities in the vicinity of the WNP-2 discharge were also measured in December 1979 when the river flow was about 135,000 cfs and the depth was approximately 20 Velocities varied from 3.5 fps near the bottom to 7 fps nearthesurface.L}) Measurements of suspended sediment concentrations and turbidity were per-formed at various locations upstream and downstream from the outfall struc-tures during excavation outfall structures.(8,9)of theThe river bedof and purpose installation ofwas the measurements thetointake assureand that construction activities required to install the intake and outfall mini-l mized scour, erosion, runoff and turbidity. Measurements were conducted l daily during excavation activities in the river. Sediment concentrations j were measured by a conventional suspended sediment sampler. A low flow test of the Columbia River on April 10, 1976 controlled the flow to 36,000 cfs for the purpose of verifying river surface elevations. The results indicated that the water surface was about 1.3 ft. lower than l 6.1-2 l O l l l l L
WNP-1/4 q ER-OL V previous data indicated. Subsequently, river bottom elevations in the vicin-ity of the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 discharges were surveyed by the Supply System to obtain more accurate flow depths than were available from previous surveys. Modeling of Blowdown Plume Temperatures. A mathematical model was used to estimate the hydrodynamic and water temperature regime of the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 cooling tower blowdown plumes in the Columbia River under different blowdown and river discharge conditions.(10) The model was selected on the basis of its applicability to thermal plume behavior in general and observed conditions in the Columbia River in particular. The basic equations available for the computation of thermal plumes are the equations of state, continuity, energy, and momentum. However, these equa-tions are extremely difficult to solve in their more general, nonsteady and three-dimensional formulations. Various assumptions are therefore necessa:y to simplify the equations to develop practical numerical solutions. Simpli-fications may involve the assumption of steady-state, reduction of a three-dimensional problem into fewer dimensions (if possible with symmetry), and the division of a complex problem into smaller sequential problems. For submerged discharge of effluent entering a swif tly moving turbulent river s in a direction perpendicular to the mainstream current, three regimes of flow I can be defined:
- 1. the very near field, where the momentum of the effluent jet causes intensive mixing resulting in rapid reduction in maximum effluent concentration;
- 2. a region (loosely termed the intermediate field) where the effluent stream has been turned and is moving along with the current, almost like a part of the mainstream, and is diffusing laterally and verti-cally predominately due to river turbulence and some buoyant action; and
- 3. the f ar field, defined here as the region where the effluent is moving downstream passively, fully mixed in the vertical dimension with river turbulence dominating lateral diffusion.
These definitions of the conceptual regimes are based on ohygrvations made during dye studies on a test stretch of the Columbia RiverW1 and on stream datacol} ted during operation of the now decommissioned Hantprql production reactors t 1 and the existing Hanford Generating Plant (HGP).021 These measurements indicated that a downstream heated plume yil] be vertically well mixed in the test stretch even at low flow conditions.(13) O(% 6.1-3
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O Regime 1 encompasses a region extending from the point of discharge down-stream to a location whet e cross-stream velocity is no longer significant. This flow regime is extremely complex because of the strong interaction between the jet and ambient streams. Numerous analytical and experimental studie o rning similar problems have been conducted in recent years. A simplified analytical approach is through similarity analysis, in which the governing three-dimensional partial differential equations are reduced to ordinary differential equations by assuming experimentally determined pro-files for velocity and temperature (or concentration). Unfortunately, simi-larity approaches are strictly applicable only to discharges to semi-infinite water bodies. Hence, similarity theory cannot be applied with a great deal of confidence to discharge flow behavior which is modified by a confining free surface or riverbed. The blowdown effluents from WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 are catergorized as severely confined discharges because at low flow the discharge orifice size is of the same order of magnitude as the water depth. Therefore a similarity solution would not be expected to yield accurate results. Additionally, it is doubt-ful that the jet will detach from the river bottom because of the expected rapid dilution of the buoyancy, the jet-induced turbulence, and the intense river turbulence. The confining nature of the stream (surface and bottom) is a factor which tends to decrease jet dilution compared with predicted discharge to a semi-infinite ambient. Conversely, turbulence in the Columbia River as in other swiftly-moving streams, is very intense and since similarity theory does not provide for ambient turbulence, this factor tends to cause greater dilution than theory would predict. Because of these limitations in applying the theory to the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 blowdown discharge flows, dilution for the very near field cannot be pre-dicted very accurately. However, the theory is valuable for predicting the approximate trajectory of the plume and thus the point where cross-stream velocities become insignificant. These simulations can indicate the im-portance of the initial jet behavior and the point at which the intermediate zone solution can confidently be started. The very near-field dynamical behavior and dilution has little influence on downstream conditions (jet diameter greater than 20 or so) in cases of dis-charge to swiftly moving streams. O 6.1-4
WNP-1/4 ER-OL n U The effluent in Regime 2 is flowing downstream with a velocity equal to that of the river flow. However, both lateral and vertical diffusion processes are important and buoyant forces may need to be considered. In this case, the advection-diffusion transport equation for heat or other constituents can be applied. The downstream river velocity is assumed to be known a priori from river velocity transect data, and secondary (transverse and vertical) flow effects are masked by mainstream turbulence. In accordance with the definition of this regime, downstream velocity perturbations caused by the discharge ef-fluent are also assumed to be insignificant compared to the mainstream flow. Considerable simplication may be achieved if the turbulent behavior of the mainstream dominates buoyant effects. This behavior is typical of shallow, swiftly moving streams such as the river reach which will be influenced by the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 blowdown discharges. Also, steady flow can be assumed for the analysis of selected blowdown and river flow conditions which do not vary rapidly with time. The advection-diffusion equation for Regime 2 can then be written: dT 0 0 _=K y ay 2+K z dx 2 az where k K y
=1u r
Z l Ez " li-r and T = temperature i x = downstream coordinate l y = cross-stream coordinate z = vertical coordinate ur = downstream velocity component k,k2 y = eddy diffusivities for heat in the y and z directions, respectively O v l 6.1-5
WNP-1/4 ER-OL In this equation downstream diffusion has been eliminated because the con-O tribution is small compared to downstream advection. The following sumarizes assumptions used in deriving the advection-diffusion equation :
- 1. The downstream velocity distribution, u r , is known a priori frcm field data.
- 2. Buoyancy effects are insignificant.
- 3. Vertical and lateral velocity components are insignificant.
- 4. Eddy diffusivities are homogeneous, but possibly anisotropic.
- 5. Downstream diffusion is insignificant compared to downstream advection.
- 6. The flow is steady in time (i.e., T/ t = 0).
- 7. Atmospheric effects are insignificant.
The advection-diffusion equation has the form of the classical transient heat conduction equatinn and may be easily solved for any desired boundary cw-dition using well-tested numerical techniques. For application to WNP-1/4 and WNP-2, an alternating direction implicit finite difference solution was used. Regime 3 is identified as the f ar field, where the effluent is moving down-stream passively and is fully mixed in the vertical dimension. Atmospheric effects, i.e. heat transfer across the air-water interface may become signi-ficant. The approximate beginning of this region is ascertained by the cal-culation procedure outlined for Regime 2. Regime 3 was not modeled since Regime 2 assumptions were adequate to encompass the mixing zone. 6.1.1.2 Ecological Parameters - Aquatic Studies at the Hanford Site for. more than 35 years have resulted in a sub-stantial amount of qualitative and quantitive information useful for impact assessment. Inaddition,theSupplySystemhagggductedapreliminary survey program including li tratur st 1 and field studies of the Columbia River from 10/3-1980. 8,1ydie3(I-22 -* historic and preliminary These studies have resulted in the knowledge of the composition, structure and function of the aquatic ecosystem that establishes the basis for the design of the preoperational monitoring program. O 6.1-6
WNP-1/4 ER-0L The preoperational program concentrated on obtaining baseline data for im-pacts of plant operations which can most probably be measured if they should occur. Accordingly, the portion of the river imediately adjacent to the plant site will receive the most attention, as will the biota most likely affected. Monitoring of those aquatic populations unlikely to be affected by plant operation has been retained in the program, but with a lower level of effort. The major preoperational monitoring program tasks included benthic biota, fish, and plankton monitoring. The preoperational program was curtailed in March 1980 with the cogqu rence of the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC).tz3(; These studies provide a continuous data series on the natural variations in the seasonal occurrence and abundance of important aquatic species near the WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 sites from 1973 through early 1980. This knowledge of the extent of natural variations permits evaluation of changes in the abundance of important aquatic species in the vicinity of the projects before and af ter operation. A comparison of changes in species abundance in the vicinity of the intake and discharge in relation to changes in control areas outside the influence of the plant will be made before and af ter operation. Benthic Organisms. Alterations of the Columbia River aquatic biota due to m the influence of the plant effluent should be most readily indicated by changes of in the structure the discharges. of theSystem's The Supply benthic community in the igediatg) aquatic ecological , 7-2 vicinity program has characterized the composition, density and seasonal abundance of the benthic fauna near WNP 1/4 and WNP-2. The preoperational benthic program focused on the benthic flora and fauna in the area of expected discharge impact. Figure 6.1-1 indicates sampling locations for the aquatic biota program. Station 1 above and Station 8 below the area projected to be influenced by the discharge plumes, and Stations 7 and 11 in the WNP-2 plume were uti-lized. Sample stations 4 and 12 located in the area projected to be influ-enced by the WNP-1/4 discharge plume will be sampled during the operational program for WNP-2 and WNP-1/4. Stations 1,7,8 and 11 were sampled four times per year (March, June, September, and December) to establish baseline infor-mation on comunity composition and abundance. For benthic fauna, rock-filled baskets were incubated on the bottom for three months. On recovery, species composition, biomass and community dominance were determined. For benthic flora, glass microscope slides were incubated at the same sites as the rock-filled baskets and sampled on the same frequency. Qualitative species analysis, chlorophyll a and biomass measurements were made. Replicate benthic flora and fauna samples were taken to allow for statistical analysis of community changes, p O 6.1-7
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Fish. Identification of the species present in the Hanford stretch of the river is essentially complete. The Supply System's program has examined the spatial and temporal distribution, species relative abundance, age structure and feeding habits of fish found near the site. In the preoperational pro-gram, emphasis was placed on fish fcund in the imediate vicinity of the in-take and projected WNP-2 discharge plume. Species and numbers of fish residing seasonally near the plant were examined with particular attention given to anadromous outmigrants. Samples were obtained using nne or more of the following sampling methods: hoop-nets, electroshocking, gillnetting or beach seining. Sampling locations for each of these methods are shown in Figure 6.1-1. A tag and release program was used in an attempt to determine population size and time of residence within the study area. Fish sampling was conducted at least monthly, February through October. Table 6.1-1 provides the sampling frequency by method. Pl ank ton. Some fraction of the river's plankton will be drawn into the plant with the cooling water and another fraction will be exposed to the effects of entrainment in the discharge plume. The numbers so affected are an extremely small fraction of the population passing the plant. Studies conducted by the Supply System on the Columbia River indicate that planktonic algae and micro-crustaceans in the aquatic system near WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 do not have a major role in energy transfer pathways. No significant impact on the plankton com-munity is expected because of the small volume of water withdrawn by WNP-1/4 and WNP-2, and the small volume influenced by the discharged water compared to the total river flow. Nonetheless, phyto- and zooplankton studies were con- ducted on a limited basis. Investigations by the Supply System indicate that samples representative of the river from any one station and depth (8,17-2d.Therefore, plankton population during the may be obtained preoperational program monthly plankton samples were taken at one station (Station 1, Figure 6.1-1) and one depth. These samples were used to determine phyto- and zooplankton species relative abundance and baseline biomass. These programs also provided a continuous indicator of changes in the plankton population. 6.1.2 Groundwater The Department of Energy (D0E) through jts contractors has drilled about 1,500 wells on the Hanford Reservation.t24) More than 20 wells are located within 5 miles of the(g ject vicinity of the site; site see and 62.4-12 Figures wellsand are2.4-13. installed in the immediate Extensive environmental monitoring programs concerning the physical, chemical and radio auspices. A)cg{ cal monitoring l These characteristics of groundwater programs have been and investigations haveconducted already under DOE accumulated quite comprehensive information on groundwater characteristics and are expected to be continued routinely as part of the 00E program. O 6.1-8
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O The Supply System will monitor non-radiological groundwater quality parame-ters during the preoperational program to ensure conformance with State of Washington Drinking Water Quality. 6.1.3 Air 6.1.3.1 Local Meteorology Onsite meteorological data were collected at the WNP-2 site from April 1, 1974 through May 31, 1976. The meteorological data collection system con-sisted of a 240-f t tower, an auxiliary 7-f t instrument mast, sensors with associated electronics and recording devices, and a meteorological building. A in temporary March 1972meteorological system(September and was discontinued began collecting) datathe 1974 once at satisfactory the same location operation of the new system was verified. The temporary meteorological system consisted of a 23-ft mast with an aerovane wind sensor. Data was re-corded on chart paper. Air temperature and relative humidity were recorded by use of a hygrothermograph in an adjacent weather screen. The permanent meteorological system consists of a primary tower 240-ft high with an extending 5-ft mast. The primary tower is triangular in shape and of open lattice construction to minimize tower interference with meteorological y measurements. Wind and temperature measurements on the main tower were made at the 245-ft and 33-ft levels. At the 33-ft level the instruments (wind, temperature, and dewpoint) were mounted on an 8-ft horizontal boom extending west-northwest of the tower. Wind and temperature measurements were also made at the top of the 7-ft mast which is located approximately 80 ft to the southwest of the 240-ft tower. Wind speed measurements were made using conventional cup anemometers (Climet Instruments, Model 011-1 Wind Speed Transmitter). The instruments have a response threshold of about 0.6 mph and an accuracy of i 1% or 0.15 mph (which ever is greater) over a range of 0.6 to 90 mph. The instruments were calibrated at speeds between approximately 5 and 20 mph. Wind direction measurements were made using lightweight vanes (Climet In-struments, Model 012-10 Wind Direction Transmitter). The response threshold of these vanes is about 0.75 mph, and their damping ratio and distance con-stant are approximately 0.4 and 3.3 ft, respectively. Dual potentiometers in the wind direction transmitter produce an electrical signal covering 5400 in azimuth with an accuracy of within 120 In addition, electronics have been included to provide signals which are pro-portional to the stardard deviation (q ) of the wind direction at each level. D 6.1-9
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O Temperature instrumentation provided measurements of both the ambi.ent air temperature at the 245, 33, and 7-ft levels and the temperature differences between these levels. The ambient air temperature and the temperature dif-ference sensors are independent of each other to provide reliability. All temperature measurements for both systems are made in aspirated temperature shields (Climet Instruments Model 016-1 or -2) using platinum resistance temperature devices (Rosemount Engineering Co., Model 104 MB6ABCA). These instruments provide an ambient temperature range from -300F to +1300F and a temperature difference range of +150F. The accuracy of the instruments exceeds +0.9 F in the measurement of temperatures and +0.180 F in the measuremlint of temperature differences. The dewpoint temperature was measured at the 33-ft level of the tower using a lithium chloride dewpoint sensor (Climet Instruments, Model 015-1 12) housed in an aspirated temperature shield (Climet Instruments, Model 016-2). The accuracy of this measurement in the normal range of measurement is better than +0.90F. Precipitation was measured at ground level using a tipping bucket rain gage (Meteorology Research, Model 302) located about 40 ft west of the main tower. This instrument is accurate to within +1% at rainfall rates up to 3 in./hr and has a resolution of 0.01 in. The instrument building provided a climate-controlled environment near the tower to house the instrument electronics and record the data. Both digital magnetic tape and analog strip chart recorders were used providing redundant data record'ag capability. The primary data recording system is a 7-track digital magnetic tape recorder (Kennedy, Model 1600) that uses 1/2-in. tape. Logarithmically, time-averaged wind speed, wind direction, temperature, tem-perature difference, and dewpoint temperature signals were recorded at 5-minute intervals. The time constant of the averaging process is 5 to 15 minu tes. The standard deviation of wind direction during the preceding 5 l minutes at each level and the total precipitation were recorded along with l the wind and temperature information. All data, except the wind direction standard deviations, were recorded on strip charts. Besides enhancing data , retrievability, the strip chart records provided a rapid means of identifying instrument malfunctions and were useful in system calibration. Strip charts and magnetic tapes were changed weekly. 1 In sumary, the total system (smisor, recorder, analysis, etc.) accuracies I for the measured meteorological parameters meet or exceed the following specifications: l air temperature +0.50C temperature difference ~70.20C humidity (dew point) 0.5 0C wind speed T0.5 mph wind direction -T50 9 6.1-10
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O These are verified by the end-to-end calibrations. Data recovery was better than 90 percent. To ensure the quality of the meteorological data collected by the monitoring system, an extensive quality assurance program was instituted. This program covered all phases of meteorological monitoring from the initial instrument acquisition through the analysis of data. Periodic checks and calibration of the instrument systems and individual components were instituted. These pe-riodic checks ranged from daily inspection of the strip charts to semi-annual calibration of the complete system. Calibrations were performed at three-month intervals during the duration of data collection (April 1, 1974 - May 31, 1976). Full system (system elec-tronics and sensors) calibrations were performed (dated) July, October 1974, April, October 1975, and April 1976. Calibrations of just the system elec-tronics were performed at the intervals between. Prior to April 1, 1974 the system was calibrated by the vendor. The final calibration,' prior to shut-down, was an electronics calibration during June 1976. All checks, calibrations, and maintenance were fully documented including traceability of test and calibration equipment to the National Bureau of Standards where
~
necessary. These calibrations and routine daily and weekly inspections demonstrated that the meteorological system remained electronically stable in tenns of obtaining data of sufficient quality to meet the requirements of h. d Regulatory Guide 1.23. Corrections to the data have been applied per the quarterly calibration findings and all data have been summarized in the form of monthly reports. The data once collected, were protected from loss to the maximum extent pos-sible. The digital tapes were examined to identify possible instrumentation malf unctions. The data were then copied or.to two master tapes. The original weekly tape and one master tape were stored in vaults. The second master tape was used in the preparation of data summaries. Finally, to ensure proper operation of computer hardware and software, all computer programs used to sunnarize or analyze the data were checked quarterly. These checks were performed using a standard data input. The computer output from these tests was saved to document computer operation. 6.1.3.2 Models l Short-Term Diffusion Estimates Atmospheric diffusion factors (x/Q's) at the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) l (1.2 miles) and the outer boundary of the Law Population Zone (LPZ) at 4.0 j miles were calculated from hourly meteorological data collected at the onsite l l b v 6.1-11
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O meteorological f acility for the period from April 1,1974 through March 31, 1976. Values taken from frequency distributions follow: Averaging Xg
/
Period Maximum 5% Sec 50% Distance MJ 2 hours 1.4 x 10 3 2.2 x 10 4 2.4 x 10 5 EAB, 1.2 miles 8 hours 1 1 x 10 4 2.2 x 10 5 3.3 x 10 6 LPZ, 4.0 miles 16 hours 9.2 x 10 6 2.3 x 10 6 7.4 x 10 7 LPZ, 4.0 miles 3 days 2.8 x 10 6 1.2 x 10 6 5.0 x 10 7 LPZ, 4.0 miles 26 days 9.3 x 10 7 6.4 x 10 7 3.6 x 10 7 LPZ, 4.0 miles Hocly meteorological data collected from April 1,1974 through March 31,1976, were used to calculate hourly X/Q's. The following definitions and units apply to variables in the following equations. l Variable Units Definitions X Ci/m3 Ground-level concentration Q Ci/sec Release rate u m/sec Mean horizontal wind speed at 10 meters.
'y m Pasquill horizontal plume standard deviation in the y direction.
z m Pasquill horizontal plume standard deviation in the vertical direction. x m Distance to assumed receptor l C Empirical constant used in defining magnitude of building wake (= 1/2) A m2 Minimum building cross sectional area (=3704) Model for Release Periods Less Than Eight Hours The basic Gaussian diffusion model was employed in the form appropriate for an in-line ground-level release and receptor assuming reflection of the plume at 6.1-12
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O the ground with no plume depletion due to surface deposition or washout due to precipitation. With these assumptions, the Gaussian model reduces to the form: Xg. f 1 (Eq. 1)
'y3z u Consideration of initial mixing within the building wake for a ground level release less than eight hours was done by adjurting Equation 1 as follows:
X 1 1 (Eq. 2)
/Q = <
('y'z +.CA) u 3pr'y3z 1 In all cases, the equation which resulted in the largest X/Q was used. These dipersion equations are in confonnance with Regulatory Guide 1.4. Model for Release Periods Greater Than Eight Hours For time periods greater than eight hours, it was assumed in conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.4 that the occurrence of a plume in a given sector is uni-formly distributed over the entire section. In this case, Equation 1 has the form: X /g . 2n (g /2'z "X 3 (Eq. 3) h Where n is the number of sectors dividing the compass (n = 16), x is the down-wind distance, and u is the average wind speed at 10m. This equation may be reexpressed as: X/ g 2.032 (Eq. 4)
'z u X Atmospheric dispersion f actors were calculated for averaging periods of 2 ,
8 , 16 , 72 , and 624-hours at two distances:
- 1. The Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) at 1.2 miles and,
- 2. The outer boundary of the Low Population Zone (LPZ) at 4.0 mile.
Cumulative Frequency Analysis of each release period was developed as follows: 2 hours - Hourly X/Q values were used in the analysis. 8 hours - For each 8-hour averaging period, sixteen 8-hour averages were obtained using equations 2 or 3, one for each sec tor. The value selected to represent the 8-hour period was the maximum of the 16 averages. Each hour of record was sindlarly analyzed. 6.1-13
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 16 hours - For each 16-hour averaging period, similar analysis was perfonned except that Equation 4 was used. Each hour of record was analyzed with the exception that at least 15 of the 16 hours must have valid data. 3 days - Equation 5 was used and the analysis required a minimum of 65 hours of valid data for each 72-hour averaging period (about 90%). 26 days - A minimum of 562 hours of valid data out of each 624-hour period was necessary. In addition to the foregoing information, the hourly /QX data was analyzed according to probability of occurrence by sector. Long-Term (Routine) Diffusion Estimates The joint 10-meter WNP-2 site wind direction a:.d wind speed by atmospheric stability class data was used to assess annual average normalized concen-trations, X/Q, for 16 radial sectors extending from the site bou.'dary to a dis- tance of 50 miles from the source. The calculational techniques used are consistent with the guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.111 " Methods for Estimating Atmospneric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors." The joint frequency data were used in conjunction with the fol-lowing equation to obtain X/Q values at appropriate downwind distance in each of the 16' sectors. 2 l X(x,k) , 2.032 f ijk exp(-he /2 g (x)) Rfk(*) (Eq.1) ij l Q x 71 'zj (x) 2 + 0.502)l1/2 w ) Where: X(x,k) = average effluent concentration in Ci/m3 Q normalized by source release rate (Ci/sec) at distance x and direction k. x = downwind distance from release point. O 1
- 6.1-14 l
l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O ui = mid-point value of ith wind speed class. h e = effective plume height.
"zj(*) = vertical standard deviation of effluent spread at distance x for the jth stability class.
R fk = f actor to account for air recirculation and stagnation. f ijk = joint probability of the ith wind speed class, jth stability class, and kth wind direction. r = 3.1416 D = maximum building height of adjacent buildings (D = 58.7m) The building wake correction in Equation 1 reduces theX/Q estimate subject to the following equality: ('zj2(x) + d)b 4 3(*zj2(x)1/2 r Equation 1 assumes a long-term continuous release whose effluent is dis-tributed evenly a 22.50 sector. The release was assumed to be ground level (i.e. he = 0 in Equation 1). Computer code X0QDM, as described in NUREG-0324 (draf t), was used to maxe the calculations. Methods Used for Modeling Cooling Tower Atmospheric Plumes. A computer program, utilizing diffusion and cumulus cloud models was used to estimate the environmental effects of the circular mechanical draft evapora-tive cooling tower. Because the cooling tower analysis preceded the avail-ability of data from the permanent onsite meteorological system, one year of onsite hourly data from the temporary meteorological system was combined with hourly stability data from the Hanford meteorology tower for the analysis. Individual plume characteristics are calculated and the results summarized in monthly and annual tables. O 6.1-15
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O The plume rise from the circular mechanical draft cooUng towers of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 are cg riseequations.\gylatedusingamodifiedheatinputtermintheBriggsplume 1 This Weinstein and Davis (32,33)cumulus heat input term cloud model wasatcalculated 0400 and 1600 based on the hours each day. The cumulus cloud model and the Briggs model predictions were compared and correction f actors calculated for the heat input to the Briggs model. The correction factors were then linearly interpolated for otk r hours and applied to the Briggs model predictions for those hours. The plume rise estimates were used to define the centerline of the plume, while the prevailing wind direction defined the direction of movement. It was assumed that for a given set of design and meteorological conditions, vapor leaving a cooling tower diffuses outward from the center of a plume according to the Gaussian plume formula regardless of whether some of the vapor condenses to fog. The criteria for visible plume formation and sub-sequent dissipation were based on a comparison of the calculated water vapor concentration of the plume and the corresponding value from a curve of satur-ation vapor pressure as a function of temperature. Whenever the latter was the greater quantity, the plume was assumed to be no longer visible. If ground fog is predicted to be present at a given distance, the width of p the plume at groundlevel is determined by the relationship, Y =2(2(ey)2 In (Xmax/X))1/2 (10) When Y is the plume width, X max is the maximum value of X along the center-line, and X is the minimum humidity associated with fogging based on ambient conditions. The analysis was performed for an entire year of data. The results of visi-ble plume lengths, widths, and ground interactions as a function of distance and direction were tabulated for all conditions, and for freezing con-ditions. The results are given in Section 5.1.4. Although this model is a combination of a number of physical processes for which experimental verification is available, an overall verification of the plume estimates with field data has not been performed. The impact estimates can be expected to be generally conservative as a result of the choice of conservative assumptions relative to plume rise and water source tecm. A more detailed discussion of the model, assumptions, and results is contained in Reference 34. l i O 6.1-16
- - - - , - - - - % +-
WNP-1/4 ER-OL G Drif t Impact Model. The drif t estimates are based upon the graphical method of estimating deposition rptes of salts from evaporative cooling towers de-veloped by Hosler et al.(3a; They describe the problem as follows: " Drift drops are carried by the plume updraft up to a certain height and then they f all to the ground while traveling with the wind. The surface over which this salt will be distributed depends on the wind speed and the time the drops will spend in the air. This time depends on the maximum height the drop reaches and the drop f all velocity. The fall velocity of the drift drops is reduced with time because of evaporation. The rate and extent of evaporation depends on: 1) salt concentration, which regulates vapor pres-sure, 2) size of the droplet, and 3) ambient relative humidity. For the same environmental conditions, drops of different sizes may or may not achieve the same degree of evaporation before reaching the ground. To simplify the problem only three degrees of evaporation were considered: 1) no evaporation, 2) evaporation to saturated solution, and 3) evaporation to dry salt particles. A graph was constructed for each degree of evaporation. These graphs can be used to determine the surface to be covered by the salt, from the knowledge of the drift mass distribution as a function of drop size, the sa]t oncentration, the maximum height of the drop, and the wind speed. ( 36 ; Data Input. The following values were used as input into the cited model: 18.2 m Height of tower 610,000 gpm Water girculated per unit time (a) 4.2 x 10-4 Mass of salt per maps of circulating water (b f 310 gpm Drift 0 water)[,c)05%ofcirculated 36 fps Stack exit velocity (a) Larger than final design value of 570,000 gpm. (b) This value is five times the average of dissolved constituents of the Columbia River during 1969-70. The additional concentration is presumed to account for " distillation" in tt cooling tower evaporation process. There is an additional mass of salts added to the river water as it enters the cooling system, but this addition amounts to only 1/610 of that contributed by the raw river water, and thus is ignored in the calculations. (c) Final design value is 285 gpm. O 6.1-17 l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O Table 6.1-2 lists the mass size distribution of drift droplets. Based on long-term climatological records at the Hanford Meteorological Station (HMS), the year was divided into two primary classes: 1) sumer (April through September), when relative humidities averaged 40 percent and 2) winter (October through March), when relative humidities averaged 78 percent. Plume height was allowed to vary with atmospheric stg ity. The heights used were based on estimates made by Woodruff et al.tgi for mechanical draft cooling tower plumes. Presumptions were that the plume would rise to a height of 1000 ft above stack top during summer neutral and unstable atmos-pheres, and to 330 ft during summer stable atmospheres. During winter the comparable heights for neutral / unstable and for stable situations were 1300 ft and 430 ft, respectively. Hosler et a'i.(35) found minimal differences in deposition rates calculated by using mean wind speeds and by using observed wind speed distribution. Mean speeds observed at the 400-ft elevation at the Hanford Meteorological Station were used in the calculations. It was assumed that the period 0600 to 1800 hours daily was thermally unstable or neutral, and that the nighttime period, 1800 to 0600 hours, experienced stable atmospheres. Mean 400-ft wind speeds associated with these periods were 9.5 mph for winter days, and 10.9 mph for winter nights. Roffman and Van Vleck(36) show that the state-of-the-art of predicting the salt deposition from drift droplets is such that the values obtained by various methods vary by a factor of +10. The present estimates are con-sidered a maximum as a result of the choice of generally conservative as-sumptions for the calculation. 6.1.3.3 Air Quality As a result of the small quantities of nonradiological air pollutants to be released, the Supply System does not propose to initiate a nonradiological preoperational air quality monitoring program. An independent system is operated by the Hanford Environmental Health Foundation. This program in-cludes measurement at several locations in the Hanford area of airborne particulates, S02 and N02. These measurements as well as other air quality aspects of the site have been discussed in the PSAR (Section 2.3.1). O 6.1-18
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 9 6.1.4 Land Much applicable site has land-monitoring been collected information over the years by ERDA.relg to theResearch WNP-1/4field and WNP-2 studies, particularly of soils and terrestrial ecology, were carried out on the Hanford site by ERDA contractors. Thus, the data base in this case is substantial with regard to land monitoring information. 6.1.4.1 Geology and Soils The Hanford object of many Project, including geologic the mainly studies, WNP-1/4 of and WNP-2 a topical site, has nature. been thq McHenry v8) characterized the chemical and physical properties of soils of the project from drilling s9Tp;es collected from approximately 40 wells spaced about the project. Hajek W classified the soils of the project on an agricultural basis. Earlier topical geology studies, related primarily to aspects of radioactive waste disposal, included subsurface geology of the Hanford area, identifi-cation of str hic units, correlation of volcanic flows, and aquifer descriptions. Additional and detailed information on geologic studies, soil boring pat-terns, and analytical and testing methods used are contained in the Final Safety Analysis Report. Although research studies have been carried out over a number of years con-cerning terrestrial ecology on the Hanford site, none of these studies have been aimed at assessing impacts of cooling tower drift. Cooling tower drift will be a new kind of environmental stress for Hanford Site ecosystems. The vegetative cover growing in the near vicinity of the cooling towers con-sists primarily of cheatgrass, Bromus tectorum. This grass provides the main biotic protection against soil erosion. Because the climate is dry, salt dissolved in drift droplets is ex)ected to accumulate in the soil profile. Salt accumulation is expected to be most concentrated near the base of the cooling tower and rapidly decrease with increasing distance from the tower. The longer the cooling towers are operational, the more intense the salt accumulation. Although it is expected that cheatgrass will be tolerant of moderate in-creases in soil salt and pH values, there are no data presently available to judge the magnitude of increased soil salt concentrations needed to signifi-cantly impair the germinability of cheatgrass seeds. This is an impcrtant point because cheatgrass is an snnual grass and the stand originates from seed each year and there is no known plant that is as successful in this habitat as is cheatgrass. O 6.1-19
WNP-1/4
~
ER-OL -
/
A preoperational monitoring program to detect and' assess significant changes in soil chemistry in the , vicinity of WNP-1/4 and was initiated in 1980 and is perfonned annually.(WNR-2 caused by 461 Soil samples aresalt col-drif t lected at study plots located at distances bracketing the area of expected maximum impact in the predominant downwind directions (N and SE). Control plots in similar soil, but removed from influenc~e.of the cooling tower plumes, are sampled.. Each study clot is marked so that the same plot can be' examined during post-operational monitoring. Less than optimum locations were selected to avoid disturbed soil and working. areas. At each study plot, composite samples are taken _to a depth of approximately six (6) inches below the surface. Samples are analyzed for salt content, eler trical conductivity, and pH. Chemical analyses also include the dominant ions in the cooling tower drift and .in the soil: the cations Ca, Mg, Na, and K and the anions C03 , HCO 3 , 504 , and C1. 6.1.4.2 Land Use and Demographic Surveys Land use in the immediate vicinity of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 is under the control of Department of Energy (previously E'lDA), and the staff of the Richland Operations Office pmvided the source material required for land use descrip-m tions of Hanford Site f acilities. Additional infonnation related to 1
- off-project land 'uses was obtained primarily from the Bureau of Reclamation Regional Office; which is responsible for much pf the land development in surrounding areas, from th'e Soil Conservation Service, and from the ,
Washington State Department'of Agriculture. Some infomation was provided by - ~ _ the County Planning Offices in adjacent counties; however, this was generally, related to county zoning rather than actual current land use. The callected published data were supplemented with information obtained from personal con-versation with county planning and 'other locril, county, State and Federal _ agency officials and through reconnaissance surveys of those areas where.nis-sing or questionable data were concerned. Demographic data fo'r the latest census year (1980) were obtained from ' Bureau of the Census publications. Inforniation for population projections was.. - available f m the Washington State Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management, 47) th P rtland State University Center for Po u tion <Re-search and Census, 48 the Bonneville P the Paci-fic Northwest River Basins Commission,(ower Administration, 45 ) P rific N andtheTri-CityNuclearIndustrialCouncil.N2) Rural population trends were' League based)also (52 on estimates Information from developed th'ese sources for the Columbia were used byBasin Development the Supply System to pro ect oo plant. 54,55)pulation for future census years over the expected life of the b o - 6.1-20 t t - = - - - - I -e -P
WNP-1/4
- ER-OL e
In conjunction with the construction of WNP-1/4, the Supply System has con-ducted a program to monitor the socioeconomic effects. The purpose of the study was to document, assess, and project the primary and secondary socio-economic effects and impacts of construction and operation of WNP-1/4. Two phases were defined in implementing the study. The first phase emphasized measurement and documention of socioeconomic effects into the peak of con-struction of the WNP-1 and WNP-4 pmjects. Preliminary reports were prepared on an annual basis for each of these years. The second phase of the study concluded with a final report which: 1) made an evaluation of the accuracy of a previously conducted impact projection report and 2) made new projections independent of the previo stu y, based on updated information developed in the preliminary reports. 4,55 The important socioeconomic factors studied in detail are listed below: o in-migrant workers and families o resident workers and f amilies o the relationship between contract construction on WNP-1/4 and secondary employment o economic conditions in the study area o schools o housing o government services and f acilities o traffic flow and transportation l l o social and health services o police and fire protection i 1 0 6.1-21
WNP-1/4-ER-OL 6.1.4.3 Terrestrial Ecology The important local flora and fauna are being identified in preliminary studies to the species level, and the relationships of the fauna to the vege-tation and to the sa ngegatic and soil features of the local environment
- are being described. >
The Bald Eagle is the only threatened ani-mal species to occur in the area. No other Federally designated threatened or endangered animals or plants live in the area. Recommendations will be made to preserve special habitats necessary for the continued protection of such species should they occur. The preoperational monitoring program will focus on establishing a baseline for evaluating cooling tower drift effects. Aerial Photography. Aerial photographs in natural and infrared color of the site and adjacent area were made by the Supply System to provide a basis for mapping the extent of existing plant communities between the plant site and the Columbia River. Photography is not believed to be isticated enough to detect incipient changes due to cooling tower drift. Future ter restrial impact assessment will rely on analysis of vegetation study pg gt and soil chemistry data (Section 6.1.4.1) but not aerial photography.t 1 Vegetational Analyses. A program to establish a data base for terrestrial ecosystems in the vicinity of WNP-1, 2, and 4 was initiated in p 1974.(46,56-59) Vegetation study areas were established at five locations within approximately one mile of the site. Two of these plots are located V within an area burned by wildfire in 1970 and three are in areas that escaped the fire. Figure 6.1-2 shows the location of terrestrial ecology study I sites. Knowledge from these studies will apply to construction impacts because the 1970 fire was extremely hot, destroying virtually all plant life and all seeds which would have normally germinated the next year. As with construction areas, vegetation of these areas depends on new seeds blowing in from unburned areas. Species composition and relative abundance of seed plants at the five study plots were measured sis developed accordingvegetation. for shrub-steppe to a canopy g r method of vegetational analy-The mean herbaceous cover (percent) provided by various botanical categories for 1975 through 1980 is shown in Figure 6.1-3. The dominant species in burned and unburned areas is cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) which comprises almost all the annual grass category. The primary productivity (grams of dry matter produced per meter square per year) of the Hanfordbitterbrush-(ShbeatgrassecosystemissimilartootherUnitedStates and land ecosystems. ) The data presented in Figure 6.1-4 reflects that primary productivity varies from year to year depending upon the weather and other environmental variables. t 6.1-22
WNP-1/4 ER-0L O The preoperational monitoring program will include continued analyses of plant comunities on the five (5) previously established study plots. Field I examination of these plots and a control will be conducted yearly at the time j of peak flowering. Primary productivity, canopy cover, and frequency of oc- i currence will be obtained. 1 1 The emphasis of preoperational studies will be to establish a baseline for assessing impacts on indigenous vegetation caused by cooling tower drif t. Vegetation study plots are established adjacent to the soil sampling plots discussed in Section 6.1.4.1. The Litterfall sampling was performed in 1979 and 1980. Due to the extreme variability seen in the collections it is questionable whether this method could be used to detect changes in shrub productivjt,y Accordingly the Supply System, with the concurrence of EFSEC,lW)over time. this approach from the terrestrial monitoring has deleted program. Animal Studies. Studies have focused on censuses of mamals and birds in the vicinity of the site. Small mamal populations were sampled using a live trap-mark-release-recapture technique in two contrasting plant communities. One is a burned comunity, dominated by cheatgrass, and the other is an un-burned, shrub-dominated community (Figure 6.1-2). Trapping was done periodi-cally throughout the year to obtain information concerning the seasonal ap-pearance of young animals. The weights, age, sex, general health, and the occurrence of external parasites are recorded before release. The small mamal population is dominated by one species, the Great Basin Pocket Mouse. The pocket mouse population varies greatly according to the season of the year. The largest population normally occurs in late sumer with the addition of young animals. A comparison of pocket mice catches in burned and unburned study plots is shown below: Unburned Burned Year Spring Summer Spring Sumer 1974 -- 46 -- 29 1975 36 27* 27 13* 1976 52 53 8 2 1977 43 30 7 14 1978 15 56 1 5 1979 64 9 Average U U T6 13
- Trapping session conducted in July 9
6.1-23
WNP-1/4 ER-OL V These data indicate that a large population of pocket mice resides in the unburned plot and only a small population resides on the burned plot. It is not known if the small population on the burned plot is a result of the burning or whether some other f actors are involved, ( i.e., predation). Analysis of the 1974-1979 pocket mice data indicates that about one-half per-cent of the total pocket mouse habitat on the Handford site may be adversely effected by construction of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2. Based on the low level of impact and the projection that future impacts would not be more severe, pocket m{ce studies were deleted from the environment monitoring program in 1981.(60; An aerial census of larger mannals, i.e., deer and coyote, was made once in winter A land census of deertoand obtain an was rabbit estimate of the initiated use of(yQe in 1981. local 1 The areas. pellet group count tech-nique will be performed semi-annually on sample plots to obtain an estimate of use of the WNP-1, WNP-2 and WNP-4 site by these animals (Figure 6.1-5). Bird surveys have been taken on a twenty (20) acre study plot near WNP-1/4 and WNP-2. Only three resident species were spotted during a three-day period in June 1976. The total was fourteen (14) Western Meadowlarks, six (6) Horned Larks, and (2) Shrikes. The 1977 and 1978 results are g similar to those of 1976.(g In 1981, four new 20 acre sample plots were estab- lished in shrub and river habitats (Figure 6.1-5). Species compositi9 n and density of birds were determined during spring and fall censuses.t 62) Studies to date have revealed no detrimental effects of plant construction on the indigenous animal and bird populations. Plant operation is expected to be less disruptive and detrimental than plant construction. 6.1. 5 Radiological Monitoring The preoperational program is designed to provide measurements of radiation and radioactive materials in those exposure pathways, and for those radio-nuclides, which are expected to lead to the highest radiation exposures of individuals from the operation of WNP-1/4. No preoperational program as such will be necessary prior to fuel loading of WNP-1/4 because the operational program for WNP-2 will be in effect. This program will provide the data necessary to establish preoperational back-ground levels for WNP-1/4. The preoperational program objectives are to measure background levels and their variations in exposure pathways surrounding the site; to train person-nel; and to evaluate procedures, equipment, and techniques. These objectives m will be met in the WNP-2 operational program. 6.1-24
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 9 Table 6.1.3 describes the sample type, cyproximate location, sample col-lection, and analyses to be performed on each sample. Analytical techniques will be used such that the detection capabilities in Table 6.1-4 are achieved. Figure 6.1-6 shows the approximate location of the stations, and the key for Figure 6.1-6 shows the samples to be obtained at each station. Airborne sample stations have been chosen based on the projected population distribution around the site, adjacent land use, and meteorological data pre-sented in Chapter 2. Airborne measurements will be obtained from the vicinity of a residence which has the highest calculated atmospheric dilution f actor. In selecting the locations, special attention was given to the zone within a ten-mile radius of the site, especially areas in the prevailing down-wind direction. Consideration was also given to existing f acilities on the Hanford site in selecting these stations. In the terrestrial monitoring part of this program (vegetation and farm pro-ducts), the area within a ten-mile radius of the site is of concern, and at-tention is given to the area of Franklin County which uses Columbia River water for irrigation and is in the prevailing downwind direction. Samples collected will be those available food chain components which lead to man. Milk samples will be obtained from f arms or individual milk animals which are located in se.ctors with the higher calculated annual average atmospheric g dilution f actors. Aquatic sampling locations have been chosen based on the need to determine the WNP-1/4 impact on the acquatic environs separately from other f acilities on the Hanford Site. The intake water will be sampled to identify the iso-tapes and concentrations present prior to use by WNP-1/4. The water from the discharge line will be sampled prior to dilution by the Columbia River, and analysis will identify the isotopes and their concentrations which may be due to WNP-1/4 operation. Similar samples will be taken immediately downstream from the WNP-2 intake and discharge. The Columbia River will be sampled at the first downstream user which is the Department of Energy (DOE) 300 Area. The water will be sampled, prior to any treatment or mixing, in the vicinity of the river water intake. The City of Richland drinking water will be sampled at the Municipal Water Treatment Plant. This will be representative of the water consumed and not of that withdrawn from the river. Ground water will be obtained from wells on the site which are being used to provide drinking water for construction workers. Fish will be obtained from the area of the plant discharge and, since there is no comerical fishing in this area of the river, the species selected will be those which are seasonally available. Due to the velocity of the Columbia River in area of the site, sedimentary deposits are minimal and will be obtained from available areas above and below the discharge. O 6.1-25
WNP-1/4 ER-OL tO V The type of analysis to be performed for the various media was chosen to pro-vide measurements of radionuclides from which the population doses may be estimated or verified to be below that specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I. In some cases, the analysis provides a trend indicator, and will signal the need to perform additional specific analyses cf individual samples. The f requencies selected are those expected to minimize the effect of day-to-day variaticns, and provide an adequate quantity of samples to meet minimum sensitivity requirements of Table 6.1-5. The samples will provide statistically valid data which is used to compare to subsequent results and detect changes f rom expected values. REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.1
- 1. Becker, C. D. and W. W. Waddel, A Sumary of Environmental Effects Studies on the Columbia River, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, November 1972.
- 2. Neitzel, D. A. A Sumary of Environmental Effects Studies on the Columbia River 1972 through 1978. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, August,1979.
O V 3. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Washington, Volume 2 Eastern Washington, Published Annually.
- 4. Sula, M.J. and P.J. Blumer, Environmental Surveillance at Hanford for CY-1980, PNL-3728, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, April 1981.
- 5. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA-600/4-79-020, U.S.
- Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,1979.
- 6. Vertical Mixing Characteristics of the Columbia River at River Mile l
351.75, WNP No. 2, Battelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, March 16,1972.
- 7. Page, T. L., E. G. Wolf, R. H. Gray and M. J. Schneider, Ecological Com-Jarison of the Hanford Generating Plant and the WNP-2 Sites on the Colum-aia River, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Constructors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, October 1974.
- 8. Preoperational Environment Monitoring Studies Near WNP-1, 2, and 4, August 1978 through March 1980, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Volume 7, Beak Consultants, Inc., Portland, OR, June 1980.
l 6.1-26
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O
- 9. Page, T. L., An Evaluation of Sedimentation and Turbidity Effects Resulting from Excavation in the Columbia River at the WNP-2 Site, August to October 1975, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to Burns and Roe for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, August 1976.
- 10. Kannberg, L. D. Mathematical Modeling of the WNP-1, 2 and 4 Cooling Tower Blowdown Plumes. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, April, 1980.
- 11. Sske, R. T., An Analysis of the Physical Factors Governing the Size and
.a.perature Gradients of the Hanford Effluent Plumes, BNWL-CC-1261, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, November 1972.
- 12. Field Determination of the Temperature Distribution in the Hanford Number One Condenser Cooling Water Discharge Plume, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, November 1972.
- 13. Jaske, R. T., Personal Communication,1974.
- 14. Benedict, B. A., J. L. Anderson and E. L. Yandell, Jr., Analytical Modeling of Thermal Discharges - A Review of the State-of-the-Art, XNL/ES-18, Argonne National Laboratory, April 1974.
- 15. Trent, D. S., and J. R. Welty, A Sunmary of Numerical Methods for Solving Transient Heat Conduction Problems, Engineering Experiment Station Bul-letin No. 49, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, October 1974.
- 16. Becker, C. D., Aquatic Bioenvironmental Studies in the Columbia River at Hanford 1945-1971, A Bibliography with Abstracts, BNWL-1734, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA,1973.
- 17. Final Report on Aquatic Ecological Studies Conducted at the Hanford Generating Project, 1973-1974, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol.1, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Constructors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, March 1976.
i 18. Aquatic Ecological Studies Conducted Near WNP-1, -2, and -4 September l 1974 to September 1975, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Volume 2, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Con-structors for the Washington Public Power Sypply System, Richland, WA, July 1976.
- 19. Aquatic Ecological Studies Near WNP 1, 2 and 4, October 1975 Through February 1976, WPP55 Columbia River Ecology Studies Volume 3, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Constructors for the Washington Fublic Power Supply System, Richland, WA, July 1977.
6.1-27
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O v
- 20. Aquatic Ecological Studies Near WNP 1, 2 and 4 March through December 1976, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Volume 4. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, July 1978.
- 21. Aquatic Ecological Studies Near WNP 1, 2, and 4 January through December 1977. WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Volume 5. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories Richland, WA, March 1979.
- 22. Aquatic Ecological Studies Near WNP 1, 2 and 4 January through August 1978. WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Volume 6. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories Richland, WA, June 1979.
- 23. Letter, G.H. Hansen, EFSEC, to N. O. Strand, WPPSS,
Subject:
"Termi-nation of WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 Preoperational Monitoring, Aquatic Ecology" with EFSEC Resolution No.166, March 26,1980.
- 24. U.S. Atomic Energy Connission, Draft Environmental Statement, Waste Management Operations, Hanford Reservation, Richland, WA, December 1975.
- 25. Hanford Wells, BNWL-928, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Ri ch l and , WA, pp . 8,126-127,129, 0:tober 1968.
p V
- 26. Myers, D. A., J. J. Fix and J. R. Raymond, Environmental Monitoring Report On The Status of Ground Water Beneath the Hanford Site January -
December 1976, BNWL-2199, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, April 1977. 27 . USAEC Regulatory Staff, Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1, October 1972.
- 28. Office of the Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10-Atomic Energy, part 100, Revised January 1,1972.
- 29. Regulatory Guide 1.4, " Assumptions Used for Evaluating The Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Pressurized Water Reactors," USAEC.
- 30. Slade, D. H., ed., Meteorological and Atomic Energy, USAEC, TID-24190, July 1968.
l l
- 31. Griggs, G. A., Plume Rise, AEC Critical Review Series, USAEC Report TID-25075, p. 81, November 1969.
- 32. Weinstein, A. I., and L. G. Davis, A Parameterized Numerical Model of Cumulus Convection, Report No. 11, NSFGA-777, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Meteorology, 43 pp.,1968.
O l V 6.1-28
WNP-1/4 ER-0L O
- 33. EG&G, Inc., Potential Environmental Modifications Produced by Large Evaporative Cooling Towers, Final Report on Contract No. 14-12-542, to Federal Water Pollution Administration, Pacific Northwest Water Labor-atory. EG&G, Inc., Environmental Services Operation, Boulder, C0.
- 34. Droppo, J. G., C. E. Hane, and R. K. Woodruff, Atmospheric Effects of Circular Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers at Washington Public Power l Su] ply System Nuclear Power Plant Number Two, Battelle, Pacific Northwest La30ratories to Burns and Roe for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, November 1976.
- 35. Hosler, C. L., J. Pena, and R. Pena, Determination of Salt Deposition Rates from Drift from Evaporative Cooling Towers, Pennsylvania State l University, Dept. of Meteorology, May 1972.
l ! 36. Roffman, A. and L. D. Van Velck, "The State-of-the-Art of Measuring and ! Predicting Cooling Tower Drift and its Deposition," Jour. of Air Pol. I Control Assoc., vol. 24, No. 9, pp. 855-859, September 1974.
- 37. Woodruff, R. K., D. E. Jenne, C. L. Simpson, and J. J. Fuquay, A_
Meteorological Evaluation of the Effects of the Proposed Cooling Towers of Hanford Number Two "C" Site on Surrounding Areas, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to Burns and Roe, Inc., Hempstead, NY, September 1971.
- 38. McHenry, J. R., Properties of Soils of the Hanford Project, HW-53218,
! Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Richland, WA, 195/. l l 39. Hajek, B. F., Soil Survey--Hanford Project in Benton County, Washington, BNWL-243, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 19bb. l 40. Brown, D. J., Geology Underlying Hanford Reactor Areas, HW-69571, 1962.
- 41. Brun, R. E., and D. J. Brown, The Ringold Formation and Its Relationship to Other Formations, HW-SA-2319, Hanford Atomic Productions Operation, Richland, WA, 1961.
- 42. Raymond, J. R. and D. D. Tillson, Evaluation of a Thici Basalt Sequence in South-Central Washington, BNWL-776, Battelle, Pacific Northwest l Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1968.
l
- 43. Shannon and Wilson, Inc., Hanford No. 2 Nuclear Power Plant Central Plant Facilities, prepared for Burns and Roe, Inc. and WPPSS,1971.
O 6.1- 29 , I i
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 0
\
- 44. Bierschenk, W. H. Aquifer Characteristics and Groundwater Movement at Hanford, WH-60601, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Richland, WA, 1959.
- 45. Brown, D. J. and P. P. Rowe, 100-N Area Aquifer Evaluation, HW-67326, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Richland, WA,1960.
- 46. Preoperational Terrestrial Monitoring Studies Near WNP-1,? and 4 May through December 1980, Beak Consultants, Inc., Portland, OR, March 1, 1981.
- 47. State of Washington, Population Trends,1975, Population Studies Division, Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management, Olympia, WA, 1975.
- 48. Population Estimates: Oregon Counties and Incorporated Cities, Center for Population Research and Census, Portland State University, Portland, OR, July 1, 1975.
- 49. Population, Employment and Housing Units Projected to 1970, Bonneville Power Administration, February 1973.
- 50. Columbia-North Pacific Region Comprehensive Framework Study of Water and Related Lands, Appendix VI, Economic Base and Projections, Pacific North-p/
t west River Basins Commission, Vancouver, WA, January 19/1.
- 51. Population and Household Trends in Washington, Oregon and Northern 113ho, 19/U to 1985, Pacific Northwest Bell, January 19/2.
- 52. Clement, M., et al., Study and Forecast of Tri-City Economical Activity and its Related Impact on Gasoline Needs and Housing, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to Tri-City Nuclear Industrial Council, Richland, WA, May 1974.
- 53. Cone, B. W., The Economic Impact of the Second Bacon Siphon and Tunnel on the East High Area, the State of Washington and the Nation, Columbia Basin Development League, P.O. Box 1980, Ephrata, WA, 19/U.
- 54. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Socioeconomic Study: WPPSS Nuclear Projects 1 and 4, Prepared for Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, April 1975.
- 55. Yandon, K., Assumptions for Population Estimates and Projections by Specific Compass Sectors and Radii Distances from WNP-2 Site, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to Burns and Roe for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, February 1977.
O 6.1- 30
WNP-1/4 ER-0L O
- 56. Terrestrial Ecology Studies in the Vicinity of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Stations 1 and 4, Progress Report for the Period July 1974 to June 1975, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, November 1976
- 57. Terrestrial Ecology Studies in the Vicinity of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Stations 1 and 4, Progress Report for 1976, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Con-structors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, December 1977.
58 . Terrestrial Ecology Studies in the Vicinity of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Stations 1 and 4, Progress Report for 1977, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Con-structors, Inc. for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, April 1979.
- 59. Terrestrial Ecology Studies in the Vicinity of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Stations 1 and 4, Progress Report for 1978, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Con-structors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, August 1979.
- 60. Letter, W.L. Fitch, EFSEC, to R.L. Ferguson, WPPSS,
Subject:
"WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 Terrestrial Monitoring Program," with EFJEC Resolution No.5 193 and 194, May 28,1981.
- 61. Daubenmire, R., A Canopy Coverage Method of Vegetational Analysis.
Northwest Sci., vol. 33, pp. 43-64, 159.
- 62. Schleder, L. S., and J. E. Mudge, Preoperational Animal Studies Near WNP 1, 2, and 4, Washington Public Power Supply System, April 1982.
O 6.1- 31
WNP 1/4 ER-OL O : l TABLE 6.1-1 i MASS SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF DRIFT DROPLETS ~ (Mechanical Draft Tower) - Diameter, m Percent of Mass 0- 50 11 50-100 20 , 100-150 21 150-200 16 200-250 13 250-300 8 300-350 11 L i O. 1 l l [____-_-_-._---. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ - , . - , - -
i WNP-1/4 1 ER-OL I l TABLE 6.1-2 h a FISH SAMPLING FREQUENCY BY STATION AND METHOD Frequency Beach Hoop Gill /c Electro-Month Per Month Seine Net Tranmel Shocking January 1 no sample no sample 4 stations no sample February 1 6 stations no sample 4 stations no sample March 1 6 stations no sample 4 stations b April 2 6 stations no sample 4 stations b May 2 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations b June 2 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations b July 1 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations b August 1 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations b September 1 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations b October 1 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations b November 1 no sample no sample 4 stations no somple December 1 no sample no sample 4 stations no sample dSee Figure 6.1-1 for sample sites b Twice nnnthly cGill net sampling was terminated in July 1979 per EFSEC Resolution No. 157 9
. O O O WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 6.1-3 I RADIOLOGICAL lbNIR0hMENTAL MONITO41NG PROGRAM i Sampling and I Type and Frequency 11 Sample Type Location Collection Frequency of Analysis Airborne Particulate 1.2 miles S of WNP-2 Continuous Sampling Particulage: and Radioiodine 1.5 miles NME of WNP-2 Weekly Collection Gross B 2.0 miles SE of WNP-2 Gamma isotopic 3 9 miles SSe of WNP-? on quarterly composite 7 miles SE of WNP-2 (by location) t 8 miles S of WNP-2 3 miles WNW of WNP-2 . Radiof odine: +I 4.2 miles ESE of WNP-2 r.hmma for I-131
! 30 miles WSW of WNP-2 Weekly Direct Radiation 4 %.2 miles 5 of WNP-2 Quarterly, Annually Gamma Dose i 1.5 miles NNE of WNP-2 l 2.0 miles SE of WNP-2 9 miles SSE of WNP-2 1 7 miles SE of WNP-2 8 miles S of WNP-2 3 miles WNW of WNP-2 4.2 miles ESE of WNP-2 30 miles WSW of WNP-2
- 3 miles E of WNP-2 7 miles NNW of WNP-2 3 miles ENE of WNP-2 j 6.3 miles SSE WNP-2 5.2 miles SE WNP-2 5.1 miles ESE WNP-2 5.1 miles E WhP-2 5.5 miles ENE WNP-2 4.1 miles NE WNP-2 4.8 miles NNE WNP-2 l
13 stations at 221/20 sectors , River dater intake WNP-1/45 Composite Aliquots6 Gamma isotopic 3
; Discharge WNP-1/4 5 for month 4 Intake WrP-2 Tritium?
Discharge WNP-2 r I 1 l
WNP-1/4 ER -0L TABLE 6.1-3 (Continued) RADIOLOGICAL INVIRONKNTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Sampling and l Type and Frequency ll Sample Type Location Collection Frequency of Analysis Drinking Water 7 miles ERDA 300 Area Composite aliquots 6 Gama 130 topic 3 11 Miles Richland Water for month Tritium Treatment Plant Ground Water 8 well tP-1 Quarterly Gama isotopic 3 well WNP-4 Tritium Sediment 2 miles upstream Semi-annually Gama isotopic 2 miles downstream Milk 9 Closest milk animal Semi-monthly Gama isotopic 3 Farm SE 7 miles SE grazing season Farm SE 8 miles ESE Monthly at other tises Iodine - 131 Control. 30 miles WSW Fish i in vicinity of discharge Semi-annually Gamma isotopic 3 1 control Snake River Fruit and Vegetables 10 Riverview Area, Pasco Monthly during growing Control, Grandview season Gama isotopic 3 I veviations are permitted if samples are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions, seasonal availability, malfunction of automatic sampling equipment, or other legitimate reasons. All deviations will be documented in the annual report. 2P articulate sample filters will be analyzed for gross Beta after at least 24 hours decay. If gross Beta activity is greater than 10 times the mean of the control sample, gamma isotopic analysis should be per-formed on the individual sample 3 Gama isotopic means identification and quantification of gama emitting radionuclides that may be at-tributable to tne effluents of the facility. O O O
f O O O
! WNP-1/4 i ER-OL TABLE 6.1-3 (Continued) 4 fhermoluminescent 00simeter (TLD) badges which contain 3-5 chips will be used. Each station will have two badges one will be changed each quarter and one will be changed annually. The badges in each 221/20 g sectorwilIbeplacedattheexclusionareasoftheplants.
5 Sampling of the river water from the intake and discharge of WNP-1/4 will begin at least 60 days prior to the fuel loading for WNP-1. 6 Composite samples will be collected with equipment which is capable of collecting an aliquot at time in-tervals which are short relative to the compositing period. 7 Tritium analysis will bt performed on a quarterly compositec sample. f Wells sampled will be those which are being used to provide drinking water for construction personnel at each of the plants. 9 Milk samples will be obtained from farms or i dividual milk animals which are located in sectors with the i higher calculated annual average ground-level /Q's. If Cesium-134 or Cesium-137 is measured in an in-dividual milk sample in excess of 30 pCl/1, then Strontium 90 analysis should be performed. 10 Fruit and vegatables will be obtained from farms or gardens which use Columbia River water, if possible, ! for irrigation and different varieties will be obtained as they are in season. One sample each of root
- food, leafy vegetables, and fruit should be collected each period.
II Frequency of analysis will be as collected or as stated in these footnotch for special cases. i 4 I I
O O O WNP-1/4 ER-OL i TABLE 6.1-4 MAXIMUM VALUE FOR THE LOWER LIMIT OF RADIONUCLIDE DETECTION (LLD)a i 1 Airborne Particulate
' Water or Gas Fish Milk Vegetation Sediment Analysis (pC1/1) (pC1/m ) (pC1/kg, wet) (pCi/1) (pC1/kg, wet) (pC1/kg, dry) gross beta 4 1 x 10-2 3H 2000 54fti 15 130 59Fe 30 260 58,60Co 15 130 65Zn 30 260 j 95Z r 30 i
j 95Nb 15
- 1311 lb 7 x 10-2 1 60 134Cs 15 5 x 10-2 130 15 60 150 137Cs 18 '6 x 10-2 150 18 80 180 l 1408a 60 60 140La 15 15 1
j Note: This list does not mean that these nuclides are to be detected and reported. Other peaks
- which are measurable and identifiable, together with the above nuclides, shall also be
- identified and reported.
l Footnotes (a) and (b) located on next page. i l
WW-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 6.1-4 (Continued) aTable 6.1-5 indicated acceptable detection capabilities for radioactive materials in environmental samples. These detection capabilities are tabulated in terms of the lower limits of detection (LLDs). The LLD is defined, for purposes of this guide, as the smallest concentration of radioactive material in a sample that will yield a net count (above system background) that will be detected with 95". probability with only 5% probability of falsely concluding that a blank ov ervation represents a "real" signal. For a particular measurement system (which may include radiochemical separation): 4.66 5b LLD= E V 2.22
- Y -
exp(- t) where LLD is the lower limit of detection as defined above (as pCi per unit mass or volume) sb is the standard deviation of the background counting rate or of the counting rate of a blank sample as appropriate (as counts per minute). E is the counting efficiency (as counts per disinteg ation). V is the sample size (in units of mass or volume) 2.22 is the number of disintegrations per minute per picocurie. Y is the fractional radiochemical yield (when applicable). is the radiocative decay constant for the particular radionuclide. t is the elapsed time between sample collection and counting. The value of Sb used in the calculation of the LLD for a particular measurement system should be based on the actual observed variance of the background counting rate or of the counting rate of the blank samples (as appropriate) rather than on an unverified theoretically predicted variance. In calculating the LLD for a radionuclide determined by gamma-ray spectrometry, the background should include the typical con-tributions of other radionuclides normally present in the samples (e.g., potassium-40 milk samples). bLLd for drinking water. O O O
'Ti
. %} @4:
.e.. ". . ..
.4 : t. .ib Y.h W -
& .E \{n
- k. k2, i.'h g e a E$; 5; E Ji.
.k as 4. .
4@r ] \
% a; x
'fg '%;
le$,. &. N 1b
= v.3 h si, g
. $y t c 7
- h. Yh *'3 k ,
6 se .e
-^ as M '
Sf; m 4'. .' .i f 4 dW I t,- + {! )HN .g-- n.. .5 ,
.'.2 u N;
WNP-1/4 DISCHARGE dJ BS -
"L' i-? @*
$ er.4,2 ?.E WNP-2 DISCHARGE l; gy lF7 !
s') a $t i jf E :-.
&t
*11 -
^
o BS 4'< i-. g'
* ?> N , . .
.)
HN g j W *
?, O .k.i f,<
I l ( 'A .a a E
! u l
l
@ BS E
Y @ g[)t-I I l} nu y ' lh' . woo n.
.$)
te-E #
.,7 44'ky*
M' y .:s 6
% .f ya tf 1:,
_c w
?.e 4
@Mtt 4:1 BS - BEACH SEINE SITES HN - HOOP NET SITES EF - ELECTROFISH AREAS
* - SAMPLING STATIONS FOR PLANKTON, BENTHOS, & WATER QUALITY O WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM AQUATIC BIOTA AND WATER QUALITY SAMPLING STATIONS NEAR WNP-1.2, AND 4 WNP-1/4 ER OL FIG. 6.1-1 nw-- --- , c. ,- ,. --- r -, e- - , - . , . , ,
COLUMBIA
',:,hf!,',. RIVER
- Mj{$.'$.'. .'M?@.:.y@E.,5;;9$h 1 :4f.tT.$* SANQ;l.
.r." *'
- DUNES:;.*,
. Y.?.ti;6. -- ,yg.y'yj'g;ij-}
n; , .-l . . ; t . *
, .j;. , . + . . ISLAND 11
. RAILROAD k,*f.4);.yj iI.*.')(74:.
.y[.,2,*.'f.'fi ;8!.:$$* ,$,fS f ,/El}t.',.
;;}i. * . ,i*-[.'n
' :',tlL'.%4.0.f:
-**. *;L.
'(;..*j> .,? 9 ,.?, ;. e
, :;?{.}N:J.M *
,s, I f' ISLAND 12 UNBURNED i
_a A,'
--- ,'~~ (
t f BURNED WYE l BARRICADE 8 [ WNP-4 ISLAND 13 I l \ l ~ s a WN P-2 (# 'l I
\
\ g g \ l s
I \ ISLAND 15 l FFTF ISLAND 14 , ROUTE 10 ROUTE 4 .. f
/ J SOUTH -
Y{
" 1 z: i ,
. 1 ISLAND 16 -
O UNBURNED VEGETATION PLOT j S BURNED VEGETATION PLOT
-k
.. f >)
A SMALL MAMMAL PLOT i { ISLAND 17 A BIRD SURVEY -- f __ APPROXIMATE BOONDARY -- /
,j OF BURNED VEGETATION ..
k 300 AREA
=
!;L
](y\ i-
'. \.
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY STUDY SITE WNP 1/4 IN THE VICINITY OF WNP-1/4 ER-OL FIG. 6.1-2 l
l O O ) I rn 3 z O O 2 m C CD IC mzo
?mm o :. o rs5 Am 2 AG. Annual grass fa 75 Gr assland PG = Perennial grass
, C AF e Annual forbs
] E Shrub PF = Perennial forbs G .
co - gn 50- -. m E - r-E 5 l l . ! E ! l. , i 3 25- f - - E r-- l l a j !i E l i l Zm ,. . . i > f ! - l- J -~ l im$
~
- o % - -fiIi IT _w lm ITILnr i I l) t ! M-i . m I. L -m
$ AG PG AF PF AG PG AF PF l AG PG ' AF ' PF AG PG AF PF AG PG'AF PF AG PG AF PF 1975 o,
,- g 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
-i g.
*o dO a<
2 m
=
O O _g
- s2 zo w ~ _E.
h _ O l 200 - , ,, , , i IEmu1 , N E 100 - g s O I E E El l ..... o " 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 l AVERAGE DRY WEIGHT OF LIVE, ABOVE-WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM GROUND HERBACEOUS PHYTOMASS IN THE WNP-1/4 VICINITY OF WNP-1/4 AND WNP-2 ER OL FIG. 6.1 4 l
- *.# - s , W@M ./ 2 \' p .- .
m.6s f/ .i _ .
, c:,-eAs.._- T.-
y 2. - .* -b. cs N, s% ,o __
- y. ,
. - n..
.< - e -
t
.: w
- .8 5 . ~.e .' .=:.rt.
c_ f_ _ _ y., e ')_:._. - : = &._.w.=,q. .% ' $'\ NS~%.,: t 1
/p.2G'.3
. v%g:'DV D u _-
z yf Q- ~ s T't' -w
-7 c.; / 2
& a- &*' % :! '%-tz \ .
v W m % --... ?. O '
-n
- .:. n * " -
G) v~>%. wm~.:D; h. L' Ud.,. '#\ .Y; M t , y, e -
-n 9: ::> :
\ x g %%._%Y.
- E I.n$O M.h. S-$u@a_b h.y_. '.
h ,_ _ . _ ,.c % n r.v. '\ \4q_ _1.<-r ;N.:. - 4 ..
\ .- m A 2 u r> T.c.- e , s w. o - i >:.
" * ~fs . .. .
-\
;. V
- T ).{, ] A
, 'y ?>s'"?,,.Q'..;..
~~,~'%&. . .. . ,sh. ,, . is . .
- *, 4*
y =i. l, ~. . .;,Q. i. n- , : 10.. k - L. %. !'.,2 <' ,% t 22 : ..e~- -. 6% ,' s*: W .. -t1- U'
- e. u . .
-'-- r1
- a. - C,- - ! **-2* f' - 8
-<r ,. i -. s-r 4
... '}: ces - f , v.q. - , ~ s. ? _ ,\ 5 1 ' s T .*,,,i . '
r',.,.._*.-* .-- . !: ; t, *;'& w f.h]'!
'S' 4.
~ : ? *:, . .. .,e , --
j .- : ..t., ) ch, 4 T. :__.~ _.__ '__._ ,. __.___._4r i i\ ' -'%c___
>~__ _. -_r_ _____. : t. __.___
s ,'t ,e g.e c....
-*-sSO 2 B N -. - * - - -3
.._. f.: -
. 2- a.' I ! ~
n- S'
.c.. -
ar * ,x
.; - e.J.
' 'is s * ';% 1. .? '.'27 s.
(' '.'! -
. 26; :t,.-
\\l d s.
, . .. '*i-_*~~- ._ h,,,
.5 A.:-a ,g
".?* .
. ?.'. l }1.h ,~.c.5 . $ 5 'h .' i ' - -
-er.~ .Os &s.-;, -, -Q.s - -i
- g. ,=. 29-
.<-- ,l I- . 28
='a : . . ._.. g-
, -2r ' ': .- ' - - ,, ,t f1
~
-y . .y+ . .
- w g u. c
-. 3.;..: , .- .
m . o .,, t,e ,.
- 3. :.-( p;.
m, s -
-... - L.
sw s
. ~
v . . s,o. .:- %_ -
-w , tw '. . %
*- =.,_N N' g,y ly 3L j u N. e .
, '. ..y ,
s t , ,.
%'. . .,'.W. ,a, a m $#:
; ~
r ': ~...,...I.
. .. 1 :.*f"
's PUMPHOUSE
_ ' . . y% ; 4.,- 1 ESO1 EGO 2 *
,y ""WNP-4 " ,-, ' ';;g ,, (.
- r {.
g b '-* . .
,b',WNP-2' * , %l .
, ,- .s w b ../ - )
g.1 l0~
.b
, ~
.f g'.8 .c--
mi *:* ESO3 << i \ g%,. ? e se., ,- ;* .. c ,.
- 6 35 . 4_ , . . ;. ,3',*., c-1
' b L
m L- .? h 5 \WNP.1 -
~
. * .. ' . ~ . -
\ o
- -. \~
- t
,I &' _'l' I
.!*.. 0 _ . _A w ~., - L.- ,,
(sv) ,, -. .
; 7-
', e, ' , r. .WNP-2 I L_ -
gco3 " . . e.. s PUMPHOUSE e
. .- '. (
-Q _
l 9 s.' 3-L'cc.
-F *- % ? ._
" e h T.;; rg .: f ,. %- , h, r.2 .;. ',..s.
* . C l .l e,r"... _.,
_; o 9 6. . - ,
/
q ./- '
.- "- o 02. < .--a-- ._%
- c .- - 3 1s - '
' '%.1y, Jll
, , . . TO', f 2 .
y jf 9 '., _
,'i .
ys
'. A _:Q9 sd
- ~
b'y s 6) *' ~< . , !k [
~^
- 8 a./. - g.'
'o g' / /
;m
/~, " .
,,,. . gg' l ~Vc. -
, I, [ .
.a M >,
og c o'4 l a' . ( .f h2v' q LEGEND: - i ; ,k [.. y '~~[.{15. u s .
'1 GOD Grassland Sampling SiteF //p .9 # .
'3
,i $
\ 'ji
- v. ' ' . 'g i 6- C. ~ ,'
S00 Shrub Sampling Sites p _" . O Bird Sampling Sites $' E !Ij._N - *)I NS-North Shrub ', < . l '-
,Y
> N. - . ~
t 2 llb' _! I'
-yL. 0 II'7 ky } > >ll'
~~
SS-South Shrub , .
<.4 * -
23 23, - , c.. ( j; .,, NR-North Riparian , , ,
< t 21 -- < v.:: .5 .s; < , . . /
SR-South Riparian G.# / e. -t (-- g' 8( ' os.),/;:.P3 l
$'r v SSkl!,as
.kk a
A Deer and Rabbit Sampling sites ,. rT-- O / I p.; O ( j> WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM LOCATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF WNP-1/4 WNP-1/4 AND WNP-2 ER-OL FIG. 6.1-5
KEY FOR FIGURE 6.1-6 STATION SAMPLE NU,M BER TYPE 1-7 ' PARTICULATE RADtOiOOtNE DIRECT RADIATION 8 PARTICULATE RADectODINE DIRECT RADIATION g \ MILK S PARTICULATE RA040tODINE ((f DIRECT RADIATION gg # MILK FRUIT AND/OR VEGETASLES 1428 DIRECT RA06A90M 4448 OtRECT RA06ATION 28 RNER WATER 27.28 RIVER WATER FISM 28.30 DRINKING WATER 31.32 GROUNO WATER 34 FRUff ANO/OR VEGETASLES
- 38. 38 SEDIMENT
- 37. 38 MILK e
'4
- 2) 1; \
2,1 i, WTE Aa ntCAct { gg e
~"
I
\* 7
/ = l0 e
14 s? j 22 ' 8
- 2
. 3.i' I '3 i Fin acAD _
(GRANOVlE 2'4 /l ( j ,,,,. ,
- 838 1
p
#1 \ooowooo acAo 3 ; , l I N I i7
*40 , ,,,,, ,g,,
l
- ll'
/ 3 '
't, 6 ,
+ -
a H q g C
***os nono y , b L i v. 5 i 34 3u \ RlVERVIEW) 1 O
m I 2- 4 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM RADIOLOGICAL SAMPLE STATION WNP-1/4 LOCATIONS ER.0L FIG. 6.1 6 l
i WNP-1/4-
-ER-OL O
6.2 OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM The scope and general content of the operational environmental monitoring program and special topical . studies are described in the following sub- ' sec tions. In all cases these pmgrams may be r:odified based on the results of the preoperational programs and the first year of operational data. 6.2.1 Water Quality f The planned operational phase water quality monitoring program is presented in i Table 6.2-1. Continuous recordings will be made of the temperature of -the l blowdown and the makeup water. These measurements will be made in the circu-i lating water pumphouse and ^in the makeup water pumphouse, and will be -repre- .
~
sentative of blowdown discharge temperatures and ambient river temperatures i near the intake. Temperatures in the intake pumphouse will not be representa-tive of ambient river conditions when makeup water is-not being withdrawn. Total residual chlorine will be measured during chlorination and for two hours , after blowdown commences, or until it reaches undetectable levels. ! The results of the chlorination study at WNP-2 will be evaluated. If the : ! WNP-2 results are not applicable, chlorination requirements will be studied i during the first year of- operation at WNP-1/4 to determine the minimum daily ' discharge duration of free available and total residual chlorine which will O -allow the plant to operate efficiently. , 6.2.2 Aquatic Environment a , The operational aquatic monitoring program will be designed based upon results of the preoperational program described in 6.1.1.2. Until that time, it.is assumed that both programs will be similar with the exception that the' below described topical study will be part of the operational monitoring program.
- Visual intake screen inspections will be conducted by divers periodically from l March through November, when -they can be safely conducted. The dives will be l performed during the first year of operation for the purpose of monitoring for l fish impingement and to determine the frequency at which screen cleaning will be required.
6.2.3 Radiological The operational radiological monitoring- program will be the same as the pre-l operational program described in Section 6.1.5 for the first year of opera-tion. The scope of monitoring in subsequent years will be determined based-upon the results of the two-year preoperational program and the first year's operational program. O ! 6.2-1
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 6.2.4 Meteorological Tne operational monitoring program will include wind speed, direction and temperature measurements made at the 245 and 33 foot levels, and dewpoint measurements at the 33 foot level. Rainfall amounts and intensities will also be measured. Real-time wind speed, direction and stability data will be available in the control room. 6.2.5 Land The first year operational program will continue the preoperational programs described in 6.1.4 unless preoperational results indicate changes are neces-sary. O l 9 6.2.2
-.~ . _
i t I WNP-1/4 i ER-OL TABLE 6.2-1 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM i 4 Wells i WW-1/4 in dicinity l Measured Items Station 1* Discharge Station 12* Station 8* of Plant Site j Quantity (flow) - C - - - Temperature M C M M - Dissolved Oxygen M - M M - 4 pH M C M M Q i Turbidity M - M M - Total Alkalinity M M M M Q Filterable Residue (Total Dissolved Solid) M M M M - l Nonfilterable Residue (Suspended Solids) M M M M - Conductivity M M M M - Iron (Total) M M M M - 4 Copper (Total) M M M M - Nickel (Total) M M M M - Zinc (Total) M M M M -
! Sulfate M M M M -
NH + Nitrogen M M M M Q NO - Nitrogen M M M M Q Or ho Phosphorus M M M M Q i Total Phosphorus M M M M - i 011 and Grease M W M M -
- Chlorine Total Residual -
D M M - Symbols Key i C = Continuous
- Refer to Figure 6.1-1 for station location d
W = Weekly j M = Monthly
; Q = Quarterly D = Daily, when chlorine is added i )
i ?
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 6.3 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING PROGRAMS Currently, a number of related studies are'being carried out in the vicinity of the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 site by the Supply System and by (or under sponsorship of) several State and Federal agencies. Some of these studies are of a continuing nature and date back 20 or more years, particularly those associated with assessment of effluent releases from the operation of the Hanford Production reactors. 6.3.1 Hydrological and Water Quality' Studies in Progress Agency Program U.S. Geological Survey, Continuous. water stage and discharge Tacoma District Office measurements of the Columraia Sfyer below Priest Rapids Dam (RM 394.5). W U.S. Geological Survey, Continuous water temperature measurements Tacoma District Office of the Columbia River at the City of Richland water supply treatme * {< ant (RM 338) and at Vernita (RM 391). U.S. Department of Energy Weekly pH, tubidity, dissolved oxygen, Richland Operations Office - and nitrate sampling of the Columbia River at the City of Richland water supply O treatment plant (RM 338) and Vernita Bridge (RM 391) by Battelle-Northwest.(4) U.S. Department of Energy - Weekly total coliforms, fecal coliforms Richland Operations' Office and biological oxygen demand measurements of Columbia River at City of Richland
~
water supply treatment plant (RM 338),.and VernitaBridge(RM31],by Battelle-Northwest . 4 U.S. Department of Energy Monthly to cemi-annual groundwater depth Richland Operations Office, and water quality measurements for observation wells on Hanford Site, by Battelle-Northwest.(4,5) U.S. Energy Research and - Studies by Battelle-Northwest related to DevelopmentAdministration! environmental aspects of the potential Division of Reactor establishment of a n ear energy center Research and Deve.lopment at the Hanford Site.
~ ~
J g ,
- 'N m
, 6.3-1 4
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Agency Program U.S. Energy Research and Studies by Battelle-Northwest on sediment Development Administration, and radionuclide transport in GQ:umbia Division of Biomedical and River below Priest Rapids Dam. R Environmental Research U.S. Army Corps of Review of Columb River and tributary Engineers, North Pacific water resources. Division Washington State Department Water temperature, dissolved oxgen, of Ecology conductivity, color, pH, turbidity, total coliform bacteria and fecal coliform bacteria sampling in the Columbia River at Highway 24 bridge near Vernita (RM 338.1) (semimonthly during water year 1972, quar-terly during water year 1975, semimonthly since October 1975), and at the Port of Pasco public dock (RM 328.4) (semimonthly December 1971 - September 1972), and oc-casional biochemical oxygen demand and streamflow determinations at both sites. Sampling of additional Vernita bridge 21 parameters during water ad;8) year 1972.q U.S. Environmental Miscellaneous water quality measurements Protection Agency in STORET data system for period 1957 to present at following Columbia River loca-tions between McNary and Priest Rapids Dams: RM 292.0 (McNary Dam), 292.4, 292.5, 293.0 324.9 (above mouth of Snake River), 326.3, 328.0 (Kennewick-Pasco railroad bridge), 328.3, 329.0, 330.0 (Kcnnewick-Pasco State Highway 12 bridge), 334.7 (below mouth of Yakima River), 388.1 ('lernita State Highway 24 bridge , 388.5, 395.6, 397.0 (Priest Rapids Dam)). (9) 6.3.2 Ecological Parameters - Aquatic Studies in Progress Agency Program
- Washington Public Power Studies by Battelle-Northwest in the Supply System Columbia River in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 6.3-2 O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O Agency Program and WNP-2 to systematically collect baseline ecological data on the plankton, benthos, and fish. This program constitutes the proposed preoperational monitoring program for WNP-1 and WNP-4, and the operational studies for WNP-2. Washington Public Power Studies by Battelle-Northwest of the Supply System preoperational baseline data and opera-tional effects of the Hanford Generating Plant near the 100-N Reactor. Current efforts on operational effects are assess-ing the loss of intake screens.(fish by impingement on the 10,ll) U.S. Department of Energy Annual (since 1947) census of the fall chinook salmon spawning population in the Columbia River between Richland and Priest Rapids Dam, by Battelle-Northwest. Weekly , aerial observations have provided data to evaluate the fluctuations in the spawning populations in this section of the river (' s and to examine the relationships between the numbers and perturbations in the river.(12) U.S. Energy Research and Investigations by Battelle-Northwest on Development Administration, the combined effects of heat and chemical Division of Biomedical and pollutants on warm and cold water fishes Environmental Research and on fish food organisms. These studies are intended to quantify the combined effects of thermal insult and chemical stress on the pt)ysjology of fish and fish food organisms. u31 U.S. Energy Research and Studies by Battelle-Northwest on the Development Administration, physiological effects of rapid temperature Division of Biomedical and decline on warm and cold water fish ar? Environmental Research crayfish. The objective of cold shock studies is to define the interactions between biota and the varying hydrographic regimes occurring in thermal mixing zones following c9psption of heated discharges.u3; o V j 6.3-3 I i __ - . . . . . _ - - - .
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Agency Program U.S. Energy Research and Investigations by Battelle-Northwest on Development Administration, the effects of thermal discharge on fish Division of Biomedical and behavicr and sensory physiology including Environmental Research sublethal effects that might impair the capacityofafishtg3;unctioneffectively in its environment.t f U.S. Energy Research and Studies by Battelle Northwest on the Development Administration, effect of thermal discharges on aquatic Division of Biomedical and organisms. This project addresses mainly Environmental Research two specific impacts of thermal discharges and their effects: gas bubble disease and effec f fatigue on thermal toler-ance. U.S. Department of Energy Studies by Battelle-Northwest on fish behavior in waters whose quality has been altered by various perturbations. Emphasis in this work makes use of radio-tracking telemetry to examine the response of fis
) encountering such condi-tions.
U.S. Army Corps of Studies of upstream adult migrant fish Engineers, Grant County PUD, passing Columbia River dams. These fish Chelan County PUD counts are generally made from April to October each year. National Marine Fisheries Research on the enhancement of downstream Service passage of juvenile salmonids at Priest Rapids Dam and other PUD dams on the Co-lumbia River. 6.3.3 Ecological Parameters - Terrestrial Studies in Progress Agency Program ! Washington Public Power Studies by Battelle-Northwest including i Supply System characterization of small mammal popu-l lations in burned and unburned shrub-steppe plant communities, avi-fauna of shrub-steppe plant communities, ecological 6.3-4 t
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Agency Program - characterization of burned and unburned shrub-steppe plant communities, primary production of cheatgrass, and aerial pho-tography of shrub-steppe plant communities. (15) U.S. Department of Energy A small mammal trapping study by Battelle-Northwest is on the WYE burial ground located immediately west.of the WNP-2 site. This study has been in pro-gress since 1975 and yields information on abundance, age, weight, r sex ratios of great basin pocket mice. d U.S. Department of Energy Extensive ecological studies by Battelle-Northwest concerning plant and animal communities have been conducted on the Arid Lands Ecology (ALE) Reserve since 1968. The ALE Reserve is locq mileswestoftheWNP-2 site.t{gjabout10 U.S. Department of Energy Mule deer fawns have been tagged by Battelle-Northwest along the Columbia t C) V River for a number of years to determine mule deer movements beyond the Hanford Reservation. A nesting survey of the Columbia River Canada goose populat been conducted for nearly 30 years. n)has 3 U.S. Department of Energy Radiotracking of coyotes and breeding ecology of raptors and long-billed curlews are currently being studied by Battell N vation.533rthwestontheHanfordReser-6.3.4 Meteorological Monitoring Programs in Progress l Agency Program Washington Public Power Meteorological data was collected at the Supply System WNP-2 site by Battelle-Northwest from March 1972 to September 1974 with a tem-porary 23 ft. mast system and from April O 6.3-5 l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Agency Program 1974 to June 1976 with permanent tower system. Temporary system measurements included wind speed, air temperature and relative humidity on 23-ft mast. Permanent system measurements included wind speed, direction, and air temperature at the top of a 7-ft mast and at the 33-ft level and on the top of a 240-ft tower, Delta Temp (245-33ft), dewpoint tempera-ture at the 33-ft level, and precipitation at ground level. Non-regulatory Guide 1.23 operation of the Supply System meteorology system at this location will continue until just prior to WNP-2 fuel load. Department of Energy (DOE) The Hanford Meteorological Station, 14 miles west-north-west of the WNP-2 site, is operated for DOE by Battelle-Northwest. This station is manned by an observer-forecaster 24 hours per day. Complete surface weather observations are made hourly. Wind and temperature pro-files from the suf ace to 400 ft at 50ft intervals are monitored continuously.(16) In addition a network of sixteen tele-metered wind and temperature stations is operated on or near the Hanford Reservation including the WNP-2 site, and assists in definition of airflow patterns. Micrometeorological and clima-tological records dating from 1944 are available from the Hanford Meteorological Station.(17) DOE Climatological measurements of maximum and Division of Biomedical and minimum temperature, humidity, and Environmental Research precipitation are currently being made on DOE Arid Lands Ecology R Battelle-Northwest. (18)eserve (ALE) The ALE Re-by serve lies to the west of WNP-2 00E Wind :: peed and direction are being Division of Production and measured at the site of the DOE Fast Waste Management Flux Test Facility, 3 miles west of WNP-2 Measurements have been at this location since 1971. WNP-2 tower data are supplied to the FFTF as contracted yearly. 6.3-6
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Agency Program DOE Wind speed, direction and temperature have been measured at the surface and at the 50 200, and 300-ft levels on a meteorological tower operated by United Nuclear Indus-tries near the N-reactor approximat9 milesnorthwestoftheWNP-2 site.tg)19 This data is not presently collected on a routine basis. 6.3.5 Radiological Monitoring Programs in Progress Agency Program U.S. Department of Energy A comprehensive radiological monitoring program for the Hanford plant and surrounding environs is carried out by Battelle-Northwest to evaluate the disposition and translocation of Hanford plant-released radionuclides (continuous since before 1960). Table 6.3-1 provides a summary of the program, taken from reference 20, and Figures 6.3-1 and 6.3-2 show sampling locations. Annual reports
- provide p l
s' results.tgrggillanceprogramdetailsand Washington State, Division A state-wide radiological surveillance of Social and Health Services programiscap{"qdoutbytheRadiological Control Unit.t 1 Samples of Columbia River water, air, milk and shellfish are obtained at a number of locations relevant to WNP-2 and WNP-4 are shown in Table 6.3-2 and Figure 6.3-3. Results are reported to the Environmental Protection Agency and are published annually. O 6.3-7
WNP-1/4 ER-OL REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.3
- 1. U.S. Geological Survey, " Water Resources Data for Washington, Volume 2,"
Eastern Washinton, Published annually.
- 2. Hilty, E. L. and J. P. Corley, Personal Communication, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, 1975.
- 3. Onishi, Y., Columbia River Quality Radionuclide and Sediment Transport, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, letter to Paul G. Holsted, U S.
Atomic Energy Commission, Richland Operations Office, December 11, 1974.
- 4. Sula, M.J. and P.J. Blumer, Environmental Sur veillance at Hanford for CY-1980, PNL-3728, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, April 1981.
- 5. Raymond, J. R., et al., Radiological Status of the Groundwater Beneath the Hanford Site, January-December 1980, PNL-3768 Northwest Laboratories, Richalnd, WA, April 1981., Battelle, Pacific
- 6. U.S. Atomic Energy Comission, Division of Reactor Research and Develop-ment, Evaluation of Nuclear Energy Centers, WASH-1288, 2 Volumes, January 1974.
- 7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division, "The Columbia River and its Tributaries, " July 1972.
(
- 8. Cunningham, Richard, Supervisor, Water Quality Monitoring Section, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington, letter to Albin Brandstetter, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, May 26, 1976.
- 9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Storet Data, 1976.
- 10. Final Report on Acuatic Ecological Studies Conducted at the Hanford Gene-rating Project, 1973-1974, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 1, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Con-structors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, March 1976.
- 11. Page, T. L., E. G. Wolf, R. H. Gray and M. J. Schneider, Ecological Com-larison of the Hanford Generating Plant and the WNP-2 Sites on the Colum-aia River, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Constructors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, October 1974.
O 6.3-8 l
- _ _ -, - - . - . . ~ -- . , - .- , - - . -- , , ~
WNP-1/4 ER-OL
- 12. Watson, D. G., Fall Chinook Salmon Spawning in the Columbia River Near Hanford, 1947-1969, Report BNWL-1515, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Labora-tories, Richland, WA, 1970.
- 13. Pacific Northwest Laboratories Annual Report for 1975 to the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Division of Biomedical and Envi-ronmental Research, Part 2 - Ecological Sciences, Report BNWL-2000, Part 2, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Ricnland, WA, 1976.
- 14. Fickheisen. D. H. and M. J. Schneider (editors), Proceedings of Gas Bubble Disease Workshop, Conference 741033, Oak Ridge, Jennessee,1975.
- 15. Terrestrial Ecology Studies in the Vicinity of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Stations 1 and 4, Progress Report for the Period July 1974 to June 1975, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, to United Engineers and Constructors for Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, November 1976.
- 16. Stone, W. A., Meterological Instrumentation of the Hanford Area, HW-62455, March 1964.
- 17. Stone, W. A., D. E. Jenne and J. M. Thorp, Climatography of the Hanford Area, BNWL-1605, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, T9Tf.
- 18. Thorp, J. M., "1972 Microclimatological Measurements on the Arid Lands Ecology Reserve," in Pacific Northwest Laboratory Annual Report for 1972 to the USAEC Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research, Volume II: Physical Sciences - Part 1, Atmospheric Sciences, BNWL-1751, Part 1, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, April 1973.
- 19. Baker, D. A., Diffusion Climatology Study of the 100-N Area, Hanford Washington, DUN-7841, Douglas United Nuclear, Inc o Richland, WA, 1972.
- 20. Blumer, P. J., J. R. Houston and P. A. Eddy, Master Schedule for CY-1979, Hanford Environmental Surveillance Routine Program, PNL-2801, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, December 1978.
- 21. Mooney, R. R., Environmental Radiation Surveillance in Washington State,
- 18th Annual Re3 ort July 1978-June 1979, Radiation Control Unit, Division of Social and iealth Services, State of Washington, Olympia, WA, 1980.
l 1 O i 6.3-9 i
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O TABLE 6.3-1 ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SUREVEILLANCF SCHEDULE - 1976 U.S. ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION Frequency Type of Sample Type of Analysis W BW M BM g SA A WATER: Columbia River Water Radioactivity - 2 2 Dose Rate 2 Chemical 2 Biological 2 Sanitary Water Radioactivity 1 3 9 Chemical 2(a) Groundwater Wells Radioactivity 340 36 Chemical 255 40 35 AIR:
- FTTters Radioactivity Particulates 44 Molecular Sieves Tritium 6 Charocoal Cartridge Radioicdines 10 34 OTHER
Radiation Level Dose Rate 61 Shoreline Survey Dose Rate 11 Ground Control Plot Radioactivity 3 66 3 Road Survey Radioactivity 6 3 Aerial Survey Radioacitvity 1 Railroad Survey Radioactivity 3 2 Milk Radioactivity 9 Fish (Columbia River) Radioactivity 1 1 4 Wild Fowl Radioactivity 2 5 9 Mammals Radioactivity 10 Soil Radioactivity 21 Vegetation Radioactivity 21 Foodstuffs: Meat Radioactivity 1 1 1 Produce Radioactivity 5 1 6 l (a) Samples routinely analyzed and reported by the Handford Environmental Health Foundation. i O 6.3-10
WNP-1/4 E R-OL () TABLE 6.3-2 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE NETWORK WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION July 1978----June 1979 Station Code Location Sample Type Puget Sound PS 0101 Seattle - Smith Tower Air 0102 Seattle - Boeing Field TLD* 0201 Cedar River - Landsberg Surface Water 1302 Puyallup River - Puyallup Surface Water 1702 Puget Sound - Bangor Oyster, Sediment 1704 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard - Bremerton Sediment 3201 Olympia TLD 3301 Edmonds TLD 3401 Bremerton TLD 3501 Bangor TLD 3601 Pack Forest - Lt. Br. of Spring Ground Water 3602 Pack Forest - Rt. Br. of Spring Ground Water p 3603 Pack Forest - Ditch below Spring Ground Water lj 3604 Pack Forest - Ditch 200' Uphill Ground Water Coastal Peninsula Cp 1801 Elma TLD 2401 Port Angeles TLD Southwest SW 0301 Kalama River - Kalama Surface Water , 0904 Columbia River - Longview Surface Water ' 0905 Cottonwood Island - Columbia River Sediment 0906 Columbia River - East Shore, Trojan Sediment 1100 Kalma - Sewage Treatment Plant TLD, Soil 2002 Woodland Milk 2100 Kelso - Vision Acres TLD, Soil 3100 Longview, Ocean Beach Substation TLD, Soil 4100 Trojan Plant - Meteorology Tower TLD l Northwest NW 0204 Skagit River - Concrete Surf ace Water 0501 Skagit County - General Area Milk i 1501 Bellingham TLD 1601 Lyman TLD
*Thermoluminescent Dosimeter 6.3-11
WNP-1/4 ER-0L TABLE 6.3-2 (contd.) ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE NETWORK WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION July 1978----June 1979 Station Code Location Sample Type Southcentral SC 0202 Yakima River - Yakima (Parker) Surface Water Northcentral NC 0103 Okanogan River - Malott Surf ace Water 0701 Wenatchee - Sewage Treatment Plant TLD Southeast SE 0011 Hanford - Well 699-17-5 Ground Water 0012 Hanford - Well 699-9-E2 Ground Water 0013 Hanford - Well 699-2-3 Ground Water 0104 Columbia River - Richland Water Surface Water Treatment Plant 0601 Benton County - General Area Milk 0701 Franklin County - General Area Milk 1101 Richland TLD* 1201 Hanford - NECO Burial Site - NE Corner TLD, Soil 1202 Hanford - NECO Burial Site - NW Corner TLD, Soil 1203 Hanford - NECO Burial Site - SW Corner TLD, Soil 1204 Hanford - NECO Burial Site - SE Corner TLD, Soil 3201 WPPSS Station 1 TLD, Soil 3202 WPPSS Station 2 TLD, Soil 3203 WPPSS Station 3 TLD, Soil 3204 WPPSS Station 4 TLD, Soil 3208 WPPSS Station 8 TLD, Soil 3235 WPPSS Station 35 Sediment 3236 WPPSS Station 36 Sediment Northeast NE 0101 Spokane - City hall Air 0102 Charraroy - 20 miles north of Spokane TLD 0103 Spokane TLD 1101 Deer Park - General Area Milk 2101 Sherwood U. Mill - Station A Soil, Air 2103 Sherwood U. Mill - Station C Soil, Air, TLD O 6.3-12
WNP-1/4 ER-CL TABLE 6.3-2 (contd.) ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE NETWORK WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION July 1978----June 1979 Station Code Location Semple Type Northeast NE 2105 Sherwood U. Mill - Station E Air, TLD 2106 Sherwood U. Mill - Station F Air 2107}}