ML20054N053
| ML20054N053 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1982 |
| From: | Longenecker J ENERGY, DEPT. OF, CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT |
| To: | Check P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| HQ:E:82:024, HQ:E:82:24, NUDOCS 8207150304 | |
| Download: ML20054N053 (232) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .-_ l~% l 4" . l Department of Energsr' Washington, D.C. 20545 Docket No. 50-537 HQ: E:82:024 s JUL 12 1982 _w-Mr. Paul S. Check, Director CRBR Program Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. -Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Washington; D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Check:
CRBRP ENVikONMENTAL REPORT, RESPONSE TO NRC QUESTIONS The enclosed provides an advanced transmittal of responses to NRC Environmental questions prior to its incorporation into the Environmental Report. These questions have been previously responded to and formally submitted to NRC as indicated in the enclosed question response. These responses have been updated to include new information since their original submittal, which has been provided to your staff. Changes to previous responses are indicated by the bar line in the right margin.
- These responses will be incorporated into Amendment 15 of the Environmental Report.
Sincerely, J JonR.Longenehr Acting Director, Office of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project. s Office of Nuclear Energy Enclosure
.cc: Service List Standard Distribution Licensing Distribution 8207150304 820712 PDR ADOCK 05000537 C' PDR l O .. - _ . . . . .. .
Amand. XV June 1982 Q UE STIO N_21LlR_LN HC_let ter._d a t e d_LQZZ6 / 81. response _ dated 12/22/81) The geology and seismology literature search needs to be updated. The latest reference in the bibliography is 1974. Considerab'le research in geology and seismology has been done since that time (i.e., Appalachian COCORP Plan; recent studies of the Giles County Earthquake by Bollinger presented at the Earthquakes and Earthquake Engineering meeting in September, 1981 in Knoxville, Tennessee; TVA Appalachian Study; Studies related to the
. Charleston, S.C. 1886 earthquake; site investigations at TVA and other nuclear projects in the region; studies of other recent and historic Appalachian earthquakes; etc.)
Eu m ar.y__of_Besponsel The geologic and seismological literature search has been update'd to include the years 1974-1981. The various categories into which the recent literature has been presented are identified. A discussion of the findings of the literature search is presented. Major findings in the geologic literature since 1974 are generally related to interpretation of the origin and structure of the southern Appalachians. Much of this is based on seismic reflection profiles f rom COCORP and the USGS. These findings have no negative impact on the Site. l Mapping of alluvial terraces along the Little Tennessee River by Delcourt and his correlation of the terraces with terraces at the i Watts Bar Nuclear Plant site may provide an additional line of l evidence for dating faults and other geologic structures in the Valley and Ridge. However, because other lines of evidence { indicate that no faulting has taken place in the site area since late Paleozoic time, it is not considered necessary to pursue the terrace study further. 0230.lR-1
Amend. XV June 1982 In reviewing the available geologic literature, no studies were found which were interpreted to invalidate safety related conclusions made in Section 2.5 of the PSAR. The most significant seismological related finding since 1974 has been the Giles County earthquake study by Professor G. A. Bollinger which tentatively identified a northeast striking basement fault with ascribed maximum magnitude of Ms 7.0. Using the procedure outlined in the report to estimate the design intensities at distances away from Giles County, the CRBRP site intensity is estimated to be MM VI. Since CRBRP is designed to MM VIII, the current design is more conservative than that arrived at by using Bollinger's Report. Independent studies by TVA reached similar conclusions for the Watts Bar plant located in the same tectonic province. There is no evidence that other similar structures exist within the Southern Appalachian geologic province. No other new knowledge exists which would imply the inadequacy of the site design maximum intensity (MMVIII). EEEEQHSE The geological and seismological literature search has been updated to include the years 1974-1981. The geologic literature search was designed to include references to recent work performed in the general site area pertaining to possible recent faulting, location of faults not previously recognized in the area, new interpretations of age of thrust faulting, and physical properties of the Paleozoic rock units. l 0230.lR-2
Amend. XV June 1982 The seismologic literature search was designed to include references to recent work related to understanding the causes and distribution of earthquakes in the eastern United States, recent results of seismic monitoring in specific areas, and recent work defining the tectonic setting of the eastern United States. l The literature search consisted of six data bases (National Technical Information Service, Georef, Geoarchive, Dissertation Abstracts, Government Printing Office, and Engineering Index), a review of reference lists from available recent site-related publications, and a telephone survey of geoscientists familiar with recent work performed in the area. The search generated approximately 300 references, of which fewer than 200 appear to be directly applicable to the geologic or seismologic conditions in the area. The geologic publications generally fall into three categories:
- 1) the statigraphy of the Paleozoic rock units; 2) analyses of geophysical data, especially the COCORP seismic data; and 3) developments in the interpretation of the origin of the Southern Appalachians, including origins of and mechanisms for thrust faulting in the Valley and Ridge province. The seismologic literature falls generally into five categories: 1) intraplate tectonics; 2) Cretaceous and Cenozoic faulting; 3) Southern Appalachian tectonics; 4) research conducted in specific areas of -
the eastern United States; and 5) speculations concerning the causes of eastern United States seismicity. GEQlO91 Cal _LLtcIature_BCY12W In reviewing the available geologic literature, no studies were found which were interpreted to invalidate safety related conclusions made in Section 2.5 of the PSAR. 0230.lR-3
Amsnd. XV June 1982 Stratigraphy I Recent studies have served to further characterize the nature and distribution of the Paleozoic rocks in the Valley and Ridge province of Tennessee (27, 33, 34, 40, 41). Additionally, detailed geologic studies within portions of the Valley and Ridge have dealt with the petroleum potential resulting from the geologic structure of the province (13, 15, 28). Significant recent ctudies concerning the effects of Quaternary glaciation in the southern Appalachians have been performed (7,8,16,31). In particular, Delcourt's (7,8) study of the terrace deposits along the Little Tennessee River Valley details the fluvial-depositional processes occurring in the Quaternary. This work serves as a framework for interpretation of the recent geologic history in the Tennessee River drainage basin of the Valley and Ridge. Nine sets of terraces above the current floodplain were identified (labeled T1-T9 from youngest to oldest) by Delcourt. Delcourt's study may provide an additional means of age-dating geologic events in the Valley and Ridge province. The position taken i.n the CRBRP PSAR and the consensus of geologic opinion is that the most recent movement along faults in the Valley and Ridge occurred during the late Paleozoic. It is therefore not considered necessary to conduct a terrace study at the CRBRP site. Q230.lR-4
i Amend. XV June 1982 Analyana_oLGeophysicaLData Recent analyses of geophysical data including seismic reflection profiles, gravity and aeromagnetic surveys, and remote sensing imagery, have aided in the interpretation of crustal structures in the southern Appalachians. These analyses are an integral : part of studies concerning the development of the southern Appalachians. Seismic reflection profiles, from both the'00 CORP (1,4,5,6,- 29,38,39) and the U.S. Geological Survey (15), provide the most detailed interpretation of the structure of the southern Appalachians. Cook et_at. (4) interpret the COCORP profiles, which extend from Madisonville, Tennessee to the Modoc fault near the Coastal Plain overlap in Georgia, to show a continuation of Valley and Ridge sedimentary strata beneath an allochthonous crystalline thrust sheet. The sedimentary strata are suggested to extend at least as far east as the Elberton granite in the Piedmont of northeastern Georgia, and probably to the eastern end of the profile. Harris et..al. (15) using U.S. Geological Survey ' reflection profiles in northern Tennessee and North Carolina, give a similar interpretation. Harris and Bayer (14) extend the f l master decollement underlying the southern Appalachians to the l edge of the present continental shelf and suggest that the entire Appalachian orogen, from Canada to the southern United States, may be detached above a master decollement.
~
In a 1964 report, Watkins (37) used aeromagnetic and gravity data from Tennessee and Kentucky to suggest a contact between a tectonically active Appalachian crustal block' and a stable cratonic block along the western margin of the Valley and Ridge province. In more recent work. Hatcher and Zietz (21,22) used regional aeromagnetic and gravity data to define areas underlain by granitic or mafic crust and areas of varying sediment thickness below the crystalline thrust sheet, and to outline Q230.lR-5
Amend. XV June 1982 sutures in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont. They also suggest that the master decollement is rooted near the Kings Mountain Belt and that the Charlotte Belt / Carolina slate belt is autochthonous and separated from the allochthonous Inner Piedmont by one of the. suture zones. Remote sensing has been applied to interpretations of structure in the southern Appalachians by Johnston et_at. (25). The imagery proved useful in the recognition and mapping of regional structure, jointing patterns, drainage patterns, fault and fracture traces, and rock types. Seay and Hopkins (36) interpreted gravity and aeromagnetic data, remote sensing imagery and seismicity to define tectonic structures in the southern Appalachians. DeYelopment_of_the_ Southern _ Appalachians Recent studies concerning the development of the southern Appalachians can be divided into two general categories: models developed to explain the tectonic evolution of the region, and research concerning the mechani.sms, geometry, and timing of thrust faulting within the southern Appalachians. Tectonic models have been developed which apply the existing geologic and geophysical data base of the southern Appalachians to the plate tectonics theory (3,10,17,18,19). These models serve as a basis for understanding the timing and mechanics of ~ the formation of the southern Appalachian orogen, including the Valley and Ridge province. Thrust faulting in the Valley and Ridge is generally accepted to result from " thin skin" tectonics which involves only the upper crust. The actual mechanisms are a subject of debate in the recent geologic literature. Some researchers believe the move-ment of thrust faults was initiated by gravity sliding along a 0230.1R-6
Amend. XV June 1982 master decollement formed by the uplif t of the Blue Ridge province to the southeast (9,11,26). Other researchers (2,12,17,18,20) either argue against the gravity-slide model, or in favor of a model that explains the initiation of thrusting-along a master decollement by major compressive forces caused by a late Paleozoic collision between the African and North American plates. Chapple (2) developed a model based on existing geologic information as well as assumptions concerning the geometry and mechanical properties of the Appalachian geosyncline. He concluded that compressive forces are required to initiate large-scale thrusting such as that found in the Valley and Ridge. The age of thrusting is a subject of limited debate. Most researchers (17,18,20,32) believe that the most recent movement along the thrust faults occurred during the Permian (late Paleozoic Alleghenian Orogeny) . One recent study (24) argues that there was movement as late as the Cretaceous. Schafer (35) cites evidence from offsets in drill holes to document movement along existing thrust faults in the past 15 years within the Valley and Ridge of Tennessee. Odom and Hatcher (30) and Hatcher and Webb (23) interpret this movement to be the result of significant overburden removal in the vicinity of the drill holes (large-scale road excavations), and not related to reactivation of the Alleghenian thrust f aults. Odom and Hatcher (30) state that these faults "....have almost no possibility of reactivation by their original driving mechanisms." l l l 1 0230.lR-7
Amand. XV June 1982 Helamolosical_Literatute_Beziew Based on the literature reviewed to date, it is concluded that the specific design assumptions related to the derivation of the Site seismicity for the CRBRP plant will not be impacted. A brief summary with bibliography is included below. Intraplate Tectonism Recent studies concerning the occurrence of earthquakes in the eastern United States suggest that seismicity is the result of reactivation of pre-existing zones of weakness by the present stress field. A thorough di.scussion of this subject is given in (1). The orientation and origin of the modern stress field in the central and eastern United States is discussed in (1) and (2). Eaulting Recent work has been published pertaining to Cretaceous and Cenozoic faulting along the eastern United States continental margin (3,4,5,6,7,8) . It has been proposed that northeast l trending reverse faults of Cretaceous and Cenozoic age are
- responsible for seismicity along the eastern seaboard (9,10,11) ,
- EnuthcIn_8EEalachian Tectonic Structure Recent geologic and geophysical evidence is interpreted to indicate that much of the crystalline Southern Appalachians consist of allochthonous slabs thrust from the southeast along a decollement separating the crystalline rocks from essentially i
flat-lying sedimentary strata (12,13) , i 0230.lR-8
Amend. XV June 1982 The Bouguer gravity field of the region has been studied by ' several investigators. Decomposition of the gravity field by wavelength filtering reveals a gradient extending from Maine to Alabama. It has been proposed (14) that seismicity in the crystalline Appalachians is concentrated along this gradient and notably along its transverse offsets. Regional magnetic and gravity data were correlated with seismicity, satellite photo-imagery and related geologic data (15). Results suggest that the Precambrian crust underlying the folded Southern Appalachians has a complex structural pattern which can be divided into a series of distinct tectonic subdivisions. SpScific_ Areas _of the Eaatern_ Malted States Charlaaton d nuth_Carolinal During the past decade, much research has been directed toward identification of the structure that generated in the 1886 Charleston earthquake. In 1977, the U.S. Geological Survey published Professional Paper 1028, a collection of papers which summarizes preliminary findings (17,18,19,21,22). A second l professional paper devoted to the Charleston area is currently being prepared. Focal depths for recent seismicity in the Charleston area suggest that the 1886 shock occurred in the upper crust (16) . Drilling in the Summerville area has shown that the Coastal Plain sediments are underlain by a basalt layer of Jurassic age III) , which overlies red-bed deposits of earlier Mesozoic age. Further evidence of the graben-like deeper structure of the area comes l i l Q230.lR-9 l l I
d Amend. XV June 1982 from seismic refraction (18,19) , magnetic (20) , and gravity data (21) . Seismic reflection profiles show a reverse fault in the Summerville area (Cooke fault) with possible northeast strike, which moved during Cenozoic time (5) . As yet, the . relationship of this fault to seismicity is unclear (16) . Pault plane solutions for the Charleston seismicity show northwest-striking or sub-horizontal nodal planes (22,16) , Recently, it has been proposed that movement along the Appalachian decollement inferred from COCORP reflection data (12,13) may be the cause of the 1886 Charleston event (23) , However, whether or not the decollement extends under the Charleston area is as yet controversial (16) , In their update on information concerning the Charleston area requested f or the St. Lucie SER(24) , the U.S.G.S. summarizes the current understanding of the area as follows:
"The problem regarding identification of specific tectonic structures capable of generating large earthquakes in the east is far from resolution. Local structures near Charleston are imcompletely known at present and the larger structural element, the decollement, is as yet hypothetical. However, the concen-tration of seismicity in the Charleston earthquake epicenter both before and after the August 31, 1886, event and the lack of post Miocene faulting in the Coastal Plain or any evidence for local-izing large earthquakes indicate that the likelihood of a Charleston-sized event in other parts of the Coastal Plain and Piedmont is very low. Consequently, earthquakes similar to the 1886 event should be considered as having the potential to occur in the vicinity of Charleston and seismic engineering parameters should be determined on that basis."
Q230.lR-10
Amend. XV June 1982 l Gilea_ County. Vitginia Important new information about seismicity in the Giles County, Virginia, area has recently been obtained from monitoring by a dense seismograph network (25,26,27) . The seismic monitoring has revealed that focal depths in the Giles County area range f rom 5 km to almost 25 km. Furthermore, the epicenters in the area reveal a northeast lineation in the seismicity pattern. Focal depths indicate that activity is below the Paleozoic section, within the Precambrian basement rocks and middle crust. The 0 strike of the epicenter trend of N37 E departs f rom the general trend of the Paleozoic Valley and Ridge axes in the area. This suggests that the seismicity is caused by a fault zone associated with an earlier trend. Recently, an estimate has been made of the maximum possible earthquake for the Giles County area by Prof. G. A'. Bollinger (20) . This represents the most significant finding since 1974 related to regional seismology. From the range of possible fault plane areas, values ranging from Ms 6.0 to Ms 7.0 were determined. In addition, hypothetical isoseismal maps representing the intensity effects of the maximum earthquake were prepared (28) , Attenuation from the Giles County area to the CRBRP site of the maximum hypothetical size earthquake would result in an event less than the design Intensity VIII and, consequently, will not impact the site seismicity. TVA addressed this question in a recent response to NRC on evaluating the impact of the Bollinger hypothesis on the seismic l design of the Watts Bar plant located in the same tectonic i r province and similar conclusions were reached. l l I Q230.lR-ll l l l
Amend. XV June 1982 SpeculatinDS_Concerning_the_Cause_of_ Eastern United _ States Seismicity The causes of eastern United States earthquakes are not yet . understood. It has been noted that intraplate seismicity shows an association with igneous intrusive rocks (1) , and hypotheses concerning the role of intrusive bodies in concentrating stress have been proposed (29,30) . It has been argued that both seismicity and igneous intrusives are fundamentally related to rift zones, areas of pre-existing crustal weakness which may be reactivated by the modern stress field (1,16) , Two recently proposed hypotheses attempt to explain the origin of seismicity in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain provinces of the eastern United States. Under one hypothesis (23) , the 1886 Charleston event is attributed to gravitational backslip along the Southern Appalachian decollement. Another hypothesis (9,10, 11I proposes that seismicity along the Atlantic Coast is related to reactivated reverse movement on scattered northeast trending faults formed during Mesozoic rifting. However, these hypotheses are not viable in the folded Southern Appalachian area. Recent data from Giles County, Virginia, suggest that a reactivated, northeast trending, high angle, dip slip fault formed in.early Paleozoic time may be responsible for the seismicity in that area (25) , Q230.lR-12
9 Amend. XV June 1982 GEOLOGY REFERENCES
- 1. Albaugh, D. S., Cook, F. A., Brown, L. D., Oliver, J. E.,
Kaufman, S., Hatcher, R. D., Jr. ,1980, The tectonic evolution and subsurf ace structure of the crystalline Southern Appalachians; results from COCORP seismic reflection profiling in Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia: West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey C-16, 1 p.
- 2. Chapple, W. M., 1978, Mechanics of thin-skinned fold and thrust belts: Geological Society of American Bull. , v. 89,
. p. 1189-1198.
- 3. Clark, S., 1974, A plate tectonics model for the southern Appalachians: Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, 73 p.
- 4. Cook, F. A., Albaugh, D. S., Brown, L. D., Kaufman, S.,
Oliver, J. E., and Hatcher, R. D., Jr. ,197 9, Thin-skinned tectonics in the crystalline southern Appalachians; COCORP seismic reflection profiling of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont: Geology, v. 7, p. 56 3-567.
- 5. Cook, F. A., Albaugh, D. S., Brown, L. D., Hatcher, R. D.,
Jr., Kaufman, S., and Oliver, J. R., 1979, Preliminary interpretation of COCORP seismic reflection profile across the Brevard Zone in Northeast Georgia: EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 6 0, p. 314.
- 6. Cook, F. A., Brown, L. D., and Oliver, J. E., 1980, The Southern Appalachians and the Growth of Continents:* Sci.
Amer. , v. 2 43, no. 2, p. 156-16 8.
- 7. Delcourt, P. A. ,1979, Landscape response to Quaternary climatic change in East Tennessee: Abstract Programs l
(Boulder), v. 12, no. 7, p. 411. ( 8. Delcourt, P. A. ,1980, Quaternary alluvial terraces of the Little Tennessee River Valley, East Tennessee: in Section VIII, the 1979 archaeological and geological investigations in the Tellico Reservoir, edited by Chapman, J., TVA Publi-cations in Archaeology No. 24.
- 9. Dennison, J. M. ,1976, Gravity tectonic removal of cover of Blue ridge anticlinorium to form Valley and Ridge province:
Geol. Soc. of American Bull. , v. 87, p.1476-1479. Q230.lR-13 L
Amend. XV June 1982
- 10. Dewey, J. F., and Bird, J. M., 1970, Mountain belts and the new global tectonics: Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 75, no. 14.
- 11. Elliott, D., 1976, The motion of thrust sheets: Jour.
Geophys. Research, v. 81, p. 9 4 9-96 3. -
- 12. Geiser, P., 1978, " Discussion of gravity tectonic removal of cover of Blue Ridge anticlinorium to form Valley and Ridge province:" Geol. Soc. of America Bull. , v. 89, p.
1429-1430.
- 13. Harris, L. D., and Milici, R. C., 1977, Characteristics of thin-skinned type of deformation in the southern Appalachians, and potential hydrocarbon traps - U.S. Geol.
Sury. Prof. Paper 1018, 40 p.
- 14. Harris, L. D., and Bayer, K. C., 1979, Sequential development of the Appalachian Orogen above a master decollement: Geology, v. 7, p. 56 8-57 2.
- 15. Harris, L. D., Harris, A. G., DeWitt, W., Jr., and Bayer, K.
C., 1981, Evaluation of Southern Eastern Overthrust Belt beneath Blue Ridge-Piedmont Thrust: Amer. Assoc. of - Petroleum Geol. Bull. , v. 65, no. 2. , p. 2497-2505.
- 16. Haselton, G. M. ,1976, Wisconsin glaciation in the southern Appalachians, North Carolina: Abstract Programs (Boulder),
- v. 8, no. 2, p. 192.
- 17. Hatcher, R. D., Jr., 1972, Developmental model for the southern Appalachians: Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., v. 83,
- p. 2735-2760.
~
- 18. Hatcher, R. D., Jr. ,1978; Tectonics of the Western Piedmont and Blue Ridge, Southern Appalachians: review and speculation: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 278, no. 3, p. 276-304.
- 19. Hatcher, R. D., Jr., Butler, J. R., Fullagar, P. D.,
Secor, D. T., and Snoke, A. W., 1980, Geologic synthesis of the Tennessee-Carolina-Northeast Georgia Southern Appalachians: in proceedings of "The Caledonides in the USA," Wones, D. R., editor, V.P.I. Dept. of Geol. Sci . mem. 2, p. 83-90.
- 20. Hatcher, R. D., Jr., and Odom, A. L., 1978, Timing of thrusting in the southern Appalachians, USA; model for Orogeny: in deformation and metamorphism in the Caledonide Orogen, Phillips, W. E. A., and Johnson, M. R. W., editors, Geol. Soc. London Jour . , v. 137, pa r t 3, p. 3 21-3 27.
Q230.lR-14
. - _ _ _ . - - - - _ ~ -. . - . .- .
' Amend. XV June 1982 l
- 21. Hatcher, R. D., Jr. , and Zietz, I., 1978, Thin crystalline thrust sheets in the southern Appalachians inner Piedmont '
i and Blue Ridge; interpretation based upon regional aeromagnetic data: Geol. Soc. Am., Abstr. Programs, v. IV, no. 7, p. 417. ! 22. Hatcher, R. D., Jr. , and Z ietz, I., 1980, Tectonic implications of regional aeromagnetic and gravity data from the southern Appalachians: in proceedings of "The Caledonides in the USA," Wones, D. R., editor, v. P1, Dept. of Geol. Sci., mem. 2, p. 235-244.
- 23. Hatcher, R. D., Jr., and Webb, F., 1981, Recent thrusting in the Appalachians: Nature, v. 292, p. 3 89-390.
j -
- 24. Huntsman, J. R., Harris, W. B., and Zullo, V. A., 1980,
! Tectonic evolution of the southern Appalachians; a new assessment with regional implications: Geol. Soc. Am.,
Abstr. Programs, v.12, no. 2, p. 43.
- 25. Johnston, J. E., Miller, R. L. and Englund, K. J., 1975, Applications of remote sensing to structural interpretations in the Southern Appalachians: Jour. of Research, U.S. Geol.
Sury., v. 3, p. 285-293. .
- 26. Milici, R. C., 1975, Structure patterns in the Southern !
Appalachians; evidence for a gravity-slide mechanism for Alleghenian deformation: G eol . Soc. Am. Bull., v. 86,
- p. 1316-1320.
- 27. Miller, R. A., 1974, Geologic history of Tennessee: Tenn.
Div. of Geol. Bull. 74, p. 63.
- 28. Miller, R. L. ,1973, Structural setting of hydrocarbon accumulation in folded Southern Appalachians: Am. Assoc.
Petr. Geol. Bull. , v. 57, no. 12, p. 2 419-2427.
- 29. Moench, R. H., Cook, F. A., Albaugh, D. S., Brown, L. D.,
Kaufman, S., Oliver, J. E., and Hatcher, R. D., Jr., 1980, i Thin-skinned tectonics in the crystalline southern Appalachians; COCORP seismic-reflection profiling of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont; discussion and reply: Geology,
- v. 8, no. 9, p. 402-404.
- 30. Odom, A. L., Hatcher, R. D., Jr. , and 'Others,1980, A characterization of faults in the Appalachian foldbelt, U.S.
Nuclear Reg. Comm. Contract No. FIN-NO-B1053-8, Report No. NUREG/CR-1621.
- 31. Raymond, L'. A., 1977, Glacial, Peri-glacial and Pseudo-glacial features in the Grandfather Mountain Area, North Carolina: Southeast, Geol., v. 18, no. 4, p. 213-229.
Q230.lR-15
Amand. XV June 1982
- 32. Roeder, D., Yust, W. W. and Little, R. E., 1978, Folding in the Valley and Ridge province of Ter.nessee: Am. Jour. Sci.,
- v. 278, no. 4, p. 477-496.
- 33. Ruppel, S. C. ,1977, Stop 1 (A&B) ; Shallow carbonate shelf deposits of the lower Chickamauga Group, Evan's Ferry Section and Stop 2 ( A-E) ; the Chickamauga limestone; a complex mosaic of supratidal to subtidal carbonates shelf environments: in the Ecostratigraphy of the Middle Ordovician of the southe~nr Appalachians (Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia) U.S.A.; a field excursion, Ruppel, S. C., and Walker, K. R., editors, Univ. of Tenn., Dept. of Geol. Sci.,
Stud. Geol. , v. 77, no. 1, p. 33-48.
- 34. Ruppel, S. C. ,1978, The stratigraphy carbonate petrology, and depositional environments of the Chickamauga Group (Middle Ordovician) of Northern East Tennessee: Ph.D.
Thesis, Univ. of Tenn., Knoxville.
- 35. Schafer, K., 1979, Recent thrusting in the Appalachians:
Nature, v. 280, p. 223-226.
- 36. Seay, W. M., and Hopkins, R. A., 1981, Southern Appalachian tectonic study: in Earthquakes and Earthquake engineering:
The Eastern United States, Beavers, J. S., editor, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich., v. 1,
- p. 419-439.
- 37. Watkins, J. S., 1964, Regional geologic implications of the gravity and magnetic fields of a part of eastern Tennessee and southern Kentucky; U..S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 516-A, 17p.
- 38. Williams, H., Cook., F. A., Albaugh, D. S., Brown, L. D.,
Kaufman, S., Oliver, J. E. and Hatcher, R. D., Jr., 1980, Thin-skinned tectonics in the crystalline southern Appalachians: COCORP seismic reflection profiling of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont, discussion and replies: Geology,
- v. 8, no. 5, p. 211-216.
- 39. Witherspoon, W. D., and Roeder, D., 1981, Master faults of the southern Appalachian Thrust Belt in Tennessee: EOS, Trans, of A.G.U., v. 6 2, p. 403.
- 40. Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant Preliminary Safety Analysis Report: Tennessee Valley Authority.
- 41. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Final Safety Analysis Report:
Tennessee. Valley Authority. Q23 0.l R-16
w Amend. XV June 1982 SEISMOLOGY REFERENCES
- 1) Sykes, L. R., Intraplate seismicity, reactivation of pre-existing zones of weakness, alkaline magmatism, and other tectonism postdating continental fragmentation: Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, v. 16, p. 6 21-66 8, 197 8. <
- 2) Zoback, M. L. , and Z oback, M. D. , State of stress in the conterminous United States: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 85, p. 6113-6156.
- 3) Mixon, R. B., and Newell, W. L., Stafford fault system:
structures documenting Cretaceous and Tertiary deformation along the Fall Line in northeastern Virginia: Geology,
- v. 5, p. 437-440, 1977.
- 4) Prowell, D. C., and O' Conner, B. J., Belair fault zone:
evidence of Tertiary fault displacement in eastern Georgia: Geology, v. 6, p. 6 82-684,1978.
- 5) Behrendt, J. C., Hamilton, R. M., Ackermann, H. D., and Henry, V. J., Cenozoic faulting in the vicinity of the Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake zone: Geology, v. 9, no. 3, 1981.
- 6) York, J. E., and Oliver, J. B., Cretaceous and Cenozoic f aulting in eastern North America , Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 87, p. 1105-1114, 1976.
- 7) Mixon, R. B., and Newell, W. L., The faulted Coastal Plain margin at Fredericksburg, Virginia: R. B. Mixon and W. L.
Newell, U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, Guidebook for Tenth Annual Virginia Geology Field Conf erence, . October 13-14, 1978, 50 p., 1978.
- 8) Howard, K. A., and others, Preliminary map of young faults in the United States as a guide to possible fault activity:
U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-916, scale 1:5,000,000,1978.
- 9) Wentworth, C. M., and Mergner-Keefer, Marcia, Atlantic-coast reverse fault domain: probable source of east-coast seismicity: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 12, p. 547, 1980.
- 10) Wentworth, C. M., and Mergner-Keefer, Marcia, Regenerate faults of small Cenozoic offset as probable earthquake sources in the Southeastern United States: U. S. Geological
- Survey Open-File Report 81-356, 1981. Q230.lR-17
Amsnd. XV June 1982
- 11) Wentworth, C. M., and Mergner-Keefer, Marcia, Reverse fault-ing along the eastern seaboard and the potential for large earthquakes in Proc. Earthquakes and earthquake engineering
- eastern United States, Sept. 14-16, 1981, Knoxville, Tennessee.
- 12) Cook., F. A., Albaugh, D. S., Brown, L. D., Kaufman, S.,-
Oliver, J. E., and Hatcher, R. D., Jr., Thin-skinned tectonics in the crystalline southern Appalachians; COCORP seismic-reflection profiling of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont: Geology, v. 7. , p. 56 3-567, 197 9.
- 13) Harris., L. D., and Bayer, K. C., Sequential developments of the Appalachian orogen above a master decollement--A hypo-thesis: Geology, v. 7, p. 56 8-57 2, 197 9.
- 14) Kane, M. F., Simpson, R. W., and Osberg, P. H., New gravity evidence of crust-mantle structure and seismicity in the Appalachians (abs.): Transactions of the American Geophy-sical Union, v. 6 2, no. 17, 40 2, 1981.
- 15) Seay, W. M., and Hopkins, R. A., Southern Appalachian tectonic study: in Proc. Earthquakes and earthquake engineering - the eastern United States, Sept. 14-16, 1981, Knoxville, Tennessee.
- 16) Hamilton, R. M., Geologic Origin of Eastern U.S. Seismicity, in Proc. Earthquakes and earthquake engineering - the eastern United States, Sept. 14-16, 1981, Knoxville, Tennessee.
- 17) Gohn, G. S.; Higgins, B. B., Smith, C. C., and Owens, J. P.
Lithostratigraphy of the deep corehole (Clubhouse Crossroads corehole 1) near Charleston, South Carolina: U.S. . Geological Survey Professional Paper 1028-E, p. 59-70, 1977.
- 18) Talwani, P., A preliminary shallow crustal model between Columbia and Charleston, South Carolina, determined from quarry blast monitoring and other geophysical data: U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1028-M, p. 177-187, 1977.
- 19) Ackermann, H. D., Exploring the Charlecton, South Carolina area with seismic refraction - a preliminary study: U.S.
Geological Survey Prof essional Paper 1028-L, p. 167-175, 1977.
- 20) Phillips, J.D., Daniels, D. L. Zietz, I., and Popenoe, P.,
Geophysical studies of the Charleston, South Carolina area - onshore aeromagnetic map: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MD-1022-A, 1978. Q230.lR-18 l
Amend. XV June 1982
- 21) Long, L. T., and Champion, J. W., Jr. , Bouguer gravity map of the Summerville-Charleston, South Carolina, epicentral zone and tectonic implications: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1028-K, p. 151-16 6 , 1977 .
- 22) Tarr, A. C., Recent seismicity near Charleston, South Carolina, and its relationship to the August 31, 1886 earthquake, ID Rankin, D. W. -( ed. ) Studies Related to the Charleston, South Carolina earthquake of 1886--a preliminary report: U.S. Geological Survey Prof essional Paper 1028, p.
43-57, 1977.
- 23) Armbruster, J. G., and Seeber, L., Intraplate seismicity in the northeastern United States and the Appalachian detachment: in Proc. Earthquakes and earthquake engineering
- the eastern United States, Sept. 14-16, 1981, Knoxville, Tennessee.
- 24) Official Communication, U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, to Dr. Robert E. Jackson, Division of Engineering, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, December 30, 1980.
- 25) Bollinger, G. A., and Wheeler, R. L., The Giles County, Virginia, seismogenic zone: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Program, v. 12, no. 7, p. 3 89, 1980.
- 26) Bollinger, G. A., and Wheeler, R. L., The Giles County, Virginia, seismic network - Monitoring results, 197*-1980:
Earthquake Notes, v. 51, p.14,1980.
- 27) Bollinger G. A., and Sibol, M.S., Fault source models for Virginia earthquakes: Earthquake Notes, v. 52, p. 61, 1981.
- 28) Bollinger, G. A., The Giles County, Virginia seismic zone -
configuration and hazard assessment: in Proc. Earthquakes and earthquake engineering - the eastern United States, Sept. 14-16, 1981. Knoxville, Tennessee.
- 29) Kane, M. F., Correlation of major eastern earthquake centers with mafic-ultramafic masses: U.S. Geological Survey l Prof essional Paper 1028-0, p.199-204,1977.
- 30) McKeown, F. A., Hypothesis: many earthquakes in the central and southeastern United States are casually related to mafic intrusive bodies: U.S. Geological Survey Journal of Research v. 6, p. 41-50, 1978.
0230.lR-19
Amend. XV June 1982 Question _230,2B (NRC letter dated 10/26/81, response dated 12/22/81) Based on the site investigation data presented in the PSAR, the upper siltstone horizon of Unit A, within which the structure-foundations are to be placed, is relatively devoid of solution features below foundation grade. However, it is not obvious that the underlying limestone unit of the Chickamauga Group, Unit A and the much deeper Knox group do not contain significant cavities. Determine the maximum size cavity, based on regional
- studies of karst features in these rock units, that could exist beneath the plant without being detected by the investigations performed. Evaluate the capability of the foundation rock unit (Unit A, upper siltstone) to bridge such cavities.
Summary _of_Besponse
- 1) The potential for cavities and other karst features within the Unit A Limestone of the Chickamauga Group below the proposed base excavation level for the Nuclear Island is considered minimal. It is believed that existing' boring data, results of the test grouting program, and the planned bedrock verification program as addressed in the PSAR will be sufficient to confirm the homogeneity of the Unit A Limestone. This verification program is scheduled to commence shortly and results will be provided upon completion.
- 2) Research studies on the regional geology have shown that weathering in the Knox has been encountered to depths up 4
to 200 feet. Geotechnical investigations at the site have indicated a depth of weathering in the Knox not exceeding 100 feet. Consequently, with a minimum depth of cover above the Knox of 450 feet, subsidence problems will not occur beneath the CRBRP site. 0230.2R-1
Amend. XV June 1982 ) l 82S90D52 ! EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL CAVITIES IN THE KNOX FORMATION The size, shape, frequency, and extent at depth of karstic cavities depend upon 1) the extent of the weathering zone, 2) the presence or absence of impervious strata, and 3) local geologic structures (faults). In general, solution cavities, both ancient and recent, may be open, or completely filled with clastic material, or may be water-filled conduits. Ancient, or
- paleokarst cavities, are typically filled with recemented material and are as competent as the host rock around them.
Weathering within the Oak Ridge reservation is usually limited to the upper 100 feet of the surface. The weathering of rock is most severe in the local limestone and dolomite units, leaving karstic terrain with clay and chert residuum for soil. Below the weathering zone, the rock is generally jointed, but sound, with joint strength increasing and open joint f requency decreasing with depth. The development of karst features at the surface and at depth in the rocks of the Knox Group is well documented. Sinkholep and cavities are very frequent and have created many problems in the foundation of structures throughout the entire region. The Knox Group has been described as a massive dolomite with a paleokarst upper unit. This upper unit reflects an ancient karstic erosional surface which was subsequently beveled and covered by the Chickamauga Group. According to local experts and available references, this paleokarst unit is now a very competent rock. The ancient solution cavities, joints and caves, were filled with residuum and recemented to the point that it is now difficult to detect the paleokarst unit from the overlying and underlying carbonate units. These paleokarst features are well documented in the zinc district of northeastern Tennessee where they are always filled and cemented and do not represent a hazard. 1 023 0. 2 R-2
}
Amend. XV June 1982 The only areas of karst with active solutioning exist within zones of active weathering, at or close to the contact between the Knox and the Chickamauga groups, and at depths ranging from 0 to 200 feet. The size of the cavities varies from enlarged joints to several tens, and occasionally hundreds of feet in span. Geotechnical investigation at the site indicated a maximum depth of weathering not exceeding 100 feet. To summarize our own experience and available data the following can be concluded: 1) Frequent and large open cavities (up to - several hundred feet) occur within the Knox Group. These solution features are exclusively developed at shallow depth (no deeper than 200 feet) and in relation to the zone of weathering.
- 2) Many cavities appear to be located at or close to the unconformity existing between the Knox and Chickamauga Groups.
When this unconf ormity is at depth beneath the zone of weathering the karst features are ancient and filled, and the filling material is recemented. In conclusion, it would appear that subsidence is not a problem below the CRBRP site and in view of the shallow d2pth of weathering, it wo61d not be necessary to conduct nypothetical analytical studies to determine the maximum size cavity r, elated to depth and strength properties of overlying strata. 023 0. 2 R-3
Amand. XV June 1982 BIBLIOGRAPHY Franklin, and others, 1981. Foundation Considerations in Siting of Nuclear Facilities in Karst Terrains and Other Areas Susceptible to Ground Collapse: NUREG/CR-2062. . GSA, 1950. Application of Geology to Engineering Practice: GSA Law Engineering Testing Company, 1974, Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant, Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Section 2.5. Project Management Corporation, 1975. Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant, Environmental Report, Section 2.4. l l e 'l 023 0.2 R-4
Amend. XV June 1982 l QUESTION 210.3R (NRC letter dated 10/26/81, response _ dated 12/22/81) Furnish a map and summary discussion of the relationship beneath the Pleistocene / Pliocene high terrace deposits and geologic structures at the site, particularly the shear zone encountered in core borings. EESPONSE In response to this question we are providing Figure 2.5-5 from the PSAR which is the site geologic map. Although terrace deposit studies have been used as a tool to locate and date faulting and other geologic structures, they were not used for this purpose during the CRBRP licensing invest-igation. The age of geologic structures at and near the site (Copper Creek, White Oak Mountain, and other faults as well as the shear zone within the Chickamauga Group) were determined by othe: lines of evidence. At the time of the original PSAR development in 1973 and 1974, no other such terrace study had been carried out in eastern Tennessee within the Valley and Ridge geologic province. Since that time, one such study had been identified. This study was performed by P. A. Delcourt of the University of Tennessee (Knoxville) along the Little Tennessee River from Chilhowee Dam to the Tellico Dam (approximately 10 miles southeast of the CRBRP site) . Delcourt* has mapped nine different terrace deposits along the river and has radiocarbon age dates on the three youngest terraces.
*Delcourt, P. A., 1981, Personal Communication to Law Engineering Testing Company.
0230.3R-1
Amand. XV June 1982 The distribution and state of presentation of the terrace deposits along the Clinch River is not documented in the geologic literature; therefore, no assessment can be made concerning their relationship to the terrace deposits mapped by Delcourt along the Little Tennessee River or directly to the structures identified at the site. Howev er, during the geologic mapping at the site, the general distribution of terrace material was plotted (PSAR Figure 2.5-5). Terrace deposits form a veneer over portions of the site. This material is high-level alluvium deposited by the Clinch River when stream levels were much higher than at the present. Such deposits are generally regarded as Pleistocene to cliocene in age. The terrace deposits consist mainly of orange and red silty clay with thin layers of rounded quartz, chert, and quartzite gravel. A limited number of borings have penetrated the terrace deposits extending to depths ranging f rom 8 to 19.5 feet below the ground surf ace. For a study to be conducted on the terrace deposits, it would first be necessary to establish whether sufficient material exists in the near vicinity of the CRBRP site to permit s
! developing a correlation with geologic structures at the site including the shear zone encountered in the Chickamauga Group. ; Detailed surf ace mapping and surveying in conjunction with .
I subsurface mapping (trenching with a backhoe) would be required. Correlation of individual terraces would have to be done by age da ting (radiocarbon or palynology) , comparison of lithologic composition of the terraces, or possibly by heavy mineral analyses of terrace material. Plotting the distribution of the terraces on longitudinal profiles would allow for detection of offsets in the terraces on the regional scale, while smaller scale offsets would have to be recognized in the field, generally f rom the trench study. It is considered that a program of work of the nature described above .is not warranted f or the CRBRP site because, as outlined in i j O23 0.3 R-2
- er b
- mend. XV uane 1982 the PSAR, other lines of evidence were sufficient to conclude l that all structural elements including the shear zone are ancient and are not considered capable.
I e D 1 e l I 0230.3R-3
e . ~ n a w Amend. XV 6 ,
. June 1982 O g f g b *-
I O O 3 E $ i;
- 3
- s w W>
g
.e.
5 e
$a
- Q >
>(
O O w k> . Z g ( w > O E I g h
~
w E *
$ $ 0 2
j Mgo = s O a w O = : z o a -j
- 5 w s w = a o
w 5
- g =
x
.e O f. . g i o
.A
.C
- 3 Q, E - f -- % o
- * ; - s st
.s u 2v~ <
C1 y- ...'*
's
/ .**' [ ..
, , ' . - i. .-h? ; p
.. r .
.i -
~ m y ._-
' u, w. .
-~----~u .
7,::= .-4~ t..-.
< . .'. q'....
3 j o a W ....,....".x;;;,,,,..h,' f*C ( '. '\/,;s
.~
f'.;f- ' . D.J '. ',..
,y- -/ y.hj/
o
. F-fN ,: . , ,_p-qg-=~y
. v' .;. -
>- s ;; ,/ # -
/'
.# g e. .
.N' .~ ~
's ; 1 .. ), .:*/ E
\FM . , . - 'k-h'h- . s
~
Y '/ . .
.. R y' .*g%
.'.; ' 'S *f8 N' .' '. -
~
'/?
M.j l y
- h. . -
ll $y
\ '\$*.,h, & p f'N \\ W *
.. Y ,.g.~,\ ' ,.
l a, l f b 5:). *b
' :- ,\
h' . 1',,,,*
~
*' ~
.;._..--L} 3
/
m
.W +-- ,. i . 1[. . +2y%. V.fg *Q.9.x /
. .--c 5
w ( e. s
~e ,'.
g . - * , . i a. . y 1 Q, :['
,. . ,he d .3..y, . .',/[y f . . , ,
_. . .. s
. ea ss. s , m n ., s,s s a +, . ..t. s c . .s
- t N *, t . t .. g ci
~
*.- . : -- 'mNy .
.y % .% y
+.
. p.i cn
,. Ts .N** * 's ...
4.-- ./ ! f *4 l
'.* : . ~
- - .-:..- [ , c... .-3 s.~^ ;a, -
u l
' M_ ? .-.-y w"
.e .'
.,. p \,s - t n .;p
-4 .. .
r
.,t%. ~ %. . . .
- \-
V i
. %g - / f
/\\
- .a.,. - /
w ..:...:.%.. . . . y s -
% : . .. . . '\J.
'N: .- . . ' ... t s' /
- % e-
\
% ~. 3
. /
..,, y
/*
sN %
/
\ /
N -
~---_*/
8 :
. 3 9 02 3 0.3 R-4
~ ~ ~
AMEND. XV June 1982 OUESTION 230.4R (NRC letter dated 10/26/81. resoonse dated 12/22/81) What is the current status of the radioactive waste injection . well on the Oak Ridge Reservation approximately 4 miles east of the site?
RESPONSE
The injection well at the experimental shale fracturing facility . has been retired f rom service. It was used for the injection of approximately 2 million gallons of waste grout over a 16 year pe riod. The maximum determined extent of the grout sheets from these injections was approximately 700 f t* f rom the well. A new injection well has been installed about 800 ft. south of the experimental facility. This well will be used for future
~ . injections of waste grout, starting in June, 1982.
The characteristics of both wells are given in the Environmental Impact Statement for the New Hydrof racture Facility - ERDA 1553.
- Management of Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste. ORNL ERDA 1553, Sept. 1977 023 0.4 R-1
Amand. XV June 1982 QUESTION 230.5R (NRC letter dated 10/26/81, response dated 12/22/81) The geology section for the Clinch River site in the Alternate, Site write-up should be updated. It is written as if only four core borings have been drilled there and the geologic conditions are unknown. This can be done by referring to Chapter 2.4. EEEEQHSE An extensive geological survey was conducted following the selection of the Clinch River site for the demonstration plant. The results of the survey were documented in Section 2.4 of the ER an'd were updated by Amendment IX. Section 9.2.5.3.4, " Geology" of the Alternative Energy Sources and Sites Section has been updated by referring to Section 2.4. l l l l l 0230.5R-1 l
Amend. XV June 1982 OUESTION 240.lR (NRC telecopy dated 10/22/81, response dated 12/22/81) Information Requirements Relating to Executive , Order 11988 on Floodplain Management. inefinition of Ploodplain: The lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including floodprone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum that area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year.)
- 1. Provide descriptions of the floodplains of all water bodies, including intermittent water courses; within or adjacent to the ,
site. On suitable scale map provide delineations of those areas that will be flooded during the one-percent chance flood in the absence of plant effects (i.e., pre-construction floodplain).
- 2. Provide details of the methods used to .
determine the floodplains in response to 1. above. Include your assumptions of and bases for the pertinent parameters used in the computation of the one-percent flood flow and water elevation. If studies approved by Flood Insurance Administration (FIA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or the Corps of Engineers are available for the site or adjoining area, the details of andlyses need not be supplied. You can instead provide the reports from which you obtained the floodplain information. 02 40 .l R-1
Amend. XV June 1982
- 3. Identify, locate on a map, and describe all structures, construction activities and topographic alterations proposed in the floodplains.
- 4. Discuss the hydrologic effects on all items identified in 3. above. Discuss the potential for altered flood flows and levels, both upstream and downstream.
Include the potential affect of debris accumulating on the plant structures. Additionally, discuss the effects of debris generated from the site on downstream facilities.
- 5. Provide the details of your analysis used in response to 4. above. The level of detail is similar to that identified in item 2.
above.
- 6. Identify non-floodplain alternatives for each of the items (structures, construction activities and topographic alterations) .
identified in 3. above. Alternately, justify why a specific item must be in the floodplain.
- 7. For each item in 6. above that cannot be justified as having to be in the floodplain either show that all non-floodplain alternatives are not practicable or commit t
to re-locating the structure, construction activity or topographic alteration out of the floodplain. l 0240.lR-2
Am:nd. XV June 1982
RESPONSE
- 1. Two streams are adjacent to or within the CRBRP site: the Clinch River and Grassy Creek. In addition, there are ei.ght small, intermittent drainageways that flow through the site area, as shown in Figure 240.lR-1 and Figure 240.lR-2. l Storm runoff from these drainageways will be controlled by cite grading and a storm drainage system as described in PSAR Section 2.4.2.3.
The 1-percent-chance floodplain of the Clinch River at the site and along the access road and railroad leading to the site are delineated on figures 240.lR.-1 through 240.lR-6. The 1-percent chance floodplain of Grassy Creek is controlled by the Clinch River flood level as shown in Figur e 240.lR-3. Figure 240.lR-3 also provides the 1-percent-chance floodplain of the Clinch River in the vicinity of the barge unloading area.
- 2. Details of the analyses used in the computation of the 1-percent-chance floodflows and water elevations are described in the study " Flood Insurance Study, Roane County, Tennessee, (Unincorporated Areas)" made by TVA for FIA and published in March 1980. Copies of the sections of this report that describe the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses (pages 8-15), together with the list of report references (pages 29-30) and Clinch River profiles (figure 02P), are provided in Exhibit 1.
- 3. Construction activities proposed in the 1-percent-chance floodplain include a limited amount of clearing and grubbing and those associated with the construction of three runoff
~
treatment ponds, the river water intake structure, the i i 0240.lR-3
l Amend. XV June 1982 l l barge unloading facility, discharge outfall facility and portions of the plant access road and railroad. These structures, along with the clearing and grubbing limits, are shown on figures 240.lR-1 through 240.1R-6.
- 4. The proposed construction activities or structures that are
& located in the floodplain will not alter floodflows or
- 5. elevations. The drainage areas--3,380 square miles at Clinch River mile 15.5 and 3,368 square miles at Clinch River mile 17.8--are not altered and the reduction in flow area at the site is infinitesimal and at the fringe of the flooded area. The site will be well-maintained and any debris generated from it will be minimal and will present no problem to downstream facilities.
- 6. (a) River Water Intake Structure No non-floodplain alternative exists for the River Water Intake (Figure 240.lR-1) . The intake pipe must be located in the river in order to draw water. Maintenance of a 2:1 slope and placement of rip rap along the river bank leading f rom the intake structure will mitigate any impact from the 1 percent chance flood occurrence.
(b) Barge Unloading Facility The primary function of the Barge Unloading Facility (Figure 240.lR-3) is to furnish an economical, practical transportation means for major plant components, e.g., reactor vessel, etc. Alternate transportation systems, i.e., road and rail, can accommodate neither the component sizes nor the weights. Q240.lR-4
Amend. XV June 1982 The facility must be located in the river in order to service the barges. As a result, no non-floodplain alternative exists for the Barge Unloading Facility. The 1 percent chance flood will intersect on roads leading to and from the facility and on the railroad all of which will have a 2:1 slope and grassed berms to mitigate any impact from the 1 percent chance flood occurrence. (c) Discharge Outfall Facility The function of the Discharge Outfall Facility (Figure 240.lR-1) is to integrate all plant discharges into the main body of the Clinch River as rapidly and as thoroughly as possible in order to minimize environmental impacts. Consequently, non-floodplain alternatives cannot satisfy the functional requirements of the Discharge Outfall Facility. , Maintenance of a 2:1 slope and placement of rip rap along the river bank leading from the Discharge Outfall Facility will mitigate any impact from the 1 percent chance flood occurrence.
- 7. (a) Runoff Treatment Ponds The prime function of the Runoff Treatment Ponds is to settle / filter surface runoff during both construction and plant operation to effect suspended solids removal prior to discharge to the Clinch River.
Runoff treatment ponds "A", "B" and "E" are located in low lying areas within the projected one-percent-chance floodplain. (Refer Pigures 240.lR-7, 8 & 9, respectively.) Practical Q240.lR-5
Amend. XV June 1982 design constrains the pond bottom elevations to approximate the receiving water body (Clinch River) elevation. Such an arrangement affords a minimum pond expanse while eliminating downstream pond discharge problems associated with high . discharge velocities. - Alternate location of presently proposed ponds and appurtenances are not practical for the following reasons: Pond "A" - Moving Pond "A" out of the flood plain would cause relocation of necessary construction laydown/ storage and shop areas. Main fill extension to accommodate displaced laydown and shop needs would require substantial clearing / grubbing and earthwork. < (Figure 240.lR-7.) Pond "B" - The sewage treatment plant, waste treatment lagoon / equalization basin and warehouse wou3d have to be relocated to less desirable and practical sites. j (Figure 240.lR-8.) I Pond "E" - Physical constraints prevent this pond from being constructed within adjacent railroad / access road fill. Alternate railroad and access road siting would require drastic realignment either through hills toward the east or the flood plain on the west. Alternately, rugged upstream topography precludes suitable and practicable pond relocation. (Figure 240.lR-9.) 0240.lR-6
P m Amend. XV June 1982 As an additional alternate, should Ponds "A" & "B" be relocated so as to be contained within nearby undisturbed natural high terrain (Figures 240.lR-7 & 8), the following consequences would result: o the resulting toe of natural slope embankments would in turn be subject to the one-percent-chance flood backwaters o additional construction expenditures would be required for clearing / grubbing, earthwork and rock excavation Thus, any alternative location of these ponds will still require construction of either alternate structures and/or alteration of topographic features presently within or adjacent to the floodplain; be economically unsound and/or be an impracticable alternate f rom the standpoint of the functional requirements of the runoff treatment ponds. Therefore, there is no practical , alternative to locating these ponds within the 1-percent-chance floodplain. Measures such as grated gravel, or crushed rock and grass will be placed to minimize adverse floodplain impacts to the runoff treatment ponds. (b) Road and Railroad Alignments Onsite Road The plant access road and rail spur (Key Plan, Figure 240.lR-10) { [ provide necessary transportation modes for material and personnel. The presently proposed onsite road alignment closely follows an existing river patrol road (Figures 240.lR-1 through 240.lR-6). Road gradients, geometric alignment, clearances, etc., must be upgraded to accommodate the transportation requirements for the project. Alternate road route (s) would either be located totally within the floodplain or pass through terrain requiring excessive clearing, excavation and fill for embankments. Q240.lR-7
Amand. XV June 1982 Onsite Railroad The onsite railroad work has been incorporated with the proposed access road earthwork (Figures 240.lR-3 and 240.lR-4). Such alignment minimizes floodplain encroachment by restricting the rail route to the floodplain perimeter. Alternate onsite routes would either pass totally within the projected floodplain or via adjacent steep hills, thereby necessitating extensive earthwork at excessive cost. Offsite Railroad Alternate offsite railroad routes were investigated during the design process. The selected offsite layout represents the most practical, feasible route free of the following physical constraints: (Figures 240.lR-10 through 14) . o Gallaher bridge superstructure o Oak Ridge Turnpike embankment o Oak Ridge Turnpike overpass at Bear Creek Road o Bear Creek Road trave 1way and shoulder o Rugged topography of Pine Ridge (east side of Bear Creek Road in the vicinity of Oak Ridge Turnpike) . l No practical alternate offsite railroad alignment exists. Adverse floodplain impacts will be minimized by: o Maximizing high ground routing where railroad is not adjacent to Bear Creek Road (Figures 240.lR-12 and 13.) i l l 02 4 0 .l R-8
Amand. XV June 1982 o Placing required railroad supporting fill at the floodplain perimeter where the railroad is adjacent to existing Bear Creek Road (Figure 240.1R-14) . o Providing the site access road and railroad berms with a 2:1 grassed slope, except for those areas of culvert crossing (Grassy Creek and upstream of Grassy Creek) which will be rip rap for interface between the river water and the road and railroad embankments. While alternate transportation modes exist, not all required products and materials are adaptable to the alternate transportation modes. Point of origin, shipment size, shipping economics and specialty components, etc., determine the transportation method utilized, i.e., not everything can be transported via road or water. For example, turbine stators are historically rail shipped via special rail cars. Consequently, non-floodplain alternatives cannot satisfy the functional and practicable requirements of railroad and access road, both alignment and mode., l O l 0240.1R-9
, / - . ,. / ,- '
t .e .
'.rs a.,--
r==,-. N *
-/ A, f.: ..
&.\,7f .
% f.,, , ,,,,,, *g ,
,. ,.'y -
/' %, i \
- y. .u 1
s , /, ..-4 .
'-.g.s I*E.[.,
.6.**.- ./
, ,. , , , ,,y . '[ .,
. t' . ..
,-r. .
.. /
. e, p -
/
;;c a
/ ' a &- ..
)--
,' ' ~ .-, */ /
r. m.. s ,s}* . *,--. . Y
. ' * < , - . jf,. *'.
\ . .'%._-
~...7 a,'.S. ... f .
'..f ... 9 'j.- . :
. ' . . ~ ~ * , j, :ll'. , -
+ , . . ..
........'.."*'"b,,,,,.
;;;; * *-* * ... - e.. .W I' ,
y .},.-.,
.-. .,. < s y- .
.. .. . .u. - .
,, ,f ,s .%.. .
.::: :}L: 1 ,
- .. s:.... .s . :*,.: .. ., :_. *.,
- a- ,,
, a a., l.. : . .g --
. -.e,r. ..
+. v.,... w. sermuce ws.sms r---- a :,.q,.,. ..,.- -
d _ . :. ;.-.,. 7. ....... .......- f i sa - - ,; . . . .. . . . . _'......e, - (.:-3 ,-
.m.
e-
..i.
. . . .~
- . . . .. - 4,...3.
. l * ,;,1, l . , - - _ -
~ Li'ir.g!1 - e. ..
-, y -:. u ,. . . ../..,,2. .*-: .*.*y~-*i. ;.:: . .4 . .
3_ 4 ).. .p n.....*.p q...w.,,~._..., ,g . .:J..'
.~.- , p : - . .. -
' . .. ;,w:n- :m:;v.m.. , . :. .y w y c ~~ ,
.c...
. -. ,.,,.g,--- . .-. .....,.N,, .... . . , .- ; j . .. .. ... ,_, .,, n . . ,. ., . . .,...,;..
$ [; ..h. !'. ' .r.1t edd',7, ;-5$.2.!'Y, %.m..-~~ r.iG- 9%E.Mn . . ;'JI6 'p f..6. J:',;'.*?J - .<h U:'::'.*
- s* ~. .i','.'f.' *2-), $'N I . ._.-
-._m .e .
> . . . .f. . .e..a:.:. : . , . ~
m . _/ sa . g... . v q
- w y .. s- - - . ,
l E,# 9Y,,_.[k.A . gk--- h,_,,..s:[.Ik.. .. I, '. < '
. h.h.)t .hd.G+%c--;s .-n .7:T.o.
r.-i."'%-M. [.Yh.'.[-h. L_ Q. _.:'. b.' ' *.~..~_~ . ~. '
.c
.-) ,
~
*~
w- '%-Q:._
. -.m W G .h'?M : :;,a e c &. w-::. . ~.'~~ ~~'~'
,, ~~""-~~s i
ie <J l 1 / ~
,v.c. ,ara.,. ..t . ..' M'sw%: ,;. *w!
' % . w - >~ ...: ...
~. ... .y".
.. .=4.
<.s -"#'..e. I
. -~ - ' . .. l - . .N:: "'
.s...;a>= o=a-
'.. N' .r\. f--
.-c o ui .".
e n -..- - 'g. j Q 't
~.a .3~, '
. . ;c :g r....=,.e;.w;. ~
i ,.:: :.;/o y l<
- ~.sua.m ? .*:.
(y
....w.-:. ..e
- u. - 0 - .~ . -
- m ..v -.
.c.) . 2.,. ., ma
.y t . ..---u-w-u. .,, ;.. . .,:f y .. ..., . -:.::c..u--.. e--e-
..z .. .... y..q.. l,y. y.
,y m -~ . me... J
. . *.~.>ea~...
u=. \
\
..-a.,.;......
.,,,,.;,,,s... . . . . . . , . , . ,
m .,_ r,
. :s%.,..:---.~. , ~
~ . .:-
.. . . . . s o ,
.c .. **
.. . . . .. .. s f
- af--- k... 'i. *2*. ". C k#,'.e.-- g '
. *-l?;t--
Ag J'
.v
*/ *
./ .
...w'M~,..<.,...
****~# .-
,,i
. . . , ' &. .#c ., .,.';s. , y.-
;'p**f.:: '
A a u -. ..**. .
- a o- KEY Pt. AN g:-
c> ,sd ' .. r at e . , , .. :: ,
. . : ~'. . . . /
.a. .. .
y , Kri (, -.. :~...... . .,.::. > . g;.w .:-
. . ~ ~ .t .. . . .
~ . :,....... .4~.-vt,,
m..~...
/o j'. . . ,,s ;. m.,-- y ..y e,,
~.. . r- . ..
-- ..., .---...~...
e w. p \ . .
- ' " * ~ - . . ~
'a.
t v '--.g f m.. ,, , g:;. .;; ... .f.e..; .%,o
- 3.y j
~~ .
/ -a t.+ ii.. *.i-,~,
3.. . .] y., , ,7 . , . .g- ,. .a../ N c a ., W.
.v... ...:. . .t ,- c.m .c ce w.. .. %. .
. 14.; . -
. ... r. w .
., - -.. , . ~ . . . . . ~ . ,,e, . . .. .g. . . j
,= m . .
7-
- s ,/ _p.J i .
~~,'-x .,. ,.j j,y $.-4.*yy , . . . ~ .
/ '
n.- / - - ;e<-~ ,2 s.:,, ., .. ._ . f.. **,f;; ::s t:; i p
. ?
e >
/
- 6 TN l '.r:'."a ...g.,,/..e...
'. ' \ . s..:we:., y.r,
., . 'J;.i.p.?.i$y
( FIGURE 240;1R-1 CRBRP Site
~
,,.. / One-Percent-Chance
# \j. ,J..'
./ [ " '"L.h ,
[. ~.;4.. . ~/J.M>:.Q. g. ., -@' ,',,, ,.~ ."I ., >'.. / '//g/M [= F1codplain, Drainage
.. T .:.4.. .; .*,. '..,'.e.'..ff $. 3r o Courses, and Runoff
.q, ,- .%.,.','J' .
- ..j ..... .. y s ....:.-W-:
..,.. .-y . ,- Treatment Ponds e .ne - s y/ *.- %u,.
- %.t. ..
l %.a s ,v , e
+ . .. e, .:. -?..r .. -
/ '
I-Percen t - Chance
,.Rg* p/
' - s., . ,
un~ - :g:a.-: -'; , g N ,.. ,..@ Flood Elevollon
~
........- ~.. r.:n., *:lf
\
I / e- A, '\,f / .
. 8
- I ? I f f 8 :
- f 4 f : I I :,
- .!.' a:. e. a.I .e
.a.- .f
.a . g
. -,./ 2 A./
.\ . \ x. .
. 3 . .
. 3
. . . . . . . . . i. . / A. , . . t.
'e ?
\ . ...-.,i*..s.[j, ,
. p t
%e.,*.e... ,rs .. v s
. .1 . J,' , , .. .e,v; -
v {. s'% I \ ' .. ,rs . . . s N'#;,::, .f', .,. .
.s, a
s
.,t' ::;;.!:, *t.n..g'.
- Q;y;. , . . . qq . g.,1
= ' . w.
. \.f,lp'h;f 5,
. a. ' y *,
- a i e,
N
- b. .
.l s
~.
.~.. N. l..
h.,N.i g'e
's -
.,*,..+,.},
.% '.\*%~.
7 # ei.- Wg.Ay%. .m . .,.c
.. 4) %Q:.
-/
, g.'d,b.i.'h,I -#I:dn hS. ', '.
,j ..?.:W~. ...1
. . .o
, e c
n
~
. r/. w'gd.g:.'d o e , - J ', '
I y
,% ?
$ ,, ,, I e
\ . N.,\ N 't i3 . . "* Nt,.'
** . ./. w- . t gm.
.h4 9.5
- i. 3 , .gl U. k.a .*f. [
g%g. . 4 (g gs, '.- s .
's....s\
s #.,.
. g
't. . +
., )g
- -s's.N \A _\ . .c f,f. ,d k .,. M 1
- n. ,. t**p w
. l.,s:, .--
. .ve.F
.-.- 52y.'Ns;<>/.,y..s.
. c . gt ..
- e m.,.u,:,. ,,,/$
f
. ,* c p.M,6.. j'( %, .cm
't u.
, mt&.w,w,. a+ .,-
S.* 3j .O*.*
~
.h- f,4. i
.\.. ,. . ..N.
...r
%.,.*,ty..n.s
{
,,. . ,?k', ., . .y./
's *
;. .' %r . ,'.gs's - .y%.y A '9 **
~
, a T'-,~.,' , 4,,g % *
\ . ..
s.
~s .
$o n.
N ,. ;,. :gj .
.<*r y
' 's.' . , .
[ \.f'
.:.y N .,
h
/ \
'.'Q.
g ,', ,U ',,R17 p < 18 * . ' %.. .gy.-
':', . ,. ', yA[q ' 'h, h Ng*.. o
/ f..
.P
. . k, , * . . <.n 5-
/, .
g.y .
$e S.f.4
%,;.l .
s, "s, .,
**p
' ',9 . *'..Q9 :'.
i
.n c-
% , , -' . , - *'. ..s . p "
I s,
.,1, .p. s
;4,e
..;1 o "o*s,N;.' N'-
.; . y Nf f. 'u'!$.,2,9.h,r.*
N, ,
.ic 9, s.
. . 1, . g *
~.
d ., . 1). ...
.i E. ,
,.'.g,,-
_~.-
. . g *
# g ;$. , n;. . \ 'g* . , -
.'['g ,)
"O
- i. '
g .- .,- j
. . c. ag .'. .
~~. g l ,s m
}t
**' % ... 'N f, g . . o
, ~
y
- 2. .
. j ,
.in .
\
o g b $ ..,. bu.. 8
,y . ,
1
- KOb N -
p
% '** - .,.a*4p&*t,
,s .', lyg, N .
., ,s a
. ! tv- h gi g s e
v %- 9
- h. s M;'.;gtje%,. 'nW 4 , r% . C.,gg* .v [l v., ,, v.
hh
%. 5'{g -
t, s
., I sn
. ,*WT;;%,".a ll .\ ~ ' ?
g f,i, .s. . s t,f \ ch
': l f // ' g, dg C1.
- ~~ w X- e s' !',
t ce
\ I .( i i i d w:'; w% w ' m, Y $ $g,-Yr ...
1 CD
,\
\' '
t ? Q. ~ mD..5.?:f? 'N.'-
} ' g,,)
- g1R m w.g::/..e
- sy cr : . l G - ]..
sg*. i. {3 N N (. X~E.~.5 . .. 3
- .;'.l. .
: t. e q 1
(%y
\ \.
~
m
.1 ls&.1.y . - &
- JC:l>. . , ,. &a.fj.
\
x. t
... . .^ e#. . 7, . .
b r
~ !'
t
. ~
& s:?', *
, ..,,,r",,. mix.y:.m: s.. >,
Y,'
'R_~.. }
./' .ys. sN. x . '~. s.
1. y z.) , . .g %)
..r c.. \
N;} / ( j' '%, . "
\
\. *
*, n
. ~ -
P u a t ) s R o3 t o 6) n .c $a S n oLA v a ,t. Em cr m P oC r ,, ctt nwc TP I y r ( A m3 D wn iT s4 WA mu, W8s o EO T t i ra NR
.~
Ao " * , Sm O( L
.o ,..,;,',r..,' ,
f,Wp*.sNi&,.'#g:A
= . y{~ ;i.
bjt5
- ; t .
l'
.,.c ' /
yf~.
=
- I
;f .
; *** . ,~
; .:.' t.
s["; ,
~. ,. -;t.
[..' -. ~
- ' l l 1 F
g o I si fr ,
/
- .; . ~~
f, 'i. ,#' { , k, 6l j t 1 I, Y J' / .J . .7 ?'.j C ; l
. l Il ,.;,,j. *,b.
- n. ,. f,{ . . j :
..i rl f- .
. *1
'a :p ,o 1n.ll/
I r
*, Ilg -
4
;1, .s..
=_ - :
- 2. f.-
h'
. I $
I I
,, (o , 'i{ l y /+l- /
> / /
;l. g e :
a E ..
- $ e I j
< -' p' ., :: . . :l : ;'. . 1,i',,;
1 w.
~ c n n
' 1ir/, ,f .
. jY y , >.
f lys
" - [ 1,p,j 7 I.-
N"" h
,. - a o ,j t '
n - Cla l
- v ,,', ,.
'e .
s > rf i ,,'
- - ~ k' :.1.' i Qa.,7l.
j l e ,
, / .sl
[.J I eE t nl .
.?.
- . }l j y, _
t h . '. *e , Y
- c * ;.'.- : ,
..'i. ,. $ ,
.) : r e do lI l
.~-
P l_
- l F
o 1 N y ~ -
..c
/<.'
/. >.
. 2., p g
l- ?* .,% p~! . .. - i '
^* .
d jj O' .. ., ' a .;.# o
;o :: .;:<
r 3.- y 'O l , i an Ri a *m*s }j :: dl np ad
*r' . = 5. .za."N 5- i.. -
. ]. -
e c n a n '/ ,' ,. % ~u, =. .
~.
- =.
y f l o o : .
.h
- 3. ;? ;
==
; %= .'f*4 .- o ~' ,.*..,.C d o ;.
- =
. l al '.
- . . . l oF - , . '.
.. v *
. ,;I
.k
,. p-e M
~
R /
- f. ? . '*" ,y:: .nl ,
e , . t' n.w g; ,c te E M.=' ~G-sc s
- s. " .: -
1 .s J."- S.v sn . r d ., .. -
- f. : .e ea .
~
f -
. i...P o o
- ' ~ .a:t. - ..
C.G ,. ch
,,!s. ,s . . :" %
~ :
cC A - e
- l l' - -
,. o.
l, _ Fl M ' (~..;;
.b ..
m
~
~~
ut <f ) . - ,.- t ." {g . S./ p l , . en ." ' . ly
,-f' $ ~ . ":~ '
t e ic Sr
. l n: */1, fj f.,
,Lm]g .[ .
/e,,
.. J;l-1~ . ,
r]1 lIY yI . e %_
* . - J I k'- .i- - . - . I y
e,l
; :i .
PP %
, : 9L. a/)e,.
. f,(,. ,I;Y % 4 .'
i f
._ ' t.
R - y . .
./ . [b I B e R n .". '7, sf - . 9 .,
? <,, '/ l -
,, t.
s- .:. . I l L e n CO 's.,*,~ .:t .
' / ' . .
hp.
. .K
- , j-- r
~ ~. W~ -
3 *' ,- , e
- .~:
R - R ~,,. ~- - n~ .
* -,~
- l. ~
0
.a.ls. .
., ~
4
*'g
' - ..~ ~ = *.
2 ' - l E
* ,x . -
' .= .; - .
n R U .
>".,g
.a _-
" .ps%
G I
.a ~' '
r. F
\X .,.,.
~
- ' g# .-
O~ E ne,-eN
..t 's ,t- .
* ./ j
~%.. ... v. .
. tr-(
,0-.- _ _ _ _ _ . _ . .
. "- ~:. y ~.. . .
,. l g -
,, , , . .... ... . . . /
/ .g .
'-; 'N O.,_q.h
.r *
.t. . .i..? ,
[~
;s ::r.. . ;.y . - s v'N x
. . - :. .r.-
. :.t? .
i i
. i:
- 4. . / .
- f. .
. dr:. . - . . .J. ,
.. .. . ..3 sy .
.:! .e . . .e %.
s
, ; ; N.,' . ,' .
1
.w. .t. %, - ,.
;. ..u.-~ '.'.* .
*. i .a t .
f .f ' .. g .; .:
. ...,s..*
g f , r N! . . . , . . . .
'e..
.. ...... ,I
..-.......~ . . .,3x -) : . . < ,- . . . . . . . . . . .......u-. .
*,.x ,-
u . X. s ,N. ., IF l / .*]n, .- - .E -
\.
e s..->, a ~ s l.
,'. *. ~;;T.-. . /
1
-ts.
.. . A-
's.
* . ~. ..,.", .. *. [, , . . , ,
,h {,- .
.C .p! '.
- f. . . . . .
;;.;. ; .lll" " '. . - , s.. ..
.o ...r.. ..-d:*...- .
. . . . ,I- ..
\.
pi . ,
.i ~, ;. .I t :, -
=.-
. .t t, . . . .
lo..: [. . . .1
,. > I!, . . . .. * * .
s
._f..,....'.*
,, e
-~ i .
, 's t._ t ' .
."'-'".;**- ~;----- 2 .. r .0 . , .;- I . , ..': ; . .
,g' ;' ,- 't !. .. *. .
, . .; . n iv/ . , '. ~ -
3 Ii. \ N ,.. .., c, t: e r c.'-.IO. .--- .' N g; * ., . . '
/ ,
6;' N. ,.lt . .. <
.. e . t . , .* 't .
.. l i . f. e'N. ' " .; %. * .u* --*
O
. . .. .. .A# . . '.-. -~.,. :
, e .
ru ~ . L 5.; \ i, . . . ..: .-;,v. * , - - . - . a .r y .-. s. l ,,g a_ p .
- ,.. l..: ] . ..,
,g s. ,s .
s b.
,q. ;
} n,. .2
~.
t e,%
.a -
? t, ,\,. \.
.s,.-
t
.l, , . -
ca \ . . ~
.. '1 i,.e Lfi i..
\- u. .r .
.e ...r
\ l a
J . .~ -
- 1 i
.. . . . . . . ,..l ll I. -
- i ~
~.
W. $.'
, 9g <'. .s FIGURE 240.lR-4 CRBRP Site Access Road and
~. ' '
Railroad One-Percent-Chance
- . u' . . . . - .: : g C,. .
.\
T. ,: ,1. u tj i f,.. Floodplain .
. , . . ;. . r; I..
/ '
, 'f, ~-
. a-i e
, *,...,, \.
.ll,.1,'llj.u.;.'
j
."y ; /.
. - .Y
.i. . .. p..
j?. . . ,
/ . s,
>>,. -, 17 . % //
'~s,, I.
.e
.- : n ,%s
. y e6,ae -es. 6. set -I ./
- I .
,t'. rl.'s*% s,
/. .
.n w u.-t.
*. /.u-i...
. ... .s ... ,
g 1) ,}
~
.l /.pl -
1, .s%
~ ~~ u . \/ .2_. '
i.< . \s
.. .I r il to; l .
/
. . . .n -
o s vt .v- .- n - ~*
,\ / 5:1.*- ,yI
, ' e f .:.*.:.. / ,. -
. Q.
p7y/ --
/
f-N .s.~
~
;. =- #jf ,n,,,_. , p[4{i'
, fg.3, .
..- s
@s\ .r;;,
.. . -.. ' . t'/ .
a I.
/ .-
g . . ;
- =. r.e: '
. ,g .
.' s
. , .-. i i+
. 3, s //. . , - . .
.1,. = * ~ *
, =- fy, %s g\:L
. . , .a
.'~ *:* .0.-. '
-Percent- Chance .
v'
/
/ . / . . Flood Elevollon -
J l1
-. -- , .y f/ / i ,"
s
\ " ..c-
' i\\ ~
.~ -. ~
' .:. .s
* -//. .
l;1
~-
q/,n. /j/~ %,3 . t \
.. .~ t :
e %;i. . ;
, - \..x * /
~ .i .- e N.t o - 2
#f f .
L , ;, I f\ - - - ' ' ' ' - s
-- . / .
f . x, s. ..
- s. t I.
ite .. . g I T s ) - vf, \s .. i ,, / A .-- ~- s s.r...e v% ,.
-/...-.
u,t. , .,. .,- . ..- .f.
. . . ,.. . - . _- l ,.;,
,,', _=es....:: =:::
/l ,, .. .--
- -:: :+ _..sv .f..s,.N. .: . :':. ; .s ~
iiE: 7 p #s- o __,x s I FIGURE 240.lR-5 CRBRP Site Access Road and g 's (.,h'h.JE@' j' j..f ._ Railroad, One-Percent-Chance
. p g(, / Floodplain
, e
- .f Q.,
N'e b s ,.' "- Y,o \ '
%o a.:. v.,xis ..se
' - F':l" o .. % =O O O
3 . O u.
,/
j'..,
- a:
U . s ..-, ,f eo
./ * . . @ c
'2 : .. = M o _c
\\, g '.,4, +. { . b! oo
- s. s \',*,, '
y - 4[
\. ...,:. .p1,. m.
. .r., \.t\e
$,, t ee
. s,. ,,. u,
- n. , ,. ': ,: ..s . . \. ,
. av
- 'i -o t k ',
- 5 i .\;. .. '5?!1' -
mb E!. '
- o. c.
h 6%
;IU"'3',
'b UY D $ $>
c: C qS i > $.g i. .; -: .!., :::4:2" < T g' . ( '; i 1;. . 7 d'. I si.
'ta:
3=>W'O ' L. ; li t):y{ti'; o a t { *a 1. - ll
/ Q- o t 88
.$ i": d
/ 5.,
- u. la24a 1 '. .
. L, 61 ./) . . '
.- .F 3.e / N# =
$ * ** . t.
- i*
,: 3.
v r
- / 1 h.,;s
- /
- , . / u.i
- p. . a:
i
- l. # *!.. p i, .z
. .,'~.,[.r'!;j,y;..,:.y.-~
7 I .i " ,x n.; to
~
j.) r *:.-
.-p
.f. {?! : l t 2,;.
,1 i.. .:
%.,' } till *1% j/ ::- ,1 t 11 s-
!,\~~\ O*.'*?Ig1 - \. 1 1 t'll!)f;s s{.t /+ : ' \* /\ , ii
' .s Q5 \ t?-)' \..;
i.. . l.'fr:f i'\eY}z't i i
-{1 i
. }, **l s, +,1 pd' s
ui / s, . 4,, v% n* *., n
=
/
' ,e u :: ir
- lllQfgl6 Q: ,
^'
\;V: ;N,.r s s . ,h gi n.t .
ll Q(\ ';1,,f 0t,I tyy ,v y,
\
s _.?. } . !:s. . .
";};. .;
o,.g,a
. ). , % ~
' il , . a y, f ms,.
- :e
/ ' .:r.l:!. *~.., Q ' -
- g. .
\t .
,g,, . ..
/ i.. i./ w q entl4 N .. ~.~ M, 4i \
1 i , n.p. z ti d 6..t
- i. /y% w.
u
$1 h.i... MqC 6 '.'OT,i ' ;. ..:'.e ,
~' IA
. EllY;%i! p Tib i s.,
{ 'shti. i g yM j N W ( g $.i $ I; ,j . )% f
<. ! x ije-Qp%q%q'e
- i. e Wu, . ,
8, difi
- L.
- r. ~.;I o,
\e#V6 I .* vM,. 's Q240.1R-15
r 1 (
>z \+N I ' I ' '
- i. I [1 5 - , L
. l.l. . all,L L'4 ^
e
..J'
% , ,hg 'g
,. . ' . -* . ,- .
- 8
'.\
.g
- 7, .3 ,, . I I i\
N '*- *
- ja .l .. *e 5 El ,, -
' ,8 .
j/ . i,
- i. S ' h,
< f " *,
l Il -
.k
^ D r's
. . . , # [ .-
s J. - < , ej.
- f. :g h;%l ,%e. ', ~ ~, R:-
s ,f,*/A
> r * . ,
e- .- .: J, .
! . . : j+g . .
- \ u. ..w.,+. .
,. v .-
' ~
'%; ~.
I ff . , T \
'I hD .s y& 8 N
,,l 6/ , .)f $ ' E . f t j %M *>, i
- nl; /
r 1 h g N 4 f; l . Q O .i r* ' I [ ... 4'f., F .~ # : *
- g H 3 's to r , i;h ,'e 11* y @4 's t- 6 \
~
._4 i'8 8
t9 - * : :' . 7
- i *( t
- e 2 ~ 4 8w <t,h ;-Q ;:,'.,i ";;;i ;d '7, ' !, 3 ./' i
. g s $ol<'4> ,/
_a ct (4
,(7/' g f ')
~ , ; .> %
. < r. ,
-E * :;:d.,i., f
n ./' , .
f c, su s, Jt ; ,' ' 8 l'u . . g to j.. u i. .- ' *e7 q r . . :- i 's/. f i 5\' $ %g -
- r. .\ ..'
h5 f, [ ;. . o - F , r . tu i
., , g\ ' ,
/
$- < 2om 0. E2' ,
O 3 >--- X ,D o. o 4 7,4.6 n
' .le.
. ,! ,,' p
< R, . i
,s ,v ,-
/
.. 5-e m 4.'. e' p.i .
2 i w N. ' ',R .' p b<hO
<2 9 ,p - x,w, s. . - g,i[ , s, , .
\
!'h
___.- ',U .
$. k ,- .- ' /d o*
I, ls Js
, yctv.*. (s s
-. N,,
t ' ,, , s , '.h, . . ._t' N
#,. g[ , '\,s . ,"
$,'\-}o*s j' ::. e ,.
/ ,, s.
1 . * :, .- <; . s , g
//
I a.
'J r
s
,/ .
e .,f
, z~
a ,7 'i j.5 1i d ',. . ;. 8<l.\n aD .g
, ys,' /' ,f i / ,' ; . as u. u. .y.
, h ,
. . . ,' s d '
h - ' ~2 1,. , -
. g o.. ..
g y
' d 's,M.f. ,,. * ..' ,*
??
-^
'l ,
.'. s.. . i uw.,
xn
~ *
- N,4 ,,,to 9 '
.' F4 .
Bd 12
,n j ': . Q
,',i
, f,! s ', g.g * , ' 9 %
4",f ju
,/ ,
* ,d sm .
- e 2 ,Ig _) {
<g
( .- , FIGURE 24 0.1R-!7
$' .2 a Efa$~
gg' a i49.8 . d"E zF o Treatment Pond 'A' Vicinity O' Q240.lR-16
FIGURE 24 0.lR-8
+ i,
.0 Treatment Pond 'B' Vicinity
- .; n .s...
g'. ;\ '
/
'd.,.
/ 6
\. ?> =
4
. f,./. t. 2. 7.. ..:. . , i.,j:'
wms,w tax - ., .
.s . f.p.
J-
...u.- . .,... .
C4s48 IWE4 )..,,' -. 4-., . saa-=
-r g 8 ;l f. t - .-a-
...a-
,li '.l .- .....-- ::.:
, = -
... . :- .:.-E...FN 1.E
-h.9... .t}r-W$, ~1 ~~. Q:. R. t..h-I ,,..
- -::h--~~
; :-i.-it.v: ::.;: w i
gh ...
- : .3:.,..y
/ + i.+? <,j. .: . N. .:::: ,
. . . . - - - - - - . . 3; .--::.e , J
.,f . i. ,
&4-
- W'.y: . , _. . -
- t. *, -: ~'~- - - - - .C- !,. ,, '
.u-.......- ., . 12a. .:n.
'J ,. .
s , ~.
- . .::n:. . : .+q2c.;..&s
-ag:. .v 5 Q, i. -
. .'. 4:':.:.4.
.~ . . , ~ .
s:; -..
- e. . .:. -
. -= * - x qn,: & .~ '
ll.y . D* . , , M., ;e <. -:.~-8.: ' ~. :: c:n , .1, [> ~,..a.,. l - s
../-
. .a=-- - -*
_ =,
. .:W<< ,';s.99a. -
. ., ;y; ;;.;,
9 % -r .- ,
\., . y. \,. . ,.#
- _-
Est$
; ","'; -- . /* _ #_ :.;,
2 'Y- ' [ ' ' . * \, s '. * '. ..
.ed' A" +g).
,c. .- 1.- . . ,... ,.. ..r ..s . .,,......'...'l[s-I f . p*
. .f ,; .--- --
Ng, ,,.,,. J *==c s8 i P * .. . ..... ,,. I } y. _...1
. . .s.._ , r ;
N, 3;;
- s
~ .. ',
. ,-. m . ... . - . .a 36'
~
i...~.. .. .i1: o . . . . _ + ~. . . .
; w
- a. -
.a :.e .-: . v I :;.a-..s. i< .
f, ira . ..c . u .. r < ,, .~. ,.
'l
-9.,~.- ,. ~ . , , - .
, ., e ., I 1 g l p:.1
[ l h.; ;.,5.' 5.h.,. A. ;. , -;,.[', ,
.y t
h'g h I
- - . ..:. N , 6 ,. . h' f i..w. .
;) * . . .. a. ..,- ! j
... .s , a * . . . .
.,.v..'.*. a . , g vvA.
~- * ~ : ,[ ,: ; .-{. ' . . '; ;.', ;. . . . ,,, u . .,g... . . ,,,.: yp- 4.* p; gs y s:p*-st t ).p g
. . e .s . .e i: Id .
..s z
- .,. .. t . :,
$ a z,. .. .: ;.. ..;:. .. . ,.,.,..,, 4, 1,-.~.
...s..- r. . .y. -., /., .s. l\
^
i ^'! ,
- - .M-
.s. ..,
y
~ . ,,
.. 1.a# 6
,,. .' . . .'..',' . , - -.7.M,' '.',, l .[.~ *M ~ #4$l.E.*
., I s
., e. ; . ..,g . .
u . . s. , y q :,N.y.l.D. ,7 u2 '.' N gUSTINfr ' ' ' '
---4*
4 tg 4 ossesus97 [ ) m E m.sec n.ow-
' - w4.q'**/ -f'~. ;7POWu fittarmr e,- D f j,t. g M uri.] ((u. t -['t g g,xia a.Ev. , h ' ] ). o e._. c -
IL : . a.lj .-
- e. m.-- . -;.s.p . .
4
.r.... , . - - . - ;. ; g,. .#. ,}.y i ,
- 7. . .'y$;$ffA[fhtf$h. ,
., i l
e -
. a t
.= !
h Yp'- - Q X Y a,-
=30 >
n a
.,;@.. M..:.~.;r'i.m-? w.tr&__ .M, __Q-e. ;;%' ?c.): . ' . . u.d;"&, so^o l . - -
- .n s_. .. c
.i
-; , f.'., .- .;; Z. i}}.
I - 5 7'M..7Z
. . .a .
W a C
. .. r-
]g..- ,. 9,%]1pb.
3
- r. 4. ' . .: ; .
; 1. : , .a:c.: 7~~ . A.u_ -.;, s:. . : . .n3... -. . . -$y, . . n' W. ;. 7,/. N c'
i : :. '., d n. ...;.: : .. p.u: c . :
}94aq-
.iy.\ 4:.q{g 7........ 3 . w se a Teu.T-l\ -
+ f * , ' ' ', !
' .'fyg.;. .
c u.so n
~e ~~ cpl; y* . .\. :::n * **.y b'..s
! M ' ;i l..,, ' -';..l' #
~,b.' , . 5. .M , . d .N . * ~ , . emu'MTlod
\ ;- 5i! .
0kS'NS y -*'.,
- K ., , lc;/ =
l\ .
. \ ', ' . 8 %
% U'k',', ? & . [' . .
j' '
!\\- -
. 1. '.
t-M b '.:.'s 1' e:,w At:rtEdAT5 RND'B' LaxTED. d$', tw uwtss7tmSED p e o rr. st-. ; % 't.lld 4WND
~.,
(con cept 0AL ') I A. 1.l
- Ot4E PEPCENT CHAMCE FLOOD PLALKEt.EVAT TOE OF DAM Q240.lR-17
s i.
..- : . ' , '. i ~
'. FIGURE 240.1R-9
.~ . 8.;
r .r. . \;-. ,.
.. ..tt \
g - ..>. ' f. G Q " . . 'd.'SM. NN.N ':% c. i s .U' ' 'O ,*/ . ,
.f' Treatment Pond 'E' Vicinity q
. $ W ' ' % ,' ! % s 9 i V g. . -
\.f( . .
M . , .
., s ,
/ ~d.,. ' . M.. . .. . I$P-6 2 N' / J'. .%, ' 6.*i' . . . . t,, M
. s, . . ..
' '\. s
' g,
.l x. -l'.# ; (
- s
~, %.:W. '.'.
{ '*' l...x' i.> , . ^ * , . ' ,,o * 'h
, ~ ,.~t'. ,
.J.-
D.*/.>..i A.' : g Y
,. , ' . ', .' ' ', .. .. .f ..:.'.:~;..gg- .
. c
..' k
~.~.-
.,~.~. - '.y > 'ty: ..,~.:,.' .'A,y} ::Q:: ,'.:s
- s: , . \ .
c-a.
* ' . g' .. :,g x. '.\ n\, \y* .:..;':::.f. V .:..:: '
., '., '. _ 's'.,,,,
f.,y. p\ .', . , .
, , I ,..s. .. . , {4R
~
'y :W:,.'.; :. '..i .
'.,% \ '
.,' ~. , , 'e';,',;t~;.;1 l,g*'
's }; \g - A '.. ;, { ';.; ;f,: _\;, $ 8.
,, . , . .. s .- , .
gp N,,N , <'. g' , *'N,.,,. ' ,g s . s ,
.e .,
'g b ? .. ,
, l , , ' . ? ',. . .~,i.'c;f ;'.['f ,';
\ '
g s ' , ,'. .~.
' . ,.1 ;. *.;~;.,~ N , '. - ; . ~,:.- :;, .- -
. . . p.
' , ,s g .s 3.,g,4.- r, , . 1 .+,,.q 4 s g , . 4 . , , ' , , ,N. . .,
. s .
- ..,.s s ,s .
, * . - - r O 's '- . . .
\ f.' \ , . ' .. \ ,'.
- "'. ' O ', .*c N % ,\,\ lg7,$.
g
' i, p. , 1 ' *~ '.e ~'W
,a l*
-a i. : .'4. N
<: 2 *a.s g s -
6,\ . -
. . ! ;; { c, .,e.,,F s( -
t
'.\ 6233 t o s ; s, ; - i, gi,,, ,
s '. , i ',
, .. :\
s
- wb. s..g ;
.. 1 >. g;.c;< .
-f, - ;
,s ;
,. 1 , ,,,-
.e .o a g .s.. s *- s. - ....m-lg.
t,s r .
-' %,r",\ V.c3 : '\l. ' *9 g ,. \ .
. > . i,3.=>..
- f..
~~.:: ;',,j.: s'y. ** Wc'.r * ,
s s.\s .. (Q,',a h&.\ * ' ,N s v- s ,g+:
~,
e... ., .,. ,.1 ; 8.i '.$. je.g9j *,,c.e7,. r
..-, y. . ..- . r
, s 's s \ \'b -
- p . *
', np - ~ 's , ', , W- ' '%' .
gp~ % l.
'1. -: 's
,* *t.: .i'.3'.
r i l '.* % :;~,ls.}. . . ,*
... %'%;f.k.j& u.[.QN ~ .-3 ,4 ,N .', , s .
.P N _e ' . ,,* , '. d pj ,
..'3 <.
.,n,,,a %
4"'s '.
,a v%.
, \*3 1
,'? o 's.s,'-
. a.
. *, P k' . t, ., #.
el t y 0.*[ = cf *., , f ' N.
,h.
ef s ,'%, ee s ' ' - \ .. - %
', j, g * * *. t. ,
Y'.,*. Y). =*
% .- N.
. .h7 '-' 'x
.- e N'*.,*'
. ?
\ %.W,ffb'f,.. , ,'.:. >A.. 's hO
- c. n ,
k ,4' . \' 4+ 'S. wh;. Q \ . . . ..S.5 u,c, " * . [% o g w [m.k .e ,. " ce . . %kx; .g gs g i l. - m %. g . } g,.- h, # s Q..% . .
, ; *g '$
,# //.
g, , g< '. C ., 't l -a '.<> . \ #. frg
*N l
~.. ) r.fst l a + '*
- a ss, rsi: . .g. . '(o / .N w 4 un** s ..
;; u .
a 1
- 1. . s . #f,* . . Y5*. *. m .:. g c d' 2< ; 2 S ,.
- 4 $ "o .-
sy+ 6 'j zg e
! . . N.1. . :s "eI .
r ;/ e . .
'88' E*; ', ,, ;
us
. ,( pu a s
s l', 2 J .
, 81; N'ss h,, a.i'. '
Ty V- " :,f ', gi s .I t,$
-o
- (fEn .s e o4 1c ;
i y . ll! .
'. s .
.' t. -,!
tu 0 g ~2 tL .2 ; 3 /.; ** . L, Q. Q u oO gg 3 i \. , ,f . .
, * ; s'
.j ;
(13 O u) o haoO e s f. i zao f - 1 '.- O L V- D2O a
"- A ,T * *
/ p ,I, t
',- t l .. * *
- l Q240.1R-18
FIGURE 240.lR-10 Access Road and Railroad Key Plan
~
..A
+p.-
g n c : M E. 'r P E E. v w.ce ~ 1 a&" Q'jgWMM
~ ~ '
> .::.-.- n s ,. , a
_/
=,
OAK CDGE TN
' ~
N OVER. PASS AT
': . b n d - ' gb.g < .. N c a nsac R.c T-- ALTER. MATE R P-CTALLA}4sg BRIDGE ^
g ' ' t N STRUCTUEE- r - BEAR C RE6r. g -- 1 , CoAss .
.11 s t_T s . ItA tt ge, ,g g _- _ ,
-kh D -
l t g) y BARGE FACILL TY UMLOAOluG A - od St T6. C_AtLE.oAD 8 odsiTe. hess coe T' cr* . l ., (E) a e , . l A e 1 5 3 Y Q240.1R-19
FIGURE 240.lR-ll
\t -
Intersecticn Bear Creek Road and G k SI M M
] / Oak Ridge Turnpike (NSWAY 58)
, \/
e ; i
- .9 - z- -
i.
'; 2,' ~ '
I i ( /-l-. ,
~~~',
,' j f I ! i ll ; ; I ! ,I I,!( f i i fl,
~
/ I l l N'l* ll l 9 l I ?
l I I I'y,hy
?
% \
\ l I l
- ll l * !I n' ' ' I :
. .s N h'\ \ .\
l
\
l I I
/
lf , ; II l j l f I ll' [f'y fjj ll' r .;; s' g ts 4; ,-
\~
~
*/ I
~,
' \ \ \! l I I, / O I/ #
4 ( \ s. N
\\ \
\,
! O I
; & ll
; ll j o* ! It r f* ,\ '
f
's
# s N ../ g /I I N\ I- /
l i / f I /. gj/ f;/'l.., (,' lit *?! h ,"
~ s l
'll l I.'
i
,~s '
r%**e,Q l ! I h ;'
/}
l '
'! l g N '- '
%-Q= ss I
\ ' t; {II \ ::g i s \
e
! ;- / --
s N s s ' s. ' , N N \ ' g s N O ., ', , ' ' , ' ,I ' x , c'[GE-N'4'N';Q% K N s '. s N
,' . 'se f :,l: NN' j i -
N - %
' \ . .
ALTE:R b! ATE x 9, ':p:. q qj.9;l%gl . g, 4'eg g'-- 7g
, ;,,. / s ,s.
R Alt. ROA D ,l j d /
' j ;y i f, . gi ,.o *N-g . ;w S
> - ~ < ,,'s_--w-ALi r.$.t P.8E H T .
- 'i 'N' -- '
cNeRFA56 f .j %- - N 9O R ',s- s
'x f , ,- -
.' Q. q -
STP VC'iV R II' \ ^^ O - l
\ l' ,' 1' s
s .' '- ' . 1 _~ . . Y- ,s. ~ f lI o' ./
..L'l].l'{.
' f il' ,
p , s
*n ,
l 1). ( vi .I[ ; I fl g...j _ il' \'N u U .) . IW ~ i
- Il !: I l '
ONE. PERCEkiT C.t WCE /
/ fy .- , ; f, r,,,
- N,/
j FLOODPLAIM 5* G'/ *
,_ i i ! .m .N i .
l o. .
,' N I -
.en
~'
', ,l' 'i I ,l
_ , f. ' ' { .
; ky
- s t i 11 i l !! I' g : !.' i I l ! W~
N ll I )f]I.2 lk ' l I - m.'!i; ll / / ' N
\,
y
,.I ' -
'). ,,l '
I f
, ,,' ,l'
. ,, , . . f . < i
,IgI ,,l !!
~~.
~
N , j; l .7;{. ' l-, : ' _ ,
- ~-
N o
, l ',
x , !
-% l i
~
.I l % *.. - '
s 'l'
,1 f J
c i t g N - r Q240.lR-20 de_G g CA K. Rtc6 E. TPeg. 5 mm w.s n
7---
+
'\,. J1 : .
[ - TEW ROURD 40" -
/. x A ' CMP CULVERT Y/q %* . . ,.\ ;'T; .-
~
.:..a 0^e e noc e- TPV e-f.
(' sq ~ r- ;'
- E-M BAN kMer4 T
., ,,,..y,- % q-ep . . . ..
p
- z. i} /p C f . ,-7 . . .,
A- .
.,' / ./
/ / '~.
+'
- - f,
" 1,sf. (.. G,>cWhP $,r .
/- -
.- ._ me,sr 2 t, 5
. .\s . 4, - .
.,7
.- sw.ss u-ps,. T.D IP % et t St ?
,-e =- w a ,uo.
03= ;atETE
.h ,
, e N %..e/ / k ,,j of s. j. . .j .
. e s :. e+: a w e 4 . s.o a e
*- < ** ' .' E . N'
- ~r
/ s \0. , Lf
/ A-ee - ~= .h,,..%\ .a, w. .ar ';M.*/ . .@* gr , .,
,se t .a s ~: ~ra e. .
\\. ~
c .-
<J' -
s e: -e :..:
- Q\ , $e ,-p '
t O %,u - Q, , ., s /-
.. w _ ..- ?'.. .
MN 4 # N' # ,
, s '\'.' c. -
.tt $.it. .
s
%/ g S. y's j 5a Wrgouwo3
(>. , p .
'~
,,,, , .n. . .
j \. - -
..i, 4 -& 'i
\
b dfle's .j i' g k.
'I O
#'*" -[', . ' -
..t \'\
. N o, ..
.h2: ,
'C$r lf \ N N y/
,'" f/i y
.7
'l . .. ,
- r 8, V\ -
W ;'s - r,C, % > e- ni 3.3-f IN a C-
. :- x N ;
.. .r. . ,,",.t N b 'Y
-s s . , -4
_ _ u .. '-% _\_f__ Y Ok'C YECcE % s w r = Wmv. CHA ACE f '. .,. a e -g ~ - f ' - s:s g
- MN1% C Alf GP-O A D
,Y ,
~ ,' a
,1 s ,,
.y' N~
s - ,4 ,
- g. , a s ,, ;
- a. -
.., e a :-
s uc:
,, s ., g,
.S g
.s: s *
- m. . n .
, s.s '
s s. . - si; ..
. '.s. .,.',, c i . #- : .
- .e. .
- e. ..
- s. -:t
. . _. _ .....: x.
.go.
A ,,, _- YDY_...- , r% .
- 1. , ' .
f: - , ,. N
. --' s s s. .
', 4 , . .- .s s '
, O s. ~
/
FIGURE 2 4 0. lR- 13 t' . I i
.' r >. ? ;
Li -'O ;
)A / -'s -
Offsite Railroad '. \ ,- '
, 's
-a 3 j 'i, [ N. 's.
s /. so .. ' 3 - 7 Q240.lR-22 .
'4-
\,T '
{ ',, I
/\ -
4 S.3 w__ w s... ~- Nf
/ -' **
N' '"- , M% /,.2 s
's ,
r N; w. +,
~.
,N $j/ ~ e. 3-s
.t . ..,
's' , , , -- ' ,
anyt E *3a g } N f. .- .',
, . , ,, _p
't . .
.e. m . .
*; -........~,t--- ~'Q. -;.;;fM :;: p .\ .c" ~ "* 2
-_...- ------ s yc.cf s (\
- r. ^
h.s.s. . ,;. . \wrv et, g.\\% 3 .\ t <r
/ ,o : 1 i
'- - " O
. ,;. , , ',.s \ *}
.J
- / \ l .-
\.
\sr e.es m o nt u me \ s ls /
s1 \ ,8 3
,, ~ 4\' .$
- ; g. ll.
\,, .se - . -
?
, ...e M's\i "
3 ; g
./ . ' ' Qf , h ,, . 3
\
p 4 O
\)
3* I 1 ITecfuT cue.,nce A- i "\. d ( j
/' 'N .g , YL-co o ft-ss/s-Trod ,. .p ,., j ,,
[N.E
, f 60 .i a
* ,0f?f-6tTG..gA,itgopDn . kl. ' p:
t i
-l - ,.c / l. n y
I . h, .. yb'i] i
.\ .
d s .i 'f / (. w. -,.....m. y , 7 il ' ,- t 2 , ..- s
; ,s ..
}7.g i,~ ,
,".>q 06W h
% 5A1 (thr ,&, r,
,i * -
I' .W . ~,. . t. l 5 . ( t-
- c ;.. . \ -
I a t 'e , I i k\
'O' e~j i
\ \
s'
. - {, B
- u. . s'.
A I I f3 l)7 A
- I i
3 "
. .. g g{
.4 e )
5 re
, . I,1 d' ~: lij{j j;g:
I-
;]-ryiej t,,,f' g.
s-= j g
/ ,e . .,
-l r-1 f.; f i -
.b, f - '
[ g
. \-s_, f, . ,
,.,. / t ~~.T - l hj , ,I f : I s ,
['
.'. t.' f .
f, .f .l .ie 4 h
,f- . . , ,
Mg 1 [. [' af - [ i . '-s -
. 3 k e '(' -
[ . I * :;
' .Y '. k ' i i lE - f { e -
- ku.y
,- $ .ar ,
w, <..
, ; ,' 9 ;- -
s -.. n ,
.... 4' l
/: J ..
l t' I i , ( t :
' ' " ' f b$f[q I),j&'% \ ] ,
" r c.e n l o . t s.
..N..W.r/'/ I&1
. '. , ' 1.-
i~
- i. %0
? .,' ' 't . 5, ' - 1
~
,k,; ,' d_
J
-/ '
,f l, % q,
. e. -
3
! s: 'e
. ll 11. LJ .g g 1
- $ .)
' b
.- :* I ,e e. s r t
, Y.'. . 5 ., l FIGURE 240.1R-14 -
f, ' . * ' ' ' * ' * .-
.~. "e.' ), ' .t -
- ,6 3 # .s , .
-j Offsite Railroad I m F.l;. f;;.,, f-
* 'N 3,
~""~' %- -
j I SA sb ) Q240.lR-23 , e*'d i
- c .c.e: .se Ns . ~,./ A;!
h{ / l
/
- EXHIBIT I 3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS For the flooding sources studied in detail in the community, standard hydrologic and hydraulic study methods were used to determine the flood hozord dato required for this study. Flood events of a magnitude which are expected to be equalled or exceeded once on the overage during any 10 , 50 ,100 , and 500- .
year period (recurrence intervals), have been selected as having special signif-sconce for flood plain monogement and for flood insurance premium rates. These ' events, commonly termed the 10 , 50 ,100 , and 500-year floods, have a 10, 2, I, and 0.2 percent chance, respectively, of being equalled or exceeded during any year. Although the recurrence interval represents the long term, overcoe ' period between floods of a specific magnitude, rare floods could occur at short intervals or even within the some year. The risk of experiencing a rare flood increases when periods greater than one year are considered. For example, the , risk of having a flood which equals or exceeds the 100-year flood (one percent chance of annual occtrrence)in any 50 year period is about 40 percent (four in 10), and for any 90 year period, the risk increases to obout 60 percent (six in 10). The analyses reported here reflect flooding potentials based on condi-tions existing in the community of the time of completion of this study. Maps and flood elevations will be omended periodically to reflect future changes. 3.1 Hydrologic Analyses Hydrologic analyses were carried out to establish peak discharge-frequency - relationships for floods of the selected recurrence intervals for each flooding source studied in detail in Roone County. Tennessee River discharges for the study limits mile 543.6-583.8 and the lower end of Clinch River have been progressively citered by the closure upstream main river and tributary doms. Further regulation will be attained with the closure of Tellico Dom.on the Little Tennessee River at mile 0.3. Frequency is based upon anticipated post Tellico conditions.
. Flood profiles panel dip is a p'o1 of elevation-frequency profiies for the Tennessee River from mile 543.6 to mile 583.8.
The standard log-Pearson Type til statistical analysis was not used for Tennessee River and Clinch River frequency studies because the method is not opplicable to elevation dato or where there is regulation from upstream doms. Clinch River flows have been regulated by Norris Dom, Clinch River mile . 79.8 since closure in March 1936. Closure of Melton Hill Dom, mile 23.1, in May 1963 has not altered discharge probabilities. . Clincb River flow-frequency relationships were determined from graphical analysis of records from 1941-1966 of the USGS gaging station at Scarboro, Tennessee, mile 29.0 (References 7 and 8) and from graphical analysis of unpublish'ed TVA records of Melton Hill Dom discharge from 1964-1973. 8
f Downstream from Melton Hill Dom to the mouth of Clinch River elevation-frequency was determined by backwater computations. Analysis began of the mouth of the Clinch River with elevations determined from records at the TVA goging station near Kingston from 1944 to 1973 (Reference 9). Flood profile panel is a plot of elevation frequency profiles for the Clinch River from miles 0.00 to 21.15. , . The Tennessee River study reach is in Watts Bor Reservoir; consequently, elevations are influenced by both discharge and Watts Bar Dom headwater - elevations. Elevation frequency for th.is reach was determined by standard step method backwater onalysis using a computer program developed by
. the. TVA similar to but with some alteration to the COE HEC-2 backwater
. program (Reference 10) and by elevation-frequency curves determined graphically from the foilowing records:
Drainage Period Area, of Location Mile So. Miles - Record Acency At Fort Loudon Dom Toilwater, Tennessee ~ (unpublished) 602.3 9,550 1944-1973 TVA At Lenoir City, Tennessee - (Reference 8) 600.5 12,200 1944-1955 USGS. l At Loudon, Tennessee l (Reference 9) 591.6 12,220 1944-1955 USGS l Near Kingston, Tennessee (Reference 8) 568.2 12,470 1944-1973 TVA The above four gages do not have gate numbers. l The fallowing stream gages were used to determine o principal base for estirnating flow frequency for Coney Creek, Whites Creek, and Emory River: l USGS gage number 03538130 of Coney Creek near Kingston l USGS gage number 03541500 of Whites Creek near Glen Alice - ! . UEGS gage number 03540500 at Oakdale, Tennessee (Emory River) Flow estimates on these streams were determined using drainoge creo .
. relationships drawn parallel to the regional relationship and through the l flow-frequency volves of the gages as determined from the goged records.
9 l [
The computed frequency profiles for the Emory River were verified against ' on elevation-frequency curve by graphical analysis of stage records from i 1945-1975 from the TVA gage at mile 12.1 (Reference 1). l The USGS gaging stations 03538225 on Poplar Creek near Ook Ridge and ' 03538200 on Poplar Creek of Oliver Springs were the principal data base for def.ining flow-frequency relationships for Poplar Creek. Discharge-frequency estimates for intermediate locations were determined by straight line interpolation between gage stetions on a log-log plot of drainage oreo versus discharge graph. The USGS and TVA do not maintain any stream gages on Little Emory River, Powpow, Block, Indion, and Tributory to indian Creeks. In order to define discharge-frequency data for these streams a regional relationship of peak , discharge and drainoge crea was developed from stream flow records at the goging stations, Table l - Goging Stations. TABLE I - GAGING STATIONS Drainage Period . Areo ~f o Goging Station Gage No. Sq. Miles Record Agency - Obed River Tributcry near Cros.sville, Tennessee 03538800 .72 1955-1970 . USGS Forked Creek near Oakdale, Tennessee 03541200 2.44 1967-1975 USGS
.Millican Creek near -
Douglas Dom, Tennessee 03469010 4.20 1942-1962 TVA Rock Creek near Sunbright, Tennessee 03538300 5.54 1955-1971 USGS Coney Creek near Kingston, Tennessee 03538130 5.50 1961-1975 USGS , East Fork Poplar Creek near Ook Ridge, ' Tennessee 03538250 19.50 1935-1975 USGS O O 10 1
N N Richland Creek near . Dayton Tennessee . 03544500 50.:!0 1935-1975 USGS Poplar Creek near . Oliver Springs, , Tennessee 03538200 55ee0 1954-1975 USGS-Poplar Creek near ' Ook Ridge, - . Tennessee 03538225 82.50 1961-1977 - USGS .. . Emory River near Wortburg, Tennessee 03538500 83 20 1935-1975 ' USGS _ Whites Creek near - Glen Alice, , - Tennessee 03541500 10E 00 1935-1977 USGS , Emory River at . Oakdale, Tennessee 764.00 03540500 1928-1977 USGS l
~
(References ll ond 12) i s These stations are located on streams having similar hydrologic choroc- ' teristics to the detail streams. A frequency curve was computed using the procedure outlined in Bulletin 17A (Reference 13) including the skew
. map, plate 1, and was adjusted for historical flood information wherever '
available. The odopted regional peak flow-drainage oreo relationsHp was compared with those developed by the USGS and Tennessee Deport nent ,
' ~
of Transportation (1976)(Reference 14). The regionalized relation:, hip _ , that was adopted produced discharge values about 50 percent greater than ' those of the USGS. The greater discharge values were caused by. y lengthy record which included the 1977 flood and attention paid to goged N watersheds near the study creo. Peak discharge rates for Black Creek where sufficient urbanization has occurred to alter flood peaks were estimated by using the following relo-tionship, w e e s Ii s y ,, - - - _. -__c-
G = l*Opn, where: O pu = Discharge for selected probability, p, for urbon conditions. I = Percent imperviousness or urbon creo. , x = A factor which varies with flood probability.
~
O = Discharge for selected probobility, p, for natural conditions. n The relationships and values of x were developed from equations by Espey . ond Winslow (Reference 15) which relate discharge at selected frequencies to watershed and climatic factors and percent impervious 1. The relation-ships and x values were compared and found to be consistent with studies ..
. by others. Percent imperviousness (l) was estimated using ratios of imper-viousness to urban oreo (Reference 16) and urbori creas determined from 7.5-minute topographic' mops. ,
Indian Creek hos limited historical flood information and only the 1928 and 1967 floodmarks were used in this study. Peak discharge for the 10,50,100, and 500-year floods for the detail streams are tabulated as follows: , TABLE 2 -
SUMMARY
OF DISCHARGES DRAINAGE AREA PEAK OISCHARGES (cfs) FLOODING SOURCE AND LOCATION (sq. miles) 10-YEAR 50-YEAR 100-YEAR 500-YEAR TENNESSEE RIVER 164,000 190,000 200,000 26f,000 Mile 544.8 16,980 Mile 578.9 12,360 88,000 130,000 150,000 ?lt.000 CLINCH RIVER Mouth 4,413 120,000 185,000 220,000 Y i,000
' Mile 4.4 (below mouth of Emory) 4,405 120,000 185,000 220,000 300,000 Above Emory 3,540 42,750 52,750 56,500 82,500 ~ '
1 '
- EMORY RIVER .
112,000 172,000 205,000 285,000 Mouth 865 Mile 5.2 811 107,000 163,000 197,000- 275,000
~
LITTLE EMORY RIVER Mouth . 41.7 6,300 9,900 11,500 16,500 Mile 1.6 40.6 6,000 9,400 11,100 16,000 Mile 3.0 . 35.7 5,500 8,700 10,100 14,900 Mile 4.2 34.3 5,300 8,500 9,800 14,500 4
, 12
TABLE 2 -
SUMMARY
OF DISCHARGES (cont.) DRAINAGE AREA PEAK OISCHARGES (cfs) FLOODING SOURCE AND LOCATION (sq. miles) 10-YEAR 50-Y E AR 100-YEAR 500-YEAR
' WHITE CREEK Mile 6.1 120 31,000 54,000 64,000 98,000 Mile 6.6 108 28,000 48,800 59,600 90,130 Mile 8.0 102 27,500 48,000 58,000 89,100 BLACK CREEK Mile 0.0 11.8 3,250 5,100 6,400 8,500
. Mile 3.0 ,. . 8. 0 2,400 3,900 4,800 6,600 Mile 4.70 5.9 1,900 3,100 3,800 5,500
'CANEY CREEK Mile 0.0 8.27 2,300 - 3,050 3,300 4,500 Mile 0.8 7.80 2,200 2,400 3,200 4,300 Mile 1.6 6.55 1,950 2,550 2,800 3,800 PAWPAW CREEK' Mile 0.0 10.3 2,250 3,650 4,300 6,200 Mile 1.53 8.71 2,000 3,200 3,800 5,500 Mile 2.5 5.20 1,400 2,250 2,690 3,900
, POPLAR CREEK Mile 13.8 82.5 9,800 15,200 17,800 24,800 Mile 16.1 58.5 7,800 12,500 14,500 21,000 INDIAN CREEK Mouth 22.6 5,400 9,700 12,000 17,000 Mile 3.55 18.1 4,600 8,000 10,000 14,900 TRIBUTARY TO INDIAN CREEK 1.36 530 830 1,050 1,500 3.2 Hydraulic Analyses
' Analyses of the hydraulic chorocteristics of the flooding sources studied , , in detail in Roone County were corried out to provide' estimates of the elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals along each of -
the flood sources. , e 13 l - t l -
Water-surface elevations of floods for the selected recurrence intervals on the Clinch and Tennessee ~ Rivers were computed through use of a step method backwater computer program developed by TVA similar to but with some otterations to the COE HEC-2 backwater program (Reference 10). Water-surface elevations on all other detailed streams were computed using the COE HEC-2N computer program (Reference 17). Stream cross - - sections for all streams except the Tennessee and Clinch Rivers were field surveyed at bridges and other strategic locations and supplemented with volley cross sections token by photogrammetric methods of sufficiently close intervals to occurately compete water-surface elevations. The Tennessee and Clinch Rivers cross sections were based on silt range surveys , orid detailed topographic maps. Locations of selected cross sections used in the hydraulic analysis are shown on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Mops (FBFM) (Exhibit 3). , Channel roughness factors (Manning's "n") for these computations were determined on the basis of field inspection of channel and flood plain oreos, on previous studies by TVA, and computed coefficients based on known flood profiles. The range in values for Manning's "n" are tabulated below. Stream Channel Overbank Tennessee River 0.021-0.047 0.06-0.14 Clinch River 0.023-0.027 0.07-0.I4
. Emory River 0.02-0.045 0.060-0.15 Little Emory River 0.03-0.045 0.095-0.15 Whites Creek 0.022-0.07 0.09-0.19 Block Creek 0.029-0.09 0.057-0.195 Coney Creek . 0.035-0.040 0.08-0.15 Powpow Creek 0.025-0.040 0.05-0.15 Poplar Creek 0.040-0.080 0.09-0.19 Indian Creek 0.030-0.072 0.058-0.I5 Tributory to Indian Creek mile 2.33 0.04 0.070-0.105 Flood profiles were drawn showing computed water-surface elevations to on occuracy of 0.5 foot for floods of the selected recurrence intervals (Exhibit 1). Storting elevations for flood frequency profiles on the Tennessee and Clinch Rivers were developed from known dato. Watts Bar normal ~
full pool elevation 741 was used as starting elevations for flood frequency profiles on Whites Creek, Coney Creek, and Little Emory River. Storting elevations for Block, Powpow, Poplar, and Indian Creeks were obtained , by slope-creo calculations using the slope of the streambed. Flood frequency profiles for Emory River and Tributory to Indian Creek were started using backwater elevations from the Clinch River and Indian Creek respectively.
~
e 14
All elevations are measured from National Geodetic Vertical Datum'of 1929 (NGVD); elevation reference marks used in the study are shown on the maps. . The flood elevations os shown on the profiles are considered valid only if hydraulic structures in general remain unobstructed, operate properly, - and do not, fall. . No detailed studies were made for several smaller streams in Roone County, Tennessee, that were of fected by Watts Bar backwater or where there was a lock of current or planned development.
. 4.0 FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS The National Flood Insurance Program encourages state and local governments to adopt sound flood plain management programs. Therefore, each Flood Insur-once Study includes a flood boundary map designed to assist communities in developing sound flood plain management measures.
4.1 F' lood Boundaries In order to provide o national sto'ndard without regional discrimination, the 100-year flood has been adopted by the FIA as the base flood for pur-poses of flood plain management measures. The 500-year flood is employed to indicate odditional areas of flood risk in the county. For each stream studied in detail, the boundaries of the 100- and the 500-year floods have been delineated using the flood elevations determined of each cross section; between cross sections, the boundaries were inter-polated using expanded topographic maps at a scale of 1:4,800 with a con-tour interval of 20 feet (Reference 18). In cases where the 100- and the 500-year flood boundaries are close together, only the J00-year boundary has been shown. . Small arcos within the flood boundaries may lie above the flood elevations and therefore not be subject to flooding; owing to limitations of the map scale, such orcos are not shown. 4.2 Floodways Enerocchment on flood plains, such as artificial fill, reduces the flood-carrying capacity, increases the flood heights of streams, and increases flood hozords in creas beyond the encroachment itself. One espect of flood plain management involves balancing the economic gain from flood plain development against the resulting increase in flood hozord. For purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, the concept of o floodway is used as a tool to assist local communities in this espect of flood plain 15
Poplar Creek near Oliver Springer, Tennessee: Year Dischoroe (CFS) 1902 . 10,230 1920 9,860 1926 10,580 1928 II,300 1929 10,940 . 1944 9,500 . This study is authoritative for the purposes of the flood insurance program o'nd the dato presented here either supersede or are compatible with pre-vious determinations. 7.0 LOCATION OF DATA Survey, hydrologic, hydraulic, and other pertinent dato used in this study con be obtained by contacting the office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, insurance and Mitigation Division,1375 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanto, Georgio 30309. 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES , I. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population 1970, Chorocteristics
- of the Population, Tennessee.
- 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant industry. Soil Survey-Roone County, Tennessee, May 1942.
- 3. Unpublished'doto from Tennessee ' Volley Authority files.
- 4. Tennessee Valle) Authority, "Finods on Emory River in Vicinity of Harri-man, Tennessee," Division of Water Control Planning, Report No. 0-5816, March 1958.
- 5. Tennessee Valley Authority,'" Floods on Poplot Creek in Anderson and Roone Counties, Tennessee," Division of Water Control Planning, Knox-
- ville, Tennessee, September 1974. . 6. Tennessee Volley Authority," Precipitation in Tennessee River Basin,"
Division of Water Control Planning, Report No. 0-245425, Knoxville,' Tennessee, August 1970. ,
- 7. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper No.1676, " Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in the United States,"
1964. . 29
- 8. U.S. Department of the Interior," Water Resources Data for Tennessee,"
Annual Reports, 1941-1971.
- 9. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, " Dolly River Stages," Annual Reports, Silver Spring, Maryland, 1944-1973.
- 10. Tennessee Volley Authority, Computer Services, Steo Method Bockwater Computer Prooram 001-SSF SA 321-099 BW (NEW), Chattonooga, Tennessee, '
January 1974. . J 1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Water Supply Papers, 1928-1977, Annual Reports.
- 12. Tennessee Valley Authbrity," Dolly Discharges at TVA Stream Goges in the Tennessee River Basin," Division of Water Control Planning, Re-port 1942-1962, Knoxville, Tennessee.
- 13. U.S. Water Resources Council," Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency," Bulletin 17A of the Hydrology Committee, March 1976.
- 14. U.S. Geological Survey,"A Technique for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Tennessee," 1976.
- 15. Espey, W.H., Jr. and Winslow, D.E., " Urban Flood Frequency Chorocter-istics," Proceedinos of Americon Society of Civil Enoineers Journal. -
Hydraulics Division, Volume 100, No. Hy 2, pages 279-293,1974.
- 16. Stomper, William G., " Flood Mapping in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North Carolino," U.S. Geological Survey open file report 1975.
- 17. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC-2N Water Surface Profiles Generalized Comooter Program. Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California, June 1973. ,
- 18. U.S. Geological Survey, Topographic Maps,7.5-Minute series quadrangles.
Scale I:24,000, contour intervals of 20 feet, Windrock, Tennessee,129-SE,1968; Bethel Valley, Tennessee,130-NE,1968; Elverton Quadrangle, 130-NW,1968; Cove Creek Ouodrongle,130-SW,1968; Lenoir City, Tenn-essee,130-SE,1968; Philadelphia, Tennessee,131-NW,1952; Petros, Tennessee,129-SW,1967; Harriman, Tennessee,123-NE,1968; Cordif f,
- Tennessee,123-NW,1968; Rockwood, Tennessee,123-SW,1969; Bacon :
Cop Ouodrongle,123-SE,1968; Pattie Gop Quadrangle,124-NE,1973; Roddy Quadrangle, ll7-SE,1973. - e 30
L. . ~r.. E tt vat:04 if Itt hCvol 4 ad 4 4 4 4 4 4 ,, 4 M p p p p
& A e & &
o w a e cm o w a e .
. . a .. .
.~ . , ,- .... ;
. . .g. -
pggg g. . TErd.ESSEE. .mIVER. o . .. .I. .. .
.. . . . _ . , , . . . . . . _ , . - a
. . .. .. . . ... _ _ _... d g
__.l._... . . . . . . i N, n m ,
- 4. ..
.. ..' ,r
...... ........n..
1 _ g .
. . . s m
"- ' m
.J....)...
~
..o .. . . _ . . . . _
... .. o-... .. . . . . .
..p_.
._. . TNT E9_5..T&TE-40 tS-792 2 g ";; p
... _1
... ..- - . - ; ~ . _ _ . - . .
I
! se
' e.g
'~~~ * * * * * " ' " - ~' -
x ~\ r .d'1 N f"'NP" f". P
, ' _ 1 s *x 3
[
- i
- I DECRY RtVER O g
H. i i-7 g
.i .
I I
- 2
. . .,. . ..... . - . . ._ ; ._ p, .
. . .6. l. . . ........ . . . - - ... . w xg
^
gn . - p
.J.
.g.
_ 2,,, o m In _ ;p m
. 4
.g..*. .. . . . ... .._ J.se m
. .e . . . - . . . ... . _ .
M g e C. s . r* w-
- s. . .J .
. .I ..
...y....
3
'~*
O o ... .
.. ..-4....- . * * . . *. -_. .
'* ' k- \ 1
.2
.l
. . . .- I ;,
.4
> .. ........ . . . . . .. -... . ...g c. w.
Z . ... . ... . . 4-
... ..... .. .T.. .. .. 1, Q Ag. RIDGE tComPORATE Mais
- Q ..
. . . . _ . .I...
..-- F' - 4. .
3 5 ;. s .- -r 1 - -
.g
. g
...._.....s....
ii-s
-s i
....t. -> >_ ...i r-p
.. .___.i ..~ ... i> 4 .
1
> . .4
..-t.....
.-....g i i i ___
mcvtwes_ __ - ..... y_. . . i, 1 m w eg; -
-... 3 g _~
. . .g. ... . 4 . .._ !
.... 1 .._. . . _ .
_ .. . . . pp .. m._ r-
.t-j
,.i g
._.. ...... _.. . . .g. ,
j.g.. -L.< j. :., o
~*
* * * ~*
4
*9 L is .
d
. . . . . . - _ ,-t..-_.,.
- , - -\ l' \- TENN HGHway 58-LS 784.3 4- .2
._ . _ q ..
.a M -\ \, O A M-A IDG E <Oa*OAATE u,u..s. t._s j
* ,i i i _g 1, 1 s i i 7 1
...l t -\1 i 1 y
. s . i .I 3
1 s i s
. i s i ~ .,.
E . .
- 1 1
% 4
.... . 3, . . e _i,_. . \ ;O* W N E- U ""
-a .g' 26 r. .
....)
\ ( \l x ;
2 %g4REE5 , c,,. ..,
. . 4_.
m, n
. ...._.. ... . .,. _..,... s . s .
,. - - s s
s s s s __i 1 1 s s s ; i _+._- 1
' s s wv,yy r.m A u__
3, 2 l _ ; . A! x m. =w.caEsx I ! -; ; ; ; .; w r
, i i
i 1
'\ ;-
s 2-8 s I C A_ _
\ j', 'gLamImW M & ~
I c ._ s 1
\i1 1 1 mwtewv-KwaEenx- en----w*-
; eag -,q , ! 5% ~ y . . _ _
1g, z, , , g g g , , : - x x s a s x x x .
~ ,, , , ,., , . , s . . x ,
x X N t%- 1
.'x i x
xi x x : I
;R3g
- e . . x m
, : s x 3
.5 5 5 i b
n,! m umux, .mumnux,
...........n.o.. FLOOD PP.0 FILE 5 % ROANE COUNTY. TN
pegs 1 W82-0483 [76,13 11 Aacnd. XV June 1982 Ouestion 290.1R (NRC letter dated 10/26/81; response letter dated 12/22/81) Provide a succinct summary and discussion in table form, by'ER section, of differences between currently projected station design and environmental effects (including those that would degrade, and those that would enhance environmental conditions) and the effects discussed in the environmental reports submitted in 1975, Amendments 1 through 7. Resoonse The changes to CRBRP design which have occurred since 1977 and the expected environmental effects of these changes are summarized succinctly by ER section in the attached table, entitled "CRBRP ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT REVIEW." 290.1R-1
CRBRP ENVIRONENTAL REFORT REVIED PAGE 1 9 r ER DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRON ENTAL EFFECT SECTION REVISED ITEM introduc- Rewritten to ref erence LMOBR Program Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . 1.1 s.1-1,
-2 tion Obj ect ives Rewritten to ref erence LMOBR Program Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al .
1.2 1.2-1 Meeti ng Rewritten and updated Env ironmental l y inconsequent i al . 1.3 1,3-1 thru Objectives 1.5-6 1.4 .
- Consequences Deleted of Delay 1.5 Summary Deleted 2.1 2.1-1 Pl ant Construction site acreage Increased. See Section 4.0 thru Plant arrangements updated. Five In-2.10 pounding ponds more identif ied and located on Figure 2.1-3.
2.2 2.2-1 Demog- Regional demography, land and water uses A slightly f avorable environmental ef f ect. thru raphy, were updated using preliminary results of 2.2-67 Land & the 1980 U.S. Census. The revised f igures Water showed population growth slightly below Use projections of 1976. However, the devla-tions would make CRBRP-Inspired growth more easily assimilated. 2.3 2.3-1 Regional Updated to reflect an evaluation of pre- Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . thru Cul tur al vlously unsurveyed cultural, historic and 2.3-25 Hi stori c archeol ogi cal features. The evaluation
& Arche- Is consistent with the provlsions of the ol ogi cal National Historic Preservation Act of 1979, Features as snended. No new signif icant data were dev el oped.
2.4 2.4-15 Geol ogy Changed to provide data f or 24 additional Env ironmental ly Inconsequenti al, thru boreholes, taken f rom September 1976 to 2.4.22 June 1977. 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.1 Riv er Updated river level s, fl ows, temperatures, Env ironmental ly Inconsequenti al . thru etc. , 2.5-10
CRBRP ENVIZONENTAL REFORT REVIEU PAGE 2 e . ER DESmlPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONKNTAL EFFECT SECTION REVISED ITEM
- 2.5.2 2.5.2.1 No change.
2.5.2.2 No change. 2.5.2.3 No change. Ground- Established piezmetric gradient. Environmentally inconsequential . 2.5.2.4 2.5-18 water 2.5.2.5 No change. 2.5.2.6 No change. 2.5.2.7 No change. 2.6-1 thru Updated to include data accumulated Env irormental ly inconsequenti al . 2.6 Meteor-2.6-63 ol ogy using permanent meteorological tower. 2.7 2.7.1 2.7.1.1 2.7-l a Forest incorporates ORNL forest management No change in estimated enviro.nental Manage- activltles f ra 1976 through 1980, ef f ects f or GBRP. Mitigation measures f or Southern Pine Beetle and Pitch Canker i nf estations. 2.7.1.2 No change. 2.7.1.3 2.7-7 thru Flora Update vegetation Inventory reporting. Envirormental ly inconsequenti al .
;' 2.7-9 2.7-24, -37 Fl ora Correct pine designation. Env irormental ly inconsequenti al .
2.7-381, -3th Fl ora Revise category designation f rom Env irormental ly Inconsequent i al .
" threatened" to " rare" to reflect current to minology.
2.7.1.4 2.7-38o thru Fauna Update wildlif e occurrence data. Environmental ly inconsequenti al . j 2.7-3 8t 2.7-38ee insect s Update reporting doncernino insect Env irormental ly inconsequenti al .
' posts.
-- - _ * ~ L2"- - .._ _ 4 4 ._ , _ PAGE.3 OtBHP ENV13ONENTAL RDORT REVIED f ER DESOllPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONENTAL EFFECT SECTION REV ISED ITEN 2.7-38tf Fauna Revised to include possibility of Occurrence on CRBRP site not conf irmed. eastern cougar occurrence on Oak Also, cougar hee range is suf f iciently Ridge Reservation. extensive to absorb of f ect of OtBRP installation. Envirormentally inconsequent i al . Avifauna Adds mention of osprey nest occurrence Osprey nesting at CRBRP site has not been 2.7-38 9 g observed. Env irormental ly at Watts Bar Lake. inconsequential. 2.7.l.5 No change. Avifauna Update classification of American Occurrence of nesting at site has not 2.7.1.6 2.7-38tt been observed. osprey. Survey s Report on 1980 reconnaissance Env ironmental ly Inconsequenti al . 2.7.1.7 2.7-38ww surveys. p
OtBRP ENVIRONENTAl. REIVRT REVIE: FAGE 4 9 ER DESGtlPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONKNTAL EFFECT SECil0N REV ISED ITEN 2.7.2 2.7.2.1 No change. 2.7.2.2 No change. 2.7.2.3 No change. Report of occurrences of the blue Occurrence not reported near Site, 2.7.2.4 2.7-87 g Fi sh Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . sucker in Watts Bar Lake. Blue sucker Is loontified as a threatened species. 2.7.2.5 2.7-87 h Aqua ti c Report on 1980 reconnaissance surveys. Stocking activities have resul ted in
- 878 Surveys reported increases In gmet Ish. No change in estimated envirormental ef f ects due to OtBRP.
2.8 2.8-1 thru Back- Complete update reflecting latest Data better characterizes the actual ORNL, TVA and similar organization site and the surrounding areas. 2.8-109 ground Radia- studies and scientif ic papers. Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . tion 4
GBRP ENVIRONENTAL REPORT REVIED PAGE 5 f ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESmlPTION OF DiANGE ENVIRONENTAL EFFECT 3.0 3.1 3.1-1 External A five foot high animal fence was added Preclude small animals f rom plant site and Appear- at a distance of 33 feet from the and restrict them to more natural ance security fence. environs. Environmentally inconsequential. 3.1.1 3.1-2 Plant Gatehouse, circulating water pump house Env ironmental ly Inconsequential . Bldg. & and f tre protection pump house were Facill- Identified. The switch yard relay house ties was added. The cos. figuration and location of the Env ironmental ly inconsequentI al . energency cooling tower structure were rev i sed. 3.1.2 3.1.4 Plant Five foot high animal fence added. Environmental ly inconsequenti al. Site 3.3.3 3.1-4 Other The size of paved parking area was Environmental ly Inconsequential . Facill- reduced for accommodation of 155 cars ties Instead of 250 before. 3.2 3.2.1 No change. 3.2.2 3.2-3 Core Replaced homogeneous core with betero- Net change judged to be insigni ficant. geneous arrangement resulting in eliminat-Ing one f uel enrichment zone (was 2, now 1), reducing number of f uel assemblies f rom 198 to 156, reducing number of radial blanket assemblies f rom 150 to 126, adding' 82 inner blanket assemblies, and increasing Pu en-richment in f uel assemblies f rom 18.7-32% to 32-33%. 3.2.3 No change. 3.3 3.3.1 3.3-1 Overall Average annual consumptive water use Environmental ly Inconsequenti al . Plant figures were revised to be consistent with those in Tables 3.3-1, 3.3-2 and 3.3-3. 3.3.2 3.3-2 Cooling Flowrate to cooling ' tower from condenser Slight increase in plume size will not Tower increased from 209,200 gpm to 212,200 gpm. produce significant environmental Impact. 3.3.3 3.3-2 Process Added makeup water treatment system Env ironmental ly Inconsequenti al . Water Treatment - System
GBRP ENVIRONKNTAL REPORT REVIE3 FAGE 6 ER DES mlPTION OF 01ANGE ENVIRONKNTAL EFFECT SECTION REVISED ITEM Waste All process waste water including floor Resul ts in higher quality of water 3.3.4 3.3-3 di scharged. Water drains, go to Waste Water Disposal System Di sposal Instead of being routed to either cooling Systm tower basin or neutralization and settling facilities. 3.3-3 Radwaste Updated description. See Section 3.5. 3.3.5 Systems Fbtabl e Potable water is supplied by DOE's Bear Envirormental ly inconsequenti al . 3.3.6 3.3-4 Water Creek Road Fil tration Plant Instead of Sources the Make-up Water Treatment System. I increase in plant make-up flow rate Envirormental ly Inconsequenti al . Tabl e 3.3-5 Plant 3.3-1 Fl owrates f rom 5835 gpa to 6145 gpm. During increase in cooling tower evaporation Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . Maximum rate fra 3475 gpm to 3623 gpm. Power increase in cooling tower drif t rate Environmental ly inconsequenti al, f ra 105 gpm to 106 gpm. Increase in moling tower blowdown rate Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al , f rm 2210 gpm to 2306 gpm. Decrease in Process Waste Treatment flow rate f rm 125 gpm to 110 gpm. Waste Water Disposal System Flowrate Env irornental ly inconsequenti al . designed at 100 gpm. Increase in plant discharge rate f rm Env irorwental ly Inconsequenti al . 2,251 gpm to 2,411 gpm. Increase in total consumptive use of Env irorwental ly inconsequenti al . river water f rm 3,584 gpm to 3,733 gpm. Tabl e 3.5-6 Plant increase in Plant Make-up Flowrate Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . 3.5-2 Flow- f rm 2,361 gpm to 2,527 gpm. rates increase in moling tower evaporation Env irornental ly Inconsequenti al . During rate f rm 1,390 gpm to 1,450 gpm. Minimum increase In moling tcwer blowdown rate Env irormental ly inconsequenti al . Power from 884 gpm to 925 gpm. Decrease in process water treatment flow- Env irormental ly Inconsequenti al . rate f rm 125 gpm to 110 gpm. Waste Water Disposal System flowrote Env irornental ly Inconsequenti al . designed at 100 gpm. Increase in plant discharge rate f rm Env irormental ly inconsequenti al . 925 gpm. to 1.030 gpm. Increase in total consumption use of Env irormental ly Inconsequenti al, river water f rm' % .436 gpm to 1,4% gpm.
PAGE 7 CRBRP ENVIRONENTAL REM)RT REVIEW ER ENVIRONO . A Ef fECT REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE SECTION increase in plant makeup flowrate f rom Env iromental ly inconsequenti al . Tabl e 3.3-7 Plant 3.5-3 F l ow- 625 gpm to 715 gpm. increase in cooling tower blowdown Env i ronmental ly Inconsequent i al . rates During flowrate fr m 221 gpm to 231 gpe. Increase in cooling tower evaporation Env iromental ly inconsequenti al . Tem-por ary rate f rm 348 gpm to 363 gpm. Decrease In process water treatment Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . Shutdown flowrate f rm 125 gpm to 110 gpm. Waste Water Disposal System flourate Enviromental ly Inconsequent i al . destped as 100 gpm. Increase In plant discharge flowrate Enviromental ly Inconsequenti al . f ra 262 gpm tp 336 gpm. increase In total consumptive use Env iromental ly inconsequenti al . of river water f ra 363 gpm to 378. Seasonal Flourates in Table have been Env i ronmental ly Inconsequenti al . Tabl e 3.5-8 Pl ant 3.5-4 Water adjusted to reflect present design. Usage Seasonal Verlation Updated Makeup water addition f rm 5835 Env i ronmental l y i ncons.squent i al . 3.4.1 3.4-1 Cooling Tower to 6035 gpm. , Design flowrate for river water pe ps Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . 3.4.2 3.4-3 River Water decreased f ra 10,000 gpm each to 9,000 Pumps gpa each. 3.4.3 No change. Heat Env iromental ly Inconsequenti al . Tabl e 3.4-5 Heat rejected f rcm a coolgng tower 3.4-1 Di ssi pa- Increased grcm 2.172 x 10 BTU /HR to tion 2.256 x 10 B1U/HR. 2 Destgn Par m eters
& Condiffons Updated Design Parmeters. Env ironmental ly Inconsequenti al .
Tabl e 3.4-6 Component 3.4-2 Descriptions Coc ing Average monthly moling tower blow- Env iromental ly Inconsequenti al . Tabl e 3.4-8 3.4-4 Tower down temperatures increased slightly. Blowdown Tem p. .*
GBRP ENVIRCNENTAL REPORT REVIED PAGE 8 f ER ITEN DESGIFTION OF CHANGE DdVIRONKNTAL EFFECT SECTION REVISED 3.5 3.5.1 No change. 3.5.1.1 3.5.2 Decon- Update f or lodine and tri flum. Env iromental ly inconsequenti al, f amina tion Factor 3.5.1.2 3.5-3 IALL Updates description of cleaning process. Enviromental ly inconsequenti al . A fil ter deleted f rm the liquid radweste system. Revises description of shiel ding. Updates f ll ter handl Ing.
/ 3.5.1.3 3.5-5, -6 LALL Updates paraneters applied to Low Env iromental ly inconsequenti al .
Activity Level Liquid System. 3.5.1.4 3.5-6 Assump- Revises assumptions used as the bases Env ironmental ly Inconsequenti al . tions f or calculations. 3.5.2 3.5.2.1 3.5-7 Nobl e The 39Ar and produgd by direct The additional Argon f ran this source Is Gases activation of Ar and Ar is now negligible and the environmental Impact included in the radioactive source terms is considered insignificant. used f or design work. 85 The site boundary beta skin dose is 3.5.2.2 3.5-8 Treat- Design has been changed so that K7 from ment RAPS is no longer bottled but is processed increased by approximately a f actor of 2, and thru CAPS and released to H&V. but thegtential for accidental exposure Release due to K storage and shipping is System removed. 'The net change in enviromental ef fects is judged to be insignificant. Previously all leakages of cover gas or re- The site boundary beta and gamma doses are cycled cover gas were processed thru CAPS increased; a slightly adverse of f act. The
' - Now most of the cells containing components beta dose Increased by approximately 1.5, which could leak cover gas vent to H&V. gamma dose by approximately 4.
3.5.2.3 3.5-9, 10 RAPS Process flow f or RAPS & CAPS updated. Tri t- The site boundary beta and gamma doses are
& CAPS f um removal unit has been redesigned in increased; a slightly adverse ef f ect. The CAPS. Venting to atmosphere incorporated, beta dose increased by approximately 1.5, gamma dose by approximately 4.
3.5.2.4 3.5-11 Head The reacter cover gas leakage rate The site boundary beta and gamme doses Seals was reduced f rom 0.012 SCC per minute are decreasedl a slightly f avorable to 0.0044 SCC per minute. enviromental of f ect. The dif f usion of Tritlun through The additional radioactivity contributed piping walls Into FHTS and auxillary by the small enount of Triflum dif f using Na cells has been added to design through piping walls is insignificant assumptions. Any significant amount compared to the radioactivity contained of Tritium has been included in the in the cover gas which is assumed to leak current radiological source terms. Into cells at the rate of I cc/ min. The impact is judged insignificant.
GBRP ENVIRONENTAL REPORT REVIE3 PAGE 9 e ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESGIPTION OF OiANGE ENVIRONENTAL EFFECT 3.5.2.5 3.5-12 Release Ventilation exhaust rates at radiological Higher exhaust rates could potentially thru 3.5-14 Points release points have been revised. Examples have more environmental Impact due to are the release point in the SGB Inter- shorter hold-up of radionuclides, mediate Bay which increased from 50,000 However, the doses resulting f rom scf m to 54,500 scf m and the exhaust point plant releases renaln well below on top of the RG which decreased f ra guideline limits. 415,000 scf m to 400,000 scfm. This change in temperature range will Ventilation exhaust temperature ranges have no impact. Density variations which
- at radiological release points have could release more or less radioactive increased. An example is a release material are accounted f or in the pre-point in the RSB that did l) ave a range coding changes in exhaust rates.
of 650F to 1200F and now ranges from 550F to 1400F. The CAPS Reactor Service Building H&V No environmental Impact for normal Exhaust has been deleted. CAPS now release. Improved protection against exhausts through the RSB exhaust with release of above normal radioactivity saf ety-related exhaust radiation monitors. fra the plant due to of f-normal con-ditions - a slightly f avorable of f act. RAPS process camponents have been moved No environmental Impact for normal from the RSB to the RG. . operati on. Improved protection against release of radioactivity from the plant following RAPS accidents - a slightly f avorable of fact. Release point descriptions have been Environmental ly inconsequenti al . further updated to reflect latest design changes. 3.5.2.6 3.5-14, -15 Assump- Revises gaseous release data bnsed on No environmental Impact for normal tions relocated RAPS, updated burnup and release operation. Improved protection point data, and most recent meterology, against release of radioactivity from the plant following RAPS accidents - a slightly f avorable of f act. 3.5.2.7 3.5-15, -16 Bal ance Turbine generator building ventilation Environmental ly inconsequential. of Plant exhaust location change fra elevation l 905'6" to 878'0", release rate decrease l f ra 17,500 cf m to 8,000 cfs, exhaust flow velocity increase f rom 585 feet / min. with a temperature r,ange of 85 to 1200F to 900 feet / min, with a temperature range from 550F to 1200F. Plant Service Building ventilation exhaust Environmental ly Inconsequenti al. location changed f rom elevation 830'0" to 831'2". Number of release points decreased from 2 to 1.
FAGE 10 (RBRP ENVIRONKNTAL REPORT REVIEW t ER DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONKNTAL EFFECT SECTION REV ISED ITEM Solid redwaste equirment is now Env ironmental ly Inconsequenti al . 3.5.3 3.5-16, -17 Sol i d Rad =aste is now identit led as including ( 3.5.3.1 3.5.3.2) Systm a cement filling station, a decanting station, Equip- a concentrated waste allection tank, a druauning ment statlon, a f 11 ter handling machine and a . mapactor. (See al so Tabl es 3.5-10 and 3.5-111. Noncom- There will be a total of 112 (Instead Env iromental ly inconsequenti al . 3.5.3.3 3.5-18 pact i bl e of 202) 55 gallon drums per year used to store Sol i ds the low activity, non-compactible sollds of Rad- af ter treatment at the solid radmaste system. waste Sys. Radio- There are now 2 drums of waste metallic Environmental ly inconsequenti al . s 3.5.3.4 3.5-18 active sodlun per year with en activity level Sodium of 20 CI/ drum Instead of 6 drums / year with an activity level of 1.5 CI/ drum stored and/or processed on site. The disposal of sodlun bearing waste, Environmentally inconsequenti al . 3.5.3.5 3.5-19 Sodium Bearing which was not previously Identif ied, has Solids been selected. No currently licensed of f-site disposal f acility will accept sodlum bearing wastes, theref ore, for of f-si te disposal of these wastes, the sodlue will be removed. Where sodium rmoval is not practical, the waste will be stored on-site. Activ- Individual primary cold trap contained Environmental ly Inconsequenti al . Ity actlylty of Tritium Igcreased f rm 8.7 x 10' Cl to 1.85 x 10 Cl, and activity of fission and 3corrosion producgs increased from 1 x 10 Cl to 1.41 x 10 Cl. The contained activity will not be removed or released f ra the '5 . cold traps. The EVST cqld trap containgd activity Increased f rom 6.7 x Itr CI to 7.6 x 10' Cl. The Tritium activity increased f rom 150 Cl to 180 Cl.
.4
GBRP ENVIRONE :TAL REIVRT REYlE1 PAGE 11 f ER ITEM DESmlPTl'ON OF CHANGE ENVIRONK NTAL EFFECT SECTION REVISED 3.5-20,-21' lALL See of the assumptions that Table 3.5-1 Env i rorsient a l l y i ncon seque n t i al . Tabl e 3.5-1 System had been based upon have changed: l) Intermediate activity concentration f or the f irst rinse computed assuming 105 (Instead of 405) of plated out activity and 1005 of sodium activity adhering to the process cumponents is dissolved in 100,000 (Instead of 37,000) gallons of water per year.
- 2) Processed ccaponents involve an average annual volume of 1,600 linstead of 14,700) gal l ons.
1ALL Some of the assumptions that Table 3.5 Env i rorssental l y i nconsequent i al . Tabl e 3.5-22, -23 3.5-2 System had been based upon have changed: Il lodine DF=104 included. Monitoring tank volume decreased f rom 2,500 9allons to 2,400 gallons.
- 2) todine DF=104 Included.
IALL Sono of the assumptions that Table 3.5-3 Env i rorunental l y i nconsequert i al . Tabl e 3.5-24, -25 3.5-3 System had been based upon have changed: tou Activitv I_lauld Wasta Assumotions: 4
- 1) lodine DF=10 and Tritium DF=1 included.
Intermediate Activity Llould Wasta Assumottens:
- 1. Liquid waste discharged to the common plant discharge header (Instead of thg coolant water blowdown stream). lodine DF=10 and Triflum DF=1 includsd.
Expected Values in table have been changed to Env i rorunent a l l y i ncon seque nt i al . Tabl e 3.5-33 3.5-10 Weight, reflect current design. ' Volume ar.d dwaste Activity Total estimated volume decreased f ran of solid 3,094 f t rg/yr to of Solid generateg/yr. 2,365 f t
- Radwaste Total estimated activity of solid redwaste 4
generated decreased f ran 6.6 x 10 Cl/yr. to 3.4 x 10' Cl/yr. ,
l l l l l l l l l a a a a a a a a a T i i i i t i t i t i t i i t C t t n t n n n n n t n n E n F eu e e e e e u e u e e F u u u u u u E q q q q q q q q q e e e s e s e s e s e s e s e s L s s A n n n n n n n n n T o o o o o o o o o N c c c c c c c c c n n n n n n n n n E I i I i i i i i i N y y O ly ly ly ly ly ly ly R l l l l l l l l l l I l V a a a a a a a a a t t t t t t t E N t n t n n n n n n n n e e e e e e e e e m m e m m m m m m n n n n n n o o o o or o o r o r o r ir i r i r ir i ir i i v v v v v v iv v v n n n n n n n n n E E E E E E E E E s d d d . n ie6 3 a iuq s t t f 1 seI l i x st s rl e . a m e ei t id o l t ebI t ad d u r - i s i c r e t d rm ear ye n lo0 l i Tei l c d o o,s p a m p i n d pe nap b u l s7 f n n ynb h S e laf f g. . 1 .f i i e hi c E d t CS f f 4d v st D e x E soni man r P b e D o E G oa rr o3il roo o n w t c lub e t e z N i r dngeN
.P pst ses
. N af at s e d rt i t c it e A e e s l oei l e s ado d at I yd y0 r k f e swm or a e e ut d D e 2e n r e m d tl nss h pt st J i .m F rs ea r1 h e t t a r gt e n t n o s e n a n .. O pe pmo g o ion i t a mdo. t r
.u . r t t ni m t ei)
N sc sre n ci o t s att 1 rl O r e rfd i d el r d e e g eaa- eoe . I ed e u t e joo s rvr7 tt s
- o. T n ndl c s ino n n t it ice o P i e ec e i cs o s a et n3 sai I at iasn l v e oo u
s t h c rce pace
- rD f t
. R C t s ne t ai ne l o r f ot u t i m nl f ne ow oro c nn e >b oon w S E D cd a cct e f ly e eg t yii t i i m i l t a e
. ooaaT ff s
ci t o s. e g en e g nnt( ed u d r ddd n . orp l e e e t . n n a iil tc o l n oon i eo t d t sd sr eng a e is a ii es f sr cnn r tt ut in ci eu pq eia psp t e et lpi c hc awa h b pl t l e rt oi m c o h c iali d rf m cea ec mse l l l xi xex o oN ehn e hi n o d ef i pi r
' El Ere InI f Cd N Cco D Cl i N Aael Slf n
d e r eo r a l y l a e t a ti a r t cd a-s sY e c n g c n g m u it rc
- z es go
- aem t ge hsp o s
M eiwpt iwi iwi iooe lni ap iat E T pl di nr xoah ee sos aI e sos al e d pl j o yh n eal er ws ei nws aey as rI I ESRS mP BFD BFD SHci De SD SSS TD D E S l Y 4 5 9 E 3 3 3 3 4 5 7 I 3 R - - - - - - - - - 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 N e O 1 e e RI e1 r1 r5 1 2 3 4 r1 1 2 ET - u - u - u-C E lb5 a ig5 ig5 6 6 6 6 6 i g6 7 7 7 S T3 F3 F3 3 3 3 3 3 F3 3 3 3
ER SECTION REV15ED ITEM DESCRIPT10N OF CHMGE ENVIRONKNTAL EFFECT 3.8 3.8.1.1 3.8-3, -2 - Core Replaced hmogeneous core arrangement with Decreases the heavy metal commitment Design heterogeneous core arrangement resul ting (U or U + Pu) In the axial blankets in reducing the number of f uel assemblies and core f rm 5.4 KT to 4.2 MT and f rom 198 to 156, increasing the Pu enrich- f rom 6.5 MT to 5.2 MT, respectively. ment f ra 18.7 to 325 fisslie to 33.2% Environmental ly inconsequent i al . total. Deleted option to use natural uranium Env ironmental ly Inconsequenti al . as al ternate material to depleted uranium as feed material for f uel pellets. Revised ref ueling schee f rom replacing Average number of yearly shipments of approximately one-third annually to f resh f uel would theref ore become batch replacement of all the f uel and about 14. Environmentally Inner blanket assemblies at two year i nconsequenti al . Interval s with mid-interval repl acement of 6 Inner blankets with fresh fuel assembi les. 3.8.1.2 3.8-2 Core Replaced hoogeneous core arrangement increases the heavy metal (U) conmi tment , Design with heterogeneous core arrangement f rom 16.4 MT to 21.6 MT. Environmentally resulting In increasing the total number inconsequenti al . of blanket assemblies f rm 150 (radial) l to 208 (82 inner and 126 radial). I Revised dimensional permeters of blanket Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . rods (outside dimeter decreased f rm 0.520 In. to G.506 In.) and assembly welght increased (fra 525 lbs, to 536 lbs.). Revised ref ueling schee f rm annual Average number of yearly shipments of ref ueling to batch ref ueling at two- fresh blanket assemblies will theref ore year Interval s. become 12. Env iromental ly inconsequential . Fi gure 3.8.1 3.8-10 Reacte Revised to show heterogeneous core layout. Env ironmental ly Inconsequenti al . Fi gure 3.8.2 3.8-11 Fuel Dimensions reoved. Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . s-
ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DES 0tlPT10N OF CHANGE ENVIRO 4KNTAL EFFECT 3.8.2.1 3.8-3, -4 Cor e Replaced homogeneous core arrangement Shipping schedule f or spent f uel increases Design with heterogeneous core arrangement f rm 8 to 12 shipments per year to and revised ref uelIng schome f rm annual en estimated 14 shipments per ref ueling to batch ref ueling at two year year. Changed Judged to be silghtly Intervals resul ting in increasing the aver- adverse. age number of f uel assemblies discharged yearly fra 66 to 81, decreasing the f uel assembly burnup fr m 200,000 WD/ Ton average to 80,000 WD/ Ton average, and the peak burnup to 110,000 W D/ Ton, decreasing the average burnup in the axial blankets f rm 4,000 WD/ Ton to 2,200 WD/ Ton, and reducing the amount of bred f Issile Pu f ran 1 kg/assy. to 0.3 to 0.4 kg/assy. Revised weight and dimensions of spent f uel Env i rorsnenta l l y i ncon seq ue nt i al , shipping cask. 3.8.2.2 3.8-4, -5 Cor e Replaced homogeneous core arrangement with increases the number of spent blanket Design heterogeneous core arrangement and revised assembly shipments f rm 3 to 6-7 per year, ref ueling scheme f rcm annual to batch Change Judged to be slightly adverse, resulting in increasing the number of blanket assembIles discharged f rom the plant per year f rom 25 to 69, increasing the burnup per assembly fran 5,700 WD/ Ton to 8,000 WD/ Ton, increasing the average and peak heat generation f rom I kw average (radial) to 2.6 kw (Inner) and 1.6 kw (radial) and f rm 7 kw peak fradlat ) to 19.7 kw (Inner) and 12 kw (radial). 3.8.3 3.8.3.1 3.8-5 thru Core Replacement of hmogeneous core arrangement Change judged to be slightly f avorable. 3.8-7 Design with heterogeneous core arrangement resul ts in reducing the number of primary control assemblies f rom 15 to 9 and in increasing the number of secondary control essemblies f rom 4 to 6. If lif etime considerations permit, control Change judged to be slightly f avorable. rods could remain in the reactor for two cycles, also the driveline lifetime has a been increased f rca 10 to 15 years.
CRBHP UfVIR@MTAL I4EPORT REVIED PAGE 15 0 . ER ENVIR W KNTAL EFFECT SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE Revised configuration of radial shield Envi ronmental ly inconsequenti al . assembly from stacked hexagonal plates to closely packed rods in a hex duct and decreased assembly weight f rom 750 to 360 lbs. Because of the change to the heterogeneous This greatly reduces the number of ship-core arrangement the lif etime of the first ments of Irradiated shleid assemblies. row of shield assemblies has increased Change judged to be f avorable.
. f rom 3 to 10-to-15 years, part of the second row lifetime has increased f rom 6-to-12 to 10-to-25 years, and the third and f ourth rows 'are not expected to require replacement during plant lifetime.
Updated to agree with Section 3.5 Envi ronmental ly inconsequenti al. 3.8.3.2 3.8-8 Waste Handling 3.8 -8, Primary The tritium levels were updated f rom 1.8 Material =Ill not be released so the Cold x 104 Cl to 1.85 x 105 CI and the fission changes are Judge to be environ - Trap products and corrosion products increased mentally inconsequential. from 1 x 103 Cl to 1.41 x 105 Cl. Cold traps are to' be stored on site since no currently licensed disposal site will accept sodlue-bearing wastes. 3.9 3.9-1 No change. 3.9-2 No change. Updated to d2 scribe Forest Management Environmentally inconsequential. 3.9-3 Flora Updated to account for ORNL forest No change in environmental of fects due 3.9-4 3.9-3,-4 to CRBAP. management activities since 1976. 3.9-5 No change. 3.9-6 No change. 3.9-7 Updated to describe transmission line Envi ronmental ly inconsequenti al. configura'tlon and acerage af fected. 3.9-8 Revised to delete details of tower Envi ronmental ly inconsequential . conf Iguratie. Circuit spacings have been increased, Envi ronmental ly inconsequenti al . 3.9-9 requiring widening of rights-of-way.
CRBAP ENVIR(NENTAL REPORT REVIED PAGE 16 0 ER REVISED ITD4 DES 0llFTION OF CHANGE ENVIR(N ENTAL EFFECT SECTION Site Deletion of borrow area, increase of Envi ronmentally i nconsequenti al . l 4.1 4.1-1, -2 I Prep. site tanporary acreage to 292 acres and from 195 acrra required f or plant Plant construction, 37 acres Identlfled Inside security Cons- barrier, quarry increase from 25 acres to truc- 45 acres, provide crusher f acility at ti on quarry (Table 4.1-1, Figure 4.1-1). 4.1.1 4.1.1.1 4.1-2 Clearing Choice to use open burning during site Change judged to have a slight negative clearing, envirorunental of fect. I Envi ronmental ly Inconsequenti al Concrete Batch plant description Batch Plant 4.1-3, -4 Quarry Excavation depths increased. Change judged to be slightly favorable. Eliminate consideration of borrow pit. Onsite availability of material will Described concrete batch plant. reduce offsite hauling requirenents. 4.1.1.2 No change. 4.1.1.3 4.1-5 Access Modify Barge Unioeding Facility. Change judged to be slightly f avorable. Facil i ty Redesign minimizes dredging. 4.1.l.4 No change. 4.1.1.5 No change. 4.1.1.6 4.1-7 thru Sito Update terrestrial ecological effects Change judged to have slightly negative
- 4.1-6b Extent of site clearing and construction. environmental of fect due to increased (Table 4.2-1 and Table 4.1-3) acreage.
include ORNL forest management plan. No change to estimated envirotunental of fects due to CRBRP. Updates impacts on wildlif e. No change to estimated envirorunental ef fects due to CRBRP. 4.1.1.7 4.1-11 Human Peak construction f orce estimate Envi ronmental ly inconsequenti al . Activ- Increased to 5400. Itles ,. Eliminates borrow area. Reduces Change judged to be slightly f avorable; [ I construction activities near borrow area was in vicinity of Hensley cemetery. f amily cemetery. 4.1.1.8 4.1-11 thru Provides soll erosion and sediment Change judged to be f avorable Ir. reducing 12e control measures soll erosion to Cilnch River
DERP ENVIRCNENTAL REPORT REVIEU PAGE 17 e ER REYlSED ITEM DESCRIFTION OF CHANGE ENVIRCNENTAL EFFECT SECTION 4.1.2 4.1-13 Construction water consumption estimates Envi ronmental ly inconsequenti al . 4.1.2.1 Wat er Additional water consumption still is only Use have been increased f rom 40,000 gallons per day to 60,000. a very small fraction of the available Clinch River flow. 4.1.2.2 No change. 4.1.2.3 4.1-15 Barge Relocation and redesign will reduce Change judged to be slightly favorable. Unioed- dredging. Ing
- Facility 4.1.2.4 4.1 -15 e Runof f Provides description of runof f treatment Change judged to be f avorable Treat- pond design f eature which limits suspended ment pond solids discharge to Cilnch River to less than 50 mg/l.
4.2 4.2-1,-6,-8 Transmission arridor acreages and Envi ronmental ly inconsequenti al. af f acted community plant coverage undated Table 4.2-9 Trans- Transmission meridor acreages and Environmentally Inconsequential. 4.2-1 mission af f acted community plant mverage undated Corridor 4.3 4.3-1 thru Re- Updated to account for revised af fected Net ef feet of all changes is judged to be 4.3-3 sources areas, and addition of quarry. envi ronmental ly Inconsequential. I
.e
n .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . .. - ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONENTAE EFFECT 5.1 No change. 5.1.1 No change. 5.1.I.1 5.1-3, -4 Cooling Updated to reflect ef fects of a>oling Change demonstrates that latest design Systen system redesign, produces ef f ects that are enveloped by previous (approved) designs. 5.1.1.2 5.1-5 "No Updated plume configurations to reflect Change f alls within ef f ects that are
. F l ow" effects described in 5.1.1.1. enveloped by previous approvals.
Piunes
- 5.1.2 5.1-6, -7 Thermal Revised to include ref erence to NPDES NPDES requirements exert positive controls Dis- Permit requirements on ef fluent quality.
Charge standards 5.1.3 No change. 5.1.3.1 5.1-12 thru Fish Discusses recent studies of fish Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . Habitat (striped bass and sauger) behavior in the Clinch River, includes habitats. migration and spawning. 5.l.3.2 No change. 5.1.3.3 No change. 5.l.3.4 No change. 5.1.3.5 No change. a 5.l.4 No change. 5.1.5 5.1-22 Con- , Update condenser water design flow rate. Environmental ly Inconsequenti al . denser Also updates Clinch River flow data. Entral runent
', 5.1.6 No change.
5 1.7 No change. S.I.8 No change. Tabl e 5.1-13 5.1-51 Cooling Updated Cooling System paraneters Env ironmentally inconsequenti al . Systems 5.2 5.2-1 thru Radlol ogical This section has been completely Change judged to be f avorable. 5.2-41 Impact rewritten to include impacts on both man and organism other than man. The revised calculations result in reduced dose estimates. J
00RP ENVIRCNKNTAI. REPORT REVItU PAGE 19 t ER SECTION REV ISFD ITEM DESCRIPTION OF OiM4GE ENVIRO 4KNTAL EFFECT 5.3 Deleted. Included in new Section 5.2 5.4 5.4-1 Effects Editorial change to clarify and explain Env i rorunent al ly I nconsequenti al , of Chem- that an acid f eed system is provided. Ical & lts use would adjust pH fcr control of Blocide corrosion and scaling, arid to assure that Dis- th e b l owdow n i s i n compi l ance w i th th e charges the Draf f Nf0ES permit limits. Defined the limits of chlorine Envi ronmental ly Inconsequenti al .
. concentration.
5.4.1 5.4-2 waste Adds discussion of changes to waste Environmentally inconsequential. Water water disposal system that have been Disposal previously described. 5.4.1.1 5.4-4a Coolant Total volume discharged increased slightly Envi ronmental ly Inconsequenti al . Systen with no changes in chemical concentrations. Di scharge 5.4.1.2 5.4-5 thru Di r. charge Changed per cent ditforential between Envi ronmental ly inconsequenti al . 5.4-8 Pl ume ambient and blowdown concentrations. Striped Described bass response to chemical Environmentally Inconsequential. Bass plume. Water identifies elements not meeting drinking Envi ronmental ly Inconsequenti al . Quality water standards at 6% Isopleth during periods of extended no flow, included consideration of the more Environmental ly inconsequenti al . stringent of state or federal requirenents. (Tables 5.4-1, 5.5-2 and 5.4-5). 5.4.2 5.4-12 Effects includes discussion of trihalomethanes Envi ronmental ly inconsequenti al . of Blo- (THM's) (Table 5.4-1) . cide Dis-charges 5.4.3 5.4-12a Storm Instead of being directly discharged The incorporation of this system Weter to the Clinch River via catch basins, provides f urther assurance that the storm water collected by the roof and yard final of fluent discharged to the drains is sent via the storm dralnage river via the runot f treatment pond is system to runof f treatment ponds for withIn applicable of fluent standards, settlement and filtering pricr to The of f act is Judged to be environ-discharge to the river. mentally favorable. 5.4.4 No change. 5.4.5 No change.
/ ,j f
i
, ' )
[
- 4 a
l l l l l l i^ l a a a a a a a a T i i i i i i '! i C t t n t n t n t n t n t t n E n h F e e e e e e eu e F u u u u u u u E q q q q q q q q e e s e s es e s es e s e s L s A n n n n n n n n T o o o oc o c o o c o c N c c c c E i n i n i n i n f i r i n i n I n P N y U y ly R ly l ly ly ly ly l I l l l l l l l l V a a a a a a a a N t t t t f t t t E n n n n n n n n e e e e e . e e e n r n r n r n r n r r n n r n r o o o o o o o o r a r r i r i r i r ir ir i i i v v v v v v / v v n n n n n n n n E E E E E E E E e g P R e e. r e4 n a a rBh n n tl w- . d b kcht eeRt C io - v e ia mr n 3 st ni j
, n -
eae U r on ore atl f t si r e w3 s f p ieoa eg ed o i u asat d e gf h r d epe de s t ' hppess ne r y , co an tt e s b F wl sr l er u rp ei ob io d e u t i d rngao h l Ed S l a mt eudht s gs .tu auanp t t l Dn bT ea df nc n tl ca no df e hdsf n ipa r ,aatenei ip E G t d wo waalm ea cl wN e rh et t e in a pnt ef c sx ue t a a N yeol mr n p* stt wi ne xonruf n o dn A f sl l r o ef a ow ug eieol ea n . He s pi u l iusoon ist gat t . t nFf d O r n rrS t dncg ae f l I d f i laeA ff e d e 'eh D . gn leel eaf e oon de F O c b doh ett em t t cel l "s it ne ss . eed aia . c rns ,id a t t ed ti
.l ea sh an s iie nbaesgnu nl ea t v o
N oll dl dr e it" o loi DDr eamseoal imr O ti oaoo ler dt d tf i t os cn ed w e t f t ehf al losv a mn t r
- mp I
witif T e rsr o t ro il t pl i ne re o P gt enet h e . tne eoal ac ail res l d o at px ce b I n n pI pn ph7 emdu ag c dh wuaniaie R aa a . at u re pt e ef wocrsr ee e C hl nonl t r 3 l oee fb u r r ,i a i e D gl S cpobopn gf f tt r ea e tf , vw so t . al E . i i a aon o f s so oh e e
. yh ga le it ral ntl ers Uee Sns e
. ei .
rwt D e g ttl ttl lencl cnp r ani ed ne eI g et g tt s n g g pe mi g c n n i euiue pot d s r rd dd o n n t ssoit t d pr n ase c essa ae a a e s s pt i sa eoo a em h a c wtmrwrne t ast smt t t ah dt i e r pS t eth acic hs ci edi isass h c h c l uesntd m pccnenri tl g aee h c lann gd _ eninr ii eoms sv vdi enm o o msoat aat d vt o t ae N o id Et cucpo ronoef hrn T ci rrii T pl d ie Dr R aE N N oirrouus Cd pt pqge pea UDc N oh m TCa g e r
- l n n cy s sa is t S s tt C t c ye rac ec t ne M ere sa feart l
- E T f rt a cas h ef t pf OOE F e u ' ip om NI at ll P$ I EfI W u D u r E 2 r h h t S - I V , t. 8 1 5 83 67 1 E 1 1 - R - - - - 5 7 77 77 8 5 5 55 55 5 N O 2 1 RI 1 2 1 ET - - _ C E 5 5 5 6 7 7 7 8 8 S 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
^
~
ER SECTION REV ISED ITEM OE50llPfl0N OF CHMGE ENVIRO 4KNTAL EFFECT t a 5.8.2 5.8-2 Water Water consumption updated to reflect Env iroreental ly inconsequent i al . Resources latest estimates. 5.8.3 5.8-2 thru Cor e Replaced hoogeneous oore arrangement Change decreases the heavy metal , , 5.8-4 Desi gn with heterogemous cx>re arrangement commitments in the f uel (U + Pu) , , resulting in reducing the number of f rm 6.5 MT to 4.2 MT. reduces the fuel enrichment zones f ran 2 to 1, stainless steel commitments in the Increasing the Pu enrichment -In the fuel f ran 26.3 MT to 20.7 MT. The fuel f ran 18.7-to-27.1 to 33.25, r educing heavy metal commi tment in the blanket the number of f uel assmblies f ras 198 to went from 21.7 MT (r adi al & axlat ) to 156. This change also increases the 25.2 MT (Inner, radial & axial), and number of bl anket assemblies f rm 150 increases the stainless steel commitment (radi al ) to 208 (Inner and radial). In the blankets f ran 17.3 MT to 26.8 MT. Change judged to be envirornentally inconsequenti al . Revised Pu isotopic composition to be Env ironmental ly Inconsequenti al . simil ar to FFTF grade Instead of char-acteristic of LWR discharge. Revised ref ueling schane f ron annual This results in increasing the total to batch which results in increasing the heavy metal wmmitments based on a once total number of f uel assemblies, required through f uel cycle: f ron 20 MT Pu to 27 MT during pl ant lif e, f rom 2,300 to 2,4271 Pu, fran 210 MT U to 332 MT U and increasing the total number of blanket f ran 410 MT stainless assembl ies f ran 850 to 2,106. steel to 395 MT. If reprocessing is assumed, then the total net heavy metal conmitment of uranium decreases f rom 17.7 MT to 14.2 MT and the net gain of bred plutonium Increases f ran 2.9 MT to 3.2 MT. Change judged to be siIghtly adserse. 5.8.4 No changes. 5.9 5.9-1 Pl ant Fermanent plart acreage is increased. Env irormental ly inconsequenti al . =' Site - e
u g e e t
- u n t i rd ei ns e
t st o h r e a- n
. . . et t , ,h . . lpo . . .
l l l d c yi l t m l l l l a a a ebn a la a a gr a a a _ T i i irf o i i rr og i no i i i C t t t ot d m t t t if t t t E n n nf ee n nf o n r n n n F e e u e rl e u e uep r e u un e u e u e u u 3 F E q e q e uel oa qsatt eati n q e qs eag ql do. eadt i s q e q e q e 2 f L s s sbnne s sb n sceae s s s E A T n o n o n oammr eon n o n oari nisrs oguey o n n o n o G N c c naosr o ct n c ct o co c c c pl A n n n inl n n n P K i i I drai i Inat di ob eoa n I i I N i v n r d a O y ly ysvnn ly yso yol n y l l enoe l em el el l ly ly RI l d ei l d l ti a V N l t a t a lai t n t vf co t a lain t vo laewnc t m oi l t a l t a l t a E n n nooul n noi n sig n n n e o er ri e ert et et o e e e n m npnt c . n mpc nnl cl n n n osu n u r ef uo r o r o oeinrm o r r r oer onl rr f o r o r r o i r ir ir nacsggt iot r ir ns gt iral miset o ir i ir v v van no v van vrcnt v v v E n . E n nhioor ECmt cp E n nh o ECc neaoe EPf cm E n E n E n D g ) E ne c n on g y 4 I in - i m r - ic V ri nt a a t2 E ol oa r oti onir r s h R s t e cuq g y t a c o en p a is na oo et t et p vo a T w d a t r hi nnhi m . Ini r R ob . n an p tl oet n en t g O m ) e a i m o t o c od P a f7 o cg f u oq tpro urm i ye me E r ico ni nn et gS et R E g 2 ot ei itfl t a o d n G o t s i c rr sr ne rs a t n e L N r at n t u eo cnmc iss loi f s A A p ul o pr f t iota sI ei - e oe T N H C t qui ast irsg t ei rn sw de ,tsog ng gd e np r E a ec cnn o ud n yl oni ed io e N F O h t ere n(S soi ecr t em l n cu lai oso r f r oot t i v t r O R l N O t e l l nn eoi d yri et o an ro oi no. or cgm ct no ipoe giit nl oo iso aa f r p e. u a V I a si rpn o pt a ort e io o s lat N T atd a rc ynr cim tp m va E P ic b pe em ou rog loss et ed . P l d n it mh utl cr aio mt reit odun iral t l au ee 2 mcpr f rr nt _ R m I oco sp s a is . n) uu e qe cc d s pe hh2 B S f t t ecn si tT R E . o . nee aon e oo7 srg et aa eg ur( n C D e td iod r t c7 t n mararsm, d o s o g e ssn - 9 ssi s e .i n a h dt ec gu t eaa l rr enr d oo iir d e1 er-t p6 enr d oo ict sot en epapo t rd i sol er t o en d o i sst sec uge c nd pgg vsi a 7 vi ao et eet ivt cnS o an h o a moo orr ouv rl n d e9 ph1 oen rro d cdt a pnnit lee oa rg sa ih n N Cc r g Cpp Pce Ut( Ppm Uiass Dm PI Dci o y r P i t g l n - a
- i n - - u e-g n r bge n c - n -Q - .
y s s o- o 6 n o- i d o- d r o g Uocy cc - una cc nr cc nr t - i r t o y mie M - uni eerg ue - unue eg l d eh v E T eron rti o snoo ait r erou rt iq ot ra eroot rti ra t o el o e nDpr a au I P st M Bl I P PstA Gw PstGw Mo G L&rS a ' u 9 u u 9 D u r 2 r r 3 E r h - h h - S h t t t I t e , , V 4 58 9 9 03 57 8 E 1 1 2 22 2 2 33 33 3 R - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l.
- 6. 66 66 6 6 66 66 6 N 1 2 1 1 2 O
RI 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 4 ET C 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E S 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
OeRP ENVIRONIC'TAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE 23 f ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DE50tlPT10N OF 04ANGE ENVIRONKNTAL EFFECT 6.1.4.3 6.1-39 thru Ter res- Provides update discussion of baseline Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . - 6.3-41 trial terresirlai monitw ing progr e. (Con-Ecology clusions provided in Section 2.7). 6.1-42 Construc- Provides ref erence to on-site construction Env ironme1tal ly inconsequenti al . tion environmental monitoring progrm. Monitoring 6.1.5 No change. 6.1.5.1 6.1-42a thru - Precon- Provides complete description and results Dienge is judged to be slightly f avorable. 6.1-43 struc- of pre-construction radiological (river Provides basis f or leproved determination tion water, groundwater, sedimerit) monitcring of radiological disturbance as monitwed Radiological progrm. during the construction radiological Muni twimj monitoring progr m. 6.2 No change. 6.2.1 6.2.1.1 6.2-1 thru Gaseous Updates plant gaseous of fluent monitoring Change is judged to be slightly f avorable. 6.2-2b Efflu- locations (32 locations f rom 13 locations.) System will provide l ents 1 - stem generator building - continuous monitas at those locations 9 - reactw contalment buildings which could conceivably undergo 2 - reactor service building significant increase in detectable I - redweste area levels 1 - plant service building - periodic sampling f or areas as 12 - turbine generatw buildings necessary. 6 - steam generatw buildings PSB Liquid of fluents go to liquid radweste Environmentally inconsequential. Liquid system for reprocessing. Effluents 6.2.1.2 6.2-3 thru Pre-op- ProvlGes current (atmospheric, terrestrial, Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . 6.2-10 peratiorr aquatic, groundwater) radiological monitoring al Rad- progres f or the pre-operational and lologi- operational phases. cal Monitoring 6.2.2 No change. 6.2.3 No change. 6.2.4 No change. , 6.2.5 No change. 6.3 6.3-1 Other Deletes monitoring stations at TVA's Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . Monitor- Kingston's steam plant and Bull Run steam plant. Ing Programs .
oe n e o t s o
-a nr b t e
sd ef o sme i ye c g t iih nd/ d s tt a sdr oeI d e r eoa gb csCe a r es gs e pt f gua n h m d e nn m l l l
. aet .
hl ol luga c~ hl
. uc Jo aaee h esr l a a a cob a f n0t a ep r cl oa a T i i h I i I 1 oi cd ei C t t it ew;t r bt r e 5 rt E n n n e ym ne s t rx n as sl g an F e u
e u eu e se s i el d0 e F q q q h rru t amq mv9k u aq hio1 h u E t e t pb t q 4 e s e s e s f n0s d e a i 8. e e eR r 2l s cg ea f s e xoeb s 2 L f A n n n ou5 n th n f k . odl 1 n E V o c o c o c t o o b5c scodo nnt ec f aC eeA tth e o 0. uc to G N n n c n A n wl t n V caw 1 bn P K I I i eeoI f t t oigaI dC/l laS l H el f ueo, I m y ly ly f i esn1 y meCtl sl I uy tPB nAC f tht n y ost el R l I l l l al rh ERR o yrl V N t a t a t a d era eh mt tey oa pt m r e d peraa e sa t E n n n nt n - n- n o .h neajn n e e e 7 e tI 0ee iret ih e e m n m n n ib mse7 mn r on 1 th m vbh l bt ruDm coI n r n m o o o oa1 o h ox o nag oenb o r ir ir ce r si t8ei rr eru oo cci u xr r e i i v n v n n v ecmIv h nrn ea1 t v h r f n evr h ah eddt4 v h eni n E E E Tif e Tt1 ae Tf t T ras 9e d t e a ag D E 6. e e . s/ - e I 2h t dg nl i e s p. V t ds e/ eC .c E n en sl d sc . al t R on e sI aC go na g eof o ii d a e o o/ rv t o e . C0 ie c 0 T t cd ee c leb s 4 c e 1 sh o tI C ene0 d e C F S s . r rl n0 I 1 h x iTt v ed h g av i h t 0, s E u d e t o .d t s~ h a 0 a R E n e t r0 sx a 2 r e a0 ed3 e G ie t u e0 n6 pBt ine1 srn r L N r e p t a 0, h2 I tRu C s r cx raam e o c r. A A d a m n6 l T H e e o w3 no n j nn t g r f N C nXI d c 5 o ot eod oI 5 eotf y io E F ia s n f o d3 e t t a itd ae . mt r ide a i t s aa 2 mlof 3 t N O t t t s rf0t i O nn o ai rg rsg aer . rh e pe80f c R N oe i n t/ tne/ a I t vae t a a . pm O cm t o l t t nl no g nrr h 0, omsn I V I d a i i n eC erC eef l t m0 ap N T an l t re c cc c na ct o 0, cg lesr q0 ng E P t e u p t soh nag m s. o _ P P i m am.s dA l c a i r . cs f ob orl 1 c k1 0 l ti c leeas nt ow/ c kC l caf 9 kg 3 l w0 o1 _ B S yyn gbo c se t v0 i n ux mn cnl ouhi mn u nct o auf t f n a t _G _ E D o i e dt ei e nn0 iuax T sptt ig t s pr r dt s i g u e 0, lf5 t 5 ems t 0 0e mf o o loea o sl n i2 irg e2 b oot i e1 ed0s u p rdt oiu d tb ei a h me0 ah5 r t t a i cpc r e rg t ax ge ag 0, ea pmp R e evp a t om ero t e aa d p pa c o e h of t4 ea eom h r ht r r cStl sPnf eA ee eo2 ht6 r rn1 r oa thon pg c m u0 l a Mpc B Uc N Tt o Tf TSf DRd r Ts Scti S5 t n e m r e o r r i i F s e s v
- - i - e t e n n g smr M
roy eg d oy h g esy m amv1 e) 8 e d erkk2 a ) S aeu) E n E t o t o ld a l eul nt ona P dwt sil 1 i T el el on t ra2 oat ae2 A aya3 r I Mo Mo SA SDV( CsSTL( R RSF( e b m u _ n D u u E r 8 r t S h - h n I t t e - V , 4 d E 2 26 6 7 91 i R - - - - - - - c 1 1 1 1 1 1 c
- l. a 7 77 7 7 77
- t o N 1 2 3 1 2 3 r - O e RI 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 ET l. f C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 e E R S 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
- GBRP ENVIRONENTAL REPORT REVICJ PAGE 25 e
ER DESmifil0N OF CHANGE ENVIRON ENTAL EFFECT SECTION RD ISED ITEM
- Liquid Tritium concentration in storage tank water The combined of f ect of these changes is Radr aste has increased due to change in Interf ace to increase the site boundary whole body System diffusioncoejficients. Concentration is dose f rm jhls postulated gccident to Tank now .62 x 10 Cl/g in SGS. 2.13 x 10~ frm 5.0 x 10- arm; both are (3.2) env ironmental l y inconsequenti al .
Spill cleanup time is reduced to 6.7 hours by using higher capacity sump pumps. RAPS Accident redef ined due to relocation of The envirornental ef f ects are judged to be Nobl e RAPS components. f avor abl e. Gas Stor-age vessel Rupture (3.3) Rupture Del eted. Noble Gas Stcrage Vessel Rupture of Equal- replaces Equalization Line Rupture as Iz ation enveloping postulated accident for the RG. Line (3.4) 7.1.2.4 7.1-14 thru Sodlum Analyses revised to update computations. For Accident 4.1, the resul tagt whole body 7.1-20 Fire dose Increpses f ra 1.4 x 10 res to Accidents 2.37 x 10~. For Accident 4.2 the 2whole (4.1) body dose dec5 eases f rom i.5 x 10 to 8.75 x 10- rems. ( 4.2 ) Both are environmentally inconsequential. 7.1.2.5 7.1-22 thru Fuel The current plant des!gn has a higher purge The net ef f ect of the changes is to 7.l-24 Fail ures rate of the cover gas which has reduced the reduce the site bgundary whole body ( 5.1 ) available Xenon and Krypton activity to dosg to 8.4 x 10' mre f rca 3.4 x
%,600 CI f rom 65,816 Cl. 10" mrm; both are envirormentally ' - Inconseque nti al .
e i
OtBRP ENVIRMIENTAL REPORT REYIED PAGE 26 ER DESGIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRWKNTAL EFFECT SECTION REVISED ITEM A revised DBL for the steen generator The net et f ect of the changes is to Steam Generator results in 465 lbs of sodlum mixing with increase the site boundary wholeydy dose Tube with water Instead of 337 lbs. of soditsn. to 8.3 x 10 2 mren f ran 2.1 x 10 mran: Rupture The triti concentration In SGS Is now both are insigni f icant. ( 5.2 ) .62 x 10 Cl/g and in the IHTS is
.13 x 10 Cl/g.
Deleted the centrif ugal separator f ran This change is judged to be adverse, the Sodlum-Water Reactor Pressure Relief since thle could potentially Subsystem (WRPRS). resul t in the release of more soditsn-water reaction particulates into the a tmospher e. The duration of the SWRfR venting to the No change to estimated envirorynental atmosphere was increased f ran 15 to 28 ef f ect s. seconds as a result of an updated TRANWRAP code analysis of this event. This more detalled analyst s tracks the primary sodlum which might leak into the Intermediate sodium, it considers the length of piping between the IHX and the superheater Inlet, and the reduced sodlum flow during blowdown and predicts that no primary sodlum will reach the superheater during thi s event f or subsequent, release to the atmosphere. 4.
@BRP ENVIRONENTAL RER)RT REVIED PAGE 37
. t ER ITEM DESmlFil0N OF CHMiGE ENVIRCNKNTAL EFFECT SECTION REVISED Earliest scheduled time f or f uel assembl y The combined ef f ect of the changes is to 7.3.2.6 7.l-26 thru - Spent 7.1-31 Fuel handling is increased to 8 days f rm 87 Increase the sgte boundary whole bgdy dose
' Cladding hours, f rca 1.5 x 10 mre to 2.13 x 10~ mrm; Fall ure both are enviromentally Inconsequential.
In the Revised ORIGEN isotope library was used EVTM to generate f ission product inventories. (6.1) Spent The same changes that applied to Accident The net resul t of the changes is to Fuel 6.1 apply here. Increase the site boundary whole body C1 adding dose f or thIs postuiated accident f rce Fallure 1.5 mre to 2.1 mrm, both are environ-In the EVTM mentally Inconsequential. f6.2) Accident- Revised ORIGEN lsotope library was used The combined ef f ect of the changes to ally to generate f ission product inventories increase the site boundary whole body Opening Revisions were based on neuer calculational dose to 1.08 mrm f ran .07 mrms both a Fl oor schemes. are envirormentally Inconsequential. Yal ve (6.3) Spent Isotope Inventories were revised using The combined ef f ect of the changes is to 7.3.2.7 7.1-32 Fuel updated ORIGEN l ibrarles. The ORIGEN decrease thgsite boundary wholeydy dose Cask changes were due to revisions in the to 2.8 x 10 mre f rm 9.3 x 10 mrem; Drop library calculational schmes. both are environmentally inconsequential. (7.1) The f uel has undergone an 80 day cooling period Instead of 100 days. The loading is changed to 6 f uel assemblies and 3 blanket assemblies f rca 5 and 4, respectively.
~ ,
9 4
OBRP ENVIRONENTAL REIVRT REVIED PAGE 28 ER SECTION REYlSED ITEM DE50tlFTl0N OF DiMGE DdVIRONENTAL EFFECT 7.l.2.8 7.1-33 thru. Primary Primary sodlum isotope inventcry has The combined etf ect of the changes is to changed due to revisions in the ORIGEN reduce the si tg boundary whole ,gdy b dose 7.1-43 Sodlue Dr ai n library calculational schones. from 9.7 x 10 r m to 8.4 x 10 rm; Tank both are envirorvnentally Inconsequential. Fail ure Cell 102A dimensions have changed. Fo . ( 8.1 ) exmple, the cell yolume is 45,000 f t.3 and was 68,000 f t. The potential sodlum spill volume has increased to 35,000 gal 1ons f ran 32,000 galIons. Primary The postulated sodlum spill has been The ombined ef f ect of the changes is to Coolant reduced to 135,000 lbs. from 193,000. Increase the s f ran 8.3 x 10 jte rem. boundary whole bgdy dose Sodlun it was conservatively assumed that the to 1.25 x 10- rem; Spill aerosol leaked to the RCB was vented both are environmentally inconsequential. ( 8.2 ) directly to the environment. Pr ev iously a leak rate of .1 volf/ day at 10 psig. was assumed as the leak rate. Ex-Con- The postulated spill has been reduced The net of feet of the changes Is to reduce tal ment f rom 90,000 gal to 45,000 gal, of sodlum. the sitegundary whcle bog dose f ran Primary This is the result of a f allure of one of 1,5 x 10 ren to 4.2 x 10 ren; both are Coolant two storage vessels in the cell rather ...vironmental ly inconsequenti al . Sodlum tw o.
- Spill
( 8.3) The leak rate of aerosol was based on the cell design leak rate of .6 vol%/ day at 3.9 psig. rather than 100 vol%/ day at 10 psig which was previously used. Ex-Ves- Aerosol leakage to the RS8 from the cell The net of f act is to increase the site 4 sel Stor- was calculated based on a cell design boundary whole bo age Tank leak rate of .36 vol5/ day at 12 psig. mren to 4.3 x 10 gymrom; doseboth f romare2.1 x 10-Coolant rather than 100 vol%/ day at 10 psig. env i rorunental l y I nconseq uent i al . Rupture This approach will release less aerosol ( 8.4 ) into the environment. Cell dimensions
- were updated.
Large The combined ef fect is to increase the The SGS tritium conc 4ntration has In- site boundary whole body dose to 4.7 mram S team creegd to .62 x 10 CI/g from .25 f rom 1.9 mrem; both are envirorunentally Line x 10 Cl/g. This Is the result of Break changes in dif f uslon cx>ef fIcients across inconsequenti al . ( 8.5 ) system Interf ace boundarles. The newer design basis results in 312,000 lbs. of water being released f ran the fRV Instead of 479,000 lbs. The power relief vent period has been increased f rom 1.5 to 5.7 hours.
@BRP ENVIRmKNTAL REPORT REVIEJ PAGE 39 e
ER ENVIRONENTAl. EFFECT SECTION REVISED ITEN DES @lPTION OF OMNGE 7.1.3 No change. 7.2.1 7.2-1 Hydrogen The total enount of hydrogen gas stored has Environmental ly inconsequenti al . Gas not changed; however, the vol ume has been Stcrage restated in terms of standard volume (28,000 SCF) rather than bottled storage capacity. Oli and Systems /Bulldings involved with the incorporation of these f eatures in station 7.2.2 7.2-Sa, -5b design provides f urther protection against Haz ar d- storage, transf er, or loading / unloading ous of any oil or hazardous material are spill of oil and hazardous material Materi al provided with secondary contalrunent reaching the local envirorunent. systems capable of containing the Env i rorunental l y i nconsequent i al . Spills ; largest source of an oil or hazardous ! material spill without any adverse l envirotunental Impact. I l i l l e 8
r - - - - GBRP ENVIRO 4KNTAL REPORT REVIED PAGE 30 ER SECTION REVISED ITEN DESmiPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONENTAL EFFECT 8.0 , No change. 8.1 8.1-1 thru Socio- Complete assessment of soclo-econcule This change Is judged to be slightly 8.2 8.3-22 oconomic paraneters of DERP plant construction f avorable, it provides current data 8.3 and operation is provided. The assess- base for evaluation of socio-economic ment is based on current construction assessment. manpower requirements,1980 census and 1981 ccumunity service and Inf ra-structure data. e e
OERP ENVIRmtENTAL RER)RT REVIED PAGE 31
. e ER REV ISED ITEM DES 011FT40N OF OtANGE ENVIRmKNTAL EFFECT SECTION 9.1-1 This section has been revised to ref- Env i rorunental ly inconsequent i al .
9.1 Al ter-na ti v e erence the supplanent to the LWBR Progran Approaches Final Envirorumental Statement (PFES). 9.2 To Be Provided Al ter- This section will be addressed in the Envirormental ly Inconsequenti al . na tive supplanent to the LWBR Program Final Sites & Env irorsnental Statement (FES). Pl ant Arrangements For discussion of Hook-on arrangements ref er to response to Question 320.lR and 320.2R. Further discussion of candidate sites will be provided in the r.oor f uture. Section 9.2.5.3.4 will be updated to reflect response to Question 230.5R. S.
GBRP ENVIRONENTAL REPORT REVIED PAGE 32 f ER REVISED ITEM DESmlPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRO 4 ENTAL EFFECT SECTION 10 10.0-1 Plant Design Revised to establish position that the Env ironmental l y inconsequent i al . Al ternati ves the relative ef f ectiveness rankings of the various design al ternatives have not changed over the past f Ive years, and that a compre-hensive update of all the al ternatives is not r equ i r ed. The descriptions of the chosen alternatives were updated to be consistent with the rest of the ER. 10.1 10.1-9 Cooling Updated description of the mechanical draf t Env ironmental ly Incon sequent i al . System wet cooling tower in a linear arrangement. 1 0.1-21 " Deleted discussion of relative merits of Env ironmental ly Inconsequent i al . circular versus linear cell array since the linear arrangement has been selected. 10.2 10.2-14 Intake Revised discussion of entraInment ef f ects Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . Systen to Indicate that studies are now complete and the ef f ects are acceptable. 10.2-18 Updated to reflect omnpletion of basellne Env ironmental ly inconsequential . surveys. Game fish species present went f rom 2 to 3. , 10.2-20 Deleted ref erence to baseline surveys being in progress. Revised to include results of completed studies. 10.3 10.5-1, -2 Di sch arge Revised to update Clinch River parameters Env i ronmental ly inconsequenti al . System and specify requirenent f or discharges to comply with NPDES Permit limitations. 10.3-5 increase pipe dinneter f rom 12 to 20 Env i ronmental l y Inconsequenti al . - Inch diameter. 10.4 10.4-1 Waste water Revised throughout to change system Env ironmental ly Inconsequenti al . thru 10.4-18 Treatment designation f ran Chemical Waste Treatment System to Waste Water Treatment. Updated the dis-cussion of waste streams, the description of the process, the al ternatives and the bases f or selecting the chosen system. 10.5 10.5-6,-7 Blocide Revised discussion of blowdown flow control Env ironmental ly Inconsequenti al . Syst em to assure control of high chl orine concen-tr ati on. Updated' flow rates. i 10.6 10.6-1 thru Sani tary Revised to include discussion of an Env ironmentally Inconsequent i al . 10.6-10a W aste extended aeration / chlorination system System that is the current chosen al ternative.
GBRP ENVIRCNENTAL REFORT REVIEW PAGE 33 ER REVISED ITEM DESmlPTION OF CHMiGE ENVIRONENTAL EFFECT SECT ION 10.7 10.7-l a . Liquid incorporated ref erence to Section 3.5 Env ironmental ly Inconsequent i al . Radmaste
-4 System Update maponent designations and system Env irormental ly Inconsequenti al .
detalls. 10.8 10.8-1 Gaseous incorporated System 6, patterned af ter the Change Judged to have a slightly thru Radwaste FFTF system, as the chosen system. negative environmental of f ect. 10.8-12e System Editorial changes to assure proper
- designation of System 4 as the " originally selocted" system.
10.9 Transmission No change. FacilItles
. 10.10 10.10-2 Other Revised to provide for three diesel Env iroreental ly Inconsequenti al .
System generator units. O e 4 9
O l l 0 m W W w - Z A Y 5 a_ 5 . E 5 2 G_ e . w k z 5 6 8 5, 5 6 C & 5 m m 6 8 4 m 5 E X Y Q W t_1 a a_ 5 b w M ==
OlBRP ENVIROdKNTAL REPORT REYlEW PAGE 35
, s ER DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONENTAL EFFECT SECTION REVISED ITEM 12.0-1 thru , Perm i ts Provides revised listing of Non-NRC No changes in estimated envirormental 12 12.0-7 permits, purpose, legislation, and ef f ects due to this tabulation.
regulation enacting permit approval cr notification. t e 9 9
6 T C E F F . E s 6 t 3 L c
' A e E T f G N f A e P M l O a R t I n V e N
E rn o r i v n e o N t . D s I e V c E n R e r T e R f U e F r E R E e G t L N a A A i T i r N O p o M F r O p O p R N a I O 6 V I e N T d E P I u l P c R G n - B S i E G D t o e t d a p U rs M ee f c E T en I R e u . D r E h S t I 0 V 35 E - - R 00 33 1 1 N O mT I C E 3 S 1
CRBRP ENVIRONKNTAL REFORT REVIED PAGE 37 f ER SECTION REV IS ED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRON K NTAL EFFECT 14 14.1-2 thru, Clean incorporates 1977 amendment to the State The change is judged to be slightly ( Appen- 14.1- 81 Water of Tennessee water Quality Criteria f avor abl e. It provides criterla f or dix to Act of Incorporates the 1977 clenn water act CRBRP design f or reduction of impact on Section 1977 enenenents to the Federal Water Fbilution the envirorenent. 2.5) Control Act, 14 14.5-3 Sauger Provides update Information on spawning No environmental ef f ects. ( Appen- of sauger.
. dix to Section 2.7) 14 14.4-1 Dose Deleted. incorporated into revised Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al .
( Appen- Cal cul ati on Section 5.2 dix to Models Sections 5.2 and 5.33 14 14.6-3 Cooling Updates cooling tower blowdown rate The increase in cooling tower blordown ( Appen- Tower provides current design blowdown Is judged to be insigni f icant compared dix to temperature values. to the Cl inch River flow rate. Section 10.3) Appendix C-1 thru Soclo-Eco- Reports the results of a qualitative C C-71 nomic assessment of the socio-economic of f acts of GBRP construction and operation assuming Irmover migration rates of 265 and 405. The of f ects of the 1981 assessment are compared to those estimated in 1976. Indicator Difference (1980-1976) for 265 for 40% Population 800 1840 Environmentallyinconsequential Housing 456 92 4 Housing demand for 40$ Inmover case may create tight housing market Education Students 97 321 Env ironmental ly Inconsequenti al Cl assroons 1 11 Env irormental ly inconsequenti al Health Care Hosp. Beds -2 - Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al Drs.&Denti sts e- 1 Environmental ly Inconsequenti al
DERP ENVlCONENTAL PEPORT REVIEW PAGE 38 f ER RtylSED ITEN DES 0tlFil0N OF 04ANGE ENYlRONENTAL EFFECT SECTION Public Saf ety Date not comparable El
~
3 El Water Supply 53 161 (10 gpd) Waste Disposal Liquid wastes 60 1 84 (1(gpd) El Solid Westes 31 74 (10 f/d) El Ccamuter Traf fic B to C to Level of Change Judged to be only slightly C .D of Ser- adv er se. Ef f ects are mitigated by vice possible use of staggered shif ts, Level of service on SR recent intersection Improvenents, etc. 95 between I-40 and Bear Creek'Rd. could be Level E during peak commuter times Expenditures Changes discussed else- Envirormentally inconsequential end Revenues where In ER 0 I L
Amand. XV June 1982 OUESTION 240.2R Information Requirements Relating to Liquid Pathway Releases Calculate the radiological consequences of a liquid pathway release from a postulated core melt accident. The analysis should assume, unless otherwise justified, that there has been a penetration of the reactor basemat by the molten core mass and that a substantial portion of core debris was released to the ground. Doses should be compared to those calculated in the NRC Liquid Pathway Generic Study ( NUREG-0 4 40, 197 8) . Provide a summary of your analysis procedures and the values of parameters used (such as permeabilities, gradients, populations affected, water use). It is suggested that meetings with the staff of the NRC Hydrologic Engineering Section be arranged so that we may share with you the body of information necessary to perform this analysis. ESEQUE I l The Clinch River Breeder Reactor has been designed to prevent initiators and event sequences which might lead to a core melt. Nonetheless, the project has evaluated hypothetical core disruptive accidents and has concluded that a postulated core melt resulting in penetration of the reactor vessel and guard i vessel will not penetrate the basemat and enter the earth below. However, in' order to provide a conservative assessment of the radiological consequences of a liquid pathway release following core melt, complete basemat penetration is assumed to occur. In l the approach taken here, the more significant parameters and models used in.NUREG-0440 to evaluate a liquid pathway release following the core melt of a land-based plant are compared to the corresponding parameters and models used for CRBRP. Q240.2R-1
Pogs 11 (82-0409) [7,1] #160 AMEND. XV Juns 1982 WI,th the exception of Cd-113 and Pu-238, the equilibrium core inventory values listed in NUREG-0440 are on the order of about 2 to 32 times higher than those for CRBRP (See Table 1). The slightly, larger CRBRP plutonium-238 inventory would not significantly influence the outcome of the overall dose comparison of NUREG-0440 to CRBRP. The radionuclide leach mechanism modeled in NUREG-0440 would be applicable to CRBRP, since the chemical form of a postulated CRBRP core melt would be essentially the same as that for a simliar LWR core melt. Paremeters relating to the movement of radionuclides leached into the groundwater system are tabulated in Tabl e 11. Further pertinent data can be found in the Geology and Hydrology Sections (2.4 and 2.5) of the CRBRP Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. The radionuclide transport river model used in NUREG-0440 was based on studies of the Clinch-Tennessee-Ohio-Mississippi River systems. Therefore the model is appropriate for CRBRP which is located on the Clinch River. Although the combined sport and commerical harvest of fish expected downstream of the CRBRP site is approximately an order of magnitude larger than that assumed in NUREG-0440 (see response to NRC questions 240.6R and 290.7R, and NUREG-0440, Section 4.3.3.1), the total population dose from a hypothetical melt-through for e particular source would not be changed by more than about a factor of 2 (see NUREG-0660, Table 6.2.17). l l In summary, the contained radionuclide source in the postulated CRBRP core melt would be significantly less than the source hypothesized for the NUREG-0440 study. In addition, the i transportation of radionuclides via groundwater at the CRBRP site would be bounded by the assumptions of NUREG-0440, and the Q240.2R-2 .
~ ,
a - , - ,
Amend. XV June 1982 small river transport and dose conversion models from NUREG-0440 are appropriate for assessing CRBRP. Therefore, it is concluded that the doses from the postulated CRBRP core melt would fall within those calculated in NUREG-0440 for a LWR on a small river site. i l l - Q240.2R-3
Pega 13 (82-0409) [7,1] #160 AMEND. XV
. June 1982 TABLE I.
RADIONUCLIDE SOURCE TERM COMPARISON lsotope NUREG-0440 CRBRP Ratio LWR Core Core Inventory NUREG Value inventory Ered of Cycl e CRBR Value (Cl) (Cl) l ---------------------------------------------------------------- l 1 3 H 5.9x10 4 2.34x104 3 89 Sr 9.2x10 7 1.60x107 6 9'0 Sr 6.1x10 6 6.79x105 9 90 y 6.4x10 6 7.11x105 9 91 y 1.2x10 8 2.04x107 6 95 Nb 1.7x10 8 3.48x107 5 103 Ru 1.4x10 8 5.26x107 3 103m Rh 1.4x10 8 5.26x107 3 105 Rh 6.7x10 7 3.85x107 2 106 Rh 7.6x10 7 1.96x107 4 106 Ru 5.1x10 7 1.96x107 3 110m Ag 3.5x10 5 4.33x104 8 111m Ag 4.3x10 6 2.57x106 2 113m 1.0x10 3 1.91x103 1/2 Cd 115m Cd 6.2x10 4 3.55x104 2
'I'Cd 8.8x10 5 5.46x105 2 123 Sn 9.4x10 5 3.62x105 3 125 Sn 1.5x10 6 7.58x105 2 125 Sb 7.4x105 3.96x105 2 125m Te 2.5x10 5 7.88x104 3 127 Sb 8.3x10 6 3.76x106 2 Q240.2R-4
~ ' " ' ' ~ ~
82-0350 Pogs 14 (82-0409) [7,1] #160 AMEND. XV Juno 1982 I l TABLE I. (Continued) RADIONUCLlDE SOURCE TERM COMPARISON isotope NUREG-0440 CRBRP Ratio LWR Core Core inventory NUREG Value inventory End of Cycle CRBR Value (Cl) (Cl) 127m Te 1.6x10 6 5.40x105 3 127 Te 8.1x10 6 3.69x106 2 129m Te 6.6x10 6 2.65x106 2 129 Te 3.9x10 7 9.71x106 4 6.7x10~I 4 129l 2.9 131l 1.0x10 8 3.00x107 3 132 Te 1.4x10 8 4.00x107 4 133 1 1.9x10 8 5.15x107 4 134 Cs 2.1x10 7 6.60x105 32 136 Cs 5.8x10 6 2.65x106 2 137 Cs 8.6x106 1.70x106 5 140 Ba 1.8x10 8 4.19x107 4 140 La 1.8x10 8 4.22x107 4 l 141 Ce 1.7x10 8 4.29x107 4 144 Ce 1.1x10 8 2.02x107 5 144 Pr 1.1x10 8 2.02x107 5 238 Pu 2.5x10 5 3.29x105 4/5 239 Np 2.1x10 9 9.48x108 2 1 Q240.2R-5
Amend. XV June 1982 TABLE II SITE SPECIFIC PARAMETER COMPARISON CRBRP NUREG Site Specific 0440 Parameter Value Value Length in feet 1600 1500 from core base-
- mat melt point to river.
l Average soil .3 .2 porosity (measured values, 5 to 33%) Permeability 2000 ft/yr 2446 ft/yr (flow velocity) (1510 highest measured) or or 6.56 ft/ day 6.7 ft/ day 0240.2R-6
Amend. XV June 1982 OUESTION 290.2R (NRC letter dated 10/26/81, response dated 12/22/81) Describe any changes in station design that would result in a, change in the water quality of the station blowdown or stations water use, or in water intake or discharge structures. RES PONSE The only significant change in station design has been the redesign of the Waste Water Disposal System. Previously, station wastes were handled as follows:
- 1. Floor and equipment drainage wastes were treated and discharged to the Cooling Tower Basin.
- 2. Process water wastes (primarily ion exchange regeneration wastes) were treated, integrated with Cooling Tower Basin Blowdown and discharged to the river.
Presently, the design provides for pretreatment of segregated waste streams as follows: ,
- 1. Floor and equipment drainage is processed by an oil / water separator
- 2. Process water wastes are neutralized
- 3. Clarifier blowdowns and filter backwashes are routed to sludge lagoons.
These waste streams are routed to the equalization basins ~for equalization of chemical characteristics and temperature. Q290.2R-1
Amend. XV l June 1982 l Following equalization, plant wastes are processed by the Waste Water Disposal System to meet the following NPDES Permit effluent limits; I I Oil and Grease: 15 mg/l daily average, 20 mg/l daily max., Total Suspended Solids: 30 mg/l daily average, 100 mg/l daily max., PH: Shall not be less than 6.0 nor greater than 9.0, and there shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
- Thereafter, the plant wastes are either blended with Cooling Tower Basin blowdown for discharge to the river, or recycled to the Cooling Tower Basins as makeup to the Circulating Water System. While this change to station design will result in a significant improvement to the water quality of the individual waste streams, the impact on station blowdown will be minimal since these wastes streams combine with the cooling tower blowdown which has a very large flow rate.
Station water use, and consequently discharge to the river, has increased by approximately 5% due to refinement in design numbers resultins from design development. This increase has not impacted the design of water intake or discharge structures. l I l . l t f 0290.2R-2
~ - - ,
Amend. XV June 1982 QUcstion_22Q,1B (NRC letter dated 10/26/82. Response letter dated 12/22/81) Identify and make available for staff inspection . during the site visit any new or updated information pertaining to water quality, water use, aquatic, biology, or terrestrial resources in the vicinity of the site published or generally available since submission of the ER. Sources of this inf ormation should include, but
. not limited to, DOE, ORNL, TVA, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, State of Tennessee, U.S.
Department of the Interior, local governments, or regional planning groups.
RESPONSE
An evaluation of the current aquatic and terrestrial ecological status of the Clinch River site was transmitted to the NRC on October 16, 1981, as part of Amendment IX to the Environmental Report. This evaluation included data from recent generally available ecological studies made by such organizations as ORNL, the Tennessee Technological University, TVA and similar , organizations. A bibliography of the sources cited in support of that evaluation was provided in revised Section 13 of the ER. New sources added as part of the revision were identified in the margins of the replacement pages. These added studies constitute the principal sources of new and updated information pertaining to the aquatic, biological or terrestrial resources in the vicinity of the site. This and other material as well as staff expertise in the areas of interest were made available during the NRC site visit on October 27, 1981. 02 9 0. 3 R-1
AMEND. XV June 1982 Ouestion 290.4R (NRC letter dated 10/26/81. resoonse letter dated 12/22/81) Identify and describe any post 1976 differences . in use of the Clinch River by others. Provide current plans of TVA for regulation of flow in the Clinch River noting especially any plans for maintenance of a minimum flow past the site. RESPONSE ' Environmental Report Tables 2.2-15 and 8.1-16 (Amendment X) provide recent industrial and municipal supply capacity and use. There has been no significant change in the industrial water supplies within a 20 mile radius of the Site since 1976. Most municipal water systems have increased their capacities in . Anderson, Roane and Knox counties while Loudon county has remained unchanged. Recent Clinch River flow hydrology is provided in Section 2.5 of the ER (Amendment IX). Periods.of zero release from the.Melten Hill Dam are identified in Table 2.5-2. At this time TVA has no plans to maintain a minimum flow (discharge) from Melton Hi-ll Dam. 1 0290.4R-1
m Juno 1982 QuestioD_22Q,5B (NRC letter dated 10/26/81, response letter dated 12/22/81) Provide any additional information on the - population levels, spawning activity, or other site specific information on Corbicula sp. known to inhabit the Clinch River in the vicinity of the site. T< ES PONSE Benthic macroinvertebrate f auna in the vicinity of the proposed CRBRP was sampled on a monthly basis in 1975 and a seasonal basis in 1976 and 1977 using a Ponar grab sampler. C9Ibispla caDil2Dsis was collected more f requently than any other taxa during all three years. Percent occurrence for CoIbicula DDDilcDsis was 91, 81, and 75 percent for 1975, 1976, and 1977, respectively. Abundance of CoIbispla ranged f rom 0.0/m2 at several stations to 141.3/m 2 at CRM 19.0 in September 1976 (Ref.
- 1) .
The relatively low density of CoIbicula in the vicinity of the CRBRP site is primarily because of the predominance of hardpan , substrate, deep water, and cold releases from Melton Hill Dam. Spawning generally begins when water warms to about 16 0 C in the spring and continues intermittently until late autumn. Although the abundance of CoIbigula is low at the plant site, there are large populations of asiatic clams in overbank areas upstream, and these can be expected to contribute large numbers of larvae near the CRBRP site. Ref. 1 This information is taken from Ref. 111 listed in Chapter 13 of the ER (Amend. IX), which is: Woosley, L. H., Jr., Taylor, M. P., Toole, T. W. and Wells, S. R., Status _9t_tbe_BoDIndiolo912al WateI Quality _aod_BoDtisbeIies_ Biological _ Communities _iD_tbe Cli D cb_Bl ysI_ EIl oI_t o_ cod st r u sti oD _of _t b e_ Clin s b_ Bi yer Diced 2I_BeactoI_ElADit_lE15:1118, Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee and Muscle Shoals, Alabama, February 1979, 143 pp. and appendices. 290.5R-1
Amend. XV Juno 1982 Quest 19D_21046B (NRC letter 10/26/81, response letter dated 12/22/81) Provide an estimate of the maximum probable yearly recreational harvest of finfish, shellfish, and molluscs harvested from waters downstream of the station to the Mississippi River that potentially could be contaminated by radionuclides due to a maximum probable accident. The harvest estimates should be
. summarized by species and location of capture (water body segment) and provide an explanation of how the estimate was obtained.
RESPONSE
I The Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant has been designed such that no " maximum probable accident" can result in significar.t radionuclide release to the adjacent water body. Even so the requested estimates are provided. Estimates of maximum sport fish harvest of individual species were obtained from most recent creel data available for Watts Bar, Chickamauga, Nickajack, Wheeler, and Kentucky Reservoirs.
, These estimates have been increased by 40% to conservatively account for the uncertainty of the information. While harvests from individual bodies of water may exceed the estimated total, the system-wide total is considered realistic. Total harvests were then estimated for Guntersville, Wilson, and Pickwick Reservoirs based on harvest in adjacent reservoirs and a subjective comparison of the relative quality of their fisheries (Table 290.6R-1) .
There is no known harvest of shellfish or molluscs f or sport in the Tennessee Valley. 02 90. 6 R-1
Am nd. XV Juna 1982 Since a conservative margin of 40% has been applied to the inf ormation gathered on sport fish harvests and since the approximately 40 mile reach of the Ohio River between,its mouth and the mouth of the Tennessee River represents less than 10% of the total river miles considered, it is concluded that the - absence of specific fisheries inf ormation for the Ohio River will not seriously affect the information presented here. Furthermore, this portion of the river is f arthest f rom the Plant site (approximately 580 river miles) and therefore, would receive the greatest benefit f rom the ef fects of dilution. e Q2 9 0. 6 R-2 t
o TABLE 290.6R MAXIMUM PROBABLE SPORT FISHING HARVEST IN THE TENNESSEE RIVER BELOW CRBRP SITE Species Harvest Pounds Grand Total 4 - _ _ _ __. .=- 5
, Watts Chick- Nick- Gunters- Wheeler Wilson Pickwick Kentucky Reser-Bar mauga ajack ville Reservoir Reservoir Reseroir voir & Tailwaters i Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir R,eservoir Paddlefish 1,764 2,440 732 28,064 I Buffalo 11,956 600 Carp 2,940 5,612 2,928 145,716 -
oN Flathead
- Catfish 1,176 25,376 2,562 902 98,070
$ Blue
& Catfish 11,466 6,954 5,884 741,039 Channel Catfish 50,568 14,823 39,780 369,735 Bullhead 183 263 6,500 Drum 6,762 6,588 28,182 1,824 119,613 Rainbow Trout 264 183 600 Striped Bass 15,876 33,916 732 8,064 White Bass 27,048 28,548 6,588 4,248 225,678 N5 G$
Sn M
. o TABLE 290.6R MAXIMUM PROBABLE SPORT FISHING llARVEST IN Tile TENNESSEE RIVER BELOW CRBRP SITE liarvest Founds Grand
. Species Total
- _ _ - - - = - - - - - - - -
Watts Chick- Nick- Gunters- Wheeler Wilson Pickwick Kentucky Reser-Bar mauga ajack ville Reservoir Reservoir Reseroir voir & Tailwaters Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir Yellow 9,864 Bass 294 488 5,307 . 28,812 24,400 1,098 150 1,066,810 Sauger i gj Largemouth 209,664
. Bass 48,216 33,184 21,777 15,961
$ e Smallmouth
#' 3,172 183 4,869 4,032 i Bass 8,820 Spotted 20,160 Bass 294 4,880 1,647 75 White 1,559,803 Crappie 51,450 36,600 28,300 100,730 Black 28,224 Crappie 2,940 4,636 1,098 33,516 17,080 54,351 8,422 135,456 Blue Gill Red Ear 90 Sun [ish 244 12,444 1,541 Other bI k Sun [ish 4,148 2,013 1,578 16,428 y@
U$ E
?!
l TABLE 290.6R-1 - MAXIMUM PROBABLE SPOR 7 FISHING HARVEST N DIE TENNESSEE RIVER BELOW CRBRP SITE Species Harvest Pounds Grand Total
- - - --- ==_----- =--_ _ _
- l Watts Chick- Nick- Gunters- Wheeler Wilson Pickwick Kentucky Reser-Bar mauga ajack ville Reservoir Reservoir Reseroir voir & Tailwaters Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir Rock Bass 732 620 740 o
y Wall Eye 1,764 732 183 20 .
,o -- -- -- - - _ _ - - _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ __ __ _ _
d, 294,000 244,000 193,000 280,000 187,000 119,000 252,000 4,795,000 6,354,000 i a. Q.
- "E
- L5
Amand. XV June 1982 QMSDilDD_22Q,2B (NRC letter dated 10/26/81, response letter dated 12/22/81) Using data from the last 5 years from National Marine Fisheries, or the States within the Tennessee and tower Ohio watersheds, provide an estimate of the maximum probable yearly commercial harvest of finfish, shellfish, and molluscs harvested f rom waters downstream of the station to the Mississippi River that . potentially could be contaminated by radionuclides due to a maximum probable accident. The harvest estimates should be summarized by species and location of capture (water body segment). Provide an explanation of how the estimate was made. RES PONS E The Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant has been designed such that no " maximum probable accident" can result in significant radionuclide release to the adjacent water body. Even so the requested estimates are provided. , Commercial fish harvest estimates were made by taking most recent harvest data f or each region of the Valley. These estimates have been increased by 40% to conservatively account f or the uncertainty of the inf ormation. The estimates are then apportioned among the reservoirs of each region, based on the knowledge of the standing crop of fish in each reservoir and data from individual fish markets serving each reservoir (Table 290.7R-1). There is no known shellfish or mollusc harvest for food in the Tennessee Valley. Shells of f reshwater mussels are harvested to be used as nuclei for cultured pearls in Japan. No estimates 02 9 0.7 R-1
T Amand. XV June 1982 are available for individual bodies of water, but based on our current knowledge of the resource, total maximum expected harvest for the Tennessee River below the CRBRP site is about the amount of 1978 harvest (1000 tons) . . Since a conservative margin of 40% has been applied to the information gathered on commercial fish harvests and since the approximately 40 mile reach of the Ohio River between its mouth and the mouth of the Tennessee River represents less than 10% of the total river miles considered, it is concluded that the
. absence of specific fisheries information for the Ohio River will not seriously affect the information presented here.
Furthermore, this portion of the river is farthest from the Plant Site (approximately 580 river miles) and theref ore would receive the greatest benefit f rom the ef f ects of dilution. O ( O2 90.7 R-2
9 TABLE 290.7R-1 - MAXIMUM EXPECTED COMMERCI AL FISH HARVEST FOR LOWER EIGHT TENNESSEE RIVER RESERVOIRS RESERVOIR Commercial Kentucky Pickwick Wilson Wheeler Guntersville Nickajack Chickamauga Watts Bar Fish Groups fPounds) fPounds) fPounds) fPounds) fPounds) fPounds) fPounds) fPounds) TOTAL Paddlefish 249,830 21,713 7,812 33,807 34,206 12,631 43,117 47,502 450,618 O Carp 140,104 44,288 15,936 68,960 69,775 9,146 31,223 34,398 413,830 Buffalo 2,059,114 781,593 281,246 1,216,982 1,231,378 109,813 374,674 414,960 6,469,760
- n Catfish 1,513,737 337,919 121,596 526,157 532,382 24,172 82,270 90,636 3,228,868 4
Drum 27,423 18,858 6,786 29,364 29,711 851 2,974 3,276 119,243
'IOTAL 3,990,208 1,204,371 433,376 1,875,270 1,897,452 156,613 534,258 590,772 10,682,319
~&
. 3a un
Amend. XV Juna 1982 Quest 10D_21Q EB (NRC letter dated 10/26/81, response letter dated 12/22/81) Indicate if any federally recognized threatened or endangered species have either been reported f rom the site or the immediate vicinity or historically known from the site and recently placed on the list of protected species since issuance of the ER. . RESPONSE Reconnaissance field surveys of the Clinch River site were conducted in August, 1980. The purpose of these surveys was to evaluate current conditions at the Site relative to those described in the CRBRP Environmental Report and in the NRC's final Environmental Statement which was issued in Febuary,1977.' Based on the surveys and an evaluation of recent published literature, it was established that no changes have occurred on site since that time with respect to recognized threatened or endangered species. This determination and the supporting data were provided to the NRC as p' art of Amendment IX to the ER. Q2 90. 8 R-1
i Amrnd. XV June 1982 Ouestion 290.9R (NRC letter dated 10/26/82, response letter dated 2/5/82) Give the status of the NPDES Permit, the Clean Water Act 401 Certification, and other permits and approvals required prior to station operation.
Response
The specific details of individual permits and approvals are as follows:
- 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region IV) l
- a. Permit - The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
- b. Status - A Draf t NPDES Permit was initially issued November 4,1976, however, due to the National l Policy Debate concerning the future of the CRBRP Proj ect, the draf t permit was not further resolved.
l An up-to-date draf t of the NPDES Permit application was prepared in late November 1981 and was j transmitted to the EPA and the State of Tennessee in early December 1981. Recent discussions with the l EPA indicate that a final draf t NPDES permit is expected to be completed for inclusion in the NRC l update to the CRBRP Final Environmental Statement (NUREG-0139), which is scheduled f or publication on June 22,1982. 2 90. 9 R-1
Amsnd. XV June 1982
- 2. State of Tennessee, Bureau of Environmental Health Sciences, Division of Water Quality Control
- a. Permit - Clean Water Act - Section 401 Certification
- b. status - The State was provided information in early December 1981 relative to Section 401 Certification of the NPDES Permit. The State will review the information to assure compliance with applicable State requirements and to assure reso-lution of State concerns prior to issuance of the final draf t NPDES permit. The State has indicated that a section 401 Certification will be issued for the CRBRP NPDES Permit.
- 3. State of Tennessee, Department of Conservation, Division of Water Resources,
- a. Approvals - Re,gistration of withdrawal of 50,000 or more gallons of water per day from the waters of Tennessee. .
- b. Status - The registration form may be sent in as
! early as February 15, 1982 or whenever site work dictates a 50,000 gallons per day river water demand. l
- 4. Federal Aviation Administration, Air Space and Procedures Branch
- a. " Permit - Permits for tall structures--necessary for any structures 200 feet in height above the ground level at its base.
290.9R-2
Am:nd. XV June 1982
- b. Status - Permits have been obtained for those structures presently existing on site. No additional structures requiring such permits are presently plcnned.
- 5. Federal Aviation dministration, Air Space and Procedures Branch
- a. Permit - Permit for landing area (i.e. , heliport) construction.
- b. Status - Permits necessary for such construction will be initiated at least 60 days prior to heliport construction.
- 6. Federal Communication Commission (FCC), National Tele-communication and Information Agency (NTIA)
- a. Permits - (1) Assignment of frequency authorization and approvals to operate two-way l
l radios during the plant's construction phase. (2) Assignment of a frequency authorization and approvals to operate a radio communications (i.e., i microwave receiver / transmitter ! system) system during the plant's operational phase. l b. Status - (1) The frequency authorization and the l approval to operate two-way radios for the construction phase have been secured. Other necessary frequency authorizations will be secured as appropriate. 290.9R-3
i Amend. XV June 1982 (2) The f requency authorization f or the plant's operational phase will be secured prior to plant operation.
- 7. U.S. Coast Guard, Aids to Navigation Branch l
- a. ADproval - An approval that insures that adequate lights and other markings are provided on structures near navigational channels such as the barge facility.
- b. Status - U.S. Coast Guard approval was given November 30, 1981 that the Proj ect's planned actions were adequate.
- 8. State of Tennessee, Bureau of Environmental Health Services, Division of Air Pollution Control
- a. Permits - Permits are needed to both construct and operate the following emission sources:
Concrete Batch Plant Rock Crusher Facility Cooling Towers Diesel Generators Any stationary internal or external combustion units
- b. Status - The necessary information for these permits is being assembled and the proper procedures f or complying with their requirements are being followed. An assessment has been l
2 90.9 R-4
Amand. XV June 1982 conducted which identifies the potential to emit l air contaminants f rom all sources. Individual permits will be processed to secure permits in a timely manner.
- 9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Operation Division, Regulatory Function Branch
- a. Permits - A permit is required to perf orm the following:
(1) to discharge dredge or fill materials into navigable waters, (2) to construct water intake and discharge facilities, (3) to construct barge f acilities, and (4) to provide an access road and railroad fills. (below normal water level, elevation 741 feet, 225.86 meters).
- b. status - The Corps of Engineers Permit (No. 42,362) was initially issued May 6,1977 and was extended on January 29, 1981, and will remain valid until May 4, 1984.
- 10. Tennessee valley Authority, Division of Land and Forest Resources
- a. Permit - A TVA Section 26a Permit is needed to I
perf orm the f ollowing activities: (1) construction of water intake and discharge structures, 2 90 . 9 R-S l O
Am:nd. XV Juns 1982 (2) construction of the barge facilities, and (3) construction of access road and railroad fill permits.
- b. status - The TVA Section 26a Permit was initially issued April 19, 1977 and was extended on June 10, ,
1981, and will remain valid indefinitely; however, it is subject to revocation.
- 11. U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
- a. Permit - Permit to place thermal monitors in the Clinch River.
- b. status - A computerized model is being developed by the TVA for use in their nuclear plants. This model performs thermal monitoring of river water using intake temperature and outfall temperature only. It is anticipated that this technique will be used at CRBRP and would eliminate the need for installing monitoring stations in the river.
However, if this technique cannot be used,, permits will be obtained and time is available to do so. l
- 12. Tennessee Department of Transportation
- a. Permit - Permit for excess weight / size vehicles.
- b. status - Permits for excess weight / size vehicles on the State highway system are secured on a case-by-case basis by the activity responsible for use of such vehicles. The vehicle / load description 290.9R-6
Amand. XV June 1982 is provided to TDOT twenty-four hours in advance. TDOT provides a written (teletype) permit. To date, five permits have been requested and received f or movement of f f /e sodium pump drive motors.
- 13. Tennessee Department of Transportation
- a. Permit - Grant of easement.
- b. Status - The CRBRP railroad crossing of the Highway 58 right-of-way and beneath Gallagher Bridge is the only identified requirement of dhis type. TDOT has reviewed the location and design drawings of the crossing of the right-of-way and f ound them acceptable. Change to the existing grant of easement to the State for Highway 58 th rough ,
Federal property is being developed, j 14. City of Oak Ridge l l a. Permit - Gra.nt of easement. l l b. Status - Two changes to the City of Oak Ridge's l l grant of easement f rom DOE for Bear Creek Road have l been identified - ona for the CRBRP water line crossing and one for the CRBRP railroad spur paralleling Bear Creek Road. Changes to the existing grant of easement will be initiated l shortly with the City of Oak Ridge. l 290.9R-7 m.m.
l , Am2nd. XV Juno 1982 092S110n_22Q 10B (NRC informal question, response letter dated 12/22/81) Provide an estimation of the 4 of acres of prime and unique farmlands (Fed. Reg. 4030-4033 vol. 43, #21, January 31, 1978), on the Clinch River site. Also indicate how many acres of prime and unique farmlands, if any, will be disturbed by construction activities.
. RES PONSE The CRBRP site is predominately rolling (8 to 15% slope) to hilly (15% to 30% slope) and is not classed as prime or unique e farm land. The Roane County soil survey issued May, 1942 by the U. S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station and TVA shows two main soil types. One type is the Clarksville Cherty Silt Loam Hilly Phase and is derived f rom the Cherty Limestone and would be classed as poorly suited for agricultural crops. The second type, the Upshur Silty Clay Loam Valley Phase soil type is a very shallow soil that is derived f rom shaley limestone, contains outcrops of limestone, and is considered poor for cultivated crops.
G O290.10R-1
AMEND. XV Juno 1982 OUESTION 290.11R (NRC letter dated 11/30/81. response letters dated 12/21/81 and 1/28/82) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has notified the NRC that 11 species of endangered freshwater mussels may be present in the vicinity of the CRBR site. The 11 species of mussels are Plethobasis cooperianus, P. cicatricosus, fusconaia cuneolus, E. f. flor entina, Lampsilis virescens, L. o. orbiculata, Dromus dromas, Pleurobema plenum and Cenradilla caelata. Provide any records of any of these species taken from the Clinch River in the vicinity of the cite, or from Watts Bar Reservoir. Include the date, the location and the number of specimens collected. Describe the program that resulted in the collection of these spe cie s.- Provide a discussion on the potential for the presence of any of these species on the shallow submerged island located in the Clinch River just downstream of the planned discharge . structure.
RESPONSE
l Freshwater mussel populatio,ns in the lower reach of the Clinch River have not been' the specific subject of any investigation in l over 50 years; however, several studies have evaluated macco-invertebrate fauna in the vicinity of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project (CRBRP) site (Proj ect Management Corporation, ! 1975; Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc., 1976; TVA, 1979). Although several endangered mussel species inhabit the Clinch River
^
system, and in time past have occurred near the CRBRP site (Attachment 1) , none have recently been recorded in the lower portion of the river. Recent studies by TVA (1979) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1981) identified only two silt tolerant species (Quadrula pustulosa and Anodonta sp.) in the vicinity of the Site. TVA divers (biologists) working at the Site have reported the benthic substrate as unsuitable for significant mussel populations with the major (channel) part of the river having a bottom of bedrock and localized overbanks being composed 0290.llR-l l l
~
E
, AMEND. XV June 1982 of sand. Due to the limited amount of suitable substrate and the ffilure of several surveys to encounter significant mussel pop,u}ations, potential for the occurrence of endangered mussels in'the vicinity of the CRBRP site is remote.
REFERENCES Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc., 1976. Nuclear Fuel Recovery and Recycling Center Environmental Report, Vols. I and II. Docket No. 50-564, December 16, 1976. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1981. Ecological studies of the
, Biotic Communities in the vicinity of the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Environmental Science Division. Pub. No.
1744, October 1981. Proj ect . Management Cor poration,1975. Clinch River Breeder Reactor Environmental Report, Vols. I and II. Docket No. 50-537, April 10, 1975. Tennessee Valley Authority,1979. Status of the Nonradiological Water Quality and Nonfisheries Biological Communities in the Clinch River Prior to Construction of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant, 1975-1979, pp. 145. ATTACHMENT 1 Records of presently-listed endangered freshwater mussels l collected within 40 river miles of the CRBR Site (Clinch River Mile 15-17) . Species Stream & Site Date & Reference
- 3) Fusconaia cuncolus Clinch River 1914-Ortmann, (Solway) Rm 44 1918 Poplar Creek Bef or e 1918-(Roane Co.) at Ortmann, 1918 mouth at Rm 12.0 0290.11R-2
. \
AMEND. XV June 1982 Emory River 1915-Ortmann, (Harriman) Rm 11 1918
- 4) Fusconaia edgariana Clinch River Before 1918-(Pattons Ferry) Ortmann, 1918 Poplar Creek Bef or e 1918-(Roane Co.) at Ortmann, 1918 mouth Rm 12.0
- Clinch River 1915-Ortmann, (Edgemoor) Rm 48 1918
- 7) Plethobasus cooperianus Clinch River Before 1918-(Pattons Ferry) Ortmann, 1918 Rm 14 Tennessee River 1978-Gooch, et.
Rm 595.0 al . 1979 Clinch River 1915-Ortmann, (Edgemoor) Rm 48 1918
- 1) Dromus dromas Clinch River 1914-Ortmann, (Solway) Rm 44 1918 Clinch River 1915-Ortmann, (Edgemoor) Rm 38 1918
- 5) Lampsilis orbiculata Clinch River 1914-Ortmann, (Solway) Rm 44 1918 i
Tennessee River 1978-Gooch, et. l Rm 588.4 al. 1979 1 0290.11R-3
J d - g Pogs 4 (82-0439) [7,1] #167 AMEND. XV Juno 1982
- 6) Lampsilis virescens Emory River 1915-Ortmann, (Harriman) Rm 11 1918
- 2) Eploblasma turgidula Emory River 1915-Ortmann, (Harriman) Rm 11 1918
, REFERENCES Ortmann, A. E., 1918, The Nayades (Freshwater Mussels) of the Upper Tennessee Dralnage. With notes on synonymy and distribution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 57:521-626. Gooch, C. H., Pardue, W. J. and Wade, D. C., 1979. Recent mollusk investigations of the Tennessee River, 1978. Draft report of the Water Quality and Ecology Branch, Division of Environmental Planning, Tennessee Valley Authority, pp. 126. Follow on Information on OUESTION 290.11R Additional information relating to this response has been provided, as follows:
- 1. Narrative comments about substrate characteristics and likelihood of finding endangered mussels were supplied by Donald C. Wade, TVA biologist. The tabular list of i
i l l l Q290.11R-4
AMEND. XV June 1982 endangered mussel records was compiled by John J. Jenkinson, TVA biologist (malacoligist).
- 2. Literature citations for Ortmann,1918 and Gooch, et. al.,
should have been attached to the end of the table. They are as follows: Ortmann, A. E., 1918. The Nayades (freshwater mussels) of the Upper Tennessee Drainage. With notes on synonymy and distribution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical
- Society, 57:521-626.
Gooch, C. H., Pardue, W. J. and Wade, D. C., 1979. Recent mollusk investigations of the Tennessee River,1978. Draft report of the Water Quality and Ecology Branch, Division of Environmental Planning, Tennessee Valley Authority, 126 pp.
- 3. All twelve freshwater mussel species on either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or on the TVA generated lists are I
typically found on stable gravel or cobble substrates. l Marginal habitats for the Plethobasua species, Lamosilis orbiculata, Dromus dromas and Pleurobema olenum might extend to sand or clay substrates if the bottom material was . current-swept, stable and penetrable enough to allow the mussels to dig in. Solid bedrock or shif ting mud or sand substrates, which characterize the river bed in the vicinity at and downstream of the CRBRP site, are unsuitable habitats l for nearly all freshwater mussel species including all of the species on either of the lists prepared by the CRBRP site. l
- 4. Known ranges of species involved (live records 1975-date):
Cenradilla c'aelata -middle reach of the Powell River ( RM 95-12 0)
-middle reach of the Clinch River (RM 184-219, 253, 273) 029 0 . ll R.-5 l
l
AMEND. XV June 1982
-middle reach of the Elk River (RM 70 and 83) - not live but fresh, empty shells.
-middle reach of the Duck River ,
(RM 132-179) Dromus dromas -middle reach of the Clinch River (RM 170-190)
-middle reach of the Powell River (RM 67-136)
-one short reach of the Tennessee River below Watts Bar Dam (RM 520-521)
-one site on the Cumberland River below Cordell Hull Dam (RM 296)
Epioblasma florentina -no recent records; presumed to be florentina extinct Epioblasma torulosa -one site record from the middle aubernaculum reach of the Clinch River (RM 187) EDioblasma turaldula -last collected (1972) on the Duck River (RM 250) in an area now covered by Normandy Reservoir; presumed extinct Fusconaia cuneolus -middle reach of the Powell River (specific sites not available)
-extensive reach of~the Clinch River l
(RM 156-226, 268-322) i
-one site on the Paint Rock River (RM 48) l l
l Q290. llR-6 l
AMEND. XV June 1982 Fusconala edgariana -middle reach of the Powell River (RM 67-136)
-an extended reach of the Clinch River (RM 184-279)
-upper reach of the North Fork Holston River (RM 84-92)
-upper reach of the Paint Rock River (RM 44-59)
-middle reach of the Elk River (RM 70-118)
Lampsilis orbiculata -one site on the Clinch River (RM 185)
-a number of separated sites on the Tennessee River (RM 22, 164-170, 183, 197-202, 251-252, 334-33 ,
344-346, 417, 518-528, 588-592)
-a single record from the Ohio River near Paducah, Kentucky (near Rm 940)
-several sites in the reach of the
, Cumberland River that has been studied (RM 275-305)
-nine sites in the lower 55 miles of the Merawec River, Missouri. Also reported from the Little Black River, St. Francis River, Sac River, Gasconade River and Osage River--Gil in Missouri.
Lamosilis virescons -upper Paint Rock River system (RM 59-60 and Hurricane Crock) Plethobasus 'ciatricosus -one record f rom the Tennessee River near Savannah, TN (near RM 190) 0290 . llR-7 l
AMEND. XV Juns 1982 Plethobasus coooerianus -a few widely scattered sites on the Tennessee River (RM 153, 170, 183, 197, 205, 345, 595)
-a single record from the Ohio River near Paducah, Kentucky (near RM 940)
Pleurobema Plenum -two sites on a middle reach of the Clinch River (RM 179 and 185)
-at least one non-specific record from the Tennessee River near Savannah, Tennessee (near RM 190)
-records also exist for the Green River, Kentucky J
O 1 l 0290.llR-8 1.
, AMEND. XV June 1982 OUESTION 310.lR (NRC letter dated 10/26/81)
Provide current data on purchase of materials (concrete, lumber, stone, sand, etc.) and services (excluding local construction labor) to be made in the four-county impact area during the construction period. RESPOtWE The Applicant has not conducted an analysis to estimate purchases of materials (concrete, lumber, stone, sand, etc.) and services (excluding local construction labor) to be made in the four-county impact area during the construction period. However, the Applicant does assume that large purchases of these materials and/or services will be made in the four-county impact area. O l 0310.1R-1 _ _Q _ _ m
AMEND. XV June 1982 OUESTION 310.2R (NRC letter dated 10/26/81) Provide current data on labor force requirements and schedules, intra-structure capacity and demand, tax rates an'd,f3sec1 , resources, population, land use and competing ccastrtbtion'
~
projects. t-
RESPONSE
s
~
The requested information was updated to a 1980-1981 data base in ER Amendments X and XIV, dated December, 1981 and May, 1982, f t respectively. j .~
.s 3.
r
] j a
y
.-4i, i r , ,
,. V
- 2 4
I g I
,\ .+
N y *
, , ~
i' ( 'r
~
9 , ' 's A' l i-h {' ,
*f n
% 5 4 j k l
l -
~
l i I . t l',. T Q310. 2R- 1
- r.
s p ,
/^ i,
AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (1) Section 2.2.1.3 The Applicant should describe the methods and assumptions used to derive resident equivalents f rom the data on transportation, daily, and seasonal transients. RESPONSE (1) The translation of transportation, daily, and seasonal transients into resident equivalents (i.e., the number of persons who would be in the area all year) requires a number of assumptions: i e o- Transportation Transients The main sources of transportation transients within five miles of the site are local highways. Using the A'erage Daily Traffic (Table 2.2-4) for the highways discussed in Section 2.2.1.3, the following calculations were made:
- The length of the various highway segments is: . ;
l 1 I-40 --11 miles
!, Tenn.58 ---8 miles Tenn 95 ---5 miles
.i l
Assuming the average speed of vehicles if 55 miles per t
- hour, this distance translates into an average vehicle
~
l? transit time for each highway. L
?
I --12 minutes Tenn 58 ---9 minutes Tenn 95 ---6 minutes 0310.3R-1-1
AMEND. XV l June 1982 l
- The product of the proportion of a day that a vehicle is within 5 miles of the site and the total traffic volume is the resident equivalent. For example, for I-40, the calculation is:
12 minutes (21,130 vehicles) = 176 vehicles (24 hours) (60 minutes /hr)
. - To convert vehicles to persons, it is assumed that there are 2.0 persons per vehicle.
(176 vehicles) (2.0 persons) = 352 persons vehicle Table 2.2-5 shows the resident equivalents due to transportation, and the population wheel sectors into which they fall. j o Daily Transients The major source of daily or commuter transients within ten miles of the site is the Oak Ridge complex. There are three l major industrial facilities; the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (ORGDP), the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and j the Y-12 plant. . Table 2.2-6 shows the employment at these facilities. Each facility has people present all day, every day of the week. The resident equivalents were calculated in two ways: , For the weekday and shif t personnel, the fraction is 40/168 = 0.24 workhours/ week. Thus there are (0.24) (4820) = 1157 or 1160 persons f or the regular shif t. 0310. 3 R-1-2 l .
AMEND. XV Juna 1982 For the weekend shif t personnel, the fraction is only 16/168 or .095 workhours/ week. Thus (.095) (120) = 11 persons. 4 The distributulon of the resident equivalents for the Oak Ridge complex is given in Table 2.2-7. - o seasonal Transients Table 2.2-8 presents estimated average peak hour visitation and visitation projections for recreation areas within ten
. miles of the CRBRP. Almost all of these areas will be used for only part of the day. It is estimated that visitors will stay less than four hours at these areas. Use of peak hour estimates is conservative in that actual use of the facilities is overestimated.
Conversion of the estimates into transient equivalents was accomplished by: Using the peak hour estimates for each recreational site, e.g., the commercial campground (Site 1). Most campers are present osernight and in the camp for 12 hours or more. Using the peak hour estimate thus overestimates the number of campers present all day. Multiplying all visitation estimates for sites other than ! Atomic speedway and the commercial campground by four. Considering that most visitors are present at the facility less than four hours, this step overestimates the number of persons present each 24-hour day. i l l l l 0310.3R-1-3 l L
- AMEND. XV Juno 1982 Atomic speedway was not included in the calculations. Use of the speedway is very sporadic, and it is felt that its resi-dent equivalent is negligible compared to the other facilities. .
The equivalents for seasonal transients are presented in
, Table 2.2-9.
4 e 0310.3R-1-4
AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (2) Section 2.2.1.5 The Applicant should explain the apparent discrepancy between the number of schools operating in 1981 and the number of schools indicated in Table 2.2-11. RESPONSE (2) The number of schools operating in 1981 within a 10-mile radius of the site listed in the text of Section 2.2.1.5 should be twenty-one schools rather than twenty-two schools as shown. The number of schools listed in Table 2.2-11 is correct. These corrections were provided in Amendment XIII. O i 0310.3R-2
- ,- , .u
l AMEND. XV i June 1982 QUESTION (3) Section 2.2.2 The Applicant should explain the apparent discrepancy between the following two sentences in the noted section:
"No wildlife preserves, sanctuaries or hunting areas are within 10-mile radius of the site. A waterfowl refuge which is part of the Long Island Wildlife Managment area is located on the Tennessee River approximately eight radial miles. . ."
RESPONSE (3) In section 2.2.2, the first sentence which describes the type, location, and distance of wildlife preserves, sanctuaries, or hunting areas from the site should be changed to read as follows:
"No wildlife preserves, sanctuaries, or hunting areas are within a 5-mile radius of the site."
l i All of the sentences that follow this sentence within section 2.2.2 regarding wildlife management areas are correct as presented. This l change was made in Amendment XIII. l 0310.3R-3
i AMEND. XV June 1982 , 1 1 QUESTION (4) Section 2.2.2.2. l In what year was the Clinch River Consolidated Industrial Park ' i established? Of the 33 acre total, how many acres are occupied by Eagle Picher, Inc.? Does Eagle Picher have tax exempt status or benefit from any state and/or local development subsidy? What are the prospects for additional industrial development of the site? RESPONSE (4) The Clinch River Consolidated Industrial Park was established in 1972. Eagle Picher, Inc. currently occupies 10 acres and has an option on 20 additional acres within this 112 acre park. Eagle Picher does not have a tax exempt status and does not benefit from any state and/or local development subsidies. The prospects for additional industrial development of the park are believed to be excellent if the CRBRP is constructed according to the Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce. I . l l l 0310.3R-4
AMEND. XV June 1982 Question (5) Section 2.2.3.1 Are there any recreational or commercial fishing uses of surface? If either or both activities occurs, the applicant should describe the activities in detail. RESPONSE (5) Total recreational and commercial fish harvest from Watts Bar Reservoir were provided in response to Questions 290.6R and 290.7R, respectively. For fish management purposes, Melton Bill Reservoir is currently closed to commercial fishing. Watts Bar Reservoir is closed to fishing with entanglement gear, and current commercial activity on the reservoir is restricted to trot lines, snag lines, slat boxes, and hoop nets. Commercial fishing pressure in the area of the CRBRP is generally low because of the cold nature of the Melton Hill Reservoir releases and low populations of catfish in that portion of the reservoir. There is some seasonal fishing for paddlefish using snag lines and buffalo using bait lines. This activity is generally of j short duration and limited to periods when these fish are , migrating past the proposed site (late winter and spring) . l The most recent information available on sport fishing in Watts Bar Reservoir is a 1980 creel survey done by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Data from this survey indicates that there were about 17,700 fishing trips made in the Clinch River arm of Watts Bar Reservoir, and anglers harvested an estimated 42,700 fish weighing 31,500 pounds. These numbers are derived from estimates for the upper portion of Watts Bar Reservoir which , includes both the Clinch River and Tennessee River arms and j assumes that 50 percent of this pressure occurs in the Tennessee River. Q310.3R-5-1
AMEND. XV June 1982 Most of the fishing pressure in the Clinch River arm of Watts Bar Reservoir, particularly in the vicinity of the CRBRP site, occurs in winter and early spring when sauger and white bass migrate through the area. Although no specific data are available to document the magnitudes of differences, most of the fishing pressure occurs close to Melton Hill Dam and at Kingston Steam Plant while pressure around the CRBRP site is much lower than at either of these areas. 0 1 l ! 0310.3R-5-2
AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (6) Table 2.2-1 This table and others which follow are based on preliminary 198d Census data. As final 1980 data are available, the Applicant should supply revised tables. l i RESPONSE (6) The final 1980 Census Report was not available for use when the socioeconomic update was prepared (amendment X) . The preliminary 1980 population numbers for the 20 cities and towns presented in Table 2.2-1 and the final 1980 Census numbers are almost identical (less than a 1 percent difference) except for Kingston, Oliver Springs, Dayton, and Etowah. The final population numbers . for Kingston, Oliver Springs, and Etowah are different from the
- preliminary numbers by about 1.6 percent. Only the city of Dayton, located 45 radial miles from the site is significantly different on the final report (14.4 percent higher) . Because the final population ndmbers are so close to the preliminary report numbers used in the analysis, it seems reasonable and appropriate to maintain the use of population census data presented in Table 2.2-1. Use of the final 1980 Census numbers would not result in any minor or major differences in information and conclusions presented in amendment X to the CRBRP RR.
l l I 0310.3R-6 t
t I AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (7) Section 6.1.4.2.2 The Applicant should update population projections for Tennessee by using the latest population projections prepared by the State Department of Public health on June 17, 1981. RESPONSE (7) Section 6.1.4.2.2 Population Projections, was prepared prior to the update population projections prepared by the State Department of Public Health on June 17, 1981. Appropriate state and local agencies were contacted to obtain their available population projections prior to beginning the CRBRP population projection work. The data used in this population work has been coordinated with local and district planning agencies prior to finalizing the work presented in amendment X. Because the l projections prepared by the Public Health Department are viewed as department projections rather than final state projections, it is not believed they are any more reliable than those used in the CRBRP analysis. . l l 0310.3R-7
AMEND. XV June 1982 , 1 QUESTION (8) Section 8.1.3.2 Information in this section is apparently focused on publicly supported schools. The Applicant should furnish information on private sectarian and non-sectarian schools. RESPONSE (8) There are 128 approved private or parochial elementary and secondary schools in the State of Tennessee. Overall, private schools in the State have approximately 3.5 percent of the total student' enrollment. In the four-county affected area, approximately 2 percent of elementary and secondary students are enrolled in approved private and parochial schools. l . Q310.3R-8 l
AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (9) Section 8.1.3.6 The information in this section is directed toward public recreational facilities. The Applicant should identify opportunities available at privately supplied recreational activities (e.g., movies, bowling, hunting, fishing).
. RESPONSE (9)
It seems inappropriate to attempt to quantify the number, type, and location of privately-owned recreation facilities within the study area. The focus of the analysis was on impacts to public services, facilities, and programs. Privately supplied recreational activities were not quantified. The size of the inmoving population is extremely small compared to the population siz e of the metropolitan area, which will result in insignificant
- effects to privately-owned recreation activities. It would be sufficient merely to mention that there are many privately-owned recreational facilities located throughout the four-county area.
I l t Q310.3R-9 i
AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (10) Section 8 The Applicant should describe the planning institutions in the four-county area, specifically: (a) The control of land use decisions and zoning; (b) special purpose ordinances, e.g., mobile homes, farmland preservation, floodplains; and (c) comprehensive plans and planning.
. RESPONSE (10)
The following discussion summarizes the planning function in the four-county area: (a) In Anderson County all cities and towns have adopted
~
comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations. The county does not have an adopted comprehensive plan at this time. Neither cities nor the county have specific farmland preservation ordinances. Mobile home use is restricted in Oak Ridge but generally allowed eQerywhere else in mobile home parks. (b) Knox County and Knoxville city have comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations but neither the county nor the city have a specific farmland preser-vation ordinance. In Knoxville, mobile homes are re-stricted to mobile home pa r ks, while in Knox County, mobile homes are treated like any other single family dwelling regarding site restrictions.
- (c) In Loudon County, all municipalities and the county have comprehensive planning, zoning ordinances, and sub-division regulations. A farmland preservation ordinance Q310.3R-10-1
I 1 AMEND. XV June 1982 i has not been passed by any planning commission in Loudon County. Mobile homes in both municipalities and the county are treated like any other single-family dwelling regarding site restrictions. (d) The major municipalities and towns in Roane County all have comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations. The county has never adopted a comprehensive plan, but sectors of the county do have subdivision regulations. In Rockwood, mobile homes are generally allowed everywhere, whereas in oliver Springs, Harrinan, and Kingston, their location is restricted to mobile home parks or certain residential districts. All four counties and cities within the four-county area have flood-plain ordinances to control land development in floodplain areas. All communities and counties in the study area have active planning commissions. Cities like Knoxville and Oak Ridge have their own staff-supported planning agencies. However, in most cases throughout the study area, planning guidance and technical assistance is provided by contracted service with either the East Tennessee Development District or the Tennessee State Planning Office. . l l 0310.3R-10-2 l
AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (11) i Table 8.1-3 ' The State of Tennessee Department of Public Health State Center for Health Statistics has revised 1980 projections for the four-county impact area. Because these data are based on the 1980 Census, the staff believes that projections based on the state's data would be more accurate than those presented in the table cited above. Therefore, the Applicant should provide a revised Table 8.1-3 using the most recent data from the state. RESPONSE (11) See response to question 6 regarding the use of department , projections in place of the preliminary projections prepared by the Bureau of the Census. ' G l l l 031.3R-ll l
AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (12) Table 8.1-4 This table indicated declining population in the 5-19 (school-age) cohort; the state's latest projections for 1985 and 1990 also indicate declines in the school-age cohort at the county level (6/17/81). However, with two exceptions, Appendix Table 2.2-7 indicates that school superintendents expect increasing enrollment, exclusive of project-related children.
. The Applicant should explain this apparent discrepancy.
RESPONSE (12) The Applicant does not have a specific explanation for this discrepancy. l l 0310.3R-12
AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (13) Table 8.1-17 In the NRC Final Environmental Statement (February 1977), the treatment capacity and average daily flow of the Kingston system were 1,500,000 gpd and 750,000 gpd, respectively. As these figures are considerably higher than those now presented by the Applicant, the Applicant should explain this discrepancy. RESPONSE (13) The treatment capacity and average daily flow numbers for the Kingston system presented in Table 8.1-17 amendment X were rechecked January 7, 1982, and determined to be correct. The treatment capacity and average daily flow numbers presented in the original ER Table 8.1-17 of 1,500,000 and 750,000 gpd, respe ctively, were apparently listed incorrectly. 4 G 0310.3R-13
AMEND. XV June 1982 l QUESTION (14) Section 8.2.2.1 The income data in this section implies a large impact on the four-county area. However, some portion of the total income earned will be spent outside the area by inmovers with families,
- by inmovers who are unaccompanied by family members, and by daily commuters from outside the four-county area (See FES-CP, Section 4.5.4). In addition, the amount of income earned by residents (nonmovers) should be reduced by an amount equal to their earning potential in the absence of CRBR. The Applicant should use these considerations to develop an income figure which indicates the net dollar impact within the four-county area.
RESPONSE (14) The numbers presented in section 8.2.2.1 are gross employment and income totals which will be spread over the project recruitment area. Therefore, the positive impact received f rom CRBRP project-related employment and income in the four-county area would be less than the gross totals presented in this section. 0310.3R-14
_ h AMEND. XV Juno 1982 QUESTION (15) Section 8.2.2.2 In view of the Appalachian Regional Commission's research on th'e study area, what is the Applicant's rationale for using a lower multiplier than those developed in the ARC study? RESPONSE (15) The ARC multipliers are more indicators of the type of economy each county has than indicators of the size of employment change which would be brought about by a change in basic employment. That is, the ARC multipliers include secondary employment from such things as central trades and service functions (e.g., banking and stock exchange); inleakage from nearby counties to major stores or restaurants; and expenditures by tourists. The applicant concluded that the Chamber of Commerce multiplier was a better estimate to use for this analysis but to be conservative, it was rounded downward to 1.6. O Q310.3 R-15
AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (16) Section 8.2.2.3 What is the current status of P.L. 81-875 for FY 1982? RESPONSE (16) We understand that the public law number should have been 81-874.
. The totals for P.L. 81-874 are 4 percent below the levels approved in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 1982 budget document dated March 1981. The U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Commitree staf f has not yet received an actual breakdown of the various funding categories. Based on the Continuing Resolution figures, below are rough estimates as to levels of payment:
"A" payments: approximately 85 percent of FY 81 payments "B" payments: 65 percent to 70 percent of FY 81 levels in districts 20 percent or more of average daily attendance (ADA) comprised of "B" children l
"B" payments: 30 percent to 35 percent of FY 81 levels in
! districts with less than 20 percent "B" children
- " (3) D (2) B" payments : payments for those districts with 50 percent or more of "A" and "B" children is " fully funded" and "not pro-rated" based on the 1982 request Notwithstanding the Continuing Resolution, OMB is calling for a
- recission of all impact aid money, except $185 million for payments to l super A districts at 84 percent of the FY 81 A payment level.
Therefore, all B money and all non-super A (super A district being a school with 20 percent or more of ADA comprised of A pupils) would be eliminated. l l l 0310.3R-16 l 1
r- , AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (17) Tables 8.2-1 and 8.2-2 Do these tables reflect the onsite employment of maintenance, security, and other contract personnel? If they do not reflect these categories of workers, the tables should be revised. RESPONSE (17) Tables 8.2-1 and 8.2-2 do reflect the onsite employment maintenance, security, and other contract personnel. 6 O 0310.3R-17
AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (18) Section 8.3.2.1 The Applicant should provide copies of references 2 through 7 cited in this section. RESPONSE (18) These references have been provided to the NRC in a letter to Paul Check f rom John Longnecker " Response to NRC Questions 1-39," January 22, 1982. e o 0310.3R-18 82-0383 _ _ _ _ _ __ .. - . . _
l I AMEND. XV ' I June 1982 QUESTION (22) Section 8.3.2.1.3 Does the Applicant foresee an increase in either accidents or road maintenance as a result of increased traf fic volumes? With respect to road maintenance, do the counties and/or state have load limits for roads?
- RESPONSE (22)
The amount of road maintenance and the number of accidents are both anticipated to increase with increased traf fic volumes. The State of Tennessee does have load limits for roads. The maximum allowable weight limit for five-axle tractor trailer rigs traveling on Tennessee state roads is 80,000 pounds. Weight limits for trucks other than five-axle vehicles on state roads are lower than the 80,000 pound maximum limit and vary in l accordance with the type of truck. Load limits are also required on country roads and are based on the type of vehicle. 0310.3R-22
AMEND. XV Jun2 1982 QUESTION (23) Section 8.3.2.1.5 What is the Applicant's basis for concluding that no " recreation program will be significantly adversely af fected"? What is the analysis which indicates that Roane County's recreational facilities are already in short supply?
. RESPONSE (23)
The conclusion that no recreation program will be significantly adversely affected is based on the expectation of a relatively small peak population influx in the four county area. The conclusion regarding existing shortages in Roane County's recreational facilities was based on comparisons between the current population, limited existing facilities (Table 8.1-20), and standards of the National Recreation and Park Association. l 4 l l i i 0310.3R-23
AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (24) Section 8.3.2.1.5 Would the site be visible from nearby vantage points such as ' historic sites, areas of recreation, or housing developments? Would the containment building be visible from such vantage points? RESPONSE (24) The CRBRP site will be visible from various vantage points near the plant site. Both the site and the containment building will be visible from portions of both I-40 and S.R. 58. Both the site and the containment building will be visible from recreation sites 1 and 2 listed on Table 2.2-8. The site will not be visible from any housing development within the study area but will be easily seen from many of the single-family homes from across the Clinch River. Finally, to the best of our knowledge, neither the containment bu_ilding nor the plant site will be visible from any significantly offsite historical site or , structure within the study area. (See also ER Sections 2<3 and 5.6.2.4). l I 0310.3R-24 l e
AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (25) Appendix-Introduction The Applicant should prepare a table similar to Table 8.3-2 but assuming Migration Condition B. RESPONSE (25) CRBRP ESTIMATED POPULATION EFFECTS PEAK YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION FOR MIGRATION CONDITION B+ Projected Emoloyment 5,400 Population Effects Number of movers 1,990 l Movers with families (70%) 1,390 Movers without families (30%) 600 School age children
- 980 Total population influx ** 5,040 l
+Information provided in Appendix C (P.C-3) Amendment XIII l
- Assuming .7 school age children per family.
** Assuming 3.2 people per family.
0310. 3 R-25
( a AMEND. XV Juno 1982 QUESTION (26) Appendix-Introduction k ', In Section 8, Migration Condition A was indicated as 25 percent, while this level of migration is defined as 26 percent in the ~ Appendix. T.;e Applicant should explain this apparent discrepancy.
- RESPONSE 26 $# ..
In the introduction of Section 8, . Migration Condition A is indicated as 26 percent, the same as the level of migration l defined in the Appendix.
~
t i
, 1, .
7
.l
.' ) .;. e,
\
[ f I
,- i '/ ' g j
, ' , . "J,t
."'g -
/s .
Y r-f f; $ J' i
,/ r l' l
/ i i
\s , 'g . J ' \
2, i ,y l ' '(, i T/ y -
\ U, .
s
, ji 0310.3R-26 ; .a a
V n
t ,
~
AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (27) Appendix-Table 2.2-8 Project nrollment for Knox County differs significantly from data in Table 8.3-2. RESPONSE f27)
+
. We assume there was a typographical error and Table 8.3-5 is the table in;q'uestion rather than Table 8.3-2. Appendix Table 2.2-8 providess project enrollment for the 40 percent mover rate while Table 8'.3'-5 provides project enrollment for the 26 percent movers rate. The numbers for Knox County differ significantly because of the comparison of project enrollment from two different mover rates.
')
s ,f ' r
.f
/ ~
l
~
( l l- , Vh
*1 y
i
.I
. . . , ~ ,\,,
l, r ,'; Q310.3R-27 ' 5 c '. c ,
! J
paga - 1 (7,1) 457 - AMEND. XV Juno 1982 QUESTION (28) Appendix-Section 2.4 What is the basis for the Applicant's conclusion that no expansion of fire protection services would be necessary during the construction period? Do current fire protection services meet or exceed guidelines catablished by the national insurance rating organization, the American Insurance Association? RESPONSE (28) The conclusion that no expansion of fire protection services would be necessary is based on the expectation of a relatively small peak population influx that should also be widely distributed among area communities. Maintenance of current levels of service, not national insurance rating guidelines, were used as the basis for the assessment. Thus, the relation of current fire protection services to those insurance guidelines was not considered. , O e O 0310.3R-28
. . - - , - - , - - r
AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (29) Appendix-Section 2.5 The Applicant's analysis of and conclusion on the adequacy of water supply facilities does not appear to take into account population growth between 1981 and 1985. Considering this increment of growth and the influx of project-related population, would these facilities be adequate? RESPONSE (29) Existing and proposed water supply facilities will be able to accommodate the demand for use of water from both the population growth between 1981 and 1985 and the projected CRBRP project-related demand. e e i Q310.3R-29
AMEND. XV Juno 1982 QUESTION (30) Appendix-Section 2.6 The comment and question in item (29) applies to this section. . RESPONSE (30) Existing and proposed wastewater and solid waste disposal facilities will be able to accommodate the demand for use of these type of public services from both the population growth between 1981 and 1985 and the projected CRBRP project-related demand. 2 O l 0310.3R-30
AMEND. XV. June 1982 QUESTION (31) Appendix-Section 2.6 The amount of solid waste generated by the inmoving population is overstated by a factor of 10 and the amount of total solid waste handled per day differs from the total figure in Section 8.1.3.3.3. The Applicant should check these data and correct as necessary. RESPONSE (31) The cal'culations presented in Appendix section 2.6 for the amount of solid waste generated by the inmoving population were rechecked and found to be correct. The number of tons of solid waste handled per day in the four counties listed on page C-42 as (about 1,025 tons) should be changed to read (about 525 tons). This change was included in Amendment XIII. e 5 Q310. 3 R-31
I AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (32) Appendix-Section 3.2 In what instances would an " assessment lag" apply? Who would be responsible for an assessment lag if it did occur? RESPONSE f32)
. An assessment lag is simply the time required for a new addition to the property tax rolls to pay its f ull share of taxes. It would be expected to occur in most, if not all, instances and would not be considered an unusual occurrence.
l l l 0310.3R-32
AMEND. XV Juna 1982 QUESTION (33) Appendix-Section 3.2 The Applicant mentions state funds--state foundation and equal - ization--in the analysis of local expenditures and revenues. Do the level of these funds or say other intergovernmental transfer funds to local jurisdictions change with changing local revenue levels? RESPONSE (33) State foundation funds are apportioned equally to all school systems in the state on a per ADA basis with additional funding related to vocational and special education needs. In contraat, equalization funds are apportioned on the basis of each j urisdiction's capacity to generate property tax revenue, i.e., local property assessment values. Depending on values statewide, an increase in those values could possibly result in a decrease in equalization funds. However, for purposes of the fiscal analyses, it was assumed that the current level of both educational revenues would remain constant. . l l l l l I l 0310.3R-33 I l
AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (34) Appendix-Section 3.2 The Applicant states that no necessary education-related capital improvements were identified. However, Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-6 indicate that 15 classrooms and 29 classrooms would be needed under Migration Conditions A and B, respectively. The Applicant should explain this apparent discrepancy and provide the bases for the conclusion. RESPONSE (34) Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-6 indicate that 15 classrooms and 29 classrooms would be needed under Migration Conditions A and B, respe ctively. This does not mean that up to 29 classrooms would have to be built to accommodate project-related students. Under migration Condition B (the worst case scenario) 980 students would have to be housed for a period of no more than one year by the 8 school systems (see Appendix Table 2.2-8) . Because of the low number of studsnts added to each system (to be assigned to various scnools grades K-12 located throughout each school, system) and because of the short time period of maximum project-related demands, it is concluded that no school system would choose to construct a new school facility to accommodate project-related students. Instead, they would assign individual students to exisitng rooms with available space and in cases of demand exceeding capacity, assign students to school areas excluded in the capacity numbers used in Appendix Table 2.2-7. i 0310.3R-34 l
AMEND, XV June 1982 QUESTION (35) Appendix-Table 3.2 The table and text are unclear as to whether the sales and beverage tax data reflect local collections (with a smaller amount being dispersed to the municipalities by higher levels of government) or the actual dispersements to local government. The Applicant should clarify. Also, by assuming that the project-related (inmoving) population have the same per capita
- income as residents, the Applicant is conservatively estimating sales tax and beverage tax revenues. Does the Applicant agree that its estimates of sales and beverage tax revenues are conservative?
RESPONSE (35) The sales and beverage tax data reflect actual disbursements to local governments. We agree that the estimates of sales and beverage taxes are conservative.
=
Q310. 3 R-35 L
Pega - 1 (7,1) #65 AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (36) Table 3.1 What are the specif ic values and assumptions underlying the data in the column titled, "Inmover-Related Taxable Assessed Value"? This Information should be presented for each housing type and jurisdiction. RESPONSE (36) Refer to the table below. Those values are estimated from the range of values included in the various sources referenced in Table 3.1 of Appendix C. AVERAGE HOUSING YALUES Single-Family Mobile Multi-Location Homes H2EAi_ Familv* Clinton $37,000 $9,000 $13,000 Oak Ridge 55,000 9,000 15,000 Lenoir City 24,000 9,000 13,000 Kingston 44,000 9,000 13,000 Rockwood 30,000 9,000 13,000 Harriman 33,000 9.000 13,000 Ander son Co. 37,000 9,000 13,000 Knox Co. 55,000 9,000 15,000 Loudon Co. 33,000 9,000 13,000 Roane Co. 44,000 9,000 13,000
- Per unit
AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (37) Tables 3.3 and 3.12 The Applicant should specify the population figures used for each jurisdiction to derive the general fund and school fund revenues. How do these numbers differ from those contained in or underlying Table 8.2-1, 8.3-3, and 8.3-4? Also, in this series of tables, how are sales taxes apportioned between general fund and school fund revenues? RESPONSE (37) The population figures used to estimate the general fund and school fund revenues are either found in or derived from Tables 8.3-3 and 8.3-5. The employment figures in Table 8.2-1 were not used in astimating revenues but instead provide the basis for the analysis population and housing estimates. For the purposes of estimating per capita revenues, half of the population estimated for each municipality, except for Oak Ridge and Knoxville, was assumed to be located outside of the municipal limits but in the general area. For example, about 240 persons would be expected to locate within the city limits of Kingston (see Table 8.3-3) . The housing distribution data in Table 8.3-4 were used in estimating property tax revenue for each jurisdiction. Table 8.3-5 contains the data, number of students by jurisdiction, used i in estimating per pupil educational revenue. The per capita sales tax revenue figures contained in Table 2.2 of Appendix C are based on the amount of sales tax revenue . historically l received by either the general or school funds. Therefore, there l was no apportionment between the two funds. l l l 0310.3R-37 i I . . _ _
I AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (38) Appendix-Table 3,13 In addition to salary, what are the components of the - cost / teacher data? RESPONSE (38) The cost / teacher data are based on salary only. 6 O
=
l l 0310.3R-38
AMEND. XV June 1982 QUESTION (39) Appendix-References The Applicant should provide a copy of citation 8. RESPONSE (39) This reference was provided to the NRC in a letter Longnecker to
- Check, " Response to NRC Questions 1-39," January 22, 1982.
i l 4 i 0310.3R-39
AMEND. XV June 1982 Ouestion (40) Appendix Section 1.0 What is the basis for the percentage distribution of operating work force in the counties? Why wouldn't the percentage distribution in Table 8.1-7 be a more , accurate estimate of where CRBRP employees will choose to live than the distribution in Section 1.0? Answer (40) The distribution of the operating movers is based on the same factors utilized in the distribution of construction movers, i.e., distance and direction to the site, area housing availability, and data on location patterns from TVA employee surveys. Table 8.1-7 indicates the existing location of DOE employees, many of whom have been area residents for a long . period of time. Therefore, the data do not reflect recent housing trends, the most important of which is the tremendous growth in west Knox County in the past decade. In addition, the proportion of DOE employees residing outside Oak Ridge has been increasing in the past several years. S Q310.R-40
AMEND. XV Juno 1982 Ouestion (41) Tables 3.3 to 3.12 Please prepare a series of tables similar to those indicated which show the revenues generated by the operating work force. Explain all assumptions and calculations. Answer (41) i The assumptions used to estimate the construction-related nonproperty tax revenue were based on resident per capita figures, instead of specific construction worker characteristics. This results in a conservative estimate of revenues. Therefore, it is reasonable to utilize those same assumptions and calculations for the operational influx. The attached revenue projections were prepared by applying operation to construction population ratios for each governmental jurisdiction to the projections contained in Tables 3.3 - 3.12 of the ER. For example, the size of the operational population influx for Oak Ridge (50) is about 7 percent of that projected for Migration Condition A (760). Thus, the amount of nonproperty tax revenue generated by the operational influx is estimated to be about 7 percent of that revenue estimated for Migration condition A. The property tax revenue estimates could not be ratioed because housing characteristics of operational and construction movers are expected to be different. Based on the relative permanence of the operational movers and data from surveys of operational movers at three TVA nuclear plants, it was assumed that, in general, a large percentage of them would occupy single family homes (70 percent) . The housing choice of the remaining movers is assumed to be evenly split between mobile homes and apartments (15 percent each). These overall percentages were varied somewhat among jurisdictions based on local housing charac-0310.3R-41-1
AMEND. XV June 1982 teristics. For example, Oak Ridge is not expected to have any movers occupying mobile homes. The property tax estimates were calculated with the same average housing values and tax rates used for the construction period estimates. Our estimated distribution of the location of immoving operational employees is attached. For the purposes of these revenue calculations, half of the projected movers expected to reside in the vicinity of each municipal area, except for Oak Ridge and Knoxville, are assumed to locate outside the city limits. An identical assumption was made for the construction period revenue calculations. O e i 0310.3R-41-2 I
AMEND. XV June 1982 f CRBRP DISTRIBUTION OF OPERATIONAL MOVERS Total School Population Age Movers Influx children Anderson County Oak Ridge 19 50 10
. Clinton Area 6 20 4 Knox County Knoxville 6 15 3 West Knox County Area 50 125 22 Loudon County Lenoir City Area 13 30 6 Roane County Kingston Area 19 50 14 Rockwood Area 6 15 3 Harriman Area 6 15 3 4
4 Q310.3R-41-3
AMEND. XV Juna 1982 TABLE 1 SELECTED REVENUES FOR ANDERSON COUNTY FROM CRBRP OPERATION-RELATED POPULATION INFLUX General Fund Revenues Property Tax 5,500 Sales Tax NA Beer and Alcoholic Beverage Tax 10 Fines, Fees, Charges 100 TOTAL $5,600 School Fund Revenues Property Tax 8,100 Sales Tax NA State Funds 700 TOTAL $8,800 NA = Not Applicable Note: Totals rounded off to nearest 100.
- Estimates are for typical year of operation.
6 9 0310.3R-41-4
AMEND. XV Juno 1982 TABLE 2 SELECTED REVENUES FOR CLINTON FROM CRBRP OPERATION-RELATED POPULATION INFLUX General Fund Revenues Property Tax 600 Sales Tax 500 Beer and Alcoholic Beverage Tax 100 Fines, Fees, Charges 40 TOTAL $1200 School Fund Revenues Property Tax 1300 - Sales Tax NA State Funds 700 TOTAL $2000 NA = Not Applicable * ( Note: Totals rounded off to nearest 100. Estimates are for typical year of operation. e 0310.3R-41-5
AMEND. XV June 1982 TABLE 3 SELECTED REVENUES FOR OAK RIDGE FROM CRBRP OPERATION-RELATED POPULATION INFLUX i General Fund Revenues Property Tax 7,500 Sales Tax 1,200 Beer and Alcoholic Beverage Tax 100 Fines, Fees, Charges 200 TOTAL $9,000 School Fund Revenues Property Tax 4,800 Sales Tax 100 State Funds 4,400 TOTAL $9,300 Note: Estimates are for typical year of operation. 0310.3R-41-6
AMEND. XV June 1982 TABLE 4 SELECTED REVENUES FOR KNOX COUNTY - FROM CR3RP OPERATIONS-RELATED POPULATION INFLUX s General Fund Revenues Property Tax 6,600 Sales Tax NA Beer and Alcoholic Beverage Tax 100 Fines, Fees, Charges 400 TOTAL $7,100 School Fund Revenues Property Tax 3,900 Sales Tax 2,200 - State Funds 12,000 TOTAL S18,100 NA = Not Applicable - Note: Estimates are for typical year of operation. l 0310.3R-41-7
AFIND. XV Juno 1982 TABLE 5 SELECTED REVENUES FOR LOUDON COUNTY FROM CRBRP OPERATION-RELATED POPULATION INFLUX General Fund Revenues Property Tax 900 Sales Tax NA Beer and Alcoholic Beverage Tax 10 Fines, Fees, Charges 200 TOTAL $1,100 School Fund Revenues Property Tax 2,300 Sales Tax 200 State Funds 1,500 TOTAL $4,000 NA = Not Applicable Note: Totals rounded off to nearest 100. l Estimates are for typical year of operation. l I 0310.3R-41-8
AMEND. XV June 1982 TABLE 6 SELECTED REVENUES FOR LENOIR CITY FROM CRBRP OPERATION-RELATED POPULATION INFLUX General Fund Revenues Property Tax 900 Sales Tax 200 Beer and Alcoholic Beverage Tax 0 0 Fines, Fees, Charges 200 TOTAL $1,300 School Fund Revenues Property Tax 1,200 Sales Tax 100 - State Funds 600 TOTAL $1,900 Note: Estimates are for typical year of operation. i m l 0310.3R-41-9
- , _ _ , . ~ . . -
AMEND. XV June 1982 l TABLE 7 SELECTED REVENUES FOR ROANE COUNTY FROM CRBRP OPERATION-RELATED POPULATION INFLUX General Fund Revenues Property Tax 3,200 Sales Tax NA Beer and Alcoholic Beverage Tax 30 Fines, Fees, Charges 300 TOTAL $3,500 School Fund Revenues Property Tax 2,000 Sales Tax 700 State Funds 6,400 TOTAL $9,100 NA = Not Applicable Note: Totals rounded off to nearest 100. i Estimates are for typical year of operation. 0310.3R-41-10
AMEND. XV l June 1982 TABLE 8 SELECTED REVENUES FOR KINGSTON FROM CRBRP OPERATION-RELATED POPULATION INFLUX General Fund Revenues Property Tax 1,600 Sales Tax 700 Beer and Alcoholic Beverage Tax 200 Fines, Fees, Charges 10 TOTAL $2,500 School Fund Revenues Property Tax NA Sales Tax NA . State Funds NA TOTAL -- NA = Not Applicable Note: Totals rounded off to nearest 100. Estimates are for typical year of operation. 0310.3R-41-ll
AMEND. XV Juno 1982 TABLE 9 SELECTED REVENUES FOR ROCKWOOD FROM CRBRP OPERATION-RELATED POPULATION INFLUX General Fund Revenues Property Tax 500 Sales Tax 200 Beer and Alcoholic Beverage Tax 40 Fines, Fees, Charges >{ 100 TOTAL $800 School Fund Revenues Property Tax NA Sales Tax NA State Funds NA TOTAL -- NA = Not Applicable Note: Totals rounded off to nearest 100. Estimates are for typical year of operation. 0310.3R-41-12 l _ _-_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - -- )
AMEND. XV June 1982 l TABLE 10 SELECTED REVENUES FOR HARRIMAN FROM CRBRP OPERATION-RELATED POPULATION INFLUX General Fund Revenues Property Tax 300 Sales Tax 200 Beer and Alcoholic Beverage Tax 20 Fines, Fees, Charges 10 TOTAL $500 School Fund Revenues Property Tax 1,000 Sales Tax 300 - State Funds 1,500 TOTAL $2,800 i Note: Totals rounded off to nearest 100. Estimates are for typical year of operation. Q310:3R-41-13 j
Amand. XV ' g Juna 1982 ,'
. .< ', f.\ , (-
" 4 i ,
Quest 10D_32Q lB (NRC' letter dated 10/26/81, rgrponse letter , J dated 12/22/81) Provide updated economic comparison of Ciinch ' River and 'riable hook-on sites. Level of detail - should be consistent with data presented in i 4 e i Table 9.4 of the CRBR FES. Original source of 'f v;i
/ 'I this data was letter to NRC from A. R. Buhl, /,
/
CRBR Project Office, January 10, 1977, also, see 9;f 7 ER Section 9.2.6.2. /t '#-
~
/
s
,, ki-
,,4 e RESPONSE ,
i y , o r Econom.ic analysis has shown that a steind g alone plent at, the s y Clinch River site is preferred. Asf rioted in the quest 5on, 'this'
- t conclusion was based on data provided by the PrGjdct in a. letter dated January 10,'1977. Subsequerrt to the suspniff on of 11cen- ,
sing interaction with the NRC (April 1977), Cong pss continued f unding of engineccing design and procurement of[CR$RP, equipment. With the CRBRP in its present state of design and procuhement l7 ' e ! /
>/
maturityahook-on'arrangemen,t'isnolongerconsidered,[ This conclusion is supported byj the f ollowing f agtersi , viable.
',[ ,h',' e l
'l r r i ju 1
3 i 't ( (1) The CRBRP- Fr,oject has firm orders f or approx 1'mately 10% of - the BOP eqtp[dment valued'at $63 million, of this, 6 i., ' equipment valged at $5 million has already been delivered. , t /
't ,
, i, +;
/ *j (2) Hook-on sites have aged in the intervening ye,dars.and r >
become lest attractive than in the original economic / study. , ', 7 < y o
.\'
(3) Site specific engineering is at an advanced stagtro'f I completion. The rework of these designs to be compatible with a hook-on site would result in substantial economic , and schedular penalties. ' j, ' j I ,j
,' ; . 1 Ik v 1 ') , ,
' k f ', ,l
,,/
} Q320.lR-1 .'s e[ n .
e ., ..
/j Amand. XV r-June 1982 i
.k l
.\> In light; of the above, a detailed update to the economic
'"'compati,so,n of Clinch River Project and viable hook-on sites I-T .
4 cannstr'cIedibly alter the conclusion that the CRBRP at the
,.C.l, inch' R.fv,er, site is preferred over viable hook-on sites.
( 5 t t# l 9 4 i O 4 { $
,8
/ ,
t f I f
/ , g /
*s b
a.P
- 9 1'
* , e
/
I J k $ r e d I
/
l , i i i l i f i l I 0320.1R-2
Amand. XV June 1982 Quest 19D_120,2B (NRC letter dated 10/26/81, response letter dated 12/22/81) Discuss capacity losses and age of turbines associated with each hook-on arrangement identified in response to Q.320.1.
RESPONSE
As discussed in the response to Question 320.lR, detailed review
- of the age and capacity of turbines at hook-on sites cannot credibly alter the conclusion that the CRBRP at the Clinch River site is pref erred over viable hook-on sites.
i 03 2 0. 2 R-1
AMEND. XV June 1982 OUESTION 320.3R (NRC letter dated 10/26/81. response letter dated 2/05/82) Update those sections of Appendix E (Amendment VII - February - 1977) to the CRBRP ER dealing with costs of delay associated with relocating the proposed plant. Specifically, provide new cost data for Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix E for all alternatives previously considered plus the cost associated with a move to potential sites on the TVA system. Additional discussion should include new Clinch River schedule, estimated months of delay associated with move, and date corresponding to reference time
- 0. Also, if timing requirements of the Project are still important, identify new critical dates for commercial operation and decision on full-scale LKFBR commercialization.
RESPONSE , This question was responded to in a letter from J. Longnecker to P. Check, dated 2/05/82. Since that response, Appendices A through E have been re-evaluated and the information contained there in reconfirmed, revised or supplemented in Appendices F (DOE sites) and G (TVA sites). Appendices F and G are incorporated into the ER by Amendment XV. - The cost associated with relocation to a TVA site is presented in Table 3, Appendix G. The cost to relocate to a DOE site is presented in Table 8, Appendix F. The key CRBRP milestone dates l are provided in Table 7, Appendix F. l l l Q32 0. 3 R-1
f Amsnd. XV Juna 1982 Ouestion 320.4R (NRC letter dated 10/26/81, response letter dated 2/5/82) Provide updated $ estimates of the program benefits associated with LMFBR commercialization (see Program FES (ERDA-1535), Table III F-10 of Volume 1, and Section 11.5.1 of the ER). Also, provide $ estimate of the loss of benefits associated with the delay assumed in response to Q3. (See Buhl, Dec. 29, 1976, p. 31 for estimate based on 52 month delay). Resp'onse The program benefits, and potential losses associated with delay are d'escribed in the cited passages of the ER and FES. Based on today's information, those values are a conservative representation of benefits and losses. In addition, however, the benefits of Clinch River are measured in terms of the information it will generate to satisfy the program and project objectives and analyses of .the need for and benefits of the LMFBR program are outside the scope of the Commission's review l of CRBRP. United States Energy Research and Development Administration et al. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) . CLI-76-13, 4 NRC 67 (1976). - l t Q3 2 0. 4 R-1
AMEND. XV June 1982 Ouestion 320.5R (NRC letter dated 10/26/81. response letter dated 12/22/81) Provide current estimate of operating revenues expected during demonstration period from sale of energy to TVA system and revenues from potential 30 year operating life. Identify all underlying assumptions used in making these calculations.
RESPONSE
A. Current estimate of operating revenues + (in constant 1981 dollars) expected during demonstration period from sale of energy to the TVA system is as follows: Fiscal Revenue Year 1981 $ million 1990 22.8 1991 33.5 1992 45.4 1993 61.9 1994 63.3 1995 36.9 263.8 . Underlying, assumptions for A. are as follows:
- 1. Initial Criticality 9/30/89
. 2. Revenue rate is based on value of replacement power to TVA of $27.53 per megawatthour in 1981$.
- 3. Capacity factor based on 350 MWe net is as follows:
Time Period
- Capacity Factor 7 months ** 20.2 6 months 36.4 12 months 40.
12 months 55. 12 months 75. 12 months 75. 6 months 75. 0320.5R-1
~
AMEND. XV June 1982 B. Current estimate of operating revenues expected from potential 30 year operating life is S1954 million in constant 1981$. Underlying assumptions for B. are as follows:
- 1. Revenue through the five year demonstration period is as shown in A.
- 2. Revenue rate for the remaining 25 years is based on the same value per megawatthour as in A. This assumes that the same, or similar, arrangements will be made for sale of power to TVA after the demonstration period; or the power will be worth this same amount to TVA if it chooses to purchase the plant after the demonstration period.
- 3. Capacity factor, based on 350 MWe nominal: (Note that the stretch rating is 402.5 MWe) .
Year After Demonstration Capacity Period Factor 1-4 75 5-15 92*** 16 90 17 86 18 81 19 76 20 71 21 67 22 62 23 58 . 24 53 25 40 Represents gross revenue ari has not been offset by costs of operation and fuel. ' From initial criticality.
** Seven month test period before start of demonstration period. *** Represents achieving stretch and 80 percent capacity factor the same year.
0320.5R-2
e Amend. XV June 1982 QucSt10D_120,68 (NRC letter dated 10/26/81, response letter dated 2/5/82) Review Section 8 -- Need for the Proposed Facility -- of the CRBRP FES ( NUREG 0139) and based on post-1977 developments regarding the CRBR project identify all revisions and updates necessary to make this section f actually consistent with the current status of the program. BCSDDDSD Conclusions made in Section 8 of the CRBRP FES ( NUREG 0139) , support the need for CRBRP as a key part of the LMFBR development program. Post 1977 developments do not alter these conclusions. Current actions and policy decisions by Congress and the Reagan administration are evidence that the conclusions drawn in the CRBRP FES are still valid. The President's October 8, 1981, nuclear energy policy statement established this Administration's definitive policy on the LMFBR program and CRBRP proj ect, as follows:
"I am directing that government agencies proceed with the demonstration of breeder reactor technology, including completion of the Clinch River Breeder j Reactor. This is essential to ensure our preparedness for longer-term nuclear power needs."
Continuing Con'gressional support is evidenced by the enactment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981.1 This continued the authorization for the CRBRP and set the stage for additional l - funding. The Conference Report accompanying this legislation 2 explicitly states the intent of Congress that the Project is a key step in the development of the LMFBR, and that the Project must be constructed in a timely and expeditious manner, so that a l l 1 0mnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Pub. L. No. 97-3 5) . 2 House Conference Report No. 97-208, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 at 827 (1981). l l Q320.6R-1
Amend. XV o June 1982 a decision on the commercialization and deployment of breeder reactors can be made on the basis of information obtained in the operation of the plant. On August 30, 1976 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission established the guidelines for the consideration of specific issues in the CRBRP construction permit proceeding. The Commission specified that any inquiry into the need for the CRBRP must be limited to consideration of the likelihood that the CRBRP will meet the objectives of the demonstration plant project. The demonstration objectives of the CRBRP remain unchanged: o to demonstrate the technical performance, reliability, maintainability, safety, environmental acceptability, and economic f easibility of an LMFBR central station electric powerplant in a utility environment; o to confirm the value of this concept for conserving important nonrenewable natural resources. The role of the CRBRP in the LMFBR development program is essentially unchanged since.1976. The schedule for CRBRP and the overall LMFBR development program has changed but the importance of the demonstration plants to the program is undiminished. NRC staff concluded in 1977 that the probability of CRBRP meeting its objectives was high. Progress in the development of the-CRBRP design, since 1977, provides further assurance that the CRBRP will meet its obj ectives. CBBBE_Erogram_ Summary l Significant progress has been made to date in the design, development, and hardware procurement areas of the CRBRP. The , project is in a position to begin site clearing and construction upon receipt of the necessary approvals f rom the NRC. The 03 2 0. 6 R-2
l . Amend. XV June 1982 following list includes some of the significant accomplishments to date: o Overall plant design about 90% completed and project-funded research and development about 95% completed; o About 7,000 architect-engineering drawings of the required 9,400 prepared; o Procurement contracts for over $500 million of hardware l representing approximately 60% of the total required project hardware placed; o Manufacture of approximately $251 million of hardware completed and about $120 million of ef fort accomplished
. on other hardware in process; o Contributions made to advancement of the worldwide state-of-the-art on LMFBR plants, such as the heterogeneous core; o Continuous evaluation and updating of the plant design to remain current with changing regulatory requirements; o Issuance in 1977, by the NRC, of the Site Suitability '
Report and the Final Environmental Statement, which concluded that the site is suitable for the plant and that the action called for under the National Environmental Policy Act is the issuance of a construction permit; o Licensing activities were resumed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff in 1981; and
~
o Prototype steam generator and prototype primary pump delivered to Energy Technology Engineering Center for testing in sodium. Base _ Technology _EIogram_EIogress The base technology program is structured to satisfy the goal of developing the technological data required to support LMFBR power plant design, construction, and safe operation. The elements of l the base program include safety, components, materials and l structures, fuels and other core materials and physics. For each Q3 2 0. 6 R-3
l Amend. XV Junn 1982 of these program elcments, significant accomplishments since the mid-1970's are reviewed below: Safety o The reliability of the reactor shutdown system and shutdown heat removal system has been established through extensive out-of-reactor laboratory testing. o Experiments conducted with molten fuel have provided important data for validation of analytical methods to be applied to fuel movement from breached pins. As a result, self-termination of unprotected overpower accidents, unprotected loss of flow, it can be shown that extensive system damage is unlikely. o The experimental data base, together with computer codes that extrapolate those data to prototypic accident conditions, indicates that the inherent nature of f uel motion under molten core conditions makes the core self-dispersive, and that recriticality is therefore unlikely. o Earlier uncertainty over the limit which can be placed on the extent of the damage associated with a postulated whole core accident has been substantially reduced. For the CRBRP, the adequacy of the plant design to withstand such an accident has been established. CompDDeDts o Tests were completed on the FFTP prototype pump in 1977. The test facilities at the Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) were subsequently modified to accommodate CRBRP-size components. o A CRBRP prototype pump and steam generator have been fabricated and are being installed for testing in 1982. o Prototype components representative of large plant _ components are being f abricated f or eventual testing in the ETEC. Materials _ add _ Structures o Develo' ped design rules which have been adopted by the ASME Code and which are being applied worldwide in the design of LMPBR plants. o Advanced the technology base for materials data, fabrication, nondestructive examination, advanced Q320.6R-4
Amend. XV Juno 1982 alloy s, sodium technology, and high temperature design methods and criteria. Ebysics o Critical experiments in a CRBRP mockup core were , completed in the Zero Power Plutonium Reactor. Analysis of these experiments will verify much of the CRBRP neutronic design and safety parameters. o Studies of the FFTP physics measurements were initiated to confirm developmental LMFBR design methodology and to improve knowledge of the FFTP test irradiation environment. EuclS o Reference FFTF fuels and cladding were successfully tested to goal burnup and beyond clad breach in the EBR-II. The mechanical design of the FFTF fuel pin is identical to that of the CRBRP. o Fabrication of pins f or f our FFTF cores was completed. o Control assembly lifetimes were doubled. o Improved alloys that promise significantly extended lif etimes f or f uel pin cladding were developed. The list of candidate alloys has been narrowed to three. Eacilities o Criticality of the Fast Flux Test Facility was achieved l in February 1980. Full power was demonstrated in December 1.980 and natural circulation was demonstrated l in 1981. o The Experimental Breeder Reactor II operated and supplied electrical power to the grid at 71-77% capacity while serving as a fuels and materials test facility _ from 1976-1980. With respect to the specific CRBRP demonstration objectives reviewed by the staf f in NUREG 0139, progrecs since 1977 is especially noteworthy in LMFBR technical performance and l realiability. l l l 0320.6R-5
Amend. XV June 1982 Tesbolsal_ Performance _and_Beliability Technical perf ormance and reliability have been demonstrated in the f oreign sector by the operation of Phenix at a 65% capacity factor, as well as operation of the BN-350 and Joyo reactors. i l l l { I l l l 0320.6R-Sa
l Amand. XV June 1982 Confidence in U.S. capability is based on continuing EBR-II performance after 19 years of operation and recent FFTF startup and operation at full power. There is apparently no remaining question about technical feasibility, at least through
~
intermediate plant size. Super Phenix, currently under construction, should remove technical feasibility questions. An important remaining issue is the cost of commercial size L MFB R ' s . The cost will help determine when the LMFBR can be competitive with alternates. Continued development is the only . satisfactory way to resolve that question. TimlD9 The Prototype Large Breeder Reactor (PLBR) referred to in NUREG 0139 as the plant to follow the CRBRP, is no longer part of DOE planning. Design studies have been carried out on a 1000 MWe LMFBR developmental plant, during 1978-81 under the name Conceptual Design Study (CDS) and more recently as the Large Developmental Plant (LDP) pr oj ect. A decision to proceed with construction of the LDP could come as early as FY 1984, with operation in the mid-1990's. Should construction of the LDP begin in the mid-1980's, it would overlap CRBRP construction by 3-4 years. In NUREG 0139, LDP and the CRBRP construction were scheduled to overlap by about one year. The potential increased overlap now contemplated, does not significantly increase the technical risk associated with the LDP. To the contrary, it is DOE's belief that an overlap of 3-4 years is considered to be consistent with most efficient use of LMFBR program resources. The current schedule with a potential construction overlap allows for assimilation of knowledge gained in design, construction, and licensing of the CRBRP. Overlap will allow for a more efficient use of the design team through continuity of ef fort as well as 03 2 0. 6 R-6
Amend. XV l Juno 1982 assimilation of all available proj ect information. Such key information as base program R&D, construction and planning I techniques, and equipment manuf acturing experience is already being used in concept studies for the LDP. Results of CRBRP component tests will be available in 1982 for use in the preliminary engineering design of the LDP. CRBRP startup and I testing data that will be particularly usef ul in the large plant effort include data associated with sodium systems and inert gas systems. Experience gained f rom design of the CRBRP was f actored into the conceptual design studies of the LDP and f urther benefits would be realized as the design continues. For example, CRBRP equipment design and fabrication experience will be directly applicable to the LDP as most of the CRBRP components will be fabricated before preliminary engineering design of the LEDP is initiated. CRBRP construction planning and techniques are currently being incorporated into LDP construction planning evaluations. CRBRP construction experience will provide valuable input for the final planning and impiementation of a cost-ef f ective and schedule-oriented LDP construction plan. . Start-up testing of systems at the CRBRP will provide equipment confirmation data useful in design activities and subsequent test operations for LDP. This testing input can be particularly ~ useful in the liquid metal and inert gas systems. Operation of the CRBRP will provide additional on-line information useful for verification of designs and component concepts common to the LDP and the CRBRP and will provide additional input for testing procedures in such areas as remote fuel handling. CRBRP operating experience will also be factored into the procurement specifications of such LDP systems as the plant-wide computerized control system. In the event that early 03 2 0. 6 R-7
Amend. XV June 1982 CRBRP operation discloses an unexpected system problem, the phasing of the two projects provides time to implement corrections. Additionally, operation of the CRBRP, in the course of demonstrating the technical performance, safety, and economics of an LMPBR plant in a utility environment, will develop information and expertise in plant start-up operation and maintenance. This experience will be valuable in the planning and implementation of
. these key functions for the LDP and in contributing to the broad base of experience and information that is important for commercial and industrial application of the LMFBR concept.
CRBRP experience is also applicable in large-plant confirmatory research and development work where much of the CRBRP work developed in the areas of safety, physics, fuels, materials, and component development is directly applicable. Nearly all this work will be completed bef ore preliminary engineering design of the LDP. In addition, critical CRBRP components such as the steam generator and primary sodium pump will undergo thorough testing in 1982 and information developed during this testing program will be factored into the design process. , t l CRBRP operation and the follow-on operation of the LDP will serve to provide important experience and data regarding the LMFBR l technology, environmental acceptability, economics, and value as a practical future option for generating electric power and j conserving nonrenewable natural resources. l I . i i 0320.6R-8 t 1 ._
i i Amend. XV ! June 1982 l TecbDical_ Alternatives _to_the_CBBBP ; A key feature of the U.S. LMFBR development program remains avoiding premature foreclosure of technological alternatives., In any construction project, design choices must be made amonrj feasible alternatives. To the extent possible during development, there is merit in keeping open options that might be Q 3 20. 6 R-8 a
Amand. XV Juno 1982 exercised later. For some of the technological alternatives examined by NRC staf f in NUREG 0139, additional information is I now available. The design of the primary heat transport system in LMFBRs f alls into two categories: the pool (where the entire primary system is contained within a relatively large primary vessel) or the loop (where piping external to the reactor vessel transports sodium to pumps and heat exchangers) . Experience indicates that either concept can be constructed and operated safely and
. reliably. Indeed the French, British, Soviet, and U. S. programs have all included at least one shift in the loop / pool choice.
The DOE Conceptual Design Study (CDS) concluded that there was no overwhelming advantage to either concept.3 There would be no environmental differences and safety differences would be insignificant. Participants, drawn f rom the industry, recommended a loop concept for what is now the LDP, but recognized that there may be merit in the pool concept for commercial plants.3 Regardless of the choice, the developments that are required in components and other key base technology areas are much the same. For example, the steam generators are equally applicable to either concept, and the pump technology required f or a pool system is probably less complex than that now being developed for a loop system. In both instances, the design, manufacturing, and operating experienced gained are an effective base for future plants. The conclusion is that the U.S. program, now on the loop path for the CRBRP, is not precluded f rom a future switch to a pool system. Thus, the program retains more flexibility than does .a ' specific project, in which changes in choice of technology can add considerable expense. 3"LMFBR Conceptual Design Study; Phase I Summary Technical Report," CDS-500-1, U.S. Depa r tment of Energy, p. 4-29 (1980). 03 20. 6 R-9
Amend. XV June 1982 An updated Table 8.1 is provided to reflect events since NURDG 0139 was issued. Eucla Another example of the flexibility build into the U.S. program deals with f uel type. In the Conceptual Design Study for a large plant, flexibility was maintained with respect of choice of f uel type by making the design of the reactor internals capable of accept.ing either the reference oxide fuel design, or a ca,rbide fuel. Similarly, it has been shown that the CRBRP could operate satisfactorily on a variety of fuel cycles, and the reference core design was switched f rom homogeneous to heterogeneous without other significant changes in cost, environmental or safety aspects. In the recent large plant studies (CDS and LDP), oxide fuel was' selected for at least the first several cycles. Super Phenix will use oxide fuel, Thus the use of oxide fuel in the CRBRP not only does not foreclose future U.S. emphasis on other fuels, but is presently consistent with the consensus choice for larger plants. E9tnigo Eurcbase ' t It has been proposed that another alternative would be for the U.S. to purchase foreign technology rather than to pay for our
~
own domestic LMFBR fuel cycle development program. Such proposals often neglect to account for the extensive domestic development work that would still be necessary to assure the t foreign breeder designs would satisfy unique U.S. licensing r eq ui r ements. This may involve, among other things, the need to make substantial plant modifications to key saf ety features such as the reactor containment building, reactor saf ety systems, and shutdown heat removal systems, i 03 20. 6 R-10 1 .
Amend. XV June 1982 In addition, one of the central features U.S. energy policy of the past four Administrations has been to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign sources of energy supply. Regardless of current alliances, political or commercial barriers 20-40 years hence could prevent a f oreign LMFBR supplier f rom selling to the U.'S. Even if reactors were sold, without a complete domestic fuel cycle capability, the U.S. would have to rely on f oreign sources of reactor fuel supply. This could have national security implications that are not unlike those associated with current U.S. dependence on foreign supplies of oil. 9 03 20. 6 R-ll
Amend. XV l June 1982 l 1 1 NORLIMIDE FAST BREEDER
)
RF1CIOR PLANT Power Mecawatts Initial Name Country 'lhermal Electric Pool or Loop Operation DEOCNMISSIONED C1mentine USA 0.025 Loop 1946 Experimental Breeder Reactor-1 USA 1 0.02 Loop 1951 BR-3/BR-2 USSR 0.1 Loop 1956 LAMPRE USA 1 Loop 1961 Fermi USA 200 60.9 Loop 1963
- SEEDR USA 20 Loop 1969 Dounreay Fast Reactor UK 72 14 L p 1959 Rapsodie France b b 20/40 Loop 1966 OPERI.SLE a a BR-5/BR-10 USSR 5/10 Loop 1959" Experimental Breeder Reactor-II USA 62.5 18.5 Pool 1963 BCR-60 USSR 60 12 Loop 1%9 BN-350 USSR 1000 150 c
Loop 1972 Phenix France 567 233 Pool 1973 Prototype Fast Reactor UK 600 250 Pool 1974 Joyo Japan d 100 Loop 1977 BN-600 USSR 1470 600 Pool 1980 FastFguxTestFacil. USA 400 Loop 1979 KNK-II W. Germany 58 20 Loop 1977 UNDER CONS'IHJCTION Super-Phenix France 9 2900 1200 Pool SNR-300 f W. Germany 770 312 Loop Prova El m enti di l Cmbustibile Italy 140 Modified Pool 1987 PLANNED Monju Japan 714 300 Loop Clinch River Breeder Reactor USA 975 359 Loop 1989 Ca mercial Fast Reactor UK 3230 1320 Pool SNR-2 W. Germany9 5000 1200-2000 Loop 1985-6 BN-1600 USSR 5000 1600 Pool
Initially operated at 5 megawatt thermal as BR-5; upgraded to BR-10 (10 bmegaaatt thermal) in 1973.
Initially operated at 20 megawatt thermal; power increased to 40 megawatt c thermal in 1970 with " Fortissimo" core. I ' Also produces.the quivalent of 200 megawatt electric as process steam f or desalination. '
% be operated initially at 50 megawatt thermal.
' Operated 1971 through 1974 as a thermal reactor, ENK-I.
In cooperation with Belgium and the Netherlands. kripartite effort of Franch, German and Italian electric utilities. l l I 0320.6R-12 .
Amend. XV June 1982 1 QUEStlDD_12Q,lB (NRC letter dated 10/26/81, response letter dated ' 2/5/82) Update the internal costs of the CR project. Maintain level of detail in Section 8.3.1 inc3 ading Table 8.3-1 of the ER. Als'o, indicate portions of the internal cost to be borne by federal government, participating utilities, etc. BDS90DS9 : l
- The CRBRP Project cost estimate to the level of detail reflected in Section 8.3.1 including Table 8.3-1 of the Environmental Report has been updated (ER Amendment XIV) consistent with the current schedule baseline.
1 l 03 20.7 R-1 l
paga 15 W82-0350 (7,1) 141 I Amand. XV June 1982 ) _Ouestion 320.8R (NRC letter dated 10/26/82, response letter dated 2/5/82) . Provide updated justification for excluding other energy sources as viable alternatives to CRBRP. Currently, ER Section 9.1 dismisses depletable energy resources based on energy growth rates, nuclear expansion plans, costs, and estimates of energy resource stocks, all reflecting 1975 expectations. In addition, as a result of the passace of time and advances made in imple-menting the larger next state demonstration LMFBR, provide justification for not considering this as a visble alternative energy source. Resoonse Other energy sources were excluded as viable alternatives to the CRBRP on the ground that the need for a demonstration plant facility, including its timing and objectives is to be taken as given in the Commission's review of CRBRP. United States Enerav Research and Develooment Administration et al. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant). CLl-76-13, 4 NRC 67 (1976). Further, the alternative of the next-larger-size demonstration plant can be excluded on the ground that the structure, pace, timing and objectives of the LMFBR Program are likewise to be taken as given. 142 DOE has prepared a Supplement to the LMFBR Program Environmental Statement DOE /EIS-0085-FS, May 1982, in which both technological (other energy sources instead of LMFBR's) and programmatic (LDP instead of CRBRP. and no action) alternatives were addressed. None of these alternatives were found to be acceptable. Q320.8R-1 rs2_ s m
Amend. XV June 1982 QucSt1DD_32041B (NRC letter dated 10/26/81, response letter dated 12/22/81) Update economic cost analyses developed in support of your decisions regarding alternative plant designs. Specifica,lly, Sections 10.1.5 (Tables 10.1-9 and 10.1-10) , 10.2.5 (Tables 10.2-1 and 10.2-2), 10.3.5 (Table 10.3-2) and 10.6.5. BcS99DS9 Although the economic costs presented in the tables identified in
, the question are not up-to-date in current prices, the analyses remain valid. Since the time of the evaluation of these analyses by the NRC (NUREG-0319, February 1977) the major change has been the effect of inflation on the costs (both economic and environmental) included in the analyses. However, general price inflation has not af fected the relative ranking of the alternatives nor the relative balance of environmental costs to economic costs. The only change that would invalidate the analyses would be the development of an advantage (ei ther technological or economic) not previously available f or one of the alternatives. For the f acility systems ref erenced in the question, i.e., cooling system, sanitary waste system, and intake and discharge systems, significant changes such as new technologies with a lower cost that would require reanalysis of alternatives have not developed.
l Furthermore, the design, testing, and procurement of these f acility systems are at advanced stages of completion. If a ( reanalysis were to be undertaken at this time, any alternative would have to demonstrate economic and environmental cost i 03 20. 9 R-1 l
Amend. XV June 1982 advantages greater than the selected design's costs. These costs to be assessed against alternative systems would properly include the amounts expended to date on the selected systems to design, test and procure the equipment, the costs to terminate current contracts, and the environmental costs associated with scrapp'ing fabricated components. In the case of the selected cooling system f or the plant, i.e., a mechanical draft wet cooling tower, changes from this design could cause changes in plant performance parameters that might have costly cascading effects on the current design and procurement of the steam / water cycle
- eq ui pment . All of these " sunk" costs would properly be included in any updated analyses because the applicant has proceeded on the basis of previously valid evaluations of alternatives.
O = 8 Q3 2 0. 9 R-2
Amand. XV June 1982 OUESTION 451.1 (NRC Letters dated 11/20/81 and 11/30/81. l Response letters dated 12/15/81 and 12/28/81). In a letter dated 11/20/81 NRC requested, .
" Pursuant to the inf ormation needs of the staf f identified in Section 2.3.3 of Regulatory Guide 1.70.29, "Inf orma tion f or Saf ety Analysis Reports - Meteorology", we request transmittal via magnetic tape of onsite meteorological data f or our evaluation of the radiological consequences of normal and accidental releases to the atmosphere. Please use the enclosed guidance on format and tape attributes (Enclosures 1 and 1A) and provide hour by hour data for the period of record (July 1,1975-June 30,197 6) which you have used to construct the diffusion estimates reflected in the Tables in Section 2.3 of the PSAR. Also, please include documentation identifying the parameters measured, instrumentation, period of record and a dump of the first block of data on the tape as shown in Enclosure 2. We have assigned question number 451.1 to this request. Please provide this inf ormation by December 21, 1981."
NRC f urther requested in their letter dated 11/30/81, -
"Please provide, in an amendment to the Environmental Report, the inf ormation identified in the Enclosure for our review of your application for a permit to construct the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant. This inf ormation is needed by December 15, 1981, in order to maintain our schedule f or the review. Submittal of this information by letter on or bef ore that date is sufficient if followed by an amendment.
Q451.1-1 i
Amand. XV June 1982 , In addition, please endeavor to furnish the magnetic tape i with meteorological data by December 11, rather than December 21 as requested in our letter to you of November 20, 1981. These data should include the data gathered in 1977 and 1978."
RESPONSE
Transmittal of magnetic tapes of onsite meteorological data was provided to NRC in a letter dated 12/15/81 from G. W. Reynolds, TVA to Mr. I. Spickler and was supplemented to define the recording periods and locations in a letter dated 12/28/81 as follows: Your letter of November 20, 1981, requested transmittal of onsite meteorological data (magnetic tape) in accordance , with specified format and tape attributes. The requested period of record was from July 1, 1975, to June 30, 1976. This information was requested to be provided to NRC by December 21, 1981. Your letter of November 30, 1981, requested that the meteorological data be provided by December 11, 1981, rather than December 21, 1981 as previously requested, and that the data include onsite meteorological data gathered during 1977 and 1978. There have been three onsite meteorological data sets used for the CRBRP construction permit application documents. In the ER, July 1975 - June 1976 temporary tower data were replaced by February 17, 1977 - February 16, 1978 permanent tower data in Amendment IX. For the PSAR, the July 1975 - June 1976 data were used in Section 2.3 and March 1976 - February 1977 temporary tower data were used in Appendix 2.3A. Ths PSAR was further amended (Amendment 65, February I 1982) to replace the temporary tower data with permanent tower data for the recording period of February 19, 1977 through February 16, 1978. Section 2.3A was deleted at that Q451.1-2
Amand. XV June 1982 time. Magnetic tapes of each of these three data sets have l been provided to Mr. Irv Spickler, NRC, under separate cover directly from TVA in a letter dated December 15, 1981. These data tapes correspond to three distinct one-year sets of onsite meteorological data, two from the temporary tower, and one from the 110-meter permanent tower. They are (1) July 1975 to June 1976 Pulse-O-Matic cassette system data l from the temporary tower, (2) March 1976 to February 1977 Nova computer system data from the temporary tower, and (3) February 17, 1977 to February 16, 1978 Nova computer system data from the permanent tower. Tape (1) data, Pulse-O-Matic, were used for Section 2.3 of < the CRBRP PSAR and tape (2) data, Nova, were used for Appendix 2.3A of the "' . These data have been replaced by Tape (3) data in At .mnt 65 of the PSAR. Tape (1) data, Pulse-O-Matic, were used in Section 2.6 of the CRBRP ER, but were replaced by tape (3) data in Amendment IX of the ER. i e 1 Q451.1-3
[- - s '
,, l' ,
a
.) . ->
,'l \f 3- p /,
MEND. XV
/ j 3,i:n e' 1982
/
/ # Y '
, ,1 : '
,y .i Ouestion 460.lR ,3 a
*i, ..
o
/
. f,F ,
,f.
Have any dcGign changes been made in the radwaste treatment ' ,* f systems since the FES was published 2/77? . .
)
, s- .7 RESPOllSE .
5 +
,, q .j --
,J ,
L, ,, , Yes. These design changes are,etated and included in the r response to Question 290.1R. /*
\r ,. .
,- s s i
V' *
}
\ s- ..
.'t rl31 *
+ / 3 .
.) ~
I < .-
,\t f
e s l ,
-- /, .
2 /' ! i -I \ . a i I i l l l 0460.1R-1
AMEND. XV June 1982 i OUCSTION 460.2R (response letter dated 11/27/111 [ ' ' Have any changes been made that would cause the source term to be altered? This could include fuel and coolant specifications an,d behavior as well as operational aspects.
RESPONSE
o There has been no change to the coolant specifications. o There have been changes to the fuel specifications due to the core design change from the homogeneous core to the heterogeneous core and these changes do result in some change to the source term. The following table provides a comparison of homogeneous core and heterogeneous core fuel specifications and the target average and peak burnups. Heterogeneous Homogeneous Specification Current Core Previous Core J o Total heavy metal 5.2 6.5 inventory in fuel (metric tons) -
- l Plutonium enrichment 33.2 18.7 to 32.0 l in fuel (weight %) )
Target Burnup (MWD /T) Average 80,000 - 100,000 l Peak 110,000 150,000 1 i l Q460.2R-1
AMEND. XV Juno 1982 o However, it should be noted that in determining the source terms, the isotopic composition of LWR discharge plutonium was used instead of the composition in the fuel specification for conservatism. o The source terms in the cover gas have remained relatively unchanged from the basis used in the 1977 amendments to the ER. o Changes in the inert gas processing system have had the following effects:
- 1) Noble gases are now sent from Increases discharge RAPS Noble Gas Storage Vessel from RSB HVAC
'to CAPS, rather than being bottled for disposal
- 2) RAPS Cryogenic Charcoal Beds Increases activity have been deleted to CAPS, but CAPS charcoal beds supply hold-up time - little effect on offsite releases -
l l 3) Re-evaluation of CAPS Decrease in offsite ( charcoal bed. efficiency releases l
- 4) RAPS moved inside of RCB No effect on normal operation, Favorable l
effect with regard to accidents l l 0460.2R-2
Pogo 4 (82-0430) [7,1] #164 AMEND. XV Juno 1982
- 5) Effluents from other systems Slightly increases to CAPS added to the total discharge from RSB
~
effluent (effluents from HVAC refueling system, fall fuel . monitoring system and maintenance system) These changes are contained in response to Question 290.1R. Q460.2R-3
Amend. XV June 1982 QuestioD_250,lB (NRC letter dated 10/26/81, response letters dated 2/5/82, 5/3/82) Since there are no known commercial plans for participating in the CRBR fuel cycle on a licensed basis, it appears that the fuel cycle related to CRBR will have to be carried out by DOE in its own unlicensed facilities. Accordingly, it will be necessary for DOE to project its plans for carrying out the fuel cycle functions related to processing, safeguarding and transportation of fuels and for managing the handling and disposal of wastes. In this regard, please provide an amendment to the environmental report that describes DOE's planned program and facilities for such functions related to CRBR, including estimates of the resource uses and effluents and assessments of the potential effects, including radiological, resulting from such activities. This report will serve as the basis for NRC to perform its independent evaluations of these f unctions f or CRBR licensing purposes. BesDQDSe The information requested in question 750.lR is provided in the ER Amendment XIV. \ 1 i 0750.lR-1
AMEND. XV Juno 1982 Ouestion 750.2R (NRC letter dated 11/30/81. response letters dated 2/12/82 and 5/28/82) Provide a list of currently feasible candidate sites with current information to support comparison of them. As a minimum, the-following should be considered:
- 1. Using the applicable portions of 10 CFB Part 51, Regulatory Guide 4.2 and the Proposed Rule on Alternative Sites (45 FR 24168-24178, April 9, 1980) as guidelines, review the previous site selection process. This reassessment should identify the region of interest and consider the potential sites within the region, select candidate sites with environmental diversity of land and water resources within the region of interest, and compare the final candidate sites with the proposed site.
Verify that the data provided previously are still applicable and provide current information as necessary. The region of interest and selected candidate sites within the TVA service area should be representative of the environmental diversity reflected'by the types of water bodies and floral and faunal diversity available within the region (upper and lower reaches of large rivers, small rivers, lakes, reservoirs, etc.)
- 2. Provide the rationale and supporting information for exclusion of potential candidate TVA sites along the Mississippi, the Ohio (at or in the vicin'ity of the Shawnee Steam Electric Plant) , the Tombigbee (Black Warrior), the Coosa, the Green (Barren), and Pearl Rivers.
0750.2R-1
AMEND. XV Juno 1982
- 3. Reconsider the possible use of planned or existing power piant sites, including Phipps Bend, Hartville, Yellow Creek, Watts Bar, Browns .'erry, Sequoyah and Bellefonte. If CRBR were located at a site where some initial site work has been done, indicate whether savings in construction time and/or cost could be realized. Also, state whether there is any reason why the CRBRP should not be located on a common site with a light-water-reactor plant.
- 4. Discuss the present status of hook-on concept; if this is no longer a practical approach for the CRBRP, consider whether a complete CRBRP could be built at the hook-on sites previously compared to the proposed site.
- 5. Consider whether another suitable candidate site exists on the Clinch River including the possibility of locating the complete (non-hook-on) CRBRP at the Bull Run Steam Plant or the Kingston Steam Plant. If such a site is identified, what environmental or other constraints, if any, would be involved in so locating the CRBRP?
RESPONSE
See Appendix G to the CRBRP Environmental Report (Amendment XV). l 0750.2R-2
+
AMEND. XV June 1982 Ouestion 750.3R (NRC letter dated 11/30/81, response letter dated 2/12/82) Verify that the ERDA (DOE) sites previously considered in the alternative site review are presently acceptable as candidate sites and describe any additional DOE property that would qualify as candidate sites including any reasons why they should not be considered further. Review the information previously provided on these candidate sites and assure that it is adequate for comparison to the proposed site. RESPOMSE See Appendix F to the CRBRP Environmental Report (Amendment XV). a 1 e 4 l
- 0750.3R-1 l
l l
AMEND. XV Juno 1982 Ouestion 750.4R (NRC letter dated 11/30/81. response letters dated 2/12/82 and 5/22/82) If the Applicant's reassessment of the alternative sites indicated that any of them is environmentally preferable to the proposed site, provide economic costs (costs of delay, etc.) that would be associated with changing the site to such location and discuss any constraints or other reasons for not doing so.
RESPONSE
See Appendices F and G to the CRBRP Environmental Report (Amendment XV). O e O 0750.4R-1 ( . .}}