ML20063G969
| ML20063G969 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1982 |
| From: | ENERGY, DEPT. OF, CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20063G963 | List: |
| References | |
| ENVR-820731, NUDOCS 8207290269 | |
| Download: ML20063G969 (464) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:4. Depa ent of Energy Washington, D.C. 20545 Docket No. 50-537 HQ:E:82:025 July 28, 1982 Mr. Paul S. Check, Director C98R Program Office Jffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regualtory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Check:
AMENDMENT NO. XV TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT The application for a Construction Permit and Class 104(b) Operating License for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant, docketed April 10, 1975, in NRC Docket No. 50-537, is hereby amended by the submission of Amendment No. XV to the Environmental Report, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51. This amendment incorporates revisions to Section 3.4, " Heat Dissipation System;" Section 3.6,
" Chemical and Biocide Wastes;" Section 3.9, " Transmission Facilities;" Section 4.1, i " Site Preparation and Plant Construction;" Section 5.2, " Radiological Impact From Routine Operation;" Section 5.4, " Effects of Chemical and Biocide Discharges;"
Section 5.6, " Effects of Operation and Maintenance of the Transmission System;" and Section 5.8, " Resources Committed." These changes are incorporated for editorial corrections and consistency with the NPDES permit application. Also l included are Appendix F, " Supplemental Alternative Siting Analysis Update for l the LMFBR Demonstration Plant," Appendix G, " Update to the CRBRP Alternative l Siting Analysis Within the TVA Power Service Area," and recent responses to NRC l questions. This material was previously provided and is now being entered into the formal document. A Certificate of Service, confirming service of Amendment No. XV to the Environmental Report upon designated local public officials and representatives of Government agencies, will be filed with your office after service has oeen made. Three signed originals of this letter and 41 copies of this amendment, each with a copy of the submittal letter, are hereby submitted. Sincerely, Ob . ?stvitkLL JhnR.Longen ker Acting Directo Office of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project Enclosure Office of Nuclear Energy cc: Service List SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me Standard Distribution th,is 22nd dqy of July 1982. Licensing Distribution ;Q , L,g L 8207290269 820728 NOTARY PUBLIC fj l PDR ADOCK 05000537 My Ccanission Expires Nov. 14, 1984 C PDR
h SERVICE LIST t 1 N ,/ Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. , Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bodega Marine Laboratory Washington, D. C. 20555 University of California P. O. Box 247 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Bodega Bay', CA 94923 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Lewis E. Wallace, Esq. Division of Law Mr. Gerald.Largen Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the County Executive Knoxville, TN 37902 Roane County Courthouse Kingston, TN 37763 Dr. Thomas Cochran Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 1725 : Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006 Docketing & Service Station Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
) Counsel for NRC Staff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 William B. Hubbard, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General State of Tennessee . Office of'the Attorney General 422 Supreme Court Building Nashville, TN 37219 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Marshall E. Miller, Esq. Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 William 'E. Lantrip, Esq. . Attorney for the City of Oak Ridge n 725 Main Street, East (,) Oak Ridge, TN 37830 2/17/82
STANDARD DISTRIBUTION (D V Mr. R. J. Beeley (2) Mr. W. W. Dewald, Project Manager (2) Program Manager, CRCRP CRBRP Reactor Plant Atomics International Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation Rockwell International Advanced Reactors Division P. O. Box 309 P. O. Box 158 Canoga Park, CA 91304 Madison, PA 15663 Mr. Michael C. Ascher (2) Project Manager, CRBRP Mr. H. R. Lane (1) Burns and Roe, Inc. Resident Manager, CRBRP 700 Kinderkamack Road Burns and Roe, Inc. Oradell, NJ 07649 P. O. Box T Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Mr. Percy Brewington, Jr. (2) Acting Director Mr. George G. Glenn, Manager (2) Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Clinch River Project P. O. Box U General Electric Company Oak Ridge, TN 37830 P. O. Box 508 Mr. Dean Armstrong (2) Acting Project Manager, CRBRP Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. P. O. Box 811 p Oak Ridge, TN 37830 V Mr. William J. Purcell (2) Project Manager, CRBRP Westinghouse Electric Corporation Advanced Reactors Division P. O. Box W Oak Ridge, TN 37830 i Number of copies in parentheses. O 1/11/82
LICENSING DISTRIBtJTION Mr. Hugh Parris i Manager of Power Tennessee Valley Authority 500A CST 2 - Chattanooga, TN 37401 Dr. Jeffrey H. Broido, Manager j Analysis and Safety Department j Gas Cooled Fast Reactor Program ' General Atomics Company , P. O. Box 81608 l San Diego, CA 92138 l Mr. George Edgar Morgan, Lawis, and Bockius , 1800 M Street i Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 O i i O 2/17/82
CRBRP ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AMENDMENT XV PAGE REPLACEMENT GUIDE REMOVE THESE PAGES INSERT THESE PAGES Volume 1 11, 12 11, 12-17, 18 17, 18 72 72 Section 1 Question Page 1-1 Section 2 Question Pages 2-i thru iv Volume 2 Section 3 Question Page 3-1 3.4-4, 5 . 3.4-4, 5 3.6-6, 7 3.6-6, 7 3.9-11, 12 3.9-11, 12 Section 4 Question Page 4-1 4.1-8a, 8b 4.1-8a, 8b 4.1-9 thru 12 4.1-9 thru 12 4.1-12a, 13, 13a, 14, 15, 16 4.1-12a, 12b 13, 13a, 14, 15, 15a, 16 4.1-23, 24, 25 4.1-23 thru 26
- Section 5 Question Page 5-1 5.2-1 thru 4 5.2-1 thru 4 .
5.2-9 thru 12 5.2-9 thru 12 5.2-15, 16 5.2-15, 16 5.2-19, 20 5.2-19, 20 5.2-27, 28 5.2-27, 28 5.2-31, 32 5.2-31, 32 5.2-37 thru 40 5.2-37 thru 40 5.4-12a 5.4-12a 5.4-25 thru 30 5.4-25 thru 30 5.6-7 5.6-7, 8 5.8-2, 3 5.8-2, 3 5.8-4, 5.9-1 5.8-4, 5.9-1 Section 6 Question Page 6-1 6.1-39, 40 6.1-39, 40 O A
4 i O REMOVE THESE PAGES INSERT THESE PAGES Volume 2 (Cont'd.) Section 7 Question Page 7-i, ii 7.1-23, 24, 24a, 25 7.1-23, 24, 24a, 24b,.24c, 25 Volume 3 Section 8 Question Page 8-i, ii Section 9 Question Page 9-1 9.2-22, 23 9.2-22, 23 Section 10 Question Page 10-1 10.3-11, 12 10.3-11, 12 Sectionk2QuestionPage 12-1 . 13.0-31, 31a 13.0-31, 31a Volume 4 i
- Insert App. A-i page in front of Appendix A Title Page
- Insert App. C-i page in front of Appendix C Title Page
- Insert App. D-i page in front l of Appendix D Title Page 1
- Insert App. E-i page in front of Appendix E Titic Page 1
- Insert new Appendix F tab behind Page E-60 followed by i
Pages F-1, F-1 thru F-44
- Insert new Appendix G tab i
behind page F-44 followed by pages G-1, G-1 thru G-81 Volume 5 i - Insert Amendment XV tab and j page AXV-1 i O B . 1 I
I L l (h () REMOVE THESE PAGES INSERT THESE PAGES Volume 5 (Cont'd.) FOLLOWING QUESTION / RESPONSE PAGES WILL BE INSERTED, IN NUMERICAL ORDER, FOLLOWING AMENDMENT XV PAGE AXV-1 Q230.1R-1 thru Q230.1R-19 Q230.2R-1 thru Q230.2R-4 Q230.3R-1 thru Q230.3R-4 Q230.4R-1 Q230.5R-1 Q240.1R-1 thru Q240-1R-23 Q240.2R-1 thru Q240-2R-17 _Q290.1R-1 thru Q290.1R-39 Q290.2R-1 and Q290.2R-2 Q290.3R-1 Q290.4R-1 0290.5R-1 Q290.6R-1 thru Q290.6R-5 Q290.7R-1 thru Q290.7R-3 Q290.8R-1 Q290.9R-1 thru Q290.9R-7 Q290.10R-1 Q290.11R-1 thru Q290.11R-8 O Q310.1R-1 Q310.2R-1 Q310.3R-1-1 thru Q310.3R-1-4 Q310.3R-2 thru Q310.3R-4 Q310.3R-5-1 and Q310.3R-5-2 Q310.3R-6 thru Q310.3R-9 Q310.3R-10-1 and Q310.3R-10-2 Q310.3R-11 thru Q310.3R-40 Q310.3R-41-1 thru Q310.3R-41 - Q320.1R-1 and Q320.1R-2 Q320.2R-1 Q320.3R-1 Q320.4R-1 Q320.5R-1 and Q320.5R-2
- Q320.6R-1 thru Q320.6R-5, Q320.6R-Sa
- Q320.6R-6 thru Q320.6R-8, Q320.6R-8a Q320.6R-9,thru Q320.6R-12 Q320.7R-1 Q320.8R-1 Q320.9R-1 and Q320.9R-2 Q451.1-1 thru Q451.1-3 Q460.1R-1 Q460.2R-1 thru Q460.2R-3 Q750.1R-1 Q750.2R-1 and Q750.2R-2 Q750.3R-1 O -
Q750.4R-1 (_) c
MIENDMENT XV TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 4.1
- Soil Erosion and Sediment Control 4.1-11 15 4.1.2 Effects on Water Use 4.1-13 4.1.2.1 Water Use 4.1-13 8 4.1.2.2 Groundwater 4.1-13 4.1.2.3 Impact on Aquatic Ecology 4.1-14 4.1.2.4 Runoff Treatment Ponds 4.1-15a l15 4.2 Transmission Facilities Construction 4.2-1 4.2.1 Access Roads 4.2-2 4.2.2 Right-of-Way Clearing Methods 4.2-2 4.2.3 Erosion Control 4.2-3 4.2.4 Installation Procedures 4.2-4 4.2.5 Solid Waste Disposal 4.2-5 4.2.6 Restoration 4.2-5 4.2.7 Vegetation 4.2-6 4.2.8 Wildlife 4.2-6
( 4.2.9 Aesthetic Effects of Construction 4.2-8 4.3 Resources Committed , 4.3-1 4.3.1 Plant construction 4.3-1 4.3.2 Transmission Line Construction 4.3-2 4.3.3 Construction Materials 4.3-2 4.3.4 Water Resources 4.3-2 4.3.5 Mineral Resources 4.3-3 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION 5.1 Effects of Operation of Heat 5.1-1 Dissipation System 5.1.1 Plant Thermal Discharge 5.1-1 5.1.1.1 Mixing Cases 5.1-1 5.1.1.1.1 Cooling System Design Evolution 5.1-3 6 5.1.1.2 Thermal Plumes 5.1-4 5.1.1.2.1 Extended No Flow 5.1-5 5.1.2 Thermal Standards for Discharge to 5.1-6 Clinch River 11
AMENDMENT XIII APRIL 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 5.1.3 Effect of Heated Plume on Aquatic Life in 5.1-7 the Clinch River 5.1.3.1 Thermal Effects on Fish 5.1-10 5.1.3.1.1 Migration 5.1.12a l9 5.1.3.1.2 Spawning 5.1-13 5 .1. 3 . 2 Thermal Effects on Benthos 5.1-15 5.1.3.3 Thermal Effects on Periphyton 5.1-17 5.1.3.4 Thermal Effects on Phytoplankton 5.1-18 5.1.3.5 Thermal Effects on Zooplankton 5.1-20 6 5.1.4 Potential Fish Mortality at Intake Structures 5.1-21 5.1.5 Effect of Condenser Passage (Entrainment) on 5.1-22 Plankton and Nektonic Forms 5.1.6 Impacts from Induced Circulation Effects 5.1-23 5.1.7 Impact From Stopping Blowdown Flow 5.1-25 5.1.8 Effects of Heat Dissipation System on 5.1-26 Terrestrial Environment 5.1.8.1 Visible Plumes 5.1-27 5.1.8.2 Ground Fog and Ice 5.1-28 5.1.8.3 Drift Deposition 5.1-29 5.1.8.4 Cooling Tower Noise 5.1-30 i13 5.2 Radiological Impact from Routine Operation 5.2-1 l 5.2.1 Exposure Pathways 5.2-1 5.2.1.1 Exposure Pathways for Organisms Other than Man 5.2-1 5.2.1.2 Exposure Pathways to Man 5.2-2 5.2.1.2.1 Liquid Effluents 5.2-2 5.2.1.2.2 Gaseous Effluents 5.2-3 5.2.1.2.3 Direct Radiation 5.2-4 13 5.2.2 Radioactivity in the Environment 5.2-4 5.2.2.1 Liquid Effluents 5.2-4 5.2.2.2 Gaseous Effluents 5.2-5 5.2.3 Dose Rate Estimates for Biota Other than Man 5.2-6 5.2.3.1 Liquid Effluents 5.2-7 5.2.3.2 Gaseous Effluents 5.2-11 12
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 ( TABLE OF CONTENTS p g. 7.1.2.4 Accident 4.0.- Sodium Fires During Maintenance 7.1-14e 7.1.2.4.1 Accident 4.1 - Failure of Ex-Containment 7.1-15 Primary Sodium Drain Piping During Maintenance 7.1.2.4.2 Accident 4.2 - Failure of the Ex-Vessel Storage 7.1-18 Tank (EVST) Sodium Cooling System During Maintenance 7.1.2.5 Accident 5.0 - Fission Products to Primary and 7.1-20 Secondary Systems 7.1.2.5.1 Accident 5.1 - Off-Design Transients That Induce 7.1-21 Fuel Failures Above Those Expected 7.1.2.5.2 Accident 5.2 - Steam Generator Tube Failure 7.1-24 15 7.1.2.6 Accident 6.0 - Refueling Accidents 7.1-25 7.1.2.6.1 Accident 6.1 - Spent Fuel Cladding Failure in the 7.1-27 EVTM - One Percent Noble Gas and lodine Release O s_/ 7.1.2.6.2 Accident 6.2 - Spent Fuel Cladding Failure in the EVTM - 100 Percent Noble Gas and lodine 7.1-29 Release 7.1.2.6.3 Accident 6.3 - Inadvertent Opening of a Floor 7.1-30 Valve While a Reactor Port Plug is Removed 7.1.2.7 Accident 7.0 - Spent Fuel Handling Accidents 7.1-31 7.1.2.7.1 Accident 7.1 - Spent Fuel Shipping Cask Drop 7.1-31 7.1.2.8 Accident 8.0 - Accident initiation Events 7.1-33 Considered in Design Basis Evaluation in the Safety Analysis Report 7.1.2.8.1 Accident 8.1 - Primary Sodium In-Containment 7.1-33 Drain Tank Failure During Maintenance 7.1.2.8.2 Accident 8.2 - Large Primary Coolant Sodium 7.1-35 Spill During Operation 7.1.2.8.3 Accident 8.3 - Gross Failure of Ex-Containment 7.1-37 Primary Sodium Storage Tank 7.1.2.8.4 Accident 8.4 - Rupture of the Ex-Vessel Storage 7.1-40 Tank Sodium Cooling System During Operation O 7.1.2.8.5 Accident 8.5 - Large Steam Line Break 7.1-42 17
Amendment XI January, 1982 l TABLE OF CONTENTS h Page 7.1.3 Summary of Plant Accident Doses 7.1-43 7.2 Other Accidents 7.2-1 7.2.1 Fires and Explosions 7.2-1 7.2.1.1 Sodium Fires - Non-Radiological Effects 7.2-3 7.2.2 Oil and Hazardous Material Spills 7.2-5 l 11 VOLUME III 8.0 ECONOMIC & SOCIAL EFFECTS OF PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 8.1-1 8.1 Economic & Social Conditions of Site Area 8.1-1 8.1.1 Social-Geographic Conditions of Area 8.1-1 8.1.1.1 Spatial Relationships Between Project Work 8.1-1 Sites, Study Area Counties and Muncipalities O 18
l AMENDMENT XV i JULY 1982 i () LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. and Title Page 3.5-1 Liquid Radwaste System Flow Diagram 3.5-35 ! 3.5-2 Schematic Diagram of the Raps-Recycle Argon 3.5-36 10 3.5-3 Schematic Diagram of Caps 3.5-37 i 3.5-4 Radioactive Gas Flow Paths 3.5-38 3.5-5 Solid Radwaste System Flow Diagram 3.5-39 3.6-1 Chemical and Biocide Additions and Discharges 3.6-7 ! 9 3.7-1 Construction Sanitary Waste System Schematic 3.7-6 3 3.7-2 Permanent Sanitary Waste System Schematic 3.7-7 l 3.8-1 Clinch River Breeder Reactor Core Layout 3.8-10 o I j 3.8-2 Fuel Rod 3.8-11 3.9-la Proposed Transmission Line Route of the CRBRP 3.9-15a Area, Segment A-B, Compartment #14 3.9-lb Proposed Transmission Line Route of the CRBRP 3.9-15b
- Site Area Segment B-C, Compartment #13
- 3.9-2 Existing Access Roads of the CRBRP Site Area 3.9-16 l 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION, PLANT AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION I3 1
4.1-1 Site Construction Layout 4.1-23 l j 4.1-2 Arrangement of Plant Structures 4.1-24 ! 4.1-3 Temporary Construction Facility Layout 4.1-25 (13 4.1-4 General Construction Phases 4.1-26 l15 4.2-1 Soil Erodibility of the CRBRP Area 4.2-10 4.2-2 Heavy Equipment Impact Potential of the CRBRP 4.2-11 i Area 4.2-3 Revegetation Potential of the CRBRP Area 4.2-12 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION j (} 5.1-1 Typical case-Winter 5.1-56 l9 i ! 72 9
y ,,_ . O I INTENTIONALLY BLANK O I I I l P O g- - -,. _ ~' .c
---. -""n-- ea
AMENDMENT XV i JULY 1982 : NRC QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 1 NRC Letter November 19, 1974 - Giambusso None NRC Letters February 13, 1975 and April 23, 1975 - Dicker NRC Letter April 10, 1975 Question 1 (1.0) - Amendment I, Part III, pages Al-312 and 313 Question 2 (1.0) - Amendment 1, Part III, page Al-314 Question 3 (1.3) - Amendment I, Part III, page Al-315 Question 4 (1.3) - Amendment I, Part III, page Al-316 Question 5 (1.3) - Amendment I, Part III, page Al-317 Question 6 (1.0) - Amendment I, Part III, pages Al-318 to 323 Question 7 (1.3) - Amendment I, Part III, page Al-324 NRC Letter October 26, 1981 Question 290.lR (All Sections) - Amendment XV 15 O 1-i
NRC QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 2 NRC Letter November 19, 1974 - Giambusso item 322.5 (2.6) - Amendment I, Part I, pages A1-45 and 46 Item 322.8 (2.6) - Amendment I, Part I, page A1-47 Item 350.3 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part I, page A1-55 Item 350.4 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part I, page A1-56 Item 350.6 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part I, page Al-57 Item 350.7 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part I, page Al-58 Item 350.8 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part 1,'page AI-59 l Item 350.9 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part I, page Al-60 Item 322.1 (2.6) - Amendment I, Part I, page Al-61 Item 322.2 (2.6) - Amendment I, Part I, page Al-62 Item 322.3 (2.6) - Amendment I, Part I, page Al-63 ltem 322.4 (2.6) - Amendment I, Part I, pages A1-64 and 65 Item 322.6 (2.6) - Amendment I, Part I, page Al-66 Item 322.7 (2.6) - Amendment I, Part I, page A1-67 Item 322.9 (2.6) - Amendment I, Part I, page Al-68 ltem 322.10 (2.6)- Amendment I, Part I, Al-69 ltem 350.1 (2.5) - Amendment I, Part l, pages Al-76 and 77 ltem 350.2 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part I, pages A1-78 and 79 Item 350.5 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part I, page A1-80 item 350.16 (T2.7)- Amendment I, Part I, page Al-86 ltem 350.17 (T2.7) - Amendment I, Part I, page AI-87 Item 350.18 (T2.7) - Amendment I, Part I, page A1-88 Item 350.21 (F2.5) - Amendment I, Part I, page Al-91 Item 350.15 (T2.5) - Amendment lil, Part I, page Alli-3 Item 321.1 (2.5) - Amendment lli, Part I, page Alli-4 a NRC Letters February 13, 1975 and April 23, 1975 - Dicker Question A1 (2.6) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-94 and 95 Question A2 (2.6) - Amendment I, Part il, pages Al-96 and 97 Question A3 (2.6) - Amendment I, Part il, page Al-98
- Question A4 (2.6) - Amendment I, Part 11, pages Al-99 and 100 2-1
lI NRC QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 2 (Continued) cQuestion A5 (2.6) - Amendment I, Part 11, pages Al-101 to 103 CQuestion A6 (2.6) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-104 to 106 Question B1 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part II, page Al-107 Question B2 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part 11, page Al-108 (trans. lines) Question B3 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-109 to 114 Question B4 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part 11, pages Al-115 to 119 Question B5 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part 11, pages Al-120 and 121 Question 86 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part II, page Al-122 Question B7 (F2.7) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-123 and 124 i Question 88 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-125 and 126 Question C1 (2.7 & 2.5) - Amendment I, Part II, page Al-128 l Question C2 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-129 and 130 Question C3 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-131 and 132 Que:tler C4 (2.5) - Amendment I, Part il, page Al-133 Question C7 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-136 to 141 Question C11 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-148 and 149 Question C17 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part II, page Al-156 Question C18 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-157 and 158 Question C19 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-159 and 160 0 Question D1 (2.5 & 2.7) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-161 to 168 , Question D5 (2.5 & 2.7) - Amendment I, Part 11, pages Al-173 and 174 Question D13 (2.2 & 2.5) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-212 and 213 l Question D14 (2.5) - Amendment I, Part il, pages Al-214 and 215 Question D15 (2.5) - Amendment I, Part 11, pages Al-216 and 217 j Question D16 (2.5) - Amendment I, Part II, page Al-218 Question D18 (2.5) - Amendment I, Part 11, pages Al-222 to 225 Question D19 (2.5) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-226 to 230 Question D20 (2.5) - Amendment I, Part II, page Al-231 Question D21 (2.5) - Amendment I, Part II, page Al-232 Question D24 (2.5) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-239 and 240 Question D25 (2.2) Amendment I, Part 11, pages Al-241 and 242 Question D26 (2.5) - Amendment I, Part 11, page Al-213 0 2-Il
M1ENDMENT XV JULY 1982 () NRC QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 2 (Continued) Question E4 (2.2) - Amendment I, Part II, page AI-259 Question E9 (2.7) - Amendment I, Part II, pages AI-266 to 268
- Question G2 (2.3) - Amendment I, Part II, pages AI-289 to 293 Question G3 (2.1) - Amendment I, Part II, page AI-294 to 296 Question G4 (2.1) - Amendment I, Part II, pages AI-297 to 298 Question G5 (2.1) - Amendment I, Part II, pages AI-299 and 300 NRC Letter June 11, 1975 Item 321.13 (2.5) - Amendment II, Part II, page AII-44 Item 321.14 (2.5) - Amendment II, Part II, page AII-45 NRC Letter October 26, 1981 Question 230.lR (2.4) - Amendment XV Question 230.2R (2.4) - Amendment XV Question 230.3R (2.4) - Amendment XV
() Question 230.4R (2.4) - Amendment XV Question 230.5R (2.4) - Amendment XV Question 240.lR (2.5) - Amendment XV 15 Question 290.lR (All Sections) - Amendment XV Question 290.3R (2.7) - Amendment XV Question 290.4R (2.2, 2.5) - Amendment XV Question 290.5R (2.7) - Amendment XV Question 290.6R (2.7) - Amendment XV Question 290.7R (2.7) - Amendment XV Question 290.8R (2.7) - Amendment XV Question 290.10R (2.2) - Amendment XV Question 290.llR (2.7) - Amendment XV NRC Letter December 29, 1981 Question 310.3R-1 (2.2) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-2 (2.2) - Amendment XV ] Question 310.3R-3 (2.2) - Amendment XV () Question 310.3R-4 (2.2) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-5 (2.2) - Amendment XV 2-111
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 l NRC QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 2 (Continued) Question 310.3R-6 (2.2) - Amendment XV Question 451.1 (2.6) - Amendment XV O O 2-iv
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O NRC QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 3 NRC Letter November 19, 1974 - Giambusso Item 010.1 (3.5) - Amendment I, Part I, page Al-4 Item 010.2 (3.5) - Amendment I, Part I, pages Al-5 and 6 Item 010.3 (3.5) - Amendment I, Part I, pages AL-7 to 10 Item 010.4 (3.5) - Amendment I, Part I, pages Al-11 to 21 Item 010.5 (3.5) - Amendment I, Part I, pages Al-22 to 26 Item 010.6 (3.5) - Amendment I, Part I, pages Al-27 to 37 Item 010.7 (3.5) - Amendment I, Part I, pages Al-38 to 44 Item 322.11 (3.5) - Amendment I,.Part I, pages Al-48 and 49 Item 350.11 (3.4) - Amendment I, Part I, pages Al-81 and 82 NRC Letters February 13, 1975 and April 23, 1975 - Dicker Question D2 (3.4) - Amendment I, Part II, page Al-169
- Question D3 (3.4) - Amendment I, Part II, page Al-170 Question D18 (3.4) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-222 to 225 f-ws Question D19 (3.4) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-226 to 230 Question D21 (3.4) - Amendment I, Part II, page Al-232 Question D22 (3.4) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-233 to 235 Question D23 (3.4) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-236 to 238
- Question D27 (3.4) - Amendment I, Part-II, pages Al-244 to 250
- Question El (3.6) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-251 to 253 Question E2 (3.6) - Amendment I, Part II, page Al-254 Question E3 (3.6) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-255 to 258 Question ES (3.5) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-260 and 261 Question E7 (3.5) - Amendment I, Part II, page Al-26 3 Question E8 (3.5) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-264 and 265 Question E10 (3.7) - Amendment I, Part II, page Al-269 Question G7 (3.9) - Amendment I, Part II, page Al-303 Question G1 (3.8) - Amendment I, Part II, page Al-288 NRC Letter October 26, 1981 Question 290.lR (All Sections) - Amendment XV Question 290.2R (Sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7) - Amendment XV 15
( Question 460.1R (3.5) - Amendment XV Question 460.2R (3.5) - Amendment XV 3-1
MIENDMENT XV i JULY 1982 4 coordinates 548.500 and 2477.623, as shown on Figure 3.4-9. Temperature of the discharge and the Clinch River temperature characteristics are given in Table 3.4-4. The blowdown has a total dissolved solids concentration as indicated in Table 3.6-1 compared with the river water. Cooling tower blowdown is continuous except during periods of intermittent chlorination of the circulating water to alleviate algae and slime growth. The blowdown is stopped whenever total residual chlorine 15 concentration exceeds 0.14 mg/1, as discussed in Section 3.6. The treated chemical wastes, sanitary ef fluent and, occasionally, liquid radwaste are combined with the cooling tower blowdown prior to discharge. Where control of blowdown flow is required, the individual waste systems have storage capacity for the periods when cooling tower blowdown is not available. () Estimated time of travel of the cooling water across the condenser and to the end of contained discharge lines is approximately two and one-half minutes. Since the Clinch River Bree' der Reactor Plant utilizes a closed cycle cooling system for heat dissipation, the mortality of organisms entrained in the cooling system is assumed to be 100 percent. O 3.4-4
1 l l l NIENDo IX l OCT. 1981 TABLE 3.4-1 O DESIGN PARAMETERS AND CONDITIONS Ambient Conditions Design Wet Bulb Temperature 76*F Relative Humidity 50% Condenser Steam Flow Rate to Condenser 2.2 X 106 lb/hr (100 % Load) Condensate Flow Rate from Condenser 2.8 X 106 lb/hr , (100 % Load) Circulating Water Flow Rate 185,200 gpm (Condenser) 400 gpm (Exhauster) 9 Heat Rejected 2.052 x 109 Btu /hr l6 100% Load 975 MWt Temperature Rise 22*F l6 Cooling Tower Circulating Water Flow Rate 212,200 gpm 9 9 Heat Rejected 2.256 X 10 Btu /hr Approach to Wet Bulb 11*F l6 Range 21.34*F g Circulating Water Pumps Quantity 3 6 Design Flow 63,000 gpm per pump lg O 3.4-5
i t
,~ r O I h
\u 'LsE 3. 6- 1 -n D1 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF EFFLUENT WATER CONCENTRATIONS i
i C CD'" falinch Olver waste Streams ekaroundi' -- Coollas_Zomtr miowdown* _ __. nim ^^'a* ta *trer asutsallattflant maatg3+ santragy Mantem___ ^-- -1 ouma*ttw++ g;nne.ae r me t an t Based on Avg. Gased on nas. Gased on Avg. Sased on the Avg. Canc. man. Conc. River Conc. Saver Conc. Design Leading fan /11 Ima/11 rea/11 ran/li Discharge,- emo/1 100 gpm naa/li Average Ranimum rice tha/yr _ ima/tt fea/It TDtal Alkalinity (as CACO3 ) 87.9 100 0 210.0 250.0 <$0.0 Ammonia uttrogen (as N) 6.e4 0 23 .10 50 NA 239.0 206.3 l'JD <l.0 1.3 0.5 0.47 0.70 2.50 taletum 29.0 35.0 72.0 07.5 12.0 3.5 5.3 35.8 Chlor ide 3.0 224.0 ~ 57.0 05.0 100.0 40.0 7.50 100.0 43.0 Desidual Chlorine " - 7.0 11.0 33.3 CDD <4.0 12.8 10.0 30.0 3.0 0.1 0.34 0.14 Copper 8 (,q/I) 14.0 170.0 25.0 31.3 3a.0 40.0 90.0 425.0 - Total Dissolved Salles (TDS) 125.0 150.0 312.0 175.0 0.33 0.20 0.93 Total Iron g M 'll 530.0 4500.0 1350.0 ~ 277.0 355.0 415.0 1325.0 16250.0 - -
. Lead pg/1) <!!.0 35.0 (20.0 07.5 - -
0.63 0.95 1.72 nesium 7.7 9.4 19.25 n.5 <0.01 <0.03 40.03 manganese t (pg/3) 55.0 100.0 75.0 -- Kirketf p g/1) (50.0 60.0 139.0
<!25.0 4%8.0 150.0 1.0 i3..
0.09 it.6 0.13 21.4 0.10 15 Fitrate (no3) 0 45 0.01 0.02 0.11 pm 1 04 3. 3.5 3.2 66.0 2.3 3.4 76 .2 7.o] 3 0.2 6.5-0.5 5.6 Total Phosphate 6.9 NA 6.5-4.5 6.5-0.5 pot assium 1.26 1.7 1.0 5.0 0.la 1.00 3.15 4.25 15.0 0.34 Sillce (5602 ) 6g 10.75 2.3 3.5 4.0 I 3adium 3)4 4 7s 0.25 15.0 17.5 27.0 345.0 6.5 9.0 35.3 Sulfate (See t 36.0 27.0 40.0 47.5 700.0 21.0 22.0 31.0 Total Suspen&ed Solids (TSS) 7.0 40.0 17.5 100.0 62.0 70.0 97.0 Sine l tag /1) 36.0 570.0 (30.0 5.0 28.9 33.0 114.0 90.0 1425.0 ~ ~ 0.03 0.05 0.00 g e Gesed on
- Status of the honradiological Water Quality and nonfisheries Stological Communities in the C11ach giver Greeder 1 g teactos Plant, 1975-70' TVA, Feb. 1979.
i g ** Includes several minor recycled waste streams (mate-Up Water System equilment rinses, backwashes and blowdowns non-radioactive floor drains). These do not measurembly af fect the Cooling Tower Slowdows Chemical Concentrations.
*lactudes nake-up water Demineraliser and steam Condensate Polisher regeneration wast es, Aust16ery Doller blowdown and non-medioactive Lab and Sampling wastes q g.
eeComputed as f ellowes A .J j Ovantity f rom Cooling Tower Slowdown = (Avg. cone.) (Annual Avg. Glowdown = 2,327 gpe) IPlant Lead Factor = 60.54) Ouentit y from neutralised Plant wastes e (Conc.) (Flow = IOS gpm) (24 hr/ day operetten) (365 operating days /yr) Quantity from Sanitary Westes = (Conc.) (Flow = 5 gpm) (24 hr/ day operation) (365 operating days /yrt y M ame t feleul where Aee. Conc. is based on average river cone. (cooling t ower blowdownl and average discharge flow I.' ttlow) taeutraltsed plant wastes) and nas. Conc. is based on man. river cone. and man, discharge flow. se riald measurements using the orthotolidine calorimetric method repeatedly showed the chlorine residual concentration to be telow the limits of detection (<0.05 mg/1). . As there are no nearby sources of chlorine addations to the river, it can be assumed that the emetent leven is sero.
; 9 Includes contribution to ef fluent quantitles f rom condenser erosion /cor rosion.
C To C2 f"'" TT3
-< 2 C2
'E to rT1
. CX) Z IN) H
Al1END. IX OCT. 1981 0
=
--= CLINCH RIVER
~ # N INTERMITTENT 9
ADDiriON OF f,10Cl p s ( As Reg'd ) I OISCHARGE INTAKE SYSTEM SYSTEM NaOCl (As Required)
~
SANITARY SYSTEM DRIFT - 106 GPM g L H2SO4 (if Reg'd) { f INTERMITTENT MECHANICAL ORAFT WET ADDITION OF , 9 COOLING TOAER NaOCl ( As Req d) es INTERMITTENT COOLING ADDITlON OF
- O
[ OWN 9 F [ At.AILI A RY M AIN CONDENSER SYS Eft [ U TREATED ArFLUENT WASTE WATE R - MAKEUP WATER TREATYENT (OOGPM Aw, DIS POS AL SYSTEM 8 CONCENSAT E POLISHING l9 1 FLOW) REGENERATION WASTES, FILT E R B AC K '.*i ASP E S, CL A R l-FIER BLO/. DOWNS, FLOOR ORAINS. Figure 3.6-1 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE ADDITIONS AND DISCHARGES AT MAXIMUM POWER OPERATION 3.6-7
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
) 3.9.8 DESIGN DESCRIPTIDN OF PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE To connect the CRBRP . generation into the area power system, a new loop connection will be constracted connecting the existing TVA-owned Ft. Loudoun-Roane 161-kV Transmission Line located approximately 2.8 miles northeast of the plant site. The loop connection will be constructed on separate rows of structures with adequate lateral separation to assure that the structural failure of one of the circuits would not jeopardize the integrity of the other circuit. ,
These transmission line connections will be designed to meet the medium design loading requirements of the National Electrical Safety code. In addition, TVA design cases provide for wind loadings of approximately 85 mile per hour winds on bare conductor and vertical loading strength based on one inch of radial ice. These loading conditions assure adequate strength () even under extreme weather conditions. Structures proposed for this loop connection will be compact, narrow based steel towers. O 15 Each circuit of the loop connection will consist of three 2,034,500 C mil (1.68-inch diameter), 72/7 stranding ACSR conductors, one conductor per phase and one 7 No. 9 alumoweld shield wire. Wire tensions for the conductors and shield wire will be selected to assure that vibration damage will not occur. . Long experience with transmission lines in the Tennessee Valley area have verified that where everyday tensions are kept below 18 percent of the ultimate strength of the cable, vibration will not be a problem. Galloping of conductors is a condition that has never been observed on lines in the eastern portion of the TVA system. TVA 3.9-11 -
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 hos had only minor reports of galloping in its entire operating experience; these have occurred only on short span lines in the cantral and western portions of TVA's service area. As stated earlier, shield wires will be installed on the loop
. connections to provide lightning protection for the circuits.
Even though the lines are located in an area with an isokeraunic level of 50, TVA's experience has shown that the outages on similar type lines in this area varies f rom zero to three flashover interruptions annually per 100 miles of line. The use of circuit breakers with high speed reclosing relays results in the majority of these interruptions being momentary. 3.9.9 EXISTING SUBSTATIONS AFFECTED No existing substation /will be affected by the construction of the proposed CRBRP with, the possible exception of some possible adjustments in switching facilities. The need for these fccilities will be determined as the Clinch River Project d:velops. If such adjustments are deemed necessary, they will be very minor in nature. s O 3.9-12 ,
ANENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O NRC QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 4 NRC Letter November 19, 1974 - Giambusso None NRC Letters February 13, 1975 and April 23, 1975 - Dicker Question B8 (4) - Amendment I, Part II, pages AI-125 and 126 Question B9 (F4.1) - Amendment I, Part II, page AI-127 Question C5 (4.1) - Amendment I, Part II, page AI-134 Question C16 (4) - Amendment I, Part II, page AI-155 Question D4 (4.2) - Amendment I, Part II, pages AI-171 and 172 Question G8 (4) - Amendment I, Part II, page AI-304 Question G10 (4.1) - Amendment I, Part II, pages AI-306 and 307 Question G12 (4) - Amendment I, Part II, page AI-309 NRC Letter October 26, 1981 O Question 290.lR (All Sections) - Amendment XV 15 l l l lO , 4-1 l _- _ __ . . _ - _ - . - - - _ - - . -. . _ . _ _. ._ _--.
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O habitat such as cottontail, woodchuck and striped skunk will initially experience population reductions of approximately 20 percent during site clearing followed by population increases to approximately equal those prior to construction as cleared habitat peripheral to most site activities becomes available for habitation. Populations of white-footed mice, cotton rats, house mice, golden mice and short-tail shrews will initially decrease by approximately 15 percent during site clearing followed by a population increase of approximately 20 percent above pre-construction levels as open, cleared habitat becomes available for habitation. Populations of forest dwelling birds such as ruffed grouse, American woodcock, woodpeckers, blue jay, flycatchers, vireos and warblers will decrease by approximately 20 percent due to habitat loss during con-struction. Following construction, populations of these birds will increase slightly to approximately 85 percent of those prior to con-struction. Species typical of open habitat such as mockingbird, l15 grackle, cowbird, cardinal, indigo bunting, American goldfinch and most sparrows will initially decrease by approximately 15 percent during clearing and then increase approximately to preconstruction populations during construction as abundant open habitat becomes available. Pest birds such as crows, starlings and house sparrows will increase during construction to approximately 20 percent greater than prior to construction. Reptile populations are expected to decrease by approximately 50 percent during site clearing and construction because of habitat loss and con-struction roadkills. Amphibian species' populations are expected to initially decrease by approximately 20 percent followed by a 100 percent increase during construction as they colonize ponds and as insect pests become abundant near construction activities. Threatened and endangered wildlife will be affected in proportion to effective habitat loss the same as other wildlife. The bald eagle and
)
J 4.1-8a
#1END. IX OCT. 1981 O
osprey species have active nests along Watts Bar Lake and may occassion-ally visit the Clinch River to feed. Neither species is expected to be affected by CRBRP construction. The bald eagle is listed as endangered in the U.S. and Tennessee, while the osprey is listed as endangered in Tennessee. The eastern cougar, if present on ORR, ranges widely and is not expected to be affected by construction. The cougar is listed as endangered in the U.S. and in Tennessee. Cooper's hawk, listed as threatened in Tennessee, resides in mature hardwood forests of ORR where it feeds on songbirds. The sharp-shinned hawk, also listed as threatened in Tennessee, resides in open forest where it feeds on birds as large as pigeons. Both species have ample feeding habitat and range widely in search of food. They are not expected to be affected by facility construction. The marsh hawk is a winter resident of ORR and is listed as threatened in Tennessee. It feeds on small mcamals and an occasional reptile in open habitat and may benefit from increased small mammal populations on disburbance land. Other threatened and endangered species discussed in Section 2.7.1.4.5 are only possible residents of ORR and 9 are not expected to be affected by construction activities. Within the proposed areas of construction, soil erosion potential, equipment limitations, revegetation potential and natural productivity have been identified using the general information provided by the 1942 soil survey of Roane County (3) and from Figures 2.7-2, 2.7-3, 2.7-4 and 2.7-5. Soil types have been identified and the acres of soil affected by construction activities have been determined by soil map analysis. Soil ratings and estimates of acres affected by construction activities are shown in Table 4.1-3. Only approximately 10 acres of soil that will be disturbed by construction have a moderate to severe erosion potential due to steep, erosable slopes. Approximately 40 acres of disburbance land have wetness or stoniness that severely restricts equipment use. Approximately 40 acres of disturbance land have a severe or moderate to severe seedling mortality rating. Natural productivity of disturbance land is generally low or moderate. O 4.1-8b
M1ENDMENT XV l JULY 1982 The location and extent of specific problem soils, relative to proposed construction activity, will be determined by on-site 9 investigation. Construction guidelines will be responsive to consideration of erosion and revegetation problem areas. 4.1.1.7 IMPACT ON HUMAN HABITATION The CRBRP Site is a forest area devoid of human habitation; l therefore, construction of the CRBRP will involve no relocation 1 or association problems. A small industrial park is located 1.5 miles to the north, a commercial camping area is located about one mile southeast and several houses are scattered throughout the area south of the Clinch River within one or two miles of the Site. Noise associated with construction activities could disturb people in (G) these areas to some degree because of the natural quietness of the area. Construction noise will vary with the particular phase of construction, the mix of equipment used for each phase and the cycle of the equipment. Phases of construction for the CRBRP will include preparing the Site, excavating, placing foundations, erecting structures, finishing details and cleanup as shown in 15 Figure 4.1-4. Construction equipment noise ranges are listed in Table 4.1-4 and the noisiest equipment types operating during {9 each construction phase at an industrial construction site are listed in Table 4.1-5. To characterize the noisiness, a Noise Pollution Level (NPL) 4 O 4.1-9
has been calculated for each phase of the construction. The NPL in deci-bels (dB) is defined as the sum of the A-weighted average sound pressure level and 2.5 times the standard deviation of the A-weighted average sound pressure level. ) Table 4.1-6 is a list of descriptors of NPL values which can be used in interpreting the NPL levels in Table 4.1-5. Locations of existing dwellings are given in Figure 2.1-7. The two dwellings nearest the generation portion of the facility are more than 0.6 mile away. Another dwelling is located over 0.3 mile from the river-water pumphouse. Construction noise impact may be assessed with consider-ation of: (1) probable construction noise levels (see Table 4.1-4 and 4.1-5), (2) NPL Descriptors (see Table 4.1-6), (3) the distances in-volved, (4) the temporary nature of construction and (5) the intermit-tent nature of construction noise. Construction noise would be noticed by few residents south of the site and, for occasional, limited time periods, may cause some annoyance. As stated earlier, explosion noise will be minimized by the use of small 6 multiple charges. Construction of plant and transmission facilities will cause negligible aesthetic disturbance to resident and transient populations because of the limited construction duration, the limited number of viewing locations and the distances involved. Plant and transmission facilities are des-cribed in Section 3.0. Existing and projected resident and transient populations are described in Section 2.2 and site layout and topography are described in Section 2.1. The main plant structures are to be located in a wooded area with higher elevations northward and a slope southward down to the Clinch River. Locations for viewing construction of the main plant structures are limited by the natural terrain and the surrounding forest (see Section 3.1 ) . A portion of the largest structure, the reactor containment building may be visible at a distance of approximately 1.6 miles O 4.1-10
)
l AMENDMENT XV l JULY 1982 to motorists crossing the Gallaher Bridge. Construction of facilities associated with the main plant (e.g., water intake and discharge, railroad extension and barge unloading area) involves 6 only low height equipment and structures. Approximately 10 homes on the southern side of the Clinch River will have a limited view of some portion of plant construction. No provision for living quarters will be made for workers or their families on the Site. Housing and school facilities will be available in nearby communities as discussed in Section 8. 6 The peak construction force is estimated to be approximately l10 5,400 persons. l8 Full compliance with fire laws and regulations will be considered a necessity and a fire plan will be proposed that will set forth in detail the plan for prevention, control and extinction of () fires on and in the vicinity of the project area and quarry site. l8 Several archaeological sites have been investigated in the area as described in Section 2.3; however, all field work at these sites was completed as of June, 1982. The Hensley family 8 l15 cemetery, described in Section 2.3, is located on the tip of the peninsula and is to be preserved with the family retaining the 0 right of access. The cemetery is not in the immediate 9 construction area. Care will be exercised to insure that the cemetery remains intact. 4.1.1.8 SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL A soil erosion and sediment control plan will be developed and 15 implemented for the planned construction activities at the plant site. The objective of the plan will be to control the erosion and sedi. mentation resulting from construction activities by () minimizing soil exposure, collecting and controlling rainfall 4.1-11
l l AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 3 runoff in the construction area, and by shielding and/or binding 9 soil on cut slopes where stabilization is required. Sedimentaton in the Clinch River will be controlled by placing runoff treatment ponds and sand filters in such a manner to collect and treat rainfall runoff. These ponds will be installed prior to major earthwork commencing in their respective watershed. Inspections of the site will be performed on an on-going basis to identify areas of evident and potential erosion to assure that timely corrective action is taken. Corrective action will include, but not be limited to, seeding, placement of rip-rap or crushed stone on slopes and exposed surfaces, temporary diversion ditches and sediment traps such as hay bales, sand bags, filter 15 screens and stone traps. A 25-foot buffer zone will be provided between the Clinch River and the site construction activities except in the following areas:
- a. The railroad spur going underneath Highway 58 Gallaher Bridge, RR Station 31 + 00 (RM 14.0);
- b. The 48" corrugated metal pipe for drainage underneath the railroad spur, RR Station 29 + 39 (RM 14.0);
- c. The 36" corrugated metal pipe for drainage underneath the railroad spur, RR Station 50 + 00 (RM 14.25);
- d. The extension of the 6-f oot concrete culvert underneath the railroad spur and access road, Rd. Station 1 + 84 (RM 14.5);
o O 4.1-12
l l l AMENDMENT XV J O JULY 1982 ; ly I
- e. The 14-foot corrugated metal pipe underneath the railroad spur and access road, Rd. Station 5 + 35 (RM 14.6);
- f. Road and railroad enbankment closer than 25 feet to the Clinch River between Rd. Station 5 + 35 and Rd. Station i 19 + 50;
- g. The barge unloading facility (RM 14.75);
- h. The water discharge outfall (RM 16.0);
- i. The water intake (RM 17.9);
- j. The corrugated metal pipe for the quarry treatment pond discharge (RM 18.25); and O)
(, k. Where existing River Road appurtenances are presently closer than 25 feet to the Clinch River. 15 In addition, all existing vegetation such as trees, shrubs, and grass which do not interfere with the construction, will be left in place and preserved to stabilize these areas and prevent unnecessary soil exposure. Dredge material will be disposed of in a designated spoil area. A dike or berm will be constructed around the spoil area to control drainage from dredge material and prevent dredged material from returning to the river. In areas where, fill material is placed within the 25-foot buf f er zone but not within the confines of sheet piling or coffer dams, erosion control measures including, but not limited to, berms, straw bale barriers, check dams, filter barriers and mulching will be used. O 4.1-12a
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Water sprinkling m laydown, storage, and parking areas, unpaved O ronds and other 2reas of the Site will be used to control dust formation. Dust control will be accomplished through the use of sprinkler trucks which will obtain water from the Clinch River. Specific areas will be designated along the river at which the trucks may obtain water. These areas will be inspected during 15 the normal inspection tours for evidence of damage to the river bank. Any observed damage to the river bank will be repaired and l corrective actions taken. l Thu CRBRP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will incorporate the Environmental Protection Agency and State of Tennessee standards of performance for new sources, best management practices, best professional judgement and other applicable guidance documents to control the potential pollution resulting from the construction activity. The extent and comprehensiveness of the plan will allow the aforementioned agencies to no longer require an aquatic biological monitoring program. The plan will require that specific mitigation methods be taken to minimize erosion from water, wind and gravity. l l O 4.1-12b
#1ENDMENT XIII APRIL 1982
() 4.1.2 EFFECTS ON WATER USE 4.1.2.1 WATER USE o Water used during the site preparation, plant construction and 8 quarry preparation and operation will come from two sources; raw water from the Clinch River and potable water from the Bear Creek Eater Filtration Plant. Raw water will be used in dust control, compaction of fill material and aggregate crushing and washing, with a peak demand of less than 60,000 gallons per day. Water for the quarry operations will be initially pumped f rom the Clinch River and then recycled through a settling basin, with makeup f rom the river required only for losses and evaporation. The intake for 13 water drawn from the Clinch River will be floated to insure sediment is not disturbed. O Potable water will be used in fire protection, sanitary facilities and production of concrete with a peak demand of 150,000 gallons per day. It is presently planned that potable water from the Bear Creek Filtration Plant will be piped to the site along existing roadways. Further into the construction period, the supply system will consist of a yard storage tank with make-up water coming from the potable water supply. 4.1.2.2 GROUNDWATER Movement of groundwater at the site is f rom groundwater highs to adjacent groundwater lows and hence to the Clinch River which serves as a ground water sink to the site area. Thus, the Clinch River acts as a barrier to the movement of groundwater from the Site to the wells and springs presently in use south of the Clinch River, as discussed in Section 2.5. O 4.1-13
AMENDMENT XIII APRIL 1982 During excavation, perched water tables and seep areas may be encountered and will be controlled by installing drainage ditches at the bottom of designated slopes and by installing drain pipes into the rock foundation. O l l 9 4.1-13a
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Water will be collected in sump pits located at the periphery of 8 the excavated slopes to permit pumping to a holding basin for settlement of suspended solids prior to discharging into the river. Since the normal river water elevation is 741 feet, it is anticipated that additional dewatering control and rock treatment may be required from elevation 741 to the base of excavation at 712.5 feet, primarily in the weathered limestoneontheeastsidel8 of the excavation (plant north as reference). The normal pattern of groundwater movement to the river will be restored after the plant has been constructed and backfill has been placed around the structures. 4.1.2.3 IMPACT ON AQUATIC ECOLOGY Construction of the River Water intake Facility, Plant Discharge Structure and Barge Unloading Facility on the Clinch River will () necessitate excavation and dredging, fill placements (including riprap) and other construction activities below normal water level, elevation 741 feet. In addition, limited dredging and placement of fill (including riprep) below elevation 741 feet will be required for improvement of the access road and construction of the railroad spur. Impact of these construction activities on various forms of aquatic life, benthic habitat and other aquatic uses is expected to be minor and of short duration. During construction of the barge unloading facility, the proposed construction sequence, described in Section 4.1.1.3, will tend to minimize siltation in the Clinch River. Only 0.4 acre of river bottom below the 741-foot elevation will be disturbed during construction. Dredging will be from the river bank near river mile 15.0 and the dredged material (as will all dredged material resulting from the intake and discharge structures, access road and railroad construction) will be deposited so as to prevent () material from re-entering the river. 7 15 4.1-14
AMEND. IX OCT. 1981 Revised positioning of the barge unloading facility results in an estimated dredging of 11,000 cubic yards of material, and filling with 700 cubic yards g of sand. This disturbed area is more limited than that previously planned, so adverse impacts are expected to be correspondingly reduced. Construction of the intake and discharge facilities will impact approxi-mately 0.22 and 0.06 acres, respectively, of river and shoreline below elevation 741 feet. A cofferdam will be constructed near the location of the river water pumphouse to permit work to proceed "in the dry." This cofferdam will eliminate siltation in the river during construction of the pumphouse. However, some turbid water will enter the river during cofferdam construction. The limited dredging and placement of granular fill and riprap associated with the access road and railroad will impac' less c than 0.8 acre of existing river bottom below normal water level. Dredging and excavation activities, in summary then, will be limited to several small areas of the right bank and river bottom of the Clinch River between CRM 9 14 and 18, amounting to less than 1.5 acres. The impact of these con-struction activities is minimal and is expected to be of relatively short duration. Impacted aquatic organisms are expected to recover within a relatively short period. A baseline survey, as described in Section 2.7.2, was conducted on the Clinch River at the Site to identify and characterize the existing bio-logical communities. The results of this survey indicate that communities in areas where construction impact may occur are dominated by common chironomid and oligochaete species. These species will recover rapidly in the construction area. Fish species are expected to avoid areas of high turbidity and will not be impacted by construction activities. s O 4.1-15
i p)
\
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 4.1.2.4 RUNOFF TREATMENT PONDS Five runoff treatment ponds and a quarry runoff treatment pond serve the Site during the construction and operating periods. The ponds are designed to process water from a 24-hour storm (5 inches) having a recurrence interval of 10 years in addition to anticipated dewatering flows. Rainfall events greater than the design event will be discharged by means of the riser overflow pipe. The primary function of the ponds is to provide a quiescent settling environment and filtration system so that stormwater discharged to the Clinch River meets the conditions cited in the NPDES Permit. Consequently, the pond configurations have been developed on the principles of sedimentation / filtration theory and best management practices. 15 Suspended solids are removed by processing the collected storm-water through the sand / aggregate filter. Individual pond filters will vary in total filter area and number of perforated risers. The pond outlets are provided with energy dissipation structures to minimize potential erosion caused by the discharge to the river. When settled solids reach a predetermined thickness, the indiv-idual pond and filter medium will be physically cleaned. Main-tenance frequency will vary from a period of several weeks during construction, to upwards of four to six months during the plant operational phase. In the event total suspended solids concen-tration in the effluent exceeds 50 mg/1, treatment pond system performance will be evaluated. Appropriate corrective action will be taken as required. O 4.1-15a
AMENDMENT XIII APRIL 1982 TABLE 4.1-1 APPROXIMATE LAND AREAS AFFECTED BY CRBRP CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 10 Acres Disturbed Category Temporary Permanent Access Roads and Railroads (on-site) 30 30 Access Railroad (of f-site) 4 4 Parking Area 19 2 Barge Unloading Area 4 4 Impounding Ponds 7 7 9 13 Quarry Including Stock Pile Area, Crusher and Facility 60* - Concrete Batch Plant 5 - Riverwater Intake, Pumphouse, Discharge Line 6 .5 Spoil Areas and Sanitary Land Fill Area 43* - Storage and Other Work Areas 67 - l Permanent Plant Buildings and All Land within Security Barrier 37 37 Meterorological Tower Areas 10 10 Additional Security Areas Required For 150 foot line of sight beyond security barrier - to be grassed, mowed - not restored to original condition ._- la TOTAL 292 113.5
*All May Not Be Required l13 O
l 4.1-16
O O O LEGEND REPETITIVE BURNING LIMIT y h I f ----CLEARING Er GRUBBING LIMIT QUARRY ----- ADDITIONAL CLEARING LIMIT , SETTLING DSN = DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER AGGREGATE BASIN DSN 008 AS FOUND ON NPDES PERMIT
- APPLICATION STOCKPILE AND , ;
CRUSHER AREA ___ ONE TIME BURNING
,7
- } ,
8 l UTILITIES QUARRY l CORRIDOR l -*- I
- e. '
4 / TREATMENT POND "D" 15
~ ~ ~ DSN 006 (8 REPETITIVE l .
y '
~, s BU ING l- 0 400 1200 N~, - . f \ *% 6 200 800 N
..a 's %
\
s,N*- , s MET , l s' 'l f spoil BAME UNLOADING 's TOWER y # AREA 6 i l FACILITY 'i ( , Qg ), 4
. i .
5 7 TREATMENTE POND - "N" --- ' \ /
.d
~
.4 f I '
$ DSN 007 O '
i" v l CONCRETE
- 1 Y . -MET i
' f \ s BATCH LANT AREA
{r ' s
% POIL
.- TOWER .
, [
g .- B U RIA l. TREATMENT POND "C"
' J MOUND /
DSN 006 f
] SPOlLT.
\ w.SPOIL [NN ~ AREA .
'-~ ,e 3/ :{
SPOIL \ AREA 2l - j l AREA 1 % t--} u...] t ( ..#
/* CHENS y TREATMENT POND "A"
\
DSN 003 SEWAGE TREATMENT EEN COMMON PLANT ' CLINCH RIVER PLANT DSN 002 GE DISCHARGE DSN 001 %,, .. TREATMENT PONO "B" t2 (( DSN C04 g$ a FIGURE 4.1-1 Site Construction Layout
H. TitUE PLANT SERVICE CONTROL DIESEL CORRIDOR INTERMEDIATE
~
[REACTOR BAY
- TURBINE CONTAINMENT STEAM GENERATOR R.S.B. BLDC p CEN. BUILDING BLDC BAY 9 RADWASTE REACTOR
,A AREA SERVICE *
- 7 BLDC * +L CORRIDOR N,
I .
~
MAINTENANCE T. SHOP AND D LE OAY ' WAREHOUSE
? 5.o '9o 18 a 100 -o' 8
4 CATEGORY I STRUCTURES l 83
?G
~P Figure 4.1-2 ARRANGEMENT OF PLANT STRUCTURES b%
G G e
O O i 13 [ 9 MET. TOWER TREATMENT POND C" : : LAYDOWN AREA I-CONCRETE SATCH I I_ I I/ I ] ,- PLANT AREA CELL LINER SHOP IIIIII Q
.;: ~~~~ ./
GUARD , CONTROLLED STORAGE r HOUSE CONSTRUCTI CRAFT SUSSTATION OFF E
" * [
~
7 MAN AL CLOCK T 141 KV TRANSMISSION LINE d f - ~
~
- PARKING l ALLEYS TOILET M FIELD OFFICE
~
.hkM ji ,
MON 1~- j n (( WAREHOUSE
- F 1 D. P2 CHAN E , EXC E
W d FIRE SLDG. HOUSE
* ~ I i
[.C PROTECTION TANK , D TRC8
)' LOCATE ON U$ TE M P. u ~~~l PUMP HOUSE TREATMENT [
5 gp [-tj h..W...P5
- g, - TR ANSMISSION RIGHT OF WAY PON D "8" -
- 7- s .
g l ( i TOILET TRAILER h, \" , C L- J _,,,,_,,a # \ TEMP. COMP. NlI _ ! ) SUS ASSEMBLY FAINT ;/ l , LAYDOWN 1 MON 6, HOUSE _g$ , , ' TOP OF SLOPE SHOP- - : AREA MILLWRIGHT b g/ -; PIPE < MON 7 SHOP 1, ll: L - - * [ TRANSI-UFT d CARPENTER SHOP y *
, CORRIDOR 44 IRONWORKER TEST .. . .. .! 7.':IT ! COOLING TOWER t*
1 SHOP ,, LAS L,_,,_ l L. g .. .. .-
..... TOP OF SLOPE 4+ o g.
RIGGING LOFT Er m Q gELECT. SHOP
! MON 9 _j_, %g TOOL STORAGE / ; ; ; t L.. g ...._..........
STORAGE AREA f IIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII f-- 6 k ,_ # % ' l EQUIP. SH5P & CONSTRUCTION FENCE g%
& OPERATING ENGRS. y%
100 300 N STORAGE AREA 100 x M -
~
'"I 'I j I I; J -
0 200 400 ~ Figure 4.1-3 Temporary Construction Facility Layout
- SITE PREPARATION AND EXCAVATIONa
- FOUNDATION (NUCLEAR ISLAND MAT)a
- ERECTION EXCLUDING N.I. 4 MATa
- SITE FINISHING ACTIVITIESa e BLASTING
, (EXCAVATION & - QUARRYING)a,b , , , (YEARS) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
- a. ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION ARE SCHEDULED ACCORDINGLY. 7:00 A.M. TO 3:30 P.M.
AND 3:30 P.M. TO 11:00 P.M. (WITH ALLOWANCE OF i 1/2-HOUR FOR STAGGERED SHIFTS 1WO SHIFTS PER DAY; ESTIMATED 5 DAYS PER WEEK AT THIS TIME, USING AS-8 DOUBLE SHIFT SCHEDULE, NO SATURDAY OR SUNDAY WORK IS SCHEDULED. b.THE PRESENT SCHEME IS TO DRILL AND LOAD DURING THE FIRST SHIFT (DAY) AND BLAST DURING THE EARLY PART OF THE SECOND SHIFT. gg R9 NOTE: UNUSUAL SHIFT ACTIVITIES THAT MAY CONTINUE FOR A PERIOD OF 24-HOURS COULD si INCLUDE LARGE CONCRETE POURS OR SPECIAL EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION 89 ACTIVITIES (1.E. REACTOR VESSEL, CONTAINMENT DOME). NO ACTIVITIES SHOULD LAST MORE THAN 24-HOURS, CONSECUTIVELY.
'" <[
Figure 4.1-4 General Construction Phases O O e -- --
ANENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O NRC QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 5 NRC Letter November 19, 1974 - Giambusso item 322.14 (5.1) - Amendment I, Part I, pages Al-50 to 53 Item 322.12 (5.1) - Amendment I, Part I, page A1-70 Item 322.13 (5.1) - Amendment I, Part I, page A1-71 Item 350.19 (T5.1) - Amendment I, Part I, page Al-89 Item 350.10 (5.4) - Amendment II, Part I, page All-40 item 350.12 (5.1) - Amendment II, Part I, page All-41 Item 350.19 (T5.1) - Amendment il, Part I, page All-42 i NRC Letters February 13, 1975 and April 23, 1975 - Dicker Question C15 (5.1) - Amendment I, Part II, pages A1-153 and 154
- Question D1 (5.1) - Amendment I, Part il, pages A1-161 to 168 Question D6 (5.4) - Amendment I, Part 11, pages A1-175 and 176
- Question D8 (5.1) - Amendment I, Part II, pages A1-178 to 201 Question D10 (5.1) -
Amendment I, Part II, pages A1-203 to 206 Question D11 (5.1) - Amendment I, Part II, pages A1-207 to 209 Question D17 (5.1) - Amendment I, Part II, page A1-219 to 221 Question D22 ( ) - amendment I, Part I I, pages A1-233 to 235 Question D25 (5.1 & 5.4) - Amendment I, Part 11, pages A1-241 and 242 Question E6 (5.1) - Amendment I, Part II, page A1-262 Question G6 (5.8) - Amendment I, Part II, pages A1-301 and 30% Question G9 (5.6) - Amendment I, Part 11, page A1-305 l15 NRC Letter October 26, 1981 - Question 290.1R (All Sections) - Amendment XV Question 750.1R (5.7) - Amendment XV 15 l O 5-1
I l l l AMENDMENT XIII O. APRIL 1982 I 5.2 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT FROM ROUTINE OPERATION This section includes both the Radiological impact on biota other than man and the Radiological impact on man which had previously been discussed separately in Sections 5.2 and 5.3, respectively. The radiological impact from routine releases, previously 4 discussed in Section 14.4, is also presented in this section. 5.2.1 EXPOSURE PAfHWAYS 1 Extensive waste treatment systems included in the CRBRP design will assure that the amounts of radioactivity released to the environs during normal operation of the plant will be as low as l reasonably achievable. Potential doses to man, and biota oth'r e than man, from both external and internal sources have been estimated for routine releases and are presented in this Section.
; 5.2.1.1 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS FOR ORGANISMS OTHER THAN MAN 13 These pathways originate with either liquid or gaseous effluent l release and result in doses from external and internal routes.
! External pathways include submersion in air and water and 1 j exposure to soil and sediment. Internal-exposure results from i the ingestion of food or water and the inhalation of air. The ! primary exposure pathways for organisms other than man are shown l in Figure 5.2-1. l Doses to aquatic organisms from radionuclides deposited " l internally are generally of greater magnitude than the doses they receive from external sources of radiation. Radionuclides are incorporated into tissues of aquatic organisms either through the assimilation of food or through the direct penetration of dermal tissue. External radiation exposures to aquatic organisms are j () due primarily to radioactivity in solution or associated with suspended particulates. Benthos receive an additional external 1 5.2-1 i
,__ _ _ _ _ . ~ . . . _ _ . _ . . . . , . _ , _---_ .-_._ ._._ _.___ _ . , - _ _ -.
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 dose from radionuclides adsorbed onto or concentrated in the benthic substrate. l Internal doses to terrestrial animals are generally of greater magnitude than the doses they receive from external sources. These internal exposures result primarily from radionuclides ingested with food and water and f rom the inhalation of airborne radioactivity. Terrestrial organisms and plants receive an external exposure from submersion in air containing concentrations of radionuclides. Radionuclide concentrations in soil and vegetation, due to deposition from the atmosphere and to radionuclides entering through the water supply, are minor contributors to the external dose. An additional external exposure is attributable to direct radiation from radioactivity 13 contained within the plant. 5.2.1.2 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TO MAN The most significant exposure pathways to man are diagrammed in h Figure 5.2-2. 5.2.1.2.1 LIQUID EFFLUENTS Radiation exposures from liquid effluents generally arise from recreational activities or dietary intake. External exposures occur as a result of swimming, boating, and fishing in waters containing radioactivity; and persons involved in shoreline activities may be exposed f rom radionuclides accumulated in sediment. These 0xternal doses are proportional to radionuclide jl5 concentrations in water and sediment. Internal doses result from the ingestion of water, the consumption of fish that contain radionuclides, and ingestion of waterfowl which feed on aquatic organisms. Swimmers receive an internal dose from tritium accumulated in the body as a result of exchange processes. O j 5.2-2
O AMENDMENT XIII APRIL 1982 5.2.1.2.2 GASEOUS EFFLUENTS Individuals are exposed to gaseous effluents via the following pathways: (1) external radiation from radioactivity in the air and on the ground; (2) inhalation; (3) ingestion of beef, vegetables, and milk; and (4) tritium transpiration. No other additional exposure pathway has been identified which would contribute ten percent or more to either individual or population doses. External air exposures are evaluated at points of potential maximum exposure (i.e., points at the site boundary and sector peaks given in Table 5.2-1). External skin exposure, total body exposure and the internal dose from tritium are calculated at the site boundary and sector peak locations. i The contribution to the internal dose from tritium includes inhalation, milk ingestion (with cow assumed to obtain 100% of feed f rom pasture) , beef ingestion and vegetable ingestion. It is assumed that enough fresh vegetables are produced at each residence to provide for annual consumption by all members of l that household. Data on annual meat production are not available for a 50-mile radius from the plant center. It is assumed that enough milk and meat is produced in each sector annulus to supply the needs of that region. The CRBRP population distribution is given in Table 5.2-2. i O 5.2-3
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 5.2.1.2.3 DIRECT RADIATION Tho shielding design criteria for the CRBRP specifies that, during normal operation, the dose rate at the surf ace of that part of the containment vessel which is above grade will be no more than 0.2 mrem /hr. An estimated 90 percent of the containment building that is above grade is shielded f rom the Site boundary by buildings and is enclosed by the Reactor Confinement Structure consisting of four feet of concrete. Radwaste tanks are housed in buildings protected with concrete 115 walls. In addition, sodium storage tanks, the Radioactive Argon 13 Processing System (RAPS) and the Cell Atmosphere Processing System (CAPS) are located below grade. As described in Section 3.2, the probability of radioactive codium leaking f rom the primary to the intermediate loop of the Hont Transport System is very small. Because of the above design and shielding characteristics, direct O radiation doses at the site boundary are calculated to be much lo:s than 1% of natural background. Therefore, these doses have not been included in the summary tables. 5.2.2 RADIOACTIVITY IN THE ENVIRONMENT 5.2.2.1 LIQUID EFFLUENTS Estimated average annual quantities of radionuclides released in liquid effluents are listed in Section 3.5. The assumption is mcde that aquatic biota are exposed to radionuclide concentrations in the river near the liquid effluent discharge port. These concentrations are calculated assuming one part of l liquid effluent is diluted by nineteen equal parts of river water. The average blowdown rate f rom the plant is assumed to be 2,306 gallons per minute. To calculate the exposure to man, the 5.2-4
l l MiENDMENT XV JULY 1982 - green algae. Long-lived radionuclides such as Cs-137 can deliver 0~- significant portions of the total dose commitment long af ter the I time of ingestion. Therefore, a life span of five years is l assumed for the integration interval T. In the absence of data applicable specifically to ducks and muskrats, International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) data2 are used for 15 the f ractional uptake and for the biological nalf-lif e of parent radionuclides. The use of human data for biological half-lives is considered to be conservative because warm-blooded vertebrates smaller than man exhibit more rapid elimination rates.3 The duck and muskrat are assumed to be exposed continuously by full immersion in the water. External dose rates are estimated using the equation: d 3 Rg = 51.2 x 10 C,gEg, mrad /d, (5.2-2) where 13 th Ei = average eff ective energy emitted by the i radionuclide per disintegration,. MeV/ dis. Doses to this hypothetical mammal (muskrat) are given in Table 5.2-9. AQUATIC, PLANTS, INVERTEBRATES, AND FISH Radioactivity desposited internally in these organisms is estimated by multiplying the average water concentration contributed f rom the CRBRP releases in the Clinch River near the point of discharge by the applicable concentration O 5.2-9 _ ~ . - - - . -___-. _ _ - _. _
MiENDMENT XIII APRIL 1982 factors l, 3, 4, 12, 13 listed in Table 5.2-7. Internal doses are estimated (Table 5.2-8) for organisms having effective radii of 3 cm and 30 cm. In the absence of detailed knowledge of the dynamic behavior of radioactive daughter products that are produced internally, all daughter products are assumed to be bound permanently in the organisms; and every daughter in a decay
~
chain is assumed to decay at an equilibrium disintegration rate equal to the disintegration rate of the parent nuclide. The annual dose from i th radionuclide is calculated using the equation: 3 D i
= 51.2 x 10 C gi E i x 365, mrad /yr (5.2-3) where . 13 C gi = radioactivity concentration in the organism
=
Cyg x F1, pCi/g, F = concentration factor, dimensionless. 1 E i
= effective energy absorbed per disintegration of the i
th radionuclide including daughter product, Mev/ dis. External doses for organisms immersed in water (Table 5.2-7) are calculated using Equation 5.2-2. Benthic organisms such as l mussels, worms, and fish eggs receive additional external doses from radioactivity associated with bottom sediments. Accurate prediction of the accumulation of radioactivity in sediment and the resultant doses to benthic organisms requires detailed knowledge of a number of factors, including mineralogy, particle size, exchangeable calcium in the sediment, channel l l l 5.2-10 l l
AMENDMENT XV l JULY 1982 ' () geometry, waterflow patterns, chemical form of the radiocompounds, and behavioral characteristics of the organism. l In the absence of this detailed knowledge, external doses from radioactivity associateu with bottom sediment are calculated assuming a 4-W geometry for beta doses and a 2 W geometry for gamma doses. l 5.2.3.2 GASEOUS EFFLUENTS In the evaluation of the potential impact of gaseous effluents on terrestrial organisms, biota are assumed to be located at the point of maximum offsite exposure. External doses to terrestrial organisms from air submersion and ground contamination are 13 estimated using dose factors derived for humans. It is assumed that total body dose factors for humans are applicable to terrestrial vertebrates and that skin dose factors for humans are applicable to terrestrial plants and small fauna. O Internal exposures vary for each type of organism and tissue. For this estimate, biota are assumed to be located at the point of maximum offsite exposure. The equation used to calculate the annual total body dose to an animal from the inhalation and ingestion exposure pathway is: Dg = (Cai x DF,g) + (Cgg x DFgg) , mrad /yr (5.2-4) where C ai
= average air concentration, pCi/cm 3, C
gg = average ground concentration, pCi/m 2. b5 DFai = dose factor for inhalation, mrad per year per pCi/cm , 2 DF gg = dose factor for ingestion, mrad per year per pCi/m . 5 0 . t f l 5.2-11 i
m. k AMENDMENT XII'I
^
APRIL 1982 Dose estimates for biota which could result'from CRBRP plant released radioactivity are listed in Table 5.2-9. These h estimated doses are less than the dose limits established for ~ occupational workers in the nuclear industry.5, 6 In the "BEIR" report,7 it is stated that ". . . probably no other living organisms are very much more radiosensitive than' man, so that if man as an individual'is protected, then other organisms as populations would ha most unlikely to suffer harm.", 5.2.4 DOSE RATE ESTIMATES FOR MAN 1 j 5.2.4.1 LIQUID PATHWAYS l Estimated average annual activities of radionuclides released in ( liquid effluents are listed in Section 3.5. Data' listed in Table ' 17 and appropriate' 5.2-5 for potable water supply systems 13 ingestion dose factors 11,12,13 are combined to calculate dose commitments from the ingestion of Tennessee River water (Table 5.2.10). Dilution'of the radionuclide concentrations in.the Clinch and Tennessee Rivers is calculated using' flow data listed in Table 5.2-3. The plant effluent is assumed to be mixed with l one-fifth of the Clinch River flow in the reach between the CRBRP l plant and the river mouth. Water from the Clinch River',is
~
I l a s k 4 5.2-12
ANENDMENT XIII APRIL 1982
- 4. The stored vegetable and beef ingestion pathways have O been modeled to reflect more accurately the actual dietary characteristics of individuals. For stored vegetables the assumption is made that home grown stored vegetables are consumed when fresh vegetables are not available, i.e., during the 9 months of fall, winter, and spring. Rather than use a constant storage period of 60 days, radioactive decay is accounted for explicitly during the 275-day consumption period. The radioactive decay correction is calculated by:
1 - exp(-A i 275) jfg s[ 213 exp(- A gt) dt = o 275 A 1 This replaces the term exp (- A g t) h in equation C-7 of Regulatory guide 1.109.
- 5. The beef consumption pathways can be divided into either
[} commercial sales or home use pathways. Dose calculations are made for individuals consuming meat produced for home use. O 5.2-15
ANENDMENT XV JULY 1982 The normal processing route is for an individual to slaughter the beef animal, package and f reeze the meat, h and then consume the meat during the next 3-month period. Radioactive decay is calculated during the 3-month period 15 by 90 90 oJ eXP(- K t)dt = 1 - eXP(-A g 90) i 90 A g This term is multiplied into equation C-14 in Regulatory Guide 1.109. If the beef animals are sold commercially, then individuals would not be exposed continuously to meat containing radioactivitiy from the same farm. It is 13 expected that this pathway will not cause significant individual exposures. Calculations of wet deposition based on a washout model and recommendations of Engelmann 9 indicate that wet deposition is not a significant portion of total deposition. All doses related to deposition pathways (ground exposure and food ingestion) are estimated using dry deposition. The basic data for individual and population dose calculations are contained in Tables 5.2-1 and 5.2-2. Included are distances and elevations at the site boundary and O 5.2-16
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 l q 5.2.5
SUMMARY
OF ANNUAL RADIATION DOSES V The radiological impact to regional population groups in the year 2020 f rom the normal operation of the CRBRP are estimated. Table 5.2-15 summarizes these population doses. The total body dose f rom background to individuals within the United States ranges 13 from approximately 100 mrem to 250 mrem per year. The annual total body dose due to backgrornd for a population of 921,200 persons expected to live within a 50-mile radius of the CRBRP in the year 2020 is calculated to be approximately 128,968 man-rem assuming 140 mrem / year / individual. By comparison, the same I population will receive a total body dose of approximately 0.03 L5 man-rem f rom effluents released f rom the CRBRP. Based on these results, it is concluded that the normal operation of the CRBRP will present minimal risk to the health and safety of the public. O \--) , 5.2-19 .
TABLE 5.2-1 DATA ON POINTS OF INTEREST NEAR THE CRBRP DISTANCE ELEVATION
- CHI-OVER-Q** D-OVER-Q**
POINT SECTOR (m) (m) (s/m3) (1/m2) 1 LAND SITE BOUNDARY N 2060. 87. 1. 01 E-06 1.31E-09 2 LAND SITE BOUNDARY NNE 2440. 87. 6.43E-07 8.llE-10 3 LAND SITE BOUNDARY NE 880. -5. 5.06 E-06 1.25E-08 4 LAND SITE BOUNDARY ENE 820. 20. 8. 3 3 E-06 1.80E-08 5 LAND SITE BOUNDARY E 820. 2. 9.6 9 E-06 1. 46 E-0 8 6 LAND SITE BOUNDARY ESE 980. -5. 7. 4 5 E-06 1.42E-08 7 LAND SITE BOUNDARY SE 1200. -23. 3.83E-06 6.20E-09 8 LAND SITE BOUNDARY SSE 820. -23. 5.6 5 E-06 7.35E-09 9 LAND SITE BOUNDARY S 700. -23. 6. 0 8 E-0 6 8.04E-09 10 LAND SITE BOUNDARY SSW 670. -23. 6.6 6 E-06 9.38E-09 11 LAND SITE BOUNDARY SW 670. -23. 8.10E-06 1.34E-08 12 LAND SITE BOUNDARY WSW 700. -23. 1.10 E-0 5 1.71E-08 u 13 LAND SITE BOUNDARY W 750. -23. 1.57E-05 1. 57 E-0 8 w 14 LAND SITE BOUNDARY WNW 810. -23. 9.77 E-06 8.38E-09 8 15 LAND SITE BOUNDARY NW 820. -23. 1. 80 E-0 5 1.31 E-0 8 $ 16 LAND SITE BOUNDARY NNW 1000. -23. 1.00E-05 1.10E-08 13 17 SECTOR PEAK N 1900. 93. 1.14E-06 1.51E-09 18 SECTOR PEAK NNE 1900. 93, 9.16 E-07 1. 2 4 E-0 9 19 SECTOR PEAK NE 6500. 123. 2.78E-07 4.20E-10 20 SECTOR PEAK ENE 6500. 166. 4.24E-07 5.39E-10 21 SECTOR PEAK E 1700. 99. 3. 2 0 E-06 4.45E-09 22 SECTOR PEAK ESE 2700. 93. 1.71E-06 2.6 5 E-0 9 23 SECTOR PEAK SE 3300. 117. 9. 07 E-07 1.14E-09 24 SECTOR PEAK SSE 1000. 75. 4.14E-06 5. 31 E-0 9 25 SECTOR PEAK S 1200. 93. 2.70E-06 3.33E-09 26 SECTOR PEAK SSW 1300. 105. 2.40E-06 3.17E-09 27 SECTOR PEAK SW 2700. 93. 9.95E-07 1.34E-09 28 SECTOR PEAK WSW 1400. 69. 3.7 7 E-06 5.53E-09 29 SECTOR PEAK W 1400. 75. 5.85E-06 5. 6 8 E-0 9 30 SECTOR PEAK WNW 1200. 69. 5. 25 E-06 4. 41 E-0 9 31 SECTOR PEAK NW 7500. 93. 8. 22 E-07 3.02E-10 32 SECTOR PEAK NNW 6900. 81. 6.87E-07 4.09E-10 reference with respect to plant grade (Plant grade has been established at 816 feet above mean sea level) >g
** normalized air concentrations and deposition rates were generated using a constant ym wind direction model and the joint frequency distributions of meteorological data -2 given in Section 2.6.2.2 (Tables 2.6-5 through 2.6-11) F@
o
=
=
0 9 9
l
\ D V)
D ELE 5.2-6 CRBRP - Nt3WLIZED ENOMRATIONS MID DE10SITION RATES KF SECTOR MSELI* MfERAGES MOUM. GI-O/ER-Q VMEES (s/M) SEC10R* 1305. 2414. 4023. 5633. 7242. 12070. 24140. 40234. 56327. 72420. N 2.03 D-6 8.100-7 4.07EF7 2.600-7 1.87 D-7 9.51E-8 3.87E-8 2.01S-8 1.31E-8 9.53S-9 WE 1.61 & 6 6.52 &7 3.29D-7 2.105-7 1.51 D-7 7.73S-8 3.15E-8 1.640-8 1.07EF8 7.83Eb9 NE 2.765-6 1.090-6 5.36 S-7 3.37 5-7 2.40EF7 1.200-7 4.80S-8 2.46 &8 1.600-8 1.16&9 ENS 4.09&6 1.64D-6 8.10D-7 5.13 D-7 3.66 &7 1.85D-7 7.435-8 3.835-8 2.49D-8 1.81E-8 ' E 4.76 & 6 1.93EF6 9.715-7 6.20E-7 4.46 D-7 2.27E-7 9.27&8 4.82 &8 3.15D-8 2.30EF8 ESE 4.89 &6 1.99 & 6 9.93EF7 6.315-7 4.52S-7 2.29E-7 9.28 E8 4.81&8 3.14EF8 2.296-8 SE 3.406-6 1.405-E 6.93 D-7 4.40D-7 3.14 E-7 1.59E-7 6.43&B 3.33&8 2.17S-8 1.585-8 13 SSE 2.80 &6 1.14EF6 5.69D-7 3.62EF7 2.59E-7 1.31EF7 5.33EF8 2.76 D-8 1.80 & 8 1.31EF8 S 2.39D-6 9.79D-7 4.816-7 3.03D-7 2.16E-7 1.08E-7 4.33EF8 2.235-8 1.450-8 1.055-8 SN 2.39 & 6 9.63S-7 4.80 E-7 3.05D-7 2.180-7 1.10E-7 4.47 D-8 2.31B-8 1.51D-8 1.10E-8 d W 2.88 & 6 1.16&6 5.79E'-7 3.68E-7 2.640-7 1.34D-7 5.415-8 2.800-8 1.83 D-8 1.33 & 8 W 4.19 D-6 1.69 & 6 8.485-7 5.40D-7 3.88 D-7 1.97E-7 7.99 D-8 4.15E-8 2.70EF8 1.975-8 W 6.52S-6 2.615-6 1.345-6 8.665-7 6.27 5-7 3.24E-7 1.345-7 7.016-8 4.60EMB 3.37&8 c1 W 4.62&6 1.87&6 9.62S-7 6.23S-7 4.51S-7 2.34D-7 9.67 5-8 5.00 & S 3.34E-8 2.446-8 m W 8.66EF6 3.505-6 1.82 & 6 1.18 & 6 8.600-7 4.48EF7 1.87E-7 9.835-8 6.48E8 4.755-8 NW 6.69 &6 2.69&6 1.38EF6 8.93EF7 6.46 S-7 3.34D-7 1.386-7 7.226-8 4.7 4 E-8 3.47&8 A/ER/GE MOUM. D-OTER-Q VMUES (1/M) l SEcltR* 1305. 2414. 4023. 5633. 7242. 12070. 24140. 40234. 56327. 72420. N 2.78D-9 1.00EF9 4.16S-10 2.30D-10 1.46 S-10 6.02E-11 1.84S-11 7.51D-12 4.07 D-12 2.47D-12 NNE 2.29D-9 8.26D-10 3.42D-10 1.890-10 1.20D-10 4.95D-11 1.520-11 6.185-12 3.355-12 2.03D-12 NE 6.58D-9 2.375-9 9.84S-10 5.43 D-10 3.46 D-10 1.42E-10 4.350-11 1.78D-11 9.625-12 5.84EF12 ENE 8.44 D-9 3.045-9 1.26 5-9 6.97S-10 4.435-10 1.83 D-10 5.59D-11 2.285-11 1.23E-11 7.50D-12 E 6.83D-9 2.465-9 1.02S-9 5.64D-10 3.595-10 1.48 E-10 4.526-11 1.84EF11 9.99 &-12 6.075-12 ESE 8.90D-9 3.21D-9 1.33S-9 7.356-10 4.68EF10 1.93 D-10 5.89 D-11 2.405-11 1.30E-11 7.91EF12 SE 5.41EF9 1.95B-9 8.10D-10 4.475-10 2.84 E-10 1.17 D-10 3.58&11 1.465-11 7.92 D-12 4.81D-12 SSE 3.44EF9 1.24E-9 5.15S-10 2.855-10 1.81D-10 7.45D-11 2.285-11 9.30E-12 5.04E-12 3.065-12 15 S 2.915-9 1.05D-9 4.35D-10 2.40EF10 1.53 D-10 6.295-11 1.925-11 7.84&l2 4.25EF12 2.58 D-12 SN 3.15E-9 1.14EF9 4.72D-10 2.60D-10 1.66E-10 6.82E-11 2.09D-11 8.51D-12 4.61D-12 2.80D-12 N 4.515-9 1.63EF9 6.74D-10 3.72S-10 2.375-10 9.75S-11 2.985-11 1.226-11 6.59D-12 4.00E-12 cg WN W 6.19S-9 6.36S-9 2.23E-9 2.306-9 9.26 B-10 9.52EF10 5.115-10 5.26 B-10 3.25E-10 3.34 D-10 1.34EF10 1.38S-10 4.10B-11 4.21EF11 1.676-11 1.72S-11 9.06EF12 9.31D-12 5.50&l2 5.655-12 Em
-< z WW W
3.85EF9 6.12S-9 1.390-9 2.21E-9 5.76E-10 9.15EF10 3.185-10 5.05EF10 2.02D-10 3.215-10 0.32EF11 1.325-10 2.55EFil 4.05D-11 1.04EF11 1.655-11 5.63 D-12 8.955-12 3.42 D-12 5.435-12 em 3 NW 7.14&9 2.58EF9 1.075-9 5.906-10 3.75S-10 1.54S-10 4.736-11 1.93 D-11 1.040-11 6.34EF12 $%
- Distance in meters f rca the ocnter d the plant site to the center of the sector annulus U
+ Normalized air concentrations and deposition rates were generated using a constant wind direction model and the joint Iruguency distritotions of meteorological data given in Section 2.6.2.2 (Tables 2.6-5 through 2.6-11)
TMIE 5.2-7 E202TIRATION FACIORS EUR JOUATIC GCMIISMS RADICIOGIC RADICNy 7.mE CnDWmATION FICmRS HALP-LIEE PUCLIDE fDAYS) EISI BIDIA HRE H-3 4.48E3 1.00 1.00 1.00 C-14 2.09EXi 4.550 9.09D 4.55D th-22 9.50E2 1.00E2 2.00E:2 5.00E:2 Na-24 6.33 D-1 1.00E2 2.00E2 5.00E2 P-32 1.43n 1.00E5 2.00E4 5.00E5 K-40 4.60n1 2.50D 8.33E2 6.70E2 Cr-51 2.78Q 2.00E2 2.00 0 4.00 0 Mn-54 3.03E2 4.00E2 1.40E5 3.50E4 Mn-56 1.07D-1 4.00E2 1.40E5 3.50E4 Fe-55 9.50E2 1.00E2 3.20 0 1.000 Fe-59 4.56El 1.00E2 3.200 1.00 0 Co-57 2.71E2 3.65El 1.93 E2 6.20D Co-58 7.13El 2.08n 1.75E2 6.20E3 Co-60 1.92D 4.75 n 1.99E2 6.20D Ni-65 1.07D-1 1.00E2 1.00E2 5.00n Cu-64 5.31D-1 5.00n 4.00E2 2.00D
- Zn-65 2.45E2 1.42D 9.61D 2.00E4 w 2n-69m 5.75D-1 1.14n 5.44E2 2.00E4 h ZrHi9 Br-82 3.96D-2 7.92D-1 3.94E1 2.00E4 co 1.48 4.20E2 3.33E2 5.00n Br-83 1.000-1 4.20E2 3.33 E2 5.00n Br-84 2.21D-2 4.20E2 3.33E2 5.00 n Br-85 2.08D-3 4.20E2 3.33 E2 5.00E1 Kr-83m 7.75D-2 1.00 1.00 1.00 Kr-85m 1.83Ebl 1.00 1.00 1.00 Kr-85 3.930 1.00 1.00 1.00 M6 1.87n 2.00 0 1.000 1.00E3 Ib-88 1.24D-2 2.000 1.000 1.00E3 Ib-89 1.07D-2 2.000 1.000 1.00E3 Sr-89 5.27El 1.04n 3.990 3.00D Sr-90 1.01E4 2.97E2 4.00D 3.00E3 St-91 4.03D-1 1.200-1 3.20E3 3.00E3 Sr-92 1.13E-1 3.39D-2 2.12D 3.000 Sr-93 5.56D-3 1.67 D-3 2.11E2 3.00E3 Y-90 2.67 2.50E1 1.000 5.000 Y-91m 3.47B-2 2.50E2 1.00E3 5.000 Y-91 5.88E2 2.50E1 1.00 0 5.00E3 Y-92 1.47 D-1 2.50E1 1.000 5.00E3 Y-93 4.29D-1 2.50E2 1.000 5.00 0
,N o
B9 "5! GG fV 5 O O O -
-. . . _ . ~ . . _ . . .-_ . . _ _ . - - - - . . . . - _ ._. _ . - . _ _ - - . . _
O l l TABLE 5.2-7 (Continued) CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR AQUATIC ORGANISMS i } RADIOLOGIC RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATION FACTORS i HALF-LIFE j EUCIJDE f DAYS 1,,,, fjSB BIOTA PLANT Th-228 6.99 E2 3.00E1 5. 00 E2 1.50 E3 j Th-230 2.81 E7 3.00E1 5. 00 E2 1.50 E3
- Th-232 5.2 0 E12 3.00E1 5. 0 0 E2 1.50 E3 Th-234 2.41 El 3.00E1 5. 00 E2 1.5 0 E3 i U-234 8.91 E7 2.00 6.00E1 5. 0 0 E-1 l U-238 1.60E12 2.00 6.00E1 5. 0 0 E-1 l Np-238 2.12 1.00E1 4. 0 0 E2 3. 0 0 E2 l15 I ;
NP-239 2.35 1.00E1 4.00E2 3.00 E2 + Pu-238 3.21 E4 3.50 1. 00 E2 3.50 E2
- Pu-239 8.91 E6 3.50 1. 00 E2 3.50 E2 i
e, Pu-240 2. 4 0 E6 3.50 1.00 E2 3.50 E2 Pu-241 5. 4 8 E3 3.50 1. 00 E2 3.50 E2 I 7 W Pu-242 1. 41 E8 3.50 1.00 E2 3.50 E2
" Am-241 1.58 E5 2.50E1 1. 00 E3 5.00 E3
! Am-242 6.6 8 E-1 2.50 E1 1. 00 E3 5. 00 E3 1 An-243 2.7 0 E6 2.50E1 1. 00 E3 5. 00 E3 I Cm-242 1.6 3 E2 2.50E1 1. 00 E3 5.00E3
- Cm-243 1. 02 E4 2.50 E1 1. 00 E3 5. 00 E3 Cm-244 6.54 E3 2.50 E1 1.00E3 5.00 E3 t
13 i l i i
, c;g a5 m2 N -4 l X 1
TABLE 5.2-8 ANNUAL DOSES TO AQUATIC ORGANISMS LIVING IN THE CLINCH RIVER NEAR THE CRBRP Dose _ Estimates Internal External (mrad /yr) (mrad /yr) Organism _1:cm 30-cm Plants 2 .6 E-2
- 1.lE-1 3.4E-5 Invertebrates 1.7E-2 9. 6 E-2 3.4E-5 suspended m 3.0E-1 benthic Fish 1.3E-2 3.3E-2 3.4E-5 13
- 2.6 E-2 = 2.6 x 10-2
%E 59
" Si!
G9 15" M
=
0 0 0
1 i I AMENDMENT XV j JULY 1982 I w TABLE 5.2-13 : CRBRP - INDIVIDUAL DOSES FROM G ASEOUS EFEUSNTS Noble Gas Exposures Pathway Point Done 15 Gamma air dose Max. Exp.1 0.076 mrad /yr Beta air dose Max. Exp.1 1.4 mrad /yr Total Body Max. Exp.1 0.069 mrem /yr Skin Max. Exp.1 0.55 mrem /yr Particulate Ernosures - Total Body h5 Tritium Max. Exp.1 5.3E-4 mrem /yr Breakdown of Particulate Ernosures - Total Body (mram/yr) 15 , child Adult Vegetable Ingestion 2 . 6 E-4 1.9E-4 Beef Ingestion 2.7E-5 4. 8 E-5 Inhalation 8 . 3 E-5 1. 6 E-4 Ground Contamination 1.6E-5 1. 6 E-5 Milk Ingestion 1. 4 E- 4 8. 4 E-5 Total 5.3E-4 5.0E-4 13
- 1. Maximum exposure point is at 820 meters in the NW sector.
O 5.2-37
'mBIE 5.2-14 GBRP - IORJIATION DOSES IMM CASEIUS IIMUENIS
'Ihyroid '!btal Body Infant Gild hen Adult 'Ibtals Infant G ild 'Iben Adult 'Ibtals subnersim 9.94D-4 6.19B-3 3.94D-3 1.83 D-2 2.94D-2 9.94D-4 6.19D-3 3.94D-3 1.83 D-2 2.94D-2 Gramd 3.76D-7 2.34D-6 1.499-6 6.91D-6 1.11D-5 3.76D-7 2.34D-6 1.49EF6 6.91D-6 1.11D-5 Inhalation 3.00D-6 4.86D-5 2.35B-5 1.395-4 2.15D-4 3.00D-6 4.86D-5 2.35D-5 1.68D-4 2.43 D-4 Cow Milk 9.88D-6 4.07D-5 1.599-5 5.13 D-5 1.18D-4 9.88D-6 4.07D-5 1.59D-5 5.13D-5 1.18D-4 Beef Ingestion 0.0 1.43D-5 7.57D-6 7.14D-5 9.32D-5 0.0 1.43D-5 7.57D-6 7.14EF5 9.32D-5 u Veg Ingestion 0.0 9.57D-6 5.14D-6 4.58D-5 6.05D-5 0.0 9.57D-6 5.14D-6 4.58E55 6.05D-5 y 'Ibtal Man-Ren 1.01D-3 6.31D-3 4.00D-3 1.86D-2 2.99B-2 1.01D-3 6.31D-3 4.00EF3 1.86D-2 2.99D-2 a
%E 59 "Se G9 lS" 5
O O O
M!ENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O l TABLE 5.2-15
SUMMARY
OF ANNUAL RADI ATION DOSES TO POPULATION FROM CRBRP Thyroid Total Body 1 tman-ram /vr) Iman-ram /yr) i I I. Internal l Ingestion (water) 9.9 E-5 5.4 E-5 (fish) 2. 6 E-4 2. 4 E-4 (milk) 1.2E-4 1.2E-4 (meat) 9. 3 E-5 9. 3 E-5 (vegetables) 6.lE-5 6.lE-5 . Inhalation 2. l E-4 2. 4 E-4 13 II. External In-water sports 5.7 E-8 5.7 E-8 Above-water sports 5. 4 E-8 5. 4 E-8 () Shoreline activities 6.2 E-5 6.2E-5 Submersion in air 2. 9 E-2 2.9 E-2 Ground contamination 1.lE-5 1.lE-5 l15 III. Transportation of radioactive material Unirradiated f uel 0.45 0.45 Irradiated f uel 0.92 0.92 Wastes 0.43 0.43 Total 1.83 1.83 l l l l l 1 5.2-39
Liquid Effluents CRBRP Gaseous Effluents Submersion
,, and Inhalation Submersion Concentration in Direct Irradiation Sediment (all organisms) e Concentration in Soil I
Aquatic Direct Vertebrates Irradiation Uptake L ,, 13 L O Aquatic Aquatic gngestion Terrestrial Terrestrial
! Invertebrates Plants : Vertebrates (Inces tion Plants E-- -
Imersion and Ingestion Ingestion I l Figure 5.2-1 $k P EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TO ORGANISMS OTHER THAN MAN l 13 gg ! B* 5 C
- O e
MiENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Oil will be stored in accordance with the Environmental 9 Protection Agency Regulations on Oil Pollution Prevention (3) which will minimize the potential impacts of oil contamination on the local surface and groundwater systems. Chemicals will-be stored in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Hazardous Substance Pollution Prevention Regula-tions.(3a) A list of the on-site chemical storage tanks and a 11 description of the Secondary Containment Systems are found in Section 7.2. No environmental impact is anticipated under normal conditions f rom the stored chemicals. Storm water collected by the roof and yard drains is sent via the 11 storm drainage system to the runof f treatment ponds f or settle- 15 ment. Runoff treatment pond ef fluents are filtered and released 6 i from a controlled pond discharge and are transported to the Clinch River via existing natural water courses. A portable oil skimmer will be available should a visible oil slick appear on () the surf ace of a runoff treament pond. be disposed of off-site by a licensed contractor. Any collected oil would i 15 5.4.4 EFFECTS ON GROUNDWATER A total of 110 wells and springs are located within a 2-mile radius of the Site. Nearly all of the wells are of limited capacity and serve as small domestic wells as shown in Figure 2.5-12. All of these wells are located to the south of the Clinch River which serves as a " barrier" between the site and these wells. There are no wells or springs on the site. Within a 20-mile radius of the Site there are 13 public water supplies that use groundwater as listed in Table 2.2-14. 11 O 5.4-12a
l i O e INTENTIONALLY BLANK O
#1ENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O
V TABLE 5.4-6 . PERMISSIBLE CHLORINE CONCENTRATIONS IN CRBRP EFFLUENTS I Instantaneous Effluent Maximum l Characteristic Concentration l 0.14 mg/l 15 Total Residual chlorine The quantity of pollutants discharged in cooling tower blowdown shall not exceed the quantity determined by multiplying the flow of cooling tower blowdown aources times the concentration listed in the above table. A program to minimize the discharge of total residual chlorine shall be implemented prior to the start of cooling tower 15 chlorination. Reduction of makeup and discontinuation of blowdown subsequent to chlorination snall be.specifically g evaluated. Reports shall be submitted quarterly with DMR's after the start of chlorination. At such time as the permittee determines that reasonable minimization has been achieved, he may request that this program be elimated. l I 15 5.4-25
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 TABLE 5.4-7 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM VALUES OF SOME CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS IN CLINCH RIVER
- AT COMMON PLANT DISCHARGE Max. Conc. Avg. Conc.
(ma/1) (ma/1) Total Alkalinity (as CACO3) 110.0 87.0 Ammonia Nitrogen (as N) 0.12 0.02 l BOD 1.3 <1.0 Calcium 33.0 27.0 l Chloride 4.0 3.0 Chloride Residual Not Reported COD 8.0 4.0 Copper ( g/1) 110.0 40.0 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 240.0 125.0 Total Iron ( g/1) 560.0 270.0 15 Lead ( g/1) 24.0 <11.0 Magnesium 8.8 7.6 Manganese ( g/1) 50.0 30.0 Nickel ( g/1) <50.0 <50.0 Nitrate (NO3) 0.64 0.42
- pH 8.2 7.6 Total Phosphate Not Reported Potassium 1.5 1.2 Silica (SiO2) 6.0 4.5 Sodium 6.9 3.5 Sulfate (SO4 ) 21.0 15.0 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 46.0 9.0 Zinc ( g/1) 130.0 30.0
- Values taken from E.R. Table 2.5-14a; CRM 15.4 O
5.4-26
O TABLE 5.4-8 6 CONCENTRATIONS OF CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS IN THE CRBRP DISCHARGE AND THE SIX PERCENT ISOPLETH OF THE SUMMER SHORT DURATION NO-FLOW PLUME
- 6 Concentrations in Concentrations in 6 CRBRP Discharne** Six Percent Isooleth Average Maximum Average Maximum fma/11 f ma/11 fma/11 fma/11 T tal A3 kalinity (as CACO 3) 239.0 286.0 104.58 126.20 7m onia Nitrogen (as N) 0.7 2.5 0.31 1.09 BOD 5.3 15.0 2.29 6.54 Calcium 85.0 108.0 37.06 46.90 Chloride 11.8 32.3 5.13 14.16 Chlorine Residual 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.0 15 COD 16.8 40.0 7.31 17.44
. Copper + 0.2 0.93 0.02 0.07 4 582.0 155.86 6 h Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 373.0 198.48 N Total Iron + 0.95 1.72 0.41 0.74 Lesd+ <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 Magnesium 19.6 21.4 8.51 9.27 MEnganese 0.13 0.18 0.05 0.08 Nickel 0.02 0.11 0.01 0.02 Nitrate (NO3) 3.4 5.6 1.43 2.40 (Continued) c$ R9 9 89
~-
TABLE 5.4-8 (Continued) 6 Concentrations in Concentrations in CRBRP Discharge ** Six Percent Isopleth Average Maximum Average Maximum (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) pH 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 Total Phosphate 0.14 1.0 0.06 0.44 Potassian 3.5 4.8 1.53 2.07 Silica (SiO2) 9.8 15.3 4.25 6.65 Sodium 13.2 107.3 2.77 8.79 . Sulfate (SO4 ) 48 106 16.98 27.98 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 33 114 14.20 50.08 Zinc + 0.05 0.08 0.02 0.03 6
- Based on Iowa Institute physical model study
**From Table 10.3A-2 6
+ Includes contribution to effluent quantities from condenser erosion / corrosion.
@k
'. g
-x W
D O O O
AMENDMENT VI April 1976
- o .
TABLE 5.4-9 6 SURFACE AREA AFFECTED BY CHEMICAL PLUMES AND INCREASES IN CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS
- Chemical 6
Isopleth** Area Mixing Conditions (%) (acres) Typical Cases Winter 3 0.05 4 0.01 5 0.01 l Sunroer 3 0.07 4 0.02 5 <0.01 Extreme Case-Short Duration No Flow Winter 6 2 3.92+ 5 0.06 Summer 4 0.07 6 0.02
- Based on Iowa Institute physical model study
** Percent difference between initial blowdown and ambient concentrations in river
+ Estimated, based on extrapolations of model plume bound- 6 aries to achieve closure of 0.9 F isotherm (see Fig-ures 10.3A-6 and 10.3A-10).
O . 5.4-29
TABLE 5.4-10 CONCENTRATION OF DISCHARGED CHEMICALS IN THE EXTENDED NO FLOW PLUMES Extended No Flow MaligggLPlume Concentratior.s Average Average Winter D se Summer Case Ambien t-Riv er Plant Discharge @ End of @ End uf @ End of @ End of Concentration
- Concentration ** 15 Days 30 Days 18 Days 31 Days fma/l) (ma/1) ( mo /11 (mo/11 (mo/11 ( ma / l)
Total Alkalinity 87.0 239.0 117.0 135.0 106.0 107.0 Ammonia Nitrogen (as N) 0.02 0.70 0.34 0.39 0.31 0.31 BOD <l.0 5.3 2.6 3.0 2.3 2.3 Calcium 27.0 85.0 41.0 47.0 37.0 38.0 Chloride 3.0 11.8 5.7 6.6 5.2 5.3 Chlorine Residual Not Reported 0.14 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.01 COD 4.0 16.8 8.2 9.5 7.4 7.5 Copper pg/1) 40.0 0.20 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.02 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 125.0 377.0 176.0 205.0 158.0 160.0 Total Iron p g/1) 270.0 0.95 0.46 0.53 0.42 0.43 Lead pg/1) <11.0 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 Magnesium 7.6 19.6 9.5 11.0 8.6 8.7 15 Manganese pag /1) 30.0 0.13 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 w i Nickel pg/1) <50.0 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 c3 Nitrate 0.42 3.4 1.6 9.9 1.4 1.5 pH 7.6 6.5-8,5 6.5-8,5 6.5-8,5 6.5-8,5 6.5-8,5 Total Phosphate Not Reported 0.14 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 Potassium 1.2 3.5 1.7 2.0 1.5 1.6 Silica (SiO2) 4.5 9.8 4.8 5.5 4.3 4.4 Sodium 3.5 15.0 4.0 5.6 3.0 3.0 Sulfate 15.0 50.0 20.0 24.0 17.0 18.0 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 9.0 33.0 16.0 18.0 14.0 14.0 Zinc pg/1) 30.0 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 c$
*From Table 2.5-14a; CRM 15.4 ~3
**From Table 3.6-1 $$
ro -4 ac 9 O O
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 cover changes from grassland to heavy brush, such species as the bobwhite quail will decline in numbers. Clearing will return the area to shrubby habitat areas. This cycle will continue as long as the area is maintained by regular clearing operations. , The presence of 85-foot high transmission towers, approximately 15 feet taller than the bordering forest, is not expected to effect the Canada goose migration across the CRBRP site.. 5.6.2.3 ACCESS ROADS Existing area roads will suffice for maintenance work; the majority of these roads are presently surfaced with gravel, regularly maintained and restricted to the public. Any rutting caused by maintenance vehicles on these roads will be repaired by grading and reseeding or graveling as necessary. Some routine maintenance work or emergency work will require vehicular traf fic f) on the ROW. Rutting will be repaired by hand or machine, and any drainage disturbed will be restored. 5.6.2.4 AESTHETICS Visual impacts considered during plant operation included views of the site, containment building, and cleared transmission line corridors. 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 15 not be visible from any housing development within the study area but will be easily seen from many of the single-family homes f rom across the Clinch River. Neither the containment building nor the plant site will be visible from any significantly offsite historical site or structure within the study area. 5.6-7
-m- - - , , _ _ ,_ e .- --
1 ANENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Cleared rights-of-way can also have a profound visual impact on O the environment. Usually this impact is most notice *able when the lines pass through scenic, recreational or historical areas or where the public is af forded extensive views of the facilities. Only a short expanse of the proposed corridor is visible from White Wing Road and it is visible for only a few seconds to 15 motorists, as discussed in Section 4.2. .Although a newly cleared transmission line is not generally an aesthetically pleasing sight, public viewing of corridors in tnis condition will be insignificant in terms of time and amount of line observable. Natural buffers of vegetation will be maintained where public viewing of such maintenance conditions would be possible. The remainder of the proposed transmission facilities are out of sight of public view as access to the ROW is controlled by locked gates at all times. In summary, aesthetic impacts during plant operation are considered insignificant because of the limited 15 amount of time when either the site, containment building, or transmission line corridors are visible to the observers during each year. l l l l l O 5.6-8 l
MiENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O
%J from an average low flow of 4339 cfs in the spring to an average high flow of 6,772 cfs in the winter. For maximum power 13 10 operation, the anticipated average water makeup requirement is 13.4 cfs. An average of 5.1 cfs will be returned to the river as blowdown and approximately 8.3 cfs will be consumed during plant operation. The consumptive use of 8.3 cfs is only 0.!5% of ibe annual average Clinch River flow rate of about 5,380 cfs. The 10 amount of water lost to the atmosphere through evaporation is not 9 actually an irretrievable loss, however, as the water eventually will be returned to the earth as precipitation.
, Considering aquatic life as a resource, the loss of fish, zooplankton, benthos, macrophytes and the like will be a commitment of resources directly attributable to operation of the CRBRP. Olscharges to the Clinch River will be continuously monitored to prevent introduction of deleterious effects to the (~) aquatic life by excessive temperature, chemicals or turbulence. l9 A preconstruction survey conducted on the Clinch River will establish a reference framework for assessing the degree to which this resource is committed. 5.8.3 COMMITMENT OF FUEL RESOURCES Initial fuel assembly loading of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor will consist of approximately 5.2 Metric Tons (MT) of uranium and 9 plutonium metal in a 36-inch high core. .The fuel consists of g sintered mixed-oxide pellets of Pu0 2 and U0 2 encapsulated in the sealed stainless steel tubing (rods). Plutonium enrichment is 33.2 weight percent. In later cycles the plutonium enrichment will be approximately 33 weight percent. Each of the 156 fuel subassemblies in the reactor core contains 217 fuel rods. The , reactor core fuel contains 20.7 MT of stainless steel. I 9 15 I a 5.8-2
AMEND. XIV May 1982 The isotopic composition of the feed plutonium metal in the core h is 0.1 percent Pu-238, 86.0 percent Pu-239, 11.7 percent Pu-240, 2.0 percent Pu-241 and 0.2 percent Pu-242. The isotopic split is similar to EFTF-grade plutonium. An additional 25.2 MT of depleted uranium metal is committed in lI4 the inner radial and axial blankets. Inner and radial blankets, consisting of 208 assemblies, each containing 61 rods, contain I4 21.0 MT of depleted uranium metal and 26.8 MT of stainless steel. Each of the two axial blankets, which are an integral part of the fuel assemblies, contains 2.1 MT of depleted uranium metal. 9 An estimated 2427 fuel assemb]ies and 2106 blanket assemblies 14 will be committed during the 30-year life of the plant. Operated on the once-through fuel cycle, the total requirement of the plant could be as high as 27 MT of plutonium metal, 332 MT of I4 uranium and 595 MT of stainless steel over 30 years. However, it is expected that the burned fuel will be recycled to the plant after reprocessing and refabrication so that the actual heavy metal commitment to the plant from virgin ore (natural uranium) will be only a fraction of the aforementioned values. If one assumes recycle with CRBRP operating by itself, requiring one full core load in the reactor and an additional reload core in reprocessing and fabrication, then the commitment from resources is only on the order of 3.5 MT of plutonium plus 58.0 MT of uranium. O 5.8-3
MENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Uranium burnup and an assumed one percent heavy metal loss of 9 each batch through the repr ) cessing-ref abrication cycle raises the plant lifetime total heavy metal commitment to 72.2 MT of l14 uranium. Tbc 3.5 MT plutonium commitment, which is required for 9 initial startup, does not increase since the plutonium burnup is more than made up by the reactor breeding. An additional net of 3.2 MT of plutonium, in excess of that originally committed, w i l l l 9 l 14 be produced over the life of the plant. At the time of decommissioning, 2.1 MT of plutonium and 27.6 MT 14 of uranium can be recovered from the core, leaving a total irreversible consumption of depleted uranium reserves of 14.2 MT l14 and a net gain of 3.2 MT of bred plutonium. All of the stainless 15 steel in the burned fuel and in the blanket assemblies (nominally l14 595 MT over the life of the plant) must be considered as permanently consumed due to radioactive contamination which p, precludes its reuse. 9 14 5.8.4 IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF OTHER RESOURCES Irretrievable commitments of resources include those resources - consumed during plant operation. Operation of the CP.BRP will involve the direct use of substantial quantitles of consumable , supplies including: (1) chemicals for treatment of water'for the cooling and sanitary systems; (2) oils and lubricants; (3) decontamination and cleansing agents; (4) minor quantitles of sodium; and (5) other consumable items such as paper supplies, spare parts, etc. The amount consumed during plant operation is only a fraction of the supply available and therefore would not I constitute a major commitment. l
%.) l 5.8-4
Amend, Y Dec. 1981 5.9 DECOMMISSIONING AND DISMANTLING The Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant (CRBRP) is being designed for a 30 year operating life, thereby placing the plant's final operation at about the year 2020, assuming no premature termination. At that time, 9 a detailed plan to decommission will be prepared for approval by the appropriate licensing agency with criteria comparable to Regulatory Guide 1.86, " Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors". A number of alternative approaches will be evalutaed in terminating the operating license of the plant; the approach chosen will not affect use of the remaining portions of the Site in any nore adverse manner than continued operation of the plant would have. Length of operating history, after some initial activation, will not significantly affect the approach chosen. The final condition will provide for protection of the public safety and will be environmentally suitable. A wide choice of experience in decommissioning reactors is available from the AEC civilian power program and civilian reactors. ~) These experi-ences range from removal of fuel and minor decontamination to total re-moval, including some subgrade structures. None of the approaches to date have presented safety or environmental problems of substantative difference than those which have occurred during normal operation of a plant. The land committed to the CRBRP plant buildings, inside the security fence, occupies 8.6 acres as seen on Figure 2.1-4. The sludge lagoon 9 equalization basin, sewage treatment plant and river water pump house occupy an additional 2.7 acres outside the security fence. Depending upon the chosen plan, the termination of the plant could commit up to 11.3 acres of the Site. It'is noteworthy that the less extensive l10 approaches to termination do not irretrievably commit the Site; that is, should a decision be reached at some date after termination that justi-fication exists to reduce the land commitment, the cost of recover versus the initial decommissioning cost would be negligible. If the decision O 5.9-1
M1ENDMENT XV JULY 1982
) NRC QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 6 NRC Letter November 19, 1974 - Giambusso Item 322.15 (6.1) - Amendment I, Part I, page Al-72 Item 350.13 (6.1) - Amendment I, Part I, pages Al-83 and 84 Item 350.20 (F6.1) - Amendment I, Part I, page Al-90 Item 321.2 (6.1) - Amendment III, Part I, page AIII-5 Item 321.3 (6.1) - Amendment III, Part I, page AIII-6 NRC Letters February 13, 1975 and April 23, 1975 - Dicker l Question C6 (6.1) - Amendment I, Part II, page AI-135 .i Question C7 (6.1) - Amendment I, Part II, pages AI-136 to 143 Question C8 (6.1) - Amendment I, Part II, pages AI-142 and 143 Question C9 (6.1) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-144 to 146 i
Question C10 (6.1) - Amendment I, Part II, page AI-147 Question C12 (6.1) - Amendment I, Part II, page AI-150 Question C13 (6.1) - Amendment I, Part II, page AI-151 ( Question C14 (6.1) - Amendment I, Part II, page AI-152 Question D12 (6.2) - Amendment I, Part II, pages Al-210 and 211 NRC Letter October 26, 1981 Question 290.lR ( All Sections) - Amendment XV NRC Letter December 29, 1981 15 Question 310.3R-7 (6.1) - Amendment XV i 6-i
\
\
~
l AMENDMENT XV i JULY 1982 1 s l ( )' 6.1.4.3 ECOLOGICAL MONITORINGI 15
'The terrestrial monitoring progiam is designed to evaluate the impact of operational and construction activities on the struct,ure and f unction of the terrestrial ecosystem.
6.1.4.3.1 BASELINE STUDIES . A terrestrial baseline study program was conducted on the Clinch N._ ' River Site to docuinent preexisting conditions and stresses and to s identify food chains. Preexisting conditions and stresses are those presently existing on 'the Site,- whether naturally occuring or man-made. , O Purpose of the baseline study program was to evaluate, both
\s qualitatively and quantitatively, the specific aspects of the v' - terrestrial environment that will be af fected by the construction
() of the breeder reactor facility. have been identified: Three major study objectives
.~
- l. Evaluation of the biotic components of arecs subject to s
construction activity for the plant and associated facilities and assessment of possible environmental s, ef fects of plant construction and cIp eration;
- 2. Observation of seasonal fluctuations in the biological diversity represented within the Site area; and
- 3. Identification of significant parameters to be measured or monitored in later studies which will provide a more precise estimate of real and potentialsimpact. -
i*
.s 6.1-39 s
- 1
# TEND. IX OCT. 1981 The study period included seasonal surveys, shown in Table 6.1-5, which 0
began in the winter of 1974 and ended with the completion of the fall survey of 1975. A two-day reconnaissance field survey was conducted August 27 and 28, I 1980 to evaluate site changes since the 1974 baseline surveys and to 9 sample a shortleaf pine plantation that was established in 1976. Re-sults of this reconnaissance survey are reported in Section 2.7. 6.1.4.3.2 METHOD FOR ACQUIRING BASELINE DATA - SITE AND ENVIRONS Terrestrial ecology field investigations of the Clinch River Site included four seasonal surveys conducted during 1974 as indicated in Table 6.1-5. Investigations involved floristic, vegetation, mammal, avifauna and her-petofauna evaluations in 12 communities as discussed below and in Sec-tion 2.7. Vegetation types and sampling communities are shown in Figure 2.7-6. Vegatation sampling plot locations, mammal sampling grids and transects and avifauna quantitative transects are shown in Figures 2.7-7, 2.7-A and 2.7-B, respectively. Sampled communities were chosen to include major forest cover types on the site to adequately character-ize the site. Sampled communities included mixed hardwood, successional pine, pine plantation, cedar pine and hardwood-cedar pine forest cover types. In addition to surveys on plots, general observations of flora, migratory wildlife and herpetofauna were made when traveling from one 9 sampling location to another, systematically driving site roads in early morning and late evening times and searching in suitable habitat. Simul-taneous surveys were conducted whenever possible. The floristic sampling program was designed to determine the presence or absence of plant species that were either listed as rare or tt'at were eligible for listing as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Discussions with Dr. A. J. Sharp of the University of Tennessee had indicated that flora of the Site area was poorly known so an intensive specimen collection and preservation program was conducted. Mounted specimens were deposited at the University of Tennessee Herbarium. 6.1-40
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
, s NRC QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 7 NRC Letter November 19, 1974 - Giambusso Item 000.16 (7.1) - Amendment I, Part I, pages Al-2 and 3 Item 000.1 (7.1) - Amendment II, Part I, pages AII-2 and 3 Item 000.2 (7.1) - Amendment II, Part I, pages AII-4 to 6 Item 000.3 (7.1) - Amendment II, Part I, pages AII-7 and 8 Item 000.4 (7.1) - Amendment Ii, Part I, pages AII-9 and 10 Item 000.5 (7.1) - Amendment II, Part I, pages AII-11 and 12 Item 000.6 (7.1) - Amendment II, Part I, pages AII-13 to 15 Item 000.7 (7.1) - Amendment II, Part I, pages AII-16 to 19 Item 000.8 (7.1) - Amendment II, Part I, pages AII-20 and 21 Item 000.9 (7.1) - Amendment II, Part I, pages AII-22 and 23 Item 000.10 (7) - Amendment II, Part I, pages AII-24 and 25 Item 000.11 (7.1) - Amendment II, Part I, pages AII-26 and 27 Item 000.12 (7.1) - Amendment II, Part I, pages AII-28 to 32 Item 000.13 (7.1) - Amendment II, Part I, pages AII-33 and 34 7-() Item 000.14 (7) - Amendment II, Part I, pages AII-35 to 37 Item 000.15 (7.1) - Amendment II, Part I, pages AII-38 and 39 NRC Letter June 11, 1975 - Speis - Amendment IV, Part I, page AIV-3 NRC Letter June 27, 1975 - Dicker Item 000.17 (7.1.2.2.1) - Amendment IV, Part I, page AIV-8 Item 000.18 ( 7 .1. 2 . 3 ) - Amendment IV, Part I, page AIV-9 Item 000.19 (7.1.2.3.3) - Amendment IV, Part I, page AIV-10 Item 000.20 (7.1.2.4) - Amendment IV, Part I, page AIV-11 Item 000.21 (7.1.2.5.1) - Amendment IV, Part I, pages AIV-12 and 13 Item 000.22 (7.1.2.5.1) - Amendment IV, Part I, page AIV-14 Item 000.23 (7.1.2.5.2) - Amendment IV, Part I, page AIV-15 to AIV-19 Item 000.24 (7.1.2.6.1) - Amendment IV, Part I, page AIV-20 Item 000.25 ( 7.1. 2 . 6 ) - Amendment IV, Part I, pages AIV-21 and 22 Item 000.26 (7.1.2.8.1) - Amendment IV, Part I, pages AIV-23 and 24 0
7-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 NRC QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 7 (Continued) Item 000.27 (7.1.2.8.2) - Amendment IV, Part I, pages AIV 25 to 28 Item 000.28 (7.1) - Amendment IV, Part I, pages AIV 29 to 36 Item 000.29 (7.1) - Amendment IV, Part I, pages AIV-37 and 38 7 Item 000.30 (7.1) - Amendment IV, Part I, pages AIV-39 to 42 Item 000.31 (7.1) - Amendment IV, Part I, pages AIV-43 to 45 NRC Letter October 26, 1981 Question 290.lR (All Sections) - Amendment XV 15 O O 7-11
Amerxknent XI January, 1982 O The accident was evaluted in terms of the total excess cover gas activity released to the environment as a result of the transient compared to that normally released, assuming continuous plant p operation with 0.5 percent failed fuel. Excess activity leakage 11 will continue until the cover gas system returns to its normal steady-state condition. The inventory of each xenon and krypton isotope will asymptotically approach a steady-state condition. For the evaluation, the recovery time required for the inventory of each isotope to reach a value within one percent of its steady-state value was determined. The recovery time for each isotope is dependent on the isotope's half-life, the purge rate of the reactor cover gas to RAPS and the decontamination factor for the isotope in RAPS. The longest recovery time for any of the xenon or krypton isotopes is 15 hours (for Kr-85). Total excess cover gas leakage during the 15-hour recovery time is only 0.0014 Curies (see Table 7.1-17). More than 75 percent lu Os of this activity leaks in the first two hours following the postulated transient. Major leak paths from the cover gas system are reactor head seal leakage and leakage of recycle cover gas through buffer seals in the reactor head. For conservatism, no delay factors in the movement of gases to or through these seals were included in the analysis. Delays in gas movement through these seals rasulting in radioactive decay and reduced releases are expected. Further, all seal leakage was assumed released directly to the atmosphere via the Reactor Containment Building ventilation system. The maximum off-site whole body dose from this postulated 4 8 11 accident is 8.4 x 10-5 mram. Doses at specific downwind distances and estimates of the potential population dose are provided in Tables 7.1-5 through 7.1-13. (O 7.1-23
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 7.1.2.5.2 ACCIDENT 5.2 - STEAM GENERATOR TUBE FAILURE The steam generator modules are designed and will be manufactured II to the highest quality industrial standards. Furthermore, a 6 15 broad base DOE development program supported the design and manufacture of the CRBRP units and the water-sodium boundary has been designed and will be fabricated to have a high degree of integrity. Consequently, probability of failure of the boundary is expected to be small. However, over the plant lifetime, the possibility of leaks of water into sodium must be considered. to address ibis potential condition, the steam generators are continuously monitored by a leak detection system which provides early detection of water-to-sodium leaks to allow subsequent operator corrective action to limit their consequences while they are still small. Tho water-to-sodium leak detection system is designed to alert O the operator to the existence of a leak rate es small as approximately 2 x 10-5 lb. water /sec. For initial leak sizes ubich can be realistically expected (up to about 10-2 lb. water /sec.) the alarm is given in sufficient time for the operator to take action to prevent a significant increase of the leak rate. For these small leaks, the reactor will be shut down followed by c controlled cooldown and depressurization of the affected steam generator. The affected lHTS loop would then be drained to allow repair of the steam generator. However, as a limiting case it is assumed that the leak indication is such that the operator elects to manually scram the reactor and Isolate and blowdown all three steam generator modules in the affected loop. The operator would then drain the affected lHTS loop resulting in flow stoppage in the loop. 7.1-24 t
I (d) AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Under these conditions, the radiological release will be insignificant even if it is assumed that this event occurs following operation with the maximum undetected Intermediate-to-primary sodium leak rate. Leakage of primary sodium into the IHTS is prevented by pressurizing the IHTS such that a pressure differential across the IHX (Intermediate-to-primary) of at least 10 psi exists during plant operation. This preFsure differential could be lost during the sodium dumping process and it is possible that small quantities of primary sodium could enter the IHTS. Leak rates of approximately 6 gph will be detected during normal operation and, therefore, only a small amount of primary sodium could be introduced into the IHTS during the pump coast down. This small amount of primary sodium would mix with the Intermediate sodium and either remain in the non-drainable sections of the IHTS, steam generators, and lHX, or be drained to ( the sodium dun.o tank. Over-pressurization of this tank is prevented by either the equalization line or the pressure relief valve. The gases vented through this system will be the Inert gas displaced by the sodium entering the dump tank. No sodium will be released in this process and, accordingly, there are no associated radiological consequences with this event. There is a small probability that a leak may progress rapidly into the Intermediate size range (greater than 0.1 lb/sec of water) before operator corrective actions could be implemented. in this event, the expansion tank vent line duplex rupture disk assembly will burst. Sodium flow through the disc assemblies will initiate automatic Isolation and blowdown of the water and steam from the steam generator modules in the affected loop. In the unilkely event that a larger leak occurs, the sodium / water reaction (SWR) will generate sodium compounds as well as
) hydrogen gas. To provide protection for this event with its 15 i 7.1-24a
i AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 ottendant hydrogen gas generation, each of the three heat transport loops include rupture disks and a Sodium / Water Reaction Pressure Relief Subsystem (SWRPRS) which acts as an overpressure protection system and also stores SWR products. The operation of the SWRPRS is initiated by the rupturing of one or more of the duplex rupture disk assemblies. These assemblies are located adjacent to the superheater sodium inlet nozzle, and each evaporator sodium outlet nozzle. A rupture releases sodium into the SWRPRS piping and the reaction products separator tanks. Following this sodium is a mixture of sodium, soild reaction products and gaseous hydrogen. Within the reaction products separator tanks, separation of the liquid sodium and solid reaction products from the gases takes place. The gases are exhausted through an atmospheric seal, to the flare stack and Igniter, which ignites any combustible hydrogen / air mixture as it discharges to the atmosphere. When the pressure in the Isolated evaporators and superheater has been reduced to 300 psig, the plant operator then controls the opening of four sets of double isolation valves in the affected lHTS loop, which initiates draining of the residual sodium in the affected loop to the sodium tank. The other two loops, which were not subjected to a large sodium / water reaction, will then provide for shutdown heat removal, in this manner the reactor decay heat and the primary and intermediate sodium systems' sensible heat will be removed. The SWRPRS is designed to accommodate steam generator leaks whose consequences cannot be limited by operator action. The design basis leak (DBL) for the system is a postulated equivalent double-ended guillotine break (EDEG) of a single tube that is followed by two additional EDEG tube failures. The basis for the selection of DBL is presented in detail in PSAR Section 5.5.3.6. 15 7.1-24b
['x AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 As a result of this postulated DBL, approximately 669 pounds of reaction products and entrained sodium would be carried into the reaction products separator tank where the gaseous products are separated and vented. During the short time period (28 seconds) while the SWRPRS is venting to the atmosphere during the design basis leak (DBL) and the SGS is blowing down, small amounts of primary sodium might leak into the Intermediate sodium. However, this sodium would not be transported to the superheater inlet during the period of time that this steam generator system is being blown down, due to the length of the piping between the lHX and the superheater inlet and the reduced sodium flows during this event. Therefore, no allowance has been made for venting of 15 primary sodium to the atmosphere.
~
I I l 7.1-24c _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ - _ __ . _ _ . - . . _-- - - _ - _ ~ - . . _ _ _ -. . _ _ _
AMENDMENT XIII APRIL 1982 The dose resulting from the Tritium within the IHTS sodium that l13 is released with the reaction products has been evaluated. The Tritium concentration in the Steam Generator System at the end of plant life (30 years) is 0.62 uCi/g and the Tritium concentration in the IHTS sodium is 0.13 uCi/g for a hydrogen background level 11 in the IHTS of 200 ppb of hydrogen. During a DBL, 204 pounds of water combines with 465 pounds of sodium and the conservative assumption is made that all the sodium-water reaction products are discharged to the atmosphere. Depressurization of the isolated loop by opening the Power Relief Valves will result in the release of all water / steam in the loop to the atmosphere. The total mass released is 5,040 pounds. Using the end of life (30 years) tritium concentration, 0.6 2 uCi/g for the steam system, the total tritium release through the 11 Power Relief Valves for this postulated accident is 1.417 Curies. Thus, the total radioactivity released to the atmosphere as a result of the postulated steam generator tube failure is 1.50 11 0 Curies of tritium, 0.083 released through SWRPRS and 1.417 released through the Power Relief Valves. l l The maximum off-site whole body dose for this postulated release is 8.3 x 10 -2 mrem. Doses at specific downwind distances and (4 11 estimates of the potential population dose are provided in Tables 8 7.1-5 through 7.1-13. 7.1.2.6 ACCIDENT 6.0 - REFUELING ACCIDENTS In accordance with Regulatory Guide 4.2, the refueling accident evaluations used in connection with light-water reactor environmental reports are generally analyses of radioactivity releases caused by dropping a spent fuel bundle into the open reactor vessel or the open spent fuel storage pool, dropping a O 7.1-25
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 NRC QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 8 NRC Letter November 19, 1974 - Giambusso Item 340.2, (8.2.2) - Amendment III, Part I, AIII-2 NRC Letters February 13, 1975 and April 23, 1975 - Dicker Question FI (8.2) - Amendment I, Part II, Page Al-270 Question F2 (8.3.1) - Amendment I, Part II, Page Al-271 Question F3 (8.3) - Amendment I, Part II, Pages Al-272 and 273 Question F4 (8. ) - Amendment I, Part II, Page Al-274 Question F5 (8. ) - Amendment I, Part II, Page Al-275 Question F8 - Amendment I, Part II, Page Al-281 Question F10 (8. )- Amendment 1, Part II, Page Al-283 Question Fll (8. )- Amendment 1, Part II, Page Al-284 and 285 Question F12 - Amendment 1, Part II, Page Al-286 and 287 Question G11 (8.3) - Amendment 1, Part II, Page Al-308 NRC Letter October 26, 1981 Question 290.lR- (All Sections) - Amendment XV Question 290.4R (8.1) - Amendment XV NRC Letter December 29, 1981 15 Question 310.lR (8.3) - Amendment XV Question 310.2R (8.3) - Amendment XV Question 310 3R-8 (8.1) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-9 (8.1) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-10 (8.1) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-il (8.1) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-12 (8.1) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-13 (8.1) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-14 (8.2) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-15 (8.2) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-16 (8.2) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-17 (8.2) - Amendment XV 8-i
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 NRC QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 8 (Continued) h Question 310.3R-18 (8.3) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-19 (8.3) - Amendment XV 15 Question 310.3R-20 (8.3) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-21 (8.3) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-22 (8.3) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-23 (8.3) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-24 (8.3) - Amendment XV l Question 320.5R (8.3) - Amendment XV Question 320.7R (8.3) - Amendment XV l O 1 l l l l l 9 8-11
MIENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O) (ms NRC. QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 9 i NRC Letter November 19, 1974 - Giambusso Item 340.1 (9.2) - Amendment I, Part I, page AI-54 Item 350.14 (9.2.4) - Amendment I, Part I, page Al-85 NRC Letters February 13, 1975 and April 23, 1975 - Dicker Question F6 (T9.2-5) - Amendment I, Part II, Page Al-27 6 Question F7 (T9.2-5) - Amendment I, Part II, Pages Al-277 to 280 NRC Letter April 10, 1975 Question 1 (9.1 and 9.2) - Amendment I, Part III, Pages Al-312 and 313 Question 5 (9.2) - Amendment I, Part III, Page Al-317 NRC Letter October 15, 1976 Amendment VIII, Part I, Pages AVIII-2 to AVIII-9, and ER App. D. () NRC Letter December 22, 1976 Question 1 - Amendment VIII, Part I, Pages AVIII-ll to AVIII-15 Question 2 - Amendment VIII, Part I, Pages AVIII-16 to AVIII-22 Question 3 - Amendment VIII, Part I, Page AVIII-23 Question 4 - Amendment VIII, Part I, Pages AVIII-24 and AVIII-25 Question 5 - Amendment VIII, Part I, Page AVIII-26 NRC Letter October 26, 1981 Question 230.5R (9.2) - Amendment XV Question 290.lR (All Sections) - Amendment XV 15 Question 320.lR (9.2) - Amendment XV Question 320.2R (9.2) - Amendment XV Question 320.6R (9.1) - Amendment XV Question 320.8R (9.1) - Khendment XV O , 9-i
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 b V 9.2.5.3.4 GEOLOGY Geology of the Clinch River site has been discussed in Section 15 2.4. 9.2.5.3.5 SEISMOLOGY Seismology for the Clinch River site has been discussed in Section 9.2.5.1.5. 9.2.5.3.6 HYDROLOGY Watts Bar Dam on the Tennessee River at TPM 529.9 is located 55 river miles downstream from the Clinch River site. In the vicinity of the site the reservoir ranges in width from about 300 feet to 600 feet with depths between 22 and 24 feet at the Watts Bar normal full-pool elevation of 741 feet. Based upon stream () gage measurements by the U. S. Geological Survey at three locations near the site area, the average discharge is estimated to be 4,600 cfs. The Melton Hill Dam, located about five miles upstream of the site, was closed in May 1963. Since the closure of the dam, there has been an average of 50 days per year during which there were no releases from the dam, resulting in practically zero flow at the Clinch River site. The drainage area between Melton Hill Dam and the O ; 9.2-22
O plant site is 25 square miles. The longest period with no release from the dam occurred in February and March 1966 when there was no flow below the dam for 29 consecutive days. These conditions resulted from special reservoir operations in an effort to reduce the growth of Eurasian water milfoil in the reservoir.07) Such extended periods of zero flow from Melton Hill Dam are not anticipated in the future. During days when there are no releases from Melton Hill Dam, upstream flow at the site is possible, depending upon the operation of Watts Bar and Fort Loudoun Reservoirs. Use of the Clinch River site would require the installation of suople-mental cooling facilities. Makeup water requirements from the reservoir for cooling towers are expected to be approximately 14 cfs with dis-charges from the cooling facilities to the reservoir of about 7 cfs. Adequate treatment of this limited amount of water can be provided to meet applicable Federal and str.te water quality standards. State water quality standards are in Section 2.5. 9.2.5.3.7 FLOOD ELEVATION The maximum flood levels expected at the Clinch River site were deter-mined using preliminary estimates. The maximum possible hydraulic con-ditions without dam failure could cause the river'to reach an elevation of 785 feet. Nonconcurrent seismic failure of Norris Dam could result in an estimated flood elevation of 800 feet at the Clinch River site. The possible contribution from the potential failure of Melton Hill Dam which is located between Norris Dam and the site was not taken into account due to its relatively small size compared to Norris Dam. AEC recommended procedures for considering concurrent flooding and seismic failure of Norris Dam give an estimated elevation of 810 feet. The Clinch River site plant grade was expected to be at an elevation of approximately 810 feet. Due to the topography at this site, the plant l 9.2-23
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 l NRC QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 10 NRC Letter November 19, 1974 - Giambusso Item 340.3 (10.1) - Amendment I, Part I, Page Al-73 Item 340.4 (10) - Amendment I, Part I, Page Al-74 ( T10-1, 10. 2, 10.7, 10.8) Item 340.5 (10,5) - Amendment I, Part I, Al-75 NRC Letters February 13, 1975 and April 23, 1975* - Dicker Question D2 (10.2) - Amendment I, Part II, Page Al-lG9 Question D6 (10 ) - Amendment I, Part II, Pages Al-175 and 176
- Question D8 (10 ) - Amendment I, Part II, Pages Al-78 to 201 C-18 (10) - Amendment I, Part II, Pages Al-157 and 158 NRC Letter October 26, 1981 Question 290.lR (All Sections) - Amendment XV 15 Question 320.9R (10.1,10.3,10.6) - Amendment XV O
O 10-1
i i ' i t i AMENDMENT II July 1975 l 1 !i ! and extreme mixing conditions and ensures a rapid reduction in cooling 4
, tower blowdown excess temperature and adequate dilution of chemical effluen ts. .
i t l i i i i I S
. +
f f f l }. l I l 1 i ] i f 1 I i s 4 P j 10.3-11
TABLE 10.3-1 INPUT PARAMETERS FOR MODELING OF THE CRBRP DISCHARGE PLUMES ________ Plant _Discbarge___________ _____arbient_Biver_Cooditloos_____ loitial_ Jet _Pasareters. Atmospheric Blowdown Water Flow Pool To Wet Bulb Tgmp. Blowdown Flow' Tgrap. Rat *e Velocity Elevation (h) V, p __Bizing_ Conditions _. ___1_fl __1_fl__ _ispel__ icisi i_f1_ icist _11pst__ _ift_BSLl_ 1 ft 119s1 __o_ _ZlD Typical Cases Average Winter 43.3 a 74,9 c 2,500 5.57 43.9 c 5,3389 1.39 736 31.0 15.96 67.8 7.5 15 (Jan/Feb/ Mar) c 65.7 c Average Summer 73.2 a 89.3 3,240 7.22 4,777g 0.63 741 23.6 20.68 77.1 15.0 (July /Aug/Sep) Thirmal Worst Cases b d f Hypothetical Winter 56.2 79.8 2,810 6.26 33 0 0 735 46.8 17.93 68.2 6.0 (Jan) 74.4 b d f 84.3 Hypothetical Summer 89.6 3,280 7.31 7B 0 0 739 11.6 20.94 12.0 g (June) y Chemical Worst Cases N Short Duration No Flow Winter (Jan) 56.2 b 79.8 d 2,810 6.26 33 f 0 0 735 46.8 17.93 68.2 6.0 Summer (June) 74.4 b 89.6 d 3,280 7.31 78 I O O 739 11.6 20.94 84.3 12.0 gii;ie 5 i 5-------- Bull Run Steam Plant Data, 1/70-12/73 c Tible 10.3A-1 d Figure 10.3A-2; account taken of cooling effect of makeup flow
' Figure 10.3A-2 csg Clinch River (m 21.6) Data, 6/62-9/72 Qg 9 Table 2.5-3 (data base May 1963 - Dec. 1973) @
h T7.;ble 2.5-5 (data base Jan. 1964 - Dec. 1973) 15 $9 N -4 ac O O O
4 i I AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 ! l@ l NRC QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 12 i , i t . $ ? b t 1 l I i NRC Letter June 11, 1975 ' Item 321.15 (12.0), Amendment II, Part II, Page AII-46 * ! I i : i NRC Letter October 26, 1981 i Question 290.9R - Amendment XV 15 i J I
@ l i
t i l 4 l 4 . l l h 12-1
MiENDMENT XV JULY 1982 0)
\.
5.2 REFERENCES
- 1. S. E. Thompson,,et al., " Concentration Factors of Chemical Elements in Edible Aquatic Organisms," UCRL-50564, Rev.1, 1972. 13 4
, 2. ICRP Publication 2, Pergamon Press, New Yor k, 195 9,
- 3. D. E. Reichle, et al., " Turnover and Concentration of l Radionuclides in Food Chains," Nuclear Saf ety 11, No.1 (1970).
- 4. Personal Communications, S. V. Kaye, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1972.
- 5. ICRP Publication 9, Pergamon Press, New Yor k, 196 6.
() 6. Basic _ Radiation Protection criteria, NCRP Report No. 39, 1971. 9 1
- 7. The Effects on Populations of Excosure to Low-Levels of 15
) lonizina Radiat. ion, National Academy of Sciences / National
- Research Council, Washington,1972.
- 8. " Report of the Task Group on Ref erence Man," ICRP Publication 23, Pergamon Press, New York, 1975.
- 9. R. J. Engelmann, "The Calculation of Precipitation Scavenging, " Meteoroloay and Atomic Eneray, USAEC,196 8.
O 4 13.0-31 )
AMENDMENT XIV MAY 1982
- 10. NUREG 017 0, "FES, Transportation of Radioactive Materials by Air and Other Modes", December 1977.
- 11. Dunning, D. E., Jr. et al., " Estimates of Internal Dose Equivalent to 22 Target Organs for Radionuclides Occurring in Routine Releases from Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities."
Vol. III, ORNL/NUREG/TM-190/V3, October 1981.
- 12. G. G. Killough and R. McKay, "A Methodology for Calculating Radiation Doses from Radioactivity Released to the Environment," ORNL-4992, March 1976. ll4
- 13. Reg. Guide 1.109, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rev. 1, October 1977.
- 14. " Situation Assessment and Planning Assumptions", Division of Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife, TVA, Dec . 197 8.
- 15. " Estimated Commercial Fish and Mussel Harvest from The O
Tennessee Valley", Fisheries and Aquatic Ecology Branch. TVA, 1980.
- 16. " Observations of Recreation Use of TVA Reservoirs.1974",
Division of Reservoir Properties, Recreation Resources Branch, TVA, Nov. 1975. l
- 17. Unpublished Information from files of TVA Water Quality Branch , 197 d.
l l 13.0-31a
- - - - . . - - ... - --- .- --=.- --- - -- ----- -- -
i - - . . . - - j i 4 I AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 i NRC QUESTIONS ABOUT APPENDIX A I i 4 t i NRC Letter November 30, 1981 i Question.750.2R - Amendment XV ' i Question 750.4R - Amendment XV l l ) I i
,. r i
f h 4 , I N
+
4 i l i 1 e i 4 . b I i ( U 4 App. A-i
. - . , . . . - . . - . . - - _ . . _ - . . - . . , ..._ -. ..,_.-____ ,. - - . - - _ . . _ - . . . ~ _ . - _ . - _ . - _ . _ . - _ _ . _ _ . .
M1ENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O NRC QUESTIONS ABOUT APPENDIX C NRC Letter December 29, 1981 Question 310.3R-25 (Introduction) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-26 (Introduction) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-27 (2.2) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-28 (2.4) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-29 (2.5) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-30 (2.6) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-31 (2.6) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-32 (3.2) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-33 (3.2) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-34 (3.2) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-35 (3.2) -
.mendment XV S Question 310.3R-36 (3.3) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-37 (3.3) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-38 (3.3) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-39 (2.3) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-40 (1.0) - Amendment XV Question 310.3R-41 (3.3) - Amendment XV 1
App. C-i ____ _ ~ - _ .. . . _ _ . _
l t i l l l AMENDMENT XV ! JULY 1982 i ! NRC QUESTIONS ABOUT APPENDIX D ? l l NRC Letter November 30, 1981 1 l Question 750.3R - Amendment XV i ( l ! l 4 l i I i i f l !O t i } i ! ! t i l l t t , 1 1 1 i . I h I i
- l i
I ! t l 4 !9 ! 1 1 , j App. D-i i i l ' i _ ,-_. -
l
, s. '
i i i AMENDMENT XV i JULY 1982 i i NRC QUESTONS ABOUT APPENDIX E ! t i i
! NRC Letter October 26, 1981 j i .
, Question 320.3R - Amendment XV ] Question 320.4R - Amendment XV i i e i t i l. l + + l 4 l f I l,. I i I I i i i t I 1 1 .] l i
- I 1
=
l 1 i P i h
- App. E-i I 1
l i AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 ! f I i I L l APPENDIX F-t l- SUPPLEMENTAL ALTERNATIVE SITING ANALYSIS UPDATE '! FOR THE I LMFBR DEMONSTRATION PLANT O i i . I ! l !
- t l I i !
l l 1 L I I
-l I
I ! l 4 i e i i F-i t l t
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 D (V SUPPLEMENTAL ALTERNATIVE SITING ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR THE LMFBR DEMONSTRATION PLANT l.0 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION The primary alternative siting analysis for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant is presented in Section 9.2 of the CRBRP Environmental Report. The choice of the TVA power service creo os the region of interest for this analysis was inherent in the selection by AEC of the TVA/Cortmonwealth Edison proposal for a cooperative AEC/ utility arrangement to design, construct, and operate the nation's first large-scale demonstration LMFBR.(l) This choice was also confirmed by the DOE's LMFBR Program Environmental Statement Supplement.(2) The conclusion reached in Environmental Report Section 9.2, offer careful consideration of both a book-on arrangement at an existing TVA plant and on all new plant at a number of undeveloped condidate sites, was that on all new plant located at the Clinch River site was the preferrred choice for the
. LMFBR Demonstration Plant.
( With respect to the alternative siting analysis presented in the CRBRP Environmental Report, it was contended by on intervenor in the CRBRP licensing hearings that: Alternative sites with more favorable environmental and safety features are not analyzed and the analysis is defective since:
- 1. Sites with more favorable environmental and safety chorocteristics were not identified and sufficient weight was not given to those values in selecting the site.
(1) See CRBRP Environmental Report Section 9.2 and Appendix D, Section 1.0, for additional information concerning the history of the selection of an AEC/ utility arrangement for the design, construction, and operation of the LMFBR O V Demonstration Plant. (2) See LMFBR Program Environmental impact Statement Supplement, DOE /EIS-008S-D, Appendix G. 13
- _ _ _ . _f -I
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
- 2. The site selection criteria unduly restricted the range of alternatives. The analysis of alternatives should not be restricted to either the TVA system or the State of Tennessee. The analysis must encunpass all land owned by TVA, including land outside its system, and all land owned by ERDA (and the AEC before it).
- 3. Alternative sites which need to be explored include Hanford Reservation, NRTS Idaho Reservation, Nevada Test Site, co-location with the LMFBR fuel reprocessing plant (e.g., the hot pilot plant) and on LMFBR fuel fabricating plant and underground sites. .
h Ruling on the acceptability of this contention in the CRBRP hearings, the i RC Commissioners have stated: I i Alternative sites outside the Tennessee Valley Authority service area are also relevant to this proceeding. In considering alternatives, including non-TVA siting alternatives, in the present proceeding, the following general principle should be observed: consideration of alternatives need go no further than to establish whether or not substantially better alternatives are likely to be available.(3) In accordance with the above NRC Commissioners ruling and in response to NRC requests for additional information, the CRBRP Project provided in Environmental Report Appendix D, " Supplemental Alternative Siting Analysis for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant," and Appendix E, " Additional Information Regarding Consideration of Alternate Sites for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant," on analysis of alternative sites outside the TVA service area and the concepts of underground siting and co-location with on LMFBR fuel reprocessing or fuel fabrication plant. The conclusion reached from this additional alternative siting analysis was again that the Clinch River site was the preferred site for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. In a letter dated November 30,1981, NRC requested additional information to update the CRBRP Project alternative siting analysis presented in the Environmental Report. The (3) See CRBRP Environmental Repor.t Appendix E for a complete discussion of the standards governing consid? ration of alternative sites outside the TVA power service crea presented in the NRC Commissioners Order. i3 F-2
.A m
AMEND? LENT XV JULY 1982 s . . G Q Projecti s response to NRC's questions concerning the Environmental Report Section 9.2 onalysihof alternative sites' within the TVA power service oreo is provided in Environmental Report Appendix G. The NRC requested update of the' supplemental alternative ' siting analysis presented in Environmental Report Appendixes D and E is provided herein. In parallel with the organization of Environmental Report Appendix D, a re-examination of alternative DOE sites for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant is provided in Section 2.1, and Section 2.2 contains a re-examination of TVA owned sites outside the TVA power service arco. The concepts of underground siting and co-location with on LMFBR fuel reprocessing or fuel fabrication plant are reviewed in Section 2.3. Section 3.0 provides on update to' the additional information concerning alternative DOE sites at Hanford, Savannah Rive'r,'ond Idaho contained in Environmental Report Appendix E. , The enclosed update is not intended to supplant or supercede either Environmental Report Appendix D or E since much of the information presented in these appendixes is still valid and is not repeated-here. The enclosed update is intended only to reconfirm, revise, and/or supplement, as'necessary, the previous Environmental Report analysis and must be used in conjun'ction with it. \ 4 Nt
\ % .g ,
4 i3 F-3
feiEND!!DiT 13 JULY 1982 2.0 CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVE SITES AND CONCEPTS FOR THE LMFBR DEMONSTRATION PLANT This section provides on update of the consideration of additional alternative sites and concepts presented in Appendix D of the CRBRP Environmental Report. 2.1 Consideration of DOE Land as Alternative Sites for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant As requested by the NRC, the CRBRP Project has re-examined the analysis presented in Appendix D, Section 2.1, of the CRBRP Environmental Report, regarding the determination of whether or not there is a DOE site (s) outside the TVA system that would be a substantially better alternative site than the present Clinch River site for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. Specifically, the previously considered sites at Hanford, Savannah River, and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) were reviewed to see if they are presently acceptable as candidate sites and if the information provided on these candidate sites in Appendix D is still adequate for comparison to the Clinch River site. The results of this review are provided below. The Appendix D analysis of ERDA sites as potential alternative sites for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant began by screening, in a two-phase process, oil U.S. Government real property in the custody of ERDA at the time. The screening process reduced the number of feasible sites for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant to three, Hanford, Savannah River, and INEL. The principle reasons for which the other sites were excluded included insufficient land area to meet minimum exclusion area distance, lack of available cooling water, interference with ERDA's Division of Military Application Weapons Program, high surrounding population density, and the undesireability of co-location with existing ERDA facilities. A review of the screening process and the bases for the elimination of all ERDA sites, except Hanford, Savannah River, and INEL, Ims found that the previous screening analysis is still valid. A similar screening process was also applied to additiono! properties presently owned by the U.S. Government and in tim custody of DOE that were not considered in the previous analysis. The results found no DOE properties of sufficient size to warrant their consideration as potential alternative sites for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. O . i3 [ F-4
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O b' The reconnoissance level information provided in Appendix D for Honford (Section 2.1.2.1), Savonnoh River (Section 2.1.2.2), and INEL (Section 2.1.2.3), has been reviewed in detail ond, while most of this information is still correct, some information requires updating. To ensure NRC has the correct, updated information, the previously provided dato on site access; nearby industrial, military, and transportation facilities; demography; meteorology (atmospheric dispersion); geology (foundation conditions); seismology; hydrology (cooling water availability, water quality, and flooding); bio-environment; socio-economics (labor availability); transmission lines; land and land use; scenic, archaeological and historic sites; and utility participation for each site is reviewed and, as necessary, corrected or supplemented in the following sections. Also, a revised comparison of the site characteristics at Clinch River, Hanford, Savannah River, and INEL is provided in Toble 1. The final conclusion reached based on the review of the updated information for Honford, Savannah River, and INEL is that the previous findings reached in Appendix D remain valid, i.e.: v l. Atmospheric dispersion and site isolation factors (minimum exclusion boundary distance, surrounding population density) are somewhat more favorable at Hanford, Savannah River, or INEL than the Clinch River site. However, it must be emphasized that the Clinch River site is still o completely acceptable site for construction of a nuclear facility.S)
- 2. A comparison of other siting parameters (see Table 1) would not lead one to select the Hanford, Savannah River, or INEL areas as preferable to the Clinch River site.
O (,/ (t4 ) The acceptability of the Clinch River site is fully demonstrated in the CRBRP PSAR and Environmental Report and is confirmed by the NRC staff in their CRBRP FES and Site Suitability Report. i3 < F-5 i
TABLE 1 COMPARIS0N OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS CLINCH RIVER HANFORO 10AHO SAVAwAH river Site Site: Exclusion Boundary 2.200 feet Potential for >2,200 feet Potential for >2,200 feet Potential for >2,200 feet Population Center Distance 7.0 miles (Oak Ridge-27.552) (Richland-33,582)* M5 miles (Idaho Falls- 4 5 miles (Aagusta 47,532) 38,696) Cooling Water Clinch River - Adequate Columbia River - Adequate Groundwater - Adequate Savannah River - Adequate seismology - design basis SSE acceleration 0.25g 0.259 0.50;to 0.20g b 0.20g 3 C d 3 3 Atmospheric Dispersion Short term (5% X/Q in C/m ) 5hort term 5hort term X/Q in C/m '5hort term (51 X/Q in C/m ) (5% I/Q in secj ,3) 0-2 hrs 1.1 x 10'3 at 670m(EB) 0-2 hrs 3.0 x 10'" 1927m(EB) At 670m 1.95 x 10'" 0-2 hrs 2.8 x 10*".at 1098m(ES m 8 0-8 hrs 1.2 x 10'4 at 4023m 0-8 hrs 2.8 x 10-5 at 6440m At 4023m 3.4 x 10-5 0-8 hrs 1.0 x 10'" at 3220m
- (LPZ) (LPZ) (LPZ) 8-24 hrs 8.4 x 10-5 at LPZ 8-24 hrs 1.9 x 10-5 at LPZ 8 24 hrs 2.1 x 10' at LPZ 1-4 days 3.7 x 10' at LPZ 1-4 days 8.3 x 10-6 at LPZ 14 days 8.7 x 10'0 at LPZ 4-30 days 1.2 x 10-5 at LPZ 4-30 days 2.5 x 10-6 at LPZ 4-30 days 2.5 x 10-6 at LPZ Annual average 1.44 x 10'" Annual average 1.7 x 10-6 Annual average 2.7 x 10-6 (highestoffsitevalue) (highest offsite value) (highestoffsitevalue)
Labor availability Adequate Adequate Potential corstruction Adequate labor shortage
- a. Richland borders the Hanford Reservation, for FFTF it is 6 miles, for WPP55 it is 8 miles
- b. The determination of the seismicity and volcanic hazards at the thel site by the NRC staff could be a major source of project delay.
- c. SER for WPP55 1 & 4
- d. Calculated using stability class F and wind speed of 1.8 m/sec using onsite data (100-12042:
- e. "SER for Alvin W. Vogtle Muclear Plant" Ck rm
-< 2 W
em 00 2 N --i X O O O
C C s l TABLE 1 (cont'd) l HANFORD IDAHO SAVANNAH RIVER , CLINCH RIVER Population Density CumulativePopulation(1980) Cumulative Population (1980)I Cumulative Population (1980)' Cwulative Population (1971)" 0-1 mile 150 0-2 miles 740
- 0-3 miles 1460
[ y 0-4 miles 2420 0-5 miles 4440 4 0-10 miles s3.000 0-10 miles 52.040 0-10 miles 25.361 0-10 miles 0-50 miles 830.840 0-50 miles 263.746 0-50 miles s140.550 0-50 miles swo.000 (g33.280in2030) (328,139in1990) Road, railroad, and berge Road, railroad, and barge Road and railroad only Road, railroad, and berge Site Access t only minor transmission Uncertain Only minor transmission line Transmission line construction %3.2 miles of transmission construction required required line construction required line construction expected no ho ho Utility Participation Yes Comparison of Geology (foundation conditions); flooding potential; industrial, military, and transporation facilities psar the site; tand and land use; aquatic and terrestrial impacts; and scenic and historic sites are essentially the same for the 4 areas.
- f. From Taple 2 cg g.
b. From Figure 2 SER for Alvin W. Vogtle hm
-< z O
>*2 e rn CD Z N -I
>C
=0
1 AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
- 3. A cooperative arrangement between utilities and DOE for the design, construction, and operation of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant on a utility system is not likely in the localities of the Honford, Savannah River, or INEL sites. This would preclude satisfaction of a primary LMFBR Demonstration Plant objective.(5)
With regards to the first two conclusions, o very similar comparison of the Hanford, INEL, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) sites as part of the large Developmental Plant LMFBR Conceptual Design Study independently confirmed these conclusions.(6,7) More specifically, the Large Developmental Plant siting and environmental studies concluded that "no information was uncovered which would decidedly indicate that the Demonstration Plant (Large Developmental Plant) could not be located at any of the selected sites," that " acceptable sites for the Developmental Plant have been identified on each of the Hanford, Idaho, and Ook Ridge reservations," and that "the results of economic and other comparisons at these sites did not identify any factors significant enough to favor one site over the others." On the basis of the foregoing, neither Hanford, Savarnah River, nor INEL is environmentally superior or preferable to the Clinch River site. In addition, the Project previously provided (Environmental Report Appendix E) additional information showing that the Project's ability to meet LMFBR program and project information goals is strongly site dependent and that the Clinch River Site is the preferred alternative for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. A re-examination of this inforenation based upon current information is provided in Section 3.0 below. This analysis confirms that neither Hanford, Savannah River, nor INEL are substantially better otternatives for satisfying program and project objectives for this demonstration plant. (5) See CRBRP Environmental Report Appendix E and Section 3.0 for additional information concerning LMFBR Program and LMFBR Demonstration Plant project objectives. (6) LMFBR Developmental Plant Conceptual Design Study Final Report, Site Evaluation Report, CDS 400-9, March 1981, prepared by Burns and Roe, Inc. (7) LMFBR Developmental Plant Conceptual Design Study Final Report, Preliminary Environmental Review Summary, CDS 400-10, January IS,1981, prepared by Burns and Roe, Inc. i3 F-8
i AMENDMENT XV 2.1.1 Honford . O. The reconnaissance level information provided for the Honford site in Section 2.1.2.1 of Appendix D to the CRBRP Environmental Report has been reviewed to assure that it is adequate for comparison to the Clinch River site. The results of this review are reported below and are based on telephone conversations with and information received from cognizont personnel at the Hanford site hd the references listed in Section 2.1.1.15. l
! 2.l.l.1 Site Access )
q No significant changes. 2.1.1.2 Nearby industrial, Military, and Transportation Facilities In addition to those onsite activities previously discussed in Appendix D, Puget Sound a.
! Power and Light Company is planning to build a two-unit commercial nuclear power station (Skagit/Honford Nuclear Project) at a site opproximately five miles west of the i Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Unit 2.
- O
- 2.l.l.3 Demography 1
In a recent report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, the population distributions within a 50-mile radius of four locations on the Honford site were calculated based on the U.S. i Bureau of Census 1980 population counts for Washington and Oregon. Tables 2 and 3 l show the population distribution within the 50-mile radius of FFTF for 1980 and the
- projected population distribution for 1990, respectively. Additional demographic dato in the vicinity of the Honford site with projections post 1990 are available in the i Skagit/Honford Nuclear Project Environmental Report.
i As specifically requested by the NRC staff, 46 26' Latitude, 1190 23' Longitude, are j reasonable coordinates for NRC's use in computing population distributions and densities nround a possible LMFBR Demonstration Plant site of Hanford. iO i i3 l F-9 ) u_ ._ , _. _ ., -,- .
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION IN 50-MILE RADIUS OF THE FFTF BY POPULATION GRID SECTOR FOR THE YEAR 1980 1 l Compass Number of People l Oir ec tion _0-10 mi_ 10-20 mi 20-30 mi 30-40 mt 40-50 mi Totals i NORTH 0 78 859 811 16,267 18,015 20 343 5,728 2.945 1,021 10,057 NNE NE 114 377 760 1,033 217 2,501 LNE 211 1,041 2,644 492 451 4,839 EAST 229 600 183 169 183 1,364 ESE 229 442 544 292 1,060 2,567 SE 344 25,267 13,654 2,105 952 42,322 SSE 10,829 40,933 5,688 719 2,364 60,533 50VIH 11,760 9,385 1,52 5 5,611 15,691 43,972 55W 1,446 4,550 583 185 1,927 8,691 SW 179 1,538 5,234 535 239 7,725 WSW 0 1,206 7,748 14,956 481 24,391 WEST C 190 3,339 6,089 17,171 26,789 WNW 0 0 932 1,221 3,176 5, 32 9 NW 0 0 295 903 705 1,903 0 0 264 1.302 1.182 2,748 NNW TOTALS 25,361 85,950 49,980 39,368 63,087 263,746 1 l O F-10
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O 1 TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION WITHIN A 50-MILE RADIUS OF THE FFTF BY POPULATION GRIO SECTOR FOR THE YEAR 1990 Compass Number of People O f rec tion 0-10 at 10-20 at 20-30 et 30-40 at 40-50 at Totals NORTH 0 107 1,057 %8 19,099 21.231 NNE 27 467 7.121 3,517 1,205 12,337 NE 156 513 997 1,293 270 3,229 ENE 288 1,415 3,598 671 611 6.583 O. EAST 312 312 817 602 249 634 211 324 208 1,797 ESE 1.176 3.048 SE 452 34,069 17,622 2.394 1,252 55,789 55E 13.881 52,612 7,360 867 2.821 77,541 SOUTH 15.073 12.032 1,955 6,678 18,712 54,450 SSW 1,854 5,832 745 229 2,249 10,909 SW 228 1,971 6,709 638 279 9,825 W5W 0 1,546 9,109 17,380 559 28,594 WEST 0 244 3,946 7,076 19,951 31,217 l WNW 0 0 1,149 1,416 3,659 6.224 { NW 0 0 346 1,045 750 2,141 NNW 0 0 310 1.528 1.386_ 3.224 TOTALS 32,583 112,227 62,907 46,235 74,187 328,139 O i F-11
. - - - . - . - . _ ~ . - . - - - . . . . - . - _ - - - - _ . . - . - - _ _ - - - - - - . - _
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 2.l.l.4 Meteorology (Atmospheric Dispersion) No significant changes. 2.1.l.5 Geology (Foundation Conditions) No significant changes. 2.l.l.6 Seismology No significant changes. It should be noted, however, that en investigation is currently in progress to evaluate recently obtained data related to reported faulting in the area which may impact (increase) the required design basis acceleration for the safe shutdown carthquake which is presently 0.25g. 2.1.l.7 Hydrology (Cooling Water Availability, Water Quality, and Flooding) No significant changes. O 2.l.l 8 Bio-Environment Two federally listed, threatened or endangered animal species are known to occur within the Ilanford Reservation, bald eagles and peregrine falcons. Bald eagles are winter residents, although sporatic nesting attempn have been made in the past. The only published records of peregine falcons in the Tri-cities area is of winter migrants. There are no other significant changes from the bio-environrnent description of the Hanford site in Appendix D, but additional information is available in the references listed in Section 2.1.1.15. T.I.I.9 Socio-economics (Labor Availability) The most up-to-date socio-economic information concerning the area surrounding Hanford is contained in the Environmental Report for the Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project. A review of this study plus the recent planned termination of the Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Unit 4, indicates that on adequate labor supply would be available in the Richland-Kennewick-Pasco area with a minimum influx of new construction workers. F-12 1
AMENDMENT XV 1982
- 2. l . l .10 Transmission Lines
\j No significant changes.
- 2. l . l .1 l Land and Land Use No significant changes. ,
2.l.1.12 Scenic, Archaeological, and Historic Sites The U.S. Department of the Interior (1979) lists 20 historic sites for the three counties (Benton, Grant, and Franklin) in which the Hanford site is located. Among these, the Ryegrass Archaeological District is listed as being in the "Honford Works Reservation" (since 1978 designated as "Honford Site") along the Columbia River. Other historic sites listed are: Paris Archeological Site, Hanford Island Archeological Site, Hanford North Archeological District, Locke Island Archeological District, Rattlesnake Springs Sites, Snively Canyon Archeological District, Wooded Island Archeological District, and Savage Island Archeological District. Concerning natural and scenic features, two sites have been proposed for designation as National Natural Landmarks, the Honford Dunes and the () Arid Lands Ecology Reserve. In addition, the Arid Lands Ecology Reserve along with the rest of the Hanford Site, exclusive of the operating areas (approximately 6%) was recently designated as a National Environmental Research Park (NERP). The Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, which includes the entire length of the river within the Honford Reservation, is the lost free-flowing section of the Columbia River and has been proposed os a potential wild, scenic, or recreational river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Hanford, as a condidate site for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant, is not pre-empted by any of the above updated findings. Additional information concerning the above con be found in the references listed in Section 2.1.1.15. 2.l.1.13 Utility Participation in a letter dated February 16, 1982 from the Public Power Council of Pacific Northwest consumer owned utilities, the previous determination that the Northwest utilities were not willing to take on the additional responsibilities of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant at the Honford site is reconfirmed. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 1. F-13 1
AMENDMENT X1f JULY 1982 2.1.1.14 Other New Considerations Two other items need to be noted to satisfactorily complete this update for the Hanford site. First, as a result of the May 18,1980 and subsequent eruptions of Mount St. Helens on additional new design basis is necessary for Hanford relating to ash fall. Ash fall would offect mostly equipment qualification and HVAC system design. While this is an added design basis not applicable to the other sites, the significance in terms of added plant cost should be relatively minor. The second item concerns the recent announcement by the Washington Public Power Supply System (Supply System) that it intends to terminate the construction on Nuclear Unit 4 (WNP-4) which is approximately 25% complete. While it may appear initially that some large cost savings or schedule reduction could occur should the LMFBR Demonstration Plant utilize the existing WNP-4 site, structures, and services, a more detailed examination quickly finds this would not be the case. There are significant size and generic design differences between the 1250 MWe WNP-4, which is a light water reactor, and the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. For instance, the WNP-4 containment building, internal structures and supports, and foundation would be totally unsuitable for use by the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. Also, co-location of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant in close proximity with the other two Supply System Units, WNP-l and WNP-2, would create undue interference and problems for both the Supply System and the LMFBR Demonstration Plant project. In addition, any cost savings that might be realized would be negligible in comparison with the LMFBR program and project benefits that would be lost and increased costs from relocating the LMFBR Demonstration Plant to Hanford (see Section 3.0).
- 2. l . l .15 Additional Sources of Information Sources which were utilized for the update of the Honford site description include:
Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and Environmental Report, Docket Numbers 50-522 and 50-523 Population Estimates for the Areas Within a 50-Mile Radius of Four Reference Points on the Hanford Site (PNL-4010) D.J. Sommer, R.G. Rau, and D.C. Robinson, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, November 1981 F-14
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 \ V LMFBR Developmental Plant Conceptual Design Study - Phase 11, Preliminary Environmental Review, Volume ll, Honford Reservation, CDS 500-10, prepared by Burns and Roe, Inc. LMFBR Developmental Plant Conceptual Design Study Final Report, Site Evaluation Report, CDS 400-9, March 1981, prepared by Burns and Roe, 1, .r . F u .a t Environmental Impact Statement, Supplement to ERDA-IS38,
~
December 1975, Woste Management Operations, Honford Site, Double-Shell Tanks for Defense High-Level Radioactive Waste Storage, April 1980, DOE /EIS-0063 2.1.2 Savannah River The reconnaissance level information provided in CRBRP Environmental Report p Appendix D, Section 2.1.2.2, " Savannah River" has been reviewed to assure that it is V adequate for comparison to the Clinch River site. The results of this review are reported below and are based on telephone conversations with and information received from cognizant personnel at the Savannah River Plant and the references listed in Section 2.1.2.14. 2.1.2.1 Site Access No significant changes. 7.2 Nearby Industrial, Military, and Transportation Facilities No significant changes. 2.1.2.3 Demography The current work force at the Savannah River Plant has increased to 8300 (July 1980). This transient work force could grow substantially as a result of a decision to construct
'v and operate o Defense Waste Processing Facility at the Savannah River site (expected F-15
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 peak construction work force of 5000). The Vogtle construction work force is another large source of daily transient population in the vicinity of the Savannah River site. Although a revised distribution of population within 50 miles of the Savannah River Plant based on 1980 U. S. Census data was not readily available, Table 4 presents the 1980 census population data for counties and communities where 89% of the current Savannah River Plant work force resides (see Figure 1). As specifically requested by the NRC staff, 33 19' Latitude, 81 32' Longitude, are reasonable coordinates for NRC's use in computing population distributions and densities around a possible LMFBR Demonstration Plant site at Savannah River. 2.l.2.4 Meteorology (Atmospheric Dispersion) No significant changes. 2.1.2.5 Geology (Foundation Conditions) O No significant changes. 2.1.2.6 Seismology No significant changes. 2.1.2.7 tiydrology (Cooling Water Availability, Water Quality, and Flooding) No significant changes. 2.1.2.8 Bio-Environment Four species listed as endangered or threatened by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been identified on the Savannah River site. They are the bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, Kirtland's warbler, and American alligator. There are no other significant changes to the bio-environment description of the Savannah River site in Appendix D, but additional information is available in the references listed in Section 2.1.2.14. F-16
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 l p TABLE 4 1980 POPULATIONS FOR SELECTED COUNTIES AND COMMUNITIES SURROUNDING THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT iocation Population South Carolina Aiken County 105.625 i City 9 North Augusta .13.593 Citf of Aiken 14,978 Attendale County 10,700 , I Town of Allendate 4,400 Bamberg County 18.118 City of Bamberg 3.672 l City of Denmark 4,434 Barnwell County 19.868 City of Barnwell S.572 Georgia Columbia County 40,118 City of Grovetown 3.491 Richmond County 181,629 City of Augusta 47,532 TOTAL 376.058 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census,1980 Census of Population and Housing. South Carolina. PHC80-V-42; Georgia, PHC80-V-12; March 1981.
)
es-ssse Columbia SC -'paluda / s xington GA gerieta '- Aiken - Barnwell
*Aiken Columbia ,# gusta '
gg Richmond .r , o -,' Burke n '4 11endale I < g. O fampton GA SC FIGURE 1 COUNTIES AND COMMUNITIES SURROUNDING THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT F-17
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 2.1.2.9 Socio-economics (Labor Availability) The most recent source of information concerning labor availability and socioeconomic conditions in the Savannah River site area is the Draf t Environmental Impact Statement for the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF). Based on this information, it appears that labor availability is sufficient, but any conclusion on socioeconomic impacts from construction and operation of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant would require additional analysis and would be dependent on the timing of labor requirements for the ongoing Vogtle Nuclear Plant construction, and potential construction of the DWPF. 2.1.2.10 Transmission Lines The Savannah River Plant is currently connected by two I15 kV transmission lines to the utility system and the reservation is crossed by a 230 kV transmission line. 2.1.2.1 l Land and Land Use No significant changes. 2.1.2.12 Scenic, Archaeological, and Historic Sites No significant changes. 2.l.2.13 Utility Participation The previous (k termination that the Southeast utilities (Duke Power Company, Carolina Power and Light Company, Virginia Electric and Power Company, the Southern Company, and South Carolina Electric and Gas Company) could not constitute a utility owner-operator group for locating the LMFBR Demonstration Plant on any of their systems including the Savannah River site, has been reconfirmed in a January 26, 1982 letter from Mr. William S. Lee, President and Chief Operating Officer of Du!<e Power Company. (A copy of Mr. Lee's letter is attached as Exhibit 11 along with copies of his two previous letters of November 4 and December I,1976 which he references). O F-18
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 2.1.2.14 Additional Sources of Information l Sources which were utilized for the update of .the Savannah River site description include: Draf t Environmental Impact Statement Defense Waste Processing Facility, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolino, September 1981, U. S. Department of Energy (DOE /EIS-0082D) Environmental Information Document Defense Waste Processing Facility, July 1981, E.I. du Poni de Nemours & Co. (DPST-80-249) 4 l 2.l.3 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory As hos been done for the Hanford and Savannah River sites, the reconnaissance level information provided in CRBRP Environmental Report Appendix D, Section 2.1.2.3,
" idaho National Engineering Laboratory" has been reviewed to assure that it is adequate
() for comparison to the Clinch River site. The results of the review are given below and are based on telephone conversations with and information received from cognizant personnel at the INEL and the references listed in Section 2.1.3.14. 2.l.3.1 Site Access No significant changes. I 2.1.3.2 Nearby Industrial, Military, and Transportation Facilities No significant changes. 2.l.3.3 Demography Figure 2 is provided to give the best available information regarding the distribution of population within a 50-mile radius of the INEL Centrol Focilities Areo. Both the distribution based on the 1970 U. S. Census and on updated distribution based on preliminary 1980 U. S. Census dato is shown. Figure 3 illustrates the area encompassed by the 50-mile radius circle surrounding the Centrol Focilities Area. The 1980 population L-J@
l AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
~
G 78/89 12/13 152/174 745/892 56/64 18/19 138/158 400/448 U#"3 3/4 S29/973 66178 778/988 96/ 30I
# " 353/395 24/27 M i g, 2690f 27130 123 3/3 010 010 3603 120/133 528/660
' 185/207 1 1364/
00 0/0 04 1378 E 0/0 O!O - 9/12 04 0/0 100I125 131/157 04 og BN3 4pgg3f 211/253 OJO 0/0 Co 0/0 55494 010 10 MHes por ofo 100/120 86 04 00 20 Miles 250/300 010 1114/ 010 46158 7340 0/0 1607/2164 30 Miles 100I120 612/765 13/16 43560150418' 40 Miles 840/1008 2067/2062
% 50 Miles S
- Includes about 39000/45022 residents Population Data in Pocatello, which is slightly 1970 Census /1980 Preliminary Census beyond the 50 mile radius INEL-A 18 305 FIGURE 2 1
i POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AROUND THE INEL, CENTERED AT TliE CENTRAL FACILITIES AREA O F-20
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
\* Clark l
{d \ Lemhl l
- c. o*~ .._r J
\ '
Fr emont k Camas[ 83 g%
~ -f Jefferson ._
Custer . Mud Lake _ t i
" erreto R br Mackay Dam Mud Lake Mackey ~ - 22 II River Butte 33 Idaho noberis Natio,nal y ,,,
Engineerin .-t**'""'*.- nirie <
^- / Laborator A s~ / I N.l./ .M,co
R C C'^y A to Bonney!!!e "f*" .
.Idah,o Fatts 93 Ammon
.> ~
Atomic City Shelley',,
--g 26 [ t 15 Basatt
{ Blackfoot /
- ~ _
Blaine Bingham 719 Pingroe 93 26 . _ Springfield / Minidoka , Ft. Hall Indian Reservation
/
39 h. .- g; Lincoln i Power ; / Chubbuck N Aberdeeng . l [- 86 Bannock i
]
r N American nes.,,m,,a,,s /
- ~a,e,,o i) c -
2 t -, ae.e.ugiil _ . ._ ... . t, i. _ . 2.o 1 1.o INEL-A-18 310 Miles FIGURE 3 INEL VICINITY MAP CENTERED ON THE CENTRAL FACILITIES AREA (CFA) ps m F-21
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 residing within 50 miles of the Central Facilities Area (including Pocatello, which is just outside the 50-mile radius circle) was 140,550. Tables 5 and 6 show the population of towns within the 50-mile radius having more than 300 inhabitants and the population by county for those people who reside within the 50-mile radius, respectively. (Because the population distributions in Figure 2 are estimated, total population values do not I correspond exactly to those shown on Table 6.) As specifically requested by the NRC staff, 43 40' Latitude, I 12 30' Longitude, are reasonable coordinates for NRC's use in computing population distributions and densities around a possible LMFOR Demonstration Plant site at INEL. 2.l.3.4 Meteorology (Atmospheric Disperson) No significant changes. 2.1.3.5 Geology (Foundation Conditions) No significant changes. 2.l.3.6 Seismology O it was previously stated that INEL was reclassified from seismic Zone 2 of the Uniform Building Code to the higher risk Zone 3 in 1970. This seismic zone classification has, however, recently been reduced back to o seismic risk Zone 2. This reduction was based on the fact that tne Eastern Snake River Plain geologic province is relatively aseismic although surrounded by seismicity and that the earthquakes of the neighboring tectonic provinces could not logically be expected to occur within the Eastern Snake River Plain where INEL is located. Estimated maximum bedrock accelerotion postulated by rupture along known faults at the INEL range from greater than 0.5 g on the western boundary to less than 0.2 g in the southeastern corner. It is expected that a site for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant could be found with a design basis safe shutdown earthquake of 0.25 g or less. it should be noted, however, that because there is no NRC licensed facility on or near INEL, a long project delay could occur while the NRC staff evaluates not only the seismicity of the O F-22
AMENDMENT XV ' JULY 1982 f TABLE 5 POPULATIONS LIVING WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE CENTRAL FACILITIES AREA BY COUNTY ( Popul a tion C oun ty' 1970 1980' O Bannockb Bingham 42,I83 23,474 360 49,672 28,404 432 B1a1ne Bonnev tile 40,959 50,380 Butte 2,966 3,352 Clark - 62 65 Cus ter 602 668 i Jefferson 5,973 7.287 Lemht 22 25 Power 221 265 Total 116,822 140,550 i Source: 1970 U.S Census (Bureau of the Census 1973) and 1980 preliminary U.S. Census data (Bureau of the Census 1980).
- a. Four other counties (Fremont, Lincoln, Madison, and Minidoka) intersect j the 50-elle circle; however, no population centers lie within the circle.
- b. Includes residents of the cf ty of Pocatello, which is just outside the 50*lle radius.
O & F-23
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O TABLE 6 CITY POPULATIONS WITHIN 50 MILES a OF THE CENTRAL FACILITIES AREA Popula tion Ci ty 1970 1980 Aberdeen 1,542 1,436 Amon 2,553 4,616 Arco 1 ,244 1,230 Ba sal t 349 410 Bl a ck fon t 8,716 10,054 Chubbuck 2,927 6,880 F1 e th 362 450 Idaho Fa11s 35,776 38,696 fona 890 1.070 Lewi svill e 468 498 Mackay $39 536 Monan $45 5'J8 Poca tellob 38,826 45,022 Roberts 393 456 Shelley 2,674 3,260 Ucon 664 928 Sources: 1970 U.S. Census (Dureau of the Census 1973) and 1980 preliminary , U.S. Census data (Bureau of the Census 1980). l
- a. Cities with more than 300 inhabitants.
- b. Poca tello is just outside the 50-mile radius, but is included in the table.
l O i F-24 l
} AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O Q INEL site, but also the history and the hazards that may be posed by the volcanic nature of the INEL site. E 2.1.3.7 Hydrology (Cooling Water Availability, Water Quality, and Flooding) No significant changes. 2.l.3.8 Bio-Environment , No significent changes. 2.l.3.9 Socio-economics (Labor Availability) , No significant changes. l 2.l.3.10 Transmission Lines
-No significant changes.
2.1.3.1 l Land and Land Use No significant changes. . 2.1.3.12 Scenic, Archaeological, and Historic Sites i One historical site in addition to EBR-1 has been identified on the INEL. The site has been fenced and the information required for potential registration as a national historic site has been sent to the State. This historic site, however, has no impact on the INEL as a site for the condidate LMFBR Demonstration Plant. 2.l.3.13 Utility Participation
, (To be provided later.)
O F-25
-. .. . _ _ ~ - . __-___- . ..._.-- - - . - - . _ . . .-.. -.- ,-. _ _ _ -
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 2.l.3.14 Additional Sources of Information Sources which were used for the update of the INEL site description include: 9 LMFBR Developmental Plant Conceptual Design Study -- Phase 11, Preliminary Environmental Review, Volume I, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, CDS S00-10, prepared by Burns and Roe, Inc. LMFBR Developmental Plant Conceptual Design Study Final Report, Site Evaluation Report, CDS 400-9, March 1981, prepared by Burns and Roe, Inc. 2.2 Consideration of TVA-Owned Land Outside the TVA Power Service Area os Alternative Sites for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant A review of the Environmental Report Appendix D Section 2.2 analysis was conducted. The review verified that the Page and Artemus sites located in Kentucky are still the only TVA-owned sites outside the TVA power service creo, but that the sale of the Page site has been approved by the TVA Board of Directors. The review also verified that the general site characteristics, transmission hookup costs, and off-site power requirements information provided in Section 2.2 of Appendix D is still valid. Therefore, the basis for and the conclusion reached that no TVA land outside the TVA power service arco is better, much less substantially better than the Clinch River site, remains unchanged. 2.3 Consideration of Co-Location with on LMFBR Feel Reprocessing and on LMFBR Fuel Fabrication Plant and Underground Sites Although not specifically requested by NRC to re-examine the concepts of underground siting and co-location of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant with various other fuel cycle facilities such as an LMFBR fuel fabrication plant and/or on LMFBR fuel reprocessing plant, a review has been made of the previous analysis of these alternatives in Environmental Report Appendix D Section 2.3. Based on this review, no findings or developments have crisen from studies of these concepts since the analysis was done to I change the resulting conclusion that neither concept offers tangible improvement in safety, environmental acceptability, safeguards, or economics of the proposed CRBRP, and thus these alternatives do not worront adoption for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. F-26
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O 3.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATE SITES FOR THE LMFBR DEMONSTRATION PLANT This section is an update to CRBRP Environmental Report Appendix E which, in response to on NRC request, provided additional information concerning alternative sites at . Hanford, Savannah River, and INEL, and to a more limited extent, potential sites within the TVA power service area. Appendix E otso provided the CRBRP Project's overall assessment and botancing of factors that were regarded as significant in the comparison of alternative sites. The overall assessment in Appendix E was logically divided into four successive parts, each of which is reviewed here. The conclusion of this review and update is that the Clinch River site is the preferred site and that no other site represents a substantially better offernative for meeting pertinent LMFBR program and LMFBR Demonstration Plant project objectives. H The Standards Governing Consideration of Alternative Sites /-m Port A of Appendix E to the Environmental Report contains on important discussion of ( ) the standards that the NRC Commissioners recognized as controlling the review and evaluation of o,ternative sites for the CRBRP project. No change is required to this discussion of the four basic principles embodied in the Commission's Order that are of fundamental importance to the alternative site anal sis f (see Environmental Report Appendix E, pages E-4 to E-6). Indeed, the discussion is buttressed by the legislative history of the Project from its inception to the present, and in particular, by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. (See Applicants' Memorandum in Support of Request to Conduct Site Preparation Activity (" Applicants' Memorandum"), November 30, 1981 (Docket No. 50-537), at pages 14-25; Appendix A). Program and Project Objective The basic LMFBR program and LMFBR Demonstration Plant project objectives updated in the LMFBR Program Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Supplement (DOE /EIS-0085-D) remain essentially the same os discussed in Appendix E. The current plan, however, now identifies only two major developmental plant projects, CRBRP and the i- m ( ) Large Developmental Plant, and the revised timing objective for the LMFBR
/ Demonstration Plant (CRBRP) is that it should be completed as expeditiously as F-27
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 possible.(8) The critical objective of demonstration of the technical performance, reliability, maintainability, safety, environmental acceptobility, and economic feasibility, with extensive utility involvement in a utility environment remains unchanged. The essence of the findings in Appendix E Part B therefore remains the some. These findings were that the evaluation of alternative sites in terms of the objectives defined in the DOE LMFBR Environmental Impact Statement must focus upon whether the alternatives are likely to be available os substantially better means for meeting the fundamental objectives of (1) timing (as expeditiously as possible) and (2) demonstration with utility porticipation in a utility environment. The Clinch River Site is the Preferred Alternative for Meeting Program and Project Objectives The CRBRP Project has reviewed the evaluation in Part C of Environmental Report Appendix E that previously showed the likelihood of the Clinch River site meeting the timing and utility participation objectives and that neither Hanford, Savannah River, nor INEL ore accepteble alternatives for meeting these objectives. The latest CRBRP Project schedule of key milestones is given in Table 7. It is clear from this schedule that the timing for construction and operation of CRBRP support the revised program objective of completion of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant as expeditiously as possible. On the other hand a decision now to locate the LMFBR Demonstration Plant at either Honford, Savannah River, or INEL would cause o bore minimum delay of 33 months and a more probable delay of 43 months or more starting from the time o decision was made to change sites. These delay times are the same os those in Appendix E since no changes have occurred that would affect the basis for their calculation (see CRBRP Environmental Report Appendix E, pages E-Il to E-19). Based on this it is clear that considering the probable impact upon project arrangements and authorizations, and even the optimistic estimates of time determined in the Appendix E evaluation to reach today's stage of the CRBRP licensing process for either Hanford, Savannah River, or INEL, none of these alternative sites is a satisfactory means for meeting the present LMFBR program timing objective. (8) LMFBR Prc. gram Environmental Impact Statement Supplement, DOE /EIS-0085-D, p. 51-52. See also Applicants' Memorandum at pages 14-25; Appendix A. F-28
i l AMENDMENT XV
- JULY 1982 l TABLE 7 CRBRP KEY MILESTONES t
NRC Grant an LWA under 10 CFR 50.10(eX3Xi)-(ii) April,1983 Start Nuclear Island Mat June,1984 NRC grant of CP June,1984 Submit FSAR to NRC August,1986 Start Na System Testing March,1989
- NRC grant of OL July,1989 Start Fuel Loading September,1989 initial Criticality February,1990
.O I i O 4 i i i 2 4 .O 1 4 F-29
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Similarly the extent to which Clinch River, and the alternative sites at Hanford, Savannah River, and INEL will be available for meeting the project objectives of extensive utility participation and demonstate in a utility environment examined in Appendix E remains unchanged (see CRBRP Environmental Report Appendix E, pages E-20 to E-25 and Sections 2.1.1.13, 2. l.2.13, and 2. l.3.13 above). Therefore, it is again concluded that since the Clinch River site fully satisfies the objective of utility participation and demonstration in a utility environment, and neither Hanford, Savannah River, nor INEL is likely to be available for meeting these objectives, Clinch River is clearly the preferred alternative site for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. Hanford, Savannah River, and INEL Do Not Offer Significant Advantages in Comparison to Clinch River The last part of the discussion in Appendix E of the Environmental Report, hypothesized for the purposes of the analysis that Hanford, Savannah River, or INEL were likely to be available as means for satisfying LMFBR program and project objectives, and showed that even then a closer examination of the significant differences between Clinch River and these sites disclosed that on balance of all relevant considerations, these sites were not substantially better alternatives than the Clinch River site. The differences between the Clinch River site and the three alternative sites which the previous review found to exist were (1) cost, (2) benefits, (3) effectiveness of the demonstration, and (4) risks.
- l. Costs The comparative cost analysis presented in Appendix E of locating the LMFBR Demonstration Plant at Clinch River versus Hanford, Savannah River, or INEL has been updated for the reference 43-month delay case and the results are presented in Table 8. As can be seen the costs have all O
F-30
T AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
TABLE 8 ESTIMATED IMPACT OF
,_ RELOCATING CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT TO ALERNATE SITE l , . ~
I ,- s _ Incrementnl Cost item $ (Million) l Savannah
., Honford ' Idaho River Escoiotion 601 601 601
- - Stoft and Support Stretch Out 164 -
164 164 . Equipment Procurement 6 13 10 Relocate Project Office s 7 6 S Additional Travel _ 3 3 1
' Dif f erence in Prevailing Labor Rates 429 376 Cl Site Studies - Other than Geological I l i Site Studies - Geological 7 7 7 Site Work Package 3 3_ _
3 L Seismic
- II 162 'l l Foundation'Moteriots and Walls 2 t'[ , 2 Site Adoptotion Redesign 10 88 10 Excavation (15) 0 (6)
Water Supply Line I l .. 0 Environmental Report Rework I I I Preliminary Safety Analysis Report Rework i I l' Reduced Revenue from Sole of Power 3S6 214 (23 TOTAL COST IMPACT - ADD - IS88 1644 835 em k l O F-31
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 increased as would be expected. Thus, there remains a dramatic increased cost that would result from relocating the LMFBR Demonstration Plant from the Clinch River site.(9)
- 2. Benefits to the LMFBR Program As indicated previously, the recent LMFBR Program EIS Supplement reconfirmed the basic objectives and direction of the LMFBR Program and called for completing of the CRBRP as expeditiously as possible. This reconfirmation was concluded af ter performing a new analysis of optional programs, structures, and timing.(10) Thus siting the LMFBR Demonstration Plant at Hanford, Savannah River, or INEL would result in substantially diminished benefits for the LMFBR Program for the reasons discussed in Appendix E and in the LMFBR Program EIS Supplement.
- 3. Effectiveness of Demonstration in a Utility Environment The same orguments raised in Appendix E remain valid today concerning use of otypically remote sites, os opposed to the more typical Clinch River site, and exposure to additional costs and delays if some future and presently unknown circumstance persuaded a utility (utilities) at Hanford, Savannah River, or INEL to even partially assume some operating responsibility. Thus the effectiveness of demonstration of the LMFBR technology in a utility environment is better at the Clinch River site than at Hanford, Savannah River, or INEL.
(9) The Applicants have p ovided additional estimates of delay costs for the project in the November 30, 1981 Site Preparation Activities Report, the January 18, 1982 Applicant's Answer to Questions Set Forth in Attachment A to the Commission's December 24, 1981 Order (Question / Answer 9(a), (Costs)), and the l January 28,1982 Applicant's Response to NRDC and Tennessee Attorney General Comments. These analyses considered only delay of construction at the Clinch River site but generally support the expected dramatic increase in cost that would result from relocating the LMFBR Demonstration Plant from the Clinch River site. (10) LMFBR Program Evy1onmental impact Statement Supplement, DOE /EIS-0085- O D, Section IV. F-32 t
. - = _ ~ - . .- _ . . . -. -- _ . _ - - . - .
i i AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
- 4. Risk in Appendix E on evoluotion of the relative potential consequences associated with postulated severe occidents was mode to determine whether a significant reduction in consequences would result at any of the alternative sites os compared to Clinch River. The basic results, which rernain valid, showed that the consequences, and hence the risks, associated with all design basis occidents at CRBRP are less than those associated with natural background radiation. Although the analysis also showed that the more favorable atmospheric dispersion chorocteristics and population i distribution at Hanford, Savannah River, or INEL further reduced these consequences by approximately a factor of 50, the predominance of natural
~
background radiation indicates that on insignificont reduction in real environmental impact would result for any of the three sites os compared to Clinch River. For additional information on this analysis and a discussion on how the requirements and design features of CRBRP will
.i ensure that risks associated with occidents beyond the design basis are sufficiently low, and are comparable to LWRs, see Appendix E, pages E-33 to E-40.
Therefore, the Project, offer careful consideration of the cost, benefits, effectiveness, and risks associated with the alternative sites, believe that the reduced environmental impacts of occidents for the alternative sites are still substantially outweighed by the lesser costs, greater benefits, and enhanced effectiveness of the demonstration in a utility environment for the Clinch River site. A summary of the key reconfirmed finding i is illustrated on Table 9. Thus, it is concluded that Clinch River is the preferred site and certainly neither Honford, Savannah River, nor INEL represent substantially better alternatives for satisfying LMFBR program information goals. a i i F-33 _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ _ _ _. _ _ ._ __ - - _ _ _ , _ _ , . _ _ . . - - _
TABLE 9
SUMMARY
OF ALTERNATIVE SITE COMPARTSONS Clinch River Hanford Idaho Savannah River Support Completion as Yes No No No Expeditiously as Possible Demonstration in Utility Environment?
- a. Licensing Representative of (These sites are atypically remote and may not establish typical utility site clearly the licensability in a typical utility
, environment)
- b. Utility Participation TVA operator maximum (Utility participation unknowable but unlikely) utility participation Congressional Authorization Exists (Requires transitional legislation and Project arrangement approval)
Cost Reference $1588M $1644M $835M Schedule Reference (43 months delay from the decision to relocate) Program Benefit Reference (LMFBRkP ogram benefits greatly diminished or lost) EE Environmental Impacts Below Natural (No significant improvement) C;0 of Accidents Background ~5!
$9 m -4 e e l e
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O 4.0
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS b The results of this review and update of the Environmental Report supplemental alternative siting analyses contained in Appendixes D and E have shown that the previous conclusions reached have remained unchanged. In summary these conclusions are:
- 1. The two TVA owned sites located outside the TVA power service oreo, one of which is in the process of being sold, are clearly not substantially better than the Clinch River site.
- 2. Neither the concepts of onderground siting nor co-location with on LMFBR fuel reprocessing or fuel fabrication plant offers tongible improvement in the safety, environmental occeptability, safeguards, or economics of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant.
- 3. That among all U. S. Government real property presently in the custody of DOE, the Honford, Savannah River, and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) p sites are acceptable condidate sites for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant but that U none of the three is a satisfactory alternative for meeting the pertinent LMFBR program and project objectives of timing and utility porticipation. Furthermore, even if it were hypcthesized for the purposes of analysis that the Hanford, Savannah River, and INEL sites were satisfactory alternatives for meeting these objectives, it is clear that they do not represent substantially better alternatives for meeting the pertinent LMFBR program and project objectives, in fact, upon consideration and balancing of the relative costs, benefits, effectiveness, and risks associated with Hanford, Savannah River, INEL and Clinch River, it is clear that Clinch River remains os the preferred plant location.
O F-35
g A - AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 EXHIBIT I O O F-36
i t . g j)LDUC DOWEll AMENDMENT XV s JULY 1982 0%0 3 Cl 500 W. Eighth Street Suite 110 Vancouver,WA 98660 (200) 694 8593 (503) 241 3163 February 16, 1982 Mr. William Rolf Project Management Corporation Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project P.O. Box U Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 RE: Use of llanford, Washington Site for LMPBR Demonstration Plant
Dear Mr. Rolf:
This letter will confirm that Pacific Northwest consumer owned utilities are not prepared to assume the project manager or owner role for a LMFBR demonstration plant at Hanford. Today, therefore, the Public Power Council Executive Committee agreed that the Clinch River site is the most appropriate location. very truly yours
/t Robert M. Greening, J d.
Manager RMG:esn b G F-37
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 0: l EXHIBIT 11 l ( 9 1 0 F-38
XV DUKE POW Elf CO31PANY A hDFt t I'! O . ll o x 0 0 : 0 0 GII AllLOTTE, N. G. coe4e CARL HORN, JR. WILLIAM S. LEC
. . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c...,....,.c.
v..,,,,..... a..,,,...., January 26, 1982 Mr William F Rolf General Manager Project Management Corp P O Box 0 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Dear Bill:
As expressed in my letters of November 4 and December 1, 1976, I do not feel that the Savanah River Reservation is currently a viable site for the breeder demonstration plant. Sincerely, W S Lee WSL/s , I cc Mr Lawrence J Kripps Energy, Inc i O F-39
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 DUKE PowTu Goxrary Powen Dirn.nruo. Dox cl70 GnA u torrn. N. G. co242 ,
..m...4.,
3 ** qvan ,,s..;g,_ ...~... ,..a ........, s F "9 co -i l'ovember 4, 1976 ~, m' Mr Peter Van Nort General Manager Project Management Corporation P O Box U Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Dear Peter:
As plans for the breeder demonstration project were being formulated in 1971 and 1972, B B Parker served on the AEC's Senior Utility Steering Committee and I served on their Senior Utility Technical Advisory Panel. On several occasions during this period, we at Duke considered the possibility of a site for the breeder demonstration plant on the Savannah River Reservation now under ERDA's management. This Reservation is in South Carolina and contiguous to the territory of South Carolina Electric and Gas but not far from Duke Power's system with its heavy transmission grid interconnecting with a number of southeast utilities. Because of Duke's extensive nuclear experience at that time and our Proximity to that site, it was our feeling that for that site to be eligible, Duke would have to be in a position to participate in operating the plant and to provide substantial technical input for the project to be successful. At that time, our engineering, construction and operating Personnel were busily engaged in trying to complete and bring in service the three Oconee units, we had begun building the two McGuire units and had committed the two Catawba units, all of which were being designed and built by Duke personnel. Under these circumstances, we were not in a position to undertake a leadership role that we felt would have been necessary for'the Savannah River site to be a viable option. At the joint meeting of the Steering Committee and the Advisory Panel on May 26, 1971, I advised the group that Duke's other commitments in the nuclear field were so demanding of our talents and energies that the Savannah River site should not be a candidate for the first demonstration plant. Bill Parker had cfiecked by telephone with the top of ficers of our neighboring utilities who concurred in this con-clusion. He reported at the same joint meeting on May 26 that the five principal companies in this part of the southeast could not constitute a utility-owner-operator group for locating the demonstration plant on any of the five systems. Attached is a copy of his letter of June 1, 1971, to the presidents of our four neighboring utility systems confirming his telephone survey with them and his report at the May 26 ioint meetina. F-40 l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - l
AMENDMENT XV O Mr Peter van Nort JULY 1982 Page 2 November 4, 1976 At that time, the other companies were also involved in new nucicar commitments, and it was apparent to us that we could not jeopardize our own nuclear undertakings by also providing the leadership that we felt would have been necessary to make the Savannah River site a viable option to demonstrate a breeder operating as a part of a utility system. Yours very truly, i, W S Lee 1 l WSL/s atta cc w/atta: Mr Ruble Thomas, Southern Services Mr B B Parker Mr George Edgar, Attorney, Washington, D C i I i i 1 ! F-41 i
,n. .---._,,,.n.--, .., _ _ _,,..--..,-_,.,-__r,,
,- ,,_,,,,n, , , , , , , , . _ , . , . , - - - - - _ , . , , , . . , - , . , _ . ~ . , , . - . , . . , - , . , ,
DUK E PowEn Co>f PANY AMENDMENT XV ro<rn ncetomo JULY 1982 ce sours cuenen siner. cuatonz.N c. nonos c... J""" I* 1971 '******* l Nf". '.I..
,e....,....
Mr. Shearon Harris, President Carolina Power 6 Light Company P. O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. T. Justin Moore, Jr., President Virginia Electric and Power Company P. O. Box 1194 Riclunond, Virginia 23209 Mr. Alvin W. Vogt1c, Jr., President The Southern Company 3390 Peachtree Road, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 30326 Mr. A. M. Williams, Jr., President South Carolina Electric & Gas Company P. O. Box 764 Columbia,, South Carolina 29202 Gentlemen: As you are aware, I have been appointed to a Senior Utility Steering Committee of the AEC and Bill Lee has been appointed to a Senior Utility Technical Advisory Panel to advise and assist the AEC in developing an acceptable Fast Breeder Program. The first meeting of these groups was scheduled on April 28 with the AEC, but neither Bill nor I could attend.' I learned through Don Crawford on Friday, May 21, thdt it was my responsibility to determine th5 interest of the Southeast Utilities in the possibility of locating the Fast Breeder Plant in the Southeast and particularly to look at I the possibility of one being located on the Savannah River site. Re, at Duke Power, decided that we do not have the manpower to join
- with other Southeast Utilities in providing the manpower, talent and expertise to join with other utilities as the owner-operators of a l Fast Breeder Plant. We made a quick telephone survey and received essentially the same response from each of your companies.
F-42
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Mr. Shearon Harris, President Page 2 June 1, 1971 Mr. T. Justin Moore, Jr. , President Mr. Alvin W. Vogtle, Jr. , President Mr. A. M. Williams, Jr. , President 1 would like to report to you that in a joint meeting of these two panels in Washington with the AEC on May 26, I informed the group that , insofar as our five companies are concerned, we could not, at this time, constitute a utility-otmer operator group for locating this fast arceder plant on any of our systems. I would like to point out, acuever, that this matter is still open for further consideration if any of you so desire. Sincerely,
, (l, 0f G
V bp/ck opy: Mr. J. A. Jones Mr. E. B. Crutchfield Mr. V. C. Summer J r. W. S. Lee O F-43
D XV Duxu PoWEn GoMPANY re,.m 3 _ _.nex me.c._ em.x.c. _ g Deceinber 1,1976 Mr Peter Van Nort General Manager Project Management Corporation P O Box U Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Dear Peter:
My letter of November 4 outlined the factors in our 1971 and 1972 Jetermination that the Savannah River Reservation was not, in our opinion, a viable site for the breeder demonstration plant. The reasons as stated in my letter apply equally today, and we there-fore do not feel that that site is a viable alternative to the Clinch River site. Sincerely yours, s W S Lee WSL/s l l l F-44
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 i O l APPENDIX G l UPDATE TO THE CRBRP ALTERNATIVE SITING ANALYSIS WITHIN THE TVA POWER SERYlCE AREA O O G-i
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O UPDATE TO THE CRBRP ALTERNATIVE SITING ANALYSIS WITHIN THE TVA POWER SERVICE AREA
1.0 BACKGROUND
AND INTRODUCTION d , The alternative siting analysis for the CRBRP is presented in Section 9.2 of the CRBRP Environmental Report. The choice of the TVA power service area as the region of interest for this analysis was inherent in the selection by AEC of the TVA/ Commonwealth Edison proposal for a cooperative AEC/ utility arrangement to design, construct, and operate the nation's first large-scale demonstration LMFBR.I The alternative siting analysis in Environmental Report Section 9.2 was conducted in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 and Regulatory Guide 4.2. The conclusion reached in Environmental Report Section 9.2, after careful consideration of both hook-on arrangements at existing TVA plants and (s) an entirely new plant at undeveloped candidate sites, was that an all new plant located at the Clinch River site was the preferred choice for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. In response to adnittance by the NRC Commissioners of an NRDC contention concerning the CRBRP Project's alternative siting analysis and a subsequent NRC request for additional information, the Project provided in Environmental Report Appendixes D and E an analysis of alternative sites outside the TVA power service area and the concepts of underground siting and co-location with an LMFBR fuel reprocessing or fuel fabrication plant. The conclusion reached from this supplemental alternative siting analysis was again that the Clinch River site was the preferred site for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. Based on the Project's alternative siting analyses and their own independent analyses, the NRC staff in the Final Environmental I See CRBRP Environmental Report Section 9.2 and Appendix D, Section 1.0 for additional information concerning the history and selection O' . of an AEC/ utility arrangement for the design, co n st r u ct i o n , and operation of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. G-1
MlENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Statement for CRBRP, dated February 1977, concluded "....that the applicant's preferred proposal, utilizing the Clinch River site, is reasonable and thai no substantially better alternative is available." The choice of the Clinch River site f or the LMFBR Demonstration Plant has also been conf irmed by DOE's LMFBR Program Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.2 in addition, it is important to point out that the Clinch River site environmental and safety analyses, completed subsequent to the Project's selection of the Clinch River site, have demonstrated that the Clinch River site is an acceptable site for construction of the CRBRP.3 Following the restart of NRC's CRBRP licensing review in the fall of 1981, NRC requested additional information to update the Project's alternative siting analyses presented in the Environmental Report. The requested update to Environmental Report Appendixes D and E, consisting of a reexamination of the previous analysis of alternative DOE sites, TVA owned sites outside the TVA power service area, and the concepts of underground siting and co-location with an LMFBR fuel reprocessing or fuel f abrication pl ant, is contained in Environmental Report Appendix F. This appendix provides the additional NRC requested information to update the Environmental Report alternative siting analysis presented in Environmental Report Section 9.2 and Appendix A considering the TVA power service area as the region of interest. NRC's request for additional information specifically requested that the previous assessment in Environmental Report Section 9.2 be 2 See the LMFBR Program Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, DOE /EIS-0085-D, Appendix G. 3 See the CRBRP Environmental Report and Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) and NRC's Final Environmental Statement (February 1977) and Site Sultability Report (March 4, 1977) for CRBRP G-2
MiENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O reviewed in the context of NRC's Proposed Rule on Alternative Sites (45 FR 24168-24178, April 9, 1980). To best accommodate this request, this update has been organized along the lines of the alternative site review process described in the Proposed Rule. Thus, Section 2.0 discusses the acceptability of the TVA power service area as the region of interest, Section 3.0 conf irms that the Project has selected for consideration a slate of candidate sites that provides reasonable representation of the diversity of land and water resources within the region of Interest and includes sites that are among the best that could reasonably be found, and Section 4.0 reexamines the comp 6rison of the Clinch River site with alternative sites considering both environmental and project economic, technology, and institutional factors. The conclusion, in light of the Proposed Rule and current Information, that the Clinch River site is the preferred site for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant is summarized in Section 5.0. O O i G-3
MtENDMENT XV JULY 1982 2.0 REGION OF INTEREST The preamble to NRC's Proposed Rule on Alternative Sites states that the region of interest should be determined on the basis of environ-cental diversity such that "a substantial range of environmental alternatives from which to choose in making the final siting decision" is provided. "For the purpose of determining the region of interest, environmental diversity," according to the Proposed Rule, " refers to ! the types of water bodies available within the region (upper and lower l ! reaches of large rivers, small rivers, lakes, bays, and oceans) and l l the associated physlographic units." l The region of Interest f or the LNFBR Demonstration Plant siting l essessment presented in CRBRP Environmental Report Section 9.2 was considered to be the TVA power service area. As can be seen in Figure 1, the region of Interest includes several rivers ranging in size from small, e.g., the Duck and Elk, up to rather large rivers, e.g., the Tennessee, Mississippi, and Ohio. Additionally, the water bodies vary from free flowing to impounded lakes, and for many rivers include an h
- crea from their headwaters to their mouths. Physiographic units ossociated with these rivers include coastal plains, interior low plateaus, the Appalachlan Plateau, valley and ridge, and Clue Ridge.
Based upon these features, the area TVA serves well qual i f ies it as an ecceptable region of interest. i l l l O G-4
-- 3- - - - -+- _ - i-+.A ___4 _
__.m 4 .- ..---A.&%o --4; .-u_._.a. 4i.,_;__. ._ - --
- i- * " ;- * ? -
.,m, 5_ u. . _ , , , , , , , .
3-y .: ,' .q r, h ~x }s l'C h [N- [_
.1.,&dhh
,' , h. ~. : .,;" f: ,yg.>' *
.x y u. w . <: ,
. ~
w , ,
, . +
& 2*t.S;:< cV
.3 N..*;T* U:-'k k~ Y -
yi - -, y'< 3 :q) y y '}i'g ,%,\',.
.I** 'd**
?. u Is '4 ~
,' g$.,L,$%( h~ .' jY..g .3 y p y;;;j nv va,+ .gy;
,?L' w' p,y > y 1
r .-}' 9' 6y,n. .%: ..y:,a.gp. g .
. , +- ..
.o '
. . c... .
. m,.c . . .
N
.d ,g l a' .
g '
.St' s.; '.W.~,,;v[ p '*"
.(
ew
, .M '
n n < [m, ~ [...%].}
;)
* '"/ -
o .
;5 ; - .,.
v.a s gg 41,O +
; wg - .
m . N. jf}.
'y ' 5h [- -jh 1[yGINiif
. k
- j. ,, I i ,,
,-------.-..L--~.. - .
....-..s
--- - * - . s. a . . .
1 y
. 1 P BEND
-... - .. .. _ ~ ~-~ ~ " ( HARTSVLL JO6 SEVER
.M 1
- ,h [ 4 BUCK i DLLOW No C p /
f h' N ASitVILLt-CLINCH RIV R KNO ILLE h $N -b ' CANEY CREEK \ . V J . Ev7 ,
. J, .,,Nf' ;y.. sey.e r
French AYLOR g J l-V OI(THl.if l -
'[ E N N E S S 1- DEN .=
. s
'A R K . .
. .* / , -
W. ROI.IN A' ,
,.i- ~ r Q- 4 s ittg1 yy 4 $(
g g REVES B NO n . l - BLYTHE FERRY l ,
' e k' j 7
*2 * ')
.,p'
.-+' N
., i h gMLMPIIIS Y R ', S ,
;*: Q y-* g~p r - .
.,g g
>[D_
g g p$e? ( - - - ~ -... - . - .. _ .. _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ _ _ _
< .: 1 ' T ,af ,e' GREEl1VILLE. j ii P.
wioows CREEK %
'.e',W e v',-v,=,:o y. ,n- .s
;,Ot >i, c .. ;
,f
, N . . . . , ~ .. F:jSOUTH ; m .O' A ,.
I \ \ '
'.' **- '-. % .
- v'y.M ,.,;.
- ^
j seR.No cneEK s MURPHY
- i. **j,>
H8LL
, Y.x ! J C AllOI.IN A 4 '
u, e gi d i. - c 'n.
. ? Ta r i t . , 3 C . .i -
N , :.P
- O . d.[ ) .
*M G E . O '
; ' R ' G J ;I: A'Q , j };; Q ,3 :)
L, -
;- T r ,
,,Q-,-t 't 8 x 6;, ,
'} .
Nc
,l ATLANTA; I 8 ' - ! $ <b I [
( .} f, ['; z. ( ;.4[.E ^' t' 1
'D}h d O;[ f '+ [-'fh'S($[N:[ ',
N I,8S I S I l'l* I;{ $
. 'q DJR HING}l AH a ' .~h--
Wi.+'.
, ; w ';t : ".' . .s i .. .s y'- <. - *
[
, Kf'-i.j.,f).
f ='4 s,.-%
.,' M.; **q-
- g. n.g',. ;. a i
.I
- M ,e * + ; , 5
- a. .,s , .
~
.s ,
' ;Q, .. ; g
~
. y .l$..ifQ
.jy ."_...y%.
. x..-
. .$. *: -IGq *- , - FIGURE t tY r m%
[ , . $ ..,% -
-< g Q
' < r.
,2-:O: N
.j
.. ; ,:1;,.q y a 9
LMFBR REGION OF INTEREST g. U MI' g c 15edg/ , 4g. 7 c q .3. , ' pg * .,
-gW .-
oqw
- 3
.a s-
_p, AND CANDOATE SITES J
} . V. ' '1,p .. ,
@ ;': R:
i % 5
~ i (T f'Ls .
, .;.-e 2r # 9 ,s j ,usp s .r.s :
.c,.'.
%& son L lA-q' D . ,
y .;
' e ** $ '-l-
..f.
g;
, s ,_ ^.
4
/ i Scala of Miles .
ANENDMENT XV JULY 1982 3.0 SELECTION OF CANDIDATE SITES in terms of the NRC Proposed Rule On Alternative Sites, the original siting assessment in CRBRP Environmental Report Section 9.2 undertook a product-oriented approach which focused upon the Individual qualities of each proposed site. Under this product-oriented approach the Proposed Rule requires (a) that candidate sites be selected "from the region of interest to provide reasonable representation of the diversity of land and water resources within the region of Interest," cnd (b) that each site meet specific threshold criteria. A review of the selection of candidats sites in the original assessment versus the new requirements of the Proposed Rule is provided in this section along with a discussion of other potential siting options suggested in NRC's request for additional Information dated November 30, 1981. Within the region of Interest, (i.e., the TVA power service area) the original siting assessment considered all TVA steam plants for a possible hook-on arrangement which were expected to be operational on a time schedule consistent with the planned operation of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant (see Environmental Report Table 9.2-1) ar.d 109 "new" sites for an entirely new plant. These hook-on and new sites were on or near certain rivers in the Tennessee and Cumberland River basins.4 These rivers are identified in Table 1 and are classified l In terms of environmental diversity. As this table shows, these rivers and their associated physiographic units, and therefore, sites 1 clong them, are consistent with the concept of environmental diversity l cs discussed in the Proposed Rule. l The slate of 13 candidate sites identified in Environmental Report Section 9.2 and Appendix A was derived frcm the above set of hook-on 4 Although the Thomas H. Allen Steam Plant and the Shawnee Steam Plant i are located on the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, respectively, these plants along with the Johnsonvlile Steam Plant were dismissed as hook-on candidates, because of the seismic design uncertainty in the a cestern end of the TVA system at the time of the original siting assessment (see Environmental Report Section 9.2.2, page 9.2-4). Therefore, these two rivers are omitted from this discussion. G-6
I l AMENDMENT XV ' JULY 1982 TABLEI CLASSIFICATION OF RIVERS WHERE SITES WERE CONSIDERED FOR THE LMFBR DEMONSTRATION IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DIVERSITY Associated Physiographic River River Tyoe Units i Tennessee Large, impounded Originates in valley and ridge and flows through Cumberland Plateau and interior low plateau to coastal plain Duck Small, impounded Interior low plateau Sequatchie Small, heodwater Appalachion Plateau Clinch Medium to small, Volicy and ridge impounded, headwaters Emory Small, impounded, Valley and ridge headwaters Little Tennessee Small, impounded, Originates in Blue Ridge and flows headwaters to valley and ridge Tellico Small, headwater Originates in Blue Ridge and flows to volicy and ridge t Holston Medium to small, Valley and ridge impounded, headwaters French Brood Medium, impounded, Originates in Blue Ridge and flows headwaters to volley and ridge Notichucky Small, impounded, Originates in Blue Ridge and flows
- headwaters to valley and ridge Cumberiend River Basin Cumberland Lorge to medium, Originates in interior low plateau impounded and flows to coastal plain Red Small, headwater Interior low plateau Coney Fork Small, impounded, Interior low plateou headwater
't G-7
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 and new sites on the basis of engineering and environmental assess- I ments. As can be seen from Figure 1 and Table 2, the 13 candidate sites adequately reflect the environmental diversity in the region of Interest (i.e., the TVA power service area). The second requirement of candidate sites stated in the Proposed Rule is that each candidate site should meet the threshold criteria stated in Section VI.2.b. When reviewed in terms of Information present at the time of the original assessment, all of the 13 candidate sites meet the threshold criteria with the exception of the Rieves Bend site which would not have met criteria one, four, and eight concerning consumptive water use, discharge of effluents and additional environmental concerns significantly impacting project costs and/or permit ability, respectively (see Environmental Report Appendix A Sections 11.3.2.3 and 11.3.2.4, pages A-173 and -174). However, the Rieves Bend site could have been excluded as a candidate site without diminishing in any way the representative environmental diversity exemplified by the remaining 12 candidate sites. The slate of candidate sites 5 was also reviewed in terms of the threshold criteria af ter having considered appropriate current Information. Cu rent information did not adversely affect any site's ability to meet the threshold criteria. It should be noted, however, that the following Information concerning the sites was not available at the time of the earlier assessment. 5 The John Sevier and Widows Creek sites were not included as candidate sites in this updated assessment since the Project is no longer considering a hook-on arrangement at these sites (see Question / Response 320.1R provided in Amendment XV to the Environmental Report). G-8
= _ __ _- -- _ _ - - - _ - - -_ . _ - _ _ _ . - - _ . - _ _ _ . - - .
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982. TABLE 2 CANDIDATE SITES Physiographic Site River River Type Chorocter Spring Creek Tennessee Large, impounded Interior low plateau Blythe Ferry Tennessee Large, impounded Valley and ridge Coney Creek Tennessee Large, impounhd Valley and ridge Clinch River Clinch Smoll, riverine, Valley and ridge impounded Taylor Bend French Broad Small, impounded, Valley and ridge headwater i Buck Hollow Holston Medium, headwater Volley and ridge Phipps Bend Holston Medium, headwater Valley and ridge Lee Valley Holston Medium, headwater Valley and ridge Murphy Hill Tennessee Large, impounded Appolochian Plateau Johntown Cumberland Medium, riverine, Interior low plateau (Hortsville) impounded Rieves Bend Duck Small, potentially Interior low plateau impounded John Sevier Holston Medium, impounded, Valley and ridge headwater Widows Creek Tennessee Large, impounded Appolochion Plateau O G-9
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
- 1. The probable maximum flood elevation has been redef ined for several of the sites, but the associated design changes and additional costs that would result would be within five percent of overall project cost as discussed in threshold criterion number eight.
- 2. A coal gasification plant is under construction on the Murphy Hill site.
- 3. Light water nuclear plants are under construction at the Hartsville (Johntown) and Phipps Bend sites.
The conclusion, based on this review of tne candidate sites presented in Environmental Report Section 9.2 and Appendix A is that the original siting assessment meets the Proposed Rule Section VI.2 requirements for selection of candidate sites, i.e., that a suf ficient number of candidate sites that meet the threshold critoria were Identified to reasonably represent the environmental diversity of the TVA power service area. In addition to the request to review the previous site selection process in light of the Proposed Rule's requirements and currently available information, NRC also asked several specific questions requesting (1) the rationale and supporting Information for exclusion of potential candidate sites along the Mississippi, the Ohio (at or 1r the vicinity of the Shawnee Steam Plant), the Tombigbee, the Black Warrior, the Coosa, the Green, the Barren, and the Pearl Rivers; (2) reconsideration of the possible use'of planned or existing power plant sites, including Phipps Bend, Hartsv il l e, Yellow Creek, Watts Bar, Browns Ferry, Sequoyah, and Bellefonte; (3) whether an all new LMFBR Demonstration Plant could be built at the hook-on sites previously compared to the proposed Clinch River site; and (4) whether another suitable candidate site exists on the Clinch River including the possi-bility of locating an all new LMFBR Demonstration Plant at the Bull Run or Kingston Steam Plant sites. h G-10
- - _ - _ _ = _ . . . _ _ . _
AMENDMENT XV JU! Y 1982 in response to the first question, the Mississippi River and the Ohio River near the Shawnee Steam Plant were excluded because of the seismic design uncertainty due to their proximity to the New Madrid seismic zone. The Green, Peart, Barren, Coosa, Tombigbee, and Black Warrior Rivers were excl uded because only thei r head-waters are located in the region of Interest and these headwater areas did not appear to exhibit adequate cooling water capabil-Itles, i.e., siting opportunities. Additionally, since other small rivers with similar physiographic characteristics were considered, there is f ully adequate environmental diversity despite the absence of these rivors. Questions 2, 3, and 4 all suggest the co-location of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant with planned or existing TVA power plants. The Project has not considered the viability from an engineering standpoin+ of siting an all new plant at an existing or planned TVA power plant site since the Project has identified a suf-() ficient number of new (i.e., undeveloped) candidate sites that meet all the selection requirements of the Proposed Rule. Therefore, there is no need f or consideration of co-location alternatives. I l l O G-il
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 The fourth NRC question above asks if another suitable candidate h site exists on the Clinch River. While we recognize that the Proposed Rule suggests that one of the alternative sites have the same water source as the proposed site, TVA's siting studies have not identified any other potential site on the Clinch River suitable for location of a nuclear power plant.6 in summary then, the Project, in response to NRC's request for cdditional information (Question 750.2R), has identified, based on a review of the original siting assessment presented in - Environmental Report Section 9.2 and Appendix A, ten candidate altes that provide reasonable representation of the diversity of land -nd water resources within the region of interest, each of chich meets the eight threshold criteria of Section VI.2.b of the Proposed Rule. These ten candidate sites are Spring Creek, Blythe Ferry, Caney Creek, Clinch River, Taylor Bend, Buck Hollow, Phipps Bend, Lee Valley, Murphy Hill, and Hartsville (Johntown). To this list the Project, for purposes of the environmental evaluation, in Section 4.0, has added Yellow Creek. Yellow Creek is a representative site of the western area of the TVA power service area where at the time of the original LMFBR Demonstration Plant siting assessment, nuclear power facilities had been restricted due to unresolved questions about regional seismic activities and uncertainties in licensing a nuclear power plant there. However, in June 1972 TVA submitted to the AEC for 6 TVA has conducted siting studies to identify sites in the l northeastern portion of the TVA system encompassing the Clinch River system. During the course of these studies, 34 potential sites were Identified and examined of which 13 were located on the Clinch River cr Norris Reservoir. Six of these sites were specifically included in the 109 new sites that were reviewed for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant siting assessment. Upoa further examination, it was determined that none of the sites in the Clinch River system except the proposed Cilnch River site met the engineering requirements of a large power i plant. Among the reasons for elimination were poor foundation l conditions, water supply, flooding potential, and environmental factors, such as proximity to wildlife and recreational areas (see TVA's " Site Evaluation Report, Nuclear Units X21-22, X24-25," dated February 1975). G-12
ANENDMENT XV JULY 1982 ' O its review a report, " Relationships of Earthquakes and Geology in West Tennessee and Adjacent Areas,"7 and in November 1973 TVA received a favorable letter from the ACRS on the findings presented in this report. As a result, TVA believed it could gain NRC's approval for a site in TVA's western area upstream of Tennessee R!ver mile (TRM) 170. This has been confirmed by the NRC's grenting a construction permit for the Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant. Note: Although the Project chose in Section 4.0 to compare all eleven candidate sites (i.e., the proposed Clinch River site and the ten alternative candidate sites), a smaller number of candidate sites could have been chosen which still fully represent the environmental diversity of the region of interest (i.e., the TVA power service area). The Hartsville, Murphy Hill, Phipps Bend, and Yellow Creek sites, about which more Information is available than any of the other alternative candidate sites, (/ would form such an acceptable set of candidate sites. This is true because, these four sites meet the eight threshold criteria of the Proposed Rule and are representative of the environmental diversity of the TVA power service area since: the Hartsville site represents a medium impounded river in the Interior low plateau; the Murphy Hill site represents a large river in the Applachlan plateau; the Phipps Bend site represents the headwaters of a medium river in the valley and ridge; and Yellow Creek represents a large river in the coastal plain. O7 Relationships of Earthquakes and Geology in West Tennessee and Adjacent Areas, Dr. Richard G. Stearns and Dr. Charles W. Wilson, Jr., Department of Geology, Vanderbilt University, U.S. TVA, June 1972. G-13
l f- % 41ENDMENT XV JULY 1982
, ~
4.0 COMPARISON OF THE CLINCH RIVER SITE WITH ALTERNATi'V E SITES h The Proposed Rule For Alternative Sites states: The NRC will determine obvious superiority among the candi-date sites by a . sequential two-part analytical test. Tha first part gives primary consideration to hydrology, water quailty, aquatic biological resources, terrestrial resources, water and land use, socioeconomics, and population to deter-mine whether any alternativo sites are environmentally preferred to the proposed site. The second part overlays consideration of project oconomics, technology, and insti-tutional f actors to detern ine whether, if such an environ-mentally preferred site exists, such a site is, in~ fact, en obviously superior site. A in accordance with the first part of the Proposed Rule's sequential two-part analytical test, Section 4.1 compares the eleven candidate sites identified in Section 3.0 (i.e., the proposed Clinch River site and the ten alternative candidate sites) considering environmental factors. Even though Section 4.1 finds that none of the ten alternative. candidate sites'is environmentally preferable to-the Clinch River site, Section 4.2 discusses and demonstrates th at even had an env i ronmental ly preferred site been identified, the second part of the Proposed Rule's two-part test for obvious superiority would show that consideration of project geconomics and institutional factors (i.e., the LEfBR program timing objective) would lead to a f inding that no a' lternative site is an obviously superior site to the preferred Cilnch River site. v k k 4 t 0 G-14 _-____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O 4.1 EnvirSagental Praiggability Test The original siting analysis presented in Environmental Report Section 9.2 and Appendix A compared each of the original 13 candidate sites-(See Table 2) in terms of not only environmental factors but also with regard to economic and engineering
~
characteristics (i.e., access facilities, transmission facilities, geology (foundation conditions), seismology, hydrology (flooding), and meteorology). The Project has reexamined the Environmental Report Section 9.2 and Appendix A siting analysis and concluded that the addition of current information for the most part Indicates that the data used in the original assessment remain applicable today except for the changes previously noted in Section 3.0. Thus, the addition of applicable current information would not change the previous conclusion that the Clinch River site is the preferred site for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. O in addition to the above reexamination of the previous siting assessment, the Project has conducted a separate analysis comparing only the environmental siting characteristics of the eleven candidate sites that were identified in Section 3.0. These eleven sites are the proposed Clinch River site and the ten alternative candidate sites of Spring Creek, Blythe Ferry, Caney Creek, Taylor. Bend, Buck Hollow, Phipps Bend, Lee Valley, Murphy Hill, Hartsville, and Yellow Creek. This new analysis was done in accordance with the first part of the Proposed Rule's sequential two-part analytical test giving primary consideration to hydrology, water quality, aquatic biological resources, terrestrial resources, water and land use, socioeconomics. and O G-15 i
MtENDMENT XV JULY 1982 popul ation to determine if any of the ten al ternative candidate sites are environmentally preferred to the proposed Clinch River site. Attachment I discusses and summarizes the resul ts of this environmental comparison. The conclusion of the Attachment I assessment substantiates all of the previous siting analyses by finding that none of the ten al ternative candi date sites examined are judged to be environmentally pref erred to the Cl inch River site. During the NRC staff's review of the Cl inch River si te f ol low ing the renewal of CRBRP licensing in the fall of 1981 a number of new issues have been raised by the staff th at coul d impact the above findings. These issues are separately addressed in the following subsections. These issues concern (1) the U.S. Fish and Wil dl if e noti f ication to NRC that 11 species of endange.ed freshwater mussels may be present in the vicinity of the Clinch River site (see NRC Question 290.11R) and (2) the possible impact on striped bass (Morone saxatIIIs) by CRBRP thermal discharges h during a postulated period of extended no Clinch River flow at the CRBRP site during the hot summer and fall months. i l I O G-16
ANENIEENT XV l JULY 1982 f^)% R. 4. r.1 Endangered Freshwater Mussels in its November 30, 1981, request to the Project f or additional information for environmental review of the CRBRP appl i cation, NRC asked f or al l av ai l abl e Information concerning the possible presence of 11 species of endangered freshwater mussels in the vicinity of the Clinch River site (Question 290.11R). The response to this question is provided in Amendment XV to the Environmental Report. The response concl uded that due to the limited amount of suitable substrate and the f ail ure of several surveys to encounter signif icant mussel populations, the potential for the occurrence of endangered mussels in the vicinity of the Clinch River site i s r emote. The Project has, however, committed to conducting a survey of freshwater mussels in the vicinity of the Clinch River site in order to determine whether a significant population of endangered freshwater mussels is located i n the Cl i nch River near the CRBRP si te. A description of the proposed survey is enclosed as Attachment II. The survey wil l be perf ormed when water clarity and flow con-ditions are optimal which means, based on historical conditions, the survey shoul d be perf ormed sometime in June 1982. A full report covering the survey and its eval uation w il l be prepared and provided to NRC. Therefore, based on the Inf ormation provided by the Project in the response t'o NRC Question 290.11R, there is no reason to bel ieve that a signi f icant popul ation of any of the suggested 11 species of endangered freshwater mussels is present in the vicinity of the Cl inch River si te. Thus, the concern regarding the presence of endangered freshwater mussels should not be a factor in determining whether an al ternative site Is env ironmental ly pref erabl e to the Ci l nch River site. G-17
_ AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 4.1.2 Clinch River No-Flow Conditions The Environmental Report in Section 2.5.1.3 discusses that historical low flows at the Clinch River site have resulted from regul ated rather th an f rom natural flows because the Tennessee River and Clinch River are " controlled" rivers. The two lomjest periods of no flow, 29 consecutive days in February and March 1966 and 11 consecutive days in April and May 1967, resulted from special reservoir operations conducted to aid in controlling the growth of Eurasian water milfoil in the Melton Hill Reservoir. As stated in the Environmental Roport, such extended periods of zero flow from Melton Hill Dam are not anticipated in the future l :nd should the need arise for any regulation at Melton Hill Dam wnich would result in long periods of zero release, the oper-l ations would be coordinated to meet flow requirements at the CRBRP site. Recognizing the potential no flow characteristics of the Clinch River at the CRBRP site, the Project performed thermal-hydraulic I modeling studies of the CRBRP discharge in order to assess the l environmental impact of the CRBRP thermal discharges. The l physical thermal-hydraulic and mathematical modeling investi-j gations were performed by the University of Iowa, institute of l Hydraulic Research (lowa institute). A complete description of these studies and the results are presented in Appendixes A and 8 to Section 10.3 of the Environmental Report. A total of six cases were modeled: typical winter case, typical summer case, hypothetical winter extreme case, hypothetical summer extreme case, extended no flow winter case, and extended no flow summer case. Based on the results of the Iowa Institute work, the Environmental Report in Sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 discusses and concludes, respectively, that the CRBRP discharge w!Il comply with the Draft NPDES permit thermal requirements and that aquatic i!fe in the Clinch River wil l not be seriously impacted by the O G-18
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 () thermal effluent from the CRBRP. The latter conclusion was reached after individually looking at the various types of aquatic life including fish, benthos, periphyton, and planktonic
- v. species (i.e., phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish eggs, and larvae).
In the Final Environmental Statement for the CRBRP (February 1977), the NRC staff reviewed the Project's physical thermal-hydraulic and mathematical modeling and also presented the results of their own independent analysis of the thermal plume using a three dimensional model. The final conclusion reached concerning the thermal plume effects on the river blota was "In summary, the staf f judges the impacts from the thermal discharges upon the aquatic blota to be Insignificant." Recently, as part of its continuing CRBRP review, the staf f has indicated a concern for the possible impact CRBRP operation (i.e., thermal discharges) may have on striped bass (Morone
,_ saxattilsl. The specific concern is whether any adverse impact could occur due to CRBRP operation in the hot summer and fall months when the adult striped bass are known to seek the cool thermal refuge of the Clinch River.8,9 The following information is presented in response to th is concern.
8 Letter, C. Coutant to M. Masnik, dated December 16, 1981. 9 Cheek, T. E. 1982. Distribution and habitat selection of adult striped bass, Morone saxatIIIs (Walbaum), in Watts Bar Reservoir, O Tennessee. Thesis, Tennessee Technological University. G-19
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 As discussed above, the Environmental Report has analyzed the environmental impact of CRBRP thermal discharges for typical, hypothetical extreme, and extended no flow summer and winter cases that incl ude conditions "more severe than those that would be anticipated during the l'lfetime of the facility." Since there is no need for a cool-water refuge during winter, only the summer cases will be reexamined here. Maximum temperature rises at the river surface and bottom for the typical summer and hypothetical extreme summer cases are shown in Environment Report Table 5.1-2 and Figures 5.1-2 and 5.1-4. As can be seen, the maximum plant-induced temperature differential would be conf ined to a very small area. During extended periods of no river flow at the site, thermal plume development is initiated. With cessation of flow past the plant, the plume begins to spread out across the river surface from the zone of near-field mixing. As this spreading proceeds, the amount of ambient water available for entrainment in the discharge Jet diminishes and near-field dilution is reduced. Initially, plume temperature rises; however, as the surface area encompassed by the plume increases, heat loss to the atmosphere becomes an important transport mechanism. Eventually, with the plume extending across the full width of the channel for approx-l Imately two miles up- and downstream, a point is reached at which 1 l the surface area occupied is sufficiently large that the rate of heat loss through surface cooling is equal to the rate of heat addition at the discharge. A steady-state condition is thus attained and no further increases in either temperature or spatial extent are realized. As the plume occupies the surface l layer of roughly one-third of pool depth, ambient water is present beneath it throughout its length, in the summer no-flow O l G-20
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O k- case, steady-state conditions are achieved in approximately 10 days. Maximum plume temperature rise in the transitional zone is 1.3 0F. The plant-induced temperature rise decreases to 10F after 3/4 mile in either direction and is further reduced to 0.50F at upstream and downstream distances of 2 miles as shown in Environment Report Figure 5.1-6. Under the very unlikely summertime worst case conditions extreme ambient temperatures (74 0 F or more) in the upper one-third of the river water column would be increased less than 1.30F near the discharge and f rom 0.5 to 1.00F with in two m il es of the dis-charge. The lower two-thirds of the water column would be unaffected. Thus, under worst case conditions, four miles of surface water will be heated 0.5 to 1.30 F above ambient. This compares with approximately 19 river mil es between Melton Hil l Dam and the confluence of the Clinch and Emory Rivers just upstream of the Kingston Steam Plant. Although striped bass may O) ( avoid the silghtly warmer surface waters in the vicinity of the discharge, there is no basis f or suggesting that the cool-water refuge will be significantly limited. Maximum surface temper-ature in the plume near the discharge under worst case hypo-thetical conditions would be less than 800F; this is several degrees below the estimated lethal temperature for striped bass. 10,11,12,13 10 Weddle, H. R., C. C. Coutant, and J. L. Wilson. 1980. Summer l habitat selection of striped bass, Marone saxatills in Cherokee Reservoir, Tennessee, 1977. Oak Ridge National Environmental Sciences Division Publication No. 1360. Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830. II Axon, J. R., 1979. An e' valuation of striped bass introductions in Harrington Lake. Fisherles Bulletin of the Kentucky Department of Fjsh I and Wildlife Resources, Bulletin No. 63. A Schalch, B. A., and C. C. Coutant, 1980. biotelemetry study of spring and summer habitat selection of striped bass in Cherokee Reservoir, Tennessee, 1973. Environmental Sciences Division I s) Pgblication 1 No. 1441. Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830. Brungs, W. A., and B. R. Jones, 1977. Temperature criteria for freshwater fish: Protocol and procedures EPA-600/3-77-051. 130 p. l G-21
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Since the warmer water will not penetrate the lower two-thirds of the water column, thermal blockage would not prevent striped bass f rom utilizing the f ive miles of river between the CRBRP site and Melton Hill Dam. Striped bass migrate past the Kingston Steam Plant which discharges up to 61 m3 /s of heated water into the Clinch River at CRM 3.0. Summer temperatures in the Clinch River near the Kingston Plant reached 82.80F at the surface and 79.80F at the bottom during a 1979 TVA study.14 The fact that striped bass pass through this stretch of river, which is warmer than hypothetical worst case conditions at the CRBRP site, supports the conclusion that the CRBRP discharge will not prevent them from utilizing the f ive-mil e stretch of river below Melton Hill Dam. In summary, for the typical or hypothetical extreme summer cases, the thermal plume is so small that adverse effects on striped bass would not be expected. Under extended no flow conditions, the avoidance of surface waters in the immediate area of the discharge would not result in any significant adverse impacts, in addition, TVA currently has studies underway at its Blothermal Research Station located at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant to determine lethal temperatures for adult and Juvenile striped bass under controlled field conditions in the experimental outdoor channels at this facility. The preliminary results of this study are expected to be available in late 1982, and will provide 14 Craven, T. M., D. L. Dycus, and D. A. Tomljanovich. 1982. Responses of selected aquatic blota in Watts Bar Reservoir to thermal discharges from Kingston Steam-Electric Plant - 1978 and 1979. Draft report. Office of Natural Resources, Tennessee Valley Authority. G-22 l
MIENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O baseline information on the temperature tolerance of striped bass which would be applicable to the CRBRP site as well as other power plant sites. It is expected that the conclusion of this work will substantiate the above determination of no significant impact to the striped bass from operation of CRBRP. However, additional more def initive assessments of the thermal discharges are also being pursued by the Project which include: (1) a statistical analysis of streamflow during the critical months of July through September; (2) a reevaluation of the i thermal plume dispersion incorporating consideration of the dis- ! charge into a strati f ied water body; and (3) a rev iew of al terna-tive diffuser designs and two-dimensional modeling of the far field. This third step would be pursued only after consultation l with TVA biologists if the results of the first two analyses f Indicate there is no suitable zone of passage for striped bass. l () It is the Project's opinion that the results of the reevaluation of the hydrodynamics (including alternative diffuser designs, if necessary) and an updated biological assessment, including the results from the blothermal research project study on striped bass, will show there is no substantive concern with respect to the impact of CRBRP operation on the striped bass fishery in Watts Bar Reservoir. Under this condition, there would be no need for streamflows from Melton Hill Dam to be altered to assure protection of the striped bass. In the unlikely event that all of the above efforts fall to show that CRBRP thermal discharge will have no significant impact on the striped bass thermal refuge, appropriate restrictions upon thermal discharge from the CRBRP during periods when the river water temperature is high and zero flow conditions exist will be imposed. O G-23
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Based on the above, sufficient assurance is provided that there will be no significant impact on striped bass due to CRBRP thermal d i s c h a rg.s s . Therefore, the NRC concern with possible no flow conditions at the CRBRP site should not be a factor in determining whether another alternative. site is environmentally preferable to the Clinch River site. O i l l 1 i O G-24
AMENDMENT XV l JULY 1982 i 4.2 Project Economics. Technologv. and institutional Factors ' l Section 4.1 addressed the first part of the Proposed Rule's two-part analytical test requiring comparison of the proposed site with alternative sites and concluded that none of the ten alternative candidate sites is environmentally preferable to the Clinch River site. Notwithstanding the Section 4.1 findings, this section addresses the second part of the two-part analytical test that examines project economics, technology, and institu-tional factors. The important project economic, technology, and institutional factors affected by the selection of the site for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant are schedule Impacts, project cost, and utility participation, all of which are discussed in the following subsections. 4.2.1 Enhedule impacts () In the LMFBR Program Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (00E/EIS-0085-0) the timing objective for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant (CRBRP) is that it should be completed as expeditiously as possible. While this objective can be met at the Clinch River site, a decision to relocate the LMFBR Demonstration Plant at another site within the TVA power service area would have the same schedule impact discussed in Environmental Report Appendix E for relocation to either Hanford, Savannah River, or INEL, i.e., a bare minimum delay of 33 months or a more probable delay of 43 months or more starting from the time a decision was made to l change sites. There are two basic sources of this delays i O' G-25
MIENDMENT XV JULY 1982 , I. The impact upon existing Project arrangements and authorizing legislation,15 and l
- 2. The impact upon schedules for the preparation of design l
I and licensing Information and issuance by NRC of an environmental statement and a site suitability report to reach today's stage of the CRBRP licensing process. A detailed discussion of the basis for the 33 and 43 month delay estimates is provided in Appendix E of the Environmental Report (pages E-13 to E-19). The only difference to the Appendix E discussion for relocation to a site outside the TVA system to relocation to a site inside the TVA system is that for the limited purpose of this analysis the assumption is made that TVA would still be willing to operate the plant as part of its system, buy the electric power generated by the plant, and possibly purchase the plant at the conclusion of the demon-stration period, and that the CRBRP Project Office would not be relocated. On the basis of a delay of this magnitu'de, it is clear that relocation of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant to any alternative site within the TVA power service area would. prevent accomplish-Ing the LMFBR program timing objective (i.e., constructing and operating an LMFBR Demonstration Plant as expeditiously as possible). 15 tt should be noted that relocating the LMFBR Demonstration Plant ' within the TVA power service area would have the same impact on project arrangements and authorization as relocating the LMFBR Demonstration Plant to the Hanford, Savannah River, or INEL sites because both the Project arrangements and authorization specifically contemplate location of the project at the Clinch River site. G-26
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
) 4.2.2 Prolact Cost The Project has prepared a comparative cost analysis to identify the .
cost differences between location of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant at I the Clinch River site versus another alternative site within the TVA power service area. Because none of the identified candidate sites within the TVA power service area was found to be environmentally preferable to the Clinch River site (see Section 4.1) there was no basis for considering any specific site in this cost analysis. Instead, where the Individual cost factors considered could potentially be site specific, a range of val ues was used so that the total cost difference calculated would encompass any possible TVA alternative site. 1 For this analysis October 1, 1982, was taken as time zero for l computing the delay in the Project schedule due to relocation. This is based on the assumption that the NRC determination and the Project decision process would require until October 1, 1982, before the (} Project would accept the Clinch River site as not licensable. The result of the Project's cost analysis using the reference delay case of 43 months is presented in Table 3. Table 3 contains extensive footnotes that Indicate the bases the Project used in calculating each line item of cost. As Indicated in footnotes 3, 10, and 12, minimal cost impact has been included for redesign, component or structural mod i f icati ons, or reprocurement costs. The risk of increased costs in addition to those included in Table 3 resulting from relocating the plant to an alternative site is believed, however, to be high, especially considering the f act that as of May 1982 the CRBRP design was over 85% completed and $622.2 mil lion worth of plant equipment had been ordered with $278.3 mil lion of th is equipment already delivered. 1 G- 27 l
l AMENDMENT XV l JULY 1982 l TABLE 3 COST IMPACT OF RELOCATING CRBRP TO AN ALTERNATIVE TVA SITE - REFERENCE 43 MONTH DELAY CASE incremental Cost item 1-(Million1
- 1. Escalation 601
- 2. Staff and Support Stretch Out 164
- 3. Equipment Procurement 7-36
- 4. Relocate Project Office 0
- 5. Additional Travel 1
- 6. Difference in Prevailing Labor Rates 0-137
- 7. Site Studies - Other than Geological 1
- 8. Site Studies - Geological 7
- 9. Site Work Package 3
- 10. Seismic 11-162 l 11. Foundation Materials and Walls 2
- 12. Site Adaptation Redesign 10-88
- 13. Excavation 0-6
- 14. ER Rework 1
- 15. PSAR Rework 1
- 16. Reduced Revenue from Sale of Power 0 l TOTAL COST IMPACT - ADD 809-1210 l
l l l l l l G-28
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Hotes for resoective itne items in Table 3
- 1. Escalation The $601M escalation cost was calculated using an 85 escalation rate based on the following:
-Base case total plant cost $3.2B
-Cost through October 1, 1982 11,la
-Cost to go as of October 1, 1982 $1.98
- 2. Staff and Support Stretch Out The cost of staff and suppert stretch out is summarized as follows:
-Project Office $ 25M
-Reactor Manufacture $111M
() -Architect Engineer
-Construction
$ 19M 5 -9M
$164M
- 3. Equ i pment Procurement lncludes costs for continued storage, crating and reloading, and transportation of already delivered components, and differences in transportation costs f or all components not yet delivered. No costs are included l f or any equipment components that may have to be repurchased or modified because of changes in engl-neering specifications due to the change in site.
- 4. Relocate Project Office it is assumed that the existing CRBRP PO would be maintained in Oak Ridge for all alternative TVA sites.
G-29
EMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Notes for Table 3 (Contidl.
- 5. Additional Travel Based on a minimum estimate of changes in commuting costs compared to actual expenditures at Oak Ridge.
l 6. Difference in Prevailing Labor Rates At any alternative TVA site, except those in north-eastern Tennessee, the increase in local labor costs compared to the base case at the Cilnch River site range from $56-137 million. The basis for this estimate started with the scope of work and total manhours required to construct CRBRP. Using the work scope, an average wage was calculated by weighting each craf t's local labor rate by its percentage of the work for different locations in the TVA power service area. Comparisons were then made against an Oak Ridge average and the increase calculated according to the man hours required to construct the CRBRP.
- 7. Site Studies - Other than Geological Based on actual expenditures for specific tasks that have already been performed. Dollars shown are only for tasks where work is not transf erable to an alternative site.
- 8. Site Studies - Geological See note for item 7.
G-30
MIENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O \ss/ Notes for Table 3 (Cont'dl
- 9. Site Work Package See note for item 7.
At any alternative site even if the SSE and OBE were the same as at the Clinch River site, differences in the selsmic response spectra would require the reanalysis of structures and components. Because much of the cost of the original analysis was for component modeling which does not need to be redona, 10% of the total actual expenditures made between 1974 and July 1, 1981, was estimated as the minimum cost for required seismic reanalysis, it should be noted that since seismic design parameters are site-speci f ic, a new seismic model () would have to be developed f or each site. Because the resulting site-specific seismic response spectra could be more severe than the CRBRP design basis f or some components, these components could have to be redesigned or, if the component has stready been ordered or delivered, it may require modification, or may have to be scrapped and repurchased. None of these potential redesign, component modification, or reprocurement costs have been included in the $11M estimate.
- 11. Foundation Materials and Walls As with item 10, all alternative sites would require reanalysis of the foondation materials and walls. The
$2M estimate Is. a minimum estimate considering only the expected reanalysis costs.
O G-31
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Notes for Table 3 (Cont'dl 9
- 12. Site Adaptation Redesign At any alternative site, plant buildings and site development, roads, railroads, utility systems, sewer and drainage systems, etc., would need redesign. This additional cost was assumed to be 25% of all structural design-related work and 25% of all site design-related work based on actual expenditures between 1974 and July 1, 1981. As was noted in item 10, the site specific seismic model or other site speci f ic geologic f actors coul d require redesign of the pl ant f oundations and walls. None of these costs have been included in the
$10M.
- 13. Excavation The Clinch River site rock depth equals 50 feet whereas at certain of the TV A alternative sites examined the estimated rock depth was as shallow as 30 feet. Using a cost of $15/ cubic yard and the additional amount to be excavated (400,000 c.y.), the maximum additional l
excavation cost is $6M.
- 14. Environmental Report Rework Minimum estimate based on the amount of material to be modified, updated, or verified.
- 15. Prel Iminary Saf ety Analysis Report Rework See note for item 14.
O G-32
i AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 l l Notes for Table 3 (Cont'dl i
- 16. Reduced Revenue from Sale of Power l
It is assumed that the revenue from the sale of power during the demonstration period would remain unchanged. i l l l l i t l l r l l l i G-33 I
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 This substantially higher risk of design changes should the CRBRP be rel ocated woul d req ui re a higher contingency in the total Project cost estimate. Therefore, the actual incremental cost increase for en alternative TVA site could be several hundreds of millions of dol l ars mor e th an the 5809-1210 million shown in Table 3. In summary, taking the current Project cost of $3.2 billion as a base, the cost of the same project at an alternative site within the TVA power service area would be higher th an at the Clinch River site by a minimum of $809-1210 million for the reference 43 month delay case. Ev en this minimum cost assessment v iv i dly illustrates the dramatic increase in project cost for an alternative site compared to the Clinch River site, 4.2.3. Utility Particloation As mentioned in Section 4.2.1 above, if the LMFBR Demonstration Pl ant were to be built somew here on the TV A pow er sy st em other than at the Clinch River site, the assumption has been made for the limited purposes of this analysls that a site would be available and that TVA could agree to continue in the same role it now has at the Clinch River site. Thus, the LMFBR program objective of utility partici-pation woul d be satisfied for any selected site within the TVA power service area. O G- 34
AMErlDMEtiT XV JULY 1982 Cls L 4.3 Cong1gsign The Project has carefully reexamined and reanalyzed the com-parison of the proposed Clinch River site with the ten alter-native candidate sites identified in Section 3.0 in accordance with the Proposed Rule's sequential two-part test. Of the ten alternative candidate sites, nine were previously candidate sites in the siting assessment presented in Environmental Report Section 9.2 and Appendix A with the tenth site, Yellow Creek, being added to represent sites in TVA's western area (see Section 3.0). The conclusion reached in Section 4.1 concerning the required comparison of these sites with primary consideration given to environmental f actors was that none of the ten alternative candidate sites are environmentally preferable to the Clinch River site. Whlie this finding from part one of the Proposed Rule's two-part test would not require any additional
-~ determination on project economic, technology, and institutional x,,/ factors (i.e., part two of the Proposed Rule's two-part test),
the Project nevertheless presented in Section 4.2 a discussion of Project schedule and cost impacts that are site dependent. In Section 4.2 It was shown that a substantial increase in Project cost (a minimum of $809 - 1210 million) and a reference schedule delay of 43 months that would prevent satisfaction of the LMFBR program timing objective of constructing and operating an LMFBR Demonstration Plant as expeditiously as possible would result from relocating the CRBRP. These findings, independent of the conclusion in Section 4.1 on environmental preferability, lead to a determination that no obviously superior site exists. Thus, the Project has demonstrated in accordance with the requirements of +ne Proposed Rule that the Clinch River site is the preferred site for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant and th at no obv iously superior site exists. O V G- 35
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 5.0
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS At the request of the NRC, the Project has provided this update to the original CRBRP siting assessment provided in CRBRP Environmental Report Section 9.2 and Appendix A. This update, using appropriate current Information, has shown that in accord-ance with the NRC Proposed Rule on Alternative Sites, (!) the TVA power service area is an appropriate " region of interest" (Section 2.0), (2) previously considered alternative sites constitute a sufficient number of candidate sites which meet the threshold criteria and reasonably represent the environmental diversity in the TVA power service area (Section 3.0), and (3) none of the ten alternative candidate sites identified in Section 3.0 are environmentally preferable to the Clinch River site (Section 4.1). Furthermore, the discussions in Section 4.2 show that there would be substantially increased project costs at another TVA site and that the LMFBR program timing objective could not be met at any al ternative TV A site. When these Project economic and institutional factors are added to the findings concerning environmental preferability, it Is clear that no obviously superior site exists in the TVA power service area for locati ng the LMFBR Demonstr ation Pl ant. Therefore, the Project concludes that the proposed Clinch River site remains the l preferred site for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. O G-36
i i AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 i l l I I i l t Attachrent I Comparison of the Environmental Considerations at Eleven Candidate Sites For The LMFBR Demonstration Plant l I O G-37 i
AMEf4DMEf1T XV JULY 1982 Comparison of the Environmental Considerations at Eleven Candidate Sites for the LMFBR
- Demonstration Plant I. INTRODUCTION This analysis was conducted in accordance with the first part of the Proposed Rule's sequential two part analytical test on alternative sites. The first part gives primary consideration to hydrology, water quality, aquatic biological resources, terrestrial resources, water and land use, socioeconomics and population (including meteorological conditions) to determine if any of the ten alternative candidate sites are environmentally l preferable to the proposed Clinch River site. The sites l
considered are the proposed Clinch River site and the ten l alternative candidate sites of Spring Creek, Blythe Ferry, Caney Creek, Taylor Bend, Buck Hollow, Lee Valley, Phipps Bend, Yellow Creek, Hartsville, and Murphy Hill. These sites provide a reasonable representation of the diversity of land and water resources within the TVA power service area. The location of l l these sites is shown in figure I-1. In addition, a description of each of the alternative candidate sites, with the exception of Yellow Creek, can be found in Appendix A of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant (CRBRP) Environmental Report (ER).
- 1. NRC's Proposed Rule on Alternative Sites (45 FR 24168-24178, April 9, 1980)
O G-38
[h gyd piNp/ %; Q r7 7 .l.W ANSVIL .,? .:.,e g??W7"% P 70 e [ n. A I~ m T @:, y% .; y $ y ;,' ;T G y_.. -9y. w
- 3. w p, <. a m n; pm u Y $y y ;p r 'q Q CD19 {' %4 4 w , w, p(
QN, }&.y%g .- u M[: @ Q f'_ Q ii'9 % [Jm~p o'?- ey';;/' > g, A A ' y
-a -~ u -v.
r4e - S
*?'
- 5 "Q* ;& * *k vW. '
~~
f1 R .. m &.g-.q%,% jv*~ ~ ,G y & n,Mi e%. jlW,y:'" y %l9 .Ng;} 1:.
, : y W. , Q V. .A
, .2 ' .
;. .gl-f.v .y.&,:.F1Y,.'
g- .n. a
" ~ 4: \- 7 % %w%DRMTT,U%
lcm ; P n[ .d p f;" ' e; e . , ~ ;.
,Ys:
,*m{ m Q.. ,Qg,y.g~9
. ryCRY
.q&Kgs.,'V:
vs,m*Q w.a ,' . {y,n)G:. ..s 7^.ag ;m 5 -p% s .n
.s ..
? ,;. r . -E. xf,-- **
3 1 m. } Q y , ., 7.0 3 e
~Q U .:.
,g* g yy Q-l. . y
- y. +y 3 .,
;a '- ,.m s
3
.. O . m, ',
g a,- , ,. 9. . %' e .n ? ?_
~. ~.smr - s .e. .>r u ft.4 w.a< p g..,4,,M.g.e, ~=
+
y.*r , . . _
. af' 6% : ; .W ?.
y&. t'sQO..d,,Q' MW6 g.',!! 4*i' 2 4 % '. M o-- N4 4'*, Wy~aN }i &. } g g ~4 k ^fj :,
; .,Wl?., ege 40 (% J' RW~ + -
'M>
w- -*
- ..qyM /R4f.p f y< M . ,L,},'. ~
~
9y . '
- mp.: 2 .
- l. * ,. ; . :.:C & 'y~ , , nsus.np%
p -se Wegy *
.$.f{ y' lP v Q.tyq/M 3.< s s sM.
4 1. "j ' Nun: o *...m* ' 4.-. u-y ' ' '
- - - - - - - . - - ~ ~
~
2 h p. - ' Q]$ph L x., HARTSV Q) hw, &',- - - - . - . . - - - _ . - . .
% w"~ n ,J % m MA BUCK LOW P ' -
t
/N$h NASHVILLE CLWCH RW R KNO 'lLLE d g f,. ' 'w ' ipv W;rpM CANEY CREEK < W f- %
reiwA AYLO .<ddNQRT .QjPgr" E N N E S S l'
- BEN 4 M' Qhih$ H '
. _. %/O4 hh -
hp.6 6 % .
. W1 %CAROUNky Q
e M W. Ru.e ,,. - ?./ 1 M,ay~.%o';4
- a v .s,ek. a
- Nk. m. ' ' W Ww% %, 5
?, el,3,,' ?
# .BLYTHE FERRY hN
- Q S 3 & b :q % ' 8%::'. C%h,550 ?
[ fW M EM PHIS 0 River $t&k. 5 $?..h W g"gh F
*p - - - - - - - - . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . . . _CHATTANOO..k q ;g*D .~b -
- g3 i.$
p -g . . .N - Y' [%,eh- YELLOW CREEK 7 * [Myh4 .y g py}$ f n eg**<
\ 35g v M r? W.M ... tW t W % sou m b 2.
W>h C, I-! SPRING CREEK
~,,MUHPHY t w. M M'mmG., L M . CWZ.C c A.'
y * .m.l e, q . w e 3.
= : g,
,.,.s HILL g .c u.
4 g.o ..y,S.%+e_. s.a y
.u o bQ%
-3<
%w 1;% Qf yu@m + 9,<04*%
, %, w.m. .e s e q .# yh w
R gS:w%MYrd
. .p..c.
, h 9. .g-WM U 2 m...ne4 .
4 t M M, g.v. W H %y$%G; V EYlU(s?mm% : W.Ry.GTI~MfM n
$yQ 2%jn %e(Lgge k . aww gw# Qih.Mm .!
dn h e o e
$ g )a.m..nu k ?./ [._ f. W ,
h.MATLANTA w.'#m s;hM M %.&a .4 a4 4Am
.[ &
- ISSfl'SIPPIeA g eA, 8 ; N [/
- m s e?.,.j.
r R$, 4h 5 s!RMINGHAMF $j#e' 4 u, Wt i
'gf.g't
.ti M*h'
'D h Q' %?kh($p'g&wnWhn.
'o B;
- 4 .
- 4. 4 Wd M : t *W. h 8 hWW k r.n. h
%@e . M '.';. C ,
Lp % i~ , .C g ; ,; 2 "h '.M D i y D$O;3%NM37M'tM?C '*g/%r
% j.$,3 ,:" A ?%*;WJ?-4 J ,
dv.R v,:w , yR c
>v -
5.;.,w 5,. s. s,& , w.u.p s ~. ..~ ~Qj ;
'<*)% .? &,.,
s gjn%Q MMph,{ D
-? s % .- M /[ ' c.
Q.}% ^[~.y y j ' $%,lf S , $a{%hT[W w FIGURE I - 1 { g [.y M.t u 2- % .. , as. .w vx
- 9. ;- (:- , T WMj ,M~Q+v, Qh s,w.:
- a. . ~
e
,. f f ,
a \ 6R @. LMFBR REGION OF INTEREST;; y . ,mg w2n j fg.. g... f } f ]s c -, .~ . m[ Nh, m .-. .. .. , v. (s n , . 9
.k . .h~g/ ,
sh AND CANDDATE SITES ]gj - a, 4
~j- .
_-.~,,g- . y-
.).
i T 123 : 0 3;25-
. ;501y73yyk$
p- [- , g, JACKSON m , '4 g,xa &' g q.s i,j - ;e
, .) %-
,...o ... s . . . a 't '
+ +-
~
<l - e
- s -
.r. 3, g. og wgl ,.. ' *:<
e y ;
. 'L = .' < m p- 9, , . 12 2. cd . bM e
- dE b s:.\
- E "5 7 i h . A $. l
. 1 k N[A r -. I F 14 i
+ NE.Y*d -
AMEriDMEf4T XV JULY 1982 It should be recognized that since some of the sites have been O subject to dif ferent amounts of study, some variation exists in the level and type of information available for each of the alternative sites. As a result, more discrete environmental impacts may have been discovered at those sites for which there has been a greater amount of detailed study than for those sites for which there has been less detailed study. Thus, the fact that the discussion of the Clinch River site mentions a matter not covered in the discussion of, for example, Caney Creek, may not necessarily mean that the Clinch River characterization is unique only to that site since further study at Cancy Creek may indicate the same or similar consideration. Nor does the absence of discussion with respect to a specific site O l necessarily mean that a consideration was not addressed during the l assessment, but rather it may be that the consideration was l determined to be of little significance or did not represent a substantial dif ference between the alternative candidate site and the Clinch River site. A summary of important site characteristics entitled " Table I-1, Summary of Environmental Considerations - LMFBR Candidate Sites" can be found at the end of this report. O G-40
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 A. HYDROLOGY
'\
CJ 1 The major hydrologic considerations which were evaluated for the sites discussed below included ground water, water availability, water quality, thermal hydrodynamics, and flooding potential.
- 1. Clinch River In the past, two extended periods of zero flow at Melton Hill Dam were imposed for the purpose of controlling the growth of Eurasian water milfoil. These extended periods resulted from special operations of the dam and are not anticipated in the future.
- 2. Spring Creek
'\ .
Spring Creek is located on Wheeler Reservoir which is characterized by elevated thermal conditions and a sensitive trophic status. Spring Creek's downstream location from TVA's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant would require that special consideration be given to the thermal effects of any d is charge . The Spring Creek site ~is underlain by very soluble carbonate rock which would make it dif ficult to predict ground water movement.
- 3. Blythe Ferry The Blythe Ferry site is underlain by highly soluble carbonate rock thus making ground water movement difficult to predict.
A large portion of the site is also below the probable maximum flood elevation. C-41
AMENNtENT XV s JULY 1982
- 4. Caney Creek \
The Caney Creek site -is underlain by highly soluble carbonate rock thus making ground, water movement very dif ficult to predict. s s
- 5. Taylor Bend s s Taylor Bend is located on Douglas Reservoir which is characterized by strong thermal stratification, dissolved oxygen (DO) depletion in the hypolimnion, and annual fluctuttion of the reservoir (62 feet) reducing the stream flow to the original French Broad River channel during periods of reservoir drawdown.
- 6. Buck Hollow INe Holston River at the Buck Hollow site is characterized by stressed water quality and biological conditions. Additionally, a major portion of the site is below the probable maximum flood elevation.
During periods of strong thermal stratification in Cherokee Reservoir located approximately 13 miles upstream of the site, the water in the Holsten River at Buck Hollow is low in DO resulting in a very limited and stressed biological community at Buck Hollow. Since the reach of the Holston River at Buck Hollow is not impounded, frequent and sometimes prolonged dewatering of i - the river channel occurs. O G-4?
AMEf4DMEf4T XV JULY 1982
- 7. Lee Valley The Lee Valley site is located on the headwaters of tne Cherokee Reservoir which are characterized by historically pocr water quality, strong thermal stratification and hypolimnatic DO depletion. Annual fluctuations in Cherokee pool elevation are about 52 feet. Additionally, special consideration needs to be given to the thermal e f fects of any discharge due to the proximity of the site to TVA's John Sevier Steam Plant.
- 8. Phipps Bend A large portion of the Phipps Bend site is below the probable maximum flood elevation. The site is located on the Holston River which is characterized by historically poor water quality and stressed biological communities.
- 9. Yellow Creek The Yellow Creek site is characterized by a limited interchange of water through the site embayment.
( 10. Hartsville There are no significant hydrologic considerations at the Hartsville site.
- 11. Murphy Hill A large portion of the Murphy Hill site is below the probable maximum flood elevation.
O O G-43 o
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
' CONCLUSION Each of the above candidate sites could be considered as acceptable sites for an LMFBR from a hydrologic standpoint. However, the Clinch River site possesses certain hydrologic advantages over the Yellow Creek, Murphy Hill, Phipps Bend, Spring Creek, Blythe Ferry, Taylor Bend, Buck Hollow, Lee Valley, and Caney Creek sites. 'Ihe Clinch River site is substantially equal to the Hartsville site.
O O G- 44
AMENDMENT XV B. METEOROLOGY JULY 1982 O Although not specifically required in NRC's Proposed Rule on Alternative Sites, a discussion of meteorological conditions has been included. Site comparison criteria for meteorological j considerations relate primarily to atmospheric dif fusion ' conditions, including opportunity for dilution before released e f fluents would be expected to reach communities within 10 miles I i of the site, local stagnation potential, and the relative dif ficulty in determining and describing transport and diffusion patterns of effluents and the confidence levels in transport and dif fusion estimates. 4 e
- 1. Clinch River
( The predominant wind direction for this site is from the southwest at both the 75- and 200-feet levels. Winds from the northwest and east also dominate the patterns. Irregular terrain conditions generate uncertainty about transport and dif fusion patterns. Periods of poor atmospheric dispersion conjitions do occur. The cumulative population for cities ar.d . towns with a population (1980 census) of greater than 5,000 in a 50-mile radius around the site is the same as for Caney Creek, somewhat higher than for the Yellow Creek and Phipps Bend sites, and lower than the other alternative sites. The population distribution is well below NRC staff criteria that would require consideration of alternative sites with lower C-45
,n ... __,, , . . _ _ , - , , - _ _ . . . , , . - - - , ,. ,
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 population. Uncertainties with regard to transport and diffusion patterns reduce the confidence in ef fluent plume predictions (real-time and future), especially for transport, for the Clinch River site during stable and/or light wind conditions.
- 2. Spring Creek Spring Creek is characterized by less population within 10 miles of the site than Clinch River. The open terrain at Spring Creek results in less potential for stagnation conditions and less uncertainty about transport and diffusion patterns.
- 3. Blythe Ferry Blythe Ferry has less population than the Clinch River site in the surrounding 10-mile area and more predictable transport and diffusion patterns. Blythe Ferry is located in the lower portion of the Great Valley and not far from Cumberland Plateau's stagnation enhancing ef fect during generalized stagnation conditions. The terrain at Blythe Ferry has a more regular pattern than that in the vicinity of the Clinch River site. The transport and diffusion patterns are believed to be l
l more straightforward than at the Clinch River site, especially for stable atmospheric conditions. With somewhat less complicated terrain patterns, there would likely be fewer e F-46
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 local " pockets" of higher concentrations of ef fluents. Overall, the dif ference in stagnation potential is not considered to be substantial. There would be considerable difficulty with effluent transport toward the Cumberland Plateau. Although additional uncertainty about transport and dif fusion estimates exists for the Clinch River site, the overall dif ference is not believed to be significant.
- 4. Caney Creek There are no appreciable air quality or meteorological differences between the Caney Creek site and the Clinch River site.
O
- 5. Taylor Bend The only population center within 10 miles of Taylor Bend (Newport) is located about 5 miles to the southeast.
Generally favorable dilution conditicas are expected during transport of e f fluents toward that city. Teylor Bend is located in close proximity to the north edge of the Great Smoky Mountains on the upper part of a large, irregularly shaped reservoir. In this part of the Great Valley the topography is not regularly aligned in an upvalley-downvalley manner. Collection and analysis of meteorological data to characterize diffusion and transport conditions might require i one or more secondary measurement locations. The relative b G G-47
AMEf40MEf4T XV JULY 1982 dif ficulty would be about the same as for the Clinch River site. Because of the reservoir and somewhat more open terrain (except for the mountains to the south), local stagnation potential is considered to be lower than for the Clinch River site. Investigating the transport and dif fusion patterns for effluents from the proposed plant might be ar difficult for Taylor Bend as for the Clinch River site. However, it is believec that, once conditions were reasonably determined, , 1 estimates related to transport and dif fusion patterns could be made with more confidence than for the Clinch River site.
- 6. Buck Hollow Buck Hollow has less population within 10 miles than the Clinch River site. Except for the low-level irregularity of hills and the pronounced meander of the Holston River, the terrain near the site is not as complicated as the Clinch River site. Larger scale ridges in the general area around the site are aligned in a upvalley-downvalley orientation.
Thus, diffusion and transport patterns are believed to be rather straightforward and easy to determine. The task of describing diffusion patterns should be less dif ficult than for the Clinch River site and could be made with more confidence.
- 7. Lee Valley The Lee Valley site is about 10 miles from both Rogersville and tiorristown, to the northeast and to the southwest, G- 4fl
AMEfaMENT H JULY 1982 respectively, he arrangement of substantial ridges in the area is such that dilution of ef fluents transported in these general directions would likely be equivalent to the Clinch River site area. However, the population within 10 miles is less for Lee Valley than for the Clinch River site. While the terrain in the Lee Valley site area is in some ways less complex than in the Clinch River site area, the difficulty of evaluating transport and dif fusion patterns would not be substantially less. With the confinement and channeling influences of the local ridge and valley topography within this part of the Great Valley, the stagnation potential is similar to that for the Clinch River site. The particular ridge and valley pattern near Lee Valley is believed to be a major f actor that would affect confidence levels in transport and dif fusion estimates to an extent similar to that for the Clinch River site.
- 8. Phipps Bend Phipps Bend has less population within 10 miles than Clinch River. Though the transport and dif fusion patterns of effluents for the Phipps Bend site area may be slightly less difficult to determine than for the Clinch River site due to the river cuts through the local ridges, a substantial difference does not appear to exist. At Phipps Bend, the Holston River valley is aligned with the pronounced valley-ridge terrain. The relatively narrow secondary topographic variations within the valley markedly influence G-49
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 the low-level airflow under stable conditions. The overall potential for stagnation is believed to be substantially higher for the Phipps Bend site than the Clinch River site. The narrowness of the valley, the steepness of the adjacent ridges (especially on the southeast side), and the prevalence of very light winds indicate a higher potential for local stagnation. In general, slightly more confidence would be expected in estimates of diffusion and transport of effluents from the Phipps Bend site. However, the difference is not considered to be significant.
- 9. Yellow Creek Yellow Creek has less population within 10 miles than the Clinch River site. The terrain is more open at the Yellow Creek site than at the Clinch River site resulting in less uncertainty about transport and dif fusion patterns for Yellow Creek.
Generalized stagnation conditions are substantially less frequent at the Yellow Creek site. However, under stable conditions, the potential for " pockets" of higher concentrations of ef fluents is considered to be comparable to that in the vicinity of the Clinch River site. Since the localized stagnation potential is considered more significant than the generalized atmospheric stagnation potential, the relative dif ferences between the Yellow Creek and Clinch River sites are not believed to be appreciable. C- S n
AMEf4DMEtiT XV JULY 1982
- 10. Hartsville Hartsville has less population within 10 miles than does Clinch River.
The diffusion and transport patterns are considered to be less complicated and uncertain in the vicinity of the Hartsville site since the site area is more open and is less subject to generalized stagnation conditions.
- 11. Murphy Hill Murphy Hill has lower population within 10 miles th.an does Clinch River. Although Murphy Hill is in a pronounced valley-ridge area, the Tennessee River valley in the vicinity of the site is aligned with the ridge orientation. Though the
/^
t transport and diffusion patterns are believed to be more straightforward than those at theClinchFIversite, especially for stable conditions, no substantial dif ference exists between the sites. Generalized and local s+.agnation potentials would be roughly equivalent, though at Murphy Hill it would be somewhat more a consequence of topographical channeling and confinement. The expected diffusion patterns for Murphy Hill should be somewhat easier to describe than I those for the Clinch River site. However, the dif ference is not considered to be substantial. Expected differences in confidence levels for dif fusion and transport estimates slightly f avor the Murphy Hill site due to V greater topographic regularity. G- 51
AMEf1DMENT XV CONCLOSIOt1 JULY 1982 Each of the above candidate sites could be considered as an acceptable O site for a LMFBR from the standpoint of meteorological concerns. From the standpoint of dilution before released ef fluents would be expected to reach communities within 10 miles, all of the sites with the exception of Caney Creek, where no appreciable dif ference was noted, possess certain adv ntages over the Clinch River site. Regarding the dif ficulty of determining the transport and diffusion pat terns of e f fluents, all of the sites with the exception of Phipps Bend, Caney Creek, Taylor Bend, and Lee Valley, where no appreciable difference was noted, possess certain advantages over the Clinch River site. With respect to local stagnation potential, the Hartsville, Spring Creek, and Taylor Bend sites possess certain advantages over the Clinch River site; no appreciable dif ference was noted with respect to Murphy Hill, Yellow Creek, Blythe Ferry, Caney Creek, Buck Hollow, and Lee Valley; and Clinch River possesses certain advantages over the Phipps Bend site. Regarding the dif ficulty of describing expected dif fusion patterns, all of the sites with the exception of Murphy Hill, Phipps Bend, Caney Creek, and Lee Valley, where no appreciable dif ference was identified, possess certain advantages over the Clinch River site. O G-52
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
, With respect to safety factors (confidence levels) in transport and 1
diffusion estimates during radiological emergency planning support, all of the sites with the exception of Murphy Hill, Phipps Bend, Blythe Ferry, Caney Creek, and Lee Valley, where no appreciable differences were identified, possess certain advantages over the Clinch River site. Thus, from the standpoint of overall site meteorological conditions, the Hartsville, Yellow Creek, Spring Creek, Taylor Bend, Blythe Ferry, Murphy Hill, and Buck Hollow sites possess certain advantages over the Clinch River site. No appreciable dif ferences have been identified for the Phipps Bend, Caney Creek, and Lee Valley sites. , l 1 I 1 0 53
AMENDMENT XV C. AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES JULY 1982
- 1. Clinch River 0
No species, designated as rare or endangered by any governmental agency, were collected or observed in the baseline ecological survey performed from March 1974 through January 1975. During ecological surveys conducted in May 1982, a single specimen of a listed endangered mussel was discovered upstream from the ' Clinch River site. A subsequent freshwater mussel survey failed to discover any further specimens near the site. A waterfowl refuge is located 8 miles southwest of the site along the Tennessee River. No significant impact to the aquatic ecosystem will result from plant and transmission line construction.
- 2. Spring Creek A wetland habitat and migrant-wintering waterfowl habitat exist on Spring Creek embayment. Toxolasma lividus lividus, a mussel species listed as endangered in Alabama, is present in the vicinity of the site.
Spring Creek is characterized by a biologically productive ! embayment and adjacent reservoir shoreline, and the sensitive l trophic status and elevated thermal condition of Wheeler l Reservoir. Spring Creek's downstream location from TVA's O G-54
AMEt4DMEfC XV Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant would require that special p consideration be given to the thermal ef fects of any additional discharge.
- 3. Blythe Ferry Mach of the Blythe Ferry site would classify as wetland habitat which s9pports many species of wetland wildlife including ospreys and eagles. A portion of the site is located within the Hiwassee Wildlife Refuge and is managed by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency for Canada geese and migrant-wintering waterfowl.
The Blythe Ferry site is also characterized by areas of biologically productive overbank surrounding the site. One aquatic species Federally listed as endangered, Percina tansi, snail darter, is potentially present in these overbank areas.
- 4. Caney Creek Caney Creek is characterized by a biologically productive embaymen t . Wintering bald eagle habitat and natural osprey nests are located within approximately 4 miles of Caney Creek embayment. The site area includes wood duck and goose habitat.
O G-55
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
- 5. Taylor Bend The Taylor Bend site is characterized by a migrant-wintering habitat that includes the support of wintering bald eagles and ospreys. Taylor Bend is a site for the osprey backing project and an integral part of the Tennessee Osprey Restoration Project. The site is also a waterfowl concentration area.
- 6. Buck Hollow The Holston River at the Buck Hollow site is characterized by stressed water quality and biological conditions. Since the reach of the Holston River at Buck Hollow is not impounded, frequent and sometimes prolonged dewatering of the river channel occurs.
A wood duck nesting and brood habitat is present in the vicinity of the site. A number of migrant ospreys have been reported on this section of the Holston River. The site vicinity provides float hunting for many species of waterfowl. The Buck Hollow section of the Holston River is l l also a feeding area for the German Creek black crown night l heron colony. l l l l f I G- 5 6
4 AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
- 7. Lee Valley
\
s,,/ The Lee Valley site is located on the headwaters of the 4 Cherokee Reservoir which are characterized by complex thermal hydrodynamic conditions resulting in the existence of high . biological productivity. 4 8. Phipps Bend The Holston River in the vicinity of the Phipps Bend site is small and has historically been identified as having limited aquatic productivity with the exception of the occurrence of large beds of aquatic macrophytes throughout the reach of the Holston River near the site. i,
- 9. Yellow Creek The Yellow Creek site is characterized by an aquatic nursery area in the embayment, limited water interchange in the upstream portion of the embayment near the site, and a diverse population of waterfowl.
i
- 10. Hartsville A small mussel bed containing a mussel species Federally
'isted as endangered and a wetland habitat are adjacent to the Hartsville site.
- 11. Murphy Hill I
A biologically productive overbank area is immediately I downstream f rom the Murphy Hill site. Additionally, the site i, I contains waterfowl and wetland wildlife habitat. l G-57
AMEtiDr1EtiT XV JULY 1982 CONCLUSION Each of the above candidate sites could be considered as acceptable sites for an LMFBR from the standpoint of aquatic resources. However, the Clinch River site possesses certain aquatic resource advantages over the Spring Creek, Blythe Ferry, Buck Hollow, Hartsville, Lee Valley, Phipps Bend, and Murphy Hill sites. The Clinch River site is substantially equal to the Caney Creek, Taylor Bend, and Yellow Creek sites. O O C_ r,p
AMENDMENT XV D. TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES JULY 1902
,~
! }
'N ,/
- 1. Clinch River The site contains forest types which reflect previous land uses and present forest management practices. Plant species are largely those expected for land undergoing secondary succession. Rare plant species include Panax quinquefolium, ginseng; Cimici fuga rubifolia, black snakeroot; and Saxifraga careyana, Carey's saxifrage.
Three endangered mammalian species are potentially present: Myotis sodalis, Indiana Bat; Myotis grisescens, Gray Bat; and Lutra canadensis, River Otter. Two Federally listed ( ,
,,) endangered birds have been observed on the site: Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus, Southern Bald Eagle and Pandion haliactun, American Osprey. Other bird species observed on the site that are listed as threatened by the State of Tennessee are Accipiter striatus, Sharp-Shinned Hawk; Accipiter cooperii, Cooper's Hawk; and Circus cyaneus, Marsh Hawk.
- 2. Spring Creek The Spring Creek site is characterized by open agricultural lands and scattered pine forest.
A V G- 50
AMEtiDMErli XV JULY 1982
- 3. Blythe Ferry Upland wildlife habitat on the site is fair. Threatened or endangered species potentia *1y present at the site include Myotis grisescens, Gray Bat, Federally listed as endangered, and Cyrinophilus palleaucus, Tennessee cave salanander, State-listed as threatened.
- 4. Caney Creek The Caney Creek site is characterized by a fair to poor habitat for small game and nongame wildlife.
- 5. Taylor Bend The Taylor Bend site is characterized by populations of large game wildlife species, particularly deer, with limited habitat for small game.
- 6. Buck Hollow Two Federally endangered species (Myotis grisescens, Gray Bat; and Myotis sodalis, Indiana Bat) are potentially present at the Buck Hollow site.
- 7. Lee Valley The Lee Valley sit? is characterizec. '.sy f air habitat for open land wildlife including a deer population.
l l O I G-CD l
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
- 8. Phipps Bend f The Phipps Bend site contafas one plant species proposed for Federal listing: Cimicifuga rubifolia, black snakeroot; and P
one State-listed species: Ammodramus savanarrum, Grasshopper Sparrow.
- 9. Yellow Creek The Yellow Creek site is characterized by a large diverse population of wildlife. Three reptiles, one avian, and two mammalian species listed as " rare" in Mississippi, are present in the vicinity of the site.
- 10. Hartsville The Hartsville site is characterized by a fair habitat for 3
small game and nongame wildlife. The site contains two State- 1 listed threatened species: Thryumanes bewickii, Bewick's wren, and Ammodramus cavanarrum, Grasshopper Sparrow.
- 11. Murphy Hill The Murphy Hill site supports a variety of biological resources and is surrounded by waterfowl and wetlands habitat. Small game habitats and white-tailed deer are l
present. Two Federally endangered mammals are present in the vicinity of the site. 1 I i i i G-61 g
AMEf4DMEt4T XV JULY 1982 CONCLUSION Each of the above candidate sites could be considered as acceptable sites for an LMFBR from the standpoint of terrestrial resources. However, the Clinch River site possesses certain terrestrial resource advantages over the Spring Creek, Blythe Ferry, Taylor Bend, Buck Hollow, Murphy Hill, and Yellow Creek sites. The Clinch River site is substantially equal to the Caney Creek, Phipps Bend, Lee Valley, and Hartsville sites. O l l l 1 l l l l O G-62
AMENDMENT XV E. LAND USE JULY 1982
- 1. Clinch River The Clinch River site has long been considered a potential industrial location and is bordered by a pat tially developed industrial park. Use of the Clinch River site would be compatible with existing and future land uses in the surrounding area.
A 100-unit campsite is on the Caney Creek embayment about one mile SE of the site boundary and a 30-unit camping and day use area is located about three miles SE of the site. Four sites within 10 miles of the CRBRP site and proposed transmission lines are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Harriman City Hall, the former County Court House at Kingston, Southwest Point on the Tennessee River SW of Kingston, and the X-10 Graphite Reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratories. The Tennessee Historical Commission has recently determined that on the basis of architectural, archaeological, and historic studies conducted at the Clinch River site, construction of an LMFBR would not affect any properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
- 2. Spring Creek The Spring Creek site is characterized by various agricultural uses and forested lands. Residential development is taking cr63
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 place further up the Spring Creek embayment. Extensive development has been restricted by a low bridge crossing the embayment within the proposed site boundaries which severely limits access to the main reservoir. Public access sites maintained by the Alabama Conservation Department are located at the mouth of Spring Creek (mile 283L) and Goldfield Branch (mile 285L). National Register sites occur in the area; however, the site has not been surveyed and the status of archaeological resources is unknown. Use of the site for the LtiFBR would be compatible with existing and future land uses.
- 3. Blythe Ferry A shoreline residential development is present nearby the Blythe Ferry site. The Blythe Ferry, a private ferry service located at the site, provides passage across the river between Cleveland and Dayton, Tennessee. Use of the site for an LMFBR presents certain land use conflicts and would require, for instance, the closing of the ferry service.
l l l l TVA public use areas are located at Armstrong Bend (mile 505L) and Grasshopper Creek (mile 495L). Since the area has not been surveyed for cultural resources, the status of these l resources is unknown. However, no properties listed in the National Register exist on the site. Portions of the site lie l within the Hiwassee Wildlife Refuge. l l G- 64
AMENDMENT XV
- JULY 1982
- 4. Caney Creek
(/ Woodland and various agricultural uses are the predominant land uses on and around the site. Some scattered residential development is located near the boundary of the proposed exclusion area. Recreation features in the vicinity of the site include Roane County Park on Caney Creek embayment (mile 262R) and three State maintained public access sites within five miles of the site. The status of archaeological resources is unknown. No National Register properties exist on the site.
- 5. Taylor Bend Work began in 1973 on a second home resort area located within the proposed site area boundary. The long range plans for the resort call for a golf course, pool, and 2,000 homes. After a troubled beginning which included a change of ownership, only 200 lots have been developed and the golf course and 75 homes constructed. Use of the site for the LMFBR would require the purchase of this development.
Other recreation facilities within 10 miles of the site include a private campground and boat dock at mile 54.4-SSL. Three archaeological sites have been identified in the vicinity, but no National Register of Historic Places eligibility determination has been conducted. O G-65
AMENDPENT XV JULY 1982
- 6. Buck Hollow Land use in the vicinity of the site is a mixture of wooded land and various agricultural uses. Future use of the site would likely be pasture land. Recreation features include a proposed TVA stream access site, Indian Cave, and a cocunercial recreation area one mile from the site at mile 40R. Cultural resources on the site are unknown since there has been no onsite archaeological survey conducted. Use of the site for the LMFBR would not result in a significant land use conflict.
- 7. Lee Valley Most of the land on and in the vicinity of the site is forested or in various agricultural uses. However, a Boy Scouts of America camp encircles the nearby Dry Branch O embayment; and a portion of the camp may be within the site boundaries.
The status of cultural resources is unknown since a survey has not been conducted.
- 8. Phipps Bend, Yellow Creek, Hartsville, and Murphy Hill Three of the eleven alternative sites--Phipps Bend, Yellow Creek, and Hartsville--have, until the recent de ferrals, been sites of active nuclear plant construction. A fourth site, Murphy Hill, has been selected as a suitable site for a coal gasification project and site preparation activities are G-66
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 currently underway. The closest development to the Murphy Hill site is a residential area across the reservoir from the (J) site. Use of any of these sites for the LHFBR project would be compatible with the existing surrounding land use. Land use in the vicinity of these sites is unlikely to change to any degree in the near future to alter this assessment. The Phipps Bend site contains known archaeological resources, but none are presently listed on the National Register. There would be no preemption or likely adverse impacts to areas listed or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. An archaeological district is associated with the Yellow Creek p ' site area.
}
The town of Dixon Springs and the Dixona historic district are located nearby Hartsville. Several small commercial recreation facilities are also located in the general site vicinity of Hartsville. CONCLUSION Each of the above candidate sites could be considered as acceptable sites for an LMFBR from the standpoint of land use. However, the Clinch River site possesses certain land use advantages over the Taylor Bend, Blythe Ferry, and Lee Valley sites. The Clinch River site is considered substantially equal to each of the other seven () ( ,j alternative candidate sites. G-67
AMENDMENT XV F. SOCI0 ECONOMICS JULY 1982 Construction employment in support of the LMFBR project is O expected to peak at about 5,400. The socioeconomic ef fects depend primarily on the fraction of the work force which inmigrates and the ability of nearby cocununities to accommodate the inmigrants.
- 1. Clinch River Proximity to Knoxville's large labor market would result in a relatively low projected inmigration rate (25 percent or less). The Knoxville metropolitan area can accommodate this size of influx with no significant impact. No highway segments would have traffic levels exceeding their capacities.
- 2. Blythe Ferry The Blythe Ferry site is located in proximity to Chattanooga's labor market, thus socioeconomic impacts would likely be similar in magnitude to those of the Clinch River site. The inmigration which would occur would locate largely in Cleveland and the Chattanooga area. These cities (populations of 26,000 and 170,000 respectively) could acconnnodate the influx with no significant impact.
Transportation impacts due to connouting should be relatively small with the exception of the last highway link from Route 58 to the site. O G-68
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
- 3. Caney Creek (D
( j The Caney Creek site is located in close proximity to the Clinch River site, thus the magnitude of the socioeconomic impacts would be expected to be essentially the same. However, the distribution of those impacts would be considerably different. Since the site is closer to the Rockwood, Kingston, and Harriman areas, most of the inmigrants 4 4 would be expected to locate in the vicinity of these three communities rather than Knoxville and some significant impacts may occur. Access is available to the site from three road segments which would tend to reduce the impacts of commuting traf fic. However, there would still be a large increase in traffic in the vicinity of the site. The degree of impact has not been determined.
- 4. Taylor Bend The magnitude of the socioeconomic impacts would likely be about the same at the Taylor Bend site as at the Clinch River site. However, since most inmigrants would locate in and around Morristown and Newport some minor impacts may occur.
- 5. Buck Hollow The Buck Hollow site has about the same relationship to the Knoxville labor market as the Clinch River site. Therefore, l
~ the magnitude of the socioeconomic impacts would likely be l _-
1 i G- 69
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1992 about the same. Most of the inmigrants would locate in east i
, , and northeast Knox County, the Jefferson City area and west
( ' y.Nef'ferson County. The magnitude of ths projected 'inmigrants to an urbanized area of this size would not'be expected to result in significant! adverse impacts. ,
+
t i Transportsr ion impacts would , lik:31'y be small except for Route i
,.2 9 connecting Jefferson City and Rutledge. The degree of ii, / -
! impact has,not been determined.
/' ,
,\'
{# ,
, e - f
/ 's 6.1 Lee _;_Va l ley
- j y
- The' magnitude of the impacts would likely be the same at the -
/ , - .
e s
. ~
le<e'Va18ey.djte as at the Clinch Riverj, site. Howp.v e r , since
/* ai <
Ji T I most of t[.he 'inmigrants would locate $r,and aroun,d Morristown,
, 's some significant impacts may occur. **
i >
~
~*- :* s, / ,
/ . ..
' -c
, << p -r
, decauting traf fic enufd J result' in impacts at certain points
',.~ , ,,. a ,,s' u jl (e.g., Jewntown Morristown) s and on certain hir,hway s,egments/'
, /
(e.g. , countf road conn'ec, ting llE with the site) ." The degree
~
t .s
. s '- ,
, o t' these t ra f fic icipacts has not beeen determined.
C , ,', /
, , e- //
i, 1 i
*W- ,
^"
l 7. ' Yk ilow Ot eek, Har tsvi'11e , and Phipps Bend /
.?
TbA, magnitudg v1 J,be' socioeconomic impacts would likely be
- , 6; i _
larger'at those sites cl.an at the Clinch River site,.and some
/, / j ,/ j r
~ significant h. pacts maf occur.
j' ' l ,,
- s. r'
~
~/ ' ,,
f ,
~
~
i'f'h ,:
.<,s I r/ / ,'
.) .,
lg, ?R p I'
- y
- a g
, e Y "
,o
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Transportation impacts vary widely among these sites. No ( significant impacts are likely at Phipps Bend. At Yellow Creek and Hartsville minor to moderate impacts would be expected.
- 8. Murphy Hill and Spring Creek The magnitude of the socioeconomic impacts would likely be larger on these sites than those projected for the Clinch River site. Given the capabilities of communities in the surrounding areas, some significant impacts may occur.
Transportation impacts constitute the most significant dif ference between these two sites. At Murphy Hill, significant transportation impacts would be expected. Also,
,,) the State was considering a $19 million road improvement program in the area due to existing traf fic problems. No traffic impacts due to commuting would be expected at Spring Creek, but it appears that a county road and bridge would have to be closed.
I O G- 71
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 CONCLUSION Each of the above candidate sites could be considered as acceptable sites for an LMFBR from the standpoint of socioeconomics. However, the Clinch River site is either substantially equal to or possesses certain socioeconomic advantages over the ten alternative candidate sites, l O O G-72
AMENDMENT XV G. POPULATION JULY 1982 10 CFR, Part 100 specifies that " sites having a cumulative population density projected at the time of initial operation of a nuclear power station which exceeds 500 persons per square mile averaged over any radial distance out to 30 miles, or the projected population density over the lifetime of the facility exceeds 1,000 persons per square mile averaged over any radial distance out to 30 miles, special attention should be given to the consideration of alternative sites with lower population densities." I Based on current information, though the Clinch River site is the most urbanized of all 11 sites, it still conforms with f-- appropriate NRC population density criteria. It is therefore b concluded that all of the alternative sites are in conformance with applicable regulations. Basic site population characteristics have been identified and are included in table I-1. I
/
G-73
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 II. OVERALL SITE ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERABILITY As shown in table I-1, each alternative site has its own unique set of site-specific considerations which project relative advantages and disadvantages to locating an LMFBR at any particular site. From the standpoint of the environmental parameters discussed above with the exception of meteorology, the Clinch River site is advantageous or substantially equal to each of the alternative sites evaluated. The fact that some alternative sites possess a meteorological advantage over the Clinch River site does not outweigh, however, other environmental parameters that demonstrate Clinch River's equivalence to or advantage over the alternative sites. Thus , based on an overall comparison of environmental characteristics and the relative advantages and disadvantages of each site, it is concluded that none of the 10 alternatives is environmentally pre ferable to the Clinch River site for location of the LMFBR. O G-74
TABLE I-l
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS - IMPBR CANDIDATE SITES AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Ol 3 (j METEOROLOGY 1980 F0pelATION - NEARIST TOWN (within 50 miles) 0F 5.000 25.000* 100.000
- 1. Clinch River Foor atmospheric dispersion condia Cok Ridge, TN Oak Ridge TN Enonville. TN tiene. Topographic chaneeling and 9 mi., NL 9 mi., NE 22 mi., ENE confinement could result in pop. 27.662 pop. 27.662 pop. 183,139 recirculation.
- 2. $pring Creek Fair atmospheric diapersion. Light Athens, AL Dreatur, AL launtsville, AL to moderate wied speeds. Little 18 mi., ElrE 19 mi., ESE 38 mi., E potential for low-levet atmospheric pop. 14,558 pop. 42,002 pop. 162,513 recirculation.
- 3. Slytha Ferry Foor atmospheric diepersion conditions. Soddy Daisy, TN Cleveland Tu Chattanooga, TT Potential for confinement which could 15 mi.. $W 18 mi., SSE 29 mi.. $5W result in low-level atmospheric recircu- pop. 8,388 pop. 26,415 pop. 169.565 1 stoa.
4 Caney Creek Poor atmospheric dispersion conditions. Rockwood, TN Oak Ridge, TN Enouville, TN Topographic chamaeling and confinement 5 mi., S 25 mi., NE 39 mi.. ENE could result la low-level atmospheric pop. 5,767 pop. 27.662 pop. 183,139 recirculation.
- 5. Taylor Send poor atmospheric dispersica conditions. Newport. TN Enosville, TN Enoxville. TN Topographic channeling and confinement 6 mi., SE 37 mi., W 37 mi., W could result in low-level atmospheric pop. 7.580 pop. 183,139 pop. 183.139 circulation.
3 [% 4 6. Buck hollow Foor atmospheric dispersion conditions. Jefferson City, TN Enerville, TN Enonville, TN
/ Topographic chseneling and confinement 6 mi., E 22 mi., SW 22 mi., SW could result in low-level atmospheric pop. 5,612 pop. 143,139 pop. 183,139 recirculation.
- 7. 14e Vetley Foor atmospheric dispersion conditions. morristove. TN Eingeport, TN Enonville, TN Topographic channelies and confinement 11 mi., SW 38 mi., ENE 49 mi., SW could result in low-level atmospheric pop. 19,683 pop. 32,017 pop. 143,139 recirculation.
- 8. Phippa tend poor atmospheric disperatos conditions. Eingsport, TN Eingaport Tu Creater than Topographic channeling and confinement 15 mi.. ENE 15 mi., ENE 50 mi.
could result la law-level atmospheric pop. 32,027 pop. 32.027 recirculation.
- 9. Yellow Creek Fair atmospheric dispersion conditions. Savannah, TN Florer.ce, AL Creater than There is little potential for low-level 9 mi.. p 35 mi., Est 50 mi.
atmospheric recirculation. pop. 6,992 37,029
- 10. Martsville Fair atmospheric dispersion conditions. Labance TN hends'ville, TN Nashville, TN There te little potential for low-level 15 mi., SW 30 mi.. W 43 mi.. W5W atmospherie recirculation. pop. 11,892 pop. 26,561 pop. 455.651 p 11. N rphy Mill Foor atmospheric dispersloe conditione. Quatoreville, AL Iksetsville. AL ltuntsville, Al
( j)
! Topographic channeling and confinement could result in low-level atmospheric recirculation.
12 mi., SW pop. 7,061 30 mi.. NW pop. 162.513 30 mi., NW pop. 142,513 i G-75
l l l l AMENDMENT XV TABLE I -l (CONT.) JULY 1982 MTDROLOCT WAQR,quA1.!TY
- 1. Clinch Eiver Mone identified. None identified.
- 2. Spring Creek Karst terrain makes predic- Water temperature in tion of ground weier movement alte vicielty approaches difficult. or esceede 46 F criteria during July-September.
- 3. Blythe Ferry Karst terrain makes predic- None ideatified.
tion of ground water movement dif ficult. Large portion of site is below PnF.
- 4. Caney Creek Ierst topography makes predic- None identified.
tion of ground unter movement dif ficult. Douglas Reservoir strongly None identified, S. Taylor tend . otratified during summer with DO depletion in hypolimnion. Annual reservoir fluctuation of about 62'.
- 6. Buck Bo11ow Estended periods of low or no Low dissolved osygen concentra-streamflow reeutting f rom peaking tions occur in vicinity of site.
operation upstream at Qierokee Dam. I Large portion of site is below PnF. l
- 7. 14e Valley Strong thermal stratification with Historic poor water quality al-l
' 00 depletion in the h Tpolianion. though improvements are occurring. Annual reservoir fluc tuation of about 52'
- 8. Phipps Send Potential for macrophitic Eistoric poor water quality al*
intake clogging. Large part though improvemente are occurring. of site ta below FnF.
- 9. Teltow Creek Limited interchange of water in Limited interchange of water se the embaymeet. the embayment.
- 10. Bartaville Mone identified. None identified.
l
- 11. etarphy Hill Large portion of the site is below Done identified.
the PnF. 1i G-76
TABLE I -1 (CONT. ) AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
% AQUATIC LE5DURCES TERRISTRIAL RESOURCES
\
-Vl 1. Clinch River Single specimes of erdangered Three sammala tieted as endangered occur le mussel species identified opetream. the vicinity of the alteI Gray Sat, Indiana Additional eredies f ailed to Sat, and Easters cougar. Two plant species discover any other specinea. promoted for federal listing as threatened Cimielfuss rubifolie, black seekeroot, and saxifraas careyana. Carey's sanifrage occur on the sate.
- 2. Spring Creek Presence of endangered mussel None identified.
species is the vicinity of the site. Spring Creek embeyment is a high biologically produc-tive area. Wateriput and wetland habitat.
- 3. Slythe Ferry Spawning and nursery area in One federally listed endangered species, overb ank. Wetland wildlife Ryotie triseseens. Gray Sats one State habitat. Potential presence of 11sted threatened species, Cyrinophilus three endangered species. Portion pelleaucus. Tennessee cave satamander.
located within State wildlife refuge. 4 Caney Creek no significant waterfowl pone identified. habitat. No endangered species. Biologically productive Caney Creek embayment. S. Taylor Eend Waterfewt and migrant-wintering Population of large game wildlife. habit a t . No endangered species. Site is part of State Osprey Eestoration project.
- 6. Buck Hollow Limited biological communi- Potential presence of two federally listed
[( \
)
ities in site vicinity, Waterf owl and shorebird habitat. endangered species.
%/ Potentisi presence of two endangered species.
- 7. Lee Valley High biological productivity Deer habitat.
in the epilimaton. No endangered species or important waterfowl or wetland habitat.
- 8. Phippe Bend Wood duck habitat. Wetland esaite Whitetailed deer are present on the site. One that supports a variety of water- plant proposed for federally listings Cimicifuga fowl and wetland bird life. rubifolia. black snakerootl and one State-listed Intake entrainment of aquatic threatened species: Ammodramus savanarrus, organisme. Grasshopper Sparrow.
- 9. Yellow Cr eek Aquatic aureery area in Tellow Mo federally listed endangered or threatened Creek embayment. Wtatering species present oosite. Three reptile, one waterfowl habitat near State Line avian. and two mammalian species listed as " rare" Island on mais reservoir. Shore- La nisaissippi occur in the vicinity of the sate.
line bird use habitat at head of Yellow Creek embayment. Wintering habitat for bald eagle on mais reservoir.
- 10. kartsville Email mussel bed containing a Two State-listed threatened species: Thryumanes listed endangered musett bewickii, Bewick 's bres, and Ammodramus savanarrus, spec ies adjacent to the site. Grasshopper Sparrow.
Wetlande border the site along Dison Creek and Old Backory Reservoir. Wetland habitat on Damon taland adjacent to site. Wood dock aset tag and breeding bobstat on DLane Creek. I li. Murphy Mit! Sha ll ow , productive overbank Whitetailed deer present onsite. No threatened or ad j ac ent to and downstream endangered species onsite. Too federally endangered from the site. Wetlanda mammate, the Gray Bat and ind tana Bat, occur with ta j surround the site along 7 males of the ette. s,j Gunteroville Baservoir. Waetering water f owl habit at . Wtotering habitat for bald eagles. Wood dock breedang and ,.. aesting habitat. 111 G-77
TABLE I-l (COIIT . ) AMENDMENT XV hiATt3 AND IMD USE $0C10ECOM0n1CS JULY 1982
- 1. Clinch River Compatible with projected Rome identified.
industrial use of the site area. Several recreational facilities occur within 10 miles of the site including netton Bill Dam reservation and Atomic Speedway.
- 2. Spring Creek Compatible with projected Potential for some forest and agricultural significant impacte.
use of the site area. Two recreational public access areas in vicinity. No national register historical sites. Archaeological resources unhaown.
- 3. Blythe Perry Potential for significant Done identified.
impact to nearby residential development. Two recreational l public access sites in vicinity. I No national re6: ster historic sites. Archaeological u sources unknown.
- 4. Caney Creek Compatible with projected Potential for some site area land use. County significant impacts.
park and three access areas is vicinity. No national register biotoric estes. Archaeological resources unknown.
- 5. Taylor lead Resort development withis site Potential for minor impacts.
area. Use of site would result in relocation of existing resort development. Private campground and boat dock in vicinity. No national register historic sites. Three archaeological sites (eligi-bility undetermaned).
- 6. Buck Hollow Compatible with projected None identified.
forest and agricultural use of the site area. Commercial recreation area and proposed stress access point in vicinity. Cultural resources unknown.
- 7. Lee Valley Potentially significant Potentist for some impact to Boy Scout camp significant impacts.
located in Dry Branch embayment. Two commercial recreatson arese in vicinity. A ltural resources unknown.
- 8. Phippe Bend Current use as an energy Potential for some f acility este. Compatible significant impacts.
wath site area development. t I
- 9. Teltow Crees Current use as an energy Potential for some f ac ility site. Competable significant impacts.
l with site area development.
- 10. Barteville Current use as an energy Petestial for some facility site. Compattble signifscant impacts.
with site area development. Commercial boat doche and private country club appros-instely 3 males from site. Dinoo Springs and Disona historte distract are located nearby. Amerous areas of prehistoric habitattoo. One potentially sigsaftcent archaeological site.
!!. mrphy Mit t current use se an energy Potential for some facility site. nietman impact signifacent impacte.
to re endent aal development. najor state park on Gwetersville Lake nearbyg two local parae g one wildlife management ares; and t ake and home development commnity. One historically significant structure Walker Jordan cabne. One archaeological ante. IV C-78
l l AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O l l Attachment tl PROPOSED SURVEY OF FRESHWATER MUSSELS IN THE VICINITY OF THE CRBRP SITE O O G-79
AMENDMENT XV
. JULY 1982 PROPOSED SURVEY OF FRESHWATER MUSSELS IN THE VICINITY OF THE CRBRP SITE
- 1. . General Survev Phasa At stations located every 0.2 mil e between Clinch River Mile (CRM) 14.0 and CRM 18.0, scuba divers will search for mussels along ropes laid across the full width of the river. At each s t a t 'l o n , data collected wilI include the number of each mussel
' ~
. species found in each 20-foot interval, observations on sub str' ate compo s i t i on, and a depth prof il e.
- 11. BM112 L_Bakilat Assassment Pha12
~
~
jf m)r e th an f ive mussel sgecies are found in a 40-foot survey
- s e'g m e n,t (.two adjacent 20-foot intervals) or if one or more
~ ' ~ specimens of an endangered species is found in a 20-foot
' ~
s u r y e y. Interval, the following, more intensive technique wili
. 'he initiated. This detailed search phase is expected to be
~
I n,i t i ated r ath er rarely in the CRBRP reach of the Clinch River and, If more than four such investigations are warranted, the
. Init'I'ating criteria will be evaluated in light of the data .' b e i n g . a c,'q 'b l .r e d .
Scuba divers will conduct a 15-minute search for mussels
, parallel to river flow starting 0.1 mile dow n str eam from the
- general survey interval that initiated this assessment. If f.l.ve or-more mussel species are found during this dive, a second 15-minute dive will be made within the same substrate habitat type at the site, if the second dive yields one or more additional species, a third and, if similarly indicated, a fourth dive will be made in the suitable habitat at the site. The minimum search effort for this intensive phase at one site would be one 15-minute dive. The maximum effort for one site which could be indicated would be four 15-minute dives.
e G-80
.. .~ .- - . .- . ..
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Data from each dive will be maintained separately and will incl ude the location of the dive, the number of each mussel species found, comments on substrate cond itions, and depth profile. Field notes, narrative, and tabular summaries of all data wil l be supplied to the assessment staff for review and tabulation. < A fulI report covering the survey and I ts evrd uation w Il I be prepared and provided to the CRBRP staff for pocr.Ible transmittal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other appropriate regulatory agencies. i O l I l l l O 1 ! G-81 i
O AMENDMENT XV REVISIONS RESULTING FROM ADDITIONAL OR UPDATED INFORMATION AND MINOR CORRECTIONS 3.4, 5.4 UPDATE COOLING TOWER RESIDUAL CHLORINE CONCENTRATION LIMITS 3.6 UPDATES PLANT EFFLUENT WATER CONCENTRATIONS 3.9 CORRECTS DESCRIPTION OF TRANSMISSION LINE 4.1 PROVIDES DESCRIPTION OF-50Il EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AND RUN0FF TREATMENT POND FEATURES 5.2 PROVIDES CORRECTION TO RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS FROM ROUTINE PLANT OPERATION 5.6 UPDATES AESTHETICS CONSIDERATION OF PLANT FACILITIES 6.1 DELETES PARAGRAPH INADVERTENTLY RETAINED FROM PREVIOUS AMENDMENT 10.3 CORRECTS PREVIOUS EROSION TABLE LISTING APPENDIX F PROVIDES UPDATED ALTERNATIVE SITING ANALYSIS OF DOE SITES APPENDIX G PROVIDES UPDATED ALTERNATIVE SITING ANALYSES OF TVA SITES l NRC QUESTION / RESPONSES - INCORPORATES PREVIOUSLY RESPONDED T0 QUESTIONS INTO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AXV-1 l
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 QUESTIQH_n0.dR. t I The geology and seismology literature search needs to be updated. The latest reference in the bibliography is 1974. Considerable 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.) Summaty_Qf_Besponsel The geologic and seismological literature search has been updated (s
\'
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 from COCORP and the USGS. These findings have no negative impact on the Site. Mapping of alluvial terraces along the Little Tennessee River by Delcourt and his correlation of the terraces with terraces at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant site may provide an additional line of evidence for dating faults and other geologic structures in the l 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. J Q230.lR-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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 i 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). BESEQNSE 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. \ 0230.lR-2 l l
/P!ENDMENT XV JULY 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. 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: (~'N 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 f aulting in the Valley and Ridge province. The seismologic literature falls generally into five categories: 1) intraplate tectonics; 2) Cretaceous and Cenozcic 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. Geological _ Literature _Beview 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
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 StratigraDhY
-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).
Signific. ant recent studies 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 by Delcourt. Delcourt's study may provide an additional means of age-dating geologic events in the Valley and Ridge province. The position taken in 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.
l l l l l l 0230.lR-4 1
MIENDMENT XV - JULY 1982 Analysen_Qf_ Geophysical _ Data 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 COCORP (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 f rom Madisonville, Tennessee to the Modoc f ault 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 master decollement underlying the southern Appalachians to the 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 i 0230.lR-5
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 sutures in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont. They also suggest that h 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. Development _oLthe_ Southern _Appalachiana Recent studies concerning the development of the southern l Appalachians can be divided into two general categories: models developed to explain the tectonic evolution of the region, and research concerning the mechanisms, geometry, and timing of thrust faulting within the southern Appalachians. Tectonic models have been developed which apply the ex! sting geologic and geophysical data base of the southern Appi <:hians to the plate tectonics theory (3,10,17,18,19) . These mooels serve as a basis for understanding the timing and mechanics of the formation of the southern Appalachian orogen, including the Valley and Ridge province. Thrusc faulting in the Valley and Ridge is generally accepted to result f rom " 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 Q230.lR-6
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 s' master decollement formed by the uplift 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 g that there was movement as late as the Cretaceous. Schafer (35)
- s. / 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."
0230.1R-7
MiENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Selamological_ Literature _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. Intra 91 ate _ 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 discussion 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 g 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 trending reverse faults of Cretaceous and Cenozoic age are responsible for seismicity along the eastern seaboard (9,10,11) , Southern _ appalachian _ 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 (12,13) flat-lying sedimentary strata , O O230.lR-8
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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. Specific _areaa_of_the_ Eastern _IInited_ States Charleaton,__ South _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). It is understood that studies are presently on going by USGS related to Charleston area seismicity. 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 (17) , which overlies red-bed deposits of earlier Mesozoic age. Further evidence of the graben-like deeper structure of the area comes O 0230.lR-9 l 1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 from seismic refraction (18,19) , magnetic (20) , and gravity data (21) . Seismic reflection profiles show a reverse f ault 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) , l 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 i
l Miocene faulting in the Coastal Plain or any evidence for local-l izing large earthquakes indicate that the likelihood of a l Charleston-sized event in other parts of the Coastal Plain and 1 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." O Q230.lR-10
MiENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Gilea_ County, Virginia 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 from 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 (28) () 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 design of the Watts Bar plant located in the same tectonic province and similar conclusions were reached (Ref. 31). O O230.lR-ll
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Speculationa_Concerning_the_Cause_of_ Eastern _ United Etates 21Fri;ity 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 II) , 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) , ivo 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 (9, 10, the Southern Appalachian decollement. Another hypothesis
- 11) 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 l
are not viable in the folded Southern Appalachian area. Recent data f rom 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) . O Q230.lR-12
MtENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O 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 subsurface 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 l thrust belts: Geological Society of American Bull. , v. 89,
- p. 1189-1198.
i
- 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. (mJ
- 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.
l Amer. , v. 2 43, no. 2, p. 156-16 8. , i l 7. Delcourt, P. A., 1979, Landscape response to Quaternary climatic change in East Tennessee: Abstract Programs (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 l Blue ridge anticlinorium to form Valley and Ridge province:
! Geol. Soc. of American Bull. , v. 87, p.1476-1479. l 0230.lR-13 l
M4ENDMENT XV JULY 1982
- 10. Dewey, J. P., and Bird, J. M., 1970, Mountain belts and the new global tectonics: Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 75, no. 14, p. 2625 - 2647.
- 11. Elliott, D., 1976, The motion of thrust sheets: Jour.
Geophys. Research, v. 81, p. 949-963.
- 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. l 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. l Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 1018, 40 p. l 14. Harris, L. D., and Bayer, K. C. ,197 9, 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. 6 5, no. 2. , p. 2497-250 5.
- 16. Haselton, G. M., 1976, Wisconsin glaciation in the southern Appalachians, North Carolina: Abstract Programa (Boulder),
- v. 8, no. 2, p. 192.
- 17. Hatcher, R. D., Jr., 1972, Developmental model for the southern Appalachians: Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. , v. 8 3,
- p. 27 35-2760.
- 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. 27 6-3 0 4.
l 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. ,197 8, 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, part 3, p. 321-337.
O 023 0. l R -14
NiENDMENT XV JULY 1982 (~) \~' 21. Hatcher, R. D., Jr. , and Z ietz, I., 1978, Thin crystalline thrust sheets in the southern Appalachians inner Piedmont 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. 389-390.
- 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. 285-2 93. /"'N 1 26. Milici, R. C., 1975, Structure patterns in the Southern i Appalachians; evidence for a gravity-slide mechanism for Alleghenian deformation: Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., v. 86,
- p. 1316-1320.
- 27. Miller, R. A., 1974, Geologic history of Tennessee: Tenn.
Div. of Geol. Bull. 7 4, p. 6 3.
- 28. Miller, R. L., 1973, Structural setting of hydrocarbon accumulation in folded Southern Appalachians: Am. Assoc.
Petr. Geol. Bull., v. 57, no. 12, p. 2419-2427.
- 29. Moench, R. H., Cook, F. A., Albaugh, D. S., Brown, L. D.,
Kaufman, S., Oliver, J. E., and Hatcher, R. D., Jr., 1980, 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-(~S glacial features in the Grandfather Mountain Area, North
\_,) Carolina: Southeast, Geol . , v. 18, no. 4, p. 213-229.
0230.lR-15 I
y , ,, 4 ,- . ,- e, _;
, , '[ ' ,
, / . ~- '
! / /
/ , . ,, - / AMENDMENT XV
- .< / JULY 1982
// ,s
.s ,!
W. W. and Little, R. E . , J 'I?,8 , Folding in 32;' Roeder r D., Yu P,t , the Vallov and Ridge Erovince of Tennessee: Am. Jour. Sci.,
- v. 278, no. 4, p. 477-496. -
- 33. Ruppel, S. C'.', 1977, ftop 1 ( A&B) ; Shellew;garbonate shelf b _
deposits of' the , lower /Chickamauga Group, Evants Ferry Section and Stop 2 -(A-E) ; tne Chickamaugo, limestones a
- complex mosaicrof supratidal to subtidal. carbonates' shelf environments: in the Ecostratigraphy of th'a Middle Ordovician of~the southern Appalachiank..(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.,
- S tu d . Ge ol'.1,~ v . 7 7 , no. 1, p. 33-48.
I Ruppel, ~S. C., 1978, The stratigraphy; carbonate petrology, 34. e and depositional environments of the Chickamquga Group
,(Middle Ordovician) of Northern East Tennessee: Ph.D.
Thesis, Univ. of Tenn., Knoxville. 7/{
- 35. - Schaf er, K., 1979, Recent thrusting in thh Appalachians:
Nature, v. 280, p. 223-226. j
- 36. Seay, W. M., and Hopkins, R. A., 198,i, Souther n Appalachian
, tectonic study: in Earthquakys and Earthquake engineering:
The Eastern United States, Beave r s', J. S ., , editor, Ann Arbor
" ~"
Science Publidh,er 5, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mi,h., c v. 1,
- p. 419-439. ,
V Watkins, J. S., 1964,t Regional geolbg'ic impAlcations of the
- i. .
'$ 37.
1 g'ravity and magnetic field.s of a part of eastern Tennessee
,' and southern Kentuq3y;'U S. Geol. Sury. Prof. Pape: 516-A,
, :, 0 17p. /,
f .
~
3 8 '. Williaps, H., Cook., F. A., ,Albaugh, D. S., Brown, L. D., Kaufmarf, S., Oliver, J.cE.'Aqd Hatcher, rw.D..,. Jr., 1980, Thin-skinned tectonics in the crystalline southern Appalachians: COCORP seismic reflection profiling of the Blue Ridad and P.iedmont, discussion and rep)ies: Geology,
- v. 8, no. 5, p. 211-216. s
- 39. Witherspoon, i-{. D., and Roeder, D., 1981, Master faults of the southern Appalachian Thrust Belt in Tennessee: "
EOS, Trans. of A.G.U., v. 62, p. 403. , m
- 40. Pb,ipps, Bend Nuclear Plant Preliminary Sd[3ty '
Analysis Repc rt: Tennedsee Valley Authority.
]j 41. ' Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Fi,n,a1 Safety)hnalysis Report: '- Tennessee Valley, Authority.. s.
f . , , - .. Q230.?R'15
, ,f
[
]
/ .
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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 Zoback, 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 82-6 84,1978.
- 5) Behrendt, J. C., Hamilton, R. M., Ackermann, H. D., and Henry, V. J. , Cenozoic f aulting in the vicinity of the Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake zone: Geology, v. 9,
() 6) no. 3, 1981. York, J. E., and Oliver, J. B., Cretaceous and Cenozoic faulting 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 Conference, 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, Atlantiu - 3 1st 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.
(Gg 0230.lR-17
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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. 568-572, 1979.
- 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, 402, 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, O 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 Charleston, South Carolina area with seismic refraction - a preliminary study: U.S.
Geological Survey Professional 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
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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, in Rankin, D. W.-(ed.) Studies Related to the Charleston, South Carolina earthquake of 1086--a preliminary report: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 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
() 26) Abstracts with Program, v. 12, no. 7, p. 3 89, 1980. Bollinger, G. A., and Wheeler, R. L., The Giles County, Virginia, seismic network - Monitoring results, 1978-1980: Earthquake Notes, v. 51, p. 14, 1980,
- 27) Bollinger G. A., and Sibol, M.S., Fault source models for Virginia carthquakes: Earthquake Notes, v. 52, p. 61, 1981.
- 28) Bollinger, G. A., The Giles County, Virginia seismic zone -
configuration and hazard assessment: iD 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 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.
O 0230.1R-19
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 ("' (>) Question _230.28 (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 i 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 to 200 feet. Geotechnical investigations at the site ;
have indicated a depth of weathering in the Knox not I exceeding 100 feet. Consequently, with a minimum depth (~N of cover above the Knox of 450 feet, subsidence problems
\~ will not occur beneath the CRBRP site.
0230.2R-1
MiENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Besp0Dsc 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 decreasind with depth. The development of karst f eatures at the surf ace and at depth in the rocks of the Knox Group is well documented. Sinkholes and cavities are very f requent 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 surf ace which was subsequently beveled and covered by the Chickamauga Group. According to local experts and available references, this paleoka-ce unit is now a very competent rock. The ancient solution ca tes, 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. 0230.2R-2
I AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 k The only areas of karst with active solutioning exist within zones of active weathering, at or close to the contact between the Kuox 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 unconformity 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 depth of weathering, it would not be necessary to conduct hypothetical analytical studies to determine the maximum size cavity related to depth and strength properties of overlying strata. a 023 0.2 R-3
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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-2 06 2. 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. O 1 O 023 0. 2 R-4
AMEt0 MENT XV JULY 1982
\
s_f QUESTION 230,3R (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. RESEONEE 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 other 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. N
) *Delcourt, P. A., 1981, Personal Communication to Law Engineering Testing Company.
i 0230.3R-1 l l l I
l AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 The distribution and state of presentation of the terrace deposits along the Clinch River is not documented in the geologic literature; theref ore, 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. How ev er, during the geologic mapping at the site, the general distribution of terrace material was plotted (PSAR Figure 2.5-5). Terrace deposits f orm 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 suf ficient material exists in the near vicinity of the CRBRP site to permit 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 conj unction with 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 of fsets in the terraces on the regional scale, while smaller scale of fsets 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 023 0.3 R-2
i i AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 l O the PSAR, other lines of evidence were sufficient to conclude that all structural elements including the shear zone are ancient ; and are not considered capable. l l O 1 4 i i O 4 Q23 0.3 R-3
- I !
- u
!l
$ '{,!f -
9: . ?,.
- ll
(
,j)' h '.
^
l >
,f I j , ;
., . J ;w /
(a
~ '
i
/ l1:. -
,:" ;,f. ),
. '. ' '),(* vf'(tf,1
. e. 'E E -
/ ' ;a,',w
- i- / ,(. ic,3}.
, .y *,m 1,i1; ,' \
" c*'" *"" *='""
.t., . Ns.,;:. ~:/)pw. **
?
s' ,n' g. ,.,y,. ',s ;,b ,. \
,i j'p/ .
h - i n, s.. .
/. .... . , /' . . **
' s's . \
,E..A. O E ,,,, T ,
Y G ' ,/ / d^
/ :j
\
' ) *n i1\ ,
} {'l .r ;) g. / ,o9, : e ,. ' ..a i i,
/ ,. 4 u 5. . E5
,w x c v- .
i w I w f
- I,. 'g ..
w J/- *s.,#
.7 RE' RESENT A YlVE ST RIM ES AND DIP 5 OF BEDDING
/; : ,' g .D,,\
- .. \ . . .
\ . /sv /<
w \ ,. -
'c , .
N w.m z u w m ~~c'~ ~ gb I s . 4 g '.g _ , . . . . .
,,,',, X%.Qv' (.8o\-
Ns . Vyt a g. aA s.
,,? ' .. .
. l.,x x
-\
s
'x q; ;,/
-i,t. g' g.
//,
;p'
' t.,
g j\ , 5 ) y ) x ' .ci 3 3 i.g,f,,e{Qk.~.:M4, E~
~
<'~
. , , .; . . .4 l
'% . J.v.
- y. <
i
\
l
. , . y: . ;:.. -/r) s.
- L pl : ' sd . (.' "7
@@ l 5 : -. $ " ., ,' - .
. / r- m
-< g
- . ,. . . . .,g '.
M:.L.h .
~_ s lS 5
~ _ _ .
g Figure 2.5-5 Site Geologic and Physiographic Map 9 O O
AMENDMENT XV l JULY 1982 OUESTION 230.4R 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 period. 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 f t. 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. i
*Manacement of Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste, ORNL ERDA 1553, Sept. 1977 O
l l 0230.4R-1 _ __
MENDMENT XV JULY 1982 OUESTION 230.5R 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. REEPONSE 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 and 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. i O O 0230.5R-1
i AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 QUESTION 240.lR 4
~
Information Requirements Relating to Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain Management. (Definition of Floodplain: 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 ef fects (i.e. , pre-construction floodplain).
- 2. Provide details of the methods used to determine the floodplains in response to 1.
i 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 analyses need not be supplied. You can instead provide the reports from which you () obtained the floodplain information. 0240.lR-1
ANENDMENT XV JULY 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 l levels, both upstream and downstream.
l 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 l each of the items (structures, construction activities and topographic alterations) identified in 3. above. Alternately, justify why a specific item must be in the 1
l floodplain. 1
- 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 to re-locating the structure, construction activity or topographic alteration out of the floodplain.
O 0240.1R-2
41ENDMENT XI JULY 1982 RESEQHSE
- 1. Two streams are adjacent to or within the CRBRP site: the Clinch River and Grassy Creek. In addition, there are eight small, intermittent drainageways that flow through the site area, as shown in Figure 240.lR-1 and Figure 240.lR-2.
Storm runoff from these drainageways will be controlled by site 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 Figure 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 0240.lR-3
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 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.lR-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 t'ae 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 O
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 f rom the 1 percent chance flood occurrence. (b) Barge Unloading Facility The primary function of the Barge Unloading Facility (Figure 240.1R-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. l Q240.lR-4
MiENDMENT XV JULY 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 f rom the facility and on the railroad all of which will have a 2:1 slope and grassed berms to mitigate any impact f rom the 1 percent chance flood occurrence. (c) Discharge Outfall Facility The function of the Discharge Outf all Facility (Figure 2 40 .l R-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 Rivar.
Runoff treatment ponds "A", "B" and "E" are located in low lying areas within the projected one-percent-chance floodplain. (Refer Figures 240.lR-7, 8 & 9, respectively.) Practical O 1 l Q240.lR-5
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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 240.1R-7.) Pond "B" - The sewage tre ' ment plant, waste treatment lagou../ equalization basin and warehouse would have to be relocated to less desirable and practical sites. 3 (Figure 240.lR-8.) Pond "E" - Physical constraints prevent this pond from being constructed within adjacent railroad / access read 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.) O O240.lR-6
N4ENDMENT XV JULY 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 Qasite 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. 0240.lR-7
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Onsite_Eailroad O 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. Offaite_Eailroad 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 travelway and shoulder o Rugged topography of Pine Ridge (east side of Bear Creek Road in the vicinity of Oak Ridge Turnpike) No practical alternate offsite railroad alignment exists. Adverse floodplain impacts will be minimized by: o Maximizing high ground routing where railroad is act adjacent to Bear Creek Road (Figures 240.lR-12 and 13.) i b (l> Q240.lR-8
l AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 () o Placing required railroad supporting fill at the floodplain perimeter where the railroad is adjacent to existing Bear. Creek Road (Figure 240.lR-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. O Consequently, non-floodplain alternatives cannot satisfy the functional and practicable requirements of railroad and access road, both alignment and mode. O V 0240.lR-9
' / *,
/ 'l v; j / , AMENDMENT XV
/ : r ri *@% JULY 1982 u@:4-IW [ ' 1 5L iN D O I t-a- !
s r c ., c menm
.cLmu
.-8 .),
, .. ,* t.' O C3 C
.i t f
}
't- ' t p 3
.tc c.
o
$ 833 L > Q) ccm l z -J s t' u as - a
=
i
, i *'f (d a ' !
f {' -ue a c in L - mo B . I ll:.la.' 8:g* . j! * ! a cJao3 07 *
', $ f.4 1 3 b SIENe
- h. t ..i}b s ' g ;! a,,; { .fI II co tLt o 3 o
- - O, 4-! .-
it
.r.. 9, 2 1 : 1 .!
f:1
?: ~ tfit ai < 5
- a c - o 5-1 .'
3li,g v o u U F-
- 1. ,I. l i g' r .j5', I'.*f s I
. ..i g .'i ,!
s :. i ; t,.f.l 9 e.
, f* ,.. 1.l
." ~.d i:g r 3,agat
. i-e I
4 0 4 ~; l 0 - C.*5 OI 6 8.aJ 3 E 3* D 15 2 - ~ " - s u. ,
,a , . . ~ ns.
/- ;- L' T, : .'. t f,i . . .. ~
\ '. , I.. 's, c c -
~.s .
/. :. nU p . ; ::::. , '!:1 q- :p//- . gI ,*Y.Qg', f.x' . . N .8.o U5
~
. ' ,. -- '. .Al[ R ' u ' .*p. ,i,'W ' , ~
(, ..
.-' '.., {. ' :. ;., .
,% i >
, - g . '. . .r.
. I[f -@3. )., .' h.f.5' .*. 5$ ^ ~ "
. . f. . . . -\ \ "%o
,/: .*
K' '.. ~.l'f.Y. ..L $, . ".
% ; e- u
,k;,'..dw'O,5.h.tjan.:.If s, , , . . . -
~ ~ ' ' '
- _' 1
,e ,1 i s..;.,.,,y,?.?'((l}...?.Q x - "- m -~,~., ,,.. s
*;I (-.a
.n. . :
.,gj'fp\w.
-; '- . . V: h
' w.- :.::
.I$
g ~'y(h.:\h. l :;:. i.' 1 ; Y p ll h j ge .. :u:}, x' ts N
.. :(m/,4. \ -
.+3y- n.l s% hJ p.1,i k' 8 W .'. !ii'l&;i .
M -i -n--Ch :
-wQ ir6.: 4@i'bY'l,um
'Cs w @l.;l lf it r.
-M lS?U' IIbJN c:.' \/j . . e[' 44
.~<v..
s ae Q 4..#u@d. m
.VIQk.pF.
N; syifLQ.:(,h.0,p;f 4 9 w}ap
. xy. pi: : grd.n.
g mju c,#\.y,Q.,.\ e:in v.: w d.---".1 ri a,6:i k s
- s u% lj
. , ~. l -
t f. q jL .%. _ Q ' % '., ; [ M}[ [. h I W f. s h { M, W e g j; p%.ll. v v C. x ~.. ., pgfpn v .{- g,..
.J slp uafl.a, 1
- : s- m e m.n)p(g 4
.rp9 w ,_y
p<v. s - . _/_ <
-C__
e ; Irs4' 7.i.b,=,. gL;L1 'gl1j,g,s x ,-
... -l , i sg -.
j'\ { ; - s-Nf; A . v'p... 3 w,- _. I
=y . N II g < ~ . .
I<d
%) 9
> ll u nie s oM o 'y o g g
s -~u. N;c(/ - s y~ ,. , y
- ~ . . .
\l i h1i # l I I I ll g \( ; - - . . .
!!(fl J l l l 4
; , , . , , . a , s !.I I I I i i i .i i
! I I$ .! !
Q240. lR-10 lllllf!!.!l'""l l
... a ?.ei. K %,' '.
.. / .
w.,ee , we% *
.1 % u ..
,s,en,s . ..::i:. , g,.;,%m3. k. k\ M ih.'S.d., ;:. A~ f k "
. N%v$ 's, N
_' yQ , ' 9 s. - 5..f~ t .:
\.'
Y . s.
.s
- w. g,.n lr\?.
l.. v%.%.~y s ~\ .
~'1'.
v.
~MQish p/f%g\'{'. ;....
' .s q % a ,
- w. %n:4 'h s su s QN.tc.f..r 4'.*
s
- I, t Nr ~y. n 4
4,* w%. m. , u . 1
,}9.\. fc &t. .\ j w< Q .
M
. 1,
*y g, w?,. @. =a #
s.1, 4 ,
'~~' ,
' 9 N, wgw< . .
, 1 >
4 ev. % y.
$'?
*: t
(..). ./
'~
,.. %, '.. , '. .. , dh
\.. y 7 .
n
.t .
w , :k:.s%;;"g*,{ oc .cs a!.4 t.>..! 2q.9.. :w fi
.s 30 .
.o.!m '
<. 5
. g'
,. . e.\ . f f?t/..,% y '
s
. 3
. 3.
- e. u e g
M. 3q.. y. k[.:., ; ., .. ,.g.
, (. ..
t ',e
.m.a1v. .
. w f...N3 @g._ Q, i',f i
Q.y,p%1g a
\
. q. .
.e s., ,
,g. N ..p
, ... .N,. -, .mq>,,
s f ( Q. s . .
't'WX} % j j/i g' %.y 5
/ w.
- w. 6.,..,. .
+
N,/
'[
s; 'h'; .
.g #. ', \,- I f , g.p .
/ a.
p,:. .
llsfe', .-
e 4
%+}.*
g.
.n.,, ;;, ,v y ~
-l ,
., J. s g, 'k'i l ' g r. q \
4
,n.
i t s, g
;. O 0
' ~~ ;y
' A;: ,::.v. . *
. I k.e'N, e
.s.
i s,
'\
.,'\' . ' g,-s,, , ~, 4 ' ,n .. v.
. . . ,
- 4; Y. . +,
g c m ' 1g*g *. >
._ ' .,p'.f . ;z %,',w, ,','
~
'{
1 u
'l
.. n.
l
- ( .,
~
j e
.'.-[:~:;,}
Q a
.o is,-l{5 \, .
\
**% '* I -
W . y,
,s . .,
M g N.lQ .,,. s,., 3
""* - - [, i g g , , a 4 , , , . .
~,oh * ' ll; \
, ,s. .f,*
1 p
$',t.. ,;. g 'e "m'
Q >s y' 3 *Q-lK*
*~;,
'?*3 "1 wt< l .v ..f.
l S.gid.k .o t g
*h y.;,.,q'm(f=***% p# f,f.,. ~.,s,.,.Q
,f. .ep' ,
- ',a, c% .,.[, f' $
~~? t \.. .$
~~ ~. -: ,-;/;jf /~N'.~
f :"~. 5. :.. *** , c . s. , g G' * \ m
'.,j s. .
.Q:4. ~ }Q;y, .:
G%QMg mm y& =N% je
.. ,' $ s.
;s m
l . ' '- N,
,d 3,;Q.y z l\{45;~5m % % % b q y$Q % \
g' j!~Q
~
~
- s. '. I ., . N,f
\ r ,Q - ,
y\ ' 1.,
'l'B$tthsR J , . . . t!
,*. Q tl' \
,s',/ m' L sj_r.
ifp m v- :~
/
f .
\ ,'.
g.
'/.-:
< . K..s,yd y -
s' . t.
\
e., h f, \u. -
.V .g :\ \. .
h \L, -
+. .c/.. . %,**
C - s. Q240.W-"
l
. . c, :* : *- ~ - e
$ H il1~ Q FIGURE 240.lR-3 CRBRP Site Access Road and Railroad fC;jYyg/
One-Percent-Chance Floodplain ~- . .. f 4l; 9
. <sf?
.s
,I . ,.
- 5. .cs
~ =, 43,
.. ,.,., .~
g% -s .q'..I I
--,,r ,
- . . . . , I I ,l 4"?r [ . \. s
;, /:T # . , . .
j x- -:-1 / , . ; 3 r r r,,
- I g
f . . /. 3 h V.
~.':. *:.':~ .
- ~. "~ c
.Y ! t: , ' - o* 'A'. '.
% ,: z;;~- .
~-.~.~.
. r,,
i .t ; ..Lj".]. . , U- .\ 7~ i
-I:d.'_ [ .'., *
,~~'l I
- ,/ / I*' ,..J'[
L l'
..., t
- Q -. . .
f':.. i I _ -- I : : ~~ t.t 1 .' '.!I'.
;l_; ll> i j '"'
- e , l ~, , . z. ~- m i, I-Percent-Chance l t' -
's -
Flood Elevation p ' 7 l . l/
.s l*,,',~, ,, - - f ; ~' ~ . . I ' 9 :; l b I' .' ita r
~~.,**
yj , / 't
' ~....f I'. ., ,-e,;
t
. . . . . . g ., . . , ,
c - - -
, lw ,is
--3 w. .
~ , .
./,, ]. f 9 j . 1. . __
N m l , . - ~ . . i c.. , 1* ,. . / 1 : W o h s. a q. I o, , ....N....x_ e '. . . ,
; 4 1, . .) '. L' . . . . ,
}. ,
\ ~.. / -
, +
_j> g ...*
- o , .* . - y .
~ , -,. . ,~ f 7.3,/ ,,;Q. . .
. + .
- . , . . , f : s..sn 5 rat eet.
i
) . . .,
c., e/l : fr. aca n t ', oJ
/ , ,
I %> /'t ' =
~
"l f ' l Perc e n t- Chanc e , ., \ * <
,[ . i ,Yj >i ;/
~ "
-~
[ 3.1. . - me., w o v.
,.uass.o
- r. " If.-}./
q hFlood Elevation
/ *
,l
. .. -. .- .~. .:~. .. , ., :: ;,; ,~ .;..- . . ., '
.% , t .s '; . , ,, %,)-Q J, - . . ~ .
' %' ua
*,~ ,, ,. ,
. 2wcn
^ "'N*^
.l ,
, j '*; 'Q' ..
f; ,!,' 'll., {t'; } ,
, : =.=, : .',
W"' ;- .
.\l. ~-
?%7
. ; 3 ; ,? If r * '~ ~
i r: I .* . i; j;f % %
. :.s ; ~ ~ ,.. 1 ,
, ( .
s- . - -
; ., ; .. , , , ,__;l -
ll
,1 i %W
,j-h, y y qa,n h
- - , ~ . , . . - , ,
, p y .e s < ... . r e es . s , f ,. j. l f o..a s r7mo I .,p j l ,. .. . .,.. .... j !!
.h f. .lf .~.-
= H]E'
-~~O y ,Il ) ... ,
., ,l.} . l ~x
. t. .
, .~'
+;'t l;7, ; ,5$ y %. f f 'k I @Q
' ~~
* - ' " ~ *
- n i , ,. n.
= i~ -
*. ,1 -< z ls.,l w4 ,; ,. c . ,.q.-.. . t ,,;, ,.
,,t , o
-. ,-. ...a- L' v
\ : ,f:
n
- ~ ~ "
.%. . .,, ." r. . wC co -
_,,,.y- . , .-t....'...s. N --4 a::- O O O
[ i (
' _N
.; % .'. ,. N. v
/
/v"
.' ii . q -; -
L .
. ., L
~% ,.
4 ..
, ~~. :: . 's . . . .
. . , -i . '~$), : .*
_ l- q .. . .. .~.' ;.; ..,_*
, c. .j,'! -.
- N... x .. . .
+
,j'.
. . .... 1; ( .,
.:;: ,*x: * ..
. ..
- s
, ; l. ; , - . .
,, , cg. . ..
s
~c -
...... . . - '. .; , .1 ,.c . e '.
,. o
, ,_~% i s. ..*::- */'. j'.'
s... ~.,'.'..., g ., e .
- f. ::. : .:. *, .
1,.n..w ' j;/ 2 < f .f,j -.1 , . - - .X,
...3 E
. . . . . g. u% -
.,. s.<
m
'i,
\- *i .s)'. ' I * *..
....~..}
i
~
'i is .. . . . , , . s.
\. s i
.- a . . ,
I .t - l
,o ~~ ,, - **. , '*
. ,;, M * -
5;.;, = r ge. . . . . ,
+ -, -
..t. _ .%
. . . 'p .- - 1.
.e.. ! .-_
- f. g.,
! ,s. < * - ****" *
. , . 1 , ;;; , - , -[
.5 ..
t, . . i l.. ~.; .;. = . + 2.., . . .u .:... .,, l-, .: : ,'. ' I .,., s N. 7 xj ,,,., wgs _b. %... h,.':.: '.. i si J . - # i 9 __ .- 1, . - c . - ' y -- .
-W c .
. . , . -, s.. . -
N -
.!i.pc. .v ' . ,W. . ~ ...
e . n. , u. . . .,. m, s.
- i. ..,. , .
e p, ,. 'X, ..,...
<g ,, ,
.y ....._.s .
n , e,
. $ t -
s 6 ,J e f .- -2
- 1, ,, -. : f :- ..s ,.- *:,
x, a ., e .s 1, .:
~..
w \ ,
- g. 3 p:.
.~=,.
1i
, ,, , g h, gy
\ , . , . n.. as _ _ ,
' 'q , .
.s 9 \\.
.l S.. '
W .t j;. FIGURE 240.lR-4 CRBRP Site Access Road and
- v. . .
2 .- ::: '.* Railroad One-Percent-Chance u
-- ~
.c,.... .. :v. .h t ,- .
.. F1oodplain s\ ', .
' ~
, . , . ..,.j il q ll 1 ,!.
- ,..e.,=..,-*- >
~
.+w ':. , ' .l a
m rs .
=- / 7
/ q .. \ *i -
,.' . # ' .. lbi ll -
.j ),;- .
'* %.~ ...' ,,/:?1 :lf-'j %y%.71 l', ,: -
). .; n...-. --
i ;! 1.:..,' . ,, l Rl% 14 4.. .g
-.g l 3 3,
. .*/ .' /*
/.
p 8
,g . C C
'8 l
/ ' / / #. l %
-/ . F.<-C
-{ .
Nf / C
.a- = W. _. . gj -
a .y, / , >' i . -. - -- - l t ,o m
.s 1 ,.- wz 1 ., N -4
=0 l
t 4 l
/ 2".*'.***- J **. L./
n .- =. ,, , p; _ _ ,, f 7 aw %. I ~
- /? *
~ . - g: =
'.s..
% ** // y ,( ,
/ .N
. .. f
/s _y*,,.,* s
,s !. i' 2
/., .
.- i, 4 . ~ , . - - /
7.?. .'
\
y ,. -- s.'t
\1 ..
- O.'.:: - \
p ~ Tk, q ' f'//,
-Percent-Chance .{ d. 'gI
,1
-- / f , Flood Elevation .. i
- . . - - - ),*/ \ ,- kr c.s. ,__
, .. ,.- *s s -~
;. . .. r --
.s,, . s g-' . . s%
,(
-. N
,i s,.
o
%N
'. A' /
y .R / " e sx >l b :.-
~
s
- n e
/ . ... .I , I.
s.. g % "t ( I-i s. i t 0 9:q, 7
,,.._.l 4.-
. ...N.'. ,-
h-~'""*f V ' /
.,qrf,2 -
V,t. ,j , f 3.6/
&Ql/
~ ~ ' " "
\
p'/ s,j . {' ,
,, ffiiE5.i~~~'
ps . 59:r g _s 1.sg' ,Jf,,* 6 @" FIGURE 240 lR-5 CRBRP Site Access Road and
,p'g , ,1 b,.. d,y.
O Railroad, One-Percent-Chance Floodplain
~g p C .,< s -. -.
, s . _ . _
o m y.psh :s - E ' , 1lI
,/ 'WY1 g4,NN p' :
. .8 i
'\
% ./
c- E, r- r 1 . *E #5 Q,W WW X ~~ ^ %3 50 o s% 3 x O O O
Pi; , m-p- ,. v,..- rg
,, r -
e ./ jz'i
' *- I'
/ I ;
.E
< s *
. '* o ' '
' e
%s , ,
> m >
v.' ,
,3 ' AfiENCHENT XV
,- s.
.eI:-,5*f JULY 1982 t* u. '
f5 C f
,x r ,<
A. Q^ w ,/ "% mn .,.
~ 1.,a
' \~.
'a c ct mm x X = 8
+'
,,.~# ,
c- \- ,.. w <-
^ "*
- t'.. ?M
~ v , 5 .** _
/ ,
. 38 i fi< t:'.'
P -
. l-. y ,,,,
w
.0 F, :
e.' ..
.msev .c. ,
e ,, y. t
- b. 'M
.,a- /
, s
%*._, . '. . . 9gt. .
l . :.t- . *-' .T \ ,,5 % [cc - o ut g (
!!.-p
. i u ,
- e. <?..N; ec _
\, jll
,- + .
s *
. [ ; *5
- aj g ysN
( p 1/ d . .\ .. .. -.v1 mos ey; [: , . , f, 7,. - \. . t r
- gd- .f 8
.. . .- \ )g;. :,) c s4. J -
.ce-g l7y 4
e
.' ,l
- m os /
oj N.r.) . -
,( .. Glml
*2 s eiy
. y c; h\ : '
r m!.,-
/ '~ '. ?
c-
,,,hlhi.
Y v e
. , l ' , .3 s .: , s w
,-- /. ' ! Ir
% . .. E y . /' e saa s l.'t 4 "'
p !) e i f DI ' ** "
- fI*2 2e *1Jt ,,, ,!5'$g .f*ay N,* I ' lh.1 l
/ /' 'k' I:'f M -
- c3 y N --
- . :I
.- . 3 ta. #
,e i e # h,.I f /p, ,I # N J' h,q/
- s. .* *
- w y
.",') - -]T
- l
- k. '. .' ! R : b! .: .
. .%)e z. p .* ;1 ;s, > w
/., y y-
, p-
~. A, , e m
%., j dl l .f /. . d p. f;i. .. s . .:
.- x, <u;9 . .
. -.L .. i y 3g,f)' V qlI;' -
pi .- f. in, /,? J, ..I '
.~
,'p .
lp ,.* I - h I h( / _.;i ,
'\ t. . h. iy t
44
' ,.h ;.,'. a?? ' jY- s; /~
%,,N )
,I[i:/ ,'/' b$ !, ,'Q #
I , ,, [0I , a, ,,.:. -
. @.. Q(\'h. k. l- .. t j j(~</
M.{ f .r\ h p..i fs~ f .', - / e' \.k Y
* 'l, ').f l'i B. ,Y.A ;j.j,N '.\ k* Y k .'tR.
j ,l - f r'. : '. !*'. '. i- fIh - a
-\
'C
- l tf'plg. f '. -Y.:t s p - .a l %~., (, N. .. . ; t ).
/ ;/ A ;. . Qp i -
n. v.:. N .,. . .'s-s
# / '
., ,f r.t x -
I! r s til . l. h. s,y\ p\N?kN'/d d+.v p D) s'l'b.
,I .
. t.Y s
. y
. I ;:- in 6 J,$. i . 2.I .'k f.' O ' N N s yii, D .2gN ,.s.[,.5. W 'N 8 23 V . :- N g.
f , . *. , , .~~
. ' !.'N.
"s a.a :} A. -;,d : r ~7 - + \ ' h. ? .: ..:. N G- '=s>p' 1p a t
-J
~- .u ...t -
, [s - <iC,' g. %<$, A . .
l
- -c -
s,' $,'*-.k *.. q $.M.( #
,l Mj. ,
'* N' ,ji k - '- #
- fji jhi jd lii hij ),
lIl! i .
#4 ,;,#*o[ 'N
- .w s.....
llm'! s/ ,
, s,.,
* /
e r
Q240.lR-15 7 :
4 p
/
/
/
~M
i AMENDMENT XV 2
%, = JULY 1982 3 +
\ -
= . i e-i 8
s, ,f, i, ,i t .F k A g -
\
a f
. , ,s . .ni. .t . . s - s .
it,i;f - 3 i y' i 5,jg), , i ';. i ": i .- -
*l *: g)*
O_> 4
-l.
y . ::-,
' h;t 1p :.
k ^g .',, i.
/
- v. . . / pa'.
i - on ,\. .
., iy / ,
J '. , ' h . I.v,a i l
, g '..*' , *
< ,o
',s ,k '\ ,
b/ 1,7 ', II Nj" r i e to .
. i 'J t-
', /g '
0- V _;, . , ,
.!I 6, % >,( -'
h - g' p i 3 \/ p - e 'cD.' ',(I lf / nfr 4 I N & s 'JO rd O '. g
- f f %. \ k
/
I[J . iI.* 3 U , s bo ' ' ' a
) [ ', 'f, e . .w.. . , .'. _, _ *>~\,
s N*k..,'@[o
\
% ,j -
R h = 'd h~-]?l}{
- h,,
l< ,,3 ' u i ** 8 4 C. .) *
- 0 -
- i. , i
\~\i\l,i \' \ h- %%v ,
2
@Epe cy,,:M': 4 g \
0 2 o a, r z io jo ,1.
) ~:
,i i ": ~oc
,O h, -
/~.,\..\ W'\',
~\
- s >6 v- > 0 < %'/ i b '4 ol ? A 9 \~~ ' ,' O l
Q $_70W 2<0c. 05 '..,1 s ,- - 0 t=- t 2-\' A -
.H \ a- - -
J . I' i ' 3 % 2 00,o s as, jb 8 -l lN
/
d ;q Q' 'O Y - p<e2 w . r;' i +> ,d. - O ', s g < a. 40 % <-> 2 <>- U 4 1, a>.P o p ' I. ;' si
,t y) Cg \1, s.
- . s' z ,
,?.
f/ -
X upr[? -
<^ i s ;.
G < J ,
.' 4' = .. .
x\p/
\ l. s, , 7 k % . ,
6e rc ', ,h
, ,~, s
- h. h,.
{L
%< /'k ' ,*",;
'l ) )J '
i; . ! , }',} 5 }5 . \ ,' //<
] N. -
,- / ' . :. si9 >: 4 ' ',,o
.' ,/av /f
.s i 1st .
- ) e o 1, \ s. . s </
- r. 1,i i s a z y i '
. f 0f?- / ' , FS k u. o ;.4 r .. -
, , o g
/I'qf,. i1:s
! m t
. ', E g m' '; ~ '/*"2
) ? , ,
f', .'d 7 J
, [ hO f Uf< f 1
%? ~;14,$(' '
,i',
, , YN *
, & w*33
..,'. n .i
' . : ,1 tu w 4
& g -t
./. .- ,-
/ zy' ,,'t Ql w2 .37 g'[
a O. C: E'IGURE 2 4 0. lR-7
-'S L2 I MEa 4uEt M g n.
ua 2s - W 6 a 2F0
- om "u ireatment Pond ' A' Vicinity O' Q240.lR-16 O
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
/- T.
,U FIGURE 24 0. lR-8
.6<a
+
Treatment Pond 'B' Vicinity
-e
/. - 9 s ... _ . . .
s': a.' . s&W,/CW . j .. . ,/
/
mi./;,.3.;,. 7,~-,-
\ .
y
..V q . c.
r ~ f t .j WAITb SAA LAKE - GMel fWtit ..: , ii
,3'.,8 T [r..-*'.2*..',I".,,*$. se.
- f. o
..--:....--W hr,,I.",pp.,R.-p
' . ,; '.-h(s -
= = . - . .-
m s......... . . .. .4 . ?. .7.4,
,.. > . - - - ~ ~ '
---. - %. -.r. ,, e, r . .-
.'N
/
- 1 E [N/D-[ .E.} ' ** h'& El ., . ,Ylv("'f .
/ '~ 7.-2 n::: . ~ ~~g~. s:/ ... 4 a
'- +'
V,~ Y k*:5.!N'f; h !qli( h, 0 , .~. :.~': '.:h .4 . . , . :: '
-+e . .... % ,.- e s - w-c e ~..s .,x.,:q.:,. 4,,y,,.
;-..p ,- f. p-
. . .~. .. .. ,. i l,'".#dN ; . ,' f M--- m-_ ace-a ~. '
.j . {-
s
,,,i 3,t
, i ., , ;, . . .
w .= -e.
/ ,
~I
.. ..- sT, 7/*e ,. -.
.. -...,.',T* .. g. d _'. ...
,a. , p.- , n,.
U I., ,;
', N, ,.. %
,47
~.m..
r a; . .. -.a... ..-%..J . lr u3 t
..' W..... .s?'*
l . 1, N,
. , . . , -.T y ,4 .
. ..l. '. p -i l
l
- v. <s.o
. s.. .fg
- T"., ... _ _s-1 ...
, . . . , . , . i .;( :. 4; .i 8fi t '.
..', - 'j ; (.3 3 5' s,%,t .
i
' ,-JYd . ' . 'y, * ,', ' ' l l ' '
- et l a l!. . jl , .
1)g
': .. .y} j A, j' .a; re .'.l cv s' - ',
- a f.
6 l i ', dy i ', f',,s, ..d7i 1,
- M *c ' .,:.j ' - ) *[ -
I 4 e s. .. .
, ,N. .
p.) g
) -
%-) - : , , . , e
.:'*
- _ .~ #, j, i ,v. . -
.. n, . , ;3 *
.e y p,/ , .. s, e t';, ,. p gj rgj W m3
. . ,j#..er ',
- f. . .G.'. .2
- l .
, , ;,. .,, .,. , . . ., ... p' 4,
..ees.i, I a ,
i n ll
/ .., g*
9 :c . ', ' . .W'+y.;y5
~ . .
1
- i
,l. -1 j- \, ' , - : ..
.. .e. . .e , #
W e ,
' :.;' . *:- 2' f::: @ ..f r,5 l 1:y nr
{- ' i! .a. .l F1 4 g ts5TsWe . 1
'~ ,,;,,/M 9"
- . m . % -.- . m a m s.,r 7 1
,; / 8 i
t 3 owe Psg.c6 w f . . .
..~~., yogp j e'
cHArc FLoop-nu etev. s.2u,-
- W.". h / . .g,a d J$ /, -t o,,$j ,.
,i l
}j3 3
,7
, . ; ., ;- : .'l, w& l; j '
^
b t ;,,h ss ,. . g -t '
#~~y$(,CI j1[ll f {$!
- j
- p , mr ...../ g:- g @@;g,M,5~~0j'..i W.
- u. -
y : g_. .1
. n.
-s e,=.w --= ~
- m% mu. .o.
~;&
s w a.. t.k'3 % .
~ ...
^Iff 'I,U'?.-ik Y,.. .'
f , 6 f,9.-. v" ,. -. " ..-e,qxf. 2d;.a
" , }: . . ; . . ~ l ; Rs t.rpo..- .. . :: . n , \ , ..-. -, .. &. . .
,l-
, c- ~
. -.....-%s.cw. , i 4
/(Q,-
.,~ > ~
1 : < : .
] y a e-
.,e.
; W,m - . ;.: -: . , , . -v. e i.1.m [t.,4' ,._ f. ..... . _.w ,,re T m r.
i : :
- e. ,
- , . . . . v.
s . . u- !. x,. . - ... . . . .....3, n a r,t u o w ,
- i. ; . , .
.. . y ,
g(> [,' hji i k E4X1u tEATiod
\ ' Cyp ' j.h . ,' .',-; . , ,5, ' ., f ',,j
'\'t 'l a;
f& L - 3
,W ,: '
t sAsws
, ='Zn= - i- ~- a Uy , pr &r: )
~~.
'(/
Ig
.a--
-L._ Ag,, *\ j Q , .e-{- .
j' p?. . 'y ActuwA s ws toaam - ' I'(
!\ p[ 3,7 14 v4t*STtJitBED HeH GAco@ \
' '.* L Fbwp B oTT. e t . g c,' +, i mj,
( cop 4 CEPTOAL.)
/) ONE PEPCENT CHANCE FLOOD PLAN. ELEV AT tb'/ TOE OF DAM Q240.lR-17
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
..4, S . *e. , ,. , , ,i
~~
,. .. FIGURE 240.1R-9 O
,. i' . U 'i.
i' \ -:-av\. .b ,,. ' - .. ' '.
,. $m p Treatment Pond 'E' Vicinity
'M. <
%.-(+x,. : s. p -
c' N - e y ,. 6 q, .
? N Q
N4 r.';' .'.x j 4 ,. . w, p. gv ' < C '. _ A' , . s
\.'. \
\ #.. f-
'\e er 2
. ss s s Q j ., >- o
'N*
. '. \* . . .3 e
# ./. , ,,
' .. h -
D
.'.',,f*,"' $ y
.s
,' s *, gV,,' . ~ ', ' . " '\T,i.[\,
. $ '- at, g
' , ~ . ' . , ' . ' . . . ..
.$ *1'n * \s; g.\ s g, . , . . .:. . . . p/
~
N':. ':, , m er
.\ {3 t .
, , = . i,*,, ,
.N,g -
\, , ,s -
.,- *g' .g g\ %\.. .' u.l,(',.,
k.d\ . aI .','. y 's 'i. cLc. 34
,,- s
*'of,,saf, . ., , # ,,'.,s,. ott s + .4
. .', wg
,.N 8.-
M* i. , lg. \ ,s(g .,% . y =
' . , :[I , . .s4 .s
*i i
.s ol e
..'s,,,,,
'gU 1y l'g, ,* * . ,
' Vs .
* ", % ',', 5 .'.,i. ..J5
=;.
- g., g3 3 )0. ,'.\ , . . . $
y.- s, , . . v ,, . . .r . g-
- s. '
. . s.. . .g' , ' . .
7, \' h g ', 9 g ,
.' .t ,' J. . ' ' i. . ,
?,./..
O g s .
,'.y.*' ,,
.'; e. -
4 g '. d, . N '. g^t3d ',r. g. , ') , , O N. - ' i.
. i,J \ . -
[f .',
,- \',e,'s, . 'g,\ 4 p.J'r 3 y ;g..:i,-,-
2
- 3. . g. ;..
f . ..'f 3 m
<-; .t. ' ., >g. , -
. .i. ..t- ..
. " .>p;.n, ; --
E 'i p-(C
,E. o, s,.i, . .
. n\ s..
.. i, , s 'd .
es --s.( g ;
. ,. y, '
> . 6
.o,3 c. . .
4 .c.p,; s r. w ' .
\,'. ..<
% '1 /.3 p,.w.s.
,. %,.,,.'.F , m; A<\g\' , : g *, p,'e,c s, ,t -
y -- %: -
/ . -* g . : .' r g. * ,
.. y <,cs <h o -
- r. . . e,, ,
fg (<- ,..,,". ;H l.jc..)s.* g '..'. 3' ~ o.
', ,,N. .'. R
. p3 -
- 3. i' of ' ./ .. ,'," r1
.,( f' h-
'[,%. ;
~. 1, h ~whW $6 h. k ]x .-& ; ; 1.,. , ' .r i
3 T:
. : h.U s\ ,
.4y ' f. ',- R.-
. f': <
\.,.,[f._4-
~
.- ', ' ', f r . Q & d 4.p o s . o .(. - *'N -4 ; .' *
.,'-)rg~
s +x. ,gy. s u$ ... . \ . . Qy ( 2]hA .,, W
,'h'
,.,0, A ^5N';. $ ' ' Q'-
&% +N
- si '\% q6 'f,. *,/~. lp.
- h' y'Qf,.sy,'f.*
pf M:.c+.1.!. y\ E' 5.'.' , il h5, b 8
- ? *-
D!N ' ,#(// . Af M.%}*,\ e -{' g j ', ',
\ '. # * [l'g
.'.'4.'k 'h
, ; :If.
't ci- e g. \
t yO} ), i 2p9 O,.' , l,i.' 9 . .
- 7,*i.
l~?Q'
,\ '
qd)
- 4 .
Z> uaw t ,
.t * ',7,',-
fh, t'.jo,, 4 P" rs 4
/- . t.
N*. 1 V3 .g\s
, ' ' I.' \ $ ?.'* '
g 2 T V s.s l- I y ll- ?!,5 . \ '. .O 2 . Of -0 <s < e e4 uT , i
't 8
. Ill '.\-
!y 10 4 ~2 cl .2 ; ;* f~. . ,
l EO$ $ .'
',\'s , ,[, .^
i
', '.'j g w8.
2Jo Q(Xx 8 a J
/ '.
OEF
*Om 1 S.
'I\
ls c.
- l 1
I
FIGURE 240.1R-10 AMENDMENT XV
^ JULY 1982
( Access Road and Railroad Key Plan ( -
..A
. ,m a
To n _" gig:x;;,q, oak. R ipc.E. tg>g g, -
+p
.- ev wem s m ,
.I 9I
' 1 m m eita:be T N HWY 58 b N n..e - - -
! 3 N
o A E Itto6 E W ovsp PAM A r "
'I I ONI.M__y_ caem go O g%g 4 .
{ ALTER.MTe RP.
, GAtLANsg BEtosti -
f, ' BirAst. ctE62. SUPER.5Tauc, Tut.E-EoAo g
) .,
NITE . RAIL.stoAo - , 0 i (J_ _ L' - J I , g) BARGE UMLOADiLG A y FACILlTY % In 1 od St T2. 12. Ant.F o m.t>
~--
O /
/
(E) IE i I
/.
s 4 5
?
Y O 024o.ie->e
- - - - - --r
AMEiiDMENT XV FIGURE 24 0.1R- 11 JULY 1982 M ' Intersecticn Bear Creek Road and (CME- NIM M c Oak Ridge Turnpike (StG$WAy $$}
' \:f w
/,i.
- , l
~ g i
i
\
-l '
~- y "
l I l l .
- l; , g i I,! )
.;, ! ,/ (" ,
. : g I , I* ! ll t 9 l l' I : '
- I \
\ I I i j I
- l ' l lyy \t ; ,' I, y-f,'h:
1 NDl' f lIl',l g ll i , , \ $ I I I I I il / 5 l 1,.'
\
x' !: \'
.y p ,, I I
,llII.'.[Il'/-if , ,
IIf I N \ '% %f \ > l I r i I of 1 j , .
\
(
~
s s
%' ', ! I
- f. -- '
I[J i
\ %'- r,
-,s. >
/f .g' i5 [w.e.kllI x
( N hq ' ph'('j[]'4Neg N,, -
's k' i....
/ 4l 4' h N .
'l![ / 'I
.s ' (' sh
,a
-g l- / [Jh t*
- 7! s '(, N _ .,
R t. ROA D I
/ II )
* !'/
ALir And.E hlT l f< ,' /f !' ' ~* M ; 3' ,s r .,.
~C- 'O M RFA56 f '. 9O 't
. e.'q O N-l Srp,VcquRE f .. #'s -
\fl}.tl. [. I Il
[- '), Y j![ .(j .i \
. ! \ 1 --
, s
- ~,'
l/ ;) - ONE PERCEniT 0,1WCE ,
. WI 8, l,
/
I J ll' Il /i i ,
' \(\,. ~'
FLOODPLAnt G_ / II
/
- o. / , / s
~
[; f
.- ~~~ 3 N,,,- .
jl I E l'- ~ j
! I:'j j , ) ,
f 1 ', 1; '
; 3"l 1 ; f,, J , % / *
'~
I j.I .~I ;bl: ? ! ( ! !.jii :I !! -Q ' I :i i 3
' ',s' i ~
.w \
l :i 4 I
, f, . 9 ,
l ,(; 7 ;f/ / , 1!
. ~,,,
~, . : . ...i. 1,i
?
y~ N < l' ! q i ,
/
!; ', Jl l \ ~
, I'l l 2 / _ ,'
l
~ . \ l' l _ _ a
': . ,c : ,
N h / I czo.m 20 @r! .-m g i t
l
~
/7 //
d '\ N \ '
)fEl7CfM7t.,MNrg$ e ec .,c.d,
,-'/ff 7 **
s . 9,.\ fLoog ELEVAT1*J \ * e ( *- , AMENDMENT XV gJ-'# s % '.p!.j 4 ^; //
,f .
i e i g
'sge .c ,
eie .
,[ c.:w.cc -%*xema 1
- . wt .
,,// JULY 1982
. ,f ,
1 r
*oc wC S
- k. . /
p p-A ":=ta ,
'\ i*\ , N ' *' E , '
E* 7 7 7 6 l
,/[
g
. . .. n s.
#" "'" s .
$f \'l ~ '.'
y\/' // . .s
\ \-:
,7 ; i u;; , , ~ . - -
) .
S
-3
)k ' h
(
- - ' -/ /
5
- s. s \/ ,,y' / \.' '.'
- e. . u e. ~n j'.
1
"'N '/' 2"f 9 . 9 i c, a .
< x
- s su.ovuo e,
.s 1 -t -
)
,~
't i.
.e.
t
\s\ t s
g s36 ,.., 4 ,
'*ss / \~
'. g // si'p,
%. r 3d?. ' ' ~ i.' '
'k // KO. ,,
g , s
/
,;. .. . - . . 4 5
- l J .
~
y :, l
' \' * /
s. f:%.
. . 4,. . m ..
i IMs e ,, p 's-< r 5 d ; } / \' / r+ e Te e u .e.CA O
,,m. . / f
, m .-_.
s a.T
%%f f.
I u e. '. IF'ECc.6aT CUAMcG. i 1: Loco ELEVATI M
~,,
f,- , g
. '[ :-
jdr _. l j7\ - e..,a C A k. 2 1 0 4 5. T P g g d J'#'
. EMee gmeWT e , n 2*. - .. .
.' ,- j ,; ,
- , b--[ ~ FIGURE 2 4 0 .1R-12
,. ,f, .~ ~; . ~.: . . o j ,.f ' /
c,
.- g ,.. ..
, \
,1."
- 4 g8 Offsite Railroad
' 'M \', #
- x 0240.lR-21 O;s' w 'ns. y
., +:X:. c'Vs . 3 ,.
C', 3 *.h ..f: .
'). . .6
.. 4 .
_ . _ .z( s.- - - -
.-[
AMENDMENT XV Yg NEW ROUND 48a JULY 1982 G \ '
,*.W ' $*
~ x CMP CULVERT .
7* . . v. q-4 s$ { , ,- .. y C h V. E tO d 6. T P V E. 5,L C epfv .
.., . , , s , n.- Y.. y . '
p,f' E-Mi>AN MMEtJ T
.;.s, f' .
. p. ..
.. p /p ~.' ; .
..., j'-,r. -
*^
w
./ dh '.3 ?y.'f* . ' f, ,. . ne,,, g
- er% N i. s.#, .. . .
ee.,,c. . - .. ~
.g ",
% to m m t<t c u re.
s p ;,a _ . . e 1 - so ~ s .o a e _/ . N .1,s . - u y'
<p.,,c,,,. *
..:,.~
easa n
.:~r
/ y- 1 ig
. ,v.
i.
. . .# ,,~ ' -
4.tec. ,4-tors~c ,,, 4 g>fq..y9 # C-) ;'./g. =:-,, .,
, .. , ,. </ ,
'*=
g *\ - '.9/
'. ,QpN u t e c ". ~ $$
, i f j' . . -
\ ,j
a s x / ' Y.c. -- .e e. .:.a. .
*g / . y W$ouwo, ' :..e ..g-
\ ( a ' '. \
,A. )$ .
, / -S.o ,3, ,
o 9., '-
.,l 4' 'i
. .. p : . , / 1. - t g
1 In' 4c o 2 g \. 'j/ . ' . *
/
"' C' * * ', .{ c .' C {'\\@ .
~
g' ;, 8
' . _ ' U. l$5 \i N '
g;
, r' 4[ y l*j .\, j
; %, , v.: e -
,[j \ .> W ot J. ,
. ._.a .
b.,
.~ m, , v__
'd t .
l QNC firJJM CHA ACE h. .' o ~ - 3
,f k flo @ r!AtH $ 6Y. 'i \b ;n y " ' -
., '03 a
w
.(N~%
M614 EAIL ZOAD i,
. . .i '~s, , ,
,u ,
,,..a
', a. e s :-
' s ,s, *w s *4 s s .
~
et f :
- % <r k, 9 E
.'sa
' ft, ' s' ' s ' ..
s , 3.
.r .e .
32 *
,-- j -
.,g g , .,. . . > . -
...?..
se .:t -
%i :.
'~~~~'",. ____
_. . ...... ~.yg.s< -[**
,,,.....-,,7
~
) b .-
, T
'i )'
o,, s. .- ,. FIGURE 240. lR- 13 e, 6 , _,- .' 1 i( Offsite Railroad I
\ ,
[ s
.'\
s ms ?- 1 j
% r_
.' S w.o . g
. s' s. /.
{ j[_s [ ,v l Q240.lR-22 1 g- ,
/
r
..: ..- \.
--r
_m
- ~ ^ ' ~ Q, \
AMENDMENT XV l n ':: s '/ ,5 % ' JULY 1982 k~~ + ?
.%-.M, M-4* /
-e ~
s ,,,
- s. 1
'N _ . . _ _ _ . . .
~, ~ - %, u;l
' '. ?.. .~., %e_~.Gli.',,.",>M, , ,,
s ,. ..,e. . .A, ; sy K(r . j . s,_ , .
<. m ,: .
. . _ . . . . . . . . - - . y- g, .-
~. .<:
~, w%~, ~ , -.e
~-
. . -. . . ."'50
- s. . . -
'((\+ N, 4 /
s '
\1su v. :
%ws te y 'b o
} , ' . ~
' 'l' , _
3** k .; k,' \ ,l.gf2 g
- / ) j-b, '7,e, ,,,e \ gh'i i 'nT, '
j* ' a g- -
\\, e.7na .
.' \e 8 1 i r1 t V.
- e
- 11
%e gl ,1t..
.... - .- y g f ,.b g\ .
y e 3 l'i) l A
' ' I P62CMT NMCE P- h' W, [ E FL-oo o 61-th/ATiced ,,
;/ ~ so(% \ ,
7-fflTEE $A,tL120AD
/ '.. i a e A. n i
l.;,. '.'!e ) .' - gj
\ I&
/ '[ / S ., 'au sg
) , ,
P'-
- l. j J
" 'l,\t ,
2
, ,{ ,
~
.~. / \ 't
'. M6W C Le h r.
_r s a e . c e - ' j
\
\ ALL- l; 5 '
L /'
)
/
.e^7 's e !. \ ...s \ l !
f 3
'j t-
<,. .\ s '
-\ '\.\
- , f ' ..
.= .
I U
- u.a
> . s
(
- A .l , ')
** ._si ::
'-- f f ; -: . i a]....-ej g >! ' ~
g a,- i lirl
\ -
.s .-
,. t . . L. . p
} ', ,
- f ,/ i ( ';' ' /) '
.lNi
} y / -
a-l! ,l .-
,p r
' >e
'*** - &[, ,* : ,
l ! .N J, 1 N. ,- , . ,',/ /T '\ - -> 1 r
-\-i. N k \ [
f.
,/ f
,' ' ,! 9]J N l' ,
,; p,Ijl
i*'. :
\
f -J 1.- s sp. / - : e
,g ,
o
' 1(&,p sT '
\
s >
.f; :m fr? 8 5
.[
i O
. h ' ,( \
l *- ',
'$0.'. -):D ,' : s_. y
, s, p
- =. con
~' *
.,.~.~-..~., * %i C.# -. .
g
-) i' ; .ll' { I ,. y L.
) '"' % - A,/ \ j
.: e.. .,.., m -
fu% r p i a (,c i . . . I; ./ 'n; ., ' .If /',
. l' ;
s . .c ..
.' d.
f * , *. , lr
- 3 see: 1 t
J V Q s
't t iT l II W t -
t g $' b
, g" 1 \ W N.
.r- lj . l;
',\;
*a e, l
I l !f'
~
,. g, FIGURE 240.lR-14
,N i . ' - l 6.i{[,[. .I !
,* Et-=>
' [ ' .",
f Offsite Railroad , [ , o p, Q240.lR-23 ,e:n.c.s:
'e*x**-
3 N .*I!(/ 4 { M C* l ., ** ' t. T r e keh l,'[ f f.! / 3 ,,
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 V IE1ESTION 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-0440, 1978). 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 b) (_ may share with you the body of information necessary to perform this analysis. RESEQHSE 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 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 the approach taken here, the more significant parameters and models used in NUREG-0440 to evaluate a liquid pathway release I following the core melt of a land-based plant are compared to () the corresponding parameters and models used for CRBRP. 0240.2R-1
MiENDMENT XV JULY 1982 With the exception of Cd-113 an6 Fu-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 I). 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 similar LWR core melt. Parameters relating to the movement of radionuclides leached into the groundwater system are tabulated in Table II. 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 f rom a hypothetical melt-through for a particular source would not be changed by more than about a factor of 2 (see NUREG-0660, Table 6.2.17). In summary, the contained radionuclide source in the postulated CRBRP core melt would be significantly less than the source l hypothesized f or the NUREG-04 40 study. In addition, the transportation of radionuclides via groundwater at the CRBRP site would be bounded by the assumptions of NUREG-0440, and the Q240.2R-2
I AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 small river transport and dose conversion models f rom 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. O O 0240.2R-3
1 AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 l TABLE I. RADIONUCLIDE SOURCE TERM COMPARISON Isotope NUREG-0440 CRBRP Ratio LWR Core Core Inventory NUREG Value Inventory End of Cycle CRBR Value (Ci) (Ci) 3 H 5.9x10 4 2.34x104 3 89 Sr 9.2x10 7 1.60x107 6 90 Sr 6.1x10 6 6.79x105 9 90 Y 6.4x10 6 7.11x105 g 91 Y 1.2x10 8 2.04x107 6 95 Nb 1.7x108 3.48x107 5 103 Ru 1.4x10 8 5.26x107 3 103mRh 1.4x10 8 5.26x107 3 105 Rh 6.7x107 3.85x107 2 106 Rh 7.6x10 7 1.96x107 4 106 Ru 5.1x10 7 1.96x107 3 110mAg 3.5x10 5 4.33x104 8 111m Ag 4.3x10 6 2.57x106 2 113mCd 1.0x10 3 1.91x103 1/2 115mCd 6.2x10 4 3.55x104 2 115 Cd 8.8x10 5 5.46x105 2 123 Sn 9.4x10 5 3.62x105 3 125 Sn 1.5x106 7.58x105 2 125 Sb 7.4x10 5 3.96x105 2 125mTe 2.5x10 5 7.88x104 3 127 sb 8.3x106 3.76x106 2 0240.2R-4
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 TABLE I. (Continued) RADIONUCLIDE SOURCE TERM COMPARISON Isotope NUREG-0440 CRBRP Ratio LWR Core Core Inventory NUREG Value Inventory End of Cycle CRBR Value (Ci) (Ci) 127m Te 1.6x10 6 5.40x10 5 3 127 8.1x10 6 3.69x10 6 2 Te 129mTe 6.6x10 6 2.65x10 6 2 129 Te 3.9x10 7 9.71x10 6 4
-1 4 129 7 2.9 6.7x10 131 7 1.0x10 8 3.00x10 7 3 132 Te 1.4x10 8 4.00x10 7 4 q
O 133 7 1.9x10 8 5.15x10 7 4 l 134 2.1x10 7 6.60x10 5 32 Cs 136 5.8x10 6 2.65x10 6 2 Cs i 137 8.6x10 6 1.70x10 6 5 Cs 140 Ba 1.8x10 8 4.19x10 7 4 1403 , 1.8x10 8 4.22x10 7 4 141 1.7x10 8 4.29x10 7 4 Ce 144 Ce 1.1x10 8 2.02x10 7 5 144 Pr 1.1x10 8 2.02x10 7 5 238 Pu 2.5x10 5 3.29x10 5 4/5 239 2.1x10 9 9.48x10 8 2 Np O Q240.2R-5
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 TADLE II SITE SPECIFIC PARAMETER COMPARISON CRBRP NUREG Site Specific 0440 Parametgr Value Value Length in feet 1600 1500 from core base-mat melt point to river. 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 0 Q240.2R-6
l EXHIBIT I O AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 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 data 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, overoce 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 whichiquals or exceeds the 100-year flood (one percent chance of annual occurrence) in any 50 year period is about 40 percent (four in 10), and for any 90 year period, the risk increases to about 60 percent (six in 10). The analyses reported here reflect flooding potentials based on condi-tions existing in the community at the time of completion of this study. Mops and flood elevations will be omended periodically to reflect future changes. 3.1 Hydrologic Analyses Hydrologic onolyses 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 altered 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 OiP is a plot of elevation-frequency profiies for the Tennessee River from mile 543.6 to mile 583.8. The standard log-Pearson Type ill statistical analysis was not used for Tennessee River and Clinch River frequency studies because the method is not opplicable to elevation data or where there is regulation from upstream dams. Clinch River flows have been regulated by Norris Dom, Clinch River mile 79.8 since closure in March 1936. Closure of Melton Hill Dam, mile 23.1, in May 1963 has not altered discharge probabilities. Clinch 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 unpublished TVA records of Melton Hill Dam discharge from 1964-1973. O 0240.2R-7 ___________.-__._____________._8___ -- -- _ _ - - . - _
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 j Downstream from Melton Hill Dam to the mouth of Clinch River elevation-frequency was determined by backwater computations. Analysis began at the mouth of the Clinch River with elevations determined from records at the TVA gaging 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 Bar Reservoir; consequently, elevations are influenced by both discharge and Watts Bar Dam headwater - elevations. Elevation frequency for th.is reach was determined by standard step method backwater analysis 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 following records: Drainage Period Areo, of Location Mile So. Miles Record Agency At Fort Loudon Dom Tailwater, Tennessee (unpublished) 602.3 9,550 1944-1973 TVA At Lenoir City, Tennessee (Reference 8) 600.5 12,200 1944-1955 USGS At Loudon, Tennessee (Reference 9) 591.6 12,220 1944-1955 USGS Near Kingston, Tennessee (Reference 8) 568.2 12,470 1944-1973 TVA The above four gages do not have gate numbers. The following stream gages were used to determine o principal base for estimating flow frequency for Coney Creek, Whites Creek, and Emory River: USGS gage number 03538130 of Coney Creek near Kingston USGS gage number 03541500 of Whites Creek near Glen Alice USGS gage number 03540500 at Oakdale, Tennessee (Emory River) Flow estimates on these streams were determined using drainage crea relationships drawn parallel to the regional relationship and through the flow-frequency volves at the gages os determined from the gaged records. 0240.2R-8 9
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 The computed frequency profiles for the Emory River were verified against on elevation-frequency curve by graphical analysis of stage records from 1945-1975 from the TVA gage at mile 12.1 (Reference 1). The USGS gaging stations 03538225 on Poplar Creek near Ook Ridge and 03538200 on Poplar Creek at Oliver Springs were the principal dato base for def.ining flow-frequency relationships for Poplar Creek. Discharge-frequency estimates for intermediate locations were determined by straight line interpolation between goge stations on a log-log plot of drainage area versus discharge graph. The USGS and TVA do not maintain any streom gages on Little Emory River, Powpow, Black, Indion, and Tributory to Indian Creeks. In order to define discharge-frequency dato for these streoms a regional relationship of peak discharge and drainoge crea was developed from stream flow records at the gaging stations, Table I - Goging Stations. TABLE I - GAGING STATIONS Drainoge Period Area of Goging Station Gage No. Sq. Miles Record Agency Obed River Tributcry near Cros.sville, Tennessee 03538800 .72 1955-1970 USGS Forked Creek near Ookdale, Tennessee 03541200 2.44 1967-1975 USGS Millicon 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-!975 USGS East Fork Poplar Creek near Ook Ridge, Tennessee 03538250 19.50 1935-1975 USGS O O240.2R-9 10
AMENDMENT XV Richland Creek near Dayton Tennessee 03544500 50.20 1935-1975 USGS Poplar Creek near Oliver Springs, Tennessee 03538200 55.90 1954-1975 USGS Poplar Creek near Ook Ridge, Tennessee 03538225 82.50 1961-1977 'USGS l Emory River near l Wartburg, Tennessee 03538500 83.20 1935-1975 USGS Whites Creek near l Glen Alice, Tennessee 03541500 108.00 1935-1977 USGS l Emory River at Oakdale, Tennessee 03540500 764.00 1928-1977 USGS (References 11 and 12) These stations are located on streams having similar hydrologic charac-teristics to the detail streams. A frequency curve was cornputed using the procedure outlined in Bulletin 17A (Reference 13) including the skew map, plate I, and was adjusted for historical flood information wherever available. The odopted regional peak flow-drainage area relationship was compared with those developed by the USGS and Tennessee Department of Transportation (1976)(Reference 14). The regionalized relationship that was adopted produced discharge values about 50 percent greater than those of the USGS. The greater discharge values were caused by lengthy record which included the 1977 flood and attention paid to gaged watersheds near the study area. Peak discharge rates for Black Creek where sufficient urbanization has occurred to alter flood peaks were estimated by using the following rela-tionship, ( O240.2R-10 I II
14iENDMEriT XV JULY 1982 - O pv
- Opn, where:
O = Discharge for seiccted probability, p, for urbon conditions. I = Percent imperviousness or urban oreo. x = A factor which varies with flood probability. O n
= Discharge for selected probability, p, for natural conditions.
The relationships and values of x were developed from equations by Espey and Winslow (Reference 15) which relate discharge at selected frequencies to watershed and climatic factors and percent impervious I. The relation-ships and x values were compared and found to be consistent with studies by others. Percent imperviousness (1) was estimated using ratios of imper-viousness to urbon oreo (Reference 16) and urbori creas determined from 7.5-minute topographic maps. Indian Creek has 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 DISCHARGES (cfs) FLOODING SOURCE AND LOCATION (sq. miles) 10-YEAR 50-YEAR 100-YEAR 500-YEAR TENNESSEE RIVER Mile 544.8 16,980 -164,000 190,000 200,000 260,000 Mile 578.9 12,360 88,000 130,000 150,000 220,000 CLINCH RIVER Mouth 4,413 120,000 185,000 220,000 300,000 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 EMORY RIVER Mouth 865 112,000 172,000 205,000 285,000 Mile 5.2 811 107,000 163,000 197,000- 275,000 LITTLE Ef*0RY 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 O Q240.2R-ll 12 l l
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 TABLE 2 -
SUMMARY
OF DISCHARGES (cont.) DRAINAGE AREA PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs) FLOODING SOURCE AND LOCATION (sq. miles) 10-YEAR 50-YEAR 100-YEAR 500-YEAR WHITE CREEK Mile 6.1 120 31,000 54,000 64,000 98,000 Mi1e 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. Q240.2R-12 13
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
\
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 citerations 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 at sufficiently close intervals to occurately compute water-surface elevations. The Tennessee and Clinch Rivers cross sections were based on silt range surveys and detailed topographic maps. Locations of selected cross sections used in the hydraulic analysis are shown on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (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 coef ficients based on known flood profiles. l The range in values for Manning's "n" are tabulated below. 1 Stream Channel Overbank 1 l Tennessee River 0.021-0.047 0.06-0.14 (q) ' Clinch River 0.023-0.027 0.07-0.14 Emory River 0.02-0.045 0.060-0.15 Littie Emory River 0.03-0.045 0.095-0.15 Whites Creek 0.022-0.07 0.09-0.I9 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 0.058-0.15 Tributary to Indian Creek mile 2.33 0.04 0.070-0.105 Flood profiles were drawn showing computed water-surface elevations to an 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-crea calculations using the slope of the streambed. Flood frequency profiles for Emory River and Tributary to Indian Creek were started using backwater elevations from the Clinch River and Indian Creek respectively. O O Q240.2R-13 14
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 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 fail. No detailed studies were made for several smaller streams in Roone County, Tennessee, that were offected by Watts Bar backwater or where there was o lock of current or planned development. 4.0 FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS l The National Flood Insurance Program encouroges 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 Flood Boundaries in order to provide a national siendard 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 at each cross section; between cross sections, the boundaries were inter-polated using expanded topographic maps of 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 creas 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 creas are not shown. 4.2 Floodways Encroachment on flood plains, such as artificio! fill, reduces the flood-carrying capacity, increases the flood heights of streams, and increases flood hozords in crecs beyond the encroachment itself. One aspect of flooo 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 a floodway is used as a tool to assist local communities in this ospect of flood plain t I Q240.2R-14 15
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Popfor Creek near Oliver Springer, Tennessee: Year Dischorpe (CFS) 1902 10,230 1920 9,860 1926 10,580 1928 II,300 , 1929 10,940 l l 1944 9,500 l 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 p I. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population 1970, Chorocteristics h , of the Population, Tennessee.
- 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry. Soil Survey-Roone County, Tennessee, May 1942,
- 3. Unpublished data 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 Popict Creek in Anderson and Roone Counties, Tennessee," Division of Water Control Planning, Knox-ville, Tennessee, September 1974.
- 6. Tennessee Valley 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,"
l964. O O240.2R-15 29
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
- 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 Valley Authority, Computer Services, Step Method Bockwater Comouter Program 001-SSF SA 321-099 BW (NEW), Chattanooga, Tennessee, January 1974.
J 1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Water Supply Pooers, 1928-1977, Annual Reports.
- 12. Tennessee Valley Auth6rity," Dolly Discharges at TVA Stream Gages 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 Character-istics," Proceedinos of American Society of Civil Engineers Journo!.
Hydraulics Division, Volume 100, No. Hy 2, pages 279-293,1974.
- 16. Stomper, William G., " Flood Mapping in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina," U.S. Geological Survey open file report 1975.
- 17. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC-2N Water Surface Profiles Generalized l
Computer Program. Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California, l June 1973.
- 18. U.S. Geological Survey, Topographic Maps,7.5-Minute series quadrangles.
Scale 1:24,000, contour intervals of 20 feet, Windrock, Tennessee,129-SE,1968; Bethel Valley, Tennessee,130-NE,1968; Elverton Quadrangle, 130-NW,1968; Cove Creek Goodrongle,130-SW,1968; Lenoir City, Tenn-essee,130-SE,1968; Tennessee, 8 29-SW,1967; Philadelphia, Tennessee,131-NW,1952; Harriman, Tennessee,123-NE,1968; Cardif Petros, f, Tennessee,123-NW,1968; Rockwood, Tennessee,123-SW,1969; Bacon Gap Quadrangle,123-SE,1968; Pattie Gap Quadrangle,124-NE,1973; Roddy Quadrangle, i 17-SE,1973. Q240.2R-16 30
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 E LE waTIQas IF E E T NGvDI w 4 =4 4 4 w 4 4 4 4
& & 4 & & M M M M M o w a e e o w e e e
. .~.
-...H..- ;
gggggg
. . . . . . . . . . ... TEPen.ESSEE . river O ..
. .I..
.l..
. ...._.4_.
4 Lq p.
.y _.
... y
.. ... . .I ...
.. 3 2.. . .
Q
, /s n,,
. ... . .. . ... . _ y 4_... 7 3... ._.
,, _ g g
.. ... .. .. .J.... . . . ...
3 (%-4f 7 7'".~
..}._.. .
. IN T .E.*_S.T_A T E_- 40. L S -792 -
o - Q,,
.. _ ..f_. . .
, . . .. .. ._. . L.... .
Q
. . . . .. - . . ~ . es g
"'~ \ ~( r NRJ M f1f'M"I'"~ f r 99 m- - M -3
,- fMORYRtVER y
m I I 2 m
.. . l. .
..... . . .. .. . . . . .~.- .
.~. .-u -
a a m
.J. u
_d >. m y
.1.
.g.. .
.-l.....
. - 44 o m L
m 2 .e. e- .. .-- .--, ad - 2 M
- g. . .I.. M
- p. l. . . . . . _ .- 3 E
e r"
. _4. .. . j.. .. ..g..... .. . ..
g. o , ..3 . .. . . . . g. . - 5 M. .
. T. . . g .
. . .._ _1_ -
- p. .
Q -. ....... .
. 7. . . . ...
\, O A K- RIDGE CORPORATE l.iMsTS . -T. -
. . -. .1. ... . . . .['..., .- . . - . _
Z 5 ' g
..... .....,. . ..,L...\ ..-4 i
[
. . _y. . , __ p, ..
... ..._...J_-......
1, g p_ _ . . . _p.
~ . .
... ~
. ~ . . , . . . ..
> W . g; g ,N .... ..
.._.- . . ...i, . . .
., .. .l i
i
? opt;AR-tRE E M 7
< . , , , , , _,. , , , , , ,,,,,1,, , , ,
, , , , , i s L,,
m . _ . _ . . . . . . _ . . ...
.. .. ...... ...3.... -._ ,
g ._.. . . . . . _ ~_ .. . . . g .-
.. g . .
L. . j o ._
. ..... p.~.. .L i i 3 .e-_.. ,- )- \ \- TENN MGMwe 58-LS T84.3 - -'t-
^
-e -y \, 1)aK-R10GE *CO85POa ATE Li.M._i_iS -- J
._~.\ .
i k
.. i -
, _ . . . . ...' i I
_ . . .{ - ,
\
---4 i 's \
3 , . , 1 ~ m
.g . . , .L. i n .n.
_....~.. . . ..
. .. m.+.-
..3...--
l ,
, , \, M W E- U gWREE.,. -u .g'~
. . . ... , , x j.w
.4 _ s
, , s
, y
~. .
3 - s, i s
. 1 s v \
,i 1, 1, s
----+--- , 1 1
-fm m u_ _ _ _
I epaw.4Rf EM
- i
\- \x Q)- ; I g 1- .\ '
\ ; '
'd K N : i
._ .s' 1 i . _;'. 'g.r.,-cwuve,.M XA:
l l :: c
'W 'tx uwFmT 1 s w TEcax-+cn M
.x ; e_-
n3 . . $g
- O Q s-ts x .
.I s
x m m. mw r x i
" S 3, < .c N \x Ax N
R,., ,,. .< 3 , ,
.< _ x x
s
. I 1 I N . i, 3 3, 3 3 m' x x: x n.* C * , * * ' * *
- I 9 g
, eg,a
--- s X
s x: x
~ 3 55 i i I
N " 0240.2R-17 ILM.4L (M.EttY usa &G4 Mat AMaty
, e.m............. FL000 PR0 files 4 ROANE COUNTY, TN 31 tumaccRP0AMD ARDS) CLINCH RIVER
l l 1 AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Ouestion 290.lR 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 i degrade, and those that would enhance environmental conditions) and the effects discussed in the environmental reports submitted in 1975, Amendments 1 through 7. Response , 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. " , O
\
t , s in k V Q290.1R-1
,,,,_,.n - - - - . ,- , , , - - , - ---- -, - nn . . , - , - - - - - . ,
CR8RP ENVIRONTNTAL REFDRT REVIED PAGE1 ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESmlPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRON TNTAL EFFECT
- _ ~
1.1 i.1-1, Introduc- Rewritten to ref erence LMFBR Progrm Environmental ly inconsequenti al .
-2 tion 1.2 1.2-1 Objectives Rewritten to ref erence LNBR Progrm Env irornental l y Inconsequenti al .
1.3 1.5-1 Meeting Rewritten and updated Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . thru Obj ect ives 1.3-6 1.4 Consequences Deleted of Delay 1.5 Summary Deleted 2.1 2.5-1 Plant Construction site acreage Increased. Jee Section 4.0 thru Pl ant arrangements updated. Five Im-2.10 pounding ponds were Identifled and located on Figare 2.1-3. 2.2 2.2-1 Demog- Regional demography, land and water uses A sl ightly 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 W ater showed population growth slightly below Use projections of 1976. However, the devla-tions would make GBRP-Inspired growth more casily assimilated. 2.3 2.3-l Regional Updated to reflect an evaluation of pre- Env irorwental ly Inconsequenti al . thru Cul tural vlously unsurveyed cultural, historic and 2.3-25 Historic archeol ogi cal features. The evaluation
& Arche- Is consistent with the provisions of the ol ogical National Historic Preservation Act of 1979, features as amended. No new signif icant data were dev el oped.
2.4 - 2.4-15 Geol ogy Changed to provide data f or 24 additional Enviromental ly Inconsequenti al . thru boreholes, taken f rm September 1976 to 2.4.22 June 1977.
, ab c
2.5 ry g o 2.5.1 2.5.1 River Updated river level s, flows, temperatures, Env ironmental ly inconsequential . Wg e thru etc. Cn 2 N* a 2.5-10 N >< O <
?
N e N O O O
_ .._. . _. ._. _. _ ..r.. -_ ._ ___ _ _ . . _ . . _ . - . . . _ _ _ , _ . _ _ _ , _ . . . ., _ ._ f D i ( CRBRP ENv!RONtENTAL DEN)RT FrylEW PAGE 2 I W :S --
+ ,- .
t ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTf 0N OF CHANGE- ENVIRCPMNTAL EFFECT y
] -
I
' +
2.5.2 g M N g w i 2.5.2.1 No change. .
'/ >
2.5.2.2 No change. - L l 2.5.2.3 No change. 1 { 2.5.2.4 2.5-18 Ground- Established plezczetric gradient. Environmentally inconsequent i al . j water 2.5.2.5 No rf.ange. , g 4, 2.5.2.6 No change. .
\
2.5.2.7 No change.
..4
?' ,
l l 2.6 2.6-1 thru Meteor- Updated to include data <sceumulated Env irormental ly inconsequenti al . - ' 2.6-63 ol ogy using permanent meteorological tower. s
- l s i 2.7 i s
2.7.1 2.7.1.1 p s 2.7-1a Forest incorporates ORNL forest management No change in estimated environmental Mana ge- activities f rom 1976 through 1980. ef f ects f or OtBRP. Mitigation measures . for Southern Pine Beetle and P!tch Canker . Infestatioes. 2.7.1.2 No change. } 2.7.1.3 2.7-7 thru Fl or a Update vegetation Inventory reporting. Envirormenially Inconsequential . 2.7-9 2.7-24, -37 Fl cr a Correct pine designation. Environmental ly inconsequenti al, j 2.7-381, -3thn Fl ora Revise category designation f ran Envirormental ly Inconsequenti al . j
- threatened" to " rare" to refIect
,' current terminology. j 2.7.1.4 2.7-38o thru Fauna Update wildlife occurrence data. Envirormental ly Inconsequential . . 2.7-3 8t 2.7-38ee Insects c-. 3= Update reporting concerning insect Environmental ly inconsequenti at . c2 posts. Co w2 '
@rF1 coZ x
l
N GBRP ENVIRONENTAL RER)RT REVIEW PAGE 3 ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESmlPTION OF CNMiGE ENVIRON ENTAL EFFECT 2.7-38t f Fauns Revised to include possibility of Occurrence on CRBRP site not confirmed, eastern cougar occurrence on Oak Also, cougar hane range Is suf ficiently Ridge Reservation, extensive to absorb etfect of CRBRP i nstal l ation. Environmentally Inconsequenti al . 2.7-38gg Avifauna Adds mention of osprey nest occurrence Osprey nesting at GBRP site has not been at Watts Bar LaNo. observed. Envirorwentally inconsequenti al . 2.7.1.5 No change. 2.7.1.6 2.7-38t t Avifauna Update clessification of American Occurrence of nesting at site has not osprey. been observed. 2.7.1.7 2.7-3 8vv Surveys Report on 1980 reconnaissance Envirormenfally inconsequentfel, surveys.
?
8 1
,m
-< 3*
lS 5 O O O
m8RP ENVIRONENTAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE 4 ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESmlPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONE NTAL EFFECT i 2.7.2 2.7.2.1 No change. 2.7.2.2 No change. 2.7.2.3 No change. 2.7.2.4 2.7-87g Fish Report of occurrences of the blue Occurrence tot reported near Site. - sucker in Watts Bar Lake. Blue Environmental ly inconsequential . ! sucker is identlfled as a threatened species. 2.7.2.5 2.7-87 h Aquatic Report on 1980 reconnaissance surveys. Stocking activities have resulted in I
- 871 Survey s reported increases in gemefish. No change in estimated environmental of f acts due to mBRP.
2.8 2.8-1 thru Back- Complete update reflecting latest Data better characterizes the actual 2.8-109 ground ORNL, TVA and similar orgentration site and the surrounding areas. Radle- studies and scientific papers. Environmental ly inconsequenti al. tion C t ru ' D O L w . N l e r i i l 5 e
\
(.d M CE I r.<zm !
.m E i co z ,
fu -4 ;
>e l r
I
@BRP ENVIRWENTAL REFVRT REVID PAGE 5 ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF DIANGE ENVIRON KNTAL EFFECT 3.0 3.1 3.1-1 External A five foot high animal fence was added Preclude small animals f rom plant site end Appear- et a distance of 33 feet f rm the and restrict the to more natural ance security fence. environs. Environmentally inconsequential.
3.1.1 3.1-2 Plant Gatehouse, circulating water pump house Environmentally inconsequential. Bldg. & and f ire protection pump house were Facill- Identified. The sultch yard relay house fles was added. The configuration and location of the Environmentally inconsequential. mergency cooling tower structure were r ev i sed. 3.1.2 3.1.4 Plant Five f oot high animal fence added. Environmental ly inconsequentl et . Site 3.1.3 3.1-4 Other The size of paved parking area was Environmental ly inconsequenti al . Facill- reduced for accommodation of 155 cars ties Instead of 250 bef ore. 3.2 3.2.1 No change. 3.2.2 3.2-3 Core Replaced hmogeneous cnre with hetero- Het change judged to be Insignificant. geneous arrangment resulting in eliminat-e ing one f uel enrichment zone (was 2, now 1), reducing number of f uel assemblies f rm 198 P to 156, reducing number of radlal blanket - assembiles f rm 150 to 126, adding' 82 inner 7 G blanket assemblies, and increasing Pu en-richment in f uel assemblies f rom 18.7-32$ to 32-335. 3.2.3 No change. 3.3 3.3.1 3.5-1 Overall Average annual consumptive water use Environmental ly inconsequenti al . Em $ Plant figures were revised to be consistent with dy those in Tables 3.3-1, 3.3-2 and 3.3-3. .-. r em 3.3.2 3.3-2 Cooling Fic=rrate to cooling tower f rom condenser Slight increase in plume size wIll not $b Tower Increased f rom 209,200 gpm to 212,200 gpm. produce signifIcant environmental Impact. x 3.3.3 3.3-2 Process Added makeup water treatment systm Env i ronmental ly inconsequenti al. water Treatment Syst m O O O
d 1 C) v CF8RP ENVIROPMNTM. PEPORT PEVIEW FAGE 6 CR SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF 04ANGE ENVIRON $ ENTAL EFFECT 3.3.4 3.3-3 waste All process waste water including floor Results in higher quality of water W ater drains, go to waste Water Disposal System di sch arged. Disposal Instead of being routed to either cooling System tower basin or neutrallration and settling facilities. 3.3.5 3.3-3 Radwaste Updated description. See Section 3.5. Systems 3.3.6 3.5-4 Potabl e Potable water is supplied by DOE's 3 ear Env iromental ly Inconsequenti al . Water Creek Road Filtration Plant Instead of Sources the Make-up water Treatment System. Table 3.5-5 Plant increase in plant make-up flow rate Enviromental ly inconsequenti al . 3.3-1 Ficwrotes f ra 5835 gpm to 6145 gpm. During increase in cooling tower evaporation Enviromental ly Inconsequential. Maximum rate f ra 3475 gpm to 3623 gpm. j Power increase in cooling tower drif t rate Env i romental ly Inconsequent i al .
; f rom 105 gpm to 106 gpm.
Q increase In cooling tower bicadown rate Enviromentally Inconsequential . m f rm 2210 gpm to 2306 gpe.
- P Decrease in Process Waste Treatmet 1 - flow rate f ra 125 gpm to 110 gpm.
7 Waste Water Disposal System Flowrate Env iromental ly Inconsequenti al . N designed at 100 gpe. Increase in plant discharge rate f rom Env iromental ly Inconsequenti al . 2,251 gpm to 2,411 gpe. Increase In total consumptive use of Env iromental ly Inconsequential . river water f rom 3,584 gpm to 3,733 gpm. Tabl e 3.3-6 Plant _ increase in Plant Make-up Flowrate Environmentally Inconsequential. 3.5-2 Fl ow- from 2,361 gpm to 2,527 gpm. rates increase In cooling tower evaporation Env iromental ly Inconsequential. During rate f rom 1,390 gpo to 1,450 gpm. Minimum Increase in cooling tower blowdown rate Env iromental ly inconsequential .
- Power from 884 gpm to 925 gpe.
. Decreese in process water treatment flow- Enviremental ly Inconsequential . rate f rom 125 gpa to 110 gpe. baste Water Disposal System flowrate Environmentally inconsequenti al . designed at 100 gpe. Increase in plant discharge rate f ra Enviromentally inconsequential . y 925 gom. to 1.030 gpe. Increase In total consumption use of Enviromental ly Inconsequential . C cf s river water f rom 1.436 gpm to 1,4% gpe. r- m
-< z
- C7 e-
- 2
@M oo 2 N -4
CRBRP ENVIRONENTAL REFORT REVIEW PAGE 7 ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONENTAL EFFECT Table 3.3-7 Pl ant increase in plant makeup flourate f rm Envirornental ly inconsequenti al . 3.3-3 Fl ow- 625 gpm to 715 gpm. rates increase in cooling tower blowdown Envirormental ly inconsequen+Ial . During flowrote frm 221 gpm to 231 gpe. Ten- Increase In cooling tower evaporation Enviroreentally inconsequential. porary rate f rom 348 gpm to 363 gps. Shutdown Decrease in process water treatment Envirormental ly Inconsequenti al . flowrote f rom 125 gpm to 110 gpm. Waste Water Disposal System flowrate Envirornental ly inconsequenti al . desired as 100 gpm. Increase in plant discharge flowrote Envirormentally inconsequential. f ran 262 gpm tp 336 gps. Increase in total consumptive use Envirormental ly Inconsequenti al . of river water f ron 363 gpm to 378. Tabl e 3.3-8 Pl ant Seasonal Flowrates in Table have been Envirormentally inconsequential. 3.3-4 Water adjusted to reflect present design. N UMP e Seasonal ? Verlation Ni 3.4.1 3.4-1 Cooling Updated Makeup water addition f ran 5835 Envirormental ly inconsequenti al . 00 Tower to 6035 gpm. 3.4.2 3.4-3 River Design flourate for river water pumps Envirormental ly Inconsequenti al . Water decreased f ran 10,000 gpm each to 9,000 Pumps gpm each. 3.4.3 No change. Tabl e 3.4-5 Heat Heat rejected f rom a coolgng tower Envirornental ly inconsequenti al . 3.4-1 DI ssi pe- Increased gran 2.172 x 10 BTU /HR to tion 2.256 x 10 BTU /hR. Design Parmeters
& Conditions Tabl e 3.4-6 Conponent Updated Design Paraneters. Enviroreental ly inconsequenti al .
3.4-2 Descriptions cr Tabl e 3.4-8 Cooling Average monthly cooling tower blow- Envirornentally inconsequential . o 3.4-4 Tower Bloudown down tanperatures increased slightly. 5% Co 2 Tanp. N O O O
J s CRBRP ENVIRONENTAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE 8 ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENV1RONENTAL EFFECT 3.5 3.5.1 No change. 3.5.1.1 3.5.2 Decon- Update for lodine and tritium. Env ironmental ly Inconsequenti al . tam ination Factor 3.5.1.2 3.5-3 IALL Updates description of cleaning process. Enviromentally Inconsequenti al . l A fil ter deleted f rom the liquid i radwaste system. Revises description of shiel ding. Updates fIl ter handling. 3.5.1.3 3.5-5, -6 LALL Updates paraneters applied to Low Environmental ly Inconsequential . Activity Level Liquid System. 3.5.1.4 3.5-6 Assump- Revises assumptions used as the bases Enviromental ly inconsequential . tions f or calculations. 3.5.2 ' 3.5.2.1 3.5-7 Noble The 39Ar and # produgd by direct The additional Argon f rom this source is Gases activation of Ar and Ar is now negligible and the environmental Impact included in the redloactive source terms is considered Insignificant. Q c used f or design work. 3.5.2.2 3.5-8 Treat- O K from
? Design has been changed so that The site boundary beta skin dose Is .-. ment RAPS Is no longer bottled but is processed increased by approximately a f actor of 2, 7
c and Release thru CAPS and released to H&V. but thegtential for accidental exposure due to K storage and shipping is System renoved, ihe net char.go in enviromental ef fects Is judged to be Ins!gnificant. Previously all leakages of cover gas or re- The site boundary beta and ganuna doses are cycled cover gas were processed thru CAPS Increased; a slightly adverse ef f ect. 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 for RAPS & CAPS updated. Trit- The site boundary beta and gamma doses are
& CAPS Ium reoval 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, gama dose by approximately 4 3.5.2.4 3.5-11 Head The reectcr cover gas leakage rate The site boundary beta and gamma doses ,
Seal s was reduced f rcm 0.012 SCC per minute are decreased; a slightly f avorable c to 0.0044 SCC per minute, env iromental effect. Cg The dif f usion of Tritium through The additional radioactivity contributed <2 piping walls into FHTS and auxillary by the small mount of Tritium dif f using g@ Na cells has been added to design through piping walls is Insignificant e rn assumptions. Any significant amount conipared to the radioactivity contained CD% g 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 y impact is judged insignificant.
GBRP EN71RONENTAL REPORT REVIED PAGE 9 ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESmlPTION OF 01ANGE ENVIRONDENTAL EFFECT 3.5.2.5 3.5-12 Release Ventilation exhaust rates at radiological Higher exhaust rates could potentially thru 3.5-14 Points relesse points have been revised. Exmples have more environmental Impact due to are the release point In the SGB Inter- shorter hold-up of radionuclides. mediate Bay which increased f rm 50,000 However, the doses resulting f rm scf m to 54,500 scf m and the exhaust point plant releases remain well below on top of the RG which decreased f rom guideline limits. 415,000 scfm to 400,000 scfm. This change in temperature range will Ventilation exhaust imperature ranges have no Impact. Density verlations which at radiological release points have could release mwe w less radioactive Increased. An example Is a release material are accounted for in the pre-point in the RSB that did have a range ceding changes in exhaust rates, of 650F to 1200F and now ranges f rm 55oF to 140of. The CAPS Reactor Service Bulldf r.g H&V No environmental Impact for normal Exhaust has been deleted. CAPS now release. Improved proteulon against a exhausts through the RSB exhaust with release of above normal radioactivity N saf ety-related exhaust radiation monitors. frm the plant due to of f-normal con-8 ditions - a slightly favorable of fect.
% RAPS process components have been moved No envirorenental Impact f or normal 8
frm the RSB to the RG. operati on. Improved protection o against release of radioactivity from the plant following RAPS accidents - a slightly f aywable of fect. Release point descriptions have been Environmentally Inconsequential. further updated to reflwt latest design changes. 3.5.2-,6 3.5-14, -15 Assump- Revises gaseous release data based on No environmental Impact for normal tions relocated RAPS, updated burnup and release operation, leproved protection point data, and most recent meterology. agaInst release of redloactivity fra the plant following RAPS accidents - a slightly f avwable of feet. 3.5.2.7 3.5-15. -16 Balance Turbine generator building ventilation Environmental ly inconsequential . of Plant exhaust location change f rom elevation 905'6" to 878'0", release rate decrease d f rom 17,500 cf m to 8,000 cf s, exhaust flow velocity Increase frm 585 feet / min. rg o with a temperature range of 85 to 1200F y% to 900 feet / min with a tmperature range co = f rom 550F to I200F. NH plant Service Building ventilation exhaust Env i ronmental ly Inconsequenti al . location changed f rm elevation 830'0" to 831'2". Number of release points decreased f rm 2 to 1. O O O
t D O CRBRP ENVIRONTNTAL REfVRT REVIEW PAGE 10 ER j SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONENTAL EFFECT 3.5.3 3.5-16, -17 Solid Solid redweste equipment Is now Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . ( 3.5.3.1 Radweste Is now identified as including 3.5.3.2) System a cement filling station, a decanting station, g Equip- a concentrated wa<te collection tank, a drumming ment station, a fit ser handling machine and a , compactor. ISee al so Tables 3.5-10 and 3.5-11). 3.5.3.3 3.5-18 Noncom- There will be a total of 112 f instead Env ironmental ly Inconsequenti al, pacti bl e of 202) 55 gallon drums per year used to store Solids the 1ow activity, non-compactIble solids of Rad- af ter treatment at the solid radwaste system, waste Sys. 3.5.3.4 3.5-18 Radio- There are now 2 drums of waste metallic Env i ronmental ly Inconsequenti al, active sodium per year with an activity level l Sodium of 20 Cl/ drum Instead of 6 drums / year with an activity level of 1.5 CI/ drum stored and/or processed on site. 3.5.3.5 3.5-19 Sodlum The disposal of sodlum bearing waste, Envirornental ly inconsequenti al . Bearing which was not previously identifled, has Solids been selected. No currently licensed off-site o disposal f acility will accept sodlum bearing wastes, N therefore, for of f-site disposal of these wastes, the sodium will be r e oved. Where sodium reoval Is not o practical, the waste will be stored on-site.
- u 4
~
Activ- Individual primary wid trap contained Environmental ly inconsequenti al . lty actigIty of Tritium igcreased f ra 8.7 x Itr Cl to 1.85 x 10 CI, and activity of fission and 3corrosion producgs increased from 1 x 10 CI to 1.41 x 10 Cl. The contained i activity will not be reoved or released f rom the , cold traps. The EVST cgid trap containgd activity Increased f rom 6.7 x 10' Cl to 7.6 x 10' Cl. The Tritium activity increased f rom 150 CI to 180 Cl. I Oo = WZ to rre CD 2" NH ' lM:
GBRP ENVIRONKNTAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE 11 ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DES GIFTION OF OiANGE ENVIRON ENTAL EFFECT Tabl e 3.5-20,-21 lALL See of the assumptions that Table 3.5-1 Enviromentally Inconsequential . 3.5-1 Syste had been based upon have changed:
- 1) Intermediate activity concentration for the first rinse computed assuming 10% (Instead of 40%) of plated out g activity and 1005 of sodium activity w adhering to the process components is
.O dissolved in 100,000 (Instead of 37,000) ~ gallons of water per year. N
- 2) Processed components involve an average annual volume of 1,600 (Instead of 14,700) galIons.
Tabl e 3.5-22, -23 lALL Sme of the assumptions that Table 3.5-2 Env iromental ly inconsequenti al . 3.5-2 System had been based upon have changed:
- 1) lodine DF=104 Included. Monitoring tank volume decreased f rcm 2,500 gallons to 2,400 gallons.
- 2) lodine DF=10# included.
Table 3.5-24, -25 1ALL Sme of the assumptions that Table 3.5-3 Env iromental ly inconsequenti al . 3.5-3 System had been based upon have changed: Lgv Activltv Llauld Waste Assumattafl5:
- 1) lodine DF=10#and Tritium DF=1 Included.
Jnigrmediate Activity Llauld Waste Asswpot[ons:
- 1. Llquid waste discharged to the common plant discharge header (Instead of thg coolant water bl owdown stream) . lodine DF=10 and Trltlum DF=1 Included. gg rm Table 3.5-33 Expected Values in table have been changed to Env i romental l y Inconsequenti al . -<g 3.5-10 Weight, ref lect cur rent design. ,-. 3:
Vol ume g E_2 and dweste N -4 Activity Total estimated decreasedvolume of solid f rm 3,094 f trg/yr to x of Solid generateg/yr. 2,365 ft < Radw este Total estimated activity of solid radweste 4 gener afeg decreased f rm 6.6 x 10 Cl/ yr. to 3.4 x 10 Cl/yr. O O O
A
, U OtBRP ENVIRONENTAL REFORT REVIEW FAGE 12 ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONENTAL EFFECT Tabl e 3.5-34 Expected Expected containers per year of solidified Envirormental ly inconsequenti al .
< 3.5-11 Solid IIquid radweste decreased f ra 170 to 136. Radweste Ship- Expected containers per year of fil ters and ments resins decreased f rm 120 to 34. Tabl e Per Year expanded to include other solldified IIquids. Figure 3.5-35 Basic Inlets of ml; acting tanks now include Envirormentally inconsequential. 3.5-1 Flow fIIters. Design Figure 3.5-39 Basic Completely revised to reflect vendor Envirormental ly Inconsequential . 3.5-5 Flow desl y. Design 3.6 No change. 3.6.1 No change. O N 3.6.2 3.6-3 Sodlun Capability of Injecting sodlum hypo- Env irormental ly Inconsequential . o Hypo- chlorite into cooling tower basin, chlorite on a continuous or Intermittent basis.
- c Injection I
C 3.6.3 3.6-4 Domin- Delete limits on domineralizer chemicals. Env irormental ly Inconsequential . eralizer 3.6.4 3.6-5 Sewage Chlorine limits set to meet NPDES permit Envirormentally inconsequential. Disposal limits. Figure 3.6-7 incorporate changes as described in text. Envirormental ly inconsequential . 3.6-1 3.7 No change. 3.7.1 3.7-1 Sanitary Addition of pretreatment and extended Env irormental ly Inconsequential . Sewage aeration of activated sludge. Ca pares System of fluent mncentrations to NPDES permit limits (Table 3.7-1). gg r- rn
-< z 3.7.2 3.7-3 Trash Specifles of f-site trash disposal by Envirormentally inconsequenti al . ~3 Di sposal licensed contractor. Updates ef fluents fr a routine Diesel unit testing.
N -1 acc
01BRP ENVIRO 4KNTAL REPORT REVIED PAGE 13 ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF 01ANGE ENVIRONKNTAL EFFECT 3.8 3.8.1.1 3.8-1, -2 Cor e Replaced hmogeneous core arrangement with Decreases the heavy metal commitment Design heterogeneous core arrangment resul ting (U or U + Pu) In the axial blankets In reducing the nureber of f uel assemblies and core f rm 5.4 MT to 4.2 MT and I f rm 198 to 156, increasing +he Pu enrich- f rom 6.5 MT to 5.2 MT, respectively. I ment f rm 18.7 to 32% fisslie to 33.2% Environmental ly Inconsequenti al, total. Deleted option to u<.e natural uranium Environmentally Inconsequential. I as al ternate material to depleted uranium as f eed material f or f uel pellets. Revised ref ueling schme f rm replacing Average number of yearly shipments of approximately one-third annually to f resh f uel would theref cre become batch replacement of all the f uel and about 14 Env iromental ly Inner blanket assemblies at two year I nconseque nt i al . Interval s with mid-Interval repl acement of 6 Inner blankets with fresh fuel Q essembiles. e ,o 3.8.1.2 3.8-2 Cor e Replaced hmogeneous core arrangement increases the heavy metal (U) cmmitment s Design olth heterogeneous core arrangment f rom 16.4 MT to 21.6 MT. Enviromental ly 7 e-a resul ting in increasing the total number I ncon sequent i al . of blanket assemblies f rm 150 (radial)
- to 208 (82 Inner and 126 radial).
Revised dimensional parameters of blanket Env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . rods (outside dimeter decreased f rm 0.520 In. to 0.506 In. ) and assembly weight I ncreased ( f rcm 525 l bs. to 536 l bs. ) . Revised ref uelIng scheme f rm annual Average number of yearly shipnents of ref uel ing to batch ref ueling at two- fresh blanket assemblies will theref ore year Interval s. become 12. Env iromental ly Inconsequential. Figure 3.8.1 3.8-10 Reactor Revised to show heterogeneous core layout. Environmental ly Inconsequenti al . Figure c. p 3.8.2 3.8-11 Fuel Dimensions rmoved. Environmentally Inconsequential. pg
-< =
0 H3 to m Co 2 N -4 O O O
3 O O ' CRBRP ENVIRONENTAL REFVRT REVIEW PAGE 14 ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF OIANGE ENVIRONENTAL EFFECT 3.8.2.1 3.8-3, -4 Core Replaced hmogeneous core arrangement Shipping schedule for spent f uel increeses Design with heterogeneous core arrangement f rom 8 to 12 shipments per year to and revised ref ueling scheme f ra annual an estimated 14 shipments per ref ueling to batch ref ueling at two year year. Changed judged to be slightly Intervals resul ting in increasing the aver- adverse, sge number of f uel assemblles discherged year 1y f ra 66 to 81, decreasing the f uel assembly burnup f rom 200,000 *D/ Ton average to 80,000 *D/ Ton average, and the peak burnup to 110,000
*D/ Ton, decreasing the average burnup in the axial blankets f rom 4,000 WD/ Ton to 2,200 *D/ Ton, and reducing the amount of bred fissile Pu f rm 1 kg/assy. to 0.3 to 0.4 kg/assy.
Revised weight and dimensions of spent f uel Env irormental l y Inconsequential, ' 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 rom 3 to 6-7 per year. ref ueling schene f ra annual to batch Change Judged to be slightly adverse, Q e resulting in increasing the number of P blanket assemblies discharged f rm the
- plant per year f rom 25 to 69, increasing 7
the burnup per assembly f ra 5,700 *D/ Ton to 8,000 *D/ Ton, Increasing the average
- and peak heat generation f rom 1 kw everage (radlet) to 2.6 kw (Inner) and 1.6 km (radlet )
and f rom 7 kw peak (radial) to 19.7 kw (Inner) and 12 kw tradlet ). 3.8.3 3.8.3.1 3.8-5 thru Core Replacement of homogeneous core arrangement Change Judged to be slightly f avorable. 3.8-7 Design with heterogeneous core arrangement results in reducing the number of primary control i assemblies f rom 15 to 9 and in increasing the number of secondary control assemblies from 4 to 6. If lif etime cx>nsiderations permit, cx>ntrol Change judged to be slightly f avorable. ' rods could remain In the reactor for two $3 cycles, also the driveline lifetime has ry g 4 been increased f ra 10 to 15 years. o UM W5 E
CRDIP ENVIRWKNTAL RETORT REVIEW PAGE 15 ER SECTION REvlSED ITEM DESCRIFil0N OF CHN4GE ENVIRm4NTAL EFFECT Revised configuration of radial shletd Envi rorsnental ly Inconsequenti al . assembly frce stacked hexagonal plates to closely packed rods in a hex duct and dsce eased assembly welght f rom 750 to 360 lbs. Beca.sse of the change to the heterogeneous This greatly reduces the number of ship-core arrangment the lifetime of the first ments of irradiated shleid assemblies. row of shield assemblies has increased Change judged to be f avcrable, f rom 3 to 10-to-15 years, part of the second row lifetime Las Increased f rom 6-tcr12 to 10-to-25 years, and the third and f ourth rows are not expected to require r eplacement during plant lif etime. 3.8.3.2 3.8 -8 Waste Updated to agree with Section 3.5 Envi ronnertal ly i nconsequenti al . e Handling ru -$ 3.8-8, Primary The triflum levels were updated f rom 1.8 Material will not be released so the Cold x 104 Cl to 1.85 x 105 Cl and the fission changes are Judqe to be environ-x Trap products and corrosion products increased mentally Inconsequential. i or f rom 1 x 103 Cl to 1.41 x 105 Cl. Cold traps are to be stcred on site since no currently licensed disposal site ulli accept sodlunt-bearing wastes. 3.9 3.9-1 No change. 3.9-2 No change. 3.9-3 Updated to describe Forest Managment Environmentally inconsequential. 3.9-4 3.9-3,-4 Flor a Updated to account f or ORNL forest No change in environmental of f acts due management activities since 1976. to CRBRP. 3.9-5 gN c-No change. []c3 3.9-6 No change. 5M cc := 3.9-7 Updated to describe transmission line Environmentally i nconsequenti al . NH configuration and acerage af fected. y 3.9-8 Revised tr, delete details of tcwer Env i ronmen tal ly inconsequenti al , conf Iguration. 3.9-9 Circuit spacings have been increased, Env i rormen tal ly i nconsequenti al . requiring widening of rigt.ts-of-way. O O O
O. (m N (R) (/ I
'b a
i CRDRP ENVIR@KNTAL REPORT REVIEW f' AGE 16 ER SECTION REV ISED ITEM DESOllPTION OF CHMGE DdVIR@t('NTAL EFFECT 1 4.1 4.1-1, -2 Site Deletion of borrow area, increase of Environmentally Inconsequential. Prep. site tempsey acreage to 292 acres and from 195 acres required f or plant Plant construction, 37 acres identitled Inside security Cons- barrier, quarry increase f rtw 25 acres to truc- 45 acres, provide crusher f acility at tion quarry ITable 4.1-1, Figure 4.1-1). 4.1.1 4.1.1.1 4.1-2 Cl ear ing Choice to use open burning during site Change judged to have a slight negative clearing. environmental offect. Concrete Batch plant description Enviromentally inconsequential Batch Plant 4.1-3, -4 Quarry Excavation depths increased. Gange judged to be slightly favorable. Eliminate consideration of borrow pit. Onsite availability of material will Described concrete batch plant. reduce offsite hauling , e req ui rments. , rv 4.1.1.2 No change, y 4.1.1.3 4.1-5 Access Modify Barge Unloading Facility. mange judged to be slightly favorable. Facility Redesign mlntatzes dredging. U 4.1.1.4 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. envirormental of feet due to Increased (Table 4.2-1 and Table 4.1-3) acreage. Include ORNL forest management plan. No change to estimated (nvirormental ef fects due to CRBRP. l l Updates impacts on wildlife. No change to estimated enviromental of fects due to CRBRP. 1 4.1.1.7 4.1-11 Human Peak construc*lon force estimate Envi rornental ly Inconsequenti al . Activ- Increased to 5400. Itles c Eliminates borrow area. Reduces Gange judged to be slightly f avorable; construction activities near borrow area was in vicinity of Hensley %<zg cemetery. f ully cemetery. Q c rn 4.1.1.8 4.1-11 th ru 12a Provides soll erosion and sediment control measures Change judged to be f avorable in reducing soll erosion to Clinch R8ver 4
CfBRP ENVIRO 4KNTAL RER)RT REVIEW PAGE 17 ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DE5011PTION OF CHANGE ENVIR04 ENTAL EFFECT 4.1.2 4.1.2.1 4.1-13 Water Construction water consumption estimafes Env i ronmental ly Inconseq uenti al . Use have been increased f rom 40,000 gallons Additional water consumption still is only per day to 60,000, a very smalI fraction of the evallable 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 f avorable. UnIosd- dr edgI ng. Ing Facil i ty 4.1.2.4 4.1-15e Runof f Provides description of runof f treatment Change judged to be f avorable Treat- pond design f eature which limits suspended ment pond sollds discharge to Cilnch River to less than 50 mg/1. 4.2 4.2-1,-6,-8 Transmission corridor acreages and Envi ronmental ly inconseq uenti al, af fected community plent coverage urdated Table 4.2-9 Trans- Transmission corridor acreages and Envi ronmental ly inconsequenti al . 4.2-1 mi ssion af fected community plant coverage undated Corridor 4.3 4.3-1 thru Re- Updated to account f w revised af fected Net ef fect of all changes is judged to be 4.3-3 sources areas, and addition of quarry. envi ronmen tal ly i nconseq uenti al .
?
m w N a W C rm
-< 2 em Co Z N -i X
=<
O O O
, 3,
[ ) l l \ x--
\ j 's ,/
@f3RP ENV IRON 4NTAL REK:RT REVIEW PAGE 18 ER SECT ICN REVISED I TE sa DES @lPTION OF CHANGE ENVIR0ratNTAL EFFECT 5.1 No ch ange.
5.1.1 No change. 5.1.1.1 5.1-3. -4 Cooling Updated to reflect ef f ects of cooling Change demonstrates that latest design System sy ste redesign. produces ef f ects that are enveloped by previous (approved) designs. 5.1.1.2 5.1-5 "No Updated pl ume conf igurations to reflect Change f alls within ef f ects that are Flow" effects described In 5.1.1.1. enveloped by previous approvals. Plumes 5.1.2 5.1-6, -7 T hermal Revised to incl ude ref erence to NPDES NPDES requireents exert positive mntrois Dis- Permit requireents on ef fluent qual ity. Char ge Standards 5.1.3 No change. 5.1.3.1 5.1-12 th ru Fish Discusses recent studies of f ish Env iromental l y Inconseq uent i al . Habitat (striped bass and sauger) behavior in the Clinch River. Incl udes habi tats, migration and spawning. g 5.1.3.2 No change. e O 5.1.3.3 No change. 7. 5.1.3.4 No change.
- 5.1.3.5 No change.
5.1.4 No change. 5.1.5 5.1-22 Con- Update condenser water design flow rate. Envircmentally inconsequential . denser Al so updates CIInch River flow data. E ntr al ment 5.f.6 No change. 5.1.7 No change. 5.1.8 No change. Table 5.1-13 5.1-51 Cooling Updated Cooling System parmeters E nv iromental ly incon sequenti al . Sy stem s gg r- rn dZ 5.2 5.2-1 th r e Radiological This section has been completely Change judged to be f avorable. g 5.2-41 Impact rewritten to include impacts on both e-a 3: man and organism other than man. The gQ revised calculations result in reduced ru -4 dose estimates. x
*C
CRDRP ENV lROMNVAL REPOR7 REY IEW PAGE 19 ER SECrl0N REY lS ED ITEM DESmlPfl0N OF CHANGE ENVIROMNTAL EFFECT 5.3 Deleted. Included In nas Section 5.2 5.4 5.4-1 Effects Editcrial change to clarify and explain Envi ronmental ly Inconsequenti al . of Chem- that an acid feed systm is provided. Ical & lts use would adjust pH for control of Blocide corrosion and scaling, and to assure that Dis- the blowdown is in compilence with the charges the Draf f NFDES permit Ilmits. Defined the limits of chlorine Env i ronmental ly inconsequenti al, concentration. 5.4.1 5.4-2 waste Adds discussion of changes to weste Envi ronmen tal ly Inconsequenti al . Water water disposal system that have been Disposal previously described. 5.4.1.1 5.4-4a Coolant Total volume discharged increased slightly Env i ronmental ly inconsequenti al . Syst m with no changes in chemical concentrations. Di scharge 5.4.1.2 5.4-5 thru Di scharge Changed per cent dif f erential betwem E nv i ronmental ly inconsequenti al . 5.4-8 Plume ablent and blowdown concentrations, o N o Str iped Described bass response to chemical Environmental ly inconsequential, o Bass plume. N Water Identifies elments not meeting drinking Envi ronmental ly inconsequen ti al . M o QualI ty water stendards at 6$ Isopf eth during periods of extended no flow, included consideration of the mcre Environmentally Inconsequential. stringent of state cr federal requirements. fTables 5.4-1, 5.4-2 and 5.4-5). 5.4.2 5.4-12 Effects includes discussion of trlhelomethanes Envi ronmen tal ly Inconsequenti al . of Blo- fiHM's) (Table 5.4-1) cide Dis-charges 5.4.3 5.4-12a Storm Water Instead of being directly discharged The incorporation of this syste k r- in to the Cilnch River via catch basins, provides f urther assurance that the storm water collected by the roof and yard final ef fluent discharged to the 4y
- 3:
drains is sent via the stcrm dreinage river via the runof f treatment pond is systm to runof f treatment ponds f or within applicable ef fluent standards. *] g N -4 settiment and f il tering pricr to The ef fect is judged to be environ- x discharge to the river, mentally f avorable. < 5.4.4 No change. 5.4.5 No change. O O O
m u O k l CRBRP ENVIRONK8fiAL REFT)RT REVIEW PAGE 20 ER
$ECTION REV15ED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF 04ANGE ENV IRONENTAL EFFECT 5.5 No change.
5.5.1 5.5-1, -2 Effects Editorial change to clarif y that a package E nv i rorunental l y i nconseq uent i al . fran San- treatment plant will be used during the Itary construction perlod. A slow sand f il ter Wastes unit will be Installed following the CRBRP construction period to f orm a part of the permanent plant for the aormal operation of the plant, o Third paragraph deleted since the des- Env irormental l y Inconsequenti st . N crlption of the treatment plant is given g o in Section 3.7. p Treated of fluent discharges will be Envireesientally inconsequentiel. m processed to meet the Draf f NPDES permit
~ IlmIts Instead of "all State and Federal discharge regulations".
Discharges f rem coollng tower blowdown were Env irormental ly inconsequenti al, revised to be consistent with Table 3.3-4. i 5.5.2 Revised to update Diesel unit emissions Env irormental ly inconsequenti al . and add the third Diesel generator unit. Emissions are lowered. 5.6 No change. 5.7 5.7-1 Other No change. Opweting Efsects 5.7-1 5.7-1 thru Fuel Cycle Completely rewritten and expanded to Env ironmentel ly inconsequenti st . 5.7-58 discuss the f uel f abrication, fuel re- ! processing, waste management and transportation phases. For each phase, potential f acilities, ef fluent types and quanti tles, radiological ef f ects, saf e-guards prowlstons and financial cost CD estimates were evaluated. M
-< z
, 5.7-2 5.7-68 thru Noise Updated US Department of Housing and Urban Env irormentally inmnsequential. ~3 5.7-73 Impact s. Develogment external noise exposure ca tegor ies. sw 5.8 No change. < 5.8.1 5.8-1 Pl ant Total acreege committed updated. Envirormental ly inconsequenti al . site Changes will be provided In a f uture amenenent.
CRDRP ENV IRCNKNTAL REFORT REV IEW PAGE 21 ER $ECT ION REV ISED ITEM DESCRIFil0N OF 04ANGE ENVIRO 4KNTAL EFFECT 5.8.2 5.8-2 Water Water consumption updated to reflect E nv irormental ly inconsequent i al . Resour ces latest estimates. 5.8.3 5.8-2 thru Cor e Replaced homogeneous core arrangement Change decreases the heavy metal 5.8-4 Design with heterogeneous core arrangement commitments in the f uel ( U + Pu ) resul ting in reducing the number of f rm 6.5 MT to 4.2 MT. reduces the fuel enrichment zones f rm 2 to 1, stainless steel commitments in the Increasing the Pu enrichment in the fuel f rm 26.3 MT to 20.7 MT. The fuel f rm 18.7-to-27.1 to 33.2%, reducing heavy metal cemitment in the blanket the number of f uel assemblies f rm 198 to went fra 21.7 MT (radial & axial) to 156. This change also increases the 25.2 MT (Inner, radial & axiall, and number of blanket assembl ies f rm 150 increases the stainless steel commitment (r adi al ) to 208 (Inner and radial). In the bl ankets f ra 17.3 MT to 26.8 MT. Change Judged to be envirormentally inconsequent i al , o Revised Pu Isotopic composition to be Env iromental l y inconsequential, y simil ar to FFTF grade Instead of char-
- o. acteristic of LWR discharge.
~
- o Revised ref ueling schee f rm annual This results in increasing the total M
N to batch which results In increasing the heavy metal cmmitments based on a once total number of f uel assembl ies, required through f uel cycles f rm 20 MT Pu to 27 MT during plant lif e, f ra 2,300 to 2,427 Pu, f rm 210 MT U to 332 MT U and increasing the total number of blanket f rm 410 MT stainless assemblies f rm 850 to 2,106. steel to 595 MT. If reprocessing is assumed, then the total not heavy metal commitment of uranium decreases f rm 17.7 MT to 14.2 MT and the not gain of bred plutonium increases f rm 2.9 MT to 3.2 MT. Change judged to be slightly adverse. 5.8.4 No changes. 5.9 5.9-1 Pl ant Permanent plant acreage is increased. Env irormental l y inconsequenti al . Site cN r- m
=< Z O
H3 m-
>C O O O
.__ . . . _ . _ _ _. _. _ _ _ , , _ . __._____m __ . _ . . ~ . . . . _ _ _. _m. . -_. _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ m
. (W )~
@BRP ENV ISONENTAL REN)RT REVIEW PAGE 22 1
J 1 ER l SECT ION REVISED ITE M DESmlPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONENTAL EFFECT 6.0 No change. l 6.1 6. l Pre-con- Changed to Indicate that progre was Env iromental ly inconsequenti al .
.struc- conducted.
tion Monitoring Progre
, 6.1.1 ?
6.1.1.1 6.1-1 thru Base- Completion of baseline aquatic monitoring Env iremental l y inconsequenti al . 6.!-24 line Mon- progra description (results of basellne I tar Ing progre reported in Sxtlon 2.7), t Progr a 6.1.1.2 6.1-25 thru Pre-con- Provides a summary description and con- Env iromental ly inconsequenti al . 6.1-28e struc- clusions of the pre-construction aquatic Change provides data base for deter-
, tion enviromental monitoring. mination of envirorunental etf ects dueu l Aquati c to construction as monitored by the construction enviromental monitoring progr m.
O
$ 6.1.2 6.t-29 Ground- Updated to incorporate ref erence to Env iromental ly inconsequential .
j ,O ma ter the pre-construction monitoring program
.-. (1976-1977).
I 7 N 6.1.2.1 6.1-29. -29a Pr e-con- Provides summary conclusions of the Env ironmental l y inconsequenti al . W struc- pre-cor.struction groundwater quellty Change provides data base f or the ] tion monitoring progre. construction monitoring progrm.
; Ground-mater Quality i'
6.1.3 6.1-30 thru Meteor- Updates meteorological description to Env iromental ly inconsequenti al . 6.1-33 ol ogy incorporate description, Instr umenta tion Permanent meteorological and data acquist tlon system f or the on- f acilities will be used during plant ! site permanent metecrological monitoring construction and operation f or on-site 3 stations. meteorologf cal analyses. I Deletes description of on-site temporary Env iromental ly Inconsequenti al . ' j meteorological monitoring station. ! 6.1.4 i j 6.1.4.1 6.1-35 thru Geology Provides update of site geology invest- Enviromental l y inconsequential . c. 3=
- 6.1-37 Igation (resul ts provided in Section 2.4). %%
-< z
< 6.1.4.2 6.1-38. -39 Land Use Discusses the ovat uation of demographic Env iromental ly Inconsequenti al . ~3
& Demog- changes. The data are presented gQ
! - raphic in Section 2.2. _ m -4 Surv ey s x
@BRP ENVIR0hTNTAL RETORT REVIEW PAGE 23 ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESGlPTION OF OiANGE ENVIRmKNTAL EFFECT 6.1.4.3 6.1-39 thru Terres- Provides updato discussion of basellne E nv i rorvnent al ly i nconseq uent i al .
6.1-41 trial terrestrial monttw ing progr m. (Con-Ecology clusions provided In Section 2.7). 6.1-42 Constr uc- Provides ref erence to on-site construction Enwn ronment ally inconsequenti al, tion environmental mont forIng progre. Monitw ing 6.1.5 No change. 6.1.5.1 6.1-42a thru Precon- Provides complete description and results Change is judged to be slightly f avorable. 6.1-43 struc- of pre-construction radiological (river Provides bests f or Irproved determination tion water, groundwater, sediment) monitwing of radiological disturbance as monttwed Radiological progr an. during the construction radiological Monitwing monitoring progre. 6.2 No change. 6.2.1 l 6.2.1.1 6.2-1 thru Gaseous Updates plant gaseous ef fluent mont twing Change is judged to be slightly f avorable. 6.2-2b Efflu- locations (32 locatf or.s f ran 13 locattor.s.) Systm will provide o ents 1 - steem generator building - continuous monitas at those locations 9 - reactw containment buildings which could conceivably undergo o 2 - reactor service building significant increase in detectable L I - redweste area l evel s
- periodic sampling for areas es y 1 - plant service building necessary.
N 12 - turbine generata buildings
- 6 - steam generator buildings PSB Liquid of fluents go to liquid redweste Env i ror.nental l y i nconseq uent i al .
Liquid system for reprocessing. Effluents 6.2.1.2 6.2-3 thru Pre-op- Provides current (atmospheric, terrestrial. E nv i rorvnenta l l y I nconseq uen ti al . 6.2-10 per et t ore- aquatic, groundwater) radiological monitoring al Rad- progres f or the pre-operational and fotogi- operational phases. cal Monitoring gg r, r 6.2.2 No change. *y
.- 3:
6.2.3 No change. $] N --t 6.2.4 No change. x 6.2.5 No change. 6.3 6.3-1 Other Deletes monitoring stations at TV A's E nv i rorenent al l y i nconsequent i al . Monitor- Kingston's stem plant and Bull Run stean plant. Ing Prograns O O O
'N N h J J J CRBRP ENVIR(NE'NTAL Reft)RT REVIEW PAGE 24 1
I SECTION REVISED ITEM EESCRIPTION OF 04ANGE ENVIRONTNTAL EFFECT 7.1 7.1.1 7.1.1.1 7.1-2 N tear- Meteorology data contained in Section 2.6 Env iromental l y inconsequenti al . ol ogy provided by Amenowet IX are used in the computa tions. 7.1.1.2 7.1-2 thru Me thod- Beta dose calculations deleted. Env iromental ly inconsequenti al . 7.l-6 ology 7.1.1.3 7.1-6 Sodl e Fire Updates description of computer mde Env ironmental ly Inconsequenti al . Analysis capabi l i ties. 7.1.2 7.1.2.1 No change. 7.1.2.2 7.1 -7, -8 Steam The amount of trittated water released The combined ef f ect of these changes is to Dre to the envirorwent is 353,000 lbs. Instead Increase the site boundary whole body dose r a Val ve of 450,000 lbs. f ra 1,77 mram to 5.50 mram; both are , m ( 2.1 )
- env ironmental l y inconsequenti al .
$ The tritium cogentration has Ingeesed f ra .25 x to Cl/g to .62 x to CI/g.
(bnden- The tritisse concentration in the Cbqdensate The short-term downstream tritium concen-N ui sate Storage Tank gereased to .62 x 10 Cl/g tration Inghe Clinch River Ineg#assed fr a Stcr age frce .25 x to C1/g. 7.18 x 10' Cl/g to 2.89 x 10' Cl/g Tank af ter the postulated leaks both are Leak env ironmental ly inconsequenti al . ( 2.2 ) 7.1.2.3 7.1-9 thru RAPS Describes cell mntainment prowlsions. The envirorwental of fects are judged to be 7.1-14 RAPS components moved to RG. The acci- f avor abl e. ftAPS leakage is processed dent postulations are adjusted to through the RG Mf AC. reflect this change. Radmaste The tritium concentration In the The combined ef f ect of these changes is to System stcrage gnk mater has increagd to reduce the postulated spill cleanup time Fail ures .62 x 10 Cl/g fr a .25 x 10 Cl/g. and increase the whole body $d ose at the (3.1) site bounpry to 1.01 x 10 mram f ra Storage tank cell parameters have 9.4 x 10 mram, but both are changed sucg as the flo$ area Increase env iromental ly inconsequential, to 1,000 ft fra 8003ft and the volpe Increase to 39,000 f t from 30.000 ft . Sump pump flow capacity increased to c-N r rn 50 gpm f rom 10 gpm. *$
-2
*Ref er to accident number In Envirorwental Report. $$
N -4
>C
GBRP ENylR(NTNTAL Reft)RT REVIEW PAGE 25 ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DES m lFil0N OF CHANGE DIV fRONKHTAL EFFECT Liquid Tritium concentration In storage tank water The combined ef f ect of these changes Is Radweste has increased due to change in Interf ace to increase the site boundary whole body System diffusioncoejfIclents. Concentration Is dose f rom pt s postulated 4ccidentto Tank now .62 x 10 Cl/g In SGS. 2.13 x 10 fra 5.0 x to aral both are i (3.2) enviromentally Inconsequential . l Spill cleanup time is reduced to 6.7 hours by using higher capacity sump pumps. RAPS Accident redef ined due to relocation of The enviromental ef f ects are judged to be Noble RAPS cruponents. f ever ab t e. O Gas Stcr-
$ age Vessel ,o Ruptur e l - (3.3) l M l N Rupt ur e Del eted. Noble Gas Stcrage Vessel Rupture l
- of Equal- replaces Equallration Line Rupture as tration enveloping postulated accident f or the RG.
l Line l (3.4) 7.1.2.4 7.1-14 thru Sodlun Analyses revised to update creputations. For Accident 4.1, the resul tagt whole body 7.1-20 Fire dose Incr_egses f ra 1.4 x 10 res to Accidents 2.37 x 10 . For Accident 4.2 the stole (4.1) body dose decgeases f ra 1.5 x 10-to 8.75 x 10- res. (4.2) Both are enviromentally inconsequential. 7.1.2.5 7.1-22 thru Fuel The current plant design has a higher purge The net ef f ect of the changes is to 7.1-24 Fall ures rate of the ccver gas which has reduced the reduce the site tgundary whole body ( 5.1 ) available Xenon and Krypton activity to dosg to 8.4 x 10- mre f rca 3.4 x 56,600 Cl f rca 65,816 Cl. 10- armi both are envirornentally inconsequential. c-N
'9
.-. 5!
o rn 00 Z N -4 X
*C O O O
,. ,/ m m N, ,/ (,' N _-
@BPP ENV IPOrd(NT AL REFT)RT REV IEW PAGE 26 FR SECTION REyl$fD ITEM OEFGIPTION OF OiANGE ENVIRONENTAL EFFECT Steem A r ev i sed DBL f or the steam generator The net ef f ect of the changes is to Gener ator rest.i ts in 465 lbs. of sodium mining with increase the site boundary whole tpdy dose Tube with water instead of 337 lbs. of sodlum. to 8.3 x 10'2 mre frm 2.1 > 10' mrem:
Fupt ur e The triti concentration in SGS is now both are insigni f icant. 15.2) .62 x 10 Cl/g and in the IHTS is
.I3 x 10 Cl/g.
Deleted the centrif ugal separatcr f rm This change is judged to be adverse, the $ odium-Water Reactor Pressurc Rellet since this could potentially Subsystem ( 9 RFRS). resul t In the release of more sodlue-water reaction particulates into the a +rospher e. The duratten of the SWPPR venting to the No change to estimated enviromental atmosphere was increased f rm 15 to 28 ef f ects. seconds as a resul t of an updated TRAN3sPAP code analysis of ihls event. Thi s mor e detal d ed analysis tracks the primary sodlum which ralght leak into the Intermediate sodium. It considers the longth of pIptng eetweer. the Q e lHX and the superheater i nl e t, and the reduced sodium flow during blowdown and predicts that no P prirary sodium will reach +*e superheater during
- this event f or subsequent release to the atmosphere.
x I N N C> CZ rm
=< 2 O
WZ Dm CD 2 N --4
>C
@BRP ENVIRONENTAL REFORT REVIEW PAGE 27 ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESmlFTION OF QUWGE ENVIRON > ENTAL EFFECT 7.1.2.6 7.1-26 th r u Spent EarIIest schedulnd time f or f uel assembly The combined ef f ect of the changes is to 7.1-31 Fuel handling Is incressed to 8 days f rm 87 Increase the s!
Cl addi ng hours. from 1.5 x 10 ',temr boundary whole m to 2.13 x ydy dose 10 mrm; Fail ure both are envirorvnentally inconsequent i al . In the Revised ORIGEN Isotope Ilbrary 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 a Cladding dose f or this postulated accident f rm ro Fail ure 1.5 mre to 2.1 mre, both are environ-In the EYTM mentally Inconsequential. (6.2)
- o k Accident- Revised ORIGEN isotope IIbrary was used The combined ef fect of the changes to co ally to generate f ission product inventories increase the site boundary whole body Opening Revisions were based on never calculational dose to 1.08 mre f rm .07 mrm; both a Fl oor schwes. are envircrvnentally incensequential.
Val we (6.3) 7.1.2.7 7.1-32 Spent Isotope Inventories were revised using The combined ef f ect of the changes Is to Fuel updated ORIGEN libraries. The ORIGEN Cask changes were due to revisions in the decrease the4 si tt boundarywholeydydose to 2.8 x 10 mrm fr m 9.3 x 10 mrm; Orop l ibrary calcul ational schmes. both are environmentally Inconsequential . (7.11 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 bl anket assembl ies f rom 5 and 4, respectively. C-h E' A
.< =
O co = ro -4 O O O
h h / g V U V (RBRP ENVIRONKNTAL REFVRT REVIEW FAGE 28 ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE DivlRONENTAL ETFECT 7.1.2.8 7.1-33 thru Primary Primary sodlum Isotope Inventory has The cmbined ef f ect of the changes is to 7.1-43 Sodlum changed due to revisions in the ORIGEN reduce the sitg boundary whole ,bgdy dose Drain library calculational schees, fra 9.7 w 10 rem to 8.4 x 10 rem; Tank both are envircmentally inconsequential. Fail ure Cell 102A dimensicns have changed. Fo ( 8.1 ) example, the cell golume is 45,000 f t.g and was 68,000 f t. The potential sodle spill volume has increased to 35,000 gallons f ra 32,000 gallons. Primary The postulated sodium spill has been The combined ef f ect of the changes is to Coolant reduced to 135,000 lbs. fra 193.000. Increase the sjte boundary whole tgdy dose Sodlum it was conservatively assumed that the fra 8.3 x 10~ re. to 1.25 x 10~ re; Spill aerosol leaked to the RCB was vented 'both are enviromentally inconsequential. ( 8.2 ) directly to the enviroment. Previously 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 ef fect of the changes Is to recuce g tainment f rom 90,000 gal . to 45,000 gal. of sodium. the sitepundary whole bo,d3 dose fra j ru Primary This Is the result of a f ailure of one of 1.3 x to ram to 4.2 x 10 rm; both are Coolant env ironmental ly Inconsequenti al .
. Sodlum two storage vessels in the cell rather tw o.
y Spill ( 8.3 ) The leak rate of aerosol was based on the cell
@ design leak rate of .6 vol5/ day at 3.9 psig.
rather than 100 vol5/ day at 10 psig which was previously used. Ex-Ves- Aerosol leakage to the RSB f rom the cell The net ef fect is to increase the site 4 sel Stor- was calculated based on a cell design boundary whole bo age Tank leak rate of .36 voll/ day at 12 psig. are to 4.3 x 10~gy arm; doseboth f ror are 2.1 x 10-Coolant rather than 100 vol5/ day at to psig. env iromental ly inconsequenti al . Rupture This approach will release less aerosol ( 8.4 ) into the environment. Cell dimensions were updated. Large The SGS trlttum congntration has in- The combined ef f ect is to increase.the Steam creagd to .62 x 10 CI/g from .25 site boundary whole body d6se to 4.7 mram Line x 10 C1/g. This is the result of f rom 1.9 mre; both are enviromentally Break changes in dif f usion <x>ef f icients across Inconsequential. ( 8.5 ) system interface boundaries. a$ c The never design basis results In 312,000 lbs. Qo of water being released f rom the FRV instead of 479,000 lbs. The power rellet vent period ,_ $% CO 2 has been increased f rom 1.5 to 5.7 hours. x dc
CRBRP ENVIRONKNTAL Reft)RT REVIEW FAGE 20 ER SECTION REYlSED ITEM DESmlPTION OF CHANGE
, ENVIRmKNTAL EFFECT -
7.1.3 No change. 7.2.1 7.2-1 Hydrogen The total mount of hydrogen gas stored has E nv ironmental ly inconsequentist. Gas e,ot changed; however, the volume has been S tor age restated in terms of standard voltm.e 128,000 SCF) rath er than bottled storage copacIty. 7.2.2 7.2-5a, -5b Oli and Systms/ Bull dings invol ved with 'the incorporation of these f eatures in station Haz ar d- stcr age, treasf er, or loading /untreding ous design prowldas f urther protection against of any oil r< hazardous material a-a spill of oil and hazardous meterial Material provided with secondary containment reaching the local enviroment. Spil l s systems capable of containing the Env iromental ly Inconsequent i al . largest source of an oil or hazardous material spill without any adverse g environmental im pact. N LD F N e W O N E #i
<=
O w= N -i O O O
GBRP ENVIRONFENTAL REFORT REV IEW PAGE 30 T ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESmiPTION OF CHANGE ENV IRONkENTAL EFFECT 8.0 No change. 8.1 8.1-1 thru Socio- Complete assessment of socio-econanic This change is judged to be slightly 8.2 8.3-22 econom ic parameters of WBRP plant construction f avor abl e, it provides current data 8.3 and operation is provided. The assess- base f or eval uation of socio-economic 1 ment is based on current constr uct i on assessment. manpower requirenents, 1980 census and 1981 . communI ty serv ice and Inf ra-structure data. 4 i i + b N O O. Y w i i ca C Fm
-< 2 O
W3 Dm CX) 2 N -4 ac
@BRP ENV IRON 4NTAL REfDRT REv iEW PAGE 31 ER SECTION REVISED ITEN DE S@ lPT 10t. OF D1 ANGE ENV IRONKNTAL EFFECT 9.1 9.l-1 Al ter- This section has been revised to ref- Env iromentally inconsequential .
na ti v e erence the suppiment to the LWBR Progrm Appr oaches Final E nv i romen t al Statement (PFES). 9.2 To De Provided Af ter- This section will be addressed in the E nv i romental l y inconsequen t i al . na ti v e suppiment to the LWBR Progre Final i Sites & Env ironmental Statement (FES). Piant Ar r angmen t s For discussion of Hock-on arrangements refer to response to Question 320.f N and 320.2R. Further discussion of candidate sites will be provided in the near f uture. c Section 9.2.5.3.4 will be updated to reflect N response to Quest ton 230.5R. O I N c_. >
<=
W er CC 2 N --i X O O O
/ C i
h) k b
; CRC'P ENV 1R(NTNTAL REFORT REV IEW FACE 32 4
ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONENTAL EFTECT 1 J 10 ?O.0-1 Plant Design Revised to establish position that the Environmentally Inconsequential . Al ternatives the relative ef f ectiveness rankings of the various uesign al ternatives have not changed cver the past f Ive years, and that a compre-hensive update of all the al ternatives Is not
! required. The descriptions of the chosen al terna tives were updated to be consistent with the rest of the ER.
I 10.1 10.1-9 Cooling Updated desviption of the mechanical draf t E nv ironmental l y inconsequent i al . System wet cooling tower In a l inear arrangement. , 10.1-21 Deleted discussion of relative merits of Env iromental ly Inconsequenti al .
'; circular versus linear cell array since the lir. ear arra.ngement has been selected.
10.2 10.2-14 Intake Revised discussion of entrainment ef f ects Env iromental ly inconsequenti al . i System to indicate that studies are now complete j and the ef f ects are acceptable. 1 x3 j @ o 10.2-18 Updated to reflect mmpletion of baseline - Enviromentally inconsequential. survey s. Gee f Ish species present went 3' g frcm 2 to 3.
- o 4
E w 10.2-20 Deleted ref erence to baseline surveys being j in progress. Revised to include resul ts of completed studies. 10.3 10 bl,-2 Di scharge Revised to update CIInch River permeters Enviromental ly Inconsequenti al . System and specif y requirement f or discharges to comply =Ith NPDES Permit limitations. 10.3-5 increase pipe dimeter f rom 12 to 20 Enviromentally inconsequential . Inch diameter. l 1 10.4 10.4-1 Waste water Revised throughout to change system Env iromental ly inconseq uenti al . ! thru T '.4-18 Treatment designation f rom Chmical Waste Treatment System to Wastr water Treatment. Updated the dis-cussion of aste streams, the description of 4 the process, the alternatives and the bases for selecting the chosen system. J 10.5 10.5-6.-7 Blocide Revised discussion of blowdown flow control Env iromental ly inconseq uenti al . System to assure mntrol of high chlorine concen-tration. Updated fl(e rates. $@ r rn j 10.6 10.6-1 thru 10.6-10a Sanitary Waste Pevised to Include discussion of an extended aeration / chlorination system Env iromental ly inconseq uent i al . *@
-Z System that is the current chosen at ternatlve. $$
N --4 4 ><
GBRP ENV1RONKNTAL REIT)RT REVIEW PAGE 33 ER SECT ION REVISED ITEM DESmlPTION OF CHANGE ENVIROPDENTAL EFFEC 1 10.7 10.7-l a Liquid incorporated ref erence to Section 3.5 Env iromental ly inconsequenti al . Radweste
-4 System 'Jpdate ctaponent designstions and systm Env irornental ly Inconsequenti al .
de tai l s. 10.8 10.3-1 Gaseous incorporated System 6, patterned af ter the Change judged to have a slightly thru Radmaste FFTF systs, as the chosen system. negative envirornental ef f ect.
- 10. 8-12a Systm Editorial changes to assure proper designation of System 4 as the " originally selected" system.
10.9 Transmission No change. Facil I tles 10.10 10.10-2 Other Revised to provide for three diesel Envirornental ly inconsequentI al . System generator units.
?
8 t b R9 5 co = fu H O O O
4 AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 4 i t3 t n a [ w o z , b Y I 6 s 5 . i l5 l2 ! l 6 : , I W 'l E e e m a , d $ z 5, E e gi
$ 5!
5 C i %g 5 m i c d, f. lE I t l8 l i i I Z l i ei
-l S!
i 1 a: a a-8 .
@ "G i m, v
Q290.1R-35 I v< - -
- l i
l l WBRP ENYlROITNTAL REFVRT PEVIEW ' T' AGE 35 l ER SECTION IIVISED ITEM OCSmlFTION OF CHANGE ENV IR04KNTAL EFFECT l 12 12.0-1 th r u Permits Prov ides rev ised l i sti ng of Non-NRC No changes in estimated environmental 12.0-7 permits, purpose, l egi sl a ti on, and et f acts due to this tabulation. regulation anacting permit approval or notlfIcailu i l i I i i (
- c m
D P w N e I Lu . O l l i 1 i I l C-* b CZ rm 1 -< 2 W Dm CD 2 N --t O O O
CRBRP ENV IFOMNTAL prtT)RT REVIEW FAGf 36 ER SECTION reb lSE D I TE M DES 0llPTION OF OtANGE ENVIROPM NTAL EFFECT 13 13.0 3 thru Refer- Update to include appropr iate ref erences. No envirorvnental effects. 13.0-50 ences O to O O. N N e (nJ N Cb CZ
~<
a
" rti c
~1 ro x
<~.
OmRP ENVIRONKNTAL RETVRT REVIEW PAGE 37 ER SECTION REVISED 1 TEM DESmlFT10N OF DiNIGE ENVIRGiKNTAL EFFECT 14 14.1-2 thru Cl ean incorporates 1977 mendment to the State The change is judged to be slightly (Appen- 14.1- 81 Water of Tennessee Water Quality Criteria favorabte. It provides crIterie Ior dix to Act of Incorporates the 1977 clean water act OBRP design for reduction of Impact on Section 1977 enendnents to the Federal Water Pollution the enviroment. 2.5) Control Act. 14 14.3-3 Sauger Provides update Inf ormation on t, pawning No enviromental ef fects. (Appen- of sauger. dix to Section 2.7) 14 14.4-1 Dose Del eted. Incorporated into revised Environmental ly inconsequenti al . (Appen- Cal cul ation Section 5.2 dix to Model s Sections 5.2 and 5.3) 14 14.6-3 Cooling Updates moling toww blowdown rate The Increase in moling tower blowdown (Appen- Tower provides current design blowdown is Judged to be Instpt ficant crepared dix to temperature velues, to the Clinch River flow rate. Section 10.3) Appendix C-1 thru Socio-Em- Reports the results of a qualitative C C-71 nomic assessment of the soclo-economic of fects of GBRP construction and operation assimilng Inmover migration rates of 26% and 40%. The effects of the 1981 assessment are mmpared to g-) those estimated in 1976. N W Indicator Difference (1980-1976) f for 26% for 40% H y Population 800 1840 Enviromentally inconsequential O $ Housing 456 924 Housing demand for 40% frnover case j may create tight I;ousing market Educa tion Students 97 321 Environmental ly Inconsequenti al J Cl assroms. I 11 EnvIromentally inconsequential @g r rn Heal th Care *y Hosp. Beds -2 - Envirorsnenf ally inconsequential ~ 3: Drs.& Dentists - 1 EnvIronmentalIy InconsequentIat $$ ro --4 G G e
- N N
\ \
%,/
(EBRP ENY lRONkENTAL REPORT GEV IEW par.E 3e ER REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRON > ENTAL EFFECT SECTION 3 4 Publ ic Saf ety Data not cretar abl e Et 3
! Water Supply 53 161 (10 gpd) El I
Weste Disposal Liquid Wastes 60 1 84 El i Solid Wastes 31 74 (10 hod) (10 #/d) El l 1 Corwuter Traf f ic B to C to L ev el of Change judged to be only slightly C D of Ser- adv er se. Ef f ects are mitigated by j vice possible use of staggered shif ts, Level of serv ice on SR recent Intersection improvements, etc. I 95 between 1-40 and Bear l Creek Rd. could be Level E during peak commuter times l Expendi tures Changes discussed el se- Env irornental ly inconsequenti al a and Revenues where in ER
< N 4 O 1
O. I w i C I 1 C3 r-- m
-< Z O
W3 em N --4 x aC
AMEN 0 MENT XV JULY 1982
,) OUESTION 290.2R-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.
/~T Process water wastes (primarily ion exchange regeneration
() 2. 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. A V 0290.2R-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Following equalization, plant wastes are processed by the Waste Water Disposal System to meet the following NPDES Permit effluent limits; 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 resulting from design development. This increase has not impacted the design of water intake or discharge structures. O 0290.2R-2
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 () Quest 10D_22Q,1B Identify and make available for staff inspection during the site visit any new or updated 1 information pertaining to water quality, water l use, aquatic, biology, or terrestrial resources in the vicinity of the site published or generally available since submission of the ER. Sources of this information 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 f rom 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 4 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.
./
O290.3R-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Ouestion 290.4R v 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. (-)g Recent Clinch River flow hydrology is provided in Section 2.5 of the ER (Amendment IX). Periods of zero release from the Melton Hill Dam ace identified in Table 2.5-2. At this time TVA has no plans to maintain a minimum flow (discharge) from Melton Hill Dam. , 0290.4R-1
-m, e-w-- ,
m -.yg--- g g .-y---e -- - n mm-s --*-r- - -- m e --m. - - , e--, -,, , , , , - - , - - +-
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 () QuestiDD_220.5B Provide any additional information on the population levels, spawning activity, or other site specific informa'. ion on Corbicula sp. known to inhabit the Clinch River in the vicinity of the site.
RESPONSE
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. COIbigula EADil2Dsis was collected more f requently than any other taxa during all three years. Percent occurrence for CDIbiggla maDileDsis was 91, 81, and 75 percent for 1975, 1976, and 1977, /~ respectively. Abundance of COIbicula ranged f rom 0.0/m 2 at b} several sta tions to 141.3/m2 at CRM 19.0 in September 1976 (Ref. 1). The relatively low densicy of CDIbispla in the vicinity of the CRBRF site is prinarily 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 C9Ibicula 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., J r. , Taylor, M. P., Toole, T. W. and Wells, S. R., Status _9L tht_BDDInd191991 Cal _Wat9I [ Quality _and_BootisbeIins_ Biological _CommuDities_iD tbe \- ') CllDsb_Biver_PI19I_to_CoDstructioD_of_the_CllDsb_Blyer BI22d2I_EsastOI_PlaDit_1225:112a, Tennessee valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee and Muscle Shoals, Alabama, February 1979, 143 pp. and appendices. 2 90 . 5 R-1
lWENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Quest 19D_210d B 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 i summarized by species and location'of capture (water body segment) and provide an explanation of how the estimate was obtained.
RES PONSE i 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. Estimates of maximum sport fish harvest of individual species i were obtained f rom 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 i from individual bodies of water may exceed the estimated total, , the system-wide total is considered realistic. Total harvests were then estimated f or Guntersville, Wilson, and Pickwick l Reservoi rs based on harvest in adjacent reservoirs and a subjective comparison of the relative quality of their fisheries (Table 290.6 R-1) . 1 There is no known harvest of shellfish or molluscs for sport in () the Tennessee Valley. 4 9 02 90.6 R-1
AMEf1DMEf1T XV JULY 1982 Since a conservative margin of 40% has been applied to the information 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 consicered, 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 farthest from the Plant site (approximately 580 river miles) and therefore, would receive the greatest benefit f rom the ef f ects of dilution. O 1 O Q2 90 . 6 R-2
.. ._ . - . - _ _ ~ . .. . - .. . . - _ _ - - . _ - - _
2 1 1 TABLE 290.6R-1 - MAXIMUM PROBABLE SPORT FISHING HARVEST IN THE TENNESSEE RIVER BELOW CRBRP SITE
^
Species Harvest Pounds Grand - Total
----= ........--..........
Watts Chick- Nick- Gunters- Wheeler Wilson Pickwick Kentucky Reser-t Bar mauga ajack ville Reservoir Reservoir Reseroir vcir & Tailwaters Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir i > t Paddlefish 1,764 2,440 732 28,064 ] i j Buffalo 11,956 600 4 l Carp 2,940 5,612 2,928 145,716 i .o 1 N Flathead Catfish 1,176 25,376 2,562 902 98,070 4 &
, so Blue 5,884 741,039 6 Catfish 11,466 6,954 i Channel Catfish 50,568 14,823 39,780 369,735 Bullhead 183 263 6,500 j
e Drum 6,762 6,588 28,182 1,824 119,613 Rainbow j Trout 264 183 600 Striped Bass 15,876 33,916 732 8,064 White i Bass 27,048 28,548 6,588 4,248 225,678 1 c k
- G
- m i G2o a
wf w2 l ( H. i x t < l 4 4 1
TABLE 2 90.6R-1 - MAXIMUM PROBABLE SPORT FISHING HARVEST IN THE TENNESSEE RIVER BELOW CRBRP SITE Species liarvest Pounds Grand Total Watts Chick- Nick- Gunters- Wheeler Wilson Pickwick Kentucky Reser-Bar maaga ajack ville Reservoir Reservoir Reseroir voir & Tailwaters Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir Yellow Bass 294 488 5,307 9,864 Sanger 28,812 24,400 1,098 150 1,066,810 g Largemouth
. Bass 48,216 33,184 21,777 15,961 209,664 cn
- o i Smallmouth Bass 8,820 3,172 183 4,869 4,032 Spotted Bess 294 4,880 1,647 75 20,160 White Crappie 51,450 36,600 28,300 100,730 1,559,803 Black Crappie 2,940 4,636 1,098 28,224 Blue Gill 33,516 17,080 54,351 8,422 135,456 Red Eat Sunfish 244 12,444 1,541 90 Other Sunfish 4,148 2,013 1,578 16,428 E$
rm
-< Z C2
>*3 em CD Z N -4
>C O O O
TABLE 290.6R MAXIMUM PROBABLE SPORT FISHING HARVEST IN THE TENNESSEE RIVER BELOW CRBRP SITE Species Harvest Pounds Grand Total 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 g Wall Eye 1,764 732 183 20 o P3 1 294,000 244,000 193,000 280,000 187,000 119,000 252,000 4,795,000 6,354,000 c2 CR Fm
- i (D 3 N -1 l
e y y y y -, - - -. q- y. - , , - - - - - - - - - w- -r- w ,, m _w _.a_ __---_-___m_ - , - - - - , ,
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O) (_, Quest 190_21Q,2B 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, f)/ s_ RES PONSE 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 l ! recent harvest data for each region of the Valley. These estimates have been increased by 40% to conservatively account f or the uncertainty of the information. 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 l () Tennessee Valley. Shells of freshwater mussels are harvestea to be used as nuclei for cultured pearls in Japan. No estimates Q2 9 0. 7 R-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 are available for individual bodies of water, but based on our h 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 effects of dilution. O O 02 9 0. 7 R-2
s TABLE 290.7R-1 - MAXIMUM EXPECTED COMMERCI AL FISit IIARVEST FOR LOWER EIGitT TENNESSEE RIVER RESERVOIRS
- - _ _ . ..._ _EESIRYOIR __ _ _ _ .
Commercial Kentucky Pickwick Wilson Wheeler Guntersville Nickajack Chickamauga Watts Bar Pish Croups.fPounds) fPoundal (19MRdSi . ._.lf2MRds) f Poppds) ff9 ands) fPounds) Ifqpnds) TOTAL Paddlefish 249,830 21,713 7,812 33,807 34,206 12,631 43,117 47,502 450,618 O e Carp 140,104 44,288 15,936 68,960 69,775 9,146 31,223 34,398 413,830 O I Buffalo 2,059,114 781,593 281,246 1,216,982 1,231,378 109,813 374,674 414,960 6,469,760 x I Catfish 1,513,737 337,919 121,596 526,157 532,382 24,172 87,270 90,636 3,228,868 w Drum 27,423 18,858 6,786 29,364 29,711 851 2,974 3,276 119,243 l 70TAL 3,990,208 1,204,371 433,376 1,875,270 1,897,452 156,613 534,258 590,772 10,682,319 l l l i c> C3 t~ m
-< Z C3 6-* 3 Dm
.CD 2 N ~4 ac
M1ENDMENT XV JULY 1982 () QuestiDD_22Q BB (NRC letter dated 10/26/81, response letter dated 12/22/81) ! I 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 part of Amendment IX to the ER. i O 02 90. 8 R-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Ouestion 290.9R Give the status of the NPDES Permit, the Clean Water Act 401 Cer tif ica tion, and other permits and approvals required prior to station operation. ResDonse The specific details of individual permits and approvals are as f ollows:
- 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region IV)
- a. Perri_t - The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit O# b. Status - A Draf t NPDES Permit was initially issued November 4,1976, however, due to the National Policy Debate concerning the f uture of the CRBRP Project, the draf t permit was not f urther resolved.
An up-to-date draf t of the NPDES Permit application was prepared in late November 1981 and was transmitted to the EPA and the State of Tennessee in early December 1981. Recent discussions with the EPA indicate that a final draf t NPDES permit is expected to be completed f or inclusion in the NFC update to the CRBRP Final Environmental Statement ( NUREG-013 9 ) , which is scheduled f or publication on June 22,1982. 2 90 . 9 R-1
D AMEf4DMEf4T XV JULY 1982
- 2. State of Tennessee, Bureau of Environmental Health 0
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 draft 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.
l a. Approvals - Registration of withdrawal of 50,000 or l l l 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.
- 4. Federal Aviation Administration, Air Space and Procedures Branch l
- a. Permit - Permits for tall structures--necessary for any structures 200 feet in height above the ground level at its base.
290.9R-2
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 [) b. Status - Permits have been obtained for those V structures presently existing on site. No additional structures requiring such permits are presently planned.
- 5. Federal Aviation Administration, 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)
\J a. Permits - (1) Assignment of frequency authorization and approvals to operate two-way radios during the plant's construction phase.
l l (2) Assignment of a frequency j authorization and approvals to l operate a radio communications (i.e., microwave receiver / transmitter system) system during the plant's operational phase.
- b. Status - (1) The frequency authorization and the approval to operate two-way radios for the construction phase have been secured. Other necessary frequency 3
authorizat.sns will be secured as sl appropriate. 290.9R-3
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 (2) The f requency authorization for the plant's operational phase will be secured prior to plant operation.
- 7. U.S. Coa st G ua rd, Aids to Navigation Branch
- a. Approval - An approval that insures that adequate lights and other markings are provided on structures near navigational channels such as the barge f acility,
- b. Status - U.S. Coast Guard approval was given November 30, 1981 that the Project's planned actions were adequate.
- 8. State of Tennessee, Bureau of Environmental Health Services, Division of Air Pollution Control l a. Permits - Permits are needed to both construct and operate the following emission sources:
1 1 Concrete Batch Plant Rock Crusher Facility 1 Cooling Towers Diesel Generators Any stationary internal or external combustion units
- b. Status - The necessary inf ormation f or these l permits is being assembled and the proper l procedures f or complying with their requirements are being followed. An assessment has been c
290.9R-4
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 conducted which identifies the potential to emit 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 f ollowing:
(1) to discharge dredge or fill materials i.nto navigable waters, (2) to construct water intake and discharge f acilities, (3) to construct barge f acilities, and (4) to provide an access road and railroad f ill s. (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 perform the following activities:
( (1) construction of water intake and () diccharge structures, 2 90 . 9 R- 5
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 (2) construction of the barge facilities, and h (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.
- 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 O
290.9R-6 l 1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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 for movement of five 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 this 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 through Federal property is being developed.
- 14. City of Oak Ridge i a. Permit - Grant of easement.
l l
- b. Status - Two changes to the City of Oak Ridge's grant of easement from DOE for Bear Creek Road have been identified - one 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 shortly with the City of Oak Ridge.
O 2 90 . 9 R-7
MIENDMENT XV JULY 1982 (]
- QuestioD_22Q210B 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 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 type s. 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. 1 (_/ l 0290.10R-1 . _ , - -
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 () OUESTION 290.11R 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 Pletho', asis cooperianus, P. cica trico sus, fusconaia cuneolus, E. f florentina, 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 site, 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 cies. 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. O RESPONSE Freshwater mussel populations in the lower reach of the Clinch River have not been the specific subject of any investigation in over 50 years; however, several studies have evaluated macro-invertebrate f auna in the vicinity of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project (CRBRP) site (Project 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-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 of sand. Due to the limited amount of suitable substrate and the h failure of several surveys to encounter significant mussel populations, 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. Project Management Corporation, 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 l Records of presently-listed endangered freshwater mussels i collected within 40 river miles of the CRBR Site (Clinch River Mile 15-17 ) . Species Stream & Site Date & Reference
- 3) Fusconaia cuneolus Clinch River 1914-Ortmann, (Solway) Rm 44 1918 i
l Poplar Creek Before 1918-l (Roane Co.) at Ortmann, 1918 l mouth at Rm 12.0 l 0290.llR-2 l l l
AMENDMENT XV-JULY 1982 Emory Rivera 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 Bef or e 1918-(Pattons Ferry) Ortmann, 1918 Rm 14
() Tennessee River Rm 595.0 1978-Gooch, et. 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 1
- 5) Lampsilis orbiculata Clinch River 1914-Ortmann, (Solway) Rm 44 1918' Tennessee River 1978-Gooch, et.
Rm 588.4 al. 1979 l 0290.llR-3 !
MENDMENT XV JULY 1982
- 6) Lampsilis virescens Emory River (Harriman) Rm 11 1915-Ortmann, 1918 lh
- 2) Epioblasma turgidula Emory River 1915-Ortmann, (Harriman) Rm 11 1918 REFERENCES 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, pp. 126. Follow on information on OUESTION 290.llR 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 9
0290.11R-4
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 b,' s_ 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 f reshwater mussel species on either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or on the TVA generated lists are typically found on stable gravel or cobble substrates. Marginal habitats for the Plethobasus species, Lamosilis orbiculata, Dromus dromas and Pleurobema olenum might extend to sand or clay substrates if the bottom material was i current-swept, stable and penetrable enough to allow the mussels to dig in. Solid bedrock or shifting mud or sand substrates, which characterize the river bed in the vicinity. at and downstream of the CRBRP site, are unsuitable habitats for nearly all freshwater mussel species including all of the species on either of the lists prepared by the CRBRP site.
- 4. Known ranges of species involved (live records 1975-date):
Cenradilla caelata -middle reach of the Powell River (RM 95-120) O) ( -middle reach of the Clinch River (RM 184-219, 2 53, 27 3) 02 90 . ll R-5
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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 67-13 6)
-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)
Eoioblasma florentina -no recent records; presumed to be florentina extinct Epioblasma torulosa -one site record from the middle cubernaculum reach of the Clinch River (RM 187) Epioblasma turoidula -last collected (1972) on the Duck i River (RM 250) in an area now covered by Normandy Reservoir; presumed extinct l l Fusconaia cuneolus -middle reach of the Powell River (specific sites not available)
-extensive reach of the Clinch River
( RM 156-226, 26 8-32 2)
-one site on the Paint Rock River (RM 48)
O 02 90 . llR-6
ANENDMENT XV JilLY 1982
/~'N Fusconaia edaariana -middle reach of the Powell River (RM 67-136)
-an extend d reach of the Clinch River (RM 184-27 9)
-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)
Lamosilis 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 f rom the Ohio River
) near Paducah, Kentucky (near Rm 940)
-several sites in the reach of the Cumberland River that has been studied (RM 275-30 5)
-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--all in Missouri.
Lampsilis virescons -upper Paint Rock River system (RM 59-60 and Hurricane Crock) I l Plethobasus clatricosus -one record f rom the Tennessee River near Savannah, TN (near RM 190) O 0290. llR-7
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Plethobasus cooperianus -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 9
0290.11R-8
- AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 -
i OUESTION 310.2R l Provide current data on labor force requirements and schedules, intra-structure capacity and demand, tax rates and fiscal resources, population, land use and competing construction projects.
RESPONSE
The requested information was updated to a 1980-1981 data base in l ER Amendments X and XIV, dated December, 1981 and May, 1982, ! respectively. 1 I l IO . l l O Q310.2R-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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: o Transportation Transients The main sources of transportation transients within five miles of the site are local highways. Using the Average 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:
I-40 --11 miles Tenn 58 ---8 miles Tenn 95 ---5 miles
- Assuming the average speed of vehicles if 55 miles per hour, this distance translates into an average vehicle transit time for each highway.
I-40 --12 minutes Tenn 58 ---9 minutes Tenn 95 ---6 minutes Q310.3R-1-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 2
- The product of the proportion of a day that a vehicle is within 5 miles of the site and the total traf fic volume is the resident equivalent. For example, for I-40, the calculation is:
12 minutes (21,130 vehicles) = 17 6 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. 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 major industrial facilities; the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (ORGDP), the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and the Y-12 plant. Table 2.2-6 shows the employment at these facilities. Each f acility 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. O 0310.3R-1-2
MiENDMENT XV JULY 1982 () - For the weekend shift personnel, the fraction is only 16/168 or .095 workhours/ week. Thus (.095) (120) = 11 persons. 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 overnight and in the camp for 12 hours or more. l 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. l 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. O 1 0310.3R-1-3 i i
-.---,.,-.--.__,--_..,,-...-..--.-.__,n
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O 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. O O 0310.3R-1-4
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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 4 O 0310.3R-2
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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 secticn 2.2.2, the first sentence which describes the type, location, and distance of wildlife preserves, sanctuaries, or hunting h areas from the site should be changed to read as follows: l l "No wildlife preserves, sanctuaries, or hunting areas are within a 5-mile radius of the Site." All of the sentences that follow this sentence within section 2.2.2 regarding wildlife management areas are correct as presented. This change was made in Amendment XIII. l l O 0310.3R-3
41ENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O QUESTION (4) Section 2.2.2.2. In what year was the Clinch River Consolidated Industrial Park 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. Edgle Pichet, 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. l l O i i 0310.3R-4
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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 Hill 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 short duration and limited to periods when these fish are migrating past the proposed site (late winter and sprir.g). 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 assumes that 50 percent of this pressure occurs in the Tennessee River. J 0310.3R-5-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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. O l t l l l l l l l l hh 0310.3R-5-2
, AMEN 0 MENT XV JULY 1982 O
V QUESTION (6) Table 2.2-1 This table and others which follow are based on preliminary 1980 census data. As final 1980 data are available, the Applicant should supply revised tables. 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 f rom the Site is significantly different on the final report (14.4 percent higher) . Because the final population numbers 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 ER. 0310.3R-6
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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 Projectionsk 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 ll coordinated with local and district planning agencies prior to finalizing the work presented in amendment X. Because the projections prepared by the Public Health Department are viewed as department projections rath'er than final state projections, it is not believed they are any more reliable than those used in the CRBRP analysis. I 1 0 0310.3R-7
MIENDMENT XV JULY 1982 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. O 1 l 2 I O Q310.38-8
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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 size 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. O 0310.3R-9
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 QUESTION (10) Section 8 The Applicant should describe the planning institutions in the four-county area, specifically: i (a) The control of land use decisions and zoning; I (b) special purpose ordinances, e.g., mobile homes, farmland preservation, floodplains; and (c) comprehensive plans and planning. RESPONSE (10) The following discussion summarizes the pianning 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 i county have specific f armland preservation ordinances.
Mobile home use is restricted in Oak Ridge but generally I allowed everywhere 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-j 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. l (c) In Loudon County, all municipalities and the county have j
- comprehensive planning, zoning ordinances, and sub-division regulations. A farmland preservation ordinance i
i 0310.3R-10-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 has not been passed by any planning commission in Loudon O 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, liarriman, 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. Allrcommunities and counties in the study area have active planning O commissions. Cities like Knoxville 'nd a Oak Ridge have their own staf f-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. O 0310.3R-10-2
M1ENDMENT XV JULY 1982 QUESTION (11) Table 8.1-3
'he State of Tennessee Department of Public Health State Center !
for Health Statistics has revised 1980 projections for the f our-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) O See response to question 6 regarding the use of department projections in place of the preliminary projections prepared by the Bureau of the Census. '
- 4 k ,.
A. k % a 9
- 0310.3R-ll -
. _ s - -
y wr -- - - - - - --- - - v-- . _g -g - w- - = -
AMEtiDMEf4T XV JULY 1982 QUESTION (12) O Table 8.1-4 l l This table indicated . declining population in the 5-19 t (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) i The Applicant does not have a specific explanation for this discrepancy. l l 1 l l h 0310.3R-12 l l
ANENDMENT XV JULY 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, res pectively. 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, res pe ctively, were apparently listed incorrectly. O 0310.3R-13 1 - _ _ -__ _ _- _ _ _ _. _ _
1 AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 QUESTION (14) Section 8.2.2.1 4 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 from CRBRP project-related employment and income in the four-county area would be less than the gross totals presented in this section. l l l O 0310.3R-14
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O QUESTION (15) Section 8.2.2.2 In view of the Appalachian Regional Commission's research on the 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., r~5 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 i O 0310.3R-15
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 QUESTION (16) Section 8.2.2.3 What is the current status of P.L. 81-875 for FY 19827 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 Committee 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 1cvels 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 "f ully funded" and "not pro-rated" based on the 1982 request Notwithstanding the Continuing Resolution, OMB is calling for a rccission of all impact aid money, except $185 million for payments to 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 climinated. O 0310.3R-16
AMENDMENT XV I JULY 1982 I O QUESTION (17) l 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. O l 0310.3R-17 i
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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 NBC in a letter to Paul Check f rom John Longnecker " Response to NRC Questions 1-39," January 22, 1982. O l 9 0310.3R-18
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O QUESTION (19) Section 8.3.2.1 What are the bases and assumptions for the specific assignments of in-moving workers to the individual jurisdictions? RESPONSE (19) The specific assignment of in-moving workers to individual juris-dictions is based on a comparative case study of the residential patterns experienced at six nuclear plants being constructed by TVA (references 2-7 provided in response to question 18) . Factors such as municipal population size, distance to the site, housing add-ons by type, and location and capacity of highways, s etc., were evaluated to determine similarities and differences in settlement patterns that could occur in the CRBRP f our-county impact area. Knowledgeable planners from local planning agencies were consulted prior to finalizing the settlement pattern presented in amendment X. O 0310.3R-19
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 QUESTION 0) Section 8.3.2.1.2 As previously indicated (see comment no. 8), the information in this section should reflect conditions at private schools. Therefore, the Applicant should supply information on private sectarian and non-sectarian schools. RESPONSE (20) See response to question no. 8. O r I 1 l l l l 0310.3R-20
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O QUESTION (21) Section 8.3.2.1.3 The Applicant assumes that three highway " intersections will be upgraded to sufficiently accommodate the projected traffic." Spe cifically, what improvements would have to be made to achieve the stated objective? Are these improvements currently programmed by appropriate authorities? If these improvements are not currently programmed, what is the likelihood that they would be implemented? RESPONSE (21) Reconstruction of the intersection of S.R. 58 and S.R. 95 to provide separated grades and ramps is underway.
)
The specific improvements proposed for the intersection of Bear Creek Road and S.R. 58 are the addition of ramps to the existing separated grade intersection. The schedule for accomplishing the improvement is to be developed with the Tennessee Department of Transportation. Studies to determine specific improvements at the intersection of Bear Creek Road and S.R. 95 are underway. 0310.3R-21 l i
MiENDMENT XV JULY 1982 QUESTION (22) O 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 accordance with the type of truck. Load limits are also required on country roads and are based on the type of vehicle. 1 O 0310.3R-22
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O QUESTION (23) Section 8.3.2.1.5 What is the Applicant's basis for concluding that no " recreation program will be significantly adversely affected"? 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 Os current population, limited existing facilities (Table 8.1-20) , and standards of the National Recreation and Park Association. F ., O 0310.3R-23
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 QUESTION (24) 9 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 f rom many of the single-family homes f rom across the Clinch River. Finally, to the best of our knowledge, neither the containment building 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 l 5.6.2.4). l \ l l O l 0310.3R-24 1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O QUESTION (25) Appendix-Introduction The Applicant should prepare a table similar to Table 8.3-2 but assuming Migration Condition B. RESPONSE (251 CRBRP ESTIMATED POPULATION EFFECTS PEAK YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION FOR MIGRATION CONDITION B+ Proiected Employment 5,400 0 PoDulation Effects Number of movers 1,990 Movers with families (70%) 1,390 Movers without families (30%) 600 School age children
- 980 Total population influx ** 5,040
+Information provided in Appendix C (P.C-3) Amendment XIII
- Assuming .7 school age children per family.
** Assuming 3.2 people per family.
0310.3 R-25
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 QUESTION (26) 4 Appendix-Introduction In Section 8, Migration Condition A was indicated as 25 percent, while this level of migration is defined as 26 percent in the Appendix. The Applicant should explain this apparent discrepancy. RESPONSE 26 i l In the introduction of Section 8, Migration Condition A is indicated as 26 percent, the same as the level of migration defined in the Appendix. O r l l O 0310.3R-26 I
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O QUESTION (27) Appendix-Table 2.2-8 Project enrollment for Knox County differs significantly from data in Table 8.3-2. RESPONSE (211 We assume there was a typographical ci tor and Table 8.3-5 is the table in question rather than Table 8.3-2. Appendix Table 2.2-8 provides 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, l O l 0310.3R-27 l l . - , , . . _ . - _ _ . . . _ _
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 QUESTION (28) O 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 established 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 Q310.3R-28
. . _ . . . -. -. _ _ _ - . .- = . . - - . . .-.
i . ANENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O . QUESTION (29) i 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?
L RESPONSE (29) Existing and proposed water supply facilities will be able to accommodate the demand for use of water from both the population. j growth between 1981 and 1985 and the projected CRBRP l() project-related demand. i l l l { i
- 0310.3R-29
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 QUESTION (30) O 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 proj ected CRBRP proj ect-related demand. O O 0310.3R-30
i AMENDMENT XV JULY 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 calculations 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 D (_jl 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 ir. Amendment XIII. i O 0310 . 3 R-31
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 QUESTION (32) O 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 (32) An assessment lag is simply the time required for a new addition to the property tax rolls to pay its full share of taxes. It would be expected to occur in most, if not all, instances and would not be considered an unusual occurrence. O l l l l O Q310.3R-32 l
MtENDMENT XV (^)
%j JULY 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 any other intergovernmental transfer funds to local jurisdictions change with changing local revenue levels? , i 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 contrast, () equalization funds are apportioned on the basis of each jurisdiction'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. O Q310.3R-33
AMEt4DMEtiT U JULY 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, res pectively. 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 students added to each system (to be assigned to various schools 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. 0310.3R-34
i AMENDMENT XV JULY 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. l l i O Q310.3R-35
)
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 QUESTION (36) 9 Table 3.1 What are the specific 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 VALUES Single-Family Mobile Multi-Location Homes Homes Family
- 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 l Anderson Co. 37,000 9,000 13,000 l
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 l
t O Q310.3R-36
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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? s 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 estimating 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 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 received by either the general or school funds. Therefore, there I was no apportionment between the two funds. 0310.3R-37 l l . _
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 QUESTION (38) O Appendix-Table 3.13 In addition to salary, what are the components of the cost / teacher data? I RESPONSE (38) The cost / teacher data are based on salary only. l O I I 1 l t I O 0310.3R-38
N
}'
- s. - .
m l x .. s.. _ s
. ~
3 '
.. y - - -
3, -. AMENDMENT XV , l s -%. -
- ;J.ULY 1982 -
s_ % ~ ~ s ,
'A g g
s QUESTION (39) N h. C. -v . . x: ' - g
-N ' ', ~ ,
. o Appendix-References "w x w %-
s -s ' The Applicans should pho' vide a copy of citaticn.8. ^"
~
, . , s s. .
s s i 7 s , RESPONSE (39) " - -
.w.
Yliis ref erence was., provided to the NRC in a letter Longnecker to Check, " Response to NRC Questions 1-39," January 22, 1982.
~
D' g s A %s
- g M h k
-r 4
e.. % 3,PM W ' 4
*h
~
~% '
3' % s
, e
*' N- *.
-v-p %
.s
> **% s
'- V- eu.
D %
'\
\ _
0310. 3 R-3 9 m 'w- :
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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 g period of time. Therefore, the data do not reflect recent W 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. l l l l 1 Q310.3R-40
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O v Question (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) 1 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 (~.h (,,) 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. l 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 i 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 l homes (70 percent) . The housing choice of the remaining movers j 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-rs _ l i 0310.3R-41-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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 O 0310.3R-41-2
l ANENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O 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 4 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-i i .l O Q310.3R-41-3
ANENDMEtri XV JULY 1982 TABLE 1 O SELECTED REVENUES FOR ANDERSON COUNTY FF.OM CRBRP OPERATION-RELATED POPULATION INFLUX Genetal 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. 1 O 0310.3R-41-4
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O TABLE 2 1
, 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 f
School Fund Revenues Property Tax 1300 Sales Tax NA O State Funds 700 i . TOTAL S2000 f NA = Not Applicable i l Note: Totals rounded off to nearest 100. Estimates are for typical year of operation. l I 1O l i 0310.3R-41-5 I _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ESiENDMENT XV JULY 1982 TABLE 3 SELECTED REVENUES FOR OAK RIDGE FROM CRBRP OPERATION-RELATED POPULATIOU INFLUX 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. O 0310.3R-41-6
MiENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O TABLE 4 SELECTED REVENUES FOR KNOX COUNTY FROM CRBRP OPERATIONS-RELATED POPULATION INFLUX 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 $18,100 i
f l
- NA = Not Applicable l
l Note: Estimates are for typical year of operation. l 'O 0310.3R-41-7
- _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . . - . _ , _ _ . _ _ ~ . _ _ _ - . - - _ _ - . , _ . _ _ . _ - _ . - _ _ ._
MiENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O 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 h TOTAL $4,000 NA = Not Applicable Note: Totals rounded off to nearest 100. Estimates are for typical year of operation. l 1 l 1 l 1 0310.3R-41-8
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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 Fines, Fees, Charges 200 TOTAL $1,300 School Fund Revenues Property Tax 1,200 Sales Tax 100 State Funds 600 i
. TOTAL $1,900 Note: Estimates are for typical year of operation.
i l l O 0310.3R-41-9
I AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 TABLE 7 SELECTED REVENUES FOR ROANE COUNTY FROM CRBRP OPERATION-RELATED POPULATION INFLUX General _ Fund Revenues l Property Tax 3,200 Sales Tax NA Beer and Alcoholic Beverage Tax . 30 Fines, Fees, Charges 300 TOTAL $3,500 l School Fund Revenues l Property Tax 2,000 Sales Tax 700 State Funds 6,400 l TOTAL $9,100 NA = Not Applicable Note: Totals rounded off to nearest 100. l Estimates are for typical year of operation. l l l 0310.3R-41-10
ANENDMENT XV JULY 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 O TOTAL -- NA = Not Applicable Note: Totals rounded off to nearest 100. Estimates are for typical year of operation. 0310.3R-41-ll
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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. I 1 O Q310. 3 R-41-12
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O TABLE 10 SELECTED REVENUES FOR HARRIMAN FROM CRBRP OPERATION-RELATED POPULATION INFLUX f 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 O . TOTAL $2,800 Note: Totals rounded off to nearest 100. Estimates are for typical year of operation. i i l l l O 0310.3R-41-13 1 (. - _ _ - , _ - - _ _ . _ , , , . . , _ - - , , _ , _ _ . . , _ . - - _ , , _ _ .
l l AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 QuestiDD_120.lB Provide updated economic comparison of Clinch River and viable hook-on sites. Level of detail should be consistent with data presented in Table 9.4 of the CRBR FES. Original source of this data was letter to NRC from A. R. Buhl, CRBR Proj ect Of fice, January 10, 1977, also, see ER Section 9.2.6.2.
RESPONSE
Economic analysis has shown that a stand alone plant at the Clinch River site is preferred. As noted in the question, this conclusion was based on data provided by th' Project in a letter dated January 10, 1977. Subsequent to the suspension of licen-
/~h (j sing interaction with the NRC (April 1977), Congress continued funding of engineering design and procurement of CRBRP equipment.
With the CRBRP in its present state of design and procurement maturity a hook-on arrangement is no longer considered viable. This conclusion is supported by the following f actors: (1) The CRBRP Project has firm orders for approximately 10% of the BOP equipment valued at $63 million, of this, equipment valued at SS million has already been delivered. (2) Hook-on sites have aged in the intervening years and become less attractive than in the original economic l study. (3) Site specific engineering is at an advanced stage of completion. The rework of these designs to be compatible with a hook-on site would result in substantial economic () and schedular penalties. Q320.lR-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 i In light of the above, a detailed update to the economic comparison of Clinch River Project and viable hook-on sites cannot credibly alter the conclusion that the CRBRP at the Clinch River site is preferred over viable hook-on sites. O 0320.lR-2
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 J
' Quest 190_120,2B 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 320.1R, 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 preferred over viable hook-on sites. O f l O 4 Q320.2R-1 .- ,- . _ _ _ -
l ! l l t AMENDMENT XV l JULY 1982 f~ OUESTION 320.3R 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 en 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 LMPBR commercialization.
RESPONSE
O
\s / 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 are provided in Table 7, Appendix F. O 0320.3R-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 Ouestion 320.4R Provide updated $ estimates of the program benefits associated with LMPBR 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 3 clay assumed in response to Q3. (See Buhl, Dec. 29, 1976, p. 31 for estimate based on 52 month delay).
Response
The program benefits, and potential losses associated with delay are described 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 of CRBRP. United States Energy Research and Development Administration et al. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) . CLI-76-13, 4 NRC 67 (1976). 9 O 0320.4R-1
AMENDMENT XV < JULY 1982 Ouestion 320.5R 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 l
A. Current estimate of operating revenues + (in constant 1981 l dollars) expected during demonstration period from sale of energy to the TVA system is as follows: Fiscal Revenue Year 1981 S million i 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. l 12 months 75. 12 months 75. 6 .nonths 75. 0320.5R-1
AMEf4DMEf1T XV JULY 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 ira 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 af ter 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 and 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.
- Seven month test period before start of demonstration period.
O 0320.5R-2
NiENDMENT XV JULY 1982 1 (~h s) QuestiOD_120,68 (NRC letter dated 10/26/81, response letter dated 2/5/82) l Review Section 8 -- Need f or 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 factually consistent with the current status of the program. Besponse Conclusions made in Section 8 of the CRBRP FES (NUREG 013 9) , 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 project, as follows:
"I am directing that government agencies proceed with the demonstration of breeder reactor technology, including completion of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. This is essential to ensure our preparedness for longer-term nuclear power needs."
Continuing Congressional 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 funding. The Conference Report accompanying this legislation2 explicitly states the intent of Congress that the Project is a key step in the development of the LMPBR, and that the Project must be constructed in a timely and expeditious manner, so that a 1 0mnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Pub. L. No. 97-35). () 2 House Conference Report No. 97-208, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 at 827 (1981). 03 2 0. 6 R-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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 th e objectives of the demonstration plant project. The demonstration objectives of the CRBRP remain unchangec: o to demonstrate the technical performance, reliability, maintainability, saf ety, environmental acceptability, and economic feasibility 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 changeo but the importance of the demonstration plants to the program is undiminished. NRC staff concluded in 1977 that the probability of CRBRP meeting its obj ectives was high. Progress in the development of the CRBRP design, since 1977, provides further assurance that the CRBRP will meet its obj ectives. CBDBP_ Program _ Summary 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 O Q 3 2 0 . 6 R-2
l M1ENDMENT XV JULY 1982
) follcwing 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 representing approximately 60% of the total required project hardware placed; o Manuf acture 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 f~')T
\_ 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 _Tecbuology_EID9Iam_Erogress The base technology program is structured to satisfy the goal of developing the technological data required to support LMPBR power plant cesign, construction, and safe operation. The elements of the base program include safety, components, materials and structures, fuels and other core materials and physics. For each Q3 2 0. 6 R-3
MtENDMENT XV JULY 1982 of these program elements, significant accomplishments since the mid-1970's are reviewed below: Safety o The reliability of the teactor shutdown system and shutdown heat removal system has been established through extensite 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. l o Prototype components representative of large plant components are being f abricated f or eventual testing in the ETEC. Materials _and_ Structures o Developed design rules which have been adopteo by the ASME Code and which are being applied worlcwide in the design of LMFBR plants, o Advanced the technology base for materials data, fabrication, nondestructive examination, advanced O Q320.6R-4
1 I AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
) alloys, 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 FFTF test irradiation environment. Euels o Ref erence FFTF f uels and cladding were successf ully 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 FFTP 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.
Eac111 ties o Criticality of the Past Flux Test Facility was achieved in February 1980. Full power was demonstrated in December 1980 and natural circulation was demonstrated 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 f acility from 1976-1980. With respect to the specific CRBRP demonstration objectives reviewed by the staf f in NUREG 013 9, progress since 1977 is especially noteworthy in LMFBR technical perf ormance and realiability. O
- 0320.6R-5
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 TeCbDiCal_ Rett 9EmDDCe_ add _Beliability Technical perf ormance and reliability have been demonstrated in the foreign sector by the operation of Phenix at a 65% capacity factor, as well as operation of the BN-350 and Joyo reactors. \ l O l O Q3 20. 6 R- S a
~
. _ x.
, '. AMENDMENT XV ,
~ e . JULY 1982 s ,
( Confidence. in U.S. capability is based on continu[ng EBR-II performance after 19 years of operation and recent'~FPTF startup and.{oper'ati on at f ull 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 guestions.
^
An important remaining issue is the cost of commercial size LMFBR's. The cost will help determine when the LMFBR can be competitive with alternaEes. Continued fevelopment is the only satisf actory way to resolve that question. T1BiDO, -
~
e . The Prototype Large Breeder Reactor (PLBR) ref erred 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 ()s s 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 eafly as FY 1984, with operation in the mid-1990's. _ x t _ 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 i the CRBRP construction were scheduleo to overlap 'by about one ! year. The potential increased overlap no# contemplated, does not t x i ,significantly increase the technical risk associated with the LDP. To the contrary, it is DOE's be,{ief that an overlap of 3-4 years is consicered to be consistent with most efficient use of f 'LMPBR program resources. l j The current schecule with a potential construbtion overlap allows forassimilationofknowledgegai$edindebign, 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 a Q3 2 0. 6 R-6 '
. s .y s
AMEf4DMEf4T XV JULY 1982 assimilation of all available project information. Such key information as base program R&D, construction and planning techniques, and equipment manuf acturing experience is already being used in concept studies f or 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 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. O 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 implementation of a cost-effective and schedule-oriented LDP construction plan. Start-up testing of systems at the CRBRP will provide equipment l confirmation data useful in design activities and subsequent test
- operations for LDP. This testing input can be particularly 1
useful in the liquid metal and inert gas systems. 1 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 i 03 2 0. 6 R-7
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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 LMFBR 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 before preliminary engineering design of the LDP. In adoition, critical CRBRP components such as the steam generator and primary sodium pump will undergo thorough testing in 1982 and inf ormation developed during this testing program will be factored into the design process. CRBRP operation and the follow-on operation of the LDP will serve to provide important experience and data regarding the LMFBR technology, environmental acceptability, economics, and value as a practical future option for generating electric power and conserving nonrenewable natural resources. O 03 2 0.6 R-8
AMEfiDMEf4T XV JULY 1982 TecbDical_ Alternatives _to_the_CBBBP A key feature of the U.S. LMFBR development program remains avoiding premature f oreclosure of technological alternatives. In any construction project, design choices must be made among feasible alternatives. To the extent possible during development, there is merit in keeping open options that might be O O 03 2 0. 6 R-8 a
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 (~'N
\ s/ exercised later. For some of the technological alternatives examined by NRC staf f in NUREG 0139, additional information is 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 aifferences and safety differences would be , s insignificant. Participants, drawn from the industry, s 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 poo. 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 f uture 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 consicerable expense. [ )' y_ 3"LMPBR Conceptual Design Study; Phase I Summary Technical Report," CDS-500-1, U.S. Department of Energy, p. 4-29 (1980). 03 2 0. 6 R- 9
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 An updated Table 8.1 is provided to reflect events since NUREG h 0139 was issued. EuclS 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 fuel type by making the design of the reactor internals capable of accepting either the reference oxide fuel design, or a carbide 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. EDI219D_EUIcbase 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 foreign breeder designs would satisfy unique U.S. licensing r eq ui rement s. This may involve, among other things, the need to make substantial plant modifications to key safety features such as the reactor containment building, reactor safety systems, and shutdown heat removal systems. 0320.6R-10
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 In addition, one of the central features U.S. energy policy of the past f our 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 foreign LMFBR supplier from 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 foreig'n sources of reactor fuel supply. This could have national security I implications that are not unlike those associated vith current U.S. dependence on foreign supplies of oil. l O i i l O 03 2 0.6 R-11
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 WORLIMIDE FAST BREEDER REACIOR HRT Power Mecawatts Initial Name Country 'Ihermal Electric Pool or Loop Operation DECOMMISSIONED Cimentine USA 0.025 Loop 1946 l Experimental Breeder Reactor-1 USA 1 0.02 Loop 1951 BR-1/BR-2 USSR 0.1 Loop 1956 l LAMPRE USA 1 Loop 1%1 Fermi USA 200 60.9 Loop 1963 SEEOR USA 20 Loop 1969 Dounreay Fast Reactor UK 72 14 L p 1959 Rapsodie b b France 20/40 Loop 1966 OPERABLE a a BR-5/BR-10 USSR 5/10" Loop 1959 Experimental Breeder Reactor-II USA 62.5 18.5 Pool 1963 B01-60 USSR 60 12 Loop 1%9 BN-350 1000 150 c Loop i USSR 1972 l Phenix France 567 233 Pool 1973 ! Prototype Fast Reactor UK 600 250 Pool 1974 Joyo d l JaFan 100 Loop 1977 BN-600 USSR 1470 600 Pool 1980 FastFguxTestFacil. USA 400 Loop 1979 KNK-II W. Gerinany 58 20 Loop 1977 UNDER CONS'IRUCTIQN Super-Phenix France 9 2900 1200 Pool f l SNR-300 W. Germany 770 312 Loop i Prova Elmenti di l Cmbustibile Italy 140 Modified Pool 1987 PLANNED l Monju Japan 714 300 Loop Clinch River Breeder
- Reactor USA 975 359 Loop 1989 l Camercial Fast l
Reactor UK 3230 1320 Pool l 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 b
megawatt thermal) in 1973. Initially operated at 20 megawatt thermal; power increased to 40 megawatt thermal in 1970 with " Fortissimo" core, c Also produces the equivalent of 200 megawatt electric as process steam f or desalination.
"Ib be operated initially at 50 megawatt thermal.
f*Operated 1971 through 1974 as a thermal reactor, KNK-I. In cooperation with Belgium and the Netherlands, kripartite effort of Franch, German and Italian electric utilities. 0320.6R-12
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O QUEST 19D_12Q,2B (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 including Table 8.3-1 of the ER. Also, indicate portions of the internal cost to be borne by federal government, participating utilities, etc. BCS90DSB 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. O O 03 20.7 R-1
AMEfiDMEf4T XV JULY 1982 O Ouestion 320.8R 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, co st s , and estimates of energy resource stocks, all reflecting 1975 expectations. In addition, as a result of the passage of time and advances made in imple-menting the larger next state demonstration LMFBR, provide justification for not considering this as a viable alternative energy source. Resoonse Other energy sources were excluded as, viable alternatives to the /~N 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 Enercy Research and Develooment Administration et al. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant). CLI-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. Id DOE has prepared a Supplement to the LMPBR Program Environmental Statement DOE /EIS-0085-PS, 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, b o
, 03 2 0.8 R-1
l 1 44ENDMENT XV JULY 1982
) QueStloD_320,2B (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. Specifically, 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. B9999DSC 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 ( NU REG- 03'19, 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 affected 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 (either 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.
Furthermore, the design, testing, and procurement of these facility 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 ( Q 3 20. 9 R-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 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 scrapping fabricated components. In the case of the selected cooling system for the plant, i.e., a mechanical draft wet cooling tower, changes f rom 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 uipment. 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 1 1 l l l l O 0320.9R-2
I AMENDMEitT XV JULY 1982
?-
U ODESTION 451.l_ 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, "Information 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 f ormat and tape attributes (Enclosures 1 and 1A) and provide hour by hour data for the period of record (July 1,1975-June 30,1976) 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, O)
(_ 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 f or a permit to construct the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant. This information is needed by December 15, 1981, in order to maintain our schedule for th e r eview . Submittal of this inf ormation by letter on or bef ore that date is suf ficient if followed by an amendment. A V 0451.1-1
AMEliDMEtiT XV JULY 1982 In addition, please endeavor to furnish the magnetic tape 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. h 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. The PSAR was further amended (Amendment 65, February 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 l Q451.1-2
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
, () time. Magnetic tapes of each of these three data sets have 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 f rom the 110-meter permanent tower. They are (1) July 1975 to June 1976 Pulse-O-Matic cassette system data 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 f rom 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 PSAR. These data have been replaced by Tape (3) data in Amendment 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. O 0451.1-3
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 , I' Ouestion 460.1R Have any design changes been made in the radwaste treatment i 1 systems since the FES was published 2/777 1 RESPONSE < i Yes. These design changes are stated and included in the - response to Question 290.lR. ; l- ! I
?
I I 1 O i t I l l l l l L A O Q460.lR-1
l AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 OUESTION 460.2R Have any changes been made that would cause the source term to be altered? This could include f uel and coolant specifications and 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. (r Heterogeneous Homogeneous Specification Current Core Previous Core Total heavy metal 5.2 6.5 inventory in fuel (metric tons) Plutonium enrichment 33.2 18.7 to 32.0 in fuel (weight %) Target Burnup (MWD /T) Average 80,000 100,000 Peak 110,000 150,000 O Q460.2R-1
l AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 o However, it should be noted that in determining the source h 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 i; the 1977 amendments to the ER. o changes in the inert gas processing system have had the tollowing 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
- 3) Re-evaluation of CAPS Decrease in offsite charcoal bed efficiency releases
- 4) RAPS moved inside of RCB No effect on normal operation, Favorable effect with regard to accidents O
0460.2R-2
i
- AMENDMENT XV
< JULY 1982 i !O 5) Effluents from other systems slightly increases l
- ! to CAPS added to the total discharge from RSB l i '
1 effluent (ef fluents f rom HVAC refueling system, fail fuel ! monitoring system and ( maintenance system) - I These changes are contained in response to Question 290.1R. i I l i I l lO i L ! t i , t i
)
l ! O 0460.2R-3 ' i 1
- - . . - - , - . - . , , - - - , . - ~ , - . . , - - , , . - , . _ . _ _ _ , , - , , , - - - - , . , _ , _ . . . . _ . , , . - , , . , - - - . , , - _ , , , - _ -_,.,,,n,, , . - - - - - , . . . _ _ . , , , - , - , . - , , - - . _ .
AMENDMEffi XV JULY 1982 ( \_/ QueStiOD_25Q,lB (NRC letter dated 10/26/81, response letters dated 2/5/82, 5/3/82) s Since there are no known commercial plans f or 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, p-~ This report will serve as the basis for NRC to perform its independent evaluations of these f unctions f or CRBR licensing purposes. BeSPQDSe The information requested in question 750.lR is provided in the ER Amendment XIV. O 0750.1R-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 x_) Ouestion 750.2R i 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 CFP 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 vicinity of the Shawnee Steam Electric Plant) , the Tombigbee (Black Warrior), the Coosa, the Green (Barren), and Pearl Rivers.
l A U 0750.2R-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982
- 3. Reconsider the possible use of planned or existing power 0
plant sites, including Phipps Bend, Hartville, Yellow Creek, Watts Bar, Browns Ferry, 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 l O 0750.2R-2
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 ouestion 750.3R t 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.
RESPONSE
See Appendix F to the CRBRP Environmental Report (Amendment XV). O I t} f O 0750.3R-1
AMENDMENT XV JULY 1982 O Ouestion 750.4R 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 0750.4R-1 L L}}