ML20064D746

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Amend 8 to Application for Site Certification/Environ Rept
ML20064D746
Person / Time
Site: Skagit
Issue date: 12/10/1982
From:
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20064D729 List:
References
ENVR-821210, NUDOCS 8301040737
Download: ML20064D746 (172)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 Discard Old Sheet Insert New Sheet (Front /Back) (Front /Back) CHAPTER 10 i 10.9-1/10.9-2 10.9-1/10.9-2 CHAPTER 11 11.4-1/11.4-2 11.4-1/11.4-2 NRC QUESTIONS N-9/N-10 N-9/N-10 O l O 4 Amendment 8 8301040737 821214 PDR ADOCK 05000522 C PDR

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 s Discard Old Sheet Insert New Sheet (Front /Back) (Front /Back) CHAFTER 5 5-i/5-li 5-i/5-11 5-v/5-vi 5-v/5-vi 5.1-3/5.1-4 5.1-3/5.1-4 5.1-7 through 5.1-12 5.1-7 through 5.1-12 5.1-15/5.1-16 5.1-15/5.1-16 5.1-16a/5.1-16b 5.1-16a/5.1-6b 5.1-16c/ blank 5.1-16c/ blank 5.1-27/5.1-28 5.1-27/5.1-28 Figure 5.1-10A 5.3-3 through 5.3-8 5.3-3 through 5.3-8 5.3-8a/ blank 5.3-ll/ blank 5.3-11/5.3-12 5.3-13/ blank 5.4-1/5.4-2 5.4-1/5.4-2 CHAPTER 6 6.1-25/6.1-26 6.1-25/6.1-26 6.1-26a/ blank CHAPTER 8 8-i/8-ii 8-i/8-ii 8.3-7 through 8.3-10 8.3-7 through 8.3-10 8.3-19/8.3-20 8.3-19/8.3-20 8.3-20g through 8.3-20k 8.3-20g through S.3-201 8.5-1/8.5-2 8.5-1/8.5-2 8.5-5/8.5-6 8.5-5/8.5-6 CHAPTER 9 9.2-19/9.2-20 9.2-19/9.2-20 0 3 Amendment 8

l S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 l Discard Old Sheet Insert New Sheet (Front /Back) (Front /Back) 2.2-32a/2.2-32b 2.2-32a/2.2-32b 2.2-33/2.2-34 2.2-33/2.2-34 2.2-34a/ blank 2.2-41/2.2-42 2.2-41/2.2-42 2.2-51/ blank 2.2-51/ blank Table 2.2-21b/ Table 2.2-21c Table 2.2-21b/ Table 2.2-21c Table 2.2-22/ Table 2.2-23 Table 2.2-22/ Table 2.2-23 Figure 2.2-11 Figure 2.2-11 Figure 2.2-22a Figure 2.2-22a Figure 2.4-7 Figure 2.4-7 2.6-1 through 2.6-6 2.6-1 through 2.6-6 2.6-6a/2.6-6b 2.6-7/2.6-8 2.6-7/2.6-8 Table 2.6-2 Sheet 1 of 3/ Table 2.6-2 Sheet 2 of 3 Table 2.6-2 Sheet 3 of 3/ blank Figure 2.6-3 Figure 2.6-3 Figure 2.6-4 Figure 2.6-4 Figure 2.6-Sa Figure 2.6-5b Figure 2.6-Sc 2.7-3/ blank 2.7-3/ blank O CHAPTER 3 3.4-3/3.4-4 3.4-3/3.4-4 Figure 3.4-3 Figure 3.4-3 3.6-4a/ blank 3.6-4a/3.6-4b Table 3.6-5/ Table 3.6-6 Table 3.6-5/ Table 3.6-6 3.8-1/ blank 3.8-1/ blank CHAPTER 4 4.1-9/4.1-10 4.1-9/4.1-10 4.1-10a/ blank 4.1-11 through 4.1-14 4.1-11 through 4.1-14 Figure 4.1-2 Figure 4.1-2 Figure 4.1-7 Figure 4.1-7 Figure 4.1-8 Figure 4.1-8 Figure 4.1-9 Figure 4.1-9 4.5-1 through 4.5-4 4.5-1 through 4.5-4 9 2 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 File the NRC transmittal letter and the instruction sheets Os following the NRC tab. File the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council letter following the EFSEC tab. The f ollowing inf ormation and check list are f urnished as a guide f or the insertion of new sheets f or Amendment 8 into the Application f or Site Certification / Environmental Report for the Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project. This material is denoted by use of the amendment date in the upper right-hand corner of the page. New sheets should be inserted as listed below: Discard Old Sheet Insert New Sheet (Front /Back) (Front /Back) EFSEC EFSEC-19/EFSEC-20 EFSEC-19/EFSEC-20 -~ CHAPTER 1 Figure 1.2-1 Figure 1.2-1 Figure 1.2-2 Figure 1.2-2 I Figure 1.2-3 Figure 1.2-3 CHAPTER 2 2-1 through 2-iv 2-i through 2-iv 2-ix/2-x 2-ix/2-x 2-xiii/2-xiv 2-xiii/2-xiv 2.1-9/2.1-9a 2.1-9/2.1-9a 2.1-11/2.1-12 2.1-11/2.1-12 2.2-15 through 12.2-20 2.1-15 through 2.2-20 2.2-20a/ blank 2.2-23/2.2-24 2.2-23/2.2-24 2.2-26c/2.2-26d O 2.2-26c/2.2-26d O 1 Amendment 8

0 ~:r' s;p,7 agy <"~/ Os 5CIN$$5 J7 u w A. December 14, 1982 PL-EFSEC-56 Mr. W. L. Fitch Executive Secretary Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council Mail Stop PY-11 Olympia, Washington 98504

Subject:

Puget Sound Power & Light Company Skagit/Ilanford Nuclear Project, Units 1 & 2 Application No. 81-1 Application for Site Certification / Environmental Report Amendment 8

Dear Mr. Fitch:

p Puget Sound Power & Light Company submits herewith Amendment 8 to its (v) Application for Site Certification / Environmental Report (ASC/ER) for the Skagit/IIanford Nuclear Project. Amendment 8 responds to the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council's comments on Amendment 6. The changes are indicated by a dark vertical line in the margin followed by the amendment number to which the change is applicable. Pages affected by Amendment 8 carry the date in the upper right-hand corner. Instructions for incorporating the material into the ASC/ER are provided. Attached is the EFSEC distribution list for the subject amendment. Very truly yours, Robert V. Mye Vice President Generation Resources l

Attach, l
a y.e.t e,

.,as t v.c B. a ~3 t-rac W < Tor W *

  • 0 03 a eg s

,m \\ AMENI )T 8 Atta t 1 to I k./ P EC-56 12/14/82 Page 1 of 18 SKAGIT/IIANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATION / ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT APPLICANT'S RESPONS13 TO Tile WASillNGTON STATE ENERGY FACILITY SITE EVALUATION COUNCIL'S AMENDMENT 6 COMPLETENESS REVIEW COMMENTS SUBJECT /COM M ENT APPLICANT RESPONSE General Applicant should identify whether the See revised Distribution List (pages EFSEC-19a and EFSEC-20). application was transmitted to parties, agencies, counties, etc. Transmission Systems Discuss impacts of removal of six miles See revised Section 10.9.1.2. of existing transmission line. Mitigation The Applicant could describe the substance The Applicant believes that it has provided a full and adequate description of its miti-of its mitigation plans more adequately, gation plans. Further details will be provided in the Construction impact Control Program which will be submitted for EFSEC's review and approval prior to commence-ment of construction. Applicant should clarify its use of the See revised Section 4.5.4.1. terms waste disposal and solid waste disposal. Geology / Groundwater Reference PSAR Amendment 26 on ASC/ER Section 2.5 already references PSAR Section 2.5 on geology and includes by geology. this reference all amendments on geology and I? a more complete reference.

. to PL-EFSEC-56 12/14/82 3 Page 2 of 18 SUBJECT /COM M ENT APPLICANT RESPONSE Air Quality Discuss details of the Construction impact A general description of methods to be used for control of fugitive dust end con-Control Program (CICP) regarding control struction emissions is provided in Section 4.5.5.2. A detailed description of the ele-of fugitive dust and construction emissions, ments of the CICP will be submitted to the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council i (EFSEC) for its review and approval after final detailed design and preparation and awarding of construction contracts and procedures and prior to commencement of Site construction activities. The Applicant does not believe that it is necessary to submit details of the CICP at this time in order to evaluate the potential impacts of construction of the S/IINP and that later submission of the CICP for EFSEC's review and approval is reasonable and appropriate. Diesel generators should not be tested There are several factors which suggest the estimate in the Draft Environmental State-concurrently. ment pertaining to operation of the emergency diesel generators (pages 4-169 and 4-170) is conservative (high). The exhaust from the diesels is released from stacks above the roof of the diesel generator building. The exhaust gas will be hot and will exhibit buoyancy. As a result, it is not clear that the plumes from both units i will be trapped in the Unit 2 turbine building wake cavity. Also, general observations of flow behavior near large disturbances indicate that the building wake cavity will extend 5-10 building heights downwind. The turbine building height is about 141 feet, which implies that the building wake cavity will extend 1,410 feet from the facility under worst case conditions and, hence, the building wake cavity will be within the property limits of the S/HNP Site. The above factors suggest that simultaneous testing of the diesel generators for Unit 1 and 2 should not pose any problem with respect to the State Air Quality 3 Standard of 0.4 ppm (1047 ug/m ). It appears that constraining the testing of the Unit I and 2 diesel generators to different periods during a given month is unnecessary. In any case, it may be noted that it is not the intent of the Applicant to test all three of a unit's emergency diesel generators at the same time. Concurrent testing of all l

Attachment I to PL-EFSEC-56 12/14/82 Page 3 of 18 SUB.IECT/COM M ENT APPLICANT RESPONSE three generators would occur only as a result of regulatory direction by the NRC or possibly during pre-operational testing for the plant. Consequently, the situation postulated in the comment is unlikely to occur frequently if at all. In addition, it should be noted that the S/HNP Site is located on the Hanford Reservation. The nearest residence to the Site is over 7 miles away. Thus, it is not necessary to impose further limitations upon releases from the diesel generators to protect public health. Terrestrial Biology Discuss detcils of mitigation measures. The ASC/ER does contain a full description of each general measure to protect vegetation, animal life, and aquatic life. As discussed above, the Applicant does not believe that it is necessary to submit details of the CICP at this time in order to evaluate the potential impacts of construction of the S/HNP and that later submission of the CJCP for EFSEC's review and approval is reasonable and appropriate. Aquatic Biology References in ASC/ER do not provide See revised Section 2.2.2. " comprehensive" evaluations of the eco-logical characteristics of.the Columbia River. Data on occurrence and seasonal abundance The Applicant believes that the tables and figures are self-explanatory and that further presented in tables and figures are rarely discussion beyond currently presented is unnecessary and would be redundant. discussed in the text. Discuss seasonal and annual fluctuations of See revised Section 2.2.2.1. j phytoplankton in Figures 2.2-10 and 2.2-11. 1 ?

O O O Att: chm:nt 1 to PL-EFSEC-56 12/14/82 Page 4 of 18 SUBJECT /COM M ENT APPLICANT RESPONSE Compare plankton community in the llanford Amendment 6 included a brief comparative discussion in Section 2.2.2.1. Because the Reach with that in other portions of the llanford Reach is the only free-flowing section of the Columbia River above Bonneville Columbia River. Dam, direct comparison to other impounded portions in the River is not practical. Contrary to the response to EFSEC Question The Applicant apologizes for this oversight. Section 2.2.2.2 has been revised to incor-290.05, Section 2.2.2.2 was not revised in porate the answer to EFSEC Question 290.05. Amendment 6. Compare fluctuations and densities of The Applicant is not aware of calculations of such fluctuations and densities in other periphyton in the llanford Reach with freshwater portions of the Columbia River. Section 2.2.2.2 presents such information those in other portions of the Columbia for the llanford Reach and the Applicant believes that this information is sufficient River. to analyze the potential impacts from S/IINP. Text in Section 2.2.2.5 does not agree The Applicant respectfully disagrees with this comment. with Figure 2.2-16. Discuss cause of fluctuations in benthos See revised Section 2.2.2.5. densities. The criteria for designating a fish species As explained in Section 2.2.2.6, the criteria for designating a fish species as "important" as "important" should have included were not derived by the Applicant but were based upon NRC and EPA criteria, neither "likely" to be affected by S/IINP. of which listed "likely" to be affected as an independent basis for classifying a species as "important." In any case, no species of fish is "likely" to be significantly adversely affected by construction or operation of S/HNP, and therefore application of the criterion suggested in the comment would not affect the list of important species.

O s Attachment I to PL-EFSEC-56 12/14/82 Page 5 of 18 SUBJECT /COM M ENT APFLICANT RESPONSE The list of important fish species should The Applicant respectfully disagrees with this comment. The Applicant believes that i have included prickly sculpin, walleye, the list of fish species provided provides an adequate basis for analyzing any impacts I and carp. of S/IINP. In the Applicant's opinion, prickly sculpin do not satisfy the criteria for an "important fish." Although prickly sculpin might be considered ecologically important because of their abundance, there is little qualitative information available to assess effects of the construction and operation of S/HNP on this species. Additionally, the fact that walleye and carp may be the subject of some fishing does not render either species " commercially or recreationally valuable" and thus a candidate for listing as an important species. Carp are not commercially important in the llanford Reach; this species is harvested only intermittently in the McNary Pool. Walleye are not common near the intake / discharge location; a localized sports fishery occurs in the area immediately below Priest Rapids Dam, i Indicate the proportionate contribution See revised Section 2.2.2.6. The Applicant does not possess any verifiable and reliable of ilanford Reach and upriver stocks information regarding the proportionate contribution of Hanford Reach and upriver to various segments of the Columbia / stocks to various segments of Columbia / Snake salmonid fisheries. Snake salmonid fisheries. The sources of Tables 2.2-21a and 2.2-21b Contrary to this comment, Tables 2.2-21a and 2.2-21b cite references. Also see revised are not presented. Table 2.2-21b. Provide summaries of WDF estimates of Data provided in Table 2.2-21 regarding outmigrants include WDF studies and hatchery juvenile outmigration and hatchery releases as cited in Ref. 63. releases. See Question E290.12. Information on Table 2.2-23 is not The Applicant believes that the information on Table 2.2-23 is self-explanatory and discussed. that further discussion would be redundant. l Information on Table 2.2-23 does not See revised Table 2.2-23. account for sublethal effects. i l l l

h 3 J / Attec,.went 1 to PL-EFSEC-56 12/14/82 Page 6 of 18 SUBJECT /COMM ENT APPLICANT RESPONSE Synergistic effects should be discussed. Synergistic effects are discussed in both Appendix L and in Section 5.3.1.2. Given the nature of the subject and the information available, the Applicant does not believe that additional discussion in Section 2.2.2.6.1 is warranted. Discuss ichthyoplankton tow speeds, gear See revised Section 2.2.2.6.3. As stated in Appendix K, ichthyoplankton samples were speeds, gear avoidance, and indexing of taken from an anchored boat at midstream. Because larval forms of fish drift with ability of sampling equipment to capture the current, net avoidance is not a factor in these abundance estimates. Chinook 0+ salmonids. salmon were captured incidently in the ichthyoplankton nets on one occasion. Indexing of ichthyoplankton nets against beach seines is not appropriate because capture efficiency differs between gear types. Sport fishing information should be in These sections will be revised to reference each other. Section 2.1.4.6, not Section 2.2.2.6.4. More appropriate information on sport The information presented in Section 2.2.2.6.4 is based upon data compiled by the fishing is available than what is presented Washington Department of Game. The Applicant believes that this information is both in Section 2.2.2.6.4. reliable and appropriate for inclusion in Section 2.2.2.6.4. Surely some judgment could be made regard-It is not known whether the spawning habitat is fully utilized and the Applicant does not ing whether spawning habitat is fully or desire to engage in unnecessary speculation. nearly fully utilized. A more detailed discussion of water level The Applicant believes that the level of information on food chains previously presented fluctuations, predator-prey relations, and in Section 2.2.2.7 is sufficient to evaluate the potential impacts from S/HNP. downstream passage is warranted in Section The Applicant further believes the migration of anadromous fish is described in suf-2.2.2.7. ficient detail in Section 2.2.2.6.1.

O Attac'.t. at I to PL-EFSEC-56 12/14/82 Page 7 of 18 SUBJECT /COM M ENT APPLICANT RESPONSE Discuss pre-existing stress of water alloca-See revised Section 2.2.2.8. The environmental description of the site includes the tion and consumption, description of the river and biological community present under existing conditions. An analysis of environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the S/HNP considered existing river flows including the regulated minimum flows. In doing this, i the Applicant believes that the pre-existing stress of water allocation and consumption l has been adequately addressed. Consumptive use of Columbia River water by S/HNP was judged to not adversely effect the biological community. i Studies by the Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council and mid-Columbia PUDS are presently underway to assess the effects of various flow levels on fish. The Applicant believes that it is appropriate to await the final results of these studies prior to drawing any conclusions. Future changes in Columbia River flows now being considered by the Northwest Power Planning Council and mid-Columbia PUDS address increased river flows. Such changes would only serve to reduce the effects of construction and operation of the S/HNP. It should be noted that the ASC/ER used the minimum regulated river flow (36,000 cfs) for calculating environmental impacts upon fish and, therefore, is conservative with respect to aquatic impacts. See Sections 5.1.3.2.4 et seg and 5.3.1.2. The velocity isopleth map does not specify See revised Figure 2.4-7. discharge. Statements regarding turbulence in Sections There is no conflict between Section 2.4.1.1 and 5.1.2.1. Section 5.1.2.1 states that 2.4.1.1 and 5.1.2.1 appear to conflict. flow will be turbulent. Section 2.4.1.1 states that the river bottom is relatively uniform. Ilowever, the fact that river bottom topography is fairly smooth does not mean that the flow is laminar (i.e., not turbulent). Laminar flow is not expected in rivers.

O O Attachment I to PL-EFSEC-56 12/14/82 Page 8 of 18 SUBJECT /COM M ENT APPLICANT RESPONSE No effort was made in Appendix K to con-The Applicant believes that existing information concerning outmigration patterns of firm shoreline orientation of chinook llanford Reach juvenile chinook salmon is adequate for assessing the aquatic impacts juveniles. of S/IINP. The Appendix K studies were not designed to confirm shoreline orientation of juvenile salmonid fishes. Methods for collecting ichthyoplankton in lehthyoplankton samples are not designed to capture juvenile salmonids. The collection Appendix K should have been indexed in of two 0+ age chinook in the ichthyoplankton nets was incidental. Therefore, indexing areas where other methods were successful would not be appropriate. in capturing juvenile chinook salmon. No comparisons were made in Appendix K Sampling stations were established in order to sample most of the habitat types among stations; therefore, no conclusions available in the river. Stations differ with respect to physical characteristics. regarding spatial distribution can be drawn. Therefore, comparisons between stations to determine fish distribution is not possible. Data gathered in Appendix K on the east No where in the text of Appendix K or in the ASC/ER is it stated that juvenile chinook bank were not compared to data on the salmon prefer the west bank. Because stations were not established with similar west bank. This is important since the habitat and physical characteristics, quantitative comparisons between banks was not point was made in the text that juvenile attempted, chinook salmon prefer the west bank. Changes in whitefish C/UE during the Whitefish spawning areas in the llanford Reach near S/HNP are shown in ASC/ER seasons are said to be related to spawning Figure 2.2-19. The major whitefish spawning area in the Reach is at Vernita Bar. l in Appendix K. Ilowever, this reasoning Whitefish are known to move past the intake / discharge location in the fall on the is difficult to follow. way to spawning grounds and again in spring after spawning. Such movement explains peak occurrence near S/liNP during these seasons. Two of the top ten fish ranked in Table 3 This table clearly indicates that the fry were separately ranked and the Applicant does of Appendix K are fry of other members not believe that this table is confusing or misleading. of the top ten; they are therefore ranked twice.

AttachLant I to o PL-EFSEC-56 12/14/82 Page 9 of 18 SUBJECT /COM M ENT APPLICANT RESPONSE Tow speed was not given for ichthyo-lehthyoplankton samples were collected from a stationary boat. plankton tows in Appendix K. j No contour map is provided showing shore-As is described in Section 4.1.2.2, no shoreline changes are being proposed; therefore, line changes. no map was provided. Drawings of the permanent intake struc-See revised Figure 4.1-8. tures are dimensionless. Discuss procedures for constructing stilling The Applicant's current plans for construction of the pumphouse are fully and well under pumphouse, accurately presented in Section 4.1.2.2. Final construction procedures have not been formulated. It should be noted that Section 4.1.2.2 discusses the Applicant's plans for using sedimentation ponds for construction of the pumphouse. TRC values should appear in Tables 3.6-5 As discussed in Section 3.6, chlorination of the circulating water systems will not be and 3.6-6. continuous, chlorination of both units will not occur simultaneous, and discharges of TRC will not occur unless the concentrations of TRC in the circulating water system has dropped to less than 0.14 mg/l for 15 minutes. Given these conditions, it was not believed to be appropriate to include TRC concentrations in Tables 3.6-5 and 3.6-6. A footnote will be added to Table 3.6-5 to indicate this. Incorporate into text explanation of relative See revised Section 3.6.3. contributions to effluent of concentrating effects of operation and addition of chemicals. Values in Table 3.6-4 should be expressed in The Applicant does not believe that it is appropriate to express the values in Table the same units as Tables 3.6-5 and 3.6-6. 3.6-4 (i.e., Ibs/ day) in the same units as Tables 3.6-5 and 3.6-6 (i.e., mg/l), since the chemicals listed in Table 3.6-4 will not be added to the various systems as a function of mg/1.

O O Attcchment 1 to PL-EFSEC-56 12/14/82 Page 10 of 18 SUBJECT /COMM ENT APPLICANT RESPONSE The greatest temperature change should be See revised Section 5.1.3.2. used to evaluate aquatic impacts. Coutant,1973, found significant selective This reference is cited and discussed on page 5.1-16b of the ASC/ER. predation at 10% of equilibrium loss dose. Resolve discrepancy between statement that See revised Section 5.1.3.2.4.1. potential exposures for fish drifting through the plume centerline are less than 18% of the equilibrium loss duration and the state-ment that exposures to elevated temperatures and slightly elevated temperatures would be about one and ten seconds, respectively. Plot centerline temperatures against time See new Figure 5.1-10a. for various river and plant conditions. Provide 96-hour LC-50 levels for copper. See revised Section 5.3.1.2. Consistency in use of mg/l and ug/l is See revised Section 5.3.1.2. Ilowever, it should be noted that it is inappropriate to use desirable, especially considering that the the hardness of ambient Columbia River when evaluating the possible metal toxicity hard water 48-hour LC-50 concentrations of the discharge plume, since the hardness of the discharge plume will be greater than for zine are an order of magnitude less ambient. See Table 5.3-1. than the hardness of the Columbia River. Mention synergistic effects of cadmium. See revised Section 5.3.1.2. Ilowever, the Applicant does not believe that further discussion of potential synergistic effects from cadmium is warranted in light of the fact that average dissolved concentrations of cadmium at Vernita Bridge were below detectable levels. See Section 5.3.1.2.

O O Attachia_..t 1 to PL-EFSEC-56 l 12/14/82 Page 11 of 18 SUBJECT /COM M ENT APPLICANT RESPONSE Paragraphs 3 and 5 on page 5.3-5 do not The Applicant cannot perceive any possible source of disagreement between these seem to agree regarding TRC. paragraphs. For worst case conditions, paragraph 3 states that the concentration of TRC will be 0.002 mg/l at 67 feet and that the concentration of TRC will be less than 0.01 mg/l at 50 feet. These are consistent statements. Specify travel time for 150 feet under See revised Section 5.3.1.2. average conditions. Travel time and distance should be given See revised Section 5.3.1.2. for dilution of TRC to 0.002 mg/l under average conditions, incorporate EPA report that rainbow trout The EPA report discussing rainbow trout avoidance at 0.001 mg/ refers to the work exhibit avoidance behavior at 0.001 mg/1. of Sprague and Drury (1969). Critical examination of their methods indicates that chlorine concentrations were calculated rather than measured and statistical interpre-tation of the threshold avoidance levels was not possible because of variable overall test results. Because of these discrepancies, this study was not used in discussion of possible impacts of the S/IINP discharge. Incorporate EPA report that rainbow trout This information is provided in Table 2.2-23 and Appendix L. are killed at 0.3 mg/l TRC. Provide data from studies cited in Section See revised Section 5.3.1.2. 5.3.1.2 regarding synergistic effects. There appears to be some conditions under The Applicant is not aware of any conditions under which the discharge temperature which the discharge temperature would would exceed ambient river temperatures by 20*C. See revised Section 5.1.3.2. execed ambient river temperatures by 20*C.

s) C) x Attrelit.dt 1 to PL-EFSEC-56 12/14/82 Page 12 of 18 i SUBJECT /COM M ENT APPLICANT RESPONSE No orderly mitigation program is devel-The Applicant respectfully dissgrees with this comment. Examples of the Applicant's oped for aquatie biota. mitigation program are provided in Attachment 1 (Responses to Completeness Review) to the August 20, 1982 cover letter transmitting Amendment 6 to the ASC/ER. Partially as a result of these mitigation measures, no significant effect upon aquatic biota is expected as a result of construction and operation of S/HNP. In light of this fact, the Applicant does not believe that additional mitigation measures are warranted. Discuss shoreline construction techniques. Shoreline construction techniques are generally discussed in Section 4.1.2. As discussed previously, details of the Construction Impact Control Program will be submitted to EFSEC for its review and approval prior to commencement of construction activities. The Applicant believes that the description of the shoreline construction techniques in Section 4.1.2 is sufficient to evaluate the potential impacts of the S/HNP. Provide details of the Construction Impect Details of the Construction Impact Control Program (CICP) will be submitted to Control Program. EFSEC for its review and approval prior to commencement of construction activities. As discussed previously, the Applicant believes that the description of the CIOP in Section 4.5 is sufficient to evaluate the potential impacts of S/HNP. Provide greater discussion of lack of need As Section 4.1.2.2 explains, installation and removal of the temporary intake system for construction window for installing the will entail minimal disturbance of the river bottom; consequently, no construction temporary intake system. window is warranted. A greater discussion of this point would be superfluous. Noise Operational noise should be discussed in In general, Section 2.7 discusses background noise levels and discusses areas which Section 5.6 rather than 2.7. might be potentially affected by noise at S/HNP. Such discussions are appropriate for Section 2. IlUD Circular 1390.2 has been superceded See revised Reference 2 in Section 2.7. and is not relevant.

U Attechment 1 to PL-EFSEC-56 12/14/82 Page 13 of 18 SUBJECT /COM M ENT APPLICANT RESPONSE Question E260.07 and its response are Question E260.07 and its response were not included in Amendment 6 because they missing from Amendment 6. were not revised by the Amendment. See Amendment 5 for original question and

response, j

l The 2 dBA projected noise increase along The 2 dBA projected noise increase along SR 240 was based on background noise I SR 240 is not based upon measurements measurements and calculations prepared for the ASC/ER. I but upon noise calculations prepared for I the DEIS. Need for hearing protection should be As stated in Section 4.1.1, ear protection will be used if required and will comply with emphasized. state and federal regulations. I Discuss fact that Washington noise regu-See response to Question E260.07. lations for industrial source properties is 50 dBA between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Socioeconomics Provide a qualitative discussion of the See Sections 8.3.1 and 8.3.6 which were revised in Amendment 7. revised status and schedules of WNP-1 and 4. A possible discrepancy exists between See revised Section 8.3.11.2 of Amendment 7. predicted number of workers and house-holds which would not outmigrate. I Although property values will most likely See revised Section 8.3.11.2 of Amendment 7. be higher with the project than without it, this does not imply that property values will increase because of S/IINP construction. l l

Att:chnient I to PL-EFSEC-56 12/14/82 Page 14 of 18 SUBJECT /COM M ENT APPLICANT RESPONSE The 10 percent figure for construction See revised Section 8.3.2 of Amendment 7. commuters from Yakima County was a

l result of the analysis of Reference 11 and not a finding of Reference 11.

The Applicant did not respond to the See revised Section 8.5 of Amendment 7. comments on Summary of Social and Economic Benefits and Costs of the Application Completeness Review. Tabulation on page 8.3-7 is inaccurately See revised page 8.3-7 of Amendment 7. titled and has no totals. There are no estimates of sales and use See revised page 8.3-7 of Amendment 7. taxes during construction in constant dollars. I Price level is not identified for the See revised page 8.3-8 of Amendment 7. tabulation on page 8.3-8. Reason for assuming that 50% of See revised Section 8.3.5.1 of Amendment 7. purchases would be loaal for estimating sales taxes is unciv.c and seems unduly conservative. Plant cost estimates ranging from $2.5 to See revised Section 8.3.5.1 of Amendment 7 $7.8 billion are confusing. Statement added to Section 8.3.9 is narrow See revised Section 8.3.9 of Amendment 7. and misleading. p e d. -f +1 1f* / h ,,[s - \\ a 5'., g + f >.f p 9 [ } \\ q .d

j. /, 3 v " Attach %at l' tc/ h [ PL-3FSEC-56 J L i ~ 12/14/d2 -l Page 15 of 18 ~ l SUBJECT /COMM ENT 7 " APPLICANT' RESPONSE .s 1- ? y j e ,f f ' s f The statements that tax revenues from S/IINP would enable local jurisdictions to 'These statements have beep' deleted from Sectims 8.3.17 and 15 by l Anendment 7. {'., ,[ maintain their budgets and avoid lay-offs is misleading. r' On page 8.3-7, the sale /use tax revenues See revised page 8.3-7. seem to be understated. g On page 8.3-19, the values of $150 million On page 8.3-19, the figures of $150 million and $30 million are total revenues available 3 and $30 million seem to be high. Are they to Benton County if tax rates were, to rems!n at 1981 levels. p. current dollars? Change title of Section 8.5.2.2 from Fiscal See revised title of Section 8.5.2.2. Costs to Potential Fiscal Impacts. Provide additional description of socio-Development of the monitoring program is an ongoing process. The Applicant is in the economic mitigation and monitoring. process of considering different approaches to socioeconomic monitoring in order to achieve a thorough and accurate monitoring program. The precise nature of the local and regional impacts which may take place will be determined in the future through the impact monitoring program. Appropriate mitigative action will be undertaken prior to the actual occurrence of the impacts where practicable, but not until it is determined that the impact is likely to occur and is the result of S/HNP. Discuss encouraging tax revenue sharing. The issue of tax revenue redistribution is discussed at several points in the ASC/ER. On page 8.5-7, the Applicant notes the benefits of tax revenue redistribution. Such tax revenue redistribution should be a local decision. On page 8.3-6a, discuss the possibilities of See revised page 8.3-7. local governments enacting additional sales or property transfer tax. 1 i

C C O Attachra Jt I to PL-EFSEC-56 12/14/82 Page 16 of 18 SUBJECT /COM M ENT APPLICANT RESPONSE l ) On page 8.3-7, annual revenues table should The annual revenues table on page 8.3-7 was revised in Amendment 7 to show annual be revised to show an annual average average revenue, j

revenue, m

) Provide a discussion of tax revenue benefits See revised Section 8.3.5.2. t from WNP-2 and WNP-1 in Section 8.3.5.2. On page 8.3-20, clarify discussion of tax See revised page 8.3-20. redistribution to reference an interlocal ( cooperation agreement (RCW 39.34). Transportation There is no statement that the proposal See Amendment 6, Section 8.3.10.5. conforms with applicable transportation plans. Identify radwaste disposal routes. See revised Section 3.8. It is unclear how improving Route 10 will Presently, the condition of Route 10 is such that, due to its vertical relief, traffic pro-improve its capacity to handle traffic. ceeds more slowly than it would if the route's condition were improved. Consequently, by improving the condition of Route 10, traffic speeds can be increased, thereby improving the capacity of Route 10. Alternative A is discussed as a possible The Applicant does not believe that the discussion in the ASC/ER is confusing. Alter-access road, even though it will not be native A is discussed to ensure that a consideration of alternative routes is presented in available for use. the ASC/ER.

( Attactiisent I to PL-EFSEC-56 12/14/82 Page 17 of 18 SUBJECT /COMM ENT APPLICANT RESPONSE Cultural Resources Provide additional details about cultural See revised Sections 2.6 and 4.1.1. resource impacts. Disclose timing of Phase 111 and IV The timing of Phase III and IV in relation to other project activities is shown in of cultural resources work. Figure 2.6-1. More detailed timing information is not available. Correct Table 1 attached to the response See revised response to Question N200.10. to Question N200.10. Additional Corrections or Modifications Operation of the WDOE hazardous waste See revised Section 2.1.4.1. site in Richland is independent of l Arlington's acceptance and disposal of Washington's hazardous waste. EFSEC Questions E290-10 and E290-23 The Applicant does not believe it to be appropriate to reference the responses to these should be indicated in the margin on questions since the responses were not transferred to the text. page 2.2-35. Dimensions should be given on the See revised Figure 2.2-22(a). vertical axis on Figure 2.2-22(a). Add the word " treated" before See revised Section 5.4. l " sanitary waste" in the third paragraph l on page 5.4-1. l

1 a O Att:ch'tadt 1 to PL-EFSEC-56 12/14/82 Page 18 of 18 SUBJECT /COM M ENT APPLICANT RESPONSE Put Applicant's response to non-See revised Section 4.5.4.1. radioactive spillage prevention into Section 4.5.4.1. Put Applicant's third response to mitiga-See revised Section 6.1.4.3.2. tion plans into Section 6.1.4.3.1. Put Applicant's fifth response to construc-The Applicant does not believe that such incorporation is appropriate. tion worker into S.!ction 4.5.4.1. Put Applicant's fourth response to SR240 See revised Section 8.3.10.5. improvements in Section 8.3.10. Put Applicant's third response to waste See revised Section 8.3.10.4.1. product transportation routes in Section 8.3.10. 4

Attcchment 2 to PL-EFSEC-56 Pcga 1 of 3 b DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICATION TO EFSEC PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SKAGIT/HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT APPLICATION NO. 81-1 COPY NO.

  1. 1 & 2 Mr. William L. Fitch
  2. 8 Dr. Charles Woelke Executive Secretary Department of Fisheries Energy Facility Site General Administration Bldg.

Evaluation Council Olympia, WA 98504 Mail Stop PY-11 AX-11 Olympia, WA 98504

  1. 3 Mr. Nicholas D. Lewis
  2. 9 Mr. Art Scheuneman Chairman Department of Agriculture Energy Facility Site General Administration Bldg.

Evaluation Council Olympia, WA 98504 Mail Stop PY-11 AX-41 Olympia, WA 98504

  1. 4 Mr. Fred D. Hahn
  2. 10 Ms. Nancy A. Burnett p)

( Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources i Olympia, WA 98504 Public Lands Bldg. PV-12 Olympia, WA 98504 QW-21

  1. 5 Mr. David H. Guier
  2. 11 Mr. Claude E. Lakewold Dept. of Emerg. Services Office of Fin. Management 4220 East Martin Way Olympia, WA 98504 Olympia, WA 98504 AL-01 PT-11
  3. 6 Mr. Merlin Smith
  4. 12 Mr. Joe Bell Comm. & Economic Develop.

Dept. of Transportation General Administration Bldg. Highway Administration Bldg. Olympia, WA 98504 Olympia, WA 98504 AX-13 K F-01

  1. 7 Mr. R. Wallis
  2. 13 Mr. John G. Douglass Utilities & Trans. Comm.

State Energy Office Highways Licenses Building 400 East Union Olympia, W A 98504 Olympia, WA 98504 PB-02 ER-11 J

Atttchment 2 to PL-EFSEC-56 Page 2 of 3 v

  1. 14 Mr. John Ward
  2. 25 & 26 Mr. Darrel Peeples Department of Game Administrative Law Judge 600 North Capitol Way Energy Facility Site Evaluation Olympia, WA 98504 Council GJ-11 Mail Stop PY-11 Olympia, WA 98504
  3. 15 Mr. Sam I. Reed
  4. 27 Mari Ann Allen & Associates Dept. of Social & Health Court Reporter Services 911 Tacoma Ave. South Olympia, WA 98504 Suite 201 L D-11 Tacoma, WA 98402
  5. 16 Mr. John A. Clark
  6. 138 Kevin M. Ryan, Esq.

Parks & Recreation Comm. Assistant Attorney General 7150 Cleanwater Lane Temple of Justice Olympia, WA 98504 Mail Stop AV-21 KY-11 Olympia, WA 98504

  1. 17 Mr. Bert Baron
  2. 152 Robert C. Lothrop, Esq.

Planning & Comm. Affairs Attorney for Columbia River O) 400 Capitol Center Bldg. Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (~ Olympia, WA 98504 Suite 320 G H-51 8383 N.E. Sandy Blvd. Portland, Oregon 97220

  1. 18 Comm. William H. Sebero
  2. 258 Thomas R. Bjorgen, Esq.

Board of County Commissioners Assistant Attorney General Benton County Department of Transportation P. O. Box 470 Mail Stop AQ-01 Prosser, WA 99350 Temple of Justice Olympia, WA 98504 l l

  1. 19 - 22 Energy Facility Site
  2. 259 Spencer W. Daniels, Esq.

Evaluation Council Assistant Attorney General Technical Review Section Department of Transportation Mail Stop PY-11 Mail Stop KF-01 Olympia, WA 98504 Olympia, WA 98504

  1. 23 & 24 Mr. Patrick Biggs
  2. 260 Mr. R. C. Schuster Administrative Law Judge District Administrator Energy Facility Site Evaluation Department of Transportation Council P. O. Box 52 Mail Stop PY-11 Yakima, WA 98907 Olympia, WA 98504

_.._ to PL-EFSEC-56 Page 3 of 3

  1. 261 Charles Lean, Esq.

Department of Ecology Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia, WA 98504

  1. 262 Paul S. Majkut, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Departments of Fisheries i and Game Temple of Justice Mail Stop PB-53 Olympia, WA 98504

  1. 263 Frank J. Owens, Esq.

Construction Impact Group Owens, Weaver, Davies & Dominick 926 - 24th Way S.W. Olympia, WA 98502 1 l 1 f I

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICATION [ \\ FOR SITE CERTIFICATION / ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT \\s-) PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SKAGIT/HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT FEDERAL Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Washington, D.C. Atomic Industrial Forum, Washington, D.C. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington U.S. Department of Energy, Washington D.C. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Seattle, Washington U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Transportation, Seattle, Washington U.S. Department of Transportation, Yakima, Washington /g U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Arlington, Virginia kj U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, Washington U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado U.S. National Oceanographic Data Center, Washington, D.C. [ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. l Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board STATE Washington State Department of Labor and Industries Washington State Department of Natural Resources Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission l Washington State Radiation Control Program l LOCAL Benton County Board of Commissioners, Prosser, Washington Benton-Franklin Governmental Conference Richland, Washington l i V l EFSEC-19 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 LIBRARIES Brookhaven National Laboratories Library, New York Seattle Public Library, Seattle, Washington University of Washington Library, Seattle, Washington Washington Public Power Supply System Library Richland, Washington LEGAL Lowenstein, et. al., Washington, D.C. Office of Executive Legal Director, Washington, D.C. Oregon Assistant Attorney General, Portland, Oregon Perkins, et. al., Seattle, Washington Stoel, Rives, et. al., Portland, Oregon Washington Assistant Attorney General, Olympia, Washington Thomas R. Bjorgen, Esq., Assistant Attorney General Spencer W. Daniels, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Department of Transportation Charles Lean, Esq., Department of Ecology Paul S. Majkut, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Departments of Fisheries and Game Frank J. Owens, Esq., Construction Impact Group UTILITIES City of Los Angeles, Department of Water & Power Los Angeles, California Pacific Power & Light Company, Portland, Oregon Portland General Electric Company, Portland, Oregon Puget Sound Power & Light Company, Bellevue, Washington The Washington Water Power Company, Spokane, Washington INTERESTED PARTIES Canadian Consulate General, Seattle, Washington Coalition for Safe Power /Forelaws on Board Portland, Oregon Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Construction Impact Group, Richland, Washington National Wildlife Federation and Oregon Environmental Council Natural Resources Defense Council San Francisco, California Pacific Northwest Resources Center, Eugene, Oregon URS Company, Seattle, Washington Yakima Indian Nation O EFSEC-20 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 O-PNUCC ECON 2.6: / PNUCC SOU 2.5: ,p BPA 2.4: 27500 ,/ f PNUCC ECON 2.1: R f,/ ,/l !,// G 25000 - f fBPA 1.6: M j / ,',,. C R A 1.5: ,,,, PNUCC ECON 1.4: p 7p g -:- V ^ 22sw-f,, p* ,/ ' '^ ' I I i l 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 \\ YEAR PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SKAGIT / HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATIONI ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT REGIONAL ELECTRICITY FORECASTS FIGURE 1.21 Amendment 8 i l

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 30000 LOAD AT 2.5: AAGR 27500 - A V E R l A G 25000 - E ~ LOAD AT M ~ .,*" 1.5: AAG R E G A 22500 - ~,, ' W /,M, __ PLUS A , /,,,,* T S/H NP2 I S - ~ ^ ---- - _ _ PLU S S!H NP1 20000 - --- RELATIVELY ASSURED ,,,e',,,' RISOURCES 1 SM 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 s YEAR PUGET SOUND PO'NER & LIGHT COMPANY SKAGIT / HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT AFPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATIONI ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT NORTHWEST REGION O LOADS AND RESOURCES FIGURE 1.2-2 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 06 14000 ,3.4: AAGR o' A / 12000 - 2.9: AAGR R / A ,'/ G E / /.4: AAGR 2 / / M 10000 - / E g '/ b - . PLUS SlHN P2 W / s A '/ / SlH N P 1 PLUS ,'/ T T 8000 - - ~ """---- RELATIVELY ASSURED i RESOURCES 6000 g ( 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 YEAR l l l l l l PUGET SOUND POWER & UGHT COMPANY I SKAGIT / HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATIONI ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT l FOUR COMPANY COMPOSITE LOADS AND RESOURCES FIGURE 1.2 3 Amendment 8 l

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/21/81 g-~ CHAPTER 2.0 s/ THE SITE CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE 2.1 Geography and Demography 2.1-1 2.1.1 Site Location and Description 2.1-1 2.1.1.1 Location 2.1-1 2.1.1.2 Site Area 2.1-1 2.1.1.3 Boundary for Establishing Effluent Release Limits 2.1-3 2.1.2 Exclusion Area Authority and Control 2.1-3 2.1.2.1 Authority 2.1-3 2.1.2.2 Control of Activities Unrelated to Plant Operation 2.1-4 2.1.2.3 Arrangements for Traffic Control 2.1-4 2.1.2.4 Abandonment or Relocations of Roads 2.1-5 O_, 2.1.3 Population Distribution 2.1-5 2.1.3.1 Population within Ten Miles 2.1-6 s 2.1.3.2 Population Between 10 and 50 Miles 2.1-6 2.1.3.3 Transient Population 2.1-7 2.1.4 Uses of Adjacent Lands and Waters 2.1-8 2.1.4.1 Land Use Within a 5-Mile Radius 2.1-9 2.1.4.2 Radiological Dose Pathways 2.1-10 2.1.4.3 Crop Production Within a 50-Mile Radius 2.1-10 2.1.4.4 Milk Production Within a 50-Mile Radius 2.1-10 2.1.4.5 Meat Production Within a 50-Mile Radius 2.1-11 2.1.4.6 Fishing and Hunting 2.1-11 2.1.4.7 Water Use 2.1-12 2.1.4.8 Water Withdrawal 2.1-14 2.1.4.9 Land Use Within 25 Miles 2.1-15 2.2 Ecology 2.2-1 2.2.1 Terrestrial Ecology 2.2-1 2.2.1.1 Vegetation 2.2-1 2.2.1.1.1 Regional Vegetation 2.2-1 O 2-1 Amendment 4

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 SECTION TITLE PAGE 2.2.1.1.2 Vegetation of the Site and Associated Areas 2.2-1 2.2.1.2 Soils 2.2-3 2.2.1.3 Fauna 2.2-4 2.2.1.3.1 Avifauna 2.2-4 2.2.1.3.2 Mammals 2.2-7 2.2.1.3.3 Other Fauna 2.2-10 2.2.1.4 Status of Succession 2.2-11 2.2.1.5 Terrestrial Food Web 2.2-12 2.2.1.6 Pre-Existing Environmental Stress 2.2-12 2.2.1.6.1 Fire 2.2-12 2.2.1.6.2 Grazing 2.2-13 2.2.1.6.3 Mechanical Soil Disturbance 2.2-14 2.2.1.7 Threatened and Endangered Species 2.2-14 2.2.1.7.1 Vegetation 2.2-14 2.2.1.7.2 Wildlife 2.2-15 2.2.2 Aquatic Ecology 2.2-16 2.2.2.1 Phytoplankton 2.2-17 2.2.2.2 Periphyton 2.2-18 2.2.2.3 Macrophytes 2.2-19 2.2.2.4 Zooplankton 2.2-19 2.2.2.5 Benthos 2.2-20 2.2.2.6 Fish 2.2-21 2.2.2.6.1 Important Anadromous Fishes 2.2-22 2.2.2.6.1.1 Chinook Salmon 2.2-23 2.2.2.6.1.2 Rainbow /Steelhead Trout 2.2-25 2.2.2.6.1.3 Coho Salmon 2.2-26a 2.2.2.6.1.4 Sockeye Salmon 2.2-26b 2.2.2.6.1.5 American Shad 2.2-26b 2.2.2.6.2 Resident Fish Species 2.2-26c 2.2.2.6.2.1 Mountain Whitefish 2.2-26d 2.2.2.6.2.2 White Sturgeon 2.2-27 2.2.2.6.2.3 Smallmouth Bass 2.2-27 2.2.2.6.2.4 Yellow Perch 2.2-29 2.2.2.6.2.5 Bluegill 2.2-30 2.2.2.6.2.6 Largescale Sucker 2.2-30 2.2.2.6.2.7 Northern Squawfish 2.2-31 2.2.2.6.3 Ichthyoplankton 2.2-32a 2.2.2.6.4 Sport Fishing 2.2-32b 2.2.2.7 Aquatic Food Chains 2.2-32c 2.2.2.8 Preexisting Environmental Stress 2.2-34 2.2.?.8.1 Impoundments 2.2-34 2.2.2.8.2 Irrigation and Agricultural Runoff 2.2-34a 2.2.2.8.3 Wastewater Discharges 2.2-35 2.2.2.9 Threatened or Endangered Aquatic Species 2.2-35 O 2-il Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 N SECTION TITLE PAGE 4 2.3 Meteorology 2.3-1 2.4 Hydrology 2.4-1 2.4.1 Surface Water 2.4-1 2.4.1.1 Columbia River Hydrologic and Physical Characteristics 2.4-1 2.4.1.1.1 Columbia River Flows 2.4-1 2.4.1.1.2 Erosion and Sedimentation 2.4-4 2.4.1.1.3 Intake / Discharge Locations 2.4-5 2.4.1.1.4 Water Use 2.4-6 2.4.1.1.5 Floodplain 2.4-6 2.4.1.2 Columbia River Temperatures 2.4-6a 2.4.1.3 Columbia River Water Quality 2.4-7 2.4.1.4 Hanford Effluents 2.4-9 2.4.2 Groundwater 2.4-10 2.5 Geology 2.5-1 2.6 Regional, Historic, Archaeological, Architectural, Scenic, Cultural, and Natural Features 2.6-1 0s 2.6.1 Archaeological and Historical Resources 2.6-1 2.6.1.1 Cultural Resources Program 2.6-1 2.6.1.2 Archaeological and Historical Methods 2.6-1 2.6.1.3 Ar'chaeological and Historical Resources in the Site and Associated Areas 2.6-4 2.6.2 Natural and Scenic Features 2.6-6 2.6.2.1 Setting 2.6-6 2.6.2.2 Natural and Scenic Features 2.6-6 1 2.7 Noise 2.7-1 2.8 Background Radiological Characteristics 2.8-1 2-i ii Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/21/81 CHAPTER 2.0 THE SITE TABLES NUMBER TITLE Section 2.1 2.1-1 Minimum Distances to the Site Boundary from the Center of Each Containment 2.1-2 Projected Age Distribution in the Year 2010 Within a 50-Mile Radius of the S/HNP 2.1-3 Transient Population by Location, Distance and Direction 2.1-4 Minimum Distance and Direction Within Ten-Mile Radius of Unit 1 2.1-5 1980 Annual Production and Approximate Yield of Crops Grown Within 50-Mile Radius of S/HNP 2.1-6 Vegetable Production (kg/yr) Within a 50-Mile Radius of S/HNP 2.1-7 Fruit Production (kg/yr) Within a 50-Mile Radius of S/HNP 2.1-8 Annual Milk and Meat Production Within a 50-Mile Radius of S/HNP 2.1-9 1978 Sport Fishing Catch in the Columbia River Above Bonneville Dam 2.1-10 Game Harvest Within a 50-Mile Radius of S/HNP 2.1-11 Surface Water Permits 50 Miles Downstream from S/HNP Discharge 2.1-12 Groundwater Permits 50 Miles Downstream of S/HNP Discharge and Within 1/2 Mile of the Columbia River O 2-iv Amendment 4

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 NUMBER TITLE Section 2.6 2.6-1 Archaeological and Historical Sites and National Register Districts Located in the i Cultural Resources Overview and Survey Area 2.6-2 Archaeological and Historical Sites Recorded During Phase 3 Survey Section 2.7 2.7-1 Baseline Noise Data for the S/HNP Site 2-ix Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 8/20/82 CHAPTER 2.0 THE SITE FIGURES NUMBER TITLC 1 Section 2.1 2.1-1 Regional Map 2.1-la Supplemental Regional Map 2.1-lb Project Vicinity Map 2.1-2 Site Area Map 2.1-3 Centerline Locations of Corridors for Rights-of-Way 2.1-4 Population Distribution for the Year 1980 l 2.1-5 Population Distribution for the Year 1990 2.1-6 Population Distribution for the Year 2000 2.1-7 Population Distribution for the Year 2010 2.1-8 Population Distribution for the Year 2020 2.1-9 Population Distribution for the Year 2030 2.1-10 Population Distribution for the Year 1980 2.1-11 Population Distribution for the Year 1990 2.1-12 Population Distribution for the Year 2000 2.1-13 Population Distribution for the Year 2010 2.1-14 Population Distribution for the Year 2020 2.1-15 Population Distribution for the Year 2030 2.1-16 Site Area Land Use Map 2.1-17 Land Use in the Vicinity of the S/HNP 2.1-18 Location of Surface Water Users 2.1-19 Location of Groundwater Users 2-x Amendment 6

S/HNP-ASC/ER 8/20/82 s NUMBER TITLE k-- 2.4-2 Adjusted Monthly and Annual Flow Duration Below Priest Rapids Dam 2.4-3 Adjusted Average Monthly Flow Below Priest Rapids Dam 2.4-4 Flow Frequency Below Priest Rapids Dam 2.4-5 Water Elevation in Columbia River at River Mile 361.5 2.4-6 Flood Frequency Curves for the Columbia River at Trinidad (Annual Peaks) 2.4-7 Columbia River Mile 361.5 Isovel Map 2.4-7a Shoreline Elevation Contours Between River Mile 361 and 362 2.4-8 Mean Monthly Temperature for Vernita Bridge (1961-1980) and Richland, Washington (1965-1980) Monitoring Stations on the Columbia River (N 2.4-9 Computed Long-Term Temperature Trends on ' (,) the Columbia River at River Mile 452.4 Near Rock Island Dam (1938-1972) 2.4-10 Selected Hanford Well Locations 2.4-11 Water Table Map for the Hanford Reservation for 1980 2.4-lla Location of Water Disposal Ponds on the Hanford Reservation 2,4-llb Water Table Rise Beneath the Hanford Reservation 2.4-lle Water Table Elevation at Hanford Well 699-20-20 for 1948-1980 2.4-12 Uppermost Confined Aquifer Potential Map Section 2.6 2.6-1 Cultural Resources Program in Relation to Project Activities O 2-xiii Amendment 6

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 NUMBER TITLE 2.6-2 Defined Boundaries 2.6-3 Cultural Resource Assessment Phase 2 Survey Areas 2.6-4 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within the Site and Associated Areas 2.6-5 National Register Districts and Sites 2.6-5a Cultural Recource Assessment Phase 3 Survey Units 2.6-Sb Layout of Archaeological Test Excavations Near Pumphouse Facility 2.6-5c Cultural Resources Recorded During Phase 3 2.6-6 Natural and Scenic Resources Section 2.7 2.7-1 Baseline Noise Level Locations Section 2.8 2.8-1 Federally and Privately Owned Nuclear Facilities l l l l l l l { 1 1 0 2-xiv Amendment 8 l

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 '~'N Estimated Acres ,,) Facility Easement Width Outside Site 1. Intake and dis-150 feet (200 feet 134 charge pipelines at pumphouse) 4 2. Railroad 100 feet 42 3. Transmission Lines 600 feet 192 4. Access Roads

a. North 100 feet 19
b. South 100 feet 17*

8

  • An alternate access road, totalling 33 acres, identified as South Alternate Access Road on Figure 2.1-3, is being considered.

Figure 2.1-3 shows the centerlines for the preliminary 4 corridors (each 1,000 feet wide) in which the final respec-tive easement routes will be selected. A legal description and final area for each easement will be provided after selection of the final routes. The Columbia River shoreline at the proposed location of the intake and discharge system is not within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act. WAC 173 6 070. This shoreline is also not within the boundary of the E250.02 coastal zone nor would the proposed use affect land or \\) water uses in the coastal zone. Washington State Coastal i Zone Management Program, June 1976, pp. 119-20. 2.1.4.1 Land Use Within a 5-Mile Radius As indicated on Figures 2.1-16 and 2.1-17, the only land uses within a 5-mile radius of the S/HNP Site are the various industrial facilities located within the DOE Hanford Reservation. Approximately 5 miles east of the Site is the Supply System WNP-2 reactor, currently under con-4 struction. Two more Supply System nuclear plants, WNP-1 and WNP-4, are located within a mile to the east of WNP-2. A permanent meteorological tower operated by the Supply System is located one-half mile west of WNP-2. Immediately west of the WNP-2 site is the DOE Wye Burial Ground for radioactive waste. Approximately 5 miles southeast of the S/HNP Site is DOE's Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), which is a sodium-cooled reactor for testing reactor fuel ele-ments. The DOE 200 East Area is 5.9 miles northwest of the Site. The H. J. Ashe Electrical Substation is located 4.5 5 miles east of the S/HNP, and is operated by the Bonneville N260.02 Power Administration as part of its transmission system. r [\\ 2.1-9 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 The central landfill is located 2.5 miles north-northwest of the S/HNP. This landfill receives approximately 22,000 cubic yards of office waste per year, some scrap 5 construction materials, some residual chemicals and M260.02 laboratory chemical wastes, and some asbestos pipe loggings. The pipe loggings, laboratory wastes, and residual chemicals are all enclosed in double containers. The largest containers buried at the landfill are 30 gallon drums, which may contain as much as a gallon of residual chemicals (Ref 39). An Environmental Impact Statement has 4 been issued by the Washington Department of Ecology for a hazardous waste disposal site to be located in Section 15 TilN, R27E approximately 2.5 miles south-southeast of the S/HNP Site. 8 No significant changes are forecast in the use of the land within 5 miles. The Hanford Reservation is expected to 4 remain dedicated primarily to industrial use, with no private residences. O O 2.1-9a Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 (} feed is supplemented year round with such grains as corn, ( j barley, and wheat (or wheat milling residue), with corn silage and sugar beet pulp, and with such protein additives as soybean or cottonseed meal (Ref 18). The average annual milk production per cow in 1979-1980 was 14,000 lb per cow, in all counties (Ref 26) except Morrow, Oregon, which had a yield of 11,000 lb per cow (Ref 23). 2.1.4.5 Meat Production Within a 50-Mile Radius Table 2.1-8 lists, by distance and direction, the approxi-mate 1979 and 1980 meat production within a 50-mile radius of the Site (Refs 12, 14, 24, 26). There are no cattle feedlots in Kittitas, Klickitat, or Morrow Counties within 50 miles of the Site. The meat production is from beef 4 cattle, with the exception of 85,000 lambs on one feedlot in Umatilla County. The average weight of slaughtered beef ranged from 1100 to 1125 lb per animal (Ref 24). The average weight of lambs prior to slaughter was 95 lb. Cattle are fattened in feedlots for 6 to 12 months before they are slaughtered. During this time, cattle do not graze on open pasture or eat green chop feed. They gener-g ally are fed on such crop aftermath as potato waste, apple s_- stumpage, or corn silage. 2.1.4.6 Fishing and Hunting Fishing occurs in the Columbia, Snake, Yakima, and Walla Walla Rivers, as well as in isolated lakes and ponds. Table 2.1-9 shows the 1978 sport catch for salmon and steelhead on the Columbia River above Bonneville Dam. Other species, including bass, channel catfish, sturgeon, walleye, crappie, sunfish, and bluegill are also caught in this area, however, no catch statistics are compiled for N210.ll these species. The only commercial fishing, which occurs 5 within McNary pool, is a small fishery for carp which is used primarily for mink food. The catch is variable and subject to market demand (Refs 30, 31). Sport fishing statistics specific to the Hanford Reach are presented in 8 Section 2.2.2.6.4. Hunting is extensive within a 50-mile radius of the Site. Much of the farmland is open to hunters, with upland bird and fowl hunting being the most popular. Table 2.1-10 shows the annual game harvest within a 50-mile radius of 4 the Site. The totals for the Washington Counties are based O on 1980 statistics; Oregon totals are based on the latest hunter survey, conducted in 1977, except for the deer count, which is from 1980 (Refs 32, 33). 2.1-11 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/21/81 The Columbia River banks are the closest location to the S/HNP point of discharge where fishing and hunting can occur. Access to the river is usually open on both banks to the normal high water mark. However, during hunting season (approximately October 15 to January 15), no access to the river is allowed from the Hanford townsite to Vernita Bridge. Iiunting also occurs east of the river. 2.1.4.7 Water Use The primary uses of Columbia River water for 50 miles downstream of the S/HNP discharge structure are irrigation and the municipal water supplies of the cities of Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick. Richland and Pasco pump water directly from the river for municipal use after appropriate filtration and treatment. Kennewick obtains its water indirectly from the river by use of Ranney collectors, which results in filtration of the water before it enters the collectors. Changes are occurring in the uses of adjacent lands and waters because of increased construction activity on the Hanford Reservation, the new industrial development in the Tri-Cities, and the expansion in irrigated agriculture. The amount of irrigated acreage will continue to increase 4 in the time period from 1980 to 2020/2030 (Ref 34). The principal sources of water for the irrigated areas south and west of the Tri-Cities are the Columbia, Snake, and Yakima Rivers. Groundwater is being pumped in several areas, and additional areas are expected to be irrigated with groundwater in the next few years. New irrigation in the Columbia Basin Project will receive its water from the Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River. Tables 2.1-11 and 2.1-12 list permits and certificates for surface and groundwater use, respectively, for 50 miles downstream from the S/HNP intake and discharge location (Ref 35). Each table includes information about location, distance from discharge point, withdrawal rate, and use. Groundwater data are limited to wells located within one-half mile of the river; greater distances were not examined because the groundwater flow is toward the river except for a small outward flow during flood seasons (refer to Section 2.4.2). Types of use include irrigation, domestic, commercial / industrial, fire protection, and heat exchange. Each permit listed in Tables 2.1-11 and 2.1-12 has been indicated on Figures 2.1-18 and 2.1-19, respectively. Permit applications, pending on May 18, 1981, for both surface and groundwater use are listed in Tables 2.1-13 and 1 2.1-12 Amendment 4

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/21/81 The Washington Natural Heritage Program 1981 list of endangered, threatened, and sensitive vascular plants (Ref 40) was also reviewed. The list is expected to become an official Washington State list as soon as adopting regulations are completed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. This list recognizes Rorippa calycina var. columbiae as threatened. No other plants in the vicinity of the Site and Associated Areas are listed as threatened or endangered, but two species are recognized as sensitive (Ref 40). These species, found in the Site and Associated Areas are Astragalus sclerocarpus, which is common in much of the Hanford Reservation, and Cryptantha leucophaea which is found in sandy habitat such as sand blowouts. The designation " sensitive" includes species with small populations or localized distribution within the State whose populations and habitats will be jeopardized if current land use practices continue. 2.2.1.7.2 Wildlife Two federally listed, threatened or endangered animal species, are known to occur within the Hanford Reservation (Ref 2), bald eagles and peregrine falcons. Bald eagles f "g are endangered throughout the 48 conterminous states except e (\\ 2' in Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, 4 where they are listed as threatened (43 FR 4310-55). The peregrine falcon is considered endangered throughout the United States. Bald Eagles Bald eagles are winter residents of the Hanford Reservation, although sporatic nesting attempts have been made in the past. They generally arrive in mid-November and are present through February (Ref 11). During this period, bald eagles can be found perching in trees along the Columbia River. The roosting site most commonly used at the old Hanford townsite is located 1.2 kilometers f rom the pumphouse location. During the winter, bald eagles rely upon waterfowl and salmon carcasses that are found in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River (Ref 41). The wintering population of the Hanford Reservation has increased over the years f rom 2-6 birds in the 1960's to over 20 birds in the late 1970's (Refs 11, 41). Even though the bald eagle occurs primarily along the Columbia River, this raptor also utilizes sagebrush / cheat-grass habitat for hunting. Presently, little data exists on daily movement patterns of bald eagles on the Hanford O 2.2-15 Amendment 4

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 Reservation and little is known about their utilization of various habitats for feeding and nesting. Peregrine Falcon Peregrine falcons require a nesting cliff greater than 30 meters in height and within 1 kilometer of water, and an open foraging area (Refs 42-44). Relatively little of this type of habitat exists within the Hanford Reservation and nesting peregrines have not been reported in this area. The only published record of peregrine falcons in the Tri-Cities area is of winter migrants (Audubon Christmas Counts, Ref 2). These data indicate that winter or migratory sightings of transient birds can be expected near the Site in the future. However, these sightings are not viewed as significant because peregrines range over a large area (up 4 to 40 kilometers per day), and the Hanford Reservation does not appear to be prime habitat for this species. 2.2.2 AOUATIC ECOLOGY The Columbia River is a very complex aquatic ecosystem because of the number of man-made alterations, the diversity of the biota, and the size and diversity of its drainage basin. Hanford Reach, the only free-flowing section of the Columbia River within the United States and above Bonneville Dam, is characterized by a variety of habitats ranging from swift currents and rocky substrates to slowly flowing sloughs and backwater areas. Flow through the Hanford Reach is regulated by Priest Rapids Dam. Comprehensive evaluations of the ecological characteristics of the Columbia River are presented in the References for Section 2.2. l8 Studies of the various aquatic organisms in the Columbia River, relating primarily to the influence of reactor opera-tion, have been conducted over a 36-year period (1947 to 1981). A bibliography with abstracts of these investigations was published in 1973 (Ref 51) and updated in 1979 (Ref 52). The following sections summarize the 4 essential ecological characteristics of the major communities and identify important species as defined in Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev 2. Species collected in the Hanford Reach are listed in Tables 2.2-15 through 2.2-19. Species of special concern or importance are listed in Table 2.2-20. O 2.2-16 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 h 2.2.2.1 Phytoplankton {J The plankton community in the Hanford Reach is influenced by the communities in pools by dams upstream of the Reach and by manipulation of reservoirs by the dam operators. 6 The plankton communities observed at Hanford are mostly transients flowing from one reservoir to another. There is not sufficient time for an edemic potamoplankton to develop in the Reach. Consequently the communities in the Hanford Rea'ch are expected to differ from those elsewhere in the Columbia River. An inventory of the phytoplankton species identified in the 4 Hanford Reach is presented in Table 2.2-15. Phytoplankton in the Hanford Reach are derived from reser-voirs and periphyton upstream of the intake / discharge site. Because of the unimpounded nature of the Reach and the 6 rapid transport through the Reach, phytoplankton are E290*04 expected to have a lesser role in ecosystem dynamics in the Hanford Reach than at other locations in the Columbia. Hence seasonal and annual fluctuation of phytoplankton may i have less significance here compared to other sites. Diatoms are the dominant algae in the Columbia River, l [\\ usually representing over 90 percent of the population. l8 \\-- The main genera in the vicinity of the S/HNP intake / dis-charge include Cyclotella, Stephanodiscus, Asterionella, Melosira, Fragilaria, and Synedra. Lentic forms that originate in the impoundments behind the upstream dams are dominant in this section of the river (Ref 53). The phyto-plankton community also contains a number of species derived from the periphyton or sessile algae. Daily fluctuating water levels, due to operation of Priest Rapids Dam immediately upstream from Hanford, may potentially I explain the presence of these species. Periphytic algae exposed to the air for part of the day may dry up and i i become detached and suspended in the water when the river 4 l level rises. Green and blue-green algae occasionally occur during warmer months, but in substantially fewer numbers than the diatoms. Peak biomass of phytoplankton is about 2.0 g dry wt/m3 and occurs in May. Winter values are typically less than 0.1 g 3 (Ref 54). A spring increase in biomass with a dry wt/m second increase in late summer and autumn has been observed in the Hanford Reach (Refs 55, 56). The spring bloom is probably related both to increased light and to increased water temperature rather than to availability of nutrients. Nutrients do not decrease to concentrations limiting algal growth. l l 2.2-17 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 Phytoplankton densities range from a minimum of 100 algal units /ml in the winter to a maximum of 16,000 algal 4 units /ml in the spring. Fall peaks in abundance of approx-imately 1,500/ml are frequently observed (Figure 2.2-10). Seasonal peaks in phytoplankton density are most likely 8 related to increased light attenuation and increased water temperature. Increased productivity in recent years may be the result of increased productivity in the reservoirs of upstream dams. Carbon productivity data range from less than 0.001 to greater than 0.020 mg 14 C/hr. These values are typical of river productivity in a temperate climate. Peak produc-tivity generally occurs in summer and fall, and minimums occur in winter. Chlorophyll a concentrations range from less than 1.0 ug/l to greater than 24.0 ug/1. Chlorophyll a concentrations peak in the late spring /early summer, and are lowest in late fall /early winter (Figure 2.2-11). Comparisons of chlorophyll a and primary productivity 4 curves for various depths illustrate a light attenuation effect. Chlorophyll a concentrations are consistent throughout the water column, but primary productivity rates decrease with depth (Ref 49). This finding supports the conclusion that stratification of carbon fixation rates in the Columbia River is a function of light attenuation, rather than phytoplankton stratification. Plankton distribution, productivity data and pigment analysis suggest that the river is uniformly mixed from shore to shore throughout the year. Uniform distribution of phyto-and zooplankton at midstream has been supported by studies conducted near Columbia River Mile 380 (Ref 66) and near Columbia River Mile 350 (Ref 64). Vertical differences (ANOVA, a = 0.05) in number 6 per volume of Columbia River phytoplankton occurred on only N210.08 two of 51 sampling dates in 1973-1974 and one of seven dates in 1974-1975. In addition, chlorophyll a and phaeophytin a concentrations were also generally equally distributed with respect to depth and station. 2.2.2.2 Periphyton The periphyton community in the Hanford Reach (Table 2.2-15) is primarily composed of diatoms dominated by: 4 Cocconeis, Asterionella, Synedra, Gonphonema, Achnanthes, Nitzschia and Stephanodiscus (Refs 57, 60). One set of samples in June 1979 was dominated by non-diatom blue-green algae: Schizothrix and Entophysalis (Ref 59). 2.2-18 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 fs Periphyton densities (Figure 2.2-12) and organic matter ( I estimates (Figure 2.2-13) tend to be highest in fall and \\/ winter and lowest in summer. Average densities range from 4 4,659 in June to 1,146,250 algal units /cm2 in March. Average organic matter estimates range from 0.2 in June to 21.0 g/m2 in September (Refs 57, 60). This community is typical of the Columbia River at Hanford. It provides the 8 primary authocthonus energy source to the aquatic eco-E290.05 system. 2.2.2.3 Macrophytes Fluctuating water levels, strong currents, and rocky substrate inhibit the development of a rooted macrophyte 4 community in the Hanford Reach. Rooted macrophytes are generally restricted to isolated slack water areas in the main river channel and in muddy bottom areas of sloughs. Because of currents and rocky substrate, there are no macrophyte aggregations in the construction area or down-stream in the vicinity of the S/HNP discharge. Where they 6 exist, macrophytes are of great significance. Aquatic vege-E290.06 tation provides food and shelter for juvenile fishes and spawning habitat for some warm water game species. \\ The most common macrophytic species likely to be found s_, along the shoreline is the curled leave pondweed, Potomogeton crispus. Pondweed is common among quiet pools, and is most visible at reduced flows after summer growth. 4 Emergent macrophytic vegetation, including rushes (Juncus spp), sedges (Carex spp) and cattails (Typha latifolia), also may be encountered along the main river shoreline. Macrophytic species that have been identified in the Hanford Reach (Refs 61, 62, 63) are presented in Table 6 2.2-16. 2.2.2.4 Zooplankton The zooplankton known to exist in the Hanford Reach are listed in Table 2.2-17. Copepods dominate in the late fall, winter and spring. Cladocerans dominate in the 4 summer and early fall. Bosmina spp is the dominant cladoceran observed near WNP-1/4 and 2. The relative abundances of dominant zooplankton in the Hanford Reach vary seasonally as shown in Figure 2.2-14. Average densities of zooplankton (Figure 2. 2.-15) may range from less than 10 organisms /m3 in autumn to 4,700 organisms /m3 in late spring (Refs 53, 57, 59, 60, 64-66). l8 a) 2.2-19 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 Zooplankton form only a minor dietary item for young salmon in the Hanford Reach (Ref 67). Dauble et al. (Ref 108), 4 however, indicate that cladocerans may seasonally constitute a major component of the diet of 0 age chinook salmon during some years. The best scientific judgment is that at Hanford, juvenile salmonids are opportunistic feeders and they may occasionally take advantage of 6 zooplankton blooms. Evidence does not indicate that E290.07 zooplankton populations at Hanford are critical to the survival of juvenile salmonids. Insect larvae, the primary food items for salmonids, are not numerically important components of the zooplankton community. Insects typically account for less than five percent of the zooplankton organisms (Ref 49). Numbers of insect larvae found in midstream drift peak in mid-July at about 7 larvae /m3 (Ref 49). 4 2.2.2.5 Benthos Macrobenthic populations are diverse (Table 2.2-18), but are numerically dominated (90 percent) by two taxa: midge fly larvae (Chironomidae) and caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera). Other taxa include black flies (Simuliidae), oligochaetes, molluscs, crayfish, sponges and mites. Population densities change seasonally and annually. With few exceptions, numbers are lowest in June 6 and July, increase dramatically in September and October and are moderately high from December through April. Average densities (Figure 2.2-16) for September, December, 4 March and June in samples collected between 1973-1980 were 53,656/m2, 33,580/m2, 6,984/m2 and 5,944/m2, respectively l5,E290.09 (Refs 53, 57, 59, 60, 64-66). Seasonal fluctuations in benthos densities are related to annual emergence cycles of dominant aquatic insect populations. Peak densities in the fall reflect colonization by insect larvae following oviposition by adult insects in the summer and early fall. 8 The populations of these larvae decline in numbers until emergence as adults. Comparisons among years are not always possible because of differences in sample locations, duration of colonization and collection dates. Mean total benthic biomass peaks in December while the lowest biomass typically occurs in March. Biomass measure-ments coincide with high December and low March Trichoptera 4 populations. On occasion Simuliidae, Chironomidae and molluscs will constitute a major portion of the biomass. Stomach contents of fish collected at Hanford were examined l6 f cora June 1973 through March 1980 (Refs 49, 53, 57, 59, 60, l2 2.2-20 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 []- and 64) and indicate that benthic invertebrates are ( / important food items. Tables in these references contain macro and microscopic stomach content and analysis includ-ing percent volume and percent frequency of food items i observed in all fish species regularly collected from 1973 through 1980. Conclusion of thnse examinations include: 6 most Hanford fishes are opporttanistic; they utilize E290.08 juvenile and adult insects, Epinly caddisflies and midge flies, smaller fish and occartonally zooplankton for food; and kinds and abundance of benthic invertebrates in Hanford fish diets were generally reflective of the community composition identified in macroinvertebrate samples. O I 2.2-20a Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 8/20/82 (Oj Hanford Reach serves as the last major main stem spawning ground for fall chinook salmon and steelhead trout. Salmonids are of greatest commercial and recreational importance; hence, most fisheries research has been con-cerned with these species. An estimated production of 14 million salmonid smolts from both natural and artificial sources (Table 2.2-21) represent a combined sport and commercial value of 30 million dollars annually (Ref 63). Salmonids have similar life cycles, but each species and race matures at a different rate, resulting in differences in migration timing (Figure 2. 2-17) and duration of life stages and activities. Adult salmonids move past the intake / discharge location during all months of the year, with the greatest numbers passing during spring to early fall. Peak adult migration periods are generally as follows: 4 Sockeye: July-August Chinook: Spring: mid-March to mid-June Summer: mid-June to mid-August Fall: mid-August to November Coho: September-October f\\ Steelhead: August-October J Studies of upstream salmonid migration routes through the Hanford Reach indicate a preference for the east-northeast bank (across the river from the S/HNP intake location). This pattern persists from Priest Rapids Dam downstream to Richland (Ref 62). 2.2.2.6.1.1 Chinook salmon. Fall chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawning usually occurs from mid-October through early-December, and peaks in mid-November (Refs 71, 73). An aerial census of the fall chinook spawning in the Hanford Reach has been made annually since 1947. Esti-6 mates of fall chinook utilizing the Hanford Reach are pre-E290.12 l sented in Tables 2.2-21a and 2.2-21b. Major spawning areas are shown in Figure 2.2-18. The only spawning habitat in the Hanford Reach, downstream of the S/HNP intake / discharge location (RM 361.5), is the section of the river from Wooded Island to Ringold (RM 347-354) (Refs 72, 73). The upstream portion of this spawning habitat is located 4 7.5 miles downstream from the S/HNP discharge. Data (Table 2.2-22) indicate that this spawning area comprises less than 4 percent of the fall chinook spawning activity for f' the entire Hanford Reach (Ref 72). Since 1962, the local e(g) fall chinook spawning population has increased to an 2.2-23 Amendment 6

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 average of 20,000 fish, or approximately 15 to 20 percent 4 of the total fall chinook escapement to the river (Ref 73) and approximately 30 percent of the escapement above McNary g Dam (Table 2.2-21b). Eggs incubate in the gravel from late fall to mid-winter, and fry typically emerge from redds during March through June (Refs 55, 56, 74). Following emergence, young-of-the-year (0-age fish) begin their migration to the Pacific Ocean. The peak seaward migration of juvenile chinook in the mid-Columbia River, including those fish produced in the Hanford Reach, occurs in mid-April to mid-June (Refs 75, 76). However, the out-migration of chinook produced in areas upstream of Priest Rapids Dam is now later than in the past, apparently as a result of delays in passage through the reservoir complex (Refs 62, 81). Chinook juveniles move through the Hanford Reach in two size classes. The young-of-the-year, especially the small, newly emergent fry produced in the Hanford Reach, inhabit backwater sloughs and nearshore areas from late winter through midsummer as they move downstream. Shoreline indentations and backwater areas are important rearing habitat for small 0-age chinook. Upriver-and hatchery-reared 0-age chinook are typically larger than fish produced in the Hanford Reach when they migrate past the S/HNP intake / discharge location. They may move offshore somewhat in comparison to the locally reared juveniles. 4 The migration of adult spring chinook salmon generally occurs in the Hanford Reach between mid-March and mid-June; it peaks the first week of May. Spawning grounds are located in tributaries of the Columbia River upstream of the Hanford Reach. Fish passage counts at Priest Rapids Dam (Ref 77) since 1960 have ranged from 5,086 to 21,427 fish, and averaged 10,234 fish. Spring chinook juveniles generally reside in freshwater for one year and migrate to sea between April and June during their second spring as 1+ age class fish. The summer run of adult chinook salmon generally occurs between mid-June and mid-August, and peaks the third week of July. These fish pass the S/HNP and spawn above Priest Rapids Dam in upstream tributaries, primarily the Wenatchee, Okanogan, Entiat and Methow Rivers. Since 1960, the number of summer run chinook migrating through the Hanford Reach past Priest Rapids Dam has ranged from 13,703 to 29,736 fish and has averaged 21,350 fish (Ref 77). Summer chinook juveniles generally reside in freshwater only a few months and migrate to sea between March and August during their first spring as 0-age class fish (Re f s 78-81). 2.2-24 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 8/20/82 mf) reduced river velocity and increased temperatures from \\# impoundment may be beneficial (Ref 117). Shad have extended their range up the Columbia River to Priest Rapids Dam. Fish counts at the dam, prior to 1969 averaged only 500 fish annually. Recent counts average 8,300 fish and range from 1,360 to 26,500 fish annually (Ref 77). The design of the fishway will not allow shad to 4 pass Priest Rapids Dam. There is some speculation that shad may be spawning in the fishway at the dam (Ref 130). Shad spawning occurs in groups; a female is often accompanied by one to several males. Spawning occurs near the water surface. Semibuoyant eggs are laid in open water, primarily at night, and are carried downstream by the river flow (Ref 115). Ichthyoplankton samples in the area of the proposed intake and discharge location for 6 S/HNP indicate that shad eggs and larvae constitute an insignificant (i.e., less than one percent) portion of the ichthyoplankton at that location (Appendix K). Juvenile shad spend their first summer of life in the river, and migrate to sea in the late fall. Shad mature three to four years in the ocean prior to returning to freshwater to spawn. [) There is little known regarding the role of the shad in the N_/ ecosystem of the Columbia River. Shad are plankton feeders. Juveniles first feed on microscopic animals and later on aquatic insects (Ref 115). Mature shad are not known to feed during their spawning migration, however, they will readily strike small lures and flies (Ref 115). Thermal tolerance data are generally lacking for this 4 species. Shubel et al. (Ref 131) state that the lethal limit for juvenile American shad is 83.30F. American shad are a popular sport species; however, the spawning run is brief and these fish are available to the sportsmen for only about a month. Commerical harvest is limited because of low prices and conflicts with summer run chinook salmon which are presently receiving protection. 2.2.2.6.2 Resident Fish Species Resident fishes of the Hanford Reach and habitat require-ments for a number of the species, have been thoroughly documented in the literature (Refs 59, 68, 89-92). A total of 39 species representing 14 families of fish have been collected since 1974 (Table 2.2-19). The top five in 7-~}g relative abundance are largescale sucker, Catostomus ( 2.2-26c Amendment 6

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 macrocheilus; bridgelip sucker, C. columbianus; squawfish, Ptychocheilus oregonensis; chiselmouth, Acrocheilus alutaceus; and redside shiner, Richardsonius balteatus) (Ref 68). Although the majority of fish species are assumed to be most abundant in the nearshore zone, complete fish distri-bution patterns are unknown because of the inability to ade-quately sample the river cross-section. The important resident species (Table 2.2-20) in the Hanford Reach are discussed below. 4 2.2.2.6.2.1 Mountain Whitefish. Mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) are recreationally important throughout the Columbia River. They are known to feed on the eggs of commercially important species (Ref 50). Mountain whitefish is the most abundant resident coldwater game species found in the Hanford Reach, and comprises approximately 15 percent of the sport catch. Spawning occurs annually from late November through early January when water temperatures average 37.4 to 46.40F (Refs 53-56, 59-60). Although specific spawning sites in the Hanford lg Reach have not been documented, areas outlined in Figure 2.2-19 appear to have suitable flow and bottom type. 4 Fry emergence occurs annually in the Hanford Reach in early April (Refs 53-55, 59-60). The Hanford Slough slackwater l8 environment may provide rearing habitat for whitefish fry, but no fry were found during a one-year study of this area l6 (Appendix K). As fry grow and develop, they disperse throughout the entire river. There is a tendency for juvenile mountain whitefish to move downstream by the end of their first year and to utilize nearshore riffle areas and deep pools out of the main current. Mountain whitefish feed primarily on immature forms of bottom-dwelling aquatic insects such as mayflies, stone-4 flies, caddisflies, and midge flies. They are also known to eat crayfish, freshwater shrimp, leeches, fish eggs and occasionally small fish (Ref 115). Feeding primarily occurs at dusk and dawn. Adult whitefish prefer water temperatures between 48.0 and 52.00F (Ref 115). Thermal tolerance data are generally lacking for this species. O 2.2-26d Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 /N large squawfish at the Hanford Reach are females (Ref 94). ( / Gray and Dauble (Ref 94) collected northern squawfish up to 4 '~' 15 years old near WNP l/4 and 2. 2.2.2.6.3 Ichthyoplankton In studies conducted from June 1973 to June 1974 at Columbia River RM 380 (Ref 66) only 5 unidentified larvae and no eggs were observed in 575 zooplankton samples. Weekly tows were made from June 1973 to June 1974 at three stations and three depths (surface, mid-water column and within im of the bottom) with a metered Clarke-Bumpus Plankton Sampler equipped with a 158 micron mesh net. Sampling time was three to five minutes at each depth. Ichthyoplankton were only collected in May and July. One 6 N210.03 unidentified ichthyoplankton was incidentally collected in a zooplankton sample taken near Columbia River RM 350 in June 1975 (Ref 64). Beak (Ref 59) conducted ichthyoplankton tows near RM 350. Replicate tows were made monthly from September 1978 to March 1980 at one station with a metered Tucker travel net having a 0.5 X 0.5m square mouth and 333 micron mesh net. Tows were steppe-oblique samples resulting in one minute sampling time at each of fs three depths; surface, mid-water column and within im of ( ) the bottom. Only a single species, Cottus asper was N-captured from May through July 1979. Densities ranged from 0-0.14 individuals per cubic meter. Information specific to the S/HNP has recently been compiled as part of the site studies and is included as Appendix K. Duplicate samples of 5-and 15-minute duration were taken twice monthly at the surface and within im of the bottom at a single station near the proposed S/HNP intake and discharge site (RM 361.5). Paired 550 micron 8 mesh ichthyoplankton nets, each 30 cm in diameter and 1 meter long, were lowered from a stationary boat. ( Five species of fish were captured in midstream ichthyo-6 plankton tows (Table 2.2-21c). Peak abundance (0.17 larvae per cubic meter) occurred in May and June 1981. About 95 6 E290.03 percent of the fish captured (211 of 222) were prickly sculpin (Cottus asper). Two shad larvae (Alosa sapidissima) and a single carp lavae (Cyprinus carpio) were also identified in ichthyoplankton samples. Two chinook 6 fry (40 and 42 mm FL) were captured in bottom tows in l April. Because of the species composition and the low densities observed, ichthyoplankton are not thought to be 6 l l of major importance to the aquatic ecology of the Reach. E290.03 J l 2.2-32a Amendment 8 l

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 Spatial distribution of larval fish collected at midstream was similar (Figure 2.2-22a), and no significant difference 6 (a = 0.05) was noted between catches obtained at surface versus bottom tows. On days in which samples were captured, the range of ichthyoplankton densities were 0.0 to 0.2133 and 0.0 to 0.2618 per cubic meter for surface and 6 bottom tows respectively. Mean density was 0.0630 + N210.08 0.0626/m3 at the surface and 0.0785 + 0.0850/m3 at the bottom (see Appendix K). 2.2.2.6.4 Sport Fishing Sport fishing in the Hanford Reach is focused in two major areas: Ringold Springs and in the Vernita Bar area below Priest Rapids Dam. Principal species sought in those areas include spring and fall chinook salmon, steelhead trout and mountain whitefish. Some angling occurs throughout the Reach for white sturgeon. An additional warm water fishery exists in four slough areas: Jap Slough, Hanford Slough, 100-F Slough and White Bluffs. The Washington Department of Game (Ref 146) conducted creel census surveys at Ringold Springs from May 1980 through April 1981. Bank anglers fished an estimated 61,454 hours in 15,684 trips and caught 1,794 steelhead and 476 salmon. Boat anglers fished an estimated 13,882 hours in 2,610 6 trips. Additional surveys were conducted near the Priest Rapids Dam tailrace from August 1980 through April 1981. Bank anglers fished an estimated 32,798 hours and boat anglers fished 15,906 hours. Bank salmon-steelhead anglers fished 20,323 hours and caught 372 steelhead and 389 salmon. Boat salmon-steelhead anglers fished 10,441 hours and caught 392 salmon. Whitefish anglers fished 8,532 hours in 5 months for 7,074 whitefish. During 275 hours of fishing by 53 anglers, only one sturgeon was caught. Angler use for salmon and steelhead was greatest in April and September; whitefish effort was highest in December and January. For the 1980-1981 season, the Washington Department of Game estimated the following angler days for the entire Hanford Reach from the proposed Ben Franklin Dam site to Priest Rapids Dam: 26,500 angler days for the steelhead fishery, 3,500 angler days for resident salmonids, primarily white-fish near Vernita, and 4,000 angler days for resident warm water species, primarily in sloughs and backwater areas for bass, walleye and sunfish. Sport fishing information for the regional area is 8 presented in Section 2.1.4.6. 2.2-32b Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 8/20/82 In general, temperature and river current may limit primary production ae 'll as development of some herbivore species. Res+u.it fish rearing and spawning habitat may be limited by river, topography (e.g., lack of backwaters and 6 sloughs) water level fluctuations. The factors limiting anadromous fish production are not entirely known. For example, available spawning areas may or may not be at capa-city. Clearly harvesting and passage of adults and juve-niles at dams effects production. Effects of predation are of concern but definitive data are lacking at this point. l 1 2.2-33 Amendment 6

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 A simplified diagram of the food-web relationships in selected Columbia River biota and probable major energy pathways are shown in Figure 2.2-22. 2.2.2.8 Preexisting Environmental Stress 4 The man-caused factors that affect aquatic resources are numerous and their effects, whether direct or indirect, are quite complex (Figure 2.2-23). Changes in the physical and biological systems of the Columbia River result from the presence of hydroelectric dams, irrigation and agricultural runoff, water diversions, and municipal and industrial wastewater discharges. The Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Plan-ning Council has been charged with developing a regional program related to energy conservation, renewable resources and other resources while protecting, mitigating and enhanc-ing fish and wildlife resources of the Columbia River system (Ref 147). The Council has proposed a draft fish 8 and wildlife program requesting specific research projects and other program measures be implemented by hydroelectric projects and other entities to enhance the fish and wild-life resources of the Columbia River (Ref 148). O 2.2.2.8.1 Impoundments Impoundments and attendant water release cycles of hydro-electric projects have produced a number of changes in water temperature, daily fluctuations of the water level, and composition and/or concentration of various aquatic organisms in parts of the river (Refs 111, 112). Daily water fluctuations in the Hanford Reach have resulted in reduced benthic production and loss of rooted macrophytes in littoral zones. Dams influence the survival of 4 anadromous and resident fishes by reducing suitable spawn-ing habitats and by hindering adult and juvenile migration (Ref 112). I Changes in river velocities and temperatures also provide a competitive advantage to non-game species. Non-game fish dominate the community composition in impounded areas as well as in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River (Section l 2.2.2.6.2). O 2.2-34 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 2.2.2.8.2 Irrigation and Agricultural Runoff A number of irrigation discharges occur along the left bank (Franklin County) of the Hanford Reach. Runoff from irrigated lands contribute inorganic and organic consti-4 tuents from pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, and dissolved constituents from the soil (Ref 113). Irrigation i return waters in the Hanford Reach also have added heat and increased the background concentrations of dissolved and suspended solids, trace metals and organic compounds ] (Ref 113). l l 2.2-34a Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 49. Final Report on Aquatic Ecological Studies Conducted ) at the Hanf ord Generating Proiect, 1973-1974, WPPSS (\\' Columbia River Ecology Studies, Volume 1, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richlan3, WA (1976). 50. Supplemental Information on the Hanford Generating Project in Support of a 316(a) Demonstration, WPPSS, (November 1978). 51. C. D. Becker, Aquatic Bioenvironmental Studies in the Columbia River at Hanford 1945-1971, A Bibliography with Abstracts, BNWL-1734, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA (1973). 52. D. A. Neitzel, A Summary of Environmental Effects Studies on the Columbia River 1972 through 1978, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA (August 1979). 53. R. H. Gray, T. L. Page and E. G. Wolf, Aquatic Ecological Studies Conducted Near WNP 1, 2 and 4, September 1974 through September 1975, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies, Volume 2, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA (1976). 54. C. E. Cushing, " Concentration and Transport of 32P and (} 62 n by Columbia River Plankton," Limnol. Oceanogr., Z (s,/ Volume 12 (1953), pp. 330-332. 55. R. W. Coopey, " Radioactive Plankton from the Columbia River," Trans. Amer. Microscop. Soc., Volume 72 (1953), pp. 315-327. 56. C. E. Cushing, " Plankton-Water Chemistry Cycles in the Columbia River," Hanford Biology Research Annual Report f or 1963, HW-80500 (1964), pp. 212-218. 57. R. H. Gray and T. L. Page, Aquatic Ecological Studies near WNP 1, 2, and 4 January through December 1977, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies, Volume 5, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA (1979). 58. Reference deleted. OO 2.2-41 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/21/81 59. Beak Consultants Incorporated, Preoperational Environmental Monitoring Studies Near WNP 1, 2, and 4, August 1978 through March 1980, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies, Volume 7, Beak Consultants Incorporated, Portland, OR (1980). 60. R. H. Gray and T. L. Page, Aquatic Ecological Studies Near WNP 1, 2, and 4, January 1978 through August 1978, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies, Volume 6, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA (1979). 61. D. H. Fickeisen, R. E. Fitzner, R. H. Sauer and J. L. Warren, Wildlife Usage, Threatened and Endangered Species and Habitat Studies of the Hanford Reach, Columbia River, Washington, Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA (1980). 62. Washington Public Power Supply System, The Proposed Hanford Number Two Nuclear Power Plant, Final Environmental Statement, Docket No. 50-397 (December 1972). 4 63. D. H. Fickeisen, D. D.

Dauble, D.

A. Neitzel, W. H.

Rickard, R.

L. Skaggs and J. L. Warren, Aquatic and Riparian Resource Study of the Hanford Reach, Columbia River, Washington, Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Battefle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA (1980). 64. R. H. Gray and T. L. Page, Aquatic Ecological Studies near WNP 1, 2, and 4, September 1975 through March 1976, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies, Volume 3, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA (1977). 65. R. H. Gray and T. L. Page, Aquatic Ecological Studies near WNP 1, 2, and 4, March through December 1976, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies, Volume 4, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, RicEland, WA (1978). 66. T. L.

Page, R.

H. Gray and E. G. Wolf, Final Report on Aquatic Ecological Studies Conducted at the Hanford Generating Project, 1973-1974, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies, Volume 1, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA (1976). O 2.2-42 Amendment 4

1 S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 143. B. G. Patten and D. T. Rodman, Reproductive Behavior of the Northern Squawfish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis). Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 98(1):108-111 (1969). 144. C. W. Hill, Observations on the Life Histories of the Peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus) and the Northern Squawfish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) in Montana. Proc. Mont. Acad. Sci. 22:27-44 (1962). 145. U.S. Army Corps of Enineers. Annual Fish Passage Report; Columbia River and Snake River Projects; Oregon and Washington. North Pacific Division. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland and Walla Walla Districts (1980). 146. Washington State Game Department, Fisheries Management Division. Project Report 81-19. 1980-1981 Columbia River and Tributary Tag Recovery. Mark L. Schuck, Project Leader. 147. Bonneville Power Administration, Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act. Public Law 96-501. 94 Stat. 2697 16 USC 839 et seg. December 5, 1980. 148. Northwest Power Planning Council, Draf t Fish and ) Wildlife Program (September 16, 1982). 149. G. L. Larson, C. E. Warren, F. E. Hutchens, L. P. i

Lamperti, D.

A. Schlesinger and W. K. Seim. Toxicity of Residual Chlorine Compounds to Aquatic Organisms. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/3 023. 2.2-51 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 ((,,, TABLE 2.2-21b CALCULATION OF AVERAGE FALL CHINOOK INTERDAM POPULATION AND ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF FISH UTILIZING HANFORD REACH 1962-1980 Dam Counts (5) McNary 64,562 (1) Ice Harbor 10,325 (1) Priest Rapids 11,699 (1) Interdam Population (5) 41,225 (1) Yakima spawners 1,313 (1) (2) Hanford spawners 17,548 (1) (3) g Ringold Springs 500 E290.12 Priest Rapids (volunteers) 380 Unaccounted (Including sports catch and g natural mortalities 22,797 (1) (4) i NOTE: (1) Numbers with inherent inaccuracies. (2) Assumption of 3 fish per redd (Ref 73), (3) Assumption of 7 fish per redd (Ref 73). (4) Represents 35 percent of the McNary count. (5) Table 2.2-21a. Amendment 8 l t

TABLE 2.2-21c FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN MIDCHANNEL ICHTHYOPLANKTON TOWS AT RM 361.5 APRIL-SEPTEMBER 1981 AND MARCH-APRIL 1982 1981 1982 Scientific Name Apr May June July Aug Sept March Apr Total Total Alosa sapidissima (American shad) 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 <1 r.n Cottus asper ) (Prickly sculpin) 13 95 73 30 0 0 0 0 211 95.0 g Cottus sp. 6 (Sculpin) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 <1 Q tG5 Cyprinus carpio (Carp) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 <1 Unknown cyprinid 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 <1 Oncorhynchus tschawytscha (Chinook salmon) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 <1 Unknown (damaged! 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 1.8 i Totals 15 95 74 38 0 0 0 0 222 100.0 ($ h E R B m O O O

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/21/81 ) TABLE 2.2-22 RELATIVE UTILIZATION OF MAJOR HANFORD REACH FALL CHINOOK SPAWNING GROUNDS 10 Year Average i Redds Percent (1967-Contribution Spawning Area Section 1976) Per Area

1. Wooded Island /

RM 347-354 103 3.9 Ringold

2. --

RM 365-368 259 9.8

3. White Bluffs RM 371 183 6.9 4
4. --

RM 373-374 235 8.9

5. Locke Island RM 375 530 20.1
6. --

RM 376 111 4.2

7. --

RM 377 226 8.6

8. Coyote Rapids RM 383 51 1.9
9. Vernita Bar RM 393-395 943 35.7 TOTAL 10 Year Average 2,639 100.0 Range 623-3,981 Redds Source:

Ref 72 O Amendment 4

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 TABLE 2.2-23 TOXICITY OF CHLORINE TC SENSITIVE FISH SPECIES FOUND IN THE HANFORD REACH (SEE APPENDIX L) Concentration Species (mg/ liter) Parameter Oncorhynchus kisutch 0.01 - 0.04 est. 96 h LC50 (Coho salmon) 0.083 7 day-TLm, acute 0.023 reduced growth (embryo-alevin exposure) (Ref 149) g O. tshawtyscha 0.3 100 kill, 85 min (Chinook salmon) Salmo gairdneri 0.01 lethal at 12 days (Steelhead trout) exposure 0.023 96 h LC50 0.1 lethal at 4 days exposure 0.3 100 kill, 2-5 h Micropterus dolomieui 0.5 median mortality, (Smallmouth bass) 15 h Perca flavescens 0.365 12 h TL-50 (Yellow perch) acute O Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 O O 24- _~ 3 O 4-RKM 611M l,1 RKM 566 _j E a 10 0 16-T S IO O Z O i O i e J 8 v V 8-A r 6 4 CL ? t k 1 o-i ,,,,,,, i,1979,i. 1977 1978 1980 1973 1974 1975 1976 PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SKAGlii H ANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATION / ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CHLOROPHYLL A CONCENTRATIONS FOR COLUMBIA RIVER PHYTOPLANKTON O SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE HANFORD REACH (1973 1980) FIGURE 2.211 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 0 c OBOROM SAMES 0.20-T

  • ---* SURFACE SAMPLES I

0.15-sc 0.10-I \\( l \\ ?~ ~ 1 0.05-y' \\ / fi 0 / ,c o 0 0 Q APR MAY JUNE, JULY AUG., SEPT., OCT. l l PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SKAGIT / HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATIONI ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION O OF ICHTHYOPLANKTON (APPENDIX K) t FIGURE 2.2 22a Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 BENTON COUNTY DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK - FT. FRANKLIN COUNTY 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 iii;iiigiiigiiigiiili iil iigiiigiiigiiigiiigiiigiiigiiig ig, 0-;, .-)w 4) 4 's-r en ss. .s2 s _o 3 .. 33 5[ ) ,\\,) b,

  • S 5'

a so {i 4, as i p# g er 24 2_ k,iei ),

  • I

/,, 2' si se Ne s on 43 c /

o, eN.

s ' 3[O o- ,o I 10 --k.1 4o d

' //

JE E f. 'N \\" i !i 4' ['s' '[ f a? [i z 7 a/ / 0 O l

9. d@O O'

',\\' 5 5-=ia' 1 se s5 4 20 - C

  • 2 CNTic A u;'. ON' r, 25 --CURRENT VELOCITIES IN FEET PER SECONg Y y / *,* pO o.

>T/in*".*a T n ( 2 COLUMBI A RIVER MILE 361.5 l ~''i'tiIi! 'lllliil 30 Date of Survey: 5 8-81 Water Surface Elevation: 361.33 l (Average) Above. NGVD River Discharge 142.800 cfs l PUGET SOUNO POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SKAGIT/MANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT APPLICATION FOR SITC CERTIFICATION! ENVIRONM ENT/4. R EPORT l i COLUMBIA RIVER MILE 361.5 ISOVEL MAP l { FIGURE 2.4 7 Amendment 8 l'

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 r ( 2.6 REGIONAL HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, SCENIC, CULTURAL, AND NATURAL FEATURES 2.6.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES 2.6.1.1 Cultural Resources Program A cultural resources program has been developed for the S/HNP to ensure that appropriate levels of cultural resource investigations are carried out during each phase of S/HNP planning, licensing and construction. This program will provide for compliance with applicable laws, adequate input to agencies responsible for environmental review, and protection and/or preservation of our cultural heritage. 4 The cultural resources program is divided into four phases. Phase 1 consists of a regional cultural resources overview which includes background literature and records search as well as agency and professional consultation. Phase 2 includes a more S/HNP-specific literature and records review and a field reconnaissance to visit known sites and (N investigate the general environmental characteristics of 1 the Site and Associated Areas. Phase 3 consists of inten-sive field survey of the areas to be impacted by construc-tion of the Plant and associated facilities, an assessment of S/HNP impacts to cultural resources, determination of eligibility of properties to be af f ected to the National Register of Historic Places, and formulation of a detailed mitigation plan. Phase 4 consists of implementing the mitigation plan through avoidance of significant sites or data recovery prior to construction and through monitoring of construction activities. Figure 2.6-1 shows the S/HNP cultural resources program in relation to other S/HNP acivities. Phases 1 and 2 and part of Phase 3 have been l 8 carried out by Ertec Northwest, Inc., in order to provide information on cultural resources for this report. l i 2.6.1.2 Archaeolcgical and Historical Methods 4 A study was carried out f or the f irst two phases of the cultural resources program, to determine the existence and signif icance of known archaeological or historical sites within the areas to be directly impacted (the Site, the cooling water make-up and discharge line corridor, the railroad access corridor, the transmission corridor, and the intake and discharge facilities) as well as in the area 2.6-1 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 6 surrounding these facilities (Ref 14). This study consisted of a thorough records and literature review, 4 consultations with agency and academic personnel familiar with the area, and interviews of long time residents of the area. Literature reviewed and agencies and personnel 8 contacted are listed in the reference section (Ref 2). Figure 2.6-2 shows study area boundaries described in this section. Prior to this study an intensive survey of Section 33 was carried out between May 20 and May 30, 1981, as part of a 4 land disposal action by the Department of Energy (Ref 1). This section is going to be the location of the main power block. The intensive survey was conducted to identify any cultural resources located on the property and evaluate the effect of the land disposal action on those resources. Fieldwork f or Phase 2, conducted between May and July 1981, consisted of a reconnaissance of facility site areas most 8 likely to contain cultural resources as well as field checks at the locations of other facilities (Figure 2.6-3). The f ield reconnaissance was designed to determine the condition of previously recorded sites along the river in the vicinity of the pumphouse and to evaluate the micro-environments and survey conditions at the other Project facilities. To accomplish this, two different methods were used. The 2-mile corridor along the river, centered on River Mile 361.5, was surveyed by two archaeologists who examined a 500-foot-wide area by walking at 50- to 150-foot interval: away f rom and parallel to the river, depending on terrain and vegetation conditions. All archaeological and historical materials observed were noted, and the locations of previously recorded sites were visited. In addition, survey conditions and general observations on the survey 4 area were recorded. The reconnaissance of the main facility location consisted of walking through the northern portion of Sections 27 and 28. The two surveyors walked at 80-foot intervals and recorded cultural resources and the vegetation and topographic conditions. Field checks of the remaining facilities, including access roads and transmission corridors, con-sisted of visiting the places where those facilities crossed existing roads. At these intersections, the topographic and vegetative characteristics of the environ-ments that the facilities crossed were noted to help plan the intensive survey. O 2.6-2 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 [) Initial fieldwork f or Phase 3 was conducted during November (,/ and December 1981 under Federal Antiquities Permit Number 82-WA-335. The fieldwork consisted of an intensive survey of the areas likely to be impacted by construction of the Plant and associated facilities and exploratory excavations along the Columbia River at the site of the proposed pump-house. The research design f or the fieldwork was reviewed and approved by staf f of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (Ref 16). The Plant location area and buffer zone, excluding those portions of Section 33 previously surveyed (Ref 1), were divided into units 1,000-ft by 0.5 mile, of which alternat-ing tracts were surveyed. Along the transmission corridor, intake and discharge pipeline and access road and railroad corridors, similar 1,000-f t wide by 0.5 mile units were laid out and alternating 0.5 mile tracts were surveyed (Figure 2.6-Sa). Each of the resulting 27 tracts was sur-veyed at 50-foot intervals by a team of four archaeolo-gists. Isolated artifacts and sites were noted, mapped, photographed and recorded on Washington Archaeological Research Center site record forms. Phase 3 also included exploratory excavations around the proposed site of the pumphouse which is located on the river. The purpose of these excavations was to determine t whether undisturbed buried archaeological materials are 8 / present in the vicinity. The excavation covered an area of 260 meters along the shoreline by 90 meters perpendicular to it. Nineteen test pits, measuring 1 by 1 meter, were laid out in two trenches centered on the stake marking the pumphouse site. One trench followed the river shoreline, while the other ran perpendicular to the f irst, cross-cutting it (Figure 2.6-5b). Excavations were made in 20 centimeter levels below ground surface to a depth of 1 meter and all materials were screened through 0.25 inch mesh. Details of the survey and excavation methods are contained in the survey report (Ref 15). Additional Phase 3 work will include determinations of eli-gibility to the National Register of Historic Places of cultural resources located during the fieldwork along with a detailed assessment of project impacts on significant resources and a plan to mitigate adverse impacts. As addi-tional areas are identif ied f or project construction, including roads, borrow pits, laydown areas and others, appropriate assessments will be undertaken in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. Phase 4 will implement the plan through avoidance of s ignif icant resources or scientific data recovery prior to construction and through monitoring of construction activities. {N 2.6-3 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 2.6.1.3 Archaeological and Historical Resources in the Site and Associated Areas The portion of the Columbia River known as the Hanford Reach has been occupied since prehistoric times. At his-8 toric contact, the inhabitants of this area were a group of Indians now called the Wanapam. The Wanapam were one of a number of groups inhabiting the southern Columbia Plateau that shared similar lifeways based on a seasonal round of fishing, hunting, and gathering that was centered around 4 the Columbia River. Several recorded Wanapam villages and camp sites were located along the Columbia-River between Richland and White Bluf f s, but only one, Chanout, is located within the Site and Associated Areas (Ref 3). l8 Chanout is recorded where the Hanford townsite is presently situated. During historic times the Hanf ord-White Bluf f s region played an important role in the development of the interior portions of Washington and Idaho. The area was an impor-tant transportation location and provided resources for grazing livestock. With the advent of large scale irriga-tion projects it became recognized as one of the finest 4 fruit producing regions in the state. Recently this area attained national and global significance as one of the principal sites associated with the atomic age. Archaeological work has been carried out for 13 years on the Hanford Reservation by Dr. David Rice. He has recorded 115 sites, the majority of which consist of organic debris, fire-cracked rock, artifacts, and clearly discernible archaeological f eatures such as fire hearths. Site types include open camps, fishing stations, open camps with house-pits, cemeteries, and flaking floors (Ref 4). The present study determined that three previously recorded 4 archaeological and two previously recorded historical sites are located within the Site and Associated Areas and numerous other sites surround it (Figure 2.6-4). A list of n j previously recorded archaeological sites and districts in the cultural resources overview and survey area is pre-sented in Table 2.6-1. These data were obtained from the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (Ref 2). One archaeological site in the S/HNP Site and Associated 4 l Areas is listed on the National Register of Historic l Places: 45BN119, an open campsite which is part of the Savage Island Archaeological District (Ref 5). Its loca-tion is recorded as approximately 1 mile downstream from the proposed location of the intake and discharge facili-2.6-4 Amendment 8 l

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 ()/ ties; however, during the reconnaissance only a thin scatter of shell and fire-cracked rock was noted in this s, area. Archaeological sites recorded in the S/HNP Site and Associated Areas which have not been listed on the National Register include 45BN120 (Ref 5), a very disturbed site locatec at the center of the old Hanf ord townsite and 45BN266, a lithic scatter located in Section 33 and previ-ously collected (Ref 6). Site 45BN120 was visited during the field reconnaissance, but only two cryptocrystalline flakes and some fire-cracked rock were observed. 4 The National Register districts and sites surrounding the S/HNP Site and Associated Areas include the Hanford North s District to the north, the Hanford Island Site approxi-mately 1 mile north of the intake and discharge facilities, the Savage Island District which begins at site 45BN119 and runs 1.5 miles south, including several sites, and the Wooded Island Archaeological District 7 miles to the south (Figure 2.6-5). Three known historic sites or features fall within th'e ' ' S/HNP Site and Associated Areas. These include the Hanford townsite, the Hanford irrigation ditch, and the remains of (^\\ what may have been a stock corral discovered'during the field reconnaissance. As discussed below, the Hanford irrigation ditch and the Hanf ord townsite may b'e eligibla 's k s-for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (Ref 4). s The intensive survey recorded one additional p'r'ehistori6' site and ten historic sites. The prehistoric site con-sisted of an isolated, unmodified primary flake of gold - s _ chert (45 BN 304) located in an area of stabilized, sand. dunes. The historic sites consisted of seven smell s' scatters of bottles and cans, two areas representing his~N ~ toric habitation, and the Hanford irrigation ditch. The i historic habitation areas included _the stock corial' 8 located during the Phase 2 reconnaissan.:e, which'was deter-mined to be a sheepherder's cab'in and corrat (45 Jni 305H), 1 and the well-known Hanford townsite (45'BN 308H); which had not previously been assigned a, site nunber,s:The Hanford irrigation ditch (45 BN 309H) also had ndt hp'en previously assigned a site number. These sites are listed in Table 2.6-2 and shown in Pigure 2.6-Sc. The exploratory excavations revealed disburbed and undis-turbed prehistoric and historic depositi /st the pumphouse site. The prehistoric materials showed two areas of occupa- 'l s tion, both probably' dating to about,1500 A.D. and representing temporary camping and resourcy processing ,[ 2.6-5 Amendment L. 1 ' \\g i S

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 along the river during fall or winter. The historic materials also showed two areas of occupation, including residential and commercial crating and shipping use areas; they probably result from occupation of the Town of Hanford before 1943. Detailed information on the results of the survey and excavations and their analyses is contained in the survey report (Ref 15). 8 Further investigations and evaluations will be undertaken in consultation with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer to determine the significance of this site. 2.6.2 NATURAL AND SCENIC FEATURES 2.6.2.1 Setting The S/HNP is located in the center of the Hanford Reservation in southeastern Washington. This sparsely populated desert area has not been used by the public since 1943 when the Hanford Reservation was established. Numerous nuclear power and waste management facilities surround the S/HNP Site location. 2.6.2.2 Natural and Scenic Features Two categories of natural and scenic resources are repre-sented near the S/uNP Site location: (1) resources that have been designated or suggested for designation under 4 Federal laws or registers, such as the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (PL 90-542) or the National Registry of Natural Landmarks (Ref 8); and (2) resources that have scenic or natural values which have not been recognized in this manner. Figure 2.6-6 shows the locations of natural and scenic resources. Federally Recognized Resour.ces. No national parks or forests are located in the Site Vicinity. However, two sites have been proposed for designation as National Natural Landmarks: the Hanford Dunes and the Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (Ref 9). In addition, the entire Reservation has been designated the Hanford National Environmental Research Park (NERP) (Ref 10). The Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, which includes the entire length of the river within the Hanford Reservation, is the last free-flowing section of the Columbia River. 2.6-6 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 This portion of the river, about 8 miles east of the S/HNP [-s Site, has been proposed as a potential wild, scenic, or recreational river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (PL 90-542) (Ref 11). It has also been included on the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service's Nationwide Rivers Inventory List of Significant Resources (Ref 12). Other Natural and Scenic Resources. Other natural and scenic resources located near the S/HNP Site are not officially recognized as significant, but are important. The White Bluffs are part of the Ringold Formation, which is composed of sediments between 10 and 3 million years old. These white cliffs contain volcanic debris with fossils that represent an important paleontological resource. The bluffs, which rise 200-300 feet along the eastern shoreline of the Columbia, provide a valuable natural resource which has also, since historic times, been considered a scenic resource. Gable Butte and Gable Mountain are prominent geologic features that consist of exposed basaltic uplands which are located approximately 7 miles north of the Site. Across the river to the northeast of the S/HNP is the Wahluke Wildlife Recreation Area, managed by the Washington State Department of Game. It encompasses 54,000 acres and is open to the public f or hunting and fishing, with 4 ) seasonal and locational limitations, and for hiking and s wildlif e observations. Rattlesnake Mountain is an exposed basaltic upland which is part of the Columbia River Basalt Group. It is located 6 miles southwest of the S/HNP Site and rises approximately 3,200 f eet above the surrounding terrain. It is the dominant landform in the area. Number of Persons to be Affected. The Hanford Reservation has served as a nuclear center since 1943, and since that time, access to the area has been restricted. The Wahluke Wildlif e Management Area is used by the public for fishing, bird hunting, picnicking, and sightseeing. The number of persons using the entire management area in 1980 was 23,000 (Ref 13). The number of persons who visit Rattlesnake Mountain each year is difficult to assess. It is not located in a natural or scenic area, and its northeastern slope is restricted by the Arid Lands Ecology Reserve. State Highway 240 passes through the western edge of the Reservation. This stretch of road passes within 3 miles of OV 2.6-6a Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 the proposed Plant location. The average daily traffic count for this stretch is 1470, which is well below the average for a two-lane highway and probably represents 4 workers f rom the Hanf ord Reservation. O l l I l l 2.6-6b Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/21/81 References for Section 2.6 1. D. Rice, Archaeological Transects through Interior Dunes on the Hanford Reservaton. Report Submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington (1981). 2. Sheila Stump, State of Washington Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, Letter to Gail Thompson, Northwest Inc., dated July 13, 1981. 3. C. Relander, Drummers and Dreamers, Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho (1956). 4. D. Rice, Overview of Cultural Resources on the Hanford Reservation in South Central Washington. Report Submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington (1980). 5. D. Rice, Archaeological Reconnaissance, Ben Franklin Reservoir Area, Washington State University, Laboratory of Anthropology, Pullman (1968). 6. D. Rice, Archaeological Reconnaissance, Hanford Atomic N Works, Report Submitted to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (1968). 4 7. J. B. Jackson and G. Hartmann, Archaeological Survey from Lower Monumental Substation to Ashe Substation, Report No. 38, Washington Archeological Research Center, Pullman, Report No. 38 (1977). 8. United States Department of the Interior, National Registry of Natural Landmarks, Federal Register 45(232) (1980). 9. National Park Service, List of Sites in Washington State Listed on or with Potential for the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. On file, National Park Service, Seattle (1981). 10. Shapiro and Associates, Inc., et al., Relationship of the Ben Franklin Dam Alternative to Water and Land Uses, Plans, Policies, and Controls for the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, Report Submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District (1980). 11. United States Department of Agriculture, National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, Notice of Selection of Rivers as Potential Additions, Federal Register 35 /' (210) (1970). V} i 2.6-7 Amendment 4

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 12. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Nationwide Rivers Inventory: A Report on Natural and Free Flowing Rivers in the Northwestern United States, U.S. Department of the Interior (1980). 13. G. Lavoy, South Columbia Habitat Management Area, private communication (August 1981). 14. ERTEC Northwest, Inc. A Cultural Resources Overview and Scenic and Natural Resources Assessment for the Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Power Project, submitted to Northwest Energy Services Company (1981). 15. ERTEC Northwest, Inc. Cultural Resources Survey and Exploratory Excavations for the Proposed Skagit/Han-ford Nuclear Power Project, submitted to Northwest Energy Services Company (1982). 16. S. Stump, Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, private communication (January 1982). O O 2.6-8 Amendment 8

C O s TABLE 2.6-2 Sheet 1 of 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SITES RECORDED DURING PHASE 3 SURVEY National Register Site Number Name Location Status Description 45 BN 298H T.12N R.28E Sec 31 Unevaluated, Historic debris likely ineligible scatter m T.12N R.27E Sec 1 Unevaluated, Historic debris 31 45 BN 299H likely ineligible scatter g 0 45 BN 300H T.12N R.27E Sec 13 Unevaluated, Historic debris likely ineligible scatter (} M 45 BN 30lH T.12N R.27E Sec 14 Unevaluated, Historic debris 5 likely ineligible scatter 45 BN 302H T.12N R.27E Sec 23 Unevaluated, Historic debris likely ineligible scatter 45 BN 303H T.12N R.27E Sec 24 Unevaluated, Historic debris likely ineligible scatter 45 BN 304 T.12N R.27E Sec 26 Unevaluated, Prehistoric [ likely ineligible isolated artifact [; 23 a 45 w

TABLE 2.6-2 Sheet 2 of 3 National Register Site Number Name Location Status Description 45 BN 30511 T.12N R.27E Sec 27 Unevaluated, Historic sheep-likelv ineligible herder's corral and cabin 8 tn Nm 45 BN 306H T.12N R.27E Sec 23 Unevaluated, Historic debris Z likelv ineligible scatter 7 45 BN 307 T.13N R.27E Sec 25 Unevaluated, Prehistoric tempo-o potentially rary campsite D eligible W 45 BN 308H Hanford T.13N R.27E Secs 25, Unevaluated, Historic townsite townsite 26, 36 potentially eligible

p 9

tv Q. 9 s o a s b en O O O

_- _=. - - l i i i I TABLE 2.6-2 Sheet 3 of 3 i l National Register Site Number Name Location Status Description 1 i 45 BN 30911 IIanf ord T.12N R.28E Secs 5,6 Unevaluated, Historic irrigation l ditch T.13N R.28E Sec 31 potentially ditch l T.13N R.27E Secs 6, eligible m 7, 8, 16, 17, 21, 22, ); i 26, 27, 35, 36 2 } T.13N R.26E Sec 1 7 } T.14N R.26E Secs 25, E l 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, O N 36 mn B O / D G M 3 l \\ w i D O h \\ co l m N I i 1 1 i

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 Rt.1 $l O ,P # !l O fn. w 4' $1 0 2 o "1 I i l $l MILES ~2 i l!I I k.. '., 1 s Hanford Townsite (i... I Rt.11 A /'%%%;. I- .,.3 i 1I INTAKE AND Ci I DISCHARGE CORRIDOR j M Hanford I ] Sand Dunes S I,

I l

TRANSMISSION I 4 CORRIDOR / T}N-3 ,.A l ) g 51... g,y 5 Ringold / e....~ (' A ESS RAlWOAD SITE BOUNDARY A NORTH ACCESS ROAD r. l l , 4.'. 4...'.. J *..,, v.

    • REFERRED

/ SOUTH ACCESS ROAD ALTERNATE 4, h SOUTH ACCESS ROAD y 9 0 0 5 f.h 4 (l'$ 3:I. O ' e# n/7 O

?.-}

1

Y h$.

I PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (Q[, AREA SURVEYED DURING RECONNAISSANCE j SKAGIT / HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT A C^ ^' "' FIELD CHECKED DURING RECONNAISSANCE EN RO ME RT f.h

RIVER CORRIDOR - ENTIRE AREA SURVEYED CULWRAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT O

/ '. ' " AREA SURVEYED AS PART OF D.O.E. HA S RVEY AREAS LAND DISPOSAL ACTION FIGURE 2.6-3 1 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 Rt.1 ..l 5 l'! O O Tn. w 4' $1 0 2 o / "I i 1 EI MILES [ O s 'l +r\\O s l I N BN 119 I Hanford' Town, site E,,' q:, Rt.11 A 'E ---1 l \\ ~- 1 5 )N 1_ l s l lNTAKE AND o % N DISCH ARGE CORRIDOR #j W Hanford t, ] Sand Dunes I i \\ 9, 5 I TRANSMISSION b @/ CORRIDOR k; S- '#so .' y l . - fi ~ j , g5 Ringold t STOCK CORRAL i l l ACCESS RAILROAD SITE BOUNDARY M NORTH ACCESS ROAD ,.4. 4.. = *.., i l BN 266 REFERRED s SOUTH ACCESS ROAD ALT ERN ATE '~ SOUTH ACCESS ROAD yE }. )I$ o o 5 5 O!? $ .'i.. O 4@"O i:;.f N i u PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SKAGIT / H ANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT Gg APPLIC ATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATION / ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT N2 IDENTIFIED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES PREVIOUSLY RECORDED FACILITY CORRIDORS CULTURAL RESOURCES O WITHIN THE SITE AND ASSOCIATED AREAS FIGURE 2.6-4 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 .,_p....._._x %.a... s 7 'N b,pd:(,,N.'Q!*w [ * \\ } -} e se ~' s ) nb= n I. c- .h... l,_ hl).I-k. ' d 'N,, t w y x. - > ~ -2 s s N.. %.3 x a .e. e i A. s p:i! '.N - f y s ih' .y ,~ 'e p. n n 's, O l e: l* i ./ ~= 4 ",' '1 i 'j- ,.........;.m...... N.. , 7-y M ' f ',,,' ]:~~.NQ!j'- /

N w.. m
  • [r _

L

_ _ T_

k_,.__ ". ' _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ /_ _ _ _ q. b~r _ _)% _ _f,_ _ _ _ _Y J" a. v 4a i-g e 1 i g \\ $ ',I l' h "F 8s \\ M u 2 j '____3,,_._____q___________yu_____ { ____j________,g_ g.g _, p M M i r %* p, s H is e 17 is l s is,, j' 5# h~*d 9.. s .n .r a a "-f.gt e s ~qwo ___.w____'*_:*h*****__d______I_____!______.___.*,,_*' W_...,2 2, _ _ _.' p,.# h ;. - i~ s a s' s 1 y g a -l i* n i n n

e.,

l ~ ,... N :: a n s -- *i_._______/'~~ g.'_____2,_ 4 i = 3., 1,== \\ f,S -

  • a

+ 2s g T* 3' g, i l .s .. 'T . k_ 'p,. e se.H. y ( ~ 3'f' '..i 28 . rr y : a.,,, 3,Tb k 3 - g.. l ~25 y 28 e. ,7 {., e,; e, ~ s 1 -*-a PX 15W..... t-4 z =,2 <.. : : m,n ia ~, ' 36 yi ' 3ir #. a',,.,32 4 i~. 33 -, ; E 6 84 J'.** 35. '" 363 r

  • t s~~

w ;:- 4,::i m w,- i. ) ' c &

  • b

~ I' ' g ' l ^*..,i - u il I ,)i. jew; ( o g- - 3 i . =. g-g> s, e ?, j .s_- -* g ,V, S, A,. ..e l. . 6C c ,24 3.. s .s ' i. -*s, - '~ S .g ~ r-o o

.sha ).

,,.. ;-i.. c-*. t .O \\ _ifh [;* _y l," I' - 's Q+ a~ . _ _ c_m.., '*o _ + - ~- - '. .O ' ,'t., s ) ..) l.jd.,.~ m\\ n -(Y ' ( e _a,. b s, n. f - g n,' U ,h2 L, a, u ~ v. ; o -

l. o. l %

= "^ =,.&A. I ~ g ;q .M,, M.,M j. f v .m f.- ~ 'S-d PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SI 'J/ P" - Q'S, * ',- V3 i SKAGIT I HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT ~ \\ %.., v A s' H k,' N' '"F'j APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATION / d; d.;,.9 ' 5 ^ .e 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 4 -.\\

,e

.4 l CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT 0 1 2 3 l l l l PHASE 3 SURVEY UNITS MILES FIGURE 2.6 Sa Amendment 8

i l s/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 I O' Columbia River I nO gW W_ M .. = 8"d 13 910NE ee J $[1 !~t,1==t~tf =?=i

  • L ayn

&2b Eririr x_ 8 40SW s ~~ I 'N _ /' / \\---- 8 0 3 w /$ (~ I access road i f / 3 / ?-._ m ;=afr I f- !) _s s O' ~ &l e e 1, w s~il rH" f a,j is hV I -x PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 390 I SKAGIT / HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT u l 8 APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATION / g { ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I E O 200 400 g LAYOUT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL D I I I TEST EXCAVATIONS NEAR I I I PUMPHOUSE FACILITY M 50 100 1 0 FIGURE 2.6 5b Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82

w. m-.,u,,

.=.. ,.- s, t.....,u... g.r n 7:..- ..N. m .,# u u 2.s. = A.. g ,i., -e gy --g-.: t > g s e .a..%n p5 s S. s e m n s N as a( '..s g,, s ' k ){x,,2lhN ,n x 45BN307 g N,,,, j s s, ~ ,-..,,N / _X, ."..~ 4 5 B N 309 H .~

  • .e., 7. ~..

g ./

s. c p 4 5

Ns 8 w - g , x s, =.: i s N n n 4 x i. - J +$ .. 23 x a 45BN308HP e P. * /N n \\.*/ / ~ 5 s !,s\\ 'N.,,. 7 / s. g- .c.,-. g 'L 5 I. 7.. j (% N. m.N.. i N ~~ D. *l% T a 45BN299H I - f Ki.f )g.W\\,, ** ~ - 7 v.' - .s y r-- e ...N r, i QJ .:; ~., s... - ---(, -r . ---.r----.v----.w...-----.-----g-, u,1 1 9-w O N \\, t. 5* f t' s s r ,=

  • /g!

n' i e io n .f a

  • i:

m. m-4 ---9.-----------------."----y^-p---------.g-e -;'4 } ( 4' a-

  • =

, e--g + -.v. ..:c Xp =~ 'L. p } j .W. f. Gl c-u_%'*. ' g, 45BN301H i i, i. n a n n i. .. ~ 45BN. 300H T ,'-c^/ g v c, c,. ./. / .g g,, /--- ,; g.,,{"--- - i ~ 7. u- --{, e *.-C*. .-----------l- -.7 - C- ' 45B.N302H i + s 45..B.N303H. - a t, u,'; n n n.. /* 45BN306H .Q l // E; '/ / 45BN304 ***...*** a - *;i

y x=;="--------------f-------

2----~~ l p-n *;..*" n .:, n ,o . n sn p.- h.* q -._ e-N [ ac,, -,,ewpI ., - %.co/ { ] A_, ' ..........,s - 26 ** ' 3 % i. ;.. '. 25 .,.c.-30 ce...1..

29.,... t.

i

  • y 2r.. <p. * *j. i 45BN305H.

7 3t %. c% - e ~ '

  • D.c -

/ l } l . a 3-? \\ I, -_ .~..--j................;......... + =e 4.~N -. D, c + .r" ~ .S'.., 45, B N298H. c, 42 m- ! g,c3e ]' */s.,,% ,,h." g lJe [1;,' 11b f.,32%, }[" s 31 @j j 35 36 31 ' c> L&- j.4. *., ..,..*l t t 1 e m. ,< ap, sJ - f f'.e vo,.

  • _ ( J. e k.- t-i a

,.-_ "W& ~. s g f.,,/,J *. /* e(f. e,

  • k...,%.

Il ? %. f,R h $, . ;, a _ C o c~ q u n <-F?Q I _-,2. 3 -N _3 e .,.c p b c$ no ,o. --,g. g <.,., ,=*s: .g e . g.. 3 f ,.C s f. 'p It * +-D. _N_ mg* m G w. ~ - - w,y. .47- ..],+ /.g M g i -%.= v. N c, f~ ~, S- . '. \\, R 4r

  • ft1,,'.

2 w 'lf7/.,4 c. 8.' > 12 I ~. ' o C' l '}, s l p .. w.. .a e L M _ -__,_ _ _O.. _ l= q# "3' ge F. c .3, s <9-y3 [d . is. ' c ',p f,% PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SKAGIT / HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT ( / n a v.s n d-[ y ' APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATIONI [ $.7 ',, 3 j ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT l l CULTURAL RESOURCES o 1 2 3 RECORDED DURING PHASE 3 l l l l l l MILES 1 FIGURE 2.6 5c l 1 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 Ref erences f or Section 2.7 1. Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Chapter 173-60, Maximum Environmental Noise Levels. 2. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Noise Abatement and Control, Department Policy, EPA 550/977-354 (April 1977). 3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite To Protect the Public Health and Welf are with an Adequate Margin of Safety, EPA 550/9-74-004 (March 1974). i I f I i l 2.7-3 Amendment 8

S/HNP-hSC/ER 12/21/81 l N temperature with the wet-bulb temperatures shown in Table ,/ 3.4-1 indicates that the cooling tower design conserva- '~' tively assumes worst-case temperature conditions. 3.4.2 CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM Water is lost from the heat dissipation system by evapora-tion, drift, and blowdown. To balance these losses, makeup water from the Columbia River is required. The design values used for blowdown are based on a dis-l solved solids concentration factor of ten in the cooling tower water as compared to river water. The blowdown rates calculated for normal operation vary from about 1100 to 3700 gpm. A higher rate, ie, up to 5500 gpm, may be needed on occasion to lower the concentration of dissolved solids in the Circulating Water System. The compositions of the Columbia River and blowdown water are given in Tables 3.6-5 and 3.6-6. Expected values of evaporation, blowdown, and drift rates are given in Table 3.4-2 as a function of time of year. Each value given is an expected average value over the 4 month. 7-q The following table gives approximate values of both maximum and annual average water use for the heat dissipation system. The results from experimental methods, such as the Isokinetic Sampling method and the Particle Instrumentation via Laser Light Scattering (PILLS) method used to measure the drift rate for cooling towers under operation, indicate the drift loss of about 0.005 percent of circulating water flow (Ref 1). Consumptive use is evaporation plus drift. Required makeup is evaporation plus drift plus blowdown. Maximum Annual Average Values, gpm Values, gpm l Consumptive use 33,400 25,200 Blowdown 5,500 2,800 Required makeup 38,900 28,000 0 3.4-3 Amendment 4

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 The design makeup water capacity for the S/HNP is approxi-mately 42,000 gpm (See Section 3. 4. 2.1). See Figure 3.3-1 for a Plant water use diagram. 3.4.2.1 Intake System 4 The Raw Water Supply System pumphouse will be constructed to supply makeup water to both units and is located on the west shore of the Columbia River, approximately 7 miles from the Site at River Mile 361.5. The pumphouse will contain three 10,500 gpm pumps for each unit. Two pumps will supply a unit's maximum water requirements, with the third pump acting as a spare. The pump head is estimated to be approximately 400 ft, with an associated energy 6 requirement of approximately 1.1 MWe per pump. Two 500 gpm E 220.04 pumps per unit will also be provided to supply makeup water required by a unit when that unit is not operating. A 4 section of the pumphouse is shown in Figure 3.4-2. The intake will be a system comprised of three water inlet 8 assemblies, located above the river bottom, and three inlet lines approximately 950 ft long running below the riverbed l6 to the pumphouse sump. The river depth at the intake point l4 is estimated to be 15 ft during a minimum river flow of l6 36,000 cfs. The intake and discharge configurations are l4 shown on Figures 3.4-3, 4.1-8 and 4.1-9. Figure 3.4-4 [6 shows detailed topographic information in the vicinity of 5 the intake and discharge structures. N 210. 0'7 The water inlets will be designed to limit intake velocity to a maximum of 0.5 fps and to limit openings to a maximum of 1/8 inch (or 3/8 inch in the event that testing of the WNP-2 3/8 inch intake screens establishes acceptable 8 results to the satisfaction of the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council). This design velocity is expected to be well below the acceptable limit required for 6 suitable protection of small fish when water is being taken into the system (see Section 5.1.2.1). The river velocity will always be greater than the inlet velocity (2.32 fps or more) and will be along the faces of the inlets, thus tending to wash fish and debris clear. Since the design inlet velocity assumes maximum makeup water flow, any condition resulting in reduced makeup water flow will reduce intake velocity to even smaller values. 4 Undesirable debris is not expected to pass through the inlets with these very low velocities. The inlets will be designed to reduce the potential for debris collection and to permit complete removal for periodic inspection, cleaning, repair, and replacement. 3.4-4 Amendment 8

n enN$ CDR* r W O O '7 L 7' 2 '1 6' 2 F 3 4 3 3 3 33 L R M E E L LL V K E EE I A R T N I E K j A T 0' N 5 I / 0' 0 1 X O RP P A '1 l 5 E 3 L G E R A W ) H E W ) EL 0' C L 5 S A O EA L C 2' LC 5 NI T-S I D S 6 F A 3 O O LD O L T T PN E R T T P A O W O E N N H ( ( O K Y S A E R T D A / IN N N N L j U I I T O D E R R G O E L P N L P I I g[ )/ A E N E / E K R S IG I 0 E EU I P A 5 R S T EU W O R P T 1 N A O l E I T O H A g(j W W H G W / O P R P L WM N A 0' WM AU H 0 AU RP A N C 2 RP S I g 4 D W . i' M% H E Y N R 9I IL A XX 2 m5 AD.G I OO E N RR D PP l R R A PP A O gb gc5 o gI 8h' AA 1 1 2 1 6 H 2' 5' T 3 T TC ,b-I$hS h $%" I 2 3 I M N NIS N I 2g oj@ Q$$$@' 6 U R U UD @5 o [y$ 9 4 O O 1 1 T T G.

NT

_z >% $ $%5 O E OA K LL o@3 y 3, ^ A TN I 5 y@E$5 w

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 3.6.3 CHEMICAL DISCHARGES a The waste flows for two units are given in Table 3.6-2. These flows include the maximum and nominal (average) flows of the cooling tower blowdown, treated clarifier sludge blowdown, filter backwash water, neutralized demineralizer wastewater, ef fluent f rom the Plant f acility floor drainage treatment system (Section 3.7), and sanitary sewage efflu-ent (Section 3.7). The S/HNP discharge consists of cooling tower blowdown and all other treated nonradioactive liquid wastes. All 4 radioactive waste will be treated in the Radioactive Waste Treatment System (Section 3.5). During normal operation, an average cooling tower blowdown rate of 1400 gpm per unit is required to maintain the circulating water at 10 cycles of concentration. At thirteen cycles of concentration, the expected maximum, the blowdown rate for maximum evaporation is 1363 gpm per unit. The chemical composition of the combined cooling tower blowdown for both units at 13 cycles (maximum values) and at 10 cycles (average values) is given in Tables 3.6-5 and 3.6-6, respectively. \\ The relative contributions to the effluent of the concen- \\~s trating effects of operation of the plant and of added chemicals can be observed from Tables 3.6-5 and 3.6-6. For example, on Table 3.6-6, average chemical concentrations are listed for the Columbia River (ambient) and the Project discharge. As can be seen, most of the concentrations in the Project discharge are about ten times greater than the 8 ambient concentration which is a result of the concentrat-ing effects of operation of the plant. However, the concen-trations of sodium, sulfate and chloride in the Project discharge are noticeably greater than ten times the ambient concentrations. This additional increase in the concentra-tion may be considered as being attributable to the addi-tion of chemicals to the circulating water system. It would not be desirable to operate at lower cycles of con-centration to avoid the addition of acid to control scal-ing. Using maximum Columbia River water quality from' Table 3.6-5, the circulating water system can be operated only up to about 2 cycles of concentration without acid addition. Operation at 2 cycles would lead to an average cooling 6 N220.03 tower blowdown of over 25,000 gpm f or the Project, an increase in excess of 22,000 opm over the planned level. Maximum blowdown at 2 cycles would be more than 33,000 gpm for the Project, an increase of about 28,000 gpm over the planned maximum. As a result, maximum intake requirements O' 3.6-4a Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 increase from about 40,000 gpm to about 67,000 gpm for the Project. Due to the increased makeup and blowdown flows, larger raw water pumps and larger intake and discharge pipe-lines would be required. In addition, thermal impacts to 6 the Columbia River would increase since average blowdown M220.03 flow would increase by 800%. Heat dissipated to the Columbia River would increase from about 12.5 x 106 Btu /hr per unit to 112.5 x 106 Btu /hr per unit. The chemicals added to the Reactor Closed Cooling Water and Turbine Building Closed Cooling Water Systems will not be discharged into the Columbia River. If these systems should require drainage, the coolant will either be stored 4 for refilling the system, removed by a contractor, or treated in the radioactive waste treatment system. O l l l 1 0 3.6-4b Amendment 8

h TABLE 3.6-5 HATER QUALITY PARAMETERS (Maximum values) Low Volume Columbiall) Waste Cooling (2)(5) i River Treatment Tower Project (3)(4) Constituent Unit Analysis Effluent Blowdown Discharge Calcium, as Ca ag/l 24.0 74 312 309.4 Magnesium, as Mg mg/l 5.7 16 74 73.4 4 Sodium, as Na aq/1 3.1 534 112 116.6 Potassium as K mg/l 1.1 3 14 13.9 Bacaibonate, as HCO3 mg/l 82.0 2 '. 4 12 14.6 Sulfate, a s SO4 mg/l 19.0 1043 1089 1088.5 Chloride, as C1 mg/l 5.4 8 181 179.1 Silica, as S102 mg/l 6.6 18 86 85.3 Total Alkalintty, as CACO 3 mg/l 67.0 208 10 12.1 Hardness, as CACO 3 mg/l 82.0 252 1085 1076 Non-carbonate Hardness, as CACO 3 mg/l 22.0 l 5 s/l t Spectfic Conductance 10-6 sho/cm 170.0 2851 2495 2498 pH Units 8.8-7.1 8.5-6.5 7.7 6.5-8.5

C Dissolved Solids ag/l 109.0 1828 1600 1602 Z

Color Pt-Co Units 15.0 T Suspended Solids ag/l 24.0 100 312 309.7 Turbidsty NTU 4.9 M Fecal Colif orm Col /100 ml 13.0 4k Dissolved Oxygen 10 gi ag 15.8 11.08 7.7-9.6 7.74-9.62 Total Cadmium, as Cd g/l 3.0 6 39 38.4 g Total Chromium, as Cr 10-69/1 20.0 19 260 257.4 y Total Copper, as Cu 10-6g/l 28.0 46 364 360.4 Total tron, as Fe 10-6g/l 290.0 514 3770 3735 Total Lead, as Pb 10-69/1 73.0 90 949 939.7 Total Mercury. as Hg 10-6g/l 1.0 1.04 13.0 12.87 Total Zinc, es In 10-69/1 90.0 165 1170 1159.2 Ammonia Nitrogen, as N mg/l 0.07 0.067 0.91 0.9 Nitrate Nitrcqen, as N og/l 0.14 0.39 1.82 1.8 Ortho-Phosphate, as P mg/l 0.04 0.05 0.52 0.51 5 Total Phosphorus, as P mg/l 0.11 0.15 1.43 1.42 NOTES: (1) Concentrations of Columbia River water are developed from USGS data October 1977 to October 1980 for Vernita Bridge near Priest Rapids Dam, Washington. 4 (2) Represents water analysis after concentrating the river water dissolved solids 13 times in the towers. (3) Project discharge consists of cooling tower blowdown and low volume waste treatment effluent. (4) Table 5.3-1 compares constituents with State and Federal limitation guidelines. (5) Chlorination of the circulating water systems wi!! not be contin,aous and chlorination of both units will not occur at the same time. Discharges of total resadual chlorine will not occur unless the concentration in the circulating water system g has dropped to less than 0.14 mg/l THC for 15 minutes. 0 3 CL H E3 M a Nw 3 ft C3 N co 00 N

TA ti!.t: 1.6-6 WATEM QUALITY PAkAMETERS (Average Values) Low Volume Columbialli Waste Cooling (2) River Treatment Tower Project (Il Constituent unet Analysas Fffluent Blowtown Discharge 4 Calcium, as Ca mg / l 19.7 69 197.0 196.2 Magnesium, as MJ mg/l 4.3 23 43.0 42.8 Satsum, as Na mg/l 2.3 502 28.4 31.3 Potassium, as K mg/l 0.8 2.8 0.0 7.7 ti t ca r bona t e, as HCO3 mg/l 67.5 286 15.5 16.9 Sulfate, as SO4 mg/l 12.8 979 657.0 659.0 Chloride, as Cl mg/l 1.5 5 23.3 23.2 Salaca, as 5:02 mg/l 4.8 17 48.0 47.8 O Total Alttalanity, as CACO 3 mg/l 55.3 194 12.7 13.8 Hardness, as CACO 3 mg/l 66.9 234 669.0 666.0 g Non-carbonate Hardness, as CACO 3 mg/l 11.4 114.0 I g g Specitac Conductance 10-6 mho/cm 135.0 2836 1373.0 1382 g pH Units 8.0 6.5-8,5 7.8 6.5-8.5 y Dissolved Solads mg/l 81.5 1712 829.0 834 m Color Pt-Co Units 10.0 O Suspended SoIads aq/1 3.7 30 37.0 36.9 N Turbldaty NTil 1.7 trj Fecal Colstorm Col /100 ml 2.0 23 Dassolved Onygen a /1 11.9 !!.08 8.5 8.52 Torst Cadmaum, as Cd 10-g/l 1.3 5 13.0 12.9 Total Chsomnum, as Cr 10-6 g/l 3.0 11 30.0 29.9 Total Copper, as Cu 10-6 g/l 10.3 36 103.0 102.6 Total tron, as Fe 10-6 g/l 117.0 410 1170.0 1165.3 Total Lead, as Pb 10-6 g/l It.9 59 169.0 168.3 Total Mercury, as Hg 10-6 g/l 0.17 0.6 1.7 1.69 4 Total Zinv as Zn 10-6 g/l 38.2 134 382.0 380.5 Ammonia hatrogen, as N mg/l 0.01 0.035 0.1 0.099 Nitrate Nitrogen,as N mg/l L.. ! 0.35 1.0 0.996 Ortho-Phosphate, as P mg/l 0.01 0.0 35 0.1 0.099 Total Phosphorus, as P mg/l 0.03 0.11 0.3 0.299 H (D 3 NUTES: (1) Concentrations of Columbia River water are developed from USGS data October 1977 to October 1980 for Vernita Bridge near Qa Praest Rapids Dam, Washington. CD 3 (2) Hepresents water analysis after concentrating the river water dissolved solids ten times in the towers. N (3) Pro 3ect discharge consists of cooling tower blowdown and low volume waste treatment effluent. n x co Ch N O O O

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 3.8 REPORTING OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT x The transportation of new fuel to the reactor and irradiated fuel from the reactor to a fuel reprocessing plant and the transportation of solid radioactive wastes 4 from the reactor to waste burial grounds is within the scope of paragraph (g) of 10 CFR 51.20. The contribution of the environmental ef f ects of such transportation to the environmental costs of licensing the nuclear power reactors are as set forth in Summary Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51. Radwaste disposal locations and routes hcVe not been selected. However, because of the existence of a low level waste disposal site and the consideration being given to 8 location of a high level waste repository at the Hanford Reservation, it may not be necessary to transport radwaste off the Hanford Reservation. 'N 3.8-1 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 8/20/82 that the data from the Bechtel study are representative of Ef60.06 () ( the results one would get for the S/HNP Site. Noise measurements made adjacent to the WNP-2 project during construction (see Section 2.7) indicate that the noise levels at off-Reservation locations are well below the measured ambient levels. This was verified by observa-tions during the testing period during which construction noises were heard only at the three locations adjacent to the WNP-2 site. Workers on the construction site will be exposed to the normal levels of noise associated with a major construction 4 i i project. There is a possibility of some noise annoyance to the population in the Tri-Cities area (Richland-Kennewick-Pasco) resulting from the movement of trucks to and from the Site during construction. This effect, if any, will be felt primarily in North Richland, and will decrease with distance from the Hanford Reservation. Because S/HNP construction rail traffic is expected to be less than rail traffic associated with the construction of WNP-1, 2& 4, there should be no impact from rail traffic 6 -s noise. As reported in Section 8.3, vehicular traffic on E260.01 (\\~ / ) all routes except SR 240 is expected to be lower during S/HNP construction than that associated with the construction of WNP-1, 2& 4. As reported in the noise survey in Section 2.7, the noise adjacent to SR 240 due to the increased vehicular traffic will increase approximately 6 2 dBA. All other traffic routes should experience a reduc-E260.02 tion in noise levels due to reduced traffic as construction of WNP-1, 2& 4 is completed. Construction noise will be prevalent, particularly during 4 the operation of heavy equipment during excavation. Measurements of construction noise have been made by Bechtel at four power plant construction sites in the South-I western United States (two fossil plants and two nuclear l plants). Construction noise at the plant sites is con-sidered typical. Therefore, construction workers at S/HNP 6 may be exposed to similar noise levels, although lower E260.03 noise levels are likely for newer equipment. The results of the measurements are organized below by area of construc-tion. All sound levels presented have been normalized to a 50 toot distance from the noise source. Batch Plant The most notable batch plant noises are aggregate dropping into hoppers (105 dBA maximum), the operation of hopper O 4.1-9 Amendment 6

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 vibrators (99 dBA), the pneumatic transf er of powdered cement (97 dBA) and the mixing of concrete in the trucks (98 dBA). Laydown Areas In the laydown areas the dominant noise sources are exhaust of engine-powered equipment, which typically ranges f rom 82 to 88 dBA, but can reach 100 dBA. Other high sound levels, but less prevalent, are metal fabrication such as air gouging, (95 dBA), hammering (100 dBA), chipping (103 dBA) as well as backup alarms (91 dBA). Concrete Placement The loudest noises associated with concrete placement are sand blasting (82 dBA steady, 96 dBA when hoses were disconnected), concrete vibrator rattling (93 dBA), and premix truck mixing noise and chute rattles (98 dBA). While concrete placement will occur mainly at the power block, it can occur almost anywhere on site. 6 E260.03 Craf t Shops craf t shop noise consists of an irregular pattern of sawing (88 dBA), grinding (86 dBA), hammering (88 dBA), cutting with a torch (83 dBA), pneumatic tool use (86 dBA), work pieces being dropped (83 dBA), equipment being moved, and other sounds. Most other craf t shop sounds range f rom below 70 to 82 dBA. Power Bloct Major noise sources in the power block area are metal fabrication, concrete placement and excavation. Excavation noise is due mainly to equipment exhausts and typically ranges from 82 to 88 dBA, although higher levels are possible for poorly maintained exhaust systems. Construction worker hearing protection will comply with state and federal regulations. Ear protection will be used if required. Archaeological programs will continue through construction 6 of S/HNP in consultation with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer. As described in Section 2.6, Phase 3 of the cultural resources program which has been started l8 consists of (1) intensive field surveys of areas to be impacted by construction of the Plant and associated facili-ties, (2) determination of eligibility of inventoried 6 cultural resources to the Natural Register of Historic Places, (3) assessment of S/HNP impacts to eligible 4.1-10 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 4 's resources and (4) formulation of a detailed mitigation l6 plan. Also, as additional areas are identified for project construction, including roads, borrow pits, laydown areas and others, appropriate assessments will be undertaken in 8 i consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. Phase 4 will implement the plan through avoidance of significant resources or scientific data recovery prior to 6 construction and through monitoring of construction activities. An archaeologist will be retained during the excavation phase to monitor areas as specified in the miti-i 8 gation plan to be developed in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. In addition, the consulting archaeologist will recommend means to preserve or interpret 4 any historical or archaeological sites or artifacts uncovered. I of the 13 archaeological and historical sites known to be located in the S/HNP Site and Associated Areas, only three are listed in or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). As discussed in Section 2.6, archaeological site 45 BN 119 is included in the Savage Island Archaeological District, and the Hanford townsite and Hanford irrigation ditch may be eligible for listing in the NRHP. Archaeological site 45 EN 266, a lithic scatter located within the S/HNP Site, has been mitigated and will not be impacted. Because 45 BN 119 s lies approximately 1.0 mile south of the intake and l discharge facility area, no impacts to this site are 8 expected. Small portions of the Hanford townsite will be i disturbed by construction of the intake and discharge f pipeline trench and the intake and discharge facility. Prehistoric site 45 BN 307 will be disturbed by construction of the pumphonse. A very small portion (150 feet) of the 18-mile Hanford ditch will be disturbed by construction of the intake and discharge pipeline trench. Based on the mitigation plan committed to in Phase 3 and 4, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated on archaeo-logical or historical sites located near the S/HNP Site and Associated Areas identified in Section 2.6. The primary impact on vegetation will be the direct loss of vegetation from the clearing and excavation required for construction of the S/HNP and associated access roads, railroad, parking, water supply and discharge pipelines, raw water pumphouse, and transmission facilities. Distur-bance of some of the construction area will be temporary 4 and vegetation will grow on these areas after the distur-bance has ceased. Vegetation loss will be permanent on the remainder of the construction area. The total number of acres on which the vegetation is expected to be disturbed is listed in Table 4.1-1. 4.1-10a Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 The vegetation community types f ound on the Site and Associated Areas (Section 2.2.1) are common in the Columbia Basin. The area to be disturbed by construction represents less than one tenth of one percent of the Hanf ord Reser-vation. Since additional area outside the Hanford Reser-vation is occupied by each of the vegetation types to be disturbed, the regional impact of the vegetation loss is negligible. About one acre of riparian vegetation near the intake / dis-4 charge location will be disturbed. It is located within an area in which a population of the proposed threatened species Rorippa calycina var. columbiae was f ound (Section 2.2.1.7). Based on field reconnaissance (see Section 2.2.1), it is probable that the population of Rorippa extends f or some distance up and down the river f rom this location. Although this population might be temporarily reduced by construction activities it should not be threat-ened by this disturbance. O l 4.1-11 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 8/20/82 Two types of wildlif e impacts will occur as a result of the S/HNP: habitat loss, and habitat disturbance. Habitat loss occurs when viable wildlife habitat is converted to an area unsuitable for wildlife habitation. Habitat distur-bance occurs when: (1) areas are only partially developed such that some wildlife habitat still exists through revegetation or habitat protection, or (2) local wildlife populatior.s are disturbed by increased human activity and noise associated with nearby construction. The major wildlife habitat loss associated with the S/HNP construction will be approximately 500 hectares of sage-brush-bitterbrush/cheatgrass and sagebrush /cheatgrass habitat within the Site Boundary. The important wildlife species most affected by this loss include: pocket mice, black-tailed hare, badger, mule deer, sage sparrow, horned lark, meadowlark, white-crowned sparrow, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, and burrowing owl. Animals inhabiting this area will attempt to relocate in adjacent areas with similar habitat f eatures. This reloca-tion will be limited by the carrying capacity of the adja-cent areas, and in some cases may not be possible. Some animals, such as small mammals and reptiles, will undoubt-edly be destroyed during Site preparation. The major areas of habitat disturbance within the S/HNP 4 Site and Associated Areas are the transmission corridor (see Section 4.2), pipeline corridor, access road corridors and railroad corridor. Typical types of disturbances include increased human activity, noise and operation of construction equipment, dust, and temporary placement of construction materials and equipment. These impacts primarily occur during construction and greatly subside thereafter. Wildlife species most affected by habitat disturbance include nesting raptors and long-billed cur-lews, and mule deer during the fawning season. These species have known breeding areas within the Site and Associated Areas. The old Hanford townsite is an area of special concern. This area supports many nesting raptors and provides valu-able fawning habitat for mule deer. The intake / discharge pipelines construction activities in the townsite will temporarily affect the wildlife ecology of this area. A reduction in the breeding activity of these species at the townsite is anticipated during the construction period; however, breeding activity is expected to regain ptecon-struction levels soon thereafter. Construction activities in this area will be scheduled to minimize disturbance to these species. O 4.1-12 Amendment 6

s-' .i Te 'S/HNP-ASC/ER 8/20/82 -[3 \\g ~ s t ,N. ( i' + Ls g Three pairs of nesting long-billed curlews were f ound 5 (s g I \\'u') o within the S/HNP Site and the railroad access corridor. No significant impacts upon the Hanford population are antici-4 pated. Little data exists to predict how these birds will react to construction ectivities. They probably will avoid construction areas and nest away from such activity, thus developing a buffer zone to protect their young. N' i m, A summary of potential impacts to endangered, threatened,_1_ sensitive and special interest terrestrial!specids is. presented on Table 4.1-4. 'u-s s 4 a ...s s s_ 4.1.2 WATER A 's Sxs Q s s The primary effects of S/Hi!P condtruc' tion on aquatic, ~ ' hL 4 resources will be associsted with csLst'ruction of OWP's \\' temporary water supply line and the permanent intakf and 1 s discharge systeme at River Mi.le 361.5. s-l t 4.1.2.1 Construction of the Temporary Water Supply Line t ' s st s N, ?,r t Se During the construction phase of ti;e Project, water will be l- [s required f or Site preparation', access road development, \\m,)\\ x soil compaction, dust control, fire protection and other 'sN construction services. The rate of water' consumption durm, \\ r i ing construction will be f ar' less thdri dhring operation of %\\ S/HNP and the need f or construction eater' Vill arise'es soon as construction begins. - Consequently, it'is propcsed a 6 to construct a temporary int 6ke end pumping' system to sup ~ ply water needed for-cor3tructidn of S/HNe and to later i construct a permanent structure for operation of S/HNP. N ?, The temporary pipelino, eight inches in diameter, will b'e laid on the river bed to a depth of approximately 21 f eet (elevation f t) andadistanceof~approximately400feetout\\' from the ordinary high water line of the west bank ot~Nfhe l Columbia River at River Mile 361.5; Pipe located on-shdre' g I will be secured by designed pfpe supporta and thrust blocks. Submerged pipe sections, with steel collars, will' be clamped to concrete anchor blockp suf ficient to prevent flotation or lateral displacement due ro stream. flow. The concrete anchor blocka will rest on'the'Triver bottom. A - barge will be anchored over the route locations so that a\\ barge mounted crane can lift pipe and concrete anchor blocks and lower them into place on the bottom. Concrete anchors will be used during construction to position the work barge. These anchors will be ren?oved upon completicn f. s of the work. All construction de6fis wi,ll be disposed o0 l* i Q +. -e s v 4.1-13 Amendment 6 s Ng

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 on land and none in the water. Navigation markers will be provided to meet U.S. Coast Guard standards, if required. A diesel driven pump will be located on a concrete f ounda- 's tion slab approximately 8 feet above the ordinary high water line of 362 feet elevation. The 1,000 gallon above 6 ground fuel tank will be provided with an impermeable dike to retain more than the entire contents of the tank in the event of leakage. Although the maximum pumping rate will be 750 gallons per minute to satisf y fire protection requirements, the normal daily use during construction is expected to be less than 100,000 gallons per day. A screened inlet section with openings limited to 1/8 of an inch will be flanged and l8 bolted at the terminus of the suction pipe to provide pro-tection f rom entrainment of river debris and fish. Intake velocity across the screen will not exceed 0.5 f eet per second. Additional details regarding the temporary intake line are shown on Figures 4.1-5, 4.1-6 and 4.1-7. When the temporary line is no longer required, the piping and anchor blocks will be lifted out of the river by crane and barge in much the same way as they were installed. With the exception of movement of some boulders or cobble to provide stability for the concrete anchor blocks which will hold the temporary line in place, little or no distur-bance of the bottom material is expected as a result of installation of the temporary intake system and any resul-tant aquatic impacts are expected to be insignificant. Due to the inconsequential nature of any impacts, no specif ic seasonal constraints are proposed for installation of the temporary intake line. Inntallation and removal of the 6 temporary intake line are each expected to require less than a month to accomplish. 4.1.2.2 Construction of the Permanent Intake and Discharge Systems l 1 Installation of the permanent facilities will require the excavation of two trenches in the river bed, one for the three intake pipes and one for the discharge pipe. Selec-tion of the construction technique will depend largely on the material found in the river bed at River Mile 361.5. No dins or channel improvements of any kind will be required for the in-river construction activities. The intake will be a series of finely screened inlets placed just above the river bottom 600 f t of f shore at low 4.1-14 Amendment 8 m

N s/ r-g 1 c3 a l @C d p rC,- Mt i + / r; L is h f 4 suesu rnon N, ,r $!4 -m m_ 5533 L -J ( fy t I } {_- { 7 = u m. h I-s. 1~L ( ", "a '( ~, V,. W L ' A,' _ f. _j,L,i

t. J, A) _.

,g;; 1. r_ I . q 7 [j, - j B > t J iB i u (.. I I a 4 ~ ~-l N I N k.> t x >3 m x cy:. - N <y\\ s\\ l' ,m m s C 'l I C i k i i C 's rA~\\M N ' #'to, N ~'m f / S N 'N [ (v) ( \\ C '"""[ f, j ?, y~bLe

3 < ellr~ h pn-

~ ~ \\ ,5.$ ( m+ \\ ~: "f * ( / ,_ / ,i , n. /- (.. t

8

/* f ( f -, '/?' , ,$,'f~ ' l.a

qji".

f 1, i / l/ / f' ' Qh: ,,7, _ _l/ ' c- /- i Q__f-I l ,./ wg a 6,;f, ~* , ~, ; f_ g, m., ( 1 ~. - ~ ,~ (f-j .-t j. e- ,s*' j;?) + j p ,s 9 f r m> e neesme I neste E JJeanne / e nuson i mm

E IINP-RSC/ER 12/10/82 o e n-LEGEND-3

= =

$ DRAINAGE DIRECTION A. REACTOR BUILDING 4 B. ULTIMATE HEAT SINK C. COOLING TOWERS S sa Ref: Bechtel Drawing /} -==== H-SK-C-10 Rev. B / /g w-1

  • ,, ' <\\

n .,U2 5 , ::: :n/: "*f* 3 [ 4 a s ? E t 1 i _/ l

== ,q, p 7_,~~ _. O _- ..I __i-n

]c,* d c"/

e ,/ ,/ x s f/ l,l/ f,# ylx d N / ,/ / y' y .. a. w -" j fT . j c (. '3 Fett t 0 400 800 -^ -' f," - [~, {, -- '/ 7 j E,' r-=' 200 600 1000 (, /,,d -ti 7--~1- ~' Scale ( l 1, ) ] '3 t, 4 ('- ,* * ~ PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY s

xo(,'

t- ~Xg SKAGITlHANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT e ? ',C s ,, l,., ' t, 'd-APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATION / .e ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

~*

..~ i m ( SITE GRADING, DRAINAGE s AND PLANT LAYOUT 8 .t l 1 = FIGURE 4.12 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 O cer, ) x / i=i b FLOW N x PLAN O.H.W. 362' SCREENS f 6' O 4 t "' s< l N t m r' ow n oz v b RIVER BOTTOM - tyg\\\\ Ul%\\ fygf ~ ELEV. 341 ' PROFILE NOTES:

1. MAXIMUM PIPE INTAKE FLOW VELOCITY: 4.8 FPS PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
2. SCREEN INTAKE VELOCITY: 0.5 FPS AT MAX FLOW SKAGIT / HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT
3. MAXIMUM SCREEN SIZE OPENING: 0.125 INCH APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATIONI ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT O

CONSTRUCTION WATER INTAKE PLAN & PROFILE FIGURE 4.17 Amendment 8

s 4 240" 144" AEF MIN IN-INTAAE SCREEN ASSEMBLY 72* AEF I _ MIN 6' ~~y:N MINIMUM WATEP LEVEL-- l r-f - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - AT 36.000 cfs i ' ; IY, -.I,II - liH!Ii!Hii i liniiFUi ! i! ,ldi l,4Plll Lili!!!!WMlE ;ilIRA ois / -4' M+' M '*' 1 i Hi \\- so 4 '+ 'w, ' l - is. +. i I xei:.h;i -. -,-soTTou 3 { 3

sees, se

. _Q,., - Q,. - g, m. 7.. ..f ~; ' :_G# e e .....m wr . 7-I i i SECTION A A SECTION B-B tn N lc

2:m I

INTAKE SCREEN ASSEMBLY - ""J", , B - + q --C I! [Il 'iil M-M N i i, ? ?8 --<R + 1l C + I%l l2l EH)-o-V, ->m oo-my - Ed Ml Il. + If! C' 1 3l !El, + A o -OIc A z mz>o } l l l l' B ++ $ r -- o z n >z 5 Zy go 33 + l! l..' + m C 8x ""E l l l l l m$ { T Z W INTAKE PIPE - i i i A m a as A* R b 'P 6 5@ m m "> 3 mm m i i y x Z 'S d PLAN VIEW k o'r H m o -4 o o w 3 > L-5 g 7 NOT TO SCALE i3 ym, g 3 o wz o 3 CD c) N

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 RIPRAP RIVER BOTTOM Soo 88o Og 3' MIN O C g , /////////M//////// '$$r

  • 1:-[/

E' ?;y,-, W[. ',^ SU' Obid -?.5 ' : -{ :', - 10' ..~.. / %.g ;_2,.e Lu .,m g , fi)f ~ k ~ .ic. -

o l Q-}-
  • -: E' '
-.i INTAKE PIPES TYPICAL SECTION RIPRAP RIVER BOTTOM O

wsgara o x: ? e a s a y m O e e g! x /' tilEEdlli DISCHARGE PIPE TYPICAL SECTION l RIPRAP RIVER BOTTOM Q 15 / oOfV 00 0 O P PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY oj f SKAGlii HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT k., APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATION / '" ,[{'(*f, /' ' / ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT .y ,.j INTAKE & DISCHARGE PIPE SECTIONS DISCHARGE PIPE FIGURE 4.19 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 3/17/82 m / i 4.5 CONSTRUCTION IMPACT CONTROL PROGRAM V The following paragraphs provide a summary description of the Construction Impact Control Program (CICP) which Puget intends to follow as a means of implementing adherence to environmental quality control limits. A detailed description of the elements of the CICP will be submitted to the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council for its review and approval prior to commencement of Site construction activities. 4.5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of the Construction Impact Control Program (CICP) is to ensure that good construction practices are employed on S/HNP in order to limit adverse impacts on the environment. The CICP is designed to comply with the Site Certification Agreement between the State of Washington and Puget Sound Power & Light Company (Puget) and with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Construction Permit require-ments for the S/HNP. The program will control all construction impact activities, detect unexpected harmful [ \\ effects or evidence of serious damage, provide for periodic l \\m, management audits to determine the adequacy of 5 implementation of environmental controls and maintain sufficient records to furnish evidence of compliance with all environmental control requirements. The CICP will ensure compliance with new source performance standards (40 CFR 423) which are applicable to construction activities. 4.5.2 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The CICP will consist of procedures for (1) ensuring the use of good construction practices for the purpose of limiting adverse environmental effects of construction, (2) evaluating and reporting adverse environmental impacts, and (3) auditing and inspecting environmental and construction activities. These procedures will be implemented and maintained via two primary methods: a. Written direction to contractors through specifications and correspondence, b. Routine inspection of the Site by non-construction management representatives to ensure compliance -~g with the Site Certification Agreement and the Construction Permit requirements. 4.5-1 Amendment 5

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 4.5.3 RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY The requirements of the State of Washington Site Certification Agreement and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Construction Permit f or S/HNP will be implemented by Puget and its agent, Northwest Energy Services Company (NESCO), through auditable contractual agreements with contractors. Bechtel construction management personnel will inspect construction activities to ensure contract adherence, and NESCO will audit the 5 construction activities through periodic on-Site inspection. When a construction activity results in a significant adverse environmental impact not previously considered or an impact which will ne significantly more adverse than previously considered, or may have such result, work will be stopped or further processing, delivery or installation will be controlled until proper disposition has been approved. The NESCO Site Manager or the Puget Vice President, Generation Resources will determine if a significant impact has occurred. The NESCO Site Manager and the Puget Vice President, Generation Resources have the 6 authority to stop work and determine appropriate corrective measures. Work may be restarted when appropriate corrective measures are taken. The on-Site Environmental Compliance Supervisor will also have direct access to the Puget Vice President, Generation Resources. The Puget Vice President, Generation Resources, will notify NRC and EFSEC when such impacts have taken place. 4.5.4 PLAN DESCRIPTION The CICP plans are divided into 3 categories; Construction 5 Control, Environmental Monitoring, and Restoration. 4.5.4.1 Construction Control Plans Construction Control plans will be developed in accordance with schedules necessary to meet licensing and construction activity requirements. These plans will include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Oil and Hazardous Substances, Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures for unauthorized dis-charges of toxic wastes that come under the 8 Resource Conservation and Recoverey Act or WDOE 713-303. O 4.5-2 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 l ~ \\ b. Erosion Control (d c. Dust Control 5 d. Noise Control e. Dangerous Waste Disposal l8 f. Vegetation Removal / Restoration 6 l g. Municipal Waste Disposal g 4.5.4.2 Environmental Monitoring Plans Predicted environmental impacts from the construction of S/HNP are addressed in Sections 4.1 to 4.4. Commitments were made to monitor specific archaeological, terrestrial and water quality impacts associated with the construction of S/HNP. S/HNP environmental monitoring programs are discussed in Section 6 and are adequate for monitoring construction impacts. 5 i l I 4.5.4.3 Restoration Plan Restoration plans will be developed to return those areas not landscaped or utilized for other activities essentially l to their natural conditions. [ 4.5.5 CONTROL MEASURES 4.5.5.1 Erosion Control The Project is located in a shrub steppe region consisting of several shallow rolling hills, with the eastern extrem-ity having a general slope to the river. Surface drainage l is good. Due to the open and dry nature of the area (average rainfall is 6.25 in. per year) and sandy granular soil type, precipitation readily infiltrates into the soil and is not expected to be a problem. Runoff from a severe 4 storm will be controlled by grading away from the power block area and by constructing ditches if necessary. Dewatering is not expected to be a problem because the water table is below any anticipated excavation point. O During construction, contractors will be required to maintain drainage and erosion control around the con-i l struction areas and especially in areas of excavation or l 4.5-3 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 8/20/82 ~ fill. Areas requiring clearing and grubbing will be sequentially scheduled to accommodate the needs and sched-ule of construction. These areas will be marked off and removal of vegetation will be minimized. Controls will be employed to ensure proper embankment slopes. Slopes will not be cut steeper than the natural angle of repose. On-Site borrow pits will be prepared by grading to minimize wind and water erosion and to conform, where possible, to the natural topography. Any accumulations of precipitation within the excavation area will be allowed to infiltrate in-to the permeable soils. Where required, wind erosion will be controlled by employing soil stabilization techniques. 4.5.5.2 Dust, Noise, and Emission Control 4 During construction there will be emissions resulting from the activities of heavy equipment, from permitted open burn-ing, and from operation of the concrete batch plant. Con-trol will be exercised to ensure that these emissions com-ply with applicable standards. Construction vehicles will be maintained in good mechanical condition so emissions and noise levels will conform to State environmental standards. After the initial Site preparation work is completed, the primary source of construction-generated dust is expected to be the unpaved construction roads. Permanent roads within the Site (those roads not near construction acti-vity) are completed during the early stages of construction to minimize dust problems. In areas where grading by itself is not sufficient to control wind erosion, gravel over the surface of eroding 6 areas will be used for stabilization. If necessary, chemical stabilizing agents (resinous adhesives, dust N200.02 palliatives, etc.) will be used after a review of the impacts of any toxicity. Watering or other approved dust control methods will be used to control fugitive dust generated by construction activities. Site roadways will be watered by sprinkler trucks or covered by protective material such as gravel, 4 crushed stone or pavement, as necessary, to decrease the impact of windblown soil. Parking lots will be gravelled. Access roads will be surfaced with asphaltic concrete. l6E280.03 During open burning, care will be taken to reduce emissions to a minimum. Applicable burning regulations will be 4 complied with, and precautions will be taken to prevent accidental fires. Smoke which may occur during open O 4.5-4 Amendment 6

S/HNP-ASC/ER 8/20/82 ( CHAPTER 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS-OF PLANT OPERATION CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE 5.1 Effects of Operation of Heat 5.1-1 Dissipation System 5.1.1 Effluent Limitations and Water 5.1-1 Quality Standards 5.1.1.1 Federal Effluent Guidelines 5.1-1 (40 CFR, Part 423) 5.1.1.2 Washington State Water Quality 5.1-1 Standards (WAC 173-201) 5.1.2 Physical Effects 5.1-2 5.1.2.1 Intake Effects 5.1-3 5.1.2.2 Wastewater Discharge Effects 5.1-4 5.1.3 Biological Effects of the Heat 5.1-8 f [ _s Dissipation System 5.1.3.1 Effects of the Intake System 5.1-8 5.1.3.2 Effects of the Discharge System 5.1-11 5.1.3.2.1 Thermal Effects on Plankton 5.1-12 5.1.3.2.2 Thermal Effects on Periphyton 5.1-12 5.1.3.2.3 Thermal Effects on Benthos 5.1-13 5.1.3.2.4 Thermal Effects on Fishes 5.1-14 5.1.3.2.4.1 Important Species 5.1-14 5.1.4 Effects of Heat Dissipation 5.1-17 Facilities 5.1.4.1 Fogging and Icing 5.1-18 5.1.4.1.1 Effects on Transportation 5.1-18 5.1.4.2 Elevated Visible Plumes 5.1-19 5.1.4.3 Total Solids Discharged from the 5.1-19 Cooling Towers 5.1.4.4 Increased Ground-Level Temperature 5.1-19 and Relative Humidity 5.1.4.5 Cooling Tower Plume Behavior 5.1-20 5.1.4.6 Parametric Study of Plume Rise 5.1-21 5.1.4.7 Plume Shadowing, Cloud Formation 5.1-21 Increased Precipitation, and Aesthetics 5.1.4.8 Combined Effects from the Heat 5.1-22 Dissipation Facilities of S/HNP Units 1-2 and WPPSS Units 1, 2 and 4 5-1 Amendment 6

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 SECTION TITLE PAGE 5.1.4.8.1 Fogging and Icing 5.1-22 5.1.4.3.1.1 Effects on Transportation 5.1-23 5.1.4.8.2 Elevated Visible Plumes 5.1-23 5.1.4.8.3 Total Solids Discharged from the 5.1-23 Cooling Systems 5.1.4.8.4 Increased Ground-Level Temperature 5.1-24 and Relative Humidity 5.1.4.8.5 Plume Shadowing, Cloud Formation, 5.1-24 Increased Precipitation, and Aesthetics 5.2 Radiological Impact f rom Routine 5.2-1 Operation 5.2.1 Exposure Pathways 5.2-1 5.2.2 Radioactivity in the Environment 5.2-1 5.2.2.1 Surf ace Water Models 5.2-3 5.2.2.1.1 Transport Models 5.2-3 5.2.2.1.1.1 Mathematical Model used for Analysis 5.2-3 5.2.2.1.1.2 Model Application 5.2-3 5.2.2.1.2 Sediment Uptake Models 5.2-4 5.2.2.1.3 Water-Use Models 5.2-4 5.2.2.2 Ground Water Models 5.2-4 5.2.3 Dose Rate Estimates for Biota 5.2-4 Other than Man 5.2.4 Dose Rate Estimates for Man 5.2-5 5.2.4.1 Liquid Pathways 5.2-5 5.2.4.2 Gaseous Pathways 5.2-6 5.2.4.3 Direct Radiation f rom Facility 5.2-6 5.2.4.4 Annual Population Doses 5.2-6 5.2.5 Summary of Annual Radiation Doses 5.2-7 5.3 Effects of Chemical and Biocide 5.3-1 Discharges 5.3.1 Liquid Discharges 5.3-1 5.3.1.1 Point of Discharge 5.3-1 5.3.1.2 Downstream from the Point of Discharge 5.3-1 5.3.2 Effects of Drif t on Vegetation and 5.3-8 Wildlif e 5.4 Ef f ects of Sanitary Discharges 5.4-1 5.5 Effects ot Operation and Maintenance 5.5-1 of the Transmission System 5-ii Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 8/20/82 ) NUMBER TITLE J Section 5.2 5.2-1 Maximum Site Boundary Concentrations Compared to 10 CFR 20 Limits 5.2-2 Doses to S1ota 5.2-3 Individual Doses from Liquid Radioactive Effluents at Ringold Farms 5.2-4 Maximum Individual Doses from Atmospheric Effluents at a Residence 7.5 Miles South of S/HNP Unit 1 5.2-5 0 to 50-Mile Population Doses from Liquid Radioactise Effluents 5.2-6 0 to 50-Mile Population Doses from Atmospheric Effluents 5.2-7 Comparison of Maximum Organ Doses to Appendix I Limits (} 5.2-8 Maximum Adult Doses from the Combined ( j Routine Operation of S/HNP Units 1 and 2, and WNP 1, 2 and 4 Compared to 40 CFR 190.10 Limitations Section 5.3 5.3-1 Chemical Concentrations in the Project i Discharge Before and After Dilution Compared to Ambient Levels Section 5.7 5.7-1 Estimated Quantities of Materials Used in Replaceable Components of Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plant t O j 5-v Amendment 6

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 CHAPTER 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION FIGURES NUMBER TITLE Section 5.1 5.1-1 River Cross-Sections in the Vicinity of the Discharge 5.1-2 Downstream Surf ace Penetration vs. Excess Temperature 5.1-3 Surf ace Area vs. Excess Temperature 5.1-4 Volume vs. Excess Temperature 5.1-5 Surf ace Excess Temperature Isotherms - Regulatory Limiting Case 5.1-6 Surf ace Excess Temperature Isotherms - Average Case 5.1-7 Surf ace Excess Temperature Isotherms - Large Excess Temperature Case 5.1-8 Vertical Excess Temperature Isotherms - Along Plume Centerline - Regulatory Limiting Case 5.1-9 Vertical Excess Temperature Isotherms - Along Plume Centerline - Average Case 5.1-10 Vertical Excess Temperature Isotherms - Along Plume Centerline - Large Excess Temperature Case 5.1-10A Exces Temperatures (AT) and Downstream Penetration of the S/HNP Discharge Plume 5.1-11 Cooling Tower Perf ormance Curve 5.1-12 Reduced Ground Level Visibility Hours / Year 5.1-13 Elevated Visible Plumes Hours / Year O 5-vi Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 s (2) the wastewater discharge system, and (3) the cooling ) tower vapor plume. The environmental ef f ects of these components are discussed in the following sections. The locations of intake and discharge lines are depicted in Figure 3.4-3. 4 5.1.2.1 Intake Effects The intake f or the makeup water of the cooling system consists of three torpedo shaped assemblies placed parallel l8 to the river flow above the river bottom (Section 3.4.2). l4 The top of the assemblies will be submerged about 10 ft l8 below the water surface for the lowest regulated flow of 36,000 cfs. The combined maximum pumping rate of 94 cfs is about 0.26 percent of the lowest regulated flow and 0.08 4 percent of the median river flow (115,752 cf s). The average makeup water requirement will be about 6.2 cfs. l5 Detailed hydraulic model studies of similar intake struc-tures used at WNp 1/4 have been conducted by the Supply System (Ref 6). These studies concluded that a perforated pipe inlet with an internal sleeve would give unif orm flow 4 distribution and would offer maximum protection to small fish during all operating conditions. At design condi- ) tions, the inlet velocity at the external screen surface is s/ approximately 0.5 fps. However, at a distance of one inch f rom the outer screen surf ace, the velocity is approxi-mately 0.1 f ps. Intake velocities will normally range between 0.30 and 0.35 f ps except during the peak temper-ature day of the year when cooling tower evaporation necessitates the highest intake flow. On this peak temper-6 ature day, the intake velocity may approach 0.5 f ps f or a short period (historically of about 5 hours annual duration). Undesirable debris is not expected to pass through the outer penetrations at these low velocities. Biological effects of the intake structure are described in Section 5.1.3. The critical intake approach velocity will be maintained below 0.5 fps, thereby reducing impingement, entrainment and entrapment. effects upon aquatic organisms. Riprap will be placed around the intake structures to prevent riverbed erosion and scouring. Nonparallel flow past the three intake assemblies (within l8 the expected range of construction tolerance) will have minimal effect on approach velocities. Neither the intake velocity nor the river velocity are of such magnitude that 6 flow problems would occur due to nonparallel flow. Als E290*35 because of the level of turbulence in the river (random turbulence will create varying local velocities) approach ON velocity variation due to nonparallel flow will be insig-nificant. 5.1-3 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 8/20/82 The range of instantaneous water loss from the Columbia River due to the operation of the S/HNP is estimated to be 20-70 cfs. The average water consumption is about 56 cfs. The loss of water from the Hanford Reach potentially affects the downstream hydroelectric generation at' 6 successively, McNary, John Day, The Dalles and Bonneville. E220.02 The net generation per cfs of flow for the four facilities combined is 23.8 kilowatts per cfs (see Table 5.1-10). For an average water consumption of 56 cfs, the generation loss would be 23.8 kilowatts per cfs times 56 cfs equals 1332.8 kilowatts or, on an annual basis a loss of 11,675,000 kilowatt hours per year. 5.1.2.2 Wastewater Discharge Effects The wastewater discharge system described in Section 3.4 will convey effluent from the Plant to the Columbia River. A single discharge pipe will be buried in the river bottom and will have an 18-in. round outlet discharging perpendi-cularly to the river flow direction at an upward angle of 150 from the horizontal (Figure 3.4-3). The exit flow velocity will be approximately 7.5 fps at the maximum discharge rate of 5,910 gpm, and 3.6 f ps at the average discharge rate of 2,817 gpm. As the effluent enters the river, it will mix with ambient water, resulting in local increases in river temperature, velocity, and chemical concentrations. As the discharge is transported downstream by the river current, progressive mixing of the relatively small discharge flow in comparison to the large river flow will result in local temperatures, velocities, and concentrations which are virtually indistin-4 guishable from ambient conditions. Mathematical predictions of the discharge plume dispersion for S/HNP were conducted for a combination of conditions which are considered representative of worst-case and average situations. A description of the thermal plume model (HOTSUB3), based upon modifications proposed by Koh and Fan (Ref 7), are given in Appendix C. Briefly, the model is composed of two sub-models describing the near and far fields. The former consists of the region near the discharge structure where the discharge momentum determines mixing. This model is based on a solution for an inf initely deep quiescent receiving water modified to account for boundary and ambient velocity effects. The far field considers the region removed from the discharge where the river momentum determines the mixing characteristics. For the latter, the river is assumed fully mixed in the vertical direction, a typical condition in the Columbia 5.1-4 Amendment 6

l S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 [} of the indicated excess temperatures would be even smaller than those at the surface. Figures 5,1-8, 5.1-9, and x_f 5.1-10 show isotherms along the vertical section through the plume trajectory. Maximum excess temperatures, along 4 0 the river bottom, are approximately 0.45, 0.11, and 0.39 F for Cases 1, 2, and 3, respectively. These temperatures occur at downstream distances from the discharge of 40, 145 and 52 ft for Cases 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Worst case anticipated dilution at the centerline of the 6 plume is 190:1 at the downstream boundary of a 300 f t E290'27 mixing zone. Thermal isotherms / concentration isopleths are provided in Figures 5.1-5 through 5.1-10 and 5.3-1 through 5.3-4 for various flow and discharge cases. Centerline differential temperatures are plotted as a function of time and distance for Case 3 in Figure 5.1-10a. Dilution 8 factors and concentration factors can be calculated using the variables presented in Table 5.1-1, as follows: DL = (Ce-Ca) X= Cf (Cf-Ca) Ca Where: DL = centerline dilutions (N Ce = Effluent concentration ) Ca = Ambient concentration g' ' ' ' Cf Final concentration = Concentration factor 6 X = E290.27 For example, Figure 5.1-5 for the worst case scenario would be: Maximum Isotherm DL X Distance Downstream 3.00F 5.5 3.16 32 ft. 2.00F 8.3 2.44 40 ft. 1.0 F 16.5 1.72 48 ft. 0 0.50F 33.0 1.36 52 ft. 0.090F 190.0 1.06 300 ft. Modeling results indicate that no intake-discharge recircu-lation, thermal buildup, shoreline plume attachment or thermal block will occur as a result of wastewaters dis-charged by S/HNP. The ratio of the discharge velocity to the river velocity 4 is relatively low for the S/HNP. The river dominates the flow regime and no impact from the discharge is expected on such velocity-induced phenomena as turbidity, scouring, erosion or sedimentation. Even at the highest S/HNP (N discharge velocity, 7.45 fps, the maximum induced bottom ( ) velocity is essentially zero, as a result of the discharge 5.1-7 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 8/20/82 arientation of 150 above horizontal (Appendix C). The maximum plume velocity at the river surface is projected to be 2.76 f ps, occurring approximately 36 f t downstream and offshore of the discharge. This maximum velocity is only 19 percent higher than the low flowing river velocity. Case 1 conditions evaluated above are for conditions worse than any expected to occur. The worst expected conditions would occur in late summer and would create smaller impacts than modeled above. 5.1.3 BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF THE HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM 4 Operation of the heat dissipation system (Section 3.4) may affect aquatic biota as a result of two system components: (1) the water intake structure (impingement and entrainment ef f ects) and (2) the cooling tower discharge system (ther-mal stress). Aquatic biota in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River are described in Section 2.2.2. Although minimal, the potential environmental effects of intake and discharge systems upon biota are discussed in the following sections. Analyses demonstrate that there will be no significant adverse biological effects. 5.1.3.1 Effects of the Intake System The S/HNP intake structure is located in mid-channel of the Columbia River at RM 361.5. At low flow, the intake is situated 600 f t of f the Benton County Shore in 15 f t of l6 water (Figure 3.4-3). The effects of the intake structure 1 upon the aquatic biota are expected to be insignificant. Entrainment of aquatic organisms will not adversely impact Columbia River biota because of the small volume of water withdrawn and because the intake structure will be designed to reduce fish entrainment. Essentially all of the drift-ing organisms occurring in the water column that are drawn into the intake structure will perish in the recirculating water system. This loss, however, will be slight in 4 comparison to the total populations of these organisms in the river, and the loss will not affect the ecosystem. The maximum water withdrawal will be less then 0.26 percent of the river volume at the lowest regulated flow of 36,000 cfs. Because plankton have been found to be equally distributed both horizontally and vertically in the Columbia River near the Site (Section 2.2.2), it can be assumed that no greater than 0.26 percent of the total plankton populations will be adversely affected. O 5.1-8 Amendment 6

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 O There is no mechanism operating at S/HNP that would alter the biomass or relative abundance of Columbia River phyto-plankton. Given the rapid population cycling (short replacement time) of algae, any loss of cells or produc-4 tivity can be expected to be naturally mitigated in a short time and the loss would not persist downstream. Columbia River phytoplankton will not be adversely impacted by the S/HNP intake. No adverse impact upon fish is expected to occur as a result of water consumption by S/HNP since maximum 6 consumption will only represent approximately 0.2 percent of the regulated minimum river flow (36,000 cfs) and since E290.22 consumption will not cause a measurable difference in water elevations and river velocities. Of greater concern is the potential for impingement or entrainment of the eggs, larvae or juveniles of important 4 fish species. Sport and commercial fish species conceiv-ably affected are the whitefish, smallmouth bass, steelhead trout and the various salmon species. Midstream ichthyoplankton are not abundant. Sculpin larvae are the most numerous organisms collected (Ref 11, Appendix K). Some small fraction of the ichthyoplankton '"} may be entrained into the intake system. Assuming the fry y' j behave as passive particles and conservatively assuming that they are homogenously distributed, then entrainment may be estimated from the volume of the intake relative to the river. Maximum water withdrawal is expected to be 0.26 6 percent of the minimum regulated river flow of 36,000 cfs. Average water withdrawal is expected to be 0.08 percent of the median river flow of 115,780 cfs. Loss of 0.08 or 0.26 percent of the ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) is not expected to have significant adverse effects on the Columbia River ecosystem. Similarly, the loss of other prey organisms (e.g., zooplankton) is not expected to exceed 0.26 percent of that passing the S/HNP intake. These losses are not expected to have significant adverse impact on the Columbia River ecosystem. Juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead trout produced in the Hanford Reach upriver from the intake are of particular importance. Since egg and larval development occurs in the gravel, these life stages should not be vulnerable to 4 intake effects. However, young fry that emerge from the gravel are not strong swimmers and are carried downstream. Some of these fry may pass the intake structure and may be vulnerable to entrainment or impingement. Only those small fish unable to escape the approximate maximum intake velocity of 0.5 fps at the 1/8 in. intake screen openings l8 will be impinged and lost. Laboratory tests, conducted to l4 l l l l 5.1-9 Amendment 8 I l

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 determine the swimming ability and impingment tolerance of young-of-the-year chinook salmon (36-56 mm) and steelhead trout (22-36 mm), demonstrated that juveniles avoided 4 impingement at approach velocities up to 1.0 fps and they were capable of surviving impingement at approach velo-cities of 2.5 fps for up to six minutes (Ref 12). The design of the intake (Section 3. 4. 2.1), and its offshore location should reduce interaction with downstream 8 migrating salmonids. Most of the juveniles spawned in the Hanford Reach will utilize the shallow nearshore areas as they pass the intake during the spring. Thus, impingement of these fish will be minimal. The very low entrance velocities (no greater than 0.5 fps) and swift river current (greater than 2.3 fps) will tend to sweep clear of the intake juvenile fish that stray into offshore areas. The fact that most young salmon pass through the area of the intake structure during the spring runoff when flows are high further decreases their susceptibility to impingement. Because of their larger size, juvenile salmonid fishes artificially and naturally reared in areas upstream of the Hanford Reach may frequent offshore waters during outmigra-4 tion (Section 2.2.2). While these fish may encounter the intake structure, their improved swimming capabilities in comparison to the smaller fry should preclude impingement effects. Because the whitefish deposit adhesive eggs, only the drifting lavae may encounter the intake structure. Small-mouth bass spawn in nests in quiescent backwater slough areas. Juvenile bass rear from one to three months in the slough prior to dispersing into the main river. Should the small bass stray into the deep swift portion of the river, their size and swimming capability should preclude impinge-ment effects. White sturgeon are known to spawn in deep holes in the main channel of the Columbia River (Section 2.2.2.6.2). Little information is available, however, regarding juvenile life forms and their activity. Yolk sac fry, approximately 0.7 in. in length (Ref 13), should not be drawn into the intake structure. Given the low water velocity at the surface of the screen (0.5 fps maximum) and 6 the shear velocity of greater than 2.3 fps, impingement of adult fish is not expected to occur. Should impingement effects occur on any fish species, the fact that such a small volume of water is withdrawn for the S/HNP renders any impact negligible. 4 The Washington Public Power Supply System has conducted entrainment and impingement testing of the WNP 2 offshore, perforated pipe intake (Ref 14). Entrainment sampling 5.1-10 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 (m x/ during a period when chinook salmon fry were abundant in the river failed to produce evidence of entrainment. 4 Inspections of intake structures by scuba observation likewise revealed no incidents of fish impingement, damage or other irregularities. Since the S/HNP intake will have 8 even smaller openings than the WNP-2 stuctures, these data indicate that impingement and entrainment will not result in any significant adverse impact at S/HNP. 5.1.3.2 Effects of the Discharge System 4 The discharge system, as described in Section 3.4.2.2, will be located in 14 ft of water (at low flow), 550 ft off-shore. Thermal effects of the S/HNP discharge to the Columbia River are expected to be negligible. Thermal 8 effects due to either an increased exposure to heat or sudden cessation of thermal discharges at Plant shutdown (cold shock) are not expected. Maximum instantaneous temperature difference between the S/HNP discharge and the ambient water will occur in winter and will be AT = 29.90F. Extreme temperature differential [N during the summer will be 16.90F. Because the maximum (,/ discharge volume, 13.2 cfs, is insignificant (0.04 percent) in relation to the minimum river flow, dilution and disper-sion of the thermal discharge will be rapid. A preliminary study was conducted to determine the plume characteristics of the S/HNP discharge when two units are in operation. A description of the computational method-ologies is presented in Appendix C. Modeling results of the worst-case condition (maximum S/HNP discharge during minimum river flow) suggest that the most restrictive 4 thermal criterion (0.540F) will be met within 52 ft down-stream of the outfall in a plume travel time of 22 sec. Area of the surface plume and volume of the water column encompassed within a 0.540F isotherm is 390 sq ft and 2000 cu ft, respectively. Maximum excess temperature along the river bottom is estimated to be 0.450F (Section 5.1. 2) at a distance 40 ft downstream from the discharge. Changes in ambient water temperature can affect the metab-olism, development, growth, and reproduction of aquatic organisms. The tolerance of organisms to thermal changes is species specific, dependent on magnitude and duration of the change, and previous thermal acclimation. Potential thermal impacts to all aquatic communities in the Columbia River near the discharge site are assessed in the following O sections. 5.1-11 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 8/20/82 5.1.3.2.1 Thermal Effects on Plankton Prolonged exposure to elevated temperatures in thermal discharges have been reported to affect the growth rate and species composition of phytoplankton and zooplankton (Refs 15, 16, 17). Entrainment of river planktonic orga-nisms in the thermal plume created by the S/HNP discharge, 4 will be too brief to cause significant changes in growth or composition. During low flow with a maximum temperature differential at the discharge point, the transit time that organisms will be exposed in the plume to temperatures greater than 2.00F above ambient will be approximately 25 l6 sec. This brief exposure time is below levels reported to have measurable effects on abundance and composition in plantonic organisms (Refs 15, 16, 17). Patrick (Ref 16) observed that diatom growth was limited at 0 temperatures below 50.0 to 59.0 F and above 84.0 to 86.00F. Because the maximum thermal discharge at S/HNP is only 84.50F, diatom species could live and subsist in 100 percent effluent. The ecological consequences of the thermal discharge on the planktonic community are neglible. No measurable effect on the abundance and composition of food organisms in the stream drift and no indirect impact upon important fish 4 resources are anticipated to occur. 5.1.3.2.2 Thermal Effects on Periphyton The S/HNP thermal discharge to the Columbia River is not expected to adversely affect the periphyton community in Hanford Reach. The river bottom area exposed to heated water is small. The maximum percentage of the cross-sectional area of the river bed receiving heated water is less than 1.2 percent. The highest excess temperature l5 expected under any conditions on the river bottom is 0.450F, 40 ft downstream from the discharge point. Periphyton communities in the Hanford Reach are limited in population size by turbulent river flow and seasonally low water temperatures (Section 2.2.2. 2). Diatoms are the dominant forms of periphyton in Hanford Reach populations 4 (Ref 18, 19). The discharge of heated water may cause an increase in growth of periphyton residing on the river bottom in the immediate vicinity of the discharge structure. Algae species have dif f erent optimum ranges. Any increased 5.1-12 Amendment 6

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 [)b Migration Routes 45.0 to 60.00F N. Spawning Areas 45.0 to 55.00F 4 Rearing Areas 50.0 to 60.00F The preferred temperatures for juvenile salmonids are reported as 41.0 to 62.60F (Ref 17). Ultimate upper lethal temperatures (50% mortality after seven days exposure) for 6 juveniles of the five species of Pacific salmon range from 74.8 to 77.20F (Ref 24). A minimum of 5.40F below the ultimate incipient temperature has been recommended as the maximum allowable for juvenile salmonids "to avoid significant curtailment of activity." Temperatures near 62.60F are considered the upper optimum temperature (Ref 17). 4 The period of greatest probable effect of thermal discharge on these species is at Case 1, with extreme low flow and high ambient river temperatures. Although Case 3 would result in greater excess temperatures, it would occur in the winter when ambient temperatures are lowest and prior to juvenile salmonid emergence and outmigration. Under Case 3, ambient river temperatures would be 39.00F (3.90C) and maximum exposure temperatures would not exceed 68.90F } (20.50C). If the exposure scenario considered the AT of 8 y,j 29.90F, potential exposures of passively drifting organisms would be about 4 seconds at AT > 180F (100C) or about 1 second at AT > 280F (15.60C) (FTgure 5.1-10a). These potential exposures are well below those expected to result in sublethal effects. Therefore, the critical period when maximum combined temperatures in the zone of discharge could exceed levels causing sublethal or lethal effects on anadromous salmonids (70.00F) is during August and September. A portion of the downstream migrant salmonids move through the Hanford Reach when ar.bient temperatures are greatest and when additional thermal increments have the greatest likelihood of elevating temperatures in the vicinity of the 4 discharge above lethal limits. Juveniles most likely to i encounter these conditions are delayed downstream migrating chinook salmon (Ref 26) and steelhead trout. At ambient temperatures near 64.50F, if a fish was subjected to a AT 5.50F for extended exposure periods, detrimental effects to salmonid populations would be expected. Cumulative expo-sure to a fish passively drifting through the discharge plume in August would not exceed 12.9 sec at a AT of 60F. Snyder and Blahm (Ref 25) reported no mortality for 6 juvenile chinook salmon acclimated at 66.20F and subjected to AT up to 10.80F for four hours. O-s 5.1-15 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 Exposure times would be less if avoidance occurs. Gray et al. (Ref 27) showed 0-age chinook salmon avoided simulated thermal discharges at a plume velocity of 2.0 fps when the 4T exceeded 16.2 to 19.80F. Preference of fish for particular temperature regimes has been documented. Brett (Ref 24) reported juvenile salmon had a preferred range of 54.0 to 57.00F when acclimated from 41.0 to 75.00F, and avoided temperatures in excess of 59.00F except when feeding. Cherry et al. (Ref 28) found that rainbow trout selected a preference range from 52.9 to 68.20F when acclimated at 43.0 to 70.00F (Table 5.1-4). These data imply that given a choice, fish will avoid potentially lethal temperatures. 4 Juvenile salmonids could drift through the effluent plume during downstream migration periods. 0-age fall chinook abundance in the Hanford Reach is greatest in May with only small numbers of fish present in July. Peak movement of steelhead and salmon smolts originating from upstream areas occurs in May. Since ambient water temperatures in May range from about 45.0 to 54.00F, the thermal plume would have to elevate ambient temperatures 16.00F for extended exposure periods before detrimental effects to salmonid populations would be expected. Even at the surface where maximum temperatures are expected, AT's will not exceed 6.30F. Cumulative exposure to a fish passively drifting through the S/HNP discharge plume would not exceed 1.8 sec at a AT of 16.00F. Snyder and Blahm (Ref 25) reported that juvenile chinook salmon held at ambient river temperature 6 (500F) suffered.no mortality following four hour exposure to elevated temperatures ranging from 64.4 to 69.80F (AT of 14.4 to 19.80F). g Water temperatures exceeding 70.00F are reported to impede or block adult salmonid migrations (Ref 17). Nevertheless, migration in the Columbia River has occurred at higher tempe.atures (Ref 17). Studies on adult Columbia River salmon and steelhead trout indicate that over a period of many days, temperatures in excess of 70.00F also may be lethal (Ref 29). The primary migration route for adult salmonids is along 4 the eastern shoreline in the Hanford Reach (Refs 30, 37). In addition, returning adults showed a preference for shoreline areas of depth less than 10 ft. Therefore, they are not expected to frequent the discharge area (Ref 30). Adult chinook in the Hanford Reach have been shown to avoid the immediate areas of thermal discharges (Ref 17). Templeton and Coutant (Ref 30) concluded that thermal discharges from the early Hanford reactors had no signifi-cant effects on migration. 5.1-16 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 ,m (' During periods of peak adult salmonid migration, the worst-case thermal increment at the point of discharge will be AT = 16.50F. Even during low flow conditions and ambient river temperatures of 68.00F, temperatures in the receiving 4 water would be below lethal temperatures after a time interval of a very few seconds. A thermal differential of 2.00F would occur at the surface approximately 40 ft downstream of the discharge location and the corresponding surface area for a 2.00F isotherm would consist of 100 sq l5 ft. A differential of only 0.090F would occur 300 ft downstream of the outfall (Section 5.1. 2). 4 The maximum cross sectional area of the river which would experience thermal increases greater than 0.50F is less than 1.2 percent of the main channel during worst case 5 conditions. Since approximately 99 percent of the river cross section is available for passage at ambient tempera-tures, it is evident that free passage of adult migrants will be assured under all conditions. The discharge of heated effluent from other facilities into the Hanford Reach has not been demonstrated to have a detrimental effect on spawning salmon (Ref 17).

However, l

temperature stresses could indirectly and adversely affect l reproductive success through excess energy costs, increased kN,) toxicants which may be present. vulnerability to disease or increased vulnerability to 4 The frequency of fish disease may increase with increased water temperature. Infectious diseases appear less likely to cause mortalities in adult salmonids at temperatures below 60.00F (Ref 17). There is no evidence of increased incidences of infection by Chondrococcus columnaris in areas below the thermal discharges of early Hanford reac-tors when compared to areas not influenced by the thermal plumes (Ref 30). No increased incidences of fish disease are expected to result from S/HNP discharge. Exposure of passively drifting rainbow /steelhead trout to sublethal thermal increments will be too short to expect increased mortality due to predation. In laboratory experiments, Coutant (Ref 39) found that vulnerability of l rainbow trout to predation increasod with duration of exposure of thermal shock temperatures of 26-300C. How-6 ever, for fish acclimated at 150C, a significant difference E290. in predation rate was not determined until 1.5 min exposure at 300C. Maximum discharge temperatures for S/HNP is expected to be 29.20C. Fish passing through the plume centerline would potentially be exposed to this temperature for less than one second. O i l 5.1-16a Amendment 6

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 The thermal plume from the S/HNP discharge will not inter-sect any known spawning areas and will be fully mixed at the nearest chinook or steelhead spawning area, 7.5 miles downstream of the discharge location. Olson (Ref 31) found no adverse effects on different developmental stages of salmon eggs and fry when thermal increments were less than 4 2.90F. The worst-case thermal increase at the spawning grounds after mixing, will be less than 0.0040F. No measurable effect on spawning or on the growth and development of egg and larval stages in this area will occur. At ambient river conditions of 150C (590F) and a AT of llOC (19.80F) Coutant (Ref 40) stated that exposures of 32 minutes would induce changes in prey behavior or per-formance that would result in increased vulnerability of shocked fish to predation. This duration is approximately 10% (chinook) and 20% (rainbow) of the exposure duration that caused obvious loss of equilibrium to half the test population (EL50). Longer exposures increased vulner-ability to predation relative to controls almost exponen-tially. Shorter exposures made shocked fish less sus-ceptible to predation. In addition, Stober et al. (Ref 38) 6 found no significant difference between predation rates of juvenile chinook salmon exposed to 15, 20, 22.5 and 250C for 10 minutes or ATs ranging f rom 4 to 140C at ambient temperatures averaging ll.20C (5.20F). At the S/HNP discharge, ATs will generally be less than 100C with a corresponding passive drift exposure of about 2 seconds. Passive drift travel time for ATs > 40C (7.20F) will be only about 10 seconds. Thus, exposure times expected for juvenile downstream migrant salmonids should be well below those expected to cause increased susceptibility to predation based on thermal shock. Resident Cold Water Species Thermal tolerances and preferred temperature ranges of mountain whitefish have not been studied in detail, but they are expected to be adapted to a generally lower temperature regime than the thermal plume (Ref 32). Prefer-red spawning temperatures are near 50.00F (Ref 13). 4 Although mountain whitefish are known to be present near the Site, there is evidence (Ref 33) of reduced abundance in the Hanford Reach during summer months. Emergent fry l apparently move out of the area to downstream nursury areas l by early May. Peak adult abundance typically occurs in l early fall through spring, with fish moving upstream to spawn in December and January. Because of these life history characteristics, mountain whitefish should not be 1 5.1-16b Amendment 8

significantly impacted by the thermal discharge in this area. Whter temperature is thought to initiate seasonal movement patterns in white sturgeon in the Hanford Reach (Refs 34, 35). Long distance and localized shallow movements, assumed to be related to spawning and/or feeding migra-tions, begin each year in June when water temperatures exceed 55.00F. 4 Because-sturgeon remain near the river bottom, they should not be influenced significatly by the rising plume. Maxi-mum thermal increment along the river bed is less than 0.450F. The zone of thermal influence is small and the temperature differential is slight. Thus, no effect of the S/HNP diccharge upon white sturgeon activity in the Hanford Reach is expected. ) P O L 5.1-16c Amendment 8

~7C l.. f ..s I-(' d S/HNP-A.9C/ER

12/16782

^ i .i \\, %d' ~., '. \\, 18. R. H. Gray and T. L. Page, Aquatic Ecoloalcal Studies ? l Near WNP 1, 2, and 4 January through; December 1977, l WPPSS Columbia River Ecology 3,tudies,, Volume 5, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA (1979). c *' ~ x j i 19. R. H. Gray and 'F. L. Page, Aquatic ' Ecological Studies Near WNP 1, 2, and 1 January through 6ccember 1977, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies, Volum4~6, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, KA ,\\ (1979). t 20. C. C. Coutant and B. B. Owen, Productivity of' ' Periphyton Communities under Thermal stress, BNWL-1306, Vol. I, Part 2, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA (1970). \\A 21. C.D. Becker, Response of Columbia hiver Invertebrate 4 to Thermal Stress, BNWL-1550, Vol. I,sNo. 2, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richidnd, WA 1971).- \\ 22. C. C. Coutant, The Eff? cts of TempeE$ddre on the i Development of Bottom Drganisms, BRWL-714, Battelle, Pacif ic NorthwesE~ Laboratories, RIchla~nd, WA (1968). i 23. Supplemental Inf ormation on the Han'f ord Generating l Project in Suppor_t of a 316(a) Demonstration, s Washington Public Power Supply System (November 1978). 24. J. R. Brett, " Temperature Tolerance of Youhg Pacif ic Salmon, Genus Oncorhynchus," J.t Fi'sh. Res. Bd. Canada, Vol. 9e p. 265 (1952). , i" 25. G. R. Snyder and T. H. Blahm, Mortalit o'CsJuvenile Chinook Salmon Subjected to Elevated Water' ~ Temperatures, Seattle Biological Laboratory, IJ.S. Bureau Comm. Fish., Seattle, WA (1970), unpublished i manuscript. [ \\ 26. D. L. Park, 1969 " Seasonal Changes in the Downstream Migration of Age-Group 0 Chinook Salmon in the Upper Columbia River," Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 98(2): 315-317 (1969). 27. R. H. Gray, R. G. Genoway and S. A. Rarraclough " Behavior of Juvenile Chinook Salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in Relation to Simulated Thermal ~ Effluent," Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 106, (1) : 366-370 (1977). 5.1-27 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/21/81 28. D. S. Cherry, K. L. Dickson and J. Cairns, Jr., " Temperatures Selected and Avoided by Fish at Various Acclimation Temperature," J. Fish Res. Bd. Canada 37: 485-491 (1975). 29. Environmental Report, Trojan Nuclear Plant, Vol. 1, Portland General Electric Company (1972). 20. W. L. Templeton and C. C. Coutant, " Studies on the Biological Effects of Thermal Discharges from the Nuclear Reactors to the Columbia River at Hanford," Environmental Aspects of Nuclear Power Stations, IAEA-SM-146/33, (1971) pp. 591-612, 31. P. A. Olson, R. E. Nakatani and T. Meeken, Effects of Thermal Increments on the Eggs and Young of Columbia River Fall Chinook, BNWL-1538 Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA (1970). 32. M. C. Bell, Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria, Fisheries Engineering Research Program, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR (February 1973). 4 33. R. H. Gray and D. D. Dauble " Fish Studies near WNP 1, 2, and 4." Aquatic Ecological Studies near WNP 1, 2 and 4, January through August 1978. WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies. Vol 6, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, (1978). 34. J. M.

Haynes, R.

H. Gray and J. C. Montgomery " Seasonal Location and Movement of White Sturgeon ( Acipen se r transmontanus) in the Mid-Columbia River," Transactions of The American Fisheries Society, 107(2): (1978), pp 275-280. 35. J. M. Haynes, Movement And Habitat Studies of Chinook Salmon and White Sturgeon, PNL 2471, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA (September 1978). 36. J. C. Montgomery and D. H. Pickeison, Soawning and Movements of Smallmouth Bass (Microoterus dolomieui) in the Mid-Columbia River, PNL 2785, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA (1978). 37. C,C. Coutant, Behavior of Ultrasonic Tagged Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout Migrating Past Hanford Thermal Discharges (1967) BNWL-1530, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA (1970). O 5.1-28 Amendment 4

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 F'IC' 30.0/16 7 i @ 9/16.6) 28.0/15.6 - , 26.0/14 4 - 24 0113.3-22.0/12.2 - 20 0111 1- $3 180/99-6 5 160/88-d 140/71-3a g 12 0<6 6 - G E 10 0i$ 5 - ?< 8 0<4 4 - MIXING ZONE W 60'33-BOUNDARY \\ tT U 4 0'2 2 ~ 0.16'F O 2 0e11 - 0 MD 4'O E 8'O tb 120 150 150 150 2bo 220 240 260 280 300 FEET 86 17 2 25 8 34 5 431 51 7 60 3 67 0 77 6 M,2 94 8 103 4 112 1 120 7 129 3 SECONDS DISTANCE DOWNSTRE AM (FT) PROJE CT D$C H A84GE PASSt.-E Da FT E z POS'JRE TivE (SEC 1 DURING CASE 3 CONDITIONS l (MAXIMUM EXCESS TEMPERATURE, l MINIMUM RIVER FLOW) l l l i l PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY l SKAGIT I HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATIONI l ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT l EXCESS TEMPERATURES (AT) AND DOWNSTREAM PENETRATION OF THE SIHNP s DISCHARGE PLUME FIGURE 5.110a Amendment 8 i i i

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 1 (O] mixing zone boundary with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Water Quality Criteria (Refs 3, 4) indicates that all regulated parameters are less than the Federal criteria, with the exception of certain trace metals; l cadmium, copper, iron, lead and mercury. Ambient values for these metals in the Columbia River, upstream of the S/HNP intake, occasionally exceed Federal criteria. Trace metals will not be introduced from Plant 4 operation or from corrosion products of the stainless steel condenser tubes. However, the metals originally present in the river will be concentrated ten fold, on the average, in recirculated cooling water prior to being returned to the Columbia River. Following worst-case dilution on the order of 190:1 at the edge of the mixing zone, metal concentra-tions are estimated to be only six percent above ambient levels. This negligible increase in trace metal concentra-tions should not affect aquatic biota outside the mixing zone. Acidification of the cooling water will not be 6 extreme. Prior to discharge, waste waters will be neutral-N220.06 ized to maintain pH levels between 6.5 and 8.5. As a result, no change in metal toxicity will occur in the receiving water. The potential effect of metals inside the mixing zone was (-_s} also evaluated. Toxicity of metals is dependent on their s_- bioavailability which is a function of their chemical form. Toxicity is also a function of exposure time and concentra-tion. Higher concentrations can be tolerated for short time periods. None of the fish expected in the area of the proposed discharge location for the S/HNP are likely to remain in the discharge plume for a sufficient length of time to experience a toxic reaction. 6 The majority of the ambient copper in the Columbia River appears to be particulate copper which is generally con-sidered to have a low bioavailability and hence a low toxi-city. Copper toxicity is also related to water hardness. The greater the hardness, the more copper that can be bound and removed from that which is bioavailable. The hardness of the water is expected to increase in the discharge plume. This increased hardness may result in a further reduction in soluble copper in the discharge. Copper concentrations in undiluted discharge water may be l in the range of the 96-hr LC50 for some species. Based upon Columbia River water hardness, pH, alkalinity and the i l copper complexing capacity, the 96 hr LC50 for salmonid 8 fishes in the Hanford Reach is between 90 and 110 pg/l total copper (Refs 25, 26, 2~ 28, 29). Within 31 ft (13.4 n sec) downstream of the discharge, copper concentrations i would be below the 96-hr LC50 for salmon during Case 1 6 (\\~ / conditions. The plume area at this point represents 5.3-3 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 approximately 0.1 percent of the river cross section. It is unlikely that a fish would choose to remain in this por-tion of the river for sufficient time to become intoxi-cated. In fact, the river velocity in the plume exceeds the swim speed of some juvenile fish. Additionally, fish have been shown to detect and avoid copper concentrations of this level. There are no copper concentrations in the plume that are expected to be immediately lethal. The toxicity of mercury varies with its chemical form. Organomercuric complexes have a different toxicity than 6 ionic mercury. There appears, however, to be little differ-ences in toxicity to fish among various organomercuric com-pounds. Sockeye salmon have been reported to tolerate 10 mg/l of pyridyl mercuric acetate for one hour with no toxic effects (Rucker and Whipple 1951) (Ref 7). Reference 8 reports that short-term bioassay data indicated that a 1 mg/l of inorganic mercury was fatal to fish. Examination of the expected plume concentrations of mercury in Table 5.3-1 indicate that no significant adverse effects are expected from exposure to mercury in the discharge. Like most metals, the acute toxicity of zinc is a function of the availability of the ionic species and toxicity is reduced by increases in hardness, alkalinity and pH (Refs 3, 8, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36). Toxicity of zinc to salmonid fishes, the most sensitive aquatic species in short duration tests (Ref 37), is reported to vary consider-ably; 96 hr LC50s range between 90-4,700 pg/l total zinc (Refs 24, 31, 34, 37-43). Based upon the water hardness of the Columbia River and the relationship between hardness and metal toxicity described by Brown (Ref 33), the 48 hr LC50 for ambient Columbia River water would lie between 1,100 and 1,400 pg/l total zinc. Utilizing the maximum hardness of the S/HNP discharge (Table 5.3-1), total zinc levels would have to be on the order of 5,100 to 6,600 pg/l prior to observing 48 hr LC50 acute effects. 8 Chronic exposures of three generations of brook trout to total zinc concentrations ranging from 2.6 to 534 pg/l produced no signs of harmful effects (Ref 41). Chapman (Ref 35) found that 3-month exposure of adult sockeye salmon followed by 18-months exposure of embryo through smolt stages, in total zinc concentrations ranging from 30 to 242 pg/l in soft waters (32-37 mg CACO /1) produced no 3 adverse effects on survival, fertility, fecundity or growth. The apparant absence of chronic effects at these levels may be attributable to the acclimation of fish to zinc (Refs 35, 36, 42). Maximum acceptable toxicant concentrations (MATC), based upon life history testing of salmonid fishes, have been 5.3-4 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 ) reported from 1,210 to 1,360 pg Zn/1, depending upon water _) hardness (Refs 36, 41, 44). Gill ventilation response data (Ref 36) suggest that juvenile steelhead trout detected total zinc levels of 144 pg/l in soft water and Sprague (Ref 45) reported that Atlantic salmon avoided total zinc concentrations as low as 55 pg/1. E It is apparent from these acute and chronic toxicity data, i and from avoidance response data, that brief exposures (2.2 minutes passive drif t) to maximum levels of total zinc in the S/HNP mixing zone are not expected to have a signficant adverse affect on the Columbia River ecosystem. Toxicity of iron depends upon its valence state and whether it is in solution or suspension. For practical purposes, iron has little direct toxic effect on aquatic life because it is complexed and relatively inactive chemically or physiologically (Refs 3 and 22). In the Columbia River, iron readily forms insoluble complexes. Data from the USGS at Vernita Bridge (1977-1980) indicated that dissolved iron j averaged only 28.0 pg/l or approximately 20 percent of the mean total iron concentration. Therefore, the bio-availability of iron in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River is low. The Project discharge is not expected to be toxic. Although not directly toxic, suspended iron can (' stress fish by causing respiratory distress, damaged gills (]S or reduced growth and maturation. Suspended iron has been shown to have sublethal effects of brook trout in concen-trations of 12.0 mg/l or greater (Ref 23). The S/HNP discharge would contain a maximum of approximately 3.7 mg/l total iron concentration. Thus, no sublethal impacts are anticipated on fish species. 6 Fish and certain invertebrates have been found to be sensitive to low levels of cadmium in water. Increased hardness (and/or alkalinity) and increased concentrations of metal-complexing organic compounds have been demonstrated to decrease availability and therefore decrease toxicity of cadmium (Refs 3 and 24). USGS water quality data from Vernita Bridge (1977-1980) indicate that on the average dissolved cadmium concentrations were below detectable levels. Thus, dissolved cadmium in the Project discharge is not expected to be toxic. The maximum total cadmium concentration in the Project discharge is expected to be 38.4 99/1. However, the corresponding hardness of the Project discharge is high (1076 mg/l of CACO ), and fish are not anticipated to 3 maintain a position in the plume, so exposure time to elevated concentrations would be brief. Consequently, no adverse impact upon fish is expected to occur as a result of discharge of cadmium by the Project. 5.3-5 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) is the preferred biocide for treatment of the cooling towers. The receiving water criterion for total residual chlorine (TRC) is 0.002 mg/1, 4 as specified by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Ref 3). Assuming Case 1 conditions (maximum project discharge; minimum river flow), the total residual chlorine level in the S/HNP discharge would be reduced in the Columbia River to the Federal criterion level within 29 sec (67 ft downstream from the discharge). Under Case 2 model-ing conditions (average project discharge; median river 8 flow), compliance with the Federal criterion would occur within 35 sec (155 ft downstream of the discharge). Although this plume is carried further downstream with the increased current velocity in comparison to Case 1 condi-tions, the width of the plume is substantially more confined. Research to date does not suggest a major toxic impact on biota as a result of the TRC discharge. An analysis of the chlorine plume (Ref 5) indicates that all aquatic life passing through the plume will remain unharmed. Data suggest that sessile benthic organisms in the path of the 4 S/HNP plume may be adversely affected within a relatively small area immediately downstream of the discharge location. This area, however, is small compared to the total habitat available in the river; therefore, a localized loss in productivity should not affect the aquatic community as a whole (see Appendix L). Acute mortality from TRC to passively drifting fish entrained in the discharge plume is unlikely. Potentially 6 lethal conditions from TRC exist only in the area directly below the discharge. Under high discharge and low river flow conditions, maximum chlorine concentrations are rapidly diluted to <0.01 mg/l within 50 feet downstream of the discharge. g A comparison of toxicity thresholds for several fish species found in the Hanford Reach (Table 2.2-23) indicate that a fish would have to reside in the extreme upstream portion of the plume centerline for several minutes to several hours before mortality would result. This is unlikely because of the fast river currents at midstream. Because the plume centerline rapidly rises to the surface, energy expenditures for fish maintaining their position in 6 the discharge zone would probably be excessive. Further reduction of impact would result if fish detected and avoided the discharge plume. Cherry et al. (Ref 9) found that the ability of fish to actively avoid concentrations of TRC was species specific and dependent on accumulation temperatures and water quality. Threshold avoidance ranged from 0.05 mg/l TRC for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) O 5.3-6 Amendment 8

S/KNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 to 0.41 mg/l TRC for channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). In most cases, avoidance was noted at concentrations below those causing acute mortality. Adult salmon and steelhead can maintain a cruising speed of 4 to 5 fps (Ref 10), but it is unlikely they would maintain themselves near the worst case discharge velocity of greater than 7 fps for more than a few minutes. Discharge velocities under average flow conditions are near adult salmonid cruising speed. However, under these conditions, plume chlorine concentrations would be reduced. If temperatures in the thermal plume are elevated above 200C, upstream-migrating adult salmonids may not enter the plume I (Ref 11). In addition, adult salmonids generally show a i preference for shoreline areas during migration (Refs 11, 12, 13 and 14) and thus may avoid the plume entirely. The discharge plume will not block upstream migration of salmonids since it constitutes only a small portion of the river cross section. Even during peak upstream migration of fall chinook salmon and steelhead trout (August-October), and given worst case conditions, the discharge plume (concentrations greater than 0.004 mg/l chlorine) 6 would cover only 1.2 percent of the river cross section. At all other times, the cross-sectional extent of the plume will be less. In contrast to migrating anadromous fish, bottom-dwelling l resident fish could maintain positions at midriver. How-ever, potential impacts to these populations are reduced because the plume is nearly mixed when it intersects the bottom. Maximum chlorine levels at the bottom are esti-mated to be only 0.0038 and 0.0008 mg/l for worst case and average conditions, respectively. Because of the turbulent nature of the river at midstream, even these concentrations would be transient and affect only a small portion of the river bottom. Hence, no adverse impacts are expected to l these populations. l The combined effects of heat and chlorine on aquatic biota has been studied by several authors. Specifically, Thatcher et al. (Ref 15) and Stober and Hanson (Ref 16) reported lower acute LC50 concentrations for salmonids exposed to chlorine at 200C than those exposed at 100 to 150C. Thatcher (Ref 15) reported 96 hr LC50 values for juvenile brook trout near 0.15 mg/l TRC at 10 and 150C and values about 0.10 mg/l TRC for trout exposed at 200C. 8 Brooks and Seegert (Ref 21) reported thirty-minute LC50 values for TRC for coho salmon of 0.56 mg/l at 100C and 0.29 mg/l at 200C. In addition, Dandy (Ref 17) suggests that fish in contact with chlorine may lose respiratory 6 efficiency due to mucous production or gill damage. If l l 5.3-7 Amendment 8 l

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 fish were exposed to heat and chlorine for extended time periods in the discharge plume, increased metabolic rate and decreased oxygen levels could further stress the fish. However, Giattina et al. (Ref 18) recently showed that most fish species avoided intermittent heated chlorinated dis-charges where chlorine residuals were 50 percent or less of the median lethal concentration. Therefore, there is no reason to expect that a fish would voluntarily remain under 6 these conditions for sufficient duration to cause mor-tality. The presence of suspended colloidal matter in effluents has also been found to increase toxic effects of TRC to fish (Ref 19). Additionally, lethal effects of temperature may be synergistically increased when combined with sublethal concentrations of metals (Refs 20, 21). There is little information available regarding synergistic or antagonistic actions of a composite of many trace metals. Effects have been reported for combinations of up to two or three trace metals. Finlayson and Verrue (Ref 31) reported that n 8 synergism occurred among various mixtures of zinc, copper and cadmium and that two or three metal combinations had additive or antagonistic toxic effects on juvenile chinook salmon. Although the S/HNP discharge may contain levels of suspended and dissolved solids nearly ten times above ambient, these are quickly diluted to levels only 6 percent above ambient at the edge of the 300-foot mixing zone. 6 Because of this rapid dilution, the synergistic effects of TRC, heat, metals and suspended solids could only cause l8 mortality to fish maintaining position on the midstream water column directly below the plant discharge for a signi-ficant period of time. Fish could not maintain their posi-tion there without considerable energy costs and it is unlikely that fish would choose to remain in the discharge 6 plume for a significant period of time. Consequently, the potential for combined effects represents minimal incre-mental risk and no significant impact upon fish is expected as a result of the plant discharge. 5.3.2 EFFECTS OF DRIFT ON VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE After approximately 10 cycles of concentration, the circu-l lating water will contain about 829 rg/l of dissolved

solids, Drift from the cooling towers will be controlled 4

to 0.005 percent loss of the circulating water flow (Section 5.1.4). Biocides and heavy metals in the drift are anticipated to be at a level so low as not to be distinguishable from normal background levels in the soils (a minute fraction of one percent by weight of solids). O 5.3-8 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 /T The predicted distribution and amounts of drift from the \\ cooling towers are shown in Figure 5.1-14. The model employed to determine these distributions is described in Section 6.1.3.3. The maximum total solids deposition is calculated to be less than 10 pounds per acre per year (or less than 11 kg/ha-yr). According to NRC Regulatory Guide 4.11: " Chemical analyses of soils, plants, and animals in the drift field of freshwater cooling towers are not usually needed when all of the following apply: (1) the dominant salts are harmless mixtures of biological nutri-ents as shown in Table 4, (2) the expected peak deposition 4 beyond the site boundary is less than 20 kg/ha-yr (no more than 50% in any 30-day period during the growing season) of mixed salts, and (3) the drift does not contain toxic elements or compounds in amounts that could be hazardous to plants or animals either by direct or indirect exposure over the expected lifetime of the facility." All three of the above conditions apply to the Skagit/ Hanford Nuclear Project cooling tower drift. The expected concentrations are below the level at which effects on vegetation and wildlife can be considered measurable. 5.3-8a Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 21. A. S. Brooks and G. L. Seegert, The Effects of )j Intermittent Chlorination on the Biota of Lake Michigan, Special Report No. 31, Center for Great Lakes Studies, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI (1977). 22. H. S. Davis, Culture and Diseases of Game Fish. Univ. Cal. Press, Berkeley, CA (1970). 23. J. L. Sykora, E. J. Smith and M. Synak, Effect of Lime Neutralized Iron Hydroxide Suspensions on Juvenile Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Water Research 6: 935-950 (1972). 24. G. A. Chapman and D. G. Stevens, Acutely Lethal Levels of Cadmium, Copper and Zinc to Adult Male Coho and Steelhead, Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 107: 837 (1978). 25. G. A. Chapman and J. K. McCrady, Copper Toxicity; A Question of Form. Western Fish Toxicology Station, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon (1977). 26. R. S. Howarth and J. B. Sprague, Copper Lethality to Rainbow Trout in Waters of Various Hardness and pH. s Water Research 12; 455-462. (1978). 27. J. K. McCrady and G. A. Chapman. Determination of Copper Complexing Capacity of Natural River Water, Wellwater and Artificially Reconstituted Water. Water Research 13:143-150. (1979). 28. C. Chakoumakos, R. C. Russo and R. V.

Thurston, Toxicity of Copper to Cutthroat Trout under Different Conditions of Alkalinity, pH and Hardness.

Environmental Science and Technolooy 13(2):213-219 (1979). 29. Hodson and Co-Authors, Copper in the Environment, J. O. Nrigau, ed. Part 1, Chapter 11, J. Wiley and Sons. New York. (1979). 30. D. R. Pratt, Chemistry cf Copper in the WNP-1/4 Plant Effluent. Rev. 2. Washington Public Power Supply System (July, 1980). 31. B. J. Finlayson and K. M. Verruc, Toxicities of Copper, Zinc and Cadmium Mixtures to Juvenile Chinook Salmon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 111:645-650 (1982). OV 5.3-11 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 32. R. Lloyd. The Toxicity of Zine Sulphate to Rainbow Trout (Salmo Girdneri, Richardson). Amm. Appl. Biol., 48:84-94. (1960). 33. V. M. Brown. The Calculation of the Acute Toxicity of Mixtures of Poisons to Rainbow Trout. Water Research 2:723-733. (1968). 34. G. Chapman. Toxicities of Cadmium, Copper and Zine to Four Juvenile Stages of Chinook Salmon and Steelhead. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 107(6):841-847. (1978). 35. G. Chapman. Ef f ects of Continuous Zinc Exposures on Sockeye Salmon During Adult-to-Smolt Freshwater Residency. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 107(6):828-836. (1978). 36. M. A. Cairns, R. R. Garton and R. A. Tubb. Use of Fish Ventilation Frequency to Estimate Chronically Safe Toxicant Concentrations. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 111:70-77. (1982). 37. I. R. Ball. The Relative Susceptibilites of Some Species of Freshwater Fish to Poisons-II., Zinc. Water Research 1:777-783. (1967). 38. F. W. Rabe and C. W. Sappington. Biological Productivity of the Coeur D'Alene River as Related to Water Quality (1970) as Reported in Ref 35. 39. W. Thomsen, C. Hazel and S. Maith. Toxicity of Copper and Zinc Ions to Steelhead in Mokelumne River Water. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. Water Projects Branch, Sacramento, CA. Lab. Rep. (1970). 40 Colorado Game, Fish and Parks. Water Pollution Studies, Study of the Effects of Metallic Ions on Fish and Aquatic Organisms. Job Progress Report. Federal Aid Project F-33-R-6 (1971) as cited in Ref. 42. 41. G. W.

Holcombe, D.

A. Benoit and E. N. Leonard. Long Term Effects of Zinc Exposures on Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 108:76-87. (1979). 42. B. J. Finlayson and S. H. Ashuckian. Safe Zinc and Copper Levels from The Spring Creek Drainage for Steehead Trout in The Upper Sacramento River, CA. Cal. Fish and Game 65(2):80-99. (1979). O 5.3-12 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 43. B. J. Finlayson and K. M. Verrue. Estimated Safe Zinc and Copper Levels for Chinook Salmon, (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in The Upper Sacramento River, CA. Cal. Fish and Game 66(2):68-82. (1980). 44. J. Sinley, J. Goettl and P. Davies. The Effects of Zinc on Rainbow Trout in Hard and Soft Water. Bull. l Environ. Contam. and Tox. 12:193-201. (1974). 45. J. Sprague. Lethal Concentrations of Copper and Zinc for Young Atlantic Salmon. Can. Fish Res. Bd. J. 21:1-1. (1964). l i i i I l t i 5.3-13 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 5.4 EFFECTS OF SANITARY DISCHARGES s This section discusses the environmental effects of sanitary discharges during Plant operation. Sanitary 4 facilities are described in Section 3.7. Sanitary waste disposal will be by means of a package sewage treatment plant with a percolation pond. Discharge into the percolation pond will average 7 gpm with a peak l6 flow of 10 gpm. Effluent characteristics are described in 4 Section 3.7.1. As discussed in Section 3.7, only treated sanitary wastes l8 will be discharged into the percolation pond. Water discharged into the pond would penetrate to the water table within a period of one to two months. Travel times to the river in the groundwater has been calculated and are included in PSAR Table 2.4-33. Average travel time appears 6 to be 37.6 years. E221.01 The soil acts similar to an ion exchanger and tends to x retard cations. Retardation mechanisms such as mineral displacement and precipitation will cause chemicals in the sanitary discharge to accumulate in the soil beneath the pond. ) Evaporation and percolation due to the arid climate and porous soil in combination with a high degree of treatment result in no signif icant ef f ect on groundwater quality. Saturated soil conditions will exist within a few feet of the point of disposal. However, much of the water is not 4 expected to enter the water table (approximately 125 feet below the ground surface), because moisture in the upper soil layers moves toward the surface due to evaporation and evapotranspiration (Ref 1). Contamination of groundwater by pathogenic bacteria, if it occurs, will be restricted to within a few feet of the pond where saturated flow conditions exist. The only wells that exist within approximately five miles 6 of the S/HNP Site are used only f or sampling an acquif er E221.04 that is not connected to the surface near the S/HNP Site. Because of the limited zone of potential contamination and the limited use of groundwater in the area, the operation of the treatment facility will have no measurable effect on groundwater resources. 4 Because there will be no discharge to any surface waters, no measurable effect upon water quality or the biota of the Columbia River will occur. The percolation pond may 5.4-1 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 8/20/82 attract wildlif e or waterf owl; however, they will not be adversely affected because wastewater from the aerated treatment plant will be treated prior to discharging into the percolation pond. During normal operation, the aerobic 4 process will not be a source of odors. Solid wastes will be collected and disposed of in accordance with Federal and State requirements. O O 5.4-2 Amendment 6

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/21/81 ~ b. Monitor abundance and/or habitat usage of species ( )) i (, indicated in c. above c. Estimate the impact of site preparation and construction upon plant or wildlife species and/or habitats d. Describe potential mitigation measures, if neces-sary, to ameliorate and/or compensate for adverse terrestrial impacts. Preoperational monitoring is the final stage before opera-tion and is designed to provide the data necessary for evaluating any changes to the terrestrial environment arising from S/HNP operation. In many instances, the previous monitoring programs will provide the necessary data base. 6.1.4.3.1 Preapplication Monitoring The vegetation and wildlife of the Hanford Reservation has been thoroughly studied in connection with the activities of the U.S. Department of Energy (and its predecessors), rx the Supply System and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (N /j (riparian zone only). The preapplication monitoring 4 program was designed to confirm that the area likely to be affected by the S/HNP is similar to areas already described in the literature,,and therefore, impacts will be predict-able based primarily on data from previous studies. Field surveys also were conducted to check for the occurrence of important species, as defined in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.2 Relevant literature is listed in Section 2.2. The area studied was the Site and Associated Areas, which encom-passed the Site and the railroad, transmission line, pipeline, and access road corridors (see Section 2.2.1.3). To assure proper coverage, the corridor width was assumed to be 300 m. Qualitative field surveys of vegetation were conducted in April-October, 1981. Each area was searched on foot by a plant taxonomist / ecologist to identify any threatened, endangered, or other sensitive plant species or habitats and to document their presence, local and regional abun-dance, sensitivity, and relationships to the S/HNP. A qualitative field investigation of wildlife was conducted to: (a) assure applicability of existing information to the Site and Associated Areas, (b) locate specific areas G used by important wildlife species, and (c) search for 6.1-25 Amendment 4

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 unique wildlif e f eatures within the area to be directly impacted by Site preparation and station construction. This field investigation was conducted in May, June and July, 1981. The Site and Associated Areas were traversed in a system-atic manner to record all wildlif e sign and observations. The S/HNP intake / discharge location and the old Hanford townsite were studied in detail. The townsite is unique within the Hanford Reservation because of the trees planted decades ago by early settlers for shade and fruit produc-tion. Since the pipeline corridor transects the townsite, a reconnaissance of the entire area was conducted. Most of the trees within the townsite were checked for wildlife use signs. Trees with significant wildlif e sign 4 (eg, raptor nests) were mapped f or f uture identif ication. An attempt was made to ascertain if nests were active and which species was using them. If possible, nest success was determined. In addition to trees, all other remaining f eatures of the townsite (ie, the old schoolhouse, pump-house, and miscellaneous remnants f rom the town) were checked for signs of wildlife use. The remaining important f eature of the townsite was the riparian habitat along the Columbia River. This area was checked for wildlife use sign, especially breeding and feeding activity of hydrophilic species. The extent and quality of riparian habitat available to wildlife was noted on aerial photographs. 6.1.4.3.2 Site Preparation and Construction Monitoring Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.5 describe mitigation measures to be utilized to minimize environmental impacts during construction. The Construction Impact Control Program, described in Section 4.5, is divided into three categories: Construction Control, Environmental Monitoring and 8 Restoration. As indicated in Section 4.5, a detailed description of the elements of the Construction Impact Control Program will be submitted to EFSEC for its review and approval prior to commencement of Site construction activities. As previously mentioned, the site preparation and construction monitoring effort will determine the distribution of important species within the Site and 4 Associated Areas and monitor the abundance of these important species or areas of special concern (as indicated 6.1-26 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 from preapplication studies): bald eagles, long-billed l curlews, and the old Hanford townsite. As shown in Figure 6 6.1-4a, this monitoring effort will begin sufficiently in advance of the start of construction activities to provide the preconstruction data base necessary for assessing the extent of construction impacts. Studies will continue until construction effects have subsided or the extent of impact has been satisfactorily appraised. The f ollowing describes the methodologies f or each f acet of the 4 monitoring program. Important Plant Species. The listing status of persistant sepal yellow cress, Rorippa calycina, var. Columbiae, will GU l \\ 1 6.1-26a Amendment 8

l S/HNP-ASC/ER 9/16/82 CHAPTER 8.0 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE 8.1 Reliability Benefits 8.1-1 8.1.1 Generation of Electricity 8.1-1 8.1.2 Reliability 8.1-2 8.1.3 Economic and Social Benefits of Meeting Load Growth Requirements 8.1-3 8.1.3.1 Survey of Puget Customers Regarding the Socioeconomic Costs of l Electric Energy Shortages 8.1-5 8.2 Costs 8.2-1 8.2.1 Capital Costs 8.2-1 8.2.2 Annual Costs of Operation 8.2-1 8.3 Social and Economic Impacts 8.3-1 8.3.1 Description of the Project in the Context of the Tri-Cities Area 8.3-1 8.3.2 Delineation of Impact Area 8.3-3 8.3.3 Alternative Scenarios 8.3-4 8.3.4 Uncertainty and the Role of the Socio-Economic Monitoring Program 8.3-4a 8.3.5 Tax Revenues Associated with Construction and Operation 8.3-5 8.3.5.1 Tax Revenues 8.3-5 8.3.5.2 Projected Conditions Under Alternative Scenarios 8.3-8 8.3.6 Population 8.3-9 8.3.6.1 Existing and Developing Conditions 8.3-9 8.3.6.2 Projected Population Conditions Under Alternative Scenarios 8.3-11 8-1 Amendment 7

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 NUMBER TITLE 8.3.7 Availability of Qualified Workforce 8.3-13 8.3.8 Economy 8.3-14a 8.3.8.1 Existing and Developing Conditions 8.3-14a 8.3.8.2 Projected Economic Conditions Under Alternative Scenarios 8.3-16 8.3.9 Government and Fiscal 8.3-18 8.3.9.1 Existing and Developing Conditions 8.3-18 8.3.9.2 Projected Fiscal Conditions Under Alternative Scenarios 8.3-19 8.3.10 Transportation 8.3-20 8.3.10.1 Existing Conditions 8.3-20a 8.3.10.1.1 Street Network 8.3-20a 8.3.10.1.2 Traffic Volumes 8.3-20b 8.3.10.1.3 Other Modes of Transportation 8.3-20d 8.3.10.2 Projected Growth in Background Traffic volumes 8.3-20d 8.3.10.2.1 Population and Employment Growth 8.3-20e 8.3.10.2.2 Traffic Trends 8.3-20f 8.3.10.3 Future Network Improvements 8.3-20f 8.3.10.4 Impacts 8.3-20h 8.3.10.4.1 Construction Impacts 8.3-20h 8.3.10.4.1.1 Peak Hour Conditions 8.3-20i 8.3.10.4.2 Operations Impacts 8.3-20j 8.3.10.4.3 Impacts on Other Modes of Transportation 8.3-20j 8.3.10.5 Mitigating Measures 8.3-20j 8.3.11 Housing 8.3-23 8.3.11.1 Existing and Projected Housing Infrastructure 8.3-23 8.3.11.2 Projected Housing Conditions Under Alternative Scenarios 8.3-24 8.3.12 Education 8.3-25 8.3.12.1 Existing and Developing i Conditions 8.3-2S l 8.3.12.2 Projected Educational Conditions Under Alternative Scenarios 8.3-26 I 8.3.13 Utilities 8.3-27 l 8.3.13.1 Existing and Developing l Conditions 8.3-27 8.3.13.2 Projected Utility Service Conditions Under Alternative Scenarios 8.3-29 l 8-ii Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 O Annual Sales and Use Tax 7 Revenues (in 1980 dollars) Total Rev. Average Annual Example Yr. Recipient 1983-1992 Revenues 1987 State 93,960,000 10,440,000 17,210,000 Benton County 10,440,000 1,160,000 1,912,000 8 Benton-Franklin Transit District 6,264,000 696,000 1,147,000 Total 110,664,000 12,296,000 20,269,000 During operation, the sales and use tax is particu-4 larly important because of the cost of nuclear fuel. It is estimated, for example, that the costs of the initial cores of the two units will be $292.9 million in 1980 dollars. Purchase of these cores could provide $13,180,000 in revenues to the State; S1,464,000 to Benton County and $878,000 to the Benton-Franklin Transit Authority (in 1980 dollars). The following revenues would be generated if annual fuel costs were $120.4 million in 1980 dollars: Annual Revenues due f'")3 7 to Nuclear Fuel Costs ( Entity Only (in 1980 S) State $5,418,000 Benton County 602,000 Benton-Franklin Transit District 361,000 l Total $6,381,000 In addition to these fuel costs, the tax on local 5 purchases will produce revenues each year during the operation phase. It is estimated that approximately $5,000,000 (in 1980 dollars) in local purchases of [6 materials and services will be made each year I resulting in increased annual revenues for both Benton 5 County and the Transit District. Finally, to supplement the above revenues, local governments could enact additional sales or property transfer taxes under Sub Chapter 49 RCW. Also, an 8 additional 0.25 percent state property transfer tax has been enacted by the law for capital facility development. ( 3. Bilsiness and occupational taxes are collected by the State during construction. On 2.9 billion dollars of 7 s 8.3-7 Amendment 8 l

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 tax base, taxes would be over $12,500,000 (in 1980 dollars). 4. Business taxes imposed by local communities will generate revenues from the Project. Purchases of local materials, supplies and engineering services, for example, will result in increased business activ-ity during both construction and operation. 4 5. Other revenues will accrue to the local taxing juris-dictions and the State through the business activity generated by expenditures of persons employed at the Project. The relatively high incomes of such employees will mean that they will stimulate more business activity than the average worker and that they will pay more than average taxes. Estimated annual income per worker at S/HNP during construction is $37,289 (1980 dollars). Estimated annual salary per employee during the operations phase is $23,600 (1980 dollars). In 1979, the average annual wages in the Tri-Cities SMSA were $15,962. The total annual 7 operations payroll is shown in Table 8.3-20. 8.3.5.2 Projected Conditions Under Alternative Scenarios Under Scenarios 2 and 3, if 1981 levies were in effect, the 4 Project would generate the following estimated revenues during construction: Estimated Revenues During Construction (in 1980 dollars) State $178 million Benton County $100 million Benton-Franklin Transit District S 7 million 7 $285 million In 1980 dollars, during S/HNP operation Benton County and other local jurisdictions would annually receive $11 million in property taxes and over $600,000 in sales tax. The Benton-Franklin Transit District would receive $370,000 per year from sales taxes. The magnitude of these additional revenues over those that would be collected under Scenario 1 would allow Benton e, County to consider such options as significantly improving services, disborsing funds to local communities and/or lowering tax levies. 8.3-8 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 Under the baseline scenarios, neither these revenues nor O 4 these options would exist. Revenues generated by S/HNP would be separate and discrete from those generated by WPPSS activities. Operation of WNP-2 and continued construction of WNP-1 will produce 8 revenues for use by local governments. 8.3.6 POPULATION 8.3.6.1 Existing and Developing Conditions Table 8.3-4 presents population changes for the area over the period 1940 to 1980. As these data indicate, the SMSA has had significant and sustained growth in recent decades with an increase of 54.8 percent in the 1970-80 period. With regard to age structure, the population of the SMSA is composed of a disproportionately large number of younger persons as projected for 1982 (Ref 4): Age 1982 (Ref 7) Category N s 0-19 50,120 33.7 20-34 41,860 28.1 4 35-44 17,140 11.5 45-64 28,970 19.5 65+ 10,810 7.2 Total 148,900 100.0% In terms of projections of future population growth, Yandon (Ref 6) has pointed out that population projections for the Tri-Cities have been notoriously inaccurate to the extent that some projections have been out of date even before they were published. Thus, in evaluating projections, the impact of external decisions must be fully recognized. The 1982-1990 population of the Tri-Cities will be influ-enced by the level of construction activity on the Hanford Reservation. Table 8.3-5 presents projected nuclear related construction workforce by year for the Project as well as WNP 1, 2, and 4. As these data indicate, in no case will the workforce between 1982-1990 exceed the 1981 workforce. These data demonstrate a declining construc-tion workforce in the area related to nuclear construction even with S/HNP. This situation may lead to either 8.3-9 Amendment 8 i

S/HNP-ASC/ER 9/16/82 absolute population losses or declines in the expected rate of growth. As Schau (Ref 7) has shown, the bulk of population growth in the Tri-Cities area during the latter 1970's was due to 4 high rates of in-migration. Much of this in-migration was associated with increased USDOE and Supply System employment in the area. From 1975-1980, employment by USDOE and its contractors increased from 9,800 to 12,100. From 1975-1980, Supply System average annual employment 5 increased from 1,585 to 6,549. During the latter half of the decade, these two agencies accounted for 35 percent of all average annual non-agricultural jobs added to the economy during 1975-1980. The combined effect of primary and secondary jobs created by these two agencies was over 63 percent of new jobs created in the Tri-Cities area. The State of Washington population projections for the Tri-4 Cities SMSA over the next two decades are reflective of dramatic population increases in the 1970's and project large increases continuing through the 1982-1992 period. These projections overstate the potential for population growth for four reasons: (1) a decline of Supply System construction employment is underway, ( 2) there is a high l7 degree of uncertainty relating to the future level of USDOE funding, projected growth rates range from being slightly 4 negative to 1 percent per year, (3) even if WNP-4 and S/HNP are constructed the workforce would not exceed 1981 levels and (4) no other new large construction projects are 7 definite for the area. On the basis of this line of reasoning, it is assumed that actual population growth rates during 1982-1993 will 4 reflect the population growth rates that would have applied during 1970-1981 had the Supply System not existed and DOE l employment remained constant at its 1970 level (Kenneth W. Bracken, Director-Facilities and Site Services Division, 6 DOE, personal communictions, December 18, 1981; James E230.02 Skubic, Economist, Social Impact Research, Inc., December 20, 1981). It is assumed that the intrinsic growth rate for population is approximately 1 percent per 4 year, or similar to the national growth rate projections (James Skubic, Economist, Social Impact Research, Inc., 6 December, 1981). However, these intrinsic growth rates E230.02 will not compensate for the fact that population will be lost at nuclear construction is completed and workers and families migrate to other sites. Therefore, population 4 under every scenario is expected to decline at some point during 1981-1993. O 8.3-10 Amendment 7

S/HNP-ASC/ER 3/17/82 f services, (b) security of persons and property, and (c) transportation. As is true of many areas, particularly those which have experienced the added demands of rapid population and economic expansion, governments in the Tri-Cities area have experienced increased expenditure demands and restricted revenues in recent years. These pressures have resulted in proposals for increased local tax rates to provide addi-tional revenues (Refs 12-1, 12-2). Local voters, however, have been hesitant to approve additional or increased taxation, forcing a reduction in some program areas and a general emphasis on fiscal austerity - a trend which is likely to continue into the near-term future. Municipal revenues in 1981 are estimated to have declined in Richland, Kennewick, and Pasco from 1980. Among the consequences of budget restrictions have been program reductions and employee cut-backs. Additional cut-backs may be expected. For example, the city of Richland has projected a decline in manpower in the fire and emergency services department from 39 to 35 persons as a result of anticipated 1982 budget levels. 8.3.9.2 Projected Fiscal Conditions Under Alternative O Scenarios 4 I Scenarios 1 and 4 show that there would be outmigration l from the study area as the employment and income from the construction sector declines (Table 8.3-6). This would lead to declines in revenues to local communities. The l additions of employment and income due to S/HNP, as shown in Scenarios 2 and 3, would significantly increase local revenues over what would be the case under Scenario 1 at similar points in time without these economic variables. Additional revenues to the State and local areas would come from such sources as property taxes, sales taxes, and B&O taxes, etc. As indicated in Section 8.3.5, construction and operation of S/HNP would generate significant tax revenues in Benton County, if tax rates are not lowered. It is estimated, for example, that Benton County could potentially receive $150 million in revenues from the facility during the con-struction period alone for use by the County and for disbursement to local jurisdictions. Additional revenues I of $30 million would potentially be available during each l5 year of operation, if tax rates remain at 1981 levels. These revenues would have a sustained and significantly 4 ] positive impact on the fiscal condition of Benton County 8.3-19 Amendment 5

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 and, depending upon the manner in which the revenues are disbursed, upon communities within Benton County. It has been suggested by some (Ref 13) that these property 4 tax revenues collected by Benton County should be shared proportionately with cities, school districts and other jurisdictions where the bulk of the S/HNP work force will reside. Potential inequities in revenues and costs could 7 occur if tax revenues generated by the Project in some jurisdictions were insufficient to pay for government 6 services necessitated by the Project in those same E231.10 jurisdictions. Based on past trends of the WPPSS labor force, the areas most likely to be affected would include Richland, West Richland, Kennewick and Benton City. Under the existing tax system those cities would receive property-tax revenues at the discretion of Benton County 4 Commissioners. Neither Franklin County nor the City of Pasco (also within the immediate impact area) would receive any property-tax revenues emanating from the Project under the existing tax system. Redistribution of revenues is achievable through interlocal cooperation agreement RCW 39.34. Such redistribution could serve as a means of mitigating negative impacts during S construction and equalizing revenue distribution even where there were no demonstrated negative impacts. Under the baseline scenarios none of these revenues would be available to improve the fiscal condition of Benton 4 County and its local jurisdiction. 8.3.10 TRANSPORTATION This section describes the anticipated transportation 6 impacts of the S/HNP. Additional inf ormation may be obtained from the Questions and Responses on pages E-52 through E-64. The transportation related analyses and conclusions contained in this section were based upon the assumption that access to the S/HNP will be provided by a new access road connecting the southwest corner of the Project Site to 7 SR 240 (Alternate South Access Road). This access O 8.3-20 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 8/20/82 WSDOT: l I-82 and I-182 between I-82 and Highway 395 north of Pasco (completed by 1986) City of Richland Widening of Horn Rapids Road between Stevens Drive and Highway 240 (by 1987) Improvement of Grosscup Road south of Highway 240 (1987) Construction of Loop Road between Horn Rapids Road and Highway 240 (1984) Benton County Improvement of Twin Bridges (1984) Improvement of Grosscup Road north from Twin Bridges (to meet the City of Richland's project) (1984) 6 A start on engineering for the Horn Rapids Bypass (1984) In addition, Franklin County has programmed several road improvements to provide and enhance connections to the new I-182. I-182 should be completed between I-82 and Highway 395 by 1986, with major portions completed by 1984. The Yakima River Bridge is now under construction. 1984 should see l early opening of connections between Bypass Highway and Highway 12, and between George Washington Way and the new Columbia River Bridge. A significant project not assumd to be constructed is the proposed North Richland Toll Bridge. The feasibility of this Columbia River crossing, at Horn Rapids Road, is l related to bond interest rates. Although WSDOT is moving towards implementation, current high rates cast doubt on near-term construction, so it has not been included as a project within the construction impact life of the S/HNP. Also, and not to be overlooked, is future bus service now being planned by Ben Franklin Transit (the PTBA), and forthcoming ridesharing promotion activities by WSDOT that will be targeted on employment concentrations off of the Hanford Reservation. llO 8.3-20g Amendment 6

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 8.3.10.4 Impacts 8.3.10.4.1 Construction Impacts A considerable amount of study has been undertaken in earlier years covering travel patterns and impacts distri-bution of WPPSS construction employees. The results of these studies, presented in terms of percent of the construction force traveling to cities and parts of the counties, provided the basis for estimating a pattern of trips applicable to S/HNP construction workers. The percentage trip distribution for WPPSS was related to population in each of the cities and parts of the counties as well as to the estimated travel time between the WPPSS construction sites and these residential locations. The estimated travel time between the S/HNP construction site and the snme destinations was ther. used to calculate the S/HNP travel pattern. The results showed that the principal differences between the two travel patterns, 6 considering the influence of future I-182, was a 2 percent decrease in the number of worker-commuter destinations in Rishland and Kennewick and a 2 percent increase for Benton City area. Figure 8.3-5 (Golladay and Spink Engineering and Surveying, Inc., 1978) shows the resulting trip distri-bution pattern for the S/HNP Site. Generally, it is expected that the construction workers will travel to and from the S/HNP Site using the access road to Highway 240 and /or Route 10, and then utilize major thoroughfares and local access roads in the Tri-Cities area in a manner similar to that currently practiced. The peak home-to-work travel volumes (to which the percent-ages can be applied) were calculated for 1988 when construc-tion employment would be at its highest and using estimated conditions that home-to-work travel would occur every 1.5 hours and at an average vehicle occupancy of about 1.6 persons per vehicle. The approximately 4,500 employees forecast for 1988 will then generate about 1,900 outbound evening peak hour vehicle trips. l Specific waste product transportation routes will be deter-mined after the specific amounts of waste product and waste disposal methods and locations are. known. As indicated in Section 4.5.4.1, the Applicant will prepare and submit a 8 municipal waste disposal plan as part of the Construction Impact Control Program for EFSEC's review and approval prior to commencement of Site construction activities. O 8.3-20h Amendment 8

(s v S/HNP-A'C/EH 12/10/82' G s +y ' ;y ? ( 8.3.10.4.1.1 Peak Hour Conditions b N,)N s ~ Estimates of the impacts of peak hour S/HNP traffic were developed by converting the forecasted 1988 baseline daily traffic volumes to peak-hour traffic volumes at key inter-sections. Peak-hour S/HNP traffic was then overlayed and impacts assessed. Impacts were calculated in terms of the ratio between traffic volume and street capacity (V/C ratio). Using Figure 8.3-6, it is possible to trace the evolution y of peak hour traffic conditions at these critical locations from 1981 through 1988 with and without the project. Two y peak hours, 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. and 4:00 to 5:00 p.m., cr e,. - g shown since the heavy commuter traffic in the region ' s requires more than the normal one-hour peak that.is foun'd in most other areas. The actual time that each hour starts may vary throughout the region, but the first and" second peak hours are identified as the 3:00 and 4:00 p.'m. peak hours for convenience. It is the general consensus of previous studies (Ref s 14, 27, 28) that the completion of I-182 will provide sufficient additional capacity to relieve existng congestion at the Causeway. At the present time,,the Cause-(sdf-- ) way with two lanes in each direction must serve virtually \\ 6 all Pasco and Kennewick traffic. The completion of I-182 will provide two interchanges and three additional lanes id each direction f or a traf f ic volume with only moderate pre-dicted growth by 1988. Figure 8.3-6 identifies projected V/C ratios at key inter-sections for both 1981 and 1988 baceline conditions, and shows an improvement in traffic conditions as traffic volumes decrease. The decrease is greatest in the first peak hour, and concentrated on.Stevens Drive, which leads directly to the WPPSS construction area. The ratics in this column reflect not only the deduction of WPPSS trips, but also an infilling of the gap lef t by WPPSS traf fic by traffic from adjacent hours. The addition of traf f ic f rom the S/HNP leads to more severe congestion than existing conditions because of this traf fic infilling ef f ect. Logical operations planning would schedule project traffic to replace that of.WPPSS in the traffic system so that the impacts are concentrated in the first peak hour. The values shown, well in excess of 1.00, reflect the inability of existing streets and roads to absorb these peak loads. Mitigating measures are discussed specifically in a later section. However, the fourth column of Figure 8.3-6 shows the result and effectiveness of the suggested measures in ( 8.3-20i Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 relieving the predicted congested conditions with the project. As stated earlier, the impact of the project (and the development of mitigating measures) is based on comparison of 1988 baseline conditions with the direct traffic impacts generated by construction workers at S/HNP. Figure 8.3-3 showed that, in addition, traffic volumes would be generated by secondary employment and population supporting S/HNP. The V/C ratios for 1988 have been estimated, however, to illustrate what forecasted conditions would be with total traffic on the system, both primary and secondary components. 8.3.10.4.2 Operations Impacts Operations at the S/HNP Site will involve a relatively small number of persons, and will result in an insignificant number of vehicular trips. Therefore, the operation of the S/HNP Site will result in no significant transportation impacts. 8.3.10.4.3 Impacts on Other Modes of Transportation 6 The construction and operation of S/HNP will generate substantial revenues for the Benton-Franklin Transit Authority. For example, S/HNP may generate as much as $8 million for the Transit Authority during the construction period 1983-1992. During operation, revenues of over $100,000 would be generated each year. Also, substantial revenues will accrue to the Road District in Benton County through property taxes paid on the l facility. These funds could be utilized to improve roads l in the County. Under the baseline scenarios, these property tax revenues would not be available to either the Benton-Franklin Transit Authority or the Benton County Road District. 8.3.10.5 Mitigating Measures l A number of logical and appropriate mitigating measures l have been evaluated to minimize the construction worker I traf f ic impacts of S/HNP. Design and implementation deci-l sions about roadway improvements require the joint efforts 8 0 8.3-20j Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 of the Applicant, WSDOT, DOE, EFSEC and local agencies and 8 these efforts are currently being pursued. s Based on the results of the peak hour capacity analyses summarized in Figure 8.3-6, the following mitigating measures are being considered: 1. Staggering construction shif t times so that ingress and egress travel is spread out. This measure would be most appropriate during the years of peak construction work force, and could be relaxed for times of reduced onsite construction work force. 6 2. Implement one of several alternative strategies involving new access road construction, along with upgrading of existing highways and key inter-sections. These alternatives are similar in nature, but involve two different access corridors ccanecting the S/HNP Site to Highway 240. These alternatives are: Alternative A Construct a new Site access road for construction worker traffic between the southwest corner of the Site and Highway 240 (the Alternate South Access (,_g 7 Road shown in Figure 8.3-7). This roadway would consist of a two-lane reversible operation facility during the work day. The road would operate as two lanes for single direction travel only during the morning and afternoon peak periods: one-way northbound ingress between 6:00 and 8:30 a.m.; and one-way southbound egress between 3:00 and 5:30 p.m. At all other times, this access road would operate as a two-way facility, with one lane in each direction. This improvement includes two 14-foot wide travel lanes with 8-foot shoulders, and appropriate pavement markings, signing, and control flagmen at each end to assure safe and efficient operation (a 6 temporary traffic signal may be required at the intersection with Highway 240). This improvement would include developing the intersection of the Site access road and Highway 240 to provide dual lef t-turn lanes f rom the access road f or the afternoon peak egress traffic flow. It would also require the development of matching dual right-turn lanes from Highway 240 for the morning peak ingress traffic flow. Construct a new Site access roadway for non-construction traffic connecting the east side of ~ 7 8.3-20k Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 the S/HNP Site to Route 10 (the North Access Road l7 shown in Figure 8.3-7). This roadway would operate at all times as a two-lane facility, with one lane in each direction. This improvement includes two 14-foot wide travel lanes with 8-foot shoulders, and appropriate pavement markings and signing to assure safe and efficient operations. Widen Highway 240 between the intersection with 6 the new Site access roadway and Bypass Highway to provide two lanes for regular travel, plus two shoulder lanes f or high occupancy vehicle (HOV) use during the morning and af ternoon peak traf fic periods on work days. This improvement is shown on Figure 8.3-7. The shoulder HOV lanes would be O O 8.3-201 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/21/81 ( 8.5

SUMMARY

OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ( BENEFITS AND COSTS 8.5.1 BENEFITS The primary benefit of the Project will be the employment, income and population effects on the socioeconomic infrastructure of the local area. Each of the four scenarios projects out-migration of construction and secondary workers over the period 1983-1992 resulting in absolute population losses and/or declines in the rate of growth. Construction of the Project, however, diminishes the out-migration for the area and thus helps support the socioeconomic infrastructure of the area. This support may provide a useful time period for the Tri-Cities to diversify its economic base. One example of the S/HNP effects on the socioeconomic infrastructure can be drawn from the difference between the projected conditions of local schools without, e.g. Scenario 4, and with, e.g. Scenario 3, the Project. Scenario 4 (baseline) - Schools would experience 4 declines in enrollment of over 4,000 during the 1982-1986 period. This loss of students would mean g N reduced funding from the State and could result in s-reductions in the teaching and administrative staff. Special levies to support non-basic educational ( activities would be needed. i Scenario 3 (Construction of S/HNP) - Declines in en-rollment would occur but would be less than in Scenario 4 due to the population effects of the S/HNP construction and secondary workers in the area l over the 1983-1988 period. This maintenance of I enrollment would provide for continuation of State funding and reduce the need for special levies and staff reductions. Finally, the major addition of the S/HNP to the tax base of the Richland School District would virtually eliminate the District's special levy for residents. While projected school conditions are one example of the manner in which S/HNP will support the socioeconomic infrastructure of the Tri-Cities, other illustrations could l be drawn from such dimensions of the community as housing, l health care, fiscal condition and the impact on local businesses. In each of these areas, the S/HNP effects on the infrastructure would be of major benefit as compared to the declining economy and stagnant population depicted by O, the baseline scenarios. 8.5-1 Amendment 4 l l

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 In addition to supporting of the socioeconomic infrastruc-ture the Project will provide: 1. Adequate Generation The Project will contribute to ensuring sufficient generating capacity f or the region and decrease the probability of an inability to meet the load 4 in the future. The potential socioeconomic costs of power shortages and curtailments have been shown to be significant in the State of Washington (Ref 1). 2. Tax Benefits The Project's payment of direct taxes will have a l7 significant positive impact upon Benton County as well as the State. Based on 1981 tax rates, it is estimated the Project would generate the following revenues during construction over and above those revenues generated under Scenarios 1 and 4 at the 4 same points in time. Estimated Revenues During Construction (1980 dollars) State $ 187 million Benton County $ 101 million 8 Benton-Franklin Transit District 8 million S 296 million Under 1981 tax rates, during operation, the S/HNP would annually provide Benton County with over $11 million (in 1980 dollars) in property taxes and in 7 sales tax. The Benton-Franklin Transit District would receive nearly $370,000 per year (in 1980 dollars). The significant increase in the tax base would allow Benton County to consider such options as (a) signif icantly improving services, (b) disbursing funds to local communities, and (c) 4 lowering tax rates by as much as 70 percent. Increased revenues f or local jurisdiction will allow them to maintain and improve services and potentially reduce the property tax levy in the 7 County. 8.5-2 Amendment 8 l

S/HNP-ASC/ER 9/16/82 8.5.2 COSTS k s/ 7 s 8.5.2.1 Traffic Costs Local roads have been overburdened by the rapid growth experienced in the Tri-Cities area, resulting in traffic congestion and high accident rates in several places. In 1981, for example, it is estimated that approximately 6,100 commuter vehicles were associated with the construction force of WNP 1, 2 and 4 on the average for the year. The difference between commuter vehicle traffic on the Reservation with S/HNP as opposed to without is projected to average approximately 2,100 additional vehicles per day between 1984-1990. The greatest amount of commuter traffic will occur under Scenario 2 when 4,960 total vehicles are projected. Even this peak, however, will only be 81 percent of the estimated average of 6,118 construction union vehicles associated with WNP 1, 2 and 4 in 1981. Under Scenario 3, in no year would the number of commuter vehicles exceed 45 percent of the estimated commuter [} vehicles in 1981. \\m ' Although the construction scenarios indicate commuter traffic well below that which existed in 1981, several improvements are being considered by Puget. These 6 improvements are described in detail in Section 8.3.10.5. It should be noted that construction and operation of S/HNP l will generate substantial revenues for the Benton-Franklin l Transit Authority. During construction, for example, S/HNP 4 I may generate as much as S8 million for the Transit Authority between 1983-1992 over the revenues received under Scenarios 1 and 4 for the same time period. During operation nearly $400,000 more would be available annually l5 under Scenarios 2 and 3 versus Scenarios 1 and 4. Finally, substantial revenues will accrue to the Road District in Benton County through property taxes paid on the facility. These funds could be utilized to improve 4 roads in the county. Under the baseline scenarios these revenues would not be available to either the Benton-Franklin Transit Authority or the Benton County Road District. O 8.5-5 Amendment 7

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 8.5.2.2 Potential Fiscal Impacts g The uncertainties which characterize the socioeconomic future of the Tri-Cities make it particularly difficult to project the fiscal conditions which will exist during the construction and operation of the S/HNP. In general, how-ever, five points must be considered in evaluating poten-tial fiscal costs. 1. The case of S/HNP differs from other facilities on the Hanford Reservation because it will be pri-vately owned. Therefore, in addition to the indirect taxes it would generate through payment of wages and salaries to project-related em-ployees, S/HNP would also pay direct property taxes, beginning soon af ter the start of construc-tion. The indirect taxes are distributed to the local jurisdictions as the workers take their wages and salaries from their place of work to their place of residence. The cost / benefit impacts of these effects will depend upon the reve-nues produced and the costs of providing services in each jurisdiction. 2. As in the case of any taxable industry which locates in any community in Washington State, the 7 direct taxes paid on behalf of S/HNP will accrue to the taxing jurisdiction in which the plant is located. This means that direct taxes are not distributed proportionately with the population and household effects. Therefore, some jurisdic-tions may reap large tax windfalls, while other jurisdictions may provide public services to the project-related population without, at the same time, having access to the direct tax revenues. This could be viewed by local jurisdictions as an inequitable distribution of costs and benef its even if they might not experience actual negative fiscal impacts because they collect indirect taxes. 3. In order to identify fiscal impacts as they emerge, the Applicants will develop and implement an approved monitoring program in cooperation with appropriate local and State agencies. 4. Apart from any individual jurisdictions, it is clear that the total tax revenues which will be generated by the S/HNP will f ar exceed the O 8.5-6 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 cs little additional firm capacity and their primary benefit G) will generally be as an energy producer (Ref 20). ( The extent to which f urther small hydro projects can be developed is being investigated by the Applicants. At present, the possibility of adding capacity beyond that currently planned is uncertain due to environmental and economic constraints. The costs of small hydro projects is 7 extremely site specif ic (Refs 6 and 20). Capital costs of constructing existing projects were extremley low, in the range of $100 to $1000/kw (1980 $) (Ref s 6 and 20). However, these projects represent the least costly sites available for hydroelectric generation. Cost of planned and prospective projects are higher, generally in the range of $1000 to $3000/kw (1980 $) (Ref s 6, 12, 20 and 21). l8 Costs of projects in addition to these can be expected to be the same or even higher. Nevertheless, there undoubt-edly exists projects which are cost-competitive with other 7 forms of new generation. Conventionally, the environmental impacts of hydroelectric projects also tend to be site-specific and project-specific. Construction of hydro projects can, for the period of construction, have a short term effect on water quality and turbidity and would involve the normal noise and dust impacts associated with any type of construction. (h Operation of a hydro project can pose its own set of unique (',) impacts. The projects may present a barrier to anadromous fish migration and passage of fish through the project turbines, spillways and intakes result in some mortality. (Refs. 6,~12, 20 and 22). These impacts can be mitigated by providing fish ladders, screening intakes, increasing minimum flows, and increasing spill rates (which coincidentally reduces electricity production). (Refs. 6. 12 and 22). However, spilling large amounts of water also may create supersaturated nitrogen in the tailwater which 8 can cause fish mortality. (Refs. 6, 12, 20 and 22). Major reservoirs can cause altered thermal regimes which, depending upon the f ish species present, may be either beneficial or detrimental. Substrate changes may occur due to increased siltation behind a dam and increased scouring below a dam. (Refs. 6, 20 and 22). Finally, a hydroelectric development alters the nature of the river, its water levels, and the use of the inundated lands in the case of a major reservoir project. (Ref s. 6 and 12). A hydro project may increase the recreational, navigational, flood control, water supply and irrigation potential of the river, it also can impact fish spawning grounds, rearing areas, and wildlife habitats. (Ref s. 6, 12, 20 and 22). Operation of a hydro project as a peaking facility can lead to rapid changes in upstream and downstream water levels, causing stranding of fish, uncovering of sandbars, exposure v 9.2-19 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 of redds, and increase bank erosion and siltation. (Refs. 11, 20 and 22). However, it may also be noted that hydroelectric facilities do not emit any air pollutants and do not have the potential for air and water quality 8 problems associated with most thermal f acilities. The Applicants are actively pursuing the addition of hydro f acilities at environmentally and economicc!1y sound sites and are planning to augment their present hydroelectric capacity. The extent to which increases in hydroelectric capacity can be made beyond that currently planned is uncertain due to economic and environmental constraints. However, even if such increases are possible, it is likely that any new facilities would be small hydro projects whose primary effect would be to displace fuel use and not to obviate the need for additional baseload capacity such as S/HNP. As a result of these considerations, the Applicants do not believe that it is prudent to foreclose the option of constructing and operating S/HNP. 9.2.1.2.5 Solar Energy There are currently two means by which radiation emitted by 7 the sun can be converted directly into electricity. The first utilizes the warming effects of the sun's rays to vaporize a fluid, typically water, to drive a turbine. This process is termed " solar thermal." The second process directly converts solar radiation into electricity through use of solar photovoltaic chips. The potential for employing either of these techniques in the Pacific Northwest is relatively limited compared to other parts of the country due to its northern latitude and the large proportion of overcast days in much of the region. The most promising locations in the region for l utilizing solar energy to generate electricity are in eastern Washington and Oregon and southern Idaho, especially in southeastern Oregon where the average solar insolation is approximately 75% of the intensity in the southwestern portion of the United States (Ref s 3, 6, 12, 23 and 24). This area of Oregon receives average solar l energy equivalent to 4 to 6 kwh/m2 per day. (Ref s 12 and 23.) This is the maximum theoretical energy which can be generated at this location. However, the practical energy 0 9.2-20 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 h 10.9 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES ('J The transmission system for the S/HNP is described in Section 3.9. The only new transmission right-of-way (ROW) would intertie with BPA's Ashe-Hanf ord ROW to the east of the S/HNP Site. This section discusses the transmission alternatives considered for the S/HNP. Table 10.9-1 provides a summary comparison. 10.9.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE ROUTES The basic considerations for selecting the alternative route for the 500-kV lines were: a. Transmission Line Costs b. Land Use Considerations c. Environmental and Cultural Resource Impacts. 4 10.9.1.1 Proposed Route The proposed route is a 600 ft wide ROW originating at the Plant Substation, and proceeding to the northeast for j g'~g approximately 3.2 miles to BPA's Ashe-Hanf ord ROW (Figure g 10.9-1). This route is 600 f t wide and contains f our single circuit 500-kV lines. 10.9.1.2 Alternative Route The alternative route consists of two ROWS originating at the Plant Substation. One ROW proceeds to the east for a distance of 3.7 miles, and the other to the north for 4.6 miles (Figure 10.9-2). Each ROW is 200 ft wide and con-tains two single circuit 500-kV lines. This alternative 6 route could potentially eliminate the need for 5.3 miles of existing transmission line. It is unlikely that the 5.3 miles would be removed, but would probably be maintained in place for future system use. However, if the 5.3 miles l were removed, this would result in approximatley 28 to 30 steel lattice towers being removed. Removal of these 8 towers would temporarily impact 30 to 40 acres of vegeta-tion. These impacted areas would require several years to recover. In addition, removel of these towers would result in the loss of an existing raptor site. 10.9.2 MONETIZED COSTS 4 O The proposed route requires approximately 12.8 miles of single circuit 500-kV line, and the alternative route 10.9-1 Amendment 8 1i

S/HNP-ASC/ER 8/20/82 requires 16.6 miles, or 30% more miles of line. Because the land to be crossed is similar for both routes, construc-tion costs per mile are nearly identical. The total cost for the alternative route is 30% more than for the proposed route. 10.9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.9.3.1 Land Use Considerations The proposed route requires 3.2 miles of access road, while the alternative requires 8.3 miles. Both routes cross similar terrain and are located entirely on the Hanford Reservation. 10.9.3.2 Recreation Neither route impacts recreational facilities. 10.9.3.3 Historical and Archeological Sites Neither route impacts any identified historical or archeo-logical sites. 10.9.3.4 Wildlife and Vegetation Neither route adversely affects any wildlife, except during the construction period, when some animals will be dis-placed for a short time. Clearing sagebrush from the access roads and tower sites may temporarily disturb songbirds, birds of prey, and upland birds within the vicinity. 10.9.3.5 Water No streams or water bodies are crossed by either route. O 10.9-2 Amendment 6

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 fs 11.4 COSTS

SUMMARY

11.4.1 S/HNP COSTS The total estimated capital cost of S/HNP at commercial operation is $7.8 billion (Section 8. 2.1). The annual costs of operation, expressed as bus bar costs levelized over 30 years, are 141 mills per kilowatt-hour (Section 8.2.2). 11.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS The costs presented in this summary are the environmental costs of S/HNP. They include natural surface water, groundwater, air, and land. The specific costs (Table 11.4-

1) are based on Chapters 4, 5,

8, and 10. 4 11.4.2.1 Natural Surface Water The environmental effects of the S/HNP on the quality of (} the Columbia River water and aquatic biota are discussed in ( Sections 5.1 and 5.3. ,j The Project average water requirement will be obtained from the Columbia River from a submerged, mid-river intake I system near River Mile 361.5 (Section 3.4). This untreated water will be pumped to the Plant Site for use in the Cooling Tower Makeup and Blowdown System, the process water makeup system, domestic use, and S/HNP irrigation water (Section 3.3). The potential for impingement or entrainment of fish will be insignificant. Only those small fish unable to escape the maximum intake velocity of 0.5 f ps at the 1/8 in, intake screen openings will be l8 impinged or lost, but this possibility is greatly reduced by the location offshore and depth of the intake structure. Phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish eggs and larvae drawn into the intake would be lost but at most this would amount to 0.26 percent of the total population of these organisms (Section 5.1.3). A single port discharge system will be installed mid-river 4 to release S/HNP discharge at a location in the river where it will mix quickly with the ambient river water. This rapid dilution results in a greatly reduced impact on surface water temperature. The discharge design (Sections 3.4 and 5.1) that was selected will ensure that a 11.4-1 Amendment 8

S/HNP-ASC/ER 3/17/82 the thermal discharge plume meets Washington State water quality criteria. The discharge structure will be near River Mile 361.5. The maximum expected S/HNP discharge of about 5910 gpm will 4 have a maximum temperature of 84.5 F. During winter conditions for low and mean river flows, the thermal plume width is estimated to be about 50 ft in the vicinity of the 0.50F isotherm. The maximum temperature increase in the Columbia River 300 ft downstream of the discharge area will be about 0.090F for the minimum regulated low flow l5 conditions. The impact of excess heat on water quality at low flow conditions in terms of water volumes affected (Section 5.1) is estimated to the 90, 325, and 740 ft3 for 5, 3, and 20F temperature rise isotherm differentials above ambient, respectively. S/HNP discharge will have no effect on the dissolved oxygen concentration of the Columbia River, resulting in no impact on the aquatic biota (Section 5.3). The design of the S/HNP intake and discharge structures ensures that the S/HNP will have minimal physical or thermal effect upon the aquatic life of the Columbia River. The effect of the plume on nonmigratory fish spawning and rearing will be minimal because temperature increases resulting from the plume are well within the tolerance ranges of these aquatic biota (Sections 5.1 and 10.3). Migratory fish such as salmon, steelhead, and shad use the 4 Columbia River and its tributaries as a spawning and nursery ground (Section 2.2). The plume will not cause thermal blockage to migration of salmonid fish which migrate in shallow water along the west bank of the river because the plume will be restricted to a narrow band in mid-river and occupies less than one-percent of the river width. No detectable adverse impact on the aquatic biota of the river is expected to result from the thermal effect of the S/HNP discharge (section 5.1. 3). The S/HNP discharge will contain chemicals and biocides as I well as the constituents present in the makeup water (Section 3.6). The maximum total dissolved solids concentration in the S/HNP discharge will be lower than the Washington State Board of Health public water supply criterion (Section 5.3.1). l All radioactive waste will be treated in the radioactive waste treatment systems. The radwaste systems are designed t for recycle of liquid radioactive waste. However, the design will allow for the release, in accordance with applicable regulations, of radioactive liquids via the 11.4-2 Amendment 5

S/HNP-ASC/ER 3/17/82 RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS Question N200.09 (Terrestrial Ecology, Land Use and Transmission Lines - Question 9) For the Pebble Springs site, at which river mile would the proposed transmission line cross the John Day River. Response. The proposed transmission line would most likely cross the John Day River between River Mile 6 and 7 parallel to an existing 500 kV line. However, final determination as to the location of any river crossing would entail detailed field studies. i i 1 l l N-9 Amendment 5

S/HNP-ASC/ER 12/10/82 O Question N200.10 (Terrestrial Ecology, Land Use and Transmission Lines - Question 10) Need the following information for the Ryderwood, Cherry Point and Goshen sites: a. Approximate number of miles of new or upgrading of highways for site access. b. Same for railroad. c. Approximate number of miles to cooling water 5 source. d. The number of river / stream that the transmission lines would cross. Need this information for Pebble Springs and Centerville sites also.

Response

For the Ryderwood, Cherry Point, and Goshen sites, the requested information can be found in Table 1 (attached) to the 1977 Supplemental Testimony of A. Dvorak, P.

Leech, I.

Peltier, and J. Parker for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff on Alternative Sites. It should be noted that since this testimony was given, one additional g archeological site, 45WH23, was recorded at the Cherry Point Alternatie Site. Additional information concerning the Pebble Springs and Centerville sites can be obtained from the Nuclear Power 5 Plant Siting Program Site Selection Study, 1980. O N-10 Amendment 8}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20064D746&oldid=4444562"