ML20069G246
| ML20069G246 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1972 |
| From: | ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20069G176 | List: |
| References | |
| ENVR-720228, NUDOCS 9406090268 | |
| Download: ML20069G246 (400) | |
Text
T February 28, 1972 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Amendment I to Supplementary Environmental Report Attention: Recipients of Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Supplementary Environmental Report Transmitted herewith is Amendment 1 to the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Supplementary Environmental Report. This Amendment consists of revised pages of the Supplementary Environmental Report, and Appendix A-Environmental Benefit-Cost Analysis.
Instructions for placing this material in the Supplementary Environmental Report are as follows:
Section Remove Pages Insert Pages Contents 7 7&8 1 1-14 1-14 2 2-3 2-3 3 3-4 3-4 Pages 3-22 thru 3-24 Pages 3-22 thru 3-24 including Table 3-4 including Table 3-4 and and Figure 3-8 Figure 3-8 Pages 3-26 and 3-27 Pages 3-26 and 3-27 Pages 3-29 thru 3-32 Pages 3-29 thru 3 -32 Page 3-38 Page 3-38 4 Tabic 4-1 Tabic 4-1 Appendix A Pages A-1 thru A-41
,o Yours very truly,
\_. [ ,
,, lrh S. R. Ilart, Jr.
9406090268 720228 SRil: Fk PDR ADOCK 05000348 C PDR
c:
f) CONTENTS Forward Part 1 1.0 Basis for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant 1.1 Need for Power 1.2 Location of the Additional Generating Capacity 1.3 The Type of Generating Plant 1.4 Comparison of Relative Environmental Effects of Alternate Sources of Power Generation 1.4.1 Types of Generating Plants and Their Environmental Effects 1.4.2 Air Quality Effects 1.4.3 Water Quality Effects
() 1.4.4 Noise Levels 1.4.5 Aesthetics 1.4.6 Land Use 1.4.7 Evaluation of Alternate Generating Plants 1.5 General Site Area Studies 1.5.1 Studies of the Joseph M. Farley Plant Site 1.5.2 Alternate Sites Part 2 2.0 General.Information 2.1 Location of the Joseph M. Farley Plant 2.2 Plant Facilities 2.3 Transmission Lines 2.4 Base Line Inventory of the Area Environment O
-]
1 r) l
(./ 2.4.1 Topography t
2.4.2 History 2.4.3 Geology and Subsurface Resources !
2.4.4 General Hydrology L 2.4.4.1 Ground Water 2,4.4.2 Surface Water 2.4.5 Chemical and Physical Characteristics of Water, Aquatic i Life and Bottom Muds in the Chattahoochee River 2.4.6 Climatology and Meteorology 2.4.7 Ecology !
2.4.8 Land Use !
2.4.8.1 Industrial j 2.4.8.2 Transportation f 2.4.8.3 Farming 2.4.8.4 Forestry 2.4.8.5 Recreation 2.4.8.6 Wildlife Preserves 2.4.8.7 Population Distribution i
2.4.8.8 Waterways 2.4.8.9 Government Reservations and Installations 2.4.8.10 Scenic or Unusual Aspects ;
2.4.9 Plant and Animal Species of Economic or Sports Value i 2.4.10 Previous, Present and Anticipated Future Aspects of the Area Part 3 3.0 Environmental Impact of the Joseph M. Farley Plant 3.1 Compatibility of the Joseph M. Farley Plant with Planned Regional Economic Development 3.2 Land Use Compatibility 3.2.1 Environmental Impact of Transmission Routes
)
3.2.2 Environmental Impact of Transportation Systems 3.2.3 Environmental Impact of Railroad Routes 3.2.4 Environmental Impact of Water Storage Pond 3.3 Water Use Compatibility l
3.3.1 Hydrologic Aspects of Water Use 3.3.2 Hydrologic Aspects of Ground Water Use 3.3.3 Heat Dissipation 3.3.3.1 Cooling Water System 3.3.3.2 Alternate Cooling Water Systems 3.3.4 Impact with Respect to Meteorological Phenomena, Drift, Noise and Blowdown 3.3.5 Impact of the Effluent on Temperature of the Receiving Stream 3.3.6 Applicable Thermal Standards, Environmental Approvals and Consultation 3.3.7 Status of 21(b) Certification 3.4 Chemical Discharges 3.4.1 Cooling Water System Chemistry 3.4.2 Makeup Water Demineralizer for Two Units O
k 4
(). 3.4.3 Projected Effect of Chemical Discharges on Biota 3.5 Sanitary Wastes 3.5.1 control During Construction 3.5.2 Control During Operation 3.6 Biological Impact 3.6.1 Local Species Important to Sport and Commercial Use !
3.6.2 Importance of Locale to Existence of Species 3.6.3 Effect on Planktonic Forms 3.6.4 Potential Hazards of Cooling Water Intake and Discharge '
to Important Fish Species ;
3.6.5 Summary of Effects of Withdrawal and Return of Water ;
i 3.6.6 Expected Biological Impact i 3./ Non-Radiological Monitoring Programs 3.8 Measures Taken to Assure Adequacy of Ecological Studies '
3.9 Other Approvals Required and Consultations With Other Agencies Part 4 4.0 Radiological Monitoring Program and Radiological Impact 4.1 Radiological Monitoring Program 4.2 Radioactive Discharge Systems 4.2.1 Design of Waste Processing Systems l T
4.2.1.1 Liquid Waste Processing System 4.2.1.2 Gaseous Waste Processing System 4.2.1.3 Solid Waste Processing System i
t
.- l
i O 4.3 Radioactive Discharge Quantities 4.3.1 Liquid Wastes :
4.3.2 Gaseous Wastes >
4.4 Important Pathways of Exposure to Man 8
4.4.1 Estimates of the Increase in Levels of Radioactivity from the Principal Radionuclides 4.5 Potential Annual Radiation Doses ;
4.5.1 Estimates of Exposure Due to Gaseous Releases y
4.5.1.1 Computaion of Individual Exposure 4.5.1.2 Computation of Total Population Exposure 4.5.1.3 Computation of Maximum Off-Site Exposure 4.5.1.4 Computation of Average Population Exposure i
!,5.2 Estimates of Exposure Due to Liquid Release r( )
4.5.2.1 Estimates of Population Exposed through Assumed Pathways ;
4.5.2.2 Computation of Doses to Individuals 4.5.2.3 Computation of Total Population Exposure Through Ingestion 4.5.2.4 Computation of Maximum Individual Exposure 4.5.2.5 Computation of Average Population Exposure 4.6 Total Radiological Effects of Operation of the Joseph M. ;
i Farley Plant 4.6.1 Comparison of Average Exposure with Natural Background ,,
4.6.2 Comparison of Total Population Exposure with Natural 5
Background
() '
~5- ,
l O 4.6.3 Comparison of Maximum Individual Exposure with Applicable Regulations 1 4.7 The Possible Radiological Effects on Important Species 4.8 Status of Incomplete Studies 4.9 Environmental Effects of Postulated Accidents and Occurrences 4.10 Transportation of Fuel 4.10.1 Transportation of New Fuel 4.10.2 Transoortation of Spent Fuel 4.10.3 Conclusions Part 5 5.0 Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided 5.1 Environmental Effects Caused by Construction f.( 5.1.1 General Plans and Schedule 5.1.2 Measures Taken to Minimize Impact 5.1.3 Impact on Water Supplies 5.1.4 Impact of Work on the Chattahoochee River 5.2 Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided During Operations 5.2.1 Effects on Air and Water Quality 5.2.2 Effects on Land Use 5.2.3 Effects on Local Meterology Part 6 6.0 Alternatives Part 7 7.0 Relationship Between Short-Term Environmental Usage and Long-Term Productivity of the Environment
.- -~ .- . . .
I
+
t i
t Part 8 B.O 1rrcversible and Irretrievable Co:r.ituents of itesources ,
APFDJDIA A '
Environt.icntal benefit-Cost Analycio :
k I nt rod uc t i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A -1 ;
Denefit Descripicn of Alternative Plant Daigns.. . . . ...A-2 l 5
Attachment. A Benefits of Power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 'r i Attachment B Heliability Index of the Plant. . .. . . . . A-7 Attachment C Unhanecment frott, iteereation i and Education Bene fits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8
- Attachment D Envirorrental linhancerant from l Iteductionc in Air Follution if Generating .
Capbility is Provided throuips Tossil Fuel...................................A-9 <
/,ttachme nt E RegiorAl Groso Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-10 Attac hme nt F Lo cal 'iaxcu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-ll .
1 :
Attaciment G Other llenefits of To'ecr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-14 -
Cost Description of Alternative P1 bot Designs... . . .. . ... A-25 l Cost Description-Alternative Coolinr, Systen. . . . . . . . . . A-17 Coot Description-Alternative 1:ac,was .* Systen. . . . . .'. . .A-19 Cost Description-LJ.ternative Chemical Eff.luent :
Systen..........................................A-21 Attachment H Generating Cost.......................A-23 f Attachment I Statencnt Concerning Alternative 3 .
Mini =c impact cn Innd/ Air. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-26 )
1 Attachment J Statement Concerning' Natural- !
Draft Uo t T owa ro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-27 i
I Attachment is Envir:.n:cental Goat Documentation...... A-28 ,
- Amend. l'- 2/28/72
1.1 - Heat Discharged to Natural Water Body .
()- Effect on Cooling Capacity of Water B o d y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A -2 8 1.2 - Heat Discharged to Natural Water Body-Ef f ect on Aqua tic Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-28 '
2.1 - Effects on Water Body of Intake Structure and Condenser Cooling Systems- :
Effect on Primary Producers and Consumers.A-29 2 2.2 - Effects on Water Body of Intake Structure and Condenser Cooling Systems - Effect t
on Fisheries........... ..................A-30 3 - Chemical Discharge to Water Body Effects on People, Aquatic Biota, and Water Quality.........................A-31 Discharges f rom Cooling System. . . . . . . A-31 Discharges from Make-up
- 1 Wa t er D emineralizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-32 . ,
4.1 - Consumption of Water - Effect-on Property..................................A-33 l fs :
k-)
s 5.2 - Chemical Discharge to Ambient Air Effect on Air Quality - Odor..............A-33 6 - Salts Discharged from Cooling Towers Effects on People, Plants,.and Property R e s o ur c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3 3 ,
8 - Radionuclides in Water, Air, and Ground ,
Water - Effect on People, Plants, and A n ima l s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A- 3 ,
11 - Fogging and Icing - Effects on Transportation and Plants.................A-38 12 - Raising and Lowering of Ground Water Levels - Effectt on People and Plants....................................A-40 13~ - Ambient Noise - Effect on People..........A-40 i 15.5- Permanent Residuals of Construction Activity - Effect on Property Values......A-41 i,
Amend. 1 - 2/28/72
1.0 Basis for The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant j Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act requires a discussion of alternatives to the proposed action. The purpose of the .
construction of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant is to produce electric power to supply the increasing needs of the customers of Alabama Power Company. ,
At the time the decision to construct this plant was made in 1968, there were a number of practical alternatives available. Such alternatives were carefully weighed in the studies which led to the decision to con-struct a nuclear generating plant in Southeast Alabama. The alternatives available at the present time have changed considerably. The alternatives considered in arriving at the decision to construct the Farley Nuclear Plant and those still available today are discussed in detail in this Supplemental Environmental Report.
O One drastic alternative to the construction of the Farley Nuclear r Plant would be the failure of Alabama Power Company to provide any source i for the additional electric power required to supply the increasing needs of its customers. Alabama Power Company does not consider this a feasible alternative and the effect of such choice is not discussed in this report.
Alabama Power Company is under the jurisdiction of the Alabama Public Service Commission and has a legal obligation to provide adequate and reliable electric service. In addition, under Section 202 of the Federal Power Act, Congress has expressed as a national policy the goal of assuring ,
adequate supplies of ~ electric power, j The question is, therefore, narrowed to the determination of the amount, if any, of additional generating capacity required in the years O
l-1 l
l
1975 and beyond, and the determination of the best type of, and location for, such generating capacity by a careful comparison of the possible alternatives .
1.1 Need for Power Alabama Power Company's maximum territorial peak hour demand reached 4,341.9 megawatts on July 14, 1971. (This load does not include 78.1 megawatts of. load supplied by Southeastern Power Administration and delivered to customers of Southeastern Power Administration over the trans-mission system of Alabama Power Company, nor does the capacity tabulation which follows include this amount of capacity.)
The Company's long term average annual compounded growth rate is i approximately 8.2 percent. Based on studies of trends of past load growth, as well as studies of expected increases in sales of energy at load factors consistent with past experience, the maximum territorial peak hour demands in future years are estimated as follows:
19 7 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 , 78 4 megawatts 1973.............. 5,243 megawatts 1974.............. 5,661 megawatts 1975.............. 6,111 megawatts 1976.............. 6,704 megawatts 1977.............. 7,267 megawatts The long term growth trends and future estimated loads are shown graphically on Figure 1-1.
The estimated future load growth is based on the most recent pro-jections of the actual load growth experienced through the summer of 1971.
O 1-2 A
10,000 100,000 9,00C 90,000 8,000 80,000 7,000 0 70,000 6,000 60,000 5,000 50,000 0 ACTUAL 4,000
' # 40,000 3 ,
E o
3,00c 30,000 g p ANNUAL 60 MINUTE g PE AK DEM AND 0 g 5 0 5 2,000 20,000 y j 2
- 5 o O
! r E d l 5 i o , ,
- D
- I,00d 10,000 a.
900 9,000 $ l 0
N 800 8,000 3
E 700 k o 7,000 a:
E o 600 0 l 6,000 w y i NNUAL ENERGY SUPPLY J j 500 5,000 g e i !
$ 400 2 4,000 l
300 3,000 i 200 2,000 150 '
I,500 1952 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1977 YEARS ALAB AMA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT O ANNUAL 60 MINUTE PEAK DEM AND AND ANNUAL ENERGY SUPPLY FIGURE l-1
This projected rate of load growth is consistent with the trend for the entire United States. Since 1965 the demand for electric power in the United States has increased at an annual average compounded rate of approximately 8 percent.1 The Federal Power Commission in its National t Power Survey 2, published in 1964, demonstrated a long term growth rate for the period 1920-1963 equivalent to an annual average compounded growth rate i
of 7.2 percent. A comprehensive article " Energy and Power" in the September, 1971 issue of Scientific American 3 presented similar data on growth of electrical energy as a part of the nation's total energy supply.
These and other studies establish strong justification that the load growth experienced in the past will continue in future years.
In addition to the Farley Nuclear Plant, the Company presently has under construction a coal fueled generating plant with a capacity of 712 megawatts at Gorgas, Alabama, approximately 25 miles northwest of Birmingham
%)
scheduled for operation prior to the summer peak load period of 1972 and a coal fueled generating plant with a capacity of 850 megawatts at Wilsonville, Alabama, approximately 25 miles southeast of Birmingham scheduled for operation prior to the summer peak load period of 1974. ,
With the completion of these generating units, the assignment of two older coal fueled units to standby service and adjustments in planned purchased power contracts, the Company's total generating capability in 1974 vill be 6,708.3 megawatts.
In order to determine generating capacity requirements, it is necessary to add to the estimated peak hour demand 3 percent of this. I amount to account for load swings within the hour and 2 percent for operating margin. In 1975, this results in an estimated peak load of 6,416.5 megawatts.
1-3
.N
To provide adequate reliability for the system, a reserve margin b' must be available during periods of forced outages of generating units.
Alabama Power Company has determined that a minimum level of reserves is an amount equal to 3 percent of total hydroelectric capability and 10.5 percent of total thermal plant capability. It is apparent that the generating plant capability on the Alabama Power Company system at the end of 1974 will not be adequate to meet the 1975 load requirements with an acceptable level of reserves.
Alabama Power Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Southern Company and is closely interconnected with the other subsidiaries, Mississippi Power Company, Gulf Power Company and Georgia Power Company.
For maximum economy in construction and operation, generating plant additions for any of the operating subsidiaries are planned in relation to the needs ;
of all of the companies as an integrated system. Therefore, in determining O the need for additional generating capacity on the Alabama Power Company system in 1975 and beyond, consideration was given to the needs of the entire Southern Company System.
The estimated peak hour demand on The Southern Company System in 1975 is estimated to be 19,219 megawatts. At the end of 1974 it is estimated that the total system generating capability will be 20,937.3 megawatts. In 1975 the estimated peak load plus minimum required reserves will be 22,317.4 megawatts based on an estimated peak hour demand of 19,219 megawatts. It is apparent that additional generating capacity will be required on The Southern Company System prior to the 1975 peak load period.
I i
O l 1-4 i
Beginning in 1967, detailed system studies were made which (O
ss/ - determined that additional generating capacity would be required on the Alabama Power Company system by 1975.
4 b
i i
- 1. ' Electrical World, 22nd Annual Electrical Industry Forecast (September 15, 1971)
- 2. National Power Survey - Vol. I, U. S. Government Printing Of fice 1964, p 10
- 3. Chauncey Starr, Energy and Power, Scientific American, Vol. 225, 4 No. 3 (September 1971)
I 1-5 l I
l
1.2 Location of the Additional Generating Capacity
'r
- (s,) - Once the determination had been made that additional generating capacity would be required, further detailed studies were made to determine the optimum location of the new plant. Such studies involved consideration of transmission line load flow, system reliability, fuel economics, availability of rail and water transportation, topography, geology, hydrology, population density and the availability of suitable property.
The southeastern portion of Alabama is the only area of substantial size within the Alabama Power Company service area in which the Company does not own and operate a generating plant. This has been due primarily to the relatively higher cost of coal in this area because of the longer distances from the coal fields in northern Alabama and the lack of a direct water transportation route. Further, because of the absence of large industrial customers and the relatively lower population density in this area, the electric power requirements were low enough to enable this Company to serve the loads over transmission lines from generating plants located at a considerable distance from the area.
Prior to 1954 the area was served over transmission lines operating at 115,000 volts. In 1954 a 230,000 volt transmission line was constructed into Southeast Alabama from the Barry Steam Plant north of Mobile to the Pinckard Substation in Southeast Alabama. By 1966 a second 230,000 volt transmission line to the area was required and was constructed from the Montgomery area, 100 miles to the northwest, where it connected to sources supplied by both steam electric and hydroelectric generating plants to the Pinckard Substation.
1-6 w -
r I
i In the 1967 studies, it was predicted that the demand for power f r
. f .
in the southeast Alabama area would reach 360 megawatts in 1975. At this load, considerations of transmission line loading and system !
reliability made it economically feasible to construct generating ;
i capacity in the southeast Alabama area.
While economic considerations had weighed heavily against this i t
area as a location for generating capacity in the past because.of the substantially higher coal costs in the area, additional factors were intro- ;
duced in the 1967 evaluations. ,
t The Company's requirements for coal, particularly when the 1972 ^
i and 1974 coal fueled units previously mentioned were considered, exceeded t
the amount of coal available at a competitive price from the Alabama coal l fields. Consideration was given to the purchase of coal from states north i I
of Alabama from which the coal could be barged down the Mississippi River [
( Since the construction of Jim Woodruff Dam in 1957, the southeast system. j Alabama area has had a navigable waterway on the Chattahoochee River f
. I connected by the Inter-Coastal Waterway to the Mississippi River, and the {
cost of coal delivered to Southeast Alabama has become more comparable I
with the cost of coal delivered to other possible generating plant sites in Alabama.
i The Company had been closely following the development of nuclear i f
power and concluded that. nuclear technology had reached the point that nuclear plants should be considered on their economic merits. Since trans- l portation costs represent a small percentage of the delivered cost of nuclear fuel, the economics of nuclear generating plants are relatively-independent of location as long as rail and barge transportation is ,
r 1-7 !
available, and other site requirements are met.
When all of these f actors were considered, there was a clearly demonstrated advantage to building a generating plant in Southeast Alabama.
Fol' 'ing the decision to locate the plant in Southeast Alabama, a detailed 1 was begun for the actual plant site.
The requirements for barge transportation of coal, if the plant were to be coal fueled, and the highly desirable provision for barge transportation of laf mponents, if the plant were to be-a nuclear plant, immediately limited the search to the area along the Chattahoochee River.
A 50 mile stretch of the river was explored in detail and various alternative sites were compared, and one site was selected as the most acceptable from the standpoints of topography, geology and hydrology. These detailed studies are descrit a Section 1.5 of this report.
O 1.3 Type of Generating Plant The load studies previously mentioned had indicated the need for additional generating capacity to meet both base load and peaking require-ments. Combustion turbines, because of their relatively low capital costs but high fuel costs, and hydroelectric generating plants, because of the characteristics of stream flows in Alabama, are best suited for peaking purposes. Fossil fueled steam and nuclear generating plants are best suited for base load operation.
A decision was made to provide addi*lonal peaking capacity at Mitchell Dam on the Coosa River and to construct a new hydroelectric generating plant to be located near Crooked Creek on the Tallapoosa River, subject to approval of the Federal Power Commission. There are no 1-8
feasible hydroelectric sites still undeveloped in the southeast Alabama
() area.
The remaining practical alternative was therefore limited to a l t
choice between a fossil fueled or a nuclear generating plant in Southeast !
t Alabama. Because of relatively higher costs of gas and oil and the l
unavailability of gas, the choice of fuel for the fossil plant was limited ;
to coal. ,
The selection of a nuclear plant instead of a coal fueled plant !
i was made primarily on a comparison of the long range costs of owning and' i operating each type of plant. On the basis of the best estimates available at that time on the construction costs and future fuel costs, .
the nuclear plant was found to have a clear, long range economic advantage.
The decision was, therefore, made to construct a nuclear plant, subject to l
the approval of the Atomic Energy Commission and other regulatory agencies.
O In retrospect, it appears that the decision to construct a nuclear .)
plant in this area presented substantial environmental advantages. The 'i plant site is located in an area of relatively low population density. ;
The topography, geology and hydrology of the site are such that the plant-and associated facilities will have minimal environmental impact. f The Federal Power Commission, in its comments on the earlier :
Environmental Report for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, rcated: [
f "By selecting nuclear units and locating them in Southeast l
' Alabama, which is devoid of generating facilities, the reliability of electric service for both the j i
customers of Alabama Power Company and those of The :
f Southern Company will be improved as generation will i
be placed near the loads and transmission loss will be reduced."
1-9
s t
1.4 Comparison of Relative Environmental Effects of Alternate !
Sources of Power Generation Although new sources of power generation are being investigated ;.
in many places throughout the world, the sources discussed below are i
the only ones feasible for consideration as alternatives for the Joseph M. Farley Plant. It should be noted that advancements are being made in the technology of coal fueled plants which will serve to reduce I their environmental impact, particularly as it relates to air quality.
1.4.1 Types of Generating Plants and Their Environmental Effects The following types of base load generating plants have been chosen for comparison in order to obtain an evaluation of the relative environmental effects of each during normal operations:
)
- 1. Nuclear fueled t
- 2. Coal fueled
- 3. Oil fueled
- 4. Gas fueled ,
The environmental effects of each of these types of plants are compared with respect to the items listed below. The comparative numbers are based on available estimates made for a typical 1,000 megawatt I generating plant.1 j
- 1. Air quality effects !
- 2. Water quality effects !
- 3. Noise levels .
t f
- 4. Asthetics
- 5. Land use i O l-10
i 1
P 1.4.2 Air Quality Effects -
^ !
A coal-fueled plant of 1,000 megawatt capacity consumes an 6
estimated 2.3 x 10 tons per year of coal. It has been estimated that i combustion of this quantity of coal results in the release annually of 306 x 10 6 lbs. of oxides of sulfur
- 46 x 106 lbs. of oxides of nitrogen, 6
1.15 x 106 lbs. of carbon monoxide, 0.46 x 10 lbs. of hydrocarbons, L
6 6 0.12 x 10 lbs, of aldehydes and 9.9 x 10 lbs. of particulate matter [
(based on an assumed flyash removal efficiency of 97.5 percent)**1 If it !
is assumed that a coal fueled plant with capacity equal to the two units ;
i of the Joseph M. Farley Plant (1658 megawatts) is used for comparison, '
emissions will be approximately 66% greater than those estimated for the 1,000 megawatt plant.
If electrostatic precipitators or other devices are' installed, i
resulting in removal of about 99 percent of the flyash, the emissions of
-O- particulates from a 1000 megawatt coal fueled plant will be reduced to an 6
- estimated 4.0 x 10 lbs. per year. This is the degree of precipitator efficiency presently being specified by Alabama Power Company.
Compliance with the proposed standards of performance for new . ,
t stationary sources, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency on t August 17, 1971, will result in sulfur dioxide emissions from the 1,000 l
6 megawatt example plant of approximately 54.8 x 10 lbs. per year.
Combustion of coal will result in the emission of small quantities of radioactive nuclides, notably radium 226 (half. life '1620 years) and h radium 228 (half life 5.7 years).1
?
l
- Assuming 3.5 percent sulfur content, of which 15 percent remains in >
the ash. ;
- Assuming 9 percent ash content.
1-11 i
.a
I I
It has been estimated that in the United States emissions from all l i
/^
\ . coal fueled steam electric plants now account for 42.7 percent of the sulfur oxides emissions, 10.5 pe.rcent of the particulates and 15.8 percent of the nitrogen oxides.2 Technology being incorporated in newer plants, such as might be considered as alternatives to the Farley Plant u' nits, will i substantially reduce the incremental contribution per plant of these ,
pollutants. ;
If an oil fueled steam electric plant is substituted for a coal fueled plant for purposes of comparison, the 1,000 megawatt plant would ;
burn an estimated 460 x 10 6 barrels of oil annually.1 Such a plant would discharge an estimated llb x 10 6 lbs. of sulfur oxides each year, 48 x 106-lbs, of oxides of nitrogen, 1.47 x 10 6lbs. of hydrocarbons and 1.6 x 10 6 lbs. of flyash.*1 In addition, small quantities of aldehydes and carbon monoxide would be discharged. The combustion of oil would produce minute O quantities of radioactive nuclides amounting to a small fraction of those indicated for a coal fueled plant.
A gas fueled steam electric plant with a capacity of 1,000 megawatts would require an estimated 6800 x 10 6 cubic feet of gas annually.1 The combustion of this quantity of gas, if available, would result in the dis-6 0 charge of only 0.03 x 10 lbs. of sulfur oxides annually and 28 x 10 lbs.
of oxides of nitrogen annually. Flyash emissions would be reduced to 6
approximately 1.0 x 10 lbs. annually.** Nuclear plants will not produce.
releases of most of the air pollulants listed for the fossil fuel plants
- Assuming 0.05 percent ash content and 1.6 percent sulfur content by weight,
- Assuming the use of present commercial grade gas with possible prior treatment.
1-12 i
in the previous paragraphs. Minimal routine releases of non-radiological air pollutants result from the operation of a nuclear fueled plant. (See Section 5.2.1) Radiological releases are discussed in Part 4, which indicates no harmful environmental effects from such releases will occur.
l.4.3 Water Quality Effects ;
i The principal consideration in water quality for any steam electric j generating facility is the release of waste heat to the environment. In the Rankine cycle, which is the basis for almost all steam-electric power !
production, the maximum attainable efficiency as a practical matter is f
approximately 40 percent. Much of the rejected heat is dissipated in the ;
i condenser cooling water. If the temperature of the receiving water is l
reised to too high a level, the result will be damage to the aquatic biota.
This problem is common to coal fueled, oil fueled, gas fueled and nuclear fueled plants. At this time, light-water nuclear plants are somewhat less efficient than fossil fueled plants, and therefore, the quantity of heat ,
i rejected per unit of generation is somewhat greater. Also, in fossil fueled
{
plants, some of the waste heat is rejected through the stack, whereas, in a nuclear fueled plant, almost all of the waste heat is rejected to the I t
condenser cooling water. Table 1-1, based on the " Federal Power Commission Staff Study Supporting the Commission's 1970 Power Survey", shows the heat budget for various types of steam electric generating plants. $
In order to avoid damage to the aquatic environment at the Joseph l M. Farley Nuclear Plant sitn, closed-cycle cooling tower systems are being i installed.. These are described in more detail in Section 3.3.3. Because.
l evaporation of water is the principal means of dissipating waste heat, 1 i
there will be'an inevitable consumptive loss of water associated with the l-13 l
O O O Table 1-1 STEAM GENERATING PLANTS - HEAT BUDGET
- Type Steam Heat Rate Unit of Generation ** Misc. Losses Losses to Efficiency Generating Plant BTU /KMI BTU /KMI BTU /KWH Condenser BTU /KWH %
"Averege" Fossil 10,300 3,413 1,600 5,300 33 Plant Modern Fossil 8,600 3,413 1,300 3,900 40 Plant Light Water 10,500 3,413 400 6,700 32.5 Nuclear Plant Possible Future 8,000 3,413 1,200 3,400 43 Fossil Plant
- Based on Federal Power Commission Staff Study supporting Commission's 1970 National Power Survey.
- 1 Kilowatt Hour = 3,413 BTU.
l I
l l
t operation of these cooling towers. This consumptive loss from evaporation and drift from cooling towers at the Joseph H. Farley Nuclear Plant will be 28,000 gallons of water per minute (14,000 gpm for each 1 unit). Although this loss cannot be considered to be a serious degradation of the environment in this area where water is relatively
, plentiful, it must be recognized that its value may represent some loss to the environment. It can also be the basis for limited potential fogging and meteorological alterations in the immediate vicinity of the plant. Alabama Power Company is installing a similar cooling tower system at the Gaston #5 coal fueled unit raow under construction at Wilsonville, Alabama. This plant will have a generating capacity of approximately 850 megawatts', and it is therefdre possible to make a direct comparison of the consumptive loss of water for similar sized nuclear and coal fueled plants.
[]
At the Gaston Plant, there will be a consumptive loss of. water in the cooling towers of approximately 8260 gpm. Therefore, on the basis of this com-parison, a nuclear plant equipped with cooling towers consumes substantially more water than a similar sized fossil fueled plant in this general area.
Discharges from the ash ponds of fossil fueled placts may result in il some degradation of water quality. Although this has never been identified as a serious problem on the Alabama Power Company system, it must be recognized as a possible cause of adverse environmental effects which is not shared by a nuclear plant. On the other hand, the operation of a nuclear plant will result in minimal controlled releases of radioactive nuclides to the water.
~
O
, g Amend. 1 - 2/28/72 l
h 1.4.4 Noise Levels
?
.' The principal differences in noise levels between the various types of plants considered in this discussion would result from transportation and fuel handling. Operation of a coal fueled plant involves massive shipment of coal by rail, barge or truck, and fuel handling at the site inevitably produces one of the greatest sources of high noise levels.
Oil fueled plants also require large fuel shipments but would be expected to produce considerably lower noise levels. Operation of a nuclear plant would be expected to result in relatively low noise levels associated with fuel transport and handling. Since fuel shipments to and from a nuclear plant will occur on an annual cycle, noise levels associated with fuel transport should be minimal. There should be no significant differences between noise levels of the various types of steam-electric plants
,s produced by cooling tower operation, transformers and turbine generators.
Y_
1.4.5 Aesthetics Coal fueled plants require large coal piles and ash ponds which are extremely difficult to blend unobtrusively into the landscape. All electric generating plants, of course, require construction of substations and transmission lines in order to transport electric power from the plant to the load centers, and there are no differences in aesthetics as far as these basic types of facilities are concerned.
Other possible adverse effects of coal fueled plants include-l alteration of scenery by strip mining, transportation, fuel storage facilities, stacks, and ash disposal areas.3-In addition, oil fueled plants may result in other adverse environ- l mental effects, including alteration of scenery by pipe lines, storage )
i I
s_/ 1 1-15 j i
i
I tanks, stacks, and ash disposal areas. It is recognized that drilling
[~)
\' and transport of oil can result in serious environmental problems in the :
event of accidental spills and fires. While regulation of such trans-portation has increased to prevent environmental consequences of such -
accidents, it has not received the detailed type of review associated with transportation of nuclear fuel.
Since nuclear plants require no ash ponds or massive fuel storage areas, it is reasonable to conclude that a nuclear plant can be made more aesthetically pleasing than the fossil fuel plants considered.
The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant will be located in an area which may generally be characterized as agricultural. The site itself has been, until recently, partially cultivated. Although any structure would constitute a change from the rural scene, the Farley Plant will result in a minimal visual impact on the area.
O Architectural features were carefully designed to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance, and landscaping will assure that the plant will be an attractive addition to the countryside. An architectural sketch of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant is shown at the beginning of <
this report.
Alabama Power Company anticipates that many people will visit the plant's information center. The majority of the site will be lef t in or returned to a natural state to serve not only as a buffer from the r
agricultural area surrounding the plant, but also to permit wildlife to continue an unhampered existence in the area. ,
1.4.6 Land Use !
Although the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant will be located on an
,e-) 1850. acre site, the plant itself will occupy but a sma11' portion of the area. ,
(ms/ :
1-16 !
J
This site will provide over 4,000 feet of exclusion distance between the O
l reactors and the site boundary. Because no ash ponds, coal piles or large ;
oil storage tanks will be required, it will be possible to use a much ,
larger portion of the site for the preservation and growth of vegetation and use by native wildlife in the area.
1.4.7 Evaluation of Alternate Generating Plants Consideration of the foregoing section leads to the conclusion that the construction of a nuclear fueled generating plant in Southeast Alabama at the Farley site will result in the minimum environmental impact. t
()
i i
i 1
Terrill, J.G. , E.D. Harvard and I.P. Leggett, Environmental Aspects of Nuclear and Conventional Power Plants, Ind. Med. Surg. , 36 (June 1967)pp 412-419 2 Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Environmental Effects of Producing Electric Power, Congress of the U.S., 91st Congresa, Vol. 3, p 811.
3 Hull, Andrew P. , Radiation in Perspective: Some Comparisons of the ,
Environmental Risks from Nuclear and Fossil-Fueled Power Plants, Nuclear Safety, Vol.12, No. 3 (May-June 1971) p 185.
O l-17
1.5 General Site Area Studies O,
The chief considerations which entered into the selection of potential plant sites were (1) location on a navigable river to provide water for a cooling system and to provide barge transportation for heavy equipment and fossil fuel if necessary, (2) a large site area available for exclusion purposes or for storage of fossil fuel and flyash disposal, (3) location in an area of low population density, (4) satisf actory foundation conditions, and (5) compliance with AEC requirements for geological and hydrological factors. A careful search was made in southeast Alabama to find a site that would fulfill all of the above requirements for either a fossil fueled or a nuclear fueled plant.
Since the Chattahoochee River is the only navigable waterway in Southeast Alabama, the site search was concentrated along a 50 mile stretch of the west river bank from the Alabama-Florida state line to near Eufaula, Alabama. The northern and southern portions of this area are directly underlain by soft limestones, sands or clays, and show evidence of sinkhole activity. Although the formations in this area might provide competent foundations for most structures, it was concluded that the large bearing loads imposed by a nuclear fueled plant and the need to prevent contamination of ground water aquifers in the unlikely event of liquid radioactive waste spillage would require aquicludes in combination with competent rock formations.
After the preliminary investigation, the site search was concentrated in an area from just south of Highway 84 near Gordon, Alabama, northward to near Haleburg, Alabama. This area is directly underlain by strata of the Moody's Branch, Lisbon and Tallahatta formations.
O l-18
Numerous studies were conducted including: (1) geologic field reconnaissance, (2) an air photo study, (3) exploratory drilling, (4) geophysical logging, (5) geological literature review. The results of th'ese studies are described in Section 2.4.3 of this report.
1.5.1 Studies of the Josenh M. Farley Plant Site The site selected is outstanding and meets the AEC requirements in every respect. No other site investigated had characteristics as favorable for filling the needs of a nuclear fueled plant.
The plant site was investigated by geologic field mapping, aerial reconnaissance, air photo interpretation, geologic borings, laboratory tests of undisturbed samples, geophysical surveys, seismic studies, a piezometer observation program and other associated studies. Refer to Section 2.4.3 of this report for more detail.
Because of the remoteness of the site from large population centers, O the site size and geologic and hydrological factors, Alabama Power Company submits that the site selected reduces substantially any potential adverse environmental effects.
1.5.2 Alternate Sites Several other sites were considered and rejected for various reasons during the course of the area investigation. Those considered as being the most competitive to the selected site are:
(1) "Alaga Site". This area south of Highway 84 along the west bank of the Chattahoochee River fulfilled most of the criteria for a plant site.
It was rejected due to the cavernous limestone underlying the site and the large numer of 1-19 b
- . . . - --. . .. -. . .- .- ~ . - . . --
i i
sinkholes in the area. It was concluded that this area would present difficult foundation i
problems. Also, there could be problems .j associated with accidental spillage of liquid .;
1 radioactive wastes.
(2) " Cedar Creek Site". This site (about 3 miles south of the Farley Plant site) has many good -
features but it is near some-sinkhole activity. ;f It is also near the north edge of what was I
thought to be the "Chattahoochee Anticline".' -;
t It also was considered to be too close to the' l i
Great Southern Paper Company Plant. .. ;
I (3) " Foster Creek Site". This area, about 6 miles: j north of-Columbia, Alabama, is north of the ':
o Lisbon formation outcrop. Although the Tallahatta 'l l
?
formation underlying this area could provide a- l competent foundation, it is not considered to be. i 1
as' satisfactory as the foundation rock at the- q Farley site. Other detrimental factors were'the l l
difficulty of railroad access,-a more rugged.
terrain that would present construction difficulties, .;
and several inhabitants who would-have had to be displaced from the site. area.. !
(4) Three other sites in the same. general area were- l considered but were rejected.due to more obvious' i potential difficulties.
{
O- 1-20 1 i i
5
2.0 General Information Part 2 presents general information on the location of the Farley Project, a summary description of the project facilities and a baseline inventory of the environment in the area. The purpose of this part is to provide a basis for consideration of the environmental impact of the facility and alternatives which are presented in subsequent sections.
2.1 Location Of The Joseph M. Farley Plant The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant is to be located in southeast Alabama on the west side of the Chattahoochee River, 5 miles south of the town of Columbia in Houston County, as shown on Figures 2-1 and 2-2. The site is about 5.5 miles north of Gordon, Alabama; 16.5 miles east of Dothan, Alabama; 100 miles southeast of Montgomery, Alabama; and 180 miles south-southwest of Atlant, Georgia.
The plant buildings will be located about 4,400 feet west of the west bank of the Chattahoochee River (at river mile 43) as shown on Figure 2-3.
2.2 Plant Facilities The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant is located on an 1850 acre site adjoining the Chattahoochee River. Approximately 410 acres have been cleared for actual plant and construction use.
The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant will consist of two units, each capable of a warranted power output of 2660 megawatts (thermal), corre-sponding to a gross output of 861 megawatts (electric), and a maximum calculated output of 2774 megawatts (thermal) and 898 megawatts (electric).
Each unit will utilize a Westinghouse pressurized light water reactor and a Westinghouse turbine generator.
t' ~.
2-1
l FAR LEY NUCLEAR PLANT LOCATION i
I >
, i .A..a - 4- -
u MALL
/ N uAnanN - W NSTON CULLMAN O ELSERT
- ~ -
"r.
, - ~
_ pt .
FAYETTE gr. CLAIR RAL A WALT 088 WILEES
/
. _,_ - e,An , ) ago g "U"O'N
_E
,)I 1 '
j,,NGpA SSIM T . nyET HEserv RRE e r EAT "
[j e $MELEY HEA D MANC0CK SCAL S NG PEE / JONES i
SsBB "f C00$4 TALLAPOOSA N ADMNGT0fd CMi@ UP$0N 1
MARRIS , g ,g b7 G R,_G I'a""c'
)' DALLAS Au1
[.
- ,e MACON !
L MAREuoO ,, - 7 # 3 D0DGE LOWNDES .
gg, i g ,
l SuwTER l
- " .$gg *^'"
( .0vr MONROE
- A CLARKE ,, .
] eME M WORTM M'R CAL sO ~
/ k %
' =" :~X ~ '~' ^~~r
,g, . L COLouiTT WARE
_- CLINCH q --
l ,
~- -
,,e-pz g,4 SANTA 2, - 3 ,1, 0
ECMcLS
..-- - N
, """TU" Lf0N 8[',N - o, , Ao? EE p
., **'"** / ID ID g Ty SuWANNEE g #
.,,, gp q' \unRutLA T-R LAFAYETTE
, FRANKLIN j
! E o
LEGEND 4 POPULATION CENTERS OVER 20.000 WITMit 400 MILES OF THE $1TE 0 0THER ua40R POPutAtiON CENTER:
IN PART OF AL ADAMA, FLORIDA AND GE0ReiA 24 0 ts 52 SCALE IN MIL ES ADAPTED FRou; COUNTV AND CITY DATA 900K - 1942 U S. DEPT. OF COMMERCE SUREAU OF THE CENSU$
C ALABAM A POWER COMPANY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLE AR PL ANT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FARLEY NUCLE AR PLANT LOCATt0N FIGURE 2-1
FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT SITE f );'f. ;*l Ol ,,# . .
{^ '
4 ,
.k ;, .,.
- 'h.J)b.*
c o uiLEs ~ " dJ t:" ?) j tQ',l &' r" "') & f, ' i
, - Hescan'na h( *.' "ENRY co ,~ , -
_ k_p~3 - f ,,
}4 sf ;w[ g
) .-, ~ 2.s* e
-m 'ae, g =+e g 44 .-=J, / ..
+ -- .
's \
g 4;. c 5
. r 2 -
t5, , a ' . /y L s cL i 2
)
, ;} ij; .-,, <s J--.:
y #
. , ,8 T. -3'
., H
- d? '
f-
.. 9 g n ,. . - ,, e%. n -- }es', ,
y , ~
=,<y t
N5 ' 7 , \,.N ..
] ,,
2 Q b , u #"' ["
,.A. ~ <
yy $5(e,st ) ,' j-1 pd -
,j,idJ: HOUSTON CO-
.4 g ,n j ** J '
t - p ~1 4 = f. N )% g
- f[ $. h ' ,; ,5 4 :>G ~ i yh",3 : i *#d .[/*9 ej4 +7 j '
. ' ~
7 .. .~ ,' " ! ,
- q. **
%va4 ;-* )#$ ..
,,,, j *
" ,f
,g , I 9.pf(f@D2~.
- c ! / EARLY
-. CO
" 2*h ->
4 : s
) j,~ umy'p[y.wot,t,
[_ 7rop.331{#"ig-' -jQ .. .r . 3,' - j ?. . gg.,r.,4 s 7 d' /
'( T-
' p\ . [ '
p ] hI w,s yg* I ALABkMk (
,i 3 -
Wy~ Ik '%M*~} G EO'RGI A m eh-, - ,i. .key.w.
" ~
;* .k* g a?n' i g
. y.
c, p' r. ,f -. 5$.
=9,-
)1~i. ,
r;.g., p,x y # u M*2 t5 q,7.l vA.ta t m= y <. w ; .
. b. h h;
[hddNhk vc
. .., .. ce: m e..t .. m . ...
n ur .. .., oc u n t.c.a or h hpgy,_5$kkk%,,fiq
.t. .. ..
^.,f ;
g.
..y h [_ g- e-
,g NN$ .
4,~g4 m- j r u*s (x 1syg wA+4;m - hy .c . a .. . .- ag z. pJ..r.e. . p ys, kNTTGd$Dl1.h M Wij $ D ;.Q._ n1.s Y$ & S,-
),
1 O ALABAMA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FARLEY NUCLE AR PLANT SITE FIGURE P -2
. - _ .- . .- ~_ _ .- -_
i J l f g f\ d
}l h f 8
\ ~
d I w a .
! i' !
r$ <
.1
\
N 1
- t , 1 u % 3 .a 4 *i
"" ~
li % { QQ
~1 v irdrr i
i
",1} O y
/
.+
. ,n/ . A(-
", W__ ..'% L%
- c-,
f
,k. ,
,g
~ '
r ,...f....'j Q, 7p ^-#m w. ; x N, y
'd
+.,'a h ..
,1 av
{ ,.- p+ ,
/ABc y :e q/ i
! Qt u q\ / - ~~: '
N_\MN v y 5,1 3 - a1 \ ,
-f:.r . q <
;j
.& } g w te, r . u% . -f=:^ -e-~.y:
%_h;1h 4, "b M _ ,. .d i1[.- s. * )' g ig
,.,==' c\,
,. e w, g e % s
'j m-ib M I Eh k '.
~-
~.1,
~ d'.
I sren g Ns - / %g it i N) 1
- i. '
- y. ,, % =*63a -u g _
m. n - \}- x Q J , +, i s -, ,
\. e ;
' 'i >T': ,
L.; p[ i e e/ L , ,
-- %. .b .
[f, 7 . ~ . - s ,, %u p'
$:h e (t h' P } 'g * (Ml' 'V Qc.,.-1 _ _ .qg t +4.,
,s/, , .]
-~ v- f s 4 L Q . f, t' ( *~
, ,f
~~~~ g ;g,w in 4
=
}:wAm-);p\j 9 '~ [:ji %.y
, ) n,. ',y
- m. .,_
1, \ '
- _ ,, h
~
~'
r g - Q m , .. , 4'] c. .= j . ,, , .y ' f )t, N,
) !
1- 2-
, 3
.. / 'M g n. g s; j gA
.(.
4 ,
) 1'
( , . . , - f f
] '
a
\ 1u/ ('rs h h 7.v.s ,t G
6* x .
?I yk. &,;g;95W=, ,l g:y}
6 ?j
/ 3 4 , a f 9h Q ;M - I",
9 1hj sd , -h?)(s\?. l' Lk ', ; '
/ / [/ N , y ~ f%' % -_-Ni '-
~f el; 4 A'# }~
\ ls .{ Lu . > t; ., ---
-#{ -
'WY f,j~r$ l,' s., sl} , a( j' p,$f\ %
'/
e,"> Q. --" D A ,A \'! %' /y s. f b " ', i Y- - , N K [f
- i v
i, ' hQ} } } .\j/.
- Q#l,- ., '
\/gu ^
.t
\
a f, t 1
*a 84 i.s 7 f-f -
I t 9 ALABAMA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLE AR PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT i SITE PLOT PLAN FIGURE 2-3 -
The Site Plot Plan is shown in Figure 2-3, which indicates the O arrangement and orientation of the plant buildings and structures. Each unit will have a prestressed concrete containment which houses a Nuclear Steam Supply System, consisting of a reactor, steam generators, reactor coolant pumps, pressurizer, and some of the reactor auxiliaries. Each unit will also have an auxiliary building and a turbine building. The auxiliary buildings will house the waste treatment facilities, engineered safeguards system components, heating and ventilation system com- < ponents, switchgear, laboratories, offices, laundry, spent fuel pools, new fuel storage facilities, and the control room. j The turbine buildings house the turbine generators, condensers, ; feedwater heaters, condensate and feedwater pumps, turbine auxiliaries, and ; certain non-safety related switchgear. The plant will have a diesel generator building, housing the emer-gency diesel generators; a service building containing offices, shops and { i warehouse space; a visitors' information center; a sanitary sewage treatment l i plant; a water treatment plant; various water storage tanks; and a fire protection pumphouse. > i The above-mentioned structures are designed to be architecturally l i attractive. Cooling water will be withdrawn from the Chattahoochee River and transferred to a storage pond. Ten pumps will be located in the river [ intake structure shown in Figure 2-4. They will have a maximum withdrawal, -
't capacity of approximately 100,000 gpm although only 78,000 gpm is the maximum expected to be required for two unit operation. l A storage pond will be formed by locating an earth dam across a -
l'~) (s ,/
?
2-2 , 4
l i i l D ()' J l
/ /
\'* 12 0 lie I I l s s C W O o
$ 64
\ % e i3u!
'Be f
$' a'
- g
- h kJ E A R LY ,
"Y og ( g
- ~ _ _ . . . . . . _ hm I E L T4
- 0"n 3 COUNTY l b 0] gg,g4 -
0* { m
#_, , l r*
e EL,114'.o*g
-b ga gt,y4 0"# O o
*h ~ ~ ~ - - - - - '- - - / }
" g s - '
= - e . ,. . ; (,, -
e 30,$ '0 0 _ 60 [ I 7 ^@ I f h SCALE IN FEET f dn
/$ E 2 ,: ,
~ SLOPE i i
, a :
I
] {
i PLAN - FINISHED GR ADE ,
= =
NTS 3 E 13 2'-2 " ,
' I I ,' ' Y 3 lv,,, TOP OF pocu T %
g ., . EL 64 N r v' w
~e:r - - ,
SECTION A-A I I l l ELEv. 77'-0* nlEAN Low wATE R i 5 NATUR AL GROUND I I w ec. s-- y' 1
+ & f R,0CK EL. 74*-0" 40 ),.f )
]
SECTION C-C ALABAMA POWER COMPANY ; JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT O RIVER INTAKE STRUCTURE i FIGURE 2-4
-4 1 ,
i I I ( l shallow valley immediately south of the plant. The dam will fann a reser-t voir of approximately 65 acros. The reservoir will inundate an existing i 3 dam and small pond and will be used to store water pumped from the river prior to its use in the plant circulating water system. The storage pond I i will provide a dependabic, year-round source of fresh drinking water for wildlife in the area. { Water will be withdrawn from the pond for use in the plant and l cooling tower. Ten pumps with a maximum capacity of 90,000 gpm will be located in the stornge pond iatake structure. A maximum of only 78,000 gpm is expected to be required. A prominent feature of the plant will be the three mechanical draft cooling towers associated with the condenser cooling water system of each i
> unit. Each tower will be 505 feet long by 62 feet wide by 59 feet high and i t
\
. C\ will circulate approximately 200,000 gpm. Evaporation and drift losses from J l the six towers are expected to total 28,000 spm. 1 A portion of the plant wastes will enter the dilution line and will be mixed with the tower blowdown prior to discharge to the river at the 1 discharge structure shown in Figure 2-5. A barge unloading facility will be constructed on the site to unload some of the heavy equipment and materials during the construction period. I
! This f acility is shown in Figure 2-6.
A railroad spur has been constructed to move some of the equipment r and materials to the site during construction and possibly to transport t nucicar fuel and other natcrials after the plant,is placed in operation. The railroad will connect with the Central of Georgia Railroad at Columbia, ,
/
gs some five miles to the north. - (). , c f 2-3 Amend. 1 - 2/28/72 1
llG 11 0 100 30 80 *tGs 10 1 es (( t TEMPORARY
/' O S Ruc, Tion DtSCHARGE g f" N tGO, GOO t:1 5T R. h n L'tLO,5BO I i j iMANHOLE . ,A. ,
h % '\ f (3g 4 k ' h y El G-O"l D MA HOLE g, e o- y is.p,j l U* j y yf 1 VM @- 10 0 go 60 \
-(, 0 j) GtoRGIA q t I /g%/ , i gE V \ s e,/ $ t 350* NX S.
l l l( lt G. Ito 10 0 30 60 1G 'to I l PLA.N - I n (,,,,/
'* W SCALL IN FEET l
E*lES 580 l__ APPROX, 110'-O* EL . ll'I*-O" N AT(jg T.DlLOTION PnPE.
' ~
FROM bNITS I 4't. . =c 0 N,'
%* DISCHARG.E.h TEMPOR ARY CE.LLS x c_ . ._ /7 ./_.,tt as -o-ein TO_P OF ROC.K ILL.W-o*
8
! Et TI'-0" MEAH Low WATER
** m , r. o%m'Ju-' e, '.> ___t i i
[L_GsY-o_ a g ELAVATION W ~ ALABAMA POWER COMPANY ! JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ; ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT O , WATER DISCHARGE STRUCTURE FIGURE 2-5
sy g fi
e
( ; h 'g jh s )
*)
/O ,
sc ia \ .E e 7.1-C/' Conc Mat Or f it'+ C e Fillqd Piles wanssoo f g, g a / ejg
?
sheet Piling d ,_ 5
/
be .se , E figt?Akabu*['""[ O ]g ,
= 2
(
)
[ g g37, fy de
./
/ n% ~o Ju y -
us no 1 us N g (A - y O . o ,
,f n <
s
\ \o. /
7
/
W / /
/ l, ALABAMA POWER COMPANY O n = A ne;rsa o
%'cs'-
sosce" eae'<< ~uc'<>e e'a~1
<~v'"o"-" - ateo" l
i BARG< UN OADING FIGURE 2-6
Transmission of electricity will require construction of switch-A k.) yards and transmission lines. The switchyards will lie west of the plant and will include a 230 KV switchyard for Unit 1 and a 500 KV switchyard for Unit 2. The plant will be linked to the interconnected system of The Southern Company by at least four high voltage transmission lines and a 500/230 KV auto transformer connection. The lines will approach the site on at least two separate rights-of-way. A 225 foot high microwave / meteorological tower and an equipment building have been built on the north central protion of the site. The tower has been constructed to conform fully with regulations of the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration. The tower will have no effect on public radio and television reception in the area, and weather data accumulated by the meteorological station will be made available to interested government agencies. Entrance to the plant will be restricted to two paved roads from Highway 95 on the west boundary of the site. Other permanent roads required within the site boundary are roads from the plant proper to the storage pond intake structure, river intake structure, meteorological-microwave station and barge unloading facility. To restrict access to safety-related portions of the plant, a security fence will be constructed surrounding that area of the site occupied by principal buildings, and any other areas deemed necessary. l During construction, approximately 90,000 square feet of temporary ; warehouses, as well as shops, offices and sanitary facilities will be required. These facilities will be located in the general area of the. permanent structures and will be removed when construction is completed. , 2-4 l 2
In addition, approximately 3,000,000 square feet of laydown space for b outdoor material storage will be required. e 2.3 Transmission Lines It is planned for electrical power generated at the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant to be delivered to the interconnected transmission system of The Southern Company members over 230 KV and 500 KV transmission lines, The size, voltage levels, and routings of these lines were deter-mined primarily on the basis of teliability of electrical service. Studies for determining the transmission requirements for genera-tion from the Farley Plant began in 1968 using the estimated peak, hour , power demand conditions with two generating units of 829 megawatts capacity at the Farley Plant in the period 1975-1977. The plan selected is: (a) Unit #1 connected to a 230 KV substation bus, c (b) Unit #2 connected to a 500 KV substation bus. An auto-tie transformer will connect the 230 KV and 500 KV busses. (c) Two 230 KV lines to Alabama Power Company Pinckard Substation. (d) One 230 KV line to Georgia Power Company. (e) One 500 KV line to Georgia Power Company. (Initial operation at 230 KV). (f) One 500 KV line to Alabama Power Company Substation in Montgomery, Alabama. Georgia Power Company will be responsible for the transmission con-nections from the Farley substations to the Georgia system which extends to the east side of the Chattahoochee River. O 2-5
The advantages of this plan are: (D U (a) Unit #1 output will be delivered to the existing system at 230 KV with minimum additional transmission and step-down facilities and with reduced lead time for construction of the initial facilities. (b) Existing 230 KV system will be coordinated with the proposed plant facilities and transmission. (c) Unit #2 output will provide a potential total output at the plant of approximately 1600 MW. 500 KV transmission is justified for transmitting this amount of power over long distances with fewer transmission lines than at 230 KV. (d) The need' for substantial amounts of testing power in 1973 will be more easily met with the 230 KV portion of the
, plan by connecting to the existing 230 KV system at the Pinckard Transmission Substation.
2.4 Base Line Inventory Of The Area Environment 2.4.1 Topography The site area is in the southern Red Hills physiographic province in the East Gulf Coastal Plain of Alabama. It is a region of relatively flat to rolling terrain as indicated on Figure 2-7. The Upland and the Chattahoochee River Valley constitute the two basic topographic features of the site as indicated on Figure 2-8. The Upland is gently undulating and ranges from about 150 to 210 feet MSL. Its surface generally slopes towards Rock Creek to the north and towards the river floodplain to the east. Some erosion has progressed from the lower elevations to etch irregularities into the upland surface. 2-6
REGIONAL TOPOGRAPHY b- n . . . , . - . . ,~
.nw xm w m - -
c w .ipi~
. ~
~/Jo;
.;};;p s:
mv y L.h Y Y kme yn% - r k. ni m k k h a13n..v wcs
. n,a.m eng.twnp,.
h h y v Hg9 q%v wSr p.v if v.m-:.+ .w g xnwm c ,a) ' a:,- y .w ic - w;; ,e f 5 t y y~ ~ p g f m ,r/ l3, ew . y en [/@,-yy, a .4 W.1 ym~ .Ng w,Q Q,h {,jn,p&m A w,4y n%.ap;p$.cgp i~ Mpt 9$m}
~ ,
} _ .
o yjg F , f .';yt 5-oa o. ,
@ N,vi.c- v - m%cw ;&
p' &g:Atm %, ( g. & & f ^a r
%w -
mQ u' Q g~x ,L
- W ~i Y.4Q.
%gc m.e. 3.w
% p -j. e, V' x
.H s%s -y g AQ1m,,Ay , ?
%c4
- d. ;y. , . Nip ppng g. g,e.4Nn m1 2.)
- m-
. il y s As) Tp Nw. p V
.q.pp%e h %, .m.,
- m x9 ip r.m.e.g$ ,n .
N ,' c].: :, ,g . M,.m ): ap- . . > l-; = .,7
,a, uw
.g . +m p\ i.
a w ,Aa
-p d:te j:q)" 1M ; n.tm >.+
ri \
~g a4 n y
< s yn RV ~,q U o
. + ,- n b '/ q? M s
4;~g:p'yh.1,y.m_sm',,y. ,
. Vi a ag ,
e9
, rq: q c'.
g M' V M^ k - MCb.\t 4 y& . O. Wy7 g n. s q.\p/ I . 'T y h)r!le[16r':. k-s\~ c-) (m<g-[ ' N/ -- y: l. n
%q , a .# Nhp:A. g ty of Ul p4:p.
.; n n rr s.m g.%, y r.~.q gn,.y m yn W p r Nu,, m(=A y=!4 x -r m ~ '
a m 'c.SITE s;sW, y ,3_ .;O 4ARiEA . - o (. "'T7;_ 7s u%
, ma
.M.wg1 ".~ %. <' ; T; 7 g ** - rx
.s 4yMn rp r . 2 T
,. 1 . , ,
s ,m,* gs z.
.n .d',.w ~%, se. 31v.- . < -
;m tr t n'* A A
2'L A y
.},f. . .s i a 1
4QJM ..htgjf &* ^ C:AY. _e L ,I 'a' ' ""'ju - w s. Wg f@g,fjG L ..m,,@ Mi gM q D9PM). u.l g.m, G ./ W}w}yW ' r y ,h? A q g r wps tM bph..xp[q
%wd A WQ #Mq n m a w A.;e?M.,.@ DOIC .
'dk y "d if\
Qc + ..rq i -.t. .s !M qA W is M ,W -f 1M %w+/
, , - .- m ,. %c. _ve b ;p>a wt
~ y , / ;,
m+. .
'W1 vg,gh,
.!d. djpr7.q L_
.+a
??
/c,Q,
?,Q m+
%! g
,t ., x m 44-n.f/f
- .& n ~>
n.i s.-Ac q g%.c
' q'.,_.
( / .+ 3 fA4 e ,. 3 1 w, -
'l e m 3 ,n d
p ' [(g' Wl.l. ,Qf.qw
% A: w ,
M,n(b 3, . %.,. p,-,L Q. ]9[m;;
.y Qp]fy(i ',/yg
.,s s - w(
o79; s
,>a,s., , 9 s1 +N4 g
&.Q m.? &: A Q . g[ q;;.r,., ?Q h.-2 &
o... n- -. ~.,a Ws ms MM, .N NUd m dy,c.or.M WM_.Ms hl1 :' /wl ll4.Wt y
.. s y' RutRtNec h~. 3 m- ._.. ...
~._
Ra 3 r r &<[l%A.J AyCLJ > x . ARMY MAP $[ RVIC E DOT H AN , AL ABAMA NH 16 3 CONTOUR INT [RvAL *4 FE t T SUPPL E M E N T CONTOURS AT 2S FEET 3 0 { u_- SCALE eN 76Ei Il N ALABAMA POWER COMPANY ( JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PL A NT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT REGIONAL TOP 0 GRAPHY FIGURf 2-7
,#. _ m.. .;__ .4_m._ y.4.s.-. t A ...%
6 48 s I i
-m
~g.,, , . . _ _.. . . .
s.__. . > w-a ~,yg J .._. p_._ _d. .... _ Qi ,{ ._ = * -= > 4 2= qg w; L _5 7 p
~' ]/ - ('
l y ?? ;
.7 Q K 'h ee,, ,,, '" P Q,,c m \, (<'
<n, m :
f',D* y',~.;'q -:%:.'f[f .so f,M p D d 2* & M y %' **v' "
% /c<c'***'_ fo- ..
gLT s -- -- , ry . -Tv*'
/,/p y $.e.,,: +.
M. eu ? r s I r 9 <. 7,4 - 6 y,, .y(q, wp-uoam m . pf (w.~._"_ x a y _, ,' m_--e# 5%gd ' . 44 R [. . ' y , l g>,J .,~W Q, W .w. x N K. ff
~- c7,;p; d_ '[p;,e.,
_ tt , %,s . l,
.f .we.
e:- .
.s s p~-'w m -m:, 3 \
xd3 ,'-s b \+sl4
?
n % . ': f'2-. a ,' 2
. %ito,.)] s& ;
QN p, )r.Q 0 r d aj N Q(M e-3 4 ;. x~ : m ,, y <=q~~,,n ,ma i
- 7. _ )
yx ,,, mma,.a., -qk wg .:
\ ,' j' "\f ^' ,A '4 j
.1 a ( w yd .N(m, )<l >w m ,~ x ps -# .dm m. 1,ww -,9 i,/ - --
)
lHl' *T' .S, m' , . ,'y1t )~-
' r,
\ +1i -
. ,+ m.._- =m ao 1
/. l 7,
~
~y .2n C t y' }y-~~~'/)'l .y )
~ - . i
/. w .
} ,,
) sonen ,
i .L,w% T o,
;b
~. z
%xn- ' -
tx.J y y f.Q , .g : '
,=.-
/l r\ .!gg
< ..~.=- *
/
;J ' P, ,?c.. . . f + cy'c$ sp L ,.,
4 g --
.;/4--h
' ' i
~
i 4*>V g.,.4[ &s! s
&;%.y =}n'jfj.i'l>,Q%'}!@ if i , $$v y y=g,,g;g%fm y;)<
, r(a,&m)'y-
/7 p oa- ,o m. - , n yp u.s ~
~ .{
,] \ &e+o' --
J --s qy ,: y*j* :
>,f, ,(,4Q-., ~&y u f ,('>M&,
go-
,i
,lpor-
,f ** ,,y $lb ~ gi%y o. .,'
.n s . 2 - . N ,+ :
l
. .k m( - < [pw.(f%
8 I
- s. &-[fyl (1f
~
h, l}. N'
?
_<a. L
~--4) ,
<eo -l
+: \ p},,W,Il$jw 4a .
> p4
,4! ~, ly %n[(
> 4w n ,./ .77 ,, . a ,, x \
N q ;
,,om, . J:
i
, o, .
r sy//Yd. sa 8-
) p- I
+-t t p c.
ho' - 8
], yi ] N3 '4 -
) W '/ ,r j ,fg > jy 3 s ' g*?fo ,,
g 4, gr 40 -- .- ) jsv y ; q , /Ky
~eP \ f- ;
)
?
,t;,4 $ ,cir y.---gv W- ic;, no.
{ ,p V s a ,]y - %M L ., 8 l} hoo l,
' W.e;,q .l.y:a,
"^ "* ,,,,$yf '% l
,y y ;O !
w- ~ :f i
);.L .x ._
u s. W R D C'&. n,lag ; l>, r . ,J f . Y~/e'i,,?N I, A 6
% W d' ' .-- l 1g (n. g,. n+ :
.t v, , , '- ~,,m.m_ il-o
. , 6. , 4. ~
.;0
,J:(8 x.; ;o, e,). .
? y ,
1 l l I m, s ,=.,"[ g' 7*# a 91 g I I i 1 (g 3 1 i i s . = e.
- i i
I I i k h IL I I I ews wi
= = e.
. ,.e,
[ AL ABAMA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT SITE TOPOGRAPHIC WAP FIGURE 2-8
. - - - ~. . -
t i i The eastern border of the Upland corresponds to the upper rim of ! ~( ) the Chattahoochee Valley at about 170 feet MSL. Eastward the ground-i I surface slopes gently toward the liver until the slope flattens to form the ! main river terrace at an approximate elevation of 125 feet MSL. This terrace is 300 to 500 feet wide near the site, and widens to about 1500 f eet just south of the main site area. Between this terrace and the Chattahoochee River is the essentially flat floodplain ranging from elevation 100 to 120 fi feet MSL. The width of the floodplain near the site ranges from about ; 2500 to 3000 feet. The river is 20 to 30 feet below the present flood- , plain.1 r t O , o i i i I
- 1. Copeland, C. W., Geology of the Alabama Coastal Plain, Geological Survey of Alabama, Circular 47. ,
l O 2-7 )
)
.1
i
)
-l i
2.4.2 History .( . ; Houston County was created by the Legislature on February 9,1903. j Its territory was taken from Dale, Geneva and Henry Counties and is the l newest county in Alabama. It was named in honor of Governor George Smith Houston, who was elected Governor of the State of Alabama in 1874. i i Dothan, the county seat of Houston, is a relatively young town l being incorporated in 1886. j Columbia, about 5 miles north of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant ! site is one of the oldest towns in southeast Alabama, being started in 1822. , It was the county seat of Henry County until 1833. ! I Many Indian relics, town sites and mounds are in Houston County along the Chattahoochee River and the Choctawhatchee River. Most of these ; have been identified as being of Seminole and Creek origin. In 1715, the Omussee Tribe of the Yamasee Indians settled in this area af ter being O driven out of the Carolinas by the British. They affiliated with the , Seminole and Creek Indians here until forced to move again in 1814. The ~ t Lower Creek Indian town of Yufala was located near the present town of l t Gordon, Alabama, until 1814. I Mr. Ralph H. Allen, Jr., Chief Game Management, Alabama Department j of Conservation, who is a noted student and collector of Indian artifacts and Mr. A. D. Joiner, an active member of the Alabama Archaeological ! Society recently visited the Farley site looking for evidence of Indian ; i mounds, village sites or items of historical interest. None were found. No historical landmark or places of historical interest are located in the general vicinity of the site. The closest place of histor- I ical interest listed in the National Register of Historical Places - 1969, :
/\ l
-( ) ! t 2-8 l
i I is "Kolomki Mounds". These Indian mounds are located 22 miles northeast ! (~') s- of the site in Earley County, Georgia. 2.4.3 Geology And Subsurface Resources l Various studies relating to the geology of the plant site and its [ 1 regional environs have been conducted. These studies included: (1) a geologic field reconnaissance along the Chattahoochee River to establish the local stratigraphic sequence and to explore exposed rock and soil ; units; (2) an air photo study of the area; (3) an investigation of the i subsurface conditions over a broad area by drilling exploratory borings along a 12 mile rerch of the Chattahoochee River; (4) geophysical logging , of these borings by the Alabama Geological Survey to determine strati-graphic correlation; (5) a review of gcological literature relative to the > i area. The plant site was investigated by geologic field mapping, aerial reconnaissance, air photo interpretation, geologic borings, laboratory tests ; of undisturbed samples, geophysical surveys, and piezameter observations. , The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant is located in the East Gulf Coastal Plain which is to the south of the Appalachian System. The East [ Gulf Coastal Plain is underlain by a series of sedimentary formations , composed chiefly of sand, clay, marl, and limestones. These sediments range in age from late Jurassic to Recent. The upper Cretaceous deposits overlap the lower in Alabama and the younger sediments are exposed gener-ally in successive belts toward the present Gulf of Mexico. ; In southeast Alabama, southwest Georgia, and northern Florida, ; drilled wells have penetrated basement rock composed of unmetamorphosed j Paleozoic sedimentary units. The total thickness of the overlying sedi- l O 2-9 ,.
- mentary units are more than 10,000 feet in Northern Florida. These J sediments dip toward the Gulf of Mexico at a rate of 10 to 35 feet per mile with the amount of dip increasing with depth. In southeastern Alabama and southwestern Georgia, the gentle south-dipping Paleocene through Oligocene sequence is thought to be influenced by only one major structural feature, the Chattahoochee Anticline. The axis of this northeast trending fold appears to cross the Chattahoochee River about four miles north of the Florida-Alabama boundary, (approximately 12 miles from the site) causing a reversal and flattening of dip for a distance of approximately nine miles to the northwest. There are no faults known to be associated with this structure. The tectonic inactivity of the basement rock in this area is further substantiated by the small volume of recorded seismic activity in the entire Southeastern Coastal Region. A There are no significant surface structures in southeastern Alabama. U The attitude of the sediments are remarkably uniform with the beds dipping south towards the Gulf of Mexico. No major or active f aults were found nor are believed to exist within the area studied and no evidence of surf ace displacement was observed during the field investigation. The plant site is characterized by two topographic features: (1) the gently undulating Upland and (2) the Chattahoochee River Valley l . i which includes the associated terraces, floodplain and the river channel i, itself. , The Quanternary terrace and floodplain deposits are varied and consist of alluvial gravelly sands to clay, and are loose to dense in l consistency. These materials represent a thin veneer overlying the older sedimentary fomations. 2-10 j
Beneath these alluvial deposits and forming the upper geologic O units at the site are deposits of sand, gravel, clay, silt, siltstone, sandstone and limestone, all of Tertiary age. These Eocene units from oldest to youngest are: Tallahatta and Lisbon formations, Moody's Branch forma-tion, and Ocala Limestone undifferentiated. Overlying the Moody's Branch formation are Recent alluvial deposits and a Residuum deposit. The Residuum consists mainly of yellowish-orange medium to very coarse-grained gravelly sand and mottled sandy clay. The Lisbon formation, which is a competent siltstone, sandstone, and extremely dense silty sand, is approximately 120 feet thick and is the significant foundation material for the plant structures. Below the Lisbon formation, the stresses imposed by the structures are so low that the foundation materials are not considered important in the foundation evalua-tion. Beneath the Lisbon are the Tallahatta, the Hatchetigbec, the Tuscahoma, the Nanafalia and the Clayton formations. The physical characteristics and composition of the foundation materials were determined by laboratory tests. These tests include routine classificacion, consolidation and triaxial compression tests. The test procedures used were in accordance with current standard, acceptable methods presently in use. The quality of the Lisbon formation as a foundation is demonstrated by the fact that Columbia Lock and Dam, 2 15 miles upstream, is founded on the Lisbon formation. This quality is well stated in the Geologic Conclu-sions of the Geology and Foundation, Design Memorandum No. 2, Columbia Lock and Dam, by the U. S. Corps of Engineers: "The coastal plain sediments present in the foundation and reservoir at the Columbia Dam site are uniform 2-11
, in character and have no apparent structural faults that would make the development of the proposed plan inadvisable from a geologic standpoint." -
Underlying the Lisbon formation at about elevation - 20 feet MSL is the Tallahatta formation. This unit consists of sand and clay beds, sandy claystone, glauconitic quartz sand, and sandy fossiliferous lime-stone. The limestone grades upward into irregularly indurated calcareous , sandstone. The sand beds are very argillaceous, medium to coarse-grained and poorly sorted. Total thickness of the Tallahatta formation in the site area is approximately 70 feet. Dr. Walter B. Jones, for many years Alabama State Geologist, care-fully investigated the plant site for surface and subsurface resources. His conclusions are: "There are no rocks or minerals of commercial value on Alabama Power Company's SEALA (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant) steam j plant site".5 l
- 1. Owens, Marie Bankhead, Our State-Alabama, the Alabama State Department of Archives End History, Historical and Patriotic Series No. 7.
- 2. Weaver, Charlotte S., The Story of Alabama-A History of the State, Alabama Almanac for 1965, Vol. 1, Alabama Republican State Executive Committee
- 3. Alabama Historical Association, Preliminary List Of Highway Marker Suggestions, April 1952
- 4. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National ;
Register Of Historical Places, 1969 -
- 5. Jones, Dr. Walter B., Report On The Possible Occurrence Of Rocks, Minerals, Oil Or Gas Of Commercial Value On Or Under A Tract Of Land In Houston County On Which The Alabama Power Company Plans To Build A Steam Plant, 1969 2-12
2.4.4 General Hydrology O The site is located between Cedar Creek and Rock Creek, 5 miles south of Columbia, Alabama, and 16.5 miles east of Dothan, Alabama, on the !
?
west bank of the southward-flowing Chattahoochee River which discharges ; into and forms a part of Lake Seminole, on the Georgia-Florida state line. The river is a navigable waterway with a 9 foot channel depth maintained by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The average annual rainfall for Houston County (site area) is 53 inches and is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year. Of this , amount, average annual runoff is approximately 20 inches or 0.95 million gallons per square mile. This runoff includes direct surface runoff and ; discharge from springs. l Houston County is drained by the Chattahoochee River, the Choctaw- , A hatchee, and tributaries of the Apalachicola River in Florida. Surface and V groundwater generally follow the dip of geologic structure which is in a i southerly direction. 2.4.4.1 Groundwater There are two major aquifers in Houston County. The major shallow j aquifer consists of a system of sands and porous limestones and is composed of the Ocala, Moody's Branch, Lisbon, Tallahatta and Hatchetigbee fonna-tions. The base of the major shallow aquifer is at approximate elevation
-125 feet MSL at the site. The major deep aquifer consists of sand and porous limestone in the Tuscahoma, Nanafalia, and Clayton formations. A i
boring located approximately 2 miles from the site indicates the base of the major deep aquifer to be at an elevation of -925 feet MSL in this area. ! O 2-13
I The recharge areas for both aquifers are in the northern parts of Houston i County and other areas further north, i The major aquifers generally dip to the south from 15 feet to 40 feet per mile. However, local topography may affect their elevations in , some localized areas. All water for home and industrial uses in the county comes from 2 wells. City wells range from 115 to 684 feet in depth and from 4 to 24 inches in diameter. Yield from these wells ranges from 50 to 520 gallons per minute. , The water supply for Columbia, Alabama, comes from a well at elevation -349 feet MSL which is within the major deep aquifer. The water bearing units for this source are the Tuscahoma and Nanafalia forma-tion. The Tallahatta and Hatchetigbec formations are believed to be the water bearing units for the town of Gordon, 5.5 miles south of the plant site. The water for the town is obtained from an elevation of -198 feet , MSL. In order to determine the general groundwater environment sur-rounding the site, groundwater levels were established, generally within a two mile radius, in numerous domestic wella both in Alabama and Georgia. The results of the well survey are shown on Figure 2-9. A number of sealed wells, both shallov and deep, were found. Where possible, local residente were interviewed regarding these wells. The majority of those interviewed could provide little specific information; therefore, well data, especially that pertaining to the major shallow aquifer, is lacking in many instances at individual well locations. . O 2-14
St pa
, , , rv ,
q :. . . ,,, . % = .
.pi
;=~ps e, V -. Al A, q V '^. y' -y casuuw) , M -- - - - - - - -
.I
;" f M _ '
f ,i" , h}, ~ , Yl ' ni s,. _ , - (i[WN r= r }- 10 g g
'* \ Lit uj .
ng[' ke.T~'f'Mm- f e \
, g ,s .
t -
,\
. ~, _= n Q (1gbj 'A. j
/s y a~l335?'- m . . -
h Nork -C - gi
'y + " f Q:.~ i e l
u.n En.. -* J V, i W l* N q'h+ c - ca
- f *"g,
. JK.D(f' SM " WlN:t' chare 5-'"
On iso
~-' RPLANTp SITE f
u o g... w f) . g g , u . ~ ~ a n...
- Etugz + f,,
f =.
?*,
{.*
> q 1,, - Je" , s / e
) x. 4 =
; ,m
-,w
.nm saS3 j j s
' . . . .- & /
Eif y' * $ l ic= ,Sb oso <
'._uii Nh_ . n -
0 800 ' [ # rT
'l'*f[ ,s
=}
m
. .f ; .. a cp
()
" 9' 3 m s.ag;. '
7w Y tm, h.S a fM do Liberty
.f e.
's :3
. ,e yf ' .O ss
- p. $ O CM'* .
Q.xua 4% !.p%gundy,.o .AS yQW--% .=h. ;K e ET. [*gi.a,,,, F ga; 3 aims mT J TENittJ8EF e<un.giina. {
& EXISTING DUG WATER WELL an-me-a g 9 EXISTING DRILLED WATER WELL 239 ELEV. OF WATER LEVEL IN FEET U 225 ELEV. OF BOTTOM OF WELL IN FEET I
. nm
.""* FIDRID4 GULF OF n'r:nm KEY PLAN NOTES
- 1. WELL SURVEY CONDUCTED BY BECHTEL CORP. AND ALABAMA POWER CO. DURING JUNE,1969.
2, WELL SURVEY DATA IS LACKING FROM MOST DRILLED WATER WELLS DUE TO SEALED DRILLED HOLES AND LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PERTINENT WELL DATA. /p) 3 TEMPE RATURE OF WATER IN WELLS SURVEYED AVERAGED 6B" F, ALABAMA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLE AR PLANT NM 4. WELL ELEVATIONS ARE APPROX 4 MATE BECAUSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT LACK OF PRECISE GROUND CONTROL. g MAP
REFERENCES:
GE NER AL HIGHW AY MAPS, HOUST ON CO. ALABAMA AND EARLY COUNTY, GEORGIA. , WATER WELL SURVEY FIGURE 2-9
The survey data indicates that the shallow aquifer, perched ! within the overburden above the Lisbon formation and discussed in greater detail later in this section is controlled as one might expect, by topo-graphic slopes, flowing toward the nearby surf ace creek, stream or river. The deep wells, although widely scattered and apparently terminating near the base of the major shallow aquifer, tend to verify the southward regional piezametric dip. Water of good chemical quality, according to published reports, is found in the Chattahoochee River as well as in both of the major aquifers. Of the wells surveyed, none were noted where water treatment is being conducted. Temperature variation of well water measured ranged from 68 to , 69 degrees Farenheit. Shown in Table 2-1 are the surface water constituents reported in
*s parts per million from the Chattahoochee River at Columbia, Alabama. Also tabulated are results of analyses from wells on the J. E. McNair Estate, >
immediately adjacent to the plant area. The U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, obtained the river water sample in August, 1960 and the groundwater samples in August, 1965.2 In order to determine local groundwater levels and to monitor their fluctuations a series of nine piezometer groups were installed in nests of 4 or 5 per location in 1969. Refer to Figure 2-10. Spacing between piez-ameter group positions averages one-half mile. Periodic readings are being made to provide groundwater elevation data. The formation locations of the piezometers are as follows: Piezometer No. Geologic Formation P-1(a) Undifferentiated Terrace and Residuum P-1(b) Recent Alluvium ! (~' P-2 Moody's Branch Sand Residuum j
\ P-3 Upper Lisbon ,
P-4 Lower Lisbon P-5 Tallahatta ; 2-15
}
O l 1 L Table 2-1 Water Analysis ([ Sample Number (1) (2) (3) Silica (SiO2) 7*9 - - Iron (Fe) 0.2 0.2 1.2 Calcium (Ca) 5.6 - - Magnesium (Mg) 0.9 - - : Sodium (Na) 3.9 - - Potassium (K) 1.4 144.0 164.0 Bicarbonate (HCO ) 25.0 - - ! Carbonate (CO 3 )3 6.0 6.0 Sulfate (SO4 ) 4.4 - - Chloride (CI) 2.8 5.6 5.6 ; Fluoride (F) 0.1 - - Nitrate (NO3 ) 0.8 - - .( Dissolved Solids (calculated) 40.0 - - Hardness as CACO 3 Ca, Mg 18.0 92.0 150.0 Non-carbonate 0.0 0.0 5.0 Specific conductance 59.0 - - pH 7.3 8.3 8.5 (1) Chattahoochee River at Columbia, Alabama (2) J. E. McNair Estate - Tallahatta and Hatchetigbee formations undifferentiated (major shallow aquifer) (3) J. E. McNair Estate - Nanfalia (?) formation (major deep aquifer) b) v
o p %, - - i b c l10 7C FtNSr y*"D C-b ILO e s cas /
) ,
c.51 O , h L ISO '
-~
' 00 #1 l
y/2. l l D J ss
,o p i .
'h S F 0 SA W AQUlFER F OF M A {
SHALLOW AQUlFIER -
~ CONTOURS ON l
"" """ 8"""
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY LQ e e Ez0 METER "oTE: CONTOUR V LOPED BY FAR A E N P W l g PLANT ARE A C O M P A N Y , 196 9, ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT GROUND WATER CONDITIONS FIGURE 2-10 I
E _ Six shallow observation wells, designated P-1(a), were installed l in the Undifferentiated Terrace and Residuum in an attempt to detect possible isolated perched water lenses above the shallow aquifer. Water : has been present in only one of these, the P-1(a) piezometer in Group 680. Water is present in two (Groups 640 and 643) of the three P-1(b) ' designated observation wells located in the floodplain alluvium. At l Group 643 the levels *have fluctuated from elevation 106.5 to 109.5 feet MSL. In Group 643, the F-1 piezometer was initially dry but water levels subsequently rose within the well and have ranged f rom elevation 107.5 to 109.5 feet MSL, from February 10, 1969, to June 30, 1969. The F-1 piez-ometer in Group 640 has been dry to date. Its top elevation is 108 feet + MSL. The piezometer data, individual boring logs and observation well data were utilized in contouring the phreatic surface and the piezometric surface of the shallow aquifer. Water level data obtained February 25-28, 1969, (considered maximum seasonal levels) were used in constructing the , Contours. During the field operations, permeability data were obtained. The U. S. Bureau of Reclamation's Method E-18 was followed while performing
- pumping-in tests in selected piezameters. A permeability of 10,000 feet per year was indicated for the Tallahatta sand in a test conducted in the piezameters in Group 683, located at elevation -40 feet MSL. The upper ,
Lisbon formation has a permeability of about 500 feet per year. This value was obtained in Group 630 at elevation +81 fee *, MSL. There are two major groundwater aquifers beneath the plant site. It is convenient to describe these as a shallow and a deep aquifer. 2-16
The shallow aquifer consists of two water bearing zones which can V be divided into an upper and lower aquifer separated by the upper Lisbon which acts as an aquielude. This aquiclude consists of the upper two-thirds of the Lisbon formation and is composed of claystone, siltstone, silty fine sandstone and limestone. The upper aquifer is perched upon this impervious material. Its phreatic surface is within the soils at the higher elevations and within- l t , the alluvium of the lower terrace and floodplain adjacent to the Chatta-hoochee River. The highest elevation measured on this surface is about 136 f eet MSL. This groundwater surface slopes eastward across the site toward the Chattahoochee and northward toward Rock Creek. The gradient of this surface beneath the uplands ranges from 1:50 to 1:100 and decreases beneath the floodplain to about 1:300. This groundwater ultimately discharges into the Chattahoochee River, with a portion of it first discharging into Rock Creek and thence by surface flow to the river. Beneath the upper aquifer are water bearing sediments of the lower Lisbon and Tallahatta formations. Piezometric levels were found to be essentially the same at all locations and generally ranged from elevation 125 to 135 feet MSL. The 130-foot contour line' on this piezometric surf ace is quite straight, and is located in a north-south direction. It has a gradient dipping toward the east at a slope approximately 7 feet per mile. The Hatchetigbee formation, which underlies the Tallahatta, is also considered to be part of_this lower aquifer. Recharge for these formations originates in their outcrop belt in northern Houston County. The regional slope of the piezometric surface is reported to be toward the south, corresponding to the regional dip of these strata. O 2-17
=_ - . -
e Contours of the phreatic surface and piezometric surface of the O shallow aquifers are shown on Figure 2-10. These were based on piezameter > data obtained at the site and represent the upper local groundwater condi-tions. The deep aquifer which is the major source of industrial and municipal water supply in Houston and Henry counties consists of the Tuxca-homa sand and sands and limestone of the Nanafalia and Clayton formations. The relatively impermeable upper portion of the Tuscahome forms an aqui-I clude separating the major deep aquifer from the overlying shallow aquifer. i The piezometric surface of the deep aquifer is somewhat below that of the overlying shallow aquifer, at about elevation 70 feet MSL, and dips i to the south about 30 feet per mile. The upper boundary of this deep water i bearing zone, the Hatchetigbee-Tuscahoma sand contract, occurs at approx-1 imate elevation -125 feet MSL. The base of this deep aquifer dips toward
)
the south at about 35 feet per mile and is at an approximate elevation of
-600 feet MSL at the plant site. These formations crop out to the north j and underlie all of Houston County. j The Tuscahoma sand varies in thickness from about 170 to 260 feet. !
9 Its upper part consists of silty and sandy, dark gray, laminated carbona-ceous clays overlying light gray calcareous silty sandstone. The water bearing portions of this unit generally consist of 10 to 40 feet of a basal, very coarse-grained, fossiliferous sand that locally contains gravel. Underlying the Tuscahoma sand is about 140 feet of lower Eocene ' sands and limestone of the Nanafalia formation. The sands are greenish-gray, medium to coarse-grained; and the limestones are light gray fossil- ; 1 iferous and sandy. Calcareous sandy clays separate the basal water bearing i () coarse-grained gravelly sands. 2-18 l
The lower member of this deep aquifer is the Paleocene Clayton
- 73 C/ formation. It is about 125 to 150 feet thick and contains sandy and fossiliferous limestone with minor amounts of interbedded coarse-grained sand and micaceous sandy clay.
No reversal of the groundwater movoment at the site should occur as a result of the construction and operation of the plant. Because the i groundwater gradient within the shallow aquifer at the site is eastward i toward the river, accidental spillage of a contaminant will present no groundwater problem. Likewise, contamination of the shallow artesian aquifer is considered remote because of the aquiclude formed by the upper Lisbon and artesian pressure associated with this aquifer. Any adverse effects on this aquifer are eliminated as a result of these factors. In addition to the reasons outlined for the major shallow aquiter, ! {JT seepage of contaminated waste into the major deep aquifer is unlikely due to the additional aquiclude formed by the clays of the upper Tuscahoma sand at approximate elevation -135 feet MSL and the piezametric surface of the major shallow aquifer at about elevation 70 feet MSL. The possibility of adversely affecting the groundwater resources or existing wells in the area as a result of the operation of a nuclear plant is remote. The groundwater hydrologic characteristics of the site are quite favorable for the plant. 2.4.4.2 Surface Water The dominant surface hydrological feature of the site region is the Chattahoochee River and some small tributary streams. The drainage basin formed by the Chattahoochee-Flint-Apalachicola Rivers is shown on 2-19 l l
1 Figure 2-11. This Figure also shows the site location, river mileages and the location of locks and dams. The river system is navigable up to Bain-bridge, Georgia, on the Flint and to Columbus, Georgia, on the Chattahoochee. Flow characteristics of the Chattahoochee River at Columbia for the ! period 1929-1960 are summarized by Figure 2-12, taken from Geological Survey : of Alabama Circular 32, Flow Characteristics of Alabama Streams.6 l At the present time, the river flow past the site in influenced by a number of factors: (1) the intermittent operation of Walter F. George Dam for the production of electric power and for navigation control; (2) the operation of Columbia Lock and Dam (located about 3 river miles up-stream) for navigation control; and (3) the operation of Jim Woodruff Dam (located about 44 river miles downstream) for the production of electric power and navigation. However, a channel of nine-foot depth is required for navigation and this corresponds to a minimum river elevation at the {} plant site of 76 feet (MSL). ! There are 33 years of record available from a gaging station at i Columbia, Alabama (located about 6 river miles upstream) prior to the start ; of operation of the Walter F. George Dam in 1963 and the Columbia Lock and
- Dam in 1964. These records show a minimum average daily flow of 1210 cfs occurring in 1964. During the period from 1938 to 1944 and from 1960 to_ ,
the present time a gaging station has been operated at Alaga, Alabama i (located about 8 river miles downstream) . These records indicate a minimum ! average daily flow of 1230 cfs occurring in 1962. However, during the . i month that this recorded flow occurred, the initial filling of Walter F. j George Dam caused the storing of an equivalent daily average flow of 892 - , cfs, thus reducing recorded downstream flows. 1::) ! 2-20 i i
i i i 2-3435. W ATTAHOOCHEE RIVER AT COLUMBIA, ALA. [ DURATION OF DAILY DISallsRGE
.j
?
Cust 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ft 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 - f T f.A9 ftUMBER OF tl4YS IN Cuts CFS-D4YS. 1979 31132 54 38, 25 44 24 34 24 10 14 7 12 3 3 2 3 2 2 5 3 4 3 1 6739280.0 i 1930 21017 7 to 7 24 28 16 67 59 39 33 8 to 9 8 6 2 1 2 4323770.0 1931 2 16 28 24 33 22 8 20 26 20 86 40 19 to 3 3 1 2 2 2886040.0 ! 1932 1913 519131816111010 7 39 28 30 45 44 19 17 11 15 4 3 1 1 3118010.0 i 1 S S 1312 Il 58 34 25 39 16 31 36 17 18 5 9 6 3 3 5 2 4483020.0 i 1914 10 33 37 35 16 16 SO 38 24 64 19 5 2 5 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 2587110.0 1935 61337221948 56 32 33 $7 9 11 2 6 6 2 3 1 1 1 2622900.0 1936 6 4301018302822 27 9 23 il 19 18 22 8 20 3 4 5 6 1 12 7 5 7 1 $350980.0 1937 2 4 12 19 18 44 20 19 51 34 34 31 12 20 11 8 9 7 2 6 4752050.0 ' 1938 1 7 ft 26 24 65 71 28 52 19 8 15 3 6 4 2 4 1 1 2 2 3 3472220.0 i 1939 9 34 16 12 26 19 23 26 22 61 33 18 25 8 12 S S 2 2 1 2 2 2 3708370.0 ( 1940 358313430 29 20 11 42 36 21 14 5 12 . 11 2 4 2 1 3236750.0 ? 1941 3 34 St 3219 2618 % 31 22 - 66 19 7 2 1 2080370,0 i 1942 3272016 7 to 1213 64 35 33 36 30 23 12 13 11 7
' 2 4 3 1 2 1 3517190.0.
- 1943 7 14 29 19 23 36 16 SS $1 20 30 17 17 7 S 3 1 1 2 3 2 4 3 4946650.0 1944 1 IS 24 21 16 31 44 37 42 30 21 13 17 16 6 2 7 4 2 5 3 1 8 4892400.0 .i 1941 4313520 44 $1 42 51 37 12 9 7 6 4 4 1 4 2 3 'i 3249780.0 1946 2 5 21 16 29 li 20 50 36 26 50 20 23 19 8 10 4 5 5 4 1 5569700.0 -
1947 4183334 % 24 17 31 43 20 32 in 12 6 4 4 6 2 3 4049010.0- f 1948 23 7 S 12 29 22 23 43 41 41 21 20 21 7 to 9 7 4 8 2 1 % 96 s70. 0 i 1949 6 13 14 19 43 47 35 SF 32 35 19 13 7 2 5 & 3 2 3 3 6699290.0 g 1950 31015 7 17 31 72 38 to 45 22 13 7 7 3 316 %40.0 , 1951 15 32 35 30 26 27 40 46 39 32 16 8 12 4 3 2273740.0 , 1952 16 24 22 27 70 18 28 29 27 28 26 23 11 20 9 3 6 5 3 2 3 3 1 3809810.0 _ ! 1953 4 SO 15 to 16 9 21 32 IS 40 30 28 35 17 12 to 4 4 1 2 2 2 2 4065730.0 O ' 19 % 5 16 7 20 to 27 30 2619 29 17 !! 46 17 72 23 8 14 6 3 2 1 1 2 30h0370.0 . 1955 24 19 15 30 20 33 34 24 14 28 32 21 23 22 9 3 3 4 1 2 2 ' 20M22 70.0 [ 19 % 3 416147 4017 20 to 17 11 15 15 18 11 14 8 2 1 4 2 1 21910$0.0 , 1957 1 to 41 AS 21 15 22 34 21 23 35 26 19 17 5 4 S 3 1 1 3 1 2- 304 % 20.0 i 1958 6 18 26 10 39 43 36 54 28 31 36 7 11 3 3 4 2 1 1 1 1 .3837470.0 f 1959 210301523 68 38 30 43 24 19 18 9 19 7 4 3 2 1 3498820.0 ; 1960 6 6 S 10 16 43 45 38 % 27 15 27 28 19 13 5 1 2 3 2 1 4 % 7440.0 i i Summary for water years. 1929-60 . I CIA 8s ' cr8 TOTAL ACCUM FERCT CLASS CFS TCf4L ACCUM FERCT CIA 55 CFS TOTAL ACCUM FERCT CLAS$ CFS TOTAL ACCUM FEECT -
.0 18688 100.0 09 4500.0 ' 588 8903 76.2 18 20000 381 1150 9.8 27 80000 34 57 .S l 1 1200.0 % 11488 100.0 10 5000.0 1170 8313 71.1 19 25000 193 769. 6.6 28 100000 12 23 ' .. ! r 2 1400.0 6l 116 % 99.7 11 6000.0 1024 7143 61.1 20 30000 14S 576 4.9 29 .120000 3 11 .1 !
3 1700.0 113 11588 99.1 II 7000.0 798 6119 S2.4 21. 35000 110 431 3.7 30 140000 4 8 .1 , 4 2000.0 312 11475 98.2 13 8000,0 1496 $321 45.5 22 40000 73 321 2.7 31 170000 3 4 .0 ' S 2500.0 464 line) 91.5 14 10000.0 965 382S 32.7 23 45000 49 248 2.1 32--.200000 1 1 .0 6 6 3000.0 580 10699 679 2860 98.5 IS 12000.0 24.3 24 $0000 76 - 199 1.7 33 .0 7 3500.0 598 10189 86.6 16 14000.0 678 21st 18.7 25 60000 39 123 1.1 34 .0 ; 8 4000.0 620 9521 81.5 17 17000.0 333 1503 12.9 26 70000 27 84 .7 35 l 4 I
?
ALABAMA POWER : COMPANY I JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT. j DATA TAKEN FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 'i FIOi GARACTERISTICS OF ALABAMA STREAM FLOW CHARACTERISTICS OF: THE ; Geological Survey of Alabama CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER I Circular 32 AT COLUMBI A, ALABAM A - j r SHEET I OF 2 FIGURE 2-12 '! r
. . 5
_., __ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . - , p
2-3435. CHATTnHOOCHEE RIVER AT COLUMBIA, ALA. ' LOdEST MEAN DISCHARGE, IN CFS, FOR THE FOLLOdING NUMBER : OF CONSECUTIVE DAYS IN YEAR BEGINNING AFRIL 1 I 9 FA8 1 3 7 le 30 60 90 120 150 181 274 1929 3 $ 50. 0 3750.0 4420.0 4910.0 5710.0 6970.0 7a10.0 8550.0 10700.0 11500.0 12700.0 1930 2300.0 2480.0 2760.0 2980.0 1330.0 4450.0 4M0.0 5710.0 $240.0 5820.0 7470.0 1931 1310.0 1930.0 1360.0 1410.0 1150.0 2100.0 2730.0 1932 2570.0 1 Rt.0. 0 30 0.0 1070.0 % 90.0 2690.0 -3080.0 3310.0 1860.0 4740.0 54)0.0 5920.0 6140.0 6410.0 8590.0 F 1931 2140.0 2240.0 2450.0 2$40.0 2n00.0 2990.0 314 0.0 3460.0 37 4 .9 19 % 2460.0 40so.0 46 a0. 0 1
?$50.0 2960.0 1060.0 36S0.0 4??0.0 4750.0 5090.0 1935 1510.0 S UO.1 - 5HO.0 6530.0 ,
1%0'.0 1660.0 I R40. 0 2050.0 2 5a0. 0 3710.0 4080.0 4 290.t 4520.0 $600.0 19 % 2200.0 2770.0 3260.0 Mio. 0 3730.0 4860.0 6000.0 6 370 r, 1937 2940.0 M 83. 0 9 30.0 9140.0 3150.0 3620.0 3a 50.0 4270.0 5730.0 6320.0 6270.0 6480.0 6450.0 6640.0 1938 2390.0 j 2450.0 2480.0 2 %0. 0 2660.0 3040.0 3 %0. 0 3 $80. 0 3910.0 4594.0 $900.0 > 1939 3110.0 3230.0 3160.0 3390.0 %20.0 3460.0 3830.0 4200.0 S80.0 6280.0 7430.0 ; 1940 2300.0 2330.0 2380.0 2420.0 2520.0 2800.0 3440.0 4180.0 4710.0 % 80.0 6900.0 i 1941 1610.0 1680.0 1770.0 1800.0 I n80.0 2140.0 7460.0 2770.0 31M 0. 0 3820.0 5000.0 1942 3690.0 3460.0 4190.0 4280.0 4660.0 4960.0 5320.0 6 D60. 0 6120.0 6660.0 2510.0 1943 2930.0 1110.0 3170.0 3 2 $0,0 3500.0 3F RO. 0 4250.0 43s0.0 5110.0 S A00. 0 7190.0 1944 3290.0 3520.0 3790.0 3n00. 0 1890.0 4270.0 $000.0 53no 0 5620.0 5950.0 6840.0 , 1945 3200.0 3660.0 3980.0 4180.0 5040.0 5590.0 $720.0 6010.0 6170.0 6200.0 9140.0 , 1946 M SO. 0 3770.0 4130.0 4230.0 4620.0 5000.0 4960.0 $160.0 % 20.0 6740.0 9310.0 y 1947 38 t 0.0 3170.0 3240.0 3350.0 1420.0 1670.0 4460.0 $110.0 6180.0 6910.0 9310.0 1 1948 4300.0 4570.0 4960.0 5070.0 S470.0 6650.0 8000.0 9930.0 12100.0 11300.0 16000.0 1949 4950.0 $ 150. 0 5)no.0 6000.0 6120.0 6700.0 6710.0 7270.0 7660.0 84 %0.0 10m0.0 { 1910 2660.0 2700.0 2860.0 2910.0 3110.0 38h0.0 4190.0 49H0.0 5310.0 % 70.0 6060.0 ' 19$1 2180.0 2180.0 2210.0 2310.0 2'20.0 3010.0 3090.0 3)so.0 h90.0 4020.0 $890.0 1952 2440.0 2470.0 2)20.0 2540.0 2580.0 2610.0 3240.0 % 90.0 3440.0 3 P 00. 0 S A00. 0 1933 2970.0 2920.0 2930.0 3130.0 3710.0 4230.0 $ 600.0 5070.0 6220.0 M 10. 0 9700.0 l 8954 1210.0 1780.0 !?90.0 1310.0 120.0 1420.0 1630.0 1850.0 2180.0 2470.0 3560.0 1 1935 1640-0 1640.0 1660.0 1730.0 1880.0 1970.0 2210.0 ? >80. 0 2610.0 2870.0 3860.0 4916 1640.0 1680.0 1770.0 1840.0 20)o.O 2))0.0 7930.0 3040.0 17 70. r 3980.0 -5460.0 1917 1900.0 2030.0 2250.0 2410.0 2nDO 0 2990.0 3600.0 39 r.0.0 421" 0 4640.0 6750.0 1958 3220.0 S ho,0 3540.0 3590.0 4010.0 4230.0 4780.0 5130.0 % .0. 0 5980.0 6 % 0. 0 j 1959 2540.0 2620.0 2780.0 3180.0 4990.0 3200.0 5750.0 6240.0 s490.0 M90.0 8280.0 ; HIGHEST MEAN DISCHARGE, IN CFS, FOR EE FOLLCMING NUMBER ; OF CONSECUTIVE DAYS IN W E YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30 t 9 B Alt 1 3 7 15 30 60 90 820 150 183 274 I 1979 202000.0 196000.0 160000.0 126000.0 10$070,0 6 M00. 0 49100.0 40700.0 M 700. 0 30100.0 22800.0 I 1930 96200.0 84200.0 5 % 00.0 31700.0 19900.0 18100.0 17000.0 16300.0 1M00.0 I6400.0 14000.0 1911 68600.0 63400.0 44200.0 27300.0 lano0.0 14200.0 12900.0 12000.0 11800.0 11600.0 9250.0 1982 41400.0 J7100.0 25500.0 21200.0 18n00. 0 17000.0 45800.0 148vo.0 13,.00.0 12300.0 10600.0 . 1931 63200.0 39800.0 51109.0 h s00.0 29700.0 24200.0 23100.0 22700.0 20900.0 16600.0 14600.0 F 19 % 62600.0 $8700.0 4S600.0 78600.0 19100.0 14000.0 12100.0 !!900.0 10900.0 10100.0 8390.0 193) 46700.0 41400.0 29700.0 24600.0 17100.0 14100.0 12100.0 10700.0 9770.0 8900.0 7790.0 , 19 % 101000.0 97800.0 A2100.0 61900.0 45100.0 39400.0 34000.0 33100.0 18400.0 24100.0 18400.0 1937 %100.0 57000,0 43900.0 29500.0 26500.0 23700.0 21700.0 22000.0 21100.0 19000.0 - 11100.0 . 1938 90000.0 88$00.0 72800.0 $0700.0 11300.0 22900.0 17300.0 14$00.0 14200.0 82700.0 10800.0 1939 76600.0 73500.0 $9100.0 40100.0 29)o0.0 24000.0 19900.0 17400.0 15700.0 14100.0 !?400.0 1940 49700.0 4)$00.0 33700.0 27100.0 19100.0 16700.0 15100.0 13P00.0 12200.0 12300.0 10600.0 1941 17900.0 13400.0 12100.0 81400.0 50700.0 9050.0 8490.0 t>20.0 7950.0 7DO.0 6130.0 1942 80600.0 76100.0 57100.0 35500.0 26000.0 22700.0 18000.0 17600.0 1%100.0 14200.0 11900.0 1943 118000.0 162000.0 94800.0 62100.0 41200,0 2 aa00.0 28800.0 25800.0 23200.0 20700.0 16500.0 1944 96000.0 90200.0 71200.0 64700.0 44800.0 39300.0 12600.0 26900.0 23700.0 21000.0 16300.0 , 1943 $8400.0 $1900.0 38600.0 27600.0 20600.0 15800.0 16400.0 1M00.0 13300.0 12500.0 10200.0 1946 71900.0 45%DO.0 55100.0 44000.0 36100.0 28900.0 27300.0 25800.0 24300.0 22600.0 18500.0 ! 1947 58700.0 55100.0 46000.0 31000.0 25700.0 22700.0 20900.0 19700.0 18100.0 16700.0 13200.0 ! 1948 80000.0 74000.0 6&.00.0 40500.0 13100.0 30600.0 25700.0 22n00.0 21000.0 19300.0 17800.0 1949 110000.0 10/000.0 94700.0 6a000.0 4 $500. 0 %600.0 31200.0 26600.0 26500.0 2 % 00.0 21$00.0 1930 27500.0 217 D0. 0 21900.0 20000.0 16700.0 14500.0 12800.0 11800.0 11200.0 10900.0 9480.0 ' 1951 78400.0 2M 00.0 20100.0 IS700.0 14900.0 12200.0 10500.0 9620.0 9160.0 8460.0 2210.0 1952 70200.0 M400.0 52600.0 37800.0 16000.0 25900.0 22000.0 20100.0 18100.0 16500.0 12700.0 , 1933 90500.0 01100.0 66600.0 44100.0 30900.0 22100.0 28900.0 20200.0 18700.0 16600.0 13500.0 l 19 % $1500.0 48700.0 %900.0 18700.0 2$ 700.0 20200.0 17800.0 16000.0 14600.0 13100.0 10300.0 ' 1915 38700.0 3 % 00.0 25400.0 18300.0 12%00.0 9630.0 10200.0 9500.0 8890.0 7980.0 6990.0 , 19 % 50500.0 47700.0 33900.0 22200.0 17700.0 14000.0 13100.0 11200.0 9680.0 6690.0 7090.0 i 1957 73000.0 49600.0 $3500.0 M200.0 2 % 00.0 19400.0 IS900.0 14600.0 14400.0 12900.0 9960.0 1938 23800.0 6 % 00.0 4$500.0 l 32800.0 23900.0 21100.0 18800.0 1u 00.0 15300.0 14500.0 12100.0 1959 $0700.0 44200.0 33700.0 24900.0 21300.0 19$00.0 17100.0 15000.0 l $100.0 13700.0 11200.0 83500.0 1960 72700.0 63200.0 44900.0 31000.0 26000.0 24200.0 21700.0 19300.0 17100.0 13800.0 4
- 0. . ri ,.8 1.e.4 6, t.t. m-7 i .i., 6..i-l a. .., n % . ..n i.n. e.,r, B..m.t r 6 81.. 8 1. it u.
ALA B AM A POWER COMPANY ~ JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT DATE TAKEN FROM FIOd CHARACTERISTICS OF ALABAMA FLOW CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STREAMS CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER Geological Survey of Alabama AT COLUMBl A, AL ABAM A Circular 32 SHEET 2 OF 2 FIGURE 2-12 1 i
I An examination of the records since 1964 when Walter F. George Lock and Dam and Columbia Lock and Dam were completed, shows the minimum average daily flow was 1760 cfs and occurred when discharge was 4010 cfs the day before and 5290 cfs the day after. Also during the month this occurred, Walter F. George Reservoir stored the equivalent of 1539 cfs. This indi-cates that low flow is presently being controlled by operation of upstream dams. The availability of water in the river does not depend on flow past the plant site, however, because of the impoundment formed by Jim Woodruff Dam. According to the Corps of Engineers, Lake Seminole varies in eleva-tion between 76 and 78 feet MSL. The Corps of Engineers maintains a nine foot deep navigation channel in the Chattahoochee River which corresponds to a river elevation of 76 feet MSL at the plant site. The area of the drainage basin affecting the Chattahoochee River at the site is about 8,246 square miles. The maximum historical flow based on 60 years of record was estimated to be 207,000 cfs during the flood of 1929. This flow corresponds to an estimated maximum stage at the site of about 124 feet MSL. This event might be expected to be equaled or exceeded on the average of once in 130 years. To establish the design flood for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, a more improbable situation was considered, namely, the positioning of probable maximum precipitation upstream of the plant site so that the probable maximum discharge and elevation would result at the site. It should be pointed out, however, that this probable maximum precipitation resulted from transposition of the maximized storm of March,1929 which had its primary center at Elba, Alabann. It is possible but highly improbable 2-21
that this storm, modified to produce the maximum flood at the plant site, . V,f g might actually occur during the life of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant. i The flood elevation at the site resulting from estimates made as described above is 144.2 feet (MSL). This corresponds to the asximum , probable peak discharge at the site of 642,000 cfs which is more than triple the maximum estimated flood discharge of record. The river intake structure will be flood protected to the level of the probable 1000 year flood (127 feet MSL.) . All other structures and j equipment necessary for maintaining long-term safe conditions will be j located on or above the plant level of 154.5 feet (MSL). The design storm for the storage pond was assumed to be a six-hour storm with a probable maximum precipitation of 29.9 inches based on U. S. j Weather Bureau Hydrometeorological distribution found in the U. S. Corps {} of Engineers Bulletin 52-8. A simple triangular unit hydrograph was used to develop the inflow hydrograph. The inflow was routed using the arithmetic tabular method and assuming that the pond was full (elevation 186 MSL) at the beginning of the routing. Maximum routed outflow is 1850 cfs. The above analysis neglects the normal removal of service water ; from the storage pond. A wave height analysis was made based on procedures described in l
" Freeboard Allowances for Waves in Inland Reservoirs", Saville, McClendon, and Cochran, Journal of Waterways and Harbors Division, ASCE, May, 1962.
The most critical wind direction for wave formation was found to be from the northwest. O 2-22
The required duration of wind velocity for wave formation was found to be approximately seven minutes. A wind velocity of 50 miles per hour over land would produce a significant wave height of 1.4 feet. (The significant wave height is that height which is exceeded by only 13 percent of the waves.) On the riprapped face of the dam, the wave runup would be approximately 1.7 feet including 0.1 feet for wind setup. The maximum wave would produce a runup of approx-imately 2.3 feet. Such a wave would be expected to occur once every 12 minutes. Rock Creek flows along the northern edge of the Farley Plant site. The drainage area is roughly rectangular with an area of 7.32 square miles. The highest point on the divide is approximately elevation 300 and the ground gradually slopes to the outfall at elevation 110.5. The time of () concentration for this basin is estimated to be 1.6 hours. The procedures developed by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, for design of emergency spillways for small watersheds in high risk areas was utilized to determine the six-hour storm hydrograph. The probable maximum storm hydrograph had a peak runoff of 54,700 cfs for a six hour probable maximum rainfall of 31 inches as obtained from Hydrometeorological Report No. 33.5 The storm runoff was routed through the impoundment created by the railway embankment conserva-tively assuming no infiltration or ponding losses. The construction in the Rock Creek area involves a railroad crossing Rock Creek on a fill with the track at 153 feet MSL. A 23-foot diameter culvert with the inlet invert at 110.5 MSL is to be provided in the rail-road fill for the normally expected flows of Rock Creek. O V 2-23
'r'Sg Since studies showed that' the 23-foot diameter pipe could not carry O
the probable maximum flood water without overtopping of the railway fill, a protective dike is planned along the north and west edges of the plant. construction yard with a top at 165.0 feet MSL. With this dike, the . maximum impoundment level will be 160.5 feet MSL for the maximum probable storm. The dike will direct the discharge away from the plant area. , When the storm flow overtops the railroad fill, it is expected that i the railroad ballast, track and ties, and some portion of the earth fill will be washed away. However, this was not considered in routing the inflow to determine the maximum ponding elevation.
- 1. Linsley, R. K., Kohler, M. A., and Paulhus, J. L., Hydrology for Engineers, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1958. pp. 52-168
- 2. Scott, J. C. , McCain, J. F. , and Avrett, J. R. , Water Availability, '
[) Houston County, Alabama, Map 59, Geological Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 1967.
- 3. Herrick, S. M. , and Vorhis, R. C. , Subsurface Geology Of The Georgia Coastal Plain, Information Circular 25, Department of Mines, Mining and .
Geology, State Division of Conservation, Atlanta, Georgia, 1963.
- 4. Jones,W. B., Water Resources and Hydrology of Southeastern Alabama, United States Geological Survey and Geological Survey of Alabama, Special Report 20, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 1949.
- 5. U. S. Weather Bureau, Hydrometeorological Report No. 33, April, 1956. .
- 6. Geological Survey Of Alabans, Flow Characteristics of Alabama Streams, Circular 32, 1968.
2-24
. s
\
3 2.4.5 Chemical And Physical Characteristics Of Water, Aquatic Li$e , . _/ And Bottom Muds In The Chattahoochee River From 1965 through June 1970, the Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, under the leadership of Dr. John Lawrence, conducted a thorough investigation of the dynamics of physical and chemical character-istics of water, suspended matter, hydrosol, plants and fish in Lakes Seminole, Eufaula, and Bartlett's Ferry, on the Chattahoochee River. This work was conducted with the aid of funds provided in part by the Office of Water Resources Research, U. S. Department of the Interior. The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant is on the upper reaches of Lake Seminole, while Lakes Eufaula and Bartlett's Ferry are located sequentially upstream from Lake Seminole. The objectives of the research were stated in the final report for OWRR Project B-101-Ala as:
- l. Locate the stratification ar Mensity currents in various i
' /
regions of the impoundment.
- 2. Determine the distribution of oxygenated waters (i.e. those water regions suitable for occupancy by fish) in various regions of the reservoir throughe t each year.
- 3. Obtain information on the concentrations of plant nutrients, including minor elements and toxic cations in waters and bottom muds of tributary streams, various regions of the reservoir, and its tailwaters during various seasons of the year.
- 4. Determine concentrations of suspended organic, and inorganic materials present at various water depths in various parts of the reservoir and its tailwaters during various seasons r- of the year.
/
2-25
- 5. Determine the distribution, chemical composition, and production of plankton in waters at various depths and regions of the reservoir during various seasons of- the year.
- 6. Determine rate of development, distribution, and chemical composition of rooted aquatic plants at each region t
sampled in the reservoirs.
- 7. Determine the condition of various species-of fish in various portions of the reservoir at different seasons of the year. ,
- 8. Correlate data obtained in achieving the above objectives by computer data analysis, and develop prediction techniques for use in future monitoring of waterplant, and fish life-in these reservoirs.
O The three reservoirs were divided into several water areas for study. The data on physical and chemical characteristics of these three impound-ments were collected at stations scattered over a distance of 200 river miles. To facilitate arrangement and interpretation of these data they are separated for each impoundment and the major water areas within each impoundment were designated as follows : Bartlett's Ferry Reservoir Chattahoochee River (inlet). Osanippa Creek arm (inlet) . Helawakee Creek arm (inlet). One-quarter mile above Bartlett's Ferry Dam (outlet).. 2-26
'l i
() Lake Eufaula Upper region; Columbus, Ga. to river mile 120. Middle region; river mile 120 to river mile 97.5. Lower region; river mile 97.5 to Walter F. George Dam. Lake Seminole Chattahoochee River; between Columbia Dam and Jim Woodruff Dam Flint River; between Bainbridge, Ga. and Jim i Woodruff Dam Spring Creek arm. The following tables are reproduced directly from the final report submitted on project B-101-Ala. They show average temperature, dissolved oxygen, resistivity, pH and total alkalinity. O 1 i l I i s_s- 3 2-27
t The averaged temperature and dissolved oxygen content of waters at 1 various stations and depths in Lake Eufaula for the period May through Sep- [ j tember, 1965 to 1969. , i Location Year Depth ! 0' 20' 40' 80' .j Upper region 1965 C 29.6 28.9 28.8 ! 0 2 ppm 6.6 5.2 5.2 -l
'66 C 25.5 23.0 25.7 ,
0 2 ppm 6.8 6.3 5.0 !
'67 C 24.7 23.8 26.1 0 2 ppm
^
6.9 6.6 6.7 ,
'68 C 27.9 27.9 26.2 :
0 2 ppm 10.8 7.2 5.9 '
'69 C 29.0 28.2 28.0 !
0 2 ppm 6.6 4.9 2.9 ! i Middle region '65 C 26.0 25.0 24.6 ! 0 2 ppm 6.2 3.8 2.7 i
'66- C 28.7 26.7 26.1 --,
0 2 ppm 6.7 4.3 2.4 l
'67 C 27.1 25.2 24.9 l O '68 2 rem C
7.3 28.5 4.7 26.3 3s 25.0 0 2 ppm 8.8 5.0 3.3 !
'69 C 28.4 25.7 25.1 0 2 ppm 9.3 5.2 3.8 1
Lower region '65 C 30.5 28.4 27.3 26.2 : 0 2 ppn 7.6 3.4 1.6 1.9 [
'66 C 29.0 27.2 26.6 26.6 0 2 ppm 6.8 4.7 3.3 1.2 ,
'67 C- 27.3 25.2 24.4 24.5 0 2 ppm 8.4 4.6 2.2 1.1 I
'68 C 29.1 25.7 24.4 22.2 0 2 ppm 8.2 4.3 2.4 1.0 .
'69 C 32.3 27.7 26.2 24.3 >
0 2 ppm 8.7 2.1 1.1 0.0 [ 1 l i O l l
i The averaged temperature and dissolved oxygen content of waters at ; various stations and depths in Lake Seminole for the period May through 'Sep- [ tember, 1968-1969. t Location Year Depth O' 20' Flint river '68 O C 27.5 26.0 2 ppm 7.3 5.3 *
'69 O C 26.4 26.0 2 ppm 6.3 '5.7 Spring creek '68 O C 27.1 ,
2 ppm 7.8 l
'69 O C 25.0 2 ppm 7.5 Chattahoochee river i Above Great '68 O C 24.6 24.7 Northern Plant 2 ppm 6.8 6.1 O- '69 O C 26.0 .l 2 ppm 5.7 Neal's landing '68 0 2 ppm 5.7 5.5
'69 C 27.0 27.0 2 ppm 5.5 5.0 l Jim Woodruff Dam '68 C 29.0 26.8 I 0 'l 2 ppm 7.7 4.1
'69 C 26.5 27.0 0
- 2. ppm 7.35 5.0 Q l
. , - - ,a
t
'1 Averaged resistivity in ohms /cm3 of water at various stations and depths .;
in Bartlett's Ferry Reservoir, Lakes Eufaula and Seminole for periods May .f through September 1965-1969. - 9 [ Reservoir and Mean l 3 Region Year' Ohms /cm 95% Cl* Range l Bartlett's Ferry . Input '68 18,626 1,700 6,500-27,000 1 Output '68 18,037 995 15,300-24,000 ! Input '69 17,715 3,300 8,200-29,500 ! Output '69 16,525 2,200 12,200-21,500 i Lake Eufaula ! Upper '65 '67 16,667 l
'68 15,242 984 7,500-26,000 ;
'69 16,684 1,174 12,000-28,000 Middle '65 '67 16,933 - - -
t
'68 15,230 1,052 7,500-51,500 l
'69 16,966 1,038 13,000-24,000 l Lower '65 '67- 13,200 - - -
l
'68 16,393 732 8,000-29,000 i
'69 17,400 848 10,400-22,500 i
Lake Seminole ' Chattahoochee r. '67 12,775 800 11,500-14,500
'68 13,105 1,150 2,000-17,600 ;
'69 14,206 2,115 6,500-22,000 l Flint r. '67 14,925 500 .14,500-15,400
'68 10,801 815 7,000-17,700 i
'69 9,784 990 6,800-21,000 t Spring cr. '67 7,465 680 5,300-11,000 i
'68 8,038 870 4,900-11,000 :
'69 7,954 930 5,500-10,000 l I
*Conficence interval = Mean 1 95% C. I.
O l l i 1
C) Averaged pH values for selected areas within the 3 impoundments and l l l their associated 95 percent confidence intervals during 1965 through 1969.
~
i Reservoir and Mean Region Year pH 95% CI* Range Bartlett's Ferry Input '68 7.64 .53 6.1-10.0 , Output '68 7.26 .74 5.9-10.2 Input '69 7.20 40 6.7- 9.2 Output '69 7.59 .78 6.7- 9.8 Lake Eufaula Upper '65 '67 7.0
'68 7.58 .18 6.6- 9.5
'69 6.88 24 6.1- 8.5 .
Middle '65 '67 7.0 - -
'68 7.53 .14 6.9- 9.4 O- '69 6.77 .19 6.0- 8.5 Lower '65 '67 7.1 - -
'68 7.48 .18 6.7- 9.2 ,
'69 6.78 .18 6.0- 8.7 I Jake Seminole Chattahoochee r. '67 7.31 .20 7. 0- 7. 7
'68 7.43 .10 7.1- 7.9 l
'69 7.73 .30 6.6- 8.5 Flint r. '67 7.23 .17 7.0- 7.4
'68 7.84 .20 7.1- 9.3
'69 7.81 .21 6.6- 9.0 Spring cr. '67 7.63 .30 6.4- 8.8 ,
'68 8.23 .21 7.5- 8.9
'69 8.00 .33 6.9- 8.7_ i P
- Confidence interval = Mean 95% C. 1.
h t
( % The averaged total alkalinity, as ppm-CACO3 , for all depths by reservoirs, stations within reservoirs, and by years, and the associated 95 percent confidence : i intervals for 1965 through 1969. ; i Reservoir and T. alkalinity [ Region Year ppm CACO 3 95% CI* Range ppm. i Bartlett's Ferry ; Input '68 25.25 6.20 16.25-81.25 Output '68 20.25 1.94 16.25-28.75 Input '69 31.35 9.20 11.25-60.00 , output '68 33.75 16.00 21.25-88.75 Lake Eufaula Upper region '65 '67 19.90 -
'68 25.45 2.70 15.0 -57.50 l
() Middle region
'69
'65 '67 22.40 19.70 3.16 13.75-46.25
- )
'68 25.72 2.20 18.70-60.00 ;
'69 22.88 3.16 13.70-70.00 !
Lower region '65 '67 21.20 - --
'68 24.42 2.44 16.25-85.00
'69 23.83 2.96 13.70-70.00 Lake Seminole ,
Chattahoochee '67 26.72 2.00 21.25-28.75 i river '68 32.10 6.20 20.00-100.00
'69 32.29 6.30 25.00-43.75 ;
Flint river '67 21.56 .65 21.25-22.50. l
'68 48.14 6.20 25.00-100.00
'69 54.14 5.00 .25.or-83.75 Spring creek '67 69.68 6.65 42.50-93.75 !
'68 60.45 8.80 40.00-91.25
'69 78.36 11.00 45.00-100.00
- Confidence interval = Mean 1 95% C.I.
I (} .
t. i i
~
The following tables from the same report show the element content O.- ~ of lake water, hydrosol, fish, and aquatic plants. Elements listed are: I [ i Nitrogen (N) - Table 20 i Phosphorous (P) - Table 21 Potassium (K) - Table 22 Carbon (C) - Table 23 , Calcium (Ca) 'lable 24 l
}
Strontium (Sr) - Table 25 : Magnesium (Mg) - Table 26 l Sodium (Na) - Table 27 Iron (Fe) - Table 28 Manganese (Mn) - Table 29 i-1 I Zine (Zn) - Table 30 Copper (Cu) - Table 31 Lead (Pb) - Table 32 ; i Nickel (Ni) - Table 33 i i
.t Cadmium (Cd) - Table 34 l Chromium (Cr) - Table 35
.i Cobalt (Co) - Table 36 i The tables are reproduced directly from the original report and {
therefore carry the table numbers originally given in the report. i This data serves as baseline data and establishes conditions in the j river prior to construction and operation of the Joseph M. Farley Plant. It i will serve as a basis for comparison with conditions which will be found [ after the plant is in operation. l o 1 2-28
Table 20 > e ? i {4 Distribution of elemental NTIT! OGEN in major components of 3 largestream impamdments BARTLETT'S FERRY RESERVOUt Ratio of N - soluble to surpewled matter in uter 1968 1969 Input-Chat *.aboochee river 1:-- 1:0.7 ; Output-Bartlett's Ferry Dam 1:-- 1:1.24 ' Average total N concentration in water, ppm 0.192 1.044 Total N, Ibs per m12 drainage area. April-October Input-Chattr6ooebec river 229.0 827.0 Outlut-Bartlett's Ferry Dam 282.0 925.0
!!ydrosol - Total N concentration in sample, ppm 2,770.0 2.490.0 Total Ibs N per acre in 0.01 inch 7.83 6.03 Fish - Total standing crop. Ibs per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentration N. por cent 9.61 9.61 '
Total lbs N ler acre 4.82 Aquatic planta Stecles Year Acres Wet weight. N content. Pounds N 1 lbs per acre percent per acre Waterstlow 0.5 30.000 2.67 160.2 LAKE UUFAUI.A Ratioof N - soluble to ruspended snatter in water 1968 1969 Intel'uocr rcrion 1:- 1:c,ct O\ Middle region loser repon 1 :-- 1:-- 1:0.64 1:0.66 Average total N concentration in water, ppm Upper region 0.172 0.652 Middle repm 0.198 0.553 Iower region 0.190 0.356 Total N, Ibs ter m12drainage area. April-October ' Input-t'pper repon 177.0 771.0 , Middle region 350.0 b65.0 ! lower region 158.0 522.0 Outgut-Walter F. George Dam 169.0 429.0
!!ydrosol - Total N concentration in sample, ppm l'pper region 1,970.0 2,340.0 y Middle region 2.930.0 2.930.0 lower region 2,220.0 3,390.0 Pounds total N per acre in 0.01 inch Uprer region 5.77 6.67 Middle region 8.60 B.60 lower region 6.50 10.00 l Fish - Total standing crop, Ibs per acre 190.0 190.0 I Average emcentration N. per cent 9.61 9.61 &
Total Ibs N rer acre 4.82 Aquatic plants S;ecies Year Acres Wet weight N content. Pounds N lbs per acre per cent per acre A111gniorweed '6 B 1 150,000 2.90 355.2 L .-do- '69 5 150.000 2.47 296.4
- Table 20 Continued '
1AKE SEMINO!.E (Nitrogen continued) Ratio of N - solul>1e to rupended matter in water 1968 1969 Not available ,
' Average tc4sl N cance-tration in water, ppm Cic:tahychne river arm 0.216 0.341 niet river ann 0.158 0.522 Sprir4 cruk arm 0.170 0.340 2
Total N, lbs per m1 crecce crea, April-October input-Chrido<>cLee river arm 226.0 309.0 nint river arn 157.0 347.0 Sprirg cr'eek arm 117.0 145.0 Output-ChattahoochAo river arm 2C7.0 379.0 111nt river arm 183.0 295.0
)(ydrosol - Total N concentration in sample, ppm Chattahoochee river arm 2,750.0 Flint river arm 2,370.0 2.565.0 Spring creek crm 2,900.0 2,070,0 Pousvis tcdal N ser nere in 0.01 inch Chattalv>ochoe river arm 8.6 8.3 Mint river as m 7.0 5.8 Spring creek arm 8.7 0.7 Fish - Total rtandng crop. Ibs per acre 210.0 210.0 Average concentration N, spm 96,000.0 96,100.0 Tota 11bs Nt er acre 5.25 5.23 Aquatic ;J ant s Srecie s Year Acres Wetwel&.
O N content. Posi.vt. N lbs per acre per cent por acre Alligatarweed '68 250 155,000 3.36 416.6
-do- 'C 9 100 155,000 2.37 293.9 Waterbyacinth '68 100 143,000 2.51 287.1
-do- '69 2G3 143,000 2.12 242.5 Diraslan milkil '68 2,000 ---
1.C7 167.0
-h- 'C9 2,000 --- 1.71 171.0 Ciant cutgrass '08 400 31,000 1.53 123.3
-do- '09 450 31,000 1.02 62.2 Crhers '68 500 30,000 1.09 101.4
-do- 09 500 30,000 1.70 102.0
'Ite averaged summertime r. landing crop" of N in each aquatic environment component (including the 0.01 incb 1swer of Iydrosol) for the 3 Impoundments r.ro gjven Irlow.
Compment Year Bartlett's Ferry 1Ake l'ufaula 1.ake Seminole Reservoir Obs) (1bs) (1bs) Water + nuspanded metter '08 76.050 409,896 175,545
.do- '69 413,887 1,175,206 373,791
!!ydroso! '68 45,605 315,175 282,850
-do- '69 35,275 404,763 200,570 rich '68 28,197 216,900 183,750
-do- '69 20,197 216.900 183,750 Aquatic 14anta '68 60 355 SC6,880
-d o- '69 80 1.482 522,430 Total N '68 150,132 1,002,326 1,209,025
-do- '69 477,439 1,758,351 1,280,541 the N per wre '68 26.66 22.27 34.54
-do- '69 81.61 39.96 36.59 Lbs N per wre-foot '68 1.03 1.11 3.67
-do- '89 3.26 2.00 3.83 V '
t
Table 21 t s Distribution of elemental PHOSPl!ORUS in major components of 3 largestream impoundments BARTLETT'S FERRY RESERVOIR Ratio of P - soluble to suspended matter in water 1968 1969 Input - Chattahoochee River 1:3. 8 1:1 Output - Bartlett's Ferry Dam 1:2.7 1:1 Average total P concentration in water - ppm 0.249 0.234 Total P, lbs per mi 2 drainage area, Aprileber input - Chattahoochee River 242.0 560.0 , Output - Bartlett's Ferry Dam . 192.0 164.0 llydrosol - Total P concentration in sample, ppm 2,507.0 4,466.0 Total lbs P per acre in 0.01 inch 7.3 11.2 Fish - Total standing crop -lbs per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentration P per cent 3.01 3.01 ' Totallbs P per acre 1.51 Aquatic Plante Species Year Acres Wet weight P content, Pounds P lbe per acre per cent per acre Waternillow 0.5 30,000 0.30 18.0 1.AKE EUFAUIA Ratio of P - soluble to surpended matter in water 1968 1969 Innut - Upper rerlon 1:9 1:1.7
% Middle region 1:15 1:2.2 lower region 1:5 1:4.7 l Output - Walter F. George Dam Average tctal P concentration in sater Upper region 0.747 0.287 Middle region 0.599 0.263 Lower region 0.208 0.149 Total P. Ibs per mi drainage area, April-Octoter input - Upper region 859.0 374.0 Middle region 265.0 470.0 ,
Lower region 55.0 224.0 Output - Walter F. George Dam 68.0 95.0 Ilydrosol - Total P concentration in sample, ppm Upper region 2,409.0 2,891.0 Middle region 1,903.0 3,873.0 Lower region 862.0 3,230.0 Pounds total P per acre in 0.01 inch Upper region 7.1 8.1 Middle region 5.6 11.3 Lower region 2.5 9.5 , i Pish - Total standing crop - Ibs per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentration P, per cent 3.01 3.01 Total lbs P per acre 1.51 1.51
)
Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight P content, Pounds P lbs per acre per cent per acre 3
/* Alligatorweed '68 1 150,000 0.33 39.3
( -do- '69 5 150,000 0.33 39.3 , i i
i
,= Table 21 Continued f
LAKE SEMTNOLE (Phosphonis continued) Ratio of P - soluble to suspended matter in water 1968 1969 Chattahoochee River arm 1:4.1 1:1.4 Mint River arm 1:2. 5 1:0.8 Spring Creek arm 1:2.2 120. 5 Average total P concentration in water Chattahoochee River arm 0.209 0.103 Mint River arm 0.146 0.193 Spring Creek arm 0.068 0.096 j 2 Total P - Ibs per mi drainage area, Aprileter input - Chattahoochee River arm 129.0 89.0 Mint River arm 81.0 389.0 Spring Creek arm 69.0 104.0 Output - Chattahoochee River arm 152.0 112.0 Mint River arm 132.0 69.0 Ilydrosol - Total P concentration in sample, ppm Chattahoochee River arm 920.0 FlJnt River arm 358.0 2,087.0 Spring Creck arm 433.0 720.0 Pounds total P per acre in 0.01 inch Chattahoochee River arm - 2.7 Mint River arm 1.1 6.1 Spring Creek arm 1.3 0.7 nsh - Total etanding crop - Ibs per acre 210.0 210.0 Averare concentration P per cent 3.01 3.01 1.64 1,64 [ N Tota! '.bs P. rier nere . Aquatic Plants Species Year Acres Wet weight P content, Pounds P lbs per acre percmt per nere Alliratorweed '68 250 155,000 0.24 21.7 3 I
-do- 'C9 100 155,000 0.41 50.*l Wat trbyadnth '68 100 143,000 0.37 42.3 l
-do- 'C9 260 143,000 0.82 93.8 j Eu ast an miliosi '68 2,000 0.23 11.3 !
.do- '09 2,000 0.13 10.3 Giant cutgrass '68 400 31,000 0.30 8.1
.-do- '69 450 31,000 0.17 13.7 Others 'G8 500 30,000 0.20 12.0
-d o- 'C9 500 30,000 0.22 13.2 The averaged summertime standing crop of P in each aquatie environmental component (including the i 0.01 inch layer of hydrosol) for the 3 impoundments are given below.
Component Year Baztlett's Ferry Lake Eufaula Lake Seminole Reservoir (lbs) (1bs) (1bs) i Water 4 suspended matter '68 99,450 1,032,817 138,895 do. '69 92,137 552,032 120,931 ! Ilydrosol 'C8 42,705 186,097 54.770
-do- 'G9 65,520 440,489 130,300 nsh '08 8,833 67,950 57,400
-do- 'G9 8,833 67,950 57,400 Aquatic plaris '08 9 39 41,545 ;
-do- '69 9 19G 55,345 Total P '68 150,997 1,280,905 292.600
-do- '69 160,499 1.061,267 363,976 Lbs P per acre '68 25,8 28.6 8.4
-do- 'GS 28.5 23.6 10.4 Lie P per acre foot '68 1.03 1.43 .89
-do- 'C 9 1.14 1.18 . 1.10 f
e
-~
r Table 22 i
\
Distribution of elemental POTASSIUM in major components of 3 largestream Impotmdments RARTLITT'S FTRTtY RESERVOIR Ratio of K - soluble to susp-ndat matter in water 1968 19 0 Input - Chatt Acochee River 1:0.09 1:0.04 Output - IWtlett's Ferry Dam 1:0.07 1:0.01 Average total K concentrations in uter, ppm 1.51 1.83 s Total K -Ibs per m12 drainage area, April-October input - Chattaboochee River 2,152.0 1,644.0 Output - Iktrtlett's Ferry Dam 1,360.0 1,691.0 Ifydrosol - Total K concentration in sample, ppm 2,507 0 4,470.0 Total lbs K per scre in 0.01 inch 12.4 24.4 Fish - Total standing crup - Ibs per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentration K, per cent 0.91 0.91 - Totallbs K per acre 0.45 0.45 Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight K content, Pounds K per acre, Ibs per cent per acre Waterwillow 0.5 30,000 2.37 142 LAKE FUPAULA Ratio of K - soluble to suspended matter in water input - Upper region 1:0.04 1:0.03
% h:1ddle region 1:0.05 1:0.03 lower region 1:0,04 1:0.03 Output - Walter F. George Dam Average total K concentration in uter .
Upper region 1.65 2.98 Middle region 1.64 2.92 lower region 1.64 2.35 Total K -Ibs per mi 2draina:;e area April-October input - Upper region 1,637.0 2,216.0 bilddle region 1,540.0 4,268.0 r Lower region 1,550.0 3,152.0 Output - Walter F. George Dam 1,401.0 2,912.6 liydrosol - Total K concentration in sample, ppm Upper region 2,409.0 2,891.0 ' E11ddle region 1,903.0 3,873.0 Lower region 802.0 3,230.0 Pounds total K per acre in 0.01 inch Upper region 4.9 72.5 Middle region 5.7 ( 6.6 ' Lower region 2.8 13.6 Fish - Total standing crop, Ibs per aere 190.0 190.0 Average concentration K per cent 0.91 0.91 Total Iba K per acre 0.45 0.45 Aquatic plants [ Species Year Acres Wet weight K content, Pounds K lbs per acre per cent per acre f (. Alligaterweed
-do-
'68
'60 1
5 150,000 750,000 3.98 4.87 477.6 584.4
C
~ Table 22 Continued LAKE SEMNOD: (Potassium continued)
Ratio of K - soluble to susperrled matter in water 1968 1969 Input - Chattahoochee River arm 1:0.06 1:0.03 111nt River arm 1:0.06 1:0.05 [ Spring Creek arm 1:0.06 1:0.03 L
?
Average total K cone (ntration in water ! Chattahoochee Idver arm 1.60 1.24 f Mint River arm 1.12 1.15 l Spring Creek arm 0.58 1.54 , I Total K -lbs per m12/lrainage area, April - October Input - Chattahoochee River arm 1,784.0 2,103.0 , Mint 1tiver arm 875.0 1,505.0 , Spring Creek arm 67.0 965.0 i Output - Chattahoochee River arm 1,738.0 946.0 {* Mint IUrer arm 1,557.0 550.0 Ilydrosol - Total K conecotration in sample, ppm Chattahoochec Idvor arm 7,800.0 Mint IUver arm 2,502.0 4,823.0 Fpring Creek arm 1,042.0 6,000.0 . Pounds total K per nere in 0.01 inch Chattahooci.ce 1dver arm 1.3 23.0 Itnt River arm 7.6 4.6 e Spring Creek arm 3.1 2.5 Fish - Total standing crop - Ibs per acre 210.0 210.0 Average concentration K - per cent 0.91 0.91 Total lbs K per acre 0.50 0.50 Aquatic plants Epecies Year Acres Wet weight K content, Pounds K lbs per acre per cent per acre Alligntorwecd '68 250 155,000 39,943 495.0
-do- '69 100 155,000 46,900 581.0 Waterbyacin'h '68 100 143,000 39,000 446.0
-do- '69 260 143,000 47,950 548.0 Eurasian milfoil '68 2,000 4,002 40G.0
-do- '69 2,000 6,000 600.0 ;
Giant cutgrass '08 400 31,000 19,332 155.0 f
-do- 'CS 450 31,000 17,000 137.0 I Others '08 500 30,000 21,500 120.0 l
-do- 'C9 500 30,000 21,961 132.0 The averaged summertime shr<thw crop of K in each aq2atic environmental component (including the 0.01 inch layer hydrosol) for the 3 impoundments are given below. ;
i Component Year Bartlett's Ferry Lake Enfaula Lake Seminoic Reservoir (Ibs) (Ibs) . (Ibs) ; l Water + suspended matter '68 599,025 4,077,490 1,000,320'
-do- '09 731,250 6,065,920 1,137,400 .;
ltydrosol '68 72,540 180,033 151,000
-do- '69 142.740 690,654 395,950 Msh 'G8 2 C32- 20,250 17,500
.{
-do- '69 2,032 20,250 17,500 Aquatic plants '68 71 478 294,850 !
-do- '69 71 2.920 332.230 {
Total K 'G8 674,808 4.288,241 1,523.670
,i
-do- '69 876 C93 7,559,744 1,903,090
,. Lbe K per acre '68 115.4 95.3 43.5 5 -do- '69 149.8 168.0 54.3 ! Lt* K per acre - foot '69 4.61 4.76 4.62
-do- 'CD 5.99 8.40 5.77 ;
A L . - - Table 23 Distritution of elemental CARDON in major components of 3 largestream impoundments RARTLETT'S FERRY RESERVOIR Ratio of C - soluble to suspended matter in water 1968 1969 Input - Chattahoochee River 1:0,15 1:0.48 ; Output - Bartlett's Ferry Dam 1:0.06 1:0.39 ' Arerage total C concentration in water, ppm 9.51 8.85 ffydrosol - Total C concentration in cample, ppm 37,400.0 20,600.0 , Total lbs C per acre in 0.01 inch 131.0 77.5 Floh - Total shw*f er crop - lbs per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentrittfon C, per cent 47.8 47.8 TotalIba C per acre 24.0 24.0 t Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight C content Pounds C lbs per acre . per cent per acre Watermillow 0.5 30,000 41.38 1,241.0 r IAKE FtfFAUIA Ratio of C - soluble to suspended matter in water 1968 1969 Input - 1*pper region 1:0.28 1:0.10 ; Middle region 1:0.31 1:0,16 Lowr region 1:0.22 1:0. 0 Average total C concentration in uter, ppm finnc? rec 4rm 11.9R 17.31 O~. Middle region 13.04 13.00 ; Lower region 12.11 9.91 Ilydrosol - Total C concentration in cample, ppm Upper region 37,500.0 23,900.0 Auddle region 36,900.0 24,200.0 Lower rcgica 26,400.0 32,100.0 Pounds tot 11 C per acre in upper 0.01 inch Upper regico 110.2 67.0 Middle region 109.4 71.2 Lower regico 77.7 94.4 Fish - Total standing crop, Iba per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentration C, per cent 47.8 47.8 , Tota 11bs C per acre 24.0 24.0 i Aquatic plants i Species Year Acres Wet weight C content Pounds C , 1bs per acre per cent per acre , Alligntorweed '6B 1 150,000 36.3 4,356.0
-do- '69 6 150,000 35.2 4,224.0 t
s h b i 3
~
O ,
Table 23 Continued , LAKE SEMINOLE (Carbon continued) Average total C concentration in water, ppm 1968 1969 Chattahood2ee IUver arm 16.938 12.392 ' Flint lurer arm 13.089 14.034 Spring Creek arm 16.825 12.638 11ydrosol - Total C concentration in sample, ppm Chattahoochee River arm 27.800.0 Flint River arm 25,500.0 45,400.0 Spring Creek arm 48,300.0 63.100.0 Pounds total C per acre in 0.01 inch Chattahoochee Juver arm 39.0 82.0 ! Flint Itiver arm 134.0 60.5 Spring Creek arm 185.0 15.5 Fish - Total standing crop - Ibs per scre 210.0 210.0 Average concentration C, per cent 47.8 47.8 Totallbs C per acre 26.1 26.1 Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight C cocitent Pounds C lbs per acre per cent per acre Alligatorweed '68 250 155,000 39.20 4,861.0
-do- '69 100 155,000 36.70 4,550.0 Waterhyacinth '68 100 143,000 41.70 4,770.0
-do- 'G9 260 143,000 35.00 4.072.0 Eurasian milfoil 'c8 2,000 31.92 640.0
<lo- '69 2,000 35.90 705.0 Giant cutgrass '68 400 31,000 43.87 3.538.0
/f\ -do- 'M A50 31,000 41.00 3,304.0 CM.hers '68 500 30,000 39.10 2,346.0 ;
-do- 'C9 500 30,000 39.10 2,346.0 The averaged summettime standing crop of C in each aquatic environmcatal componcrd (incialing the 0.01 inch layer hydrosol) for the 3 impoundmerts are given below.
Componera Year Battlett's Terry Lake Eufaula IAke Seminole e Reservoir (Ibs) (Ibs) (Ibs) ! Water + suspended raatter '68 3,758,625 31,614,740 13,857,480 do- 'G9 3.510,000 30,570.6E0 11,641,G50 Ilydroso! '68 760,350 4,690,177 2.857,000 ,
-do- 'C9 453,375 2,154,744 2,000,500 lish '68 140,400 1,090,000 913,500 l
-do- '68 140,400 1,080,000 913,500 !
Aquatic plants '68 620 4,356 5,500,450
-do- '69 620 21.120 5,583,520 Total 'C 8 4,065,935 37,380.273- 23.188,430 -
-do- '69 4,104.395 33,726,544 20,539,170 Lbs C per acre '68 797.G 830.8 062.5
-<lo- '09 701.C 749.4 586.8 Lbs C per acre-foot 'G B 31.9 41.5 70.4
-do- 'C9 28.0 37.4 62.4 ,
F r i 1 i
Table 24 . %p) Distribution of elemental CALCIUM in major components of a largestream impotmdments BARTLFTT'S FITIRY RESERVOIR Ratio of Ca - soluble to suepended matter in s-ster 1968 1969 Input - Chattahoorbee River 1:0.04 1:0.04 Output - Battlett's Ferry Dam 1:0.04 120. 05 Average total Ca concentration in water, ppm 2.62 2.55 2 Total Ca - Ibn per mi dminaro area, April-October input - Chattahootbec River 2,528.0 2,512.O Outtut - Iktrilett's Ferry Dam 2,346.0 2,488.0 liydrosol - Total Ca concentration in sample, ppm 2,508.0 4,466.0 Total lbs Ca per acre in 0.01 inch 4.34 4.85 Fish - Total standing crop - Ibs per sere 190.0 190.0 Average concentration Ca, per cent 37.2 37.2 Total Ibs Ca per acre 18.7 18.7 Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Cn content. Pounds Ca lbs per acre per cent per acre Waterwillow 0.5 30,000 15.4 92.4 LAKf FUFAITIA Ratio of Ca - soluble to suspended matter in water 1968 1969 Input - Upper recion O 111ddle region Lower region 1:0.02 1:0,02 1:0.03 1 0.01 1:0.04 1:0.04 Average total Ca concentivtlon in water, ppm Upper region 5.07 4.22 ; litiddle region 5.38 3.52 lower region 4.34 3.92 , 2 Total Ca -Ibs per m1 drainage area. April - October Input - Upper region 2,605.0 4,076.0 MJddle region 2,919.0 3,227.0 Lower region 3,358.0 3,783.0 Output - Walter F. George Dam 3,698.0 2,432.0 Ilydrosol - Total Ca concentration in sample, ppm Upper region 2,749.0 2,923.0 hilddle red on 1,820.0 1,693.0 t Lower region . 7,344.0 1,6B0. 0 Pounds total Ca per acre in 0.01 inch
- Upper region 8.1 8.2 111ddle region 5.4 5.1 g Iower region 21.7 5.0 Fish - Total standing crop - Ibs per acre 190.0 190.0 ;
Average conecutration Ca. per cent 37.1 37.1 Totallbs Ca per acre 18.6 18.6 Aquatic plants Epecies Year Acres Wet weight Ca content Pounds Ca Ibn per acre per cent per acre
.. Alligatorweed '68 1 150,000 .71 88.0 r
_do. '69 5 150,000 .68 84.3
'I f
6 i q Table 24 Continued O 5 LAKESDtINO11 (Caletum continued) Ratio of Ca - soluble to suspended matter in uter 1968 1969 Input - Cha:*ahoochee FJver arm 1 0.02 1:0.02 Tlira R.tver arm 1:0.01
- Pprir4 Creek arm lio.01 !
1:0.01 1:0.01 Average total Ca excentration in water, ppm Chattahoc< hee River arm 6.27 7.51 Flint River mn 12.60 14,77 Spring Creek arin ; 20.17 20.56 i Total Ca -Ibs per I::.12 anticare area, April-October Input - Chat:ahooctee River arm 6,427.0 7,826.0 Flirl River arm 10.742.0 Sprirg Creek arm 15.590.0 16,295.0 20,525.0 Output - Chattahoochee River arm 10,360.0 1,163.0 FILnt River arm 11,710.0 C,780.0 [
!!ydrosol - Total Ca concentration in sample, ppm I Chattahoochee River arm 2,478.0 Flint River arm 2,625.0 1,520.0 Spring Creek arm 8,480.0 1,200.0 Pounds total Ca per acre in 0.01 inch Chattahoochee River arm 5.3 Flict River arm 4.5 I 8.36 9.45 Spring Crcck arm ,
25.0 0.39 i Fich - Total etandi::g crop - Ibs per acre 210.0 210.0 Averago conecntrntion ca - per cent 37.1 37.1 Total Iba Ca per ocre 20.25 i 20.25 ? Aquatic plante h Species Year Acres Wet weight Ca content Pounds Ca I lbs per nere per cent per acre f, r A111gatorwett! 'C 8 250 155,000 2.02 250.5
=
-do- '69 Waterbyneitth 100 155,000 1.56 193.4 (
' 68 100 143,000 1.56
-do- 155.6
'69 200 143,000 1.03 Euraslan milfoil 117.8
'08 2,000 2.59 ;
-do- 25.9
'69 2,000 Giant cutgrass 9.25 92.5 *
'68 400 31,000 .42
-do- 33.7
'09 450 31,000 .20 Others 16.1
'68 500 30,000 2.02 i
-do. 121.2 *
'C9 500 30,000' 2.00 120.0 t
The averaged sumsnertime standing crop of Ca in cach aquatic environment component (locluding ' the 0.01 inch layer hydrosol) for the 3 f rnpoundments are given below. ' l t Component Year Bartlett's Ferry Lnke Eufaula Lake Seminole t Reservoir (Ibs) (Ibs) ( (lbs) ' Water + suspendal matter. '68 1,039,375 11,966,470
-do - 13.237,550
'69 1,010,537 9,645,280 ltydrosol 11,954,860 *
'69 25,389 408,520 380,850
-do- 'C9 28,372 t
246,067 '200,050 Fish '08 109,395 I 837,000 708,750
-do- 'C9 109,395 837,000 708,750 Aquatic plants '08 46
-do- 88 204,065 i
' 09 46 421 . 302,213 Total 'C 8 1,*73,205 13.452,078 14,567,215
-do- '09 1, h 4,400 10,728,708 13.165,873 Lbe per acre 'C8 2,005 2,989
-do- 4,162 6
'69 1.)63 Lbs per acre-foot 2.384 3,762
'69 80.2
-do- 149.4 442.7
'C9 78.5 l 119.2 400.2 ',
I t
t
?
Table 25 3 (a i DisMbution of elemental STRONTIUM in major components of 3 largestram impoundments MitTLETT'S TTERY RESFRVOIR 1968 1969 Average total Sr concentration in suspen: led matter, ppm .0008 .0015 Total Sr -Ibs per mi drainage area, April-October input - Chattahoochee River .00 1.12 Output - Jurtlett's Ferry Dam .63 1.36 Ilydrosol - Total Sr concentrationin sample, ppm 16.2 29.0 Total 1bs Sr per acre in 0.01 inch .05 .083 i T!sh - Total standing crop -Ibs per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentration Sr. ppm 16.6 16.6 Tota 11bs Sr per acre .0008 .0008 Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Sr content Pounds Sr iba per acre ppm per acre Waterwillow '68 0.5 30.000 6.2 .037
-do- '69 0.5 30,000 6.2 .037 LAKE nf FAULA Average total Sr concentntion in euspended matter, ppm 1968 1969 Upper region .0008 .0018 Middle region .0008 .0012 Lower region .0009 .0011 .
2 Total Sr - Iba per m1 drainage area, April-October f g Input - Upper region .86 1.81 Middle region .70 1.29 Lower region .60 .97 Output - Walter F. George Dam .71 Ilydrosol - Total Sr concentration in rample, ppm ' Upner region 18.8 18.1 k.adle region 16.5 25.3 i Iower region 18.2 28.5 Pounds total Sr per acre in 0.01 inch Upper region .05 .05 Middle region .04 .07 + Lower region .05 .08 Fish - Total standing crop - Ibs per acre 190.0 190.0 Aversge concestration tr, ppm 16.6 16.6 Totallba Sr per acre .0008 .0008 i Aquat$c plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Sr content Founds Er Ibs per acre ppm per acre 4 Alligatorweed '68 1 150,000 6.6 .079
-<lo- '69 5 150,000 26.0 .312 I
C s t
Table 25 Continued 1AKE SEM1NOLE (ftrontium continued) Average total Sr concentration in suspended matter, ppm 1968 1969 Chattahoochee. River arm .0008 .0014 Mint River arm .0010 .0012 Spring Creek arm .0008 .0014 2 Total Sr - Ibs per mi drainage area. April-Octoter input - Chattahoochee River arm 1.20 1.89 Flint River arm 1.50 .98 Spring Creek arm .08 .92 Output - Chattahoochee River arm .37 - nint River arm .61
!!ydrosol - Total Sr concentration in cample, ppm i Chattahoochee River arm 30.0 Flint Rtver arm 13.3 24.1 Spring Creek arm 19.1 22.0
- Pounds total Sr per acre in 0.01 inch Chattahoochee River arm .02 .09 l Flint River arm .04 .07 Spring Creek arm .05 .01 Fish - Total standing crop - Iba per acre 210.0 210.0 Average concentration Sr ppm 16.6 16.6 Totallbs Sr per acre .0009 .0009 Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Sr content Pounds Sr Ibs per acre ppm par acre A111gatorweed '68 250 155,000 15.0 .186
-do- '69 100 155,000 22.1 .273 O Waterhvnetnth
-do-Eurasian milfoil
'AA
'69
'68 100 260 2,000 149,000 143,000 9.3 16.8 15.0
.106
.192
.150
-do- '69 2,000 24.0 .240 Ciant cutgniss '68 400 31,000 1.5 .012
-do- '69 450 31,000 2.0 .016 Others '68 500 30,000 16.6 .100
-do- '69 500 30,000 16.6 .100 The averaged summertime standing crop of Sr in each aquatic environment component (including the 0.01 inch layer hydronol) for the 3 tmpoundments are given below.
Component Year Bartlett's Ferry Lake Eufaula Lake Seminole Reservoir (1bs) (1bs) (Ibe) Water + suspendal matter '68 292.50 2,134.28 802.29
-do- '69 585.00 2,161.04 1,166.28 f
}!ydrosol '68 292.50 2,092.25 1,225.00 t
-do- '69 485.55 3,232.70 2,305.00 '
Fish '68 4.68 36.00 31.50
<lo- '69 4.68 36.00 31.50 -i Aquatic plants '68 .018 .079 411.90
-do- '60 .018 1.5G0 614.42 Total '68 589.698 5.262.609 2,470.69
-do- '69 1,075.248 6.451.300 4,137.20 Lbs Sr per acte '68 .3008 1.1695 .7059
-4o- '69 .1838 1.4330 1.1821 i Lbs Sr per acre - foot '68 .0040 0585 .0751
-do- '69 .0074 .0717 .1257 i
h v 1 I
t I Table 2G Distribution of elemental MAGNESIUM in major mmponents of a largestream impcnndments BARTLETT'S FTRRY RESTRVOm
- Ratio of Mg - soluble to sumperr'al matter in uster 1968 1969 IDput - Chttahoochee River [
1:0.04 1:0.05 Output - Isartlett's ierry Dam 1:0,04 1:0.05
?
Average total Mg concentration in siter, ppm 1.202 1.240 Total Mg - Ibn per m12 drairnre area April-October input - Chat'Aboochee River 1,237.0 1,157.0 Output - Bartictt's Ferry Dam 1,038.0 1,113.0' Ifydrosol - Total Mg enneentration in sampic, ppm 3,503.0 '3,840.0 Total Ibs Mg per acre in 0.01 inch -[ 9.71 11.62 Fieb - Total standing crop - Ibs per acre 190.0 190.0 Average conecutration Mg per cent 0.22 0.22 Total lbs Ng per acre 0.11 0.11 Aquatic plants Epecies Year Acres Wet weight Mg content Pounds Mg lbs per acre per cent per acre , Waterwillow 0.5 30,000 .73 43.8 LAKE EUFAULA Ratio of Mg - t.oluble to suspendal matter in water 1968 1969 O in.mt - Upper region Middle region Lower region 1 0.04 1:0.04 1:0.02 1 n.04 1:0.04 1:0.04 Average tctal Mg concentration in water, ppm Upper region 1.255 1.326 Middle region 1.322 1.208 ! Lowr region 1.3 83 1.180 Total Mg - Ibn per m12 drainage area, April-October Input - l'pper region l 1,198.0 1,337.0 ! Middle region 1,14G.0 1,423.0 Lower region 1,224.0 1,249.0 Output - Walter F. George Dam 1,191.0 1,214.0 flydrosol - Total Mg concentration in sample, ppm Upper region 3,438.0 3,151.0 ' Middle region 2,397.0- 3,0C7.0 Lower region 1,768.0 3,400.0 Pounds total Mg per acre in 0.01 inch Upper region ~ 10.1 8.9 Middle region 7.1 9.0 Lower region 5.2 10.0 1 Fish - Total standing crop - lbs per acre 190.0 190.0 Aversge concentration Mg, per cent 0.22 0.22 Total Ibs Mg per acre 0.11 0.11 Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Mg content Pounds Mg Ibs per acre per cent per acre 1 Alligatorweed '68 150,000 .37 1 45.8 [ -
-do- 'G9 5 150,000 .37 45.8 i
k i
Table 26 Continued / (, ; IAKE FEMINOil (Magnesium continued) Ratio of Mg - solubic to suspe:xied matter in water 1968 1969 I Input - Chattahcochee River arm 1r0. 05 1:0.06 Flint PJt er arm 1:0.27 1:0.04 Spring Creek arm 150.15 1:0.05 t Average total Mg coocentration in 1mter, ppm l Chattahoochee Elver arm 1.275 .844 i Flint River arm 1.147 .955 Spring Creek nrm .761 .975 I Total Mg - Iba per m12 drainage area Ap-11-October input - Chattahoochee River arm 1.558.0 1,108.0 Flint River arm 903.0 804.0 Spring Creek arm $3.0 635.0 Output - Chattahoochee River arm 1,554.0 971.0 Fitnt luver arm 945.0 685.0 Ilydrosol - Total Mz concentrntion in sample, ppm Chattahoochee R'ver arm 1,720.0 F1 tut River arm 1,304.0 2,301.0 Spring Creek arm 626.0 312.0 3 Pouvia tohl Mg per acre in 0.01 inch Chattahoochoe River arm 3.4 4.4 ' Flint River arm 3.84 4.85 Ppring Creek arm 1.85 1.00 Fath - Total stantir,r: crop - Ibs per acre 210.0 210.0 + Avenge concentration Mg - per cent 0 0.22 0.22 Tota 11br Mg per cerc U.12 0.12 Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Mg content Pounds Mg Ibs per acre per cent per acre # 1 A111gatorweed '68 250 155,000 .64 78.4
-do- '69 100 155,000 .21 26.0 Waterbyacinth '68 100 143,000 61 69.8
-do- '69 260 143,000 .31 35.5 3
Eurasian milfoil '68 2,000 .12 12.0 :
.<!o- '09 2,000 .04 4.0 !
Ciant cutgrass '68 400 31,000 .10 8.1 ,
-do- '69 450 31,000 .07 5.6 t Others '68 500 30,000 .27 16.2 *
-do- '69 500 30,000 .27 16.2 Tbc averaged summertime standing crop of Mg in each aquatic environment component (including the 0.01 inch layer bydrosol) for the 3 impoundments are given below. .
Component Year Bartlett's Terry Lake Eufaula Lake Seminole Reservoir (Ibs) 11bs) (Iba Water + suspended matter '68 476,775 3,350,610 1,002,040
-do- '69 491,400 3,060,200 829,550 Ilydrosol '68 56,803 291,750 114,500
-do- '69 67,977 425,258 136,500 Fish '68 643 3,850 5,400
-do- '69 643 3,850- 5.400 Aquatic plants '68 25,272 46 619,200 Wo- '69 25,272 275 304,500 Total '68 559,493 3,779,764 1,741,140
-do- '09 585.292 3.489.643 1.275,950 Lbs Mg per acre '68 956 840 497
-do-- '69 1,000 775 365 Lbs Mg per acre - foot '68 47.8 42.0 52. 8
-do- '69 50.0 38.7 38.8 5
. Table 27 i
Distribution of elemental SODIUM in major components of 3 largestream impc,andments BARTLETT'S FERRY RESERV0tR Ratio of Na - soluble to suspended matter in water 1968 1969 input - Chattahoochee River 1:0.01 1:0.01 Output - Bartlett's Fern Dam 1:0.01 110.02 Average total Na concentration in water, ppm 5.67 4.52 Total Na - Ibs per m12 dminage area, April-October ; input - Chattahoochee Riv:r 8,906.0 1,615.0 Output - Bartlett's Fern Dam 4,413.0 2,192.0
!!ydrosol - Total Na concentration in sample, ppm 1,383.0 1,646.0 Total Ibs Na per acre in 0.01 inch 4.9 6.94 Hab - Total standtne crop - Ibs per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentration Na, per cent 0.36 0.36 Totallbs Na per acre 0.18 0.18 Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Na content Pourris Na lbs per acre per cent per acre Waterwillow 0.5 30,000 .29 17.4 1AKE FUTAUIA h Ratio of Na - soluble to suspended matter in water 1968 1969 j Lapet - Urrar redan Middle region I ro. 01 1:0.01 1eo.02 1:0.02 Lower region 1:0.02 1:0.03 ,
Average total Na concentration in water, ppm Upper region 6.100 5.299 Middle region 5.764 5.756 Lower region 5.044 3.849 2 Total Na -Ibn per m1 drainage area, April-October input - Upper region 4,314.4 2,027.0 Middle region 5,628.0 2,604.0 lower region 5,210.0 2,184.0 Output - Walter F. George Dam 4,217.0 1,951.0 Hydrosol - Total Na concentration in sample, ppm , Upper region 4.399.0 3,400.0 Middle region 1,393.0 1,007.0 ; Lower region 3,008.0 1,340.0 6 Pcrands total Na per acre in 0.01 inch . 9.5 Upper region 6.7 Middle region 4.1 4.7 Lower region 8.8 4.0 Hsh - Total standing crop - Ibs per acre 190.0 19 0. 0 l Avenge concentration Na, per cent 0.30 0.36 Totalits Na per acre 0.18 0.18 i Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Na content Pounds Na , lbs per acre per cent per acre
- ~ -
Alligatorweed '68 1 150,000 .09 10.8 do. '69 5 150,000 .12 14.4 d
Table 27 Continued ( IAKE SEMINOLE diodium continued) Ratio of Na - soluble to suspended matter in water 1968 1969 Input - Chattahoochee River arm 1:0.01 1:0.01 Flint PJver arm 1:0.02- 1:0,03 Spring Creek arm 1:0.03 1:0.05 Average total Na cocecntration in water, ppm Chattahoochee River arm 5.63 5.72 Flint River arm 4.33 3.38 Spring Creek arm 2.57 1.60 Total Na -los per r.1 drainage area, April-Octoter ' input - Chattahoochee River arm 6,072.0 2,438.0 Flint PJver arm 3,761.0 1,119.0 Spring Creek arm 1,665.0 1,740.0 Output - Chattahoochee River arm 6,450.0 2.060.0 T11nt River arm 3.515.0 1,003.0 Ilydrosol - Total Na concentration in sample, ppm Chattahooctee River arm 760.0 Flint River arm 2,200.0 1,880.0 Fpring Creek arm 1,153.0 3,040.0 Pounds total Na per nere in 0.01 inch Chattahoochee River arm 6.2 2.25 Tlint River arm 6. 5 5.51 Spring Creek arm 3.4 0.98 Fish - Total standir.g crop - Ibs per acre 210.0 210.0 Average concentration Na - per cent .36 .36 Total lbs Na per acre 0.pn n,on r Aquatic plants ' Species Year Acres Wet weight Na content Pounds Na lbs per acre per cent per acre Alligatorweed '68 250 155,000 .53 65.7
-do- '69 100 155,000 .39 48.3 Waterbyacinth '68 100 144,000 .44 50.7
-do- '69 260 144,000 .24 27.6 Furasian milfoll '66 2,000 .51 51.0
-do- '60 2,000 .32 32.0 Giant cutgrass '68 400 31,000 .15 12.1 1
-do- '69 450 31,000 .05 4.0 Others '68 500 30,000 .39 23.4
-do- '69 500 30,000 .39 . 23. 4 -
The averaged summertime standing crop of Na in each aquatic environment component (including the t 0.01 inch layer bydrosoll for the 3 impoundments are given below. r Ccmponent Year BaMlett's Fern Lake Eufaula Lake Seminole Reservoir (lbs) (lbs) (Ibs) lt Water 4 susrended matter '68 2,223,000 - 13,650,880 4.010,040 do- '69 1,784,250 11,756,160 3.510,430 Hydrosol '68 28,665 312.716 203,450
-do- '69 40,599 225,1S3 117,620 i Pish '68 1,053 8,100 7,000 -d o- '69 1,053 8,100 7,000- ,
Aquatic plants - '68 8.7 10.8 140,035
-do ' '69 8.7 72.0 89,506 ,
Total - '68 2,252,726 13,971,707 4,360,525 I
-do- '69 1,825,910 11,989,515 3,724,556 O Lbs Na per acre '69 365.1 310.5 124.6
( -do-- Lbs Na per acre -foot
'69
'68 312.1 15.4 2CG.4 15.5 106.4 13.2
-doA '69 12.5 13.3 11.3 i
Table 28 i j N. ,/ Distrihtion of elemental IRON in major componenta of 3 largeetream impoundments BA RTT..ETT 'S. FFD RY HT ET RVOUt Ratio of Fe - soluble to sucpecdal matter in w-stcr 1968 1969 Input - Ctriahoocbee Flyer 1:2.6 1:2.9 Output - Ihrtlett's Ferry Dam 1:3. 5 1:2.6 Average total Fe ccmcentration in water, ppm 0.870 0.9 56 Total Fe - lbs per m12draln:tre area, April-October input - Chattahoochec Itiver 921.0 933.0 J Output - Bartlett's Ferry Dam 837.0 847.0 l 1 i Ifydrono! - Total Fe concentration in sample, ppm 29,028.0 44,447.0 j Total Iba Fe per acre in 0.01 inch 91.3 138.8 i Msh - Total standing crop - lbs per nere 190.0 190.0 Average concentration Fe. per cent .098 .49 Totallbs Fe per acre .49 .49 Arpintic plants Fpecies Yest Acres Wet weight Fe content Pounds Fe Ibs ter acro per cent per nere Waterwillow 0.6 30,000 .07 4.2 LAKF FUFAU1.A Ratio of Pc - soluble to surpended matter in ester 1968 1969
, Intot - Upper region 1:5.7 1:1.70 j
[V W ddle reden Lower region 1:4.27 1:2.80 1:2.00 1:1.95 Average total Fe concentration in water, ppm Upper repon .665 .848 l Middle region .59G .804 lower region .574 .735 Total re - Ibs per mitdrainare ares April-Octobt Input - Upper region 726.0 8 54.0 Middle rerfon 572.0 850.0 loser region 416.Q 943.0 Output - Walter F. George ihm 449.0 489.0 Ilydronol - Total Fe concentration in sample, ppm Upper region 23,506.0 36,505.0 Middle region 31,610.0 40,300.0 Lower region 26,200.0 42,450.0 Pounds total Fe per acre in 0.01 inch Upper region 69.0 103.0 l M!ddle region 93.5 119.0 1 lower region 77.7 125.0 Msh - Total standing crop - Ibs per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentration Fe, per cent .098 .098 Total lbs Fe per acre .49 .49 Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Fe content Pourris Fe Ibs per acre per cent per acre Alligatorweed '68 1 150,000 .16 19.2 Mo- '69 $ 150,000 .26 19.2
\
%)
4u- 6 i P Table 28 Continued Lake Seminole (Iron continued) Ratio of Fe - soluble to suspended matter in uster 1968 1969 input - Chattahoochec Elver arm 1:1.80 1:1.53 i Flint River arm 1:0.94 1:1.86 Spring Creek arm 1:1.47 1:3.04 , Average total Fe concentration in uster, ppm Chattahoochee R!ver arm .739 .785 Flint River arm .771 .727 Spring Creek arm .230 .311 Total Fe -Ibs per m12drainage area, April-October Input - Chattahoochee River arm 677.0 801.0 Filnt River arm 312.0 22.7 Spring Creek arm 161.0 16.4 Output - Chattahoochee River arm 774.0 1,117.0 Flint River arm 453.0 92.5 Ilydrosol - Total Fe concentration in sample, ppm
- Chattahoochee River arm 31,200.0 Flint River arm 14,460.0 33,733.0 Spdng Creek arm 14,030.0 20,000.0 Pounds total Fe per acre in 0.01 inch Chtttahoochee River arm 15.8 92.0 Flint River arm 42.7 100.0 Spring Creek arm 41.5 6.4 Fish - Total standing crop - Iba per acre 210.0 21 0. 0 Average concentration Fe - per cent .098 .098 Total 1bs Fe per acre .54 K4 Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Fe content Pounds Fe ;
lbs per acre per cent per acre ' A111gatorwerd '68 250 155,000 .20 24.8
-do- '69 100 155,000 .37 45.9 Waterhyacinth '68 100 143,000 .26 30.0
-do- '69 260 143,000 .37 42.6 Eurasian milfoil '68 2,000 .29 29.0
-do- '69 2,000 .24 24.0 Giant cutgniss '68 400 31,000 .20 16.1
-do- '69 450 31,000 .08 6.4 Others '68 500 30,000 28 16.8
-do- '69 500 30,000 .28 16.8 The averaged summertime standing crop of Fe in each aquatic environment component (including the I 0.01 inch layer bydrosol) for the 3 impoundments are given below.
Component Year Bartlett's Ferry 14he Eufaula Lake Seminole Reservoir (lbs) (lbs) (Ibs) Water 4 suspended matter '68 345,150 1,502,544 1,219,608 i
-do- '69 378,787 1,949,411 1,312.422 Mydrosol '68 534.105 3,636,284 1,143,700
-do- '69 811,980 5,352,663 2,740,000
)
i Msh '68 266.7 22,050 18,900
-do- '69 286.7 22.050 18,900 Aquatic plants '68 2.1 19.2 82,040 .
-do- '69 2.1 96.0 74,946 j Total '68 879,543 5.160,897 2,464.248
-<lo- '69 1,191,055 7,324.220 4,146,268 A Lbs Fe per acre '68 150.3 114.7 70.4
-do- '69 203.6 162.8 118.5 Lbs Fe per acre-foot '68 6.0 5.73 7.49
-do- '69 8.14 8.14 12.61 l
l
Table 29 h-Distribution of elemental MANGANESE in major components of 3 largestream impoundments BARTLETT'S FTRRY RESERVOIR Ratio of Mn - soluble to suspended matter in water 1968 1969 Input - Chattahoochee River 1:1.05 1:0.87 Output - Bartlett's Ferry Dam 1:0.41 1:1.32 Average total Mn concentration in water, ppm .176 .113 2 Total Mn -Ibs per mi drainage aren April-October Input - Chattahoochee River 134.0 141.0 Output - Bartlett's Ferry Dam 202.0 70.0 Hydrosol - Total m concentration in sample, ppm 966.0 1,410.0 Total lbs m per acre in 0.01 inch 2.78 2.9 nah - Total stand ng crop - Iba per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentration Mn, per cent 0.016 0.016 Total Ibs m per mere .008 Aquatic planta Species Yer Acres Wet weight Mn content Pounds Mn Ibs per acre per cent per acre WaterwiBow 0.5 30,000 .052 3.12 LAKE EUFAULA Ratio of Mn - soluble to suspended matter in water 1968 1969 Input - Upper egion 1:3. 5 1:2.8 ? huddle reginn 1.n % 11'r ! Lower redon 1:0.65 1:1.73-Average total Mn concentration in water, ppm Upper redon .094 .113 Middle region .161 .119 Lower regon .176 .164 > Total Mn -lbs per mi dminage area, April-October , Input - Upper redon 94.0 138.0 Middle region 58.0 182.0 Lower region 142.0 121.0 i Output - Walter T. George Dam 119.0 174.0 Ilydrosol - Total m concentration in sample, ppm > Upper region 1,406.0 1,799.0 Middle region 1,793.0 2,047.0 { Lower region 1,020.0 1,693.0 Pou:ds total Mn per acre in 0.01 inch Upper regicn 4.1 6.1 Middle redon 5.3 6.0 Lower region 3.0 5. 6 nsh - Total standing crop -Ibs per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentration Mn, per cent 0.016 0.016 Total Ibs Mn per acre .008 Aquatic plants Specica Year Acres Wet wc!ght Ma content Pounds Mn Ibs per acre per cent per acre Alligatorweod 'CS 1 150,000 .053 6.36
-do- '69 5 150,000 .092 11.04 O
U l l l 1 l l
l 1 l Table 29 Continued LAKE BEMINOLE (Manganese continued) Ratio of Mn - soluble to suspended matter in water 1968 1969 i Input - Chattahoochee River arm 1:3. 4 1:1.78 { Mint River arm 1:1. 4 1:3.3 - Spring Creek arm 1:0.65 13.0 1 i Average total Mn concentration in water, ppm Chattahoochee River arm .106 .089 Mint River arm .103 .086 i Spring Creek arm 097 .056 Total Mn - lbs per mi drainage area, April-October input - Chattahoochee River arm 134.0 105.0 j Mint River arm 38.0 60.0 ripring Creek arm 75.0 34.0 Output - Chattahoochee River arm - 120.0 103.0 ; Mint River arm 80.0 40.0 Hydrosol - Total hin concentration in sample, ppm i Chattahoochee River arm 1,690.0 Mint Elver arm 813.0 2,149.0 Spring Creek arm 1,57C.0 760.0 Pounds total Ma per acre in 0.01 inch Chattahoochee River arm 1.95 5.0 Mint River arm 2.41 3.46 Spring Creek arm 4.67 0.24 2 nsh - Total standing crop - lbs per acre 210.0 210.0 Average concentration Mn - per cent 0.016 0.016 TotalIbs Mn per acre 0.008 0.008 Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Mn content Pounds Mn Ibs per acre per cent per acre Alligatorweed '68 250 155,000 .15 18.6
-do- '69 100 155,000 .09 11.2 Watertryacinth '68 100 143,000 .11 12.6 ,
-do- '69 200 143,000 .20 22.9 r Eurasian milfoil '68 2,000 .19 19.0
-do- '69 2,000 .08 8.0 .
Giant cutgrass '68 400 31,000 .049 3.9 ,
<lo- '69 450' 31,000 .086 6.9 Others '68 500 30,000 .18 10.8 ;
-do- 'C 9 500 30,000 .19 11.4 ,
The averaged summertime stazzling crop of Mn in each aquatic environment component C4.cluding the 0.01 inch layer Lydrosol) for the 3 impcr.mdments are given below. Component Year Rartlett's Ferry Lake Eufaula Lake Seminole P Reservoir (lbs) (Ibs) (Ibs) Water + suspcLded matter '68 69,701.25 395,897.0 92,989.5
-do- '09 44,752.50 354,014.4 73,050.8 ifydrosol '08 16.263.0 173,E33.6 96,295.0 i Klo- '69 16,965.0 252.481.8 118.970.0 Msb 'C8 46.8 300.0 280.0 .
-do- 'C9 46.8 3CO.0 280.O !
Aquatic plants '08 1.50 6.36 50,870.0
-<lo- '69 1. 5G 55.20 31,879.0 Total '68 86,072.61 570,096.90 240,434.5 i
-do- '69 61,705.86 606,911.43 224,185.8 3 Lbs Mn per acre '68 14.713 12.069 6.869 .
\ -do- *69 10.558 13.487 6.405 '!
Lbs Mn per acre -Inot '08 .588 .C33 .731
-do- '69 .422 .674 .C81
[,
)
Table 30 O.A , Distribution of elemental ZINC in major components of 3 largestream impoundments BART1ITT'S ITRHY HTFERVOTR Ratio of Zn - soluble to suspenda! matter in water 1968 1969 Input - Chattahoochee hiver 1:0.37 1:0.38 Output - Paltlett's Ferry Dam 1:0.37 1:0.15 Average total Zn concentration in water, ppm 0.1913 0.1071 Total Zn - tha per mi drainage arm, April-October Input - Chattahoochee River 134.0 81.0 Output - Bartlett's Ferry Dam 149.0 112.0 Ilydrosol - Total Zn concentration in sample, ppm 460.0 113.0 Total lbs Zn per acre in 0.01 inch 1.45 1.33 rish - Total standing crop - Iba per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentration Zn, per cent 0.02 0.02 Total l'us Zn per acre 0.01 0.01 Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Zn content Pounds Zn Ibs per acre per cent per acre , Waterwillow 0.5 30,000 .016 0.96 LAKE Elf rAUT.A Ratio of Zn - soluble to suspeded matter in water 1968 1969 Input - Upper region 1:0.27 1 ro. 5 g/ Middle region 1:0.26 1:0.63 r Lower region 1:0.23 1:0.74 Average total Zn concentration in water, ppm Upper region 2089 .0765 Middle region .2176 .0752 lower region .2356 '.0000 Total Zn -Ibs per m12 drainage area, April-October Input - Upper region 200.0 245.0 Middle region 113.0 506.0 Lower region 145.0 347.0 Output - Walter P. George Dam 58.0 343.0 flydrosol - Total Zn concentration in sample, ppm Upper region 651.0 445.0 ' Middle region 301.0 221.0 Lower region 627.0 36.0 i Pounds total Zn per acre in 0.01 inch Upper region 1.92 1.25 MJddle region .89 .65 Lower region 1.85 .10 Pish - Total standing crop - Ibe per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentration Zn, per cent 0.02 0.02 Total lbs Zn per acre 0.01 0.01 Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Zn content Pounds Zn Ibs per acre per cent per acre Alllgatorwent '68 1 150,000 .017 2.04
-do- '69 5 150,000 .017 2.04 v
(3 Table 30 Continued V 1AKF STMINO1 E (Zine continued) Ratio of Zn - solaue to suspervled matter in water 1968 1969 input - Chn'thanchee River arm 1:0.33 120.42 Flir River arm 1:0.21 1:0,46 Spr4 Creek arm 1:0.31 1:1.75 Average total Zn c:necuttstion in uster, ppm Chattreoochee Pdver arm .2318 .0608 Flint River : rm .3382 .0827 Spring Crc A arm .1731 .02281 Total Zn - Ibs per : .1 2 drainage area. April-October input - Cla: a.hoochee River arm 383.0 36.0 flint River arm 373.0 102.0 Spritz Creek arm 112.0 15.0 Output - Chat:aboochee River arm 184.0 106.0 Flint River arm 180.0 69.0 Hydrosol - Total 7c concentration tu sample, ppm Chattahoochee River arm 28.0 Flint River arm 506.0 99.0 Spring Creek arm 685.0 286.0 Pounds total Zn ter acre in 0.01 inch Chattahoochee River arm 1,76 .08 Flint River arm 1.50 .29 Spring Creek arm 2.02 .09 Fish - Total stantng crop - Iba per acre 210.0 210.0 Average conetctration Zn - per cent 0.02 0.02 Total Ib1 Zn per acre .01 .01 % s; Aquatic planta Spceles Year Acres Wet weight Zn content Pounds Zn lbs per acre per cent per acre A111gntorweWI '68 250 155,000 .016 1.98
-do- '69 100 155,000 .020 2.48 Waterbyacit.h '68 100 143,000 .013 1.48
-do- '69 260 143,000 .030 3.43 Eurasian mil. foil '68 2,000 .013 1.3
-do- '69 2,000 .017 1.7 Giant cutgr?.se '68 400 31,000 .013 1.04
-do- '69 450 31,000 .004 .32 Others '68 500 30,000 .019 1.14
-do- '69 500 30,000 .019 1.14 The avenged rumr.ertime stanitr.g crcip of Zn in each aquatic environment component (including the 0.01 inch layer hydrosol) for the 3 impoundmenta are given below.
Component Ymr Dart!cet's Terry Lake Eufaula Lake Seminole Reservoir (lbs) (1bs) (Ibs) Water + suspendal tr.atter '68 85,081.5 565.406.4 237,608.5
-do- '69 47,632.5 169,960.3 55,8(9.7 Ilydrosol '68 8,482.5 69.542.5 60,660.0
-do- '69 7,780.5 19,803.0 5,960.0 Mah '68 58.5 450.0 3 50.0 l
-do- '69 58.5 450.0 3 50.0 Aquatic plants '68 0.48 2.04 4,229.0
-do- '69 0.48 10.2 5,253.8 j Total '68 93,623.0 635,400.9 302,847.5 l
-do- '69 55,472.0 190.313.5 67,404.5
[ \ Lba 2n per acre '68 16 004 14.120 8.652 V -do-Lba Zn per acre - foot
'69
'68 9.482
.640 4.229
.706 1.926
.920 i
-do- '69 .379 .211 .205 I I
1
Table 31 0 1 V Distributton of elemental COPPER in major components of 3 largestream impoundments BARTLETT'S FTRRY RESFRVOTR Ratio of Cu - soluble to suspended matter in water 1968 1969 Input - Chattahoochee River 1:1.19 1t1. 48 Output - Battlett's Ferry Dam 1:0.61 10.94 Average total Cu concentration in ester. ppm .0388 0.1235 2 Total Cu -Iba per m1 drainage area, April-October input - Chattahoochee River 34.5 101.0 Output - Bartlett's Ferry Dam 34.7 126.0 Hydrosol - Total Cu concentration in sample, ppm 97.0 128.0 Totallbs Cu per acre in 0.01 inch 0.177 0.453 Mah - Total standing crop - lbs per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentration Cu. per cent 0.013 0.013 Total lbs Cu per acre 0.006 0.006 Aquatic plants ' Species Year Acres Wet weight Cu content Pounds Cu lbs per acre per cent per acre Watersillow 0.05 30.000 .01 0.6 1AKE EUTAUIA Ratio of Cu - soluble to suspended matter in utter 1968 1969 Input - Upper region 1:1.63 1:1.71 Middle region 1:1.52 1:1.07 Lower region 1:1.96 1:0.23 j Aremre trdal f'u mneentmtion in near, ppm Upper region .0365 .0768 hu&De rqdon .0312 .0612 lower region .0317 .0874 Total Cu - Iba per mi drainage area. April <)ctober input - Upper region 39.4 120.0 bilddle region 41.9 768.0 lower region 29.7 216.0 Output - Walter F. George Dam 28.7 318.0 >
]!ydrosol - Total Cu concentration in sample, ppm Upper region 57.9 158.0 Middle region 44.3 229.3 lower region 80.4 86.3 Pounds total Cu per acre in 0.01 inch Upper region .17 .44 '
Middle region .13 .68 , Lower regic'n .23 .24 l itsh - Total stawling crop - Ibs per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentration Cu. per cent 0.013 0.013 Totallbs Cu per acre U.006 0.006 Aquatic planta Species Year Acres Wet wcfght Cu content Pounds Cu lbs per acre per cent per acre Alligatormeed '68 1 150.000 .086 10.32
-do- '69 5 150,000 .086 10.30 s) 1 l
l i l 4
t 1 i 'p Table 31 Contintled V f LAKE SEMTNOLE (Copper continued) Ratio of Cu - soluble to suspended matter in water 1968 19G9 laput - Chattahoochee River arm 1:0. 7 1:1.04 ntot River arm 1:0.93 1:2. 8 Spring Creek arm 1:1.05 1:0. 5 , Average total Cu concentration in water, ppm Chattahoochee River arm .0323 0621 111nt River arm .0314 .0872 Epring Creek arm .0314 .0482 } l 2 Total Cu -lbs per m1 drainage area. April-October I Input - Chattahoochee River arm 38.7 32.0 Mint River arm 24.4 33.0 ; Spring Creek arm 21.1 44.0 Output - Chattahoochee River arm 31.3 61.0 Mint River arm 39.2 73.0 flydrosol - Tot al Cu concentration in sample, ppm ) Chattahoochee River arm 80.0 ; Tlint River arm 122.0 152.0 Spring Creek arm L5.0 100.0 Pounds total Cu per acre in 0.01 inch Chattahoochee luver arm .24 .24 . E Mint River arm .36 .31 Spring Creek arm .16 .03 11ah - Total .tanding crop - the per acre 210.0 210.0 ; Average concentration Cu - per cent 0.013 0.013- l Tctr.1 th . Cu per ncrc .00? .007 ! Aquatic plants . Species Year Acres Wet weight Cu content ecunds Cu > lbs per acre per cent per acre f A111gatorweed 'C8 250 155,000 .013 1.61 I
-do- '69 100 155.000 .278 34.47 Waterhyacinth '68 100 143.000 .01 1.14
-do- 'C9 200 143.000 .20 22.E8 Eurasian rnlifoil '68 2.000 .022 2.2 ,
-<10- 'C9 2,000 . 0f4 0.2 ;
.8 Giant cutgrass '68 400 31.000 .0.
-do- '09 C ?1.000 .f J2 .26 Others '68 500 30. 0M .s13 .78 $
-do- '69 500 30.ltt ,013 .78 ;
The averagal summertime standing crop of Cu in each aquar , emiron.,ent coSponent (includsn; the i 0.01 inch layer hydronol) for the 3 impoundments are gives below. , Component Year Dar** ss Trny Lake Euhula Lake 8eminole Ecservoe ilbs) fibs) (1bs)
'i Water + suspended matter '08 15.35G 81.577 28,745 [
l
-do- 'C9 48.994 194.738 C2.722 llydrosol '68 1.035 8.402 9.000 j
-do- '69 2.650 18.2G9 - 7.960 ;
rich '68 35.1 270 245
-do- *C9 35.1 270 245 '
Aquatic p' ants 'C8 0.3 10.3 5.627
-do- '69 0.3 51.5 10.258 l Total '68 16.420.4 90.319.3 44.277 l
-do- 'G9 51.679.4 213.328.5 81.185 Lbs Cu per acre 'G8 2.808 2.007 1.265
-do- '69 8.834 4.740 2.319 ,
the Cu per acre - foot '68 0.112 0.100 0.134
-do- 'C9 0.353 0.237 0.247 i
r
r"N Table 32 ' D Distrita: tion of elemental LEAD in major components of 3 largentream impoundments BARTLFTT'S ITRRY RESTRVOIR 1908 1969 Average Pv concentration in suspended matter, ppm .0103 .0111 Total n -Ibs per mi drainage arre, April-October Input - Chattahoochee 1dver 6.75 7.95 Output - Bartlett's Terry Dam 8.92 11.08
!!ydrosol - Total Pb concentration in sample, ppm 123.0 153.0 Total lts Pb per acre in 0.01 inch 0.29 0.41 Pish - Total rtanding crop - lbs per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentration Pb, ppm 13.5 13.5 Total Ibn W per acre 0.0007 0.0007 5
Aquatic plar.ts Species Yar Acrem Wet weight Pb content hunds Pb lbs per acre ; ppm per acre - Watermillow 0.5 30,000 28.0 .168 _IAKI FI'FAUIA Aternge total Pb concentration in sue; ended matter, ppm 1968 1969 Upper region 0.0100 0.0119 Middle region 0.0101 0.010G lower rerlon 0.0098 0.0139 Total Pb - lba per mi2 drninage area April-October iet - 1*pper region 16.40 14.27 ( Middle region 8.13 8.33 Lower region 9.00 12.87
!!ydrosol - Total Pb concentraticm in sample, ppm Upper region f 113.0 247.0 Middle re;3on 91.0
?
229.0 Lower region 79.0 106.0 Pounds total Pb per scre In 0.01 inch l Upper region 0.33 J 0.70 MidJlle region 0.27 0.07 lower region 0.23 0.31 Pish - Total standing crop - Ibs per acre 190.0 190.0 Average cenecutration Pb, ppm 13.5 13.5 Total Ibs Pb per acre 0.0007 0.0007 Aquatic plants Speeles Ymr Acres Wet weight Pb ccetent Founds Pb lbs per acre ppm per acre i A111gatorweed '68 1 150,000 117.0 1.45
-do- '69 5 150,000 117.0 1.45 1
l i i v
i I Table 32 Continued [ O i L LAKE FEMINOLE (Lead continus$) t Average total l'b concentration in suspended matter, ppm 1968 1969 i' Ch:.ttahorschee Rfver arm .0084 .0091 Flint River arm .0125 .0104 Spring Creek arm .0142 .0107 b t Total Pb -Ibs per mi drninnee area. April-October input - Chatt Lonchee Idver arm 12.00 [ Titut Elver arm 19.47 Spring Creek crm 10.58 5.41 t Output - Chattahoochee River arm 8.72 10.23 Flint River arm ! 3.48 8.90 Hydrosol - Total Pb concentration in sample, ppm i' Chattahoochee River arm 60.0 Flint hiver arm 135.0 135.0 t Spring Creek arm 88.0 120.0 Poumis total Pb per acre in 0.01 inch Chattahoochee River arm .30 .15 Flint Elver arc. i
.40 .47 '
6pring Creek arm .26 .87 Fish - Total rianding crop - Iba per acre 210.0 210.0 Average concentration Pb, ppm 13.5 13.5 Total lies 13 ;er acre .0007 .0007 (' Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Pb content Pounds Pb Iba per acre ppm per acre q A111gatorweed '68 250 155,000 34.0 .42 (V). -do-Waterhyacinth
'09
'68 100 100 155,000 143,000 54.0 14.7
.67
.308
-do- '09 260 143,000 61.0 .098 Eurasian m!! foil '08 2,000 35.0 .35
-do- '09 2,000 80.0 .80 Giant cutgrass '68 400 31,000 12.0 .096
-do- 'C9 4 50 31,000 12.0 .096 -
Others '08 500 30,000 27.3 .164 '
-do- 'C9 500 30,000 27.3 .164 s
The sveragul summertime rtanding crop of Pb in each aquatic environment component (including the ; 0.01 inch layer bydroso!) for the 3 impoundments are given below.
- Componcut Year Bartlett's Ferry take Eufaula Lake Seminole 11eservoir (!bs) (lbs) (Ibs)
Water + suspended matter 'C B 4,080.37 25,020.9 10,201.82 i Mo- '68 4,387.50 31,195.1 9,009.90 ffydrocol '68 1,696.50 11,505.13 11,800.0
-do- '09 2.398.50 21,530.65 15,365.0 11sh '68 4.10 31.5
.i 24.5 i
.<lo- 'C9 4.10 31.5 24.5 Aquatic plants {
'C B .084 1.45 942.20 ;
-do- 'C9 .094 7.25 1,973.68 Total '68 36,558.08 !
5.781.054 22,968.52
-do- 'G9 6.790.164 52,764.50 26,373.08 j Lbs Pb per acre '08 .998 .812 4656
-do- '09 1.101 1.t73 .753 Lbs Pb per acre - foot 'C8
.0395 .v40G .0698 i
-do- '69 .0464 .0586 .0801 i i
l O
F i Table 33 Distribution of elemental NICVELin major componets of 3 !argestream impoundmmte BARTLETT'S TERRY RMERVOIR 1968 1969 Avenge total Ni concentration in water, ppm .0048 .0089 2 Total N1 -Ibn per m1 drainage area, April-October Input - Chattahoochee River . 4.00 2.75 ' !, Output - Itutlett's Terry Dam 3.99 1.00 Itydrosol - Total Ni concontntion in sample, ppm 52.5 Total Ibs Ni per acre in 0.01 inch '105.0
.16 .72 Fish - Total standing crop -Ibs per acre 130.0 190.0 Average concentration N1. ppm 17.3 Total Ibs Ni per acre 17.3
.00086 .00086 Aquatic planta Species Year Acree Wet weight Ni content Pounds Ni Ibs per acre ppm per acre Wattraillow 0.5 30.000 36.0 .216 IAKE EUFAULA Average total Ni concentration in water, ppm 1968 1969 Upper region
.00G4 .0072 Middle region
.0124 .0091 Lower region
.0108 .0034 Total N1 -Ibs per m12 dninare area. April-October (v. f luput - Upper region Middle region 7.20 5.78 7.65 10.36 Lower region 6.15 8.34 Output - Walter F. George Dam 1.47 ltydrosol - Total concentration in sample, ppm Upper reginn 76.3 280.0 Middle region 66.0 331.0 Lower region (
90.0 1.020.0 Pounds tutal N1 per acre in 0.01 inch Upper region ,
.22 .79 Middle region ;
.19 .97 '
1mTr region
.27 3.00 Msh - Total standing crop - Ibn per acre 190.0 190.0 Avenge concentration N1. ppm 17.3 Total Ibs Ni per acre 17.3
.00086 .00086 Aquatic plants Epecies Year Acres Wet weight Ni content Pounds N1 lbs per acre ppm per acre Alligatorweed 'C8 1 150.000 10.5 .126
-do- '09 5 150.000 67.4 .809
\
1 l i I i 1 1 i Table 33 Continued ' 'D l LAKE !TMENOLE (Nickel continued) ! l Average total Ni conecutration in water, ppm 1968 1969 " Chattahoochee River arm .0060 .0091 Tlint River arm .0069 .0093 . Spring Creek arm .0120 .0093 Total N1 -Ibs per mi drainare area. April-October Input - Chattahoochee River arm .72 8.95 Mint River arm .70 6.32 Epring Creek arm 5.86 3.09 Output - Che.ttahoochee 1dver arm .70 Mint River arm 5.16 flydrosol - Total Ni concentration in sample, rpm Cha.tahoochee River arm 440.0 Mint River arm 449.0 885.0 Spring Creek arm 142.0 400.0 Pounds total N1 per acre in 0.01 inch Chattahoochee River arm 1.02 1.30 T11nt River arm 1.33 '2.61 Spring Creek arm i
.42 .13 :
t Msh - Total starrling crop - Iba per acre 210.0 210.0 Average concentration NI, ppm 17.3 17.3 Tota 11bs N1 per acre .00094 .00094 + Aquatic plants Species Year Acrea Wet weis:ht Ni contet' Pounds N1 lbs per acre ppm per acre Aihj;ator% eat '6 S 250 155,000 23.4 .290 !
-do- '69 100 155,000 26.4 .327 Waterbyacinth 'C 8 100 143,000 17.3 .198
-do- 'C9 200 143,000 43.0 .492 Eurasian milfoil 'C8 2,000 14.6 .145
-do- '09 2,000 12.0 .120 '
Giant cutgrass '68 400 31,003 17.0 .136
-do- 'C9 450 31,000 12.0 .096 Others 'C8 500 30,000 24.9 .349
-do- 'C9 500 30,000 24.9 .149 The averaged summertime starxting crop of N1 in each squatic environment component (including the O.01 inch layer hydrosol) for the 3 impoundments are given telov.
- Component Year 11artlett's Ferry Lake Eufaula Lake Scudnole Reservoir (1bs) (Ibs) (Ibs)
Water + suspendn1 matter 'C 8 1,901.25 26,007.9 C,739.8
-do- 'C 9 3.510.00 21.ftBC.5 8,215.6 Ifydrosol 'C8 93.00 1.059.8 3,C20.5
-do- 'CD 421.20 9,061.9 5,C37.0 '
Msh 'C B 5.03 38.7 32.9
-do- 'C9 5.03 38.7 32.9 Aquatic plants 'C8 .108 .126 511,2
-do- 'C9 .108 4.045 518.3 Total '68 1,999.983 27.100.000 10,904.4
-do- 'C9 3,930.388 30,991.145 14,403.6 Lbs fu per acre 'C8 .3418 .0024 .3110
-do- '09 .C728 .6887 .4115 Lbs NI per nere - foot '68 .01367 .03012 .0331
-do- 'C9 .02C91 .03443 .0438 ,
t
i f Table 34 i Distribution of elemental CADMIUM in major components of 3 largestream impoundments BARTLETT'S ITRRY REFERVOITt 1 1908 1969 l Average total cd concentntion in uster, ppm .0031 0021 Total Cd -Ibs per m12 drainage area. April-October ' Ingr.tt - Chattahoochee lifver 1.072 2.0 Output - Dartlett's Terry Dam 3.052 2.0 i I
!!ydrosol - Total Cd concentration in sample, ppm 59.3 8.4 Total lha Cd per acre in 0.01 inch .177 .177 Msh - Total standing crop - lbs per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentration Cd, ppm 2.3 2.3 TotalIba Cd per acro .00011 .00011
+
Aquatic plants j Species Year Acres Wet weight Cd content Pounds Cd Iba per acre ppm per acre , Waterwillow 0.5 30,000 4.0 .024 { [ 1.AKE FUTAULA , I Averago total Cd concentration in suspendai matter, ppm 1908 1969 j Upper region .0022 .0022 Middte region .0020 .0014 : 1,ower region .0023 .0013 ! i Total Cd - Iba per m1 2 drainage area April-Octoter I Input - Upper region 1.64 2.51 Middle region 1.74 1.74 lower region 1.59 1.29 Output - Walter F. George Dam 1.39
+
liydrosol - Total Cd concentration in sample, ppm Upper region 59.5 31.6 ! Middle reglon 72.7 14.9 lower region 63.2 13.9 t Pou2xis total Cd per acre in 0.01 inch Uprer region .17 .09 i Middle region .21 .04 j lower region .18 .04 j Fish - Total standing crop -Ibn per acre 100.0 190.0 , Avenge concentration Cd, ppm 2.3 2.3 ; Total lbs Cd per acre .00011 .00011 Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Cd content Pounds cd i lbs per acre ppm per acre Alligatorweal '68 1 150,000 2.0 .024
-do- '69 5 150,000 22.9 .275
{ L 6 O : r
a - - - - - - - - ,- - ~
'i ,
h i (~ Table 34 Continued i LAME SrWNOLE (Cadmium continund) Average total Cd concentration in water, ppm 1968 1969 ! Chattahoochee hiver arm .0015 .0014 :
'I Mint IUver arm .0018 .0013 Spritg Creek arm .0073 .0013 Total Cd - Ibs per mi drattsgo area April-October .
i Input - Chattahoochec River arm 1.98 1.80 Mint ldver arm 1.44 1.15 Sprit < Cret k arm 1.51 .1.52 Output - Cla.tte.hoochee Itiver arm 1.38 ! Mint Rivet arm .61 Itydrocol - Total Cd concentration in sample, ppm Chattahoochee Itiver arm 10.4 l I Mint Itiver arm 31.4 20.7 Spring Creek arm 37.0 8.8 ' Pounds total Cd per acre in 0.01 inch, ppm ; Chattalvochee River arm .15 .03 Mint River erm .09 .20 Fpring Creek arm .10 .01 Msh - Total strumlin,1 crop - lba per acto 210.0 210.0 Average conecntration Cd - ppm 2.3 2.3 Total lbs Cd per acre .00011 .00011 Aquatic pLwts Spectos ~ Year Acre Wet weight Cd content - Pounds Cd. , 1bs per acre ppm per acre , Alligatorwcod '68 250 155,000 31.0 .130 w1o- '60 100 155,000 15.2 .188 Waterbyacinth '68 100 143,000 4.0 .046
-do- '69 200 143,000 19.2 - 21D ,
Eurnslan milfoil '68 ' 2,000 5. 0 .050 *
-do- '69 2,000 10.0 .300 i Giant cutgrase '68 400 31,000 8. 0 - .004
-do- '69 450 31,000 8.0' .064-Others '68 500 30,000 11.8 .071 +
-do- '69 500 30,000 11.8 .071 The averaged summertime standing crop of Cd in each aquatic environment component (including the .
0.01 inch layer hydrosol) for the 3 impoundments are given below. Component Year Dartlett's Ferry Lake I:ufaula Lake Seminole ,; Reservoir (Ibs) c (Ibs) (Ibs) Water 4 suspended matter '68 1.170.000 5,469.500 2,571.37
-do- '09 833.625 3,727.590 1,206.02 Ilydrosol '68 1,035.450.. 8,398.120 4,071.00
-do- '69 1.035.450 2.119.640 3,380.00 ,
HEh '68 .644 4.95~ 3.85 ~ _
-do- '69 .644 4.95 3.85 Aquatic plants '68 .012 .024' 399.70 l
-<lo- '69 .012 1.375 340.04 Total '68 7,045.92 I 2.206.106 13.872.634
-do- '69 - 1,871.731 5,853.555. 4,929.91 .
Lbs Od per acre '68 .3771 .3083 .2013 ;
-do- '60 .3199 .1301 .1408 e Lbn cd per acre - foot '68 .0151 .0154 .0214
-do- '69 0128 0065 .0150 ;
t 8
+
I l 9 3 4 - .
O Table 35 () Distribution of elemental CHROMTUM in major components of 3 largestreatn impoundments RARTI.ETT'S FIRRY RESERVOIR 1968 1969 Average total Cr concentration in suspended matter, ppm .0148 .0077 Total Cr -Iba per mi drainage area, April-October Inpd - Chattahoochee River 12.00 4.43 Outpu* - Iartlett's Ferry Dam 13.10 10.09
!!ydrosol - Tetal Cr concentration in rample, ppm 113.0 99.0 Total It.s Cr per acre in 0.01 inch 0.31 0.24 nsh - Total rtading crop - lbs per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentration Cr, ppm 28.2 28.2 Total Ibs Cr per acre .014 .014 Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Cr content Pounds Cr Ibn per acre ppm per acre Waterwillow 0. 5 30,000 13.2 .106 1AKE TUrAUT A Average total Cr concentration in water, ppm 1968 1969 Upper region .0159 .053 Middle region .0125 .0085 fewer region .0125 .0084 Total Cr - lbs per m12 drainage area, April-Octoler
( Input - Upper region 14.8 6.23 ' Middle region 12.3 10.21 Lower region 10.7 7.45 Output - Walter F. George Dam 10.3 liydrosol - Tetal Cr concentration in sampic, ppm Upper region 149.8 135.0 Middle region 15A 0 145.0 Lower rcrion C5. 5 87.3 Pounds total Cr per acre in 0.01 inch Up;er region .44 .37 Middle region .46 .43 Lower region .19 .26 Tish - Total standing crcp - Ibs per acre 190.0 190.0 Arctnge concentration Cr ppm 28.2 28.2 To'.Al lbs Cr per acre .014 .014 ' Aquatic plants Specie s Year Acrea Wet weight Cr content Pounds Cr Iba per acre ppm per acre Alliptorweat '68 1 150,000 43.0 .516
-do- '69 5 150,000 32.0 .384 f
4
(m) \.s Table 35 Continued LAKE STMINOLE (ChImmlum continued) Average total Cr concentntion in water, ppm 1968 1969 Chattahoochee River arm .0105 .0079 Flint River arm .0134 .0068 Spring Creek arm .0162 .0072 Total Cr -Iba per m12 drainage area, April-October input - Chattahoochee River arm 12.5 6.40 Flint River arm 10.9 6.42 Spring Creek arm 11.7 3.17 Output - Chattaboochee River arm 14.7 Flint River arm 11.2 flydrosol - Total Cr concentration in sample, ppm Chattahoochee River arm 66.0 Flint River arm 43.0 68.0 Spring Creek arm 80.0 60.0 Pound 9 total Cr per acre in 0.01 inch Chattahoochee Ittver arm .09 .19 Mint River arm .13 20 Spring Creek arm .23 .02 Msh - Total stamiing crop - Iba per acre 210.0 210.0 Average concontrntion Cr, ppm 28.2 28.2 Total lha Cr per acre .015 .015 Aquatic plants 5 pedes Year Acre-s Wet weight Cr content Pounda Cr Ibs per acre ppm per acre A
) A!Ligntorned
-do-
'68
'69 250 100 155,000 155,000 24.2 22.2
.30
.275 WLtet hyacinth '08 100 143,000 16.0 .183
-do- '69 000 143,000 22.7 259 1;urastnn milfvil 'C 8 2,000 20.2 .202
-do- 'C9 2,000 10.0 .100 Giant cutgrase '68 400 31,000 67.0 .539
-do- '69 450 31,000 24.0 .193 Others 'C8 500 30,000 63.5 381
-do- '69 500 30,000 63.5 .381 T1.c averas.ed summertime standing crop of Cr in each aqu tic cuvironment componcut (including the 0.01 luch layer hydrosol) for the 3 impoundments are given below.
Cutnienent Year liartlett's Ferry Lnke Eufaula 1.nke Seminole Reservoir (Ibs) (1bs) (1bs) Water 4 cuspended matter 'Ca 5,850.00 33,005.40 11,562.00
-do- '09 3.071.25 19,816.50 C,520.30 Ilydrosol '68 1,813.50 13,906.59 4,616.00
-d o- '69 1,404.00 14,748.72 5,595.00 Fish 'C8 81.90 630.00 525.00 wlo- 'C9 81.90 C30.00 525.00 Aqaatic l'1 ants 'C8 .053 .516 903.400
-do- '69 .053 1.92 752.190 ;
Total '08 7,745.453 47,002.506 17,80G.400
-do- 4,557.203
'C3 35,197.140 13,218.490 Lbs Cr per acre 'C 8 1.324 1.058 .o09
-da- '69 .779 .762 .378 Lbs Cr per acre - imt 'C8 .053 .053 .051
-do- '69 .031 039 040
,O<
l' Table 36 Distritotion of elemental COBALT in major components of 3 largestream impoundments EARTLTTT'S TERRY RESERVOIR 1968 1969 Average total Co concentration in uter, ppm .0027 .0032 Total Co -Ibn per m12 drtiinage area. April-October input - Chattahoochee River 3.00 2.50 Output - Dartlett's Ferry Dam 2.11 3.52 Hydrosol- Total Co concentration in sample, ppm 77.0 142.0 Total Ibs Co per acre in 0.01 inch .26 .22 Plsh - Total standing crop - lbs per acre 190.0 190.0 Average concentration Co. ppm 5. 5 5.5 Total lbs Co per acre .0027 .0027 Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Co content Pounds Co . Ibs per scre ppm per scre ; Waterwillow 0.5 30.000 6.9 .0414 i LAKE TUFAULA Average total Co concentration in water, ppm 19G8 1969 Upper region .0024 .0059 Middle region .0023 .0059 Lower region 0021 .0063 2 Tetn1 Co - the per mi g mg,,n,,,aa. 8p d - W har Input - Upper region 1.80 6.09 Middic region 2.17 6.15 Lowe r region 2.40 8.86 ; Output - Walter F. George Dam 1.21 Ilydrosol - Total Co concentration in sampic, ppm - Upper red on 91.2 217.0 Middle region 99.3 139.0 Lov.er region 90.0 182.0 Pourxis total Co per acre in 0.01 inch , Upper region 127 .61
- Middle region .29 .41 Lower region .28 .54 11sh - Total standing crop - lbs per nere 100.0 190.0 Average concentration Co. ppm 5.5 5.5 Total lbs Co. por acre .0027 .0027 Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Co content Pounds Co ,
Ibs per acre ppm per acre Alligatorweed '6R 1 150.000 5.9 .071
-do- '69 5 150.000 C7.4 .809
.P
( r Table 3G Continued
\ !
1 LAKE STMINGLE Coball continued)
- Average total Co ec:c :tration in water, ppm 1968
?
1969 Chatts.boextee Nrer arm .0025 Mint Itiver 1 c .0023 , Spring Creek 1- n .0029 .0051 *
.0029 .0036 Total Co - Ibs per --$ cir.itt.sge area, April-October r Inuit - Char. .bxbee IUver arm 2.52 flini. Ever arm 3.22 4.66 3.83 Fprir2 2Teok arm 2.35 -2.31 Output - Ct:r:.hvxbee River arm !
2.09 M1= ?Jver arm 3.48 11ydrosol - Total Cr e mcentration in sample, ppm Chattahooctee Nyer arm 76.0 Mint Itiver a-~. 66.0 [ Sprin2 Cred ars 142.0 36.0 168.0 Pounds total Ce p acre in 0.01 inch Chattahcatae Mver arm .09 Mint River .r~. .22 Sp2ing Creek :rm .19 .42 '
.13 .05 Mah - Total standm; errp - Ibs per acre 210.0 210.0 Average corx= ration Co, ppm 6.5 TotalIbs Co pcr acre 5.5 !
003 .003 Aquatic plants Species Year Acres Wet weight Co Content Pounds Co lbs per acre ; ppm per acre ( Alligatorweed '08 250 155.000 1.0 .012
-<!o- '69 100 155,000 38.0 Waterbyacirth 'C 8
.471 100 143,000 1.2 .013 do- 'C9 260 143,000 28.0
+
Eurasian milf::.1 .320
'C8 2,000 1.0 .01
-do- 'C9 2,000 60.0 Clant cutgrass .60
'08 400 31,000 5.0 .040
<lo- 'C9 450 31,000 16.0 Others .128 !
'68 500 30,000 13.2
-do- 'C 9
.079 500 30,000 13.2
.079 !
The averaged summer ime standing crop of Co in each aquatic environment component (including the 0.01 inch layer bydresd a for the 3 impoundsents are given below. Component Year Bartlett's Ferry Lake Eufaula Lake Seminole Reservoir (lbs) (Ibs) (Ibs) Water 4 suspended as::cr '66 1,023,75 5,500.09
-do- 2,4C3.27
'69 1,257.75 Ilydrosol 15.304.90 3,351.57 ) '
'08 1,521.0 12,582.62
-do- '09 4.945.00 1,2!t7.0 22,751.36 9,413.00 Ilsh '68 15.79 121.5 105.0
-do- '69 15.79 s Aquatic plants 121.5 105.0
'C8 .0207
-do- .071 79.8
'69 0207 'q Total 4.045 1,127.4
'CS 2,560.56 18,204.26 7,593.07
-do- 'C9 5,121.12 38,180.99 Lbs Co per acre 14,096.97 ;
'C 8 4.377 .404
-do- .217 '
'69 6.754 Lle co per acre - foot .848 .403
'68 .175 ,
.020 .023
-do- '09 .350 .042 .043 i
]
t i i 5
._ 2.4.6 Climatology And Meteorology ,
\s ) The following narrative description is quoted from a 1955 U. S. l Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau publication entitled "Climato-logical Summary, Dothan, Alabama 1902-1954". Since Dothan is approximately sixteen miles west of the site the description applies well to the Farley site.
" Situated approximately 75 miles from the Gulf of Mexico, Dothan has a climate which borders on the sub-tropical.
During the period, June-September, inclusive, temperatures and atmospheric moisture are very even and generally change little from day to day because the area is covered'nearly all the time by warm moist air from the Gulf. From May through August, I nearly all precipitation is from local, mostly day-time, ( thundershowers and there are apt to be considerable differ- ; ences in day-to-day amounts of rainfall in different portions , of the Dothan area. During September, summer conditions of temperature and atmos-pLeric moisture persist as air continues to drift in from the Gulf but local thundershowers become less frequent.due to the shortening of the days and the decrease in heat from the sun. Local heat thundershowers give way to thundershowers which l
)
herald the slight drops in temperature which begin to occur, and to occasional general rains which accompany storms on the Gulf. Rains during October, the driest month of the year, are nearly l i 2-29 l l
4 always showers or thundershowers which occur ahead of temper-ature drops which become more frequent and more pronounced as-winter approaches. The same is largely true of November. All types and intensities of rain may occur at any time from December through March, excepting the heat thundershowers of i summer. i i i During the coldest months of December, January, and February, , there are frequent shifts between mild air which has been I moistened and warmed by the Gulf, and dry and cold continental air. Hard freezes are, however, not frequent, and normally
)
there is some growth of wild pasture grasses and weeds through-out the winter. The lower temperatures which occur here are more keenly felt than similar temperatures in the north and
' {)
west, due to the physiological effects of the mild weather j . which usually prevails before the moving in of each little i
" cold snap", and to higher humidities, i
Most rain during April and May is in the form of thundershowers ; or showers which occur ahead of incoming cool waves which ; become weaker and less frequent as summer approaches. Droughts , sometimes occur in late spring, late summer, and early autumn. l Snow rarely falls and usually melts as it falls. Wind movement is usually light. Strong winds seldom last long , at a time, and dangerous winds are very rare." l ("'s i 2-30
.t
)
i
)
i fg Figures 2-13 and 2-14 give average precipitatiog wind speed, wind- 'l , .t direction, and psychrometric data for Dothan along with comparative data 4 I for temperature and precipitation. Figure 2-15 graphically gives hourly average dry bulb, wet bulb, and dew point temperatures for spring, summer, fall, vinter and annual averages. Figure 2-16 gives average hourly relative humidities for the same spring, summer, fall, winter and annual averaging ; periods. A complete meteorological station has been installed at the Farley site. Instrumentation installed at the site is listed in Table 2-2. Data is collected from each of the sensors on continuous analog strip chart , recorders. In addition,a punched paper tape system provides tape records = of the sensor values at 3 minute intervals. Data from this station will be used to determine diffusion conditions in connection with design and oper-ation of the nuclear plant.
}
2.4.7 Ecology t The land area at the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant site consists of typical coastal plain soils with associated vegetation. Trees consist of a variety of pines along with oak and hickory and normal river-bottom hardwood such as ash, magnolia and cypress. The river adjacent to the plant site consists of a normal river channel which has been modified in recent years by the construction of impoundments both upstream and downstream. At the site itself, the river .I elevation is affected somewhat by the operation of Jim Woodruff, Walter F. , George and Columbia Locks and Dams for power generation and navigation. This causes daily fluctuations in flow and elevations. There is a normal 1 population of warm water fish in the river. 2-31
m O O O . T DOTH AN, ALABAM A AVER AGES AND COM PARATIVE DATA. -i
- LATITUDE 31'l4' N.. LONGITUDE 85'26'W. ELEVATION 321 FEET PRECIPITATION (INCHES) WIND-3 mg z *N* *N* E" E "> E2 F m '
o g$ E*m g < **$ E" g < Eng g o 2m < h < o< Ep 3" 3 MONTH 2 mo cz> m ez> m ez> m g> m gp m E3 H z r- m # a J AN'UA RY 4.49 14.24' 6.42 1936 6.42 1936 7.30 1925 16.8 8 1936 0.34 1927 T SE 8.8 FEBRUARY ~ 5t24 4.68 4.26 1937 4.92 1940 5.77 1929 10.36 1939 0.93 19 51 T SW 9.7 MARCH 5.15 6.15 9.0 0 1929 11.6 8 1929 12.34 1929 16.4 0 1929 0.89 1945 T NW 10.0 APRIL 4.16 4.18 4.75 1946 4.99 1946 4.99 1946 12.60 1928 0.60 1902 O SE 8,2 M AY 3.18 3.10 4.1 O 19 03 4.39 1903 '4.59 1903 8.73 1947 0.58 192? O SW 6.6 L JUNE '4.63 4.4 7 4.76 1940. 4.76 1940 4.83 1940 8.52 1942 1.10 19 4 O SW 6.6
-i' J U LY 5.92 . 6.0 7 6.73 1948 7.44. 1948 7.45 1948 12.73 1948 2.22 1903 O SW 6.3 AUGUST 5.43 5.38 '5.80 1939' 6.23 1939 6.96 1939 20.8 5 1939 2.20 1925 0 NE 58 E 8 SEPTEM BER 5.16 5.08 8.00 .1929 9.20 1926 10.45 1926 13.86 1929 0.63 1940 0 NE 7.3 N>
]9 g
g g]; OCTOB ER ss NOVEMBER 3.05
.2.77 1.88 3.44 7.37-4.5 0 1932 1912 7.37 4.50 1932 1912-7.37 4.50 1932 1912' 12.41 10.29 1932 1930 0.05 T 1939 1931
.T T
NE 6.9 NE 7.7 u Agaoz 5g DECEMBER 4.85-z7 4.74 3.90 1945 5.50 1927 5.50 - 1927 13.61 1953 0.53 1946 T NW 9.3 1 E $5 g EE,> MAR. MAR. MAR. AUG. OCT. R yg , zQg YEAR 54.03 5 3.41 9.00 1929- II.68 1929- 1234 1929 20.85 1939 T 1939 T SW 7.8 m 'i E EQ dm> i]!!$o!, I h$ og> -- -4
-,s.,~r ...e-.-v
..-e-.,...#..-~,-...,m.%.,ym.,,w,.
u 7,, ...-..,,,,,,.y.,__ ..%., .,,_...yy. p _y.,y,, , , , ,,,,7,, . . - g.%.,g,,.,.., ,,,,,,,,,.,.,_,p y, , , , , , , ,
T E E F 5Mg=Q
$ !g8 731 083 028 777 607 877 778 231 5 7
1 2 2! Q 559 520 227 785 7 3 N i!H 444 567 776 544 5 O O T I A g "s,p* Q 896 063 440 1 28 1 V 445 667 777 654 6 E L E $m Q 249 740 005 771 6 ip" 555 678 887 655 6 9 gqo 819 289 50O OO0 1 I I 51 4 7 0 5 grO' 21 1 2 9 z 3h 022 75O OO2 334451 8 0 o <* 021 5 432 24 71 A T A 888 D 013 044 329 205
<$2 454 455 554 554 N 081 E
V ) 999 999 999 999 A 4 5 9E 9 A I F. 1 11 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 J1r1 M T
- A A ( l B R E A A P
R
>Eo%*
rkm 221 1 2 345 664 42 207 078 31 2 L U 1 1 1 1 A M T O A 8 - C R 88 8 - N A D E 944 232 241 445 455 555 555 401 E N25 . H P <$a U9 T N M 999 999 999 999 - A E 1 11 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 J1 - O T D S _ O E G A D"fh I6I 348 594 330 882 888 990 000 988 4 0 R 1 1 1 8 1 _ E - V A W aoQ 030 044 664 067 7 - m$o" 223 442 01 1 541 2 _
'6 222 222 222 222 2 _
2 5 8 426 96.0 449 4. 1 7 2 E
> ma5 249 641 1 16 871 7 D 555 678 887 655 6 S U E T T I
G 401 948 62 988 8 A N 8 E . I D O E5g2 1 38 429 1 06 540 5 R L 444 566 7 76 544 5 E I L N.
,E R
'4 EE- g 4 3. I 982 726
. 9.4.5 5 A E
1 351 862 1 27 092 8 1 667 789 998 866 7 N 3 R O E Y E RR O D YR B REE S U H RA H TM EB8 L T T AU L SE BMM A I N URC I E YUT OEE R T A O NBR PAU AEA RYN UUE LGP COE TVC A E 8 L M JFM AMJ JAS OND Y O > {>E* 3E9 gr >5 h mE r',ig p,< g ?gw _ E $ 8 g m2 f g y _ oSgz >;gE - kakw >g no%gh g o>y - a N % o kr 5 M R y
,r _
,i 5 E m 7 - -
A.M. P. M . A.M. P. M .
,,,e 2 s e s S 7 e s enir e r 3 4 5 6 7 e o m a er ,,,s r 3 4 s 6 7 e s e0m it i e 3 4 s 6 7 e s een ::
, .--g 06' 85* / \q
/ \ 40' 00* / \ Q yse - --- pse A - <- -
~
70' 704
) % ',
65* 65* GO' ' > 40' 3,,
%..s
],-
i 55' 50' SO' SPRING SUMMER A.M. P. M . A.M. P. M .
, t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111212 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ID et 12 ,8 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 80H I212 3 4 9 6 7 8 9 fon B2 p f~' yge 73 8 5
# yos 70' N 65' '- -
,.* 658 i
.ne-m / - - .,2 --
e n m 53e 2 , g1.<
,,e j s 50' 50' ' '-"
.' ' J
.e ,,, } t-s 40' 4 o' FALL WINTER A.M. P. M .
,p e a 3 4 s 6 7 s s ion it i 2 3 4 e 6 7 e s sois t2 ,
es* r s0* Ts* r 3 \ roe 1
/
r s% gge
.oe -- 2 q ,, ..- -- '
,,, 4-Z3G:.
s0' ANNUAL AVER AGE HOURLY DRY BULB TEMPERATURES
--... AVERAGE HOURLY WET BULB TEMPERATURES
. . . . . . . . . . . AVERAGE HOURLY DEW POINT TEMPERATURES ALABAMA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH M.FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AVERAGE HOURLY DRY BULB, WET BULB '
AND DEW POINT TEMPERATURES DOTH AN AL A B A M A 1946-1952 FIGURE 2-l$
t A.M. P.M. A.M. P. M . a a s e as t e s eos a s a 3 4 s a v e s ess e erses 7aemmeea34ss7ssenes C) s.% , s.% ,
-- ,s -
es, so"
- x ,
es% s0% L l 7 s *~ k J ts% \ J l / ( f
" / "
ss% \ es% s /
\ / Y e.
ss% s / ses ss%
'- /
s0% ,%, / s0% , 4s% 46 % SPRING SUM M ER A.M. P. M . A.M. P. M. sr34ss7ssenestness7ssene i t se s s7 ss emes t ;
- s s 7ss ese es% es%
so% j r s0% . , es%
, es%
\k ,
so% k
/ so% /
7s% 7s% - 70 % 70 % ! i es% es% r I 60 % % so% ,gs, ss% 5 ... ! ss % 90 % 50%
*s % 46 %
FA LL WINTER A.M. P.M . 9 5% ' ' ' ' ' ' # ' ' ' s0% , r ,
# k es% f e% \ /
n% L
/
70 % ! 65 % / so% , r SS% , / so% 45 % ANNUAL l ALABAMA POWER COMPANY ' JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ! ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AVERAGE HOURLY REL ATIVE HUMIDITY DOTHAN, ALABAMA 1940-1952 , l FIGURE 2-16 ; i
i Table 2-2 l O . Weather Instrumentation At The Joseph M. Farley Plant Site , l. Approximate Height Above Sensed Recorded i Parameter Tower Base Parameter Instrument Characteristics 200' Temperature - Thermistor in aspirated for comparison solar radiation shield, with 35' level Accuracy i 0.15 C. 150' Wind speed Wind speed C11 met Model 4-011'-1(speed) and direction and direction 0.6 mph threshold; and model 4-012-10(direction) . Distance constant is 5 feet, vane has 1 mph threshold : and a damping ratio of 0.4. I 100' Temperature - Thermistor in aspirated for comparison solar radiation shield. with 35' level Accuracy i 0.15 C. I t 50' Wind speed Wind speed C11 met (same as above). [~ and direction and direction 50' Vertical and Vertical and C11 met Model 012-11 Bivane. horizontal horizontal Distance constant is 3.3 ft., wind direction wind direction vane has .75 mph threshold and a damping ratio of .6. 35' Ambient Ambient Thermistor in aspirated temperature temperature solar radiation shield. j 35' Reference T 200' ~ 35, Thermistor in aspirated , temperature solar radiation shield. for comparison with 200' level , 35' Reference T 100' ~ 35, Thermistor in aspirated , temperature solar radiation shield.- ! for comparison with 100' level ; 35' Dew point Dew point Climet Model 015-12 Dewcell temperature temperature probe in aspirated solar' ' radiation shield. t
?
i
i t () v Table 2-2 (Continued) . Weather Instrumentation At The Joseph M. Earley Plant Site Approximate ' Height Above Sensed Recorded Tower Base Parameter Parameter Instrument Characteristics Located on 8' Solar radiation Solar radiation Climet Model 0503-1 Pyrom-pole approx, eter. 100' south of 7.5mv/ca{ensgtivity
/cm / min.
tower . Located on Rainfall Rainfall Climet Model 0501-1 Range f 12" concrete 0-10" ! pad approx. 80' north of , tower I O b O 1 y
i
. The bird population in the area consists of substantial numbers !
- )
of heron, ducks, swallows, dove, quail and turkey. l i It is interesting to note that the region where the plant is being l
?
constructed has been known historically as the wiregrass section of Alabama. 1 Changes in agricultural and other land uses in the past have led to the virtual extinction of the type of grass for which the area was named. 2.4.8 Land Use ; 2.4.8.1 Industrial There are four manufacturing concerns located on the east side of the river about 3.5 and 4 miles south of the plant. These are: The Ross- , Wright Chemical Company, Gulf Fiber Mill, Great Northern Plywood Plant and ' 1 the Great Southern Paper Mill. A small garment factory and a feed mill are located in Columbia, Alabama about five miles to the north. 2.4.8.2 Transportation O The nearest airport with scheduled passenger service is Napier Field near Dothan, Alabama, about 22 miles to the west-north-west. There are small municipal fields not used for scheduled commercial service at - Headland , Alabama, about 16 miles to the northwest and Blakely, Georgia, 15 miles to the northeast. There is a small private landing strip at the Great Southern Paper Mill about 3.5 miles south of the plant on the east side of the Chattahoochee River. State Highway 95, a hard surface secondary road, forms the west boundary of the site property and is used principally for local trans-portation. There is commercial truck traffic on U. S. Highway 84, about six miles south of the plant location and on State Highway 52 about five miles to the north. The Central of Georgia Railroad passes about five 01 2-32
i s miles north of the plant and the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad passes about : i six miles to the south. The highways and railroads referred to above are j shown on Figures 2-1 and 2-2. The applicant has constructed a railroad to { serve the Joseph M. Farley Plant. This railroad connects with the Central i of Georgia track at Columbia, Alabama, and will serve for transporting materials and equipment during construction and possibly nuclear fuel l during operation. The construction of this railroad will make the land lying west of the Chattahoochee River and from the north boundary of the plant site to Columbia more attractive for industrial development which residents of the area are actively promoting. l 0 There is commercial barge traffic on the Chattahoochee River 4400 feet east of the plant location. The channel is maintained nine feet deep and 100 feet wide by the Corps of Engineers. In 1968, approximately 12 , loads per month of commercial freight were moved along the riter past the [}
~
site consisting principally of sand, gravel, associated agricultural products and petroleum products. 2.4.8.3 Farming About 45 percent of the land area in the site region is wooded and is used for the production of pulp wood and timber. The remaining land area is used for various agricultural purposec, Cotton, corn and peanuts
-are the principal products with watermelons, small grain and hay as secondary crops. Beef cattle, hogs and chickens are also raised in the area. There is milk produced in the general area, which is used for both
-local consumption and shipment to processors. However, there are no commercial dairy farms within a 10 mile radius of the site.
O 2-33 w &
. . .- ~ . .
i t 2.4.8.4 Forestry Before Houston County was settled, it was entirely wooded. About 38 percent of the county is still wooded (1968), and most of the woodland is owned and managed by farmers. About half of the timber is sof twood, mostly pine, and half is Imrdwood. The major forest types are long leaf, slash, loblolley and short leaf pine, and' oak, gum and cypress. Small areas of oak and hickory are scattered throughout the county. In 1953 33.5 percent of the county was in forest. This increased to 38 percent in 1968 due to a large extent to the soil bank program, when land owners took land out of agricultural production and planted pine trees. - In the site area, about one half of the land is in forest. On the upland soils, the principal commercial species are loblolley, slash, short t leaf and long leaf pines. On the somewhat poorly drained bottom land , the i principal commercial species are pine, gum, oak, yellow poplar and cotton-wood. 2.4.8.5 Recreation i The topography of Houston County is predominately gently rolling. In some areas it is fairly level and in the plant site area it is domi-nated by the Chattahoochee River Valley. This provides a very pleasant, but not unique, view for tourists. The soil of the county and the abundance of woodland provide food i and cover for many kinds of wildlife. Quail, doves, rabbits, squirrels ; and many non-game birds and animals are common. Major species of fish in the various waters in, and near, the county consist of bream, bass, catfish, she11 crackers and crappie. Although there is some fishing in farm ponds and lakes and in the Chattahoochee .! O ! 2-34 I 1
-t River, particularly around Columbia Lock and Dam, the close proximity and .
p/ excellent fishing in Lake Seminole and Lake Eufaula attracts many of the local fishermen. 2.4.8.6 Wildlife Preserves At present, the only government owned wildlife preserve in Houston County is 600 acres owned by the state in the southeastern corner of the county about seven miles south of Gordon, Alabama. This site consists of a forested area containing many varieties of flowering trees and a 17 acre fresh water lake. Fishing, picnicking and hiking are allowed. The Alabama , Department of Conservation is in charge of this f acility. Present plans for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant site include designating a substantial por tion of the site a wildlife preserve. Such a preserve would not only protect existing wildlife, but would also improve the opportunity for propogation of wildlife which would be expected to e migrate to surrounding areas. ; Discussions regarding implementation of this plan are underway and consideration is being given to conducting this program in cooperation with the Alabama Department of Conservation. The applicant will also provide [ limited recreational areas which will be compatible with the wildlife preserve and open to the public along with the visitors' information center. 2.4.8.7 Population Distribution There will be no people living on the site. The nearest existing occupied house is about 4500 feet west of the plant buildings. The site is located in a sparsely populated region, with approx-imately 2300 permanent residents within a 5 mile' radius. It is estimated , that about one half of this number is located in and around the town of 2-35
Columbia, the center of which is about 5 miles north of the plant. These population estimates are based on a count of occupied dwellings within a 5 l l t mile radius. The city and community populations shown on Figure 2-2 are ; based on the 1960 census. l l Th'e largest town within a 10 mile radius is Ashford, 8.3 miles I southwest of the plant, with a 1970 population of 1,980. The population center as defined in 10CFR100 is Dothan, located 16.5 miles west of the ; plant, with a 1970 population of 36,733. Population centers over 20,000 ; within 100 miles of the site are shown on Figure 2-1. The shaded areas shown on Figure 2-1 indicate the location of the major cities and the more l l heavily populated counties in Alabama, Florida and Georgia for a distance j of about 150 miles from the site. i Estimates of the projected population distribution in the site l region are shown for the years 1975, 1985, 1995, and 2015 by 16 direction [) sectors and 1 mile increments up to 5 miles and by 10 mile increments up to 50 miles as shown on Figure 2-17, Sheets 1 through 4. These estimates are based on information obtained from Reference 1. ; 2.4.8.8 Waterways The principal streams in Houston County are the Chattahoochee, Choctawhatchee, and Little Choctawhatchee Rivers, and Omusee, Cowarts and l Big Creeks. The Chattahoochee River which borders Houston County on the east is the largest and only navigable waterway. The name "Chattahoochee" is derived from the Cherokee Indians and in free translation means " river i of the painted rock". The river was used for hundreds of years by the Indians and then early settlers as a major communication route. f i f~ .L,]
- 2-36 e
k
i POPULATION DISTRIBUTION -)k ' Ly (1975,1985,1995 AND 2Ol5) 0-3 MILES l N l
~-
hK 5 to e tu 3 cMIL Es
& c tD F: !
i A' s ',
.\ '
u'
'O
; ; *; ;/ r e
'* ..l-0$.e s' b fN l i
9
\ *r~ .
~
n ,fd/ Vb \. ~
's $,q/, 'saQ O p MILES - '* 5 ,'%'
. s
,/ \ '& O O O O N ~ '
O , %' I O
,i;l*~,,ro , 'S . s\,",,y
/ 'O 'o $~**'i h l Ee,y'g e N 4,s% ' N ,1 -
i 13 C / g g\ y ,
~ ~ l MILS
% ' O 1, >
'S3 , '# 0 #
$ 'y J 00 0 00 's D
%' , O '1 1-f 0 ' D
'85, g / .
go O O 36', o g- ! O 0 O
? ' B. 4 86. / 'o 0 s.O s ys 26%
O j O y O '75- 0 4,9 5 - 10.5 I b ' 213 75- O 95- 17.2 ( gy g8 85 - O '85 - O
- 17. 0 ,
N '85- 9.4 8 5 - 15.4 15.4 0 95 -O '95 - 0
- o ~O 'rs o
\ bb ,o o 1 g, ' O ,
6,3 j dlS', 0 o o
\ 1$ o j/ ,, 3'O 10"hO O '33 fe
& 'b O Y '\ >9 OO 0000 O Sg /
g' ,8 \ ,/ '3 0 $'O
\1' D q
\ r W ', Q .,O o , $ c, o f , '3,>$,#*e 9 p,
~.'* ,9 s 'N o
'N &g O;$? G*?u # # 1 I 5%g'c
./
,q D @b O y,d
& N O ooO ,- , h 'Fj
&' g'.n' ,
$y *
~
ej $ #+
'* G3 5 i e-
~
~ w ida 5 * \ o
.R n' i w i
o /
- bN $/gh Sb'h? _%_- t S
t
-$ N U M BE R OF INH ABITAN TS ,
PER SEGMENT ALABAM A POWER COMPANY
- JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT :
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT ] POPULATION DISTRIBUTION 0-3 MILES . SHEET I OF 4 FIGURE 2-17 L
. ~ _.
- o eorutarios oisraisurion 3-5 MILES (1975,1985,1995 AND 2015) :
N gSY *Ne e m $" 8, 3 95 &,
's ~
S *v ' f '"
- f .
5s e A o- 5 upL.ES es, g v @
's/ >, e u ; n ?. .e 5$e
- MIL tf,p; 5 '>~r %,x
- 5 i,
,,,/, #3, ~,
' n '# e
~
.k 3 'O, e,8 ?Q'& q sN b \
%. 'N /
- 3 { Yr,&
!?4 a p
e Sg gQg9 i$% 'N ab b' .g, too is,
- e e ... i% % sQ s a p
$9 3, 08 3 b\ B\
$' O LE5 ' A,D ' T9 s $'
?A':;,$j$,,'f';p g??
;, qkb '; '
l79
- gg ,
- 33,'y 9O g4 14 5 '95-47.3 ' 5-
'7d ~- 2 '5 0 27 129 '85- 42.3 '85-46 9 ,'95- 307
'75 42l ' *95 - 0 31 j, 37,9 15 - 37,3 ,
.pv 69 'L \. < $ 6
- u. .,S ,,
a
\ *.N"e' ',g.,zxB$?;i @ ;" ' 8 "; + ,3 ; 8 e N.e,S, z Sii .n.m aa a
~'*
; "s , >
c,
~. e
. ; e. ,3, , 'de e
$ \;* gp g, n~
e +/ , .
*s 's\O ' . :4 ; 4 7, a ,.de# e
.R' O ,#.g*Y?YT-i
'se oe e 's E. 4 f , ~~y. . -E $ $ $ 5 >E * , 'o &
y -
, v, s O CD Ss4 ggE S
l
@ NUMBER OF INHABITANTS l PER SEGMENT ALABAMA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH M. FARLEY. NUCLEAR PLA'NT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT POPULATION DISTRIBUTION 3 -5 MILES S H E E T,,2_, O F 4 FIGU R E 2-17
n POPULATION DISTRIBUTION W l 5-30 MILES (1975,1985,1995 AND 2015) 1 i q N h-J o n a e * *'LES gs ' N4D i 4 $" Oc6 eOp kr 6 ". fa??7e e o
~$ h J ?. - -a-20 MILES f ~**
&,s e .e l
b G, , d, o t - m en $
'd, h,b 1. $ $ [" e f
}g - ,
bh, $1
' 7
* ,G s ,,
s 'e e L ' * .
& Vv to y ,y D,
' %y' %
'3 sA < h '%
}, g O, og # -
#us ~#w$ w T j'.eIs %
'sl"*/p"*h,$,',f'e'?
,,, M d@f (e# ,,, .,
.c ',\gt\ ,9g,A6 M l
,f"'>6,o4 ,
8 5 gs ? , b ,, S gg h D ' th,5 605 3 ob' 6
'6 2 asO .{g . 2 t0 606
'75 37E' '75 3 9 y 788 '7D'39
,85-35i2 'e$.4 4l3 $ 344 '7$ .12 8 9 ')
389 '85- t418 '85-4389 3:
'95 3826 '95-49,637 652 s 95- 1592 '95 4862 539
'g5 55.G f 5-'8s4 -
<i$.4563 36 .544 l
,s 4os' .
73 2026
,.22s', ;}?f,sie,,,'s94
#* , , dE# # 'e3 66 N,2' ,s,e, ,
4 ' S* ' '
- 3a ' #d .
** *','", $h}}s',## s5a@% ' % ' d'4',>s%[# O, y I
#* 's f>' ',,$ '?d ,E$Ofgggji6 ,'%,**e.
, > ,,o :
.g / 4 .c~c, ?. ~, ~,~ ,m-, . '~.' . L ,.,
's, e
~ 22 1%# 3 ,'-
e+.+.o5 gog#s,x'-** m
, 3 4 e. '
" 1 g, $,$ ??YE e . ; , $, >o .
i S sw #
$m
~ 0~ = 8 "=o3*ps .
S
-)k t lU MBE R OF I NHABITA N TS !
PER ' SEGMENT ALA'B A M A POWER COMPANY ! JOSEPH M.FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT O POPULATION DISTRIBUTION 5-30 MILES SHEET 3 OF 4 FI GU RE 2-17 !
]
. , . - _ _ _ . . _ _ . ~ . _ . . I 4 q . O- POPULATION DISTRIBUTION -)K 1 ~ 30-50 MILES (1975,1985,1995 AND 2015) ,
-)K N- !
e e e
- ? EE . 5 4 g .
's Y "o i & .0 $' $ o 5 'I f /e r,
s #a
- @ #
- ci '2 1 v* @O.*
S o A : e%~ s, 'Jp , . 'd #. s% ' o*o
- Qs ~s #o *e A ,?.;* .*l ." .N Nh aT"N$g p, * /o*
g O',s y* ]
.,,' .s
- s, s,#s ' . n uiQ# .R 4 4 - ,os .
4'Go * *e *
'5 e ,. %$ $ SE n$s'~ 6 ps s* '
.c ;$s
's. %v
. N k o ~~~ww ;s 4 ,so --
5, '9 3, 's 3' s O 2 ** E
' '! 4gy .f$.l,"O$y s*% ss g,ss\ Y' 66,800 5 26'##3 * $" 2 4 ID f
.?$ ~ 18, $3, .75- 4 6 6
'75 - 3 S9 3
"' I 73.413 '85-19,768 l85-5035 \ 8 - 4 '85- 4056 12,819 80.563 '95-20.920 ,
*S38[
3g l95-2774 '95-4577 14,270
't$ - 24 74' 6g 15 - 3,4 3 91.994 yg 49 , 73 , ,l$ . 527 3
-O .yg .7$ 7D . gg *b6 '8
, 3,5 .J O 16 550 e
i 2 s .o9* ,,6v .ss* s '*'o *
's , 'si,J 'e'D s
. '* 4 i i
l 1
+# . _ssvl'Y, '* ">,$""5* "'o '**
4 "hsa s .e u
.O"hE'&$ Po,v
?99 sL'o %*.es 's
,,,, ,, **s , w co
,0 ? p' s/$ s ' ,
r- o s,, .@ & p) f $ $ 5 *g**bso - Q **,* } t,, ;s f. *,. o P ~, w .
.c s64 v, s ro ' $ . *> *f*a.s ';
'g # - 4 ,e9?y?YT9 t5 t g '6*y *o b % "'s o
*, ' ve,
%e8 .y g s
-*c Ut5*
S,z g
*e , g,g _
c' C: J.~.~ .a o
-a .a o .
p p.14 u o l i
~ g a *o *- z * "
SS;p cpf.- S l
$ NU hABER OF INH A BITANT $ !
lFER " E9 MEtJ T : 1
$ 4 TOTALS
_O -50 MILES ALABAMA POWER COMPANY: j JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT- l ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT l
-O POPUL ATION. DISTRI BUTIO N i
i 30 - 50 MILES i
. SHEET.4 0F 4 FIGU R E 2-17 j i
I
f- g The Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers join to form the Apalachicola U River 44 river miles downstream from the site. Jim Woodruff Dam is located at this confluence and forms Lake Seminole which covers about 37,500 acres. . This initial phase of the comprehensive plan for development of the Chattahoochee, Flint, Apelachicola River basin, the Jim Woodruf f Lock and Dam, was completed in 1957. The State of Alabama facility, the Columbia Inland Dock, near Columbia, Alabama received its first commercial barge shipment on January 30, 1958. Since that time the Chattahoochee River system has become increasingly important for commercial and recreational
.tavi ga tion . In the vicinity of the site the river is used to some extent for recreation and sports fishing with catches consisting mainly of cat-fish, bream and bass. However, the majority of such activities take place in Columbia Reservoir, three river miles upstream and further downstream in
{} Lake Seminole. There is some. commercial fishing 'in Lake Seminole. In the coastal waters near the mouth of the Apalachicola River (144 river miles downstream from the site) there is commercial fishing for shrimp, oysters,. ; crabs, mullet, red snapper and grouper. There are no known municipal water supplies taken from the river below the plant site. River water has been used intermittently for irri-gation by three downstream farms. The Great Southern Paper Mill uses river ; i water for industrial purposes but no other industrial use is known. ; i Alabama Power Company personnel have made thorough field investi- ! gations to establish the water use of lower Chattahoochee-Apalachicola River Basin. Their findings have been confirmed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. i l O 2-37
P Government Reservations and Installations 2.4.8.9 The Chattahoochee River, which is the eastern boundary of the ; site, has been developed by the U. S. Corps of Engineers by construction of facilities including the Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam (Lake Seminole) down- l stream and Columbia Lock and Dam upstream of the site. The only federal recreational facility in Houston County is owned by the U. S. Corps"of Engineers,and is located one mile south of Columbia. This is the Omussee Park located at the confluence of Omussee Creek and , the Chattahoochee River. This area is used for picnicking and fishing, and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers representatives state there are long range , plans for development of additional recreational facilities. f The Chattahoochee State Park, a tract of approximately 600 acres, is located in the southeast corner of the county about 14 miles south of the- [ site. This park is a forested area containing a 17 acre lake and is open i to the public for fishing, picnicking and hiking. l 2.4.8.10 Scenic or Unusual Aspects l There are no known unusual or unique aspects of the environment at the site or in the surrounding area. ! i i l l f i l I O- ! 2-38 1
O
- 1. Lyle, C. V., Chief Economist, Southeast Region - Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U. S. Department of-the Interior; Georgia County Population Projections As Developed By The Georgia Social Sciences Advisory Committee, February 1968 Communications between the Applicant and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U. S. Department of the Interior, Southeast Region; Total Population for all Counties, Alabama and Florida,1968
- 2. Houston County Resource Development Committee and Technical Action Panel, Overall Economic Development Program - Houston County, ' Abbam, 1968. Published by Cooperative Extension Service, Auburn, Alabama.
- 3. Waterway News of Alabama, February, 1958, Alabama State Docks Department, State of Alabama.
- 4. Rivers of Alabama, The Strode Publishers, 1968 (portion by Joel P. Smith)
- 5. Letter from Allen M. Mathews, County Extension Chairman, USDA
- 6. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Public Health Service; Municipal Water Facilities, Region IV 1963 Inventory.
rr 2-39
,f-) 2.4.9 Plant and Animal Species Of Economic Or Sports Value %) The following plants and animals of economic or sports value are : found in the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant site area. o On the upland soils the principal commercial timber species are l
~!
loblolley, slash, short leaf and long leaf pines. On the somewhat poorly i drained bottom land are found commercial species of pine, gum, oak, yellow j i poplar, and cottonwood. The principal crops in the area are peanuts, corn i and hay. The principal domestic animals are swine and beef cattle. Quail, i dove, rabbits and squirrel are common and deer, turkey, opossum and racoon { are present in lesser numbers. Fish species of economic and sports value j are bream, crappie, bass, carp, bullhead and catfish, ; Plans for the site include designating a substantial portion of the ; i site a wildlife preserve. This will include a 65 acre lake which will be ; available to wildlife in the area. Such a preserve would not only protect (} existing wildlife, but would also improve the opportunity for their propa- , gation and migration to surrounding areas, i The applicant employs competent foresters who will oversee the planting and growing of timber species compatible with area soil conditions and the management of the area as a wildlife preserve. ; i Element analysis and radiological studies are underway to establish .j background information on fish, wildlife, crops, pork, beef, milk and top- ! soils in the area. It is' anticipated that the plant's operation will have ] minimal or no adverse effect on plant and animal life in the area. Table j No. 2-3 lists the fish available in the area. , ( i 2-40 l 1 l l 1 i
TABLE 2-3 Common Name Scientific Name Sports Fish Redbreast Sunfish . . . . . . . .. . . Lepomis auritus (Linneaus) Orange-spotted Sunfish . . . . . . . . L. humilis (Girard) Bluegill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L. macrochirus (Rafinesque) Longear Sunfish . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,. megalotis (Rafinesque) Redear Sunfish . . . . . . . . .. . . L. microlophus (Gunther) Black Crappie . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pomoxis nigromaculatus (LeSueur) Largemouth Bass . . . . . . . . . . . . Micropterus salmoides (Lacepede) Warmouth . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . Chaenobryttus gulosus (Cuvier) Stripped Bass . . . . . . . . . . . . . Morone Saxatilis (Walbaum) ,n. Fish of Commercial Value Carp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cyprinus carpio (Linneaus) Black Bullhead . . . . . . . . . . . . Ictalurus melas (Rafinesque) Yellow Bullhead . . . . . . . .. . . . I. natalis (LeSueur) Brown Bullhead . . . . . . . .. .. . I. benulosus (LeSueur) White Catfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_. catus (Linneaus) Channel Catfish . . . . . . . . . . . . I. punctatus (Rafinesque)
<~n
{ b %.)
r= 2.4.10 Previous, Present and Anticipated Future Aspects of the Area Prior to and at the beginning of recorded history, the Chattahoochee River served as a major communication route for the regional Indians and early settlers. This is evidenced by mounds, town sites and artifacts in the region. Due to its access to the river, the site was probably used for hunting by the Indians. With the encroachment of settlers and the develop-ment of cotton farming the river was used for transportation of that product to Apalachicola, Florida, which flourished in the early and middle 1800 's as a seaport town. The site probably was used to grow cotton and other crops by early settlers. In the last few years, peanuts and corn have been the major crops raised in the area. It is planned that a large portion of the site will be used for a wildlife preserve, limited recreational areas and a visitor 's center. In [ this manner the site in the future will probably support more wildlife than has been possible in many years. It will also be of considerably more recreational and educational value to the public, and will also continue to be a productive area. T t i 4 l i 2-41
.}
l 3.0 Environmental Impact of the Joseph M. Farley Plant i With the exception of radiological impact which is covered in Part 4, this Part 3 assesses the probable impact of the Farley Project on the total environment of the general area. This impact considers the f I compatibility of the plant facilities with area resources, alternatives to proposed facilities and the net benefits of facilities selected. 3.1 Compatibility of Joseph M. Farley Plant with Planned Regional Economic Development The site of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant is located in Houston County, a member county of the Southeast Alabama Regional Plan-ning and Development Commission. The Commission is responsible for re-gional planning and development activities in the seven southeastern Alabama counties of Barbour, Coffee, Covington, Dale, Geneva, Henry and llouston. The seven counties also make up the Southeast Alabama Economic Development District, Figures 3-1 and 3-2, which was designated by the Economic Development Administration in April 1970, as authorized under the
- Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. The objective of the EDA Program is to provide for multi-county organizations whereby several counties can cooperate in and coordinate the planning and implementation of a -regional program to stimulate . development and growth in economically lagging areas. The District is also a designated State Planning and Development Commission and carries on regional planning activities, ;
including land use planning, as well as local community planning assistance to municipalities throughout the district. This organization is also the designated regional "A-95" Review authority and in this role is responsible for the review and the coordination of all State and Federal programs and 3-1 i
-l SOUTHEAST ALABAMA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT i
l i 8 ARBOUR OC LAYTON J CAB ILLE oN ASHVILL E N COZARK COVINGTON COFFEE DALE CHARLOTTE o CANDALtJ SIA _. ENkERPdig@STON NUCLEAR
! YNf r 't oATLAN GENoGEVfMEVA \
JACKSON 'ec. * * .
. ,: 1.h.
"b y o JACKSONVILLE MOBILE l A NI AL ABAM A POWER COMPANY 1 JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT O
a L SOUTHEAST ALABAMA , ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT l LOCATION MAP l 1 FIGURE 3-1 l
6 u ,. y s- se. ' 0 '!: i 5 4
.h$ a& f A
)5 i- .
\ ,
E
.. a s
N a N g( ., as K f/O "jV [ f od O3 r H ZO O* t S y a 1
<h Io SF $
<5x i
<s z 1 -
n%e j~ i ade %, _% l
~
~
~
os . 83 5 m 2 H 5 0 f , O $ i:i s 3 8
= , ,
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY ; JOSEPH M.FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT SOUTHE AST AL A BAMA ; ECONOMIC DEVELOPM ENT DISTRICT LOC ATIO N M A P ! FIGURE 3- 2
I projects throughout its seven county area of jurisdiction. There are two other regional Planning and Development Commissions, which are also Economic Development Districts, some of whose member counties will be affected either directly or indirectly by the construc-C tion and operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant. These are the Lower Chattahoochee Valley Regional Planning and Development Commission , with offices in Columbus, Georgia, and consisting of the Georgia counties of Cliat.tahoochee, Clay, Early, Muscogee, Quitman, Randolph and Stewart; ! i and the Southwest Georgia Area Planning and Development Commission with l l offices in Camilla, Georgia, and which consists of the Georgia counties of Baker, Calhoun, Colquite, Decatur, Dougherty, Grady, Lee, Miller, Mitchell, Seminole, Terrell, Thomas and Worth. Alabama Power Company has ; consulted with the staff of the Southeast Alabama Regional Planning'and Development Commission on a regular basis and this has resulted in the O mutual exchange of ideas and information on the proposed project and its i relationship to the overall Economic Development Program of the Commission l and its environmental and economic impact on the area. The staff of the l Southeast Alabama Commission has a direct working relationship with the staffs of the Southwest Georgia and the Lower Chattahoochee Valley j Commissions, and has coordinated the dissemination of information on the l proposed project between the company and the three affected Commissions. The construction and operation of the Joseph M. Farley. Nuclear Plant will have significant and prolonged regional economic impact. The Overall Economic Development Program (Stage I) of the Southeast Alabama
-Regional Planning and Development Commission, which was developed during. .j the latter stages of planning of the nuclear plant project, makes a state- ,
f- ment to this effect, in general terms. The Commission has stated that the ; i 3-2 ;
-i
)
)
t proposed project will have a beneficial economic effect, especially on ' r _ g' the "Re-development Area" counties close to the site of the plant as , shown on Figure 3-3. These Re-development Area counties are counties , which have been designated by the Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce, as eligible for public works grants and loans and other benefits under the Economic Development Act of 1965, because of experience of high out-migration, low median family incomes, high unem- ' ployment, or a combination of these factors. (Refer to Figure 3-4.) The i Re-development Areas closest to the site are Henry County, Alabama, and Clay, Early, Miller and Seminole Counties, Georgia. ! The Regional Planning and Development Commissions are enthusiastic 'I in their support of the project because they believe that employment oppor- , tunities, especially in the poorer member counties, in the long construc-tion phase, and later in the operational phase of the project, will help O to significantly raise the living conditions and income levels of residents of these counties, and will have a significant income generating ! i effect through the region. The short-term economic impact in this region will be considerable. ? During the construction phase of the project (1971-1977) the total payroll i of the prime contractor and sub-contractors will approach $70 million for the period. Using the customary multiplier of 2.5, this payroll alone will have a regional economic impact of approximately $175 million. Besides direct employment in the Region as a result of the project, there will be considerable impact on employment and income in such service indus- , i tries as restaurants, motels, trailer courts, as well as in wholesale and L retail trade. 3-3 t
SOUTHEAST ALABAMA k'~ s ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT i l l Number and percent of i l 3960 1970 persons living in l NUMBER 62,295 56,185 Re-development Areos. l
' PERCENT VMA \
j 1959
. JNUMBER 9,161 Number ond percent of PERCENT 61.0 families in Re-development Areas with income of less than $3#00 o year. -
7 2 Families in Re-development Arees . 1999 wit h income of less then $ 3,000 l N ENT M P I" **
- P**"I 'I the total number of f amilies i in the District with on onnual -
income of less than $3p00. WA i
@ REDEVELOPMENT AREA !
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY 1 JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT pd ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT SOUTHEAST ALABAMA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT AREA FIGURE 3-3 j
O O g
\
MIGRATION BARBOUR SOUTHEAST ALABAMA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CLAfTON 1950-1960 1960-1970 - 8856 1950'S TOTAL OtSTRICT NET MIGRATION -48.219 (-19.5%' - 5182
- 1 4960'S TOTAL OBSTRtCT NET MtGRATION ~7087 (-3.4 %) M HENRY COFFEE DALE o a
L OZARK - 6507 8 n ~ 7174 o
. COVINGTON - 4 91 * + 3904 O
C
<gm +12,310 *
- 5. > ANDALUStA ENTERPRISE 9 EH oI OME O O '
3 2D>
# DOTHAN
$' $O mO -10,745 At s A u A POWER Co. y 2@ [I r-E m m -5029* HOUSTON NUCLEAR PQwfR PLANT .h E> m o GENEVA
>m mO
'g gE -7127 - 4 714
> 3 -2830M -2209*
m?$
-t GENEVA 0
2 * '0
-4 ,
',8 SC ALE IN MILES
(} , In addition to the economic impact of the large construction pay-I
- roll, there is also the impact within the region of the purchase of large i
amounts of materials and supplies from local businesses. Records indicate that almost $2 million has gone into the local economy in recent months for purchases from over 100 local suppliers. A The long-term impact of the project on the area is perhaps the most important. The $500 m'illion investment that the completed project will represent is an indication of the confidence of the company in the poten-tial of the entire area and will be the largest singic investment made in the State of Alabama by an investor-owned utility. When the plant is in operation, the permanent work force of 125 highly skilled professional and 1 technical employees (with an annual payroll of $1.4 million) will be an - asset to the communities in which they reside. Also, when the plant is (-) (, ' completed, Houston County will realize an increase in ad valorem tax revenue from approximately $1.2 million to $3.2 million - without any significant additional burden for increased services as a result of the construction of the plant. This will increase the ability of the county ' to finance increased public services such as those to public education , 8 health, velfare, etc. , and make it possible for .it to qualify for Federal ' grants-in-aid by providing a source of local matching funds. A large section of the county is a designated Economic Development Center (Growth Center) within the Southeast Alabama Economic Development District and as 5 such qualifies for grants of 50% of total cost (from the Economic Develop-ment Administration) of projects designed to stimulate economic development x in the Growth Center, thus contributing to the improvement of economic and
=
social conditions in the surrounding Re-development Arca counties. O - i 3-4 Amend, 1 - 2/28/72
'( > ;
U
SOUTHEAST ALABAMA REGIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
'?. o. s om 14oe DOTHAN. ALABAMA 36301 TELEP"0"E 7'*-'8'8
%J July 2,1971 CARIOUR Mr. Joseph M. Farley, President Alabama Power Company Birmingham, Alabama
Dear Mr. Farley:
COFFEE This organization is fully aware of your Company's plans with regard to the proposed Nuclear Power Plant to be located east of Dothan near the Chattahoochee River, in this Dis tri ct. COVINGTON We believe thab this project will signifi-cantly increase the economic potential of South- . east Alabama and will be an important factor in raising the living standards and income levels m of the residents of our area. We believe that Q) it will also contribute to the attractiveness of the Chattahoochee River as a site for both industrial and recreational development. We therefore strongly endorse the project from an economic development standpoint. We have been receiving, on a regular basis, infor-mation with respect to your plans for the con-struction of the plant both from your company and the Atomic Energy Commission in Washington. } GENEVA l If we can be of further assistance in l providing you with information on the social l and economic characteristics of this area, please f feel free to call upon us. l 1 I Sin erely, HENRY < ,
/
h2 11am . Cathe Executive Director I WTC/dg ! USTON
#% Southwest Georgia l l Planning & Development Commission S POST OFFICE BOX 346 - CAMILLA, GEORGIA 31730- PHONE 912-336 5616-5617 l
l September 13, 1971 l l Mr. W. T. Cathell, Exe c u ti ve Director 207 Plaza - 2 1 Dothan, Alabama 36301 i
Dear Bill:
The matter of the impact of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant of the Alabama Power Company near Columbia, Alabama on the econ-omy of Southwes t Georgia is not open to ques ti on . As you know, we have been having, wi thi n our staff and the Com-mission, a discussion as to the potential for future energy short-ages in our area. The new Alabama Power facility would, through its tie into the Southeastern grid system, pro vi de a backup for the demands presently being made upon Georgia Power Company. But our more real concern is the need for economic expansion. We O have a very active program aimed at improving the economic condi-tion of our area. We have completed a study of the potential for a ddi tional manufacturing opportuni ties in plas tics . The potential is there. We have dis tributed over 500 copies of this study to manufacturers. Their interest is growing each day. l We also have found and substantiated the need for additional man-ufacturing in the packaging industry. We have other research pro- 0 jects that will aid us in promoting the areas. Everything we have identified is a heavy user of electricity. Moreover, the efforts of this office, along with other organizations such as yours, to accele-rate the development of the Tri-Rivers system will make further de-mands on our energy sources or, if these sources cannot meet the de- l mands, will make our efforts sterile. Our area with 9 EDA designated l Redevelopment Area Counties cannot face the future except in despair l under those la tter condi tions . l 1 So, Bill, I*m saying that we need the Alabama Power Company facility. Let's hope that nothing is said or done that will delay its compl e ti on . Sincerely, l k h' s-Carroll C. Underwood Executive Director [h CCU:nl Q_) , SERVING BAKER-CALHOUN COLOUff f DEC ATUR DOUGHERTY GR ADY Lif-MILLER MITCHELL- 5EMINOLE-TERRELL THOM A5-WORTH COUNTIE5
o4Tc acCrivro 9457/
$U$ PEN $c LACTION /
Lower Chattahoochee Valley ,o (c) uNro c Area Planning & Development Commission ' " c a "~ a fr
&4. ointcTen t/
- 3. ECON.
- 4. IND. $PEC, OF FICE OF P.O. BOX i$'
E X E CU TI VE DIRECTOR September 13, 1971 Cotuusus. E*oT6"# 319a
- 7. onarisuaw 8.BOOKKtEPER Mr. William Cathell, Executive Director Southeast Alabama Economic DeveIopment District P0. Box 1406 Dothan, AIabama 363D1 Re: Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant
Dear Mr. Cathel1:
I am taking this opportunity to write confirming our opinion of the proposed Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant, a project of the Alabama Power Company. Q As you know, we represent a district that is bounded by the Chattahoochee River adjacent to the site of this facility on the Georgia - Alabama State Boundary. Over these months we have had an opportunity to evaluate the potential economic effect and impact of this project on our district. I am pleased to report that our evaluations to date indicate a strong positive impact on the economic future of this region should this facility be constructed. We would be happy to further discuss this project ' and its future potential to our region, at your Convenience. L Very sincerely, ! W~ [( /, Richard K. Allen
/N RKA/cjs Executive Director O
COUTHEAST ALABAMA REGIONAL PLANNING E DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION A P.O. SOE 1404 DOTH AN. ALADAMA 36301 TE'E""0"E "'**'" September 14, 1971 r O B A'A BO UR Mr. Joseph M. Faricy, President Alabama Power Company Birmingham,. Alabama
Dear Mr. Farley:
COFFEE With regard to the effect of the proposed Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant on land use in ; llouston County, this Commission believes that the project is compatibic with existing and proposed future land use, and does not conflict with the Regional Concept Plan being prepared by the staff of the Commission, COVINGTON The small acreage of land which will be withdrawn from agricultural use will have no ' significant impact on existing land use patterns. We understand that your company intends to C-) reserve a substantial portion of the land acquired to be used as a wild life management
*.. area and we therefore feel that the ecological' balance of the area will be largely maintained.
Sincerely,
.Oh w J. Gary Ament GENEVA Chief Planner JGA/dg {
( HENRY i B OUSTON :
i But perhaps the broadest long run economic impact on the entire I ( region will be to increase its potential for future residential and indus- l trial growth. Adequate sources of electric energy for industrial and > residential purposes will become increasingly important if the region is to realize its potential for economic development. Realizing this, all three Regional Planning Commissions strongly endorse the project and have . given their help and support in providing information and statistics on , the area, when requested. Likewise, the Commissions have made it clear that the negative effect on the economic development potential of the entire region of the Lower Chattahoochee Basin of any prolonged delay in the completion of the project would be extremely severe. 3.2 Land Use Compatibility The area surrounding the site is rural and sparsely populated. Table 3-1 shows the population density of the counties adjacent to the plant site and compares these densities to those of Georgia and Alabama. If the city of Dothan is excluded, the population density of rural Houston County is 38 persons per square mile. 4 Land use is oriented toward agriculture and forestry, more land being in forest and woodland than in row crops and pasture. The general trend in the past decade has been a shift from row crops to pasture and timber- . 1 land. The main row crops are peanuts, corn and cotton, and hogs and beef cattle are the most important livestock raised in the area. Pulpwood and tiniber are the main forest products. i The largest city in the area is Dothan,16.5 miles to the west of l the site, with a 1970 population of 36,733. The largest town within 10 miles of the site is Ashford,- 8.3 miles to the southwest, with a 1970 0 3-5
k i TABLE 3-1 ; POPULATION DENSITY OF COUNTIES ADJACENT ; TO PLANT SITE COMPARED TO ALABAMA & GEORGIA l Area 1970 Population Density County (Sa. Miles) Population (Persons per Sa. Mile) Houston (Ala.' , 575 56,574 98 i llenry (Ala.) 554 13,254 24 Early (Ca.) 524 12,682 24 Clay (Ga.) 200 3,636 18 Seminole (Ga.) 246 7,059 28
) .;
TOTAL 2,099 93,205 44 ! ALABAMA 50,708 3,444,165 68 4,589,575 GEORGIA 58,073 79
'I i
Source: U. S. Census of Population - 1970 t I
-l f
() ! 1
population of 1,980. C,_'S) The Southeast Alabama Planning and Development Connission has been consulted by Alabama Power Company and has given its assurance that the acquisition of the site for and construction of the power plant will not conflict with the regional land use ' plan being prepared by the Commission. The Commission has prepared an existing land use map for Houston County. A copy of the plant area portion, Figure 3-5, is a part of this aeport. Table 3-2 shows the land use inventory in 1958 and projected land use in 1975, both for Houston County and for Henry County, which lies directly north of Houston County. As can be seen from this table, Houston County has over 150,000 acres in cropland and about 200,000 acres in pasture, woodland and - fores t. [ The withdrawal of 1,850 acres from this total will have an almost negli-gible impact on existing and future land use patterns in Houston County. Also, the company intends to preserve a substantial portion of the 1,850 acres in its natural state as a wildlife preserve, thus assuring a minimal i I effect on the ecology of the area. Farming and forestry activities in the surrounding area will continue relatively undisturbed. The long run effect of land use for industrial purposes, especially i along the Chattahoochee River north and south of the plant, will most likely change somewhat, but this change will not conflict with existing and proposed plans. At present, over 500 acres on the west bank of the i river approximately four miles south of the site are reserved for indus- , i trial development. This land is owned by the Dothan-Houston County Chamber of Commerce. The Southeast Alabama Regional Planning and Development l Commission in its Overall Economic Development Program has stated that- ' O 3-6 i
1 f 'a ik
',. . y '
) ,
y 8
- : e .
m [
, b 88 .l.,.
,j'f;':]N pf '
5
, r
' f"(jk &
v(k
- w u
' -A
]. j cj:. ( .. Ei<l i
'. [n-bf"N r s i
\ ;.jl \-j sq L gm 2 '
{ j 3l y t f- ,3 7". id , gf Yj 7:a
%l1+f " g'i e
dll'l i 'j
- 1 , __ a: ; j e v;ig p
p . g; #.1 q; q.; u
- g
- 4. .
(, y a ,. gr(i; a 3 ;2 f,7JY y 2 , 5 .
..$ $> N: q . e u ;g aw ns.;.: .'+- .
%4 #gg '
N
- 1 '
t v.' '
.djy gg;gy
!L s.
.g&J. j 4' $
c
-R;t
;cp
! ; (Or , ,
}9
[( _ s ' ir a 2 , wA 3l s J Jg,ND
,,j'G [ fI l$
' kij-#
4 b' , s Q $ P g ; ,, R "u L4 : pi@i ad* Wlig O
$2,% .
4 gpf%ps i wf ra fYhihll
# w..r. .
l ?, _ , 4
. ] ' k[jpg f }(}
i n v ~
^
=
t L; .; -
- 4,k.:.e% u_ --
.l-l ;
Q m , mal? 6[ dh ., j , 3 'F ( $ W y ~ bty 2 , . y s hna f&;y <' n w?%i =,.pfj$['Y \( mgy : ml,g.g/ q y jp e , f$ $hl$ ,m es h5 a k m$q w u $$
- ene$w&yyn ( ~ *
+
y m
?o e aA:g g.. ,8 :.g, s
.i E j$,, g g ? ,,3 ; k. -
= C- .
f [hh%,yg M h,fh[ Nb k a t W: M w w 4A - t-
- y F m.
Le 15 -m y 6Y FIGU R E 3-5
. . .- . .. - , .. .-., , - . . ~ . - . ,
i
.i 5
TABLE 3-2 LAND USB IN HOUSTON & HENRY COUNTIES. ALABAMA EXISTING, 1958: PROJECTED. 1975 < (Thousands of Acres) . i Cropland Pasture- Forest- Other Land Total Range Woodland , County 1958 1975_ _ _ _ 1958 1975 1958 1975 1958 1975 1958 1975 Houston 188.7 147.1 54.7 80.9 105.1 115.7 5.3 5.9 353.8 349.6 i Henry 128.2 120.5 18.7 17.7 185.7 191.4 21.3 18.8 353.9 348.4 Source: Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Needs Inventory (State Soil Conservation Committee, 1961)
+
f i i i 's i i
1 this tract should be developed for industrial purposes as its optimum
) use. The Commission sees no conflict with future plans, therefore, as a result of the construction of the nuclear power plant. The Commission has also indicated its feeling that this could be especially important in the 4
next several years as an employment alternative to the helicopter pilot training center of Fort Rucker and related defense oriented industries which have recently released and no doubt will continue to release, workers as a result of cut-backs due to the declining role of the U. S. in South-east Asia. It is anticipated that land use for the construction of transpor-tation facilities, especially highways, will change somewhat, but not to a great extent. Increased traffic on U. S. 84 East from Dothan and on State Highway 52 from Dothan to Columbia, and also on State Highway 95 South from Columbia to the site will result from workers commuting to the site during the 6-year construction period. The State Highway Department has plans for four-laning of U. S. 84 l 1 East from Dothan to the Chattahoochee River and the construction of a new 39 ft. clearance bridge over the river. Funds have been appropriated and contracts will be let within three years. There are also plans to widen State Highway 52 from Dothan to Columbia. Both of these highways are heavily traveled and plans for their improvement were not contingent upon the construction of the power j
. plant, although this will make the improvements even more necessary.
l State Highway 52 carries local tourists and commuters between Dothan and - .i Columbia and Blakeley, Georgia. U.S. Highway 84 East. carries' commercial and tourist traffic to connect with Interstate Highway 75 going north to 1 O 3-7
m Atlanta and south to Florida. Highway 84 is also used heavily by local () commercial traffic such as logging trucks. Alabama Power has constructed a railroad spur to move construction materials. and equipment to the site during construction and may transport nuclear fuel and other materials after the plant is placed in operation. The railroad is connected with the Central of Georgia Railroad at Columbia, some five miles to the north. This opens up the possibility that if later, this spur were extended south to connect with the Seaboard Coast Line track, the Chattahoochee River would have greater potential for industrial develop-ment, so that in the long run, existing land use along the western bank of the Chattahoochee River could change, although this would not necessarily conflict with future land use plans, as has already been pointed out. A 269 acre recreation area just south of Columbia on Omussee Creek and the Chattahoochee River, which has been partially developed _by the G U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, will be leased by the Corps to the State of Alabama for further development into a park with amenities for camping, fishing and boating, vill attract local tourists to the general area of the plant site. The proposed visitor center on the site will, no doubt, encourage these tourists to stay longer in the general area to take advan-tage of the opportunity to combine a camping and/or fishing outing with a visit to the information center at the plant. This is the major impact on recreational activities that is foreseen as a result of the location of the plant in the area. The plant location is not in any designated public owned wildlife sanctuary or preserve, so no adverse effect is expected on the wildlife of the area. Indeed, it is the intention of Alabama Power to set aside la'nds O 3-8
around the plant as a wildlife preserve to encourage the propagation of birds and animals indigenous to the area. Plant facilities, for the m'ost part, are to be situated in areas which already had been cicated for farming, thereby making it possible to leave untouched and in its natural state much of the surrounding land. Certain other presently cleared areas on the site will be allowed to return to a state compatible with good wild-life preserve management. To summarize, the location of the plant on its proposed site will have no important effect on the presently existing conditions of wildlife in the area. Furthermore, no detrimental change in land use for outdoor recreational activity will result from the construction of the plant on the proposed site. Future land use for residential and commercial purposes in the area will depend upon the rate of growth and development. The location of the power plant will increase the potential for growth of the entire region, as has been pointed out. The Southeast Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission's regional plan and its plans developed for munici-palities include projections of needs for various land categories, includ-ing commercial and residential. No conflict of land uses as proposed in these plans is foreseen as a result of the. location of the plant on its proposed site. 3.2.1 Environmental Impact of Transmission Routes The electrical power generated at the Joseph M. Farley Plant will be delivered to the interconnected 'ransmission system of Alabama Power Company and The Southern Company . --230 Kv and 500 Kv transmission' 11nes. The size, voltage levels, and roatings of these lines were determined primarily on the basis of reliability of electrical service. ^ 3-9 l
Initial studies for these transmission facilities began in 1968. Load flow and transient stability studies simulated peak hour conditions in the period 1975-1977 with the initial operation of the two Farley units in 1975 and 1977. Three basic plans involving different combinations of ; lines and different voltage levels were studied. Alternatives of different line conductor sizes were also considered. The plan selected is: (a) Two 230 Ky lines to Alabama Power Company sub-station at Pinckard. (b) One 230 Kv line to Georgia Power Company. (c) One 500 KV line to Georgia Power Company (Initial operation at 230 KV). (d) One 500 Kv line to Alabama Power Company substation in Montgomery, Alabama, Georgia Power Company will be responsible for the transmission con-nections from the Farley substations to the Georgia system which is adjacent to the Farley Plant on the east side of the Chattahoochee River. The first 230 Kv line to Pinckard will be energized by mid-1973 to supply plant testing power. The other 230 Kv lines.will be completed between 1973 and 1975. The 500 Kv lines will be required for service with. Unit #2 by 1977. Underground transmission lines to deliver the amount of power to be produced at the Farley Plant are not considered technically feasible or economically justifiable. Transmission of such blocks of power at 230 Kv underground is estimated to cost in the order of 10 to 40 times more than 1 conventional overhead construction. 3-10
Projection work was begun on the Farley transmission line routes early in 1970. Aerial maps and other geographical data were obtained. Figure 3-6 indicates the general routes that were considered. Detailed field investigations were conducted and final routes selected. The three routes which were selected are discussed below: (a) Farley-Webb 230,000 Volt Line This line is approximately 10.5 miles long and runs in a westerly direction from the Farley Plant Substation to the Webb Transmission Sub-station. The right-of-way will be 125 feet wide. The present land use along the right-of-way route is primarily agricultural. There are no towns along this route; therefore, the route runs in an almost straight line with only slight deviations O for churches, homes and road crossings. There are no places in this area listed in "The National Register of Historic Places, 1969", published by the National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior. There is no public use land along this route, except for roads and highways, and the route is located in an area which is not subject i to floods from the Chattahoochee River. The area 1 traversed by the route is served by a network of roads which will provide a means for easy access s for construction and maintenance of the trans-mission line. It is anticipated that land in this area will continue to serve agricultural 3-11
t [ wqenn w e t .o g;+,+., ,6 Wg .yea > w g M,.
*g~w nx p%swAa :
8,
. .t .
w,; +p , . y, u , uwq 4g# 9% s.
? 'y ,.* ,, 2.
4 n , .
}
+l ff$ ..n l .
~ n , -,,
w& sf , h $A y ;%QD. n{iRKi l%%fA " ~ 'Qf} I dg??f Qf ajy = 0 h&ff?lGfylg.l%9fsfgN As l Qes 1 19 R : &,
.L.hks T
i yh4t ' g h eJM z
> $4 %w&&ris
,s; n 4 @. ,
i "I j{j$((/$ k.h ,k Q a1dgggggg A
,e u %. 9 ffg[%, a{n$a$4 a :
g[$kNyff$jhggj;gA w ul,o%y;4 3 ,g a4 3 gg ; k' FIGURE kl3-6 j
\, i e needs and the area will remain essentially rural. ,
. This line will therefore have little or no impact on land use. A straight line route is desirable ,
because it requires the least amount of land and i is the least costly to build. The major adverse h environmental impact resulting from construction j of this line will be from its effect on agricul- l tural use of the land, and this will be minimal. It will not appreciably affect production of trees, f shrt.bs, grass or other plants, and will have no effect on birds, animals, fish or other fauna. [ [ Cultural factors, such as land use and recreation ; 1 will not be affected to any extent by the selec- l i tion of this route. O Route selection was also evaluated on the basis , of the Federal Power Commission's Guidelines for j the Protection of Natural, Historic, Scenic and .! l Recreational Values in the Design and Location of l t Rights-of-Way and Transmission Facilities. The route selected complies with applicable items of ' this document. - (b) Webb-Pinckard 230.000 Volt Line , i, This line is approximately 18.5 miles long and ! runs in an easterly direction approximately 10
- miles from the Pinckard Transmission Substation ~
to a point north of Dothan, then northeasterly j approximately 2 miles, and then southeasterly to j 3-12 ! J 1 l j
q t the Webb Transmission Substation. The right-of-
- way is 125 feet wide. The land ' along this route is now used primarily for agriculture. The route is almost straight with slight deviations to miss a trailer park at Highway 231 and a subdivision north of Dothan. There are no places in this area listed in "The National Register of Historic Places, 1969". There is no public use land along the route, except for roads and highways, and the route is '
located in an area which is not subject to floods i t from the Choctawhatchee River. The area traversed : by the route has a network of roads providing easy- : I access for construction and maintenance of trans-mission lines. It is anticipated that land in this !
.O' area will remain essentially rural except for the ;
land between Highway 231 and liighway 431. - Construc- , tion of this line should have little impact on .the j l environment of this area. A ' straight line route is ! desirable because it requires the least amount of l land and is the least costly to build. The ma'jor adverse environmental impact resulting from construc- f tion of this line will be from its effect on agri- ! i cultural use of the land, and this will be minimal. i i i it will not appreciably affect production of ~ shrubs, trees, grass or other plants, and will have no i effect on birds, animals, fish or other fauna. : Cultural factors, such as land use and recreation i O 3-13 i l I
~,
m will not be affected to any extent by the route l t choice. j Route selection was also evaluated on the basis of the Federal Power Commission's Guidelines for the Protection of Natural, Historic, Scenic and Recreational Values in the Design and Location of Rights-of-Way and Transmission Facilities. The I i route selected complies with applicable items of this document. l (c) Farley-Pinckard 230,000 Volt Line Two routes were considered for this line. A J north route which was considered was approximately 30 miles long and ran in a west-north-west direc-tion from the Farley Plant Substation to a point l O northeast of the Dothan Airport, then west approxi-i
]
mately 2 miles, and then southwest to the Pinckard Transmission Substation. A south route which was chosen was judged preferable because there are fewer towns along the route and also because _ it does not go near the Dothan Airport. This line was routed around the City of Dothan. There are no ,
'l places in this area listed in "The Register of j Historic Places, 1969". There is no public use land along this route, except for roads and high- I ways, and the route is located in an' area which is not subject to floods from the mattahoochee River.
3-14 I
The area has a network of roads which provide , () a means for easy access-for construction and l maintenance of the transmission line. Current-
?
ly there are no major transmission lines in the area south of Dothan. Additional power require- l ments for this area could be. served from this i line, t The environmental impact of this line will be limited to the effects of the line on agricul-tural development in the area, and this will be . minimal. The route selected is expected to remain - out of heavily populated areas of Dothan for many . years. Construction of this line will not appre- f
)
ciably af fect production of trees, grass or other , () plants, and will have no effect on birds, animals, fish or other fauna. Cultural factors such as land use and recreation will not be affected by the selection of this route. Route selection was also evaluated on the basis of the Federal Power Commission's Guidelines for the Protection of Natural, Historic, Scenic and Recre-ational Values in the Design and Location of Rights-of-Way and Transmission Facilities. .The route selected complies with applicable items of this document. The projection of the route for the Farley-Montgomery 500,000 volt line has not been completed. 3-15
i i This line is' estimated to be approximately 105
/( ) miles long. It will be constructed on a 150 foot wide right-of-way and will traverse a sparsely i
populated, relatively flat area sbmilar to that ; i between Farley and Pinckard. By using guidelines similar to those applied to the 230,000 volt line already described, Alabama Power Company will , minimize the environmental impact of this line 4 to the area which it traverses. ; The economic ef fects of these transmission rights-of-way can be evaluated on the basis of estimated loss of income to the landowner. : i In Figure 3-7, the three transmission line routes selected are i divided into use and revenue evaluation by county. ' Land use classifica-l tions are wood product areas, farm crop or cultivated areas and pasture , areas. Acreages devoted to such uses were determined from maps made from , aerial photographs. The revenue derived per acre from these land uses is based on data supplied by the Annual Report of the Houston County Agent. 2 In Table 3-3 the total farm income for Houston County is shown on a crop-acre-income basis, k Gross figures supplied in the data have been modified to represent-a net income figure by the application of a 30 percent factor as an averaged. multiplier to reduce gross to net. This factor was recommended by the i i Houston County Agent, i Annual average income from cultivated areas was estimated to be $40 per acre, while that from wood product areas was estimated to be $5.40 per acre, based on 20-year cutting intervals. To determine the reduction o'f annual income from the property caused by the construction of the 3-16 l i
r n "%
/
TOTAL ANNUAL LOSS OF REVENUE PER ACRE LENGTH ACRES ACRES ACRES ANNUAL TOTA L A N N U A L R E V- FACTO R S UE INE F R VEN E ANN L LOSS T ' QUE TO TR A N S. LIN E Ig ig R/wsq R/ WIN TO C UNTY TA E P E R rRou PRES E NT t>SE OF REVENUE MILES R/w wo0DS FARM FOR LINES ACRE TtMBER FARM TIMBER FA R M PAST. TIMSER FA R M PA 5 T. PER ACRE I FA R LEY-W EB B 105 MILES *- MW MM
- l. HOUSTON CO. 10.5 159 51.5 107.5 51,060 56.67 5278 54,300 l .I O 5278 5430 0 5 4.4 5
- 2. DALE CO. O O O O - -
0 O I .I O O O O O II WE B B-PINCK A R D 18.5 M I L ES
- 1. HOU STON CO 12 181 49.5 13L5 1,210 6.67 267 5,260 I .I O 267 526 0 4.38
- 2. DALE CO. 6.5 98 27 71 630 6.41 14 6 2,840 I .I O 146 284 0 4.39 III FA R L EY- P RIC H A R D SOUTH 31 MILES
- 1. HOUSTON CO. 27 408 I26 282 2 72I 6.67 680 11,280 I .I O 680 1,12 8 0 4.43
- 2. D A L E CO. 4 6QS 19 41.5 $86 6.41 103 1,6 6 0 I .I O 103 166 0 4.45 c_
o
-4 mQr>-
m$ mb
*Ig
- BASED ON CURRENT METHOD OF TAX PAYMENT AN D ESTIM ATED V ALU E OF $ 80,000 PER MILE FOR
-Eh CONSTRUCTION AND RIGHT OF WAY m omE mz
** TIM BER AN N UAL VALUE EQUAL $ 5.40/ACR E A N D FA R M VA LU E AT $40/ ACRE. SEE ITEMS I AND 3I C
mC m[o Z -< T OF REPO RT. HOUSTON AND DALE COUNTY FIGURES ASSUMED EQUAL. mb H m N Un h
. c- ao N oO $5j NOTE l ' FOR PURPOSES OF AN N UAL LAN D INCOME, ALL OPEN LAND ASSUMED AS CROP LAND m "' $$g WITH DEVALUATION FACTOR OF ,1 O
' "mz r -<
z
--I J
o o o TABLE 3-3 1970 - HOUSTON COUNTY FARM INCOFE TOTAL RURAL ACREAGE - 350,000
- 1. FARM CROPS, FRUITS AND NUTS 1
130,000 Acres Available - 106,725 Acres Harvested Acres Gross Income Crop Harvested Gross Income Per Acre Cotton 7,300 1,586,462, 217 Peanuts 31,215 8,615,340 276 Soy Beans 1,500 66,000 44 Corn 40,000 1,600,000 40 Sorghum 6,000 270,000 45 Grains 9,200 196,000 21 Fecans 500 128,000 256 Vegetables 9,000 1,500,000 167 Wate rmelons Canteloupes 2,000 240,000 120 Fruits 10 10,000 1,000 TOTALS 106,725 14,211,802 133 Estimated-net income at 30% of gross income = $40/ acre harvested j
l TABLE 3-3 (Continued) i
- 2. TIMBER LANDS Total Acreage - 130,000 1970 Harvest - 6,000 Acres 1970 Income - $650,000 1970 Income / Acre Harvested - $108 Stumpage Based on cutting each 20 years, annual value of wood products / acre = 108/20 = $5.40
- 3. LIVESTOCK AND PASTURE (55,000 Acres)
Cattle and Calves $ 2,000,000 Hogs and Pigs $ 2,344,000 Dairying $ 365,000 Broilers $ 100,000 Eggs S 905,000 Total $ 6,714,000 Gross income equals 6,714,000/55,000 = $122 per acre. Net income @ 30% of gross equals $37 per acre.
- 4. Remaining acreage not in use or rented to Federal Government = 58,275
-23,275 Acres Idle Crop Land 15,000 Acres Govt. Programs 20,000 Acres Non-Productive Land Government payments plus hunting rights = 221,060 and assuming this is averaged over above land = $3.79 per acre.
d
a l transmission line, a devaluation factor was applied which represents the estimated reduction in productivity. Wood products will be eliminated on the transmission line right-of-way and, therefore, a devaluation factor of one was used. Cultivated land is not affected to any great extent since less than one percent of the land will be removed from productivity. 11ow-ever, a devaluation factor of one-tenth was assumed for this type of property use, based on considerations of inconvenience to the owner. Pas-i ture land is only slightly affected by transmission lines and therefore a devaluation factor of zero was applied to pasture areas. Figure 3-7 shows j l these reduction factors and the total annual loss of revenue in dollars , per acre for land used for right-of-way. This is compared in Figure 3-7 i with the estimated annual tax payment which is expected to be made to l Houston County for the transmission lines. It is recognized that only a small portion of the tax payment will benefit the landowner. - Therefore, , the initial price paid for the right-of-way is treated as a direct purchase from the landowner. The economic effect on the area of construction of these trans-mission lines will be small and will be compensated for by tax payments to l the County as well as by purchase of the rights-of-way. 3.2.2 Environmental Impacts of Transportation Systems. The Joseph M. Farley Plant site was originally selected for either nuclear fueled or fossil fueled units. Consequently, it was considered essential for the site to have easy access to transportation facilities suitable for carrying heavy loads. liighway 95, which is the west boundary of the site, can provide access to the site from the ' surrounding area. This will be used by construction employees and for the transportation of much of-the equipment and supplies needed. It will also be uced for 3-17 i
i access by permanent employees and for the transportation of most of the () plant operating supplies. This use will cause little additional environ- : mental impact. The on-site access roads will have some environmental im : pact but this should be more than offset by the use of a large portion of the site area as a wildlife preserves W t The Chattahoochee River will be used for barge transportation of a the reactors and other heavy plant equipment items. It is desirable to . transport this equipment by barge, not only for economic reasons, but also because overland transportation of these items would require rebuilding or f strengthening of numerous highway or railroad bridges. This work and the shipment of the equipment overland would be disruptive to the normal flow l of transportation and would create more environmental impact than barge ! transportation. The construction and use of a 5 mile long railroad connecting the l. Joseph M. Farley Plant to the Central of Georgia Railroad at Columbia, Alabama, is not essential to the plant's construction or operation, but it , is desirable for two major reasons. These are: (a) Construction of the plant can be accomplished at l 1ess cost by building and using the railroad for the transportation of heavy construction equip-ment and bulk materials. This will also remove a considerable amount of truck traffic from State liighway 95. , (b) It was considered desirable to have the alterna- f tive to ship the radioactive spent fuel from the ; i plant in special railroad cars as well as by specially designed trucks. i The construction and use of this railroad does have an environmental i impact but this is more than offset by removing some of the heavy truck traffic from public highways. , () 3-18 h
t 3.2.3 Environmental Impact of Railroad Routes. ()- Three basic alternative railroad routes were investigated. The route selected runs from the Joseph M. Farley Plant about 5 miles north- { ward to a point within the railroad yard limit of the Central of Georgia ; Railroad immediately west of Columbia, Alabama. This route had the follow-ing advantages: (a) It was estimated to be the Icast costly route on : which to build a railroad. (b) The bridge over Omussee Creek did not require l clearance for commercial navigation. I (c) The foundation material for bridge piers was very competent and required a minimum amount of prepa- l ration, j (d) Although this route crosses three secondary roads, I they are not heavily traveled. j (c) This route had less potential for causing environ- ; {) mental impact due to its relatively short length - and its not materially altering the hydrological . characteristics of the Chattahoochee Valley. Another route considered was from the Joseph M. Farley Plant to a point on the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad southwest of Gordon, Alabama. This route was approximately 7 miles long. It required building a bridge over Cedar Creek and crossing State Highway 95. This route was rejected because: , (a) It was longer than the route selected and was, therefore, more costly and required more right-of-way acreage. (b) The bridge over Cedar Creek would have required r rather large and long abutments. .u.p) 3-19 L e
\ /
,/'
e (c) The foundation material for bridge piers was not ! as satisfactory as that underlying Omussee Creek. (d) A grade crossing.over Highway 95 would have been ' required. The third route considered was from the Joseph M. Farley Plant east-ward across the Chattahoochee River to a point on the Chattahoochee Valley Industrial Railroad. This route was rejected because: (a) The high cost of constructing a bridge over the Chattahoochee River. The bridge would have had l to be built high enough to provide vertical cicarance for barge traffic on the Chattahoochee River or it would have had to have a movable section. j (b) Long abutments would have been required. These woald have had the potential of affecting the hydraulic characteristics of the river during periods of high flow. 3.2.4 Environmental Impact of Water Storage Pond An emergency cooling water storage pond, with an area of approxi-mately 65 acres is being constructed as part of the Joseph M. Farley Plant. The primary purpose of the storage pond is to retain a minimum supply of cooling water to cool down and maintain the plant in cold shut-down condition for a minimum of 30 days assuming recirculation of service water from the plant to the pond, evaporative cooling, no makeup, a conservative seepage rate and atmospheric conditions, and heat load from either the shutdown of two units or shutdown of one unit and loss of coolant accident in the other. Although these events are highly improbable, q O 3-20 i I i (
circumstances can be postulated which would result in loss of water in the river should a dam located downstream fail and a dam located upstream be used to stop flow in the river. The only possible alternative to the construction of a cooling pond is the use of a well water system, but this was considered impractical because of the extreme difficulty of developing a dependable well-water system which would meet the stringent requirements of the Atomic Energy Commission. Alternative locations for the cooling water pond were considered. The most promising were (1) the impoundment of Rock Creek, and (2) the excavation of a deep basin on the river bank in the flood plain. The impoundment of Rock Creek was abandoned because it would have flooded Highway 95 and produced other undesirabic effects by the flooding of a larger area both on and off the site. The excavation of the basin was not selected because of undesirable effects in the event of a flood and the dif ficulties resulting from permeability and instability of the alluvial materials in the flood plain. The pond which will be constructed will have no adverse environ-mental impact other than precluding use of the land for other purposes. A portion of the pond area was previously used as a farm pond. The water in the pond will serve as a desirable source of water for wildlife and waterfowl. Thus the net benefits _of this pond are positive and greatly outweigh any environmental costs associated with its construction. 3.3 Water Use Compatibility 3.3.1 Hydrologic Aspects of Surface Water Use Approximately 78,000 gpm of water will be withdrawn from the Chattahoochee River to serve the plant. It will furnish makeup water'for 'O the two-unit operation of the condenser cooling water systems. It is 3-21
1 i 1]) , estimated that approximately 28.000 gpm of water will be lost from the 1 -j i cooling water systems due to evaporation and drift and approximately _[ 37,000 gpm will be returned to the river as blowdown from the cooling i p ..,.,; water systems during full load operation of both units., The water lost ;
-r i
i to evaporation and drif t constitutes the only significant, impact of the f 6 4 : facility on the surface water resources of the area. ! s ,
-f.
4
; The 28,000 gpm evaporation and drif t from the cooling towers at ' 1 "
i ! the Joseph M. Farley Plant will result in a small loss in generation at { the downstream Jim Woodruff Hydroelectric Plant. No other water resource .' . user along the river is adversely affected by this loss in water volume. ; Flow duration data extrapolated to the Jim Woodruff Dam site indicate a flow greater than turbine discharge occurs about 46.4 percent of the time.
~l Table 3-4 indicates that the loss of 28,000 gpm causes a maximum annual 1
! generation loss of 592,000 }341 at Jim Woodruff Dam, all of which occurs '{
I during the time when river flows are less than the Jian Woodruff turbine i discharge capacity, f 3.3.2 Hydrologic Aspects of Groundwater Use j No reversal of the groundwater movement at the site is expected to l occur as a result of the construction and operation of the plant. The movement of groundwater within the shallow aquifer at the site is' east-ward toward the Chattahoochee River. No reversal of this movement is expected to occur as a result of construction and operation of the plant; therefore, construction and operation of the plant are expected to have , no adverse effect on the groundwat t r. .; Likewise,' any adverse- effect on the major shallow aquifer' is con-
~
O- taerea remete deeee e ef 'we seieteoe fermeo 67 <*e eveer tieuee cea the l artesian pressure associated with the aquifer. Any adverse effects on L 3-22 Amend. 1 - 2/28/72 e a
O V TABLE 3-4 ENERGY LOST AT JIM WOODRUFF DUE TO FARLEY COOLING WATER EVAPORATION _ -\ Evaporation Loss at Faricy (14,000 gpm/ unit) 31 cfs/ unit. 1 Drainage Area at Jim Woodruff ( ) 17,150 sq. mil, Installed Capacity at Jim Woodruff (1) 30,000 KW Annual Energy from Jim Woodruff (I) 220,000,000 KWH Gross llead(1) 33 ft. Net Head (2) 30 ft. Efficiency I) 0 .~8 Turbine Discharge (2) 14,750 cfs Flow Duration of Turbine Discharge 46.47. Annual Energy Lost Due to Faricy Evaporation: 30,000 x 24 x 62.2 x .536 x 365 = 592,000 KRIt i 14,750 (1) Corps of Engineers Information Pamphlet (2) Estimated (3) Based on Gauge at Alaga, Alabama prorated to Woodruff site. - t Amend.1-2/28/72 f i
i I O. i this aquifer are virtually eliminated as a result of these factors. In addition to the reasons outlined for the major shallow aquifer, ' affecting the major deep aquifer is precluded due to the additional aqui-clude formed by the upper Tuscahoma sand and the piezometric level of the major deep aquifer at about elevation 70 feet mal. s The possibility of adversely af fecting the groundwater resources or existing wells in the area ao a result of the operation of a nuclear plant , is remote. The groundwater hydrologic characteristics of the site are quite favorable for the proposed location of a nucicar plant. t 3.3.3 Heat Dissipation t 3.3.3.1 Cooling Water System Ihe Condenser Circulating Water System constitutes a closed system i loop integrated with mechanical draft cooling towers which reject heat to the atmosphere. Makeup water is supplied from the service water system outlet and the maximum flow is designed to provide allowances for evapora-tion, drift and blowdown. Figure 3-8 is a schematic representation of the plant service water system. Each of the two units of the Joseph M. Farley plant will be served i by three mechanical draft cooling towers. The individual towers will each contain 12 cells and measure approximately 505 feet long by 62 feet wide by 59 feet' high. The volume of the condenser flow through each of' the ! plant's two units will be approximately 635,000 gallons per minute-(1415 cfs). The water losses to evaporation and drif t are estimated to be 14,000 1 gallons per minute (31 cis) per unit, for a total of 28,000 gallons per minute (62 cfs)., To prevent excessive buildup of colids in the system, there will be a blowdown from the towers of each unit of approximately 18,500 gallons 1 r 3-23 Amend. 1 e 2/28/72
y _1
'_./
y
-e-(4 y4"( P J
m-X C--w' e s M. $ 5 m-X I ! ! l 1 _, .~ X M-lII O 0 s + ! j;e*i !
=1 O 4 {: O b f" (
-<rl s e
'l l _q t -
25 toq/L./L/' J% l 5 o r
, t ?
i o- a:
,w
@ .)'
(w -) o NK f o 5 g 2 N gyg 4 8 t., E no L = $I^ at7 w u f'j n; m s e
*3t dp5w e
Ny yl [: i *6 - L b kb v 4 wu E h _ h ! b>4 -- 4 0 9" l' i!
;$i EY $,.
J , ed.:
>4.O; f hP' I g,q . g.
E l ) ) @ 1( i l 0... I4 R1 hv 1
$ el e
r - s laQ . Q p
), b 1 h hLDh5 -
i i 3;" ~- ~ ~ g g F cj= d, i
~
l
~
1 jy
,~
b 1 LI - sie
- ' ~'
ALADAMA POWER COMPANY Amend. 1 - 2/28/72 m Jostpgyn$#"$N"En"T "#"# o PLANT SERVICE WATER SYSTEM F OR EACH UNIT FIGURE 3 0
1 per minute (41.5 cfs), for a total of 37,000 gallons per minute (83.0 cfs). () i To replace these losses and supply a relatively small quantity of plant - . service water will require maximum withdrawal rate of makeup from the l i Chattahoochee River of approximately 78,000 gpm (174 cfs) for the two units. l The cooling towers are designed on the basis of a wet bulb tempera-ture of 78'F. , with an approach of 11*F. The range of the towers (differ- . 1 When the design wet ence between inlet and outlet temperature) in 20*F. bulb temperature prevails, the temperature of the blowdown water is expected to be approximately 89'F., but because the wet bulb temperature will be . less than 78'F. almost all the time, the blowdown will normally be at a ! lower temperature. i Water withdrawn from the Chattahoochee River through the intake is delivered to a storage pond from which it is withdrawn for plant use. The , storage pond serves also as an emergency cooling pond. It has an area of 65 acres and a volume of 1,639 acre-feet. i Since the Joseph M. Farley Plant will be equipped with cooling i towers, we anticipate no problem in meeting existing water quality standards t for temperature or those proposed by EPA. (See Section 3.3.6) t The net benefits of the cooling systen selected by Alabama Power Company greatly outweigh any adverse effects which are associated with its construction and use. These adverse effects are identified as a rciative-l ly small consumptive use of water and an unquantified but probably small fogging potential. . 3.3.3.2 Alternate Cooling Water Systems Evaporative cooling towers have been chosen as the best method . available for protecting the waters of the Chattahoochee River from adverse , thermal effects which might otherwise result from plant operation. There 3-24 Amend. 1 - 2/28/72 -l r. e , r-n- e -
are four basic ways which were considered for handling the condenser G T ,)- cooling water. In addition to the evaporative cooling tower method ' selected, a once-through cooling system could have been employed, where-by water from the Chattahoochee River would have passed through the con-densers and returned to the river at a higher temperature. A third method , would have been the use of either a closed or open cyc'le cooling pond, with the warm water fran the condensers passing into the pond, being cooled by evaporation, convection and radiation, and then either being re-used for condenser cooling or discharged at a lower temperature to the river. A fourth possibility would have been the use of " dry" cooling towers which would have utilized air to cool the condenser cooling water ; in heat exchangers. Studies showed conclusively that the once-through method would have - periodically caused water temperature in the Chattahoochee River to become higher than is allowed by applicable water quality standards. A closed r cooling pond system would have involved dedication of over 3,000 acres for [ i the cooling pond for Unit No.1 alone. This method was rejected because of problems resulting from terrain, road relocation and land availability h and usage, and other considerations which made such a cooling pond imprac-' i tical. An "open-type" cooling pond was considered, but it was determined that more than 2,000 acres would have been necessary to provide adequate cooling water for Unit No. 1 alone. This method also was considered im-practical for essentially the same reasons as the closed-type cooling pond. l t The other alternative, use of dry-type cooling towers, has not been found feasible for generating plants of the size of the Farley Nuclear Plant and-was, therefore, rejected. On the basis of these considerations, the evapo-7-s rative cooling tower method of providing condenser cooling water was selected. U 3-25 t 5
+
1 I i The mechanical-draft evaporative cooling towers were selected in preference . f
\
to the natural draft type because of economic considerations resulting from
, their suitability for use under meteorological conditions in the area. The I
use of these tovers will protect water quality of the Chattahoochee River, require minimum land use, and have minimal impact on the environment. 3 3.3.4 Impact with Respect to Meteorological Phenomena, Drift, Noise and Blowdown The meteorological effect of the mechanical induced draft cooling , towers will have minimal environmental impact on the area. The effluent to the atmosphere will consist of ambient air with moisture added. The prin-cipal contribution to the environment will be a visible plume of moist air, , the magnitude of which will vary according to ambient air conditions. The visibic vapor plume is expected to be usually less than 2,000 feet long, based on observations at similar installations. Effects of
) drif t from the tower will be confined to the region near the towers within the plant property. The manufacturer guarantees that drif t from the towers will be less than 0.2 percent of the flow rate. The blowdown of 18,500 1 '
gallons per minute wil.1 be under strict surveillance and will meet present ; guidelines relating to water quality. The background noise level is expected to be less than 45 dba. Only i within 10 feet of the fan motor gear box assembly at the top of the tower is the sound expected to approach a significant intensity of approximately 90 dba. No plant personnel will be in this area for extended periods of time. 3.3.5 Impact of the Effluent _. Temperature of the Receiving Station The Joseph M. Farley Nuc1 car Plant cooling towers are designed to L() operate with an 11*F. approach to wet bulb temperature. The blowdown la l f 3-26 Amend.1-2/28/72 j
a
.f taken from the cool side of the tower at a flow rate which is approxi-p , ; mately 57. of the 10 year, 7 day low flow of the Qiattahoochee River. !
1-Therefore, the blowdown should have very little effect on the temperature of the receiving stream, t 3.3.6 Applicable Thermal Standards, Environmental Approvals and Consultations The boundary between Alabama and Georgia lies along the west bank of the Chattahoochee " River at the Joseph M. Farley Plant site. Although
- i the plant itself and its associated equipment is located in Alabama, the river lies entirely within the State of Georgia. In 1967, Georgia adopted >
water quality standards for the Chattahoochee River which specified that . I no discharges would be allowed if they raised the temperature of the t receiving stream more than 10*F. , af ter mixing, up to a maximum allowabic . tct?perature of 93.2*F. These standards were approved by the Secretary of , the Department of the Interior. Alabama adopted similar water quality standards allowing a maximum temperature rise of 10*F., af ter mixing, up to a maximum temperature of 93*F., but these standards were never approved by the Secretary of the 1 Interior or by others who have since been assigned responsibility for federal approval of state water quality standards. On April 5-7, 1971, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1 conducted a public hearing in Montgomery, Alabama, to consider the setting , of federal standards for water quality in Alabama, as they related to temperature and other parameters, since these Alabama standards had not been previously approved. EPA proposed standards which would limit the i r temperature of the receiving streams in the southern part of Alabama to a , maximum temperature rise of 5'F. , af ter mixing, and a maximum allowable ! 3-27 Amend. 1 - 2/28/72 i
I temperature of 90*F. It is understood that EPA has requested Georgia to j i 04 . substitute similar water quality standards for its federally approved ;. standards, but at this time negotiations are continuing between Georgia f and Alabama and EPA. ; i 3.3.7 Status of 21(b) Certification
+
Certification of reasonable assurance that the plant will comply ; I with state water quality criteria was obtained in accordance with ! Section 21(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and AEC regula- ! tions. The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant is being constructed on the ! west bank of the Chattahoochee River. The boundary between Alabama snd Georgia is at the high-water mark on the west bank and, therefore, the , entire river lies within the state of Georgia. The plant itself and its ' associated structures lie within the state of Alabama. After meetings with both the Georgia Water Quality Board and the Alabama Water Improvement i O Commission, a certification of reasonable assurance was obtained from the , t Alabama Commission with a letter from the Georgia Board indicating its I approval. A copy of the certification is reproduced on the following pages. f 1 3.4 Chemical Discharges 3.4.1 Cooling Water System Chemistry The cooling water system of each of the units of the Joseph M. Farley Plant is designed on the following basis: t Design Flow 635,000 gra - Design Tower Evaporation C 2.0% Max. 12,/00 gpm ' Design Tower Drift Loss @ 0.2% Max. 1,270 gpm Temperature to Tower (Max. Design) 109'F. i Temperature from Tower (Max. Design) 89'F. - 0 3-28 4 f
i f d F.$. n:cy ,,,. O state 911ater cualita contraisoard 47 Tsinity Avenue, S. W. ATLA!GA, GEORGIA 30334 April 111, 1971 {3 , m em "' APR151971 Mr. J. L. Crockett, Jr. 1:"r 7 t" ' - Director, Techrdeal Staff N " ^ ' ' Alalunn Water Improvecent Corani. scion , State Office Building Fcom 321: liontgowry, Alabctna 36104 PE: Alabana Pu.'er Company Joseph M. larley I'uclear Plant, Chattahoochee River Ibar ter. Crockett: We have received a reply to our letter of February 26, 1971, in which we asked for clarificatica of a ntmber of iters. A copy of that letter was provided to you. rh M mch ?; 3 1971, Mr. flan P. Bar"';n. Senior Vice Prc idEnt, Alabcam Po.+.:n Co;apany, replieri to our Jetter. 'lhe l#ter toppther with thG attached material provided sof ficient intcrmation to enable us to certify the project.- 'lhorefore, you may consider this letter as the Georgia Water Quality Control Poard's certification that we have reasonable escurance fma the Alabaan Power Company that the proposed Josc]h M. Farley Nuclear Plant will not violate applicabic water quality ctandanis of the Chattahoochee Rivar. Please forward copics of this letter to the Alabaaa Pcuer Company advising tlwam of this certification. If you or the Power Company have any quest. ions, please advice. Sincerely, 7C [2,. [hl7 ff - 6 : . ,7 h.....,S.' Hawaixl, Jr. Ikecutive Secrutary ESH: mig
e - I l l
-I STATE OF ALABAMA j i
WATER lMPROVEMENT COMMISSION l
?O-1 .co. . _.- . ;
erATc omcc suitoiwa .l MONTGOMERY 4. ALABAMA 1R A L. MYERS. M. D. ARTHUR N. SECK' 'i cw Ai nu an April 19, 1971 Tsc*aca' **ca m ar ; i Mr. Allen R. Barton i Senior Vice-President j Alabama Power Company -j P. O. Box 2641 ; Birmingham, Alabama 35202 . r Dear Mr. Barton* We have reviewed Alabama Power Company's revised application for -j certification of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant on the Chattahoochee { River in Houston County, Alabama. This revised application was submitted i to the Georgia Water Quality Board on March 25, 1971, together with your- j letter-to Mr. R. S. Howard, Jr., Executive Secretary, Georgia Water Quality Board, clarifying certain items questioned by Mr. Howard in his letter of -f February 26, 1971, to you. Alabama Power Company's revised application for certification and '; information contained in your letter of March 25, 1971, to Mr. Howard ! provide us with reasonable assurance that activities associated with ! construction and operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant will 'I not violate applicable water quality standards. This letter may, [ therefore, be considered as certification' of this project by the Alabama . Water improvement Commission in accordance with provisions of Section 21(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as anended. A copy of Mr. Howard's letter of April 14, 1971, to us expressing i certification of the above project on behalf of the Georgia Water Quality Board is attached. i
-/
pf,,'yr Yours ve
,s
ly, i h ('Q* Q ,. / W -*- ' pr'thur N. Beck f
' Technical Secretary e Water Improvement Commission
{ j ANB/cbv i Enclosure
.j cc: Mr. R. S. Howard !
%h
- -- - , - , - ,-.,, v.,
Total heat exchanger cooling water flow of 32,500 gpm maximum will be routed '
'O- into the circulating pump suction as tower makeup. ;
Of the 32,500 gpm of makeup water, approximately 14,700 gpm will be bypassed for diluting the tower blevdown,12,700 gpm will be lost as tower evaporation, ' and 1)00 gpm will be lost as tower drift. The balance, amounting to approximately 1 i 3,800 gpm, will be removed as tower blowdown, diluted with the bypass water, and, routed through the discharge line to the river. Controlled quantities of monitored radwaste will be mixed in this flow for discharge to the river. Controlled quantities of neutralized demineralizer wastes will also be mixed in this flow for discharge to the river. The maximum concentration of solids of the water in the tower-condenser cycle will be 3.5, on the basis of the following calculation: ; makeup 17,800 Blowdown + Dritt 5,100 - 3.5 () Dissolved solids in the river have been found to vary from a' low of 45 ppm 1 +. to a high of 117 ppm based on Georgia Water Quality Control Board Water Analysis' as: , collected by U.S.G.S. An average dissolved solids concentration of 63 ppm covering the years 1968-1969 can be inferred from this data. Therefore, the tower blowdown v1th a concentration factor of 3.5 would have a range of dissolved solids concentration' of 158 ppm to 410 ppm with an average of approximately 220 ppm prior to dilution with tj i
. bypass water. This process, of course, adds no dissolved solids, and the increase of ,
concentration in the discharge is of no consequence to the environment. The concentration of suspended solids in the tower blowdown will be significantly reduced by pumping' the river water into the storage pond where some of the solids can settle before the water is repumped into the cooling system. Suspended solids in the e . river water are reported to vary from 10 ppm to 100 ppm with an average concentration - , (), 3-29 Amend'.1 - 2/28/72 l l l 1 l l
i of about 25 ppm. The settlement of' suspended solids will reduce the concentra-()- l tion of suspended solids downstream in the river to.some slight extent. The pH of the tower blowdown will be about 7.8. 'The concentration _of solids ! in the drift will be the same as that.in the blowdown and will have little environ- ! i mental effect because the dissolved salts are not corrosive or otherwise harmful-and will not be dispersed off' the site. I I It is not expected that any chemicals will be-needed for controlling silt , in the mechanical draf t towers. l Chlorine, fed in gaseous form, will be used intermittently in the tower system to control algae and slime. The intervals when it_is used may vary from once. per day to once per week. The chlorine will be injected only_in the amount needed , to control biological growths. The free residual chlorine in the system will be: controlled by a chlorine residual monitor, with a maximma allowable concentration of - 1 ppm. The expected concentration of residual chlorine in the tower blowdown system' will vary from 0.25 ppm to 0.5 ppm. Dilution with the bypass water (14,700 gpm) . .. 1 and further dilution in the river will reduce the concentration to essentially zero.. Alternatives in selecting a suitable chemical for keeping the cooling tower-condensing system free of water-borne and air-borne microorganisms consist first. of making a choice between oxidizing and nonoxidizing materials. Oxidizing materials are chlorine, which was selected, and calcium and sodium hypochlorites. Chlorine is received in the liquid form of the pure element l l and is then applied as a gas dissolved in water. The hypochlorites are supplied
'either as dry powders or in dilute liquid form. ' Chlorine is a broad spectrum 3-30 Amend. 1 - 2/28/72 N.
l
. . . , . . _ - ~ . .
,_.-_.r. _ . . _ _ _ . , _ .- , - -
i i biocide and is effective, relatively easy to handle with precautions. , and readily dissipates into forms of harmless, non-toxic chlorides.'- - Elemental chlorine costs only approximately 10 percent as much as the hypo- f chlorites which offer no particuler advantage in this application. i Non-oxidizing materials which may be used as biocides are mostly f patented products. They may be effective in providing treatment in tower-condensing water systems but ce generally more expensive - than chlorine and'- 1; usually produce toxic end products which are not acceptab1'e in the blowdown to the river. Typical of the non-oxidizjng materials are acrolein, chlori- .! nated phenolic compounds, chromates, copper salts, phenolic anines, and thiocynates. Such materials are not practical for a large cooling tower j system such as that at the Joseph M. Farley Plcnt because of both cost and toxicity. It was therefore apparent after consideration of the above alter - l nates that chlorine was the best choice for control of biological growths : in the plant's tower-condenser cooling system. The system is designed on ;
-1 the basis of using no more chlorine than is absolutely'neces.aary, and when it is used, there will be strict control'over the rato of. feed of chlorine ; , ?
and the concentrations of chlorine reached in the water system. l The use of mechanical methods of controlling biological growth will. not eliminate the need for chemical controls in parts of the system and. -l will not affect the concentration of.the chemicals'in the blowdown. 3.4.2 -Makeup Water Demineralizer for Two Units i The demineralizer vastes will contain neutralized sulfuric acid ;
.?
and sodium hydroxide in the form of sodium sulf ate. ; l O~ 3-31 Amend. 1 - 2/28/72-1
.l
)
-n., , , -- a -. ,. ,
i l 1 i m-The regeneration of the cation-anion beds'will produce the follow- j 9 . ing waste products mixed in 18,000 to 19,000 gallons of water. l 1374 lbs. Sodium Sulfate (Na2SO4 ) 39 lbs. Calcium (Ca) ) i 18 lbs. Magnesium (Mg)- ) Cations 48 lbs. Sodium (Na) ) ! 8 lbs. Sulphate (SO 4) ) . i 21 lbs. Chlorid (C1) )' Anions , 63 lbs. Silica (SiO2) -) i 10 lbs. Carbon Dioxide (CO2 ) ) a 1581 lbs. Torra Dissolved Solids j Diluted in 19,000 gallons of water, each of the above produce the following concentrations: ; Sodium Sulf ate. . (Sodium 392.5 lb. - 2479 ppm f (Sulfate 981.5 lb. = 6199 ppm j (Calcium 39 lb. - 245 ppm ; Cations........ (Magnesium 18 lb. = 113 ppm , 1 (Sodium 48 lb. - 303 ppm l
"" * ' ~ ' """ '
(D Anions......... (Chloride 21 lb. - 132 ppm J (Silica 63 lb. = 398 ppm . (Carbon Dioxide 10 lb. = 63 ppm l t Total Dissolved Solids =9984 ppm in 19,000 gallons of water j When the 19,000 gallon batch of diluted regenerant waste is dis- 'f t charged at a controlled rate of 127 gpm into the diluted tower blowdown ! (which may contain as much as 120 ppm of-dissolved solids), the average f dissolved sollds concentration in the water going to the river will be an estimated 160 ppm ever the discharge period of. approximately 215 hours. i For the two units at the plant, the minimum number of discharges will be'one -l batch per day and the maximum number will be two batches per day. LBatches 1
'will never be discharged simultaneously, but-always separated by to time j interval of several hours. Two sand filters, through which the makeup . -t 3-32 Amend. 1 - 2/28/72 I
a
4 water for demineralizer system passes initially, will occasionally'be back-
) washed, and this water will be routed to the discharge line and the river.-
TSe maximum quantity of water used for backwashing will be about 5,000
;allons, twice a day. Each backwash will last about 10 minutes. The fil-ter backwash water will be very clean, filtered well water. The dissolved solids concentration in the filter backwash water will be about 120 ppm, and the pil will be 7.6.
3.4,3 Projected Ef fect of Chemical Discharges on Biota Usually aquatic biota live in natural waters that contain endless varieties of dissolved materials. There will be no deleterious ef fect on aquatic biota from the very low concentrations of materials from the cool-ing tower system. The same substances which will be in tower blowdown occur naturally in the river. These discharges will be in compliance with all established water O. quality criteria. No environmental costs associated with these discharges can be - identified. 3.5 Sanitary Wastes 3.5.1 Control During Construction During construction of the Joseph M. Farley Nucicar Plant, control' of sanitary waste will be accomplished by three different systems. These are:
- 1. A Sewage Treatment System
- 2. Septic Tanks
- 3. Portable Chemical' Toilets The sewage disposal system is a Pollution Contro1 1nc. " Activator"
~
Sewage Treatment System. This device is used for the human waste systems O 3-33
i and is designed to serve 600 people per day. Its operation is based on s/ m the aerobic aeration principle which works by maintaining sufficient oxygen mixing and detention time to allow microorganisms or sludge floc to de- , compose the organic wastes into harmless carbon dioxide, water and ash. 1 The effluent from this system is then discharged to a chlorine contact tank to kill any pathogenic bacteria which might remain in the effluent. ; . The system is maintained in accordance with manufacturer's schedule of ff maint anance. The septic tank system consists of two - 1500 gallon septic tanks with a crushed limestone filter bed. This system is designed to serve.100 , people and will be connected to sanitary facilities in the pipe fabrica-tion shop area. The third system consists of the use of portable chemical toilets. . These units serve construction personnel at locations where it is imprac- t 0 tical to tie facilities into the main system or to install a septic tank. , The portable units are leased from agencies which service them as needed. b These three systems are handling all sanitary wastes during the construction of the plant and preventing detrimental releases in the area. 3.5.2 control During Operation After completion of the plant, sanitary sewage-will be treated in a permanent plant system which will provide primary and secondary treat- i ment. The system will employ the extended aeration process and provide a '
't minimum of 95 percent removal of BOD 5 before release. The wastes will e
receive final chlorination to accomplish bacterial disinfection. The permanent system has been designed for a capacity of 10,000 _j gallons per day and has been reviewed and approved by the Alabams Water f 3-34 , N 3
- w
improvement Commission as a satisfactory method of treating sanitary (M D sewage. 3.6 Biological Impact 3.6.1 Local Species Important to Sport and Commercial Use Fish species of sports and commercial use are shown in the follow-ing tables. None of these species are classified as unique.
- 1. Species of Sport Importance Common Name Scientific Name Redbreast Sunfish ---------------- Lepomis auritus (Linneaus)
Orange-Spo tted Sun fish ----------- L. humilis (Girard) Bluegill ------------------------- 1,. macrochirus (Rafinesque) i Longe ar Sun fish ------------------ 1.. me galo tis (Rafinesque) 4 Redear Sunfish ------------------- L. microlophus (Gunther) Black Crappie -------------------- Pomoxis nogromaculatus (LeSueur) (~5 Largemouth Bass ------------------ Micropterus salmoides (Lacepede) , Warmouth ------------------------- Ch aenobryt tus gulosus (Cuvier) Stripped Bass -------------------- Morone saxatilis (Walbaum)
- 2. Species of Commercial Importance
- Carp -- --------------------------- Cyprinu s carp i o ( Linne au s )
Black Bullhead ------------------- Ictalurus melas (Rafinesque) ' Yellow Bullhead ------------------ I. natalis (LeSueur) Brown Bullhead ------------------- I. nebulosus (LeSueur) Wh it e Ca t fish -------------------- I . c a t u s (Linneaus) Channel Cat fish ------------------ I . punctatus (Rafinesque) . Wildlife of sport use found on the site consists of squirrel, rabbit, deer, turkey, quail and dove. When a wildlife preserve has been establish-ed on the site, no hunting will be permitted. g. 3-35 , 1 e
.l l
3.6.2 Importance of Locale to Existence of Species ( Due to the lack of uniqueness of the site, the project will have no impact on the existence of any known species. With the designation of a substantial portion of the site as a wildlife preserve, there should be an improvement in the opportunity for propagation of wildlife in the area. The protective measures incorporated in the design of the. plant will protect wildlife in the area from adverse effects of plant construc-tion and operation. 3.6.3 Effect on Planktonic Forms i Planktonic forms in the water that pass through the condenser and cooling towers will probably be destroyed by heat or chlorination, but only approximately 5 percent of the minimum recorded river flow will be : affected by this process. The Chattahoochee River flows directly into () Lake Seminole which receives additional water from several sources. Since planktonic forms flourish in Lake Seminole, the effect of the plant will , be minimal. J 3.6.4 Potential Hazards of Cooling Water Intake and Discharge to Important Fish Species ! l The quantity of water to be withdrawn from the Chattahoochee River will be relatively small as compared with that which would be required for
. i a plant of equal size using a once-through condenser cooling system. l l
There will be 10 pumps located at the intake, 8 normally in use and 2 available on a standby basis. Each pump is designed to deliver 9,750 ' gpm' l at rated head, based on normal river and pond elevation. See Figure 2-4 for details of the intake system. The intake structure is designed so that under normal full operation 3-36 i l l J a -
with 8 pumps, the velocity of flow across the screen will not exceed approximately 1.0 feet per second when the river is at its normal minimum pool level of 77 feet above msl and 0.3 feet per second in the canal. Velocities at the screen and in the 200 foot long entrance canal will diminish as elevation increases due to the increase in area across the ' flow section. The intake screen will utilize a 3/8" mesh. 3 Due to hydroelectric operations at the Corps of Engineers' Walter George Dam upstream from Columbia Lock and Dam, the flow velicity past the plant site varies considerably. Based on average monthly ficws, the estimated average velocity in the river at the plant site will range I between 1.8 f.p.s . in August and 7.5 f.p.s. in April. Fish and biota in-the river are subjected almost daily to velocities far in excess of the flow into the intake. Due to the location of the discharge at a consider-able distance downstream from the intake, no recirculation of cooling water -O will occur. Therefore, there is no reason to expect fish to be attracted T to the intake, and in the event a fish does enter the intake canal, the ; relatively low velocity will not prevent escape. i The discharge structure, Figure 2-5, will be submerged and the !
?
velocity of discharge will be approximately 0.3 f.p.s. The physical j 1 presence of the structure should have no. adverse effect on fish and' wild- , life and should not interfere with other uses of the Chattahoochee River. 3.6.5 Summary of Effects of Withdrawal and Return of Water j Potential effects of the Farley Plant on withdrawals from, and j returns to the Chattahoochee River are limited because of the essentially closed cycle nature of the circulating water system. The Site Water Manage-ment Study prepared by Southern Services, Inc. for the Farly Plant indicates- . l O v i 3-37 i I s
- ' ~
1 i I i f7 a condenser cooling water flow per unit of 32,500 gpm, tower blowdown V i (return to river) of 18,500 gym and an evaporation and drift loss of , 1 14,000 gpm. Solids contained in the cooling water will be concentrated i by a factor of approximately 3.5. (See Section 3.4.1 for a detailed discussion of chemical releases). A State of Alabama Geological Survey , l Publication, Information Series 27, contains tests of Otattahoochee River water at Columbia on May 1, 1960 and August 29, 1960, and at Alaga on August 28, 1960. Water returned to the river as blowdown from the cooling towers j will be taken from the cold side of the towers. The temperature of the blowdown will approximate that of the receiving river and therefore the Joseph H. Farley Plant, equipped with evaporative cooling towers, presents no problem in meeting existing water quality standards for temperature or O V~ those proposed by EPA. (See Section 3.3.6) The package-plant secondary treatment system for sanitary sewage t at Farley Nuclear Plant is a 10,000 GFD extended aeration process which will provide a minimum of 95 percent BOD 5 removal. This will result in a maximum of 12 mg/l BOD 5 being discharged from the package system. The 1; system has been reviewed and approved by the Alabama Water Improvement Conunission. Chlorination for bacterial disinfection will follow secon-dary treatment. 3.6.6 6 Expected Biological Impact , The construction and operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant is not expected to have any significant biological impact on the area. As a further protection of the environment, both pre-operationni - and post-operational biological studies will be made which will detect , 3-38 Amend. 1 - 2/28/72 !
t any incipient biological changes early enough to allow corrective action
~before any harm is done to the environment.
3.7 Non-Radiological Monitoring Programs Section 2.4 of this report provides an indication of the massive amount of background information available on the Chattahoochee River. Dr. John Lawrence, Fisheries Department, Auburn University, and others have studied various aspects of the river for many years. Alabama Power Company's environmental monitoring program is designed to add to this available data and is being conducted in associated with Dr. Lawrence. Most of the samples that are collected for the radiological monitoring program are analyzed for many elements that are not related to possible radioactive releases, but are of general interest for water quality and biological studies, liydrological monitoring of the Chattahoochee River is a regular activity of the U. S. Corps of Engineers in connection with the o.peration of their locks and dams. The U. S. Geological Survey also maintains several gauging stations on the river. The U. S. Geological ourvey has been requested by Alabama Power Company to develop a plan for measuring river elevations and stream flow at the Joseph M. Farley Plant site. Alabama Power Company will contract with U.S.G.S. to install and operate a gauging station after suitable plan
.is developed.
3.8 Measures Taken to Assure Adequacy of Ecological Studies The applicant employs general nuclear, meteorological and health physics consultants and actively seeks the advice 'of local knowledgeable persons and involved agencies to assure the. completeness of the ecological studies. 3-39 Y -
1 Westinghouse, Inc., Bechtel, Inc., Pickard, Lowe & Associates, 'O s,,e ' Dr. G. Hoyt Whipple, Dr. J. Halitsky, Stewart Laboratories, Inc. , Dr. John Lawrence of Auburn University Fisheries Department, Dr. G. Winston Menzell of Florida State University Department of Oceanography, Mr. J. Dan Ward, District Supervisor of the Alabama Department of. Conservation, Mr. Angus Golson, Assistant Reservoir Manager, Lake Seminole, and r Mr. Allen Matthews, Houston County and others have been involved in the , ecological studies. Studies of the lower Chattahoochee River- by Dr. John Lawrence and others, including the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U. S. Geological Survey, over a period of several years have established background informa-tion which, as far as we know, is unparalleled for any river in the south-eastern United States. The ecological studies undertaken by the applicant with the advice and assistance of Dr. Lawrence are adding to this mass of Os
~
knowledge. It should be noted that the character of the lower Chattahoochee River has been changed during che last two or three decades from a-free flowing river to a series of impoundments created by Locks and Dams. It now serves as an important navigable waterway and the lakes provide excel-lent recreational benefits. 3.9 Other Approvals Required and Consultations with Other Agencies i The Alabama Public Service Commission has, following public hear-
-ings, issued Certificates of Convenience and Necessity for both units and ,
associated transmission facilities of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant. Jurisdiction of the Alabama Public Service Commission includes general j authorization of the facilities in the proposed plant ' and related substation 3-40 _
-i and high voltage substation and transmission facilities. ,
The comp'any will submit an application to the Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, for permits for river-associated facilities at the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant. Reviews of these facilities by appropriate agencie's are required prior to issuance of such permits. The following state, local and regional planning authorities have , been contacted in , connection with the construction of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant: Bureau of State Planning and , Community Affairs Room 611 270 Washington Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Altamaha Area Planning and Development Commission (APDC) P. O. Box 328 Baxley, Georgia 31513 Lower Chattahoochee Valley APDC P. O. Box 1908 Columbus, Georgia 31901 Department of Administration Attention: ' Mr. Don Albright Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida , Southeast Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission i P. O. Box 1406 Dothan, Alabama 36301 , Southwest Georgia Planning and Development Commission P. O. Box 346 _
-j Camilla, Georgia 31730
)
3 l J Information discussions have taken place at various times not 13 'k l only with these agencies but also with other interested federal, state and local government agencies including: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ! U. S. Coast Guard U. S. Environmental Protection Agency i U. S. Geological Survey , County Agents of Houston and Surrounding Counties Alabama Water Improvement Commiscion ; Alabama Department of Conservation Alabama Geological Survey ; Alabama State Department of Health Georgia Water Quality Board [ Georgia Department of Conservation
}
Florida Water & Air Pollution Control Agency Florida Division of Health ' Florida Fish and Game Commission 'I i Florida Departnent of Health and Rehabilitative Services { Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Commission ! i Florida Department of Natural Resources i 1 Florida State Planning and Development Clearing House i t f f
- 1. Underground Power Transmission - A Report to the Federal Power Commission by the Commission's Advisory Committee on Underground Transmission, (
April 1966. ! i 3-42 ; l
. . = - - . .= - - . - _ - . - . - -.
L k 4.0 Radiological Monitoring Program and Radiological Impact
- O This part describes the Radiological Monitoring Program undertaken for the Parley Plant and the radiolo'gical impact of the plant. Included are discussions of dosage, accident analysis, waste processing systems and the transportation of fuel.
4.1 Radiological Monitoring Program , The actual measurements of background radiation in the environment have begun. The studies now being made will indicate the optimum number of sampling points, the locations for these points, the types of samples to be collected and the frequencies of collection. These studies are ; not complete and all the information necessary to determine the optimum values for these monitoring parameters is not yet at hand. As a conse-quence, the following description is in somewhat general terms. () One of the principal purposes of the pre-operational phase of the radiological monitoring program is to determine whether there are any anomalous conditions in the environment before the plant goes into opera- i tion. If such conditions are present and unrecognized, they may intere- r fere with the ability of the post-operational program to detect releases from the plant. llowever, if such anomalies do exist and are recognized , before the plant starts operating, the monitoring program can be modified to be free from interference of this kind. ; The ecological and chemical studies now being made are intended, (1) to delineate the more important pathways along which radioactive materials discharged from the plant might reach human beings, (2) to 6 indicate organisms suitable for monitoring these pathways, and (3) to > provide assurance that the several monitoring stations are matched, bic-4-1 l l
1
-- logically and chemically. The importance of the last point rests on the.
v' use of indicator and background stations in the radiological monitoring j program, 1 Indicator stations are those places where samples are taken and i measurements are made that are expected to have the highest environmen-tal levels of plant-produced radioactivity. Background stations are collecting and measuring points where levels of plant-produced radio-activity will be insignificant (e.g. points far away or upstream from the plant). When the plant begins operations, data from these two sets .; of stations will be compared and this comparison will provide a reliable l and sensitive means for verifying the behavior of plant-produced radio-activity in the environment, llowever, such comparisons require that the background and indicator stations be carefully matched with respect to . r (} as many characteristics (including biology and chemistry) as possible, excepting only concentrations of plant-produced material. To this end, the river is being studied from above the plant site to the estuary where it enters the Gulf of Mexico. Samples of water, sediment and microscopic organisms are being collected, identified and analyzed to determine the concentrations of the stable chemical elements corresponding to the principal radioactive isotopes anticipated in the liquid radioactive discharges to the river. The information gained from these studies will lead to the selection of one or two background samp-ling stations up-river from the plant, two or more indicator sampling stations down-river from the plant, an indicator sampling station in the Apalachicola Bay, and a background sampling station in the Ochlockonee Bay. Provisional locations for these sampling stations will be selected 4-2
by the end of 1972. O. The river studies will also lead to the provisional selection of l materials to be sampled and analyzed in the radiological program. These materials seem likely to include water, sediment, mollusks, fish and aquatic plants. Since wild fowl and wild animals hunted and eaten by man partake of river water, they are being studied by stable element analysis to determin*e whether any important pathways to man exist here. The use of river water to irrigate food crops appears to be practiced to a very limited extent but could be expanded in the future. Consequently, a number of food crops are being analyzed for stable element concentra-tions to assess the importance of this pathway from the river to man. Application of the indicator / background concept to the monitoring i of materials discharged into the air leads to two rings of stations around the plant; the indicator ring with a radius corresponding to the distance where the ground concentration, averaged over a year, is expected to be maximum, and the background ring with a radius large enough so that the ground concentration of plant-produced material is an insignificant frac-tion of that at the indicator ring. The meteorological data from which the optimum locations of these two sets of atmospheric stations will be i calculated are now being obtained at the site. . 1 Further, in this same connection, data on the grazing of milk cows and meat-producing animals, and on the growing of agricultural food ; materials in the area are being gathered. This information will be used in conjunction with the meteorological data, already referred to, to select-locations for indicator and background milk samples and for such-other agricultural products as are necessary for a rigorous monitoring 4-3 _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _u
l l g program. t ( Although the programs outlined above are underway, they have as [. yet produced no data on the present radiological status of the environ-ment of the Farley site. No reason has been found for believing that E this region is in any way untypical of the southeast. No large nuclear establishments exist in the area; the nearest is the Savannah River Plant, several hundred miles to the northeast. As far as is now known, there are no appreciable radioactive discharges into the Chattahoochee River or its tributaries. Nor has any reason been found to believe that fallout from nuclear detonations has been different in the vicinity of the site than that throughout the southeast. O 4-3a j l l
. , ~ . . . ~_ -
9 () 4.2 Radioactive Discharge Systems 4.2.1 Design of Waste Processing Systems Alabama Power Company will install the new Environmental Assurance System, designed by Westinghouse, in both of the Farley units. This ; system will provide means to limit the radioactive releases from the plant to the environment to levels as low as practicable. Part of this system is the use of silver-indium-cadmium control rods to reduce the production f t of tritium in the reactor. A summary description of the systems for , liquid, gaseous and solids waste processing as well as the expected radio-active release rates with isotopic breakdown is given below. + 4.2.1.1 Liquid Waste Processing System The liquid waste processing system is designed to segregate the liquid wastes into two separate subsystems. A schematic flow diagram of the liquid waste processing system is shown in Figure 4-1. These sub- .i systems, referred to as Channel A and Channel B, utilize different process methods most suitable to tne category of liquid waste to be treated. Cate-i gories of the liquid wastes are determined by their points of origin, by their radioactivity content, and the practicality, as well as suitability, for recycling their processed products. This design feature enables the applicant to reduce the radioactive discharges, including tritium, from the plant to the environment to icvels as low as practicable. Channel A collects and processes reactor grade water wastes through ' filters, evaporator, and demineralizer and returns the product liquid to the appropriate tank to be reused in the primary system. Bottoms of the , waste evaporator are either drummed or, if radioactivity and chemical con-tent permits, can be returned to boron recycle system for reuse. f 4-4 e I
^
(N . CHANNEL A CHANNEL B CvCS RtevCLE MOLDuP TANK AUR. BLDG. REACTOs CONTAINME NT EOuePMENT DRAIN WASTE gyupg COOLANT SUMP AND LE AkS HOLDUP TANE HOT LAB SINK LAUNDRY E HOT Low ACTivtTY I DR AIN TANK FLOOR DRAIN SHOWER DRAlks LAa, DRAINS i j CCW SURGE TAsNK pt u - [**"" l' 44 v F __ ,LO,oR ,CR UN CHEMICAL WASTE HOLDUP LAUNDRY 8 HOT FLOOR DRAIN TANK DRAIN SHOWER TANK TANK TANK
@ LOCAL SAMPLE LOCAL SAMPLE r FLOCR DRAIN sf 4 FLOOR 09AIN n
STR AINE R
'a~"
n STRalNER 'I TANK DRUMMING ROOM FIL R F g FLOOR DRAIN Iu \' CVCS RECYCLE ,s FILT ER q M MOLDUP EVAPORATOR TANN DISTILLATE
- WASTE s A MPLE WASTE 55h EVAPORATOR w
80EI CONCENTRATES SAMPLE + $e w i x W A ST E EVAP. BOTTOMS TO f-- CONDENS ATE C O W a ' DRUMMING ROOM FILT E R DEMIN ER ALIZER (n mM n zm ( =a rm I <'>
-Ir "3 : ;
3 << QE > EL w v
.c > h E CD #
O _-1 g g g{! WASTE WASTE o mM MONITOR MONITOR f Z$p E ,, WASTE WASTE MONITOR TANK TAN K y to my ry HOLDUP TANK
- 4 -4 r mO /\
FILT E R TANK
~4 m
m m,4 ga
>z m rC 2 V +
WE MPLE a 0O O WASTE CONDENSATE N/ S' i h$
** mAh TANK
)
O 'D T 9> m > % LOC AL SAMPLE Nf COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN
$ d[k I
%r g CvCS RECYCLE HOLDUP TANK R A.
l TION * , y RE ACTOR M AKE up MOpR i q WATER TANK i l l
Channel B collects and processes non-reactor grade water wastes f which will be discharged to the environment. The largest source of liquid , waste collected in this subsystem will originate from laundry and hot shower drains. This very low activity waste will be filtered, monitored j and discharged to the environment. The remaining wastes collected in ! Channel B consist of various leaks and drains which are eit:ier processed ; through filter.or filter and demineralizer, before being monitored and dis- - charged to the environment. Provisions are made to process liquid waste from Channel B in the waste evaporator should this become necessary. . Pro-cessed liquid from the evaporator would then be returned to Channel B i for ultimate discharge to the environment. The bottoms from the evapora-tor would be drummed for of f-site disposal. Channel B also collects the chemical waste produced in the laboratory in the chemical waste tank. This waste consists of sampics taken from various parts of the plant which O are likely to be tritiated or contain high activity, as well as chemicals , used for laboratory analysis. However, due to the very low volume of these ; wasbes they are drummed directly for off-site shipment. i Under normal operating conditions, when fuel cladding defects in , combination with steam generator tube leaks in the plant are minor such that limits specified in Table 4-1, on an annual average basis, are not. 'i exceeded, steam generator blowdown will be discharged to the. environment l without treatment. Steam generator blowdown will also be discharged to :l
'L the environment without treatment if the combination of leaking steam k
generator tubes and very little fuel cladding failure exists. This solids content would depend upon the boron concentration-in the primary to secondary steam systems. For a combination of fuel cladding defects and steam generator tube ({ 4-5
r TABLE 4-1 ESTIMATED ANNUAL LIQUID ISOTOPIC RELEASES FOR NORMAL OPERATION (EACH UNIT)
- Release Fraction MFC Release Fraction MPC -
Isotope millicuries /yr Annual Avg._ _ Isotope ~ millicuries /yr Annual Avg. Cr 51 1.821 2.5x10 -8 Ho 99 2.82x10 2 2.0x10~4 , 8.0x10 -8 2 Mn 54 0.288 I 131 5.01x10 4.6x10-2 Hn 56 0.058 1.6x10-8 I 132 1.611 5.5x10 Fe 55 0.262 8.9x10-9 I 133 6.45x10 1 1.7x10-3
~7 Fe 59 0.320 1.7x10 I 134 0.388 5.4x10-6 1 -6 I 135 1.12 x10 1
7.7x10
-5 Co 58 1.76x10 5.4x10
-5 2.5x10 -6 Co 60 2.731 Te 132 1.57x10 1 2.2x10
~4 Rb 88 0.870 8.0x10-6 Cs 134 1.65x10 2 5.1x10
-5 Rb 89 0.021 2.0x10-7 Cs 136 2.89x10 1 1.3x10 Sr 89 1.290 1.2x10-5 Cs 137 7.10x10 2- 9.8x10-4
~
Sr 90 0.053 4.9x10-6 Cs 138 0.387 1.1x10 .
-6 Sr 91 0.0.14 7.8x10~9 Ba 140 0.799 1.1x10
-8 :
Y 90 0.0087 1.2x10 La 140 0.045 6.2x10-8
~7 1.47x10 1 4.6x10-6
~
Y 91 0.862 7.9x10 Ce 141 Y 92 0.0022 1.0x10 ~9 Ce 144 6.478 1.8x10-5; Zr 95 4.630 2.1x10-6 Nb 95 9.978 . 2.7x10-6 , curies /yr , Concentration 1 MPC g Totals 1.84 0.0497 Tritium (total expected in reactor coolant all assumed,to be released) 509 0.037 ,
- Based on operation with cladding defects in fuel rods generating 1 percent of the
(\ rated core thermal power, and a dilution flow rate of 18,500 gpm. 1 Amend. 1 - 2/28/72 1
. _ _ .- . . ~-
i leaks, analysis shows that the most limiting activity release from the ; 'O . secondary side is the I-131 concentration in the blowdown liquid. There-i fore, a steam generator blowdown treatment system will be provided with the , objective of reducing the iodine discharge to the environment to levels as ; low as practicable. A schematic flow diagram of the system is shown in Figure 4-2. This system consists of a blowdown tank, a condenser to condense i i the steam produced in the blowdown tank, heat exchangers, anion resin beds, , and radiation monitors. All blowdown liquid will be processed'through the demineralizer to remove most of the iodine. Two anion exchangers (56 ft. each) will be used in series. A thrid one (16 ft. ) in series will serve as a backup. Radiation monitors are provided to detect and isolate the blot own in the event the radiation ex-ceeds predetermined levels. Treated blowdown liquid will be diluted by O mixing with cooling tower blowdown before entry into the river. Interlocks f are provided to terminate the discharge if the cooling tower blowdown rate falls below a pre-set value. The treatment system design is based on short-term treatment for 1 percent fuel cladding defects with a simultaneous steam generator tube leakage of up to 1 gpm and a blowdown flow rate of 50 gpm for three steam , generators. Steam generator tube leakage in combination with failed fuel clad-ding is. considered.to be equipment faults in the category of moderate fre- ! quency of occurance. A combination of other equipment faults which can occur with a moderate frequency, with fuel cladding defects are: malfunction in liquid waste treatment system; excessive leakage in.the reactor coolant system. equipment; and excessive leakage in the auxiliary system equipment. () 4-6
_ O. NN S G WO - R N OI - E IL RE DT Z WU - I L OWOL _ NA OOLI WR CTBD O OE O N WI N - OM , LE GD . a :_ i.- a L ~
,g -
1 X . S R T L TR VE I F _ NN SE . WE , OV N O E , WK D N ON O {l - LA C - K BT - C / ; A j
^ T oEgEz w :.-
S szgog . O T . N = E - V T C N
- A .
L P h WN K OWN
- I, .
LOA BDT
; y ;__
o R R # . O R O T O A R T A T A _ E R R ,- N E G M On N EAn1 E G W N Eom E G w i 2 A M M - E A A T E E . S T T , S S . pr>G * ,@mx Or n >5 m UI g. ms;< 2 Corm $ ;>zH9 m(- Ogmz >r 3mm@- . O mmImK >d ,,Os oDox>r % - m m>K Ggz .w O2 WrOTgsz q2A ;mz n t m mE - i v g,m si .
Plant annual average liquid isotopic releases resulting from opera-() tion with equipment faults of moderate frequency, in combination with failed fuel cladding are given in Table 4-2. The radioactive releases under this condition will be within 10 CFR 20 limits on a short-term basis when summing the fraction of MPC for each of the principal radionuclides being discharged. However, as shown in Table 4-2, annual average total plant radioactive dis-charges (including both design discharges as well as equipment fault dis-charges) will be limited to 10 percent of MPC on an isotopic basis,'exclud-ing tritium. The 10 percent of MPC liquid discharge would become less than 1 percent of MPC had once through cooling of turbine condenser been used as was the case in some nuclear plants of similar rating. Therefore, it is Alabama Power Company's judgment that releases to the environment, result-ing from equipment faults, from Farley Plant are as low as practicable. 4.2.1.2 Gaseous Waste Processing System Another major component of the plant systems which serves to protect the environment is the gaseous waste processing system. A sche-matic flow diagram of the system is shown in Figure 4-3. The system will be a closed loop, comprised of two waste compressors, two cataly-tic hydrogen recombiners, six gas decay tanks for service during normal-operation, and two gas decay tanks for service at shutdown and startup. The system will be designed to remove most of the fission product gases from the reactor coolant system. This is accomplished by continuous purge of hydrogen gas into the volume control tank of the Chemical and Volume Control System (CVCS) and transport of stripped fission product gases from the reactor coolant to the gascous waste processing system. The hydrogen gas mixed with radioactive gases will mix with the nitro-
- ~s gen carrier gas, continuously circulating around the loop, and will be ,~)
removed by the recombiners. The resulting gas stream will be transferred 4-7
TABLE 4-2 PLANT ANNUAL AVERAGE LIQUID ISOTOPIC RELEASES FOR 10 PERCENT MPC FOR IDENTIFIED RADIONUCLIDE MIXTURES (TYPICAL MIXTURE PER UNIT)
- Isotope Release Fraction MPC Isotope Release Fraction MPC millucuries/ Annual Average mil 11 curies / Annual Average yr yr Cr-51 3.64x10 0 5.0x10-8 Mo-99 5.64x10 2 4.0x10-4 Mn-54 5.67x10-1 1.6x10-7 I-131 1.00x103 9.2x10-2 Mn-56 1.16x10~1 3.2x10-8 1-132 3.22x10 0 1.1x10-5 Fe-55 5.2x10~1 1.8x10-8 I-133 1.29x10 2 3.4x10-3 Fe-59 6.40x10-1 3.4x10-7 I-134 7.76x10-1 1.1x10-5 Co-58 3.52x10 1 1.1x10 -5 I-135 2.24x10 1 1.5x10-4 Co-60 5.46x10 0 5.0x10-6 Te-132 3.14x10 1 4.4x10-5 i
0 Rb-88 1.74x10 1.6x10-5 Cs-134 3.30x10 1.0x10-3 Rb-89 4.20x10-2 4.0x10-7 Cs-136 5.78x10 1 2.6x10-5 Sr-89 2.58x10 0 2.4x10 -7 Cs-137 1.42x103 1.9x10 -3 Sr-90 1.06x10-1 9.8x10-6 Cs-138 7.74x10~1 2.2x10-7 0 Sr-91 2.80x10-2 1.6x10-8 Ba-140 1.60x10 2.2x10-6 Y-90 1.71x10~2 2.4x10-8 La-140 9.0x10-2 1.3x10 -7 Y-91 1.72x10 0 1.6x10-6 Ce-141 2.94x10 1 9.2x10 -6 , Y-92 4.4x10 -3 2.0x10-9 Ce-144 1.30x10 1 3.6x10-5 4.2x10 -6 0 Zr-95 9.26x10 2.0x10 1
-6 Nb-95 5.4x10 L Curies /yr Concentration 1 MPC f Totals 3.7 0.10
- Based on operation with cladding defects in fuel rods generating 1 percent of the rated core thermal power O
7a l FROM VOLUME CONTROL TANK AND VENT HEADER i X A RECOMBINERS
' I (2 UNITS)
\ n i I v i WASTE GAS I I OXYGEN WATER COM PR E SSORS
- l-- I I (2 UNITS) ' I L_ + TO VOLUME SHUTDOWN
[ : CONTROL TANK I g DECAY TANKS g , I I i 1 1 i Ur V L [>Q.+ PLANT VENT l e 1 STACK [ I I
.________________________________t>c_________.t v
GAS DECAY AAAAAA TAN KS NJ N) N) J NJ %) v v v v v v g y VENT __ DURING SHUTDOWN OPERATIONS DURING NORM AL POWER OPERATIONS ALABAMA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT o ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT U SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM : OF GASEOUS WASTE PROCESSING SYSTEM FIGURE 4-3
I l : to the gas decay tanks where accumulated activity will be contained in six
. (v) 1 approximately equal parts. By the operation of this system, a considerable j reduction in the fission product gas inventory in the reactor coolant system j will be achieved. This will substantially reduce the fission product release ;
from unavoidable reactor coolant leakage in the plant. The gaseous waste processing system.also collects the residual radioactive gases discharged to the vent header from various equipment in : the plant. This includes the gases stripped by the gas stripper and evapo- ( rator in the CVCS system. The system will be provided with gas storage capacity to accumulate all the fission product gases released to the reactor coolant with the very conservative assumption that the plant operates with 1 percent failed fuel over a 40 year period. The two shutdown tanks will be utilized during plant cooldown after the majority of the gases are stripped from the reactor coolant. This system will carry very small amounts of radio-active gas; however, it is incorporated in the design with the intent to re-duce the controlled discharge from the plant to levels as low as practicable. { The bulk of the activity collected in gas decay tanks will be from Xe-133 with a half life of 5.3 days. If all gases are stored for 40 years,
~
the amount of Kr-85 inventory present at the end of this time will be only l approximately equal to the Xe-133 activity present during any fuel cycle j with 1 percent fuel cladding defects. This number will be approximately ! 91,000 dose equivalent curies of Xe-133. Since the volumetric quantity of these gases is small, the system pressure is not expected to exceed about i 15 to 20 psig during the life of the plant. Anticipated operation will result in no significant gaseous activity release to the environment from this system. However, should it become necessary to discharge waste gas to the atmosphere, the system will include 4-8 t
h provisions to sample and control the discharge to assure that releases '( ) are made within the permissible limits for the plant. 4.2.1.3 Solid Waste Processing System Solid wastes, from the Farley Plant, will be shipped in 55 gallon drums to off-site burial facilities. Each shipment will be made in accor-dance with Atomic Energy Commission and Department of Transportation regu-lations. Ilowever, it is Alabama Power Company's feeling that estimates of anticipated frequency and mode of shipment at this time would be premature. Solid waste shipment from any Nuclear Power Plant facility depends on the operation of the plant as well as the availability and schedule of the carriers. Farley Plant (2 Units) will have a solid waste handling facility for each unit. It is conservatively estimated that approximately 500-55 gallon drums, the majority containing low-level activity, will be shipped from ( Farley Plant each year. If, in the very unlikely event of operation of the plant with design basis fuel cladding failures (1 percent), it is antici-t pated that filters shipped from the primary side of the plant will contain ; 1 high-level activity solid wastes and will amount to approximately 50 shielded 55 gallon drums per year. These 50 drums are included in the 500 drum estimate given above. Each Unit facility has the capacity to store 80-55 gallon drums.
~
Approximately 12 to 15 low-level-activity and 15 high-level-activity ship-ments from the site are estimated for each year. Alabama Power Company feels that the solid waste handling facilities i incorporated in Farley Plant design have the flexibility and the capability I to handle the solid wastes which will be generated within the plant and will ! allow ficxibility in the schedule for off-site shipments from the plant. 4-9 i
4.3 Radioactive Discharge Quantities ( ). 4.3.1 Liquid Wastes Estimates of normal annual liquid volumes through the waste process-ing system for each unit are given in Table 4-3. Processed liquid waste will be diluted with cooling tower blowdown before entry into the river. Interlocks are provided to terminate the discharge if either the radiation 1cvel in the liquid exceeds a preset value or cooling tower blowdown flow rate falls below a preset value. Estimated annual liquid isotopic releases from normal operation of each unit are listed in Table 4-1. This table also includes the fraction of most probable concentration for each isotope on an annual average basis. As shown in Table 4-1, the estimated annual average radioactivity concentration in the cooling tower blowdown is expected to be approximately 5 percent of the 10 CFR 20 limits for identified mixtures, excluding tritium. Tritium releases are not expected to exceed about 4 percent of 10 CFR 20 limits in the plant effluents during normal operation. Cooling tower blowdown is approximately 1/30 of the dilution flow availabic to those nuclear plants using once-through cooling in the turbine condenser. Thus, in evaluating the effectiveness of the waste processing system the 5 percent of 10 CFR 20, given in Table 4-1,should be compared. with less than 1 percent, if once through cooling dilution were used as for most previous nuclear plants. It is Alabama Power Company's judgment that releases to the environment from Farley Plant will be as low as practicable. 4.3.2 Gaseous Wastes ' The estimated annual average activity release rates during normal plant operation, including contributions from containment purging, unavoid-able reactor coolant leakage, and possible leakage from the gaseous waste - q processing system, is expected to be approximately 5 percent of 10 CFR 20 , 4-10 i j l
t i l l ' TABLE 4-3 f . : ,- l ' ;( ) JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR UNITS 1 OR 2 ! ESTIMATES OF NORMA.L ANNUAL LIQUID VOLUMES THROUGH WASTE PROCESSING SYSTDI FOR EACH UNIT I l i Volume (gal /yr) f Recycled _ Processed and Discharged ; Equipment Drains and 60,000 - f leakoffs [i Lab Equipment Rinses - 16,000 : (40 gallons per day) Systems Leaks - 20,000 . (20 gallons per day - ! Primary System water ! 40 gallons per day - all other leakage) " Decontaminations - 15,000 Laundry and Hot Shower - 120,000 l O T0TAL 60,000 171,000 i
.)
t i t
?
i k i 9 1 i I [
limits for identified mixtures, for both units, excluding iodine. The O isotopic breakdown of this release is given in Table 4-4. Gaseous re-Icase of isotopes of iodine will be measured and releases will be con-trolled so as not to exceed an annual I-131 gaseous release limit of 1.5 curies (1/700 of .MPC of I-131 on an annual average basis) . Gaseous activity releases during the occurence of equipment faults of moderate frequenc will be within the 10 CFR 20 limits on a short time basis, when summing the fraction of MPC for each of the principal radio-nuclides being discharged. However, on an annual average basis the total plant gaseous radioactivity o.scharges will be limited to 10 percent of MFC as shown in Table 4-5. It is the Applicant's judgment that the gaseous activity releases from Farley Plant to the environment are as low as practicable. 4.4 Important Pathways of Exposure to Man At this time, only the possible pathways by which radiation and radioactivity from the Farley Plant may cause human radiation exposure can bJ en. The assessment of the importance of each of these pathways can be made only when the studies, described previously (Sec. 4.1) have been completed. The following list, therefore, constitutes a check list, not an exact list of important pathways. A. Possibic pathways of human exposure from releases of radioactive material to the atmosphere (1) External exposure from airborne material (2) External exposure from material deposited ~ ' on the ground (3) Inhalation of airborne material 4-11
-i n ,
I i i f TABLE 4-4 .j ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE CASEOUS RELEASE RATES FROM PLANT VENTILATION l l SYSTEMS DURING NORMAL OPERATION (TOTAL FOR BOTH UNITS)
- f i
j i Isotope Release Rate Curies /second { Kr-85m 4.85 x 10-5 _ l Kr-85 4.70 x 10-4 l t Kr-87 2.82 x 10-5 j i Kr-88 9.5 x 10-5 Xe-133m 3.26 x 10-5 -! Xe-133 2.23 x 10-3 Xe-135m 6.75 x 10-5 l 0 Xe-135 1.56 x 10-4 { Total 3.12 x 10-3 t i 1 Percent MPC (Summation of above isotopes)** 5 l
- Based on operation with cladding defects in fuel ;
rods generating 1 percent of the rated core thermal power.
** Based on annual average X/Q = 3.0 x 10-5 sec/m 3 i
i 3 i h !
%Y p~)
r l
\
3
TABLE 4-5 PLANT ANNUAL GASEOUS ISOTOPIC RELEASES FOR 10 PERCENT MPC ; FOR IDENTIFIED RADIONUCLIDE MIXTURES (TYPICAL MIXTURE TWO UNITS)
- Isotope Release Rate Curies /Second ,
Kr-85m 9.70 x 10 , Kr-85 9.38 x 10-4 i Kr-87 5.86 x 10-5 Kr-88 1.83 x 10-4 Xe-133m 6.50 x 10-5 4.47 x 10-3 Xe-133 Xe-135m 1.35 x 10-4 Xe-135 3.12 x 10 -4 i Total 6.26 x 10-3 Tritium ** 20 - 40 curies / year i
- Based on operation with cladding defects in fuel rods generating 1 percent of the rated core thermal power.
** Tritium release from the containment with 2.5 uc/cc in the reactor coolant after 12 years of operation.
O 1 1 1
'f
, (4) Ingestion of airborne material which has found
-( its way into food 3 (a) pasture - cow-milk ,
(b) field - crop-food ; (c) woods - wild game-food (d) field - forage-domestic animal-food , 4 B. Possible pathways of human exposure from releases of radioactive material to the river (1) External exposure from material in the river i (e.g. boating, swimming, water-skiing) ; (2) External exposure from material on the river bank (e.g. fishing, hunting, camping) : i (3) Ingestion of river water (4) Ingestion of organisms which live in the river + (a) fish (b) turtles ; (c) plants ; s (5) Ingestion of organisms which use river water (a) ducks (b) wild game (deer, racoons) (c) irrigated crops (6) Ingestion of organisms which live in the estuary (a) oysters (b) crabs ' (c) shrimp (d) fish 4.4.1 Estimates of the Increase in Levels of Radioactivity From 4 I the Principal Radionuclides i
. Table 4-6 shows the concentrations of radioactive materials in t
the Chattahoochee River expected from normal operation of.the Farley l Plant. For comparison the concentration of certain radioactive materials aircady present in surface water and sea water are also presented. -Pos-sibly it should be noted that about 44 river miles downstream from the j 1 4-12
+
P b'
TABLE 4-6 COMPARISON OF CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS-EXPECTED IN THE CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER FROM THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY PLANT WITH THOSE OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS ALREADY PRESENT Concentration -31Ci/cc Source Tritium Other Isotopes Farley Plant 4.8 x 10~ 1.75 x 10 -10 1. Surface water
~
before 1952 3.2 x 10 - 1964 3 x 10~ - 2. Sea water
-17 potassium-40 -
3.2 x 10 rubidium-87 - 5.9 x 10-9
- 1. Hawkins and Schmalz, ID0-12043, 1965
- 2. NAS-NRC Publication No.~ 551,1957, page 41 O
plant site the Chattahoochee River joins the Flint River to form the O Apalachicola. The resulting increase in flow will further dilute the ! concentration of radioactive material due to plant operation. 4.5 Potential Annual Radiation Doses During normal operation of the Farley Plant, radioactive gaseous and liquid wastes will be generated. Only a small fraction of these will be released to the environment under controlled conditions in accordance with applicable regulations and the AEC operating license. Using this small fraction, and taking into consideration the measured climatology of the area, river system cucracteristics and principal modes of exposure, an estimate of the population exposure out to a 50-mile radius is developed. This estimate, the derivation of which is shown below, indicates that population exposure attributable to routine opera- ; tion will be very small compared to that from natural background radia-tion, j Estimates of maximum individual exposure are also made and their I derivations are shown below. Such exposures are small compared to limits in applicable regulations and compared to natural background (see Section
- 4.6).
4.5.1 Estimates of Exposure Due to Gaseous Reicases : i A. Source of Radioactive Gaseous Effluent P The radiation waste processing systems will be designed to maintain gaseous releases to a level as low as practicable. In this report, it is conservatively assumed that the plant is re-leasing gases equivalent to 5 percent of the maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) shown in Table 4-7. This table gives quan-O 4-13 l 1
tities of radioactive gases of significance which are expected to q(d be released to the environment, assuming that the plant is operat-ing under design basis conditions. B. Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates Isopleths, which are lines on a map showing where equal long-term average ground level concentrations of materials released from the plant are expected, have been prepared using one year of weather data measured at the Dothan Airport. Using these isopleths which extend out to 50 miles, the average annual ground level concentration for released materials is approxi-mated in each of sixteen 22-1/2 direction sectors at distances of 3/4, 1-1/2, 2-1/2, 3-1/2, 4-1/2, 7-1/2, 15, 25, 35 and 45 miles from the plant which represents the center of the ten annuli used in making the evaluation of population exposure within a 50-mile radius. C. Population Estimates Population estimates were taken from Figure 2-17. The figures give population estimates projected for the year 2015 in each of sixteen direction sectors. Each sector is separated into ten rings corresponding to the annuli for which average annual ground concentrations are estimated as discussed above. 4.5.1.1 Computation of Individual Exposure A. Whole Body Gamma Dose The whole body gamma dose to an individual in air is calculated using the semi-infinite cloud model: O 4-14
Dy = (X/Q) (Fwb) (a) l N - Fwb = 0.25{'(A)1 i=1 (5)i Where: ; D 7
= Gamma dose for year (rad)
X/Q = Annual average atmospheric dispersion (sec/m ) N = Number of isotopes considered th A1 = Amount of i isotope released during the year (C1) ; Et = Average gamma energy per disintegration (Mev/ dis) of the isotope _ __ 3 ,
= Wh le body gamma dose factor radx m :
Fwb yr. sec (See Table 4-8 for work sheet) q B. Surface Body Beta Dose V The beta dose to the surface of the body is calculated using the infinite cloud modelf )as follows: D B
=
(X/Q)(Fbe) (b) N Fbe
=
0.23{(A)g(Eb)g i=1 Where the simbols are the same as for 2.4.1 except: , D = Beta dose for the year (rad) B Eb i = Average beta energy per disintegration (Mev/ dis) of the i th isotope radx m 3 Fb = Beta dose factor yr. see (See Table 4-9 for work sheet) C. Whole Body Equivalent Due to Inhalation of Iodine It.is estimated that, as shown in Table 4-7,only a small 4-15
l 3 amount of iodine will be released to che atmosphere. The limiting exposure from iodine will be the dose received by the thyroid. The equivalent whole body dose due to inhalation of iodine is computed by dividing the thyroid doses obtained by a factor of 3. Thus, the equivalent whole body dose to the thyroid is that dose which is judged f to have the same relative effect on the individual as a , numerically equal dose to the whole body. The equation used for determining the whole body equiva-lent dose due to inhalation of iodine is as follows: Dr
= (X/Q)(F1 ) (c) py . (BR)(fc)(A) 3 Where:
Dy = Whole Body equivalent dose due to inhalation 7 of iodine-131 during the year (rad /yr.) X/Q = Average annual atmospheric dispersion (sec/m ) BR = Average breathing rate (m /sec) f c
= Dose conversion factor for I-131 (rad /Ci)
A = Amount of I-131 released during the year (Ci) F7 = Inhalation dose factor x (See y c Tabic 4-10 for work sheet) - - D. Whole Body Equivalent Dose Due to Ingestion of Iodin _e ; Computation of doses due to ingestion of iodine is made ; considering possible concentration of iodine in the " cow-milk" (')s u 4-16
- pathway. Studies have shown that for a given ground level atmospheric concentration the dose would be about 700 times the inhalation dose for certain population groups. However, the concentration factor would not be this high for the entire population exposed, thus a weighted average factor is computed taking into account differences in thyroid weight, breathing rate and amounts of milk consumed by age groups as fe;iows:
(1) For the 1-10 year old age group the factor of 700 is used. About 20% of the population is estimated to be in this age group. (2) For ages of 10 years and above a factor of 150 is > estimated assuming that on the average about half as much milk is consumed per person; that the thy-roid weight is 7.5 times greater and that the breath-ing rate is 3.3 times higher than for the 1-10 year old group. (3) The resulting population group weighted average c(ncentration factor is 0.2 x 700 + 0.8 x 150 = 260. The whole body equivalent dose to the average population group from ingestion of iodine-131 is computed by multiplying the inhalation dose by the concentration factor as follows: D yg = (Dy )(fem) (d) Where: Dy = Whole body equivalent dose due.to inhalation of I-131 (rad /yr.) f em = Concentration factor in cow-milk pathway. 4-17
4.5.1.2 Computation of Total Population Exposure [ The annual population dose (man-rads /yr.) due to gaseous effluent
)
was estimated for each annular sector by multiplying the exposure at { the center of the sector by the population in the sector for the year 2015. This is done for each of the four types of exposure, i..e., whole-t body gamma, surfact body beta, inhalation and ingestion. Then the total i annual population dose for each type of exposure out to a radius of 50 miles is calculated by summing such doses for all annular sectors using the following relationship: s d TDi ,j = [] (( D ,jPi ,j i i=1 j=1 Where: 1 = Subscript for direction sector i r"% j = Subscript for annulus (population ring) V ' TDf ,3
= Annual total population dose for the particular type of exposure (man-rads /yr.)
s = Number of direction sectors (16) d = Number of annuli (10) D = Gamma, beta, inhalation or ingestion dose (rad /yr.) f,) P1 ,) = Population estimate for the year 2015 for each direction and annular section. i The results of these calculations are summarized in column (1)
- of Table 4-13.
4.5.1.3 Computation of Maximum Of f-Site Exposure The maximum off-site exposures to an individual due to routine gaseous effluent releases are computed using the methods described above and the maximum average ground level concentrations at the site boundary. 4-18 : i 5 b
-6 3 A value of X/Q = 3.0 x 10 sec/m is used which corresponds to the !
highest estimated average value at any site boundary. l The maximum whole body gamma dose from Table 4-8 and equation - (a) is computed as follows: ! r
=
D,(ma x (X/Q) ave (Fwb) ! The maximum surface body beta dose from Table 4-9 and equation f (b) is computed as follows: f D bmax = (X/Q) ave (Fbe) , F i The maximum inhalation dose from Table 4-10 and equation (c) j is as follows: D Imax = (X/Q) ave (Fy ) . For an individual to receive these doses, he would have to remain, j for the whole year, at the point of highest exposure on the site boundary. The realistic maximum exposure would be much lower, r The maximum exposure due to ingestion of milk is estimated assum-ing that the milk producing cows graze at the site boundary continuously , t during the year and that the individual drinking milk drinks only the milk from this source. A factor of 700 for concentration in the cow- l milk pathway is used. The maximum dose from above and Section 4.5.1.1 i i is computed as follows: , i
)
D ICmax
=
Dy ,,x x 700. .l t Results of these computations are given in column (3) of Table ! l 4-13. (]) 4-19
i 4.5.1.4 Computation of Average Population Exposure O- Estimates of the average annual population exposure are made by dividing the total population exposure due to the given type exposure from Column (1) of Table 4-13 by the total population within the 50-mile radius (450,250 people). Results are given in Column (2) of Table 4-13. 4.5.2 Estimates of Exposure Due to Liquid Release The liquid portion of the rad-waste system will be designed to maintain liquid releases to a level as low as practicable. Prior to release into the cooling tower blowdown water (which flows to the river), the liquid wastes will normally be processed through filters, and ion exchange beds or evaporators. The annual quantities of radioactive materials which are estimated to be released from both units under the design basis conditions are listed in Column (2) of Table 4-11. Average concentrations of each isotope downstream of the plant are estimated for the Chattachoochee River including Lake Seminole and for the Apalachacola River below Lake Seminole. The average Chattahoo-chee River flow is 11,850 cfs. Since the Chattahoochee and Flint rivers both discharge to Lake Seminole and the Apalachacola River begins at the discharge from Lake Seminole, additional dilution is available below the lake. The flow rate below the lake in the Apalachacola River is_21,900 cfs. Average concentrations in the upper and lower river system are determined by dividing the annual quantity of each isotope by the annual river flow in each of the two locations considered. River concentrations are shown in Columns (3) and (4) of Table 4-11. O 4-20
-~_ 4.5.2.1 Estimates of Population Exposed Through Assumed Pathways Significant pathways whereby radioisotopes released to the river system could reach man have been investigated. There is no known use of the Chattahoochee River, Lake Seminole or the Apalachacola River for human drinking water. There is essentially no use of river or lake water for irrigation of farm land downstream of the plant. The most significant pathway identified was through ingestion of fish in the river system and through ingestion of seafood taken from the lower Ap- l I
alachacola estuary and bay. ; 1 The population group of interest for this study is that within a 50-mile radius of the Farley Plant. There are projected to be about 450,250 people in this area in the year 2015. It is assumed that the amount of fish and seafood estimated to be consumed in this population (} group is distributed equally. 4.5.2.2 Compilation of Doses to Individuals Three pathways to man of radionuclides in liquid effluent have
~
been identified in the river system. These include the ingestion of fish, the ingestion of oyster meat (mollusk) and the ingestion of shrimp (crustacca). The average annual amounts of each group taken from the river system and Apalachaeola Bay are given in Table 4-12. Aquatic organisms concentrate certain elements which exist in the water and in the food they eat (generally living near or in the water). Therefore, the fish or seafood consumed may have a higher con-centration of certain radioactive isotopes than that present in the-water. To account for this, estimates of concentration factors are made for fish and for each type of seafood as shown in Columns (6), (7) and 4-21
- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i
(8) of Table 4-11. These are based on preliminary studies made on fresh water fish. For mollusks and crustacca which live in marine environ-ments, the factors reported by Freke *were used. A survey is now underway for the river system to determine the extent to which organisms in the river concentrate elements of interest. 2 When these studies are complete, they will provide information specific-to this river system. A concentration factor of zero was used for isotopes t with half-lives less than three days since it is judged that they would have decayed to insignificant levels by the time they were ingested by humans. From Table 4-12, the amount of fish caught in the Chattachoochee River and Lake Seminole is approximately 1,025,000 lbs. It is assumed that the edible portion of this fish is one-third of the total weight .(} and that one-half this amount is consumed by the population group of in-terest (450,250 people within the 50-mile radius) . Each exposed person I would, therefore, consume on the average 0.47 gram of fish flesh per day. For the fish caught downstream of the lake in the Apalachaeola River (900,400 lbs.) and in the Apalachacola Bay (264,000 lbs.), it is assumed that one-half this amount is consumed by the population group of interest. This amounts to an average of 0.53 gram of fish flesh per day. To compute doses through fish ingestion, the following relation-ships are used* ; Df = ( )1 ( cf)1 (W) (0.5) ,
- i=1 (2200) (MPC)g-Where:
Df = Dose due to ingestion of fish (rad /yr.)' O 4-22 m .
t i = Isotope O N = Number of isotopes Og = Concentration in water (u.Ci/cc) 'j F cf
= ncen ra i n factor in fish flesh of N i isotope ,
W = Weight of fish flesh consumed per day (grams), 0.5 = Dose due to drinking 2200 cc/ day of water at MPC concentration 2,200 = Average amount of water ingested per day (cc/ day) , MPCi
= . Maximum permissible concentration of isotope in water Doses due to ingestion of fish are given in Column (9) and (10) of Table 4-11.
From Table 4-12, the amount of oysters (mollusks) taken from the 6 bay is about 2.0 x 10 lbs. (meat) per year. It is assumed that since ;
'O most of this meat is exported, only 10 percent is consumed by the =
450,250 people within the 50-mile radius. Each person.would, therefore,_ consume on the average about 0.55 gm/ day of oyster meat. Doses due to ingestion of oysters are computed using the equation , of Section 4.5.1.1 and are shown in Column (11) of Table 4-11. From Table 4-12, the amount of shrimp (crustacea) taken from the bay is about 265,000 lbs. It is assumed that about 25 percent of this , amount is consumed by the 450,250 people within the 50-mile radius. Each person would, therefore, consume on the: average about 0.185 gram of - shrimp from the bay per day. I Doses due to ingestion of shrimp are computed using the equation ; of Section 4.5.2.2 and are shown in Column (12)'.of Table 4-11. , i f 4-23 , j
m 4.5.2.3 Computation of Total Population Exposure Through Ingestion r
- t 4
The total population dose (man-rad /yr.) to groups exposed by in-gestion of fish and seafood is obtained by multiplying the individual doses for ingestion of each type of food given at the bottom of Columns (9), (10), (11) and (12) in Table 4-11 by the population so exposed as { follows: PDf
=
Dg x Pf Where: PDg = Total population exposure due to eating fish and j seafood (man-rad /yr.) Dg = Average individual dose due to eating fish and
- seafood (rad /yr.)
Pf
= Population that eats fish and seafood from the river system.
Results of these calculations are shown in Column (1) of Table 4-13. j 4.5.2.4 Computation of Maximum Individual ~ Exposure The maximum exposed individual through ingestion of fish is assumed to be a person who eats 200 grams per day of fish caught from the Chattahoochee River or Lake Seminole. This is about eight. times the ' average per capita consumption of fish in the U.S. It is further assumed that the individual cats an additional 10 grams of oysters and 10 grams of shrimp per day taken from Apalachaeola Bay.
~
The maximum individual exposure due to ingestion of fish flesh is obtained by multiplying the value at the bottom of Column (9) of , Table 4-11 by 200/.47 or the ratio of assumed maximum to average con-sumption (grams) of fish per day. . [s G 4-24 1
-J
The maximum individual exposure due to oyster ingestion is com-puted by multiplying the value at the bottom of Column (11) of Table -l l 4-11 by (10/.55) or the maximum to average oyster consumption. _ The maximum individual exposure due to ingestion of shrimp is computed using Column (12) of Table 4-11 in the same manner as for oysters, using the ratio 10/.185 to represent the maximum to average shrimp consumption. 4 The results of the above computations are given in Column (3) of Table 4-13. 4.5.2.5 Computation of Average Population Exposure The average annual exposure of the population within a 50-mile radius due to ingestion of fish and seafood is estimated by dividing th9 total population exposure from Column (1) of Table 4-13 by the total
- () population within this radius (450,250 people). The results are shown in Column (2) of Table 4-13.
4.6 Total Radiological Effects of Operation of the Joseph M. Farley Plant 4.6.1 Comparison of Average Exposure with Natural Background The natural background radiation exposure for the station area is estimated to be about 0.125 rad /yr. If this exposure is compared to the average per-capita exposure due to plant operation from Column (2) of Tabic 4-13, as is done in Table 4-14, it is seen that plant operations would increase the exposure due to natural radiation by a small fraction. 4.6.2 Comparison of Total population Exposure with Natural
Background
( .The total population exposure due to natural background is I 4-25
?
i .m.
y 1 () obtained by multiplying the average individual exposure due to natural background (0.125 rad /yr.) by the total population in the 50-mile radius. The resulting exposure is 56,280 man-rad /yr. The comparison of this exposure with the exposure from operation of the unit is given in Table 4-15 which shows that the plant would increase the total population ex-posure by only a small fraction. 4.6.3 Comparison of Maximum Individual Exposure with Applicable Regulations The Federal Regulations concerning limits of exposure of indivi-duals are set forth in 10 CFR 20. The limit for "non-occupational" whole body exposnre is presently set at 0.5 rem /yr.(For ff and T radiation of the energies considered in these calculations, one rem is equal to one rad). In Tabic 4-16, the maximum computed exposure to an individual, rh ig due to operation of the plant is compared with this limit. As shown, the plant effluent would result in a maximum exposure much lower than the 0.5 rem /yr. limit.
- 1. Slade, D. H. (Editor), Meteorology and Atomic Energy, 1968, p 339.
- 2. Ibid, p 330.
- 3. Freke, A. M., A Model for the Approximate Calculation of Safe Rates of Discharge of Radioactive Wastes into Marine Environments, Health Physics Pergamon Press, Vol. 13, 1967, pp 743-758.
- 4. U.S. Public Health Service, Radiological Health Data, Vol. 6, Number 11, November 1965, p 627.
- 5. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Basic Radiation Protection Criteria, Report No. 39, 1971.
U 4-26
O TABLE 4-7* Estimate of Gaseous Releases From J. M. Farley Plant Nuclide Curies Released /Yr. Kr-85m 1,530 i Kr-85 14,800 Kr-88 2,890 , Xe-133m 1,025 Xe-133 70,500 Xe-135m 2,135 Xe-135 4,925 1-131 0.040
- Includes releases from both units.
J 4
.fO u
TABLE 4-8 , Work Shc 'or Whole Body Gamma Dose Factor F wb A E 0.25 A E_ f Gaseous rad f 1) m3 Isotope .(Curies /Yr.) (Mev/ dis) yr. sec/ K-85m 1,530 0.179 68.4 Kr-85 14,800 0.003 11.1 Kr-88 2,890 2.060 1495.0 - Xe-133m 1,025 0.233 59.7 0.081 1427.5 {} Xe-133 Xe-135m 70,500 2,135 0.530 282.9 , Xe-135 4,925 0.264 325.0 1-131 0.040 0.389 0.0155
}[=3669.6 -($}
O TABLE 4-9 Work Sheet for Surface Body Beta Dose Factor F be _
.23 Af Eb A Eb 1 i rad m3 Gaseous Isotope (Curies /Yr. ) (Mev/ dis) yr. sec Kr-85m 1,530 0.222 78.1 Kr-85 14,800 0.224 762.5 Kr-88 2,890 0.331 220.0 Xe-133m 1,025 0.0 0.0 Xe-133 70,500 0.115 1864.5 C' )%
Xe-135m 2,135- 0.0 0.0 Xe-135 4,925 0.3 339.5 I-131 0.040 0.191 0.00764 { =3264.6 O t 1
I ( , TABLE 4-10 Work Sheet for Inhalation Dose F I f c [(A)(BR)(fc )] Dose BR Conversion Breathing 3 A (Factor 1-131) Rate rad m3 Isotope (Curles/Yr.) (rad /C1) 3 (m /sec) yr.
- sec I-131 0.04 1,46 x 10+6 2.32 x 10 -4 4.51 P
O :
' I r.
f ,, f't
. p *La to I'I[y?I IMAGE EVALUATION M5/h
((/// / k//pj i[ ( hr TEST TARGET (MT-3) cf {D gg l.0 kW M lf
.- ~ !?c E l.8 l
1.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm >
< 6"
- jI>A'%
.,y oI//
> ,, , #g ,$
t_ -
.h l
.q$$ 43h>
<c .g- , v
[0 v - e ' q,@, IMAGE EVALUATION O ?@,*'")'h8" 'g TEST TARGET (MT-3) b [, +4' /
'\
////7 '
$"/,,, , h(4, Q+} + ,
1.0 f: 73" E b E i.i !l e: M l.8 l.25 1.4 1.6 4- 150mm > 6" > r/y v y#LI4, _ ,
#<>,&a#p
. u ////
~%Qf ,
O
- ]
4{ $6 t - - - - _..._.
7- - _ fY ,
%, %l Yf TABLE 4 -ll Quantity of Finfish, Mollusks and Oysters Taken From the River System (1)_ (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) sto) (11) (12)
Individual Dose Due to ingestion of Individual Average 0. 47 gm/ day Dose Due to Individual Concentration Average of Fish Flesh Ingestion of Dose Due to Individual in Concentration From 0.53 gm/ day Ingestion of Dose Due to Feg F Chattahoochee of Fish Flesh 0.55 gm/ day Ingestion of Quantity"* Chattahoochee in em ce Released River & Lake Apalachocola MPC Concentration
- Concentration Concentration River & Lake From of Oyster 0.185 gm/ day Annually Seminole River For Isotope Factor For Factor For Factor For Seminole Apalachocola Meat of Shrimp 1 otope (uCi/cc) (uC1/cc) (uCi/cc) Fish Flesh Mollusk Crustacea (rad /yr. ) River & Bay (rad /yr. ) (rad /yr )
(mC1) C R-51 3.64 3.44 (-13) 1.86 (-13) 2. 00 (-3) 200 -1,000 - 1,000 3. 67 (+12) 2.24 (-12) 1.16 (-11) 3. 91 (-12) MN-54 5. 67 (-1)" 5.30 (-14) 2. 90 (-14) 1. 00 (-4) 50 50,000 10,000 2. 86 (-12) 1. 74 (-12) 1.81 (-09) 1.22 (-10) 1.16 (-1) MN 1. 09 (-14) 5. 90 (-15) 1. 00 (-4) - - - - - FE-55 5. 20 (-1) 4. 91 (-14) 2.66 (-14) 2. 00 (-3) 10 2.000 4,000 2.62 (-14) 1. 60 (-14) 3.32 (-12) 2.23 (-12) FE-59 6. 40 (-1) 6.00 (-14) 3.27 (-14) 6. 00 (-5) 10 20,000 4,000 1.07 (-12) 6.50 (-13) 1.36 (-09) 9.11 (-11) CO-58 3. 52 (+1) 3.32 (-12) 1.80 (-12) 1. 00 (-4) 100 300 10,000 3.55 (-11) 2.17 (-10) 6.70 (-10) 7.50 (-09) CO-60 5.46 5.01 (-13) 2. 78 (-13) 5. 00 (-5) 100 300 10,000 1.10 (-10) 6.70 (-11) 2.09 (-10) 2.35 (-09) RB-88 1.74 1. 65 (-13) 8.90 (-14) 3. 00 (-6) - - - - RB.89 4. 20 (-2) 3.97 (-15) 2. 15 (-15) 3. 00 (-6) - - - - SR-89 2.58 2.44 (-13) 1.32 (-13) 3. 00 (-6) 5 1 1 4.34 (-11) 2. 65 (-11) 5.50 (-12) 1.85 (-12) SR-90 1. 06 (-1) 1.00 (-14) 5.40 (-15) 3. 00 (-7) 5 1 1 1.78 (-11) 1.09 (-11) 2.26 (-12) 7. 60 (-13) SR-91 2. 80 (-2) 2.64 (-15) 1.43 (-15) 7. 00 (-5) - - - - Y-90 1. 71 (-2) 1.61 (-15) 8.70 (-16) 2. 00 (-5) - - - - - Y-91 1.72 1. 64 (-13) 8.80 (-14) 2. 00 (-5) 100 10 100 8.70 (-11) 5.30 (-11) 5.50 (-12) 1. 85 (-11) Y-92 4. 40 (-3) 4.16 (-16) 2.25 (-16) 6. 00 (-5) - - - - - ZR-95 9.26 8.71 (-13) 4.73 (-13) 6. 00 (-5) 500 100 100 7.80 (-10) 4. 75 (-10) 9.80 (-11) 3.32 (-11) NB-E5 2.00 (+1) 1.89 (-12) 1.02 (-12) 1. 00 (-4) 300 200 200 6.00 (-10) 3.69 (-10) 2.55 (-10) 8.60 (-11) MO-99 5.64 (+2) 5.03 (-11) 2.88 (-11) 2. 00 (-4) - - - - - 1-131 1. 00 (+3) 9.40 (-11) 5.10 (-11) 3. 00 (-7) 100 100 100 3.36 (-06) 2. 05 (-06) 2.13 (-06) 7.10 (-07) I-132 3.22 3. 04 (-13) 1.64 (-13) 8. 00 (-6) - - - - - 6.60 (-12) I-133 1. 29 (+2) 1.22 (-11) 1. 00 (-6) - - - - I-134 3.97 (-14)
- 7. 76 (-1) 7.35 (-14) 2. 00 (-5) - - - -
1-135 2. 24 (+1) 2.11 (-12) 1. 14 (-12) 4. 00 (-6) - - - - - TE-132 3.14 (+1) 2.97 (-12) 1.60 (-12) 2. 00 (-5) 10 100 10 1.58 (-10) 9.60 (-11) 1.00 (-09) 3.37 (-11) CS-134 3. 30 (+2) 3.12 (-11) 1.69 (-11) 9. 00 (-6) 500 10 50 1.85 (-07) 1. 13 (-07) 2.34 e09) 3. 94 (-09) CS-136 5. 78 (+1) 5.40 (-12) 2. 95 (-12) 9. 00 (-5) 500 10 50 3.24 (-09) 1.98 (-09) 4. 10 (-11) 6.90 (-11) CS-137 1. 42 (+3) 1.34 (-10) 7.20 (-11) 2. 00 (-5) '500 10 50 3.58 (-07) 2. 18 (-07) 4.54 (-09) 7.60 (-09) CS-138 7. 74 (-1) 7.30 (-14) 3.96 (-14) 3. 00 (-6) - - - - BA-140 1.60 1. 51 (-13) 8.20 (-14) 3. 00 (-5) 5 3 3 2. 69 (-12) 1. 64 (-12) 1.02 (-12) 3.44 (-13) L A-140 9. 00 (-2) 8.50 (-15) 4.60 (-15) 2. 00 (-5) - - - - CE 141 2. 94 (+1) 2.78 (-12) 1.50 (-12) 9. 00 (-5) 10 100 100 3.30 (-11) 2' 01 (-11) 2.09 (-10) 7. 00 (-11) CE-144 1. 30 (+1) 1.23 (-12) 6. 60 (-13) 1. 00 (-5) 100 100 100 1.31 (-09) 8. 00 (-10) 8.30 (-10) 2.79 (-10) H-3 1. 00 (+6) 9.45 (-08) 5.11 (-08) 3. 00 (-3) 1 1 1 3.37 (-09) 2. 05 (-09) 2. 13 (-09) 7.17 (-10) [= 3. 92 (-06) h2.39 (-06) {2.15 (-06) {7.40 (-07)
- Assumed O for isotopes with less fhon three day half-life.
W Y Numbers in () are powers of 10.
, ~~ WJ TABLE 4-12 Estimated Annual Quantity of Fish and Shellfish Taken From the River System and Apalachacola Bay Category Quantity Fish Chattahoochee River and Lake Seminole (including the Flint 1,025,000 lbs. River portion of the lake) Apalachacola River (north of the bay) 900,400 lbs.
,--~
{ )l Apalachacola Bay 264,000 lbs. Oysters Apalachaeola Bay 2,000,000 lbs. (meat) Shrimp Apalachaeola Bay 265,000 lbs.
- m-
TABLE 4-13 O V Results of Annual Exposure Calculations f (1) (2) (3) ; Annual Annual Annual Total Average Maximum , Popul.: tion Exposure Individual j Exposure Per Capita Exposure i Type of Exposure (Man-rad /yr., (rad /yr . ) (rad /yr . ) From Gaseous Effluents:
-2 Whole Body Gamma 23.8 5.28 x 10-5 1.10 x 10 Surface Body Beta 21.2 4.70 x 10-5 1.95 x 10-4 Inhalation 0.091 2.02 x 10 -7 1.35 x 10-5 l Ingestion of Milk 23.7 5.25 x 10-5 9.46 x 10 -3 8 =20.4 x 10-3*
From Liquid Effluents: Ingestion of Fish From 1.76 3.92 x 10 -6 1.66 x 10 -3 -I Chattahoochee River & I Lake Seminole Ingestion of Fish From 1.07 2.39 x 10-6 _ Appalachacola River Ingestion of Oyster Meat 0.968 2.15 x 10-6 3.90 x 10-5 Ingestion of Shrimp 0.33 7.40 x 10-7 4.00 x 10-5 { a72.9 {=1.61x10-4 { =1.74 x 10-#* From gaseous effluents only.
** From liquid effluents only.
O
l TABLE 4-14
- Comparison of Average Exposures to Natural Background Exposure Average Per Capita Exposure Natural Fraction All Sources From Table 4-13 Background of (rad /yr.) Exposure Natural (rad /yr.) Background 0.000161 0.125 0.00129 TABLE 4-15 Comparison of Total Population Exposure to Natural Background Total Population Exposure Due i
Total Population Exposure to Natural Fraction From Table 4-13 Background of Natural () (Man-rad /yr.) (Man-rad /yr.) Background 72.9 56,280 0.00129 TABLE 4-16 Comparison of Maximum Individual Exposure with Applicable Regulations Maximum Exposure Limit Exposure From to General Table 4-13 Population Fraction (rad /yr.) (rad /yr . ) of Limit Airborne Effluent 0.02 0.5 0.04 Liquid Effluents 0.00174 0.5 0.00348 i O 1 1
r
~
t O \~) t 4.7 The Possible Radiological Effects on Important Species Previous portions of this report have shown that the operation of the Farley Plant poses no possible threat to the health of the people living in the vicinity. The radiation doses to the public an-ticipated from the plant are well bolow the limits recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection and the National Council on Radiation Protection. There is no question that the opera-tion of this plant will be safe for humans. It follows that the operation can have no possible effects on wild species living in the vicinity. This contention is supported by several observations. With a single exception, no effects of any kind have been observed at radiation levels up to, and considerably larger than the public limits recommended by ICRP and NCRP. The single excep-tion is the report of Pilikarpov that drinking water concentration of strontium-90 produced injury to fish eggs. Several attempts have been made to repeat Polikarpov's experiment, but none has shown the effects which he reported. Perhaps the most recent such attempt is that of Trabalka (doctoral thesis, University of Michigan), who found no dif-ferences between any of a number of species, including spawning fish, in a pair of matched tanks, one of which was maintained at a concentra-l tion of cerium-144 well above the drinking water limit. 4 During the past 20 years much of the world's surface has ex-perienced levels of radioactivity from fallout which at times were con- , siderable larger than lhe levels that may be produced by the Farley Plant. ! In spite of wi0espread and intensive study, no ecological effects have 4-27
1 l, g been recorded. ; O' Finally, it can be stated that the radiological monitoring program , will detect the presence of radioactive materials frora the Farley Plant l l, in the environment at levels many orders of-magnitude lower than those j I which can possibly produce effects on species in the area. This moni- j toring program will detect and give notice on unexpected concentrations l I so that if corrective action is necessary, it can be taken long before { ( any ecological effect is produced. t 4.8 Status of Incomplete Studies An extensive program of element and radiological analysis of ; plants and animals has been undertaken to supplement accumulated in-formation. This program is under the direction of Dr. G. Hoyt Whipple of the University of Michigan, with the assistance of Dr. John Lawrence of Auburn University and Dr. G. Winston Menzell of Florida State Univer-sity. Element analyses are made by Stewart Laboratories, Inc. of Knox- ! ville, Tennessee and Fisheries Department of Auburn University. The radiological monitoring program will continue throughout k construction and during operations of the plant. l The following tables of element analysis are taken directly from f three reports from the Stewart Laboratories, Inc. The sample code num- i bers are only for laboratory work use. The sample station numbers in- : i dicate the location from which the samples were taken. Sample station No. 1 is upstream of Columbia Lock and Dam. Sample station No.14 is a background station in Ochlockonee Bay, Florida. The other stations are . between these two points. , O 4-28 i I
O O O Animal and Plant Tissue Samples -- Estuary Farley Project (APC 00726) Values are expressed as ppm in original sample JG-1 JG-29 JG-33 JG-2 JG-24 JG-7 JG-26 JG-9 Crabs Crabs Clams Clams Clams Shrimp Shrimp Spots Station A-11 A-14 A-9 A-11 A-14 A-11 A-14 A-11
% Ash of Original Sample 1.88 1.71 0.35 0.72 1.04 1.23 1.38 1.03
% Moisture of Original Sample 81.6 78.9 93.4 92.3 90.9 81.9 80.6 83.9 Antimony 0.09 0.09 0.004 0.006 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.09 Barium 1.9 0.12 0.88 0.25 0.42 0.12 0.35 0.11 Cerium 0.21 0.28 0.27 0.23 0.29 0.22 0.28 0.25 Cesium 0.01 0.008 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.007 0.008 0.01 Chromium 0.07 0.14 0.35 0.29 0.29 0.05 0.08 0.06 Cobalt 0.20 0.18 0.04 0.06 0.26 0.31 0.22 0.07 Copper 38. 34. 3.5 3.6 9.4 12. 21. 0.41 Hafnium 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.004 Iodine 2.1 1.7 2.2 1.5 1.8 1.4 1.7 1.2 Iron 83. 51. 14. 108. 94. -25. 14. 21.
Lanthanum 0.47 0.12 0.08 0.20 0.32 0.27 0.26 0.24 Manganese 7.5- 1.7 2.1 36. 3.7 0.62 0.55 0.52 Mercury 0.13 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.07 Molybdenum 0.19 0.17 0.09 0.14 0.26 0.24 0.28 0.10 Niobium 0.28 0.34 0.03 0.18 0.21 0.37 0.41 0.20 Phosphorus 2312. 1175. 436. 380. 1425. 2425. 2805. 1750. Rubidium 1.8 2.5 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.5 Silver 0.04 0.09 0.007 0.29 1.1 0.01 0.06 0.03 Sodium 1205. 2440. 195. 870. 575. 800. 875. 200. Strontium 19. 6.8 0.25 1.8 4.2 1.2 5.5 0.41 Sulfur 1270. 1585. 720. 425. 862. 1880. 2010. 2240. Tantalum 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 l Tellurium 3.8 1.5 0.70 0.36 0.72 0.35 1.0 0.58 l Tin 0.61 0.68 0.07 0.29 1.0 0.49 0.52 0.23
- Tungsten 0.001 0.001 0.007 0.004 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.002 l Yttrium 0.08 0.07 0.009 0.04 0.05 0.19 0.22 0.26 l
Zinc 60. 61. 9.5 14. 13. 11. 15. 4.9 Zirconium 0.09 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.28 0.09 0.07 0.05
O O O (continued) Jg-27 JG-10 JG-25 JG-13 JG-30 JG-42 JG-43 JG-5 Spots Oysters Oysters Trout Trout Oyster Oyster Ruppiaceae Shells Shells Station A-14 A-11 A-14 A-11 A-14 A-11 A-14 A-11
% Ash of Original Sample 0.88 2.53 1.16 1.17 1.02 ---
3.37
% Moisture of Original Sample 86.0 88.9 88.9 84.1 84.6 ---
93.0 t Antimony 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.10 *
- 0.04 ;
Barium 0.25 1.3 0.29 0.04 0.26 22. 18. 1.2 Cerium 0.28 0.24 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.09 0.23 Cesium 0.006 0.01 0.05 0.007 0.009 *
- 0.04 Chromium 0.08 0.29 0.10 0.16 0.41 0.42 0.75 0.37 Cobalt 0.09 0.25 0.08 0.13 0.07 3.2 2.7 1.1 Copper 4.4 51. 13. 1.5 10. 10. 8.3 1.5 Hafnium 0.003 0.009 0.007 0.002 0.002 0.01 0.01 0.02 Iodine 1.4 3.6 2.7 0.33 0.37 *
- 3.2 Iron 13. 177. 93. 22. 14. 720. 640. 1010.
Lanthanum 0.21 0.63 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.41 0.35 0.85 Manganese 0.44 9.4 2.9 1.2 2.0 98. 75. 34. Mercury 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.05 < 0.02 40 0.02 0.02 Molybdenwm 0.09 0.48 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.72 0.48 0.14 Niobium 0.23 0.51 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.32 0.45 1.3 Phosphorus 1795. 838. 598. 1790. 1415. 550. 478. 179. Rubidium 2.9 1.4 1.4 1.9 3.0 0.5 0.4 2.3 Silver 0.04 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 Sodium 255. 3290. 1485. 145. 165. 5'30. 2465. 440. Strontium 0.35 6.4 1.2 0.11 0.12 1105. 1025. 3.6 Sulfur 2065. 2950. 2115. 1370. 1930. 1550. 1400. 376. Tantalum 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Tellurium 1.1 1.9 1.3 0.55 0.95 *
- 5.0 Tin 0.35 1.0 0.42 0.29 0.21 0.40 0.31 0.13 Tungsten 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.0001 0.0001 0.004 Yttrium 0.10 0.13 0.28 0.05 0.04 0.52 0.50 0.24 Zinc 4.8 81. 245, 4.4 3.1 11. 13. 9.6 Zirconium 0.05 0.76 0.06 0.07 0.03 2.0 1.6 10.
- Analysis was not possible because of analytical interferences due to sample type and gross composition.
- - -- . - , , , . - _ - - - _ - - , _ _ . . . - . - . - . . . .. . .~ - . _ _ . .
t Fish Samples -- John Lawrence l Farley Project (APC 00726) Values are expressed as ppm in original sample JG-44 JG-45 JG-46 JG-47 JG-48 White Catfish Gizzard Shad L. Mouth Bass L. Mouth Bass Gizzard Shad
% Ash of Original Sample 1.14 1.68 1.43 1.22 1.59 % Moisture of Original Sample 81.8 80.2 77.5 77.4 82.2 Antimony 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.09 Barium 0.52 0.67 0.14 0.12 0.65 Cerium 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 Cesium 0.01 0.009 0.005 0.009 0.008 Chromium 0.29 0.08 0.10 0.09 1.6 Cobalt 0.04 0.10 0.14 0.12 0.11 Copper 4.6 6.7 14.3 6.1 3.2 Hafnium 0.003 0.004 0.007 0.002 0.004 Iodine 0.26 0.35 0.23 0.18 0.33 Iron 8.0 11.8 10.0 8.5 14.3 Lanthanum 0.05 0.17 0.07 0.05 0.06 Manganese 0.29 5.0 0.06 0.31 4.8 Mercury 0.10 0.03 0.20 0.35 0.03 Molybdenum 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.05 0.16 Niobium 0.11 0.17 0.10 0.12 0.32 Phosphorus 2435. '3095. 2290. 2440. 2645.
Rubidium 2.6 3.1 3.0 3.5 2.5 Silver 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.11 Sodium 547. 583. 465. 337. 477. Strontium 0.48 1.2 0.08 0.01 0.64 Sulfur 1715. 1865. 2430. 2355. 1690. Tantalum 0.0006 0.0005 0.0008 0.001 0.0008 Tellurium 0.30 1.4 0.25 0.31 1.3 Tin 0.25 0.67 0.57 0.49 0.64 Tungsten 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.004 Yttrium 0.008 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.02 Zinc 7.1 5.6 8.0 4.9 4.0 Zirconium 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.04
,< s b -
Sediment Samples Farley Project (APC 00726) Values are expressed as ppm in original sample (dry) JG-21 JG-12 JG-32 Sediment Sediment Sediment Station A-9 A-ll A-14 Antimony 3.0 16. 15. Barium 120. 45. 55. Cerium 3.1 2.7 2.9 Cesium 0.11 0.14 0.05 Chromium 13. 8.1 7.8 Cobalt 12. 9.6 16. Copper 42. 18. 26. Hafnium 0.2 0.1 0.1 Iodine 0.34 0.21 0.53 Iron 4250. 4475. 3140. Lanthanum 18. 9.7 8.4 Manganese 225. 82. 65. Mercury 0.003 0.002 0.002 Molybdenum 7.1 4.2 12. Niobium 25. 15. 21. Phosphorus 79. 34. 57. Rubidium 8. 6. 6. Silver 0.15 1.5 1.0 Sodium 750. 4800. 5300. Strontium 110. 135. 85. Sulfur 475. 610. 2380. Tantalum 0.1 0.2 0.05 Tellurium 0.05 0.03 0.06 Tin 0.26 0.20 0.18 Tungsten 0.01 0.01 0.01 , Yttrium 0.24 0.51 0.43 Zinc 12. 5.4 7.1 Zirconium 11. 260. 24. l 1
-__m .s _. . _ _ _ ___,___m..m __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ,_ = , , , , , .,,.._m.,,, , ,,. . _ , , . , , , y_,m., ,,m.y
O 1 r 6 920 2 0 4 8100030506101000570 1 0 0 5 2 070 4 3 2 01 00600 0000020 32 9 3 e 47000000100300000000 2 0000000 t 1 Ga 00000000000000000000170000000 JW A 5 5 9 3 _ 2 2 1 1 40 0 2 4 01 42 ~ e 0092 0 78050 9 00300 6 _ l 1 r 3250000407000000740 0000030 p 1 e l0000000100200000000 1 0000000 m - t l _ a Ga 20000000000000000000270000000 s JW A 0 3 2 6 _ l 5 a n
) i 6
2 i g _ 7 r . 0 o 0 - s n _ eC i . lP pA m( m p _ O a St re ej c p s a 0 r 6 51 50 1 1 1010020806902000200 1 0 0 6 0 3 020 1 30 5 0 9 21 0020065 0000000 010000000 34 t o d 2 e
- t 9 0000000000300000000 -
ar e Ga - 00000000000000000003040000000 - WP s s JW A 1 y e e r l p r x a e _ F , e _ r a s e _ u l a . V . m s e me u u m m m _ uy m us n rm u mu n u nd n u m neyemou i ui em i n oi muuuml ommmitein rue O is teiiiioapnint g c yb siviof anrd tl uhirmt haubi pd eunuau aR t rrsrb pfd onnrl oobldrl nl nnt nr t naeehooaoraaeoihuiot uaeiutii rl r t u si grcc o S%ABCCCCCHIILMMMNPRSSSSTTTTYZZ
Plant & Animal Tissues - River Farley Project (APC 01015) 8 0 i es s ~7 n? maf i 4. . 88 88 $3 R3 RdB Rt1 RTE 8Da ed "4 "4 "1m "%m " e" Easm Eta Ese EE o y Station 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Near Plant Site
% Ash 1.36 1.32 1.07 1.69 8.44 2.12 4.38 1.99 0.59
% Motsture 81.56 74.90 88.72 92.55 85.40 84.58 87.72 83.47 88.01 Antimony 0.26 0.11 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.60 0.12 0.08 0.007 Arsenic 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.13 0.03 0.02 0.001 n v3 Barium 1.39 3.30 4.28 1.81 21.1 2.15 13.1 1.39 0.06
@g Cadmium 0.56 2.20 0.08 0.04 0.11 0.11 2.20 0.06 .0.0006 y$ Cerium 0.27 0.13 0.15 0.42 3.38 0.42 1.10 0.80 0.001 p? Cesium 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.0004 y'r. Cobalt 0.16 0.05 0.11 0.85 1.75 0.53 0.44 0.20 0.003
@. Copper 1.36 1.32 1.10 1.69 4.22 2.12 3.94 3.99 0.24
@8 Iodine 0.40 0.24 0.59 0.45 0.62 1.03 1.46 0.53 0.08
@% Manganese 35.2 66.0 278. 42.3 341. 424. 175. 398. 1.18
@S Mercury 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.56 0.06 0.02 0.0008
% ;- Molybdenum 0.14 0.35 0.54 0.07 1.69 0.11 0.31 0.08 0.03 m ." Phosphorus 222. 285. 364. 336. 156. 407. 476. 253. 1013.
us Strontium 1.30 1.37 2.14 1.75 2.20 0.57 3.07 0.40 0.15 GjM Tellurium 0.009 0.006 0.008 0.006 0.005 0.01 0.006 0.006 0.0001 y* Tin 0.54 0.33 0.08 0.05 0.13 0.25 0.02 0.03 0.006 Zinc 14.3 18.9 12.7 9.27 12.6 13.3 11.6 13.3 7.2
O O :O; Plant & Animal Tissues - River, Continued Farley Project (APC 01015) d d d d 8 8 8 8 3 3 of 1 u
$B M8: AB: 32 $& 02 0"O 3d AM 2 02 2 02 2 02 2 0e Dn* in* 28%* 2%" Cy 3 3 3 3 Station 3 2 9 6 3 6 6 2 9
% Ash 1.31 2.01 1.40 1.44 1.71 1.09 1.07 1.18 1.29
% Moisture 78.97 77.83 80.13 79.87 79.25 78.37 81.18 81.60 77.57 Antimony 0.22 0.08 0.20 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.11 0.25 0.15 Arsenic 0.02 0.11 0.01 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.06 Barium 0.03 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.42 0.13 2.27 1.29 Cadmium 0.11 0.55 0.83 0.22 0.13 2.20 0.56 1.10 0.25 Mm Cerium 0.13 0.09 0.14 0.29 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.21
-lg, g{ Cesium Cobalt 0.08 0.11 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.26 y et Copper 0.92 0.80 0.56 1.30 0.68 1.09 0.96 2.36 0.52 fp Iodine 0.42 0.71 0.44 1.07 0.50 0.34 0.20 1.49 1.02 g g- Manganese 0.15 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.44 0.43 0.83 0.52 gy Mercury 0.08 0.15 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.25 0.07 gg Molybdenum 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.04 -0.05 0.03 gQ Phosphorus 1438. 1293. 1346. '1199. 1415. 949. 1017. 1588. 1318. gg Strontium 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.27 0.17 0.39 0.11 0.30 0.90 Tellurium 0.006 0.01 0.008 0.01 0.09 0.008 0.004 0.009 0.01 0y Tin 0.33 0.37- 0.30 0.21 0.08 0.45 0.35 0.58 0.12 g? Zine 12.9 10.0 9.00 10.9 9.9 11.5 12.1 11.7 11.5 s
0- O O Plant & Animal Tissues - River, Continued Farley Project (APC 01015) P543 P519 P522 P532 P535 P517 PS20 P536 Bluegill Bluegill Bluegill Bluegill Bluegill Gizzard Gizzard Gizzard Shad Shad Shad i Station 6 3 2 1 9 3 2 9
% Ash 1.49 1.42 1.19 1.39 1.27 1.65 1.57 1.65
% Moisture 75.96 78.06 80.80 79.23 79.44 80.21 81.96 83.82 Antimony 0.11 0.06' O.10 0.11 0.14 0.42 0.17 0.15 Arsenic 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.08 0.09 Barium 0.15 0.02 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.69 0.39 0 . 3 ".
u, Cadmium 0.82 0.02 0.44 0.56 0.54 1.40 0.62 0.55 g Cerium 0.04 0.10 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.17 0.13 0.17 , y$ Cesium 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.009 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.04 p3 Cobalt 0.06 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.16 0.83 , Copper 0.60 0.57 1.19 0.97 0.52 1.16 1.41 1.65
*yh Iodine 1.15 1.65 0.91 1.83 0.56 0.71 0.48 1.69 yS Manganese 0.37 0.28 0.36 0.56 0.32 4.95 3.14 3.30 g* Mercury- 0.08 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.14 gg Molybdenum 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.42 0.01 0.17 0.05 0.14
%7 Phosphorus 1514. 1582. 1493. 1624. 1400. 1921. 1855. 2438.
*f Strontium 0.15 0.04 0.30 0.52 0.26 0.66 0.63 0.12 og Tellurium 0.11 -0.006 0.005 0.006 0.01 0.007 0.10 0.03 gg Tin 0.43 0.03 0.56 0.22 0.54 0.56 0.12 0.45 0- Zine 12.2 14.2 12.3 12.3 8.82 9.42 8.83 13.1 d, wA _ _ _ _ _ _ _-_.w._.2__mu_ ma____m___.__l___L-m--_____.-__I.L---m._ "
__mmi_ _- _ _ _ _ e - eI-- a _ t. e- t- *M - e4 1 - _
- se- mde-m._ _---u-_.-_m.. -_.a.______A_2a. e
O O O Plant & Animal Tissues - River, Continued Farley Project (APC 01015) P612 P613 P614 P581 P582 P583 P585 P586 Water- Corn Peanuts Mushroom Yellow Tomatoes Beans Pea s melon Squash Squash Station Near Near Near Near Near Near Near Near Plant Plant Plant Plant Plant Plant Plant Plant Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site
% Ash 0.40 0.92 2.02 0.54 0.49 0.73 0.76 1.09
% Moisture 91.09 44.63 26.75 94.30 94.85 91.25 91.18 73.63 Antimony 0.06 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.08 Arsenic 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.06 Barium 0.40 0.18 1.41 0.60 0.49 0.73 0.38 0.76 pt vi Cadmium 0.39 0.44 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.17 0.50 0.06
@g Cerium 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.0i 0.08 Q$ Cesium 0.03 0.007 0.008 0.02 0.03 0.12 0.07 0.05 0% Cobalt 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.04
$' r Copper 0.45 2.39 8.08 1.08 0.49 1.46 0.30 2.18 E- Iodine 0.04 0.007 0.006 0.34 0.21 0.47 0.02 0.11
#@ Manganese 0.40 2.30 18.2 13.5 1.96 3.65 3.04 9.81 E% Mercury 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02 28 Molybdenum 0.01 0.18 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.55
% s' Phosphorus 33.0 928. 1573. 109. 109. 227. 123. 1104.
- J' Strontium 0.16 0.02 0.85' O.54 0.34 0.29 0.30 0.44 ws Tellurium 0.04 0.01 0.002 0.006 0.006 0.01 0.005 0.005
%@ Tin 0.32 0.15 0.06 0.15 0.18 0.17 0.40 0.05 Di
- Zinc 1.27 _12.3 17.9 5.73 5.63 7.30 6.71 15.7 l
l
O O O Plant & Animal Tissues - River, Continued - Farley Project (APC 01015) Om Om Om x 5 $ ' R%5 S%8 8%8 8% 8t Se di 22: ST: E *M C E10< %#d M Ea Ee 28 20s E mle E mle Station 9 1 3,4,6 Near Near Near Near 2 1 Plant Plant Plant Plant , Site Site Site Site
% Ash 1.44 0.96 1.67 1.31 0.94 1.21 1.14 3.48 2.71
% Moisture 75.20 78.16 7,8.21 77.46 76.18 73.55 76.58 44.94 35.23 Antimony 0.14 0.30 0.36 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.15 0.56 0.10 Arsenic 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.22 0.04 Barium 0.58 3.84 6.68 0.14 0.09 0.45 0.09 13.1 2.75 EN Cadmium .0.62 1.10 1.31 0.07 2.25 1.10 1. 15 0.56 0.18 N2 Cerium 0.14 0.48 0.57 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.08 1,39 0.68 10 Cesium 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.12 0.08 0.17 0.07 0.10 0.13 U" Cobalt 0.31 0.40 0.67 0.06 0.07 0.12 0.05 1.78 1.08
? h, Copper 5.76 6.83 8.35 0.52 2.35 4.84 2.28 17.4 13.6 so Iodine 1.30 0.88 0.67 0.01 0.09 0.73 0.04 0.14 0.12
$5 Manganese 5.76 6.72 15.0 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.23 139, 27.1 ;
Eo Mercury 0.03 0.06 0.18 0.03 0.02 0.56 0.06 0.78 0.02 5 U- Molybdenum 0.29. 0.38 0.33 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.21 0.70 0.54
$ ,$ Phosphorus 1147. 1222. 1257. 1189. 959. 1400. 1179. 451. 330.
Strontium 0.33 0.69 1.17 0.01 0.06 0.48 0.11 13.9 2.71 Tellurium 0.009 0.01 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.02 0.008 , U- Tin 0.58 0.08 0.13 0.01 0.25 0.35 0.22 3.13 1.08 i 4 Zinc 6.20 31.4 31.2 39.7 19.3 31.9 12.3 61.6 43.7 l l l l i
., , ~ - - - - - - . . ~ . - - - --.- -. _ - ,.- ~ - -.- -
. - - - . - , - . ~ _ - , - . . - - . . . _ _ ~ _ - - - , -
,. ~
/-s Plant and Animal Tissues - Estuary Farley Project (APC 01015)
P568 P557 P567 P548 P569 P552 P561 JG3 Neritina Neritina White White Blue Blue Oyster Juncus Snails Snails Shrimp Shrimp Crabs Crabs Shells i Station 11 14 11 14 11 14 11 11
% Ash 29.84 27.38 1.71 1.98 1.89 2.23 -
3.27
% Moisture 61.47 63.03 77.44 75.33 81.25 78.61 -
81.70 Antimony 0.15 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.08 0.10 0.13 Arsenic 0.12 0~08
. 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.02 Barium 253. 9.83 0.07 0.18 0.95 1.12 22.8 1.31 Cadmium 0.77 0.34 0.006 0.08 0.33 0.33 0.20 -0.10 pe vi ~ Cerium 1.19 2.56 0.10 0.20 0.17 0.41 1.52 0.16 SE Cesium 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.22
- 0.06 5$ Cobalt 3.04 5.48 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.19 3.01 0.82
?5 Copper 268. 10.9 6.84 5.94 9.45 8.92 12.2 1.57 Iodine *
- 0.32 0.11 0.40 1.93 1.76 0.18
%'p 1.32 0.45 25.0 81.8-o- Manganese 59.7- 27.4 1.71 0.59
#8 Mercury 0.03 0.10 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.06 3$ Molybdenum 2.98 0.23 0.12 0.05 0.19 0.22 1.80 0.13
$@ Phosphorus 2361. 4235. 2104. 1909. 1878. 2270. 3932. 164.
$7 Strontium 298. 274. 5.13 1.96 1.84 8.03 1724. 1.28.
*? Tellurium 0.008 0.02 0.006 0.004 0.007 0.008 0.006 0.006 ws Tin 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.It 0.45 0.20 0.53 0.09
%N Zinc 0.17 0.51 16.40 17.33 42.67 44.80 10.5 9.57 M*
Whole tsdy plus foot pad.
- Analysis was not possible because of analytical interferences due to sample type and gross compocition.
_ _ _ ___ , _ _ . _ _ - . . - .. -- - . _ . ~. _ _ . - . ___ _ . _ . . ._, ~ . . _ . - _____ _ _ _ . _ _
.O O OL Plant and Animal Tissues - Estuary, Continued Farley Project (APC 01015)
JG8 JG37 P546 P579 P575 P549 P574 P547 Mullet Mullet Mullet Mullet Spots Spots Seatrout Sentrout Station 11 14 14 11 11 14 11 14
% Ash 4.70 1.32 1.49 1.28 1.26 1.06 1.94 1.23
% Moisture 74.61 74.90 76.38 73.87 79.34 76.84 76.94 78.36 Antimony 0.18 0.10 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.15 0.08 0.08 Arsenic 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Barium 0.04 0.13 0.15 0.24 0.09 0.38 0.06 0.20 Cadmium 0.15 0.56 0.56 0.45 0.10 0.83 5.60 0.83 yW Cerium 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.07 Cesium 0.04 0.04 0.003 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.008 0.05 g
p. Q@ Cobalt 0.19 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.03 0.08 0.05 [" Copper 1.88 1.19 1.49 1.28 5.04 0.74 1.36 1.23
?[ Iodine 0.11 0.02 0.36 0.67 0.08 0.37 0.09 0.09 g 8' Manganese 0.05 0.40 0.33 0.26 0.50 0.11 0.04 0.25 -
@U Mercury 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.11
@g Molybdenum .0.03 0.05 0.06- 0.32 0.13 0.04 0.02 0.86
$ l1 Phosphorus 1388. 1147. 1315. 1225. 1074. 1553. 1410. 1708.
%@ Strontium 0.15 0.26 1.34 0.51 0.38 0.42 0.05 0.49 Tellurium 0.003 0.003 0.009 0.007 0.006 0.01 0.008 0.002 O Ei' Tin 0.27 0.22 0.22 0.36 0.30 0.10 0.15 0.25 3 ." Zinc 11.67 9.40 13.47 7.87 .9.93 9.10 10.27 9.40 e
I m_-.__.m ___ ---m __..---....-,e. . . . , . + ~4-,.- - - , ~ . , - - - - - - --,.4, - + . .,,r,--, ,v-w~., -
..v---,--..n, , - . - , ,,----,-',.r-,-.-r. <-.-,,.,-..y..,_y-__ ,-,.,.,,,,,e~.--
I O O O Plant and Animal Tissues - Estuary, Continued Farley Project (APC 01015) P570 P555 P571 P556 Oysters Oysters Rangia Rangia Clams Clams Y ). Station 11 14 11 11
% Ash 2.66 3.19 0.93 2.07
% Moisture 80.14 86.87 83.28 81.74 Antimeny 0.13 0.08 0.06 0.25 Arsenic 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.08 Barium 1.86 0.64 1.73 0.41 Cadmium 0.56 0.83 0.05 0.22 Cerium 0.52 0.08 0.37 0.20 yw 0.20 0.86 0.08 0.18 oE Cesium 0.19 y$ Cobalt 0.16 0.22 0.24 OE Copper 18.7 12.8 2.79 6.21 7e Iodine 3.05 7.25 0.49 3.19
*$ Manganese 10.6 6.38 18.6 2.07
#8 Mercury 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.06 E *, Molybdenum 0.19 0.32 19.0 0.23
@S Phosphorus 2014. 1168. 1028. 1032.
E7 Strontium '5.32 7.98 0.93 2.00
*? Tellurium 0.009 0.008 0.004 0.01 ws Tin 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.13
%E Zinc 56.00 117. 19.68 22.79 0-
_ - . . _ . _ _ . - . . _ _ . . . _ - . . . . . - . _ _ . . . - . _ _ _ . . _ _ - . _ . _ _ . - . _ ._ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . ~ . - _ . . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
O O O Plant and Animal Tissues - Estuary, Continued Farley Project (APC 01015) P563 P565 P576 P562 JG23 P553 P578 P554 Ruppia Spartina Spanish Juncus Juncus Juncus Broadleaf Broadleaf Moss Cattails Cattails Station 11 11 14 11 14 14 11 14
% Ash 2.39 1.22 1.95 2.60 2.59 5.10 1.79 1.70
% Moisture 92.55 81.66- 56.49 72.72 77.76 77.33 87.16 82.62 Antimony 0.12 0.03 0.14 0.25 0.12 0.33 0.15 0.12 Arsenic 0.06 0.08 0.18 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 Barium 2.56 1.25 4.88 2.65 0.28 2.26 1.25 0.38 Cadmium 0.53 0.11 0.89 0.33 0.11 0.12 0.74 0.06 g: m Cerium 0.25 0.31 0.17 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.13 0.34 oE Cesium 0.07 0.05 0.004 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.006 0.15 5$ Cobalt 0.48 0.49 0.20 0.13 1.81 0.26 0.07 0.17 O" copper 2.42 3.05 3.90 1.04 2.33 0.51 0.72 0.68 ET e. Iodine 0.08 0.74 0.02 0.67 0.08 0.53 0.04 0.66 E Manganese 23.9 24.4 78.0 13.0 7.77 10.2 71.6 17.0 78 Mercury 0.05 0.06 0.12 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.10 0.08 E$ Molybdenum 0.10 0.09 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.02- 0.17 E8 Phosphorus 113. 605. 633. 230. 169. 129. 304. 176. ,
E EI Strontium 1.20 0.85 3.90 1.08 0.26 2.04 3.58 1.19 Tellurium 0.01 0.01 0.009 0.006 0.004 0.006 0.006 0.003 ws Tin 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.18 0.06 dE Zinc 10.73 14.90 3.33- 12.03 18.13 11.20 11.77 13.47' 2* - . - - - - - - - m~,,. ,~-w.- .- ,- - -- ~v - , - > - r- , v.ve-,- - w a w . e- r,- ew ~~a ~' . . - -su s .- -m-e -,
.-e~ ~-- s e ,wy y= -
y O O- O Soil and Sediment Samples - River Farley Project (APC 01015) PS10 P511 P506 P507 P512 P508 P509 PS27 Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Station 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 6 Antimony 0.11 0.0; 0.30 0.37 0.10 0.32 0.10 0.07 Arsenic 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.03 Barium 11.2 120. 92.6 45.8 126. 63.2 140. 55.2 Cadmium 0.18 0.10 0.13 0.05 0.14 0.10 0.09 0.23 Cerium 12.1 24.1 10.2 12.0 8.13 4.41 7.82 4.38 pc v> Cesium 0.27 0.33 0.30 0.29 0.25 0.31 0.15 0.12 Cobalt 8.25 16.0 7.29 7.37 28.5 20.3 21.7 7.06 E{ 5, Copper 96.4 22.7 12.0 18.1 26.2 72.7 113. 12.8 CZ Iodine 0.41 0.46 0.59 0.58 0.76 0.64 0.56 0.39
$'r. Manganese 107. 72.5 82.4 51.3 88.3 87.8 107, 96.1
$ Mercury 0.005 0.002 0.002 0.03 0.002 0.005 0.002 0.007
@8 Molybdenum 7.32 18.4 4.38 3.06 6.42 4.62 7.28 2.93 E$ Phosphorus 103. 46.2 26.3 42.1 237. 61.0 37.5 87.0
$8 Strontium 14.0 21.4- 25.1 10.9 15.4 7.03 22.4 9.84 5 $' Tellurium 0.005 0.10 0.08 0.01 0.005 0.02 0.005 0.005
*? Tin 4 .15 18.3 26.2 10.5 11.4 22.4 4.02 3.19 ws Zinc 24.5 14.3 4.00- 3.25 65.0 3.75 15.5 11.8 5E p: -
t l l l
--.-.,',m
.. .*..- , .-1-# --:-- - - - , < . - - - - . ---c - - - - + - . , .- - . < . . . -- . . - , - . - *w, , , - . . . . 2-*-+-...-.--,~.=%. . - +c,--ew-i-.-c.we --
w-- *w- -*--..*er---,++-+- m .-v
1 1 i
-l i
i Soil and Sediment Samples - River, Continued Farley Project (APC 01015) l t
!i PS29 P584 l Sediment Soil !
Station 9 Near Plant ; Site , t i Antimony 0.03 0.10 ! Arsenic 0.02 0.03 l l) Barium 130, 47.1 i V Cadmium 0.18 0.16 ; Cerium 18.5 22.3 ! Cesium 0.24 0.30 i Cobalt 22.7 15.6 Copper 25.8 26.5 l Iodine 0.59 0.78 ; Manganese 430. 96.1- i Mercury 0.002 0.005 ; Molybdenum 6.15 3.74 i Phosphorus 370. 272. ! Strontium 45.0 4.28 l Tellurium 0.003 0.02 Tin 2.36 0.52 l Zinc 46.3 3.25 I 1 l
)
I Stewart Laboratories, Inc. ! Knoxville, Tennessee 37921 i ( f 1 i i
lO Soil and Sediment Samples - Estuary Farley Project (APC 01015) P560 P525 Sediment Sediment Station 11 14 Antimony 0.12 0.21 Arsenic 0.02 0.03 Barium 42.3 47.0 Cadmium 0.15 0.22 0 Cerium Cesium 26.1 0.18 2.21 0.20 Cobalt '16.7 4.59
-Copper 10.8 17.4 Iodine 0.41 0.61 Manganese 275. 35.5
. Mercury 0.002 0.005 Molybdenum 8.95 3.76 Phosphorus 59.0 321.
Strontium 14.4. 26.8 Tellurium 0.005 0.005 Tin 28.0 4.91 Zinc 9.50 4.25 i i h Stewart Laboratories, Inc. Knoxville, Tennessee 37921 ; 6 I i
f_. (. i l l
)
l I . l 1 Ch n h @ to N to O @ NA O , CO W to oONe4OOOM O O Ch @ O i-4 N M Ch O OOOOOOOO4NOOOOOO4 m CO I N3 O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. i O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO \ l c0 in 4 N AN O NN O e4
@ GJ Os OO e4 M O e4 N OOO4OO ,
NMc O O O N O O O O O 4 sn o O e4 O O O N '+ AC ! A3 O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. o ooOOOCOOO0000OOOO
.! i m ?
4 to e .-4 m@ O ed i M G) . CO e4 O N N M O N Ch O O Ch CO O O ! OM4 O OOOOOOOOMMOOOOOO@ ! O tc -i A3 O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. ; o oC000000000000000 . m O 4 e4 CO W O 4 m 4m O N Ch e4 e4
> e4 mW Ch OO eH M O N Ch OOto4OO i ari O e4 M M O OONOOOOO@NOOOOOOA N to C J U m3 O. O. O. C. O. O. O. O. O. O. M. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. -
1 A O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 at r to v !
. , - ' g v4 M i CL u CO A R W k eM to O O N@ O !
(U n v4 G) N OONM ON@ O C- @ CO O M tra O OMM O O O O O ed O O O to M O O .4 O O O in -
- W m (U 4 4 A3 O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. C. O. O. O. O. O. 0 4 c) O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO .
M A i tu c) - 3 e4 : u ! to 4 M to M ca to N@ e4 ch t 4 N G) @ O O 4 N *H O O @ @ O O N @ O e4 ! OMN O O O O O O O O O M O O O e4 O O O N i to t0 A3 O. O. O. O.O. O. O.O.O. O. O.O. O. O.O.O. O. O. .' O OOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOO i in ' M e4 in N e4 @ N4 O e4 Q) @ OO ed @ OOM O O Ch ON Ch M ed O O O M O O O O O N O O O e4 N O O O , in C ' 43 O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. ed. O. O. O. O. O. O. ed. O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
- i 1
Q (D - G . O P 3 GE D A to C 4 55 , d 'O C o 5 m b C) 0 e4 W i O 4 O ae4 3 5 M k G) C HT4M W m .a4 c0-$,4 ew,4 a ,$4 ew to ac)
,4 e eceo u.o>,
camco,m* t, ei M c) o CO C4 M to 4 'O W ID .O 4 *O C 4 e4 O 4c4 d C 4 O EU Q O4M W *e4 W m u M <W mouvudszz) zmmesN (0 ($ Q) W O i f Stewart Laboratories, Inc. Knoxville, Tennessee 37921 ! l i m i
h i Water Samples - Estuary Farley Project (APC 01015) i P559 P530 Water Water -, Station 11 14 ,.
% Residue 0.163 2.75 Antimony 0.001 0.001 '
Arsenic 0.0002 0.0005 Barium 0.04 0.18 Cadmium 0.001 0.001-O Cerium Cesium 0.03 0.00007 0.06 0.00005 Cobalt 0.008 0.04 , Copper 0.65 0.23 Iodine 0.06 0.07 Manganese 0.02 0.06 M ercury 0.0002 0.0002 i Molybdenum 0.007 0.03 Phosphorus 0.032 0.048 Strontium 0.05 1.10 Tellurium 0.0001 0.0001 Tin 0.04 0.0003 l Zinc 0.26 0.12 , t () Stewart Laboratories, Inc. Knoxville, Tennessee 37921 i
O o O TERRESTIAL ANIMALS DELIVERED TO STEWART LABORATORIES BY J. S. WINEFORDNER ON JANUARY 8, 1971 (APC 00817) Opossum Doves Raccoon Quail Squirrel
% Ash of Original Sample 1.26 0.79 1.30 1.32 1.16
% Moisture of Original Sample 73.0 86.2 75.0 73.8 77.9 Barium 0.13 0.16 0.26 0.25 0.12 Cerium 0.005 0.003 0.007 0.004 0.006 Cesium 0.16 0.09 0.22 0.12 0.18 Cobalt 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.05 0.08 Iodine 0.15 0.35 0.27 0.34 0.28 Iron 31.5 7.9 32.5 13.2 11.6 Manganese 0.50 0.40 0.39 0.66 0.46 Mercury 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.04 Phosphorus 1470. 724. 1146. 1437. 1389.
Strontium 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.05 Tellurium 0.004 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005 Zinc 47.4 14.0 51.6 13.6 .15.8 Zirconium 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.05 STEWART LABORATORIES,:INC. BY' Anna M. Yoakum, Ph.D.
L 4.9 Environmental Effects of Postulated Accidents and Occurrences
%,-l '
The following analysis of the Environmental Effects of Postulated , Accidents and Occurences was developed as a separate study by Alabama Power Company and Southern Services, Inc., based on information supplied by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. G l l l O). c 4-29 ] l J
F FARLEY i Outline of Accident Analysis for Environmental Report I. INTRODUCTION II. METEOROLOGY AND POPULATION DISTRIBUTION A. METEOROLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA , B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION DATA III. EVALUATION OF CLASS 2 EVENTS A. DISCUSSION OF CLASS 2 EVENTS B. DESCRIPTION OF REPRESENTATIVE CLASS 2 EVENT C. DISCUSSION OF REMOTENESS OF POSSIBILITY OF A VOLUME CONTROL TANK RELEASE D. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF VOLUME CONTROL TANK RELEASE
- 1. Assumptions '
- 2. Justification for Assumptions
- 3. Doses at the Site Boundary and Total Population Dose (man-rem)
IV. EVALUATION OF CLASS 3 EVENTS A. DISCUSSION OF CLASS 3 EVENTS O' B. DESCRIPTION OF REPRESENTATIVE CLASS 3 EVENT C. DISCUSSION OF REMOTENESS OF POSSIBILITY OF A GAS DECAY TANK RELEASE D. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF GAS DECAY TANK RELEASE
- 1. Assumptions
- 2. Justification for Assumptions
- 3. Doses at Site Boundary and Total Population Dose (man-rem) l l
l
)
l l
t i i FARLEY I Outline of Accident Analysis for Environmental Report (cont'd)
. 5 V. EVALUATION OF CLASS 4 EVENTS l A. DISCUSSION OF CLASS 4 EVENTS B. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF FUEL DEFECTS
- 1. Assumptions for Termination of Transients ;
- 2. Justification for Assumptions ;
- 3. Consequences VI. EVALUATION OF CLASS 5 EVENTS A. DISCUSSION OF CLASS 5 EVENTS t B. DESCRIPTION OF CLASS 5 EVENTS - FUEL DEFECTS WITH STEAM ,
GENERATOR TUBE LEAKS C. DISCUSSION OF REMOTENESS OF POSSIBILITY OF AN OFF-NORMAL OPERATIONAL RELEASE D. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF OFF-NORMAL OPERATIONAL RELEASE
- 1. Ass ump tions
- 2. Justification for Assumptions !
- 3. Doses at Site Boundary and Total Population Dose (man-rem)
(} VII. EVALUATION OF CLASS 6 EVENTS A. DISCUSSION OF CLASS 6 EVENTS B. DESCRIPTION OF CLASS 6 EVENT- FUEL HANDLING ACCIDENT INSIDE CONTAINMENT j C. DISCUSSION OF REMOTENESS OF POSSIBILITY OF A FUEL HANDLING l ACCIDINT INSIDE CONTAINMENT -j D. ANAL 1 SIS AND EVALUATION OF FUEL HANDLING ACCIDENT INSIDE ! CON 7 AINMENT
- 3. Assumptions
- 2. Justification for Assumptions
- 3. Doses at Site Boundary and Total Population Dose (man-rem)
VIII. EVALUATIOh JF CLASS 7 EVENTS { A. DISCUSSION OF CLASS 7 EVENTS , B. DESCRIPTION OF CLASS 7 EVENT - FUEL HANDLING ACCIDENT OUTSIDE , CONTAINNENT C. DISCUSSION OF REMOTENESS OF POSSIBILITY OF A FUEL HANDLING , ACCIDENT OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT .[ D. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF REFUELING ACCIDENT OUISIDE CONTAINMENT . t i
- 1. Assumptions
- 2. Justification of Assumptions l
- 3. Doses at Site Boundary and Total Population Dose (man-rem) i I
. v
- . = . _ ~ . --
FARLEY i Outline of Accident Analysis for Environmental Retror,t (Cont'd) IX. EVALUATION OF CLASS 8 EVENTS A. DISCUSSION OF CLASS 8 EVENTS
- 1. Loss-of-Coolant Accident j
- a. Description of Class 8 Event - Loss-of-Coolant Accident !
- b. Discussion of Remoteness of Possibility of Loss-of- !
Coolant Accident ;
- c. Analysis and Evaluation of Loss-of-Coolant Accident l
(1) Assumptions t (2) Justification for Assumptions ! (3) Doses at Site Boundary and Total Population Dose ; (man-rem) !
- 2. Steam Line Break l
- a. Description of Class 8 Event - Steam Line Break Accident i
- b. Discussion of Remoteness of Possibility of Steam Line l Break Accident
- c. Analysis and Evaluation of Steam Line Break :
O (1) Assumptions (2) Justification for Assumptions ; (3) Doses at Site Boundary and Total Population Dose , (man-rem) !
- 3. Steam Generator Tube Rupture
- a. Description of Class 8 Event - Steam Generator Tube Rupture Accident s
- b. Discussion of Remoteness of Possibility of Steam !
Generator Tube Rupture '
- c. Analysis and Evaluation of Steam Generator Tube Rupture ;
)
(1) Assumptions i (2) Justification for Assumptions ! (3) Doses at Site Boundary and Total Population Dose (man-rem) ) i f e
FARLEY l O Outline of Accident Analysis for Environmental Report (Cont'd) ,l
- 4. Rod Ejection Accident l
- a. Description of Class 8 Event - Rod Ejection Accident
- b. Discussion of Remoteness of Possibility of Rod Ejection Accident
- c. Analysis and Evaluation of Rod Ejection Accident 3 (1) Assumptions ,
(2) Justification for Assumptions (3) Doses at Site Boundary and Total Population Dose (man-rem)
- 5. Waste Gas Decay Tank Rupture Accident
- a. Description of Class 8 Event - Waste Gas Decay Tank I Rupture ,
- b. Discussion of Remoteness of Possibility of Waste Gas Decay Tank Rupture
- c. Analysis and Evaluation of Waste Gas Decay Tank Rupture (1) Assumptions ,
(2) Justification for Assumptions , (3) Doses at Site Boundary and Total Population Dose O-(man-rem)
- 6. Volume Control Tank Rupture
- a. Description of Class 8 Event - Volume Control Tank Rupture :
- b. Discussion of Remoteness of Possibility of Volume '
Control Tank Rupture
- c. Analysis and Evaluation of Volume Control Tank Rupture (1) Assumptions !
(2) Justification for Assumptions (3) Dose and Site Boundary and Total Population Dose (man-rem) X. TABLE OF DOSES FOR EACH CLASS XI. CONCLUSIONS r r
I. INTRODUCTION This appendix evaluates the environmental impact of postulated accidents , and occurrences which may occur, however remote, during the operating life of the Joseph Farley Nuclear Power Plant. The evaluation follows the guidelines given in the AEC document " Scope of Applicants' Environmental Reports with Respect to Transportation, Transmission Lines, and Accidente" issued on September 1, 1971. The results of the evaluation reveal that the consequences of the postulated accidents and occurences have no signi- l t ficant adverse environmental effects. i The postulated accidents and occurrences are divided into the nine accident classes identified in the AEC guide of September 1,1971 as shown in Table A-1. The environmental impact of the postulated incidents is evaluated using assumptions in the analyses as realistic as the state of knowledge O permits. Past Operating experience has been considered in selecting the l assumptions, and the analyses are based on those conditions that are ex-pected to exist if the postulated accident were to occur. The radiological consequences of an accident are evaluated on the basis that average meteoro- - logical conditions, as calculated from the meteorology data of the Dothan i Airport, and the population distribution at the mid point of plant life, exist at the time of an accident. This is considered realistic for random events. In the following pages, a typical accident for each class, identified in the AEC guide, is described and its consequences evaluated. Where only one accident example is considered in a class, the postulated a'ccident was selected from consideration of several possible accider.ts in that class on ' f% O. 4-30
P I TABLE A-1 0',. CLASSIFICATION OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS AND OCCURRENCES NO. OF DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE (S) CLASS 1 Trivial Incidents Small Spills Small leaks inside containment 2 Misc. Small Releases Spills Outside Containment Leaks and pipe breaks 3 Radvaste System Failure Equipment failure , Serious malfunction or human error 4 Events that release radio- Fuel failures during normal activity operation. Transients outside expected range of ! variables 5 Events that release radio- Class 4 & Heat Exchanger Leak activity into secondary system i () 6 Refueling accidents inside containment Drop fuel element Drop heavy object onto fuel l Mechanical malfunction or loss of cooling in transfer tube l t 7 Accidents to spent fuel Drop fuel element f outside containment Drop heavy object onto fuel Drop shielding cask - loss : of cooling to cask Transportation incident on site 8 Accident initiation events Reactivity transient considered in design-basis Rupture of primary piping evaluation in the Safety Flow decrease - Steamline Analysis Report break 9 Hypothetical sequences of . Successive failures of multiple failures more severe than barriers normally provided Class 8 and maintained a ~
e the bas'is that it conservatively represents a potential accident situation. Consideration of the nine classes reveals that these classes can be conve-niently grouped on the basis of their likelihood of occurrence as follows: Class 1 through Class 5 This group deals with events which may occur at one time or another during the life of the plant. The compilation of a cotuplete list of events with their corresponding frequency which fall in this group is not practical nor necessary. The environmental impact of each event, as will be shown
- 1ater, is very small. Throughout plant operating life, a record of the magnitude and consequences of each event is maintained and the cumulative effect of such occurrences is evaluated. This procedure will give timely ,
identification of any possible cumulative effects or trends leading to un- l acceptable environmental ef fects. This will also allow corrective actions (such as equipment repair, changes in procedure, more frequent inspection, O temporary plant shutdown, etc.) to be taken before a significant adverse impact on the environment can be imposed. Postulated occurrences for Classes 2 through 5 are considered in the follow-ing pages. Class 1 events, because of their trivial consequences, are not considered in this report. Classes 6 and 7 This group deals with refueling and fuel handling accidents inside and out-side the containment. Detailed procedures are provided to handle irradiated fuel properly. However, considering the large number of fuel assemblies handled during the life of the plant, an incident falling in this category could conceivably occur during the plant life. The consequences of such an accident, as shown in the subsequent pages, have no significant adverse O 4-31
impact on the environment. Class 8 This class includes those accidents that are not expected to occur during the life of this plant. These accidents correspond to the accident initiation events considered in the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. Each Class 8 accident is treated separately in the following pages. The , treatment consists of a brief description of the accident, a summary of the steps in the design, manufacturing, installation and operation to essentially eliminate the possibility of its occurrence, a list of the most significant assumptions and the results of the dose calculations. The consequences of these accidents are evaluated by using the analytical models described in the PSAR. The basic difference between the PSAR evalua-tions and those presented in this section is represented by the values of () the parameters used as input in the analytical models. The PSAR analyses are based on extremely conservative input parameters while the analyses per- , formed in this report are based on realistic assessments of the performance of core and plant safeguards. It can be concluded that accidents falling in this class have no significant adverse environmental effects because:
- 1) Hypothetical PSAR types of accident initiation events are not expect-ed to occur during the life of this plant because of the numerous steps in design manufacture, construction, operation and maintenance !
to prevent them. ii) and, the expected environmental consequences, if any one of the acci-dents occur, are below the limits considered safe for normal operation /% 4-32
I (10 CFR 20 limits). O If any of the accidents covered in this category were to occur, assessment of the actual impact on the environment will be per-formed and a comprehensive plant inspection conducted before return to power. Class 9 This accident class involves hypothetical sequences of failures more severe than Class 8, i.e. , successive failures of multiple barriers normally pro-vided and maintained. Considering, as an example, the rupture of a Reactor Coolant System pipe, t Class 8 covers the case of this initiation event and expected performance l of the plant safeguards. Class 9, on the contrary, would consider the initiation of the event, i.e., rupture of a Reactor Coolant System pipe plus hypothetically deteriorated performance of plant safeguards, for example, failure of off-site power supply, and/or failure of a diesel, and/ or failure of a high head safety injection pump, and/or failure of a low head safety injection valve, and/or failure of a containment spray pump, and/or failure of a containment spray valve, etc. This chain of failures can, theoretically, be carried as far as an individual's imagination can go. The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report contains studies on the conse-quences of successive failures. The likelihood of the combination of the initiation event and these successive failures is extremely remote. The consequences, as presented in the PSAR, are within the allowable limits for remote probability accidents (10 CFR 100 limits). The occurrence of successive failures is so remote that its environmer..a1 0 4-33
risk is extremely low. Hence, it is not necessary to discuss these multi-
- () ple failures in the present report, as indicated in the AEC guide publish-ed on September 1, 1971. '
i II. METEOROLOGY AND POPULATION DISTRIBUTION ; A. METEOROLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA The meteorological data used in this report was developed based on weather data from Dothan Airport for 1950. The annual average gas dispersion estimates are based on an integrated form of the Pasquill dif fusion re-lationships and assumes a ground level source at a virtual distance X' upwind of the actual source to account for dilution in the vertical direc-tion from the building wake. This model is presented in more detail in the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. A summary of the dispersion estimates used to evaluate the environmental effect of accidents in this Appendix are given in Figures 11-1 through , 11-4. ! The dispersion estimates for each sub-sector as shown in Figures 11-1 through 11-4 were computed based on the midpoint distance of each sub-sector from the containment. , The average annual dispersion estimate used in this report for estimating the site boundary thyroid and whole body doses was obtained by summing the l site boundary annual average dispersion estimates for each of the sixteen , sectors and dividing by sixteen. The average annual dispersion estimate i at the cite boundary is given in Figure 11-1. i 1 4-34 i
l O N g$ 3 MILES-44 3.o (- ? ) 3.0 (-7) 3. 5 (-7 ) 2 MILES e 4.2 (-7) 6.o(-7 ) 4. 5 (-7 ) 6.5 (- 7 ) 7.5 (-7 ) 1 MILES A 7. 5 (- 7) 1.5(- 6) 1.o t-6) 1.5 (-6) 0* I 2.5 (-7 ) pt.s) ,o(.6) 3.0 (- 7 ) 5.O(-7 ) 6.5(-7) ; 5(-6) .5(-6) X/O
'$ 3.5 (-7) 7.5(-7) 1.7(-6) (sec/m3) i.ot.6) 5.5(-7) 2.5(-7) m
.7(-6) .O(-6) 7.0(-7) 5.O (-7) 3.5(-7 ) ,
.5 (-6) 1.5 (-6) 2.5 (-7) ;
1.5(-6) I 6 1.O(- 6) 1.5(-6) 6.0 (-7 ) [ 5.o (-7 ) 5.5(-7) ! 5.o(-7) 5.5 (-7) 3.o(- 7) ,
- 2. 5(-7 ) 2. 5 (-7 )
2.5 (-7 ) Ss;p ggt S l AVERAGE ANNUAL X/O AT SITE BOUNDARY ATMOSPHRIC. DILUTION FACTORS O. 0- 3 MILES 1.557 x 10-6 (sec/m3 ) FIGURE 11- I NOTE: 2.5(-7) = 2.5 x 10~7 j i
I 4 Q a ' i N i g 5 y;ggg Nmg .' 1.o (- 7) 1.o (-7) i.3 (-7) +p-4 yf3 1.5 (-7) 1.5(-7) / ,g 1.6 (-7 ) :
- 1. 5 (- 7 ) 2.0(-7)
.R 2.5 (-7) Mllf? 2.5(-7) h 9.o (- 8) 1. 2 (-7) 7 l .4 (-7) 2.o(-7) )
X/0 l 1.0 (- 7 ) 2.o(-7 ) 1.5 (-7) 1.2 (-7 ) ni l it (sec/m3) i 2.o(-7) 1.5 (-7 ) '! O l .o(-7) i.o (-7 ) ! h4 3.5 (-7 ) 1.5 (-7) p li su-1.5 (-7) 1.5(-7 ) !
- 2. 2 (-7 ) 1.5(-7) 1,0(-7) j 1
1.o (-7 ) 1. l (-7) '> l.ol-7) ] S cpf-Sw ,.
]
S
.l l
i
)
)
ATMO$iPHERIC . DILUTION FACTORS .: 3- 5 MILES j FIGURE 11- 2 l
- O j
i j
O N 4 30 MILES 4m 1.o (- 8 ) 1.0 (- 8) 1. 3 (- 8 )
+ 20Mll e 1.5 (- 8 ) .
2.0(-8) 1.5 (- 8) 2.o(- 8) 2.5(- 8) IOMILE 3.0(- 8) sa-8)
}
5.st-s) 3.0(- 8 ) Q 8.7(-9) .5(-8) e a-8) 1.1 (- 8) 2.O(-8) 2.0(-8)
.o(-8) a-s)
X/0 3: 1.2 (- 8) 2.5 (-8) 7.st-e) ~ I- l- (- m (sec/m3) O .st-e) sm-e 2.5(-8) 1.9 (-8) I.2 (-8 ) 0(-7) 8-8) 1.o(-8) g s.oa)
$ 4.0 (- 8)
- 5. (-8) 5 oc,,} 2. I (-8) f 1.5 (-8) 2.o(-8) 1.l(-8) h 9.O (-9) 1.O(-8) '>
1.o (-8) Ss;p gS6 S ATMOSPHERIC DILUTION FACTORS 5- 30 MILES FIGURE 11-3
f O N
$$4 So MILESN4 't :
4.O (-9) l 4 7. 5 (-9) 5.O (-9) , 40 MILE 7.5(-9) 6.O(-9)
.5 (-9)
I l.O(-9) OgfLES :.O(-8) ".g. 4.O(-9) 5. O (-9) 6.O(-9) 7.5 (-9) f X/O . 3 g 7.O (-9) 8.5(-9) (Sec/m ) 7.O (- 9 ) 5.O (-9) i i 8.3(-9) 6.5(-9) ; O 4 5.O(-9) 4.0 (-9) g .j e 1.O(-8) 7.5(-9) 6.O(-9) 6.8(-9) , 7.5(-9) 6.5(-9) 5.0 (-9) , M 3.7 (-9) 5.0(-9) 6 4.5(-9) , S Sw . cpt- l S -; I ATMOSPHERIC DILUTION FACTORS f 30 - 50 MILES j FIGURE ll-4 l i f"' U] . l l i
.]
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION DATA () The population distribution used in this analysis was taken from the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant PSAR. Since the expected plant life is 40 years (1975-2015), the average environmental effect on the population can be estimated by using the estimated population distribution for a year close to the mid-point of the plant life. The estimate closest to this point in time is that for the year 1995. Using this population , e distribution, the average environmental effect of the plant over its expected lifetime is determined in man-rem. The 1995 population distri- ; bution used in this report is given in Figures 11-5 through 11-8. III. EVALUATION OF CLASS 2 EVENTS A. DISCUSSION OF CLASS 2 EVENTS Class 2 events include spills and leaks from equipment outside the contain-
}
ment. Small valve leaks and pipe leaks may be expected during the lifetime of the plant. There is expected to be a low level of continuous leakage from ccmponents such as valve packing and stems, pump seals, flanges, etc. Infrequent increases in leakage from specific components might occur; however, these would be detected by operators and/or inplant monitoring and appropriatekrepaired to minimize any potential off-site effect. Liquid releases will be collected in the radwaste processing systems and therefore will not contribute to adverse effects on the environment other than the environmental effects associated with radioactive releases discussed in Section 4.2.1.1. A k_) 4-35
.m O
N 4 3 MILE 44 6.2 31.5 43.6
+ 2. MILES +f 15.7 0 6.2 O O IMILE
- 5. 3 o p o
0 / 0 . 10.5 0 23.2 # 0 0 o O O g 10.5 17.2 17.2 O O g O O 0 5.3 0 o O O O O 4 N
*g 16.5 0 o
0 0 0 0 0 20.9 0 43.0 10.5 0 0
# i b Sv -
c s POPUL ATION DISTRIBUTION O O-3uiles FIGURE 11- 5 J
[ o : N 5 sp MILES NNg , 971.0 78.8 I472 4-120.6 M LES 55.2 36.8 27.9 49.1
& 31.5 3 MILES 12.2 h ,
47.3 36.8 : 42.0 0 47.3 52.4 30.7 0 g 78.8 85.8 52.4 0 4 , m 31.5 73.6 g-73.5 0 36.8 , 20.9 128.8 8 73.5 36.8 4 128.9 Ss;p SS6 S . POPULATION DIST RIBUTION ~ 3 - 5 MILES h FIGURE 11- 6
f) V N i
.g 30 MILE 4, I
4 019 5526 ~1848 I M 20 MILE ^ e 3712 ' ' 1354 1696 10 MILE
& 3314 394 7467' p 4
g 407 439 1, e 514 6 562 430 4641 5528 1696
- G42 430 t
g 3826 49637 652 434 1592 4862 m 2 916 434 ' 2547- 1594 4334 649 412 2405 ssp 6 3964 672 645 6 01 414 8 h~ p 2344 f 1848 4863 2 211 1809 M 3297 2475 3297
- SSly .
sSL s . POPULATION. DISTRIBUTION 5 - 30 MILES l 1 FIGURE 11 - 7
N ss4 50 MILES NNg 14329 44 3033 5034 4171 2610 3636 2821 1558 6191 MILES 4271 9295 13470 2Ii13 2666 N 3: 20920 5384 2774 4577 m 4966 3147 7716 4239 g ls ,) @ 6960 15961 $ 14098 17540 5417 4592 4899 4 4136 8303 ') 2141 SSup cpf-S PO PUL ATION DISTRIBUTION 30 - 50 MILES FIGURE 11 - 8
B. DESCRIPTION OF REPRESENTATIVE CLASS 2 EVENT A significant valve and/or pipe leak in the reactor coolant letdown system may occur during the lifetime of the plant. A conservative example of such an occurrence would be a leak in the volume control tank sampling line which would allow a fraction of the contents of the volume control tank to be released. Were such a leak to occur, the plant vent monitor would detect the activity and uith appropriate operator action the release could be limited to 107. of the noble gas contained in the tank. The event used to evaluate the environmental effect is defined as the release to the outside atmosphere of 107. of the noble gas activity in the volume control tank. C. DISCUSSION OF REMOTENESS OF POSSIBILITY OF VOLUME CONTROL TANK RELEASE The volume control tank is designed to Quality Class 2a with a normal inter-nal operating pressure of approximately 15 psig. The volume control tank design provides for level alarms, pressure relief and valve control to assure that a safe condition is maintained during system operation. Since the volume control tank is not subjected to high pressure or stress l and is Quality Class 2a, the possibility of a release from the tank is con- ) sidered very remote, j l The letdown line and the reactor coolant pumps seal water return line pene-l trate the containment. The letdown line contains air-operated valves inside i the containment and one air-operated valve outside the containment which is automatically closed by the containment isolation signal. The reactor j coolant pumps seal water return line contains two motor-operated isolation a 4-36
t valves, one inside and one outside of the containment. These valves are C ( automatically closed by the containment isolation signal. Quality control in the design, manufacture, and installation introduces a high degree of reliability and confidence to further assure that no , failure in this system will occur. In summary, the release of 10% of the noble gas inventory is considered to conservatively represent the accident or occurrences following in this class. D. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF VOLUME CONTROL TANK RELEASE
- 1. Assumptions The following assumptions are used in the evaluation of the environmental effects of the release of the volume control tank activity.
(a) The activity in the tank is based on 0.2% equivalent fuel defects and ! a continuous purge rate from the tank to the Radwaste System of 0.7 SCFM. (b) Within two hours after initiation of a noble gas activity release from the volume control tank,10% of the tank noble gas inventory is released. Immediately after the noble gas activity escapes from the volume control tank, it is released from the auxiliary building at ground level to the outside atmosphere. Holdup in the auxiliary building is expected, thus reducing even further the environmental effect of this occurrence, however, no credit for this holdup is taken in the analysis. (c) Natural decay is neglected after the activity is released to the out-side environment. 4-37 l i
i
- 2. Justification for Assumptions
() The 0.2% equivalent fuel defect level is oased on Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor operating experience with Zircaloy clad fuel to date. ; Nonvolatile fission product concentrations are greatly reduced as the , reactor coolant is passed through the purification demineralizers. An , iodine removal factor of at least 10 is expected in the mixed bed demineral-izers. ! In addition, the iodine will primarily remain in the liquid phase in the ! volume control tank due to the high partition factor between the liquid and vapor phases in the tank. The released noble gas will be detected by the plant vent monitor and cause an alarm in the control room. Once the operators have been alerted, the leak can be detected and isolated to hold the activity release to 10% of
)
the total noble gas inventory of the volume control tank, s
- 3. Doses at the Site Boundary and Total Population Dose (Man-Rem)
The parameters used to calculate the noble gas activity in the volume control tank are given in Table III-1. Based on these parameters, 10% of the total noble gas activity in the tank, which is assumed to be released instantaneously to the environment, is 46.6 curies of equivalent Xe-133. The whole body dose at the site boundary, as calculated by the method shown in Section X, is 3.14 x 10" mrem from the released noble gas activity,
~
while the total population dose is 1.13 x 10 man-rem. l l h 4-38 , I d
( TABLE III-l PARAMETERS FOR COMPUTING VOLUME CONTROL TANK SPECIFIC ACTIVITY OF EQUIVALENT Xe-133 ; i n
- 1. Core thermal power, MWt 2766
- 2. Fraction of fuel containing clad defect 0.002
- 3. Reactor coolant liquid volume, eu ft 9146.5
- 4. Reactor coolant average temperature, OF V580 i
- 5. Purification flow rate (maximum), gpm 120
- 6. Volume control tank volumes
- a. Vapor, cu ft 180
- b. Liquid, cu ft 120 5
- 7. Fission product escape rate coefficients:
- a. Noble gas isotopes, see -1 6.5 x 10-8
- 8. Volume control tank purge rate, SCFM 0.7
- 9. Reactor Coolant System Equilibrium Activities Isotope DCi/cc Kr-85 0.008 Kr-85m 0.3 Kr-87 0.2 Kr-88 0.6 Xe-133 4.6 Xe-133m 0.1 Xe-135 0.8 ,
1 IV. EVALUATION OF CLASS 3 EVENTS #
#' L
(_) A. DISCUSSION OF CLASS 3 EVENTS Class 3 events cover equipment malfunction and human error which may re- , sult in the release of activity from the Radwaste Processing System. The , y malfunction of a valve or dhe inadvertent opening of a valve by an operator may cause such a release. This type of event is expected to occur infre-quently during the operation of the plant. . Activity release from the liquid radwaste treatment system is a highly un- l likely event due to the following reasons: Primary grade radioactive. i liquids enter into the radwaste system and are collected in a separate channel from which there is no direct path of discharge to the environment. I The channel which collects the non-primary grade liquid wastes and whose contents are discharged to the environment after treatment, will not have (/ significant activity to adversely affect the environment even if discharged without treatment. However, interlocks are provided to alarm and auto- { matically terminate the discharges from the liquid radwaste system under [ these conditions. Therefore the inadvertent releases from the liquid rad-l waste system is not considered in this evaluation. , B. DESCRIPTION OF REPRESENTATIVE CLASS 3 EVENT ! The major collection point for activity outside the containment is the gaceous waste section of the Radwaste Processing System. A conservative , example of a Class 3 event would be a malfunction or error which would allow f t initiation of activity release from a vaste gas decay tank. This activity- l would leak into the auxiliary building atmosphere and pass through the j plant vent to the outside atmosphere. The plant vent monitor would detect- , (-)s R. 4-39 i k i
this radiation and transmit an alarm signal to the control rcom. The i () event used to evaluate the environmental effect is defined as the release of 10% of the noble gas activity in the waste gas decay tank to the out- ! side atmosphere. ; i 4 e nTscnRRTnN OF RFMNTENESS OF POSSIBILITY OF A GAS DECAY TANK RELEASE - i The six gas decay tanks of each reactor contain the gases vented from the l reactor coolant drain tank, recycle evaporator, and volume control tank. The gaseous waste processing system is designed such that during normal operation a hydrogen recombiner will remove hydrogen from nitrogen-fission i gas mixtures by oxidation to water vapor which is removed by condensation. , This limits the amount of gas which is transferred to the gas decay tanks. At beginning of life the gas decay tanks will operate under an initial pressure of 3 to 5 psig compared to a design pressure of 150 psig. The O I maximum anticipated pressure in any gas decay tank is not expected to i exceed 50 psig. ! The gas decay tanks are designed to Quality Class 3 requirements and are designed to ASME Section Vill requirements. ; Because of the conservative design, quality assurance, the close monitoring 5 and sampling throughout the system, and since the gas decay tanks are not subjected to arm high pressures or stresses, and they are of Quality Class 3 design, the possibility of an accidental release from any of the tanks
+
is very remote. i For these reasons the release of 10% of the noble gases stored in the gas l decay tank is considered to conservatively represent the accident and the 4 4-40 - l
r " occurrences falling in this class. I
~,
s/ D. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF GAS DECAY TANK RELEASE l' . Assumptions The following assumptions are used in the evaluation of the environmental effect of the release of activity from the waste gas decay tank. (a) 0.2 percent fuel defects. (b) Within 2 hours after initiation of nobic gas activity release from the gas decay tank,10% of the noble gas is released. (c) The noble gas inventory in the waste gas decay tank is based on activity stored in one gas decay tank using daily cycling between the 6 gas decay tanks, and volume control tank purge rate of 0.7 scfm. (d) Immediately after the noble gas activity escapes from the vaste gas decay tank it is released at ground level from the auxiliary building to the outside atmosphere. O (e) Natural decay is neglected af ter the activity is released to the out- ' side environment.
- 2. Justification for Assumptions The 0.2% equivalent fuel defect level is based on Westinghouse Pressurized i
Water Reactor experience with Zircaloy clad fuel to date. The plant vent monitor will detect the noble gas activity being released to the outside atmosphere and cause closure of the waste gas control valve .i and annunciate in the control room. This alerts the operators and the leak can be detected and isolated to hold the activity release to 10% of j the total noble' gas activity in the waste gas decay tank.
)
O 4-41 1
l
- 3. Doses ht Site Boundary and Total Population Dose (Man-Rem)
The noble gas activity released to the environment is given in Table IV-1. From this activity release the whole body dose at the site boundary is ; 3.84 x 10 -2 mrem and the total population dose is 1.38 x 10-1 man-rem. 1 L i I O I t i I j i l l
)
4-42 l l l l
TABLE IV-1 NOBLE CAS ACTIVITY RELEASE - Isotope Activity (Curies) Xe-133 .206.2 Xe-133m 2.0 j Xe-135 15.0 Kr-85m 2.32 . Kr-85 210.7 Kr-87 0.4 l l Kr-88 2.72 1 0 1 i l j O
I i l V. EVALUATION OF CLASS 4 EVENTS i i 1[ ) ! A. DISCUSSION OF CLASS 4 EVENTS ! j i This is described as those events that release radioactivity into the primary system. Examples given include assumptions of fuel failures during normal operation and transients outside expected range of variables. The nuclear steam supply system is designed so that it may operate with j l an equivalent 17. fuel defect. The level of defective fuel, averaged over the life of the plant, will be much less than the value as shown, based on , l the operating experience of similar plants to date. The occurrence of a fuel defect in itself will not result in any environmental impact because of the multiple barriers provided in the Pressurized Water Reactor. Never-theless this occurrence may result in activity levels which could affect the consequences in other accident classes which are evaluated in appropriate sections of this report. Operational transients for the plant such as turbine trip, load changes, rod withdrawals and other conceivable transient within accident conditions covered in other classes are not expected to increase the defect level. The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report demon-strates this as described below. B. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF FUEL DEFECTS ,
- 1. Assumptions for Termination of Transients A plant operational transient could result in an uncontrolled addition of reactivity. Assuming the source and intermediate range nuclear instrumen-tation indications are ignored, a transient will be terminated by the following automatic protection features:
- a. Source Range Flux Level Trip
() 4-42a
i () Actuated when either of two' independent sources range channels indicates a flux level above a preselected, manually adjust- l P able value. This trip function may be manually bypassed when ! i either intermediate range flux channel indicates a flux level. ! I above the source range cutoff power level. It is automatically ! I reinstated whe,both intermediate range channels indicate a ! flux level below the source range cutoff power level. j
- b. Intermediate Range Rod Stop ,
Actuated when either of two independent intermediate ranr; j channels indicates a flux level above a preselected, manually adjustable value. This rod stop may be manually bypassed when two out of the four power range channels indicate a power i level above approximately ten percent power. It is automat- h ically reinstated when three of the four power range channels f f are below this value. ; f
- c. Intermediate Range Flux Level Trip -l r
'i Actuated when either of two independent intermediate range channels indicates a flux level above a preselected, aanually adjustable value. This trip function may be marsally bypassed, j when two of the four power range channels are reading above approximately ten percent power and is automatically reinstated when three of the four channels indicate a power level below i i
this value. { U 4-43 i j
l I l 1 h d. Power Range Flux Level Trip (Low Setting) - I Actuated when two out of the four power range channels indicate 'j a power level above approximately 25 percent. This trip. i function may be manually bypassed when two of the four power - ! range channels indicate a power level above approximately ten l i percent power and is automatically reinstated when three of j
-I the four channels indicate a power level below this value.- !
- e. Power Range Flux Level Trip (High Setting)
Actuated when two out of the four. power range channels indicate. } a power level above a preset set point. This trip function'is i always active. i pv .j t The nuclear response to a continuous reactivity insertion is characterized ' b by a very fast power rise terminated by the reactivity feedback effect of g the negative fuel temperature coefficient. This self-limitation of the l initial power rise results from a fast negative fuel temperature feedback ; (Doppler effect) and is of prime' importance during a start-up accident-- ;
~
i since it limits the power to a tolerable 1evel prior to external control } action. After the initial power rise, the nuclear power is momentarily I i reduced and then if the accident is not terminated by a reactor trip, . the i nuclear power increases again, but at a much slower rate. -[
- 2. Justification for Assumptions -
t Analysis of this transient will be performed by digital computation :
-i 4-44 ;
~
() incorporating the neutron kinetics, with six delayed neutron groups, and the core thermal and hydraulic equations. In addition to the nuclear flux response, the fuel, clad and water temperature, and also the heat flux response, will be computed. In order to give conservative results for a start-up accident, the follow-ing additiona3 assumptions are made concerning the initial reactor conditions:
- a. Since the magnitude of the nuclear power peak reached during the initial part of the transient, for any given rate of reactivity insertion, is strongly dependent on the fuel tem-perature reactivity coefficient, the least negative value will be used for the start-up accident analysis.
O b. The contribution of the moderator reactivity coefficient is negligible during the initial part of the transient because the heat transfer between the fuel and the moderator is much slower than the nuclear flux response. However, after the initial nuclear flux peak, the succeeding rate of power increase is affected by the moderator reactivity coefficient. Accord-ingly, a conservative value of zero is used, since this yields the maximum rate of power increase,
- c. The reactor is assumed to be at hot zero power. This assump-tion is more conservative than that of a lower initial system temperature. The higher initial system temperature yields a 4-45 I I
l 1
l larger fuel to water thermal conductivity, a larger fuel thermal
)
capacity, and a less negative (smaller absolute magnitude) ! 5 Doppler coefficient. The less negative Doppler coefficient reduces the Doppler feedback effect thereby increasing the nuclear flux peak. The high nuclear flux peak combined with a high fuel thermal capacity and large thermal conductivity ; 4 yields a larger peak heat flux. Initial multiplication (k g) is assumed to be 1.0 since this results in the maximum nuclear i e power peak.
- d. The most adverse combination of instrument and set point errors, as well as delays for trip signal actuation and rod release, are taken into account. Also the rate of negative
() reactivity insertion corresponding to the trip action is based on the assumption that the highest worth rod is stuck in its 7 fully withdrawn position. i
- 3. Consequences Transient results based on previous designs demonstrate the considerable +
margin to safety limits for this accident. This margin is a consequence of the small rise in core heat flux to only a fraction of nominal, i.e., , of the order of 50 percent, and of the considerable degree of subcooling in the core during the transient. This detailed information includes transient response of core heat flux, neutron flux, fuel temperatures and margin to DNB. The sensitivity to variations in input parameters as well
~
4-46 i f
i r~N initial conditions will be considered in a detailed analysis in the k-) s : Final Safety Analysis Review (FSAR). l The maximum possible number of rod cluster control assemblies (RCCA) which can be moved and their maximum withdrawal speed will be establish-ed by detailed plant design. This information and the maximum incremental ! 4 I RCCA reactivity worth will be used to verify that the protection afforded I by source, intermediate and power range trip settings is adequate to terminate the transient safely. Protection in this case is considered adequate if it can be shown that the departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) is equal to or greater than 1.3, thus ensuring that no fuel damage ; or fission product release occurs. j e Taking into account the conservative assumptions, it is concluded that in () the unlikely event of a transient outside of expected range of variables, the core and reactor coolant system will not be adversely affected. i i 1 l I l I 4-47 1 1 l
VI. EVALUATION OF CLASS 5 EVENTS , (/ A. DISCUSSION OF CLASS 5 EVENTS The Class 5 events are defined as those accident events that transfer the radioactivity in the reactor coolant into the secondary system through , steam generator tube leakage, with a fraction of the' transferred radio- r activity in turn being released into the environment through the air ejector. Radioactivity releases into the environment resulting from the events in this class require a concurrent occurrence of two independent events of fuel defects and steam generator tube leakage. If the fuel defects and steam generator tube leakage do occur simultaneously, these concurrent faults would be evaluated continuously in terms of plant secondary system activity technical specification limit and corrective steps will be taken before any limit is approached. R - g - B. DESCRIPTION OF CLASS 5 EVENTS - FUEL DEFECTS WITH STEAM GENERATOR TUBE LEAKAGE In the event-of fuel defects with a concurrent steam generator tube leakage, the sec,ndary system would become contaminated with fission products and radioactive corrosion products. The degree of fission product transport into the secondary side is a function of the amount of defective fuel in the core and the primary-to-secondary leak rate. These parameters also determine the radioactivity releases from the secondary system if the plant were to continue to operate under these off-normal conditions. Since the air ejector effluent is monitored with a radiation monitor, it would alarm upon the steam generator tube leckage and the result w radioactivity releases. The liquid blowdown from the steam generators is terminated upon receipt of a high radiation signal. In addition, the steam generator ( I 4-48
liquid sample monitor provides backup information to indicate primary- , . to-secondary leakage. Th'e operator will evaluate the secondary system activity in terms of plant technical specifications. If the primary-to-secondary leak rate and the resultant releases are within specification limits, the operator may continue to operate the plant until a convenient time is available to shut down and repair the leaking steam generator. , i l C. DISCUSSION OF REMOTENESS OF POSSIBILITY OF AN OFF-NORMAL : OPERATION RELEASE , i An off-normal operation release requires fuel defects and a simultaneous 5
?
steam generator tube leakage. Since the occurrence of these two events are not related to each other, the possibility of an excessive of f-normal ; i release resulting from these two independent events is relatively low. l t In addition, the radiation level of the air ejector discharge and steam , generator liquid are monitored and any excessive gaseous or liquid releases would be detected by the monitor system and terminated by the operator. To conservatively represent events in Class 5, it has been assumed, for the ' purposes of analysis, that full power operation with 1 gpm primary to secondary leakage and 0.2*/. equivalent fuel defect is continued for 2 days.- l D. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF OFF-NORMAL OPERATIONAL RELEASE .
- 1. Assumptions An analysis has been perfomed of possible releases of radio- l activity from the secondary system in the event of fuel defects with steam generator tube leakage. The analysis is based on ;
the following assumptions: (a) 0.27. defective fuel. i (b) The primary-to-secondary leak rage is 1 gpm. ! O 4-49
I (c) No steam generator blowdown tank release to the environment during excessive off-normal operation and the air ejector discharge is the only release. (d) The period of off-normal operation is 2 days at full power. (e) The atmospheric dispersion factor at site boundary used in the dose calculation is the annual average. (1.557 x 10-6 sec/m3 ). (f) Secondary steam decontamination factors: i Steam generator water to steam: DF = 10 x c/gm SG water (all halogens) n.c/gm steam DF = 1 x c/ m SC water (all noble gases) 4Lc/gm steam i Steam to air ejector:
]
\- DF = 104 ac/gm steam (all halogens)
A c/cc air DF = 1 (all noble gases) (g) No noble gas accumulated in the steam generator water since these are continuously released from the condenser air ejector. l (h) Air flow rate through air ejector is 40 scfm.
- 2. Justification for Assumptions The first assumption is based on plant operating experience to date. The second assumption is a conservative one well within the leak-rate which can be detected and result in remedial action.
The third assumption is based on the fact that the steam generator
,O V
4-50
r e blowdown is terminated within a few minutes of institution of () the of f-normal operation. The. two-day off-normal operation therefore vill not result in blowdown release. The two day ! of f-normal operation at full power given in the fourth assump-tion is the expected of f-normal operational time. The opera-tor can shut the plant down sooner if the releases are excessive The fif th assumption is based on the site meteorological data. The sixth assumption is based on the reference: Styrikovich M. A., Martynova 0. I., Katkovska K. Ya., Dwbrovskii 1. Ya., Smrinova I. N. " Transfer of Iodine j from Aqueous Solutions to Saturated Vapor," Translated from Atomnaya Energiya, Vol. 17, No. 1, P. 45-49, July, 1964. 1 i The air ejector flow rate of 40 scfm is a system parameter.
- 3. Doses at Site Boundary and Total Population Dose (man-rem)
- With the above assumptions the thyroid dose and the whole body ;
()3 dose at the site boundary resulting from'the air ejector release
+
are 5.16 x 10-4 mrem and 2.12 x 10-2 mrem, respectively. The i total population whole body dose is 7.59 x 10~2 man-rem. 9 r [ t 4-51
VII. EVALUATION OF CLASS 6 EVENTS A. DISCUSSION OF CLASS 6 EVENTS Accidents which fall into accident Class 6 are: fuel element mishandling and mechanical malfunctions or loss of cooling in the transfer tube. The only event in this accident class which could possible result in a release of radioactive gases from a fuel assembly is the mishandling of a __ fuel element. The fuel handling procedures are such that no objects can be unintentionally moved over any fuel elements being transferred or moved over the core. A loss of cooling in the transfer tube will not cause the cladding of a fuel assembly to be damaged. The residual heat generated by the assembly will be removed by natural convection. O 8. ossca vr on or ctiss e 8v8"r - roet n^"ot no ^cc ot"r us o8 CONTAINMENT The accident is defined as the mishandling of a spent fuel assembly. The accident is assumed to result in the equivalent of one row of fuel rods in the assembly being damaged. The subsequent release of radioactivity from the damaged fuel element will bubble through the water covering the assembly, where most of the radioactive iodine will be entrained, and be released to the containment atmosphere. For the first five (5) minutes following the accident, activity is drawn through the containment purge line to the environment. Af ter five (5) minutes the purge line is isolates and the only means of escape of any radioactive gases airborne in the containment is by means of containment leakage which is negligible since O 4-52
b there is no positive pressure in the containment during this accident. C. DISCUSSION OF REMOTENESS OF POSSIBILITY OF A FUEL HANDLING ACCIDENT INSIDE CONTAINMENT The possibility of a fuel handling incident is remote due to the administra-tive controls and physical limitations imposed on fuel handling operations. i All refueling operations are conducted in accordance with prescribed proce - dures under the direct surveillance of p ersonnel technically trained in nuclear safety. Also, before any refueling operations begin, verifica-tion of complete rod cluster control assembly insertion is obtained by tripping each rod individually to obtain indication of rod drop and disengagement from the control rod drive mechanisms. Boron concentration i in the coolant is raised to the refueling concentration and verified by f sampling. Refueling boron concentration is sufficient to maintain the clean, cold, fully loaded core subcritical with all rod cluster assemblies withdrawn. The refueling cavity is filled with water meeting the same I boric acid specifications. Af ter the vessel head is removed, the rod cluster control drive shafts are removed from their respective assemblies. A spring scale is used to verify that the drive shaft is free of the control cluster as the lifting i force is applied. T The fuel handling manipulators and hoists are designed so that fuel cannot be raised above a position which provides adequate shield water depth for the safety of all operating personnel. l O 4-53
s i l Adequate cooling of fuel during underwater handling is provided by con- I
-- 1 vective heat transfer to the surrounding water. The fuel assembly is )
I immersed continuously while in the refueling cavity. Even if a spent l fuel assembly becomes stuck in the transfer tube, natural convection will maintain adequate cooling. Two Nuclear Instrumentation System source range channels are continuously in operation and provide warning of any approach to criticality during ; i refueling operations. This instrumentation provides a continuous audible l signal in the containment, and would annunciate a local horn and a horn and light in the plant control room in the unlikely event that the count rate increased above a preset low level. Refueling boron concentration is sufficient to maintain the clean, cold, () fully loaded core subcritical by at least 10 per cent a p with all rod cluster control assemblies inserted. At this boron concentration the core would also be more than 2 per cent 46 p suberitical with all control rods withdrawn. The refueling cavity is filled with water meeting the same boric acid specifications Special precautions are taken in all fuel handling operations to reduce the possibility of damage to fuel assemblies during transport to and from the spent fuel pool and during installation in the reactor. All handling operations on irradiated fuel are conducted under water. The handling tools used in the fuel handling operations are conservatively r designed and the associated devices are of a fail-safe design. In addition the motions of the cranes which move the fuel assemblies are limited to q a low maximum speed. .
P The design of the fuel assembly is such that the fuel rods are restrained , by grid clips 'inich provide a restraining force on each fuel rod. If the fuel rods are in contact with the bottom plate of the fuel assembly, the maximum force which may be transmitted to the fuel rods. is limited due to the restraining force of the grid clips. The force transmitted to the fuel rods during fuel handling is not sufficient to breech the fuel- rod cladding. If the fuel rods are not in contact with the bottom plate of the assembly, the rods would have to slide against the friction force. This would ab-sorb the shock and thus limit the force on the individual fuel rods. After the reactor is shut down, the fuel rods contract during the subse-quent cooldown and would not be in contact with the bottam plate of the assembly. () Considerable deformation would have to occur before the rod would make contact with the top plate and apply any appreciable load on the fuel rod. Based on the above, it is felt that it is unlikely that any damage would occur to the individual fuel rods during handling. If one assembly is lowered on top of another, no damabe. to the fuel rods would occur that would breech the integrity of the cladding. Refueling operation experience that has been obtained wida Westinghouse i reactors has verified that no fuel cladding integrity failures occur during any fuel handling operations involving over 50 reactor years of W PWR operating experience in which more than 2200 fuel assemblies have been loaded or unloaded. O 4-55
(' D. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF FUEL HANDLING ACCIDENT INSIDE CONTAINMENT
- 1. Assumptions The following assumptions are postulated for a calculation of the fuel handling accident:
a) The accident occurs at 100 hrs, following the reactor shutdown; i.e., the time at which spent fuel would be first moved. b) The accident results in the rupture of the cladding of the equivalent of one row of fuel rods (15 rods). , i c) The damaged assembly is ,the one that had operated at the highest power level in the core region to be discharged. d) The power in this assembly, and corresponding fuel temperatures, O) (_ establish the total fission product inventory and the fraction of , this inventory which is present in the fuel pellet-cladding gap at the time of reactor shutdown. (esel.5% of core halogen and es 1.2% of cora noble gases) e) The fuel pellet-cladding gap inventory of fission products in these rods will be released to the refueling cavity water at the time of the accident. f) The refueling cavity water retains a large fraction of the gap activity of halogens by virtue of their solubility and hydrolysis. Noble gases are not retained by the water as they are not subject to hydrolysis 4-56
l 1 reactions. A decontamination factor of 760 for the halogens is used {' } in this analysis. a l g) A small fraction of fission products which are not retained by the water are dispersed into the containment. h) The purge line on the containment is isolated automatically upon high radiation signal within five (5) minutes af ter the accident. Ventila- l tion from the refueling canal area vill be 11,000 scfm. The total purge from the containment is 25,000 scfm, which is the basis for i this calculation. ! l l
- 1) After isolation of the containment, the radioactive gasec in the I containment are leaked from the containment to the environment at a i
f-~ small le-k rate. The amount of activity leaked from the containment l (- ! is assumed negligible compared to that escaping from the purge line l l during the first five minutes, j I l 1
- 2. Justification for Assumptions '
a) It is approximately 100 hours af ter shutdown that the first fuel assembly is removed from the core. The time delay between shutdown l and removal of the first assembly is due to the time required to depressurize the reactor coolant system, remove the vessel head and perform other refueling procedures. I b) Analyses have shown that dropping of a spent fuel assembly onto the bottom of the pool is not expected to result in damage of the cladding ; I v 4-57 l e j
r i of any fuel rods in the dropped assembly. The dropping of a spent l fuel element onto a sharp object may result in the breech of the cladding of some fuel elements in the dropped assembly. The rupture of the equivalent of one row of fuel elements has been shown to be a conservative assumption, i c) The highest powered assembly in the discharged region would have the largest quantity of radioactivity in the fuel pellet-cladding gap i of all the assemblies to be discharged. d) The quantity of radioactivity in the fuel pellet-cladding gap is 1 dependent on the power level and t.emperature distribution of the assembly. e) Since all fuel handling operations are conducted .under water, the release of any radioactive gases from a damaged assembly would be I in the form of bubbles to the water covering the assembly. 1 f) An experimental test program was conducted by Westinghouse to evaluate the extent of iodine removal as the halogen gas bubbles rise to the surface of the pool from a damaged irradiated fuel assembly. I g) The radioactive gases remaining in the bubbles when they read, the i I surface of the cavity, are released to the atmosphere atop the cavity. h) Any increase in radioactivity concentrations in the containment will be detected by the radiation monitors. Upon high radiation signal ; the purge line from the containment will be isolated automatically. 4-58
i 1 1 .,--). It is conservatively estimated that the purge line will be isolated LJ within 5 minutes following a refueling accident which releases radio-activity into the containment. i
- 1) Since the pressure in the containment will be atmospheric at the time of the postulated accident and no pressure rise is expected j due to the accident, the leak rate from the containment is expected to be near zero. The design leak rate of the containment at Farley is 0.1% per day at peak accident pressure.
- 3. Doses at Site Boundary and Total Population Dose (man-rem)
The doses at the site boundary from a fuel handling accident inside the containment are 4.06 x 10-2 mrem thyroid and 7.61 x 10-3 mrem whole body. ! The total population dose from this accident is 2.7 x 10-2 man-rem whole () body. i [ > (J 4-59
1 i /~ VIII. EVALUATION OF CLASS 7 EVENTS I d' , 1 A. DISCUSSION OF CLASS 7 EVENTS Accidents which fall into accident Class 7 are: Mishandling of fuel - element, dropping of heavy object onto fuel, dropping of shielding cask or loss of cooling to cask and transportation incident on site. The only event in this accident class which could possibly result in a release of radioactive gases from a fuel assembly is the mishandling of a fuel element. The fuel handling procedures and design of the fuel handling equipment is such that no equir, ment or object can be moved over any fuel element being transferred or stored in the spent fuel pool. The shielding and shipping casks are designed to be dropped with no subsequent damage to the fuel assembly. Loss of cooling to the transfer cask also will not result in any damage which will result in activity release to the environment. The spent fuel is not moved off site until 90-120 days after re fueling. Thus most of the major contributing isotopes to the thyroid and whole body dose will be decayed to a negligible level. B. DESCRIPTION OF CLASS 7 EVENT - FUEL HANDLING ACCIDENT GUTSIDE CONTAINMENT The accident is defined as the mishandling of a spent fuel assembly. The accident is assumed to result in the equivalent of one row of fuel rods in the assembly being damaged. The subsequent release of radioactive gases from the damaged fuel element will bubble through the water covering the assembly, where most of the iodine will be entrained, and be released O v. 4-60
() to the spent fuel building. The activity is then exhausted to the environ-i ment via the plant vent. C. DISCUSSION OF REMOTENESS OF POSSIBILITY OF A FUEL HANDLING ACCIDENT OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT A fuel handling incident outside the containment is considered to be equally as remote as that inside the containment. The administrative controls and physical limitations imposed on fuel handling operation are , essentially the same as those described for the Class 6 events. As ; described earlier, the fuel handling manipulators and hoists are designed t so that the fuel assembly is continuously immersed while in the spent fuel pit. In addition, the design of storage racks and manipulation facilities in the spent fuel pit is such that: O Fuel at rest is positioned by positive restraints in a s a f e, suberitical, geometrical array, with no credit for boric acid in the water. Fuel can be manipulated only one assembly at a time. Violation of procedures by placing one fuel assembly in with any group of assemblies in racks will not result in criticality. In summary, those factors which are discussed under Section VII.C regarding remoteness of possibility of fuel handling accidents within the containment clso apply here. l O 4-61 j i i i
D. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF FUEL HANDLING ACCIDENT ; OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT 6 The identical assumptions a) through g) of Section VII.D.l. are also postulated for calculation of the fuel handling accident outside the l containment. In addition, it is assumed that the fuel handling area ' ventilation system' purge line will be automatically isolated upon high radiation signal (within 5 minutes). The flow rate through the purge line is 18,000 scfm. l Af ter isolation of the fuel handling area ventilation system purge line, the penetration room filtration system will be actuated. Activity re-leased into the fuel handling area will be drawn through charcoal and HEPA filters before being discharged to the atmosphere. The efficiency ! (} of penetration room filtration system is 99%.
- 2. Justification for Assumptions
)
The justification for the assumptions are the same as given in Section g VII . D. 2. Additionally, the justification for the final assumption follows. The fuel handling area ventilation system draws air from outside through , filters (pre-filters), passes the air over the fuel pool, and discharges it to the atmosphere after passing through pre and HEPA filters. A slight negative pressure will be maintained in this area ; during refueling operations. Af ter a postulated fuel handling accident, j a signal from the redundant radiation' monitors in the exhaust line will automatically secure the ventilation fans and isolate the fuel handling ()_ 4-62 a
area ventilation system. Two motor operated valves will then be remotely , ( ' opened to connect the fuel handling area with the penetration room filtra-tion system through the ducts. The fan and filter subsystems of the pene-tration room filtration system will maintain a slight negative pressure in the fuel handling area. The air from the fuel handling area will pass through particulate, absolute and charcoal filters prior to bsing released to the environment. I
- 3. Doses at Site Boundary and Total Population Dose (man-rem)
The doses at the site boundary from a fuel handling accident inside the containment are 2.03 x 10 ~1 mrem thyroid and 5.57 x 10-2 mrem whole body.
~1 The totel population dose from this accident is 2.0 x 10 man-rem whole body.
(~'i (_,/ i 1 1 l l l l 4-63 i
i IX. EVALUATION OF CLASS 8 EVENTS I A. DISCUSSION OF CLASS 8 EVENTS { i Accidents considered in this class are loss of coolant, steam line break, steam ge,nerator tube rupture, rod ejection, and ruptures of the waste gas f decay tank and the volume control tank. These extremely unlikely acci- f dents are used, with highly conservative assumptions, as the design basis events to establish the performance requirements of engineered safety features. For purposes of this environmental report, the accidents are evaluated on a realistic basis that the engineered safeguards will be ; available and will either prevent the accident or mitigate the consequences. f I
- 1. Loss of Coolant (LOCA) i i
- a. Description of Class 8 Event - Loss of Coolant !
A LOCA is defined as the loss of primary system coolant ? O due to a rupture of a Reactor Coolant System (RCS) pipe ' i or any line connected to that system. Leaks or ruptures of a small cross section would cause expulsion of the coolont at a rate which could be accommodated by the charging pumps. The pumps would maintain an operational water level in the pressurizer permitting the operator to execute orderly shutdown. A small quantity of the f coolant containing fission products normally present in the coolant would be released to the containment. Should a break occur which is beyond the capacity of the i i charging pumps, depressurization of the RCS causes fluid , l to flow from the pressurizer to the break resulting in a ! 4-64 , I P 3
pressure decrease in the pressurizer. Reactor trip occurs when the pressurizer low pressure set point is reach ed . The Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) is l
?
actuated when the pressurizer low pressure and low level set points are reached. Reactor trip and ECC$ actuation are also provided by a high containment pressure signal. ! 5 These countermeasures limit the consequences of the accident in two ways: i
- 1. Reactor trip and borated water injection supplement !
.i void formation in causing rapid reduction of the core thermal power to a residual level corresponding to the delayed fission product decay, !
- 2. Injection of borated water ensures sufficient flood-ing of the core to limit the peak fuel cladding tentperature to well below the melting temperature of Zircaloy-4 in addition to limiting the average core metal-water reaction to substantially less than 1*/..
Before the reactor trip occurs, the plant is in an equilibrium condition, i.e. , the heat generated in the core is being removed via the secondary system. Subsequently, heat from decay, hot internals, and the vessel are transferred to the RCS fluid and then to the secondary system. The ECC signal stops normal feed-water flow to the steam generators and initiates the Engineered Safety Features. If off-site power is available, steam may or may not be dumped to the condenser depending on the size of the break. The secondary flow aids in the reduction of reactor O 4-65
i i coolant system pressure. If the reactor coolant system pressure falls below the setpoint, the passive accumu-lators inject borated water due to the pressure differ-ential between the accumulators and the reactor coolant 'i loops. [ Despite the fact that ECCS actuation prevents fuel clad melting as a result of the rapid depressurization of the i reactor coolant system, cladding failures may occur in , i the hottest regions of the core. Some of the volatile fission products contained in the pellet-cladding gap may be released to the containment. These fission products, ! plus those present in that portion of the primary coolant discharged to the containment, are partially removed from the containment atmosphere by the spray system and plate-out effect on the containment structures. Some of the remaining fission products in the containment atmosphere , I will be slowly released to the external environment [ through minute leaks in the containment during the time when containment pressure is above atmospheric pressure, i These minute leaks could be expected to be choked by water and water vapor although credit for this was not taken in evaluating the releases. i
- b. Discussion of Remoteness of Possibility of Loss of' Coolant The rupture of a reactor coolant pipe, or a pipe connec- ;
t ted to it, is not expected to occur because of very careful -j selection of design, construction, operation and quality ! 4-66
n-control requirements. A very strict and detailed " Quality. Assurance Program" is enforced to make sure that the specific requirements are met during the various' stages of design, construction, erection, and fabrication. The reactor coolant system is designed to withstand the
" maximum hypothetical earthquake" at the site and to assure capability of shutdown and maintain the nuclear facility in a safe condition. Pressure-containing components of the reactor coolant system are designed,' fabricated, inspected and tested in conformance with the applicable codes, i.e.,
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Nuclear Vessels and USAS B31.7. The design loads for normal opera-tional fatigue and faulted conditions are selected by conservatively predicting the type and number of cycles that O the plant is expected to experience. Also, essential equip-ment has been placed in a structure which is capable of with-standing natural phenomena, such as tornado, flooding condi-tion or earthquakes. The materials and components of the reactor coolant system are subjected to thorough non-destructive inspection prior to operation and a pre-operational hydro test is performed at 1.25 times the design pressure. ; j The plant is also operated under very closely controlled condi-tions to ensure that the operating parameters are kept within !
, the limits assumed in the design. The concentration of oxygen 4-67 l
(10.10 ppm) is kept to low levels so that the integrity () of the reactor coolant system is assured under all opera-ing conditions. The reactor pressure vessel is paid particular attention because of the shift in Nil Ductility f Transition Temperature (NDTT) with irradiation. Therefore, ; technical specification limits are imposed on the maximum I heatup and cooldown rates to make sure that the vessel vall temperature is above the NDTT to prevent brittle fracture f whenever the stresses beccme significant. Materials of j construction are selected for the expected environment and ! service conditions in accordance with the appropriate code i requirements. ) i It is expected that for pipes of the size, thickness and , i material used in the RCS, significant leakage will occur before catastrophic failure. The plant is provided with various means of detecting leakage from the reactor coolant system. The sensitivity of these leak detection systems gives reasonable assurance that a small crack will be de-tected and repaired before it reaches the size that will cause failure. Furthermore, provisions are made for periodically inspect-ing the areas of relatively high stress in order to discover -, potential problems before significant flaws develop. The inspection processes vary from component to component and
-]
include such inspection techniques as visual inspection, 4-68 j
ultrasonic, radiographic or magnetic particle exami-nations. This in-service inspection program provides [) additional assurance of the continuing integrity of the recctor coolant system. l Fault conditions which could cause pressure surges are analyzed and protection demonstrated by actuation of the following: (a) Reactor protection system. , (b) Pressurizer relief and safety valves. (c) Steam side safety and relief valves. These ensure that the system pressures and temperatures attained under expected modes of plant operation or anti-cipated system interactions will be within the design () t limits giving further assurance that a rupture of the reactor coolant system is very remote.
- c. Analysis and Evaluation of Loss-of-Coolant Accident !
t
- 1. Assumptions ;
The analysis for this accident is based on: (a) Only activity in the fuel pellet-clad gap (^/1.5% I of core halogen andev 1.2% of core noble gases) would be released. (b) Fuel clad perforation ranges from zero for small breaks to a maximum of 70%. The fuel rods repre- l sented in this 70%, bewever, generate rv 90% of the core power, so that rv 90% of the total gap inventory i g-~g would be released. U 4-69 l
.i
(c) Cf the gap fission product activity, 25 percent
-(N of the halogens and 100% of the noble gases are Q.
available for leakage from the containment. (d) The spray efficiency is 78.6 hr-1 for elemental iodine. (e) The containment leak rate is 0.05% day for the first 24 hours and 0.025%/ day for the next 30 days. (f) Fifty percent of containment leak rate is into the penetration room where the filter efficiency is 99%.
- 2. Justification for Assumptions Fission product diffusion through the fuel pellet is a temperature dependent process. Since the reactor has been made subcritical, fissioning becomes negli-O gible and the pellet temperature begins to drop from the operating value almost immediately. The gap activity represents 1-1/2 years of operation. The addi-tional fission product diffusion to the gap after the accident is negligible.
Extensive analyses of the core behavior during a LOCA, based on theoretical and experimental evidence, have been performed. These analyses are reported in the PSAR, supplemented by " Response to AEC letter 7/20/71 ECCS Performance Evaluation, Appendix 14B to the PSAR", dated 9/1/71. These analyses show that fuel rods which j operate at or above 10 kw/f t might reach clad temperatures 4-70 t
in excess of 1300*F. Reaching such a temperature is 3 i assumed to lead to clad perforation and all rods which Oi . exceed 10 kw/ft at any point along their length are assumed to release gaseous fission products. Assuming a prior core power shape which is the worst expected in normal operation approximately 707. of the rods exceed j 10 kw/ft locally, based on an average rod power of 7.0 kw/ f t . I i This is consistent with the total peaking factor of 2.1
]
or an axial factor of 1.5 and a radial factor of 1.4. As per the model used in TID 14844, 25% of the released { iodine is considered available in the containment atmos-phere after plate-out on reactor internals and contain-ment structures and entrainment in the coolant and (} condensed steam. Available data presented indicate that little organic iodine is released from the fuel. I l The calculation of the spray effectiveness for iodine removal is based on the drop diffusion model developed by L. F. Parsly.( ) The spray drop size data used in this model are based on drop size measurements performed by Westinghouse, which.have been previously reported in the PSAR. The effects of liquid phase resistance, . steam condensation, and drop coalescence are accounted for in the model. The input parameters for the spray evaluation t 4-71
~
1
-_-_-__--__--_-----____-----_-----_-_---_----.-_----_-------------_-----._---__---_-----.__----__------------d
I are based on realistic estimates of the expected (3 performance of the spray system. %/ The design leak rate is 0.1%/ day. Historically, the leak rate as measured in the Containment Leak' Rate Test has been less than the design value. In addition, with all the Engineered Safeguards operating, the pressure transient will be meie rapidly quenched than was considered in the PSAR. Leakage from the containment will take place primarily through the penetrations. Therefore, 50% of the leak-age going into'the penetration rooms is a conservative assumption. Penetration room filtration system, equipped with charcoal and HEPA filters, will establish a nega-() tive pressure throughout the penetration room boundary, will recirculate the air through the filters and dis-charge only a small portion of the flow to the environ-ment. Therefore, 99% filter efficiency for retaining the iodine and particulates, leaking from the contain-ment into the penetration room, is a conservative assump-tion.
- 3. Doses at Site Boundary and Total-Population Dose With the above. assumptions the thyroid dose and the whole body dose at the site boundary are 2.16 x 10 1 mrem and 7.9 x 10-1 mrem, respectively. The total population whole body dose is 2.85 man-rem.
(~ 's (1)L. F. Parsly, " Design Considerations of Reactor Containment Spray Systems,
\/ Part VII", ORNL-TM-2412, Part VII, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
4-72
4
- 2. Steam Line Break
/"N a. Description of Class 8 Event - Steam Line Break U A rupture of a steam line is assumed to include any accident which results in an uncontrolled steam release ' from a steam generator. The release can occur due to a break in the steam line or due to valve malfunction. The steam release results in an initial increase in steam ! t flow which decreases during the accident as the steam j pressure decreases. 1 The following systems limit the potential consequences of a steam line break: (1) Emergency core cooling actuation on ; Coincident pressurizer low pressure and low level [
~
signals. () High differential pressure between steam lines. High containment pressure signals. l High steam flow in any two steam lines in coin- { cidence with either low reactor coolant system ! average temperature or low pressure in the other j steam line. , (2) The overpower reactor trips (neutron flux and4T) and , the reactor trip occurring upon actuation of the ECCS. (3) Redundant isolation of the main feedwater lines. Sustained high feedwater flow would cause additional , cooldown, thus, in addition to the normal control .j action which will close the main feedwater valves, any i ECCS signal will rapidly close all feedwater control valves, trip the main feedwater pumps, and close the t^\ \- / 4-73
feedwater pump discharge valves. (4) Trip of the fast acting steam line stop valves - (designed to close within 5 seconds with no flow) on High steam flow in any two steam lines in coincidence with either low reactor coolant system average temperature or low pressure in the other steam line. High containment pressure signals. Each steam line has a fast closing stop valve and a check valve. These six valves prevent blowdown of more than one steam generator for any break location even if one valve fails to close. For example, for a break upstream of.the stop valve in one line, closure of either the check valve in that line or the stop valve in the other lines will pre-vent blowdown of the other steam generators. Flow restrictors are located in the steam generator nozzle and serve tn 'r s . t 0 the rate of release of steam through a break. If there are no steam generator tube leaks (Class 5), there would be no fission product release to the atmosphere from this accident. With tube leaks, a portion of the equilibrium fission product activity in the secondary system will be re-leased. In addition, some primary coolant with its entrained fission products will be transferred to the secondary system as the reactor is cooled down. The steam is dumped to the condenser, and the noble gases transferred from the primary system would be released through the air ejector. O 4-74
b.. Discussion of Remoteness of Possibility of a Steam Line Break Accident A steam line break is considered highly unlikely. The piping is a ductile material completely inspected prior. to installation. After installation, the entire system ; undergoes hot functional testing prior to fuel loading. , This pre-operational hydrotesting is conducted at 1.25 the design pressure and at a minimum water temperature of 70*F. This test is designed to locate any flaws that i may exist in the piping, fittings or valves. In addition to pre-operational tests to insure the steam i system integrity, during operation the water in the , i secondary side of the steam generators is held within chemistry specifications to control deposits and corrosion inside the steam generators and steam lines. A chemical [ I treatment is used to prevent the formation of free caustic which would cause this corrosion. The phenomena of stress- , corrosion cracking and corrosion fatigue are not generally encountered unless a specific combination of conditions (i.e. , combination of susceptible alloy, aggressive environ-ment, stress and time) is present. The steam system is designed to avoid any critical combination of these condi-tions. With this combination of conservative design, quality ; control and assurance, pre-operational testing, and control. over steam chemistry the potential for a steam line break is minimal. O 4-75 ;
k t
- c. Analysis and Evaluation of Stemn Line Break
() 1) Assumptions r (a) An equilibrium radioactivity in the secondary system of 0.2% equivalent fuel defects with a 20 gpd steam generator leakage, r (b) No additional fuel defects or additional releases ffom fuel occur due to the accident. (c) Primary to secondary leakage of 20 gpd occurs for 8 hours af ter the accident. ! (d) The break occurs outside the containment upstream
?
of the steam line stop valves. (e) The condenser (and thus off-site power) is available for steam dump after the faulted line is isolated.
- 2) Justification for Assumptions ;
() The fuci defect level and steam generator lea'k rate are i derived from operating experience with W PWR's. Fuel rods will not have a minimum DNBR (Departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio) of less than 1.3, and thus there is no clad damage. I i Eight hours is required for an orderly cooldown and depressurization of the primary system. Primary- j secondary coolant transfer occurs for this time period. .l Two faults (steam line break and loss of off-site power) are not expected to occur simultaneously. j
'I.
- 3) Doses at Site Boundary and Total Population Dose j i
With the above assumptions the thyroid dose and the whole j body dose at the site boundary are 5.7 x 10-4 mrem and 4.25 x 10~ mrem, respectively. The total population whole VO 4-76
-j l
i
'I
body dose is 1.52 x 10-4 man-rem.
- 3. Steam Generator Tube Rupture
- a. Description of Class 8 Event - Steam Generator Tube Rupture This accident consists of a complete single tube break in a steam generator. Since the reactor coolant pressure is greater than the steam generator shell side pressure, contaminated primary coolant is transferred into the secondary system. A portion of this radioactivity would be vented to the atmosphere through the condenser air ejector. The sequence of events following a tube rupture is as follows:
The operator will be notified within seconds by the air ejector vent monitor of a radioactivity release. Pressurizer water level will decrease for one to ( four minutes before an automatic low pressure reactor trip occurs. Seconds later, low pressurizer level will automatically complete the safety injection actuation signal. Automatic actions and cooldown procedures are as follows: Automatic boration by high head safety injection pumps. Restoration of discernible fluid level in the pressurizer by safety injection pump operation. Operator-controlled reduction of safety injection flow to permit the RCS pressure to decrease, minimizing the flow through the break to the secondary system. Operator-controlled. steam dumping to the condenser in order to: (1) reduce the reactor coolant tempera-ture; (2) maintain primary coolant subcooling equiva- ' lent to a suitable overpressure; (3) to minimize steam discharge from the affected steam generator. 4-77 l 1 l l l _y
Isolation of the affected steam generator will be achieved . ) i by: identifying the affected steam generator by observa-tion of rising liquid level and use of the liquid sample activity monitor. , t Closing the main steam stop valve connected to the af fected steam generator. Securing the auxiliary feedwater flow to that steam generator.
- b. Discussion of Remoteness of Possibility of Steam Generator Tube Rupture ;
The potential for rupture of a steam generator tube is con- ; sidered minimal. The steam generator tube is constructed out of a highly ductile material - inconel 600. Further, based ; on ultimate strength at design temperature, the calculated . l bursting pressure of a steam generator tube is As7000 psi, () compared to the maximum operating differential pressure the tube wall sees of about 1500 psi. The steam generator is hydrotested at 3107 psig on the primary side and zero psig on the secondary side. This margin applies to the longi- ! tudinal failure modes. An additional factor of two applies i to ultimate pressure strength in the axial direction tending to resist double-ended failure. 1 It is expected that rupture would be preceded by crackinc [ which failure would be induced by fretting, corrosion, erosion or fatigue. This type of failure is of such a nature , as to produce tell-tale leakage in substantial quantity while { i ample metal remains to prevent severance of the tube. The - .) 4-78 , j i e ? we i
l l activity in the secondary system is continuously monitor-ed via the air ejector discharge and periodic sampling, and (-]
%-)
continued unit operation is not permitted if the Icakage exceeds technical specification limits. As a result, any L l failure of this nature would be detected before the large l safety margin in pressure strength is lost and a rupture develops. Finally, in over 400,000 tube years for Westinghouse built steam generators, there have been no gross tube ruptures. This experience, combined with stringent quality control requirements in the construction of the generator tubes and constant monitoring of the secondary system renders the like-lihood of a steam generator tube rupture highly remote.
- c. Analysis and Evaluation of Steam Generator Tube Rupture O 1) Assumptions 1
The analysis of this accident is based on: l (a) Activity in primary coolant based on 0.2% equiva- I lent fuel defects. The accident will cause no additional fuel damage. ! (b) 125,000 pounds of primary coolant are carried over to the secondary side. (c) Initial activity in the secondary system based on a 20 gpd steam generator leak rate. (d) An iodine decontamination factor of 10[c m a in the steam generator. l i 4-79 t b
b (e) The faulty steam generator is isolated within fg 30 minutes. G1 (f) An iodine decontamination factor of 104jycc in the condenser. (g) Blowdown from all steam generators is terminated at , the start of the accident.
- 2) Justification for Assumptions The 0.2% defect level is based on average reactor ,
operating experience with W PWR Zircaloy fuel. No clad damage is anticipated as described in the PSAR.
- The steam generator leakage is based on plant operating experience with W PWR Inconel steam generators.
The 125,000 pounds of primary coolant carryover is based on the amount of time it takes for the primary system
?
pressure to come into equilibrium with the secondary side. f i The iodine partition factors in the steam generator and , condenser are based on the following reference: Styrikovich M. A. , Martynova 0. I. , Katkovska K. Ya., Dwbrovskii I. Ya., Smrinova I. N. " Transfer of Iodine from Aqueous Solutions to Saturated Vapor", Translated from Atomnaya Energiya, Vol. 17, No. 1, P. 45-49, July, 1964. The 30 minute steam generator isolation time is based on 1 estimates on the time it would take for the operators to identify the faulted steam generator from the instrumen-tation provided in the control room, and effect isolation. 4-80 i
i
- 3) Doses at Site Boundary and Total Population Dose
() With the above assumptions the thyroid dose and the whole body dose at the site boundary are 4.51 x 10-4 mrem and 9.08 x 10 -2 mrem, respectively. The total population whole body d ose is 3.27 x 10-1 man-rem. I
- 4. Rod Election Accident
- a. Description of Class 8 Event - Rod Ejection Accident The highly unlikely event of rupture of a control rod mechanism housing, creating a full system pressure differen-tial acting on the drive shaft, must be postulated for this accident to occur. The resultant reactor core thermal power excursion is limited by the Doppler reactivity effects of the ,
increased fuel temperature and terminated by a reactor trip actuated by a high neutron flux signal. The operation of a plant which uses chemical shim for reactivity l control is such that the severity of an ejection accident is , inherently limited. Normally there are only a few control rods in the core at full power. Proper positioning of these ! rods is monitored by a control room alarm system. There are f r low and low-low level insertion monitors with visual and ; audio signals. Operating instructions require boration at l low level alarm and emergency boration at the low-low alarm. . By utilizing the flexibility in the selection of control rod
-cluster groupings, radial locations, and axial positions as a function of load, the design minimizes the peak fuel end clad temperature for the worst ejected rod.
f'
%/
, 4-81
No clad melting occurs as a result of this accident, rg Activity in the primary coolant is released to the con- ! i
%./
tainment. There, sprays and plateout partially reduce the airborne fission product concentration. Fission products escaping to the external environment do so through minute leaks in the containment structure.
- b. Discussion of Remoteness of Possibility of a Rod Ejection Accident A failure of a control rod mechanism housing sufficient to allow a control rod to be rapidly ejected from the core is considered very remote. Each control rod drive mechanism housing is completely assembled and shop tested at pressures higher than normal operating pressures. On-site, the mechanism housings are individually hydrotested When instal-() led, at 3750 psi, which is considerably higher than the operating pressures and considerably higher than the power relief valve setting of 2335 psi and the safety valve setting of 2485 psi, and checked during the hydrotest of the completed Reactor Coolant System.
Stress levels for the mechanism are not affected by antici-pated system transients at power, or by the thermal movement of the coolant loops. The latch mechanism housing and rod travel housing are each a single length of forged type-304 stainless steel. This material exhibita excellent notch toughness at all temperatures that will be encountered. This significant margin of strength in the inelastic range together O] Q, 4-82 e
with the 'large energy absorption capability in the plastic l range gives additional assurance that gross failure of the r-)
\~J -
housing will not occur. 4 Finally, periodic inspections of the housings are made during the plant lifetime to insure against defects. ; Because of the conservative design, the number of pre-operational tests, the material of construction and the f periodic inspection program, the potential of a rod , ejection accident is considered minimal. ;
- c. Analysis and Evaluation of Rod Ejection Accident i
- 1) Assumptions !
The analysis for this accident is based on: (a) Activity in primary coolant due to 0.2% equiva-
.O lent fuel defects.
(b) No additional fuel damage as a result of the , accident. (c) All activity in the coolant prior to the accident is assumed to be released to the containment. l (d) The remaining assumptions are the same as for the i LOCA. ;
- 2) Justification for Assumptions The 0.2% equivalent fuel defects level is based on i
y PWR reactor operating experience with Zircaloy clad + fuel to date. i r i ~ 4-83 t
, Based on the estimated value of the ejected rod worth -s and beginning of life (i.e. , low feedback values),
g
\_/
approximately 2% of the fuel rods fall below a DNBR of i 1.3 and no rods fall below a DNBR of 1.1. It is there-fore concluded that no rods will suffer clad perforations during the transient.
- 3) Doses at Site Boundary and Total Population Dose i
With the above assumptions the thyroid dose and the whole
~
body dose at the site boundary are 2.31 x 10-3 mrem and 4.24 x 10-4 mrem, respectively. The total population whole body dose is 1.53 x 10-3 man-rem. .
- 5. Waste Gas Decay Tank Rupture l
- a. Description of Class 8 Event - Waste Gas Decay Tank Rupture The postulated accident is the gross structural failure of a Waste Gas Decay Tank.
The decay tanks contain the gases vented from the reactor coolant system and the volume control tank and the recycle evaporator. Sufficient volume is provided in these tanks to store the gases evolved during reactor operation. No release from this system is planned.
- b. Discussion of the Remoteness of Possibility of a Waste Gas Decay Tank Rupture ,
Most of the gas received by the waste disposal system during normal operation is cover gas displaced from the chemical
- and volume control system. The gaseous waste processing '
system is designed such that during normal operation a
/% O .)
4-84 r h
hydrogen recombiner will remove hydrogen from nitrogen-fission gas mixtures by oxidation to water vapor which is removed by condensation. This limits the amount of gas which is transferred to the gas decay tanks. At the beginning of life the gas decay tanks will operate under an initial pressure of 3 to 5 psig, compared to a design pressure of 150 psig. The maximum anticipated pres-sure in any gas decay tank is not expected to exceed 50 psig. The gas decay tanks are designed to Quality Class 3 and ASME Section VIII requirements. Because of the conservative design, extensive QA, the close monitoring and sampling throughout the system, and the fact that the system components are not subject to high pressure or stresses, an accidental release of waste gases is highly unlikely.
- c. Analysis and Evaluation of Waste Gas Decay Tank Rupture
- 1) Assumptions The analysis for this accident is based on:
(a) Operation with 0.27. equivalent fuel defects. (b) Noble gas release only. (c) The inventory of the tanks is based on the hydrogen recombiner flow rate from the volume control tank using daily cycling between the 6 gas decay tanks. /" 4-85 a
1
- 2) Justification for Assumptions The 0.2% equivalent fuel defect level is based on O' W PWR operating experience.with Zircaloy clad fuel to date.
Halogens remain in solution in the volume control tank. i
- 3) Doses at Site Boundary and Total Population Dose ,
With the above assumptions the whole body dose at r the site boundary is 3.84 x 10-1 mrem. The total population whole body dose is 1.38 man-rem.
- 6. Volume Control Tank Rupture
- a. Description of Class 8 Event'- Volume Control Tank Rupture
- The accident is the sudden and total structural failure of the volume control tank, releasing the contents to the
-( ) atmosphere. The volume control tank is in the Reactor I Coolant System letdown line and contains primary coolant. Its function is to regulate the primary coolant volume as the fluid expands and contracts with temperature changes.
- b. Discussion of Remoteness of Possibility of Volume Control !
Tank Rupture , The volume control tank is designed to Quality Class 2a r with an internal pressure of 75 psig. The normal internal f operating pressure is approximately 15 psig. Level alarms, pressure relief valves, and automatic tank isolation and valve control assure that safe conditions are maintained during system operation. Since the volume control tank O 4-86 .): 1 l I
l 1 is not subjected to high pressures or stresses and is designed to Quality Class 2a, structural failure of the tank is considered very remote. l l cs Analysis and Evaluation of Volume Control Tank Rupture
- 1) Assumptions This accident analysis is based on:
L (a) Plant operation with 0.2% equivalent fuel defects. 1
?
(b) Continuous purge rate from the tank to the Radwaste System of 0.7 scfm. (c) Noble gas release only. 1
- 2) Justification for Assumptions '
The 0.2% equivalent fuel defect level is based on W () PWR operating experience with Zircaloy clad fuel to date and design purge rate. The halogen concentration in the liquid is low and the iodine will primarily ! remain in the volume control tank.
- 3) Doses at Site Boundary and Total Population Dose With the above assumptions the whole body dose at the site boundary is 3.14 x 10-2 mrem. The total popula-tion whole body dose is 1.13 x 10
-1 man-rem.
I 9 4-87 ; r
X. TABLE OF DOSES FOR EACH CLASS /^\ V For each of the accident classes considered in this report an average site boundary thyroid and whole body dose were computed. The average whole body dose includes the beta skin dose contribution. In addition, the total dose to the total population within a 50 mile radius of the site was analyzed for each accident class using the meteorological and population data presented in Section II. These doses are presented in i Table X-1. The models used to compute the thyroid, whole body and population doses are presented below:
- 1) Thyroid Dose The average thyroid dose at the site boundary was computed
() using the equation: Thyroid Dose = X/Q S.B. x B x 1 At x DCF 1 where: A f = Activity release to the environment of isotope i DCF = Dose conversion factor of isotope i B = Average breathing rate of the average man
= Average annual X/Q at the site boundary (X/QS.B. as given in Section II.
n l l l O 4-88 i
O O 0: 1 TABLE X-1 SUbDLARY OF DOSES AND ENVIRONMENT EFFECT Site Boundary Dose i (mrem) Environmental Class Representative Event Vnole Body Thyroid Ef fec t (Man-Rem) , 2 Volume Control Tank Release 3.14 x 10-3 _ 1,13 x ig-2 3 Cas Decay Tank Release 3.84 x 10-2 - 1.38 x 10-1 4 Fuel Defects N.A. N.A. N.A. 5 Of f-Normal Operaticn 2.12 x 10-2 5.16 x 10-4 7.59 x 10 l 6 -Refueling Accident' 7.61 x 10-3 4.06 x 10-2 2.70 x 10-2 Inside Containment 7 Refueling Accident 5.57 x 10-2 2.03 7 10-1 2.00 x 10-1 Outs ide Containment 8 SAR Accidents I
- a. LOCA. 7.90 x 10-1 2.16 x 10
-0 2.85
- b. Steam Line Break 4.25 x 10-5 5.7 x'10 1.52 x 10-0 i
- c. Tube Rupture 9.08'x 10-2 4.51 x 10-4 1
- d. Rod Ejection 4.24 x 10-4 2.31 x 10-3 3.27 x 1.53 x 10- 10 3 e._ Gas Decay Tank Rupture. 3.84 x 10-1 -
1.38
- f. Volume Control Tank Rupture 3.14 x 10-2 _ 1,13 x to-1 7 i
l-e- _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ____/_m. . . _ _ . _ - _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ , . _ . _ - . . ... u._. ,.- , . _ . . . . ~ .
- 2) Whole Body Dose The average whole body dose, including the beta contribution, at the site boundary was computed using the equation for a semi finite spherical cloud as given by:
Whole Body Dose = 0.246 x (X/Q)S.B.* Ai*(Y + B} g i where: Ai = Activity released to the environment of isotope 1 Ey = Gamma energy of isotope i [ E = Beta energy of isotope i i B 1 (X/Q)S.B.
=
Average annual X/Q at the site boundary 5 as given in Section II i
- 3) Population Dose The total population dose was computed using the equation.
Population
= 0.246 Ag x (57 +E X_ P
~~
9r,6 where: A,Ef y and E- a same as g hen for & W ole B i i body dose model, and
= the X/R for a given sector (f) and X/Q r'6 distance (r) as given in Section II
=
Pr ,6 the population estimate for a given sector (6) and distance (r) as given in Section II. These radiation releases are monitored by the environmental f monitoring system which provides an assessment of-inadvertent' exposures. [ b
\
. d 4-89 ; i* i
XI. CONCLUSIONS O Based on the evaluations of the various postulated accidents an.1 occur-rences in Sections III through IX and the resultant radiological results as tabulated in Section X, it is concluded that the environmental impact from these accidents and occurrences are insignificant and inconsequential. In fact, the maximum man-rem realistica11y' established as. a result of any accident is well within the increment of exposure to the general public corresponding to variations in natural background. O O 4-90
4.10 Transportntion of Fuel The transportation of new fuel assemblies to the Farley Plant from a fabrication facility and the transportation of spent fuel assemblies from the Farley Plant to a reprocessing facility will be in accordance with Atomic Energy Commission and Department of Transportation regulations as well as any other applicable regulations in effect at the time. 4.10.1 Transportation of New Fuel The initial fuel loading for each of the two units will consist of 157 fuel assemblies. About 56 new assemblies are expected to be loaded every year into each of the units after they begin commercial operation. These fuel assemblies will have been fabricated at a fuel fabrication plant and shipped to the plant site shortly before they are required. It is anticipated that these shipments will be made by truck in containers similar to those shown in Figure 4-4 O Each of these containers can accom-modate two fuel assemblics o.;d six or seven containers would constitute a truckload. Thus, for each unit about twelve to fourteen shipments will be required for the initial loading with only about four or five shipments every year thereafter. 4.10.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel Approximately 56 spent fuel assemblics are expected to be discharged from each unit annaa11y and will remain at the plant for at Icatt three j I months while the short half-life isotopes decay. The fuel will then be transported to a reprocessing plant for the necessary reprocessing ser-vices. It is anticipated that these shipments will be made by rail in containers generally similar to the one shown in Figure 4-5. This con-tainer is shown arranged for shipping on a railroad flat car in Figure 4-6 , 4-91 aa l 1 N _ -
__ m as m z - m __: a-es aaa..swa .4 -w- 4. .-.m,_. -----a _ m.#_., l l
~~
5 '- , ;c , C; e, .
; ,:A i- I; r . ,
N
' V f C *'*% .
. cg.Q 1
- x "*
J - e
~ !9 d ty
' [N . g; .
gg; M
?? p pd%j '
3 ' T"""si ~ i n. ej m$3J g{.. 3 il -d_{' . f ~ ^ 1;p; ' l O g.j; . i . -4; p ,'c !! ' [, .. l , { ig
. :~ ;, ;: h i
1 4 JL R b
. ~~
^
AL AB AM A POWER COMPANY ENVIRONMENTAL T l O NEW FUEL ' SHIPPING CONTAINERS FIGURE 4-4 i
O: O O l VAlvg g0g ES STEgg sN _- s Ns fyg ' ' ' sg 4lVE 80x ACT pygg
/
g m
\x .
v, _T~& Lf f %gh[ll! \ R (i u $R W ,, p &_ M 5 [ vM f) l}};j ,
~ d9 ep a
p d
, $ h, h _N' hhhhffUb~'~~.~,ll'~~
\
o ,^~'" ' '" *'"'~ ArE ,,,, s,*"%~'%~ar co lm$!h,
~
e em IMegcr y,,, e ,
*
- g?$ ~ t c,,,,,,HEAO W 300 SpgNT
'" l gg EN G C A Sit .
oby
%. m.
"i em ve_ eq-w,-w gr erry-y-,-- g- ew we"rv w w y -errew -m -e w r twme e r -= w**--r-'uw*r--* -
--*+-*4 e-- - - e-r=+==v m' m--- *-+=+-<'-1r+e-=***-**~w'e+-~** ewe-er -e*+== 'rw- =~" - =-t--*- - * - w"mt=---ua '-5---2-- - - - - = - - - - = - - - - - - - ~ * -
'N .
' \\ > N5 p % Y\ 0i V ' y .
c!
\\ E Ei a
\\[/
V h $$ [ y \n 1s j g g zo - u); :::
' ?'b ~?V\
't i
\'$', }f a d$ & (
' \ L'Q E Dg g 3
\
<[\ \y#
\ ,,,,,
\ ',, YA i
g R \ 4 g Q\4'g I, [\' f ji ~ 4
; \ g a ;cf . s- .
g U;. \
~
L i g-. g t< g
/ - (( . \ d . \s $s E ?g i Nb k \s t \ !E g \ $ \ \\ . '; ' \
%' ,,m e m s y
a o
\ \ Eu-
. i g \ \ 1 6
i \\\ o
\ L\))) i e; s' T\ ishx
!e s 4 s
\\' s j
m s# i .
'% - \ [-
l's kh \ s,
\
'Cn ti .
g \, '
\
,,r
,j/ sg 2
. /' ,,s ,
{ \ \ s AL ABAM A POWER COMPANY ' > JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT [ ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT l SPENT FUEL SHIPPING CASK ! RAll TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION .j FIGURE 4 -6
- v e
.7 The flat car will carry no other cargo and there will be no intermediate handling of the container system between the Farley Plant and the repro-cessing plant. The container will be able to accommodate from about six- ;
to about sixteen fuel assemblies, depending upon its size. Thus, for'each unit the shipment of from four to ten containers will be required each year. The exact detai!s of the container designs, shipping procedures, , routings, etc., will depend upon the requirements of the suppliers' pro-viding the fabrication and reprocessing services. These items will al-ways comply with applicable regulations. The USAEC and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations specify both normal and accident conditions for which a package designer must evaluate any radioactive material packaging. These conditions are intended to assure that the package has requisite integrity to meet all . conditions which may be encountered during transport. The normal shipping [ conditions require that the package be able to withstand temperatures ranging from -40 F to 130 F and to withstand the normal vibrations, shocks and wetting that would be incident.to normal transport. In addition, the- [ packages are required to withstand specified accident conditions with the release of no radioactivity except for slightly contaminated coolant.and- , 3 1,000 curies of radioactive nobic gases. The accident conditions for which the package r!Mst be designed include, in sequence, a 30-foot free' , fall onto an essentially unyielding surface, followed by a 40-inch drop- . , onto a 6-inch diameter pin, followed by 30 minutes in a 1475 F fire,' fol-
-lowed by 8 hours immersion in 3 feet of water. A cask, identical to l those which will actually be used will be tested to determine that~these i required specifications will be met. The maximum permissible radiation 4-92 i
w - - - ~
l levels and releases under these accident conditions are shown in Table ; 4-17. These levels represent limits established by the regulations. In most cases, the containers will exhibit radiation levels and releases
?
less than those permitted by the regulations. This is because the fuels and materials which will be handled will not be-at the maximum activity levels for which the containers have been designed. Under normal shipping conditions, no release of any radioactive i materials will occur and under the very severe accident conditions postu-l lated, the only retcases expected are slightly contaminated coolant and l l noble gases. An accident may also result in a minor increase in radiation , levels associated with the reduction of shielding. f i Prior to shipment, the fuel will be retained at the plant for a ! minimum of 100 days with the result that essentially all noble gases with
-O the exception of Krypton-85 will be'gone and the iodine-131 will have de-cayed to a very low level. Further, the decay heat will have been re- ;
i duced to about 0.1 percent of the heat which-has been generated by the j fuel during reactor irradiation. This, coupled with the high melting ( j point of the fuel pellets assures that during a shipping cask accident, ; there is very little potential for any radioactivity other than-the noble j gases being released into the cask cavity. Mechanical properties of the. ! irradiated reactor fuel will act in a substantial way to mitigate the l consequences of an accident by tightly binding the? fission products with-in the basic fuct assembly.
. . . i There are several features which are typical of all shipping casks, !
I such as heavy stainless steel shells on the inside and outside,. separated I e 4-93
. ( J-
.{
f i
-1
-1 l
TABLE 4-17 l I CONTAINER DESIGN REQUIREMENTS NORMAL ACCIDENT-CONDITIONS CONDITIONS I
' EXTERNAL RADIATION LEVELS i l
Surface 200 MR/hr 3 ft. from surface 1000 MR/hr , 6 ft. from surface 10 MR/hr - PERMITTED RELEASES Noble Gases Eone 1000 C1' Contaminated Coolant None .01 Ci alpha, 0.5 Ci mixed fission products { 10 Ci Iodine ;
't Other 'None None CONIAMINATION LEVELS Seta and Gamma 2200 dpm/100 cm 2 Alpha 220 dpm/100 cm 2 D
I 5 I f
. ,- . . . , , . , . . . _ . -. ..- . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ . _ - _ - - - - . .
.1
'l tj by dense shielding material, such as depleted uranium. Additionally,.the cask has an. extended surface' area for dissipation of decay heat, and, will be equipped with an energy absorbing impact structure such as fins, ;
to absorb the energy in case of a fall, and to limit the f6rces imposed j
.i on.the cask and contents. The cask also will contain a basket which will )
be provided to support the fuel during transport. Additionally, for high j exposure fuel, provisions will be made for a hydrogenous material, such as water, to provide for absorption of the fast neutrons generated through l spontaneous fission and alpha-n reactions of the transuranium isotopes. l The principal normal environmental effect from these shipments will be the direct rodlation dose from the shipments as they move from the reactor to the processing plant. For the purpose of this calculation, .l l it has been assumed that the shipments will be made at the maximum per-
~
f mitted level of 10 mrem per hour at a distance of six feet from the nearest-I accessible surface. Based on this assumption, and assuming that the ! nearest person will be 100 feet from the centerline of the tracks, it is ! I estimated that the dose rate would be 0.2 mrem per hour. This would be reduced to 0.01 mrem per hour at a distance of 300 feet and beyond this distance the radiation exposure received would be negligible. [
-i A principal environmental effect from an accident would be whole i I
body radiation due to the increased radiation levels caused by the re-l lease of noble gases. Exposure to personnel could result from direct radiation. Because of the-dose attenuation effects with distance, it- . WR can be concluded.that the direct radiation dose effects to the general ; population will be negligible. Calculations indicate that because the f i decay heat'has been allowed to decrease substantia 17y prior to shipment, l
'?
O 4-94 i L.- . _ _ _ _ _ _ , - . - . - , .
-. . .- - . . . - ~ - . . - . , . . _,
i l. there.would be no release of the fission gases unless there is a. source of external heat, such as from a fire. However, even if this accident is evaluated in accordance with 10CFR71 criteria, which considers that 1000 Ci of gaseous activity is released to the environment, the population ex- r i posure should be negligible. A similar conclusion'may be reached regard- ! ing thyroid dose from iodine. l i 4.10.3 Conclusions It is currently expected that new fuel will be shipped by truck- . to the Joseph M. Farley Plant and that spent fuel will be shipped from i i the plant by rail. All shipments will be made in accordance with Atomic j t' Energy Commission (AEC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations as well as any other applicable regulations in effect at the time. As the result of having the alternates of barge, railroad and
. highway transportation from the plant, Alabama Power Company is in a position to select the mode of shipment for fuel that will have the least !
i risk of accident and minimal environmental impact when shipments are made,. Since nuclear fuel shipping technology is still developing, Alabama Power Company considers it important to have these alternates for fuel shipment.
.i.
1 i I i f t t I O- 4-95 f i l i
.. . . - . . -. - ~ . . . _ . . _ . .
i f Errata to-Part 4 l
~( Page 4-36, line 5 - Add "into the auxiliary building" af ter -l
" released". l l
Page 4-39, line 13 - Delete " automatically". j Page 4-63, line 6 - Delete " absolute" and replace with l "HEPA". j Page 4-78, line 22 - Delete " axial" and replace with "circumf erential". Page 4-85, line 14 - Delete " accidental". Page 4-83, line 14 - Add "due to a tank rupture" after " gases".
?
Table IK, following page 4 Add footnote, "N.A. - Not applicable - : no environmental effects. l i s () : I i i
.i i
i
?
I i
'i
i 5.0 Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided
-. {/g f"%
ss The following sections identify and discuss unavoidable adverse! _ ,, _ l enviranmental ef fects which saay occur as a result of the construction ; and operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant. These adverse effects are identified as being of only minor importance to the environ- [ ment of the area. 5.1 Environmental Effects Caused by Construction ; The construction activities at the Joseph M. Farley Plant site , will cause limited adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided but in most cases can be minimized by attention to desirable construc-tion practices. The following sections describe, generally, the , scheduled construction activities, their impact on the environment and efforts undertaken to eliminate or minimize the impact. l 5.1.1 General Plans and Schedule 'I The plant site area investigation began in 1967 with geologic field mapping, aerial reconnaissance, air photo interpretation and a review of pertinent geological and hydrological literature. This was followed with geologic borings, undisturbed sampling and core drilling, , geophysical surveys, piezometric observations, contour napping and sur- ! t veying. Additional or more detailed investigations were made as needed. s The general site grading began on September 28, 1970. On April j 12, 1971, Alabama Power Company received a waiver which permitted con-tinuation of construction. Since that time, 483 acres have been cleared, graded or excavated. Through September 30, 1971, 4,044,700 c.y. of ( earth and 49,700 c.y. of rock have been excavated, and approximately l 17,400 c.y. of concrete have been poured. j 1 5-1 i l I J c
1 i Construction of five miles of railroad, with a bridge crossing l
) Omussee Creek and a 23 foot diameter culvert for Rock Creek, have been ._
completed. All right-of-way slopes have been seeded and mulched. This railroad connects the jobsite to the Central of Georgia Railroad at , Columbia, Alabama. Construction of railroad yard tracks on the plant j site is in progress. A 12 KV primary loop electric transmission line for consttuction I power has been completed. A well-water system to supply water during ! i construction has been installed with a total pumping capacity of 450 gpm l from three wells. Fire protection pump house and storage tanks have [ t been erected. The sewage disposal facilities to accommodate construc- l tion personnel requirements have been completed and are operational. j Construction office, warehouse and shop facilities have been completed and are in use. A microwave-meteorological tower has been erected and [ k) is in service with meteorological recording instruments installed and ; i functioning. Paving of permanent and temporary entrance roads was begun ! i t on June 8, 1971. j i, A general schedule for construction of the Joseph M. Farley ! 1 Nucicar Plant is shown in Figure 5-1. i f 5.1.2 Measures Taken to Minimize Impact ; A series of catch basins and storm sewers are being installed on i the site as roads and other facilities are being built. The slopes along entrance roads have been grassed, and grassing is continuing in other areas where possible and practicable. This procedure of land , stabilization will be continued throughout construction and into the i final landscaping of the plant area. j i .O 52 ; r
l l I l l p' .
+
- us
- i j
i l JOSEPD* FARLEY NUCLILR PL ANT Fe i 4 ll'1. _.__a-._ p_ [m . -
. ! ir . FIELINNA RV,. CCRSTRt;CTIM l-I
. --.a, 7-iCHEDULE
;777 7g ;
a . g 4- j, _ , f3 g 'IQ I !!.$ I!
'!.I L.l'
. !. , + 1. i .I
- .,4t,Jf,7 l l' ' l%3 7. . , ',4 a !!'!. ,!"
,i, s : LJ
= .
1 Prepare F3A.t W4f Mstrt4t.iat
+
. 4 i;a4 . :
g t
- - - - ..p 4
,kg, yo l,'{ {. l .
,em
..'l Per11t Ag!!ca[lon.ArH FSAR~
, ., 4 i i 7ll1'. . ! 2' 4 L'_ : 4 ; a4
- ? -fttgWerity gr+t -----
{j!I *! , ~*7 i
't"
. , . ,I f b, ! ^ i {i ' , ' '
*Ti?fE ' 1if{I Iii -}'1'i l 7.!i* I4 i j
I' L-4 i Lk
,, e 3 AEC} Review ornath 4 t!%a $1oriPes:
AgDteggy-tPtratfrg_Ii.tM t It'J i ;
'3 f
' 3
' J! ji'**MMMungneusemM ;1J 7" lj L *
- i ~ I;1iIl L 1; IiF' l
~ 6i T TI'
- t'
^
l-4*** " . 5~ Tarp %*crh !;;; j : U ; ; i ... ; j '" L i f;_, 7 j . . l r. ,4 - 3EmummmmmmmmuumEEmut ___._._ Q "* * ]" : es' 6 .I lite F deaHtlen khd E:caera:!co I ;.ilt,j d IJl' Li ! 2!4t1 enemanut iiii ,y* ;*
* ' ' . jI p 2 44; ',+4!M '
,j .9M* -
tI? 2{9. :
~R UpCirculgrer~;m3 tamtryIpt gay sty $dtLge r . . , ;4i,, ;+' *M
!I li 4
. ., monummmmet .;g.. . *T, . . ~
** :Tooeri. li4
. .: 4%
-j *' T Emnet ' .O - IQ ;iTi!
- m. .A_L~.hads ptir)i,an!$usM-.111' ' ' ' Trat drl $# stems & rv41ihj . i' ' ]"a7i 77 i
4Eatk ' ' N 'i' ' 10 Rut)dirg Wt p ,IJ ,l:1-, g**2 - ; ; ;^ ; ; r --- . : t' 1{ ! j ; i,, t7 : ' .t
- r '.'. ? n ;
- iJ 11 1 \ _Ctatad$mert h$stk6dtu(e ! , . ! . i i ! - '.l.. !IiI iT;i +1 ' {i l!TL
' s
- 17 +- 7 L if supsta #t+ T . . ' W t M r*- W -"4.3'-
- N) n, tT:
+z tr 11 manyt I m i m ummmmmuma nummmmmmme rM;-" [. r um -- -
Tt i ~~' I Il I It n 14___'
- ds. Aum11 % ! LM LContafumerit Musene Li44r:9 d
- 4 ~ ~ ' !Iiliii* : 4.; : '4 *'
l' Tl 4 d.ll! '
- 2. i' ii '
' t "l
- 15 Tur birur Bld , $4 A % 'ersteuriure !- i
-~ se 14 ' -l Diesel tut t$1tg ; ; , ; , , ; ' , !! i! ,iIi i .; , *rt{! ,! ! ;, ,
;;;!: *IIi , i magnum .1 ' i-! 1 !!
"?I! .! I' !!IiI 14,j"j T{~~'
5 I : IT 7IaLITqdIpstitT '
- it- T#+~ ~
18 'Reacte - Ws sd iit .4 i! l Tj fi~' . T + 7~'i j3;! , Ii! T}it? {'"T 7-" { i;f i
. 4 . '~-I T'd Jj 1fI'
^Y' ' ' ' -
T a m-~um.,nu. m.%w- - -- 4 J
,j 4 m.:- -[i s'
=me--mm-ma
=
20 '- Stumidnerat'e i; i} - 21_: _ .. PressrIrcir t nIs;l;.1, ~;,'i U,
.I T
. '[' , llI
* ' ' ; j.
r Ii j : k' ! .! ' IIe
'-}I fH }" ' Il ' J lII'I
!;:1 i
*-+7- 7-* i ~ "--
. . .s .i! .L l E}.
t y --~ frimar: 2P Cheinir i' L ter:frhe Cartgr di $nthi ! ni-7t
!djk-- - " F:'!
W .r b "..' ~'~ Q t TT t ~- 4 b Vd ,;
,, 24 Cyngg;1er.l.D&11rt '$'hk3_sdrm 4 ' '
, t!
:I.
t E l' **t'
't' Iil 1 h{ '
7ptQ} ij{ f 23 . Residud ! He Wst ed a ;-;I
. : w 24 Emawas a s,at! stum $amewar ;t..
4 I
?il' .,
!.p; i oU
,;I ; i summe ! 11,1 i!
' .!!!!~~
2F-- "NfpCT'CIFUC67.dfok SNima - * ' ~ ~ ~
~ i T ^* & 1 ~
^ T'S 4 :I ; t-~ .
- I: 13 ai l11 ~
- Il !ii 2s '
UN' ft4 ;[ rreen nst;ral : t i t : ' : , Nl { '-',
- - +
, 29 30 Fire tw.ttsupdystesq
.Insu up mrtt.1% G441t rt ( ; ,
- 4)
*'~!((: ijj
;' ,,:2
- i;i1.
i;T!;I 1;; .
'ijjI il l '
31'
"+".{
instruthUt1CS !G4ff-L altar)! 'i'i t'I;; !Tili: . ? '.; " ';jTE 4 I 710 -k.11 li . 2 . 32 . ag(+s .: , t { 4 *T7'
- 2
. l GMan(YttrE'7MTIGy 7t? -"~- ' Wi ^ i b' ' II --' CMD.N*, E-t it I5fi '
- . . ~
M: Turttiti tt ] WWWmumE TT O-" T ^ ~~ - c Olariq. ; !! Ijji a- .m w'$qrtLTt 6 $.10 >
~. _?, j f 1. { ' ' ' i. 2 { { 21_'.-
Eiif Il l ' Iij}} 35 _ .. ; riesapewaths n
>1 w mum.m m m m. 2 2 : - u 36 ; tightt$g kg tti;ngi rett ji * '
t I -. : i ?!:1t
,,! , ! I i!j.
.i, ', :
.1: ri d :1tT1 21' mummusul t u3.'
!. j!!!l 37'~ ] Tarete 2+ "-
- W *1 M ~'i T ' t! }}
Wire a vi ut*Th T u,,; ..
~ ~ - - t 38 , CatcL *
!' i' ;. 'i! ! ! ^;
,,M T
' 4110 L Altdtm{ t ' ' , ** ~ Tl **{2 "r
e_ o n 19 so : Ntcr <cmt rul: qst er s: 1 ! 11 i ' L_' -{ i
! ! J l {[
se
$p ;: i. .'i?, . i , +Jp !! : 1 4
-g 41
- Main Ti ansfoudr* * . - I L!.I . iI!
m vr >l.
~[7 llC7 l: .
42
. .< .- I! LI - I I . .
2 ' Start-# & ,43ti;taryT1Aht feYbr 5 7--" ~ ~ -' iJ T7 ~~'T. ~ ~ , ,t( 2 Z> 43 ! FwitcFystd d
~'-- i ~ ~ - WME 7 "T T *'- ' ~
' : ' iqji 1 ', ,*;- f ,p; .
'. t}!
n
< $Ef m' g u 44_;Tt?EClitLca] 1La 45 Reactor Fuel Leadig j l ;
"I ii
_---,aL. i T 1 1 2 '11
-~ ee 3
e o Oyp 2 46 _ Pos t.-Critica
*!Ii1 ,.-,i :
ljijj m i 4 lM umWHul
- 1 Test tita. ~.._...t,s-.e._
_ !lIi
.! } T i ' .... 4~-
. ! i '. L , ,a y_%-.. - + - - - _.--.
-4:6 ..+
7 .
= 0 f N 3 "m y o, O
m m., z i '- '
' ,. t ' ':i.' 11' '
. , . t' .
i -
- : 1 : ' 5.
_ _.'_Lii ..mm l ff 4 5 h k. h n
-e Fmon c" n n .-. l n- l ***L 5
a 70 - a nJL nm n 74 J 1 I t* 7 3 ( n 75 2 E opy m 22> n *4 m2 I m r4 O C 2 r "4 m
- , , ~ - - . . . . , , _ _- . . . -
Unpaved temporary roads are being watered as needed and most heavily traveled temporary roads are being paved. During construction, the control of sanitary wastes will be accomplished by three different means. These are: a sewage treatment system, septic tanks and portable chemical toilets (see Section 3.5.2). The sewage treatment system is an " activator" system manufac-tured by Pollution Control, Inc. It is designed to accommodate 600 people per day. This system utilizes oxygen mixing and detention time followed by chlorination of the effluent. I Sanitary facilities connected to two 1500 gallon septic tanks with field lines are located near the fabrication shop area. This sys-tem is designed to accommodate 100 people per day. Portable chemical j toilets are supplied and maintained by a licensed commercial agency. The number and location of these depend upon their need. As permanent facilities are completed, or as soon as practicable, j the surrounding areas have been or will be provided with erosion con-l l trol and grassing. Alabama Power Company intends to landscape the access roads and plant area. The remainder of the site will be permitted to remain or ! return to a near-natural condition in accordance with good wildlife management practices. This program is under consideration and may in-clude planting cover and perennial feed crops in some presently cleared l areas and planting of selected species of' trees. 5.1.3 Impact on Water Supplies No construction activity is known to have an impact on water supplies in the area. Drainage of the construction area is maintained 5-3
l and erosion control is practiced as thoroughly as practicable. Bridg-(, (-)m ing of Omussee Creek and diversion of Rock Creek through a 23' diameter culvert was accoinplished without the damming of eithe; creek and with a ! minimum of excavation erosion into the creeks. [ i The areas of influence of the water supply wells are entirely within the site and the aquifers that supply the wells have tremendous capabilities for supplying water far in excess of the amount used. l Construction of the facilities in or near the Chattahoochee River should have little or no effect on the flow or water quality. 5.1.4 Impact of Work on the Chattahoochee River Only three facilities will be on the bank of, in, or be physi-cally associated with the Chattahoochee River. These are the intake and { discharge structures and the barge unloading facility. The discharge pipe and diffusion box will be under water on the west side of the river. See Figure 2-5. The intak.e structure will be on the west bank and connected to the river by a 200 foot long channel. See Figure 2-4. It is not anticipated that any earth fill will be placed in the : river. Any material removed from the river or river bank will be placed i
+
on the west bank of the river and left in such a manner as not to be obtrusive. The work on these three facilities should have little or no effect on navigation, fish, wildlife, water quality, water supply, or recrea-tional use of the river. Neither the work nor the facilities should re-I sult in noticeable restrictions in river flow and could not be respon-5-4 !
i I I-i I sible for any potential flood damages. i i I O . i i r 1 I I I
- 1. Scott, J. C., J. F. McCain, and J. R. Avrett, Water Availability j in Houston County, Alabama, Geological Survey of Alabama, 1967. l 5-5 l
l I i i
t t i 5.2 Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided During
'{
Operations I The operation of any large facility will inevitably result in certain changes in the environment, some of which may be to some extent adverse to the natural ecosystem in the area. Although every effort , has been made in the planning of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant to I eliminate or minimize any adverse environmental effects, some of the changes produced may prove harmful to some aspects of the environment. -i Possibic adverse effects will be discussed under the following headings: A. Air and water pollution B. Land use C. Meteorology r 5.2.1 Effects on Air and Water Quality The use of closed-cycle mechanical draft cooling towers will . O virtually eliminate any thermal effects on the Chattahoochee River. As discussed in Section 3.3.3.1 of this report, the use of these_ towers is .l based on a design wet-bulb temperature of 78 F and an approach o'f 11 F, l which indicates that the temperature of the blowdown will not generally ' exceed 89 F and will usually be consid.erably less than this temperature. ; Figure 2-15, based on records at nearby Dothan, Alabama, shows average f hourly dry bulb, wet bulb, and dew point temperatures which were recorded ! during the 12-year period, 1940-1952. Cooling towers accomplish their purpose mainly through the mecha-nism of evaporation. Evaporation and drift from the cooling towers must l be replaced by water withdrawn from the river, and must be regarded as .I a consumptive water loss. This loss, from two units, is estimated to be 5-6 1
+
f approximately 27,940 gpm (62 cfs). The amount of consumptive loss is () not considered to be of great importance at the site because it repre- . l sents only about 5 percent of the lowest daily flow recorded on the river in its present regime and only 0.5 percent of the average annual flow. It does represent, however, an unavoidable adverse environmental effect. The blowdown from the cooling towers serves to prevent excessive ; build-up of solids in the closed-cycle system. The blowdown design is based on the concept of a concentration factor of 1.64, which will re-sult in an average dissolved solids concentration in the blowdown of , 103 ppm. Though not considered important in this case, the build-up L of the concentration of dissolved solids is an unavoidable adverse en-vironmental effect. Makeup water for the plant's reactor and turbine-generator systems will be purified by passage through regenerative demineralizer resins. Sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid will be used to regenerate these resin beds. These small quantities of regeneration solution will be neutra-lized and diluted and then released to the river under controlled con-ditions. Though not considered harmful, the addition of these chemicals must be considered, to some small degree, an unavoidable adverse environ-mental effect. l The regime of Chattahoochee River has been modified in the interest of navigation by construction of locks and dams both upstream and down- ! stream. Columbia Lock and Dam, located approximately 3 miles upstream, was completed in 1963, and Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam, located approxi- ; mately 43 miles downstream, was completed in 1957. In addition, a navi-gation channel in the river is maintained by the Corps of Engineers () 5-7 l
i l i 1 through the use of dredging. The construction and operation of the ; A (,,). Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant will not affect this use of the river. The river structures which are being built in connection with the plant l include an intake, discharge and barge unloading facility which are , discussed elsewhere in the report. Since the river has undergone earlier improvements, the construction of the relatively small plant ! j facilities will produce no important adverse environmental effect. One of the principal advantages of the use of Nuclear plants to i produce electric energy is the virtual elimination of air pollution problems which may arise when alternate fuels are employed. The normal operation of the Joseph M. Farley Plant will produce no smoke. There will be five diesel engines installed to drive generators to furnish emergency power for certain equipment in the plant. These diesel units will be operated and tested on a regular but short-term basis to assure O k/ their dependability in the event they are needed. Also, a small oil fueled boiler will be installed and used on a short-term, intermittent basis for plant start-up. Although the exhaust from both the diesels and the boiler will be vented to the atmosphere, the resulting emissions will have a negligible, though unavoidable adverse effect on air quality in the area. 5.2.2 Effects on Land Use The plant will employ approximately 95 people on a permanent basis after it is completed and in operation. The employment of these people will bring economic benefits to the area,with very little important in-crease in traffic congestion in the relatively sparsely inhabited portion of houston County in which the plant is being built. Although some land 5-8
I-is being removed from agricultural use and there will be losses of tim-() ber and vegetation resulting from clearing for the plant, its associated transmission lines, roads and railroad, these unavoidable losses are not-considered of major importance in the region. In Houston County alone, there are over 150,000 acres in cropland and about 200,000 acres in pas-ture, woodland and forest, and adjacent counties have large acreages de-voted to these uses.' 5.2.3 Effects on Local Meteorology In evaluating the adverse environmental effects of the Joseph M. Farlay Nuclear Plant, consideration must be directed to possible local fogging which may result from the operation of the plant's cooling towers. - The plant is located in an area of moderate fogging potential, due to prevailing humidity and temperature conditions. (See Section 2.4.6) There is insufficient experience in the southeast United States (7
\/ with cooling towers of the size and type to be 'mployed e at the Farley Plant site to draw dependable conclusions about the fogging which may result under certain meteorological conditions. There are, however, no important highways in the immediate vicinity of the plant site, and the relatively warm winter temperatures which prevail in the area will ensure minimal problems with icing. For these reasons, there is no serious con-cern warranted about the potential fogging problem. To the extent that it does occur, however, fogging must be regarded as an adverse environ-mental effect which cannot be avoided, and it is considered to be much less detrimental to the environment than would be the thermal effects in the river, were the cooling towers not installed. Mais judgment cannot be quantified but is based on the best information available and on appli-cable water quality standards in the Chattahoochee River.
5-9
6.0 Alternatives . Many alternatives have been' considered in connection with the - O- location, design and construction of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant ! and its associated facilities. These alternatives have been discussed , l throughout the Supplemental Environmental Report where the particular aspects of the plant were described and evaluated. The following pages contain a summary and evaluation of the identi- , fiable alternatives which were available in plant location, design and , construction in which environmental considerations were involved, i A. Alternatives to Providing Electric Power Alabama Power is under the jurisdiction of the Alabama j Public Service Commission and has a legal obligation to provide adequate and reliable electric power in its service area. Also, there is, in Section 202 of the Federal Power (~ Act, a statement by the Congress of the United States that V} assurance of adequate supplies of electric power is a national goal. There fore , the alternative to providing adequate power, which would be not providing it, is neither feasible nor legal. Alabama Power Company is initiating means for ful- , I filling the demand for electric power expected in future years, and construction of the Joseph M. Farley Plant is ! t of utmost importance to the Company in its plans for meet-ing its obligations. The rate structure which Alabama Power Company uses as the basis for charges to its customers for electric power ! must be approved by the Alabama Public Service Commission. 6-1 l
l i The- Commission, in fulfilling its obligations to the citizens i of Alabama, requires that these rates be as low as possible t tO' consistent with providing dependable electric service and f l also an adequate rate of return to the company to justify I i its investment in an electric system. It is, therefore, ., t incumbent upon the company to make every effort in providing
+
electric power to choose economic alternatives consistent with all facets of the public interest, including reliability ! and protection of the natural environment. i B. Alternatives to Location of the Plant The alternative to locating the Joseph M. Farley Plant in Southeast Alabama was the location of a large generating plant in another part of the state. The alternative of bringing , i power into the area by transmission lines from distant loca- r () tions would have resulted in higher losses of power along the transmission lines and a lesser degree of reliability. F Since generating plants in any area require approximately the same amount of land, it follows that location of generating l plents throughout a service area in proximity to electrical I load centers results in minimum need for transmission lines, l i maximum reliability and has the least potential for adverse , environmental impact. Alabama Power Company, by locating the i Joseph M. Farley Plant in southeast Alabama, had achieved these objectives, and no important adverse environmental effects have been identified which would indicate that [ generating capacity should be located elsewhere in Alabama. 6-2 L I a
C. Alternatives to Selection of Site The chief considerations which entered into the selection s of potential plant sites were, (1) location on a navigable river to provide water for a cooling system and to provide barge transportation for heavy equipment and fossil fuel if necessary, (2) a large site area available for exclusion
}
purposes or for storage of fossil fuel and flyash disposal, (3) location in an area of low population density, (4) satis- l factory foundation conditions, and (5) compliance with AEC requirements for geological and hydrological factors. A careful search was made in southeast Alabama to find a site , that would fulfill all of the above requirements for either a fossil fueled or a nuclear fueled plant. Numerous sites were considered and rejected for various () reasons during the course of the area investigation. The site selected is outstanding and meets the AEC requirements in every respect. No other site investigated had charac-teristics as favorable for filling the needs of a nuclear fueled plant. D. Alternatives to Type of Generating Plant Load studies which the company had undertaken to forecast ! future needs indicated the need for additional generating capacity to meet both base load and peak requirements. Com-bustion turbines, because of relatively low capital cost, but high fuel cost, and hydroelectric plants, because of the characteristics of stream flows in Alabama, are best suited for peaking purposes. Additional peaking capacity will be (~S I 6-3 i 1 l i
l I provided by hydroelectric generating plants to be located c elsewhere in Alabama, subject to approval of the Federal 1 Power Commission. Steam electric plants are best suited ; I for base load operation. { In order to meet the need for additional base load generating capacity, the alternative was narrowed to a l l choice between a fossil fueled and nuclear fueled generat- l ing plant in southeast' Alabama. Gas'and oil were eliminated because of relatively higher costs, and in the case of gas, i its unavailability. The selection of a nuclear plant was made on the basis of j a comparison of the long range costs of constructing and operating coal fueled and nuclear fueled plants. On the basis of the best estimates available at the time this decision was made, a nuclear plant was found to have clear, long range economic advantages. This decision was made in 1968 prior to the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act, but in retrospect, it. appears that the decision to construct a nuclear plant in southeast Alabama provides important environmental advantages. These advantages are demonstrated by the elimination of - emission of substantial quantities of pollutants to the atmos-phere which would occur from a coal fueled plant, and other environmental considerations relating to land use, aesthetics, transportation and noise. Since the decision to construct a nuclear plant in south-east Alabama was made, the cost of nuclear construction has O 6-4
risen sharply due in part to changes in regulations and jg the addition to equipment related to safety and environ-k) mental protection. There has been a sharp increase, however, in the price of coal, which offsets the rise in the cost of constructing a nuclear plant, and the decision to construct the nuclear plant still has a solid economic justification. E. Alternatives to Various Plant Facilities There were several alternatives to the transmission line facilities which will be constructed in connection with the Joseph M. Farlev Nuclear Plant. One theoretical alternative to the constraction of the transmission line system was the use of underground transmission, The use of underground trans-mission to deliver the amount of power to be produced at the Farley Plant is not considered technically feasible at this () tir.e or economically justifiable. Transmission of large blocks of power at 230,000 volts underground is estimated to ! cost in the range of 10 to 40 times more th an use of the conventional overhead-type construction. The average cost per mile for the overhead 230,000 volt transmission lines associated with this project will be approximately $75,000 per mile. Since the two 230,000 volt lines required at the Pinckard Substation will be a total of 60 miles long, the premium for underground construction, if it were tecinically possible, would be at least 40.5 million dollars. A decision was, therefore, made to construct over-head transmission lines because no benefit could be determined which would justify the large cost associated with underground o L) 6-5 i
transmission. The transmission line routes selected between the Farley Plant and Pinckard Substation are based on studies which were ; begun early in 1970, using aerial maps and other geographical data. The routes selected were judged superior to alternate . routes considered because, (1) they traverse agricultural ! I land and will not greatly affect land use, (2) they traverse t relatively sparsely inhabited areas and are not generally close to urban areas, (3) they are essentially straight line routes and therefore, involve use of a minimal amount of land. One of ; the alternate routes was rejected in part because of its proxi-mity to the Dothan airport (Napier Field). The route for the 500,000 volt transmission line which will connect the Farley Plant to Montgomery has not yet been deter-mined, but route selection will be based on criteria which were used in selecting the 230,000 volt lines. A route entailing l the least environmental impact consistant with reasonable . economic considerations will be selected. ! I F. Alternative Transportation Methods I
%e Joseph M. Farley Plant site was originally evaluated ,
i for either nuclear fueled or fossil fueled units. Consequent-ly, it was considered essential for this site to have easy access to transportation facilities capable of handling heavy . shipments and large guantities of fossil fuel, if necessary. I The site selectr.d provides the alternative of using the Chattahoochee River for barge transportation of the reactors and other heavy plant equipment items. Use of barges to ; J 6-6 I
f transport this equipment has been selected, not only for economic reasons, but also because overland transportation of these items-would require extensive rebuilding or strengthening of numerous highway or railroad bridges. This - work and shipment of the equipment over land would be dis-ruptive to the normal flow of transportation and wouls create more environmental impact than will barge transpor-tation. Access to railroad transportation will provide a desirable , alternative for shipping construction materials to the plant site and for shipping spent fuel after the plant is in opera-tion. The construction and use of the five-mile-long railroad which connects the plant to the Central of Georgia Railroad at , Columbia, Alabama is not essentis1 to either the plant's construc- ; () tion or operation but is desirable for two major reasons. Construction of the plant can be accomplished with less cost by building and using the railroad for transportation of heavy construction equipment and bu?.a materials which will remove a considerable amount of heavy truck traffic from Highway 95. Also, it provides the desirable alternative of enabling ship- , ment of radioactive spent fuel from the plant to be made in special railroad cars rather than by truck. . There were three alternative railroad route considered before the route northward to the Central of Georgia Railroad was selected. One alternate route would have connected the plant with the Seaboard Coast line Railroad southwest of Gordon, Alabama. This route was not chosen because it was longer than 6-7
the route to the Central of Georgia Railroad and involved more difficult and costly stream crossings. The second alternative involved connecting the plant site with the Chattahoochee Valley Industrial Railroad which runs I along the east side of the Chattahoochee River in Georgia. l This route would have involved construction of a bridge over the Chattahoochee River which would have been expensive because of the necessity of providing vertical clearance for l l barge traffic. Other further disadvantages involved the necessity of building long bridge abutments and their potential for affecting hydraulic characteristics of the river during periods of high flow. It was apparent that the route selected, shich connects the-plant site to the Central of Georgia Railroad at Columbia, () Alabama, of fered clear advantages over the other alternatives since it was shorter, involved less expensive bridges and was judged to have the least environmental impact on the area. G. Water Storage Ponds There was only one feasible alternative to the construction of a cooling pond to supply a sufficient quantity of cooling water to accommodate plant operational and emergency require-ments. This alternative involved using well-water. It was rejected because of the difficulty or impossibility of develop-ing a dependable well-water system which would meet the stringent requirements of the Atomic Energy Commission. Alternative locations for the cooling water pond were con-sidered. The most promising were either the impoundment of O v 6-8 i
Rock Creek or the excavation of a deep basin on the river bank in the flood plain. The impoundment of Rock Creek {) was rejected because it would have flooded Highway.95 and produced other undesirable ef fects by the flooding of a larger area both on and off the site. The excavation of a basin into the flood plain was not selected because of un-desirable effects in the eve.it of a flood and the diffi-culties resulting from permeability and instability of the alluvial materials in the flood plain. The location select-l 1 l ed was the most desirable because it presented the least environmental impact on the area and presented the fewest apparent problems related to construction and land use. A portion of the area selected was previously used as a farm pond and will continue to be a desirable source of water () for wildlife in the area. H. Heat Dissipation Evaporative cooling towers have been chosen as the best method available for protecting the waters of the Chattahoochee River from adverse thermal effects which might otherwise result from plant operation. There were four basic alternatives con-sidered for handling the condenser cooling water. In addition to the evaporative cooling tower method selected, a once-through cooling system could have been employed, shereby water from the Chattahoochee River would have passed through the condensers and returned to the river at a higher temperature. A third method would have been the use of either a closed or open cycle cooling pond, with the warm water from the condensers 6-9
i passing into the pond, being cooled by evaporation, con-( vection and radiation, and then either being reused for condenser cooling or discharged at a lower temperature to the river. A fourth possibility would have been the use j l of " dry" cooling towers which would have utilized air to : cool the condenser cooling water in heat exchangers. r Studies showed conclusively that the once-through method j would have periodically caused water temperature in the i Chattahoochee River to become higher than is allowed by ; applicable water quality standards. A closed-cycle cool- l ing pond system would have involved dedication of over 3,000 acres for the cooling pond for Unit No. 1 alone. This method was rejected because of problems resulting from terrain, road relocation and land availability and usage, and other considerations which made construction of such a cooling pond impractical. An "open-type" cooling pond was considered, but it was determined that more than 2,000 acres would have been necessary to provide adequate cooling water for Unit No. I alone. This method also was considered impractical for essentially the same reasons as the closed-type cooling pond. The other alternative, use of dry-type cooling towers, has not been found technically feasible for , r generating plants of the size of the Farley Nuclear Plant and was, therefore, rejected. On the basis of these considerations, the evaporative cooling tower method of providing condenser cooling water > (')
\s_/
was selected as the best alternative. The mechanical-draf t 6-10 i i
evaporative cooling towers were selected in preference n k,) to the natural draft type because of economic considera-tions resulting from their suitability for use under meteorological conditions in the area. The use of these towers will protect water quality of the Chattahoochee River, require minimum land use, and have minimal impact on the environment. As an alternative to the cooling tower system selected, it would be possible to add a cooling tower to the blow-down to obtain further cooling of the water being discharged to the Chattahoochee River. The addition of such a tower was not considered necessary, however, because with the design approach of ll*F. and the wet bulb temperatures which have been recorded in the Dothan area, the temperature of A
' the discharge is expected to approach closely the water temperatures which have been recorded in the Chattahoochee River. Because the volume of water being discharge is small in relation to the flow in the river (less than 5% of minimum average daily flow), any small dif ference in temperature which may occur from time to time between the blowdown and the river will have very little effect on river temperature.
I. Alternative Chemical Discharges The alternatives available relating to chemical discharges from the Joseph M. Farley Plant involve the selection of a method for keeping the cooling tower-condenser system free
~
of water-borne and air-borne microorganisms. The use of chlorine has been selected as the most desirable alternative, s 6-11
Use of alternate oxidizing chemicals, such as hypo-() chlorites, was rejected because they provided no advan-
, tages to justify their higher cost.
5 Other alternatives involved use of non-oxidizing chemicals such as chromates, copper salts and other similar chemical j compounds. Use of these materials was not considered an acceptable alternative because of their toxicity which renders them unsuitable for use in a large cooling tower system, such as that of the Joseph M. Farley Plant. The use of mechanical methods of controlling biological growths will not eliminate the need for chemical control in parts of the system and will not affect concentration of the ' chemicals in the blowdown. J. Alternatives to Fish Screen Design - Two alternative designs were considered for the intake of the Joseph M. Farley Plant. The first design would have re-sulted in flow velocities across the screen of up to 1.5 fps, but it was rejected and a second alternate design was select-ed which will result in maximum velocities of approximately 1.0 fps across the screen and 0.3 fps in the canal. The design selected will result in an additional cost for the intake of about $100,000, but the benefits which it affords in added protection to fish species is considered to justify the extra cost. K. Conclusions We submit' that careful consideration of the basis from 7~ which decisions are made in planning for, designing and
)
6-12
4 J constructing the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant will assure i that every feasible action is being taken to minimize the effects of the plant on the environment. Many of the decisions made, such as those'to use cooling towers, an improved radwaste system and related safety features, and to provide a large exclusion area, will materially reduce , the environmental effects of the plant's operation. These af decisions, in many cases, were made because of a stated policy to minimize the environmental impact of the plant , rather than as a result of cost-benefit analysis. m . O l l O 6-13
7.0 Relationship Between Short-Term Environmental Usage and
- Long-Term Productivity of the Environment The construction and operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant will bring about certain changes in the environment of the area in which it is located. These changes have been described and evaluated in detail throughout this Supplement to the Environmental Report, and in general, s the conclusions have indicated that the environmental effects of the plant will not be deleterious to the area.
The construction of the plant will change the use of some land f rom agriculture and forestry, and dedicate it to industrial use and a managed wildlife preserve. The amount of land involved is relatively small, and the change will produce some positive environmental benefits to wild-life on a large portion of the site. The use of information derived from the biological, chemical and radiological background studies identified earlier in this report, and those to be conducted during the operation of the plant should benefit the long-term productivity of the area. The impact on the natural environment produced by the Farley Plant will be much less than that caused in the past by the conversion of land from wilderness to agricultural use. In any event, the change in land use anticipated will be short-term and is not expected to adversely affect the long-term productivity of the area. In the short-term, the production of a large quantity of electric power during the life of the plant will be a more productive utilization of this land. There is nothing about the construction and operation of this plant to preclude the area's return to use for agriculture or forestry in future years, if needed, nor will the plant affect the existing short-term O 7-1
or long-term productivity of the aquatic environment of the Chattahoochee () River to any important extent. Likewise, sub-surface conditions, including the groundwater resources, will not be affected. The railroad which has been constructed and runs northward from the Farley Plant site to the Central of Georgia Railroad at Columbia, Alabama, is a principal off-site facility which may affect short-term productivity i in the area. The railroad makes the development of industrial facilities along its route more feasible, if such developments prove to be acceptable and not derrimental to the environment. In the short-term, the railroad will be likely to increase the productivity of the area, but in the long-term, it is not expected to preclude any needed changes in land use. Another principal off-site facility associated with the Joseph M. Farley Plant is the transmission system which will be constructed to deliver electric power to load centers where needed. The transmission O/ rights-of-way which are used by this system will cause very little change in the short-term productivity of the lands which they occupy and no change at all in the long-term productivity of the land or other elements of the environment. In summary, since the Farley Plant and its associated off-site facilities can be almost entirely removed at the end of plant life, or sooner, if justified, the short-term use of the environment for the produc-tion of electric power does not in any way restrict or preclude long-term uses or productivity of the environment for other purposes. i 7-2
8.0 Irreversibic and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources l The useful life of nuclear power units of the Joseph M. Farley Plant type is expected to be approximately 40 years, or until improved , l
~
energy systems warrant replacement for economic or other reasons. Since it is conceivable that the facility could be almost entirely dismantled, ; 1 there are no absolutely irreversible and irretrievable commitments of land resources in the long-term. Agricultural usage of the area surround-ing the site, and within the site if needed, can continue unimpaired. Wildlife can continue to exist in the area without interference and under , improved conditions due to the water storage pond and the added protec-i tion afforded by the wildlife preserve.
- I Except for part of the materials of construction and the Uranium-235 fissioned in the uranium dioxide fuel, there are no irreversible and j irretrievable commitments of raw material resources. The depletion of
() Uranium-235 is, of course, partially offset by the production of fissile plutonium and other nuclides of potential value. Other important resources necessary for the operation of the Farley Plant include river water for cooling system make-up, groundwater l for potable usage and fire protection, and the atmosphere to effect ; evaporative cooling. None of these resources will be irreversibly or irretrievably changed in the long-term. At the end of plant operating life, these resources can return to their present state barring other changes not associated with the Farley Plant. ] This report has described in detail the relationship of the FarPm Plant and its facilities to the environment and has identified the cont at ment of all resources. It is the opinion of Alabama Power Company that O 8-1 1 I 1 I
i the benefits to be derived from resource commitments at the Joseph M. N7- Farley Plant clearly justify their use. I l I i k I O i l
-I h
s t [ i i t i
.L I
L r P O ~ 8-2 I
's 5
___.______________________________________________.2_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7 APPENDIX A-ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS Introduction g
-- This analysis has been prepared in accordance with the PROPOSED AEC GUIDE TO THE PREPARATION OF BENEFIT-COST ANALYSES TO BE INCLUDED IN APPLICANTS' ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS (FOR DEFINED CLASSES OF COMPLETED AND PARTIALLY COMPLETED NUCLEAR FACILITIES) of January 7, 1972.
The benefits and cost associated with the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant have been evaluated f or three of the alternative plant designs specified in the AEC Guidelines; Alternatives 1, 2 and 4. Alternative 3, that design which would have minimum impact on land / air, has not been evaluated for the reasons stated in Attachment I of this analysis. Alternatives 1 and 4, the plant design as is and that design for which licensing is requested, are the same design. Alternative 2, that design which would have minimum impact on water, is evaluated on the basis of utilizing dry type cooling towers. The use of natural draft wet cooling towers was not evaluated as explained in Attachment J. The only alternative subsystem considered in this analysis is the alternative cooling system utilizing dry type cooling towers. The radwaste subsystem releases comply with proposed Appendix I limits (Attachment K - Section 8). Releases from the chemical effluent subsystem are evaluated for the plant as is. There is virtually no environmental impact associated with these discharges. Accordingly, no alternative has been considered for this subsystem. Alternatives 1 and 4 are the same plant design. The environmental
- benefits to be gained from the installation of dry type cooling towers are small in relation to the increased cost (capital and operating) associated with ~( s) the dry-type system. Though sufficient design information is not available for a complete analysis, the dry type cooling towers would eliminate environmental impacts on water and air. However, the immensity of the tower (s) would have a definite impact on the land.
Lost generation and capacity associated with the dry type towers would necessitate increased operation of fossil-fuel plants thus creating additional emission of air pollutants. In view of the minimal environmental impact associated with the present design of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant and the questionable environ-mental benefits to be obtained from dry type cooling towers, alternative designs 1 and 4 are considered to be the same. A-1
- FORM AEC- l (lp p2)
BENEFIT DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANT DESIGNS ( An ermonetired bemefets eapresad 6n terrru of present value) j (J}
- 1. N AME OF F AC4LITY: 2. DATE OF f4EPORT Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant ;
Units No.1 and No. 2 ] Note: The letters in parentheses on I AmnNAmES this tabulation refer to attachments , 4 dealing with the evaluation of benefits. 1 2 3 uinimum Minimum Piant J s Plant As is V/ater tand/ Air ticense impact impact neovest l Annual Energy 4539.15 4309.64 4539.15 ) Ekctr.c Power Produced and Sold: Industrial f (Millions of Kwh) (A) (A) (A) i 1824.90 1732.63 1824.90 commercie' is se (A) (A) (A) 3407.25 3234.97 3407.25 < nesidentiel " " " (A) (A) (A) other u es n .. .. ( ( ( neiiab.hiv lad (B) (B) (B)
; Process Steam Sold NONE NONE NONE Present Worth 404,486.00 404,486.00 404,486.00 Envieonmental Enhancement: Recreaiion
(~')i L
- L (c) (c) (c)
N avigation NONE NONE NONE
! Air Quality: S0 2 1b/77 31,0(10 6) 36,4(106) 91.0(106 )
(D) (D) (D) No" lb/yr 53.0(106 ) 50.3(106) 53.0(106 ) (D) (D)_ (D) Particulates 1b/yr 15.2(106) 14.4 (10D) 15. 2 (10b) (D) (D) (D) Others NONE NONE NONE Educatiori
) E E j NONE NONE NONE seg,onal Gross Product i Z),Ulb,buU Z),U)4,5UU Z),Ulb,bV Loca: Ta mes Present Worth During Life of Plant (F)
(F) (F) 125 people SAME SAME
. Other senel t' (G)
(G) (G) i
\,J
' Where a tem e. smi relevant in a particular alternative. Insesi n.a. for not applicable.
8$ee $veteeinill.A.nf the guidetene for suggested units of sneature pf benefits. Appl 6 cents thould specify the units they see en the l few m. i ' 8%here tenc0ts are the same for each attemative, put same in columns 2. 3 and 4 I - M-
. . . . - ~. . . - - -- -- . . . . ._
.L 1
- ATTACINENT A - BENEFITS OF POWER i It is impractical to determine the future menetary benefits of power i to be genersted by the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Units #1 and #2,- l based cn the present value of what users will pay for this power. This ;
power will fIcw through the interconnected transmission network and ; distribution systems of the company to its industrial, commercial, I residential, municipal, rural electric ecoperatives, and other customers.. , This system is, cf course, supplied by power from all of the company?s : generating plants - old and new - and the selling price.of power to : customers is dependent on the compos 1te capital investment, fuel and :! operating costs of all of the generating plants, transmission and distri - ' bution systems and other operating and maintenance costs. Alabama Power -i Company's electric pcwer rates are subject to regulation by the Alabama i Public Service Ccmmission and the Federal Pcwer Commission. -The future power ! rates of the company will depend cn so many variable and unpredictable factors that it is impractical at this time to predict, with any reasonable assurance, ; what the selling price 'of pcwer will be during the lif e of the Jcseph M. Farley ; Nuclear Plant. : I In the draft Guide to the Preparation of Benefit-Ccst Analyses for Nuclear ! Power Plants, dated January 7, 1972, an alternative to supply 1ng the estimated , monetary benefits of the power to be generated is suggested. This is to ! report the expected annual production in kilowatt-hours. This informatien ! was developed as folicws: j O . FOR ALTERNATES NO. l~and No. 4 , EST1 MATED ANNUAL ENERGY GENERATION FROM THE FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT. l FROM EACH OF TWO UNITS IN MILLIONS OF KILOWATT-HOURS i Plant Factor' j i 1st Year of Operation: Approx. 5225 M Kwh 73.9% } 2nd Year of Operation: Approx. 5950 M Kwh 80.4% .! 3rd Year of Operation: Apprcx. 6200 M Kwh- 83.9% !
]
NOTE: These product 1:n figures are based en the plant being avail'able for base- j load operation at all times except during an estimated 5 weeks per year { refueling and maintenance perica and during the f ollowing estimated forced'. j cutage periods. ;
% Forced Outage Hours a Fcreed Outage Hours' x 100- _i Service Ecurs & Forced Outage Hours 1st-Year 18,2% !
'2nd Year 11a0%
7.3% i Mature Rate O After the second year, it is expected to cperate each of these units at or' near 6200 MKwh per year until such time in the f uture that the plant is nc i longer base loaded to its full capability. It has also been estimated ;3 l i A3
that the annual-production from this plant over its estimated 30 year use-ful life will be at a levelized plant factor of 78.1%. This amounts to an -m annual production from each unit of 5775 million kilowatt hours or a total levelized annual production for the two units of 11,550 million kilowatt hours. e The following tabulation shows the estimated levelized annual generation in millions of kilowatt hours by classes of customers served. Levelized !
% of Annual I Class of Customers Total (1) Generation ,
Of Kwh) Industrial 39.3 4,539.15 i Commercial 15.8 1,824.90 -i Residential 29.5 3,407.25 Other Uses(2) 15.4 1,778.70 Total 100.0 11,550.00 (1) Based on expected percentages in 1976. t (2) includes sales to municipal systems, REA Co-op Systems, street lighting systems, company uses, and system losses. For reasons mentioned previously, it is impractical to estimate the future selling price of power over the life of this plant. Due to the rising costs- : of providing facilities to generate, transmit and distribute electric power, ' and increases in fuel and cost of operating a power system, the future selling i price of power will undoubtedly be considerably higher than today's price. t The very minimum monetary benefit to be expected from the power generated by the Farley Plant during its life. could be based on the present average selling price of power by Alabama Pcwer Company. During the past 12 months this average price amounted to approximately 1.3 cents per kilowatt hour. The present worth of future power, based on today's selling price would amount to the levelized annual production in KWH times 1.3 cents per KWH ~ times the present worth factor for a uniform annual series at the ! appropriate rate of interest (10.4%) for 30 years (9.118). This amounts to . a present worth value of $1,369,100,000. t FOR ALTERNATE NO. 2 (Dry Cooling Towers) The following data used to determine the loss in energy production using a dry cooling tower.as compared to a wet cooling tower, as in Alternates , No. 1 and No'. 4, was obtained from the draft of a report, " Cost Comparison ! of Dry Type and Conventional Cooling Systems for Representative Nuclear } Generating Plants", by John P. Rcssie, Edward A. Cecil and Rodger O. Young i of R. W. Beck and Associates, Denver, Colorado. This report was prepared
- p for the Division of Reactor Development and Technology, U. S. Atomic Energy ,
.\/ Commission, Contract No. AT(04-3)-848, dated December 1971. t i A-4 I _ _ ~
=- . . .
The~ data 1n this report for a plant located in the Southeastern United ! States using conventional forced draf t vet cooling towers consisted of design
/~' and cost information for the Farley Nuclear Plant, and was supplied to \
R. W. Beck and Associates by Alabama Power Company. i The loss of energy with dry cooling towers as compared to wet towers is estimated as follows, based on a levelized plant factor of 78.1% during the estimated 30 year life of the plant: Loss due to lower thermal efficiency of plant using a dry system . ......... . .179 Million KWH Extra energy required to operate a dry cooling tower system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 " " - Total loss cf energy with dry system 292 Million KWH ' Leve11 zed annual production for 1 unit: Wet system 5775 Million KWH Loss with dry system -292 Available with dry system 5483 Million KWH For two units the levelized annual energy would amount to 10,966 million.
- KWH. The following tabulation shows the estimated levelized annual generation in millions of kilowatt hours by classes of customers served.
O Levelized ,
% of Annual Class of Castomers Total (1) Generation ;
(M Kwh) Industrial 39.3 4,309.64 : Commercial 15.8 1,732.63 Residential 29.5 3,234.97 Other Uses (2) 15.4 1,688.76 Total 100.0 10,966.00 [ (1) Based on expected percentages in 1976. (2) Includes sales to municipal systems, REA Co-op Systems, street lighting systems, company uses, and system losses. , The present worth of future power generated with a dry cooling system based on today's selling price (1.3 cents per KWH) would amount to $1,299,800,000, i i Loss of Capacity ' A dry type cooling system would also reduce the generating capability of the plant as compared to a wet cooling system during hot weather. This loss
/~'
of capacity would amount to 96,100 KW during approximately 10 hours per year, k- /T with lesser reductions for longer periods of time. Since Alabama Power. Company's system peak load occurs in the summer months, this loss of capacity is very significant. l A-5' 1
]
G--.
t . . -fk If a dry cooling system were to be installed, the loss of generating capacity due to its use could be replaced either by the purchase of additional. capacity from neighboring utility, systems, if available, or by the ! installation of a like amount of additional generating capacity by Alabama ' Power Company. ! i
~
If replaced by the least expensive form of peaking capacity (from the stand- I point of capital cost), such as ccmbustion turbines, the additional capital .; investment would amount to approximately $10,000,000. !
.i
[ s i
+
i
}
t I f I I t
't +
-t i
A-6 i
ATTACIMENT B - RELIABILITY INDEX. OF. THE PIANT () Experience in actual operation is the true measure of the reliability of a generating plant. However, in planning the amount of generation needed to supply the expected load during a future year, various methods of simulating the operation of a power system are used. One such method involves calculating the probability that the expected total system load will exceed the available generation during a particular future year. This is done by comparing the availability of system generation during the year with the expected varying ; pattern of system load during that year. To make such a study, the expected forced outage rates of all generating units as well as the expected down-time- ' for maintenance and refueling must be estimated. In making system studies of this kind, the following forced outage rates were estimated for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Units #1 and #2. This is an index of the expected reliability of the plant. 1st Year of Operation 18.2% 2nd Year of Operation 11.0% Mature Outage Rate 7.3% Definition of Forced Outage Rate: >
% Forced Outage Hours = Forced Outage Hours x 100 Service Hours + Forced Outage Hours O ,
I w I h A-7 1 1
i t ATTACHMENT C - ENHANCDIENT FROM RECREATION AND EDUCATION BENEFITS ' r
;( ).
L Based on experience at visitors' centers at other Nuclear plants, and-on i the experience of the temporary information center in downtown Dothan for j the Joseph M. Farley plant, it is predicted that approximately 32,000 visitors per year will visit the permanent center to be located at the ! plant site. Assuming a value of $1.40 (1) per recreation day, the annual [ value of these visits is computed to be $44,800. The present worth of I this benefit would be S408,486.00 on a present worth basis over the 30 i
-year life of the plant.
The vis1ts to the temporary Nuclear Inf ormation Center f cr the Farley Plant have been especially popular for school and college groups, and it is reasonable to credit substantial, though unquantified, educational value to the Visitors' Center program. i t i f t
+
I
?
i 1 (1) ; Quoted f rom "A Study by the N. C. Forest ; Service Board; Based'on Supplement No. I to ; Senate Document No, 97" ' 1 I A-8
.' r l
i
.. 1
ATTACHMENT D - ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT FROM REDUCTIONS IN AIR POLLUTION IF GENERATING CAPABILITY IS PROVIDED
- THROUGH FOSSIL FUEL EVAPORATIVE COOLING TOWERS - ALTERNATIVES 1 and 4 A coal-fueled plant of 1,000 MW capacity will consume 2.3(10 6 ) tons of coal per year at 100% load factor. The two unit capacity at Farley will be 1,688 MW. The equivalent coal poundage per year will be 7.63(109 ) lb/yr.
Assuming 12,500 BTU /lb coal and utilizing the new source standards with an assumed actual load factor of 0.795, the yearly weight of emissions , would be: 6
' 55(1013) x 1.2 lb S0 2/106 BTU x .795 = 91.0(10 ) lb S02 /Yr 6
9.55(1013) x 0.2 lb Part/106 BTU x . 795 = 15. 2 (10 ) lb Part/Yr 6 9.55(1013) x 0.7 lb NOx /106 BTU x .795 = 53.0(10 ) lb N0x /Yr DRY TYPE COOLING TOWERS - ALTERNATIVE 2 ; The reduction of generation through the use of dry type cooling towers would i also decrease the environmental enhancement from reduction in Air Pollution. MKWH generation with evaporative cooling towers - 11,550 , MKWH generation with dry cooling towers - 10,966 , The annual loss of 584 MKWH would have to be generated from another source within Alabama Power Company or purchased from others. The least capital investment to replace the 96.1 MW capacity loss is a combustion turbine - (See Attachment A). However, to utilize such a facility for producing the lost energy is not economically feasible. A coal-fired unit would be utilized to provide the energy lost due to the dry type cooling towers. This would- - produce the following quantities of emissions: 584/11550 = 0.05 0.05 x 91.0(106 ) lb S02 /Yr = 4.6(106 ) lb S02 /Yr 0.05 x 15.2(10 6
) lb Part/Yr = 0.8(106 ) lb Part/Yr [
6 6 0.05 x 53.0(10 ) lb NOx /Yr = 2.7(10 ) lb NOx /Yr If dry type cooling towers are utilized, the environmental enhancement _i benefits would be reduced by the above-quantities. i 1
)
i-,
- O
ATTACIBiENT'E - REGIONAL GROSS PRODUCT
/*
1 The economic impact of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear- Plant will be two-fol' . d During the construction period, the direct payroll and material purchases will have a regional impact of approximately $200 million. In addition; to this, there will be considerable impact on employment and income in service industries as well as wholesale and retail trade. The long-term impact will include the annual payroll of $1.4 million, increased ad. valorem. tax enabling Hcuston County to obtain more federal grants-in-aid, and increased potential fcr future residential and industrial growth. F i s
^-
O ,
Preferred stock amounts to approximately 11% of capital structure of - Alabama Power Company. (~ .
'- Estimated annual levelized franchise tax:
$501,316,000 x .11 x .7462 x .003 = $123,447 Present worth of estimated franchise tax over 30 year plant life:
9.118 x S123,447 = $1,125,600 Present worth of local taxes (ad valorem and franchise) over life of plant: Ad Valorem $23,890,000 Franchise 1,125,600 -
$25,015,600 !
Local Taxes for Alternate No. 2 Estimated present worth of county and state ad valorem taxes and state franchise tax over an estimated 30 year life of the plant: Total estimated capital cost of Units #1 and #2 - $518,634,000 Estimated cost of Units #1 and #2, excluding pollution control equipment which is not subject to ad valorem tax - $468,000,000 , Equivalent annual depreciated plant:
= Capital Recovery Factor - Straight Line Depreciation Rate Required Rate of Return Capital Recovery Factor = Sinking Fund Depreciation Factor plus ,
Rate of Return j l For 30 year lif e type R5 Retirement Dispersion j j Sinking Fund Depreciation Factor = 0.69%: ) Straight Line Depreciation Rate = 3.33% Required Rate of Return = 10.4 % l Equivalent Annual Depreciation Plant = 10.4% + 0.69% - 3.33% = .7462 ) 10.4%
- 1. Estimated Ad Valorem Taxes: I l
t Combined tax rate for State of Alabama and Houston County: l l
$2.50 per year per $100 of assessed value (or .025). !
/'i - Assessment Ratio: 30% j
'L J l
Estimated annual levelized ad valorem taxes: ! l
$468,000,000 x .7462 x .025 x .30 = S2,620,000 ;
1 A-12
]
[- ATTACINENT F - LOCAL TAXES Local Taxes for Alternates No. 1 and No. 4 t Estimated present worth of county and state ad valorem taxes and state L franchise tax over an estimated 30 year life of the plant: !" Total estimated capital cost of Units #1 and #2 - $501,316,000 Estimated cost of Units #1 and #2, excluding pollution control equipment which is not subject to ad valorem tax - 468,000,000 Equivalent annual depreciated plant:
= Capital Recovery Factor - Straight Line Depreciation Rate ;
Required Rate of Return i n. Capital Recovery Factor = Sinking Fund Depreciation Factor plus Rate of Return ; For 30 year life type R5 Retirement Dispersion
- Sinking Fund Depreciation Factor = 0.69%
Straight Line Depreciation Rate = 3.33% Required Rate of Return = 10.4 % . Equivalent Annual Depreciation Plant = 10.4% + 0.69% - 3.33% = .7462 i 10.4% t
- 1. Estimated Ad Valorem Taxes:
Combined tax rate for atate of Alabama and Houston County:
$2.50 per year per $100 as assessed value (or .025).
Assessment Ratio: 30% Estimated annual levelized ad valorem taxes:
$468,000,000 x .7462 x .025 x .30 = $2,620,000 i t-Present worth of. estimated ad valorem taxes over 30 year plant life: !
P.W. Factor for a uniform annual series at 10.4% return R or investment: 9.118 ! E i 9.118 x $2,620,000 = $23,890,000 - The present worth of l ad valorem taxes .. t D 2. Estimated State Franchise Tax: Payable annually, based on shares of. preferred stock outstanding. Present Rate: $3.00 per $1,000 book value of preferred stock (or .003). , A-ll i
+ -
}
)
Present worth of estimated ad valorem taxes over 30 year plant life: i P.W. Factor for a uniform annual series at 10.4% return ! on investment: 9.118 9.118 x $2,620,000 = S23,890,000 - The present worth ( of ad valorem taxes -
- 2. Estimated State Franchise Tax: Payable annually, based on shares of preferred stock outstanding.
Present Rate: S3.00 per $1,000 bo;k value of preferred stock i (er .003). , F i Preferred stock amcunts to approximately 11% of capital structure : of Alabama Power Company. l Estimated annual levelized franchise tax:
$518,634,000 x .11 x .7462 x .003 = $127,712 l Present worth of estimated franchise tax _over 30 year plant life: i i
9.118 x $127,712 = S1,164,500 '! Present worth of local taxes (ad valorem and franchise) over life , of plant: O Ad Valorem $23,890,000 , Franchise 1,164,500 ; Total $25,054,500- i l q
-i i
t l'- l i f i L A-13 i
]h ,
1 l
.j
-, - - +
ATTACINENT C - OTHER BENEFITS OF POWER Power generated at the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant will be used to supply a portion of the electric power.that.is essential to the operation of many facilities related to the health and' welfare of citizens within its service area. As of December 31, 1970 Alabama Power. Company was supplying power directly to 180 hospitals, 336 food processing plants, 66 cold storage warehouses, 214 water filter plants and pumping stations, and 76 sewage disposal plants. In addition to the above facilities served directly, Alabama Power Company also supplies part er all of the power. distributed by. 14 municip*al electric systems and 13 rural electric cooperative systems who, in turn, supply many similar health'related establishments. One of the very beneficial uses of power to be generated by the Farley Nuclear Plant will be the power needed to operate new air pollution control devicies in the industrial plants of Alabama. It is too early to measure the full impact of the new air pollution control regulations.in terms of electric power requirements; hewever, the need for this additional pcwcr will be very considerable. O 8 t i a i
'I J
.i i
-t P
A-14 l a t 4
- ., g ,,e.
I KnlA AEC-
' "U0'I COST DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANT DESIGNS -
l/48 monetued innsfits *wpressed in terrm of present value) f.j!
-s 1. NAME OF FACILITY 2. DATE OF REPORT
)
J Joseph M. Farley Nuclear. Plant Units No. I and No. 2
. ALTE RN ATIVLS f Note: The letters in parentheses on this 4
2 3 i ! .. tabulation refer to attached documentation. 1 ff' M mimum FAinimum Mant Plant Atis Water Land / Air 1,6cenw ( *l I mpact Impact Request SUDSYSTEMS Af ternative Cooling Systems (1) A' B (I) A Alternative nad Waste Systems (11) A A l Alternative Chemical E f fluent Systems (till A A l' Alterna tive Syste m (IV) A l i l; Alternative System (V) A m 868,812,0C0
~
, ,00C 886,130,0)0 GENERATING COSTS or f u a ope n em a . ,,- 4 e o i<rn nr n1 nnt- <n A (H) (H) (H)
;e, C
I!' ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS l* 2 e J
}L it Primary impact Population or Resource Affected 8.9(10D ) 8.9(106 )
- 1. Heat Deharged to 1.1 Cochng Capacity BTU /HR NA BTU /HR
!* Water Cody *
} 1.2 Aquatic Biota No Effect NA No Effect i!'s
- 1.3 Megratory Fish n n NA 3 2. Effects on Water 2.1 Primary Producers and Consumers 8.0(10 ) 6 8.0(106 )
li p Dody of intak e 1b/Yr NA lb/Yr
- f. Structure and .
l Condensw Cooling 2.2 Fisheries 4,500 4500 [s- systerr. Ib/Yr NA lb/Yr ll 3. Chemical Discharys to Wain socy 3.1 People
- 1. l No Effect No Effect No Effect j , -
Aquatic B40ta { 3.2 No Effect No Effect , No Effect
; 3.3 Water Quahty-Chemic8' No Effect No Effect No Effect i
j' 4. Consumption of Water 4.1 People NA R FA
' 4.2 Properiy See Sup. See Sup.
I NA Form I Fortn I l Ig)
! 6. Chemicat Descherpe 6.1 Air QualityChemical
(./ so Arnbeen Ai, NA NA NA 6.2 Air Quality-Odo' No Effect NA No Effeet
' Where a tow k nest relevant in a partkular alternative en rt n4, for not arr'6 cable. *
'$ee Table J fiw enius e f measure and mesheedini enmputation, ten 6 n should be spectfwd by the appikant on stee form.
s Where lie rm are the same for each attemative. put same in columns 2e 3 and 4
- A teferi to alactna Live in the Supplementary l'orms. '
a m
(en/E)- T '
- s. uri om: et r,nnie
. **om Cochas Towers 13 Effect NA No Effect 62 Plants S
No Effect NA No Effect
} 6.3 Property Octources
(,/ NA NA NA 7, ChemicalConteminetste 7.1 Peonk-
- of Ground Wacf NA teactud.ng Satti NA NA l, 7.2 Plants o
. NA NA NA S. Radionuclides Dis- B.1 People- E n ternal Contact i, charged io Wain pody (8) (8) (8) ^
I 82 People-ingestion rads . 8 (10-3) rSdE/Yr Same Same 8.3 Pr6 mary consumers i . (8) (8) (8) 8.4 rish (8) (8) (8)
9. Radionuclides Discharged 9.1 Peopte-E n ternal Contact 11(10-3)
'***"'^" rad 8 (8) Same Same
~
9.2 10(10-3)
, Peve-inses' ion rads (8) Same same 9.3 Plants and Animats (g) (g) (8) 1o' nas.onuchde Contamirwilon 10.1 Propie of Ground Water No Effect No Effect No Effect 10.2 Plants and Animats No Effect No Effect No Effect
, [*1. Fogging and icing 11.1 Ground Transportation .
; () . * 'legligible NA : leg 11gible 11.2 Air Transportation NA NA NA 11.3 Water Transportation Nenlinible NA 3egligible 11.4 Plants
.' NA NA NA
.12. Raisingflowering of 12.1 People Ground Water tevels No Effeet No Effect No Effect f 12.2 Plants t No Effect No Effect . No Eff'ect
- 13. Amtxent Norw 13.1 People No Effect No Effect lo Effect
- g. 14. Aesthetics 14.1 Appearance i
NA NA NA p 18. Permanent Reudvals of 15.1 Accessitzlity of Hestoncal Sites Construction Actevity NA NA NA g
). .
15.2 Accessit>itity of ArcheoloD i cal Sites
;= . . - .
NA NA NA
?
;,' . 15.3 setting of Histo icalsites
(* , NA NA NA
. 15.4 tand Use M NA NA 15.5 Proputy 7-- 15.5 15 5 15.5
.- 15.6 Flood Conteof NA NA NA
- q ,
15.7 Erosion Control
?-
No Effect No Effect No Effect -g e COMMEhdT3* A-16 4 r,..--- . . . - - , ,
FUPPLEMENTAGY FORM - I . { , AtCronu-COST DESCRIPTION - ALTERNATIVE COOLING SYSTEMS (include Associated Coolant Water Treatment Systems) 4
,/ x ;'
(,I1. NAME OF F ACILITY 2. DATE OF REPORT t Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant' i Units No. 1 and No. 2 ,
^
- NOTE: Numbers in parenthesis ont this tabulation refer to attached 8 C D E F documentation INCREMENTAL GENE R ATING COST (H) (I) (J)
ENVI RONME NT AL COST 5"' ,o Primary impaca Population or 8.9 (10b) Resource Affected BTU /HR 1.1 Coolmg Capacity (1.1) NA
- 1. Heat Discharged to Water Body 1.2 Aquatic Beota 1.3 Migratory Fish
- 2. E f fects on Wat" 2.1 Prirnary Producers & 8.0(106 )
Body of Intake Consumers l h /),r (? 11 NA
-i 45b0
[ , q) O~ aser Cool.ng symm 2.2 F3sse,ies lb/vr (2.2) NA
- 3. Chemical Die 3.1 Peopte No Effec 1.
0
. charge to Wate' (3) NA Body 3.2 Aquatic siot, tio Ef f ect I (3) NA a- ,
M- 3.3 Water Quality-Chemical lo Effeet 5 - (3) NA 6 4. Consurnption of 4.1 Peop?e Water NA NA 4..
? 4.2 Property .I.. .
(4.2) NA 1 +
- 5. Chemical Dio 5.1 Air Quality-Chemiest
*. * . charge to Arntsent NA NA 1 Air ! 5.2 Air Quality-Odor lo Effeet
].t .'s , (5.2) NA
- 6. Salts Descharged 6.1 People io Effect -
. trom Cooling (gy wa
-I. Towm
;; 6.2 Plants tio Effect
- j (AT MA 6.3 Property Resources WA MA I. 7. Chemical Contami. 7.1 People
'i nation of Ground yA NA "i . Water (escludsng Satti 7,2 Plants 1t. f N wa yr
- 8. Rad *onuctedes 0+ 8.1 People-E s ternal Contact
~) a charged to Watet Body 4_ g-- 3
Q b-;
- A4) ; *
- 'Shree a tens- is suit relevant ti. e parakuter etternat6ve, insert n.s. for not applicabte.
- 8 ' '$ce TaNe J few emien eef messere and methends of computalken. O
~f . A-17 ,
s
* (IMOSD l
t k , ) s.2 Peopie-Ingestion
- t. i NA NA O.3 Prirnary Consumen
- 8.4 F nh g g
- 9. Rad onuclides Dis- 9.1 Peopie-E aternel Contact charged to Ameiont g
A6r 9.2 People-Ingstion g g
- t. '.
9.3 Piants and Anirnets M NA . L
- 10. Red.onudice 10.1 People }g }g Contansnation of
.? Ground Water 10.2 Plants and Animits NA NA
- 11, Fogging endicing 11.1 Grc,und Transportation Negligible NA
, (111 11.2 Air Tsansportation NA NA 11;J water Transportation Fegligible L
(111 MA
~
114 Plants
,g -
NA NA
)
- 12. Raising / Lowering of 12.1 People 8' Ground Water Leals M NA 12.2 Plants NA la
'l 13. Arrhent Noise 13.1 People No ect No Effect 1;
'j w
- 14. Aesthetics 14.1 Appearance
~ le 15.1 Accessit>hty of l
- 15. Perrnanent Residvats I of Constrvetion NA His toricot $stes NA l
^* 'I 15.2 Accessitslaty of f Ar cheological Sites s ( NA NA 1
,i 15.3 Se ting of
'! H.:totical Sites NA NA h: - Lt *
,]
, i 15.4 t end Use
+ *t
[ ,' 15.5 Property .
,a r
j- 15.6 Flood Control
,, NA NA 1
y 15.7 Erosion Control NA M w tr [; : COWAENTs Alternative B - Dry Cooling Towers
; j ], -- 7 g :: i-C' __L Alternative C - Once-through Cooling . ..
F: p . Alternative D - Natural Draf t Towers
. I. '* ' i g l
L. , f. Ih A-18 m - u- e:
a .
.- reem AcC.
- i I!I'IM SUPPLEMENTATP/ FORM - 11 i'
)
COST DESCRIPTION I t 1 /(LTERNATIVE 11ADWASTE SYSTEMS a 2, DATE OF REPOfiT
- 1. NAuE or r ACILITY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLFri PLANT .
Units No. 1 and No. 2 l, I ALTE RN ATIVES . NOTE: Numbers in parenthesis on this E F C D tabulation refer to attached A B documentation y INCREW CNT AL GE NE R ATING COST ENVIRONMENTAt COSTS Population or Primary irnpacq Resour ce Affectrd t.1 Cnohng Capacity
- 1. Heat Dmbarged a to Water Dody .
1.2 Aaostic Biota NA 1.3 Mgratory Fish IM i { 7,g Primary Producers &
- 2. E ttects on Water Dody of intake Cons ume rs NA
,Ax Str ucture and
/
) Condenser 2.2 risheries NA
- Cochng System
- 3. Chemical Dis- 31 Peepte EA charge to Water i Body f 3 2 Aquatic Biota 3.3 Water Quality-Chemical
- 4. Consumption of 4.1 Peopfe IE Water 4.2 Property
- 6. Chemkat Dis. 5.1 Air Quahiy-Chemical
* . charge to Ambient 10 Aer S.2 Air Quality-Odor I IM
~
~
- 6. Salts Discharged 6.1 Peopfe M __
itom Cteoling
* [2 Plants 6.3 Property flesources A 7. Chemical Contami. 7.1 People IE _
e
- nai on of Geound
? Water teacluding Satd 7.2 Plants IM c.,
'M~ 8. flad.onuchdes D+ 8.1 People-E nternal Contact (g)
? charged to Warrr __
e body
- k Wheve s sirw a swel televa n t tu a particular alternalpe. insert n.a.fot not applicable.
8 %et lable J fut ansas saf measure and enelhuds of eompvishon, J
,i 1 ; o--.--.,_ _. ,
A -19 - -. ,-
1.. ' l C/7/12) i# 1 .
~
t
- 8 (10-3) l B.2 renid e - i n ty-s t.o n IadEblPJUl. lad IH_I81
! 2.3 Pritrery Consumers I, _ _._
(8) i e.4 ri.h -
!' (8) 1 i
9, Rao.onuct des D.s. 'J.1 Prove -E s ter ret Contact 11 (10-J) tharged to Amb.ent rads (8) Aw 9.2 Peove-ti.u-n.on 10(10-3) rads (m 9 3 Plants and Anomals
\ (8)
- 10. flad oschcie 10.1 reop., No Effect i Conta= nation of (8)
} Ground Water i 10.2 Plants end An.mais No Effect j (8) 6 11. Fogging and inns 11.1 Ground Transportation IM t
11.2 Air Transpor vei.cn 11.3 Water Teenspur tat +ca 114 Plants IM t
- 12. Ra.s:ng'Lovvering of 12.1 Feople }g s .j Ground Water Levels
)* 12.2 Plants IM l f 4
?' 13, Ambeent Noese 13.1 People f
f 14. Aesthetics 14.1 Appearance g h* 1$. Perrnanent Reudvals 15.1 AccenitWitty of of Coe,struct.on Hntoncal S tes
^*' 15.2 Accessibility of Ar c heotegical Sites NA 15.3 Setting of His f or ecal Sites NA 15.4 Land Use IM L 15 5 Propei ty NA
-[ 15.6 Flood Controf In b
15.7 Erosion Contr01 IE 6,- r ' t COMIAE NTS f i . i . G 3: l e , j . f A-20
'+ _. . . . . . .
[ . . j ' . a ,. ' ; .ro.re Arc f SUPPLEMENT AR' FORM - til ,
; At(11'n '
t COST DESCRIPTION
... ALTERNATIVE CHEMICAL EFFLUENT SYSTEMS
[\ <. . (Do not include Coolant Water Treatment Systems Described in Supptomentary Form - l ) 'u >
$ b N -
1, NAME OF FACILITY 2. DATE OF REPORT JOSEPH H. FARLEY NUCLEAR Pl. ANT 'l
. Units No. 1 and No. 2 .
NOTE: Numbers in parenthesis on this tabulation ALTE RN ATIVES
- refer to attached documentation A B C D E P.
- i
- Y ~ 'A INCREMENTAL GENERATING COST 3 t
ENVIRONMCNT AL COSTS Psimary impact Poputanon or Resou'ce Aliccled .,
- 1. 3Nat Disc'.arged I.t Coolmg Capacity j
'* to Watef Body >
1.2 Aquaiec Diota gg f 1.3 Megvatory Fish yg
- 2. E f fects on Water 2.1 I' i'"3 'YI'00dC"' b Dody of Intake Com umer s NA t
.- Structure and ;
*y* Condense' Cooling Sys tem 2.2 Fisheries yg
~
^
- 3. Chernical oei- 31 Pecoie No Effeet d
q charge io Water eody (3) . [b - 3.2 Aquatic Diota No Effcet - @ m ' f a.a war cuaray-chemica No Effeet g.. .
^
m i jl 4. Consumption of 4.1 People Water ??A 4.2 Peoperty l, , .- NA . !4 6. Chemical Dis. 5.1 An Quahty-Chernical d - thaege to Arnbient NA - As H
;I 5.2 Air Quality-Odor ,'-.,4 s .
NA , EfI; & Satts Orscharged G.1 People a . .. trem Cooling le 7 e" Tom i
- 6.2 Plants
.,' IM i
f, . 6.3 Pecperty Resourt-es
- I L*
ej . . NA
, : 7. Chem. cal Contami- 7.1 People
-. nation of Ground NA
,-*- Waies lenclud.ng b -: , Setti 7.2 Plants NA d'_'
t1.- p (j '
- 6. Radionociedes Oss- 8.1 People-E aternat Contact charged to Water NA lig. Body.
lh i ;$ ! A L . o b
'%}6s* a tum e.p.et #elevant tu a particular ehernative. insert n.e. for mot applicable. +
..- slice 1stde J fue enets of enessure and methods of computation. '
g, ,,t . <
* ** ' * * (l(1/13) ri 8.2 Peorir-tr.trsoon NA
.i 83 Prirrory Consumers 8.4 Fish g i
O. radionuclides Des. 9.1 Peopte-E aternal Contact g t etweged to Arntpent l Aw 9.2 Peopte inystion g l 93 Piants and AnitrW: }& 10.1 People le
- 10. Raeoaudide Centarn' nation 08 i Grou nd Water 10 2 Plants and Animals NA i
' 11.1 Ground Transportation NA r 11. Fogyng andicing 11.2 Air Teensportation i
- 113 Watw Treruportation g i
114 Plants NA 12.1 Peopio N' o Ef f ect
...M Rosmg/ Lowering of Ground Water Levels U 2)
- 4] -
12.2 Plants No Effect: (1 %
' 13.1 People it 13. Arrbent haase NA
( a 14,1 Appearance i 14. Aesthes cs IM
,4 15.1 Accessibility of k 1L Fertranent Residels H at oriut futts NA El Construction Activ6ty 15.2 Access;bi'ity of j Ar cheoico'tal Sites NA
,1 153 Settine of
' Historical Shes NA ;
t i 15.4 Land Use NA l J . j 4 . f 15.5 Property NA j. L: 15.6 Flood Control NA h p;, .'/ t 15.7 Etosion Control M h k +
.. J l COMMENTS .
e 4.
, T
[ j;
,L I-4 k
';i f h . 'I A-22 p i __ __ _ __..__ n r;_ r y _;~ 3 ; __;_ _ 3 _ :_;
-- m -:---
c- 7 ATTACIMENT H - GENERATING COSTS
~
The following estimated generating costs were based on the formula in Table 2
.f[5
.q.
+
Mcnetized Bases for Plant Ccsts of the Atomic Energy Commission's draf t Guide to the preparation of Benefit-Cost Analyses for Nuclear Power Plants, dated a~ 1-7 72, as reproduced below: d %+! Table 2 - MONETl?ED BASES FOR PLANT COSTS ,
- [ .
- I d'
4 ..
- j ITEM SYMDOL UN' T3 METHOD OF COMPUTATION n
!! To inchide total value of capital invested in a presently d: Total Capital ouday at time constructed plant. Applicant may use present worth ur all ] e 6 when plant is put ini capital costs annualized over life of the plant using the ,
"PC '*I' " . utility's annual carrying charges.
, To include all additional costs to the power utihty of Additional Capital Required modifying present installation to alternative installation.
Dr An Alternative i = 1,2.. Ci 5 ' Tk sm skuld be expressed on a present value basis for disbursements over a number of years,as for Co above.
. I l Deficient Power Purchased or P wer purchased or supplied internally in year t to p
t in ke up deficiency of power in dollars, . Including JO 0 d (/ Supplied in Year t environmental costs. . l >1 . ] s The expected life of this plant. . Tg yean This should conform to period of amortization of the plant Investment. I 1{ J , Annual Operating Cost . O. t s This is.the total operation and maintensner cost of plant : 1 ' operation in year t. 1 1 q- , i
- 1. '
i 'l Annual Fuel Cost of, Plant Ft 5 This is the total fuel cost in year t. I ,e. ?[ Discount factor # p = (1 + lyI where i is the cost of cap tal i used in i U: Table i over the life of this plant. i If Tg Tg TotalGenersting Cost - -- , a - , ' TC[ 5 TCg=C$+C +I v'(O g +F M Ng
- j 1
- t=1 t=1
.{ , - ~ ~~
1 j c.s l l 4 # ,
.\' .}
.A-23 e Qw
;q
.11 - i
~
f A L Estimated Generating Costs for Alternatives No. 1 and No. 4
. .n j'm)Y- Co = $501,316,000 Ci=0 Pt=0 2
Ti = 30 Ti
)b vt(O +Fe) t = the present worth of operating costs and fuel costs ;
t=1 over the life of the plant. The estimated levelized fuel and operating cost for Units No. 1 and'No. 2 is 3.49 mills per KWH, based on a levelized plant factor of 78.1% over an estimated 30 year service life including expected escalation. The expected system peak hour capability of the plant after the initial year of operation is 844 MW for each unit or 1688 MW for the 2 units. The present worch factor for a uniform annual series fo: 30 years at 10.4% (the annual cost-of-capital) is 9.118. The levelized annual fuel and operating cost is equal to the levelized cost of fuel and operation per KFH times the levelized plant f actor times 8760 hours per year times the capability of the plant in kilowatts, as follows:
.' A $.00349 x .781 x 8760 x 1,688,000 = $40,304,450
,.s/ The present worth of the levelized annual cost for 30 years is: , 9.118 x $40,304,450 = $367,496,000 I The estimated total generating cost for Alternates No. 1 and No. 4 is the capital cost of the plant plus the present worth of the levelized annual' fuel and operating costs during the life of the plant, as follows. , TCg = $501,316,000 + $367,496,000 = $868,812,000 Estimated Generating Costs for Alternative'No. 2 Co = $501,316,000 Ci = $ 17,318,000 i Pg =0
, Ti = 30 ,
Ti < q[ [ )b v (ot+F t )t = the present worth of operating costs and fuel costs
- t=1 over the life of the plant. t e
s A-24
i l l 1 i
^ The estir.ated total generating cost for Alternate No. 2 is the capital
(- ) cost of the plant, including the additional cost of dry cooling tower, plus the present worth of the levelized annual fuel and operating costs l during the life of the plant, as follows. TCg = $501,316,000 + $17,318,000 + $367,496,000 = $886,130,000 With Alternative No. 2, the benefits in terms of kilowatt hours generated are less, as shown in Attachment-A. r v i i a t t ( (.)/' . A-25
I,.--..~- 7 l i l l i ATTACIMENT I - STATDIENT: CONCERNING ALTERrIATIVE S'
- MINDIUM' DiPACT ON LANA / AIR f*g
. . V For purposes of this analysis, once-through cooling has not been considered . because of the legal requirements for maintaining water quality standards-in the Chattahoochee River. This navigable, interstate stream forms the boundary between Alabama and Georgia with the state line running along the 3 west bank. Water quality standards of Georgia are applicable and at present time they limit the temperature rise to 100F up to a maximum
- i. temperature of 93,20F. The condensers for the two units of the Joseph M.
Farley Nuclear Plant will require 2,830 cfs of cooling water, which exceeds '
- the total flow of the Chattahoochee River during certain periods of the year and particularly during critical summer months. The temperature rise through the condensers is expected to be approximately 200F and it is t
' ' - obvious that an attempt to operate the plant with once-through cooling i: - would violate water quality standards. It is understood also that Georgia
, . < expects to change its water quality standards so that a maximum temperature-
-- rise of 5 F0 up to a maximum temperature of 900F will be the maximum allowable p limits. This would place the plant in even greater violation if once-through cooling were employed. ;
+ ( t I
? .- c 4
o < ,
/~, :-i n
..~.. A-26
; ,/ 3 I
P J
' ;jj h? ,
n .a o_ m, . u . _a .. :s ._
{ ATTACINENT J - STATDIENT CONCERNING- NATURAL DRAFT WET TOWERS f Mechanical draft evaporative cooling towers were selected in preference' 5 to the natural draft type because of' economic considerations resulting from their suitability for use under meteorological conditions which ! prevail in the area. In this analysis, no attempt has been made to ! compare the cost-benefits of mechanical draft and natural draft towers' . because the benefits afforded in the form of protection of water quality l in the Chattahoochee River are essentially. identical. Natural draft :' towers perhaps offer a slightly lower fogging potential than do the mechanical draft towers, but this is largely offset by their greater visual intrusion and possible hazards to aviation. As discussed elsewhere, the area of the > Farley plant has a relatively low fogging potential and it could not be j established that use of natural draft towers would provide subrtantial ! benefits even in thin regard. ; i r l () 6 I t I i A-27 , f f i t
i i
-ATTACHMENT K - ENVIRONMENTAL COST DOCUMENTATION ,
i l.l - Heat Discharged to Natural Water' Body-Effect on Cooling Capacity of Water Body A l[ ) The average hourly wet' bulb temperature in the Dothan area varies from 710 I to 760F during the summer months. The cooling towers at the' Joseph M. Farley. . Nuclear Plant are designed on the basis of a wet bulb ' temperature of 78 F - + with an approach of Il0 F. The design tem 89 F at maximum operating conditions (1). The perature of the blowdown projected maximum blowdown will be .; temperature under extreme conditions is 91 F, with a wet bulb of 810F. [ The blowdown discharge rate is 7,600 GPM for two units. This is diluted : with bypass water before being discharged into the river. Assuming a. river water temperatu e of 860F with the lowest regulated seven day low flow rate of 2,090 CFS (2 , the following temperature increase will resuit. The blowdown temperature = 89 F t Bypass water = 29,400 GPM @ 86 F Temperature of discharge to river T d = ([(66 CFS
- 860F) + (17 CFS
- 89 F)] / 83 CFS = 86.6 F The temperature increase in the river will be i T = ((2,090-174)
- 86 + (83
- 86.6)] / 1,999 = 86.02 F ;
86.02 - 86.9 = 0.02 A T 'I 0.02 x 1,999 = 39.98 CFS degrees- 8.98(10 )6BTU /HR ; The current proposed EPA standards limit rise in streps in this area. to 5 F after mixing with a maximum allowable of 90 F (3), . If~) I/s Discharges from the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant will not create conditions exceeding either the maximum temperature rise or the maximum temperature of : applicable Federal Standards. , (1) Alabama Power Co., The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Environmental Report, p. 3-24. (2) Geological Survey of Alabama, 7 Day Low Flows j and Flow Duration of Alabama Streams, Bulletin 87, Part A, 1967, p.33. l (3) ! Alabama Power Co. , pp. 3-27, 28 i 1.2 - Heat Discharged to Natural Water Body - Effect on Aquatic Biota , Under the conditions of Section 1.1 the A T of the water body would be 'O.02 F '
?-s or 0.01 0C with the' temperature of the receiving body elevated to 30.010C. "g )'
Studies (l) generally indicate temperatures in excess of 33 C or incrementa) changes of approximately 50C at various temperature ranges are regnired to. kill plankton. These conditions also> required exposure time in excess l of 1 hour. i A-28 i I I
Based on the available parameters, no harmful effect to aquatic biota in # the Chattahoochee River would occur due to heat discharged from the r^). (_ Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant. (1) U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Thermal Effects and U. S. Nuclear Power Stations, 1971, pp. 30-32. i a 2.1 - Ef fects on Water Body of Intake Structure and Condenser Cooling Systems - , Effect on Primary Producers and Consumers Available data (1) indicates an assumed organism count in the vicinity of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant of approximately 3,000 organisms / liter. The weight of organisms withdrawn from the river will be approximately j 8,000,000 lb/ year. The following methodology was used to obtain this quantity: 3000 organisms / liter x 28.32 liter /f t3 = 85,000 organisms /ft3 ! Withdrawal at maximum operation (2) = 174 ft3 /sec () Weight per organism (3) = 10-5 grams = 2.205 10-8 lb. Plant load factor (4) = 0.781 , lb/Yr = Organisms /ft3 x ft /sec 3 x Sec/Yr x lb/ organisms x load factor 6
= 8.035 (10 )
It should be recognized that the nutrients associated with these organisms will be returned to the river system.
- It is impossible to separate the organisms withdrawn into species due to the tremendous variability of organism type and the variability of type count in l both thne and space.
(1) , Deyer, W. and Benson, N. G., OBS. on the Influence of Johnsville Steam Plant on Fish and Plankton Populations (1956) Proc. 10th An. Conf. S.E. Assoc. Game and Fish Commrs. pp. 85-91. (2) Alabama Power Co., Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Environmental Report, p. 3-24 ' (3) A.E.C. Benefit / Cost Guidelines of December (Draft), p. 8. (4) (~Nr Alabama Power Company. , Benefit / Cost Analysis _ i
\,) of the Joseph M. Faricy Nuclear Plant.
j i A-29 i
%~
;2.2 - Effects of Water Body of Intake Structure and Condenser Cooling' System -
Effett en Fisheries
/._ :
- Available data (1) indicate a larvae count of approximately 1 per cubic f i- meter. Due to the low velocities in the vicinity of the intake structure (2),. ;
it is assumed that only larvae will be entrained. With a natural mortality t rate of 90% fcr larvae and a 4 month growing season, the entrainment will ; be app:cximately 4,100 lb/yr. The species breakdewn (3) is as follows: l q Species % By Weight 1b/yr Entrained 1 t i 135 ' Bass 3 Bream (Sunfish) !? 765 Catfish 5 225 Carp-Sa:kers 19 855 : F:rege 56 2,520 i , 100 4,500 t The follcwing methed lcgy wis used to cbtain these quantities: ! I larval /M 3 x 2.84(10-2) M3 /ft 3
- 2.84(10-2)3larvae /ft3 l Withdrawal at maximum operatien (4) = 174 f t f gee ;
Weight per larval (5) = 0.001 lb. Larval gr wing season ~ 123 days l L Load factor - 0.781 ! I ! 3 x Ft 3 Ibfyr - Larvae /f t /SeexSecfDayxDays/YrxlbfLarvaex ! Load Factor x Mortality adjustment = 4,1 x 10 l L O- (1) r i' C. B. Marty, Jr. (1971) "St r vival Of Young Fish in the Discharge Canal of a Nuclear Pcwer Plant," J. Fish Res. Bd. g Canada 28:1057-1060. ; k' (2) .i A1.abama Power C:- , Jcseph M Farley [ Nuclear Plant Envi:mnmental Report, pp.3-36, 37. E (3) Georgia State Game & Fish C:mmission Annual Progress Report, _Sruthern Reg _ Fish Inves. Proj. F-19-R-2/Jul 1, 1966 t: Jun 30, 1967 L _ Pit tman-Robert ssn Division, 31 p. (4) Alabama P:wer C: , p. 3-24 (5) Length-Weight Relationships of Ala. Fishes (1965) ! Agri. Experimental Sta , Auburn University, Z cl.-Ent. Dept. Series Fisherdes No 3. 27 p. i, A-30 L-
l l 3 - Chemical Discharge to Water Body - Effects. cn People, Aquatic Biota, and p Water Quality (_ DISCHARGES FROM COOLING SYSTEM i The cocling tcwer blowd:wn frcm the Joseph M. Farley Ntclear Plant will have 0.25 to 0.5 ppm chlorine, approximately 220 ppm dissolved solids, ; and a pH cf 7,8(1). The c0 cling precess will not add any solids to the water body. The increase in sclids cencentration in the blowdown is due to evaporative icsses. The tower blowdown is diluted by adding bypassed river water to the blewdown before discharging into the river. The bicwdown (3,800 GPM per unit) when diluted with the bypass water (14,700 GPM per unit) will contain app::ximately 90 ppm dissolved solids, and
.005 to .01 ppm frae residual chlorine.
The cencentration of chlcrine in the blowdcwn is well below the level in chlorinated drinking water. A residual chlorine concentration of 0.5 ppm , can cause eye irritatien but studies have shown that within the pH range 7.0 to 8,0 the pH affects eye irritation more than the residual chlorine (3). With these f actors there would be no ef f ect of the chemical discharge on people. This is especially apparent in light of the discharge volume (37,060 GPM cr 82s5 CFS) being enly 4.7% of the minimum daily flow of record (1760 CFS). Chlorine concentrations cf 0.03 to 1.0 ppm can be fatal to fish and other biota with exposure times ranging f rem 47 minutes to 16 days (4). However,.
- the fish killed within 47 minutes were trout with a concentration of 0.8
() ppm. Considering the 4 7% discharge flow rate to total river flow, the concentration after mixing w:uld be essentially zero. Therefore, no effect t on fish and aquatic biota would result from the Joseph M. Farley cooling tower discharge. , The water quality of the Chattahocchee River would not be affected by the discharges f rom the cooling systeme N: solids are added to the river. The pH of the discharge is 7.8 versus river water at 7,3. The chlorine con-centration is esenetially zero. (1) Alabama P:ver C:., Jcseph M Farley NucIcar Plant
. Environmental Report, p, 3-29, 314 (2)
United States Depar tment :t the Interict Geological Survey, Water Resources Dsta for Alebsma - Part 2. Water Quality Records. 1968-1969. (3) Resources Agency cf California. State Water Quality Control Beard, Water Quality Criteria, 1963, pp. 161-163. (4) Ibid., pp. 161-163. A-31
k ,
- DISCHARGES FROM MAKE-UP WATER DEMINERALIZER 1/'T The regeneration of the cation-anion beds will produce 9,984 ppm of dissolved '
- (_,/ solids in 19,000 gallons of water. This will be discharged at the rate of 127 GPM into the tower blowdown. This operation will be performed twice a L day at a maximum for two unit operation. The filters through which the ,
h demineralizer water passes initially will be backwashed a maximum of twice a day. This operation will require approximately ten minutes using 5,000 gallons of water containing approximately 120 ppm dissolved solids with a pH of 7.6 (1). The 19,000 gallons of water utilized in the regeneration process will be l discharged into the diluted tower blowdown at the rate of 127 GPM. When the demineralizer waste are added to this the dissolved solids going to the river will be 160 ppm. This would occur only when the regeneration waste were being discharged. The demineralizer contribution to solids added to the river would be h approximately 1.6 ppm during periods of minimum flow af ter mixing. The backwashing operation would contribute 0.08 ppm solids under the same condition.- The above quantities were calculated as follows: Regeneration Process: lbs solids / discharge (2) = 1,580 x 2 per day = 3,160 Minimum daily flow of record (3) = 1,760 CFS n ( Dilution water during discharge period
)
'* ' 1,760 f t 3/see x 449 GPM/CFS x 300 min / discharge = 2.37(108 ) gal / discharge 1b/ gal = 3,160/2.37 (108 ) = 1.34(10-5) p 1.34 (10-5) lb/ gal = 1.61 ppm Backwash Process:
~~ e 3 1 3 lb/ discharge = 1.115 ft /sec x 2.832(10 ) 11ger/f t x (3 1.2(10-1) gram / liter x 1.2(10 ) sec/ discharge x , p 2.205 (10- ) lb/ gram = 10.1 , i l Dilution water during discharge period r n s 3 gal / discharge = 1.763(103 ) ft /see x 4.49(10 ) 2GPM/CFS x h 20 min / discharge = 15.8(106 ) Sal /dischnrge 6 ! kw' lb/ gal = 0.635(10 g0.1/15.8(10
) Ib/ gal = 0.076) ppm
= 0.635(10-6) k!") (1) a Alabama Power Co., Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Environmental Report, pp. 3-32, 33.
(2) Ibid, pp. 3-32, 33. (3) Ibid, p. 2-21. f3 NJ A-32 l]^ i V ,
V 4.1 - Consumption of Water - Effect cn Property y There are no downstream uses of water for agricultural use (1). The only ef fect on property would be for the production of electricity at Jim Woodruff Dam as previously stated in the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Environmental Report (2). (1) Alabama Power Co., Joseph M. Farlev Nuclear Plant Environmental Report, p. 3-22. (2) Ibid., p. 3-22. 5.2 - Chemical Discharge to Ambient Air - Eff ect on Air Quality - Odor The chlorine concentration of the cooling tower blowdown will be 0.25 to 0.5 ppm with expected concentrations in the river at low flow of essentially zero. Studies have shown that chlorine concentrations of 2.0 ppm in pure water will not cause objectionable odors. If organic substances such as phenols [",) are present, small concentrations can cause odors. However, a dosage of 0.1 ppm of chlorine did not produce odor with phenol present at 0.05 ppm (1). Accordingly, no odor should be produced from the discharge of chlorine from the cooling system of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant. (1) Resources Agency of California, State Water Quality Control Board, Water Quality Criteria,, 1963, pp. 161-163.
- 6. Salts Discharged from Cooling Towers - Effects on People, Plants and Property Resources.
The concentration of solids (dissolved and suspended) in the drif t from the cooling towers at the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant will be 220 ppm. The i drif t is 1,300 GPM or 2.83 CFS. Assuming the drift will not exceed the property boundaries and an average rainfall of 54 inches per year, the con-centration of solids affecting the environment after dilution by rainwater
, will be 42.2 ppm. This concentration is well below acceptable levels for f,f' ( ) potable water as well as agricultural use (1). (See attached tables from Ref erence (1)). The concentration of dissolved solids in the river averages 63 ppm.
n A-33 h
't.g f The above concertration was calculated as follows:
// -
Concentration of solids in blowdown (2) = 220 ppm 'i
~
~ t Drift rate (3) = 1,300 GPM = 2.9 CFS [
Rainfall (Normal) (4) = 54 inches / year i lbs solids /yr - ft /see x liter /ft3 x grams / liter x sec/yr x 3 lb/ gram x lead f actor = 9.55(105 ) Rainfall Dilution = in/yr x gal /atre/in x acres = 27.1(10)8 gal /yr. ! Solid contentration = lb/yr + gal /yr = 0.352(10-3) lb/ gal = 42.2 ppm' (1) Water Inf crmation Center , The Water Encyclopedia, . 1970, pp. 305-313. (2) ; Alabama Pcwer Cc., Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant ; Environmental Repert, p. 3-29, 30. (3) i Ibid, p. 3-29, ; (4) - Ibid, p- 2-31, 32. (5) lbid, p 2-1. i I f 7 re A-34 l I
L 1. .
+
i[
.{
20e warts ouAury Ano rotturoon conrnor. , t y b '( %) SECTION A. WATER OUALITY j
, t TABLE 61. DISSOLVED SOLIDS IN POTABLE WATER
$$eente Oeris and D<% Vest. Hydropeology, John Wiey & Sons, Copyrlpht 90669 (
(A classification based upon rotative ebunc'ence of dissotved solids l Mejor Constituents 11.0 to 1000 ppml , Sod um Bicerbonete , e Calcium Sulfate ' Magnesium Chloride
'h, . , , Silica !
Geoondary Canetituente (0,01 to 10.0 ppm) ' tron Carbonete !. Str onteum Nitrate ,, , ;. Potassium Fluoride l' E
- Swm . '{ 3-
~
Minor constituesses 10.000t to 0.1 posm)
. n t<
f-Antimony' Lead f' Alumanum Lithium o Ar6enic Mengenese Barsum Motybdenuse f 4 > Bromede Nickel 9 l Cadmium' . Phosphate e
/{
f
' Chromeum* Rubidium' C" J
Cobalt Selenium Copper Titanium'
. Germer.ium* Urenium {c lod.de ,; 3:
Venedium , t , , -, -, ; zine r j-i.44 Ytece Constits.ents toeneremy less then 0.001 ppm)
,.* # Berythum Rutheniurn' f' f
- Bismuth Scandium'
[- js
.; g., Cerium' Silver .
;o
( Cesium
,, Thetiium* i a
, Gothum Thorium' ,
p
; Gold Tin Ind.um
(; Tungsten' , r *
.'] Lenthenum Ytterbium 4 j +
N obium' Yttrium' '
! Platinum Zirconium' i I -
R adium f
*Eiements marked onsh an esterisk occupy en uncertain posP.lon in the ilst. I: pI lf,
; q.
TABLE 6 2. CLASSIFICATIONS OF WATER b
.< , isourses: Derls and DeWest. Hydropeology Ahn NIer & Sons. Cneyrlpht 1966, ,
6 and U.S. Geological bureey) *
'k. }:~ .
A. Bened on Concentretion of Total Dissolved Solids -- i
.I' '
Coneentration of Total Dissolved Seeida, I, Nm i
- peris per mitteon
, e
,I j -. Feesh 0-1000
., Brackesh i c J 1000-10.000 : P Soley 10,000-100.000 or.r.
3
'{.
More .he, ,00 000 I' ,h l. 1 S. Bened on Hereness lo i j v b New Herdness es CeCOs, parts
,, per milhon
$68I O 60 (
' ') s' i
MsaJerately hard Hard 64 170 . I 128-180 l A {- Very hard More then 100 4 4 .,
]
/.
A-35
' '[
]yS
ij = i { l SCCTION A. WATE'M OUALITY 313
/ i TABLE 6 7. OPTIMUM AND MAXIMUM VALUES OF WATER OUALITY
(/ CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO TYPE OF BENEFICIAL USE { continued) _) ; irrigetion fruktstrist , i Cootiwtend Aesthetle
! Characternstics She m Truck Food ProemW Other knley.
1 Culturs Gerden Citrus Other
**"I j Vege. Fruits Crops Fresh Seit Fresh Sett ,
j tables Water Water Weter Water 1r Osclerist-per ent. ; Cofitoren (opt.) 1.0 1.0 to 100 0.1 1D 1D to , Cohtorm (maxJ 5 10 100 100 1.0 3.0 to 100 . { 2. Organic-ppm. ,
, B.O.D.(optJ B none 1 5 5 20 !
\' 1 B .O.D. (me nj 20 5 to 10 20 100 f (l
i D.O foptj D.O. (min.1 5 2 5 1 5 1 3D 1D 3D 1D SD 1D Oil (opt.) none none none none none none 5 5 none f Oil (ma J 2 6 6 5 2 5 10 10 10
- 3. Reection i pH (opt.) 6.8-7.2 6.54.5 6.54.5 6.5-8.5 6.54.5 6.54.5 4.0-10.0 4D-10.0 6.04D 024.0 6.04D 6D4D 6.0-9.0 4D-10D 4.0-10.0 pH (criticall 6.64.0
) 4.19wsicot-ppm. .
50 Turtaid. (opt.) 5 , 5 5 20 50 jl Turbid. (max 3 50 , f I Color (opt.) 10 10 10 20 Color (mexJ 50 30 50 100 j i Susp. sotuis (opt.) to 10 10 50 50 i Susp. sotids (mex.) 100 50 100 ,150 150 4 Float. solids toptj none none none none none singht j; f lost. sohds (maxJ gross slight elight slight, enght groes
- 5. Cluemical-ppm. .
Total sofids (opt) 500 500 500 500 1,000 Totsi solids (max.) 1,500 1,500 2,000 1,500 1,500 CI(optj 200 100 250 500 CI(masJ 150 600 750 1,000 i F (opt.) 0.5-1 D , F (men.) 5 l Tonic metets (optJ 0.1 none none , Toxic metsis (maxJ 0.1 2.5 0.1 0.5
;' Phenot(opt.) l' 5' 1' 5* ('
; Phenol (max.) 10* 20* 10' . %r*
; j Doron (opt.) 0.5 1.0 t Boron (masJ .
1.0 5 f No rstict (opt.) 35-50t 35-50t 35-50t 90t i Na ratio 1 (men.) 801 75t 00t 90t 1'
- 100 Hardness toptJ Hardness (max.) 500 l
- j 6. Temp. *F.(max.) 70 1 7. Odor $fmanj N O O O M M O O O N M M 4 a,
- 6. Taste $(meJ E
1
- Ports per billion. '
,j TPer cent.
i ?
$Keyt D-disagreesbte; M-enerked; N-noticambte! O-obnoxious. . .
\ > '
' 'A-3 6 s-/i .
, I 1f .
- 8. Radionuclides in Water, Air, and Ground Water- Effect on People, Plants j and Animals j l
(GI During the PSAR review period the radioactive waste treatment systems for liquids and gases were upgraded to incorporate the Westinghouse Environmental
)
Assurance System which incorporates the latent available technology for 4 maintaining radioactive releases to the lowest practicable levels. As described in the Environmental Report (1) the liquid radwaste system uses separated drains and treatment systems which will permit recycling of reactor grade water and treatment of non-reactor grade water prior to discharge so as to reduce effluents to very low levels. Even with cooling tower blowdown flow only one-thirtieth of the flow available for dilution in once-through condenser cooling plants, the estimated annual average concentrations of radioactive isotopes in the discharge to the river is only 5 to 10 percent of Maximum Permissable Concentration (MPC) of 10 CFR 20. This would be equivalent to 1/6 to 1/3 of one percent for the same releases from the types of nuclear plants which are in operation today that use once-through cooling. After mixing in the river, the concentrations in water are about the same as for once-through cooling so the effects on aquatic life, animals, and humans would be about the same. The estimated annual doses to humans have been presented in the Farley Plant Environmental Report and are summarized in Table 4-13 of that report. These doses are less than 2 x 10-3 rem to the maximum exposed individual and less than 5 man-rem to the total population in a 50-mile radius. Furthermore the total liquid releases are less than 4 curies (excluding tritium) as set forth in Table 4-1 of the Environmental Report. The above. doses and curie releases are within proposed Appendix I limits. O V Releases of tritium are minimized by use of zirconium fuel clad, silver indium-cadmium control rods, boric acid evaporator, and radwaste system which i will recycle as much as practicable of reactor grade water. Estimated con- + centrations of 4 percent of MPC is equivalent to about 1/8 of one percent , for once-through cooling plants. Thus as in case of other isotopes, since concentrations affecting the public would be related to those resulting from mixing in the river, deses to the public would be within proposed Appendix I limits. To summarize, the Farley liquid radwaste system uses the latest available technology to hold releases to levels as low as practicable and meets Appendix I. Thus in accordance with the January 4,1972 proposed AEC guide on benefit-cost analyses (2), "no further consideration needs to be given to ;
'the reduction of radiological impacts in formulating alternative plant designs '
for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4." The gaseous radwaste hold-up system for the Farley Plant was changed during the PSAR review period from a 45-day holdup system to a recirculating type of system with continuous holdup. Furthermore the system will sc.wenge fission ' > product gases from the primary coolant more effectively than the od;,iani system so that gaseous releases from buiBings due to water ler.ks will be (1) Alabama Power Company., Joseph M. Farley Nuclear q Plant Environmental Report, Section 4. V (2) Proposed AEC Guide to the Preparation of Benefft-Cost Analyses to be Included in Applicants' Environmental Reports t
-(For Defined Classes of Completed and Partially Completed Nuclear Facilities), January 4, 1972, page 4. ,
_ _ _ .A-37 _ ,_
m p decreased. The Farley gaseous radwaste system incorporates.the latest available technology to reduce gaseous radioactive releases to the lowest practicable level and shculd be substantially below releases from currently [Ly. operating nuclear plants which have gaseous radwaste systems comparable to those originally planned for the Farley Plant. Since there will be no planned routine releases frcm the Farley gasecus radwaste system, such releases are well within Appendix I limits. Thus, in accordance with AEC's guide on benefit-cost. analyses alternatives need not be considered fer such system. For other gase:us releases from the remainder of the plant, sources have not been prenisely defined fr:m operating nuclear plants over the range of expected operating conditions of various water leakage rates, fuel leakage rates, and-steam generater leakage rates. It is presumed that such releases would be - within Appendix I limits since AEC had implied that Appendix 1 quantitative limits are based on releases achieved in operat1ng plants. Nevertheless. until better infermation is available concerning such estimated. releases, - allowances of 5 and 10% f or normal cperation and expected operational occurrences respectively have been provided such that representations to the public en r elesses will be conservatively high. Alabama Pcwer Company is continuing to'- obtain better definition of these releases and will modify plant design te the extent practicable to assure that the allcwances are not exceeded. It is not g practicable to discuss such alternatives until more reliable estimates are V available regarding these types of releases. The possibility of adver sely ef f ecting the ground water res:urces- cr existing [, . wells in the area as a result of the operaticn of a nuclear plant is remote-(3). [: 3 (3) Alabama Power Co., Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Environmental Report , pp. 2-19, 20 and 3-22, 23. lh n 11-. Fogging and Icing - Effects cn Transportatien and Plants 7 I ^ Fogging potential can be expressed in terms of the difference between vapor
< mass at saturation and vapor mass of ambient air (1). The attached table
; gives average hcurly dry bulb remperature and relative humidity from the Dothan ar ea during the winter months (2) . From this data, the vapor mass
, in g/m 3 for saturation conditions and ambient conditions can be calculated i' and thus the difference or " delta mass." According to reference (1), fogging potential has an extremely Icw probability as long c.s the " delta mass" is 4 not less than 0.5 g/m .3 The 1cwest " delta mass" based on the average conditions
$ of the attached table is 0.8 g/m 3. 'Under average conditiens, there is an-k~ extremely 1:w probability cf fogging potential in the vicinity of Joseph M. u Farley Naclear Plant. 4W (1) Nat. Thermal Poilution Res. Prog. , Pacific N.W. Water Lab.. and Great Lakes Regicnal Of f . . . U. S. Dept. W of Interior, Fed. Water Qual . Admin. , Feasibility of Alternative Means of Cocling for Thermal Power Plants en Lake Michigan, 19 70, pp. VI-9, 11. l 1 A-38
I). (2)
, Alabama Power Co. , Joseph M. Earley Nuclear Plant Environmentcl Report, pp. 2-31, 32.
AVERAGE CLIMATIC AND FOGGING POTENTIAL BASED ON DOTHAN DATA WINTER Time of Dry Bulb Relative Vapor Mass g/m3 Delta Day 0F Humidity Saturation Ambient Mass 1 AM 49 85 9.2 7.8 1.4 2
- 48 87 8.8 7.6 1.2 3 47 87 8.5 7.4 1.1 4 47 87 8.5 7.4 1.1 5 46 89 8.2 7.3 0.9 6 46 90 8.2 7.4 0.8 7 46 89 8.2 7.3 0.9 8 4.7 87 8.5 7.4 1.1 9 49 83 9.2 7.6 1.6 fT 10 52 77 10.1 7.8 2.3 !
'l 11 54 70 10.7 7.5 3.2 12 58 66 12.3 8.1. 4.1 1 PM 60 62 13.0 8.1 4.9 2 62 58 13.9 8.1 5.8 '
3 63 57 14.4 8.2 6.2
. 4 62 58 13.9 8.1 5.8 5 61 63 13.5 8.3 5.2 6 57 68 11.8 8.0 3.8 7 55 72 11.1 8.0 3.1 8 54 76 10.7 8.1 2.6 9 53 78 10.3 8.0 2.3 10 52 81 10.1 8.2 1.9 11 50 83 9.4 7.8 1.6 ,
12 49 84 9.2 7.7 1.5 l l l i i i
)
A-39 4 i
- 12. Raising and Lowering cf Ground Water Levels - Effects on People and Plants gg Well water will be utilized f or demineralizer make-up, demineralizer regeneration, backwashing the demineralizer filters, and the potable water supply. The maximum quantity to fill these requirements will be S17,800 ga11cus a day cr 360 GPM under extreme conditions. The quantity fer :-ach is as fellows:
Demineralizer make-up - 364,800 Gal. per day at maximum oper atic n. Maximum operaticn is 19 hours per day allowing five hcur s f er : egeneration. Demineralizer Regeneration - 38,000 gal, per day at maximum operation. Maximum operation would requir e rwe regene:uticn cycles per day at 19,000 gal. each. Demineralizer filter backwash - 10.000 gal per day at maximum operation Maximum operation wculd requir e two backwashing cy;1es at 5,000 gal each. Petable water supply - 5,000 gal, per day. Based en 50 gallcas per person per day and 100 people.- The water to supply this quantity will be drawn from deep wells developed in the Icw acquifers whi:h underly impervious material and will have no effect on the level of the ground water. table, The volume of water available in these lower arquifers is of such magnitude that the 360 GPM wculd have no (-)S (_ effect on the availability of water for other users. Each of the lcwer acquifers (maj :r shallow and majet deep) will easily yield 1 millicn gal, per day (695 CPM) t an individual well (1). (1) Gerlegical Su:sey cf Alabama, Water Asallability in H ustcn C unty_Aiabamp, Map 59, 1967,
- 13. Ambient Ncise - Eife:t_un People Noise levels due t: cocling tower :pe:ations on similar installaticns have been verified te be essentially ba:kg:cund ncise less than 45 dBA. Within 10 feet of the gearb:x assembly the noise level is apptcximately 90 dBA. If the 90 dBA is assumed to be a point s:urce, the sound level at the beundary cf the plant would be 38 dBA and within 1800 f eet of the source it would be 45 dBA. Theref ore, n:1se is n:t exp*:ted to affect the population surtcunding the Joseph M, Farley Nuclear Plaut, (n)
\ _ ,/
A-40 , l
f Methodology: i
, r1 dBA1 = dBA2 - 20 log 10 ri ~-
dBA1 = Sound pressure at point 1 in dBA dBA2 = Sound pressure at point 2 in dBA r1 = Distance in feet from source to point 1 r2 = Distance in feet from source to point 2 For an average r1 to the plant boundary of 4,000 feet dBA1 20 log (4,000/10) = 37.96 The distance from the source to point with 45 dBA level 45 = 90 - 20 log (x) X = 177.9 Since the 90 dBA is at 10 feet from the source the distance would be 177.9 x 10 = 1,779 ft. 73 1
~
15.5 Permanent Residuals of Construction Activity - Effect on Property Values The Southeast Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission has stated that the optimum use of land in the vicitnity of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant along the Chattahoochee River is for industrial purposes. At present over 500 acres on the west bank approximately four miles from the Farley Site are reserved for industrial development. The construction of the Farley Plant in this area will enhance the potential for industrial development and thus increase the value of surrounding property. The Transmission Line routes have been selected so as to avoid towns, residential areas, Historical Sites, and public use lands other than roads and highways. The present land use along the transmission routes is primarily agricultural. It is expected that the primary use of these lands will continue to be agricultural. The Transmission Lines will have minimal impact on these property values. (1) (1) Alabama Power Company, The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Environmental Report, Section 3.2. J A 41}}