ML20079N868
| ML20079N868 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1983 |
| From: | WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079N859 | List: |
| References | |
| ENVR-830228, NUDOCS 8303040453 | |
| Download: ML20079N868 (362) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- WNP-1 ER-OL - AMENDMENT 1, FEBRUARY 1983 INSTRUCTIONS The following is furnished as a guide for insertion of Amendment 1 sheets into the WNP-1 Environmental Report - Operating License Stage. After inserting Amendment 1, place the transmittal letter and instruction sheets in the front of the Environmental Report to maintain a record of the changes. Several unrevised pages (Sections 3.4, 5.1, and 6.1 in particular) are included because of pagination errors in approximately half the distributed copies. REMOVE OLD SHEETS INSERT NEW SHEETS List of Tables and Illustrations Pages i thru ix Pages i thru xiii Chapter 1 Pages 1.0-1 and 1.0-2 Pages 1.0-1 and 1.0-2 Chapter 2 Pages 2.1-1 thru 2.1-7 Pages 2.1-1 thru 2.1-7 Pages 2.2-1 thru 2.2-14 Pages 2.2-1 thru 2.2-14 Tables 2.2-1 thru 2.2-3 Tables 2.2-1 thru 2.2-3 Figure 2.2-5 Figure 2.2-5 Pages 2.3-1 thru 2.3-8 Pages 2.3-1 thru 2.3-3 Tables 2.3-1A thru 2.3-1G Table 2.3-1 Tables 2.3-2A thru 2.3-2D Table 2.3-2 (4 shts) Tables 2.3-7 thru 2.3-14 Tables 2.3-7 thru 2. 3-14 Table 2.3-16F Table 2.3-16F Figures 2.3-1 thru 2.3-9 Figures 2.3-1 thru 2.3-9 Figures 2.3-13 and 2.3-15 Figures 2.3-13 and 2.3-15 Pages 2.4-1 thru 2.4-8 Pages 2.4-1 thru 2.4-8 Tables 2.4-2 thru 2.4-6 Tables 2.4-2 thru 2.4-6
*Page 2.5-2 *Page 2.5-2 l Pages 2.6-1 thru'2.6-3 Pages 2.6-1 thru 2.6-3 Chapter 3
{ Figure 3.1-2 Figure 3.1-2 i Page 3.2-1 Page 3.2-1 Pages 3.4-2 and 3.4-3 Pages 3.4-2 and 3.4-3 Tables 3.4-1 thru 3.4-4 Tables 3.4-1 thru 3.4-4 Pages 3.5-1 thru 3.5-9 Pages 3.5-1 thru 3.5-8 O
*Because of pagination errors, some volumes will have two Page 2.5-1.
Draw a line through the original Page 2.5-1. 8303040453 830211 FDR ADOCK 05000460 C PDR
___ - --. . - . . . . =.- - -- - . - ... - -... .... _.-. - .. . .. - - . ) i j REMOVE OLD SHEETS INSERT NEW SHEETS : 2 Chapter 9 i f Pages 9.1-1 and 9.1-2 Page 9.0-1 Pages 9.2-1 thru 9.2-3 l Chapter 10 j Pages 10.7-1 and 10.8-1 Page 10sC-1 i l j , Chapter 11 i i Page 11.1-1 Page 11.1-1
- Figure 11.1-1 ,
- Page 11.2-1 Page 11.2-1 3 Page 11.3-1 ,
! Pages 11.4-1 and 11.4-2 l Pages 11.5-1 thru 11.5-3 Pages 11.6-1 and 11.6-2 Table 11.6-1 (5 shts) a ; Appendices 1 ! Pages III-l thru III-5 Page III-1 thru III-5 l l Pages IV-1 thru IV-8 Pages IV-1 thru IV-6 Pages V-1 thru V-25 Pages V-1 thru V-18 i
i l
'i I
I i I I [ l L l L i 1 l t l ' I i
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 PURPOSE OF THE FACILITY 1.0-1 2 THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES 2.1-1 . 2.1 Geography and Demography 2.1-1 2.1.1 Site Locr. ion and Description 2.1-1 2.1.2 Population Distribution 2.1-3 2.1.3 Uses of Adjacent Lands and Waters 2.1-5 2.2 Ecology 2.2-1 2.2.1 Terrestrial Ecology 2.2-1 2.2.2 Aquatic Ecology 2.2-6 2.3 Meteorology 2.3-1 2.3.1 Regional Climatology 2.3-1 2.3.2 Site Meteorology 2.3-3 2.4 Hydrology 2.4-1 2.4.1 Surface 2.4-1 2.4.2 Groundwater 2.4-5
' 2.5 Geology 2.5-1 2.6 Regional Historic, Scenic, Cultural, and Natural Features 2.6-1 2.7 Noise 2.7-1 3 THE PLANT 3.1-1 3.1 External Appearance 3.1-1 3.2 Reactor and Steam Electric System 3.2-1 3.3 Station Water Use 3.3-1 3.4 Heat Dissipation System 3.4-1 3.4.1 Circulating Cooling Water System 3.4-1 3.4.2 Intake System 3.4-2 3.4.3 Discharge System 3.4-2 3.5 Radwaste Systems and Source Term 3.5-1 3.5.1 Source Terms 3.5-1 3.5.2 Liquid Radwaste System 3.5-4 3.5.3 Gaseous Radwaste System 3.5-5 3.5.4 Solid Waste System 3.5-6 3.5.5 Process and Effluent Monitoring 3.5-7 3.6 Chemical and Biocide Wastes 3.6-1 3.6.1 Low Volume Waste 3.6-1 3.6.2 Metal Cleaning Wastes 3.6-6 3.6.3 Auxiliary Boiler Blowdown 3.6 3.6.4 Circulating Water System 3.6-6 O
v i i Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O TABLE OF CONTENTS (contd.) Sec tion Title Page 3.7 Sanitary and Other Wastes 3.7-1 3.7.1 Sanitary Waste 3.7-1 3.7.2 Other Waste Systems 3.7-1 3.8 Reporting of Radioactive Material Movement 3.8-1 3.9 Transmission Facilities 3.9-1 4 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION 4.1-1 4.1 Site Preparation and Plant Construction 4.1-1 4.2 Transmission Facilities Construction 4.2-1 4.3 Resources Committed 4.3-1 4.4 Radioactivity 4.4-1 4.5 Construction Impact Control Programs 4.5-1 5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION 5.1-1 5.1 Effects of Operation of Heat Dissipation System 5.1-1 5.1.1 Effluent Limitations and Water Quality Standards 5.1-1 5.1.2 Physical Effects 5.1-2 5.1.3 Biological Effects 5.1-4 5.1.4 Effects of Heat Dissipation Facilities 5.1-10 5.2 Radiological Impact from Routine Operation 5.2-1 5.2.1 Exposure Pathways 5.2-1 5.2.2 Radioactivity in the Environment 5.2-1 5.2.3 Dose Rate Estimates for Biota Other Than Man 5.2-2 5.2.4 Dose Rate Estimates for Man 5.2-3 5.2.5 Sumary of Annual Radiation Doses 5.2-5 5.3 Effects of Liquid Chemical and Biocide Discharges 5.3-1 5.4 Effects of Sanitary Waste Discharges 5.4-1 l 5.5 Effects of Operation and Maintenance i of the Transmission System 5.5-1 j 5.6 Other Effects 5.6-1 < 5.7 Irretrievable Comitments of Resources 5.7-1 5.8 Decomissioning of Reactor Buildings 5.8-1 5.8.1 Site Lease Considerations 5.8-1 5.8.2 Decomissioning Options 5.8-1 5.8.3 Decomissioning Program 5.8-3 5.8.4 Costs of Decomissioning 5.8-4 5.8.5 Environmental Impacts of Decomissioning 5.8-5 11 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
l i 1 WNP-1/4 ER-OL 4 ) TABLE OF CONTENTS (contd.) l a Section Title Page 6 EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT AND < MONITORING PROGRAMS 6.1-1 6.1 Preoperational Environmental Program 6.1-1 6.1.1 Surface Water 6.1-1 6.1.2 Groundwater 6.1-8 6.1.3 Air 6.1-8 l 6.1.4 Land 6.1-17 6.1.5 Radiological Monitoring 6.1-21 6.2 Operational Environmental Program 6.2-1 6.2.1 Water Quality . 6.2-1 6.2.2 Aquatic Environment 6.2-1 6.2.3 Radiological 6.2-1
; 6.2.4 Meteorological 6.2-2 6.2.5 6.2-2 Land 6.3 Related Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs 6.3-1 6.3.1 Hydrological and Water Quality Studies 6.3-1 6.3.2 Ecological Parameters - Aquatic Studies 6.3-2
' O- 6.3.3 6.3.4 Ecological Parameters - Terrestrial Studies Meteorological Monitoring Programs 6.3-5 6.3-6 , 6.3.5 Radiological Monitoring Programs 6.3-7 6.4 Preoperational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Data 6.4-1
- 7. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS 7.1-1 7.1 Plant Accidents Involving Radicactivity 7.1-1 7.1.1 Introduction 7.1-2 7.1.2 Meteorological Assumptions and Dose Calculations 7.1-1 7.1.3 Postulated Accidents and Potential Environmental Consequences 7.1-3 e 7.2 Transportation Accidents Involving i Radioactivity 7.2-1 7.3 Other Accidents 7.3-1 7.3.1 Chemical Spill Accidents 7.3-1 7.3.2 Fire Prevention and Effects 7.3-1 7.3.3 Fuel Oil Accidents 7.3-2 t
( iii Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL W TABLE OF CONTENTS (contd.) Section Title Page 8 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF PROJECT OPERATION 8.1-1 8.1 Benefits of Operation 8.1-1 8.1.1 Employment and Income Benefits 8.1-1 8.1.2 Regional Benefits of an Adequate Energy Supply 8.1-2 8.2 Costs of Operation 8.2-1 8.2.1 Internal Costs 8.2-1 8.2.2 External Costs 8.2-2 9 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES 9.0-1 10 PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 10.0-1 11 BENEFIT-COST
SUMMARY
11.1-1 11.1 Benefits 11.1-1 11.2 Costs 11.2-1 12 ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATION 12.1-1 App I NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT I-1 App II LETTER BY STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER Re: WNP-2 OPERATION II-1 , App III CALCULATION PARAMETERS - RADI0 ACTIVE SOURCE TERMS III-1 App IV CALCULATION PARAMETERS - RADIOLOGICAL DOSE - GASE0US EFFLUENTS IV-1 App V CALCULATION PARAMETERS - RADIOLOGICAL DOSE - LIQUID EFFLUENTS V-1 iv Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title 2.1-1 Population Distribution by Compass Sector and Distance from the Site 2.1 -2 Industry Within a 10-Mile Radius of the Site 2.1-3 Distances from Centroid of WNP-1, 2 and 4 to Various Activities 2.2-1 Terrestrial Flora and Fauna near WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 2.2-2 Columbia River Biota 2.2-3 Number of Spawning Fall Chinook Salmon at Hanford, 1947-1978 2.3-1 Averages and Extremes of Climatic Elements at Hanford 2.3-2 Frequency Distribution of Stability vs. Direction for Stability Classes A-G (three years data) 2.3-3A-H Percent Frequency of Occurrence, Wind Direction vs. Speed from 10/79 thru 9/80 2.3-4A-B Percent Frequency of Occurrence, Wind Direction vs. Speed from 10/79 thru 9/80 (annual summaries at 10 and 75 meters) 2.3-SA-M Frequency of Occurrence, Wind Direction vs. Speed (monthly and annual) 2.3-6A-E Seasonal Percent Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed and Wind Direction at HMS vs. Atmospheric Stability w 2.3-7 Summary of Onsite Meteorological Data Compared to I Corresponding HMS Data 2.3-8 Comparison of Onsite and Long-Term Diffusion Elements 2.3-9 Means of Daily Mixing Heights and Associated Average Wind Speeds 2.3-10 Comparison of Monthly Average and Extremes of Hourly Average Air Temperatures Onsite and at HMS 2.3-11 Comparison of Monthly Average Wet Bulb Temperatures Onsite and at HMS 2.3-12 Frequency of Occurrence, Wet Bulb Temperature vs. Time of Day 2.3-13 Monthly Averages of Psychrometric Data at HMS, 1950-1970 2.3-14 Miscellaneous Snowfall Statistics for Hanford, 1946-1970 2.3-15 Average Return Period and Existing Record for Various Precipitation Amounts and Intensity During Specified Time Periods at Hanford 2.3-16 A-E Joint Frequency Distribution of Winds for Rain Intensity Classes 2.3-16F Zero Measurement Field for Precipitation Intensities 1 y Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL LIST OF TABLES (contd.) Table No. Title 2.4-1 Columbia River Mile Index 2.4-2 Mean Monthly Discharges of Columbia River Below Priest Rapids Dam 2.4-3 Chemical Characteristics of Columbia River at 100-F Area, 1970 2.4-4 Average Chemical Concentrations in the Columbia River at Vernita Bridge 2.4-5 Columbia River Water Quality Sumary in Vicinity of WNP-1/4 Intake Structure 2.4-6 Monthly Average Water Temperature at Priest Rapids Dam 2.4-7 Monthly Average Water Temperature at Richland, WA 2.4-8 Discharge Lines to Columbia River from Hanford Reservation 2.4-9 Total Annual Direct Chemical Discharge from Hanford Reservation to Columbia River 2.4-10 Major Geologic Units in the Hanford Reservation Area and their Water-haring Properties 2.4-11 Average Field Permeability 3.2-1 Relationship of Station Heat Rate to Turbine Backpressure 3.3-1 Maximum Anticipated Plant Water Use for One Unit 3.4-1 Operating Parameters for One Unit at Design Conditions 3.4-2 Operating Characteristics for Expected Ambient Conditions 3.4-3 Monthly Evaporative and Drift Losses for One Generating Unit's Cwling Towers 3.4-4 Seasonal Variation in Cooling Tower Makeup and Blowdown Requirements for One Unit
- 3.5-1 Total Core Fission Product and Gap Activity vs Time -
Equilibrium Cycle 3.5-2 Total Core Fuel Rod Gap Activity vs Time - Equilibrium Cycle 3.5-3 Average Fission Product Fuel Inventory Including Gap Activity of Single Fuel Assembly for Various Decay Times j 3.5-4 Average Fission Product Inventory in Fuel Rod Gap of Single l Fuel Assembly for Various Decay Times i 3.5-5 Parameters Used to Calculate In-Plant Design Basis Fission Product Inventories for the Primary and Secondary Coolant vi Amendment 1 (Feb d i h
WNP-1/4 ER-OL V LIST OF TABLES (contd.) Table No. Title 3.5-6 Average Processing Rate Through Purification De ' .m s and Bleed Processing System 3.5-7 In-Plant Design Fission Product Activity in ~ >lant vs Time for Base-Loaded Operation with . fuel - Equilibrium Cycle 3.5-8 In-Plant Design Fission Product Activit Coolant vs Time for Load Follow Operation wi* sed Fuel - Equilibrium Cycle 3.5-9 Tritium Production 3.5-10 Primary and Secondary Coolant Activity - Expected Basis 3.5-11 Primary and Secondary Coolant Corrosion Product Activities - Design Basis 3.5-12 Nitrogen-16 Activity in Reactor Coolant System - Desian Basis 3.5-13 Parameters Used to Calculate In-Plant Design Secondary Coolant Source Terms 3.5-14 Secondary Coolant System Activity - Design Basis 3.5-15 RLW Component Design Parameters 3.5-16 Radioactive Liquid Waste System Inputs s 3.5-17 Assumptions and Parameters Used to Determine Annual Liquid s Effluent Releases 3.5-18 Expected Annual Radionuclide Release in Liquid Effluents Per Reactor 3.5-19 Radioactive Gaseous Waste System Inputs 3.5-20 RGW Component Design Parameters 3.5-21 Assumptions and Parameters Used to Determine Annual Gaseous Effluent Releases 3.5-22 Gaseous Release Rate l 3.5-23 Airborne Particulate Release Rate L 3.5-24 Radioactive Solid Waste System Inputs 3.5-25 Radioactive Solid Waste Volumes for Offsite Shipment 3.5-26 RSW Design Parameters j 3.5-27 Assumptions and Parameters Used to Calculate RSW Activity 3.5-28 Effluent Release Points and Monitoring Capabilities 3.6-1 Water and Waste Treatment Chemicals Used at WNP-1/4 3.6-2 General Chemical Composition of Columbia River Water and Plant Effluents , 3.6-3 Metals Concentrations in Columbia River Water and Plant Effluents vii Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
l l WNP-1/4 ER-OL LIST OF TABLES (contd.) O i Table No. Title 5.1-1 Timing of Salmon Activities in the Columbia River Near Hanford 5.1-2 Annual Percent Persistence of Plume Lengths from either WNP-1 or WNP-4 Cooling Tower alone as a Function of Distance and Direction 5.1-3 Annual Percent Persistence of Plume Lengths from WNP-1 Cooling Tower as a Function of Distance and Direction with the added Effect of WNP-2 and WNP-4 5.1-4 Annual Percentages of Ground Fogging from a Single Plant at WNP-1/4 Site 5.1-5 Annual Percentages of Ground Fog at Freezing Temperatures from a Single Plant at WNP-1/4 Site 5.1-6 Frequency of Fogging and Icing Predicted the Operation of Cooling Towers for Unit 1 and Units 1 and 4 Combined 5.1-7 Natural Occurrence of Fog and Ice 5.2-1 Radionuclide Concentrations at Various Locations in Columbia River Water 5.2-2 Airborne Radionuclide Concentrations at Four Special Locations 5.2-3 Average Annual Dispersion Factors 5.2-4 Average Annual Deposition Factors 5.2-5 Annual Dose to Biota from WNP-1/4 Liquid Effluents 5.2-6 Estimated Anneal Maximum Dose to an Individual from WNP-1 5.2-7 Fraction of Radionuclide Passing Through Water Treatment Plant 5.2-8 Parameters used to Calculate Maximum Individual Dose from Liquid Effluents 5.2-9 Downstream Surface Water Users 5.2-10 Parameters to Calculate Individual and Population Doses from Gaseous Effluents 5.2-11 Calculated Annual Total Body Dose to Population within
~
50 Miles of WNP-1, WNP-2 and WNP-4 5.2-12 Calculated Annual Thyroid Dose to Population wittin 50 Miles of WNP-1, WNP-2 and WNP-4 5.2-13 Comparative Total Body Dose Estimates from Typical Sources of Radiation 5.2-14 Estimated Annual Dose from Gaseous Effluents compared with 10 CFR 50 Appendix I and RM-50-2 Limits 5.2-15 Estimated Annual Dose from Liquid Effluents compared with 10 CFR 50 Appendix I and RM-50-2 Limts viii Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O
T WNP-1/4 ER-OL LIST OF TABLES (contd.) Table No. Title 5.3-1 Potential Change in Columbia River Water Quality Resulting from WNP-1/4 Chemical Discharges 5.3-2 Lethal Concentrations of Copper and Zinc for Various Life Stages of Steelhead Trout and Chinook Salmon 5.3-3 Expected Cooper Concentrations in the Vicinity of the WNP-1/4 Discharge 6.1-1 Mass Size Distribution of Cooling Tower Drift Droplets 6.1-2 Fish Sampling Frequency by Station and Method 6.1-3 Radiological Environment Monitoring Program 6.1-4 Maximum Value for the Lower Limit of Radionuclide Detection 6.2-1 Water Quality Monitoring Program 6.3-1 Routine Environmental Radiation Surveillance 6.3-2 Environmental Radiation Surveillance Network, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Health Services Division, June 1978 6.4-1 Preoperational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Data l 7.1-1 Accident Classification 7.1-2 Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences of Postulated Accidents 7.1-3 Parameters used for Calculating Submersion and Inhalation Doses Following Accidental Atmospheric Releases 7.1-4 Core Inventory of Noble Gases and Iodines 7.1-5 Noble Gas and Iodine Concentrations in Primary and Secondary Coolant Systems L 7.1-6 Activity Released to the Environment due to Equipment Leakage or Malfunction Resulting in Release of 25% of the Normal Inventory of a Waste Gas Decay Tank 7.1-7 Activity Released to the Environment due to a Release of . 100% of the Normal Inventory of a Waste Gas Decay Tank l 7.1-8 Activity Released to the Environment due to Radioactive Liquid Waste Storage Tank Failures 7.1-9 Activity Released to the Environment due to Off-Design, Transients that induce Fuel Failure above those expected and Steam Generator Leak i ix Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
/G l
LJ t I
WNP-1/4 ER-OL LIST OF TABLES (contd.) O Table No. Title 7.1-10 Activity Released to the Environment as a result of a Steam Generator Tube Rupture 7.1-11 Activity Released to the Environment as a result of a Fuel Bundle Drop 7.1-12 Activity Released to the Environment as a result of a Heavy Object Drop onto Fuel in Core 7.1-13 Activity Released to the Environment as a result of Fuel Assembly Drop in Fuel Storage Pool 7.1-14 Activity Released to the Environment as a result of a Heavy Object Drop onto Fuel Rack 7.1-15 Activity Released to the Environment as a result of a Sudden Release in a Reactor Coolant System Pipe (Small Pipe Break) 7.1-16 Activity Released to the Environment as a result of a Sudden Release in a Reactor Coolant System Pipe (Large Pipe Break) 7.1-17 Activity Released to the Environment as a result of a Rupture of the Letdown Line Outside Containment 7.1-18 Activity Released to the Environment as a result of a Rod Ejection Accident 7.1-19 Activity Released to the Environment as a result of a 7.1-20 7.1-21 Steamline Break Outside Containment Rebaselined RSS PWR Accident Release Categories Permanent Resident Population Pojected to Year 2010 h 8.1-1 Annual Benefits Associated with Operation of WNP-1 8.2-1 Estimated Direct Construction Costs Prior to Operation of WNP-1 8.2-2 Estimated Annual Cost of Operation of WNP-1 11.1-1 Benefits of Operating WNP-1 11.2-1 Costs of Operating WNP-1 12.1-1 Environmental Permits and Approvals Required for Plant Construction and Operation , x Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Title 2.1-1 Hanford Site Boundary Map 2.1-2 Land Usage Master Planning 2.1 -3 Project Area Map - 10 Mile Radius 2.1-4 Project Area Map - 50 Mile Radius 2.1 -5 Distribution Of Transient Population Within 10 Miles Of Site 2.2-1 Distribution of Major Plant Comunities (Vegetation Types) On The DOE Hanfcrd Site, Benton County, WA 2.2-2 Food-Web of Columbia River 2.2-3 Seasonal Fluctuation of Plankton Biomass 2.2-4 Seasonal Fluctuation of Net Production Rate of Periphf:an 2.2 -5 Density Of Columbia River Benthic Macrofauna Collected Near WNP 1, 2 and 4 (RM 352) 2.2-6 Timing Of Upstream Migrations in The Lower Columbia River 2.3-1 Wind Rose for WNP-1/4 for 4-74 to 3-76 at the 7-Ft Level 2.3-2 Wind Rose for WNP-1/4 for 4-74 to 3-76 at the 33-Ft Level 2.3-3 Wind Rose for WNP-1/4 for 4-74 to 3-76 at the 245-Ft Level n 2.3-4 HMS 200-Ft Level Wind Roses by Hanford Stability Classes Q 2.3-5 Surface Wind Roses from Various Locations on and Surrounding the Hanford Site based on Five-Year Avgs 2.3-6 Monthly Hourly Averages of Temperature and Relative Humidity at HMS, January-April 2.3-7 Monthly Hourly Averages of Temperature and Relative Humidity at HMS, May-August 2.3-8 Monthly Hourly Averages of Temperature and Relative Humidity at HMS, September-December 2.3-9 Annual Hourly Average of Temperature and Relative Humidity at HMS I 2.3-10 Average Monthly Precipitation Amounts Based on the Period 1912-1970 at HMS 2.3-11 Rainfall Intensity, Duration, and Frequency Based on the Period 1947-1069 at HMS 2.3-12 Peak Wind Gust Return Probability Diagram at HMS 2.3-13 Metric Mean TSP Concentrations at Wallula and Hanford 2.3-14 Topographic Cross Section of Region Surrounding Plant Site 2.3-15 Site Topography 2.4-1 Upper and Middle Columbia River Basin 2.4-2 Discharge Duration Curves of the Columbia River Below Priest Rapids Dam, WA
- 2.4-3 Columbia River At Priest Rapids, WA, Summary and 1978 Hydrographs J
xi Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL LIST OF FIGURES (contd.) Figure No. Litle 2.4-4 Frequency Curve of Momentary Peak Flows for the Columbia River Below Priest Rapids Dam, WA 2.4-5 Frequency Curves of High and Low Flows for the Columbia River Below Priest Rapids Dam, WA 2.4-6 Cross Sections of the Columbia River in the Plant Vicinity 2.4-7 Location of Intake and Discharge Lines WNP-1, WNP-4, and WNP-2 . 2.4-8 River Water Surface Profiles for Several Flow Discharges in the Vicinity of the Plant Site 2.4-9 Average Monthly Temperature Coroarison for Priest Rapids Dam, and Richland, for 10-Year Period 1965-1974 2.4-10 Computed Long Term Temperature on the Columbia River at Rock Island Dam (1938-1972) 2.4 -11 Simplified Geological Cross Section of the Hanford Reservation, Washington 2.4-12 Groundwater Contours and Locations of Wells for the Hanford Reservation, Washington, September 1973 2.4-13 Water Table Map in Vicinity of WNP-1 and 4, December 1978 2.4-14 Points of Groundwater Withdraw in the Vicinity of WNP-1 3.1-1 Aerial Oblique, 9/81, looking North 3.1-2 Effluent Release Points 3.4-1 Cooling Tower and Building Layout, WNP-1 3.4-2 Make-Up Water Pump House Detail 3.4-3 Make-Up Water Inlet Detail 3.4-4 Intake and Outfall Configuration 3.4-5 Blowdown Discharge Detail 3.6-1 Schematic of Water Flow, WNP-1 3.6-2 Schematic of Water Flow, WNP-4 3.7-1 Sanitary Waste Treatment System 5.1-1 Plume Excess Temperature Decay Curve 5.1-2 Plume Excess Temperature Decay for WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 Effluents 5.1-3 Plan View of WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 Blowdown Plume Isotherms 5.1-4 Sumary of Temperature Exposure and Thermal Tolerance of Juvenile Salmonids 5.1-5 Equilibrium Loss and Death Times at Various Temperatures for Juvenile Chinook Salmon 5.1-6 Cooling Tower Drift Deposition from the Combined Operation of WNP-1 and WNP-4 O xii Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 g ER-OL U LIST OF FIGURES (contd.) Figure No. 5.2-1 Nearest Hanford Facilities, Population Center and Area of Highest X/Q 5.2-2 Exposure Pathways to Man 5.2-3 Exposure Pathways to Biota 5.3-1 Relationship Between Total Hardness or Alkalinity and Copper Toxicity 6.1-1 Aquatic Biota and Water Quality Sampling Stations Near WNP-1, 2, and 4 6.1-2 Terrestrial Ecology Study Site in the Vicinity of WNP-1/4 6.1-3 Mean Herbaceous Cover (Percent) in Vicinity of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 6.1-4 Average Dry Weight of Live Above-Ground Herbaceous Phytomass in the Vicinity of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 6.1-5 Deer, Rabbit and Bird Sampling Locations in the Vicinity of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 6.1-6 Radiological Sample Station Locations 6.3-1 Hanford Environmental Air Sampling Locations During 1975 6.3-2 Radiological Monitoring Stations at Hanford Operated by DOE 6.3-3 Statewide Sampling Locations 7.1-1 Schematic Outline, Consequence Model 7.1-2 Probability versus Acute Fatalities 7.1-3 Probability versus Latent Cancer Fatalities 7.1-4 Probability versus Latent Thyroid Effects 7.1-5 Probability versus Direct Costs of Mitigation 7.1-6 Probability versus Whole Body Population Dose 7.1-7 Probability versus Persons in Dose Ranges 7.1-8 Downwind Whole Body Dose O xiii Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 ER-OL CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE OF THE FACILITY This Environmental Report-0perating License Stage (ER-OL) is submitted in support of the application filed in Docket No. 50-460 by the Washington Public Power Supply System (hereafter referred to as the " Supply System") for a nuclear power generation unit designated as Nuclear Projects No.1 (WNP-1). This 1250-MWe unit is being constructed by the Supply System to satisfy the power needs of the Pacific Northwest region. At the time the 1 OL Application was tendered, the scheduled fuel load date was December 1985 and the scheduled commercial operation date was June 1986. On April 29, 1982 the Supply System Board of Directors accepted a Bonneville Power Administration rec 9mendation that construction of WNP-1 be delayed from two to five years.ll) The Supply System is a joint operating agency formed in 1957 under Chapter 43.52 of the Revised Code of Washington. As a joint operating agency, the Supply System is legally empowered "to generate, produce, transmit, trans-fer, exchange or sell electric energy and to enter into contracts for any or all such purposes" (RCW 43.52.300). The Supply System sells electri-city only to other electric utilities or to government agencies. These utilities and agencies in turn distribute the electricity to customers throughout most of the Pacific Northwest. The management and control of O the Supply System is vested in a Board of Directors composed of a repre-k sentative of each of its members, which are 19 public utility districts and the cities of Ellensburg, Richland, Seattle and Tacoma, all located in the State of Washington. . The Supply System owns and operates the 27-MWe Packwood Hydroelectric Project near the town of Packwood and the 860-MWe Hanford Generating Proj-ect (HGP) located on the Hanford Site of the United States Department of , Energy (00E). Steam for the HGP turbines is provided by DOE's N Reactor. l The Supply System is also building a 1100-MWe nuclear electric generating l plant (WNP-2) on the Hanford Site and a 1240-MWe plant (WNP-3) near I ! Satsop, Washington in Grays Harbor County. Applications for construction permits and operating licenses for twin units, WNP-1 and WNP-4, were filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on October 18, 1973 for WNP-1 and on August 5, 1974 for WNP-4. Con-struction was commenced in August 1975 with issuance of a Limited Work Authorization. Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-134 and CPPR-174 were subse-quently issued on December 23, 1975 for WNP-1 (Docket No. STN 50-460) and February 27, 1978 for WNP-4 (Docket No. STN 50-513), respectively. On 1 January 22, 1982 the Supply System Board of Directors moved to terminate 1 construction of WNP-4. (Construction of another plant at Satsop, WNP-5, ! was terminated at the same time.) A controlled termination is being pur-l sued toward disposition of the partially completed unit. The first phase is directed at the possible sale of WNP-4 as a complete plant. During this phase the equipment, components and structures will be maintained to l preserve the licensability of the unit. Later phases would involve the l sale or salvage of individual components. 1.0-1 Amendment 1 (Feb83)
WNP-l/4 ER-OL ThisER-OLisorganized,withveryfewexceptions,accgrQingtothechap-ter/section/ subsection format of Regulatory Guide 4.2.(2; As suggested by the10 CFR Part 51.21, Environmental the content of this Report-Construction document Permit is large]y)anHowever, Stage (ER-CP).ld update of this ER-OL is more than an update; it contains the information essential to an assessment of the environmental effects of plant operation indepen-dent of the ER-CP. Reference herein to the ER-CP is for the purpose of providing a source of supplementary information. Content of the document also reflects NRC rulemaking on the relevance of issues such as power need and alternative energy sources in OL proceeding.(4,5) This ER-OL was initially prepared to support the licensing of both WNP-1 1 and WNP-4. Consequently, nearly all plant descriptions and impact evalua-tions are in terms of both units (WNP-1/4). REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 1
- 1. Letter, G.D. Bouchey, Supply System, to Harold R. Denton, NRC, subject: " Status of WNP-1", dated April 30, 1982.
- 2. Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations, Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion, Washington, D. C., July 1976.
1 3. Environmental Report-Construction Permit State, WPPSS Nuclear Project Numbers 1/4, Amendment 1, Docket Nos. 50-460/513, Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, Washington, 1974.
- 4. " Alternative Site Issues in Operating License Proceedings", Federal Register, 46(102):28630-28632, May 28, 1981.
- 5. "Need for Power and Alternative Energy Issues in Operating License Proceedings", Federal Register, 47(59):12940, March 26, 1982.
1.0-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL C
\
CHAPTER 2 THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES 2.1 GE0 GRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHY 2.1.1 Site Location and Description 2.1.1.1 Specification of Location The Washington Public Power Supply System (Supply System) Nuclear Project Number l'(WNP-U and Number 4 (WNP-4) are located on the Hanford Site in Benton County, Washington, on property leased from the United States Department of Energy (00E). The Hanford Site is comprised of 134 square miles (86,050 acres) in Grant and Franklin Counties, and 425 square miles (271,930 acres) in Benton County, Washington. Boundaries for the Hanford Site are shown in Figure 2.1-1. The plants are approximately 2.5 miles west of the Columbia River at river mile 352 in Sections 3, 4, 33, and 34, Townships llN and 12N, Range 28 East, Willamette Meridian. The center of the WNP-1 containment is located at lati-tude 46028'04"N and longitude 119018'52"W. The coordinates of the WNP-4 containment are latitude 46028'34"N and longitude 119019'05"W. p 2.1.1.2 Site Area A map of the WNP-1 and WNP-4 site area is shown in Figure 2.1-2. The leased property areas for WNP-1 and WNP-4 are contiguous with property leased for WNP-2. These areas total 2061 acres. WNP-2 is located 4750 feet west and 1300 feet north of WNP-1, and 3750 feet west and 1650 feet south of WNP-4. Other f acilities in the site area include Supply System warehouses east of WNP-2, the Emergency Response / Plant Support Facility southwest of WNP-2, the 1 Central Sanitary Waste Water Treatment Facility southeast of WNP-2, and the Security Forces Qualifications Facility, east of WNP-4. Bonneville Power Administration's (BPA) H. J. Ashe Substation lies north of WNP-2, and the Supply System Meteorological Tower and DOE's Wye Burial Ground lie west of WNP-2. The Wye Burial Ground is a nine acre plot containing solid radioactive waste material and is under the control of DOE's waste management program. The DOE's Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), and Fuel Materials Examination Facility (FMEF) are located approximately three miles south-southwest of the site. The nearest incorporated community is the city of Richland,12 miles to l1 the south. 2.1.1.3 Boundaries for Establishing Effluent Release Limits The rectangular areas around WNP-1 and WNP-4 as shown in Figure 2.1-2 have been established as the limit of the restricted area for which effluent con-centrations have been calculated to be in conformance with 10 CFR 20. These boundaries conform for the most part with the site boundaries for units WNP-1 0 2.1-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
i I WNP-1/4 i ER-0L l and WNP-4. The distance between the WNP-1 and WNP-4 release points and the restricted area boundaries is approximately 0.5 mile (800 meters), except in O' ! the northern sectors where the boundary is about 0.25 mile (400 meters) from the WNP-4 release points. The eastern edge of the restricted area is slightly ' less than two miles west of the Columbia River. 2.1.1.4 Exclusion Area Authority and Control As shown in Figure 2.1-2, the 1930 meter radius exclusion area extends outside the plant property. All land outside the plant property but within the exclu-sion area is managed by USDOE as part of the Hanford Site. In recognition of requirements specified in 10 CFR ~100.3(a), that require a licensee to have control over access to the exclusion area, the following terms have been made a part of the site property lease agreement between the Supply System and DOE. Quoting from page 8, item 7 " Exclusion Area":
"The Administration recognizes the exclusion area as provided for in the operating license and will undertake no action or activity which would interfere with or restrict the Supply System's rignt to fully comply with this condition of the operating license."
Any actions taken within the exclusion area but cutside the plant property are under the control of 00E. All rail shipments on the track which traverses the property (Figure 2.1-2) are also under control of DOE and are also subject to the above quoted provisions of the lease. The only road which traverses the exclusion area of WNP-1/4 is the facilities access road shown in Figure 2.1-2. Access by land from outside the Hanford Site to the project site is by other DOE roads. Travel within the exclusien area on the access road will De restricted by the Supply System. In the event that evacuation or other control of the exclusion area should i become necessary, appropriate notice will be given to the DOE-Richland Opera-l tions Office for control of non-Supply System originated activities. The above provisions provide the necessary assurances that the exclusion area will be properly controlled. If at some time in the future, the Supply System should decide that an easement would be helpful in ensuring continued control, there is a provision in Paragraph 5(b) of the lease as follows:
" Subject to the provisions of Section 161(q).of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Commission has euthority to grant easements for the rights-of-way for roads, transmission lines and l for any other purpose and agrees to negotiate with the Supply System for such rights-of-way over the Hanford Operations Area as are necessary to service the Leased Premises."
O 2.1-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) L___________-__-_-_
l WNP-1/4 ER-OL Pursuant to this provision, the Supply System could obtain from DOE an ease-ment over the exclusion area in question which would assure that neither the construction of permanent structures nor the conducting of activities incon-sistent with the exclusion area would be carried on therein. 2.1.1.5 Control of Activities Unrelated to Plant Operation The exclusion area encompasses WNP-l and WNP-4, their respective access roads, and the H. J. Ashe Substation. Other than a small portion of the Warm Water i Utilization Project, there are no activities unrelated to the operation of WNP-1/4 within the exclusion area. Both WNP-1 and 4 and their respective access roads will be owned and operated by the Supply System. The H. J. Ashe Substation will be owned by the Bonneville Power Administration and is consi-dered a part of WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 normal operation. 2.1.2 Population Distribution i Table 2.1-1 presents the compass sector population estimates for 1980 and the forecasts for the same compass sectors by decade from 1990 to 2030.* Cumu-lative totals are also shown in Table 2.1-1. This table may be keyed to Fig-ures 2.1-3 and 2.1-4 which show'the sectors and major population centers with-l in 10 and 50 miles of the site. The population centers, within 50 miles of the site are the Tri-City area of Richland, Pasco and Kennewick, and the com-munities lying along the Yakima River from Prosser to Wapato. It can be seen from Figure 2.1-3 that there are no towns located within 10 miles of the site, [ with the exception of a small part of Richland. There are no residents of l incorporated Richland within the 10-mile radius. The 1990 to 2030 forecasts presented here(2) are based on: 1979 popula-tion figures provided by the Washington State Office of Financial Management; I Benton and Franklin County Traffic Analysis Zone population distributions; computed annual average area growth rates from 1975 through 1979 which were utilized to obtain the total 1980 population estimated for each ar county forecasts prepared by the Bonneville Power Administration.(gg,(4agd;
>> 1 2.1.2.1 Population Within 10 Miles The nearest inhabitants occupy farms which are located east of the Columbia River and are thinly spread over five compass sectors. There are no permanent I
inhabitants located within three miles of the site. Only about 80 persons reside between the 3-mile and 5-mile radii and all are east of the Columbia Population estimates out to 50 miles were derived to serve the li-i censing requirements of WNP-1, 2, and 4. Therefore, estimates were l made relative to the centroid of the triangle formed by the three reactors. This point is located 2800 feet east of WNP-2 and has coordinates Long Il9019'18"W, Lat 46028'19" N. This shift does not affect the overall accuracy or~ applicability of the population distribution projections. O 2.1-3 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) 1
WNP-!/4 ER-OL River. Within a 5-mile radius of the site, there are no proposed public fa-cilities (schools, hospitals, etc.), business facilities, or primary transpor-tation routes for use by large numbers of people. In 1980, an estimated 1,306 persons, 65% of whom were in the NE to SE sectors in Franklin County east of the Columbia River, resided within a 10-mile radius of the site. This number represents only 0.5% of the total population within a 50-mile radius. The population within the 10-mile radius is estimated at 2,676 in 1990. 3,614 in 2000, and 3,877 in 2010. By 2020, the population within the 10-mile radius is estimated at 4,073 which is a 212% increase over 1980. No significant changes in land use within five miles are anticipated. The Hanford Site is expected to remain dedi'.ated primarily to industrial use with-out private residences. No change in the use of the land east d the Columbia River is expected since it currently is irrigated to about the maximum amount practicable. The industrial areas in the northern part of Richland and the residential area SSW of the Yakima River near the Horn Rapids Dam are within the 10-mile radius. The residential area near the Horn Rapids Dam is unincorporated. The primary increase in population within the 10-mile radius is expected to be in this area. 2.1.2.2 Population Between 10 and 50 Miles As indicated in Table 2.1-1, about 251,684 people were estimated to be living within a 50-mile radius of the WNP-2 project in 1980. Beginning with the 10-mile radius, the population count increases rapidly because of the Tri-City region to the south and south-southeast. Total population within the 20-mile radius was estimated to be 91,734 in 1980 or about 37% of the total within 50 miles. When the 30-mile radius is reached, another 52,000 persons can be add-I ed to the resident population making the total 143,735. Most of this zone's i population count stems from the contribution of compass sectors containing the l Tri-Cities and the residents of the fringe areas. Based on 1980 census re-ports, the TriCities are the only significantly large population centers lo-cated in the 10 to 30-mile zone: Richland (33,578), Kennewick (34,397) and Pasco (17,944). The next 10 miles (to the 40-mile range) adds another 41,135 persons for a total 40-mile radius count of 184,870 while the 50-mile range adds the final 66,814 persons for a total of 251,684 persons living within a l 50-mile radius of the site in 1980. l The primary future increase in population is expected to be in the SE to SSW sectors which include the entire Tri-Cities and adjoining areas. Little in-crease is generated westward. The population increases in the rural areas are based on the expected increase in irrigated agriculture. The rest of the pop-ulation is primarily in the Tri-City area as a result of increased activity on the Hanford Site and expansion of agricultural activities throughout the general region. O 2.1-4 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
I l. WNP-1/4 ER-OL . l From the estimated 1980 population of 251,684, the population is projected to be 301,943 in 1990, 336,115 in 2000, and 360,395 in 2010 within the 50-mile > radius. By 2020, the population within the 50-mile radius is estimated at 379,930, and by 2030 at 383,828, which is a 53% increase over 1980. i 2.1.2.3 Transient Population The transfent population consists of agricultural workers needed for harvest-ing crops produced in the region, industrial and construction workers both on
- and off the Supply System's project sites, and sportsmen engaged in hunting, l1 1 fishing, and boating. Figure 2.1-5 shows the distribution of the transient l population. J Table 2.1-2 lists industrial employment within ten miles of the project site. l
; The majority of these individuals are directly involved with research and i operation of various programs and facilities for the Department of Energy and l l its contractors on the Hanford Site. Most of this workday population reside ,
within 10 to 30 miles of the project and are included in the totals discussed '
- in Subsection 2.1.2.2. The workday population total of approximately 19,500 includes the WNP-1/4 construction work force. Also included is the WNP-2 work force which will be reduced to operating levels by the time of OL issuance.
Agricultural workers within the 50-mile radius during early spring and late fall months, consist mostly of permanent residents numbering between 2,000 and 3,000 laborers. In the sumer month labor force is an estimated 34,000.tg)during Withinpeak harvest,radius the 10-mile the agricultural an esti-mated 1,000 migrant workers are employed during the peak months of May and June. These workers are concentrated in the north to south-southeast sectors on the jtpiggted farm units located east of the Columbia River in Franklin County.t01.L'1 Approximately 925 of these workers reside temporarily be-tween the 5-10 mile radii; the remaining 75 are located within 5 miles of the site. Hunting and fishing activities within the 10-mile radius are also centered in the north to south-southeast sectors along the Columbia River. The number of fishermen and hunters in this area varies with the season, the weather, the day of the week, and the time of day. The main hunting season is from June through November. The heaviest use of the area for both sports is on weekends and holidays in the early morning hours. It is estimated that the oi,t81 gumber of hunters and/or fishermen present in the area would total 1,000.(Dqah It is estimated that, on the average, 10 hunters are present in the area on weekdays; the number increases to 50 on weekends and holidays. The average number of fishermen present are 50 and 100 for weekdays, and weekends and hol-idays, respectively. Hunters and fishermen also have access to the Yakima River in the SW and SSW sectors where they may total 50. I 2.1.3 Uses of Adjacent Lands and Waters Land use within a three (3) mile radius of the WPPSS Nuclear Projects includes i the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) and the Fuel Material Examination Facility , 2.1-5 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-0L (FMEF). Also included are the associated roadways and railroads, circulating water pumphouses on the Columbia River, the Supply System's Emergency Response / Plant Support Facility, the Security Forces Qualification Facility, and Cen-tral Sanitary Waste Treatment Facility. No other facilities are located in this area. Between the three (3) and five (5) mile radii, in the five eastern sectors, is an area devoted to agriculture. Significant changes in land use outside five miles include urban residential and irrigated agricultural development. Most major new irrigation develop-ments have occurred in the Hermiston-Boardman area in Oregon and in the Ply-mouth area in Washington. Other new developments are the hills adjacent to the Snake River east of Pasco, along the Yakima River west and north of West Richland, and in the hills northwest of the Hanford Site. Significant new irrigation development is expected in the Horse Heaven Hills southwest of the Tri-Cities (about 300,000 acres) and in the Columbia Basin Project north and east of the Columbia River (now totaling 570,000 acres). The principal sources of water for the irrigated areas south and west of the Tri-Cities are the Columbia, Snake, and Yakima Rivers. Groundwater is being pumped in the hills northwest of the Hanford Site and is expected to be used for new areas surrounding Pasco. New irrigation in the Columbia Basin Project will receive its water from Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River. Scattered throughout the area within 50 miles of the project are a number of livestock and dairy operations. The number of individual livestock animals per location ranges from one to 250 and are utilized for both personal and commercial beef processing, as well as for breeding. There are eight beef processing plants located within 50 miles that provide beef to outlets outside , the area, with the largest plant processing approximately 1,000 head per day. The area within 50 miles is predominantly a feeder area during non-growing season, and causes the number of livestock to fluctuate on a seasonal basis. There are three (3) dairy operations located within ten (10) miles of the site. An estimated 95 additional milk producers are located within the area betweenthe10and50mileradii.(9) The milk produced from these dairies is collected and transported to processing plants located as far away as Portland, Oregon and Spokane, Washington. Table 2.1-3 provides distances to the nearest livestock, dairy animals, and vegetable gardens. Hunting and fishing is extensive within the fifty (50) mile radius. Much of the farmland is open to hunters, with upland bird and waterfowl being the most popular. Fishing occurs on the Columbia, Snake, Yakima, and Walla Walla Rivers, as well as in isolated lakes and ponds. The Columbia River is the closest area in which hunting and fishing can occur. Fishing and hunting can I occur on both banks of the river as far upriver as the Hanford Townsite. Within 10 miles of the site is an area designated as Controlled Hunting Area B. This area contains the Ringold Wildlife Refuge and the Wahluke Wildlife Refuge, consisting of approximately 4,000 acres of Department of Energy land managed by the Washington State Department of Game. Located adjacent to this O 2.1-6 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-0L r ( area's southern boundary and within five miles of the site is the Ringold Fish Hatchery. This facility encourages steelhead fishing within one mile of its location. These three areas experienced a total of 291,000 us ers and fishermen in a one year period between 1978 and 1979.(gr-days i0) by hunt-REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.1
- 1. DELETED l1
- 2. Yandon, K. E., Projections and' Distributions of Populations Within a 50-Mile Radius of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Projects Nos. 1, 2, and 4 by Compass Direction and Radii Intervals, 1970-2030, October 1980.
- 3. Bonneville Power Administration, U. S. Department of Energy, Washington Population, Employment and Household Projections to 2000 by County.
- 4. Bonneville Power Administration, U. S. Department of Energy, Oregon Popu-lation, Employment and Household Projections to 2000 by County.
- 5. Personal Communication, J. R. Zuniga, Supply System, with Job Service p Representatives, Washington State Department of Employment Security, Q November 20, 1979.
- 6. Hansen, Warren, Feasibility of 10-Mile Emergency Planning Zone Evacuation l
Hanford Site, Consultant's Report to Washington Public Power Supply System, December 1980.
- 7. Migrant Farmworker Ten-Mile Radius Survey, prepared by Washington State Migrant Education Identification and Recruitment Program, 1981.
- 8. Personal Communication, Warren Hansen, Supply System Consultant, with Gary Scrivener, Game Warden for Franklin County, and John McIntosh, Game Warden for Benton County, April 28 to May 2, 1980.
- 9. Letter, E. Thompson, Cooperative Extension Service, to J. R. Zuniga, Supply System, January 25, 1980.
- 10. Personal Communication, J. R. Zuniga, Supply System, with J. Benson, Washington State Department of Game, November 8,1979.
O 2.1-7 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 2.2 ECOLOGJ 2.2.1 Terrestrial Ecology 2.2.1.1 Vegetation The sagebrush-bitterbrush vegetation type surrounds and occupies about 100 t square miles on the Department of Energy Hanford Site. The WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 exclusion zone and corridor to the Columbia River occupy about 8 square miles of the same vegetation (Figure 2.2-1). Although sagebrush (Artemisia triden-l tata) and bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) are the conspicuous plants in stands without a fire history, much of the land in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 is devoid of shrubs because of gn extensive wildfire (17,000 acres) which occur-red in the summer of 1970.L11 The conspicuous vegetation on the burned acreage consists of about 30 herbaceous . species, especially cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). Other important herbs are bursage ( Ambrosia acanthicarpa), Russian thistle (Salsola kali) and Sandberg bluegrass (Poa sandbergii). Even without the stresses imposed by wildfire, the vegetation is not represen-tative of pristine conditions. The widespread occurrence of cheatgrass, an introduced alien weed, suggests that overgrazing by sheep and cattle in past years has been instrumental in the spread of cheatgrass. There are no plans to reintroduce livestock grazing to the WNP-1/4 area, nor is there any evi-dence to expect that cheatgrass will be replaced by native plant species over (] a 30 to 40-year time span. Cheatgrass does play an important role in comu-U nity function by retarding wind erosion, providing seed for birds and pocket mice, and herbage for insects. Thus, the WNP-1/4 site occupies a small part of a comon vegetation type that demonstrates the effects of man's agricultural activities (livestock grazing) in an era prior to 1943. Past experience and field observations indicate that the soil is very sandy and susceptible to wind erosion, especially following events that destroy the sparse vegetation cover. Vegetation distrubances must therefore be kept to minimal acreage. Reseeding of distrubed soil requires special attention to I the selection of plant species and planting season to successfully reestablish a suitable vegetative cover in a reasonable time period. Table 2.2-1 presents a list of terrestrial organisms identified near the WNP-1/4 site. Five vegetation study locations were selected in the vicinity of WNP-l/4 be-fore construction activities began. Most of the land immediately around the construction zones had been burned in the 1970 fire, leaving only small un-burned patches of shrubs. Three stands were selected as " unburned" shrub study locations. The other two sites were selected as representative of
" burned" grass study locations. Four new vegetation sites were sampled along with the five existing sites starting in 1980. Two grass (burned area) and l two shrub (unburned area) sites were added to more adequately sample vegeta-tion in the prevalent wind direction sectors. An additional five plots, each l
O 1 G 2.2-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) ; I
WNP-l/4 ER-OL 0.1 m2, were harvested to obtain an estimate of peak live above-ground her-baceous phytomass during the years 1975-1980. Plots were read at a time that was judged to be the peak of vegetation development (i.e., April-June). Four shrub species occurred at the study sites in 1980.(3) These were bit-terbrush, sagebrush, and two species of rabbitbrush, Chrysothamnus nauseoseus and C. viscidiflorus. Snow buckwheat (Eriogonum niveum), a sub-shrub and a cactus (0puntia polyacantha) were also present. In 1980, two of the five shrub study sites were dominated by sagebrush, one by bitterbrush, and two were mixtures of sagebrush, bitterbrush and rabbitbrush. Total mean shrub canopy cover ranged from 7.4 to 29.9 percent, with an average of 19.1 percent. Average percent canopy cov9r tern Washington ranges from 5 to 25 percent.1.{pr 4 1 Shrubsimilar vegetation densities ranged in eas-from approximately 500/ha to 2,000/ha per sampling site. In 1980, thirty-eight species of herbaceous plants were observed in the study area. These were grouped into four categories: (1) annual grasses, (2) annual forbs, (3) perennial grasses, and (4) perennial forbs. Cheatgrass was clearly the dominate species. It had an average cover of 50.8 percent and was gen-erally higher at grassland than shrub sites. The second most abundant species was Sandberg's bluegrass, a perennial grass, with an average cover of 17.4 percent. This is one of the few grass species which can compete relatively successfully with cheatgrass. During 1980, average cover of forbs was approximately 14 percent, and was nearly the same in grassland as shrub comunities. Most forbs were annuals, h accounting for 11.6 percent of the herbaceous cover. The most common annual herb species were jagged chickweed (Holosteum umbellatum), pink microsteris (Microsteris gracilis), tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), and western tansy mustard (Descurainia pinnata). Perennial forb cover, represented by nine species, was the lowest of the four herbaceous categories ranging from zero to nearly five percent. A review of six years of field observations (1975-1980) shows that the small-est amount of canopy cover was produced in 1977. It was also by far the dri-est of the six years with only 1.21 inches of rain between October 1976 and April 1977. This was the only year in which cheatgrass failed to dominate canopy cover. The 1978 growing season was wetter than usual and cheatgrass promptly regained vegetative dominance. Annual forbs also contributed more canopy cover in 1978 than in previous years. Average production of herbaceous phytomass in 1980 was 72 g/m 2 dry weight. The 1980 value was well below values reported in 1975,1976 and 1978, but higher than those for 1977 and 1979. O 2.2-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O 2.2.1.2 Wildlife g The systems animal populations of the are sparse agg*gharacteristic Hanford Reservation.\ 1 The most numerous of the big shrub-steppe game mammal eco-is the mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). It appears that deer use the area around WNP-1/4 as a foraging zone, retiring to the sand dune area a mile or so north of WNP-1/4 where they are infrequently disturbed by human trespass. The nearest surf ace water available to deer is the Columbia River. The sparse riparian shrub-willow comunity also provides deer forage but little cover. The bulk of the Hanford Reservation mule deer herd subsists in the bitterbrush and riparian habitats near the abandoned village of Hanford, these habitats about 7 miles are estimated to benorth 2.23ofmule' WNP-1/4.U1 Densities deer per square w}L ihinRiver mile. islands provide important fawning habitat for the local deer herd. densities of fawns per island are found north of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2.(Mgximum 71 Fur-bearir.g mamals found in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and 2 are the coyote (Canis latrans) and badger (Taxidea taxus). These animals are wanderers and use the WNP-1/4 area as a foraging ground. Average densities of coyotes and badgers (gg the Hanford Reservation are 0.48 and 0.08 pers square mile, respec- f tively. 1 Co ford Site.(8) yotes are important predators of mule deer f awns on the Han-Other fur bearing mamals that occur along the river but for which there is no O specific information arg beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), < ' mink (Mustela vison), raccoon (Procyon lotor), skunk (Meph: tis mephitisTe weasels (Mustela frenata and m. erminea) and bobcat (Lynx rufus).FJ An important medium-sized mamal is the black-tailed hare (Lepus californicus). Populations of hares in steppe regions fluctuate widely from year to year de-pending upon a number of environmental variables including weather, predation
.and disease. The population of bl cstimated at 9.22 per square mile.9gh-tailed tOi Cottontailhares on(Sylvilague rabbits the Hanford Site was nut-tallii) have been comunities adjoinobserved in the edge sagebrush-grass comunities. habitats '31 (where riparian Small mamal populations (i.e., mica) were investigated in burned and unburned portions of the bitterbrush-cheatgrass ecosystem from 1974 to 1979 using a live trap-recapture method. Trapping was conducted in spring to record peak ,
activity during the breeding season and again in late sumer to record any recruitment of young into the, population. Mice were individually marked by toe amputations and released near the point of capture. Individual animals were weighed alive using a spring tension scale accurate to 0.5 grams. A total of 11,600 trap-nights were conducted from 1974 to 1978. Five hundred - and six individual animals representing five species were trapped, marked and released. The great basin pocket mouse (Perognathus parvus) was the most ;- s abundant animal trapped with 418 individuals captured. Second was the dear O - a/ 2.2-3 Amendment 1 (Fe'b 83') L
= -
WNP-1/4 ER-OL mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) with 65 individuals. The northern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys leucogaster) was represented by 15 individuals, the western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) by eight individuals, and the Town-send ground squirrel (Spermophilus townsendii) by one individual. There were more animals trapped in the unburned vegetation than on the grid with a recent fire history. Clearly the most abundant small mammal in the bitterbrush cheatgrass ecosystem in terms of population numbers and food chain dynamics is the pocket mouse. The yearly cycle of activity for this species begins in March ar.d April as the adults emerge from winter torpor to breed. The period of peak spring activity for the study sites in 1975 was April. A second peak is normally seen in late l suniner with the recruitment of young into the population. In 1974 this occur-red in late August and early September. Birds were surveyed monthly from August 1974 through June 1975 along five 1l miles of dirt road in the vicinity of WNP-l/4 and WNP-2. The most common species were the white crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) at 31.1 per-cent, western meadowlarx (Sturnella neglecta) at 29.1 percent, and horned lark (Eremophila alpestrisi) at 22.6 percent. In 1976, a 20-acre plot was estab-11shed in shrub habitat just west of WNP-2. Surveys were performed during the spring breeding season of 1976-1979. The results of these surveys were simi-lar to those reported for 1974-1975. None of the species observed are listed as threatened or endangered. p The 1976,number of birds 1977, 1978 andcounted in the 20-acr(y0 g were 1979, respectively. 61,on Based 79,this 95information, and 58 in lj there was an average of 73 birds on the 20-acre plot or 3.7 birds / acre. The long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) is an important species that nests principally 100 birds in dryofcheatgrass occur west the river onfields on the Hanfp the Hanford Site.l g) Site. TenApproximately indiyiduals were observed near WNP-1,2 and 4 in the studies performed 1974-1979.(10-13) California quail (Lophortyx californicus) and ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) occur along the river in riparian and flood plain habitats. Other upland game birds reported for the Hanford Site are nourning doves (Zenaida macroura), sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), and chukar (Alectoris graeca). The habitat of the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 site is not suitable for these species. The red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaiceusis) and Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) are p9r aps the most common birds of prey observed on the Hanford Reserva-tion.19 Tall trees, utility '.owers and the White Bluff cliffs provide nesting areas for these species. The bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus) and ceregrine f alcon (Falco peregrinus) are the only species observed near the Hanford Reservation that are federally listed as threatened and endangered species.(9,15) Habitat significant to any of these species will not be disturbed by the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 projects. 2.2-4 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O
WNP-1/4 ER-0L O () Twenty islands located both upstream and downstream of the site have mixed composition with a substrate of either sand with gravel or cobblestone and gravel. Sagebrush communities and willows are established on the dunes of ~ the larger islands. From 1977-1980, approximately 280 pair of nesting Canada geese islands.(Branta) W. m canadensis moffitti) produced 490 goslings annually on these ! The Columbia River is a natural migration route for the Pacific Flyway water-fowl. Several million ducks and geese use the Columbia River Basin during movement to and from the northern breeding grounds. The waterfowl comon to the area are shown in Table 2.2-1. In 1979, the wintering waterfowl popu-lation in 100,000 ducks, mostly mallards.(the Hanford reach of the river was about 91 Two islands, one near Ringold (RM 354) and another near Coyote Rapids (RM 382), l1 were used as rookeries by colonies of California (Larus californicus) and ring-billed gulls (L. delawarensis). Approximately 6000 nesting pairs produced 10,000 to 20,0D6 young annually in the 1950's and 1960's. In the 1970's gulls abandoned these islands and colonies are now present on two islands just north of the City of Richland. Recent surveys show approximately 5,2 i gull pairs and 5,100 ring-billed gulls nest on the two islands.{0) 9 California The most abundant reptile in the vicinity of the site is the northern side- l1 blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) and the great basin gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus deserticola) ir common. Insects have seldom been studied in shrub-steppe vegetaticn but it is clear that ground-dwelling beetles (Carabidae and Tenebrionidae) are important con-l stituents of the invertebrate biota. Inv brates were sampled monthly April . through August in a cheatgrass community. The most abundant inverte-brates were mites (37%), beetles (18%) and thrips (15%). Two taxa, beetles and crasshoppers accounted for 71% of the total estimated invertebrate biomass. In terms of construction effects and irretrievable commitments of resources, approximately 10 acres will be removed from the large desert-steppe habitat of this region and converted to an irrigated grass environment. Measures taken for erosion and fire protection during construction and subsequent operation will protect the surrounding area from these encroachments. The pipeline right-of-way to the river will be substantially restored through grading and seeding of an annual cover such as cereal rye to stabilize the surface and provide thatch to enhance natural reseeding of cheatgrass brome. Threatened and Endangered Species l 2.2.1.3 1 The plants and animals living in the project area are widespread and common in steppe vegetation (rangeland) in the dry parts of eastern Oregon and eastern Washington. However, rangeland acreage diminishes each year primarily as a ! result of an expanding agricultural use of land through extension of irriga-tion systems. As the land is converted from rangeland to irrigated agricul-ture, native plant and animal populations diminish. One function of the 100 O 2.2-5 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 ER-OL square mile area of Arid Lands Ecology (ALE) Reserve (Rattlesnake Hills Re-search Natural Area plants and animals.0) 8 o)n the Hanford Site is to provide a refugium for native The Bald Eagle is an endangered animal specie (Federal designation) known to 1l occur in the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 site area. The population on the Hanford Site has increased over the years from six birds in the 1960's to 20 birds in the late 1970's. Eagles generally arrive during mid-November with peak abundance occuring late November through early February. Eagles generally depart in mid-February. They do not nest in the area. There are no other Federally 1l designated threatened or endangered animals or plants living in the area.t2) The American peregrine f alcon is an endangered specie which may at times appears along the corridors although their exact ranges are not known. Il The construction and operation of WNP-1 is not expected to result in the damage or loss of any species presently regarded as endangered or threatened. 2.2.2 Aquatic Ecciogy Comprehensive evaluations of the ecological characteristics of the Columbia 11 River are presented in References 2.2-19 through 2.2-23. Studies concerned with the various aquatic organisms in the Columbia River, relating mainly to influence of reactor operation, were conducted for over 30 years; a biylio-graphy updated with in abstr(gqts 1979. '31 Aofcomprehensive these investigations reviewwas and published analysis ofinthe1973(241 and preopera-i tional aquatic monitoring data (1973-1980) for WNP-2 was performed in 1982.(43) The following paragraphs summarize the essential ecological characteristics of the major communities. Figure 2.2-2 is a simplified diagram of the food-web relationships in selected Columbia River biota and represents probable major energy pathways. The Columbia River presents a very complex ecosystem in terms of trophic relationships due to its size, the number of man-made alterations, the diversity of the biota, and the size and diversity of its drainage basin. Streams in general, especially smaller ones, depend greatly upon allocthonous input of organic matter to drive the energetics of the system. Large rivers, l particularly the Columbia because it is a series of lentic reservoirs, contain l a significant population of autochthonous primary producers (phytoplankton and periphyton) which contribute the basic energy needs. The dependence of the free-flowing Columbia River in the Hanford area upon an autochthonous food base is reflected by the f aunal constituents, particularly the herbivores in the second trophic level. Filter-feeding insect larvae such as caddisfly lar-vae, and periphyton grazers such as limpets and some mayfly nymphs are typical forms present. Shredcers and large detrital feeders (such as the large stone-fly nymphs) which are typical of smaller streams are absent. The presence of large numbers of the herbivorous suckers also attests to the presance of a significant periphytic population. Carrivorous species are numerous, as would be expected in a system of this size. A list of aquatic organisms identified from the Columbia River is presented in Tcble 2.2-2. 2.2-6 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 2.2.2.1 Phytoplankton Diatoms are the dominant algae in the Columbia River, usually representing over 90% of the population. The main genera in the vicinity of WNP-l/4 and WNP-2 include Cyclotella, Asterionella, Melosira, and Synedra; lentic forms that originate in the impoundments behind the upstream dams are dominant in this section of the river. The phytoplankton also contain a number of species derived from the periphyton or sessile algae comunity. This is particularly true of the Columbia River in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 because of the fluctu-ating daily water levels due to operation of Priest Rapids Dam immediately upstream from Hanford. Periphytic algae exposed to the air for part of the day may dry up and become detached and suspended in the water when the river level rises in Mayagain. and Deak winterbiomass of net values are phytoplankton less is abgu than 0.1 g dry wt/m . 2g)0 g dry wt/m Figure 2.2-3 illustrates the seasonal fluctuations in plankton biomass. A spring increase with a second pulse in late sumer and autumn was ed in the Hanford section of the Columbia River in previous studies.gs* The spring pulse is probably related to increasing light and warming of the water rather than to availability of nutrients. The coincident decrease of PO4 and N03 , essential nutrients for algae growth, may be partially related to up-take by the increasing phytoplankton populations but is also highly influenced by the dilution of these nutrients by the increased flows due to high runoff. The extent of dilution depends upon the corcentration of these nutrients in the runoff waters. However, these nutrients do not decrease to concentrations limiting algae growth at any time of the year. Green and blue-green algae q occur mainly in the warmer months but in substantially fewer numbers than the Q diatoms. Aquatic studies were per in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2, September 1974 through March 1980. The Columbia River phytoplankton communi-ties passing WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 have been examined to determine species compo-sition, relative abundance and pigment concentration. Commuaity composition was similar 1975 through 1979. Seasonal trends for ohytoplankton pigment con-centrations and density (No/ml) were also similar. Micrograms of chlorophyll a per liter ranged from 0.4 to 26.4,6while density vglues ranged from 0.1 x T06 units /t in the winter to 17 x 10 in the spring.143) I 2.2.2.2 Periphyton Dominant diatom genera include Melosira and Gomphonema ar.d in spring and sum-mer luxuriant growths of the filamentous green algae Stigeoclonium and Ulo-thrix occur. Net production rate (NPR), as measured from 14-day colonization of artificial substrates, vgried from 0.07 mg dry wt/cm2/ }in August to less than 0.01 mg dry wt/cm / day in December and January. Figure 2.2-4 shows the seasonal pattern of NPR. This represents the 14-day growth on clean glass slides and not the increment on an established commu-nity. NPR was highly correlated with solar energy and chlorophyll a concen-tration on the slides during the 2-week exposure. The colonization ~ conditions 2.2-7 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
~
WNP-1/4 ER-0L obtained in these studies began from a bare surface, and after 2 weeks the communities were probably still in the log-growth phase. Correlations among biomass measurements were highest between dry weight and ash weight, due mainly to the high population of diatoms with silica frustules. 2.2.2.3 Macrophytes Macrophytic substrates along the river bed and shoreline in the vicinity of the project site consists mainly of Ringold formation with sand, gravel, and larger boulders on the surf ace. The widely varying diurnal flows cause large areas along the river shoreline to be alternately flooded and dry during each day. These characteristics have precluded the development of a rooted macro-phyte comunity such as is commonly found in sloughs and backwaters. In re-cent years, macrophytes have been observed across the river and approximately 1/4 mile downstran of the WNP-1, 2 and 4 intake structures. Common macro-phytic species identified in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River include pondweed (Potomugetanspp.)(9(1ushes(Juncusspp.), sedges (Carexspp.)and cattails (Typha latifolia). 2.2.2.4 Zooplankton 1l The zooplankton population in the Columbia River at the site area is low in number and varies geaponally. Seasonal trends for microcrustacea are similar 1974 through 1980.t341 Copepods dominate in the late f all, winter and spring. Cladocerans dominate in the summer and early fall. Bosmina sp. is i the dominant cladoceran observed at WNP-l/4. The density (number /m3) of 1 zooplankters was similar 1974 through The density ranged from <10 in i December 1974 to 4702 in August 1977.(gQ0. 1 Zooplankton form only a minor oftheriver.qj6}; dietary item J . % of the total diet) for young salmon in the Hanford portion j 2.2.2.5 Benthos i Dominant organisms presently found in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 site include insect larvae, sponges, molluscs, flatworms, leeches, crayfish, and oligo-chaetes. The daily fluctuating water levels, due to the manipulation of flow by an upstream hydroelectric dam, have destroyed a part of this fauna in the littoral zone. Near the old Hanford townsite, ten miles upstream, midge lar-vae (Chironomidae) and caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera)2are the most nuggtgus benthic organisms, averaging 121 and 208 organisms /f t , respectively.l'W Caddisfly larvae and molluscs (Mollusca) are predominant in terms of biomass, 2 averaging 2.24 gnd 1.23 g wet wt/f t ,2respectively. Total benthic organisms averaged 375/f t' and 3.59 g wet wt/f t during 1951-52. These figures are approximations of these populations due to the difficulty in sampling all of the bottom in a large river such as the Columbia. Sampling was restricted to the shallow shoreline, and even there variations between replicate samples were sometimes greater than seasonal variations. 2.2-8 O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 ER-0L O Since September,1974 benthic macrofauna and mi U collected in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2. gfga samples Benthic have been microflora are dominated and by diatoms and the most/m' Synedra. Thehighestdensity(number commog) was genera are Navicula, Nitzschia small pennate diatoms dominated the benthic flora.grved Typicalinvalues Marchrange when i from 10 to 150 cells /m 2, Benthic macrofauna populations near WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 are dominated by midge fly (Chironomidae) and caddisfly (Trichoptera) larvae. These two taxa com-prise 90% of the benthic macrofauna with other taxa never accounting for more than a few percent of the total community. The highest density have been ob-served in September. Densities y generally low in the spring and summer and high in the f all and winter.\g/ (Figure 2.2-5) . The Asiatic clam 1 (Corbicula sp.) has been collected both up and downstream of the WNP-1, 2 and 4 intakes during qualitative surveys in 1980 and 1981. 2.2.2.6 Fish Forty-four spec of fish have been identified in the Hanford area of the Columbia River, none of which.are presently considered rare ~ or endanger-ed. Table 2.2-2 lists the species present and although most are resident, the anadromous salmon and steelhead trout represent the species of greatest com-mercial and recreational importance; hence, most fisheries research has been concerned with the salmonids. Salmon spawn in the f all, leaving eggs to incubate in the redds from late-f all v to mid-winter. From mid to late-winter the e [1 from the gravel from February through April.Following ggs hatch into fry which emergence, the juve-emerge niles begin their migration to the Pacific Ocean. The peak seaward migration of all juvenile salmonids in the lower Columbia River, including those pro-duced in the Hanford reach, occurs in mid-April to mid-June. However, the out-migration of salmonids produced in areas upstream of Priest Rapids Dam is now later than ir, the past, apparently because of delays in passage through the reservoir cci.. plex. The salmonids all have a similar life cycle but each species and race matures at a different rate. This results in differences in timing and duration of life stages and activities. Timing and numbers of upstream migrants are shown in Figure 2.2-6. These data were obtained at, and in the vicinity of, Bonne-ville Dam. Corps of Engineers fish counts at other on the Columbia River and major tributaries also show timing of migration. Only slight varia-tions will be noted in timing of migration pulses depending on river miles traveled and migratory pathway, i.e., main channel migrants or tributary mi-grants. Adult salmonids move through the Hanford portion of the river during all months of the year, but the greatest numbers pass through during the spring to early fall. Peak adult migration periods are generally as follows: Sockeye - July-August Chinook - April-May, July-September Coho - September-October Steelhead - August-0ctober 2.2-9 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) _ ___=_______________________________ _.__________.__.______________________________________.___________________j
WNP-1/4 ER-0L 1l Studies on the routes of migration through the Hanford reach indicate the pre-ference for the east-northeast bank (across the river from the WNP-1/4 site and intakp i l Richland.1]$)a pattern which persists from Priest Rapids Dam downstream to The Hanford reach of the Columbia River serves as a migration route to and from upstream spawning grounds; fall chinook salmon and steelhead trout also spawn in the Hanford section of the river. Population estimates were made of the locally spawning chinook salmon redds in the section of river from Richland to Priest Rapids Dam (Table 2.2-3). T " * " *
- 9"""
erally increased from 1947 to present.N03" In 1978 the fall chinook spawning population for Hanford was estimated at about 21,000 or rly half of the f all chinook spawning in the middle Columbia River drainage.(g/ The increased 1 spawning activity of the Hanford reach may, in large measure, be attributed to reduction of upstream habitat by dam construction. Dam closures, both up-stream and downstream, may have contributed to the significant decline of the Columbia River salmon stocks from historical levels. The chinook juveniles move through the Hanford section of the Columbia in two age classes, young-of-the-year and yearlings. The young-of-the-year in par-ticular inhabit the areas near shore where they feed as they move downstream. They are present from late winter through midsumer, with greatest numbers in April, May, and June. Average annual steelhe 1962-1971 are about 10,000 fish. 2,g pawning population Counts in 1976 andestimates 1977 werefor the 9800 about yearsand 9200 g fish, respectively. The annual estimated 1963-1968 sport catch from Ringold, just downstream from the Hanford Site boundary, to the mouth of the Snake River (a distance of about 30 miles) was approximately 2700 fish. The shad, another anadromous species, may also spawn in the Hanford section of the river. Young-of-the-year of this fish are collected during the summer. The uptream range of the shad has increased since the mid 1950s, possibly as the result of increased impoundment of water in the lower and middle river. In 1956 fewer than 10 adult shad ascended McNary Dam; in 1966 about 10,000 1 l passed upstream. The whitefish are resident in the Hanford reach and support a winter sport fishery. During the period of maximum plutonium-production reactor operation, upstream movement of whitefish and other resident species was demonstrated by the capture of fish containing greater than b ckground levels of radionuclides at Priest Rapids Dam, upstream of the Hanford Reservation. Other game species such as sturgeon, smallmouth bass, crappie, and sunfish are also fairly abundant in the Hanford section of the Columbia, and are important game species. 1 A total of 37 species representing 12 families of fish were collected from September 1974 through March 1980 in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2. Greatest catches and, hence, assumed abundance of most fish species occurred 2.2-10 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O
)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL in spring and summer and coincided with spawning, fry emergence and increased 3 movement due to warmer water temperatures. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Northern squawfish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus), sculpins (Cottus spp.), suckers (Catostomus spp.), and chiselmouth (Acrocheilus alutaceus) comprised 84 % of the annual total l1 catch. These percentages probably reflect the specific areas sampled and selectivity of sampling gear. Most Hanford fishes are opportunistic and utilize juvenile and adult aquatic insects, mainly caddisflies and midge flies, smaller fish and occasionally zooplankton for food. Bottom feeders ingest periphyton. 2.2.2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species No federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic grgani occur in the Columbia River in the vicinity of WNP-1.(2,35)sms are known to g Consequently, the construction and operation of WNP-1 is not expected to result in the damage or loss of any aquatic species presently regarded as threatened or endangered. REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.2
- 1. O'Farrell, T. P., W. H. Rickard and K. R. Price, " Energy Flux During the, 1970 Wildfire," In: Pacific Northwest Laboratory Annual Report for 1970, BNWL-1550, Vol.1, Part. 2, p.12, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Labora-O tories, Richland, Washington,1971.
- 2. Letter, Joseph R. Blum, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, to K.R. Wise, Supply System, dated April 6,1982.
- 3. Terrestrial Monitoring Studies Near WNP-1, 2, and 4, May through December 1980, Beak Consultants, Inc., Portland, OR, March 1981.
- 4. Daubenmire, R., Steppe Vegetation of Washington, Washington Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin No. 62, 1970.
- 5. Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dryness, Natural Vegetation of Oregoa and Washington, Forest Service General Technical Eeport PNW-8, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon,1973.
- 6. Rickard, W. H., " Densities of Large and Medium-Sized Mammals on the Han-ford Reservation," In: Pacific Northwest Laboratory Annual Report for 1976, BNWL-2100, Part 2, p. 4.33, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Labora-tories, Richland, WA, 1977.
- 7. Eberhardt, L. E., J. D. Hedlund, and W. H. Rickard, Tagging Studies of Mule Deer Fawns on the Hanford Site, 1969-1977, PNL-3147/UC-ll, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1979.
O 2.2-11 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL
- 8. Steigers, W. D. and J. T. Flinders, " Mortality and Movements of Mule Deer Fawns in Washington", J. Wildl. Management, 44(2):381-388, 1980.
- 9. Fickeisen, D. H., R. E. Fitzner, R. H. Sauer and J. L. Warren, Wildlife Usage, Threatened and Endangered Species and Habitat Studies of the Han-ford Reach, Columbia River Washington, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1980.
- 10. Terrestrial Ecology Studies in the Vicinity of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Plants I and 4, Progress Report for the Period July 1974 to June 1975, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1976.
- 11. Terrestrial Ecology Studies in the Vicinity of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Plants 1 and 4, Progress Report for 1976, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1977,
- 12. Terrestrial Ecology Studies in the Vicinity of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Plants 1 and 4, Progress Report for 1977, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1979.
- 13. Terrestrial Ecology Studies in the Vicinity of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Plants 1 and 4, Progress Report for 1978, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, August 1979.
- 14. Fitzner, J. N., "The Ecology and Behavior of the Long-Billed Curlew, Numenius americanus, in Southeastern Washington", Ph.D. Thesis, Washington State University, Pullman, WA,1978.
! 15. " Republication of the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species and Correction of Technical Errors in Final Rules, 50 CFR Part 17," Federal Register, 45(99):33768-33781, May 20, 1980.
- 16. Hanson, W. C. and L. L. Eberhardt, A Columbia River Canada Goose Popula-tion, 1950-1970, Wildlife Monograph, No. 28, The Wildlife Society, December 1971.
- 17. Rickard, W. H. and L. E. Rogers, " Invertebrate Density and Biomass Dis-tribution in a Cheatgrass Community," In: Pacific Northwest Laboratory i
Annual Report for 1976, BNWL-2100, Part 2, p. 1.10, Battelle, Pacific l Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA,1977. l l 18. Dryness, C. T., et al., Research Natural Area Needs in the Pacific North-west, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S.D.A. F5 Test Service, Portland, Oregon,1975.
- 19. Robeck, G. G., C. Henderson and R. C. Palange, Water Quality Studies on the Columbia River, R. A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Public Health Service, 1954.
2.2-12 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O l l l l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL
- 20. Davis, J. J., D. G. Watson and C. C. Palmiter, Radiobiological Studies of the Columbia River Through December 1955, HAPO, HW-36074,1956,
- 21. Watson, D. G., C. E. Cushing, C. C. Coutant and W. L. Templeton, Radio-ecological Studies on the Columbia River, BNWL-1377, Parts I and II, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA,1970.
- 22. Final Report on Aquatic Ecological Studies Conducted at the Hanford Generating Project, 1973-197^, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies, Vol.1, Batteile, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, March 1976.
- 23. Supplemental Information on the Hanford Generating Project in Support of a 316(a) Demonstration, Washington Public Power Supply System, November 1978.
- 24. Becker, C. D., Aquatic Bioenvironmental Studies in the Columbia River at Hanford 1945-1971, A Bibliography with Abstracts, BNWL-1734, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1973.
- 25. Neitzel, D. A., A Summary of Environmental Effects Studies on the Colum-bia River 1972 through 1978, Battelle, ?acific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, August 1979.
- 26. Cushing, C. E., " Concentration and Transport of 32P and 62Zn by p
v Columbia River Plankton," Limnology and Oceanography, 12:330-332, 1953.
- 27. Coopey, R. W., " Radioactive Plankton from the Columbia River," Trans.
American Microscopical Society, 72:315-327, 1953.
- 28. Cushing, C. E., " Plankton-Water Chemistry Cycles in the Columbia River,"
Hanford Biology Research Annual Report for 1963, HW-80500, p. 212-218, 1964.
- 29. Aquatic Ecological Studies Conducted Near WNP 1, 2 and 4, September 1974 Through September 1975. WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 2, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, May 1977.
- 30. Aquatic Ecological Studies near WNP 1, 2 av J 4, September 1975 Through March 1976, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology SIIdles Vol. 3, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, July 1977.
- 31. Aquatic Ecological Studies near WNP 1, 2 and 4, March Through December, 1976, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 4, Battelle, Pacific No7Ehwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, July 1978.
- 32. Aquatic Ecological Studies near WNP 1, 2 and 4, January Through December, 1977, WPP55 Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 5, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, March 1979.
O 2.2-13 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL
- 33. Aquatic Ecological Studies near WNP 1, 2 and 4, January 1978 Through August, 1978, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 6, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, June 1979.
- 34. Aquatic Ecological Studies near WNP 1, 2 and 4, August,1978 Through March 1980, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 7, Beak Consul-tants, Inc., Portland, OR, June 1980.
- 35. Cushing, C. E., "Periphyton Productivity and Radionuclide Accumulation in the Columbia River, Washington, U.S.A.," Hydrobiologia, 29:125-139, 1967.
- 36. Becker, C. D., Food and Feeding of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Central Columbia River in Relation to Thermal Discharges and Other Environmental Features, BNWL-1528, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1971.
- 37. Gray, R. H. and D. D. Dauble, " Checklist and Relative Abundance of Fish Species from the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River," Northwest Science, 51:208-215, 1977.
- 38. Becker, C. D. and C. C. Coutant, Temperature, Timing and Seaward Migra-tion of Juvenile Chinook Salmon from the Central Columbia River, BNWL-1472, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1970.
- 39. Columbia River Thermal Effects Study, Vol.1; Biological Effects Studies, Environmental Protection Agency, Atomic Energy Commission, and National Marine Fisheries Service, January 1971.
- 40. Watson, D. G., Fall Chinook Salmon Spawning in the Columbia River near Hanford, 1947-1969, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1970.
- 41. Watson, D. G. Fall Chinook Spawning Near Hanford,1978, Pacific Northwest Laboratory Annual Report for 1979 to the DOE Assistant Secretary for Environment, Part 2, Ecological Sciences, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1980.
- 42. Watson, D. G., Estimate of Steelhead Trout Spawning in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, Contract No. DACW67-72-C-0100, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1973.
- 43. Mudge, J. E., T. B. Stables und W. Davis III, Technical Review of the 1
Aquatic Monitoring Program of WNP-2, Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, September 1982. 2.2-14 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O
l WNP-1/4 ER-OL O TABLE 2.2-1 TERRESTRIAL FLORA AND FAUNA NEAR WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 Plants Shrubs Big Sagebrush Artemesia tridentata Bitterbrush Purshia tridentata Green rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Gray rabbitbrush C. nauseosus Spiny hopsage Trayia spinosa Snow Eriogonum Eriogonum niveum Forbs Longleaf phlox Phlox longifolia Balsamroot Balsamorhiza careyana Sand dock Rumex venosus Scurt pea Psoralea lanceolata Lupine Lupinus laxiflorus Pale evening primrose Denothera pullida Desert mallow Sphaeralcea munroana Cluster lily Brodiaea douglasii Sego lily Calochortus macrocarpus Tansy mustard Descurainea pinnata Tumble mustard Sisymbrium altissimum Cryptantha Cryptantha circumscissa Russian thistle Salsola kali Fleabane TFigeWnTiTifolius Grasses Sandberg bluegrass Poa sandbergii Cheatgrass Fomus tectorum Indian ricegrass Oryzopsis hymenoides Squirrel tail Sitanion hystrix Six weeks fescue Festuca octoflora Thickspike wheatgrass Agrophyron dasystachum Riprarian Vegetation ' Willow Salix exigua and others Cottonwood Populus trichocarpa Sedges. Carex spp. Rushes Juncus sp. Horsetail Equisetum sp. Cocklebur Xanthium sp. Wild onion Allium sp. Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.2-1 (Contd.) Birds Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Green-winged teal Nettion carolinense Blue-winged teal Cuerquedula discors Cinnamon teal 0. cyanoptera Gadwall - L'haulelasmus streperus Baldpate Mareca americana Pintail Dafila acuta tzitzihoa Shoveller Spatula clypeata Canvas-back Nyroca valisineria Scaup N. affinis American goldeneye Tilaucionetta clangula americana Buffle-head Charitonetta albeola Ruddy duck Erismatura jamaicensis rubida
- American merganser Mergus merganser americanus Coot Fulica americana Horned grebe Colymbus auritus Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps l Canada goose Branta canadensis Snow goose Chen hyperborea White-fronted goose Anser albifrons Whistling swan Cycnus columbianus Great blue heron Arc ea herodius White pelican Pelicanus erythrorhynchos Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus California gull Larus califoi~nicus Ring-billed gull L. delewarensis Common tern Sterna hirundo
! Foster's tern 5. forster Killdeer Oxyechus vociferus Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Chukar partridge Alectoris graeca California quail Lophortyx californica Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus torguatus Sage hen Centrocercus urophasianus Mourning dove Zenzidura macroura Red-tailed hawk Buteo borealis Swainson's hawk B. swainsoni Sparrow hawk Talco sparverius Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos canadensis Bald eagle Haliaetus leucocephalus Osprey Pandior haliaetus carolinensis Burrowing owl Speotyto cunicularia Horned owl Bubo virginianus Raven Corvus corax Amendment 1 (Feb 83) 0 l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O TABLE 2.2-1 (Contd.) American magpie Pica pica hudsonia Red-shafted flicker Colaptes cafer Horned lark Octocoris alpestris Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Eastern kingbird Tyranus verticalis White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Sage nparrow Melospiza melodia Say's phoebe Sayornis saya saya Mammals Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Coyote Canis latrans Bobcat Lynx rufus Badger Taxidea taxus Skunk Mephitis mephitis Weasel Mustela frenata Raccoon Procyon lotor Beaver Castor canadensis Muskrat Ondatra zibethica () N- / Porcupine Blacktail jackrabbit Erethizon dorsa Lepus californicus Cottontail rabbit my vi agus floridanus Ground squirrel Citellus townsendi Pocket mouse Peromyscus parvus Deer mouse P. maniculatus Harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis Grasshopper mouse Onchomys leucogaster Pocket gopher Thomomys sp. Reptiles Northern Pacific Rattlesnake Crotalus viridus oreganus Great Basin gopher snake (bullsnake) Pituophis melanoleucus deserticola Western yellow-bellied racer Coluber constrictor mormon Northern side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana stansburiana Western fence lizard Sceloperus occidentalis Short-horned lizard Phrynosoma douglassi Great basin spadefoot toad Scaphiopus intermontanus b)
%J Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 CR-OL TABLE 2.2-2 COLUMBIA RIVER BIOTA (a) O Organism Organism Omanism Phylum Acanthocepnala Phylum Arthropoda (Cont.) Phylum Arthropoda (Cont.) Neoechinornynchus rutili Order Diplostraca Order Plecoptera N. cristatus Tomonornynenus bulbocolli Leotodora kindtil Arcyneoteryx paralla Suibodactnitis so. aia nanosoma orachyurum Pteronarcys caltfernica Alona rectanquia Isogenus sp. Phylum Bryozoa A. affinis Perloces americana T. ausaranquiaris plumatella sp. T. c stata Order Trichoptera Pectinatella sp. Thycoris schaericus Pleuromus centicular is Glossosoma velona Phylum Mollusca 5ida crystallina Hycropsycne cocrerelli TuWeercus iemallatus Hydroosycne so. C* ass Gastropoda camotocereus rectirostris H. californica Daohnia galeata mondotae ' " C C 58' Stagnicola nutta111ana Scaonoleoercis kin i ""#"'"* 1sa Ph nuttailli Ceriocapnnia pu a Hydr ot H a amos a Fluminicola nuttalliana Bosmina so. Bracnycentrus occidentalis Fisneroia nuttallii S. longirostis ac ni a acensis 5tagnicola acicina T11yocryotus sordidus #5Y*""d*"
- Racix japonica [, spirifer W umato m cw en d Gyraulis vermicu1eris Paraonolyx effusa costata Rac E rix laticornis huco hia pictices Monospilusfisoar Arthriosodes annulicornis P. e. 9eritoides Eymn,aea stagnalis t. -+ q sacrangularis Mystacides alarimbriata pTEroxus trigonellus Lepicostoma stropnis Lymnaea sp.
Planorois sp. Order Calanoida Order Lepidoptera Class Bivalvia Cantbcamotus sp. Argyractis angulata11s C. staonylinoides Anodonta nuttalliana U. vernalis Order Diptera Cormiculs fluminea 7. biscusoidatus thomasi Margaritifera margaritifera Ulaotomus sp. Pisidium columotanum Tipulidae D. asnlaEdi Anocenta comorassum Tryocamotus zschokkei chironomidae Anoconta californiensis simulium vittatum Order Cyf.lopoida simulium sp. Phylum Annelida Order Hemiptera Class 011gochaeta Notonecta sp. Order Ampnipoda Gerris 59. Xironootton instabilis Sigara sp. Triannulata montana gamams so. chaetogaster sp. Omr Decapoda Order Collemoola ass m nea Fam11y Hypogasturidae Pacifasticus(1eniusculus) I Placobdella montifera trowortagti p ! Illinoocella moorei l Ercocoella punctata Class Insecta j Theromyzon rude Macr:blotus sp. Piscicola so. Order Coleoptera Meloodella stagnalis Phylum Chlorophyta Phylum Arthropoda Ulothrix zonata Order Ephemeroptera 5tigeocionium lubricum Class Arachnida clacoonera criscata Paralectochlebia c glomerata Hydracarina sp. oicornuta Toocnlorella parasitica Araneota sp. Baetis so. cnara draunii ene s in Eonoron album c. vuiqaris Class Crustacea Eonemerella yosemite Tetrisoore so. E. sp. Cedogonium sp. Order Anastraca Fexaoenia sp. sotrogy W sp. 5tenonema so. Plescorina sp. Steotoceohalus seali Peoiastrum so. staurastrum sp. Caetastrum sp. Annistrocesmus so. Panacrina sp. Amendment 1 (Feb 83) $ % 5*"5 , ,5%ntanum
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.2-2 (Contd.) (3
%.)
i Croanism Organism Organism Phylum Chrysophyta Phylum Cyanophyta (Cont.) Phylum Platyhelminthes l Hydrurus foetidus ~ L n b a aerugineocaerulea Class Turbe11 aria Botrydium granulatum . aos uar11 Eunctia pectinalis f. 01auetti Dugesia dorocephala MT5sIFa granulata f. versicolor M. varians Tyg loca muscorum Class Trematoda fycT5TeTTa bodanica C. glomerata Anabaena oscillarioides Actinocleidus sp. T. meiostroides Mostoc caeruieium Ytepnanootscus astraea I eTTipsosporum Urocleidus sp. T. sonaericum U** $$ *
- 5. 4. var. minuta Iohanizomenon flos-aquae rd .
T. niagarea folypothrix distorta Phyllodistomum sp. Thizosolenia eriensis I. lanata Tanellaria fenestrata T. tenuis Lecithaster salmonis Diatoma vulgare Flectonema nostocorum Diplostomum sp. W aqITaria crotonensis anonithrix .lanthina Posthodtpiostomus minimum l P. narrisoni1 Brachypnailus crenatus Calothrix parietana T. construens Neascus spp. T. virescens Gloeotrichia echtnulata Allocreadium 50. Isterionella formosa G. natans Leepioostomum farionis synedra ulna Iudoutnella violacea Creptdostomum sp.
- 5. u. yat. danica Phylum Pyrrhopnyta uctomacrum sp.
. acus Castranelmins rivularus
}.rumpens P140ioporus spp.
Ceratium sp. a f , Phylum Tracheophyta Class Castoidea facconeis placentula Family Najadaceae Cora11obothrium fimbriatum C. pediculus Proteocephalus amelooH tis Trustu t t a rhomboides Potomogeton sp. P. ptychocheilus
" 7. salmonidico7 ha pr uctum Family Hydrocharitaceae Thyllobothrium sp.
UToTEeis elliptica CaryophyHaeus sp. Navicula obionga Anacharis sp. Lt ula intestinalis GymOella prostrate Elodea sp. ohy lobothrium so. C. turgida Bothriocephalus sp. I
- f. 1eptocero Family LemhMae schistocephalus solidius T. naviculif,rmis Euoothrium salvelini E. cistula Lemna sp.
f.ventriocesa Phylum Aschelminthes
- f. tumida amW Mmnaceae onema pa m lum
,, Polygonum sp. a p.
Epithemia turgida Kellicatia sp. Family Ceratophy11aceae syneneata sp. Rhop41odia gibba Notholca sp. Nitzscnia dissipata Ceratophyllum demersu" Polyarthra sp. N. paiea feratoneis sp. Family Cyperaceae Tricnocerca so. Keratella sp. Gymatopleura solea C. e61totica Family Juncaceae Class Nematoda ( Turiella 6tnearis ! Phylum Protozoa Rhabdochona sp. I Phylum Cyanophyta contracaecum sp. Acanthocystis sp. Phiionena anchorhynchi Aulostra implexa Oscillatoria anquina Actinosonaerium sp. Bulbodacnitus sp. Metaoronena sp. O. chalyoea
- Cystidicola sp.
U. limosa Epistylis sp. Lama 64 anus sp. U. proooscidea U. princeps Phylum Porifera U. scen m a
. y . natans Sponcilla lacustris 1Roihidium i autumnale P. favosum Phylum Coelenterata F. inuncatum 7.' su f scum acusta sowereit
- 7. tenue To
- 7. uncinatum Amend 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.2-2 (Contd.) Organism Organism Phylum Chordata Class Cyclostomata Entosphenus tridentatus Pacific Lamprey Lampetra dyresi River Lamprey Class Osteichthyes Acipenser transmontanus White Sturgeon oncornyncnus tshawytscha Chinook Salmon O. nerna Sockeye or Blueback Salmon U. Kisutch Coho or Silver Salmon Talmo gatrdneri Steelhead or Rainbow Trout
- 3. clarki Cutthroat Trott Talvelinus malma Dolly Varden Prosopium wtiliamsoni Mountain Whitefish Alosa sapidissima Anerican Shad TITITtomus platyrynchus Mountain Sucker
- c. columbianus Bridgelip Sucker E. macrochenius Largescale Sucker Typrinus carpio Carp i nnca cinca Tench ITIIardsonius balteatus Redside Shiner Ptychocneilus oregonensis Northern Squawfish Acrocheilus aiutaceus - Chiselmouth Mylocneiius caur m s~ Peamouth R. cataracta 6. longnose Dace
- 17. oscuius Speckled Dace II. falcatus Leopard Dace Tctalurus nebulosus Brown Bullhead
- 1. meias Black Bullhead T. natalis Yellow Bu'lhead T. punctatus Channel Catfish Easterosteus aculeatus Threespine Stickleback Perca talvescens Yellow Perch 5tuostedian vitreum Walleye Lepomis macrocntrus Bluegill N.osus Pumpkinseed Tomoxis annularis White Crappie P. nigromaculatus Black Crappie i Micropterus salmoides Largemout; Bass l M. dolomieut Smallmouth Bass l Cota iota Burbot l
E5Trus asper Prickly Sculpin C. beldingii Piute Sculpin U. perpiexus Reticulate Sculpin U. rnotneus Torrent Sculpin U. bairdi Mottled Sculpin Fercopsis transmountana Sand Roller Coregonus clupeafonnis Lake Whitefish (a) GlassifiCation after - T. I. Storer. R. L. Usinger, R. C. Stebbins, J. W. Wybakken, General Zoology, Fif th edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York,19/4. O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.2-3 NUMBER OF SPAWNING FALL CHIN 0OK SALMON AT HANFORD, 1947-1978 l1 Numb r Populati n Year Redd a)of Estimate b) 1947 240 1680 - 1948 785 5500 1949 330 2310 1950 316 2210 1951 314 2200 1952 539 3770 1953 149 1040 1954 157 1100 1955 64 490 1956 92 640 1957 872 6100 1958 1485 10400 1959 281 1970 1960 295 2070 1961 939 6570 1962 1261 8830 1963 1303 9120 (j"'s
\ 1964 1477 10300 1965 1789 12500 1966 3101 21700 1967 3267 22900 1968 3560 24900 1969 4508 31600 1970 3813 26700 1971 3600 25200 1972 876 6130 1973 2965 20800 1974 728 5100 1975 2683 18800 1976 1951 13657 1977 3240 22680 1978 3028 21196 l1 (a) Redd counts obtained by aerial surveys.
(b) Based on 7 fish per redd. Il O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
t 2 4 A
.z I. .
.a
,S s
\
\
.a
/% .a E. Ng <
355-- i 5.. 33
/
! ! ! . )
- E I
<( h g
l 0 _ . # "~
' c' '
i ~~
&a[c~~, .
- - ~.-- _ ,_-
=
- w. -- -
-. .:= p-
%.x-- T
.a
% \
..,~
l . 2 3 2 3 2
- sONVSDOH1 M (sW4GegenW AllSN30 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l DENSITY OF BENTHIC MACROFAUNA WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM COLLECTED NEAR WNP-1 (RM 352)
- WNP-1/4 ER OL Fig. 2.2-5
_ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ . . - - . ~ . . _ _ _ _ - - ,
O CHUM -- - e 8000 COHO ---- GE,0oo v -- 3 ei O 2" . p3tt 1%6 COMMERCI AL M CHINOOK FISHING SEASONS '. SUMMER STEELHEAD SHAD W === lllIIIIIIIiI SOCKEYE ----
..;, ' . ,p. ________
80 SUMMER ?" CHINOOK
~
O
, 70 -
SPRING /\ _ g CHINOOK g gg .-- -- m m 3g E _ WATER TEMPERATURE BONNEVILLE. DAM _ 10m j 1%5 ( h 40 WINTER STEELHEAD ~ 5 0 ' t l ' l f 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC e Dotted - Bonneville Dam Fishway data 1966 e Slant - estimated based on gill netting in lower river e Crosshatch - estimated based on 17-yr average run size and timing of gill net catches e Vertical - Bonneville Dam data (minimum estimate, not quantitative) WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM TIMING OF UPSTREAM MIGRATIONS WNP-1/4 IN THE LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ER OL FIG. 2.2-6 l
a -- - .. . , ., . . . _ . _ WNP-1/4 ER-OL 2.3 METEOROLOGY Regional Climatology
- l1 2.3.1 The site is located in a mid-latitude semi-arid (steppe) climatic region in the Lower Columbia Basin which is the lowest elevation in central Washington. A major f actor influencing this climatological region is its location in the continent, well away from the windward coast and pro-tected to the west by the 4,000 to 7,000-foot average elevation Cascade Mountains. Dominent air masses affecting the region are of maritimeModified polar origin as modified by the presence of these mountains.
continental tropical and polar air masses also periodically affect the - climate. In winter, there is a succession of cyclones The as the westerlies mountain barriers and the polar front prevail in these latitudes. commonly induce these storms to occlude by delaying air mass movement. Fewer frontal passages occur during the summer months since subtropical oceanic high cells reach their highest latitudes thereby diverting cy-clonic storms poleward. Along the eastern margin of the Pacific anti-cyclone, an outflow of stable subsiding air brings distinctly drier con-ditions to the North American Pacific Coast. The regional temperatures, precipitation, and winds are greatly affected by the presence of the mountain barriers. The Rocky Mountains and ranges in southern British Columbia are effective in protecting the inland basin from the more severe winter storms and associated cold polar air masses [ t moving southward across Canada. Occasionally, an outbreak of cold air will pass through the Basin and result in low temperatures or a damaging spring or f all frost. Maritime polar air traveling eastward from the coastal zone cools as it rises along the western slope of the Cascade u Range. These orographic effects cause heavy precipitation on the wind-j ward and light precipitation on the leeward slopes. The prevailing west-i erly winds are normally strengest during winter and spring due to the presence of cyclonic scale disturbances and associated frontal activity. H During those months, foehn or chinook winds (a warm, dry wind on the lee side of a mountain range; the warmth and dryness of the air is due to q adiabatic compression upon descending the mountain slopes) occur whenever p-1 I b
*This section is based on records kept at the Hanford Meteorology Station j(. (14 mi, the 1980(I es 100-N northwest of 21 area site the supplemented s tg,(elevation with 733 feet MSL) precipitation and from 1945 l1 to j temperature data taken by U.S. Weather Bureau cooperative observers at a '
site about 25 miles north of the present station location during the
.- period from 1912 to 1944(1,3), and region ) climatological data are Other references gath-as ered during the period from 1931 to 1960. '
indicated. i 0 2.3-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) i.
WNP-1/4 ER-OL cyclonic circulation is sufficiently strong and deep to force air com-pletely across .the Cascades in a short period of time. At other times during the winter, warm front occlu ions can force moist air over the Cascade Range. The mixing of this moist air with relatively cooler air in the Basin results in considerable cloudiness and fog. The percent of possible sunshine ranges from 20 to 30 percent in winter, 50 to 60 per-cent in spring and f all, and 80 to 85 percent in mid-summer. Annual average precipitation decreases from about 100 inches near the 1 summit of the Cas des to about 6 or 7 inches at the site on the lee side of the mountains. Approximately 70 percent of the annual total precipi-tation occurs from November through April and about 10 percent occurs during July through September. Rainfall amounts at the site are normally light in the sumer and gradually increase in late fall, reaching a peak of about one inch each month in mid-winter due to cyclonic storm and frontal activity. Rainf all amounts decrease in spring, increase somewhat in June, and again sharply decrease in July. During mid-summer, it is not uncommon to have 3- to 6-week periods with trace rainf all. There are only two occurrences per year of 24-hour amounts of 0.50 inch or more, while occurrences of 24-hour amounts of 1.00 inch or more number only 1 l four in 35 years of record (1946 to 1980). One of these was the record storm of October 1 through 2,1957 in which rainfall totaled 1.08 inches in three hours,1.68 inches in six hours, and 1.88 inches in twelve hours. At the other extreme, there have been 81 consecutive days without measurable rain (June 22 through September 10,1967),139 days with only 0.18 inch (June 22 through November 7,1967), and 172 days with only 0.32 inch (February 24 through August 13,1968). Regional annual total snowfall amounts have ranged from less than 1/2 inch in 1957 to 1958 to 44 inches in 1915 to 1916; the annual average total is about 14 inches. Sncw rarely remains on the ground longer than two to four weeks or reaches a depth at any time in excess of four to six inches, as rapid melting, which often contributes to local stream flood-ing, can occur from rain or Chinook winds. The record greatest depth of 21 inches occurred in February 1916. 1 l The continental-type climate not only affects precipitation in the Basin but also results in wide ranges and variations in annual temperature con-ditions. While the regional annual average temperature is about 530F, the coldest month, January, has a mean of about 290F; the warmest month, July, has a mean of about 760F. Although the presence of the Cascades contributes to the wide differences in monthly average temperatures, other mountain ranges shield the area from many of the arctic surges, and half of all winters are free of temperatures as low as 00F. However, six 1l winters in 68 of record have contributed a total of 16 days with tempera-tures of -200F or below; and in January to F?bruary 1950, there were four consecutive such days. There are ten days of record when even the 1 maximum temperature f ailed to rise above zero. At the other extreme, in l the winter of 1925 to 1926, the lowest temperature all season was +220F. O 2.3-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
f WNP-1/4 ER-OL i O Although winter minima have varied from -270F to +220F, summer maxima have varied only from 1000F to 1150F. However, there is considerable variation in the frequency of such maxima. In 1954, for example, there was only one day with a maximum as high as 1000F. On the other hand, there have been two summers (1938 and 1967) when the temperature went to 1000F or above for 11 consecutive days. Although temperatures reach 900F or above on about 55 days a year, there are only about eight an- l1 nual occurrences of overnight minima 700F or above. The usual cool nights are a result of gravity winds. The channeling of air by the Cascade Mountains and surrounding terrain produces a prevailing WNW and NW regional flow. Local topographic fea-j tures can cause other channeling eftects and formation of local diurnal t wind circulation systems which produce a greater degree of variability in winds at locations within the Basin. For example, the WNP-1/4 site ex-periences a bimodal wind direction distribution from approximately south and also northwest; at the Hanford Meteorological Station (FNS) about 14
- miles northwest, the direction distribution displays a single peak at approximately WNW to NW.
Drainage (gravity) winds channeled by topographic features produce a marked effect on diurnal range of wind speed and cause the highest month- ; ly average speeds of about 9 mph to occur during the summer months. In ! July, for example, hourly average speeds range from a low of 5.2 mph from 9 to 10 a.m. to a high of 13.0 mph from 9 to 10 p.m. In contrast, the O corresponding speeds in January are 5.5 and 6.3 mph. These warm season diurnal winds, resulting from relatively cold air draining from the Cas-cade Mountains, occur in response to pressure gradients created between surface-heated warm, dry basin air and cooler air situated over the moun-tains and costal region. This favors an outbreak of stronger winds dur-ing the afternoon and evening hours. Although the gravity wind occurs with regularity in summer, it is never strong unless reinforced by fron-tal activity. In June, the month of highest average speed, there are i fewer instances of hourly averages exceeding 31 mph than in December, the month of lowest average speed. 2.3.2 Site Meteorology J The primary source of metorological data for WNP-1/4, as for WNP-2, is the 240-ft tower located approximately 2500 feet west of WNP-2. It is i equipped with a complete meteorological data system, which operated be-i tween March 1974 and June 1976 as reported in the WNP-2 ER-OL, and from October 1979 through September 1980 as reported herein. The Hanford Me-teorology Station (HMS) and the 410-ft Hanford Meteorology Tower located about 14 miles northwest of the WNP-l/4 site provided the data for the l construction permit Environmental Report. A 23-ft temporary meteorology tower was operated at the site for 2 years previous tt: the installation of the 240-f t tower for the purpose of evaluating cooling tower orienta-tion. The meteorological equipment located at these sites is discussed i in Subsection 6.1.3. A complete summary of the monthly averages and ex-(-g tremes of climatic elements at the Hanford Site up to and including 1980 1 appears in Table 2.3-1. The data for the following subsections are de-tailed in the tables and figures, i 1
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 2.3.2.1 Stability, Wind Speed and Direction Annual average wind roses derived from onsite data are given in Figures 2.3 '. to 2.3-3 for the three measurement heightc (7, 33, and 245 f t). Table 2.3-2 gives the percent joint frequency of occurrence by seven Pas-1 quill stability classes at the 33-ft level for three years of onsite data (4/74 through 3/76 and 10/79 through 9/80). The joint frequencies of wind speed, direction and stability for the last year only are contained in Tables 2.3-3A through H for the Pasquill stability classes wnile Tables 2.3-4A and B contain the annual summaries for 33 and 245 feet (10 and 75 meters) respectively, for direction and speed. Tables 2.3-5A g through L present joint distributions of wind speed and direction on a monthly basis (October 1979 through September 1980) for the onsite data. Table 2.3-5M contains a summary of these last twelve months of onsite data. Wind roses for the 200-ft level of the HMS tower derived from 15 years of data (1955-1970) are given in Figure 2.3-4. Surface winds at various 1 stations in the region are sumarized as 8-point roses in Figure 2.3-5. Tables 2.3-6A through E show the joint distribution of stability, wind speed and direction by season at the HMS tower. These seasonal and an-nual tables are based on winds at 200 ft and stability defined by the temperature difference between the surface and 200 ft. General climatological representativeness of the two years of onsite data compared to long-term HMS data is given in Table 2.3-7. Table 2.3-8 presents a summary comparison of diffusion elements computed from two years of WNP-2 data with similar elements computed from 15 years HMS data. The difference in the number of recorded calms is primarily the result of the lower threshold of the onsite instruments; these differences may also be partly the result of topographic infleances. The wind direction frequencies cannot be expected to necessarily be compa-rable because of the separation between the stations. Comparison of the HMS and onsite data demonstrates differences which may be attriDutable to local topographical effects such as the orientation of the river bluffs near the site. Although the differences in the stability classes are partly the result of the layer used for the stability definition, there is some evidence that part of the greater percentage of stable conditions at WNP-l/4 may be a real difference. The nearest routine radiosonde data that may be applied to this region are obtained at Spokane, the only station located in the relatively flat basin region between the Cascade Mountain Range to the west and the Rocky Mountains to the east. These data will be representative in a regional sense, but M nnot be expected to be exact in near-surface atmospheric structure as a result of the distance (180 km) and elevation differences (site 440'MSL, Spokane 2350'MSL). Table 2.3-9 gives the monthly aver-age daily maximum and minimum mixing height data for Spokane. O 2.3-4 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 2.3.2.2 Temperature l1 Table 2.3-10 contains a temperature comparison between the WNP-1/4 site
- and HMS. These onsite temperatures are from the 7-ft level. By assuming l1 an adiabatic lapse rate of 0.5480F/100 ft, over the 283-ft elevation difference between HMS and the WNP-1/4 site, a temperature difference can be expected of about 1.50F between the dry bulb temperature data mea-sured at the two sites.
2.3.2.3 Humidity l1 Table 2.3-11 gives a comparison of monthly wet bulb temperatures from the two years of onsite data and HMS. Table 2.3-12 contains the frequency occurrence of wet bulb values as a function of time-of-day based on data from the onsite meteorological system. Figures 2.3-6 to -9 indicate di-urnal and monthly and annual averages and extremes of temperature and humidity at HMS. Summaries of onsite humidity data have been prepared both on a monthly and annual basis in joint frequency wind speed direc-tion formats. In addition, computer tapes of hourly summarized operation including humidity data have been generated. During July 1975 the moisture in the lower atmosphere at both WNP-1/4 and HMS was abnormally high. For the period 1957-1970 at HMS hourly wet bulb l1 temperatures in a range 70 to 740F had occurred an average of three times each July. In the period July 4 through July 12, 1975, there were y 104 hourly observations in the range 70 to 740F. On July 9 there were 17 consecutive hours in that range. Wet bulb temperatures of 750F have not occurred in the Hanford area until this episode. On. July 8, 9, and 10 there were a total of seven such hourly observations. The air tempera-tures were also high during this period. The HMS average relative humid-ity for July 1975 was 37.5% compared to the record of 40.5 set in 1955. Table 2.3-1 and Tables 2.3-13 present additional humidity information from the HMS. 2.3.2.4 Precipitation !1 l Precipitation data are presented in Figures 2.3-10 and -11, and Tables 2.3-14 and -15. Tables 2.3-16A through F are joint wind direction and speed summaries of rainfall intensities over two years of onsite data. No deviation from the regional precipitation pattern was found. Figures 11 for precipitation-wind roses are not included because of the large amount of zero value data. 2.3.2.5 High Velocity Winds and Severe Weather l1 Surveys of data on high winds over this region indicate that higher winds tend to occur at the higher, more exposed elevations, although all sites in this region have experienced relatively high winds. There is weak l1 evidence that this area has been affected by hurricanes, but no complete i 2.3-5 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l l ,_
l WNP-l/4 ER-OL statistics are readily available that present frequency of occurrence of high winds produced or accompanied by a particular metorological event. The highest reported winds produced at HMS by any cause are tabulated in Table 2.3-17. The Hanford tower is at a slightly higher elevation and, hence, might be expected to experience higher winds than at the WNP-1/4 site. Although based on different periods this tendency may be inferred from Tables 2.3-7 and 2.3-8. Figure 2.3-12 indicated the return proba-bility ofany peak wind gust at HMS due to any cause. The highest record-ed peak gust at the 50-f t level at HMS in the period 1945 to the present was 80 mph. Thunderstorms have been observed on the Hanford Site in every month ex-cept November and January (see Table 2.3-1). Although severe ones are rare, lightening strikes have occasionally ignited grass fires. 1 A small tornado was observed near the east end of Rattlesnake Mountain, about 12 miles west-southwest of the site, in June 1948. There have been two funnel clouds observed in 31 years (1945-1980) of observations at HMS.(l) 2.3.2.6 High Air Pollution Potential (APP) and Dust Storm Potential Larson(5) has concluded that " consideration of the gueral weather para-meters indicates a significant;y high average annual APP over southeas-tern Washington". Holzwortht6J has estimated that the mean maximum January mixing depth in the Hanford area is about 250 meters, which is nearly the lowest in $gg contiguous United States; for July it is about 2,000 meters. Hoslerl / has indicated a significantly high frequency ( of low-level inversion in winter over this area - on the order of 43 per-cent with bases below 150 meters. The occurrence of very stable and mod-erately stable conditions between the surface and 60 meters in winter at the Hanford Meteorology Tower is 66.5 percent. Both of the two most not-able Hanford stagnation periods experienced during this time occurred in l November and December 1952. The first period was from November 15 to December 3 (19 days). Then, after five days of ventilation, sta set in again December 9 and lasted through December 28 (20 days)gnation
. Aver-age winds speeds during the two periods were respectively, 2.6 and 2.9 miles per hour. There were 13 days of fog in each period. Although j stagnation lasting for 20 days can be expected only one season in twenty, i a 10-day stagnation period can be expected every other season. Only one season in three will fail to produce a stagnation period of at least eight days.
For the year 1971, S02 measurements in Richland averaged less than 0.02 ppm. At other sampling stations, the concentrations were below the de-tection limit of 0.01 ppm. In 1974, all 24-hour sequential samples of i S02 measured in the vicinity of Richland, North Richland, and Hanford l 300 Area had concentrations below the detection limit of .005 ppm which is 25% of the annual average ambient air standard of .02 ppm. The 1971 and 1974 measurements for N02 and suspended particulates are shown in 1l Tables 2.3-18. h 2.3-6 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O - The major cause of air pollution in the Hanford area is dust occurring during windy periods. The most significant sources are cultivated fields in the surrounding area. Measurement of the particulate burden in air at a specific observation point in the 200 Areas at Hanford showed values of around 100 micrograms per cubic meter of air when the wind was less than 8 mph. The particulate content increased when higher winds were present, averaging 1,000 micrograms per cubic meter with micrograms per cubic meter with winds of 16\ mph.yggds of 12
/ Figure 2.3-13 mph, and 3,000 de-picts 1976-1980 measurements of total suspended particulates. 1 2.3.2.7 Topographic Description gg The plant is located at a grade elevation of 451 feet MSL in a basin area formed by the Saddle Mountains to the northwest, White Bluffs and hills rising to about 900 feet MSL to the north and east, the Horse Heaven Hills to the south and the Rattlesnake Hills and Yakima, Umtanum and Manastach ridges to the west. Topographic cross-sections plotted out to 50 miles (80 km) by sector from the plant are given in Figure 2.3-14. Except for the bluffs to the east across the Columbia River, the region within 10 1 miles is basically flat and featureless and slopes gradually toward the Columbia River. Site topography within a five mile radius is given in Figure 2.3-15.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.3
- 1. Stone, W. A., et al., Climatography of the Hanford Area, BNWL-1605, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, June 1972, as updated through 1980 by W. Sandusky, BNWL, July 1982.
- 2. Baker, D. A., Diffusion Climatology on the 100-N Area. Hanford Wash-ington, DUN-7841, Douglas United Nuclear Company, Richland, Washing-ton, January 1972.
- 3. Stone, W. A., Meteorological Instrumentation of the Hanford Area, HW-62455, General Electric, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Rich-land, Washington, March 1964.
- 4. Phillips, E., Tri-City Area, Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, Washington Narrative Climatological Sumary, Glimatography of the United States No. 20-45, U.S. Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
- 5. Larson, L. B., " Air Pollution Potential Over Southeastern Washing-ton," U.S. Weather Bureau, Walla Walla, Washington, May 1970 (unpub-lishedpresentation).
- 6. Holzworth, G. C., " Estimates of Mean Maximum Depths in the Conti-guous United States", Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 92, pp 235-242, O May 1964.
2.3-7 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
J -:l WNP-1/4 'e 's ER-OL - -
~
- 7. Hosler, C. R., " Low-Level Inversion Frequency in the Contiguous United States". Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 89, pp 319-339, Sep-tember 1961.
- 8. Droppo, J. G., Hanford Dust Storm Climatology, report prepared for Washington Public Power Supply System, Rattelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, January,1978. ,
1
/
i. r I l l l l l l l O 2.3-8 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l l
- se as - -
8 ;I 5 i.s a.r . i.t. 3 8 38 . s.i. s.a. $.$. a .5 i. s. ..
. =.;
syfss.as.--..=en g ., - s en ss -
= , . { g--~ g;; .s.. . , .
,=g.
. 31 3 . . . -
.s : - -
. I -3 . 23 s
** a . , g I n ;E3 = egs4 , - =;1 s,= a=
- h lj ;. s :llil _- llt ==I il>.=I ] . l ssEm ! il I=
- 5V - !.::.i .s = =l,g 3 5 . = =;. 3 i e 2 is 111 ! II .!il!=!a!gI! 3 s l 32 E! ! ! ! ! !!
= issilillii!!!!
- , . - = . ;;
- ......::; ;
3 == !!!i8iiili!!!! s - e i.ao . . m :::......::: ; i
=
c 3 j .- 3!!!!!Ii!!!!!! cc ! . g ;a in -= ::: -.....:: ;
, E
~
^ !_ e!
== !!!!E!!E!!8!s!
,' ~ , ':
o sanonsein m s a s s_ a. _m m.a s_s __.._ s e. s-l , g_ 8m
< ' .. ...... . fe e Efft!! !!! .!.!.]!
.= s3:susassassys g3g , _ , , , , o ,q ,,,,,. .
Q n !......... =.. (;!. ~. .! ,. s_ u s;;;si_ g;;;p_
/< I w
am !!3!!3!!!!!!!! 3 s unuc. usem ESRE!EEER!Ef 5 . . Ammuun.WMau #${f((j(({f{ ] E g ,, am !I!!I!!!!! Ij! 8!!; REEE5HSSE**
- a oeum l -
y i.,,,,,, s .a
.. m .a .s .s .e xa. a m .m s... .
i
~ 3:3, =
l i-' . . . 3 E!!!!!siff!81E R_; "! f g
= iii!!8!!!Eiili -lji .,,,u,,,,, nnnyggsas 3
~, o. 02
_; E 4=.a. =
-.-- mes=--- - l i, ausssIIsans a
- n. cx w a E 3: W J j 8* iiiIE!!!!Eiii! um 33_3_3_333__363_3_333_
s co u. C. el _ __ _ _ .
;s o ; _i . - - ----i n a - , ;1_ 3 n- ,, = :::.::::: : :
e ; a ----e is.--- ! m; = nisu u n3.. b ! = E!!E!!$$$1!!I$ EE .wuos uwm hhhhhhhhhhhh sx =. !, . usa --- n s - aA8 - - :::::::::= : W * - 8* 3!!!EE!!EEE!s3 i um !!!EEI3355IITE O ni inu !!E9E8888EE85 ! ! "" **"**~'888
- m ! imae wm gs*Maa"'EER 3 ,
- s
" !!bi!kEk!!!!!!
W 15>em Ef tf E!*Segn g
** EIEEEEEI!EEIRE a gygggggggggggg c2 5 tswan ssoa ec-mammen- n = l m . ............ .
eq=
; sm (E]!IES ! h! jk h 3333333sE353
! ! ! u ; im ---- ------ 3-3'-
= unem osom essseums= sus a .
y g .......,..... am 3_3 _ -_3_9_3 3_3 5 E_ _S S i_y_s i
- **L'*' uw. sess3= .esas a .
y_ l om .
- - = . . , s :. . = - -
u..u.. == x - g
; ; = E!!!!!!!iES!i! . = EE!!!!!!!!!!sE
; 8 ts>e= =e. ===esassnees e i ,,,,,, 333ss,g3gss3 ,
! .= !!!!!!!!!!!!s! ! m, .. ====..=3= ,
3 , unumm umet memesgessgas a -e 33 um .....EEEE!!ijd f!!gf
~
j = !!!!!!!a!!!!i! ! ; o um :::::::::::: : i * . = = - - ;i;;;;;;:;;; ; i
- Eiiti!!!!!!!>i
! u> e 2;;;;;:::::: :
n i n- ;;;;;;;;;;;; : I u V .n
= = a-.
o, ;:::;;;;:;;; ; s=s u---
,,u m..
=
,,It!!!!!g,,!
.. . ...e .. .
ss!*Ilifian I asartiffla u !l l + l Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
.. ., e .. .. ..
3 is j E! I! !! I! Eg !! gi i! 1! gg gg gg 5..... . .. . . . . i.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. y
!!!i !li il!!I!!.,!!!.,!!!,,!.!!
l!!! ii !!!!!li:!ijil:!li!!i!!! g 3 =, g
!!.Ii!.!i
,i,i5=j5s=..y5,.j!...............a..!..
s _ !!!i!!!!!i!!!!
= , sa g 53 g 33 g ss y !s gss ;ss
.= i!!!illil!!!
8 i .= n. n. ............ . n I!!ili!!lliill g . am.., z.... --..-s : I . . .I--,........_ .
.* s,ilil,lliis, o l i 3ridii ila. -
-m R.
8
.we. an ....-.-..... .
.. s 8
. ..., - - - - - ' . .' .~ .~r s !
I asa
-- illll!!sa - a-n s
= =
i!!i!!!!!!iis!
.I . ,no , ............ . 3
, . an ., ....-....m.. .
= ,n n,!E t e an li,,s,ii!
7 . . a .,, ............ . ! ,
-= iiiiill!liis i 3 5 !gg - gig!!!!!iggg,g jl .=. aa ..-....-..-. .
, y l l! . ,,
..4.......
- l -= !!!!i!!l!!!ini y N- j . .--_ ___ __ . jj .=====, ..........-.. . gg gj j da T a -= isticij!!! i i . ,n -- =---......-- . ! i !.=;;.g 8
=w n .
. I a g g . ;. . a.,, ........... . .
f
. !ii!!!ittii! I g.2!;.!,
w a E..
-= f!!!!i!is!!!i! it, ~. a= -.-....-.... .
- s.
. ,i;.31 co 5:
s i=. amm, ==.---.---== .
.= !,lI!!!!!!!iif s= :-
-31,12
. , _ ,,a,,,, .... ... ... . y l ;g; j,il igyyg a
. igggg;giggjg ; . , . . ..........-. .
=, !j li!!!!iii! ! g 1
g 5
. , n. ............ .
!i!!gigggg;gji y
; .-- a= --m-----.... . !j!'jl:
g.;s:
- an I .a, .__.~.-...._ . ;
... !iIf!!!igi!jfi
. ,, an , ........._.. .
- !!!!!! itis!!It ~.-I------.----.
as.a. i, avn sm**.--*-..a . ;
"" *EE!!gs_ggEff
- _aas I i -= !!Esi!!!!!$21s l ~~ am l.--...-..--. .
~
. amm, ....=. =.... .
=
i = E!!iii!!!!$ili !a
*==- ======---=.. a i
. ,,an..I=..-...-..- = ig m.d
.-..=...--.. . = .J . ,. I------___-- . 5
= !!!!Eii!!!!!si 5 s ==lisIiii! !!! ! !!_$.
. a.. ..___.=..___ . . 3, , ,,,n,,,i ............
. 3g,;
; i 5-
- I 3 -u !!!!!!!!!!!!If = !!.! ii.i!!si i 13!!s i=. a m< , -.===....==- .
u g .- .ano, ....--... 2= s.51.!,
! 5 6.
. = , , , , -
.......=...- , . = . , , , , , ........... .
1311!!iffaja J l 1311111J1811 1 T l Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL p TABLE 2.3-2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF' STABILITY VS. DIRECTION FOR STABILITY CLASSES A-G (three years data) ' PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS A SPEED CLASS (MFH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 NE 0.00 0.00 0.07 0 06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 5"E 8:88 8:8! 8:8i 8:8! 8:88 8:88 8:88 8:88 8:51 ESE 0.00 0.06 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.16 SE 0.00 0.02 0.18 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 SSE 0.00 0.04 0.23 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 3 0.00 0.02 0.24 0.44 0.21 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.93 SSW 0.00 0.01 0.23 0.32 0.27 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.84 SW 0.00 0.01 0.18 0.14 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.44 USW 0.00 0.01 0.09 0 10 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.35 W 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.36 WNW 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.33 NW 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.42 NNW 0.00 0.01 0.16 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 N 0.00 0.03 0.16 0.12 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 VAR 0.00 0.03 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.08 [s_,)/ TOTAL 0.00 0.32 2.31 1.85 1.04 0.37 0.11 0.01 6.00 PERCENT FRE0dENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS S SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-13 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 NE 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 ENE 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 E 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 ESE 0 00 0.03 0.14 0 05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 SE 0.00 0.03 0 18 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 l i SSE 0.00 0.02 0.23 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 S 0.00 0.05 0.19 0.34 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.67 SSW 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.13 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.45 SW 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.35 USW 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.31 W 0.00 0.02 0.18 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.36 WNW 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.32 NW 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.39 NNW 0.00 0.02 0.26 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.42 N 0.00 0.03 0.29 0.09 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.49 VAR 0.00 0 05 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.07 TOTAL 0.00 0.40 2.81 1.29 ^.65 0.24 0.06 0.03 5.49 O Amendment 1 (Feb 83) 1 l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-2 (contd.) O PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THRU 9/30 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS C SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-1P 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.04 0.22 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 NE 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 ENE 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 E 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 ESE 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 SE 0.00 0.05 0.16 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 555 8:88 0.00 8:8 8:!8 8:11 8:8! 8:8! 8:88 8:88 8:i' SSW 0.02 0.17 0.25 0.12 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.61 SW 0.00 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.03 0 02 0.00 0.41 WSW 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.41 W 0.00 0.03 0.14 0.11 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.39 WNW 0.00 0.03 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.33 NW 0.00 0.06 0.18 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.44 NNW 0.00 0.06 0.24 0.12 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.49 N 0.00 0.05 0.33 0.20 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.66 VAR 0.00 0.10 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKND 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 TOTAL 0.00 0.66 2.80 1.83 0.78 0.25 0.09 0.02 6.44 PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE: WIND DIRECTION US SPEED FROM 4/74 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS D SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.22 0.58 0.24 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.01 1 19 NE 0.00 0.19 0.33 0.10 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.65 ENE 0.00 0 15 0.32 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 E 0.00 0.17 0.24 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 ESE 0.00 0.28 0.35 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 SE 0.00 0.30 0.69 0.14 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.17 SSE 0.00 0.35 0.93 0.46 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 1 85 S 0.00 0.24 0.76 0.82 0.35 0.05 0.00 0.00 2.22 SSW 0.00 0.32 0.59 0.84 0.70 0.21 0.13 0.00 2.80 SW 0.01 0.32 0.37 0.33 0.44 0.23 0.10 0.00 1.80 l WSW 0.00 0.24 0.33 0.29 0.26 0.13 0.04 0.01 1.29 I W 0.01 0.30 0.35 0.28 0.21 0.06 0.03 0.01 1.24 l WNW 0.00 0.42 0.79 0.71 0.49 0.26 0.03 0.00 2.71 NW 0.00 0.56 1.33 0.98 0.59 0.21 0.09 0.05 3.81 NNW 0.00 0.52 1.08 0.60 0.22 0.02 0.00 0.02 2.46 N 0.00 0.36 0.64 0.42 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.59 VAR 0.00 0.28 0.20 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 l CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0 24 TOTAL 0.03 5.24 9.90 6.42 3.65 1.22 0.46 0.30 27.23 l Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-2(contd.) O l PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCEe WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS E SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.29 0.25 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.70 NE 0.00 0.19 0.31 0.04 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.01 0.55 ENE 0.00 0.16 0.25 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.47 E 0.00 0.17 0 18 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 ESE 0.01 0.22 0.19 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 SE 0.00 0.32 0.56 0.22 0.05 0.00 .00 0.00 1.15 SSE 0.00 0.30 0.92 0.73 0.16 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.12 S 0.00 0.37 0.79 0.69 0.33 0.05 0.00 0.00 2.24 SSW 0.00 0.33 0.57 0.48 0.57 0.25 0.10 0.03 2.34 SW 0.00 0.31 0.56 0.33 0.35 0.13 0.04 0.02 1.73 WSW 0.01 0.33 0.56 0.31 0.11 0.06 0.02 0.01 1.40 W 0.01 0.32 0.55 0.38 0 15 0 04 0.01 0.02 1.48 WNW 0.01 0.51 1.04 1.18 0.56 0.11 0.00 0.02 NW 0.00 0.55 1 48 1.23 0.35 0.05 0.00 0.00 3.4)s 3.6 NNW 0.01 0.49 0.85 0.42 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.84 N 0.00 0.39 0.41 0 13 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.94 VAR 0.00 0.17 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 l CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.16 TOTAL 0.06 5.42 9.61 6.35 2.72 0.72 0.23 0.24 25.36 O PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS F SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.34 0.38 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 NE 0.00 0.24 0.32 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 ENE 0.00 0 21 0.14 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0 40 E 0.00 0.16 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.25 ESE 0.00 0.17 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 SE 0.00 0.19 0.43 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.70 SSE 0.00 0.20 1.02 0.51 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.79 S 0.00 0.27 0.88 0.47 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.71 SSW 0.00 0.30 0.63 0.29 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31 SW 0.00 0.24 0.37 0.!0 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.75 USW 0.00 0.28 0.30 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 W 0.00 0.20 0.30 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.72 UNW 0.02 0.33 0.46 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 l NW 0.00 0.35 0.79 0.33 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 1.49 l NNW 0.00 0 40 0.71 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 1.20 l N 0.00 0.44 0.38 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.85 VAR 0.00 0.23 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.09
- TOTAL 0.03 4.57 7.37 2.63 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.20 15.06 t
b
\ ,/ .
Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-2 (contd.) llll PERCENT FREQUENCY CF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THRU 9/80 AT UPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS G SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.01 0.46 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 NE 0.01 0.46 0.32 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 ENE 0.00 0.31 0.17 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.50 E 0.00 0.30 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 ESE 0.00 0.24 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 SE 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 SSE 0.00 0.22 0.74 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.19 S 0.00 0.22 0.65 0.30 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.22 SSM 0.00 0.18 0.27 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 SW 0.00 0.21 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 USW 0.00 0.17 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 W 0.00 0.19 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 UNW 0.00 0.28 0.21 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.54 NW 0.00 0.38 0.57 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.08 NNW 0.00 0.52 0.42 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.19 N 0.00 0.55 0.45 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 1.02 VAR 0.00 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKND 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 TOTAL 0.05 5.18 4.98 0.92 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.19 11.37 PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THRU 9/80 AT WPPSS M T FOR 10 METER LEVEL PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS UNKNO SPEED CLASS (MPH) CALM 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-UP UNKNO TOTAL NNE 0.00 0.01 0.02 3.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.03 NE 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 ENE 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.02 E 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.03 ESE 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 SE 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 SSE 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.01 0.06 S 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.08 SSW 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.14 SW 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.03 0.07 WSW 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0 01 0.00 0.03 0.09 W 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.12 WNW 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.23 l NU 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0 02 0.01 0.00 0.17 0.00 NNW 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.01 0.04 N 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 VAR 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 CALM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNKNO 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 00 0.00 1.76 1.82 TOTAL 0.00 0.14 0.36 0.24 0.22 0.09 0.04 1.95 3.05 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) h l 1
- O O O i !
l TABLE 2.3-6E (sheet 5 of 5) ANrJUAL
........ . .. . .. . . Nk E ,,, N,E,,, E N E, . ,E ,
- E S E , S E, . $ $ E,,,,'l$_,_S S W_,, S W_,WSW__ W,,,_W NW,_ _NW_ _Nh W__ H,__ VAR. CALM TOT,AL,_
e-1 VS 0 21 0 21 0 15 e.20 0 26 e.38 s.23 a.23 e.2e e.23 e.22 e.4e e.34 s.43 e.37 e.35 s.21 s.48 5.11 MS T IT s.zw s.ta s.3s
~5T71T'3ro.aze.zas.1ls.1zstzs.tss.zas.zzssIs.zr 0.36 e.44 0 22 a.i s.13 0.11 0.10 e.18 e.18 0.3 a.41 s.41 e.13 g.4s 4*.I3
. e e 07 ,40.33 r
. . . . .. . . g. . . g, N. . 0 .; 3,..b .,0 .d6 WO 0;31"0.2re?12's;1TTJ10"O'.16 8710"g;14"871C0:27~5;37 T.54"e'i4E 0.e4 "5105-T "Y"' a 95'~0;21"d'J18Ti14 MS e.17 0.15 a.13 0.15 0'.174.22 n;20"0;33 8.36 s.21 0 25s.173728 g.24"s.35"t;5s~4.;96"170s"1ia~e s.15 5.21 g.24 42 8.50 4.65 0.47 5;69~0;39"eior' 0.31 0.02 O. tT""Tiar~4.56 rs 0 12-"T 17 NTID7i17979 0;26 0T141n3 3'47-1716 a.ii 0;18 6.z; 6.55 6 4: v.iG 6.61 0.
z.H ,
............U . 0 . M 0 ;,9 0 g .,? 5, . 0 5,8,,,0 . ,5 3, 0,,6 2.,0,. 3,7 ,,0 g,4 5,,,0 ;,4,g,,0 f ,51_ g . 3,7 0 . 3 8 e .,4 8_1.,13 1 11 1.38 e.30,e._,_10.8,4_
j 8 -12 VS 0;11' 0.13 0.08 0 110.03 0 08-0a07 e.e7 0.13 0.21 0 11 0 12 g,24 e.59 1.23 2 00 1.74;06 0;10 0.21 e.60 0.20 e. O. 7.65
""""""h5 s;19 e;13 s te"s.s4 t;50 t;961;47-1.53 0.3e s;14 N 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 0 04 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.06 g.09 0 14 0.14 0.42 8.78 0 15 C.e6 8. 8. 2.26 u- 5 457.33 dTI2 I!69 5 Urt:1's 671t 0.14 s.se s .39 B 5e s . s s s 75V 1 4TT.52 DT4T'T s e s . e.st 13"it"~v ' g.g"g.g"
~
{g" "g'.g Qg.g"[.y-{. "g"{.gg'y. "6;""J."""j.} j" y$ I
"""" "Y ' O.05 0 01 0 01' O .01' 0;00"0; O3"0'iO4 'B';05 g;57's;14"0 24'O i16"5:44 '0;58 0; 04 0.8 4^ ~8 ;' ' eT ""'1; 9 4" f. -*
U 0.26 0.13 0.03 0.01 0 01 0.03 0.04 e.05 0.18 0.54 0.68 0.26 0 64 0.98 0.09 0.14 0. 8. 4.07 a
" "*- - Xi I: 04 1:118:lf1:ll8:0. -8:11 1:-11-1:-!1- 1:11-1-:81-1:-18-1:11- 1:88-f-:-l! 1:li I:ll-1-:----1:--- -8:ib l 1 17
....g .0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.01 0.01 a.n3 0.08 0.15 0.17 0.05 0 25 e.34 a.01 0.02 c.
N 8. ,
. g . 0. 0 5"0. 01 0. 0 0 ' 0 ;"" 0 ; 0 0"0. 01"8 :0 2 ' 5 :11"8;34"O~. 41" t;12 0 ; 32 ~8 ioT 'O';41 0. 03 0 ;"" 6.""" 2;1r '
............ Xi0;01'0;01"0 I:011:!!1:00 0.00 1: 1: 8:l!1:ll1:881:ll11)1:ll1:111:111:761:00i:.11: I: 1:ll UT" ' O i' '"Oi O1"e iO2 ' EJ 08'lil?"0; e9 'O'4 03 0 21"030"O . 0 0 ' 0 81"B;""'s^. "" li13"
..... 001..8 09 0. 40..0. 31 0. 08.0 17 8.46 8 01 0.00 8.. . .....8.. ......1.57 i ............U. 0 02 0.03 0.01 8 .. .O.....
O
.... . . . 8. .. . . . . . . . . . . ..... ... .. . .. .... ..... .. ,
TOTALS VS 0.60 0 54 0 39 0 47 0 53 0.es 0 83 0 67 a.61 g.95 1 6 .e5 4.73 1 89 1.e3 1 0g e.23 a.4s 24 29 riS' Tio0 3 5g 0736 g.-49 0.-87 T.98 5782 ti% i.22 s.21 2.4 . 3--tT33We"1T34 is s F 7W4SS-3175P- ,
............Ng . 0.56 0 55 0 42 0.49 0.40 0.82 s.49 0.48 e.48 8.76 g.85 0.72 1.78 2.88 0.95 0.72 0.15 0.48 14.11 2.25 2;08 ~1.08 '1.09 0 94 1.07 0.45' O.84 1 27 2iS3 2.43'1.30 2;35 4.98 2 11 2.34 8.77 0 04 30.03 '
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-7
SUMMARY
OF ONSITE METEOROLOGICAL DATA COMPARED TO CORRESPONDING HMS DATA (HISTORICAL HMS DATA INDICATED FOR EACH MONTH) April May June July August September October Site and Sensor Elevation '74 '75 '74 '75 '74 '75 '74 '75 '74 '75 '74 '75 '74 '75
- 1. Prevaillnq Wind Direct 193 WWP-2 33' WW ssW SSW WW WuW WW 8 S S S N N WWW S HMS 50' WW N/A WWW N/A WNW N/A WWW N/A WW N/A W N/A W W HMS (hist) 50' (1955-1970) WWW WWW WWW WWW WW W WW
- 2. Mean Wind Speed (pph)
WNP-2 33' 9.8 8.0 8.4 8.7 8.5 9.3 7.2 7.6 6.8 7.9 6.5 5.7 4.8 7.2 iD4S 50* 10.3 9.0 9.0 9.6 9.0 10.5 8.1 8.5 7.5 9.0 7.1 6.8 5.6 7.1 HMS (hist) 50' (1955-1970) 9.0 8.8 9.2 8.6 8.0 7.5 6.7
- 3. Maan Dry Bulb Temp. ( F)
WNP-2 33' 52.2 47.6 57.4 59.6 72.5 66.1 73.6 78.7 74 . 7 10 .3 66.9 66.2 51.7 52.1 HMS 3' 52.5 48.4 57.9 60.7 73.3 67.3 74.8 80.0 76.3 71.2 68.3 67.9 52.0 52 .3 HMS (hist) 3' (1950-1970) 52.5 61.8 68 .9 77.5 75.3 67.0 53.2
- 4. Maan Wet Bulb Temp. (*F) l> WEP-2 33' 44.7 39.7 47.2 48.2 56 . 0 52 . 7 57.4 61.5 58.0 55.7 52.6 $2 .0 4 3. E- 45.3 g HMS 3* 43.9 40.0 46.5 49.0 54.5 54 . 0 56.3 62.0 57.0 56.0 52.0 52.0 42.C 45.0 g HMS (hist) 3' (1950-1970) 42.8 49.1 54.5 57.9 57 .3 52.6 45.4
- 5. Mean Dew Point Temp. (OF) 3 WNP-2 33' 36.6 29.8 36 .6 36.9 43.0 40.8 44.9 50.2 45.6 44.2 39.9 39.5 35.0 38.2 6 HMS 3' 33.3 30.0 34 . 0 38.6 38.2 42.4 41.0 50 . 1 43.2 44.6 38.9 38.2 31.0 37.2 p.* HMS (hist) 3' (1950-1970) 30.4 36 .0 41.2 42.3 42.8 39.5 36.9 Q 6. Total Precipitation (incheel h WNP-2 .55 .53 .44 ,. 4 7 .06 .46 .45 .09 0.0 1.17 .06 0.0 .10 , .74 gMs .46 .42 .28 .38 .12 .14 .71 .32 Trace 1.16 .01 .03 .21 .87 La 194S (hist) 1946-1970 Mean Total .44 .50 66 .16 .21 .30 .61 N/A - Not Available O O O
O O WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-7 (contd.)
SUMMARY
OF ONSITE METEOROLOGICAL DATA COMPARED TO CORRESPONDING HMS DATA (HISTORICAL HMS DATA INDICATED FOR EACH MONTH) First Annual Second Annud Cycle Cycle November December Jan uary February March April '74 - April '75 - Site and Sensor Elevation '74 '75 '74 '75 '75 '76 '75 '76 '75 '76 March '75 March '76
- 1. Prevailing Wind Direction 1
WP-2 33' SSW S S W NNW W NW SSW NNW SSW NW NW tots 50' W W WW W WW NW W NW WNW NW N/A N/A SW SW SW HMS (hist) 50' (1955-1970) WW NW W WW WNW NW ('55 '70)
- 2. Mean Wind Speed (aph)
WMP-2 33' 5.8 7.8 6.4 7.1 6.4 5.0 7.8 10.4 8.7 9.1 7.2 7. 8 HMS 50' 5.5 7.7 5.9 7.2 6.4 4.9 7.5 10.8 8.9 9.6 9.1 10.1 HMS (hist) 50' (1955-1970) 6.2 6.0 6.4 7.0 8.4 7.6 ('55 '70) 3, Mean Dry Bulb Temp. (Ori WNP-2 33' 42.1 39.5 36.8 34 .2 32.3 32.4 33.8 37.7 41.9 40.8 33.1 52.1 HMS 3' 42.1 39.3 35 .7 34.5 32.0 31.5 33.6 37.3 42.0 40.6 53.4 52.6 HMS (hist) 3' (1950-1970) 40.1 33.4 30.3 37.5 44.0 53.5 ('50 ***J0)
- 4. Mean Wet Bulb Temp. ("FI WNP-2 33* 39.3 35.5 34.5 31.9 30.0 30.6 30.9 32.9 36.2 34.4 44.3 43.4 BMS 3* 38.0 35.0 33.0 32.0 30.0 30,0 31.0 33.0 36.0 35.0 43.4 43.6
{ g 884S (hist) 3' (1950-1970) 36.4 31.2 27.9 33.6 37.3 43.8 ( 's) ' 70 ) 3
- 5. Itean Dew Point Temp. (OF)
.h U WWP-2 33' 36.3 30.6 31.4 28.9 26.3 28.1 26 . 5 25.4 27,9 24.8 35.9 34.8 O letS 3* 33.9 30.0 29.2 28.1 26.0 27.6 25.5 25.5 26.0 25.0 33.4 34.8 e NHS (hist) 3' (1950-1970) 31.1 27.5 23.2 27.4 27.3 33.8 (' s *70)
Q S
- 6. Total Precipitatbn (inches)
ET WMP-2 .56 .70 .67 03 .93 .08 .67 .11 .52 .16 4.92 4.54 g HMS 71 .60 .97 .70 1.43 .56 .98 .36 .33 .23 6.21 5.87 La HMS (histl 1946-1970 Mean Total .00 . 81 . .97 .58 .38 6.53 (*46 '70) w N/A - Not Available
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-8 COMPARISON OF ONSITE AND LONG-TERM DIFFUSIGN ELEENTS ( Annual Percent and trequency of UCCurrence) Regulator Guide 1.23 WNP-1/4 Site (a) Hanford Stability Hanford Meteorolo y(b) Stability Classification (2 Years) Class Station (15 Years Extremely Stable 13.14 Very Stable 24.29 Moderately Stable 15.82 Moderately Stable 31.58 Slightly Stable 26.08 Neutral 26.07 Neutral 14.21 Slightly Unstable 9.13 Moderately Unstable 3.96 Unstable 30.01 Extremely Unstable 3.50 Wind Direction NNE 4.60 3.6 NE 3.24 3.4 ENE 2.70 2.1 E 2.01 2.4 ESE 2.35 2.6 SE 4.24 3.7 SSE 8.10 2.8 5 10.25 3.2 SSW 9.69 4.1 SW 6.60 7.2 WSW 5.06 8.5 W 5.27 9.8 WNW 8.93 16.0 NW 11.02 16.6 NNW 7.89 4.9 N 5.89 4.5 Var 2.13 2.4 Calm 0.01 2.2 Wind Speed (mph) Calm 0.01 2.20 1-3 32.44 25.43 4-7 39.40 33.30 8-12 23.16 23.89 13-18 10.29 11.58 19-24 3.42 4.45 l up 1.30 1.36 l (a)4/74 to 3/76 winds at 33 f t, stacility based on change in air temperature between 33 and 245 ft. Values normalized to 100% data. (b)1955-1970 winds at 50 ft, stability based on change in air temperature between 3 and 200 ft. l O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 ER-0L TABLE 2.3-9 MEANS OF DAILY MIXING HEIGHTS (meters) AND ASSOCIATED AVERAGE WIND SPEEDS (m/sec)(a) l1 Morning Afternoon Mixing Height Wind Speed Mixing Height Wind Speed January 302 4.8 295 4.6 February 341 4.8 658 5.3 March 388 5.6 1331 5.6 April 350 5.4 1966 6.7 May 288 4.7 2243 5.9 June 263 4.3 2440 5.7 July 208 3.9 2703 5.2 August 235 4.1 2439 4.8 l September 189 3.6 1922 4.9 October 192 .3.8 1076 5.2 [} November 300 4.3 505 4.6 December 367 4.5 316 4.6 (a) Spokane, WA, radisonde data, period of record 1/60 - 12/64. Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-0L TABLE 2.3-10 g COMPARIS0N OF MONTHLY AVERAGE AND 1 EXTREMES OF HOURLY AVERAGE AIR TEMPERATURES ONSITE AND AT HMS WNP-1/4(a) ggS(b) Average Max Min Average Max Min Jan 32.5 59.1 14.0 29.4 66 -23 Feb 35.8 63.8 6.2 36.2 71 -23 Mar 41.4 67.7 8.3 45.2 83 26 Apr 50.4 76.7 17.7 53.2 95 12 May 58.7 89.3 30.2 61.8 103 28 Jun 69.9 103.5 37.5 69.4 110 33 Jul 6.9 111.6 44.9 76.4 115 41 Aug 72.8 103.8 43.3 74.2 113 40 Sep 65.7 95.6 38.5 65.2 102 25 Oct 51.2 83.0 25.4 53.1 90 6 O Nov 40.5 75.1 12.1 40.0 73 -1 Dec 35.3 62.8 10.1 32.6 68 -27 Annual 52.6 111.6 s.2 53.1 115 -27 (a)Two years of data at 7 ft, 4/74 to 3/76. All values are hourly I averages. (b) Surf ace air temperature observations at Hanford townsite and HMS (at 3 ft) for period 1912-1970. Maximums and minimums are observed values. Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
i j WNP-1/4 ER-0L TABLE 2.3-11 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY AVERAGE WET BULB TEMPERATURES ONSITE AND AT HMS 1 l yNP-1/4(a) HMs(b) Jan 30.3 27.9 i Feb 31.9 33.6 i Mar 35.2 37.3 Apr 42.3 42.8 May 47.7 49.1 Jun 54.3 54.5 Jul 59.5 42.3 Aug 56.9 42.8 Sep 52.3 52.6 Oct 44.5 45.4 Nov 37.4 36.4 Dec 33.2 31.2 Year 43.8 43.8 (a)Two years of WNP-1/4 data at 7 ft., 4/74 to 3/76 (b)20 years of HMS data at 3 ft.,1950-1970. O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
TABLE 2.3-12 fetouCNCT Of OCCupefhCE, WCF SULR IEMPfRATURE (DEGREES FI WS IIME OF O A f F R O1 e/F5 IH400GH 3/F6 4i WNP.1/4 Fod 33-Fi LivfL 71MC OF DA' D*6 acts F . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IC 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2. 21 22 23 24 FOTAL
-2* *
- 5 4 a *
. - . 2 G 3 1 0 J t ; 3 f 1 1 15
- f
( a 3 0 * *
? I 1 O
6 6 J . 6 J *
- 1; '
2 0 i s 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 ( 1 7 0
-le- 5 s 0 * * * *
. O . C C 1 0 0 C 1 1 3 4 *
-5 i ?
C C ' O 1 2 3 0 0 0 3 C . J 8 0 0 C 1 L . O t G , ! 1 0 J . 2 4 r
- 1 ?
- 3 5 1) i 0 : ? : S 1 2 0 0 ! G 0 3 ? . C C J 1 m
IC 15 3 5 4 7 6 7 6 5 4 6 1 1 3 1 G 4 1 0 ? ? e 1 1 46 23 2 15 2: 2C 25 21 F 1
.1 11 21 23 9 IG 13 13 22 13 23 11 21 11 14 17 3 1 1 1 0 0
- O 2 1 4 5 8 7 9 132 N7 25 3: St !9 45 94 45 42 38 39 31 31 15 29 11 26 23 6 5 4 6 7 8 12 11 14 15 17 18 354 O -4 22 21 29 28 36 26 32 32 34 34 31 783 r" %s it 15 57 54 SF 'h i 60 m3 Sb to 48 35 29 29 35 32 34 21 31 SJ !! ** 9e 47 55 61 137J A 35 43 98 47 43 44 9. 42 39 44 39 49 51 54 SJ 49 48 46 49 54 6: 56 !! 35 49 e6 1157 4* 45 45 47 51 $7 .3 58 53 33 34 41 45 49 40 52 49 SS 48 45 39 e6 et oC 43 46 1137 45 5; 13 '6 5e 56 5t 53 55 41 43 46 to 42 39 38 42 34 39 42 3h 39 46 33 55 56 til5 SJ 55 61 .2 SF 95 el 45 45 46 54 53 55 52 5 51 ta 51 47 49 5: 3: 51 49 59 56 1226 55 6*. 21 15 13 to ;; 11 23 36 to 53 55 53 56 5C 53 52 46 45 47 52 49 48 31 28 917 6C 65 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 6 9 22 25 29 39 45 49 51 55 46 27 2* 12 8 7 6 537 65 F) e 3 2 0 2 4 5 6 7 6 F F 8 9 8 9 5 6 a 5 e 6 6 6 1 36 FC 72 1 1 1 ( ( .
* ; 2 3 4 6 7 7 8 8 9 8 7 6 1 2 1 1 94 75 a: ; 1 . .
s i 3 7- 1 C 0 2 6 1 c C
. C 1 et ? I f C 3 f *
- 1 4 3 0 3 J . e 1 : 1 3
Uhn 40 . I 1 1 1 3 3 34 21 9 m 5 5 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 139 10FAL 5 t s. 3e6 356 366 266 366 366 366 366 366 ft6 366 36 6 346 366 366 366 366 JE6 266 3(i J66 36 6 3=6 d794 O O O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-13 MONTHLY AVERAGES OF PSYCHROETRIC DATA AT HMS, 1950-1970 AVERAGES Jan Feb Mar Ag Mga Jun Jul Ag Sg Oct Dkw Dec VEAR' Ory Bulb 30.3 17.5 44.0 52.5 61.8 69.9 - 77.5 75.3 67.0 53.2 40.1 33.4 53.5 Het Bulb 27.9 33.6 37.3 42.8 49.1 54.5 57.9 57.3 52.6 45.4 36.4 31.2 43.8 Rel. Hum. 76.0 ,69.7 55.0 *46.4 41.8 39.4 31.5 34.9 39.9 57.7 72.6 80.8 53.8 Dewpoint 23.2 27.4 27.3 30.4 36.0 41.2 42.3 42.8 39.5 36.9 31.1 27.5 33.8 DRY BUI.B FIONTHLY AVERAGE EXTREMES Haghest 43.0 44.0 48.7 56.2 68.7 75.5 82.8 82.5 72.0 $9.1 45.8 38.8 56.3 Year 1953 1958 1963 1956 1958 1969 1960 1967 1967 1952 1954 1953 1958 lave st 12.9 25.8 39.6 48.3 57.2 64.2 73.2 70.6 61.6 50.3 32.3 26.5 51.0 Year 1950 1956 1955 1955 1962 1953 1963 1964 1970 1968 1955 1964 1955+ WET DULB l MONTHur AVEWAGE EXTPEMES H6ghest 39.3 40.7 40.8 45.1 54.6 58.6 61.2 61.1 56.5 47.7 42.3 35.8 46.5 Year 1953 1950 1968 1962 1958 1958 1958 1961 1963 1962 1954 1966 1958 Lowest 12.4 23.4 32.9 39.3 45.4 51.4 55.6 54.9 48.3 42.4 .* 3.6 25.0 41.8 Year 1950 1956 1955 1955 1959 1954 1954 1964 1970 1960 1955 1964 1955
-o
> REL. HUM.
I Highest 89.0 87.0 66.0 64.0 *52.0 MONTHLY AVERAGE TXTREMES 54.0 40.0 44.0 55.0 1959 74.0 1962 80.0 1956 90.0 1950 58.0 1950+ , Year 1960 1963 1950 1963 1962+ 1950 1955 1968 lowest 60.0 54.0 44.0 37.0 31.0 34.0 22.0 24.0 34.0 42.0 64.0 69.0 49.0 g Year 1963 1967 1965 1966 1966 1960 1959 1967 1952 1952 1963+ 1968 1967 DEWPOINT MONTHLY AVERAGE EXTREasts Haghest 34.4 36.7 34.0 37.1 43.8 47.5 46.6 46.9 45.4 43 5 30.3 34.3 37.7 l g Year 1953 1958 1961 1953 1957 1958 1958 1961 1963 1962 1954 1950 1958 Lowest 6.5 17.3 20.8 26.2 30.4 37.5 35.4 38.4 33.8 32.1 24.0 21.0 31.5 ! Year 1950 1956 1965+ 1955 1944 1954 1959 1955 1970 1970 1959 1951 1955 1 j I &lso in earlier years i
- Althwgh not included in these tables, an average of 634 was recorded in 1943 l
l I
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-14 MISCELLANEOUS SNOWFALL STATISTICS FOR HANFORD, 1946-1970 AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS WITH DEPTH AT 0400 PST Oct Nov Pec Jan Feb Mar Season la or More 0 1 5 10 5
- 21 3" or More 0 1 2 5 3 0 11 6" or More 0 0 1 3 1 0 5 12" or More 0 0 O O RECORD GREATEST 'JUMBER OF DAYS WITH DEPTH AT 0400 PST 1" or More 0 (1955) 11 (1964+) 17 (1969) 31 (1950) 17 (1951) 3 (1955-56) 54 ,
3* or More 0 (1955) 10 (1955) 14 (1969) 23 (1950) 16 0 (1949-50) 33 6" or More 0 0 (1964) 12 (1965) 23 (1969+) 8 0 (1949-50) 23 12* or More 0 0 (1964) 4 (196?) 1 0 0 (1964-65) 4 PECORD GREATEST DEPTH (1957) 0.3 (1946) 5.1 (1964) 12.1 (1969) 12.0 (1969) 10.0 (1957) 2. 3 - (Dec 1964) 12.1 GREATEST IN 24 HOURS
. (1959) 5.2 (1957+) 2.2 (Jan 1954) 7.1 3 (1957) 0.3 (1955) 4.8 (1965) 5.4 (1954) 7.1 AVERAGE PERCENT OF WATER EQUIVALENT OF ALL PRECIPITATION 2 14 46 48 29 14 L 26 m ( ) Denotes year of occurrence tg + Denotes also in earlier years fi
- Denotes less than 1/2 day O'
co W v 9 O O
.__. _ _ . .__=_ - - _ _ .. . .
1 i WNP-1/4 FA-OL
; TASLE 2.3-16F ZER0 MEASUREMENT FIELD FOR PRECIPITATION INTENSITES(a) , Inches Per Hour i
Month 0.016 0.050 0.100 0.250 0.500 Jan X X Feb X X X Mar X X X Apr X X X May X X Jun X X Jul X X Aug X , X l Sep X X X X Oct X X X Nov X Dec X X X (a)Zero measurement indicated by X. Based on two years of onsite measurements. l l l Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.3-17 MONTHLY AND ANNUAL PREVAILING OIRECTIONS, AVERAGE SPEEDS, AND PEAK GUSTS: 1945-1970 AT MS (50 foot level) PREVIOUS AVERAGE HIGHEST LOWEST PEAK GUST MONTH DENSITY SPEED AVERAGE YEAR AVERAGE YEAR SVttU UtNbilT Yt AR 8 Jan NW 6.4 9.6 1953 3.1 1955 65 S 1967 Feb NW 7.0 9.4 1961 4.6 1963 63 SW 1965 Mar WNW 8.4 10.7 1964 5.9 1958 70 SW 1956 Apr WNW 9.0 11.1 1959 7.4 1958 60 WSW 1969 May WNW 8.8 10.5 1965+ 5.8 1957 71 SSW 1948 Jun WNW 9.2 10.7 1949 7.7 1953+ 72 SW 1957 Jul WNW 8.6 9.6 1963 6.8 1955 55 WSW 1968 Aug WNW 8.0 9.1 1946 6.0 1956 66 SW 1961 Sep WNW 7.5 9.2 1961 5.4 1957 65 SSW 1953 Oct WNW 6.7 9.1 1946 4.4 1952 63 SSW 8950 Nov NW 6.2 7.9 1945 2.9 1956 64 SSW 1949 Dec NW 6.0 8.3 1968 3.9 1963+ 71 SW 1955 YEAR WNW 7.6 8.3 1968+ 6.3 1957 72 SW 1957 (Jun) (a)The average speed for January,1972, was 10.3 mph. (b)0n January 11, 1972, a new all-time record peak gust of 80 mph was established. l
N O i i W : E o .d. n 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 i , , , I WIND SPEED GROUPS (MPH) 0-3 LINE 4-7 SHADE 8-12 OPEN l 13-18 SHADE 3 19 - 24 OPEN 25 UP SHADE Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WIND ROSE FOR WNP-1/4 FOR WN P.1/4 4-74 TO 3-76 AT THE 7 FT LEVEL ER-OL j FIG. 2.3-1
O l l
]
l 1
-n-l 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 WIND SPEED GROUPS (MPH) 0-3 1.INE 4-7 SHADE 8-12 OPEN 13-18 SHADE 19 - 24 OPEN 25UP SHADE
--~
Amendment 1 (Feb 83) _ WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WIND ROSE FOR WNP-1/4 FOR WNP-1/4 4-74 TO 3-76 AT 33-FT LEVEL ER-OL FIG. 2.3-2
N O W E l l O 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WIND SPEED GROUPS (mph) 0-3 LINE 4-7 SHADE 8 - 12 OPEN S 13 - 18 SHADE 19 - 24 OPEN 25 UP SHADE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM ND ROSE FO NP 14 F R ER-OL FIG. 2.3 3
I l l
\, -
1 4" _ als i%, 1AM UNSTA8LE x { _ 1 14 -- _ 23 e e Q Ag VERY STABLE MODERATELY STA8LE STA81UTY DEFINITION OF AT d1200 ft UN5fAtti AT < - U j NEUTRAt,
-0.5 > AT} -U MODERATELY STA8tL M > AT1 -45 VERY STA8LL AT& M
[ t i i t i 1 0 a25 45 ET5 1 L25 PENCENT SCALI WINO ROSE 5 8Y STA81LITY 4.9 M 11 4-7 0'N ~ 19-24 > 28 WlND SPEED GRQJPS iMPHI
. +
1 I f f f i ALL 5fA81LITIES 0 1 2 3 4 5 PERCENT PER$1STINCE SCAL!FOR ALL STA81UTIES Amendment 1 (Feb 83) WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM HMS 200-FT LEVEL WIND ROSES BY WNP 1/4 HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES - ER-OL FIG. 2.3-4
i g'_ _ _ _ _ _ _l 1, u - r- ', 2
,j WA Lutt J~ / ' k" %'u s'r t,
1 j [ , stort i 9
\,
i L L_ - - _'t r[ </ u u r., l l
-N-
u 1 u !
l u a s u'- i u , - a i u, r u l ' e l E o u - u Y " I u 't u emcoin u 7 u
! 7.1 U J g
e n . , _ O l 5, u 5.1 u La u ! Y.7.7 T.Y I, 14 ' AR,
' m _ r- - c, ',
% u u u u u,,,,,,,,
o 1 : 3 4 5 to_I e==mmmemmisiiiens '- - . I
.7.1 52
$ Call MILI5 / g3
-_, s
- u "' "
- 15. u 7' o N i h
7.o u.
. l' .'{.7 u (\ to "I****
BDt10N 'I 8.0 f.F CifY , .o u ~
$ s T, ' -'
KD80EWl(K l Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM SURFACE WIND ROSES FROM VARIOUS LOCATIONS ON AND SURROUNDING THE H3 NFORO SITE BASED ON FWE YEAR WNP-1/4 AVGS. (19621966) ER-OL FIG. 2.3-5
1 l i i I 90 M JANUARY 80 ..........- -- .., R. H. 80 FEBRUARY
~., ,,.......--- ' -. . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - g, 9_
10 10 . < 60 60 - '. .- e % - g _ o 2 e
- 40 -
E 40 - W.B. TEMP. D. B. d'- * - TEMP O B-30
, . --- W.B. .,,, --- ;
o' 30 ~ ~ ~ ' _...,,... '. - - - D.B. _ _ ' ". . _ ,- 20 -----..__,--0.P--- - -...___ 20 - 10 10 - 0
' ' ' ' i i i i , , , , ' '
02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 PST h 10 l2 ls I hh3 PST 90 90
/
MARCH APRIL 80 - g , 70 70 - 60 - R. H.
.... ',. - 60 * '..'........'- g, g TEMP. 0.B. ... . ; + % -
o ', , c . 2
< 40 -
TEMP. D.B.
~
e o 2 40 ---,,,'O,,--.B.-- . W ,'d, . . .
- m..: : ,.___-_ -
30 _- W._, -- 30 _ _ _ _ _ - - . _-_ _- _ ____________ 0. ,. . D. P. 20 2C 10 10 -
- i i i i , , , , ,
0 , 02 04 06 OB 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 10 12 14 16 18 22 24 PST PST Amendment 1 (Feb 83) M NTHl.Y HOURLY AVERAGES OF WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM - TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY _ WNP-1/4 AT HMS JANUARY APRIL ER-OL FIG. 2.3-6
i
\
w w MAY JUif n - n - TDW, D.B.
" ~
uw. D.s. i 60 - e -
,,'. ~ ,,,,,,,. _ _* _8-_ _ , , '-
o 3
,__,/%
g-'~~.,,-.w,. ,y r. . g
. .e _
s
..., I, r
_'_ _c_ _ . -.. :\.-
-- _ .nP.
_ _ _ _ _ - , c_
. ~.. oz. ,.. f__--
-~~ -.,. _
R. H. a - 3 - LK to - Is -
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
0 s as a a le 12 14 16 18 a aa e os a e 10 12 14 u 18 a a: a. PST P57 W w M ST JULY RW. 0. 8. a - se - M* 0 8-N n as - W .8.- ~ ~ ,, , .. _
- g .
, , ---,'~~
W. B. Se 50 g ..- s
. r : -- .-- - n _. - . - ---
= szw. ,,* ..---g_____-._-
3 - y . N ,- m - s...... ... ...= ' .. q -
%~ .,/
R. H. R. H. 18 10 0 0 W Os # 3 10 12 14 16 18 3 3 3 E Os a 5 10 12 ,14 16 la 3 3 m PST PST i l l Amendment-1.(Feb 83-) MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY
. WNP-1/4 AT HMS MAY-AUGUST ER.0L FIG. 2.3-7 l
O SEMDeBER OC100ER g . 3 - I g - ItMP. O.B. M
], '*/~~. R. H.
g g '. to -
-g'~-- * \. ItMP. 0.B.
y'*,,^,., . p
.. W E- .
q N E . gn -
, ' . ,',-%*. w. 3.
pa -----,,A.-===a,,."*' y -~~~_.s ,__' D. P.
.= # --{ _ _ _ _
**'* - ****. . . ~
- .. O. P.
30 30 - g - LK g - le - 10 d 0 02 04 06 3 10 12 14 14 la 3 22 N 02 08 3 3 10 12 14 14 13 2D 22 M PST PST N n PEMM80t , , , , , , , , , , , . . . DECEMBER g -
. . . g -
~~~~~~~~~
...-. *. ~~
M -
., N -
se - .*',,.**. se - g, g o LK
- g2 -
gM - , m - __aa s *
.- g - ==.
"---",'__,},,,_~~~~~
~~~~~ /
M n. P* 30
. - - -.. - f J 8- u_*=~
D. P. W' -- - - a N - 3 - la - 10 - 0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' M ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' O a m a a 10 12 14 14 is 20 22 m a 08 m a le 12 14 14 la a' a' a PST PST Amendment 1 (Feb 83) MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY WNP-1/4 AT HMS SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER ER-OL FIG. 2.3-8
N g - N N -
,e********% kN N Y .IG.l.i
. ,,e e
*m s . _ _M *.. '
#** ~
Ea : -
~~... .. * ' ~ ~ ~ - -
M - 3 - 10 f t t t t t + t ! E 08 06 3 10 12 14 16 la 2D 22 24 P5T l _ Amendment 1 (Feb 83) ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGE OF WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY WNP-1/4 AT HMS (1957*1970) ER OL FIG. 2.3 9
s l @ l 5 z Q ' 8 z 1'00
- a. &%
l gj( .90 - O.85 0.86 OLO rsg l~ *@ .80 - m C s l ? .70 - s. E ' ' , m ' i 0.62 ' - -
~
l d . 60 -
- ' 0,57 0.58 M w E E '
o .50 - z 0.4s 1 t 0.40 r s
, ,g .40 -
a36 .
~\ ' '
a re ~ . 1s gg s O.30 , 30 . 52 - . (- E"! \ 0,19 s 'c s . 20 - a mg,2 z 0.14 oOq 48, .10 - s , z-E mgo 5 m,m e m 9
- JAN IFEB MAR A~PR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
, L hO r o z
$' ~,
\ ,
-d ' '
s
~
r
O-O O - t s 1 L g 100 - l
!O W - WALLULA 3 80 . TD.
'H-HANDFORD W
$ w 3
j 70 - w .' .!
; ~~~
- t "
g so - w _ w _. GI ~ w '- -- H - it j so - . H _H_ w
. 4o _
I g
- i H p l 1 w [
o . eurg e
=
~
5 u IE ka n
~
8 1
1 i n iiTiii.3, tiriiiiiq, i diiii.3, ._!IGt 3, r i iTii i,, I J l :
, . / ..
, 1 ..
( ,a ; i i i g= ;;
.. .. .. . / .. s2 <
$E i I
.. .. .. .. .. g og _
- t. .. . .. . ja 3
.. l .. g 1 ..I .l gg 4 3
.. .. . . . g
. .. . . . E t
b,s
- j. . .-
.nnu.qi nsiin j, nini , ea:.
yg li 2 (
~ ~
l I ! l, f ., .. t
/
.. .. . s
..I
..I ..; 4g g l .. ..
{ vl' MI' , / . . I s 1
'j 1 al 5 1~ .g ..I l t .. , . . . . ..
l 1
}
grnli jii; l' ninTl3 grrit
.- in,.rrli i.nt
'l'
i I if:I ; I, , ~ _ . Q Q ' p. ;gv-i _ }W %.; l ***^ ' ,, i ! r A h"+A.kE hhh$k-h~&SW(&_,;'[.?h>,,$QNh~ .- f .? W
.s y d 7 8 6 p $5EWm;4trN#4MMMh%::
- @ n i Mrs MG -
tr N
% h: {- ~~
,.. [ % ,. ,s...g L. hLp..-l.A.,.. /
...<2 g w.a y. e ,,,.7; e./;- ...a% :c s,.,_ ~.
s .
.y .\ u -
~
-l & [ .
3A , a..) Wp.u~s=f. h\, ,?,,,; e.4
* ' 't q'R. . .
., c. 4. h.. m ;.., ge 9: .-W":i.,3. m N? t
. . *.,? .h. 3.:p:.&!
!.Vl/ .M. ' . ,
. = -[ t% i f '* .c. Mt,' , J g,g"- 7 *-
7
. - oD=, .a --:-4 .,--- 7 W .- A*d'iQb.*%y'-,y.
wv. .: L +1
+ s,.d; %,.,&, ,Q. %yi- o . pQ xv. ..%. .hq
^
. .\ n . - ' :s !. . ,. < * ^ - - ~ ~ , /
m? uW. ): .g.L.%. . S,; ,n,'^ s a 2E., ' y/jw-.-..,z. ::.Q- -4 4, Q: :.~ % =;c'.1,.2 ~ -~ ?w ? ,.s. : . g A. -\'y --y
. (,
4 .7 . e- .,,uo r . so
- <,. d j. %.Y yj? Q'd ', q 3 \, ~. ',. r,.'
,,. . a. r. . ..
s '
- 29. ~
28 - a as s ., d, i \; C_ [._ j x '..
.. ,.. .,/
L',,,,,, #
.c
"" ' ' N --
.e., %
- - )~/M.,h . {---<--
- iy t .: .
j . >
-t- < ._ _ . / / ,, -
b, f- 3, k i
- 3) j - RESTRICTED AREA.
7j), ,, pp; f;p
-m 3
I / BOUNDARY 4--WNP-4 1936,METElpnq ;:/ , ' (y
- k. ' m. P
.f d i EXCLU_$_lOM'ARkA
~ ~ '
W '. 2 .
., / . . . , 3 (bE .5 ~;
LU51 -- W l
':~ ARE,c . .' I h,w - J P-4(. . ,
'M,3-
,.. i [*: S9RDE.R , . . . m, 2 ,t - -. . t e .#~ 4. ? c N ' -eu.
Q . j, ? - .j. f[.j- :q :
+\
QN ,' . - A .g-,g;g e. s -
...J .. . -I .:
r\ 3 -- %w < .. l ,3
.i
.r ./>t -
vc
+ f :p~tnp' . *
~
!1l 'u ) l. u
.V : Ma' g .,
h.2k - r .j . c -.
.. t, % ' p r. l. fb .., . . ~. . :~ . a m V ..,
m.
, I .
a ; K; ,,' q# - f , g f {. ; I . ,
\ ;.3
,l' _ ..:. L. *Y ~ T ' . , .
-7 .- L . - l- z , ;---
l p 4, ' ' q i . . .., pzuy pp q .Q '3,. _.y
. f_,4 p,- -(-j- .
- q. ,-lW .
+-f ,98 &- -- 'y 4 o .,
,+,
'151930 METER. c.,,g'li n'\ , sS .f' g.4 d
(Ry,..ig..{7;:[.k.[,. EXCLUSION A_REA u g a ' 'l E. BORDER ,,
,1 4 .p . O Q,1 v ." p.1. 33"v..#
.k u s. .~
9, h --N 6'
.W
.!~,
a d'
- y' e r, d . Q f.
j .
. . gt. f;S K Mi
_g,~ ,4 .:76/,-/ h:24g- Q
, ~. v , ; . , , v - -
I :. . ,/ 'r#,, j[,% ,,
. .O'g~I.
rf~
- a g
. LOW POPULATION.21 4 g a f ,,
_.!. .4 u \-.)..-,10Nt
?.l. i . .Y y\.47./e:-- . (. .j g&, -Q q ~"- - L~
=
- e' d", . -
+ , 4 MLE ItADIUS U/Jd'%
lV'
, D.,}4 f$s- . , sp% I-
*j f k - n~ , N *
,' '. ' ' . ~ 26. ;l.,) I' t .
. , 3 s.
27 t */ :$ .;y .'4 : L- 3ur '.. . n t. . s 39 2 :t 30 '
~;'3}.};%'Q,yfac.
W SCALE 1:p2500 l: ' W[p
- Q ~, q' v ~'-- ' Q'T 1/76 '); \ 2- Y _.4 : -. l: ;
e ~k.q .,
- y y f. ,j t'- m - 3 p. t - t_ 7 <
-. , , , ;:-}7,. . ,,,
. ,I . , ' ' 5<--.'.g }.,g . . .d, .J -'
. MILES -
, .' . f. . . .- ' . , 3. ~ . s. '
. . . . . e Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPt.Y SYSTEM WNP-1/4 Sr.'E TOPOGRAPHY i ER-OL FIG. 2.3-15
WNP-1/4 ER-OL CD 2.4 HvoR0L0ev The WNP-1 and WNP-4 site is located at an elevation of 445 f t above mean sea level (MSL) about 2.5 miles west of the Columbia River at River Mile 351.75 and about 8 miles northeast of the Yakima River at Horn Rapids Dam. The major waters that could be affected or influenced by plant operation are the Columbia River and the groundwaters of the site and the immediate environs. 2.4.1 Surface Water 2.4.1.1 Columbia River Hydrology and Physical Characteristics The Columbia River and its tributaries are the dominant water systems in the Pacific Northwest region (Figure 2.4-1). The main stem of the Columbia River originates at Columbia Lake on the west slope of the Canadian Rockies and flows into the Pacific Ocean near Astoria, Oregon. The river drains a total area of approximately 258,000 square miles in Canada, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, and Nevada. The Columbia River dr stream of the WNP-1/4 site is approximately 96,000 square miles.(alnage IJ Since up-a large part of the Columbia River originates as runoff caused by snowmelt, high discharges are experienced in late spring or early summer while low discharges occur in winter. Numerous dams and reservoirs have been constructed in the Columbia River Basin for power production, irrigation, navigation, flood control, and i O. recreation. Table 2.4-1 lists the major Columbia River tributaries and main stem d9 mp with their location by river mile above the Columbia River l mouth.t21 The reservoirs maintain approximately 46.7 million acre-ft of l activp gtorage of which 37.5 million acre-f t are upstream of the WNP-1/4 site.t31 Arrow and Mica Dams in Canada and Grand Coulee and John Day dams in the United States are the only main stem projects providing sufficient storage for seasonal flow regulation, while the remaining main stem dams are run-of-river projects providing only daily flow control. Much of the activi-ties of flood control and hydroelectric power production are presently g trolled under the Columbia Treaty between Canada and the United States.tgg-1 The Columbia River is tide-affected from the mouth to Bonneville Dam (River Mile 146). The only other free flowing stretch of the river is the 49-mile reach downstream from Priest Rapids Dam (River Mile 397) to the head (ap-proximately River Mile 348) of the reservoir behind McNary Dam. The pro ' posed Ben Franklin hydroelectric dam site on the Columbia River is about 4 miles downstream from the WNP-1/4 site. The most recent planning studies for this project were reinitiated by the Corps of Engineers in October 1979 and were terminated in November 1981. The Benton and Franklin Public Utili-ty Districts have conducted independent studies that have disclosed economic and environmental impediments. While the PUD's have shown a recurring in-terest in revitalizing the project, there is little probability that it will
- be built in the foreseeable future.
l O .
- 2. 4-~l l
I WNP-1/4 1 ER-OL l l The flows in the Columbia River in the vicinity of the site are highly re-gulated by Priest Rapids Dam located approximately 45 river miles upstream from the site. The momentary minimum discharge of the Columbia River at Priest Rapids was recorded to be 4120 cfs in 1936 before the construction of Priest Rapids Dam which was built in 1956. After the construction of the dam, the daily river discharge at Priest Rapids has never been below 36,000 cfs, the minimum flow administratively set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission License. The annual average discharge for 61 years measured at theUnitedStatesGeologicalSurveygaugir.gstationat8jverMile394.5 (634.8 km) just downstream from the dam is 120,200 cfs.l 1 For the water year of 1978 (October 1977 to September 1978), the mean discharge was 106,600 cfs, while the maximum and minimum daily discharges were 182,000 and 39,000 cfs, respectively. The observed through 1978 mean water monthly years aredischarges presentedbelow Priest in Table Rapi og} Dam 2.4-2. for the 1960 Discharge duration curves for the period 1928 - 1958 are shown in Figure 2.4-2.(6) Measured flows used in this figure were adjusted to reflect flow regulation by dams and diversions existing in 1970. Because of the regulation, it is estimated that the minimum and maximum mean monthly flows will be 60,000 ands 260,000 cfs in the vicinity of the site. The flow in this reach varies not only due to seasonal floods but also due to daily regulation by the power-producing Priest Rapids Dam. Flows at the dam during the late summer, fall, and winter may vary from a low of 36,000 cfs to as much as 160,000 cfs during a single day. The four largest known floods occurred in 1876,1894,1948 and 1956. The 1894 flood was the maximum known flood on the Columbia River near the pro-posed site and had an estimated discharge of 740,000 cfs. The largest re-corded flood occurred in 1948; a flow of 692,600 cfs was recorded at Han-ford. The 100-year flood and the Standard are 440,000 and 570,000 cfs, respectively.(Pqoject 7/ TheFlood Probableat Maximum River Mile 351 Flood (PMF) under present regulated conditions has been estimated by the 1) $. Corps of Engineers to be 1,440,000 cfs at Ringold (River Mile 357).l81 Shown in Figure 2.4-3 is the summary of Columbia River hydrographs at Priest Rapids. Figure 2.4-4 shows-the exceedance frequency for momentary peak flows below Priest R ditions.9pids A Dam derived from The frequency 1913for curves to both 1965 high records andadjusted low flows forfor 1970 the con-period 1929-1958 adjusted for 1970 conditions are given in Figure 2.4-5. The minimum 7-day average flow between 1960 and 1972 was 46,000 cfs. Cross sections between River Mile (s) 351 and 352 are shown in Figure 2.4-6 l 1l for the minimum flow condition. The river width normally varies between 1200 and 1800 ft, depending on the flow and location. Figure 2.4-7 shows the relative location of the intake / discharge structures and the west bank of the river for the low flow of 36,000 cfs and for the average annual flow of 120,000 cfs. River watcr surface profiles for several flows in the O 2.4-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
\ l WNP-1/4 ER-OL vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 2.4-8.(9) The depth at the deep- Il est part of the measured cross sections varies from approximately 10 to 40 ft and averages about 25 ft. Diurnal depth fluctuations caused by Priest Rapids Dam regulation can be as much five feet. The maximum velocities measured , vary from less than three feet per second (fps) to over 11 fps, again de-pending on the river cross section and flow rate. l WNP-1/4 are at an approximate elevation of 445 ft above MSL, which is ap-proximately 70 ft above the water surface of the maximum recorded flood, i approximately 55 ft above the water surface of the probable maximum flood, and approximately 23 ft above the water surface elevation estimated for a Grand Coulee Dam failure (see WNP-1/4 FSAR Section 2.4). The pumphouse for the WNP-1/4 plant water intake is at an elevation of 374 ft above MSL, which l1 is the approximate water surface elevation of the maximum recorded flood. 2.4.1.2 Columbia River Water Quality Characteristics The Columbia River is classified as " Class A (Excellent)" from
; GrandCouleeDambytheWashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology.]Lq) ' mouth This to means that the water is generally satisfactory for use as water supply (do-mestic, industrial, agricultural), wildlife habitat, stock watering, general
, recreation and aesthetic enjoyment, commerce and navigation, and fish and shellfish reproduction, rearing and harvest. Applicable water quality stan-dards and regulations imposed by the State of Washington are presented in 4 Sections 5.1 and 5.3. Table 2.4-3 shows the chemical characteristics of the river water measured at 100-F Area (River Mile 374) of the Hanford Site in 1970. A summary of U.S. Geological Survey water quality measurements of the river below Priest Rapids Dam for October 1978 to July 1981 are presented in Table 2.4-4. Water quality data from a special 12-month study conducted by the Supply System I , near the WNP-1/4 intake structure are summarized in Table 2.4-5.
- Tables 2.4-6 and 2.4-7 present the monthly average temperatures just below Priest Rapids Dam (1961-1974) and at Richland (1965-1974), respectively.
Monthly average river temperatures at the two locations range from 1.50C (34.70F) to 20.20C (68.40F), with the lowest temperatures generally occur ring in February and the highest in August. Average monthly temperatures for the 10-year period (1965-1974) below Priest Rapids Dam and at Richland are compared in Figure 2.4-9 which indicates a slight warming from Priest Rapids Dam to Richland. Average daily temperatures at the two locations show a low of 0.30C (32.50F) and 4 high of 20.20C (68.40F below Priest Rapids Dam and a low of 0.20C (32.40F) and a high of 21.5jC 0 (70.7 F) at Richland. A diurnal variation in water temperature of about 40C (2.20F) in the spring and sumer, and 20C (1.10F) in the fall 'nd winter, can be expected to occur as a result of diurnal reservoir discharge variations from Priest Rapids Dam. O 2.4-3 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 EP -0L The free-flowing stretch of river along the Hanford reach responds more rapidly to thermal modification from both weather and industrial inputs than impounded regions. Hence, in this stretch of river, warming in the sumer and cooling in the winter occur more rapidly. Studies indicate that about 65% time itofreaches the heat theinput in the Hanford border. Washington-Oregon reach of(gg river
/ The temperatureis dissipated riseby the from natural heating along the Hanford stretch during August and September is about 0.5 to 0.750C (0.9 to 1.350F).
Upstream impoundments have influenced water temperatures by delaying the arrival atures,ofandpeak summer water increasing wintertemperatures, reducing 3qummer water temperatures.t water temper-1 The change in aver-age annual water temperatures, however, has been less than 10C (20F) over the past 30 years. These trends are shown in Figure 2.4-10 for the years 1938-1972 at Rock Island Dam. 2.4.1.3 Characteristics of Effluents in the Hanford Reach Fourteen tents directlyliquid effluent to the lines Columbia from HgrdPertinent River. facilities data discharge their con-on quantities and constituents for each discharge are given in Table 2.4-8. The Columbia River has been thermally modified since 1944 by the operation of up to nine plutonium production reactors at Hanford. This modification was quite significant since the heat additions from man-made thermal energy sources were over 23,000 MW. A portion of the heat load was added to the river by reactor effluents in excess of 850C. In addition, numerous " warm springs" were created along the shoreline by disposing of warm waste water in trenches that paralleled the shore. Only one reactor,100-N, at River l Mile 380 remains in operation. At present, the only thermal discharges of sufficient magnitude to affect Columbia River temperatures occur either from the 100-N Reactor or from the associated Supply System Hanford Generating Plant (HGP) when the N Reactor is operating. The largest heated water discharge stream from this operation is the cooling water from HGP, which has a thermal capacity of 3780 MW and an electrical capacity of 860 MW. The cooling water flow rate is 940 to 1260 cfs depend-ing on incoming river temperature, and is discharged at 19 to 240C (35 to 430F) above ambient river temperature (see Table 2.~4-8). The calculated temperature increment for complete mixing (about 2-1/2 miles downstream) at the minimum river flow rate of 36,000 cfs would be 0.60C (1.10F). During operation, the N Reactor, located immediately downstream from HGP, discharges a cooling water stream of about 140 cfs, with a temperature up to 160C (28.80F) above ambient river temperature, to the river. This dis-charge increases the river temperature by only 0.140 C (0.250 F) at the minimum river flow rate of 36,000 cfs and 0.04 0C (0.080F) at the average river flow rate of 120,000 cfs.ll4) O 2.4-4 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
i WNP-1/4 ER-0L Chemicals are released to the Columbia River at thre cations: 1) the 100-N Area, 2) the 100-K Area, and 3) the 300 Area. I The primary source of chemicals released to the river is the 100-N Reactor operation. The quantities of chemicals released are shown in Table 2.4-9. In addition to those chemicals, impurities removed from the river water by the treatment plants also are returned to the river. The intermittent filter backwash contains suspended solids, principally an aluminum hydroxide floc, plus an accumulation of suspended solids removed from the raw river water during the ' j filtration process. Several of the smaller effluent streams, consisting largely of treated water, may contain free chlorine at concentrations up to a maximum of 1 mg/1. Other chemical concentrations in treated water are mostly the result of the use of alum (aluminum sulfate) and small quantities of polyacrylamide filter aids in the water filtration plant. While the production reactors have been shutdown, the Hanford Site still has l several sources of low-level radioactive effluents. These include cooling
- water at 100-N, animal farm waste at 100-F and 300 Areas, and tritiurp m gra-ting to the river with groundwater from the 200 Area disposal sites.ll4J 2.4.2 Groundwater The Hanford Site is underlain by three principal formations, from top to l bottom: 1) unconsolidated silts, sands, and 2)semiconsolidated lake and stream sediments (Ringold formation) ; gravels;3) dense, hard basalt which forms the bedrock beneath the area (see Section 2.5). The lithologic char-
, acter and water bearing properties of the several geologic units occurring s in the Hanford area are sumarized in Table 2.4-10. In general, groundwater in the superficial _ sediments occurs under unconfined conditions, while water in the basalt bedrock occurs mainly under confined conditions. In some areas the lower zone of the Ringold formation is a confined aquifer, sepa-i rated from the unconfined aquifer by thick clay beds,and possesses a dis-tinct hydraulic potential. Figure 2.4-11 shows a simplified geological cross section of the Hanford Site. Well s 699-9-E2, 699-10-E12, 699-14-E6, shown in this figure are located in the vicinity of the project site. The Ellensburg Formation (beds between basalt flows) and Ringold Formation beds are flood plain and shallow lake deposits. The glaciofluvial sediments
- are largely the result of several catastrophic floods. These sediments
- (actually Pasco Gravels) are about 100 times as permeable as the Ringold i
Formation gravels, both of which exist at the plant site. Field permeabili-ties, determined by a variety of methods, for the Ringold Formation gravel, ! the glaciofluvial sediments (Pasco Gravels) and mixes of the two are given in Table 2.4-11. The values were obtained on materials comparable to those at the FFTF and WNP-2 sites, and, of course are appreciably higher than at sites where the Touchet silts and Ringold silts and clays predominate. The median specific yield or available porosity is estimated to range between 4.8 to 11% and is most often assumed to be about 10%. Additional informa-tion on aquifer properties is provided in Section 2.4 of the WNP-1/4 FSAR. 1 O i 2.4-5 Amendment 1 (Feb'83)
r l WNP-1/4 ER-0L Since 1944 the Hanford chemical processing plants have discharged more than 1l 175 billion gallons (5.4 x 105 acre-ft) of wastewater and process cooling l water to the ground with a profound effect on the regional water table. i Figure 2.4-12 shows the unconfined water table contours over the area inter-l preted from measurements in September 1973. It also indicates the locations t of wells. As shown in this figure, the impermeable aquifer boundaries are the Rattlesnake Hills, Yakima Ridge, and Umtanum Ridge on the west and south-west sides of the Reservation. Gable Mountain and Gable Butte also impede the groundwater flow. The current estimate of the maximum saturated ;hickness of the unconfined aquifer is about 230 ft. In the vicinity of tae project site this thickness is approximately 100 ft to 160 ft. The depth to the water table varies greatly from place to place depending chiefly on local topography, ranging l from less than one to more than 300 ft below the land surface. The ground surface is about 70 ft above the water table at the WNP-1/4 site. l Water table contours in the WNP-1/4 site vicinity are shown in Figure 2.4-13. The groundwater flows in the unconfined aquifer are in a direction perpendi-l cular to the contour lines and toward the Columbia River which acts as a discharge boundary. The natural recharge due to precipitation over the low lands of tne Hanford Reservation is not measurable. The major artificial recharge.of groundwater to the unconfined aquifer occurs near the 200 East and 200 West Areas. As ! is clearly shown in Figure 2.4-12, the large volumes of processed water dis-
- posed to ponds at this site have caused the formation of significant mounds
! in the water table. Upon reaching the water table, chemical and radioactive contaminants from the 200 Area disposal sites are convected in the direction of groundwater l movement. Nitrate 3 H site in 1972.(15,16(NO ) and tritium 1 However, (3 ) ions the plume had reached of gross the WNP-2 beta emitters (calcu-l lated as 106R u) does not reach the site at the present time, is in recession phase, and will not likely reach the site in the future.(al4) decay
- An underground disposal site for radioactive wastes is located innediately I adjacent to the northwest corner of the WNP-2 site (Figure 2.1-2). The dis-posal site covers an area of 8.6 acres and was used between 1962 and 1967 to dispose of a broad spectrun, of low to high-level radioactive wastes, primar-l ily fission products and plutonium. Cartoned low-level waste was buried in trenches, and medium to high-level waste was buried in caissons or pipe j facili table.piep.
t l41 The buried wastes are approximately 4E f t above the water The points of groundwater withdrawal in the vicinity of the WNP-1/4 site are shown in Figure 2.4-14. Two on-site wells, (372 and 465 feet deep), draw l from the unconfined aquifer in the Ringold formation or from the confined interbeds. During construction these wells supply potable / sanitary water requirements and provide water to support construction activities (concrete, 2.4-6 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O d dust control, pipe flushing, fire suppression, etc.). Well water cor. sump-tion for these purposes is not expected to exceed 10,000 gpd for the balance of construction. When the plant is operating, normal water supply will be from the river and the wells will serve as a stand-by supply for service and supplemental fire protection. REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.4 1
- 1. Water Resources Data for Washington, Volume 2, Eastern Washington, Water Year 1978, Water DRa Report WA-78-2, U.S Geological Survey,1979.
- 2. Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission, Hydrology and Hydraulic Com-
. mittee, River Mile Index--Main Stream Columbia River, July 1962.
- 3. Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission, Main Report, " Comprehensive Framework Study of Water and Related Lands," Vancouver, WA, September 1972.
- 4. Columbia River Treaty Flood Control Operating Plan, O.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division, Portland, OR, October 1972.
- 5. Historical Streamflow Storage Change, Summation of Storage Change and Adjusted Streamflow 1928 - 1978, Columbia River and Coastal Basins, d Depletions Task Force, Columbia River Management Group, Draft Report, September 1980.
- 6. Pacific Northwest River Basin Comission, Water Rescurces, "Comprehen-sive Framework Study of Water and Related Lands," Appendix V, Vol. 1, Vancouver, WA, April 1970.
i
- 7. Letter, M. L. Nelson, North Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers, to V.C. St. Clair, N Reactor Branch, Atomic Energy Commission, dated November 2, 1970.
- 8. Letter, David Sweger, Seattle District, Corps of Engineers, to R.A.
Chitwood, Washington Public Power Supply System, dated May 30, 1980.
- 9. Columbic River Basin, Lower Columbia Standard Project Flood and Probable Maximum Flood, Memorandum Report, North Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR., September 1969.
- 10. DELETED
- 11. Washington State Water Quality Standards, State of Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington, December 1977.
1 O ! 2.4-7 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ) ER-OL l l 12. Jaske, R.T., and D.G. Daniels, Simulation of the Effects of Hanford at the Washington-Oregon Border, BNWL-1344, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1970.
- 13. Jaske, R.T., and J.F. Goebel, A Study of the Effects of Dam Construction on Temperatures of the Columbia River, BNWL-1345, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, November 1970.
- 14. Final Environmental Statement, Waste Management Operations, Hanford Reservation, U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Richland, WA, December 1975.
i 15. Eddy, P.A., Radiological Status of the Groundwater Beneath the Hanford l Project, January-December 1978, BNWL-1737, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, April 1979.
- 16. Bramson, P.E., J.P. Corley, and W.I. Nees, Environmental Status of the Hanford Reservation for CY-1972, BNWL-8-278, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, September 1973.
O l l O 2.4-8 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) i
I WNP-1/4 ER-OL 4 TABLE 2.4-1 COLUMBIA RIVER MILE INDEX Description River Mile River Mouth 0.0 Bonneville Dam 146.1 The Dalles Dam 191.5 John Day Dam 215.6 McNary Dam 292.0 Snake River 324.2 Yakima River 335.2 WNP-2 Intake and Discharge 351.75 WNP-1 and -4 Intake and Discharge 351.85 Hanford Generating Plant 380.0 Priest Rapids Dam 397.1 ! Wanapum Dam 415.8 Rock Island Dam 453.4 Wenatchee River 468.4 Rocky Reach Dam 473.7 Cnelan River 503.3 Wells Dam 515.6 Chief Joseph Dam 545.1 l Grand Coulee Dam 597.6 Spokane River 638.9 l United States-Canadian Boundary 745.0 0
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.4-2 KAN MONT lLY DISCHARGES (CFS), OF COLLMBI A RIVER 8ELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, (RM 394) g Water Year Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. 1960 118,100 108,900 92,760 77.340 75,130 68,940 163,600 193,800 278,900 251,700 122,400 74,190 1961 66,600 66,500 58,050 63,270 90,180 92,680 103,700 227,400 461.500 196,100 100,500 65,000 1962 61,600 59,460 52,570 65,040 74,180 58,170 108,900 182,100 270,300 192,500 123,000 65,980 1963 65,380 70,140 79,950 83,090 84,480 75.950 98.320 141,000 270,300 200,900 104,700 69,470 1964 61,550 56,100 59,480 55,070 72,700 61,220 63.100 167.600 388.300 294,300 130,200 74,570 1965 88,820 90,940 69.470 78,050 101,500 91,530 114,100 237,500 315,200 219,900 129,600 78,330 1966 64,540 70,590 74,740 68,230 81,340 77,630 76.270 183,500 274,000 227,600 110,500 73,590 1967 66,660 65,470 73,700 75,730 76,290 89,960 90,660 139,500 432,500 228,200 126,100 73,220 75,820 89,770 82.110 1968 78,780 74,660 109.000 100,300 127,000 271,400 226.600 114,100 91.260 1969 77,670 78,800 92.060 104,600 119,700 106,800 186,100 232,500 234,100 187,900 101.000 75,430 1970 82.110 89,060 96,700 87,160 76,690 85,220 91,760 129,600 181,700 123.900 100,700 74,470 1971 75,180 74,540 77,120 70.240 95,030 133,100 121,500 269,800 298,200 207,600 131,900 74,430 1972 71,340 81,000 98,800 92,120 105,000 152,400 158,000 236,900 388,800 238,400 152,800 94,570 1973 80,540 83,140 102,100 93,030 96,790 101.200 99,070 79,060 87,390 106.000 71,320 101.600 1974 78,680 66,560 96,120 142,200 147,?00 115,300 145,600 196,900 260,800 213,100 136,800 104,900 1975 95,430 95,730 97.440 105.100 118,300 137,100 120,600 163,500 161,900 118.800 99.100 69,980 1976 81,010 101,800 109,900 122,400 143,600 142,400 136,600 185,100 166.900 185.600 191,000 105,500 96,910 126.700 1977 97,360 113,300 97,710 97,900 69,480 95,700 78,810 71,850 78,950 79,990 1978 66,390 82,870 81,800 101.800 103,700 96,290 138,400 150,600 129.100 126,000 95.680 107,800 3 o. S a rt w S U" O O O
WNP-l/4 ER-OL () TABLE 2.4-3 CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS (in ppm) 0F COLUMBIA RIVER AT 100-F AREA (RM 374),1970 Diss Phth MO Hard-Date Mg_ Fe Cu Ca SO PO CI Alk Alk ness 4 4 _02 Solids 1/6 6.0 0.03 0.002 20. 15. 0.00 0.33 NA 7.0 68. 74. 93. 1/20 4.0 0.01 0.004 22. 15. 0.05 0.36 7.8 -2.0 71. 73. 84. 2/3 5.0 0.01 0.002 21. 13. 0.06 0.33 12. 2.0 69. 72. 100 2/17 5.0 0.01 0.004 22. 19. 0.01 0.33 11. 2.0 68. 75. 100 3/3 5.4 0.02 0.002 22. 17. 0.04 0.26 8.3 1.0 65. 76. 96. 3/17 6.2 0.03 0.004 19. 17. 0.02 0.50 13. 1.0 65. 73. 81. 3/31 6.2 0.07 0.005 20. 17. 0.02 0.39 12. 2.0 59. 76. 81. 4/14 4.4 0.22 0.002 24. 20. 0.05 0.60 12. 1.0 66. 77. 100 4/28 6.3 0.12 0.005 22. 24. 0.02 0.56 12. 1.0 70. 82, 120 5/12 5.5 0.02 0.02 25. 23. 0.005 0.40 12. 2.0 72. 85. 100 6/16 4.6 0.00 0.01 22. 13. 0.04 0.29 11. 2.0 56, 68. 74. 7/21 4.2 0.09 0.007 23. 15. 0.02 0.16 9.6 1.0 61. 76. 75. 8/4 3.9 0.02 0.007 25. 17. 0.02 0.46 9.6 .1.0 70. 78 86.
)
x ,/ 8/19 4.0 0.03 0.004 24. 13. 0.02 0.26 8.9 1.0 70( 77. 110 9/8 4.8 0.03 0.005 23. 15. 0.08 0.43 9.0 3.0 70. 77. 73. 9/22 5.3 0.02 0.002 17. 13. 0.03 0.26 9.4 2.0 63. 65. 37. 10/6 4.0 0.03 0.003 21. 20 0.02 0.66 8. 2 2.0 66. 70. 99. 10/20 5.4 0.02 0.006 16. 12. 0.01 0.32 11. 0.0 92. 66. 80. 11/3 5.3 0.01 0.001 19, 18. 0.11 0.49 .lA 2.0 70. 68. 80. 11/16 4.9 0.02 0.003 20. 15. 0.11 0.58 9.8 6.0 69. 70. 86. 12/1 3.8 0.01 0.002 20. 16. 0.01 0.46 NA 2.0 66. 65. 92. 12/15 6.6 0.01 0.000 18. 16. 0.11 0.53 NA 2.0 76. 73. 97.
^"""*l g,
5.0 0.04 0.006 22. 16. 0.04 0.4C 10. 1.8 68. 74. 90. NA Indicates there was no analysis made. Analysis was made from sing. grab samples. Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL
. TABLE 2.4-4 h
AVERAGE CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER AT VERNITA BRIDGE (RM 388)(a) No. of Data Points Average (b) Range (b) Calcium 9 18.88 6.9 - 35.0 Magnesium 9 5.58 0 - 21 Sodium 9 2.16 1.2 - 2.5 Potassium 8 0.66 0.1 - 0.9 Chromium 13 .0030 0 .020-Copper 14 .0076 0 .019 Lead 13 .0131 .001 .073 Mercury 14 .00016 0 .0008 Zinc 14 .033 .010 .090 Alkalinity 26 55.27 44 - 70 Sulfate, dissolved 26 12.93 8.3 - 17.0 Chloride, dissolved 26 1.30 0.7 - 2.5 Total Nitrogen 26 0.49 .10 - 1.50 Total Ammonia Nitrogen 26 0.013 .00 - 0.08 Nitrite + Nitrate N. 26 0.107 .000 .280 g Ortho-Phosphate, diss. as P Total Phorphorus as P 12 26 0.05 0.04 .01 0 - 0.11
.11 W
Hardness (CaC03 ) 26 66.23 51 - 82 Non-Carbonate Hardness 25 10.92 4 - 22 Specific Conductance 28 109 - 156 pH units 25 136.75 8.0(c ) 7.1 - 8.8 TDS 26 83.35 62 - 109 l (a) Based on: USGS data, October 1978 - July 1981
, (b) Units are mg/l (c) Median value of pH l
O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
! WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.4-5 COLUMBIA RIVER WATER QUALITY
SUMMARY
IN VICINITY OF WNP-1/4 INTAKE STRUCTURE (RM 352) No. of Parameter Data Points Average Range Alkalinity, mg/l as CACO3 52 59.2 53-64 Aluminum, mg/l 1 0.15 - Ammonia, ug/l as N 12 10.1 <5-28 , Antimony, mg/l 1 < 0.15 - Arsenic, ug/l 1 <1 - Barium, mg/l 12 < 0.1 - Beryllium, ug/l 1 < 3.0 - Boron, mg/l 12 < 0. 01 -
- Bromide, mg/l 1 0.14 -
Cadmium, Total, ug/l 52 0.53 < 0.1-8.4 , Cadmium, Oissolved, ug/l 39 0.42 < 0.1 -6. 8 Calcium, mg/l 12 18.5 16.2-20.4 Carbon, Total Organic- mg/l . 1 2 - Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg/l 1 <5 - Chloride, mg/l 12 1.0 < 1.0-1.8 Chromium, Total, ug/l 52 0.78 < 0. 5-2.6 Chromium, Oissolved, ug/l 37 0.5 < 0.5-1.6 Cobalt, ug/l 12 1.5 < l-11 Color, PCU 12 12.5 5-25 Copper, Total, ug/l 52 3.5 <1-16 Copper, 01ssolved, ug/l 44 2.0 <1-7 Cyanide, ug/l 1 2.0 - Fluoride,mg/l 12 0.17 0.13-0.29 Hardness, mg/l as CaC0 3 52 68.6 56-80 ! Iron, Total, ug/l 52 55.7 27-140 l 1 . l Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
. . _ . _ ~ . _ _ _ . . _ . . _. . . . _ . . . __ _ _ _ . _ . . - - . - - - - - -
4 WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.4-5 (Contd.,' No. of Parameter Data Points Average Range Iron, Dissolved, ug/l 47 18.1 <1-50 Lead, Total, ug/l 52 1.8 <l-24 Lead, Oissolved, ug/l 50 <1 <l-2 Magnesium, mg/l 12 4.0 3.2-4.9 Manganese, ug/l 12 9.9 6-15 Mercury, Total, ur/1 52 0.52 < 0.2-4.1 Mercury, Dissolved, ug/l 50 < 0. 2 < 0.2-1.0 Molybdenum, ug/l 1 2.0 - Nickel, Total, ug/l 52 1.8 <l-10 Nickel, Oissolved, ug/l 39 1.1 < 1-3.4 Nitrate, ug/l as N 12 129. <10-290 Nitrogen, Total Organic, mg/l 12 0.5 < 0. 5-0. 5 011 & Grease, mg/l 12 1.5 <l-6 0xygen, Dissolved, mg/l 51 10.9 8.7-13 pH 50 7.85 7.4-8.4 Phenol, ug/l 1 8.4 - Phosphorus, Total, ug/l 12 27.5 14-44 Phosphorus, Ortho, ug/l 12 17.9 6-38 Potassium,mg/l 12 0.77 0.52-0.91 Radioactivity,a , pCi/1 1 0.56 - Radioactivity, 0, pCi/l 1 3.99 - Selenium, ug/l 1 <? - Settleable Matter, ml/l 12 < - Silica, mg/l as SiO 2 10 4 a.9-6.2 Silver, ug/l 1 < 0. 3 - Sodium, mg/l 12 2.0 1.2-2.4 Solids, Total Dissolved, mg/l 12 93.2 54-131 l l Solids, Total Suspended, mg/l 12 4.0 <l-10 0 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 2.4-5 (Contd.) No. of Parameter Data Points Average Range Specific Conductance, mho/cm 12 140.0 122-169 Sulfate, mg/l 12 12.4 8.9-16.7 Sulfide, mg/l 1 < 0.10 - Thallium, ug/l 1 <1 - Tin, ug/l 1 < 30 - Titanium, ug/l 1 <6 - Turbidity, FTU 12 2.5 0.46-12 Zinc, Total, ug/l 52 19.0 < 5-47 Zinc, Dissolved, ug/l 47 13.7 <5-39 O Note: For averaging purposes, data reported as less than some value was assumed to be that value divided by two. In a few instances, the dissolved metals data exceeded the corresponding total metals values. These data were judged to be in error and were not included in determination of the range and average figures above. l O l l Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Table 2.4-6 MONTHLY AVERAGE WATER TEMPERATUR{aj0C) AT PRIEST RAPIDS DAM (RM 388) ly f Month Annual Year Tan Feb Mar Ag M Jun Jul Aug g Oct Nov Dec Average 1961 5.4 4.7 4.7 7.4 10.4 13.7 17.3 18.9 17.8 14.9 10.4 6.6 11.0 1962 4.1 3.6 3.6 6.5 10.0 13.7 16.1 17.4 17.1 14.8 11.9 8.9 10.6 1963 5.3 3.8 4.6 6.5 10.4 14.0 16.6 18.4 18.3 16.3 11.9 7.7 11.2 1964 5.5 4.6 4.7 7.2 9.7 12.8 15.3 17.1 16.3 14.6 10.8 6.3 10.4 1965 4.4 3.3 4.1 6.6 10.0 13.3 16.1 18.4 17.3 15.3 11.9 7.8 10.7 1966 4.8 4.1 4.5 7.8 10.6 12.4 15.3 17.5 17.5 14.6 11.6 8.4 10.8 1967 5.9 5.7 5.0 6.8 10.1 13.3 16.1 18.5 18.2 15.4 11.3 7.2 11.1 1968 4.6 3.3 4.6 7.1 11.1 13.4 16.1 17.5 17.2 14.2 10.9 6.8 10.6 1969 2.4 1.5 3.4 7.2 10.8 14.6 17.1 18.2 17.7 14.8 11.5 7.6 10.6 1970 4.3 4.1 4.8 6.8 10.9 14.8 18.0 19.2 17.5 15.2 10.6 6.2 11.0 1971 4.0 3.5 3.6 6.6 10.7 12.6 15.3 18.4 17.2 15.2 11.3 6.8 10.4 1972 3.6 1.9 4.0 7.2 10.6 12.9 15.2 17.3 16.8 15.4 11.3 7.3 10.3 1973 2.3 2.9 4.8 7.7 12.5 15.4 17.6 18.8 17.8 15.2 10.3 7.7 11.1 1974 4.0 3.0 4.9 7.7 10.8 13.6 17.2 18.7 18.4 15.5 11.8 8.6 11.2 1975 4.5 2.5 3.5 5.8 10.0 13.5 17.0 17.0 18.5 15.5 11.5 6.5 10.6 1976 3.5 3.0 4.0 6.5 10.5 13.0 15.5 18.0 16.5 15.0 11.5 7.0 10.3 1977 4.0 3.0 4.5 8.0 10.5 15.0 16.5 19.5 18.0 15.5 10.5 6.5 11.0 3, 1978 4.0 2.5 4.0 6.5 10.5 12.5 17.0 18.5 18.0 17.1 12.1 6.0 10.7 [( Averages 3 1965-78 4.3 3.4 4.3 7.0 10.6 13.6 16.4 18.2 17.6 15.3 11.3 7.2
- c. 10.8 H
s> 3 (a) Records since August 1960. Recorded values adjusted by computer-simulation to compensate for rt measurement errors and missing data. w rw O D' co W O O O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O 2.5 GE0 LOGY The WNP-1 and WNP-4 site is located in the Pasco basin which lies within the Columbia plateau province of south-central Washington. The Pasco Basin is a physiographic depression consisting of approximately 1600 square miles of undulating shrub steppe with low-lying hills, dunes and intermittent streams. It is bordered on the north by the Saddle Mountains, un the south by the Rattlesnake Hills, and on the west by the easterly end of Umtanum and Yakima Ridges. There is no well-defined surface feature bordering the Pasco basin on the east. The basin merges into a vast expanse of dunes, dissected flat-lands and coulees northwest of the Snake River. Structural features'ithin w the basin include Gable Mountain and Gable Butte which are in line with the Umtanum anticline. The trend of the folds in the Columbia Plateau is west-northwest. The me-chanism of folding, which tends to form in some places very tight asymmetri-cal anticlines which may be overturned or faulted on the north, is not well understood. Small faults have been identified in the basalt on anticlinal ridges. Longitudinal faults postulated on the steep north side of Umtanum Ridge and the Saddle Mountains are miles in length. However, these struc-tures do not appear to have a well-defined relationship with reported earth-quake epicenters. The Rattlesnake Mountain-Wallula alignment of anticlines and discontinuous fault segments is the major tectonic structural feature of the area. The oldest rocks exposed in the Pasco basin are volcanic flows of late Miocene to early Pliocene age. A 10,000+ foot deep hole drilled on the Hanford Site encountered Eocene age sediments and possibly older basalts. Most of the basalt flows range from 130 feet to 150 feet thick and the in-terbeds of tuffaceous ash, sand, silt or clay range from 5 to 130 feet thick
. are not continuous for more than a few miles. Overlying the basalt 9roup is the Ringold Formation of late Pliocene-Pleistocene age. Sediments assigned to the Ringold Formation were deposited in a fluvial / flood plain environment and consist of stream-channel conglomerates, point-bar sand-stones, fine-grained overbank flood deposits, and minor lacustrine sedi-ments. In the Pasco Basin, sediments of the Ringold Formation accumulated to a maximum thickness of about 360 m.
The Ringold Formation has been divided into five textural units: 1) basal gravel; 2) lower sand, silt, and clay; 3) middle gravel or conglomerate;
- 4) upper sand and silt; and 5) a local fanglomerate facies. The middle, upper, and fanglomerate units crop out in the Pasco Basin. Information on the nature and distribution of the basal and lower units is based only on borehole data. The basal gravels may be equivalent to interbeds beneath younger basalt flows _(lower-to-middle Pliocene Ellensburg Formation) outside the northcentral portion of the Pasco Basin, rather than Ringold deposits.
The fanglomerates occur only along the margins of synclinal basins adjacent to the basaltic ridges that were the source for the fan deposits. The fang-lomerates are included as members of the Ringold Formation on the basis of their time equivalency rather than similarity of depositional environments. 2.5-1 l l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Glaciofluvial sediments of late Pleistocene age lie on an eroded surface of the basalt flows and the Ringold Formation resulting from catastrophic floods of glacial origin. The largest of the late Pleistocene floods was produced by the sudden emptying of glacial Lake Missoula. This flood ex-tensively modified the drainage in central and eastern Washington. It plucked out large blocks of basalt; created hanging valleys and waterfalls; deposited huge gravel bars and ripple marks; and reworked and redeposited vast quantities of gravel, sand, and silt. An area of some 7200 km2 was stripped to bedrock, while about 2300 km4 was buried by flood deposits. Hydraulic dansning of Wallula Gap and perhaps the Columbia River Gorge south-west of the Umatilla Basin, and the subsequent surging of floodwater back upstream produced a marked separation of the sediment load into a coarse-grained facies and a fine-grained slackwater facies. These two principal facies of flood deposits are recognized throughout the Pasco, Walla Walla, Yakima and Umatilla basins. The coarse grained facies consist of gravel, sand, and minor silt deposits, which are known as the Pasco Gravel. The silty, fine sand facies is known either as the Touchet beds or as slackwater deposits, particularly around the edges of the Pasco and Walla Walla Valley. Immediately af ter the last late Pleistocene flood (about 13,000 YBP) hun-dreds of, square kilometers of recently deposited bare Pasco Gravels and Touchet beds would have been exposed to wind erosion. Winds would easily have carried the finer sediments, which had been derived largely from either basalt or from the older loess deposits such as the Palouse. As a result, much of the Pasco Basin and adjacent areas are covered by a mantle of latest Pleistocene and Holocene loess deposits. The loess is pale brown and has an AC soil horizon. Borings at the center of the WNP-1 and WNP-4 containment buildings were used to determine the thicknesses of the principle geologic units beneath the site. The uppermost glaciofluival unit is comprised primarily of basaltic sands (Pasco gravels) and is approximately 50-60 feet thick. Underlying this unit is the Ringold Formation upon which the plant structures are founded. The Ringold is approximately 400 feet thick in the site vicinity and unconformably rests upon the Columbia River basalts. The basalts in the Pasco Basin are known to be over 10,000 feet thick based on data from a well located on nearby Rattlesnake Mountain. Additional detailed geologic and seismic studies of the site area and the surrounding region have been conducted in support of construction and safety studies for WNP-1 and WNP-4. The results and conclusions of these studies 1 are documented in Section 2.5 of the WNP-1 and WNP-2 Final Safety Analysis Reports. 2.5-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O
WNP-l/4 ER-OL (g.) 2.6 REGIONAL HISTORIC, SCENIC, CULTURAL, AND NATURAL FEATURES Within a twenty mile radius of the WPPSS Nuclear Projects Nos.1, 2 and 4, there are ten properties listed y Register of Historic Places.ll), The or eligible locationsforrelative listing, on the the National nuclear proj-ects are listed below: Archaeological District Distance and Direction from WNP-1, 2 & 4 Wooded Island 3.5 miles SW Savage Island 7 miles N Hanford Island 10 miles NNW Hanford North 14 miles NNW Locke Island 18 miles NNW Rattlesnake Springs 18 miles WNW 1 Snively Canyon 19 miles W Ryegrass 19 miles NW James Moore House 18 miles SSE Pasco-Kennewick Bridge ?0 miles SSE There are no areas within twenty miles which are designated as Natural Land-marks (8) or are regarded as scenic areas. The Wooded Island Archaeological l1 District is located about two miles south of the WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 makeup water pumphouses which will be visible from tne north end of tne island. Other than tnis specific visual alteration, none of the properties will be O V adversely affected by the projects. The State Historic Preservation Offi-cer's review of the anticipated impact of the operation of WNP-2 (pumphouse) on the Wooded Island site is contained in Appendix II. l The archaeology of the middle Columbia River, and particularly the Hanford Reach, is largely unknown. Archaeological surveys of the Hanford Site and the proposed Ben Franklin Reservoir area were conducted in 1967 and 1968.(2.3) These reconnaissance studies provided the first comprehensive inventory of archaeological sites in the area which should be salvaged or preserved. Nearly all of the identified sites contain evidence of habitation by the Wanapum Indians, or River People, who aboriginally occupied the banks of the Columbia River from Vantage to Pasco. A more detailed field and laboratory investi l Rice (4)gation of a site with under contract nearthe theWashington Hanford Generating Project Public Power wasSystem. Supply conducted by l This study provided a comparative collection of artifacts from an area that l had not been studied for over 40 years. It also provided archaeological evidence that demonstrated aboriginal culture stability and continuity for at least 6500 years. It further demonstrated that the archaeological re-source within the Hanford area is considerable and warrants further investi-gation and preservation. i l 2.6-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Dr. David G. Rice, a professional archaeologist and Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Idaho, was retained to determine whether or not archaeological and historical resources would be disturbed by construction of the Supply System projects. Field examj tion of the complete WNP-1/4 project area was conducted on May 3, 1974.4pi No archaeological features were observed at the reactor site. Geological work indicated that there were no sediments at the reactor site or in the pipeline corridor which were likely to contain archaeological deposits. Two archaeological sites (45-BN-113 and 45-BN-114) were identified about 700 feet southeast of the WNP-1/4 make-up water pumphouse. These sites were not disturbed by construction. Dr. Rice reconrnended no further archaeologiggl work except when the excava-tion in the river bank area was initiated. W1 Construction of the make-up water pumphouse and associated pipelines was consnenced in July 1977. Between that time and March 1978, Dr. Rice made five separate field of the construction.9x9,minations g6 with the commencement This monitoring work resulted inofthe different phases recovery of a small fragment of a Chinese rice bowl and a prehistoric aboriginal hearth area (Site 45-BN-257). However, no concentration of archaeological resour-ces was uncovered by construction of WNP-1/4. WNP-1/4 will be connected to the Howard J. Ashe substation by individual 500kV transmission lines and a conunon 230kV emergency power transmission line. WNP-l's 500kV line is ap-proximately 1.4 miles, and WNP-4's 500kV line is approximately one mile in length. The common 230kV line is approximately 1.6 miles in length. Except for a small section of each line, the lines will be on DOE land leased for Wf;P-2 and WNP-1/4. These short transmission lines are located in the plant prop 9r} an area which was judged to be devoid of archaeological resour-ces.15 The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is constructing the transmission lines from in its environmental Ashe to(HQP statement. 71 and has addressed archceological impacts REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.6 la. " National Register of Historic Places," Heritage Conservation and Recrea-tion Service, Department of the Interior, Federal Register, Vol.' 44, No. 26, Pages 7415-7649, February 6, 1979. Ib. Vol. 45, No. 54, Pages 17446 & 17485, March 18, 1980. Ic. Vol. 46, No. 22, Pages 10622 & 10667, February 3, 1981. l 1l Id. Vol. 47, No. 22, Pages 4954 & 4968, February 2, 1982.
- 2. Rice, D. G., Archaeological Reconnaissance - Hanford Atomic Works, Washington State University, Laboratory of Anthropology, Pullman, 1968.
O 2.6-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL ()'
'- 3. Rice, D. G., Archaeological Reconnaissance - Ben Franklin Reservoir Areas,1968, Washington State University, Laboratory of Anthropology, Pullman, 1968.
- 4. Rice, D. G., Archaeological Investigations at the Washington Public Power Supply System Hanford No.1 Nuclear Power Plant, Benton County, Washington, Department of Sociology /Antnropology, University of Idaho, Moscow, October 1, 1973.
S. Letter from D. G. Rice, University of Idaho, to R. B. Brocklebank, United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., subject: " Archaeological / Historical Reconnaissance at relocated WNP-1", May 9, 1974.
- 6. Rice, D. G., " Summary of Archaeological Field Work Related to the Construction of the WPPSS WNP-1/4 Water Intake System and Pumpnouse, Hanford Works, Washington, 1977-78", University of Idaho, Laboratory of Anthropology, Moscow, Idaho, December 29, 1978.
- 7. Bonneville Power Administration, 1975 Fiscal Year Proposed Program, Environmental Statement Facility Evaluation Supplement
, 8. " National Resistry of Natural Landmarks," Heritage Conservation and l Recreation Service, Department of the Interior, Federal Register, 1 Vol. 45, No. 232, Pages 79698 & 79721, December 1, 1980. p) i i I i 1 ( U) 2.6-3 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l
p-- hFLUEpiT RE[d5E PolesTS l I { esp-e i e ss- 4 l L21 LCC ateca SaysC[ t'(* esO j , l s 7 a i e I st e n
- 7;* a s?.- Y s e %.8-e.;s Es>&.5* fas .* s27 l e e t. t le M77 e- 809 t e s' O' atee *:* s s2 0* *
. 6* Ni 9.*, _ Es-a;5' 8as
- s Se e
- 233 so 3.s04 - ? 6 ? *
- t S C'--
ali ':* s .2 *
- a . p %g s. : ,. f .g;5+ sa% e+ e73e+ 269 ie 33 0- ?3s . Sea 1 (
*tel' T si23' TL %8 9.r 5 t:=&.5* 8as ** 2ee+ 3#9
- 14 6 e .- 4Se ! e t O*
*T s e2r e *.61%f * ;; t a-a ;t
- 8 L% 64s f e 6' F e.e t i . ** 238 s* 319 * '3J68 e-se* I 7T si27 i'AtTi ~ t' . . , ta-a 5 I8a% e* 265e+ 43e
- 12 S 6 199 a153 7 e s e t s _I 7'BC: ?-#6 %! 9.**, (sna.5* ras 6* 2:2 s e i34 .* 3;62 e . e t 6 i ? 6 s O*
Ilele 72* a i20" ? et %1 f.:4 (s-a.5* 82%
- 3Se e' 344 ** 3.32s .- 6t6 :566-1 2 6 s2' T.8 6 %! 9.05 C;%: E%!!s as tawa.57 ** 2 3e 1 + 23S ** !.e 6 4 l- ?tt StC O' 3 ] 14' T Jsp %t s.M ICD %M%5t* An Esaa.5' le IC 6 .
- 248 es 1 56 - 72 t Pa
- 4 22* C a T ** %E 8s Getsaa a5* Fa% sei n Tow
- aetal a* s07 se 36 e
- 3> 37 - 964 . !; O-C St e l 36' e'.***.E B.% i wa % 5'faw 0'. w' wa.
- E 5faCm 6* IS l* '35** 236S 4- 66.5
- t:9 O' S.34 36' e ' At %i 6.03 wa.% 5*Eaw D.ws wa..! 5'a;n i+ 20 . e 13e
- E970 t - ett 129 7 e Se s a 36' s T ** %E 86;%, wa'% 5* taw L w* 4. vt $7ats je 25 s e att se 2.S T S 3 . e '. ti p-v Siel 36' I Te' %f BJG Wa % 5'Eaw OLw5 wa.wt 5?a;n 4+ 3C s e s2 S s e 2360 s. 4?t !" v C d e Ses 36' 6 ?vap %g g;g; . asa % !* taw :.v* ma. . E 5*a;s se 42 s e es7 2 *S2 e Ie E3 ~ **i-r'
! See i . 36- e Ts . t e. :. , wa % s taw :.w. .a.se Sta:. ** 47 i* wa . 2s97 i- as- 2:95c
{ Sigte 36' ! TJa* st 9L t
- asa % STt aw *twa ga.=t 5'a;n se $3 + seO** 3DC3 8 - 09C e*29.O*
i S: si t e 36' a 15 8 %t e.% wa % t't aw ?tw* wa..! $*a;n se S7
- 106 + 1CO' e - t94 129-7 36* a Tun 9 %! 9.M wa % s t aw DLW8 va..( 5'a!B e* TS e 95 e 102 S e - 901 * ; 9 O*
St e l ' Si e l e 36' t T.seL%f 8 :a esa % 5*E aw Otv6 va.st Sia n 00 + 92 to 3030 i- 908 *;9 6 St a l - 36' 6 T e9 %E 9.3G wa *% 5ftaw Duw* wa.*E 5'aC m o SS
- 89 se SC3 S e - 9.e
- 10 9-c*
Si a l 36* I tua 9 %t 8.[4 wa.% 5'E au ;=Ae5 va.=t Sta!n .* 90.* sg** 1340 e- 9,$ e;9.c S** e 36' I Tu'9 %! BiOG wa % 5? taw Awe vaivt Sta;a e* eCS + 75 ** 3.055 e- 929 a t : 9 C*
\'\
Sint St el 36* 36' t Tvat %( SLDG . asai% STl a w (>>ws vathi Stats 8 %ag gi (q ts asa g 5' taw cswa va.vE Sfa;u le 4* e :O i + esso 72 e
- 1060 l-69 s e 306$ l-928 ISO 9-C" 93s ' $ 2 9 0" 3
6 T.F6 %! 8.OG wa% 5'f aw Ow5 vaib t ST& a a* a2O *
- 65** 1070 1 ' SSS 129-1 k' Stas 34' e wa g 1*t aw atL (8 va.vf tamauS7 i* F2 I
- 48 e* 3:22 l- 952 6 el e SE' 6 W58i8 _S e l '- C*
64s14 3 (* I uss !* . esat% 5'E a u ofi-(8 Wevt tamav57 ie es ie $3.* 103 e- 947 . t i s'-v 6i c t i 36' s uss t s esa % 5'E aas mEuf 8 ba. v t E s mau 5T ?* a2 le SS e+ 2.96 2 t - 9 s S e S e e - O* tiene 36' i w hs.3 . wa.% 5?l aw attiE' wa.vt tama>5T ,* s?s+ 96 **.2367 4- 904 i S t e 10* fiele e 6" ws, w a.g 5+ g a u af t'E 8 vatvt Ennag5' se 2e so 08 ** 197s i. 912 i S e s'- O* 71sli e6 ' w $s ' e wa % 5'f aw melit s va.vt Esmag5T le 22 p + 94 se L972 6- 9 0 8 e S e l' - O" 74t34 '6* w?s s ' wa % Straw st;its va.wr taways? je 24 le 96 se 2.974 l- 9 04 s S ea"-v 7t e l i (' w!s a . waes 3*t aw stets va6vt EmmaUST le 25 e
- 800 ** 2J7 5 l- 900 I S e ei v Tsetj e6' wS* t wa N S Tt a v set.eE8 valve EsmauST I* 26 s e 504 ee 1976 + 496 i S t e'- C' Flfli e 6' ws8
- wae% 5' taw *t.*t8 va6vE Esaac51 to 32 i* SS i* 2.902 - 9eS t e s' - O' 7 gI 9 10 uss * . wa % 1' taw eELEs watvt E aMa;5' le 34 e* 89 se 2.904 - Sia e S 8 8 -7 7enig og" vi s + wa,% set aw mE sts vaLvt (Imaust l+ 35
- 92 le 2.983 - SCO . S e e O" 7e . I ! 16* v58at wa % 5'tav AE.'t8 ba vt EanauST e* 30
- 96 i* 2,900 - 9 04 i S e f -1 l
Tille . 6' wSt e esa.% 5ftaw etsf8 v aL vt E aM a.JST le 39 e sOO le 2,969 - 900 i SI(-C 7te1e e6' wS8 ? e wa % ' T E aw #f.iE 8 vaLvt faaaJs? e* $3 e 74 e* 10C3 1- 926 !$ae v 7 et, er wst asa g g gav et,ts va.vt E smai,57 ** SS le 77 1* 3.00S - 923 eSet-v Fissil i e 6" wSAS e esa % 5*t aw et..E 8 VALVE Enwa;57 e* $8 }
- SO l e 1008 - 923 1 Sis'-O" l 76 e l a e6" ' es58,8 esa % 5't ais egets vagvg g a saaJ57 .* 6e i+ 83 le 3 Die - 917 isle'-6
?s e' ' 16" is 58 ; f nsa % STEaas ei..t* ha.vl EsaauST
- 63
- 86 i+ 3.013 - t i e i S e l'- O' 7tst J e6' as5s.g esA% 5'Eaw mELits va.vt Ennay57 e* 73,* $$e* 1023 - 94S ISea-F Piene 6- w5= t wa % STe au atWe va.v E ta=As57 se 76 ! . S7 4. sc26 - 943 i t se -C 76 e l er W58 8 wa % 5f taw
- tee 8 baitt (amauST i* 79 ** 60
- 1029 - 940 iSI(-7 7te t i 16* wSE19
- esa'se STEAM REL ef F waLyt EIMauST e' 32 e ' 63 se 1032 l- 937 I S e f-#
7tel 16* es 5 Fit s wa g Sitaw mEistF VALVE (NMaW5T l* SS t
- 6S i+ 103S l- 9 35 l S e f'- O*
3 tS m 23 GE % SEE 86DG E maa57 *Lfguw f*swaCl e- 156 ** 30 ** 2.794 l- 962 6S20-O' 9 e4* ct% 3E m BLOG s Svtaas E mmauST FROne aux FEEO PUwP s . 89 7 l- 95 to 2.7 S S l- 609S ISee O' so 31 ! anos s% Tant l CeeCuiaTeseG ma?te SYSTEw eLOwDOwn [+ 2,s SO l+ 6 2.8$3 g l l 3 37 ' 0" l
t 5 t l l
! l .' 3
.' I : :
[ .. I. gi g. :: {00_ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ , _ . _ _ _ i __ M ! i
.......m i ,
/, . _ .- . __ .
c I
- 4. . .
. . . . _ , . . . . . - - - . - +
i m:=u '
, l .is A :=e ,.. - ,
. *,A .t .- ,#
( ;
.x - t i 4 i's. _1 %.s.4
'. .. 6 .a6
~, ..q w ~]<c W L3w
_. . _ a . c,i , ==&~~ R ~. . i$ , _ %' "-:. q-l Cd * - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ~ ' ' "
\
p,c-
.s.
.*cn3.
, JJ . ..s,. 4tp , . " " " i g ;,,a --- - - -
.e.se
- ._-t ,
*w I ; . . .,, ,c ..., .:= 7.a.
-v c.... ;
_ .' 'l
..,,._._,..___.u p , ' o.
l ! j , l . ... . ; .: <i, n ;.;; L _. _ h ..__.
}'N.,y_.. i _j
, \1 b.. . t . -
i \, , i i i eTaw% maa .es
'ho ,/ g- _ . _ . - . . . _
, / es.s.s%s
. o/*
ramme sm
.~..
\
\
\
/s b
\ g ,
sem 9ttmap Fttpo.s.M.W..I.SO.La'em. Cine
" l
' ~ . N .=. .u.e
-r
& k m . .,
(TYP ogpst e ) WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM EFFLUENT RELEASE POINTS WNP-1/4 ER-OL FIG 3.1-2
WNP-1/4 ER-0L 3.2 REACTOR AND STEAM-ELECTRIC SYSTEM WNP-1/4 are of the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) type, as manufactured by the Babcock & Wilcox Company. United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., is the architect-engin<:er for the two units. Each Nuclear Steam Supply System * (NSSS) is connected to a Westinghouse (TC6F-44 in.) tandem compound turbine-generator. The reactor cores are made up of 205 fuel assemblies arranged in a square lattice. Thefuelisincylindricalpellets(0.324inchesindiameter)of sintered low-enriched uranium dioxide. The pellets are clad in Zircaloy-4 tubing and sealed by Zircaloy-4 end caps, welded at each end. The rated core power level at which each plant will be operated is 3760 MWt. An addi-tional 20 MWt from nonreactor sources, primarily pump heat, results in an NSSS rating of 3780 MWt for each Jr.it. The design core power level is 3800 MWt for ear. 4 unit. The net plant electrical output for 3760 and 3800 MWt is 1259 MWe and 1266 MWe respectively. , l The relationships #
- tion heat rate to the expected variation of turbine
' backpressure for 7 ant, 75 percent, and 50 percent unit load at design flow are providen .w e 3.2-1. Continuous operational variation between l1 25 percent and el5 percent is possible. The operating life of the f acility is anticipated to be 40 years.
- o e
. .i
\
\
t s t t i l i l
\j l 9
\
3.2-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) s
s
/ <
WNP-1/4 ,- .. fR-OL ". - f.
, J'/ . ,
TABLE 3.2-5 ' " RELATIONSHIP 0F STATION HEAT RATE TO TURBINE BACKP ES_SURE(a)
, _ 7 100% 75% 50% -
Turbine Unit Load - Unit Load Unit Load ' Backpressure Heat Rate ibt Rate Heat 4 ate (in-Hg) , (Stu/kWh) 3 6A/kWh) , 75fii/kWh)
.. j. 3 2.0 9,441 9,490 10,028 2.5 9,538 .! <;/'/,646 9 10,133 3.0 9,634 ' 9,763 10,446 3.5 9,750 9,939 10,634
/
4.0 9,886 10,056 10,801 4.5 9,865 10,173, - 11,016 5.0 9,962 10,310 - 11,198 5.5 10,154' 10,427 11,386 e (a) Based on NSSS power rating and gross gescrator output. i L W ,, w j y-J _t 1 4 1 O I
~
WNP-1/4 ER-OL
,~ 3.4 HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM The heat dissipation system for the steam-to-electric conversion process for each unit consists of the circulating water system (including condenser, y cooling towers and cooling water pumps and piping), intake (or makeup water)
L system, and discharge (or blowdown) system. In addition to servicing the main condenser, the heat dissipation system rejects minor amounts of heat
- from auxiliary equipment coolers. Important operating parameters for the heat dissipation system are given in Table 3.4-1.
3.4.1 Circulating Water System The four circulating cooling water pumps for each unit take suction from a common sump which receives water from the cooling tower basins. These pumps develop sufficient head to pump water through the condenser up to the top of the tower fill. The service water system pumps and the fire pumps also take suction from the circulating water pumphouse sump and are located in the same pump house structure as the main condenser circulating water pumps. The turbine condensers for each unit have a surface area of slightly over one million square feet (see Subsection 3.6.4). Operational aspects of the biocide system required to maintain heat transfer properties in the conden-ser system are described in Section 3.6. At full-load conditions, all four circulating water pumps, all three con-densers, and all three cooling towers must be in operation. If one of the four circulating water pumps is out of service, a unit can operate at a load l range of approximately 50 to 80 percent. If one of the three remaining cir-
- l. culating water pumps are out of service, one of the three cooling towers
,* must be isolated from the circulating water system, and the unit can operate l < at loads of up to 50 percent. The two remaining circulating water pumps have a total capacity of 320,000 gpm. The mechanical draft evaporative cooling tower arrangement for one generat-ing unit is shown in Figura 3.4-1. There are three circular counterflow mechanical draft cooling towers serving each unit. Each tower has a height of 65 feet above plant grade and a diameter of 243 feet. Each tower unit is composed of 19 cells, arranged symmetrically in a circular array. A 28-foot diaceter, 6-blade fan, which is driven by a 150-horsepower motor coupled to l a speed reducer, can deliver air at a rate of 1,032,140 ACFM to each cell. The major design parameters for the cooling towers are: l Circulating water flow-rate--640,000 gpm l Inlet circulating water temperature--108.40F l Outlet circulating water temperature--82.40F Wet bulb temperature--66.40F Dry buib temperature--89.50F O 3.4-1
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Operating characteristics of the heat disipation system as a function of am-bient conditions are given in Table 3.4-2. The evaporative and drif t losses l from the cooling towers for a single unit are shown in Table 3.4-3 for each i month of the year. Maximum water loss occurs during July or August at an average rate of 13,900 gpm. The highest expected water loss is 14,500 gpm, assuming the unit operates continuously at its maximum rating. Water loss by evaporation and drift is anticipated to be 6,109 million gallons per year if the unit operates continuously at its 100 percent capacity rating. The above cooling tower losses are calculated on the basis of 20 years (1950 - 1970) of meteorological data taken at the Hanford Meteorology Station. 3.4.2 Intake System The makeup water pumphouse supplies makeup water from the Columbia River to both WNP-1 and WNP-4 and is located approximately 2.5 miles from these units. The pumphouse contains three 10,000 gpm pumps for each unit; normally two pumps will be in use. Two 1,000 gpm diesel-driven standby pumps (one for each unit), rated at 60 horsepower each, and one 1,000 gpm motor-driven pump to supply the smaller quantities of water to the treatment facility (at WNP-1) during shutdown periods are also located in the pumphouse. A vertical sectional view of the pumphouse is shown in Figure 3.4-2. 1 Three 36-inch diameter intake lines run from the pumphouse to T-shaped in-take sections located in the river 720 feet to the east (see Figure 3.4-3 and3.4-4). The tees are constructed with an outer 42-inch diameter pipe with 3/8-inch holes over 40 percent of the area and an inner 36-inch diame-ter sleeve with 3/4-inch holes covering about 7 percent of the area to dis-tribute the flow evenly along the outer sleeve. The sleeves are removable for cleaning and repair as necessary. This design is the same as for the WNP-2 intake located 650 feet downstream. 3.4.3 Discharge System To maintain the desired cycles of concentration of river water in the cir-l culating water system, a small portion of the circulating water is bled off
- and replaced with river water. This cooling tower blowdown water is removed l from the circulating water system at the discharge of the main condenser I
circulating water pumps. A blowdown line, serving both generating units, l runs parallel to and downstream of the buried makeup-water intake lines and I discharges the blowdown water to the Columbia River. The blowdown line is - buried under the riverbed and emerges at a point about 25 feet downstream of I l , the makeup-water line inlets and 720 feet from the pumphouse. At low-river stage the discharge port is about 300 feet from the shoreline. The outfall configuration is presented in Figure 3.4-4. Riprap is placed around the outfall to prevent erosion of the river bed, as shown in Figure 3.4-5. The blowdown line is designed for a maximum capacity of 7,500 gpm from each unit. However, it is expected that the nonnal blowdown rate will be ap-l proximately 3,800 gpm for eac5 unit, corresponding to design conditions of 9 3.4-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL
\ five cycles of river water concentration and operation at 100 percent unit rating. Seasonal variations in cooling tower makeup and blowdown for each unit are shown in Table 3.4-4.
The maximum expected blowdown temperature (cooling tower cold water tempera-ture) is 87.10F. At design conditions of five cycles of river water con-centration and a wet bulb temperature of 66.40F, the blowdown temperature is 82.40F. Other temperatures of the air and water environments that are likely to be encountered during cooling tower operatinn are presented in Table 3.4-2. During the startup of a unit under winter conditions, icing is prevented by Keeping the cooling tower inlet valves closed until the circulating water temperature reaches 50 to 550F, The heated circulating water is diverted to a bypass line which discharges the water directly into the cooling tower basins during this time. If icing occurs during cooling tower operation, it is controlled by shutting off cooling tower fans and/or diverting a portion of the heated circulating water from the cooling tower inlets to the bypass line. O U l l l l l 3.4-3 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
- .~.
WNP-l/4 ER-OL O TABLE 3.4-1 OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR ONE UNIT AT DESIGN CONDITIONS (a) Total NSSS Thermal Power, MWt 3,780 Turbine-Generator Guaranteed Gross Output, MWe 1,361 Turbine-Generator Guaranteed Net Output, MWe 1,339 Net Heat Rate, Btu /kWh 9,634 Heat Dissipated to Atmosphere, Btu /hr 8.25 x 109 Heat Dissipated to River (b), Btu /hr 3.23 x 107 Circulating Water Flow Rate, gpm 640,000 Total Evaporation and Drift (c), gpm 15,185 810wdownRequirement(c),gpm 3,796 Total Makeup Requirement (c), gpm 18,981 Temperature Rise Across Condenser, OF 26 (a) Design conditions are based on a wet bulb temperature of 66.40F which is exceeded Si, of the time; a dry bulb temperature of 84.50F. l (b) The difference between cooling tower blowdown and ambient river temper-l atures is assumed to be 170F. (c) Blowdown requirements are based on five cycles of river water concentration. I I l O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.4-2 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS FOR EXPECTED AMBIENT CONDITIONS (a) Total Wet Bulb Time Dry Bulb CeN kater Evaporation Gross (urbine Total Heat Temperature Duration Temperature Tb serature Drift Blowdown Make Up Heat Rate Output Backpressure Rejected (OF) (Hours /Yr) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (OF) (OF) (Stu/kWh) (MWe) (in Hg) (Btu /hr x 109) 76.00 5.2 106.00 87.14 16490 4123 20613 9646 1,337 3.46 8.332 70.00 301.2 96.50 83.81 15827 3957 19784 9593 1,334 3.16 8.307 66.40 306.6 89.50 82.40 15185 3796 18982 9571 1,347 3.03 8.297 64.00 306.6 84.50 80.66 14729 3682 18411 9549 1,350 2.89 8.286 62.00 394.2 79.50 79.66 14258 3564 17822 9537 1,352 2.81 8.280 59.50 547.7 74.00 78.45 13759 3440 17199 9523 1,354 2.72 8.274 0 .50 766.5 68.00 76.58 13282 3320 16602 9505 1,357 2.58 8.265 52.00 766.5 62.00 75.01 12769 3192 15961 9491 1,359 2.47 8.258 48.50 766.5 57.00 73.50 12369 3092 15461 9479 1,350 2.37 8.252 45.00 766.5 52.00 72.05 11966 2992 14958 9469 1,362 2.27 8.247 42.50 766.5 47.50 71.04 11570 2892 14462 9463 1,363 2.21 8.244 40.00 766.5 43.00 70.06 11176 2794 13968 9457 1,364 2.15 8.241 37.50 766.5 39.00 69.10 10835 2709 13544 9452 1,364 2.09 8.239 34.50 657.0 35.50 67.97 10574 2643 13217 9447 1,365 2.03 8.236 31.50 438.0 32 00 66.87 10310 2577 12387 9442 1,366 1.97 8.234 26.00 438.0 ?5.50 64.92 9926 2432 12408 9435 1,367 1.87 8.230 (a) Design wet bulb, 51 condition (66.400F wet bulb temperature)
@ O O
! O O O lap-1/4 ER-OL TA8LE 3.4-3 MONTHLY EVAPORATIVE AND DRIFT LOSSES FOR ONE GENERATING UNIT'S COOLING TOWERS Highest (a) Evaporation (b) Average (a) Evaporation (b) Lowest (a) Evaporation (b) 2 nth Wet Bulb and Drift Wet Bulb and Drift Wet Bulb and Drift (OF) (106 g,1,) (op} (jo6 gai,} (op) (106 gal.) Janeary 39.3 486 27.9 440 12.4 414 February 40.7 448 33.6 416 23.4 391 March 40.8 497 37.3 474 32.9 457 April 45.1 511 42.8 495 39.3 471 May 54.6 581 49.1 549 45.4 529 June 58.6 585 54.5 562 51.4 543 July 61.2 628 57.9 601 55.6 588 August 61.1 624 57.3 598 54.9 583 September 56.5 574 52.6 550 48.3 527 October 47.7 541 45.4 529 42.4 508 November 42.3 491 36.4 444 29.6 431 December 35.8 474 31.2 451 25.0 437 6,440 6.109 5,879 (a) The highest, lowest, and average wet bulb temperatures for each month of the year are based on a period of record from 1950 through 1970. (b) Calculated evaporative and drift losses are based on 10C ,wrcent unit rating.
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.4-4 SEASONAL VARIATION IN COOLING TOWER MAKEUP AND BLOWDOWN REQUIREMEN15 FOR ONE UhlT Highest (a) Average (9) Lowest (a) Season Makeup (b) Blowdown (b) Makeup (b) Blowdown (b) mkeup(b) Blowdown (b) (106 gal.) (106 gal.) (106 gal.) (106 gal.) (106 gij,} (106 gal.) Dec. - Feb. 1,760 352 1,634 327 1,553 311 March - May 1,986 397 1,898 380 1,821 364 June - Aug. 2,296 459 2,201 440 2,143 419 Sept. - Nov. 2,008 402 1,904 381 1,833 367 8.050 1,610 7,637 1,528 7,350 1,471 (a) Highest, lowest, and average values refer to the wet bulb temperatures measured for each season during the period from 1950 through 1970. (b) Calculated makeup and blowdown values assume operation at 100% unit rating and five cycles of river concentration. O O O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 3.5 RADWASTE SYSTEMS AND SOURCE TERM The transport of radioactivity from the primary coolant system to various parts of the plant during normal operation has been traced and evaluated in order to determine the performance of each process interposed between the source of radioactivity and suosequent pathways to the environment. Leakage and perfo ence effectiveness parameters for cleanup systems suggested in NUREG-0017.11 are utilized extensively. The parameters suggested in NUREG-0017 are deduced from operating experience and are considered to re-present the average performance of systems and components. 1 There are three radwaste systems: theRadioactiveLiquidWasteSystem(RLW), the Radioactive Gaseous Waste System (RGW), and the Radioactive Solid Waste System (RSW). No radwaste systems or components are shared by WNP-1 and WNP-4. Radioactive and potentially radioactive liquids, gases and solids are I collected and processed according to physical and chemical properties, and radioactive concentrations. The RLW system has been designed to process radioactive or potentially radio-active liquid waste for recycle and reuse in the plant so that minimum off-site release of radioactive liquids is expected, 1 The RGW System provides a 60 day holdup capability for decay of gases prior to release to the environment. There will be a small amount of gaseous leakage with the estimate of leakages based on values suggested in NUREG-0017. The RSW System collects and processes all radioactive solid wastes and packages , the waste in approved 0.0.T. shipping containers for shipment off-site to ap-j proved burial grounds. The RLW and RGW Systems have been designed such that the effluents meet the ! release requirements of 10CFR20 and dose design objectives specified in Appen-i dix I of 10CFR50. The requirements of cost-benefit analysis described in Sec-tion II.D. of Appendix I to 10CFR50 has been replaced by the Design Objective of " Concluding Statement of Position of Regulatory Staff (Docket RM-50-2)." This approach has been ratified by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) as noted in RAI-75/12 922, 934 (Dec. 22,1975). Therefore estimated 1 individual doses "per site" as well as "per reactor" are provided in Section 5.2. 3.5.1 Source Terms All radioactive wastes originate from either fission products produced in the fuel or activation products produced in the reactor coolant and in the Con-tainment atmosphere. Although essentially all fission product activity is contained within the fuel rods, minute quantities may enter the reactor coolant system. These fission products, together with activation products produced in the reactor coolant, are transported throughout much of the plant by the reac-tor coolant, and are thus the source of radioactivity for other systems. 1 O 3.5-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l
l WNP-1/4 ER-OL Design basis reacter coolant activities are derived from analytical models or are based on conservative limiting cases of pertinent operating experience. Expected source terms are calculated according to the methodology described in NUREG-0017. The fission product activity in the fuel, fuel rod gap, and reactor coolant is calculated by a digital computer code that solves the rate equations for fis-sion product build-up in the fuel and leakage from the fuel to the fuel rod gap. The code considers 181 isotopes in 80 decay chains with a maximum chain length of five isotopes. The activity can be calculated for up to 100 time intervals; for each interval, the core power, thermal flux, and the fraction of power produced from U-235 and Pu-239 fissions can be changed. General rate equations for the inventory of radioactive nuclides in fuel, fuel 1 gap and reactor coolant are described in Section 11.1 of WNP-1/4 Final Safety AnalysisReport(FSAR). Tables 3.5-1 through 3.5-8 provide the calculated activities. Tritium is generated by several mecMnisms, but only three are signifi:: ant: a) Ternary fission in the fuel with subsequent leakage into the reactor coolant, b) Neutron activatior, of boron in the reactor coolant passing through the core, and c) Neutron activation of lithium in the reactor coolant passing through the core. l The calculated amount of tritium produced in/or entering the reactor coolant during an equilibrium cycle is given in Table 3.5-9 and the expected tritium concentration in the primary and secondary coolant is given in Table 3.5-10. l The quantity of tritium described in Table 3.5-9 becomes uniformly distributed in the Reacto.- Coolant System, the Makeup and Purification System and the Chemical Addition and Boron Recovery System. During refueling operations, the tritium is further diluted when the refueling canal is filled with borated water from the Borated Water Storage Tank. Total tritium .elease per year per unit by liquids is 370 C1/yr and by gaseous release 1100 Ci/yr. l 1l The in-plant design basis corrosion product activities shown in Table 3.5-11 are appr plants.(gxpi. This is to compensate for short periods of high corrosionately a product activity (" crud bursts"). The expected corrosion product activities 1l in the primary and secondary coolant are given in Table 3.5-10. 1 3.5-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) 0 l l -.
-- -.. . __- . .- -- =_ .- . -_ - -- -
WNP-1/4 ER-0L Nitrogen-16 (16 N ) is a concern only during operation bec se of it sho ife, 7.1 seconds. It is produced by the reaction 0(n.p) 6N . rt halfIgN activity at variouy6 The points in the Reactor Coolant System is given in Table 3.5-12 and expected N activity in the primary and secondary coolant-is given in Table 3.5-10. 1 Argon-41 (41A r) is produced by 40A r activation. The 40A r, which may be 4 present in the makeup tank's nitrogen cover gas, enters the reactor coolant in the makeup water. The equilibrium reactor coolant *lAr activity at a core power of 3800 MWt is 0.48 pC1/g. Argon-41 has a half-life of 1.83 hours. l1 I Activities in the secondary coolant are calculated assuming a 100 lb/ day (from Table 2-13 of NUREG-0017) primary-to-secondary leak rate. Prior to the primary-to-secondary leakage, the operating reactor coolant system activity is assumed to be the maxinum equilibrium activities corresponding to the values listed in Table 3.5-7 and Table 3.5-11. Total steam flow rate, fraction of l1 steam generator feedwater peccessed through the condensate demineralizer, and the decontamination factors are listed in Table 3.5-13. Calculated in-plant l1 design secondary coolant activities in the stam generator feedwater and the main steam are given in Table 3.5-14. Secondary coolant corrosion product i activities are listed in Table 3.5-11. Estimates of the various leakage rates that serve as sources of airborne radioactive and liquid waste are determined from experience of operating 4 pressurized water reactors per NUREG-0017. O The following assumed gaseous leakage rates are to in-plant areas which are subsequently released to the environment through the building ventilation systems. ' a) 1% of the noble gas inventory and 0.001% of the iodine inventory in the reactor coolant is released to the containment atmosphere daily and subsequently released through a charcoal /HEPA filter. t b) 160 lb/ day of reactor coolant is released to the Primary Auxiliary L Area of the GSB with an iodine partition factor of 0.0075 and sub-sequently released through a charcoal /HEPA filter. c) Leakage to the Turbine Generator Building atmosphere is 1700 lb/hr of secondary steam with a partition factor of 1.0 for iodines. These values for leakage are based on values suggested in NUREG-0017. Actual plant leakage is expected to be less due to utilization of double mechanical seals, closed loop seal pressurizer systems for pumps, and plug valve to mini-mize leakage. Such gaseous sources as periodic atmospheric steam dumps or gland seal releases are considered negligible. Isotopic contributions from these leakage sources are detailed in Section 11.3 of WNP-1/4 FSAR. O 3.5-3 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL l Liquid leakage, except for leakage into the Turbine Generator Building, is collected arJ processed through the RLW System. The Turbine Generator Building leakage is collected in a sump that is continuously monitored for activity and upon reaching an alarm point the sump contents will be transferred to the RLW System. There are no expected releases of reactor coolant from the Boron Recovery System (BRS) necessary to maintain plant water inventory or control of plant tritium levels. For design purposes, however, there is an assumed BRS release after processing with a maximum flow rate equal to 18% of the average bleed flow rate. The BRS is also designed to transfer, if necessary, a portion of the recovered distillate downstream of the distillate test tanks to the RLW System. A sonmarized description of the RLW System is provided in Section 11.2 WNP-1/4 FSAR. The fuel pool enoling system consists of the Spent Fuel Pool, Fuel Transfer Canal, and Refueling Canal along with two Spant Fuel Pool Heat Exchangers, Spent Fuel Pool Surge Tank and Refueling Purification Cleanup Train. The Spent Fuel Pool holds approximately 343,000 gallons of borated water, the Fuel Transfer Canal holds approximately 71,000 gailons of borated water and the Refueling Canal holds approximately 537,000 gallons of borated water. Normal makeup to the system is from either the Borated Water Storage Tank or Demin-eralized Water Storage Tank. Spent Fuel Pool and Fuel Transfer Canal volumes are based on measurements of each found in FSAR Section 9.1. Due to the Refueling Purification Cleanup Train processing the water through filters and demineralizers, the primary radioactive material is tritium. Over several years of operation the tritium level will eventually equal that in the reagtor coolant. Estimated normal airborne activity for tritium is 1 l 2.01 x 10-0 Ci/cc which is 0.4 MPC fraction. 3.5.2 Liquid Radwaste Systems l The RLW System is designed to collect and treat all radioactive and poten- , tially radioactive liquid wastes which are generated in the course of normal j plant operations, including anticipated operational occurrences. I The component design parameters are listed in Table 3.5-15. The RLW System is 1l designed to collect on a continuous basis and process on a batch The basis. collection tanks are designed to provide a 30-day holdup capacity for the 1l maximum flow rates listed in Table 3.5-16. The requirements of General Design Criteria 60 are met by the above holdup capacity together with the redundance and flexibility Scorporated in system / component design. I The RLW consists of three collection tanks, two identical or3 cessing trains 1l and four holdup tanks. The RLW system is designed with the ability to bypass l l l 3.5-4 Amendment 1 (rs 83) 9
WNP-1/4 ER-OL any piece of process equipment, or cross-connect the redundant trains upstream or dov;nstream of any piece of process equipment. The RLW system must be manu-ally lined up prior to any bypassing or cross-connecting evolution. Estimated quantities, flow rates and decontamination factors are provided in Table 3.5-17. The PCA fraction refers to Primary Coolant Activity, which can be found in Table 3.5-4. 1 The estimated quantit1 of radioactivity to be potentially released in liquid effluents 1: describe.1 below for normal plant operation including anticipated j operational occurrences. In addition, radioactive liquid systems releases assuming design basis fuel failure of 0.25% is discussed. The RLW for WNP-1/4 has been designed such that the effluent meets the release requirements specified in 10CFR20 and 50 and the dose design objectives speci-fied in Appandix I to 10CFR50. In particular, the following release require-ments are met:
- 1) The calculated normal quantity of radioactive material released from each r::ctor at the site to unrestricted areas will not result in an estimated annual dose or dose commitment from liquid effluents for any individual in an unrestricted area in excess of 3 mrem to the total body or 10 mrem to any organ, per Appendix I of 10CFR50,
- 2) The concentrations of radioactive materials in liquid effluents re-O leased to an unrestricted area does not exceed limits listed in Table II, Column 2 of 10CFR50, Appendix B.
Table 3.5-18 shows expected annual radionuclide release inventories and com-l pares the expected effluent release concentrations of 10CFR20 concentration i limits. Oose estimates based on these releases are provided in Section 5.2. 3.5.3 Gaseous Radwaste Systems The Radioactive Gaseous Waste System (RGW) is designed to receive, process and hold radioactive off-gases such that, when released to the environment, the combined effluent from the RGW and the plant ventilaf. ion system meets the de-sign objectives of Appendix I to 10CFR50 and concentration limits given in 10CFR20. Gases are directed to the RGW where they are diluted by a 40 SCFM recircu-lating nitrogen gas flow in order to maintain a hydrogen concentration below the flamability point. The gases are then compressed to 100 psig in a gas compressor and then sent through a hydrogen recombiner unit to remove hydro-gen. The gaseous waste stream is then directed to one of four waste gas decay tanks. The contents of the tank are used as a recirculation flow. After the tank is isolated from the recirculation path, the contents may be held for 60 days to allow for the decay of short half ~ lived isotopes prior to release. O 3.5-5 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-0L The RGW can handle transient surges by bypassing the recombiner and storing i the gases in a waste gas decay tank. When time permits, the contents can then be recirculated through the recombiner until the hydrogen has been removed. 1l Tables 3.5-19 and 3.5-20 provide sources to the RGW and RGW components and system design parameters. Assumptions and parameters used to determine annual gaseous ef. eent releases are presented in Table 3.5-21. Estimated gaseous and particulat. releases are presented in Tables 3.5-22 and 3.5-23. The release points for the RGW join in y a conrnon exhaust plenum which vents at General Service Building 519' level (approximately 65 feet above grade). For the purpose of calculating offsite concentrations, the release is assumed to be at ground level (see Subsection 6.1.3.2). The RGW has been designed such that the effluent meets the release require-ments of 10CFR20 and the dose design objectives specified in Appendix I of 10CFR50. Specifically, the calculated total quantity of radioactive gaseous release will not result in an annual external dose to any individual in un-restricted areas in excess of 5 millirem to the total body or 15 millirem to the skin. In addition, the calculated total quantity of radioactive partic"- late and/or radioactive iodine release to the atmosphere will not result in an 1 estimated annual dose exceeding 15 millirem to any organ. Dose estimates are provided in Section 5.2. 3.5.4 Solid Radwaste System The Radioactive Solid Waste System (RSW) is designed to process various liquid and solid radioactive wastes to the extent that they may be shipped off-site for disposal. The wastes handled by the RSW System include:
- 1. Dry, light weight, compactable items such as clothing, paper, glass-ware, etc.
- 2. Spent resin beads from various plant demineralizers.
- 3. Spent powdered resin from the Condensate . Polishing System (if radio-active).
- 4. Spent filter cartridges and filter backflush fluids containing resin fines, corrosion products, and particulates from various plant process systems.
l S. Highly concentrated liquid wastes: l l a) BRS Bleed Evaporator Concentrates b) RLW Evaporator Concentrates c) RLW Filter Backwash Water d) RUD Chemical Drain Tanks 3.5-6 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O
WNP-l/4 ER-OL A O 6. Dry, noncompactible wastes, HEPA filters, wood, steel, etc. Liquid wastes are solidified in either 50 or 100-cuft containers or 55-gallon drums by mixing with (or in the case of filter cartridges encapsulating in) a Portland cement / sodium silicate solidification agent. Resin beads and powder-ed resins are first dewatered and mixed with the concentrated wastes prior to solidification. Spent resin beads may be dewatered as an alternate to solidi- g fication. Solidified wastes containers may be stored in the RSW container room storage area to allow for decay prior to off-site disposal. Dry wastes that are to be compacted will be bulky but light. A standard in-dustrial ram device is used to compact the material in containers in order to save space in shipping. When a container of material is accumulated, it is placed under the compactor and the waste is compacted into 55-gallon steel drums. Subsequent wastes are compacted until the drum is full of solidly compacted material. The container is then capped, monitored, decontaminated if necessary, and held for subsequent off-site shipment. The radiation level is expected to be low enough to permit manual capping; nowever drums can be capped remotely if radiation levels are high. The option to use 00T approved cartons is also available. l1 Solid raotoactive wastes are stored in boxes, 55 gallon drums, 50-cuft and , 100-cuf t shipping containers in the shielded storage room on the 455' level of I the Radwaste Area and in the Radioactive Material Storage Area on the 479' level of the General Services Building. The containers can be stored for ap-proximately four months in the storage room for decay of radionuclides before A shipping assuming a solidification system processing rate of one 100-cuft con-tainer every 5 days. Storage for approximately 2 weeks is available at the design basis processing rate, and approximately 3 days storage is available if the system is operating at maximum throughput. These storage times assume that no shipments take place until the storage room is filled to capacity. Tables 3.5-24 and 3.5-25 provide additional information on inputs, activities, and expected annual output volumes of solid radwaste. 1 Table 3.5-26 provides RSW system component capacities. Table 3.5-27 lists the assumptions and parameters used to calculate RSW activity. More detailed in-formation is available in WNP-1/4 FSAR Section 11.4. 3.5.5 Process and Effluent Monitoring The Process and Effluent Monitcring Systems provide the means for continuously monitoring all paths by which significant amounts of radioactivity may be re-leased to the environment during normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences. The systems are designed in compliance with General Design Cri-teria 60, 63, and 64 of 10CFR50, Regulatory Guides 1.21 and 1.97 (Revision 2). The recommendations and guidelines of ANSI N13.10-1974, and ANSI N13.1-1969, have also been incorporated into the design. O V 3.5-7 Amendment 1 (Feo 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL The Process and Effluent Monitoring systems are divided into three main categories,1) the Process Radioactivity Monitoring and Sampling System (PRM),
- 2) the Effluent Gaseous Radioactivity Monitoring System (EGM), and 3) the EffluentLiquidRadioactivityMonitoringSystem(ELM).
The Process Radioactivity Monitoring System (PRM) is designed to monitor the gross radioactivity in a particular process stream, and inform the plant operator of the level of radioactivity and of any deviation from normally ex-pected levels. There are twelve monitors associated with the process streams of the radioactive waste systems, the reactor coolant systems, nuclear service water system and the component cooling water systems. The Effluent Gaseous Radioactivity Monitoring System (EGM) consists of twelve monitors designed to monitor the radioactivity levels in a particular gaseous effluent stream, and inform the control room operator of the level of radio-activity, and of any deviations from normally expected levels. The Effluent Liquid Radioactivity Monitoring System (ELM) consists of eight monitors designed to monitor the gross radioactivity levels in a particular effluent stream, and inform the control room operator of the level of radio-activity, and of any deviation from normally expected levels. Table 3.5-28 identifies all radioactive effluent release points and the asso-1 ciated monitors. The Process and Effluent Radiological Monitoring System is described in detail in Section 11.5 of WNP-1/4 FSAR. REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.5
- 1. Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR-GALE Code), NUREG-0017, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., April,1976.
- 2. A.J. Kennedy, Memorandum to J.H. Hicks, " Status Report for Crud Deposition Studies Program", Babcock and Wilcox, File 2A2, 2411, March 11,1976.
l 3. D.L. Uhl, et al, Oconee Radiochemistry Survey Program Semiannual Reports, LRC-9042, January-June, 1974, ppk-1 to k-3; LRC-9047, July-December, 1974, pp J-2 to J-4; LRC-9053, January-September, 1975, Appendix E; Babcock and Wilcox, Lynchburg, Virginia. l O 3.5-8 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
O O O WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5-1 l1 TOTAL CORE FISSION PRODUCT AND GAP ACTIVITY (C1) vs TIME - EQUILIPRIUM CYCLE 4 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 230 254 Isotope EFPD(a) EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD BR84 2.27+07(b) 2.27+07 2.27+07 2.27+07 2.27+07 2.27+07 2.27+07 2.27+07 2.27+07 2.27+07 8R85 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 KR83M 1.35+07 1.35+07 1.35+07 1.35+07 1.35+07 1.35+07 1.35+07 1.35+07 1.35+07 1.35+07 KR85M 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 3.16+07 KR85 5.28+05 5.58+05 5.93+05 6.27+05 6.62+05 6.96+05 7.30+05 7.63+05 7.86+05 8.12+05 KR87 5.74+07 5.74+07 5.74+07 5.74+07 5.74+07 5.74+07 5.74+07 5.74+07 5.74+07 5.74+07 KR88 8.06+07 8.06+07 8.06+07 8.06+07 8.06+07 8.06+07 8.06e07 8.06+07 8.06+07 8.06+07 R888 8.12+07 8.12+07 8.12+07 8.12+07 8.12+07 8.12+07 8.12+07 8.12+07 8.12+07 8.12+07 SR89 6.97+07 8.09+07 8.98+07 9.56+07 9.95+07 1.02+08 1.04+08 1.05+08 1.05+08 1.06+08 SR90 3.96+06 4.19+06 4.45+06 4.72+06 4.98+06 5.24+06 5.50+06 5.76+06 5.93+06 6.14+06 SR91 1.40 +08 1.40+08 1.40+08 1.40+08 1.40+08 1.40+08 1.40+08 1.40+08 1.40+08 1.40+08 SR92 1.38+08 1.38+08 1. 38+08 1.38+08 1.38+08 1.38+08 1.38+08 1.38+08 1.38+08 1.38+08 Y90 3.94+06 4.16+06 4.42+06 4.68+06 4.94+06 5.21+06 5.47+06 5.73+06 5.90+06 6.11+06 Y91 9.39+07 1.07+08 1.18+08 1.25+08 1.31+08 1.34+08 1.37+08 1.39+08 1.40+08 1.41+08 M099 1.22+08 1.90+08 1.91+08 1.91+08 1.91+08 1.91+08 1.91+08 1.91+08 1.91+08 1.91+08 RU106 2.18+07 2.38+07 2.59+07 2.80+07 2.99+07 3.17+07 3.34+07 3.51+07 3.61+07 3.73+07 XE131M 3.21+05 5.01+05 6.28+05 6.58+05 6.63+05 6.64+05 6.64+05 6.64+05 6.64 +05 6.64+05 XE133M 2.45+06 4.47+06 4.47+06 4.47+06 4.47+06 4.47+06 4.47+06 4.47+06 4.47+06 4.47+06 XE133 7.05+07 1.82+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 XE135M 4.74+07 4.74+07 4.74+07 4.74+07 4.74+07 4.74+07 4.74+07 4.74+07 4.74+07 4.74+07 XE135 2.67+07 2.67+07 2.67+07 2.67+07 2.67+07 2.67+07 2.67+07 2.67+07 2.67+07 2.67+07 XE138 1.73+08 1.73+08 1.73+08 1.73+09 1.73+08 1.73+08 1.73+08 1.73+08 1.73+08 1.73+08 1129 1.76+00 1.87+00 2.00+00 2.13+00 2.27+00 2.40+00 2.53+00 2.66+00 2.75+00 2.85+00 1131 4.80+07 1.05+08 1.11+08 1.12+08 1.12+08 1.12+08 1.12+08 1.U +08 1.12+08 1.22+08 1132 7.51+07 1.28+08 1.28+08 1.28+08 1.28+08 1.28+08 1.28+08 1.28+08 1.28+0S 1.id+08
> I133 1.79+08 1.87+08 1.87+08 1.87+08 1.87+08 1.87+08 1.87+08 1.87+08 1.87+08 1.87+08 U I134 2.38+08 2.38+08 2.38+08 2.38+08 2.38+08 2.38+08 2.38+08 2.38+03 2.38408 2.38+08 y 1135 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 o, CS134 1.32+06 1.42+06 1.54+06 1.67+06 1.81+06 1.95+06 2.10+06 2.25+06 2.36+06 2.48+06 3 CS136 5.59+05 1.13+06 1.28+06 1.32+0S 1.32+06 1.32+06 1.32+06 1.32+06 1. 32+06 1.32+0S 89 CS137 4.91+06 5.23+06 5.5P% 5.95+06 6.31+06 6.68+06 7.04+06 7.39+06 7.63+06 7.92+06 D 1.84+08 1.84+08 1.84+08 # CS138 S84+08 '.84+08 1.84+08 1.84+08 1.84+08 1.84+08 1.84+08 BA137M 4.59+06 4.89+06 5.23+06 5.b nuo 5.90+06 6.24+06 6.58+06 6.91+06 7.14+06 7.41+06 ** BA140 8.75+07 1.61+08 1.81+08 1.84+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 1.85+08 LA140 8.01+07 1.60+08 1.82+08 1.87+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 1.88+08 Q CE144 7.59+07 8.05+07 8.53+07 8.99+07 9.41+0/ 9.80+07 1.02+08 1.05+08 1.07+08 1.10+C8 h (a) EFPD = Effective Full Power Days l1 (b) 2.27+07 = 2.27 x 107
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5-2 l1 TOTAL CORE FUEL R00 GAP ACTIVITY (C1) vs TIME - EQUILIBRILM CYCLE 4 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 230 Isotope 254 EFFD(a) EFPD EFP0 EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFP0 BR84 8.11+02(b) 8.11+02 8.11+02 8.11+02 8.11+02 8.11+02 8.11+02 8.11+02 8.11+02 8.11+02 8R85 1.0762 1.07+02 1.07+02 1.07+02 1.07+02 1.07+02 1.07+02 1.07+02 1.07+02 1.0/+02 KR83M 1.06+04 1.06+04 1.06+04 1.06+04 1.06+04 1.06+04 1.06+04 1.06+04 1.06+04 1.06+04 KR85M 4.69+04 4.69+04 4.69+04 4.69+04 4.69+04 4.69+04 4.69+04 4.69+04 4.69+04 4.69+04 KR85 3.75+05 3.9 7+05 4.23+05 4.51+05 4.79+05 5.09+05 5.39+05 5.70+05 5.90+05 6.15+05 KR87 2.46+04 2.46+04 2.46+04 2.46+04 2.46+04 2.46+04 2.46+04 2.46+04 2.46+04 2.46+04 KR88 7.61+04 7.61+04 7.61+04 7.61+04 7.61+04 7.61+04 7.61+04 7.61+04 7.61+04 7.61+04 RB88 7.78+04 7.78+04 7.78+04 7.78+04 7.78+04 7.78+04 7.78+04 7.78+04 7.78+04 7.78+04 SR89 6.47+03 7.05+03 7.73+03 8.32+03 8.82+03 9.22+03 9.52+03 9.76+03 9.88+03 1.00+04 SR90 1.13+ 03 1.22+03 1.33+03 1.45+03 1.57+03 1.70+03 1.84+03 1.98+03 2.08+03 2.82+02 2.21+03 SR91 2.83+02 2.83+02 2.83+02 2.83+02 2.83+02 2.83+02 2.83+02 2.83+02 2.83+02 SR92 4.04+01 4.04+01 4.04+01 4.04+01 4.04+01 4.04+01 4.04+01 4.04+01 4.04+01 4.04+01 Y90 1.12+03 1.21+03 1.32+03 1.44+03 1.56+03 1.69+03 1.83+03 1.97+03 2.07403 2.19+03 Y91 1.21+03 1.E 3+03 1.38+03 1.48+03 1.57+03 1.65+03 1.72+03 1.78+03 1.81+03 1.84+03 M099 3.69+04 1.32+05 1.33+05 1.33+05 1.33+05 1.33+05 1.33+05 1.33+05 1.33+05 1.33+05 RU106 6.68+02 7.16+02 7.77+02 8.43+02 9.13+02 9.87+02 1.06+03 1.14+03 1.20^03 1.26+03 XE131M 2.41+04 3.85+04 5.64+04 6.35+04 6.54+04 6.58+04 6.59+04 6.59+04 6.59+04 6.59+04 XE133M 2.07+04 8.65+08 8.66+04 8.66+04 8.66+04 8.66+04 8.66+04 8.66+04 8.66+04 8.66+04 XE133 1.41+06 7.22+06 7.90+06 7.93+06 7.93+06 7.93+06 7.93+06 7.93+06 7.93+06 7.93+06 XE135M 1.16+04 1.16+04 1.16+04 1.16+04 1.16+04 1.16+04 1.16+04 1.16+04 1.16+04 1.16+0" XE135 1.71+05 1.72 65 1.72+05 1.72+05 1.72+05 1.72+05 1.72+05 1.72+05 1.72405 1.72+05 XE138 1.36+04 1.36+04 1.36+04 1.36+04 1.36+04 1.36+04 1.36+04 1.36+04 1.36+04 1.36+04 1129 4.96-01 5.35-01 082-01 6.32-01 6.85-01 7.40-01 7.98-01 8.59-01 9.01-01 9.53-01 1131 3.54+05 1.13+06 1.40+06 1.44+06 1.44+06 1.44+06 1.44+06 1.44+06 1.44+06 1.44+06 1132 2.30+04 6.96+04 7.03+04 7.03+04 7.03+04 7.03+04 7.03+04 7.03+04 7.03+04 7.03+04 1133 2.18+05 2.65+05 2.65+05 2.65+05 2.65+05 2.65+05 2.65+05 2.65+05 2.65+05 2.65+05 1134 1.46+04 1.4 6 +t>4 1.46+04 1.4 6+04 1.4 6+04 1.46+04 1.86+04 1.46+04 1.4 6+04 1.46+04 1135 8.51+04 8.51+04 8.51+04 8.51+04 8.51+04 8.51+04 8.',1 +04 8.51+04 8.51+04 8.51+04 > CS134 5.97+05 6.56+05 7.30+05 8.09+05 8.93+05 9.84+05 1.08+06 1.18+06 1.25+06 1.34+06 l CS136 8.19+03 1.72+04 2.40+04 2.64+04 2.73+04 2.73+04 2.73+04 2.73+04 2.73+04 2.73+04 g CS137 1.37+06 1.48+06 1.60+06 1.74+06 1.88+06 2.03+06 2.19+06 2.35+06 2.46+06
- n. 2.60+06 CS138 2.03+04 2.03+04 2.03+04 2.03+04 2.03+04 2.03+04 2.03+04 2.03+04 2.03+04 2.03+04 5 BA137M 1.28+06 1.38+06 1.50+06 1.63+06 1.76+06 1.90+06 2.04+06 2.20+06 2.30+06 2.43+06
@ 8A140 1.22+03 2.24<03 2.96+03 3.20+03 3.27+03 3.28+03 3.29t03 3.29+03 3.29+03 3.29+03 g LA140 1.23+03 2.20+03 2.99+03 3.25+03 3.33+03 3.35+03 3.35+03 3.35+03 3.35+03 CE144 2.33+03 3.35+03 2.46+03 2.63+03 2.78+03 2.95+03 3.13+03 3.31+03 3.49+03 3.61+03 3.75+03 e-. m (a) EFPD = Effective Full Power Days U l1 tr (b) 8.11+02 = 8.11 x 102 cn O O O
l WNP-1/4 ER-OL TA8LE 3.5-3 l1 AVERAGE FISSION PRODUCT FUEL INVENTORY INCLUDING GAP ACTIVITY OF SINGLE FUEL ASSEMBLY FOR VARIOUS DECAY TIMES Activity. Curies End of Isotope Cycle 3 Days 100 Hrs. 7 Days 14 Days 30 Days 1 Year 2 Years BR84 9.42+04(a) 1.37-36 2.12-52 4.19-91 1.6-186 0. O. O. BR85 1.31+05 0. O. O. O. O. O. O. KR83M 5.86+04 2.65-04 8.56-08 2.43-16 2.08-37 1.45-65 O. O. KR85M 1.31+05 1.57+00 1.96-02 4.27-07 1.38-18 7.46-45 0. O. KR85 5.14+03 5.14+03 5.14+03 5.13+03 5.13+03 5.13+03 4.82+03 4.52+03 KR87 2.31+05 1.81-12 4.3S-19 2.78-35 3.31-75 1.8-166 0. O. KR88 3.29+05 6.00-03 6.11-06 2.88-13 2.52-31 1.34-72 0. O. RB88 3.32+05 6.71-03 6.83-06 3.22-13 2.82-31 1.50-72 0. O. SR89 4.28+05 4.11+05 4.04+05 3.89+05 3.53+05 2.84+05 2.89+03 1.95+01 SR90 3.9 5+04 3.95+04 3.95+04 3.94+04 3.94+04 3.94+04 3.85+04 3.76+04 SR91 5.77+05 3.38+03 4.62+02 3.55+00 2.19-05 2.68-17 1.0-266 0. SR92 6.06+05 5.71-03 4.50-06 1.13-13 2.12-32 3.32-75 0. O. Y90 3.93+04 3.94+04 3.94+04 3.94+04 3.94+04 3.94+04 3.85+04 3.76+04 Y91 5.79+05 5.63+05 5.55+05 5.37+05 4.95+05 4.10+05 8.02+03 1.10+02 M099 9.27+05 4.40+05 3.30+05 1.b3+05 2.87+04 4.16-34 1.86-73 ImJ RU106 2.72+05 2. 71+05 2.70+05 2.68+05 2.65+05 5.41+02 2.57+05 1.37+05 6.68+ b XE131M 3.54+03 3.48+03 3.42+03 3.2 /.+03 2.64+03 1.3 6+03 5.56-06 2.73-XE133M 1.9 7+04 1.18+04 8.61+03 3.75+03 4.44+0:' 3.29+00 8.04-45 1.99-93 XE133 8.16+05 6.51+05 5.67+05 3.96+05 1.5 9+05 1.94+04 1.43-15 2.05-36 XE135M 2.35+05 4.80+01 2.69+00 2.34-03 6.64-11 3.75-28 0. O. XE135 1.34+05 9.97+03 1.32+03 8.19+00 2.64-05 7.28-18 7.8-281 0. XE138 8.19+05 1.05-87 1.2-123 1.4-211 0. O. O. O. 1129 1.99-02 1.99-02 1.99-02 2.00-02 2.00-02 2.00-02 2.02-02 2.02-02 1131 5.95+05 4.66+05 4.22+05 3.31+05 1.81+05 4.57+04 1.37-08 3.08-22 1132 6.11+C3 3.19+05 2.49+05 1.36+05 3.06+04 1.01+03 9.55-29 1.51-62 1133 8.22+05 7.88+04 3.15+04 3.32+03 1.30+01 4.07-05 2.3-120 6.7-246 1134 1.15+06 4.89-19 1.05-28 2.26-52 1.0-110 4.7-244 0. O. l 1135 9.08+05 5.30+02 2.98+01 2.58-02 7.34-10 4.14-27 0. O. CS134 2.07+04 2.07+04 2.07+04 2.06+04 2.05+04 2.02+04 1.48+04 1.06+04 CS136 9.40+03 8.01+03 7.53+03 6.48+03 4.46+03 1.90+03 3.33-05 1.18-13 CS137 5.55+04 5.45+04 5.45+04 5.45+04 5.44+04 5.44+04 5.33+04 5.20+04 l CS138 9.03+05 6.42-35 1.56-50 9.32-89 5.6-183 0. O. O. l BA137M 5.10+04 5.09+04 5.09+04 5.09+04 5.09+04 5.09+04 4.98+04 4.87+04 BA140 8.77+05 7.45+05 7.00+05 6.00+05 4.11+05 1.73+05 2.29-03 6.00-12 LA140 8.96+05 8.25+05 7.85+05 6.85+05 4.73+05 1.99+05 2.64-03 6.91-12 CE144 5.66+05 5.62+05 5.60+05 5.56+05 5.47+05 5.26+05 2.32+05 9.53+04 (a) 9.42+04 = 9.42 x 104 l O Amendment 1 (Feb 83) t
WNP-1/4 O ER-OL 1l TABLE 3.F-4 AVERAGE FISSION PRODUCT INVENTORY IN FUEL R00 GAP OF SINGLE FUEL ASSEMBLY FOR VARIOUS DECAY TIMES Activity. Curies End of Isotope Cycle 3 Days 100 Hrs. 7 Days 14 Days 30 Days 1 Year 2 Years 8R84 3.3 7+00 4.39-41 6.82-57 1.35-95 5.3-191 0. O. O. BR85 4.42-01(a) O. O. O. O. O. O. O. KR83M 4.62+01 3.94-08 1.27-11 3.61-20 3.08-41 2.15-89 0. O. KR85M 1.95+02 2.31-03 2.88-05 6.28-10 2.02-21 1.10-47 0. O. KRJ5 4.34+03 4.33+03 4.33+03 4.33+03 4.33+03 4.31+03 4.07+03 3.81+03 KR87 9.89+01 7.67-16 1.86-22 1.18-38 1.40-78 7.7-170 0. O. KR88 3.11+02 5.66-06 5.76-09 2.72-16 2.38-34 1.26-75 0. O. RB88 3.17+02 6.34-06 6.45-09 3.04-16 2.66-34 1.41-75 0. O. SR89 4.04+01 3.88+01 3.82+01 3.67+01 3.84+01 2.68+01 2.73-01 1.84-03 SR90 1.95+01 1.95+01 1.95+01 1.94+01 1.94+01 1.94+01 1.90+01 1.85+01 SR91 1.15+00 6.71-03 9.19-04 7.06-06 4.34-11 5.33-23 2.1-272 0. SR92 1.69-01 1.59-09 1.26-12 3.17-20 5.93-39 9.26-82 0. O. Y90 1.94+01 1.94+01 1.94+01 1.94+01 1.94+01 1.94+01 1.90+01 1.85+01 Y91 7.63+00 7.37 M 7.27+00 7.03+00 6.49+00 5.37+00 1.05-01 1.45-03 M099 6.45+02 3.06+02 2.30+02 1.13+02 2.00+01 3.76-01 2.89-37 1.30-76 BU106 1.04+01 1.04+01 1.04+01 1.03+01 1.02+01 9.87+00 5.25+00 2.63+00 XE131M 3.51+02 3.01+02 2.13+02 2.44+02 1.68+02 6.98+01 2.21-07 1.08-16 XE133M 3.81+02 1.57+02 1.11+02 4.66+01 5.45+00 4.04-02 9.87-47 2.44-95 XE133 3.49+04 2.37+04 2.04+04 1.41+04 5.62+03 6.85+02 5.06-17 7.23-38 XE135M 5.63+01 2.17-02 1.22-03 1.06-06 3.00-14 1.69-31 0. O. XE135 8.48+02 7.98+00 1.02+00 6.21-03 2.00-08 5.51-21 5.9-284 0. XE138 6.45+01 8.27-92 9.9-128 1.1-215 0. O. O. O. 1129 8.27-03 8.27-03 8.27-03 8.27-03 8.27-03 8.27-03 8.27-03 8.27-03 1131 7.6 7+03 5. 92+03 5.36+03 4.20+03 2.30+03 5.79+02 1.73-10 3.90-24 i I132 3.33+02 1.29+02 1.01+02 5.50+01 1.24+01 4.08-01 3.87-32 6.11-66 1133 1.17+03 1.08+02 4.33-01 4.56+00 1.78-02 5.60-08 3.2-123 9.2-249 1134 7.04+01 8.37-24 1.80-33 3.87-57 1.7-115 8.1-249 0. O. 1135 4.11+02 2.39-01 1.35-02 1.17-05 3.32-13 1.87-30 0. O. CS134 1.34+04 1.33+04 1.33+04 1.33+04 1.32+04 1.30+04 9.54+03 6.82+03 CS136 1.94+02 1.65+02 1.55+02 1.34+02 9.20+01 3.92+01 6.88-07 2.44-15 l CS*37 2.22+04 2.21+04 2.21+04 2.21+04 2.21+04 2.21+04 2.16+04 2.12+04 CS138 9.73+01 6.14-39 1.50-54 8.92-93 5.4-187 0. O. O. BA137M 2.07+04 2.07+04 2.07+04 2.07+04 2.07+04 2.07+04 2.02+04 1.98+04 8A140 1.55+01 1.32+01 1.24+01 1.06+01 7.25+00 3.05+00 4.05-08 1.06-16 LA140 1.58+01 1.46+01 1.39+01 1.21+01 8.34+00 3.51+00 4.66-08 1.22-16 CE144 2.43+01 2.41+01 2.41+01 2.39+01 2.35+01 2.26+01 9.98+00 4.10+00 (a) 4.42-01 = 4.42 x 10-1 O Amendment 1 (Feb 83).
r WNP-1/4 ER-OL f'T
\ TABLE 3.5-5 l1 PARAMETERS USED TO CALCULATE IN-PLANT DESIGN BASIS FISSION PRODUCT INVENTORIES FOR THE PRIMARY & SECONDARY COOLANT Core thermal power, MWt 3800 Cladding defects as percentage of rated core thermal power 0.25 being generated by defective rods (In-Plant Design Basis):
Reactor coolant mass circulating during operation, g 2.31(+08)(a) Reactor coolant average density, g/cc 0.690 Equilibrium core cycle time, EFPD 254 Equilibrium core cycle thermal flux, n/cm2-s 6.16(+13) l1 Average purification flow rate at 70F, 14.7 psia, gpm 42.5 Average processing rate through purification deminera-lizers and bleed processing system Table 3.5-6 l1 Escape Rate Coefficients Elements Coefficients, s-l Xe, Kr 6.5(-8) Br, Rb, I, Cs 1.3(-8) Mo 2.0(-9) Sr, Ba 1.0(-11) Te 1.0(-9) All others 1.6(-12) Mixed-bed demineralizer removal efficiency, % L Xe, Kr 0 Rb, Cs 50 All others 90 Cation bed demineralizer removal efficiency, % Xe, Kr 0 ! Cs, Rb 90 l All others 90 Removal efficiency of RC bleed for all isotopes, % 0 - 232 days 99.9 (q 232 - 254 days 0.0 J 8 (a) 2.31(+08) = 2.31 x 10 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l
I WNP-1/4 ER-OL 1l TABLE 3.5-6 AVERAGE PROCESSING RATE (a) THROUGH PURIFICATION DEMINERALIZERS AND BLEED PROCESSING SYSTEM Time Interval For Base-Lo'ded Operation Load-Follow Operation Equilibrium Cycle Days Purification Bleed Purification Bleed 0-4 1.157-05(b) 1.032-06 1.157-05 2.029-06 4-25 1.157-05 3.383-08 1.157-05 2.200-06 25-51 1.157-05 4.129-08 1.157-05 2.369-06 51-76 1.157-05 4.731-08 1.157-05 2.603-06 76-102 1.157-05 5.073-08 1.157-05 2.899-06 102-127 1.157-05 6.872-08 1.157-05 3.310-06 127-tS2 1.157-05 6.983-08 1.183-05 3.882-06 152 178 1.157-05 1.045-07 1.270-05 4.968-06 178-203 1.157-05 1.424-07 1.418-05 6.778-06 203-229 1.157-05 1.987-07 1.832-05 1.162-05 229-232 1.157-05 5.155-07 1.932-05 1.276-05 232-254 1.157-05 0 1.15/-05 0 (a) Expressed in terms of fraction of coolant (in the RCS) processed per second (b) 1.157-05 = 1.157 x 10-5 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
O O O WNP-1/4 ER-OL TA8LE 3.5-7 l1 I IN-PLANT DESIGh FISSION PRODUCT ACTIVITY (4ci/ge) IN REACTOR COOLANT VS TIME FOR BASE-LOADED i OPERATION WITH 0.251 FAILED FUEL - EQUILIBRIUM CYCLE ! 4 25 51 76 102 127 152 178 203 229 232 254 Irotope EFP0 EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFP0 EFP0 EFPD EFPD EFP0 EFPD BR84 8.52-03(a) 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 BR85 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 , KR83M 1.11-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 1.12-01 ! KR85M 4.96-01 5.07-01 5.07-01 5.07-01 5.07-01 5.06-01 5.06-01 5.06-01 5.06-01 5.05-01 5.01-01 5.07-01 , KRSS 6.84-01 8.39-01 1.01+00 '1.16+00 1.30+00 1.38+00 1.45+00 1.42+00 1.30+00' 1.08+00 9.82-01 1.25+00
- KR87 2.64-01 2.66-01 2.66-01 2.66-01 2.66-01 2.66-01 2.66-01 2.66-01 2.66-01 2.66-01 2.65-01 2.66-01 4 KR88 8.11-01 8.22-01 8.22-01 8.22-01 8.22-01 8.22-01 8.22-01 8.22-01 8.21-01 8.21-01 8.17-01 8.23-01 j RB88 8.20-01 8.33-01 8.32-01 8.32-01 8.32-01 8.32-01 8.32-01 8.32-01 8.31-01 8.31-01 8.27-01 8.33-01 1.25-03 1.39-03 1.47-03 1.53-03 1.58-03
^ SR89 1.61-03 1.63-03 1.64-03 1.65-03 1.66-03 1.65-03 1.67-03 SR90 4.01-05 4.35-05 4.59-05 4.81-05 5.05-05 5.27-05 5.50-05 5.73-05 5.95-05 6.18-05 6.19-05 6.42-05 SR91 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 2.00-03 ' SR92 3.80-04 3.81-04 3.81-04 3.81-04 3.81-04 3.81-04 3.81-04 3.81-04 3.81-04 3.81-04 3.80-04 3.81-04 Y90 1.33-05 1.50-05 1.58-05 1.66-05 1.74-04 1.82-05 1.90-05 1.98-05 2.05-05 2.13-05 2.13-05 2.22-05 Y91 1.71-04 1.96-04 2.13-04 2.25-04 2.34-05 2.41-04 2.45-04 2.49-04 2.52-04 2.54-04 2.53-04 2.56-04 M099 1.66-01 3.09-01 3.10-01 3.10-01 3.10-01 3.10-01 3.10-01 3.10-01 3.09-01 3.09-01 3.09-01 3.10-01 RU106 3.47-05 3.86-05 4.18-05 4.46-05 4.75-05 5.01-05 5.26-05 5.51-05 5.73-05 5.95-05 5.96-05 6.17-05 i XE131M 1.56-01 3.07-01 4.71-01 5.48-01 5.74-01 5.70-01 5.69-01 5.48-01 5.24-01 4.91-01 4.55-01 5.80-01 XE133M 1.94-01 8.86-01 8.89-01 8.88-01 8.87-01 8.82-01 8.82-01 8.74-01 8.65-01 8.52-01 8.09-01 8.99-01 XE133 1.19+01 7.00+01 8.13+01 8.16+01 8.14+01- 8.05+01. 8.04+01 7.88+01 7.70+01 7.44+01 6.97+01 8.33+01
, XE135M 1.01-0! 1.04-01 1,04-01 1.04-01 1.04-01 1.04-01 1.04-01 1.04-01 1.04-01 1.04-01 1.04-01 1.04-01 XE135 1.53+00 1.61+00 . 61+00 1.61+00 1.61+00 1.61+00 1.61+00 1.61+00 1.60+00 1.60+00 1.58+00 1.62+00 XE138 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1129 1.67-08 1.81-08 1.90-08 2.00-08 2.10-08 2.19-08 2.28-08 2.37-08 2.45-08 2.53-08 2.54-08 2.62-08 1131 5.08-01 1.22+00 1.34+00 1.35+00 1.36+00 1.36+00 1.36+00 1.36+00 1.36+00 1.35+00 1.35+00 1.36+00 1132 1.54-01 2.82-01 2.84-01 2.84-01 2.84-01 2.84-01 2.84-01 2.83-01 2.83-01 2.83-01 2.83-01 2.84-01 1133 1.23+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1.34+00 1.34+00
- p 1134 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1135 6.73-01 6.75-01 6.75-01 6.75-01 6.75-01 6.75-01 6.75-01 6.75-01 6.75-01 6.75-01 6.74-01 6.75-01 CS134 1.60-02 2.06-02 2.19-02 2.31-02 2.45-02 2.58-02 2.73-02 2.86-02 3.00-02 3.13-02 3.08-02 3.33-02 g CS136 9.16-03 2.26-02 2.69-02 2.80-02 2.82-02 2.83-02 2.83-02 2.82-02 2.81-02 2.80-02 2.75-02 2.84-02 CS137 6.98-02 8.95-02 9.44-02 9.90-02 1.04-01 1.08-01 1.12-01 1.16-01 1.20-01 1.23-01 1.21-01 1.29-01 CS138 2.15-01 2.16-01 2.16-01 2.16-01 2.16-01 2.16-01 2.16-01 2.16-01 2.16-01 2.16-01 2.15-01 2.16-01 BA137M 6.51-02 8.35-02 8.81-01 9.24-02 9.67-02 1.01-01 1.05-01 1.08-01 1.12-01 1.15-01 1.13-01 1.20-01
- 8A140 9.77-04 1.69-03 1.94-03 2.00-03 2.01-03 2.01-03 2.02-03 2.01-03 2.01-03 2.01-03 2.01-03 2.02-03
.-. LA140 3.69-04 6.99-04 8.12-03 8.39-04 8.46-04 8.47-04 8.48-04 8.47-04 8.47-04 8.46-04 8.43-04 8.49-04 CE144 1.21-04 1.31-04 1.39-04 1.45-04 1.51-04 1.57-04 1.62-04 1.67-04 1.72-04 1.77 04 1.77.04 1.81-04 n
y (a) 8.52-03 = 8.52 x 10-3 tr
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5-8 l1 IN-PLANT DESIGN FISSION PRODUCT ACTIVITY (pC1/ge) IN REACTOR COOLANT VS TIME FOR LOAD FOLLOW OPERATION WITH 0.251 FAILED FUEL - EQUILIBRIUM CYCLE 4 25 51 76 102 127 152 178 203 229 232 254 Isotope EFPD EFPD EFPO EfPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD EFPD BR84 8.52-03(a) 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.52-03 8.51-03 8.51-03 8.51-03 8.49-03 8.45-03 8.36-03 8.34-03 8.52-03 BR85 1.15-03 1.15-03 1 3 5-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 1.15-03 KR83M 1.10-01 1.10-01 1.i0-01 1.09-01 1.09-01 1.09-01 1.08-01 1.07-01 1.05-01 9.94-02 9.83-02 1.12-01 KR85M 4.85-01 4.83-01 4.81-01 4.79-01 4.76-01 4.72-01 4.66-01 4.56-01 4.39-01 4.01-01 3.93-01 5.07-01 KR85 1.34-01 5.34-02 5.06-02 4.79-02 4.45-02 4.00-02 3.49-02 2.78-02 2.07-02 1.23-02 1.12-01 2.83-01 KR87 2.62-01 2.62-01 2.62-01 2.61-01 2.61-01 2.60-01 2.59-01 2.58-02 2.55-01 2.47-01 2.45-01 2.66-01 KR88 7.99-01 7.97-01 7.95-01 7.93-01 7.90-01 7.85-01 7.79-01 7.67-01 7.49-01 7.04-01 6.94-01 8.23-01 R888 8.08-01 8.06-01 8.04-01 8.02-01 7.93-01 7.94-01 7.87-01 7.74-01 7.54-01 7.05-01 6.95-01 8.33-01 SR89 1.23-03 1.36-03 1.44-03 1.50-03 1.53-03 1.56-03 1.54-03 1.44-03 1,28-03 9.82-04 9.29-04 1.67-03 SR90 3.98-05 4.26-04 4.49-05 4.70-05 4.91-05 5.11-05 5.20-05 5.01-05 4.62-05 3.66-05 3.48-05 6.42-05 SR91 1.99-03 1.99-03 1.99-03 1.99-03 1.98-03 1.98-03 1.96-03 1.91-03 1.82-03 1.62-03 1.57-03 2.00-03 SR92 3.80-04 3.80-04 3.80-04 3.79-04 3.79-04 3.79-04 3.78-04 3.74-04 3.67-04 3.50-04 3.46-04 3.81-04 Y90 1.32-05 1.45-05 1.53-05 1.60-05 1.67-05 1.74-05 1.75-05 1.63-05 1.44-05 1.02-05 9.53-06 2.22-05 Y91 1.70-04 1.92-04 2.08-04 2.19-04 2.28-04 2.33-04 2.32-04 2.17-04 1.94-04 1.48-04 1.40-04 2.56-0; M099 1.65-01 3.04-01 3.04-01 3.04-01 3.03-01 3.02-01 2.96-01 2.78-01 2.52-01 2.01-01 1.91-01 3.10-01 RU106 3.44-05 3.78-05 4.08-05 4.36-05 4.62-05 4.86-05 4.97-05 4.82-05 4.45-05 3.53-05 3.35-05 6.17-05 XE131M 1.05-01 9.83-02 1.27-01 1.27-01 1.19-01 1.07-01 9.35-02 7.54-02 5.71-02 3.45-02 3.17-02 4.64-01 XE133M 1.7?-01 5.54-01 5.39-01 5.19-01 4.95-01 4.65-01 4.29-01 3.74-01 3.08-01 2.09-01 1.94-01 8.99-01 XEl?3 9.78+00 3.23+01 3.27+01 3.09+01 2.88+01 2.64+01 2.36+01 1.96+01 1.53+01 9.63+00 8.88+00 7.99+01 XE13SM 1.03-01 1.03-01 1.03-01 1.03-01 1.03-01 1.03-01 1.02-01 1.01-0i 9.85-02 9.30-02 9.19-02 1.04-01 XE135 1-47+00 1.46+00 1.45+00 1.43+00 1.41+00 1.39+00 1.35+00 1.29+L 1.18+00 9.71-01 9.30-01 1.62+00 XE138 1.47-01 IJ 7-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.47-01 1.46-01 1.46-01 1.46-01 1.46-01 1.45-01 1.45-01 1.47-01 1129 1.65-03 1,/7-08 1.86-08 1.95-08 2.04-08 2.12-08 2.15-08 2.07-08 1.90-08 1.50-08 1.42-08 2.62 08 1831 5.05-01 1.20+00 1.32+00 1.33+00 1.32+00 1.32+00 1.29+00 1.20400 1.07+00 8.31-01 7.88-01 1.36+00 1132 1.54-01 2.80-01 2.81-01 2.81-01 2.81-01 2.80-01 2.78-01 2.70-01 2.58-01 2.32-01 2.27-01 2.84-01
> 1133 1.22+00 1.33+00 1.33+00 1.32+00 1.32+C0 1.32+00 1.30+00 1.25400 1.16+00 9.79-01 9.44-01 1.34+00 3 1134 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.51-01 1.50-01 1.50-01 1.50-01 1.49-01 1.46-01 1.45-01 1.51-01
$ I135 6.71-01 6.71-01 6.71-01 6.71-01 6.70-01 6.69-01 6.65-01 6.50-01 6.27-01 5.70-01 5.N-01 6.75-01
- n. CS134 f.51-02 1.74-02 1.82-02 1.90-02 1.97-02 2.02-02 2.01-02 1.89-02 1.67-Oc 1.23-02 1.15-02 3.33-02 3 CS136 8.72-03 1.94-02 2.28-02 2.33-02 2.31-02 2.26-02 2.15-02 1.93-02 L64-02 1.17-02 1.09-02 2.84-02 4 CS137 6.60-02 7.55-02 7.87-02 8.12-02 8.33-02 8.45-02 8.32-02 7.68-02 6.70-02 4.85-02 4.55-02 1.29-01
% CS138 2.15-01 2.15-01 2.15-01 2.14-01 2.14-01 2.14-01 2.14-01 2.13-01 2.12-01 2.08-01 2.08-01 2.16-01 8A137M 6.15-02 7.04-02 7.34-02 7.58-02 7.77-02 7.88-02 7.76-02 7.16-02 6,24-02 4.52-02 4.23-02 1.20-01 M BA140 9.69-04 1.66-03 1.90-03 1.95-03 1.96-03 1.96-03 1.91-03 1.77-03 1.58-03 1.22-03 1.15-03 2.02-03 LA140 3.65-04 6.79-04 7.87-04 8.11-04 8.15-04 8.12-04 7.02-04 5.94-04 4.05-04 3.75-04 8.49-04 Q CE144 1.20-04 1.29-04 1.36-04 1.42-04 1.47-04 1.52-04 1.47-04 1.34-04 1.05-04 9.93-05 1.81-04 h (a) 8.52 - 03 x 8.52 x 10-3 co O O O
l WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5-9 l1 TRITIUM PROD :;T*0N Tritium Source Tritium Activity per Cycle, Ci Initial Subsequent Normal Operation 457EFPD 254EFPD Ternary Fission 4.48+02(a)(e) 9.21+02(b) l1 Boron Activation 1.25+03 5.21+02 l Lithium Activation 2.78+02 1.47+02 Total 1.98+03 1.59+03 l t Inplant Design Operation Ternary Fission 7.84+02(c) 1.11+03(d) l1 Baron Activation 1.25+03 5.21+02 Lithium Activation 2.78+02 1.47+02 Total 2.31+03 1.78+03 (a) 1.2% of the total ternary fission produced tritium (D=0.012), i.e., 1.1% diffusion through the cladding and 0.1% from defective fuel clad. l (b) 4.3% of the total ternary fission produced tritium (0=0.043), i.e., 4.2% diffusion through the cladding and 0.1% defective fuel clad. (c) 2.1% of the total ternary fission produced tritium (D=0.021), i.e., 1.1% diffusion through the cladding and 1.0% from defective fuel clad. (d) 5.2% of the total ternary fission produced tritium (D=0.052), i.e., 4.2% diffusion through the cladding and 1.0%'from defective fuel clad. (e) 4.48+02 = 4.48x102 l lO Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5-10 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY COOLANT ACTIVI17 (gCi/gm)- EXPECTED BASIS (0.12% FAILED FUEL) Isotope Primary Coolant Activity Secondary Coolant Activity Kr83M 2.4E-02 6.6E-09 Kr85M 1.3E-01 3.5E-08 Kr85 1.9E-01 5.3E-08 Kr87 6.8E-02 1.8E-08 Kr88 2.3E-01 6.3E-08 Kr89 5.7E-03 1.6E-09 Xel31M 1.3E-01 3.6E-08 Xe133M 2.5E -01 7.1E-08 Xe133 2.1E+01 5.8E-06 Xe135M 1. 5E-02 4.1E-09 Xel35 4.0E-01 1.1E-07 Xe137 1.0E-02 2.9E-09 Xe138 5.0E-02 1.4E-08 Br83 5.9E-03 2.8E-09 Br84 3.0E-03 1.4E-09 Br85 3.4E-04 1.6E-10 I 130 3.1E-03 1.9E-09 I 131 I 132 I 133 5.lE-01 1.2E-01 6.0E-01 2.5E-07 5.8E-08 2.8E-07 h I 134 5.5E-02 2.6E-08 I 135 2.6E-01 1.2E-07 Rb86 1.5E-04 1.3E-10 Rb88 2.3E-01 2.3E-07 Sr89 6.8E-04 3.9E-10 Sr90 1.9E-05 9.7E-12 Sr91 9.1E-04 4.2E-10 Y 90 2.1E-06 1.1E-12 Y 91M 4.2E-04 2.3E-10 Y 91 1.2E-04 5.8E-11 Y 93 4.9E-05 2.8E-11 Zr95 1.2E-04 5.8E-11 Nb95 9.6E-05 3.8E-11 Mo99 1.5E-01 7.0E-07 Tc99M 6.4E-02 2.7E-07 Rul03 8.7E-05 3.9E-11 Rul06 1.9E-05 9.7E-12 Rhl03M 5.3E -05 2.4E-11 Rh106 1.lE-05 5.7E-12 O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
f . WNP-1/4 ER-OL '. () TABLE 3.5-10(Contd.) i s Isotope Primary Coolant Activity Secondary Coolant Activity , ,
., g' Te125M 5.6E-05 1.9E-11
Tel27M 5.4E-04 < 1.9E-10 , S Te127 1.2E-03 ' 5.6E 'O l Te129M 2.7E-03 / 1.3E-09 Tel29 1.9E-03 9.5E-10 Tel31M 4.1E-03 8.lE-10 Te131 1.3E-03 5.8E-10
, Tel32 4.8E-02 1.8E-08 ~
Csl34 4.6E-02 3.7E-08 1 , Csl36 2.3E-02 1.8E-08 Cs137 3.3E-02 2.8E-08 - Bal37M 1.8E-02 9.1E-09 ' Bal40 4.2E-04 1. 9E-10 i Lal40 2.5E-04 1.2E-10 Cel41 1.3E-04 5.8E-11 ' Ce143 6.6E-05 3.3E-ll Cel44 6.4E-05 3.9E-ll Prl43 9.5E-05 3.8E-11 s ' Prl44 3.8E-05 2.3E-11 Np239 2.1E-03 1.0E-09 \s ( Cr51 3.6E-03 1.7E-09 Mn54 6.0E-04 3.9E-10 4 , Fe55 3.lE-03 1.6E-09 Fe59 1.9E-03 9.6E-10 CoS8 3.1E-02 1.5E-08 j Co60 3.9E-03 1.7E-09 . , N 16 4.0E+01 . 1.0E-06 H3 1.0E-00 1.0E-03 Di r l l l l l I l \ l Amendment 1 (Fe? 83)
.._s __ . - , , . , -
t WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5-11 l1 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY C00LANT' CORROSION PRODUCT ACTIVITIES (uCi/gm)- 1 DESIGN BASIS (0.25% FAILED FUEO s , Secondary Coolant
.( s Steam
, Generator Isotope Primary Coolant Steam 'Feedwater
, Cr-51 5.2-03(a) 3.52-09 9.25-10 Mn-54 5.8-04 3.93-10 1.03-10 s Mn-56 1.7-02 1.15-08 3.02-09 I Fe-55 3.0-03 1.20-09 5.32-10 Fe-59 5.8-04 3.'93-10 1.03-10 Co-58 3.0-02 2.03-03 5.31-09 Co-60 4.0-03 2.71-09 7.09-10 Zr-95 5.0-04 3.38-10 8.83-11 g (a) 5.2-03 = 5.2 x 10-3 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
1 I l WNP-l/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5-12 l1 NITR0 GEN-16 ACTIVITY IN REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM - DESIGN BASIS l1 Location Activity,gCi/gm Reactor Vessel Outlet 292 OTSG Inlet 255 OTSG Outlet 172 Reactor Vessel Inlet 152 O l O , Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 1 ER-OL l 1l TABLE 3.5-13 h PARAMETERS USED TO CALCULATE INPLANT DESIGN SECONDARY COOLANT SOURCE TERMS Reactor thermal core power, MWt 3800 Primary to secondary leak rate, Ib/ day 100 Total steam flow rate, Ib/hr 1.67E+7 Fraction of steam generator feedwater 0.65 processed through condensate demineralizer Condensate demineralizer decontamination factors Rb and Cs 2 Noble gases 1 All others 10 Main condenser decontamination factors Noble gases 0 All others 1 l l l Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5-14 l1 SECONDARY COOLANT SYSTEM ACTIVITY (gCi/gm) - E D_E_ SIGN BASIS (0.25% FAILED FUEL) l1 Steam Generator Isotope Steam Feedwater Br 84 5.76-9 1.51-9(a) Br 85 7.78-10 2.04-10 Kr 83m 7.09-8 1.51-8 Kr 85m 3.21-7 6.81-8 Kr 85 7.92-7 1.68-7 Kr 87 1.68-7 3.58-8 Kr 88 5.21-7 1.10-7 Rb 88 8.47-7 4.32-7 Sr 89 1.13-9 2.96-10 Sr 90 4.34-11 1.14-1.1 Sr 91 1.35-9 3.54-10 Sr 92 2.58-10 6.74-11 Y 90 1.50-11 3.93-12 Y 91 1.73-10 4.53-11 Mo 99 2.10-7 5.49-8 Ru 106 4.17-11 1.09-11 Xe 131m 3.67-7 7.80-8 ( / Xe 133m 5.69-7 1.21-7 Xe 133 5.28-5 1.12-5 Xe 135n. 6.59-8 1.40-8 Xe 135 1.03-6 2.18-7 Xe 138 9.31-8 1.98-8 I 129 1.77-14 4.64-15 I 131 9.19-7 2.41-7 I 132 1.92-7 5.03-8 I 133 9.06-7 2.37-7 I 134 1.02-7 2.67-8 I 135 4.56-7 1.19-7 Cs 134 3.39-8 1.73-8 Cs 136 2.89-8 1.47-8 Cs 137 1.31-7 6.68-8 Cs 138 2.20-7 1.12-7 Ba 137m 8.11-8 2.12-8 Ba 140 1.37-9 3.58-10 La 140 5.74-10 1.50-lP Ce 144 1.22-10 3.20-11 (a) 1.51-9 = 1.51 x 10-9 0 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l L l
l , WNP-1/4 ER-OL I TA8LE 3.5-15 4LW COMPONENT DE5fGN PAA4(TERS Collection fant A Nunner 1 Type Vertical Volume, gal. 2.400 Design pressure Atmospheric Design temperature. OF 200 Material of Construction SA 304 5.5. Special character'stics Heat trued $parged Collection Tant 8 Nunner 1 Type Vertical 1l Volume, gal. 12.230 Des 1gn pressure Atmospheric l Design temperature. OF 200 I 1 Material of Construction SA 304 $.$. , Special characteristics Sparged Collection fant C Nuaner 1 Type Vertical Volume gal. 35.000 Design pressure Atmospheric Design temerature. OF 200 Material of Construction SA 304 5.5. Special characteristics Sparged 8stch Feed Tanks Numhr 2 Type Vertical Vol'me, gal. 4.000 Design pressure Atmosphe=1c Design temerature. OF 200 Material of construction SA 304 5.5. Special characteristics Sparged Holduo Twitt Nuaeor 4 Type Vertical values, gal. 7.000 DM ign pressure Atmo'.pheric Oesign temocrature. OF 200 l Material of Construction SA 304 S.S. Special characteristics Soarged Liquid Waste Sackflush Tank (or Pfitee 84ckflush Tank) I mueer 1 Type Vertical Volume. gal. 560 Design pressure, psig 65 l Design temperature. OF 200 l I Material of Construction SA 304 $.S. Special characteristics Sparged Collection fant A Output Pump (' A' Ptses) mmoer 1 Type Centrifugal Flow rate, goe 9 125' 75 , Design pressure, psig 150 Design temerature. OF 200 Material of Construction SA 316 S.S.
'8' Pump Nuneer 1 l Type Centrifugal Flos rate, gpa 9 150' 200 j Design pressure, psig 150 Design tesserature. OF 200 Material of Construction SA 316 S.S.
Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
Wup.1/4 EA-OL TABLE 3.5-15 (Contd.) l1 RLW COMP 0NENT DE5fGN PAR AETERS O i
'C' Puw Nummer 1 Type Centrifugal Flow rate, gom 9150' 200 Design pressure, psig 150 Design temperature. 0F 200 Material of Construction SA 316 5.5. .
Filter Feed Punos Number 2 Type Centrifugal Flow rate, gon 9 160' 90 Design pressure, psig 150 Design temperature. OF 200 Material of Construction SA 316 5.5. Filter 84ckflush Tank Pues Numer 1 Type Centrifugal Flow rate, gem 9125' 75 Design pressure, psig 150 Design tag erature, oF 200 Material of Construction SA 316 5.5. Holduo Tank Punos Numer 2 Type Centrifugal Flow rate, gem 9150' 200 Design pressure, psig 150 Design temperature, V 200 Material of Construction SA 316 5.5. Forced Circulation Evaporators Nummer 2 . Type Forced Circulation Flow rate, gpa 10 Design pressure, psi 50 (Vapor Body) Design temperature, gF 250 (Vapor Body) Material of Construction Incoloy 825(VaporBody) Special Characteristics Nlti-component subsystee F11 tees Numer 2 Type 8ackflushaele Flow rate, gpm 9 50 paid 10 Design pressure, psig 375 Design temmerature, oF 110 Material of Construction SA 304 5.5. Dominere11rers l Number 4 Type Mixed 8ed Flow rate, gem 10 Design pressure, psig 150 Design temerature W 110 Material of Construction SA 304 5.5. Special Characteristics Monregenerable Domineraliter Filters Numeer 4 Type Cartridge Flow rate, gpa 10 O Design pressure, psig Design temperature, OF Material of Construction 150 110 SA 304 5.5. Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-0L 1l. TABLE 3.5-16 h RADI0 ACTIVE LIQUID WASTE SYSTEM INPUTS Collection Flow Rate 1l Source Tank (gpd) Activity (a) Containment Sumps Waste Collection Tank 'B' (WCT'B') 40 1 Containment Equipment WCT'B' 15 1 Drains Evaporator Flush Water WCT'B' 60 0.5 GSB Sumps WCT'C' 900 0.03 Equipment Decontamination Decon 60 0.3
& Ultrasonic Cleaning Drain Tank (DCNT)
Demineralizer and Demin. Flush 70 0.1 Filter Drains Tank (DFT) 1l Deborating Demineralizer DFT 150 0.08(b) Regeneration Lab Drains DFT 60 0.1 Laundry, Shower & Laundry and Hot Shower 450 NUREG 0017 Sinks Drain Tank (LST) Table 2-20 1l Reactor Coolant Drain WCT'A' 15(c) Tank & Forced Circu-lation evaporator Concentrate (a) Activity expressed as fraction of Reactor Coolant Activity (b) Excluding Iodine (c) WCT' A' content is expected to be p'rocessed through RSW system. O ! Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
--______________-____-___________-_I
WNP-1/4 ER-0L TABLE 3.5-17 l1 ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETERS USED TO DETERMINE ANNUAL LIQUID EFFLUENT RELEASES Plant Specific Data Power Level 3800 MWt Capacity Factor 80% Failed Fuel Fraction Equivalent to 0.12% (per NUREG 0017) Process Parameters Primary Coolant Mass 540,000 lbs. Secondary Coolant Mass 1,000,000 lbs. Primary to Secondary Leakrate 100 lbs/ day Mass of Steam per Steam Generator 10,000 lbs Mass of Liquid per Steam Generator 100,000 lbs Number of Steam Generators per unit 2 Steam Flow at Rated Power 1.67 x 107 lbs/hr Primary Coolant Letdown Rate 50 gpm . Letdown Cation Demineralizer Flow 12.0 gpm Radwaste Dilution Flow 3,230 gpm O. Condensate Demineralizer Flow Fraction Fission Product Carry over
.65 100%
Halogen Carry Over 100% Radwaste Parameters Shim Bleed , Flow Rate 630 gpd [ PCA Fraction 1.00 l Discharge Fraction 18% Collection Time 139 days Processing Time 3.04 days Equipment Drains Flow Rate 115 gpd PCA Fraction .739 Discharge Fraction 100% Collection Time 41.7 days Processing Time 0.33 days Clean Waste Flow Rate 960 gpd PCA Fraction .047 Discharge Fraction 100% Collection Time 14.6 days Processing Time 0.97 days i Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
l WNP-1/4 i ER-OL 1l TABLE 3.5-17 (Contd.) i Radwaste parameters (contd.) Dirty Waste Flow Rate 280 gpd PCA Fraction .089 Discharge Fraction 100% Collection Time 21.4 days Processing Time 0.42 days Radwaste System Component DF's Decontamination Factors
- Component J, Cs, Rb Others Filter 1 1 1 Evaporator 103 104 104 Mixed Bed Demineralizer 102 2 102 Boron Recovery System Component DF's Decontamination Factors
- Ccmponent J_ Cs, Rb Others Filter 1 1 1 Evaporator 102 103 103 Mixed Bed Demineralizer 10 2 10 0F's For Effluent Streams Decontamination Factors
- Stream J. Cs, Rb Others Shim Bleed 105 8x103 106 Equipment Orains 105 2x104 106 Clean Waste 105 2x104 106 Dirty Waste 105 2x104 106
- Note that a second mixed bed demineralizer in series can be employed to provide an additional DF of up to 10.
O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
W= lEE 555 ~ .-~ We S.g 444~. gyggg,q999 4~ ygg 9 4~..o. 9997999999999~ ...~.4~9999999n..,4n. 9999 99 ~ y (, , gyggggregyggggwwwgggggwwggggy q ger ,**,,,n
--~--..--
, .s s, m~*n-,.,-,*
~--~ ~~-.~~---.~--.--.~.. ,.s's,*,s.no-
=
~
,n w
a - p
= W 2 h 2 c3 9445i$$44 444$9*"4YYi4044$9444YII444444 gl-E2 W888Wa*88 888888888W888*888888888888888 -
-g g AddddAda: AAAdAdad AJAAdAdAddAAdddAAAJA 8
- c
~ ,
l 5 ~ii34499~ W**
$999YSIiii395535Iii494IIII999 I E
"3
$2 mu u-~---~--
**w***=********ww******
," " * * , ,* n. " ~~ , , , .,* " * * ..--.
~-.---.~. - ~- - ~ --.
- g * *.i
- w ,m 4 W3 8
E 282 Sg 8 g23*~ e* g5Hial2lisi g2 didddddds f l~"~~issasill:aill[Rgg*ggSg2isi ill aissiassis !& adidadddddddddddddddddddddddd
=
* ~ o e -
-a segg :s* g e. x Eena ,8o,E.E.8 8=
== = e ss e,=8E.~I.= = ,= ,, .=,=oo,,8e = = ,g * =,
~ -1 a
g ggg ooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o - e s
% ~~~ a: ~ -
s ! use :-~ g3.o,
*s: E.5.3. 8 . .: e 5.5.5.5.ax= = E.5...~g==R~=qass-*
. .,5. ,88,5.s,5.a.~~85.
8 .$. m, !
=, ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o s- b.~goooooooom E
- aw a: - --~- -
== --- m=e Escre -
= =
s #$ W $ oo $$ o EE$5 5$$$$ $ 5' gb ddddddddd ddddddddddddddddddddodddddddd d
) ~
'a g s3 - -~- - --
=== s == e a s
E silillaleol ES ddddddddd Hilli==ilok!Illlialil~la=lalill ss ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd 5 d 3* 3
- b i
8v ,,,,,,,,, 8 3 ooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooool o , 5 O O 1. E E3
- 30 i 111111 gedeeedd::i 11111: R111 111111 11*1*11:n=111 eeddeedadsdededeeddededeeeeee d 5: s ==
e ;eIad
==
=s 111111 .o 1 l11111111o 111111111 5 1 1~53~a111 i :ji's
- e*
$2 diddddddd disaddddddddddddddddddddddddd 5 e y"E,%
o IE 499 9 i:99999:4 98489894494494449:9 4 .18 E 8= 85 ww=999 www w wwnszwwww . .s . . ,s . *, = swwwwwg*=,ggwgw,g,wwwg
,n,~,,,,,
m3 -~-~--oo.
~.enen~m,=*~=,~n.,
*~
~-~.~~~o-.-.-.--.~~~--~.-~~ -
= .3 j"
- . .: a
--~, - e s .
g=g 949999
- 9 ,------~--~~-~~9..
9 9 99999 999999999999999 9994 4 -~.. 8 .: ~
, wwwx
,=nsys,,=, m m w w W w s g x m ,w w w x w w w g w w ,w = w o g s --
n Aw x ,w a
~5 -.~-~-oo- .~ ~~.se,~,.sen ,,,sa,.,, s.n,n.,
.- .. .~-o.-~-~-..-..-~-~-- ~
~= e ]~8 E 5 *: ;
2 583358558 g 3559.83.5838 8 333.8883.99~33. 9 5. 38. 58 -
.a o
TC W 5 Wgk22 *
- _j g
_s ~, ,M s g
-.s ~-e.n,* M
-~ .
8 M,W g gW . g*,
, W,Wg3 WW W W
. , .esnee . g~*,R g ---.-~~--~---..-.-. -~~----~,g = ~ WWW
,~ n. W ss,M W*
. * ~,
g,E,W W e o- , 8
~E =E dG 2 2: :
m g g = x 33 32322% 35 ::: ER.98grZO~*R- 242%%
~
l : S*=#3 : U 5E 088"BE E 3:55"2W555E5E5=U=E=--U=55555555 E 3 3
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5-19 RADI0 ACTIVE GASE0US WASTE SYSTEM INPUTS 1 Expected Maximum Flow Rate (scfm) Mode of Base Loaded Load Annual Input Source Plant Operation Normal Following Shutdown Refueling Startup (scf/yr) RC Bleed Degasifier H2 1.46E-02(2) 1.65E-01 1.48E+00 - 5.88E-01 2.78E+04 N2 8.80E-3 9.89E-02 8.87E-01 - 3.53E-02 1.70E+04 Kr, Xe 6.19E-07 2.64E-05 2.00E-04 - - 8.81E+00 RC Bleed Evaporator N2 8.30E-02 9.34E-02 8.40 - 6.02E-02 1.58E+04 Make-up Tank N2 H2 4.00E-00 4.00E-00 - - 4.00E+00(l) 2.30E+03 Nitrogen Blanketing N2 4.2E+01 4.20E+01 4.20E+01 - 6.38E+00 1.43E+04 S.vstem (l) H2 4.00E+03 Failed Fuel Detection N2 4.20E+01 - 3.42E+03 (1) Includes input from the Reactor Coolant System and the Pressurizer (2) 1.46E-02 = 1,46 x 10-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O O O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5-20 l1 RGW COMPONENT DESIGN PARAMETERS Gas Decay Tank Number 4 Volume 600 cubic feet Design Pressure 200 psig Design Temperature 200F Normal Operating Pressure 0-85 psig Normal Operating Temperature 120F Dimensions 102" Dia. x 145" high Material of Construction Carbon Steel Special Characteristics Each tank holds 4400 SCF at 85 psig tank pressure Compressor ! Number 2 Design Pressure 150 psig Design Temperature 200F Operating Temperature 70-150F Suction Pressure 0.5 psig (N2 at (140F) Discharge Pressure 100 psig Design Flow 42 SCFM (N2 at 140F) Material Carbon Steel Hydrogen Recombiner Number 2 Design Flow 42 SCFM Hydrogen Recombination Rate 1.4 SCFM Design Inlet Temperature 250F Design Inlet Pressure 150 psig Discharge Pressure 90 psig , Waste Gas Filter System Number 1 Capacity 0-40 SCFM Type HEPA Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-0L 1l TABLE 3.5-21 ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETERS USED TO DETERMINE ANNUAL GASEOUS EFFLUENT RELEASES 9 Plant specific data Power Level 3800 Mwt Capacity Factor 80% Failed Fuel Fraction Equivalent to 0.12% (per NUREG 0017) Process Parameters Primary coolant mass 510,000 lbs Secondary coolant mass 1,000,000 lbs Primary to secondary leak rate 100 lbs/ day Mass of steam per steam generator 10,000 lbs Mass of liquid per steau generator 100,000 lbs Number of steam generators per unit 2 Steam flow at rated pcwer 1.67 x 107 lbs/hr Primary coolant letdown rate 50.0 gpm Letdown catica demineralizer rate 12.0 gpm Radwaste dilution flow 3,230 gpm Condensate demineralizer flow fraction .65 Fissicr product carryover 100% Halogen carryover 100% Gaseous Psadwaste Parameters Containment Building: Containment volume 3.09 x 106 ft3 High volume purging; Frequency 4 times /yr Cleanup and purge rate 27,000 cfm Cleanup time prior to purging 16 hrs HEPA/ charcoal filter efficiency: Halogens 90% Particulates 99% 1 Low volume purging; Purge rate 1500 cfm HEPA/ charcoal filter efficiency: 1 ' Halogens 90% Particulates 99% Amendment 1 (Feb 83) 0
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5-21 (Contd.) 1 Turbine Building: Steam leakage rate 1700 lbs/hr Air Ejector charcoal adsorber efficiency Halogens 90% Gas Waste System: Xenon hold-up time 60 days Krypton hold-up time 60 days Decay tank fillup time 25 days HEPA filter efficiency: Particulates 99% Auxiliary Building: HEPA/ charcoal filter efficiency: Halogens 90% Particulates 99% Note: There is not continuous stripping of full letdown flow. O l l O l Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
--,e-- ,*wy - y- .v. , - - , . , ~ _ - - - , - . - - - - e- .- - - - --.-, ,w-,,,,-,-,,,...,-~.-,--,-,--n----,r---v---w - - - - - - . - - _ . - - - - - . . .
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5-22 1 GASE0US RELEASE RATE (Ci/Yr/ Unit) Gas Stripping Building Ventilation Blowdown Air Condenser Shutdown Continuous React'or GSB Turbine Vent Offgas Exhaust Total KR-83M 0. O. 1.0E 00 1.0E 00 0. O. O. 2.0E 00 KR-85M 0. O. 1.4E 01 3.0E 00 0. O. 2.0E 00 1.9E 01 KR-85 1.8E 02 3.lE 02 2.7E 02 8.0E 00 0. O. 5.0E 00 7.7E 02 KR-87 0. O. 3.0E 00 1.0E 00 0. O. 1.0E 00 5.0E 00 KR-88 0. O. 1.7E 01 5.0E 01 0. O. 3.0E 00 2.5E 01 KR-89 0. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. XE-131M 2.0E 00 2.0E 00 9.8E 01 3.0E 00 0. O. 2.0E 00 1.lE 02 XE-133M 0. O. 1.3E 02 6.0E 00 0. O. 3.0E 00 1.4E 02 XE-133 4.0E 00 2.0E 00 1.3E 04 4.6E 02 0. O. 2.9E 02 1.4E 04 XE-135M 0. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. XE-135 0. O. 8.lE 01 9.0E 00 0. O. 5.0E 00 9.5E 01 XE-137 0. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. XE-138 0. O. O. 1.0E00 0. O. 1.0E 00 2.0 Total Noble Gases 1.5E 04 I-131 0. O. 2.7E-0E 6.9E-03 1.0E-03 0. 4.3E-03 3.9E-02 I-133 0. O. 1.8E-02 8.6E-03 1.2E-03 0. 5.4E-03 3.3E-02 Tritium Gaseous Release 1100 curies /Yr Note: "0." appearing in the table indicates release is less than 1.0 C1/yr for noble gas, 0.0001 Ci/yr for I. Amendment 1 (Feb 83) 9 9 9
WNP-1/4 ) ER-OL j TABLE 3.5-22 l1 GASE0US RELEASE RATE (Ci/Yr/ Unit) Gas Stripping Building Ventilation Blowdown Air Condenser Shutdown Continuous Reactor GSB Turbine Vent Offgas Exhaust Total KR-83M 0. O. 1.0E 00 1.0E 00 0. O. O. 2.0E 00 KR-85M 0. O. 1.4E 01 3.0E 00 0. O. 2.0E 00 1.9E 01 KR-85 1.8E 02 3.lE 02 2.7E 02 8.0E 00 0. O. 5.0E 00 7.7E 02 KR-87 0. O. 3.0E 00 1.0E 00 0. O. 1.0E 00 5.0E 00 KR-88 0. O. 1.7E 01 5.0E 01 0. O. 3.0E 00 2.5E 01 KR-89 0. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. l XE-131M 2.0E 00 2.0E 00 9.8E 01 3.0E 00 0. O. 2.0E 00 1.1E 02 l XE-133M 0. O. 1.3E 02 6.0E 00 0. O. 3.0E 00 1.4E 02 XE-133 4.0E 00 2.0E 00 1.3E 04 4.6E 02 0. O. 2.9E 02 1.4E 04 XE-135M 0. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. XE-135 0. O. 8.1E 01 9.0E 00 0. O. 5.0E 00 9.5E 01 XE-137 0. O. O. G. O. O. O. O. XE-138 0. O. O. 1.0E00 0. O. 1.0E 00 2.0 Total Noble Gases 1.5E 04 1-131 0. O. 2.7E-0E 6.9E-03 1.0E-03 0. 4.3E-03 3.9E-02 I-133 0. O. 1.8E-02 8.6E-03 1.2E-03 0. 5.4E-03 3.3E-02 Tritium Gaseous Release 1100 curies /Yr hote: "0." appearing in the table indicates release is less than 1.0 Ci/yr for noble gas, 0.0001 Ci/yr for I. Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O O O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 1 TABLE 3.5-23 AIRBORNE PARTICULATE RELEASE RATE (Ci/Yr/ Unit) Waste Gas Building Ventilation Nuclide System Reactor GSB Total MN-54 4.5E-05 2.1E-04 1.8E-04 4.4E-04 FE-59 1.5E-05 7.3E-05 6.0E-05 1.5E-04 C0-58 1.5E-04 7.3E-04 6.0E-04 1.5E-03 C0-60 7.0E-05 3.3E-04 2.7E-04 6.7E-04 SR-89 3.3E-06 1.7E-05 1.3E-05 3.3E-05 SR-90 6.0E-07 2.9E-06 2.4E-06 5.9E-06 CS-134 4.5E-05 2.lE-04 1.8E-04 4.4E-04 CS-137 7.5E-05 3.7E-04 3.0E-04 7.5E-04 , O O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
i WNP-l/4 l ER-OL l TABLE ?.5-24 h RADI0 ACTIVE SOLID WASTE SYSTEM INPUTS Volume Activity Conc.(a) Activity Waste Source (cuft/yr) (gCi/cc) (Ci/yr) Ory Wastes 22,000 6.88E-02 4.87 Spent Demineralizer Resins 4.02E+02 1.44E+04 Deborating 378 Purification 300 Spent Fuel Pool 310 i RC Bleed Evap. & Dist. 200 Radwaste 80 Solidified Liquid Wastes 2,000 3.75E+01 2.13E+02 BRS Evap. Bottoms 780 6.78E-01 1.50E+01 Powdered Resins 1,220 2.65E-01 9.11 Filter Cartidges & Filter Backflush 820 1.32E+02 3.03E+03 Total 28,090 5.39E+02 1.77E+04 (a) Based on 0.12 percent fuel failure. O O Amendment 1 (Feb 83) I
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5-25 1 RADI0 ACTIVE SOLID WASTE VOLUMES FOR OFFSITE SHIPMENT (a) Waste Expected Annual Volume,(b) cuft/yr Dry Wastes (compacted volume) 4,000 Dry Wastes (noncompactible volume) 10,000 Spent Demineralizer Resins 2,100 Solidified Liquid Wastes 3,300 Boron Recovery Evaporator Bottoms 1,300 Powdered Resins 2,000 Filter Cartridges & Filter Backwash 1,200
, Total 23,900 (a) Dry wastes are compacted into 55-gallon drums. Filters and the remaining wastes are solidified in 50 or 100 cuft containers or 55-gallon drums.
(b) Includes cement binder. i O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ , - _ ~ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ . . - _ _ . -
WMP-1/4 ER-OL l 1l TA8LE 3.5-26 R$W OESIGN PARMTERS Tanks Phase Separator Tanks Nuncer 2 Capacity 13.500 gallons (each) Size 12*O x 16'M with dish-botton Material stainless Steel Maximum Operating Temperature 200 F Operating Pressure Atmosiswric
~
Resin Decay Tanks Nuseer 1 Capacity 4.200 gallons Size 12'O x II'5*H with dish-botton Material Stainless Steel Maximum Operating Teacerature 200 F Operating Pressure Atmospheric Measuring fants Number 3 Capacity 700 gallons (each) Size 48'O x 78*H with dish-botton Material 304 Stataloss Steel Operating Temperature 150 F (heat traced) Operating Pressure Atmospheric Waste Blending Tanks Number 1 Capacity 1.000 gallons Size 60*O a 95*H with dish-botton Meterial Stainless Steel Operating Temperature 150 F (heat-traced) Operating Pressure Atmospheric Sodius Silicate Sult fants
%ener 1 Capacity 5.000 gallons Stre 6*O x 24'N Material Carbon Steel Operating Temperature 70 F Operating Pressure Atmospheric Sodium Silicate Day Tanks Nummer 1 Capacity 500 gallons Stre d'0 z 6'N Material Carbon Steel Operati Temperature Ambient o Operatic Pressure Atmospheric Cement Silo Nunner 1 Capacity 1.000 cubic feet Size 10'W z 30'M Material Carbon Steel Operating Temperature Ambient Operating Pressure Atmospheric Ceoent Day Tank Number 1 Cacacity 50 cubic feet Size 4'W x 10'H Material Carbon Steel Operating Temperature Ambfent Operating Pressure Atmospheric Pumps Resin 51ufce Pump Number i Type Centrifugal Design Flow Rate 150 gym Resin Transfer Pump l
Number I l Type Centrifugal Design Flow Rate 30 gpa [ Decant Pump Number 2 Type Centrifugal Design Flow Rate 200 gpa e Amendment 1 (Feb 83) h
60 -1/4 ER-OL TA8LE 3.5-26 (Contd.) l1 51Wge Pump Number 1 Type Centrifugal Design Flow Rate 150 gpa Radmaste *rocessing Pumps moor a Type Progressing Cavity ii Design Flow Rate 20 gym Sodium $111cate Pump Nuseer 1 Type Progressing Cavity Design Flow Rate 1 gym Centrifuge Liquid Discharge Pump Number 1 Type In Line Centrifugal Design Flow Rate 20 gen Weste M asuring Tank Recirc Pump Number 1 Type In Line Centrifugal Design Flow Rate 50 gpa Centrifues Type Horizontal Solid Bowl Capacity 20 gym Material Wetted Parts of Stainless Steel Filters
"/ Decant Filter heer 1 Filtration Rating 5 micron Type Backflushable Design Flow Rate 200 gem Maatame Operating Temperature 120 F Slutce Pump Discharge Filter leseer 1 Filtration Rating 25 eieron Type Expendable Cartrioge j Design Flow Rate 150 gym Maximum Operating Temperature 140 F Other Comoorents Solidification Screw Feeder Number 1 Feed Rate 1 cu. ft./ min Type vibra $ crew Controlled Vibration Solidification F111 port Module Number 1 I
Actuation Mechanism Pneumatically lowered; Spring raised l Shippine Containers I Type 55 ga 50 f tjlon ordrums,3 100 ft Linars with associated shield I i Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5-27 1 ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETERS USED TO CALCULATE RSW ACTIVITY General Coolant activities failed fuel fraction 0.12% Primary coolant density 0.69 gm/cc Primary to secondary leak rate 100 lbs/dgy Main Steam flow rate 1.67 X 10' lbs/hr DF's per NUREG-0017 RLW activities per NUREG-0017 Days demineralizer resins deca 120 days Days waste (other than resins)ydeacy 60 days Spent Fuel System System purification flow rate 150 gpm No. of demineralizers 2 No. of vacco prefilters 2 No. of cartridge afterfilters 2 Demineralizer resin volume per unit 78.5 ft3 Vacco prefilter volume per backflush 8 ft3 Cartridge afterfilter volume 4.3 ft3 Liquid Waste System System flow rate 10 gpm No. of evaporators 2 No. of demineralizers 2 No. of vacco prefilters 2 No. of cartridge afterfilters 2 Demineralizer resin volume per unit 10 ft3 Condensate Polishers No. of units 4 Percentage of condensed main steam thru units 65% Dry Wastes Activity for disposal is assumed to be an average of measured data per NUREG/CR-0144. MVS System Operational mode Batch RC letdown flow rate 50 gpm No. of purification demineralizer prefilters 2 No. of purification demineralizers 3 No. of purification demineralizer filters 2 No. of deborating demineralizers 3 No. of deborating demineralizer filters 2 Days deborating demineralizers operate 30 BRS System RC bleed flow rate 630 gpd No. of RC bleed hold-up tanks 2 Volume of RC bleed hold-up tank 14,650 ft3 Operaticnal mode Batch No. of RC bleed evaporator demineralizer 2 No. of RC bleed evaporator f11ters 2 No. of RC bleed evaporator package 2 No. of distillate demineralizers 2 I No. of distillate demineralizer filters Flow rate downstream from hold-up tank 2 20 gpm h l Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
O O O WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5-28 l1 EFFLUENT RELEASE POINTS AND MONITORING CAPABILITIES Effluent Release Point Monitor Number Monitor Function Component Cooling Water PRM-4 Upon alarm closes the Component Cooling Water surge tank Supply header vent valve. Radioactive Liquid Waste PRM-7 Terminates release of liquid to the Condensate System upon Hold-up tank alarm. Radioactive Solid Waste PRM-8 Terminates release of liquid to the Condensate System upon Decant alarm. Nuclear Service Water PRM-9 Closes shutdown cooling water subsystem water surge tank PRM-10 vent valves uron alarm. Radioactive Liquid Waste PRM-11 Continrously monitors and upon alare diverts process stream Demineralizers "A", "S", PRM-12 from hold-up tanks back to liquid waste collection tank "C".
"C" and "D" Containment Purge
- 1) 27,000 cfm cleanup train EW-1 Continuously monitors the 27,000 cfm cleanup train and will
- 2) 1,500 cfm cleanup train EGM-6 tenninate release upon alarm.
Continuously monitors the 1,500 cfm cleanup train. Condenser Air Removal System 1 Main Condenser Vacuum pumps ECM-2 Continuously monitors release from both systems. 2 Gland Seal Steam exhaust EGM-5 Ventilation Exhaust Plenum EW-3 Continuously monitors release from the exhaust plenum
- p located on the top of the General Services Building.
h Radioactive Gaseous Waste EGM-4 Upon alarm terminates release from waste gas decay tanks. 3 System t e Ventilation Exhaust line from EM-7 Continuously monitors the conuson venttiation exhaust line D Prin.ary Auxtlary Areas and from the primary auxiliary areas.
" Rar11ation Maintenance and Test Facility
- Radioactive Vents and Drains EM-8 Continuously monitors input from the RVD system to the Systems ventilation e daust system, t
tY cm Ln3 w
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.5-28 (Cuntd.) l1 ! Effluent Release Point Monitor Number Monitor Function Nuclear Service water to spray ELM 1A Continuously monitors level of radioactivity in the nuclear ponds or cooling towers ELM IB service water before discharge into the spray pond or cooling towers. l Sump J - Turbine Generator ELM-2 Teminates transfer of liquid to the Non-radioactive Waste . Building drain Drainage System settling basin. 1 Cooling Tower Blowdown line ELM-3 Continuously monitors cooling tower blowdown Radioactive Liquid Waste dis- ELM-4 Terminates release automatically upon alarm l charge line from hold-up tanks l Backwash Collection tank of the ELM-5 When set point is reached, any flow of liquids is diverted Condensate Polishing System from Sump G of the Non-radioactive Waste Drainage System to the phase separators in the Radioactive Solid Waste System. General Services Building ELM-6 Shuts off pumps transferring liquid to the settling basin Drains of the Non-radioactive Waste Drainage System upon alarm. Water Treatment Area ELM-7 Monitors level of radioactivity in the sump prior to the Sump G release of the effluent stream to the settling basin of the Non-radioactive Waste Drainage System. 3 4 3 c. 4 a et a O' on W w e O O
/
WNP-1/4 ER-0L 3.6 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE WASTES i During the operation of WNP-1 and WNP-4, waste water streams are produced from a number of sources. Broken-down according to the categories defined in 40 CFR Part 423, " Effluent Limitations, Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category," these waste sources are as follows:
- 1) Low-Volume Waste a) Backwash and regenerant from the water treatment plant.
, b) Blowdown from plant air conditioning systems and equipment cooling water. c) Equipment and floor drains, including bearing and seal leakage and oily wastes. d) Waste from the radioactive liquid waste treatment system, e) Backwa:;h from condensate polishing system, f) Pre-operational fluid system cleanliness verification flush.
- 2) Metal-Cleaning Waste
- 3) Auxiliary Boiler Blowdown
- 4) Circulating Water System Waste a) Cooling tower blowdown b) Cooling tower drift c) Spray pond blowdown Each of these waste categories is addressed in detail below. Chemicals used in treatment of water and wastes are given in Table 3.6-1, and discharge com-positions of each waste stream are given in Tables 3.6-2 and 3.6-3. Schematic representations of the water flow at WNP-1 and WNP-4 are shown in Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2. In Section 5.3 the resulting in-river concentrations are compared with ambient concentrations and the applicable effluent limitations or water quality criteria.
3.6.1 Low-Volume Waste All low-volume waste streams, except radioactive liquid wastes and some flush-ing wastes, (see 3.6.1.3), are collected in sumps in the General Services Building, the Turbine Generator Building, the Water Treatment Building, Valve Isolation House and the Circulating Water pumphouse and directed to the non-radioactive waste treatment system. The non-radioactive waste treatment system consists of an inlet / surge chamber, a chemical addition chamber, two settling basins an oil skimmer and associ-s ated chemical treatment equipment. The effluents from the various building sumps are collected in the inlet / surge chamber. When this chamber is full, it overflows into the chemical addition chamber where sodium hydroxide and/or sulfuric acid are added to adjust the pH to 6.5 - 8.5. A flocculant aid is , added periodically to assist in coagulation and sedimentation of suspended O 3.6-1 i
WNP-1/4 ER-OL solids. The neutralized effluent then overflows into one of the two waste settling basins, where suspended solid materials are allowed to settle out. The waste water then overflows into an oil skimmer unit where oil is removed and discharged to an oil storage tank. The treated waste water then flows into one r,f two sample pits equipped with a pH monitor. If the pH is acceptable (6.5-8.5), the effluent is discharaed to tha cooling tower blowdown line. If the pH is not acceptable, the effitant is recirculated back to the inlet /surgo chamber for further treatment. The settling basins are periodically drained and accumulated solids are removed for landfill disposal. The chemical composition of the effluent from the non-radioactive waste treat-ment system is given in Tables 3.6-2 and 3.6-3. 3.6.1.1 Water Treatment System A single water treatment system is installed at WNP-1 to condition Columbia River water for use as potable and process water for both plants. The water treatment system consists of three distinct physical / chemical processes:
- 1) the pretreatment system which includes disinfection, clarification and filtration; 2) the demineralization system, which includes activiated carbon adsorption, mechanical degasification and demineralization by ion exchange; and 3) the potable water system, which includes activated carbon adsorption 1 l The andpurpose disinfection.
of the pretreatment portion of the water treatment system is to remove, or reduce to acceptable levels, specific constituents of the raw water supply. Capacity of this system is 900 gpm. The process stream is first sub-jected to high shear mixing to facilitate the liberation of supersaturated air. The stream is then chlorinated for disinfection purposes. Suspended solids are removed in a solids-contact clarifier. A flocculant aid is proportionally added to'the influent stream to promote coagulation, followed by separation of suspended solids by gravity settling. The clarifier effluent is polished by l gravity filtration. An average of about 20 lb/ day (225 lb/ day max) of solids is removed by the pretreatment system, roughly equally divided between clarifier sludge and gra-vity filter backwash. These solids are sluiced to the WNP-1 non-radioactive waste treatment facility by service water (ave. 7.5 gpm, max. 15 gpm). Dis-charge of total suspended solids from the latter facility as a result of water treatment activities is about 10 lb/ day ave.,115 lb/ day max. About 10-110 lb/ day of suspended solids are removed by settling in the nonradioactive waste treatment facility. e 3.6-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
4 WNP-l/4 ER-0L l t l1 j
- C The demineralization portion of the water treatment system consists of two 300 '
gpm trains, each of which consists of an activated carbon filter, a cation bed demineralizer, a anion bed demineralizer and a mixed-bed polisher. The cation and anion units are separated by a vacuum degasifier which is common to both
- trains. During normal operation, average flow through the system is 80 gpm.
i The activated carbon filter is provided to eliminate odoriferous and/or dis- , tasteful compounds from the potable water supply, and to remove chemicals that may adversely effect the performance of the demineralizer units. The cation, anion and mixed bed demineralizer units are provided to reduce the total dis-solved sollds in the water to very low levels. The purpose of the vacuum de-gasifier is to reduce the concentration of dissolud gases, particularly oxy-gen and carbon dioxide, to within acceptable limits for corrosion control. When exhausted, the cation and anion resins in the demineralizer units are , regenerated with sulfuric acid and sodium hydroride respectively. Capacit of each cation and anion unit between regenerations is about 360,000 gallons; the unit are regenerated about once per week. Regeneration of each cation unit requires 846 lb of 98 wt.% sulfuric acid; regeneration of each anion unit re-quires 532 lb of 50 wt.% sodium hydroxide. Capacity of each mixed-bed unit 1 between regenerations is about 2,500,000 gallons; these units are regenerated about 10 times per year. Regeneration of each mixed-bed unit requires 476 lb of 98 wt.% sulfuric acid and 405 lb 50 wt.% sodium hydroxide. Following each regeneration, the regenerant solutions are collected and neutralized prior to discharge to the non-radioactive waste treatment system. The intermittent
- regenerant flow ranges from d-30 grm and contributes an average of 400 lb/ day (3360 lb/ day max) of total dissolved solids to the nonradioactive waste treat-ment system.
3.6.1.2 Air Conditioning and Equipment Cooling Systems The heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in the General Services Building, Turbine Generator Building, Water Treatment Building, Cir-culating Water Pumphouse, Spray Pond Pump House and Valve Isolation House are j provided with evaporative coolers. Water used in these coolers is provided i from the potable water system. When the coolers are operating, water is bled i from them continuously to prevent solids accumulation. This bleedoff contrib-utes up to 5 gpm to the non-radioactive waste treatment system. I Each plant has various pieces of non-nuclear associated equipment which re-quire cooling to protect components. The water used comes from the potable water system and is discharged to the non-radioactive waste treatment cond at approximately 200F above ambient temperature, Flow averages approximately 20 gpm continously, i e O 3.6-3 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 3.6.1.3 Equipment and Floor Drains This waste consists of water that has been used for miscellaneous equipment and/or floor washings. The water is filtered river water containing occa-sional traces of oil, dirt and detergent accumulated during the washings. The flow is intermittent and averages approximately 3-5 gpm at ambient tempera-ture. This stream is discharged to the non-radioactive waste treatment system. In addition, the floor drains collect water that has leaked out of the mechan-ical equipment glands and seals. The flow is basically condensate but it may contain a trace amount of bearing lubricating oil. This flow is continuous and averages approximately 15 gpm each from the Turbine Generator and the Gen-eral Services Buildings at ambient temoerature. The stream is treated in the non-radioactive waste treatment system. If the water which leaks through equipment glands and seals in the secondary steam system contains radioactivity, the water, which is collected and moni-tored in floor sumps, is diverted and pumped to the radioactive waste treat-ment system for processing. Concerning oily wastes, the turbine oil storage area, the turbine oil purifi-cation unit, etc. are provided with storge type sumps to collect oil leakage and fire deluge. These sumps are designed to ski:.1 oil to a holding tank for subsequent disposal. Water and oil from major spills are pumped to the non-radioactive waste treatment system, which is designed to remove oil. Transformers are provided with sumps of sufficient size to contain a trans-former oil spill. Oily wastes from the transformers are not directed to the treatment system but are collected and disposed of separately. Oil used in the transformers contains no polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) compounds. 3.6.1.4 Radioactive Liquid Waste System This system is equipped with filters, evaporators, demineralizers and hold-up tanks to remove radioactivity by physical separation, chemical separation, and natural decay. Treated water is stored in liquid waste holdup tanks, where it is sampled cad analyzed prior to reuse or discharge. If the water is of the necessary chemical purity, and if the plant water inventory can accomodate it, this water is pumped back to the makeup system by way of the condensate degasifier. This is the normal pathway for this water. However, if the plant water inventory is excessive, the water is analyzed to assure compliance with release limits and is discharged directly to the river by way of the cooling tower blowdown ?ine. A radiation menitor is provided on this line to further assure that the discharge does not exceed applicable state and federal regula-tions. Maximum discharge froia this source is 75 gpm. O 3.6-4
WNP-1/4 ER-01. O d 3.6.1.5 Condensate Polishing System Each plant is equipped with a full-flow condensate polishing system to remove particulate and dissolved ionic material from the condensate so that it can be
, reused as steam generator fesdwater. This treatment is accomplished by the use of powdered ion exchange resin precoated onto cylindrical stainless steel filter septa contained in six service vessels. Four of these vessels are nor-mally on line with one in standby and one being backwashed.
Termination of a run through an individual service vessel is indicated by high differential pressure or resin exhaustion. When either of these conditions occur, the vessel is taken out of service and backwashed, During normal plant
- operation, an average of five vessels are backwashed over a one-week period.
- Each vessel backwash takes about 45 minutes and flushes about 300 pounds of
- powdered ion exchange resin to a backwash collection tank in 4435 gallons of water.
~ Radiation monitors and diversion valves are associated with the bcckwash col- , lection tank so the backwash slurry can be routed to the radwaste system in l the event of detectable radioactivity. Normally the backwash will be trans-
- ferred to the non-radioactive treatment facility where the ion exchange resin i
will be removed for disposal by- landfilling. 3.6.1.6 Pre-operational Fluid System Cleanliness Verification Flush Construction specifications require that all fluid system piping be erected in a manner that will maintain the specification cleanliness criteria. To assure such cleanliness, the majority of all plant fluid systems are, following erec-tion, filled with water and operated to circulate the water throughout the respective systems in a closed loop flow arrangement. Temporary filters re-move the majority of any construction residue such as dirt, sand, weld slag and grinding grit. During the fluid circulation, water is expelled from low point drains in the systems to remove foreign material while fresh water re-places the loss. The expelled water is either routed to building sumps with discharge to the non-radioactive waste disposal system or is drained directly onto the ground in close proximity to the plant and absorbed into the soil. The verification flush program is an intermittent activity that occurs at ap-proximate two-month intervals over a period of approximately 18 months, with individual system flusn durations lasting an average of 48 hours. Maximum estimated water discharge directly into the ground and to the non-radioactive waste disposal systert in any given 24-hour period is 96,000 gallons and 288,000 gallons respectively. Prior to direct water oischarge into the soil, the water is visually examined to assure that no significant traces of oil are present. If unacceptable quantities of oil are found, discharge is restricted to the non-radioactive waste disposal system. O 3.6-5 l
l PNP-1/4 ER-OL 3.6.2 Metal Cleaning "a:tes j During the course of the pre-operation fluid system cleanliness verification flush activity, some fluid systems may be found to contain excessive traces of oil attributable to mist deposits from air operated grinders or inadvertant contamination by lubrication products. If it becomes necessary to chemically remove oil contaminant from a system, an alkaline cleaning solution consisting of 2000 ppm trisodium 9hosphate (Na3 P04 ) and 1000 ppm disodium phosphate (Na3 HP0 4 ) is circulated through the system and waste water discharged either to the sanitary waste system or to a holding pond on site. There is no discharge of this waste to the river. The maximum estimated discharge during any given 24-hour period is 288,000 gallons. During plant operation it is occasionally necessary to clean components that have been, replaced, repaired, retubed, etc. The wastes resulting from these infrequerft cleaning operations are discharged either to the sanitary waste system, an on-site holding pond, or the non-radioactive waste treatment facility. 3.6.3 Auxiliary Boiler Blowdown Each plant is equipped with two immersion-electrode auxiliary boilers to pro-vide steam for plant startup. Operation of these boilers requires that the boiler water conductivity be maintained at 50 pmho/cm; this conductivity is maintained by use of about 23 mg/l tri-sodium phosphate (4.3 mg/l phospho-1 rus). In addition, about 1.0 mg/l hydrazine is used in the boiler water to scavenge excess oxygen. Blowdown of these boilers is necessary to prevent excessive solids buildup in the boiler water. During a plant startup, blowdown flow ranges from 1.6-2.0 gpm and results in discharge of 0.08-0.10 lb/ day of phosphorus and 0.02 lb/ day of ammonia (hydrazine decomposes to ammonia). This waste stream is directed to the non-radioactive waste treatment system. 3.6.4 Circulating Water System The circulating water system, described in Section 3.4, circulates cooling cater to the main condensers to remove waste heat from the steam cycle. A side stream (service water) circulates cooling water to auxiliary heat ex-changers in the General Services Building. The heated water is then cooled by mechanical draft cooling towers. Makeup is provided to the system directly from the Columbia River to replenish water losses due to evaporation, drift and blowdown. Since the cooling towers are constantly evaporating water, the dissolved I solids concentration in the circulating water increases with time. This con- ' centration is controlled by blowing down a portion of the circulating water to O 3.6-6 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
f WNP-1/4 ER-OL O V the river. Dering normal operation, the concentration of dissolved solids in i the circulating water is maintained at five times the concentration of the makeup water (five cycles of concentration). The system can be operated at ten cycles of concentration if circumstances so dictate. To ainimize the deposit of alkaline scale materials, sulfuric acid is continu-ously fed to the system to control the pH and alkalinity of the circulating water. Depending on the calcium concentration and alkalinity of the makeup water 660 Baume (98%) sulfuric acid is injected at a rate of about 0.48 - O.73 gpm. This rate af acid injection controls the pH of the circulating , water in the range of 7.8 - 8.0. No other scale or corrosion inhibitors are used. The condensers are tubed with 90/10 copper nickel (91.5%) and 70/30 copper-nickel (8.5%) alloy tubes. Total surface area exposed to the circulating water is slightly more than one million square feet. Corrosion and/or erosion of the condenser tubes could contribute copper and nickel corrosion products to the blowoown; the chemical composition of the blowdown given in Table 3.6-3 includes this contribution. Miscellaneous heat exchangers in the plant, tubed with copper-nickel alloy and stainless steel, also may contribute a small amount cf corrosion products 1 (also included in the figures given in Table 3.6-3). Biological fouling in the circulating water system is controlled by inter-
") mittent chlorination. The chlorine addition rate is controlled to maintain a residual of approximately 2.5 mg/l through the condenser for a period of 30 l ' minutes. Chlorination takes place a maximum of three times per day during the warm summer months when biological activity is at its peak. To ensure that no chlorine is discharged to the river, blowdown is terminated during chlorina- ) tion and is not resumed until total residual chlorine in the circulating water has dropped to less than 0.1 mg/l. Chlorination of the two plants does not occur simultaneously.
3.6.4.1 Cooling Tower Blowdown During normal full-power operation, a blowdown rate of 3800 gpm from each plant is required to maintain the circulating water at five cycles of cor::en-tration. At ten cycles of concentration, the expected maximum, the blowdown rate is 1690 gpm from each plant. The chemical composition of the combined cooling tower blowdown from both plants at 5 cycles (average values) and 10 cycles (max. values) is given in Tables 3.6-2 and 3.6-3. O 3.6-7 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 3.6.4.2 foolingTowerDrift Drift is composed of small water droplets entrained in the air passing through l the cooling towers. The drif t rate is about 0.05% of the circulating water l flow rate or about 300 gpm from each plant at full power operation. The chem-ical composition (mg/1) of the drif t is the same as that of cooling tower blowdown as given in Tables 3.6-2 and 3.6-3. During chlorination, the cooling tower drif t contains a maximum of 2.5 mg/l total residual chlorine. At the maximum chlorination rate (3 times per day for 30 minutes), discharge of chlorine to the atmosphere amounts to about 1.125 lbs/ day. 3.6.4.3 Spray Pond Blowdown Each plant is provided with a seismically-qualified spray pond to serve as the ultimate heat sink in the event of an earthquake in which the cooling towers are disabled. These ponds are blown down occasionally to control solids 1l buildup. Average blowdown flow is 16 gpm (both plants); chemical composition is the same as that given in Tables 3.6-2 and 3.6-3 for cooling tower blowdown. O O 3.6-8 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 > ER-OL Table 3.6-1 l Water and Waste Treatment Chemicals Used at WNP-1/4 l l Annual Quantity. lbs Description Chemical Frequency Ave Max of use Sodium Aluminate As Needed 4.5 x 104 2.3 x 105 Coagulant Aid Polyelectrolyte & Needed 3.3 x 103 1.7 x 104 Coagulant Aid Calcium Hydroxide As Needed 2.8 x 104 1.4 x 105 Coagulant Aid l Chlorine, gaseous (a) Continuous 250 800 Potable Water ' Disinfectant Sulfuric Acid, 98% Once Per Week 1.0 x 104 2.0 x 104 Demineralizer 4 Regeneration Sodium hydroxide, 501 Once Per Week 6.0 x103 1.2 x 104 Demineralizer Regeneration Lithium hydroxide (a) As Needed 20 20 pH Control, i Reactor Coolant Boric acid (a) As Needed 1.5 x 104 1.2 x 105 Neutron Activity Control, Reactor Coolant 2 Ammonia, 28% (a) As Needed 3.8 x 103 8 x 103 pH Control, Steam Gerarator Feedwater [ Hydrazine, 351 (a) As Needed 4.0 x 103 8.5 x 103 0xygen Scavenger, Steam Generator and Boiler Feedwater s Component Cooling
- Tri-sodium phosphate As Needed 5 10 Boiler Water Electrolyte
! Sulfuric acid, 98% Continuous 3.2 X 106 3.9 x 106 Scale Control, i
Circulating Water
, System i Chlorine, gaseous (a) 3 Times / day max. 2.1 x 104 1.1 x 105 Algicide Circulating Water System
) Tri-sodium Phosphate (b) As Needed 2.5 x 104 2.5 x 104 Pre-operational Cleaning; misc. I Cleaning Di-sodium PhGspiiate (b) As Needed 1.2 x 104 1.2 x 104 Pre-operational i Cleaning; misc. Cleaning Morpholine (c) As Needed 20 50 Corrosion Control 4 Component Cooling Water 1 (a) Only trace amounts are discharged. (b) Pe.csphate cleaning wastes are not discharged to the river.
- (c) Morpholine is used in a completely closed system within the plant l and will not be discharged.
1 0 y - , _._.__y.._. -. _ , . - , . , _ , , _,-_ _y . . . , . . - , ,, n w , , , - , ,
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 3.6-2 GENERAL CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF COLLMBI A RIVER WATER AND PLANT EFFLUENTS River
- Non-Radwaste Treatment Effluent Cooling Tower Blowdown WNP-1 WNP-4 WNP-I/4 Avg 9 92 gpm Avg 9 70 gpm Avg 1 Max 9 192 gpm Max 9 147 gpm Max 9 9 7616 gpm(b) 3380 gpm
----mg/I----- -----mg/1----- ----lb/ day---- - ---mg/I----- ----Ib/ day---- -----mg/: ---- -----lb/ day----
Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Alkalinity, as CACO 3 59.2 64 10 75 - - 10 75 - - 17.7 36.0 - - Amonia, as N 0.010 0.028 0.899 0.914 0.993 2.11 1.17 1.17 0.982 1.90 0.050 0.280 4.57 11.4 Calcium (c) 18.5 20.4 30.7 91.2 33.9 224 17.2 41.6 14.4 73.4 92.5 204 8454 8454 Chlo-ide 1.0 1.8 1.66 8.57 1.83 19.8 0.929 3.67 0.78 6.47 10.5 33.4 957 1355 1l Chlorine (Totalresidual) 0.0 0.1 0.0 9.14 Fluoride (c) 0.17 0.29 0.282 1.38 0.311 3.18 0.158 0.591 0.133 1.04 0,850 2.90 77.7 118 Hardness, as CACO (c} 68.6 m W 381 126 878 63.8 W 53.6 288 343 E 31,350 32, E 3 Magnesium (c) (c) 4.0 4.9 6.63 23.4 7.32 53.8 3.71 9.99 3.12 17.6 20.0 49.0 1828 1987 Nitrate, as N 0.129 0.290 0.214 1.38 0.236 3.18 0.120 0.591 0.101 1.04 0.645 2.9 58.9 118 Nitrogen Total Organic (C) 0.5 0.5 0.829 2.38 0.915 5.49 0.464 1.020 0.390 i.80 2.50 5.0 228 228 011 and Grease 1.5 6 15 20 16.6 46.1 15 20 12.6 35.3 7.55 20 690 811 pH Units 7.85 8.4 6.5-8.5 - - - 6.5-8.5 - - - 7.9 8.5 - - Phospnor us 0.0275 0.044 0.120 0.254 0.133 0.586 0.124 0.148 0.104 0.262 0.138 0.440 12.6 17.8 Potassium (') 0.77 0.91 1.28 4.34 1.41 9.99 0.716 1.86 0.601 3.27 3.tl5 9.10 352 369 Silica, as 510 (c) 4.46 6.2 7.39 29.5 8.16 68.1 4.15 12.6 3.48 22.3 22.3 62.0 2038 2515 2 Sodium 2.0 2.4 72.2 259 79.7 597 1.86 4.89 1.56 8.63 10.0 24.0 914 973 Solids, Total Dissolved 93.2 131 405 1525 447 3513 866 267 72.8 471 849 204A 77,580 82,890 Solids Total Suspended 4.0 10 10 50 11.0 115 10 50 8.40 88.2 20.0 100 1828 4056 Sulfate 12.4 16.7 217 797 240 1836 31.0 118 26.0 207 334 781 30,525 31,680 River concentrations based on a pre-operational water chemistry study. See Table 2.4-5. Maximum concentration of materials in cooling towers blowdown occurs at minimum flow (ten cycles of concentration). These materials are concentrated but not added by operation of the plants. Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
g
\
(y t \ N/I p Lj ER-OL TABLE 3.6-3 KTALS CONCENTRATIONS IN COLlH8I A RIVER WATER AND PLANT EFFLUENTS River
- Non-Radwaste Treatment Effluent Cooling Tower Blowdown WNP-1 WNP-4 WNP-1/4 y Avg 9 92 gpm Avg 9 70 gpm Ktx 9 192 gpm Max 9 147 gpm Avg Max 9 9 7616 gpm(b) 3380 gpm
---pg/1----- -----pg/1------ ---Ib/ day---- ----- g/1---- ----lb/ day--- -----pg /1 --- -- ----Ib/ day-----
Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Barium (c) 100 100 166 47i 0.183 1.10 92.9 204 0.078 0.36 500 1000 45.7 45.7 Boron (c) 10 10 16.6 47.7 0.0183 0.110 9.3 20.4 0.0078 0.036 50 100 4.57 4.57 Cadmium (c) .53 8.4 .879 40.0 0.00097 0.0922 .49 17.1 0.00041 0.0302 2.65 84 0.242 3.41 Chromium .78 2.6 1.30 12.4 0.00143 0.0285 .73 5.29 0.00061 0.00934 8.39 36.1 0.766 1.46 Cobalt (c) 1.5 11 2.45 52.4 0.00271 0.121 1.39 22.4 0.00117 0.0396 7.50 110 0.685 4.46 Copper 3.5 16 16.4 118 0.0181 0.273 17.1 87.9 0.0144 0.155 216 606 19.7 24.6 Iron 56 140 93.1 6 6 ^.* 0.103 1.01 52.1 286 0.0438 0.504 307 1460 28.1 59.3 Lead (c) 1.8 24 2.99 114 0.0033 0.263 1.68 48.9 0.00141 0.0863 9.b 240 0.823 9.73 ManganeselC) 9.9 15 16.5 71.5 0.0182 0.0165 9.29 30.6 0.0078 0.054 49.5 150 4.52 6.08 Mercury (c) .52 4.1 .870 19.5 0.00096 0.0450 .49 3.36 0. 2 41 0.0147 2.60 41 0.238 1.66 Nickel 1.8 10 4.95 56.0 0.00546 0.129 4.25 31.3 0.00357 0.0552 44.6 180 4.07 7.31 Zinc 19 47 31.4 224 0.0347 0.516 17.6 95.9 0.0148 0.169 95.0 470 8.68 19.1 (a) River concentrations based on a pre-operational water chemistry stady conducted for the Supply System by ha-Test, Inc. (b) Maximum concentration of materials in cooling tower blowdown occurs at minimum flow (ten cycles of concentration). (c) These materials are concentrated bt:t not added by operation of the plants. Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
i j WNP-1/4 i ER-OL i 3.8 REPORTING OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT 4 The transportation of nuclear fuel and radioactive wastes to or from WNP-1/4 j is within the scope of paragraph (g) of 10 CFR 51.20. The environmental ef- 1 l fects of such transportation are as set forth in Summary Table S-4 of 10 CFR j 51. 4 1 1 4 1 ) 1 !O i i j 4- ' i j -i i i l i i i i j i I O 4 3.8-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) i
4 WNP-1/4 1 ER-OL lO 4 3 3.9 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES 1 ! Several transmission lines are planned which will connect these projects to l the nearby Howard J. Ashe substation. The 500-kV lines to Lower Monumental, J Slatt, Marion, Hanford and WNP-2 would have been installed regardless of the
- construction of WNP-1 and 4. The same is true of the 230-kV lines connecting j~ the Ashe, Midway anJ White Bluffs Substations. BPA has prepared an envi-4 ronmentalstatementconcerningthesefacilities.gL Therefore, these lines l1
} are not considered in this discussion. WNP-1 and WNP-4 will each have a j 500-kV line to convey power from the plant to the Ashe Substation. Each plant
- will also have a 230-kV connection to the Ashe Substation. This 230-kV line i will provide backup power to each plant. The routes for these lines are shown j on Figure 2.1-2.
I Narrow base steel pole towers are planned for line support. The 230-kV lines feature a single pole with davit arms while the 500-kV lines use double pole gull-wing cross arms. The area crossed is shrub steppe with a land use designation of "unclassi-fied". Right-of-way will be 100 feet wide for the 230-kV lines and 160 feet for the 500-kV lines. No new access or maintenance roads are planned. Main-tenance access will be infrequent and will be obtained by four-wheel drive vehicle across the natural terrain adjacent to the line. No permanent clearing of vegetation is required. No topographical changes are O, involved. These lines will not be visible from any frequently traveled public road. Radiated electrical interference is insignificar.t beyond 1000 feet from the rights-of-way and no receptors are anticipated within this range due to the land classification. Ground currents, both induced and conducted, are insignificant in normal oper-ation. The magnitude of such currents depends on the magnitude and balance of the load current in the conductors. Procedures for grounding metal structures and equipment, along with other precautions used by BPA substantially elimi-nates the possible hazard and nuisance from conducted currents. Under fault conditions (wires down on the ground) the current can reach 23-kA in the imme-
~
diate vicinity for a maximum of one-half second until the line protection de-vices operate. The magnitude of induced currents beneath tne transmission lines can be esti-mated from BPA design criteria. One design criterion is that the electric field strength, as measured one meter above the ground, not exceed 9 kV/m under typical maximum operating conditions. It is additionally specified thac the field strength at the edge of the right-of-way not exceed 5 kV/m. In such O 3.9-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL a field, the short-circuit current under the lines could be 0.14 mA in a per-son and about 5 mA for a large trailer truck. No shortop long-term effects on 1l humans in fields of this magnitude have been documented.(2s High voltage transmission lines exhibit corona discharge which is associated with the formation of ozone. Because corona discharge represents a power loss, transmission lines are designed to minimize this loss for economic reasons. The ozone formation per mile of three-phase 500-kV transmission line would be approximately 0.9 lb/ day, and will be considerably less for the 230-kV line. The effects of this ozone formation are difficult to evaluate since the natu-ral formation rate is high in comparison. Over the rights-of-way the natural ozone generation is one or two orders of magnitude above that caused by corona discharge from transmission lines. Field measurements of ozone concentrations in the vicinity of transmission lines have failed to record any increases that were attributable to the power lines. For these reasons, ozone formation is expected to cause no significant environmental effect. REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.9
- 1. Environmental Statement, Fiscal Year 1975 Proposed Program Vol. 2, Bonneville Power Administration, Department of the Interior,19/5.
1 2. The Role of the Bonneville Power Administration in the Pacific Northwest Power Supply System, Appendix B, BPA Power Transmission, Bonneville Power Administration, Department of the Interior, July 22, 1977, pp. VII-46
-through VII-74.
O 3.9-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O V CHAPTER 5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION 5.1 EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF HEAT DISSIFATED SYSTEM The heat dissipation system is described in Section 3.4. The components of the cooling system which might have some effect on the environment are: j 1) the makeup water intake structure, 2) the blowdown water discharge system, 1 ! and 3) the cooling tower vapor plume. The environmental effects of these are discussed in the following subsections. j 5.1.1 Effluent Limitations and Water Quality Standards The Water Quality Standards of the State of Washington (l) classify the Columbia River from its mouth to Grand Coulee Dam (Rivar Mile 595) as " Class A 4 Excellent". Different water temperature standards are formulated for various reaches of the river. Since operation of WNP-1 and WNP-4 is not expected to I affect the water temperature of the Columbia River downstream of the Wash-i ington-Oregon border (River Mile 309), only the standards applicable for the reach from that point to Priest Rapids Dam are described here. 7 The standards specify that water temperatures, outside a specified mixing
- zone, shall not exceed 200C (680F) due in part to measurable (0.30C)
! increases resulting from human activities and that temperature increases from i human activities at any time shall not exceed t = 34/(T+9), where t is the l permissible increase and T is the water temperature in OC due to all causes
- combined.
Applicable guidelines of 40 CFR 432.25(2) state that there shall be no dis-7
. charge of heat from the main condensers; however, heat may be discharged in j tiowdown from recirculated cooling water systems or cooling ponds. This is j dllowed if the temperature of the blowdown water does not exceed the lowest i temperature of the recirculated cooling water prior to the addition of the l makeup water, j Discharges from WNP-1 and WNP-4 to the river are controlled by the National l Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit (No. WA-002504-6) i issued by the State of Washington in compliance with Chapter 155, Laws of 1973
} (RCW 90.48) as amended and the Clean Water Act as amended by Public Law 95-217. 1
- The permit incorporates, by reference, State of Washington Water Quality Cri-teria contained in Washington Administrative Code 173-201. The mixing zone specified extends from 50 f t upstream to 300 f t downstream of the discharge
- with lateral boundaries separated by 100 ft. Vertically the mixing zone ex-
- tends from the surface to the river bottom. The discharge from WNP-2, located l approximately 650 feet downstream, has a mixing zone c7 the same dimensions.
i I
- 5.1-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) i
WNP-l/4 ER-0L 5.1.2 Physical Effects The physical parameters of intake / discharge system operation are discussed below; the biological effects ara considered in Subsection 5.1.3. 1 5.1.2.1 Intake Effects The intake for the makeup water of the cooling system of WNP-1/4 consists of three above42-inch the riverdiameter p(erforated bottom see Subsectionpipes placed 3.4.2) . Theparallel to the top of the river pipes willflow be submerged about one foot below the water surface for the lowest regulated flow of 36,000 cfs. The combined maximum pumping rate of 48,000 gpm (106 cfs) for both units is about 0.3% of the lowest regulated flow and 0.09% of the average river flow (120,000 cfs). The average makeup water requirement will be about 1 l 15,500 gpm (34.4 cfs) for WNP-l. Detailed hydraulic model studies of the type of in}3ahestructureusedby WNP-1/4 were done by Lasalle Hydraulic Laboratory.t 1 These studies con-cluded that the perforated pipe inlet with an internal sleeve would give uni-form flow distribution. At design conditions (see Table 3.4-1) the withdrawal rate through each intake is about 12,650 gpm. Under these conditions, the inlet velocity at the external screen surface will be approx %tely 0.5 fps, but at a distance of one (1) inch from the outer screen surface the velocity will be approximately 0.1 fps. It is noted tnat intake velocities will gener-ally be below these values since the normal withdrawal rate will be approxi-mately 10,100 gpm at each intake. These low velocities would offer maximum protection from entrainment of small fish during all operating conditions. Undesirable debris is not expected to pass through the outer perforations with these low velocities. 1 5.1.2.2 Blowdown Discharge Effects The blowdown discharge pipe is buried in the river bottom and has a 8 x 48 inch diffuser outlet discharging perpendicular to the river flow direction and at an upward angle of 150 from the horizontal. Tne exit flow velocity will be approximately 10.7 fps at the maximum blowdown rate of 15,500 gpm and 5.3 fps at the average blowdown rate of 7600 gpm from both units. Riprap has been 1 l placed around the discharge to prevent riverbed erosion. River velocities were measured during 1972 near the location of the WNP-2 out-fall. Surface velocities varied between 2.5 and 3.3 fps for river flows vary-ing from 36,000 to 50,000 cfs. A river velocity transect was also made during March 1974, in which current meter measurements were made at three depths for four cross-river locations. Based on the Ringold gauging station, river flow during the survey was estimated at 130,000 cfs. Measurements in the vicinity of the proposed discharge for WNP-1 and -4 indicated the river vel 3 city to be about 4.2 fps and to be near constant with depth. Measurements made in Decem-ber 1979 at the WNP-2 discharge location showed velocities of about 5 fps at a flow of 135,000 cfs.(4). 5.1-2 O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 ER-OL O Mathematical predictions of the blowdown plume dispersion were conducted for a C/ itions wnich are considered representative of a " worst combination of c9p/ The river flow was taken as 36,000 cfs, the minimum case" situation.t regulated flow. While this flow may be attaired for short durations at Priest Rapids Dam, it will rarely, if ever occur, at the discharge site 45 miles downstream. Depth and velocity at the discharge structure at this flow rate are 5.8 feet and 2.5 fps, respectively. The ambient river temperature was assumed to be 20 0 C (680F), the baseline maximum specified by water quality standards. Maximum blowdown from both WNP-1 and WNP-4,15,500 gpm,wasassumedl1 with a temperature of 29.20C (84.50F). This temperature corresponds to a wet bulb of 21.10C (700F). Historically, wet bulbs greater than 700F have an annual frequency of occurrence of about 0.05% although such events occurred with a much greater frequeccy in 1975 (see Subsection 2.3.2.3). To consider the additive effects of the blowdown from WNP-2 it was assumed that this unit was discharging at the maximum combined rate of 6,500 gpm. The point of discharge is about 650 feet downstream from the WNP-l/4 outfall. It was also assumed that the WNP-1/4 plume centerline was carried directly over the WNP-2 discharge. A description of the thermal plume model and its assumptions is given in Sec-tion 6.1.1.1. Calculatio'ns are based on an eddy diffusivity of 4 ft /sec.2 which was derived from a review of the data from a dye dispersion study at the outfall site.(5) Results of the mathematical simuladons are shown in Figures 5.1-1 and 5.1-2. L Under the assumed critical conditions, the temperature increase 300 feet down-stream of the WNP-1/4 discharge is estimateJ to be 0.50F, the limit speci-fied by the water quality standards. Within 20 feet the temperature excess is 20F. With the concurrent maximum discharge from WNP-1 and WNP-4, the temper-ature increase at the end of the WNP-2 mixing zone is estimated to be 0.50F. As snown in Figure 5.l-3, temperature increases of more than 0.50F are con-fined to a distance of about 20 feet on either side of the plume centerline. The above predictions are for a combination of extreme corditions most likely to occur in late summer. Seasonal variation of meteorological and hydrologi-cal conditions will result in greater initial temperature excesses (blowdown temperature minus river temperature) at other times of the year. These higher initial temperature differentials would, however, be offset by the greater plume dilution associated with the higher river flow. Generally, at distances beyond the point of complete vertical mixing, the predicted excess temperature at a point downstream will vary directly with initial excess temperature and discharge flow, inversdy with river depth, and as the inverse square root of river velocity and diffusion coefficient. Absolute river temperatures downstream from the discharge would be less than for the critical condition whteft was modeled. The maximum combined thermal load from WNP-2 and WNP-l and -4 is expected to be less than 75,000 Btu /sec.' This heat load would raise bulk river temperature less than 0.0330F at mini-mum river flow and by about 0.010F under average flow conditions. O O 5.1-3 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 5.1.3 Biological Effects 5.1.3.1 Effects of Intake Structure ! The effects of the intake structure upon aquatic biotic populations are ex-pected to be insignificant. Only those small fish that cannot escape the approximate maximum intake velocity of 0.5 fps at the 3/8-in intake screen openings will probably be impinged and lost. Essentially all of the drifting biota occuring in the water column (phyto- and zooplankton, drifting insects, fish fry or larvae) which are drawn into the intake structure will be killed. This loss, however, will be so slight in comparison to the total populations of these organisms in the river water passing the sita that the loss will not significantly affect the ecosystem. It is estimated that the maximum r water withdrawal will be less than 0.30% of the river flow, at the lowes,1vert regulated flow of 36,000 cfs. The types of resident fish that have eggs and larvae which are most likely to be crawn into the intake include the minnows, suckers, and the mountain white-fish (Prosopium williamsoni). Thir section of the Columbia River is a popular sport fishing area ror wnitefish and it is quite probable that some of them spawn in this reach during the f all. The whitefish deposit adhesive eggs on the gravel of the river bed, and the tiny larvae, which hatch in a few days, drift downstream with the current. On the basis of the fraction of the river flow used by the plant it is expected the numbers of white?tsh larvae that may be drawn into the intake will be no more than about one-half of one percent of the recruitment produced in the region. 1 Of particular importance are the juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus so.) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) that hatch from eggs spawned in tRe' Han-ford reach of the Columbia, upriver from the intake. Inasmuch as the eggs are deposited and the larvae develop in gravel beds, they are not vulnerable. However,' the young fry that emerge from the gravel (generally from March to mid-May for tN fall spawning chinook salmon) are not strong swimmers at this stage and are swept downstream by the current. Some of these young fry will likely pass the intake structure and be vulnerable to it; however, the very low entrance velocities and swift river current (greater than 3 fps) tend to wash the juvenile fish (and debris) clear of the intake. Another mitigating factor is that most of the very small fish from local spawning will pass the intake for WNP-1 and WNP-4 during the spring freshet when the risk of impinge-ment is especially low because of the relatively great flow of the river. The WNP-2 intake structure was inspected for fish impingement in December 1978 and May - December,1979. Du 1 J served on the intake screens.gg the inspections no impinged fish were ob-Fish entrainment sampling and collection efficiency testing at WNP-2 wa: per-formed May 1979 through m y 1980. Analysis 1l no fish eggs or fish larvae were collected.(gf 0) 69During entrainment samples these tests revealed the make-up water pumps were operated in a marmer that approximated actual plant opr-ating conditions. O 5.1 4 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
^ WNP-1/4 ! ER-OL 5.1.3.2 General Effects of Thermal Effluents l l Thermal effects of the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 blowdown discharge are expected to be ; negligible from either a thermal increase effect or from " cold shock". Ther-mal effects involve two factors: 1) the change in water temperature above or below ambient and 2) the duration of exposure of the organisms to the change in temperature. Because of its direct and/or indirect effects, temperature is '
; a principal factor determining the suitability of a habitat for aquatic oraa-nisms. The introduction of heated water into an aquatic ecosystem will cause some biological changes with effects on metabolism, deve1 9gmggt, growth and
- reproduction, and mortality documented in the literature.t' N The toler- l1 ance of organisms to any thermal increment is species specific, depending on the magnitude of the thermal increment and the duration of the exposure, as well as previous temperature acclimation.
5.1.3.3 Thermal Effects on Periphyton Periphyton comunities in the Hanford reach of the river are typically at a subclimax level of growth, with turbulent river-flow and seasonally water temperatures being factors limiting the biomass in the main channel.' In l1 both the periphyton and phytoplankton populations, diatoms are the dominant forms. The discharge of heated water,may cause an increase in the growth of periphyton in the imediate vicinity of the outf all in an area within the 1.4 C isotherm, but such an effect is expected to be small and negated by loss fr In Columbia River studies by Coutant and G Owens,fg)turbulentriverflow. thermal increments of 100C increased the standing crop of periphytononlyduringashor(ylperiod in winter with the dominationlessby diatom l1 ' species persisting. Patrick i reported that water temperatures than [1 4 10 to 150C limited the growth and reproduction of phytoplankton populations dominated by diatom forms, while higher temperatures increased the bicmass ; i until the temperature of the water reached 28.9 to 300C. Temperatures ex-
' c2eding 30 to 340C caused a measurable decrease in the number of species and [
population size as compared to that between 18 to 22.30C. 5.l.3.4 Thermal Effects on Benthos The upper temperature limits for the majority of benthic organisms reported to ! occur in the Hanford reach of the river (see Subsection 2.2.2.5) appear to be l1 ! in the range of 29.4 to 13.30C, with tolerance dependent so hat on l
! species, stage of development, and acclimation temperature. " Curry ) I1 i t found the upper thermal tolerac.ce of several f amilies of aquatic dipterans to !
] be temperatures between 30 and 330C Caddisfly larvae, and stonefly c.nd l
, mayfly nymphs acclimated to 100C had a 96-hour median tolerance to tempera- l 0
l 1 tures species.l8 rangjgg from 2)d})toreported
> Becker 30.5 C,that withcaddisfly mayflies14rvae being the most sensitive acclimated to a l
0 l1 : river terperature of 19.5 C had a 50% mortality (LC50) after a 68-hour l , exposure to a 100C increment, whereas, mortality to temperatures 7.5 0C ; ' above ambient were insignificant. Thermal increase up to a temperature dif- l ferential of 100C resulted in well-defined increases in growth for all of ; O ll 5.1-5 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) !
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 1l the species tested,(l4) and Coutant(15) has reported a 2-week earlier emergence in heated zones as compared to ambient temperatures in the Columbia River. 5.l.3.5 Thermal Effects on Plankton Although prolonged exposures to elevated temperatures have been reported to affect the growth rate and species composition of phytoplankton and zooplank-ton in the area of thermal discharges, the time interval in which plankton will be entrained in the thermal plume is considred too brief to cause sig-nificant changes. During low flow and with a 14.20C temperature differen-tial at the point of blowdown, the time intervals in which organisms would be exposed to temperatures greater than 1.4 C 0 above ambient in the WNP-1 and 4 and WNP-2 plumes would be approximately 16 and 4 seconds respective 1 1l exposure levels are below those reported to have measurable effects.{8.IJhg . The ecological consequences of thermal discharges on planktonic and benthic organisms are expected to be negligible, with lethal effects, if realized, being restricted to sessile benthic orgrnisms in an area7)(of injtial to the mixing (within 1 small I area within the 1.40C isotherm. 91 Such changes would have no measurable effect on the abundance and composition of food organisms in the stream drift, and no impa: on the f ish resources. 5.1.3.6 Thermal Effects on Fishes Temperature, through both direct and indirect action, is one of the important parameters influencing the fishery resources in the Columbia River. Th ana-dromous fish, particularly the salmonids, are the fish with the greatest sport and commercial value. A review of the tolerance and thermal requirements of fish indicates that in the Hanford reach of the river, salmonids are t 1l species most sensitive to and directly affected by thermal discharges. 8) The Hanford reach of the Columbia River is used extensively as a spawning and rearing area by chinook salmon and steelhead trout, as well as a major 'igra-tion route for other adult and juvenile salmonids. A description of the salmon activities in the Hanford reach of the river is shown in Table 5.1-1. Steelhead are essentially present throughout all peri 1l spawning activity commencing froc late March to June.gofThe theoptimum year, with tem-peratures most conducive to salmonid activities have been reported as: 7.2 to 15.50C for migrati9 1lforrearingareas.190)7.2to12.80Cforspawningareas,and10to15.50C The ambient water temperatures in the Hanford reach are typically below the preferred levels in March and April during the initial emergence of chinook fry, while temperatures during May and June are within those levels reported optimum and the preferred temperature of juvenile salmo-nids. The most critical period is during the months of July through September, when temperatures rise into the upper zone of the salmonidt thermal tolerance. , O 5.1-6 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL The l d sect thermal with anyplume from reported the discharge spawning areas.of,2 @oling tower blowdown does not inter-The nearest chinook and steelhead l1 spawning areas are approximately 3/4 mile downstream and the thermal increment
, in the river after mixing is expected to have no measurable effect on spawning i or on the growth and development of egg and larval stages in these areas. In a study on the effects of temperature on varying developmental stages of salmon eggs and fry, no adverse effects were noted when the thermal increments were i less than 1.60C and only a slight increase in mortality was noted when tem- ' peraturesaveragedlessthan2.70Cabovea5-year ature in the Hanfora reach of the Cclumbia River.(p1n ambient waterriver If minimum temper-flow l1
! were to occur during the spring spawning period concurrently with a maximum j initial temperature excess of 15.50C, a differential of 0.70C would occur, 4 approximately 150 f t downstream of the outfall and in an area where no spawn-1 ing or rearing would be anticipated because of water turbulence and cobble substrate. The thermal increment at the nearest reported chinook and steel-
- head redds, as well as in areas within approximately 200 ft of the western shoreline, will be less than 0.030C.
, During movement in the main ciiannel, juvenile salmonids could be involuntarily i carried through the effluent plume, with their downstream velocity assumed to i be essentially that of the riverflow, e.g.,2.5 to approximately 5.0 fps, dur-ing minimum and averaoe flow ratas. Figure 5.1-4 summar12es the average monthly thirmal increment at the paint of discharge and after initial mixing i with respect to smbient river tegrgres and the thermal requirements and tolerance of luvenile salmonids. ' During May through September the l1 ( temperatures of the receiving water will be above the upper incipient lethal L temperature (21.00C) at the point of discharge. However, even under worse-4 case conditions (i.e. periods of low river flow, an ambient river temperature
- of 200C, an effluent temperature of 29.10C and a simultaneous discharge i from WNP-2), temperatures in the Columbia River would be below the upper inci-l pient lethal temperature (210C) after approximately 11 seconds.
The preferred temperatures for juvenile salmonids are reported as 5 to 170C.(16) l1 j Temper tu 0 ' onids,16fesand above 210C 20isCthe a eupper considereo incipient to lethal be atltemperatute verse for juve { salm- (i.e., !1 that temperature which will kill a stated fraction of the population when i brudght rapidly to it from a lower temperature, within an indefinite prolonged exposure). Brett reported that juvenile salmonids (five species of the genus Oncorhynchus), when acclimated to temperatures of 5 to 240C, had a preferred i temperature range of 12 to 14 0C and 9 ded temperatures above 15 C except under cc.iditions of feeding stimuli.\g? In the same study, the ultimate l1 j incipient lethal temperature was 23.8 to 25.10C with juvenile chinook and coho exhibiting the greater thermal resistance. Figure 5.1-5 shows the geo 1 l metric exposed mean time for loss of to temperatures equilibrium above the ultimat:and death incipient when juvenile lethal chinook (g3r temperature. ly A maimum of 3.00 C below the ultimate incipient temperature has been recom-mended as the maximum allowabla for juvenile salmonids "to avoid significant
" with temperatures near 170C considered the upper curtailment optimum temperature.of activgLI Mean survival time curves, based on a review of l1 O
5.l-7 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
l l WNP-1/4-ER-OL l experimental data on the thermal tolerance of juvenile salmonid to variable temperature increments above the incipient lethal temperature as a f qq ion of exposure duratio and acclimation, were summarized in a 1971 report. 'o I Snyder and Blahm 241 reported that juvenil2 chinook salmon acclimated at 12.80C exhibited no mortality within a 72-hour observation period after being suddenly exposed to a temperature of 21.10C for 1 hour, while fish exposed to 26.60C exhibited the first mortality after 100 seconds of exposure. ' hvenile chum salmon acclimated at higher temperatures (15.50C) had no nmrtality when subjected to temperatures of 23.90C; at a temperature of 26.60C the first mortality was observed after a 44-minute duration. 1l The study by Busn, Welch, and Mar (25) presents data relating preferred and suboptimal temperatures to the expected effects of increasing water tempera-tures upon Columbia River fishes. These data indicate that temperatures of 240C (75.2 0 F), if present continuously, would erradicate the salmon spe-cies in the Colabia River and that temperatures of 320C (89.60F) would eliminate the remaining salmonids. Temperatures of this magnitude will occur only briefly in time and space, as previously discussed. Although the temperature increments in the plume at the determined exposures are less than those reported to cause direct lethal effects, indirect effects have been reported to occur at sublethal thermal do',es. In preliminary stu-1 l dies by Schneider(26) juvenile rainbow trout acclimated at ISOC were ex-posed to temperatures ranging from 20.4 to 300C to determine the effect of sutlethal thermal exposures on the vulnerability of juvenile to predation. Exposure to an elevated temperature of 210C had no effect on the suscepti-bility of juveniles to predation. At temperatures of 22 to 230C an exposure duration of 12 minutes was required to increase the vulnerability of juveniles above the control, while exposures for 2.5 to 4 minutes were required when temperatures were 27 to 280C. In another study, the thermal dose (tempera-ture and exposure duration) that first initiated differential predation was about o 11% of that reported for the median dose for loss of equili-1 l brium. There was no evidence of an enhanced incidence or infection of Chondrococcus columnaris disease in fish in areas below the thermal discharges from the early hagford reactors as compared to areas not influenced by the 1 l thermal plumes.M'l Although juvenile salmonids would encounter potentially lethal temperatures if their route of passage coincided with the area of initial mixing, it seems unlikely that the thermal discharges as a result of the operation of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 will have any measurable impact. This is because the temperatures and duration of exposure are less than those reported to have any direct lethal or sublethal effects. During periods 'ef migration, adult anadromous fish would be expected to avoid the thermal plume and the potantially al temperatures associated with the 1 l areas of init;al mixing. Cherry et al reported that adult rainbow trout O 5.1-8 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
i WNP-l/4
- ER-OL avoid temperatures of 190C. Ambient water temperatures w exceed 21.10C j are reported to impede or block adult salmonid migration. The thermal l1 increment is expected to be approximately 0.60C atsove maximum ambient tem-peratures (20 to 21.100), approximately 80 ft and 50 ft downstream of the
- WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 out,f alls, respectively. During the periods of peak adult salmonid migration, the maximum cross-sectional area of the river which would be expected to evoke an avoidance response is less than 3% of the main channel
} during worse-case conditions, and assures free passage of adult migrants. l Temperatures between 10 and 21.10C were reported to cause no avnidance or blockage of migration near the confluenca of the Snake and Columbia Rivers, 4 whereas when the ambient temperatures exceeded 21.10C, migration preference 3 was in the lowest temperature zone.(16,29 In a study on the Hanford reach !1 ! of the river, adult salmonids demonstrated a general praference for migration I along the eastern shoreline (xross the river Qqqi WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 outfalls) 4 from Priest Rapids Dam downstream to Richland. A i The study also indicated l1 ) that the thermal discharges from the early Hanford reactors had no significant l effects on migration. i Frcd! the above discussion, it is evident that temperatures considered to have j lethal or sublethal effects on Columbia River fish will occur only very briefly i in time and space in the area downstream from the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 discharges. j From predictions of the near-field temperatures and incremental additions to ! the bulk river temperature, it is concluded that thermal effects upon the j Columbia River ecosystem will be insignificant. i O V
" Cold shock" is an additional concern at some nuclear power stations utilizing natural bodies of water as cooling sources. Cold shock problems stem from the sudden cessation of thermal discharge upon plant shutdown, since the thermal 3 plume issuing from power plants acts as an attractant to aquatic organisms,
- particularly fishes. These organisms reside in the artificially heated waters for long periods, becoming acclimated to the elevated temperatures and, in fact, dependent on them for survival. Fish mortalities have acco ed at a few i plants following shutdowns and much effort has recently gone into devising ways to eliminate these fish kills. Cold shock is never expected to occur at WNP-l/4 and WNP-2 because of their location on a swiftly flowing reach of the i Columbia River. For fish to become acclimated to the warmer temperatures of the plume they would have to occupy these waters for several days, which is
- not expected to happen in the strong river currents. Fish populations down-stream from the mixing zone, i.e., where the river has become thermally homo- -l1
!l geneous, will experience temperatures that are essentially natural. The only other aquatic community that might have a continuous exposure to the effluent and thus become acclimated to the higher temperatures is the benthic j community. However, any impact on this population from cold shock would be minimal in terms of the aquatic community in the vicinity of the site since the potentially affected area is so small (i.e., for WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 total l area with a AT 20.60C is s 0.18 acre). 1 l O 5.1-9 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 Es-OL 5.1.4 Effects of Heat Dissipation Facilities The application for a Construction Permit for WNP-1/4 included an assessment 1l of the effects of operation of the heat dissipation facilities.(29) At that time it was expected that linear mechanical draft (LMD) cooling towers would lj be employed. The LMD configuration has been changed to?an 19-fan per tower circular configuration (CMD) (see Section 3.4). The LMD configuration is more conservative applicable for with respect bounding thetoeffects plumeofrise, therefore system the pr(aliqr operation. analysis Methods is still used to y develop the following predictions are given in Subsection 6.1.3.2. 5.1.4.1 Cooling Tower Vapor Plume Mechanical draft evaporative cooling towers will produce visible plumes of liquid water droplets under certain atmospheric conditions. These plumes will extend from the cooling towers to distances and deviations dictated by pre-vailing meteorologica: conditions. Length of Plumes. Table 5.1-2 contains summaries of the annual percent per-sistence of plume length for operating mechanical draft cooling towers at the present site. The values for WNP-1 alone are as a function of both directicn and distance. Plumes will reach 1 km about 40 percent of the time; 2 km 24 percent; and 9 km, one percent of the time; and may occasionally extend to distances on the order of 30 km. The longest predicted plumes occurred in 1 January, and the shortest maximum monthly (5 km) in August. January is the only month when the plumes are predicted to extend beyond 10 km. At the bottom of Table 5.1-2, the persistences fo* all directions are given as a function of distance for operation of WNP-1; WNP-1 and WNP-2 (two plants); il and WNP-1, WNP-2, and WNP-4 (three plants). Effects of the operation of all three units are given in Table 5.1-3. The persistence of the plumes reaching certain distances from the center of the site are given. These represent lengths of single plumes and of combined plumes. The degree of combination depends primarily on the prevailing wind direction. The incremental change in 1l plume persistences is small and is slightly directional, depending on the physical orientation af the towers with respect to various wind directions. The results of two units are bracketed by the results in Tables 5.1-2 and 5.1-3. The credicted annual frequencies of all ground-level fogging out to 10 km from the operation of either WNP-1 or WNP-4 alone are given in Table 5.1 d. These are based on the frequencies of intersection of the visible plume with the higher topographic features in each annular segment. The frequencies of freezing conditions at ground level are in Table 5.1-5. The probabilities of increased ground fogging from the operation of more than one unit was found to be very close to being a multiple of the number of units times the effect of a single unit. (a) This judgement was also made with respect to WNP-2 which was pla I withlinearcoolingtowersandconstructedwithcirculartowers.g 5.1-10 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l l l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O Ground-level interaction of the plumes on or near the site may result from , a6?odynamic downwash of the plume. The results indicate that downwash plumes will not generally extend beyond several km of the cooling towers and will only on rare occasions, if ever, extend out to distances of 5 km. Potential downwash conditions, coupled with freezing temperatures, occurred in 98 hours for the one year of onsite data. Ground-level interaction may also occur as the result of diffusion of the plume down to the ground or intersection with higher ground surfaces. The latter comprises the rest of the ground fogging , results. In addition, an array of heights of potentially sensitive locations surround- , ing the site were input and the fogging and icing potential calculated. The results are given in Table 5.1-6. The plume width and object width have been accounted for in these probabilities for ground fogging from WNP-1 alone, and WNP-1 and WNP-4 together. Natural Occurrence of Fog and Ice. It is appropriate to place the preceding es'timates of cooling tower predicted occurrences in perspective by r.oting the i~ natural occurrences of fog and icing. Natural occurrences at locations for which data is available are shown in Table 5.1-7. Some of the tower-produced fog and ice will coincide with other natural occurrences locally. However, l even if it is conservatively assumed that this is not the case, it is apparent that the estimated incremental occurrences of fog due to the towers are small compared to the natural occurrences. Effect of Fogging and Icing. No interference from operation of one or three Il
- units is predicted at either the Pasco or Kennewick airports. The Richland airport may be affected by ground fog or e!cvated plumes for a few hours occasionally. The probabilities in Table 5.1-6 for the Richland airport show 0.5 hours of ground fogging and 15 hours of elevated plumes if the impact in the annular sector containing the airport is apportioned to the 2 km square area bounding the airport opera- tions. Hence, the actual interference is expected to be relatively small.
. Harvesting grain crops in the vicinity continues through the night until the work is complete unless dampness halts the work. During this harvesting peri-od, which lasts from mid-July until the end of August, the relative humidity i is lower and the temperature higher than at any other time of the year. Evap-oration associated with the irrigation of lands in the Yakima River " alley, just west of the Hanford Site, amounts to about 2,000,000 gpm in the summer-time. The additional evaporation, up to 33,000 gpm from cooling tower opera-tion (two units), will cause a very small increase in humidity downwind from the plant after the vapor plume has been dispersed. No measurable effect of
;he incrementally higher humidity on moisture content of harvested crops is expected. 1 The nearest public highway to the site is State Highway 240, which runs acout 10 km southwest of the site. In this section, fogging or icing at ground level are expected to occur about 0.04% of the time. Other roads closer to the site are on the Hanford Site, and access by the public is controlled.
i O 5.1-11 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Workers traveling the project road to the FFTF site, to the Hanford opera-tions, and to the WNP-l/4 site can expect to encounter ground level fogging about 2 percent of the time and freezing 0.8% of the time from one unit operation. 5.1.4.2 Drift Deposition In addition to the water vapor exhausted to the atmosphere, the cooling towers will lose a small fraction (perhaps 0.005 percent, although a conservative drift rate of 0.05 percent is assumed here) of the recirculation cooling water as drift. The water droplets become mechanically separated from the recircu-lating water and are entrained into the tower's updraf t. This drift contains the dissolved solids, or salts, which are normally carried by the cooling wa-ter. (In contrast, the normal plume droplets are composed of pure water re-sulting from evaporation and condensation of the cooling water in the towers.) A large percentage of the drift droplets have a measureable fall velocity such that they fall to the ground immediately surrounding the plant. In dry weath-er, the drift droplets may actually evaporate in the atmosphere, leaving crys-tals of salts which will essentally disperse or fall to the surface, depending on their size. The deposition of these salts on the surrounding landscape depends greatly on th local atmospheric conditions and the concentration of salts in the drop-lets. The onsite meteorological data and the metnods identified in Subsection 1 6.1.3.2 were used to estimate the average annual deposition patterns around the site. Figure 5.1-6 presents the mean annual salt deposition from the cooling towers assuming year-round full-power operation of both WNP-1 and WNP-4. Drift deposition will have no effect on commercial operations since fallout beyond about 0.5 mi from the plants should be less than 2 lb/ac/yr. Operation of cooling towers is expected to increase the concentration of salts in the soil profile. Due to the low rainfall, salts are expected to remain in the root zone and may build up to concentrations of sufficient strength to prevent the growth of cheatgrass which provides the main vegetative cover. The areas with substantial drift deposition (i.e., >10 lb/ac/yr) predicted are also the areas substantially scarified by plant ccnstruction. Therefore, concerns with drift are primarily related to revegetation and the reestablishment of habitat rather than the damage of previously undisturbed areas. A monitoring program (described in Subsection 6.1.4.1) is intended to detect the effects of drift from WNP-2. The results of this study will be used to determine the level of monitoring appropriate to WNP-1/4. REFERENCES FOR SECTI0t4 5.1
- 1. Washington State Water Quality Standards, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington, December 19, 1977.
5.1-12 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O
l WNP-1/4 ER-OL I : i 2. " Federal Effluent Guidelines and Standards, Steam Electric Power Plants," j Federal Register, 39:36186, October 8, 1974. i 3. Alam, S., F.E. Parkinson, and R. Hauser, Hanford Nuclear Project No. 2 - 4 Air and Hydraulic Model Studies of the Perforated P1pe Inlet and Protec-j tive Dolonin, LHL-599 Lasalle Hydraulic Laboratory Ltd. to Washington Public Power Supply System and Burns and Roe, Inc., February 1974. 4'
- 4. Data Report for Task B09, December 1979: Velocity-Depth Measurements,
! Document No. DRB09-01-01, prepared for Washington Public Power Supply
- System by Beak Consultants, Inc., Portland, Oregon, January 10, 1980.
- 5. Kannberg, L.D., Mathematical Modeling of the WNP-1, 2, and 4 Cooling j Tower Blowdown Plumes, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, March 1980.
- 6. Preoperational Environmental Monitoring Studies near WNP 1, 2 and 4 j August 1978 through March 1980, WPP55 Columbia River Ecology Studies, j Vol 7, Beak Consultants, Inc., Portland, OR, June, 1980.
4 ? 7. Coutant, C. C., " Thermal Pollution - Biological' Effects," J. Water ! Pollution Control Fed., Vol. 43, p. 1292, 1971. A
- 8. Jensen, L. D., et al., The Effects of Elevated Temperatures Upon Aquatic Invertebrates, Edison Elec. Inst. Res. Report, Project RP-49, pp. 232, j s 1969.
I j 9. Owens, B. B., Columbia River Peri shyton Comunities under Thermal Stress, j BNWL-1550, Battelle, Pacific Nort1 west Laboratories, Richland, Washing-j ton, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 2.19, 1971. l 10. Coutant, C. C. and B. B. Owens, Productivity of Periphyton Communities
- under Thermal Stress, BNWL-1306, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Labora-j tories, Richland, Washington, Vol.1, Part 2, p. 3.1,1970.
- 11. Patrick, R., "Some Effects of Temperature on Freshwater Algae," In:
l l Biological Aspects of Thermal Pollution, P. A. Krenkel and F. A. Parker (eds.), Vanderbilt Univ. Press, pp. 199-213, 1969. i
- 12. Curry, L. L., "A Survey of Environmental Requirements for the Midge (Diptera: Tendipedidae),"In: Biological Problems in Water Pollution, C. M. Tarzwell (ed.), Public Health Service Publ. No. 999-WP-25,1965.
- 13. Nebeker, A. W. and A. E. Lemke, " Preliminary Studies on the Tolerance of
-l Aquatic Insects to Heated Waters," J. Kansas Ent. Soc., Vol. 41, p. 413, 1968. j 14. Becker, C. D., Response of Columbia River Invertebrates to Thermal l Stress, BNWL-1550, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 2.17, 1971. ! 5.1-13 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) i
WNP-1/4 ER-OL
- 15. Coutant, C. C., The Effects of Temperature on the Development of Bottom Organisms, BNWL-714, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, 1968.
- 16. Columbia River Thermal Effects Study, Vol. I: Biological Effects Stu-dies, Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 102, January 1971.
- 17. Pearson, W. D. and P. R. Franklin, "Some Factors Affecting Drift Rates of Bactis and Simuliidae in a Large River," Ecology, Vol. 49, p. 75, 1968.
- 18. Supplemental Information on the Hanford Generating Project in Support of a 316(a) Demonstration, Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, Washington, November 1978.
- 19. Testimony of D. R. Eldred, Washington Dept. of Game, in hearing on Appli-cation TPPSEC 71-1 before State of Washington Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluatior. Council, Exhibit 62.
- 20. Salo, E. O. and R. E. Nakatani, in hearings on Application TPPSEC 71-1 before State of Washington Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council, Exhibit 26.
- 21. Olson, P. A., Effects of Thermal Increments on Eggs and Young of Columbia River Fall Chinook, BNWL-1538, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, 1971.
- 22. Brett, J. R., " Temperature Tolerance of Young Pacific Salmon, Genus Oncorhynchus," J. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Vol. 9, p. 265, 1952.
- 23. Nakatani, R. E., in hearings on Application TPPSEC 71-1 before State of Washington Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council, Figure 13, Exhibit 49.
- 24. Snyder, G. R. and T. H. Blahm, " Effects of Increased Temperature on Cold-Water Organisms," J. Water Pollution Control Fed., Vol. 43, p. 890, 1971.
- 25. Bush, R. M., E. B. Welch and B. W. Mar, " Potential Effects of Thermal Discharges on Aquatic Systems," Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 8, p. 561, 1974.
- 26. Schneider, M J., vulnerability of Juvenile Salmonids to Predation Fol-lowing Thermal Schock, BNWL-ll50, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Labora- l tories, Richland, Washington, Vol. 1, Part 2, p. 2.19, 1971. l l
- 27. Templeton, W. L. and C. C. Coutant, " Studies on the Biological Effects of l Thermal Discharges from the Nuclear Reactors to the Columbia River at Hanford," IAEA-SM-146/33, Environmental Aspects of Nuclear Power Sta-tions, pp. 591-612, 1971.
5.1-14 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
4 WNP-l/4 I ER-OL i
- 28. Cherry, D. S., K. L. Dickson and J. Cairns, Jr, " Temperatures Selected and Avoided by Fish at Various Acclimation Temperatures, J. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 32:485-491, 1975.
. 29. Environmental Report, WPPSS Nuclear Project No.1, prepared by the i Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, Washington, Subsection
- 5.1.4, no date.
. 30. Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of WPPSS Nuclear
! Project No. 2, NUREG-0812, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 0.C., December 1981, Subsection 5.4.2. I i 4 i I i 4
- o o 5.1-15 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) 4 l
y- . ,, ( ) l' }
'u) _
/
ER-OL TABLE 5.1-1 TIMING OF SALMON ACTIVITIES IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER NEAR HANFORD 1 Month Species Fresh-Water Life Phase Jan Feb Mar Agr Mag Jun Jul Aug Seg Oct Nov Dec Spring Chinook Upstream migration X X X Spawning Intragravel development Fresh-water rearing X X X X X X X X X X X X Downstream migration X X X X Summer - Fall Upstream migration X X X X X Chinook Spawning X X X Intragravel development X X X X X X X Fresh-water rearing X X X X X X X X X X X X Downstream algration X X X X X X Coho Upstream migration X X X Spawning Intragravel development Fresh-water rearing X X X X X X X W X X X X Downstream migration X X X X Pink Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel development Presh-water rearing Downstream migration f[ g Chum Upstream migration Spawning 3 Intragravel development CL Fresh-water rearing l Downstream migration D rt Sockeye Upstream migration X X X Spawning
- Intragravel deve lopment
,, Fresh-water rearing ng Downstream migration X X X X X X f) (T m taJ
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.1-2 ANNUAL PERCENT PERSISTENCE OF PLUME LENGTHS FROM EITHER WPF-1 OR WNP-4 COOLING TOWER ALONE AS A FUNCTION OF 0! STANCE AND DIRECTION Distance (km) Direction i e 4 6 a 10 is is 24 30 N 3.81 3.04 1.60 0.87 0.17 0 0 0 0 0
- J.96 2.30 0.83 0.18 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 NE 3.05 1.08 0.59 0.19 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 - 2.80 0.69 0.46 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 2.18 0.60 0.22 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.37 1.14 0.52 0.22 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 SE 4.36 1.68 1.06 0.62 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 4.70 3.22 1.66 0.72 0.08 0.02 0 0 0 0 S 2.96 ?.44 1.47 0.51 0.17 0.13 0.10 0.06 0 0 - 2.29 1.73 1.34 0.56 0.16 0.12 C.0i 0 0 0 SW 2.05 1.56 1.01 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.47 0.35 0.24 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0.38 0.38 0.30 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.70 0.54 0.29 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 NW 0.96 0.77 0.25 0.08 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 2.60 2.31 1.40 0.59 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 W NP-1 40.6 23.8 13.23 5.20 1.10 0.17 0.12 0.06 0 0 With WNP-2 41.5 23.9 13.23 5.32 1.21 0.17 0.12 0.06 0 0 Three Plants 41.7 24.5 13.64 5.67 1.39 0.35 0.29 0.06 0.06 0 l
l t l l l l l 9
I , WNP-1/4 !' ER-0L
- TABLE 5.1-3 I
I ANNUAL PERCENT PERS!STENCE OF PLUME LENETHS FROM WIF-1 COOLING TOWER , AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE ANO DIRECTION WITH THE ADDED EFFECT OF WNP.2 AND WNP.4 Distance (km) Direction 1 2 4 6 8 10 14 18 24 30 N 3.81 3.04 1.60 0.87 0.17 0 0 'O 0 0 3.96 2.30 0.83 0.18 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 NE 3.05 1.08 0.59 0.19 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 2.80 0.69 0.46 0.14 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 E 2.18 0.60 0.32 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.37 1.26 0.54 0.22 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 SE 4.36 1.75 1.06 0.69 0.18 0.06 0.06 0 0 0
- 4.72 3.12 1.77 0.77 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 l S 3.00 2.44 1.47 0.51 0.17 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.06 0
- 2.29 1.73 1.34 0.56 0.16 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 SW 2.05 1.56 1.01 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.07 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 W 0.95 0.45 0.30 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.06' O 0 0 .;
0.81 0.82 0.45 0.23 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 NW 0.96 0.77 0.26 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.06 0 0 0
- 2.60 2.31 1.40 0.59 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 i
TOTAL 41.7 24.5 13.64 5.67 1.39 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.06 0 I 1 O i
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.1-4 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE 5 0F GROUND FOGGING FROM A SINGLE PLANT AT WNP-1/4 SITE Distance (meters) sec tor 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 N 0.436 0.937 0.866 0.6 04 0.381 0.?22 0.092 0.044 0.000 0.000 NNE 0.303 0.698 0.514 0.366 0.292 0.170 0.057 0.013 0.000 0.000 NE 0.260 0.445 0.344 0.236 0.127 0.076 0.015 0.006 0.000 0.000 ENE 0.046 0.332 0.284 0.236 0.153 0.098 0.083 0.037 0.000 0.000 E 0.024 0.199 0.161 0.133 0.118 0.061 0.061 0.037 0.009 0.009 ESE 0.030 0.268 0.236 0.211 0.155 0.120 0.092 0.052 0.046 0.000 SE 0.002 0.246 0.260 0.244 0.235 0.205 0.129 0.094 0.020 0,017 SSE 0.181 0.408 0.349 0.248 0.181 0.140 0.098 0.054 0.024 0.018 S 1.286 1.225 0.962 0.678 0.432 0.234 0.157 0.091 0.076 0.048 SSW 1.044 0.933 0.826 0.569 0.353 0.229 0.091 0.030 0.017 0.006 SW 0.898 0.711 0.532 0.357 0.268 0.168 0.113 0.046 0.030 0.030 WSW 0.445 0.392 0.334 0.198 0.135 0.063 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 W 0.308 0.275 0.218 0.151 0.091 0.063 0.039 0.015 0.000 0.000 WNW 0.255 0.216 0.177 0.109 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 NW 0.094 0.091 0.131 0.122 0.163 0.030 0.615 0.000 0.000 0.000 NNW 0.462 0.512 0.484 0.283 0.225 0.131 0.065 0.015 0.000 0.000 TOTAL 6.074 7.J76 6.679 4.744 3.236 2.069 1.138 0.532 0.222 0.133 O O O
o o o WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.1-5 c ANNUAL PERCENTAGES OF GROUND F.1G AT . FREEZING TEMPERATURES FROM A SINGLE PLANT AT WNP-1/4 SITE 4 i Oistance (meters) i i Sector 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 I l N 0.172 0.347 0.332 0.281 0.203 0.150 0.068 0.044 0.000 0.000 l. NNE 0.006 0.120 0.120 0.100 0.094 0.066 0.031 0.013 0.000 0.000 NE 0.000 0.039 0.039 0.024 0.024 0.022 0.007 0.004 0.000 0.000 - ENE 0.000 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.046 0.018 0.000 0.000 4
! E 0.000 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.028 0.028 0.009 0.009 ESE 0.000 0.052 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.037 0.037 0.031 0.006 e
) SE 0.000 0.144 0.177 0.177 0.157 0.142 0.081 0.065 0.020- 0.017 i SSE 0.085 0.190 0.183 0.163 0.124 0.118 0.087 0.054 0.024 0.018 l S 0.582 0.480 0.408 0.325 0.233 0.185 0.124 0.091 0.076 0.048
! SSW 0.464 0.382 0.345 0.248 0.150 0.131 0.076 0.030 0.017 0.006
~
j SW 0.349 0.225 0.207 0.157 0.126 0.094 0.094 0.046 0.030 0.030 i
- WSW 0.039 0.020 0.020 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 '3.000 W 0.096 0.072 0.072 0.048 0.039 0.030 0.031 0.015 0.000 0.000 WNW 0.039 0.026 0.026 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4
NW 0.020 0.018 0.035 0.031 0.017 0.015 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 NNW 0.203 0.218 0.216 0.159 0.124 0.105 0.059 0.015 0.000 0.000 ' i TOTAL 2.054 2.438 2.350 1.906 1.463 1.227 0.783 0.458 0.207 0.133 l
! ;L
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.1-6 1 FREOUENCY OF FOGGING AND ICING PREDICTED FROM THE OPERATIgW OF COOLING TOWERS FOR UNIT I AND UNITS 1 AND 4 COMSINEDL 1 Fogging Frequency Icing Frequency Direction Distance (traction or time; teraction or time) location Sector Segment 1 1 and 4 1 1 and 4 (km) FFTF SSW, SW 5 .00055 .00113 .00023 .00048 (5 hr) (10 hr) (2 hr) (4 hr) State Highway 240 SW 10 .0004 .0008 .0004 .W8 (4 hr) (7 hr) (4 hr) (7hr) 300 Area Building SSE 11 .00005 .0001 .00005 .0001 Tops (0.5hr) (1 hr) (0.5 hr) (1 hr) Exxon Facility SSE 14 .00001 .00003 .00001 (0.1 hr) (0.3 hr) (0.1 hr) 200-E Building WNW 14 0 0 0 0 Tops Ricnland Airport S 20 .00006 .00012 .000057 .00011 Ground Level (0.5hr) (I hr) (0.5hr) (1hr) Richland Airport S 20 .0017 .0034 .0017 .0034 Elevated Plumes (15 hr) (30hr) (15hr) (30 hr) Pasco Airport at SE 29 0 0 0 0
+200 ft.
Pasco Airport SE 29 0 0 0 0 E.evated Plumes (a) Based on rectangular towers as originally planned, rather than circular configuration as constructed. (b) Probabilities based on width of the location. Numbers in parentheses are hrs /yr. O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 i ER-OL O TABLE 5.1-7 NATURAL OCCURRENCE OF FOG AND ICE 1 Fog Ice ' i Pasco Airport (a) 63 hours 72 hours HanfordMeteorologyStation(b) 101 hours 23 days Richland(c) 20 days 20 days N.Richland(c) 20 days 20 days i l 3 j (a) Based on fogs with visibility 1/2 mile. (b) Based on fogs with visibility 1/4 mile. 4 l (c) Based on all fogs with visibility 0-6 miles. 1 !O i i l 1 i i j . ! I t l i i
!O Amendment 1 (Feb 83) 4
0 0 0 1 i 0 0 8 0 i 0 6 0 i 0 4 T 0 F i 0 E 2 G R s m p A i c g H 0 0 C 0 0 S 0
- 0, 5, I 0 D 1
I 6 5 3 1 4 i 0
- - 8 DN i
0 A 6 1 W O N P L W O N F D i 0 W 4 R M E V W O O I L R R B F M A 0 E i 2 R T S N W O D I 0 E 1 C N i 8 A T S I P i 6 D M P E T M E E i 4 T C A M F O R T T U [S O B i 2
\
/
\g
\
g g\
- - - _ - - -- - - _ _ - 1 2
1 1 1 0 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 o y mw h $'i h
- g Us y a" $ O t
5E5 QSE gjDEm EEaz@Oz EEO ioMm EIQ hMg sjma A o oD 8m m m?o"
, @ !""a l
a
E E a 5 8 z 6 E
=
m O o
$Zg -5 - " A lll ?
m &
$ 0 RIVER FLOW 36,000 cis j $4 -
g WNP-2 BLOWDOWN 6500 gpm
\ OROMTEMP
$ m \
E y3 - in s o W
@ d 2 - -
s # WNP-2 WIT 11 WNP 1 AND 4 OPERATING
? 5
" SU FACE s
$$ TEMP J 8 1 -
N 2 WNP-2 WITHOUT WNP 1 AND 4 I _ 1$ OPERATING [j o i i i i I i i i i l i i i i-ij A 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 800 n 5 "m h DISTANCE DOWNSlREAM FROM WNP-2 DISCHARGE- FT
=
1 4 Em E a a > 0 0
,o, S
E M U . i L P ~ 2 P N W _'5F D 2 N 0 A 4 f
- .=>
l. P N SF WC R0
. O F
0 0 6 e T3 T O= - E L - E PW MO R F E HR T E OV L I A ; F L L A F T S - I R F L U
- 0
_ 0. - L A O 1 - F / 4 T 1 U P H 0 N T P E D F 2 P N W aW O M
- I R
M D F . R E - E E H C - C T U N O D A S E T
. I R S
.- F Y I
' L D
=
O 6 2 M R < 0 O DF E I T N AU - ME Tt S E R EW s a F _ 0 1 0 0 8 M m 0 4 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 m0 0 1 [wa iu u o t 4c c f4 I2.m3 zoto
- 2 mC,c0 'oO m3 gCN[< g<" m T 5 z 5 m( om 5 25* E Sy N*
. s2mL A D~ o5oOg2 iEEm ~(nOH$mm
(' m3 O 2 O 6 . e (4
lE D E O o 2 c
* ~
$ A PREFERRED TEMPER ATURE o
o'g rs
. B ZONE OF THERMAL TOLERANCE 18 _ C INCIPIENT LETHAL TEMPERATURE E
m 30- ~% D TEMPERATURE AT POINT OF BLOWDOWN s\ Q $I E9 \ A TEMPERATURE AT POINT OF BLOWDOWN
~ -
h gA s e TEMPERATURE 15 FT. BELOW THE OUTFALL a Ko m Eo s m a m - s\ E 3
$g 20- $a3 m g 10 4 .
p -
\s A D(77.28 F : 25.18 C m m m C Dm _ Dm -
\s E II II C(69.88 F : 21.08 C)
A 3 3 6 -
\
m$ 2H 10- EF B g A E mb m$ A Vt
>on O3 0g A(43.8 *-57.2 *F : 6.4 *-14.0 *Cl
[H 4m 4m 9 9 \ \ g\ l N \ l moi 55 5g 2 3, , , , m E kE al i I I I l ogy 0- '4 8 12 16 20 24
- z o -1 6mj AMBIENT RIVER TEMPERATURE *C mo m
5 [Q cm 40 I I 50 I I I 60 I I 70 I 80 I
<o m
Qy AMBIENT RIVER TEMPERATURE. *F a Ma 2
-4_ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _. -_ _ .
9 9
1 l
- DEATH (D)
-- EQUILIBRIUM LOSS (EL)
_
- GEOMETRIC MEAN DEATH TIME o GEOMETRIC MEAN EQUILIBRIUM LOSS TIME
\
\ i 10,000 \ '
ig g f\ \ m f N 1,000 a IN D = 9.06-1.05 (x) I IN EL = 8.82-1.15 (x)
\
WHERE x = TEST TEMPERATURE - 25 \ g i 100
\
N f JUVENILE CHINOOK SALMON,1970 5\
\nf
\
oF N-
-i i t i i i 74 76 78 M 82 M 10 #v i i e i e i 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 TESTTEMPERATURE, UC EQUILIBRIUM LOSS AND DEATH TIMES AT WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM VARIOUS TEMPERATURES FOR JUVENILE WNP-1/4 CHINOOK SALMON ER-OL FIG. 5.1-5
l l 10 100
- 200
/~b WNP 4 1
10 100 1 x M)_ b1 \s
-N-
%e\ 200 1
', 100 _
MlLES 1.0 C Amendment 1 (Feb 83) COOLING TOWER DRIFT DEPOSITION WASHINGTON PUBUC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM FR THE COM ED OP ON - FIG. 5.1-6
WNP-l/4 ER-OL G U 5.2 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT FROM ROUTINE OPERATION l Radioactive materials are routinely released from nuclear plants. Potential l radionuclide releases an'd exposure pathways are identified and evaluated to assure plant operation within the design criteria of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, and applicable sections of 10 CFR 20. Details of the radwaste system are described in Section 3.5. 5.2.1 Exposure Pathways All significant exposure pathways have been considered in the design of these nuclear power plants. Radionuclides released to the atmosphere may travel l1 offsite, impacting the population via external radiation from the plume and/or deposited material on the ground or foliage, inhalation, and ingestion of food products containing radioactive materials. Liquid effluents to the Columbia River may impact people via drinking water, irrigated foodstuffs, wildlife, l1 and recreational activities such as fishing, swimming, boating and occupying the shoreline. Figure 5.2-1 shows the relationship of the WNP-l/4 plants with WNP-2, Hanford Site boundary, nearest population center and nearest resi-dential area with the highest offsite airborne concentration. Radionuclides released from the plant can be generally identified as to their most probable offsite dose impact. For example, noble gases are primarily an external exposure hazard since they generally do not enter the food chain through deposition on soil or foliage. Radiciodines are most significant through the pasture-cow-milk pathway. Tritium is assumed to behave identi-O. cally as water. Other radionuclides, such as airborne particulates, are transferred through the environment by complicated relationships involving radionuclide deposition, uptake, accumulation, and transfer. Figures 5.2-2 and 5.2-3 illustrate generalized exposure pathways to man and animals, respectively. l1 5.2.2 Radioactivity in the Environment Liquid effluent radionuclide concentrations are shown in Table 5.2-1 at the WNP-1/4 plant discharge point for an average blowdown dilution flow of 7.2 cfs, a slough area approximately 5 miles downstream where extensive fishing is pos- l1 sible, the nearest public drinking water withdrawal point downstream, and the calculated radionuclide concentration in drinking water following treatment. Information regarding airborne effluent radionuclides at four locations are shown in Table 5.2-2. These locations were as follows:
- 1. Restricted area = site boundary, 0.5 mile SE. l1
- 2. At the Columbia River shoreline, 2.4 miles ESE.
O 5.2-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 ER-OL
- 3. At Taylor Flats, 3.3 miles ESE = the nearest significant resi-dence in the southern direction.
O
- 4. At Ringold, 3.1 miles ENE = the nearest significant residence in the northern direction where few farms are located.
d These(qqncentrations wereX0QD0Q,g2 1.lll U and computer code determin9 )using givent'le themethodology of Regulatory Guide two-year meteorological data of Tables 2.3-5A through M. Table 5.2-3 is sumary of the relative con-1 centrations (Chi /Q in sec/nJ) for each sector at several distances from the plant site. Table 5.2-4 provides the relative annual deposition (D/Q in Ci/m2-yr) factors for each sector and several distances. 5.2.3 Dose Rate Estimates For Biota Other Than Man Doses potentially received by biota from WNP-l/4 effluents are very small re-lative to the natural background dose received. Source terms for liquid and airborne releases are included in Tables 5.2-1 and 5.2-2, respecti y. These source (tgrms, and 1 1.111, 11 were along used twith the guidelines in Regulatory Guides 1.109t GASPAR(4), and LADTAP . Sfstimatethedosereceived,usingNRCcodesX0Q00Q(2), Animals, birds and fish which obtain a living from the Columbia River receive an internal dose from radionuclides in their diet and an external dose from radionuclides in the air, water, or sediments.* Table 5.2-5 summarizes the dose received by several types of biota living in or near the Columbia River from liquid effluents. Animals such as deer, coyotes, and field mice that do not consume aquatic food or spend much time near the rivershore will receive their radiation exposure through direct radiation from the plant's gaseous effluent plume, inhalation, ingestion of terrestrial vegetation, and external doses to exposure from con-taminated ground. The total dose received from all of these pathways will be 1 l very small. An animal such as a deer, spending 50% of its time 2.4 miles ESE of the WNP-1 plant near the river, would receive an annual dose of less than 0.1 mrad / year from external radiation. Additional exposure would be received from inhalation and ingestion. However, the total annual dose from all path-ways would still be less than 0.1 mrad / year. Previous U. S. Government supported studies at Hanford have shown that irradi-ation of salmon eggs at a rate of 500 mrad / day did not affect the number of i 1l adult fish returning from the ocean or their ability to spawn.l6) Previous-ly, when all the Hanford single-pass cooling production reactors were operat-ing, studies were made on the effect of the released radionuclides on spawning salmon. These studies have shown no discernible 1l dose rates in the rage of 100 to 200 mrad / week.(7)ffect to these salmon by
*The average river flow rate is 120,000 cfs. Hence, sedimentation and expo-sure due to sediments is negligible.
O 5.2-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 ER-OL p \ i I The estimated doses to biota from WNP-1/4 effluents will be orders of magni-tude less than the doses experienced by biota from operation of the Hanford production reactors. Considering that no distinguishable effect on the biota from radiation was observed during operation of these reactors over many years, no perceptable effect from WNP-l/4 operation is expected. 5.2.4 Dose Rate Estimates For Man Estimated doses to the population within 50 miles of the WNP-1/4 plants and doses to individuals expected to recche maximum doses because of their place of residence or life-style were calculated using the guidance in Regulatory Guides 1.103 and 1.111 using NRC codes X0QD0Q, GASPAR and LADTAP. Table 5.2-6 l1 summarizes the annual radiation doses to an individual from WNP-1 effluents included in Tables 5.2-1 and 5.2-2. The dose from the WNP-4 plant is assumed l1 to be equal to that from WNP-1, although in rcality the doses will be slightly less because of the greater distance from WNP-4 to areas off the Hanford Site. The cumulative doses from all plants (WNP-1, 2, and 4) are shown in Tables 5.2-11 and 5.2-12. Input parameters to the LADTAP code are shown in Table 1 5.2-8 and Appendix V; input to GASPAR is shown in Table 5.2-10 and Appendix IV. 5.2.4.1 Liquid Pathways People may be exposed to the radioactive material released in the liquid effluent from WNP-1 or WNP-4 by drinking water, eating fish, eating irrigated farm products and by participating in recreational activities on or along the rs Columbia River. ( Drinking Water The population within 50 miles of the site, utilizing Columbia River water for drinking includes primarily the Tri-Cities area of Pasco, Kennewick and Rich-land. Historically, Kennewick has obtained its water from groundwater drawn l1 from collectors placed along the Columbia River. This water contained signifi-cantly lower concentrations of radionuclides of Hanford origin during operation of the once-through production reactors. This was attributed to the dilution provided by groundwater flows from the Kennewick Highlands into the aquifers adjacent to the river. However, during 1980, Kennewick began obtaining part of its water directly from the river. All of the Tri-Cities (Richland, Pasco and Kennewick) have efficient alum-floc l water treatment facilities capable of removing a significant fraction of the radionuclides in the incoming water. Samples of water entering and leaving the Richland and Pasco treatment plants were collected and analyzed for several years under the government (AEC, ERDA, DOE) environmental monitoring program at Hanford. Results these studies were used to define the removal efficiencies in Table 5.2-7.(o8 1 Dose to an individual from drinking water was obtained from the NRC LADTAP , computer code, and is listed in Table 5.2-6. The input parameters used to calculate the individual dose from liquid effluents are shown in Table 5.2-8. l1, 3 J 5.2-3 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-0L For the population dose it was estimated that 75,000 people would consume 1 water. Registered surface water withdrawals for all uses are listed in Table 5.2-9. Fish and Waterfowl Because fish will concentrate most radionuclides from the water they inhabit, the potential radiation dose from consumption of Columbia River fish was esti-mated for both the individual and the population within 50 miles of the plant. 1 Based un the assumptions included in Table 5.2-8, the dose to an individual I from fish consumption was calculated and is included in Table 5.2-6. There is l some waterfowl hunting around the perimeters of the Hanford Site. Some of l these waterfowl could conceivably derive part of their diet from fish or aquatic plants from the water downstream of the plant. The dose potentially 1l received from consumption of waterfowl would be insignificant. Water Recreation Aquatic recreation is a popular pastime in the stretch of the Columbia River below the plant site. Swimming, boating, water skiing and picnicking along the shore or on islands could result in very small doses. These doses have 1 been calculated, using the assumptions in Table 5.2-8 and are included in Table 5.2-6. Irrigated Foodstuffs The Columbia River is used for irrigation several miles downstream of the WNP-1 outfall. The Riverview Area, approximately 12 miles downstream, is presently the nearest area using Columbia River water producing significant foodstuffs for the local population. The Riverview Area is about 5300 acres. Much of the irrigation water used to irrigate the extensive cropland near the site is obtained upstream of the Hanford Site through the south Columbia Irri-1 gation District canal system. Individual doses from irrigated foodstuffs are included in Table 5.2-6. 5.2.4.2 Gaseous Pathways People may be exposed to radioactive material released to the atmosphere via inhalation, external radiation and ingestion of farm products. The maximum ground level concentration at a possible residence off the government con-trolled Hanford Site occurs approximately 3.3 miles from WNP-1 in the ESE sector. This area, Taylor Flats, is shown in Figure 5.2-1 and presently has essentially continuous occupancy. The area along the river and nearby bluffs is slightly closer than Taylor Flats but it is unlikely that anyone would ) establish a residence there. The b!uffs rise steeply between 200 and 350 feet l above the river elevation. The Ringold Area, about 3.1 miles ENE of the plant, is closer to WNP-1 than Taylor Flats but the unnual average X/Q value i is slightly lower. O 5.2-4 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O V Inhalation An individual living at Taylor Flats would potentially receive a very small dose due to inhalation of tritium, radioiodines and particulates as well as absorption of tritium through the skin. This dose is included in Table 5.2-6. . All other dose estimates to people off the Hanford Site would be less than this estimate, including the dose potentially received by fishermen or people residing at Ringo,ld. External Radiation External radiation from the plume or ground contamination would contribute an additional very small dose of radiation as shown in Table 5.2-6. l1 Farm Products Radiation doses potentially received from ingestion of foodstuffs contaminated with radionuclides deposited on the soil or foliage were calculated using the GASPAR computer code. Food products considered in the analysis were vege-tables, meat, cow milk and oat milk. The dose potentially received from farm products is included in Tab e 5.2-6. The dose to the infant thyroid from in-gestion of cow or goat milk is apparently the limiting pathway compared to the 1 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, design criteria. E.2.4.3 Direct Radiation From Facility The reactors, as shown in Figure 5.2-1, are located in the government con-trolled Hanford Site and are several miles from the nearest public facilities (schools, hospitals) and private residences. Potential doses from effluents , to the nearest residence have been analyzed in Subsections 5.2.4.1 and 5.2.4.2. 1 Direct radiation exposure to the general public would not add measurably to the doses estimated because of the low dose rates expected at the facilities and the relatively large distances involved. 5.2.4.4 Annual Population Doses From Liquid and Gaseous Effluents l1 Table 5.2-11 lists the calculated annual total body dose to population within 50 miles of the site. The calculated annual thyroid dose to population within 50 miles of the site is shown in Table 5.2-12. The population distribution project?d for the year 2000 (see Table 2.1-1) was used in the calculations. Dose received by the population of the contiguous United States beyond 50 1 miles from Supply System operations would be an immeasurable increment to the dose already received from natural background radiation. 5.2.5 Summary of Annual Radiation Doses Information contained in Subsections 5.2.4.1 through 5.2.4.4 is summarized herein and, in the case of individual doses, compared with design objectives included in Appendix I to 10 CFR 50. Tables 5.2-6, 5.2-11 and 5.2-12 sum- l1 marize the individual and population doses for the population residing within 5.2-5 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
m WNP-1/4 - ER-OL ' 50 miles of the WNP-1 plant. Table 5.2-13 provides a comparison of the cal-culated dose to the same population from other sources of radiation. It is evident that the dose from operation of the WNP-1/4 reactors is a very small 1 fraction of the dose routinely received from several other sources. The dose is actually less than the variability in population dose attributable to dif-ferences in natural background radiation received by members of the population. Individual doses from liquid and gaseous effluents are compared with the design objectives of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I and Docket RM-50-2 in Tables 5.2-14 and 5.2-15. . REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.2
- 1. Methoas for Estimating Atmospheric, Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents From Light-Water-Cooled Reactors, Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1, Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C., July,1977.
- 2. X0000Q Program for the Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent l Releases at Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0324 (Draf t), U.S. Nuclear l Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C., September 1977.
- 3. Calculation of Annual Doses to Man From Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10CFR Part 50, Appendix 1, Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revision 1, Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission, Washington, D.C., October, 1977.
- 4. User's Guide to GASPAR Code, NUREG-0597, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comis-sion, Washington, D.C., June 1980.
- 5. User's Manual for LADTAP II - A Computer Program for Calculating Radia-tion Exposure to Man from Routine Release of Nuclear Reactor Liquid Effluents, NUREG/CR-1276, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C., May 1980.
- 6. Templeton, W.L., R.E. Nakatani and E.E. Held, " Radiation Effects", In:
Radioactivity in the Marine Environment, Comittee on Oceanography, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences,1971. 1
- 7. Watson, D.G. and W.L. Templeton, " Thermal Luminescent Dosimetry of l
Aquatic Organisns", In: Proc. Third National Symposium on Radioecology, CONF-710501-P2, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1973.
- 6. Denham, D.H. and J.K. Soldat, A Study of Selected Parameters Affecting the Radiation Dose from Drinking Water Downstream of Nuclear Facilities, USAEC Report BNWL-SA-4545 Rev, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, December 1973.
O 5.2-6 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) j
- WNP-1/4 l ER-OL l
l l TABLE 5.2-1 l l (_ xJ RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN COLUMBIA RIVER WATER Concentration (gCi/ml) at WNP-1 Annual Discharge (a) Slough Richland Drinking Radionuclide Release (C1) Point Area River Water ,1 l H-3 3.7E+02 5.7E-05 3.4E-08 3.4E-09 3.4E-09 Cr-51 1.4E-04 2.2E-11 1.3E-14 1.3E-15 1.2E-15 Mn-54 1.0E-03 1.6E-70 9.4E-14 9.4E-15 4.7E-15 Fe-55 1.2E-04 1.9E-11 1.lE-14 1.lE-15 2.2E-16 Fe-59 8.0E-05 1.2E-11 7.1E-15 7.lE-16 1.4E-16 Co-58 5.2E-03 8.1E-10 4.8E-13 4.8E-14 9.6E-15 Co-60 8.8E-03 1.4E-09 8.2E-13 8.2E-14 1.6E-14 Br-83 4.0E-05 6.2E-12 3.6E-14 3.1E-16 2.9E-14 Rb-86 2.0E-05 3. lE-12 1.8E-15 1.CE-16 1.6E-16 Sr-89 3.0E-05 4.7E-12 2.8E-15 2.8E-16 5.6E-17 Sr-90 5.0E-05 7.7E-12 4.5E-15 4.5E-16 9.0E-17 Sr-91 2.0E-05 3.lE-12 1.8E-15 1.8E-16 3.6E-17 Y-91M 1.0E-05 1.6E-12 9.4E-16 9.4E-17 1.9E-17 Zr-95 1.4E-03 2.2E-10 1.3E-13 1.3E-14 1.3E-14 Nb-95 2.0E-03 3.1E-10 1.8E-13 1.8E-14 1.8E-14 Mo-99 5.2E-02 8.1E-09 4.8E-12 4.8E-13 4.3E-13 N Tc-99m 3.5E-02 5.4E-09 3.2E-12 3.2E-13 2.2E-13
\ Ru-103 1.4E-04 2.2E-ll 1.3E-14 1.3E-15 6.5E-16 Ru-106 2.4E-03 3.7E-10 2.2E-13 2.2E-14 1.1E-14 Ag-110m 4.4E-04 6.8E-11 4.0E-14 4.0E-15 4.0E-15 Te-127m 2.0E-05 3.1E-12 1.8E-15 1. 8E-16 1.4E-16 Te-127 4.0E-05 6.2E-12 3.6E-15 3.6E-16 2.9E-16 Te-129m 1.1E-04 1.7E-11 1.0E-14 1.0E-15 8.0E-16 Te-129 7.0E-05 1.1E-11 6.5E-15 6.5E-16 5.2E-16 Te-131m 6.0E-05 9.3E -12 5.5E -15 5.5E-16 4.4E-16 Te-131 5. 0E-05 7.8E-12 4.6E-15 4.6E-16 3.7E-16 Te-132 1.3E-03 2.0E-10 1.2E-13 1.2E-14 9.6E-15 I-130 9. 0E-05 1.4E-11 8.2E-15 8.2E-16 6.6E-16 I-131 2.2E-02 3.4E-09 2.0E-12 2.0E-13 1.6E-13 I-132 2.0E-03 3.1E-10 1.8E-13 1.8E-14 1.4E-14 I-133 1.9E-02 3.0E-09 1.8E-12 1.8E-13 1.4E-13 I-134 2.0E-05 3.1E-12 1.8E-15 1.8E-16 1.4E-16 I-135 5.6E-03 8.8E-10 5. lE-13 5.1E-14 4.1E-14 Cs-134 2.3E-02 3.6E-09 2.1E-12 2.1E-13 1.9E-13 Cs-136 2.6E-03 4.lE-10 2.4E-13 2.4E-13 2.2E-13 Cs-137 3.2E-02 5.0E-09 2.9E-12 2.9E-13 2.6E-13 Ba-137m 7.1E-03 1.1E-09 6.5E-14 6.5E-14 2.6E-14 Ba-140 1.0E-05 1.6E-12 9.4E-16 9.4E-17 3.8E-17 La-140 5.0E-05 7.8E-12 4.6E-15 4.6E-16 9.2E-17 Ce-144 5.2E-03 8.1E-10 4.8E-13 4.8E-14 9.6E-15 Np-239 8.0E-05 1.3E-ll 7.6E-15 7.6E-16 5.3E-16 O
V 3 (a)7.2 ft /sec average discharge flow (equivalent to 6.44 x 1012 cc/yr) Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 1l TABLE 5.2-2 AIRBORNE RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS AT FOUR SPECIAL LOCATIONS Concentration (gCi/cc)(b) WNP-1 Restricted Annual Area River Taylor Radionuclide(a) Release Boundary Shoreline Flats Ringold H-3 1.lE+03 7.3E-10 2.2E-11 1.3E-11 1.2E-ll C-14 8.0E+00 5.3E-12 1.6E-13 9.lE-14 8.6E-14 Ar-41 2.5E+01 1.7E-11 4.9E-13 2.9E-13 2./E-13 Mn-54 4.3E-04 2.9E-16 8.5E-18 4.9E-18 4.6E-18 Fe-59 1.5E-04 1.0E-16 3.0E-18 1.7E-18 1.6E-18 Co-58 1.5E-03 1.0E-15 3.0E-17 1.7E-17 1.6E-17 Co-60 6.7E-04 4.5E-15 1.3E-17 7.7E-18 7.2E-18 Kr-83m 2.0E+00 1.3E-12 3.9E-14 2.3E-14 2.2E-14 Kr-85m 1.9E+01 1.3E-11 3.7E-13 2.2E-13 2.1E-13 Kr-85 7.7E+02 5.lE-10 1.5E-ll 8.8E-12 8.3E-12 Kr-87 5.0E+00 3.3E-12 9.8E-14 5.7E-14 5.4E-14 Kr-88 2.5E+01 1.7E-ll 4.9E-13 2.9E-13 2.7E-13 Sr-89 3.3E-05 2.2E-17 6.5E-19 3.8E-19 3.6E-19 Sr-90 5.9E-06 3.9E-18 1.2E-19 6.7E-20 6.4E-20 Xe-131m 1.lE-02 7.3E-11 2.2E-12 1.3E-12 1.2E-12 Xe-133m 1.4E+02 9.3E-11 2.8E-12 1.7E-12 1.5E-12 & Xe-133 1.4E+04 9.3E-09 2.8E-10 1.6E-10 1.5E-10 W Xe-135 9.5E+01 6.3E-Il 1.9E-12 1.1E-12 1.0E-12 Xe-138 2.0E+00 1.3E-12 3.9E-14 2.3E-14 2.2E-14 I-131 3.9E-02 2.6E-14 7.7E-16 4.5E-16 4.2E-16 I-133 3.3E-02 2.2E-14 6.5E-16 3.8E-16 3.6E-16 Cs-134 4.3E-04 2.9E-16 8.5E-18 4.4E-18 4.6E-18 Cs-137 7.4E-04 4.9E-16 1.5E-17 8.5E-18 8.0E-18 (a) Radionuclides with annual release less than 1.0 Ci/ year for noble gas, and i less than 0.001 Ci/ year for Iodine and particulates are not listed. (b)X,/Q values were used as follows: Restricted Area Boundary 2.1x10-5 sec/m3 River Shoreline 6.2x10-7 sec/m3 l Taylor Flats 3.6x10-7 sec/m3 Ringold 3.4x10-7 sec/m3 O Amendmen 1 (Feb 83)
m n
' I 5. 2- 3 TA_/
AVERAGE AllNUAL DISPERSION FACTORS (X/Q in sec/m3) W6P-1 ALL HELEASE POINIS. SIIL ANNUAL .M /O D AI A . SEE/M3 30.-40. 40.-50. Ola 0.0-1. 3.-2, 2.-3. 3.-4. 4.-5. 5.-10. 10.-20. 20.-30. N 9 492 E -0 6_1 960 f -0 6. 6 3 32 E .C F ).320E-Of_2.116E-07_9,((40-98_3 735E.-08.1 930E .8 1 260E-0 8 9.195[-09 NNE 7.It0E-06 l.653E-On 5 3 33 E -C F 2.7 72E-0 7 8.756E-07 9.022[-05 3.084E-08 1 537E-08 9.953E-09 7 281E-09 h[ 5.603E-06 1 30t[-06 4 17tE-(7 2.II3E-OF 1 370E-07 6.333C-08 2 382E-09 1 219E-08 7.982E-09 5.749E-09 EHf 5.063E-06 3 583E-06.3.P20E-CJ 3 994[-07 1 26TI-O t 5 819E-89 2 202Et08 1.128E-08 T. 32 tE-09.5 32SE-09. E 4.745[-06 1 105f-06 3 556E-t7 1 854E-0 7 1 177E-0 7 5.39mE-0 3 2.041E-08 1 045f-08 6 7 5 tE-09 4.9 260-09 LSE 9 844E-06 8 921E-06 6.22iE-Cf 3.245[-08 2.059[-07 9.484E-04 3 54 2E-08 8.805E-06 1.16aE-08 8.4666 09
$[ 8 055E-05 2.447f-06 3 916L-(I 4 451E-07 2 69EE -Oi 1 222E-07 9 664[-08 2 40 3E-08 1 56 7E-0 8 1 142E-0 8.
SSE 1 009[-05 2.309 E-06 7 500E-17 3.962E-07 2 538[-Of 1 182E*0 F 4 57 00-08 2 380E-08 1 5f 2C-0.1 1 14 30-08
$ e.017E-06 1.e33r-06 5 961E-08 3.162[-0F 2.03tE-0 F 9 506E-0 9 3 70 9E-08 1.945[-08 1.282L-08 9.458E-01 SSW 6.547E-96 1 4765-06 4.e 25E -57 2 5 72E-0 7.1 658[-0 7 T.79f E-08.3 065[-0 8.1 615[-08 1. 0(e[-0 8 7.85aE-09 SW 5 699E-06 8 277E-06 4 209E-07 2 264[-07 8.468E-07 6.972[-09 2.776E-08 1 4 75[-08 9. F93E-09 7.?!OE-09 WSW 4 361E-06 9.89tE-07 3 24t[-87 1.728[-07 1.!!4[-07 5 240E-08 2 056E-08 1 031[-08 F.125E-09 '5.2 45[-09 W 3.959[-06 h. 7 3 F E -0 7 2 45ji -O F ,j .5 2 t[-0 7. 9 9 00E -08 .4 6 0$E-0 5.1. SO 60-0 8 9.4 91E-09 6. 2 62E-09 4.6031-07.
WNW 4.05kE-06 9 282f-07 2 997E-C3 1 5 78E-0 7 1 0080-07 4.678[-09 1 799E-08 9.33fE-09 6.It5E-09 4.4 3 8E-0 9 NW 5 078[-06 1.181[-06 3 800E-E7 1 986[-07 1 262[-07 5.804E-09 2 20 2E-Os 1 130E-08 T.3551-09 5 352[-09 N4W I.8 4 0E-06 1.817[-06 5 8 79[-C l, 3.0 42C-0 7 1.969E-07_9 060[-05 3 454E-OS.S.I80E-08 1 161E-08 8.4580-09 ukP-1 ALL RELEASL POINTS SITE ANNU4L DECATLD s/e FOR mEdl23P. SEC/P3 30.-40. 40.-50. DIS 0.0-1 1.-2. 2.-3. 3.-4. 4.-5. i.-10. 10.-20. 20.-10. N 9.461E-06 4 950E-06 6.270E-OF 3.2740-07 2 079E-0F 9.412E-0$ 3.520E-08 1.746[-08 1.*56[=08 F.692[-09 NNE F.041E-06 8.650E-06 5.275E-87 2 73tE-07 1 722[-07 F.J74[-01 2.S26E-08 1. 3 7 8[* 08 8.5 4 2E-89 5.9 23E-6 7 NE 5.SA4[-06 1 292f-06 4 128E-07 2 135[-07 1 3 4 FE-O F 6.0 9 7[-0 9 2 21 t[-0 8 1 0 7 4[- 08 6.6 22E-0 9 4.5 3 3E-01 pi g ENE 5 041E-04 8.175E-06 3.77tE-68 1 95ME -07 1.237E-08 5 59s[-03 2 035E-08 9.hi3E-09 6.038E-89 4.189E-01 33 4.721E-06 1 09RL-06 3,513r-01 1.8220-Of 1.151E-0F 5.206[-08 1 615E-08 9.217[-09 5.69tE-09 3.924[-09 E LSE 4.tSIE-06 1.117E-06 6 1541-0F 3 198[-08 2.014E-0F 9.094[-09 3.29FE-03 1.51mE-09 9 8 49E-09 6.8 02[-09 hj;,h SE 1.0510-05 2.432E-06 f.62FL-07 4.087E-OF 2 593f=0F 1 1A2E-OF 4 354E-08 2.139E-06 1 32tE-08 9.259E-09 r- N SSE 1 005E-05 2.293[-06 7 4040-C7 3 890E-07 2.479E-07 1 13 f[-0 7 .4 22 FE -08 2 086[-08 1 298[-08 9.018E-09 S A. 065 E - 0 6 1 919[-06 5.E79E-CF 3.099E-0F t .98 0E-G F 1. t l FE-0 4 3 40 6E-O S 1 685[-08 1 049E-08 7 274[-89 SSW 6.52t[-06 1.465E-06 4.75AE-07 2 52t[-07 1 685[-OF F.476L-08 2 812C-08 1.39 7E-08 8. 710[-09 6.0 49 E-09 SW 5. 6 75E - 0 6 1 267t-06 4.150[-(F 2.2190-07 1.43tE-0F 6.682[-06 2.546E-08 1 215[-08 7 984[-09 5.56tE-09 uSW 4.343E-06 9.814f-07 J.196E-CP 1 694E-07 8 096[-0 F 5 022E-09 1 896E-08 9.34tE-09 5.81t[-09 4.028E-09 W 3.94t[-06 9.662E-07 2 840[-07 4 487[-07 9.522E-09 4 395C-09 1 64t[-08 9.072E-09 4. 9 tt[-0 9 3 422[-09 WNW 4 042L-06 9.203E-07 2 952E-ti 1 5440-07 9.904E-08 4.461[-0$ 1.64EE-08 7.9 fee-09 4 902[-09 3.364E-09 NW 5. 0 tl 0 E - 0 6 3.tT3f-06 3. F53I-C7 8 9510-0 7 1 234[-O F 5.592E-03 2.0410-08 9.14 2[-09 6 143C-09 4 2 49E-01 NNW F.9 t SI- 06 1 8a r r -as 6 assr-er 1.ntir-07 8.929[-07 9.F91[-09 3.255E-08 1.611[-09 1.009E-08 7.tF5L-09 kNP-1 ALL RELEASE POINTS Siff A9NUAL DECATFD . DLPLLIED 370 nata. SEC/M3 5.-10. 20.-30. 30.-40. 40.-50. g g DI9 4 0.0-1. l.-2. 2.-3. 3.-4. 4.-5. 10.-20. F. 68 3[-06 4.678E-06 5.1331 -C F . 2.586[-Si 1 594[-0 7 6.8 99[-98 2 310[-08.1.04 3E- 08 6.120E-09 4 086E-0 7
=3 NNE 6.373E-06 1 420E-06 4.328E-07 2.159E-07 1 322E -O F 5.662[-0 9 1 86 2C-0 8 8.28 3E-09 4.8 23E-09 3.192E-0 9 CL NL 5.022t-06 1 113[-06 2 3ect -t 3 1.690[-07 1 0370-07 4 448[-09 1 467E-08 6 536E-05 3.e0FE-09 2.519E-09
$ (NL 4.539E-OS 5.012E-06 3 094[-07 1 551[-0 7 9.52iE-08 1 093[-0 4 1. 355~-88 6.041[-09 3 519E-09 2.327E-09
- 3 [ 4.253[-06 a.46tf-07 2.RHlf-07 8 442E-Of 8.a52[-04 3 804[*09 1.257E-08 5 600E-09 3.2E5E-09 2.tE4[-09 et g5g g,33gg.06 1.6511-06 5.046f-E' 2.525[-08 1 54p[-07 6.640[-0$ 2.194C-08 9 694L-09 5 622E-09 3.F19E-09 ra SE 9.452E-06 2 095E-06 6.415t-87 3 2 32E-0 7.1.9921 -0 7 8 6190-09 2.8 F IE -08 1 293[-08 f.57tE-09 5 029E-09 SSE 9.044[-06 8 976E-06 6.0 75f -(I 3.981[-O F 1 909E-O f 6 319[-08 2.811E-08 1.274E-08 f.580E-89 4.998E-09 I?[ $ 7. 259 E - 06 1 569F-06 4. 8 2iE - 0 7 2. 4 5S[-0 7 1.526L-O f 6.6 85E-0 8 2 2 76[-0 8 1 038E-88 6 120E-89 4 093E-09 m SSW 5 969[-06 1 268t-06 3.906[-07 8.991E -O F 1 246E-0 F 5 482[-09 8 990E-0 8.8.617E-09 5. t elt-09 3.412E-0 9 tr SW 5.104[-06 1.093t-06 3.408F-(I 1.760E-08 1.103E-OF 4.900E-04 4 702E-08 7.866[-0S 4.67 7E-09 3 128 E-09 oo WSW 3.90 3[ ~ 06 8 462f-07 2.6245-C7 1.344[-08 A.3F30-09 3 684E-OS 1 26tE-08 5.766[-09 3 40i[-09 2 276E-09 00 u 3 451[-06 7. 414 E-0 8 2. 3 3 0E - t i 1 181[-07 F.354[-0R 3 2 34[-09 1 195E -08 5.040E-01 2 972E-09 1 901E-09 WNW 3.639[-06 7.940f-07 2 426E-Ci 1.226E-07 7.573[-08 3 28IE-09 8 802C-08 4.966E-09 2 90t[*09 1 929[-09 NW 4.661[-06 1 0881-06 3.078E-SI 1.545E-03 1.495E-0a 4.089E-05 1 35&E-08 6.060[- 01 3.5 37[= 09 2.3 4 4 E-09 NNW 7.028E-06 8.556[-06 4. 7660-t 7 2 4 00E-0 I.1 4 79E-0 7 6 396[-09 2.13&E-08 9.620E-09 5.6 46E-05 3.759E-09
TABLE 5.2-4 1 AVERAGE ANNUAL DEPOSITION FACTORS (D/Q, rel. dep./m2 ) W f.P - l ALE RELEASE POINIS SIIE AN'JO A E DEPOSITICN DAIAs M-2 OIR 0.0-1. l.-2. 2.-3. 3.-4. 4.-5. 5.-10. 10.-20. 20.-30. 30.-40. 40.-50. N 1. 9 8 t E - G i 7.970E-09 2 088E-09 a.3g5r.10 5.2*FE-10 2 033E-10 5.841E-11 2.331[-11 1 2thE-11 7. 7 05E-12 kut 3.647[-04 7.47tE-09 1.950E-(9 8.7600-10 4.156[-80 1 9060-10 5.513C-11 2 135E-Il 1 16 7[-! ! 7.222 E-12 NE 2.472C-01 S.109E-02 1.333[-C9 5.985E-10 3.396f-10 1 302E-10 3.766E-tt 1 49JE-11 F.9 72[r12 9.9 3 4E-12 ENE 1.706E-04 3.10SE-09 1.0191-E9 4.5 7 AE -10 2.59 0E-10 '7.9 60 E-11 2. 841E-11 1 142E-!! 6. 05EE-12 3.7 7 E-12 E 1 3FFE-03 4.050E-09 1.057E-[9 4.7490-10 2.696E-10 1 033E-10 2.989E-11 1 18 9E-l! 6.3 250- 12 3.915E-12 [SE 3. 4 0 t f -01 6.Si2E-39 1 820E-09 a.175E-10 9.6240-10 1. il A E- 10 5. I t5E -I l 2 039E-11 1 001C-11 6.F400-12
$)3E2!
s s]3 SE 9 853E-01 9.583f-09 2.229 E -(9 1.9 8 70-10 5.650E-10 2.173E-10 4.29 5E -11 2.418E-11 1 3 300-11 8.2 39E-12 ' O* SSE 2. H5E-04 6.IllE-09 1.595E-03 F.565E-10 4.053[-10 1 551E-13 4,5070-11 1.787E-11 9.543E-12 5.90iE-12 5 2 244E-04 4 5971-0* 8 200E-t9 5 390E-In 3.04?[-10 1.173E-10 3.392C-11 1.39 4[- 11 7 3 60E -12 4.4 49 E-12 F )[ SSW !.743[-09 3.583E-O? 9 353E-10 9.20l[-10 2 3 76E -10 9 133[-11 2.64 9E-11 1 0 4t[- 11 5.59tC-12 3.463E-12 SW 3.21SE-09 J.996E-09 6.515f -10 2.926E -10 1.655E-10 6.366[-18 8.St2C-11 7.299E-12 3.8580-12 2 913E-12 USW t.010E-04 b.0CAE-09 5 402[-10 2 4260-10 1.312E-10 5.279E-11 1.527E-11 6.051E- 12 3.2 31E- 12 2.0 0 0E-12 ' W 7.461[-02 1.530t-02 3.933[-10 8 793E-10 1 015E-10 3.702[-11 1.129E-11 4.4 7 4E- 12 2.389E-12 1.4 79E-12 WNW 9 162[-09 1 136E-09 9.7928-10 2 1520-30 1.il8E-lo 4 682E-Il 1,3550-!! 5.368E-12 2.86TE-12 1 779[-12 NW l . 615 E - 0 9 3.3091-09 S.638f-10 3.800E-10 2 195E-10 8.440E-1) 2.44 2E-11 9.6 7 7[- 12 5 16dE-12 3 199E-12 (( NNW 3. 066E -0 4 6.280E-09 1 633E-[9 f.363E-10 4 165E-10 1.6020-10 4.65tE-11 1 83 fE-!! 9.8 09E-12 6.0 70E-12 8 m 3 et w r% 2' a CD b$ O O O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABl.E 5.2-5 l1 i ANNUAL DOSE TO BIOTA FROM WNP-1/4' l LIQUID EFFLUENTS Dose (mrad /yr) Biota Dilution Factor Internal External Total Fish 1/1700 6.6E-03 7.lE 1.4E-02 Intertebrate 1/1700 6.8E-03 1.4E-02 2.11 02 Algae 1/1700 1.lE-02 1.8E-05 1.lE-02 Muskrat 1/1700 3.3E-02 4.7E-03 3.8E-02 Raccoon 1/1700 2.1E-V3 3.5E-03 5.6E-03 Heron 1/1700 1.8E-01 4.7E-03 1.8E-01 , Duck 1/1700 2.9E-02 7.lE-03 3.6E-02 O 1 4 I i l t I i l i f !O ! Amendment 1 (Feb 83) r
- - - - - - - , , . . , - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - , , - , , , - - - - - - - --,----,r---- - < - - - , - - , , - - - . - - -
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.2-6 lI ESTIMATED ANNUAL iMXIMUM DOSE TO AN INDIVIDUAL FROM WNP-1(a) Annual Dose (mrem) to an Adult Annual Dilution Iotal Pa thwa y Exposure Locati_on Factor Skin Body GI-LLI Thyroid Bone Liquid Drinking water 814 1 Richland 1/17,000 4.T -04 3.8E-04 6.I-04 2.8E-05 Fish 48 kg Drstra Slough 1/I,700 4.5E-02 7,lE-03 3.0E-03 3.5E-02 l1 Shoreline 298 hr Richland 1/17,000 5.6E-05 4.8E-05 4.8E-05 4.8E-Oc 4.8E-05 Food Products (b) Vegetables 529 kg Richland 1/17,000 2.5E-04 2. 4E-04 2. 4E-04 1.6E-05 Leafy Vegetation 29 kg Richland 1/17,000 1.4E-05 1. I -05 1. I -05 1.2E~06 Milk 224 1 Richland 1/17,000 1.1E-04 9.7E-05 1.2E-04 1.0E-05 Meat 119 kg Richland 5.5E-05 7. T -05 5.9E-05 1.9E-06 1/17,000(d) Total 5.bt-05 4. 6t -02 7.9E U3 4. it -UJ J. bt -UZ ALr Submersion Taylor Flats 3.6E-07 1.2E-01 3.8E-02 3.8E-02 J.8E-02 3.8E-02 inhalation 8766h5 8000 m Tayior riats 3.6E-07 i. 6E-o2 i.6E-02 i.6E-02 2.iE-02 2.I-05 Ground Contamination 8766 hr Taylor Flats 3.6E-07 9.0E -04 7.7E-04 7.7E-04 7.7E-04 7.7E-04 Food Products Vegetables 555 kg Taylor Flats 3.6E-07 5. I -02 5. 3E-02 5. I -02 6.2E-02 7.6E-02 274 1 Taylor Flats 3.6E-07 2.0E-02 2.1E-02 2.1E-02 2.1E-02 5.6E-02 Cow Milk (c) Infant 346 I Taylor Flats 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 3.8E -01 3.0E-01 274 1 Taylor Flats 3.6E-07 3.5E-02 3.5E-02 3.5E-02 7.8E-02 3. 4E-02 Goat M114 ) Infanttc 346 1 Taylor Flats 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 4.8E-01 3.1E-01 Heat 98 kg Taylor Flats 1 1.2E-02 1.2E-02 1. 3E-02 3.1E-02 Total (d) m.2E-02m 3.6E-07 m 7,g- y g-UT l1 (a) Annual exposures, except for air submersion, inhalation and ground contamination are for a maximum individual. An average population member is assumed to consume one-half of those quantities resulting in annual adult dose y rates which are one-half of the annual dose to the maximum individual. $ (b) Annual exposures listed for the liquid effluent are different from the values listed for the gaseous effluent g due to the averaging technique used to calculate LADTAP consumption input parameters. $ (c) Consumption of goat allk by an infant is assumed to be the same as the consura tion of cow allk. It is also rt assumed that infant milk consumption is the same as child consumption. A consumption rate of 346 liter / year used in LADTAP is listed here. - (d) Adult coninulative dose from all pathways, excluding goat milk. 11 a co o O O O
. . - . = .. __ _ --_ - . . _ . - . - _ - . - .
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.2-7 O FRACTION THROUGH WATER OF RADIONUCLIDE TREATMENT PLANT a PASSI G) Element Fraction Element Fraction Na 0.9 Mo 0.9
- P 0.4 Tc 0.7 i i
Cr 0.9 Ru 0.5 Mn 0.5 Rh 0.5 : Fe 0.2 Te 0.8 Co 0.2 I 0.8 l Ni 0.2 Cs 0.9 Cu 0.6 Ba 0.4 Zn 0.4 La 0.2 Br 0.8 Ce 0.2 Rb 0.9 Pr 0.2 Sr 0.2 W 0.9 Y 0.2 Np 0.7 All Others 1.0(b) ! (a) Reference 5.2-8 i (b) Assumed 4 1 h l O l Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP 1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.2-8 PARAMETERS USED TO CALCULATE MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL COSE FROM LIQUID EFFLUENTS Drinking Water River Ollution: 17,000 River Transit Time: 12 hours WaterTreatment and Delivery Time: 24 hours Usage Factors: Adult = 214 1/yr Teenager = 567 1/yr 1l Child = 567 1/yr Infant = 346 1/yr Fish Rivee 011ution: 17,000 for Richland 1,700 for WNP-1 Slough Time To Consunption: 24 hours Usage Factors: Adult = 48 kg/yr Teenager = 36 kg/yr Child = 15 kg/yr Infant =0 . Recreation River Dilution: 17.000 Shoreline Width Factor: 0.2 L' sage Factors: Shoreline Activities: Adult = 298 hr/yr Teenager = 1665 br/yr Child = 349 hr/yr Infant =0 Swinning: Adult = 59 hr/yr Teenager = 336 hr/yr Child = 68 hr/yr Boating: Adult = 145 hr/yr Teenager = 31 hr/yr Child = 0 hr/yr Infant =0 Irrigated Foodstuffs River Dilution: 17,000 Riier Transit Time: 12 hours Leafy Vegetables Milk Nat Vegetable Food Del:very Time: 60 days 48 hours 20 days 24 hours Usage Factors: Adult 529 kg/yr 224 1/yr 119 kg/yr 29 kg/yr Teenager 670 kg/yr 408 1/yr 74 kg/yr 36 kg/yr Child 559 kg/yr 346 1/yr 46 kg/yr 29 kg/yr il Infant 0 346 0 0 Monthly Irrigation Rate: 150 1/m2 200 1/m2 160 1/m2 200 1/m2 Annual Yield: 5 kg/m2 1.3 1/m2 2.0 kg/m2 1.5 kg/m2 Annual Growing Period: 70 days 30 days 130 days 70 days Annual 50-mile production 1.5E+07 7. 3E+06 2.6E+06 8.0E 45 O Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l
WNP-1/4 . ER-OL 1 1 (~} QJ TABLE 5.2-9 DOWNSTREAM SURFACE WATER USERS - Location of Diversion Acoroximate Quantity Type
'Name Township Range Section Miles Downstream (cfs) Use*
Washington Pubite Power Supply System 11 28 2 - 90 IN Peter Kewit and Sons 11 28 2 - 1 I L. L. Sailey 11 28 24 4 2 I H. D. Loyd 11 28 24 4 0.99 D.I Central Premix concrete Company 11 28 27 4 2 IN Battelle Memorial Institute 10 28 14 8 4.4 I University of Washington 10 28 23 9 1.75 I City of Richland 10 28 24 9 0.67 0 City of Ricnland 10 28 25 12 31 D City of Richland 10 28 25 12 23.25 D City of Richland 10 28 25 12 31 0 City of Richlanct 10 28 35 12 93 0 E. C. Watts 9 28 1 1J 0.31 0,I H. S. Petty 9 28 1 13 0.48 I N. H. and M. E. Ketchersid 9 28 1 13 1.66 I G. C. Walkley 9 28 1 13 2.32 I RT Justesen, et al. 9 28 12 15 2.54 I Central Premix Concrete Comoany 9 28 12 15 1.10 IN City of Richland 9 28 13 17 2.0 I Benton County 9 29 28 19 1.0 I City of Kennewick 9 30 31 23 55.7 D City of Pasco 9 30 35.0 O 31 23 0 F. J. Henckel 8 30 14 27 .015 I Allied Chemical 8 30 14 27 3.55 IN Cnevron Chemical 8 30 23 28 3.77 IN Chevron Chemical 8 30 23 28 40 IN Phillips Pacific Chemical Coacany 8 30 24 28 82 IN Ph1111os Pacific Chemical Coneany 8 30 24 28 20 IN Boise Cascade Coro 7 31 10 34 24.5 IN L. D. Hoyte, et al. 7 31 14
- 0. Howe 35 179.8 I 7 31 23 6.4 36 I Crawford and Sons 6 30 27 47 32.8 I Baroarosa Fanns 6 30 27 47 20 I Crawford and Sons 6 30 27 47 Rainier National Bank 7.6 I 6 30 27 47 9.4 I Anderson and Coffin 5 29 5 49 242 I Horse Heaven Farms 5 29 6 50 32 I Horse Heaven Farms 5 29 6 50 550 I Horse Heaven Farms 5 29 6 50 290 I Anderson and Coffin 5 29 6 50 242 I
- O - Domestic or Municipal Uses I - Irrigation and other Ag1 cultural Uses IN - Industrial Includes only those water rights for which a permit or certificate has been issued.
O l 1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.2-10 PARAMETERS TO CALCULATE INDIVIDUAL AND POPULATION DOSES FROM GASE0US EFFLUENTS Meteorology GASPAR (Reference 5.2-4) meteorological input from XOQD0Q (Reference 5.2-2) are shown in Tables 5.2-3 and 5.2-4. Source Terms GALE-Gaseous output data shown in Table 5.2-2. Demography y Data shown in Table 2.1-1. Usage Factor Usage factors used in GASPAR code are listed in Table 5.2-8 and l Appendix N. Transfer Factors Environmental transfer factors are as given in Reference 5.2-4. O Dose Factors Dose factors used in GASPAR code as listed in Reg. Guide 1.109. Foodstuff Production Within 50 Miles Vegetation (leafy vegetables included) 2.0E+07 kg/yr Milk 9.9E+06 liters /yr Meat 3.5E+06 kg/yr l 9 , Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
, ,.y
'WNP-1/4 ,
EK-OL 3' TABLE ~5.2-11 i CALCULATED ANNUAL TOTAL BODY DOSE TO POPULATION. < WITHIN 50 MILES OF WNP-1, WNP-2 and WNP-4 Dose Contributicn (man-rem) - l1 Pathway WNP-1 .WNP-2 WNP-4 Total Air ' t Submersion 5.5E-01 2.4E-01 5.5E-01 1.3E+00 Ground Contamination 4.8E-03 4.3E-02 4.8E-03 5.3E-02 Inhalation 3.6E-01 1.lE-02 3.6E-01 7.3E-01 Farm Products Milk 5.5E-02 9.2E-03. 5.5E-02 1.1E-01 i Meat 2.7E-02 1.9E-03' 2.7E-02 5.6E-02 Vegetation 1.9E-01 1.9E-02 1.9E-01 4.0E-01 Water l I Drinking Water 9.1E-03 8.6E-04 9.1E-03 1.9E-02 Fish 1.0E 03 5.6E-04 l.0E-03 2.6E-03 Water Recreation
- 5.3E-04 2.0E-04 ~5.3E-04 1.3E-03 Farm Products Milk 8.9E-04 1.0E-03 8.9E-04 2.8E-03 O Meat Vegetation **
2.3E-03 4.6E-03 1.0E-03 3.7E-04 2.3E-03 4.SE-03 5.6E-03 9.6E-03 Total: 1.2E+00 3.3E-01 1.2P00 ~ 2.7E+00
- Shoreline activities, swimming and beating combined.
** Vegetation and leafy vegetables combined.
O Amendment .-1 (Feb 83),
WNP-1/4 ER-0L TABLE 5.2-12 CALCULATED ANNUAL THYROID DOSE TO POPULATION WITHIN 50 MILES OF tlNP-1, WNP-2 and WNP-4 l Dose Contribution (thyroid-rem) Pathway WHP-1 WNP-2 WNP-4 Total Air Submersion 5.5E-01 2.4E-01 5.5E-01 1.3E+00 Ground Contamination 4.8E-03 4.3E-02 4.8E-03 5.3E-02 Inhalation 4.8E-01 1.3E-00 4.8E-01 2.3E-00 Farm Products Milk 1.1E-01 1.8E-00 1.1E-01 2.0E-00 Meat 2.9E-02 6.9E-02 2.9E-02 1.4E-01 Vegetation 3.0E-01 2.7E-00 3.0E-01 3.3E-00 Water Drinking Water 1.4E-02 4.0E-03 1.4E-02 3.2E-02 Fish 3.9E-05 1.6E-05 3.9E-05 9.4E-05 Water Recreation
- 5.3E-04 2.0E-04 5.3E-04 1.3E-03 Farm Products Milk 2.7E-03 1.7E-03 2.7E-03 7.1E-03 Meat 9.6E-04 8.7E-04 9.6E-04 2.3E-03 Vegetation ** 4.4E-03 2.0E-04 4.4E-03 9.0E-03 Total: 1,5E+00 6.2E+00 1.5E+00 9.2E+00
- Shorelita activities, swimming and boating combined.
** Vegetation and leafy vegetables combined.
O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
~_ . . . ._ ._ _ . ._. _ - - .
I WNP-1/4 ER-0L 4
- TABLE 5.2-13 l1
, COMPARATIVE TOTAL BODY DOSE ESTIMATES FROM TYPICAL SOURCES OF. RADIATION i Individual Population
- Source ~
Dose Dose j (mrem) (man-rem) i ! Natural Background Radiation in i Hanford Area 100 33,612(a) I j Typical Per Capita Medical Dose in U.S. (G.I. dose) 72 24,200(a) i Transcontinental U.S. Commercial Jet Flight 5 1,681(a) WNP-1 Operation 0.5(b) 1.2(c) l 1 i i i !O I ) (a) Total 50-mile population of 336,115 in the year 2000 multiplied by average i individual dose for this source.
! 1
! (b) Cumulative dose from all pathways in Table 5.2-6 divided by the total population, ] , (c) Cumulative dose from all pathways in Table 5.2-11. i 1 4 4 i 4 3 lO t Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.2-14 ESTIMATED ANNUAL DOSE FROM GASEOUS EFFLUENTS COMPARED WITH 10 CFR 50 APPENDIX I AND RM-50-2 LIMITS 10 CFR 50 Appendix I Rm-50-2 WNP-1 WNP-2 WNP-4 Total I-131 1 Ci/yr/ reactor 0.04 C1/yr 0.46 Ci/yr 0.04 C1/yr 0.54 C1/yr Site Boundary # Ganna Air Dose 10 mrad /yr -- 1.3 mrad /yr 1.5 mrad /yr 1.3 w ad/yr 4.1 mrad /yr 1l (0.5 mi SE) Beta Air Dose 20 wad /yr -- 3.8 wad /yr 0.88 wad /yr 3.8 mrad /yr 8.48 mrad /yr Total Body Dose
- 5 mrem /yr 1.1 mrem /yr 0.98 mrem /yr 1.1 mrem /yr 3.18 mrem /yr Total Body Dose 5 mrem /yr -- 0.14 wem/yr 0.04 we:m/yr 0.14 mrem /yr 0.32 wem/yr Taylor Flats Skin Dose 15 mrem /yr -- 0.22 mrem /yr 0.06 mrem /yr 0.22 mrem /yr 0.5 arem/yr IC 0.2(0.13) mrem /yr 0.56(0.32)
Any Organ 15 mrem /yr -- 0.2(0.13) mrem /yr 0.58 arem/yr 1l(3.3miESE) Gam. Air Dose 10 wad /yr -- 0.06 mrad /yr 0.04 wad /yr 0.06 mrad /yr 1.24 mrad /yr Beta Air Dose 20 mrad /yr -- 0.19 mrad /yr 0.038 mrad /yr 0.19 mrad /yr 0.218 mrad /yr (a) Hesidency at the site boundary is proMited by the Departnent of Energy which controls all land immediately adjacent to the site boundary. Doses at site boundary are limited to submersion and inhalation exposure for 40 hrs / week, 50 weeks / year. Total dose from submersion, ground contamination, inhalation vegetables, meat, and cow milk. l Thyroid exposure from all pathways.Numbers in parenthesis represent exposure from radioiodine and particulates only. Amendment 1 (Feb
i i WNP-1/4 ER-OL , l TABLE 5.2-15 1 ESTIMATED ANNUAL DOSE FROM LIQUID EFFLUENTS COMPARED WITH 10 CFR 50 APPENDIX I AND RM-50-2 LIMITS ! 10 CFR 50 i Appendix I Rm-50-2 WNP-1 WNP-2 WNP-4 Total I l Total Release (a) -- 5 C1/yr/ reactor 0.23 C1/yr 0.17 Ci/yr 0.23 C1/yr 063 Ci/yr Total Body (b) 3 mrem /yr 5 mres/yr 0.05 mres/yr 0.001 mres/yr 0.05 mres/yr 0.101 arem/yr Any Organ (c) 10 mrem /yr 5 mrem /yr 0.004 mres/yr 0.0002 aren/yr 0.004 mres/yr 0.008 arem/yr { 1 I j ' f a? Total release except for tritium and dissolved gases.
',b i For maximum individual in Richland.
(ch Thyroid of maximum individual residing in Richland. 3 l l 4 d b i i i 4
.~
i 4 t d Amendment 1 (Feb 83 i ; f
i I WNP-1/4 ER-OL O ' 1 5.3 EFFECTS OF LIQUID CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE DISCHARGES The expected impacts of chemical and biocide discharges at the construction permit stage were presented in the ER-CP in Sections 5.4.3 and 5.4.4 and in the USNR3 Final Environmental Statement (FES). Since that time additional water quality data have been collected and are presented in Sections 2.4 and 3.6. The expected chemical releases to the Columbia River via the cooling tower blowdown from both WNP-1 and -4 are described in Section 3.6 and sum-marized in Table 5.3-1. Table 5.3-1 presents the potential discharge concentrations and changes in concentration of chemical constituents in the Columbia River at the downstream mixing zone bounaary (see Subsection 5.1.1). The table shows that the expect-ed discharge concentrations are less than the effluent limitation guidelines (40 CFR 423) and the NPDES Permit limitations (see Appendix I). The pH of the [1 discharge and the pollutant parameters specifically regulated such as, total chromium, total zinc and total phosphorous are less than the guideline values. In addition, the WNP-1/4 NPDES Permit contains stricter effluent limitations for chlorine in the cooling water blowdown than those in the federal guide-lines. Specifically, a total residual chlorine (TRC) limitation is imposed , rather than free avilable chlorine with a daily maximum of 0.1 mg/l applying at all times. This limitation is more restrictive than the two-hour discharge period allowed in the effluent guidelines. A comparison bet quality criteriaYj )the present and theEnvironmental Protection chemical concentration atAgency the edge(EPA) of thewater WNP-1/4 mixing zone (Table 5.3-1) reveals that all parameters for which cri-teria exist, are less than the criteria with the exception of total cadmium, average total lead, total mercury and total copper. In regard to the concen-tration of cadmium, lead, and mercury, operation of WNP-1/4 does not include the chemical addition of these parameters. Furthormore, the upstream ambient Columbia River values for cadmium, average lead, and mercury exceed EPA's water quality criteria (Table 5.3-1). Also, the concentrations of cadmium, average lead, and mercury at the edge of the WNP-1/4 mixing zone are, 0.1 ug/1, 0.2 ug/l, and 0.01-0.02 ug/1, respectively, above ambient levels up-stream of the discharge. As stated in Section 3.6, the WNP-1/4 condensers are constructed with copper and nickel alloy tubes. Therefore, copper and nickel releases in the dis-charge originate from two sources, the influent Columbia River water and cor-rosion and/or erosion of the condenser tubes. Copper levels in the Columbia River, upstream of the intake, range from <l.0 to 16.0 ug/l(see Section 2.4). l1 The discharge level for copper may range from 211-561 ug/l (Table 5.3-1). The copper concentrations at the edge of the mixing zone are greatly reduced as a result of rapid dilution. Specifically, the copper concentration ranges from 5.2- 23.0 ug/l at the edge of the mixing zone. A review of the literature on copper in aquatig environments and its biologi-cal effects was prepared in 1978 by Chu et al.(3). In assessing chemical 5.3-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-0L discharge impacts, the anadromous fish, particularly the salmonlds, are the O most economically and recreationally important species. Furthermore, a review of copper toxicity data indicates that the salmonids, particularly steelhead/ 1 rainbow trout ( WSalmo gairdneri), are among the most sensitive and frequently tested species. Most toxicity studies on salmonids have been performed with the early life stages ranging from egg to juvenile. As noted in Subsection 5.1.3.6 the plume from the WNP-1/4 cooling tower blowdown does not intersect any reported spawn-ing areas. The nearest potential chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 1l spawning area is approximately 4000 feet (3/4 mile) downstream and 1000 feet east of the discharge plume centerline. The copper level at this point in the river is estimated to be 0.3 to 1.1 ug/l above ambient levels. Ultimately, the significance of chemical concentrations are the effects on aquatic orga- l nisms. In this regard, Columbia River water, and therefore, its chemical l composition does not appear to adversely effect the production of salmonids. Specifically, chinook salmon incubated in Columbia River water at the Priest Rapids Hatchery, approximately 45 miles upstream of WNP-1/4, have shown over a nine year an overall incubation success of 87.1%.(4) period of record The level (1963-1970), of incubation success at the Priest Rapids Hatchery is comparable to other salmonid hatcheries where mortalities attributed to chemi-cal toxicity have yet to be reported. Therefore, copper levels which closely approximate ambient levels are not expected to have a significant effect on 1 incubation success of salmonids. Nevertheless the results of toxicity studies on the early life stages are described below. Shaw and Brown (5) observed that rainbow trout eggs could hatch after fertil-ization in a solution containing 1000 ug/l copper, however this level of ex-posure increased time to hatching. In comparing tne effects of copper sulfate on eggs and fry in the yolk-sac stage of rainbow } rout, brown trout (Salmo trutta) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), Grandet6) demonstrated a reduc-tion in egg hatching with copper. Furthermore, copper inhibited egg develop-ment at about the same concentration it was toxic to fry - 40 to 60 ug/l at 21 days. Concentrations as low as 20 ug/l appeared to have a subletnal effect (e.g., unwillingness to fegd). In another study, which compared egg and yolk-sac fry, Hazel and Meith(71 concluded that eggs were more resistant than fry to the toxic effects of copper. By employing a continuous flow bicassay sys-tem and using chinook salmon, the autnors reported that copper concentrations of 80 ug/l had little effect on hatching success of eyed eggs, but that acute toxicity to fry was observed at 40 ug/1, while increased mortality and inhibi-tion of growth was shown at 20 ug/1. Chapman (8), also using a continuous-flow bioassay method, tested the rela-tive resistance to copper, zinc, and cadmium of newly-hatched alevins, swim-up fry, parr, and smolts of chinook salmon and steelnead trout. The investigator found steelhead trout to be consistently more sensitive to these metals than were cninook salmon. Newly hatched alevins in both species were less resist-ant to copper than later juvenile forms (Table 5.3-2). O 5.3-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
l l l i WNP-1/4 l ER-0L O Finlayson and Verrue(9) determined an 83-day LC10 of 64 ug/l total copper for chinook sg g n eggs, alevins and swim-up fry. Similar studies by Finlayson and Ashuckiant U1 determined a 60-day LC10 of 33 ug/l total copper for steelhead trout eggs, alevins and swim-up fry. All of these studies (6-10) were performed using water with qualities differ-l ent from the Columbia River. Specifically, the pH, alkalinity and hardness l ranged from 6.3-7.5, 21-25 mg/l and 21-65 mg/l respectively. The same para-meters; pH, alkalinity and hardness in Columbia River water range (Section 2.4) from 7.4-8.4, 53-64 mg/1, and 56-80 mg/1, respectively. Thus Columbia d River wggey0J.s studiest - Aconsidered number of "studies harder"have thandemonstrated the water used in the that citedtoxicity copper toxicity is related to water hardness. In neg opper toxicity is roughly inverse-ly pr bert(gpgrtionaltowaterhardness. The work of Lloyd and Her-31 illustrates the relationship between lethality and total hardness or alkalinity (Figure 5.3-1). When hardness increases over a range of 15-320 mg/l a corresponding increase in the LC50 trout and chinook salmon. In sumary, the toxicity levels isobservedwithrinbg/arepro-cited above 6-1 bably lower (approximately 10-20 ug/1) than those applicable to the Columbia River (Figure 5.3-1). Based upon the rapid dilution of the discharge, the minimal increases in copper predicted at the closest potential salmonid spawn-ing area, and the relative hardness of the Columbia River no chronic mortality of these life stages is expected. Juvenile salmonids may lack the swimming speed of adults and thus pass through the discharge plume and be exposed to copper concentrations higher than ambi-ent. Assuming the fish are passively carried through the plume with the down-stream velocity, 2.5 and 5.0 feet per second at minimum and average river flow rates, their exposure to total copper concentrations from 545 to 0.27 ug/l above ambient would occur for 26.4-13.2 minutes, respectively (Table 5.3-3). Under low flow conditions, 3.3% or less of the 40 f t x 4000 ft (or 3.7 acres) l1 surface cross-sectional area immediately downstream of the WNP-1/4 discharge may have copper concentrations from 545 to 1.1 ug/l above ambient. Assuming no fish avoidance and an even distribution of these fish, only 3.3% are there-fore expected to be exposed to these copper concentrations. Juveniles most likely exposed to these chemical concentrations are downstream migrating salmonids are found and nearsteelh9 shoretg) ,trout. Most downstream migrant 0-age chino Salmon however, some may pass through the plume.pj71 t Other data indicate migrating juvenile spring chinook, sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) and coho salmon (00Corhy0chus kisutch) and steelhead trout are more abundant in deeper water.t'o*l Limited fish studies to higher have been copper performed (200-1000 concentrations on short time exposures ug/1). Holland(1-30 minu<;g< of et. al.L studied juvenile chinook salmon and report that af ter 24 hours of exposure to cupric nitrate 0, 21 and 46 percent mortality occurred at ionic copper con-centrations of 178, 563 and 1,000 ug/l, respectively. Unpublished data by 5.3-3 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 ER-OL l 1 O Chapman (20) indicates that the 90-minute LC10 (lethal concentration to 10 percent of the organisms) for juvenile salmonids exposed to copper is approxi-mately forty times the 96-hour LC50 value (19.3 ug/l), or a total copper concentration of 770 ug/1. Chapman's studies have been performed in water ! that is 2-3 times softer (hardness = 20-25 mg/l) than that found in the vi- j cinity of WNP-1/4. Under the most extreme conditions, the highest copper concentration predicted for the WNP-1/4 discharge is 561 ug/l (Table 5.3-1). l Based on this information, no appreciable direct mortality is predicted for salmonids that would passively drif t through the WNP-1/4 discharge plume. Larger juvenile and adult salmonids have the swimming ability to maintain position in the river and thus the potential exists for their presence in or near the WNP-1/4 discharge plume for longer periods of time (i.e., greater than 2 minutes). However, avoidance of in both laboratory and field situations.gg)by salmon Chapman )hasbeenobserved observed that eighty percent of the non-acclimated juvenile steelhead trout tested avoided copper at 10-20 ug/1. Laboratory tests have demonstrated olfactory response of Atlapt:g salmon parr to both copper and zinc in a continuously flowing system.t2 1 Strength of avoidance was measured by the relative length of time in both control waters and waters modified by the metal. A threshold concentration of 2.3 ug/l was estimated for copper; 53 ug/l for zinc; and 0.42 ug/l copper plus 6.1 ug/l of zinc in a mixture. The probability of adult salmonids encountering the WNP-1/4 discharge plume is low because chinook salmon and steelhead trout naturally migrate shore and would thereby pass the mid-river discharges unaffected g6 Other tracking studies confirm this natural shoreline movement.(27-28) In addition to fish, the sessile, benthic biota may be effected by copper discharges. The maximum area of river bottom potentially exposed to copper 1 concentrations greater than or equal to 1.1-0.3 ug/l above ambient, is ap-proximately 160,000 square feet (40' wide by 4000' long = 3.7 acres). Resis-tant organisms can be expected to survive within this area, however the more sensititive will not be protected. The 3.4 acres potentially impacted is a relatively small area compared to the total available habitat within the Columbia River. Consequently, such a change should have no measurable effect on the total abundance and composition of benthic organisms. Nickel discharge levels from WNP-l/4 may range from 44-168 ug/l (Table 5.3-1). As a result of dilution, the concentrations at the edge of the mixing zone are reduced to 2.1 -12.0 ug/1. Limited data exist for nickel in aquatic environ-ments and its biological effects. Anderson et al(29), using rainbow trout, found the 96-hour LC50 for nickel was red atinconcentrations the range of 22,000-24,000 from 4,000-8,500ug/l ug/land tg)zero
. Hale pegt using mortality occur-rainbow trout found the 96 hour LC50 for nickel nitrate was 35,500-ug/1. Brown and Dalton (32 1 found, for nickel sulfate in hard ground water (total hardness =
240 mg/1), that the 48-hour LC50 to juvenile rainbow trout was 32,000 ug/1. Based on this information it seems unlikely that the nickel discharges from 5.3-4 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL .i i O WNP-1/4 will have any measurable impact. This is because the nickel concen-trations and duration of exposure are less than those reported to have any direct lethal effect. Chlorine is the biocide used in the treatment of the WNP-1/4 circulating water. The fresh water quality criteria for total residual chlorine (TRC) is l1 0.002 mg/1.(l) With a discharge level of 0.1 mg/1, the TRC concentration in the WNP-1/4 plume is reduced to 0.0Q2 m feet downstream from the discharge.(33)g/l Page in and 14Hulsizer(33) seconds and predict at a distance 100 that with a 0.1 mg/l chlorine discharge all aquatic life traveling through the WNP-1/4 plume is protected and the area of benthos effected would amount to 4 about 0.37 acres of river bottom. The area affected is small relative to the l total habitat available in the Columbia River and should not affect the aquatic consnunity as a whole. To summarize, research to date would not predict a ma toxic impact on biota at the WNP-1/4 site as a result of TRC discharges.(33)jor Sulfates occur in the WNP-1/4 discharge as a result of concentration of river water and the use of sulfuric acid to regenerate ion exchange resins and neu-tralize alkaline water. Sulfate concentrations in the Columbia River average 12.4 mg/l with a maximum recorded value of 16.7 mg/l (Table 5.3-1). At the edgeofWNP-1/4mixingzone,sulfatelevelsareestimatedtobefrom2.Qto ) 9.7 mg/l above upstream ambient concentrations. Becker and Thatcher (34, have compiled data on the toxicity of certain sulfates to aquatic life, and state that sulfates exhibit low toxicity to aquatic organisms. A comparison O of research to date(34) and the WNP-1/4 mixing zone concentrations results in a prediction of no major impact on Columbia River biota at the WNP-l/4 site. REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.3
- 1. Quality Criteria for Water, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1976, 256 p.
- 2. " Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Criteria Documents,"
Federal Register, 45(231):79318-79379, November 28, 1980.
- 3. Chu, A., T. A. Thayer, B. W. Floyd, D. F. Unites and J. F. Roetzer, 4
Copper in the Aquatic Environment: A Literature Review for Washington Public Power Supply System, Envirosphere Company, Bellevue, WA., 1978, 179 p.
- 4. Allen, R. L. and T. K. Meekin, An Evaulation of the Priest Rapids Chindok Spawning Channel, 1963-1971, State of Washington Department of Fisheries, l Technical Report No. 11, 1973, 52 p.
O 5.3-5 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
,-w--,m , - . .--m---m...m ,. . --.-,.-,,w.,..r- .,,,----g- - ,--~~.-e.wv.,,.,-.,wr---,-,.,.,---,w----._-,
WNP-1/4 ER-0L O
- 5. Shaw, T. L. and V. M. Brown, " Heavy Metals and the Fertilization df Rainbow Trout Eggs," Nature, 230(5291):251.
- 6. Grande, M., " Effects of Copper and Zinc on Salmonid Fishes," In:
Advances in Water Pollution Research, 1:97-111, Water Pollution Control Federation, Washington, D.C.1967.
- 7. Hazel, C. R. and S. J. Meith, " Bioassay of King Salmon Eggs and Sac Fry in Copper Solutions," California Fish and Game, 56(2):121-124,1970.
- 8. Chapman, G. A., " Toxicities of Cadmium, Copper, and Zinc to Four Juvenile Stages of Chinook Salmon and Steelhead," Trans. Am. Fisheries Society 107(6): 841-847, 1978.
- 9. Finlayson, B. J. and K. M. Verrue, " Estimated Safe Zinc and Copper Levels for Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Upper Sacramento River, California, California Fish and Game, 66(2):68-82,1980.
- 10. Finlayson, B. J. and S. H. Ashuckian, " Safe Zinc and Copper Levels from the Spring Creek Drainage for Steelhead Trout in the Upper Sacremento River, California," California Fish and Game, 65(2):80-99,1979.
- 11. Holland, G. A., J. E. Lasater, E. D. Newmann and W. E. Eldridge, Toxic Effects of Organic Pollutants on Young Salmon and Trout, State of Washington, Department of Fisheries, Research Bulletin No. 5, 1960, 264 p.
- 12. Lorz, H. W. and McPherson, B. P., "Effect of Copper or Zinc in Freshwater on the Adaptation to Seawater and Atpase Activity, and the Effects of Copper on Migratory Disposition of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch),"
J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, 33:2023-2030, 1976.
- 13. Calamari, D. and R. Marchetti. 1973. "The Toxicity of Mixtures of Metals and Surfactants to Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri Rich), " Water Research, 7:1453-1464, 1973.
- 14. Howarth, R. S. and J. B. Sprague, " Copper Lethality to Rainbow Trout in Waters of Various Hardn cs and pH," Water Research 12:455-462, 1978.
- 15. Lloyd, R. and N. M. Herbert, "The Effect of the Environment on the Toxicity of Poisons to Fish," T. Inst. Public Health Eng., 132-143, 1962.
- 16. Mains, E. M. and J. M. Smith, "The Distribution, Size, Time and Current Preferences of Seaward Migrant Chinook Salmon in the Columbia and Snake Rivers," Fisheries Research Papers, Washington State Department of Fisheries, 2:5-43, 1964.
- 17. Coutant, C. C, Effects of Thermal Shock on Vulnerability to Predation in Juvenile Salmonids, Single Shock Temperatures, BNWL-1521, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA., 1969.
5.3-6 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
- ~. . .. . - . . -
t WNP-1/4 ER-OL !O i 18. Mcdonald, J., "The Behavior of Pacific Salmon Fry During Their Downstream Migration to Freshwater and Saltwater Nursery Areas," J. Fish. Res. ! Board of Canada, 17(5):655-676,1960. ! 19. Becker, C. D., Temperature Timing and Seaward Migration of Juvenile
- Chinook Salmon from the Central Columbia River, BNWL-1472, Battelle,
! Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington,1970. i ! 20. Personal Communicaton, J.E. Mudge, Supply System, with Dr. G. A. Chapman,
- U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Western Fish Toxicology Station.
l Corvallis, Oregon, February, 14, 1980.
- 21. Sprague, J. B., " Avoidance of Copper-Zinc Solutions by Young Salmon in
- the Laboratory," Jour. Water Pollution Control Federation, 36
- 990-1004, l 1964.
j 22. Sprague, J. B. and R. L. Saunders, " Avoidance of Sublethal Mining Pollu-l tion by Atlantic Salmon," Proc. 10th Ontario Industrial Waste Conference . Ontario Water Research Commission, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1963, 221 p. 4
- 23. Chapman, G. A., " Toxicological Consideration of Heavy Metals in the
! Aquatic Environment," In: Toxic Materials in the Aquatic Environment, ! Pages 69-77, Water Resources Research Institute, Oregon State University, 1 Corvallis, Oregon, 1978.
. 24. Coutant, C. C., " Behavior of Adult Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout j Migrating Past Hanford Thermal Discharges," In: Pacific Northwest La-l boratory Annual Report for 1967, Vol.1, Biological Sciences," BNWL-714, j Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1968.
j 25. Coutant, C. C., " Behavior of Sonic-Tagged Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout Migrating Past Hanford Thermal Discharges," In: Pacific Northwest Laboratory Annual Report for 1968, Vol.1, Pt. 2,15 pp. BNWL-1050, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA,1969.
- 26. Coutant, C. C., Behavior of Ultrasonic Tagged Chinook Salmon and Steel-head Trout Migrating Past Hanford Thermal Discharges (1967), BMWL-lbdU, l Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1970, 15 pp.
l 27. Monan, G. E., K. L. Liscom and J. K. Smith, Final Report, Sonic Tracking ! of Adult Steelhead in Ice Harbor Reservoir 1969, Biological Laboratory i Bureau Commercial Fisheries, Seattle, WA, 1970, 13 pp. ! 28. Falter, C. M. and R. R. Ringe, Pollution Effects on Adult Steelhead j Migration in the Snake River, EPA-660/3-73-017, U.S. Environmental j Protection Agency, 1974, 100 pp. i i O 5.3-7 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) s
WNP-1/4 ER-0L O
- 29. Anderson, D. R., S. A. Barraclough, C. D. Becker, T. J. Connors, R. G.
Genoway, M. J. Schneider, K. O. Schwarzmiller and M. L. Wolford, "The Combined Effects of Nickel, Chlorine and Temperature in Rainbow Trout and Coho Salmon," In: Pacific Northwest Laboratory Annual Report for 1976, BNWL-2100, Pt. 2, p. 7.38, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1977.
- 30. Anderson, D. R., C. D. Becker, and M. J. Schneider, "The Combined Effects of Nickel, Chlorine and Temperature on Rainbow Trout and Coho Salmon,"
In: Pacific Northwest Laboratory Annual Report for 1977, PNL-2500, Pt. 2.
- p. 7.14, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1978.
- 31. Hale, J. G., " Toxicity of Metal Mining Wastes," Bulletin of Environmental Contamination Toxicology, 17:66, 1977.
- 32. Brown, V. M. and R. A. Dalton, "The Acute Lethal Toxicity to Rainbow Trout of Mixtures of Copper, Phenol, Zinc and Nickel," J. Fish Biology, 2:211-216, 1970.
- 33. Page, T. L. and E. J. Hulsizer (Eds.), Biofouling Control in Open Recir-culation Cooling Water Systems - a Review, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1977,111 p.
- 34. Becker, C. D. and T. O. Thatcher, Toxicity of Power Plant Chemicals to Aquatic Life, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1973, 221 p.
5.3-8 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) i
i J O O TABLE 5.3-1 O POTENTIAL CHANGE IN COLLMBI A RIVER WATER QUALITY RESULTING FROM WNP-1/4 CHEMICAL DISCHARGES TOTAL COMBINED (c) EDGE OF MIXING ZONE (d) EFFLUENT 1. IMITATIONS (**f) WATER QUALITY CRITERIA (g.h,1) ! RIVER (a) DISCHARGE 36,000 crs 120,000 cfs
- og/l ag/l a ag/l Avg. Max. Avg. Max. & g/IM. Ag M. A m Range og/l M. Am ag/l Range g.
J Alkalinity (asCaCO3 ) 59.2 64 18 36 58.1 63.6 58.9 63.9
- sN 0.010 0.028 0.0701 0.345 0.012 0.032 0.010 0.029 j Ammonia Calcium ($J 18.5 20.4 91.1 196 20.5 22.7 19.1 21.1 a Chloride 1.0 1.8 10.3 31.0 1.3 2.2 1.1 1.9 .002
! Total Residual - 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0001 0.0 0.0004 0.1 ! ! Chlorine
- Fluoride (b) 0.17 0.29 0.837 2.74 0.19 0.32 0.18 0.30 l Hardness, as CACO3 (b) 68.6 80 338 753 76.0 89 70.8 83 .;
i Magntstum (b)(b) 4.0 4.9 19.7 46.1 4.4 5.4 4.1 5.1 . Nitrate, as N 0.129 0.290 0.635 2.74 0.143 0.32 0.133 0.300 t Nitrogen,(bTgtal 0.5 0.5 2.46 Organic i 5.27 0.55 0.56 0.52 0.52 4 011 & Grease 1.5 6 7.71 20 1.7 6.2 1.6 6.1 } pH (st'd. units) 7.85 8.4 7.9 8.5 7.86 8.4 7.85 8.4 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.0 Phosphorus 0.0275 0.044 0.138 0.418 0.0305 0.049 0.0284 0.045 5.0 5.0 Potassium (b) 0.77 0.91 3.79 8.57 0.85 1.01 0.80 0.94 Silica, as SiO2(b) 4.46 6.2 22.0 58.4 4.94 6.9 4.61 6.4 3 Sodium 2.0 2.4 10.7 35.4 2.2 2.8 2.1 2.5 d Solids (Tot. Diss.) 93.2 131 837 1947 113.7 155 99.4 138 Solids (Tot. Susp.) 4.0 10 19.8 95.4 4.4 11 4.1 10 Sulfate 12.4 16.7 330 756 21.1 26.4 15.0 19.6 ! ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l .ug/l ug/l i Cadmium (b) Chromium h.78 h2.6 h8.22"'b.2 33.6 .98 3.0 3
.84 2.7 200 200 2 3 100 j Cobalt (b) 1.5 11 7.38 104 1.7 12 1.5 11 1 Copper 3.5 16 211 561 9.2 23 5.2 18 5.60 15.64 j Ircn 56 140 303 1370 63 156 58 145 1.59 108.85 4 Lead (b) 1.8 24 8.87 226 2.0 27 1.9 25 i Manganese (b) 9.9 15 48.7 138 11 17 10.2 15 Mercury (b) .52 4.1 2.56 38.5 .58 4.6 .54 4.2 0.2 4.1 Nickel 1.8 10 43.7 168 3.0 12 2.1 11 72.24 1394.09 Zinc 19 47 93.5 443 21 52 20 49 1000 1000 47.00 235.10 4
4 1 ;al Based on a pre-operational water chemistry study (see Table 2.4-5). ! I bL These materials are concentrated but not added during operation of the plants. i l lc? Nonradioactive waste and cooling tower blowdown (see Section 3.6). j i
,d; l From Reference 5.1-5.
t~ i e i Reference 5.1-2. (f[ WNP-1/4 NPDES Permit (see Appendix I). J Reference 5.3-1. - j i,1 Reference 5.3-2. j [ h Calculated using an average river hardness of 68.6 ug/1. i i 1 _ _ . . . . ~ . _ _ . . , . . - - _ . , _ . . . . . - . _ . _ _ , , . - . . . . _ . . _ . . . - . . - . _ . .- _. , - . ,. . . . . . . -. -
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 5.3-2 LETHAL CONCENTRATIONS OF COPPER AND ZINC FOR VARIOUS LIFE STAGES OF STEELHEAD TROUT AND CHIN 0OK SALMON (a) 1 Copper (ug/1) Zinc (ug/1) LC50 LC10 LC50 LC10~ Species Life Stage 96 hr 200 hr 200 hr 96 hr 200 hr 200 hr Alevin 28 26 19 815 555 256 Swim-up 17 17 9 93 93 54 Steelhead Trout Parr 18 15 8 136 120 61 Smolt 29 21 7 651 278 84 Alevin 26 20 15 661 661 364-661 Swim-up 19 19 14 97 97 68 Chinook Salmon Parr 38 30 17 463 395 268 Smolt 26 26 18 701 367 170 (a) From Reference 5.3-8 1 Amendment 1 (Feb
O O O WNP-1/4 l ER-OL TABLE 5.3-3 EXPECTED COPPER CONCENTRATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE WNP 1/4 DISCHARGE 1 Columbia WNP-1/4 300 Feet 3/4 Mile River Discharge Downstream
- Downstream ** I 1
l Average Total Copper,ug/l 3.5 211 5.2 3.8 Maximum Total Copper, ug/l 16.0 561 18.0 17.1 Travel Time Average I 1 minute I _13.2 minutes I _ Maximum I 2 minutes I _26.4 minutes I _ i 4
- Plume centerline 5 ** Plume centerline and shoreline concentrations equal to nearest 0.1 ug/1. 1
- 5 2
, a rt da e
D' I I
WNP-1/4 i ER-OL l l A 5.8 DEC0hMISSIONING 0F REACTOR BUILDINGS 1 At the end of the useful life of the plant, the reactor will be decomis-sioned in a manner which is acceptable to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC). Selection of the specific mode of decomissioning to be utilized for these facilities will depend upon the regulatory requirements which exist at that time, the interests of the ratepayers of the Pacific Northwest and the needs of the owners. 5.8.1 Site Lease Considerations l1 The lease for the site reads, in part, "The Supply System shall have a period of one year following expiration or termination of this lease to move, dis-mantle and salvage any of its property whether affixed to the land or not, provided that with respect to the removal, dismantling and salvaging of pro-perty affixed to the land, if requested by the Administration, the premises shall be returned as nearly as possible to its original condition at the time of execution of this lease". This contract wording will be used extensively by the Supply system as a guide in developing its detailed plans for reactor decommissioning. The contract wording represents a fundamental, irrevocable, conunitment by the Supply System to appropriate plant decomissioning. The necessity for complete dismantling of the reactor complex and return of the site to its former appearance may be both unnecessary and impracticable. The site area has a history of nuclear production activities which dates l1 back to January 1943 when the Manhattan District of the Corps of Engineers selected the Hanford area for nuclear development. Among considerations in the selection of Hanford were isolation of the area; the number of resi-dents to be displaced; the general nature of the area; and abundant sources of electric energy and cooling water. Coupled with the proximity to impor-tant transmission networks, these factors make the site a logical candidate 1 for the installation of future power stations, whether nuclear or fossil. It is a site too valuable to abandon. 5.8.2 Decomissioning Options , l1 The NRC recognizes four alternatives for retirement of excess nuclear reac-tor facilities as being acceptable. They are: o Mothballing/ Protective Custody l This procedure consists of partial decontamination and removal l . of radioactive material from the facility after shutdown. In 1 l the case of mothballing, the residual activity is confined by locked doors and in the case of protective storage the residual l material is sealed in place. Continuous surveillance of the decomissioned facility is utilized in the case of mothballing and remote continual surveillance is employed in the case of protective storage. 5.8-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL o Entombment , 1 After shutdown a major decontamination of the facility takes place. Then the residual radioactivity is entombed in a con-crete monolith which has a design life consistent with the half I life of the residual activity and which is designed consistent l with anticipated accident conditions. Non-radioactive buildings and materials may be removed from the site as per normal salvage procedures. Infrequent surveillance is utilized and the site is usually considered open to the public. o Dismantlement This procedure requires demolition and off-site burial of con-taminated and activated systems and structures. Components and 1 structures left on-site are decontaminated to background levels. At the conclusion of this process, no surveillance is required and the site can be opened to the general public. o Conversion The least utilized option to date, this procedure involves con-version of the facility into a new power plant or into a power plant of different design. The one outstanding application is the conversion of the Pathfinder power plant into a coal-fired unit. In the future this procedure may involve refurbishment of the mechanical portion of a power plant. Each of the decomissioning options has been demonstrated on one or more actual nuclear power plants. Therefore, the technology for exploiting these methods has been developed, tested, and is readily available. In addition to this background of experience, there is an ongoing research, development, demonstration and application effort by the Department of Energy (D0E). One significant part of this program is the effort to decomission over 600 nuclear facilities owned by the DOE. This program, which will stretch many years into the future, will provide a constant flow of technology and exper-tise into the nongovernmental area. Therefore, in the case of decommis-sioning, the situation is not only one of developing technology, it also consists of selecting the most applicable and cost-effective approach from among the several options. i A choice exists between prompt and delayed final decommissioning. If decom-l missioning is delayed, the plant is either mothballed or placed in protective custody for a number of years before it is finally decommissioned. The ad-t vantages of delay include a significant decrease in radiation levels due to radioactive decay. This results in marked reduction of the health hazard to the workers. The disadvantages of delay include the rising costs due to inflation and the cost of the interim surveillance. Studies show the optimum 1 delay time to be about fifty years. ) O l 5.8-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) i
WNP-1/4 ER-OL q Some or all of the following activities could take place in the (y decomissioning process: l i
- a. Remove the structural steel framing and metal siding of the l turbine-generator building, salvage the crane and all equipment, leave the non-removable parts of the turbine-generator foundation and block all entrances.
- b. In the General Services Building, salvage the equipment as practi- j cable, raze the structural walls and block the entrances. The dis- I position of other auxiliary structures will depend upon the future !
use to be made of the site. '
- c. In the containment and fuel storage area, remove all fuel, control rods and accessories, and salvage the cranes and other equipment.
For these buildings, detailed plans will have to be established im-mediately preceding the decomissioning to allow maximum re-use of site land areas while eliminating any radioactive hazard. The degree of building demolition, the demolition, the extent of practi-cable decontamination, the possible re-use of certain equipment or structures, and the subsequent use to be made of the site, all must be evaluated in establishing these plans. In the above operations, equipment would be decontaminated where necessary and practicable or transported with suitable precautions. Q NJ 5.8.3 Decomissioning Program 1 An overall work plan, including cost estimates, would be prepared near the end of the reactors' useful lives. The decomissioning operations would be conducted in accordance with detailed procedures, specifications and schedules. The specifications would define the scope, methods and sequence of accomplishing major talks. Where detailed work procedures are required to supplement the specifications they would be developed to meet the exist-ing field conditions, state-of-the-art technology and shipping and burial ground requirements. Prior to decomissioning, certain preparatory work would be initiated. This includes:
- a. Preparation of detailed plans and accumulation of tools and equipment.
- b. Selection and qualification (if required) of necessary personnel.
- c. Maintaining security precautions to keep out unauthorized personnel.
- d. Construction of an enlarged change room and personnel decontamina-tion area.
l 5.8-3 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL
- e. Establishing storage areas for contaminated and uncontaminated wastes.
- f. Establishing radioactivity monitoring procedures for the additional personnel and areas involved.
All spent fuel will be withdrawn and transported to a licensed nuclear fuel processing plant or permanent storage site. Steam generators and other con-taminated components that would be shipped would be decontaminated, cut if 1 necessary, or shipped whole with protective coverings. Shipments of radio-active materials would be governed by applicable NRC and DOT regulations. Radioactive components would be cut, with monitoring, within controlled areas. Imediate work areas would be enclosed within a contamination l control envelope to prevent release of activity to the environment. ' Tanks, machines and other components capable of being decontaminated would be so treated and shipped to salvage dealers. Solid wastes will be properly packaged in approved containers which will be sealed and thoroughly surveyed for external contamination before they are removed. All buildings would be decontaminated. Typical plant systems which would likely need to be kept activated during decomissioning are: demineralizer, gaseous waste disposal, fuel element storage well system, ventilation, air conditioning and heating, service water, emergency electrical, service air and plant comunication systems, as well as radwaste systems. g After program completion, but prior to any backfitting operations, a thor-ough radiation survey of the plant site would be performed to verify that any detectable radioactivity does not represent a source of contamination 1l and is within established regulatory limits. The plant would be inspected as needed at appropriate intervals to insure that the secured buildings remain sealed. 5.8.4 Costs of Decomissioning 1 Most plant decomissioning costs occur after the end of the project life, currently estimated to be 40 years. Cost calculations if made now, would be highly speculative. Certain pieces of equipment, such as water tanks and pumps, if only slightly radioactive, could probably be decontaminated and sold for a price possibly covering their costs of removal. Other equipment, more radioactive, would probably be shipped to the closest burial ground, the cost of removal and delivery resulting in a total loss. Demolition of concrete buildings is a significant cost. Shipping and burial of concrete, if necessary, would contribute additional costs. l O 5.8-4 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l
WNP-1/4 ER-0L m 5.8.5 Environmental Impacts of Decomissioning Decomissioning the plant would have many of the same impacts on the l environment as the original site preparation and station construction, but
- the degree of impact would be less. Automobile, truck, rail traffic and
, essociated noise would increase. Sorae land would be used temporarily for laydown area and additional land may be required for permanent storage of irradiated materials. The amount of land irretrievably comitted by this 1 action will be minimal; the exact amount awaits development of a detailed decomissioning plan. Radiological impacts would be characteristic of transporting irradiated fuel and radioactive wastes from the site. After decomissioning is complete, however, it is expected that the proposed action would have no further significant radiological impact on the environment. 1 0 1 1 O 5.8-5 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 ER-OL f} V CHAPTER 6 EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 6.1 PREOPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM Environmental monitoring programs conducted to serve WNP-2 also provide the preoperational baseline for WNP-1/4. These. programs were described in Sec- 1 tion 6.1 of the WNP-2 ER-OL. Those descriptions are, in large measure, re-peated here. 6.1.1 Surface Water 6.1.1.1 Physical and Chemical Parameters Previous Studies. Numerous studies have been conducted for approximately 35 years in connection with the Hanford Site activities concerning the physical and chemical characteristics of the Columbia River in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2. These studies have included both general observations and de-tailed analyses of the effects on the river of effluents from the plutonium production reactors. These rgggrts, which wqrg reviewed, evaluated, and sum-marized by Becker and Waddel,t11 and Neitzel(21 provide an accurate and i comprehensive historical picture of the river. Measurements by Others. Stage and discharge of the Columbia River are mea-sured continuously at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ggg{ng station below Priest Rapids Dam, 45 miles upstream of the project site.W1 The USGS also routinely monitors river temperature and water chemistry at the Vernita bridge six miles below the dam, and at the intake of the City of Richland 4 water supply treatment plant about 11 miles downstream of the project site. Samples for chemical analyses of the Columbia River are taken routinely at Priest Rapids Dam, Vernita Bridge, the 300 Area, and Richland by Battelle-Northwest and the Hanford Environmental Health with the United States Department of Energy.l4) Foundation under a contract Measurements by Applicant. Water quality studies were performed in the vi-cinity of WNP-1/4 to obtain baseline information for evaluating operational g impacts. From July 1980 through June 1981, water chemistry samples were col-lected upstream of the WhP-1/4 intake (Figure 6.1-1). The samples were ana-i lyzed weekly for alkalinity, cadmium, chromium, copper, hardness, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, dissolved oxygen, pH ar.d zinc. In addition samples were measured monthly for ammonia-nitrogen, barium, boron, calcium, chloride, co-balt, color, floride, magnesium, manganese, nitrate-nitrogen, total organic nitrogen, oil and grease, total phosphorus, orthophosphorus, potassium, set-tleable matter, sodium, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, spe-cific conductance, sulfate and turbidity. The results are summarized in i Table 2.4-5. In most cases the methods of anal Environmental Protection Agency procedures.(5) ysis were in accord with 6.1-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Dye dispersion studies and velocity measurements have been performed by the Supply System to determine hydraulic characteristics of the Columbia River in the vicinity of the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 sites. Four dye releases were made on February theriver.d 25 )1972, Riveratflows RM were 351.75 lowinduring 5 to 7 the f t ofreleases water off andthe' west bank ranged from of 36,000 to 50,000 cfs. The studies showed that complete vertical mixing ! occurs rapidly at this location, and that dye releases made from the river bottom mix more rapidly than releases from mid-depth and the surface. For all releases, complete vertical mixing occurred within 250 f t downstream of the release point. Velocities ranging from 2.5 to 3.3 fps were measured at the water surface during these tests. River velocities were also measured by the Supply System on March 14, 1974 at at each location) at a river transect downstream four of thelocations (three deptpi Three of these locations were in the right WNP-1/4 discharge.l (west and main) channel, and the fourth location was in the middle of the left (east and secondary) channel. The river flow at the time of the mea-surements was about 130,000 cfs, and measurements were made between 3.3 ft and 19.7 ft from the water surf ace in the right channel and between 3.3 ft and 13.1 ft in the left channel. The velocities near the water surface ranged from 4.2 to 4.6 fps in the right channel and were 0.8 fps in the left channel. Velocities in the vicinity of the WNP-2 discharge were also measured in December 1979 when the river flow was about 135,000 cfs and the depth was approximately 20 ft nearthesurface.(8} Velocities varied from 3.5 fps near the bottom to 7 fps h Measurements of suspended sediment concentrations and turbidity were perform-ed at various locations upstream and downstream from the outfall structures during excayatign of the river bed and installation of the intake and outfall structures.(8,91 The purpose of the measurements was to assure that con-struction activities required to install the intake and outfall minimized scour, erosion, runoff and turbidity. Measurements were conducted daily during excavation activities in the river. Sediment concentrations were measured by a conventional suspended sediment sampler. A low flow test of the Columbia River on April 10, 1976 controlled the flow to 36,000 cfs for the purpose of verifying river surface elevations. The results indicated that the water surface was about 1.3 f t lower than previous data indicated. Subsequently, river bottom elevations in the vicinity of the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 discharges were surveyed by the Supply System to obtain more accurate flow depths than were available from previous surveys. Modeling of Blowdown Plume Temperatures. A mathematical model was used to estimate the hydrodynamic and water temperature regime of the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2coolingtowerblowdownplumesintt)gOfQolumbia blowdown and river discharge conditions.t River under different The model was selected on the basis of its applicability to thermal plume behavior in general and observed conditions in the Columbia River in particular. O 6.1-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL The basic equations available for the computation of thermal plumes are the j equations of state, continuity, energy, and momentum. However, these equa-tions are extremely difficult to solve in their more general, nonsteady and three-dimensional formulations. Various assumptions are therefore necessary ' to simplify the equations to develop practical numerical solutions. Simpli-fications may involve the assumption of steady-state, reduction of a three-dimensional problem into fewer dimensions (if possible with symmetry), and the division of a complex problem into smaller sequential problems. l For submerged discharge of effluent entering a swiftly moving turbulent river ) in a direction perpendicular to the mainstream current, three regimes of flow - can be defined:
- 1. the very near field, where the momentum of the effluent jet causes intensive mixing resulting in rapid reduction in maximum effluent concentration;
- 2. a region (loosely termed the intermediate field) where the effluent stream has been turned and is moving along with the current, almost like a part of the mainstream, and is diffusing laterally and verti-cally predominately due to river turbulence and some buoyant action; and
- 3. the far field, defined here as the region where the effluent is moving downstream passively, fully mixed in the vertical dimension with river turbulence dominating lateral diffusion.
Tnese definitions of the conceptual regimes are based on o rvations made during dye studies on a test stretch of the Columbia River and on stream data col}9Qped during operation of the now decommissioned HanfgrQ production reactorstill and the existing Hanford Generating Plant (HGP).l 84 These measurements suggest that the blowdown plume will be vertically well mixed a 1 short distance downstream even at low-flow conditions.(13) Regime 1 encompasses a region extending from the point of discharge down-stream to a location where cross-stream velocity is no longer significant. This flow regime is extremely complex because of the strong interaction between the jet and ambient streams. Numerous analytical and experimental studies concerning similar problems have been conducted in recent years.(14,15) A simplified analytical approach is through similarity analysis, in which the governing three-dimensional partial differential equations are reduced to ordinary differential equations by assuming experimentally determined pro-files for velocity and temperature (or concentration). Unfortunately, simi-larity approaches are strictly applicable only to discharges to semi-infinite water bodies. Hence, similarity theory cannot be applied with a great deal of confidence to discharge flow behavior which is modified by a confining free surface or riverbed. 6.1-3 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-0L The blowdown effluents from WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 are catergorized as severely confined discharges because at low flow the discharge orifice size is of the same order of magnitude as the water depth. Therefore a similarity solution would not be expected to yield accurate results. Additionally, it is doubt-ful that the jet will detach from the river bottom because of the expected rapid dilution of the buoyancy, the jet-induced turbulence, and the intense river turbulence. The confining nature of the stream (surface and bottom) is a factor which tends to decrease jet dilution compared with predicted discharge to a semi-infinite ambient. Conversely, turbulence in the Columbia River as in other swiftly-moving streams, is very intense and since similarity theory does not provide for ambient turbulence, this f actor tends to cause greater dilution than theory would predict. Because of these it itations in applying the theory to the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 blowdown discharge flows, dilution for the very near field cannot be pre-dicted very accurately. However, the theory is valuable for predicting the approximate trajectory of the plume and thus the point where cross-stream velocities become insignificant. These simulations can indicate the im-portance of the initial jet behavior and the point at which the intermediate zone solution can confidently be started. The very near-field dynamical behavior and dilution has little influence on downstream conditions (jet diameter greater than 20 or so) in cases of dis-charge to swiftly moving streams. The effluent in Regime 2 is flowing downstream with a velocity equal to that of the river flow. However, both lateral and vertical diffusion processes are important and buoyant forces may need to be considered. In this case, the advection-diffusion transport equation for heat or other constituents can be applied. The downstream river velocity is assumed to be known a priori from river velocity transect data, and secondary (transverse and vertical) flow effects are masked by mainstream turbulence. In accordance with the definition of this regime, downstream velocity perturbations caused by the discharge ef-fluent are also assumed to be insignificant compared to the mainstream flow. Considerable simplication may be achieved if the turbulent behavior of the mainstream dominates buoyant effects. This behavior is typical of shallow, swiftly moving streams such as the river reach which will be influenced by the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 blowdown discharges. Also, steady flow can be assumed for the analysis of selected blowdown and river flow conditions which do not I vary rapidly with time. The advection-diffusion equation for Regime 2 can l then be written: ' 2 BT aT 0T 8x' " y ay 2+ z az 2 O l 6.1-4 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l l l
WNP-1/4 i ER-0L where k < K =l ' y u r K z" r and T = temperature x = downstream coordinate y = cross-stream coordinate z = vertical coordinate ur = downstream velocity component k,k y =z eddy diffusivities for heat in the y and z directions, respectively In this equation downstream diffusion has been eliminated becaus.e the con-tribution is small compared to downstream advection. The following summarizec assumptions used in deriving the advection-diffusion equation :
- 1. The downstream velocity distribution, up , is known a priori from
. field data.
- 2. Buoyancy effects are insignificant.
- 3. Vertical and lateral velocity components are insignificant.
- 4. Eudy diffusivities are homogeneous, but possibly anisotropic.
- 5. Downstream diffusion is insignificant compared to downstream advection.
- 6. The flow is steady in time (i.e., BT/at = 0).
- 7. Atmospheric effects are insignificant.
The advection-diffusion equation has the form of the classical transient heat conduction equation and may be easily solved for any desired boundary con-dition using well-tested numerical techniques. For application to WNP-1/4 and WNP-2, an alternating direction implicit finite difference solution was used. O 6.1-5 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Regime 3 is identified as the far field, where the effluent is moving down-stream passively and is fully mixed in the vertical dimension. Atmospheric effects, i.e. heat transfer across the air-water interf ace may become signi-ficant. The approximate beginning of this region is ascertained by the cal-culation procedure outlined for Regime 2. Regime 3 was not modeled since Regime 2 assumptions were adequate to encompass the mixing zone. 6.1.1.2 Ecological Parameters - Aquatic Studies at the Hanford Site for more than 35 years have resulted in a sub-stantial amount of qualitative and quantitive information useful for impact assessment. In addition, the Supply System has conducted a preliminary sur-vey program including literature studies (1,2,16) and field studies of the 1 Columbia River from 1973-1980.(8,17-22) The results of the field studies were comprehensively reviewed and statistically analyzed in 1982.(63)These historic and preoperational studies have resulted in the knowledge of the composition, structure and function of the aquatic ecosystem that establishes the basis for the design of the operational monitoring program. The preoperational program concentrated on obtaining baseline data for im-pacts of plant operations which can most probably be measured if they should occur. Accordingly, the portion of the river immediately adjacent to the 1l plant site received the most attention, as did the biota most likely affect-ed. Monitoring of those aquatic populations unlikely to be affected by plant operation were retained in the program, but with a lower level of effort. 1 l The major preoperational monitoring program tasks included benthic biota, fish, and plankton monitoring. The preoperational program was curtailed in March 1980 with tne cogyrrence of the' Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC).M These studies provide a continuous data series on the natural variations in the seasonal occurrence and abundance of important aquatic species near the WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 sites from 1973 through early 1980. This knowledge of the extent of natural variations permits evaluation of changes in the abundance of important aquatic species in the vicin.ity of the projects before and after operation. A comparison of changes in species abundance in the vicinity of the intake and discharge in relation to changes in control areas outside the influence of the plant will be made before and after operation. Benthic Organisms. Alterations of the Columbia River aquatic biota due to the influence of the plant effluent should be most readily indicated by changes in the structure of the benthic community in the immediate vicinity of the discharges. The Supply System's aquatic ecological (8,17-22) program has characterized the composition, density and seasonal abundance of the benthic fauna near WNP-1/4 and WNP-2. The preoperational benthic program focused on the benthic flora and fauna in the area of expected discharge impact. 6.1-6 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O
l l WNP-1/4 j ER-OL o i b Figure 6.1-1 indicates sampling locations for the aquatic biota program. Station 1 above and Station 8 below the area projected to be influenced by l the discharge plumes, and Stations 7 and 11 in the WNP-2 plume were uti- ! lized. Sample stations 4 and 12 located in the area projected to be influ-enced by the WNP-1/4 discharge plume will be sampled during the operational program for WNP-2 and WNP-l/4. Stations 1,7,8 and 11 were sampled four times per year (March, June, September, and December) to establish baseline infor-mation on community composition and abundance. For benthic fauna, rock-filled baskets were incubated on the bottom for three months. On recovery, I species composition, biomass and community dominance were determined. For l benthic flora, glass microscope slides were incubated at the same sites as i the rock-filled baskets and sampled on the same frequency. Qualitative species analysis, chlorophyll a and biomass measurements were made. Replicate benthic flora and f alina samples were taken to allow for statistical analysis of community changes. Fish. Identification of the species present in the Hanford stretch of the river is essentially complete. The Supply System's program has examined the spatial and temporal distribution, species relative abundance, age structure and feeding habits of fish found near the site. In the preoperational pro-gram, emphasis was placed on fish fourd in the immediate vicinity of the in-take and projected WNP-2 discharge plume. Species and numbers of fish residing seasonally near the plant were examined with particular attention given to anadromous outmigrants. Samples were obtained using one or more of the following sampling methods: hoop-nets, electroshocking, gillnetting or _h beach seining. Sampling locations for each of these methods are shown in (d Figure 6.1-1 and sampling frequency is shown in Table 6.1-2. A tag and re- l1 lease program was used in an attempt to determine population size and time of residence within the study area. l1 Plankton. Some fraction of the river's plankton will be drawn into the plant with the cooling water and another fraction will be exposed to the effects of entrainment in the discharge plume. The numbers so affected are an extremely small fraction of the population passing the plant. Studies conducted by the Supply System on the Columbia River indicate that planktonic algae and micro-crustaceans in the aquatic system near WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 do not have a major role in energy transfer pathways. No significant impact on the plankton com-munity is expected because of the small volume of water withdrawn by WNP-1/4 and WNP-2, and the small volume influenced by the discharged water compared to the total river flow. Nonetheless, phyto- and zooplankton studies were conducted on a limited basis. Investigations by the Supply System indicate that samples representative of the river from any one station and depth (8,17-22).Therefore, plankton population may be obtained during the preopera-tional program monthly plankton samples were taken at one station (Station 1, Figure 6.1-1) and one depth. These samples were used to determine phyto- and zooplankton species relative abundance and baseline biomass. These programs also provided a continuous indicator of changes in the plankton population. lO 6.1-7 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) ) l l.__-
) WNP-1/4 ER-0L 6.1.2 Groundwater l The groundwater in about 300 wells on the Hanford Site is routinely monitcred I for cherp{qql and radiological cnaracteristics by the Department of Energy.4 'O More than 20 wells are located within 5 miles of the pr i site and 6 wells are installed in the imediate vicinity of the siteb' ject W (see Figure 2.4-12). This monitoring program has accumulated quite comprehensive infortratior, on groundwater characteristics and is expected to be continued routinely by the 00E. l The Supply System will monitor non-radiological groundwater quality parame-I ters during the preoperational program to ensure conformance with State of Washington drinking water quality standards. 6.1.3 Air . 6.1.3.1 Local Meteorology Meteorological data were collected at the WNP-2 site from April 1974 through 1 May 1976 and from October 1979 through September 1980. The meteorological data collection system consisted of a 240-f t tower, an auxiliary 7-f t instru-ment mast, sensors with associated electronics and recording devices, and a meteorological building. A temporary meteorological system began collecting data at the same location in March 1972 and was discontinued (September 1974) once the satisfactory 1l operation of the permanent system was verified. The temporary meteorological system consisted of a 23-f t mast witn an aerovane wind sensor. Data was re-corded on chart paper. Air temperature ano relative humidity were recorded by use of a hygrothermograph in an adjacent weather screen. The permanent meteorological system consists of a primary tower 240-f t high with an extending 5-ft mast. The primary tewer is triangular in shape and of open lattice construction to minimize tower interference with meteorological measurements. Wind and temperature measurements on the main tower were made at the 245-ft and 33-ft levels. At the 33-ft level the instruments (wind, temperature, and dewpoint) were mounted on an 8-f t horizontal boom extending west-northwest of the tower. Wind and temperature measurements were also made at the top of the 7-f t mast which is lacated approximately 80 f t to the southwest of the 240-f t tower. Wind speed measurements were made using conventional cup anemometers (Climet Instruments, Model 011-1 Wind Speed Transmitter). The instruments have a response threshold of about 0.6 mph and an accuracy of 11% or 0.15 mph (which ever is greater) over a range of 0.6 to 90 mph. The instruments were calibrated at speeds between approximately 5 and 20 mph. c O 6.1-8 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Wind direction measurements were made using lightweight vanes (Climet In- /~'N struments, Model 012-10 Wind Direction Transmitter). The response threshold C of these vanes is about 0.75 mph, and their damping ratio and distance con-stant are approximately 0.4 and 3.3 f t, respectively. Dual potentiometers in the wind direction transmitter produce an electrical signal covering 5400 in azimuth with an accuracy of within +20 _ In addition, electronics have been included to provide signals which are pro-portional to the standard deviation (00 ) of the wind direction at each level. Temperature instrumentation provided measurements of both the ambient air temperature at the 245, 33, and 7-ft levels and the temperature differences between these levels. The ambient air temperature and the temperature dif-ference sensors are independent of each other to provide reliability. All temperature measurements for both systems are made in aspirated temperature shields (Climet Instruments Model 016-1 or -2) using platinum resistance temperature devices (Rosemount Engineering Co., Model 104 MB6ABCA). These instruments provide an ambient temperature range from -300F to +1300F and a temperature difference range of +150F. The accuracy of the instruments is within the range of +0.90F in tiie measurement of temperatures and l1 _0.18
+ F in the measurement of temperature differences.
The dewpoint temperature was measured at the 33-f t level of the tower using a lithium chloride dewpoint sensor (Climet Instruments, Model 015-1 12) housed in an aspirated temperature shield (Climet Instruments, Model 016-2). The accuracy of this measurement in the normal range of measurement is better than +0.90F. \ Precipitation was measured at ground level using a tipping bucket rain gage (Meteorology Research, Model 302) located about 40 ft west of the main tower. This instrument is accurate to within +1% at rainf all rates up to 3 in/hr and has a resolution of 0.01 inches. The instrument building provided a climate-controlled environment near the tower to house the instrument electronics and record the data. Both digital magnetic tape and analog strip chart recorders were used providing redundant data recording capability. The primary data recording system is a 9-track l1 digital magnetic tape recorder (Kennedy, Model 1600) that uses 1/2-in tape. Logarithmically, time-averaged wind speed, wind direction, temperature, tem-perature difference, and dewpoint temperature signals were recorded at 5-minute intervals. The time constant of the averaging process is 5 to 15 minutes. The standard deviation of wind direction during the preceding 5 minutes at each level and the total precipitation were recorded along with the wind and temperature information. All data, except the wind direction standard deviations, were recorded on strip charts. Besides enhancing data retrievability, the strip chart records proviaed a rapid means of identifying instrument malfunctions and were useful in system calibration. Strip charts and magnetic tapes were changed weekly. 6.1-9 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL In summary, the total system (sensor, recorder, analysis, etc.) accuracies for the measured meteorological parameters meet or exceed the following specifications: air temperature +0.50C temperature difference 70.20C humidity (dew point) 3 50C wind speed +0.5 mph wind direction _T50 These are verified by the end-to-end calibrations. Data recovery was better than 90 percent. To ensure the quality of the meteorological data collected by the me. .toring system, an extensive quality assurance program was instituted. This program covered all phases of meteorological monitoring from the initial instrument acquisition through the analysis of data. Periodic checks and calibration of the instrument systems and individual components were instituted. These pe-riodic checks ranged from daily inspection of the strip charts to semi-annual calibration of the complete system. Calibrations were performed at three-month intervals during the first data 1 collection period (April 1, 1974-May 31, 1976). Full system (system elec-tronics and sensors) calibrations were performed at six-month intervals dur-ing both collection periods. Calibrations of just the system electronics were performed at the intervals between. Prior to April 1,1974 the system 1l was calibrated by the vendor. All checks, calibrations, and maintenance were g fully documented including traceability of test and calibration equipment to the National Bureau of Standards where necessary. These calibrations and routine daily and weekly inspections demonstrated that the meteorological system remained electronically stable in terms of obtaining data cient quality to meet the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.23.(q{)suffi-
' Cor-rections to the data have been applied per the quarterly calibration findings and all data have been summarized in the form of monthly reports.
The data once collected, were protected from loss to the maximum extent pos-sible. The digital tapes were examined to identify possible instrumentation malfunctions. The data were then copied onto two master tapes. The original weekly tape and one master tape were stored in vaults. The second master tape was used in the preparation of data summaries. Finally, to ensure proper operation of computer hardware and software, all computer programs used to summarize or analyze the data were checked quarter-ly. These checks were performed using a standard data input. The computer output from these tests was saved to document computer operation. O 6.1-10 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) i
WNP-1/4 ER-OL m , 6.1.3.2 Models Short-Term Diffusion Estimates Atmospheric diffusion factors (x/Q's) at the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) (1.2 miles) and the outer boundary of the Low Population Zone (LPZ) at 4.0 miles were calculated from hourly data collected at the onsite meteorological l1 facility for the period from April 1, 1974 through March 31, 1976. Values taken from frequency distributions follow: + Averaging X/Q (sec/m3) Period Maximum 5% 50% Distance 2 hours 1.4x10-3 2.2x10-4 2.4x10-5 EAB, 1.2 miles 8 hours I lx10-4 2.2x10-5 3.3x10-6 LPZ, 4.0 miles - 16 hours 9.2x10-6 2.3x10-6 7.4x10-7 LPZ, 4.0 miles 3 days 2.8x10-6 1.2x10-6 5.0x10-7 LPZ, 4.0 miles 26 days 9.3x10-7 6.4x10-7 3.6x10-7 LPZ, 4.0 miles Formulations for calculatin i Regulatory Guide 1.145.(28)g For the short-term the WNP-1%/Q values are itas configuration, is described assumed inthat ' h.. V accidental releases are made at ground level. This assumption provides a con-servative estimate of downwind X/Q values. Based on the guidance given in Regulatory Guide 1.145, the X/Q values are calculated using three separate equations. The particular equation which is used depends upon the existing meteorological conditions. The equations are:
%/Q = U10(* y z+A/2)
UI
/0 " U1053 yz I X/Q = U (3) 10*h0z where:
X/Q is relative concentration (sec/m3) U10 is the hourly average wind speed at the 10-m level (m/sec) oy is the horizontal diffusion parameter (m) determined from
- downwind distance and stability category O 6.1-11 Amendment 1(Feb83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 0 2 is the vertical diffusion parameter (m) determined from downwind distance and stability category Iy represents plume meander and building wake effects (m) and is a function of stability category, wind speed and downwind distance A is the smallest vertical plane cross-sectional area of the reactor building (m2), During neutral or stable atmospheric stability conditions, the results of all three equations are used to determine dosages. The values from Equations 1 and 2 are compared and the larger is selected. This value is compared with that computed in Equation 3 and the lower value is selected as the appropri-ate X/Q value. During all other meteorological conditions (unstable and/or wind speeds of 6 m/sec or more), only Equations 1 and 2 are considered. The appropriate X/Q value is the larger of the two. Values of oy and a z , the horizontal and vertical diffusion parameters are taken from Regulatory Guide 1.145 for the applicable stability category and downwind distance. For extremely stable conditions (Category G), the follow-ing relationships are applied: oy at Category G = 2/3 oy at Category F and oz at Category G = 3/5 o z at Category F. 1 The hourly average wind speeds and data were taken from the two years of onsite data. Wind directions were grouped and classified into 16 azimuthal direction sectors of 22.50 each centered on true north, north-northeast, etc. Calms were defined as hourly average windspeeds below 0.4 m/sec and are assigned a wind speed of 0.3 m/sec. Wind directions during calm conditions were assigned with the same distributional patterns as wind directions in the next three-highest (0.4-1.5 m/sec) speed category classes. The hourly sta-bility category classifications were also determined in accord with proce-dures described in Subsection 2.3.2.1. Because of the plant vent location, no credit was taken for plume rise in any of the diffusion calculations. The two-hour concentrations are assumed to be identical to the one-hour values described above. Interpolation of a log-log plot of the two-hour an annual average values (discussed below) was used in l the estimation of the 8-hour,16-hour, 3-day, and 26-day distributions. Long-Term Diffusion Estimates The calculational techniques used to estimate annual average relative concen-l trationg (X/Q) are consistent with the guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.111.l'91 The hourly average values of wind speed, wind direction, and temperature differences are used to generate joint frequency distribution O 6.1-12 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
1 WNP-1/4 ER-OL i tables for wind speed intervals and wind direction for each of the atmos-pheric stability classes (see Subsection 2.3.2.1). Calms were treated as a separate wind speed category and distributed among the various wind direction sectors according to the directional distribution of the lowest wind speed class. Using these frequencies, and the assumption of a ground-level re-lease, average long-term X/Q values were calculated for various downwind distances out to 80 km (50 mi) using the following equation: N l (X/Q)D = 2.032 Nxu j I4) 3(x) ) where: X/Q = relative concentration (sec/m3) 4 i = index for wind speed D = index for wind speed direction sector
! j = index for Pasquill stability class i Ij z
= vertical dispersion coefficient (m) of the plume for the i given Pasquill stability class x =
downwind distance (m) 1 l u = averagewindspeedforgivenwindspeedclass(m/sec)
, Njj =
number of hours that wind speed interval 1, Pasquill stability class j, and wind direction sector D occur simultaneously N = total hours of valid data. For a ground-level release, the building wake will increase dilution of the effluent. This can be accounted for by modifying the term Izj in Equation 4 above to: 2 I zj I*) " I zj(x) + D /2n)l/2 { subject to the restriction that
%zj(x) s /5az j(x) 1 1
, V 6.1-13 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-0L where: E yj(x) = the vertical diffusion parameter at distance x for stability class j Dz
= the vertical height above ground level of the tallest near-1 by structure (assumed to be 84.6 m for the reactor building)
Computer code X0QD0Q, as described in NUREG-0324(30), was used to calculate the annual dispersion and deposition factors which are listed in Tables 5.2-3 and 5.2-4. Cooling Tower Plume Model A computer program, utilizing diffusion and cumulus cloud models was used to estimate the environmental effects of the circular mechanical draf t evapora-tive cooling tower. Because the cooling tower analysis preceded the avail-ability of data from the permanent onsite meteorological system, data sources included one year (June 1972-May 1973) of onsite hourly data (surf ace temper-1 ature, humidity, wind speed, and wind direction) from the temporary meteoro-logical system (see Subsection 6.1.3.1) and hourly stability data (temperature profiles to 400 ft) from the HMS tower for the same period. Also used were the twice per day radiosonde observations at Spokane (125 mi NE). The plume rise from the circular mechanical draf t cooling towers of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 were calculated using a modified heat input term in the Briggs plume rise equations.(31) This heat input term was calculated based on the 1 l Weinstein and Davis cumulus cloud model(32,33) at 0400 and 1600 hours each day. The cumulus cloud model and the Briggs model predictions were compared and correction factors calculated for the heat input to the Briggs model. The correction factors were then linearly interpolated for hours between 0400 1 and 1600 and applied to the Briggs model predictions at the intervening hours. The plume rise etimates were used to define the centerline of the plume, while the prevailing wind direction defined the direction of movement. It was assumed that for a given set of design and meteorological conditions, vapor leaving a cooling tower will diffuse outward from the center of a plume by the Gaussien plume formula, regardless of whether some of the vapor con-denses to fog. The Gaussian plume formula gives the following expression for the vapor concentration at ground level as a function of distance downwind from the tower: h* __exp[-f(h) z fr a a u In this equation, the quantity E is the concentration of water vapor in the plume at ground level, minus the water vapor in the ambient atmosphere in O 6.1-14 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL /~' weight per unit volume, and D is the rate of discharge of water from the tower ( in weight per unit time. The quantities cy and og are measures of the lateral and vertical spread of the plume; they are determined as a functi9n 9f distance downwind by the Hilsmeier and Gifford version of Pasquill graphs.t3h ; The quantity u is the average wind speed. The quantity h is the sum of the height of the tower plus the plume rise above the tower. Plume rise as a function of downwind distance was calculated with the models referenced above. Water vapor concentration was calculated at heights of interest above ground level at downwind distances. The criteria for visible plume formation and subsequent dissipation were based on a comparison of the calculated water vapor concentration of the plume and the corresponding value from a curve of saturation vapor pressure as a function of temperature. Whenever the latter was the greater quantity, the plume was assumed to be no longer visible. If ground fog predicted to be present at a given distance, the width of the plume 1 at ground level is determined buy the relation Y=2 2(oy )2 in(Emax/E s ) When Y is the plume width, Emax is the centerline value of E and E3 is the minimum humidity associated with fogging based on ambient conditions. The analysis was performed for an entire year of data. The results (see Sub- [], section 5.1.4.1) of visible plume lengtns, widths, and ground interactions as a function of distance and direction were tabulated for all conditions and for freezing conditions (air temperature 320F or below). Local topographi-cal features were used in defining ground level as functions of distance. No credit was taken for rise or fall of the plume centerline over topography unless the visible plume intersected ground level. In such cases, the plume was allowed to travel along the topography. Although this model is a combination of a number of physical processes for which experimental verification is available, an overall verification of the plume estimates with field data has not been performed. The impact estimates can be expected to be generally conservative as a result of the choice of conservative assumptions relative to plume rise and water source term. A more detailed discussion of the model, assumptions, and results is contained in Reference 6.1-35. Drift Deposition Model Estimates of the cooling tower drift deposition rates presented in Subsection 5.1.4 are based on the method developed by Hosier et.al.(35) The method I graphically estimates the drif t deposition pattern as a function of the salt concentration, plume rise, wind speed, relative humidity, and droplet size distribution. The distribution also depends on tne droplet fall velocity I b' 6.1-15 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 ER-OL which can be reduced by evaporation. The rate and extent of evaporation is dependent upon: (1) salt concentration, which regulates vapor pressure; (2) size of the droplet; and (3) ambient relative humidity. For the same environ-mental conditions, drops of different sizes may or may not achieve the same degree of evaporation before reaching the ground. To simplify the problem only three degrees of evaporation were consider: no evaporati g evaporation to saturated solution, and evaporation to dry salt particles. Wind direction persistences were based on data from the temporary WNP-2 tower (see Subsection 6.1.3.1) and wind speeds were from the 400-f t level data at HMS. Based on the HMS climatological records, the year was divided into two periods with differences in humidity: summer ( April through September) when relative humidities averaged 40 percent and winter (October through March) when relative humidities averages 78 percent. Plume heights were presumed to vary with atmospheric stability the meteorological record was also reviewed on th basis of time-of-day: 0600 to 1800 hrs, when conditions were assumed to be thermally unstable or neutral, and 1800 to 0600 hrs, with assumed stable atmospheres. It was estimated that the plume would rise to a height of 305 m (1000 ft) above stack top during summer neutral and unstable atmospheres, and to 100 m 1 (330 f t) during summer stable atmospheres. During winter the comparable heights for neutral / unstable and for stable situations were 396 m (1300 ft) and 130 m (430 ft), respectively. Mean 122 m (400 f t) wind speeds associated with these periods were 9.5 mph for summer days,15.4 mpb for summer nights, 9.2 mph for winter days, and 10.9 mph for winter nights.(34) The methodology, meteorology, and source terms employed were the same as used to estimate drift at WNP-2. Consequently, the drif t deposition pattern pre-sented in Figure 5.l-6 for WNP-1 and WNP-4 is a composite of the single-unit pattern estimated for WNP-2. The most important parameter in the source term definition is the amount of initial drift expressed as a percentage of cir-culating water flow. The gross drif t rate assumed here, 0.05 percent, is probably conservative by a f actor of 10 or more. The assumed size distribu-tion of the drif t droplets is shown in Table 6.1-1. The circulating cooling water flow which was used (610,000 gpm) was intermediate between the design flows for WNP-1 and WNP-2. Roffman and Van Vleck(36) show that the state-of-the-art of predicting the salt deposition from drift droplets is such that the values obtained by vari-ous methods vary by a factor of 110 percent. The present estimates are I considered a maximum as a result of the choice of generally conservative assumptions for the calculation. 6.1.3.3 Air Quality 1l Because of the small quantities of nonradiological air pollutants to be released, the Supply System does not propose to initiate a nonradiological preoperational air quality monitoring program. An independent system is O 6.1-16 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
I ! WNP-1/4 ER-OL 1 operated by the Hanford Environmental Health Foundation. This program in-cludes measurement at several locations in the Hanford area of airborne
- particulates, S02 and N02 - lI 6.1.4 Land Much land-monitoring information applicable to the WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 site has
; been collected over the years by Department of Energy and its contractors. 1 Thus, the data base on the terrestial environment is substantial.
l
; 6.1.4.1 Geology and Soils
- The Hanford object of many Project, geologic including the mainly studies, WNP-1/4 of and WNP-2 a topical site, has nature. been thg )
McHenryu8 characterized the chemical and physical properties of soils of the project from drilling span:es collected from approximately 40 wells spaced about the project. HajekWW classified the soils of the project on an agricultural
- basis.
, Earlier topical geology studies, related primarily to aspects of radioactive waste disposal, included subsurface geology of the Hanford area, identifi-cation of str descriptions.9tigraphic g40-45; units, correlation of volcanic flows, and aquifer Additional and detailed information on geologic studies, soil boring pat-O terns, and analytical and testing methods used in design and construction of i
V WNP-1/4 are contained in the Final Safety Analysis Report. 1 Although terrestrial ecology studies have been carried out over a number of years on the Hanford Site, none have been aimed at assessing impacts of cool-4 ing tower drift. The vegetative cover growing in the near vicinity of the i cooling towers consists primarily of cheatgrass, Bromus tectorum. This grass l provides the main biotic protection against soil erosion. Because the cli-mate is dry, salt dissolved in drift droplets is expected to accumulate in
, the soil profile. Salt accumulation is expected to be most concentrated near the base of the cooling tower and rapidly decrease with increasing distance i from the tower. The longer the cooling towers are operational, the more ; intense the salt accumulation.
4 Although it is expected that cheatgrass will be tolerant of moderate in-l creases in soil salt and pH values, there are no data presently available to judge the magnitude of increased soil salt concentrations needed to signifi-i cantly impair the germinability of cheatgrass seeds. This is an important 1 point because cheatgrass is an annual grass and the stand originates from , seed each year and there is no known plant that is as successful in this ' 4 habitat as is cheatgrass. t t !O 6.1-17 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) i r i
l WNP-1/4 ER-OL A preoperational monitoring program to detect and assess significant changes i in soil chemistry in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and ! was initiated in 1980 and is performed annually.(WW-2 caused 401 Soil by salt samples aredrif col-t l 1 lected at the vegetation study plots (see Subsection 6.1.4.3) shown in Figure ! 6.1-5. Each study plot is marked so that the same plot can be examined dur-ing post-operational monitoring. Less than optimum locations were selected to avoid disturbed soil and working areas. At each study plot, composite samples are taken to a depth of approximately six (6) inches below the surface. Samples are analyzed for salt content, electrical conductivity, and pH. Chemical analyses also include the dominant ions in the cooling tower drift and in the soil: the cations Ca, Mg, Na, and K and the anions C03 , HC03 , 504, and C1. 6.1.4.2 Land Use and Demographic Surveys Land use in the immediate vicinity of WNP-l/4 and WNP-2 is under the control of Department of Energy (previously ERDA), and the staff of the Richland Operations Office provided the source material required for land use descrip-tions of Hanford Site facilities. Additional information related to off-project land uses was obtained primarily from the Bureau of Reclamation Regional Office; which is responsible for much of the land development in surrounding areas, from the Soil Conservation Service, and from the Washing-ton State Department of Agriculture. Some information was provided by the County Planning Offices in adjacent counties; however, this was generally related to county zoning rather than actual current land use. The collected published data were supplemented with information obtained from personal con-versation with county planning and other local, county, State and Federal agency officials and through reconnaissance surveys of those areas where missing or questionable data were concerned. Demographic data for the latest census year (1980) were obtained from Bureau of the Census publications. Information for population projections was available fr Management,(p')theth Washington rtland StateState OfficeCenter University of Program for PoPlanning and Fiscal tion Re-search and Census, the Bonneville P the Pa i fic Northwest River Basins Commission,(ower50) P Administration, and the Tri-City Nuclear Industrial 01Council.9s fic trends Rural population Northwest Bell,(51 were ba g)also on estimates developed for the Columbia Basin Development League. Information from these sources were used by the Supply System to project po plant.154,55)pulation for future census years over the expected life of the In conjunction with the construction of WNP-1/4, the Supply System has con-ducted a program to monitor the socioeconomic effects. The purpose of the study was to document, assess, and project the primary and secondary socio-economic effects and impacts of construction and operation of WNP-1/4. Two O 6.1-18 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l
~
WNP-1/4 Efi-OL 3 (V phases were defined in implementing the study. The first phase emphasized measurement and documention of socioeconomic effects into the peak of con-l struction of the WNP-1 and WNP-4 projects. Preliminary reports were prepared on an annual basis for each of these years. The second phase of the study i concluded with a final report which: 1) made an evaluation of the accuracy l of a previously conducted impact projection report and 2) made new projections independent of the previoys stydy developed in the preliminary reports.lD4ebW , based on updated information l i The important socioeconomic factors studied in detail were: l1 o in-migrant workers and families o resident workers and families o the relationship between contract construction on WNP-1/4 and secondary employment o economic conditions in the study area ! o schools o housing o government services and f acilities o traffic flow and transportation o social and health services o police and fire protection 6.1.4.3 Terrestrial Ecology 0
/ The important local flora and fauna are being identified in preliminary stu-dies to the species level, and the relationships of the fauna to the vegeta-tion and to the sali are being described.g*ggic and Thesoil Bald features Eagle isofthethe local only environment threatened animal species to occur in the area. No other Federally designated threatened or endangered animals or plants live in the area. Recommendations will be made to preserve special habitats necessary for the continued protection of such species should they occur. The preoperational monitoring program will focus on establishing a baseline for evaluating cooling tower drif t effects.
Aerial Photography. Aerial photographs in natural and infrared color of the site and adjacent area were made by the Supply System to provide a basis for mapping the extent of existing plant communities between the plant site and the Columbia River. Photography is not believed to be g to detect incipient changes due to cooling tower drift.\ggh)isticated enough Future ter-n restrial chemistryimpact data assessment will rely but (Subsection 6.1.4.1) on analysis not aerialofphotography. vegetation g6g) soil l1 Vegetational Analyses. A program to establish a data base for terrestrial ecosystems in the vicinity of WNP-1, 2, and 4 was initiated in 1974.(46,56-59) Vegetation study areas were established at five locations within approximately one mile of the site. Two of these plots are located within an area burned by wildfire in 1970 and three are in areas that escaped the fire. Figure 6.1-2 shows the location of terrestrial ecology study sites. Knowledge from O 6.1-19 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL l l these studies will apply to construction impacts because the 1970 fire was extremely hot, destroying virtually all plant life and all seeds which would gl l have normally germinated the next year. As with construction areas, vegeta-tion of these areas depends on new seeds blowing in from unburned areas. Species composition and relative abundance of seed plants at the five study plots were measured according to a canopy govpr method of vegetational analy-sis developed for shrub-steppe vegetation.(61; The mean herbaceous cover (percent) provided by various botanical categories for 1975 through 1980 is shown in Figure 6.1-3. The dominant species in burned and unourned areas is cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) which comprises almost all the annual grass category. The primary productivity (grams of dry matter produced per meter square per year) of the Hanford bitterbrush- heatgrass ecosystem is similar to other United States and land ecosystems.(59) Tne data presented in Figure 6.1-4 reflects that primary productivity varies from year to year depending upon the weather and other environmental variables. The preoperational monitoring program will include continued analyses of plant communities on the five (5) previously established study plots and on 1 four (4) plots established in 1980. Field examination of these plots and a control will be conducted yearly at the time of peak flowering. Primary productivity, canopy cover, and frequency of occurrence will be obtained. The emphasis of preoperational studies will be to establish a baseline for assessing impacts on indigenous vegetation caused by cooling tower drift. Vegetation study plots are established adjacent to the soil sampling plots discussed in Subsection 6.1.4.1. Litterfall sampling was performed in 1979 and 1980. Due to the extreme variability seen in the collections it is questionable whether this method could be used to detect changes in shrub l productivity over time. Accordingly, the Supply System, with the concurrence of EFSEC,(60) has deleted this approach from the terrestrial monitoring program. l Animal Studies. Studies have focused on censuses of mammals and birds in the vicinity of the site. Small mammal populations were sampled using a live trap-mark-release-recapture technique in two contrasting plant communities. One is a burned community, dominated by cheatgrass, and the other is an un-burned, shrub-dominated community (Figure 6.1-2). Trapping was done periodi-cally throughout the year to obtain information concerning the seasonal ap-pearance of young animals. The weights, age, sex, general health, and the l occurrence of external parasites are recorded before release. The small mammal population is dominated by one species, the Great Basin Pocket Mouse. The pocket mouse population varies greatly according to the season of the year. The largest population normally occurs in late summer with the addi-tion of young animals. A comparison of pocket mice catches in burned and unburned study plots is shown below: 6.1-20 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O
WNP-1/4 ER-0L \ Unburned Burned Year Spring Summer Spring Summer i 1974 -- 46 -- 29 1975 36 27* 27 13* 1976 52 53 8 2 1977 43 30 7 14 1978 15 56 1 5 1979 64 - 9 - Average U U T6 13
- Trapping session conducted in July These data indicate that a large population of pocket mice resides in the unburned plot and only a small population resides on the burned plot. It is not known if the small population on the burned plot is a result of the burning or whether some other factors are involved, ( i.e., predation).
Analysis of the 1974-1979 pocket mice data indicates that about one-half per-cent of the total pocket mouse habitat on the Handford Site may be adversely effected by construction of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2. Based on the low level of impact and the projection that future impacts would not be more severe, pocket mice studies were deleted from the environment monitoring program in 1981.(60)
~
An aerial census of larger mammals, i.e., deer and coyote, was made once in winter to obtain an estimate of the use of the local areas. A land census of deer and rabbit was initiated in 1981.(60) The pellet group count tech-nique will be performed semi-annually on sample plots to obtain an estimate of use of the WNP-1, WNP-2 and WNP-4 site by these animals (Figure 6.1-5). Bird surveys have been taken on a twenty (20) acre study plot near WNP-1/4 and WNP-2. Only three resident species were spotted during a three-day period in June 1976. The total was fourteen (14) Western Meadowlarks, six (6) Horned Larks, and two (2) Shrikes. The 1977 and 1978 results are similar to those of 1976.(59) In 1981, four new 20 acre sample plots were established in shrub and river habitats (Figure 6.1-5). Species composition and density of birds are determined during spring and fall censuses.(62) Studies to date have revealed no detrimental effects of plant construction on the indigenous animal and bird populations. Plant operation is expected to be less disruptive and detrimental than plant construction. 6.1.5 Radiological Monitoring The preoperational program is designed to provide measurements of radiation and radioactive materials in those exposure pathways, and for those radio-nuclides, which are expected to lead to the hignest radiation exposures of individuals from the operation of WNP-1/4. O 6.1-21 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL No preoperational program as such will be necessary prior to fuel loading of WNP-l/4 because the operational program for WNP-2 will be in effect. This program will provide the data necessary to establish preoperational back- l ground levels for WNP-1/4. l The preoperational program objectives are to measure background levels and their variations in exposure pathways surrounding the site; to train person-nel; and to evaluate procedures, equipment, and techniques. These objectives will be met in the WNP-2 operational program. Table 6.1-3 describes the sample type, approximate location, sample collec-tion, and analyses to be performed on each sample. Analytical techniques will be used such that the detection capabilities in Table 6.1-4 are achiev-ed. Figure 6.l-6 shows the approximate location of the stations, and the key for Figure 6.1-6 shows the samples to be obtained at each station. Airborne sample stations have been chosen based on the projected population distribution around the site, adjacent land use, and meteorological data pre-1lsentedinSection2.3. Airborne measurements will be obtained from the vi-cinity of a residence which has the highest calculated atmospheric dilution factor. In selecting the locations, special attention was given to the zone within a ten-mile radius of the site, especially areas in the prevailing 1 l down-wind direction. Consideration was also given to existing facilities on the Hanford Site in selecting these stations. In the terrestrial monitoring part of this program (vegetation and farm pro-ducts), the area within a ten-mile radius of the site is of concern, and at-tention is given to the area of Franklin County which uses Columbia River water for irrigation and is in the prevailing downwind direction. Samples collected will be those available food chain components which lead to man. Milk samples will be obtained from farms or individual milk animals which are located in sectors with the higher calculated annual average atmospheric dilution factors. Aquatic sampling locations have been chosen based on the need to determine the WNP-1/4 impact on the aquatic environs separately from other facilities on the Hanford Site. The intake water will be sampled to identify the iso-topes and concentrations present prior to use by WNP-1/4. The water from the discharge line will be sampled prior to dilution by the Columbia River, and analysis will identify the isotopes and their concentrations which may be due to WNP-1/4 operation. Similar samples will be taken immediately downstream from the WNP-2 intake and discharge. The Columbia River will be sampled at the first downstrecm user which is the Department of Energy (00E) 300 Area. The water will be sampled, prior to any treatment or mixing, in the vicinity of the river water intake. O 6.1-22 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O l V The City of Richland drinking water will be sampled at the Municipal Water ' Treatment Plant. This will be representative of the water consumed and not of that withdrawn from the river. Ground water will be obtained from wells on the site which are being used to provide drinking water for construction workers. Fish will be obtained from the area of the plant discharge and, since there is no commerical fishing in this area of the river, the species selected will be those which are seasonally available. Due to the velocity of the Columbia River in the area of the site, sedimentary deposits are mini-mal and will be obtained from available areas above and below the discharge. The type of analysis to be performed for the various media was chosen to pro-vide measurements of radionuclides from which the population doses may be estimated or verified to be below that specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I. In some cases, the analysis provides a trend indicator, and will signal the need to perform additional specific analyses of individual samples. The frequencies selected are those expected to minimize the effect of day-to-day variations, and provide an adequate quantity of samples to meet minimum sensitivity requirements of Table 6.1-5. The samples will provide statisti-cally valid data which is used to compare to subsequent results and detect changes from expected values. REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.1
- 1. Becker, C. D. and W. W. Waddel, A Summary of Environmental Effects Stu-dies on the Columbia River, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, November 1972.
- 2. Neitzel, D. A., A Summary of Environmental Effects Studies on the Colum-bia River 1972 through 1978, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Ricniand, WA, August, 1979.
- 3. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Washington, Volume 2 Eastern Washington, Published Annually.
- 4. Sula, M.J. and P.J. Blumer, Environmental Surveillance at Hanford for CY-1980, PNL-3728, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, April 1981.
- 5. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA-600/4-79-020, l U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,1979.
- 6. Vertical Mixing Characteristics of the Columbia River at River Mile 351.75, WNP No. 2, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, l WA, March 16, 1972. !
l O 6.1-23 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-0L
- 7. Page, T. L., E. G. Wolf, R. H. Gray and M. J. Schneider, Ecological Comparison of the Hanford Generating Plant and the WNP-2 Sites on the Columbia River, battelle, Pacific Northwest. Laboratories to United Engineers and Constructors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, October 1974.
I
- 8. Preoperational Environment Monitoring Studies Near WNP-1, 2, and 4, August 1978 through March 1980, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Volume 7, Beak Consultants, Inc., Portland, OR, June 1980.
- 9. Page, T. L., An Evaluation of Sedimentation and Turbidity Effects Resulting from Excavation in the Columbia River at the WNP-2 Site, August to October 1975, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to Burns and Roe for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, August 1976.
- 10. Kannberg, L. D., Mathematical Modeling of the WNP-1, 2 and 4 Cooling Tower Blowdown Plumes, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, April, 1980.
- 11. Jaske, R. T., An Analysis of the Physical Factors Governing the Size and Temperature Gradients of the Hanford Effluent Plumes, BNWL-CC-1261, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, November 1972.
- 12. Field Determination of the Temperature Distribution in the Hanford Number One Condenser Cooling Water Discharge Plume, Sattelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, November 1972.
I 13. DELETED
~
- 14. Benedict, B. A., J. L. Anderson and . L. Yandell, Jr., Analytical Modeling of Thermal Discharges - A Review of the State-of-the-Art, Ahl/ES-18, Argonne National Laboratory, April 1974.
- 15. Trent, D. S., and J. R. Welty, A Summary of Numerical Methods for Solv-ing Transient Heat Conduction Problems, Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin No. 49, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, October 1974.
- 16. Becker, C. D., Aquatic Bioenvironmental Studies in the Columbia River at Hanford 1945-1971, A Bibliography with Abstracts, BNWL-1734, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1973.
- 17. Final Report on Aquatic Ecological Studies Conducted at the Hanford Generating Project, 1973-1974, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies i Vol. 1, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and l
Cor.structors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, March 1976. 1 O 6.l-24 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL U(3 18. Aquatic Ecological Studies Conducted Near WNP-1, -2, and -4 September 1974 to Sestember 1975, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Volume 2, Battelle, )acific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Con-1
- structors for the Washington Public Power Sypply System, Richland, WA, l July 1976.
- 19. Aquatic Ecological Studies Near WNP 1, 2 and 4, October 1975 Through '
February 1976, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Volume 3, Battelle, ' Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Constructors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, July 1977.
. 20. Aquatic Ecological Studies Near WNP 1, 2 and 4, March through December l 1976, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Volume 4, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, July 1978.
i
- 21. Aquatic Ecological Studies Near WNP 1, 2, and 4, January through Decem-ber 1977, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Volume 5. Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories Richland, WA, March 1979.
a
- 22. Aquatic Ecological Studies Near WNP 1, 2 and 4, January through August 1978, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Volume 6, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, June 1979.
- 23. Letter, G.H. Hansen, EFSEC, to N. O. Strand, WPPSS,
Subject:
"Termina-tion of WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 Preoperational Monitoring, Aquatic Ecology" O with EFSEC Resolution No.166, March 26,1980.
- 24. Eddy, P.A., C.S. Cline, and L.S. Prater, Radiological Status of the Ground Water Beneath the Hanford Site, January-December 1981, PNL-4237, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, April 1982.
- 25. DELETED
- 26. DELETED
- 27. Onsite Meteorological Programs, Regulatory Guide 1.23, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., September 1980.
- 28. Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assess-ment at Nuclear Power Plants, Regulatory Guide 1.145, U.S. Nuclear 1 Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., August 1979.
- 29. Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous -
Effluents in Routine Release from Light-Water-Cooled P.eactors, Regula-tory Guide 1.111, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 4 July 1977.
- 30. X0000Q Program for Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0324 (Draft), U.S. Nuclear 4
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., September 1977. a 6.1-25 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL
- 31. Briggs, G. A., Plume Rise, AEC Critical Review Series, USAEC Report TID-25075, p. 81, November 1969.
- 32. Weinstein, A. I., and L. G. Davis, A Parameterized Numerical Model of Cumulus Convection, Report No. 11, NSFGA-777, Pennsylvania State Univer-sity, Department of Meteorology, 43 pp. ,1968.
33, Potential Environmental Modifications Produced by Large Evaporative Cooling Towers, Series No.16130 DNH, Report by EG&G, Inc., Boulder, Co, to Federal Water Pollution Administration, Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory, Corvallis, OR,1971.
- 34. Droppo, J. G., C. E. Hane, and R. K. Woodruff, Atmospheric Effects of Circular Mechanical Draf t Cooling Towers at Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Plant Nb.nber Two, Battelle, Pacific North-west Laboratories to Burns and Roe for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, November 1976.
- 35. Hosler, C. L., J. Pena, and R. Pena, Determination of Salt Deposition Rates from Drift from Evaporative Cooling Towers, Pennsylvania State University, Dept. of Meteorology, May 1972.
- 36. Roffman, A. and L. D. Van Velck, "The State-of-the-Art of Measuring and Predicting Cooling Tower Drif t and its Depositio.1," Jour. of Air Pol.
Control Assoc., vol. 24, No. 9, pp. 855-859, September 1974.
- 37. Slade, D. H., Meteorology and Atomic Energy, U.S. Atomic Energy Commis-1 sion, Figures A.2 and A.3, July 1968.
- 38. McHenry, J. R., Properties of Soils of the Hanford Project, HW-53218, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Richland, WA, 1957.
- 39. Hajek, B. F., Soil Survey--Hanford Project in Benton County, Washington, BNWL-243, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1966.
- 40. Brown, D. J., Geology Underlying Hanford Reactor Areas, HW-69571,1962.
- 41. Brown, R. E., and D. J. Brown, The Ringold Formation and Its Relation-ship to Other Formations, HW-SA-2319, Hanford Atomic Productions Opera-tion, Richland, WA, 1961.
- 42. Raymond, J. R. and D. D. Tillson, Evaluation of a Thick Basalt Sequence in South-Central Washington, BNWL-776, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Ricnlano, WA, 1968.
- 43. Shannon and Wilson, Inc., Hanford No. 2 Nuclear Power Plant Central Plant Facilities, prepared for Burns and Roe, Inc. and WPPSS, Richland, WA, 1971.
O 6.1-26 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 i ER-OL 1 t'h < V 44. Bierschenk, W. H. Aquifer Characteristics and Groundwater Movement at Hanford, WH-60601, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Richland, WA, 1959.
- 45. Brown, D. J. and P. P. Rowe, 100-N Area Aquifer Evaluation, HW-67326, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Richland, WA, 1960.
- 46. Preoperational Terrestrial Monitoring Studies Near WNP-1,2 and 4 May through December 1980, Beak Consultants, Inc., Portland, OR, March 1, 1981.
l 47. State of Washington, Population Trends,1975, Population Studies Divi-l sion, Office of Program Planning and Fitcal Management, Olympia, WA, l 1975.
- 48. Population Estimates: Oregon Counties and Incorporated Cities, Center i for Population Research and Census, Portland State University, Portland,
! OR, July 1, 1975. l l
- 49. Population, Employment and Housing Units Projected to 1970, Bonneville Power Administration, February 1973.
- 50. Columbia-North Pacific Region Comprehensive Framework Study of Water and Related Lands, Appendix VI, Economic Base and Projections, Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, Vancouver, WA, January 1971.
- 51. Population and Household Trends in Washington, Oregon and Northern v Idaho,1970 to 1985, Pacific Northwest Bell, January 1972.
- 52. Clement, M., et al., Study and Forecast of Tri-City Economical Activity and its Related Impact on Gasoline Needs and Housing, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to Tri-City Nuclear Industrial Council, Richland, WA, May 1974.
- 53. Cone, B. W., The Economic Impact of the Second Bacon Siphon and Tunnel on the East High Area, the State of Washington and the Nation, Columbia Basin Development League, P.O. Box 1980, Ephrata, WA,1970.
- 54. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Socioeconomic Study: WPPSS Nuclear Project, 1 and 4, Prepared for Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, April 1975.
- 55. Yandon, K., Assumptions for Population Estimates and Projections by Specific Compass Sectors and Radii Distances from WNP-2 Site, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to Burns and Roe, Inc. for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, February 1977.
!v I
l l 6.l-27 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) i
WNP-1/4 ER-OL
- 56. Terrestrial Ecology Studies in the Vicinity of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Stations 1 and 4, Progress Report for the Period July 1974 to June 1975, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, November 1976
- 57. Terrestrial Ecology Studies in the Vicinity of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Stations 1 and 4, Progress Report for 1976, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Con-structors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, December 1977.
58 . Terrestrial Ecology Studies in the Vicinity of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Stations 1 and 4, Progress Report for 1977, Rattelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Con-structors, Inc. for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, April 1979.
- 59. Terrestrial Ecology Studies in the Vicinity of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Stations 1 and 4, Progress Report for 1978, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Con-structors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, August 1979.
- 60. Letter, W.L. Fitch, EFSEC, to R.L. Ferguson, Supply System,
Subject:
"WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 Terrestrial Monitoring Program," with EFSEC Resolu-tion Nos. 193 and 194, May 28, 1981.
- 61. Daubenmire, R., A Canopy Coverage Method of Vegetational Analysis.
h Northwest Sci., Vol. 33, pp. 43-64, 159.
- 62. Schleder, L. S., and J. E. Mudge, Preoperational Animal Studies Near WNP 1, 2, and 4, 1981, Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, April 1982.
- 63. Mudge, J. E., T. B. Stables and W. Davis III, Technical Review of the l 1 Aquatic Monitoring Program of WNP-2, Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, September 1982.
i l 6.1-28 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
_ .._- - --..--.. _-. ~. . .- -. _ - ...-.-- .-... .. .... -. - 1 WNP 1/4 ER-OL
~
i O l l TABLE 6.1-1 l 4 MASS SIZE DISTRIBUTION ! l 0F COOLING TOWER DRIFT DROPLETS l ; 1 i Diameter, um Percent of Mass 0- 50 11 i 50-100 20 l 100-150 21 150-200 16 200-250 13 250-300 8 .
. 300-350 11 r O
I I i l l l O i I Amendment 1 (Feb 83) {
WNP-1/4 ER-0L TABLE 6.1-2 l l a FISH SAMPLING FREQUENCY BY STATION AND METHOD Frequency Beach Hoop Gill /c Electro-Month Per Month Seine Net Trammel Shocking January i no sample no sample 4 stations no sample February 1 6 stations no sample 4 stations no sample March 1 6 stations no sample 4 stations b April 2 6 stations no sample 4 stations 5 May 2 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations b June 2 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations b July 1 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations b August 1 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations b September 1 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations b October 1 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations b November i no sample no sample 4 stations no sample December 1 no sample no sample 4 stations no sample d$gg fjgyrg 6,].] for sample sites bTwice monthly cGill net sampling was terminated in July 1979 per EFSEC Res. No.157 O
v WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 6.1-3 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIR0f0f NTAL I40NITORING PROGRM*. l1 Sampling and l Type and frequency II Sample Type Location Collection Frequency of Analysis l Airborne Particulate 1.2 elles S of WNP-2 Continuous Sampling Particulate: and Radiciodine 1.5 miles NNE of WNP-2 Weekly Collection Gross B' 2.0 miles SE of WNP-2 Ganna isotopic 3 9 miles SSe of WNP-2 on quarterly composite 7 mlies SE of WNP-2 (by location) 8 miles S of WNP-2 3 miles WW of WNP-2 Radiolodine: 4.2 miles ESE of WNP-2 Ganna for 1-131 30 miles WSW of WNP-2 Weekly Direct Radiation 4 1.2 miles S of WNP-2 Quarterly. Annually Gamma Dose 1.5 miles NNE of WNP-2 2.0 miles SE of WNP-2 9 miles SSE of WNP-2 7 miles SE of WNP-2 8 miles 5 of WNP-2 3 elles WW of WNP-2 4.2 miles ESE of WNP-2 30 miles WSW of WNP-2 3 elles E of WNP-2 7 miles NW of WNP-2 3 alles ENE of WNP-2 6.3 miles SSE WNP-2 5.2 miles SE WNP-2 y 5.1 miles ESE WNP-2 5.1 miles E WNP-2 e 5.5 miles ENE WNP-2 3 ? 4 4.1 miles NE WNP-2 ! 4.8 miles NME WNP-2 l 13 stations at 22 1/20 sectors a rt River Water intake W W-1/45 Composite Aliquots 6 Ganna isotopic 3
# Discharge WW-1/4 5 for month
, - Intake WW-2 Tritium 7 i M Discharge WW-2 0 1 & co (4 v
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 6.1-3 (Continued) RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM l1 Sampling and l Type and Frequency II Sample Type Location Collection Frequency of Analysis Drinking Water 7 miles ERDA 300 Area Composite aliquots 6 Gama 10 topic 3 11 Miles Richland Water for month Tritium 3 Treatment Plant Ground Water 8 well WNP-1 Quarterly Gamma isotopic 3 well WNP-4 Tritium Sediment 2 miles upstream Semi-annually Gama isotopic 2 miles downstream H11k9 Closest milk animal Semi-monthly Gamca isotopic 3 Farm SE 7 miles SE grazing season Fana SE 8 miles ESE Monthly at other times Iodine - 131 Control. 30 miles WSW Fish 4 in vicinity of discharge Semi-annually Gamma isotopic 3 1 control Snake River Fruit and Vegetables 10 Riverview Area, Pasco Monthly during growing Control, Grandview season Gama isotopic 3 Iveviations are permitted if samples are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions, seasonal availability, malfunction of automatic sampling equipment, or other legitimate reasons. All deviations will be documented g in the annual report.
$ 2 Particulate sample filters will be analyzed for gross Beta after at least 24 hours decay. If gross B2ta (L activity is greater than 10 times the mean of the control sample, gamma isotopic analysis should be per-g formed on the individual sample 3 Gama isotopic means identification and quantification of gama emitting radionuclides that may be at-tributable to the effluents of the facility.
w a cr to W v e O O
n C / WNP-1/4 ER-0L TABLE 6.1-3 (Continued) 4 Thermoluminescent 00simeter (TLD) badges which contain 3-5 chips will be used. Each station will have two badges one will be changed each quarter and one will be changed annually. The badges in each 221/20 sector will be placed at the exclusion areas of the plants. 5Sampling of the river water from the intake and discharge of WNP-1/4 will begin at least 60 days prior to the fuel loading for WNP-1. 6 Composite samples will be collected with equipment which is capable of collecting an aliquot at time in-tervals which are short relative to the compositing period. 7 Tritium analysis will be performed on a quarterly composited sample. 8 Wells sampled will be those which are being used to provide drinking water for construction personnel at each of the plants. 9 Milk samples will be obtained fron f arms or i dividual milk animals which are located in sectors with the higher calculated annual average ground-level /Q's. If Cesium-134 or Cesium-137 is measured in an in- ' dividual milk sample in excess of 30 pCi/1, then Strontium 90 analysis should be performed. 10 Fruit and vegatables will be obtained from farms or gardens which use Columbia River water, if possible, for irrigation and different varieties will be obtained as they are in season. (he sample each of root food, leafy vegetables, and fruit should be collected each period. Il frequency of analysis will be as collected or as stated in these footnotes for special cases.
WNP-1/4 O ER-OL TABLE 6.1-4 MAXIMLM VALUE FOR THE LOWER LIMIT OF RADIONUCLIOE DETECTION (LLD)(a) Airborne Particulate 1[ Water Fish Milk Vegetation Sediment Analysis (pC1/1) or Gas 3) (pC1/m (pC1/kg, wet) (pci/1) (pC1/kg, wet) (pci/kg, dry) gross beta 4 1 x 10-2 3H 2000 54Mn 15 130 59Fe 30 260 58,60Co 15 130 65Zn 30 260 95ze 30 95Nb 15 131g 1(b) 7 x 10-2 1 60 134Cs 15 5 x 10-2 130 15 60 150 137Cs 18 6 x 10-2 150 18 80 180 140Ba 60 60 140La 15 15 Note: This list does not mean that these nuclides are to be detected and reported. Other peaks which are measurable and identifiaDie, together with the above nuclides, shall also be identified and reported. Footnotes (a) and (b) located on next page. O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 , p ER-OL U TABLE 6.1-4 (Continued) (a) Table 6.1-5 indicated acceptable detection capabilities for radioactive mate-rials in environmental samples. These detection capabilities are tabulated in terms of the lower limits of detection (LLDs). The LLD is defined for purposes of this uide, as the smallest concentration of radioactive material In a sample that will ield a net count (above system background that will be detected with 955 probability with only 51 probability of falsely) concluding that a blank ovservation represents a "real" signal. I For a particular measurement system (which may include radiochemical separation): 4.66sb i LQ= E Y
- 2.22
- Y
- exp(-AAt)
LLD is the lower limit of detection as defined above (as pCi per unit mass , orvolume) ss is the standard deviation of the background counting rate or of the c5unting rate of a blank sample as appropriate (as counts per minute). E is the counting efficiency (as counts per disintegration). V is the sample size (in units of mass or volume) ] a 2.22 is the number of disintegrations per minute per picoeurie. 4 Y is the fractional radiochemical yield (when applicable). i ' Ais the radiocative decay constant for the particular radionuclide. O 1 j Q At is the elapsed time between sample collection and counting. The value of 5 used in the calculation of the LLD for a particular measurement
; system should he based on the actual observed variance of the background counting rate or of the counting rate of the blank samples (as appropriate) rather than on an unverified theoretically predicted variance. In calculating the LLD for a radionuclide determined by gansna-ray spectrometry, the background should include the typical contributions of other radionuclides nomally present in the samples (e.g., potassium-40 milk samples).
(b)LLd for drinking water. l O Amendinent 1 (Feb 83)
n ; WNP-l/4 s. ER-OL 6.3 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING PROGRAMS A number of relevant studies have been conducted in the vicihity of the WNP-1/4 i and WNP-2 site by organizations other than the Supply System. Some of these studies are of a continuing nature and date back 20 or more years, particularly those associated with assessment of effluents from the operation of the Hanford ~l1' production reactors. 6.3.1 Hydrological'and Water Quality Studies l1 Agency Program U.S. Geological Survey, Continuous water stage and discharge
~
Tacoma District Office measurements of the Columbia 81yer below Priest Rapids Dam (RM 394.5).1 1 U.S. Geological Survey, Continuous water temperature measurements Tacoma District Office of the Columbia River at the City of Richland water supply treatment 338) and at Vernita (RM 388).t2, ) giant (RM U.S. Department of Energy Weekly pH, turbidity, total coliforms, Richland Operations Office fecal coliforms dissolved oxygen, B0D, and nitrate sampling of the Columbia River at I the City of Richland water supply treat-O ment 388) byplant it (RM 340) and Vern(4)a Bridge (RM Battelle-Northwest. U.S. Department of Energy Monthly, semi-monthly. . quarterly or annual Richland Operations Office, groundwater depth and water quality mea-surements for observation wells on Hanford Site, by Battelle-Northwest. (4,5)' l1 U.S. Energy Research and Studies by Battelle-Northwest on sediment Development Administration, and radionuclide transport in Go;umbia Division of Biomedical and River below Priest Rapids Dam.t3r Environmental Research U.S. Army Corps of Review of Columbja Engineers, North Pacific waterresources.t6)Riverandtributary Division l1 Washington State Department Water temperature, dissolved oxgen, of Ecology conductivity, color, pH, turbidity, total coliform bacteria and fecal coliform bacteria sampling in the Columbia River at Highway 24 bridge near Vernita (RM 388.1) l1 O
~
6.3-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Agency Program (semimonthly during water year i972, quar-terly during water year 1975, semimonthly since October 1975), and at the Port of Pasco public dock (RM 328.4) (semimonthly December 1971 - September 1972), and oc-casional biochemical oxygen demand and streamflow determinations at both sites. Sampling of additional 21 parameters at 1l Vernita bridge during water year 1972.17) U.S. Environmental Miscellaneous water quality measurements Protection Agency in STORET data system for period 1957 to present at following Columbia River loca-tions between McNary and Priest Rapids Dams: RM 292.0 (McNary Dam), 292.4, 292.5),293.0 River 326.3,324.9 328.0 (above mouth of Snake (Kennewick-Pasco railroadbridge), 328.3, 329.0, 330.0 (Kennewick-Pasco State Highway 12 bridge), 334.7 (below mouth of Yakima River), 388.1 (Vernita State Highway 24 bridge), 388.5, 1l 395.6, 397.0 (Priest Rapids Dam). (8) 6.3.2 Ecological Parameters - Aquatic Studies Agency Program Washington Public Power Studies by Battelle-Northwest of the Supply System operational effects of the Hanford Generating Plant near the 100-N Reactor. 1 Principal efforts were assessing the loss pingement on the intake of fish (gy screens sl p/ and thermal discharge effects (ll). U.S. Department of Energy Annual (since 1947) census of the fall chinook salmon spawning population in the Columbia River between Richland and Priest Rapids Dam, by Battelle-Northwest. Weekly aerial observations have provided data to evaluate the fluctuations in the spawning populations in this section of the river and to examine the relationships between th9 nymbers and perturbations in the river.ll2/ l O 6.3-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL (A) Agency Program U.S. Energy Research and Investigations by Battelle-Northwest on Development Administration, the combined effects of heat and chemical Division of Biomedical and pollutants on warm and cold water fishes Environmental Research and on fish food organisms. These studies are intended to quantify the combined effects of thermal insult and chemical stress on the p .ygology of fish and fish food organisms. 'O U.S. Energy Research and Studies by Battelle-Northwest on the Development Administration, physiological effects of rapid temperature Division of Biomedical and decline on warm and cold water fish and Environmental Research crayfish. The objective of cold shock studies was to define the interactions between biota and the varying hydrographic regimes occurring in thermal mixing zones following cg discharges.tgsqtion 3 i of heated U.S. Energy Research and Investigations by Battelle-Northwest on Development Administration, the effects of thermal discharge on fish Division of Biomedical and behavior and sensory physiology including Environmental Research sublethal effects that might impair the capacity of a fish to function effectively O- in its environment.(13) U.S. Energy Research and Studies by Battelle Northwest on the Development Administration, effect of thermal discharges on aquatic Division of Biomedical and organisms. This project addresses mainly Environmental Research two specific impacts of thermal discharges and their effects: gas bubble disease and effects of fatigue on thermal toler-ance.lI4) U.S. Department of Energy Studies by Battelle-Northwest on fish behavior in waters whose quality has been altered by various perturbations. Emphasis in this work makes use of radio-tracking telemetry to examine the response offisg)encounteringsuchcondi-tions. U.S. Army Corps of Studies of upstream adult migrant fish Engineers, Grant County PUD, passing Columbia River dams. These fish Chelan County PUD counts are generally made from April to October each year. 6.3-3 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Agency Program Natioral Marine Fisheries Research on the enhancement of downstream Service passage of juvenile salmonids at Priest Rapids Dam and other PUD dams on the Co-lumbia River. Mid-Columbia Studies Studies on Priest Rapids Dam and the Han-Committee ford Reach to increase salmon production by assessing mortalities accurately, assessing fish condition and improving survivability past Priest Rapids Dam.tl5) Grant County PUD Ephrata, On-going survey of f all chinook salmon Washington spawning areas on Vernita Bar, downstream of Priest Rapids dam, from 1978 - 1980.(16,17) Grant County PUD Ephrata, Studies of the contribution of Priest Washington Rapids Hatchery fall chinook to the artificial and natural spawning populgj8)igns 1979.t near Priest Rapids Dam during Grant County PUD Ephrata, Studies at Priest Rapids Dam in 1981 to Washington assess fry movements the forebay (doynstream through and dam.191 1 Grant, Douglas and Chelan An assessment of the downstream migration Counties PUD's of juv9ni]e salmonids in the mid-Columbia River.t20, Grant, Douglas and Chelan Evaluation of the effectiveness of water Counties PUD's spilling at Wanagum D juvenile salmon.(21) am for the passage of Washington State Department Aerial spawning surveys in the Hanford of Fisheries Reach and vicinity. Surveys to determine chinook spawning are conducted from October through November. Carcass recovery of spawning f all chinook salmon occurs on an irregular basis. Washington State Department Year-round creel census of anglers in the of Game Ringold area, and in the upper Hanford Reach from July - October. Periodic fish sampling and slough surveys are conducted to determine relative abundance of fish species and production of resident fish spawning area. O 6.3-4 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL D (V Agency Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Studies to determine impact of resident fish populations on salmonid smolt rearing in McNary pool.
- 6.3.3 Ecological Parameters - Terrestrial Studies Agency Program U.S. Department of Energy A small mammal trapping study by Battelle-l Northwest is on the WYE burial ground lo-cated immediately west of the WNP-2 site.
This study has been in progress since 1975 1 and yields information on abundance, age, j weight, and sex ratios of great basin poc-ket mice.(13) U.S. Department of Energy Extensive ecological studies by Battelle-Northwest concerning plant and animal com-munities have been conducted on the Arid i Lands Ecology (ALE) Reserve since 1968. i The ALE Reserve is locatgd west of the WNP-2 site.t '3)about 10 miles i U.S. Department of Energy Mule deer fawns have been tagged by Battelle-Northwest along the Columbia River for a number of years to determine
, mule deer movements beyond the Hanford ; Reservation. A nesting survey of the Columbia River Canada goose populatj n been conducted for nearly 30 years.tg3)has U.S. Department of Energy Radiotracking of coyotes and breeding ecology of raptors and long-billed curlews are currently Northwest being on the Hanford studied by Battelle-)
Reservation.(13 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Studies of the riparian biota were con-ducted in 1980 under contract to Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories. The
; issued report is titled " Wildlife Usage, i Threatened and Endangered Species and 1 Habitat Studies of the Hanford Reach, Columbia River, Washington". This study evaluated potential impacts of the poten-
- tial Ben Franklin Dam.(22) 1
! 6.3-5 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) J
WNP-1/4 ER-0L 6.3.4 Meteorological Monitoring Programs in Progress Agency Program 1l Department of Energy (DOE) The Hanford Meteorological Station, 14 miles west-north-west of the WNP-2 site, is operated for DOE by Battelle-Northwest. This station is manned by an observer-forecaster 24 hours per day. Complete i surface weather observations are made hourly. Wind and temperature profiles from the suface to 400 ft at 50f t inter-1l vals are monitored continuously.(23) In addition a network of sixteen tele-metered wind and temperature stations is operated on or near the Hanford Reservation includ-ing the WNP-2 site, and assists in defini-tion of airflow patterns. Micrometeoro-logical and climatological records dating from 1944 are available fr 1l MeteorologicalStation.(243mtheHanford DOE Climatological measurements of maximum and Division of Biomedical and minimum temperature, humidity, and preci-Environmental Research pitation are currently being made on DOE Arid Lands Ecology Rggqrve (ALE) by 1] Battelle-Northwest.('D1 The ALE Reserve lies to the west of WNP-2 DOE Wind speed and direction are being measured Division of Production and at the site of the DOE Fast Flux Test Waste Management Facility, 3 miles west of WNP-2 Measure-ments have been at this location since 19 71. WNP-2 tower data are supplied to the FFTF as contracted yearly. DOE Wind speed, direction and temperature have been measured at the surface and at the 50 200, and 300-f t levels on a meteorological tower operated by United Nuclear Indus-tries near the N-reactor approximatelv 19 1l miles northwest of the WNP-2 site.(26) This data is not presently collected on a routine basis. 6.3-6 O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-0L p) ( 6.3.5 Radiological Monitoring Programs Agency Program U.S. Department of Energy A comprehensive radiological monitoring program (continuous since before 1960) for l1 the Hanford Site and surrounding environs is carried out by Battelle-Northwest to evaluate the disposition and translocation of Hanford plant-released radionuclides.
-1 1 Table 6.}27)provides program,t a summary and Figures of the 6.3-1 and 6.3-2 show principal sampling locations. Annual reports provide sur(4.0yejilance program de-tails and results.
Washington State, Division A state-wide radiological surveillance of Social and Health Services program is carriyd out by the Radiological Control Unit.(28) Samples of Columbia l1 River water, air, milk and shellfish are obtained at a number of locations relevant to WNP-1 and WNP-2. The DSHS program is y summarized in Table 6.3-2 and Figure 6.3-3. Results are reported to the Environmental Protection Agency and are n
%J published annually.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.3
- 1. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Washington, Volume 2, Eastern Washinton, publisned annually.
- 2. Hilty, E. L. and J. P. Corley, Personal Communication, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, 1975.
- 3. Onishi, Y., Columbia River Quality Radionuclide and Sediment Transport, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, letter to Paul G. Holsted, U S.
Atomic Energy Commission, Richland Operations Office, December 11, 1974.
- 4. Sula, M.J. and P.J. Blumer, Environmental Surveillance at Hanford for CY-1980, PNL-3728, Battelle, Pacific Nortnwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, April 1981.
l S. Raymond, J. R., et al., Radiological Status of the Groundwater Beneath the Hanford Site, January-DecemDer 1980, PNL-3/68, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, April 1981. O 6.3- 7 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-0L
- 6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division, "The Columbia River and its Tributaries, " July 1972.
- 7. Cunningham, Richard, Supervisor, Water Quality Monitoring Section, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington, letter to .
Albin Brandstetter, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, I WA, May 26, 1976. ;
- 8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Storet Data, 1976.
- 9. Final Report on Aquatic Ecological Studies Conducted at the Hanford Gene-rating Project, 1973-1974, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol.1, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Con-1 structors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, March 1976.
- 10. Page, T. L., E. G. Wolf, R. H. Gray and M. J. Schneider, Ecological Com-parison of the Hanford Generating Plant and the WNP-2 Sites on the Colum-bia River, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Constructors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, October 1974.
- 11. Supplemental Information on the Hanford Generating Project in Support of a 316(a) Demonstration, Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, November 1978.
- 12. Watson, D. G., Fall Chinook Salmon Spawning in the Columbia River Near Hanford, 1947-1969, Report 8NWL-1515, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Labora-tories, Richland, WA, 1970.
- 13. Pacific Northwest Laboratories Annual Report for 1975 to the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Division of Biomedical and Envi-ronmental Research, Part 2 - Ecological Sciences, Report BNWL-2000, Part 2, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA,1976.
- 14. Fickheisen, D. H. and M. J. Schneider (editors), Proceedings of Gas Bubble Disease Workshop, Conference 741033, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1975.
- 15. Whitney, R.R., Annual Review of Studies Conducted Under the Auspices of the Mid-Columbia Studies Committee, Mid-Columbia Studies Committee, January 1981.
I 16. D. Weitkamp, D. Chapman and T. Welsh, Vernita Bar Spawning Survey 1978-79, Parametrix, Inc., to Grant County PUD, December 1979.
- 17. D. Weitkamp, D. Chapman and T. Welsh, Vernita Bar Spawning Survey 1979-1980, Parametrix, Inc., to Grant County PUD, January 1981.
l O 6.3-8 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l l
l 1 WNP-1/4 i- ER-OL ! s 18. W. Young and R. Arthur, Contribution of Priest Rapids Hatchery Fall Chinook to Artificial and Natural Spawning Populations near Priest Rapids
- Dam Durinc 1979, Washington Department of Fisheries Funded by Grant
! County PU[', December 1980.- ) 19. Reports on 1981 Studies Conducted under the Auspices of the Mid-Columbia ! -Studies Committee - Draft, Mid-Columbia Studies Committee, July 1981.
- 20. . The Downstream Migration of Juvenile Salmonids in the Mid-Columbia River, j Spring 1979, Report for the Public Utility Districts of Grant,-Douglas l j and Chelan Counties by CH 2 M-Hill, 1980.
- 21. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Water Spilling for Passage of i Juvenile Salmon at Wanapum Dam, Report for the Public Utility Districts 2
of Grant, Douglas and Chelan Counties by CH2M-Hill and Washington
- Department of Fisheries,1980.
( j 22. D.H. Fickeisen, R.E. Fitzner, R.H. Sauer, and J.L. Warren, Wildlife Usage. Threatened and Endangered Species and Habitat Studies of the
- Hanford Reach, Columbia River, Washington, Contract 2311104244, Battelle, i Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Ricr.Tand, Washington, October 1980, 113 pp.
I 23. Stone, W. A., Meterological Instrumentation of the Hanford Area, ! HW-62455, March 1964. 1 i ] O 24. Stone, W. A., D. E. Jenne and J. M. Thorp, Climatography of the Hanford i Area, BNWL-1605, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, j T972. ! 25. Thorp, J. M., "1972 Microclimatological Measurements on the Arid Lands i Ecology Reserve," in Pacific Northwest Laboratory Annual Report for 1972 j to the USAEC Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research, Volume II: Physical Sciences - Part 1, Atmospheric Sciences, BNWL-1751, Part 1, j Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, April 1973. i ! 26. Baker, D. A., Diffusion Climatology Study of the 100-N Area, Hanford j Washington, DUN-7841, Douglas United Nuclear, Inc., Richland, WA, 1972.
- 1. 27. Blumer, P. J., J. R. Houston and P. A. Eddy, Master Schedule for CY-1979,
! Hanford Environmental Surveillance Routine Program, PNL-2801, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richlano, WA, December 1978.
; 28. Mooney, R. R., Environmental Radiation Surveillance in Washington State, i 18th Annual Report July 1978-June 1979, Radiation Control Unit, Division
} of Social and Health Services, State of Washington, Olympia, WA,1980. i i } !O
- 6.3-9 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-0L e (m) TABLE 6.3-1 ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL RADI ATION SURVEILLANCE SCHEDULE - 1979 l1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Frequency Type of Sample Type of Analysis W BW M BM g SA A WATER: Columbia River Water Radioactivity 2 2 Dose Rate 2 Chemical 2 Biological 2 Sanitary Water Radioactivity 1 3 9 Chemical 2(a) l Groundwater Wells Radioactivity ' 340 36 Chemical 255 40 35 AIR: Fitters Radioactive Particulates 44 3 Molecular Sieves Tritium 6 (V Charocoal Cartridge Radioiodines 10 34 OTHER: Radiation Level Dose Rate 61 Shoreline Survey Dose Rate 11 Ground Control Plot Radioactivity 3 66 3 Road Survey Radioactivity 6 3 Aerial Survey Radioacitvity 1 Railroad Survey Radioactivity 3 2 Milk Radioactivity 9 Fish (Columbia River) Radioactivity 1 1 4 Wild Fowl Radioactivity 2 5 9 Mammals Radioactivity 10 Soil Radioactivity 21 Vegetation Radiocctivity 21 Foodstuffs: Meat Radioactivity 1 1 1 Produce Radioactivity 5 1 6 (a) Samples routinely analyzed and reported by the Hanford Environmental Health Foundation. l O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 ER-0L TABLE 6.3-2 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE NETWORK WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION, JUNE 1978 1l Station Code Location Sample Type Puget Sound PS 0101 Seattle - Smith Tower Air 0102 Seattle - Boeing Field TLD* 0201 Cedar River - Landsberg Surface Water 1302 Puyallup River - Puyallup Surface Water 1702 Puget Sound - Bangor Oyster, Sediment 1704 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard - Bremerton Sediment 3201 Olympia TLD 3301 Edmonds TLD 3401 Bremerton TLD 3501 Bangor TLD 3601 Pack Forest - Lt. Br. of Spring Ground Water 3602 Pack Forest - Rt. Br. of Spring Ground Water 3603 Pack Forest - Ditch below Spring Ground Water 3604 Pack Forest - Ditch 200' Uphill Ground Water l Coastal Peninsula ' Cp 1801 Elma TLD 2401 Port Angeles TLD Southwest SW 0301 Kalama River - Kalama Surface Water I 0904 Columbia River - Longview Surface Water 0905 Cottonwood Island - Columbia River Sediment 0906 Columbia River - East Shore, Trojan Sediment 1100 Kalma - Sewage Treatment Plant TLD, Soil 2002 Woodland Milk 2100 Kelso - Vision Acres TLD, Soil 3100 Longview, Ocean Beach Substation TLO, Soil 4100 Trojan Plant - Meteorology Tower TLD Northwest NW 0204 Skagit River - Concrete Surface Water 0501 Skagit County - General Area Milk 1501 Bellingham TLD 1601 Lyman TLD Southcentral SC 0202 Yakima River - Yakima (Parker) Surface Water Northcentral NC 0103 Okanogan River - Malott Surface Water 0701 Wenatchee - Sewage Treatment Plant TLD
- *Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 O. ER-OL TABLE 6.3-2 (contd.) Station Code Location Sample Type Southeast SE 0011 Hanford - Well 699-17-5 Ground Water 0012 Hanford - Well 699-9-E2 Ground Water + 0013 Hanford - Well 699-2-3 Ground Water 0104 Columbia River - Richland Water Surface Water Treatment Plant 0601 Benton County - General Area Milk 0701 Franklin County - General Area Milk 1101 Richland TLD 1201 Hanford-NECO Burial Site - NE Corner TLD, Soil 1202 Hanford-NECO Burial Site - NW Corner TLD, Soil 1203 Hanford-NEC0 Burial Site - SW Corner TLD, Soil i 1204 Hanford-NEC0 Burial Site - SE Corner TLD, Soil 3201 WPPSS Station 1 TLD, Soil 3202 WPPSS Station 2 TLD, Soil 3203 WPPSS Station 3 TLD, Soil 3204 WPPSS Station 4 TLD, Soil 3208 WPPSS Station 8 TLD, Soil s
~
3235 WPPSS Station 35 Sediment 3236 WPPSS Station 36 Sediment Northeast NE 0101 Spokane - City Hall Air 1 0102 Charraroy - 20 miles north of Spokane TLD 0103 Spokane TLD 1101 Deer Park - General Area Milk 2101 Sherwood U. Mill - Station A Soil, Air 2103 Sherwood U. Mill - Station C Soil, Air, TLD 2105 Sherwood U. Mill - Station E Air, TLD 2106 Sherwood U. Mill - Station F Air 2107 Sherwood U. Mill - Station.G Air, Soil, TLD , 2109 Sherwood U. Mill - Rajewski Ranch Air, Soil, TLD l 2121 Sherwood U. Mill - Station L1 Sediment 2122 Sherwood U. Mill - Station L2 Sediment 2123 Sherwood U. Mill - Station L3 S. Water, Sediment 2124 Sherwood U. Mill - Blue Creek S. Water 2131 Sherwood U. Mill - Station S1 Ground Water 2123 Sherwood U. Mill - Station S2 Ground Water 2133 Sherwood U. Mill - Station S3 Ground Water 2134 Sherwood U. Mill - Station MW1 Ground Water i 2135 Sherwood U. Mill - Station MW2 Ground Water I 2136 Sherwood U. Mill - Station MW3 Ground Water 2138 Sherwood U. Mill - Station MW5 Ground Water 2139 Sherwood U. Mill - Station MW6 Ground Water i
*Thermoluminescent Oosimeter Amendment 1 (Feb 83) , _ . - - , , . . , . - - , , . - . - - , , , , , _ ,__-.. . -. n-,- -
I
-WNP-1/4 ER-0L 6.4 PREOPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING DATA The subject monitoring program was initiated for WNP-2 in April 1978. Fuel load for that unit is currently planned for September 1983.
from the WNP-2 preoperational and operational monitoringram prog, willMonitoring serve as data preoperational data for WNP-1. The data are shown in Table 6.4-1 below. 1
- O lJ 4
O I 6.4-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 , ER-OL l /~N TABLE 6.4-1 PREOPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING DATA Sediment Sample Station Isotope (pCi/g) Other Gamma Date Number Co-60 Cs-137 5-17-78 35 0.59+0.21 0.36+0.13 <0.15 5-17-78 36 0.3270.11 0.38T0.09 '0.15 11-27-78 36 0.3870.11 0.4970.09 0.15 12-21-78 35 < 0.15- 0.2270.05 0.15 Zn-65=0.3 7+0.11 7-10-79 35 0.13+0.06 0.31+0.07 0.15 7-10-79 36 0.4670.12 0.4270.08 0.15 14-19-79 35 0.1370.06 0.3170.06 0.15 11-19-79 36 0.6170.11 0.4870.07 0.15 5-08-80 35 < 0.15- 0.20T0.03 0.15 11-18-80 35 <0.15 0.1670.02 0.15 11-18-80 36 < 0.15 < 0.15- 0.15 5-08-81 35 < 0.15 0.15 5-08-81 36 0.5+0.1 0.15 11-19-81 35 0.2T0.1 0.15 1 11-19-81 36 0.1+0.1 0.15 Soil Sample Station Isotope (pCi/g) Other Gamma Date Number Cs-137 Zn-65 Fe-59 5-8-78 1 0.5+0.1 < 0.15 < 0.26 < 0.15 5-8-78 2 < 0. lT +0.15 +0.26 +0.15 5-8-78 3 0.7+0.1 0.15 0.26 0.15 5-8-78 7 0. sit +0.07 0.15 0.26 0.15 5-8-78 9 0.14T0.04 0.15 0.26 0.15 5-10-79 1 < 0.15- - - 0.15 5-10-79 2 0.55+0.07 - - 0.15 5-10-79 3 0.1470.03 ' 0.15 5-10-79 7 < 0.15- - - 0.15 l 5-10-79 9 < 0.15 - - 0.15 5-08-80 1 1.65+0.14 - - 0.15 5-08-80 2 < 0.15 - - 0.15 5-08-80 3 1.12+0.12 - - 0.15 5.08-80 7 1.88T0.14 - - 0.15 5-08-80 9 < 0.15- - - 0.15 5-08-81 1 < 0.15 - - 0.15 5-08-81 2 0.3+0.1 0.15 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 ER-OL TABLE 6.4-1 (contd.) Soil (contd.) Sample Station Isotope (pCi/g) Other Gamma Date Number Cs-137 Zn-65 Fe-59 5-08-81 3 0.4+0.1 - - < 5-08-81 7 0.770.1 - -
+0.15 0.15 5-08-81 9 < 0.1E - -
0.15 5-19-82 1 +0.18 - - 0.15 5-19-82 2 0.18 - - 0.15 1 5-19-82 3 0.18 - - 0.15 5-19-82 7 0.18 - - 0.15 5-19-82 9 0.18 - - 0.15 Garden Produce Sample Collection Collection Gamma Emitters Type Site Date pCi/g Wet Chard Pasco 06/20/78 < 0.08 Chard Pasco 06/20/78 +0.08 Carrots Grandview 06/20/78 0.08 Apricots Onions Cabbage Pasco Pasco Pasco 07/24/78 07/24/78 07/24/78 0.08 0.08 0.08 h Apricots Grandview 07/24/78 0.08 Onions Grandview 07/24/78 0.08 Beans Grandview 07/24/78 0.08 Cnard Pasco 08/21/78 0.08 Carrots Pasco 08/21/78 0.08 Apples Pasco 08/21/78 0.08 Onions Grandview 08/21/78 0.08 Apples Grandview 08/21/78 0.08 , Chard Pasco 09/25/78 0.08 l Carrots Pasco 09/25/78 0.08 Grapes Pasco 09/25/78 0.08 Chard Grandview 09/25/78 0.08 Carrots Grandview 09/25/78 0.08 Tomatoes Grandview 09/25/78 0.08 Chard Pasco 10/23/78 0.08 Carrots Pasco 10/23/78 0.08 Tomatoes Pasco 10/23/78 0.08 Comfre Grandview 10/23/78 0.08 Carcots Grandview 10/23/78 0.08 Tomatoes Grandview 10/23/78 0.08 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL ( ). TABLE 6.4-1 (contd.).
. Garden Produce (contd.)
Sample Collection Collection Gamma Emitters Type Site Date pCi/g Wet Comfrey Grandview 05/22/79 Lettuce Pasco '05/22/79 f0.08 0.08 Onion Pasco 05/22/79 0.08 Strawberry Pasco 05/22/79 0.08 Carrots Grandview 06/25/79 0.08 Comfrey Grandview 06/25/79 0.08 Cherries Grandview 06/25/79 0.08 Chard Pasco 06/25/79 0.08 Carrots Pasco 06/25/79 0.08 Cherries Pasco 06/25/79 0.08 Apples Pasco 07/25/79 0.08 Carrots Pasco 07/25/79 0.08 Peppers -Pasco 07/25/79 0.08 Chard Grandview 07/25/79 0.08 Carrots Grandview 07/25/79 0.08 r Apples Grandview 07/25/79 0.08 D] Carrots Pasco 08/21/79 0.08 Cabbage Pasco 08/21/79 0.08 Apples Pasco 08/21/79 0.08 Tomatoes Grandview 08/21/79 0.08 Carrots Grandview 08/21/79 0.08 Comfrey Grandview 08/21/79 0.08 Apples Pasco 09/18/79 0.08 Cabbage Pasco 09/18/79 0.08 Carrots Pasco 09/18/79 0.08 Tomatoes Grandview 09/18/79 0.08 Chard Grandview 09/18/79 0.08 Carrots - Grandview 09/18/79 0.08 Turnip Tops Pasco 05/08/80 0.08 Onion Pasco 05/08/80 0.08 Comfrey Grandview 05/08/80 0.08 Onion Grandview 05/08/80 0.08 Swiss Chard Pasco 06/23/80 0.08 Beets Pasco 06/23/80 0.08 Comfrey Grandview 06/23/80 0.08 Beets Grandview 06/23/80 0.08 O i Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 l ER-OL Garden Produce (contd.) Sample Collection Collection Gamma Emitters Type Site Date pCi/g Wet Cabbage Pasco 07/18/80 y0.08 Onions Pasco 07/18/80 0.08 Raspberries Pasco 07/18/80 0.08 Comfrey Grandview 07/18/80 0.08 Onions Grandview 07/18/80 0.08 Rasberries Grandview 07/18/80 0.08 Swiss Chard Pasco 08/19/80 0.08 Onions Pasco 08/19/80 0.08 Tomatoes Pasco 08/19/80 0.08 Comfrey Grandview 08/19/80 0.08 Onions Grandview 08/19/80 0.08 Tomatoes Grandview 08/19/80 0.08 Swiss Chard Pasco 09/23/80 0.08 Onions Pasco 09/23/80 0.08 Apples Pasco 09/23/80 0.08 Comfrey Grandview 09/23/80 0.08 Carrots Grandview 09/23/80 0.08 Tomatoes Grandview 09/23/80 0.08 g Beettops Pasco 05/18/81 0.08 1 Beet Pasco 05/18/81 0.08 Apples Pasco 05/18/81 0.08 Lettuce Pasco 06/23/81 0.08 Onions Pasco 06/23/81 0.08 Rasberries Pasco 06/23/81 0.08 Beet Tops Grandview 06/23/81 0.08 Beet Grandview 06/23/81 0.08 Raspberries Grandview 06/23/81 0.08 Lettuce Pasco 07/08/81 0.08 Onion Pasco 07/03/81 - 0.08 Raspberries Pasco 07/03/81 0.08 Beettops Grandview 07/04/81 0.08 Beet Grandview 07/04/81 0.08 Raspberries Grandview 07/04/81 0.08 Lettuce Pasco 07/21/81 0.08 Onions Pasco 07/21/81 0.08 Apples Pasco 07/21/81 0.08 1 Comfrey Grandview 07/21/81 0.08 Beets Grandview 07/21/81 0.08 Raspberries Grandview 07/21/81 0.08 l l l Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL [] v _ TABLE 6.4-1 (contd.) Garden Produce (contd.) Sample Collection Collection Gamma Emitters Type Site Date pCi/g Wet Lettuce Pasco 07/25/81 ' < 0.08 Onion Pasco 07/25/81 +'0.08 Apples Pasco 07/25/81 0.08 Comfrey Grandview 07/24/81 0.08 Beets Grandview 07/26/81 0.08 Raspberries Grandview 07/25/81 0.08 Comfrey Grandview 08/15/81 0.08
; Onions ~ Grandview 08/15/81 0.08 Peaches Grandview 08/15/81 0.08 1 Cabbage Pasco 09/25/81 0.08 Apples Pasco 09/25/81 0.08 Onions Pasco 09/25/81 0.08 l
Comfrey Grandview 09/25/81 0.08 Tomatoes Grandview 09/25/81 0.08 Carrots Grandview 09/25/81 0.08 lp Lettuce Pasco 05/19/82 0.08 y Comfrey Grandview 05/19/82 0.08 Fish Sample Station Species Date pCi/g (wet) Other Co-60 Cs-137 Fe-59 Zn-65 Gamma l Columbia Sucker 4/26/78 < 0.13 < 0.13 <0.26 < 0.26 < 0.13 Snake Trout 4/26/78 +0.13 +0.13 +0.26 +0.26 +0.13 Columbia Squawfish 4/26/78 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.13 Columbia Salmon 4/26/78 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.13 Columbia Carp 4/26/78 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.13 Snake Trout 10/24/78 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.13 Columbia Salmon 10/20/78 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.13 Columbia Salmon 10/20/78 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.13 Columbia Salmon 10/20/78 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.13 Columbia Catfish 10/20/78 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.13 Columbia Salmon 4/25/79 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Columbia Salmon 4/25/79 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Columbia Trout 4/25/79 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Columbia Trout 4/25/79 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Snake Trout 4/25/79 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 6.4-1 (contd.) Sample i Station Species Date pCi/g (wet) Other Co-60 Cs-137 Fe-59 Zn-65 Gamma Columbia Whitefish < - y0.13 Snake. Steelhead 10/29/79 70.13 10/30/79 0.13 +0.13 0.13 - 70.13 0.13 0.13 Columbia Whitefish 4/23/80 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Columbia Whitefish 4/23/80 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Columbia Whitefish 4/23/80 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Columbia Whitefish 4/23/80 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Snake Steelhead 4/21/80 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Columbia Steelhead 10/22/80 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Columbia Salmon 10/22/80 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Columbia Salmon 10/22/80 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Columbia Salmon 10/22/80 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Snake Steelhead 10/23/80 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Columbia Wnitefish 4/26/81 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Columbia Sm. Mouth 4/26/81 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Bass Snake Steelhead 4/21/81 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Columoia. Salmon 10/21/81 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Columbia Salmon 10/21/81 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Columbia Salmon 10/21/81 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 1 Columbia Salmon 10/21/81 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Snake Salmon 10/22/81 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 0.13 Well Water pCi/l Sample Station Tritium Date WNP-2 Well #3 380+340 11/19/78 l l Direct Radiation Direct Radiation measurements have been made since April 1978 using thermo-luminescence dosimeters (TLD) at twenty-five (25) stations around the site. The averaga result of these measurements (1978-1982) is 0.23 mrem / day. This 1 value is in the expected range for the natural background radiation dose rate in the Columbia Basin. O Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l
WNP-1/4 ER-0L O(/ CHAPTER 7 i ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS 7.1 PLANT ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADI0 ACTIVITY 7.1.1 Introduction The environmental consequences of several postulated acciaents have been eval-uated. The spectrum of accidents, from the trivial to the ipost severe, is y divided into nine classes, some of which have subclasses.lll The events which were considered are summarized in Table 7.1-1. 7.1.2 Meteorological Assumptions and Dose Calculations The release for accident Classes 1-8 is assumed to occur at ground level, with atmospheric dispersion factors calculated at the 50 percent probability level of occurrence. (The assumptions for accidents more severe than the design basis are discussed in Subsection 7.1.3.9.) Pasquill Gifford parameters and 1 the guidance found in Regulatory Guide 1.145 were utilized in the computation of atmospheric dispersion factors (see Subsection 6.1.3.2). These models and the numerical values used are discussed in Section 2.3 of the WNP-1/4 FSAR. Releases lasting less than eight hours were assumed to be dispersed by center-line atmospheric dilution factors at the 50 percent probability level, based h; v on hourly observation with no allowance for building wake effects. For acci- ! dental releases lasting more than eight hours, the transport of the plume into l more than one sector and its effect on the average air concentration was ac-counted for by weighing the air concentrat on by the length of time the wind transported the plume into each sector. The dose due to penetrating radiation, with the total body as the organ of reference and immersion in the passing cloud as the exposure path, was cal-culated assuming a 2 geometry. Similarly, the dose due to nonpenetrating radiation, with skin as the organ of refer geometry. The equations for these two calculations are:(gn)ce, 2 assumed 2 D TB = 0.25 E y (f)Q r rem, penetrating radiation Dl=0.46Eg (f-)Q r rem, nonpenetrating radiation Ey =Ij f $(Ey )i 7.1-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
. WNP-l/4 ER-OL where:
l DTB = total body dose from penetrating radiation D! = skin dose from nonpenetrating radiation l Ey = effective garrma energy per disintegration in Mev fj = fraction of disintegrations which yield gamma energy i (Ey)i = gamma energy i Eg = average beta energy per disintegration corrected for pene-tration to a tissue depth of 7 mg/ cmc () = atmospheric dilution factor, sec/m3 Q = release rate, Ci/sec r = duration of exposure, sec The thyroid dose, Dthy, resulting from inhalation is calculated by: D thy = bfa k Q(h)r rem O where: Othy = thyroid dose from inhalation, rem b = ventilation rate for man, cm3 /sec b = 350 cm3 / sec for inhalation times of 8 hours and less(3) b r 230 cm3 / sec for inhalation times lasting 1 day or more(3) b = 170 cm3 / sec for inhalation times less than 1 day but more than 8 hours fa = fractional uptake by thyroid via inhalation = 0.23(3) , k = dose conversion f actor, rem /gCi in the organ 7.1-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL
/
C Q = release rate, Ci/sec 1 () = atmospheric dilution factor, sec/m3 7 = duration of release / exposure, sec Parameter values used in this study are summarized in Table 7.1-3. 7.1.3 Postulated Accidents and Potential Environmental Consequences Various postulated incidents and accidents have been analyzed and reported in Chapter 15 the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). These analyses demonstrate that the plant can be operated safely and that maximum radiation exposures from credible accidents would be within the limits of 10 CFR Part 100. To provide a high degree of assurance that the radiation doses will be within these guidelines under any credible circumstances, the analyses have been performed using conservative calculations and assumptions (see FSAR Subsection 15.0.6). Because of the degree of conservatism, the doses I calculated and reported in the FSAR are far in excess of what would be realistically expected. To facilitate the assessment of the impact of possible incidents and accidents in a realistic manner, and therefore to allow a judgment as to the potential environmental risk inherent to the operation of WNP-3 further analyses have 3 been made. As compared to the FSAR analyses, the environmental risk analyses (d are intended to be more realistic (most of these results are also in the FSAR). Several assumptions which are common to many of the postulated events are listed below: o Thermal Power Level of tne Reactor, MWth 3800 o Percent Defective Fuel Prior to Occurrence 0.12% o Primary-to-Secondary Coolant Leak Rate Prior to Occurrence, lb/ day 100 o Number of Fuel Pins in One Complete Row of an Assembly 17 o Number of Fuel Pins Per Assembly 264 o Inventory of Noble Gases and Iodines in the Cr.*e Table 7.1-4 o Concentration of Noble Gases and Iodines in the Primary and Secondary Coolant System Table 7.1-5 Note: Bromines are not included in the tables due to their negligible con-tribution to the doses. O 7.1-3 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL The potential environmental consequences of postulated accidents, in terms of doses, are summarized in Table 7.1-2. 7.1.3.1 Trivial Incidents These incidents are included and evaluated under routine releases associated with nonnal operations. Their environmental consequences are, therefore, in-cluded in those discussed in Section 5.2. 7.1.3.2 Small Release Outside Containment These releases are included and evaluated under routine releases associated with normal operations. Their environmental consequences are, therefore, in-cluded in those discussed in Section 5.2. 7.1.3.3 Radwaste System Failure Considerations for the accidental release of radioactivity from the radwaste systems for WNP-1 and for WNP-4 have been taken into account through minimi-zation of the probability of operator error or component failure. Nonetheless, analyses are performed that consider radwaste system operator error and component f ailure for assessment of environmental consequences. These analyses and their results follow. Equipment Leakage or Malfunction Resulting in Release of 25 Percent of the Normal Inventory of a Waste Gas Decay Tank The waste gas decay tanks accept radfoactive gases stripped from reactor coolant and provide for holdup to allow for radioactive decay. These tanks are located in the waste processing area. This event may be postulated to occur through a pipe leak which is undetected for a time sufficient to result in the release of 25 percent of the normal tank inventory. Assumptions o The average inventory of a waste gas decay tank is presented in Table 7.1-7. o 25 percent of the average inventory in the storage tank is released. o The release will last one hour. 7.1-4
l l WNP-1/4 f.s ER-OL l i It has been assumed that the dropping of a fuel assembly will result in the failure of 17 fuel pins. Due to the length of the fuel assembly, it is highly probable that it would strike the reactor cavity wall or other high object as ! it rotates, thus breaking its fall and reducing the effects of impact. Hence, the assumption of the direct angle of strike necessary to obtain one row of fuel rod failures is quite conservative. A glancing angle of strike, which would reduce or preclude fuel damage, is more probable. The containment is purged through charcoal filters during refueling, and it is isolated upon high radiation signal. Assumptions o The gap activity of noble gases and halogens in one row (17 pins) of fuel pins is released into the water inside the containment building. o One week decay time has elapsed before accident occurs. o Iodine decontamination factor in water is 500. o Charcoal filter efficiency for iodines is 99 percent. o Prior to isolating the containment, the fraction of the con-O tainment volume leaked to the atmosphere is 0.5. o The duration of the release is less than 15 minutes. Activity Released The activity released to the environment as a result of this accident is shown in Table 7.1-11. Radiological Consequences The resulting doses, as presented in Table 7.1-lla, are less than one percent of 10 CFR 100 guidelines. Heavy Object Drop Onto Fuel in Core The heaviest object routinely lif ted over the reactor vessel during refueling is the reactor vessel head. The head would not be likely to damage fuel, even if dropped, since it cannot physically fit inside the vessel. A missile shield is provided for positioning over the reactor vessel. 7.1-9
- - ++ - -" y ~7, e
WNP-l/4 ER-0L 1 The upper core support assembly fits inside the reactor vessel and, if drop-ped, could impose a load on the fuel. However, this would require that the ; slots in the core plate line up exactly with the pins in the core barrel. If ; this alignment did not occur, the core support assembly would be prevented l from falling all the way into the reactor vessel. The only other heavy objects handled over the reactor vessel are the spent i fuel assemblies. Provisions made in design and handling operations to reduce the possibility of dropping a fuel bundle are described above. Prior to every refueling, all handling equipment is checked by nondestructive test methods to ensure its integrity. In addition, load tests are conducted to verify safe handling capabilities. The containment is purged through charcoal filters during refueling and is isolated upon high radiation signal. Assumptions o The gap activity of noole gases and halogens in one average fuel assembly are rcleased into the water inside the con-tainment building. o 100 hours of decay time have elapsed before the object is dropped. o lodine decontamination factor in water is 500. h o Charcoal filter efficiency for iodines is 99 percent. o Prior to solating the containment, the fraction of the con-tainment volume leaked to the atmosphere is 0.5. o The duration of the release is less than 15 minutes. Activity Released The activity released to the environment as a result of this accident is shown in Table 7.1-12. Radiological Consequences The resulting doses, as presented in Table 7.1-12a, are less than one percent of 10 CFR 100 limits. 7.1-10 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 7.1.3.7 Spent Fuel Handling Accident The spent fuel handling accidents are similar in nature to refueling accidents discussed in Subsection 7.1.3.6. The probability of occurrence of an accident of this nature is quite small because of personnel training, detailed oper-ating instructions, and built-in equipment designs. Fuel Assembly Drop Into Fuel Storage Pool This accident is the same as the Fual Bundle Drop except that the location is l1 in the General Services Building outside of the primary containment. The fuel storage area in the General Services Building is ventilated through roughing, HEPA, and charcoal filters. Assumptions o The gap activity of noble gases and halogens in one row (17 pins) of fuel pins is released into the water inside the General Services Building. o One week decay time has elapsed before the accident occurs. o Iodine decontamination factor in water is 500. I o Charcoal filter efficiency for iodines is 99 percent. o The release to the environment is over a one-hour interval. Activity Released The activity released to the environment as a result of this accident is shown in Table 7.1-13. Radiological Consequences The resulting doses, as presented in Table 7.1-13a, are less than one percent of 10 CFR 100 limits. Heavy Object Drop Onto Fuel Rack The largest item handled in the General Services Building is the spent fuel shipping cask. However, the crane and building arrangements make it impos-sible for the cask to be carried over the fuel storage racks. The spent fuel pit bridge hoist which spans the storage pool serves as the fuel-handling platform. This motor-driven walkway is designed to preclude it from tipping over and to safely withstand the forces associated with earthquakes. 7.1-11 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) t
WNP-1/4 ER-OL The General Services Building is of reinforced concrete construction and is O designed for earthquake loads and for the forces and missiles which could re-sult from a tornado. Consequently, it is incredible that heavy objects could fall onto the storage racks from outside the building. Assumptions i l 0 The gap activity of noble gases and halogens in one row (17 pins) of fuel pins is released into the water inside the General Services Building. l o Thirty (30) days of decay time have elapsed before the accident occurs, o Iodine decontamination f actor in water is 500. o Charcoal filter efficiency for iodines is 99 percent. o The release to the environment is over a one-hour interval. Activity Released The activity released to the environment as a result of this accident is shown in Table 7.1-14. Radiological Consequences O The resulting doses, as presented in Table 7.1-14a, are less than one percent of 10 CFR 100 guidelines. Fuel Cask Drop The design of the spent fuel cask-handling crane and the fuel-handling / storage f acility precludes transportation of the spent fuel cask over stored fuel. In addition, the cask-handling crane and the auxiliary lif ting equipment are de-signed to prevent a load drop due to a single failure and/or a seismic event. These design criteria preclude a cask drop; therefore, the radiological con-sequences of such an event need not be evaluated. 7.1.3.8 Accident Initiation Events Considered in Design Basis Evaluation in the Safety Analysis Report loss-of-Coolant Accidenta: A sudden rupture in a reactor coolant system pipe results in rapid discharge of reactor coolant from the broken pipe into the containment. The severity of the accident is a function of the size of the pipe ruptured and the rate at which coolant is lost. Any fission products 7.1-12
WNP-1/4 1 ER-OL , 7.1.3.9 Accidents More Severe Than-Design Basis Events
- Accidents in this category (Class 9) result from the possible degradation or i failure of one or more redundant emergency safety systems and, hence, are -
beyond the design basis limits for the plant. These accidents involve sub-stantial deterioration (including melting) of the reactor fuel and failure of ! the containment structure, to perform its intended function of limiting the ! release.of radioactive materials. The probabilities associated with these
- events are extremely low but the consequences of an individual occurrence are j greater than the other accident categories.
j Assessment Methods The methodology is based employed on the methods to assess employed in thetheNRC's impacts Regof a severe accident at W P-)1/4 Calculations were performed using the CRAC2 Codetgtor Safety ver-Study (RSS). i- 1 which is a revised i sion of the CRAC (Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences) Code developed for the RSS. There are five basic sets of_ input data for the CRAC2 analysis: i accident release data, weather data, population data, land'use data, and ) evacuation data. The calculation methodology is sumarized in Figure 7.1-1. } The calculation of reactor accident consequences starts with a postulated j breach of containment and release of radicactivity. Following the postulated ! release, the dispersion of the radioactivity, cloud depletion, and ground con-l tamination are calculated from atmospheric dispersion models. Using the re- ! sulting air and ground contamination, the dosimetric models determine the i doses to individuals. Early and chronic coses to individuals are determined l from a number of exposure pathways. Early doses accrue from exposure to the i passing cloud (direct radiation and inhalation), and early exposure to the ground contamination. Chronic doses accrte from exposure accumulated at later times including doses from ingestion of ccntaminated food and/or milk pro-i ducts, inhalation of resuspended groun_d ccntamination, and long-term direct
- exposure (greater than 7 days) to ground contamination.
l i The health effects are then determined based on the calculated doses and the ! population distribution around the plant. Several mitigation measures includ- ! ing population evacuation / relocation and food / land interdiction are considered in the determination of the population doses and health effects. The health 1 effects estimated in CRAC2 are divided into two categories: acute and latent. f Acute health effects refer to injuries anc fatalities occurring within a year of the accident. The latent effects refer to the somatic effects which later ) are manifested in the form of cancer during a plateau period assumed to be about 30 years. Lastly, the economic impccts are calculated in terms of pro- l1 perty damage and costs. Property damage is specified in terms of interdicted areas of land, crops, and/or milk, while costs include the estimated costs of such inter' diction, as well as the direct costs of ground decontamination, and j population evacuation or relocation. l 4
- O 7.1-17 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) i -
WNP-1/4 ER-OL The results of the CRAC2 consequence model are displayed as a set of cumula-tive probability distribution functions for specific consequences. These dis-tributions are determined from the calculated magnitude of each consequence for a number of combinations of postulated accident release, weather, and population, as well as the probability of each such combination. Accident Release Categories The accident sequences which were evaluated are revisions of sequences used for the prototype PWR in the RSS. The four postulated accidents are defined as EVENT V, TMLB, PWR-3, and PWR-7 and represer.t the spectrum dents considered possible for plants such as WNP-1 and WNP-4.(of severe
- 6) The acci-radio-active soyqqe inventory was based on the core isotopic composition of a 3412 MWth unitW multiplied by 1.1 to reflect the larger capacities of WNP-1 and
- 4. The release categories and accident parameters are shown in Table 7.1-20.
All four PWR accidents lead to total or partial core melt. Accident PWR-7 postulates the melt-through of the base mat as the containment failure mode. Release of the radioactive material from containment could result in its in-troduction into the hydrosphere and, through contact with groundwater, could lead to potential water exposure pathways. Since the rate ef travel of these materials through the aquifer to a downstream discharge or withdrawal point is much slower than the air transport of the accompanying atmospheric release, exposures by the liquid pathway are not included in the consequences. This is consistent with the approach used in the RSS. Also, a generic study of liquid pathway impacts noted that substantial holdup and mitigation in the vicinity of the containment would be expected in the event of core melt-through at land-based nuclear plants.(8) The NRC has concluded that liquid pathway consequences identified in theatgeneric the WNP-1/4 study.siteguld be significantly less than were Atmospheric Dispersion Data for CRAC2 input consisted of one year of hourly-averaged measurements of the following parameters: wind speed, wind direction (vector-aver 3ged), Pasquill-Gifford stability class, and precipitation. The 8760 hours of data were sorted into 29 distinct weather categoeies which are randomly sampled by the code. This results in an accurate and economical approximatien of average 1l annual conditions at the plant site. Population Population doses were based on the projected resident population for the year 2010 out to 200 miles from the plant. The data in Table 7.1-21 was used with minor redistribution to accomodate the CRAC2 calculation intervals. Popula-tion for the eight intervals between 50 and 200 miles was obtained from 1980 city and county census data. Data were assigned to sectors based cn area O 7.1-18 Amendment. 1 (Feb 83)
h. WNP-1/4 ER-OL f) distribution of the census unit (e.g., city or county) relative to the v grid sector. Canadian population data wer. included in the three sectors which encompassed parts of British Columbia. Projections to the year 2010 fcr the 50 to 200 mile area were based on the composite growth factor of 1.43 applied to the 1980 numbers. Land Use and Economic Data, Land use and economic data are based on regional averages. Economic in-formation includes decontamination costs (for farms and residential, busi-ness, und public areas), relocation costs, property value, and food costs (dairy and non-dairy). Farm information specific to the WNP-1/4 region included planting / harvest months, fraction of state land devoted to farm-ing, fraction of farm revenue from dairy production, annual average farm sale, and average f arm land value. Also the state and land / water fraction for each area element were specified. Evacuation Measures Evacuation of inhabitants within ten miles of the plant is considered in the accident consequence assessment. An evacuation speed (corresponding to adverse weather conditions) of 7.5 mph was assumed. The time delay for evacuation ranges between 0 and 2 hours. A delay of 0.75 hours which cor-i responds to the time when 50 percent of the people have begun evacuation was used as CRAC2 input. l1 Accident Consequences and Risk Measures The health and economic impacts calculated for the various postulated accidental releases from WNP-1/4 are presented in the form of probability
. distributions. Calculated nea% affects include early f atalities and latent cancer deaths resulting tcA potential radiological exposures.
Economic effects include the direct costs of emergency action undertaken during the arcident and the estimated costs of mitigation actions that might be ta bi following the accident. All four release categories con-tribute to the results, with the consequences of each being weighted by the associated probability of occurrence. The probability distribution for acute fatalities is shown in Figure 7.1-2
- and is determined entirely by release category EVENT V. Table 7.1-9 shows l that EVENT V has the largest core inventory release fractions of the four accidents and therefore produces the greatest radioactive release. Th.e amount of radioactivity released is particularly critical to the predic-l tion of acute fatalities because the CRAC2 code uses a threshold exposure of 200 rem for acute deaths. Only EVENT V produces exposures near the 200 rem threshold and, therefore, only it results in significant contribu-tion to early fatalities. The early fatalities are predicted to occur within five miles of the plant.
O 7.1-19 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) 4
WNP-1/4 ER-OL The latent cancer fatalities in the population within 50 miles and the entire population within 200 (based on a cancer-dose conversion factor of 1 142 per million man-rem). miles are plotted in Figure 7.1-3. The curves have similar contributions from all accident sequences except PWR-7 which contributes significantly less than the others. The population within 50 miles experiences the majority of the latent cancer fatalities. The latent cancers and nodules occurring in the thyroid in the population within 50 miles as well as the entire population are plotted in Figure 7.1-4. All PWR sequences contribute to these effects, the majority of which are experienced by people within 50 miles. In contrast to acute fatalities which have a 200 rem threshold, latent effects have no thres-hold. Latent effects are integral effects over a large area and are ac-cumulated over long periods of time after the accident. Continued expo-sure to contaminated land would contribute to the long-term doses. These long-term doses would therefore depend on the interdiction strategy. For population groups that would be located relatively close to the reactor, the interdiction strategy may require permanent relccation. Therefore, no long-term exposure to contaminated land would occur for these persons. Only the inhaled radionuclides would determine their dose commitment, and in such cases, only persons who were directly exposed to the plume would contribute to the latent cancer fatalities. The total economic costs include the costs of evacuation or relocation of the population, as well as decontamination of land and interdiction of agricultural products and/or land. The probability distribution (Figure 7.1-5) of the economic costs is composed of contributions from all acci-W dent sequences except PWR-7. The radiological consequences of PWR-7 are so small that the economic consequences are significantly smaller than in the other accidents. The interdiction cost is the greatest contributor to the cost curve. The economic and interdiction consequences are also par-tially sensitive to the amount of radioactivity released. The choice of an interdiction criterion can control the economic costs. This is because the cost of interdicting land is very high if no decontamination is done. CRAC2 assumes a decontamination factor of greater than 20 before permanent interdiction of land is calculated. The interdiction levels used in these calculgtjons are basically those which were used in the Reactor Safety Study.t4 / The total person-rem whole body dose for the population within 50 miles 1l and the exposed population within 200 miles is plotted in Figure 7.1-6. The increasing dose to the people beyond 50 miles separates the curves on the low probability and high consequence end. All accident sequences con-tribute to the person-rem curves with PWR-7 contributing only to the low consequences with higher probabilities. O 7.1-20 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Curves showing the number of persons receiving doses of 300-1,000,000 rem to the thyroid and to the whole body in two ranges (25-200 rem and 200-300 rem) are plotted in Figure 7.1-7. EiENT V and TMLB accident sequences contribute to both whole body ranges. PWR-3 contributes only to the 25-200 rem whole body rem curve. PWR-7 contributes to neither curve, since the resultant PWR-7 doses are less than those plotted. All accident sequences except PWR-7 contribute to the thyroid dose curve. A whole body dose versus distance curve is given in Figure 7.1-8. A reduction of over three orders of magnitude is evident over the 200 mile distance. (Jncertainties The discussions in the preceding subsection provide insight into the risk associated with hypothetical has been based severe on the Reactor Safetyaccidents)at Study.(4 WNP-1/4. The study has The been methodology re-viewed subsequently, and several findings and recommendations concerning the RSS were issued. The most significant finding was that the methodology is sound. The source of uncertainties in the accident probabilities have been outlined in the RSS, and uncertainties in the consequence analysis are discussed in this section. In the RSS, uncertainties were considered in two broad groups: the dis-persion-dosimetric model, and the dose-response criteria. The first group includes uncertainties in the release fractions, probabilities, and physi-cal characteristics of the accidents and the atmospheric dispersion. The second group includes individual dose-response and cost parameters. These factors affect only their corresponding consequences. The various uncer-tainties are discussed as they apply to the plant. In general, the calculation of early fatalities is most sensitive to the first group of uncertainties, especially the release magnitude. The re-lease fractions and other accident parameters were based on an accident analysis of another older PWR design. This analysis is based on accident source terms derived in the RSS and does not cons' der the much lower re-lease fractions suggested in critical reviews (ll,'2) of the earlier work. Also the mitigating effects of improvements to the plant, including 1 improvements to the engineered safety features,were not considered. These improvements, which reduce challenges to the engineered safety features, are discussed in Section 1.10 of the FSAR. The other consequences, latent cancer f atalities and property damage, appear to be somewhat less sensitive to the first group of uncertainties. l1 These constitute integral effects over a large area and are more a func-tion of the total population and cost parameters than of accident characteristics. 7.1-21 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7.1 la. " Discussion of Accidents in Applicants' Environmental Reports: Assumptions," Federal Register, 36:22851, December 1, 1971.
- b. " Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969," Federal Register, 45(116):40101, y June 13, 1980.
- 2. Healy, J.W. and R.E. Baker, " Radioactive Cloud-Dose Calculations,"
In: Meteorology and Atomic Energy, 1968, D.H. Slade (ed.), U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., July 1968.
- 3. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, " Report of Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation," ICRP Publication 2, 1959.
- 4. Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S.
Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, Appendix 6: Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences, WASH-1400, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., October 1975.
- 5. Calculations of Reactor Accident Consequences, Version 2-CRAC2, SAND 81-1994 (Draft Report), NUREG/CR-2326, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, July 1981.
- 6. Final Environmental Statement, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2, NUREG-0775, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wasnington, D.C., September 1981.
- 7. Ostmeyer, R.M., "Radionuclide Inventory impacts on Reactor Accident Consequences," ANS Transactions, November 1981.
- 8. Liquid Pathway Generic Study, NUREG-0440, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wasnington, D.C., February 1978.
- 9. Final Environmental Statement, WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2, Docket No. 50-397, NUREG-0812, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., December 1981.
- 10. Levenson, M. and F. Rahn, " Realistic Estimates of the Consequences of Nuclear Accidents," Nuclear Technology, 53:99-110, May 1981.
1 11. Warman, E.A., Assessment of the Radiological Consequences of Postulated Reactot Accidents (presented at Second International Conference on Nuclear Tecnnology Transfer, Buenos Aires, Argentina, November 1982), Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., Boston, Massachusetts. 7.1-22 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 , ER-OL l Il kJ TABLE 7.1-1 ACCIDENT CLASSIFICATION 1.0 Trivial Incidents 2.0 Small Release Outside Containment 3.0 Radwaste System Failure 3.1 Equipment Leakage or Malfunction w/25% Waste Gas Decay Tank Release 3.2 Equipment Leakage or Malfunction w/100% Waste Gas Decay Tank Release 3.3 Rupture of Liquid Waste Storage Tank 4.0 FissionProductstoPrimarySystem(BWR) 5.0 Fission Products to Primary and Secondary Systems (PWR) 5.1 Fuel Cladding Defects and Steam Gene,*ator Leak 5.2 Off-Design Transients that Induce Fuel Failures Above those Expected and Steam Generator Leak 5.3 Steam Generator Tube Rupture 6.0 Refueling Accidents 6.1 Fuel Bundle Drop 6.2 Heavy Object Drop onto Fuel in Core 7.0 Spent Fuel Handling Accident l 7.1 Fuel Assembly Drop into Fuel Storage Pool 7.2 Heavy Object Drop onto Fuel Rack 7.3 Fuel Cask Drop 8.0 Accidents Considered in Design Bases Evaluations 8.1 Small Loss-of-Coolant-Accident (LOCA), Pipe Break 8.2 Large LOCA, Pipe Break 8.3 Break in Letdown Line from Primary System that Penetrates Containment 8.4 Rod Ejection Accident 8.5 Steamline Break Outside Containment 9.0 Accidents more Severe than Design Basis Accidents 9.1 Interfacing System LOCA 9.2 Loss and Nonrestoration of Onsite and Offsite Power with Failure of Steam Turbine-Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump 9.3 PWR-3 Sequence 9.4 PWR-7 Sequence (basemat melt-through) O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 7.1-2 O (Sheet 1 of 2)
SUMMARY
OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS Dose, Rem Organ of Exclusion Area Low Population Accident Reference Boundary (1.2 mi.) Zone (4.0 mi.) Equipment leakage or mal- Total body < . 001 < .001 function resulting in Skin .003 .001 release of 25% of the Thyroid .023 .008 normal inventory of a waste gas decay tank Release of 100% of the Total body .012 .004 normal inventory of a Skin .014 .004 waste gas decay tank Thyroid .100 .031 Radioactive liquid waste Total body < .001 (.001 storage tank f ailures Skin <.001 (.001 Thyroid .002 (.001 Fuel failure above those Total body <.001 (.001 expected and steam gen- Skin < . 001 (.001 erator leak Thyroid <.001 (.001 Steam generator tube Total body <.001 (.001 i rupture Skin <.001 (.001 Thyroid .17 .051 Fuel bundle drop Total body <.001 .001 Skin <.001 .001 Thyroid <.001 (.001 Heavy object drop onto Total body <.001 (.001 fuel in core Skin .004 .001 Thyroid <.001 (.001 Fuel assembly drop in fuel Total body < 001 (.001 storage pool Skin (..001 (.001 Thyroid (.001 (.001 0
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 7.1-2 (contd.) (Sheet 2 of 2)
SUMMARY
OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSE0VENCES OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS Dose, Rem Organ of Exclusion Area Low Population Accident Reference Boundary (1.2 mi.) Zone (4.0 mi.) Heavy object drop onto fuel Total body <.001 (.001 rack Skin .004 .001 Thyroid <.001 (.001 Sudden rupture in reactor Total body <.001 (.001 coolant system pipe Skin 4.001 (.001 (small pipe break) Thyroid <.001 (.001 Sudden rupture in reactor Total body .001 .002 coolant system pipe Skin .001 .002 (large pipe break) Thyroid .17 .13 Rupture of the letdown line Total body <.001 (.001 outside containment Skin <.001 (.001 Thyroid .041 .012 Rod ejection accident Total body <.001 (.001 Skin <.001 (.001 Thyroid .061 .094 Steamline break outside Total body <.001 (.001 containment Skin <.001 (.001 Thyroid <.001 (.001 l 1 O l l l l g - - - - - -
l WNP-1/4 ER-0L TABLE 7.1-3 PARAMETERS USED FOR CALCULATING SUBMERSION AND INHALATION DOSES FOLLOWING ACCIDENTAL ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES Parameter 1 E Ea(a) fak Nuclide (Mev/ dis) (Mev7 dis) (rem /gCi inhaled) 85mKr 1.5E-1 1.6E-3 -- 85K r 2.lE-3 2.0E-1 -- 87K r 1.4E+0 1.3E-0 -- 88K r 1.7E+0 3.2E-1 -- 131mXe 3.3E-3 -- -- 133mXe 3.3E-1 -- -- 133Xe 3.0E-2 3.9E-2 -- 135mXe 4.2E-l -- -- 135Xe 2.4E-1 2.3E-1 -- 1311 3.7E-1 1.lE-1 1.48E+0 132I 2.4E+0 3.9E-1 5.36E-2 1331 4.8E-l 3.7E-1 3.98E-1 134I 2.0E+0 5.9E-1 2.51E-2 1351 1.8E+0 2.5E-1 1.24E-1 (a) Corrected for penetration to a tissue depth of 7 mg/cm2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 7.1-4 CORE INVENTORY
- OF NOBLE GASES AND 10 DINES i
Isotope Fuel Activity, Ci Gap Activity, Ci Kr 83m 1.37 (+07) 1.08 (+04) Kr 85m 3.21 (+07) 4.78 (+04) Kr 85 2.06 (+05) 5.51 (+05) Kr 87 5.85 (+05) 2.51 (+04) Kr 88 8.20 (+07) 7.76 (+04) Xe 131m 6.10 (+05) -6.72 (+04) Xe 133m 4.47 (+06) 8.83 (+04) Xe 133 1.81 (+08) 8.00 (+06) Xe 135m 4.81 (+07) 1.18 (+04) Xe 135 2.67 (+07) 1.74 (+05) Xe 138 1.76 (+08) 1.39 (+04) I 131 1.12 (+08) 1 47 (+06) I 132 1.30 (+08) 7.16 (+04) I 133 1.90 (+08) 2.70 (+05) I 134 2.42 (+08) 1.49 (+04) I 135 1.92 (+08) 8.67 (+04)
*For conservatism, core inventory is based upon 3876 MWt (102% of 3800 MWt).
O E --
c WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 7.1-5 NOBLE GAS AND IODINE CONCENTRATIONS IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY COOLANT SYSTEMS 1 Isotope Reactor Coolant, uCi/gm Secondary Coolant, uCi/gm Kr 83m 2.4(-02) 6.6 (-09) Kr 85m 1.3(-01) 3.5 (-08) Kr 85 1.9(-01) 5.3 (-08) Kr 87 6.8 (-02) 1.8 (-08) Kr 88 2.3(-01) 6.3 (-08) Xe 131m 1.3(-01) 3.6 (-08) Xe 133m 2.5(-01) 7.1 (-08) Xe 133 2.1 (+01) 5.8 (-06) Xe 135m 1.5 (-02) 4.1 (_09) Xe 135 4.0 (-01) 1.1 (-07) Xe 138 5.0 (-02) 1.4 (-08) I 131 5.1 (-01) 2.5 (-07) I 132 1.2 (-01) 5.8 (-08) I 133 6.0 (-01) 2.8 (-07) I 134 5.5(-02) 2.6(-08) I 135 2.6 (-01) 1.2 (-07) O l O I Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 ER-OL TABLE 7.1-15 i ACTIVITY RELEASED TO THE ENVIRONMENT AS A RESULT OF I l A SUDDEN RUPTURE IN A REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM PIPE (SMALL PIPE BREAK) i t Isotope Activity, Ci i Kr 83m 1.3 -02 Kr 85m 7.3 -02 Kr 85 4.7 -01 Kr 87 2.8 -02 Kr 88 1.1 -01 ' Xe 131m 7.6 -01 Xe 133m 1.4 -01 Xe 133 1.3 -01 , Xe 135m 2.8 -02 Xe 135 2.2 -01 Xe 138 3.8 -03 i I 131 1.5 -02 i I 132 2.9 -03 ' I 133 1.7 -02 t I 134 1.3 -03 ! I 135 7.6 -03 , l O l 1 5 i i l l l t O l l, ) Amendment 1 (Feb 83) i
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 7.1-15a h DOSE EQUIVALENT FROM A SUDDEN RUPTURE IN A REACTOR , COOLANT SYSTEM PIPE - SMALL PIPE BREAK (6 in. or less) Dose Equivalent, Rem Location Whole Body Skin Thyroid (gama) (beta) Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) (.001 (.001 (.001 Low Population Zone (LPZ) (.001 (.001 (.001 O O
WNP-1/4 ER-0L () TABLE 7.1-16 ACTIVITY RELEASED TO THE ENVIRONMENT AS A RESULT OF A SUDDEN RUPTURE IN A REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM PIPE (LARGE PIPE BREAK)- 1 i Accumulated Release. Ci Isotope 0 2 Hrs. 3 Hrs. 1 Day 4 Days 30 Days Kr 83m 0 9.62 -01 1.74 1.84 1.84 1.34 Kr 85m 0 5.20 1.38 +01 1.88 +01 1.90 +01 1.90 +01 Kr 85 0 6.94 +01 2.77 +02 8.52 +02 2.08 +03 1.27 +04
- Kr 87 0 1.94 2.88 2.91 2.91 2.91 J
Kr 88 0 7.75 .l.71 +01 1.97 +01 1.98 +01 1.98 +01 Xe 131m 0 8.46 3.36 +01 9.91 +01 2.33 +02 3.13 +02 i Xe 131m 0 1.11 +01 4.27 +01 1.17 +02 2.16 +02 2.33 +02 Xe 133 0 1.02 +03 4.01 +03 1.15 +04 2.50 +04 5.13 +04 l Xe 135m 0 2.72 8.93 1.48 +01 1.55 +01 1.55 +01 Xe 135 0 2.11 +01 7.43 +01 1.55 +02 1.77 +02 1.77 +02 Xe 138 0 3.01 -01 3.03 -01 3.03 -01 3.03 -01 3.03 -01 I 131 0 1.46 +01 3.10 +01 6.57 +01 1.32 +02 3.32 +02 . I 132 0 6.12 -01 8.28 -01 8.61 -01 8.61 -01 3.61 -01 I 133 0 2.66 5.29 9.34 1.20 +01 1.22 +01 I 134 0 1.03 -01 1.13 -01 1.14 -01 1.14 -01 1.14 -01 I 135 0 8.23 -01 1.44 1.91 1.97 1.97 O i 1 1 O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 7.1-16a DOSE EQUIVALENT FROM A SUDDEN RUPTURE IN A REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM PIPE - LARGE PIPE BREAK Dose Equivalent, Rem location Whole Body Skin Thyroid (gama) (beta) Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) .001 .001 .17 Low Population Zone (LPZ) .002 .002 .13 O O
O O WNP-1/4 O ER-OL TABLE 7.1-20 REBASELINED RSS PWR ACCIDENT RELE ASE CATEGORIES Probability Fraction of Core Inventory Released Per (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Lt) Accident Reactor Time Duration Warning Enep8tu/hr) y Xe-Kr ! Cs-Rb Te-Sb Ba-Sr Ru La l1 Sequence Year (hr) (hr) (hr) (10 Event V 2 x 10-6 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.64 0.82 0.41 0.1 0.04 0.006 TMLB 3 x 10-6 2.5 0.5 1.0 170 1.0 0.31 0.39 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.002 PWR-3 3 x 10-6 5.0 1.5 2.0 6 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.02 0.03 0.003 PWR-7 Melt 4 x 10-5 10.0 10.0 1.0 N/A 6x10-3 2x10-5 1x10-5 2x10-5 lx10-6 lx10-6 2x10-7 (a) Time interval between start of hypothetical accident (shutdown) and release of radioactive material to the atmosphere. (b) Total time during which the major portion of the radioactive material is released to the atmosphere. , (C) Time interval between recognition of impending release (decision to initiate public protective measures) and the release of radioactive caterial to the atmosphere. (d)0rganic iodine is combined with elemental iodines in the calculations. Any error is negligible since the release fraction is relatively small for all large release categories. (e) Includes Ru, Rh, Co, Mo, Tc. (f) Includes Y, La, Zr, Nb, Ce, Pr, Nd, Np, Pu, Am, Cm. Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
\
TABLE 7.1-21 PERMANENT RESIDENT POPULATION PROJECTED TO YEAR 2010 hadsum (Hl) Sector ( Int r emerit ) Interval N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WhW W WNW WW NNW 0.5 (J.5) 1 0 0 0 0 0 s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- O O O O O O O O O l.5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- 3. 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 7 0 0 13 15 45 15 2.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 8 0 0 13 lb 15 15 2.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.5 9 0 0 13 15 15 15 2.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.0 (l.0) to 0 0 In 15 15 15 2.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b.0 18 lb.b 32.4 48 38 55.2 7 3. J 115 66 103.6 173.4 5.4 0 0 0 0 0 7.0 (l.5) 12 16.6 32.4 48 la 55.2 73.2 115 bb 103.6 171.4 5.4 0 0 0 0 0 d.5 13 24.9 48.6 72 57 H2.8 109.8 172.5 99 155.4 260.1 8.1 0 0 0 0 0 10.0 (2.5) 14 24.9 4n.6 72 57 82.8 109.8 172.5 99 155.4 260,1 8.4 0 0 0 0 0 12.5 15 106.8 106.5 157.5 229.3 157.5 154.5 1560.5 39011 12179 515 1044 297 0 0 0 0 15.0 lb 60b.8 106.5 457.5 229.3 157.5 154.5 1560.5 19011 12179 515 1044 297 0 0 0 0 17.5 17 106.8 106.5 157.5 229.3 157.5 154.5 1560.5 19011 12179 515 1044 297 0 0 0 0 20.0 (5.0) le 10b.8 406.5 157.5 229.3 157.5 854.5 1560.5 19011 12179 515 1044 297 0 0 0 0 25.0 19 1808.5 3819 1249 957.5 llo 163.5 3612.5 19494 522.5 764.5 4148 1023 766 159 26 317 30.0 20 1908.5 3819 1249 957.5 118 163.5 3612.5 19494 522.5 764.5 4148 1023 766 159 26 117 15.0 21 604 2135.5 399.5 254.5 7b 97.5 266.5 592 3414 283.5 421 14417 2291 847 448 1018 40.0 22 604 2135.5 399.5 254.5 76 97.5 266.5 512 3414 283.5 421 14417 2291 847 448 1018 45.0 23 115b5 601 683.5 208 143.5 515 1259 till 9493 1593 255 518 11890 1096 485 344 50.0 24 115b5 60s 684 208 144 SIS 1259 till 9493 1593 255 518 11890 1996 4di 314 55.0 JS bus 5 470 470 223 223 44915 764 764 764 764 764 763 2906 581 581 1221 b0.0 26 13 3u 515 515 555 245 lead 1300 830 8 38 8 38 8 3u els 74440 5886 b36 1340 65.0 27 1459 565 3115 601 266 2055 12367 25355 992 912 912 912 3471 694 694 1459 70.0 (15) 2u 1564 309 602 64d 3:30 285 3984 980 980 1765 9eo 979 3724 17551 744 1564 85 29 6175 1070 1793 2237 285 985 3385 4074 3258 3385 3385 3385 12866 1012i 29326 6475 500 (50) 30 7380 1278 3545 2673 827 1177 26820 4044 4044 2942 4044 4044 15375 307o 5557 1380 150 38 16619 28903 530996 24?09 122 Bbl 5191 14464 16149 41727 2664 5797 56830 47987 714027 25011 25014 200 (150) 32 152J1 47046 51178 36339 23206 16269 18603 7499 9086 92964 23597 1522bl5 223370 2461769 636350 15272 O O O
WNP-1/4 ER-0L g Q CHAPTER 8 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF PROJECT OPERATION 8.1 BENEFITS OF OPERATION l1 The primary benefits of WNP-1 are those inherent in the value of the gen-erated electricity which is delivered to consumers throughout the Pac 1fic Northwest as well as adjacent regions which may have a need to rely on Paci-fic Northwest power. The importance of WNP-1 to the region's power pool has been presented in Section 1.1 of the ER-CP.(l) Tangible benefits to be gained by operation of WNP-1 are shown in Table 8.1-1. 8.1.1 Employment and Income Benefits The staff required to operate WNP-1 represents prime industrial jobs for the area. The plant will require approximately 485 permanent employees to oper-ate the facilities plus a Supply System headquarters staff of approximately 215 persons. Nearly all of these people will reside in the Tri-City area. At an initial average salary of $40,000 per year, the permanent staff of 700 1 has an associated payroll of $28,000,000 annually.(a) Each industrial workpr is estimated to generate employment for 1.5 related indirect work- , ers.t2) Therefore, total payroll income attrioutable to WNP-1 will be about $60 million annually. Q U Assuming 45% of payrolls is spent in retail trade and an estimated future 5% tax rate, the associated annual sales tax is $1,300,000. These sales tax revenue estimates are conservative since they do not include revenue from gasoline or liquor taxes whose rates are relatively high in Washington State. A privilege tax will be paid on the energy generated. This tax at a rate of 1.5 percent of the wholesale value of the electricity will be aoout
$8,000,000 per year. Of tnis privilege tax 22 percent is returned to the l1 nearby counties, and at least 35 percent of this portion must go to the counties' schools. In recent years, however, the state has been attempting to equalize funds on a per pupil basis. Consequently, the privilege tax r portion for schools may have little net effect on the per child budget of the school districts near the plants. In addition, 28% of the privilege tax goes to nearby cities, fire districts, and library districts and the other 50% goes to the State.
(a) Operation costs and benefits are stated as escalated costs based on the l1 first full year of operation at design power level. The assumed cost escalation until that first year of operation is 8% per year. t O v . 8.1-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-0L Purchases of fuel plus other materials and services also will be subject to the 5% retail trade or use tax. Annual tax payments are estimated to be 1l about $4,000,000. s About 70 percent of the energy generated by the f acility will De delivered to consumers within the State. These sales are taxed at the point of use by a State public utility tax of 3.6 percent of the utilities' gross revenues and would generate about $14,000,000 of annual taxes on the generation cost. If energy is available to meet demands, this tax revenue would be generated with or without the plant (although the taxes could be different depending on the cost of electricity). Only if demands would not be met without WNP-1 could incremental tax revenue be associated with the project. Since the 1 plant is needed to meet the energy demand, all of these tax revenues could be directly associated with the generation costs for the energy from the plant. About 30 percent of the energy will De delivered outside the State, and the State imposes a manufacturing tax on this portion at a 0.44% rate resulting in an annual tax of about $700,000. 8.1.3 Regional Benefits of an Adequate Energy Supply The consequences of not meeting load growth requirements are as important to the residents of the region as are the benefits to be darived from operation of WNP-1. These consequences would depend, of course, upon the method used to shed load or to curtail availability of electrical power. Many of the socioeconomic consequences are difficult or impossible to evaluate in quan-titative or qualitative terms. As an example, reduced street and highway lighting would most certainly have adverse effects on public safety, highway accidents and crime rates. If power shortages result in rationing of elec-tricity to the consumer, the region's standard of living will deteriorate because comforts, conveniences, the very necessities are dependent upon an abundant and dependable supply of electricity. 1 If WNP-1 is not operated, the Pacific Northwest average energy deficits would increase by about 875 MWe af ter 1988. The actual effects of the deficits would probably be distributed throughout the Pacific Northwest. There probably would be a general reduction in electricity usage equivalent to the amount used in a large city such as Portland or Seattle. Expansion of industrial activities probably would be slowed, resulting in migration to other states and possibly a general reduction of the standard of living. The consequences of failure to meet load growth demands would depend upon the method used to curtail the supply of electricity. A permanent defici-ency in electric power generating sources would result first in a shut down i of large industrial loads. Long-term shut down of these facilities would undoubtedly reduce the residential demand as a result of reduced employment and income in the area. Because the electroprocess industries use large quantities of electricity per employee, they probably would be among the first industries shutdown if there is a permanent electricity shortage. The electroprocess industrial 8.1-2 O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-0L l' V) load is approximately 3500 MWe. The amount of energy produced by WNP-1 cor-responds to about 2000 direct electroprocessing employees, and about 6,000 indirect employees.(3) In addition, on a nationwide basis, the aluminum 1 produced in these plants creates employment of another 38,000 persons. .If other industries were shutdown because of insufficient electricity, the reduction of employment would be much larger per unit of electric load 1 curtailment. Every facet of this region's economy,_ standard of living, and public welfare depends upon reliable electric service and any Dlackout of any significant length of time is an emergency. Uninterrupted service of 100 percent reli-ability in the low voltage distribution system is not attainable. Even to attempt such an oDjective, if technically feasible, would be economically prohibitive since it would involve essentially a duplication of facilities to every consumer. It is not feasible to attain 100 percent reliability for low voltage systems, and it is also very difficult to attain 100 percent reliability at the higher voltages where power is transmitted with compli-cated and costly equipment. Failures in high voltage systems with their corresponding large release of energy are quite often devastating and dif-ficult to quickly repair. Providing adequate generating capacity to meet anticipated loads reduces the possibility of overloading existing transmis-sion and generating sources, causing premature component failures. Opera-tion of WNP-1 will provide diversification, and enhanced dependability, of 1 the Pacific Northwest energy supply which is presently two-thirds hydro. O O Moreover, failure of generating sources, particularly when there is a shortage of generating capacity, usually has the most impact because of the regional effects in comparison to local effects from f ailures of load dis-tribution systems. The estimated cost for regional olackouts is about
$21,000,000 per hour of outage.(3) 1 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.1
- 1. Environmental Report-Construction Permit Stage, WPPSS Nuclear Project Number 1, Docket Nos. 50-460/513, Wasnington Public Power Supply System, Richland, Washington, 1974.
- 2. Siting Energy Facilities at Camp Gruber, Oklanoma, Federal Energy Administration, Wasnington, D.C. ,1975, pp. B.1-B.4.
1
- 3. The Role of the Bonneville Power Administration in the Pacific North-west Power Supply System, Including its Participation in the Hydrotner-mal Power Program, Appendix C, 8PA Power Marketing, Bonneville Power Administration, Draft Environmental Statement, July 22, 1977, pp.
IV-ll8 and IV-261. O V 8.1-3 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 8.1-1 ANNUAL BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATION OF WNP-1 Direct Benefits Expected generation in kilowatt-hours .................. 7.7 x 109 Capacity in kilowatts .......................... 1.25 x 106 1 Proportional distribution of delivered electrical energy (kwbrs) Industrial ............................. 3800 x 106 Commercial ............................. 1100 x 106 Residential ............................. 2400 x 106 Other ................................ 400 x 106 Expected average annual Btu (in millions) of steam sold from the facility. NONE Expected delivery of other beneficial products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE Revenues from delivered benefits: Electrical energy generated ...................... $551,000,000(a) l1 Steam sold .............................. NONE Other products ............................ NONE Employment (total for both units). . . . . . . Annual operation . . . . . . $23,000,000 Employment (Operation Persons over plant life) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 Indirect Benefits (as appropriate) > Taxes: $ During operation ........................... 128,000,000 D Regional product as man hours per year (b) ......... ....... 222 x 106 i Sy 1 rt - (a) The Supply System is empowered to design, construct, and operate generation and - transmission facilities but does not make retail sales of electric power. E d (b) The total of industrial plus commercial power disti ibution divided by 22 kwbr/ man-hr. cn LJ v 9 O O
WNP-l/4 ER-OL O bl 8.2 COSTS OF OPERATION l1 8.2.1 Internal Costs The internal costs associated with WNP-1 can be separated into two categor-ies: (1) the capital costs incurred to construct the facility and (2) the annual costs of operation. Table 8.2-1 shows the estimated costs of con-struction; Table 8.2-2 shows the estimated costs of operation. Table 8.2-2 also includes levelized annual fuel and 0&M costs. All annual costs, except l1 for the interest and depreciation, are subject to approximately the same degree of inflation. 8.2.1.1 Capital Costs of Construction There are no capital costs connected with land acquisition since the land is leased by the Supply System from the US D0E. The land rental payments are included in the operating and maintenance costs. The capital costs associated with WNP-1 construction have several components as listed below. Item ($ in thousands) Direct Construction Costs $1,808,699 Engineering and Construction Mgmt 391,821 ()
's/
Owners Cost Contingencies 3:5,790 204,918 Nuclear Fuel 247,290 1
. Interest, Financing and Reserves 1,299,482 Total Plant Cost $4,268,000 The project is connected to the Northwest Power Grid in the BPA 500-kV Howard J. Ashe Substation located approximately 6,500 feet northwest of the site on the Hanford Reservation. These new transmission lines will also be used to provide startup power for the plant. Availability of emergency shutdown power required additional new 230-kV transmission lines which con-nect with local power facilities at the Ashe Substation.
Tne construction of 500-kV lines to the Ashe Substation from Lower Monumen- l1 tal, Hanford and WNP-2 would have occurred without the construction of this power plant. The same is true of the 230 kV lines connecting the Ashe, Mid-way and White Bluffs substations. Therefore, these lines are not considered in this discussion. The cost of constructing the transmission f acilities, exclusive of the main step-up transformers, is estimated to be $1,440,000. l1 l n 8.2-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 ER-OL 8.2.1.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs h The initial core fuel, scheduled for loading in December 1985, is estimated to cost $82,200,000 exclusive of applicable capitalized intercst. The Supply System presently estimates that fuel valued at $2,500,000 will be 1 consumed during test and startup activities prior to co;-nercial operation. The annual fuel costs af ter startup vary with the energy output from the plants. The estimated costs for operating WNP-1 are listed in Table 8.2-2. Such costs were determined in a manner consistent with generally accepted ac-counting principles and conventional public utility practices. 1l 8.2.1.3 Plant Decommissioning Costs The plant decommissioning will occur at the end of the project life - cur-rently estimated to be 40 years. The Supply System presently estimates that 1 $160 million in 1988 dollars will be sufficient to provide for dismantlement 50 years after final shutdown. Funding will be provided by a uniform annual charge to the power purchasers; collections will De deposited in a segre-gated fund and reinvested until needed. 8.2.2 External Costs No adverse socioeconomic impact is expected from operation of WNP-1. Because adequate housing and public services were available for the construction force, the permanent operations staff will not create incremental demands. The Supply System has conducted a program to monitor and mitigate socio-economic impacts associated with construction of WNP-1. This program has been successful in alleviating potential impacts and it will continue through the balance of construction. The in-migrating operational staff, coming after the three-unit construction peak (1981), is not expected to create incremental demands for services or have a major impact on the local economy. The addition of operations personnel will not occur at a time or location where communities are experiencing severe socioeconomic impacts. 1 The increased costs to local governments for services required by the per-manent operational staff and their f amilies are expected to be compensated for by local taxes paid by individual workers who become permanent resi-dents. In addition, the project will provide abundant tax revenues to the area taxing districts from the privilege (generation) tax ($18 million/yr) and from the sales tax on fuel reloads (approximately $3 million/yr of wnich 8-10% goes to local areas) during plant operation. Long-term external costs associated with land use on the site area will be minimal. Fisning on the Columbia River will not be limited by plant opera-tion. Land occupied by the plant and support facilities is on the Hanford Reservation and was not previously available for public use. 8.2-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 8.2-1 ESTIMATED DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS (FERC ACCOUNTS ONLY) PRIOR TO OPERATION OF WNP-1 FERC Account 103 3 320 Land & Land Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 321 Structures & Improvements .......... 1,090,272 322 Reactor Plant Equipment ........... 837,317-323 Turbogenerator Unit ............. 566,329 324 Accessory Electric Equipment . . ....... 720,318 325 Miscellaneous Power Plant Equipment ..... 245,973 Total Nuclear Production Plant . .... 3,460,209 353 Station Equipment .............. 0 399 Other Tangible Property ........... 198,497 Total 33,658,706 Note: These costs total less than the costs on Page 8.2-1 because the costs on Page 8.2-1 include all costs prior to commercial operation and consequently include other items such as nuclear fuel, operational spares, reserves, and interest on fuel. l Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l l {
l l l WNP-1/4 l 1 ER-OL TABLE 8.2-2 h ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF OPERATION OF WNP-1(a) FY 1988 Levelized Cost Cost (b) (1035) (mills /kwn) Fixed Annual Costs: Interr.st . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $284,684 Depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92,210 Operation and Maintenance .......... 77,511 26 Other Net Costs ............... 8,995 Total Fixed Annual Costs . . . . . . . 5463,400 Variable Annual Costs: Fuel Cost (c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $107,967 39 Other Net Costs ............... (19,909) Total Variable Annual Costs ..... $ 88,058 Total Annual Costs ................. $551,458 Generation (kWh6 x 10 )(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,163 Generation Cost: (rrills per kwh) . . . . . . . . . . 77.0 (a) Based on estimated Supply System costs of operation; payments under Net-Billing Agreements and Project Exchange Agreements will differ from amounts shown. (b) Based on assumed escalation rate of 8% per annum for 40 years, 9 percent interest, and total production for 40 years. (c) 0 65% capacity factor. Amendment 1 (Feb 83) G-
WNP-1/4 I ER-0L 4
-O
(./ . CHAPTER 9 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES j Alternative sources for the energy to be supplied by WNP-1 and alternative
; sites for the plant were considered in the Construction Permit proceedings.
Conclusions reached at that stage remain valid and, consistent with NRC rule- 1 i making (Reference 1.0-3 and 1.0-4), discussion of such alternatives is not j warrented at the present Operating License stage. l r I 1 J I O l ] 4 i i i I l l l l i i l O 9.0-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l
WNP 1/4 ER-OL () ,/ x CHAPTER 10 PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Design alternatives were detailed in Chapter 10 of the Environmental Report-Construction Permit Stage (ER-CP). With minor exceptions, WNP-1 is designed and constructed, and will be operated as described therein. One exception involves the sanitary waste system described in Subsection 3.7.1. As noted there, the septic tank / drain field system for each plant has been replaced by a central sanitary waste treatment facility using aeration lagoons and stabilization ponds. Although the preferred system has not changed, there have been minor design changes in the condenser cooling and blowdown system. Three circular mechani- 1 j cal-draft towers, each with 19 cells, have been constructed (see Subsection 3.4.1), whereas the towers envisioned at the CP stage were of a rectilinear configuration (2 towers, 15 cells each). The blowdown discharger system re-mains a single-port discharge, however, instead of a 24-inch round pipe, the exit configuration is an 8-inch x 52-inch rectangular slot (see Figure 3.4-5). The radwaste systems remain essentially as described at the CP stage. The liquid radwaste system employs evaporators instead of reverse osmosis units for waste concentration. The solidification agent for the solid radwaste sys-tem is Portland cement rather than area formaldehyde as previously planned, l o 10.0-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
e WNP-l/4 ER-OL CHAPTER 11 BENEFIT-COST SLMMARY j 11.1 BENEFITS The primary benefits to be derived from the operation of WNP-1 include about j 7.7 billion kwhr of baseload electrical energy that the plant will produce
- annually (assuming operation at 70% capacity f actor). The benefits will 1 also include the improved reliability of the Pacific Northwest generating ,
system with the 1250 MWe of capacity contr13uted by WNP-1. Secondary benefits are related to employment of operating personnel (totEl-
- ing between 25,000 and 30,000 man-yrs over plant life) and taxes pa;J to the State and local taxing districts.
Benefits are summarized on Table 11.1-1. i i I lO 1 i l l i l 4 i 1 l i i i O 11.1-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) J w- , - --r,,, -
,,,-,m , , , ,,,v, , w - , , , , , .,- ,.,n- , , e- - , , , m,_._, ,, ,m., , - , , , , _ _ , , , . , _ _ _ - , , _ , , - , - - , _ _ _ _ , _ _ , , - , _ , _ _
WNP-1/4 ER-OL TABLE 11.1-1 h BENEFITS OF OPERATING WNP-1 Benefit MagnitJde Section Primary Electrical Energy 7.7 x 109 kwhr /yr 8.1 Additional Capacity 1250 MWe 8.1 Diversity of Fuel Supply 8.1 Secondary Employment 700 jobs 8.1 Payroll $28 million/yr 8.1 Taxes $28 million/yr 8.1 O l l O Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
b WNP-1/4 ER-OL
. s s- 11.2 COSTS The economic costs of plant Operation include fuel costs and operation and maintenance costs. The cost of decommissioning is an additional cost of
, ooeration. No significant socioecoromic costs are expected from routine operation of the plant. Costs in this category attributable to the project are associ-ated almost exclusively with plant construction. Environmental costs of a nonradiological nature are mostly associated with the disruption and/or occupation of terrestrial habitat. The only such I disturbance due to operation, as opposed to construction, relates to the deposition of cooling tower drift. Design of the makeup water intake and blowdown discharge and the restrictions on effluents are such that no significant aquatic impacts are expected. The radiological environmental costs associated with WNP-1 are detailed in Section 5.2 for routine operation and Sections 7.1 and 7.2 for accidents. These analyses show that the health risks attributable to operation of the plant are exceedingly small. The costs of operating WNP-1 are summarized in Table 11.2-1. O G 1 1 l ( 11.2-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 l ER-OL TABLE 11.2-1 COSTS OF OPERATING WNP-1 Cost Magnitude Section Economic Fuel 15 mills /kwnr (1988$) 8.2 Operation / Maintenance 11 mills / kwhr (19885) 8.2 Decommissioning $160 million (19885) 8.2 Socioeconomic Historic Sites none 2.6 Other negligible 8.2 Environmental (nonrad) Land Resources 15 acres 5.7 Water Consumption 34 cfs 3.3 & 5.7 Water Quality small 5.1 & 5.3 Uranium < 200 tonnes /yr 5.7 Terrestrial Habitat small 2.2 & 5.7 Aquatic Habitat negligible 5.1 Aquatic Biota Impingment/Entrainment negligible 5.1 Thermal Effect very small 5.1 Chemical Effect small 5.3 Air Quality Visible Plume 3,500 hrs /yr 5.1 Comoustion Gases very small 3.7 Environmental (rad) Individuals very small 5.2 General Population negligible 5.2 Accidental risk very small 7.1 l l l ( Amendmenc 1 (Feb 83)
f WNP-1/4 ER-OL O APPENDIX III CALCULATION PARAMETERS RADI0 ACTIVE SOURCE TERMS O O III-l Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-0L 1 !. General
- 1. Maximum core thermal power (MWt) 3800
- 2. Core properties:
- a. Total mass of uranium is 233,844 lbs UO2 . The comparable maximum total plutonium (Pu-239, Pu-240, Pu-241 and Pu-242) could reach approximately 4.4 Kg per assembly in an equilibrium core.
(205 assemblies X 4.4 Kg/ assembly x 2.2 lbs = 1987 lbs Pu) Kg
- b. Percent enrichment of uranium in reload fuel of 3.5 weight percent nominal average U-235 per FSAR Subsection 9.1.2.3.1.
- c. Percent fissile plutonium in reload fuel see figure from FSAR Section 4.3.
- 3. Regulatory Guide 1.112, " Calculations of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Power Reactors", was used to estimate source terms in the pirmary 1l coolant.
- 4. Gaseous effluent tritium released per unit - 1100 Ci/yr Liquid effluent tritium released per unit - 370 Ci/yr II. Primary System
- 1. Primary coolant mass 540,000 lbs
- 2. Primary coolant letdown rate 50 gpm
- 3. Average flow rate cation demineralizer 12 gpm
- 4. Average shim bleed flow 630 gpd III. Secondary System
- 1. Number and type of steam generators 2 once-through steam-generators
- 2. Total steam flow 1.67 X 107 lbs/hr O
III-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL O V III. Secondary System (contd.)
- 3. Mass of steam in each steam generator 10,000 lb i at full power
- 4. Mass of liquid in each steam generator 100,000 lb at full power
- 5. Total mass of coola.it in the secondary 1,000,000 lb system at full pover i 6. Primary to secondary leakage rate used 100 lb/ day j in evaluation
- 7. Babcock and Wilcox Once Through Steam Generators do not have steam generator blowdown and blowdown purification system
- 8. Fraction of steam generator feedwater 0.65%
processed through the condensate demineralizers
! Condensate demineralizer decon- Rb and CS 2 l1 tamination factors Noble Gases 1
~. All others 10
\ 9. Condensate Demineralizers
- a. Average flow rate 1.2 X 107 lbs/hr
- b. Demineralizer type Powdered resin 4 c. Number and size of demineralizers number - six beds, two of which are in standby. Each vessel hold approximately 300 lbs resin under normal operating conditions.
i d. Regeneration frequency none i e. Ultrasonic resin cleaning none
- f. Regenerant volume none l
J
- O
- III-3 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
l i WNP-1/4 l ER-OL i IV. Liquid Waste Processing Systems G,
- 1. a. Flow rates, activities, holdup times, 1 decontamination factors, etc. see Table 3.5-17
- b. RLW demineralizers are mixed-bed nonregenerable
- c. Liquid source term see Table 3.5-18 V. Gaseous Waste Processing System
- 1. Volume of stripped gases, primary coolant see Table 3.5-19
- 2. Gases are directed to the RGW, diluted by a 40 SCFM recirculating 1l nitrogen gas flow to maintain hydrogen concentration below flammabil-ity point. Gases are then compressed to 100 psig, sent through a 1l hydrogen recombiner to remove hydrogen, and directed to one of four waste gas decay tanks. Contents of tank are used as a recirculation stream until 85 psig is reached in the tank. Tank is then isolated and contents may be held for 60 days for decay of short half-lived 1l isotopes before release to the environment. See Table 3.5-20.
- 3. Normal fillup time for a gaseous waste decay tank is 25 days. There are four tanks that are normally filled to 85 psig each. Design pres-sure for the tanks is 200 psig. With a 60 day holdup time there could be at least two empty decay tanks available during normal operations.
- 4. There is a HEPA Filter located downstream of the waste gas decay tanks with a decontamination efficiency for particulates of 99%.
- 5. There is no charcoal delay system.
VI. Ventilation and Exhaust Systems
- 1. a. Main condenser air removal system uses evacuation pumps to remove air and non-condensible gases from the shell side of the conden-sers during operation. Prior to release the gases are treated by a charcoal adsorber with a 90% efficiency for halogens.
- b. Turbine Building leakage is not passed through a HEPA or charcoal adsorber.
- c. The Primary Auxiliary Area vents through a HEPA/ charcoal filter with an efficiency of 90% for halogens and 99% for particulates prior to release.
1l 2. Decontamination factors see Table 3.5-21 0' III-4 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
l l WNP-l/4 l ER-OL m k_,) VI. Ventilation and Exhaust Systems (contd.)
- 3. Gaseous source term see Tables 3.5-22 and 3.5-23
- 4. Releases are assumed ground level with no plume rise at a velocity of approximately 1000 fpm. See Figure 3.1-2 for effluent release points.
- 5. Building volume and purge rates and I frequencies see Table 3.5-21 VII. Solid Waste Processing Systems
- 1. RSW inputs, activities, and bases see Tables 3.5-24 through 3.5-27 i
- 2. There is enough storage capacity for approximately four months decay of radionuclides bgfore shipping assuming a solidification processing rate processing day of one 100 ftJ ratecontainer every five (100 of two containers daysft$)On perashif onet shift thereper is a two wegk (approximate) storage capability. At maximum output of nine 100 ft4 containers per day there is approximately three days of storage capacity.
O V O V III-5 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 ER-0L 1 O APPENDIX IV CALCULA . ION PARAMETERS RADIOLOGICAL DOSE - GASE0US EFFLUENTS O O IV-l Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l - . _ . - -
WNP-1/4 ER-OL WNP-1/4 GASPAR INPUT PARAMETERS Input Parameter Value Source / Comment Distance to Maine (miles 3000 Fraction of year leafy vegetables are grown 0.42 May 15-Oct. 15 Fraction of crop from garden 0.76 Reg. Guide 1.109, Table E-15 Fraction of year cows, goats and beef cattle on pasture 0.5 Fraction of oaily intake of cows / goats / beef cattle derived from pasture while on pasture 1.0 Reg. Guide 1.109, Table E-15 Annual average relative humidity 53.8 Table 2.3-13 Annual average temperature (OF) 53.0 Table 2.3-13 Population within 50 miles of plant and the year that the 336,115 population is used (year 2000) Table 2.1-1 1 Population by sector for each distance See Table 2.1-1 Annual 50-mile milk production (liters /yr) 9.91E+06 Annual 50-mile meat production (kg/yr) 3.54E+06 Annual 50-mile vegetable production (kg/yr) 2.01E+06 Scurce terms See Table IV-1 GALE-Gaseous X/Q values by sector for each distance (recirculation, no decay)(Sec/m3) See Table 5.2-3 (top) X/Q values by sector for each distance (recirculation, Supply System, Rad. Pro-2.26 days decay, undepleted grams Dept. , Calc. Log (Sec/m3) 79-9 X/Q values by sector for each distance (recirculation, 8.0 Calc. Log 79-9 days decay, undepleted (Sec/m3) D/Q values by sector for each distance (1/m2) See Table 5.2-4 Calc. Log 79-9 IV-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) 9
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Input Parameter Value Source / Comment Number of_ special locations 4 1-Location (name) Taylor Flats Directions (sectors) ESE Distance (miles) 3.3 X/Q no decay, undepleted (sec/m3) 3.6E-07 Calc. Log 79-9 X/Q 2.26 days decays) undepleted(sec/m 3.5E-07 Calc. Log 79-9 X/Q 8.0 days(sec/m undepleted decay,3) 2.8E-07 Calc. Log 79-9 D/Q (1/m2) 9.lE-10 2-Location (name) Ringold Direction (sectors) ENE Distance (miles) 3.1 X/Q no dgcay, undepleted (sec/mo ) 3.4E-07 Calc. Log 79-9 X/Q 2.26 days undepleted decay 5) (sec/m 3.4E-07 Calc. Log 79-9 X/Q 8.0 days(sec/m undepleted decay,3) 2.7E-07 Calc. Log 79-9 D/Q (1/m2) 1.lE-09 O (V 3-Location (name) Site Boundary 1 Direction (sectors) SE Distance (miles) 0.5 X/Q no decay, undepleted (sec/m3) 2.lE-05 Calc. Log 79-9 X/Q 2.26 days undepleted decay $) (sec/m 2.1E-05 Calc. Lob 79-9 X/Q 8.0 days(sec/m undepleted decay,3) 1.9E-05 Calc. Log 79-9 D/Q (1/m2) 8.3E-08 4-Location (name) WNP-4 Direction (sectors) NNW Distance (miles) 0.5 X/Q no dgcay, undepletad (sec/m3) 1.5E-05 Calc. Log 79-9 X/Q 2.26 days undepleted decays) (sec/m 1.5E-05 Calc. Log 79-9 X/Q 8.0 days(sec/m undepleted decay,3) 1.4E-05 Calc. Log 79-9 D/Q (1/m2 ) 6.lE-08 O IV-3 Amendment 1 (Feb "')
WNP-l/4 ER-OL WNP-1/4 GASPAR--CALCUL% TION SHEET Calculation for Food Production Within the 50-Mile Zone--Year 2000 Due to lack of information regarding total 50-mile y'ald of food, the following assumptions were made in estimating the SG mile yield; Assumption 1: All food produced within the 50-mile zone is consumed locally. Assumption 2: Total 50-mile food consumption is a close approximation of the total 50-mile yield and should be used until more specific data is available. Assumption 3: The most significant food producting district within the 50-mile zone is the Riverview district (west of Pasco) of 1l 4000 people (1980). The location of the district (in compass sector) is SE 10-20 miles from the plant. The estimated year 2000 population for Riverview district is 6357. (The esti-mate year 2000 population in sector SE 5-10 and 10-20 miles 1l were combined.) Assumption 4: Population consuming irrigated foods is assumed to be one-half the estimated 1980 population of Riverview district of 4000 (6357 in the year 2000). Ten percent of the rest of population is assumed to eat only irrigated produce. The estimated 50-mile population for the year 2000 is 336,115 (Table 2.1-1). 1 Milk Production The estimated milk consumption by maximum indiviauals within the 50-mile zone is 274 lites /yr. Assuming consumption = production: The Yield at Riverview District: 6357 x 274 = 8.71 x 105 liters /yr Total 50-Mile Yield Outside Riverview: (336,115 - 6347)(0.1)(274) = 9.04 x 106 liters /yr. Total 50-Mile Yield of Milk: 9.04 x 106 + 8.71 x 105 = 9.91 x 106 liters /yr O IV-4 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
.= -
! WNP-1/4 ER-OL 3 (d [ Meat (Beef, Park, Poultry) Production 1 ! The estimated meat (beef, pork, poultry) consumption within the 50-mile zone is 98 kg/yr. l1 Yield at Riverview District: 6327 x 98 - 3.12 x 105 kg/yr i
- Total 50-Mile Production Outside Riverview District
l (336,115 - 6357)(0.1)(98) = 3.23 x 106 i Total 50-Mile Yield of Milk: i 3.23 x 106 + 3.12 x 105 = 3.54 x 106 } Vegetable Production 1 1 The estimated consumption of vegetation (excluding leafy vegetables) within the 50-mile zone is 555 kg/yr. [1 Yield at Riverview District: 6327 x 555 - 1.76 x 106 kg/yr i l Total 50-Mile Production Outside Riverview District: ) (336,115 - 6357)(555) = 1.83 x 107 kg/yr i Total 50-Mile Yield of Milk: ) 1.83 x 107 + 1.76 x 106 = 2.01 x 107 kg/yr i l I I { !O IV-5 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) J 4
, , - - - _ . -..-r-. r --,.w--- ,- ., - , . , , , _ _ , . - -,--,,--,w- - , -- -- , - , , - - --
~g , - - - - ,,
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 1 TABLE IV-1 WNP-l SOURCE TERMS--TOTAL ALL POINTS Nuclide Ci/yr Kr 83M 2.0 Kr 85 770.0 Kr 85M 19.0 Kr 87 5.0 Kr 88 25.0 Xe 131M 110.0 Xe 133M 140.0 Xe 133 14,000.0 Xe 135 95.0 Xe 138 2.0 I 131 0.039 I 133 0.033 Mn 54 0.00043 Fe 59 0.00015 Fe 60 0.0015 Sr 89 0.000033 Sr 90 0.0000059 Cs 134 0.00043 Cs 137 0.00074 1 H3 1,100.00 C 14 8.0 Ar 41 25.0 Co 60 0.00067 IV-6 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O
i WNP-1/ 4 ! ER-0L 1 i i. i i 4 l i j APPENDIX V j CALCULATION PARAMETERS 1 j RADIOLOGICAL DOSE - LIQUID EFFLUENTS .i 1 1 J l l 1 1 e i . V-1 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
ENP-1/4 ER-OL WNP-1/4 LADTAP INPUT PARAMETERS Parameter Value Source / Comment Total Discharge (cfs) 7.2 Release Multiplier 1.0 50-Mile Population (Downstream) 75,000 Source Tern Identification See Table V-1 Source Tr,rms Table 5.2-2 Reconceintration 0 ALARA Specifications (Dose to Individual) Shorewidth Factor 0.2 Reg. Guide 1.109, Table A-2 Dilution for Aquatic Foods 1,700 Dilution for Shoreline Activities 17,000 Avg. River Flow = Dilution for Drinking Water 17,000 120,000 cfs Discharge Transit Time (br) 4.5 Transit Time to Drinking Water (hr) 24 Food Transfer Times Maximum and Average (hrs) 12, 24 Reg. Guide 1.109 Fish Consumption (kg/yr) Adult--24.1 1 Teenager--18.2 Child--7.7 Infant--0 Water Consumption (liter /yr) Adult--490.2 ' Teen ger--344.1 Child--344.1 Infant--344.1 ShorelineUsage(hr/yr) Adu l t--10.0 Teenager--57.3 Child--ll.5 Inf an t--0 Swimming (hr/yr) Ad u l t--5.94 Teenager--33.7 i n t-Boating (hr/yr) Adult--7.3 Teenager--l.54 Child--O Infant--0 There are no invertebrates or algae consumption within the 50-mile area. V-2 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
l l WNP-1/4 ER-OL
<- 3 ,
Q Parameter Value Source / Comment l l Selected Location--Richland, Maximum Individual ; 1 . l Change the Standard Usage Parameters Yes Dilution 17,000 Table 5.2-6 Transit Time (hr) 12 Reg. Guide 1.109 Shorewidth Factor 0.2 Reg. Guide 1.109
.ocation Identification 12 mi. dwnstrm.
Fish Consumption (kg/yr) Ad ul t--48.2 Teenager--36.4 ! Child--15.4 Infant--0 Water Consumption (liter /yr) Adult--814
- Teenager--567 Child--567 Infant--346 Shoreline Usage (hr/yr) Adult--298 Teenager--1665 l Child--349 Infant--O Swimming (hr/yr) Adult--59.4 1
( Teenager--336 Child--68.3 Infant--O Boating (hr/yr) Adul t--14 5.2 Teenager--30.8 Child--0 Infant--O Selected Location--Slough, Maximum Individual Change the Standard Usage Parameter Yes Dilution 1,700 Table 5.2-6 Transit Time (hr) 2 i Shorewidth Factor 0.2 Reg. Guide 1.109 Location Identification 5 mi. dwnstrm. The only activity assumed to occur at the slough area is boating (and fishing) l Fishing (kg/yr) Adult--48.2 l Boating (hr/yr) Adult--7.3 Teenager--7.3 Child--0 Infant--O V-3 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 ER-OL Parameter Value Source / Comment Sport Fish Harvest--50-Mile Downstream Population Fish $!arvest (kg/yr) 1.4E+04 1 Diluulon 17,000 Transit Time (hr) 8 Reg. Guide 1.109 Commercial Fish Harvest--50-Mile Downstream Population There is no commercial fish harvest. Sport Invertebrates Harvest--50-Mile Downstream Population There is no sport invertebrates harvest. Commercial Invertebrates Harvest--50-Mile Downstream Population There is no commercial invertebrates harvest. Population Drinking Water--50-Mile Downstream Population Population 75,000 Dilution 17,000 Transit Time (hr) 24 Number of Water Treatments 1 Population Shoreline Recreation--50-Mile Downstream Population Usage (manhours) 3.28E+06 Dilution 17,000 Transit Time (hr) 4 Shorewidth Factor 0.2 Location Identification Richland, Avg. Indv. 1 Usage (manhours) 1.93E+06 - Dilution 17,000 Transit Time (br) 4 Location Identification Richland, Avg. Indv. Population Boating 0.65E+05 Dilution 17,000 Transit Time (br) 4 Location Identification Richland, Avg. Indv. V-4 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O , l
2 WNP-1/4 ER-0L
/"N 4
Q Parameter Value Source / Comment Food-Vegetation Pathway ].
- Total 50-mile population of 251,684 is used to calculate the food consumption in all food pathways.
Vegetation irrigation rate 150 , (liter / meter 2 Yield (kg/meterfmonth)
) 5 Growing Period (days) 70 Total 50-Mile Yield (kg) 1.48E +07 J
For Vegetation Maximum Adult Consumption 529 (kg/yr) Maximum Teenager Consumption 670
- (kg/yr)
Maximum Child Consumption 559 (kg/yr) Average Adult Consumption 265 (kg/yr) Average Teenager Consumption 335 (kg/yr) O V Average Child Consumption (kg/yr) 280 1 Transfer Time (Maximum Individual--hr) 24 Transfer Time ( Average Individual--hr) 12 For Vegetation, Riverview, Maximum Individual Dilution 17,000 Production (kg/yr) 1.llE+06 Transit Time (hr) 12 Location Identification Riverview, Max. Indy, For Vegetation, Richland, Average Individual Dilution 17,000 Production (kg/yr) 1.37E+07 , Transit Time (hr) 24 i Location Identification Richland, Avg. Indv. i O V-5 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-0L Parameter Value Source / Comment Food--Leafy Vegetables Pathway l Irrigation Rate (liter / l meter 2/ month) 200 Yield (kg/ meter 2) 1.5 Growing Period (days) 70 Total 50-Mile Yield (kg) 8.0E+05 For Leafy Vegetables Maximum Adult Consumption (kg/yr) 29 Maximum Teenage Consumption (kg/yr) 36 Maximum Child Consumption (kg/yr) 29 Average Adult Consumption (kg/yr) 14 Average Teenage Consumption (kg/yr) 18 Average Child Consumption (kg/yr) 15 For Leafy Vegtables, Richland--Average Individual Oilution 17,000 Production (kg/yr) 7.4E+05 Transit Time (hr) 24 Location Identification Richland, Avg. Indy. Food--Milk Pathway Irrigation Rate (liter / meter 2/ nonth) 200 Yield (liters / meter 2) 1.3 Growing Period (days) 30 Total 50-Mile Yield (liters) 7.3 E +06 Maximum Adult Consumption (kg/yr) 224 Maximum Teenage Consumption (kg/yr) 408 Maximum Child Consumption (kg/yr) 346 Average Adult Consumption (kg/yr) 112 Average Teenage Consumption (kg/yr) 204 Average Child Consumption (kg/yr) 173 1l V-6 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 ER-OL Parameter Value Source / Comment For Milk Pathway, Richland--Average Individual Dilution 17,000 Production (kg/yr) 6.8E+06 i Transit Time (br) 24 Reg. Guide 1.109 l1 i Location Identification Richland, Avg. Indv.
- Food--Meat Pathway
< Irrigation Rate (liter /
meter 2/ month) 160 Yield (kg/ meter 2) 2 y Growing Period (days) 130 Total 50-Mile Yield (kg) 2.63E +06 Maximum Adult Consumption
; (kg/yr) 119 j Maximum Teenage Consumption (kg/yr) 74 Maximum Child Consumption l (kg/yr) 46 , Average Adult Consumption l (kg/yr) 60 l Average Teenage Consumption
- (kg/yr) 37 i
/ Average Child Consumption (kg/yr) 23 i
j For Meat Pathway, Richland--Average Individual Dilution 17,000
, Production 2.4E+06 Transit Time (hr) 24 Location Identification Richland, Avg. Indy.
i Biota i Dilution 17,000 j Transit Time (hr) 12 l 4 ! V-7 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) i I 4
, _ . _ _ _ .- ,____-_.m._ ..-. .. , - . --
,m _ . _ . . . -
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 1 TABLE V-1 llll WNP-1 LIQUID EFFLUENTS Corrosion and Activiation Products I Nuclide Total (Ci/yr) CR 51 0.00014 MN 54 0.00100 FE 55 0.00012 FE 59 0.00008 C0 59 0.00520 C0 60 0.00880 ZR 95 0.00140 NB 95 0.00200 NP 239 0.00008 Fission Products Nuclide Total (Ci/yr) BR 83 0.00004 RB 86 0.00002 l SR 89 0.00003 0.00002 SR 91 Y 91M 0.00001 MO 99 0.05200 TC 99M 0.03500 RU 103 0.00014 RU 106 0.00240 AG 110M 0.00044 TE 127M 0.00002 i TE 127 0.00004 TE 129M 0.00011 TE 129 0.00007 l I 130 0.00009 TE 131M 0.00006 I 131 0.02200 TE 132 0.00130 I 132 0.00200 I 133 0.01900 I 134 0.00002 CS 134 0.02300 I 135 0.00560 CS 136 0.00260 CS 137 0.03200 BA 137M 0.00710 BA 140 0.00001 CE 144 0.00520 H3 370.0 All Others (Except Tritium) 0.00005 qg V-8 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL ( WNP-1/4 LADTAP--CALCULATION SHEET v Calculation for Total Discharge Radwaste dilution flow rate--3,230 gpm = 7.2 cfs (FSAR Table 11.2-5) .
~
Fish Consumption by Different Age Groups Wihtin the 50-Mile Zone-ALARA 1 (Altered Usage Parameters) NOTES: 1. The consumption rates used here are the ones listed for
" average individual" in Table E-4, Reg. Guide 1.109,
- 2. Population fraction used in the WNP-1/4 LADTAP Calculation Sheet:
Adult = .66 Teenager = .14 Child = .20 From Reg. Guide 1.109, Table E-4, usage values for fish consumption by average individual are: Adult = 6.9 kg/yr Teenager = 5.2 kg/yr Child- = 2.2 kg/yr Total T = I4.3 kg/yr V 69 4 Thus': An adult uses aX = g x 100 = 48.2% of T. A teenager uses Xt"l x 100 = 36.4% of T. A child uses X c = x 100 = 15.4% of T. T=Xa+Xt+Xc = total consumption. Fish consumption rate by maximum individuals within the 50-mile zone is l1 estimated to be 40 kg/yr. The estimated food consumption by an average individual is one-half of that consumed by a maximum individual. Taking into account the age group distribution within the 50-mile population, the consumption rates by the different age groups are calculated as follows: ( .66)( .482T) + ( .14)( .364T) + ( .2)( .154T) = 20 kg/yr (.39988)T = 20 T = 50.015 kg/yr \ O (.J V-9 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l
WNP-1/4 l i ER-Cu Adult Teenager
=X
=X a t== ((.482)(50.015)
.364)(50.015) = =18.2 24.1 kg/yr kg/yr h
Child =Xc = (.154)(50.015) = 7.7 kg/yr The calculated fish consumption values for maximum individuals are two times the values listed for average individuals: Adult =X a = 48.2 kg/yr Teenager =Xt = 36.4 kg/yr Child =Xc = 15.4 kg/yr Water Consumption by Different Age Groups Within the 50-Mile Zone-ALARA From Reg. Guide 1.109, Table E-4, consumption rates for average individuals are: Adult = 730 liter /yr Teenager = 510 liter /yr Child = 510 liter /yr Total T = 1750 liter /yr Percentage usages by different age groups are: Xa = Adult = x 100 = 41.6% of T (= total) 510 l Xa = Teenager = T75U x 100 = 29.2% of T l Xa = Child = x 100 = 29.2% of T. 1l Estimated water consumption by an average individual is 440 liters /yr. l Thus: ( .66)( .416T) + ( .14)( .292T) + ( .20)( .292T) = 440 liters /yr (.3734)T = 440 liters /yr T = 1178.4 liters /yr Xa = Adult = ( .416) (1178.4) = 490.2 liters /yr I Xt = Teenager = ( .292)(1178.4) = 344.1 l iters/yr l Xc = Child = ( .292)(1178.4) = 344.1 liters /yr An inf ant is assumed to consume the same amount of water as a child does. O V-10 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-l/4 I ER-OL ) Calculation for Water Consumption by Maximum Individuals-- 4 Estimated water consumption by maximum individuals is 730 liters /yr. ll Therefore: ( .66)( .418T) + ( .14)( .291T) + ( .20)( .291T) = 730 liters /yr (0.374g)T= 730 liters /yr T = 1947 liters /yr Xa = Adult = (.418)(1947) = 814 liters /yr Xt = Teenager = (.291)(1947) = 567 liters /vr Xc = Child = ( .291)(1947) = 567 '. iters/yr An infant is assumed to drink the same amount as a child. This value is more conservative than the 330 liters /yr suggested by Reg. Guide 1.109, l1 Table E-15. Shoreline Activity by Different Age Groups Within the 50-Mile Zone-ALARA From Reg. Guide 1.109, Table E-4, the estimated average individual's shoreline activities are: Adult X a
= x 100 = 12.8% of T Teenager X = x 100 = 72.5% of T t
Child X
- x 100 = 14.7% of T. ,
c 4. Estimated shoreline activities by average individuals is 17 nr/yr. l1 Therefore: ( .66)(.128T) + ( .14)(.725T) + ( .20)( .147T) = 17 hr/yr (.21538)T = 17 hr/yr T = 79 hr/yr Xa = Adult = ( .128)(79) = 10 hrs /yr Xt = Teer'ger = (.725)(79) = 57.3 hrs /yr Xc = Chi = ( .147)(79) = 11.6 hrs /yr. A zero shoreline activity is estimated for inf ants. i V-ll Amendment 1 (Feb 83) l
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Shoreline Activity by Different Age Groups Within the 50-Mile Zone-- Calculation for Maximum Individual From Table E-4, Reg. Guide 1.109: Percentage usage by adult =X a = x 100 = 12.9% of T Percentage usage by teenager = X t = x 100 = 72.0% of T 14 Percentage usage by child =X c " 93 x 100 = 15.M of T 1 Estimated shoreline activity by maximum individual is 500 hr/.,r. Therefore: (.66)(.129T) + (.14)(.720T) + (.20)(.151T) = 500 hr/yr (.21614)T = 500 hr/yr T = 2313 hr/yr Xa = Adult = (.129)(2313) = 298 hrs /yr Xt = Teenager = (.720)(2313) = 1665 nrs/yr Xc = Child = (.151)(2313) = 349 hrs /yr. Swimming Activity by Different Age Groups Within the 50-Mile Zone-ALARA NOTE: Because there are no recommended usage values for swiming in Reg. Guide 1.109, Taole E-4, the estimates for shoreline activities by the average individuals were used as estimates for swimming
- activities.
The percentage usage is calculated from the estimated shoreline activity 1 l listed in Reg. Guide 1.109, Table E-4. The estimated swimming activity by the average individual is 10 hrs /yr. Therefore: (.66)(.128T) + (.14)(.725T) + (.20)(.147T) = 10 hr/yr (.21538)T = 10 h r/yr , T = 46.43 hr/yr Xa = Adult = ( .128)(46.43) = 5.94 hrs /yr Xt = Teenager = (.720)(2313) = 33.66 hrs /yr Xc = Child = (.151)(2313) = 6.83 hrs /yr. Zero swimming activity is assumed for infants. Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O V-12
WNP-1/4 ER-0L Swimming Activity by Different Age Groups Within the 50 .'41, e Zone
-Maximum Individual Estimated swiming activity by a maximum individual is 100 hr/yr--10 tii.'es the value estimated for an average individual. Thus, the valJes calculated for averaged individuals are multiplied by a f actor of 10.
Xa = Adult = 59.4 hrs /yr Xt = Teenager = 336.0 hrs /yr Xc = Child = 68.3 hrs /yr. Boating Activity by Different Age Groups Within the 50-Mile Zone-ALARA NOTE: Zero boating activity is assumed for children and inf ants. Therefore, only 80% of the population (.66 adults, and .14 percent teenagers) is assumed for boating activity. Estimated boating activity by average individuals within the 50-mile zone is l1 five hr/yr. An adult spends (5) = 4.125 hr/yr boating, or, 4.f25 x 100 = 82.5T of the total (T), whereas a teenager spends
- 5 = .0875 hr/yr boating, or, 0.875 x 100 = 17.5% of T.
~ ( .66)(.825T) + ( .14)(.175T) = 5 hr/yr ( .5690)T = 5 hr/yr T = 8.78 8.8 hr/yr Xa = Adult = (.825)(8.8) = 7.26 7.3 hr/yr Xt = Teenager = (.175)(8.8) = 1.54 hr/yr ' Boating Activity by Different Age Groups Within the 50-Mile Zone
-Maximum Individual The estimated boating activity by a maximum individuals is 100 hr/yr. This l1 is 20 times the estimated value estimated for average individuals. Thus, the values calculated for boating by average individuals are multiplied by..a factor of 20:
Adult' =Xa = 7.26 x 20 = 145.2 hr/yr Teenager = Xt = 1.54 x 20 = 30.8 hr/yr O G V-13 ' Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL 1l Activities at the Slough Area (5 miles downstream) Boating is the only activity assumed to occur at the slough crea. The values of boating by an average individual were used. Xa = Adult = 7.3 hr/yr Xt = Teenager = 7.3 hr/yr Shoreline Recreation 50-Mile Downstream Population-Average Individuals. Total population using the Columbia River downstream from the plant for 7 recreation is estimated to be 193,000. It is also estimated that average individuals spend 17 hr/yr in shoreline activity. Therefore, the total 50-mile downstream shoreline activity is: 17 x 193,000 = 3.28E+06 hr/yr Swiming Activities 50-Mile Downstream Population-Average Individual Average swiming activities by the 50-mile downstream population is 1 estimated to be 10 hr/yr. The 50-mile downstream population using the Columbia River for recreation is estimated to be 193,000. The total 50-mile downstream swimming activity is then: 10 x 193,000 = 1.93E+06 Boating Activity 50-Mile Downstream Population-Average Individuals 1l The astimated average individual boating activity is five br/yr. For 193,000 population: 5 x 193,000 = 9.65E+05 Calculation for Total 50-Mile Yield of Fo7d 1l Due to lack of information regarding the total 50-mile yield of food, the following assumptions were made in estimating the total 50-mile yields: Assumption 1: All food produced within the 50-mile zone is consumed locally. l Assumption 2: Total 50-mile food consumption is a close approximation of the total 50-mile yield and should be used until more specific data is available. Assumption 3: The most significant food-producing district within the 50-mile zone is the Riverview district of 4000 people. 1l Assumption 4: Population consuming irrigated foods is assumed to be one half of the estimated 1980 population of the Riverview district of 4000. Ten percent of the rest of the population is assumed to eat only irrigated produce. 1l V-14 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL The estimated 1980 total population within the 50-mile zone is 251,684. l1 Total 50-Mile Yield of Vegetable (Excluding Leafy Vegetables) Estimated total 50-mile consumption of vegetation by maximum individuals l1 (excluding leafy vegetables) is 555 kg/yr. Average individuals are assumed to eat one-half the values listed for maximum individuals. Using the information and assumptions listed above, the total 50-mile consumption of vegetation by the population outside Riverview district (251,684 - 4000 = 247,684) is: 6 For average individuals: 247,684 x 0.1 x 555 = 6.87 2. 10 kg/yr For maximum individuals: (6.87 x 106 ) x d = 1.37 x 107 kg/yr Total Production Within the Riverview District: (Consumption = Production) 555 For an average individual: 2000 x = 5.55 x 105 kg/yr For a maximum individual: (5.55 x 107 ) x 2 = 1.11 x 106 kg/yr The total 50-mile yield = 1.37 x 107 + 111 x 106 1,48 x 107 kg/yr 50-Mile Consumption of Vegetation (Excluding Leafy Vegetables) by Different Age Groups From Reg. Guide 1.109, Table E-4, consumption of vegetation and fruit by average individuals is estimated to be: X,= Adult =hx100=30.1% of T (Total) x t= Teenager =$x 100 = 38.1% of T Xe = Child = h x 100 = 31.8% of T Consumption by maximum individuals: 1 ( .66)(.30lT) + ( .14)( .381T) + ( .20)( .318T) = 555 kg/yr (.3156)T = 555 k /yr T = 1759 k /yr X3 = Adult = (.301)(1759) = 529 kg/yr Xt = Teenager = (.381)(1759) = 670 kg/yr Xc = Child = (.318)(1759) = 559 kg/yr O V-15 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
- _________a
WNP-l/4 ER-0L 1 Total 50-Mile consumption by average individuals: g The values calculated for maximum individuals are divided by a factor of 2. Xa = Adult = 265 kg/yr Xt = Teenager = 335 kg/yr Xc = Child = 280 kg/yr Calculation for Total 50-Mile Yield of Leafy Vegetables 1 The total 50-mile consumption of leafy vegetables by maximum individuals is 30 kg/yr (assuming products = consumption). For Riverview district: 2000 x 30 = 6.0 x 10 4kg/yr. For 50-mile production outside Riverview district: (247,684)(.1)(30) = 7.43 x 105 kg/yr Total 50-mile production: 7.43 x 105 + 6.0 x 104 = 8.03 x 105 kg/yr Calculation for Total 50-Mile Consumption of Leafy Vegetables by Different Age Groups According to Reg. Guide 1.109, Table E-4, percentage usages by avarage individuals are: Xa = Adult = 30.1% of T (Total) Xt = Teenager = 38.1% of T Xc = Child = 31.8% of T 1l The total 50-mile consumption of leafy vegetables is estimated to be 30 kg/yr. ( .66)(.30lT) + ( .14)(.381T) + ( .2)( .3187) = 30 hr/yr ( .3156)i = 30 hr/yr T = 95.05 hrfyr For maximum individual: Xa = Adult = ( .301)(95.05) = 28.6 kg/yr Xt = Teenager = ( .381)(95.05) = 36.2 kg/yr Xc = Child = ( .318)(95.05) = 29.3 kg/yr The values for average individuals are one half of the values calculated for maximum individu11s: X3 = Adult = 14.3 kg/yr 1 Xt = Teenager = 18.1 kg/yr ; Xc = Child = 14.7 kg/yr l V-16 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) O
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Calculation for 50-Mile Yield of Milk The estimated milk consumption by maximum individuals within the 50 mile 1 zone is 274 liters /yr (assuming consumption = production): The yield at Riverview district is 2000 x 274 = 5.48 x 10 5 liters /3r The total 50-mile yield outside Riverview district is: (247,684)(.1)(274) = 6.79 x 106 liters /yr The total 50-mile yield is 6.79 x 106 + 5.48 x 105 = 7.34 x 106 liters /yr 1
,C,alculation for 50-Mile Consumption of Milk by Different Age Grcups From Table E-4, Reg. Guide 1.109, the percentage usages by average individuals are:
Xa = Adult = 22.9% of T (Total) Xt = Teenager = 41.7% of T Xc = Child = 35.4% of T I The estimated consumption of milk is 274 liters /yr ( .66)( .229T) + ( .14)( .417T) + ( .2)( .354T) = ??4 liters /yr (.28032)T = 274 liters /yr T = 977.5 liters /yr For maximum individuals: Xa = Adult = ( .229)(977.5) = 224 liters /yr Xt = Teenager = ( .417)(977.5) = 408 liters /yr Xc = Child = ( .354)(977.5) = 346 liters /yr For average individuals, one-half of the values calculated for maximum individuals are used: Xa = Adult = 112 liters /yr Xt = leenager = 204 liters /yr Xc = Child = 173 liters /yr Calculation for Total 50-Mile Yield of Meat The estimated meat consumption by maximum individuals within the 50-mile zone is 98 kg/yr (meat--beef, pork, and poultry), assuming consumption = production. I O V-17 Amendment 1 (Feb 83)
WNP-1/4 ER-OL Total meat production at Riverview distr.ict: 2000 x 98 = 1.96 x 105 kg/yr. Total meat production at the 50-mile zone outside Riverview district: (274,684)(.1)(98) = 2.43 x 106 kg/yr Total 50-mile yield: 2.43 x 106 + 1.96 x 105 = 2.63 x 106 kg/yr Calculation for 50-Mile Consumption of Meat by Different Age Groups According to Table E-4, Reg. Guide 1.109, percentage usages by average individuals are: Xa = Adult = 49.7% of T (Total) Xt = Teenager = 30.9% of T Xc = Child = 19.4% of T 1 The estimated total 50-mile meat consum;, tion (including poultry) is 98 kg/yr. ( .66)( .4977) + ( .14)( .309T) + ( .20)( .194T) = 98 kg/yr (.4100)T= 98 kg/yr For maximum individuals: Xa = Adult = ( .497)(239) = 119 kg/yr Xt = Teenager = (.309)(239) = 74 kg/yr Xc = Child = (.194)(230) = 46 kg/yr For average individuals, one half of the values calculated for maximum individuals are used: Xa = Adult = 60 kg/yr Xt = Teenager = 37 kg/yr Xc = Child = 23 kg/yr V-18 Amendment 1 (Feb 83) e}}