ML20079P510
| ML20079P510 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1984 |
| From: | GULF STATES UTILITIES CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079P503 | List: |
| References | |
| ENVR-840127, NUDOCS 8401310247 | |
| Download: ML20079P510 (299) | |
Text
-
O RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE O
l SUPPLEMENT 7 6S_ qRJ >
--:0 Mise 2hl)M O
paa88:7mq7,
Acknowledgement of Receipt of fg Supplement to Environmental Report -
Operating License Stage River Bend Station Please sign, date, and return this sheet to:
L. L. Dietrich Lead Licensing Engineer Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation 3 Executive Campus P. O. Box 5200 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 i Receipt .of Supplement 7 to the Environmental Report - Operating License Stage is acknowledged.
My copy has been brought to current status and superseded pages have been removed and destroyed, as applicable.
Change my address as follows:
Please reassign this manual to:
v Signature Date Print name of person to whom ER-OLS is assigned Set Number O
RBS ER-OLS O
SUPPLEMENT 7 INSERTION INSTRUCTIONS RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPERATING LICENSE STAGE The following instructions are for the insertion of Supplement 7 into the RBS ER-OLS. Remove the pages, tables, and/or figures listed in the REMOVE column and replace them with the pages, tables, and/or figures listed in the INSERT column. Dashes (---) in either column indicate no action required.
Vertical bars have been placed in the margins of inserted pages and tables to indicate revision locations. Tabs are provided for the proper filing of Appendices 7A and 7B.
O O C2/12210/6/2RH 1
~
4-RBS ER-OLS VOLUME 1 REMOVE INSERT General Table of Contents General Table of Contents Page 1/ii Page 1/ii Page 2-xxxiii/xxxiv Page 2-xxxiii/xxxiv Page 2.2-3/4 Page 2.2-3/4 Pages 2.2-11/12 and 2.2-13/14 Pages 2.2-11/12 through 2.2-13b/14 Page 2.2-19/20 Page 2.2-19/20 Table 2.2-8 (1 sheet) Table 2.2-8 (1 sheet)
Page 2.3-5/Sa Page 2.3-5/Sa Page 2.4-1/2 Page 2.4-1/2 Page 2.4-25/26 Page 2.4-25/26 Page 2.4-3~/- Page 2.4-55/-
Table 2.4-1 (2 sheets) Table 2.4-1 (3 sheets)
Figure 2.4-3 Figure 2.4-3 Figure 2.4-10 Figure 2.4-10 O
O C2/12210/6/2RH 2
i RBS ER-OLS .
VOLUME 2 i
REMOVE INSERT ,
General Table of Contents General Table of Contents ;
Page i/ii Page i/ii l t
i 4
J t
i 1
l l
C2/12210/6/2RII 3
RBS ER-OLF VOLUME 3 v
REMOVE INSERT General Table of Contents General Table of Contents Page 1/ii Page i/ii Page 2B-i/ii Page 2B-i/ii Pages 2B-1/2 and 2B-3/4 Pages 2B-1/2 and 2B-3/4 Attachment A cover sheet through Fig. A4-1. Insert immediately after Fig. 5-2 of Appendix 2B.
Page Q&R 2-1/ii Page Q&R 2-i/ii ,
Page Q&R 2.2-3/- Page Q&R 2.2-3/- 1 Page Q&R 2.3-3/4 Pages Q&R 2.3-3/4 and Q&R 2.3-4a/4b Page Q&R 2.4-1/2 Page Q&R 2.4-1/2 and Q&R 2.4-3/-
Page 3-i/ii Page 3-i/ii Pages 3.5-1/2 through 3.5-11/12 Pages 3.5-1/2 through 3.5-11/12 Table 3.5-2, Sheet 1 Table 3.5-2, Sheet 1
~'
Table 3.5-3 (1 sheet) Table 3.5-3 (1 sheet)
Table 3.5-4 (2 sheets) Table 3.5-4 (2 sheets)
Table 3.5-5 (2 sheets) Table 3.5-5 (2 sheets)
Table 3.5-6 (1 sheet) Table 3.5-6 (1 sheet)
Figures 3.5-1 and 3.5-2 Figures 3.5-1 and 3.5-2 Pages 3.7-1/2 and 3.7-3/4 Pages 3.7-1/2 through 3.7-3/4 Page 3.7-9/10 Page 3.7-9/10 Figure 3.7-1 Figure 3.7-1 l Figures 3.7-4 through 3.7-32 Figures 3.7-4 through 3.7-32 l
Page Q&R 3-1/- Page Q&R 3-i/-
Page Q&R 3.5-1/- Page Q&R 3.5-1/-
Page 4-iii/- Page 4-iii/-
Page 4.1-1/2 Page 4.1-1/2 Page 4.2-1/2 Page 4.2-1/2 Page 4.3-1/2 Pages 4.3-1/la and 4.3-Ib/2 Pages 4.3-7/8 and 4.3-9/10 Pages 4.3-7/8 and 4.3-9/10 Table 4.3-3 Figure 4.3-2 O C2/12210/6/2RH 4
RBS ER-OLS VOLUME 4 REMOVE INSERT General Table of Contents General Table of Contents Page i/ii Page i/ii ,
Page 5.8-5/6 Page 5.8-5/6 Page Q&R 5-i/- Page Q&R 5-i/-
Page Q&R.5.8-5/6 Page Q&R 5.8-5/6 Pages 6.3-3/4 and 6.3-5/6 Pages 6.3-3/4 and 6.3-5/6 Page Q&R 6-i/- Page Q&R 6-i/-
Page Q&R 6.1-1/- Page Q&R 6.1-1/-
Page 7-i/ii Pages 7-i/ia and 7-ib/ii Page 7.1-7/8 Page 7.1-7/8
--- Appendix 7A index tab through Page 7A.7-5/- and Appendix 7B index tab through Page 7B.7-1/ .
Insert immediately after Section 7.2, Page 7.2-1/-
O Page Q&R 7-i/-
Page Q&R 7.1-1/-
Page Q&R 7-i/-
Page Q&R 7.1-1/-
C2/12210/6/2RH 5
RBS ER-OLS TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Section Title Volume 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The Proposed Project 1 1.2 Status of Reviews and Approvals 1 1.3 Substantive Informational Changes from Construction Permit Stage 1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTIONS 1 2.1 Description of the Station Location 1 2.2 Land 1 2.3 Water 1 2.4 Ecology 1 2.5 Socioeconomics 2 2.6 Geology 2 2.7 Meteorology 2 2.8 Ambient Air Quality 2 2.9 Ambient Noise 2 2.10 Related Federal Project Activities 2 g APPENDICES 2A, 2B, and 2C 3 [
PLANT DESCRIPTION 3 G 3 3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout 3 3.2 Reactor Steam - Electric System 3 3.3 Plant Water Use 3 3.4 Cooling System 3 3.5 Radioactive Waste Management Systems 3 3.6 Nonradioactive Waste Systems 3 3.7 Power Transmission Systems 3 3.8 Transportation of Radioactive Materials 3 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION 3 4.1 Land Use Impacts 3 4.2 Hydrological Alterations and Water Use Impacts 3 4.3 Ecological Impacts 3 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts 3 4.5 Radiation Exposure to Construction Workers 3 4.6 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse
- Impacts During Construction 3 Supplement 4 i February 1983
RBS ER-OLS TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Section Title Volume 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF STATION 3 OPERATION 3 5.1 Land Use Impacts 3 5.2 Hydrological Alterations, Plant Water Supply, and Water Use Impacts 3 5.3 Cooling System Impacts 3 5.4 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation 4 5.5 Nonradioactive Waste System Impacts 4 5.6 Transmission System Impacts 4 5.7 Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts 4 5.8 Socioeconomic Impacts 4 5.9 Decommissioning 4 5.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation 4 APPENDIX SA 4 6 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 4 6.1 Thermal 4 6.2 Radiological 4 6.3 Hydrological 4 6.4 Meteorological 4 6.5 Biological 4 6.6 Chemical 4 6.7 other Monitoring Programs 4 7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS 4 7.1 Plant Accidents 4 7.2 Transportation Accidents 4 APPENDICES 7A and 7B 4 7l 8 THE NEED FOR THE PLANT 4 9 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT 4 Supplement 7 ii January 1984 O
RBS ER-OLS
(N g ,) LIST OF FIGURES (Cont) c Figure Number Title 2.3-30 MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATER TEMPERATURES NEAR ST. FRANCISVILLE, LA, 1954-1978 2.3-31 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, 1954-1977 ,
2.4-1 SITE AND VICINITY 2.4-2 PHYSIOGRAPHIC VEGETATION TYPES 7
2.4-3 SITE SOIL TYPES 2.4-4 SITE VEGETATIVE COVER P. 4-5 INDEX MAP TRANSMISSION LINE R.O.W. VEGETATIVE COVER 2.4-6 TRANSMISSION LINE R.O.W.
O_,
s . VEGETATIVE COVER MAP AREA 1 2.4-7 TRANSMISSION LINE R.O.W.
VEGETATIVE COVER MAP AREA 2 2.4-8 TRANSMISSION LINE R.O.W.
VEGETATIVE COVER MAP AREA 3 l 2.4-9 TRANSMISSION LINE R.O.W.
VEGETATIVE COVER MAP AREA 4
(
! 2.4-10 TRANSMISSION LINE R.O.W.
VEGETATIVE COVER MAP AREA 5 2.4-11 MEAN ANNUAL DENSITY OF ICHTHYOPLANKTON AT SAMPLING TRANSECTS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR THE RIVER BEND SITS, 1976 AND 1977 2.5-1 PARISHES AND TOWNS WITHIN 20 KILOMETERS Supplement 7 2-xxxiii January 1984 L
RBS ER-CES LIST OF FIGURES (Cont)
Figure Number Title 2.5-2 PARISHES AND TOWNS WITHIN 80 EILOMETEBS 2.5-3 1970 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 20 KILOMETEBS 2.5-4 1985 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 20 KILOMETEBS 2.5-5 1990 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 20 KILOMETEBS 2.5-6 2000 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 20 KILOMETEBS 2.5-7 2010 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 20 KILOMETEBS 2.5-8 2020 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 20 KILOMETEBS 2.5-9 2030 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 20 KILOMETEBS 2.5-10 1970 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 80 KILOMETEFS 2.5-11 1985 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 80 KILOMETEBS 2.5-12 1990 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 80 KILOMETEES 2.5-13 2000 POPULATION DISTBIBUTION WITHIN 80 KILOMETEBS 2.5-14 2010 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 80 KILOMETEFS 2.5-15 2020 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 80 KILOMETEBS 2.5-16 2030 POPULATION DISIRIBUTION WITHIN 80 KILOMETEBS 2-xxxiv
RBS ER-OLS l
i
() Approximately 379 acres of. site area permanently affected by l7 construction are classified as prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance. This area represents about 27 percent l7 of those classifications available on the original siteta>
(Table 4.3-3). l7 2.2.1.2 The Vicinity j
Table 2.2-1 provides a summary (based on 1972 data) of the land uses for the four parishes that are within the lO-km
-radius. Approximately 53 percent of West Feliciana Parish, 21 percent of Pointe Coupee, 20 percent of East Feliciana, and 12 percent of East Baton Rouge's land area are within the 10-km' radius. The major land uses for the region in Table 2.2-1 are agricultural land, forest land, and wetland.
In West Feliciana, Pointe Coupee, and East Feliciana, urban and built-up land compose approximately 1 percent of the total parish acreage. East Baton Rouge has approximately 19 percent urban and built-up land.
West Feliciana and Pointe Coupee Parishes have each gained a utilities land use since 1972. West Feliciana presently contains the River Bend site, which occupies 3,342 acres, of which approximately 80 percent was forest land and 20 percent was agricultural prior to construction. Pointe Coupee now contains the Cajun Electric Power Cooperative's s Big Cajun No. 2 on a 2,2OO-acre property, of which roughly 80 percent was farmland and 20 percent was floodplain prior to construction.
Principal land use features within 10 km of the River Bend Station are identified in Fig. 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 and are discussed in the following paragraphs. Residential development occurs for the most part in towns in the vicinity of River Bend Station or along the major roads.
St. Francisville is the only town within the 10-km radius.
Tne town of New Roads lies southwest of the station, just outside the 10-km radius at the northeastern end of the residential development (largely weekend and vacation use) arcircling False River. The town of Jackson is approximately 11 km northeast of River Bend Station on Route 10.
Population growth in the St. Francisville area has declined in recent years despite overall growth in population in the state. For the District 2 Region, encompassing parishes from Pointe Coupee east to Tangipahoa, southwest to Ascension, west to Iberville, and-north to Pointe Coupee, population estimates showed growth of more than 13 percent between 1970 and 1970. The same estimates showed declines Supplement 7 2.2-3 January 1984
RBS ER-CLS of 8.3 percent in West Feliciana Parish; 6.4 percent in East Feliciana; and 0.4 percent in Pointe Coupee(+).
The State of Lcuisiana expects to make improvements to several of the major roads in the 10-km area in the 1980s.
US Highway 61 is a major two-lane road which is presently undergoing expansion to four lanes in the vicinity of Baton Rouge. The 7.2-km (4 1/2-mi) highway segment between State Road 965 and Thompson Creek (the eastern Kest Feliciana Parish ' boundary) is not expected to be under construction until 1985. Although segments of US Highway 61 close tc Baton Rouge are open foc four-lane traffic, the segment in West Feliciana Parish has encountered delays in the planning stages. No right-of-way acquisitions have been made.
However, improvements on US Highway 61 in East Baton Rouge Parish will imprcve travel time between Eaton Fouge and the River Bend site.
Another long-range State of Louisiana planning goal is the replacement of the Route 10 ferry crcssino at St.
Francisville with a high-rise bridge over the Mississippi.
The state legislature has appropriated funds for a preliminary study of the ferry crossing site. If the project proceeds, construction might commence in 1988. Two oridges are under construction below Baten Rouge; St.
Francisville is the next crossing upstream (5).
Across the river adjacent to the Eiy Cajun No. 2 site in Pointe Coupee Parish, Route 981 is being improved from Route 10 to State Road 415. The 9.7-km (6.1-mi) stretch is being upgraded frcm gravel to two-lane hard surface. The estimated completion date is 1981.
Route 10 north of St. Francisville will eventually be upgraded. Sections to the east, near Jackson, Clinton, and Greenburg, are currently under study or under construction.
No timetable has teen set for the segments within the 10-km areats).
Proposed road improvements beycnd the 10-km radius are discussed in Section 2.2.3.
Three rail lines enter the 10-km area. The Illinois Central Gulf Failroad enters the 10-km area approximately 7 km (4.4 mi) west of Slaughter and travels northwest to Zee, St.
Francisville, and Hardwood Station. Trackage extends north to Woodville, but the line is closed beyond Hardwood Station. Zee, which is 4 km (2. 5 mi) southeast of the site, is a major railroad yard (approximately 400 railcars) which receives a daily train 5 days a week from North Baton Ecuge 2.2-u
l RBS ER-OLS
\ Segment F to G is also 11.62-km (7.22-mi) long. It crosses
[/
N-- 10.57 km (6.57 mi) of forest, of which 58.7 ha (144.93 acres) were cleared. Small amounts of pasture and sugarcane fields are also crossed.
From Point G, Route I extends south O.66 km (0.41 mi) to terminate at Webre Substation, Point H. This segment parallels the Texas and Pacific Railroad and passes through sugarcane fields. -
A total of 134.5 ha (336 acres) of additional land was acquired to create this 47.Ol-km (29.20-mi) transmission route.
2.2.2.2.2 Land Use Along Route II Route II begins at the River Bend combined switchyard, Point A, and runs southeast to Point Q, Jaguar Bulk Substation, in Scotlandville, Louisiana. The total route length is 38.31 km (23.75 mi) and is divided into 10 segments.
Segment A to B of Route II is shared with Segment A to B of Route I and has been previously discussed in Section 2.2.2.2.1.
) Segment B to I is adjacent to an existing transmission
\"' corridor running south-southeast with a total width of 122 m (400 ft). The total 1.14 km (0.71 mi) are forested and 7 required 10.4 ha (25.82 acres) of clearing.
Segment I to J runs 1.66 km (1.0 mi) northeast. It is adjacent to existing transmission line and pipeline rights-of-way that cross mainly pasture. The route 7
construction required the clearing of 1.3 ha (3.26 acres) of l forest along 0.45 km (0.28 mi).
Segments J to K, K to L, and L to M run south-southeast along an existing transmission line right-of-wa3 These segments cross approximately 7.8 km (4.8 mi) of forest, 5.5 km (3.4 mi) of pasture, and 0.5 km (0.3 mi) of Thompson Creek floodplain before reaching the Port Hudson Bulk
-Substation, Point M. Approximately 8 km (5 mi) of this corridor are within the Port Hudson Battlefield National Historic Site Boundary (15) . Section 2.5.3 discusses the mitigating action taken to protect this area as well as the historic Riddle Cemetery site southeast of Point J.
Segment M to N, 7.78 km (4.83 mi) long, required the l7 clearing of 6.0 ha (14.74 acres) of forest along a distance
Supplement 7 2.2-11 January 1984 v
RBS ER-OLS of 2.45 km (1.52 mi). Pasture and floodplain account for most of the remaining land area.
Segment N to O, 0.35 km (0.22 mi) in length, primarily crosses abandoned pasture.
The 2.69 km (1.67 mi) of Segment O to P and 9.14 km (5.68 mi) of Segment P to Q cross no natural landscape.
Running south-southwest, this right-of-way passes through Baker, Louisiana, paralleling the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad and Highway 19 to terminate at the Jaguar Bulk Substation in Scotlandville.
Approximately 34 percent of Route II passes through pasture and 34 percent passes through forest. Of the last 31 percent along Highway 19, 9 percent crosses developed and residential areas. The streams crossed by Route II are Thompson Creek, Sandy Creek, Port Hickey Creek, Cooper Bayou, Baton Rouge Bayou, Cypress Bayou, South Canal, and West Fork Cypress Bayou.
The presence of this corridor will not alter any previous land uses.
2.2.2.2.3 Land Use Along Route III j Route III is 43.87 km (27.20 mi) in length and runs east from Point A to Point U, the McKnight Switching Station.
Route III is divided into four segments.
Segment A to R runs east-southeast from the combined switchyard for 3.56 km (2.21 mi). A total of 11.5 ha (28.7 7
l acres) of forestedThearea was cleared over a distance of 2.16 km (1.34 mi). remaining 1.40 km (0.87 mi) cross pasture and Grants and East Fork Grants Bayous.
Segment R to S is 4.09 km (2.5 mi) long, zigzagging northeast and east alongside a 45.5-m (150-ft) pipeline right-of-way, of which 12 m (39.5 ft) are shared. Forest is crossed for 2.33 km (1.45 mi), and 9.6 ha (23.81 acres) of 7 l forest Wac Cleared for Corrider Construction. The remaining major land use is pasture.
Segment S to T is a new right-of-way. It extends east for 12.87 km (8.0 mi) and crosses primarily pasture. Along an aggregate of 3.17 km (1.97 mi), 16.9 ha (41.78 acres) of forest was cleared.
7 Segment T to U is 23.35 km (14.51 mi) long and except for the first 2 mi it follows an abandoned railroad tramway.
The tramway is 9.5 m (30 ft) wide and was cleared to a width of 53.5 m (175 ft). The original routing of the first Supplement 7 2.2-12 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS 3.02 km (1.87 mi) of segment T to U was contested by the G land owners and a route change was mandated by the courts.
At point T the route swings east-southeast for O.8 km 7
(0.5 mi) then turns east-northeast for 2.4 km (1.5 mi) where it rejoins the original route at the abandoned railway tram.
Segment T to U crosces 11.51 km (7.15 mi) of forest and 11.84 km (7.34 mi) of pasture and terminates at the McKnight Switching Station.
2.2.2.3 Land Use Significance State and local land uses in the transmicsion corridor region have changed little since 1971, and the pace of development remains slow in West Feliciana Parish. The majority of growth in the region is occurring around the more populated areas, with most development extending eastward from the city of Baton Rouge along Highway 10.
This growth, however, does not extend to the River Bend transmission corridors. A majority of the land along Route I is controlled by large landowners who are actively farming and not releasing land tracts. Therefore, this area is expected to remain in agricultural use. >
Natural gas has been found, and speculation has occurred near Route II near Zachary and southwest along U.S.
Highway 61. Drilling has been initiated, but no significant population influx is expected to result. No conflicts G between anticipated.
transmission corridors and drilling rigs are Communications with Louisiana state and local officials indicate that transmission corridors are not regulated by zoning. Therefore, no local ordinances or restrictions apply'28-1. Because about 80 percent of the River Bend transmission system parallels existing rights-of-way, with partial or total sharing of the corridors, only approximately 234 ha (570 acres) of forest were required to be cleared and most existing land use patterns were not disturbed.
The only National Register property crossed by the corridors is the Port Hudson Battlefield, mentioned in the description of Route II. There are no parks, recreation areas, or other areas of special land use classification within the corridor system.
2.2.2.4 Offsite Areas Since almost all transmission corridor routes are located within or immediately adjacent to existing utility corridors and rights-of-way, existing access and local roads will be utilized for maintenance purposes almost entirely. ;
Supplement 7 2.2-13 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS Therefore, no significant modifications occurred in offsite areas as a result of transmission line construction.
l 1
O Supplement 7 2.2-13a January 1984
RBS ER-OLS O
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK O
g Supplement 7 2.2-13b January 1984
RBS ER-CIS 2.2.3 The Region 2.2.3.1 Land Uses The 80-km area surrounding the station contains portions or all of 19 Louisiana parishes and 5 Mississippi counties (Fig. 2, 2-5) . Land use data are available on a county-wide or parish-wide basis. Consequently, for land use analysis, Louiriana parishes and Mississippi counties which have all 3 or significant portions of their land area within the by 80-km the radius are analyzed. The region is crossed Mississippi River and by the Atchafalaya River and its basin, which lie west of the Mississippi. The major urbanized area is the Baton Rouge Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) , lccated at its closest point approximately 9 km (5.4 mi) southeast ot River Eend Station.
Acreages of various land uses for the Louisiana parishes within 80 km of hiver Bend Station are listed in Table 2.2-10. Acreages are given tor each parish in its entirety, although some may lie cnly partially within the 80-km radius. Urban and built-up land compose only 4 percent of the tctal acreaqe for all parishes in Table 2.2-10. Agricultural land represents approximately 35 percent; forest lands, 25 percent; and wetlands, 23 percent.
The parish with the highest percentage of urban and built-up land is East Baton Rouge, with approximately 20 percent of its total acreage in this category (20). Major land uses for the 80-km region are shown in Fig. 2.2-6.
indicated in Table 2.2-11 . and in Fig. 2.2-6, As Mississippi's four counties within 80 km are dominated by tint"rland, commercial forest, and national forest lands.
Agricultural lands occupy approximately 20 percent of the four-county area, while lands that could be censidered urban or built-up comprise approximately 3 percent (21,22).
2.2.3.2 Settlement Patterns To the ncrth-northwest and northwest of the station, Avoyelles and surrounding parishes are predominantly agricultural. Alexandria, which lies well beyond the 80-km radius, is the center for this region.
To the southwest, lccated at the 80-km i=dius, is the city of Lafayette in Lafayette Parish. Lafayette is the major settlement in an urbanizing corridor which roughly follcws US Highway 90 and Route 182 (Fig. 2.2-7). This corridor extends north to Opelousas in St. Landry Parish. Opelausas has access to Baton Rouge to the east via US Highway 190, 2.2-14
RBS ER-CLS
( and vocational-technical schools throughout the state (27).
Those schools within 80 km of River Bend Staticn are listed in Table 2.2-17.
State carrectional institutions within 80 km of River Bend Staticn are given in Table 2.2-18.
Major public lands intended for recreation or preservation are identified in Tables 2.2-19 and 2.2-20 and Fig. 2.2- 8.
Within the 80-km radius, Homochitto National Forest in Mississippi includes portions of all four counties. Within the National Forest, there are twc game preserves and a recreational site for swimming, fishing, and camping.
The Louisiana State Parks System includes state parks, commemorative areas, preservation areas, and experiment stations (33). Those within the 80-km radius are identified in Table 2.2-19. Wildlife areas in which hunting and fishing are permitted are identified in Table 2.2-20(3*,35).
There are no wildlife refuges within 80 km of River Bend Station.
(
wJ
(}
v 2.2-19
RBS ER-OLS References - 2.2
- 1. Telephone conversation between J.K. Jackson and O,
C.S. Ellis of Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, and J. Perry, Agent for Woodville District, Illinois Central Gulf Railroad, Slaughter, LA, December 18, 1979.
- 2. Telephone conversation between C.S. Ellis of Stone &
Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, and B. Phipps and J. Butler of American Telephone &
Telegraph Long Lines Division, December 21, 1979.
- 3. Telephano conversations between J. G. Brown, August 9, 1983, and G. A. Jacob, November 3, 1983, of 7
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, and D. Johnson, District Conservationist, United States Soil Conservation Servic.e, Clinton, LA.
- 4. Louisiana Population Estimates by District and Parish, ^
Table III, Louisiana Technical University, Division of Business Research, Ruston, LA, February 1979.
- 5. Telephone conversation between C.S. Ellis of Stone &
Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, and N. Wagoner, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, LA, December 26, 1979.
- 6. Telephone conversation between C.S. Ellis of Stone &
Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, and Attorney S.P. Dart, an owner of the former Dipple and Enette Field, St. Francisville, LA, January 22, 1980.
- 7. Telephone conversation between C.S. Ellis of Stone &
Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, and C. Taylor. Maintenance Section, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, LA, January 22, 1980.
- 8. Telephone conversation between C.S. Ellis of Stone &
Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, and Staff, Redi-Mix Concrete, St. Francisville, LA, December 20, 1979.
- 9. Telephone conversation between C.S. Ellis of Stone &
Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, and F. Metz, Joan of Arc Co., St. Francisville, LA, December 20, 1979.
A 10. Telephone conversation between C.S. Ellis of Stone
& Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, and Supplement 7 2.2-20 January 1984
O o rs R8S ER-OLS TABLE 2.2-8 LAND USE DATA ON ROUTE Ill Newly Acquired Previous Total Orrsite Distance Forest Area Richt-or-Way_ Richt-or-Way_ Riqht-or-Way _ Right-of-Way C lea red to Length Width Length Width Length Width Passes through Construct Segmem (km) Im) (km) Im) (km) Im) Fo re s t (km) New Lines (hal Remarks A to R 0 0 3.56 53.5 2.61 53.5 2.16 11.5 This is a new right-of-way which crosses 0.95 km onsite.
R to S 4.09 45.5 4.09 87.0 4.09 41.5 2.33 9.6 Sha res 12 m wi th an existing pipeline right-of-way, j S to T 0 0 12.87 53.5 12.87 53.5 3.17 16.9 T5is is a new right-of-way.
T to U 23.35 9.5 23.35 53.5 23.35 44.0 11.51 50.7 20 km rollows old abandoned ra i l road 7 t ra mway Total 27.44 43.87 42.92 19.17 88.7 l
l b
supplen. ant 7 1 or 1 Janua ry 1984
RBS ER-OLS (o) valley with relatively steep slopes. The channel and valley
'/ become broader in the downstream direction. Within the Mississippi River floodplain, the bayou flows in a shallow ,
trough between the Mississippi River natural levee and the escarpment bounding the valley. In that region, the stream flows through a small, standing water body known locally as Needle Lake. The lake is about 1,700 ft long and 40 ft in average width (about 1.5 acres). Water depth is normally about 3 ft. A rise in water level due to local storms floods the surrounding sump area.
Alligator Bayou is subject to short periods of high runoff or storm floods, and extended drought periods of zero flow.
The U.S. Geological Survey has maintained a crest stage gauge on Alexander Creek from 1953 to the present (noncontinuous). The drainage area at this point in the creek is 23.9 sq mi. The estimated flood flow distribution for Alligator Bayou, based on Alexander Creek data, is shown in Fig. 2.3-11. This figure also shows the estimated flood flows for the West Fork Thompson Creek flow gauge (1950-1970). During flood flows Alligator Bayou carries an increased sediment load and provides an appreciable amount of sediment deposition within the floodplain area. Most sedimentation occurs as Alexander Creek leaves the hills and enters the alluvial valley. Channel length from the r; headwater to the southern GSU property line is about 18 mi.
( _
,) A profile of the channel bed is shown in Fig. 2.3-10.
River Access Road, extending from the plant to the Mississippi River, has been constructed across Alligator Bayou for the purpose of providing access to the intake structure and barge slip area and as a means of conveyance of heavy construction loads. This road will remain after plant construction is completed. Culverts have been placed in this roadway to allow passage of flow through Alligator Bayou to Thompson Creek and the Mississippi River. Appendix 2B presents a study of the effects of River Access Road construction on Alligator Bayou hydrology. Attachment A of Appendix 2B further summarizes major flood events observed 7 since 1981 and presents an update cf the flood study incorporating the collected data. Section 4.6.2 details the effects of plant features on erosion, explaining the various i erosion control measures which have been undertaken.
Several small farm ponds are located in the site vicinity.
Locations of these ponds and approximate sizes are presented in Section 4.2.
Local drainage courses subjected to extremely severe assumed meteorological and geological conditions could cause limited
(~'; Supplement 7 2.3-5 January 1984
\s /
RBS ER-OLS flooding at the site. The design flooding condition is the unlikely event of one-half the Probable Maximum Flood on West Creek and Grants Bayou in combination with the Operational Basis Earthquake and severe winds which could cause flooding to 95.1 ft mal at West Creek. The plant area O
Supplement 7 2.3-Sa January 1984
RBS ER-OLS
() 2.4 2.4.1 ECOLOGY Terrestrial Ecology 2.4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity Descriptions of the terrestrial ecosystems comprising the GSU River Bend site were derived from extensive field surveys conducted in 1971-1972(1) , a site reconnaissance made in October 1979, and available literature.
2.4.1.1.1 General Site Characteristics Location and General Physiography The site encompasses approximately 1,352 ha (3,342 acres) bordered on the east bank by the Mississippi River, about 4.8 km (3 mi) south of St. Francisville, Louisiana. The site has two distinct physiographic types (Fig. 2.4-1 and 2.4-2) including: floodplain comprising about 336 ha (830 acres) of alluvial soil between the alluvial uplands and the Mississippi River, and about 1,005 ha (2,484 acres) of alluvial upland. In addition, water bodies comprise about 5.8 ha (14.4 acres) in the bottomland and 5.7 ha (14.2 acres) in the uplands. Prime farmland constitutes about 449 ha (1109 acres), land of statewide or local (f g) importance constitutes an additional 122 ha (300 acres),
with other land making up the remaining 782 ha (1933 acres).
7 Table 2.4-1 provides a description of the soil types of the site and categorizes these soils into important farmland classifications. Figure 2.4-3 delineates soil types and important farmland areas of the site.
Climate The climate of the River Bend site is subtropical, with the major influence being southeasterly winds carrying moisture from the Gulf of Mexico. Temperatures in the summer generally range from 228C to 388C (728F to 918 F) and in the winter from 68C to 178C (428 F to 63 8 F). Precipitation averages about 6.7 cm (2.65 in) to 16.5 cm (6.51 in) per month. Snow or freezing rain is rare (Section 2.7.1).
Local and Regional Forest Types Prior to construction of River Bend Station, the alluvial bottomland consisted of 39 ha (95.6 acres) of open, unimproved pasture and 297 ha (734.1 acres) of hardwood fcrest. The alluvial uplands contained 223 ha (551 acres)
,e w Supplement 7 2.4-1 January 1984 L.)
RBS ER-OLS of open , unimproved pasture; 18 ha (45 acres) of improved, managed pasture; 285 ha (703.5 acres) of loblolly pine-sweetgum forest; and 479 ha (1,184. 2 . acres) of oak-hickory forest. Sixty-nine percent (74,269 ha -
183,521 acres) of the 106,955 ha (264,290 acres) in West Feliciana Parish are classified as forest (2). Prior to construction, forests of the River Bend site constituted, therefore, only 1.41 percent of the total forests of West Feliciana Parish.
2.4.1.1.2 Flora of the Site The construction of River Bend Station and its associated f acilities bas required the removal of approximately 304 ha (751.8 acres) of vegetation from the site. This included 198 ha (490.4 acres) of forest, 105 ha (259.3 actes) of meadows and pastures, and 0.7 ha (1.7 acres) of water bodies. Cleared bottomland area included 9.5 ha (23.4 acres) of forest and 6.1 ha (15.1 acres) of pasture.
Cleared forest area represents 0.3 percent of the total forests of West Feliciana Parish.
Prior to construction, much of the River Bend site had been logged and large areas had also been cultivated. Many vegetative communities in various successional stages exist in the study area. The distribution of major plant communities in the site area is shown in Fig. 2.4-4. The 16 major forest communities and 34 meadows and pastures onsite have been classified according to species composition and habitat type. A phylogenetic species list of plants in the site area is presented in Table 2.4-2. Since a detailed description of the floral communities is presented in the 1972 summary report, only a brief description of the maior types is given here(*). In addition, a description of the habitats in which small mammal trapping was conducted is provided.
Forests The most common trees in the bottomlands west of the old tramline (Fig. 2. 4-4 ) are tupelogum (Nyssa aquatica) ,
baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) , hackberry (Celtis laeviga ta) , ash (Fraxinus so.), boxelder (Acer negundo) , and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) . The major tree species found in the alluvial uplands are sweetgum (Liquidambar s tyra ciflua) , water oak (Quercus niara) , cherrybark oak (Q. f alcata var. pagodae f olia) , loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) ,
a nd winged elm (Ulmus alata) . The timber on the site is of very poor quality due to years of high-grading (the most 2.4-2 0
RBS ER-OLS n s
( ) seeding into loblolly pine. The trees are 1.5 to 2.2 m (5
\/ to 7 ft) tall. Ground cover consists mostly of broomsedge (Andropogon spp.) and goldenrod (Solidago spp.). Route III then crosses the Illinois Central. Gulf Railroad tracks and Grants Bayou to continue 2.2 km (1.34 mi) through low-quality hardwood forest on the loess bluffs (mostly v cherrybark oak, water oak, Shumard oak, sweetgum, winged elm, loblolly pine, and hickory). It , continues east-southeast to traverse 1.0 km (0.59 mi) of unimproved pasture and crosses State Highway 964 (for the first time) to Point R.
Beginning 0.36 km (0.22 mi) east of State Highway 964, Route III (Segment R to S) swings northeast and crosses the Thompson Creek floodplain and US Highway 61, including 1.6 km (0.99 mi) of poor-quality bottomland hardwood and 0.7 km (0.45 mi) of hardwood-loblolly pine. Segment R to S continues northeast for O.3 km (0.20 mi) across an improved pasture. At this point, the next 1.4 km (0.90 mi) skirt a pipeline pumping station, cross a small patch of isolated trees (about 5 acres of no commercial value), and continue northeast to Point S through improved pasture and cross State Ifighway 964 for the second time.
The next 12.9 km (8.0 mi) of Route III (Segment S to T,
( "'S Fig. 2.4-6 and 2.4-10) cross improved pasture, except for
( ,) forest land 'at stream crossings and 1.0 km (0.65 mi) of natural loblolly pine stands and upland hardwocds just east
.of State Highway 19. In the aggregate, this segment crosses about 3.2 km (1.97 mi) of forest and 9.7 km (6.03 mi) of improved pasture.
Except for the first 3.2 km (2 mi) of Segment T to U (Fig.
2.4-10), the last 23.4 km (14;31 mi) of Route III follow an old abandoned railroad tram. At point T the route swings east-southeast for O.8 km (0.5 mi) then turns east-northeast 7 for 2.4 km (1.5 mi) where it rejoins the original route at the abandoned railroad tram. This segment of the line crosses 11.5 km (7.2 mi). of forest, mostly well-managed loblolly pine, except for the bottomland hardwoods on the floodplain of the Comite River. The remainder of the right-of-way crosses improved pasture ending at Point U at the McKnight Switching Station.
2.4.1.2.2 Eauna of the Transmissi'on Corridors The terrestrial habitats of the transmission corridors are similar to those of the River Bend site (Section 2.4.1.1).
As no . vegetative communities of distinctly different composition'have been noted during field surveys, the faunal
(]
\J Supplement 7 2.4-25 January 1984 s
. _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ \
RBS ER-OLS species associated with the transmission line routes are probably similar to those found on the River Bend site (398 Neither the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nor the osprey (Pandion haliaetus) are expected to be found along the transmission corridors (except for the Mississippi River crossings) because of the lack of appropriate habitat for these piscivorous cpecies. There are also no areas of critical habitat for any other endangered species along the
. corridors. The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) has not been sighted along the transmission lines nor has habitat suitable for this species been found in their
. vicinity cas) . The presence of the American alligator (Alligator m_ississipiensis) along the transmission line routes is also doubtful, as they do not inhabit the small sandy-bottomed streams of this area.
Species of commercial and recreational interest include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and woodcock (Philohela minor)
(Table 2.4-10). Other species are discussed in Section 2.4.1.1.3.
O J
Supplement 7 2.4-26 January 1984
@l\
s.
l t ,
x RBS ER-OLS 4/
Life and Fisheries, and Mr. D. Post, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporaticn, Boston, MA, January 8, 1980.
- 60. Telepnone conversations between Mr. D. Johnson, District Conservationist, United States Soil Conservation Service, Clinton, LA and Mr. J. G. Brown, 7 August 9, 1983, and Mr. G. A. Jacob, November 3, 1983, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation.
- 4 I
l 1
O l
Supplement 7 2.4-55 January 1984 0
RBS ER-OLS TABLE 2.4-1
(
DESCRIPTION OF THE SOILS OF THE RIVER BEND SITEtt, 2)
I. SOIL TYPES (SOIL MAPPING UNITS)
- 1. CASCILLA SERIES (16A1)
The Cascilla Series consists of well drained, acid, silty soils. These soils occur in the higher areas bordering old stream channels. Typically, the surface layer is brown silt loam and the subsoil is dark brown to yellowish brown silt loam over fine sandy loam at about 6 inches, slopes range from 0 to 2 percent.
- 2. COMMERCE SERIES (4Bu)
The Commerce Series consists of nearly level to gently sloping, somewhat poorly drained, moderately slowly permeable soils. They have a dark grayish brown silt loam or silty clay loam surface layer and a grayish brown silt loam or silty clay loam subsoil with brownish mottles. These soils formed 7
() in Mississippi River sediments. They occur at high local elevations.
5 percent.
Slopes range from 0 to
- 3. CONVENT SERIES (SA1)
The Convent Series consists of nearly level to very gently sloping, somewhat poorly drained, moderately permeable soils. In a representative profile, the surface is dark grayish brown silt loam overlying layers of grayish brown silt loam and very fino sandy loam. These soils formed in loamy alluvial sediments primarily from the Mississippi River.
They occur at high local elevations. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent.
- 4. LORINC- SERIES (27A1, 27B1, AND 27CD1)
The Loring Series consists of moderately well drained soils on uplands and terraces. These soils l formed in loess. They have a brown silt loam surface soil and a brown silt loam subsoil underlain by a fragipan at about 28 inches below the surface. Slopes range from 0 to 20 percent.
Supplement 7 1 of 3 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS TABLE 2.4-1 (Cont)
- 5. MEMPHIS SERIES (17B1, 17CDl, AND 50) )
The Memphis Series consists of well drained, acid soils of the uplands that nave formed in silty materials. They have dark grayich brown silt loam surface layers and dark brown silty clay loam to s12t loam subsoils. Slopes range from 0 to 40 percent.
- 6. OLIVER SERIES (8B1)
The Oliver Series consists of nearly level to gently sloping, somewhat poorly drained, slowly permeable soils. They have grayish brown silt loam surface layer and yellowish brown silt loam subsoil mottled in shades of brown and gray, and with firm brittle fragipan in the lower part. These soils formed in loess. They occur primarily on pleistocene age terrace. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent. 7
- 7. SHARKEY SERIES (45A1)
O The Sharkey Series consists of level to gently sloping, poorly drained, very slowly permeable soils. They have a very dark grayish brown clay or silty clay loam surface and a dark gray clay subsoil mottled with yellowish brown. These soils formed in clayey Mississippi River sediments. They occur dominantly on the Mississippi River alluvial plain at low level elevations. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent.
Supplement 7 2 of 3 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS
() TABLE 2.4-1 (Cont)
II. IMPORTANT FARMLAND (SOIL MAPPING UNITS)
- 1. PRIME FARMLAND Commerce silt loam, gently undulating (4Bu)
Convent silt loam, O to 1 percent slopes (5A1) l Olivier silt loam, O to 1 percent slopes (8B1) l Memphis silt loam, 1 to 3 percent elopee (17B1) 7 Loring silt loam, O to 1 percent slopes (27A1)
Loring silt loam, I to 3 percent slopes (27B1)
- 2. STATEWIDE OR LOCAL IMPORTANCE l Memphis silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes (17 CD1) l Loring silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes (27CD1)
- 3. OTHER LAND Cascilla soils, frequently flooded (16A1)
Sharkey clay, frequently flooded (45A1)
Memphis complex, steep (50) l (2'See Reference 60. 7
<28 See Fig. 2.4-3.
l Supplement 7 3 of 3 January 1984
C
} %
p)v. :
}s s
?
h \ \
4,g ' p'
% 0 (i f.c .
b' L
4> i
{i g 1 y /, : K' ' s
. y
[c gt w 4ngdf' y pp;
- y .
A ef .
.. s s
y.
m79., i t
sk i n' 4 ' y( Q n' u;
,/ ? (' . ',; "
, k ll / f,,, , .
3}+A%[so /:S d"'y_ Nf
~4 ,
L ,
,,,gk4' % .y'-
' 45Ai i' i * -
/s , ')TBIA y, .
, y, Jwa -
,8
, 81 ,
N -y 0
- ri > s 4 ,,/ *- , ', : aco
> ~
lIE '/' 3 ' / $ (, > 's
} >
.' l' n.
f
-)n)k\>.50 n
1 s._ n i j E ' irst , G ;, - , [~',s. . EQ , ,
"4 a ,- \
'/> a' c , ,
e q ? ,,,e. y, . ~ ,
'A , y .> y -
.\
w .. <r p
< 't ,
5 tah ') _ .. .f; <, }
> qa :: y v
.w=y ' .D,< , gf.
s 4 yN '(, (' . '
.'.; y
\ '
f M Bi .
,s y 8%v ~7. . . kof .- '
l % a / x
. $ x 7 w. x, -
is4 TAG , 4 ; , s' " I g ,
, Ol s'
, f, ,'( IIBl .g. k g, ' ,
c , x 4,u g ;, ( ee c ai , , -
-.A ~
3 ( } l, ~ h ,
. d o g
. ,-1 a ,
+c '4 '
o
+ at
\
16k1 '; ,
, ,f n y ,
hj
#g'- ,, '
g m
- f , _ .
- s .
j - e, q so 1 -. - e - l,
,, ' '! l ,
f p%;w q. f . 'i, ~
~
ly' 1QR E
t, t, g- f Alao Availalile Or4 Aperittre Card
$ '* 74; j_ karapoo 3
h i J C i j h !?- G ycl{ ,s f % fh~kf@h f' A 5_ 5 ,--j'
$[/ 9 '.. }
'\.-.f';' Q }A+ .
,.c f ',:,s~gN).4-[4' ::/ (*h,t
~
s EtPoo-f* +
. 4 ,
. f/ .
N)
'. f 9: -- .. O LEGEND l s)', .. TA
+).; '
.g 'b" .
. CONVENT SILT LOAM (5A1)
M COMMERCE SILT LOAM (43u) f' f7Bli - l l SHARKEY CLAY (45All
\
1hhf} y,Y' . . . ,' (j ,. 't ' 4 ' o N s OLIVIER SILT LOAM (881) 4/ blIldf'; $ e NA ~,Qi +'**
% .V . %N '
l- : l CASCILLA SOILS (16 Al)
~
k', I ( '- s27.' k,. ( hN,E [.. _ _ l LORING SILT LOAM (27A1,27 B1,27CD1)
, of I NI8l? .
,,\Qh
~
.i }lo-[N: MEMPHIS SILT LOAM (17Bl.17CD1)
' 7'A' , yh
)Jgp s
,- ) ]
v- up j '
' 9 ysk m \
,y E A3ER~ RE w// Ji 's ww CAR.J j
~m c ,.
w,dp)- b Jg SEE TABLE 2.4-1 FOR SOIL DESCRIPTIONS. m e. (1.< y 4
,oo_
Q. e )
') . f[
. ,'fi:
i
; c,
[ I'W- ' + iqq . . . a;y\ 8
,.p .a i7 %
- l. O 1000 2000 3000 scat t-F E t t h) y - + "# -
400 600 r- N> fs, d[ O 200 SCALE-METERS j g '.D f.,.j v - p.of h g - 4 '^EM x-84 01310 2 M7 -o l Fjr e ' 5*V. hg
.u d.O-c 4
FIGURE 2.4 -3
,gj. --
y ) 4 ***hM\ SITE S0ll TYPES N/w{ Yf ,'3 J ,
! RIVER BEND STATION ifg;,h p
'fsh[
4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS f
-;[
E-- JANUARY 1984 _ SUPPLEMENT 7
O e . i iDOCUMENT PAGE'
~
PULLED
~
ANO.*-m / NO. OF PAGES _ . Ri.ASON
~
D PAGE ILLEGS2 cr D wAe> cere nao At con olen _ D arma coetREostsTEo oN _ . CF . l
. . Ed MARDCCPV OT FRED At@en _
l iYd / I/d U7 l D FautD ON APERi#tE CARD NO -OQ z l l
,yyw, -<-g v-,-,y, w- w, en.~emn-,-,e ,y,-,,- -,y---,%.,. - - - - , .-w- , . .-_ w-,- ,s.,-w- w w--.-,-yw--w----,--ww-----,- -
_ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .m . RBS ER-OLS
/) TABLE OF CONTENTS V
Chapter Section Title Volume 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The Proposed Project 1 1.2 Status of Reviews and Approvals 1 1.3 Substantive Informational Changes from Construction Permit Stage 1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTIONS 1 2.1 Description of the Station Location 1 2.2 Land 1 2.3 Water 1 2.4 Ecology 1 2.5 Socioeconomics 2 2.6 Geology 2 2.7 Meteorology 2 2.8 Ambient Air Quality 2 2.9 Ambient Noise 2 2.10 Related Federal Project Activities 2 APPENDICES 2A, 2B, and 2C 3 3 PLANT DESCRIPTION 3 (~^) (,, 3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout 3 3.2 Reactor Steam - Electric System 3 3.3 Plant Water Use 3 3.4 Cooling System 3 3.5 Radioactive Waste Management Systems 3 3.6 Nonradioactive Waste Systems 3 3.7 Power Transmission Systems 3 3.8 Transportation of Radioactive Materials 3 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION 3 f 4.1 Land Use Impacts 3 4.2 Hydrological Alterations and Water Use Impacts 3 4.3 Ecological Impacts 3 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts 3
-4.5 Radiation Exposure to Construction Workers 3 4.6 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse" Impacts During Construction 3
() Supplement 4 i February 1983
RBS ER-OLS TABLE OF CONTENTS l Chapter Section Title Volume 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF STATION 3 OPERATION 3 5.1 Land Use Impacts 3 5.2 Hydrological Alterations, Plant Water Supply, and Water Use Impacts 3 5.3 Cooling System Impacts 3 5.4 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation 4 5.5 Nonradioactive Waste System Impacts 4 5.6 Transmission System Impacts 4 5.7 Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts 4 5.8 Socioeconomic Impacts 4 5.9 Decommissioning 4 5.1C Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation 4 APPENDIX SA 4 6 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 4 6.1 Thermal 4 6.2 Radiological 4 6.3 Hydrological 4 6.4 Meteorological 4 6.5 Biological 4 6.6 Chemical 4 6.7 Other Monitoring Programs 4 7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS 4 7.1 Plant Accident 9 4 7.2 Transportation Accidents 4 7 APPENDICES 7A and 7B 4 8 THE NEED FOR THE PLANT 4 u 9 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT 4 Supplement 7 ii January 1984 O
RBS ER-OLS () TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Section Title Volume 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The Proposed Project 1 1.2 Status of Reviews and Approvals 3 1.3 Substantive Informational Changes from Construction Permit Stage 1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTIONS 1 2.1 Description of the Station Location 1 2.2 Land 1 2.3 Water 1 2.4 Ecology 1 2.5 Socioeconomics 2 2.6 Geology 2 2.7 Meteorology 2 2.8 Ambient Air Quality 2 2.9 Ambient Noise 2 2.10 Related Federal Project Activities 2 APPENDICES 2A, 2B, and 2C 3 (~ 3 PLANT DESCRIPTION 3
\s,]/ 3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout 3 3.2 Reactor Steam - Electric System 3 3.3 Plant Water Use 3 3.4 Cooling System 3 3.5 Radioactive Waste Management Systems 3 3.6 Nonradioactive Waste Systems 3 3.7 Power Transmission Systems 3 3.8 Transportation of Radioactive Materials 3 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF c CONSTRUCTION 3 4.1 Land Use Impacts 3 4.2 Hydrological Alterations and Water Use Impacts 3 4.3' Ecological Impacts 3 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts 3 4.5 Radiation Exposure to Construction Workers 3 4.6 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse
- Impacts During Construction 3 February 1983
(; Supplement 4 i
RBS ER-OLS TABLE OF CONTENTS l Chapter Section Title Volume 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF STATION 3 OPERATION 3 5.1 Land Use impacts 3 5.2 Hydrological Alterations, Plant Water Supply, and Water Use Impacts 3 5.3 Cooling System Impacts 3 5.4 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation 4 5.5 Nonradioactive Waste System Impacts 4 5.6 Transmission System Impacts 4 5.7 Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts 4 5.8 Socioeconomic Impacts 4 5.9 Decommissioning 4 5.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation 4 APPENDIX 5A 4 6 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 4 6.1 Thermal 4 6.2 Radiological 4 6.3 Hydrological 4 6.4 Meteorological 4 6.5 Biological 4 6.6 Chemical 4 6.7 Other Monitoring Programs 4 7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS 4 7.1 Plant Accidents 4 7.2 Transportation Accidents 4 APPENDICES 7A and 7B 4 7l 8 THE NEED FOR THE PLANT 4 6 9 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT 4 Supplement 7 11 January 1984 O
RBS ER-OLS APPENDIX 2B ALLIGATOR BAYOU FLOOD STUDY PRESENT HYDROLOGY TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page DEFINITIONS ...................................... 2B-1 INTRODUCTION....................................... 2B-2 1.0 HYDROLOGY ..................................... 2B-4 2.0 MODEL DESCRIPTION ............................. 2B-7 2.1 . EQUATIONS OF CONTINUITY................... 2B-8 2.2 OVERFLOW ................................. 2B-9 2.3 FLOW THROUGH BRIDGE OPENINGS ............. 2B-9 2.4 CULVERT FLOW ............................ 2B-11 3.0 RAINFALL-INDUCED FLOODING .................... 2B-13
/"
3.1 ANALYSIS ................................ 2B-13 (N) 3.2 RESULTS.................................. 2B-14 4.0 RAINFALL PLUS RIVER FLOODING.................. 2B-15
- 4.1 ANALYSIS ................................ 2B-15 l 4.2 RESULTS.................................. 2B-16 i
5.0 RIVER FLOODING................................ 2B-17 f 5.1 ANALYSIS ...... ......................... 2B-17 5.2 RESULTS.................................. 2B-18 4 6.0 MODEL VERIFICATION............................ 2B-19
7.0 REFERENCES
.................................... 2B-20 7 ATTACHMENT A 4 1 Supplement 7 2B-i January 1984 l r
RBS ER-CES APPENDIX 2B (Cont) LIST OF TAELES O Table Title 3-1 Summary of Bayou Response to Rainfall Events LIST OF FIGURES fi9gre Iltle 1-1 Alligator Bayou Floodplain 1-2 Alligator Eaycu crossing with 12 Culverts 2-1 Model Schematic 2-2 Channel Flcw Schematic 3-1 Rainfall Rate tistribution 4-1 Mississippi River Stage Fercent Exceedence 5-1 1971 Mississippi River Flood Stage Hydrograph i 5-2 Assumed Flood Stage Hydrcgraph l 2B-ii
RBS ER-OLS () DEFINITIONS ALLIGATOR BAYCU FLOOD STUDY Access Road - the cauceway constructed in 1977 across the Mississippi River floodplain near the middle of Alligator Baycu to provide access from the plant site to the future barge slip and river water intake facilities on the east bank of the Mississippi River. Upper Bayou - Alligator Bayou north of the access road. Lower Bayou - Alligator Bayou frcm the access road south to the Crown-Zellerbach access resd and bridges. C-Z Bridges - two bridges in a causeway across the southern end of Alligator Bayou that serves the Crown-Zellerbach papetr.ill. Natural Levee - the natural levee formed by the deposition of river silt along the east bank of the Mississippi River forming the boundary between the river and bayou. River Road - an existing gravel rcad beside the east bank of l the river. i () Tramway - the remains of a generally north-scuth embankment that once served as a railroad line. This tramway generally forms the east bcundary of Alligator Bayou. Portions of the tramway are used as a power line right-of-wav. s
RBS ER-OLS INTRODUCTION Attachment A provides an update to the model study. The update is based on data collected during the monitoring 7 program which indicated that an assumption used in the study required modification. Specifically, friction losses in the Bayou are not negligible, as had been assumed. In 1976, a hydrological computer model study was performed to compare the effectiveness of various access road schemes for providing flow between the upper and lower Bayous, and to provide an estimate of the relative hydrological characteristics of each scheme. In 1977, the access road was constructed with twelve 6-ft diameter CMP culverts to provide drainage for the Alligator Baycu channel. This alternative was selected over the 400-ft bridge-channel opening discussed in the Environmental Report - Construction Permit Stage. Pcecer than ant'.cipated soil conditions made feasibility of the bridge questionable and expense greater than anticipated. This report presents the re aults of a revised co.nputer model study of the Bayou. Refinements in assumption.; and modeling techniques have been made to replace some of the conservatisms or oversimplifications of the earlier model with more realistic approaches in an attempt to more accurately reflect the hydrology of the Bayou. Also, additional cases of Bayou flooding caused by flood stages of the Mississippi River and coincident rainfall have been added to the invca?.iqation. Three cases are investigated: the natural Bayou (pre-access road construction), an access road with 400-ft opening spanned by a bridge (as described in the Environmental Report - Construction Permit Stage), and an access road with culverts (the present arrangement). It must also be emphasized that, as in any modeling of complex natural systems, there remain in the analysis many assumptions, simplifications, and approximations. Therefore, results may be used comparatively but absolute values should not be relied upon without field verifications. The analysis predicts water levels in the Bayou from various rainfall events in the drainage basin and flood levels of the Mississippi River. If water levels in the Bayou reach the elevations of the river bank where river action has removed the natural levee, spillage over the bank occurs. Thus, the analysis also predicts duration of such overflow, if it occurs, for various events postulated. Supplement 7 2B-2 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS Information contained in this report pertaining to O Mississippi River and local drainage characteristics has been updated, course as flooding presented in Section 2.3.1. The following presentation has not been altered based on these updates, as it is not certain that more accurate flood level predictions could be provided. ' Section 6.3 describes the hydrological monitoring program that has been established at the site to more clearly define River Access Road construction impacts on Alligator Bayou and to verify computer model flood predictions. F s h O b h 9 Supplement 7 2B-3 January 1984 , l
RBS ER-OLO 1.0 HYDFOLCGY The study area is shown on Figure 1-1. Alligator Bayou is a small intermittent stream traversing the Mississippi River floodplain. Its course is largely determined by the natural sump that extends the length of the floodplain. A total drainage area of about 30 sq mi is included north of the access road. Within the upper portion of the drainace basin, the stream is known as Alexander Creek. This stream falls from a maximum elevation of about 280 ft nsi near its source to an elevation of about 40 ft ms1 where it enters the alluvial floodplain. Channel length for this section is about 16 miles. In the upper reaches the channel flows through a narrow, entrenched valley with relatively s+eep slopes. The channel and valley become brcader in the downstream direction. Prior to entering the floodplain, flow passes through Bridge 57 of the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad. 7 bis constriction consists of two cpenings and the channel apparently shifts positions between them. Flow proceeds past and through the remains of a tramway and is shortly joined by Wycliffe Creek, an intermittent ficodplain creek entering from the northwest. Within the Mississippi River floodplain, the Bayou meanders in a small undefined channel through the densely wooded shallcw trouch between the river bank cn the west and the tramway on the east. Elevation along the river varies from abcut 46 ft ms1 at the south end to a low of about 37.3 ft msl near the northern GSU property line where the natural levee has been removed by the action cf the river. River Fcad runs generally along the natural levee varying from a few teet to several hundred feet back from the bank. In the lower areas of the levee, the road is built up a few inches above grade. Elevations discussed herein are elevations along the road, not the actual natural levee edge or br.nk elevations, although the difference is cenErally slight. The natural levee has steep banks on the river side. This natural levee is being eroded by the action of the river at an estimated average rate of about 15 ft per year in the vicinity of the site. Downstream from the southern GSU property line ') ' tor Bayou is joined by Grants Baycu from the northeast. nts Bayou is the largest tributary to Alligator Bayou and u.ains about 16 sq mi. Two miles further downstream, flow passes 22-4
O I ATTACHMENT A ALLIGATOR BAYOU' FLOOD STUDY UPDATE October 1983 O l Supplement 7 January 1984 0
RBS ER-OLS f-s3 ATTACHMENT A ALLIGATOR BAYOU FLCOD STUDY UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page INTRODUCTION . 28.A-1 l.0 RECORDED FLOODS 2B.A-2 2.0 METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING ALLIGATOR DAYOU FLOODS 2B.A-3 2.1 Alligator Bayou Floods 2B.A-3 2.2 Model Description 2B.A-4 i 3.0 DERIVATION OF HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS FROM RECORDED FLOOD EVENTS 2B.A-6 3.1 Backwater Simulation of Recorded Floods 2B.A-6 3.2 Manning's Coefficient 2B.A-6 3.3 Stage-Discharge Relation at Crown-Zellerbach Bridges 2B.A-7 3.4 Storage-Discharge Relation in the Bayou 2B.A-7
) 4.0 IMPACT OF THE RIVER ACCESS ROAD ON ALLIGATOR BAYOU HYDROLOGY 2B.A-8 4.1 Mississippi River-Induced Floods 2B.A-8 4.2 Rainfall-Induced Floods 2B.A-8
5.0 CONCLUSION
S 2B.A-9
6.0 REFERENCES
2B.A-ll i i i
/N Supplement 7 2B.A-1 January 1984 t
L
RBS ER-OLS LIST OF TABLES Table Title Al-1 RECORDED FLOODS IN ALLIGATOR BAYOU Al-2 STAFF GAUGE READINGS OF FEBRUARY 1982 FLOOD Al-3 STAFF GAUGE READINGS OF APRIL 1982 FLOOD Al-4 STAFF GAUGE READINGS OF DECEMBER 1982 FLOOD Al-5 STAFF GAUGE READINGS OF APRIL 1983 FLOOD A3-1
SUMMARY
OF APRIL 1982 FLOOJ SIMULATION A3-2
SUMMARY
OF DECEMBER 1982 FLOOD SIMULATION A3-3 STORAGE-DISCHARGE RELATIONS FOR THE UPPER AND LOWER BAYOU A4-1 SIMULATED WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS AND DISCHARGES FOR RECORDED FLOODS IN THE BAYOU A4-2 ROUTED HYDROGRAPHS FOR UPPER AND LOWER BAYOU A4-3 PREDICTED WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR RAINFALL- f INDUCED FLOODS Supplement 7 2B.A-ii January 1984
RBS ER-OLS I,IST OF FIGURES (,-.
\ Figure Title Al-1 ALLIGATOR BAYOU FLOODPLAIN Al-2 RAINFALL AND WATER SURFACE ELEVATION FOR MAY 1981 FLOOD Al-3 RAINFALL AND WATER SURFACE ELEVATION FOR JULY 1981 FLOOD Al-4 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION FOR APRIL 1982 FLOOD .
Al-5 RAINFALL AND WATER SURFACE ELEVATION FOR DECEMBER 1982 FLOOD A2-1 DEFINITION SKETCH OF A TYPICAL STREAM REACH A3-1 COMPUTED AND RECORDED WATER SURFACE PROFILES FOR APRIL 1982 FLOOD A3-2 COMPUTED AND RECORDED WATER SURFACE PROFILES FOR DECEMBER 1982 FLOOD A3-3 STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION AT CROWN-ZELLERBACH e BRIDGES f" A4-1 PREDICTED WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR RAINFALL-INDUCED FLOODS Supplement 7 2B.A-iii January 1984
,O
.,r- r_m, -. ____._-.,,,.,....x,_,- . , _ , . ,..,_-.7 - , , - , -.---,,-.w..r,r,,. -. .
RBS ER-OLS
/s
( j ALLIGATOR BAYOU FLOOD STUDY UPDATE INTRODUCTION In 1979, a computer model was used to study flood events in Alligator Bayou induced by storm rainfall and flood stages in the Mississippi River. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the impact on Alligator Bayou hydrology of the construction of River Access Road across the Bayou. The results were presented .in Appendix 2B, and it was recommended that field studies be performed to test, and if necessary, calibrate the model. A monitoring program, described in Section 6.3.2.1, was implemented in 1981 for this purpose. Water level recording and staff gauges were installed to record water levels just upstream and downstream of the River Access Road culverts. In addition to the existing onsite rain gauge, a rain gauge was installed at a point near the centroid of the Alexander Creek drainage basin. The first recorded flood in May 1981 showed thst water surface elevation upstream and downstream of the culverts varied little. In addition, a field observation indicated the existence of a substantial water surface slope in the (~]
\ ,/
upper Bayou. Data recorded during the July 1981 flood showed the same trend. Analysis of these data suggested that a simplifying assumption made in the model, specifically that friction losses through the Bayou were negligible, needed modification. Hence, it was determined that a new model was required and that backwater analysis would best simulate actual Bayou conditions. In order to obtain a more comprehensive data set, two additional staff gauges were installed, one at the low point of River Road and another at the Crown-Zellerbach Bridges. Since then, , five additional floods in the Bayou induced by either rainfall or high Mississippi River flood stages have been recorded. ! This report summarizes the observed flood events and t presents a revised flow model and impact analysis for the River Access Road. Supplement 7 2B.A-1 January 1984 (}/ As-
.~g w- m- --y v-m , ,. w -m--w-, , ~
RBS ER-OLS 1.0 RECORDED FLOODS The rain gauges and water level gauges record continuously. In addition to the two continuous recording water level gauges located upstream and downstream of the culverts, staff gauges were installed at the low point of River Road, upstream and downstream of the culverts, and at the Crown-Zellerbach Bridges (see Figure Al-1). The staff gauges were read at least once every day during a flood period. Staff gauge readings at the culverts were also used to check the data from the continuous water level recorders. A summary of the available water level and rainfall data from seven recorded flood events is presented in Table Al-1. The flood event of May 1981 (5/5/81 to 5/8/81) was due to local rainfall. The recorded water levels upstream and downstream of the culverts and precipitation data are ahown on Figure Al-2. The rainfall lasted about 16 hours, and flow in the culverts was not full. The difference in water surface elevations between upstreaa and downstream of the culverts varied from 1.5 in to ' in. Overflow at the low point of River Road was observed. An observed drop of about 2.8 ft in water level between the low peint of River Road and upstream of the culverts indicated that head loss in the Bayou was significaat. The flood recorded in July 1981 (7/2/81 to 7/4/81) was induced by a local storm moving from south to north. Figure Al-3 shows the recorded rainfall in the Alligator Bayou basin and water surface elevations upstream and downstream of the culverts. The recorded data indicated that a reverse flow through the culverts occurred during the early stage of the flood. A maximum water level drop of about 1.6 ft was recorded between upstream and downstream of the culverts. The River Road near the low point was severely washed out. The flood of February 1992 (2/16/82 to 2/19/82) was due to a mixture of rainfall and high water level in the Mississippi River. Precipitation totalling 2.5 in was recorded for the Alligator Bayou basin. Water level upstream of the culverts was not recorded due to equipment malfunction. The highest recorded water level downstream of the culverts was 36.31 ft. The staff gauge readings are tabulated in Table Al-2. A flow direction toward the Bayou at the low point of River Road indicated that the Mississippi River caused the flood in Alligator Bayou. A slope of the water surface in Alligator Bayou was noticeable. Supplement 7 2B.A-2 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS O The flood of April 1982 (4/1/82 to 4/14/82) was due to high water level in the Mississippi River. showed that river water was flowing toward the Bayou at the Field observations low point of River Road. Staff gauge readings during the flood are tabulated in Table Al-3. The recorded water surface elevations upstream and downstream of the culverts are shown on Figure Al-4. This flood lasted about 15 days, and the maximum drop of water surface elevation between upstream and downstream of the culverts was about 3 in. The culvert flow was partially full. The flood recorded in early December 1982 (12/3/82 to 12/6/82) was induced by a storm with rainfall lasting one day. The precipitation for Alligator Bayou basin and water surface elevations upstream and downstream of the culverts are shown on Figure Al-5. Water surface elevation recordings upstream and downstream of the culverts indicated that the upstream water level rose higher but peaked later than the downstream water level. Reverse flow through the culverts occurred during the early stage of the flood. The largest water surface drop between upstream and downstream of the culverts was 1.2 ft. Severe floods occurred in Alligator Bayou during December 1982 (12/11/82 to 1/21/83) and April 1983 (4/25/83 to 5/23/83), caused by high water level in the Mississippi River. Each flood lasted more than one month. The staff l gauge readings of these two flood events are tabulated in Tables Al-4 and Al-5, respectively. The continuous water level recorders upstream and downstream of the culverts only recorded part of the December flood due to high water level. 2.0 METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING ALLIGATOR BAYOU FLOODS 2.1 Alligator Bayou Floods The study area is shown on Figure Al-1. The two modes of Alligator Bayou flooding are discussed below. Alligator Bayou is part of the Mississippi River floodplain. When river stage in the vicinity of the site reaches about > 37 ft uts l , water begins to spill directly from the river into the Bayou across a low point of River Road. - Mississippi River stage is generally lower than Bayou stage. Floods in the Bayou can also occur due to local precipitation in the Grants Bayou and Alexander Creek watersheds. Because of its smaller basin, the Grants Bayou flood usually arrives at Alligator Bayou prior to the Alexander Creek flood. The flood tends to fill the lower Supplement 7 2B.A-3 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS l Bayou quickly and may occasionally back into the upper Bayou j through the River Access Road culverts before arrival of the ' Alexander Creek flood. When the flood from Alexander Creek arrives, a unidirectional downstream flood is established. As the flood fills the upper Bayou capacity and subsequently exceeds conveyance capacity of the Bayou, the water surface can rise above the low point of River Road, overtop the natural levee, and spill into the Mississippi River, 2.2 Model Description In order to simulate the recorded flood events and to assess the impact of the River Road on Alligator Bayou hydrology, the HEC-2 water surface profile computer model was employed'1'. The HEC-2 model is based on the theory of steady state open channel flow. The following equations are employed: 2 2 av av h + 7 7 + ' ' +h e 2g
=h 2 i 29 (1)
/a v 2 av 2) hg = L5f+c jg" -
jg' (2) where: hs, ha = water surface elevations at ends of reach v,s v2 = mean velocities at ends of reach at, az = velocity coefficients for flows at ends of reach g = acceleration due to gravity he = energy head loss L = reach length 5f = average friction slope for reach c = expansion or contraction loss coefficient Figure A2-1 shows the terms of Equations 1 and 2 for a typical stream reach. The application of equations 1 and 2 Supplement 7 2B.A-4 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS /~N to Alligator Bayou requires the subdivision of the Bayou () into several reaches. The locations of cross sections along Alligator Bayou used for this study are shown on Figure Al-1. Cross section 1 is located at the Crown-Zellerbach Bridges. Cross section 11 is located at the low point of River Road. Cross sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 are required to simulate culvert flow. Cross section 5 is just downstream from the culverts and represents Cross the expansion effect of ficw leaving the culverts. section 6, located inside the culverts at the downstream end, and cross section 7, inside the culverts at the upstream end, represent the shape of tne culverts in which flow is confined. Cross section 8 is just upstream from the culverts and represents tne contraction effect of flow entering the culverts. Flow over the low point of River Road between the Bayou and the Mississippi River is simulated by weir flow. The following equation is used: N Q w =c LH f1 i=1 (3) where: (V~') = overflow Q c = weir constant = 3.0 N = number of weirs L. = crest length of i-th weir 1 H = head af the i-th weir Natural levee elevations from a 1976 survey were used to establish weir lengths. The weir ficw equation, in canjunction with water level information from the HEC-2 model, were used to estimate the flow spilled over River Road during rainfall-induced flood in the Bayou. The flow passing through the River Access Road culverts can be estimated by the HEC-2 computer program utilizing flow characteristics of the culverts and the upstream and downstream water elevations. Supplement 7 2B.A-5 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS The estimated flow was then used in HEC-2 to calibrate Manning's n in the Bayou and to establish a stage-discharge relation at the Crown-Zellerbach Bridges. The effect of Bayou storage on peak flow reduction was accounted for through use of the modified Puls routing method, as presented in the HEC-1 computer modelcar, Storage-discharge relationships for the Bayou were established from backwater profiles based on channel geometry and estimated flows. For impact assessment, the rainfall-induced inflow hydrographs from Alexander Creek and Grants Bayou were routed for peak flow reduction prior to input to the water profile analysis. 3.0 DERIVATION OF HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS FROM RECORDED FLOODS 3.1 Backwater Simulation of Recorded Floods The objective of recorded flood simulation was to determine the hydraulic parameters of the Bayou. The April 1982 and mid-December 1982 floods were selected for the simulation, as these events were monitored for water level at the low point of River Road, upstream and downstream of the culverts, and at the Crown-Zellerbach Bridges. Flow rates were estimated by using the recorded water surface elevations at the culverts and applying the HEC-2 computer program. The water surface elevations at the Crown-Zellerbach Bridges, the estimated discharge, and assumed Manning's n values, were input to the HEC-2 model to determine the simulated water surface profiles. The estimated culvert discharge was used as a first approximation for backwater analysis. It was found that the estimated flow could be kept unchanged for the partial full culvert flow condition with tre only adjustment made on g Manning's n to match the measured water surface elevations. In the case of full culvert flow, both flood discharge and Manning's n required adjustment to match the water elevations measured at the culverts. For simulating recorded floods, all 14 culverts were assumed functional. 3.2 Manning's Coefficient The results of the simulation of recorded floods are summarized in Tables A3-1 and A3-2. The computed and recorded water surface profiles are shown on Figures A3-1 and A3-2. The predicted Manning's n and related discharge are summarized in Tables A3-1 and A3-2. Manning's n varied from 0.20 to 0.42 in the lower Bayou and from 0.20 to 0.30 in the upper Bayou. The Manning's n value represents the Supplement 7 2B.A-6 January 1984 j
RBS ER-OLS () resistance of an open channel to flow. Manning's n observed here is caused by The unusual high the heavy vegetative growth in the Bayou. As shown in Tables A3-1 and A3-2 the average Manning's n is about 0.22 in the entire Bayou. This value was used to assess the impact of River Access Road culverts on Bayou hydrology. 3.3 Stage-Discharge Relation at Crown-Zellerbach Bridges Due to mild slopes in the Bayou, the water surface profile is controlled by the downstream water surface elevation at the Crown-Zellerbach Bridges. The calculated discharge and associated water surface elevation at the Crown-Zellerbach Bridges based on the recorded data and backwater simulation are presented on Figure A3-3. The relation of stage and discharge can be expressed by the equation: h = 22.046 Q eose (4) where: h = water surface elevation in feet Q = discharge in cfs Equation 4 provided the initial water surface elevation at the Crown-Zellerbach Bridges for calculated backwater curves in the Bayou. 3.4 Storage-Discharge Relation in the Dayou The storage-discharge relation in the Bayou is required for routing flood hydrographs through the Bayou. The relations of storage-discharge in the upper and lower Bayous were obtained from the results of simulating the recorded floods. The storage volume under each simulated water surface profile was calculated. In the upper Bayou, the discharge includes the flow passing through the culverts and spilling over the low point of River Road into the Mississippi River. The computed storage ano discharge in the upper and lower Bayous are tabulated in Table A3-3. The storage-discharge relation affects the peak flood reduction in flood routing. Table A3-3 shows that more peak flood reduction will occur in the lower Bayou than in the upper Bayou. Supplement 7 2B.A-7 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS 4.0 IMPACT OF THE RIVER ACCESS ROAD ON ALLIGATOR BAYOU HYDROLOGY 4.1 Mississippi River-Induced Floods In order to evaluate the impact on Alligator Bayou hydrology of River Access Road and the culverts, a comparison was made of water levels with and without the presence of River Access Road. Water surface profiles of the April 1982 and December 1982 floods were simulated to evaluate water levels without the presence of River Access Road. Tables A3-1 and A3-2 present these simulated profiles in conjunction with the recorded and computed profiles for the present Bayou. Figures A3-1 and A3-2 graphically illustrate the recorded and computed water surface pre sies of the present Bayou and the computed water surface profile of the natural Bayou. A comparison of the water surface elevations for the natural condition and the present Bayou shows that during low flow conditions River Access Road does not have significant impact on the water surface elevations at the low point of River Road. During high flow conditions the water surface elevation at the low point of River Road depicts a lower level than for the natural Bayou condition. I Flow spilling into the Bayou from the Mississippi River is controlled by river stage. An analysis was performed to estimate the flow in the natural Bayou for various river levels at the low point of River Road. The results of this analysis are provided in Table A4-1 and Figures A3-1 and A3-2. These results indicate that the River Access Road does not obstruct flood flow when the spill from the Mississippi is small. As the spill increases with higher river stage, the obstruction to flow in the Bayou due to the culverts increases proportionately. 4.2 Rainfall-Induced Floods To assess the impact of River Access Road on rainfall-induced floods in the Bayou, 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year floods were developed. The inflow hydrographs for Alligator Bayou and Grants Bayou were routed through the upper and lower Bayou. The routed hydrographs are tabulated in Table A4-2. The routed peak flow in the upper Bayou and its corresponding flow in time in the lower Bayou were used to calculate the backwater profile. For impact assessment, only 12 culverts at River Access Road were modelled. The two additional culverts located east of the group of 12 culverts were not considered to pass flow. This conservatism picvided a tolerance for degradation of Supplement 7 2B.A-8 January 1984
FBS ER-OLS 9 carrying capacity should settlement of the culverts, or partial blockage of debris, or sedimentation, within them occur. Past experience indicates that only light, partial I blockage limited to a few culverts might occur during large storms. In addition, any blockages are cleared to prevent further accumulation. Hence, severe culvert blockages are very unlikely. A trial-and-error procedure was used to determine flow through the River Access Road culverts and the corresponding water surface profile. The predicted water surface elevations in the present and natural Bayou are tabulated in Table A4-3 and shown on Figure A4-1. The results show that all three rainfall-induced floods cause everflow at the low point of River Road with the majority of floodwater in the upper Bayou discharging into the Mississippi Ri'Jer over the low point of River Road. A comparison of the predicted water surface profiles with and without River Access Road shows that River Access Road does not have a significant impact on the water surface elevation at the low point of River Road. The natural Bayou allows more floodwater to pass from the upper Bayou to the lower Bayou. This results in a larger overall friction loss than occurs in the present Bayou. The existence of River Access Road presents an obstruction to flow and 9 reduces the overall friction loss in the Bayou. the culverts generate a local head loss. However, These two conditions produce similar water elevation at the low point of River Road.
5.0 CONCLUSION
S The following conclusions can be drawn from this study:
- 1. Analysis of the recorded flood data shows that River Access Road has relatively insignificant impact on water surface elevation in the Bayou.
The maximum water elevation drop across the culverts for the seven floods observed was Jese than 1.6 feet.
- 2. River Access Road does not obstruct flood flow in the Bayou when the spill from the Mississippi River is small and the flow in the culverts is partially full. As the spill increases to cause full flow in the culverts, the obstruction to flood due to River Access Road increases proportionately.
Supplement 7 2B.A-9 January 1984
1 l PBS ER-OLS
- 3. All three rainfall-induced floods cause overtopping of River Road during peak flow in the upper Bayou regardless of the presence of River Access Road.
- 4. Most floodwaters in the upper Bayou are diverted to the Missiusippi River over the low point of River Road, even in the natural condition. The existence of River Access Road slightly increase, the amount of overflow at the low point of River Road.
O Supplement 7 2B.A-10 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS
6.0 REFERENCES
- 1. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers. HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles-User's Manual, August 1979.
- 2. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers. HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package-User's Manual, January 1973.
O Supplement 7 2B.A-11 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS TABLE A1-1 RECORDED FLOODS IN ALLIG ATOR BAYOU Stage Data Stage Data I at low Stage Data Stage Data at Crown- Rain f all Data Rainfall Data , Period of Point of Upstream Downstream Zellerbach for Alligator from Station l Ziggd _ _ River Rgad, gf Culverts of Culvert s Bridges Bayou Basin Mett_ Tower Lemarks 1 5/5/31 to No Yes Yes No Yes Yes flood due 5/8/81 to rainfall i 7/2/81 to No Yes Yes No Yes No Flood due 7/4/81 to rainfall 2/16/82 to Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Flood due to 2/19/82 (Staff gauge rainfall and high only) stage in river 4/1/82 to Yes Yes Yes Yes Yesca) Yesta) Flood due 4/14/82 to high stage in ritt l 12/3/82 to No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Flood due l to rainfall 1 12/6/82 l 12/11/82 to Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes(t) lesca) Flcod due l to high stage ! 1/21/83 in river 4/25/83 to Yes Yes Yes Yes Yesca) Yes(1) Flood due 5/23/83 (Staf f gauge (Staff gauge to high stage only) only) in river (1)No precipitation recorded. Supplement 7 1 of 1 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS TABLE Al-2 STAFF GAUGE READINGS OF FEBRUARY 1982 FLOOD Water _ Surface Elevation (ft-msl) Crown-i Low Point of Upstream Downstream Zellerbach l Date River Road of Culverts of Culverts Bridges 2/16/82 37.5(2) 36.50 36.15 33.7 2/17/82 37.35(2' 35.55 35.55 33.4 2/18/92 37.05(2) 35.50 35.50 33.4 2/19/82 <37.00(a> 35.30 35.30 - l O t (1) Flow from Bayou to river at low point of River Road. ! (2) Flow from river to Bayou at low point of River Road.
<an No flow at low point of River Road. l l
1 Supplement 7 1 of 1 January 1984 ' O
\,' :
l l
)
i
. - - - , , , - - . , - , , - , - , , - ,,-.,_,,.-,,-.,.,,,,,,,,,.,.--.-,-,.--,.,.,,,,-.,,r, . - , . , . - , , . , , . , , , , . , ,
I RBS ER-OLS J TABLE Al-3 o/
\- STAFF GAUGE READINGS OF APRIL 1982 FLOOD Water Surface Elevation (ft-msl)
Low Point Upstream Downstream Crown- , of of of Zellerbach Date River Read Culverts Culvert _s Bridges 4/1/82 37.4'1' 35.4 35.4 33.0 4/2/82 37.8 35.7 35.7 33.4 4/3/82 38.0 35.95 35.9 33.6 4/4/82 38.2 36.2 36.1 33.8 4/5/82 38.5 36.45 36.35 34.1 4/6/82 38.7 36.75 36.55 34.4 4/7/82 38.75 36.90 36.65 34.5 4/8/82 38.80 37.00 36.80 34.5 4/9/82 38.75 36.96 36.75 34.5 4/10/28 38.5 36.70 36.5 - 4/11/82 38.4 36.50 36.3 - 4/12/82 38.0 36.0 35.9 33.6 4/13/82 37.6 35.5 35.5 33.1 4/14/82 37.3 35.2 35.2 - (
'28 Flow from river to Bayou at lcJ point of River Road for the entire flood period.
Supplement 7 1 of 1 January 1984 O
RBS ER-OLS I 't TABLE Al-4 V STAFF GAUGE READINGS OF DECEMBER 1982 FLOOD Water Surface Elevation (ft-msl) Low Point Crown-of River Upstream Downstream Zellerbach Dav Road of Culverts of Culverts Bridges 12/11/82 37.3(15 35.0 34.95 32.9 12/12/82 38.0 35.9 35.8 33.6 , 12/13/82 38.7 36.7 36.5 34.3 12/14/82 39.1 37.4 37.1 34.80 12/15/82 39.8(2) 38.4c2> 37.9c2> 35_5'2' 40.0'3' 38.7(a) 38.0ca> 35.70'3' 12/16/82 40.4c2> 39.3<2> 38.5c2) 36.10(2) 40.6ca> 39.55(3) 38.65ca> 36.30'38 12/17/82 41.0 40.1 39.05 36.70 12/18/82 41.6 40.6 39.5 - 12/19/82 - 41.1 39.9 37.9 12/20/82 42.2 41.5 40.3 38.0 12/21/82 - 12/22/82 42.05 40.75 38.5 12/23/82 - 42.15 40.80 38.55 12/24/82 - 42.0 40.7 39.5
- {.s ]j 12/25/82 - - -
39.5 12/26/82 - 41.60 40.30 38.00 12/27/82 - 42.35 41.00 38.60 12/28/82 - 42.40 40.95 23.70 12/29/82 43.20 42.40 40.90 38.60 12/30/82 42.40 41.00 38.75 12/31/82 - 42.45 41.05 38.80 1/1/83 - 42.50 41.10 - 1/2/83 - 43.00 41.60 -
'1/3/83 -
43.30<2> 41.80'2' - 43.40'3' 41.90'3) 39.70'3' 1/4/83 - 43.50 42.00 39.80 1/5/83 44.65. 43.90 42.40 40.20 (*'
-1/6/83 44.10 42.60 40.45 1/7/83 45.10
(*) 44.40 42.90 40.70 1/8/83 44.50 43.00 - 1/9/83 - 44.80 43.40 - 1/10/83 - 44.90 43.45 41.20 1/11/83 - 45.00 43.60 41.40
-1/12/83 -
45.10 43.60 41.45 1/13/83 - 44.95 43.50 41.30 1/14/83 - 44.65 43.25 41.00 1/15/83- - 44.20 42.90 - 1/16/83 - 43.50 42.30 - () Supplement 7 1 of 2 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS 1 TABLE Al-4 (Cont) Water Surface Elevation (ft-msl) Low Point Crown-of River Upstream Downstream Zellerbach Day Road of Culverts of Culverts Bridges 1/17/83 - 42.95 41.50 39.3 1/18/83 - 42.15 40.90 38.60 1/19/83 - 41.30 40.00 37.65 1/20/83 - 40.55 39.60 37.20 1/21/83 - 39.40 38.40 36.00 . 1/22/83 - (5) 37.6 37.1 - 1/24/83 34.20 34.1 31.75 O s P l NOTE:
'18 Flow from river to Bayou at low point of River Road for the entire flood period.
(2> Measured in AM. ca Measured in PM. (*)High floodwater precluded daily gauge reading. ! '5)As of 1/22/83, the water is no longer over River Road. Supplement 7 2 of 2 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS 3 TABLE Al-5
\
'~'
)
STAFF GAUGE READINGS OF APRIL 1983 FIOOD Water Surf / ice Elevation (ft-msl) Low Point Upstream Downstream Crown-of River of of Zellerbach Day Road Culverts Culverts Bridges _ 4/22/83 (1,25 41.90 40.40 38.20 4/23/83 - 42.40 41.00 38.90 4/24/83 - 42 0 41.30 39.00 4/25/83 -
- 43. 0 41.70 39.50 4/26/83 -
43.40 41.90 39.70 - 4/27/83 44. T 6
<25 43.50 42.05 39.90 4/28/83 43.80 42.30 40.10 4/29/83 -
43.90 42.50 40.25 4/30/83 - 44.10 42.50 40.50 5/1/83 - 44.20 42.70 40.50 5/2/83 - 44.30 42.70 40.50 5/3/83 - 44.25 42.70 40.50 5/4/83 - 44.30 42.70 - 5/5/83 - 44.10 42.70 40.40 5/6/83 - 44.10 42.70 40.40 5/7/83 - 44.00 42.50 40.40 i ( ( 5/8/83 5/9/83 44.10 44.20 42.60 42.70 40.50 40.50 5/10/83 - 44.40 42.90 40.65 5/11/83 - - - - 5/12/83 45.40
<a>
44.50 43 . .' ) 40.95 5/13/83 44.80 43.35 41.10 5/14/83 - 45.00 43.50 41.30 5/15/83 - 45.80 43.80 41.50 5/16/83 - 45.30 43.80 41.50 5/17/83 - 46.00
44.50 42.30 5/18/83 47.50 (2) (4) 45.10 (4) 43.00 t 5/19/83 43.70 5/20/83 - - - - 5/21/83 - - - 45.70 5/22/83 - - - 46.80 5/23/83 - - - 47.30 5/24/83'4' - - - - (13 Flow from river-to Bayou at low point of River Road for the entire flood period.
<a: High floodwater precluded daily gauge reading.
ca> Water level above maximum reading of staff gauge. 848 Water is covering road above culverts (>46.00 ft-ms1). Supplement 7 1 of 1 January 1984 ( )
_m j f'
\ \
\
i RBS ER-OLS TABLE A3-1
SUMMARY
OF APRIL 1982 FLOOD SIMULATION l i Water Level at c rown-Ze l le rbach 4 Bridges (Cross Calculated Manning's Manning's Water Level (ft-mst) Flood Section 1) Di scha rge n at n at Downstream Upstream Low Point Date fPt-ast) (crst Lower Bayou Ugger Bayou (Cross Section 51 (Cross Section 81 (Cross Section 11] Remarks 4/4/82 33.8 480 0.28 0.23 36.1 36.20 38.20 (1) 36.07 36.17 38.13 (2) 35.04 35.04 38.16 (3) 1 4/5/82 34.1 500 0.31 0.29 36.35 36.45 38.50 (1) 36.33 36.43 38.44 (2) ! 35.29 35.29 38.43 (3) l . 4/6/82 34.4 730 0.22 0.24 36.55 36.75 38.70 (1) 36.52 36.72 38.71 (2)
- 35.53 35.53 38.64 (3) 1 4/7/82 34.5 820 0.21 0.22 36.65 36.90 38.75 (1)
! 36.68 36.93 38.78 (2) 35.73 35.73 38.67 (3) 4 4/8/82 34.5 730 0.26 0.24 36.80 37.00 38.80 (1) . 36.84 31.04 38.74 (2) 35.81 35.81 38.64 (3) i j 4/9/82 34.5 740 0.24 0.24 36.75 36.95 38.75 (1) 36.72 36.92 38.75 (2)
- 35.74 35.74 38.66 (3) i 4/12/82 33.6 460 0.26 0.21 35.90 36.00 38.00 (1)
! 35.88 35.98 38.00 (2) 1 34.86 34.86 38.05 (3) a i
l l 1 4 )' (1) Recorded water surface elevattor in Alligator Bayou with River Access Road (2) Computed water surface elevatit r in Alligator Bryou with River Access Road ( 3 ) Computed water surface elevat s u. .1 Alligator Bayou without River Access Road I Supplement 7 1 of 1 Janua ry 1984 I 1 4
- n. ,.- , -
_,J ./ %_. RBS ER-OLS TABLE A3-2
SUMMARY
OF DECEMBER 1982 Ft.00D SIMULATION Wa te r Leve l at C rown-Ze l l e rbach Bridges (Cross Calculated Manning's Manning's Water Level (ft-msll Flood Section 1) D i scha rge n at n at Downstream Upstream Low Point Date (ft-msll (crst Lower Bayou Uppe r Bayou (Cross Section 51 (Cross Section 81 (Cross Section 111 Remarks 12/12/82 33.60 460 0.24 0.22 35.80 35.90 38.00 (1) 35.75 35.86 38.05 (2) 34.78 34.78 38.09 (3) 12/13/82 34.30 730 0.22 0.22 36.50 36.70 38.70 (1) 36.52 36.12 38.60 ( c .' 35.50 35.50 38.54 g (3) 12/14/82 34.80 910 0.23 0.23 37.10 37.40 39.10 (1) 31.10 37.41 39.06 (2) 36.06 36.06 38,86 (3) 12/15/32 35.50 1240 0.23 0.22 37.90 38.40 39.80 (1) 37.86 38.36 39.72 (2) 36.73 36.73 39.27 (3) 12/15/82 35.70 1480 0.20 0.20 38.00 38.70 40.00 (1) 38.00 38.69 39.98 (2) 36.90 36.90 39.41 (3) 12/16/82 36.10 1550 0.23 0.22 38.50 39.30 40.40 (1) 38.44 39.24 40.43 (2) 37.27 37.27 39.68 (3) 12/16/82 36.30 1650 0.24 0.20 38.65 39.55 40.60 (1) 38.70 39.61 40.57 (2) 37.49 37.49 39.64 (3) 12/17/82 36.70 1780 0.25 0.21 39.05 40.10 41.00 (1) 39.00 40.05 40.98 (2) 37.81 37.81 39.90 (3) 12/19/82 37.90 1920 0.31 0.21 39.90 41.10 - (1) 39.82 41.03 41.69 (2) 38.76 38.76 40.32 (3) Supplement 7 1 of 2 Janua ry 1984
-. ._ ...- --.-,...-. - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - . . - , - - . - . . . - .- . - . . . . . ~ , . - .~ c _- . . . . ~ . .. -
4 . . [ 4
^ (f" . t e
f i .N. v. , I 1 I i j RBS ER-OLS 4 TABLE A3-2 (Cont) l i b -Wa ter Level at ! C rown-Ze l l e rba ch l' Bridges (Cross Calculated Manning's Manning's Wa te r Leve l (ft-mst) , Flood Section 1) D i scha rge n at- n at Downs t rea m Ups t ream Low Point *
'Date fft-mst) fcfs) Lower Bayou . Upper Bayou (Cross Section 5) (Cross Section 8) (Cross Section 111 Rema rks 12/22/82 38.50 2010 0.42 0.21 40.75 42.05 -
(1) 40.79 42.09 42.54 ~ (2) 39.52 39.52 40.60 (3) . 12/29/82 38.69 2170 0.40 0.30 40.90 42.40 43.20 (1) , 40.91 42.42 43.20 (2) ; 39.63 39.63 40.40 (3) f i f l t i i 5 (1) Recorded water surface elevation in Alligator Bayou with River Access Road. (2) Computed wetor surface elevation in Alligator Bayou with River Access Road. (3) Computed water surface elevation in Alligator Bayou without River Access Road. Supplement 7 2 of 2 Janua ry 1984 5
RBS ER-OLS I'J') TABLE A3-3 STORAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION FOR THE UPPER AND LOWER BAYOU Upper Bayo1 Lower Bayou Storage Discharge Storage Discharge (acre-ft) (cfs) (acre-ft) (cfs) O O O O 316 984 653 491 362 1,273 881 694 414 1,729 1,034 823 488 2,679 1,437 1,193 506 2,751 1,590 1,411 516 3,043 1,876 1,799 579 3,739 2,446 2,887 778 9,949 2,785 3,637 907 16,502 2,853 3,778 l Supplement 7 1 of 1 January 1984 v
rN f'N, /'N 1 - 1 ( )
\._,/ 'yj \_/
RBS ER-OLS TABLE A4-1 SIMULATED WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS AND DISCHARGES FOR RECORDED FLOODS IN THE BAYOU W9ter Surface Level (ft-mst) Calculated C rown-Flood D i scha rge( 3 ) Zellerbach Downstream Upstream of Low Point or Date_ (cts) BridQes of Culverts Calverts River Road Remarks 4/4/82 480 33.8 36.07 36.17 38.13 (1) 480 33.8 35.04 35.04 38.16 (2) 4/7/82 820 34.5 36.68 36.93 38.78 (1) 820 34.5 35.73 35.73 38.67 (2) 4/9/82 740 34.5 36.72 36.92 38.75 (1) 740 34.5 35.74 35.74 38.66 (2) 12/12/82 460 33.6 35.75 35.86 38.05 (1) 460 33.6 34.78 34.78 38.09 (2) 12/13/82 730 34.3 36.52 36.72 38.60 (1) 730 34.3 35.50 35.50 38.54 (2) 12/15/82 1,480 35.70 38.00 38.69 39.98 (1) 2,000 36.97 37.86 37.86 40.03 (2) 12/16/82 1,550 36.10 38.44 39.24 40.43 (1) 2,200 37.21 38.26 38.26 40.48 (2) 12/16/82 1,650 36.30 38.70 39.61 40.51 (1) 2,450 37.48 38.61 38.61 40.57 (2) 12/17/82 1,780 36. IO 39.00 40.05 40.98 (1) 2.700 37./3 38.94 38.94 40.95 (2) 12/19/82 1,920 37.90 39.82 41.03 41.69 (1) 3,350 38.29 39.90 39.90 41.68 (2) 12/22/82 2,010 38.50 40.79 42.09 42.54 (1) 4,100 38.81 41.18 41.18 42.59 (2) 12/29/82 2,170 38.60 40.91 42.42 43.42 (1) 4,250 38.91 41.19 41.19 43.48 (2) 1 (1) Alligator Bayou with P.iver Access Road (2) Natural AlIigator Bavou (3) The culvert flow condition in the first five cases was partially full. In the remaining cases the culvert flow condition was full. Supplement 7 1 of 1 Janua ry 1984 i
. e e RBS ER-OLS TABLE A1-2 4
A JTED HYDROCRAPHS FOR UPPER AND LOWER BAYOU 1-Yea r Ra inra 11 5-Year Rainraii 10-Yea.r_Ra i n ra i I Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Time Bayou Bayou Time Bayou Bayoa Time Bayou Bayou ih r_1 fcts) (crs) Mrj fcrs) (crs) (br) (crs) ic_rsl O O O O O O O O O 5 1 1 5 14 8 5 32 16 10 30 9 10 272 104 to 398 130 11 43 13 11 382 143 11 539 171 12 73 23 12 562 198 12 750 228 l 13 133 43 13 833 280 13 1,118 319 114 231 86 14 1,121 4 409 14 2,131 477 l 1, 382 161 15 2,681 626 15 3,418 772 l 16 606 268 16 3,966 926 16 5,402 1,191 l 17 925 390 17 6,201 1,299 17 7,688 1,884 ! 18 1,e27 506 18 8,003 1,745 18 10,539 2,705 l 19 3,234 617 19 9,720 2,186 19 13,8114 3,367 l 20 4,082 696 20 11,080 2,167 4 20 14,911 3,763 21 1,193 4 4 743 21 10,627 2,593 21 14,701 3,923 22 4,107 770 22 9,758 2.612 22 13,535 3,932 23 3,670 780 23 8,641 2,556 23 11,910 3,834 214 3, 3 314 778 24 7,277 2,446 24 10,120 3,658 25 2,7214 765 25 6,010 2,298 25 8, 719 3,413 26 2,366 7414 26 5,017 2,128 26 7,38e 3,133 27 1,960 719 27 4,238 1,949 27 6,301 2,844 28 1,658 690 28 3, 6142 1,777 28 5,110 2,586 , 29 1,431 657 29 3,257 1,649 29 4,373 2,333 30 1,215 623 30 2,659 1,523 30 3, 6 314 2,094 35 675 473 35 1,131 1,051 35 1,510 4 1,327 40 314 358 10 4 609 756 40 7814 923 14 5 1144 265 45 309 531 15 4 422 651 50 70 - 50 156 - 50 220 - 55 28 - 55 65 - 55 94 - Supplement 7 1 or 1 Janua ry 1984
.. . ~ ~ - , .- .- ,..~ . . .
s v t RBS ER-OLS TABLE A4-3 PREDICTED WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR RAINFALL-IriDUCED FLOODS Raj nra l l Event 1 Year 5 Year 10 Yea r Al Iigator Bayou Condition Culverts Na tu ra l Culverts Na tu ra l Culverts' Na tu ra l inflow (crs) Upper Bayou 4,493 4,493 11,080 11,080 14,701 14,701 Lower Bayou 743 -743 2,467 2,467 3,923 3,923 D i scha rgem(crs) Low Point 3,563 '3,403 10,110 9,780 13,941 13,671 or River Road Upper Bayou 930 1,090 970 1,300 760 1,030 Lower Bayou 1,673 1,833 3,437 3,767 4,683 4,953 Water Surface Elevation f rt) Crost Section 1 36.52 36.75 38.35 38.59 39.17 39.32 Cross Section 2 36.70 36.93 38.53 38.78 39.38 39.53 Cross Section 3 36.87 37.10 38.74 38.99- 39.61 39.77 Cross Section 4 37.07 37.31 38.89 39.17 39.76 39.93 Cross Section 5 37.56 37.44 39.03 39.22 39.81 39.96 . Cross Section 6 37.51 - 38.96 - 39.75 - Cross Section 7 37.80 - 39.30 - 39.96 - Cross Section 8 37.92 - 39.43 - 40.05 - Cross Section 9 38.44 37.58 39.67 39.29 40.15 39.98 Cross Section 10 38.66 38.16 39.77 39.50 40.20 40.07 - Cross Section 11 39.17 39.13 39.98 39.94 40.29 40.26 i Supplement 7 1 or 1 January 19f,4 ; i
l 'k w e.
'A
' ' l TRUE ; f NORTH , , g }} ;/* aLJ)/,, C
% V e >
b Lice up ',, p0 Q,f+h+ / \, 4c %f(
; Y,f,]Q-A '3 -
/\ / L \,
I O ks g *=ye ; "' < e eq l :n s % ,ua 1 +
- - . I e lgg N, A M
i ') I I - 1 I I I .7 ,' I
/#f
,oo g' ,, s /
) ,
Lc - ggy; - y s S/ A _,/ l[ POINT 137 ff-mst)
>,D !
, j ainn
)
\
a
Also Available On rs ) Aperture Card f k x s s/77' 2 p_./ c'- g a '] t'- ', THOMPSON [ Ap ~ y' ,
~
i, x b , f
~
e4 y u d't 1J-
,; ;, L
_. *te , l , o
~
~
l llQ % ],
\ ' ' ' ,l\
\ ,,
',k j~ d i f ;' # ,#'
(~s5'~y yl d #.,s' J. " j' ~ j' q\p, ,-
,, f, , . S \/go S - ' #
J j/ goS , \\
% SN '
.. d b'
\ *%pf & ' j Y y y *[x"" ' f ,/' - '
v~ A f , . .y-
^ ,V-y~u } x !' \ ,#>
8 ggyER A W* I' ; a ytss\ss\PP1
\ I /
N J A' / 'f-r-Q@0' INTAKE
/
' AREA
. ObD g
*# 33C AP'ERTURE CAR]
FIGURE A1-1 ALLIGATOR BAYOU FLOODPLAIN 30 ,,c,. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PORT HUDSON, LOUISIANA NE/4 FEW ROADS IS' QUADRANGLE RIVER BEND STATION AMS 7?45 til NE-SERIES V885 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS i SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984 i 84013102f7 -D3
l I 4 8 9 1 S ED L Y CO NO R AO A FL RF O-I U N U1 TT A S8 9 ARO J R1 TP EY SER TA A WM R DL D O NAT N F A EN L N BEM 2 LO 7 1 AT I R NO T N A F N V A ER E VV I M I E A LE I N E R R E RE L U P GI P F U S 1 8
/
' 9
/
5 S T R E S V 1 T L 8 R U / E C
' 8 R V F
/
E L 5 W U O O C M T F A N I Y O E S G R A M T 1 B O A S 8 L E N s / U O R N ' 7 O R T W / Y O S O 5 A E P D B T U \ R E % ) y
\
O T M N g d ( a A G O I - \ \~ 1 8 E I T g\ / M L L A ' 6
/ T I
T 5 A S i[ l'II8I L
/, 1 8
/
' 5
/
5 1 8
/
' 4
/
5 0 5 0 0 5 0 6 5 4 3 1 0 1 0 3 3 3 3 E e ?$de gE$ z9 $wd 05e c 5
O O O l 2.0 - t i 39 - , c ! C d UPSTREAM OF CULVERTS
< 4 f
38 - i l \ DOWNSTREAM OF CULVERTS j 0- =L a I ALLIGATOR I I g[, c BAYOU \ I i 37 - BASIN y g i E g \
- 5 i \
I i P I
\
$ I
\
"i i g j $ 36 - I \
o I \ I 2 \ ] a: I \ S I \ E I \ l $ 35 - I \ R I \ 4 i \ i I g j i g l N .; I \ i i N
\
1 34 - I i i FIGURE A1-3
! l
) 1 8 RAINFALL AND WATER SURFACE
~~'
1 ELEVATION FOR JULY 1981 FLOOD s 8 I I 8 ] 33 _ 7nisi 7,4/8i , 7eiisi 7isisi TIME (day) 7 isis' RIVER BEND STATION
; ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS l __ ; SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
- I
- o o o ,
1 ) 38 - j UPSTREAM OF CULVERTS
=
l E 37 - t. z o #"
, _ _ , - - ---~,_s ~-
s - s j < ' - %s
$ _,e' DOWNSTREAM OF N s j d 36 -
,' CULVERTS 'N N 1 w i
S - j $ '. 5? 's 1 5 ) Q 35 - t i l I i ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 34 i 4/1/82 4/2/82 4/3/82 4/4/82 4/5/82 4/6/82 4/7/82 4/8/82 4/9/82 4/10182 t/11/82 4/12/82 4/13/82 4/14/82 4/15/82 j TIM E (day) 4 - FIGURE A1-4 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION [ FOR APRIL 1982 FLOOD !, RIVER BEND STATION j ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS
, SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
.I
1.0 -
.5_
1 0.5 - a 0- - ALLIGATOR A U ,- UPSTREAM OF CULVERTS 37 - rs i i g . DOWNSTREAM OF CULVERTS iiI J
\
E 36 - g V b i \ 5 l; \ P 1) \ s \ g ,I \ w 35 \ o g i5 : 's
's f
$ 's s
'1f g
34 -
/
/ %,~ ~,
l I I I I i 12/3/82 12/4/82 12/S/82 12/6/82 12/7/82 12/8/82 TIME (day) FIGURE A1-5 RAINFALL AND WATER SURFACE ELEVATION FOR DECEMBER 1982 FLOOD RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPI.EMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
O r '
-i a
a%yv2h-%'% 2g
~h
*=- -
p' g
,,(f
. ' ~~ y
[L Q V 1 i
]
h, C,, hi
\ *\
\\g
-\'\ , ,
' ' i ' v '. -s's, y y g DATUM t
FIGURE A2-1 DEFINITION SKETCH OF A TYPICAL STREAM REACH
= - -
PIVER BEND STATION Et VIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
I O O O 4 _ I
~
I' 477/02 416182 0 s 'O 4tsist
/ / O 414182 35 ~
/
,/ 7 4112182
/ p' l //
p / 5 37 - l // C / /
/ / /
5 O / / l / /
/ / / / /
p
< / / /
p / / / /
/ /
l
," =
7 //
- //
sc
~~~~,, ==_ m**/ / /
'.I 3 35 ~
,,,-==~~~~,,,m.""*
4 a l CROSS CROSS CROSS CROSS CROSS SECTIOES SECTONS CROCS CROSS CROSS CR S SECTION 2 SECTION 3 SECTION 4 SANDS 7AhD8 SECTION S SECTION 10 SECTIO 411 l l 1 l 1 I I I I l l 1 I I I i 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 0000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 O k i LEGEND DISTANCE FROM CROWN-ZELLERBACH BRIDGES (ft) i O RECORDED WATER SURF ACE PROFILE WITH river ACCESS ROAD COMPUTED WATER SURF ACE PROFILE WITH RIVER ACCESS ROAD
---COMPUTED W ATER f.URF ACE PROFILE IN NATUR AL CONDITION l FIGURE A3-1 COMPUTED AND RECORDED WATER SURFACE PROFILES FOR l APRIL 1982 FLOOD RIVER BEND STATION i ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT- OLS i SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
O C O 12/23/82
/'
e*s 42 = ,/ et . ,,=="~ 12rtT/S2
~'
' #~
p**# /
,p# p'p / ,/
# ** # ,s#p' / p /
/
7 l E 3.
. , ** s # , #
_m
s***
,==*
*****c /
,/
/
/p
/
13 r141 3
* * " " ' " * * ,,,s* f j p 13 13/.2 3 ,s#
# ,*** / / /
/ /
Q e. 4 3' , "
,T==**"~e
===~***#
==,o******** f /
/ 13:131 3 w , = = * " **,=* / /
/
w a
-==**~~__,,,
=_
., * * ," , ,- .= *
,e
/
/
,/
/
y y ____
-- ,s / / /
,, ___m.
, e* /
5 f s' ' s'
,*** / /
4 ' ,'
f -
,,e=" ,/
as -
,,,,m.***,e= *""
34 - CROSS CROSS CROSS CROSS CROSS CROSS CROSS CROSS SECTION.S SECTN)N.S i C SECTION 4 . ANO PANO SECTION . SECTION S, SECTION IS SECTION 3 SECTION 3 i li i il i i I , i li lli , I i i l i i li
. S . ,, .. ,-. . .
LEGENO DISTANCE FROM CROWN-ZELLER8ACH BRIDGES (ft) O RECORDIo w ATER SURF ACE PROFEE WITN R8vtR ACCESS ROAD COMPUTED WATER SURFACE PROFEE WITN RIVER ACCESS ROAD F1GURE A3-2
= = = COMPUTED WATER SURF ACE PROFEE He ISATURAL CONDITION COMPUTED AND RECORDED WATER SURFACE PROFILES FOR l
\
DECEMBER 1982 FLOOD ! RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT- OLS SUPPLFMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
9 o 59
,/
#3>9@
t -
/
IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3)
//// O'g,# '
4
~
l.0 'dDa Das 5 9 EE l*l 5 !# Ese t l.8
'l l.25 1.4 i.6 4 150mm >
< 6" >
[ %yi /!b4
*' $o?,ffrf h//>/
$+;4((e
4
- 8 9
1 S NSL Y R O O U, E G OO A U O i I E N 8 6 0 G D I R T-T A 0 1 R A B AR J 0 0 HT H TO 6 4 CA C SNA SEPR DOBR DLA I 0 0 i 0 I 2 2 0, 6 DT NA EL NT L L
= AEE EN E h ER Z-G BMN 7 A N W RO 3 T f 0 3 T N 0 A S O ER I E
_ I V f 0, 4 E R R C VNE I A E n U R L P G P U I F o S o 0 0 g i
= 0, 2
"- )
i s ( c
- E 0 G
- i 0 R m
0, 1 A H _ C O S I D r 0 I 0
= 6 0
l 0 4 0 i 0 2
- - - 0 0
1 o 0 0 0 s 4 3 2
- $0h= Q e g aaWN t i@o O Q z9Q@d ,oIxoe xgI
i: Il1l l ll1 1lll ;)!iii .ji!Ii!!'l l' ,', ; ,
O s l E 41 - J
, _ _ 10-YE AR
------ - - ~~~~
40 - ______________ 5 YEAR
~
___ -== ~~~
~, ,____
39 - ~ , , , _ s f -VEAR 1 c * ~ _ _ _ l f f _ ~ ~ ~~ _ _ _ = = ** * / p/ i 2 9
/p#
r N 38 -
#p#
/
/
iu nu - , , _ _ y - ____ g 3, _ a _____
=
34 - 35 CROSS CROSS 3 CROSS CROSS CROSS CROSS SECTIONS SECTIONS CROSS CROSS CROSS j SECTION 1 SECTION 2 SECTION 3 SECTION 4 SAND 4 7AND8 SECTION 9 SECTION 10 SECTION 11 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I O 1000 2000 3000 4000 $000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 DISTANCE FROM CROWN-ZELLERBACH BRIDGES (R)
! tEcENo FIGURE A4-1 WATER SURF ACE PROFILE WITN RIVER ACCESS ROAD
--- WATER SURFACE PROFILE 'N NATURAL CONDITION PREDICTED WATER SURFACE ELEVATION FOR RAINFALL-INDUCED FLOOD i RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS f SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
l RBS ER-OLS () CHAPTER 2 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES > TABLE OF CONTENTS NRC Supplement Q&R Question No. No. Page No. E470.1 2 2.1-1 E310.7 6 2.1-2 j i E470.2 2 2.2-1 E290.6 2 2.2-2 E290.8 7 2.2-3 E240.1 1 2.3-1 E240.2 1 2.3-2 E240.3 1, 7 2.3-3 E240.4 1 2.3-6 E240.5 2 2.3-7 E240.6 1 2.3-8 E240.7 1 2.3-9 . E240.8 1 2.3-10 E240.9 2 2.3-11 O E240.10 E240.11 1 1 2.3-12 2.3-13 E240.12 1 2.3-14 E240.13 1 2.3-15 E240.14 2 2.3-16 E291.1 2 2.3-17 ~ E291.2 2 2.3-18 E291.3 2 2.3-19 ! E291.4 2 2.3-20 i E291.12 2 2.3-21 E240.27 3 2.3-22 E240.28 3 2.3-23 E240.34 3 2.3-24 E291.13 2 2.4-1 E290.9 7 2.4-2 E310.9 2 2.5-1 E310.10 4 2.5-2 E451.1 1 2.7-1 E451.2 1 2.7-2 E451.3 2 2.7-3 Supplement 7 Q&R 2-1 January 1984 J I I
RBS ER-OLS CHAPTER 2 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES TABLE OF CONTENTS NRC Supplement Q&R .uestion Q No. No. Page No. E290.1 2 2.9-1 E290.2 4 2.9-2 E290.3 2 2.9-3 E290.4 2 2.9-4 E240.15 1 2B-1 E240.32 3 2B-3 E240.33 3 2B-4 O Supplement 4 Q&R 2-i1 February 1983 0
RBS ER-OLS QUESTION E290.8
%d on page 2.2-3 it is stated that 170 acres of,the site area permanently affected by construction are classified as prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance. Provide a map of the site identifying the prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance. Also provide in tabular form the total area of prime farmland and the area of farmland of statewide importance onsite and the area of each of the two classifications of farmland permanently affected by plant construction.
RESPONSE .. The response to this request is t '~provided ~ in - 7 Sections 2.2.1.1, 2.4.1.1.1, and 4.3.1.1. a l Supplement 7 Q&R 2.2-3 January 1984 l l i.
RBS ER-OLS ( ) QUESTION E240.3 (2.3.1) u./ Descriptions of floodplains, as required by Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, have not been provided. The definition used in the Executive Order is Floodplain: The lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including floodprone areas of offshore islands including, at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent or greater change of flooding in any given year.
- a. Provide descriptions of the floodplains adjoining the Mississippi River, Alexander Creek, and the Alligator Bayou on or adjacent to the site. On a suitable scale map (s) provide delineations of those areas that will be flooded during the one percent (100 year) flood, both before and after plant construction or operation.
- b. Provide details of the methods use$ Yo determine the floodplains in response to a. above. Include your assumptions of and basis for the pertinent parameters used in the computation of the flood flows and water elevations. If studies approved by the Federal Insurance Administration (FlA) are available for the
/~ site and other affected areas, the details of the (N), analysis used in the reports need not be supplied. can, instead, provide the reports from which You you obtained the floodplain information.
- c. Identify, locate on a map, and describe all plant structures and topographic alterations in the floodplains.
- d. Discuss the hydrologic effects of all items identified in response to c. above. Discuse the potential for altered flood flows and levels offsite. Discuss the effects on offsite areas of debris generated from the site during flood events.
- e. Provide the details of your analysis used in response to
- d. above. The level of detail is similar to that identified in item b. above.
RESPONSE
- a. The response to this request is provided in revised Section 2.3.1.1.
(~T % 1 Supplement 1 Q&R 2.3-3 October 1981 %.J
RBS ER-OLS
- b. In determining the PDF it wac necessary to establish, based on hydrologic records and other information, the sequence and severity of meteorological and nyarological events which could reasonably be expected to occur and cause major floods in the Mississippi River Basin. It was, therefore, necessary to determine flows under natural conditions and regulated by reservoirs on the Mississippi River and its major tributaries. A detailed review of PDF determination is described in Reference 3, Section 2.3-33.
- c. The following plant structures and topographic alterations are described in Section 4.2.1 and are shown in Figure 2.3-11a.
" River Access Road, located between the intake embayment area on the Mississippi River and the plant area, is constructed across Alligator Bayou on the floodplain on the river. . . . An excavated embayment has been constructed in the Mississippi River along the east bank at about River Mile 262.5. . . . Access to the embayment area is obtained from the north and south by River Road, which runs parallel to the river along the natural levee and from the east (and the plant area) by River Access Road."
"The cooling tower blowdown pipeline and the clarifier sludge discharge pipeline exits the plant area adjacent to one another and cross Alligator Bayou along the south side of River Access Road."
- d. As summarized in Attachment A to Appendix 2B:
"l) ... River Access Road has relativ11y insignificant impact on water surface elevation in the Bayou.
The maximum water surface drop across the culverts for the seven observed floods was less than 1.6 ft.
- 2) River Access Road doec not obstruct flood flow in the Bayou when the spill from the Mississippi River 7 ic small and the flow in the cuiverts is partially full. As the spill increases to cause full flow in the culverts, the obstruction to flood due to River Access Road increases proportionately.
- 3) All three rainfall-induced floods cause overtopping of River Road during peak flow in the upper Bayou regardless of the presence of River Access Road.
Supplement 7 Q&R 2.3-4 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS
/~D 4) Most floodwaters in the upper Bayou are diverted to \ s/ the Mississippi River over the low point of River Road, even in the natural condition. The existence 7 of River Access Road'slightly increases the amount of overflow at the low point of River Road."
A portion of the Upper -and Lower Bayou is not GSU property as indicated in Figure 4.3-1. Flood levels presented in Attachment A of Appendix 2B indicate that 7 the offsite impact of flooding would be minimal. As discussed in Section 4.2.1, "There are no significant hydrological alterations offsite or within the transmission corridors due to plant construction." Other than normal debris loads during floods, there is no potential for offsite areas to be affected by debris generated onsite during floods.
- e. Since the structures only slightly affect the portion of the river cross section in the floodplain, their hydrologic effect on the Mississippi River floodplain is expected to be minimal. A detailed discussion is found in Appendix 2B,
/"N N._,
Supplement 7 Q&R 2.3-4a January 1984 (~N I
\v!
4 , __ _ , ,, -
RBS ER-OLS O THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK O Supplement 7 Q&R 2.3-4b January 1984 0
. . - = _ - - - . . - . . - . . . . ._ . - . - . _ _ _ - . . .. . . . . _ . .
i RBS ER-OLS
-QUESTION E291.13 (2.4) i References -for Section 2.4 (p. 2.4-53). Provide copies of References 37, 38, and 39 for ER Section 2.4 or, if ,
previously submitted to NRC, provide date and other ! identifying information regarding their submittals. [ RESPONSE Copies of these documents are provided under separate cover. j s . i j. i J. l .i t i i i i I i i Supplement 2 Q&R 2.<-1 March 1982
RBS ER-OLS QUESTION E290.9 Mention is mada in various places that natural resources of the River Bend site not needed for energy production will be managed (e.g., Table 2.4-5 certain forest will be maintained in a particular seral stage; page 2.4-9 an effort will be made to retain Needle Lake in a primitive condition, as wood duck habitat; page 2.4-19 deer herds onsite and vicinity are managed). Provide plans for management of these natural resource areas during plant operation.
RESPONSE
GSU is developing guidelines for the management of those portions of the River Bend site not required for energy production. The guidelines are being developed in conjunction with foresters and wildlife specialists of the Louisiana State University School of Forestry and Wildlife Management, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Although the comprehensive set of guidelines will not be available until March 1984, their general goals, scope, and probable methods of implementation are provided below. Management plans for the non-energy producing parts of the River Bend site have the primary objectives of maintaining and enhancing the natural features of the area to provide a variety of environmental conditions for educational purposes and wildlife. With respect to the vegetation types onsite, 7 the upland forest communities are notably diverse and a concerted effort will be made to maintain this variety (ER-OLS, Table 2.4-5). For example, old growth southern pine j (including loblolly) is generally rare in the area because of logging practices and fire suppressions. Maintenance of at least some loblolly stands will involve selective removal of undesirable deciduous undergrowth and other competition (e.g., by controlled burning). Other forest types composed of complex species mixes could be maintained at present seral stages by: 1) harvesting individual trees, 2) clear-cutting in small areas (less than one hectare) sufficiently large to ensure reproduction, or
- 3) harvesting all trees of a given size class or type in a l larger area.
Forest types which are rare in their mature state, such as bottomland hardwoods, will be permitted to succeed to their climax state. The otner major vegetative type on the site is meadow and pastureland, some of which will be maintained by haying or mowing. Other open areas have been and may Supplement 7 Q&R 2.4-2 January 1984
1 RBS ER-OLS n ( ) continue to be planted with certain grains and other \/ suitable plants to provide food-plots for deer and wild turkey. Aquatic habitats also will be managed to provide diverse wildlife habitats and to promote their educational value. For example, the primary management approach for the floodplain slough known as Needle Lake will be the maintenance af present hydrological characteristics with as little _. 3rference as possible (ER-OLS, Section 2.4.1.1.3.2). Waterfowl, especially wood ducks (Aix sponsa) will be actively managed at the site by providing sufficient feeding and resting areas through creation of the Wildlife Management Lake in a natural state. Breeding sites could be provided by the creation of dead-tree snags (through water level management or girdling) and by placement of wood duck nesting boxes. Many other species of waterfowl, as well as aquatic and amphibious tetrapods and fishes, will use these two water bodies. Populations of terrestrial game and non-game species onsite will be managed to enhance population health and diversity. 7 The present population of deer will be maintained within the carrying capacity of the site. This is important for both the health of the deer themselves and the protection of (~S forest ground cover and shrub layers. The exact means of ( ') population control remains to be determined, as access to the site must be carefully controlled, but some form of herd-thinning may be required. The natural resource management guidelines being developed will emphasize GSU's long-standing commitment to the concept of dedicating the non-energy producing pcrtions of the River Bend site to educational purposes. The maintenance of diverse plant and animal communities is recognized as a key element in satisfying this goal. Supplement 7 Q&R 2.4-3 January 1984 [,,)\ i_
RBS ER-OLS (o CHAPTER 3 PLANT DESCRIPTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 3.1 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE AND PLANT 3.1-1 LAYOUT , 3.2 REACTOR STEAM - ELECTRIC SYSTEM 3.2-1 3.3 PLANT WATER USE 3.3-1 3.3.1 Water Consumption 3.3-1 3.3.1.1 Station Cooling Systems 3.3-1 3.3.1.2 Station Makeup and Domestic Use 3.3-3 3.3.2 Water Treatment 3.3-4 3.4 COOLING SYSTEM 3.4-1 3.4.'1 System Description and Operational Modes 3.4-1 3.4.1.1 Main Cooling Water System 3.4-1 3.4.1.2 Service Water System 3.4-2 r 3.4.1.3 Discharges to Mississippi River 3.4-3 (_],) 3.4.1.4 Discharges to Air 3.4-3 3.4.2 Component Descriptions 3.4-3 3.4.2.1 Intake System 3.4-3 3.4.2.2 Heat Dissipation System 3.4-5 3.4.2.3 Discharge System 3.4-5 3.5 RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 3.5-1 3.5.1 Source Terms 3.5-1 3.5.2 Radioactive Solid Waste System 3.5-1 3.5.2.1 Sources of Solid Waste 3.5-2 3.5.2.2 Description of Solids Processing Procedure 3.5-3 3.5.2.2.1 Process Materials 3.5-3 3.5.2.2.2 Irradiated Reactor Components 3.5-3 3.5.2.3 Description of Equipment 3.5-4 3.5.2.4 ~ Performance Analysis 3.5-4 3.5.3 Radioactive Liquid Waste System 3.5-5 3.5.3.1 Sources of Radioactive Liquid 3.5-5 3.5.3.2 System Description 3.5-5 3.5.3.2.1 Waste and Floor Drain Collector 7 Subsystem 3.5-5 g Supplement 7 3-i January 1984 d
RBS ER-OLS TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) Section Title Page Phase Separator / Backwash Tank 7 l3.5.3.2.2 Subsystem
- 3.5-7 3.5.3.3 System Operation Analysis 3.5-8 3.5.3.4 System Operation 3.5-9 3.5.3.4.1 Waste and Floor Drain Collector Subsystem 3.5-9 7
3.5.3.4.2 Control of Waste Activity Movement 3.5-10 3.5.3.5 Release of Processed Waste 3.5-11 3.5.4 Radioactive Gaseous Waste System 3.5-12 3.5.4.1 Sources of Radioactive Gas 3.5-12 3.5.4.1.1 Process Off Gas (Treated) 3.5-12 3.5.4.1.2 Mechanical Vacuum Pump Air Removal (Nontreated) 3.5-13 3.5.4.1.3 Containment and'Drywell Ventilation 3.5-13 3.5.4.1.4 Turbine Gland Seal 3.5-13 3.5.4.1.5 Turbine Building Ventilation 3.5-14 3.5.4.1.6 Other Potentially Radioactive Gases 3.5-14 3.5.4.2 Description of the Off-Gas System 3.5-14 3.5.4.2.1 Preheaters (2) 3.5-16 3.5.4.2.2 Catalytic Recombiners (2) 3.5-16 3.5.4.2.3 Off-Gas Condenser and Water Separator 3.5-17 3.5.4.2.4 Holdup Pipe, Cooler Condensers (2), and Moisture Separators (2) 3.5-17 3.5.4.2.5 Prefilters (2) 3.5-17 3.5.4.2.6 Gas Dryers (2) 3.5-17 3.5.4.2.7 Gas Coolers (2) 3.5-17 7 l 3.5.4.2.8 Charcoal Adsorbers (2) 100-Percent Trains) 3.5-18 3.5.4.2.9 Afterfilters (2) 3.5-18 3.6 NONRADIOACTIVE WASTE SYSTEMS 3.6-1 3.6.1 Wastes Containing Chemicals or Biocides 3.6-1 3.6.1.1 Station Makeup Water Treatment System 3.6-1 3.6.1.1.1 System Operation 3.6-1 3.6.1.1.2 System Wastes 3.6-1 Supplement 7 3-ii January 1984 O
RBS ER-OLS () 3.5 3.5.1 RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Source Terms The rcdioactive waste systems collect, treat, and dispose of anticipated and potential radioactive wastes in a controlled and safe manner. The radioactive inputs to the waste systems are due to:
- 1. Fission products resulting from perforation in the fuel cladding or tramp uranium on the surface of the fuel rods contaminating the reactor coolant system.
- 2. Activation products resulting from irradiation of the reactor water and impurities therein (principally metallic corrosion products) and corrosion of activated fuel components, reactor internals, and other materials exposed to the reactor neutron flux.
Radioactive wastes resulting from plant operation are classified as solid, liquid, and gaseous and are handled as shown in the following figures:
. gS 1. Fig. 3.5-1 (Solid Waste Management System) ' \s) 2. Fig. 3.5-2 (Radioactive Liquid Waste System)
- 3. Fig. 3.5-3 (Off Gas System)
The radioactive waste systens utilize operating procedures to ensure that radioactive wastes are safely processed. Discharges from the plant are within the limits in 10CFB20 and result in doses that are within the guidelines of 10CFR50, Appendix I. l l Table 3.5-1 lists the expected concentrations of radionuclides in reactor water and steam at a noble gas release rate of 50,000 uCi/sec after 30-min decay. Table 3.5-2 lists the assumptions used in calculating the expected annual releases of radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents. 3.5.2 Radioactive Solid Waste System The objective of the radioactive solid waste system is to l collect, process, package, and provide temporary storage facilities for solid wastes from both Units 1 and 2. This system is located in the radwaste building. 3.5-1 s_-
RBS ER--OLS River Bend currently has a contract in force with Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. (CNSI), to perform solidification 7 of Wet Waste by use of portable solidification equipment (refer to Topical Report CNSI (4313-01354-OIP-A) for details). These wastes are packaged in shipping containers as a homogeneous, immobile mix, and dry compressible wastes are compacted prior to shipment for offsite disposal. Miscellaneous dry wastes are appropriately packaged in DOT and NRC approved packages for offsite shipment. The system is designed to provide processing, packaging, and temporary storage resulting from normal station operations for both units so that operation and availability of neither unit is limited. In addition, the system design:
- 1. Includes equipment and instrumentation to utilize administrative controls such that the solid radioactive wastes collected and prepared for offsite shipment do not result in radiation exposures to unit personnel in excess of the limits set in 10CFR20 and
- 2. Utilizes, where necessary, shielded casks which conforu to 10CFR71 Packaging of Radioactive Material for Transportation and Department of Transportation (DOT) regulation 49CFR172, Sections 389 through 395.
3.5.2.1 Sources of Solid Waste The wet solidification system accepts sludges from the phase separator and backwash tanks in the liquid waste system. These wastes consist of spent resin beads, resin fines, and filter sludges in varying proportions as described in Section 3.5.3. Miscellaneous dry radioactive materials, e.g., paper, rags, contaminated clothing, gloves, shoe covers, etc, are 7 compacted in a hydraulic press. Contaminated metallic materials and incompressible solid objects such as small tools, equipment, control rods and fuel channels, etc, are handled on a case-by-case basis. Table 3.5-3 provides expected solid radwaste system inputs and waste volumes to be shipped offsite based on average data from operating BWRs. The table also gives expected radioactivity levels in the packaged containers. Supplement , 3.5-2 January 1984 O
RBS ER-OLS 7
' 3.5.2.2 Description of Solids Processing Procedure L
3.5.2.2.1 Process Materials Wastes consisting of spent resin beads, resin fines, and filter sludges from the liquid waste system (Section 3.5.3) are collected in the waste sludge tank. The solids are mixed for uniform dispersion of activity, analyzed, and transferred to the portable solidification system. Waste dewatering and chemical conditioning operations are 7 performed by the contractor. Details of the contractor's aubsystem for processing wet solid wastes are provided in the contractor's topical report. Solid wastes such as paper, air filters, rags, etc, are compressed into 55 gallon drums to reduce their volume for shipment. Noncompressible wastes are packaged manually in appropriate containers or with solidified wet waste. 3.5.2.2.2 Irradiated Reactor Components Irradiated reactor components will be handled as a special case. Control rods, fuel channels, and other high level radioactive waste will be handled remotely. Handling of such equipment will depend on radiation level,
-- transportation facilities, and available storage sites. %J d
Supplement 7 3.5-3 January 1984 Ci V
RBS ER-OLS 3.5.2.3 Description of Equipment The solid waste system contains the following components:
- a. a waste sludge tank,
- b. a vaste cludge pump,
- c. an overhead bridge crane, and
- d. a waste compactor.
7 The waste sludge tank provides temporary storage and mixing capabilities for wastes prior to solidification. Level and temperature indicators and high/ low level alarms are provided. The waste sludge pump transports the waste clurry to the contractor's solidification system at a controlled rate. It is automatically shut off at waste sludge tank low level, and recirculates waste when high discharge pressure or low flow is indicated. The overhead bridge crane facilitates movement of filled solidification liners to the waste storage area, and then to the shipping area. It will also move empty containers to the fill area. 3.5.2.4 Performance Analysis All solid radwaste material will be packaged in approved h shipping containers meeting the regulations of 10CFR71 and 7 DOT Regulation 49CFR173 Sections 389 through 395. The design and utilization of containers for shipping will meet the regulations for Transportation of Radioactive Materials found in 49CFR171-175, 177, and 178. Wet solid waste is packaged with remote handling equipment 7 due to its high radioactivity. This wacte consists of filter sludges, reactor water cleanup sludge, and spent ion exchange resins. 7 The activity of most other solid wastes will be low enough to permit handling of the packages by contact. These wastes will be collected in containers located in appropriate zones around the station as dictated by the volumes of wastes generated during operation and maintenance. All containers will be monitored periodically during filling. There are no outside radwaste storage areas at River Bend Station. Ventilation will be provided to maintain control of contaminated particles when operating packaging Supplement 7 3.5-4 January 1984
.= _- _ .
w., RBS ER-OLS equipment. Packaged wastes will be shipped to an approved [} x_- offsite facility for storage or burial. Equipment too large to be handled in this way will be handled as a special case at the time depending on the radiation level, transportation facilities, and available storage sites. Approximately 35 solidified waste liners can be stored in the shielded storage area Ic .;ated near the liner fill area. Based on solidifying approximately 138 cu ft of wet waste ! per liner (liner total volume is 195 cu ft), a normal anticipated generation of 18,000 cu ft/yr of solidified waste (130 filled liners), the radwaste storage area can 7 provide post-solidification storage capabilities of approximately 3 months. The low level storage area houses approximately 110 drums of compacted dry waste. This is equivalent to storage capacity of over one month for compressible wastes. Shipments of radioactive solid waste will be made by licensed carriers using either rail or truck transport. Radioactive waste is shipped in " Exclusive Use" vehicles. Outside areas with controlled access will be designated for trucks or rail cars containing radioactive waste material 7 f-~) ( j prior to shipment. 7 Supplement 7 3.5-4a January 1984 ( w
. . . - - -__ .-._.. . - - . . - . . - _ . - - , . . ~. , . - _ _ . _ , _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ -
l i i RBS CR-OLS l 1 l l THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK O t l i i i Supplement 7 3.5-4b January 1984 0
RBS ER-OLS ( ,7 3.5.3 Radioactive Liquid Waste System The liquid radioactive waste subsystems collect, monitor, l7 and process for re-use or disposal all liquids received from the reactor coolant system or liquids which can become contaminated from contact with the reactor coolant system liquids for both Units 1 and 2. 3.5.3.1 Sources of Radioactive Liquid Table 3.5-4 identifies the sources of input to the radwaste system. The system is capable of processing these quantities and activities of liquid wastes which result from normal operation and maintenance. Furthermore, the system is capable of processing the maximum daily input from all sources within 24 hr. It processes the liquid waste so that a majority of the recovered water is re-used, and the waste effluent discharged from the station is within the 10CFR20 limits and results in doses that are within the guidelines of 10CFR50, Appendix I. 3.5.3.2 System Description The system is divided into one minor and one major subsystem , so that the liquid wastes from various sources can be [,}
\_-
segregated and processed separately. done according to the liquid The segregation is conductivity and/or radioactivity. All collection tanks, pumps, and processing l7 equipment is located in the radwaste building. Major flow
, paths, equipment data, leakage, and drainage are indicated on Fig. 3.5-2. Refer to Table 3.5-4 for a summary of design parameters for the liquid radioactive waste systems.
3.5.3.2.1 Waste and Floor Drain Collector Subsystem 7 l Wastes entering the waste collector tanks have variable activity levels depending on their source and relatively low conductivity (less than 50 umho/cm). There are four waste collector tanks to receive liquid waste from designated systems _ within both units. Radioactive materials are i removed from these wastes by filtration (insolubles and oil
- removal) and ion exchange (soluble and colloidal removal).
I r l l l l l- Supplement 7 3.5-5 January 1984 ! v l l
RBS ER-OLS One radwaste filter is provided. This filter is a backflushable, deepbed filter using walnut shells as the filter media. One demineralizer train is provided. It corsists of one nonregenerable cation, anion, and mixed bed unit in series. 7 The cation and anion unit resin beds are replaced together when an anion effluent conductivity breakthrough occurs, and the mixed bed unit is replaced independently on effluent conductivity breakthrough. The processed liquids are collected in the recovery sample tanks. Following batch sampling and analysis, the processed liquids will be either returned to one of the condensate storage tanks for reuse in the plant, recycled to the waste cellector tank for reprocessing, if required, or discharged to the Mississippi River through the cooling tower blowdown line. 7l Waste Collector tank influents include drains from piping and equipment containing high quality water that cannot be returned directly to the condenser hotwell due to
. conductivity and wastes from the reactor coolant system, condensate system, feedwater system, off-gas system drains, and associated auxiliaries. It also includes reactor 7l expansion drainage via the reactor water cleanup system, and low conductivity wastes from the condensate demineralizer regeneration system (resin transfer and backwash water).
Off standard process effluents, such as water of relatively high radioactivity concentration (e.g., greater than 10-3 uCi/cc), will be recycled to the waste collector tank for 7 reprocessing. See Section 3.5.3.4. The flocr drain tanks collect floor drainage from the machine shop, fuel, radwaste, reactor, auxiliary, and turbine ouilding sumps. Supplement 7 3.5-6 January 1984
4 RBS ER-OLS I\ The water collected could contain up to 50 ppm of oil, 200
\-- ppm of suspended solids, and 500 umhos/cm conductivity produced from soluble materials.
Floor drains are processed through an identical treatment to 7 that provided for the waste collector tanks. Demineralizer effluent, if acceptable, is sent to the recovery sample tanks._ If unacceptable, it is recycled back to the collector tank. 3.5.3.2.2 Phase Separator / Backwash Tank Subsystem Filter sludges, slurries, spent resins, and laboratory and decontamination area drains are collected and conveyed to 7 the radioactive solid waste system by the phase separator / backwash tank subsystem. Dewatering and drying of sludges is accomplished just prior to solidification within the solid waste cask. The phase separator decant is sent to the waste collector tank. (d" l i l l Supplement 7 3.5-7 January 1984 r"') v I
RBS ER-OLS 3.5.3.3 System Operation Analysis The liquid streams processed within the radwaste facility, which are significant contributors to the total liquid radwaste activity discharged to the environment, are shown on Table 3.5-4. Concentrations of significant isotopes in the cooling tower blowdown and annual liquid activity releases are shown in Tables 3.5-5 and 3.5-6, respectively. The tables were developed using the following bases:
- 1. A failed fuel basis of 50,000 uCi/sec (after 30-min decay) has been used as the basis for expected reactor coolant and steam concentrations.
- 2. A demineralizer decontamination factor for the waste collector tanks of 100 for Cs, Rb, and 1,000
, for other isotopes, and for the floor drain collector tanks of 20 for Cs, Rb and 1,000 for other isotopes.
- 3. Actual concentrations in the ultrasonic resin cleaner waste result from a collection of corrosion / activation products over a 7-day period.
These wastes are subsequently removed from the condensate demineralizer resin and directed to the radwaste system. 7l 4. The filter decontamination factor is 1.0 for corrosion / activation products. In addition, the following processing assumptions have been made regarding Table 3.5-4:
- 1. All recoverable equipment drains are routed to the
! main condenser hotwell after monitoring. (When l l Supplement 7 3.5-8 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS (n) conductivity does not permit, they are diverted to
\~ / the waste collector tank.)
- 2. Approximately 96 percent of.all normally collected liquid wastes is recycled to the condensate storage tanks. Less than 1 percent is packaged in the solid waste system. The remainder is discharged to the cooling tower blowdown.
- 3. In previous boiling water reactor plants, the majority of radioactivity entering the system was contained in the condensate demineralizer regenerant chemicals. However, the RBS condensate demineralizers are not regenerable and use of 7
ultrasonic resin cleaning results in long intervals between resin replacement, substantially reducing overall radioactivity entering the system because radioisotopes decay on the condensate demineralizer resin, rather than in the radwaste system. 3.5.3.4 System Operation 7 3.5.3.4.1 Waste and Floor Drain Collector Subsystem Condensate demineralizer backwash, ultrasonic resin cleaner , f% wastes, and eqNipment drainage from both units are the major influents to the waste collector tanks. The phase separator (" / decant is intermittent during the normal operation of the 7 station. Reduction of waste influents to the liquid radwaste system is achieved by utilizing ultrasonic resin cleaning of the condensate demineralizers and routing of equipment drainage to the condenser hotwell on conductivity controls. r"w Supplement 7 3.5-9 January 1984 N.)g
RBS ER-OLS The floor drain collector tanks will have an influent activity, conductivity, and volume that will vary widely due to reactor cycle variation. During initial startup of the units, floor drainage will contain high conductivity from the general cleanup of the plant, leaks from equipment, or washdown from startup maintenance. These wastes will not contain significant radioactivity and will be filtered and demineralized. 7 3.5.3.4.2 Control of Waste Activity Movement Improved operating techniques, careful consideration of drainage routing, and equipment selection have resulted in reduction in estimated waste volumes entering the radwaste systems. To the greatest possible extent, water is recycled back to the process instead of diverting it to radwaste. High purity drains (equipment drains) are directed to the main condenser, and conductivity controls divert the drains to radwaste if conductivity is excessive. Regenerate waste volumes are reduced by the use of ultrasonic resin cleaning, 7 extending the duration between resin replacement of the condensate polishers. Direct packaging of decontamination solutions where possible will free equipment from excessive flushing to remove O Supplement 7 3.5-10 January 1984
T RBS ER-OLS () materials which -would make subsequent recovery of effluent water difficult. Wet vacuuming techniques and administrative programs to decrease floor drainage are imposed to restrict the excessive development of waste from washdown or overflow drainage. , In summary, wastes will be combined to make the most effective use of processing equipment available and to minimize the number.of times that a batch of waste must be handled prior to final disposition. The recirculating load of water within the radioactive liquid waste system will be restricted to the minimum. 3.5.3.5 Release of Processed Waste Liquid waste from each of the four recovery sample tanks will be discharged to the cooling tower blowdown stream on a batch basis. Each batch will be analyzed prior to release for gross beta / gamma activity, pH, and conductivity, and the activity, temperature and flow rate of water discharged to the river will be recorded. Prior to commercial operation of Unit 2, 2,200 gpm of cooling tower blowdown from Unit 1 will be available for
\s dilution with liquid radwaste discharge. Treated radwaste effluents will be discharged at a rate to maintain radioactivity concentrations in the diluted discharge below 10CFR20 limits.
Complete isotopic analyses of composites or retained samples will be performed in accordance with the procedures outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.21. Detailed administrative records of.all radioactive liquid releases will be maintained. Table 3.5-5 presents the discharge pipe concentrations for 5 significant isotopes from both Units 1 and 2. Table 3.5-6 provides a tabulation of expected annual activity releases for two units. About 45.6 Ci/yr of tritium will be released from each unit. An average of about 2,220 gal / day is l7 i anticipated from both units after being processed by the i radioactive liquid waste system. u ement 7 3.5-11 January 1984
RBS EF-CES 3.5.4 Radioactive Gaseous Waste System The radioactive gas waste system will be designed to limit the release of activity from the plant at all power levels to a value below the allowable limits as established by 10CFR20. A separate off-gas treatment system will be installed for each unit. 3.5.4.1 Sources of Radioactive Gas The principal sources of potentially radioactive gas which exist in the unit are process off gas, mechanical vacuum pump off gas, drywell and containment ventilation, turbine gland sealing system, and turbine building ventilation. Other potentially radioactive gases may come frcm the radwaste building, fuel building, and auxiliary building ventilaticn. 3.5.4.1.1 Frocess Off Gas (Treated) The off-gas treatment system is shown in Fig. 3.5-3. Noncondensible radioactive process off gas will be continucusly removed from the main condensers by the 2-stage steam jet-air ejectors. condenser off gas is the major source of radioactive gas and is greater than all other sources ccmbined. The condenser off gas will ncrmally contain both activation gases from the reactor coolant system and fission gases which leak through the fuel cladding. The activation gases result from irradiation ot the reactor coolant as it passes through the reactor vessel. The production of these gases is dependent only on the reactor power and not the number of failed fuel rods. The composition of the activation gases is principally N-16, 0-19, and N-13. Both N-16 and 0-19 have short half-lives and readily decay, while N-13 with a half-life of 10 min is present in small amounts. The process off gas will also contain the radioactive noble gas parents of the biologically significant Sr-89, Sr-90, Ba-140, and cs-137. The concentration of these noble gases depends on the amount of tramp uranium in the coolant and on the cladding surfaces (usually extremely small) and on the number and size of fuel cladding perforations. Table 3.5-7 gives estinated activity flow rates at 30-min decay and associated activity release rates at the point of discharge. 3.5-12
RBS ER-OLS () TABLE 3.5-2 DATA USED IN CALCULATING ANNUAL RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS Maximum core thermal power 3,039 MWt 1.16 Total tritium release 0.03 Ci/yr per NWt 1.18 Total steam flow rate 1.31x107 lb/hr 1.20 i Mass coolant in RPV 4.39x105 lb 1.22 RWCU average flow rate 1.24x105 lb/hr 1.24 RWCU F/D regeneration frequency 6-14 days 1.26 RWCU F/D regeneration volume 1,200 gal 1.28 Condensate demineralizers (8) 1.30 total flow rate 9.42x108 lb/hr 1.31 l 7 Liquid radwaste tank capacities: 1.40 s Recovery sample tanks 19,500 gal /tk 1.42 l
%s / Waste collector tanks 25,000 gal /tk 1.44 Floor drain collector tanks 25,000 gal /tk 1.46 Il Phase separatur tanks 5,600 gal /tk 1.48 Backwash tank 10,700 gal 1.50 11 Plant capacity factor 80% 1.52 Ventilation filter efficiencies: 1.54 4-in charcoal element 90% 1.56
- Supplement 7 1 of 2 January 1984 0 -
Lv _
~
ch12210er-7d- '12/21/83 112 y - _
- ,t , . _ . . . _ . , . . _ , . . . . , . _ . _ _ _ . _
n__-._____-___.___,.__._.__-,._. _
RBS ER-OLS () TABLE 3.5-3 SOLID WASTE VOLUMES AND ACTIVITIES , COMBINED WASTES - UNITS 1 AND 2 Expected Expected Expected Specific Curie Volume (2) Activity Content Solid Waste Stream (cu ft/yr) (uCi/cc) (Ci/yr) Radwaste Filtei Sludge 828ct) 0.694 16.2 Fuel Pool /RWCU Sludge 972(2) 53.9 1,487 ; Radwaste Demineralizer 2,600(1)' 6.18 442 Spent Resin 7 Condensate Demineralizer 13,600(1) 6.77 2,606 Spent Resin Compacted Dry 7,316 2.4-02<a) 4.88 Solid Waste i Noncompactible 3,471 3.79 372 Dry Solid a (1) Solidified waste volume.
<2> Based on 365 days of operation per year.
, ca>Value noted as 2.4-02 is in power of 10 notation and is equivalent to 2.4 x 10-2, 1 j- Supplement 7 1 of 1 January 1984 4 e- r- --wy=-my- -m -,yr- = e- w,-,, -, , ,--a< --
,y-%r- r,.s,rr,--,- ,- . ~ , -
e ,- e-.- , , ,e--,-r.vv- ---e---
% ) i
/
x w/ (J / J
/
PBS EP-OLS TABLE 3.5-4 SIGNIFICANT R ADIO ACTIV E SOURCES TO THE LIODID RADWASTE SYSTEH COMBINED RADEASTE FACILITY Ultrasonic condensate Besin Decon and Demineralizer Equipment cleaner Floor Lab Regin_Einge_ DEains Backwash Drains DE31r.s Normal Naaber - Batches / day 3.65 3.65 3.65 0.645 0.301 Volume Per Batch - gal 1,370 6,137 6,219 17,674 3,987 Normal Daily volume - gal / day 5,000 22,400 30,000 11,000 1,200 7 Normal ?ctivity (Fraction of Primary Coolant Ac t ivit y) 2.0-03(t) 3.47-01 5.0-02 1.0-03 2.0-02 Assumed Discharge fraction / Batch 15 1% 15 105 104 l 7 I i Supplement 7 1 of 2 January 1984
- _ _ _ _ . - _ - - - _ - _ _ . - .__ - __ _ .. . -. ... . . . . . . . - . -.- _ - . _ . . --- ..= . . - ._, _. .
k RBS ES-OLS 1 4 i
- TABLE 3.5-4 (Cont) 1 Eeactor Eater Phase cleanup System Separator Solid Backwash
. Filter /ue min Tank Easte Tank l h4EIE45D -. 2gcant Dewater Influggt s Normal Number - ; Batches /aay 0.286 3.65 (3) 5/A Volume Per j Batch - galt a) 4,476 175 (3) N/A ! Normal Daily volume - gal / day 1,280 640 3,815 (*) ,
j Nornal Activity i (Fraction of Primary Coolsnt Activit y) 1.94+03 2.0-63 2.0-03 N/A .I Assumed Discharge Fraction / batch N/A 1% 101 N/A I t 1 1 I i l i 1 4 } } ! i ! j Note: (t) Exponents to base 10 such as 2.0 r.10-3 are listed as 2.0-03. l t a) Volumes shown for all streams are total inputs froa both Units 1 and 2. l 1 Cne batch is defined as the contribution of each input stream needed to fill ! one tank to 801 capacity in conjunction with the other input streams for that tank. j ( 3) Normal number of batches per day and volume per batch varies. , i ( *) Backwash tank receives influents on an intermittent basis. These influents include condensate acaineralizers spent resin, radwaste derineralizers spent resia, radwaste filter backwash, radwaste strainer assembly backwash, and spent fuel pool filter beckwash. l 1 Supplement 7 2 of 2 January 1984
. RBS ER-OLS
() TABLE 3.5-5 CONCENTRATION OF SIGNIFICANT ISOTOPES IN TEE COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN AT RIVER BEND STATION (FAILED FUEL BASIS - 50,000 uCi/SEC AFTER 30-MIN DECAY) A. Fission Products M.P.C.818 D.C. Radio (Conc. in Water) (Conc. in Discharge) Dc/mpc Nuclide uCi/ml uCi/cc (50,000 uCi/sec) Br-83 3.0-06(2' 1.5-10 5.0-05 Sr-89 3.0-06 1.7-11 5.7-06 7 Sr-90 3.0-07 1.2-12 4.0-06 Sr-91 7.0-05 3.8-10 5.4-06 Sr-92 7.0-05 1.7-10 3.9-06 Y-91 3.0-05 7.5-12 2.5-07 Y-92 6.0-05 6.3-10 1.1-05 7 Y-93 3.0-05 4.0-10 1.3-05 Mo-99 2.0-04 3.1-10 1.6-06 Tc-99m 6.0-03 1.4-09 2.3-07 Ru-103 8.0-05 3.5-12 4.4-08 Ru-105 1.0-04 1.0-10 1.0-06 O' Ru-106 Tu-129m 1.0-05 3.0-05 5.2-13 6.8-12 5.2-08 2.3-07 Te-131m 6.0-05 1.4-11 2.3-07 Te-132 3.0-05 1.6-12 5.3-08 Cs-134 9.0-06 5.9-11 6.6-06 Cs-136 9.0-05 3.8-11 4.2-07 Cs-137 2.0-05 1.6-10 8.0-06 7 Ba-140 3.0-05 6.7-11 2.2-06 Ce-141 9.0-05 5.1-12 5.7-08 Ce-143 4.0-05 4.2-12 1.1-07 Ce-144 1.0-05 5.2-13 5.2-08 Pr-143 5.0-05 6.8-12 1.4-07 Nd-147 6.0-05 5.1-13 8.5-09 I-131 3.0-07 6.1-10 2.0-03 i' I-132 8.0-06 1.2-09 1.5-04 I-133 1.0-06 6.6-09 6.6-03 I-134 2.0-05 1.6-10 8.0-06 j- I-135 4.0-06 3.8-09 9.5-04 Np-239 1.0-04 1.2-09 1.2-05 , l i I i ! Supplement 7 1 of 2 January 1984 I
RBS ER-OLS (') TABLE 3.5-5 (Cont) B. Activation / Corrosion Products (independent of failed fuel) M.P.C.(18 D.C. Radio (Conc. in Water) (Conc. in Discharge) Dc/mpc Nuclide __ uCi/ml Canal uCi/cc (50,000 uCi/sec) Ma-24 2.0-04 1.2-09 6.0-06 . P-32 2.0-05 3.5-11 1.8-06 Cr-51 2.0-03 1.0-09 5.0-07 Mn-54 1.0-04 1.2-11 1.2-07 Mn-56 1.0-04 1,2-09 1.2-05 , Fe-55 8.0-04 1.7-10 2.1-07 Fe-59 6.0-05 5.1-12 8.5-08 Co-58 1.0-04 3.5-11 3.5-07 Co-60 5.0-05 6.8-11 1.4-06 Ni-63 3.0-05 1.7-13 5.7-09 7 Ni-65 1.0-04 7.2-12 7.2-08 Cu-64 3.0-04 3.3-09 1.1-05 Zn-65 1.0-04 3.5-11 3.5-07 Zn-69 2.0-03 4.1-12 2.1-09 Zr-95 6.0-05 1.4-12 2.3-08
/~N Zr-97 2.0-05 7.2-13 3.6-08
( ,) Nb-95 1.0-04 1.4-12 1.4-08 Ag-110m 3.0-05 1.7-13 5.7-09 W-187 7.0-05 4.0-11 5.7-07 5 H-3 3.0-03 1.0-05 3.3-03 (1) Source: 10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2. ca: Exponents to Base 10 such as 3 x 10-5 are listed as 3.0-06. Supplement ,7 2 of 2 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS
, TABLE 3.5-6
}
EXPECTED ANNUAL LIQUID ACTIVITY RELEASES Radio Releases Radio Releases Nuclide Ci/yr Nuclide Ci/yr Br-83 1.3-03* I-131 5.3-03 Sr-89 1.5-04 I-132 1.1-02 Sr-90 1.1-05 I-133 5.7-02 Sr-91 3.4-03 I-134 1.4-03 Sr-92 2.3-03 I-135 3.3-02 Y-91 6.6-05 Np-239 1.1-02 Y-92 5.5-03 Na-24 1.0-02 Y-93 3.5-03 P-32 3.0-04 Mo-99 2.7-03 Cr-51 9.0-03 Tc-99m 1.2-02 Mn-54 1.0-04 Ru-103' 3.1-05 Mn-56 1.1-02 Ru-105 8.9-04 Fe-55 1.5-03 Ru-106 4.5-06 Fe-59 4.5-05 7 Te 129m 5.9-05 Co-58 3.1-04 Te-131m 1.2-04 Co-60 6.0-04 Te-132 1.4-05 Ni-63 1.5-06 Cs-134 5.1-04 Ni-65 6.3-05
-~ Cs-136 3.4-04 Cu-64 2.9-02 Cs-137 1.4-03 Zn-65 3.1-04 Ba-140 5.9-04 Zn-69 3.6-05 Ce-141 4.5-05 Zr-95 1.2-05 Ce-143 3.7-05 Zr-97 6.3-06 Ce-144 4.5-06 Nb-95 1.2-05 Pr-143 5.9-05 Ag-110m 1.5-06 Nd-147 4.4-06 W-187 3.5-04 TOTAL CURIES PER YEAR 2.20-01 TOTAL H-3 = 45.6 Ci/yr/ unit
- Exponents to Base 10 such as 1.3 x 10-3 are listed 7 i as 1.3-03.
Supplement 7 1 of 1 . January 1984 _. _ ..- .-- - . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ __ _ _ . . _ _ . ~ _ . _ _ _ -__... _ _.___._ . _ . . . _ - - _ _ . . .
PERMANENT _ PORTABLE O I WASTE DEWATER TO LWS 5015 GPD e SYSTEM ELANT CONNECTION STAND I It RADWASTE FILTER SLUDGE WASTE 2405 GPD SLUDGE TANK RW DEMIN SPENT RESIN 18 GPD , COND DEMIN SPENT RESIN 776 GPD TO RWCU/ FUEL POOL FILTER SOLIDIFICATION O 710 GPD U DECON & LAB DRAINS (2) 1200 GPD COMPRESSIBLE WASTE
; COMPACTOR If 55 GALLON DRUM NOTES:
- 1. FLOW RATES INCLUDE TRANSFER FIGURE 3.5-1 WATER AND SOLIDS.
- 2. DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO SOLID SOLID WAS TE p WASTE INVENTORY. MANAGEMENT SYSTEM b
RIVER BEND STAT!ON ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANU ARY 1984
\
m SOLID WASTE DEWATER FLOOR DRAIN RADWASTE 5015 GPD g COLLECTOR TANKS V ASSEMBLY V (iI (3) J k FLOOR DR AINS 11,400 GPO I P 1 P 1 [ ] TO TO SACKWASH BACKWASH TANK TANK FUEL POOL FILTER 8ACKWASH 57 GPD BACK WASH STRAINER ASSM. 8ACKWASH t g 1200 GPD PD RADWASTE FILTER BACKWASH 2004 GPD / EOUIPM21 y TO 22.40 F SOLID RADWASTE DEMINS. RADWASTE URCBJ SPENT RESINS 30.0h 18 GPO RESIN RIN COND. DE MINS. SPENT RESIN PH A SE 776 GPD _ TO WASTE COLLECTOR TANKS rd A k O REACTOR WATER
+ .sASE SEPARATOR CLEANUP F/D BACKWASH TANKS 1280 GPD (2)
SOLIO m ) RADWAm i i
.I
I Also Available en Aperture Card DEMINER AU" > '1 STRAlfdR (f) (1) ) _. CATION ANION BED I I I I RECOVERY SAMPLE TANKS (4) TO I BACKWASH TANK l 1 P WASTE LLECDNG DAAINS TANKS CONDENSATE mpo - (4) STORAGE CXCASH TANK DGPD iE 5.000 GPO 3 f IRMS-NE107 LPmRATO1 VO RADWASTE TO COOUNG SAMPLING TOWE9 8 LOWDOWN l l 39C A3El URE CARJ FIGURE 3.5-2 RADIOACTIVE LIQUID WAETE SYSTEM l RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT- OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984 8401310 2W7 - O .
RBS ER-OLS 3.7 POWER TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS (v) River Bend Station is connected to GSU's load demand area by a system uf 230-kV and 500-kV overhead transmission lines. These lines were installed and erected from the River Bend Station generator step-up transformer to the Fancy Point 7 Substation and from the Fancy Point Substation 230-kV and 500-kV switchyard to the Webre Substation, Jaguar Bulk Substation and McKnight Switching Station via three separate rights-of-way. Tnese three rights-of-way, designated Rcutes I, II, and III, provide the means to integrate Fancy Point Substation into l7 the existing GSU electrical system. Electric output from the station is transmitted to the electrical system via these three routes during normal plant operation. The three transmission line routes are located as described in Section 2.2.2 and were completed and energized as follows: Route I - January 1981 (energized), 7 Route II - November 1981 (energized), and / "x Route III - June 1983 (energized). i 3 V routes are illustrated in These transmission line Fig. 2.2-4. The 500-kV transmission line located in Route I has been sold to the Cajun Electric Cooperative with the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Under the terms 7 of the sale, GSU will continue to operate and maintain this 500-kV transmission line. , 3.7.1 Electrical Design Parameters 3.7.1.1 230 bV System The 230-kV and 500-kV transmission lines were designed and constructed to integrate with the existing GSU 230-kV and 500-kV electrical transmission systems. The 230-kV transmission lines run from the Fancy Point Substation 7 230-kV yard along Routes I and II. Route III structures have provisions for underbuild 230-kV transmission line ' additions. The 230-kV power conductors primarily consist of two conductor bundles of 649.5 kCMIL aluminum conductor - alloy reinforced (ACAR) cable spaced 45.7 cm (18 in) on center, with a nominal power capacity of 750 MVA. Supplement 7 3.7-1 January 1984 ('~'} V
RBS ER-OLS 7 l The 230-kV lines 351 and 352, from the Fancy Point l Substation switchyard to the Jaguar Bulk Substation, utilize two 1,650 kCMIL ACAR cables per phase with a nominal power capacity of 1,200 MVA. The minimum design phase-to-phase spacing on the 230-kV transmission line system is 4.9 m (16 ft). Two static lines are provided on each 230-kV transmission tower and consist of 5/16-in extra high strength (EHS) steel cable. l l l Supplement 7 3.7-la January 1984 l
A2. Ca-i4mmudan..A_-T-iJ a,.wa_a *h4*.W __A Ja A4-6AJ-.-e.--44.- E. 4&MM.=h-- --.e_ e. .,--_asgmm-J s4.4-Mw_wa.ha 4-_-imM _ab.Lu,-a %- J I 1 RBS ER-OLS 1 l@ i I l l l l l l l THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK i l@ I l l l ' l l l 1 1 l i i Supplement 7 3.7-Ib January 1984 4
- l l
l k j
RBS ER-OLS Phase-to-ground clearances of the 230-kV transmission lines were designed and installed in accordance with the provisions of the National Electrical Safety Code, paragraph 232A, Table I, as amended by paragraph 232B2, and are summarized in Table 3.7-1. 3.7.1.2 500-kV System The 500-kV transmission lines run from the Fancy Point Substation 500-kV yard along Routes I and III. Two configurations of power conductors are used at the 500-kV level. Three conductor bundles of 1,024.5 kCMIL ACAR per phase spaced 45.7 cm (18 in) on center are used along Routes I and III with a nominal power capacity of 2,500 MVA. The Route I Mississippi River crossing utilizes one 3,075 kCMIL steel core aluminum conductor alloy reinforced (ECACAR) cable per phase with a nominal power capacity of 2,500 MVA. The minimum phase-to-phase spacing on the 500-kV transmission line system is 11.0 m (30 ft). Two 7/16-in EHS steel cable static lines are used on each 500-kV transmission tower, with the exception of the static lines used on the Mississippi River crossing which are 19 No. 9 alumoweld cables. Phase-to-ground clearances of the 500-kV transmission lines were designed and installed in accordance with the provisions of the National Electrical Safety Code, paragraph 232A, Table I, as amended by paragraph 232B2, and are summarized in Table 3.7-1. , 3.7.1.3 Electrical Effects GSU has design and operational experience in 500-kV, 230-kV, and 500-kV/230-kV transmission lines and has experienced no significant adverse effects frem radiated electrical and acoustical noise, induced or conducted ground currents, and ozone production, as discussed in Section 5.6.3. 3.7.2 Structural Design Parameters 3.7.2.1 Steel Towers The 230-kV and 500-kV transmission line towers used by GSU on this project are galvanized steel. They were designed according to capacity requirements, aesthetics, reliability, experience, and economics. Structure types used are as follows: Supplement 7 3.7-2 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS p) g Type Description Single-Circuit Open lattice-type galvanized steel tower 500-kV Tower with three 1024.5 KCM ACAR conductors per l7 phase with two 7/16-in EHS static lines. Designed to meet NESC medium loading conditions or 100-mph winds. Foundations generally consist of high strength cylin-drical concrete of sufficient depth to support the tower at its design lcad. (Fig. 3.7-2 has typical tower configuration) Single-Circuit Open lattice-type galvanized steel tower 500-kV Tower with. with one 500-kV circuit with three Single Circuit 1024.5 KCM ACAR conductors per phase, one , 230-kV Underbuild 230-kV circuit with two 649.5 KCM ACAR conductors per phase, and two 7/16-in EHS static lines. Designed to meet NESC medium loading conditions or 100 mph winds. Foundations generally consist of high strength cylindrical concrete of sufficient depth to support the tower at its design load. (Fig 3.7-31 has typical tower configuration)
/
(,,T) Single-Circuit Open lattice-type galvanized steel tower 500-kV Tower with with one 500-kV circuit with three Double-Circuit 1024.5 KCM ACAR conductors per phase, ' 230-kV Underbuild two 230-kV circuits with two 649.5 KCM ACAR conductors per phase, and two 7/16-in EHS static lines. Designed to meet NESC medium loading conditions or 100 mph winds. Founda-tions generally consist of high strength cylindrical concrete of sufficient depth to support the tower at its design load. (Fig. 3.7-29 has typical tower i configuration) Double-Circuit Steel poles with steel arms welded 230-kV Single along the longitudinal seam and Steel Pole galvanized. The arms are braced Structure as required for strength. Circuits consist of two 1650 KCM ACAR conductors per phase for one circuit and two , 649.5 KCM ACAR conductors per phase for the second circuit with one 5/16-in EHS static line. Designed to meet NESC medium loading condition and 100 mph winds. These-poles are directly Supplement 7 3.7-3 January 1984 v% . . . - -.,.,, em- ve. , - - , , - --+mv.c . -ey,-.,,--%my,y-,,,, ..we- , -w - .- , , - , . , y y --..4-~7 ,,, - .-y-
RBS ER-OLS Type Description embedded with concrete backfill. (Fig. 3.7-27 has typical tower configuration) Double-Circuit Steel poles, arms, and X-braces are 230-kV Steel Pole formed from sheet steel. Usually H-Frame octagonal shape and welded along the longitudinal seam and galvanized. Arms are braced as required for strength, and poles have one or more X-braces depending on height. Circuits consist of two 1650 KCM ACAR conductors 7 Per phase for one circuit and two 649.5 KCM ACAR conductors per phase for the second circuit with two 5/16-in EHS static lines. Designed to meet NESC medium loading conditions and 100 mph winds. These poles are directly embedded with concrete backfill. (Fig. 3.7-23 has typical tower configuration) Single-Circuit Similar to the Double-Circuit 230-kV 230 kV Steel Pole steel pole H-Frame above, with one H-Frame horizontal arm. 500-kV River Two open lattice-type galvanized Crossing steel towers supporting one 500-kV Tower circuit consisting of single 3,070-kCMIL SCACAR conductors per phase and two separate 19 No. 9 aluminized steel shield wires. Overall tower height is is 320 ft above the foundation. Towers are designed to meet NESC heavy loading on the conductors and are designed to withstand a 120-mph extreme wind. Foundations consist of four concrete pile caps elevated above maximum flood stage of the Mississippi River (54.91 ft). Pile caps rest on concrete cylinder piles 54 inches in diameter by 80 ft in length, using four piles
,l per pile cap. Each pile cap supports one leg of the tower.
Supplement 7 3.7-4 January 1984 t
RBS ER-OLS fi A/ 230-kV 3.7-25). line 352 and one future 230-kV line (Fig. 3.7-24 and Segment P to Q is 9.14 km (5.68 mi) and runs parallel to the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad and State Highway 19 and terminates at Poir.t Q, the Jaguar Bulk Substation. The right-of-way accommodates 230-kV line 352, which becones 230-kV line 351, and a future 230-kV line on a one pole tower structure (Fig. 3.7-26 through 3.7-28). 3.7.4.3 Route III Route III extends 43.87 km (27.2 mi) from the Fancy Point 7 Substation switchyard to the McKnight Switching Station, and consists of an estimated 132 500-kV lattice steel towers accommodating 500-kV line 752. These towers can also accommodate either one or two 230-kV underbuild circuits. Segment A to R starts at the switchyard and runs east-southeast 3.56 km (2.21 mi) to Point R. The segment carries the 500-kV line 752 on a steel lattice tower with provisions for two future 230-kV underbuild lines (Fig. 3.7-29). Segment R to S is 4.09 km (2.5 mi) long, zigzagging northeast and east alongside of a pipeline right-of-way. f\'x)
! The right-of-way accommodates the 500-kV line 752 with provisions for two future 230-kV underbuild lines (Fig. 3.7-30).
Segmant S to T is 12.87 km (8.0 mi) in length and consists of lattice steel towers accommodating 500-kV line 752 with provisions for the future addition of two 230-kV underbuild lines, as shown on Fig. 3.7-31. Segment T to U is 23.35 km (14.51 mi) long and follows a railroad right-of-way except for the first 3.2 km (2 mi). This segment consists of a lattice steel tower accommodating l7 500-kV line 752 with provisions for the future addition of two 230-kV underbuild lines (Fig. 3.7-32). 3.7.5 Methods of Construction Careful attention was taken to propcrly orient structures with respect to line direction and takeoff angles and to ensure that structures were erected plumb. No member was subjected, during handling and erection, to loads in excess of their design loads. Extreme care was taken to establish and maintain the true geometric shape of the portion of the structure assembled. Mud, dirt, and other foreign matter Supplement 7 3.7-9 January 1984 ("') Q./
RBS ER-OLS were removed f rom the structures before ereSagging ction so as to maintain a clean and neat appearance. operations were not permitted when high winds or other adverse weather conditions would have impaired the accuracy of the sagging. The following allowable deviations from true normal locations of cables were not exceeded: The deviation of cables from true sag did not exceed 0.4 ft. Neither the friction of sheaves, the difference in elevation between supports, nor structure deflection war excessive. The suspension insulators were hung plumb. All suspension clamps of any one structure were within 3 in of a vertical plane through the phase supports. the vertical bundled transmission lips, the In separation of the two conductors of one phase did not deviate more than 0.2 ft from cach other in their final position. 3.7.6 Tower, Switchyard, and Substation Locations The 230-kV and 500-kV switchyard accommodates all lines entering and exiting Fancy Point Substation. The 230-kV 7l portion is a rigid bus, air-insulated switchyard with two bases and thirty 230-kV circuit breaker positions. The 7 l 500-kV portion consists of two buses and twelve 500-kV gas circuit breaker positions and utilizes sulfur hexa'luoride 7 equipment predominantly to reduce the amount of land l required for the switchyard. The switchyard is located approximately 4,000 ft southwest of the power plant and occupies approximately 23 acres. of the Route I Webre Substation, the Route II Locations Jaguar Bulk Substation, and the Route III McKnight Switching Station are illustrated on Fig. 2.2-4. Supplcment 7 3.7-10 January 1984 O
1 O O O i
! o 4 5 ~ n5 a 500 Kv t-748 F M8 2 2o e
! "3 L? L L2 E
/ ?$ y? y? tv ?a2 ?g s?$
i N Mo 8 O Ro bo 80 mn 5 0 mw wm wn me nw "N 9 1 I i
/
\f j g 'g \[ {'y !!
II
-GN / lN i Qli y,;? 'l m
VV4 'v' W gf g y W/ [ V FUTURE FUTURE lo a 230 KV 230 KV 18 \ e' !! { ^ ll ' ' ll i j
/ 11.-
al
.n 1:
il Il ! Il II l Il it Il il l fl ff l I 30.5 m (100') 67m(220') 2.3 m ( 75') 23 m ( 75') IS 3m(64') ! 185.5m ( 609') J 4 - y I i l l FIGURE 3.7-1 l 1 ROUTES I AND ll ! SEGMENT A TO B I LOOKING NORTH 1.72 KM _ i RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS l SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984 I
- O l
500 KV LINE 745 W/ PROVISIONS FOR FUTURE 1 230 KV U. B. k M'sA/VVx/sl LA LiNE 7 31 230 KV
'nN
\
\
l xn NEWLY ACQUIRED , ROW e i 29m(95) l , 45.5m( 150') _
] 2 7.5 m (91') [
m 74.5 m (2 4 5') PREVIOUS ROW I3.5 m (45')
]
i FIGURE 3.7-4 ROUTEI SEGMENT D TO E LOOKING NORTH 11.62 KM O RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
O 500 KV LtNE 745 W/ PROVISIONS FOR FUTURE 230 KV U.fa.
,M \/\./ \ /\N\./A l
NAM
/
1 m SS.5m ( 18 2') 30.5 m ( 100') ,, 25 m (82')
' NEWLY ACQUIRED PREVIOUS ROW ROW
{ l l l l FIGURE 3.7-5 ROUTEI SEGMENT E TO F LOOKING WEST 15.54 KM RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
-.. _ _ . ~ -
l l O 500 KV LINE /45 WITH PROVISIONS FOR FUTURE DOUBLE CIRCUIT 230 KV UNDERBUILD M \ N \/\/\/VL A
/'
NM m 55 Sm (182') m 312 Sm(4f) 30 Sm f t00') _,m 12.5 m(40E O i-
' NEWLY ~ l ' PREVIOUS ROW ' i ' NEWLY ACQUIRED ACQUIRED ROW ROW FIGURE 3.7-6 ROUTEI SEGMENT F TO G LOOKING NORTH FIRST 9.90 KM O RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
----m- -a +2 - --a,, w I
O 500 KV LINE 745 WITH PROVISIONS FOR FUTURE DOUBLE CIRCUIT 230 KV UNDERBUILD ms-~m s
/
E, , m 55.5 m Ile2') _ _q
- NEWLY ACQUIRED ROW PREVIOUS ROW l
FIGURE 3.7-7 ROUTEI SEGMENT F TO G LOOKING NORTH SECOND 1.72 KM O RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
l l O O O i i
- NEW 500 KV LINE 745 W/ PROVISIONS FOR FUTURE
! 230 KV DOUBLE CIRCUlT U B. k A v,v v \ N C,/ A 4 l t '
! i
! l l rx nn
! t i
]
, 55.5m (182') m
) NEWLY ACQUIRED ROW , 1 l l FIGURE 3.7-8 1 ROUTEI l SEGMENT G TO H i LOOKING EAST 0.66 KM i i RIVER BEND STATION l ENVIRON. MENTAL REPORT - OLS i l SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1964
Il1 (jl 1 i,
- O N
_ O S S D I O Y U T C C A H N N P J A A E V N T
._ C K V E P . R. R K G F O 0 O O O L 0 L O O TP T 3 3 T T I T T 2 H 3
2 4 SO 2 3 R 6 3 E 5 V5 V35 t 1 2 V7 R E V3 DU K 3 EV A V 7 7 K R K K RKT K E V U U EH 0 E E U S KE 0 E T T 0 3I N 0N T0 3I N 0 9I N 3 N I U U 3I NT, 2L 3I U3O 2L 6L 2 L C F 2LP 2L F2T .
._ . =
~ '
_. = = _ a m __ = =
= =
1 i,i
, +l -
- m m = H = s h
N
\ =
= j\ =,
s=
-= s /=
- d
- = =
- 2
- 2
_ d u$ h d- f l j i
?* 8S y jm 6 z9 $E > oE@ $E OhA P?O I o C a m :=
. mmOKmZa g r o5ZOzoIq7 2 ^I T m3] WmZQ (/)y>H OZ - m I @ gmZH>F 7m mH 1 orM mmrmg ZHN <_> z :' 5 < a $ u
4 4 2 mz 2 M
; s ma a Em a s E8 ~~ 8 =c ~
EDh ee-m er- >k)
- mm E
e e l 20R 22 03R $mm5R SR E n a i ll 11 ll V i V V i v
- T
*} Ll
' ~
l s s l
- 4
! 11 11 i ll's f 'll l ll N, f' 11 II ,/s 11 II s 11 i l i' '11
- 11 ll 1
! ll li Il 11 I 11 em(2Q ll g !
m ism (so') 3 30 5m(IOO')
- ,m 9m(30' 1 23m ( 75') _ _ 20m (65') _ _ #2 m (40') _
i l m 23m ( 76') m 7]m(d) m _ _ 64 m ( 210) 6m(2d) I ] NEWLY ACQUIRED ROW PREVIOUS ROW 45.5 m (15O') _ PIPELINC ROW NEWLY ACQUIRED ROW i FIGURE 3.7-10 6 m (20') - NEW ACQUIRED ROW ROUTE 11 SEGMENT I TO J LOOKING EAST 1.16 KM , RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS s SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984 i
' 'i i- ,
4 2 _ 5 5 _ 3 3 _ E E _ N N 1, I 3 L V 5 V 5 V V V K 2 V 3 K K K 8 6 0 7 0 E 0 7 3 0 2 E 3 2 N 3 2 3 0 - N E I L 3 LE I E 2 L R V R 2 VR VU K U KU 8 T KT 0 T 3U 9U 3 2 U 1 F 6F F g % = " _ (\/ / p _
+ +
w l,, l_C,i 4 - l
+
4 * [.e= , _5 (\/ g/
/ "
+
+
= '
s s-- y
=N ,
q a-
;3 - o. L CE- L
- y C" .
=3 U ~~ eo~"
g
- u3 t" ~
U k I f L t i 1 i 1 J J j I 3 I
*i3 k f Ed-L
$S g&- ;
a ~ p 3 gs.a- r i 1 J 1 1 gE Eoc h g* .,g< gm $E 2Qr< Ng 2mo xg _ _ l 83 gu_ r I 1 y-
- g m (dWiU IocHm_-
mmOKmzH c O x loOX2g zOmHI 32cq obs xr
/
y Im Wm7O @HpH OZ . mZImOzImzH>r 2mTOmH - I OG n cCT mgmzHN c>zc>@ mO
*jI , I ,i,i ])< l i il ] ;lil!3ji2 1i.11' - l ii 4 .i ! :
Ji O . m 2 n N N
] 3 y O O o z@ W@ z @
$ $ ]W Ew 3 m
?5 $5 ? 5
- il 0 as e a ea s a cv B
w
/\/\ .
Il Il
- 7,8T~%7
'%f $ V i i %/ \/ T/ II II
\/N
/ A
- lb s ll N
,dl il
/ ll / N' I/
ll N!! l ll ll 11 ll
! I I m l5m (5d) m S5m(378 .,it.5m(38'L Il m (37') 8 5m(275') 145 m(475')
m 2 7m( 87 5') m m 45 5m(150') _ m 20 5m (675') _
' NEWLY ACQUIRED RCW " i PREVIOUS ROW ' NEWLY ACQU; RED ROW" m
93m(305) m FIGURE 3.7-12 ROUTE ll SEGMENT J TO K LOOKING NORTH SECOND 1.09 KM RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
1
~
k
-E W 3 J kN NN 0 $
? E
.- o. o Ek Sk E 8 2 0 3m jw 3
@$ >$ E $
I I g$ s$ 8 a u. y g y - u.
- u-
/N/\ fl il V .V V V g/ g1r + wy
$ i
/N/ i.N 1 11 + ll m
i ~ l , 1 lfs d 11 X ll j/l IV 'JI 11 11
/ 11 ll
~
11 ll r ROAD \ O 15m ( 50') I t.5m( 3 7.5' ) It.5m ( 38') 11 m ( 37') 8.5 (275') 14 Sm(47.5')' m 27m ( 875') _ _ 45 5 m (156) _ _ 20.5 m ( 6 7.5') _
' NEWLY ACQUIRED ROW PREVIOUS ROW ' NEWLY ACQUIRED ROW "
93 m ( 305)
=
FIGURE 3.7-13 ROUTE ll SEGMENT J TO K LOOKING NORTH THIRD 0.31 KM RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984 y-- , --- , - , - - '-y. v,-----..- ,,.ye- -e,---,.,.-s,-- ----.--y-,,.,,,m, :p.w,----.,,m..m-,..--.,y,wg,,.,4 w w .--w--- g gw -w,-w w,,w-ww------w-- .v-,--r-w- + m- - - =
O 4 2 5 5 3 3 E E N I N I L L 8V V 3 3 5 V V 6x 7 2 K 3 K K E 0 70 E N2 3 E 3 2 N 0 0 I N E L I 3 3 Le I L R 2 2 Ve V KU VU K 8 1 KT 0
^ 3 ,U 9U 3 1 6F 2
< \7 \/ /
,< " < +
t H
\ 7 W _.
// \
$E
( $B O h _ yi O.o.- ,
, b
,aO3 O. ~ r 1
! [o m! kso SU bE y; N$S f d I 7~QcIm Q p ^
yocg mmOgmZH zHo r rOOXyg ZoIHI m5mH o t y^ $ O 2Imy CmZa @HyH OZ m[ IOZ5mz$r moth I orU CTmrmKmZH N c>ZE"< m (D$
;i ;'
O a w a aeo m so e a w w y j E z2 mg z 3 $ $E 5" S g s ??
~ n ce se n
/
V i V .1 V f v
/\
V $ v i i V 5 V ERR TRACK O , 15m ( SO')
, 17 m (55')
4 Sm (ii) to 5m(351 15 m (50') -_ m 15 m (56) _ 3 2 m (IO5') _ _ 45.5 m(156) PREVIOUS ROW NEWLY ACQUIRED RCW 77.5 m (255) _ O. FIGURE 3.7-15 ROUTE ll SEGMENT K TO L LOOKING NORTH SECOND 1.64 KM , RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
O O n n a a sg ng " E B Og Ro 8 8
" 50 $3 5
#8 28 ?
i I as
~' is a
\# ;i V r I
N/\ ! v $ v / \/N* i
- v v v
/ 1
\
[/ i l t 15 m ( 5 0') li.5 m( 37 5') II. 5 m ( 38') lim ( 37') 8.5 m ( 2 7.5') 14. 5m ( 47. 5') 2 7 m ( 87.5') 4 5.5 m ( 150') i N EWLY ACQUIRED ROW PREVIOUS ROW
- 72. 5 m (237. 5')
7 FIGURE 3.7-16 ROUTE il l SEGMENT L TO M j LOOKING NORTH FIRST 1.98 KM O RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984 _ - . _ . . . . . - _ _ _ _ , - . . . . - - _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . , , _ - , , - _ _ - - _ _ . . . _ - _ . , . _ _ . - . _ . . . _ _ _ . , - - , _ _ , . . _ . _ _ , - _ _ _ _ , ~ - , , , , . , _ . _ , _ _ _ - _ _ - _ , . . -
O O i 1 1 3 m E n i 3 3 sg ng ]' N N [o No E R R EN EN O
$E DE 5 l [O 33
- 8 l
V $ V
/ VN I V f V 1 $ $ V $ V j / \/ 's i 1 1 1 1 I N ROAD ROW 3 6 5 m (120') _ 135m (38 l _Ilm(37')_ 8Jm(2d) 14.5m (47.5')
1 l 30. 5 m (100') m 45 5m (150') m
' NEWLY ACQUIRED ROf PREVIOUS ROW i
i I FIGURE 3.7-17 ROUTE 11 SEGMENT L TO M LOOKING NORTH SECOND 0.64 KM RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
O O n
>h >h x CD bN x so w o y op oE y2 ZN x Ra 23 se se $
DE 22
$2 22 N V 4 V
/NA V $ V i li a
/ \/N *
/
g N I O - 13.5 m ( 45') to Sm(35') 13. 5m (4 5') 9 m (30') 9m(30) 13.5 m (45') 2 4.5 m ( 80') 45.5m (150') _
' NEWLY ACOUIRED ROW " ' PREVIOUS ROW 70 m ( 23 0')
l l FIGURE 3.7-18 ROUTE il SEGMENT L TO M LOOKING NORTH THIRD 0.55 KM RIVF.R BEND STATION l ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984 l
' - .J '
2 4 3 5 5 5 3 3 3 E E E N I N N V I I L L 3V 7 L V V 2 K K 7 1 V K K 7 0 K E 03 E 3 0 0 N2 2 0 3 3 I N E 3 _ 2 2 LE I 2 L R VR VU
., KU KT -
- 8 3
T U 9 U
/k w 1 F 6F
/
\ / /
\ / /
, H"
/ /
/
/
+
H
+\
/
s i 5" _o 3 G 3 GO" 5w O. ~ _" o-A L f I E A f 1 L J U v g
' U A
L N $*w I I L J
- 7 = E~
V zmEN g oCH 9 ,O i gmS8* m5 l A n"3 C8 'I y Em P?6 go5m= mAOK z r 40 E rOO72O zOmj hc2Y oq^ xg I<mI CmZo iH n 4_QZ mzS2 KmZ $r mmT l Or(o D Cc mgmz 5ZC m<aeCD il i
2 4 3 5 5 3 3 5 3 E E E N N 3V N I L I 7 V L 2 7 K 1 K I L V V 0 7 0 V K K E 3 E 3 K 0 0 N2 2 3 3 I LE N 0 2 I L E 3 2 VR R 2
= KU VU
=
8 T KT
= = 3 U 9U
(
- 1 F
\
6F /
/ ~
hr
- r \
\
/
l i 5 3 b- I La& n L 5 w3 3O , s i mo ~ f L cIIS r 1 1 I i ' 1 1 d Ub$ f I k J g a8.- y 54G $y0 aE j s 2oE l I S r 1 C ".s*NO Iosm-n cmogmE r mo g rO azo ZoDM mmm1OW*7r
. <m2 QmzO (ny>H Z sIoZIm2W -
ImmhH l orin g {Eza y csc>I< a oDb (C l l ;lj. l ! j
O
~ .*
N $ Q E E 2 s x
!x E?
w8 "8
? E o o zw WN x 0 S fE E 8
'? ??
0 32 82 - V f V /\/\ s V i V i i j / \/l N N I 15m ( 50') 12 m ( 40') IO . 5 m ( 35') 12 m( 40') 9 m( 30') 13. 5 m ( 45' ) l c O O1 & 4 = t t 4 = 27.5 m ( 0 O') 4 5.5 m ( 150') N EW LY AC Q UIR E D ROW PREVIOUS ROW 73 m ( 24 0') FIGURE 3.7-21 ROUTE II l SEGMENT L TO M LOOKING NORTH SIXTH 1.98 KM RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984 l l _-.__-___.-----...,,.._.--._-_.-_,..-,.--,__-,.--.,.,.,_n._,_. , _ _ _ , . _ . _ -
O N N 8 3 E > E 8 E N 3 8 s E
? 5 x = ;
8 B $ ; 5 N 2 8
\
/ \/ *
\
1 15 m ( 50') 9 m ( 30') 13.5m ( 45') 9 m ( 30') 9m ( 30') 13.5 m (45') 2 4. 5 m ( 80') 45.5 m (150') NEWLY ACOUIRED ROW PREV!OUS ROW 70m ( 230') FIGURE 3.7-22 ROUTE ll SEGMENT M TO N LOOKING WEST 7.78 KM O RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
O a e E 0 3 m N $ E m u. U V t N/
/'s i l
O 15 m ( 5 0 15 m t50')
- 30. 5 m(IO O')
NEWLY ACQUIRED ROW I FIGURE 3.7-23 ROUTEIl SEGMENT N TO O LOOKING WEST 0.35 KM O RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
O N N >
> W
- 5 R 5 a
l u 9[m' m Y s -
=
G
=
G 4 1 z l l I l 63m( 42') m r5 m (50') 45.5 m(150' ) 2 4.5 m( 80' ) FIGURE 3.7-24 ROUTE il SEGMENT O TO P LOOKING NORTH FIRST 1.77 KM O RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
O a W R 3
? 5 n
N 5 u. e
! %) ^@
U % m i 2 @ m ! t I5m ( ed) 13m(42 O 4 45 Sm (150') 2 4.5 m (86) __ FIGURE 3.7-25 ROUTE ll SEGMENT O TJ P LOOKING NORTH SECOND O.92 KM V RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
O a E a N O 9 g
+
- 9 g:g 4 "5 m-i HWY 19 15 m (50') 13 m ( 4 2j' 2.5 m (8')
4 O 4 30.5 m (100') PREVIOUS ROW FIGURE 3.7-26 ROUTE ll SEGMENT P TO Q LOOKING NORTH FIRST 5.78 KM RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
I O 5 S C C 5 5 8 a 8
~
'N #
~.
.N H W Y.19 I ._
O l i l l l FIGURE 3.7-27 ROUTE ll SEGMENT P TO O LOOKING NORTH SECOND 0.67 KM RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS ! SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
O 5 o o R E a E a 3 E R o a N 9 d i I
$ b !
a. HWY 19 1 l m l 3m oo') l .O l l l l FIGURE 3.7-28 l l ROUTE 11 SEGMENT P TO O LOOKING NORTH THIRD 2.69 KM O RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS ! SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984 L_-_____ -.
O 500 KV LINE 752 W/ PROVISIONS FOR FUTURE 230 KV U.B. mv, Q /g mum [ w rv f 53.5 th(175') NEWLY ACQUIRED ROW FIGURE 3.7-29 ROUTE Ill SEGMENT A TO R LOOKING EAST 3.56 KM RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
O 500 KV LINE 752 W/ PROVISIONS FOR FUTURE 230 KV U.B. wn. v\A.Af fsfh,_
~
\/ ' \a, [ * \[
y, 7' _s $ hI i 45.5m (150') P L. ROW
$3.5 m ( 17 5')
O
.g--.-_
- 41. 5 m ( 135.5')
' ~
NEWLY kOUIRED ROW 8 7 m ( 285. 5') 4 - P FIGURE 3./-30 ROUTE Ill SEGMENT R TO S LOOKING EAST 3.41 KM RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
O 500 KV LINE 752 W/ PROVISIONS FOR FUTURE 230 KV U.B. n,vvv~~ h A Q/y; g/
/,
V' l'% /\/\ g -- N r1_ -- FIGURE 3.7-31 ROUTE Ill SEGMENT S TO T LOOKING EAST 13.56 KM RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
i 500 KV LINE 752 W/ PROVISIONS FOR FUTURE 230 KV U.B. M VV\f\/ /\/LA_
=
\
4 y y D
) FORMER R.R. R OW a w 9 m( 30')
53 Sm (175') O 44 m ( t 4 5') NEWLY ACQUIReiD ROW FIGURE 3.7-32 ROUTE lil SEGMENT T TO U LOOKING EAST 23.36 KM RIVER BEND STATION ENi'IRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
- _ _ . . . - . = . . . . - . . - . _ - . = _ . . -_ - - - . . . ..
f 4 RBS ER-OLS i i CHAPTER 3 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES I I-TABLE OF CONTENTS NRC Supplement Q&R
- Question No. No. Page No. '
E240.16 1 3.3-1 E240.17 1 3.3-2 I E291,5 2 3.4-1 E240.29 3 3.4-2 E240.30 3 3.4-3 , i !
'E460.1 7 3.5-1 f
- l. E240.18 1 3.6-1 i E240.19 1 3.6-2 i E291.6 2 3.6-3 l E291.7 2 3.6-4 E290.7. 2 3.7-1 4
L 1 l l t i L 1 j l l l-Supplement 7 Q&R 3-i January 1984 I l i L -
4 1. 1 RBS ER-OLS i i ). QUESTION E460.1 (3.5) .i
- t Provide Table 3.5-3 and Figures 3.5-1, 3.5-2, and 3.5-3 or supply a schedule for submittal of the table and figures.
4
RESPONSE
See Table 3.5-3 and Figures 3.5-3,-3.5-2, and 3.5-3. 7 ! i i i 1 r h I t i i i Supplement 7 Q&R 3.5-1 January 1984 l l 1
RBS EE-OLS () CHAPTER 4 LIST OF TABLES Table Number Title 4.2 CULVERT BLOCKAGE AT ALLIGATOR BAYOU 3 4.3-1 ONSITE AREAS CLEARED FOR MAJOR CONSTRUCTION 4.3-2 VEGETATION AFFECTED BY ONSITE CONSTRUCTION 4.3-3 IMPORTANT FARMLAND AFFECTED BY ONSITE 7 CONSTRUCTION LIST OF FIGURES I Figure Number Title 4.2-1 SITE AREA PONDS 4.3-1 AREAS AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION 4.3-2 IMPORTANT FARMLANDS AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION 7 .I UPPlement 7 4-iii January 1984 1
.r .. . , - . .,,,e , , , , - . , . , - - - - - , - - - - - , - - .--~-- --,- - , - , - - - . . . - ,-e- . . , ,-n.,n,-,-n,.,--. - - - . . . , . . . - - . . , . , , . ~ ~ . - -,,--n
RBS ER-OLS CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION 4.1 IAND USE IMPACTS 4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity 4.1.1.1 The Site The River Bend Station site contains 1,352 ha (3,342 acres) . Section 4.3.1 presents the areas required for major construction activities. Upon completion of construction, the affected areas will be paved or revegetated in order to stabilize slopes, minimize erosion, and provide access to the plant buildings. The major land use of the property is for electric generating and transmission facilities required by River Bend Station. Other property land uses are discussed in Section 2.2.1.1. Roads which cross the property are also discussed in Section 2.2.1.1. As discussed in Section 2.1, two roads were built as part of g the plant construction. River Access Road is on GSU property and is used, at the present time, as a construction haul road. Upon completion of the plant, nearby property owners may use this road when other area roads are impassable due to flooding. North Access Road, connecting US Highway 61 and State Highway 965, is used by the construction work f orce, for the delivery of construction materials, and to some extent, by parish residents. A barge slip and embayment have been constructed at the end of River Access Road, which will be used for delivery of the reactor vessel and shield wall. No other major uses of the
- barge slip are anticipated. Impacts on river traffic during delivery of plant equipment should be minimal and of short-term duration . Section 2.3.2 discusses transportation on the Mississippi River.
During construction, rail sidings were built onsite from the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad line and were used to deliver construction materials. The sidings will remain when construction is completed for use, when necessary, during plant operation and maintenance. Construction materials arriving by truck are delivered via North Access Road. Deliveries are usually made during working hours (7 :00 am to 4.1- 1
RBS ER-OLS 5:30 pm). Due to the remote location of the site, deliveries of construction materials have not caused any significant impacts to the local area. Based on a review of existing data, onsite construction impacts have been minimal. Prior to construction, the site was wooded and undeveloped. Some cattle grazing existed; there was some logging; the site was used for hunting by a local private hunting club; and there was some informal recreation, such as fishing in some of the streams. As discussed in Chapter 2, these land uses are not unique as they do exist throughout West Feliciana Parish and in the other surrounding parishes. The disruptien of these onsite activities has, therefore, had no cignificant effect on the area. 4.1.1.2 The Vicinity Section 2.2.1.2 discusses the land uses for the four parishes within the 10-km radius. Construction of River Bend Station has had only localized effects, and no significant impact on the land uses of the four parishes within the 10-km radius has occurred. The total forested area for the four parishes within the 10-km radius is 242,500 ha (598,975 acres). Pastures and meadows constitute about 207,400 ha (512,278 acres). Construction i of the station and its associated facilities has required the removal of approximately 198.5 ha (491.5 acres) of forest and 104.9 ha (259.1 acres) of pasture and meadow. This is 0.08 and 0.05 percent, respectively, of the available forest and pasture in the four-parish region. 4.1.2 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas Transmission corridors and offsite areas are discussed in 7 Section 2.2.2. The majority of the land crossed is actively used for agriculture (farming and grazing), and these activities have or will be disturbed for short periods of time only. There are no long-term construction impacts associated with these corridors. Approximately 168 ha (415 acres) of forest have or will be cleared for the corridors; however, with over 202,350 ha (500,000 acres) of forest land in West Feliciana Parish and the surrounding parishes, there is minimal impact associated with forest clearing'2'. Supplement 7 4.1-2 January 1984 0
RBS ER-OLS (OV l 4.2 HYDROLCGICAL ALTERATIONS AND WATER USE IMPACTS 4.2.1 Hydrclogical Alterations Groundwater Alterations No irreversible alteraticns to the groundwater table in the site area were made during the initial phase of the construction dewatering program, which took place between May 11, 1976 and May 23, 1977. Curing this period, the groundwater level in the Upland Terrace Aquifer was drawn down about 60 ft. Dewatering was accomplished by 44 12-in-dianeter wells, each equipped with a 700-gpm punp. Maximum dewatering ficw was about 21,700 gym (48.3 cf s) , and the average value was 7,700 gpm (17. 2 cf s) . Groundwater levels after constraction are sinilar to the preconstruction levels. Piezometer readings made at the site 1 yr after completien of this period of dewatering showed that the ccne of depression had disappeared, the natural groundwater gradient had returned, and the groundwater level had recovered to within 10 ft of the preconstruction level. A second pericd of dewatering ccmmenced in May 1979 at an average daily rate of about 3,000 gpn (6.7 cf s) . It is anticipated that the dewatering system will be shut dcwn by April 1981 and will then not te further required during Unit 1 construction. From the experience gained during the first ('N s ,/
)
dewatering period, as discussed in Section 2.3.2.1.4, it is estimated that the groundwater level will recover in a similar manner to the first dewatering period. Surface Water Alterations Station construction has altered the natural surface water hydrclogical setting. Features of these alterations are depicted in Fig. 2.1-3. Dewatering flow was conveyed frcm the plant area to Grants Bayou. This has caused no irreversible impact to that stream. The annual flood fcr Grants Bayou is in excess of 1,000 cfs, and storms frequently cccur in the basin which produce streamflows greater than the dewatering flow. Nc significant impact to channel characteristics has been detected from the routing of dcwatering flow to Grants Bayou. River Access Road, located between the intake enbayment area on the Mississippi River and the plant area, is constructed across Alligator Bayou on the flecdplain of the river. This road was constructed for the purpose of providing access to the embayment area and for the transpcrtation of heavy 4.2-1 b} l
RBS ER-OLS construction loads, and will remain during the operational phase of the plant. Fourteen 6-ft-diameter corrugated-metal culverts are provided in the road embankment to allow overbank Mississippi River flood flow and Alligator Bayou flow to pass from the upper bayou to the lower bayou according to the preconstruction pattern. A description of the estimated hydrological impact of construction of River
. Access Road is provided in Appendix 2B and Section 4.3.2.
In addition to the study presented in Appendix 2B, an analysis was performed to determine, in greater detail, the 3 potential impact of culvert blockage during a storm in the Alligator Bayou basin. Culvert blockage was assumed at 0, 25, 50, and 75 percent. Table 4.2-1 presents the results. 7 Attachment A of Appendix 2B presents a flood study update incorporating observed flood data. 3 Table A4-3 of Attachment A to Appendix 2B shows that culvert blockage slightly increases the overtopping flow and the water suriace elevation at the low point of River Road for 7 the rainfall-induced floods. It also shows that overtopping would occur for the 1 , 5, and 10-yr floods even without the existence of River Access Road. Overtopping the levee by rainfall-induced floods erodes a 100- to 150-ft-long section of River Road and forms gullies between the road and the Mississippi River. Erosion is
~
localized and will not impact the overall levee erosion rate in the area. Additionally, installation of the Army Corps of Engineers revetment in the near future will stabilize the river bank and minimize the impact of levee overtopping. In an effort to mitigate road washouts, erosion repair work has been performed to -maintain the existing road profile and 3 prevent extension of erosion gullies back into Alligator Bayou. Bared on the parformance of the culvert emplacement to date, it is anticipated that a continued program of surveillance and erosion repair will maintain River Road and the surrounding area during the period of station construction. Alternative drainage schemes at River Access Road may be investigated during plant operation if levee overtopping and erosion prove extensive and not easily controlled by maintenance. An excavated embayment has been constructed in the Mississippi River along the east bank at about River Mile 262.5. A barge slip and the plant makeup water intake screens are located in the embayment, which provides protection from main channel debris and navigation. Access to the embayment area is obt.ined from the north and south Supplement 7 4.2-2 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS f3 t 4.3 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS k s'< 4.3.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems 4.3.1.1 The Site and Vicinity Areas cleared for construction of River Bend Station are listed in Tables 4.3-1 through 4.3-3 and shown in 7 Figs. 4.3-1 and 4.3-2. Major construction activities included land clearing, excavation, and spoil disposal. Site construction activity resulted in some erosion, dust, displacement of fauna through loss of habitat, and disposal of uprooted vegetetion and spoils. A total of 304 ha (754 acres) of the 1,352-ha (3,342-acre) site was affected by construction activities, of which 195 ha (483 acres) will be occupied by permanent plant facilities (Table 4.3-1). A total of 126 ha (312 acres) of prime farmland was pcrmanently lost and 5 additional hectares (12 acres) 7 disturbed during construction. Twenty-seven hectares (67 acres) of statewide or locally important farmland was permanently lost and one hectare (3 acres) was disturbed. The highly erodible soils at the site coupled with the relatively high amount of annual rainfall in the area resulted in considerable erosion during the early part of ps the construction period. On cleared land subject to ( j) frequent heavy-equipment use, some erosion and sediment deposition was unavoidable. Where traffic volume was high, crushed rock, gravel, or macadam was used to reduce erosion and dust. Along streams, drainage ditches, and in areas of potentially severe erosion, concrete mats, riprap, energy dissipators, or other drainage control structures were employed. Erosion control structures and chemical stabilizers were used on the spoil pile area (the primary area of erosion) during construction and resulted in a reduction in the amount of erosion. The most effective form of erosion control proved to be the reestablishment of vegetation on exposed soil. Where practicable, erosion was minimized by reseeding. Natural recolonization by early successional-stage vegetative forms also contributed to the control efforts in some cases. Where possible, gentle slopes were formed and mulch applied to stabilize topsoil until revegetation or sodding occurred. Erosion damage to some areas was repaired by construction crews and caused little terrestrial impact. However, in other instances, as in the case of the primary spoil pile, erosion was a continuing problem. Sediments were deposited in the basin of the future Wildlife Management Lake { v Supplement 7 4.3-1 Jar.uary 1984
-. ._~,--,,-.,.v. - - - - - - - ,-- ,
-q RBS ER-OLS (Section 2 . 1). _ A review ot' , sediment deposition in the lake will be performed prior to lake construction.
Some sediments were also deposited in the area west of the Wildlife Management' Lake in the tupelo gum-bald cypress
-*e e
'1% s M
..=
O 4 N
.e.
l l Supplement 7 4.3-la January 1984
RBS ER-OLS 9 t 1 i f h l l E THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK t i, i l I i i I i Supplement 7 4.3-lb January 1984 f l-i _ _ _ _ _______-___..-.-,---_______.-.m..-.m.-_m.. , _ _ - - . - - . _ _ _r,_, . - , . , , . ~ - . - - , , - , , , _ ,. , . . . . , . . ,_,.-.-v_--.,__-,
BBS ER-OIS swamp. This deposition is similar in impact to the condition of sediment deposition during periodic flooding by the Mississippi River (Section 2. 4.1) . As the area affected is less than 0.4 ha (1 acre) in size, it should be revegetated by n-tural recolcnization in a reasonably short time, resulting in little impact on the terrestrial ecosystems. Although erosion was a serious problem during the early phases of construction, constant onsite nonitoring and repair efforts have reduced the extent cf erosicn. As a result, ninimal long-term impact is expected. Throughout the ccnstruction of the plant, dust generated by heavy-equipnent traffic was controlled, when necessary, with water sprinkler trucks. Loss of habitat probably reduced the population levels of some local animal species. Curing construction, approximately 64.8 ha (160 acres) of upland mixed hardwood, 124.2 ha (307 acres) of upland mixed hardwood-pine, 98.8 ha (244 acres) of upland paature, 9.5 ha (23 acres) of bottomland hardwcod, 6.1 ha (15 acres) cf bottomland pasture, and 0.7 ha (1. 7 acres) of ponds were cleared. This modification of the existing habitat removed feeding areas and nesting sites, reduced cover, and increased stress due to exposure and predation for many animal species. Emigraticn of highly mobile animals frcm the areas of construction probably occurred since no restriction to the movement of faunal species was created prior to the clearing of most disturbed areas. After placement of constructicn fencing, any animal capable of entering a restricted area should have been able to leave. Although emigration was possible by some species, displaced amphibians, birds, and mamnals mcst likely found that suitable niches in adjacent woodlands were already occupied, resulting in increased population pressure beyond the innediate plant area. Makeup and bicwdown lines minimized excavation by paralleling River Access Road. The pipes were buried in the elevated mound of soil on which River Access Road was built. Facilities associated only with the construction phase of the plant, such as ccnstruction buildings; worker's shacks; concrete batch plant; temporary electrical, water, and sanitary facilities; parking areas; and laydown areas for construction materials, spoil and backfill, will be removed at the conclusion of construction activities. The land will be graded and seeded to promcte the return of vegetative cover. 4.3-2
RBS ER-OLS () Segment I to J This is a 1.7-km (1.03-mi) segment (Fig. 2.4-6) of which 0.45 km (0.28 mi) passes through forest. The existing right-of-way width was increased by 29 m (96 ft), causing l7 1.32 ha (3.26 acres) of forest to be cleared. Loss of 1.32 ha of trees in this upland hardwood-loblolly pine forest is not critical because of the large acreage of this timber type remaining north of the right-of-way. Segment J to K Route II, Segment J to K (Fig. 2.4-6), begins at Point J and runs southeast for 2.8 km (1.76 mi) to a point 0.3 km I (0.19 mi) south of Thompson Croek. The existing right-of-way, ranging between 45.5 m (150 ft) and 64 m (210 ft) wide (Table 2.2-7), was widened to a final width of 93 m l7 (305 ft). The corridor crosses 1.9 km (1.21 mi) of forests, with an average width cleared of 40.5 m (133 ft). In the aggregate, a total of 7.9 ha (19.54 acres) of forest land was cleared. The forest types cleared include upland l7 hardwood, upland hardwood-loblolly pine, loblolly pine, and bottomland hardwoods. Segment K to L (m) Segment K to L of (1.95 mi) of bottomland Route II and loess (Fig. 2.4-6) crosses 3.1 km bluff hardwoods. The existing corridor of 45.5 m (150 ft) was widened, on the average, 27.5 m (90 ft) and required the clearing of 8.6 ha 7 (21.21 acres) of forest land. Segment L to M Segment L to M (Fig. 2.4-6 and 2.4-9) runs south and west from Point L to the Port Hudson bulk substation (Point M). The existing right-of-way ranged in width from 45.5 m (150 ft) to 50 m (165 ft) and was widened to a final width of 70 m (230 ft) to 73 m (240 ft). This segment required 7 the clearing of 6.8 ha (16.93 acres) of forest land. Segment M to N Segments M to N (Fig. 2.4-9) is 7.8 km (4.83 mi) long and required widening to a final width of 70 m (230 ft) from the original 45.5 m (150 ft). This resulted in the clearing of 7 6.0 ha (14.78 acres) of forest land, including approximately 3.2 ha (7.9 acres) of mature low quality bottomland hardwood and 2.8 ha (6.9 acres) of mature
- upland hardwood. The remaining area is mostly pasture.
Supplement 7 4.3-7 January 1984 l
RBS ER-OLS Segment N to O Segment N to O (Fig. 2.4-9) crosses mostly abandoned pasture. No forest areas require cleacing. Segment O to P Segment O to P (Fig. 2.4-9) crosses no forested areas and only a few individual trees were removed. 7 Segment P to Q Segment P to Q (Fig. 2.4-9) uses the right-of-way of the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad and State Highway 19. This portion of Route II passes through a highly developed area and terminates at the Jaguar Bulk Substation. No forest 7 clearing was required. l 4.3.1.2.1.3 Route III Segment A to R Route III (Table 2.2-8) begins at Point A at the combined 230/500-kV switchyard and runs east-southeast 3.56 km (2.21 mi) to Point R (Fig. 2.4-6). This line crosses 2.16 km (1.34 mi) of offsite forest area, mostly low quality hardwood forest on the loess bluffs, and required 11.5 ha (28.42 acres) of forest clearing. This line will add habitat diversity to the general area through which it runs. The added habitat type should increase the diversity of wildlife in the area by providing a living area for wildlife species not found in overgrazed pastures and mature forest. Segment R to S Segment R to S crosses Thompson Creek floodplain and some upland hardwood-pines along an existing 45.5 m (150 ft) pipeline right-of-way and required the clearing of 9.6 ha (23.81 acres) of forest land. This includesin the about 6.1 ha Thompson Creek (15 acres) of bottomland hardwoods floodplain (Fig. 2.4-6). This must be termed an unavoidable adverse effect because of the small area of forest in this floodplain and is important in view of the heavy usage a nearby portion of Thompson Creek receives from weekend 7 l picnickers. The towers are located back from the bank to lessen visual impact. Supplement 7 4.3-8 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS Segment S to T Segment S to T of Route III was a new right-of-way l, (Fig. 2.4-6 and 2.4-10). It is 12.9 km (8.0 mi) long, but only 3.17 km (1.97 mi) are through forest. The right-of-way is 53.5 m (175 ft) wide, and 16.9 ha (41.78 acres) of forest land was cleared of which about 5.6 ha (13.8 acres) are l7 loblolly pine and 11.3 ha (28.0 acres) are from stream bottomlands. Segment T to U The 23.35 km (14.51 mi) of Route III Segment T to U (Fig. 2.4-10) cross 11.51 km (7.15 mi) of loblolly pine forest, most of it high quality timber of well-stocked stands. This right-cf-way necessitates the removal of 50.7 ha (125.65 acres) of loblolly pine in a strip 44 m l7 (175 ft) wide, which will provide an improved habitat for many species. Pure to nearly pure stands of pine are marginal wildlife habitat, and creating openings provides diversity and a more desirable plant type for wildlife than that found growing in the partial shade under pine. 4.3.1.2.1.4 Summary , 3 The three transmission line routes for use during the 1 operation of River Bend Station have a total length, offsite, of 129.2 km (80.3 m). Their construction will have required the addition or widening of 114.5 km (71.1 mi) of right-of-way and traversed 51.5 km (32.0 mi) of corridor which needed some forest clearing. The 234 ha (577 acres) of cleared forest repre'sent 57 percent of the 410.5 ha (1,014 acres) of additional offsite area needed for the transmission corridors. Forest habitat cleared due to construction is composed mostly of upland hardwood and hardwood-pine. This is a forest type which is quite abundant in the River Bend area (Section 2.4.1), and its loss is not considered a major environmental impact. Some clearing of bottomland hardwoods is also required. Although most of the bottomland hardwoods are part of large, continuous etands and their loss will enhance the wildlife values of the area, the remaining area is itself a remnant. Bottomland hardwood forest is a limited and rapidly disappearing habitat type and is one of the most productive wildlife habitats in North America,5,s> . Although small compared with the total area cleared, the loss of this forest type must be considered an unavoidable adverse impact.
/~' Supplement 7 4.3-9 January 1984 5
e , , _ , , . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - . - . _ , . . _ . . _ . . . . . . _ . . _ - . . , , , . - . , . . - _ _ , . - _ . . _ ,
BBS ER-CES 4.3.1.2.2 Impact on Wildlife only minimal effects beyond those associated with construction are expected on plant life, wildlife habitat, land resources, or scenic values. Herbicides are not used during transmission line construction. Gulf States Utilities intends to manage the corridors to increase the number and diversity of shrubby plant species in order to reduce the need for clipping the rights-of-way. This maintenance approach should lead to increased vegetative diversity and improved wildlife habitat. O l l l l l 4.3-10 l l
. ~ . . . _ . - - _ . - - - . . . . _ = . ~ _- -_. _ _ - - - - - . _ - . .. . -- . _ - .
1 ) , RBS EP-OLS j l TABLE 4.3-3 IMPORTANT FARMLAND AFFECTED BY ONSITE CCNSTRUCTION(1) Area jl Original Area Transmission Permanently
- Area Dist urbe d Corridorsca) Lost (3, *) Percent II22 __lb41__ that___ ___Jhat thal ____ toss (5)
Prime farmland e49 131 5 126 28% i i Land of statewide 122 29 1 27 22% and local j importance i other land 782 145 30 115 15% i I i i .i l L 4 I
- l 1
i ca)See Fig. 4.3-2.
- (a) Transmission corridors were cleared of vegetation but were not excavated or covered with fill. Thus, they were not "losta as a soil type. l j (3) Area permanently lost includes areas occupied by permanent plant facilities, i and areas excavated or covered with fill and thus lost as a soil type.
l (*) Area permanently lost = area disturbed - transmission corridors. , (s) Percent loss = area permanently lost -H original area. I i Supplement 7 1 of 1 January 1584 l i
i """""""""""""""""la u y
\
,. m\ ,(
s
\
vk w/ c,- e ,i <
*\\
?'
<jt f.,
~ yi'n ,,, D g
y . l p .
. ,-ww ~
b E h \ 5 j j
- q. .
( M p Ts -
>% A l ' i t . , s
, 16Al k .1 -
1 - -
)< f iq.. ') '?
unpoo.4 y, ,.
. u
( s 3 k [h w- j
- . <f
. , lit ,
- 7 .
y/^ lQ " j) ,y. f p Lt ,
. c m g ,-- -
% . ,Q 50 , "g ,.
._. c - . .
t 4
. y .
e a,.a ' E-JP , (\
.,,e l
~ i 6 ,, t' l g' ' w> F p' 45Al , s 7 E ,/. p .
;y . y- ~ ](ygg'- g 3,i .
$ ./ 'N :o rl . + . s g' f, y
a ae-4 2 ar
,+ N H FI ,;, e, s 6 c n 's tqi i *'
<ibW Y z ; - -
v/ , l.+ s9m. ,m p .. ? s - n e ~ , 6 = ' e-j
'l 4lu I
{ h
? , 5V ' <
[
- /
x
'] i4- ', k. t
. s
\
s
/
autp00_,9 . 4 9 _ p ) . w . r
, (; [y s ,. - ,
h ~
' , (; ; ;
j'l
}
A 4 ,su>
.y V- g ?
7 y . k L n ;4, yDs j// ? Y,F _ , 1M' '~-:. W
~
1 5 "*-+ ,,;,) 4 \ t '
> ., w j, F ef % _p O{ y
)4 g Y ,
Q[a .l t .. .. W.L;/N ;_ ~ t f. a m ,. .
, z
, g ,u, v. ,/ , Ajo' o -
e . 48u. s - 7 g.6 -
.,~ n
~ ga.. . ~ -
m 3, . x 0(' p y- ,/ , v w
.; ,, 1
. e &, .;
J0 ,7 . : - ,1 y cr e
' y r
t f# e ./- N 9sc - _f /. ,
'V -M
,'"*h*0- F., e ;.! ; bt\, . '
n y. [ ,e
.. - 3
,(g /
i n n y
~ .
>/
j,s , . . a y .u+ /. 1 WM; $ iv . isai ' 98! w ~ "} L I - s,j+]. w,. 'v$c.4m[.Mt67[,1 / .
;;/',k'# l. d;i f( 23
= rw . c -
- .1 c, is,. .
%p ,, ft
, 3 - ., n.
- 4 p 1,
'A 4 y
= i
=+ 1 't i l6Al s
r' y p , '%
, *)
V -a g v & y- ,
. '50.!
;g g ,
i,n.
, ;.{, [ i ^ V" \
e .-p, .> - 0
,p i,
= 1 ~ '.7 - f
; ' } 50
, g w : ^-. is Ah % $, %$i..
yf 1 t . ! .x, s.
~
o 't .. ; & 'a 'u r .. E _. _ _ . . 10Bhd
l fp g' g' g' liso Xvellable On sn , tan, Aperture Card @; 4 h '; !
. Ia.=r9M =OnTw
. k' 'h,5
[ %
.' y
} g' ';
}
g.. qb ,m}[:
. (( g)YIs /'\*h,1 , 3 ';
c, {I y ',$ . e Y}3 '% :) ' [}l '
~;'s/v. ) ,
y (, V s g(j ,f gg.:_ ,j f y" , ,, n
., ",:. g. .!
*Z - A. ,, y lc.a - . <
W"
*/h k *)
6 ..y
- f., ,
7
.p-l' 14(,. .
g LEGEND s g g,,/jO ), j ***- E
< 'O]. SThTEWIDE OR LOCAL IMPORTANCE (17CDI,27CDI) f' N.. e ' PRIME FARML AND j
g lY \'?\f 3 s hE. \[ !~ ! (4 Bu,5 A1, B B1,17 B1,27 A1,2 7 81) OTHER L AND
;, , , m 4,1, ,
(16 A1,45 A1,50) pygg ARE AS AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION y,
$7_lJ LIC%4 4=4.099 Q ;, ' J fgf
> \ TRANSMISSION LINE R O.W. CLEARED ONLY y
.5 2 7 B1 lpW
.5 ~.:Q}- d,
.x 4 -
; 3. ;g' ... ..
NOTE
- -E
,hy SEE TABLE 4.3-3 FOR AREAS IMPACTED
' 2I0lV N fL J BY CONSTRUCTION.
s '
.9
['
; 9 .,
y '">"-- @. ~
))
- b ,I #
[M . *
- k. .
f~ C ] {l\ l ,_ I
- o. ;in
'f M . \ ,$u V- 0
? \I 1000 k
2000 3000
,llf'dSYki'h i
+~"~-
'c' * '
's YJ es f O 200 400 600 4 \h - $3; ' SCALE-METER $
3(\.S'C%fy. . ;;n,~w 84 01310 297 -o f e}%%h CQM
@i -
d"^ WA & FIGURE 4.3-2 dw,)f/
$1 5 O?f*% oh M, ^ n 48^- G^ 7 IMPORTANT FARMLANDS AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION
^ -
x [ (gy7;;[ M. h b(Ed l + RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS L__ - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
RBS ER-OLS TABLE OF CONTENTS [V) Chapter Section Title Volume 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The Proposed Project 1 1.2 Status of Reviews and Approvals 1 1.3 Substantive Informational Changes from Construction Permit Stage 1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTIONS 1 2.1 Description of the Station Location 1 2.2 Land 1 2.3 Water 1 2.4 Ecology 1 2.5 Socioeconomics 2 2.6 Geology 2 2.7 Meteorology 2 2.8 Ambient Air Quality 2 2.9 Ambient Noise 2 2.10 Related Federal Project Activities 2 APPENDICES 2A, 2B, and 2C 3
. 3 PLANT DESCRIPTION 3
( 3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout 3 3.2 Reactor Steam - Electric System 3 3.3 Plant Water Use 3 3.4 Cooling System 3 3.5 Radioactive Waste Management Systems 3
- 3.6 Nonradioactive Waste Systems 3 ,
3.7 Power Transmission Systems 3 3.8 Transportation of Radioactive . Materials 3 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION 3 i 4.1 Land Use Impacts 3 l 4.2 Hydrological Alterations and Water Use Impacts 3 4.3 Ecological Impacts 3 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts 3 1 4.5 Radiation Exposure to Construction Workers
- 3 4.6 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse i Impacts During Construction 3 I Supplement 4 i February 1983 f
l O) I l
RBS ER-OLS TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Section Title Volume 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF STAf7.ON 3 OPERATION 3 5.1 Land Use Impacts 3 5.2 Hydrological Alterations, Plant Water Supply, and Water Use Impacts 3 5.3 Cooling System Impacts 3 5.4 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation 4 5.5 Nonradioactive Waste System Impacts 4 5.6 Transmission System Impacts 4 5.7 Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts 4 5.8 Socioeconomic Impacts 4 5.9 Decommissioning' 4 5.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation 4 APPENDIX SA 4 6 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT 5 AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 4 6.1 Thermal 4 6.2 Radiological 4 6.3 Hydrological 4 6.4 Meteorological 4 6.5 Biological 4 6.6 Chemical 4 6.7 other Monitoring Programs 4 7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS 4 7.1 Plant Accidents 4 7.2 Transportation Accidents 4 APPENDICES 7A and 7B 4 7l 8 THE NEED FOR THE PLANT 4 4 9 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT 4 Supplement 7 ii January 1984 O
RBS ER-OLS ,a and transient population due to employment or recreation are (] described in Section 2.5.1. It is estimated that annual average payroll for the permanent operating staff will be $15,600,000 (1985 , dollars). An additional $3,200,000 (1985 dollars) is estimated for temporary contract personnel salaries per 7 scheduled station refueling outages. Because the construction workforce of over 4,000 has been accommodated in the region without a significant impact, it is expected that the operation staff will disperse throughout the- region and not significantly impact any sector. Scheduled station outages are expected every 12 to 18 months per unit. These outage periods will normally last about 3 months. Approximately 400 craft and 100 vendor , temporary personnel will be utilized for these outages. Those additional workers are also expected to be distributed similar to the permanent staff throughout the local area without significant impact. Traffic problems are not anticipated with plant operation. Truck traffic will not be substantial and worker traffic 2 will be largely diffused due to the several shifts that will be in effect. (G Supplement 7 5.8-5 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS References - 5.8 2 l 1. Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc. Electric Power Plant Environmental Noise Guide. Report No. 3637, 1978. 2 l
- 2. Comsol EN-55, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Rev. 4, Level O, Community Sound Level, computer program.
2 l 3. Information on the Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, EPA Document No. 550/9-74-004, March 1974. 2l 4. Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc. Procedure for Predicting Noise Environments Around Industrial Sites. Report No. 2897, 1974. 2 l 5. Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc. Power Plant Construction Noise Guide. Report No. 3321, page 577, Table B-43. 2 l 6. Bolt Beranek and Nawman, Inc. Tree Zones as Darriers for the Control of Noise Due to Aircraft Operations. Report No. 884, February 13, 1961, Fig. 7. 2 l 7. Beranek, L. L. (ed). Noise and Vibration Control. p 183, Fig. 7.12, 1971, McGraw Hill. 2 l 8. Wiener, F. M. and Keast, D. N. Experimental Study of the Propagation of Sound over Ground. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol 32, No. 6, June 1954. 2 l9. Eyring, C. F. Jungle Acoustics. Acoustical Society of America, Vol 18, The Journal of the No. 2, October 1946. 2 [ 10. Embleton, T.F.W. Sound Propagation in Homogeneous Deciduous and Evergreen Woods. The Acoustical Society of America, 1963. 2 l 11. Aylor, D. Noise Reduction by Vegetation and Ground. The Acoustical Society of America, Vol 51, No. 1, Part 2, 1972. 2 l 12. Telephone conversation between C.S. Ellis of Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, and N. Wagoner, Louisiana Department Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, LA, March 2, 1981. Supplement 2 5.8-6 March 1982
~_ .-. _ - _ _ . _ . _ - . _ . _ - _ . _ _ . . . - _ - . - . . - . . . ..- - . . - _ - - _
- RBS ER-OLS 2
CHAPTER S
- v("')
j- QUESTION 0 AND RESPONSES I ' I TABLE OF CONTENTS j NRC Supplement Q&R i Question No. No. Page No. E240.21 1 5.3-1
- E240.22 1 5.3-2 E240.23 1 5.3-3 >
l i. E291.10 2 5.5-1
- E291.11 2 5.5-2 ,
l E290.10 6 5.6-1 j E290.11 6 5.6-2 E290.5 2 5.8-1 E310.1 2 5.8-2 j E310.2 2 5.8-3 E310.3 6 5.8-4
- E310.4 7 5.8-5 E310.5 6 5.8-6 4 E310.6 2 5.8-7 E310.8 2 5.8-8 L i
i i i I l Supplement 7 Q&R 5-i January 1984 ;
\
( I
I i I RBS ER-OLS i QUESTION E310.4 (5.8) [ l Provide an estimate of the average annual workers payroll l , for Unit 1 (give the year in which the dollars are stated).
RESPONSE
! The response to this request is provided in revised 7 8 Section 5.8.2.2. l 1 f 1 4 1 + 4 i ! 1 i i l l 1 i i Supplement 7 Q&R 5.8-5 January 1984 i i
- - - . - - . . . .,,_m. _ . , . ..._,.,,om,-.. ,,.,.,__----..,,-,,,_r.,. ,,,_, ,___ m..,c... _ , . _ _ _ _ __ . . _ . - - -
RBS ER-OLS QUESTION E310.5 (5.8) Provide an estimate of the average annual dollar amount of local purchases of materials and supplies resulting from the operation of Unit 1. Include a definition of the local area in preparing the estimate (i.e., counties, major towns, SMSA). Give the year in which the dollars are stated.
RESPONSE
l The response to this request is provided in revised 6i Section 5.8.2.1. O Supplement 6 Q&R 5.8-6 September 1983 O
RBS ER-OLS All dye concentration measurements were corrected for (/') s background fluorescence and water temperature variations. continuous recording methcds were used in dye and temperature measurement. 6.3.1.2 Grcundwater As part of the preoperational monitorina program, a network of piezometers and observation wells were emplaced into the Mississippi River Alluvial Aquifer, the Upland Terrace Aquifer, and the Tertiary zone 1 and Zone 3 Aquifers for the purpose of monitoring water level fluctuations. Fig. 2.3-17 shows the location of each piezometer and observation well. Table 2.3-6 lists the construction characteristice and depth of installation of each piezometer and observation well. Hydraulic head and water level measurements have been made at most of these installations since 1972. Fig. 2.3-15 and 2.3-16 show hydraulic head and water level fluctuations occurring in the various aquifers at the site. 6.3.2 Site Preparation and Construction Monitoring Program 6.3.2.1 Surface Water n Construction of River Access Poad between the plant area and the intake embayment has altered the drainage characteristics of Alligator Bayou. A study of the effects of the road embankment and culverts is presented in Appendix 2B, In this study, a computer model was used to estimate pre- and post-construction flood levels in the bayou, upstream and downstream of the road, in order to evaluate any alteration in the drainage and conveyance of flood flows. The computer model used flood hydrographs for Alexander Creek compiled from U.S. Weather Bureau rainfall data for various storm recurrence periods and local drainaae area runoff characteristics, A flow routing program derived water levels at Fiver Access Road. As a means of verifying model estimates, a monitoring program has been established. Prior to plant operation, rainfall data will be collected at a point near the centroid of the Alexander Creek / Alligator Bayou watershed, about 5.6 mi north-northwest of the plant area. These data will be used in combinatior. with drainage area runoff characteristics to determine flood hydrographs for major storms. The rain gauge is a weighing bucket design, Belfort Instrument Company Model 551. The instrument will be maintained and strip charts changed on a weekly basis. The gauge will be located away from potential
/~'s 6.3-3
RBS ER-OLS sources of interference such as transmission lines, trees, and buildings. Water level recorders have been installed upstream and downstream of River Access Road near the culverts. These data will be used to monitor the differences in flood levels due to flow control at the embankment and culverts The water level gauges are Stevens Type A Model 71 Water Level Recorders. The gauges are housed in protective sheet metal enclosures. At each gauge, the water level is measured by a float inside a 14-in diameter corrugated-metal pipe equipped with 6 x 6-in slots in the bottom. Each pipe is embedded approximately 12 inches in a 3-ft square concrete footing, and slots are approximately at grade. A boardwalk extends from each instrument to the road embankment at about 42 ft msl, 9 ft above the bayou. Instrument elevation is about 45 ft mel. All monitoring equipment is continuous and includes pen and ink recorders and time clock synchronization. In addition to the continuous recording water level recorders upstream 7 and downstream of River Access Road, two staff gauges were installed, one at the low point of River Road and another at the Crown-Zellerbach Bridges. Staff gauge readings were taken at least daily under flood conditions. The colleccion of monitoring program data allowed a comparison to be made between predicted and actual bayou flood response characteristics. In order to collect 7 sufficiently representative storm data, seven major floods ware recorded between May 1981 and May 1983. Attachment A or Appendix 2B summarizes the observed floods and presents the flood study update. 6.3.2.2 Groundwater Throughout the various phases of construction at the site, water level and hydraulic head measurements have been made in a network of observation wells and piezometers installed in the various aquifers at the site (Fig. 2.3-15 and 2.3-16). The data obtained from these piezometers and observation wells were used to construct a series of piezometric surface maps of the Upland Terrac9 Aquifer, which is the near-surface water table aquifer at the site. Fig. 2.3-13 shows the configuration of the piezometric surface in the Upland Terrace Aquifer in March 1976, prior to the commencement of construction dewatering. Supplement 7 6.3-4 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS f For the first phase of dewatering, maximum drawdown of the
\ piezometric. surface in the Upland Terrace Aquifer due to the operation of the dewatering system is shown in Fig. 2.3-24.
Recovery of the piezometric surface subsequent to the cessation of-dewatering is shown in Fig. 2.3-25 and 2.3-26. Fig. 2.3-27 shows cross sections of the piezometric surface of the Upland Terrace Aquifer. This figure shows the normal background' level of the piezometric surface, the drawdown of the piezometric surface due to construction dewatering, and the recovery of the piezometric surface. Fig. 2.3-23 shows the weekly discharge rate of the dewatering system. 6.3.3 Operational Manitoring Program 6.3.3.1 Surface Water An operational hydrological monitoring program is not planned. Hydrological monitoring related to verification of the Appendix 2B Alligator Bayou flood model, discussed in Section 6.3.2, may extend into the plant operation phase, but will be discontinued when the adequacy of the model is verified. Because the model predicts an insignificant adjustment to bayou hydrology, no further'ronitoring would C,T/ be necessary. Should the monitoring program determine that flooding characteristics of the bayou are significantly more
. severe than predicted, monitoring will provide a basis for the consideration of any engineering modification.
Soundings in the embayment area will be performed periodically to monitor the rate of silt deposition. It is anticipated that dredging of the embayment during operation of the plant will be infrequent (Section 3.4). 6.3.3.2 Groundwater Throughout the operational phase of the plant, water level and hydraulic head data will be obtained for the Mississippi River Alluvial Aquifer, the Upland Terrace Aquifer, and the Tertiary Zone 1 and 3 Aquifers from the network of
.piezometers and observation wells at the site. Water level measurements will be made quarterly.
Supplement 7 6.3-5 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS Reference - 6.3
- 1. United States Geological Survey. Water Resources Data for Louisiana, Mississippi River near St. Franciuville station. Department of the Interior, Washinoton, DC.
O 6.3-6
i ' RBS ER-OLS i CHAPTER 6 l QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES l i i 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS NRC Supplement Q&R l No. Page No. Question No. E240.24 7 6.1-1 E470.3 1 6.2-1 > E470.4 1 6.2-2 ' l E470.5 1 6.2-3 l 6.2-4 i E470.6 1 E470.7 1 6.2-5 E240.25 1 6.3-1 E240.26 1 6.3-2 i l 3
- O I
i i i L Q&R 6-1 January 1984 Supplement 7 i
RBS ER-OLS j () QUESTION E240.24 (6.1) Calculate the radiological consequences of a liquid pathway release from a postulated core melt accident. The analysis should assume, unless otherwise justified, that there has ; been a penetration of the reactor basemat by the molten core mass, and that a substantial portion of radioactively contaminated suppression pool water was released to the ground. Doses should be compared to those calculated in the Liquid Pathway Generic Study (NUREG-0440, 1978). Provide a summary of your analysis procedures and the values of parameters used (such as permeabilities, gradients, populations affected, and water use). It is suggested that meetings with the staff of the Hydrologic Engineering Section be arranged so that we may share with you the body of information necessary to perform this analysis.
RESPONSE
The response to this request is provided in revised ,
- Section 7.1.2 and Appendix 7B.
O l i I i Supplement 7 Q&R 6.1-1 January 1984 , tO-l s_ /
RBS ER-OLS
'~
CHAPTER 7
~' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 7.1 PLANT ACCIDENTS 7.1-1 7.1.1 Design Basis Accident 7.1-2 7.1.1.1 Trivial Incidents Class 7.1-2 7.1.1.2 Small Releases Outside Containment Class 7.1-2 7.1.1.3 Radwaste System Failures Class 7.1-2 7.1.1.3.1 Equipment Leakage or Malfunction 7.1-2 7.1.1.3.2 Release of Waste Gas Storage Tank Contents 7.1-2 7.1.1.3.3 Release of Liquid Waste Storage Tank Contents 7.1-3 7.1.1.4 Fission Products to Primary System Class 7.1-3 7.1.1.4.1 Fuel Cladding Defects 7.1-3 7.1.1.4.2 Off-Design Transients That Induce Fuel Failures Above Those Expected 7.1-3 7.1.1.5 Refueling Accidents Class 7.1-3
[) (.) 7.1.1.5.1 7.1.1.5.2 Fuel Bundle Drop Heavy Object Drop Onto Fuel in Core 7.1-3 7.1-4 7.1.1.6 Spent Fuel Handling Accident Class 7.1-4 7.1.1.6.1 Fuel Assembly Drop in Fuel Storage Pool 7.1-4 7.1.1.6.2 Heavy Object Drop Onto Fuel Rack 7.1-5 7.1.1.6.3 Fuel Cask Drop 7.1-5 7.1.1.7 Accident Initiation Events Con-sidered in Design Basis Evaluation in the Safety Analysis Report Class 7.1-6 7.1.1.7.1 Loss-of-Coolant Accidents 7.1-6 7.1.1.7.1.1 Small Pipe Break 7.1-6 7.1.1.7.1.2 Large Pipe Break 7.1-6 7.1.1.7.1.3 Break in Instrument Line from Primary System that Penetrates the Containment 7.1-7 7.1.1.7.2 Rod Drop Accident 7.1-7 7.1.1.7.3 Steam Line Breaks 7.1-7 7.1.1.7.3.1 Small Pipe Break 7.1-7 7.1.1.7.3.2 Large Pipe Break 7.1-7 7.1.2 Severe Accidents 7.1-8 7.2 TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS 7.2-1 / \ Supplement 7 7-1 January 1984 ( )
RBS ER-OLS CHAPTER 7 - TABLE OF CONTENTE (Cont) Section Title Page APPENDIX 7A PROBABILISTIC RISK ANALYSIS APPENDIX 7B LIQUID PATHWAY CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS O
_ . _ . . ~ . .. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . .__._ . _ _ ___ __ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 ! RBS ER-OLS 4 i I l 1 i 1 i e i i > l j ! i ! 4 i. I 1 i 4 I THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK ; t i r l l l . P t I I i Supplement 7 7-ib January 1984 6
, O l
l
, l RBS ER-OLS CHAPTER 7 LIST OF TAELES Table Number Title 7.1-1 REACTOR F ACILITY - CLASSIFICATION OF POSTULATEC ACCIDENTS AND OCCURRENCES 7.1-2
SUMMARY
OF THE RADIOLCGICAL DOSES AT THE EXCLU-SION AREA BOUNDARY 7.1-3
SUMMARY
OF POFULATION DOSES WITHIN AN 80-KM RADIUS O l l 1 l I i 7-ii
RBS Eh-OLS [ ' The calculated dose at the exclusion area boundary is given in Table 7.1-2. The integrated dose to the population is given in Table 7.1-3. 7.1.1.7.1.3 Break in Instrument Line from Primary System that Penetrates the Containment Instrument line breaks were considered; however, no analysis was neccessary since all instrument lines carrying primary coolant are within the containment. 7.1.1.7.2 Rod crop Accident This event postulates that a control rod is dropped out of the core, resulting in a transient which induces fuel failure. Activity is assumed to be carried to the condenser, where condenser leakage is released to the turbine building and subsequently to the atmosphere. A representative source is defined as 0.025 percent of the core inventory of noble gases and halogens released to the reactor water. One percent of the halogens and 100 percent of the noble gases are assumed to be carried to the condenser, where all the noble gases and 10 percent of the halogens are available for leakage from the condenser to the environment via the turbine building at 0.5 percent per day, (s ( for 1 day, with no credit taken for holdup or plateout on the turbine building internal structures. The calculated dose at the exclusion area boundary is given in Table 7.1-2. The integrated dose to the population is given in Table 7.1-3, 7.1.1.7.3 Steam Line Breaks 7.1.1.7.3.1 Small Pipe Break This event is postulated as the sudden and complete severance of a small (1/4 ft2) steamline outside containment. As a result, an integrated quantity of 11,235 lb of steam is released, with the halogens in the fluid released to the atmosphere at 1/10 the crimary system concentration. The calculated dose at the exclusion area boundary is given in Table 7.1-2. The intearated dose to the population is given in Table 7.1-3. 7.1.1.7.3.2 Large Pipe Break This event is postulated as the sudden complete severance of a main steam line outside the containment. The isolation r 7.1-7 (
~
+
RBS ER-OLS
. ss signal is expected to occur within 0.5 see after the break and an additional 5 sec are assumed for effecting full f
c15sure (of' the main steam isolation valve. During this period of 5.5 sec, an integrated quantity of 86,600 lb of reactor coolant and 12,500 lb of reactor steam are estimated to be released in the turbine building. The representative source has been defined as 50 percent of the expected iodine activity in the reactor coolant and reactor steam, And 100 percent of the expected noble gas activity in the reactor steam. The iodines and noble gases are released to the environment via the turbine building ventilation system which has no charcoal filtration. The, calculated dose at the exclusion area boundary is given in Table'7.1-2. The integrated dose to the population is given in Table 7.1-3. . s 7.1.2 Severe Accidents The effect of Class 9 accident atmospheric releases at RBS is analyzed probabilistically by comparing the plant with a reference BWR plant for which a full analysis has been completed,s The reference BWR plant chosen for primary containment accident / event and system analyses is the Grand Gulf 1 (GG1) plant. The consequence analysis is plant and site specific to RBS. Analysis methods are similar to those presented in the GG1 study (NUREG/CR-1659/4 of 4), and 7 WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/014). . Details of the ant. lysis, results, and conclusions are presented in Appendix 7A. The. effect- of Class 9 accident releases to the hydrosphere at RBS is analyzed by comparing key hydrologic and soil mechanics parameters at RBS site with those contained in the Liquid Pathway Generic Study (NUREG-0440) for a large river land-based nuclear power plant. Details of the analysis, results, and conclusions are presented in Appendix 7B. A Supplement 7 - 7.1-8 January 1984 O
RBS ER-OLS I APPENDIX 7A I l PROBABILISTIC RISK ANALYSIS l i i Supplement 7 January 1984
.-.. - , - - - ~ - . - - - __---_a
RBS ER-OLS () APPENDIX 7A PROBABILISTIC RISK ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 7A.1 INTRODUCTION 7A.1-1 7A.1.1 General Approach and Scope of Analysis 7A.1-1 7A.2 SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 7A.2-1 7A.2.1 Reactor Protection System 7A.2-2 7A..2 2 Emergency AC Power System 7A.2-3 7A.2.3 DC Power System 7A.2-3 7A.2.4 Vapor Suppression System 7A.2-3 7A.2.5 High-Pressure Core Spray System 7A.2-4 7A.2.6 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System 7A.2-4 7A.2.7 Low-Pressure Core Spray System 7A.2-4 7A.2.8 Automatic Depressurization System 7A.2-5 7A.2.9 Low-Pressure Coolant Injection 7A.2-5 7A.2.10 Residual Heat Removal System 7A.2-6 7A.2.11 Service. Water System 7A.2-6 7A.2.12 Systems Analysis Summary 7A.2-6
/"'
O) 7A.3 ACCIDENT SEQUENCES 7A.3-1 7A.3.1 Transient Event Tree 7A.3-1 7A.3.2 LOCA Event Tree 7A.3-2 7A.3.3 Accident Sequence Summary 7A.3-3 7A.3.3.1 Sequence T 2 PQI 7A.3-4 7A.3.3.2 Sequence TasPQI 7A.3-4 7A.3.3.3 Sequence T PQE t 7A.3-4 7A.3.3.4 Sequence TasPQE 7A.3-5 7A.3.3.5 Sequence SI 7A.3-5 7 A . 3 . 3 .' 6 ' Sequence T QW t 7A.3-6 7A.3.3.7 Sequence TaaQW 7A.3-6 7A.3.3.8 Sequence T QUV t 7A.3-6 . 7A.3.3.9 Sequence T23 C 7A.3-7
- 7A.4 CONTAINMENT ANALYSIS 7A.4-1 i 7A.4.1 Containment Event Tree 7A.4-1
} 7A.5 RELEASE CATEGORIES 7A.5-1
-7A.5.1 Definition of RSS BWR Release Cate -
gories 7A.5-1 7A.S.2 Postulated Effects of Reduced Source Terms and Definition of BMI Source Terms 7A.5-2 () Supplement 7 7A-i January 1984
RBS ER-OLS APPENDIX 7A TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) Section Title Page 7A.S.3 Combined Dominant Accident Sequence Probabilities 7A.5-6 7A.6 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS 7A.6-1 7A.6.1 Description of the CRAC2 Computer Code 7A.6-1 7A.6.2 Discussion of Health and Economic Impact 7A.6-5 7A.6.2.1 Health and Economic Impact Results Using RSS Source Terms 7A.6-5 7A.6.2.2 Health and Economic Impact Results Using BMI-2104 Source Terms 7A.6-7 7A.6.2.3 Socioeconomic Effects 7A.6-7 7A.6.2.4 Comparison with Other Plants 7A.6-9 7A.6.3 Risk Due to External Causes 7A.6-9 7A.6.4 Limitations and Sources of Uncertainties 7A.6-13 7A.6.4.1 Limitations 7A.6-13 7A.6.4.2 Sources of Uncertainties 7A.6-14 7A.6.5 Conclusions 7A.6-15 7A.7 REFERENCES 7A.7-1 Supplement 7 7A-ii January 1984
- _ . ~- . -. - .- _
RBS ER-OLS APPENDIX 7A LIST OF TABLES Table Number Title 7A.2-1 COMPARISON OF SYSTEM UNAVAILABILITIES BETWEEN PB2 AND RBS 7A.3-1 ACCIDENT SEQUENCE SYMBOLS 7A.3-2 SYSTEM SUCCESS COMBINATIONS FOR TRANSIENTS 7A.3-3 SYSTEM SUCCESS COMBINATIONS FOR LOCAs 7A.5-1 DOMINANT CORE MELT ACCIDENT SEQUENCE < PROBABILITIES USING WASH-1400 SOURCE TERMS 7A.6-1 EXPOSURE IMPACT OF VARIOUS ISOTOPES 7A.6-2 CRAC2 DATA SOURCES 7A.6-3 CRAC2 COMPUTER CODE ISOTOPES 7A.6-4 CRAC2 RELEASE PARAMETERS 7A.6-5 CRAC2 EVACUATION STRATEGIES 7A.6-6 CRAC2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION DATA (2010 PROJECTED) 7A.6-7 CRAC2 METEOROLOGICAL BIN DATA
SUMMARY
7A.6-8 CRAC2 RESULT SENSITIVITIES 7A.6-9 COMPARISON OF EARLY INJURY AND LATENT FATALITIES BETWEEN RBS AND OVERALL U.S.
' - Supplement 7 7A-iii January 1984
RBS ER-OLS APPENDIX 7A LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number Title 7A.3-1 RBS TRANSIENT EVENT TREE 7A.3-2 LOCA EVENT TREE 7A.4-1 MARK III PRIMARY CONTAINMENT 7A.4-2 CONTAINMENT EVENT TREE 7A.6-1 50-MI SITE REGION 7A.6-2 CRAC2 CONSEQUENCE MODEL SCHEMATIC 7A.6-3 ACUTE FATALITIES 7A.6-4 LATENT FATALITIES 7A.6-5 ACUTE INJURIES 7A.6-6 LATENT THYROID CANCER 7A.6-7 TOTAL COST (1980 DOLLARS) 7A.6-8 TOTAL WHOLE-BODY MAN-REM 7A.6-9 ACUTE FATALITIES - BWR COMPARISON 7A.6-10 LATENT FATALITIES - BWR COMPARISON 7A.6-11 CCDFs COMPARISON OF RBS VERSUS OVERALL U.S. NATURALLY OCCURRING EVENT FATALITIES RISK 7A.6-12 CCDFs COMPARISON OF RBS VERSUS OVERALL U.S. MAN-CAUSED FATALITIES RISK 7A.6-13 CCDFs COMPARISON OF RBS VERSUS OVERALL U.S. PROPERTY DAMAGE RISK Supplement 7 7A-iv January 1984 O
RBS ER-OLS m APPENDIX 7A PROBABILISTIC RISK ANALYSIS (PRA) 7A.1 INTRODUCTION The design and construction of River Bend Station (RBS) has included considerable effort to produce a highly reliable and safe plant. This is achieved through controlled design, manufacture, and installation of basic plant structures and components,- within the context of an effective quality assurance program. Similar emphasis is placed on the operational aspects in terms of developing detailed . procedures and providing for quality training of plant operating and maintenance personnel. In the very unlikely event that serious accidents might occur, the station is equipped with a complement of emergency safety features for mitigating the effects and consequences of such accidents. In this appendix the potential environmental effects of postulated core melt accidents from internal initiators at RBS are assessed. The assessment is done in a risk analysis format. That is, the probabilities of realizing various levels of consequences from a wide spectrum of possible but low probability accidents and associated environmental gg conditions are considered. The intent of such an analysis ( ,/ is to produce an assessment which realistically reflects the , environmental risk from postulated accidents and which is responsive to the interim policy statement issued by the NRC regarding nuclear power plant accident assessments under the National Environment Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4341, as amended by PL94-52 July 3, 1975; PL94-83 August 9, 1975). 7A.1.1 General Approach and Scope of Analysis The RBS risk analysis is performed using the methodology presented in WASH-1400, Reactor Safety Study (RSS)(1) . In October 1982, the RSS methodology was applied to four U.S. light-water reactors (LWR), one of which was Grand Gulf 1 (GGl). The_ GG1 results are presented in the following report: Reactor Safety Study Methodology Applications Program: Grand Gulf 1 BWR Power Plant (RSSMAP)<2> . GG1 and RBS are MARK III/BWR 6s of similar design. For the safety-related systems the designs are essentially identical, with the exception of some differences in containment design. Therefore, the systems analysis and accident sequence analysis presented in the Reactor Safety Study Methodology Applications Program for GG1 are used to represent the RBS plant. Equipment failure data, operator Supplement 7 7A.1-1 January 1984 {} v
RBS ER-OLS failure data, and similar information are taken from WASH-1400 unless otherwise stated. Recent risk assessments clearly indicate that the risk to the public presented by LWR power plants is deminated by accidents in whien the core is degraded (1,28 Since this observation is based upon a comparative evaluation rather than upon absolute assessed risk, it is applicable to any particular LWR power plant. Accordingly, the scope of the present analysis for RBS emphasizes consideration of environmental effects from postulated severe accidents. The offsite consequences of the specified releases are evaluated in this study using the very conservative WASH-140041) source terms and then repeated using the more mechanistic approach taken by Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI) in their Report, BMI-2104, Volume 3. The weather data file and the population distributions used are specific to the site. The treatment of evacuation in the analysis also utilizes population movement data that have been developed from actual site survey studies. The particular methodologies employed in both the accident frequency determinations and in the consequence assessment portions of the analysis are discussed in more detail in the following sections. The combined risk assessment results for all accident release categories are displayed in probabilistic format. Thesc results adopt many of the measures of risk that are customarily used in probabilistic risk assessments of commercial nuclear facilities. Supplement 7 7A.1-2 January 1984 O
b RBS ER-OLS 7A.2 SYSTEMS ANALYSIS (d) x In lieu of developing detailed fault trees for safety-i' related systems, RBS systems are analyzed in the same manner as the GG1 study; that is, system failures are determined by
, writing the Boolean equation for the system and then sub-stituting failure rate data into the equations to c?lculate system unavailability. The same types of failures as analyzed in a fault tree are analyzed in tabular format.
These types of failures are:
- 1. Hardware failures.
- 2. Maintenance outage.
- 3. ' Valve plugged.
- 4. Testing outage.
- 5. Initiating circuit failure.
The following accident cases were chosen for RBS:
- 1. Transient requiring reactor scram initiated by the loss of offsite power, designated transient Ti.
() 2. Transient requiring reactor scram initiated by the loss of the power conversion systam (PCS) or reac-tor scram initiated by other causes (except loss of i offsite power) where the PCS is initially available, designated transient T 23 Offsite and/or onsite emergency power is assumed to be available during T23- . 3. Small loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) where the equivalent leak diameter is less than 34 cm (13.5 in), designated S. In the GG1 study and in the RSS, these cases were the !- initiating events that mostly contributed to risk; therefore, system unavailabilities are calculated for these 4 cases only. Transients, not LOCAs, strongly dominate the
- risk in .BWRs. The Boolean reduction of the transient and LOCA event trees in this study came directly from the
, GG1 study. Large LOCAs designated event A (Figure 7A.3-2) were several orders of magnitude less significant than small LOCAs and transients.
- Supplement 7 7A.2-1 January 1984
{~ s l i
RBS ER-OLS The following safety-related systems are analyzed:
- 1. Reactor Protection System (RPS).
- 2. Emergency AC Power System (EPS).
- 3. DC Power System (DCPS).
- 4. Containment System (VSS).
- 5. High-Pressure Core Spray System (HPCS).
- 6. Reacter Core Isolation Cooling System (RCIC).
- 7. Low-Pressure Core Spray System (LPCS).
- 8. Automatic Depressurization System (ADS).
- 9. Low-Pressure Coolant Injection System (LPCI).
- 10. Residual Heat Removal System (RHR).
- 11. Service Water System (SW).
A brief system description is presented in the following paragraphs. Table 7A.2-1 provides a listing of the system unavailabilities for RBS. 7A.2.1 Reactor Protection System The RPS consists of two subsystems: the reactor protection system logic (RPSL) and the control rod drive (CRD) system. The RPSL monitors various plant parameters and systems status and initiates a reactor scram if predetermined values are reached. When a scram is initiated by the RPS, the CRD system inserts negative reactivity necessary to shut down the reactor. Each control rod is individually controlled by a hydraulic control unit (HCU). When a scram signal is received, high-pressure water stored in an accumulator in the HCU or reactor pressure forces the control rod into the Core. Complete descriptions of these subsystems are provided in FSAR Sections 7.2 and 3.9.4B/4.6, respectively. Supplement 7 7A.2-2 January 1984
l l I RBS ER-OLS p) 7A.2.2 Emergency AC Power System NJ A standby power supply system is provided for the operation of emergency systems and engineered safety features (ESF) during and following the shutdown of the reactor when the preferred power supply is not available. The standby power supply system consists of three diesel generators. One generator (Division III) is dedicated to the HPCS, while the other two supply power to Division I and II of the safety-related electric power distribution systems. Either of the two has sufficient capacity to supply the ESFs and emergency shutdown loads in case of a LOCA and/or loss of offeite power. The diesel generator fuel oil storage tanks are sized to hold a 7-day supply of fuel oil based on the engine running- continuously at full load. A loss of offsite power signal initiates start of the diesel generators and the generators pick up the loads in a programmed sequence. The diesel generators'are independent and feed separate load groups through separate physically and electrically isolated distribution systcas. A full description of the EPS is provided in FSAR Section 8.3.1. 7A.2.3 DC Power System ()'~ A 125-V emergency de power system feeds all safety-related de protection, control and instrumentation loads, and safety-related de motors during emergency conditions. The system is divided into three redundant divisiens each con-sisting of its own battery, battery charger, switchgears/ motor control centers, and distribution panels. Each division feeds de loads associatcd with corresponding divisions of the safety-related electric power distribution system. Batteries and battery chargers are redundant and feed separate load groups through separate and isolated dis-tribution systems. A complete description of the de power system is provided in FSAR Section 8.3.2. 7A.2.4 Containment System The containment system consists of the primary containment structure, containment heat removal function, drywell, the horizontal vent system from the drywell to the suppression pool, and the suppression pool. Collectively, these systems serve as a vapor suppression system (VSS). f'"g Supplement 7 7A.2-3 January 1984 i / G' i - - - , _ - _
RBS ER-OLS The primary containment is a free-standing steel cylinder with a torispherical dome and encloses the cylindrical rein-forced concrete drywell. The suppression pool fills the bottom 20 ft of the annular volume between the drywell and containment. A cylindrical weir wall inside the drywell forms the inner boundary of the suppression pool. A system of 129 27.5-in diameter horizontal vents in the lower sec-tion of the drywell wall is utilized to direct steam to the suppression pool where vapor suppression occurs if a pipe rupture occurs within the drywell. A complete description of the VSS is provided in FSAR Section 6.2.1.1. 7A.2.5 High-Pressure Core Spray System The HPCS system provides and maintains an adequate coolant inventory inside the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) to limit fuel cladding temperatures in the event of a small LOCA. The system is initiated by either high pressure in the drywell or low water level in the vessel, and pumps water from the condensate storage tank (preferred source) or the suppression pool (backup source) directly into the RPV via an electrically driven pump. It operates independently of all other systems over the entire range of pressure diff-erences from greater than normal operating pressure to zero. The HPCS system pump motor is powered by a dedicated onsite diesel generator if offsite power is not available. The system may also be used as a backup for the RCIC system. A complete description of the HPCS system is provided in FSAR Section 6.3.2.2.1. 7A.2.6 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System The RCIC system provides makeup water to the RPV from the condensate storage tank (preferred) or the suppression pool (backup) when the tank is isolated. The RCIC system uses a steam-driven turbine-pump unit and automatically operates to maintain adequate water level in the RPV. A complete description of the RCIC system is provided in FSAR Section 5.4.6. 7A.2.7 Low-Pressure Core Spray System The LPCS system consists of one independent pump, valves, and piping to deliver cooling water from the suppression pool to a spray sparger over the core. The system is ac-tuated by either low water level in the RPV or high pressure Supplement 7 7A.2-4 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS (' ) in the drywell, but water is delivered to the core only af-ter RPV pressure is reduced. This system provides the capability to cool the fuel by spraying water above the fuel channels. The LPCS loop functioning in conjunction with the ADS or HPCS can provide sufficient fuel cladding cooling following a LOCA. 4 A complete description of the LPCS system is provided in FSAR Section 6.3.2.2.3. 7A.2.8 Automatic Depressurization System The ADS rapidly reduces RPV pressure in a LOCA situation in which the high pressure systems fail to maintain the RPV water level. The depressurization provided by the system enables the low-pressure emergency core cooling system (ECCS) to deliver cooling water to the RPV. The ADS uses seven of the relief valves that are part of the nuclear sys-tem pressure relief system. The automatic relief valves are arranged to open on conditions indicating both that a break in the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) has occurred and that sufficent cooling water is not being delivered to the RPV to maintain the water level above a preselected value. The ADS is not activated unless either the LPCS or LPCI pumps are operating. This is to ensure that adequate t'% makeup coolant is available for core delivery prior to al-
) lowing coolant loss through the relief valves. \ ,/
A complete description of the ADS is provided in FSAR Sections 5.2.2, 5.4.13, and 6.3.2.2.2. 7A.2.9 Low-Pressure Coolant Injection LPCI is an operating mode of the RHR system, but is discussed here because the LPCI mode acts as an ESF in con-junction with the other ECCSs. LPCI uses the pump loops of the RHR system to inject cooling water into the RPV from the suppression pool. LPCI is actuated by either low water level in the RPV or high pressure in the drywell, but water is delivered to the core only after RPV pressure is reduced. LPCI operation provides the capability of core reflooding, following a LOCA, in time to maintain the fuel cladding below the prescribed temperature limit. A ccmplete description of the LPCI operating mode of the RHR system is provided in FSAR Sections 5.4.7.1.1.2 and 6.3.2.2.4. (} x-Supplement 7 7A.2-5 January 1984 l
RBS ER-OLS 7A.2.10 Residual Heat Removal System The RHR system is a system of pumps, heat exchangers, and piping that fulfills the following functions:
- 1. Removes decay and sensible heat during and after plant shutdown.
- 2. Injects water into the RPV following a LOCA to re-flood the core independently of other core cooling systems.
- 3. Removes heat from the containment following a LOCA, to limit the increase in containment pressure.
This is accomplished by cooling and recirculating the suppression pool water (containment cooling). A complete description of the RHR system, is provided in FSAR Sections 5.4.7 and 6.3. 7A.2.11 Service Water Systems The Normal Service Water (NSW) system provides cooling water to various essential and nonessential coruponents throughout the plant. Essential components are serviced by two 100-percent redundant Standby Service Water (SSW) subsystems which share piping with the NSW system. The nonessential components will be automaticall2 isolated upon receipt of a LOCA signal coincident with a loss of offsite power. The NSW pumps take their suction from the normal cooling tower discharge flumes. After passing through the system, the discharge is returned to the circulating water system. The SSW pumps take suction from and return the discharge to the ultimate heat sink (UHS). A complete description of the NSW and SSW systems is provided in FSAR Sections 9.2.1 and 9.2.7, respectively. The UHS is described in FSAR Section 9.2.5. 7A.2.12 Systems Analysis Summary Table 7A.2-1 shows a comparison between RBS and Peach Bottom 2 (PB2) as calculated in the RSS for those systems analyzed in Sections 7A.2.1 through 7A.2.11. The PB2 values are median unavailabilities computed using a Monte Carlo statistical simulation. The RBF values are point ectimates of unavailabilities computed for different initiating events, i.e., LOCA (S) and transients (T1 and T23)- Supplement 7 7A.2-6 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS
/~' The system unavailabilities presented in Table 7A.2-1
(_s} represent independent unavailabilities because system in-teractions are not represented. To properly analyze unavailability, the interactions and system successes must be factored into the problem, which is done in Section 7A.3, where the event sequence probabilities are developed. The system success and failure Boolean equations, not the numerical system unavailability values, are properly com-bined according to the laws of Boolean algebra. However, computing the numerical values does provide an indication of what dominates the system unavailability.
\
Supplement 7 7A.2-7 January 1984
\m s
t
,._---om,- --,,,e- - - r . . , v.- .v-,, ---~-s----- - --.---v -, -n -.-~ see,--- --n- --e ~ ~n---+-,ve --
r
.. _ . .- _m._ _. __ . .
RBS ER-OLS [ 'i TABLE 7A.2-1 U COMPARISON OF SYSTEM UNAVAILABILITIES BETWEEN PB2 AND RBS'18 Median Unavailability System PB2 (from RSS) RBS Unavailability RPS 1.3x10-5 RPS(S, Tas) 7.7x10-8 RPS(T ) 5.8x10-8 t EPSca) 1x10-s 4.9x10-s 4
'DCPS 1x10-3 1x10-3 VSS Large LOCA 4.6x10-s (4) q Small LOCA 1.6x10-3 HPCS/HPCI HPCI 9.8x10-2 HPCS(S) 2.2x10-2 .
1 HPCS(Tt) 3.3x10-2 7 HPCS(T 2 a) 2.2x10-2 RCIC 8x10-2 5.2x10-2 n j LPCS/CSIS CSIS(one loop) 6x10-2 CSIS(both loops) 9.5x10-' LPCS(S,Taa) 2.2x10-2 LPCS(T ) 3.5x10-2 t
; ADS 5x10-3 ADS (S) 5x10-3 ADS (Ts,T23) 1.5x10-3
, LPCI 1.5x10-2 LPCIA,B(S) 2.8x10-2 , LPCIA,B(Tt) 4.1x10-2 i LPCIA,B(T23) 2.8x10-2 LPCIC(S) 2.3x10-2 LPCIC(Ts) 3.6x10-2 1 LPCIC(Tza) 2.3x10-2
, RHR/LPCRSca) LPCRS 1.2x10-4 RHR(S) 3.Ox10-3 RHR(T t ,Tas) 2.7x10-4
] 4 3 1 i i
RBS ER-OLS lh TABLE 7A.2-1 (Cont) C/ Median Unavailability System PB2 (from RSS) RBS Unavailability Service Water / ESWS 1.2x10-4 SSWA,B(S,T ,Tza) 2.2x10-2 i HPSWS and ESWSt a> HPSWS(30 min) 4.3xlO-4 HPSWS(25 hr) 1.1x10-4
<t>All unavailabilities shown are on a per reactor-year basis. \ ) (2>This unavailability represents total loss of ac power (offsite and onsite). The RBS calculation of total loss of ac power is:
T *EPS1*EPS2*EPS3 = (2.0x10-1)*(6.7x10-2)*(6.7x10-2)*(5.5x10-2) 3
= <4.9x10-5 System unavailabilities are based on values developed for GG1 in RSSMAP (Reference 2).
< 3 >The PB2 value of LPCRS is coinpletely dominated by f ailure to cool the CSIS and LPCI pump rooms, which is caused by ESWS failures.
'4'Because of the differences in VSS design between GG1 and RBS, the VSS unavailability for RBS was not calculated; however, in the GG1 study, VSS components made no contribution to the frequency of core melt and a negligible contribution to the frequency of release.
KEY: CSIS = Core spray injection system LPCIA,B,C = LPCI loops A,B, or C LPCRS = Low-pressure coolant recirculation syster; SSWA,B = Standby service water loop A or B SWA,B = Service water loop A or B HPSWS = High-pressure service water system ESWS = Emergency service water system Supplement 7 2 of 2 January 1984
\._/
_ _ _ _ . . _ - . ,. . . ~ _ _ _ .
RBS ER-OLS
/D 7A.3 ACCIDENT SEQUENCES V
Accidents are analyzed using the event tree methodology presented in the RSS. Separate event trees are developed for transients and LOCAs. The event tree method shows, in a logical manner, which event sequences lead to core melt and which sequences result in an adequately cooled core. Event sequences are defined as combinations of required system operations in which one or more systems fail to perform as designed to protect the core. Symbols for event trees in this section are listed in Table 7A.3-1. 7A.3.1 Transient Event Tree . The transient event tree for RBS is shown on Figure 7A.3-1. Transients considered are those that are anticipated, are not LOCA-induced, and require prompt reactor shutdown. Functions required to mitigate the effects of these transients are:
- 1. The reactor must be rapidly brought to a subcritical condition.
- 2. Reactor coolant system pressure must be controlled and kept from exceeding a v.lue that would fail the RCPB.
A] t
'~'
- 3. RPV level must be maintained above the top of the active fuel bundles.
- 4. Core decay heat must be transferred to the ultimate heat sink (UHS).
System operations (or combinations of systems) that perform these functions are the column headings of the event tree and are described as follows:
- 1. The RPS promptly renders the reactor subcritical, if it functions properly, by rapidly inserting all control rods into the core. Subcriticality can also be effected by use of alternative shutdown systems, such as recirculation pump trip (RPT) in
! conjunction with initiation of poison injection (standby liquid control [SLC] system).
- 2. The safety / relief valves (SRVs) perform the pressure control function. Both the opening of the valves at high pressure and the proper reseating of valves are considered in the analysis.
s Supplement 7 7A.3-1 January 1984
. {J
RBS ER-OLS
- 3. Several systems provide makeup water to the core after a transient. The low-pressure systems require that the ADS functions properly in order to lower RPV pressure and allow delivery to the core.
Systems designated as core makeup systems are:
- a. PCS (consisting of feedwater and condensate)
- b. HPCS
- c. RCIC
- d. LPCS
- e. LPCI
- 4. The PCS or the RHR system, in conjunction with the SSW system, must function to remove decay heat from the core and transfer it to the UHS.
Systems required to perform successfully during a transient are summarized in Table 7A.3-2. 7A.3.2 LOCA Event Tree The LOCA event tree for RBS is shown on Figure 7A.3-2. Functions required to mitigate the effects of a LOCA are:
- 1. The reactor must be rapidly brought to a suberitical condition.
- 2. The core must be kept covered and cooled.
- 3. Overpressurization of the containment must be prevented.
- 4. Radioactive material must be prevented from escaping to the environment.
Systems that perform these functions are the column headings of the event tree and are as follows:
- 1. The RPS components or operator-initiated poison injection system promptly render the reactor subcritical.
- 2. Several systems are available to make up core inventory lost through a leak: HPCS, RCIC, LPCS, and LPCI. For small leaks, ADS is necessary to Supplement 7 7A.3-2 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS
-iO) depressurize the RPV in order to allow LPCS and/or LPCI operation. For large leaks, the RPV will depressurize through the leakage path and the ADS is not required. Although RCIC is not an ECCS, it is effective in providing makeup water during small LOCAs and credit is taken for its operation and account is made for its failure to operate over the whole spectrum of small LOCAs (up to 34-cm
[13.5-in] equivalent diameter). The RSS assumed credit for RCIC only up to 5-cm (2-in) diameter leaks. In the GG1 study (BWR 6), credit was taken for RCIC during-all small LOCAs, and the difference in final overall core melt probability was less than 1 percent. Therefore, credit for RCIC during all small LOCAs is assumed for RBS. No credit for the PCS is taken for injection or long-term cooling, because the PCS may be isolated by main steam isolation valve (MSIV) closure at the ' outset of the accident . In addition, the manual actions required to recover PCS renders it inoperable during the initial stages of the
. accident.
- 3. The VSS is expected to quench steam emitted from the' reactor coolant system throughout a LOCA.
(N s s Failure of the VSS to perform this function could eventually compromise containment _ integrity. As - the event progresses, the suppression pool will heat up, requiring the RHR and SSW systems to function to remove heat in the . suppression pool cooling mode and the containment unit cooler system to remove heat from the containment air space.
- 4. The VSS also plays an important role in limiting the emission of radioactive material to the environment. As steam is condensed in the suppression pool, radioactive material is deposited in the pool.
Systems required to successfully operate are summarized in Table 7A.3-3. 7A.3.3 Accident Sequence Summary The following sections provide a short description and the probability for each dominant accident sequence for RBS. January 1984 , [A Supplement 7 7A.3-3
RBS ER-OLS 7A.3.3.1 Sequence T t PQI This sequence is initiated by a loss of offsite power followed by an SRV failing to reseat, a failure of the PCS, and a failure of the RHR system to remove decay heat. When an SRV fails to reseat, the suppression pool will heat up due to the constant deposition of core decay heat in the pool. Failure of the RHR system to remove this heat will eventually overpressurize the containment. Recovery of the PCS requires the recovery of offsite power. The failure to accomplish this within 28 hr is incorporated into the analysis. Since long-term failures are required to cause core melt in this sequence, a recovery factor is applied to all cut sets, which accounts for plant personnel attempting to restore or repair critical equipment or to take other possible corrective actions to mitigate the event. The most probable cut sets are dominated by the inability to recover offsite power, failure of onsite emergency power, and RHR system hardware faults. The probability of occurrence for sequence T PQI t is 1.3x10-8/ reactor-year. 7A.3.3.2 Sequence Ta3PQI This sequence is initiated by a Tza transient, followed by the same failures as T t PQI. The same recovery factor used in sequence T t PQI is applied in sequence T 2aPQI. The most probable cut sets are dominated by failure of the PCS to remove decay heat long term (even with ac power available) and valve failures in the RHR system that prevent the suppression pool from being cooled. The probability of occurrence of sequence TzaPQI is 3.6x10-6/ reactor-year. 7A.3.3.3 Sequence T 2 PQE This sequence is initiated by a loss of offsite power, followed by an SRV failing to reseat, a failure of PCS (due to unavailability of ac power), and a failure of core makeup (ECCS) systems to deliver water to the RPV. Core makeup can be accomplished by HPCS, RCIC, LPCS, or two of three LPCI loops. LPCS and LPCI require ADS operation to lower RPV pressure. It is assumed that the transient does Supplement 7 7A.3-4 January 1984 ,
RBS ER-OLS lO () not automatically initiate ADS; therefore, the operator must pericrm this action. Failure to make up water to the RPV with a .-tuck-open relief valve will quickly lead to core melt. The.-PCS will be interrupted shortly after the sequence develops, when the MSIVs close on low RPV level or low steam pressure. No credit is taken for PCS providing core makeup because of the relatively long period of time required to restore the steam, feedwater, and condensate systems to operation. Since this sequence is not long term, the recovery factor is not included. The most probable cut sets are dominated by RCIC and HPCS
. hardware faults, ac power unavailability, and operator failure to actuate ADS.
The probability of occurrence of sequence T tPQE is 1.9x10-7/ reactor-year. 7A.3.3.4 Sequence TaaPQE This sequence is initiated by a Ta3 transient followed by the same failures as sequence T t PQE. The most probable cut sets are dominated-by HPCS and RCIC hardware (mechanical and
; electrical) faults and the failure of the operator to
% manually initiate the ADS.
The- probability of occurrence of sequence TasPQE is ! 5.4x10-7/ reactor-year. 7A.3.3.5 Sequence SI This sequence is initiated by a small LOCA followed by a failure of.the RHR system to remove decay heat from the suppression pool. Failure to cool the pool will eventually , cause containment failure due to overpressure. No credit for the PCS is taken in this sequence because it is assumed , that the MSIVs will be shut during the accident. Since this is a long-term sequence, the recovery factor for long-term cooling is incorporated. The most probable cut sets are dominated by RHR hardware faults and SW loop B hardware faults. The probability of occurrence of sequence SI is 4.5x10-8/ reactor-year.
# I Supplement 7 7A.3-5 January 1984 NJ
RBS ER-OLS 7A.3.3.6 Sequence T t QW This sequence is initiated by a loss of offsite power, followed by the unavailability of the PCS and RHR system, Failure to remove decay heat from the suppression pool within about 28 hr will eventually cause containment failure due to overpressure. Successful operation of either the PCS or RHR system will require ac power (offsite power to operate the PCS). This is reflected in the cut sets. Since this sequence involves long-term failures, the recovery factor is applied to each cut set. The most probable cut sets are dominated by ac power system failures and RHR system valve failures. The probability of occurrence of sequence T 1QW is 5.7x10-6/ reactor-year. 7A.3.3.7 Sequence Ta3QW This sequence is initiated by a Tza transient and is followed by the same failures as sequence T tQW. Since ac power is available, other failures within the PCS must cause its unavailability. This is accounted for by the term Q in the cut sets. Also, this is a long-term failure sequence; therefore, the recovery factor has been included. The most probable cut sets are dominated by PCS unavailability, RHR system valve failures, and SW loop hardware failures. The probability of occurrence of sequence T23QW is 1.1x10-5/ reactor-year. 7A.3.3.8 Sequence T 1 QUV This sequence is initiated by a loss of offsite power followed by the unavailability of the PCS and a failure of the high-pressure and low-pressure core makeup systems to deliver water to the RPV. Failure to keep the core covered will quickly lead to core melt and containment failure due to overpressure. Credit is not taken for the PCS because it is assumed that offsite power cannot be restored within 1/2 hr. Successful low-pressure makeup depends upon the operator manually actuating the ADS, because it is assumed that system parameters do not reach automatic ADS set points. This is a ahort-term sequence; therefore, no recovery factor is included. Supplement 7 7A.3-6 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS /~'s' The most probable cut sets are dominated by failure to ( _j recover offsite power within 1/2 hr, diesel failures, operator failure to manually actuate the ADS, and HPCS/RCIC hardware failures. The probability of occurrence of sequence T tQUV is 1.9x10-8/ reactor-year. 7A.3.3.9 Sequence T23 C This sequence is initiated by a T2 a transient followed by a failure to achieve reactor subcriticality. Failure of the RPS and the operator is expected to leave reactor power low in the power range. The SRVs will lift to reject heat to the suppression pool; however, this heat load is beyond the heat removal capability of the RHR system and will cause containment failure due to overpressure. It is assumed ECCS pumps will cavitate and fail due to suppression pool boiling, which will lead to core melt. The probability of occurrence of sequence TzaC is 5.4 x 10-8/ reactor-year. The following is a summary of RBS dominant accident sequence probabilities: e 1.3x10-8 (m') T PQI t TzaPQI 3.6x10-8 ' T PQE t 1.9x10-7 T 23PQE 5.4x10-7 SI 4.5x10-8 T tQW 5.7x10-6 TaaQW 1.1x10-5 T,QUV 1.9x10-6 TasC 5.4x10-5 Total core melt frequency is 3.4x10-5 The preceding sequence probabilitues are combined with the containment failure mode probabilities developed in Section 7A.4 to produce the BWR release category probabilities for RBS in Section 7A.S. Supplement 7 7A.3-7 January 1984 /~h iv/
RBS ER-OLS O TABLE 7A13-1 ACCIDENT SEQUENCE SYMBOLS Initiating Events
-T t = Loss of offsite power-induced transient Tas = Any other transient requiring reactor scram S = Small LOCA (break diameter < 34 cm (13.5 in))
A '= Large LOCA (break diameter > 34 cm (13.5 in)) System, Component, and Functional Failures i
'C = Failure to make the reactor subcritical D = Failure of the VSS E = Failure to keep the core covered I = Failure of RHR after LOCA-(including transient-O induced LOCA)
M = Failure of SRVs to open P = Failure of SRVs to reseat Q = Failure of the PCS
'U = Failure of HPCS and RCIC V = Failure of low-pressure ECCS to provide core makeup W = Failure of RHR after transient Supplement 7 1 of 1 January 1984
- O I
l \
N 1 i !- RBS ER-OLS i 1 TABLE 7A.3-2 4 SYSTEM SUCCESS COMBINATIONS FOR TRANSIENTS 4 I Reactor Overpressure Core Decay Heat j gu criticality Protection Makeup Removal 4 ! RPS inserts all SRVs open at high-pressure PCS PCS 1 control rods rapidly set point and reclose 1 properly at resea t OR OR Set point HPCS RHR loop A 4 AND SSW loop A l in suppression f O3 ! pool cooling i mode
! RCIC i OR -
1 OR ;
- RHR loop A AND '
{ ADS AE LPCS SSW loop A in
- steam condensing OR
~
mode ! OR ADS AND 2 of 3 i LPCI loops RHR loop B , AND SSW loop B l in suppression pool cooIing mode OR RHR toop B AliQ SSW loop B in ; steam condensing ! mode i 4 1 ! I I 1 . i Supplement 7 1 or 1 January 19814 ; I t . ! ! l i m.- - _ _ - -. _ _ . . ., . . , ,_ , . _ , , , , . - , . . _ . - - , . = , -
; I
* , ! 1L , ,:L ['f'
~ '
r - D ty 4 8 nt 9 ei 1 dvl iia y ctv r . cco S a Aam S u oe V n . tiR a sd J oa PR - . g g g g - i n n n n i i i l l l l o o o o -
- Ano o Bn o
o An o Bn o c c o c o c' t ren' t . pi g pi g pi g pi g osn t- osn t osn t osn t mnuo Aosi n Bosi n Aosi n Bosi n resi l el p ro m e l el p ro m e l el e l el e
- emst p ro m p ro m Tnec oW po r n oW po r n oW po r n oWporn ire o S pc oi B oSpcoi oS pc oi R oSpcoi gapt l Su a Q l Su a lSu a O lSu a ntro sl ete sl ete sl ete sl ete s
oner RQ odnd RD odnd RD odnd RD odnd A LovP HHnoooo HNnoooo HMnoooo HNnoooo CO R Ai pm c c R Ai pm c m R Ai pm c m R Ai pm c m C _ O L " R . O e F trn 1 S nuo esi f .- N ymst
- o O l nec S S 3 I rire N S 1 S - T aapt V. V L
3 A- Etro O N ner F - A ovP I R 7 B CO E M E O. i S L C B B - R A S , . T S - s s E p p C o o C
,o
-o D Q o U l M H3l S .eu S S 3 C S A 6
.re C 8 C B I I R C R S B fI E
M ok Ca F H 9 P L Q lC P C Q P R H O SC Q DP soc D P T S H lAL AL A2L Y S y t i . l r a . oc ti S S ct P P - ai R R - er Re b u S . ) ) i n i n . n 7 ha 5.A - t3C n3C
- 5. A t n
r(L
.1O a1O e h(L m Ae e t e
.. Cz tme ml l ~ Oi acg scl p LS e r s a p - r4a e4m u C3l L3s S O
;ii aia ; .aa .l ] 2 ;j l2i!j! ' i1 4 1 j{j41 jj jii ji}' !ii4 $ !1 I!:
i O O O i RBS TRANSIENT EVENT TREE i l REACTOR SRVs SRVe POWER HP LP TRA NSIENT SUSCRitlCAL OPEN RHR RESEAT CONVERSION ECCS ECCS TI, T23 C M P Q U V W 3 _ TRANSIENT S w p U TO S W TOW CM 1 E I _ W ! SUCCESS O y TOU S i " C u w
- TOUW CM V
TOUV CM P I
" g TP S M ; TO LOCA TREE
, TM CM ' C 4 TC CM FAILURE (1) SEQUENCES ARE DESIGNATED PROBABILITIES (d = 1-C%1) AND ARE, l ONLY IN TERMS OF SYSTEM THEREFORE, NOT INCLUDED IN SEQUENCE j FAILURES; e.g., SEQUENCE TP DEGIGNATIONS.
- IS ACTUALLY TCMP; TAKING THE SUCCESS OF C AND M INTO (2) KEY TO RESULTS j ACCOUNT, HOWEVER, C AND M S = SAFE CONDITION FIGURE 7A.3-1 l ARE APPROXIMATELY EOUAL TO ONE CM = CORE MELT EXPECTED j BECAUSE C AND M ARE VERY LOW
! RBS TRANSIENT EVENT TREE RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS
! SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984 i _ __ _ ______ _ __
O O O I i REACTOR VAPOR CORE RESIDUAL { > , loc ^ SuecRmc4L , SUPPRESSION M AK EUP HEAT REMOVAL SEQUENCE (1) RESULTS (2) I A, S C D E I ' l-
/ ,
I LOCA S l TPQ SEQUENCES
- i FROM TRANSIENT E EVENT TREE -
D I TPQl, Si, Al CM SUCCESS E j u _ TPOE, SE, AE CM '
" I SD,AD S j E_
I ! D I l SDI, ADI CM k E SDE, ADE CM D i 9, AC CM [C j u FAlldRE D SCD,ACD CM ] t 1 I (1) SEQUENCES APC DESIGNATED ONLY IN TERMS OF (2) KEY TO RESULTS: SYSTEM FAPLURES; e.g. SEQUENCE S1 IS S = SAFE CONDITION ACTUALLY SCDEI ACCOUNTING FOR THE SUCCESS CM = CORE MELT EXPECTED ] OF C, D AND E; HOWEVER, C, D, AND E ARE ALL ) i APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO 1 BECAUSE C, D, AND E I ARE ALL VERY LOW PROBABILITY EVENTS (C = 1-CZ1) AND, THEREFORE, SUCCESS TERMS ARE NOT FIGURE 7A.3-2 INCLUDED IN SEQUENCE DESIGNATIONS. J RBS LOCA EVENT TREE 1 RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS j SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
RBS ER-OLS 7A.4 CONTAINMENT ANALYSIS The RBS containment employs the BWR Mark III design (Figure 7A.4-1) as opposed to the Mark I design utilized by the RSS BWR. The Grand Gulf Generating Station also uses the Mark III design. The Grand Gulf containment is fully analyzed in the GG1 PRA'28 While both designs employ the pressure suppression concept, the major differences are that RBS uses the freestanding steel containment in lieu of the reinforced concrete containment, and does not require drywell vacuum breakers and containment sprays. 7A.4.1 Containment Event Tree The containment event tree for the RBS analysis was developed from the GG1 containment event tree. The containment event tree is shown on Figure 7A.4-2. O v Supplement 7 7A.4-1 January 1984 b U
M 2 - - L-u l i l l l l
,/ '~ _
\/ .+
J
/ .
('
,3 Y
~ "
7
., wl
' Al
,, t j aI-
- t_
*;,3 tj * ;1 M - =
4 ~ .
.;.Lp 'j n ,
g ygg a ' . .
. _- . -y ,
\
lf-p' p. 7
.. 2 /
l g 3q
\ u
+
w i e :P f1r. #:
, 4 .
y
- 1.
- 4 **
Q-) l ft.) -.S). I24 i " " . ' . '.
-/ ....,.
7 g d S' I
] l yf ' . . . , : ., ~>&'
7 'd (st; ; = C y h \ \' l f a nb $ p w
*z i mn I fl "f~~'
u i lf/ O, '~~ ~41Er*Tj.4a"c
- e i t-
,t.
i i' t (, , M -
>> ga y i
.. I Ik f_1_l .a '" b i. D 9 * * -i i .i*
--] ,f_. 5 _'T Pn2W _~
@ y- s ' r; .
,8- .#
1
,d,l ,
f I j
' W
}-- - 'O
,. > g 6
.7 % c4 c[f j I
,_i1 f -+ - -
f, _. I l-l FIGURE 7A.4-1 RBS MARK lli CONTAINMENT O RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
- - - a-- - - - _ -- - . -
1 l l 1 ] CORE CRVSE CL CR-B CR-OP SEQUENCE 1 MELT a 8 Y 6 6 i Y i \ e .i ! G i i LEGEND: j CRVSE CONTAINMENT RUPTURE DUE TO A j REACTOR VESStil STEAM EXPLOSION ' i i CL CONTAINMENT LEAKAGE i CR-B CONTAINMENT RUPTURE DUE TO ' HYDROGEN BURNING FIGURE 7A.4-2 CR-OP CONTAINMENT RUPTURE BY OVER-PRESSURIZATION CONTAINMENT EVENT TREE I i I RIVER BEND STATION l ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS I SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
RBS ER-OLS () 7A.5 7A.S.1 RELEASE CATEGORIES Definition of RSS BWR Release Categories RSS BWR Core Melt Release Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4 are used for the RBS analysis. The RSS and GG1 studies were used as guidance for assigning accident sequences to the release categories using WASH-1400 source terms. These categories are defined as follows. BWR Release Category 1 This release category is representative of a core meltdown followed by a steam explosion in the reactor vessel and simultaneous breach of containment integrity. The latter would cause the release of a substantial quantity of radioactive material to the atmosphere. The total release is assumed to contain approximately 40 percent of the iodines and alkali metals present in the core at the time of containment failure. Most of the release would occur over a 1/2-hr period. Because of the energy generated in the steam explosion, this category would be characterized by a relatively high rate of energy release to the atmosphere. This category also includes certain sequences that involve overpressure failure of the containment prior to the occurrence of core melting and a steam explosion. In these O sequences, the rate of energy release wculd be somewhat smaller than for those previously discussed, would still be relatively high. although it DWR Release Category 2 This release category is representative of a core meltdown resulting from a transient event in which decay heat removal systems are assumed to fail. Containment overpressure failure would result, and core melting would follow. Most of the release would occur over a period of about 3 hr. The containment failure would be such that radioactivity would be released directly to the atmosphere without significant retention of fission products. This category involves a
-relatively high rate of energy release due to the sweeping action of the gases generated by the interaction of water and concrete with the molten mass. Approximately 90 percent of the iodines and 50 percent of the alkali metals present in the core would be released to the atmosphere.
BWR Release Category 3 This release category represents a core meltdown caused by a transient event accompanied by a failure to scram or failure Supplement 7 7A.5-1 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS to remove decay heat. Containment failure would occur either before core melt or as a result of gases generated during the interaction of the molten fuel with concrete after reactor vessel melt-through. Some fission product retention would occur either in the suppression pool or the reactor building prior to release to the atmosphere. Most of the release occurs over a period of about 3 hr and is postulated to comprise 10 percent of the lodines and 10 percent of the alkali metals. For those sequences in which the containment would fail due to overpressure after core melt, the rate of energy release to the atmosphere would be relatively high. For those sequences in which overpressure failure would occur before core melt, the energy release rate would be somewhat smaller, although still moderately high. BWR Release Category 4 This release category is representative of a core meltdown with enough containment leakage to the reactor building to prevent containment failure by overpressure. The quantity of radioactivity released to the atmosphere would be significantly reduced by normal ventilation paths in the reactor building and potential mitigation by the secondary containment filter systems (SGTS) and fuel building ventilation system. Condensation in the containment and the action of the SGTS on the releases would also lead to a low rate of energy release. The radioactive material would be released from the reactor building or the stack at an elevated level. Most of the release would occur over a 2-hr period and is assumed to contain approximately 0.08 percent of the iodines and 0.5 percent of the alkali metals. 7A.5.2 Postulated Effects of Reduced Source Terms and Definition of BMI Source Terms As recently as 1982, analytical analysis of core melt accidents were still using source terms which' were unrealistically high, specifically in the Sandia siting study'7'. The base radiological consequences reported in this document are calculated using the same BWR source terms that were used in the RSS. These source terms were determined in an extremely conservative manner and did not account for any fission product retention in the reactor vessel internals, interfacing piping systems, the suppression pool, or buildings outside containment (except for Release Category 4). Additionally, the thermal-hydraulic model for Supplement 7 7A.5-2 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS x l the containment was simplistic by today's standards and \J contained only a single node. Data from actual accidents (such as TMI) and tests of fuel material clearly support the concept of a reduced source term,',28,22,22,tas, Definition of BWR BMI-2104 Release Sequences Since the development of the RSS source terms for fission product releese, a multitude of analysis has been performed for improving the characterisation of the source of fission products to the environment, with much of the analysis continuing. BMI is currently evaluating fission product attenuation along the various flow paths from the fuel to the environment for five LWR plant / containment types in their study Radionuclide Release Under Specific LWR Accident Conditions (BMI-2104).48) The BMI study describes an approach for estimating radionuclide transport and deposition and is being evaluated for use in predicting fission product source term releases to the environment. Therefore, Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI) BWR Core Melt Releases TC, TPQI, and TQUV are also utilized for the RBS analysis. The BMI work or similar ongoing analysis is expected to replace the generic release fractions of RSS. The BMI release fractions are utilized here for comparative (j s
'~
s reasons to show the impact on the RBS consequences when current knowledge of pertinent physical and chemical processes are applied to core melt accidents. The TC, TPQI, and TQUV release sequences are defined as follows. BMI BWR Release Sequence TC In this accident the MSIVs shut and recirculation pumps trip as a result of the initiating transient, and the control rods fail to insert. Reactor power decreases as a result of the rapid decrease in steam demand (negative thermal hydraulic reactivity coefficients), but remains in the power range because the control rods are still withdrawn. Reactor heat is dumped to the suppression pool through the safety / relief valves. The emergency core cooling system supplies makeup water to the pr.< mary system, with the resulting equilibrium power level being determined by the amount of heat required to boil off the incoming makeup flows. Since this equilibrium power level of the reactor (16 percent of full power) exceeds the heat removal capability for cooling the pool, the temperature of the pool rises and the pressure in the containment increases to the failure pressure. After the containment fails, the containment pressure () V Supplement 7 7A.5-3 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS decreases, the suppression pool boils, and the makeup pumps stop delivering coolant to the vessel, causing the core to heat up and melt. Steam flow to the steam lines pass through safety / relief valves and relief lines. The flow exits the relief line into the suppression pool through a sparger. From the top of the suppression pool, gases and entrained aerosols disperse in the outer containment volume before leaking through the breach in containment. The enclosure building would be expected to fail at the time of containment failure. The mode of failure of the enclosure building would be sensitive to the mode of failure of the containment building. It is assumed in the analyses that major failure of the enclosure building results and that the leakage from the containment is direct to the environment. Following melt-through of the reactor vessel, the fission products airborne in the vessel flow to the drywell as the system depressurizes. Fission products released with time from RCS surfaces would also enter the drywell. Attack of the concrete by the molten core also results in a source term to the drywell. The fission products are then carried to the suppression pool, to the outer containment volume, and through the break in containment to the environment. BMI BWR Release Sequence TPQI In this sequence, a safety / relief valve fails in the open position and the system depressurizes into the suppression pool, but the emergency core cooling system supplies makeup water to the reactor vessel. In addition, the residual heat removal system fails so that with time the pool heats up and the containment pressure rises. As in the previous case, the containment fails prior to core melting, but, since the core is at decay heat power level, the time to fail is substantially longer (22 hours). The emergency core cooling system pumps are assumed to fail following containment failure due to the flashing of the suppression pool. BMI BWR Release Sequence TQUV This is a transient sequence in which all water makeup systems to the reactor vessel fail. It is assumed in the analysis that prior to depressurizing the reactor coolant system, the operators test the low pressure pumps and determine that they are unavailable. The Supplement 7 7A.5-4 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS
/~
reactor coolant system is therefore maintained at (/ x- pressure until the water level in the core reaches approximately 2 feet. At this point, the RCS is depressurized. Thus, the core undergoes a heatup transient which is temporarily quenched at the time of depressurization due to level swell. The core subsequently uncovers, reheats, and melts. The assumptions regarding primary system depressurization are based on prospective BWR-6 Mark III operating procedures. The flow paths for fission product transport can be divided into three time phases. Prior to vessel melt-through, the path is essentially the same as for the TC and TW sequences except that the containment is intact. Following vessel penetration but prior to containment failure, the pathway is from the reactor cavity to the drywell, to the suppression pool, and to the containment. In this case, the suppression pool would be subcooled and potentially very effective in removing fission products. In the enalysis of the TQUV sequence it was assumed that hydrogen igniters were present and operable. The operation of these igniters led to the combustion of , gT hydrogen released to the containment through the '( ) safety / relief considered, the burning of the hydrogen released during valves. In the particular case primary system depressurization was predicted to result in significant pressure rises, though not sufficient to lead to containment failure for the assumed failure pressure. The pressures resulting from such hydrogen burning can be sensitive to the rates of hydrogen release, hydrogen concentrations at ignition, containment compartmentalization, etc. For the TQUV sequence as analyzed here, the peak pressures resulting from hydrogen ignition were seen to be sensitive to the timing of primary system depressurization relative to that of core melting. Assuming accommodation of hydrogen burning, the containment would be predicted to fail due to the buildup of noncondensibles, both from the reaction of the Zircaloy as well as from the attack of the concrete by core debris. Failure due to the buildup of noncondensibles would take place much later in time. Following failure, the containment would release to the environment. The pathway for any subsequent release would be from the cavity to the drywell, to the suppression pool, to the containment, and to the environment. (} V Supplement 7 7A.5-5 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS 7A.5.3 Combined Dominant Accident Sequence Probabilities The dominant RSS accident sequences for RBS have been quantified and are listed in Table 7A.5-1. The probability of any accident sequence was calculated by multiplying the core melt sequence probability (from Section 7A.3.3) by its containment failure mode probability, e.g., probability of sequence T PQE would be (1.9x10-7) x (0,5) = 9.5x10-8 per 3 reactor-year. The release category frequencies were found by summing the probabilities of the dominant accident sequences for each release category. Release category totals were not smoothed as was done in the RSS. O Supplement 7 7A.5-6 January 1984 O
1 ; RBS L'R-OLS 4 () TP.BLE 7A.5-1
, DOMINANT CORE MELT ACCIDENT SEQUENCE PROBABILITIES USING WASH-1400 SOURCE TERMS Release Category Probabilities (per reactor-year)
Sequence 1 2 3 4
, T PQI 1.3x10-s 1.3x10-8 .
i T 23PQI 3.6x10- 3.6x10-8 T PQE 9.5x10-8 9.5x10-s TzaPQE 2.7x10-7 2.7x10-7 i SI 4.5x10-8 4.5x10-8 T tQW 5.7x10-8 TzaQW 1.1x10-5 T QUV 9.5x10-7 9.5x10-7 I
; TzaC 5.4x10-s j Total 9.4x10-8 3.2x10-5 1.3x10-8 1.3x10-8 1
I i l l Supplement 7 1 of 1 January 1984 i-i
---,--<r---,,,--- ,,e- , - - - - , - - , . . . . , - . . . . . - - - . , - , , . , . - , . . . , , , , , , , . - - , , . . -
n.,-,. ,,n._,-,,--,~,,-,,-a,., ,,,,,,-,-,,.---c-,.,
RBS ER-OLS (r) V 7A.6 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS 7A.6.1 Description of the CRAC2 Computer Code The consequences to public health and safety, and the regional economy are evaluated using the CRAC2 computer code'248 The first version of CRAC (Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences) was developed to support WASH-1400. Sandia National Laboratories haa updated the code to its present version. CRAC2 computations begin with a postulated accident (or accidents if grouped into release categories) which includes a breach of containment. The resultant release of radioactivity to the environment is described in terms of its probability of occurrence, isotopic release quantities, heat release rate, time and duration of release, and warning time. Meteorological data is processed using the bin sampling technique developed specifically for CRAC2. An entire year of hourly weather observations representative of the RBS site (8,760 data points) including wind direction and speed, atmospheric stability, and precipitation rate are grouped into bins based on specific weather sequence (S/ t characteristics. Examples are: it begins to rain when the racloactive plume is at a certain distance from the site; a wind slowdown occurs when the plume is at a certain distance from the site; or a certain combination of wind speed and stability class occurs. Twenty-nine bins are defined and prioritized by CRAC2 and the subsequent random bin sampling is carried out so that each weather pattern is taken into account. This ensures that important weather types are neither ignored nor given excessive weight. This technique has provided an improvement in meteorological sampling over the CRAC code which was used in the RSS. Weather conditions within each of the 29 bins are then utilized in a straight line Gaussian Plume model to calculate the atmospheric dispersion term X/Q. Special effects which modify the basic Gaussian model, such as radioactive decay, duration of release, bu11 ding wakes, inversion lids, and plume rise, are factored into the analysis for each hour of plume travel. Additionally, the effects of both wet and dry deposition are taken into account. The resultant X/Q values and deposition processes define air and ground radioactivity concentrations at each spatial interval from the site. Supplement 7 7A.6-1 January 1984
/]N
. 1 RBS ER-OLS l Air and ground concentration levels are ured to calculate !
potential radiation doses that would be received by l individuals. Dose calculations are performed for the 50-mi ' l site region using a spatial grid consisting of 16 22.5-degree sectors and 24 radii out to 80 km (50 mi). A usable land fraction and estimated population (1980 census projected to year 2010) are assigned for each area element in this grid. For calculating early health effects, the most important exposure pathways are:
- 1. Inhalation from the passing radioactive cloud.
- 2. External exposure from the passing radioactive cloud.
- 3. External exposure (short-term) from deposited ground contamination.
For estimating latent health effects, the pathways of interest are:
- 1. External exposure from deposited ground contamination (long- and short-term).
- 2. Inhalation of radioactivity from the passing cloud and from the resuspension of deposited ground contamination.
- 3. Ingestion of contaminated foods, milk, and milk products.
Acute effects are determined on a threshold basis and are defined as those health effects that occur within 1 yr of exposure. Acute injuries are defined as those nonfatal, noncarcinogenic illnesses that begin to be felt at 55 rem whole body. Below that value it is assumed that the radiological effect will not show outward symptoms or cause any amount of physical incapacitation. At dose levels above 370 rem acute injury is assumed to be the minimum effect. Acute fatalities are estimated on the basis of exposure to the bone marrow, lungs, and gastrointestinal tract. Bone marrow exposure is the dominant contributor to early fatalities. The acute fatalities model .is based upon a LD50/60 dose of 510 rads to the bone marrow (LD50/60 equals the dose that would be lethal to 50 percent of the population within 60 days). This LD50/60 value is calculated assuming supportive medical treatment is available. Based upon this LD50/60 value, the health Supplement 7 7A.6-2 January 1984
1 RBS ER-OLS (d l physics model begins to predict acute threshold dose of 320 rem bone marrow where dose levels in fatalities at a excess of 615 rem are assumed to be fatal. CRAC2 evaluates the probability of effect as follows'1*':
, Acute Injuries Acute Whole Body Dose (rem) Probability of Injury 55 0 150 .30 280 .80 370 1.0 Acute Fatalities Acute Bone Marrow Jose (rem) Probability of Fatality 320 0 400 .03 510 .50 615 1.0 Latent cancer fatalities are calculated in CRAC 2 using a central estinate approach that is consistent with the
- linear-quadratic model presented in BEIR III (1980)<ts> ,
- Following irradiation of a population group, there is, e
, generally, a . latency period during which no increase in s cancer incidence occurs. After this period, the calculated increased incidence of effects begins to appear at an almost uniform rate for a period of years which is termed plateau. In some cases this plateau extends over a specified number of years. In other cases, the plateau period can extend over the remaining lifetime of the exposed population. In CRAC2, all radiogenic cancers are calculated over a lifetime plateau, except for leukemia which is assumed to have a 30-yr latency pericd. The following table reflects the expected latent cancer deaths per million man-rem using the i time periods stated and the health physics and dosimetry data currently available'2*): Expected Fatalities Type of Cancer per 106 man-rem Leukemia 28.4 Lung 27.5 . Breast 31.7 Bone 10.1 GI Tract 16.9 Others 42.4
, Supplement 7 7A.6-3 January 1984 I
l
, ,e ~. . . . -. . . . _ . , _ _ , . , . . _ - - _ . _ . . . . . ~ , _ . , _ . . . _ _ ,-...-._~. _.-_- - -,_.- .
RBS ER-OLS Latent thyroid tumors, both malignant and benign, are calculated by CRAC2 based on the following statistical information(2*): Expected Thyroid Nodules per 106 man-rem Dose (rem) Benign Cancerous <1500 200 134 1500-5000 100 67 >5000 0 0 Synergistic effects such .as counting acute fatalities as acute injuries are automatically accounted for by CRAC2. Health physics data such as organ dose conversion factors; milk consumption rates; threshold doses for fatalities, injuriec, and various cancer types; timing data for computing lifetime doses; isotope weathering / decay data; and inhalation / ingestion factors are supplied to the code in order to allow public radiation health effects to be computed. The health physics data used for this analysis is supplied with the CRAC2 code. Table 7A.6-1 provides information on which isotopes are important for each exposure pathway. The effects of mitigative actions taken to reduce public exposure such as evacuation and sheltering are taken into account. Evacuation parameters such as distance traveled, delay time, effective evacuation speed, exposure duration, sheltering factors, and radius of evacuation for the region are supplied to the code. These evacuation and sheltering scenarios are used to compute the dose reduction achieved by the emergency action. Regional economic impact is also calculated by CRAC2. Averaged statewide agricultural and economic data including farm and dairy production; farm, business, and residential property values; and relocation and evacuation costs were supplied to the code and the impact was calculated in terms of food, crop, and dairy losses; interdiction costs; decontamination costs; and relocation and evacuation costs. The final results of the CRAC2 consequence model are displayed as a set of complementary cumulative distribution functions (CCDFs). A CCDF is defined as the probability that the consequences will exceed a given magnitude. CRAC2 determines the final CCDFs by accounting for all consequences produced for each trial and the associated probability of occurrence. A trial is defined as one Supplement 7 7A.6-4 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS [\ N-- combination of conditions, accident release parameters, and downwind population. The curves produced weather from the CRAC2 CCDF output may be then used to evaluate the health and economic risks to the public from a large scale core melt accident in a given region surrounding the plant. Figure 7A.6.1 provides an overall view of the site region. Figure 7A.6-2 shows a schematic of the CRAC2 consequence model. Table 7A.6-2 provides an identification of the sources for the input parameters to CRAC2 for RBS. Tables 7A.6-3 through 7A.6-7 provide the CRAC2 input for RBS for the isotopes, release parameters, evacuation, population, and meteorological data requirements, respectively. 7A.6.2 Discussion of Health and Economic Impacts The results of CRAC2 computations are presented in Figures 7A.6-3 through 7A.6-9. CCDFs representing acute fatalities, acute injuries, latent fatalities, latent thyroid cancers, total whole-body Man-Rem, and property damage, within 80 km (50 mi) of RBS are provided. Table 7A.6-8 shows the sensitivity of early health effects gO (acute fatalities and injuries), latent health effects (latent fatalities and thyroid cancers), and economic effects (property damage) to various parameters. 7A.6.2.1 Health and Economic Impact Results Using RSS Source Terms The results of the CRAC2 consequence analysis for the RBS site using the RSS source terms are shown in Figures 7A.6-3 through 7A.6-8 by the curve labeled RSS. Acute fatalities are dominated by RSS Relesec Category 1, possessing rapid timing and a large fraction of released radionuclide activity. Release Category 2 has a more prolonged release time. RSS Release Category 3 has a lower amount of released activity. RSS Release Category 4 is characterized by releases through the SGTS; therefore, the activity released is much lower than the other release
. categories. Category 4 does not contribute to acute fatality consequences.
Acute injuries are dominated by RSS Release Category 1 due to relatively high release fractions. The lower activity magnitude of RSS Release Category 2 is not quite as Supplement 7 7A.6-5 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS important for injuries as it is for fatalities because of the lower dose thresholds for injuries. RSS Release Category 3 makes a small contribution to acute injuries due to the lower fraction of released radionuclide activity. RSS Release Category 4 does not contribute to acute injuries. The River Bend Emergency Response Plan'26) outlines eight evacuation scenarios covering the various combinatie - of season and time of day. The evacuation model's time estimates showed that the peak and off-peak season evacuation times for all cases were similar. Therefore, only the four models pertaining to peak season are considered here. No one evacuation model dominates early effects when utilizing RSS source terms. Latent fatalities and thyroid cancers result from lower doses than those that produce acute fatalities. These are integral effects over large areas and long time periods, and are extrapolated from the radiogenic cancer effects observed following exposure to higher doses such as the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Because of the affinity of the human thyroid for halogens such as iodine, thyroid cancer is most sensitive to the amount of iodine released. RSS Release Category 1, with higher release fractions, dominates the latent fatality CCDFs. RSS Release Category 1, with its higher iodine release, dominates the thyroid cancer CCDFs. RSS Release Category 2 is not as dominant due te its lower iodine release. The thyroid cancer results include both malignant and benign radiogenic nodules. RSS Release Categories 3 and 4 with their lower level of released activities are of less significance to latent fatalities. Economic impact is assessed in terms of the cost to all affected property and includes both evacuation and relocation costs. Property damage CCDFs are dominated by Release Category 2 due to its higher probability of occurrence. Figure 7A.6-7 provides the CCDFs for total cost with and without decontamination. When decontamination procedures are carried out, this adds cost; however, the decontamination restores property to economic use, and the interdiction costs are reduced. Although decontamination is expensive, it is a one-time cost, whereas interdiction of property, particularly farm property, has a long-term effect and hence creates greater economic loss and hardship. This is reflected in the CCDFs in Figure 7A.6-7. The probability of a given dollar loss is greater when decontamination is not performed. This reflects the higher (long-term) interdiction costs. Supplement 7 7A.6-6 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS f% 7A.6.2.2 Health and Economic Impact Results Using BMI-2104 () Source Terms The results of the CRAC2 consequence analysis for the RBS site using the BMI-2104 source terms are shown in Figures 7A.6-3 threugh 7A.6-8 by the curve labeled "BMI." Applying reduced source terms markedly reduces the acute effects. No acute fatalities are predicted, and the predicted acute irjuries are greatly reduced. The effect of the BMI source term on the latent and economic results (latent fatalities, thyroid cancers, total costs, and total whole body man-rem) are also substantial, but not as dramatic as the effect on the acute results. The reason for this is because when radioactivity is deposited on the ground, CRAC2 will mitigate the exposure (by relocation) if the contamination exceeds a threshold value. When the BMI source terms are used, the area where the ground contamination threshold levels are exceeded is small when compared to the RSS Source Term. This results in large populations being exposed to chronic doses at lower than threshold levels. The net result is a reduction in the difference of latent effects calculated using BMI and RSS Source Terms. Overall, however, the results obtained for RBS using the ()s ( interim source term are lower than those predicted using the RSS source term. Therefore, the risk for both acute and latent effects, which is the area beneath each CCDF curve, is much lower than the risk presented in Section 7A.6.2.1 of this report. It should be noted, however, that neither the BMI-2104 source term nor any other reduced source term has been formally accepted, and the lower risks for RBS predicted in this report are only potential benefits. It is believed, however, that the industry's and government's present investigative programs will show that the actual radioactivity releases are consistent with or even lower than the reduced source term used in this study, and that these lower values will become standard inputs to future risk assessments. 7A.6.2.3 Socioeconomic Effects The impacts of severe accident releases from the River Bend Plant to the hydrosphere are addressed in Appendix 7B. Potential exposure pathways to humans include ingestion of contaminated food and dairy products, and direct exposure from contaminated land and water. Interdicting these pathways is possible; however, the socioeconomic impact of ( Supplement 7 7A.6-7 January 1984 V)
RBS ER-OLS cuch action is difficult to assess. Most of the activity in the 50-mi site region (Figure 7A.6-1) is industrial in nature and located along the river. Most of the industry is characterized by large facilities such as power plants, petrochemical refineries, and marine terminals. Also 13 million pounds of finfish and shellfish are caught commercially in the Mississippi River in Louisiana annually. All of these industries would suffer from contamination of their facilities which would require cleanup and monitoring. Although disruptive, these impacts would not be permanent. The fish catch from the river might also be temporarily interdicted; however, the biotic ecosystems in the river would recover and, therefore, this impact would also be temporary. Most of the drinking water in this region of the country is drawn from wells which would be unaffected by an airborne release. The closest public drinking water supply with the river as its source is located at Bayou LaFourche, Louisiana, which is approximately 50 mi away from the site. This supply would be subject to monitoring, or possibly temporary interdiction; however, this would be a temporary effect. Agriculture in the area would be adversely affected. The decontamination of farmland may be one of the most significant impacts because it is so expensive. If interdiction of farmland is permanent, interdiction costs are expected to outweigh decontamination. Farming, however, does not constitute a major industry within the 50-mi site region. Interdiction costs of farmland within 50 mi of the River Bend Plant would be far less than the costs for farmland interdiction in the midwest for states such as Nebraska or Kansas. Recreation in the River Bend region is not highly developed and, beyond the normal recreational activity associated with schools and municipalities, is limited to hunting. The Mississippi River is not utilized much for recreational purposes because of its extensive industrialization and heavy marine traffic within the 50-mi site region. Some of the property used for local recreation activities will be subject to closure until decontamination is completed; however, this would be a temporary effect. Additionally, the volume of waterborne transportation along the Mississippi River might be affected. The contamination of river craft and docking and marine facilities might cause Supplement 7 7A.6-8 January 1984
- .. . - - . .- = _ _ - - -
RBS ER-OLS (' v waterborne reduced. commerce along the river to be temporarily 7A.6.2.4 Comparisons with Other Plants Fo. comparison purposes, the CCDFs for acute and latent fatalities for the RSS BWR (rebaselined results)(43) have been plotted against the RBS results. This comparison is shown on Figures 7A.6-9 and 7A.6-lO. Because of the unquantified uncertainty bands associated with each curve, the CCDFs for acute and latent fatalities for each plant may be considered consistent. 7A.6.3 Risk Due to External Causes The foregoing analysis has confined itself to event sequences generated by inplant failures (with the exception of loss of offsite power). However, the possibility exists that some large external event could initiate an accident or adversely affect the plant's response to an internal initiating event. The RBS plant is not considered singularly vulnerable to external initiators. It is located in an area of low seismic activity and -is 70 mi away from a large body of
-m seawater. Therefore, earthquakes and tidal waves are not qj expected to be high probability events.
- However, because of the proximity of the River Bend site to l the Gulf of Mexico, high-wind-causing events such as hurricanes and tornadoes might be expected to exhibit a slightly higher frequency of occurrence than in other areas of the United States. Hazard due to high winds exists from two types of consequences; wind-generated missiles and falling structures.
Generally, only tornadoes are capable of providing the acceleration energy required to create a missile which can penetrate reinforced concrete structures. Both hurricanes and tornadoes can cause forces strong enough to collapse buildings. Such events, however, are considered in the basic design of River Bend, which is a plant of modern vintage. The structural design criteria for River Bend reflect the latest regulatory requirements for high-wind-causing external initiators'28) . Tornado missile hazard analysis involves information about the likelihood of potential missiles in the plant vicinity, representation of the wind field in the tornado, and aerodynamic calculations describing the lift-off and flight g Supplement 7 7A.6-9 January 1984 (/
\m- -
RBS ER-OLS of potential missiles and their impact velocities on concrete structures. A detailed analysis which included the estimated frequency of missile occurrence has been performed by Twisdale, Dunn, and Chu'27'. In that study, calculations were made using tornado histories for each tornado region defined by Regulatory Guide 1.76cte> . Calculations were made for both a small and large (6,000) number of possible missiles for a typical plant site. Considering vital concrete structures, this study indicates the following annual frequencies for both cases in NRC tornado Region 1 which includes the River Bend site. Number of Missiles Large Small (6,000) Annual frequency of missile hitting structure <10-7 <10-* Annual frequency of hitting structure at high velocity <10-S <10-6 Annual frequency of inside scabbing of 6-in wall <10-s <10-* Annual frequency of inside scabbing of 12-18-in wall <10-S <10-6 Since the exterior walls housing vital equipment are a minimum of 24-in thick at River Bend, the annual frequency of insi de scabbing of 24-in walls will be lower than the calculated values above. Also, these frequencies represent only the probability of damaging the exterior wall of vital structures. They would be multiplied by the probability of causing enough system damage to cause or contribute to core melt. These final probability values are several orders of magnitude less than the estimated frequency of core melt due to internal initiators used in the foregoing consequence analysis. Therefore, the risk due to tornado-generated missiles at River Bend is expected to be extremely low. Recent risk assessments such as the Indian Point Probabilistic Safety Study'1S) have identified vital systems which are vulnerable to high winds because they were not contained in concrete buildings. Portions of the emergency power systems were located at a grid substation, external to the site, in a sheet metal structure, and portions of the Supplement 7 7A.6-10 January 1984 l
RBS ER-OLS [)
\/
main control room were housed in a steel-sided structure. All similar vital equipment at River Bend is housed in heavily reinforced concrete structures; thus, the risk associated with high winds at Indian Point will not be present at River Bend. Man-made hazards such as aircraft impact, accidents at nearby industrial or military facilities, and pipeline accidents are not considered viable. The site is located at least 4.0 km (2.5 mi) from any major air traffic lane and 30.4 km (19 mi) from the nearest major airport (Baton Rouge, Louisiana). A probability of 4.5x10-s aircraft crashes per year was computed in the FSAR Section 3.5.1.6 for Victor Airway V71 which passes 2.5 mi from the centerline of the reactor building. This value is less than the 1x10-7 value considered as a reasonable limit for instituting aircraft crash design protection. Also, the computed probability of 4.5x10-8 is several orders of magnitude less than the computed frequencies for internal accident initiators used in the foregoing consequence analysis, and represents only the occurrence frequency of aircraft crashes at the RBS site and not the frequency of core melt due to aircraft crashes. The probability of plant / core damage due to an aircraft crash will be lower than 4.5x10-a/yr. Therefore, the risk O to RBS from aircraft crashes is considered to be negligible. t There are no large industrial or military facilities within 5 mi of RBS which would create a potential explosive or toxic gas hazard. The closest facility with explosive materials is a 3-ft-diameter natural gas pipeline located 2 mi from the site. Chlorine, ammonia, and sulfur dioxide are stored at a paper mill located 3.4 mi from the plant and chlorine, hydrazine, and sulfuric acid are stored at a coal-fired power plant 2.9 mi from the plant. The effect of leaks from these facilities on the main control room intake air quality have been performed and are contained in FSAR Section 2.2.3.1.3. None of the toxic gases stored at these locations posed an undue risk to control room habitability. The risk from transportation accidents exists only from dangerous material on vehicular and rail traffic destined to/from the site itself. A railroad line does pass through the site property; however, it does not carry hazardous
- cargo. The closest rail line carrying hazardous material is located over 5 mi from the plant. Chlorine is transported i at a rate exceeding 10 shipments per year on U.S.
Highway 61 near the site. These shipments are 2 mi from the main control room ventilation intakes at their closest point Supplement 7 7A.6-11 January 1984 l i l
- , ..+~, - , , , . ..-,,r.,_,,,,__.---.- m. , - . . . - - ~ _ _ . , _ - , - , , . - . , - - - - y~._,.y_,_r ,_-._--,.,m,,_.-,.m
RBS ER-OLS of approach. The effect of a chlorine leak at this point is evaluated in ESAR Section 2.2.3.1.3 and was found to yield acceptable consequences. Also, ammonia barge shipments on the Mississippi River were evaluated and found to be of extremely low frequency and risk'22, a2, 23, 24> , The hazards due to flooding from the Mississippi River, flooding from internal sources, fires, chemical hazards, turbine missile hazards, and sabotage exist at about the saine probability as at any U.S. nuclear power plant and are taken into account in the basic design criteria of the plant. The following FSAR sections provide an indepth treatment of these topics: Title FSAR Section Fire Protection 9.5.1, Appendix 9A Flooding 3.4 Turbine Missiles 3.5.1.3 Chemical and Exposure Hazards 2.2, Appendix 2A Security 13.6 Seismic Design 3.7, 3.8 Tornado Design 3.3 Aircraft Hazard 3.5.1.6 Some external events will affect only one accident sequence while some external events will affect all accident sequences. With external causes taken into account, it is expected that the event sequence probabilities and hence the release category probabilities will increase slightly. However, it is anticipated that external events will not be significant contributors to risk at RBS. Supplement 7 7A.6-12 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS 7A.6.4 Limitations and Sources of Uncertainties 7A.6.4.1 Limitations The following limitations are identified in this study:
- 1. Following the GGl-RSSMAP methodology, full fault trees were not developed for the RBS systems analysis. . The survey and analysis technique employed in the GG1 study was used. This method, however, truncated the system unavailability analysis at the major component level. Small, but possibly sensitive components are covered by the failure rates for the parent equiprent. Also, components were considered generically from system to system; le., HPCS control circuits were assumed to have the same failure probability as diesel control circuitry; all motor-operated valves were assumed to have the same failure contributors, and each contributor was assumed to exhibit the same failure rate. This will not significantly alter the final results. However, a plant and/or manufacturer specific research of equipment operating histories might reveal slightly different failure rate information. Human error data was '
taken directly from the RSS and the GG1 study. A thorough human reliability analysis including a comprehensive review of plant operating and casualty procedures might also slightly alter the data. Additionally, the generic values from the GGl-RSSMAP study were used regarding the frequency of loss of offsite power, and the probabilities of recovering offsite power. These generic values are considered conservative for the grid to which- the River Bend plant will be connected. Since the probability of core melt is very sensitive to these grid parameters, it is expected that using grid-specific data will reduce the predicted probability of core' melt for RBS.
- 2. The success criteria fcr safety-related system operation during transients and LOCAs was taken to be the same as GGl-RSSMAP. These success criteria are conservative, especially for systems such as main steam, feedwater, and main condenser.
- 3. Because RBS is still under construction, as-built plant information is not available. The FSAR, ER-OLS, Standard Technical Specifications for BWR 5<2s) and design drawings were used in lieu of Supplement 7 7A.6-13 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS the as-built drawings, technical specifications, and actual plant operating / emergency procedures.
- 4. The containment analysis cc. misted of comparing the RBS Mark III containment with containments of plants where a full PRA had been performed (particularly GGl) and adopting their results to RBS.
7A.6.4.2 Sources of Uncertainties The specific sources of uncertainty in this study have been enumerated in the previous section. It should be noted that the RSS methodology used to analyze RBS has been found to be sound based upon the results of the Lewis Committee reviewcas'. In the RSS, the uncertainties were found to fall into two groups: dispersion-dosimetric model (accident release source terms, probabilities, physical characteristics of the accident, and atmospheric dispersion) and the dose-response model (health physics and cost parameters). Early fatalities are most sensitive to the dispersion-dosimetric model uncertainties. This report has utilized theoretical accident source term information as an input to the risk analysis contained herein. Based upon recently generated information'27-35) regarding the accuracy of this source term information, there appears to be sound reasonr to believe that it is significantly more conservative than originally assumed. Therefore, the effects of reducing the source terms have been comparatively analyzed in this study. The other consequences, latent fatalities and property damage, are less sensitive to the uncertainties in the dispersion-dosimetric model than early effects. Total population and cost parameters tend to have a greater effect on these results because the effects are integrated over large areas and long time periods and the accident characteristics become less important. The dose response models used in CRAC2 and this study are based upon the 1980 BEIR III Committee findings and are generally considered as an improvement over the previous (1972 BEIR I) models; however, the lack of information available regarding the dose effectiviness of low dose rates is indicative of the uncertainties still present regarding the risk of radiation induced cancer. Supplement 7 7A.6-14 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS () 7A.6.5 The Conclusions preceding sections have considered the potential environmental impacts of core melt accident releases into the atmosphere. The impacts which have been analyzed include possible exposures to individuals and to the i surrounding population as a whole, the near- and long-term consequences of such exposure, and the socioeconomic effects ' of property contamination. I Figures 7A.6-11, 7A.6-12, and 7A.6-13 provide comparisons of risk of acute fatality and property damage from the RBS , reactor versus risk of acute fatality and property damage from man-caused events, and naturally occurring events. From these figures, it can be seen that the operation of RBS will not contribute measurably to the overall acute fatality or property damage risks from either man-caused or naturally occurring events. Table 7A.6-9 provides comparison data in the area of early illness and latent fatalities. The contribution to these consequences from the operation of RBS is negligible. In order for the consequences of a potential core melt i accident at RBS to be significant, the release parameters,
, weather conditions, and downwind population must be at their
- ("%g ,) worst conditions. The probability of this occurring is extremely low. For even modest consequences to occur, the trial values must be well above average in severity. The i probability of these conditions existing simultaneously is still quite low. Since the three components of a trial (release parameters, weather conditions, and downwind population density) are completely independent of each other, accidents with .even modest environmental impact at RBS are considered highly unlikely.
.I i Supplement 7 7A.6-15 January 1984 l
. . . - , _ _ . , - - . ~ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ , . . . . _ , _ _ , . . . . _ _ _ _ , _ . . . __
RBS ER-OLS TABLE 7A.6-1 [V) EXPOSURE IMPACT OF VARIOUS ISOTOPES Most Contributing Exposure Pathway /Effect Radionuclides Cloudshine (early effects) Kr-88, Te-132, I-132, I-133, I-131, I-135 Inhalation (early effects) Te-132, I-131, Cs-134, Ba-140 Inhalation (leukemia) Sr-90 Inhalation (bone cancer) Sr-90, Pu-241, Pu-238 Inhalation (lung cancer) Ru-106, Ce-144 Groundshine (early effects) Te-132, I-131, I-132, I-133, I-135 Thyroid dose I-131, I-132, I-135 (latent thyroid effects) (~N Milk ingestion I-131, I-133 l
,) (early effects)
Long-term groundshine Cs-137 (latent effects) i NOTE: Radionuclides which have a negligible effect f on health'are: Co-58, Co-60, Kr-85, Kr-85m, l Kr-87, Rb-86, Y-90, Nb-95, Tc-99m, Ru-105, Rh-105, Te-127, Te-129, Ce-143, Pr-143, Nd-147, Am-241 (Reference 37). 1 SOURCE: NUREG/CR-23OO (Reference 37) l Supplement 7 1 of 1 January 1984 i /)
\~s!
l l l
RBS ER-OLS I l TABLE 7A.6-2 b CRAC2 DATA SOURCES Source Data 1 Reference Number) Isotopic inventory 1, 38, 44 (list of isotopes in Table 7A.6-3) Release parameters Timing data 2, 6 Release fractions 1, 2, 6 Evacuation strategies Timing and distance data 16 Sheltering factors 45, 46, 47, 48 Population distributions U.S. 39 Meteorological data Weather data site measuremente (Jan 1, 1978 - Dec 31, 1978) s Atmospheric mixing heights 49 Economic data 1, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 l l Supplement 7 1 of 1 January 1984
.O
s 3 ,= RBS ER-OLS - () ,_ TABLE 7A.6-3 CRAC2 COMPUTER CODE ISOTOPES (18 Element Icotopes Cobalt Co-58c2> , Co-60t a) Krypton Kr-85, Kr-85m, Kr-87, Kr-88 Rubidium Rb-86(28 Strontium Sr-89, Sr-90(2) , Sr-91 Yttrium Y-90(2) , Y-91 Zirconium Zr-95, Zr-97
- Niobium Nb-95 s
Molybdenum Mo-99 T :hnetium _ Tc-99m , Ruthenium Ru-103, Ru-105, Ru-106 Rhodium ka-105
' Tellurium Te-127, Te-127m(2) Te-129, ,
Te-129mc2> , Te-131m, Te-132 Antimony ' 'Sb-127, Sb-129 Iodine I-131, I-132, I-133, I-134, I-135 Xenon Xe-133, Xe-135 Cesium Cs-134(25, Cs-136(2) , Cs-137(2) Barium Ba-140 Lathanum La-140
' Cerium Ce-l'41, Ce-143, Ce-144
\
Supplement 7 1 of 2 *
- January 1984 I
+
-w .
RBS ER-OLS
\ TABLE 7A.6-3 (Cont) .( J Element Isotopes Praseodymium Pr-143 Neodymium Nd-147 Neptunium Np-239(2)
Plutonium Pu-238(2) , Pu-239c2> , Pu-240c2> , Pu-241(28 l Americium Am-241c2> 1. Curium Cm-242c2> , Cm-244(2' i
\_
i (1' Isotopic inventory provided by NSSS supplier General Electric Company (Reference 44) c2 NUREG/CR-3108 (Reference 38) data corrected to values consistent with an end-of-cycle 2,894 MWt BWR. BWR 6-specific data from GE was not available for these isotopes. ca>RSS data (Reference 1) corrected to values consistent with an end-of-cycle 2,894 MWt BWR. BWR 6-specific data from GE was not available for these isotopes. Supplement 7 2 of 2 January 1584 h,,
fS ps <-g
/ i lr I I
^>
\
' m) ,%_/)
I w/ RBS ER-OLS TABLE 7A.6-4 CRAC2 RELEASE PARAME" PRS 19E_ Mast:1900_s99Ett_2erms warning BSS Time of Time for Beat Pelease Pr oba bilit y/ Belease Duration of Evacuation Elevation of Peleased [Eggligg_g(_CgEg_IgggelgEI_Eglegged
<4tt99EI Et4Gt9E-If9E _lhEL__ E2123Et_lhEl ___lhEL___ ffitaat l!L_ IEnidEREL 32:
. EE I EECED IE-Eh ERIEE ggTT) La cFT B3R 1 9. 4 x 10- e 2.0 0.5 1.0 42.9 9.1x10* 1.0 0. 4 0.4 0.7 0.05 0.5 5x10-3 SkR 2 3.2x10-s 24.1 3.0 1.0 42.9 2.1x106 1.0 0.21 0.58 0.55 0.063 0.044 7.2x10-2 BER 3 1.3x10-* 2.6 3.0 1.0 42.9 1.4x106 1.0 0.33 0.17 0.49 0.014 0.03 S.8x10-3 898 4 1.3x10-6 7.8 2.0 1.0 42.9 0 1.0 4. 4x13-+ 6.2x10- 3 0.016 5.1x10-* 9.8xs0-* 1. 9 x 10-
- E9E IBI-2399 399Ese_IsEsa Tc 5.4x10-* 1.34 7.3 1.0 42.9 1.0x10* 1.0 0.1 4.0x10-a 0.1 7.53x10-* 7.53x10-* 7.53x10-*
TPQI 5.35x10-* 22.18 10.0 1. 0 42.9 1.0x10* 1.0 5. 0 x 10- 2 4.0x10-a 3. o x 10- a 4.38x10-* 4.38x10-* 4.38x10-* 1 TQ0V 1.50x10-* 13.90 10.0 1.0 42.9 1.0x10+ 1.0 1.0x10-3 1.0x10-3 5.0x10-3 4.79x10-s 4.79x10-s 4.79x10-a. 1 i 1 i (a3 Includes Mo, E h, Tc, Co. (23 Includes Nd, Y, Ce, Fr, La, Mb, Am, Ca, Po, Np, Zr. Supplement 7 1 of 1 January 1984
C O ~ RBS ER-OLS TABLE 7A.6-5 CRAC2 EVACUATION STRATEGIES Time Delay Maximum Distance Maximum Distance Probability Be fo re Evacuation from Site Moved by Sheltering St ra teqv of Strateov (1) Evacuation thri Speed fmph) Evacuated fail Evacuees (mi) , Radius (mil Peak season 0.35 1.25 6.03 10 24 10 daytime normal weather Peak season O.41 0.75 9.4'4 10 24 10 nighttime normal weather Peak season 0.11 1.42 4.97 10 24 10 daytime adverse weather Peak season 0.13 0.75 8.30 10 24 10 nighttime adverse weather NOTE: Models are consistent with four of the eight evacuation sccnarios for peak season periods outlined in the River Bend Emergency Response Plan (Ref. 16). Supplement 7 1 of 1 Janua ry 1984
t . ,e ,t~ 5 t[ ' i; i ( , 4 8 9 1 O y r a u n a 3334564210390051 9 'J
- 0 643512167778 45 0 f4144157 3561 1 9,
- 5. 0 , ,
81 3 1 8 m - 2196239800740860 5 05 656523495 65 37 2 13,131 9 8,5, 31 2, 78 , 1 1 22 0 1
- 3S57888937760172 6 00 2S2 8000 536 117 1
_. 67 173 317, 11 9, 21 5
- 3247110504090176 0 00 64224829 038 153 2 56 1 5 4 1 7,
1 A - _ 4088707005000301 3 T 2 5 262 d 42 44 1 A D 5. 4i 3 1 1 1 NT ON IE TM
- 5840479003037861 5 UE) 05 8 34124 1 32 4 BLd 1 4 8 6 IEe 44
_ S - R t ) _ L 6 tac i 2 O SEe m
- A IRj (
O R 7 DAo - 8708350000000335 2 f E r e50 31 211 1 582 8 o E NRP c 1 23 8 S L OE n34 1 B B IP0 a R A T 1 t T AS0 s LN2 i
- 4700700000030911 2 UO( D05 3 1 912 9 PS 70, 8, OR 33 PE 1 1 P
2 C - 0090006300000530 6 A 50 42 8 R 21 3 C 23
- 8932060O00002018 9 05 1312 2 11 4 1 1 3 22
_. - 8078600O00000091 9 50 9 11 7 1 1 3 12
- 6335000O60000098 0 05 2322 11 5 3 4 m.- 11
- O79O730O00000092 7 50 1 22 8 01
- OOOOOOoO00000000 O 05
. 00 7 t
n n l e io a m O i D t c e r E E E E W W W W NEN SES SWS NWN no NNNEEESSSSSWWWNN v rl ea tt iT l e S p p u
, j l 1l. k 3 2 ;; ; ;;lii1ij' ijjg11ji ;ili1 , :i . ' < l Ii ; i$ ;i
- _ _ ~ - . ._. . . _ . . _ - -. ,_ ._. - _ _ - _. _- _. ._ - . _ _ . - _ _
.I 4
! RBS ER-OLS 4 TABLE 7A.6-6 (Cont) I 1 i Distance (ml] 10.0- 12.5- 15.0- 17.5- 20.0- 25.0- 30.0- 35.0- 40.0- 45.0- Sector Direction 12.5 15.0 17.5 2LD 21.Q 30.0 35.0 40.0 !!L.Q 50.0 Totals l N 193 237 258 3J8 2,156 1,019 693 825 2,142 2,690 12,025 2.7 ! NNE 120 145 177 288 715 522 695- 1,888 1,441 1,248- 8,011 2.8 { NE 753 972 919 1,207 984 3,125 935 2,210 2,136 1,587 18,622 2.9
- ENE 1,320 1,137 1,327 2,118 3,557 1,403 1,367 1,233 1,357 2,289 19,133 2.10 E 928 1,162 1,184 1,262 3,487 4,521 1,445 1,950 3,248 15,100 34,727 2.11 i ESE 5,000 6,300 6,843 7,513 18,980 10,285 10,413 12,678 11,022 15,043 105,296 2.12
, SE 5,836 10,137 19.431 18,133 43,907 105,901 47,227 31,012 27,789 14,888 -327,534 2.13
! SSE 3,931 3,883 7,572 30,403 116,187 131,130 30,570 17,092 21,959 21,984 385,278 2.14
. S 628 855- 1,186 1,475 3,122 6,311 11,834 4,042 2,333 3,655 36,771 2.15 t SSW 948 903 953 1,266 4,244 926 479 3,450 5,225 5,540 25,643 2.16 j SW 1,272 819 679 2,070 1,394 1,965 4,136 4,653 9,681 20,868 53,214 2.17 WSW 639 461 332 537 1,065 2,516 1,715 4,927 10,285 38,008 66,089 2.18 1 W 110 275 1,208 311 1,421 2,846 1,782 1,599 3,153 3,574 16,288 2.19 WNW 96 261 211 300 978 1,124 4,167 2,565 4,550 11,332 26,942 2.20 NW 117 100 144 2,253 6,135 652 794 1,212 2,273 2,967 19,383 2.21 i NNW 211 292 342 300 539 648 769 1,098 1,417 1,664 8,326 2.22 1
I j i nte rva l 2.24 Total 22,102 27,939 42,766 69,744 208,871 274,894 119,021 92,404 110,011 162,437 1,163,282 2.25 1 1 l 1 i 1 i NOTES: 1. Figures are based on the 1980 census projected to 2010 (References 39, 40, 41, 41A, 42).
- 2. F igu re s include a small portion of Mississippi, which is cut by the 80-km (50-mi) i radius a round the site.
- 3. Sector designations correspond to those used in Figure 7A.6-1.
l Supplement 7 2 of 2 January 1984 i l 4 i I I
-._ - . _ _ _ ____. . _ . . --_ - = , . _ - _ . . .
RBS ER-OLS TABLE 7A.6-7 CRAC2 METEOROLOGICAL BIN DATA
SUMMARY
WIND DIRECTION METB1!f I g } 11 5 fi I A 2 IQ H Jg 11 ,1)f 15 Ifi Total Pe rcent 1 R 0 26 22 23 24 17 13 23 31 33 29 66 60 45 60 - 30 539 6.1530 2R 5 3 14 11 14 10 2 5 6 3 6 ~ 378 11 16 14 10 14 137 1.5639 3R 10 13 10 7 17 12 6 9 6 12- 8 10 14 26 22 23 15 210 2.3973 4 R 15 12 15 13 14 14 3 3 6 9 8 8 8 26 28 28 26 221 2.5228 5 R 20 11 7 6 84 13 8 8 3 7 4 5 12 If 214 27 19 177 2.0205 6 R 25 8 16 9 11 9 6 5 6 5 3 8 8 25 16 22 21 178 2.0320 7 R 30 17 7 4 11 7 6 4 8 9 8 11 11 27 'O 10 20 180 2.0548 8 S 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 8 0.0913 9 S 15 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0.0228 [ 10 S 20 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 '2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.0571 11 S 25 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0.0228 12 S 30 0 0 0 1 1 to O 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 0.1027 .l 13 C 3 95 87 100 151 153 75 79 55 68 62 53 31 101 111 88 79 1388 15.8447 6 14 C 4 13 12 2 11 11 40 38 43 33 13 14 3 4 14 49 18 318 3.6301 1 15 D 1 5 10 10 8 3 7 9 2 5 11 9 12 13 16 6 5 131 1.8954 4 a 16 D 2 27 22 31 37 30 21 36 31 42 10 4 62 47 78 73 14 7 32 656 7.84886 ] 17 D 3 39 20 12 11 19 18 35 70 65 40 51 32 28 17 50 38 545 6.2215 1 18 D 4 26 19 2 1 7 22 37 85 64 24 10 18 1 4 28 37 385 4.3950 i 19 D 5 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 9 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 20 14 0 0.14566 20 E 1 98 78 36 42 13 17 7 16 16 22 42 61 914 92 50 41 725 8.2763 21 E 2 59 38 26 23 32 31 30 31 84 1 59 7 84 71 9 14 85 110 67 871 9.9429 l} 22 E 3 20 7 9 6 1 14 16 22 23 40 50 29 23 17 16 42 21 355 4.0525 23 E 14 1 6 1 0 4 26 20 30 14 5 5 1 1 84 18 9 145 1.6553
- 2f4 E 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 84 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0.0799 1
25 F 1 67 69 84 96 93 9 14 61 55 47 68 68 93 198 116 96 67 1372 15.6621 26 F 2 3 3 6 2 20 18 10 11 6 8 21 12 10 10 6 4 150 1.7123 27 F 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.C457 i 28 F 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0000
- 29 F 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0000 i All 543 452 392 486 486 443 449 536 520 470 525 534 838 729 774 583 8760 100.0 4
1 1 Supplement 7 1 of 2 Janua ry 198!4 4 i
\% N./
) s_/
RBS ER-OLS TABLE 7A.6-7 (Cont) KEY TO METBIN DESCRIPTION: R = Rain within intervals (mi); e.g., R 5 means rain within 5 mi of the site. S = Wind slowdowns within intervals (mi); e.g., S 10 means a wind slovdown within 10 mi of the site. C, D, E, F = Stability Categories 1 (0-1), 2 (1-2), 3 (2-3), 4 (3-5), 5 (>5) = Wind speed intervals (m/sec) used in combination with stability categories. NOTES: 1. This table represents the number of hours that the weather conditions described by each bin occurred with the wind blowing toward each sector.
- 2. This table is based upon site hourly measurements made f rom Janua ry 1, 1978, through December 31, 1978.
- 3. Wind directions are given by sector numbers. Each sector is 221/2 deg in arc and is centered on the 16 compass points. Sector 1 is centered on north and sector 2 is immediately clockwise (NNE). Wind speeds were measured at a height of 10 m.
- 4. The metbin categorizations are made automatically by the CRAC2 code.
Supplement 7 2 of 2 Janua ry 1984
RBS ER-OLS I T TABLE 7A.6-8
%_)
CRAC2 RESULT SENSITIVITIES CCDF Sensitivities (2' Early Late Economic (8' Parameter <t> Effects Effects Effects Release category Major Major Major probability Magnitude of released Major Major Major activity Release timing (beginning Major Low Low warning, duration) Magnitude of heat Moderate Low Low released to Major Weather conditions (wind Major Moderate Moderate direction, wind speed, rainfall, deposition, and dispersion conditions) D. .( ) Evacuation timing (warning and delay) Major Low Low
-Evacuation parameters Moderate Low Low (speed, radius evacuated, sheltering models)
(1'Other parameters such as dose conversion factors, dose threshold data, atid other health physics parameters can also have major or moderate effects upon CCDFs. However, these parameters are not plant- or site-dependent and are the same data that was used in the RSS. The parameters listed in this table are all plant or site specific. (2'The above sensitivites (major, moderate, low) are quali-tative in nature. ca> Economic effects is the total cost associated with a postulated accident including contributions due to land interdiction, relocation, decontamination, and evacuation. SOURCE: NUREG/CR-2300 (Reference 37) Supplement 7 1 of 1 January 1984
i RBS ER-OLS
/T TABLE 7A.6-9 V
COMPARISON OF EARLY INJURY AND LATENT FATALITIES BETWEEN RBS AND OVERALL U.S. This table provides the additional acute injury and latent fatality risk information associated with reactor accidents at RBS over normal risks borne by the population within a 50-mi radius. Early Illness Probability of individual early illness (per reactor-year): U.S. overall(2) . 3.6 x 10-2 RBS(2): 3.07 x 10-8 Latent Fatality Probability of individual latent cancer fatality:
.rg U.S. Overall: 5.47 x 10-2 per year RBS(4): 1.52 x 10-' per year (2) Based on RSS data of 8 million injuries per year from all accidents. The population of the U.S. is assumed to be 225 million.
(2) Based on 3.57 x 10-2 mean number of acute injuries within 50 mi of RBS divided by the population within 50 mi of RBS. This represents only the incremental contribution to acute injury due to reactor accidents (calculated using RSS Source Terms). ca> Based on the individual lifetime risk of cancer mortality
-from all causes of 16.4 percent from BEIR III (Reference 15),
divided by the assumed average remaining lifetime of 30 yr. (*) Based on 1.77 x 10-1 mean number of cancer fatalities within 50 mi of RBS per reactor year divided by the population within 50 mi of RBS. This represents only the incremental contribution to latent fatality due to reactor accidents (calculated using RSS Source Terms). Supplement 7 1 of 1 January 1984 O (O
) O ~
@ ADAMS C\,/
., ' A\\
COUNTY
,e' ,
FRANKL{ COUNTY O15 ONCOR 0l A ,,
.v
\-f C ATA H O U LA /
PAR: S H ARISH j f- (.
- p-- ..s * (
7 'L, 1 WI KIN S O N OUNTY 1 4
-,s.. ( r *{
- AVOYEL S = ~ = *
- P ARIS H *
) MIS S SSipg j ouTSlA sO gm f[ b.. , \
l h
' WE T F ICI NA j
PA (S (
..n . .
.~. a. ,
I
\ ] ,
EAST & gr PAPiSF gy , EVAN G ELIN E 3'
. I'k' s-n{gj ,
PARISH ,f New Roods POINTE C PEE '/ ST ORY arf
- E T BAT ROU P ARIS H I f7.\.s Ge.PARISH
,1 g%s.: ,
o (, ~L EST ATO N " ^"'"Q '
-' ROUGE
,I' N, .
tgP ARISH 4/
.t 'sL. _ 1
-M L AFAYETT E PARISH 7 g w, w~ --- q Q, r%
I B E R VILL E , S T. AR IN P A RISH O a RISH
- h3 f ~~
010 , i B btTd7, ~~ ASSUMPTION PA RIS H PARISH )
Also Xvailable On Aperture Card ch' _. . ( 50-Mi RADIUS sk A M IT E COUNTY lO PIKE COUNTY
,I. .. . _ _ . - .=
r - --
) .
t l I
, l TANGlPAHOA
'IANA ST.HELENA I PARISH l
, P ARISH ' 1 A .te C
_ . _ . _. ) i ( 1
} .) f ae j ( c {'; -
- -~
(.
~.
'N *
('.. .; LIVIN G STON P A RIS H
\ ,
,@(
? ? '? 's 2p 27 3p S C ALE - KILouETE RS
\
p ---- - -.} - eeeeeeremie SC ALE - MILE S
\
ASCENSION 'g
' PARISH '
m,.,e, - FEM M-1 O 50 MILE SITE REGION
. ~ . \g RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS 1 SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984 8401310297 -06
i O O O l WEATHER DATA I If DESCRIPTION & PE EVACUATION PROBABILITY - OF RADIOACTIVE p O l I I I i 4 U y
~ I I INVENTORY DEPL ION EFFECTS I I U If ) TOPOGRAPHY, GROUND ECONOMIC PROPERTY SPATIAL DATA T # RISK +
CONTAMINATION DATA -
~
DAMAGE
, I I 1
l j ADAPTED FROM:- NUREG 0340 (REFERENCE 36) I (1)I= USER INPUT .S2 (2) THE PROBABILITY CONSISTS OF:THE PROBABILITY OF RELEASE
- THE PROBABILITY J OF THE WEATHER SAMPLE OCCURING
- THE PROBABILITY OF POPULATION GROUPS
] BEING EXPOSED (A FUNCTION OF POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND WIND DIRECTION) CRAC2 CONSEQUENCE i MODEL SCHEMATIC k i RIVER BEND STATION ENVlRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
l 1
)
i 1 O 10 J p RSS w 10'# k m _ W _ 8 - 0 - 6 - oc E - D s 10 O E - l -
~
BMI- NO ACUTE FATALITIES PREDICTED I I i i I III i i i i i ilij i i i i iiilj' i I i i i iil 8 10 10' 10 10 10'
*X' NO. OF ACUTE FATALITIES NOTES:
- 1. THE RSS CURVE REPRESENTS ACUTE FATALITIES CALCULATED USING THE RSS BWR SOURCE TERMS FIGURE 7A.6-3 2.THE BMI CURVE REPRESENTS ACUTE FATALITIES CALCULATED USING THE REDUCED SOURCE TERMS ACUTE FATALITIES PROPOSED BY BATELLE MEMORIALINSTITUTE (BMI)
O (BATELLE-COLUMBUS) RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
1 l 104 O !
] ;
CC CC C CC - 9 9 P M iJ D y gj 104 _
%^
RSS w 0 - i f BMI E : O m cc . E
" 10-7 ~
N a : iii - 5 $ 0 Og 104 _ - A,
^
_ [ 104 . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . ..... . . . . ... C . . . . . . . 8 8 108 10' 102 10 10 105
'X' NO. OF LATENT FATALITIES
! NOTE:
- 1. THE RSS REPRESENTS LATENT FATALITIES CALCULATED
( USING THE RSS BWR SOURCE TERMS AS PRESENTED IN l SECTION 6 l 2. THE 13MI CURVE REPRESENTS LATENT FATALITIES CALCULATED USING THE REDUCED SOURCE TERMS PROPOSEL' BY BMI FIGURE 7A.6-4 LATENT FATALITIES .O RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
10'8 - RSS 4 S - ui : 0 - i - 5 - M m - O O 5 10 _ m - 5 a. I g - BMI 2 m 5 - 9 8 1 0-* - O ! ri 10-' i i i isai. . . i i i s ii i . . . iiii i i i eiise i i iisisi 2 10' 10' 10 10 3 10 8 108
'X' NO. OF ACUTE INJURIES NOTES:
1.THE RSS CURVE REPRESENTS ACTURE INJURIES CALCULATED USING THE RSS, BWR SOURCE TERMS AS PRESENTED IN SECTION 6 2.THE BMI CURVE REPRESENTS ACUTE INJURIES CALCULATED USING THE PROPOSED BMI REDUCED SOURCE TERMS FIGURE 7A.6-5 ACUTE INJURIES O RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRCNMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
C C CC C C C CCC e
~~
S %% Xh, ( i 'M k :
$ [
cc~ _ BMI cc _ e : e : 5 o. D " 3 _ iii :
- o :
[ _
~
)
L~ O !
"o i i i s a i si i i e i s iis i i i a i ii a e i iisin i i i i si n 10' 10' 10' 10 3 10 4 105
'X' NO. OF LATENT THYROID CANCERS NOTES:
- 1. THE RSS CURVE REPRESENTS LATENT THYROID CANCERS CALCULATED USING THE RSS, BWR SOURCE TERMS AS PRESENTED IN SECTION 6
- 2. THE BMI CURVE REPRESENTS 1.ATENT THYROID CANCERS CALCULATED USING THE PROPOSED BMI REDUCED SOURCE TERMS FIGURE 7A.6-6 LATENT THYROID CANCER O
RIVER BEND STATION - ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1934
104 _ l IE E%K : : : :; - o u IO IC E " " =" -, X os y :
~
.Y -
ui 9 104_; i i g : : e cc 0 ~ O
$ 10 7-_
EC : 5
- o. .-
2 X
~
D 3 - . iii 5 10-s_, o e
) e 10-8 . , . . . . . . , , ,
ii.nj , , , . .... , , , , , , ,
, .....i 10 8 107 10' 108 10" 10"
'X' COST (1980 DOLLARS)
LEGEND X RSS SOURCE TERMS W/O DECON Z RSS SOURCE TERMS W/DECON O BMI SOURCE TERMS W/O DECON Y BMI SOURCE TERMS W/DECON FIGURE 7A.6-7 TOTAL COST (1980 DOLLARS) O RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS i SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
10-4 _ O E
== == === = = ,
RSS
%" X "
4 Y 3 BMI' N - W h 10'_ U 1 5 m
- n. -
N E 107_ i
- )
E : 10-a _ n i 10 # i i 14 :41 l l 14 4 lll i l i stia i i i liiil I t illis 1 i i l iill l 103 10 8 10 5 10' 10 7 10s 10 9 i
'X' NO. TOTAL WHOLE-BODY MAN-REM NOTES:
- 1. THIS CURVE DOES NOT INCLUDE EXPOSURE TO THOSE PERSONS COUNTED AS ACUTE FATALITIES
- 2. THE RSS CURVE REPRESENTS TOTAL WHOLE-BODY MAN-REM CALCULATED USING THE RSS, BWR SOURCE TERMS AS PRESENTED IN SECTION 6
- 3. THE BMI CURVE REPRESENTS TOTAL WHOLE-BODY MAN-REM CALCULATED USING THE PROPOSED BMi REDUCED SOURCE TERMS FIGURE 7A.6-8 TOTAL WHOLE-BODY MAN-REM O
RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
s ;; o b 10-8 , D - ui - 0, - d - 5 - e tc 0 N uJ 10'# _- sc - 1
- a. -
g - 2 - RSS-BWR 8 O 10-8 RBS
)(
/
10 s . . issa i i i isisi i i i s i n ii i i i a s isi en i i i esisi 2 3 10' 10' 10 10 10* 10'
'X' NO. Or ACUTE FATALITIES NOTES:
1.THE RSS-BWR CURVE REPRESENTS ACUTE FATALITIES AS CALCULATED IN THE TASK REPORT ON THE INTERIM OPERATION OF INDIAN POINT NUREG 0715 USNRC AUG.1980 2.THE RBS CURVE REPRESENTS ACUTE FATALITIES CALCULATED USING THE RSS, BWR SOURCE TERMS AS PRESENTED IN SECTION 6 FIGURE 7A.6-9 ACUTE FATALITIES-BWR COMPARISON O RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
104_ N : M uuri r7 m _ --% n,, g 10-s_ M Z 5< 2 9 - i 5 4 104 _ I g - RSS.BWR ti< - g - RBS 5 n. b 104 _ _a = k ~ 8 - E 10 a _ 10 4 , , , ,,,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 10' 10 10' 10 3 10 8 10 5
'X' NO. OF LATENT FATALITIES NOTES:
- 1. THE RSS.BWR CURVE REPRESENTS LATENT FATALITIES AS CALCULATED IN THE TASK REPORT ON THE INTERIM l
OPERATION OF INDIAN POINT NUREG 0715 USNRC AUG.1900 l
- 2. THE RBS CURVE REPRESENTS LATENT FATALITIES CALCULATED USING THE RSS, BWR SOURCE TERMS AS PRESENTED IN SECTION 6 l
FIGURE 7A.6-10 l l LATENT FATALITIES-BWR COMPARISON !O RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS 1 SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
10 1 g 10 2
% g . ::: x d%
y 10 8 E U 5
$ 10
- e u.
O 10 5 0 10 8 10 ' 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 FATALITIES, x SOURCE: WASH - 1400 (RSS) NOTE:
- 1. DATA FOR HURRICANES, TORNADOES, AND EARTHQUAKES ARE BASED ON THE AVERAGE U.S. VALUES FOR EVENTS DURING 1900-1972, 1953-1971, and 1906-1971, RESPECTIVELY, DATA ARE TAKEN AS PRESENTED IN THE RSS.
- 2. RBS RESULTS SHOWN ARE CALCULt.TED USING RSS FIGURE 7A.6-11 SOURCE TERMS CCDFs COMPARISON OF RBS VERSUS OVERALL U.S. NATURALLY OCCURRING EVENT FATALITIES RISK RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS "M
SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
- - = . . _ -
10 44 9, 4 fc w
,0
't .,
+ 9 \
!c 'a ' -
**g ,
,,,,,+g \;,
W \ ,#, s \ " 10* * -- E
\
\
10 10 ** 10*' 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 l FATALITIES, a l SOURCE: WASH - 1400 (RSS)(REFERENCE 1) NOTE 1: FATALITIES DUE TO AUTO ACCIDENTS ARE NOT SHOWN BECAUSE DATA ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR LARGE CONSEQUENCE ACCIDENTS. AUTO ACCIDENTS CAUSE ABOUT 50.000 FATALITIES PER YEAR IN THE U.S. NOTE 2: RBS RESULTS SHOWN ARE CALCULATED USING RSS SOURCE TERMS FIGURE 7A.6-12 CCDF'S COMPARISON OF RBS VERSUS OVERALL U.S. MAN-CAUSED FATALITIES RISK RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984
O 1
\ i i
NATURAL EVENTS MAN CAUSED EVENTS 10 8 3 e < G \ E 10 5 I. E \ s a N i 0.. - 8 e. RBS 10
- 3 10 '
10* 10' 1 08 10' 10 10" PROPERTY D AM AGE (DOLLARS). X SOURCE: WASH - 1400 (RSS) (REFERENCE 1) NOTE 1: PROPERTY DAM AGE DUE TO AUTO ACCIDENTS IS NOT INCLUDED BECAUSE DATA ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR LOW PROBABILITY EVENTS. AUTO ACCIDENTS CAUSE ABOUT S15 BILLION DAMAGE EACH YEAR. NOTE 2: RBS RESULTS SHOWN ARE CALCULATED USING RSS SOURCE TERMS A FIGURE 7A.6-13 CCDF'S COMPARISON OF RBS VERSUS OVERALL U.S. PROPERTY DAMAGE RISK RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OLS SUPPLEMENT 7 JANUARY 1984 l
RBS ER-OLS O) ( v 7A.7 REFERENCES
- 1. Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants (WASH-1400).
NUREG-75/014, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, October 1975.
. 2. Reactor Safety Study Methodology Applications Program:
Grand Gulf Unit 1 BWR Power Plant. NUREG/CR-1659/ 4 of 4, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Sandia National Laboratories, Washington, DC, October 1981.
- 3. Deleted
- 4. Deleted
- 5. Deleted
- 6. Radionuclide Releases Under Specific LWR Accident Conditions. BMI-2104 Volutae III (Draft), Battelle Columbus Laboratories, July 1983.
- 7. Technical Guidance for Siting Criteria Development, NUREG/CR-2239, Sandia National Laboratories, November 1 1982.
.8. Morewitz, H. A., Fission Product and Aerosol Behaviour Following Degraded Core Accidents, Nuclear Technology, Vol. 53, No. 2, May 1981.
- 9. Mendoza, Z. T.; Stevens, C. A.; and Pitzman, R. L.;
Radiation Releases from the SL-1 Accident, Nuclear Technology, Vol. 53, No. 2, May 1981. i
- 10. Kemeny, J. G.; et al, Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, Washington, DC , October 1979.
- 11. Rogovim, M.; and Frampton, G. T.; Three Mile Island, A Report to the Commissioners and to the Public, USNRC i
Special Inquiry Group, January 1980. i 12. Morewitz, H. A., Fission Product and Aerosol Behaviour Following Degraded Core Accidents, Nuclear Technology, Vol. 53, No. 2, May 1981. l 13. Smith, R. R., Radiological Consequences of the BORAX /SPERT/SNAPTRAN Experiments, Nuclear Technology, Vol. 53, No. 2, May 1981. l Supplement 7 7A.7-1 January 1984 (m--) 1 l
RBS ER-OLS
- 14. Caiculations of Reactor Accidents Consequences -
Version 2 (CRAC2) Computer Code Users' Manual. NUREG/CR-2326, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Sandia National Laboratories, Washington, DC, March 1982.
- 15. The Effects on Populations of Exposures to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: 1980 Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR III). National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 1980.
- 16. Final Safety Analysis Report, River Bend Station.
Docket Nos. 50-458 and 50-459, Section 13.3. Amendment 10, September 1983.
- 17. Twisdale, Dunn, Chu, Tornado Missile Simulation and Risk Analysis. Meeting on Probabilistic Analysis of Nuclear Safety, ANS, Newport Beach, May 1978.
- 18. Regulatory Guide 1.76, Design Basis Tornado for Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April 1974.
- 19. Indian Point Probabilistic Safety Study, Power Authority of the State of New York, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Indian Point Units 2 and 3, Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, April 1982.
- 20. Structural Design Criteria for River Bend Station Units 1 and 2, Gulf States Utilities Company, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. Stone and Webster Specification No. 122:0/12330-200.010, dated August 3, 1983.
- 21. Tel-con between C. S. Ellis, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, and C. Cooper, PPG Industries, Pittsburgh, PA, February 9, 1983.
- 22. Letter from C. R. Cooper, PPG Industries, Pittsburgh, PA, to F. P. Maiuri, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Cherry Hill, NJ, dated February 12, 1982.
- 23. Tel-con between F. P. Maiuri, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Cherry Hill, NJ, and G. Shaw, Diamond-Shamrock Co., Dallas, TX, July 9, 1982.
- 24. Letter from J. E. Booker, Gulf States Utilities Company, Beaumont, TX , to H. R. Denton, U.S. Nuclaar Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, dated December 20, 1983.
Supplement 7 7A.7-2 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS m
- 25. Standard Technical Specifications for BWR 5.
NUREG-0123, Revision 3, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and General Electric Company, hashington, DC, Fall 1980.
- 26. Risk Assessment, Review Group Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comn.ission. NUREG/CR-0400, USNRC, September 1978.
- 27. Letter from W. R. Stratton, A. P. Malinauskas, and D. O.
Campbell?to NRC Chairman J. Ahearne dated August 14, 1980. s
- 28. Letter from C. Starr to NRC Commissioner J. Hendrie dated September 20, 1980.
- 29. Levenson, M. and Rahn, F. Realistic Estimates of the Consequences of Nuclear Accidents, Nuclear Technology, Vol. 53, May 1981.
- 30. Morewitz, H. Fission Product Releases from Degraded Core Accidents, Nuclear Technology, Vol. 53, May 1981.
- 31. Mendosa, Z. T.; Stevens, G. A.; and Ritzmann, R. L.
Radiation Release from the SL-1 Accident. Nuclear Technology, Vol. 53, May 1981. Oversight Committee to
~
- 32. Letter from Nuclear Safety President J. Carter dated December 21, 1980.
- 33. Campbell, D. O.; Malinauskas, A. P.; and Stratton, W. R.
The Chemical Behavior of Fission Product Iodine in Light Water Reactor Accidents, Nuclear Technology, Vol. 53, May 1981.
- 34. Bunz, H.; Schikarski, W.; and Schock, W. The Role of Aerosol Behaviour in Light Water Reactor Core Melt Accidents. Nuclear Technology, Vol. 53, May 1981.
4 ,
- 35. Recommended Source Term of Environmental Releases from Major LWR Accidents, NSA 81/008. Rodger, W. A. and
.Trepathi, R. R., Nuclear Safety Associates, September 1981.
- 36. . Wall, I. B., et al. Overview of the Reactor Safety Study Consequence Model. NUREG-0340, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 1977.
- 37. PRA Procedures Guide. NUREG/CR-2300, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, American Nuclear Society, and 7A.7-3 January 1984
[~) v Supplement 7 A
~' ^
'*- ' t --+e , ,.-rw. , -. - _
RBS ER-OLS Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Washington, DC, April 1982.
- 38. NUREG/CR-3108. Extended Burnup Calculations for Operating Reactor Reload Review, Nuclear Regttlatory Commission, February 1983.
- 39. Maruggi, V; Kemp, A; and Fletes, R. Interim Projections to 2000 for Louisiana and for Louisiana Parishes -
Series 1 Report. University of New Orleans Division of Business and Economic Research and the Louisiana State Planning Office. August 1982.
- 40. Sivia, T. B., Regional Economic Projection Series: U.S.
Regional Projections 1980-2000. National Planning Aesociation. REPF 80-R-1, Summary Table 6.5, Mississippi.
- 41. U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census.
Number of Inhabitants - Louisiana, 1980 Census of Population. PC 80-1-A20. Washington, DC. 41A.U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Number of Inhabitants - Mississippi, 1980 Census of Population. PC 80-1-A26. Washington, DC , January 1982.
- 42. Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation. Computer Program EN-253 Population Allocation Program. Boston, MA, September 1982.
- 43. Task Force Report on the Interim Operation of Indian Point. NUREG-0715, USNRC, August 1980.
- 44. Radiation Sources, GE Report 22A2703R, Rev. 6, No.
A62,4100, dated June 23, 1981.
- 45. A Model of Public Evacuation for Atmospheric Radiological Releases. SAND 78-0092, Sandia National Laboratories, June 1978.
- 46. Structure Shielding from Cloud and Fallout Gamma Ray Sources for Assessing the Consequences of Reactor Accidents. EGG-1181-1670, EG&G Inc., Las Vegas, NV, 1975.
- 47. Summary of U.S. Time Use Survey Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1966.
- 48. Public Protection Strategies for Potential Nuclear Reactor Accidents: Sheltering Concepts with Existing Supplement 7 7A.7-4 January 1984
6 i r w s
, s i RBS ER-OLS al N
() Public and Private Structures, National Laboratories, 1977. SAND 77-1725, Sandia 49."$olzworth, 'G . , c. Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and
\Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States. Environmental Protection N Agency, Publication No. AP-101, Washington, DC, 1972.
, 50. U.S. Department of Com erce, Bureau of the Census. 1978
, Census of Agriculture, Volume 1, State and County Data, j Part 18, State of Louisiana' (AC78-A-18).
- 51. U.S. Department of- Commelce , Bureau of the Census.
County and City Data Book, 1977'.
- 52. U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstracts of
; the United States,,- 1982-1983.
- 53. Burke, R. P., Economic. Risks of Nuclear Power Reactor Accidents. PhD Thesis;- Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nuclear Engineering Department, October 1983, s
- 54. g.S. Department 'of Commerce, Fureau, of the Census.
Property Values Subject; to Local General Property y'"} Taxation in the United States: 1978 State and Local 1979 (,) Government Special Studies, No. 92, June
'(C3.145:92).
- 55. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1977 Census of Governments, Volume 2: Taxable Property Values and Assessment / Sales Price Ratios, November 1978
, (C3.145/4:977/V2).
56.yNational Bureau of Economic Research, 1971, Institutional Investors Study Report of the Securities
'and Exchange Commission. Supplementary Volume 1, 92nd Congress, 1st Sescicn, House Document No. 92-64, Part 6.
s Supplement 7 7A.7-5 January 1984 (a - e J
RBS ER-OLS ! l b i i i P l l l APPENDIX 7B LIQUID PATHWAY CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS . l l l Supplement 7 January 1984 i l l
RBS ER-OLS APPENDIX 7B v
]
LIQUID PATHWAY CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 7B.1 INTRODUCTION 7B.1-1 7B.2 GENERAL APPROACH AND SCOPE OF ANALYSIS 7B.2-1 7B.3 HYDROSPHERIC DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 7B.3-1 7B.4 DETERMINATION OF RIVER BEND STATION KEY PARAMETERS 7B.4-1 78.4.1 Distance to Surface Waterbody 7B.4-1 7B.4.2 Retention Factor (Retardation) for Ion Exchange in Soil 7B.4-1 7B.4.3 Groundwater Velocity 7B.4-1 7B.4.4 River Flowrate 7B.4-3 7B.4.5 Affec',ed Drinking Water Population 7B.4-4 7B.4.6 Fish "atch 7B 4-4 73 7B.4.7 P4"a jShoreline Usage 7B.4-4 7B.4.8 Other Parameters 78.4-5 () 7B.5 COMPARISON AND SCALING OF LPGS AND RBS PARAMETERS 7B.5-1 7B.6 CONCLUSIONS 7B.6-1 7B.7 REFERENCES 7B.7-1
"'g Supplement 7 7B-i January 1984 (Q
RBS ER-OLS APPENDIX 7B LIST OF TABLES Table Number Title s 7B-1 KEY HYDROLOGICAL, SOIL MECHANICS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS FOR THE RIVER BEND SITE AND THE LPGS LARGE RIVER SITE 7B-2
SUMMARY
OF DOSE SCALING FACTORS O Supplement 7 7B-ii January 1984
RBS ER-OLS s APPENDIX 7B LIQUID PATHWAY CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS 7B.1 Introduction In this appendix, the potential environmental impact of a release of radioactivity to the hydrosphere due to a core melt (Class 9) accident is analyzed. The River Bend plant systems and structures have been designed to specifically preclude this type of release; however, in the unlikely event that such a s9 Vere accident occurs, the station is fully equipped with a complement of emergency safety features which are designed to prevent and mitigate the effects and consequences of such an event. In order for such a release to represent a potential hazard, the radioactivity must penetrate the underlying plant structure of the reactor building, travel through the groundwater to the nearest surface waterbody, in this case the Mississippi River, and then disperse and enter the drinking water and food chain pathways. s l
i Supplement 7 7B.1-1 January 1984 (d
u
RBS ER-OLS ['L.J') 7B.2 General Approach and Scope of Analysis The Liquid Pathway Generic Study tt> (LPGS) pr: ' ides a detailed hydrospheric transport and dose model for severe accident releases into the groundwater and surface waterbodies adjacent to commercial nuclear power plants. Five types of surface waterbody sites were analyzed: large free-flowing river, small river with dammed reservoirs, large lake, estuary, and ocean. Both land-based and floating nuclear power plants were analyzed. In this analysis the key River Bend Station hydrologic, soil mechanics, and environmental parameters affecting releases of radioactivity to the hydrosphere will be compared with the same parameters for the LPGS land-based plant sited on a large free-flowing river. In this manner, scaling factors for the LPGS large river site population doses can be calculated, and a comparison of the LPGS large river doses with the estimated River Bend Station doses can be made. The parameters which will be compared are listed as follows:
- 1. Distance from reactor to surface waterbody
- 2. Reactor thermal power
- 3. Groundwater velocity
,a ( ) 4. Retention factors (retardation) for ion exchange in soil
- 5. River flowrate
- 6. Sedimentation rate
- 7. Equilibrium coefficient for Cs-137 in the surface waterbody
- 8. Affected drinking water population
- 9. River fish catch
- 10. River / shoreline usage Because of the typically long travel times involved in reaching the surface waterbody, the only two isotopes of interest are Cs-137 and Sr-90. These isotopes have half-lives of 30.1 and 29.0 years respectively. Because of the effects of soil retardation (due to icn exchange), all other radionuclides are assumed to have decayed to negligible activities by the time the contamination reaches the surface waterbody.
('N Supplement 7 7B.2-1 January 1984 Q
RBS ER-OLS () 7B.3 In Hydrospheric Description of the Site the site vicinity, groundwater is available from the Holocene Mississippi River alluvial deposits, from the Lower Pleistocane and Holocene terrace deposits, and from Tertiary sands. The Alluvial Aquifer consists of Holocene and Pleistocene deposits which underlie the present floodplain of the Mississippi River. These deposits overlie the deposits composing the Upland Terrace Aquifer and Tertiary Aquifers. The Alluvial Aquifer is hydraulically connected to the Mississippi River, and the Upland Terrace Aquifer is hydraulically connected to the Alluvial Aquifer. The water i levels of these two aquifers fluctuate in response to changes in the river stage. A more detailed description of the groundwater characteristics of the site is contained in Section 2.3.1.2 and FSAR Section 2.4.13. The surface waterbody of interest is the Mississippi River. River Bend Station is located approximately 2 mi from the river bank, above the river floodplain on an elevated, gently sloping terrain at Rive'r Mile 263. The plant is separated from the river by a natural levee formed above the river bank and by the lower floodplain area. All station structures and safety-related equipment are located on the upper terrace, ground surface of which is over 95 ft msl. A complete description of the Mississippi River may be found ((~x,) in Section 2.3.1.1 and FSAR Section 2.4.1.2. 4 Supplement 7 7B.3-1 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS Determination of River Bend Station Key Parameters [] v 7B.4 78.4.1 Distance to Surface Waterbody The distance from the reactor building to the river bank is 10,300 feet (FSAR Table 2.4-35). 78.4.2 Retention Factor (Retardation) for Ion Exchange in Soil As the radionuclides travel through soil, chemical adsorption phenomena will tend to retard their progress. In order for the soil /radionuclide chemistry to be effective, the contaminants must physically contact the soil particles. Therefore, the degree of retardation is governed by the various physical proporties such as bulk soil density, aquifer porosity, and species distribution coefficient. The soil retardation factors for Cc-137 and Sr-90 are calculated using the formula (FSAR Section 2.4.13.3.4): PK dd R<d " 1
- ne where:
~S O R =S il retardation factor, dimensionless d
p " ""* Y * * ! d Kd = Sr-90 Distribution coefficient for Cs-137 and
= 1.602 ft 3 /lb and 0.320 ft 3 /lb, respectively n
e = Effective aquifer porosity = 28 percent The values of p, K , and n e used may be found in FSAR Table 2.4-35. The resultant values of Rd "#* Rd( Cs-13 7 ) = 715 Rd( S r-90 ) = 144 7B.4.3 Groundwater Velocity Without accounting for the effects of soil retardation of Cs-137 and Sr-90, the groundwater velocity following the hydraulic gradient to the Mississippi River is 3.24 ft/ day. The methodology for this calculation and definition of soil and aquifer parameters may be found in FSAR
~] Supplement 7 7B.4-1 January 1984 m)
RBS ER-OLS Section 2.4.13.3. When soil retardation of Cs-137 and Sr-90 are incorporated, the groundwater velocities are 4.52 x 10-2 ft/ day for Cs-137 and 2.26 x 10-2 ft/ day for Sr-90. These values were calculated using the same methodology as the groundwater velocities without soil retardation, except that the horizontal seepage velocity and the dispersion coefficients were divided by the soil retention factors as follows:
, lL u =Rd Kx K'x = R-d bZ K'y = Rd where:
u' = Corrected horizontal seepage velocity to the river bank in ft/sec u = Uncorrected horizontal seepage velocity h to the river bank = 3.7 x 10-5 ft/sec K'x , K'y = Corrected dispersion coefficients in ft 2/sec Kx , K y = Uncorrected dispersion coefficients
= 2.6 x 10-3 ft 2 /sec, 7.8 x 10-4 ft 2 /sec The distribution coefficients (Kg) used to calculate the soil retardation factors were derived from an extensive literature search (2,3,4,s'. These values are at the low end of the range of distribution coefficients given by Isherwood'8) .
The soil permeability, K, was computed from pumping tests performed at the site for the Upland Terrace Aquifer. The tests are fully described in Section 2.4.13.2.4 and Appendix 2A of tne FSAR. The pumping tests revealed a coefficient of transmissivity, T, for the Upland Terrace Aquifer of 184,000 gpd/ft. The aquifer permeability is calculated as follows: K = I x 4.72 x 10-5 H Supplement 7 7B.4-2 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS
, i where: i
/ '
K = Aquifer permeabilty (cm/sec) T = Aquifer coefficient of transmissivity (gpd/ft) H = Aquifer thickness (ft) 4.72 x 10-5 = unit conversion factor to cm/sec from _ gal day-ft 2 Therefore: K = 0.087 cm/sec 4 The groundwater velocities will be used to calculate travel times to the river, which will in turn be used to calculate the exponential decay of Cs-137 and Sr-90 during the period when these isotopes are traveling through the aquifer to the river. The radioactive decay factor (RDF) will be expressed as follows: N g RDF = H{ = exp (-At) b where: RDF = Radioactive decay factor N = Amount of each isotope remaining after time t N o = Initial amount of each isotope l A = Radioactive decay constant for each isotope (equal to 0.693/ isotope half-life) t' = Groundwater travel time i 7B.4.4 River Flowrate i FSAR Section 2.4.1.2.1 states that the mean flowrate in the Mississippi River is 447,000 cfs based on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Geological Survey data at Red River Landing, LA (River Mile 302). This value reflects data f recorded since the 1920s. ? l l Supplement 7 7B.4-3 January 1984 l
RBS ER-OLS 7B.4.5 Affected Drinking Water Population l The population affected by the liquid pathway release are those persons who draw drinking water from the Mississippi River downstream of the River Bend site. The closest drinking water intake is in Donaldsville, LA, River Mile 175.5, serving approximately 10,000 consumers. This drinking water is pumped from the river into Bayou LaFourche, and then drawn for treatment and distribution. The nearest downstream direct municipal water intake is located in Convent, LA, at River Mile 154.1 serving St. James Parish. The largest downstream users of the Mississippi River as a municipal drinking water supply are Jefferson and Orleans Parish. The water boards for these two parishes serve a combined population of approximately 1.0 million persons'73 and each receives 100 percent of its water from the river. Therefore, an affected drinking water population value of 1.0 million will be used. 7B.4.6 Fish Catch In Table 2.3-12 a commercial finfish harvest of 6.624 x 106 lb and shellfish harvest of 6.755 x 106 lb was reported for the year 1975 in the State of Louisiana on the Mississippi River. The Mississippi River length in Louisiana is approximately 500 mi. This is equivalent to 2.68 x 106 lb/yr of finfish per 100 mi of river per year. There is no organization in the State which keeps records on recreational finfish harvest. 7B.4.7 River / Shoreline Usage Due to the swiftness of the currents and the intensive industrialization of the Mississippi River downstream of the River Bend site by the petrochemical and marine industries, the river downstream of the site is generally not used for recreational purposes. Refineries and other industrial complexes (such as paper mills and power plants) line the river on both sides, resulting in a large amount of barge traffic. Additionally, Baton Rouge and New Orleans are major, international ports, resulting not only in intensive barge traffic, but also in frequent transits by large oceangoing ships. Therefore, river and shoreline usage downstream of the River Bend site is limited to waterborne commerce. Accordingly, swimming and recreational boating downstream of the site are ignored. Table 2.3-11 details barge traffic past the River Bend site. In 1977, 162,000 rivercraft, transporting 30,000 persons passed the site. If Supplement 7 7B.4-4 January 1984 1
RBS ER-OLS
/~'N each barge trip is assumed to consume an average of (ms/ 12 hours, then 360,000 user-hr per year of river use occurred in 1977 due to commercial transportation on the river.
7B.4.8 Other Parameters The thermal power output of the River Bend plant is 28E MWt. This parameter will be used to adjust the source term in the LPGS. The curie content of the River Bend core is based on ratioing the LPGS core curie conter_t with respect to power level. Sedimentation effects in the Mississippi River will be ignored. This is a conservative assumption for the Mississippi River in Louisiana. However, because the Mississippi River is a large free-flowing river and the sedimentation characteristics would be constantly changing, the effects of radioactivity becoming buried in river silt will not be incorporated. This is the same assumption used in the LPGS for a large free-flowing river. The equilibrium distribution coefficient for Cs-137 in a large free-flowing river is assumed to be 85,000 cc/ gram. This is the same value used in the LPGS. O j..
/N Supplement 7 7B.4-5 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS !~ l ) 7B.5 Comparison and Scaling of LPGS and RBS Parameters V Table 7B-1 provides a comparison of LPGS large river site l and RBS parameters which are most important to severe accident releases to the hydrosphere. The distance to the surface waterbody, and groundwater velocity combine to yield a travel time to the river of 8.72 years for Cs-137 and Sr-90. This compares with an average travel time of 0.61 years in the LPGS. Therefore, the time that it takes for activity to migrate to the surface waterbody is 14.3 times longer at the RBS site than at the LPGS large river site. For RBS, when the effects of soil retardation are incorporated, these travel times are increased markedly to 6,243 years for Cs-137 and 1,249 years for Sr-90. The travel times with soil retardation were not explicitly given in the LPGS; however, the soil retention " factors for RBS are 8.6 times the LPGS value for Cs-137, and 15.6 times the LPGS value for Sr-90. Therefore, the travel times with soil retardation for RBS will exceed the calculated LPGS travel times. Without soil retention, the travel time for Cs-137 and Sr-90 represents 0.30 half-lives. At the River Bend site, with soil retention, the travel time for Cs-137 represents 207.4 half-lives while the travel time for Sr-90 represents 42.9 half-iives. Therefore, with soil retention accounted for, negligible amounts of Cs-137 or Sr-O 90 will reach the river. This assumes half-lives of 30 years and 29 years for Cs-137 and Sr-90 respectively. The flowrate in the Mississippi River used is 447,000 cfs l which is 3.19 times the LPGS large river flow rate. There-fore, more dilution would occur in the river for activity deposited at the River Bend site. The affected drinking water population downstream of the River Bend site is assumed to be 1.0 million persons. The LPGS large river population value is 100,000. Therefore, it is assumed that an accident at River Bend will expose 10 times as many people as the LPGS release. t . The thermal power of the River Bend plant is 0.90 times the thermal power rating of the LPGS reactor which is the generic 3200-MWt PWR used in the Reactor Safety Study
-(WASH-1400). Therefore, a severe accident release at RBS starts with only 90 percent of the LPGS initial core inventory of radioactivity.
The annual fish catch in the Mississippi River downstream of the River Bend site is 2.68 x 106 lb/yr per 100 miles of river length. This value is 17.9 times the LPGS value. The
/~N Supplement 7 7B.5-1 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS River Bend value includes both commercial finfish and shellfish harvests. It does not include recreational catches. The LPGS value includes commercial and recreational finfish catches, but ignores shellfish. Shellfish in Louisiana account for nearly half of the total aquatic food harvest. Nearly all of the Mississippi River shellfish caught in Louisiana are crawfish. The river / shoreline usage of the Mississippi River downstream of the River Bend site is assumed to be exclusively commercial waterborne transportation. This constitutes only 360,000 user-hours per year which is 7.83 percent of the LPGS large river shoreline usage value. Also, the type of activity assumed in the LPGS is mostly recreational in nature such as boating, hunting, fishing, etc. Such activity brings the user into closer contact with the contaminated water and will result in a higher dose than the dose received by individuals engaged in watorborne commerce. Except to perform maintenance on their craft and perform such functions as line-handling, these people should not receive as high a dose as recreational users. Also, any rivercraft made of steel will provide extra shielding while the users are aboard their craft. For these reasons, the shoreline activity pathway will not be considered here. The scaling factor for the drinking water pathway, SF is defined as the multiplication of River Bend key drinking water exposure parameters to LPGS key drinking water exposure parameters. Numerically, it is calculated as follows: SFd w = RBS radioactive decay factor x LPGS river flowrate LPGS radioactive decay factor RBS river flowrate x RBS drinking water population x RBS thermal power LPGS drinking water population LPGS plant thermal power For the aquatic food pathway, the scaling factor SF is defined in the same manner, except that those parameters important to aquatic food ingestion are used. Numerically, SF aq is defined as: SF = RBS radioactive decay factor x LPCS river flowrate
#9 LPGS radioactive decay factor RBS river flowrate x RBS aquatic food harvest x RBS thermal power LPGS aquatic food harvest LPGS plant thermal power Supplement 7 7B.5-2 January 1994
RBS ER-OLS O For Cs-137 and Sr-90 without soil retardation, SF " and SF #9 are calculated as follows: SFdw = exp[-(.693/30 yr)(8.72 yr)] x 1.40 x 105 cfs exp[-(.693/30 yr)(.61 yr)] 4.47 x 105 cfs x 1.0 x 10s persons x 2894 MWt 100,000 persons 3200 MWt
= 2.35 SF"9 =expl-(.693/30 exp[-(.693/30yr)(.61 yr)(8.72 yr)] x 1.40 yr)]
x 105 cfs 4.47 x 105 cfs x 2.68 x 108 lb x 2894 MWt 1.5 x 105 lb 3200 MWt
= 4.20 With soil retardation incorporated, SFdw and SFaq are calculated as follows for Cs-137 and Sr-90
= exp[-(.693/30 yr)(6250 yr)] x 1.40 x 105 cfs SFdw (CS-137) exp[-(.693/30 yr)(51 yr)] 4.47 x 105 cfs x 1.0 x 108 persons x 2894 MWt O_j 100,000 persons 3200 MWt
=0
= exp[-(.693/29 yr)(1250 yr)] x 1.40 x 105 cfs SFdw (Sr-90) exp[-(.693/29 yr)(5.7 yr)] 4.47 x 105 cfs x 1.0 x 108 persons x 2984 MWt 100,000 persons 3200 MWt
=0 Supplement 7 7B.5-3 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS SF
^9 (Cs-137) =expl-(.693/30 exp[-(.693)/30yr)(51 yr)(6250 yr)]
yr)] x 1.40 x 105 cfs 4.47 x 105 cfs x 2.68 x 108 lb x 2894 MWt 1.5 x 105 lb 3200 MWt
=0 SF 89 '
(Sr-90) = exp[-(.693/29 yr)(1250 yr)] x 1.40 x 105 cfs exp[-(.693/29 yr)(5.7 yr)] 4.47 x 105 cfs x 2.68 x 108 lb x 2894 MWt 1.5 x 105 lb 3200 MWt
= 0 The values of travel time for Cs-137 and Sr-90 (51 years and 5.7 years, respectively) for the generic large river site were taken from NUREG-07774S' where it is stated that these are "LPGS" values.
The scaling factors are summarized in Table 7B-2. O Supplement 7 7B.5-4 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS
<s / 1 TABLE 7B-1 V
KEY HYDROLOGICAL, SOIL MECHANICS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS FOR THE RIVER BEND SITE AND THE LPGS LARGE RIVER SITE Parameter LPGS Value RBS Value Distance from reactor centerline to surface waterbody 1500 ft 10,300 ft Groundwater velocity ct: 6.7 ft/ day 3.24 ft/ day Retention factors for ion exchange in soil 83 (Cs-137) 715 (Cs-137) 9.2 (Sr-90) 144 (Sr-90) River flowrate 1.40x10s cfs 4.47x105 cfs Sedimentation rate 0 0 Equilibrium distribution coefficient (K d) for Cs-137 in surface waterbody 85,000 cc/ gram 85,000 cc/ gram Drinking water population 100,000 1,000,000 Reactor thermal power 3200 MWt 2894 MWt T Fish harvest'2) 150,000 lb/yr 2.68x108 lb/yr per 100 mi per 100 mi Shoreline / river usage'3) 1.3x108 user-hr zero user-hr swimming swimming 4.6x108 user-hr 3.6x105 user-hr other other activities activities
'1) Groundwater velocities shown are without effects of soil :
retardation due to ion exchange.
<2> Fish harvest values include commercial and recreational finfish and shellfish where those values are available.
Values are given in lb per year per 100 miles of river. ca>RBS shoreline activities value includes only waterborne commercial transportation estimates. Supplement 7 7B.5-5 January 1984 (} V
RBS ER-OLS TABLE 7B-2
SUMMARY
OF DOSE SCALINC FACTORS Pathway Scaling Factor No Retardation Cs-137'1) Sr-90'1) Drinking Water 2.35 0.0 0.0 Aquatic Food 4.20 0.0 0.0 O (2)The values for Cs-137 and Sr-90 include soil ion exchange retardation effects. Supplement 7 7B.5-6 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS [} 7B.6 Conclusions The scaling factors calculated in Section 7A.5 indicate that with soil retardation effects, the doses due to a Class 9 accident release to the River Bend hydrosphere will be far less than the core melt release doses calculated in the LPGS
-for a land-based nuclear power plant situated on a large free-flowing river. Therefore, the same conclusions reached in the LPGS regarding the health and environmental impacts of severe accident releases to the hydrosphere also apply to the River Bend site. These conclusions are:
- 1. Both source and pathway interdiction are possible.
Although such actions could incur large costs and possibly cause some socioeconomic effects (such as restricting fishing and marine traffic temporarily), they would be effective in containing the impacts to limited and controllable areas.
- 2. Liquid , pathways are not nearly ao significant contributors to risk as the atmospheric pathway.
Doses predicted for liquid pathways are much lower than those predicted for atmospheric releases.
- 3. No acute fatalities are expected for hydrospheric releases, even when the same source term used in O the Reactor Fafety study is used, and interdiction of the source and exposure pathways is not undertaken. The radiological threat to public health is characterized by small increasas in exposure above natural background levels, which would create slight statistical increases in the normal occurences of latent effects such as cancer.
Interdiction, with its attendant costs of either the source or pathways, would be quite effective in reducing the number of predicted latent eftects such that the increases due to hydrospheric releases would be statistically indistinguishable from the normal variations in the overall cancer rate.
- 4. Effects on biotic ecosystems, both marine and agrarian, are expected to be minor. Recovery of these ecosystems is expected to take place within several years of exposure. Interdiction will limit the exposure of surrounding biota to small definable arers which can easily be monitored.
- 5. The socioeconomic impacts of uninterdicted releases to the Mississippi River could be extensive.
Supplement 7 7B.6-1 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS However, because most of the activity along the river downstream of the plant is industrial, the impacts are not expected to be as great as would be predicted for plants along the Eastern Seaboard where local economies rely heavily on seasonal recreational activities such as swimming, boating, fishing, and tourism. While industrial users of water from the river should feel the economic effects of monitoring and possibly cleanup, the facilities themselves should remain intact and productive. Since the estimated doses from severe accident releases to the hydrosphere at River Bend are less than those calculated in the LPGS for a similar site, the contribution from liquid pathway releases to the overall severe accident environmental risk is small. The overall risk due to severe accidents is dominated by atmospheric releases (see Appendix 7A), and this risk has been shown to be several orders of magnitude less than the risk due to other man-made and naturally occurring hazards. Accordingly, the contribution to overall environmental risk due to severe accident releases to the River Bend site hydrosphere is extremely low. Supplement 7 7B.6-2 January 1984
_ - ._ - ._ - . - . - _ _ - . _ . - = = __ RBS ER-OLS 7A.7 References
- 1. Liquid Pathway Generic Study - Impacts of Accidental i Radioactive Releases to the Hydrosphere from Floating and Land-Based Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0440, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 1978.
- 2. Glove, D. B., A Method to Describe the Flow of Radioactive Ions in Groundwater, Final Report, December 1, 1966, through June 30, 1968, Aerospace '
Safety TID-4500, 54th Edition, Category U-36(150), SC-CR-70-6139.
- 3. Inone, Y. and Monisawa, S., on the Selection of a Ground Disposal Site for Radioactive Waste; An Approach to Its Safety Evaluation, Health Physics, Pergamon Press, Volume 26, 1974.
I
- 4. Fenske, P. R., Prediction of Radionuclide Migration in i Groundwater. Chapter 6 of Technical Discussions of Offsite Safety Programs for Underground Nuclear Detonations, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nevada Operations Office, Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Co., Inc., Mercury, NV, December 1968.
4 ' 5. Inone, Y. and Kaufman, W., Production of Movement of s Radionuclides in Solution Through Porous Media, Health Physics, Pergamon Press, Volume 9, 1963.
- 6. Isherwood, D., Geoscience Data Base Handbook for Modeling a Nuclear Water Repository, NUREG/CR-0912, Volume 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, January 1981.
- 7. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Final Census Values for Jefferson and Orleans Parishes, State of Louisiana.
- 8. Reactor Safety Study -
An Assessment of the Accident ', Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1400, NUREG-75/014, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1975.
- 9. Final Environmental Statement relating to the Operation of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Docket Hos. 50-416 and 50-417, Mississippi Power and Light Co.,
NUREG-0777, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 1981. Supplement 7 7B.7-1 January 1984 f v
_. -_ _ _ . - . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . __ m _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ l RBS ER-OLS CHAPTER 7 i i QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES TABLE OF CONTENTS No. Supplement Q&R Question No. No. Page No. E450.1 7 7.1-1 i O . o f s Supplement 7 Q&R 7-1 January 1984
RBS ER-OLS rh (} QUESTION E450.1 (7.1.2) I i Provide a discussion of severe accident risks in accordance with the guidance in the Statement of Interim Policy. Although the NRC has not yet issued systematic guidance as to the information necessary, the staff has published several statements pu rsuant to the Statement of Interim Policy that may be used as guidance, e.g., NUREG - 0777, the DES (OL stage) for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, dated May 1981, at Section 5.9.2.
RESPONSE
The response to this request is provided in revised 7 Section 7.1.2 and Appendix 7A. 4 H l 1 l 1 Supplement 7 Q&R 7.1-1 January 1984 O V}}