ML20080L542
| ML20080L542 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 02/29/1984 |
| From: | GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080L514 | List: |
| References | |
| ENVR-840229, NUDOCS 8402160410 | |
| Download: ML20080L542 (272) | |
Text
._. _ _ _ _ __
VOGTLE OLSER INSERTION INSTRUCTIONS AMENDMENT 1, FEBRUARY 10, 1984
.Page/Section Instruction Table of Contents,.p. v through p. vii Replace
-O ~ 2.0 Table of Contents, p. 2-iii Replace through p. 2-vi
- p. 2.1-1 through p. 2.1-13! Replace
~
- t. 2.1-1 through 2.1-45 Replace g r^s
- t. 2.1-46 throuch-t.2.1-52 Add
'k- -
- f. 2.1-6 Replace
- f. 2.1-9 Replace
- p. 2.2-11 through p. 2.2-14 Replace
- p. 2.4-1 through p. 2.4-2 Replace
- p. 2.6-1; Replace
- p. 3.3-3 Replace
- f. 3.3-1 (Sheet 2 of 3) Replace
- f. 3.3-1 (Sheet.3 of 3) Reolace
- p. 3.4-1lthrough 3.4-4 Replace x -
- t. 3.4-1 (Sheet 2 of 2) Reo_ lace
- p. 3.6-1 thrdugh 3.6-8 Replace
- p. 3.6-9. Add
- p. 3.7-1 through 3.7-3 Replace 5.0 Table of. Contents, p. 5-iii Replace
.p. 5.1-l!through p. 5.1-4 Replace
- t. 5.1-1 (Sheet ~11of 2) Replace
- p. 5.2-1 through p. 5.2-8 Reolace
. - t. 5.2-1 through t. 5.2-4 Replace
- t. 5.2-5 throuch t. 5.2-8 Add
- p. 5.5-3 Replace
- p. 5.7-1 through p. 5.7-3 Replace
/() 'p.
p.
5.7 5.8-1:through p. 5.8-2 Add Reolace
- p. 6.1-3 through p. 6.1-4 Replace
- p. 6.1-9 through p. 6.1-10 Replace
.[ ) . p. 6.1-13 through p.-6.1-16 Replace 7.'0 Table of Contents, n'. 7-iii Replace through p. 7-iv 840216041O 840210 -
PDR ADOCK 05000424~ l
-A pgg
T i
l l
l VOGTLE OLSER l INSERTION INSTRUCTIONS (Continued) i AMENDMENT 1, FEBRUARY 10, 1984 h)
Page/Section Instruction
- p. 7.3-1 through p. 7.3-2 Replace
- p. 7A-9 through p. 7A -13 Replace
- t. 7A-3 Replace
- p. 8.1-1 through p. 8.1-2 Replace
- p. 8.1-7 through p.8.1-8 Replace
- p. 8.2-3 through p. 8.2-4 Replace
- t. 13.1-1 (Sheet 2 of 2) Replace
- p. 12.1-1 through p. 12.1-2 Replace
- t. 12.1-1 Replace
- t. 12.1-4 Replace NRC Questions and Responses Add (As last section in Volume 2)
Acknowledgement Receipt to Sign and return to this package the address indicat Revision Insertion Instructions Use and discard 1
O l
l O
l O
ii
r
( ) VEGP-OLSER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
- p(j. .
6.2 Proposed Operational Monitoring Program 6.2.1 Radiological Monitoring 6.2.2 Nonradiological Monitoring cs 6.3 Related Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs
6.4 Preoperational Environmental Radiological Monitoring Data 7.0 -ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS -
7.1' Station Accident Involving Radioactivity 7.1.1 Introduction
-7.1.2. -Analysis of Environmental Effects of Accidents 7.1.3 Dose Calculation Methodology
.7.1.4 Trivial Incidents-(Class 1.0) .
~
7.1 5. Small' Releases outside Containment (Class 2.0)
^
7.1.6 -Radwaste System Failure-(Class 3.0)
-7.1.7 Fission Products to Primary System of Boiling Water Reactors (Class 4.0) 7.1.8 Fission Products to-Primary and Secondary Systems of Pressurized Water Reactors (Class 5.0) 7.1.9 Refueling Accidents (Class 6.0) 7.1.10 Spent Fuel Handling Accidents (Class 7.0) 7.1.11. Accident Initiation Events Considered in the Design Basis Evaluation in the FSAR (Class 8.0)
~ 72 Transportation Accidents Involving Radioactivity
- 7.3 'Other Accidents
- i. 7.3.1 Introduction 7.3.2 Chemicals Stored Onsite 7.3.3 Chlorine Gas Release Appendix 7A Environmental Effects of Accidents
_'h~
\_f 7 A .1. Probabilistic Assessm,,ent of Severe Accidents 7A.2' Dose and Health Impacts of Atmospheric Releases 7A.3 Economic and Societal Impacts 7A.4 Releases to Groundwater 7A.5 Risk Considerations i c{}
x/
7A.6 7A.7 Uncertainties Conclusions-1-
v Amend. 1 2/84
_m .. _ . _ _ . , . . _ , _ -_ . _ . . _ . . _ . _. _. -
..-_J
VEGP-OLSER h TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 8.0 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 4.1 Benefits 8.1.1 Direct Benefits h 8.1.2 Indirect Benefits 8.2 Costs 8.2.1 Direct (Internal) Project Costs 8.2.2 indirect (External) Project Costs 9.0 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES 10.0 PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 11.0
SUMMARY
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS O
11.1 Summary 11.1.1 Benefits 11.1.2 Costs 12.0 ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATIONS 12.1 Summary 12.1.1 Status of Station Environmental Approvals and Consultations 12 . ~. 2 Status of Transmission System Environmental Approvals and Consultations 12.1.3 Consultations with State, Local, and Regional Planning Authorities O
vi 6 .
VEGP-OLSER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 13.0
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS TAKEN 13.1 Summary
' 13 .1.' 1 Onsite and Transmission Line Construction I
13.1.2 Construction Permit Conditions and Final
' Environmental Statement Requirements Relative to
. Plant Design and Operation.
14.0 REFERENCE 3
. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN NRC QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES ll' vii Amend. 1 2/84
. . . . . . . . . . . .i
[j q, VEGP-OLSER-2 LIST OF TABLES h) v 2.1-1 Population by Annular Ring (1- to 500-Mile Radius Totals) 2.1-2 1980 Population by Segment for North Sector (1- to 500-Miles)
,_s 2.1-3 1980 Population by Sectors r
~'
)
2.1-4 Population by Sectors (0- to 10-Mile Radius Total) 2.1-5 Population by Annular Rings (0- to 10-Mile Radius Total) 2.1-6 Population by Sectors (10- to 50-Mile Radius Total) 2.1-7 Population by Sectors (50- to 500-Mile Radius Totals) 2.1-8 Population by Annular Rings (10- to 50-Mile Radius Total) 2.1-9 Population by Annular Rings (50- to 500-Mile Radius 1
Totals)
(A) 2.1-10 Population by Segment for North Sector (50 to 500 Miles) 2.1-11 Population by Segment for North-Northeast Sector (50 to 500 Miles) 2.1-12 Population by Segment for Northeast Sector (50 to 500 Miles) 2.1-13 Population by Segment for East-Northeast Sector (50 to 500 Miles) 2.1-14 Population by Segment for East Sector (50 to 500 Miles)
(~T 2.1-15 Population by Segment for East-Southeast Sector (50 to
'\_) 500 Miles) 2.1-16 Population by Segment for Southeast Sector (50 to 500 Miles)
(~] 2.1-17 Population by Segment for South-Southeast '
Sector (50 to
() 500 Miles) 2.1-18 Population by Segment for South Sector (50 to 500 Miles) 2.1-19 Popule. tion by Segment for South-Southwest Sector (50 to 500 Miles)
(~')
2-iil Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 h
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) 2.1-20 Population by Segment for Southwest Sector (50 to 500 h Miles) 2.1-21 Population by Segment for West-Southwest Sector (50 to 500 Miles) 2.1-22 Population by Segment for West Sector (50 to 500 Miles) lh 2.1-23 Population by Segment for West-Northwest Sector (50 to 500 Miles) 2.1-24 Population by Segment for Northwest Sector (60 to 500 Miles) 2.1-25 Population by Segment for North-Northwest Sector (50 to 500 Miles) 2.1-26 Transient Population (North Sector - O to 10 Miles) 1 2.1-27 Transient Population (North-Northeast Sector - O to 10 Miles) 2.1-28 Transient Population (Northeast Sector - O to 10 Miles) 2.1-29 Transient Population (East-Northeast Sector - O to -
10 Miles) 2.1-30 Transient Population (East Sector - O to 10 Miles) 2.1-31 Transient Population (East-Southeast Sector - O to 10 Miles) 2.1-32 Transient Population (Southeast Sector - O to 10 Miles) 2.1-33 Transient Population (South-Southeast Sector - O to 10 Miles) 2.1-34 Transient Population (South Sector - O to 10 Miles) 2.1-35 Transient Population (South-Southwest Sector - O to 10 Miles) 2.1-36 Transient Population (Southwest Sector - O to 10 Miles) 2.1-37 Transient Population (West-Southwest Sector - O to 10 Miles) 2-iv Amend. 1 2/84
[
( ) VEGP-OLSER-2 v
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
(O) 2.1-38 Transient Population (West Sector - O to 10 Miles) 2.1-39 Transient Population (West-Northwest Sector - O to 10 Miles)
,- 2.1-40 Transient Population (Northwest Sector - O to 10 Miles) i !
2.1-41 Transient Population (North-Northwest Sector - O to 10 Miles) 2.1-42 Transient Population - Annular Rings and Enclosed Population ( 0 to 10 Miles) 2.1-43 Jurisdictional Population 2.1-44 Jurisdictional Location 2.1-45 Annual Meat, Milk, and Truck Farming Production for 50-Mile Radius
, 1
() 2.1-46 Annual Crop Production for 50-Mile Radius 2.1-47 Average Annual Yield by Crops for 50-Mile Radius 2.1-49 Annual Estimate of Total Number, Average Weight, and hg/ha by Species for Recreational Fishing from River Miles 0.0 to 21.6 (Probability Rowing Survey) of the Savannah River for the Period December 29, 1979 to December 26, 1980 2.1-49 Annual Estimate of Total Number, Average Weight, and kg/ha by Species for Recreational Fishing from River Miles 21.6 to 187.2 (Landings Survey) of the Savannah
/i River for the Period December 29, 1979 to December 26,
( ,1
_ 1980 2.1-50 Weight and Cash Value of Commercial Shad from the Lower Savannah River from 1978 through 1982 2.1-51 Water Users Possibly Contam,inated by VEGP Discharges 2.1-52 Burke County Employment by Major Industry (1979 and 1980 Data) 2.7-1 Ambient Sound Levels Measured in May 1974 at VEGP Site
[~3 (Preconstruction)
L) 2-v Amend. 1 2/84
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ i
- 7. .-
VOGTLE-OLSER-2 fh LIST OF FIGURES 2.1-1 General Vicinity Map lh 2.1-2 Location and Vicinity Map 2.1-3 General Arrangement Grounding Plot "lan 2.1-4 Grid Pattern for Population Between 10 and 500 Miles jh 2.1-5 Industrial Activity within 5 Miles of VEGP Site 2.1-6 Residence Water Bodies and Transmission Lines Inventory within 5 Miles of VEGP Site 2.1-7 Adjacent and Abutting Properties 2.1-8 Wooded (Darker Areas) Versus Open Lands within 5 Miles of VEGP Site 2.1-9 Savannah River Segment Possibly Contaminated by Station Discharge 2.1-10 Flow Directions in Onsite Aquifer System 2.2-1 Vegetation Communities and Other Features of the Site in 1980 2.7-1 Measurement Locations O
O O
2-vi
VEGP-OLSER-2
)
2.0 THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES 2.1 GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHY 2.1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
( )' The following sections update information presented in the
. Construction Permit Stage Environmental Report (CPSER) sections 2.1 and 2.2.
2.1.1.1 Specification of Location The 3169-acre site is located in the eastern sector of Burke County, Georgia, on the Savannah River at river mile 151, approximately 23 river miles upstream from the intersection of the Savannah River and U.S. Highway 301, as shown in figure 2.1-1.
1
'% The coordinates of the center of the containment for each of i (\_) the two units are given below in both latitude and longitude l and Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates. Latitude and-longitude are given to the nearest second and UTM coordinates are given to the nearest 100 meters.
Unit Latitude and Longitude UTM Coordinates l 1 33*08'30" N Zone 17S MG 3,666,900 m N i 81 45'44" W 428,900 m E i
i
! 2 33*08'30" N Zone 17S MG 3,666,900 m N j 81*45'48" W 428,800 m E 2.1.1.2 Site Area Figure 2.1-2 shows property lines for the site. The site l boundary lines, plant property lines, and exclusion area boundary lines are all the same. There are no industrial,
, 'q(,)j recreational, or residential structures within the site area, other than the VEGP and Georgia. Power Company's combustion
! turbine plant, visitor's center, and the Georgia Power Training Center.
~
Reactor Units 1 and 2 are approximately 3600 and 3900 ft, k_x) respectively, from the exclusion boundary at the nearest j point.
[
2.1-1
VEGP-OLSER-2 The location and orientation of the principal plant structures within the site area are shown in figure 2.1-3. Within the site boundary, there is no prime, unique, or statewide important agricultural land. gg 2.1.1.3 Boundaries for Establishing Effluent Release Limits The property lines as shown in figure 2.1-2 are the boundaries for determining effluent release limits. Effluent releases will not exceed the limits of 10 CFR 20.106 at the boundary.
g The reference point used for determining the minimum distance to the exclusion boundary is the Unit 1 plant vent. The 1 shortest distance between the Unit 1 plant vent and the exclusion area boundary is 3700 ft.
2.1.2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION 2.1.2.1 Population within 10 Miles Figure 2.1.3-1 of the VEGP Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) identifies places of significant population groupings such as cities and towns and shows their position within the grid constructed by drawing concentric rings at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10-mile radii with the VEGP site at the center point. The concentric circles are further divided by 16 compass points thus transforming the circles into 22 1/2 sectors. Each sector therefore is composed of individual segments formed by the concentric rings divided by the 16 compass points. Tables 2.1-1, 2.1-2, and 2.1-3 lists the 1980 population data on which the 5- to 500-mile population projections are based. The population within 5 miles of the VEGP site was surveyed door to door on June 17, 1980, and updated in March 1982. Tables 2.1.3-1 through 2.1.3-16 of the FSAR provide the projected population for the first year (1987), midpoint (2007), and end point (2028) of the VEGP ll operating life for each segment. Table 2.1-4 provides totals i for each sector, and table 2.1-5 provides totals for each annular ring. The methodology for projecting and disaggregating the population is discussed in appendix 2A of the FSAR.
f 2.1.2.2 Population between 10 and 500 Miles Figure 2.1.3-2 of the FSAR displays the grid pattern used in the population disaggregation between 10 and 50 miles.
2.1-4 displays the grid pattern between 10 and 500 miles.
Figure lh 2.1-2 Amend. 1 2/84
-- _ . - _. - - _ .__ _ _ _ _ = _ __ __
r'
[(} VEGP-OLSER-2 Concentric rings at 10 , 20 ,.30 , 40 , 50 , 60 , 70 , 85 ,
T100 , 150 ,1200 , 350 ,_and 500-mile radii were drawn with the
.VEGP site at the center. -Sectors and segments were formed as ra [~ ' discussed in~2.1.2.1. The population from 10 to 500 miles from !
F 9- .the;VEGP were projected for the first year, midpoint, and~end point la the plant's operating life. Population totals, by sector, from 10'to 50 miles and 50 to 500 miles are presented in-tables 2.1-6 and.2.1-7, respectively. Annular ring population, totals from 10 to 50 miles and 50 to 500 miles are.
?, presented in tables 2.1-8 and 2.1-9, respectively. The data 1
\ 7for population by segment from 10 to 50 miles and from 50 to
-500 milesLare presented in FSAR tables 2.1.3-1 through 2.1.3-16 and-tables 2.1-10 through 2.1-25 of this section, respectively. The methodology used to develop the projection and the disaggregation is discussed'in appendix 2A of the-p FSAR.
2 .1'. 2 . 3 Transient Population Data on transient population is provided in tables 2.1-26 l1 through 2.1-42. Land uses which draw nonresidents to within 10 i f(N J3,)
miles of the operating units include employment at the plant itself, employment-at the Savannah River Plant in South Carolina, traffic'on State Route 125 in South Carolina, and *
-recreational activities on the Savannah River. These uses are
- .not subjact to; seasonal variations, but some variance on a j ' daily basis between weekday and weekend totals is expected.
For-this reason, tables are provided for both weekday and t
weekend day cases. Other-than this-weekday / weekend difference, activities within the 10-mile radius are not expected to result in any significant variance'in transient population on a day to ~
day or seasonal' basis. On a daily basis, population fluctuations are insignificant, making it difficult to F distinguishLand calculate peak or average population.
'()~ Employment at the VEGP in 1987 will consist of operational
-personnel for Unit 1,-security personnel, and construction ,
workers who wi11 be completing-Unit 2. Some operational,
, security,'and maintenance personnel will be at the plant site cn1 weekend l shifts. The majority of operational and
^f construction workers will work in a Monday through Friday day schedule. Most permanent plant workers are expected to live foutside the 10-mile radius in the Waynesboro and South Augusta ;
areas. Some~ construction. workers will live within the 10-mile radius during the week, but most will return to their permanent residences:outside the 50-mile radius on weekends. By 2007, only operational and security personnel will be employed.
O <
2.1-3 Amend. 1 2/84
.-_._.,,_.2.__. _.-_ _-_._.__._ _ _. _-._ _.__ _.-.,_ _ _.-
t' VEGP-OLSER-2 lh Savannah River Plant employees working at facilities within 10-miles of the unit are included in the tables. Most of these employees work on a Monday through Friday schedule. Only a very slight increase in the number of employees at these facilities is expected in future years. The facilities have ll changed little since they were built in the 1950s. The majority of Savannah River Plant employees live in the Aiken-Augusta corridor.
Transient highway traffic within the 10-mile radius is limited to State Route 125 in South Carolina which pasces through the llh Savannah River Plant. This highway is used by some through traffic between Augusta and the coastal areas of Savannah or Charleston. Access to the Savannah River Plant reservation is
'tur time-stamped travel pass so that records of the average number of vehicles on weekdays and weekend days are available.
Employees also use this route. Estimates were made to eliminate employees with work destinations within the 10-mile radius since they have been counted in the Savannah River Plant employee figures. Georgia State Route 23 is within the 10-mile radius. It is used almost exclusively by area residents and may be used by some plant employees. Virtually no transient traffic is expected. Paragraph 2.1.3.3 of the FSAR describes transient population within the VEGP 50-mile radius. g 2.1.2.4 Jurisdictional Population Five counties are bisected by the 10-mile radius of the VEGP.
All of the plant site is situated in Burke County, Georgia.
However, Burke County's jurisdiction primarily includes the sectors from the west-northwest to the southeast. The town of Girard is 7.5 miles south-southeast. Richmond County, Georgia, l1 lies 5 miles west-northwest and northwest from the plant site.
Three miles north of the site boundary is Aiken County, South Carolina. Barnwell County, South Carolina, lies 1/2 mile to the northeast and east-northeast. A small portion of the area within the 10-mile radius includes Allendale County, South Carolina, 8 miles east of the plant site. Tables 2.1-43 and l1 2.1-44 exhibit jurisdictional population and location, I respectively.
2.1.2.5 Methodology for Population Estimates and Projections Appendix 2A of the FSAR provides part of the information required by the draft guidelines for the OLSER. -The remainder of the information can be found in paragraph 6.1.4.2.
2.1-4 Amend. 1 2/84 L
[~)
\' .
VEGP-OLSER-2 2.1.3 USE OF ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS a The VEGP site is located on the southwest side of the Savannah I River about 23 river miles upstream from the intersection of
\")- the Scvannah River and U.S. Highway 301. The property is located in the eastern sector of Burke ,ounty, Georgia, across the Savannah River from Barnwell County, South Carolina. This location is approni=ately 15 air miles east-northeast of Waynesboro, Georgia, and 26 air miles south-southeast of
.( ) Augusta, Georgia. The VEGP site, which is wholly owned by Georgia Power Company (GPC), will occupy approximately 3169.1 acres as follows:
Facilit1 Acres Site acreage not related 1777.9 to construction Plant Wilson 37.7 Outside fence 519.6 (cleared area)
Inside fence 579.4 West gate 10.1 Transmission lines 136.5 (onsite)
/~N Roads 69.4
(-) Railroad 18.8 (onsite)
Pond (south) 8.5 Pond (west) 10.1 Visitor's center 1.1 Total 3169.1 The layout of these items within the site is given in figure 2.1-2.
Due to the remoteness of the VEGP site property from heavily populated areas, there are few human activities within the 5-mile radius of the plant site. A survey by the Central rg Savannah Area Planning and Development Commission'" shows no q) public or private schools, hospitals, commercial areas, industrial plants, settlements, parks, recreational areas, or valued historic, scenic, or cultural areas within the Georgia portion of the 5-mile radius from VEGP. There will be a i Georgia Power Company employees recreation area located approximately 2 miles southwest from the plant site. Refer to
(^)g
(, paragraph 8.1.2.4 for more specific information. The South Carolina portion of the area described by this 5-mile radius falls wholly within the Savannah River Plant site, which is a highly restricted area, thus excluding all public and private activities save those associated with the plant. Two Savannah r River Plant industrial sites are located within the 5-mile
(_ radius as given on figure 2.1-5, i.e., the heavy water production facility and the CMX-TNX facility. Figure 2.1-6 shows the site boundary, water bodies, and transportation lines within 5 miles of the site.
2.1-5 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 lll The greatest single land use present and projected within the 5-mile radius area is silvicultural. The remaining lands are either swamps or agricultural areas. The current population within the 5-mile radius is approximately 1100. The residences in this radius are essentially temporary ones serving VEGP construction workers. They consist of mobile home, camper, e.nd duplex units. There are no permanent residential areas as such, though isolated residences are located in the 5-mile radius. Those near the plant site are discussed in paragraphs 2.1.3.1 and 2.1.3.2.
Lands adjacent to the GPC property boundary are generally large tracts, many of which are used as timberlands. The property lines of those adjacent and abutting properties are shown in
' figure 2.1-7. -
2.1.3.1 Residences, Meal Animals, Milk-Producing Cvws/ Goats, and Vegetable Gardens within 5 Miles of the VEGP Site The area surrounding the VEGP site is surveyed periodically for a radius of 5 miles to locate and identify the nearest residence, meat animal, milk-producing animal (goat or cow),
and vegetable garden of 500 ft2 or greater in each of the 16 sectors defined by a 22 1/2 arc around the radius. This data, along with the distance to the nearest site boundary, are found 1 in table 5.2-1. Several observations can be made from these data. First, there were no milk-producing animals identified in any of the 16 sectors. Second, all those sectors which extend into the Savannah River Plant property do not contain items in any of the listed categories. The residence listed nearest the plant site (west-southwest sector) is a trailer park housing predominantly construction-related GPC or l1 contractor employees.
2.1.3.2 Land Use within a 5-Mile Radius The remoteness of the VEGP site ensures few human activities within the 5-mile radius. There are no zoning ordinances existing for this area, nor are there any local plans to restrict development to limit population encroachment. As previously stated, there are no dairies, wildlife preserves, or sanctuaries in the area. The only industrial activity is that associated with the Savannah River Plant facility as previously described. The rural, small farm nature of this area blurs the distinctions to be made between many of the standard land use classifications. Any land may be used alternately for crops, pastures, hunting, or recreation with residences scattered sparsely throughout. None of these uses occurs on a large 2.1-6 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 U(~N .
scale. The clearest distinction.to be made on land use is between open and wooded lands. Open lands are used as cropland, primarily since no livestock or dairy operations t' exist in the area. Estimated crop types and yields for the
\s)' area are given in paragraph 2.1.3.3. The wooded, largely silvicultural areas would more likely be used as hunting areas, though no hunting lodges or camps exist in the area. The hunting yields for Burke County as a whole are among the lowest in the state, as discussed in paragraph 2.1.3.3 of the FSAR.
lk/')
Hunting activities are, therefore, very limited. Figure 2.1-8 displays those areas which are wooded and those areas which are open. The residences in the area have been inventoried and are shown in figure 2.1-6.
2.1.3.3 Agricultural Activity The annual meat, milk, and truck farming production within a 50-mile radius from the proposed reactor is shown in table 2.1-45. The table shows the annual meat production by type
.(cattle and hogs), milk production, and truck farming at l1 successively greater 10-mile intervals from the reactor.
f)
Tu) Unless otherwise noted, the data in these tables are taken from 1979 crop year statistics published by the Georgia Crop Reporting Service and the South Carolina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. These data compiled and presented for each segment in the tables have been disaggregated from county statistics as follows.
For each of the 16 sectors of the five 10-mile intervals, the sector was composed of parts of one or more counties. For each segment, the individual county portions falling in each segmant were measured using a grid measurement system. Next, for each county portion of a segment, the percentage of farmland in the portion was determined. This was done using a Landsat
[)
satellite photograph of the area which categorizes land type into nine categories, including cleared farmland. Estimates of the amount of farmland in each county portion were obtained using a grid estimation technique. The amount of farmland in each county portion within a given segment was then expressed s as a percentage of the total farmland in the county by dividing the farmland area in a given segment by the total farmland in
( -) that county. These percentages were then used to assign meat, milk, and truck crop production figures to the various counties. For example, segment SE-20 is composed of parts of two counties in Georgia, Burke and Screven. For that segment, 0.5 percent of the farmland in Burke County and 10.4 percent of
(-s) the farmland in Screven County fall in this segment. Thus, for a given commodity such as truck crops, 0.5 percent of the total 2.1-7 Amend. 1 2/84
----------- I
VEGP-CLSER-2 g
truck crops produced in Burke County and 10.4 percent of the total truck crops produced in Screven County are assigned to segment SE-20. The total production of truck crops for that segment, therefore, is 1015.3 kg, the value given in table 2.1-45. g Table 2.1-46 shows annual agricultural crop production for the 1
50-mile radius around the proposed reactor. The table shows total annual production quantity (kg) by crop type. Tchlo 2.1-47 shows the average annual yield for each of these crops in the same area. These data are based on statistics for 1979 g from the same sources as the meat, milk, and poultry data above.
'The vast majority of the cattle operations in the 50-mile area around the plant site consists of brood cows and calves and stockherd calves. These cattle graze year round. In the summer months (March through October),. they graze primarily on permanent pasture land planted in coastal Bermuda grass, fescue grass, or other native grasses. In the winter months (November through February), they graze primarily on field residues of harvested crops such as corn, grain sorghum, and peanuts or on winter forage crops, primarily rye, and to a lesser extent, barley or wheat. Hay, primarily from coastal Bermuda grass, is used as a supplemen*ary feed to foraged feed, primarily in the winter months. Silage, primarily corn and grass, is also used as a supplementary feed but to a lesser extent.
2.1.3.4 Recreational Fishing Marine fishing data are not applicable because the proposed reactor site is,not within 50 miles of the Atlantic Coast. The site is situated on the Savannah River (river mile 151) potentially impacting both commercial and recreational fishing. Data on recreational fishing success in the Savannah River from the river mile O to mile 187.2 have been obtained from creel and roving surveys conducted by the Georgia lll Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Table 2.1-48 presents l1 the annual estimate of total number, average weight, and kg/ha by species from river mile O to mile 21.6 for the period December 29, 1979 to December 26, 1980. The total area covered by this survey was approximately 2535.2 ha. The recreational harvest for this section of the Savannah River was estimated to lh be 6.4 kg/ha. Table 2.1-49 shows the annual estimate of total l1 number, average weight, and kg/ha by species from river mile 21.6 to mile 187.2 for the period December 29, 1979 to December O
2.1-8 Amend. 1 2/84
-("
VEGP-OLSER-2 v} .
26, 1980. The total area covered by this survey was about 4122.2 ha. The recreational harvest for this section of the Savannah River was estimated to be 25.15 kg/ha.
7_
k_)
2.1.3.5 Commercial Fishing Commercial fishing data for the entire Savannah River is not available at this time from the Georgia DNR. Table 2.1-50 l1 D
('wl- presents 5 years of data on weight and cash value of commercial shad from the lower Savannah River. The 5-year mean weight of shad was 37,183.6. kg with a mean value of $64,153.
.2.1.3.6 Hunting Deer hunting does occur within the 50-mile radius. Both hunting pressure and hunting success are very low, however.
The State Game and Fish Commission's estimated annual harvest of deer ranges from 6280 to 18,840 deer. Estimated annual number of licensed hunters is 2500 to 5000. Other major species hunted include quail, rabbit, dove, turkey, woodcock,
(~3 squirrel, duck, fox, and raccoon. No data are available on the
(_) success rate fer hunting of these species on a regional or local level.
2.1.3.7 Public Accessibility The remote, rural nature of the VEGP site and property has ensured minimal disruption to local land uses. All cooling water conveyance structures are contained on GPC property, and the pcint where these structures, both intake and outfall, join the Savannah River is not frequented by recreational users such as fishermen. (Recreational hunting and fishing activities are discussed in previous sections.) A single railroad spur has fs
\')
v been constructed from the main line at Waynesboro to bring construction materials to the site and will be used for supplies in the future. The route for this spur did not interfere with any existing land uses. One road, i.e., River Road, has been diverted to skirt the GPC property. Old River r- Road, prior to GPC's activity, was a soil surfaced road. New River Road, which borders the GPC property, is paved. Thus,
(' 3j even the minimal increase to the distance traveled to avoid GPC property is compensated for by the higher quality of the roadway. No additional offsite access or other activities which could interfere with existing or projected land uses are contemplated at this time.
V 2.1-9 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 llh 2.1.3.8 Water Usage and Characteristics 2.1.3.8.1 Possible Contamination Areas h
~
2.1.3.8.1.1 Surface Water. The VEGP site is bordered on the east side by the Savannah River and on the south side by Beaverdam Creek. The discharge structure for the plant is directed into the Savannah River at about river mile 151. All l1 ~h overland flows would drain into either the Savannah River or Beaverdam Creek, which also discharges into the Savannah River immediately. The area of possible surface water contamination is, therefore, limited to the Savannah River downstream of the plant discharge (figure 2.1-9).
2.1.3.8.1.2 Groundwater. Additional groundwater information from that presented in the CPSER subsections 2.5.4 and 5.5.3 is summarized in FSAR subsection 2.4.12 and includes more recent water level data. Two distinct aquifers underly the VEGP site. Both have been studied and monitored by GPC extensively over the past 10 years. The shallow or unconfined groundwater aquifer is replenished by rainfall percolating lll through the porous overlaying sands. The presence of porous surface sands and the moderate topographic relief in the site area indicate that there is no significant storm runoff; hence, virtually all precipitation infiltrates the ground. Lateral recharge from adjacent areas is insignificant because the plant area is situated on an interfluvial high; i.e., it is isolated by drainage channe'.s which have down cut to or near the marl aquilude and act 5 interceptor drains to potential recharge sources moving laterally toward the interfluvial. Groundwater present in the sands beneath the VEGP site eventually drains to the Savannah River through springs along the bluff. Figure 2.1-10 shows the direction of flow and the probable discharge point of contaminants percolating into the artesian aquifer beneath the plant site.
The second aquifer lies beneath a relatively impermeable aquiclude and is unlikely to be contaminated by spillage on the plant site. Should this occur, however, the flow of this aquifer is also towards the Savannah River, as indicated in figure 2.1-10. Exploratory holes drilled adjacent to the river indicate the aquiclude has been breached by the river allowing groundwater from the underlying aquifer to discharge to the river. Migration through the groundwater table to areas across the river is, therefore, highly unlikely.
2.1-10 Amend. 1 2/84
. . ~ .. -- _ ,. --
- . - , - - - ~.- . _ , . _ _ -
g VEGP-OLSER-2 2.1.3.8.2 Usage of Possibly Contaminated Water Supplies The Savannah River system below the VEGP site is very sparsely lll developed and, therefore, has few users. Population centers utilizing the Savannah River are not encountered until the ocean outfall of the river is approached in the area of Savannah /Chatham County (figure 2.1-9). In this area, eight withdrawals have been identified of which two serve at least some domestic users. One other withdrawal was identified in the area, i.e.,' Continental Forest, Inc.; it was determined llh that this withdrawal was from an upstream tributary to the Savannah River and, therefore, is not exposed to possible contamination.
'The two population areas which are served by withdrawals from the Savannah River are the Beaufort / Jasper County water intake which currently serves approximately 50,000 domestic users and 1 the water intake for the Cherokee Hill Water Treatment Plant which serves an effective population of 20,000 users. The Beaufort / Jasper County intake currently withdraws 5.18 million gal / day and is located at approximate river mile 39. It is projected, based on the Office of Business Economics-Economic Research Service's population projections, that by the year G 2020, the domestic withdrawal rate will be approximately 5.47 million gal / day. Cherokee Hill Water Treatment Plant's domestic withdrawal rate is currently approximately 45.07 million gal / day and is expected to increase to 59.9 million gal / day by the year 2020. It is located downstream of the Beaufort / Jasper County intake at about river mile 29.
All of the remaining withdrawals are for industrial purposes, primarily cooling water. The industrial process water used is primarily for paper processing. There are no process waters associated with foodstuffs. There are no identified groundwater users such as riverbank wells which could conceivably be contaminated by VEGP discharge. A survey O conducted by GPC found that there was no irrigation water withdrawal from the Savannah River near the plant site.
Table 2.1-51 lists the identified water users which could be l1 contaminated by VEGP discharges, including the user name, type e of water use, distance from the station in river miles and radial miles, current and projected withdrawal rates, and estimated return rates. Projections were made based on population for domestic users and the type of industrial use for other users. The various power company usages are not expected to' increase over the projectior. period. The other e industrial users are assumed to increase withdrawal rates at an average of 2 percent per year. Return .ates were calculated on 2.1-11 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2
)
the assumption that domestic, industrial process, and cooling waters were 80, 90, and 95 percent of withdrawal rates, respectively. Use of the Savannah River does not vary seasonally, nor are there significant storage ponds or flow augmentation activities. llh 2.1.3.9 Socioeconomic Conditions The socioeconomic sources '2 , ' ' identified in this subsection for Burke and Richmond Counties serve to update lh information presented in the CPSER section 2.2.
Burke County has a rural / agricultural economic base with some manufacturing. Major industrial activity in the county includes the manufacturing of draperies, clothing, lumber, fabricated metal products, and electric machinery. Table 2.1-52 shows the largest employment sectors for the county. l1 Burke County ranks as one of the largest counties east of the Mississippi River and is sparsely populated. Currently, there is no county-wide zoning in force. The Burke County public school system is consolidated county-wide with nine facilities. The Burke County cities of Waynesboro, Midville, and Sardis are served by public water and sewage systems. Fire protection in Burke County is provided by volunteers in the cities of Waynesboro, Sardis, Midville, Girard, and Alexander.
The sheriff's department provides services to the entire county, supplemented by municipal police forces of Waynesboro, Midville, and Sardis.
The economy of Richmond County is much more diversified than Burke County's, largely due to the influence of the Augusta metropolitan crea. The county's economy is based on finance, insurance, real estate, and services. Although smaller in area, Richmond County is more densely populated than Burke County. The city of Aucusta has experienced considerable commercial, institutional, and residential land development.
The Richmond County public school system is consolidated county-wide with 55 f6cilities. Most of the county's sewage and water service is provided by the city of Augusta. Fire protection in Richmond County is provided by four fire departments: the Richmond County Fire Department; the Augusta Fire department; and fire departments for the cities of
- Hephzibah and Oakridge. The Augusta Police Department provides service within the city limits of Augusta, with the rest of the county being serviced by the Richmond County Sheriff's Department.
O 2.1-12 Amend. 1 2/84 !
1
L ',
VEGP-OLSER-2 REFERENCES
- 1. Central Savannah River Area Directory of Manufacturers, O '1982-1983, Central Savannah River Planning and Development Commission.
- 2. Batalle Columbus Laboratories, Action Plan for Burke County, January 1983.
~
- 3. Batelle Columbus Laboratories, Assessment of Service
-Needs for Burke and Richmond Counties, January 1982.
O
- O o
O 2.1-13
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-1 POPULATION BY ANNULAR RING (1- TO 500-MILE RADIUS TOTALS)
Year Ring Population 1980 1 0 2 495 3 278 4 112 5 200 6 208 7 317 8 318 1 9 291 10 341 20 68,460 30 227,625 40 83,269 50 151,548 60 93,822 70 118,933 85 628,400 100 537,771 150 3,704,002 200 5,201,871 350 15,019,000 500 24,867,040 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-2 (SHEET 1 0F 16) 1980 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR NORTH SECTOR (1- TO 500-MILES)
Mile Ring Population 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 4 .
0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 1 9 0 10 0 20 4,130 30 41,969 40 5,072 50 11,525 60 4,202 70 7,745 85 23,968 100 32,932 150 345,941 200 413,199 350 1,381,733 500 3,160,609 Amend. 1 2/84
l
< VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-2 (SHEET 2 OF 16) 1980 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR NORTH-NORTHEAST SECTOR (1- TO 500-MILES)
Mile Ring Population 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 l 7 0 8 0 1 9 0 10 0 20 2,359 30 6,402 l
40 5,662 50 8,679 60 20,993 1
70 21,900 85 57,520 100 22,582 150 297,513 200 891,093 350 2,001,405 500 3,997,185 Amend. 1 2/84
~
1 VEGP-OLSER-2 TAELE 2.1-2 (SHEET 3 OF 16) l 1980 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR NORTHEAST SECTOR j (1- TO 500-MILES)
M11e Ring Popu1ation 1 0 0 2 0 3 0
^~
4 o 5 0 6 ,
O 7 0 0 9 x 0 1
10 0 20 1,374 i 30 3,718 I I l 40 5,681 l
l -
50 14,132 O e0 .
14.eoa 70 15,862 s.
85 5 187,598 100 55,821 150 ,
164,296 200 249,300
'350 1,789,438
- s 500 2,832,434 s ,
Amend. 1 2/84
. _ . _ , . . - - . _ _ . . lh ~ - - - - - . - - . , - . . . - . - , . - - - -
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-2 (SHEET 4 OF 16) 1980 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR EAST-NORTHEAST SECTOR (1- TO SOO-MILES)
Mile Ring Population 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 1
9 0 10 0 20 900 30 6,756 40 4,982 50 15,649 60 8,492 70 7,750 85 28,872 100 32,360 150 193,423 200 228,320 350 653,535 500 32,815 Amend. 1 2/84
i VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-2 (SHEET 5 OF 16) 1980 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR EAST SECTOR (1- TO 500-MILES) l Mile Ring Population 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 t
7 0 0 9 0 1
10 0 20 676 30 1,206 40 2,205 50 2,797 60 5,409 70 9,445 85 33,861 100 43,836 150 274,594 200 5,512 350 0 500 0 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-2 (SHEET 6 OF 16) 1980 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR EAST-SOUTHEAST SECTOR (1- TO 500-MILES)
Mile Ring Population 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 3 7 0 8 3 1 9 0 10 5 20 513 30 5,263 40 4,523 50 11,019 60 3,222 70 7,494 85 20,993 100 44,458 150 33,404 200 0 350 0 500 0 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 ,
TABLE 2.1-2 (SHEET 7 OF 16) 1980 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR SOUTHEAST SECTOR (1- TO 500-MILES)
Mile Ring Population 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 4 3 5 27 6 30 7 34 8 6 1 9 17 10 26 20 811 30 1,218 40 2,053 50 3,507 O eo 2.oee 70 4,533 85 29,197 100 25,993 150 0 200 0 350 0 500 0 Amend. 1 2/84
1 l
l VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-2 (SHEET 8 OF 16) 1980 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR SOUTH-SOUTHEAST SECTOR (1- TO 500-MILES) 1 Mile Ring P_opulation 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 6 6 61 7 84 1
8 114 9 84 10 71 20 1,233 30 4,656 40 1,769 50 4,052 60 3,975 70 4,005 85 98,397 100 103,937 150 13,738 200 0 350 23,131 500 980,185 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-2 (SHEET 9 OF 16) 1980 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR SOUTH SECTOR (1- TO 500-MILES)
Mile Ring Population 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 6 6 34 7 57 8 28 9 23 10 34 20 2,006 30 1,513 40 2,502 50 20,498 60 5,190 70 4,640 85 17,905 100 20,761 150 97,955 200 619,185 350 2,073,260 500 2,925,230 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-2 (SHEET 10 0F 16) 1980 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR SOUTH-SOUTHWEST SECTOR (1- TO SOO-MILES) l M_i_le Ring Poculation 1 0 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 14 ,
7 6 I
1 9 28 10 54 20 752 30 5,250 40 1,856 50 4,576 60 3,380 70 5,209 85 21,152 100 17,161 150 86,483 200 126,225 350 128,132 500 0 I
l Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-2 (SHEET 11 OF 16) 1980 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR SOUTHWEST SECTOR (1- TO SOO-MILES)
Mile Ring Poculation 1 0 2 287 3 8 4 6 5 24 6 11 7 15 8 la 9 26 10 84 20 806 30 1,291 40 2,564 50 10,164 60 3,027 70 4,589 85 16,944 100 14,924 150 90,941 200 246,924 350 523,314 500 0 Amend. 1 2/84
i VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-2 (SHEET 12 OF 16) 1980 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR WEST-SOUTHWEST SECTOR (1- TO 500-MILES)
Mile Ring P_qpulation 1 0 0 2 0 3 3 4 0 5 14 6 43 7 40 8 48 9 11 10 0 20 6,566 30 1,315 40 5,276 50 8,047 60 3,356 70 3,913 85 14,466 100 14,796 150 228,552 200 497,121 350 830,601 500 1,400,938 Amend. 1 2/84
l VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-2 (SHEET 13 OF 16) 1980 POPULATION BY SECMENT EOR WEST SECTOR (1- TO SCO-MILES)
Mile Ring Population 1 0 0 2 8 3 11 4 46
. 5 21 6 9 7 17 8 33 9 48 10 28 20 806 30 1,293 40 4,655 50 3,843 60 3,071 70 3,051 85 21,878 100 29,752 150 300,217 200 313,239 350 1,571,195
. 500 1,148,478 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-2 (SHEET 14 OF 16) 1980 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR WEST-NORTHWEST SECTOR (1- TO 500-MILES)
Mile Ring Population 1 O O 2 67 3 247 4 -
13 5 19 6 3 7 9 8 35 1
9 35 10 32 20 11,043 30 26,169 40 9,707 50 12,444 60 3,256 70 1,936 85 9,067 100 13,179 150 862,799 200 1,174,389 350 1,597,796 500 1,275,123 Amend. 1 2/84
l VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-2 (SHEET 15 0F 16) 1980 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR NORTHWEST SECTOR (1- TO 500-MILES)
Mile Ring Population l l
1 0 :
O 2 130 1
3 6 4 41 5 80 6 0 7 52
, 8 7 9 19 1 10 7 20 22,488 30 60,482 40 19,715 50 16,884 60 4,157 70 3,219 85 13,202 100 23,114 150 196,475 200 114,841 350 1,100,933 500 2,163,918 l
l
! Amend. 1 2/84 l
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-2 (SHEET 16 0F 16) 1980 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR NORTH-NORTHWEST SEOTOR (1- TO 500-MILES)
Mile Ring Population 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 4 - 0 5 0 6 0 7 3 8 3 1
9 0 10 0 20 11,997 30 59,124 40 5,047 50 3,732 60 4,221 70 13,642 85 33,380 100 42,165 150 517,671 200 322,523 350 1,344,527 500 4,950,125 Amend. 1 2/84
I l
l VEGP-OLSER-2
[}
TABLE 2.1-3 1980 POPULATION BY SECTORS 1- To 40-Mile 50- to 500-Mile Sector Radius Totals Radius Totals cs N 51,171 5,381,854 U NNE 14,423 7,318,870 NE 10,773 5,323,684 ENE 12,638 1,201,216 E 4,087 375,454 ESE 10,310 120,590 SE 4,225 66,298 1
{} SSE S
8,078 6,203 1,231,420 5,784,624 SSW 7,995 392,318 SW 5,140 910,827 WSW 13,316 3,001,790 W 6,975 3,394,724 WNW 47,379 4,949,989
() NW 103,027 3,636,743 NNW 76,174 7,231,986 381,914 50,322,387 O
O Amend. 1 2/84
l l
VEGP-OLSER-2 ,
TABLE 2.1-4 POPULATION BY SECTORS (0- TO 10-MILE RADIUS TOTAL)
Sector 1987 2007 2028 N O O O O NNE O O O NE O O O ENE O O O E O O O ESE 11 11 11 SE 148 193 266 SSE 439 505 583 S 188 223 262 SSW 142 159 213 SW 497 230 267 WSW 165 199 231 W 230 219 249 WNW 482 199 240 NW 361 135 173 NNW 6 11 15 Total 2669 2084 2510 O
O Amend. 1 2/84 1
VEGP-OLSER-2
~
TABLE 2.1-5 POPULATION BY ANNULAR RINGS (0- TO 10-MILE RADIUS TOTAL) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Year Mile Mile Mile Mile Mile Mile Mile Mile Mile Mile Total 1 1987 0 517 289 114 210 216 331 328 303 320 2628 2007 0 40 62 59 174 246 382 376 350 407 2096 2028 0 63 79 80 256 278 440 435 406 467 2504 O
O n
v O
Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-6 POPULATION DY SECTORS
) (10- TO 50-MILE RADIUS TOTAL)
Sector 1987 2007 2028 N 38,722 48,201 61,801 NNE 49,703 64,511 87,278 NE 41,082 52,267 68,747
'ENE 31,362 29,397 36,989 E 21,677 16,250 19,999 ESE 15,700 18,678 22,898 SE 15,069 17,023 29,069 SSE 11,504 1 11,657 12,537 S 18,184 21,734 27,918 SSW 13,762 15,285 17,280 SW 12,706 14,563 16,879 WSW 14,397 16,118 18,410 W 12,832 13,338 16,398 l
WNW 81,723 101,651 127,713 NW 135,141 180,490 242,202 NNW 66,084 81,680 102,848 Total 579,648 702,843 908,966 O
O Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-7 l1 POPULATION BY SECTORS (50- TO 500-MILE RADIUS TOTALS)
Sector 1987 2007 2028 N 5,772,433 6,192,079 6,976,782
.NNE 6,749,181 8,307,814 10,736,057 NE- 4,341,657 5,195,685 7,279,452
- ENE 1,386,428 1,690,698 1,961,758 E 422,847. 504,862 595,451 ESE -119,454 267,771 402,190 SE 70,156 84,398 101,290 SSE 390,671 1,832,169 2,644,178 S 6,655,151 8,319,863 11,339,793 SSW 528,613 688,680 846,603 SW 904,773 1,311,530 1,702,765 WSW 2,667,904 4,888,990 5,901,942 W 3,617,604 4,075,293 4,498,449 WNW. 5,677,278 7,160,336 8,388,714 NW 3,775,137 4,467,906 4,900,546 NNW- 8,068,954 8,989,598 9,755,338 Total 51,148,241 63,977,672 78,031,308 O -
O-Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-8 1 POPULATION BY ANNULAR RINGS (10- TO 50-MILE RADIUS TOTALS)
Year Ring Population
.1987 20-mile 99,973 30-mile 171,145 40-mile 143,077 50-mile 165,453 Total 579,648 2007 20-mile 121,693 30-mile 206,351 40-mile . 162,046 50-mile 212,753 Total 702,843 2028 20-mile 151,009 30-mile 265,367 40-mile 210,538 50-mile 282,052 Total 908,966 O
O O
Amend. 1 2/84
.. .. .- . . . - . - - . - =... - . - ... .. .-. - . ~.. ...-. - .. - ._ - _- - =
L p
i t
VEOP-OLSER-2
( ,
(- ,
TABLE 2.1-9 l1 !
( POPULATION BY ANNULAR RINGS
() .
(50- TO 500-MILE RADIUS TOTALS) l Year Ring (mile) Population l i
- 1987 60 111,797 !
70 118,510 4
I f.
85 696,371 l 100 549,752 <
I 150 3,919,970
- . 200 5,058,645 4 . 350 15,740,978
! 500 44,887,235
!. Total- 71,083,258 l1 l 1
2007- 60 159,903 70 168,196 ,
t 85 863,169 100 710,707 150 4,823,954
?C-200 6,739,576 '
350 20,343,190 1
-500: 30,151,235
- j. Total. 63,959,930 l1 ,
, t 2028 60 281,709 !
- 70 263,781 !
!. 85 1,026,664 :
! 100 862,005 L 150 5,725,630 '
200 8.215,213 .
350 26,576,624 [
500 24,020,174
- ()- Total 66,971,800 l1 i
[L r ,
L !
bb)' !
i Amend. 1 2/84 l .
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-10 51 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR NORTH SECTOR
-(50 TO 500 MILES)
Year Mile (Ring) 1987 2007 2028 50 10,944 13,223 16,419 60 4,586 5,470 6,443 70 ~8,505 10,168 11,954 85 26,300 31,443 36,975 100 36,327 43,431 51,072 150 379,117 457,571 543,565 200 344,205 508,195 444,549 350 1,627,394 1,615,090 2,072,273 500 3,345,999 3,520,711 3,758,879 Total- 5,783,377 6,205,302 6,942,129
- O O
- O O
Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-11 l1 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR NORTH-NORTHEAST SECTOR
(} (50 TO 500 MILES)
Year Mile (Ring) 1987 2007 2028 50 20,134 27,216 38,818 60 27,513 48,321 88,588 70 28,499 49,500 89,974 85 65,690 83,679 108,990 100 24,883 29,749 34,983 150 323,525 395,316 436,281 200 964,623 1,215,714 1,509,154 350 1,321,417 1,935,708 2,551,784 500 3,993,031 4,549,827 5,916,303 Total 6,769,315 8,335,030 10,774,875 f
O M
O O
O
. Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-12 l1 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR NORTHEAST SECTOR (50 to 500 MILES)
Year Mile (Ring) 1987 2007 2028 O 50 22,327 28,626 38,032 60 19,161 32,391 94,208 70 18,829 26,624 39,780 85 208,870 249,714 293,681 100 61,479 73,501 86,432 150 178,281 202,386 288,464 200 215,053 335,909 413,141 350 1,952,630 2,424,538 4,309,680 500 1,687,354 1,850,622 1,754,066 Total 4,363,984 5,224,311 7,317,484 O
O O
O Amend. 1 2/84
I L
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-13 l1 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR EAST-NORTHEAST SECTOR (50 TO 500 MILES)
Year Mile (Ring) 1987 2007 2028 50 12,383 15,811 20,843 60 10,261 13,334 17,874 -
70- 9,112 11,572 15,004 85 33,008 41,062 51,521 100 35,752 42,984 51,046 150 210,542 227,715 276,003 200 217,949 352,128 360,765 350 825,211 955,939 1,132,487 500 44,593 45,964 -57,058 Total. 1,398,811 1,706,509 1,982,601 O.
G g
Amend. 1 2/84
~
. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ i
.._.7.__.
i 1-1-
L VEGP-OLSER-2 1-
- j. , TABLE 2.1-14 l1 ,
1 !
POPULATION BY' SEGMENT FOR EAST SECTOR !
I (50 TO 500 MILES) l l- Year
! ' Mile 1987 2007 2028
-(Ring) :
i h- 50 4,788 5,751 7,099
- s. 60 .7,274 7,715 9,637 l .70 10,578 12,678 15,108 i
85 37,937 45,447 54,042
! 100 50,334 60,360 71,379 I
!! 150 310,737 371,504 436,867 i
! 200 5,987 7,158 8,418 i- =350 NA NA NA
- j. 500 ~ NA- NA NA
, Total 427;635 510,613 602,550 ;
I Le l
e !
- l. ?
i'
! ~
ts I
i l
l l
f.h i i
l.
I I
Amend. 1 2/84 l
VEGP-OLSER-2
( ,
TABLE 2.1-15 l1
,_ POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR EAST-SOUTHEAST SECTOR
(
%] (50 TO 500 MILES)
Year Mile (Ring) 1987 2007 2028 50 7,2523 8,888 11,251 60 3,629 4,383 5,313 70 8,306 9,930 11,676 85 23,177 27,708 32,582 100 48,340 57,790 67,962 150 36,002 167,960 284,657 200 NA NA NA 350 NA NA NA 500 NA NA NA Total 126,707 276,659 413,441
~h (O
l t
J O('h l
(~)'
v Amend. 1 2/84
b c
i I 4 !'
t VEGP-OLSER-2 l
- l 1 i l TABLE 2.1-16 l1 l i i
! POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR SOUTHEAST SECTOR :
l- (50 TO 500 MILES) !
j Year j
- . Mile ,
j~ ( Ring), 1987 2007 2028 :
l l'
! 50 7,303 8,918 11,267
- 60 3,468 4,297 5,228 i 70 5,073 6,175 8,858 '
- . 85 32,525 38,911 45,795 t 100- 29,090 35,015 41,409 i 150- NA NA NA 200 NA NA NA .
350 NA NA NA l
'500 NA NA NA Total 77,459 93,316 112,557 iO i
i
. \
t 1
I i' t I
i-l-
1 O .
L t ,
LG I-l .~
1 VO -
Amend. 1 2/84 !
9 ,
.3 e -
g a ~
,$, s '%'
~ s.
VEGP-OLSER-2 '
~ ' n ~
, t
- TABLE 2.1-17 c l1
, 4: ?!
POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR SOlITlf-SOUTHEAST SECTOR
_O
-.,, -!,50 TO 500 MILES) s Y '
Year Mile
. (Ring) <- 1987 2 0 0 7 ~ '
2028
< s. , ,
. . ., 3 -
50 .-. .% - - i5,619 6,357 7,617 60 s {; 4l615 6,116 3,100 70 . 4,845 6,338' 8,141 85 . 108,636 136,822 164,380
,100' N 114,807 137t670 173,377 150; '
- 15,338 s ~ 18,815 21,864 200 N '
1 '
s NA NA s NA 350 26,960 --
.33,785 379,612
- O 500 . 115,470 _
1,490,623 '
1,888,704 a~. , , ,, s s Total.
s 396,290' 1,836,526\ -
2,651,795 3
O. Q' t-
{,
- s: s 4
l ,k s
(
- s. s .
~ ; ,' ' Q _ ., ~ >%
(
) , ,
. ~ .
s .
. V. . ,l
,3
- 1 s
5t ('
, , .(;
- ; 'us -
'+
3 ..
g .*
%. - =
7 j
.Ag IO : '
o.
, T. '
l ,
. A'nend . 1 2/84 e $ _ _ _ _ _ .
() VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-18 Il POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR SOUTH SECTOR
() (50 TO 500 MILES)
Year Milu (Ring) 1987 2007 2028 O. - - 50 10,080 13,336 18,722 60 5,751 7,612 10,667 70 5,332 ~6,688 8,422 85 16,332 24,836 30,205 100 23,204 29,491 34,237 150 109,210 133,763 144,408 200 710,435 940,630 1,195,328 350 2,309,884 3,035,593 4,086,418 500 3,475,003 4,142,250 5,830,108 Total 6,665,231 8,333,199 11,358,515
- O O
- O LO~
Amend. 1 2/84
,~
+
l' .; r VEGP-OLSER-2
,, TABLE 2.1-19 l1 L -
' POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR SOUTH-SOUTHWEST SECTOR (50 TO-500 MILES)
Year I i
/* Mile l .s (Ring) ,L 1987 2007 ~2028 50 g 6,432 7,748 9',523 60
[ 3,656 4,256 4,939 70 5,796 7,102 8,533 +
85 23,624 29,006 34,859 f100 ; 19,143 _
23.,505 28,247
- 150 101,530 119,865 144,047
'200' 133,683 178,574 210,718
- 350 :/ ~241,181 326,372 415,260
~50, NA. NA NA
( Toj.e1 t 5'35,045 696,428 856,126
- 1
, "'., l
[ ; <
, .r 4 , &.
,~ ;
(- ,
x_ .
O -
~
r r
/
- oi e
e
~- ' '
7
., Amend. 1 2/84
<r
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-20 l1
. POPULATION-BY SEGMENT FOR SOUTHWEST SECTOR (50 to~500 MILES)
Year Mile (Ring) 1987 2007 2028
': 50 5,386 -6,351 7,582 60 3,250 3,738 4,350 70 5,089 6,243 7,496 85 18,796 23,077 27,733 100 16,591 .20,388 24,501 150 101,373 124,755 149,947 200 281,717 334,062 401,822 350 477,957 799,267 1,086,916 500- NA NA NA Total 910,159 1,317,881 1,710,347
- O LOi
- O Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-21 l1 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR WEST-SOUTHWEST SECTOR g (50 TO 500 MILES)
Year Mile (Ring) 1987 2007 2028 O 50 5,868 6,461 7,287 60 3,495 3,652 4,236 70 3,073 4,607 5,488 85 15,946 28,302 23,228 100 16,416 20,153 24,220 150 253,896 289,185 374,646 200 330,858 399,739 529,195 350 886,059 2,441,076 2,999,828 500 1,158,161 1,702,276 1,941,101 Total 2,673,772 4,895,451 5,909,229 9
O O
O Amend. 1 2/84
[. .:
l l
I{p VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-22 l1
' POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR WEST SECTOR
.] ) (50 TO 500 MILES)
Year
-Mile (Ring) 1987 2007 2028
- o 50 4,641 5,059 5,684 160 3,224 3,431 4,261 70 3,314 '3,752 4,619 h 85 24,310 29,570 35,678 100 33,211 40,775 49,003
-150 333,910 409,960 386,971 200 345,558 370,426 508,341 350' 1,'668,457 1,900,604 2,004,496 1 500- 1,205,620 1,316,775 1,505,080
- Totali 3,622,245 4,080,352 4,504,133 O
g 6
Amend. 1 2/84
- f. VEGP-OLSER-2
, TABLE 2.1-23 l1 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR WEST-NORTHWEST SECTOR (50 TO 500 MILES)
Year Mile
_(Ring) '1987 2007 2028 50 10,331 12,770 15,769 60 3,745 4,619 5,606
-70 2,168 2,661 3,199 85 10,076 12,373 14,869 100 14,655 10,238 21,,23 150 831,586 1,020,987 1,226,977 200 1,035,041 1,531,501 1,912,453 350 1,638,831 1,872,384 2,121,786 500 2,141,176 2,705,573 3,082,201 Total 5,687,609 7,173,114 8,404,483 O
o O
1 Amend. 1 2/84 l
p t
) 'VEGP-OLSER-2
! TABLE 2.1-24 l1 r
POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR NORTHWEST SECTOR-
, (50 TO 500 MILES)
L' l
- . -Year i
Mile
< (Ring) 1987 2007 2028 LCI)- -
?50 26,143 '39,673 58,522 3_ 60 3,694 5,613 6,710 70: 3,550 ~
4,158 4,839 85^ 14,553 17,559 20,859 4
100 25,520 313163 37,256 3
150 168,752 206,044 211,976 200 125,648 153,538 179,034 350 1,177,173 1,404,601 1,534,827
. 500 2,256,247 2,645,230 2,905,045 Total _3,801,280 4,507,579 4,959,068 f
4 h
E I~
1
~. ,
I 1-I Amend. 1 .2/84 L
(:
4 VEGP-OLSER-2 1( )
TABLE 2.1-25 l1 POPULATION BY SEGMENT FOR NORTH-NORTHWEST SECTOR
() (50 TO 500 MILES)
Year Mile (Ring) 1987 2007 2028
'O 50 5,821 6,557 7,617 60 4,475 4,955 5,549 70 15,007 17,742 20,690 85 36,591 43,660 51,267 100 46,417 55,494 65,258 150 566,171 678,128 798,957 200 347,888 412,002 542,295 350 1,587,824 1,596,233 1,881,257 500 5,464,561 6,181,384 6,390,065 Total 8,074,775 8,996,155 9,762,955 O
- O O
Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-26 l1 TRANSIENT POPULATION (NORTH SECTOR - 0 TO 10 MILES)
Weekday Year Distance from Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 90 20 20 2 0 0 0 3 0 - 0 0 4 0 0 0
, 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 7 9 12 8 7 9 12 9 7 9 12
.. 10 9 12 13
- Sector total 120 59 69 Weekend Day Year Distance from
' Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 8 8 8 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5- 0 0 0 6 0 0 0
~
7 4- 5 6 8 4 5 6 9 4 5 6
.- 10 4 _5 _6_
Sector total 24 28 32 O.
Amend. 1 2./84-
k
, VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-27 l1 TRANSIENT POPULATION
- O.- (NORTH-NORTHEAST SECTOR - 0 TO 10 MILES)
Weekday Year Distance from Center-(mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 75 15 15 2 O O O 3 0 -
0 0 4 O O O 5 250 275 280 6 19 . 25 31 7' O O O 8 O O O 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0
. Sector total. 344 315 326 Weekend Day Year Distance from Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1- 5 5 5 2 O O O 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 15 20 25 6 10 12 14 7 O- 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Sector total 30 37 44 O
Amend. 1 2/84
~ . . - _ . -. . .. . - _ . - .. __ - - .. -.
L
.VEGP-OLSER-2 f
TABLE 2.1-20 l1 TRANSIENT POPULATION l.
(NORTHEAST SECTOR - 0 TO 10 MILES)
Weekdav i
Year
. Distance from
-Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 .
!' 1 75 15 15 2 0- 0 0
- 3 0 0 0
- 4 0 0 0 4
5 0 0 0 6 19 25 31 7 357 360 365 8 0 0- 0
- 9 865 880 895 10 0 0 0 Sector total 1316 1280 1306 >
Weekend Day '
Year
!' Distance from Center (mile) 1987. 2007 2028 1 5 5 5 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 ,
'4 0 0 0
. 5- 0 0 0 6 10 12 14 7 -
10 12 12 8 0 0 0 9 15 22 27 r
10 0 0 0 Sector total 40 51 58 ;
i
- O Amend. 1 2/84 li
. _ ,.-._..,-...., _ . ~ ._. _ . _ ._____ _.._ _ __._._ _. _ __ _-
h i-VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-29 h TRANSIENT POPULATION ,
-(EAST-NORTHEAST SECTOR - 0 TO 10 MILES) l
( Weekday i
i Year
- (. =
Distance from ,
Center'(mile) 1987 2007 2028 4
F l
1 75 '15 15 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 7.
4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 t' 6 19 25 31
'7 0 0 0
- i. ~8 0 0 0 9 100 102 105 10- 0 0 0 Sector. total 194 142 151 '
I s,; Weekend Day i --
i--
Year Distance from Center (mile) 1987- 2007 2028 -
1 5 5 5 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 '
~-
4 0- 0 0
- 5 0 0 0 ;
6 10 12 14 7; O O O 8 0 0 0 9 8 10 10 f 10 0 0 0 Sector total. 23 27 29 '
LOl i
l l
Amend. 1 2/84 l
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-30 l1 TRANSIENT POPULATION
.' (EAST SECTOR - 0 TO 10 MILES)
Weekday Year Distance from Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 90 20 20 2 0 0 0 3 0 -
0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 . O O 7~ 7 9 12
~8 7 9 12
.9 7 9 12 10 7 9 12 Sector total 118 56 68 Weekend Day Year 3 Distance'from-Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 8 8 8 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
.( =
5 6
0 0
0 0
0 0
7 4 5 6 8 4 5 6 9 4 5 6 10 4 5 6 Sector total 24 28 32 LO Amend. 1 2/84 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
l VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-31 l1 TRANSIENT POPULATION (EAST-SOUTHEAST SECTOR - 0 TO 10 MILES)
Weekday-Distance from 1987
~
Center (mile) 2007 2028 1 127 44 44 -
2 O O O 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 O O O 7 O O O 8 0 0 0
'9 0 0 0 10 .-- 0 0 0 Sector. total. 127 44 44 Weekend Day Year Distance from Center (mile)- 1987 2007 2028 1 15 15 15 2 O O O.
- 3. O O O 4 O O O 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 O O O 8' O O O 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Sector total 15 15 15 O:
Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2
~
TABLE 2.1-32 1 TRANSIENT POPULATION (SOUTHEAST SECTOR - 0 TO 10 MILES)
Weekday Year
~ Distance from Center-(mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 127 44 44
'2 0 0 0 3 0 - 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 _ _ _ -
10 0 0 0
- - Sector total 127 44 44 Weekend Day Year Distance'from Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 15 15 15 2 0 0 0 3 0 b 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 ,
6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 Sector total 15 15 15 O.
Amend. 1 2/84
l I-l 1- VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2 1-33 l1 TRANSIENT POPULATION (SOUTH-SOUTHEAST SECTOR - 0 TO 10 MILES)
Weekday Year Distance from
_O Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028
.1 127 44 44 2 O O O 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0
- Sector-total 127 44 44 Weekend Day Year Distance from Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 15 15 15 2 O O O 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 O O O
- 7. O O O 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0
-0 Sector total 15 15 15 10 .
1 Amend. 1 2/84
1 4-i- ;
VEGP-OLSER-2 l
TABLE 2.1-34 l1
' TRANSIENT POPULATION (SOUTH SECTOR - 0 TO 10 MILES)
, Weekday Year
, ' Distance from !
Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 i
1 .127 44 44
~2 O O O l '
3 0 - 0 0 4 0 0 0 4
5 0 0 0 t 6 0 . 0 0 '
! -7 0 0 0 e 8 0 0 0 ,
? -9 0 0 0 ;
10- 0 0 0 Sector total 127 44 44 i
Weekend Day Year Distance from l- Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 L
1 15 15 15 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 i -
4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 '
8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 i 10 0 0 0
' O-Sector total 15 15 15 i
LO; g-
- l. :
^
Amend. 1 2/84
(.-. .2,,,.. _ .. - ,.--.. - - __ _ . _ ..-__ _ _- _ _ _ _ . _ __ __
F VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-35 l1 TRANSIENT POPULATION (SOUTH-SOUTHWEST SECTOR - 0 TO 10 MILES)
Weekday Year Distance from
~.. Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 127 44 44 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Sector total 127 44 44 Weekend Day Year
. Distance from Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 15 15 15 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 6
7 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
8- 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0
'1 Sector total 15 15 15 O
Amend. 1 2/84
l-
-I ?
l-l-
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-36 l1 TRANSIENT POPULATION (SOUTHWEST _ SECTOR - 0 TO 10 MILES)
Weekday 1 Year
- Distance from Center (mile) _1987 2007 2028 1 127 44 44 2 0 0 0 3 0 . 0 0 4 0 0 0
.5 0 .0 0 6 0 . 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Sector total 127 44 44 Weekend Day Year Distance from
-Center (mile) ~1987 2007 2028 1 15 15 15 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 i
4 0 0 0
- 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0
.: 10^ 0 0 0 g Sector. total- 15 15 15 O
Amend. 1 2/84
a.
I VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-37 l1 TRANSIENT PCPULATION (WEST-SOUTHWEST SECTOR - O To 10 MILES)
Weekday 1
Year O >
Distance from Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 127 44 44 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 O O O 5 O O O 6- 0 0 0
- 7. 0 0 0 8 0 ~
0 0
_._ __9 .. - - O O 10 0 0 0 Sector total. 127 44 44 Weekend Day Year Distance from-Center (milel 1987. 2007 2028
- 1. 15 15 15 2 0 0 0 3- 0 0- 0
'4 0 0 0 5 O O O 6 0 0 0
.7 0 0 0
-8 0 0 0 9- 0 0 0 10 0~ 0 0 g Sector total 15 15 15 OL Amend. 1 2/84
l VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-38 l1 TRANSIENT POPULATION (WEST SECTOR - 0 TO 10 MILES)
Weekday Year Distance from Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1, 127 44 44 2 O O O
' 3 0 -
0 0 4 O O O 5 O O O 6 0 . O O 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 C Sector total 127 44 44 Weekend Day Year
. Distance from Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 15 15 15 2 O O O
- 3. O O O 4 O O O 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 O O O 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Sector total 15 15 15 Amend. 1 2/84
- VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-39 l1 TRANSIENT POPULATION (WEST-NORTHWEST SECTOR - 0 TO 10 MILES)
Weekday Year Distance from
..O. L Centar (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 127 44 44 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0
- c. 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0
' Sector total 127 44 44 Weekend Day Year
- -Distance from Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 15 15 15 2 0 0 0
-3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0
Sector total 15 15 15
- O Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-40 l1 TRANSIENTPOPULAT[ON (NORTHWEST SECTOR - 0 TO 10 MILES)
Weekday Year Distance from 1987 2007
~
2028
~
' Center (mile) 1 127 44 44 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 O O O 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0- 0 Sector total 127 44 44 Weekend Day Year Distance from-Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 15 15 15 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
. 4 0 0 0
.5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Sector tota'r 15 15 15 O
l m ,. Amend. 1 2/84 1...... 1 - _ _ _ _ _ _
i-
~
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-41 l1 TRANSIENT POPULATION
^
(NORTH-NORTHWEST SECTOR - 0 TO 10 MILES)
Weekday Year Distance from Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 127 44 44 2 0 0 0 3 0 .
0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6' O . O O 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0
. Sector total 127 44 44 Weekend Day Year
-Distance-from Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 15 15 15 2- 0 0 0 3 O O O 4 O O O 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 O O O 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0- Sector total 15 15 15 LO..
Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-42 l1 TRANSIENT POPULATION ANNULAR RINGS AND ENCLOSED POPULATION (O TO 10 MILES)
Weekday Distance from Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 1802 569 569 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5- 250 275 280 6 57 75 93 7 371 378 389
'8 14 18 24 9 979 1000 1024 10 16 21 25 Sector total 3489 2336 2404 Weekend Day-Year Distance from Center (mile) 1987 2007 2028 1 196 196 196 2- 0 0 0
~
-3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 15 20 25 6 30 36 42 7- 18 22 24 8' 8 10 12 9 31 42 49 10 8 . 10 12 Sector total 306 336 360 O
Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-43 l1
. JURISDICTIONAL POPULATION Jurisdiction 1980 1987 2007 2028 Burke County, GA 19,349 20,162 22,764 25,878
'Girard, GA 1,109 1,142 1,267 1,438
-Richmond County, GA 181,629 196,402 241,269 300,303 Aiken County, SC 105,625 118,277 149,180 193,840 Allendale County, SC 10,700 11,470 13,043 15,105 Barnwell County, SC 19,868 22,200 27,821 35,947
- O.
O LO O
Amend. 1 2/84
= . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
i i
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-44 l1 JURISDICTIONAL LOCATION
' Jurisdiction Distance (mile) Direction i
Burke County, GA Immediately ~ West-northwest; southeast
. surrounding Girard, GA 7.5 South-southeast l1 t Richmond County, GA 5.O' West-northwest; northwest Allendale County, GA 8.0 East; east-southeast Aiken County, SC 3.0 North-northwest; north-east i '
Barnwell County, SC O.5 Northeast; east l-
.O i
Lo 4
o.
i t -
O Amend. 1 2/84
--re,w-e-,w-=- . _..,_e.,..sg..c.., ,,-..w- -,w..-= w w . w. w_w y e-----w,v _ m ,em.,,% e.e,w,-w_,,w,ww.--g, erg-g ,ewww y ,,.y.g,-- _.,_.,,-me,-
.a hT V '
, s 1
()
VEGP-OLSER-2 .
. +
\
TABLE 2.1-45 (SNEET 1 0F 2) l1 ANNUALMEAT[ MILK, AND T[UCK FARMING PRODUCTION
()
FOR 50-MI E : RADIUS <a>
~~ Meat (kg x'1000) x Milk Truck Crops Segmedc Cattle. ,
. , Ho g3_' ' (kg x 1000) (kg x 1000) b' N-20 N-30
. 62.9
~ $03.1-
's '
.102.2 818.0 26'.1 2C9.0 0
0 N-43 711.2 1156.2 295.4 0 N-50 -909.5 .,.1210.5 1155.0 102.1 NNE-20 40.3s '
210.6 27.5 0
'NNE-30 546.4 2017.7 311.0 0 NNE-40 1025.5 2086.4 1848.'2 194.4 NME-50 1639.0 2566.5 4007.-4 463.9 NE220 53.1 ~ 277.1 36.2 0 NE-30 620.0 3236.1 ,, 423.2 O NE-40 1707.5 5480.*7 c 4387.0 63.2 '
NE-50 . 2454.4 4652.6 7088.2, , 626.8
'ENE-20 _ 2El.7 1046.0 62.3- 0
) ENE2 30 D? 518 2 4293'.2 276.8 #
0 k'_'/ ENE-40', 1262.7 3763.4 3206L5 0 ENE-50 .s 1252.8' 3325.6 3706.7 9.7 E-20'_.E ,
s 242.7 ~310.8 0 0 E-30 ? 768.4 2567.6 0 0 E-40 ; 1379.4 4736.M '
187.9 0 3948.2
~
E-50 , 121'2.1 302.5 0 ESE-20 738.2 2344.7 2334.1 1173.7 ESE 491.1 1640.9 0 0 ESE-40' 812.7 "2866.8
223.4 0 ESE-50 1274.2 4530.2 s 1 403.4 0 SE-201 647.8 2148.8 -
'2185.2 1015.3 SE1 30 905.3'y 3081'.'3 3171.4' 1406.6 SE-40 1259.6 '4301.0 . 4124.2 1816.4
, SE-50. 816.2 2510.9 ?' 1203.4 830.9
'~ I SSE-20 453.6 1189.7 x 1403.3 661.4 SSE-30;' 1046.4 3559.0 3717.0 1611.5 SSE-40 1459.2 5716.5 '
- 3884.7. 1684.2 SSE-50~ 1683.4 84 Ag.,4 1450.7 503.0 fs S-20 ? 445.3 -
1101V6 2760.7 270.1
(
'~'
) S - 3 0 ' f'- 676.5 2103;5 611's.7 0 S-40 1734.2 '5550.0 ~'6751.9 853.3 S-50 1 2487.3 8179.2 1183.6 s 1078.7 SSW-20., 387.2 549.5 576.2 624.1
(
SSW-30 ,
685.2 g 1759.6 ' 4536 16 354.0 fs SSW-40 1697.0 2951.8, 160,9.5 752.7
( l SSW-50 '
2447.4 407672' 601'.8 827.2 SW-20 426.7 , 467.1 ',% A6.6 819.7 SW:30 u, x,; 610.9 668.8 23.8 1173.7 yz '
, ,, s ,
I '
i # '
~
~
Amend. 1 2/84 e
i
[ ,,' .
r.
~
- f. VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-45 (SHEET 2 OF 2) 1 Meat (kg x 1000)
( , ,
Milk Truck Crops
' Segment Cattle ' Hogs ikg_7 1000) (kg x 1000)
SW-40 908.2 -1775.8 l',a8.4- 1205.4 SW-50 1792.1 2676.3 4136.5 4953.7
. . WSW-20 387.9 424.~7 15.1 745.2
' =% -
1WSW-30 697.2 -793.3 241.4 1153.2 LWSW-40 1777.7 2326.9 2795.7 1043.3 WSW-50 2002.5 2943.3 3767.4 4277.4 W-20 195.9 222.1. ~ 34. 3. 353.9
'W-30. 329.9 417.8 285.1 400.5 W-40 1158.1 1216.3 1605.8 648.3 W-50 1280.4' .1630.4 1711.6 3010.6
-WNW-20 111.9 186.2 226.5 27.9
- WNW-30' 332.7- 581.5 771.7 0
-WNW-40 818.4 ~356.5 412.7 0
'WNW-50 1056.2 453.0 621.8 0 NW-20 -268,.4 '436.7 115.9 0 1 'E NW-30 481.2 802.7 517.3 0
- NW-40 434.9 .255.4 422.9 0 NW-50 651.7 156.5 936.3 0
'NNW-20 304.8- 495.5 126.6 O NNW-30. 503.1 818.0 209.0 0 4
NNW-40 857.3 1017.0 -633.8 0 NNW-50 3294.1' 889'.2 4847.6 0 Data from.1979.
a.
Amend. 1 2/84
4 f
+
f VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-46 l1 ANNUAL CROP PRODUCTION
, FOR 50-MILE RADIUS Production Crop (kg x 1000)
Peanuts . 412, 518. 8 : a>
Corn 2,183,321.4 Tobacco 19,291.8 Soybeans 7,321,704.8 Cotton 30,807.0
. Wheat 104,551.5 Sorghum 8,473.2 e Rye 86,943.4 Oats 104,977.7 Barley 2,833.4 4
O g
e :a. 1978 statistics used for South Carolina counties.
Amend. 1 2/84
f VEGF-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-47 1 AVERAGE ANNUAL YIELD BY CROPS FOR 50-MILE RADIUS Yield Crop (kg/m 2)
Peanuts 1. 59 < a>
Corn 2.13 Tobacco 0.99 Soybeans 0.74 Cotton . O.18 Wheat 0.90 Sorghum 1.04 Rye 0.59 Oats 1.34 Barley 1.07 19 :.
a.
1978 statistics used for South Carolina counties.
Amend. 1 2/84 -
(} VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-48 l1 ANNUAL ESTIMATE OF TOTAL NUMBER, AVERAGE WEIGHT, AIE)
O kg/ha BY SPECIES FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING FROM RIVER MILE 0.0 TO 21.6 (PROBABILITY ROVING SURVEY) OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 29, 1979 TO DECEMBER 26, 1980
() Number
% of Weight (kg)
% of Harvest Total Total Total Total kg/ha Striped bass 1,369 2.5 1,629 10.0 0.64 Striped bass X white bass hybrid 501 0.9 522 3.2 0.21 Sea trout 4,395 8.0 2,100 12.9 0.83 Red drum 3,833 6.9 2,605 16.0 1.03 Croaker / spot 13,541 24.5 1,452 8.9 0.57 Silver perch 6,247 11.3 505 3.1 0.20 Flounder 1,227 2.2 471 2.9 0.19 White catfish 9,615 17.4 3,853 23.9 1.52 Other species 14,466 26.3 3,099 19.1 1.22 Total 55,194 100.0 16,236 100.0 6.40 O
O O
Amend. 1 2/84
j( } VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-49 l1 ANNUAL ESTIMATE OF TOTAL NUMBER, AVERAGE WEIGHT, O AND kg/ha BY' SPECIES FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING FROM RIVER MILE 21.6 TO 187.2 (LANDINGS SURVEY) OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 29, 1979 TO DECEMBER 26, 1980 Number Weight (kg)
% of % or Harvest Total Total Total Total kg/ha Striped bass 1,205 0.2 6,278 6.1 1.52 Striped bass X white bass hybrid 396 0.1 474 0.5 0.12 Bluegill 160,666 29.1 20,540 19.8 4.98 Redbreast sunfish 151,308- 27.5 21,982 21.1 5.34
-Warmouth 58,742 10.6 8,518 8.2 2.07 Redear sunfish 25,276 4.6 5,152 5.0 1.25 Spotted sunfish 6,126 1.1 573 0.6 0.14 Largemouth bass 13,651 2.5 7,562 7.3 1.83 Crappie- 34,185 6.2 7,270 7.0 1.76 Yellow perch 13,219 2.4 1,907 1.8 0.46 Channel catfish 18,987 3.5 5,815 5.6 1.41
- O- White catfish 5,941 1.1 1,982 1.9 0.48 Bullheads 39,345 7.1 5,558 5.4 1.35 Shad 433 0.1 630 0.6 0.15 Chain pickerel 6,423 1.2 2,362 2.3 0.57 Other species 14,694 2.7 7,079 6.8 1.72 Total 550,282 100.0 103,682 100.0 25.15 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-50 l1 WEIGHT AND CASH VALUE OF COMMERCIAL SHAD FROM THE LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER FROM 1978 THROUGH 1982 s Year Weight (kg) Value (Dollars)
- . 1978 38,358.7 52,881 1979 46,354.3 82,312 1980 45,414.4 84,369
'1981 26,342.2 - 46,894 1982 29,448.2 54,309 Mean 37,183.6 64,153
-g O
O Amend. 1 2/84 i .
' C O t O O TABLE 2.1-51 WATER USERS POSSIBLY CONTAMIriATED BY VEGP DISCHARGES Current I*I Pro iected 2020 I*I Jistance f rom VEGP Type of Wi thd rawa l Return Wi thd rawa l HeLurn Radial User Use Lqa l /m i nL _(Spm) JSemj_ _Lqpmj [ miles) River Mile Savannah Ilectric Industrial 176.6 176.6 176.6 176.6 8T 131 and Power
( Port Wentworth)
Heaurort/ Jasper Domestic 3.6 0.0 3.8 0.0 70 112 Savannah I.lectric industrial 70.0 70.0 70.0 70. v' 65 108 and Power (trringham) 1 union Camp industri11 24.0 21.6 53.0 47.7 89 134 4
'avannah Electric Industrial 66.8 66.8 66.8 66.8 90 136 $
i and Power
' rJ (Riverside) 1 O
Savannah Electric Domestic (b) - - -
90 137, [
and l' owe r g
(Gene ra l ofTices ) y t
Asturican Cyanimido Industrial 11.1 10.0 24.5 22.1 92 140 N Cherokee ili1l Domestic / industrial 31.3 0.0 41.6 0.0 83 122 Waior T reatment
! Plant
( Port Wentworth)
}
l3
.CL I
g a. I lows r epresent monthly ave rages.
- b. Iacility is 1icensed " domestic", but is not used for consumptlon.
N N
, ao
.Ch 1
i
() VEGP-OLSER-2 TABLE 2.1-52 l1 BURKE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR INDUSTBY
() (1979 and 1980 DATAca>
Employees Agricultural 657 1( ) Contract Construction 1190 Apparel and other textile products 637 Fabricated metal products 375 Lumber and wood products 375 Furniture and fixtures 375 Machinery except electrical 175 Electric equipment and systems 195
-Transportation and public utilities 750 Wholesale and retail trade 395 Local government 804 Total 6700 oO
- a. Source: Battile Columbus Laboratoriec, Assessment of g Service Needs.for Burke and Richmond Counties, January 1982.
J(\j Amend. 1 2/84
e..,.. n
.s .
\.
N,_ _-. _ _ _ _ .
_, _4 .-
s.
! +
e 14 i
%*%p::: s..: l O M.1,..AN-T ~#m. x ~ .; .
I'.T' 3 6<
.e.t. j 2 j
.t (i /
,/ MILES g+ > ./,k#; , 1 ,
47, e g* z N '
- f,,t
, P'-
tv .,
# [O f e
- c:
l ,
- .qqfv (/ .
q:.
eA. .
t.
1;- ,
JCa. ~ $ ' [' ' , ;,
_.,_=, 4 *g
- s. '%
[f M C # ~
{4f,. % s
- g. , ,, .
o s.. tu / j. / ,,, % - c' *
/ e
'~
g t g- s, ' % ~ s s .
N" ,
/
'b , i
..I R
y(
,$ s. , .- 'i ,
. s- t . .
~
. P,. i x / g.
\
$$#/ .,, !
\ . , d' N .
c x
- .;. hm* . \. C r
I r ew)4 sh x . v
~
n
]
./
6
!. y< .c . 3>-- . -
': . ^t
\ l ,
.. s,. . , .:. .
l .
ed.
- 1 -
i
.~.s......,....
' ALEK.t Nr grs,
, sg
- f. qp,v6 ,
z ,7
, 45 A e fm % - L ,
,..\
$;r.$'t 9 3
og,e y
qA -
l , $r c .ps' M-L n{ JR M l i,
[ sa y,
(
M f R .% ;,. % . G .
o RESIDENCES, WATER BODIES AND voGTLE TRANSMISSION LINES INVENTORY Georeia v Power d RmRIC GENER ATING PLANT WITHIN 5 MILES OF VEGP SITE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.1-6 433
.. ..-9 >
l (100 MILE RAOlUS) lO .- . c = ,.
..?x=c=.. / - ,,,,
- g,;a m.-g,;; : =u. _.---d
- . . - "6-" . * . _,,,,T,
,1r*.
4,,,,,,,,,*-
- y- v -
- a. .
.c -~. 3L . a--A -
s
- %. =%,,,,,,. .'.* ,,, - ,.,, -. . %. . W. a ,., ,,. E, =%)w - c .: *.
=cg ,,
it. _ , .
i .% % ---'. s, - ). . - - , .,,,,,,s .-,,,.
, @, eas' a'," . A ,
% ,. A., , ,,,,,.- ---
e
/
J 5 * .."y,g;,
.~, a yr= =.= .
Q .,,,3 .g,,,,
-- --,,,.,,,,,-:,,,,,,f....-==.~,,,.
, d ""* *s-
-+* .
,._m s.
/
], 4 /.
= i ,,. . ,
. \ ,5 ./~.. -=
,. . m.
. m. .~
-./-
._..e--. , . -
~
q ~\**
s
--" * ~ ,
0:E #""",
/,7 l ' 4'Gz:e,pwogd, SIC 2 (21,069) ,,,,, ** , -j'"*T :
- *. ' . !~ '" *
. app,r,,g . 70 iles) g '. ,. sS h er, 4 T24,436) g<
y
,~___...s
,,, e **
. a. , , ,
. - .. .e.,g., _gm c.- -
.- ~, -
s -95. -
miles *
. " -:"*J-. '-'7~T .\
~ 1 l-- . ltrnb , S.C.
Co (113, 42 .i - ,.,.==.
.,r ~.= e'
.y w.,;on'. - /.
u
..,s,.
s m.ro
. ( .* -
-. unco ; , ,,, %.,.Capprox.
7,5 s
m.tles -. s, _ ;9*'t -- .3 - L
. g .%, ,,.,,., .'
/. Aiken, S. ., hd 3'6 )- y. . . -~
/ - ',
'*'T
~_. u~ ;. ;g coeu . ~y ~' -
A .= ~~
Z. e ,* : <= ! Y
- h<t Gordon,'*G'a ,
. w M :^~"""
q . g .::p,;,g,E_.h Nor t
s
='a~, =S .C eangeburg
_ /
y . u.
r' -
?- :.13,'2E'M '~f - .-'- /
.us ~~'""M\..L15. ,'5%9)*-"-" y .. ..g .k /( 2,883bs a~ , . -~ .=) % ~5
' ' " " *;i . " .c -
-); XEgysta- Ga.
459,864) ,5,
/ *"
.* k?." A.25 miled*~'~ ,/Chan. '
~~'
- li qT Gulf 90_
.Ntx:
clearlear PfantService,,s ' (
~ D.'a . coc. f ;Vogtle Electric s.s-
.:.u. ..
a -- . ,4, #y , . c g . ,. , ,
,"".~-
1, ,(.,,,g * ' * " ' " ' "
,, , Generating Plant ,,,, .,.
.T
'r-y - - La ,
.fre- ._ ; ,
, rw. - g-.- , ,.... Q) q;h
=
g.--
- ,- ]3
~ .. .
M ,,,. q, .s .
~...i
. - ~ *
. _ s lestg.y 6'6,945)
. .u
,o, au.s
- ' h, _,
s . , ,
.:. E" .**" ' / "** ***-*a r.uu,oc.h'~ M s
- s '
- ::::t : - g-eine. ._,
". - .c.,c - "/~
.-i p
~
p^ . ;
1
."O" 7 r=urh. .,,";ll7, .s-
- "--> m. t
.6.
6.v,' ,,,,, . , , .. - ,
" - * . - * .= P-~'ca.,'u. - :- .-
. * * * .. .c.,,,. r% g- ,_. . . .- *
- ;, .<, c. , ! ::e , -.
p .- ,.-
,,,, ,, .uo . g ,. . ( .7 * ,* y,,,, Q d.o g y, , Beaufort / Jasper
- - i :,'. ..'-".~. .: ... x .:, r., c:r.
\ .- ' "'*j
,'O ..*c7- - 118 349 M .,,., . 8-
.- ?
,j.
. Savanr22r;
,.re u. , A -(g,h Savannah Electric &
". o ."',',% g Power (Port Wentworth) p\
j *** C ' " ' ' "
~'
^ * "*
s j to e * " " * * . ,,
Cherokee Hill Water
,o,l*"".' = *io6 ,.y [~ . 1 % .JJ ,,,,,,, s[ Treatment Plant (Port vu==,=,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,. - .
~
e %g --* u Wentworth)
" " " . " *- - , , , , ,7.-* ..- , e, coa
==.. - .e , Savannah Electric & Power 1 Union camp (Effingham)
Savannah Electric & P0wer N
(Fiverside) s./ O 32 64 Savannah Electric & Power l l- l f (General Offices)
American Cyanimide WILES H
p Q
SAVANNAH RIVER SEGMENT POSSIBLY VOGTLE CONTAMINATED BY STATION DISCHARGE Geore. is iaPower ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.1-9 433-9
- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ . - _ Arm rweL 1 2/M
VEGP-OLSER-2
(}
by several species but in relatively low numbers compared to the
' diatoms. This observation is in agreement with other studies done on the Savannah River phytoplankton population by the
()
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.
2.2.2.5.2 Zooplankton
,s A study of the zooplankton community of the Savannah River near J]'
\-
the VEGP site began in January 1981 and ended in September 1981 (see section 6.1.1.2.4). The purpose of this study was to gather baceline data on species composition, density, and diversity of the zooplankton community.
'A total of 32 taxa were collected in the Savannah River between river mile 150.6 and river mile 151.2. The number of taxa collected for each major taxonomic group were: Protozoa, 7; Cnidaria, 1; Rotifera, 12; Copepoda, 3; Ostracoda, 1; Cladocera, 1; other Crustacea, 1; and miscellaneous taxa, 7. Because most identifications were made only to major taxonomic levels and many soft-bodied forms were destroyed by the formalin -- -
preservative used, the actual species variability of the zeoplankton populations were underrepresented.
Members of the phyla Protozoa comprised approximately 61 percent of the. total number of zooplankton samples taken in 1981.
Rotifera represented about 18 percent; Crustacea, 10 percent; and other miscellaneous phyla, 10 percent of the total samples taken. Keratella opp. was one of the most abundant rotifers in the studies from 1959 to 1962 conducted by the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and in the 1981 study.
Relatively low densities of rotifers, copepods, and crustacean nauplii were also observed in both studies.
Densities of zooplankton were relatively iow in the Savannah River near the VEGP. Other studies ' " s 2" conducted on l1 bw) the Savannah River revealed low zooplankton densities. The
\- .
number of protozoan species varied greatly from that found in other studies and is probably due to differences in sampling design, methods, and level of identification.
fm.
(
w) 2.2.3 RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Vertebrate species which may be found in the vicinity of the VEGP and which are listed on the Federal Endangered Species List'" ' and Georgia's Protected Species List'" are the f3 shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), American
( alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), mountain lion I' ' ) (Felis concolor cougar), ivory-billed woodpecker Campephilus principalis), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides 2.2-11 Amend. 1 2/84 I l
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ i
VEGP-OLSER-2 borealis), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), and the southern bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocechalus leucocephalus).
The shortnose sturgeon was not reported as occurring in the &
Savannah River by Dahlberg and Scott or McFarlane, W et al. '" Heidt and Gilbert"' reported its occurrence in the Savannah River, and more recent reports from South Carolina biologists'" indicate its occurrence as far upstream as river mile 134. The specimens are reported from Millett and Tillman, South Carolina. In 1979, 1980, and 1981, specimens collected numbered 10, 7, and 12, respectively. Studies by GPC have g
failed to verify the presence of either the adults or larvae of the shortnose sturgeon in the vicinity of the VEGP (D. O. Foster letter to E. G. Adensam, July 7, 1983). Specific sampling tech-niques for adult shortnose sturgeon were not used and may be the reason for their absence.
Heidt and Gilbert'" stated that the shortnose sturgeon was reported to be rare and thought to have disappeared from much of its range in the United States. It appears to be relatively common in many large rivers along the eastern coast. Studies in large rivers of the eastern United States would probably reveal additional shortnose sturgeon populations. The Georgia g Protected Species List recommends the life history and habitat W requirement of the shortnose sturgeon be researched and critical habitats be determined. Such information is not yet available for the State of Georgia.
The American alligator has been sighted on the Savannah River and in sediment retention basins 1 and 2 located on the plant site. The habitats preferred by the American alligator are swamps, lakes, sloughs, or sluggish streams. The status of the American alligator was noted in FES subsection 2.7.1.
The mountain lion has not been sighted nor have tracks been found on the plant site. The species has been reported from Columbia County, located north of Burke County, but has not been reported from Burke County. Farming and logging operations have probably led to the decline of the species, which prefers vast tracts of undisturbed land. Since much of the area eurrounding the plant site has been disturbed by farming and logging operations, it is doubtful that the species occurs in the g vicinity of the plant site. W The ivory-billed woodpecker and red-cockaded woodpecker are very habitat-specific species. The ivory-billed woodpecker requires extensive acreages of mature cypress swamp and bottomland hardwoods. This species has not been observed in Georgia in 3 over 30 years and is probably now extinct. The red-cockaded w 2.2-12
VsC?-OLSER-2
( )
-woodpecker requires overmature pine trees infected with red-heart disease. There is no suitable habitat on the site for J
either of these two species.
~O The peregrine falcon is a migratory bird in. Georgia most often observed on the coast. Because of its migratory status, the species should not be~affected by the VEGP site. There have
-been no observations of this species on the site or nearby vicinity.
.O _ The southern bald eagle requires extensive undistu re b d shoreline and large. nesting trees. Although the site or nearby vicinity offers very little stitable habitat for the species, one might occasionally fly near or across the site. There have been no observations made of the species on the bird surveys conducted by GPC-biologists.
, Plant species which may be found in Burke or surrounding Georgia counties and listed on Georgia's Protected Species List'" are nostronia (Nestronia umbellula), hooded pitcher plant (Sarracenia minor), pond bush (Litsea aestivalis), fly
_ catchers (Sarracenia' flava), parrot pitcher plant (Sarracenia psittacina), and sweet-pitcher plant
'(Sarracenia rubra).
.Nestronia is primarily found in' pine-deciduous woods in the piedmont of Georgia. The hooded pitcher. plant, fly catchers, parrot pitcher plant, and sweet pitcher plant are found in acidic soils in piney flatwoods. The pond bush is found growing
.in. swamp margins, lime sink ponds, all low, wet woodlands.
There is very little suitable habitat on the site or nearby vicinity capable of supporting any of these protected plants.
No protected plants have been located on the site during the vegetation surveys conducted by GPC biologista and foresters.
() There~are no invertebrate animals in Georgia listed on the Georgia or Federal Endangered or Threatened Species List. "'
There are no designated or proposed critical habitats for any endangered or threatened species on the plant site or nearby r- vicinity.-
!A
[
2.2-13
l VEGP-OLSER-2 REFERENCES
- 1. Office of Endangered Species and International Activities, g Threatened Wildlife of the United States, Red Book Data, W U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1973.
- 2. Odom, R. R., et al., Georgia's Protected Wildlife, Game and Fish Division, Endangered Wildlife Program, Social Circle, Georgia, 1977.
- 3. Dahlberg, M. D., and Scatt, D. C., "The Freshwater Fishes of Georgia," Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science, Volume 29, pp 1-64, January 1971.
- 4. McFarlane, R. W., Frietsche, R. F., and Miracle, R. D.,
Impingement and Entrainment of Fishes at the Savannah River Plant, an NPDES 316b Demonstration, E. I. DuPont DeNemours and Company, Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, South Carolina, 1978.
- 5. Heidt, A. R., and Gilbert, R. J., "The Shortnose Sturgeon in the Altcmaha River Drainage, Georgia," Proceedings of the Rare and Endangered Wildlife Symposium, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, lh Athens, Georgia, 1978.
- 6. Smith, T., Biologist, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Rescurce Department, Personal Communication, 1981.
- 7. McCollum, J. L., and Ettman, D. R., Georgia's Protected Plantn, Resource Planning Section, OPR, Endangered Plant Program, Atlanta, Georgia, 1977.
- 8. Guthrie, W., Biologist, Georgia Game and Fish Division, Personal Communication, 1981.
- 9. Patricks, R., Cairns, J., and Roback, S. S., "An Ecosystematic Study of the Fauna and Flora of the Savannah River, " Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 118, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp 109-407, 1967.
- 10. Williams, L. G., " Plankton Population Dynamics," l U.S. Public Health Services Publ. No. 663, suppl. 2, Washington, D.C., pp 93, 1962.
- 11. Williams, L. G., " Dominant Planktonic Rotifers of Major Waterways of the United States," Limnol. Oceanog. 11, pp 83-91, 1966.
g l
2.2-14 Amend. 1 2/84 Y _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
VEGP-OLSER-2
[
)
2.4 HYDROLOGY
.Since the submission of the VEGP Construction Permit Stage
( '.' -Environmental Report (CPSER) and the. publication of the Nuclect Regulatory. Commission's Final Environmental Statement (FES),
additional flow and water quality data for the Savannah River and groundwater have become available. The following is a brief description of these additional studies and factors which
.have changed since the CPSER and FES.
2.4.1 SURFACE WATER ENVIRONS Since the completion of the FES, an additional upstream reservoir, Richard B. Russell, located between Clarke Hill and Hartwell raservoirs has been scheduled for completion in 1984.
The construction of this reservoir is not expected to change
-the low or average-flow characteristics at the VEGP site.
Based on data from the United States Geologic Survey gaging station at Augusta, Georgia (approximately 50 river miles
.. upstream from the VEGP site), the annual average flow of the
} Savannah ~ River is 10,300 ft'/s.
by the U.S. Corp of Engineer. dams, the minimum flow, guaranteed Due to upstream flow control to' preserve navigability, is 5,800 ft'/s with 6,300 ft'/s achieved 70 percent of the time.
-There.are_four facility s'ructures c in the flood plain associated with VEGP: the intake structure with canal; the barge unloading facility; .the site runoff flume; and site discharge pipe. These facilities have been permitted by the Corps of Engineers pursuant to section 10 of the River and Harbors ~Act and section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As part of that-process-(33 CFR 320.4 (1)), the Corps of Engineers considered Executive order 11988 relative to flood plain jn. management and the effect that these facilities would have on T ,) : upstream and downstream users.
Detailed information on surface water-is found in section 2.4 of the Final Safety Analysis Rep' ort (FSAR). Section 2.5 of the CPSER and section 2.5 of the FES contain further information on y surface ~ water.
~\)
~ Additional' surface water' quality studies have been performed by Georgia Power Company, the U.S. Geological Survey,-and others.
- Results of these studies have been analyzed and compared with information-utilized to prepare the FES. These studies show no significant change in the characteristics of the surface water 1,f s quality at the VEGP site from that used in the preparation of
'the FES. Georgia Power Company has conducted specific studies 2.4-1
VEGP-OLSER-2 h regarding silt loading in the Savannah River in the vicinity of the intake structure. This information has been utilized in the design of the VEGP intake structure.
2.4.2 GROUNDWATER The regional and site groundwater conditions are described in subsection 2.4.12 of the FSAR, and the information is not g duplicated in this repcrt. Reviewers are referred to the above T mentioned FSAR subsection for informition regarding groundwater.
O O
O O
2.4-2
VEGP-OLSER-2
(~)'T
\_
2.6 REGIONAL HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, SCENIC, CULTURAL, AND NATURAL FEATURES
/m (U) 2.6.1 THE PLANT SITE Historic and archaeological features of the plant site and vicinity were addressed in section 2.3 of the Construction Permit Stage Environmental Report (CPSER). The CPSER also
() describes consultations with the state archaeologist and actions taken at that time to mitigate construction effects. There are no historic sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places or Natural Landmarks within a 5-mile radius of the
- plant. A recent review of the National Register of Historic
' Places lists threr, additional properties in Burke County. These include the Sapp Flantation near Sardis, the John James Jones House in Waynesboro, and the Burke County Courthouse, also in Waynesboro. Since none of the properties above and none of those listed in the CPSER are in or near the VEGP site, they will not be adversely affected by plant operation. The National Register of Natural Landmarks lists 12 sites in Georgia.. None --
of these features are near the VEGP site and thus will not be
("N affected by plant operation. The Botsford Church, listed with
'\ ) the Georgia State Historical Commission (1954), is located approximately 6.7 miles west-southwest of the plant (see subsection 3.1.6) .
~During May 1983, the fossilized remains of a prehistoric whale were discovered near the west side of the VEGP intake structure. The State of Georgia Geologic Survey Branch examined the fossil and determined it to be 45 to 50 million years old.
The Georgia Geologic Survey Branch provided a list of potential candidates to receive the fossil, and at their recommendation the foenil was donated to Georgia Southern College for curation and display in the Georgi'a Southern Museum. Removal of the g3 foasil was completed in June 1983. A summary of events
() surrounding this discovery was provided to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's staff (D. O. Foster letter to E. G. Adensam, July 7, 1983).
n 2.6.2 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES Transmission facilities are sited and constructed in accordance with conditions of the construction permit to minimize impact on regional historic, archaeological, architectural, scenic, cultural, and natural features. The effects to operation of the
<-< transmission facilities are addressed in section 5.5. Actions
(#)
taken by Georgia Power Company to comply with the Construction Permit conditions are addressed in chapter 13. l1 2.6-1 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-3 3.3.3 CONSUMPTIVE USE The VEGP will consume an average of 1333 gal / min of groundwater
() and 30,000 gal / min of Savannah River water. Maximum consumptive use is 2300 gal / min of groundwater and 30,000 gal / min of river
/
water. The majority of the plant water consumption is due to evaporation from the natural draft cooling towers. At the maximum use rate, the river water consumption is 0.6 percent of the 10,300 ft 8 /s average Savannah River flow and 1.2 percent
() of the 5800 ft'/s minimum flow guaranteed from upstream control structures. The above flow ratas are based on a 1
two-unit operation.
O
'l O
O N
3.3-3 Amend. 1 2/84
=
l l NODE MAXIMUM FLOW ("I AVERAGE FLOW POINT DESCRIPTION (GAUMIN) (GAUMIN) l l 1 2 MAKEUP WELLS (1 WELL AT A TIME IN USE) 2300 840 2 MISCELLANEOUS MAKEUP WATER FOR VEGP 2000 300 3 MAKEUP WATER TO NUCLEAR SERVICE COOUNG TOWERS 410 270 (2 *ER UNIT WITH ONLY 1 NER UNIT OPERATED (PZR (PER UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS) TOWER) TOWER)
I 4 RIVER WATER MAKEUP SYSTEM TO CIRCULATING WATER 61,000* 40.000 1 I
SYSTEM AND DILUTION (UNITS 1 AND 2) (AT 4 CYCLES) (AT 4 CYCLES) 5 MAKEUP WATER TO CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM (2 60,000 40.000 HYPERBOUC COOUNG TCWERS)'d (AT 2 CYCLES) (AT 4 CYCLES) 6 DILUTION WATER FOR UQUID RADWASTE DISCHARGE 31,000 0 (UNITS 1 AND 21 7 EMERGENCY WATER MAKEUP FOR NUCLEAR SERVICE COOUNG 1000 0 WATER SYSTEM 8 EVAPORATION AND DRIFT LOSSES FROM NUCLEAR SERVICE 200 200 COOUNG WATER SYSTEM PER TOWER 1
l 9 EVAPORATION AND DRIFT LOSSES FROM CIRCULATING 15,000 15,000
{ }
COOUNG WATER SYSTEM PER TOWER'd (ASSUMED (ASSUMED
( CONSTANT) CONSTANT) j 10 NUCLEAR SERVICE COOUNG TOWER BLOWDOWN PER 210 70 TOWER 11 CIRCULATING COOUNG TOWER BLOWDOWN PER TOWER'd 15,000 5000 (AT 2 CYCLES) (AT 4 CYCLES) h i
- a. THESE FLOWS ARE NOT NECESSARlLY CONCURRENT.
l
- b. 10,000 GAL / MIN DILUTION SUPPLIED BY CIRCULATING COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN.
I
} c. FLOWS ASSOCIATED WITH NORMAL OPERATING CONDMONS
{
OF THE CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM ARE DETERMINEU BY l WEATHER CONDITIONS, WATER CHEMISTRY, RIVER CONDf- 1 1
TIONS. AND OPERATOR DISCRETION.
l l
VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT PLANT WATER USE Georgia Power UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 3.3-1 (SHEET 2 OF 3) ens Amend. 1 2/84
i l
IG 1
1 NODE MAXIMUM FLOW (*3 AVERAGE FLOW
, POINT DESCRIPTION (GAUMIN) (GAUMIN) 12 MISCELLANEOUS LOW VOLUME WASTES (OILY WASTE SEPA- 11,000* 280 RATOR, STEAM GENERATOR BLOWDOWN, TURBINE BUILD.
ING DRAIN SYSTEM, CONDENSATE AND FEEDWATER FLUSH, DEMINERALIZED WATER MAKEUP SYSTEM) 13 SANITARY WASTE 30 10 14 SANITARY WASTE TREATMCNT PLANT I4CHARG1: TO 180 10 WASTE WATER RETENTION BASIN 15 WASTE WATER RETENTION BASIN DISCHARGE PER UNIT 1600 140 16 STARTUP FLUSHES AND CHEMICAL CLEANING WASTES TO 10.600 0*
STARTUP POND 17 STARTUP POND DISCHARGE 140 0" W 18 UQU'D RADWASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM DISCHARGE 70 5*
19 tsLOWDOWN SUMP DISCHARGE 55.000 10.280 20 PLANT DISCHARGE TO THE RIVER 55.000 10.285 21 IWER WATER DIVERTED THROU3H TRASH SCREENS 940 0
- a. THESE FLOWS ARE NOT NECESSARILY CONCURRENT.
- b. THIS FLOW IS BASED ON AN EXPECTED PREOPERATIONAL FLUSH DISCHARGE.
- c. STARTUP FLUSHES AND CHEMICAL CLEANING DOES NOT REGULARLY OCCUR DURING NORMAL OPERATION.
- d. INTERMITTENT FLOW EXPRESSED AS A CUNTINUOUS AVERAGE.
g It O
VOGTLE PLANT WATER USE Georgia Powerih ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 3.3-1 (SHEET 3 OF 3)
&E@2hd o 1 2/@6
M l
(} VEGP-OLSER-3 3.4 HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM .
The heat dissipation system serves to dissipate the excess heat f1 Nl produced by the plant to the environment. At VEGP heat dissipation occurs in two systems, the cooling towers of the i circulating water system and the nuclear service cooling water
.(NSCW) system. Figure 3.4-1 is & general flow diagram of the heat dissipation system at VEGP. Section 3.3 provides flows for the various system components. The environmental interfaces occur at the intake and discharge structures, the makeup wells,
.Os and at the cooling towers.
The cooling towers of the circulating water syster dissipate heat to the atmosphere removed from the main condensers and from the components of the turbine plant cooling water systems. The cooling towers of the NSCW system dissipates heat to the atmosphere from the nuclear plant service water system. The water needed to operate the two cooling systems is provided by the Savannah River for the circulating water system and the plant makeup wells for the NSCW system. Cooling tower blowdown and c,aer station liquid wastes are discharged to the river j through a single point discharge.
I) Since the Construction Permit Stage Environmental Report (CPSER) l was submitted, a number of changes in design affecting the heat
-dissipation system have been made, including:
A. Reduction in the number of units from four to two.
B. Change of the discharge structure from a multiport diffuser type to a single point discharge.
! C. Change of the intake structure canal design from slope l riprap to vertical sheet pile to improve erosion I control.
] ) D. -Addition of lateral escape passageways for fish escape at the intake canal entrance.
l l The design details for the various systems have been modified
.and refined during the detailed design effort. This section I presents a discussion of the more significant changes from CPSER
- section 3.5 and additional information developed since CPSER
(
- submittal.
3.4.1 RIVER INTAKE SYSTEM
(()'The.riverintakesystemconsistsoftheintakecanal, structure, the makeup pumps, and the chlorination system.
the intake The r
[
3.4-1
VEGP-OLSER-3 h general site location of the intake structure is shown in figure 2.1-2. Figure 3.4-2 shows the intake structure and canal in greater detail. The ambient river flow and water quality characteristics are discussed in section 2.4.
3.4.1.1 Intake Canal The intake canal is a 356-ft long, 140-ft wide structure with an earther. bottom at 67 ft msl and vertical steel sheet pile sides extending to 98 ft msl. Tha intake canal has a skimmer weir (el 78 ft mal) with guice vanes at the river entrance. The skimmer weir consists of both fixed and removable sections with the fixed sections having elevations below 78 ft msl. A canal weir
'is located approximately 100 ft inside the canal. Silting protection is provided by a sedimentation basin formed by the skimmer weir and the canal weir. Sediment will be dredged, and disposed of in an upland disposal site, when the depth in the basin causes excessive sedimentation in the main canal section. l1 A floating trash boom is located in front of the skimmer weir to divert large floating debris.
The component of the river velocity parallel to the canal velocity is small, thus minimizing the potential for fish llh entering the canal. In addition, a lateral passageway is provided at the canal entrance which permits fish to escape.
The flow through the canal is determined by plant operating conditions. Velocities are also dependent on the river water level. The average velocity at the river intake canal entrance ranges from 0.01 ft/s at minimum plant withdrawal rate (13,000 gpm) and a river water level of 98 ft msl (top of canal sheet piling), to 1.05 ft/s at a maximum plant withdrawal rate (72,000 gpm based on all four intake pumps operating) and a minimum river water level of 78.4 ft msl (allowing for 2 ft of riverbed degradation) at guaranteed low flow of 5800 ft 2/s. At average plant operating conditions (42,000 gpm based on two intaxe pumps operating) and annual average water level (84 ft ms1 based on annual average river flow of 10,300 ft*/s) the entrance velocity is 0.11 ft/s.
3.4.1.2 Intake structure The intake structure is a 147-ft long, 72-ft wide concrete structure with four chambers, each housing one pump, a traveling water screen, a trash rack, stop logs, and associated equipment as shown in figure 3.4-2.
3.4-2 Amend. 1 2/84
l I ^
I VEGP-OLSER-3
())
The trash racks are fabricated from American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) A36 structural steel shapes and bars and serve
- to filter out large pieces of debris that bypass the floating
/si/ trash boom. The trash racks are cleaned by manually raking aa required. The debris is taken to an upland disposal site. The approximate size of the trash racks is 14 ft by 14.5 ft with 1/4-in. by 4-in. bars spaced on 2-in. centers, es The stop logs, approximately 14 ft by 14.5 ft, are fabricated
( ; from ASTM A36 structural steel shapes and plates. They serve to cut off flow from the intake canal to isolate individual chambers when a pump or traveling screen requires maintenance.
The traveling water screens are FMC type-45A water screens. The
' screens move at a vertical velocity of either 5 or 10 ft/ min.
Debris that collects on the screen face is washed by water spray into the trash channel where it is sluiced into the trash basket located in the trash basin. The trash basket is emptied periodically and the contents are carried to an upland disposal site.
~
The depth cf water varies from a minimum water level of 78.4 ft
('} m'sl at a river flow of 5800 ft'/s (allowing for 2 ft of
\_/ river 3ed degredation) to the average water level of 84 ft msl (at a river flow of 10,300 ft"/s) and a maximum expected water level of 120 ft msl (at a river flow of 400,000 ft'/s). The top deck of the intake structure is at 125 ft mel which is 5 ft above the standard project flood stage of 120 ft msl. The velocities of water through various intake structure passages for a 42,000 gpm (based on two intake pumps operating) plant operating condition are as follows:
A. Through trash racks at average annual water level -
0.33 ft/s.
B. Through trash racks at minimum water level - 0.40
[m) v ft/s.
C. Through traveling screens at average annual water level
- 0.69 ft/s.
7 's D. Through traveling screens at minimum water level - 0.82
) ft/s.
There is a potential for increased velocities, since there is the possibility of screen clogging. The maximum velocity condition will occur with a minimum water level of 78.4 ft msl
,3 (allowing for 2 ft of riverbed degredation) and the screens or
( ') ~
trash racks 44 percent clogged. This condition will cause a 5 ft differential head across the screens or trash racks and will 3.4-3
I VEGP-OLSER-3 result in velocities of 0.81 ft/s through the trash racks and 1.50 ft/s through the traveling water screens.
3.4.1.3 Makeup Pumps Four vertical pumps, rated at 22,0C0 gal / min each, are located in the river intake structure. The combined discharge of the four pumps is adequate to supply water to the two turbine plant cooling towers and radwaste discharge dilution simultaneously during extreme operation, that is, while the towers are llh operating at approximately two cycles of concentration with maximum evaporation and drift.
3.4.1.4 Intake _ Structure Design and Operation The VEGP Construction Permit contained two conditiotas relative to the intake structure design and operation. Condition E(5)(c) required that:
All the cellr> in the intake structure will normally be used during operation of the intake pumps. gg Condition E(7) required that:
Pricr to construction of the intake structure, the applicant shall submit the results of the aquatic monitoring programs and an evaluation of the environmental impact of the intake canal and intake structure which will satisfy the staff that impingement will not have a significant adverse effect on the adult population of resident and anadromous fish in the Savannah River.
Condition E(5)(c) was based on the conceptual design at the time of the CPSER and the Final Environmental Statement. This condition was to prevent localized high velocities that would occur by operating up to four pumps through only ora cell. Thus for that design, operating all cells simultaneous)y would minimize impingement. That design has been modified such that each cell operates independently and contains only one pump.
Tlis redesign (one pump / cell) will allow only one pump to be operated through each cell. Associated velocities through a particular cell will result from one pump operating and thus reduce potential impingement losses. All cells, therefore, will not necessarily be used during normal operation of the VEGP.
Georgia Power Company submitted the study required by condition E(7) on January 28, 1981 (G. F. Head letter to D. E. Eisenhut).
The study was based on the present canal and intake design 3.4-4
p i;
VEGP-OLSER-3 TABLE 3.4-1 (SHEET 2 OF 2)
- i Circulating Water Pump (2 per tower) 1 Flowrate (gal / min) 242,300 Head (ft) 95 O
3 e
9 e
Amend. 1 2/84
(} VEGP-OLSER-3 3.6 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE EFFLUENTS The VEGP will discharge a variety of chemical and biocide wastes to the environment during startup and operation of the plant.
(s*) All waste discharges will be in accordance with applicable state ,
and federal effluent limitations. These effluent limitations will be delineated in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit to be issued by the State of Georgia.
The application for this permit was submitted to the (s) Environmental Protection Division on November 3, 1983 (T. E. ,
Byerley letter to G. B. Welsh). A copy was provided to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at the time of sub.r.ittal.
lf The following systems and their liquid and solid wastes are discussed in this section:
A. Circulating water system (natural draft) cooling tower blowdown, salt drift, and tower basin deposited
. solids.
B. Nuclear service cooling water tower blowdown and tower basin deposited solids.
C. Low volume wastes:
- 1. Steam generator' blowdown and wet layup waste.
- 2. Auxiliary boiler blowdown.
- 3. Startup and equipment cleaning wastes.
- 4. Water treatment plant regeneration waste water.
- 5. Radwaste system controlled liquid radioactive discharge.
- 6. Turbine building floor drains.
7-
'# 7. Miscellaneous building and area drains.
Use of chemicals and biocides at VEGP in the systems listed above is summarized in table 3.6-1. The liquid wastes listed gs above plus sanitary waste (section 3.7) will be treated and then
(_) combined prior to discharge to the Savannah River. The discharge-flows are shown in figure 3.3-1. The characteristics of the plant discharge are summarized in table 3.6-2. The treated effluent will be discharged into the Savannah River through a single discharge pipe as described in subsection 3.4.5 and will comply with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
,s' 7) i effluent guideline limitations as discussed in subsection 1 5.1.1.
3.6-1 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-3 llh Solid wastes discussed in this section are materials which will be deposited on the floors of the cooling tower basins, waste water retention basins, and solids emitted as salt drift from the cooling towers. The deposited solids from cooling towers and the waste water retention basins must be periodically removed and disposed of as discussed in subsection 3.6.4. Salt drift emissions are also discussed in subsection 3.6.4.
Since the Construction Permit Stage Environmental Report (CPSER) was submitted, a number of changes in design which affect chemical and biocide discharges from the plant have been made, including:
A. Decrease in plant size from four to two units.
B. Addition of a wasta water retention basin and blowdown i sump.
C. Change in plant discharge structure from a multiport diffuser to a single point discharge.
D. Changes in steam generator system chemical control (i.e., all-volatile instead of phosphate treatment and selection of ammonia from several alternatives for pH lll control).
E. Changes in the handling of laboratory, laundry, and hot shower wastes from drumming to a combination of recycling, treatment, and release as part of combined plant liquid discharge.
Design parameters and details for various systems have been modified and refined during the detailed design process. This section updates information presented in CPSER section 3.7 and provides additional information developed during the detailed design effort for the VEGP.
3.6.1 COOLING TOWER WASTES 3.6.1.1 Main Circulating Water System The natural draft cooling towers, which are a part of the cirealating water system, are duscribed in section 3.4. Cooling tower blowdown is discharged to maintain acceptable levels of total dissolved solids in the circulating water. The characteristics of the tower blowdown depend on the cycles of concentration, quality of the makeup water supply, and the chemical feeds used to control biological growth, corrosion, l1 scale, silt, and pH.
3.6-2 Amend. 1 2/84
N VEGF-CLSEP-3
{ .
As discussed in subsectic,ns 3.3.1 and 3.4.1, makeup water is supplied to the. main cooling towers from the Savannah River.
During normal operation the makeup. flow is varied to replenish
() circulating water system losses due to evaporation, drift, and blowdown. Blowdown flow is varied to maintain the circulating water cycles of concentration between two and six.
The circulating water chemical injection system provides acid and chlorine to maintain proper pH and control biological
() growth. Sulfuric acid, 66 Baume', is added to the circulating water system through metering pumps at a rate sufficient to reduce alkalinity and maintain the pH that will result in a Ry:nar Index of between 7.0 to 7.5 to balance scaling and corrosion effects. Chlorine is added to the system to control biological growth in the tower-condenser system. Chlorine is injected as a gas dissolved in water.
The river water makeup system will be continuously chlorinated at a level of 10 ppm providing a free available chlorine concentration of 1 ppm.
Chlorine is diffused into the suction of the river makeup water pumps at the river intake structure. Grab samples are taken at 0'- the discharge of the river makeup water pumps to monitor 1 chlorine concentrations. ;
Chlorine is injected directly at the circulating water system intake structure. Grab samples will be taken from the natural draft cooling tower blowdown line to monitor chlorine concentrations.
The amount of chlorine added depends upon the rate of biological growth in the circulating water. In general, intermittent chlorination to produce approximately 0.2 mg/l free available chlorine in the circulating water is expected. During the summer, because of increased biological growth on warm days, O1l chlorine is injected from usually 1 to 3 times / day. During the l1 winter when chlorine demand is low, a single weekly injection period is required. During Corbicula spawning season (section 2.1), chlorination will be continuous up to a level of 10 mg/l providing a 1.0 mg/l free availaole chlorine. The maximum free available chlorine in the blowdown will be limited to an average of 0.2 mg/l with a maximum spike of 0.5 mg/1. Chlorination rates will vary depending on system conditions. Maximum system design chlorination rate is 10,000 lb/ day. At present, the EPA does not have an effluent limitation on total residual chloriac 1 for cooling tower blowdown. Operating experience with other cooling towers within the region have shown a total residual
.i chlorine concentration in the blowdown usually less than 0.1 mg/1. The total residual chlorine cencentrations of the cooling tower blowdown at the VEGP should be in the same range as that 3.6-3 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-3 llh found at other cooling towers within the region. The system is l1 designed to ensure that the station effluent meets EPA chlorine effluent limitations (section 5.1.1).
Discharge from the two natural draft cooling towers is combined
=
in a sump, with discharge from the nuclear service cooling water towers and other station liquid wastes discharged from the waste water retention basin. The sump liquid is combined with other station effluents as discussed in subsection 3.6.3 and discharged to the Savannah River.
Suspended solids deposition in the circulating water system is controlled through the use of dispersants, as required. The dispersant is selected and used according to specific needs.
. Mud and other solids are deposited in the bottom of the cooling tower basin. These wastes are discussed in paragraph 3.6.4.1, 3.6.1.2 Nuclear Service Cooling Water (NSCW) System The VEGP utilizes one operating and one spare NSCW tower per unit as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) section 9.2.1. During normal operation, the blowdown flow is varied to maintain the cycles of concentration to between two lh and eight.
Acid and chlorine injection is provided to control pH and to inhibit biological growth. Sulfuric acid (66" Baume') is added as required to maintain a pH that will result in a Ry:nar index of 7.0 to 7.5 to balance scaling and corrosion effects. Tower chlorination varies usually from three times per day on warm l1 summer days to one time per week during the winter. A dispersant is applied as needed to control the suspended solids contents.
Chlorine is injected in the NSCW pump discharge. Grab samples will be taken from the blowdown line to monitor chlorine concentrations. The maximum free available chlorine concentration will be limited to an average of 0.2 ppm with a maximum spike of 0.5 ppm in the blowdown.
Chlorination rates will vary depending on system conditions.
Maximum system design chlorination rate is 2000 lb/ day. There is only a remote possibility of the NSCW system becoming i contaminated with Corbicula. That remote possibility occurs if river water makeup is provided for the NSCW system. If that occurs prolonged continuous chlorination will be employed to ensure that there is no infestation of the NSCW system by Corbicula. Total residual chlorine concentrations in the blowdown will be similar to that discussed for the main circulating water system.
3.6-4 Amend. 1 2/84
~
VEGP-OLSER-3 Blowdown frcm the nuclear service cooling water towers is combined with other station wastes and discharged to the Savannah River as discussed in subcection 3.4.5. Solid wastes l1 l from the tower basins will be handled in the same manner as described in paragraph 3.6.1.1 for the main circulating water system cooling towers.
3.6.2 LOW VOLUME WASTE 3.6.2.1 Steam Generator Syt f3 3.6.2.1.1 Blowdown The steam generator blowdown cyctem controls the concentration :
of chemical impurities and radioactive materials in the secondary side of the steam generators. Control of the steam generator system chemistry is based on all-volatile treatment rather than-the phosphate treatment system described in CPSER subsection 3.7.2. Hydrazine and ammonia are provided to the condensate and feedwater system for oxygen and pH control, 9 respectively.
The amount of hydrazine used during plant operation depends upon the quantity of oxygen entering the feedwater system via the condensate and/or makeup water system. Hydrazine is usually added at 3 to 5 times the dissolved oxygen concentration in the condensate. Hydrazine may be applied at a maximum flowrate of 12 gal /h using the commercially available 35 percent solution.
Ammonia is added to the steam generator feedwater during normal operation to maintain the appropriate pH usually between 9.0 and 9.5. Ammonia may be applied at a maximum flowrate of 12 gal /h using dilutions of the 29 percent commercial solution.
h Approximately 1.5 mg/l of ammonia is required in the feedwater to maintain a pH of 9.5.
Steam generator blowdown is cooled in a heat exchanger and may be directed through a backflushaole prefilter and two mixed bed demineralizers. The demineralized blowdown is normally directed h to the condenser with an option of routing to a waste water retention basin for dispcsal with the combined station effluent. The nominal total dissolved solids for continuous operation of steam generator blowdown is 1.5 mg/1. This waste is subject to NRC and EPA effluent limitations as discussed in subsections 3.5.2 and 5.1.1 respectively.
9 3.6-5 Amend. 1 2/84
-~- .
mimm VEGP-OLEER-3 3.6.2.1.2 Wet Layup Waste In addition to the above requirements for normal operation, chemical additions are required for wet layup of a steam generator during extensive plant outages. A hydrazine concentration of between 75 and 250 mg/l is required for wet layup of a steam generator. Based on the maximum hydracine cancentration of 250 mg/l and a wet layup volume of 32,894 gal, it is estimated that 25 gal of 35 percent hydrazine solution would be required per steam generator or 100 gal per unit per cold shutdown. Ammonia is also added to the steam generators during wet layup tc maintain an appropriate pH usually between 10.0 and 10.5. Approximately 10 ppm of ammonia is required to yield a pH of 10.0.
When the plant starts up following a cold shutdown, the wet layup wastes will be directed to the waste water retention basin for pH adjustment prior to discharge. This waste is subject to
, EPA effluent limitations as discussed in subsection 5.1.1.
6 3.6.2.2 Auxiliary Boiler Blowdown f
During operation of the auxiliary boiler, about 10 gal / min of h blowcown is normally discharged for the two units. A sump in l1 the auxiliary boiler room collects the blowdown and floor drainage (FSAR subsection 9.3.3) This sump normally discharges
{ tc the turbine building oily waste separator and then to the e
- waste water retention basin. The blowdown temperature does not y
exceed 200 F in order to maintain acceptably low levels of oil in the discharge from the oily waste separator.
3.6.2.3 Startup and Eculpment Cleaning Waste y Prior to startup and during pipe cleaning operations, the I condensate and feedwater and other plant systems are flushed and
- if necessary chemically cleaned to remove dirt, grease, oli, g rust, and mill scale. Cleaning will be accomplished by one of the following eperations-.
y c
A. Dirt and construction debris in the piping are removed
$ by a high velocity water flash of approximately two i system volumes.
[ B. Chemical cleaning is not expected tc ce required fcr
- all systems. Whenever necessary. however, the
- folicwing steps will be p+. formed
y c 1. Grease, oil, and other impurities will be removed
> by flushing each system with a heated alkaline phocphate solution of approx'mately 3 percent v
T l 3.6-6 Amend. 1 1/54 d
VEGP-OLSER-3 concentration. This will be followed with a rinse of demineralized water. ,
ll 2. Rust and mill scale will be removed from the system by circulating a heated organic acid solution for several hours.
- 3. Following the cleaning, the system will be flushed with rinses consisting of demineralized water lll and/or passivating chemicals.
Estimated total water volume used in a complete cleaning would be approximately 9,000,000 gal per unit. Wastes from this flushing process will be directed to the startup ponds for suspended solids removal before discharge to the Savannah River. There are two ponds, one an unlined pond with a capacity of 5 x 10' gal for short term storage and one lived (0.100-in.
high-density polyethylene) pond with a capacity of 3 x 10' gal for long term storage. The waste water from the startup ponds is discharged to the blowdown sump. Assuming that water flushing is sufficient, the startup waste is subject to EPA effluent limitations and standards for low volume wastes.
If chemical cleaning is required, treatment in the startup ponds will conform to EPA effluent limitations for metal cleaning wastes as discussed in subsection 5.1.1. The estimated quantities of chemicals used for chemical cleaning is chown in table 3.6-3.
Periodic nonradioactive operational equipment cleaning wastes will also be discharged to the startup ponds. The amount of cleaning waste involved will not be greater than that used during preoperational cleaning.
3.6.2.4 Water Treatment Plant G The water treatment plant is essentially the same as discussed in CPSER subsection 3.7.3. However, there is only one water treatment plant due to the decrease in the plant size from four to two units.
O 3.6.2.5 Liquid Radioactive Wastes Systems for processing liquid radioactive wastes are described in subsection 3.5.2. Final discharge of effluents from the liquid radioactive waste processing system will meet 10 CFR 20 G requirements for release into the Savannah River ar.3 EPA effluent limitations for low volume waste as discurred in subsection 5.1.1.
3.6-7
VEGP-OLSER-3 g 3.6.2.6 Turbine Building and Miscellaneous Building and Area Drains The turbine building miscellaneous building and area drains are discussed in FSAR subsection 9.3.3. Oily wastes are treated by an oily waste separator and meet the EPA effluent limitations jg for low volume waste oil discharge as discussed in subsection 5.1.1.
3.6.3 LIQUID DISCHARGE
SUMMARY
As shown in figure 3.3-1, the low volume waste streams are #
collected in the waste water retention basin. The basin is a l1 corrosion-proof, lined basin that provides aeration and retention time for the wastes. The basin consiste of two compartments, one side being used to handle normal waste streams and the other compartment providing holdup capacity for waste requ'. ring treatment. Each compartment is sized for the waste generated for both units. Any treatment of the waste is done manually as needed based on the results of periodic samples.
The solids removed from the waste water retention basin is discussed in subsection 3.6.4.
Liquid wastes from the waste water retention basins, the blowdowns from the nuclear service cooling water toweta and natural draft towers, and any dilution flow necessary to meet 10 CFR 20 limits are combined in the blowdown sump. The liquid radwaste is injected into the discharge pipe downstream of the blowdown sump.
The characteristics of the waste streams and of the combined effluent discharge to the Savannah River are shown in table 3.6-2. The plant waste discharge conforms to the requirements discussed in subsection 5.1.1.
3.6.4 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE SOLID WASTES llf The VEGP chemical and biocide solid wastes consist of settled solids from the waste water retention basins and the cooling tower basins and salt drift emissions from the cooling towers.
3.6.4.1 Settled Solids Removal Each natural draft cooling tower has a solid deposition rate of approximately 2.5 lb/ min into the basin. The basins have a desilting channel that leads to the 24-in. blowdown line which goes to the blowdown sump for discharge into the river. The towers are also equipped with access ramps so that silt and llh sludge buildup may be removed. This is expected to occur during 3.6-8 Amend. 1 2/84
_ - _ - _ \
f t
VEGP-OLSER-3
(
normal plant outages. Cocting tower sludge will be disposed of in an-approved upland disposal site.
L('] Solids removed from the waste water retention basin will also be disposed of in an upland disposal site. Previous operating experience has revealed that these solids and cooling tower 1 settled. solids are not hazardous (see section 5.6.3) and can be disposed of in an approved upland disposal site. ,
L O 3.6.4.2 Cooling Tower Salt Drift Emissions Salt drift emissions from the natural draft cooling towers for a four-unit plant are discussed in CPSER subsection 5.3.2. The NRC staff concluded (FES paragraph 5.5.1.1? that the effects of deposition of cooling tower salt drift would be negligible. The decrease in plant size.from four to two units further reduces these effects. Additional information on salt drift emissions is provided in responee to questions E290.3 and E451.17. 1 O
O 7
o 3.6-9 Amend. 1 2/84
!S .
VEGF-OLSER-3 3.7 SANITARY AND OTHER WASTE DISCHARGES 3.7.1 SANITARY WASTE
.The. sewage treatment plant treats waste water generated during.
both conctruction and plant operation. The treatment concept is the same as described in Construction Permit Stage Environmental Report (CPSER) section 3.7, but specific aspects of the
. processes (e.g., flow, retention time, and chlorine residual)
.( )
.have changed'since that time as shown in table 3.7-1. During normal operation, the maximum sanitary flow from the plant is
.24,000 gal / day. This flow is based on a total population of 664 persons using an average of 35 gal per capita per day during plant operation.
The. effluent from the sewage treatment plant is ccmbined with other station effluents (section 3.6) prior to discharge to the Savannah River. The characteristics of the combined station effluent is described in table 3.6-2. The sanitary waste effluent will comply with the Environmental Protection Agency effluent guideline limitations as discussed in subsection p 5.1.1.
'Approximately 3000 gal of sludge per year are produced by the sewage. treatment plant. Sludge is collected and transported by truck to an approved' disposal area.
3.7.2 AUXILIARY BOILER EMISSIONS TO AIR
'The VEGP has an auxiliary boiler which supplies auxiliary steam toLvari'ous plant 1 systems when main steam is not available. The
. oil-fired boiler is rated for 190,000 lb/h steam with an operat-
'ing. pressure of'200 psig. The boiler will be operated in accord-
- .ance with tne State of Georgia permit issued February 17, 1981.
, ,_) Emission limitations prescribed in that permit are es follows:
A. The consumption of fuel oil during initial startup and system check shall not exceed 12,500 tons / year.
.B. .Once operational, the total emissions of SOz will not
) exceed 40 tons / year.
r '
3.7-1
VEGP-OLSER-3 h 3.7.3 DIESEL GENERATOR EMISSIONS TO AIR Each unit has available two diesel-powered generators which are designed to supply auxiliary power in the event of loss of offsite power. The diesel generators are rated at 7000 kW each and burn 3600 lb/h of no. 2 diesel fuel oil at full power. It ic expected that each diesel generator will be operated once a month for 1 to 3 h for test purposes.
If each of the four 7000-kW diesels are operated for a total of h 2 h/ month, the total expected annual emissions are:
A. SO 2 -
1.7 tons / year.
B. NO x - 10.7 tons / year.
In addition, there is a 750-kW diesel generator which serves as the standby power source for the security lighting system and technical support system in the event of loss of the normal ac power supply. The emissions from this generator are insignif-
~icant in compaffson to the standby auxiliary power diesels because of its size (750 kW compared to four generators at 7000 kW each) and the projected infrequent time of operation.
l}
Based on these low levels of emissions, December 22, 1981 (J. L. Ledbetter letter to T. E. Byerley), theStataofGeorgi'onl1 exempted the diesel generators from air quality permitting requirements.
3.7.4 OIL LEAKAGE Oil leakage is discussed in CPSER subsection 3.8.2.
3.7.5 FLUID BED DRY WASTE PROCESSOR EMISSIONS TO AIR The fluid bed dry waste processor is described in detail in Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) section 11.4. Radioactive emissions for the building that houses the fluid bed dry waste processor and other volume reduction equipment are analyzed in FSAR section 11.3.3.
The expected annual nonradiological emissions from the fluid bed dry waste processor are:
O 3.7-2 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-3 m
A. .CO - 5.3 tons /yr.
B. CO2 428 tons /yr.
O ,C. SO- 2 x 10 -' tons /yr.
D. NO x -
0.1 tons /yr.
E. HC - 0.1 tons /yr.
Based ~cn these low emission rates, the State of Georgia on November 4, 1983 (J. L. Ledbetter letter to T. E. Byerley) i exempted the fluid bed dry waste processor from air quality permitting requirements.
t O
O 10 LO 3.7-3 Amend. 1 2/84
l
,3 (s ) VEGP-OLSER-5
! LIST OF TABLES
(~s
( ,) 5.1-1 EPA Effluent Guidelines for the Steam Elt etric Generating Point Source Category 5.1-2 Comparison of Georgia Power Company and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff's Jet Analysis
(~s t
' ') 5.2-1 Diffusion and Deposition Estimates for All Receptor Locations 5.2-2 Diffusion and. Deposition Estimates for All Receptor' T,ocations 5.2-J Concentrations of Gaseous (Deposited) Effluents ac the Nearest Residence 5.2-4 Doses of Biota Other Than Man from Liquid Effluents 1 5.2-5 Estimated Individual Doses from Liquid Effluents As Low As Reasonably Achievable
(~)
(j 5.2-6 Estimated Annual Doses to An Individual from Gaseous and Particulate Effluents 5.2-7 Annual 50-Mile Population - Integrated Doses (man-rem) 5.2-8 Annual U.S. Population - Integrated Doses (man-rem) 5.6-7 Predicted VEGP Noise Emissions and Resulting Community
Response
O V
(~%
\
~s
) ~
J
,a (a) 5-iii Amend. 1 2/84
t VEGP-OLSER-5 LIST OF FIGURES 5.2-1 Radiation Exposure Pathways to Aquatic organisms 5.2-2 Radiation Exposure Pathways to Terrestrial Organisms 5.2-3 Radiation Exposure Pathways to Man O
O O
O O
5-iv
I)
V. VEGP-OLSER-5 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF STATION OPERATIOl (v) 5.1 EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM This section discusses the impacts of the currant design. Since the Construction Permit Stage Environmental Report (CPSER) section 5.1 was submitted, a number of design changes affecting fs the heat dissipation system have been made. These changes are J ) described in section 3.4.
5.1.1 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS The water quality of the Savannah River in the vicinity of VEGP is classified as " fishing" by the State of Georgia.'1' The following criteria are applicable for a fishing classification
. to the Savannah River at VEGP:
A. Dissolved oxygen - A daily average of 5.0 mg/l and no less than 4.0 mg/l at all times.
pH - Within the range of 6.0 to 8.5.
[~}
y, B.
C. Bacteria - Fecal ~ coliform not to exceed a geometric mean of 1000 per 100 ml based on at least 4 samples taken over a 30-day period and not to exceed a maximum of 4000 per 100 ml.
D. Temperature - Not to exceed 90*F; at no time is the temperature of the receiving waters to be increased more than 5 F above intake temperature.
E. Toxic wastes and other deleterious materials - None in concentrations that would harm man, fish and game, or other beneficial aquatic life.
A mixing zone is permitted if such a zone is necessary and will not create an objectionable or damaging pollution condition.
In addition to-the water quality criteria established for the
- (~3 Savannah River, Georgia's Rules and Regulations requires A ,) .- treatment to ensure compliance with effluent guideline limitations established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has established effluent guideline limitations for the' steam electric power generating point source category (40 CFR 423, November 19, 1982). These guidelines for the !
(~% various discharges, as they apply to VEGP, are summarized in
(). table 5.1-1.
l 5.1-1 l
- - = .
i
[
VEGP-OLSER-5 The State of Georgia will regulate the VEGP discharges through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The NPDES permit application was submitted to the State of Georgia Environmental Protection Division on November 3, 1983 lh (T. E. Byerley letter to G. B. Welsh). A copy of the 1
application was provided to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by D. O. Foster's letter to E. G. Adcasam dated November 9, 1983. A copy of the final permit will be provided so the NRC at the time of its issuance. Section 12.1 lists permits, certificationa, and approvals dealing with the water quality required to cperate the facility.
lh 5.1.2 PHYSICAL EFFECTS The thermal effects of the effluent of VEGP were discussed in the Construction Permit Stage Environmental Report (CPSER) subsection 5.1.1. Since the submittal of the CPSER the design of the discharge has been changed from a submerged multipc_t diffuser to a single point discharge pipe. This sec ion
-~~a ddresses the physical effects that the heated effluent will have on the river an( describes the method used ta determine these effects. This section discusses only the physical effects of discharging a heated effluent; the potential effects on biota g
from interacting with the elevated temperature water within the mixing zone are addressed in subsection 5.1.3.
5.1.2.1 Description of Plant Thermal Discharge The bulk of the waste heat from VEGP is rejected to the atmosphere by the cooling towers. During normal operation, the combined heat rejection for the turbine plant circulating water cooling towers and the nuclear service cooling water (NSCW) towers is 8200 x 10' Btu /hfunit. The NSCW towers reject about 2.5 percent of the total plant heat.
Blowdown is discharged from the cold side of the cooling towers and combined with plant low volume wastes (see section 3.6.2) in the blowdown sump after which the effluent is discharged to the river. (See subsection 3.4.5 for a description of the discharge system.) The amount of effluent being discharged varies depending on cooling tower operation (e.g., evaporation, drift, blowdown, desired concentration factor, etc.), the contribution from intermittent flows, and the need of dilution flow to meet 10 CER 20 requirements.
9 5.1-2
e .
- ( VEGP-OLSER-5 5.1.2.2 Thermal Plume Analysis -
The plant effluent-increases the river temperature near the
,(')-
discharge point. Georgia Power Company submitted a study to the 1 NRC on May 1,.1981 which discussed the spatial and temporal variations of the thermal plumes in the Savannah River using a
' submerged single point dischargo inclieu of the multiport
-diffuser addressed in the CPSER. The study was carried out for 3
the minimum river flow of'5800 ft /s. Any higher river flows
- ()'L
- produce smaller mixing zones because of the larger amounts of ambient water:available for dilution of the plant effluent.
Plume analyses were performed for river-temperatures representative of the minimum (41*F) and maximum (79 F) conditions.
The: maximum. difference in temperature between ambient river and discharge is.43*F for the cases studied. This occurs when two
- units are operating with two-unit radwaste discharge and no dilution flow to meet 10 CFR 20 limits.
The thermal plume' analysis was based on the work of E. A.
Hirst'2' for a round jet discharging into a flowing ambient
=
.wate r. body. Six basic equations, conservation of mass, energy,
_ ,/ . chemical concentration, and momentum (three components), were solved to describe the jet properties along the plume centerline. The complete results of the thermal plume analysis have been previously submitted to the NRC.'8' Table 5.1-2 summarizes-the S F-AT and 2 F AT isotherms for two cases from the study included in-the NRC's evaluation of the thermal plume.
As a_ result of the study by Georgia Power Company and the NRC's evaluation,.the Construction Permit for the VEGP was modified to
- delete the. requirement for a multiport diffuser on January 29, 1982.
l1 The heated water _ discharge from VEGP will not exceed any temperature _ limits discussed in subsection 5.1.1-outside of a small mixing zone. The largest mixing volume within the 5 F isotherm is estimated to'be 1300 ft'. As stated earlier, the allowable mixing zone will be defined by the State of Georgia as
.g -
- part of the NPDES permit.
.J -
iG U
5.1-3 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-5 ggg 5.1.3 BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS 5.1.3.1 Intake Operation and Its Effects 5.1.3.1.1 Entrainment Studies completed by McFarlane, et al . , ' at the Savannah River Plant and by Georgia Power Company at the VEGP indicate that entrainment of fish eggs and larvae at the intake structure will be minimal and will not have a significant effect on the fish population in the river (see section 6.1). Under minimum river flow conditions, entrainment losses represent about 0.65 percent of the river's ichthyoplankton populations. This removal is not expected to have an adverse effect on these populations or on the organisms that feed on them.
Studies conducted at the Savannah River Plant revealed that fish eggs were rarely found in canal icthyoplankton samples.
The velocity decreased drastically in the canal in comparison to the main channel of the river, causing fish eggs and larvae to settle to the bottom. This means that not all eggs and larvae which enter the intake canal would necessarily be entrained.
5.1.3.1.2 Impingement The VEGP Construction Permit required that Georgia Power Company submit a study regarding impingement prior to construction of the intake structure. Georgia Power Company submitted information to the NRC concerning impingement at VEGP on January 28, 1981. In a letter from the NRC dated April 29, 1981 (R. L. Tedesco to W. E. Ehrensperger), the NRC concluded that no significant effects on the fishes of the Savannah River will result from impingement.
A comparison of the impingement studies completed at the O Savannah River Plant by McFarlane, et al . , ' ' ' and of the VEGP data was made to reach reasonable impingement estimates at the VEGP. Intake velocities for VEGP are presented in section 3.4.
s Impingement at VEGP should be low because of its single intake O structure, low intake velocities, and short intake canal which reduces the amount of available area for the population of certain species to develop. Fish will be impinged, but the number of individuals impinged should be low and no single species should dominate the impingement sample.
lll 5.1-4 l
s
{} . TABLE 5.1-1 (SHEET 1 OF 2)
EPA EFFLUENT GUIDELINES FbR THE STEAM ELECTRIC GENERATING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
~
-; Effluent Effluent Guidelines Waste Stream Characteristics (mg/1)<a>
Low volume wastes TSS 30/100
,_ Oil and grease 15/20 s- Metal cleaning TSS 30/100 wastes Oil and grease 15/20 Copper, total 1,oji,o Iron, total 1,ofi,o Cooling tewer. Eree available 0.2/O.5 blowdown chlorine All 126 priority No detectable pollutants added amount < c > 31 to chemicals added for cooling
~}-
ss towermagntenance except:' '
Chromium, total O.2/O.2 Zinc 1.0/1.0 All discharges pH 6.0-9.0 Polychlorinated O biphenols Neither free available chlorine nor total residual chlorine may be discharged from any unit for more than 2 h in any one day, and not more than one
) unit in any plant may discharge free available or total residual chlorine at any one time unless demonstrated to the NPDES permit issuing authority that the units cannot operate at or below this level of chlorination.
'V Amend. 1 2/84
t.
f'T G
VEGP-OLSER-5 5.2 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT FROM ROUTINE OPERATION 5.2.1 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
^
5.2.1.1 Biota Other Than Man Aquatic biota may be exposed to external radiation from radionu-() clides in the water and sediment and to internal radiation from the assimilation of these radionuclides. In addition to uptake via the ingestion of food organisms, fish and invertebrates can
- acquire radionuclides through direct absorption from the water and can at least partially assimilate radioactivity from ingested sediment. Figure 5.2-1 is a flow chart representing the transfer.of radionuclides through the aquatic ecosystem.
The organisms which constitute'the lower trophic levels of the aquatic food web (plankton and benthic invertebrates) in the Savannah River and Beaverdam Creek are described in subsection 2.2.2. Dominant phytoplankton are the green algae (Chlorophyta),
blue-green algae (Cyanophyta) and diatoms (Bacillariophyceae).
Genera that will predominate include the rotifers (Keratella,
(~}
\_- Polyarthra, and Synchaeta); the cladocerans (Bosmina, Ceriodaphnia, and Daphnia); the copepods Diaptomus, Mesocyclops, and Cyclops); and the larvae of the dipteran, Chaoborus. Rotifers probably will be the dominant taxa in the river, while the cladocerans and copepods will be secondarily dominant. Benthic macroinvertebrates typically play an impor-tant role in the aquatic food web, serving as a link between the detrital level and the higher trophic levels. Mayily larvae,
. dipteran larvae, and mollusks are examples of the benthic macroinvertebrates that are found in the Savannah River in the vicinity of the VEGP. Fish feeding upon the plankton, benthic
.macroinvertebrates, and other fish constitute a higher trophic g$ level of the aquatic food web.
V' The terrestrial ecology of the VEGP area is described in subsection 2.2.1. Terrestrial biota may be exposed to external radiation from immersion in the plant's gaseous effluents, from swimming in water containing the plant's liquid effluents, and gg from direct shine from radionuclides that have deposited on the
(,7 _ ground and shoreline. Internal exposure of terrestrial organ-isms may' result from the inhalation of radioactive materials from the plant's gaseous effluents and from the ingestion of foods that have assimilated radioactive materials from both gaseous and liquid plant effluents. Figure 5.2-2 presents the pathways by which terrestrial biota other than man are exposed
! (gs), - to radioactive material released from the VEGP.
The routes of internal exposure to terrestrial biota other than man are highly varied.due to the diversified feeding habits of 5.2-1
f VEGP-OLSER-5 h the animals living in the vicinity of the site. The vegetation in the region will receive radionuclides from deposition onto the plant foliage and from the uptake of radioactivity initially deposited on the ground. Deer, rabbits, squirrels, and other herbivorous animals could then be internally exposed from the ingestion of this vegetation. In turn, foxes, bobcats, and other predatory animals living in the vicinity may be internally exposed to radiation from feeding on those animals that have concentrated radionuclides in their flesh.
5.2.1.2 Man As a result of the operation of the VEGP there are several
' potential radiation exposure pathways to man. Figure 5.2-3 presents the various potential pathways. These potential pathways may be divided into two categories, those pathwayc resulting in a radiation dose via internal exposure and those pathways resulting in a dose via external exposure. External exposure to an individual may result from contact with radioac-tivity deposited on the ground, immersion of an individual in a cloud containing radioactive gaseous effluents, direct irradia-tion from the plant, or direct contact with water containing radioactive liquid effluents while swimming or engaging in a ll similar activity. Internal exposures may result from the ingestion of water, various foods, and inhalation.
5.2.1.2.1 Internal Exposure Liquid radioactive effluents from VEGP are combined with cooling tower blowdown, waste water retention basin effluent, and addi-tional dilution flow if required to meet 10 CFR 20 requirements prior to discharge downstream of the river intake structure.
However, internal exposure via the domestic potable weter path-way will be minimal, because the nearest location of potable use of river water is in Beaufort County, South Carolina, approxi-mately 112 river miles downstream of the plant site (paragraph l1 2.1.3.8.2). No crop irrigation with Savannah River water has been observed within 50 miles of the plant site, so exposure from this pathway is expected to be minimal.
Although recreational and commercial fishing within 50 miles of the site is limited, these activities could result in internal exposure through the aquatic food chain (paragraphs 2.1.3.4 and 2.1.3.5).
The remoteness of the VEGP site ensures few human activities g within 5 miles of the plant. There are no dairies, wildlife W preserves, or sanctuaries in the vicinity of the VEGP. However, there are some small rural farms with gardens and small amounts 5.2-2 Amend. 1 2/84
h
[
o
- c -
a VEGP-OLSER-5
[ p'[( }$ .
~
n
~
~of(11vestock:(s'ubsection 2.1.3). These create potential routes E for internal radiation exposure to man and result from the depo-
.y sitioniof radioactive wastes. discharged into the atmosphere.
E ( [c" The potential' routes are air-vegetable-man, air-grass-meat or milk animal-man, and inhalation. The location of the nearest
' site boundary, residence, garden, meat animal, and milk cow to L' VEGP is presented in tables:5.2-1 and 5.2-2 (see Final Safety l1 LAnalysis Report.(FSAR) tables 2.3.5-10 and 2.3.5-11; no milk g animals ~are within a 5-mile radius of the plant. site).
The' majority of the land within a 50-mile radius of the plant is
. devoted to agricultural activity. The annual meat, milk, and
- ,' truck ~ farming production'is discussed in subsection 2.1.3. l1 e-
- 5.2.1.212; External Exposure People ;living in the vicinity. of cnr frequenting the plant site
~
tarecaubject_to low-level external exposures due to plant liquid
- and: gaseous effluenttreleases. Although the general public.has g accessLto1the river downstream.of.the-plant site,. external. expo-
"sure'as al result of-contact with river' water while. boating,-swim-
.t ; : ming, andffishing is expected to be minimal due to the remoteness lb .- of the site and the. absence of any large recreational attractions.
p The principal 1 external exposure will' result from gaseous releases
- .due'tofimmersion in the effluent cloud.and from particulate
- groundideposition.
'552.2- RADIOACTIVITY IN THE ENVIRONMENT 7 JThe radionuclides. discharged in'the liquid and gaseous effluents r are provided in section~3.5. This section considers how these
-effluents are distributed'in the environment surrounding the-y? g1 ;VEGPJaite. 'Specifically,-estimates have been made for the radio-
{&_): :nuclide concentration in the water. in the-atmosphare around the site, on: land areas, andion vegetation surrounding the plant.
-+ ;The~models andiassumpt' ions.used'to determine annual average-air
- concentration (X/Q), depleted concentration,'and deposition je p -(D/Q)
- are: described in-ESAR. subsection 2.3.5. The meteorologi-j(
)l, _ cal data'used'in:these models i's described in detail in FSAR tables 2.'3.5-8'and 2.3.5-9. The concentrations were calculated
'at points 1within a; radial grid of sixteen 22.5 sectors centered
.at true north and extending to a distance of 50 miles from the
-station. . ETheidata points are located in each sector at 0.5, T.
'1. 5,- 2. 5, n 3. 5, 4'5, 7.5, 15, 25, 35, and 45 miles.
. In addition, H /- calculations.were also madeEat the critical receptors in each "l - sector:within 5 miles of the site. These distances f
5.2-3 Amend. l' 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-5 ff and directions are presented in tables 5.2-1 and 5.2-2 (see FSAR 1 tables 2.3.5-10 and 2.3.5-11 along with the X/Q, depleted X/Q, and D/Q).
The highest anticipated airborne concentrations in the vicinity of the site due to gaseous releases have been calculated using these meteorological data and the source terms presented in section 3.5. The concentrations are presented in FSAR table 11.3..-3. The concentrations of radionuclides on the ground and in vegetation are controlled by the deposition of gaseous ef-fluente, since irrigation of crop land with Savannah River water is not anticipated. These concentrations are also presented in table 5.2-3 at the nearest resider.ce.
5.2.2.1 surface Water Models The effects of ' liquid radioactive effluents released to the Savannah River from VEGP during normal operation were analyzed using the LADTAP II computer cods'" and initial dilution data obtained from the VEGP thermal plume analysis. c 2 > Based on the calculated releases of radioactive materials in section 3.5, the expected concentratien of radionuclides in the liquid ll effluents discharged to the river is presented in FSAR table 11.2.3-1.
5.2.2.1.1 Transport Models The LADTAP II code is based in part on the calculational models for the estimation of aquatic dispersion outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.113. Data in the VEGP thermal plume analysis were de-termined using the three-dimensional submerged jet model recom-mended in Regulatory Guide 1.113.
The VEGP analysis uses the conservative steady state stream tube model with no reconcentration for one-unit operation with rad-As noted in paragraph 5.2.1.2.1, radioactive waste diecharge.
liquid waste is mixed with cooling tower blowdown, nonradioac-tive waste, and an additional dilution flow d.an necessary prior to discharge into the river.
For a 15,500 gal / min (34.5 ft'/s) effluent discharge into the Savannah River with 5800 ft'/s minimum flow, the VEGP thermal plume analysis utilizes a dilution factor of 10 for summer discharge conditions and 20 for winter discharge conditions.
For conservatism, the lower dilution factor of 10 was utilized g for the LADTAP II analysis. Furthermore, a transit time of 0.0 W was used.
5.2-4 Amend. 1 2/84
ud O- a ipS: '
V :
VEGP-OLSER-5
- 5.2.2.1.2 ' Sediment Uptake Models .
.To-calculate'the exposure from shoreline activities, the LADTAP
~
l II code estimates concentrations.of radionuclides in the river
. sediment.using the'" effective" surface.model presented in Regulatory Guide 1.109.
Although' dose rates from'the river sediment have been calculat-ted, no credit has been claimed for concentration reduction of f radionuclides in the surface water resulting from sediment uptake.
f 5.2.-2.1.3 Water Use Models
[The LADTAP II computer code, in conjunction with tha VEGP thermal plume analysis, was used to calculate the maximum radiological impnet of liquid effluents from the normal operation of VEGP. It
.was assumed that the maximum exposed individual catches and con-
-sumes all his fish'within the'immediate vicinity of the discharge plume. Furthermore,-it was assumed that the maximum exposed individual spends all'his time on tlie shoreline in the vicinity of:the discharge plume and obtains all his drinking water from
'that same area.
~5.2.2.2' Groundwater Models As-previously noted, all. liquid effluents discharged from the plant are routed to the Savannah River. Subsection 2.1.3
-identifies two distinct underground aquifers at the-plant site, but due toJthe hydraulic gradient and permeability of.the re-
.gion, both_aquifere and surface water drainage are directly to
-the river. Hence, the radiological' impact from the groundwater pathway will be negligible. (See FSAR-section 2.4-for additional information on groundwater.)
15.2.3. DOSE RATE ESTIMATES FOR BIOTA OTHER THAN MAN The'LADTAPIII code calculates typical doses to certain represent-ative biota in the= aquatic environment such as fish, inverte-
- - (; brates, algee, muskrat, raccoon, heron, and duck using models j presented 1 in WASH-1258. The bioaccumulation' factors presented
.in Regulatory Guide'1.109 were used in the dose calculations.
. Table'5.2'4.liststheoreticaldosestotypicalbiotaassociatedl1
- with the river and shoreline environment. It can be seen that all doses tol organisms directly associated with the river
- environment are small.(less than 1 rad / year). Animals not
-"* ~
directly" associated with the river environment, such as deer,
'x 'wouldf receive an even smaller external dose of less than 0.1 ~
', . mrad / year ~when continuously occupying areas close to the plant
'5.2-5 Amend. 1 2/84
_ - _ . _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ \
VEGP-OLSER-5 boundary. A slight additional thyroid dose may be received by animals grazing close to the plant from the deposition of radioiodines released in the plant's gaseous effluent.
Numerous studies have been made on tha effects of radioactivity on biota "' " . Applying the same results of these referenced studies to evaluate the potential effects on river biota, there should be no perceptible impact on biota from the radioactive material released by the VEGP.
5.2.4 DOSE RATE ESTIMATES FOR MAN O
5.2.4.1 Liquid Pathways The calculated maximum individual doses from aquatic pathways of radiation exposure are based on radionuclide concentrations calculated to occur in the area of the river near the effluent discharge pipe. These theoretical doses are presented in table 1
5.2-5 (see FSAR section 11.2, table 11.2.3-4).
These doses tere obtained using the LADTAP II code which utilizes the calculational models, usage factors, and dose factors outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.109.
5.2.4.2 Gaseous Pathways The calculated maximum individual doses from gaseous pathways of
- exposure are based on the atmospheric dispersion and deposition rate factors to the nearest receptor within 5 miles of the plant as presented in tables 5.2-1 and 5.2-2 (see FSAR section 2.3, tables 2.3.5-10 and 2.3.5-11).
1 The resultant doses are presented in table 5.2-6 (see FSAR section 11.3, table 11.3.3-4). The doses were obtained using the GASPAR code which utilizes the calculational models, g
usage factors, and dose factors outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.109.
5.2.4.3 Direct Radiation from Facility l
Since access to the area surrounding the plant will be restrict-ed, it is not expected that any member of the general public will be close to the plant long enough to receive any measurable radiation from this pathway. In addition, all principal radia-tion sources within VEGP are shielded so that the radiation level in all unrestricted areas is kept below 0.25 mrem /h. At the site boundary an annual dose from this pathway is expected ,
to be less than 1 mrem, as described in FSAR section 12.4. i 1
5.2-6 Amend. 1 2/84 l
VEGP-OLSER-5 5.2.4.4 Annual Population Doses The radiological impact on the' general population depends not only on:the release of radioactive effluents from VEGP but also if )n upon the land'and water use of the region surrounding the site.
' Subsection 2.1.3~of-this-report presents a detailed discussion of: land land water usage in the. area, and FSAR subsection 2.1.3
. presents the anticipated population data for this area. Based
- upon.the information supplied in these sections, conservative
-[ )
estimates have been made of the exposure of'the general population to radiation.
The population-integrated doses due to radioactive material in the plant's liquid (ffluents have not been evaluated because of
'the: remoteness of the site,. minimal. recreational usage of the river, lack of river water usage for irrigation, and~1ack of
- river water usage for potable water supply within 50 miles of ,
the plant site - aus noted in sub.3ection .2.1. 3.
The1 annual'50-mile population doses from gaseous effluents were Jevaluated using the GASPAR code in conjunction with site
_ . . specific data-as noted in subsection 5.2.2. 'The following
' ; (~Tx . principal exposure pathways were evaluated and outlined in table
?q / - 5.2-3:. noble gas submersion, inhalation of airborne effluents,
. ingestion.of contaminated foods (milk, meat, and vegetation),
and external-radiation from activity deposited on the ground.
Furthermore, the'GASPAR code was used to evaluate the doses
. received.by~the population'of the contiguous United States for
- the : same exposure pathways as in table 5 ;2-3. These doses are
. presented in table 5.2-4 and are based on site specific data and
. conservative valuesTprovided in the code.
5.2.5 '
SUMMARY
~OF ANNUAL RADIATION DOSES
( The estimated annual. radiation doses ~to the regional population i (i.e., out to a distance of 50 miles from the site) and-U.S.
population are outlined in detail in tables 5.2-7 and 5.2-8, l1 respectively. This tabulation includes the total of the whole
, bodyLdoses to.the population attributed to gaseous effluents and T : 'the total of the thyroid' doses to the population from 1:1 .
tradioiodine and~particulates.
Furthermore, tables 5.'2-5 and 5.2-6 (see FSAR tables 11.2.3-4 l1 and/11.3.3-4) provide.a comparison of the calculated individual doses to the design objectives outlined in 10 CFR 50, Appendix E 1 -I. The results indicate that the calculated exposures are 3 within the< design objectives. ,
5.2-7 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-5 lll REFERENCES
- 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Calculation of Radiation Exposure to Man from Routine Release af Muclear Reactor Liquid Effluents," LADTAP II Computer Code, lll NUREG/CR 1276, March 1980.
- 2. Southern Company Services, Inc., " Waste Water Effluent Discharge Structure Plume Analysis," VEGP Units 1 and 2, revised April 1981, (W. E. Ehrensperger letter to D. G.
Eisenhut, May 1, 1981). lh
- 3. Blaylock, B. G., " Cytogenetic Study of a Natural Population of Chironomus Inhabiting an Area Contaminated by Radioactive Waste," Disposal of Radioactive Wastes into Seas, Oceans and Rivers, pp. 835-845, 1979.
- 4. Templeton, W. L., Nakatani, R. E., and Held, E. E.,
" Radiation Effects," Radioactivity in the Marine Environment, Committee on Oceanography, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, pp. 223-239, 1971.
- 5. Watson, D. G., and Templeton, W. L., " Thermal Luminescent Dosimetry of Aquatic Organisms," Third National Symposium on Radioecology, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1971.
- 6. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Calculation of Radiation Exposure to Man from Routine Release of Nuclear Reactor Gaseous Effluents," GASPAR Computer Code, NUREG 0597, June 1980.
O O
O 5.2-8
, ,y p ,
p i
TABLE 5.2-1 (SIIEET 1 OF 2)
DIFFUSIOh AND DEPOSITION ESTIMA':'ES FOR ALL RECEPTOR LOCATIONS Release Point: Plant Vent / Wake-Split Season: Annual Computer Run 10: VX-3 9istance Distance Distance to Nea r- to Nea r- La Nea r-est Milk Depleted est Meat Depleted est Pilk Depleted Cow X/Q X/Q D/ Animpa)i X/Q X/Q D/Q Goa ga) X/Q X/Q D/Q Direc Qon _ [ m )I'3 _{s M l __(s/m3m1 _LmJ,p im) g3j,3 1 is/m3) ( m -2 1 (m) M/m3 (sfm 31 ( m -2 y N -
2.5E-08 2.2E-08 8.2E-11 -
2.5E-08 2.2E-01 8.2E-11 -
2.5E-08 2.2E-08 8.2E-11 NNE -
2.6E-08 2.3E-08 9.0E-11 -
2.6E-00 2.3E-08 9.00-11 -
2.6E-08 2.3E-08 9.0E-11 l
NE -
3.5E-08 3.2E-08 1.1E-10 -
3.5E-08 3.2E-08 1.1E-10 -
3.5E-08 3.2E-08 1.1E-10 l
ENE -
2.9E-08 2.6E-08 1.3E-10 -
2.9E-08 2.bE-08 1.3E-10 -
2.9E-08 2.6E-08 1.3E-10 E -
2.2E-08 2.0E-08 1.6E-10 -
2.2E-08 2.0 E- 08 1.6E-10 -
2.2E-08 2.0E-08 1.6E-10 1 ESE -
2.2E-08 1.90-08 1. is E- 10 -
2.2E-08 1.9E-08 1. ts E- 10 -
2.2E-08 1.9E-08 1.4E-10 SE -
2.3E-08 2.0E-08 1.1E-10 6920 2.6E-08 2.3E-08 1.4E-10 -
2.3E-08 2.0E-08 1.1E-10 h SSE -
1.3E-08 1.2E-08 6.4E-11 -
1.3E-08 1.2E-08 6.4E-11 -
1.3E-08 1.2E-08 6.8E-11 4 h 1
S -
2.OE-08 1.8E-08 8.1E-11 7242 2.0E-08 1.8E-08 9. fs E- 1 1 -
2.0E-08 1.8E-08 8.1E-11 O t*
SdW -
1.8E-08 1.6E-08 9.1E-11 7805 1.8E-08 1.6E-08 9.fE-11 4
1.8E-08 1.6E-08 9.1E-11 $
SW -
3.rf-08 3.2E-08 1.1E-10 4 86828 5.9E-08 5.3E-08 3.2E-10 -
3.60-08 3.2E-08 1. 8s E- 10 f Ln WSW -
2.8E-08 2.5E-08 1.2E-10 3862 6.2E-08 5.6E-08 3.9,E-10 -
2.8E-08 2.5E-08 1.2E-10 W -
2.5E-08 2.3E-08 1.1E-10 5713 3.6E-08 3.2E-08 1.9E-10 -
2.5E-08 2.3E-08 1.1E-10 W.4W -
2.tsE-08 2.2E-08 8.7E-11 16 188 4.7E-08 4.3E-08 2.5E-10 -
2.8sE-08 ?.2E-08 8.7E-11 NW -
2.8E-08 2.6E-08 8.1E-11 68371 3.9E-08 3.2E-08 1.2E-10 -
2.8E-08 e.6E-08 8.1E-11 NNW -
2.6E-08 2.4E-08 7.6E-11 -
2.6E-08 2. ls E-08 7.6E-11 -
2.6E-08 2. is E-08 7.6E-11 m
D
.CL PO N
00
.D.
i
A 7'N
,q ,r'N p A A.
TABLE 5.2-1 (SIIEET 2 OF 2)
Distance Distance to Near- to Nea r- Nea re s t est Resi- Depleted est Veg. Depleted Site Depleted dence X/Q 3 X/Q D/Q Garden X/Q X/Q D/Q Oottada ry X/Q 3 X/Q D/Q Direction ,_(ml1 is/m 1 ( sLm3 J _[ m .2 1 ( m d*) {s/m3) is/m3) (m 41 _[ m1__ _u/m 1 is/m3) i m ~3 i N -
2.5E-08 2.2E-08 8.2E-11 -
2.5E-08 2.2E-08 8.2E-11 131144 1.4E-07 1.2E-07 1.3E-09 l
NNE -
2.6E-08 2.3E-08 9.0E-11 -
2.6E-08 2.3E-08 9.0E-11 1097 1.9E-07 1.7E-07 1.8E-09 NE -
3.5E-08 3.2E-08 1.1E-10 -
3.5E-08 3.2E-08 1.1E-10 1097 2.0E-07 1.8E-07 2.3E-09 2.9E-08 2.6E-08 1.30-10 -
2.9E-08 2.6E-08 1.3E-10 1097 1.8E-07 1.7E-07 2.8E-09 ENE E
2.2E-08 2.0L-08 1.6E-10 -
2.2E-08 2.0E-08 1.6E-10 1369 1.2E-07 1.1E-07 2.7E-09 l
l ESE -
2.2E-08 1.9E-08 1.4E-10 -
2.2E-08 1.9E-08 1. f4 E- 10 1817 9.4E-08 8.14 E-08 1.6E-09 SE 5150 3.5E-08 3.1E-08 2.3E-10 6920 2.6E-07 2.3E-07 1.tE-10 1866 8.3E-08 7.4E-08 1.2E-09 SSE -
1.3E-08 1.2E-08 6.4E-11 -
1.3E-08 1.2E-08 6. fs E- 11 1773 1.8E-08 4 14. 84 E-08 7.0E-10 1 S 7242 1.9E-08 1.7E-08 9.4E-11 7242 2.0E-08 1.8E-08 9.4E-11 1692 6.8E-08 6.1E-08 9.2E-10 h O
78 83 1.9E-08 1.7E-08 1.0E-10 7895 1.8E-08 1.6E-08 9.18 E- 11 1680 7.7E-08 7.0E-08 1.1E-09 m SSW i SW 1828 4 5.9E-08 5.3E-08 3.2E-10 7425 1.7E-08 3.4E-08 1.8E-10 4 1862 4 1.7E-07 1.6E-07 1.2E-09 h
WSW 1931 1.2E-07 1.1E-07 1.1E-09 1931 1.2E-07 1.1E-07 1.1E-09 1862 6 1.5E-07 1. is E-0 7 1.8E-09 h W
W 5713 3.6E-08 3.2E-08 1.9E-10 7081 2.8E-08 2.6E-08 1.3E-10 1862 1 1.21-07 1.10-07 1.5E-09 tn m.W 3/01 5.3E-08 is.9E-08 3.1E-10 3701 5.3E-08 4.9E-08 3.1E-10 16fa9 1.0E-07 9.fE-08 1.0E-09 NW 3701 6.0E-08 5.6E-06 2.9E-10 3701 6.0E-08 5.6E-08 2.9E-10 22804 8.51-08 7.8E-08 6.3E-10 NNW -
2.6E-08 2.141-08 7.6E-11 -
2.6E-08 2.4E-08 7.6E-11 18204 9.1E-08 4 8.5E-08 7.7E-10 0
D 4
- a. iioceptor di staiice g rea ter than 8000 m is indicated by (-): di f rusion va lues g iven a re for 8000 m.
H fQ N
CD b
TABLE 5.2-2 (SHEET 1 OF 2)
DIFFUSION AND DEPOSITION ESTIMATES FOR ALL RECEPTOR LOCATIONS Release Point: Assumed Ground Release Season: Annual Computer Run ID: VX-la in Building Wake Distance Distance Distance l Lo Hear- to Near- to Nea r-est Hilk Depleted est Heat Depleted est Hilk Depleted Cow X/Q D/Q Animal X/g X/ D/Q X/Q X/g D/Q X/g is/m'1 f5/mgI (*4 1 Goa
(*1 t i s/m 31 is/m 1 (m i I!Ltec t ion _ _ i m i I s/_m _1 imi1 f mil W N -
1.1E-07 8.2E-08 2.8E-10 4
1.1E-07 8.2E-08 2.84E-'O -
1.1E-07 8.2E-08 2. 84 E- 10 NNE -
1.1E-07 8.4E-08 2.14 E- 10 -
1.1E-07 8.4E-08 2.4E-10 -
1.1E-07 8.4E-08 2.4E-10 NE -
1.fE-07 4 1.0E-07 2.8f-10 -
1.4E-07 1.0E-07 2.8E-10 - 1.4E-07 1.0E-07 2.8E-10 ENE -
1.2E-07 9.2E-08 2.8E-10 -
- 1. 2 t.- 0 7 9.2E-08 2.8E-10 -
1.2E-0/ 9.2E-08 2.8E-10 y E -
1.1E-07 8.2E-08 3.0L-10 -
1.1E-07 8.2E-08 3.0E-10 -
1.1E-07 8.2E-08 3.0E-10 1.1E-07 1.1E-07 8.3E-08 2.8E-10 -
1.1E-07 8.3E-08 2.8E-10 ISE -
8.3E-03 2.8[-10 -
SE -
1.1E-07 7.8E-08 2.4E-10 6920 1.3E-07 9.8E-08 2.9E-10 -
1.1E-07 7.8E-08 2.4E-10 h SSE -
8.2E-08 6.1E-08 1.5E-10 -
8.2E-08 6.1E-08 1.5E-10 -
8.2E-08 6.1E-08 1.5E-10 b M
S -
1.2E-07 8.6E-08 1.9E-10 7242 1.3E-07 1.0E-07 2.1E-10 -
1.2E-08 8.6E-08 1.9E-10 U3 M
SSW -
1.0E-07 7.7E-08 2.0E-10 7805 1.1E-07 8.1E-08 2.1E-10 -
1.0E-07 7.7E-08 2.0E-10 y SW -
1.4E-01 1.0E-07 2.9E-10 4828 2.8E-07 2.1E-07 6.9E-10 -
1.4E-07 1.0E-07 2.9E-10 WSW -
1.1E-07 8.0E-08 2.5E-10 3862 3.0E-07 2.8E-07 4 9.0E-10 -
1.1E-07 8.0E-08 2.5E-10 W -
1.2E-07 9.1E-08 2.5E-10 5713 2.0E-07 1.5E-07 4.5E-10 -
1.2E-07 9.1E-08 2.5E-10 WNW -
1.0E-07 7.6E-08 2.1E-10 418f4 2.5E-07 2.0E-07 6.5E-10 -
1.0E-07 7.6E-08 2.1E-10 NW -
1.1E-07 8.4E-08 2.2E-10 6437 1.6E-07 1.2E-07 3.1E-10 -
1.1E-07 8.4E-03 2.2E-10 NNW -
1.1E-07 8.1E-08 2.2E-10 -
1.1E-07 8.1E-08 2.2E-10 -
1.1E-07 8.1E-08 2.2E-10 (D
D D.
N DJ N
03 b
i y
++ o k* IMAGE EVALUATION [p $b 4;ff s; # 1es11Aaeer cur 33 xxxxxg j$ <,4,
- ++#' *%%4
. l.0 E DE E 5 9 EE I.I b EE I.8 1.25 i.4 g
< 150mm >
< 6" *
- M
- ?'Sk $77777
-@%g<
tf)ff>p/
o u .
9 _ , , ,_
1 Q9 t +>$+9h
/g/ g., g?// Y IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ////p%
4 /, #4
\ /
g,,// N,,,,
l.0 W Bai Ra yll Has i,i [': E!M Ji i 1.25 till I.4 1.6 I llF- _
l isomm >
f
< 6" >
$ "hp
+fcy h//, < : 4%
o
~
4),+y# .
,, (5 ,m p k \
TABLE 5. 2- 2 (SHEET 2 OF 2)
Distance Distance i to Hea r- to Nea r- l Nea re s t est Resi- Depleted est Veg. Depleted Site Depleted dance X/Q X/g D/Q Ca rden X/Q X/Q D/Q Bouada ry X/g X/Q D/Q Direction ___Lm1(*3 Isfm31 (s/m*) im 4 1 (m1 al is/m3) t fs/m3L_ fm 4 1 ( m 1(88 Is/m 1 (s/m31 i m -2 1 N -
1.1E-07 8.2E-08 2.taE-10 -
1.1E-07 8.2E-08 2.1 E-10 13fata 1.1E-06 4 1.2E-06 5.2E-09 4
NNE -
1.1E-07 8.1E-08 4 2.8E-10 4
1.1E-07 8. 84 E-08 2.8E-10 4 1097 1.9E-06 1.7E-06 7.7E-09 NE -
1.1E-07 4 1.0E-07 2.8E-10 -
1.2E-07 4 1. 0 E-0 / 2.8E-10 1097 2.2E-06 2.0E-06 8.8E-09
[NE -
1.2E-07 9. ;:E-08 2.8E-10 -
1.2E-07 9.2E-08 2.8E-10 1097 2.0E-06 1.8E-06 8.8E-09 E -
1.1E-07 8.2E-08 3.0E-10 -
1.1E-07 8.2E-08 3.0E-10 1369 1.3E.06 1.2E-06 6.8E-09 ESE -
1.1E-07 8.3E-07 2.8E-10 -
1.1E-07 8.3E 08 2.8E-10 1817 8.8E-06 7.6E-07 3.8E-09 SE 5150 1.9E-07 1.5E-07 5.2E-10 6920 1.3E-07 9.8E 08 2.9E-10 1866 8.0E-07 6.9E-07 3.0E-08 SSE -
8.2E-08 6.1E-08 1.5E-10 -
8.2E-08 6.1E-08 1.5E-10 1773 6.6E-07 5.8E-07 2.1E-09 1 S 72f2 4 1.3E-07 1.0E-07 2.1E-10 72142 1.3E-07 1.0E-07 2.1E-10 1692 9.9E-07 8.6E-07 2.9E-09 ]
SSW 78:83 1.1E-07 8.6E-08 2.2E-10 7805 1.1E-07 8.1E-08 2.1E-10 1680 9.1E-07 7.9E-07 3.1E-09 y O
SW #828 4 2.8E-07 2.1E-07 6.9E-10 7725 1.5E-07 1.1E-07 3.0E-10 1862 4 1.5E-06 1.3E-06 5.7E-09 t*
tn WSW 1931 8.1E-07 7.0E-07 2.9E-09 1931 8.1E-07 7.0E-07 2.9E-09 1862 4 1.2E-06 1.1E-06 5.0E-09 tij
- U W 5713 2.0E-07 1.5E-07 is.5E-10 7081 1.5E-07 1.1E-07 2.9E-10 1862 4 1.3E-06 1.2E-06 1.9E-09 4
h WNW 3101 3.00-07 2.5E-07 8.2E-10 3701 3.0E-07 2.50-07 3.2E-10 16194 9.6E-G7 8.fE-07 4 3.fE-09 4
NW 3701 3.3E-07 2.7E-07 8.5E-10 3701 3.3E-07 2.7E-07 8.5E-10 22140 6.9E-07 5.9E-07 2.0E-09 NNW -
1.1E-07 8.1E-08 2.2E-10 -
1.1E-07 8.1E-08 2.2E-10 18084 9.2E-07 8.0E-07 2.9E-09 I
.O
- a. Iteceptor distance greater than 8000 m is indicated by (-); di rrusion va lues g iven a re for 8000 m.
.O a
VEGP-OLSER-5
(
TABLE 5.2-3 l1 .
() CONCENTRATIONS OF GASEOUS (DEPOSITED) EFFLUENTS AT THE NEAREST RESIDENCE <a>
On Ground In Vegetation (pCi/m 2 ) (pCi/m2)
H-3 0 1.59E-01 O CR-51 MN-54 5.30E-01 4.42E+01 4.81E-11 7.10E-07
'FE-55 2.58E-02 1.32E-10 FE-59 2.16EC 1.59E-07 CO-58 3.46E+01 1.89E-06 CO-60 4.24E+02 - 1.19E-06 SR-89 5.36E-01 3.74E-08 SR-90 2.14E+01 1.56E-08 ZK-95 4.34E-05 . 3.05E-08 CE-141 2.46E-05 2.09E-12 CE-144 1.48E-04 2.50E-12 CS-134 ~1.07E+02 7.37E-07 CS-136 1.22E-02 1.16E-10
'CS-137 2.62E+03 1.69E-06 BA-140 1.78E-05 1.69E-12 I-131 9.66E+01 3.5E-05 I-133 1.42E+0 3.54E-10 C-14 0 2.08E-02 1
h I
- O i ' -p V
~
- a. Nearest residence - 1931 m WSW from the center of the VEGP.
_- _ , . . . - . _ _. _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . ~ . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ , - .
Amend. 1 2/84 -
VEGP-OLSER-5
(
TABLE 5.2-4' l1 DOSES TO BIOTA OTHER THAN MAN FROM LIQUID EFFLUENTS <a) ;
I Internal External Total (mrad / year) (mrad / year) (mrad / year)
Fish 7.40E+00 2.69E+01 3.*3E+01 1 -Invertebrate 3.63E+01 5.37E+01 9.01E+01 '
Algae 9.35E+00 5.oSE-02 9.41E+00
' Muskrat 3.60E+01 1.79E+01 5.40E+01 Raccoon 3.06E+00 1.34E+01 1.65E+01 1
4 Heron 2.07E+02 1.79E+01 2.25E+02 Duck 3.15E+01 2.59E+01 5.84E+01 0
1 O
i LO l a. Exposed biota assumed in immediate vicinity of discharge ,
! plume; discharge transit time is 0.01 h.
Amend. 1 2/84
n O O Q p Y (.) V V \._J (Q> b(%
TABLE 5.2-5 ESTIMATED INDIVIDUAL DOSES FROM LIQUID EFFLUENTS AS LOW AS REASONABLY ACHIEVABLE (a) (b) (c)
Individuai Usage DOSE [mremfyea r1 and ( kg/ yea r; Diluticn Time Shorewidth lotal Pat !__lway_ _ bfyearl f a c t o r__ (hL faclor Skin Bone Liver ,_Dody Thyroid kidney _ Luna Gl-LLI AdglL Fish 21.0 10.0 2 14 . 0 0.2 6.01E-01 1.07E+00 7.91E-01 1.50E-01 3.61E-01 1.21E-01 1.29E-01 Orinking 730.0 10.0 12.0 0.2 1. IIs E-02 1.97E-01 1.92E-01 5.37E-01 1.85E-01 1.78E-01 1.91E-01 Shoreline 12.0 10.0 0.0 0.2 3.06E-03 2.61E-03 2.61E-03 2.61E-03 2.61E-03 2.61E-03 2.61E-03 2.61E-03 Total 3.06E-03 6.15E-01 1.27E+00 9.85E-01 6.89E-01 5.49E-01 3.02E-01 3.22E-01 Itigna!!<2r fish 16.0 10.0 214 . 0 0.2 0.33E-01 1.09E+00 1.53E-01 1.40E-01 3.67E-01 4 1.11E-01 9.21E-02 Drinking 510.0 10.0 12.0 0.2 1.11E-01 1. 41s E-01 1.33E-01 14. 314 E-01 1.32E-01 1.27E-01 1.34E-01 Shoreline 67.0 10.0 0.0 0.2 1.71E-02 1.86E-02 4 1.86E-02 1.46E-02 1.l:6E-02 1. l:6 E-02 4 1.146 E-02 1.16E-02 4
Total 1.71E-02 6.59E-01 1.2SE+00 6.01E-01 5.89E-01 5.14E-01 2.82E.01 2.41E-01 ChiId-~
T sit 6.9 10.0 214 . 0 7.85E-01 9.54E-01 1.80E-01 1.15E-01 3.10E-01 4 1.11E-01 3.47E-02 Drinking 510.0 10.0 12.0 3.18E-0? 2.77E-01 2.49E-01 9.93E-01 2.5l:E-01 2.12E-01 4 2.146 E-01 Sho re l i ne 114 . 0 10.0 0.0 3.58E-03 3.05E-03 3.05E-03 3.05E-03 3.05E-03 3.05E-03 3.05E-03 3.05E-03 Total 3.58E-03 8.19E-01 1.23E+00 4.32E-01 1.184E+00 5.67E-01 3.56E-01 2. 81s E-01 1 Infant fish 0.0 10.0 2 84 . 0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orinking 330.0 10.0 12.0 0.2 3.39E-02 2.82E-01 2.12E-01 4 1.12E+00 4 2.51E-01 2.39E-01 2.39E-01 Jhoreline 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 0.0 3.39E-02 2.82E-01 2.42E-01 1.142E+00 2.51E-01 2.39E-01 2.39E-01
- a. Individidl doses calculated using the LPOTAP II code. AlI data is on a per uni t basis.
% b. Appendix 1 Design Objectives for Liquid Effluents: total body dose = 3 mrem / yea r per uni t from all pathways; dose to any
@ o rga n = 10 mrem / yea r per uni t f rom a l l pathways. Docket RM-50-2 Annex to Appendix 1 Design Objectives: total body dose = 5 (D miem/ yea r per si te f rom a l l pathways; dose to any organ = 5 t rem / yea r por si te f rom a l l pathways; nontr i t ium releases = 5 D Ci/ yea r per uni t (FSAR labic 11.2.3-1).
Da
- c. Although the dose due to the drinking water pathway has been included in this evaluation; currently no r i ve r. wa te r is used for potable water within 100 river miles of the si te.
64 M
N 00 b
6
% /"N O O f O TABLE 5.2-6 (SHE 1 OF 6)
ESTIMATED ANNUAL DOSES TO AN IdDIVIDUAL FROM GASEOUS AND PARTICULATE EFFLUENTS (a)
Gaseous Dose Rate Gamma Dose Beta Dose Total Body Skin Dose Rate in Air Rate in Air Dose Rate Rate toca1iog Pa t!Lway ( m ra d/vea r1 ( m rad / yea r 1 i m remfyea r1 ( m rem / yea r i Nea r est Si te Bounda ry Plume 3.90E-02 7.18E-02 2.16E-02 4 5.97E-02 (0.68 mile NE)
Nea rest Residence and Plume 2.21E-02 1.16E-02 4 1.39E-02 3.82E-02 4
Veiletable Garden (1.2 mile WSW)
Nea rest Mea t Anima lI 'I Plume 1.11E-02 2.11E-02 6.99E-03 1.7fE-03 4
( 2. 24 mile WSW)
(c)
Nea re s t M i l k Cow a nd Goa t Plume 6.37E-03 1.21E-02 1.01E-03 4 9.92E-03 (5.0 mile SW)
(d) 1 Radiolodines and Particulates Dose Rate (mrom/ year) 4 p3 O
m Total I l.oca t i on Pathway L3ody_ Gl Tract , Bone Liver Kidney T hy ro i d Lung Skin h
Nearest Site lloundary (0.68 naile NE)
Ground Deposition 7.02E-03 7.02E-03 1.02E-03 7.02E-03 7.02E-03 7.02E-03 7.02E-03 8.22E-03 $
N
' I inhalation U1 Adult 3.08E-02 3.08E-02 9.52E-05 3.09E-02 3'.10E-02 6.31E-02 3.09E-02 3.08E-02 i ?cen 3.10E-02 3.10E-02 2.71E-05 3.11E-02 3.13E-02 7.23E-02 3.11E-02 3.10E-02 Child 2.15E-02 2.75E-02 1. 75 E-014 2.76E-02 2.77E-02 7.51E-02 2.75E-02 2.78E-02 4
Infant 1.58E-02 6.82E-02 1. 384 E-014 1.59E-02 1.59E-02 5.91E-02 4 1.58E-02 6.83E-02 Iotal Dose to Receplor W Adult 3.78E-02 3.73E-02 7.11E-03 3.79E-02 3.30E-02 7.07E-02 3.79E-02 3.90E-02 Teen 3.80E-02 3.80E-02 7.05E-03 3.81E-02 3.83E-02 7.93E-02 3.81E-G2 3.92E-02
[ Child 3.85E-02 4 3.15E-02 7.19E-03 3.8 6E-02 4 3.170-02 8 8.21E-02 3.85E-02 4 3.56E-02
- o infant 2.28E-02 8.57E-02 7.15E-03 2.29E-02 2.29E-02 6.63E-02 4 2.28E-02 7.65E-02 1 D CL j
H tO N
co
.Cm l
1 6
/
r p rs f rm rx
- (
( / (
I l
(,/ U) x \
L/
4 TABLE 5.2-6 (SHEET 2 OF 6)
Total Locatiog fa_1hya.y Ro_dL G1 T ra e t Done Liver Kidney
_ Thy ro i d Lung SQ Hea rnst flesidence Ground 3.386E-03 3.35E-02 3.35E-02 3.35E-02 3.35E-02 3.35E-02 3.35E-02 3.39E-03 and Vegetable Deposition Ga rden (1.2 Hile WSW) Inhalation Adult 1.40E-02 1.40E-02 3.98E-05 1.40E-02 1.41E-02 9.18E-03 1.40E-02 1.40E-02 leen 1.141 E -02 1.41E-02 5.16E-05 4 1.41E-02 1.42E-02 9.57E-03 1. f41 E-02 1.41E-02 Child 1.25E-02 1.24E-02 7.22E-05 1.25F-02 1.25E-02 3.10E-02 1.25E-02 1. 2f6 E-02 Infant 7.17E-03 7.15E-03 5.42E-05 7.30E-03 7.21E-03 2.42E-02 7.17E-03 7.15E-03 1 Ca rde n yege ta b l e Adult 2.63E-02 2.58E-02 5.29E-02 2.66E-02 2.61E-02 7.40E-02 2.57E-02 2.56E-02 leen 3.58E-02 3.58E-02 4 8.78E-02 3.66E-02 3.58E-02 7.60E-02 3.53E-02 3.51E-02 Child 7.05E-02 7.00E-02 2.12E-01 2. 284 E-02 f.08E-02 1.25E-01 7.00E-02 6.98E-02 Total Dose 10 Receptor Adult 7.39E-02 7.33E-02 8.6?sE-02 i 7.f1E-02 7.36E-02 1.17E-01 7.32E-02 4.29E-02 Teen 8.3fsE-02 8.30E-02 1.21E-01 8.42E-02 8.35E-02 1.19E-01 8.29E-02 5.26E-02 O
Child 1.16E-01 1.16E-01 2.45E-01 1.18E-01 1.17E-01 1.89E-01 1.16E-01 8.57E-02 O Infant 4.07E-02 4.07E-02 3.36E-02 4.08E-02 f.08E-02 i 5.77E-02 4.07E-02 1.05E-02 t*
in M
N i
Un D
.A.
b i
N N
co b
i
O O O O O O O TABLE 5.2-6 (SHEUT 3 OF 6)
Total location fatt! yay D@y_ Gl T rac t D_oue Liver Kidney Thyrohl Lung ShiD Nearest Meat Ground 1.18E-03 1.18E-03 1.18E-03 1.18E-03 1.18E-03 1.18E-03 1.18E-03 1.39E-03 AnimalW Oeposition
( 2 . 14 mile WSW)
I nha l a d_o_r3 Adult 6.18E-03 6.18E-03 1.63E-05 6.19E-03 6.20E-03 1.11E-02 6.20E-03 6.16E-03 Teen 6.23E-03 6.2faE-03 2.20E-05 6. 21s E-03 6.25E-03 1.21E-02 1 6.28E-03 4 6.20E-03 Child 5.50E-03 5.149E-03 2.91E-05 5.51E-03 5.53E-03 1.26E-02 5.51E-03 5.49E-03 Infant 3.16E-03 3.16E-03 2.15E-05 3.18E-03 3.18E-03 9.i X-08 1.53E-03 3.16E-03 1
!!ea t Adult 3.16E-03 3.16E-03 1.06E-03 3.18E-03 3.16E-03 5.52E-03 3.11E-03 4 3.18s E-0 3 Teen 2.41E-03 2.42E-03 8.91E-03 4 2.l:2E-03 2 41E-03 14.13E-03 2.40E-03 2.50E-03 Child 4.11E-03 4.10E-03 1.68E-03 i f.14E-03 4.12E-03 6.20E-05 4.10E-03 1.10E-03 4
lotal Dose to Receptor Adult 1.05E-02 1.0SE-02 2.26E-03 1.08E-02 1.05E-02 1.78E-02 1.05E-02 1.07E-02 leen 9.82E-03 9. 88 E-03 1.01E-02 9.80E-03 la . 8ta E-03 1.19E-02 9.82E-03 9.99E-03 g Child 1.08E-02 1.06E-02 2.88E-03 1.12E-03 1.08E-02 1.99E-02 1.08E-02 1.10E-02 Infart 4.31E-03 4 4.3fsE-03 1.20E-03 4.36E-03 14.36E-03 1.08E-02 2.71E-03 4.55E-03 @
I
- O t*
tn M
N I
vi
'I h
., 3 4 CL to N i (n
b 4
4
yn r% ('% t') im p TABLE 5.2-6 (SHEET 4 OP 6}
Total l oca1Lon fal_hway flodi GI T ract Bone Liver Aidney T hy ro id Luna Skin Hearest Hilk G round 14.24E-04 4.21E-Ole 4 4.21E-04 4 4.24E-Ol4 14. 214 E-Ole 1.
4 214 E-Ol4 1.21E-Ola 4 4 4.98E-04 CowUI Deposition (5.0 mile SW) inhalation Adult 3.29E-03 3.29E-03 8.16E-06 3.29E-03 3.30E-03 i 5.6fE-03 3.29E-03 3.27E-03 Icen 3.31E-03 3.30E-03 1.15E-06 3.31E-03 3.32E-03 6.25E-03 3.32E-03 3.30E-03 Child 2.93E-03 2.93E-03 1. 414 E-05 2.98E-03 t 2. 916 E-03 6.33E-03 2.91E-03 4 2.92E-03 Infant 1.68E-03 1.68E-03 1.06E-05 1.69E-03 1.69E-03 4.79E-03 1.69E-03 1.68E-03 y HL!h Adult 2.72E-03 2.61E-03 4 6.79E-03 2.76E-03 1.77E-03 2.50E-02 2.62E-03 2.62E-03 leen 4.27E-03 4.17E-03 1.25E-02 14. 40 E-03 4.39E-03 3.95E-02 4.15E-03 4.13E-03 Child 8.87E-03 8.73E-03 3.08E-02 9.11E-03 9.13E-03 7.87E-02 8.73E-03 S.71E-03 Infant 1.70E-02 1.67E-02 6.03E-02 1.77E-02 1.724E-02 1.86E-31 1.67E-02 1.67E-02 lotal Dose I.
to Receptor
<l Adult 6.13E-03 4 6.35E-03 7.21E-03 7.17E-03 4 5.10E-03 4 3.15E-02 6.33E-03 6.39E-03 $
leen 8.00E-03 7.89E-03 1.29E-02 8.13E-03 8.13E-03 4.62E-02 7.89E-03 7.93E-03 m ChiIJ 1.22E-02 1.21E-02 3.12E-02 1.25E-02 1.2SE-02 8.SiE-02 4 1.21E-02 1.21E-02 I inrant 1.92E-02 1.88E-02 6.07E-02 1.98E-02 1.95E-02 1.92E-01 1.88E-02 1.89E-02 O tn En M
M i
U1 e
a U
C. L W
tO N
Co
>' A a
f,
.O r% O FN [h (
- k. b k/' D TABLE 5.2-6 (SHEET 5 OF 6)
Total 1ocation Pathway _
Body G1 T rac t Dono Liver K idney Thyroid Luno Skin Nea rest Mi lk G round 4.24E-Ol4 4.24E-04 4.2t.E-04 1.24E-04 4 4.24E-04 4.21E-04 4 4. 284 E-Ole 4.98E-04 Goa t(C) Deposition (5.0 milo SW)
Inhalation Adult 3.29E-03 3.29f-03 8.16E-06 3.29E-03 3.30E-03 5. 61s E-03 3.29E-03 3.27E-03 Teen 3.31E-03 3.30E-03 1.15E-06 3.31E-03 3.32E-03 6.25E-03 3.32E-03 3.30E-03 Child 2.93E-03 2.93E-03 1. 4ta E-05 2. 918 E-03 2.91E-03 4 6.33E-03 2. 9fs E-03 2.92E-03 Infant 1.68E-03 1.68E-03 1.06E-L5 1.69E-03 1.69E-03 1.79E-03 4 1.69E-03 1.68E-03 1 Nilk Adult 4.19E-03 3.98E-03 6.92E-03 1.21E-03 4 4.19E-03 3.36E-02 3.98L-03 3.96E-03 leen 4.13E-03 5.92E-C3 1.27E-02 6.la9E-03 6.30E-03 5.29E-02 5.92E-03 5.88E-03 Ch!Id 1.17E-02 1.15E-02 3.13C-02 1.25E-02 1.21E-02 1.08E-01 4 1.15E-02 1.114 E-02 I n fa n t 2.13E-02 2.07E-02 6.11E-02 2.30E-02 2.21E-02 2.46E-01 7.10E-02 2.15E-02 Total Dose le Receptor Adult 7.90E-03 7.69E-03 7. 31s E-03 7.92E-03 2.19E-03 3.99E-02 7.69E-03 7.72E-03 <
Icen 7.86E-03 9 . 68 E-03 1.31E-02 1.02E-02 1.00E-02 5.91E-02 9.66E-03 9.68E-03 M Child 1.51E-02 1. 84 8 E-02 3.17E-02 1.59E-02 1.50E-02 1 10E-01 1. fl ? E-02 1.88E-02 4 O infant 2.38E-02 4 2.30E-02 6.15E-02 2.51E-02 2.38E-02 2.51E-01 2.31E-02 2.37E-02 y O
t"
. 01 M
l0 1
(n e
D D.
b I
M N
co b
'rx ,A
\ lq lq n\ ex A-f t I f
G N. Nw)l Y Ya q
% )\ \,
TABLE 5.2-6 (SHEET 6 OF 6)
- a. All data is on a per unit basis. Doses were calculated using the CASPAR cede.
- b. Evaluated at a location that could be occupied during the term or plant operation.
- Denotes highest dose calculated in reference to Appendix l Appendix 1 design objectives - gaseous effluents (noble gases only):
Camma dose in a i r - 10 mrad / yea r per uni t Deta dose in air - 20 mrad / year por unit Dose to total body or individual - 5 mrem / year per unit Dose to skin or individual - 15 mrem / year per unit Annex to Appendix 1 Docket RH-50-2. Design obj ctives are the same as Appendix 1 except on a per-site basis; therefore calculated doses should be multiplied by 2.
- c. Provided as information for information only; a receptor is assumed present at the location or a potential pathway. Cu r re n t l y. no m i l k cows o r goa t s a re located within 5.0 miles or the plar t site; this evaluation is based on the worst case X/Q estimate at the 5.0 mile radius noted in FSAR tables 2.3.5-10 and 2.3.5-11.
- d. Evaluated at'._ location where an exposure pathway and dose receptor actually exist at the time of licens-ing. " Denotes highest dose calculated in reference to Appendix 1.
Appendix 1 design objectives - radiolodinos and particulates: <
M Q
Dose to a ny o rga n f rom a l l pa thways - 1) :nrem/ yea r per uni t y Annex to Appendix ! Docket RM-05-2 design objectives:
- t-4 cn Dose to any organ f ror. a ll pathways - 15 mrem / yea r por site M 1-131 releases - 1 Ci/ year per unit ( reforce.co table 11. 3. 3-3 ) y
- e. Total dose due to multiple pathways.
- e D
A. .
to N
m 4
6 d
VEGP-OLSER-5
- o o
= N e 2 : e o o o
- O o W
-C e e e 0- e e o
- WW W e W WQ X N @ C W C G3 .
W @ w M. D. C. C. . C.
N e N
- e= @
=
Q w N e 3 3 e o o o # C o W
@. e e e 'o e e e" Cl W W W e W LJ N Ll m # m W m CD 3 JI n A. M. M. C. C. o.
1 'N e N w w b m
N O
4 1 -
g C o g - N - 2 a a e V O o o o o o W 6 - e e e e e e N
- o WWWWW W 6 > a o M @ N N.
> e 00 Q N I #. M. . M. A.
N > N ea a N 0% @
U2 8
o - N - , , , -
o o o o o o o N
b >
e WWWWW e e e e W
e W
e e > c N a e o o C @ w w g V X. M. A. o. . . .
N e N *= e @ C I Ed N Z H
O I <= N e- 2 2 2 e.
N o o o o o o o M Z' L e e e e e e e g3 e WWWWWWW O > > , e N , o e 4 H e-b y =J #. M. #. o. N. . o.
N e N e e O C O
C1.
N 2 3 3 9: e o" o o o o C o e e e e e s- e e N c WW W W W WW p o r~ a o a M m a H e a. M. M. C. M. e.
C K N e @ N h - N l
O O'
l a ~ N e 2 2 e U o o o o o o o D s e e e e e e e 6 WWW W w. WW Z >= N so N s o (%
Z - c. M. a. o. @
w
. o.
4 o N e N M ra e m m e N e 2 2 "
-x o o o o o o o O e WWW e e e W
e W
e W
e W
e
- N 2 no e e o m e o 5 * -
a a. M. a. e e O.
o N e N e - e n c e o e
- - 2
> d J3 =-
C e
3 e ct 6 3
-ee eoa E a e a 3 o I Cn ) e M e - 6' C o o e Q
= a. o - > o z N l
[
1 Amend. 1 2/84
, _ . . . . _ - , . _ . . - . . . . . .. _ _ . . - _ _ - . _ , , . _ . _ _ _ _ , . . _ , _ . . _ ...,. ,_._ ,__., .~, , _ , _ -_ _. _ _ _.- ._ c.
i O O O- O O O O i
TABLE 5.2-8 ANNUAL U.S. POPULATION'- INTEGRATED DOSES (man-rem) 1
[
i Pathway Total Body GI T rac t Bo.ee Liver Kidney- . Iby ro id Lu_rLq Skin I
Pitme 1.38E0 1.38E0 1.38E0 1.38E0 1.38E0 1.38E0 1.49E0 6.64E0 j Ground 1.34E-02 1.34E-02 1.34E-02 1.34E-02 1.34E 1.34E-02 1.34E-02 1.56E-02 inhalation 2.06EO 2.07E0 6.30E-04 2.07EO ~2.07EO I 2.23E0 2.07E0 2.07E0 Vegetables 4.64E+01 4.64E+01 2.02E+02 4.64E+01 4.64E+01 4.64E+01 4.64E+01 4.64E+01 Cow MiIk 1.72E+01 1.72E+01 6.9E+01 1.72E+01 1.72E+01 1.72E+01 1.72E+01 1.72E+01 Heat 3.48E+01 3.48E+01 1.59E+02 3.47E+01 3.48E+01 3.48E+01 3.48E+01 3.48E+01 .
1 Total 1.02E+02 1.02E+02 4.32E+02 1.02E+02 1.02E+02- 1.02E+02 1.02E+02 1.02E+02 l
l i <
m i O b M u i
, O 9 t" i In ,
4 g i
- i b * \
l f
k i
! Ee i
o 1
4 I
1 hJ
\
co O
6
VEGP-OLSER-5
.O The transmission lines associated with the VEGP will have no significant environmental impact due to ozone formation as discussed in CPSER paragraph 5.4.14.
5.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF MAINTENANCE OF THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS LRights of way will be recleared every 3 years; in addition, a
- O herbicide will be sprayed in selected areas by helicopters every 6 years (or less frequently depending on local vegetative conditions). The reclearing is accomplished with rotary or drum mowers and with some hand clearing using chain saws and hand tools. No permanent access roads will be maintained along the rights of way. Any damage to rights.cf way during maintenance will be repaired. Herbicide for reclearing will be sprayed in compliance with all U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and State of Georgia Environmental Protection Division regulations. Present practice is to spray herbicide using a helicopter with a microfoil boom. Spraying is limited to periods when the wind does not exceed 1 1/2 to 2 mph. The application rate is in accordance with label directions to L
adequately.reelear the rights of way. Only broad-leafed plants
- are killed. This process does-not adversely affect either pines
! and other vegetation near the rights of way or grasses and narrow-leafed plants on the rights of way.
Part of the' land management program of GPC is the right of way o conversion program in which GPC will pay the landowner to plant the cleared right of way in pasture, crops, or game food plots.
Planting is limited to grasses, crops, and low-growing shrubs
- and trees that will not reach a height that will hinder the operation of the transmission lines. In addition, the edge effect created by clearing or planting crops along rights of way will enhance wildlife habitat.
1 -.
O L k_/
l L n\u/ i l
i 5.5-3 Amend. 1 2/84
_ ~ , _ _ . . _ _ . . _ - _ _ _ , _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ . _
.~
~
tc VEGP-OLSER-5
}
- 5. 7- RESOURCES COMMITTED The. operation of the VEGP will involve the commitment and use of
_ various natural resources and will result in certain irretriev- '
OL iableJand' irreversible commitments of natural resources. Because ,
of_the; reduction'from four-units to two units at VEGP, the committed resources will be substantially reduced from those 7
summarized in the Final Environmental' Statement and chapter 10 of the Construction Permit _ Stage Environmental Report (CPSER).
^
'( )~ ~ Air,_ water, and land commitments are retrievable upon cessation of. plant operation. At the end of the useful life of this plant, the buildings could be removed and the grounds returned to essentially their original condition; however, it is most likely that the concrete structures would remain (subsection 5.8).
1 The irretrievable resources committed at the VEGP would be the uranium used in the form of nuclear fuel and the materials used for construction of the plant. Of these resources committed, _
only the nuclear fuel is unique,.because the commitment and use of air, water, land,-and construction materials would be similar for-a fossil plant.
A number of the following acreage figures have changed since c publication of the CPSER. These changes are due to various reasons, such'as reduction in the number of units and design changes. The following resources are committed for the operation of the VEGP:
I b A. Land
- 1. Site - The VEGP site consists of 3169 acres of E land. A list'of plant facilities and acreages is
'_ found in subsection 2.1.3. The plant facilities will occupy approximately 717 acres of the site, l thus. changing their use from agricultural and
- timber production to. electrical generation. The
() remaining 2452 acres will either be managed in accordance with acceptable land tanagement 1 techniques or,be landscaped, fertilized,_and i
reseeded after construction is completed. At the end of the useful life of the plant, the land can -
be returned to agricultural _or other uses with the r s necessary expenditures of money and human effort. *
- 2. Trrnsmission lines - The offsite transmission line lf rights of way will consist ~of approximately 2958 I
acres which will be removed from the growing of LJ timber and agricultural products; however, this
! s ' land can be returned to its former state if l
'~
desired.
i 5.7-1 Amend. 1 2/84
. _ . . ~ . _ _ , _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . , _ . _ . _ - . . . _ . _ _ _ . - , _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ - . . _
VEGP-OLSER-5 llh
- 3. Access railroad - The offsite access railroad spur will consist of approximately 386 acres which will be removed from the growing of timber and agricultural products; however, this land can be returned to its former state if desired. llh
- 4. The total area of the plant site, the transmission line rights of way, and the access railroad spur is approximately 6500 acres, which is about 0.12 percent of the land within a 50-mile radius of the site. The acreage used is very similar to the lh land within the 50-mile radius. No unique or unusual areas will be consumed by the land use.
B. Water Savannah River water converted to water vapor by operation of the VEGP cooling towers represents a minor loss to the Savannah River (at maximum consumptive use: approximately 1,2 percent of 5800 ft'/s at low flow and 0.6 percent of 10,300 ft'/s at average flow). This water vapor will be returned in the form of precipitation due to natural phenomena. Groundwater g used for makeup, drinking, etc., will be obtained from W wells at a raaximum rate of approximately 2300 gal / min and average rate of approximately 1333 gal / min. The VEGP water consumptive use is discussed in subsection 3.3.3.
C. Uranium The reactors are fueled with uranium dioxide pellets enriched in the fissionable isotope U-235. The initial fuel load for each core consists of 193 fuel assemblies divided into regions with average enrichments of 2.1,
- 2. 6, and 3.1 weight percent U-235. Each enrichment region represents approximately one-third of the initial core. Fuel requirements for operation of the reactors depend upon fuel management practices.
However, a typical annual cycle would require replacement of approximately one-third of each core annually. Assuming 75 percent capacity, the plant would require an annual commitment per reactor of approximately 440,000 lb of U 30s (natural uranium),
assuming no reprocessing of spent fuel. Over the plant's 40-year life, this represents a commitment of approximately 17,600 tons of U 3 0s or approximately 0.5 percent of the total estimated uranium resources in the United States in the forward-cost category of $100 per lb of Uso, or less.
5.7-2
() VEGP-OLSER-5 D. Construction Materials
- Construction materials in the form of steel, concrete,
( ! timber products, etc., cannot be practically retrieved and are thus consumed.
E. Wildlife Habitats
,s The area that will be removed from biological pro-( ) ductivity and used for buildings, roads, parking, and other facilities will total 717 acres or 23 percent of the site's total 3169 acres. Approximately 1777.9 acres (56 percent) will be managed in accordance with approved land management practices (see D. O. Foster letter to E. G. Adensam, January 9 1984).Approximately 600 acres of pine and mixed pine land on the site will be burned under control conditions during the months of January or February 1P84 and periodically throughout the life of the plant. The controlled burn activities will enhance the productivity of the areas burned.
Burning activities of these types are accepted land management practices. These activities are conducted
[~N during the winter months in order to minimize the
(_/ damage to trees and to take advantage of the wet sublayer. y
. The portions of the site to be burned are prepared by developing fire breaks around them. These fire breaks were developed by the Georgia State Forestry Commission. Furthermore, the burn activities will be supervised by representatives of the Forestry Commission and Georgia Power Company. Only portions of the site will be burned at any one time and this activity will be coordinated with expected traffic.
The burning activities will be conducted during periods f3 of low but steady wind.
l
() The areas to be burned are far removed from plant facilities. Plant supervision will be notified before any burn activity is initiated. The plant fire brigade will also be notified; however, the burning activity r~s will not require their participation.
- )
'~
Of the 1391.2 acres that were originally disturbed by construction, 519.6 acres will be fertilized and reseeded and 136.5 acres will be involved in onsite transmission lines and 18.6 acres will remain as ponds.
(-)
(_j Inisting habitat including transmission corridors may be enhanced due to increased edge effect created by planting and landscaping following the construction 5.7-3 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-5 lll phase. The acreage used for offsite transmission lines wi.ll also create an edge effect and thus enhance wild-life habitat. The terrestrial habitat within at least a 5-mile radius of the site is very similar to that found on the plant site; therefore, a very small llh percentage of habitat will be lost from the total area. There should be no significant impact to the aquatic habitat, because the cooling towers will be used to minimize thermal effects and chemical releases will meet effluent guideline limitations as discussed in section 5.1.
lh The operation of the VEGP will affect the environment in terms of the irretrievable and irreversible commitment of natural resources to the extent indicated above. However, the extent to which the use of the environment is curtailed is not considered serious and is warranted due to the benefits of the electrical power produced. Chapter 11 presents the overall cost-benefit analysis for the VEGP.
O O
O til 00440 5.7-4
- ( VEGP-OLSER-5 5.8 DECOMMISSIONING AND DISMANTLING Prior to_ decommissioning the VEGP, GPC will have the benefit of l( )!
~
industry experience and technical improvements in future decommissioning. Before the end of the plant's useful lifetime, j GPC will prepare a proposed decommissioning plan for review by
'the NRC. The plan will comply with NRC decommissioning rules
'andiregulations'then in effect.
'(~
While the specific regulatory guidance for decommissioning a nuclear plant 40 years in the future is likely to vary from present guidance, it is anticipated that the general guidance contained in Regulatory Guide 1.86 will be applicable. Under the safe storage with deferred dismantlement or permanent entombment decommissioning alternatives, GPC would seek a possession-only license for.the facility. If dismantlement is
-chosen, GPC would seek to eventually terminate all facility licenses. The decontamination requirements of Regulatory Guide 1 186 or.whatever future documents may apply will be utilized in
-the development of the decontamination.and decommission.ing plan.
5.8.1 DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES While decommissioning will occur only after the termination of l ~ plant-operation, it is expected that it will be accomplished j through the application of one of the presently available
- alternative methods. The-experience gained in the continued use L 'of.these methods and any developing variations for nuclear plant
- decommissionings-in the interim years will further ensure the
[ effectiveness of the VEGP_ decommissioning.
Currently, three alternatives for decommissioning commercial nuclear power reactors have been considered in several studies.
These are identified in references 1, 2, and 3 as:
.O A. Immediate Dismantlement (DECON)
The removal of all . radioactive materials and complete site decontamination within approximately 4 years after cessation of plant operation.
l B. Safe Storage with Deferred Dismantlement (SAFSTOR)
The security of radioactive materials and contamin-ated areas for an extended period of time after the ,
, cessation of plant operation to allow time for short- >
l q, lived radioisotopes to decay. Under this option, t dismantlement is deferred for up to 100 years.
~,
5.8-1
_. . _. _ ._ . - _ _ _ . . __ - _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ - _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ - . . . . . ~.. _
VEGP-OLSER-5 ll)
C. Permanent Entombment (ENTOMB)
The removal of radioactive liquids, spent fuel, and certain highly radioactive components (such as reactor internals) followed by the permanent sealing of the g
structures to prevent future access. An appropriate and continuing surveillance program is then placed into operation to ensure that entombment integrity is indefinitely maintained.
Reference 3 lists 29 reactor facilities in the United States that have been removed from service. Nine of these plants were dismantled, and another was decontaminated and converted for public access as a national monument. Three plants were entombed. The remainder are in passive safe storage, with some dismantlement performed on several of the plants.
The Elk River Reactor decommissioning is most nearly exemplary of the application of the removal / dismantling technology to a commercial power plant. Although the sizes of the facilities decommissioned to date have been significantly smaller than VEGP, the experience gained reinforces the conclusion that VEGP can be decommissioned while protecting the health and safety of g the public. W 5.8.2 COST OF DECOMMISSIONING The cost of dece"missioning a nuclear plant depends upon the method of decommissioning. A number of decommissioning cost estimates have buen developed by utilities, various industry organizations, and the NRC. While the studies vary somewhat in their conclusion, they all indicate that the entombment option is the least expensive. Estimates for entombment costs vary from about $13 million (1980) to about $38 million (1980).
The effect of a safe storage period prior to dismantlement on the total cost of decommissioning is not well defined. lll Reference 2 estimates the cost of immediate dismantlement as
$54.5 million (1980) and the cost of safe storage with subsequent dismantling as $34.9 million (1980). Reference 3 places these costs at about $38 million (1980) and $49 million (1980), respectively. Based on available information, the cost of decommissioning should be in the range of $50 million h (1980).
5.8.3 SAFETY IMPACT OF DECOMMISSIONING The only significant hazard to the public health and safety or O to the environment from decommissioning operations is the ,
5.8-2
4 y
VEGP-OLSER-6 Three: sampling transects were selected, each with two stations. ,
i Station 1 of each transect.was on the Georgia side of the river,
.(.,andstation2ofeachtransectwason.theSouthCarolinaside (figure 6.1-2). ,
, -Samples were taken-from January through May, July, and August 1974. Survey. frequency-for the months sampled were as follows:
LJanuary, ' two surveys; February, three surveys;. March, four surveys; April, three surveys; May, one survey July, one t
.(
survey; and August, one survey.- A total of 89 day-samples and 88 night samples was collected. Densities were calculated by-dividing the total number of eggs or larvae for a given month by
- the total volume of water filtered through the net. Sampling -
was. collected with a 1-m diameter, 760-u mesh drift net.
Sample duration-time was 15 min.
j L6.1.1'.2.1.3 Feeding Habits of Fish. The purpose of the fish-
, stomach analysis was to determine the feeding habits of the
-fishes inhabiting the Savannah = River in the vicinity of the VEGP.
?
Adult. fish were collected by electrofishing, hoop nets, gill
! : j
l .
nets, traps,o or seines. An effort-was made to collect ten l- individuals of each sp'ecies.between river miles 145 through 155
- - .during'each. sampling period, twice per season. Electrofishing was the primary' method-of collecting fish, with surveys
~'
beginning during the late afternoon continuing into the evening hours. The three. habitat types generally sampled were oxbow i
- lakes, mouths of tributary creeks, and spur dikes. Once fish
~
! were collected,_ length and weight measurements were recorded in
- , the field, and then the fish were trtnsported to the GPC l Environmental Affairs Center, Atlanta for processing.
^
I In the laboratory,. stomach contents were filtered through a
- No. 70 mesh sieve,. sorted with the aid'of a stereomicroscope, and. preserved.
6.~1.1.2.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrates 1
~ '
- The purposelof this study was to gather baseline information on
- .s .
the' aquatic macroinvertebrates of the Savsnnah River in the t
l vicinity'of.VEGP.
Six stations were~ located on the. Savannah River near the VEGP
- intake / discharge site at approximate river miles 150.6, 150.9, E and 151.2 on the east and west banks as.shown in figure 6.1-2.
1 .t 'Eight samples were collected: quarterly at each station.
L '
t j ,
6.1-3 l-I- .._-a. -- _._ ___._ .,._ _-_.._.- _ _ - -- ~,-----.m.__
VEGP-OLSER-6 lf Samples consisted of two porcelain disk multiplate samplers, 2
each with a surface area of 1.3 ft. Five Petite Ponar dredge samples were taken in a transect at each station and washed in the field through a U.S. No. 30 sieve. A wire mesh basket containing unglazed porcelain cpheres with an approximate surface area of 1.2 ft2 was collected four times at each station.
In the laboratory, samples were washed through a U.S. No. 30 sieve and preserved. Macroinvertebrates were sorted with the aid of a three-diopter illuminated magnifier.
6.1.1.2.3 Drifting Macroinvertebrates A study of drifting organisms in the Savannah River began September 1973.as part of a preoperational evaluation of the biota in the vicinity of VEGP. The purpose of this study was to collect baseline data on planktonic macroinvertebrate numbers in the Savannah River from river miles 150.6 to 151.2.
Savannah River drift surveys were conducted monthly from September 1973 through August 1974 and from September 1980 through August 1981. During each survey, day and night drift ll samples were collected at two stations located in three transects. The transects are located at: river mile 151.2, 0.3 miles upstream of the proposed site of the intake structure (see figure 6.1-2); river mile 150.9, the proposed site of the intake structure; and river mile 150.6, 0.3 miles downstream from the intake structure. Each station was approximately 40 ft from each bank. A single 15-min sample was obtained at each station on a transect.
Drift samples were obtained from paired drift nets 0.5 m in diameter made of 760-u mesh nylon. The amount of water filtered was estimated from the total flow measured at the mouth of one net using a General Oceanics model 2030 flowmeter. The net was placed 6 to 12 in. from the river bed for 15 min. The samples were sorted in the laboratory with the aid of a three-diopter illuminated magnifier.
6.1.1.2.4 Plankton A study of the plankton community of the Savannah River was conducted between January 1981 and September 1981. The purpose of the plankton study was to describe the Savannah River plankton community in the vicinity of VEGP.
6.1-4 i
() VEGP-OLSER-6 Resources, Georgia Crop Reporting Service, South Carolina Crop -
and Livestock Service, and the South Carolina Department of Wildlife-and Marine Resources.
6.1.4.2.1.4 Agricultural Activity. Data obtained on agricultural activity within the 50-mile radius of VEGP was obtained from the Georgia Crop Reporting Service, South Carolina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, and the University of i Georgia Cooperative Extension Service.
- _/
6.1.4.2.1.5 Recreational Fishing
'The recreational fishing information in section 2.1.3.4 was obtained from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
Recreational fishing data was obtained by two techniques; the roving survey and an access creel census. "' The data for river miles 0.0 to 21.6 was gathered by means of a nonuniformed probability roving survey. The data for river miles 21.6 to 187.2 was gathered by access creel surveys using nonuniformed probability sampling.
(3
\_)
- 6.1.4.2.1.6 Commercial Fishing The commercial fishing data in section 2.1.3.5 was obtained through the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. The information was gathered from the commercial sales information in the vicinity of the city of Savannah.
6.1.4.2.1.7 Hunting. Data on hunting within a 50-mile radius was obtained from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and South Carolina Department of Wildlife and Marine Resources.
~
6.1.4.2.1.8 Water Usage and Characteristics. The information in paragraph 2.1.3.8 on surface water, groundwater, and water usage was obtained from GPC hydrologic studies, Office of Business Economics-Economic Research Service, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
,j and/or the South Carolina Water Quality Board. Data gathering methodologies for surface water and groundwater are presented in i subsections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2, respectively.
t 6.1.4.2.1.9 Socioeconomic Conditions. The information in 4' paragraph 2.1.3.9 was compiled from studies prepared by Batelle Columbus Laboratories assessing the socioeconomic impacts on f Burke County from station operation (Assessment of Service Neeas ,
l
! 6.1 0 m~
VEGP-OLSER-6 h
for Burke County, January 1982 and Action Plan for Burke County, January 1983).
6.1.4.2.2 Demographic Surveys and Updated Population Estimates 6.1.4.2.2.1 Methodology for Poculation Estimates and Projections.
The projected population distribution surrounding the VEGP are provided in subsection 2.1.2 and FSAR subsection 2.1.3. The methodology used to determine the 50- to 500-mile population lh estimates are presented in Appendix 2A of the FSAR. The methodology used to estimate transient population for the O- to 10-mi radius and the 10- to 50-mile radius 15 summarized below.
b kO- i e Ra u l1 A. Identify land uses which will serve as activity centers for nonresidents in the area within the 10-mile radius of VECP.
B. Obtain estimates of persons present on a daily basis for each land use catcgory and location in 1987 for all activity within the 10-mile radius. Obtain estimates of weekday versus weekend day figures, if appropriate.
C. Using maps previously transcribed for evaluating residential population, assign persons to appropriate geographic segment. Assume equal distribution over the entire land use if no specific location can be identified (e.g., highway traffic).
D. Obtain estimates of perrons to be associated with each employment related activity center for 2007. Assume no construction activity at VEGP. Assume no major new facilities at the Savannah River Plant in addition to those planned presently.
E. Project changes in other activities for 2007 and assign to appropriate geographic segment as described in step C above. Assume changes in recreational and highway use will be proportionately related to change in crea residential population.
I F. Project changes in trarsient population for 2028 based on assumption that rates of change will be similar to those occurring in the 1987 to 2007 time frame.
6.1-10 Amend. 1 2/84
[') VEGP-OLSER-6 U
specifically for tree frogs. Tne data are presented in the -
amphibian and reptile survey, paragraph 2.2.1.4.
(~h
\- 6.1.4.3.4 Birds Several different methods were used to conduct bird surveys.
Songbird utilization of the site was established by developing a checklist of all birds observed on the site. A raptorial 4
(~) survey (hawks and owls) was conducted to determine what extent the site was used for nesting. Upland game birds, especially
. quail and doves, are important species, and any observation of either was recorded to determine their relative abundance on the site. Waterfowl and wading birds are mostly migratory species that utilize portions of the site seasonally.
Songbirds were surveyed for a 3- or 4-day period each montl.
. beginning in October 1980 through September 1981. Most surveys were conducted during peak bird activity beginning at dawn and lasting approximately 3 h. All species identified were noted on a qualitative species list. Data from additional surveys and
-incidental sightings were included in the species list. A
/^)
(_/
different habitat was surveyed each day to record a maximum number.of species during each monthly survey.
The raptor (hawks and owls) survey consisted of a daylight census, nest search, and nighttime owl census. This survey was' conducted each month during the fall, winter, and spring starting in December 1977 through September 1981. The daylight census consisted of ten observation stations located around the perimeter of the site. A minimum of 5 min was spent at each station during the period of peak raptor activity in the i afternoons. The nest search was conducted by walking through possible nesting habitats from Decer.ber through June for the duration of the survey. Any possible nests were watched periodically throughout the nesting season for activity.
V During the winter months, December through March of the survey, a nighttime owl' census was conducted covering all likely habitats on the site. The owl census started approximately 30 min before sunset and continued into the night hours. All owls
_- r 3 heard were listed along with the time, habitat, and approximate
' (") location. All raptors observed at any time on the site were also recorded.
4 The three species of upland game birds found on the site were l the common bobwhite, mourning dove, and American woodcock. A t
f-~ record was kept of the numbers of each of these species seen or l_
I
(' heard on the site during the songbird and raptor census. Any physical signs such as nests, roosts, and wallows were noted to evaluate the relative abundance of each species. ,
6.1-13
VEGP-OLSER-6 g
The number of each species of waterfowl and wading birds observed was recorded along with habitat and season. The site was surveyed monthly, specifically for these species. Data included any waterfowl or wading bird observed durin9 the songbird survey and any incidental sightings. -
6.1.4.3.5 Mammals 6.1.4.3.5.1 Small Mammals Poculation Survey. Rats, mice, and shrews were collected in snap traps, pitfall traps, and Sherman live traps. Live traps and snap traps were set in line tran-sects in different habitats. Pitfall traps were permanently placed in areas adjacent to the snap trap and live trap tran-sects. The survey was conducted for three to four consecutive nights each month from November 1980 through August 1981. Traps were checked in the morning and evening. A reference collection was maintained by GPC biologists.
6.1.4.3.5.2 Big Game Mammals (White-Tailed Deer). A white-tailed deer census was conducted on the VEGP site vicinity from June 1977 through June 1980 utilizing the Tyson track-count method. '" This method has been used by state game and fish departments in the Southeast. Three permanent transects were established along road margins in the vicinity of VEGP. The Post Road transect (figure 6.1-5) was established adjacent to the southeast corner of the VEGP site. The Hancock Landing transect (figure 6.1-6) was 19:ated on the dirt road which forms the northern boundary of the site. The Ebenezer Road transect (figure 6.1-7) was located approximately 2 miles west of the site. The method involved removing all evidence of deer tracks from the sides of the road before dark and counting the fresh tracks the following morning. The number of tracks crossing the transect and~their direction were tallied, while the tracks that did not cross both scraped road margins were not tallied. No at-tempt was made to distinguish buck tracks from doe tracks or to separate age classes, but fawn tracks were noted when observed.
An attempt was made to collect daily counts for four consecutive days on each transect each month from June 1977 to June 1979.
The survey was conducted every other month from June 1979 to June 1980. The number of tracks tallied per mile of transect is l
equal to the density of deer per square mile of deer range, since the average size of a deer's home range is 1 square mile.
The following formula was used to compute the number of deer per equare mile:
Xi = t1 _:
D 6.1-14
() VEGP-CLSER-6 where: .
X1 = population of deer per square mile.
t1 = number'of sets of tracks crossing the transect per' mile.
, ' D' = average daily range of a white-tailed deer.
6.1.4.3.5.3 Small Game Mammals. Squirrel populations and habitats were assessed oy conducting morning and evening direct >
observation' counts at specified points on the site. These
- counts were made_during the winter months when leaves did not obstruct the observer's vision. Rabbit signs along~ roadsides, road kills, and sightings.were recorded to establish a general i evaluation of the rabbit population.
16.1.4.3.5.4 Furbearers. Furbearer populations were evaluated
' = from the. abundance of signs that were observed in areas where tracks and droppings would be visible, such as alon2 streams, g) ; river banks, and'old road beds. Road kills and visual sightings
\/ were also recorded. .
6.1.5 RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING
'The. objective of a radiological environmental monitoring program is.to determine the nature and extent of any radiological changes in the environment attributable to plant operation. The program'provides measurements of radiation and radioactive mcterials in the exposure ~ pathways for those radionuclides which
, are. expected to produce the highest potential radiation exposure to individuals as a_ result of plant operation. The program l .provides information needed to determine whether exposures in
- J- the environment are within established limits. The preoperational phase of the program is described-in this t subsection:and the operational phase in-subsection 6.2.1. The L general bases for establishing the environmental monitoring
. program are set.forth in reference 5. Additional guidance is L provided by references 6 and 7. ,
-( ~
In the preoperational phase of the program, background radio-logical levels, both natural and manmade, are measured. These background measurements may then be compared with measurements '
to be taken during the operational phase of the program. Also
- ~
during the preoperational phase, procedures and techniques are developed, equipment is evaluated and calibrated, and personnel are trained.
6'.1-15 v-+---a- aw *m e p rv +
'-*+-4 -r-,. - . -
s,w+me---ewe
VEGP-OLSER-6 l
Some samples and monitoring points not expected to be affected I by plant operations will be monitored during the preoperrtional ,
period to establish baseline data. These samples and locations need not be monitored during operation until there is reason to g '
believe that they may become sufficiently affacted by plant W operations to warrant monitoring.
Preoperational r..onitoring began in August 1981. Periods of 6 months to 2 years, depending on the sample, cre usually sufficient to provide an adequate data base for comparison with g-operational data and to provide experience which may improve the w efficiency of the operating program. This period will be extended as feasible; however, the preoperational phase will be concluded at about the time of initial criticality of Unit 1, if not before.
Measurements are taken chiefly at two kinds of locations:
indicator stations where long term or maximum radiological levels attributable to operation of the plant are anticipated; and control stations where radiological levels are not expected to be significantly influenced by plant activities. However, all of the indicator and control stations are susceptible to any radiological effects which might be attributed to the operation of neighboring nuclear facilities, as well as to fallout from nuclear weapon < tests. These could confuse the proper comparison of the radiological levels between the indicator and control stations or between the periods of operation and preoperation when attempting to show the effects of plant operation. Measurements may also be taken at locations of special interest, such as nearby institutions or towns, or at the closest residence. Deviations are permitted from the sampling schedule if specimens are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions, unavailability, inclement weather, malfunction of equipment, or other conditions.
Samples are collected and analyzed according to table 6.1-1.
The locations of the sampling stations are described in tables 6.1-1 and 6.1-2 and are shown in figures 6.1-8 through 6.1-12. g The number and locations of the sampling stations were determined largely by th'e guidance provided in reference 8.
Site specific considerations such as accessibility also influenced some of the locations of the sampling stations.
Changes in the program relative to the description given at the construction permit stage come as a consequence of the experi-ence gained with the operation of the radiological environmental monitoring program at Hatch Nuclear Plant. These changes also reflect developments in the regulatory guidance.
6.1-16
/~N -
(s- ) VEGP-OLSER-7 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) r
(_y) Appendix 7A Environmental Effects of Accidents 7A.1 Probabilistic Assessment of Severe Accidents 7A.1.1 Event V (Interfacing System Loss-of-Coolant f.3 Accident)
( ) 7A.l.2 TMLB'6,7 Sequence
\ 7A.1.3 S C-5 Sequence (PWR Release Category 3) 7A.l.4 PdR Release Category 7 7A.l.5 Calculation Assumptions 7A.2 Dose and Health Impacts of Atmospheric Releases 7A.3 Economic and Societal Impacts 7A.4 Releases to Groundwater 7A.4.1 Introduction 7A.4.2 Method of Comparison
./~ 7A.4.3 Site Characteristics
(,S) 7A.4.4 Groundwater Travel Time 7A.4.5 Source Comparison 7A.4.6 Drinking Water Pathway Comparison 1 7A.4.7 Fish Flesh Pathway Comparison 7A.4.8 Shoreline and Immersion Pathway Comparison 7A.4.9 Conclusions 7A.5 Risk Considerations 7A.6 Uncertainties 7A.7 Conclusions l
[)
(/
l 1
- /^\)
v'
/'s V
7-iii Amend. 1 2/84
I VEGP-OLSER-7 LIST OF TABLES 7.1-1 Accident Classification 7.1-2 Summary of Calculated Offsite Doses from Plant Accident 7.1-3 Activity Released to the Environment 7.3-1 Potentially Hazardous Chemicals Stored at VEGP 7.3-2 Concentration of Chlorine Gas Followinc a Continuous Gas Release at 1.37 lb/s 7.3-3 Physiological Effects of Exposures to Chlorine in Air 7A-1 Summary of Atmospheric Releases in Hypothetical Accident Sequences in a PWR (Rebaselined) 7A-2 Activity of Radionuclides in Generic Reactor Cores at 3560 MWt 7A-3 Average Values of Environmental Risks Due to Accidents Per Reactor-Year 1
O h,
O 7-iv
() VEGF-OLSER-7 7.3 OTHER ACCIDENTS -
() 7.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The VEGP, like any other large industrial plant,'could experience nonnuclear industrial accidents during its lifetime.
Accidents that might occur are small electrical fires, chemical spills, etc. The administrative procedures and safety
(,)
7s equipment at /EGP will limit accidents of this type, so that their environmental consequences will be minimal. The potential hazard from onsite storage tanks to the control room and information concerning the identification of potential hazards in the plant site vicinity from nearby industrial, military, and transportation facilities is discussed in Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) section 2.2. The following is a discussion of hazards to the environment.
4 7.3.2 CHEMICALS STORED ONSITE l The types, quantities, and storage location of the major chemicals that will be stored onsite are given in table 7.3-1.
t
(~)N N- Solutions of sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid are not considered to present any significant threat to the environment because of their low volatility. The failure of tanks containing pressurized gases, except chlorine, will not result in adverse environmental effects. Most of these gases are asphyxiants and are stored in relatively small quantities.
7.3.2.1 Aqua Ammonia The accidental spillage of aqueous solutions of ammonia could result in the emission of ammonia vapors that are irritating to S the-eyes and lungs of the personnel exposed. Ammonia vapor in l ,,i the air has explosive limits of 16 to 25 percent ammonia by volume. However, these concentrations are seldom encountered in the handling of ammonia; accordingly, the relative fire and explosion hazards are small.
/~'s
(_j 7.3.2.2 Hydrazine Hydrazine is a toxic, colorless, fuming, oily liquid with an
( odor resembling that of ammonia. It is a reactive reducing i agent that is used to remove residual oxygen from the
( (~) condensate and auxiliary boiler feedwater. If the hydrazine
! V l _
7.3-1 l
VEGP-OLSER-7 h tank were to leak, the leak would be contained in the diked area around the tank to prevent spillage. Consequently, the hazard to the environment is minimal.
7.3.2.3 Fuel Oil Diesel fuel oil is stored in tanks at several locations in buildings and the yard area. In all cases, except for automotive use (see' paragraph 7.3.2.4), the tanks have curbs -
high enough to contain the entire contents of the tank. Should an oil fire occur, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and particulates would be emitted into the air until the fire is extinguished. The environmental impact of such a fire would be similar to that caused by any typical small oil fire and would result in a short term, localized degradation of the ambient air quality.
7.3.2.4 Gasoline Gasoline and diesel fuel to be used in automobiles is stored underground in compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency regulations for spill prevantion control and h countermeasure plans.
7.3.2.5 Tyrbine Lube oil Turbine lube oil is stored in tanks adjacent to the turbine building for each unit. Provisions such as curbs and an oil separator on the floor drain prevent this oil from leaking to the environment. The environmental impact of a fire would be the same as for fuel oil.
7.3.3 CHLORINE GAS RELEASE 7.3.3.1 Mode of Chlorine Gas Release As indicated in table 7.3-1, chlorine is stored at various locations onsite in either 1-ton or 150-pound cylinders. These cylinders could fail in two possible modes and release their chlorine contents to the environment. The first mode is the rupture of the cylinder. In this case, approximately 20 percent of the chlorine content is released instantaneously to the atmosphere and the remainder would evaporate. Such an
, occurrence is highly improbable due to the construction of the cylinders and the relief valves provided on each cylinder to prevent overpressurization. Therefore, this release mode was .
not considered in the environmental impact assessment of a chlorine release.
7.3-2 i
I) v VEGP-OLSER-7A Additional economic impacts that can ba monetized include costs of decontamination of the facility itself and the costs of cm replacement power. Probability distributions for these impacts have not been calculated, but they are included in the discussion
(#)
of risk considerations in section 7A.5 below.
7A.4 RELEASES TO GROUNDWATER I ) 7A.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section presents a comparative evaluation of the radiological consequences which might result following a large release of radionuclides from the VEGP Units 1 and 2 reactors to the local groundwater system. Such releases could occur following a postulated core meltdown with eventual penetration of the containment basemat. Core debris which exits the melt hole
, at el 134 ft would then enter below the water table, which extends from el 134 ft to el 160 ft, and radionuclides in the debris would be leached into the groundwater system. It is also possible far containment sump water, which would be rich in dissolved fission products, to be released via the basemat melt
(, s hole into the groundwater system.
Li An analysis of the potential consequences of such an event is presented by the NRC staff in NUREG-0440, " Liquid Pathway Generic Study" (LPGS). It is this generic report which provides the y basis for the comparative evaluation of the VEGP units.
The LPGS presents analyses for a four-loop Westinghouse Phil located at a number of land sites. Two of the land-based sites analyzed in the LPGS were a river site on the Clinch River and an east coast estuary site. The Vogtle site is located 151 river miles from the Atlantic Ocean. The Vogtle site is most comparable to the river site except that the river is not long and there are no
,r w dams between the site and the ocean. VEGP is unlike the estuary y) site because it is far enough away from the ocean so that no tidal effects are present.
In the LPGS, parameters for each generic site were chosen to be representative of the full spectrum of similar sites. Parameters r~s used for analysis in the LPGS, although typical, do not represent
( ,)
~~
any actual plant site. The LPGS concluded that the individual and population doses for the liquid pathways would be fractions of the airborne pathways dose which could result from a core meltdown accident.
,s Individual and population loses are reported in the LPGS for the
( ', principal liquid pathways: drinking water, aquatic food, and direct exposure from swimming and shoreline usage. Exposure resulting from crop irrigation was also considered but was found ,
to contribute insignificantly to dose.
7A-9 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-7A llh Doses to individuals and populations were calculated in the LPGS without taking credit for possible interdiction methods such as isolation of contaminated groundwater, the temporary restriction of fishing or providing alternate sources of drinking water (or additional purification equipment). Such interdiction methods would be highly successful in preventing exposure to radioactivity and the liquid pathways consequences would therefore be economic and societal rather than radiological.
7A.4.2 METHOD OF COMPARISON lh The estimate of the liquid pathways consequences resulting from a radionuclide release at VEGP is developed by comparing, in a ceries of ratios, the principal parameters applicable to the VEGP site to the parameter values used for the generic river site calculations in the LPGS.
The parameters for which ratio comparisons are developed are the following:
A. The radionuclide source released to the river.
B. The population along the river system which obcains drinking water from the river. 1 g
l C. The annual fish harvest on the river system.
l D. The annual recreational usage of the river system.
In a very general way the consequences of a major radionuclide release to the groundwater system at VEGP can be expressed as follows:
VEGP source LGPS dose for usage ratio for VEGP dose =
LPGS source the ith pathway the ith pathway Pathway " usage" ratios are the following:
O A. Drinking water population for VEGP river system Drinking water population for LPGS river system B. Annual fish harvest for VEGP river system Annual fish harvest for LPGS river system C. Manhours direct exposure for VEGP river system Manhours direct exposure for LPGS river system To be exact, this summation should be carried out for each h radionuclide. However, it has been found that the liquid pathway doses tend to be dominated by a very few radionuclides. As will ,
be shown in a subsequent section, the characteristics of the VEGP 7A-lO Amend. 1 2/84
I\
LJ VEGP-OLSER-7A site are such that most of the important radionuclides will undergo substantial decay during the process of groundwater transport to the Savannah River. Therefore, the general equation
(~~)
above provides an adequate approach to developing a comparative
. liquid pathways dose evaluation.
7A.4.3 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 7~s The VEGP is located on the southwest bank of the Savannah River at approximately river mile 151. This location is about 26 air
('-) miles south-southeast of Augusta, Georgia. The two-unit Westinghouse supplied PWR facility is located on the eastern margin of the Tifton Upland topographic belt, an elevated area of the Coastal Plain geographic region at a ground el 220 ft above
- sea level. The Savannah River cuts a deep, transverse valley through the Coastal Plain along the eastern border of the plant site, The river valley is a mature topographic feature with a broad flood plain at approximate el 85 ft. The plant is located about 3600 ft from the Savannah River at its clostst approach to the site.
The principle load bearing structure for plant Vogtle is the Blue t 4 Bluff Marl member of the Lisbon formation. The Blue Bluff Marl
(_) is a clayey marl approximately 70 ft thick; the top of the load 1 bearing horizon is located about 85 ft below grade at el 134 ft.
The containment building and most other plant structures are built upon this soil structure. The Blue Bluff Marl consists of a semiconsolidated glauconitic marl with subordinate lenses of dense, well-indurated, well-cemented limestone. The marl layer overlies the unnamed sands member of the Lisbon formation. The permeability of the marl layer is very low, essentially zero, and it is classified as an aquaclude. The marl effectively confines ground water within the unnamed sands to produce artecian conditions at the site. This artesian water region is referred to as the Tertiary Groundwater System and is the source of the ey Plant Vogtle potable water. Due tc the impermeable nature of the j (
) marl, recharge to this aquifer is not a direct result of rainwater infiltration at the site.
The influx of meteoric water at the plant site and surrounding area, after percolating through the overlying soil, accumulates
. .w above the Blue Bluff marl to produce water table conditions.
i
) This water table aquifer extends from el 160 ft to the top of the Blue Bluff marl at el 134 ft. Hydraulic connection with the Savannah River is precluded by the stratigraphy of the site.
The Blue Bluff Marl formation slopes in a general easterly trend f3 toward the Savannah River. However, this trend is insufficient
) for the marl to pass beneath the river. As the Savannah River cut its channel the marl was exposed at el 130 ft on the south-west bank of the river approximately 45 ft above the flood plain. ,
7A-ll Amend. 1 2/84
, .o VEGP-OLSER-7A h The water table aquifer discharges to the surface by seepage through the flanks of adjacent stream beds as th2y flow toward the Savannah River. The water table also dischargus to surface waters in several free-flowing springs located near the plant site, These springs feed small streams which flow eventually to the Savannah River. The local groundwater system is shown in FSAR figure 2.4.12-7 and is described in section 2.4.12.2.
7A.4.4 GRGUNDWATER TRAVEL TIME Radionuclides entering the groundwater system would be entrained in the natural groundwater flaw to streams feeding into the Savannah River. A calculation of the travel time for an accidental spill of radioactive material is presented in section 2.4.13.1 of the VEGP FSAR. This analysis was performed for a rupture in a conveyance line from the waste monitor tank. The shortest path from the assumed spill point to a stream channel
, was toward Mathes Pond, a distance of 2500 to 2700 ft. From the midpoint of VEGP Unit 1 the distance to the nearest stream is approximately 3000 I'c in a northeasterly direction (see figure 2.4.12-7, sheer 1 of the VEGP FSAR). It is assumed that the soil in this direction has the same properties as the soil in the direction of Mathes Pond. The porosity of the sandy soil was estimated to be 45 percent.
1 l
The seepage velocity may be determined with Darcy's Law as follows:
ki v =
n where:
v = seepage velocity.
k = coefficient of parmeability.
i n
=
=
hydraulic gradient.
porosity. lll Over the first 1600 ft of the flow path the groundwater drops 6 ft giving a hydraulic gradient of 3.8 x 10-2 Over the last 1400 ft of the flow path the groundwater drops 30 ft giving a hydraulic gradient of 2.1 x 10-2 . The increase in the hydraulic gradient implies a lower permeability. From the range lll of permeability determinations (200 to 250 ft/ year from field measurements and 10 to 20,000 ft/ year from laboratory measurements), conservative values of 8000 ft/ year and 200 ft/ year were used for the spill analysis. Since the hydraulic gradients in this case are close to the values used in the spill analysis, the same values can be used for the permeabilities to lll give our "best estimate" travel time. Over the first part of the path, the seepage velocity (vi) is given by: -
7A-12 Amend. 1 2/84 L .
! VEGP-OLSER-7A (8000 ft/ year)(3.8 x 10 -8 )
vt = = 67.56 ft/ year (0.45) i I
(_) Over the second part of the path the seepage veJocity (v a ) is given by:
(200 f t/ year) (2.1 x 10-2 )
v2 = = 9.33 ft/ year (0.45)
() The "best estimate" travel time (tB2) is thus given by the following:
1600 ft +
1400 ft
= 173.7 years t
BE = 67.56 ft/ year 9.33 ft/ year As an added conservatism we will assume that the permeability remains constant at 2000 ft/ year over the entire flowpath. Then the " ultra-conservative" value of the seepage velocity over the second part of the path (v2 2) is given by:
l a _ (8000 f t/ year)(2.1 x 10 -2) y = 373.3 ft/ year
(~'s (0.45)
\_)
The " ultra conservative" groundwater transport time (GWTT) is given by:
GWTT = 1600 f1_ . 1400 fr- = 27.4 year.
67.56 ft/ year 373.3 ft/ year 7A.4.5 SOURCE COMPARISON The radionuclide source which is ultimately transmitted through a groundwater system to an adjacent surface water is determined by the following three factors:
(s/ ) e The core radionuclide inventory.
e The fractior: of the core radionuclide inventory released to groundwater via such mechanisms as sump water release and leaching from the core debris.
- 1
\/ e The attenuation which takes place during transport through the groundwater system, principally from radioactive decay and adsorption.
~
(h v
7A-13 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSTR-7A lh The LPGS analyses are based on the core inventory for a four-loop Westinghouse PWR similar to the VEGP units. The fraction of the core inventory which could be released to the groundwater depends on numerous factors, such as the specific accident sequence and containment failure mode, containment sump structure, and the nature of the soils which separate the containment basemat from the underlying groundwater system. For convenience, it is assumed that the LPGS assumptions apply to the VEGP units. A number of release cases are considered in the LPGS; however, the worst cases considered (instantaneous release of all sumpwater and all activity available for leaching) '" are clearly bounding for any plant-site combination.
The fraction of each radionuclide source released into the groundwater which eventually enters the Savannah River depends on the velocity of groundwater movement as well as retardation of radionuclide travel caused by adsorption on the aquifer soils.
The relationship between groundwater velocity (or groundwater trcnsport time), radionuclide adsorption, and the radionuclide fraction which is ultimately transmitted without decay is given by the following expression: '"'"
In (T.F.) = - 0.693 (GWTT)(a) , where T 1 T.F. = transmitted fraction.
GWTT = groundwater transport time.
T = radionuclide half-life, a = adsorption retention factor.
The adsorption retention factor is equal to (1 + p/n Kd) where:
p = bulk density of the aquifer media.
n = porosity of the aquifer.
Kd = ofdistribution coefficient which is defined as the mass O
radionuclide adsorbed per gram of soil divided by the mass of radionuclide dissolved per milliliter of groundwater.
A typical value of the ratio p/n is 5; however, for consistency the value of 4.1 used in the LPGS is adopted here as well. ' 2" llh O
7A-14 Amend. 1 2/84
l' '
- VEGP-OLSER-7A
(./ .
Table 6.2.1 of the LPGS lists the transmitted fraction for a numher of radionuclides, the more important of which are s reproduced as follows:
Nuclide T1/2 (yrs) T.F.
H-3 12.1 0.97
, SR-90 28 0.87
! \
Ru-106 1 0.33 Cs-137 30 0.31 The values are based on the following data assumed in the LPGS for the generic r' ver site: ' 2 "
GWTT =
1500 ft
= 224 days = 0.61 year 6.7 ft/ day a (H-3) =1 (equivalent values of Kd* )
1 l
() a (Sr-90) = 9.2 (equivalent values of K d
I a (Ru-106) =1 (equivalent values of K d = 0) a (Cs-137) = 83 (equivalent values of K d
=
0)
The equivalent values of Kd used in the LPGS are quite low in comparison to other estimates for Sr-90 and Cs-137. In the Sandia liquid pathway study, Kd values of 20 and 200 were used for Sr-90 Cs-137, respectively.'2" Duke Power Company estimated Kd values of 560 (Cs-137) and 6 (Sr-90) for the fractured bedrock underlying its Catawba Nuclear Station.82" Kd values of 5 (Sr-90) and 50 (Cs-137) were estimated to
(')', represent the complex groundwater hydrology at the Seabrook
( Station site. At Seabrook, groundwater exists both in bedrock and in surface soils. '1 Values of Kd for the granular materials underlying the San Onofre Nuclear Station were estimated as 31 (Sr-90) and 2204 (Cs-137).'"' Regardless of
, this evidence for larger values and because no specific K d
/
')'
estimates were available for the VEGP sites, the values used in
(_/ the LPGS are adopted for convenience.
The groundwater transport time at the VEGP site is estimated to be 27.4 years. On the basis of this and the Kd (or "a") values i
/~'N
'm,j'4
~
l 7A-15 Amend. 1 2/84
T
- VEGP-OLSER-7A lh used in the LPGS the transmitted fractions for the principal radionuclides are as follows:
.Nuclide ,T 1/a( yr ) in (T.F.) T.F. T.F. (VEGP)/T.F. (LPGS) h H3 12.1 -1.57 0.21 0.22 Sr-90 28 -6.24 0.002 0.002 Ru-106 1 -19.0 0 0 h Cs-137 3 -52.5 0 0 The effect of the much longer GWTT at the VEGP site (27.4 years compared to 0.61 years in the LPGS), even with the relatively small assumed values of Kd, is very significant. Virtually no Cs-137 or Ru-106 would be expected to reach the Savannah River.
Only 2/1000 ef the released Sr-90 would reach the river (compared to a transmitted fraction of 0.87 in the LPGS).
Tritium is closer to the LPGS results with a transmitted fraction of 0.21 for VEGP compared to 0.97.
The source effect on liquid pathway consequences can be 1 summarized as follows:
A. Pathway doses which are dominated by Cs-137 and/or Ru-106 will be nil in comparison to doses calculated in the LPGS.
B. Pathways doses which are dominated by Sr-90 will be about 3 orders of magnitude lower than those calculated in the LPGS, assuming equal pathways exposure.
C. Pathways doses from H 3 will be lower but w.4 thin the same order of magnitude, assuming equal pathways exposure. At the levels of population dose calculated in both NUREG-0440 and in the Sandia study '"),
tritium is not a significant contributor. This is in part due to the smaller core inventory of tritium (two to three orders of magnitude less the curie content than Sr-90, Cs-137, or Ru-106)'1" and also in part to the relatively low total body dose factor (1 x 102 g man-rem / curie compared to 1.9 x 10' man / rem / curie for W Sr-90 and 8 x 10" man-rem / curie for Cs-137 ) . '" >
7A.4.6 DRINKING WATER PATHWAY COMFARISON The LPGS generic river system was assumed to supply drinking water to 620,000 people . ' " > As shown in table 2.1-44 the current number of people that get their drinking water supply l 7A-16 Amend. 1 2/84
1 l
[$ VEGP-OLSER-7A
. %I from the Savannah River is 70,000. This is only 11.3 percent of the number used in the LPGS. In addition the drinking water
,- pathway dose is dominated by Sr-90 and Cs-137.<2" Since the
( ) transmitted fractions of these radionuclides are much smaller than the LPGS, the drinking water pathway dose for VEGP is about 4 orders of magnitude less than the LPGS dosa.
7A.4.7 FISH FLESH PATHWAY COMPARISON Il In the LPGS it is estimated that the annual fish harvest for the generic river system is 1.2 x 105 kg (7.7 x 105 kg recreational and 3.9 x 105 kg commercial) . ' 2 " The annual recreational fish harvest on the Savannah River from 0 to 187.2 miles for 1980 is shown in table 2.1-42 as 1.04 x 10' kg. The commercial fish harvest is not complete but the mean commercial shad harvest is shown in table 2.1-43 as 3.7 x 10' kg. The amount of fish harvested from the Savannah River is probably roughly equivalent to the LPGS generic river.
Like the drinking water pathway, the fish flesh pathway is dominated by Sr-90 and Cs-137.<2" Since the Cs-137 source is three orders of magnitude lower, it is concluded that the fish
/'^') flesh dose is about three orders of magnitude lower. In
(_/ addition, the economic and societal impacts of a severe accident 1 on ocean fish catch should be roughly three orders of magnitude less than that assessed for the LPGS ocean fish catch.
7A.4.8 SHORELINE AND IMMERSION PATHWAY COMPARISON The shoreline and immersian pathway includes st.ch activities as swimming, wading, sunbathing, etc. These are external exposure pathways and dosage is dominated by Ru-106, Cs-137, and Co-60. ' 2 " For the VEGP site with a groundwater travel time of 27.4 years and assuming that Kd for Co-60 is 75, the transmitted fraction is extremely small, as has already been
,c3 shown to be the case for Cs-137 and Ru-106. It is therefore l
)
concluded that the direct exposure dose would be nil in comparison to those calculated in the LPGS.
7A.
4.9 CONCLUSION
S s On the basis of VEGP site features and the specific comparisons
) of radionuclide source and pathway populations, it is apparent that the spectrum of liquid pathways doses following a Class 9 accident would be much lower for VEGP than the doses calculated in the LPGS for a river-sited plant.
7~s This is mainly due to the much smaller source released to the
() Savannah River, which in turn results mainly from a much longer groundwater transport time. If shorter times are postulated, 7A-17 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-7A llh the adverse effect would be small and would probably be offset through the assumption of more realistic distribution coefficient (K d) and permeability coefficient (k) values.
Il the extreme, if one were to postulate the same radionuclide O
source as in the LPGS, the pathways doses would still be slightly lower, since the pathways population ratios are about the same or lower.
7A.5 RISK CONSIDERATIONS The foregoing discussions have dealt with both the frequency (or likelihood of occurrence) of accidents and their impacts or consequences. Since the ranges of both factors are quite broad, it is also useful to combine them to obtain average measures of environmental risk. Such averages can be particularly instructive as an aid to the comparison of radiological risks associated with accident release 9 and with normal operational releases.
A common way in which this combination of factors is used to estimate risk is to multiply the probabilities by the consequences. The resultant risk is then expressed as a number of consequences expected per unit of time. Such a quantification g
of risk does not at all mean that there is universal agreement that peoples' attitudes toward risk, or what constitutes an acceptable risk, can or should be governed solely by such a measure. At best, it can be a contributing factor to a risk judgment but not necessarily a decisive factor.
Table 7A-3 shows average values of risk associated with population dose, acute fatalities, latent fatalities, and costs for evacuation and other protective actions. These average values are obtained by summing the probabilities multiplied by the consequences over the entire range of distributions. Since the probabilities are on a per-reactor-year basis, the averages shown are also on a per-reactor-year basis.
The population exposures and latent cancer fatality risks for VEGP are comparable to the values calculated in NUREG 0490, 0534, 0775, and 0779 for various plants, which showed that accident risks are comparable to those for normal operation.
There are no acute fatality nor economic risks associated with protective actions and decontamination for normal releasee; therefore, these risks are unique for accidents. For perspective and understanding of the meaning of the acute fatality risk of 0.OOOOO22/ year, however, we note that, within a close approximation, the population at risk is that within about 10 miles of the plant, about 15,500 in the year 2007. Accidental 7A-18 Amend. 1 2/84 J
() VEGP-OLSER-7A fatalities per year for a population of this size, based upon -
overall averages for the United States, are approximately 1.0 from motor vehicle accidents, 0.28 from falls, 0.12 from
()
- _s drowning, 0.11 from burns, and 0.046 from firearms (page 577 of
. reference 22).
There are other economic impacts and risks that can be monetized that are not included in the cost calculations discussed in
- section 7A-3. These are accident impacts on the facility itself
('-,) that result in added costs to the public, i.e., ratepayers, taxpayers, and/or shareholders. These are costs associated with decontamination of che facility itself and costs for replacement power.
. No detailed methodology has been developed for estimating the contribution to economic risk to Georgia Power Company associated with cleanup and decontamination of a nuclear power plant that
. has undergone a serious accident toward either a decommissioning or a resumption of operation. Experience with such costs is currently being accumulated as a result of the Three Mile Island accident. It is already clear, however,.that such costs can
! approach or even exceed the original capital cost of such a
("] facility.
V In addition to damage to or loss of the facility resulting from accidents, the other major additional cost is that of replacement power. These costs are affected by the point in the lifetime of
- the plant at which an accident might occur. The present worth cost is highest for an accident occuring at the beginning of the plant operating life and decreasing over the plant life. It is l assumed for these calculations that one unit of VEGP is i permanently lost and replaced by new capacity after 8 years and l that the undamaged unit is shutdown for 3 years before restart.
For illustrative purposes, the costs and economic risk have been estimated for a " worst case" situation for the 2200-MW (electric) f~ VEGP station by postulating a total loss of one of the units in l -( )
the first' year of a projected 40-year operating life. Net replacement power cost of 20 mills /kWh is assumed. Using a 60 i percent capacity factor, the annual cost of replacement power would be $231 million for the two units in 1980 dollars. The additional capital costs as a result of having to construct a new f3 facility are $67 million/ year, again in 1980 dollsrs (see NUREG
() 0775).
If the probability of sustaining a total loss of the original facility is taken as the probability of the occurrence of a core
- melt accident (approximated by the sum of probabilities for the j3 accident sequences and release categories in table 7A-1, i.e.,
- ( ). about 4.8 chances in 100,000 per year), then the average contribution to economic risk that would result from a loss early in the operating life of a VEGP unit is about $15,000 for each of _.
1 l 7A-19
VEGP-OLSER-7A h the first 3 years until the undamaged plant is returned to service, then $9100/ year until the damaged unit is replaced, and
$3300/ year additional capital costs for the assumed remainir.; 32 years of plant service. A worse situation not evaluated here is one where the plant must be decontaminated for safety reasons but is not put back in operation. A new plant then has to be built.
Decontamination cost in that case, however, should be somewhat less than the case where the plant is made suitable for operation (see NUREG 0775).
7A.6 UNCERTAINTIES l1 The foregoing probabilistic and risk assessment discussion has been based upon the methodology presented in the RSS which was published in 1975.
In July 1977, the NRC organized an Independent Risk Assessment
. Review Group to: clarify the achievements and limitations of the RSS; assess the peer comments thereon and the responses to the comments; study the current state of such risk assessment methodology; and recommend to the NRC how and whether such methodology can be used in the regulatory and licensing process.
The results of this study were issued September 1978. This report, called the Lewis Report, contains several findings and lll recommendations concerning the RSS. Some of the more significant findings are summarized below.
A. A number of sources both conservative and nonconservative in the probability calculations in RSS were found to be very difficult to balance. The review group was unable to determine whether the overall probability of a core melt given in the RSS was high or 1ca, but they did conclude that the error bands were understated.
B. The methodology, which was an important advance over earlier methodologies that had been applied to reactor risk, was sound.
C. It is very difficult to follow the detailed thread of calculations through the RSS. In particular, the executive summary is a poor description of the contents 3 of the report, should not be used as such, and has lent W itself to misuse in the discussion of reactor risk.
On January 19, 1979, the NRC issued a statement of policy concerning the RSS and the review group report. The NRC accepted the findings of the review group.
The accident at Three Mile Island occurred in March 1979, at a time when the accumulated experience record was about 400 _
reactor-years. It is of interest to note that this was within 7A-20 Amend. 1 2/84
i
() VEGP-OLSER-7A the range of frequencies estimated by the RSS for an accident of -
this severity (page 553 of reference 22). The action plan of
,x NUREG 0660" presents a sequence of actions, some already
('-') taken, that may result in a gradually increasing improvement in safety as individual actions are completed. The improvement in safety from these actions has not been quantified, however, and the radiological risk of accidents discussed in this chapter does not reflect this improvement.
m 7A.7 CONCLUSIONS
(_) l1 Section 7.1 and this appendix consider the potential environmental impacts from accidents at the VEGP facility. These have covered a broad spectrum of possible accidental releases of radioactive materials into the environment. Included in the considerations are postulated design basis accidents and more severe accident sequences that lead to a severely damaged reactor core or core melt.
The environmental impacts that have been considered include -
potential radiation exposures to individuals and-to the population as a whole, the risk of near and long term adverse l
f,)
N-health effects that such exposures could entail, and the potential economic and societal consequences of accidental contamination of the environment. These impacts could be severe but the likelihood of their occurrence is judged to be very small. This conclusion is based on: the fact that considerable experience has been gained with the operation of similar facilities without significant degradation to the environment; and a probabilistic assessment of the risk based upon the methodology developed in the RSS. The overall assessment of environmental risk of accidents, assuming protSctive action, shows that it is roughly comparable to the risk from normal operation, although accidents have a potential for acute fatalities and economic costs that cannot arise from normal r^s operations. The risks of acute fatality from potential accidents
(,) at the site are small in comparison with risks of acute fatality l
from other human activities in a comparably sized population.
I We have concluded that there are no special or unique circumstances about the VEGP site and environs that would result in a greater environmental impact than those from other presently
, (^)s
(, operating pressurized water reactor (PWR) nuclear power plants.
~h l
(J 7A-21 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-7A REFERENCES
- 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Reactor Safety Study:
An Assessment," WASH-1400 (NUREG 75/014), 0ctober 1975.
llh
- 2. " Task Force Report on Interim Operations of Indian Point,"
NUREG 0715, August 1980.
- 3. H. W. Lewis, et al., " Risk Assessment Review Group Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission," NUREG/CR 0400, September 1978. llh
- 4. " Liquid Pathway Generic Study", NUREG-O440, February 1978.
+5. NUREG-0440; pp 4-26, 4-27.
- 6. NUREG-0440; tables 6.2.16 and 6.2.17; p 6-22.
- 7. "The Consequences from Liquid Pathways After a Reactor Meltdown Accident," NUREG/CR-1696, Sandia National Laboratories, Appendix B, Section B.4.3.1, August 1981.
- 8. NUREG-0440, p B-23.
- 9. NUREG/CR-1596, p 120.
- 10. The value of 4.1 is inferred from the transmitted fractions listed in table 6.2.1 of NUREG-0440 and from the adsorption retention factors listed in NUREG-0440, table 4.2.4. 1
- 11. NUREG-0440, pp 4-18, 4-19.
- 12. NUREG/CR-1596, Appendix B, table B-3, p 129.
- 13. " Final Environmental Statement, Catawba Nuclear Station,"
Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, NUREG-0921, p 5-43, January 1983.
- 14. " Draft Environmental Statement, Seabrook Station," Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444, NUREG-0895, p 5-62, May 1982.
- 15. " Final Environmental Statement, San Onofre Station," Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362, NUREG-0490, April 1981.
- 16. NUREG/CR-1596, table 6.4, p 75.
- 17. NUREG-0440, Appendix A, table A-7, p A-30.
- 18. NUREG-0410, Appendix B, table B-5, p B-38. h 7A-22 Amend. 1 2/84
('} VEGP-OLSER-7A
- 19. NUREG-0440, table 4.3.1, p 4-31.
- 20. NUREG/CR-1596, table 6.4, p 74.
O 21. NUREG-0440, p 4-31.
- 22. National Research Council, " Energy in Transition 1985-2010," 1 Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems (CONAES), chapter 9, pp 517-534, 1979.
- 23. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident," Volume I, NUREG 0660, May 1980.
O l
l l
i l
a 1 -
l l
l 7A-23 Amend. 1 2/84 1
(
4 a
VEGP-OLSER-7A TABLE 7A-3 :
i.
l 1
^
AVERAGE VALUES OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS DUE TO ACCIDENTS PER REACTOR-YEAR i Environmental Risk Average Value i
4 Population exposure 122.95 (total-man-rems)
Acute fatalities 0.00000675 l1 Latent cancer fatalities 0.00057
- (all organs excluding thyroid) j ca> [
i Cost of protective actions $5101 l1 and decontamination I
O 1
1 i
f 1
lO j
La a, 1980 dollars.
' ~ .. i 00160' Amend. 1 2/84 1
.-==>%.y---..-w. wr -.ww..m.,,.+,ve-.,w,w..--.-.--,.-.--ww+-mn. .__ c g w ,,, c e, y . _m, , ,w-er,+,--, +.---m--,-.-p.,w,,
- ~
4
'( )
VEGP-OLSER-8
-8.0 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF PLANT -
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
<m .
- " " Completion of construction and commencement of commercial
' operations'of the two-unit 2310 MWe VEGP will produce a number
- of . socioeconomic impacts cui residents and communities in the State of Georgia. The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate 0 -.
-) the nature and extent of the principal socioeconomic: effects attendant to operation of the facility and to indicate the
_ groups or interests most affected. While the primary focus of the evaluation will be on-operating phase impacts, attention
, still must be paid to some aspects of the construction effort.
i
'e 8.1 BENEFITS
, ~
Socioeconomic impacts are both~ direct'.and indirect. Direct impacts affect the owners and operators of the facility and their' customers. Indirect' impacts affect persons and interests in. the vicinity of the proposed-activity or in some-'way-
, . indirectly related to the facility. These impacts'are difficult l-_ _to measure,.and' qualitative judgments often must be made as to L. the relative value of costs and benefits. Georgia Power Company ,
commissioned a development study'" to: (1) identify and
(
evaluate the-socioeconomic impacts of construction and operation of the VEGP; (2) identify, evaluate, and select community-development options that will lessen any adverse effects and enhance potential benefits of the VEGP to Burke County; and (3) formulate a single development plan with a program for implementation.
8.3.1. DIRECT BENEFITS L
'() 8.1.-l.1_ Delivered Products The station will provide 2310 MWe (nameplate) of electrical power to supply the energy needs of the service area. Assuming a capacity factor of 64 percent and a continuous peak period rating of 1125 MWe/ unit, this an. cunts to 1.2 x 10" kWh l1 l
annually.- Of this output, approximately 37 percent will fill industrial needs, 21 percent will supply commercial needs, and 42 percent will supply residential sales for resale and other needs.
- O l
[.
8.1-1 Amend. 1 2/84
.- - - . . - . . , . . - - . . - , - . . - ,... - _ - ... . -. - .~. - _ _ . - . _ .-. . - .- .-..-.- .
VEGP-OLSER-8 lh 8.1.1.2 Energy Sales The territory served at retail by Georgia Power Company (GPC) and interspersed nonaffiliated electric distribution systems, which directly or indirectly receive most of their power requirements at wholesale from GPC, has an area of approximately 57,200 miles: and an estimated population, based on the 1980 census, of approximately 5,100,000. The industrial classifications from which GPC derives the majority of its industrial revenues include textile mill products, chemical and allied products, stone, clay and glass products, food and kindred products, paper and allied products, and government facilities served under an areawide General Services Administration contract (for example, military bases).
The VEGP will be co-owned by four separate electric systems within the State of Georgia. Georgia Power Company will own 45.7 percent of the plant, while 54.3 percent will be owned by l1 Oglethorpe Power Corporation, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG), and the City of Dalton, each wholesale customers of GPC. Oglethorpe will own 30 percent of VEGP, MEAG will own 22.7 percent, and the City of Dalton will own 1.6 percent. In addition to its 45.7 percent share, GPC has l1 3 h agreements with Oglethorpe and MEAG for the repurchase of declining amounts of their owned capacity over an 8-year period beginning in the year of commercial operation of each unit of VEGP. These are referred to as buy-back agreements.
A. Retail The retail service area rights of all electric suppliers in the State of Georgia are regulated by the 1973 State Territorial Electric Service Act. Pursuant to the provisions of this act, all areas within existing municipal limits were assigned to the primary electric supplier therein on March 29, 1973 (451 to g GPC, including Atlanta, Columbus, Macon, Augusta, w '
Athens, o ome, and Valdosta; 115 to rural electric cooperatives; and 50 to publicly owned systems). Areas outside of such municipal limits were either to be assigned or to be declared open for customer choice of supplier by action of the Georgia Public Service Commission pursuant to, standards set forth in the act.
Although the commission has assigned substantial portions of the land area in the state to a supplier, the act provides that any new customer locating outside of 1973 municipal limits and having a connected demand in excess of 900 kW may receive electric service from the supplier of its choice. Retail sales during 1980 totaled 3.7 million kWh.
8.1-2
(} VEGP-OLSER-8 (1991) and total approximately 4.9 million barrels over the -
9-year period from 1987 through 1995. The cost projections are based on an average of projections for No. 2 fuul oil. No. 2
() fuel. oil is used in these projections because the majority of the oil-fired electric generating plants within the Southern electric system use this grade of fuel oil. On a present worth basis, in 1982 dollars and using a factor of 10 percent, the value of reduced oil consumption for the period 1987 through 1995 is approximately $200 million.
8.1.2.4 Displacement of Air Pollutants The operation of VEGP will displace generation that would otherwise be made from fossil fuel boilers. This will result in displacement of air pollutants that would be emitted from fossil fuel generation. Assuming an annual generation capacity of 1.2 x 10" kWh for a 1971 to 1978 design coal-fired boiler of approximately 10,000 Btu /kWh, the annual savings in air pollutants would be 1.2 x 107 lb particulate, 2.57 x 10' lb SO,, and 8.4 x 10' lb of NO g.
8.1.2.5 Employee Recreation Area There will be an employee recreation area located near the VEGP. The recreation area will be approximately 2 miles southwest from the plant site. It will. consist of 125 acres of 1 land, of which 50 acres will be developed. The recreation
- facilities include a softball field, tennis court, small pond, l
overnight camping, and picnic area.
I l
l %/
8.1-7 Amend. 1 2/84
l VEGP-OLSER-8 REFERENCE
- 1. Batelle Columbus Laboratories, " Action Plan for Burke County,"
January 1983.
O O
l l
1 1
l O
l l
l O
O 8.1-8
. . _ _ _ _ __ ._____ ._. .._ ____ ___ .-__ _ , _ . . _ _ _ - ~ _ _ _ -
VEGP-OLSER-8 i
}'
Pouer Company and Burke County are cooperating on a road -
-improvement = program, the cost of which should be at least i
- . - partially offset by increased tax revenues to the county. There -
i.
(J are no identifiable temporary external costs due to the plant's operation.
I
~
L 8.2.2.2 -Long' Term External Costs
=
The VEGP site is centered in wooded lands scattered with fields used'for agriculture. The terrain is very flat. The clearing of the site for the VEGP required the removal of several hundred acres of trees and brush. No significant harm was done to existing landscape, rock formations, lakes, rivers, etc. >
At the time of purchase, approximately 721 acres of the site were croplands, pastures, and fields. Except for two small ponds,.the rest of the 3169-acre site.was in timber.
Construction of the plant facilities requires approximately 1399 acres of the site for the main power block and cooling towers, construction facilities.snd stockpile, the river intake -
~
facility, construction debris-basins, meteorology tower and 1 access road, and roadways. After construction of the plant is completed, the 519.6. acres used.for construction activities will be, landscaped. The use of 717-acres for general plant L facilities (buildings, roads, parking lots, and other ,
' facilities) will continue throughout the life of the plant and !
4 .will not be available for other purposes. The remaining acreage
, 'will be managed in accordance with accepted land management 1
. techniques. The use of 717. acres for operation of the plant .
p will not result in a significant reduction of regional products
.due to. displacement.
The operation of VEGP will not result in signifi. cant impairment
[ of recreational. values. The primary recreational values in the
. area include hunting and fishing. The plant site has been ;
posted, and-access.to the site for hunting and fishing will be l()
L'
. restricted. .However, boat traffic on the Savannah River will not be affected. Use of adjacent lands and w&ters for tourism, recreation, and' commercial fishing are' discussed in subsection
-2.1.3. There will be no significant loss of income from these activities as-a result of' normal operation of VEGP. As discussed in subsection 5.1.3, entrainment and impingement at tw()-
thecVEGP intake structure is not expected to result in a significant adverse impact on fish-populations of the Savannah -
l River.
i As discussed in section 2.6,:there are no significant historical L()
or: cultural. areas-on the VEGP site.
landmarks in the nearby vic2nities.
There are no national Since area transportation i
l
! 8.2-3
VEGP-OLSER-8 will not be affected by plant operation, VEGP will not restrict access to areas of scenic, historic, or cultural interest.
Areas in the vicinity of VEGP are rich in both prehistoric and historic cultural resources. Since none of the properties are g near the site, they will not be adversely affected by plant operation.
Natural draft and nuclear service (mechanical draft) coo,ing towers will be used at VEGP. The operation of these towers is not expected to cause increased frequency of ground fog, reduced g visibility, icing, or any other adverse meteorological conditions (see section 5.1). Effects of increased noise levels resulting from the operation of the VEGP are discussed in section 5,6.
A study prepared for Georgia Power Company by Battelle Columbus Division estimated the impacts of the VEGP on essential community services in surrounding areas. '" Populatioz, estimates in that report project that approximately 80 percent of the in-moving workers associated with the operation of VEGP will reside in Richmond County, an urban and urbanizing area that will be able to accept the relatively small numbers of in-movers without significant costs.
O 8.2-4
__ _ _ _ ~ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
l
[- VEGP-OLSER-11 l t
I TABLE 11.1-1 (SHEET 2 OF 2)
Effect Magnitude or Reference Indirect costs Socioeconomic Iiistoric and cultural Section 2.6 O- Noise Aesthetics Section 2.7 and 5.6 Section 3.1 Community services Paragraph 8.2.2.2 T
Environmental costs Resources committed Section 5.7 i L
Operating costs l1 Intake (entrainment) Paragraph 5.1.3.1.1 Intake (impingement) Paragraph 5.1.3.1.2 Discharge (heat) Subsection 5.1.2 :
Discharge.(chemical) Subsection 5.3.1 ,.
LO O
I O
i-F- -
O Amend. 1 2/84 l-
< , , . _ , . , - . - - - _ _ . . . .. _ . _ , _ . ~ . . . . - . _ _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ - - . _ . _ _ _ _ - _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
. .- - . -. - -. - . . ._..- . - -. = . .
(} VEGP-OLSER-12 12.0 ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATIONS -
12'.1
SUMMARY
O This. chapter provides a summary of those licenses, permits, and approvals required by federal, state, local, and regional authorities for station and transmission system construction and operation. This chapter also contains a listing of the state environmental. agencies, regional' representatives, and local
() authorities which were contacted concerning the station location and construction. The status of obtaining all required l
approvals is indicated. ;
12.1.1- STATUS OF STATION ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATIONS
- The information concerning status of the station's environmental approvals and consultations is listed in tables 12.1-1, 12.1-2, and 12.1-3. Table 12.1-1 lista permits, certifications, and
- approvals dealing with water quality during the construction and operation of the facility. Air quality permits required to construct and operate the facility are listed in table 12.1-2.
i . Table 12.1-3 lists the general permits, notifications, and plans
~\ ,
required to construct and operate the facility.
12.1.2- STATUS OF TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATIONS The information concerning status of the transmission system
- j. environmental approvals and consultations is listed in table L -12.1.4. Application for these permits are made as transmission i system: routes are finalized. Most of the permits required for i the VEGP-Wadley 500 kV line have been issued. Other permit j applications'are pending. In addition, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources State Historic: Preservation Officer was supplied with a cultural resource management pla:. for the
-_VEGP-Wadley.line (J. J. Shive letter to E. A. Lyon, September 7, Os 1982). The-plan outlined Georgia Power Company's (GPC) procedures for identifying and assessing the significance of cultural resources within the transmission corridor. The plan also outlined mitigative actions to be taken by GPC should the f~e cultural resource inventory identify any significant sites.
I N. 12.1.3 CONSULTATIONS WITH STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES Georgia Power Company (GPC) has consulted with the following L' groups concerning the VEGP. (See Construction Permit Stage l t Environmental Report (CPSER), chapter 12.)
l' I 12.1-1
_ _ _ .. - . . . _ . . ~ _ . . _ _.. _ _ _-. _ _ ..._.- . _ _ _ . __ _ . ,._-- .__. _ . . _ _ _ .. - ... _ . _ .
VEGP-OLSER-12 lh e Corps of Engineers. l1 e Department of Energy Savannah River Plant.
e Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant.
e Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission.
o Georgia Historical Commission (now the State Historic h Preservation Officer).
e Georgia Environmental Protection Division.
e Georgia Radiological Health Service (responsibilities now assumed by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and Department of Human Resources).
The VEGP CPSER lists the Georgia and South Carolina environmental agencies contacted plus partial lists of local and regional repr'esentatives contacted (pages 12.2 through 12.13).
GPC has consulted with various local officials, agencies, and citizens' advisory committees concerning the socioeconomic impacts of the operation of the VEGP. These are outlined in development studies'1 " commissioned by GPC to estimate the impact of the VEGP on essential community services of Burke and Richmond Counties.
The Final Environmental Statement (FES) contains a complete listing of federal, state, and local agencies and individuals asked to comment on the draft environmental statement (pages v through vi). Appendix L of the FES contains copies of the comments received.
O O
O 12.1-2 Amend. 1 2/84
O O O r TABLE l'.1 o WATER QUALITY PERMITS,
-CERTIFICATIONS, AND APPROVALS 4
Authorization Requi red issuina Aoency gla_utE Comments Sewage treatment plant approval Georgia EPO Issued 1/1/77 4
. Waste water treatment system approval Georgia EPD issued 12/3/30 I
]
NPDES permit for power generation faciiitles Georgia EPD Application filed November 3, 1983 l7 g
l Croundwater use permit Georgia EPD issued 6/28/78 Permit to withdraw surface water from Georgia EPD '
Issued 9/5/80 4 Savannah River
}
j Permit to operate a public water system Georgi EPD issued 3/26/82, i o 4 Intake structure water / quality
', certification- -
f/ j
.h I Intake structure Department of the Army Corps of. Engineers issued 2/6/81' .,. h pe rm i t .. f t 3 O
~
Di scha rge p ipe wa te r qua l i ty,. '
Coorgia LPD issued 1/15/82 ,
3 M s-certification M M
j Discha rge pipe Depa rtment of' the Army Corps of Enginecrs Issued 3/26/82 7 i
j permit ..
p '
i 1 M I
i s i
l 1
i m
! p '
! (L lH
~
\
co b
i i.
I
!. 7 i ,
i
, , ,t r . b<'! * '
1 j 4tofIIO(
- ' r tNIHM _
1 d d s
' e e - - t
. - u - u sl i 2 Ps Ps ii m n8 Gs Gs uanr .
o/ Eir Eir oroo p Pad /
Gre1 n 5 V eh e.
ertg ertg eeer V
eh e. L yd Eiu1 heOn heOn hl ue Vas tw i tw i tdsh s hsd ast t
n rTin o- a re.d on3e on3e o n re.d n rWiO
' e fme fi8p fi8p
- m m she8 ar2 l/
s 2s s 8s sae7g l/ fde..
nr o tgw/ ty1 t t y1 t t w7n C in 9 ie/i s ie/i s ie /i mie2 mlim mlim ml t 9i r rrn/ rd r ed r rl m/n eri0 eane eane eio2e PEl1 PWop PWop Pvr1 p C S
.__ N O _
I .
T A
T L g g U s n n S t u i i d d N a n n MO t S P e
P o
EC T
'1 SO r
. E IR n y t e
- L B
c ro oi a
w n
e gl aa
- n nu A
T NA A e g s ta nt t i o
D hs gt in d
n e
ad mis RL A fr er i e dt ve ~
TA g oe e lamo tp a lytm an 1in oi adi T n sn grs) i g tr rr rnl N i u
pi rg rant r na up l e eie n p E s on opaO o eerD e oe i p au eri M s CE GDT( G CD Rs Gop N i O
R I
V N
E O d e
r i
_ i.
q
_ e _
R e _
_ n l
_ o b l y r i a t a t t
_ ' t ig n rs n e n t e a e ey e t
- e. n v z l v mlda ml a nl us l o ,
i aa haew hat haoy a r
o in r
cirh a r g ar cis cica ar w irore s fg on h er oeri oer oori l i
t!
t ae v
r aeh rae e v c v ce vi aeg aen vi ns os 6 ro nroe nro eo nroh eof gl rol o
i o o eof ga tr s O
_ t fg y f gn s, y na f gd ace n y nt na c in tis tti s tti a ttic tio il isr ii sr iisw iiso isr mse imse l msh ir og iro imsl msl iiral Lrp e
r ot ie ot n oi era Lern torl ters era oei i
Pcw Opci upct U pc o i Pcr Nap 3L sm e:I. MNo C.
O Vogtle O Electric Generating Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2 O
Applicants O Environmental Report Operating License Stage NRC Questions and Resaonses O
O O Georgia Power
^
the Southem eleCinC System
L-c, VEOP-OLSER-Q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES INDEX VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT - UNITS 1 AND 2 OPERATING LICENSE STAGE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT NRC DOCKET NUMBERS 50-424 AND 50-425 4
OLSER NRC Question Section/ Subsection Keywords E100.1 -
Summary of significant changes since Construction Permit review E290.1 2.2.1 Requests for site terrestrial ecology studies E290.2 F2.2-1 Site vegetation map E290.3' 3.6.4.2 Salt drirt emissions E290.4- 3.9 Transmission line right-of-way
() 'E290.5 5.5.2 Herbicide use l
E290.6 T12.1-4 Location of aerial crossings
~
over navigable waters
. E290.7 -
Requests for aerial l' photographs of site l
E291.1 2.4 Surface water quality data E291.2 2.4 USGS water quality data E291.3 2.4 Pollutant types and sources
() that influence water quality near the site
. E291.4 3.3 Clarification of water flowrates
- j E291.5 F3.3-1 Clarification of " normal design L conditions" F- E291.6 3.3 Potential for short circuiting of makeup water to the L blowdown line I-E291.7 3.3, 3.4 Clarification of river water makeup system flowrates ,
Q-i Amend. 1 2/84 L
VEGP-OLSER-Q OLSEE NRC Question Section/ Subsection Keywords E291.8 3.6 Chlorine injection and control / monitoring points lll E291.9 3.6 Proposed chlorination program and expected concentrations E291.10 3.6 Corbicula control lh E291.11 5.3.1 Plant chemical and biocide discharge E291.12 12.1 Copy of discharge pipe water quality certification E291.13 2.2.2.3 GPC's response to IE Bulletin 81-83 on Corbicula abundance E291.14 2.2.2.5.2 Other zooplankton studies conducted on the Savannah River E291.15 3.6.1.1 Corbicula spawning season E291.16 5.1.3.1 Status of CWA Section 316(b) demonstration E291.17 6.1 Requests for site ecological studies E291.18 6.1.1.2 Requests for site ecological studies E291.19 6.1.4.2.1.5
Reference:
Georgia Costal Fisheries Investigation E311.1 2.1.1 Exclusion area boundary O
reference point E311.2 2.1.2 1980 census data used for population projections E311.3 2.1.3 Distance and d rection of towns, villages, etc., within 10 miles of the site E320.1 8.1 Justification of capacity I factors used H
I Q-ii Amend. 1 2/84 I J
VEGP-OLSER-Q OLSER .
NRC Question Section/ Subsection Keywords E320.2 12.1
References:
Batelle Columbus L(/~T
_/ Laboratories reports: 1982, 1983 E450.1 7.A External events associated with severe accidents
-fh s/ E450.2 7.A Impacts of severe accidents on ocean fish catch E451.1 2.3 Meteorological measurements program E451.2 7.A Meteorological data E451.3 2.3 Clarification of meteorological study periods E451.4 2.3 Meteorological measurements program
%J
-E451.5 2.3 Meteorological measurements program E451.6 2.3 Request for topographical map out to 5 miles E451.7 2.3 Request for topographical map of plant site I
E451.8 2.3 Justification for using a.
150-foot meteorological tower
- E451.9 2.3 Meteorological measurement E(~} - instruments i
- E451.10 2.3 Meteorological measurement techniques E451.11 2.3 Meteorological measurement
(~)
'-s instruments E451.12 2.3 Meteorological measurement program l E451.13 2.3- Meteorological measurement l ['- program
- Q-iii Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-Q OLSER NRC Question Section/ Subsection Keywords E451.14 2.3 Atmospheric dispersion model justification lll F451.15 2.7 Atmospheric dispersion model justification E451.16 2.3 Fumigation condition frequency on site E451.17 5.1.4 Atmospheric effects from natural draft cooling towers E470.1 2.1.3.1, FSAR tables incorporated into 5.2.1.2.1, the OLSER 5.2.2, 5.2.4.2, 5.2.5, 2.1.2.1, 2.1.2.2 0
l O
O O
Q-iv Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-Q
}
Question E100.1 i-In addition to answers to other questions, provide a summary and
- L brief discussion, in table. form, by section, of differences l -
between currently projected environmental effects in the OLSER I (including those that would degrade and those that would enhance l environmental condi.tions) and the effects discussed in the Construction Permit Stage Environmental Report (CPSER) and i
environmental hearings associated with the Construction Permit
- h%/
Review. On a sir.tilar basis, indicate (1) changes in plant or plant component design, (2) changes in plant component location, I- and (3) additional modifications plannsd since the Construction Permit Review.
Response
Discussions of significant changes since the Construction Permit
. Review between corresponding OLSER and CPSER sections are contained within each OLSER section. Table E100.1-1 summarizes i .these changes. Furthermore,.significant changes between the final plant design and the design presented r.t the Construction Permit Stage are summarized in FSAR table 1.3.2-1.
- i. .:
O D _
101 QE100.1-1 Amend. 1 2/84
L l
j e~' VEGP-OLSER-Q TABLE E100.1-1 (SHEET 1 OF 6)
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES SINCE THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REVIEW BETWEEN COP. RESPONDING OLSER AND CPSER SECTIONS / SUBSECTIONS OLSER CPSER Description of Change r 1.0 1.0 Need for power issues are not addressed
.. s. . in the OLSER.
.1 2 2.1,.2.2 Site acreage reduced'from 3177 acres to 3169 acres. Site exclusionary boundary changed accordingly.
Deletion of two reactor units from
, original four-unit design. The two-unit plant and associated facilities will occupy 717 acres.
$ Population projections are based on 1980 census data in the OLSER.
New socioeconomic studies conducted.
- 2.2 2.7 New ecological' studies conducted. The ecological environment in the-nearby vicinity has not changed substantially since the Construction Permit Review.
2.3 2.6 Regicnal climatology data has been updated and is presented in FSAR.section 2.3. A new meteorology tower will be-
- installed to replace the old one.
2.4 2.5 Additional flow and water quality data
.. ss have become~available. This' additional data shows no significant change in the characteristics.of the water quality.
Additional studies will be provided under separate cover.
2.5- 2.4 Additional geological analyses have been -
conducted and are presented in FSAR -
section 2.5.
2.6 2.3 Fossilized remains of a prehistoric whale
] } were discovered near the intake structure.
J Amend. 1 2/84 .
. .~ . . - .~ ..- ...__ .,_.__ _-.__ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _.__. ~.__ _ ._.__._ _ _ _
i t 1 t
VEGP-OLSER-Q TABLE E100.1-1 (SHEET 2 OF 6)
OLSER CPSER Description of Change 2.7 -
New information presented. Precon-struction ambient sound level survey conducted in 1974 is now presented in OLSER.
. 3 .1 3 . '1 Reduction in plant size from four to two
-units and the deletion of the enclosure building.
3.2 3.2, 3.3 Reduction in plant site from four to two units.
- 3.3' 3.4 Quantities of water used have changed as a result of the reduction from four to two units. A more detailed design of plant water use is presented in the OLSER.
(); ~
13.4- 3.5 , Reduction in plant size from four to two units; change in discharge structure from
~
~ '
a multiport diffuser type to a single-point discharge; change of the !
, intake structure canal design from' slope <
J riprap to vertical sheet pile to improve erosion control; addition of lateral escape passageways for fish escape at the
, intake canal entrance.
Redesign of intake structure will result in less environmental impact on the n impingement and entrainment of aquatic species than the design depicted in the
's Final 1 Environmental Statement (FES) for four units.
[ Reduction of numbers of natural draft
- l. cooling towers from four to two and
, f mechanical draft cooling towers from E -% eight to four. Makeup water requirements will be approximately halved. -
3.5 3.6 Nermal operation source terms and l . releases now based on criteria outlined in NUREG 0017. State-of-the-art radwaste
-AOL system designs, more realistic models, and a reduction in plant size from four ,
Amend. 1 2/84 l'
i' ',,;._._,.~_._,...._.,,.,.,..-..,._._....-.._.-.,_r._, . . . , . , _ . . _ , , , . _ _ _ . - - ~ . , , _ . - - . _ , , _ - - . . . . - . _ _
+ . -. . .
4 q VEGP-OLSER-Q p~
l TABLE E100.1-1 (SHEET 3 OF 6) -
l OLSER CPSER Description of Change j to two units has more than halved the predicted-source terms.
A volume reduction system has been added m f to the radwaste treatment system which will significantly increase the onsite storage capacity-for low level radioactive wastes.
3.6 3.7 The quantities of the chemical and biocide effluent will be approximately halved from that of a four-unit plant.
- 3. 6. 3.7 Change-in plant-discharge structure from i
a multiport diffuser to a single-point
__ discharge.
i 1: - . Changes in steam generator system
. L, chemical control to all-volatile and use
, oof ammonia for pH control.
Changes in the handling of laboratory, laundry, and hot shower wastes from
- drumming to a combination of recycling,
! treatment,-and release as part of combined plant liquid discharge.
l- Addition of a waste water retention basin to provide' aeration and' retention time for. low volume waste streams. Addition of a blowdown sump. Deletion of
() diffusion-type disposal system.
Predicated salt drift emissions significantly reduced due to reduction in L number of natural draft cooling towers L from four to two, the use of more I(
- j. )1 realistic assumptions, and experie;.ce from operating natural draft cooling towers. See responses to questions -
E290.3 and E451.17. .
. Number of water treatment plants reduced from two to one.
).
Amend. 1 2/84 l
5
- VEGP-OLSER-Q TABLE E100.1-1 (SHEET 4 OF 6) ,
OLSER' CPSER Description of Change 3.7 3.7, 3.8 No significant change in the design of the sanitary treatment facility.
p~
-Fluid bed dry waste-processor emissions
!. to-air.
3.8 3.6.5,15.4.2 Transportation of~new fuel and spent fuel
.is set forth in 10 CFR 51.20,' table S-4.
['
, . 3 .' 9 3.2 Number of transmission line rights-of-way 5 j;
significantly reduced. Number of acres required reduced from 12,660 to 2,958.
For more-detailed information see D. Dutton letter to.D..G. Eisenhut, February 1, 1982.
4.0 4.0 No discussion required concerning f construction impacts.
~
" ~
4.4 -
. Radiological impact on Unit 2 construction workers from the operation of Unit-1.
(. 5.1.1 5 ~.1 -Revised U.S. EPA effluent limitation ,
p guidelines for steam electric generating F plants. Operational NPDES permit application' submitted.
1 5.1. 2 ' 5.1.1, 5.1.3 Change in design of discharge system from a submerged multiport diffuser to a single-point discharge pipe. The thermal t effects of the'VEGP effluent is updated.
}
'5.1.3 5.1.3~ Intake and discharge structure design change. Studies submitted to NRC evaluating impacts of each design on aquatic of the
- l
~
Savannah River. ;
b'- 5.1.4 5.1.5', 3.1.1 . Environmental effects of operating the heat i dissipation system effectively halved. .;
5.2 15.2, 5.5 Radiation doses calculated according to Regulatory Guide 1.109. Doses remain lower l' than design objectives of NRC.
L:\ d/ i V
4 Amend. 1 2/84 i- .
.- - u : ._. ,. -,,--4._...._,._..s , _ . _ , . - , _ _ _ _ _ , - _ . _ . . _ _ _ . . - _ , _ . . _ . _ _ _ . -
. ) VEGP-OLSER-Q TABLE E100.1-1 (SHEET 5 OF 6)
OLSER CPSER Description of Change
-[v^)
5.3 5.3 Impacts reduced in OLSER due to design changes, reduction of plant size, and revised U.S. EPA effluent limitation
.s
, guidelines for steam electric genera *.ing
-(} plants. Discharge regulated by NPDES permit.
'5. 4 5.3 Sanitary treatment riant has no significant design changes. Sanitary waste effluent regulated under the NPDES permit.
Release of sanitary waste will not adversely impact the Savannah River.
5.5 5.4.1 Environmental effects of operation and maintenance of transmission lines presented. Actual transmission line routes not included here, but are i (' supplied by letter supplement to the
( _T/ CPSER.
-5.6 -
Ambient noise level compared with predicted operational noise level. No o adverse community impacts anticipated.
l.
I 5.7 10.0 Reduction from four to two units will substantially reduce the resources committed summarized in the CPSER (water, land, uranium, and construction material).
5.8 9.0 New information presented on decommissioning.
)-
6.1 5.5 Biological and radiological preoperational monitoring programs conducted to update those presented in the CPSER.
J(, '-
6.2 5.5 Operational radiological monitoring program established by the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications. -
Aquatic monitoring program established by the NPDES permit.
I
) 6.3 -
New infor ation presented. Environmental monitorit.g programs carried out by public agencies near the VEGP are cited. ,
Amend. 1 2/84
4 1
j }
VEGP-OLSER-Q TABLE E100.1-1 (SHEET 6 OF 6)
OLSER CPSER' Description of Change
}
l t' 6.4 5.5 An update of preoperational environmental
- radiological monitoring data base is presented.
7.1 6.0 Severe accident' analysis included in the 3
OLSER. Radiation doses calculated according to Regulatory Guide 1.109.
7.2 5.4.2 Transportation accidents are as set forth
' - in 10 CFR 51.20, Table S-4.
7.3 -
New information presented.
8.0 8.0 Construction and alternate energy sources, sites, and systems not considered in cost-benefit analysis in OLSER.
9.0 8.3 Alternate energy sources and sites are not discussed in the OLSER.
10.0 8.0 Station design alternatives are not i discussed in OLSER.
11.0 8.0 Construction and alternate energy j
sources, sites, and systems not
, considered in cost-benefit analysis in j OLSER.
12.0 12.0 New permit approvals listed.
l
() NPDES application filed with the. State of Georgia Environmental Protection Division on November 3, 1983.
I r-13.0 -
New information presented.
9)
Construction Permit Conditions for the protection of the environment:
Conditions 3.E.(5)a, b, and d deleted by -
Amendment 3, January 29, 1982. Condition 3.E.(5)c addressed in OLSER paragraph 3.4.1.4. Condition 3.E.(7) satisfied by
{f submission of intake structure impingement study. Conditions 3.E.(1),
(2), (3), and (4) satisfied by formation _.
l of the Site Environmental Review F Committee.
Amend. 1 2/84
. _ _ -. , .-- _ .._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ...__ _ _ . _ _ _... _ . _ _ . _ _ _ .. _ ._ _ , _ ,__. _. _ .,_ _ _.~._._._ , _ __.
f 1
t VEGP-OLSER-Q t I
! l Question E290.1 (OLSER 2.2.1) !
l l Provide a copy of the actual terrestrial ecology studies
. performed onsite.
l Response.
Copies of these studies were provided by D. O. Foster's letter
[ to H. R. Denton dated February 10, 1984.
i i !
h I
i I
- i t
G !
_l QE290.1-1 Amend. 1 2/84 l.
( VEGP-OLSER-Q
- Question E290.2 (OLSER-Figure 2.2-1) .
There are three symbols used for " branch hardwood," #3, #4, and
- #5,.and three symbols used for "sandhill longleaf pine," #11,
, . - - - #12, and #13. Why were these forest types separately
.. identified? Are there some biological differences among them? ;
Response
_O-. The_different designation numbers are used because each of the :
I three communities are isolated from each other and*.ere treated as separate compartments when the vegetation analys-. was conducted. There are no major biological differencea in the
.- branch hardwood communities. The same is true of the longleaf pine communities.
?
0 l
l l
l l
- O-LO .
i.
t
- O 1
t i
i QE290.2-1 Amend. 1 2/84
',-. - , - ~ . - . . . . ~ . - , - - . - _ . . , . - . . _ . . . . . _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ , _ , _ _ _ _ , , _ , .
VEGP-OLSER-Q Question E290.3 (OLSER 3.6.4.2) .
Although in Final Environmental Statement - Construction Permit l'V (FES-CP) section.5.5.1.1 the conclusion is that salt drift emissions would be negligible, the predicted quantity of drift of approximately 305 lbs/ acre / year (Construction Permit Stage
_ Environmental Report (CPSER) 5.3.2) (acsuming two-unit operation) within a mile radius of the cooling towers is presently considered to be in the range of potential damage to
- vegetation. As such, indicate the plant community types that
~[ ']' . -will be impacted by drift. Also, a. monitoring program for
. detection of possible detrimental effects of drift on vegetation will be required.
3
Response
The predicted salt drift deposition rate cited in section 5.3.2 of the CPSER, has been reevaluated based on current design parameters and expected operating conditions._ (Refer to the response to question E451.17.) It~is estimated that the
-~ deposition rate outside.the site boundary would be at or below
[ N the vegetation damage threshold level cited in Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulatory Guide 4.11. In Lf( )-
l"' addition,- the only significant chemical constituent in the Leooling tower-drift is total dissolved solids (TDS); no toxic
~
elements or compounds.are present. Therefore, as stated in the FES-CP,--the effect of the predicted salt deposition rate at VEGP
-on the surrounding terrestrial' environment is expected to be negligible.
Results of vegetation monitoring studies at various nuclear L power plants in the eastern and southern regions of the United States indicate no adverse impact to the surrounding vegetation as a result of salt drift. It should be noted that several of
~these plants have significantly higher deposition rates than
' :( ). those-predicted for VEGP. Similarly, field experiments on agricultural crops at Chalk' Point show no effect on yield and no
- leaf damage at. deposition rates four times greater than those
- predicted for-VEGP.
. The dominant vegetation at VEGP is upland with hardwood pine and L ;[3-). . scattered agricultural fields. The. plant community types within 1 mile of the cooling towers include: reclaimed deposition ,
areas,. sand hill-upland hardwood-pine, sand hill-upland hardwood -
l , planted slash pine, branch hardwoods, cove hardwoods, slash pine ,
. plantation, . bluff hardwood, bottomland hardwood, sand hill-longleaf pine, cleared sandhills, and old fields. This
'(' )
H terrestrial environment is representative of several of the
.other surveyed power plants, which reported even higher salt l deposition rates and no. vegetation damage. Therefore, cooling 2 QE290.3-1 Amend. 1 2/84
, , , - . . - , ~~ ,_ ,.- - , , . m . -.~ ...--...-,,---.-,,.m,,-r.~~.---.,,., . . - - . - - - . . - - . . - - . - . . . _ . , _
l l
VEGP-OLSER-Q h tower drift is not expected to result in leaf injury or reduced yields to local crops and native vegetation.
From the above, it can be concluded that the effect of cooling h tower drift on the terrestrial environment at VEGP is negligible and an operational monitoring program is not deemed necessary.
O l
O O
O QE290.3-2 Amend. 1 2/84
{) VEGP-OLSER-Q
-Question E290.4 (OLSER 3.9) .
.. This section states that changes to the transmission line
-rights-of-way since the Construction Permit (CP) were provided
'h'-' to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by letter dated February'1, 1982, from D. Dutton, Georgia Power Company (GPC),
to D.~Eisenhut, NRC. The maps included with this letter show a completely new 500-kV line going from the Vogtle plant to the
_Effingham plant.
~
' ~
Recause this proposed line has never been evaluated by NRC we will need the following information if different from
_information already provided:
A. Basic electrical design parameters, including transmission design voltage or voltages, line capacity, conductor type and configuration, spacing between phases, minimum conductor clearances to ground, maximum predicted electric. field strength (s) at 1 m above ground, the predicted electric field strength (s) at the
. edge of the right-of-way in kilovolts per meter (kV/m),
and the design basis for these values. ,
B. Predicted noise levels resulting from transmission-system operation.
C. Basic structural design parameters, including
-illustrations and descriptions of towers, conductors, and other structures, with dimensions, materials, ,
color,_and finish.
D. Topographic maps (15-minute scale as a rule) or aerial photographs showing the proposed corridor or corridors l and all existing major high-voltage corridors in the i region.
t
' () E. Lengths, widths, and area of rights-of-way, including modifications and/or use of existing rights-of-way and other facilities for the proposed project.
F. General methods of construction, e.g., tower J foundations, stringing, location of access roads, span l -( length, and clearing of rights-of-way.
L . -.
G. If available, tower and substation locations. -
Attachment 2 of the February 1, 1982 lctter labels the Vogtle to E
North Goshen line as 230 kV. Does this mean that the two 500-kV
.(). lines proposed at the CP stage (Final Environmental Statement-Construction Permit (FES-CP), page 3-40) between these two points QE290.4-1 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-Q j
will not be built? Provide details of any modifications to this line from that proposed at the CP stage.
Attachment 2 also shows a line going from the Vogtle plant to Wadley with a short spur to Waynesboro. Provide details of any modifications of this line since the CP stage.
Response
Data and information gathering related to the above question is h ongoing and will be provided to the NRC by April 1, 1984.
l O
{
O O
i QE290.4-2 Amend. 1 2/84 t
( VEGP-OLSER-Q Question E290.5 (OLSER 5.5.2) .
It would-be desirable to specify that herbicide use will be in i
l
'()- compliance with'all U.S. Environmental Protection-Agency (EPA) and State of Georgia EPA regulations, if this is the case.
Response
!(
) Subsection 5.5.2 was amended to clarify compliance with U.S. EPA and State of Georgia regulations.for herbicide use.
i
- O l
J O
rO LO QE290.5-1 Amend. 1 2/84 L
i l
l l
VEGP-OLSER-Q
}-
Question E290.6 (OLSER Table 12.1-4) :
This table shows that authorizati3n for a permit for aerial O'
NJ crossing over navigable waters is required from the U.S. Army
. Corps of Engineers. Indicate where this river crossing is to
.take place.
Response
~
Permits for aerial crossing over navigable waters for the VEGP-Effingham/Thalman line have been obtained for two locations:
- 1. The Altamaha River near Evert, Georgia, between McIntosh and Glynn Counties.
- 2. Ogeechee River near Richmond Hill, Georgia, between Bryan and Chatham Counties.
Table 12.1-4.h_as'been amended to include these permits.
O
(:)
l O -
O QE290.6-1 Amend. 1 2/84
-. .- , . -.-.... - . - __. - .=-- . _ . ._ .
M S
- VEGP-OLSER-Q Question E290.7 -
, .- Provide, for inspection at the site visit, aerial photographs of j the Vogtle site taken in 1972 and in 1980.
Response
, Aerial photographs of the VEGP Eite taken in 1972 and 1980 will ,
be.provided for. inspection during the Nuclear Regulatory ;
' Commission plant site visit. .
i ..
i e' 1 l
O O
lO .
O-QE290.7-1 Amend. 1 2/84 l
. - , , - - . ~ . . . , _ . . _ _ _ _ - . . . _ . - _ - _ _ _ . - - . . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _-_-_____
,[
VEGP-OLSER-Q Question E291.1 (OLSER 2.4)
Provide the updated surface water quality data collected in the site vicinity since 1978, as referenced in this section. l l
Response
Copies of the updated surface water quality collected in the
- _ site vicinity were provided by D. O. Foster's letter to H. R.
'Denton dated February 10; 1984.
4 1
'O .
t O
LO P
lO QE291.1-1 Amend. 1 2/84
. _.. _ ._. _ - .-_. _ - _ ._,_ _ _ _ .- _ _ .,_____._..__. . _ _ ._ _ _ _ . . _ _ - ~ , _ _ _
e VEGP-OLSER-Q
(}
Question E291.2 (OLSER 2.4) .
' Provide a copy'of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) and
- - "others" watar quality studies used by Georgia Power Company (GPC) to assess the degree of change in site water quality since the issuance of the Final Environmental Statement - Construction
' Permit (FES-CP). Provide the basis for the inclusion in section 2.4 that there'has been no significant change in the characteristics of these surface waters.
Response
i
.The conclusion that there has been no significant changes in the surface' water quality was based on a visual comparison of the recent water quality data collected by GPC, USGS, and others to that found in the CPSER'and FES-CP. Copies of these studies ,
.were provided by D. O. Foster's letter to H. R. Denton dated
' February 10, 1984. ,
o.
l 0 QE291.2-1 Amend. 1 2/84
~
VEGP-OLSER-Q Cuestion E291.3 (OLSER 2.4)
Provide a discussion of the pollutant types and sources, if any,
[-s5 that influence.the quality of the surface waters near the site.
\- Include in this discussion any known existing environmental stresses.
Response
.i '- '
Surface water quality in the VEGP vicinity is influenced primarily by industrial and municipal waste water discharges
- into the Savannah River in the Augusta area; heat and waste water discharge from the Savannah River Plant, and agricultural runoff from farmlands around the-site. According to the following references, pollution sources are Columbia Nitrogen, Olin Corporation Kimberly-Clark, textile mills, municipal sewage treatment plants in Augusta and South Carolina, J. P. Stevens Mill, Valchem Chemical, and the Savannah River ~ Plant. In the vicinity of the VEGP, there are no other known environmental ~
stresses to the Savannah River ecology than_those evaluated in -~~
the FES-CP.
O i (_) 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proceedings from l a Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the Middle Reach of the Savannah River in the States of Georgia and South Carolina, pp 32-74, March 22-23, 1972.
- 2. Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection-Division, Water Quality Investigations Savannah River Basin in Georgia, pp 106-128, December 1974.
- 3. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Savannah River Basin Pla', n pp A-143, A-147, and A-157, December 1974.
()
Copies of these references were provided by D. O. Foster's letter to H. R. Denton dated February 10, 1984.
l l (~
! (j i
A) k-QE291.3-1 Amend. 1 2/84
. _ . - ~ _ . . _ _ . - - . ._. - _ . . _ - - - _ . - .- ._. . . . - -
l
\
i- f I
{' VEGP-OLSER-Q i
~ Question E291.4 (OLSER 3.3) i
. ' Indicate whether the water flow rates given in section 3.3 are .
for one- or two-unit operation.
4
! Response j
' i Subsection 3.3.3 has been amended to clarify the water flow l h-- . rates at the VEGP.
T r
i i
1 1
i >
~
LO .
e
~ '
- L G ,
O .
o -
- l 6
QE291.4-1 Amend. 1 2/84
. . , _ _ _ ~ _ . _ . _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ .. . . .
t 1
VEGP-OLSER-Q 1 Questlon E291.5 (OLSER Figure 3.3-1)
, .. Define the term " normal design conditions" as used in footnotes
- "c" and "e" of figure 3.3-1.
Response
Figure 3.3-1 has been~ amended to clarify the water flow rate
- _ operational conditions.
i .
i I
., i 1
6 0 .
i
- O i
LO O ;
l '
QE291.5-1 Amend. 1 2/S4
l VEGP-OLSER-Q (V)
Question E291.6 (OLSER 3.3)
Describe the potential for short circuiting of makeup water to (3j the circulating water system to the blowdown line in the cooling tower basins.
-Response
()
p The potential of river water makeup "short circuiting" to the blowdown outlet of the cooling tower basin does not exist due to inherent cooling tower design features including:
A. The linear distance between the river water makeup line discharge into the cooling tower basin and the basin blowdown outlet is 200 ft for the Unit 2 tower and much greater for the Unit 1 tower.
B. The cooling tower basin water volume will normally average well over 6 million gal / tower. This volume will not be affected by the average flows of either 20,000 gpm makeup / tower or 5000 gpm blowdown / tower.
The entrance velocity to the blowdown outlet is less
-(~}'
s- than 4 fps.
C. The cooling tower basin slab is continuously sloped towards the cooling tower center.
D. Makeup water temperature closely approximates cooling tower basin water temperature. During winter operations, makeup water may be much colder but only local, rapidly dissipating temperature inversions would form having no effect on overall basin water temperature.
jc In conclusion, it is most unlikely that makeup water will enter t the basin and directly proceed to the blowdown outlet.
n
-\
b)
U QE291.6-1 Amend. 1 2/84
. ~ . - _ _
4 I
() VEGP-OLSER-Q Question E291.7 (OLSER 3.3-3.4)
Resolve the difference in quoted river water makeup system flow rates between figure 3.3-1 (i.e., 40,000 gpm) and sections O- 3.4.1.1 and 3.4.1.2 (i.e., 42,000 gpm). Similarly, resolve the difference in stated maximum intake canal water flow between figure 3.3-1 (i.e., 61,000 gpm) and section 3.4.1.1 (i.e.,
72,000 gpm).
O Response The circulating water system normally demands up to 20,000 gpm
, per tower from the river water makeup system, yet supply capability is 42,000 gpm. Likewise, for maximum makeup and dilution, 61,000 gpm is required, yet the river water makeup system is capable of supplying up to 72,000 gpm.
l l
I lO l
O -
i l
O .
.QE291.7-1 Amend. 1 2/84 ,
. . . . . . . . . ~ _ . _ - . . - - . - - _ . - - . . . . - ._ - - .- - -.-- .-
i I
VEGP-OLSER-Q i i
l Question E291.8 (OLSER 3.6) !
Indicate the chlorine injection and control / monitoring points in ,
the main and nuclear service cooling water (NSCW) system.
Response ,
Paragraphs 3.6.1.1 and 3.6.1.2 have been amended to indicate the .
- chlorine injection and control / monitoring points in the main and !
] NSCW system.
- i
}
i i
l t
l O
i l
l LO l
l l
I O
QE291.8-1 Amend. 1 2/84
(} VEGP-OLSER-Q Questfon E291.9 (OLSER 3.6)
Describe the chlorination schemes (i.e., application rates, frequencies, durations, and target discharge concentrations) proposed for the main and nuclear service cooling water (NSCW) systems. Include both total residual chlorine and free available chlorine.
() Response Paragraphs 3.6.1.1 and 3.6.1.2 have been amended to describe the chlorination schemes proposed for the main and NSCW system and the-total residual chlorine and free available chlorine.
. O t
4
~
QE291.9-1 Amend. 1 2/84
l
~
VEGP-OLSER-Q Questien E291.10 (OLSER 3.6)
Provide the rationale for the selection of a 1.0 mg/l continuous free available chlorine concentration in plant cooling water O' ' systems for Corbicula control. Other utility experience with continuous low level chlorination indicates a concentration of 0.1 mg/1.
() Response It was indicated in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission IE Bulletin 81-03, that higher concentrations of chlorine may be necessary to control Corbicula. It also was pointed out in this bulletin that Tennessee Valley Authority studies revealed 0.1 ppm free available chlorine will not effectively control '
Corbicula.
O O -
1 l -
, QE291.10-1 Amend. 1 2/84
l
(} VEGP-OLSER-Q Question E291.11 (OLSER 5.3.1) .
-Provide'a discussion of the effects and the impacts that plant chemical and biocide discharge will have on the receiving waters
!~
1
). .in the vicinity of VEGP.
Response
Impacts and effects are both addressed ' . the NPDES permit and d( .
316(b) study, if required. Impacts are much less due to l reduction in plant size, state-of-the-art pollution control devices, and revised water quality standards. NPDES permit i requirements.will'ersure that the station effluent will meet the
- limitations established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It was noted in the VEGP Waste Water Effluent Discharge ;
Structure Plume Analysis submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission TW. E. Ehrensperger letter to D. E. Eisenhut, May 1, <
1981) that the plant discharge with the redesigned discharge
- .. structure will . result in a smaller predicted chemical and i . thermal plume than was_ predicted for the original design. This environmental improvement over the original design was demonstrated _by
- the thermal and. chemical dispersion studies reported.in the plume analysis.
4
.l
[v.
[ ~
l JO l
-[
[ QE291'.11-1 Amend. 1 2/84 L
l
.f 4
S i
VEGP-OLSER-Q l
!~ i
[ Question E291.12 (OLSER 12.1) .
Provide a copy of the discharge pipe water quality certification. !
i Response ;
i A copy of the discharge pipe water quality certification was !
provided by D. O. Foster's letter to H. R. Denton dated i February 10, 1984.
_ (
j:- - l 3
i
- l 1
I O
I. -
J' J
l l
9 l
1 t ;
I-i i
<l j l
i QE291.12-1 Amend. 1 2/84
1 l
N (d VEGP-OLSER-Q Question E291.13 (OLSER 2.2.2.3)
_x t Describe the distribution and abundance of Corbicula in the Savannah River and provide reference to Georgia Power Company's (GPC) response (s) to IE Bulletin 81-03.
Response
Corbicula was first discovered in the United States in 1938 in
['-)/ the Columbia River, Oregon, has since spread across the United States, and occurs in most states south of latitude 42*; it appeared in the Savannah River drainage between 1965 and 1973.81* Corbicula was first found in the Savannah River
- near Augusta, Georgia in 1972.'2' Densities of Corbicula in excess of 2000 individuals /m 2 were found in the vicinity of the Savannah River Plant.'1' Aquatic studies conducted by Georgia Power Company found Corbicula densities of up to 1177/m 2 in the Savannah River in the vicinity of VEGP.'8' These densities varied with season and sampling location and indicated an aggregated dispersion of the
('~} Corbicula population in the area of the plant.
(/
Georgia Power Company's response to IE Bulletin 81-03 was provided to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by letter dated July.18, 1981 from D. Dutton to the U.S. NRC, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Region II, Attention Mr.
James P. O'Reilly. :
1
-1. Britton, J. C. and Fuller, S. L. H., The Freshwater Bivalve Mollusca (Unionidae, Sephaeriidae, Corbicu- t ilidEe) of the Savannah River Plant, South Carolina, DOE Savannah River Plant National Environmental Research Park, 1979, p) g 2. Fuller, S. L. H. and Powell, " Range Extensions of Corbicula fluminea (Phillipi) in the Atlantic Drainage of the United States," The Nautilus, Vol. 87, No. 2, p 59, 1973.
. gy 3. Georgia Power Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant
. () Macroinvertebrate Survey of the Savannah River, Burke Couaty, Georgia, January to November, 1981, Operating License Stage Env..ronmental Reoort Technical Document, -
Georgia Power Company, Atlanta, Georgia, March 1983.
D N_]
QE291.13-1 Amend. 1 2/84
(} VEGP-OLSER-Q Question E291.14 (OLSER 2.2.2.5.2)
Provide reference citings to the "other studies" noted in the
() last paragraph of this OLSER section.
Response
The "other studies" cited in the OLSER section are as follows:
- 1. Patricks, R., Cairns, J., and Roback, S. S., "An Ecosystematic study of the Fauna and Flora of the Savannah River," Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 118, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp 109-407, 1967.
- 2. Williams, L. G., " Plankton Population Dynamics," U.S.
Public Health Service, Publication No. 663, Supplement 2, Washington, D.C., pp 93, 1962.
- 3. Williams, L. G., " Dominant planktonic rotifers of major ~~~"
i waterways of the United States," Limnol. Oceanog. 11, pp 83-91, 1966.
[~}
'u These studies were cited in:
- 1. "Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant Environmental Report,"
Georgia Power Company, Atlanta, Georgia, Vol 1, pp 2.7-101 --2.7-104, August 1, 1972.
Subsection 2.2 has been amended to include the above cited y references.
l i
O -
()
~
t i
QE291.14-1 Amend. 1 2/84 i
- - _ . . ~, , , ,
. . _ . _ _ . - . _ . _ - , _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . , _ , _ . , . . , , _ _ . . , _ , _ _ _ _ . - . . ~ . , . _ ,m...
1 VEGP-OLSER-Q Question E291.15 (OLSER 3.6.1.1) -
Provide information regarding the "Corbicula spawning season"
(} expected in the Savannah River at the site vicinity.
T
Response
Specific studies were not conducted by Georgia Power Company to
[~)= define the Corbicula spawning seasons in the Savannah River in
\/ the vicinity of VEGP. Corbicula is generally regarded to have two seasonal spawning peaks, in the spring and again in the fall.'1<2 e Larvae also may be present in the water column during most of the year.'2) The spawning season in the
-Savannah River near the Savannah River Plant has been reported as being from April to November.'** (Following is a list of the references cited in this response.)
- 1. Britton, J. C. and Fuller, S. L. H., The Freshwater Bivalve Mollusca (Unionidae, Sphaeriidae, Corbicu-lidae) of the Savannah River Plant, South Carolina, ___
DOE Savannah River Plant National Environmental 3 Research Park, 1979.
l
- 2. Sickel, J. B., An Ecological Study of the Asiatic Clam, Corbicula manilensis-(Phillipi. 1841), in the Altamaha River, Georgia, with Emphasis on Population Dynamics, Productivity and Control Methods, Ph.D.
Dissertation, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, 1976.
- 3. .Goss, L. B. and Cain, C., Jr., Power Plant Condenser and Service Water System Fouling by Corbicula, the
, Asiatic Clam, Biofouling Workshop - Electric Power Research Institute, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, June 16 - 17, 1975.
- 4. - Harvey, R. S., Annual Harvests of Corbicula Prevent Clogging of Nuclea; Reactor Heat Exchanges, Savannah River Plant, E. I. ~DuPont deNemours and Company, Aiken, South Carolina, 298308.
/m Y)
(
QE291.15-1 Amend. 1 2/84
. VEGP-OLSER-Q
' Question E291.16 (OLSER 5.1.3.1)
Provide status of the Clean Water Act Section 316(b)
Demonstration for the Vogtle plant intake.
Response
The application for an NPDES Permit has recently been submitted to the state of Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division (EPD) for review. The Nuclear Regulatory Commiss'.on (NRC) was provided a copy of the NPDES Permit Application by D. O. Foster's letter to E. G. Adensam dated November 9, 1983. The EPD has not issued the permit or any conditions for demonstrations at this time. If any demonstrations are required, they will be completed as requested. GPC will provide the NRC with a copy of the NPDES Permit at the time it is issued by the State of Georgia EPD.
O i
1 l'
o lO l -
QE291.16-1 Amend. 1 2/84
. .. ..- -_ _.-.-.._--.~.. . . - . _- - . - . , . - . . - . - . . . -. .
(
F l
{
VEGP-OLSER-Q Question E291.17 (OLSER 6.1)
Provide a copy of Reports A, D, E, F, and J as listed in this !
CLSER section.
'i -
! . Response l-
.. Copies of-these reports were provided by D. O. Foster's letter to H. R. Denton dated February 10, 1984.
i i .
i i
i l
I l
i l' .
G .
i I !
l l
~
[
QE291.17-1 Amend. 1 2/84
l l
t
()
VEGP-OLSER-Q
. : Question E291.18 (OLSER 6.1.1.2)
Clarify whether separate reports are available for studies on i
! ( )' feeding habits of fish, drifting macroinvertebrates, and plankton. If so, provide a copy of each. If not, indicate t
! where results may be found.
! Response
.O' Separate reports are available. Copies of these reports were provided by'D. O. Foster's letter to H. R. Denton dated February 10, 1984.
l l
t LO i
-f, I
QE291.18-1 Amend. 1 2/84
Y l F l i
l' VEGP-OLSER-Q
' Question E291.19 (OLSER 6.1.4.2.1.5) !
Provide a copy of reference 2 cited in this OLSER section. ,
t .
Response
t l A copy-of-this reference was provided by D. O. Foster's letter i to H. R. Dentun dated February 10, 1984. ;
I i-
+
i i
l
[
f h
r .
L L
t
[
QE291.19-1 Ame.nd. 1 2/84 l
.--. . . _ _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . - - ----_____a
. . .- - . . . - - _ _ - -. .. .. - _ . - . - . - ~ . . . .-
VEGP-OLSER-Q 1
Question E311.1 (OLSER 2.'1.1)
Provide the reference point that was used for determining the minimum distance to the exclusion area boundary.
Response
Subsection 2.1.1.3 has been amended to provide the reference point used for determining the minimum distance to the exclusion area. boundary.
4 1
l i,
J 2
O
- O l
a 10- -
o i
QE311.1-1 Amend. 1 2/84
-- ,-rn,.,,,w-, , ~ --,,,,.-,-,,,.,.m..----,,,,,,-...-,_,,,--rn,n., --nen.,
i i .
1 j.
VEGP-OLSER-Q i-l . Question E311.2'(OLSER 2.1.2) .
Provide the population distribution and number in each of the 16
. sectors, and. annular rings for 1980, the base data year used to
~ derive the population projections for the Vogtle site.
Responso
~
y . Subsection 2.1.2 includes the 1980 base data year used to derive
-the population projections for 'the VEGP site. ,
1 t
!0 1
1 ;
l-f z
l l
?
- O .
O .
1
'O; .
- l. QE311.2-1 Amend. 1 2/84
- . s. ~ . .. _ _ . . _ _ . - . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . , _ . _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ , . . . _ _
f i
l VEGP-OLSER-Q
- - Question E311.3 (OLSER 2.1.3) ,.
Pro /ide a cable listing the distance and direction of towns, f villages, etc., within 10 miles of the site.
Response
The distance and direction of towns, villages, etc., within 10 i miles of the VEGP site are:
l Name of Town Distance Direction from VEGP Site Hattieville, 9.0 miles ESE
-South Carolina i
Girard, Georgia 7.5 miles SSE I Shell Bluff, Georgia 7.7 miles W i
~
Millers, Georgia 8.8 miles NW LO l
3 i
l O
IO .
i-10
+
l QE311.3-1 Amend. 1 2/84 m.,__-._ .---..__ _ .,_,____.,_ _ _.. ,____. _ __._- _ ..__ _ __._--.. _ _. _ _ _ - _ . .
(~N VEGP-OLSER-Q Question E320.1 (OLSER 8.1)
Tables 8.1-5 and 8.1-6 of the OLSER indicate that the applicant projects capacity factors ranging from 59 percent to 82 percent
((_/} during.the 7-year period beginning in 1987. The staff's view is that average annual capacity factors on the order of 55 to 60 percent are reasonable for a nuclear generating unit over its operating life. Further, during the period of maturation
, -(generally the first 5 years of operation), capacity factors i
tend to be less than lifetime average capacity factors. Please
.(~}
s-- provide justification for the higher capacity factors used in your OLSER analysis.
Response
The capacity factor for a nuclee.r unit on the Southern electric system is projected to be equivalent to its availability. This is due to the economics of operation and the small percentage of total Southern electric system capacity that they comprise. The availability / capacity factor is calculated as (1-MOR)*(1-EFOR)
(effective forced outage rate and maintenance outage rate). .A September 1982 unit operating analysis study,
-s performed by the Generation Planning Department of Southern Company Services provided EFOR and MOR for use in 1983 planning studies. The results of the study yielded an 18.4 percent EFOR and 21.2 percent MOR for nuclear units. Since a unit cannot have an EFOR when on scheduled outage, the effective availability / capacity factor becomes 64.3 percent.
(1-MOR) * (1-EFOR) = availability / capacity factor Since we assume a yearly alternating maintenance cycle of 10 l
weeks, then.12 weeks and a constant EFOR of 18.4 percent, an alternating capacity factor of 66 percent /63 percent is produced by the same type calculation. The following discussion provides
()
\-/
the basis for the EFOR and MOR projected by the Operating Analysis Study and utilized in the production cost analysis and in table 8.1-5 and table 8.1-6 of the VEGP-OLSER.
EFOR
[~\
\- '
Industry data provided by the National Electric Reliability Council (NERC) in the publication, " Ten Year Review 1971-1980, Report on Equipment Availability," projects a nuclear EFOR of .
174 6 percent. However, experience on nuclear units presently operating on the Southern electric system were slightly above l ~
this average and a value between the NERC and Southern electric system historical average was recommended as appropriate. This
! Jj t
- >_) rate was an EFOR of 18.4 percent.
i
- QE320.'l-1 Amend. 1 2/84
~ - _
VEGP-OLSER-Q MOR For scheduled outage rates Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) data was combined with data from NERC and Southern electric syst.em (SES) historical data to recommend a maintenance cycle. lh NERC data for 1978 - 1979 yielded a rate of 9.8 weeks / year and a 1980 rate of 12.31 weeks / year; SES historical data for the past 5 years was 14.02 weeks / year, falling to a 12.58 weeks / year average over the past 2 years; and NRC data calculated to 10.99, 12.60, and 10.12 weeks / year for the years 1979 - 1981, respectively. Considering the historical data, it was lh recommended that a cycle of 12-10-12-10 weeks / year with an average of 11 weeks / year be used for maintenance or scheduled outages.
Other Considerations The exception to the 63 percent capacity factor or rationalization of the 82 percent capacity factor demonstrated by VEGP Unit 2 in 1988 is that VEGP Unit 2 is scheduled to go commercial in September 1988, and since no maintenance is scheduled for the remainder of 1988, the availability is simply 1-EFOR or 82 percent.
O O
O QE320.1-2 Amend. 1 2/84
t
)
i l
l VEGP-OLSER-Q Question E320.2 (OLSER 12.1) (
Provide copies of the 2 references indicated on page 12.1-3 of I the OLSER. !
f l- Response Copies cf these references were provided by D. O. Foster's letter-to H.-R. Denton dated February 10, 1984.
{
i I
je' r
?
I r
y L 4
?
- + '
j ..
i I.
L@
I 1
4-
?
i .l ': (
f '
l- -
a QE320.2-1 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-Q C'
Question E450.1 (OLSER Appendix 7.A)
It is stated that external events have not been considered.
Discuss the dominant likely external events that would be h'_)T considered in the probabilistic assessment of severe accidents if they were considered. For each of these dominant external events, discuss the safety-related systems, structures, and components most vulnerable to damage from the particular event.
(]_/ Response External events (seismic, tornado, fire, flood, etc.) have been considered in previous probabilistic safety studies. Most of
- the studies have estimated that core melt scenarios initiated by external events are not dominant contributors to total risk.
The Zion Probabilistic Safety Study had seismic events as a dominant contributor to risk. Eut the study states on page 7.2-11 that almost all the calculated frequency of seismic melt results from the uncertainties in the fragility curves. Thus, l the melt frequency results from the interaction of the tails of i the seismicity and fragility distributions.
()
VEGP Units 1 and 2 have been designed to comply with the Standard Review Plan design criteria for wind and tornadoes, floods,. missiles, seismic events, and fires except for the points enumerated in section 1.8 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The plant is designed with substantial margfns of safety for the above external events as described in sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, and appendix 9A in the FSAR. Extra margins of safety are taken for safety-related equipment to ensure safe shutdown if the external event causes any threat to safe operation of the plants.
- j. (V~)
(~)h Q
i
.f~)h w.
QE450.1-1 Amend. 1 2/84
1 i
l VEGP-OLSER-Q Question E450.2 (OLSER Appendix 7A) ,
Discuss the effects of the omission of consideration of the
, - economic and societal impacts of severe accidents on ocean fish l t- catch in the probabilistic accident assersment of appendix 7A. (
1 1
Response I Subsection 7A.4 has been amended to include the impacts of l 4 1 severe accidents on the groundwater at the VEGP site and :
included an evaluation of the principal liquid pathway !
individual and population doses.
1i - ,
J O i e
l 1
I l
r r
l i
l O ,
QE450.2-1 Amend. 1 2/84 l
.-.._.-_.___.u.._..._._....___..._..._._.____.___.__.._...._.__u_______..._.________ _ . . , . . _ . . - . . -
(~' VEGP-OLSER-Q Question E451.1 (Safety Review Plan 2.3.3)
To expedite the meteorological review, provide hour-by-hour meteorological data from the onsite meteorological measurements O. program for the 4-year composite period of record: December 1972 to December 1973 (see E451.3); April'1977 to April 1979:
and April 1980 to March 1981. Use the guidance in Enclosure 3 on tape attributes and format to encode the data on the magnetic tape.
Response
To facilitate the meteorological review, a magnetic tape containing a 4-year composite period of meteorological data from 4 the site tower was provided by D. O. Foster's letter to H. R.
Denton dated February 10, 1984. This tape was written in conformance with Appendix A ef the Standard Review Plan (SRP),
section 2.3.3. The tape is 9-track, 800 BPI, EBCDIC, and formated as requested in the SRP.
O t -
l O
l l
i L (3
%-)
QE451.1-1 Amend. 1 2/84
. ,; . _ _ _ - - . - __ , _ _ . - . _ _ . _ _ _ - . , _ . . . ~ _ _ , _ . , , . . . _ . . . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
h VEGP-OLSER-Q Question E451.2 (OLSER Appendix 7A)
One complete year (8760 hours0.101 days <br />2.433 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00333 months <br />) of consecutive hourly
-meteorological data (i.e., no missing data) is used in evaluating the environmental impact of postulated accidents through a probabilistic risk assessment such as that described
'in appendix 7A of the OLSER. The staff performs an independent evaluation using the computer code CRAC (calculation of reactor accident consequences). Data recovery for each available period of record (see question E451.1) is less than 100 percent, f~)T s- requiring that meteorological data be substituted to perform the
, probabilistic risk assessment. A 1-year data set considered to be most representative of meteorological conditions in the vicinity of the VEGP site should be used in the probabilistic risk assessment. Identify the data set used for the evaluation presented in appendix 7.A of the OLSER and provide substituted data for all missing periods for wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, and precipitation. Provide the basis for the selection of the 1-year period, identify the source of substituted data, and provide a brief description of the basis for selecting substituted data. The data set used for the probabilistic risk-assessment may be encoded as a separate file
, . s on the magnetic tape provided in the response to question E451.1.
l
/
Response
(Note: The table referred to b'elow was provided by D. O.
Foster's letter to H. R. Denton dated February 10, 1984.)
The data set used was data from the VEGP site tower f'or the p
. period from April 4, 1977 to April 4, 1978. A comparison of the data for this period to data from three other 1-year periods and historical climatological data from Augusta, Georgia showed that the selected period was reasonably representative. The high
,_ quality and percent recovery of the data for this period of
/ 'E record was a major reason for selection of this year for the
\~
data base. Of the 35,040 data points for the wind speed / wind l
. direction, vertical temperature difference, and rainfall for the L 1-year period, only about 600 values are substituted values.
When substitution is necessary, other instruments on the tower, usually at a different level, are preferred sources. Data is i ( '
A-)
adjusted,~if appropriate, to account for level difference.
redundant data is unavailable, values are derived by linear When
[
interpolation between good values except for rainfall. The L substituted values for the interpolated data periods are shown l in table E451.2-1. For the few rainfall values requiring substitution, a value of zero is used (no rain was assumed). As this. table shows, the periods of interpolation data were l . (~s^-)
~
generally quite short due to the quality of the data.
QE451.2-1 Amend. 1 2/84 i
VEGP-OLSER-Q
{J^]
Question E451.3 (Regulatory Guide 4.2, Section 2.3 and Safety Review Plan 2.3.2) (FSAR 2.3.2)
- Meteorological data is provided for four separate periods.
[~/
y- According to the text on page 2.3.2-1 of the Final Safety
, . Analysis Report (FSAR), these periods are: December 1972 to December 1973; April 1977 to April 1979; and April 1980 to March 1981. However, in tables 2.3.1-14, 2.3.2-15, 2.3.2-16, and 2.3.2-17, the first period of record is identified as December
(~N 1973 to December 1974. Correctly identify the first period of
, \_) record and provide the basis for the selection of these periods of record. Provide a discussion of the status of the onsite meteorological measurements program during the intervening periods and indicate whether the instrumentation and data recording and reduction precedures in use during these particular periods allow the data sets to be combined. If the data acts can not be combined, provide a discussion of the changes in the data collection and reduction program which preclude combining of the various data sets.
Response
.The first period of record for the meteorological data is December-4, 1972 to December 4, 1973.
Meteorological data was collected continuously from mid-1972 through 1973. The best 1-year period of onsite metsorological data (December 1972 to December 1973) was chosen for inclusion in the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR). In April 1977 the meteorological program was restarted. All instrumentation used previously was installed at the same location as before.
Two years of data (April 1977 to April 1979) with data recovery of greater than 90 percent was collected and used with the first period of data (December 1972 to December 1973) in the FSAR.
, When the FSAR was_ updated in 1982, the most recent year of dat; collected _with data recosery of 90 percent was provided (April f^/')
N-1980 to March 1981).
All data used in calculations were recorded on strip chart recorders. Data reduction from these strip charts was performed
,- by the same company throughout, using the same procedure and
.('/ 4 digitizing equipment. Since the instrumentation and all recording and digitizing equipment were the same through all years of data collection, the data sets may be combined.
/~"N O
(
QE451.3-1 Amend. 1 2/84
'T VEGP-OLSER-Q
- (V Question E451.4 (Regulatory Guide 4.2, section 2.3 and Safety .
Review Plan 2.3.2) (FSAR 2.3.2)
Based on the information presented in tablas 2.3.2-15 and
(-]f 2.3.2-19 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), extremely unstable conditions (Pasquill type "A") occur at an extremely high frequency (almost 19 percent for the 3-year composite period presented in table 2.3.2-15 and almost 17 percent for the
. period April 1980 to March.1981) at the VEGP site, based on
.[.'N measurements of vertical temperature difference between 150 ft A/ and 33 ft.
A; Provide the distribution of atmospheric stability conditions for each period of record included in the composite data set presented in table 2.3.2-15 of the FSAR (see E451.3).
B. Provide a discussion of the year-to-year variability of stability conditions and discuss the-reasonableness of the large fraction of extremely unstable conditions observed at the Vogtle site, considering the atmospheric mechanisms for generating thermal
' f"3 instability, the classification scheme used, the
\_) location cf the meteorological tower and orientation of the temperature sensors, the surface characteristics around the tower, and the location of the site.
Response
(Note: The tables referred to below were provided by D. O.
Foster's letter to H. R. Denton dated February 10, 1984.)
Tables 451.4-1 through 451.4-8 provide joint frequency tables of wind speed and direction-versus-delta temperature for each of 7s 4 years of VEGP site data at two levels (33 ft and 150 ft) on the meteorological tower. These tables correspond to the
')
(
composite joint frequency tables covering the first 3 years provided in tables 2.3.2-15 and 2.3.2-19 in the FSAR.
Response to E451.4B
-n
^)
( Tables 451.4-9 and 451.4-10 show the annual percentage of each stability (A-G) classification for 4 years of VEGP site data.
.The data from the VEGP meteorological tower shows excellent agreement between all 4 years of data. This is particularly true of the extremely unstable conditions that range from 17' percent to 20 percent of the annual total over the 4 years.
()
Comparisons at the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report stage with
?
QE451.4-1 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-Q data from the Savannah River Laboratory also showed a very high frequency of extremely unstable conditions. The joint frequency tables provided are classified per Regulatory Guide 1.23.
The meteorological tower at the VEGP site is located in a O cleared area approximately 5000 ft SSW of the main plant structures. Thus, tower measurements are not influenced by plant structures. All temperature sensors are aspirated and are oriented down and towards the north per good engineering practice (World Meteorological Organization, Publication No. 8, Technical Paper No. 3, chapter 4, section 4.2). The area near the tower is covered mostly by low weeds with some short scrub oak and pine trees and is characteristic or the plant environs.
O O
O O
QE451.4-2 Amend. 1 2/84
NY VEGP-OLSER-Q
' N.]
Question E451.5 (Regulatory' Guide 4.2, section 2.3 and Safety Review Plan 2.3.2) (FSAR 2.3.2) 2 (/I Provide a comparison of monthly and annual precipitation amounts measured at the site with concurrent data from Augusta, Georgia and contrast these observations with the climatological normals for Augusta, Georgia presented in table 2.3.2-1 of the Final !
Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Also, provide a discussion of the difficulties in measurement of precipitation at the VEGP site "during the 1980-81 site year" (see page 2.3.2-4 of the
' -('.. '
FSAR). (The response to this question may affect the selection of the data set for the probabilistic risk assessment discussed
'in E451.2.')
Response (
A comparison of monthly and annual precipitation data in the VEGP-site. area was.done using the VEGP site and Augusta airport data as shown in table 451.5-1. On a month-by-month comparison some months compare quite well for the first 3 years of data.
The annual totals were.always lower at the.VEGP site. This is
~
(~%- probably due to several factors. First, the site's
, (_)
precipitation gage has a relatively small surface area for collection of precipitation. Also, there is no wind screen around the gage to minimize the effects of the wind. During the summer months, most of the precipitation comes from ;
- thunderstorms in the. site area, . characterized by short periods
.of high' wind speeds and heavy precipitation. This type of situation may result in less than representative rainfall collection in;the gage. All precipitation data from the l- weighing-type' rain gage were digitized from strip charts.
Precipitation charts are scaled from 0 to 10 in., with the
- smallest increment on the chart being 0.1 in. It is possible to
- digitize to 1/2 of an increment or 0.05 in. Therefore, some of
, . - - the-minor precipitation events (less than 0.05 in.) would not be included in the precipitation totals. This would also affect L
l '
_() .the number ~of days.in which precipitation occurred.
1 Variance between the 4 years of data is considerable. The first 2 years at Augusta are close to annual. normals. The last 2
-years are much below normal. Precipitation at the VEGP site is
- progressively less each year in agreement with the Augusta 4( ).
^'
airport data. The differences in the amount of precipitation at
- the two sites can be attributed to the reasons stated above as -'
well gas short periods when the site instrument was not-
. functional and precipitation' occurred. Data for 1980 to 1981 are clearly.not useable. Table 451.5-1 also shows the number of j
) days'with significant precipitation. LIn all cases the climatic normals are higher than the annual' totals for the year at AugustaLand Vogtle. _
QE451.5-1 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-Q ll
Response
In summary, it would appear that the use of the VEGP site meteorological data for the probabilistic risk assessment discussed in E451.2 would result in an underestimate of the llh frequency of meteorological scenarios involving rain. If one assumes that Augusta measurements are representative and that the relation between number of hours with rainfall at Augusta and Vogtle is the same as the relation between the number of days of rainfall at the two sites, the underestimate of rainfall frequency could be as large as a factor of 2 to 3 (excluding ll 1980 to 1981). However, this does not translate directly to a similar bias in the risk distributions. Most of the risk measures are not strongly sensitive to wet deposition modeling or data. The early fatality distribution is sensitive to wet deposition modeling and data, but the censitivity is usually noticeable only in the high consequence-low frequency end of the distribution. Correction of the bias in the data might be expected to increase the frequency of early fatalities in the high consequence end of the distribution by a factor of 2 to 3 at most. Correction of the bias would not be expected to increase the maximum number of early fatalities calculated because the rain scenarios simulated using Vogtle data probably reasonably represent the spectrum of rain scenarios that could W
be simulated with inclusion of corrected data.
O O
O QE451.5-2 Amend. 1 2/84
,-hl )- '(
7 .
m h. .
- ~
~
1 ' TABLE.451.5-1'(SHEET 1 OF.20 t ,VEGP SITE AREA PRECIPITATION DATA J'
12/72-11/73: 12/72-11/73 . Augusta'
! . Augusta VECP: Climatological t Prec i p i ta t ion , Prec ip i ta t ion - Normal go)
Total Days,g. Total Days g,3 J
_in. in. Irkidl Total Days 12/72 5.27 7 4.82 6. 3.42 9 i 1/73 5.18 10 3.77 08 12 3.44 10 2/73 5.22 ' 7 . 5.71 4*3 7 3.75 9 l'
3/73 6.22 14' 5.184 *l' 10 ge 4.67 11
, 4/73 3.71 'S' NAl'8 NA 3.37 8 4
5/73 2.55 7 1.11 2 3.39 9 '
i 6/73 7.28 13- 6 3.66 9 j 7/73' 2.47 7 53'8 N# l NA 5.09 11 8/73 2.63 11~ 2.82 5 4.21 10 t 9/73 2.97 5 .1.37 6 3.26' 8 ;
l '10/73 2.02 ,3. 0.66 93 4 2.17 6 11/73' O.57 __J . 0 19 ;_1 2 21 __ I Total 46.09 ' 92 31.71 59 42.63 107' M O
4/77-3/78 4/77-3/78 Augusta T ,
i Augusta VEGP Climatological' Precipitation Precipi ta t ion Normal [)
.p' in. Total Days *3 I In. Total Days'l I InJ83 Total Days bH u)
I M
4/77 1.20 .3 2 3.37 8 Du
! 5/77. 2.53 7 0.63(*I 0.54 "I 4 3.39 9 8 i 6/77 1.80 6 2.40 5 3.66 9 K) l 7/77 3.07 5 0.77 1 5.09. 11 1 8/77 '7.84 11 4.10 6 4.21 10 l 9/77 3.25 7 1.90 3 3.26 8
! 10/77 3.48 6 1,64 3' 2.17 6
- 11/77 3.71 6 0.70 1 2.21 7
! 12/77 3.01 7 2.12 4 3.42 9 :
1/78 7.76 9 4.16 5 3 . 4 84 10 t 2/78 1.50 7 0.36 2 3.75 9 t 3/78 3.54 __A 7.69 __6 4.67 _11 Total 42.69 82 27.01 42 42.63 107 ,
m
- a. Days with precipitation of J.05 in, or more; 0.1 in. o r mo re fo r Augusta no rma i s . '
.fL b. Some bad data during the month arrecting precipitation total,
- c. Precipitation data not available.
E' d. 30-year averago. based on the period or record for 1941-1970.
>> i ss
- e
- 00
. &> t 1
- i. __ _ ' *
.__,_s ._ __ . . _ , _ ._ _ , _ . _ . , _ . . _ __. _ . . - , , .-
i
'l l
. TABLE 451.5-1-(SIIEET 2'OF 2)
(
) 4/78-3/79- 4/78-3/79 Augusta 7
Augusta VEGP . . Climatological'
- Precipitation . . Precipi ta tion ' lal No rma l . g,,.
3- In. : Total Daysg , in. Total Days h Total Days 4/78 3.58 7. 1.77 3- 3.37 8 5/78- 2.16 8 3.43 -6 3.39 9 6/78 1.59 4 .0.97 g , 4 3.66 9 I
7/78 ,1.70 !6 2.86 8 3 5.09 14 l 8/78. is . 91 9 0.17 *3 1 4.21 10 -
. 9/78 1 . 3 84 '2 0 G 3.26 8
{ 10/78 1.12 1 0 0 2.17 6 i . 11/78 2.50 4 1.68 2 2.21 7 1 12/78- 1.26 5 1.208"I 2 3. t:2 9 i 1/79 3.80 4 9 1.30 5 3.44 10 2/79 6.72 3.75 i 7.34 10 8 9 d
3/79 2.48 _6 0,91 J 4.67 ._.11
. Total 33.38 71 21.01 39 42.63 107 4/80-3/81 Augusta 4/80-3/81 VEGP Augusta
. Climatological h
l O. ;
l Prec ipi ta tion Prec i p i ta t ion Normal N
- _I_r L Total Daysg .,. in._ Total Days g,y h Total Days ,
g f
}
4/80 5/80 1.28 1.84 5
8 1.45 2.11 8 3.37 3.39 8
9
$ I 1 tu
- 1 6/80 4.31 5 NA('I NAI 'I 3.66 9' .,0 j 7/80 2.12 is 0 0 5.09 11 1 j 8/80 0.65 . 4 0 0 4.21 10 30 i 2 9/80 5.06 6 3.30 5 3.26 e i
10/80 1.62 6 O(b) 0 2.17 6 11/80 2.24 7 0.46 2 2.21 7 l 12/80 0.96 8 0 0 3.42 9 ,
! 1/81 0.75 14 0 0 3 . r4 14 10 !
d 2/81 5.26 8 0 0 3.75 9 I
) 3/81 2.62 _4 1.28 __2 8.67 4 __11 f 28.71 71 8.60 21 42.63 107 l I
l !
t 1
i 2
1 3 i
- GL i
- a. Days with precipitation of 0.05 in or more; O.1 i n, o r mo re fo r Augus ta no rma l s . ;
H
- b. Some bad data during the month arrecting precipitation total.
- c. Precipitation data not available.
4 to
- d. 30-year average based on the period of record for 19f 41-1970. -
1 N I 1
co .
b j h e
- r f
VEGP-OLSER-Q
' - Question E451.6 (Regulatory Guide 4.2, section 2.3) (FSAR 2.3.2) .
f... .
, The topographic features within 5 miles of the plant, as "
presented-in figure 2.3.2-55 of the Final' Safety Analysis Report
. .4 . (FSAR), are difficult to discern. Either provide a-larger, more
-legible copy of figure 2.3.2-55, which includes elevation contours, or provide a plot of maximum elevation versus distance
. out to 5 miles from the-center of the station in each of 22 1/2 compass sectors, similar~to the topographic profiles presented
- in figure 2.3.2-57 of the FSAR, only with an expanded vertical 1 , scale.
^ Response
~
A copy o'f this map was provided by D. O. Foster's letter to H. R. Denton dated February-10, 1984.
t 1
1 t .
r s
l l
i l.
Ih I
l-1 i
l QE451.6-1 Amend. 1 2/84 l
,r'} VEGP-OLSER-Q D
Question E451.7 (Regulatory Guide 4.2, section 2.3) (FSAR 2.3.2)
' Provide a large-scale figure of the plant site and immediate vicinity which identifies the location of the current and c"} -
- S/ proposed (see question E451.13) meteorological towers (and all towers used to collect meteorological data at the VEGP site),
the containment buildings and other prominent plant buildings and structures (including the natural draft cooling towers and tae nuclear service cooling water towers), the exclusion area
(~3 and site boundaries, and significant terrain and vegetation
(_/ features which could affect meteorological measurements or atmospheric transport and diffusion conditions. This figure should identify true north, contain an appropriate scale, and be of sufficient size to permit' independent measurements of distance.
Response
A copy of thin map and a site vegetation map was provided by D. O. Foster's letter to H. R. Denton dated February 10, 1984.
The site area is composed of gentle rolling hills and flat areas common to most river valleys. The only significant feature of
()
es the terrain is the river valley itself,.which is not expected to have any significant effect on the meteorological measurements.
The vegctation around the meteorological tower has been cleared
- l. to a radius of 300 ft. Other vegetation is generally low trees, shrubs, and grasses. Therefore, the vegetation will have an insignificant effect upon the meteorological measurements.
V n
i
(')
U l
QE451.7-1 Amend. 1 2/84 i
/~h VEGP-OLSER-Q V
Question E451.8 (Regulatory Guide 4.2, section 2.3) (FSAR 2.3.2)
Regulatory Guide 4.2, revision 2, states that meteorological
(~'
\
information should be provided "at heights and intervals relevant to atmospheric transport of effluents" (pages 2 through 4). Releases from the natural draft cooling towers will occur at heights about 500 ft above ground with plume rise expected to range from 500 ft to 100 ft above the 500 ft towers"
~
(page 2.3.2-6 of the Final Safety Analysis Report). Provide the justification for use of data from the 150 ft meteorological
--} tower for cooling tower impact assessments.
Resoonse-The VEGP-OLSER does not provide any analysis of the natural draft cooling tower impacts but rather refers to the Construction Permit Stage Environmental Report, section 5.1.5.
As noted in that section:
"Five years of 1500-ft to 2000-ft upper air data
-from the U.S. Weather Bureau Station of Athens, Georgia, were used to calculate plume length."
O f
(
- n%s QE451.8-1 Amend. 1 2/84
q VEGP-OLSER-Q
' Question E451.9 (Regulatory Guide 4.2, section 6.1.3, and Safety Review Plan 2.3.3) (FSAR 2.3.2)
., / Table 2.3.2-2 of the FSAR presents the parameters measured on the Vogtle meteorological tower, the heights of measurement, and the instrument and/or sensor characteristics. Provide estimates of the overall system accuracy for each parameter, considering errors introduced by the sensor, cable, signal conditioner, and data reduction process, and compare these system accuracies with j} those presented in Regulatory Guide 1.23.
Response
Data and information gathering related to the above question is ongoing and will be provided to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by April 1, 1984.
ha-i O
L l
O J
I l
Im 0)
QE451.9-1 Amend. 1 2/84
r VEGP-OLSER-Q Question E451.10 (Safety Review Plan 2.3.3) (FSAR 2.3.2) .
The't'chnique e for measuring vertical temperature gradient at the
'[') VEGP site is not clear from the information presented in table
\/. 2.3.2-2 of'the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Vertical temperature gradient is most often measured directly (e.g.,
- through a resistance bridge circuit) to obtain the measurement system accuracy for this parameter specified in Regulatory . Guide 1.23.
s - Generally,--the subtraction of two temperature measurements is considerably less accurate than a direct measure of temperature difference. At other sites reviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an accuracy of vertical temperature gradient
- . - determinedLby the subtraction of two temperatures has often exceeded the specification in Regulatory Guide 1.23.
A. Provide an expanded discussion of the measurement of vertical temperature gradient and clarify the measurement technique.
B. If vertical temperature gradient is determined by i subtraction of two temperatures, (1) indicate whether the' sensors are matched at installation and replacement; (2) indicate the " drift" between sensors found at instrument calibration; (3) identify the average period considered for the determination of temperature difference; and (4) clarify the computational procedures for the determination of temperature difference (i.e., is temperature difference computed for each interrogation of the sensors or from an ensemble average of temperature measurements).
i
Response
t
'I ) .
Data and information gathering related to the above question is ongoing and will be provided to the NRC by April 1, 1984.
' 'l _
QE451.10-1 Amend. 1 2/84 h
-..s- -. , . - . . . m.-,,,--. , , _ .__ - ...,, , .~,....,m , , . , , _ . . _ . . , , . , . . - . . . . . , . , , , - _ . , . . , , , , . . , - - _ , , _ , , , , . , ~ . _
(~} VEGP-OLSER-Q v
Question E451.11 (Safety Review Plan 2.3.3) (FSAR 2.3.3) .
Provide additional information clarifying the data recording and
(~T reduction processes discussed on page 2.3.3-1 of the Final
(/ Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), particularly the digital data recording and reduction processes, which specifies averaging and sampling (where appropriate) times and which specifies the data quality checks used to validato the measurements. Also, clarify the respective roles of the analog (strip charts) and digital
/~ data recording systems.
k }J
Response
At the present time, analog strip chart data is used for all meteorological summaries and dose calculations. For each hour, an eyeball average of a representative 15-min period (usually 7 1/2 min before to 7 1/2 min after the hour) is used for an hour. The data is digitized on a digitizing machine that is checked for correct calibration each hour. Each data point digitized has a specific code designating type of instrument, level, scale range, and number of in. of chart per scale range.
All bad data periods or comments written on the stip chart are f-w written in a site log and kept indefinitely. After the data is
(
digitized, 3 hr/ day are plotted and overlayed on the strip chart
.to verify accuracy. Each data point has an associated status code indicating the quality of the data (good, questionable, or bad). When all digitizing errors are corrected, the data is -
color-plotted and checked by a meteorologist for reasonableness and possible errors.
The strip charts and all pertinent plots are boxed and stored indefinitely.
O
- o b
QE451.11-1 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-Q yd Question E451.12 (Safety Review Plan 2.3.3) (FSAR 2.3.3' A. Provide a detailed description of the calibration procedures (sensors, electronics, and complete system)
- /']
(,/ - used at the VEGP, and identify the dates of calibration since December 1972.
B. Identify periods of extended outage since December 1972 and identify the causes of the outages and the E/~] corrective actions taken.
- ()
Response-A. Detailed description of the calibration of the meteorological tower' instrumentation is provided.in the following procedures:
e VOG-8001 Meteorological Station e VOG-8005 Climet Data Translator Calibration e VOG-8010 Climet Data Coupler Calibration 3
- '~^/ o VOG-8015 Climet Model 012-1 Wind Direction Transmitter e VOG-8020 Climet-Model 011-1 Windspeed Transmitter e VOG-8025 Rain Gage Transmitter Copies of these procedures may be obtained upon request. Calibration dates for the instrumentation are as follows:
(Note: September 1972 through March 1977 - not
' !T available.)
l \-)
-April 18, 1977 August 11, 1981 October 5,. 1977 April 28, 1982 June 9, 1978 November 12, 1982 December 27, 1978 May 12, 1983 June 30, 1980 November 3, 1983
.P)-
g x- January 12, 1981 B. At the time when the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and OLSER were completed, 4 years of data were used from-the meteorological tower. Extended outage
(~} times of 5 days or more were reported. (See table
" k/ E451.12 attached.)
I l QE451.12-1 Amend. 1 2/84 l
~
' TABLE E451.12--l (SHEET 1 OF 2)
EXTENDED OUTAGE PERIODS SINCE DECEMBER 1972 CAUSES OF THE OUTAGE AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN.
fi rst Yea r - December 26 1972 1.hrouch Decembe r 3. 1973 i
fa tamgle r Outaae Perlod Cause Corrective Action 1 Wind speed 33 reet 6/18s/73 - 7/12/73 Lightning Replaced damaged equipment Wind speed 33 feet 5/2t/73 6 - 5/30/73 . Replacement or instrument NA booms Wind speed 150 feet 6/14/73 - 7/12/73 Lightning Replaced damaged equipment Wind direction 33 feet 6/14/73 - 7/12/73 Lightning Replaced damaged equipme,nt Wind direction 150 feet 5/214/73 - 5/30/73 Replacement or instrument NA l boom Wind direction 150 feet 6/14/73 - 7/12/73 Lightning Replaced damaged equipment h
Delta-i ( 150 feet - 3 3 ret 2 L ) 6/14/73 - 7/12/73 Lightning O Replaced damaged equipment m i
Temperature ambient 12/22/72 - 12/27/72 Records incomplete -
O i Temperature ambient 6/184/73 - 7/12/73 Lightning Replaced 6amaged equipment $
[; Iemperature deviation point 12/22/72 - 12/26/72 Records incomplete -
f O
Temperature deviation point 6/18/73 - 7/12/73 4 Lightning Replaced damaged equipment
^
Precipitation 3/31/73 - 5/1/73 Bad potentiometer on rain gape Replaced gauge
} P rec i p i ta t i on 6/14/73 - 7/12/73 Lightning Replaced damaged equipment 4
Second Yea r - Apri l 4. 1977 throuah April 3. 1978 j Ea ramele c Outaae Period Cause Corrective Action De l ta-T ( 150 feet - 33 feet) 5/Its/77 - 5/22/77 Strip cha rt reco rde r ra i l ure Replaced the foi:owing:
- > amplifier, cha rt-d ri ve B motor, powe r supply,
{ g modulator i G 1 e i
i n 1
s xm 1
! l .
i O O O r o o L TABLE E451.12 (SHEET 2 'OF 2)
L Th i rd Yea r - Ap r i l 4. 1978 through April 3. 1979
~
j Parameter Outaae Period __ Cause- Correct Ive Act ion
! Wind speed 33 feet 7/1/78 - 7/7/78' Lightning . Replaced damaged parts 3
, Wind speed 150 feet 7/1/78 - 7/7/78 Lightning Replaced damaged pa rts 7/1/78 - 7/7/78
~
Wind direction 33 feet Lightning Replaced damaged parts
. Wind direction.150 feet 7/1/78 - 7/7/78 Lightning Replaced ;11maged parts l Delta-T (ISO reet - 33 feet)- 7/1/78 - 7/7/78 Lightning . Replaced damaged parts j iemperature ambient 7/1/78 - 7/7/78 Lightning Replaced damaged parts .
Temparature deviation point 7/1/78 - 7/7/78 Lightning Replaced damaged parts j Precipitation 7/1/78 - 7/7/78 Lightning Replaced damaged pa rts
! Precipitation 7/21/78 - 9/8/78 Lightning >
Replaced damaged parts I ]
1 N
1 Fourth Yea r - Ap ri l 4. 1980 through April 3. 1981 1
i o t*
. Parameter Outaae Period Cause Corrective Action CD trj
] Del ta- T ( 150 feet - 33 feet) 10/13/80 - 10/20/80 raulty aspirator meter Replaced motor y C
4 I
i t i,
D t %
I
$ H ,
! N N a. Information for the. fourth year was taken f rom check sheets only.
I CO j "
i i
1 6
a
1 l
VEGP-OLSER-Q Question E451.13 (Regulatory Guide 4.2, section 6.2 and Safety Review Plan 2.3.3) (FSAR 2.3.3) a According to the discussion on page 2.3.3-2 of the Final Safety
~ Analysis Report (FSAR), the onsite meteorological measurements program is to be upgraded and will include installation of a new meteorological tower. Provide a complete description of the meteorological measurements program to be available during plant operation, including instrument specifications and a
("N determination of system accuracy for each parameter compared to
(-)~ Regulatory Guide 1.23. Identify the date of installation of the new tower, and indicate when 1 full year of data from this tower
.will be available.
Response
A new 60 meter meteorological tower was installed at the VEGP site January 1984.. The tower is instrumented at the tower base, 10-m, and 60-m: levels. Instrumentation at the 30-m and 45-m levels will be used for correlation between the new and the old towers. One full year of data from this tower will be available February 1985. The meteorological measurements program will be i'
n)
(,, as described in section 2.3.3 of the FSAR. Instrumentation at each_ level will meet the minimum requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.23, revision 1 (proposed).
%]
u
- n l
O QE451.13-1 Amend. 1 2/84 L
-()
v VEGP-OLSER-Q
' Question E451.14 (Regulatory Guide 4.2, section 6.1.3, and Safety Review Plan 2.3.5) (FSAR 2.3.5)
The discussion of the calculation of long-term diffusion
(~)/-
\- ' estimates presented in section 2.3.5 of tho Final Safety Analysis Report requires additional clarification. For example, the statement is made in section 2.3.5.2.1 on page 2.3.5-1 that "the release is at ground level." However, the discussion in section 2.3.5.2.3 on page 2.3.5-3 ~ states that "the plant vent
(~) release point is elevated." The atmospheric dispersion model k./ presented is for an elevated release.
A. For each release point identified in table 2.3.5-3, compare the release characteristics with the criteria in Regulatory Guide 1.111 for the determination of release mode (e.g., ground level or a mixture of partially elevated and partially ground level). Also, clarify the heights of release presented in this table to heights above ground, provide the heights of adjacent or nearby structures which could entrain
. effluents released from these locations, and provide i the direction of these structures relative to the l release locations.
(-)s
(_
B. The natural draft cooling towers appear to be less than 2000 feet from the Unit 1 containment structure, and these structures could significantly influence low-level airflow in the vicinity of the main plant release points for a number of wind directions.
Furthermore, plant releases, when the wind is blowing toward the cooling towers, could be entrained into the wake of these structures. For these situations, releases which may have been considered as partially elevated could behave more like ground level releases.
Provide additional information on the influence of the natural draft cooling towers on routine-releases of
(~
v
)~ radioactive material to the atmosphere.
C. Operation of the nuclear service cocling water towers could also affect releases of radioactive material to the atmosphere. Provide additional information on the frequency of operation of these towers, and provide L [)_ additional information on the influence of these towers on routine releases of radioactive material to the atmosphere.
D. Provide the numerical value(s) used for the parameter "H" discussed on oaaes 2.3.5-4 and 2.3.5-5 and defined as the " height of'the tallest structure in the nuclear
. (') power plant block."
QE451.14-1 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-Q
Response
All release points other than those designated as " plant vent" listed in table 2.3.5-2 are assumed to discharge into the building wake, wh.ch would effectively result in a ground level llh release with initial dilution in the wake cavity. The plant vents are located at the top-center of each reactor building dome and dischar9e at 419 ft msl as shown in table 2.3.5-3 of the FSAR. The vents discharge 19 ft above the top of their respective containments. The containment's highest points are 400 ft msl and they represent the highest structures onsite with llh the exception of the two cooling towers discussed below. Plant grade level is 220 ft msl.
A. Atmospheric dispersion calculations were made for two release conditions. For ground level releases, an initial dilution in the reactor building wake with a height H=180 ft was assumed, and for vent calculations a " wake split" (partially ground and partially elevated) model was used as described in FSAR section 2.-3T5.2.3. The use of a " wake split" model is justified sinc 1 the vent is higher than all adjacent structures. L'ooling towers are located at a distance sufficient to preclude significant interference with the vent plumes as discussed below.
B. Natural draft cooling towers are located generally east of the plant. Therefore, in an east wind, the center of the south cooling tower lies 518 m upwind of the center of the Unit 1 containment. The air flow disturbance created by the tower is a cavity attached to the lee surface of the tower, enclosed in an enveloping wake. The tower has the following dimensions: base diameter, 136.5 m; throat diameter, 76.2 m; top diameter, 84.1 m; and height, 164 m above plant grade which is 219.5 ft ms1. For this analysis, the tower will be considered as a vertical cylinder with d = 97.5 H = 164.0 m where d = diameter.
H = height.
and yielding lh d/Hc = 0.59 ,
QE451.14-2 Amend. 1 2/84
/~T VEGP-OLSER-Q Q
-The length of a cavity created by a vertical cylinder on.a ground plane is reported by Hosker in NOAA Oak Ridge ATDL Control No. 79/10 as 2.7d when d/Hc = 1.0 and 3.1d when d/Hc = 0.67
/_3 k/ Using the latter figure, the length of the cooling tower cavity is 3.1 x 97.5 = 302 m which corresponds to a normalized distance x/H c = 1.8 Flow conditions at the end of the cavity exhibit low wind speed and high directional variability. However, these conditions ameliorate with distance downwind. At
~
Unit 1, whose normalized distance from the tower is x/H c = 518/164 = 3.2,
! the mean velocity deficit is about 17 percent, according to Hosker figure 7.2Cb. No data is available on the turbulence intensity excess nor the streamline inclination in the vicinity of the Unit 1 release, but these should be small in comparison with flow irregularities created by the plant itself. The net effect of the concentration increase due to reduced mean velocity and concentration decrease due to increased turbulence should be small.
(g#
! ) In a west wind, some portion of the Unit 1 plume will
! impinge on the south cooling tower and mix in the
' cooling ' tower cavity and wake. The tower occupies about one-half of a 22 1/2 wind direction sector at this location. The horizontal concentration distribution is uniform by virtue of sector averaging.
Assuming that vertical mixing creates a uniform
.(7-s)
'- vertical concentration distribution in the cavity over the height of the tower, the average cavity -
a concentration day be approximated by integrating the vertical distribution in the sector average equation
~. and dividing by the cooling tower height to obtain s
X/Q = 8 f (rXHc u) ". (1)
QE451.14-3 Amend. 1 2/84 i
VEGP-OLSER-Q lh With X = 518 m and H c = 164 m, equation 1 reduces to X/Q = 3. 0 x 10 -5 f/u (la) where O f = the fraction of the vertical distribution, v = the wind speed at release height.
The definition of f is: O P
f=/ (2x) "/2exp (-0.5p 2)dp, (2)
-~
where p = (H c - H p)/o r (3) and H c = cooling tower height.
Hp = plume centerline height.
When He, H p and a, are given, p is found by equation 3 and f is found by figure A-3 in Turner's Workbook.
The following table shows the calculation of f for several stabilities, assuming Hp = 80 m, Hc = 164 m, and X = 518 m.
ca>
Stability z p f A 120 m 0.7 0.75 D 20 m 4.2 1.00 G 5m 16.8 1.00 0
The above analysis is applicable in the cavity where mixed concentrations are fairly uniform. Downwind of the cavity, the Gaussian distribution will reform in the vertical as wake turbulence decays and atmospheric turbulence is reestablished.
Calculations were made for four combinations of weather conditions assuming first that there were no towers and then that towers were in place. Results are summarized in table 451.14-1.
- a. From figure 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.111. -
QE451.14-4 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-Q Values were within a factor of two with one exception. .
For the completely elevated case 1, the plume has not reached ground level, thus the concentration without jy
'the tover is 0. However, inspection of the joint
,\s frequency' tables showed the frequency of low wind speed (less than 4 mph at 150 ft) stable cases was less than
~0.3 percent toward either of the towers. Thus, the towers shoula not result in significant changes in
! _. routine ground level concentrations.
C. The nuclear service cooling water towers discharge vertically within 100 ft of the plant vents.
f
Therefore, plumes passing nearby or over the tower may be partially entrained in the cooling tower discharge
.- and lifted to a higher elevation. This would result in dispersion greater than estimated in the calculations for either ground or vent releases. The service water cooling tower height is about 44 ft above' grade and will not cause wake effects on elevated vent plumes.
D. The value of H is given in table 2.3.5-4 at 55 m (180 ft).
0; i
i.
co L
t
- .N t ..
[ .
i l Q2451.14-5 Amend. 1 2/84
.~. . _ . . - _ _ - ~ _ . ~ . _ . _ . - _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ , . _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . -
~ . . . - . , - - - - - - - . - . . - -
4 i .
t ~ TABLE 451.14-1
- i i
1 1/4 i
. at'800 m !
- Fraction X/Q at using. !
i 'u_ at- at 800 m RG 1.111' ,
10 m at Vent- Ground Plume with -Without. ;
Wind Speed . Height Level, Height lower loweg Case J aph)_ . Stability -fm/sec) 1 ET fel (sec/m3) frec/m 1 1 2 G 2.1 1.0 0.00 77 1.5E-5 0 '
2 4 G 8.2 6 1. 0 - 0. 184 74 7.2E-6 1.5E-5 3 7 D 5.5 1.0 0.17 73 5.5E-6 4.0E-6 4 6 A 4.1 0.75 0.13 78 3.5E-6 1.6E-6 i
! I I
M O
- M i
O -
e
- O'2 M
ld I
O ,
I t
i
)
E e ,
D l 4
i t
H j N N '
os b
-('}
%/
VEGP-OLSER-Q Question E451.15 (Regulatory Guide 4.2, section 6.1.3, and Safety Review Plan 2.3.5) (FSAR 2.3.5)
/~) .The discussion of the rationale for not adjusting the
,'LJ straight-line atmospheric dispersion model to consider spatial and temporal variations in airflow out to a distance of 50 miles from the plant (page 2.3.5-1 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)) requires further elaboration, particularly when other sources of information such as the National Weather Service
/'T . office at Augusta, Georgia and the Savannah River Laboratory are
> 'J available. Provide an assessment of airflow trajectories in the region of the VEGP considering additional concurrent (real-time), meteorological information available in the region to determine the appropriateness of the assumption of
- straight-line transport.
Resoonse Atmospheric dispersion calculations are made for routine releases to assure that peak offsite doses and concentrations of radioactive materials do not exceed Federal Regulations (10CFR r~ Part 20), established design guidelines (10CFR Part 50, Appendix
~(_]j I) and radiological technical specifications. Annual average dispersica calculations made for VEGP show that peak doses and concentrations will occur within the site boundary. This is consistent with releases that are partially at ground level.
Thus, even though a " wake split" model is used most releases have a ground level component due to the prevalent higher winds causing'some of the plume to be frequently trapped in the building wake. Thus, peak offsite doses are expected to occur at the site boundary. For recirculation to have an affect on the peak dose at this location, it would have to occur locally prior to significant dilution. Calculations for VEGP (FSAR table 2.3.5-8) show that on the average a factor of 10 dispersion occurs within the first 10 mi from the site
-[D boundary. Thus, generally speaking, to have a 10 percent effect on the peak concentrations, plumes would have to travel 5 miles downwind, turn around and pass directly over the plant. This is uncommon for the reasons discussed below.
,s A 1-year period of VEGP site hourly meteorological data was evaluated using a hodograph plotting computer routine. A 4 ')
separate hodograph was produced for each 24-hour period starting at 0100'each day. The resulting graphs were inspected visually for trends that could be indicative of recirculation. Few days were observed to exhibit the characreristic oval shape hodographs observed for river valleys or other locations where
()- recirculation is a concern.
QE451.15-1 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-Q g A'out J 25 days were selected for further evaluation based on hodograph characteristics. A centerline trajectory analysis was made for each hour in each day to determine if plumes could be expected to pass over the site within the first 24 h after release. Such recirculations were found to occur on less than g
10 days and for less than 25 simulated releases (one each hour) out of a possible 8760 h in the year of data.
Therefore, it was concluded that recirculation would have very little effect on peak offsite doses due to routine releases.
{
O O
O QE451.15-2 Amend. 1 2/84
4 VEGP-OLSER-Q
.f' O~}
Question E451.16 (Regulatory Guide 4.2, section 6.1.3, and Safety Review Plan 2.3.5) (FSAR 2.3.5)
N The high frequency of occurrence of extremely unstable
'(~)$_ -conditions (ses question E451.4) could increase the likelihood of fumigation if a large fraction of these conditions are immediately preceded by. moderately or extremely stable conditions. Fumigation could then occur a sufficient amount of
_~
time to be considered in estimating the annual average relative
/ . concentration (X/Q) and relative deposition (D/Q) values for
( releases assumed to be elevated. Provide an assessment of the occurrences of fumigation conditions at the Vogtle site and provide an estimate of the increase to annual average X/Q and D/Q values, if appropriate.
Response
Fumigation at VEGP during inversion breakup would not contribute significantly to annual average dispersion estimates. The time period in which fumigation would occur is short (on the order of less than 15 min). During the transition from a stable night '
7- condition to unstable daytime conditions, the following sequence
(g) . generally occurs. As the sun rises the stable ground is heated causing an unstable layer to be formed near the surface. As the l ground continues to be heated, the unstable layer grows steadily upward. While an elevated plume is above the unstable layer, it willinot penetrate downward. When the plume and the unstable layer meet, portions of the plume will fumigate down into the unstable layer causing a brief period of increased ground concentration. As the inversion level continues to rise the plume will be~ located within the unstable layer where it will be mixed normally. Since the time fumigation in occurring is quite short, the increase to annual average X/Q and D/Q will be insignificant.
i)
's QE451.16-1 Amend. 1 2/84
. . _ . _ . _ . - - _ - . _ . _ . ._ _ - - _ . - . _ , - , _ _ = _ - . ,
' ['%p VEGP-OLSER-Q
/
Question E451.17 (Regulatory Guide 4.2, section 5.1.4)
(OLSER 5.1.4)
(~y The discussion of the atmospheric effects resulting from
-\ / operation of the natural draft cooling towers (section 5.1.4 of the OLSER) appears to be unchanged since submittal of the OLSER at the Construction Permit Stage. However, since that time, additional meteorological information has been collected at the site, and additional information on cooling tower modeling has
(~}
\~/
been developed (see NUREG/CR-1581, " Evaluation of Mathematical Models for Characterizing Plume Behavior from Cooling Towers,"
September 1980, and EPRI CS-1683, " Studies on Mathematical
-Models for Characterizing Plume and Draft Behavior from Cooling Towers," January 1981). Considering the additional onsite
. . meteorological information and the additional information on cooling tower modeling presented in the above references, reassess the estimates of visible plume location, extent, and
' frequency and salt deposition due to cooling tower drift. Also, confirm the rationale for the assumption of a uniform deposition of 305 lb/ acre / year for cooling tower drift within 1 mile of the plant, considering variations with meteorological conditions.
I Response Additional meteorological data collected at the VEGP site since
, submittal of the Construction Permit Stage Environmental Report
.(CPSER) is comparable to the data-which was used to predict plume behavior.
A review of : plume behavior at other power plants indicates that the meteorology, cooling tower operating characteristics, and plume behavior at VEGP'is comparable to those at the other
-plants. Several of these plants used the recent state-of-the-art. plume behavior and drift deposition models recommended by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Since i /_ . the predicted plume behavior at VEGP is in reasonable agreement
~ k-} - with that of.other plants, the plume predictions cited in the CPSER are-considered reasonable and more sophisticated modeling t
programs for characterizing plume behavior are unnecessary.
y_s The; estimate of uniform salt deposition of 305 lb/ acre / year
.within a 1-mile radius of the plant was based on conservative
-('-) design parameters, e.g., a conservative salt emission rate of 1050 lb/ tower. A more realistic salt emission rate, based on expected operating conditions would be 207 lb/ day from each tower. A review of the peak deposition rates at other power plants which used NRC-approved models for their drift rate i analysis and which have similar meteorological conditions as
- . (k VEGP, indicates that the peak deposition will occur within 0.2
, QE451.17-1 Amend. 1 2/84
VEGP-OLSER-Q to 0.6 miles of the cooling towers. It is estimated that the peak deposition rate at the VEGP, in the prevailing wind direction will occur onsite and will be less than 31 lb/ acre / year at 0.6 miles from the cooling towers.
Extensive data on salt drift deposition patterns available from Susquehanna were used as a basis for predicting offsite peak salt deposition rates at VEGP. Specifically, the salt deposition reduction ratio at Susquehanna is 2-to-1 between the peak (located at 0.6 miles from the cooling towers) and a distance of 1.2 miles (distance from VEGP cooling towers to location of offsite peak in the prevailing wind direction).
Applying a similar deposition reduction ratio at VEGP and considering wind rose frequencies, the predicted offsite peak salt deposition rate at VEGP is estimated to be less than 15 lb/ acre / year in the prevailing wind direction.
The maximum predicted offsite salt deposition rate is estimated to be less than 21 lb/ acre / year which occurs at about 0.6 miles due east of the cooling towers at the site boundary.
O O
O O
QE451.17-2 Amend. 1 2/84
t VEGP-OLSER-Q-Question E470.1 .j The following Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) tables should 4
(} be~ incorporated into the OLSER:
A. FSAR Tables 2.3.5-10 and 2.3.5-11 (OLSER 2.1.3.1, l 5.2.1.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.4.2) l B. FSAR Table 11.2.3-4 (OLSER 5.2.4.2, 5.2.5)
C. 'FSAR Table 11.3.3-4 (OLSER 5.2.4.2, 5.2.5)
D. FSAR Tables 2.1.3-17 and 2.1.3-18 (OLSER 2.1.2.1) t' E. FSAR Tables 2.1.3-19 and 2.1.3-20 (OLSER 2.1.2.2)
Response
The information in these FSAR tables have been incorporated into the OLSER.
O r s
I Lo O
I -
00730 QE470.1-1 Amend. 1 2/84 L