ML20129D055
| ML20129D055 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1985 |
| From: | Blum N BECHTEL GROUP, INC., GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129C945 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8507160406 | |
| Download: ML20129D055 (42) | |
Text
3.
e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-424
)
50-425
)
(Vogtle Electric Generating
)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF NORA A. BLUM County of Los Angeles)
)
State of California
)
I, Nora A. Blum, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say as follows:
1.
My name is Nora A.
Blum.
I am employed by Bechtel Power Corporation in'the position of Engineering Supervisor.
My business address is Bechtel Power Corpora-tion, 12440 East Imperial Highway, Norwalk, California 90650.
Attached to this affidavit as Exhibit A is a sum-mary of my professional qualifications.
2.
The purpose of this affidavit is to support the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Joint Inter-venors' Contention 12, which concerns salt and chlorine gas emitted from the natural draft cooling towers at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ("VEGP") as part of the drift from those towers.
In this affidavit I will hDj716040605071)
ADOCK 05000474 0
PDR L
o describe estimates prepared by Bechtel Power Corporation
("Bechtel") on behalf of the Applicants of the Jrif t depo-sition rate for the VEGP natural draft cooling towers and the expected environmental effects of drift deposition from those towers.
I have personal knowledge of the mat-ters set forth herein and believe them to be true and Correct.
I.
Estimates of Drift Deposition for VEGP Developed Using a Bounding Technique.
3.
The Applicants first estimated the drift deposi-tion rate for the VEGP natural draft cooling towers at the construction permit stage, as reported in section 5.3.2 of the Construction Permit Stage Environmental Report
("CP-ER") and discussed in paragraphs 15 through 19 of the Affidavit of Daniel H. Warren.
In reviewing the Operating License Stage Environmental Report ("OL-ER") submitted by the Applicants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC")
staff raised questions about that initial estimate.
OL-ER, NRC Questions E290.3 and E451.17.
4.
In response, the Applicants, through their con-tractor Bechtel Power Corporation, the architect and engi-neer for the VEGP project, reassessed the amount of drift deposition that would result from the operation of the natural draft cooling towers at VEGP.
The Applicants then estimated the maximum on-site and off-site deposition rates for the VEGP cooling towers by using a bounding <
r-i o
methodology that utilized drift deposition rates estimated for other plants having similar cooling towers and located in similar meteorological environments to predict a con-servative range of drift rates that could be expected at VEGP.
5.
Initially, the Applicants identified four other plants for which modeling studies had been performed of cooling tower drift deposition rates and that had coo 13ng towers with a similar design and operating characteristics to the VEGP cooling towers.
Those four projects ware Shearon Harris 1-4, Grand Gulf 1 and 2, Susquehanna 1 and 2, and Beaver Valley 1.
6.
Using the drift deposition rates estimated for each of those plants, the Applicants sought to predict a maximum on-site drift deposition rate for VEGp based upon the ratio of the VEGP emission rate and wind rose fre-quency to those from each of the four plants.
Those cal-culations produced a range of four deposition rates, of which the Applicants used the highest, which was 31 pounds per acre per year.
The Applicants used the highest drift deposition rate produced by extrapolating modeling results from other plants to VEGp in order to bound the actual drift deposition rate that would be experienced at VEGP.
7.
The same procedure was used to obtain a predicted maximum off-site drift deposition rate for VEGp of 21 pounds per acre per year, although the comparison was made
. ~. -
9 l
only with estimated deposition rates for Susquehanna 1 and I
2, the only plant for which extensive deposition pattern 4
information was available at that time.
That off-site drift deposition rate was the highest of a range of three rates calculated for each of three different wind direc-tions.
These estimated off-site and on-site drift deposi-tion rates were presented to the NRC staff in February 1984.
OL-ER, Response to NRC Question E451.17.
8.
In response to a subsequent question from the NRC staff concerning the calculation of these new estimated l
on-site and off-site drift deposition rates, the Appli-l i
cants further revised those estimates to a maximum on-site l
l l
rate of 17~ pounds per acre per year and an off-site rate
[
r of 15 pounds per acre per year.
OL-ER, Response to NRC f
Question E290.8.
Those lower estimates resulted from a reduction in the expected drift rate for the VEGp coolinq towers from 0.015% to 0.008% and the use of deposition pattern information from an additional plant, Beaver l
Valley 1 and 2.
9.
In deriving its initial estimates of the maximum drift rate for VEGp using the bounding methodology, the Applicants had calculated the emission rate for the VEGP l
cooling towers using a drift rate of 0.015%, which was the expected drift rate set out in the 1973 contract proposal of Custodis-Cottrell (formerly Research-Cottrell), the supplier of the VEGp natural draft cooling towers.
The t
i !
1 l
1 rates of 17' pounds per acre per year on-site and 15 pounds i
per acre per year off-site were determined on the basis of information received by the Applicants from custodis-Cottrell in May 1984 advising them that 0.008% was a more realistic estimate of the expected drift rate for the VEGp l
The other factor causing the reduction in the estimated deposition rates was the use of predicted deposition rates and deposition pattern information from Beaver Valley 1 and 2 combined, which information had not been available when the Applicants first responded to_the i
NRC staff's questions.
10.
Using the same bounding methodology described above, the Applicants calculated for VEGp a maximum on-site drift deposition rate of 17 pounds per acre per i
year and a maximum off-site drift deposition rate of 15 pounds per acre per year.
As with the prior estimates, i -
the estimated maximum rates of 17 pounds per acre per year on-site and 15 pounds per acre per year off-site represent the highest of a range of figures calculated by comparing VEGP to other similar plants.
The method by which the i
Applicants determined these estimated deposition rates is i
described in greater detail in the report attached to this 1
affidavit as Exhibit B, which was submitted to the NRC staff in September 1984 as Attachment 3 to a letter from Mr. D.O. Foster of Georgia power Company to Ms. Elinor G.
Adensam, dated September 25, 1984.
l i i
11.
The bounding methodology by which the Applicants derived the estimates described above did not entail actu-ally modeling the drift deposition from the VEGP cooling towers, and that methodology was not intended to predict accurately for all conditions the salt drift deposition rates that will actually be experienced by the VEGP cool-ing towers.
Instead, that methodology was intended to derive an estimate that would very likely exceed, and therefore provide an upper bound for, the maximum deposi-tion rates that would be experienced at VEGP.
The results of the subsequent computerized modeling study performed by NUS Corporation for the VEGP cooling towers, which is described in paragraphs 9 through 27 of the Affidavit of Morton I. Goldman, demonstrate that the Applicants' prior drift deposition estimates were overly conservative.
II.
The Expected Environmental Effects of Drift Deposition from the VEGP Natural Draft Cooling Towers.
A.
Scientific Studies Addressing the Effects of Salt and Cooling Tower Drift on Vegetation Have Not Found Any Harm to Be Caused to Vegetation by Salt in the Amount that Will Be Emitted as Part of the Drift from the VEGP Natural Draft Cooling Towers.
1.
T_he Chalk Point Studies.
12.
While many studies have examined the potential l
damage to vogotation caused by soil salinity or salt aero-l l
sols, the most comprehensive information available for an
area climatologically similar to VEGP results from a major study conducted at Chalk Point in Maryland concerning the i
i effects of cooling tower drift on crops and native vegeta-tion.
The Chalk Point study included controlled field i
experiments on soil, vegetation, and crops to determine the impact of drift deposition from an operating natural draft cooling tower using brackish makeup water.
The l
published. reports concerning the Chalk Point study provide a good basis for evaluating the potential impact upon vegetation of salt drift from the VEGP natural draft cool-ing towers because of the similarities in climatic condi-tions and soil types between the two sites.
The drift i
i deposition rates experienced at Chalk Point would be much higher than the drift deposition rate estimated for VEGP since Chalk Point uses brackish makeup water while VEGP will use fresh water.
13.
Table 12-4 presents a general meteorological
(
l comparison of VEGP and Chalk Point.
The parameters listed have been found to affect either foliar salt uptake or accumulation of salt in the soil.
M. Simini and I. A.
i Leone, "Effect of Photoperiod, Temperature, and Relative l
Humidity on Chloride Uptake of Plants Exposed to Salt
[
Spray," Phytopathology, 72:1163-1166, 1982.
The major
\\
l type of soil found at the VEGP site falls into the
[
l l
Lakeland Series, which is classified as a loamy sand.
Construction Permit. Stage Final Environmental Statomont l
-1
("CP-FES"), at 2-30 to -31.
The most representative types of soil found at Chalk Point are Lakeland loamy sand, Sassafras sandy loam, and Sassafras loam.
R.W. McCormick.
i D.C. Wolf, G. McClung & J.E. Foss, " Movement of Nacl Through Three Soil Profiles and Its Effect on Soil Chemi-cal Properties," in Cooling Tower Environment - 1978, Power Plant Siting Program - Chalk Point Cooling Tower l
l Project ("PPSP-CPCTP)-22, Water Resources Research Center
("WRRC" ) Special Report No. 9, May 1978, pp. 111-130.
Figure 12-9 is a generalized soil map of the United States and categorizes both Chalk Point and VEGP as "Ula," which is Aqualt or Wet Utisol.
1 i
14.
In addition to the similarities between meteoro-logical conditions and soil types at VEGP and Chalk Point, several types of vegetation studied in the Chalk Point experiments are found in the vicinity of VEGP.
Among the types of vegetation studied at Chalk Point were corn, l
soybeans, dogwood, and grains, all of which are present in the area around VEGP.
ER-OL $ 2.1 and 2.2.
Communication from Burke County soil Conservation Service, 1983.
15.
None of the studies performed at Chalk Point found any harm to vegetation from drift deposition rates in the range of the rates estimated by the Applicants for VEGP by using the bounding methodology described in para-graphs 3 through 11 above, much loss the substantially lower rates estimated by the NUS Corooration's modoling !
l
l o
study for VEGP described in the Affidavit of Morton I.
l Goldman.
For example, the field experiments from Chalk l
Point indicated that significant increases in leaf Na+ and Cl-levels occurred in corn at a deposition rate of 45 pounds per acto per year and in soybeans at a rate of 90 l
pounds per acre per year.
A statistically significant yield reduction for both corn and soybeans occurred at a level of 319 pounds Nacl per acto por year.
J.A.
t Armbruster, " Cooling Tower Effects on Crops and Soils; Response of Corn (Zea Mays L.) and Soybeans (Glycine Max i
L. Merr.) to Saline Aerosol Drift from Brackish Water i
Cooling Towers," Chalk Point Cooling Tower Project, Water l
Resources Research Center, University of Maryland, PPSP-CPCTP-31, WRRC Special Report 13, October, 1979 at pp. 43-49.
Experiments on native tree species found that at a deposition rate of 59 pounds per acre per year leaf marginal necrosis was found only in dogwoods.
C.R.
- Curtis, B.A. Francis, and T.L. Lauver, " Dogwood as a l
Bioindicator Species for Saline Drift," in Copl.ing T.ower, i
l l
Environment - 1978, PPSP-CPCTP-22, WRRC Special Report No.
l 9, May, 1978, pp. 65-77; B.A. Francis, " Effects of Simu-lated Cooling Tower Drift on Woody Species,"
l PPSP-CpCTP-17, WRRC Special Report No. 5, July 1977, pp.
?
38-43.
l 16.
The Chalk Point experiments also demonstrated that drift deposition rates substantially higher than 9
l l
i
l i
l i
those predicted for VEGP would be necessary to cause accu-i mulation of salts in the soil.
Soil studies performed at Chalk Point found that a salt (NaC1) deposition rate of 1070 pounds per acre per. year could result in some accu-mulation of salts in the tested soils.
Other experiments have shown that smaller deposition rates cause no salt accumulation in the soll, and the Chalk Point studies l
l reported that deposition rates of less than 1070 pounds i
per acre per year did not cause sufficient salt accumula-I tion in the soil to affect yields for corn and soybeans.
B.A. Francis, " Effects of Simulated Cooling Tower Drift on l
Woody Species," PPSP-CPCTP-17, WRRC Special Report No. 5, l
July, 1977 at pp. 6-11, 37, 66; R.W. McCormick, D.C. Wolf, O. McClung & J.E. Foss, " Movement of Nacl Through Three i
Soil Profiles and Its Effect on Soil Chemical Properties,"
i l
in Cooling Tower Environment - 1978, PPSP-CPCTP-22, WRRC
[
i Special Report No. 9, May 1978, pp. 111-130; E.A. Davis, l'
"Environmenta.1 Assessment of Chalk Point Cooling Tower t
Drift and Vapor Emissions," Chalk Point Cooling Tower
[
Project, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics f
l Laboratory, PPSP-CPCTP-28, March 1979 at p. VI-4.
i 17.
Table 12-5 depicts in greator detail some of the i
i results found in the Chalk Point studios.
All of tho drift deposition rates found to cause harm to vegetation in those studios greatly excood the maximum drift deposi-tion rate of less than throo pounds por acto per year l
l
predicted for the VEGP cooling towers by the NUS Corpora-tion's FOG model, including the additions to the drift resulting from chlorination.
2.
Other Studies.
18.
A number of other studies of the effects of salt on vegetation have also been performed.
While not repre-sentative of the conditions under which vegetation around the VEGP natural draft cooling towers would be exposed to salt drift, those studies involving plant specios found near VEGP do have some value in demonstrating a doso-response relationship.
Many of those experiments were conducted under temperature and humidity conditions that were highor than the conditions generally found at VEGP.
Higher temperature and humidity conditions have boon found to result in greater vegetation damage from salt.
M. Simini and I. A. Leone, "Effect of Photoperiod, Tempor-i ature, and Relative Humidity on Chloride Uptako of Plants Exposed to Salt Spray," Phytopathology, 72:1163-1166, 1982.
Thoroforo, the results obtained in thoso studios i
can be used to establish bounding conditions for expected damage to the vogotation surrounding VEGP from salt drift.
Tablo 12-6 summarizon the results of those studios.
3.
Expected Effects of Cooling Tower p_rXLUpon_ Voggtallon At VEGP2 19.
Figuro 12-10 summarizon the data availablo from i
field and groonhouse studios concerning the amount of i
i 11 I
l
[
1 l
l i
drift necessary to cause various levels of damage to sev-i eral plant species similar to those found in the vicinity of VEGp.
This data represents the results of a wide vari-ety of experimental conditions, including the cooling tower drift studies performed at Chalk point.
20.
For both crops and native trees, the predicted maximum drift deposition rate for VEGp of less than three pounds per acre per year (including the additions from chlorination) is well below the lowest reported values for leaf damage as well as the highest reported values for no effects.
This conclusion applies to both total dissolved solids and NaC1.
21.
The potential for damage to vegetation in the vicinity of VEGp from cooling tower drift would be even less than that indicated in Figure 12-10.
The experi-mental results summarized in Figure 12-10 in many instances did not tako into account the offect of rain-fall, which would further diluto and provent the accumu-lation of salt on plant foliago or in tho soil.
Also, the nearest land currently boing cultivated is at a distance of 1.5 mitos from the VEGp cooling towers (Communication from Hurke County Soil Conservation Sorvice, 1963), at which distanco tho delft doposition rate would be signifi-cantly loss than the prodlcted maximum rato of loss than thron pounds por acto por year.
Thoroforo, tho availablo,
l scientific literature fully supports the Applicants' posi-tion that the operation of the natural draft cooling l
l towers at VEGP will have no adverse impact on the sur-i rounding environment.
{
i l
l
% 0 Alwn)
Nord A.
Blum j
Sworn to and subscribed before me this (d.tX day l
O f O' #' /
1985.
[
7 p
[
i
,1. o OFFICIAL SEAL
?
i I g/ % 4g JOANNE E HENRY
)
IS % !,; botA4r ruto:. c wrovar )
l t
dtary Pub 1ic ne, ((#$,1 ]yE.,..
,j l
l h
t 1
i
(
i I
l l
D Table 12-4 Meteorological Comparison of Chalk Point and VEGP PARAMETER CHALK (Annual Averade)
VEGP(1)
POINT (21 Data Collection Period 1941-1970 1976-1977 Temperature 63*F 56*F Numidity 72%
61%
Rainfall 43 in/yr 41 in/yr(3)
Monthly Rainfall During Growing Season 19.6 in.
21.3 in.(3)
May 3.39 3.87 June 3.66 3.44 July 5.09 4.93 August 4.21 4.19 September 3.26 3.89 References 1.
Georgia Power Company, "Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2 - Final Safety Analysis Report," Vol. 3, Section 2.3, Table 2.3.2-1.
2.
Davis, E.
A.,
" Chalk Point Cooling Tower Project, Environmental Assessment of Chalk Point Cooling Tower Drift and Vapor Emissions," Report No. PPSP-CPCTP-28, prepared by Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, March 1979, p.
!!-8.
3.
Long-term averages from Mulchi, C. L. and J. A. Armbruster,
" Response of Corn and Soybeans to Simulated Saline Aerosol Drift from 8rackish Water Cooling Towers," J._ Environmental Quality. Vol. 10. No. 4, October - DecemberE1941.
I I
I.
3140t 1
I i
l Table 12-5 i
Ohalk Point Studies Part a - wrestateen Page 1 of 2 l
l Eosivalent esposition searce of tanter Egeriesotal Emperimental Reference Flant Aate Salt Spray Saality (TOS)
Conditions Period Armsits no.
I Chre 45 IMac/yr trackish 11.300 ppa )
Field emperiment 8 usets lander the study conditions, 1
/ma* = 25 this is the miniansa empo-Cooling Tenner i
(=4 6 /hMmo)
Basin senter (C1 = Self sure fewels to praeare l
3 (Cino sipificant increase in leaf na and C1 levels.
l Chre 319 1htac/yr Sianslated meC1 meC1 Solution Fleid emperiment 8 usets 251 yield reesction. This 1
(=30 E3/ha/mo)
Solution is the minianen dose level in the study to cause statistically si pificant yield reesction (P=0.05).
l Soybeen 90 lb/ac/yr Brackish CTW 11.300 pyn Fleid egeriennt 8 usets The miniansa exposure level 1
(=8 k3/ha/mo)
Ima* = 2FL) to pensare sipificant
\\C1 = 5sL1 lacrease in leaf na and C1 levels.
Scybeam 319 lb/ac/yr Simmilated meC1 meC1 Solution Field esperiment 8 weeks The minianas esposure levels 1
l (330 h3/ha/no)
Solution to praears statistically sapificant teld reesction j
by 13L (P=0.
).
Cara 3 1 Mac/ w of ina*
Cooling Toner 19.500 som Field sampling of I growing 100 adverse wegetation 7
Soybean 6 th/ac/yr of Cl-Salt Drift (nominaY value) crops grown post-season dauange or yield reesction theat eperation ese to salt deposition.
Earley W
59 lb/ac/yr Brackish CTW 10.200 p )
Fleid emperiment 59 days Increase in leaf Cl con-2, 4 moruey spruce
(=5.58 43/hahmo)
(nac1=w.n centration and some snar-tenite Ash ginal necrosis found only Tulip Trwe in Dopcod.
wargsasa Pine Calif. Priset W
29 lb/ac/yr Brackish CIWW 13.900 p Fleid egeriment 35 days Increase in leef Cl con-2, 4 virginia Fine
(=7.4in k3/ha/so)
(maCl= Dest centration and same mar-Tel p Tree ginal necrosis found only Calif. Priset in Dopcod.
rW 210 th/ac/yr sienstated meC1 20.000 ppus Field e geriment 58 days severe leaf marginal 2
(=20 h3/ha/mo)
Solution necrosis.
3116t
Table 12-5 (Continued) rart s - m a Page 2 of 2 Eosivalent Deposition Reference Scil Type Rate Results No.
Loamy Sand 1070 lb/ac/yr Causes same accuanslation of 4, 6 Loan
(=100 kg/haAmo)
Ma* in the soil. Less than Sandy toisa this level causes no accians-lation in the soil, tabeland Loany 99 lb/ac An increase in the soil.enchangseble Ma+
3, 6 Sand
(=100 kg/ha) content, Inst soluable salt levels return to normal in one month af ter treatment.
Less than this level in the soil has no effect on yields of corn and soybeans.
Cha3 Point Soil
>2500 pen of Inhibited microbial respiration.
5 Samples EaC1 in the soil
>5000 ppm of Inhibited nitrification.
5 meC1 in the soll neferences for Table 12-5 1.
Arubrirster, J. A., "Cooli Tamer Effects on Creps and Soils; Response of Corn (Zea Rays L.) and Soybeans (Glycine nas L. norr.) to Saline Aerosol Drif t from Brackish Water ling Tasers," Chalk Point Cooling Tauer Project Water Resources Research Center Liniversity of Maryland, PPSP-CPCTP-31, isAC Special Report 13. October,1979.
2.
Osrtis C. R.; Francis, B. A.; and Lauwer. T. t W as a Sioindicator Species for Saline Drift," in Cooline Tauer Envirosament - 1978, PPSP-CYCIP-22, tanc Special Report no. 9. Nay, 54M, pp. 65-77.
3.
Davis, E. A., "Eawircemental Assessment of Chalk Point Cocling Tauer Orift and Vapor Emissions " Chalk Point Cooling Tower Project, Johns Hopkins thiversity Applied Physics Laboratory, PPSP-CPCTP-28. March,1979.
O.
Francis, S. A., *Effect of Simulated Cooling Tamer Drif t on Woody Species," PPSP-GCTP-17, lAAC Special Report flo. 5. July,1977.
5.
ncCarnick, R. W., and Wolf. D. C.,194 *Effect of meC1 on soil Ricrchiological Properties." In Cooling Tauer Effects on Crops and Soils.
Pregeratumal asport Appendix, PPSP-CPCTP-6, tsRC Special Report me.1. April 19M. pp 77-79.
C>.
McCormick, R. W., D. C. naalf C. McC1
& J. E. Foss *stasement of maC1 through Three Soll Profiles and Its Effect on Soil Chemical Properties," in Cooline Tamer Enviressent 1978. PPSP TP-22, imAC Special Report me. 9. May 19M, pp.111-130.
7.
nu1 chi, C. L.; knif. D. C.; Foss, J. E.; and Arubruster, J. A., " Cooling Taser Effects on Crops and Soils, Post @erational Report No. 2 "
PPSP-CPCTP-19, tapC Special Report no. 8. Auptst,1977.
i l
31Mt
o Table 12-6 Other Studies Page 1 of 4 E pivalent Deposition Source of.
Weter Emperimental Experimental Reference Plant Rate Salt Spray Qaality (TDS)
Conditions Period Results No.
Pepper 36 lb/ac of C1-Simulated Saline 233,000 ppm Greeniouse experi-One 8 days after exposure,is I
(=40 ag/ha)
Solution ment T=13-25*C; appilcation leaf chlorosis, necros (Nacl + CaC1 )
1005 RH with dew, and curling observed on 2
100E RH w/o dew, plants subject to deu and 70E M forestion.
Pepper T2 lb/ac of Cl-Simulated Saline 233,000 ppm Greenhouse experi-One No injury when M=70E; I
(=81 kg/ha)
Solution ment T=13-25*C; appilcation mild symptans observed (maCl + CaC1 )
100E RH with dew, uhen M=100E w/o morning 2
1001 m w/o dew, dew. For 1001 M with and 70E m dew leaf wilt occurred within 24 hrs of treat-ment and a day later necrosis and chlorosis developed.
Sopean 36 lb/ac of C1-Simulated Saline 233,000 ppm Greenhouse esperi-One 7 days after exposure 1
(=40 kg/ha)
Solution ment T=13-25*C; application intervenial chlorosis (meC1 + CaC1 )
1001 m with dew, occurred when M=100E 2
100E RH w/o dew, with morning dew.
and 70E M SoAean 54 lb/ac of C1-Simulated Saline 233,000 ppm Greenhouse experi-One Intercostal necrosis 1
(=61 kg/ha)
Solution ment T=13-25'C; appilcation when subject to dew.
(MaCl + CaC1 )
100E RH with dew, 2
100E RH w/o dew, and 70E M So@ean T2 lb/ac of Cl-Simulated Saline 233,000 ppe Greenhouse experi-One 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> after exposure 1
(=81 kg/ha)
Solution ment T=13-25*C; application slight chlorosis along Ieaf (nacl + CaC1 )
1001 RH with dew, margin developed when 2
100E RH w/o dew, sub,)ect to dew.
and 70E M Tomato 36 lb/ac of C1-Simulated Saline 233,000 ppe Greenhouse experi-One 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> after exposure, I
(=40 kg/ha)
Solution ment T=13-25*C; appilcation young leaves developed (maCl + CaC1 )
WOL RH with dew, severe necrosis and older 2
1001 RH w/o dew, leaves developed slight 701 RH chlorosis, when subject to dew.
4 3118t 1
Table 12-6 (Continued)
Page 2 of 4 Equivalent Deposition Source of Water Experimental Experimental Reference Plant Rate Salt Spray Quality (TDS)
Conditions Period Results No.
Tanato 72 lb/ac of Cl-Simulated Saline 233.000 ppa Greenhouse experi-One 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after treatment, I
(=81 kg/ha)
Solution ment T=13-25*C; application leaves wilted, and 48 hrs.
(Nacl + CaC1 )
1001 RH with dew, later severe necrosis and 2
1005 RH w/o dew, defoliation occurred when i
701 m subjected to dew.
)
Beans 16,000 C1-Simulated Saline 11.100 ppm Greenhouse experi-One eservable folior lesion 2
lb/ac/yr Solution ment T=27.5'C; lication developed after one hour
(=1500 kg/ha/mo)
RH=85%
t of exposure.
45 asn.
Seans 22 Ma* lb/ac Sea Salt Not Available Greenhouse
,One Leaf injury uhen M=605, 3
(=25 kg/ha) experiment lication 805 M =405, 601, 801 t 20 min.
l Tomato 7690 lb/ac/yr of Sian1ated Salt 10,000 ppa Greenhouse experi-4 days No leaf injury, but reduced 3
i Na+(719 kg/ha/
Solution ment T=70-75'F; growth 15% to SOE on dry mo) 5220 lb/ac/yr soil salinity weight basis.
3 of Cl-from 2 to 14
(=488 kg/haAmo) ashos/an Tomato 15,000 lb/ac/yr Simulated Salt 20,000 ppe Greenhcmse experi-4 days Leaf injury occurred in 3
i' of Na*
Solution ment T=21 to 24*C 12 ashos/an soil with
(=1400 kg/ha/mo) soil salinity growth reduction from 20 11,200 lb/ac/yr from 2 to 14 to 55% dry weight basis.
of C1-suhos/an
(=1050 kg/ha/mo)
Tanato 24,200 lb/ac/yr Slan1ated Salt 30,000 ppm Greenhouse experi-4 days Wilted leaves and necrotic 3
of Na*
Solution ment T=21 to 24*C; spots. Injury severity
(=2260 kg/ha/mo) soil salinity increases with the increase 17,400 lb/ac/yr from 2 to 14 in soll salinity. Growth of C1-suhos/an reduction fran 25 to 65%.
l
(=1630 kg/ha/mo) l Bean 7690 lb/ac/yr Simulated Salt 10,000 ppm Greenhouse experi-4 days Marginal chlorosis after 3
of Na*
Solution ment T=21 to 24*C; treatment in soils with
(=719 kg/ha/mo) soil salinity salinity >8 ashos/an.
5220 lb/ac/yr fran 2 to 14 Growth reiluction fran of Cl-mahos/an 19 to 671.
(=488 kg/ha/mo) 1 3118t
Table 12-6 (Continued)
Page 3 of 4 Epivalent Deposition Source of unter Experimental Experimental Reference Plant Rate Salt Spray Quality (TDS)
Conditions Period Results No.
Seen 15,000 lb/ac/yr Simslated salt 20,000 ppm Greenhouse experi-4 days 3 days after treatment leaf 3
of Na*
Solution ment Ts21 to 24*C; burn occurred. Growth
(=1400 kg/ha/mo) soil salir.ity reduction fran 27 to 705.
11.200 lb/ac/yr from ? to 14 of Cl-autos /an
(=1050 tg/ha/mo)
Sean 24,200 lb/ac/yr Simulated Salt 30,000 ppm Greenhouse ex' peri-4 days 1 day after treatment 3
of Na+
Solution ment T=21 to 24*C; marginal chlorosis occ,urred
(=2260 kg/hr/mo) soll salinity and leaves became yellow 17,400 lb/ac/yr fram 2 to 14 green. At treatment of C1-au6cs/an destccation, tip necrosis completion, leaf tissue
=1630 kg/ha/mo) and leaf drop occurred.
Growth reduction frun AOL to 805.
Barley 10 to 1000 Simulated Saline 376 to Greenhouse 73, 86 days No significant effect on.
4 lb/ac/yr Solution 42,667 ppm e
iment leaf moqdm1 except ad~
(=0.9 to i
C(average the level of Ib/ac/yr.
89 kg/ha/mo) maalaam; EF5%
No yleid reduction at all (noniru! rates) levels.
Cotton 10 to 100 Sianslated Saline 376 to Creenhouse 121, 132 days No adverse effects on 4
lb/ac/yr Solution 3,763 ppm e
risent morphology and yield
(=0.9 to
~
T (average 8.9 kg/ha/no) maxianse) h 75%
(naninal rates)
Cotte 500 lb/ac/yr Simulated Saline 18,815 ppm Greenhouse 12.1, 132 days Reduced plant height.
4
(=44 kg/ha/mo)
Salution experiment leaf necrosis and (naninal rates)
T=30*C(average chlorosis, but more maxismsm) h l5%
seed cotton and lint per plant.
Cotton 1,000 10/ac/yr Simulated Saline 42,667 ppm Greenhouse 121, 132 days Reduced plant height, 4
(=89 kg/ha/mol Solution e
risent leaf necrests and (noninal rates)
T C(avera chlorosis. Significantly maximum) % gef55 less flouers per plant.
3 3118t
Table 124 (Continued)
Page 4 of 4 Equivalent Deposition Source of Water Experimental Experimental Reference Plant Rate Salt Spray quality (TDS)
Conditions Period Results No.
References for Table 124 1.
Grattan, 5. R.; naas E. V.; and Ogata, G., "Follar t$take and Injury from Saline Aerosol." Journal of Envirennental Quality, 10:406-409, 1981.
McCune D et al., " Studies on the Effects of Saline Aerosols of Cooling Tauer Origin on Plants," presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Air 2.
Pollution. C.frol Association, Denver, CD, June 1974.
Con 3.
Roser, B. C., Wilcon, G. E.; and Hassen, M. A. M., " Green House Experiments - The Effects of Airtiorne Salt and Soil Salinity on Vegetation, Phase 1 "
Purdue University, Packard, toue and Garrick, Inc., Washington, D.C., Noventier,1978.
4.
University of Arizona, "An Assessment of Salt Drift on the Productivity of Agricultural Crops in the Vicinity of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station," Prepared for ANPP, August 1984.
l l
i I
3110t
Figure 12-9 GENERAL SOIL MAP OF THE UNITED STATES
- i "",isi
'p qE- - - +w - -
= -=-- - -
- - -- Jp
,, q/
t
{. --
p: -
-=+
~
l 9 ~> Ol
~
\\
a,.
k,h, yg #
+' g l
R, nig._
=>.
->=,
J = -
i
,= U l
i
,+
.p.
pw' :
T
,.o[j
- i..g 'M t
l l
uis f
5 t h'*:',
s
" }
s, oss If' I"'1 j
'I' f Y
~
'" ('>f -
S
- .j=(..a=..
""l 4
- g..
Y,,,*
i fl i ^/ W, /y'/' /
'3*k u'
ai\\
,y. i \\-
i-en, i:
. 4
' 4 i:
-a r
._-,9
~
- Hl ::
i i
i(i 4g h r ;
+/;f s
f
.w s
v
/g s
a:
p 4
L
- ~
7 se fit
.. %,. n.
~
...-(
-{'
N3.
,+
f si..
_..g
- ~
. ~:
a_
'From pg. 412 of Soil Toxonomy:
A Basic SVstem oiSoil Classification for Making and laterpretingMI Survey _s, U.S. Department of Agriculture, SailSurvey Staff, Agricultural Handbook No. 436,1975.
=d 3
I I.
Iv.:
.m,
-., s :: m,... _ m._ _m
_. m..
.a
-c.
M 1.4_4..
'.p.... i +. t 6.-.
t
-1
.-+_..t+4-.+-++.. +. +...-t+.,,-_._,.-t
- .* 4
- i 13-* rt r--*--dr
- t.*t:* t._i_..;
mt n.trf ' - :h2il.t :- 1;rt.
---+-.-1
- Es 1
1
[,+..~ :-~ t/Ha
- s 1
.i
- f2 e._.
L..... 1_._y,.-
s 2.+
.. i, 4
.._,.T T-F-+:
. *3 +,4 E',
1 '...
- - - + -
_e 4_...-
- +--.
. t T.
4 g +.
-=.v. ;..
.$0
+..
. 4 u
-.,3...
4I.
e v.+_9 w
4._+
4,.-*.
y FEM
. 4 w
P4 - + - - +.
'-++ - T..T.J.T2 M ( 1 J'*] 0: '.$.*.l!. ', C J *. j
$ $$j 3*U7*
--""' J *$j) I '1. - 4 T. '
i ' ?-"
Es
=
l 4.,..4.-.
-'I,e4-.----t++--+--+-+- h-t- t, --tt
- - - + + + ~ + - - - - - -
y3 4- ; :
t.-44--t-t.
.i..
1 -
i
, i
- . =..t..x..
+
1-
-,... p g 7
7.,
.9,,,,-,
3 g.+4,4-,..
4+
3
+
9
. E.$., 4 _......$ ' 1. + 4. t'- 4 E
4.,
4..1' *t 3. M4.._.f-- [.
4 4
z
,.4..
_ p.
..p p...
4 _,_.
4,...
y. p...
- p 6
..3..>._4
.7 a.
.t
.. g u._+._. ~_
_. g.. _.
_m g
$'.1--
lMH/HfH/H/////H/H/, H//////H/////A//A 1gp y
-.+ '.{.+.6.
Z
.. ft.(,,_ p-j _,_..
g=
,%_4,
J[. }_ _ + s-
......t-.t....
{,. 4 g
4,.,7_..,...,_..
.. p. 4. - -
n p_
.s a&
s
- ~_
l - - ',.--l ~-'#1' a
wriu 1,1,u ris is i s is / H///1,;vH//.
i'/1/s2
.. ].. 5,_=.j_._.,.._.+.
....,..g__
__.a-,_,.,_.,.......,+.4..a....,..-_...
- i... _.,
, - +
s,_.
y4.;.,. t. _._4. _. g.__..
g _Z
,,.,.-.._.g.+.,..._,.
3---
3,,_4,_.
, _ +.
4 r.
T..
p
.} +,...
._t-
...., _...+..-
.._4
.+
!!p.._
-a a _.. _.
3
._4._,
~
.y
+.
+
.,$t.1 c_ 4 r 4.-~
,-2.W..v - 1.,..
.,.4
+_,
.* 7., _ _ ~l__
- 1.. {... + _-t'. _._._.
t.t 1_ _ _1._. 1 L.
,_1 4...
1, i.
4-gs E
.._ p _.-.
.a
. A_
.. _. _..,.444 ]-
.~. + _.
+ '
_e i
. i ~i_. 6 --.
4.,
+.,_,. +..._.
._.__4._
=
g
- t 4,_. :7._.: _gt
- .. _. _ t.._.. - -
- p _
t
_4 4_..._4_..y 4 4._
_t.
2._..,_.. 2 o
g 3+ ' (:; p-' _.
t+t !
- ...;rJ.!: Jmt:2 tit-*~ --+-" tit i tt 1:.! dr.--++. Q J ~ !
..._. l _
'*h.
g
,.y4
_4.. +. Q' 1.,1 R _
. __.... b_. +. +.4 W
W~
--t-*._a
.y=
.. g @--
a
.+44, :4.._r_.+,.__..
q-m*-+ r.+.t p + -_ - -.. - - +++-
- _,--
+ -r - i
.- t i---+-+-
y^-
^._
Q b f 4 - -+, ~ +-+ 4,,/,
_.4_.
i p_
i ak 74_+.. e _..._4.o, ;
.m. _.,_., s_ _..._a_
_._ t:; 1 p;. '.1.Zt.-
++ i.
3.. _ E _.
_m 12.4_-4. T-.__v._g s.
.. _ h__
s4 s
- <z
.u!
!.,-_+..r_._.-., -.
g_.. _. _ -.. t d.- l.rj
' = =
.+ a - t-: Na -
.u Lt i
m ls tl
.n_i,
_ -. k a.-.._. +-.-i-
. _ +...
..-_--L._..s--.--
.._1.----
+~<-:.
L8 On 1: -...._.
.-,___..+.,._+_,_.,_.,,,,_,_..._4,__.._..._.__
j=
! t2 t: t--i.; a_ -
!4:T1 *-* - * '
-$ s g
~t1*Ttr l'~t-' -tt'tt'1-* _C '
! i ?
- L--l._.
1 g: g :07;t'ws_
~q a
e *
+ t.4. t. l, x'.
m-..-._.
i-t--+-+> --r
-+.
-+4.'b..*--*--_-- - - -m+-+----..',
4+-+-+-+-
.:..:.4_+
i,
._+.a 2.,5
-._-r.
.. _ - g.44~
a
+
u
.a -._4..
-.+-+L4._.._,
-w g
- r
'.*f'"~*-*-I h. *g '.g p't 3,_. g.
_.+_4._ J 4
1I"T +_.p
_f._-~j ~__~+'h.
."_T* ]
IN C
qg u
_4._....
. tt+t4.. t.
r i..
. t--t-._ T,...,
y_.
. m,.
..+.a_
. +_
. _.. +. _,.
. Es
. Q.1 (
v,,,__4....
, _4
~. - '
Ztj }4..(~.Q T}.
t -+l.17 T _.-+-_.y-1hn.-
g
_g i
2.
~ + ' - ' '.
g
_.p.
. { _. 4..,. _.. _..{
_. - t.,.-,.-.y_ - -.. _.
.. _..,,.,.i-..
4+.,.+,4..
u 4
_.4._+._+
_l, 4_
4 p.
-.4
.t.+.
,4-
.__-__._u.
m.
+
+
_e.
+
4+
4.
..t
~...',."'. ' [ g I*'*l,.....
. -..i_.
_.4 4..
. g'.
J l3 n _,
.q, s.+.
g.-
w, t+.,..
.. _... i 1 _'7..
. a.._..
1.
$.+4
.+ w 4,
_. m
..4.. LA.._,_.
g 9_.
i 1
4
++--
- $'1 '
~
. p +,_
, +.
fy x
vn/v.
- 1: v.
b7 U'. ' ~
-~'"-
3 Tl T!1.:.{T.4J_i __Z'tL!T TTT~l.Zf 12 2NE';3 U.S. 4-i"~$U *T11~.3 ^.;
E
- 4...
..__.4_
.1. 4 4, _.
... 1 a _ -.. I'4 d,...
.4. _.
.+...,a.-
79
+ _. _ _.
t _.it 1___
)....!..
f.
.4....... u u.i a I_.. 4.. J. 4 _
e-Jt _a.
+
, +.
4.
7.+..
y
.,,y,
. i.
9._.. _ _.
!=
4_
2 3. ~. 4 3,.,. 2._..
_. 2
'.I
.N' '. 4,..
_....D.....N..
,.333 $.
.g.
,4,f._.-
, !. T 4-.
6 3 t.e..6
'3&
.+.4,. 1_.+.
.s l
. =, c
+
, M4.,.....
m.
.1 4..-
c4 + - +.._._
.a 4
^
'. '..,..d...
. 7.,...7;..;]' h,!.1"
.L.5 } 5 2 5 II j.-5. P.!3 } +M...~.
~
.+.. h.. 3.d..,. 1 - t T.. :
_ +,.
- u:ntmLwr U1
.7._y.* p.;i.
4.
m..
g gg3t.
.g.
.p m.
.+.'y-,, *+ --- g
. L...
..{
4
- 4
} 4, ;
..i.e
-,,.e..
.i...
.4.+.+
- _+.,.
.-p..
(p
,9 p
444 1
. i..M
} f....
e 44
- e4,
u.-...
.s...
g
,.4
,-..--.2,+e.,
.f.1_ f.-.
-,. _ +... 8,. - l--f+t E*
u_wrl..
4
- -.It 9-.. I* -b._ I..
t +--
mfb.
, h4 y 6
-4
~ -
-.- - - p~t a w
o e.,.=z w, ~,.= u =--.
n
/////n v/w//,
a ll; 'II.7 W m-T. 4 J,.i4.i L4, L.
. i..
m i._. t l.,, - 3
...,..._L,,.-.,
t,..I j
i +.L.- g -
.- { _.
6 ia m
4
. l... s.
T.. 4 **4
+
a_.-
a 6..g
+.=.H.
..i-- --
.a
. + +
t 1 1..
.++.
4 l
l
.i l'
3 3.......
r i '
1I. '.....,
I i I.
(Sci u0 C'NI WVI A W3d EU3V uld 50mn04 Notes for Fiqure 12-10 a.
Values shown here have been derived from data reported in the literature.
It should be noted that the threshold value for leaf damage is expected to be below the lowest reported leaf damage (at the bottom of the cross-hatched area) but above the highest reported value for no effects.
The threshold value for growth or yield reduction would be determined in an analogous manner, b.
Value calculated based on the reported water quality that Nacl accounts for 69% of the TDS.
Armbruster, J.A.,
" Cooling Tower Effects on Crops and Soils; Response of Corn (Zea Mays L.) and Soybeans (Glycine
. Max L. Merr.) to Saline Aerosol Drift from Brackish Water Cooling Towers," Chalk point Cooling Tower Project, Water Resources Research Center, University of Maryland, PPSP-CPCTP-31, WRRC Special Report 13, October, 1979.
c.
Values calculated according to the stoichiometric relationship between the NA* and Cl and provided data on ion concentrations.
Mulchi, C.L.;
Wolf, D.C.; Foss, J.E.; and Armbruster, J.A.,
" Cooling Tower Effects on Crops and Soils, Post Operational Report No.
2,"
PPSP-CPCTP-19, WRRC Special Report No.
8, August, 1977.
d.
' Values converted from mg Cl /cm' to lb/ac of TDS and Nacl based on the reported water quality that Cl concentration represents 61% of the TDS and 90% of the TDS is Nacl.
It should be noted that only one significant digit was reported in the cited reference.
Two significant digits, however, are used here to show the difference between TDS and Nacl.
Grattan, S.R.; Maas, E.V.; and Ogata, G.,
" Foliar Uptake and Injury from Saline Aerosol,"
Journal of Environmental Quality, 10:406-409, 1981.
e.
Values calculated from ug/m*/s dose data for Na*
and Cl-and the stoichiometric relationship between Na* and Cl.
The actual salt sprayed during the experimental period of four 8-hour applications totalled 31 lb/ac of Nacl.
- Moser, B.C.,
Wilcox, G.E.; and Hassen,.
M.A.M.,
" Green House Experiments - The Effects of Airborne Salt and Soil Salinity on~ Vegetation, Phase 1,"
Purdue University, Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc., Washington, D.C.,
November, 1978.
f.
Values calculated from ug Cl /cm'/ min based on the reported water quality that Cl concentration represents 54% of the TDS and 78% of the TDS is 3141t m
Notes for Figure 12-10 (Continued)
Nacl.
The actual deposition rates during the experimental period of 45 min were 2.6 lb/ac of TDS and 2 lb/ac of Nacl.
- McCune, D.C.,
et al.,
" Studies on the Effects of Saline Aerosols of Cooling Tower Origin on Plants," presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Denver, Colorado, June 1974.
g.
Values calculated based on the average NA* and Cl concentrations and their stoichiometric relationship.
University of Arizona, "An Assessment of Salt Drift on the Productivity of Agricultural Crops in the Vicinity of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station," Prepared for Arizona Nuclear Power Project, August 1984.
h.
Values represent deposition rates at which statistically significant salt accumulation begins.
Leaf damage at these levels were not explicitly mentioned in the reference.
i.
It is assumed that the saline water used by Mulchi et al (1977) in this study was similar to that used by Armbruster (1979).
Both experiments took test solutions from Chalk Point cooling tower basin water.
j.
Values calculated based on the reported water quality that Nacl represents 92.7 to 94% of the TDS.
Curtis, C.R.; Francis, B.A.; and Lauver, T.L.,
" Dogwood as a Bioindicator Species for Saline Drift," in Cooling Tower Environment
- 1978, PPSP-CPCTP-22, WRRC Special Report No.
9, May, 1978, pp. 65-77.
k.
Values calculated from ug Cl /cm'/6 hrs and the reported water quality that Cl concentration represents 54% of the TDS and 78% of TDS is Nacl.
- McCune, D.C.,
D.H.
Silberman, R.
H. Mandl, L.H.
Weinstein, P.C. Freudenthal, and P.A.
- Giardina,
" Studies on the Effects of Saline Aerosols of Cooling Tower Origin on Plants,"
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 27, 1977, pp. 319-324.
1.
The actual deposition rates during the experimental period of 4-hours were 12.lb/ac of TDS and 10 lb/ac of Nacl (RH-85%) (McCune, et al; 1977).
m.
Values calculated based on the reported water quality that Cl concentration represents 54% of the TDS and 78% of TDS is Nacl.
The experimental period was 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> that resulted in an actual total deposition rate of 2 lb/ac of TDS and 1.5 lb/ac of Nacl (McCune, et al; 1977).
3141t EXHIBIT A June, 1985 NORA A. BLUM Education:
BS, Civil Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Massachusetts Graduate Study, Civil / Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University, Massachusetts Summary:
Present:
Engineering Supervisor /Projec't Engineer 12 Years:
Technical and managerial responsibility for energy projects; extensive experience in civil and environmental engineering and licensing.
Experience:
Ms. Blum is an Engineering Supervisor in 'he Cogeneration and t
and Industrial Projects Group in Bechtel's Western Power Division where she is responsible for various new business and project development activities.
She is currently the Project Engineer for the feasibility study for a proposed 50-80 MW cogeneration plant in Long Beach, California.
Previously, she served as Engineering Supervisor of the environmental staff group for over three years, directing support personnel involved in environmental engineering and licensing for cogeneration projects as well as coal, nuclear and renewable resource power plants.
During 1983 Ms. Blum was Project Manager for feasibility engineering and licensing for a 66 MW waste-fired cogeneration plant in Southern California.
She had overall responsibility for technical performance, schedule, and budget control, including direction of 25 team members and three subcontractors.
Other experience as Engineering Supervisor - Environmental includes air quality permitting and preliminary engineering for a 2000 MW coal plant (Nevada); feasibility studies for cogeneration plants ranging from 6 to 125 (California and Utah); environmental and licensing evaluation of 20 power development alternatives up to 1000 MW (California); permitting for a 12.5 MW solar plant (California); Environmental Impact Statement preparation for an 80 MW wind farm and 138 kv trans-mission line (Hawaii); and Environmental Report preparation and review f or an 2200 MW nuclear plant (Georgia).
Ms. Blum has also provided technical support during licensing inter-ventions related to cooling tower salt drift impacts on vegetation for two nuclear power projects (Arizona and Georgia).
Before joining Bechtel in 1981 Ms. Blum was associated with Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation in Boston, where she was a Marketing Engineer managing proposal preparation for power.. process, and industrial projects. Previously, as Lead Environmental Engineer, she was responsible for the environmental engineering, impact assessment, and licensing for various power projects.
She prepared a site suitability report for a proposed 2,600 MW nuclear power station and directed a detailed engineering, economic, and environmental evaluation of high salinity closed-cycle cooling systems.
!L
I Earlier in her career, Ms. Blum was responsible for the design of a shore protection system, based on extensive physical model tests, to prevent flooding at a nuclear power plant on Lake Ontario. She also acquired other power plant design experience including alter-native heat rejection system studies, hydraulic and water resources '
engineering, and preparation of environmental reports and state /
federal permit applications.
Ms. Blum has coauthored several technical papers on power plant cooling systems, shore protection, and waste-to-energy projects.
Professional Affiliations:
Registered Professional Engineer, Rhode Island Member, American Society of Civil Engineers Member, Chi Espilon (National Civil Engineering Honor Society)
Alternatives & Renewables Section Sponsor /Vice Sponsor, Pacific Coast Electrical Association, 1985/6 Engineering &
Operating Conferences L
~
ATTACHMENT 3 EXHIBIT B EVALUATION OF DRIFT DEPOSITION RATES AT THE V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Prepared by Georgia Power Company for submittal to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission September 25, 1984 4
s
,,n,-
,-e n
- e 1
\\
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE A.'
As s ump ti o n s................................................. 1 B.
Ori ginal Estimate at ' VEGP................................... 2 C.
Revised Emission Rate at VEGP...............................
2 D.
Estimated Peak Deposi tion Rates at VEGP..................... 3 E.
Estimated Offsite Peak Deposition Rates at VEGP............. 5 Appendix 1 VEGP Locati on and Vicini ty Map................... 13 Appendix 2 Annual Water Deposition at Beaver Valley 2........14 Appendix 3 So u rc e Da ta...................................... 15 t
l
1 A.
Assumptions 1.
It is assumed that Susquehenna, Beaver Valley, Shearon Harris and Grand Gulf Power Plants have similar salt drift characteristics and meteorological conditions as VEGP. This position is based on the
. available information on cooling tower parameters (i.e., type of cooling tower, tower height, circulating flow rate) and annual average meteorological parameters (See Appendix 3).
Other unknwon parameters that will affect salt drift deposition are further assumed to be the same.
2.
It is assumed that VEGP has the si'nilar deposition patterns as the above mentioned four plants.
On this basis the following should be true:
(a) Peak depositions occurs at about the same distance in the predominant downwind direction for the cooling towers.
(b) The relationship between peak deposition ano decrease in deposition with distance is the same, and between two relatively close distances such relationship is linear.
(c). Peak deposition rates are proportional to the emission rates and wind rose frequencies.
(d) The ratio of distance at the peak deposition to the distance at a deposition other than the peak is equivalent.
This relationship is illustrated below:
Plant A Deposition al a2 a1 = bl rate H
H (lb/ac/yr)
Plant B bl b2 0
Distance (miles)
L
2 B.
Original Estimate at VEGP Emission Rate based on conservative design parameters:
Cooling Tower Units 2
=
Circulating Flow Rate
= 484,600 gpm Drift Loss
= 0.03%
TDS in Makeup Water
= 76 mg/l Cycles of Concentration = 8 Operating Factor
= 0.8 Emission Rate (ER) from Each Tower:
ER = 484,600 gpm x 60 min /hr x 24 hr/d x 3.751/ gal x 0.03% x (76 mg/l x 8) x 10-6 kg/mg x 2.2 lb/kg
= 1050 lb/d Total ER = 1040 lb/d x 2
= 2010 lb/d Deposition Rate based on uniform deposition within 1 mile radius:
Pu = 2010 lb/d x 365 d/yr x-0.8 (1 mile)' x TJ x 640 ac/ mile 2
= 305 lb/ac/yr C.
Revised salt drift emission rate for VEGP based on current expected operating conditions 484,600'gpm f I6 I"'
Circulating Flow Rate
=
Drift loss 0.008%
=
TDS in Makeup Water _
-60 mg1
=
Cycles of Concentration =
4 Operating Factor 0.8
=
Units 2
=
Emission Rate from Each Tower:
I ER 484,600 gpm x 60 mi /hr x 24 hr/d x 3.751/ gal x 0.008%
=
D (60 mg/l x 4) x 10-0 kg/mg x 2.2 lb/kg 110.5 lb/d
=
Total Emission Rate TER = 110.5 lb/d x 2 towers 221 lb/d
=
This is about 1/10 of the original estimated emission rate, mainly due to the reductions in drift loss, concentration factor and TDS in makeup water.
3 D.
Estimated Peak Onsite Deposition Rates at VEGP (based on the ratio of the VESP emission rate and wind rose frequency to those from the four power plants):
a)
VEGP - Susquehanna 110.5 lb/d/ tower x 2 towers x 12%
PVEGP
=
3 lb/ac/yr 186 lo/d/ tower x 2 towers x 14.5%
1.5 lb/ac/yr PVEGP
=
b)
VEGP - Beaver Valley #1 (1 ) Based on Beaver Valley #1 ER-OLS 110.5 lb/d/ tower x 2 towers x 12%
PVEGP
=
80 lb/aclyr T050 lo/d/ tower x 1 tower x 45.65 13 lb/ac/yr PVEGP
=
(2) Based on Beaver Valley #2 ER-OLS Total maximum deposition rate from 2 units = 9.9 lb/ac/yr Emission ratio of Unit 1 to Unit 2 1050 lb/d - Unit 1
=
2bb ID/d - Unit 2 3.7
=
Therefore, the salt deposition contributed from Unit 1 is:
9.9 lb/ac/yr x 3.7 7.8 lb/ac/yr
=
3.7+1 110.5 lb/d/ tower x 2 towers x 12%
PVEGP
=
7.8 lb/ac/yr 1U60 lb/d/ tower x 1 tower x 10.5%
1.9 lb/aclyr PVEGP'
=
c)
VEGP - Beaver Valley #2 Salt deposition contributed from Unit 2 is:
9.9 lb/ac/yr - 7.8 lb/ac/yr = 2.1 lb/ac/yr 110.5 lb/d/ tower x 2 towers x 12%
PVEGP
=
2.1 lo/ac/yr 266 lo/d/ tower x 1 tower x 10.bs PVEGP = 1.9 lb/ac/yr
4 d)
VEGP - Sheron Harris (1) The daily salt emission based on 0.05% drift loss
= 1543 lb/d/ tower The. corresponding peak deposition rate
= 100 lb/ac/yr per tower.
On this basis, the expected peak deposition at VEGP would be:
PVEGF 110.5 lb/d/ tower x 2 towers x 12%
=
TOTTb/ac/yr 1543 Ib/d/ tower x 1 tower x 10.6%
PVEGP = 16.2 lb/ac/yr (2)
If based on the expected drift loss of 0.002% at Shearon
- Harris, the daily emission rate would be:,
1543 lb/d/ tower x 0.002%
61.7 lb/d/ tower
=
0.05%
The peak deposition rate would also reduce according to:
100 lb/ac/yr per tower x 0.002%
0.05%
= 4 lb/ac/yr On'this bisis~thi~ peak deposition rate at VEGP would be:
7 PVEGP 110.5 lb/d/ tower x 2 towers x 12%
=
TT57ac/yr 61.7 lb/d/ tower x 1 tower x 10.6%
PVEGP = 16.2 -lb/ac/yr It can be seen that the peak deposition rate at VEGP would be 16.2 lb/ac/yr regardless of which drift loss for Shearon Harris is used, because with the reduction in drift loss the
~ deposition rate at Shearon Harris would be reduced accordingly.
e)
VEGP - Grand Gulf 110.5 lb/d/ tower x 2 towers x 12%
PVEGP
=
TDT 1b/ac/yr 1022 lb/d/ tower x 2 towers x 9%
PVEGP = 0.7 lb/ac/yr t
c t
5 In sumary, the peak deposition rate at VEGP ranges from 0.7 lb/ac/yr to 16.2 lb/ac/yr (for both units combined) in the predominent wind direction (SE) within 0.3 to 0.6 miles of the cooling towers with the possibility to reach as far as 0.9 miles from the cooling towers.
It should be noted that the earlier salt drift modeling (in early 70's) conducted at Beaver Valley #1 and Shearon Harris provides a peak deposition rate at VEGP between 13 to 16.2 lb/ac/yr, yet the recent modeling (late 70's and early 80's) at Susquehenna, Beaver Valley #2 and Grand Gulf provides a peak deposition rate at VEGP between 0.7 to 1.9 lb/ac/yr.
E.
Estimated Offsite Peak Deposition Rates at VEGP (based on 2 deposition patterns from Susquehenna and Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2):
(1) The only available data on drift deposition patterns are provided by Susquehenna and Beaver Valley Unit 2.
Susquehenna has a deposition pattern with two peaks and the maximum deposition occurs at 0.6 miles from the cooling towers in the predominant wind direction, whereas Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2 has a deposition pattern with one peak and it occurs at 0.9 miles from the cooling towers in the predominant wind direction (Appendix 2). Therefore by matching the deposition patterns with the locations of maximum deposition, there are four possibilities that could potentially be the case at VEGP:
Case 1:
Following Susquehenna's deposition with maximum deposition at 0.6 miles from the cooling towers Case 2:
Following Susquehen.na's deposition pattern with maximum deposition at 0.9 miles from the cooling towers Case 3:
Following Beaver Valley Unit 1 and 2's deposition pattern with maximum deposition at 0.9 miles from the cooling towers Case 4:
Following Beaver Valley Unit 1 and 2's deposition pattern with maximum deposition at 0.6 miles from the cooling towers.
The offsite-peak deposition rates at VEGP would be estimated according to each case for three wind sectors: SE, NE and E.
SE is the prodominant wind sector at VEGP, and the closest site boundaries l
with respect to cooling towers are in the NE and E wind sectors I
(Appendix 1).
i-a L
6 (2) A sample calculation for Case 3 is presented below:
Case 3 ' VEGP follows Beaver Valley Unit 1 and 2 Deposition Pattern with peak deposition at 0.9 miles from the cooling towers.
The deposition pattern from Beaver Valley Unit 1 and 2 has only one peak and the deposition beyond this peak would decrease with the increase in distance (Appendix 2).
(a )' The peak deposition in the SE wind sector at VEGP would be 16.2 lb/ac/yr at 0.9 miles from the cooling towers.
This peak would occur within the site boundary. The offsite peak deposition in this wind sector would occur just beyond the site boundary, approximately 1.0 mile from the cooling towers (Appendix 1).
Based on Appendix 2, the peak deposition for Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2 is at 0.9 miles E of the cooling towers and the predicted deposition of 5 lb/ac/yr in the same wind sector occurs about 1.75 miles from the cooling towers. Based on the Assumption 2(b) (page 1), the deposition rate at 1.0 mile E of the cooling towers would be:
9.9 lb/ac/yr - 9.9 lb/ac/yr - 5 lb/ac/yr x (1.0 mile -0.9 miles) 1.75 miles - 0.9 miles 9.3 lb/ac/yr
=
A fall off ratio of deposition rates between 0.9 miles and 1.0 mile at Beaver Valley Unit 1 and 2 is:
~
9.9 lb/ac/yr = 1.1 9.3 lb/ac/yr Applying the same fall off ratio at VEGP, the deposition rate at 1.0 mile SE of the cooling towers would be:
16.2 lb/ac/yr x 1
= 14.7 lb/ac/yr V
Therefore, the offsite peak deposition at VEGP in the SE wind sector would be approximately 14.7 lb/ac/yr at 1.0 mile from 1
the cooling towers, just beyond the site boundary.
(b) The peak deposition in the NE wind sector of VEGP would be:
Wind frequency in the NE wind sector 6%
=
Wind frequency in the SE wind sector = 12%
16.2 lb/ac/yr 12%
=
x 67.
x
= 8.1 lb/ac/yr
7 This peak would occur at 0.9 miles NE of the cooling towers, which is 0.5 miles beyond the site boundary (Appendix 1).
(c) The peak deposition in the E wind sector of VEGP would be:
Wind frequency in the E wind sector = 8.35 16.2 lb/ac/yr 1 25
=
x 8.3%
11.2 lb/ac/yr x
=
This peak would occur at 0.9 miles E of the cooling towers, which is about 0.3 miles beyond the site boundary ( Appendix 1).
In summary, the off site peak deposition at VEGP, which follows Beaver Valley Unit 1 and 2's deposition pattern with the peak deposition at 0.9 miles from the cooling towers, would be approximately 14.7 lb/ac/yr at 1.0 miles SE of the cooling towers, tienediately beyond the site boundary.
(3) Similar aproaches can be taken to calculate the other cases and Table 1 summarizes the offsite peak deposition based on the 4 cases described above.
It can be noted from the table that the most conservative prediction for offsite peak deposition at VEGP would be provided by Case 3, having a deposition rate of about 14.7 lb/ac/yr at 1.0 mile SE of the cooling towers.
However, even with this number the offsite peak deposition concentrations are expected to be below the guideline levels for vegetation damage provided by NUREG-0555 and Reg. Guide 4.111 e
N
,.a-.-_,m._-
,w
l 8
]
\\
Table 1
)
Summary of Predictions of Offsite Peak Deposition Rates at VEGP j
Case Parameter 1
2 3
4 Assumptions Location of the 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.6 peak deposition from cooling towers (miles)
Deposition Susquehanna Susquehanna Beaver Beaver Patterns Valley Valley Offsite Peak 0.6 miles 0.9 miles 1.0 miles 0.6 miles Deposition E of the CT E of the CT SE of the CT E of the Expected CT Site Boundary 0.6 miles 0.6 miles 1.0 miles 0.6 miles in the E of the CT E of the CT SE of the CT E of the Corresponding CT Direction Estimated Offsite Peak Deposition 511.2 11.2 514.7 sll.2 Rate (lb/ac/yr) l L
r APPENDIX 1 Page 13 e-5 u
a e
s
.zu c
e i e I
l.
=
f...0 j,,. I 1 J g
I
/
It
, i: ::
a i
I 3
j i
I I
i 1
, i.li i
lIlt E
8g ll 3
a C
. a-.
I I
j p!fr 5
I Illli Ill 1 111.11 l
l')
fW' i s i
e i
a c.
e
<! 1 l
0 g
C I-'
e..,-
@ _8 n i
! \\,1
=5
~/ *
=
oo
/
- E
\\,
92 i
- 51 W
/
\\.!._..,
s t
C.~'-
$'[
55l
.r.i L.. -
v.
1 g
g g! -
5 1 g
8
, ~ ~ ~
, ti o
e '}--.
p
.- __- - x a
I
,u n.
O.
.)
s r
i y
f E
tr'.
,s
':..,if 5
i'.%
W
.=f
\\
y
. \\
~
-}
..lG, 'll )A
--r-
><,,/ - - :\\'
F...
l..' -
. =~s A.t.~
o p
g,;
u 4
J 6...'.
g.i, 7
. f.
O e
i s-Q.
i
' - 'E_j Kg d A...
.i j.
__3 -
r.=.=,...
/[{ :. _.
N._.441 d s'-
N I
rk :-
1
' It t
/.
,l l/ -]-- ?; Q' T.?'
\\?,t f.
l l.
- e/
t
./-
. [
- 4. l,~
4 eJ... 51 th
, -,. 51)
/\\
.7
.e-
[ 'ib4
'.2 i g. /
~
\\!
i.-.
5
- a. '. ~s.. p.l;.
g
)
' ' ~ '
~
I
? %
n>
- y-
,f.
g;, -..a
s..'
u.y.4
/ <.
. }. 44 y
'A
}i
,8 }*
%,%my*,s
'~~ *
- g. '% s SE w.
i -'_j,q,g@( * '
,0 p
k' N
r.-
~.
t t'
g s}
=.
O, N.
fN..
.--s.-
N' s...
\\/:#{.,.
%~
j_--
. ~.,, y - 7.-
s s y
\\.
w
%.L/
.g
.,[,,
[
/
g..
w.:,
.~
c, I ',l g &,. %
- l.,
s
%l..
.. A ' % -
' ~ ~
,$ [ ~ Tj 7,
- b,
-gt.,
/l u!
I
}s
... v g. ;,
b:
s %.
~
,... s-j i,
.s
- a.
1I I *.*
III s
ll,- -
\\
i s.
f.
V
/f * ' \\/
?
i t
I.
?
?
,?
i, r, s,.
f APPENDIX 2 Page 14 A.-
.,o et v
Y' q I"
.l',f.~,\\,',,.
bN 5
l 3
2
,, '. ~
..(4's.,* h k.
~
)
~~,
\\'..
e v
E '. h
..k.Q, *f. ' LI
'N8
,.[ t =,, j '
/ ]*,, 1
&g 3J j
.~"
- j a
&, r n \\ s} 0,; g,*
-+
s =*-
- =-
___,J ~*..,f"e.c.s T..,j' O;.9l,,. v' g eY*
.i~
. N }-
K s.
- \\
b.;
j',.
l,'T 0+
o';
s.
a,s.
.5
, u.
v,
' 's.,e
~'lpaes,l -
g' e.
.~t,
<8 y,__
6 s*
d r. -
e ese....
s
(,. m. 9 ',<'.,,,,'.'.,,' s) -[},*.<
J **
- s.f
' * ~,
,-g, f
- .a i*8. rl 1
g.
~<4,
/,.y
[-
-g,
"'),,. / '
.\\ 4
-' * ( '
~/r--' ~ ~
.... f
'g ?
i. -
.yn N-
% h \\., **,. ( -k !
.M,
~ 5l'* [K 1...u. g//' ' _3
- j.
t.7""#*f'%
\\
. ~~ D 8
- .. ~.
. M c/ 'v *
',c
-d' f
.-ll
{
4.:-:/v 1..... -
1
.s,i 3
'N
\\,,b
./
'. s, f 4..,
y'
,,,e c - 4 g*-**w'- 5e.
s.
4.'
x*-
g
\\ \\
- 1 g
/
.i N
y.
0:p /t
,,,' I.'
'*/ [S tc.,,
'g'-'*[,.
s
--. x
..iA.r't..
..s.y-,.
s-
- (.
v,a s
.i J
'*~T
', SN I..*
f a,,
j JD 7..f a
, e u f, c'D U,e.
Jt y wy s
y a i
3
\\
.,f,
' ~,
.f
- so- %
<~
2,p*-. - ). - * ).Y., ;'Q. g} lO fy="**
,;^
g
. Z &,0 y
p, *y*-G. 9 x.
~,..,o=
V.' '
s
., l.y./.7l i
y
.t e.
^
0 ; rip
,s*..
,m #, o ::..
,, s
- ~,,
8
~ * *%,j 3
-- m
~ r
_,g
.,\\.;.. - >. :.i. _,.y
/.
........-p
.e,..
+
....-..3.,.,-
e~ ra.
s
, p.
- ./
-~; 3:p
- q m
3 77,.y,,'10
..."...,..,. ~,,. y
' :. n.
- c. p A
.,...v
- %j,
- g ' ;.,.1_
y
.s-
<..;. y-~.
~
i.
~
b, s-is,.
t, e
?
- g f..) v. q -h..;
- r %..._,,,.
,.a., 9 e.
.d'.
L,..,,
- \\,;..
. ' g:. v,.. -.,,.. _
.. t 4
.. -, +.. <
- s.. m t g,; e -,.
4:
y siq~..,,,,, ' a..\\g w--
.;qp,pq~ fQ.,\\ \\
+a' -
4 f
c.. -Nn.
\\+.:
,,e
-x 2
A
~
g,.);.-
.-N
,y c
/vi'.g.
m r
',ff,.i.% 'j $!,o q,.' t 9{
A, ra.
P,
- y q.
+ 'y ; / j.3 _ _.g-g q.
e,
.:J
.4 i
\\ b.~:'%" +,.;-r b_-).c h
^.
r
. C W.:
i4o kI
.I '
.[ '" - *.
f<
p'
L bpAh ' c. 'N.+.v. :yh
(
. 'pr '- R. ry.,Q,
- r. ' '.'?
, 4. ',,
l.
-ish
.., d g 4 g'. 6 c. #r.,,.. q.0~;; y',. <
tp yp
~-tu
.- %' 3 g -:g M p,(. g..l }<'%y,p$gg ' y q
.; g :-.V'j d':;..':e
- j ij 4
., Q r-
,(d,., ;.p,tg*,
- pe,_ ;
y-(k,'A.
yp.
\\, \\ f.i\\
s
', 7 M,3' k. ? Q, g' $/
.:..j '9 %'T.'. ' q.} b(A.'\\f
~
f '.~
tv. p.
[L
) ! yl q
-s
',.gNo[h-N.-X, Q
, p',,~. K g,. d.
/
l.
M. W,
, N.... (1
-g,,.
em s.. v
.g,
.&%, m ;
t z.,;,. p[~ ~ f. ~ Nnw w!
a.
, " ) '.,,\\.g[
'h.
j l -.
> t'-
e
, li{'
' ei.
f
.\\
V" ;.
-[
' 1-
>. w
. ~.,.
.r
,as. s,. --
- 1 1.
r 'y.-}
M,.
y s, *.,
,s,._,
y... }; ' %.,/
4.'
m s
. d' Y
E 0
.h, b r y
.J,.,
.. +
~
, 1 c u t.,, y.
~
r \\ _'. c. s/.'
y q\\. s.
. :-.. c.,;.t
> v. y i' k,,,
.t
.sg
,a
' k,,
..l [ - )'y.,
's s 7"-
,,,'.)
l, i
)
NOTE:
East wind sector: mile 0.18 0.3 0.45 0.9 1.75 2.95 Q M AXIMUM VALUE OF 20,3OO LB/ ACRE /YR lb/ac/yr 1
3 5
9.9 5 3
4,000 FT EAST FIGURE 3 8-5 o
- 0. 5 i
ANNUAL WATER DEPOSITION
( LB/ ACR E/ YR )
(
SCALE - MILES BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE L
{
1,,
T COOLING TOWER DRlrT PARAMETERS FOR VOCTLE AND FOUR OTHER PLANTS a
Plant /
Type of Cooling Vogtle/
Susquchenna/
Beaver Valley /
Shearon Harris /
Crand Cul r/.
Tower Na tti ra l D ra f t Ma t te ra l D ra f t ga ttira l D ra f t Na t u ra l Dra f t Ma t te ra l Dra f t Unit 1 Unit R Kulber or cooling towcrs 2
2 1
1 88 2
Haight or cooling tower 550 ft 5fs0 f t Sol rt 501 ft 520 ft 522 ft Gua rantccd 0.03%
0.02%
0.05% "3 0.013% "I 0.05% "I 0.008% "I I
I I
I Drlft Rate Expected 0.008%
"I 0.002% "I 0.005%
NA 0.002%'
NA I
I Circulating water flow rate 4884,600 9pm 478,000 gpm 8s50,400 gpm 507,8 00 gpm 482,000 gpa 572,000 spo I
Ccncentration in makeup 60 mg/l (avg) 8:32 mg/I*I 208s og/l (avg) 203 mg/l 70 mg/l (avg) 376 og/l (avg)
(max)
(avg)
Cancentration factor 4 (avg) 3.8 (avg) 1.8 (avg) 1.8 (avg) 7.7 (avg) 5 (max)'*I I
Cancentration in blowdown 2ts0 og/l (avg) 168:0 mg/l 368 og/l (avg) 365 mg/l 539 mg/l (avg) 1880 mg/I*lmaw!
(max)
(avg)
Evaporation rate 3.0%
2.3%
1.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.8%
Plant capacity 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 3
100 45%
20%
NA 35%
NA 44 5 %
s Droplet ge Q
size 100-300 50%
70%
NA 65%
NA 55%
c2
~
distributlon 300 5%
10%
NA 0%
NA 0%
ta I
I IO 17 lb/ acre /yr " 3 lb/ acre /yr " 80 lb/ac re/yr 3 lb/ acre /yr 400 lb/ acre /yr NA Rate no 3
Hax onsite Distance from 0.9 miles 'I 0.6 miles 0.3 miles 0.75 miles 0.3 miles -
NA J
I drif t CT deposition Wind sector SE
[
u3 CD g
I
r 7
Plant /
Type or Cooling Vogtic/
Susquehenna/
Ocavor Va lley/
Shearon Harris /
Grand Oulf/
Tower Natural Draf t Nay ral Dra[g Natural Draft Natural Draft Natural Draft Unit 1 Unit 2 9.9 lb/ acre /yr1A 5.02 lb/scre/yr "
Rste 15 lb/ acre /yr "I 3 lb/ acre /yr "' MA Har orrsite Distance trom 1.0 miles 0.6 miles NA O.9 miles NA 0.6 miles 80 etri rt cooling tower r*
C250sition Wind sector SE SSW NA E
NA E
g rs deposited in Humidity 72%
70%
69% '*3 7 3. 5% 3 75%
765 3,
t9.1*r 60*r 65.5'F i
w Tempe ra tu re 63 ts*r 849'r 50.3*r 8
M E
Wind speed in 6.6 miles /hr'*8 8.7 miles /hr 5.6 *3
- 6. 6 '*3 8.7 miles /hr 6.4 miles /hr Meteorological predominant miles /hr miles /hr 3,
canditions, direction g
annual avg frequency or 12%
18s. 5 %
15.6%
10.5%
10.6%
9.0%
dominant wind Dominant E
D E
D E-r D-E Pasquil stability class o.
Design maximum values were used in salt drift modeling, b.
Average wind speed in the dominant wind direction is not available, local average wind speed is applied. The actual wind speed is expected to be higher.
I c.
Wind speed has been adjusted from 33 f t to 150 f t by the following equation: V/V = (Z/Z ), with V = wind spesi et a reference height, a nd P = 0. t:5.
,o given level, Z =
es d.
Although droplet size distribution for Unit 1 cooling tower was not provided in the environmental reports, it is expected t2 be similar to that for Uni t 2.
O.
Based on the data collected onsite between September 5,1969 to September 5,1970.
O r.
Based on the data collected onsite between January 1, 1976 to December 31, 1980.
g.
Deposition rate represents the contribution from both units, h.
The drif t loss used in drif t deposition modeling as indicated in the references.
l.
The peak deposition will occur within 0.3 to 0.9 miles or the cooling tower.
J.
Deposition rate represents the contribution from four units.
A
l t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. :
Docket Nos. 50-424 50-425 (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the Affidavit of Nora A. Blum, dated July 10, 1985, were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or where indicated by an asterisk (*) by hand delivery, this lith day of July, 1985.
/ h
- k. b J&mes E. Joiner V Attorney for Applicants Dated:
July 11, 1985 L
f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-424
)
50-425 (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )
Units 1 and 2)
)
SERVICE LIST Morton B. Margulies, Chairman
- Douglas C. Teper Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1253 Lenox Circle U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta, Georgia 30306 Washington, D. C.
20555
- Laurie Fowler Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Legal Environmental Assistance Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Foundation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 218 Flora Avenue, N. E.
Washington, D. C. 20555 Atlanta, Georgia 30307 Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- Thn Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 175 Trinity Avenue, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20555 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esquire Docketing and Service Section Office of Executive Legal Director Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20555 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Bradley Jones, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Counsel Washington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite 3100 Appeal Board Panel 101 Marietta Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Washington, D. C. 20555 k