ML20136B269
| ML20136B269 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1976 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0070, NUREG-70, NUDOCS 7909040390 | |
| Download: ML20136B269 (300) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:._. - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - NUR EG-0070 p y .o " i e p n q-e (' t r*
- t f -
g t b, .. eu..d!L.u . .'~ <..". DUfI
/
DR AFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT related to operation of ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE UNIT 2 ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY Docket No. 50-368 Published: May 1976 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COYMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION s j M fgD$$ O f f r u. i +
' 1 q g g)$O
Sullf1ARY AND CONCLUSIONS This Environmental Statement was prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (the staff).
- 1. The action is aoministrative.
- 2. The proposed action is the issuance of an operating license to the Arkansas Power a Light Corpany for the sortup and operation of Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 (Docket No. 50-368)
(the plant), located on Lake Dardnelle in Pope County, 2 miles southeast from the village of London and 6 miles northwest from the City of Russellville, Arkansas. The unit will erploy a pressurized-water reactor to produce up to 2825 negawatts thermal (MWt). A steam tarbine-generator will use this heat to provide up to 950 regawatts elec-trical (the) of electrical power capacity. The maximum design thermal output of the unit is 2908 MWt with a corresponding maximum calculated electrical output of 974 f1We. The exhaus t steam will te cooled by a closed-cycle cooling system using a natural-draft tower to dissi-pate waste heat to the atmosphere. flakeup water will be taken from the Illinois Bayou arm of Lake Dardanelle through a 4400-ft intake canal. The cooling tower blowdown, along with other liquid effluents from Unit 2, will be diluted by cooling water from Unit I and dis-charged to an 80-acre embayment of Lake Dardanelle.
- 3. The information in this Staterent represents the second assessrent of the environnental irrpact associated with Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 pursuant to the guidelines of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and 10 CFR Part 51 of the Comission's Regulations.
Af ter receipt of an application, in 1970, to construct this plant, the staff carried out a review of impacts that would occur during the construction and operation of the plant. This evaluation was issued as a Final Environmental Statenent in Septerter 1972. As the result of this environmental review, an evaluation by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and a public hearing in Little Rock, Arkansas, the AEC (now NRC) issued a permit, in December 1972, for the construction of Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2. As of flarch 1976, the construc. tion of Unit 2 was over 62% complete. With a proposed fuel-loading date of Septenter 1977 for Unit 2, the applicant petitioned for a license to operate Unit 2 and submitted in July 1974 the required safety and environrental reports to substantiate the petition. The staff has reviewed the activities associated with the proposed operation of the plant and the potential impact, with both beneficial and adverse effects, is sunuqarized as follows:
- a. Land areas of the site that will be disturbed by the construction of Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 were already disturbed by the construction activities associated with Unit 1 At conpletion of construction, these areas will be landscaped in the irriediate vicinity of the buildings; others will be seeded with native grasses and trees.
( Appendix E. Sect. iv.)
- b. At full power, the cooling tower blowdown, estimated to range between 2.6 and 10.6 cubic feet per second (cfs) (1180 and 4700 gallons per minute, gpm), is mixed and diluted with at least one-half the flow (C50 cfs or 383,000 gpm) of circulating water f rom Unit 1 prior to discharge to the ertayrent. The estimated temperature rise in the erbayment resulting from Unit 2 operation is less than 0.2*F and is expected to cause no neasurable change in the aquatic organism life cycles in the enbayment. (Appen-dixE, Sect.V.B.)
- c. Introduction of chlorine as a blocide into the closed.cy:le cooling system of Unit 2 is pl ened in such a way that no detectable increase is exps:ted in the discharge to the erbayment. (Sect. 5.3.2.)
- d. Other chemicals discharged to the lake will be dilated such that the concentrations will not af fect aquatic biota. (Sect. 5.3.2.)
- e. Loss of fish due to impingement on the water intake screens of Units I and 2 will occur. However, the operation of Unit 2 is not eyected to reasurably increase the i
level of impingement which has been experienced at Unit 1. Shad species impingenent is expected to be high during the winter months, but these losses are not expected to affect shad populations in terms of the maintenance of lake shad populations from year to year. (Sect. 5.4.2.)
- f. Aquatic organisms small enough to pass through Unit 2 intake screens and enter the closed-cycle cooling system are assumed to have 100% mortality. Of the total flow in the canal, approximately 3.4% will enter the closed-cycle cooling system of Unit 2.
Such entrainment losses are not expected to adversely affect total lake populations. (Sect. 5.4.2.)
- g. Operation of the natural-draf t cooling tower is estimated to increase the naturally occurring ground fog in the area by a maximum of 120 hours per year within 0.5 miles of the station. This fogging is not expected to interfere with nearby highway traffic but does have the potential of increasing the number of hours river traffic could be affected. River traffic must contend with local fogging conditions that already exist on the lake, and the possible additional few hours within 0.5 mile of the station on infrequent days from possible fog created by the natural-draf t cooling tower is con-sidered to pose no significant additional hazardous operation to river traffic. No airports are in the vicinity to be affected by fogging. (Appendix E Sect. XI-A.S.)
No detectable impacts are anticipated from releases of radioactive materials as a r
- h. (
consequence of nomal operation. The annual average dose to the U.S. population is not expected to exceed 19 nan-rems. (Sect. 5.5.)
- 1. The natural draft cooling tower will be visible from many locations within a 10-mile radius of the station. (Sect. 5.6.)
- 4. The following Federal, State, and local agencies have been requested to corrent on this Draf t Environrental Statement:
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ( Department of Agriculture Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Department of Correrce Department of Health, Education and Welfare Department of Housing and Urban Developnent Departrent of the Interior Departrent of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency Federal Energy Administration Federal Power Comission Arkansas Gane and Fish Cocinission Arkansas Planning Comission Arkansas Board of Ecology and Pollution Control Pope County (Arkansas) Cocinissioners
- 5. This Environnental Statement was rtde available to the public, to the Cotncil on Environ-mental Quality, and to other specified agencies in May 1976.
- 6. On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this statement, and after weighing the environmental, economic, technical and other benefits against environmental costs and af ter considering available alternatives at the construction stage, it is concluded that the action called for under NEPA and 10 CFR Part 51 is the issuance of an operating license for Unit 2 of Arkansas Nuclear One subject to the following conditions for the protection of the environment:
- a. License Conditions Before engaging in additional construction or operational activities which may result in a significant adverse environmental impact that was not evaluated or that is signif-icantly greater than that evaluated in this Environmental Staterent, the applicant shall provide written notification to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
- b. Significant Technical Specification Requirements (1) The applicant will carry out the environnental (thermal, chemical, radiological, ecological) monitoring program outlined in this Statement, and in the Final 11
Environmental Statement for the Construction Pemit as modified and approved by the staff and implemented in the Environmental Technical Specifications incorpo-rated in the Operating License for AND-2. This study shall include the collection of data for at least one yea
- prior to operation of the plant and extending for at least one year of plant operation. (Sect. 6.)
(2) If, during the operating life of the station, ef fects or evidence of irreversible damage are detected, the applicant will provida to the staff an analysis of the problem and a proposed course of action to alleviate the problea. (3) The applicant will monitor impinged fish on the intake screens and ertrained ichthyoplankton in the intake canal. (Sect.6.5.) (4) The applicant will report all bird-collision incidents with the cooling tower causing mortalities in excess of 100 birds / day. (Sect. 6.4.) (5) In compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix !. the applicant is required to provide to the Commission within a period of twelve months from June 4,1975, the infomation indicated therein. (Sect. 5.5.2.) 111
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS ................... .... .......... ... .. ..... . . .....
......... .... ... ....... ................ .... vii LIST OF FIGURES ....... ... ..
LIST OF TABLES . ...... ........... ..... ........... ....... ..... .... ... .... vill FOREWORD ............ . ........ . .......... ......... . . .......... .. ...... ix
- 1. INTRODUCTION .................................... ....... ............ ..... 1-1 1.1 HISTORY .......... ...... ... ...... .............. ........... ........ 1-1 1.2 PERMITS AND LICENSt5 ........... .......... .......... ....... . ....... 1-1
- 2. THE SITE ........ ... ............. ......................... .... .. .... .. 2-1 2.1 RkSUM$...................... ............. .............. .......... 2-1 2-1 2.2 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND USE .................. ....... .. . ......
2.2.1 Population Changes ............... ........ . .... .. ..... . 2-1 2.2.2 Changes in Land Use ................... ............... . . . . . . 2-1 2.2.3 Changes in the Local Economy ............ ...... ............. . 2-2 2.2.4 Historical and Natural Landmarks .... .................... . . .. 2-2 2.3 WATER USE .................................. .......... ......... .. .. 2-2 2.3.1 Regional Water Use .................................... ... ..... 2-2 2.3.2 Surface Water Hydrology . ........ . .......................... .. 2-2 2.3.3 Groundwater Hydrology . .................... ................. .. 2-2 2.3.4 Water Quality .......................................... ......... 2-3 2.4 METEOROLOGY ............ ..... ....... .................... ...... .. . 2-4 2.4.1 Regional Climatology ............................ ................ 2-4 2.4.2 L o c a l tie t e o r o l ogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 2.4.3 Severe Weather .......... ......... .... ......................... 2-4 2.5 SITE ECOLOGY .......................... .. ......................... .. 2-5 2.5.1 Aquatic Ecology .................................. ............... 2-5 2.t.2 Terrestrial Ecology .............................................. 2-9
2.6 BACKGROUND
RADIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2 ............................................... . ... 2-10
- 3. THE PLANT ......... .......................................................... 3-1 3.1 RESUM5 ................................................................. 3-1 3.2 D E S I GN AND OTH E R S I GN I F I CANT C HANG E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.2.1 Water Use ........................................................ 31 31 3.2.2 Heat Dissipation System ......... ................................
3.2.3 R e s e rv o i r I n t a k e S t ru c t u re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.2.4 Radioactive Waste Treatment ...................................... 34 3.2.5 Chemical. Sanitary and Other 'Jaste Treatment Chemical Effluents... 3-11 3.3 T RAN' M I S S I ON L I N E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3 ..................................................... 3-13 iv
TABLEOFCONTENTS(Cont'd) Page
- 4. STATUS OF SITE PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTION .......................... ...... 4-1 4.1 R$5UM5ANDSTATUSOFCONSTRUCTION....................................... 4-1 4.2 STATUS OF T RANSMISSION L INE CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-1 ........
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4 ..................................................... 4-2 5. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF STATION OPERATION ................................... 5-1 5.1 R$5UM5.................................................................5-1 5.2 IMPACTS ON LAND USE .................................... 5-1 5.3 IMPACTS ON WATER USE .................................................... ................. 5-1 5.3.1 Thermal .............................. 5-1 5.3.2 Chemical .................................................................................. 5-1 5.3.3 S a n i t a ry Wa s te s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
. . . . . 5-3 5.3.4 Effects on Groundwater and Surface Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................... 5-4 5.4.1 Te rres t ri a l Env i ronnen t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 5.4.2 Aquatic Environment .................... ......................... 5-6 5.5 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS .................................................... 5-9 5.5.1 Ra di ol ogi cal Impac t on Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9 5.5.2 Radi ological Impact on Bi ota Other Than Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12 l 5.5.3 En v i ronmen tal Ef fec ts of the Uranium Fuel Cyc le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15 5.6 5 0c t 0- ECONOM I C IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5 ..................................................... 5-19 6.
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ..................................................... 6-1 6.1 R[SUMk................................................ 6-1 6.2 METEOROLOGICAL PROGRAM ................................. ................ 6-1 6.3 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ................................... 6-1 1 6.3.1 Preoperational Prog rams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.3.2 O pe ra t i ona l P rog ra ms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ..... . . ..............
. . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10 6.4 TERRESTRIAL PROGRAM ............................ 6-11 6.5 AQUATIC PROGRAM ......................................................... .............,........... 6-11 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6 ..................................................... 6-15 7.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POSTULATED PLANT ACCIDENTS ........................... 7-1 7.1 R[SUMk ................................................................. 7-1 7.2 FACILITY ACCIDENTS ........................................... 7-1 7.3 TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS .............................................. ........... . 7-1 8. NEED FOR PLANT ............................................................... 8-1 8.1 RkSUMk ................................................................. 8-1 8.2 AP?LICANT'S SERVICE AREA AND REGIONAL RELATIONSHIPS ..................... 8-1 8.3 BENEFITS OF OPERATING THE PLANT ......................... ............... 8-1 8.4 ADDITIONAL BENEFITS OF ANO-2 OPERATION ....................... .......... 8-5 \ REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8 ..................................................... 8-6 l t l 1 v l 1
i TABLEOFCONTENTS(Cont'd) PBSL
................................... . . 9-1
- 9. CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .
9.1 ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED ................................. 9-1 9.2 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .............................. 9-1 9.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ........... .... 9-1 9.4 DECOMMISSIONING AND LAND USE ............................................ 9-1 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 9 ..................................................... 9-3
- 10. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS ....................................................... 10-1 10.1 RkSUMk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 1 10.2 BENEFITS ............................................................... 10-1
- 10. 3 E CONOM I C C OSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 1 10.4 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS ................................................. .. 10-1
- 10. 5 S OC I ET AL C OST S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 6 10.6 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE AND TRANSPORTATION ....... 10-6 10.7
SUMMARY
OF BENEFIT-COST ......... ........................... .......... 10-6
- 11. DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT ........ 11-1 APPENDIX - A COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 APPENDIX - B ARKANSAS WATER QUALITY STANDARDS .................................... B-1 APPENDIX - C RADIOLOGICAL MODELS AND ASSUMPTIONS ................................. C-1 APPENDIX - D EXPLAMATION OF BENEFIT-COST
SUMMARY
................................. D-1 APPENDIX - E FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT. CONSTRUCTION STAGE ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-368 SEPTEMBER 1972 ...................................................... E-1 APPENDIX - F
SUMMARY
OF FISH COLLECTIONS FROM ANO-UNIT 1 INTAKE SCREENS DURING THE PERIOD JUNE 10, 1974 - JULY 29, 1975 ..................... F-1 APPENDIX - G RESULTS OF STAFF CALCULATIONS OF SALT DRIFT DEPOSITION, INDUCED FOGGING AND SALT AEROSOL CONCENTRATION FROM OPERATION OF A NATURAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER AT ARKANSAS UNIT 2 ................. G-1 APPENDIX - H RATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION PERMIT (NPDES) FOR ANO ............................................................. H-1
- t vi
LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 3.1 Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 Construction P rog re s s Nov embe r 19 7 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 3.2 Intake Canal and Bubble Curtain ......................................... 3-3 l 3.3 L i qu i d Ra dwa s te Sy s t em . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 3.4 Gasecus Radwaste System ................................................. 3-6 l 5.1 Exposure Pathways to Man ................................................ 5-10 5.2 Exposure Pa thways to Biota Other Than Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14 6.1 Aquatic Sampling Points ................................................. 6-13 8.1 Arkansas Power & Light Company, Service Area ...................... ..... 8-2 8.2 Arkansas Power & Light Company Projected Load Duration Curve 1977 ..................................................... 8-3 8.3 Middle South System Projected Load Duration Curve 1977 .................. 8-4 l l i l 1 i { l l l t t vii
. . _ . _ ._ ~ m . _ _ -- . _ _ _.. -_ -_ _ _
i LIST OF TABLES 1 i ! Table Pai'_ 2.1 Comparison of Population Projections Within 50 Miles 2-1 i' of ANO Site ............................................................. 2-3 2.2 Average Arkansas River Water Quality .................................... , 2.3 Phytoplankton Genera Known from Lake Dardanelle ......................... 2-5 2-7 2.4 Fi s hes Kn own f rom Lake Da rda nelle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3-1 3.1 P l a n t Wa t e r U s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intake Canal Cross Sectional Areas and Average Velocities ............... 3-4 r 4 3.2 3.3 Principal Parameters and Conditions Used in Calculating Releases of Radioactive Material in Liquid and Gaseous i 3-8
. Ef fluents from Arkansas Nuclea r One-Uni t 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Calculated Release of Radioactive Material in Liquid 3-9 1 Effluent from Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 ............................... 2 3.5 Calculated Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous Effluent 3-10 from Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 ........................................ 3.o Maximum Amounts of Chemicals in Cooling Water Discharge . . .... .... . ..... . 3-12 Annual Population Dose Commi tments in the Year 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11 5.1 5.2 Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste To and From One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13 5.3 ' Dose Estimates for Typical Biota near the Arkansas 5-15 N u cl e a r One-Un i t 2 S i te . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Summary of Environmental Considerations for U ran i um Fu e l Cy cl e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16 4 1 Radioanalyses - Listed by Sample Type ................................... 6-2 l . 6.1 i 6.2 Sa mple Locati on a nd Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5 6-9 6.3 Detection Limits ........................................................ Aquatic Sampling Locations and Frequencies .............................. 6-12 6.4 ! 7.1 Environmental Risks of Accidents in' Transport of Fuel and- ! Waste to and from a Typical Light-Water-Cooled Power Reactor ............ 7-1 8-5 i 8.1 Load and Capability Forecast ............................................ 10.1 Bene f i t-Cos t Summa ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-2 10.2 Ca pi tal Cos t of Arkansas Nuclea r One-Unit 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-6 viii-y - , #- ,e + - - ~ , . . - . . ,-
FOREWORD This environmental statement was prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (the staff) in accordance with the Commission's regulation,10 CFR Part 51, which implements the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The NEPA states, among other things, that it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may:
. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations. *
. Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.
l . Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences. l . Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, i and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of I individual choice.
. Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards 4 of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities.
l Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources. Furthe'r, with respect to major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human l environment. Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA calls for preparation of a detailed statement on: (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action; (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; (iii) alternatives to the proposed action; (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and, (v) any irreversible and irretrievable cormiitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. An environmental report accompanies each application for a construction permit or a full-power operating license. A public announcement of the availability of the report is made. Any costrients l on the report by interested persons are then considered by the staff. In corducting the required NEPA review, the staff meets with the applicant to discuss items of information in the environ- ! mental report, to seek new information from the applicant that might be needed for an adequate l assessment, and generally to ensure that the staff has a thorough understanding of the proposed l project. In addition, the staff seeks information from other sources that will assist in the i evaluation and visits and inspects the project site and surrounding vicinity. Members of the I staff may meet with State and local officials who are charged with protecting State and local i interests. On the basis of all the foregoing and other such activities or inquiries as are l deemed useful and appropriate, the staff makes an independent assessment of the considerations l specified in Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA and 10 CFR Part 51. i i l ix
- l This evaluation leads to the publication of a draft environmental statement, prepared by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, which is then circulated to Federal, State and local governmental agencies for coment. A summary notice is published in the Federal Register of the availability of the applicant's environmental report and the draft environmental statement.
Interested persons are also invited to comment on the proposed action and the draft statement. Comnents should be addressed to the Director, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, at the address shown below. ! After receipt and consideration of comments on the draft statement, the staff prepares a final environmental statement, which includes a discussion of questions and objections raised by the coments and the disposition thereof; a final benefit-cost analysis, which considers and balances the environmental effects of the facility and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects with the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of the facility; and a conclusion as to whether--after the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits are weighed against environmental costs and after available alternatives have been considered, the action called for, with respect to environmental issues, is the issuance or denial of the proposed pemit or license or its appropriate conditioning to protect environmental values. This final environmental statement and the safety evaluation report prepared by the staff are submitted to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for its consideration in reaching a decision on the application. This environmental review deals with the impact of operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. Assessments that are found in this statement supplement those described in the Final Environmental Statement (FES-CP) that was issued in September 1972 in support of issuance of a construction pemit for the unit. The information to be found in the various sections of this statement up-dates the FES-CP in four ways: (1) by identifying differences between environmental effects of operation (including those which would enhance as well as degrade the environment) currently projected and the impacts that were described in the preconstruction review; (2) by reporting the results of studies that had not been completed at the time of issuance of the FES-CP and which were under mandate from the NRC staf f to be completed before initiation of the operational review; (3) by evaluating the applicant's preoperational monitoring program; and factoring the results of this program into the design of a post-operational surveillance program and into the development of environmental technical specifications; and (4) by identifying studies being performed by the applicant that will yield additional infomation relevant to the environmental impacts of operating the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. The staff recognized the difficulty a reader would encounter in trying to establish the conformance of this review with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act with only " updating i nformation." Consequently, a copy of the FES-CP accompanies this statement as Appendix E. In addition, introductory rdsumds in appropriate sections of this statement will sumarize both the extent of " updating" and the degree to which the staff considers the subject to be adequately reviewed. Single copies of this statement may be obtained by writing the: Director, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. F. J. Miraglia is the NRC Environmental Project Manager for this project. Mr. Miraglia may be contacted at the above address or at (301) 443-6980. x
- 1. INTRODUCTION l.1 HISTORY On September 10, 1970, the Arkansas Power & Light Company (applicant) filed an application with the Atomic Energy Commission (now Nuclear Regulatory Commission) for a permit to construct Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2. Accordingly, Construction Permit No. CPPR-89 was issued on December 6,1972, following reviews by the AEC Regulatory staff and its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, as well as public hearings before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in Russellville Arkansas, on July 25, 1972 and in Little Rock Arkansas on October 27, 1972. The conclusions obtained in the staff's environmental review were issued as a Final Environmental Statement in September 1972.
As of March 1976, construction of Unit 2 was approximately 62% complete and the reactor is expected to be ready for fuel loading in September 1977. The unit has a pressurized-water reactor which will produce up to 2900 MWt and a net electrical output of 950 MWe. In March 1974, Arkansas Power & Light Company submitted an application including a Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and Environmental Report (ER-OL) requesting issuance of an operating license for Unit 2. These documents were docketed on July 11, 1974 and the operational safety and environmental reviews initiated at that time. 1.2 PERMITS AND LICENSES The applicant has provided a status listing of environmentally related permits, approvals, licenses, etc., required from Federal, regional, State, and local agencies in connection with the proposed project. This information is presented in Chapter 12 of their Environmental Report. The staff has reviewed that listing and has consulted with some of the appropriate agencies in an effort to identify any significant environmental issues of concern to the reviewing agencies. No such issues have been identified. The staff is not aware of any potential non-NRC licensing difficulties that would significantly delay or preclude the proposed operation of the plant. The Regional Administrator of Region VI, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. AR0001392 to Arkansas Nuclear One on December 16, 1974 (see Appendix H). This permit expires on Decenter 15, 1979 and its conditions are applicable to the discharges of both Units 1 and 2. 1-1
- 2. THE SITE 2.1 RESUME The staff revisited the Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 site in March 1975 to determine what changes had occurred at the site and in the surrounding environs since the preconstruction environmental review in 1972. Population distribution estimations have been updated and expanded to indicate estimations to the year 2016. Changes in the local economy due to construction are also discussed.
The staff's assessments of these recent findings are presented in Section 2.2. Additional water quality data has been collected since the issuance of the FES-CP. The new data has been incorpo-
. rated in this statement to provide a more complete picture of the water quality of Lake Dardanelle.
The meteorology section has been updated to include new information. This information is included in Section 2.4. Additional background information related to the aquatic biota within the environs of the site and Lake Dardanelle are discussed in Section 2.5. The aquatic discussion has been considertbly expanded from that presented in the FES-CP, incorporating new material on the lake made available since that time. This material also reflects the present conditions and influence at Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1. 2.2 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND USE 2.2.1 Population Changes There has been a downward revision in the population prsjections for the 50-mile area surrounding the site. The principal reason for the revision is that the FES-CP projections were made by the applicant prior to the availability of the 1970 censun data. Table 2.1 shows a comparison between the population projections of the FES-CP and more recent projections. The projections within 20 miles of the site are slightly increased and the projectiohs within 50 miles of the site are slightly decreased. l TABLE 2.1 COMPARISON OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS WITHIN 50 MILES OF ANO SITE l Radius I FES-CP Recent Projections Miles 1970 2015 1970 2016 5 3,924 6,814 7,149 14,091 10 23,611 35,895 23,085 45,509 20 51,712 76,603 44,973 93,951 30 80.502 122,674 70,602 129,755 40 110,422 164,499 98,942 16'2 ,577 50 163,380 280,577 164,688 255,529 2.2.2 Changes in Land Use The Arkansas Nuclear One station has altered the use of land in Pope County, primarily through the conversion of 430 acres to an industrial site. Only approximately 150 acres are being dis-turbed as a result of construction activities for the 90-acre site.3 While approximately 3700 acres of land will be required for transmission line enrridors associated with Units 1 and 2 the presence of the lines will not alter present land use or productivity. In addition, approx-imately 33 acres of land will be utilized for the Mayflower Substation.S I 2-1
l I 2-2 The total acreage of land affected by the construction and operation of ANO is extremely.small. Most of the changes in land use have occurred with the construction and operation of Unit I with no significant adverse effect on the agricultural productivity of the affected counties. 2.2.3 Changes in the Local Economy Construction activity peaked in 1972 when approximately 950 workers were employed at the site.6 Of this total a maximum of 25 per cent of the construction work force relocated in the Russellville are a . Wages paid during construction are estimated at $60 million, while the local purchases of materials and services are expected to total $22.9 million.6 2.2.4 Historical and Natural Landmarks Plant construction and operation has not and will not adversely affect any historical, archeolog-ical, or cultural resources in the area. The applicant has consulted with the State Historic Preservation Office and a copy of their cocrnent is included in Chapter 12 of the applicant's ER-OL Stage.7 The nearest historical site listed in the National Register of Historic Places is Potts Inn, located approximately eleven miles east-southeast of the plant site. The applicant has also consulted with the Arkansas Archeological Survey and the Arkansas State Parks and Tourism Comission regarding cultural, archeological and scenic resources of the site area and transmission line rights-of-way.e No adverse effects to existing historical, cultural or archeological resources is anticipated. 2.3 WATER USE I
' 2.3.1 Regional Water Use
' There are no public water supplies taken from the Arkansas River between and including Dardanelle Reservoir down to the mouth at the Mississippi River.1 Current water uses have been tabulated by l the applicant in the Environmental Report.1 2.3.2 Surface Water Hydrology No significant changes in regional surface water hydrology have occurred since the Construction Permit (CP) was issued. 1 The ANO site is on the northern floodplain of Dardanelle Reservoir, about six miles upstream of Dardanelle Dam on the Arkansas River. The Arkansas River is a major waterway with 150,000 square miles of drainage area controlled by more than 24 reservoirs. The site is about 259 miles up-stream from the mouth of the Arkansas River; the farthest upstream reservoirs are more than 700 miles away. The minimum navigation pool level of Dardanelle Reservoir is elevation 336 feet mean sea level (ft MSL), and the reservoir normally varies between 336 and 338 ft MSL to provide two feet of storage for hydropower generation. Plant grade is elevation 353 ft MSL and plant ground floor levels are a foot higher. 2.3.3 Groundwater ifydrology_ No significant changes in regional groundwater hydrology have occurred since the CP was issued. Groundwater in the upper overburden at the site fluctuates with the level in Dardanelle Reservoir, but at the site is generally found about 10 feet below the surface sloping toward the reservoir. The lower bedrock zones are low-yield artesian sources. Domestic wells located down groundwater slope from the plant site extend into this bedrock; therefore, any contaminated water accidentally spilled at the plant will migrate very slowly through the relatively impermeable clayey over-burden toward the lake and should have no effect on water supplies taken from the artesian bedrock aquifer. The only use of groundwater in the vicinity of the site is for local domestic purposes. Shallow domestic wells in the general vicinity are located up groundwater slope from the plant site; } therefore, conta:nination from the plant is not possible. I l .. . .
2-3 2.3.4 Water Quality The applicant has presented a sumary of the results of five years of water quality sampling for several sampling stations within Dardanelle Reservoir.2 The data show seasonal variability as well as variability within the reservoir. A good indication of the quality of water in the river in the vicinity of the plant is given by the data for the sampling station near the discharge embayment (Station 3). These data have been averaged by month and the range of monthly averages for each of several water quality parameters is shown in Table 2.2. TABLE 2.2 AVERAGE ARKANSAS RIVER WATER QUALITY Pa rameter Min. Avg. Max. Temperature, 'F 39.8 63.2 83.2 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/l 6.1 8.1 11.8 pH 7.6 7.8 8.0 Iron, mg/1 0.05 0.18 0.35 Hanganese, mg/l 0.03 0.14 0.3 Turbidity (JTU) 39 66 98 l Chloride, mg/l 0 26 58 l Total Hardness, mg/l 110 128 145 Boron, mg/l 0 '0.16
< <0.24 Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg/l 10 16 20 Filtered Iron, mg/l 0.06 0.11 0.22 NOTE: Data have been averaged by month using the five-year sampling period.
l Data have been omitted for months in which two or less values were available.. The minimum and maximum values refer to the averages and not to extreme sample values. The Arkansas River at LAe Dardanelle carries a high silt load from the Upper Arkansas, Cimarron, and Canadian Rivers. It also has a high chloride concentration due to inflows from the Cimarron, Salt Fork, and Canadian Rivers. Three river water samples taken in the vicinity of the plant 3 showed an average total dissolved solids concentration of 432 mg/1. The water would be classified as hard by domestic users on the i basis of the data in Table 2.2 showing hardness of about 128 mg/1. The Arkansas River receives sewage from adjacent cities and consequently has been characterized in the past by high coliform bacteria levels. More recently, bacteria levels have shown a decrease. . According to the applicant, the surface water of tributary streams emptying into the Dardanelle Reservoir is generally of good quality. The surface waters are generally free of silt as well as free of chemical and organic pollutants. This results in clear water ent>ayments at the confluence of the tributaries with the reservoir. Preoperational surveys 2 show that the Dardanelle Reservoir stratifies thermally during summer months and that oxygen is depleted at lower depths. Data provided in the ER2- give a more complete description of water quality but reveal no unusual conditions which would be cause for alteration of plant operation.
2-4 The waters of Dardanelle Reservoir and Illinois Bayou have been classified by the State of Arkansas as use Class A which is: " Suitable for primary contact recreation, propagation of desirable species of fish, wildlife and other aquatic life, raw water source for public water supplies, and other compatible uses." The fisheries classification for the waterbody is W-warm water fishery. The specific standards applicable to the waterbody are tabulated in Appendix B. Developnent of effluent limitations is intended to protect the waterbody for the classified uses. No specific requirements have been imposed by the State of Arkansas for protection of agricul-tural users; however, it is rotedl that this is the predominant use of water downstream of ANO. 2.4 METEOROLOGY 2.4.1 Regional Climatology j Experiencing the effects of all North American air mass types, the modified continental climate of central Arkansas is typified in summer by extended periods of warm humid weather, while winters are generally mild with occasional arctic and polar air mass outbreaks. Precipitation is well distributed throughout the year with summer precipitation almost exclusively resulting from air mass and convective processes. Late summer and early fall is usually the driest part of the year, while winter and early spring are rainiest because of frontal activity coupled with an abundant moisture supply from the Gulf of Mexico. Freezing precipitation may occur when a shallow cold air mass flows under warm moist Gulf air. Resulting glaze and ice stoms may at times be severe, but are relatively infrequent. On the average, snowfall is light with accumulations of less than an inch occurring in one out of every four or five winters.1 On about 70 days a year temperatures may be expected to reach 90*F or higher, on 65 days 32'F or lower, and on less than one-half of a day per year equal to or less than O'F. Average annual pmcipitation is about 49 inches per year.1 Annual average relative humidity is 70%.2 2.4.2 Local Meteorology Long tem weather records from Fort Smith, Arkansas, approximately 70 miles west of the site, and Little Rock, Arkansas, 65 miles souths.ast of the site, show that extreme maximum temperatures of 110*F and 108'F, respectively, occurred in August 1964. Extreme minimum temperatures recorded at these locations were O'F in January 1966 and -4*F in January 1962, respectively. Maximum 24-hour precipitation amounting to 7.96 inches in April 1974 occurred at Little Rock and 7.13 inches in July 1960 at Fort Smith. The maximum 24-hour snowfall at Little Rock occurred in January 1960 and totalled 11.3 inches. The annual average number of days with heavy fog (visibility reduced ' to one-fourth mile or less) is 16 days for Little Rock and 15 days at Fort Smith.l*3 Wind data collected at the 40-foot level onsite during the period February 1972 to February 1973 show the predominant wind flow to be from the east with a frequency of 16.0% and secondary flow to be from the east-northeast 13.9% of the time. Flow from the north-northwest occurred least often with a 2.0% frequency. Average onsite wind speeds during this period were 5.0 rph." 2.4.3 Severe Weather H;gh wind speed occurrences in the vicinity of the site are usually associated with severe thunderstorms or tropical storm and hurricane activity. Between 1955 and 1967, twenty-three tornadoes were reported within the one degree latitude-longitude square containing the site. The resulting calculated annual tornado frequency is 1.8 and the recurrence interval for a tornado at the site is 760 years.5'6 During the time interval (1955-1967), hail three-quarters of an inch in diameter or larger was reported on 13 days within the one degree square and storms with winds at 50 knots (58 mph) or greater were reported on 11 days.5 The maximum " fastest mile" wind speed at Little Rock, Arkansas was 65 mph.1 On an annual average, thunderstorms may be expected to occur on approximately 60 days.7 Freezing precipitation (ice stoms) may be expected to occur about once per year with storms resulting in accumulations of one-half inch or more expected one year in five.e Between 1936 and 1970 there were 10 cases of air stagnation lasting four or more days within the site area.3 I 2-4
2-5 2.5 SITE ECOLOGY 2.5.1 Aquatic Ecology Phytoplankton An environmental study for the applicant of Dardanelle Reservoir by members of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock has been in progress since June 1, 1968.1 Phytoplankton data collected during the course of this study are summarized in the Environmental Report - OL stage2 for the period January 1970 to June 1974. Additional data for the months of July and October 1974 are presented in the Semiannual Operating Report for Unit One submitted March 21, 1975. Related phytoplankton data collected during June to September of 1969 are presented in " Water Pollution Control Survey of Dardanelle Reservoir" prepared by the Arkansas Pollution Control Commission.3 The dominant phytoplankters in Dardanelle Reservoir are found in the Bacillariphyceae (diatoms), Mprophyceas (bluegreeen algae), and Chlorophyecao (green algae). Xanthephyccas (yellowgreen i algae). Dir.cphyaeae (dinoflazellates), and Fuglenophyecae (euglenoids) are also present. A total of 44 genera have been identified from Dardanelle Reservoir (Table 2.3).1,2 l TABLE 2.3 l PHYTOPLANKTON GENERA KNOWN FROM LAKE DARDANELLE PHYTOPLANKTON Bacillaricphyceae (Diatoms) Chlorophyceae (Green Algae) Asterionella Actinastrum l Cocconeis Ankistrodesmus i Cyclotella Chlorella l Fragilaria Closterium Gomphonema Cosmarium Gyrosi gma Kirchneriella Melosira Mis rospora l Meridion Oedogonium Navicula Oocystis Nitzschia Pandorina Stauroneis Pediastrum Stephanodiscus Scenedesmus Synedra Sphaerocystis Tabillaria Spirogyra Xanthophyceae (Yellow-Green Algae) Dinophyceae (Dinoflagellates) Tribonema Cerati um Vaucheria Glenodinium Myxophyceae (Blue-Green Algae) Euglenophyceae (Euglenoids) Anacystis Euglena Oscillatoria Arth rospira Anabaena Poly,edriopsis 5pirulina Coelosphaeri um Rivularia Tetrapedia Merismopedia l
2-6 Samples of phytoplankton taken from Lake Dardanelle show wide yearly fluctuations in the relative abundance of each of the major taxanomic classes. Seasonal trends were generally difficult to identify for all of the classes except the Apophyuas (blue-greens) which were the most dominant organism in the late summer - early fall for the years 1969 and 1971-73.1.3 Data from late sumer were not available for 1974 due to a reduction in sampling effort.2 In the sumer of 1969 a reservoir-wide study by the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission reported concentrations of blue-green algae taken from Dardanelle Reservoir ranging from 3.8 x 106 to 1.4 x 108 organisms per/ liter.3 The blue-green algae are important because of their potential for attaining a large biomass and creating nuisance conditions. Ten taxa are known from Lake Dardanelle. Blue-green algae are known to flourish in nutrient-rich wam water." The blue-green algae are considered a major constituent, both in number of organisms and nunter of taxa in Lake Dardanelle during the preoperational sampling period. Planktonic green algae (Chlorcphyceae) vary greatly in their morphology and ecological requirements according to species. Green algae generally tolerate higher temperatures than diatoms.5 Relative abundance varied from year to year but was generally most abundant in early spring and late fall.2 Numerically another important group of the phytoplankton in Dardanelle Reservoir are the Facillariophyceae (diatoms). Cairns 6 showed that in unpolluted streams diatoms grew best at 18 to 20*C (64 to 68'F). The relative abundance of diatoms in Dardanelle Reservoir also varied greatly on a seasonal basis, with the lowest values reported during the sumer and early fall.2 The precise mechanisms responsible for the fluctuations exhibited by the various algal taxa is unknown and probably involve several factors such as tempereture, nutrient concentrations, and physiological and reproductive capacities of each species. Zooplankton Zooplankton samples have been collected from Dardanelle Reservoir since June of 1968. Samples were taken semiannually in 1968 and 1969. From 1970 to 1974 the sampling effort was increased to nine monthly samples per year at ten stations.2 A list of taxa obtained from Dardanelle Reservoir is presented in the Environmental Report.1 A total of 18 taxa from the three general categuies of Rotifers, Crustaceans and Ciliates are presented. Collections from Dardanelle Reservoir made in July and October of 1974 list nine additional taxa previously unreported from the Reservoir 7 The significance of these additional taxa reported since the startup of pnit One is unknown. No information on the seasonal abundance, relative abundance, or distribution of any of these taxa is available but no evidence exists which would irdicate that they would have any detri-mental effect on the environment. Benthos Benthic organisms in Dardanelle Reservoir were collected semiannually during the years 1968-1969. In 1970 the sampling frequency increased to nine times annually at ten stations. In 1974 the sampling effort was reduced to quarterly at 11 stations. A list of 11 known taxa from Dardanelle Reservoir is given in the Environmental Report, OL stage.2 The existence of three additional taxa are documented in the Semiannual Report for Unit One.7 A total of 14 taxa from the major groups Mytera, Nemtcda, Oligosata, Ephe-wrcptera, Mollueca and Hydracarina are known to inhabit Dardanelle Reservoir. The presence or absence of a taxon in a sample has been shown to be correlated with depth.2 No seasonal pattern of abundance or diversity has been identified except for the predicted decrease during the winter months.2 Densities of benthic organisms have been determined from samples taken in 1974 7 and range from 0 to 160 organisms per square foot. Fishes A list of knen taxa from Dardanelle Reservoir was compiled from the following sources: (1) docketed reports of collections made by the applicant or his consultants using gill nets, cove rotenoning, shoreline seining, trawling and trap nets and submitted during the licensing phases for Unit One2 ; (2) records of inpin ement losses submitted by the applicant incurred during the first year of operation of Unit One ; (3) Arkansas Game and Fish Comission yearly cove rotenone studies began in 196411; (4) Arkansas Game and Fish Comission yearly stocking records!2,13; and (5) published records from the open literature.8,9 Approximately 57 species of fishes, from eighteen families are presently known from Dardanelle Reservoir. A list of taxa is given in ( Table 2.4. l
2-7 TABLE 2.4 FISHES KNOWN FROM LAKE DARDANELLE Polyodontidae - paddlefishes Polyodon spathula Paddlefish l Amiidae - bowfin Amia calva Bowfin Lepisosteidae - gars Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus spatula Alligator Gar Clupeidae - berrings Alosa chrysochloris Skipjack herring Dorosom cepedianum Gizzard shad Dorosoma petenense Threadfin shad Hiodontidae - mooneyes Hiodon tergisus Mooneye Escoidue - pikes Esox americanus Pickerel Esox masquinonqy Muskellunge Cyprinidae - minnows and carps Carassius auratus Goldfish Cypinus carpio Ca rp . Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner Notropis atherinoides Emerald shiner Notropis lutrensis Red shiner Notropis maculatus Taillight shiner Notropis perpallidus Colorless shiner Notropis shumardi Silverband shiner Notropis mirabilis Suckermouth minnow Pinephales notatus Bluntnose minnow Catostomidae - suckers Carpiodes carpio River carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus Quillback Erimyzon sucetta Lake chubsucker Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth buffalo l Ictiobus cyprinellus Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus niger Black buffalo Minytrema melanops Spotted sucker Mcxostoma spg. Redhorses
'Ictalurida - freshwater catfishes l
Ictalurus furcatus Blue catfish Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish Tctalurus raelas Black bullhead Ictalurus natalis Yellow bullhead Pylodictis ov11varis Flathead catfish l w
a . , - , . . _-- _ _ . - _ ~ . . . _- - . - ._- -- . . . . . . - . . . . . l 2-8 7 ! TABLE 2.4 (Cont'd) . FISHES KNOWN FROM LAKE DARDANELLE j Aphredoderidae - pirate perches 4 Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate perch
.Cyprinodontidae - killifishes Fundulus olivaceus Backspotted topminnow f
Poeciliidae - 1ivebearers f Gaeusia affinis Mosquitoff sh Atherinidae '- silversides t t 1 Labidesthes sicculus ' - Brook silverside i Menidia audens Mississippi silverside , Percichthyidae - temerate basses Morone chrysops White bass . . Morone saxatilis Striped bass 9 Centrarchidae - sunfishes I i Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish i Lepomis humilis Orangespotted sunfish i'
- Leopsis gulosus Warmouth Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill ,
). Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish
; Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish l Micropterus punctulatus Spotted bass J Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass Pomoxis annularis White crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie Fercidae - perches Percina caprodes Logperch Stizostedion canadense . Sauger Stizostedien vitreum - Walleye Sciaenidae.- drums
] Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum j
'Ciclidae - cichlids Tilapia sp. - Tilapia . The list of known taxa was checked against the U.S. Department of the Interior rare and endangered l species list 10 and no rare or endangered species were found to exist in Dardanelle Reservoir.
Dardanelle Reservoir, a run of the river inpoundment, was completed in June of 1966. . Alteration of the habitat from a lotic to a lentic environment undoubtedly caused a drastic change in the fish community. The cove rotenone studies conducted by the Arkansas Gane and Fish Comission show significant changes in both the nuders of individuals and kinds cf species present before, and after inpoundment.11 The recept introduction of exotic and non-native species such as
! . fiZapia sp., Dorosoma patenense, and Morone saxatilis and the yearly stocking of ufempterus
- salmoides, Pomorie sp. , Lepcnis sp., Iotalurus punctutus, and Stiscatedian vitreter"*" has msulted in complex interactions between the native and resident populations and the abiotic environment. The recent nature of the impoundment, the introduction and stocking of native and
.non-native taxa, annual population cycles, seasonal changes in activity and distribution, and 4
)'. _ _ ~5 e ,., , *-.,4-r-u 4 ,--.ee- rSve 9- # p-,ry .,m ,r+-+ + - -- FF + * * *M-- --e-W wa--m-*- r - + ---"'
2-9 limitations in quantitative sampling methodology precludes any possibility of accurately characterizing the present fish comunity. It is anticipated that significant fluctuations in the numbers of individuals for many taxa present in the reservoir will be observed for quite a few years. Significant populations of overwintering threadfin shad, Dorosoma retenense, a non-native species, was first reported from Dardanelle Reservoir in 1967.' The threadfin shad is probably the most important forage fish for the comercial and game species inhabiting the impoundment. The observed abundance of this species has shown significant fluctuations since its introduction in the reservoir. It is postulated that these fluctuations are due to large scale winter die-off correlated to low winter water temperatures. The striped bass, Norene sa.ratilis, another introduced species, exists in Dardanelle Reservoir as a non-breeding population. Successful continuation of this important game species is dependent j on regular stocking. Larval fish sampling by meter net and a 30' 18" mesh shoreline seine in the spring of 197314 at four areas near the plant site indicated that a peak in larval shad (Dorosena sp.) occurred l about May 29 to June 6 in temperatures ranging from 70* to 76'F. Maximum densities of 23 per m3 were reported. Maximum numbers of crappie (Pono.ris sp.) and white bass (Morone chruscrs) larva were reported during the first week of sampling (May 17) suggesting that the peak larval densities probably occurred prior to the sampling period.14 2.5.2 TerrestrialEcology The Final Environmental Statement (FES-CP) described the physiogr hic setting, soils and major vegetational associations of the area surrounding the plant site. Neither the staff nor the reviewers of the FES-CP commented on or suggested that there might be adverse impacts of plant construction or operation on the terrestrial biota outside the construction zone of the plant. The applicant did list the possible presence of two endangered species in the plant area, the southern bald eagle (FaI4aeetus leucocephaZus Zeucocephalus) and the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinas anater). The applicant further states that the Florida panther (Felis concolor cerui) and the red wolf (conis rurbs) may possibly be in the area, although neither has been sighted in the vicinity of the plant.16 In view of the data furnished by the applicant and the U.S. Department of Interior's data on threatened wildlife 17,18 the staff concludes that no evidence exists to indicate that the construction and operation of ANO-2 will adversely affect any " re and endangerM .pecies. The applicant has submitted a more comprehensive species list for the area (ER-OL)2 than was available at the CP-stage. Shoreline mammalia have been included to reveal populations in the site area. The list of the remaining terrestrial fauna identiffes species but does not estimate population size. The staff concluded after review of this updated species list that a small loss of habitat is the only credible impact from the construction or operation of the plant on the important terrestrial species listed. The najor planned diversion of habitat associated 'dth Unit I and Unit 2 has already occurred l during clearing and excavation of the plant-site construction of transmission corridors. The staff concluded that these impacts on terrestrial .,.ota were acceptable.
2.6 BACKGROUND
RADIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS l The Environmental Protection Agencyl has reported average background radiation dose equivalents I to Arkansas as 91.4 millirem / person / year. Of this total for Arkansas 43.3 millirem / person / year was attributed to cosmic radiation. External gama radiation (primarily from K-40 and the decay products of the uranium and thorium series) was estimated as 30.1 millirem / person / year. The remainder of the whole body dose is due to internal radiation (mostly H-3, C-14. K-40, Ra-222 l and Ra-228 and their decay products) which was estimated to average 18 millirem / person / year. l 1 L _ __ . _ . __ ._, . ,
2-10 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.2
- 1. Arkansas Power & Light Company, Supplement No. 2 to Environmental Report for Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2. Docket No. 50-368, dated April 5,1972, Figures 1.4 through 1.6.
- 2. Arkansas Power & Light Company, Amendment 1 to Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 Environmental Report Operating License Stage, Vols. I and 2. Docket No. 50-368, issued July 1974 Tables 2.1 and 2.2.
- 3. Ibid., p 4.1-1.
- 4. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Environmental Statement on Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2, Docket No. 50-368, September 1972, p. IV-3.
- 5. Op. cit., Reference 2, p. 3.9-8.
- 6. Op. cit., Reference 2, p. 8.1-2.
- 7. Op. cit. Reference 2. Chapter 12.
- 8. Op. cit., Reference 2, pp. 2.3-1 through 2.3-7.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.3
- 1. Arkansas Power & Light Company, Amendment 1 to Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 Environmental Report, Operating License Stage. Vols. I and 2. Docket No. 50-368 issued July 1974,
- p. 2.2-10 (Sect. 2.2.4).
- 2. Op. cit., Reference 1 Appendix 2A.
- 3. Op. cit. , Reference 1. Tame 2.5-1.
- 4. U.S. Ate ic tnergy Commission. Environmental Statement on Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1 Docket No. 50-313, February 1973, p. 2-21.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.4
- 1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Data Service: Local Climatological Data, Annual Sumary with Comparative Data - Little Rock, Arkansas. Published annually.
. 2. U.S. Department of Comerce, Environmental Data Service 1968: Climatic Atlas of the United States, Environmental Science Service Administration, Washington, D.C.
- 3. U.S. Department of Comerce, Environmental Data Service: Local Climatological Data, Annual Sumary with Comparative Data - Fort Smith, Arkansas. Published annually.
- 4. Arksasas Power and Light Company,1974: Final Safety Analysis Report, Arkansas fluelear One - Unit 2. USAEC Docket Number 50-368.
- 5. SELS Unit Staff, National Severe Stoms Forecast Center 1969: Severe Local Stom Occurrences , 1955-1967. ESSA Technical Memorandum WBTM FCST-12. Office of Meteorological Operations, Silver Spring, Maryland.
- 6. Thom, H.C.S., 1963: Tornado Probabilities. Monthly Weather Review, October-December 1963, pp. 730-737.
- 7. Marshall, J. L. ,1973: Lightning Protection. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 190 pp.
- 8. Tattleman, P. and I.~Gringorten, 1973: Estimated Glaze Ice and Wind Loads at the Earth's Surface for the Contiguous United States. Air Force Surveys in Geophysics.
No. 277, AFCRL-TR-73-0664, Bedford, Mass.
2-11
- 9. Korshover, J. ,1971: Climatology of Stagne .ig Anticyclones East of the Rocky Mountains, 1936-1970. NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL ARL-34, Air Resources Laboratories.
Silver Spring, Md. REFERENCES FOR 2.5
- 1. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, " Final Environmental Statement, Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2 (Construction Pemit Stage)". Docket No. 50-368, September 1972.
- 2. Arkansas Power and Light Company " Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2 Environmental Report -
Operating License Stage," Amendments 1 - 3. March 1974.
- 3. Arkansas Pollution Control Cornission. 1969. Water Pollution Control Survey of Dardanelle Reservoir. 161 pp. mimeo.
- 4. Hutchinson, G. E. 1967. A Treatist on Limnology. II. Introduction to Lake Biology and Limnology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 1115 pp.
- 5. Patrick, R. 1969. Some Effects of Temperature on Freshwater Algae, pp. 161-185.
In: P. A. Kramhel and F. L. Parker (Eds.) Biological Aspects of Thermal Pollution. l Vanderbilt University Press., Nashville, Tenn.
- 6. Cairns, J. 1956. Effects of Increased Temperatures on Aquatic Organisms. Industrial Wastes 1(4):150-152.
- 7. Arkansas Power and Light Company, " Semi-Annual Operating Report Environmental Monitoring Results for Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 1." Docket No. 50-313 March 1975.
- 8. Buchanan, T. M. 1973. Key to the Fishes of Arkansas. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.
68 pp.
- 9. Moore, G. A. 1968. Part Two - Fishes. In: Blair, W. F., A. P. Blair, P. Brodkorb, F. R. Cagle, and G. A. Moore. Vertebrates of the United States. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. 616 pp.
- 10. U.S. Department of the Interior " United States List of Endangered Fauna " May 1972.
- 11. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, " Report of Cove Rotenone Surveys Conducted in Lake Dardanelle, 1964-1974." mimeo.
- 12. Arkansas Game and Fish Connission, "Dardanelle Reservoir Fish Stocking Summary, September 22, 1971 - November 18, 1974." mimeo.
l [ 13. Arkansas Game and Fish Cornission, "Dardanelle Reservoir Fish Stocking Summary," July 1, 1964 - October 22, 1968. mimeo.
- 14. Rider, L. and J. Mitchell. 1974 Dardanelle Reservoir Fisheries Study, Project 5673.
Arkansas Game and Fish Connission, mimeo.
- 15. Op. cit., Reference 1, p. II-20.
- 16. Op. cit., Reference 2. Sect. 2.7.3.3.
- 17. U.S. Dept. of Interior " Threatened Wildlife of the United States," Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Office of Endangered Species and International Activities, Resources Publ. 114, March 1973.
l 18. U.S. Dept. of Interior, " United States List of Endangered Fauna," Fish and Wildlife Service, May 1974. REFERENCES FCR SECTION 2.6
- 1. Oakley, Donald T. , Natural Radiation Exposure in the United States. ORP/SID72-1, Office of Radiation Programs Environmental Protection Agency, Wash., D.C. 20460, June 1972.
i l
. . + . - . _ _
4 ...y.
- 3. THE PLANT 3.1 RkSUM5 At the time of the review, construction of Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 was proceeding and Unit I was in connercial operation (see Figure 3.1). There have been minor changes in the design of Unit 2 since the issuance of the FES-CP. These minor changes include a change in thermal power level to 2825 MWt from 2770 MWt, a change in the radwaste treatment systems and the installation of an air bubble curtain at the entrance of the intake canal.1 The power level increase does not affect calculations which were performed at ultimate core power level in the FES-CP of 2900 MWt. The radioactive waste treatment system has been reassessed using a new, more accurate and up-to-date source term which is discussed in Section 3.2.3.
3.2 DESIGN AND OTHER SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 3.2.1 Water Use The design concept for station water use at Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 in the FES-CP is still valid. Overall plant water use is tabulated for expected yearly ~ consumption rates in Table 3.1. TABLE 3.1 I PLANT WATER USE Maximum !!inimum Temporary Power Load Power Load Shutdown 9pm gpm gpm Makeup Demin. Systems Unit 1 50 50 25 Unit 2 75 75 25 Sanitary a Domestic Unit 1 50 50 50 Water Systems Unit 2 50 50 50 TOTAL 225 225 150 Unit 2 Cooling evaporation 9900 2430 0 Tower losses drift 42 24 0 TOTAL 9942 2454 0 3.2.2 Heat Dissipation System The general description of the heat dissipation system presented in the FES-CP is still valid. 3.2.3 Reservoir Intake Structure The description of the basic design and location of the intake strer*1re presented in the FES-CP are still valid. The service water is drawn from Lake Dardanelle through the existing intake channel to the Unit 2 intake structure which is located adjacent to the existing Unit 1 intake structure. Table 3.2 provides data on various sections of the intake canal and the canal itself is shown in Figure 3.2. As it enters the intake structure, the water passes through bar racks designed to intercept debris of moderate to large size. The water then flows through the travelling screens which retain smaller debris. These screens are arranged in line across the intake structure, perpen-dicular to the service water flow. Average velocity across the Unit 2 travelling screens will be 0.34 fps. 3-1
m.N _ y gs -
)
- q . . '
, A4 m,,.. m -
,- g.,
nx,.,. ' . a& '
+
~p
,m( .~a r.
- :%: ,x
,.,e, ~-
.;n: m C .
G( :.
,ms'-
- ?'+~
o. c
, < 4.,
%< y a .,
> < , m} ~ .
,i .gw. ; e
,'~,,. A . c _
,~. , 1
~ C. . .
g. 8 s
. - .,m- .
dw r: 2 .
.~", ' w n. ,..
y y_
+
% ~
;y a.
- ww
+ y
- .u
. 0 ,, q e s
.+
- . +
~
.m' n s w
me *'. e
. . x- ,,
- ,r w--
- O r 3
- 4. : l:;- L r 2 g 7
. .wr,
, .+ 4;.
,. O , ,'
c.
.,+ f a
e d o9 r 1 c n P
, ,- - ' l r
wc y u a n e
, ;- . 4.
+a-n N 1s o b w'[
.e.
. ." . i s t t
c m ur ev a s n i
'. c~ .g::e
[ R s o w .- (%; ~.Y8 n U t
.+a . .
.y4.
+* -
,5 4
s k A a r C n N o km..e. fe s.
-.A
's y
? ~, , Qs. 4lx.
- y wm,j.- -
4n W_ .
~
ga r,
. -.- b ;. _
.t; 3 aw r .
- p. .
- na. -.
ps ,. y, mc. .w
\ . , , , ,I
-m.. - Jb r_ .m e m ,_A__ ,wJ 3-3
%,A! I,a,,I h -
e I n$ i (, '~
!}h4]
1 l k f e 4,, , . . ,* jh${! 2 l- .
'5 y
c d
/\ u
. gl '
'; V o ,-
f Ox/I;;t;;}p b6 . t! l O
- s 2
,,,- : ~ A:\v]; A pi ..::n a 4 O!I il ~
M
.;,- I a
- GbL s~," U a
ltv4 ? t 3, s\. ; sd f l} m! ps i- a v4)< [y/h: . gg
~
11 .. ! l ~
- 0 an IX l5 R]GA ;l .5 o: '
e$ ' &9.; E !
'*%N@{Ullir? !!
'fil i
l; w"-' l i
'TT j 'i,!ld l,1l*
T%j bi g
~% m N
I Il im ]l }p' . fI =
; f ~
n-
\. 'l vl1l: .
&,l , ~r' f' ) Qli 2 h
1 , s ll 't, y, 1 1 N.I; 1- l l lim t
- 4 f"y
./ I t ,
b% 3.l. AY :/J / /1 )
? ! ~~
l a It V+v n[y l- *
, u .\ *) :5
!! ! ll .ll. ! f/ I
.7%'] jQ! :. N hh,nj
,[55'.
Yf y .E I; y i%)y.I, f'N!.!!ifllw"'"
=
3 . T
'~
)~gll;n[f qp.lfEr'%
v:~*.* v r ~ W [
})
= . :' d.. Ut:J* %i
1 3-4 l TABLE 3.2
)
INTAKE CANAL CROSS SECTIONAL AREAS AND AVERAGE VELOCITIES Section Approximate Length Average Cross Average Velocity (See Fig. 3.2) Ft Section. Ft2 Ft/Sec A 160 at intake structure - 3020 0.59 at junction with Section B - 1060 1.67 B 1725 1050 1.68 C 210 999 1.77 D 225 717 2.47 E 900 606 2.92 NOTE: Velocities based on a total flow of 1767.6 cfs for Unit 1 and Unit 2 operation. As shown in Figure 3.2 (see also Figure 3.4-5 of ER-OL Stage), an air curtain device is installed in Lake Dardanelle in front of the intake channel. The effectiveness of this device in preventing fish from entering the intake channel and, consequently, in reducing irpingement on the intake structure has been investigated by Texas Instruments, Inc. under' contract to the applicant. Results of the air curtain testing are discussed in Section 5.4.2. The screens are automatically cleaned on high differential pressure by the existing screen wash pumps which discharge into high velocity spray nozzles that cleans the debris as the screens travel past the nozzles. Collected trash is washed through a trough leading to the trash grinder where it is ground and discharged in front of the Unit 1 circulating water intake structure. Thus, the resulting residue is disposed of through the circulating-water system to the discharge ectayment. 3.2.4 Radioactive Waste Treatment 3.2.4.1 Resums The liquid radioactive waste treatment system has been modified since the FES-CP and is discussed in Section 3.2.4.2 and is shown in Figure 3.3. The gaseous and solid radwaste systems described in Section III of the FES-CP have not been modified in the applicant's FSAR. TI.e gaseous radwaste system is shown in Figure 3.4 These systems, including the liquid treatcent system modifica-tions, have been reassessed using new parameters and mathematical models for calculating the releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents. 3.2.4.2 Radioactive Waste I Since the Final Environmental Statement (FES-CP) was issued, the applicant has riodified the liquid radwaste treatment system as proposed in the Final Safety Analys1, Report (FSAR). The staff has calculated revised liquid and gaseous source terms and annual quantity of solid waste with radioactive contents based on more recent operating data applicable to Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2. On April 30, 1975, the Nuclear Regulatory Cormiission announced its decision in the rule making proceeding (RM 50-2) concerning numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions j for operation to meet the criterion "as low as practicable" for radioactive materials in light-i water-cooled nuclear power reactor effluents. This decision is irplerented in the form of I Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. To effectively implerrent the requirements of Appendix I, the NRC l staff has reassessed the parameters and mathematical models used in calculating releases of l radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents in order to comply with the Commission's guidance. 1 l
2 Steem eters Twtone r ; Condenser 4 b 4 > Starsup and
$ team gg,,,g g.,
08""* 88' Domenero6eers E achengers Pwstanteen (2) (2) Doberatene (1) Regenersten Reeever I*hd**"' Vel"*" - g,,,, Regenerateve Weste Centrol m,,, p,,,,,,,,g,,,,, BORON MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Tank p, Reector % ,, System eh ' 6 Aced Oreens Draen 1 ' henkaup Tank y,,g, gy, ume 1 Cloen Vacuum Weene System a i Degendsor ur mp pree- ter , e-.s Acad 0"d"*' y, l ; Tonks (4) - len
== Conceneenter + '*" men.
Cosedersonne Tanks (21 + 50.000 Cat Eachengers (2) 20 GetMm E "*h*"8 3D.000 Gd un.: 1 Dirty WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Waste Sysseen EasuW Draans - Weste i Wsses Condonme Floor Drems - P Condoneau 1 Tanks Q) Concentrater Tanks (2) m " ' 6000 Gal 20 GalMin Em m 5.000 Gd Sample Drease 2 at Recycle to REGENERATIVE WASTE PROCESSING SYSTEM secondary system i r i r 4 s Unos I Condonente Domen. - Carcisisteg Regeneration 5elistoons Regeneratswe Regeneratene Waste yunges Water und 2 Ib Dema. Tanks (21 Esoperaters 123 2 Dacharge Regeneraten seheteens 30,000 Gal 10 GalMin i r LAUNDRY WASTE Laundry Wastes ; un.3a , W w g,,s Fig. 3.3 UQUID RADWASTE SYSTEM
* ' [ I, :I< I ,
3 ! i " , Y :n t t d s n2 n1 e i e B mt mt nn e n t in ne e n e a V t iaV t n i h r V n o u o C T C _' _' 7 ll l a o c r a l h C
/
a p e H y a c e - D s k s a n M G a E e T T t s S e Y W S E T S A
. W
. D ll l A a o R c r S . h a l U ll C O
/
a r E p e s S
- H e a A l l b. G
- n o C 4 v I, 3 77 . ig ~ F
, e g k
,,ua r n
, g, s T s e e
s ) d - s a s t t n .a 4 8 n m e r G se e d r us V it An e l A n B t n e 4 n V n y Se t n t eV ytsi eo m Mos s w ym e r t e o mia r m J e o ia e wda m ta e l d a m mt dt b t mgo ie ip u q ac we lix u an n W' ou r n ue lo w r PD E SEs A (R eV CP TV B 4 ' ll l, + 14f j !' {fiii I
. _-_m __ _ _ _ - . __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 3-7 This guidance directed that current operat1... data, applicable to proposed radwaste treatment and 4 effluent control systems, be considered in the assessment of the input parameters. The staff has completed a generic reassessment of such data and the resulting parameters, models and their bases are given in Regulatory Guide 1.BB, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive fiaterials in i Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs)." September 9, 1975. In compliance with Appendix I regulations, for a plant for which application for a construction permit was made prior to January 2,1971, within a period of twelve months from June 4,1975 the applicant must file with the Comission:
< l. Such information as is necessary to evaluate the means employed for keeping levels of l
i radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as practicable, including all such information as is required by Section 50.34(a), (b) and (c) not already contained in his application; and
- 2. Plans and proposed Technical Specifications developed for the purpose of keeping releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during normal reactor opera-tions, including expected operational occurrences, as low as practicable.
In the interim, until this infonnation is provided and an evaluation is completed for Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2, the staff has prepared upper bound estimates of the potential effect on the estimated radiological environmental impact. The dose estimates discussed in Section 5.5 used these revised estimates of expected annual releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents from Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2. The parameters used in the staff's evaluation of the
, liquid and gaseous radioactive waste treatment systems for the Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 are j
listed in Table 3.3, based on the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.88 (September 1975), and 3 considering the modifications described below. The staff estimates that the radionuclide com-position set forth in Tables 3.4 and 3.5 reasonably characterizes the annual average calculated 4 releases of radioactive material in liquid and gaseous effluents for Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2. j The capability of the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste treatment systems to meet the require-i' ments of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 will be discussed in Section 3.2.4 of the Final Environ-mental Statement which is expected to be issued in the Fall of 1976. l
! 3.2.4.2.1 3.iquid Radwaste System Modifications '
The liquid radwaste system modifications consist of the addition of the Startup and Blowdown I
! Demir aralizer System (SBDS) for the treatment of steam generator blowdown wastes; and the addf-tion of the Regenerative Waste Processing System (RWPS) for processing of SBDS demineralizer l regtwatic1 wastes and of Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit I condensate demineralizer regeneration wastes.
The SBDS processes water from the steam generator blowdown tank through steam generator blowdown
- heat exchangers and through a demineralizer. The demineralizer effluent is returned to the main condenser for reuse. Wastes from the regeneration of the SBDS demineralizers and from the regen-eration of the Unit No. I condensate demineralizers will be routed to the hold tanks in the RWPS.
l The wastes will then be processed through the RWPS evaporator. The evaporator concentrates will J be routed to a drumming area where they will be solidified in drums or casks for offsite ship-ment. The evaporator distillate will either be recycled to the condensate system or, if of sufficiently Icw activity, released to the circulating water discharge. 3.2.4.2.2 Evaluation i The liquid source term calculated for each reactor using the parameters in Regulatory Guide 1.88
, (September 9,1975) given in Table 3.3, is 0.24 C1/yr excluding tritium, and 310 C1/yr of tritium.
1 The gaseous source term for the NEPA upper bound dose assessment based on the parameters given in Table 3.3 is approximately 7500 Ci/yr of noble gases, 0.03 (.i/yr cf iodine-131, 840 C1/yr of
!, tritium, 25 C1/yr of argon-41 and 0.004 Ci/yr of particulates for each reactor.
1 The liquid source term calculated for each reactor using the parameters in the FES-CP was 5 C1/yr, excluding tritium, and 1000 Ci/yr of tritium. The gaseous source term calculated for each reactor
; using the parameters in the FES-CP was 4400 C1/yr of noble gases and 0.17 C1/yr of iodine-131.
The Technical Specifications issued at the time of the operating license will establish effluent j release limits which will assure that the applicant operates the facility in conformance with the requirements of Appendix 1 to 10 CFR Part 50. 4 I
E 3-8 TABLE 3.3 PRINCIPAL PARAf1ETERS AND CONDITIONS USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE fiATERIAL IN LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE-UNIT 2 Reactor Power Level (f1Wt) 2900 Plant Capacity Factor 0.80 Failed Fuel 0.12%a Primary System 5 flass of Coolant (1bs) 4.29 x 10 Letdown Rate (gpm) 40 Shim Bleed Rate (gpm) 0.8 Leakage to Secondary System (1bs/ day) 100 Leakage to Containment Building b Leakage to Auxiliary Buildings (1bs/ day) 160 Frequency of Degassing for Cold Shutdowns (per year) 2 Secondary System 7 Steam Flow Rate (1bs/hr) 1.27 x 10 3 Mass of Steam / Steam Generator (Ibs) 10.5 x 10 4 f*. ass of Liquid / Steam Generator (1bs) 12.8 x 19 Secondary Coolant flass (1bs) 2.2x103 Rate of Steam Leakage to Turbine building (Ibs/hr) 1.7 x 10 4 Blowdown Flow Rate (lbs/hr) 2.5 x 10 Containment Building Volume (ft3 ) 1.8 x 106 Annual Frequency of Containment Purges (shutdown) 4 Annual Frequency of Containment Purges (at power) 20 Iodine Partition Factors (gas / liquid) Leakage to Auxiliary Building 0.0075 Steam Generator (volatile species) 1.0 Steam Generator (nonvolatile species) 0.01 Main Condenser / Air Ejector (volatile species) 0.15 Decontamination Factors (Liquid Wastes) BMS WMS RWPS SBDS 4 1 x 10 2 4 I 1 x 10 1 x 10 1 x 10 3 Cs, Rb 2 x 10 4 1 x 10 5 1 x 10 4 1 x 10 I 5 4 2 Others 1 x 10 5 1 x 10 1 x 10 1 x 10 All Nuclides Except Iodine lodine 4 3 Waste Evaporator DF 10 10 3 2 Bits Evaporator DF 10 10 Anions CS, Rb Other Nuclides Mixed Bed Demineralizer DF (Li3B03 ) 10 2 2 10 2 Steam Generator Blowdown Demin. DF 10 10 10 Cation Demineralizer DF (any system) 1 2 10 10 Anton Demineralizer (any system) 10 I I 2 2 Waste Demineralizer DF (H+0H-) 10 2 10 Evaporator Condensate Polishing Demineralizers (H+0H-) DF 10 10 10 Powdex(anysystem) 10 2 10 Radwaste Area Charcoal Adsorber DF and Containment Purge Charcoal Adsorber DF (IodineRemoval) 10 Gaseous Systems HEPA Filter DF (ParticulateRemoval) 100
*This value is constant and corresponds to 0.12% of the operating power fission product source term as given in Regulatory Guide 1.BB, September 9.1975.
b l%/ day of the primary coolant noble gas inventory and 0.001%/ day of the primary coolant iodine inventory, i i L_
3-9 TABLE 3.4 CALCULATED RELEASE OF RADI0 ACTIVE f1ATERIAL IN LIQUID EFFLUENT FROM ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE-UNIT 2 Radionuclide Activation-Corrosion Products C1/yr/ reactor Cr-51 8(-5)b Mn-54 1(-3) Fe-55 7(-5) Fe-59 Co-58 44-5) 4.7L-3) Co-60 8 .81;-3) Zr-95 1.4L-3) Nb-95 j Np-239 2(-3) 3(-5) Fission Products Br-83 3(-5) Sr-89 2f-5? f10-99 2 . 41,-3'I Te-99m Ru-103 3(-3) 1.4L-41 Ru-106 2.4i;-3' l Ag-110m 4.41 -4ll Te-127m 1f-Te-127 2d51 5! i Te-129m 6'l Te-129 4' 1 1-130 1.9 - )l Te-131m 4 -5) I-131 9.5(-2) Te-132 7(-4;l I-132 3(-31 I-133 5.3(-21 Cs-134 1.5(-2) 1-135 8.5(-31 Cs-136 7.l(-4) Cs-137 2.6 -2) Ba-137m 1.7 -3) Ce-144 5.2 -3) All Others a 6(-5) Total (except H-3) 2.4(-1) H-3 310 a Nuclides whose release rates are less than 10-5 Ci/yr/ reactor are not listed individually, but are included in the category "All Others". b Exponential notation: 1(-4) = 1 x 10'4 I
. - _ - . _ - - __ ~ -
3-10 l TABLE 3.5 - CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN GASE0US EFFLUENT FROM ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE-UNIT 2 (Ci/yr/ reactor) Decay Reactor Auxiliary Turbine Condenser Radionuclide Tanks Building Building Building Air Ejector Total a a a a a Kr-83m a 3 a 2 6 Kr-85m a 1 450 150 6 a 4 610 Kr-85 a 4 1 Kr-87 a a 1 5 a 3 10 Kr-88 a 2 a a a Kr-89 a a a 55 3 a 2 71 Xe-131m 11 Xe-133m a 37 5 a 3 45 Xe-133 69 5900 440 a 280 6700 Xe-135m a a a a a a Xe-135 a 10 8 a 5 23 a a a a a a Xe-137 Xe-138 a a 1 a a- 1 1-131 a 1.5(-2)b 6.6(-3) 4.1(-3) 4.l(-3) 3.0(-2) 1-133 a 3.1(-3) 8.2(-3) 3.7(-3) 5.2(-3) 2.0(-2) Hn-54 4.5(-5) 2.2(-4) 1.8(-4) c c 4.4(-4) Fe-59 1.5(-5) 7.5(-5) 6(-5) c c 1.5(-4) Co-58 1.5(-4) 7.5(-4) 6(-4) c c 1.5(-3) Co-60 7(-5) 3.4(-4) 2.7(-4) c c 6.8(-4) Sr-89 3.3(-6) 1.7(-5) 1.3(-5) c sc 3.3(-5) , Sr-90 6(-7) 3.0(-6) 2.4(-6) 'c . 'c 6.0(-6) Cs-134 4.5(-5) 2.2(-4) 1.8(-4) c c 4.4(-4); Cs-137 7.5(-5) 3.8(-4) 3(-4) c' c 7.5(-4) C-14 7 1 a a a 8 H-3 - - - - - 840 c c I 25 Ar-41 c 25 e i NOTE: a = indicates. release is less than 1.0 Ci/yr for noble gas, 0.001 Ci/yr for iodine, b = exponential notation: 1(-4) = 1 x 10~4 e = less than 1% of total for this nuclide a
.m - _. __- ~
3-11 The staff estimates that approximately 8000 ft3 of wet solid waste containing approximakely 2200 Ci and 4700 ft3 of dry solid waste containing a total of less than 5 Ci will be shippeo offsite annually per reactor. Greater than 90% of the radioactivity associated with the solid waste will be long-lived fission and corrosion products, principally Cs-134. Cs-137. Co-58, Co-60, and Mn-54. 3.2.5 Chemical, Sanitary and Other Waste Treatment Chemical Effluents Evaporation of part of the circulating water in the cooling tower results in an increase in the concentration of salts and other non-volatile constituents of the makeup water. In order to prevent buildup of these constituents from impairing the operation of the circulating water system,it is necessary to control water quality by bleedoff (also called blowdown) and by addition of chemicals. The blowdown rate will be automatically ccntrolled on the basis of conductivity. Based on evaluation of makeup water quality it is expected that concentration will be increased by an average factor of about 5.2 The concentration factor is expected to range between 3 and 14 ! as the mineral quality of the makeup water varies.2 1 The quality of the makeup water is such that it will be necessary to add chemicals to control scale formation within the circulating water system. The principal chemical addition will be sulfuric acid which will be added at an average rate of 15,000 lbs/ day and a maximum rate of about 25,000 lbs/ day.2 The acid reacts with the bicarbonate alkalinity of the river makeup. releasing carbon dioxide and actually resulting in a decrease in the dissolved solids content.
- The sulfate concentration will be increased. The rate of acid addition is controlled automatically based on the pH of the circulating water.2 t
liechanical condenser tube cleaning equipment is installed to maintain necessary tube cleanliness on the circulating water side.3 Chlorine will be added intermittently to control algae and fungus growth in the remainder of the circulating water system. The .'.aximum chlorine addition to the system will be 500 lbs per day during the summer months. A lesser amount will be used during the winter.2 Chlorination of the service water system is also necessary. To alleviate corrosion within the circulating water system, protective coatings and corrosion resistant materials are utilized wherever practical. The applicant does not anticipate the need for corrosion inhibitors in the circulating water system.4 Other chemicals will be added to the station discharge in small amounts from the regeneration of the plant makeup and the steam generator startup and blowdown demineralizers, waste management systems, and service water discharge. The regenerant effluents will be collected in neutralizing tanks where pH will be maintained in the range of 6.0 to 9.0 during discharge. The maximum amounts of chemicals in the discharge are given in Table 3.6. All discharges from Unit 2 will be to the discharge from the Unit I circulating water system. During Unit I shutdown, the applicant has proposed that two Unit I circulating pungs will be kept operating to provide a dilution flow of 383,000 gpm for the Unit 2 discharges.s Sanitary and Other Waste Effluents The sewage treatment system is comon to both Units 1 and 2. The description of the system contained in the FES-CP is still valid. Nonradioactive gaseous effluents resulting form the operation of the dnit 2 startup boiler, water heating boiler and diesel generators were discussed in the FES-CP and are redescribed by the applicant.6 Chemical solutions used in the preoperational cleaning of Unit 2 will be disposed of as described in the FES-CP (See Appendix E), 3.3 Transmission Lines The description of the transmission lines associated with Arkansas fluclear One-Unit 2 is as presented in the FES-CP. I i y
- . _ . , _ . . ._ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ ~_ _ . . . _ .. . _ . _ _ . _
__ 7 _ . . . TABLE 3.6
- MAXIMUM AMOUNTS OF CHEMICALS IN COOLING WATER DISCHARGE i
From(1)(2) From (3) Concentration Makeup ~ From (6) Stm. Taken Cooling Tower In Discharge _. Demineralizer > Gen. Blowdown (3) Blowdown 3.1 cfs With Chemical Incl. Regen. .Demin.; Incl. - From Concentration Total .. A 011ution Flow Federal (5) % of Constituent Chemicals Regen. Chem. Reservoir _ Factor 9.5 Discharge of 383,000 gpm Criteria Criteria lbs/ day. -lbs/ day 7 bs/ day - lbs/ day lbs/ day Mg/l Mg/l NO3 - .- : 638 626 626 .M M 1.4 Cl- 5.3 -- 14,382 14,126 14,131.3 3.08 250 . 1.2 F- - - 30 29 29 .006 0.8 .75 504= 172 30 5.634 20,536 (4) 20,738 4.52 250 1.8 Na9. 80 - 10.4 10,379 10.194 10,284 2.2 - - K* 0.01 - 667 655- 655 .14 - - Ca" 8.8 - 5,338 5,243 5,251.8 1.10 - - Mg" 1. 9' - 1,038 1.019 1,020.9 .22 125 .18 $ Fe" ' O.05 0.6 56 55 55.65 .01 0.3 3.33 SiO 4 0.6 919 903 907.6 .20 - - 2 B 0.03 12 12 12.03 .0025 1.0 0.25 NH + - 0.6 - - 0.6 0.0001 0.5 0.02 & 4 (1) Based on 180 regen /yr of cation and anion units requiring 289 lbs H 50g 2 and 230 lbs NaH0/ regen. plus 7 regen, of mixed bed requiring 88 lbs H2 50,, and 66 lbs NaOH/ regen. Flow through demineralizers 137,500 gallons between regenerations. (2) All amounts based on a 310-day operating year. (3) Assumes 22 CFS evaporation loss and .09 cfs drift loss from tower, 5.4 cfs blowdown, and average river water chemistry. (4) Includes 15,000 lbs/ day H 250, as water treatment. (5) From " Water Quality Criteria" FWPCA,' April 1968, and U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards - 1962. On December 24, 1975. EPA published National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 FR59565) to be effective 18 months later. Criteria in the new regulations ' are less restrictive than those cited here. (6) Based on one regeneration every 50 days and no steam generator tube leakage. When, as a result of steam generator tube leakage, the regenerative wastes are radioactive, they are processed through the Regenerative Waste Processing System. t
3-13 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.1
- 1. Arkansas Power & Light Company, Amendment 1 to Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 Environmental Report - OL Stage, Vols. I and 2, issued July 1974, pp. 3.lI)-1 and 3.10-2.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.2
- 1. Arkansas Power & Light Company, Amendment 1 to Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 Environmental Report - OL Stage, Vols. I and 2 issued July 1974. Table 3.3.1.
- 2. Ibid., p. 3.4-5.
- 3. Ibid., p. 5.1-1.
- 4. Ibid., p. 3.4-6.
j 5. U.S. Atomic Energy Comission, Final Environmental Statement for Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 1, i issued February 1973, p. 3-9. 1
- 6. Op. cit., Reference 1, pp. 3.7-1 and 3.7-2.
l
- 4. STATUS OF SITE PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTION 4.1 R$5UM5ANDSTATUSOFCONSTRUCTION As of March 1976, the construction of Unit 2 was approximately 62% complete. The construction impacts on the aquatic and terrestrial environment were as anticipated, and thus the staff assessment presented in the FES-CP remains unchanged. The effects on the terrestrial environment to date due to transmission line construction are noted in Section 4.2.
4.2 STATUS OF TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION One additional 500-kV transmission line will be required for the effective distribution of the energy generated by Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2.1 The proposed route involves constructing approximately 90 miles of single circuits 500-kV transmission line from the existing Arkansas Nuclear One EHV Substation, northwest of Russellville, Pope County, southeasterly via the pro-posed Mayflower ERV Substation, southwest of Mayflower, Faulkner County, to the existing Mabelvale EHV Substation, southwest of Little Rock. The staff investigated this route in March 1975 and concluded that there was some potential for severe erosion along this route. The staff has reviewed the applicant's environmental control program 2 and concludes that the environmental impact associated with the construction of this corridor will be minimal if the applicant's environmental control activities are fully carried out. J f 1 4-1
4-2 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.2
- 1. Arkansas Power & Light Company, Environraental Report - OL Stage, Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2.
Amendments 1-3, Vols 1 and 2. June 1975 Sect. 3.9.
- 2. Ibid.., Sect. 4.2.2.
e
1
- 5. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF STATION OPERATION 5.1 RESUME There have been several minor changes related to the staff's evaluation of environmental effects of station operation since the issuance of the FES-CP. Analysis of impacts on land use and water use provided in the FES-CP remains valid. The analysis of impacts on the terrestrial environnent presented in the FES-CP remains valid. The radiological impact assessment utilizes new source term calculations to reflect new information and modified assumptions on occupancy and use fac-to rs . Also new generic material has been added on transportation of radioactive material and the environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle. These assessments are discussed in Section 5.5.
Socio-economic impact assessment from operation of the station has been updated. 5.2 I!1 PACTS ON LAND USE The analysis as stated in the FES-CP remains valid. The site includes 1164 acres of which approximately 90 acres are occupied by the power plant building and facilities. Arkansas Nuclear Unit One ( ANO)-Unit 1 occupies the same site as ANO-Unit 2. A visitors center is planned for construction just outside of the exclusion area north of the northern plant access road and State Highway 333. This center will use less than 1 acre of land. The applicant also plans four covered picnic areas and a small auditorium for educational displays concerning the plant. The remaining area of the property owned by the applicant at the site will be left in its natural q condition, with the exception of a boat launching ramp adjacent to the discharge embayment. The applicant has indicated the right-of-way for the single circuit 500-kV transmission line from the existing ANO-EHV Substation to the existing Mabelvale EHV Substation will have the following dimension:1 ftiles R0W Width
- 1. Paralleling existing 1.52 140' rights-of-way segments 4.44 150' 12.53 140'
- 2. Remaining non-paralleling right-of-way segment 73.51 180' 97.M The staff calculates that based on these dimensions, the applicant's single circuit transmission line corridor will include 1603.8 acres of land. The applicant indicates that the Mayflower EHV Substation will occupy 32.54 acres of land.2 The staff concurs with the applicant's analysis that the land area traversed by this 500-kV line consists primarily of rural property, timberland, and to a limited degree agricultural and timber production operations. Based upon the staff's investigation of this corridor during March 1975, the staff concludes this corridor will not adversely affect the small number of agricultural and timber operations along this route. Row crop operations, limited primarily to the Arkansas River bottomlands, will not be unacceptably hampered during construction and operation of the applicant's transmission line.
5.3 IMPACTS ON WATER USE 5.3.1 Thermal The analysis of the effect of the thermal plume and cooling tower pluce (including effects on weather and local meteorology) contained in the FES-CP remains valid. (See Appendix E, pages V-4 through Y-6 of FES-CP.) 5.3.2 Chemical Chemical quality of the river will be altered by the concentratirg effect of evaporation of water and by the direct addition of process chemicals (see Section 3.2.3). Concentration of chemical 5-1
5-2 substance will be greatest in the discharge embayment but will be virtually undetectable after complete mixing with the main river flow downstream of the plant. Substances brought into the circulating water system with the makeup will be concentrated by a factor which will range from 3 to 14 due to evaporation of water in the cooling tower.3 Dilution provided by discharge from the service water system will result in an effective average concen-tration factor of about 2. When Unit 1 is also operating, the discharge from Unit 2 will be diluted by Unit I flow. At nomal design conditions cooling water flow for Unit 1 is 1707 cfs (766,000 gpm). This will 'l reduce the concentration factor in the combined discharge to about 1.02. The applicant has indicated his intent to maintain flow through Unit 1 of 383,000 gpm during Unit 1 outages to assure dilution of Unit 2 discharge in the discharge embayment. Under this condition the con-centration factor in the corrbined discharge will be about 1.04 Permit No. 994-W issued May 10, 1971 by the Arkansas Pollution Control Commission requires that Unit 2 blowdown be diluted by Unit 1 flow of 1707 cfs.2 The combined effect of two-unit operation will result ir. the evaporation of about 1% of the once-in-ten-year weekly low flu of the Arkansas River. At this low flow condition, concentration of naturally occurring substances would be increased by about 1% downstream from Dardanella Reservoir. An increase of the magnitude described above is within the limits of measurement error for most parameters and is well within the range of seasonal variation of ambient water quality as indi-cated by the data in Table 2.2. The increase is not significant. At the high number of cycles of concentration which are planned, the buildup of chn itals in the circulating water system will result in the need for chemical treatment to prevent formation of scale on heat transfer surfaces. The applicant has estimated a requirement of 15,000 pounds per
) day of sulfuric acid will be necessary. The acid will react with the alkaline substances in the makeup water (actually with bicarbonate alkalinity). Carbon dioxide will be driven off as a gas and the net effect will be a reduction in total dissolved solids. Acid addition will be con-trolled to maintain the pH slightly on the alkaline side of neutral to avoid producing a corro-sive condition. The pH of the blowdown will range between 7 and 7.4. The concentration of sulfate in the cortbined discharge from the service water and circulating water systems will be increased by an average of about 205 mg/1. Af ter dilution with the Unit I minimum flow, the increase will be less than 5 mg/l.
Cleanliness of condenser tube surfaces will be maintained by use of a mechanical cleaning system.3 However, it will still be necessary to treat chemically to control algae and fungus growth in the circulating water system. Chlorine will be added intermittently at a maximum rate of 500 pounds per day during surser months and at a lesser rate during the winter. Dilution of Unit 2 blowdown by the Unit I discharge and reduction of chlorine by substances in the Unit I flow stream will render the Unit 2 chlorine residuals virtually measureless at the point of introduction into the discharge embayment. The State of Arkansas has certified that the operation of Unit 2 will not result in a violation of the specific standards applicable to Dardanelle Reservoir and Illinois Bayou. It is also necessary to review the actual substances being discharged to determine the impact on the other water uses for which the Dardanelle Reservoir has been classified (see Section 2.3.4). Standards have not been established for all substances that will be discharged. Table 3.6 lists the maximum amounts of chemicals in the cooling water discharge from the two units. That table includes a comparison to criteria for the production of public water supplies. From this comparison it can be concluded that the discharge will not impair the value of the river for public water supply. None of the substances added by the station is significant for the protection of contact recreation.5 For the purpose of protecting aquatic biota, attention need be paid only to amonia and total residual chlorine. The other constituents are usually present to some extent in all surface waters and are not toxic in quantities that could reasonably be expected to be discharged. Toxicity of amonia and of residual chlorine varies according to affected species and with time of exposure. Below a pH of 10 essentially all of the amonia will be in the non-toxic ionized state. However, for the purpose of estimating potential impact the proposed discharge concentra-i tion can be compared to toxicity data for un-ionized ammonia. With regards to the toxicity of un-ionized amonia, it has been recommended that the concentration be kept below 5". of the 96 hour LC50 for the most important species in the locality and that in no case should it exceed
5-3 0.02 mg/1.5 As shown in Table 3.6, the maximum total amonia concentration in the discharge from the two units would be less than 0.0001 mg/1. At the normal discharge pH, essentially all of this would be in the less toxic ionized form. Since the concentration of un-ionized amonia is much less than If, of the recomended limit, it is concluded that no impact to aquatic biota will occur. An exhaustive review of the literature on the toxicity of chlorine residuals to freshwater biota 6 i resulted in the following recomendation: "In areas receiving intermittently chlorinated wastes,
- total residual chlorine should not exceed 0.2 mg/l for a period of 2 hours per day for more resis-l tant species of fish, or exceed 0.04 mg/l for a period of 2 hours per day for trout or salmon."
Other reviewers 5 have also recognized the potential toxicity of chlorine residuals and have made similar recomendations for limiting total residual chlorine concentrations. These values were based on a review of literature which for the most part related to species not indigenous to the Arkansas River. However, it is the view of the staff that the recomendations for the more resistant species serve as useful guides. Be:ause of the large discharge enbayment in which relatively little dilution is expected to occur, aquatic biota could be impacted if the above recomended concentrations were exceeded in the discharge. The FES on Unit I concluded that the discharge of chlorine from the two units would be at levels l which would not impact on aquatic biota.7 In commenting on the DES for Unit 1, EPA expressed the opinion that monitoring of Unit 1 operation should be done to assure that the concentration of total residual chlorine should not reach 0.1 mg/l in the vicinity of the discharge point for more
; than 30 minutes.e Operating experience with Unit I has demonstrated that this recomendation can i
be met. Although Unit 2 could potentially discharge residual chlorine for a longer duration l because of the buildup in the circulating waste system, dilution of Unit 2 blowdown with the Unit 1 circulating flow will result in an unmeasurable concentration increase. The limit in effect during initial operation of Unit 1 can still be met with two-unit operation and thus there j will be no change in the impact to the aquatic biota. The NPDES permit (Appendix H) authorizes discharge of chlurine at an average free residual chlo-
! rine concentration of 0.2 mg/l and a maximum of 0.5 mg/1. No limit is placed on the total resid-ual chlorine concentration by the NPDES. However, the maximum duration of chlorine usage is limited to 2 hours per day per unit. Since dilution in the discharge embayment is slight as indicated by thermal plume models, much of the embayment would be at the discharge concentration.
If the station discharge were at the permitted concentration level, aquatic biota in the dis-charge embayment might be impacted. The State has determined that the entire discharge entayment i is included in the mixing zone for the purpose of applying temperature limitations. However, the State Water Quality Standards prohibit other substances at toxic levels without provisions for a mixing zone (Appendix B). Issuance of the NPDES permit by the State and approval by EPA is an indication of their exception to this requirement at Arkansas Nuclear One. With recognition that the applicant has not demonstrated the need to discharge chlorine at the permitted level and that operating experience with Unit I has demonstrated that the 0.1 mg/l total residual chlorine limit can be met, any impact caused by discharge at the higher level (0.2 mg/l free residual chlorine) authorized by the NPDES would be considered unacceptable by the NRC staff. The NPDES permit (see Appendix H) prohibits the discharge of PCB, limits the pH of the cooling tower blowdown to a range between 6.0 and 9.0, and prohibits the introduction of floating solids or visible foam in the discharge. It also limits the concentration of suspended solids and oil and grease in the discharge from low volume sources. Based on review of design and operation as summarized in Chapter 3 the staff concludes that the applicant will be able to operate within the authorized limits for these other substances. 5.3.3 Sanitary Wastes The analysis as stated in the FES-CP remains valid.
- 5.3.4 Effects on Groundwater and Surface Water Supply The estimate of consumptive use of water and effects on groundwater and surface water supply described in the FES-CP is still valid.
, During normal plant operation water will be drawn into Unit 2 at an average rate of 16,000 gpm (36 cfs). Evaporation in the cooling tower will occur at an average rate of 9900 gpm (22 cfs). The maximum expected rate of evaporation is 11,900 gpm (27 cfs). The consumption is less than 1
- a- - ao+ --,s-- -at a - - . 4 ,a._
5-4 percent of the once-in-ten-year minimum weekly flow of approximately 3,500 cfs (1,600,000 gpm).9 Average total requirements of all users identified by the applicant was less than 30 cfs.10
! Tnerefore, consumption of water will not impact other users.
The evaporated water is lost from possible use for hydroelectric power generation at Dardanelle Dam. The applicant will pay the Corps of Engineers $10,600 annually for the combined evaporative losses of both units to compensate for reduced revenue from hydroelectric power generation.11,12 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL I! PACTS 5.4.1 Terrestrial Environment The analysis as stated in the FES-CP remains valid. 5.4.1.1 Cooling Tower Drif t Assessment The applicant predicts that there will be a maximum annual salt deposition rate of 488 grams /m2 (4347 lbs/ acre) at a range of about 600 meters from the tower.1 This value excludes wind direc-tion and frequency calculations and is based upon a maximum total dissolved solids (TDS) concen-tration of 6900 ppm in the circulating water during average flow and a cycling rate of 405,000
- gpm. TDS values include a variety of substances, only some of which are know to be capable of l causing significant biological damage. In order to assess whether any damage will occur to e surrounding biota, the staff has adjusted the applicant's TDS value to include only those sub-stances known to contribute to biological damage. Chlorides were selected by the staff as the primary component of TDS which may cause potential vegetation damage above certain deposition rates.
t Based upon examination of 5 years of data, the highest chloride values were found to occur in the month of August.2 The staff has estimated that the average and maximum August chloride values for makeup closely approached 58 ppm Cl and 116 ppm C1~, respectively. The average salinity concentration of the circulating water was estimated by the staff to be 406 ppm C1~, equivalent j to 665 ppm Nacl, based on a concentration factor of 7 as used in the CP-FES.3 A concentration of 815 ppm C1~ (1331 ppm Nacl) was used by the staff as an estimate of a maximum salinity concentra-tion for circulating water. 9 Based upon these salinity values and the applicant's maximum salt deposition rate, the staff estimated that the average and maximum annual salt deposition rate should be adjusted to 48.8 grams Nacl /m2 (434.6 lbs NaC1/ acre) and 97.6 grams NaC1/m2 (869 lbs NaC1/ acre), respectively. , The staff believes that these adjusted annual values are still highly conservative because they are based upon 12 months having the same high river chloride values as August. Examination of the monthly recorded chloride data for 5 years indicate that only June, July and August show j maximum chloride values above 10 ppm for the station most representative of make-up water quality. i To determine salt deposition for any wind direction, the staff utilized the average August wind direction and relative frequencies 5 and estimated average and maximum adjusted annual salt depost-I tion rates at 600 meters from the tower for the three greatest wind frequencies (NE ENE, W). Average values obtained ranged from 3.8 to 4.7 lbs Nacl / acre / month or 45.8 to 55.8 lbs NaC1/ acre / , year. Maximum values were considered to be about twice the average values. 1 i Current published data on salt deposition rates indicate that the lowest reported values to which 4 vegetation damage from salt deposition can be attributed range from 10-20 lbs NaC1/ acre / month.6 Based upon the above conservative average and maximum monthly salt deposition values and the staff's modelling results (see Appendix G), it is concluded that Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 natural draft cooling tower will not cause any unacceptable damage to either onsite or offsite vegetation, t 5.4.1.2 Ef fect of Natural Draf t Cooling Tower on Migratory Birds The natural draft cooling tower of ANO-Unit 2 may present an obstruction to migrating birds. 4 Bird mortality is known to occur, particularly during the migratory season, at manmade structures such as TV transmission towers, tall buildings, and monuments. The assessment of the potential i impact is based on consideration of bird migratory patterns, migratory cues, and meteorology in the Arkansas Nuclear One area. I i l 4
5-5 Hochbaum7 states that the eyes are the basic sensory organ from which birds receive their initial orientation. In flight, birds must maintain true spatial orientation. On clear days, with good visibility, orientation is not a problem. However, at night and/or under adverse weather con-ditions, such as low ceilings with precipitation and/or fog, nocturnally migrating birds may become spatially disoriented. Hertert8 states that maintenance of a visual horizon under adverse weather conditions forces birds to migrate at lower elevations. In general, most birds migrate at elevations above 500 feet.9 Lights, such as aircraft warning lights atop tall buildings, television-radio towers, and cellometers may spatially disorient birds which normally use natural land and water shadows against the horizon as visual cues.a Major periods of potential bird mortality would be expected to occur during paak periods of nocturnal migrations under unfavorable weather conditions, although losses may occur anytime { during the year. Studies have shown that most bird losses coincide with overcast weather con-1 ditions, wind shifts due to passing cold fronts, and precipitation and/or fog.10*ll Guy wires associated with radio and TV towers appear to be responsible for a high percentage of bird mor-talities discussed in these studies.10 In assessing the potential impact of the natural draft cooling tower of ANO-Unit 2 on bird popula-tions, especially migratory fowl, at the site, all of the above factors must be taken into account. The plant site is located in the general vicinity of the Mississippi Flyway. The Holla Bend National Wildlife P2fuge, approximately 7 miles by air from the site, is utilized by migrating waterfowl for resting and feeding during migration. It is anticipated that the majority of bird mortalities associated with the cooling towers would occur during spring and fall nocturnal migration periods. The potential for bird mortality at the site is reduced for a number of reasons:
- 1. The cooling tower associated with the facility will not have gu wires which appear to be responsible for a high percentage of recorded bird mortalities. O The tower will also not be brightly illuminated so as to cause complete obliteration of any background, resulting in birds losing their visual cues to the horizon and thus flying directly into the tower.
- 2. The potential for mortality from waterfowl flying into cooling towers should be further reduced because generally waterfowl are most active diurnally when orientation is usually not a problem. This conclusion is supported in other studies on bird mortality at towers. These studies indicate that a small percentage of the birds that are killed are waterfowl.10,II,12 From the time the tower reached full height, the applicant re of bird impaction during a period of four migratory seasons.1gortsThethat theretherefore, staff, has been no evidence concludes that bird impaction will be minimal and although some losses may occur these are not expected to be appreciable when compared to the number of birds which die from other hazards during migration, r
5.4.1.3 Transmission Rights-Of-Way Maintenance The applicant has stated that periodic maintenance of the cleared right-of-way will be accom-plished every three to five years by mechanical means of brush control.I'+ Mechanical removal of trees which might interfere with transmission facilities will occur approximately every six years . The staff approves of this corridor maintenance program.
- The staff concludes that the applicant's proposed maintenance procedures will reduce potential environmental impact associated with the operation of this transmission system.
Effects of Chemical Herbicides The applicant indicates that mechanical methods for corridor maintenance will be used and, therefore, there will be no use of chemical herbicides along this right-of-way.I , Effects of Ozone
. The Natural primary Air Quality Standard for oxidants, as issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, is 80 parts per billion (ppb) by volume maximum arithmetic mean for a one-hour concen-tration, not to be exceeded more than once per year (Appendix D of 42 CFR 410).
.. _ _ - _ _ . - _ . _ . m - _ _ _ _ _- . . _ _
5-6 However, ozone may be injurious to vegetational animals at even lower concentrations and where exposure is over prolonged periods.ts-te Duration of exposure, age, temperature, relative humid-ity, vigor, presence of other pollutants and light intensity, among others, all effect the response of a particular species to ozone.19 thereby, making it extremely difficult to assess the possible effects of a particular concentration of ozone in natural and domesticated biota or j human beings.
! Ozone and small amounts of nitrogen oxides are produced by corona discharge from energized high voltage transmission lines.
Maximum ozone concentrations in the immediate vicinity of transmission lines at voltage up to I 765-kV have been calculatedzo and the highest concentration (1.9 to 19.3 ppb) thus occurs in the rare case in which a very light wind blows exactly parallel to a long stretch of transmission ] line during foul weather. a Several field studies 1,22 have indicated that no increase in ambient levels were found under a 2 l variety of weather conditions near energized 765-kV lines. 4 Based upon the cited references and the fact that the ANO-Unit 2 will be of lower voltage (500 kV), the staff believes that the proposed transmission line will be operated in an environmentally acceptable manner with respect to ozone generation. Contributions from this line are expected to l constitute a minor part of ambient ozone levels and will be well below the National Primary Air I Quality Standard described above. Effect of Induced Currents The electric field associated with an energized 500-kV transmission line will induce voltage in conducting objects within the field. If the object is well grounded, the resulting potential between the object and the ground will be near zero. However, if the object is insulated from the ground, significant voltages may be induced and a potential shock hazard created.23,2r, The magnitude of the charge and, therefore, the severity of the shock will be related to param-eters associated with the transmission line design, line voltage, size and dimensions of the object, proximity of the object to the line, and degree of insulation of the object from the ground. The quality of the insulation between a person coming in contact with such an object and the earth will also affect the severity of the shock. Body passage currents caused by contact with a charged object may range from barely detectable to those resulting in lethal effects. The applicant is comitted to grounding fences and gates running across or closely paralleling the line and states that all buildings located off of and parallel to the right-of-way are at distances great enough to maintain current levels either unperceptible or very small and not hazardous.25 f The staff recommends that when the lines are energized the applicant contact residents of any permanent structures within 100 yards of this 500-kV right-of-way on its own initiative, for the purpose of determining whether any ungrounded nuisances exist and for the further purpose of warning residents of possible secondary hazards such as vehicle refueling fire hazards beneath l the lines. The staff concludes that electrostatically induced currents could caJse inconvenience and varying degrees of nuisance to residents who live near the corridor but there is little likelihood of mortality caused by electrocution of persons or animals from the applicant's 500-kV line. 5.4.2 Aquatic Environment Entrainment and Impingement Impacts due to the entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms at the station are essen-tially those associated with the once-through cooling system for Unit 1.26 Unit 2, with its closed-cycle system, is not expected to contribute substantially to the cumulative impact of the two-unit plant operation. Water for cooling purposes will be taken from the Illinois Bayou arm of Lake Dardanelle via a common intake canal. During maximum power operation, the two-unit plant will require 793.300 gpm (1768 cfs). Unit i uses 764,000 gpm (1703 cfs) for condenser cooling and 13,400 gpm (30 cfs) in l the service water system. The Unit 2 service water system pumps can supply a maximum flow of 15,900 gpm (35 cfs) to the cooling tower makeup water system. The average makeup during normal i
,. ,. e ----m, - ~ - - - - - - ----n- a n . - - - , - - ,,- , , -,
5-7 operation of Unit 2 will be 12,400 gpm (28 cfs). To keep the concentration factor of the Unit 2 blowdown to an acceptable level, it will be necessary to use two Unit 1 circulating water pumps for the supply of dilution water in the event of Unit i shutdown. The two-unit cooling water requirement of 1768 cfs represents 50% of the minimum flow through Lake Dardanelle (3500 cfs) or 5% of the average flow (35620 cfs). The Unit 2 makeup requirement is 0.8% of the minimum flow and 0.08% of the average. Entrainment data collected for Unit 1 as part of the environmental monitoring program have not been provided to date. However, the licensee believes that for Unit I a 100% mortality of entrained organisms is a justifiable assumption (See Section 6.5). Total mortality of organisms entrained in cooling tower makeup water is generally accepted in the literature. In lieu of specific data on plankton densities and relative distributions, the staff can only assess entrain-ment impacts on the basis of simple volumetric relationships (assuming homogeneous distribution of planktonic organisms). The two-unit plant would circulate 0.7% of the Lake Dardanelle storage volume of 486,200 acre-ft per day, if it were assumed that the lake is a discrete entity. The Unit 2 service water system requires only 0.01% of the storage volume each day. It is not expected that these losses will significantly reduce the productivity of the lake. Monitoring of entrain-l ment losses is required by the Environmental Technical Specifications for Unit 1 and will be continued for a period following startup of Unit 2. The potential for high fish impingement levels was recognized for the ANO plant 2s due to several factors including the source of intake water from a productive shallow backwater area, the attrac-tiveness of a long (4100 ft) approach canal, and high approach velocity in the canal. Fish impingement monitoring at the Unit 1 intake has confirmed that an impingement problem exists during the winter months. In expectation of the impingement problem, the applicant contracted with Bechtel Corporation to construct an experimental air-bubble curtain at the front of the intake canal. Placement of the curtain is as shown in Figure 3.2. A program for testing the effectiveness of the device in reducing fish impingement was designed and conducted for the applicant by Texas Instruments, Incorporated (TI). On the basis of seasonal testing (six week: , r season) during the period October 1974 - August 1975, the following conclusions were reachec oy TI:29 "Under present operating conditions the air curtain does not effectively deter fish from entering the intake canal. Consequently, It does not substantially reduce the impingement of fish on the Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 1 intake screens. On the con-trary, impingement was higher during air-curtain operation in 13 of 16 tests where statistically significant differences in impingement rates were observed.
"Although seasonal variations in species composition of impinged fish were observed, these variations were independent of air-curtain operational status.
! " Growth and subsequent recruitment into an impingeable size were observed for the ! seven major species considered over the course of the study period. Air-curtain I operation, however, did not alter the length-frequency distribution of the species impinged. *
" Impingement was negatively correlated with water temperature. Increasing impinge-ment rates were associated with declining temperatures in the fall, while decreasing impingements were associated with rising temperatures in the spring.
! "It is our opinion that under present operating conditions highest igingement rates i will continue to occur during the late fall, winter, and early spring, regardless of air-curtain status. Catches during these periods will continue to be pre-l dominantly young-of-the-year fish, especially threadfin shad, thermally stressed when Dardanelle Reservoir water temperatures fall below 60"F (15.5"C)." l ! TI reconnended to the applicant that the courses of further study, suggested by the findings, were ! to "[e] valuate the biological impact of present impingement rates on the fishery resources of i Dardanelle Reservoir" and to "[e] valuate alternatives in plant intake structure design to reduce impingement only if biologically significant impact is determined." Monthly reporting of fish impingement has been required by the Environmental Technical Specifi-l cations for Unit 1. Using these data, the staff estimates that approximately 27.5 million fish ! (weighing 470,000 pounds) were impinged during the period from June 10, 1974 to July 29, 1975.
. . -_- - - - --_ ____ - ~.. . _. _ - - -
5-8 d The extrapolation is based on 126 screen samples taken during the period. Of the collected fish, threadfin and gizzard shad (recaom retenense and v. ceredicrmm) contributed 99.6% by number and
; 99.3% by weight. Thirty-four additional species, iiicluding many of the commercial and game species, made up the remaining fraction of one percent. The screen collection data are summarized in . Appendix F.
4 The impingement level with combined operation of the two units is expected to remain approxi-mately the same as that experienced with Unit 1 operation. Impingement on Unit 2 intake screens will likely reflect a redistribution of fish which would have othenvise been collected on the Unit i screens. With only Unit 2 operating, there remains the potential for impingement of the shad species (especially threadfin shad) during tho winter months even with low intake volume and velocity.
, The threadfin shad, which is native to the Itwer Mississippi River Valley, has been successfully introduced to many large run-of-the-river reservoirs throughout the southern United States. The most important limiting factor in establishing a reservoir population outside the natural range of threadfin shad is the intolerance of the species to low water temperature.30 ' Conflicting results on the lower lethal temperature are found in the literature however. Whereas a water temperature of 41'F has been established as lethal in aquaria studies 23 threadfin shad have survived in ice-covered experimental ponds in Alabama.28 Threadfin shad have been found to 4
be an important food item of major piscivorous game species including bluegill, largemouth bass, spotted bass, white bass, black crappie, striped bass, channel catfish, white catfish and sauger. White bass subsist almost solely on shad species throughout life in Beaver Reservoir, Arkansas.31 Threadfin shad constituted a larger part of the diet during fall and winter months than at other
, times of the year.
4
! An important question arising from our review of the literature is whether the debilitated threadfin shad sink to the lake bottom and enter the detrital food chain or remain in the water 4 column to be preyed upon by the piscivorous game species. If the former occurs, then harvest of moribund shad (by impingement) and reintroduction of the ground-up fish to the lake may benefit the dctrital-feeding species. If the latter occurs, then impingement and grinding acts to remove i this potential forage from piscivorous species. In actuality, the food web relationships cannot be stated so simply. This complexity and the uncertainty about the fate of debilitated shad has been expressed by the Chief of South Central Reservoir Investigations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 4
Service, in a letter to the applicant:32 "The effect of winter mortality of threadfin shad on the population dynamics of other species, in particular the predator sport fishes, is extremely difficult to assess. 1 Despite the considerable effort we have made to identify and measure these effects we i have thus far obtained mostly inconclusive results. Other natural phenomena usually j mask the effects in our sampling. i "Your problem has an unusual aspect when you consider that those fish that become impinged i on the screens under conditions that existed this winter were not dead, I presume, when
! they were drawn into the cooling water system but even without the pmer plant they may
! have been destined to die from the lowered temperatures. Whether death may have occurred anyway as a natural consequence is not certain." Likewise, the Arkansas Game and Fish Comission has indicated that:
"The fact that the shad suf fer and flounder around in the water before they die, and this proceeds off and on all winter long, is one reason we are using this fish as a tool in fisheries management. The predator game fish in the reservoirs cannot resist eating the dying shad. Therefore, the threadfin shad is a wonderful food source and even those that ' die and sink to the bottom are consumed by the stripped bass, catfish, and drum."33 An evaluation of the significance of impingement losses is being nade by the applicant with assis-tance from the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission who has increased the frequency and number of cove rotenone surveys in Lake Dardanelle. These monitoring programs are described in Section 6.5.
, If damage is being incurred by the native species as determined by the evaluation, then mitigative ' action shall be required.
< The present practice of grinding the impinged fish and returning the products to the lake will
- continue during combined operation of the two units. The staff expressed concern that this practice may result in the degradation of water quality and recommended that grinding be dis-i continued. However, the Arkansas Game and Fish Comission expressed the strong preference
" ..that the fish be ground...and returned to the lakes water so that the native fish population would not be deprived of these nutrients and this food."3" In a meeting with the applicant and l
l i _ . _ - . _ . ,- _____.m - _ ,,. - -__ ~ . _ _ - _ _ _ - . _ _ . _ _ - _ . _ . - -
5-9 the Director of the State Game and Fish Commission, the staff agreed that disposal of impinged 1 fish shall be by a method approved by EPA and the Arkansas State Pollution Control Board. Sub-sequently, the applicant reported that " Discussions with the EPA indicate that jurisdiction
- regarding fish grinding operations has been delegated to the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPC&E). ADPC&E have indicated that they have no problems with our fish 1 grinding operations."35 The monitoring of dissolved oxygen in the discharge cove will provide an
! early warning of potential detrimental effects. 5.5 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS 5.5.1 Radiological Impact on Man The intent of this estimate is to evaluate the radiological environmental impact of the facility by establishing an " upper bound" population dose. This dose, associated with plant operation, is unlikely to be exceeded when the detailed review is performed for the final environmental state-ment and subsequent hearing. The models and considerations for environmental pathways leading to estimates of radiation dose commitments are described in Appendix C of this statement. Two comprehensive reports 1,2 concerned with radioactivity in the environment can be read for a more detailed explanation of the subjects that will be discussed below.
; 5.5.1.1 Exposure Pathways The environmental pathways which were considered in preparing this section are shown in Figure 5.1.
4 Estimates were made of radiation doses to the population beyond the site boundary based on NRC staff estimates of the expected radioactive effluents described in Tables 3.4 and 3.5, and exposure pathways at Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2. Inhalation of air and ingestion of food and water containing tritium, carbon-14, and radiocesium, and external exposure to xenon-133 are estimated to account for essentially all of the total body radiation dose corx:itments to the U.S. population. 1 5.5.1.2 Dose from Radioactive Releases to the Atmosphere Radioactive effluents released to the atmosphere from the Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 facility will result in small radiation doses to the public. NRC staff estimates of the expected gaseous and particulate releases listed in Table 3.5 of this statement were used to estimate radiation doses to populations. The population can be exposed via the pathways discussed in Appendix C. External total body irradiation results from submersion in dispersed noble gases and from standing on surfaces containing deposited radiotodines and particulates. Internal total body and organ exposures result from inhalation of contaminated air or ingestion of contaminated foodstuffs. Three food pethways were evaluated which involved consumption: meat, milk, and food crops. Doses to the population were calculated by assuming uniform dispersal of the radionuclides. Direct exposure pathways to the population (e.g., noble gas submersion) were based upon a uniform population density (160 people /mi2). Indirect food pathways were based upon the assumption that meat, milk, and crop productivity of the land area east of the Mississippi River is capable of
! supporting the U.S. population.
Table 5.1 lists the population doses resulting from this analysis. Background radiation doses are provided for comparison. The doses from atmospheric releases from Unit 2 during normal operation represent an extremely small increase in the nomal population dose from background radiation sources. 5.5.1.3 Dose Commitments from Radioactive liquid Releases to the Hydrosphere I Radioactive effluents released to the hydrosphere from the Arkansas Unit 2 facility during nomal operation will result in small radiation doses to populations. NRC staff estimates of the expected radioactive liquid releases listed in Table 3.4, and site hydrological considerations were used to estimate radiation dose commitments to the U.S. population. The tritium released to the receiving water is assumed to enter the biosphere in the same manner I as tritium released to the atmosphere. Thus, the tritium discussion in Appendix C applies to all tritium sources from the plant.
5-10 E 5-2510 GASEOUS E F F LUEN T NUCLE AR POWE R PL ANT k e t I
+ <=,
f r= 2 7 1_111% f1\s \ m_ g- ._ { [FUE L IRANSPOR, {
, O k - .-
wp h ~.
, ?'* 49Go&o v** j i c90ees f. f \,, _
y h - K s.h ~ .. J' E
'\, ----
2 M_ _
*QW -
Fig. 5.1 Exposure Pathways to Man.
5-11 TABLE 5.1 ANNUAL POPULATION DOSE COMMITMENTS IN THE YEAR 1990 Category U.S. Population Dose Commitment (man-rem) a Natural Radiation Background 25,000,000 b Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 Operation 450 Plant Work Force General Public (total) 19 Gaseous Cloud
- Ground Deposition
- Terrestrial Foods (including irrigated crops) 9.6 Inhalation
- Drinking Water
- Aquatic Foods
- Recreation
- Transportation of nuclear fuel and radioactive wastes 7.0 Less than 1 man-rem /yr.
Included in the U.S. population, a" Natural Radiation Exposure in the United States," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORP-S!D 72-1 (June 1972). b using the average US background dose (102 mrem /yr) in (a), and Year 1990 projected U.S. population from " Population Estimates and Projections," Series II U.S. Dept. of Comerce, Bureau of the Census, Series P-25 No. 541 (Feb.1975). The estimated population radiation dose commitments to the U.S. population for Unit 2 from liquid releases, based on the use of water from the Arkansas River for drinking and crop irriga-tion and from ingestion of fish and recreational use of the river, is expected to be no more than one man-rem. Background radiation doses are provided for comparison. The doses from liquid releases from the Arkansas Unit 2 facility represent small increases in the population dose from background radia-tion sources. 5.5.1.4 Direct Radiation Radiation from the facility Radiation fields are produced in nuclear plant environs as a result of radioactivity contained within the reactor and its associated components. Doses from sources within the plant are primarily due to nitrogen-16, a radionuclide produced in the reactor core. Since the primary coolant of pressurized Water reactors is contained in a heavily shielded area of the plant, dose rates in the vicinity of PWR's are generally undetectable (less than 5 mrem /yr). The integrated population dose would be less than one man-rem /yr/ unit. Low level radioactivity storage containers outside the plant are estimated to contribute less than 0.01 mrem / year at the site boundary. Occupational Radiation Exposure Based on a review of the applicant's safety analysis report, the sta'f has detemined that individual occupational doses can be maintained within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20. Radia tion dose limits of 10 CFR Part 20 are based on a thorough consideration cf the biological risk of exposure to ionizing radiation. Maintaining radiation doses of plant personnel within these a _ _ - - .-- _ - _ . . -
5-12 limits ensures that the risk associated with radiation exposure is no greater than those risks normally accepted by workers in other present day industries. Using information compiled by the Comission of past experience from operating nuclear reactor plants, it is estimated that the , total dose to all onsite personnel at large operating nuclear plants will be, on the average, I approximately 450 man-rem per year per unit. The total dose for this plant will be influenced . by several factors for which definitive numerical values are not available. These factors are expected to lead to doses to onsite personnel lower than estimated above. On the other hand, improvements to the radioactive waste effluent treatment system to maintain offsite population doses as low as practicable may cause an increase to onsite personnel doses. If all other factors remain unchanged, however, the applicant's implementation of Regulatory Guide 8.8 and i other guidance provided through the staff radiation protection review process is expected to
- result in an overall reduction of total doses from those currently experienced. Because of the uncertainty in the factors modifying the above estimate, a value of 450 man-rem will be used for the occupational radiation exposure for Arkansas Unit 2 operation.
Transportation of Radioactive Material The transportation of cold fuel to a reactor, of irradiated fuel from the reactor to a fuel reprocessing plant, and of solid radioactive wastes from the reactor to burial grounds is within the scope of the NRC report entitled, " Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive y Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants." The environmental effects of such transportation are summarized in Table 5.2. 5.5.1.5 Evaluation of Radiological Impact The radiological impact of operating Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 is presented in terms of popula-
! tion dose commitments in Table 5.1. The annual individual doses resulting from routine operation i
of the plant are expected to be a small fraction of the dose limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20. l The population doses are small fractions of the dose from natural environmental radioactivity, j As a result, the staff concluded that there will be no measurable radiological impact on man j from routine operation of Unit 2. 5.5.2 Radiological impact on Biota Other Than Man i The models and considerations for environmental pathways leading to estimates of radiation doses j to biota are discussed in detail in Volume 2, " Analytical flodels and Calculations" of WASH-1258.3 i Exposure Pathways ) 5.5.2.1 The environmental pathways which were considered in preparing this section are shown in Figure 5.2. Dose estimates were made for biota near the site, and in the aquatic environment at the point where Unit 2's liquid effluents mix with the Dardanelle Reservoir. The estimates were based on estimates of expected effluents as shown in Tables 3.4 and 3.5, site hydrological and meteorological l considerations, and the exposure pathways anticipated at the Arkansas Nuclear One power station. i 5.5.2.2 Doses to Biota from Radioactive Releases to the Biosphere i Depending on the pathway, terrestrial and aquatic biota will receive doses approximately the ! same or somewhat higher than man receives. Oose estimates for some typical blota near the site are shown in Table 5.3. The doses are quite conservative since it is highly unlikely that any ' of the mobile life forms will spend a significant portion of their life spans in the maximum activity concentration of the discharge region. Both radioactive decay and additional dilution would reduce the dose at other points, and a nonequilibrium condition for a radionuclide in an actual exposure situation would result in a smaller bioaccumulation and therefore in a smaller dose from internal exposure. 5.5.2.3 Doses to Biota from Of rect Radiation l Although many of the terrestrial species may be continuously exposed and thereby' receive higher doses than man, aquatic species and some terrestrial species may receive somewhat lower doses depending on shielding by water or soil (e.g., burrows). As a result of these uncertainties, it was assumed that the direct radiation doses to biota at the site boundary will be about the same as for man. As discussed in Section 5.5.1.4 direct radiation doses will generally be less than 5 mrem /yr. I I
_ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ __ _ _ m ---- 5-13 TABLE 5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION OF FUEL AND WASTE TO AND FROM ONE LIGHT WATER-COOLED NUCLEAR POWER REACTORa Normal conditions of transport Heat (per irradiated fuel cask in transit) 250,000 Btu /hr
- Weight (governed by Federal or State restrictions) 73.000 lbs. per truck; 100 tons l per cask per rail car Traffic density <1 per day Rail <3 per month l Exposed population Estimated Range of doses Cumulative dose to number of to exposed exposed population pers ons individuals (man-rems per reactor yr)'
(millirems per reactor yr) l Transportation l Worker 200 0.01 to 300 4 General Public Onlookers 1,100 0.003 to 1.3 Along Route 600.000 0.0001 to 0.06 3 Accidents in transport Radiological effects d Smali Comon (nonradiological) causes 1 fatal injury in 100 reactor years; 1 nonfatal injury in 10 reactor years;
$475 property damage per reactor year a
l Data supporting this table are given in the Comission's " Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants " WASH-1238 December 1972, and Supp. I, NUREG 75/038, April 1975. b The Federal Radiation Council has recommended that the radiation doses from all sources of radiation other than natural background and medical exposures should be limited to 5,000 millf rems / year for individuals as a result of occupational exposure and should be limited to 500 millirems / year for individuals in the general population. The dose to individuals due to average natural background radiation is about 130 millirems / year. C l lian-rem is an expression for the sumation of whole-body doses to individuals in a group. Thus, l if each menter of a population group of 1,000 people were to receive a dose of 0.001 rem (1 millirem), or if 2 people were to receive a dose of 0.5 rem (500 millirems) each, the total man-rem in each case would be 1 man-rem. d Although the environmental risk of radiological effects steming from transportation accidents is currently incapable of being numerically quantified, the risk remains small regardless of l whether it is being applied to a single reactor or a multireactor site.
5-14 4 E S-2513 GASEOUS EFFLUENTS NUCLEA FACILITY 1 O ) EFILUENTS [
/
V f/l\' , gR EK f g. ,, x\ v
\
s re m L [/ \ --
--- -\bf .
1
.LB n
x\ _ c, %7 '- - . -_ _ l v _ __ = o w_- _=_3 s q_ _. h\,y
\sW ~~ y i \&**$O hr Fig. 5.2 Exposure Pathways to Biota Other Than Man i , . _ , , _ . - ~y.- -,_ - , , . ~ y - - , . 4- -_... .
5-15 TABLE 5.3 DOSE ESTIMATES FOR TYPICAL BIOTA NEAR ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2 Biota location Pathway Oce.e (mrad /yr) Deer Plant Vicinity Atmosphere 0.5 Fox " 0.5 i Terrestrial " " 0.2 Flora Raccoon Plant Outfall Atmosphere 1 Hydrosphere Huskrat " S Heron " 20 Duck " 5 Fish Hydrosphere 2 Invertebrates " " 2
- Algae " "
0.5 Note: Atmospheric doses include estimates of plume dose, ground deposition dose, inhalation dose, and ingestion doses where appropriate. Hydrospheric doses include estimates of 1mersion dose, dose from consumption, and sediment dose where appropriate. 5.5.2.4 Evaluation of the Radiological impact on Biota4,5 Although guidelines have not been established for desirable limits for radiation exposure to species other than man, it is generally agreed that the limits established for humans are also conservative for other species. Erperience has shown that it is the maintenance of population stability that is crucial to the survival of a species, and species in most ecosystems suffer rather high mortality rates from natural causes. While the existence of extremely radiosensitive biota is possible and while increased radiosensitivity in organisms may result from environmental interactions with other stresses (e.g., heat, blocides, etc.), no biota have yet been discovered i ' that show a sensitivity (in terms of increased disease or death) to radiation exposures as low as those expected in the area surrounding the ANO-2 nuclear power station. The "BEIR" Report concluded that the evidence to date indicates that no other living organisms are very much more radiosensi-tive than man, therefore, no measurable radiological impact on populations of biota is expected from the radiation and radioactivity released to the biosphere as a result of the routine opera-tion of the Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 plant. 5.5.3 Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle The environmental effects of uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radio-active materials and management of low level wastes and high level wastes are within the scope of the AEC report entitled, " Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle." The contributions of such environmental effects are summarized in Table 5.4 l l I
=. _ .
5-16 TABLE 5.4 SUPNARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION FOR URANIUM FUEL CICLE_ [ Normalized to Model LWR Annual Fuel Requirement] Natural resource use Total Maximum effect per annual fuel require-ment of model 1,000-MWe LWR Land (acres) Temporarily committed 63 Undisturbed area 45 Disturbed area 18 Equivalent to 90 MWe coal-fired power plant. Pennanently comitted 4.6 Overburden moved (millions of metric tons) 2.7 Equivalent to 90 MWe coal-fired power plant. l Water (millions of gallons) Discharged to air 156 2.2% raojel 1000 MWe LWR with cooling tower. Discharged to water bodies 11,040 Discharged to ground 123 Total 11,319 <4% of model 1000 MWe LWR with once-through cooling. Fossil fuel Electrical energy (thousands of MW-hour) 317 <5% of model 1000 f1We LWR output. Equivalent to the consumption of a 45-MWe 1 Equivalent coal (thousands of metric tons) 115 coal-fired power plant. Natural gas (millions of scf) 92 <0.2% of model 1000-MWe energy output.
! Effluents - chemical (metric tons)
Gases (including entrainment)a 4,400 J 50x b 1,177 Equivalent to emissions from 45-ftWe coal-NOx fired plant for a year. Hydrocarbons 13.5 CO 28.7 Particulates 1,156 Other gases F- 0.72 Principally from UFs production enrich-ment and reprocessing. Concentration within range of state standards - below level that has effects on human health. Liquids 50.,~ 10.3 From enrichment, fuel fabrication, and reprocessing steps. Components NO3 26.7 that constitute a potential for adverse environmental effect are present. Fluoride 12.9 in dilute concentrations and receive Ca++ 5.4 additional dilution by receiving bodies C1~ 8.6 of water to levels below permissible standards. The constituents that require dilution and the flow of dilution water are: Na* 16.9 NH3 - 600 cfs. NH3 11.5 NO3 - 20 cfs. Fe 0.4 Fluoride - 70 cfs. Tailings solutions (thousands of metric tons) 240 From mills only - no significant effluents to environment. Solids 91,000 Principally from mills - no significant ef fluents to environment.
5-17 TABLE 5.4 (continued) SU W RY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION FOR U RNIUM FUEL CYCLE [ Normalized to Model LWR Annual Fuel Requirement] (cont'd) Natural resource use Total Maximum effect per annual fuel require-ment of model 1.000-MWe LWR Effluents - radiological (curies) Gases (including entrainment) Rn-222 75 Principally from mills - maximum Ra-226 0.02 annual dose rate <4% of average Th-230 0.02 natural background within 5 miles of Uranium 0.032 mill. Results in 0.06 man-rem per l annual fuel requirement. Tritium (thousand) 16.7 Principally from fuel reprocessing l Kr-85(thousands) 350 plants - whole body dose is 6 man-rem l-129 0.0024 per annual fuel requirements for l-131 0.024 population within 50-mile radius. Fission products and transuranics 1.01 This is <0.007% of average annual background dose to this population. Release from Federal Waste Repository of 0.005 C1/ year has been included in fission products and transuranics total. Liquids 2.1 Principally from milling - included Uranium and daughters in tallings liquor and returned to ground - no effluents; therefore, no effect on environment. Ra-226 0.0034 From UF6 production - concentration Th-230 0.0015 5% of 10 CFR 20 for total processing of 27.5 model LWR annual fuel requirements. Th-234 0.01 From fuel fabrication plants - ! concentration 10% of 10 CFR 20 for total processing 26 annual fuel requirements for model LWR. c Ru-106 0.15 From reprocessing plants - maximum Tritium (thousands) 2.5 concentration 4% of 10 CFR 20 for total reprocessing of 26 annual fuel Solids (buried) requirements for model LWR. Other than high level 601 All except 1 C1 comes from mills - included in tailings returned to ground - no significant effluent to the environment.1 Ci from conversion and fuel fabrication is buried. Effluents - thermal (billions of Btu's) 3,360 <7% of model 1000-MWe LWR. Transportation (man-rem): exposure of 0.334 workers and general public, a Estimated effluents based upon combustion of equivalent coal for power generation. bl .2% from natural gas use and process. C Cs-137 (0.075 C1/AFR) and Sr-90 (0.004 C1/AFR) are also emitted. Source: Paragraph 51.20(e),10 CFR 51.
5-18 1 5.6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS 1
- ANO-Unit 2 will require an operating force of 65 personnel.1 Assuming that these enployees will !
follow the pattern set by the Unit 1 operating force, 85 percent will estabitsh residence in Pope - County with 73 percent settling in Russellville. The impact of this small number of families on
- schools and other community services will be minimal. The annual payroll for new Unit 2 employees will be $670,800.2
, During the construction period, a total of $10,707.000 Ad Valorem taxes will be paid to various governmental agencies such as the Russellville School District #14. Pope County General Fund, i Road Fund, Industrial Fund and Library Fund.3 The availability of these funds during the con. struction period has lef t the community (and especially the school system) markedly better ' equipped to handle a growing student population including the relatively small addition due to ] the incoming operating force. Af ter the plant begins operating, the applicant has estimated that i approximately $4,023.800 will be paid annually in property and real estate taxes.* During both the construction and operation periods, the school district will receive approximately 85 percent i of the tax monies. A visitors center will be provided for public education near the edge of the exclusion zone. It will include a viewing balcony or tower and an auditorium with a 40-person capacity. The center i will show educational films and a simulated tour through the plant. The applicant expects the center to attract 45,000 visitors each year. Recreation facilities on the site will include a boat ramp for easy access to the reservoir fran the site's 734 acres of park land. i The plant includes many architectural features which were designed to make it more esthetically pleasing. The containment buildings have vertical buttresses and flutes to improve their appear-l ance, and the administration and turbine buildings have special siding materials which are color-j coordinated with the surroundings. It is recognized that there is a wide disparity between j retctions to the esthetics of a 475-foot natural draft cooling tower and the vapor plume which are visible from a considerable distance. On the one hand, there are those who regard the natural draft cooling tower with its hyperbolic design as having graceful lines. On the other hand, there are those who regard cooling towers and their plumes as unwanted man-made intrusions
..i a natural setting and hence esthetically undesirable to sone degree. The staff concludes that a'.though the visual impact varies considerably, it is not, in the existing setting, likely to j provide any serious detraction and will not significantly affect the overall cost-benefit balance.
t i i i i ? l
~
5-19 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.2
- 1. Arkansas Power & Light Company, Environmental Report for Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2, OL-Stage Amendments 1-3, Vols.1 and 2, July 1975, Sect. 3.9.8.1.
- 2. Ibid. , Section 3.9.5.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.3
- 1. Arkansas Power & Light Company,_ Environmental Report for Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 OL-Stage, as amended Vols. I and 2. July 1974, p. 3.4-5.
- 2. Ibid., p. 12.2-24.
- 3. Ibid., p. 3.4 1.
4 Ibid. , p. 12.2-16.
- 5. Water Quality criteria,1972.
- 6. 8 rungs. W. A., "Ef fects of Residual Chlorine on Aquatic Life: Literature Review " U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Water Quality Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota, 1972.
- 7. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Final Environmental Statement for Arkansas Nuclear One.
Unit 1. Docket No. 50-313. February,1973, pp. 3-67 to 3-69 and 5-4.
- 8. Ibid., pp. F-27 and F-28.
- 9. Ibid., p. 3-11.
- 10. Op. cit., Reference 1. Table 2.2-6.
- 11. Op. cit. , Reference 7, p. 8-12,
- 12. Op. cit. Reference 1 p. 8.2-4.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.4
- 1. Arkansas Power & Light Company, Environmental Report for Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 OL-Stage, Amendments 1-3, Vols. 1 and 2 July 19,5, p. 5.4-4.
j 2. Ibid. , Sect. 2.3.
- 3. U.S. Atomic Energy Connisssion, Final Environmental Statement for Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2. Docket No. 50-368, issued September 1972, pp. III-6 and V-4
- 4. Op. cit., Reference 1. Appendix, 2A Station 3.
- 5. Op. cit., Reference 1. Sect. 2.6.2.
! 6. Mulchi C. L. and J. A. Arnbruster. 1975. " Effects of salt sprays on the yield and nutrient balance of corn and soybeans." In: Cooling Tower Environment - 1974. Technical Information Center, Of fice of Public Affairs, U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration (conf - 740302), p. 379-392.
- 7. H. A. Hochbaum, " Travels and Traditions of Waterfowl," Univ of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis,1955.
I
= --
5-20
- 8. A. D. Herbert. " Spatial Disorientation in Birds," Wilson Bull. 82(4), 1970, pp. 409-419.
- 9. F. C. Bellrose, "The Distribution of Nocturnal Migrants in the Air Space," The Auk 88, 1971, pp. 397-424.
- 10. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. "Investi-gations of Bird Migration and Losses Associated with the Omega Navigation Station. Lamoure, North Dakota," Spring 1972, unpublished, 14 pp.
- 11. R. Brewer and J. Ellis, "An Analysis of Migratory Birds Killed at a Television Tower in East-Central Illinois," September 1955 - fiay 1957. The Auk 75, 1958, pp. 400-414.
I 12. M. Avery and T. Clement, " Bird Mortality at Four Towers in Eastern North Dakota, Fall 1972," Prairie Naturalist 4, 1973, pp. 87-95. i 13. Op. cit. , Reference 1, Sect. 5.1.3.
- 14. Op. cit., Reference 1. Sect. 5.6.1.
- 15. Community Air Quality Guides. "0 zone " American Industrial Hygiene Assoc. J., 29:299-303.
- 16. H. E. Heggestad, " Consideration of Air Quality Standards for Vegetation with Respect to Ozone," J. Air Pol. Cont. Assoc., 19:424-426, 1969.
- 17. T. G. Wilkinson and R. L. Barnes, " Effects of Ozone 1 4C 2 Fixation Patterns in Pine,"
Can. J. Bot. , 51:1573-1578, 1973.
- 18. L. S. Jaffe, " Photochemical Air Pollutants and Their Effects on Men and Animals,"
Arch. Environ. Health, 16:241-255, 1968. ,
- 19. E. F. Carley and J. T. Middleton, " Problems of Air Pollution in Plant Pathology "
! Ann. Rev. Plant Pathology, 4:103-118, 1966.
- 20. H. N. Scherer, Jr. et al., " Gaseous Ef fluents due to EHV Transmission Line Corona," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, PAS-92(3):1043-1049,1973.
21. M. IEEEFrydman et al.,on"0xident Transactions Measurements Power Apparatus in the PAS-92 and Systems, Vicinity3):ll41-1148,1973. (of Energized 765-kV Lines,"
- 22. J. J. Fern and R. I. Brabets, " Field Investigation of Ozone Adjacent to High Voltage Transmission Lines," presented at IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New York, January 27 to February 1, 1974,
- 23. L. O. Barthold et al., " Electrostatic Effects of Overhead Transmission Lines " IEEE
- Working Group on Electrostatic Effects of Transmission Lines IEEE Transactions Paper No. TP 644-PWR, August 1971.
- 24. C. F. Dalziel, "The Threshold of Perception Currents," Electrical Eng. 73:625-630, 1954,
- 25. Op. cit. , Reference 1. Sect. 3.9.7.2.
- 26. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Final Environmental Statement for Arkansas Nuclear One.
Unit 1. Docket No. 50-313 February 1973. Sect. 5.4.2.
- 27. Strawn, Kirk. 1965. " Resistance of Threadfin Shad to Low Temperatures." Proc. 17th Ann. Conf. Southeast Assoc. Game and Fish Coca., pp. 290-392.
- 28. Swingle, Hugh A. 1970. " Production of the Threadfin Shad, Dorosom potenense (Gunther)."
Proc. 23rd Ann. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm., pp. 207-421.
- 29. Arkansas Power & Light Company. " Biological evaluation of air curtain at Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 1." February 1976, pp. VIII-l and VIII-2.
- 30. Domrose, Robert J. 1963. " Evaluation of threadfin shad introductions." Virginia Com-mission of Game and Inland Fisheries. Dingell-Johnson Federal Aid Project F-5-R-8.
< 31. Olmstead, Larry L. and Raj V. Kilambi. 1971. Interrelationships between environmental factors and feeding biology of white bass of Beaver Reservoir, Arkansas, pp. 397-409. In Reservoir Fisheries and Limnology. G. Hall (ed.), American Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 8.
_ . _ - =__ . . . . . _ . _ - . _ _ - . 5-21
- 32. Letter from W. M. Murphey, Arkansas Power & Light Company to A. Giambusso. US NRC, dated February 14, 1975 concerning Environmental Monitoring at Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 1 Reference 4.
- 33. Ibid., Reference 1.
- 34. Ibid.,
- 35. Letter from J. D. Phillips, AP&L to A. Giambusso. USNRC, dated July ll,1975, concerning Environmental Technical Specifications for Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 1. Docket No. 50-313.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.5
- 1. " Radioactivity in the Marine Environment " Panel on R.I.M.E. of the Committee on Oceanography, NAS-NRC,1971.
- 2. Garner, R. J.; " Transfer of Radioactive Materials from the Terrestrial Environment to Animals and Man," CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control. 2, 337-385 (1971).
- 3. FES, Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion "As low As Practicable" for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Ef fluents. WASH-1258, July 1973.
4 The Long Auerbach, Term Biota Effects S. J.; Problems,"
" Ecological Considerations Nuclear Safety,12, 25in1971). Siting (Nuclear Power Plants.
- 5. "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation," Report of the Advisory Committee on Biological Effects of lonizing Radiations, NAS-NRC,1972.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.6
- 1. Arkansas Power and Light Company, Environmental Report on Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2,1974,
- p. 9.3-7.
- 2. Ibid., p. 8.1-2.
- 3. Ibid., p. 8.1-3.
- 4. Ibid. , p. 9.3-7.
l [ t
- 6. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 6.1 RESUME A background survey on chemical, radiological, thermal and biological aspects of Lake Dardanelle was initiated in 1968. This survey is scheduled to continue for a period of five years after l initial operation of ANO-Unit 2. The program is discussed in detail by the applicant.1 The following sections discuss salient features of the monitoring programs.
6.2 METEOROLOGICAL PROGRAM The onsite meteorological program was begun in September 1967 when wind speed and directional variability measurements were recorded on a 30-foot mast. A 190-foot tower was erected in June 1969 with wind data collected at the 20- and 190-foot levels and temperature differences observed between the 5- and 85 , and 85- and 190-foot levels. Elevations of some of the instruments were subsequently changed in July 1971 to reflect changes in accepted practices. After that date, temperature differences were measured from 30 feet to the higher levels and winds at 40 and 190 feet.1 The applicant has provided a full year period of onsite meteorological data collected from February 1972 to February 1973. Dispersion estimates are based on these data. The dis-persion estimates were made using the joint wind speed and direction frequency distributions at the 40-foot level and atmospheric stability based on the vertical temperature difference between the 30 and 190-foot levels. The joint recovery rate for these data was 96%.I A Gaussian diffusion model, assuming a ground-level release with adjustments for building wake effects, was used to make estimates of relative atmospheric concentration (X/Q distances and directions from the site as specified in Section 5.] values at the various The proposed operational onsite meteorological system will measure wind speed and direction and dew point at approximately 34 and 180 feet, temperature difference between these two levels and wind variance at 180 feet. Quality assurance procedures will be developed to ensure acceptable data recovery.3 The proposed instrumentation meets the guidelines of Pegulatory Guide 1.23, Onsite Meteorological Programs.3 6.3 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Radiological environmental monitoring programs are established to provide data on measurable levels of radiation and radioactive materials in the site environs. Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 requires that the relationship between quantities of radioactive material released in effluents during normal operation be evaluated, including anticipated operational occurrences and resultant radioactive doses to individuals from principal pathways of exposure. Monitoring programs are conducted to verify the in-plant controls used for controlling the release of radioactive mate-rials and to provide public reassurance that undetected radioactivity will not build up in the environment. Surveillance is established to identify changes in the use of unrestricted areas to provide a basis for modifications of the monitoring programs. 1 The preoperational phase of the monitoring program provides for the measurement of background j levels and their variations along the anticipated important pathways in the area surrounding the plant, the training of personnel and the evaluation of procedures, equipment, and techniques. I This is discussed in greater detail in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.1, Rev.1, " Programs for Monitor-l ing Radioactivity in the Environs of Nuclear Power Plants." l l ! 6.3.1 Preoperational Programs I The applicant has proposed a radiological environmental monitoring program to meet the needs discussed above. It is based on a continuation of the operational program for Unit 1. A description of the applicant's proposed preoperational program (as described in the Technical l Specifications for Unit 1) is sunnarized in Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3. More detailed information on the applicant's preoperational radiological environmental monitoring program for Unit 2 is presented in Appendix B of the applicant's Environmental Technical Spacifications for Unit 1. ! 6-1
_ . _ ~ . . _ . - _ _ . - - _ _ - _ - . . . . - - _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . __ _ m i-2 [
- i. e j
;. ,a 1
TABLE 6.1 j RADI0 ANALYSES - LISTED BY.\ AMPLE TYPE 1.
- 1. AIR i
i I A. Particulate '
- 1. Continuous 7-day samples, filters changed weekly (Eber11ne Model t RAP-1 sample pumps. Gelman 47 m glass fiber filters, calibrated i
to one cubic foot per minute (0.028M3/ min) air sampling rate).
- seven (7) locations.
- 2. Analyses:
a a. Gross alpha
- b. Gross beta s 4- c. Gama isotope on a monthly composite (each station) and on high '
> 100 DPM/ sample) f d. beta levels (iii on quarterly composite if ganta isotopic analysis Radiostrontfu +
- j. shows presence of Cs-137.
B. lodine-131 t
- 1. Continuous 7-day samples, activated charcoal filter trap on inlet of air sampler downstream of particulate filter, changed weekly, seven j (7) locations, j 2. Analyses:
} a. Iodine-131 , f C. Direct Radiation
- 1. Four(4)thermoluminescentdosI1Httersquarterlyandonesetsemiannually, ,
- 0. Precipitation
{ ! 1. Four (4) locations, samples collected weekly (as availabl,e). ' 4 2. Analyses: , j a. Gross beta ' b. Game isotopic l1 !!. WATER l A. Lake Water M b 1. Samples (two gallons) conthly from five (5) locations (discharge canal. ! intake canal, and lake south of plant between discharge and intake). ,
- (Sample stations 8. 9. 10. 15. 16) i l 2. Analyses: l l a. Gross beta (monthly)
- b. Gama isotopic (monthly if gross beta exceeds 30 pC1/L' and on '
r quarterlycomposites) ! c. Tritium (quarterlycomposites) l - d. Radiostrontium (quarterlycomposites) B. Bottom Sediments i Samples (2Kg) semiannua11y from near the same locations as take i
' 1. . water. Station 15 sample to be taken in pool above dam, ss l .
i j - ti A i
, .mm . ---, rm-* t.-ry----y--,-m*m- .-v --.,-m ,~~--,.-....v--. --~v-e,I~-m-.
t r---- -m w e w + .--~--w m - - - - , . -- ~ ~ . . - - - - -
_ _ _. m 6-3 I l TABLE 6.1 (continued)
- 2. Analyses:
- a. Gamma isotopic
- b. Radiostrontium (annual composites)
C. Groundwater
- 1. Samples (two gallons) quarterly from one onsite and two offsite wells.
- 2. Analyses:
- a. Gross alpha
- b. Gross beta
- c. Gamma isotopic
- d. Tritium D. Russellville City Water
- 1. Samples (two gallons) monthly from system intake.
- 2. Analyses:
- a. Gross alpha
- b. Gross beta
- c. Gamma Isotopic
- d. Tritium (quarterly composite) ;
- e. Radiostronium(quarterlycomposite)
E. Aquatic Biota
- 1. Semiannual samples are taken as available at or near the same sample points as lake water and bottom sediments. Samples will be as large as practicable not to exceed 2 kg.
- 2. Analyses:
- a. Gross beta (plankton) y
- b. Gamma isotopic (fish flesh, plankton, benthic organisms, aquatic plants)
- c. Radiostrontium (benthic organisms, aquatic plants)
F. Fish Bone
- 1. Annual samples (8500g bone) in the Fall. Sampled as in E.1 above.
- 2. Analyses:
- a. Strontium 89-90
!!!. TERRESTRIAL A. Milk
- 1. One gallon samples will be taken monthly from farms or dairies within a ten-mile radius of the plant.
- 2. Analyses Frequency (see 4.2.10)
- a. Iodine-131 Monthly
- b. Strontium 89, 90 Quarterly
- c. Gamma isotopic Monthly B. Vegetation
- 1. Samples ( 1 kg) of grass and leafy portfons of other vegetation in the vicinity of the seven air sampling locations are taken in the Spring.
Summer, and Fall seasons.
. . _ . . __ _ _ _ . ~ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . . - . _ . .- - - ._
i 6-4 l I
\
' TABLE 6.1 (continued)
- 2. Similar samples of pasturage vegetation within a ten-mile radius of the plant will be taken at time coinciding with those of 1. above.
. 3. Analyses:
- a. . Radiolodine (upon collection) b.. Gamma isotopic C. Soil
- 1. Samples' (*1.5 liters) are taken at each of the air sampler sites semiannually, j
- 2. Analyses:
- a. Gamma isotopic
- b. Strontium 89-90 are determined annually.
i i h
)
t J t t
.. e --- e..w-- -
- -~ _
TABLE 6.2 SAMPLE LOCATION AND SCHEDULE Sample Direction and Sample Station Station # Distance from Plant Location Sample Types Sample Frequency Remarks 1 92* - 0.5 miles Near meteorology 1) Air Sample 1) Weekly 1) 7-day continuous-weekly tower on site 2) TLD 2) Quarterly 2) Readout and Record at
- 2) Semiannually stated frequency
- 3) Soil Sample 3) Sem1 annually 3)SpringandFall
- 4) Vegetation 4) 3 times / year 4) Spring. Summer Fall
- 5) Precipitation 5) Weekly, as available 2 235* - 0.5 miles Near AP&L lodge 1) Air Sample 1) Weekly 1) 7-day continuous-weekly on site 2) TLD 2) Quarterly 2) Readout and Record at
- 2) Semiannually stated frequency
- 3) Soil Sample 3) Semiannually 3)SpringandFall
- 4) Vegetation 4) 3 times / year 4) Spring, Sunner, Fall
?
un 3 4* - 0.4 miles South of Hershel 1) Air Sample 1) Weekly 1) 7-day continucus-weekly Bennet home 2) TLD 2) Quarterly 2) Readout and Record at
- 2) Semiannually stated frequency
- 3) Soil Sample 3) Semiannually 3) Spring and Fall
- 4) Vegetation 4) 3 times / year 4) Spring, Summer, Fall 4 171* - 0.4 miles near the May 1)AirSample 1) Weekly 1) 7-day continuous-weekly Cemetery 2) TLD 2) Quarterly 2) Readout and Record at
- 2) Semiannually stated frequency
- 3) Soil Sample 3) Semiannually 3) Spring and Fall
- 4) Vegetation 4) 3 times / year 4) Spring, Summer, Fall 5 298* - 8.5 miles At Ray Walter's 1)AirSample 1) Weekly 1) 7-day continuous-weekly residence, 2) TLD 2) Quarterly 2) Readout and Record at Knoxville, 2) Semiannually stated frequency Johnson County 3) Soil Sample 3) Semiannually 3) Spring and Fall
- 4) Vegetation 4) 3 times / year 4) Spring, Sunner. Fall
- 5) Precipitation 5) Weekly, as available
TABLE 6.2 (Cont'd) SAMPLE LOCATION AND SCHEDULE Sample Direction and Sample Station Location Sample Types Sample Frequency Remarks Station # Distance from Plant At AP&L's 1) Air Sample 1 Weekly 1) 7-day continuous-weekly 6 109' - 6.8 miles Russellville 2) TLD 2 Quarterly 2) Readout and Record at Local Office 2 Semiannually stated frequency
- 3) Soil Sample 3 Semiannually 3) Spring and Fall
- 4) Vegetation 4 3 times / year 4) Spring, Summer, Fall At AP&L's Sub- 1) Air Sample 1) Weekly 1) 7-day continuous-weekly 7 209' - 19.3 miles 2) Quarterly station in 2)TLD 2) Readout and Record at Danville 2) Semiannually stated frequency
- 3) Soil Sample 3) Semiannually 3) Spring and Fall
- 4) Vegetation 4) 3 times / year 4) Spring Summer, Fall
- 5) Precipitation 5) Weekly, as available m
180* - 0.1 miles Mouth of 1) Lake Water 1) Monthly 1) Record status of plant 8 discharge operations Discharge Canal
- 2) Aquatic Biota 2) Semiannually 2) Summer and Winter
- 3) Bottom 3) Sem1 annually 3) Summer and Winter Sediments 160' - 1.B miles South of Bunker 1) Lake Water 1) Monthly 1) Record status of plant 9
Hill near main discharge operations river channel 2) Aquatic Biota 2) Semiannually 2) Summer and Winter
- 3) Bottom 3) Semiannually 3) Summer and Winter Sediments 10 90' - 1.0 miles Mouth of inlet 1) Lake Water 1) Monthly 1) Record status of plant canal discharge operations
- 2) Aquatic Biota 2) Semiannually 2) Summer and Winter
- 3) Bottom 3) Semiannually 3) Summer and Winter Sediments 11 240' - 0.5 miles Near AP&L Lodge 1) Ground Water 1) Quarterly
_ _... _. _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . >_ m __ . __ _ . . _ _ _- . - - i l i TABLE 6.2 (Cont'd) SAMPLE LOCATION AND SCHEDULE Sample Direction and Sample Station Station # Distance from Plant Location Sample Types Sample Frequency Remarks 12 310' 2.0 miles London Water Co. 1) Ground Water 1) Quarterly off U.S. Highway 64, 0.5 miles west of London, Pope County 13 95* - 2.0 miles Quita Lake Recre- 1) Ground Water 1) Quarterly ation Area on Illinois Bayou off Dyke Road 14 65* - 5.8 miles Inlet to City 1)Cityof 1) Monthly Water System from Russellville i Illinois Bayou Water Supply N I 15 150' - 5.0 miles Discharge of 1) Lake Water 1) Monthly 1) Record status of plant Dardanelle Dam 2) Bottom 2) Semiannually discharge operations Pool above Sediment Dardanelle Dam 3) Aquatic Biota 3) Semiannually )' 16 295* - 6.0 miles Piney Creek Area 1) Lake Water 1) Monthly
- 2) Bottom Sedi- 2) Semiannually ment
- 3) Aquatic Biota 3) Semiannually i
17 Note 1 1) Milk 1) Monthly
- 2) Pasturage 2) 3 times / year 2) Spring, Sumer, Fall E
TABLE 6.2(Cont'd) SAMPLE LOCATION AND SCHEDULE Sample Direction and Sample Station Station # Distance from Plant Location Sample Types Sample Frequency Remarks 18 Note 1 1) Milk 1) Monthly
- 2) Pasturage 2) 3 times / year 2) Spring, Summer, Fall 19 99* - 5.0 miles Arkansas-Tech. 1) Milk 1) Monthly Herd 2) Pasturage 2) 3 times / year 2) Spring Summer Fall Note 1: These sample stations will be determined as per Specification 4.2.10 and will be reportea in the Operating Report as per Specification 5.6.1.
m b
i i l TABLE 6.3 OETECTION LIMITS Air Aquatic Veg. Soil Particulate Fish Organisms Terrest. Bot. Sed. Water Milk pCi/m3 pC1/kg pCi/kg pC1/kg pCi/kg pC1/1 pC1/1 3 --- --- --- --- --- 30 --- H 7 400 80 150 Be 7 x 10-2 200 200 200 40 10'I 300 300 300 500 100 200 K 54 10-2 50 50 50 70 10 20 Mn 55 20 20 20 20 10 20 Fe S8 50 50 70 10 20 Co 10-2 50 59 2 x 10-2 100 100 100 130 20 40 Fe 60 50 50 70 10 20 Co 10-2 50 65 20 40 Zn 2 x 10-2 100 100 100 130 89 25 25 25 25 5 5 m Sr 90 5 5 E Sr 5 5 1 1 Zr95 Nb95 5 x 10-3 30 30 30 50 5 10 l06 2 x 10-2 70 70 70 100 15 30 Ru Il31(a) 10-2 50 50 50 70 10 20 1131(b) 0.3 0.3 Cs l34 10-2 50 50 50 70 10 20 137 Cs 10-2 50 50 50 70 10 20 Ba l40g,140 10-2 50 50 50 70 10 20 I44 5 x 10-2 200 200 200 300 40 80 Cm Ra226+0au 10-2 50 50 50 70 10 20
-2 Th228+0au 10 50 50 50 70 10 20 (a) Gamma Isotopic Analysis (b) Radiochemical Separation
G-10 The Staff concludes that the preoperational monitoring program proposed by the applicant for Unit 2 is generally acceptable. However, consistent with Regulatory Guide 4.8, the following changes are recommended to improve the effectiveness of the program:
- 1. For particulate air samples, the staff suggests that radiostrontium be done on all quarterly composites. The staff notes that gross alpha analyses are not needed, and the proposed monthly composites may be done on a quarterly basis.
- 2. Precipitation sampling is not needed to comply with Regulatory Guide 4.8.
- 3. Surface water samples should be collected using equipment which is capable of collecting an aliquot at time intervals which are very short (e.g., hourly) relative to the com-positing period. All monthly composite samples should be subjected to gamma isotopic analyses. Gross alpha and beta are no longer necessary for surface and ground water samples. Russellville drinking water should be collected in the same manner as surface water samples, but subjected to radioiodine analyses semimonthly.
- 4. Bottom sediments should be analyzed for Sr-90 semiannually.
- 5. One semiannual sample of shoreline sediment (from nearest downstream area of existing or potential recreational value) should be analyzed for gamma isotopic and Sr-90 content.
- 6. Milk samples should be collected and analyzed for radiciodine on at least a semi-monthly basis. If doses calculated for the FES indicate a child's thyroid might exceed 15 mrem / year, sampling should be weekly when animals are on pasture. A control sample should be taken at 10-20 miles distant in the least prevalent wind direction.
- 7. The vegetation sampling program should include fruits and tuberous and root vegetables where available at the time of harvest. Where harvest is continuous, samples should be analyzed monthly. Control samples 10-20 miles distant in the least prevailing wind direction should also be collected and analyzed. Radiofodine analyses need only be perfonned on green leafy vegetables.
- 8. The soil sampling frequency may be reduced to once every three years to look for long-term buildup of Sr-90 only.
- 9. Applicant should institute semiannual sampling of meat, poultry and eggs within 10 miles downwind with gamma isotopic analyses. Should sample one major game species where these may provide an important source of dietary protein.
- 10. The applicant should change the use of " detection limits" to the more recent and pre-ferred " lower level of detection" (LLD) terminology used by NRC. LLDs for Sr-89 and Sr-90 comparable to Regulatory Guide 4.8 should be listed in Table 6.3. The LLO for Cs-134 and Cs-137 should be about a factor of 2 lower than that listed in Table 6.3.
LLDs for soil and sediments should be listed on a dry weight basis. See NRC Regulatory Guide 4.8, " Environmental Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants," for more detailed information. 6.3.2 Operational Program The operational offsite radiological monitoring program is conducted to measure radiation levels and radioactivity in the plant anvirons. It assists and provides backup support to the detailed effluent monitoring (as reconnended in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.21, " Measuring, Evaluating and Reporting Radioactivity in Solid Wastes and Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Light-Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants") which is needed to evaluate individual and population exposures and verify projected or anticipated radioactivity concentrations. The applicant plans essentially to continue the proposed preoperational program during the operat-ing period. However, refinements may be made in the program to reflect changes in land use or preoperational monitoring experience. In evaluation of the applicant's proposed operational monitoring program will be performed during the operating license review, and the details of the required monitoring program will be incor-porated into the Environmental Technical Specifications for the operating license. NRC Regulatory Guide 4.8 also provides detailed information on operational programs for nuclear power plants.
6-11 6.4 TERRESTRIAL PROGRAM Since the potential for damage to the surrounding ecosystems caused by the water or chemicals in the drif t is deemed to be small (Section 5.4), the staff has not required a rigorous terrestrial monitoring program. The staff does expect the applicant to be vigilant for changes in biota that might be attributable to drif t deposition. These observations may be in the form of surveillance of terrestrial ecosystems for adverse effects or for verification that the plant has no adverse l effects. These observations could be based upon seasonal aerial photographs (in color, black and white or infra-red false color) of permanent vegetation plots in areas of predicted maximum drif t depositions. Natural draft cooling towers may present a hazard to migrating birds through collision (Section 5.4). The applicant will be required to report all bird-collision incidents causing mortalities i in excess of 100 birds per incident per day. 6.5 AQUATIC PROGRAM The applicant's operational program of monitoring the phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthos and fishes in the vicinity of the plant will be essentially a continuation of the present environ-ment monitoring program given in the Environmental Technical Specifications for Unit 1.3 Aquatic biological monitoring required after Unit I startup has been conducted since Fall of 1974. Consistency of sampling between the preoperational and postoperational phases of Unit 2 will allow comparative analyses of the plant's effects on the aquatic biota. Plankton The applicant proposes that samples for phytoplankton and zooplankton be collected quarterly at 11 stations on Dardanelle Reservoir (see Table 6.4 and Figure 6.1). Samples shall be obtained by means of a Wisconsin plankton net. The strip count method shall be used to determine the number < of organisms per liter. The staff requires that replicate samples for phytoplankton be made at < the surface, mid-euphotic zone, and at the bottom of the euphotic zone using a nonmetallic Kemerer or Van Doran sampler. The staff also requires that either a calibrated Clark-Bumpus plankton sampler or pump sampler be employed for sampling zooplankton and that a composite sample be obtained from the bottom to the surface, a The staff further requires that comunity structure for both phytoplankton and zooplankton be characterized by a diversity index and equitability among samples be computed. Also, the staff requires that if grinding of impinged fish continues, additional stations be located in the dis-charge embayment with increased sampling frequency during 'the winter and early spring. Benthos The applicant proposes that benthic organisms be collected quarterly at 11 stations (see Table 6.4 and Figure 6.1) using an Ekman dredge and that the density of taxa will be reported. The staff requires that replicate samples be taken and the diversity index and equitability calcu-lated at all stations. The staff also requires that if grinding of impinged fish continues, additional stations be located in the discharge embayment. Fishes The fish comunity of Dardanelle Reservoir shall be sampled using rotenone (ichthyocide), gill nets, midwater trawl, trap nets, and beach seines. Cove rotenone collections shall be made at two stations in Dardanelle Reservoir once each year during mid-summer (see Table 6.4 and Figure 6.1). Replicate gill net sets shall be performed in four areas quarterly (see Table 6.4 and Figure 6.1). Replicate midwater trawl samples shall be taken at four stations every other week from March I to June 30 (see Table 6.4 and Figure 6.1). Trap nets shall be set semiannually in the spring and fall and fished for 5 consecutive days in three areas (see Table 6.4 and Figure 6.1). The staff requires that data gathered during the fish sampling program shall be used for deter-mining food preference, age and growth, information, vertical and horizontal fish oistribution, surface distribution, and estimates of standing crop of the Lake Dardanelle taxa. The staff also requires that mean diversity at the sampling stations be calculated to characterize the fish community in various habitats found in Dardanelle Reservoir. The staff further requires that the applicant analyze the data to assess the potential impact on comercial and recreational species that may be affected by the high impingement mortality of threadfin shad.
6-12 TABLE 6-4 AQUATIC SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND FREQUENCIES Sample Type Sample Frequency Sample Station # Plankton Quarterly - January, April, July, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, October 14, 15, 16, 21 Benthic Organisms Quarterly - January, April, July, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, October 14, 15, 16, 21 Gill Net Survey 2 sets of 2 net-nights in each area Areas A, B, C, D within 30 days of each quarter Trawling Survey Two samples in each area every other Areas A, B, C, D week March, April, May, June Trap Net Survey 5 consecutive days Areas A, B. D Spring and Fall Cove Rotenone Survey September Areas A, C Shoreline Seine (Mussels) Semiannually Areas A, B C, D Chemical Monthly 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21 Physical Monthly 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21
1 1 1 1- 1 g- l } ) 1 I I k y.
". 8 3
m S
- 3911000:3 -
5 A Reference ~ Area A l 21h 3 Reference 20 Dardanelle Reun6 Plant . Area B
- i Yount "3-Reservoir ...
O
- _
b 2 9 m
.g. i
_3906000r.N *g . 1 6 */- Reference Reference Area C Area D 7 .T e-u ternate - L
- * .17 (should use Poict
), in Illinois say:u if possible'J
\ .14 _
~
Dardanelle i
*13 Reservoi ~
15 * - Reference i Area E - 390100028 - \ 0
.m S4 ale in mues Dardanelle %.
tam g o i i ., i i t i l 1 ' ' Figure 6.1 Aquatic Sampiing Points
-. ,-,r
6-14 Impingement Impingement of fish on the intake screens shall be monitored three days per week from October 1 through March 31 and two days per week from April 1 through September 30. A twenty-four hour sample shall be taken during each sample day. Total counts or subsampling techniques shall be used to determine total biomass, species composition, and modal and maximum weights and lengths for each species. Entrainment of Ichthyoplankton Estimates on the loss of ichthyoplankton due to entrainment through the Circulating Water System shall be obtained monthly during the months of April through September. Physiochemical parameters to be monitored during sampling shall include water temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH. Samples shall be taken at surface, mid-depth and near bottom in the intake canal by a metered plankton net. Specimens collected shall be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level and densitites shall be calculated. Mortality of 100% shall be assumed for intake samples, since the length of time that the entrained organisms are subjected to the effects of the ele-vated temperatures in the discharge embayment is unknown.
6-15 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.1
- 1. Arkansas Power & Light Company, Environmental Report for Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2, OL-Stage. Amendments 1-3, Vols. I and 2, issued July 1975, Section 6.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.2
- 1. Arkansas Power & Light Company, 1974: Final Safety Analysis Report Arkansas Nuclear One -
Unit 2. USAEC Docket Number 50-368.
- 2. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1974: Regulatory Guide 1.42, Interim Licensing Policy On As Low As Practicable for Gaseous Radiciodine Releases From Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors - Revision 1 Appendix B - Procedure for Calculation of Annual Average Relative Concentrations in Air. USAEC Directorate of Regulatory Standards Washington, D.C.,1974.
- 3. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission: Regulatory Guide 1.23 (Safety Guide 23), Onsite Meteoro-logical Programs. USAEC Directorate of Regulatory Standards, Washington, D.C.,1972.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.3
- 1. Facility Operating License No. OPR-51, Arkansas Power & Light Company, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1. Docket No. 50-313, issued May 1974 Appendix B (as amended).
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.5
- 1. Facility Operating License No. DPR-51, Arkansas Power & Light Company, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1. Docket No. 50-313, issued May 1974, Appendix B (as amended).
- 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POSTULATED PLANT ACCIDENTS 7.1 R$$UM[
The " Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2 Environmental Report - Operating License Stage" dated July 1974, has been reviewed with respect to the environmental effects of plant accidents (Section 7.1). The results of this review are that the conclusions about environmental risks due to accidents remain as previously presented in the FES-CP stage. The transportation accident sec-tion has been updated to reflect the results of the Commission's " Environmental Survey of Trans-portation of Radioactive Materials To and from Nuclear Power Plants " WASH-1238. 7.2 FACILITY ACCIDENTS The NRC has performed a study to assess more quantitatively the environmental risks due to acci-dents. The initial results of these efforts were made available for comment in draft form on August 20, 1974* and released in final form on October 30, 1975.** This study, called the Reactor Safety Study, is an effort to develop realistic data on the probabilities and consequences of accidents in water-cooled power reactors, in order to improve the quantification of available knowledge related to nuclear reactor accident probabilities. The Commission organized a special group of about 50 specialists under the direction of Professor Norman Rasmussen of MIT to conduct the study. The scope of the study has been discussed with EPA and described in correspondence with EPA which has been placed in the NRC Public Document Room (Letter. Doub to Dominick, dated June 5, 1973). As with all new information developed which might have an effect on the health and safety of the public, the results of these studies will be made public and will be assessed on a timely basis within the NRC regulatory process on generic or specific bases as may be warranted. 7.3 TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS The transportation of cold fuel to the plant, of irradiated fuel from the reactor to a fuel reprocessing plant, and of solid radioactive wastes from the reactor to burial grounds is within the scope of the AEC report entitled, " Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radio-active Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants," December 1972. The environmental risks of accidents in transportation are summarized in Table 7.1. TABLE 7.11 ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF ACCIDENTS IN TRANSPORT OF FUEL AND WASTE TO AND FROM A TYPICAL LIGHT-WATER-COOLED NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR Environmental Risk Radiological effects . .... .. . . ... Small2 Common (nonradiological) causes. . . ... 1 fatal injury in 100 years; 1 nonfatal injury in 10 years,
$475 property damage per reactor year.
' Data supporting this table are given in the Commission's " Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants," WASH-1238, December 1972 and Supp. I, NUREG 75/038, April 1975.
2 Although the environmental risk of radiological effects stemming from transportation accidents is currently incapable of being numerically quantified, the risk remains small regardless of whether it is being applied to a single reactor or a multi-reactor site.
" Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commerical Nuclear Power Plants, Draft." WASH-14b0, August 1974.
" Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in the U.S. Commerical Nuclear Power Plants," WASH-1400 (NUREG 75/014), October 1975.
7-1
l
- 8. NEED FOR PLANT 8.1 R55UM5 Since the issuance of the FES-CP in September 1972, the drastic increases in fuel prices and the economic recession have altered the peak and energy demand forecast for AP&L and Middle South Utilities (MSU). Consequently, the staff has re-assessed the need for power and total system operating costs. Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2, which will add 912 MWe net electrical energy generation capacity to the system, is scheduled to begin commerical operation in 1978.
8.2 APPLICANT'S SERVICE AREA AND REGIONAL RELATIONSHIPS The Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L) is a subsidiary of the Middle South Utilities System (MSU), a holding company. The Middle South System consists of the total of five subsidiaries which operate a power pool that supplies electric service to most of Arkansas, southeastern Missouri, eastern portions of Louisiana, and western Mississippi. These subsidiaries plan and install their capacity to meet the forecasted load of the entire Middle South System, and share reserves through a contractual agreement. Figure 8.1 shows the AP&L service area including areas to which wholesale power is supplied. The Middle South System is a member of the Southwest Power Pool. 8.3 BENEFITS OF OPERATING THE PLANT Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 is being constructed solely for the purpose of supplying low cost energy to meet the area's needs for baseload capacity. 8.3.1 Minimization of Operating Costs At the operating license stage, it must be determined whether it is desirable from an economic standpoint to operate the plant. At this point, since capital costs must be considered a sunken investment, operating costs are the important consideration. The latter includes fuel plus operating and maintenance (0&M) costs. As can be seen in Figures 8.2 and 8.3, about 40 percent of the peak load is reached almost 100 percent of the time on both the AP&L and MSU systems. For the MSU system this means that in 1978 the base load (conservatively defined for this analysis as the minimum hourly demand) will be 4588 MWe and for the AP&L system the base load will be 1710 MWe. This portion of the system load should be met by the units with the lowest operating costs in the absence of any overriding external social and environmental impacts. The only unit on the MSU system with lower operating costs than ANO-2 (excluding two small hydroelectric plants) is ANO-1.1 The operation of either of these nuclear units does not involve any appreciable adverse social or environmental impacts. ANO-1 has a net generating capacity of 836 MWe when operating at full load. For the purpose of determining generation capacity needs, the annual plant capacity factor must be considered. If it is assumed that ANO-1 will operate at a plant capacity factor of 80% (a higher capacity factor in this analysis is a conservative approximation), the average dependable capacity throughout the year would be 669 MWe.2 Similarly, the average dependable capacity of ANO-2 assuming a 70% capacity factor is 638 MWe. Thus, the two nuclear units together have an average dependable capacity of 1307 MWe. The base load for both MSU and AP&L as defined above exceeds the capacity of the two nuclear units combined (even when assuming the high 80 percent capacity factor for Unit 1). If ANO-2 did not operate, it would be necessary to run a unit with higher operating costs. The applicant has stated that if ANO-2 were not available to the AP&L system, it would be neces-sary to run an oil-fired plant to generate replacement energy. The applicant has estimated oil costs of 27.71 mills /kWh in 1978, and ANO-2 fuel costs of 2.60 mills /kWh. Assuming a 70 percent capacity factor for ANO-2, the fuel savings would amount to $140,000,000 in 1978. If oil costs remained at the 1975 level of 20.46 mills /kWh ANO-2 operation would result in a savings of
$99,900,000 in 1978. Even if one assumed a capacity factor as low as 50 percent, the savings in 1978, using projected fuel costs would be $100,300,000.
8-1
8-2 HARRISON ( - 7 lOZARKl(
,J) l NORTHEAST l r el e A Y FORREST RK. NUCLEAR ON l LITTLE ROCK l e LITTLE ROCK ' '
/
e l EASTERN l HOT SPRINGS I k e PINE BLUFF - V 1 d l WESTERN l k 5
/ ; A u -
?
l SOUTHWEST l ; e . EL DORADO f _- - -- - .. _ .. .._.-a Figure 8.1 Arkansas Power and Light Company, Service Area l i
8-3 i 100 - u-I l-90 j 6 80 - i a l t ! 70 - 1
)
O g 60 - a. ! l i 2 4 w
@2 w
th. 4 f 40 - t 1- 30 - 1
- 20 4
I I I I l 1 0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 8760 HOURS Figure 8.2 Arkansas Power & Light Company Projected Load Duration Curve 1977 I J l
- - - - - - - ~ , ,, , -n, , . . .n.-, ,m ,- , - . ~ , . - - - , , , _
. . _ . _ . ~ . . _ .. . . _ . - - .- _ _ - ._
8-4 4 1 1 4
\
100 90 1 80 - 'l 70 - i b i 60 - 4 s o O
.J 5 ' 50 z
w o e l
- e -
m - 20 - i 0 I I I l I I 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 8760 HOURS j Figure 8.3 Middle South System Projected Load Duration Curve 1977 I h l l l _ - - , . _ . _ , _ . - . , _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ . , _
- . .- -- - .. .- ~--. _ _ - . . . - . _ _ . _ . -
8-5
. Moreover, if one assumed no load growth between 1974 an'l 1978, the operation of ANO-2 can be justified. Under these conditions, it would be more r.onomical for the applicant to operate ANO-2 in place of oil-fired capacity with higher fuel costs. Each kilowatt hour generated by ANO-2 in place of an oil-fired unit will save the applicant 25.11 mills in fuel costs.
8.4 ADDITIONAL BENEFITS OF ANO-2 OPERATION In order to maintain system reliability. MSU and its subsidiaries attempt to maintain at the mini-mum a 16 percent reserve margin. This reserve margin falls within the FPC guidelines of 15-25 percent. Table 8.1 indicates the projected Icad. capacity, and reserve margins for both AP&L and , MSU in 1978. It can be seen that ANO-2 will be needed by the 1978 peak for both AP&L and MSU to t maintain adequate reserves. l l TABLE 8.1 LOAD AND CAPABILITY FORECAST 1978 With ANO-2 Without ANO-2 AP&L MSU AP&L MSU l' . Capability w/o Curtailment 4114 12736 3202 11824
- 2. Capability w/ Curtailment 3869 12199 2957 11287
- 3. Purchases w/o Reserves l A. Contract 159 305 159 305 B. MSU 193 -
799 - C. Total 352 305 958 305 j
- 4. Total Capability (2+3) 4221 12504 3915 11592
- 5. System Load 3975 11471 3975 11471
- 6. Sales With Reserves -
56 - 56
- 7. Purchases with Reserves 330 730 330 730
- 8. LoadResponsibility(5+6-7) 3645 10797 3645 10797
- 9. Margin in Excess of Load 576 1707 270 795
- 10. Desired Reserve (16% of 8) 583 1728 583 1728
- 11. _ % Margin in Excess of Load (9+8) 15.8 15.8 7.4 7.4
- 12. Capacity in Excess of Desired Reserve - (7) (21) (313) (933)
Curtailment of natural gas. SOURCE: Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2, Environmental Report. Table 1.1-10A. l l l
._ _ __ _ _ - _ - . _ _ _ _ _ - . - _.-- _.-- _ _ __ _ ~ . . _
8-G h REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8 J
- 1. Arkansas Power and Light. Environmental Report on' Arkansas Nuclear One. Unit 2.1974,
- p. 1.1-3.
- 2. Ibid.
- 3. Ibid., Responses to Specific Items of Interest p. 1.b-1.
?
I i a f i l l 4
..,..-m.. r . , , - - . - ,
-. _ - _ _ ~ ~ ~ . - -- -- ~ -__.. - -
+
- 9. CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 4
i 9.1 ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED J The staff has re-assessed the physical, social and economic impacts that can be attributed to Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2. Inasmuch as the plant is currently under construction, many of the predicted and expected adverse impacts of the construction phase are evident. The applicant has committed to a program of restoration and redress of the plant site that will begin at the termination of the construction period. The staff has not identified any additional idverse effects that will be caused by operation of Unit 2. The operation phase of the plant will con-sist of restoration, reparation, and maintenance with the possibility of enhancing the environs as they existed prior to construction. 9.2 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY l The staff's evaluation of the use of land for the site of Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 and
, associated transmission lines has not changed since the preconstruction environmental review.
j The presence of this plant in Pope County will continue to influence the future use of other land
; in its imediate environs as well as the continued removal of county land from agricultural use as the result of any increased industrialization.
9.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES l There has been no change in the staff's assessment of this impact since the earlier review except that the continuing escalation of costs has increased the dollar values of the materials j used for constructing and fueling the plant. 9.4 DEC0!HISSIONING AND LAND USE
; In the long term, beyond the useful life of the proposed generating station this site may j continue to be used for generation of electrical energy. At the termination of such use, the ; land areas occupied by the nuclear facilities would be removed from productive use, unless decom-j missioning measures included removal of all radioactive equipment. Although tne details of decomissioning may not be worked out for several years, the various alternatives should not be diminished by the proposed action of licensing operation. The range of beneficial uses of the site by future generations will not be curtailed provided the applicant has the capability for removing all radioactively contaminated equipment if and when that step may be desirable, j NRC regulations prescribe procedures whereby a licensee may voluntarily surrender a license and obtain authority to dismantle a facility and dispose of its parts.O Such authorization would normally be sought near the end of the nuclear plant's useful life. In any event, the Commission 4
requires that a qualified licensee maintain valid licenses appropriate to the type of facility and materials involved. Under current regulations, the Commission generally requires that all quantities of source, special nuclear, and by-product materials not exempt from licensing under 4 Parts 30, 40, and 70 of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, either be removed from the site or j secured and kept under surveillance, i To date, experience has been gained with decommissioning of six nuclear electric generating. a stations which were operated as part of the Atomic Energy Commission's power reactor development
; program: Hallam Nuclear Power Facility, Piqua Nuclear Power Facility Boiling Nuclear Superheat
- Power Station, Elk River Reactor, Carolinas-Virginia Tube Reactor, and Pathfinder Atomic Power
! Plant. The last two facilities were licensed under 10 CFR Part 50; the others were Atomic Energy j Comission-owned and operated under the provisions of Part 115.
Several alternative modes of decommissioning have been experienced in those cases. They may be summarized generally as four alternative levels of restoration of the plant site, each with a distinct level of effort and cost.
~
I 9-1 I
+- , __..-&-ey ---s e w. 2i--i-me- -w , , . - -cm.o,e -W^- w-- ++ mL %* ei-p+ y ,q.m-- q + + - -* y+ -
Tu*- '-w c= ,ip-e *-
9-2 In decommissioning at any level, economically salvageable equipment and all reactor fuel eleroents would be removed, some equipment would be decontaminated, and wastes of the type normally shipped during operation would be sent to waste repositories. In addition, the respective levels of restoration would involve the following measures: Lowest level. There would be minimal dismantling and relocation of equipment. All radioactive material would be sealed in containment structures (primarily existing ones), which would require perpetual, continual surveillance for security and effectiveness. Second level. Some radioactive equipment and materials would be moved into existing containment
- structures to reduce the extent of long-term contamination. Surveillance as in the lowest level would be required.
Third level. Radioactive equipment and materials would be placed in a containment facility approaching a practically minimum volume. All unbound contamination would have been removed. The containment structure would be designed to need minimal perpetual maintenance, surveillance, and security. Highest level. All radioactive equipment and materials would be removed from the site. Struc-tures would be dismantled and disposed of onsite by burial or offsite to the extent desired by the tenant. No further Commission license would be required. Estimated costs of decomissioning at the lowest level are about $1 million plus an annual maintenance charge on the order of $100,000.2 Complete restoration, including regrading, has been estimated to cost $70 million.3 Hence, there is wide variation, arising from differing assumptions as to level of restoration. At present land values, it is not likely that consideration of an economic balance alone would justify a high level of restoration. Planning required of the applicant at this stage will assure, however, that variety of choice for restoration is maintained until the end of useful plant life. Unit 2 of the Arkansas Nuclear One is designed to operate for about 30 years, and the end of its useful life will be approximately in the year 2010. The applicant has made no firm plans for decommissioning, but assumes that the following steps would be taken as minimum precautions for maintaining a safe condition.
- 1. All fuel would be removed from the facility and shipped offsite for disposition.
- 2. All radioactive wastes -- solid, liquid, and gas -- would be packaged and removed from the site insofar as practical.
A decision as to whether the facility would be further dismantled would require an economic study involving the value of the land and scrap value versus the cost of complete demolition and removal of the complex. However, no additional work would be done unless it is in accordance with rules and regulations in effect at the time. .,. In addition to personnel required to guard and secure the facility, concrete and steel would be used to prevent ingress into any building, particularly the radioactive areas. i
9-3 REFERENCESFORSECTIOS9
- 1. Title 10 " Atomic Energy," Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50. Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, Section 50.82, " Applications for Terminations of Licenses."
- 2. Atomic Energy Clearing House, Congressional Information Bureau. Inc., Washington, D.C
17(6):42,17(10):4,17(18):7.16(35):17.
- 3. " Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Supplement No. 2 to the Environmental Report, Units 1 and 2. Diablo Canyon Site," July 28, 1972.
4
1 l l l
- 10. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 10.1 R$5UM$
There have been minor changes in the benefit-cost analysis of plant operation since issuance of the FES-CP. 10.2 BENEFITS The principal benefit of ANO-2 is the 5.6 billion kWh the plant will produce annually at a 70 percent capacity factor. The electricity generated by ANO-2 will help hold down the cost of electricity to AF&L customers. The only viable alternative means of generating replacement energy is the use of oil-fired capacity which has a significantly higher fuel and operation and maintenance cost. A related benefit is the increased reliability associated with the addition of 912 MWe to the applicant's system. The economic benefits to the community include the tax revenues which during the construction period amount to $10,707,000 and during the operation period will amount to $4,023,800 annually. These taxes have permitted improvements in the school system, county police equipment and other county services. In the future, the tax monies paid during the operation period will continue t'b allow improvements in the school district and county services, and possibly permit tax rate reductions. Other secondary benefits include the employment of 65 operating personnel at Unit 2. Their salaries will amount to approximately $670,800 annually. Approximately 50 percent of the
$3,939,000 annual operation and maintenance budget (excluding payroll) will be spent within the State of Arkansas.
The staff has considered the benefit of using nuclear fuel rather than fossil fuel for the generation of electrical energy. In 1977, the AP&L and MSU systems will depend on oil and natural gas for fuel for over 80 percent of their generating capacity. Recent and expected natural gas curtailments make it necessary for the systems to become more dependent on oil, as it is the only fuel that can be substituted for natural gas. The applicant has stated that the use of oil in the MSU system has increased from 6.7 million barrels of oil in 1972 and 12.7 million barrels in 1973 to approximately 18 million barrels in 1974, and an estimated 48 million barrels in 1977. The operation of ANO-2 is in accordance with a national policy directed toward the goal of self-sufficiency in energy. Greater self-sufficiency in energy helps alleviate inflation and balance of payments problems, and improves national security. The operation of ANO-2 will save over 8 million barrels of oil each year (assuming a 70 percent capacity factor). IC.3 ECONOMIC COSTS The total capital cost of ANO-2 is presently estimated at approximately $393 million. Table 10.1 summarizes the major cost categories of the plant. These cost estimates include provisions for escalation and contingencies incurred during the construction phase. The operation and maintenance budget has been estimated by the applicant to be $3,939,000 per year for Unit 2, or approximately 0.62 mills /kWh. Fuel costs for Unit 2 ate expected to be 2.60 mills /kWh in 1978. The operating force for Unit 2 is not expected to place any economic or social burden on the local community. It is felt that the schools and other comunity services are equipped to handle this relatively small number of new families. 10.4 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS The environ.nental cost of land use, water use and biological effects previously evaluated in the FES-CP have not changed significantly and are summarized in Table 10.2. 10-1
i 10 2 l j= TABLE 10.1 CAPITAL COST OF ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE-UNIT 2 l (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) Land and Land Rights 0 i Structures and Improvements 76.9 - Reactor Plant Equipment 189.0 Turbogenerator 73.4 i Accessory Electrical Equipment 46.2 t I Miscellaneous-Power Plant Equipment 7.5 Total Nuclear Production Plant 393.0
]
Transmission Facilities 26.2 l 10.5 SOCIETAL COSTS j No significant economic or social costs are expected from plant operating personnel living
- in the area, f
l 10.6 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE AND TRANSPORTATION ?^ The contribution of environmental effects associated with the uranium fuel cycle are indicated in Table 5.5 and the effects of transportation of fuel and waste to and from the facility are sum-marized in Section 5.5.3. These effects are sufficiently small as not to affect significantly the conclusion of the Cost-Benefit Balance. I 10.7 -
SUMMARY
OF BENEFIT-COST . i As the result of this second review of potential environmental, economic, and social impacts, the staff has been able to forecast more accurately the effects of the plant's operation. No new information has been acquired that would alter the staff's previous position related to the . overall balancing of the benefits of this plant versus the environmental costs. Consequently, it ! is the staff's belief that this plant can be operated with only minimal environmental impacts. The staff finds that the primary benefits of minimizing system production costs and/or the addition ' to baseload generating capacity greatly outweigh the environmental social and economic costs. i b f
, , - . . - -e .m, ,. .- -n-.m-4.-w-- n..--v. ----v- - e vu.-.--.er-, ---~.r-+-y.e w w - -~v w --% - .m--w - . .
- . - .. _ - - - ~ . - . _. . . . - .. - - . _ - . - . _ - . . .. - - . - - -
l TABLE 10.2 BENEFIT-COST SLMMRY See Appendix 0 for calculations and explanations of table entries , Primary impact and population or resource affected Unit of measure Magnitude of Impact 7 Direct Benefits Energy kWh/yr 6-5,600
. Capacity kW x 10g 10 912 Indirect Benefits !
Taxes (local). $/ year 4,023,000 Employment t New jobs, operating life (30 years) Number 65 Newincome,operatinglife(30 years) $/yr 670.800 Economic Costs "
.. Operating Fuel $/ year 14.540,000 Operation & Maintenance $/ year 3,939,000 Decommissioning. $/ year 150,000 Environmental Costs
- 1. Impact on water 1.1 Consumption P
1.1.1.' People- gal /yr 9 1.1.2 Property 5.3 x 10 acre-ft/yr 16.300 1.2 . Heat discharge to natural water body . 1.2.1 Cooling capacity of water body Btu /hr 1.4 x 10 1.2.2 Aquatic biota. i 1.2.3 Migratory fish Insignificant Insignificant 1 4
. . . . . . . . - -. . ~ . .. . .-. .- - - ----- -- - - , - _ . ~ . , . . ., -- . ..-. . - . , . - .. . . . ..
1 4 TABLE 10.2 (Cont'd) i. l Primary impact and population or Magnitude of Impact resource affected Unit of measure 1.3 Chemical discharge to natural water body 1.3.1 . People . Negligible l.3.2 Aquatic biota Negligible 1.3.3 Water quality Negligible 1.3.4 Chemical discharge lb/yr See Table 3.6 l-1 1.4 Radionuclide contamination of natural (all except tritium) l surface water body 2.4 x 10-j Ci/yr/ reactor tritium 31 0 ; 1.5 Chemical contamination of groundwater ;
- 1.5.1 People Not discernible 1.5.2 Plants Not discernible 5 L. ,
- .1.6 Radionuclide contamination of groundwater 7
' Not discernible 1.6.1 People Not discernible ! 1.6.2 Plants and animals [ 1.7 Raising / lowering of groundwater levels , 1.7.1 People 0 l- 0 - 1.7.2 Plants 1.8 Effects on natural water body of intake structure and condenser cooling systems 6 1.8.1 Primary producers and consumers lb/yr(range) 37,750 to 19.6 x 10 through impingement 4 1.8.2 Fisheries Ib/yr Unknown (to be monitored) , 1.9 Natural water drainage F j 1.9.1 Flood control Acceptable 1.9.2 Erosion control Acceptable 1
TABLE 10.2 (Cont'd) Primary impact and population or resource affected Unit of measure Magnitude of Impact
- 2. Impact on air 2.1 Chemical discharge to ambient air 2.1.1 Air quality, chemical 2.1.1.1 CO lb/yr 2.5 x 10 7 2.1.1.2 50 22 lb/yr 48,400 2.1.1.3 N0 lb/yr 89,500 2.1.1.4 PaEticulates ib/yr 16,700 2.1.1.5 Other lb/yr 6,500 2.1.2 Air quality, odor No odor 2.2 Salts discharged from cooling system 2.2.1 People gal /yr Negligible 2.2.2 Plants tons /yr 609 2.2.3 Property -
Negligible 2.3 Radionuclides discharged to ambient air ($ Noble gases .C1/yr/ reactor 7500 Radiofodines - Ci/yr/ reactor 0.03 Particulates 4 Ci/yr/ reactor 0.004
'1' Carbon-14 Ci/yr/ reactor 8.0 Tritium <; Ci/yr/ reactor 840
~
2.4 Fogging and icing , >
- 2.4.1 Ground transportation #
Negligible 2.4.2 Air transportation '- Negligible 2.4.3 Water transportation Hegligible 2.4.4 Plants x None
- 3. Total body doses to U.S. population General public, unrestricted area. man-rem /yr 19
~'
Societal Costs
- 1. Operational fuel disposition 1.1 Fuel transport (new) trucks /yr 15
/
4.
,y '
+-
1
TABLE 10.2 (Cont'd) Primary impact and population or + resource affected Unit of measure Magnitude of Impact 1.2 Fuel storage In-building storage 1.3 Waste products (spent fuel) rail shipments /yr 4-6
- 2. Plant labor force Statement No significant societal costs are anticipated
- 3. Historical and Archaeological Sites Statement No effect
- 4. Aesthetics Statement Acceptable 5
a
! 11. DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT , This section receives the identical treatment as Section XII in the FES-CP. l I 11-1
, - . . . - .. _ _ -. _. - - - . . - _ ~ .-..
l l '! t i APPENDIX A i ^ (Reserved for coninents on Draft Environmental Statement) . 1 l i 4 1 i 4 I i
?
I 1 + A-1
APPENDIX B ARKANSAS WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Section 5. SPECIFIC STANDARDS (a) Temperature - During any month of the year, heat shall not be added to any stream in excess of the amount that will elevate the temperature of the water more than 5'F, based upon the month average of the maximum daily temperatures as measured at mid-depth ! or 5 feet, whichever is less. In lakes and reservoirs, the temperature shall not be raised more than 3'F above that which existed before the addition of heat of artificial origin, based upon the average of temperatures taken from surface to bottom, or from surface to thermocline, if present. The maximum temperature due to man-made causes shall not exceed 68*F in trout waters, 86'F in smallmouth bass waters, or 90'F in all other waters except for the following:
- 1. Red River - 93'F.
- 2. Kelly Bayou - 91'F.
- 3. Bayou Dorcheat - 91*F.
- 4. Quachita River (Mouth to Remmel Dam) - 91*F.
- 5. Lake Catherine - 93'F.
- 6. Bayou Macon - 91'F.
- 7. Arkansas River - 93*F.
- 8. Dardanelle Reservoir (Segment 3E) - 95'F with 5'F maximum increase
- 9. White River (Mouth to Lock and Dam 1) - 93*F.
- 10. Spring River (Mouth to mouth of South Fork) - 93*F.
- 11. Little Missouri River (Mouth to mouth of Muddy Fork) - 93*F.
- 12. McKinney Bayou - 93*F.
(b) Color - True color attributable to municipal, industrial, agricultural or other waste discharges shall not be increased in any waters to the extent that it will interfere with present or projected future uses of these waters. (c) Turbidity - There shall be no distinctly visible increase in turbidity of receiving . waters attributable to municipal, industrial, agricultural, or other waste discharges. A I Specifically, in no case shall any such waste discharge cause (1) the turbidity of warm
- water streams to exceed 50 Jackson units, or of trout or smallmouth bass streams to exceed 10 Jackson units; or (2) the turbidity of warm water lakes to exceed 25 Jackson units, or of cold water or oligotrophic lakes to exceed 10 Jackson units.
(d) Taste and Odor - Taste and odor producing substances attributable to municipal, indus-trial, agricultural, or other waste discharges shall be limited in receiving waters to concentrations that will not interfere with the production of potable water by reason-able water treatment processes, or impart unpalatable flavor to food fish, or result in offensive odors arising from the waters, or otherwise interfere with the reasonable use l of the water. (e) Solids, Floating Material, and Deposits - Receiving waters shall have no distinctly visible solids, scum, or foam of a persistent nature, nor shall there be any formation of slime, bottom desposits or sludge banks, attributable to municipal, industrial, agricultural, or other waste discharges. (f) Oil and Grease - Oil, grease or petrochemical substances, attributable to municipal, industrial, agricultural or other waste discharges shall not be present in receiving waters to the extent that they produce globules or other residue or any visible color film on the surface, or coat the banks and/or bottoms of the water course or adversely affect any of the associated biota. (g) p_H - The pH of water in the stream or lake must not fluctuate in excess of 1.0 pH unit, within the range of 6.0 to 9.0, over a period of 24 hours. The pH shall not be below 6.0 or above 9.0 due to wastes discharged to the receiving waters. ' B-1
B-2 (h) Dissolved Oxygen - The dissolved oxygen in the waters shall not be less than 5 milli-grams per liter (mg/1), and in streams this shall be the critical deficit point of the dissolved oxygen profile. The only exceptions will be when periodic lower values are of natural origin and therefore beyond control of the water user. For trout and small-mouth bass water the minimum dissolved oxygen content shall not be less than 6 mg/1. i The dissolved oxygen sample in streams shall be taken at mid-depth or 5 feet, whichever I is less, and at mid-stream in smaller streams. On the larger rivers the dissolved l oxygen shall be determined by the average of concentrations in samples collected at 1 quarter points across the river. (1) Radioactivity - The Rules and Regulations for the Control of Sources of Ionizing Radiation of the Division of Radiological Health, Arkansas State Board of Health, limits the maximum permissible levels of radiation that may be present in effluents to surface waters in uncontrolled areas. These limits shall apply for the purposes of these standards, except that in no case shall the levels of dissolved radium-226 and strontium-90 exceed 3 and 10 picocuries/ liter, respectively, in the receiving waters after mixing, nor shall the gross beta concentration exceed 1000 picocuries/ liter. (j) Bacteria - The Arkansas State Board of Health has the responsibility of approving or disapproving surface waters for public water supply and of approving or disapproving the suitability of specifically delineated outdoor bathing places for body contact recreation, and it has issued rules and regulations pertaining to such uses. This Regulation No. 2 applies to all other waters and all other water uses, and the following criteria shall apply: , (1) Class AA and A Waters - Based on a minimum of not less than 5 samples taken over not more than a 30-day period, the fecal coliform content shall not exceed a log mean of 200/100 ml nor shall more than 10 percent of total samples during any 30-day period exceed 400/100 ml. (2) Class B Waters - The fecal caliform content shall not exceed a log mean of 1000/100 m1, nar equal or exceed 2000/100 ml in more than 10 percent of the samples taken in any 30-day period. (k) Toxic Substances - Toxic materials attributable to municipal, industrial, agricultural, or other waste discharges shall not be present in receiving waters in such quantities as to be toxic to human, animal, plant or aquatic life or to interfere with the normal propagation of aquatic life. For any toxicants, concentrations in the receiving waters after mixing shall not exceed 0.01 of the forty-eight (48) hour Median Tolerance Limit (TLm), unless they can be shown to be nonpersistent and noncumulative, and to exhibit no synergistic interactions with other waste or stream components. In no case shall concentrations exceed 0.05 of the 48-hour TLm. (1) Mineral Quality - Existing mineral quality shall not be altered by municipal, indus-trial, agricultural or other waste discharges so as to interfere with other beneficial uses. The following limits shall apply to the streams indicated: Max. Allowable Concentrations, mg/l Stream Cl SO 4 TDS Arkansas River Basin Arkansas River (Mouth to L&D #7) 250 100 750 Arkansas River (L&D #7 to L&D #10) 250 100 750 Cadron Creek 100 20 280 Arkansas River (L&D #10 to OK Line, incl. Dardanelle Res.) 250 120 750 James Fork 20 100 140 Illinois River 20 20 300
.. - - ~ . . - . ._ -
i i 1 i APPENDIX C RADIOLOGICAL MODELS AND ASSUMPTIONS
, This Appendix describes the models and assumptions used to make upper bound estimates of popula-tion dose for interim assessment of the potential radiological impact from normal operation of nuclear power stations in the United States.
4 Dose Definitions
'] Individual doses from specific radionuclides were estimated using standard internal dosimetric techniques in accordance with the recommendations of ICRP.1,2,3 All internal dose conversion calculations have been made using the maximum permissible concentrations listed in ICRP publica-tions II and VI. Data on breathing rates, organ masses, and other physiological parameters are j those implied by the standard man of ICRP II. . The isotopic concentration levels in the environment used in the dose calculations were conserva- ! tively assumed to be those which would exist during the final year of plant life. A 30-year plant i operational lifetime was assumed for calculating buildup of long-lived activity in the environ-ment. Calculated doses represent a 50-year dose comitment which would be received by the popu-lation during one year of exposure to radioactive releases from the facility at the levels described; that is, the calculated doses reflect the dose that a person would receive over fifty years from radioactive materials to which that person was exposed for one year. For isotopes with a short effective half-life, the exposure essentially all occurs in the year of the intake.
4 For isotopes with a longer effective half-life, the dose resulting from intake in any one year 4 may be spread over a long period. The 50-year dose commitment method computes the dose associ- { ated with any given year's intake, even if that dose is due to a long-lived isotope and is spread out over the lifetime of the person exposed. i ] Receiving Water The liquid effluent population doses previously used by the staff were conservative. For example, fish were assumed to have come to equilibrium with the-radioactivity content of the water in l which they were caught. Thus, the man-rem developed previously has been accepted for this evalu-ation and incorporated into the sum. In any case, the liquid effluents contribute.only small fractions of the total impact of the station. Atmospheric Effluents For a uniform population density the population dose may be written as Population dose = K i P where i is the spatially averaged concentration time integral appropriate for a population of P individuals. Atmospheric Effluents Which Deposit (Radiofodine and Particulates) At any point, the concentration time integral Y, will be related to the ground concentration w, j and the deposition velocity, Vg , by Vg = w/t i Thus, the population dose can be expressed as Population dose = K Q P/V g where 9 is the average ground concentration appropriate for the population P. In the above equation only the average ground concentration, Q, is needed. Noting that whatever is released will eventually settle, we can define the average Q over a large arbitrary area as j Q = Q/A l C-1 1
,- - ,- - , . - , - - , - > . - - - - - , - - , . . - -,-- , , - ~ - . . -
C-2 f w'iere Q is the total source released. This gives Population dose = K Q P/A V g where P/A is the average population density (people per square meter), Q is the total source released (curies), Vgis the deposition velocity (meters per second) and K is the dose conversion factor (rem per Ci-sec/m3). The above equation was used to determine upper bound population doses for the generic cafe. The doses resulting from groundData plane irradiation on certain of the population other isotopes wereonprimarily were based Battelle based on the studies.5 Oak Ridge EXREM III Code. Basically, the method used co sists of determining the gamma energy at 100 cm above an assumed infinite ground plane. Buildup of long-lived activity on the ground from 30 years of continuous deposition includes ingrowth of daughter products. No beta doses from ground plane irradiation were treated, as vegetation on the ground, clothing, and the travel distance in air all combine to make this dose contribution very small. In any case, the contribution to the total U.S. population dose from ground plane radiation is negligible. Food Uptake For exposure from airborne radioisotopes resulting from food uptake, the population exposure is determined not by the density of people in the area of the food crop, but by the number of per-sons that can be fed by the affected crop. We have considered the exposure associated with three principal pathways: direct ingestion of affected vegetation; consumption of meat from animals fed on affected vegetation; consumption of milk from animals fed on affected vegetation. For our interim estimates, ground deposition was computed as described above. Vegetation densit used was 2,300 grams vegetation per square meter and 440 grams grass per square meter of pasture { which is typical of average agricultural and pasture land. Concentrations of isotopes on the soil assumed buildup of the isotope from continuous deposition over the facility lifetime (30 years). Also included was ingrowth of radioactive daughter pro-ducts. Isotopes were assumed to be deposited directly on vegetation as well as deposited on soil and taken up by plant roots. No loss of radioisotopes from soil by weathering or other removal mechanisms is included so that the calculated results tend to be conservative. Concentrations of isotopes directly deposited on vegetation assumed an effective 13-day weather-ing removal half-life from plant leaves in addition to the radiological half-life. Since both soil deposition and vegetation deposition are treated assuming the full original airborne concen-tration (i.e., deposition of isotopes on the soil was not depleted to account for the isotopes deposited on vegetation before they reach the soil), material weathered from the plants to the soil has already been accounted for. Thus, the doses do not need to be separately treated. Of the amount directly deposited on vegetation, 30 percent was assumed to be abscrbed by the plant. This results in a computed concentration of radioisotopes in agricultural vegetation in the affected area. For that portion of the vegetation which is assumed to go directly to human consumption, a decay time of 7 days was assumed in the transfer of foodstuffs from the field to ultimate consumption. In addition to the portion going directly to human consumption, vegetation containing radio-isotopes as computed above is assumed to be fed to meat and milk animals. Cattle were assumed to have ingested at a rate equivalent to 200 kg " grass"/ day.7 Assuming a grass dry matter content of 25%, the above rate corresponds to 50 kg dry " grass"/ day. This ingestion rate is not to be considered as the daily mass intake of feed, but the " grass equivalent" intake. The development of this estimate is outlined below. To maintain a high productivity, animals are generally offered feeds, such as grains and her-vested forages, to supplement or to totally replace the pasture intake.7,8,9 The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture 3 has estimated that one-fifth of the diet of milk cattle is obtained from pasturing. This percentage is based on the " energy requirements" of milking animals. In evaluating the transport of radiciodine (I-131) in the milk pathway, it is generally accepted that a pasture intake of 10 kg ' dry " grass"/ day is applicable.10-12 Assuming the energy content of various feeds are equivalent to grass, the above statement implies a total daily intake rate of 50 kg dry " grass"/ day or 200 kg wet " grass"/ day. Beef animals were assumed to be subject to the same feeding practices as milk cattle.
C-3 For the animal feed coming from stored feeds a two-month delay was assumed, which results in decay of short-lived isotopes. For the portion coming directly from pastureland uptake, no decay was assumed between deposition and animal uptake. Transfer factors from animal uptake to milk and meat were taken from UCRL-50163, C.Ng et al.13 For population dose estimates, a one-day milk supply delay factor was used, and a seven-day meat supply delay factor was used between consumption of vegetation by the animal and ultimate con-sumption of meat or milk from that animal by persons in the population. This gives a concentra-tion of radioisotopes in meat and milk from agricultural lands in the affected area. To convert from concentration of activity in foodstuffs to population dose, we have assumed that the affected land has an average agricultural productivity equivalent to assuming that the entire U.S. population was fed from that portion of the land area of the U.S. east of the Mississippi. With an average diet for an adult of: Vegetation - 400 g/ day Meat - 250 g/ day Milk - 350 g/ day l This results in an average land productivity of: I Vegetation - 100 kg/ day - mile 2 i Meat - 65 kg/ day - milez l Milk - 90 kg/ day - mile 2 This compares fairly conservatively with the agricultural land productivity for the U.S. of about 50 kg/ day - milez for milk 4i and 10 kg/ day - mile 2 for meat.15 Atmospheric Releases Which Do Not Deposit (Noble Gases, Carbon-14 and Tritium) r Short-lived noble gases were assumed to disperse to the atmosphere without deposition, but radio-active decay which limits spread of the gas was explicitly treated. The population dose, assum-ing an infinite integration along the plume pathlength, is given by Population dose = K Q P/AL A whichisthesameformasusedforparticulatedeposition,excegtthatthedepositionvelocityis replaced by AL, where A is the radioactive decay constant (sec- ) and L is the height of the assumed vertical air mixing. An L value of 1,000 meters was used in the calculations. The long-lived gaseous radioisotopes, krypton-85 and carbon-14, were assumed to be distributed by dilution in the earth's atmosphere. Both were considered to build up over 30 years of plant life. Carbon-14 was assumed to be released in oxide form which maximizes its availability to the population via food chains. Other chemical forms such as methane would not be as readily available. The carbon-14 was considered to be completely mixed in the troposhere with no removal mechanisms operating; i.e., the absorption of carbon by the ocean and long-lived biota not strongly coupled to man were neglected. In actuality, the atmospheric residence time of carbon is about 4-6 yearsl6.17 with the ocean being the major sink. The neglect of carbon sinks yields an over-estimate of the steady-state or end of plant life (30-year plant life) atmospheric concentration by a factor of about six. Unlike radioactivity ejected into the stratosphere and then appearing in the high latitude troposphere as in weapon testing, the emission of concern here is directly introduced into the mid-latitudes of the troposphere. Transfer of tropospheric air between the two hemispheres, although inhibited by wind patterns in the equatorial region, is considered to yield a hemisphere average tropospheric residence time of about two years with respect to hemispheric mixing.18 This time constant is quite short with respect to the expected plant life-time and mixing in both hemispheres can be assumed for end of plant life evaluations. Doses were calculated assuming all carbon in the body reaches the same equilibrium ratio of carbon-14 to natural carbon as exists in the air. Tritium Tritium was assumed to mix uniformly in the world's hydrosphere. The hydrosphere was assumed to include all the atmospheric water and the upper 70 meters of the oceans. Having determined this
C-4 equilibrium concentration of tritium in the world, doses to man were calculated by assuming all the hydrogen in the body reaches the same equilibrium ratio of tritium to hydrogen as exists in the air and water of the environment. Population Density and Changes - Local Impact The doses calculated for shine dose from radioactive materials deposited on the ground and for - short-lived noble gases were based on a population density of 160 persons /sq mile, characteristic j of the U.S. population east of the Mississippi River. These components of dose would be increased ' if the close-in populations, the populations principally exposed, exceeded this value substan-tially. However, as noted, these components do not significantly affect the total and would be reviewed on an individual case basis for the Appendix I cost-benefit analysis. Local food uptake exposures are not based on population density, but, rather, on agricultural producitvity, and, consequently, are not directly affected by population growth but more by changes in land use. Similarly, the principal future impact on estimates from liquid effluer.ts would result if water use patterns in the nearby areas are changed, e.g., if a drinking water intake for a large city is constructed near the plant discharge. Such future changes are dif-ficult to predict. ] j To assure adequate control of releases, allowing for future changes in water or land use, the operating license technical specifications will provide for periodic reassessment of changes in land and water use patterns. This will provide a periodic reassessment of the adequacy of facil-
- ity performance in order to maintain exposures of the public health within the Appendix I guides.
Conclusions l 1 The main contributions to the population dose to the U.S. is from C-14 and I-131. The generic i estimates are about two man-rem / year for C-14 and about 300 man-rem / year for I-131 per curie released per year of plant operation for 30 years. All other releases and pathways contribute relatively insignificant portions of the total population dose. j 1 i l l t t I
C-5 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C
- 1. Recorrnendations of the International Comission on Radiological Protection, ICRP, Publica-tion 2, Pergamon Press, Oxford (1959).
- 2. Reco.tnendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP, Publica-tion 6, Pergamon Press Oxford (1962).
- 3. Recommendations of the International Comission on Radiological Protection, ICRP, Publica-tion 10, Report of Committee IV, Pergamon Press, Oxford (1968).
i 4. Trubey, D. K. and S. U. Kaye, "The EXREM III Computer Code for Estimating External Radiation l Doses to Populations from Environmental Releases," ORNL-TM-4322.
- 5. FES-ALAP-LWR Effluents, USAEC-WASH-1,258 (July 1973).
- 6. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 93rd Edition U.S. Dept. )f Commerce, Bureau of Census (1972).
- 7. Reid, J. T., " Forages for Dairy Cattle." Forages M. F. Heath, D. S. Metcalfe, and R. F.
Barnes, Eds., 3rd Edition (1973).
- 8. Kennedy, W. K., J. T. Reid, and M. J. Anderson, " Evaluation of Animal Production Under Different Systems of Grazing," J. Dairy Sci. 42. 679 (1959).
- 9. Allen, G. C., E. F. Hodges and M. Devers, National and State Livestock-Feed Relationships, ERS, USDA Stat. Bull, 446, Suppl. (1972).
i 10, Koranda, J. J.,
, " Agricultural Factors Effecting the Daily Intake of Fresh Fallout by Dairy l Cows." UCRL-12479 (1965).
- 11. Bryant, P. M., " Derivation of Working Limits of Continuous Release Ratios of Iodine-131 to the Atmosphere in a Milk Producing Area," Health Physics 10 (1964).
- 12. Comar C. L., " Radioactivity in Animals - Entry and Metabolism," Radioactivity and Human Diet, R. Scott Russell, Ed., Pergamon Press (1966).
- 13. Ng, C. et al., " Prediction of the Maximum Dosage to Man from the Fallout of Nuclear Devices,"
IV. Handbook for Estimating the Maximum Internal Dose from Radionuclides Released to the Biosphere. UCRL-50163, Part IV.
- 14. California Dairy Industry Statistics,1973-Prepared by California Crop and Livestock Report-ing Service, Sacramento, Calif. 95806.
- 15. California Livestock Statistics, 1974-Prepared by California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Sacramento, California 95806.
- 16. Machta, L., Carbon in the Biosphere, G. W. Woodwell and G. V. Pecan, Eds., Technical Infor-mation Center, USAEC (1973).
- 17. Houtermans, J. C., H. G. Seuss, and H. Oescher, J. Geophys. Res. 78, 1897 (1973).
- 18. Junge, C. E., J. Geophys. Res. 68, 3849 (1963).
APPENDIX D EXPLANATION OF BENEFIT-COST
SUMMARY
IN TABLE 10.2 EC0f0MIC IMPACT OF PLANT OPERATION Direct Benefits - 9'2 MWe x 8760 hr/yr x 0.7 plant factor Indirect Benefits - Refer to Section 10.2 Economic Costs - Supplied by Applicant I Operating Costs - See Referetice 1, p. 8.2-1 l Decomissioning Costs - See Reference 1, p. 8.2-1, the assumed rate of return is 5 percent for 30 years ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PLANT (The index numbers used in this ar.d the next section correspond to those used in Table 10.1.) Item 1.1 - IMPACT OF WATER COMSUMPTION Item 1.1.1 People - See Reference 2, pp. XI-14 and D-4. Item 1.1.2 Property - See Reference 2, pp. XI-14 and D-5. Item 1.2 - HEAT DISCHARGE TO NATURAL WATER BODY Item 1.2.1 Cooling capacity - See Reference 1, p. 9.3-12. Item 1.2.2 Aquatic Biota - See Reference 2, pp. XI-14 and D-6. Item 1.2.3 Migratory Fish - See Reference 2, pp. XI-14 and D-6. Item 1.3 - CHEMICAL DISCHARGE TO NATURAL WATER BODY Item 1.3.1 People - See Reference 1, pp. XI-14 and D-6. Item 1.3.2 Aquatic Biota - Reference 2, pp. XI-14 and D-6. Item 1.3.3 Water Quality - See Reference 2, pp. XI-14 and D-7. Item 1.3.4 Chemical Discharge - Table 3.6 Item 1.4 - RADIONUCLIDE CONTAMINATION OF SURFACE WATER BODY See Sections 3.2.4 and 5.5. Item 1.5 - CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION OF GROUNDWATER Item 1.5.1 People - See Reference 2, pp. XI-14 and D-7. Item 1.5.2 Plants and animals - See Reference 2, pp. XI-14 and D-8. Item 1.6 - RADIONUCLIDE CONTAMINATION OF GROUNDWATER Item 1.6.1 People - See Reference 2, pp. XI-14 and D-8. Item 1.6.2 Plants and animals - See Reference 2, pp. XI-14 and D-8. D-1
D-2 Item 1.7 - RAISING / LOWERING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS Item 1.7.1 People - See Reference 2, pp. XI-14 and D-8. Item 1.7.2 Plants - See Reference 2, pp. XI-14 and D-8. Item 1.8 - EFFECTS ON NATURAL WATER BODY OF INTAKE Item 1.8.1 Primary producers and consumers - See Reference 1, p. 9.3-15 and
- Reference 2, pp. XI-14 and D-8.
Item 1.8.2 Fisheries - See Section 5.4.2. Item 1.9 - NATURAL WATER DRAINAGE Item 1.9.1 Flood control - See Reference 2, pp.1-14 and D-8.- Item 1.9.2 Erosion control - See Reference 2, pp. XI-14 and D-9 and Reference 1,
- p. 9.3-16.
Item 2.1 - CHEMICAL DISCHARGE TO AMBIENT AIR Item 2.1.1 Air Quality, chemical 2.1.1.1 CO2 - See Reference 2 pp. XI-14 and D-9. 2.1.1.2 502 - See Reference 1, p. 9.3-17. 2.1.1.3 N0 x- See Reference 2, pp. XI-14 anu D-ll. 2.1.1.4 Particulates - See Reference 2, pp. XI-14 and D-II. 2.1.1.5 Other - See Reference 2, pp. XI-14 and D-ll. Item 2.1.2 Air Quality, odor - See Reference 2, pp. XI-14 and D-11. Item 2.2 - SALTS DISCHARGED FROM COOLING SYSTEM Item 2.2.1 People - See Reference 2 pp. XI-15 and D-11. Item 2.2.2 Plants - See Reference 1, p. 9.3-18. Item 2.2.3 Property - See Reference 2, pp. XI-14 and D-12. Item 2.3 - RADIONUCLIDES DISCHARGED TO AMBIENT AIR - See Section 3.2.4. Item 2.4 - FOGGING AND ICING Item 2.4.1 Ground transportation - See Reference 2, pp. XI-15 and D-13, and Reference 1, p. 9.3-19. Item 2.4.2 Air transportation - See Reference 2 pp. XI-15 and D-13, and Reference 1, p. 9.3-19. Item 2.4.3 Water transportation - See Reference 2, pp. XI-15 and 0-13, and Reference 1, p. 9.3-19. Item 2.4.4 Plants - See Reference 2, pp. XI-15 and D-13, and Reference 1, p. 9.3-19. Item 3 - TOTAL BODY DOSES TO U.S. POPULATION - See Section 5.5. SOCIETAL COSTS Item 1 - OPERATIONAL FUEL DISPOSITION Item 1.1 Fuel transport - fifteen shipments of new fuel plus 59 radioactive spent fuel assembifes per year. Item 1.2 Fuel storage - the staff assumes storage of new fuel to be provided for in-plant design within the reactor building.
D-3 Item 1.3 - Waste products - onsite storage of spent fuel assemblies is normal and is assumed for ANO-2. Item 2 - Labor - negligible impact (Section 5.6) Item 3 - Historical and Archaeological Sites - See Reference 2, pp. XI-15 and D-16 to D-17, and Reference 1, p. 9.3-22. Item 4 - Aesthetics - See Section 5.6.
D-4 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX D
- 1. Arkansas Power & Light Company, Environmental Report for Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 OL-Stage as amended. July 1974. Docket No. 50-368.
- 2. U.S. Atomic Energy Consnission, Final Environmental Statement for Arkansas Nuclear One.
Unit 2. Docket No. 50-368 September 1972 (See Appendix E for copy).
l l i l 1 APPENDIX E FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 Docket 50-368 September 1972 (FES-CP) l l l E-1 .
SLMMAltY AND CONCLUSIONS S - ] This Final Environmental St atement was prepared by the U.S. At omic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing. St teme i 1. 2. This action is administ rat ive. The proposed action is the issuance of a construction permit to Arkansas Peer and Light Company (Dotket 50-36 8) for the const ruction of Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2, a nuclear power reactor located on a peninsula in Lake Dardanelle formed by the Dardanelle Dam in the Arkansas River system. The site is in the State of Arkansas, County of Pope, 2 miles southeast from the village of London and 6 miles northwest f rom the city of Rus se llville . N The Arkansas Nuclear One station will consist of two units. Unit I and Unit 2. Unit 1 construction began in 1968 and is now ab out 80% complete. Required clearing of land for Unit 2 was , completed during construction of Unit 1. In July 1971 certain j exempt nuclear f acility const ruction f or Unit 2 was begun. The l designs of Units 1 and 2 of Arkansas Nuclear One are quite dif-i ferent. Unit 2 proposes to use a nat ural d raf t cooling tower waereas Unit 1 is being const ructed with a once-through cooling i 1 ARKANSAS POWER AND UGHT COMPANY system; Unit 2 will use mechanically cleaned condensers whereas Unit 1 condensers will be chemically treated; both Unit 1 and j DOCKET NO. 50 368 unit 2 radioactive releases are expected to meet cur rent Conan t a t on j regulations requiring releases to be "as low as practicable."
, Combined e ffects of thermal, chemical and radioactive releases l from both units are included in Section XII. This evaluation
;g considers only the effect of Unit 2 operation; Unit 1 is
. e assumed not to be operating except for the equivalent of 2 of 4 circulating water pumps, which provide dilution f or Uni t 2 liquid e f iluents. The environnental effects of the c abined operations
' of Unit I and Unit 2 will be evaluated in the Environmental St at e-sent on tne proposed issuance of an ope rating license f or Unit 1. September 1972 Unit 2 will eraploy a pressurized-water reactor to produce 2760 megawat ts the rmat (MWt). A steam-turbine generator will provide 950 MW (gross) of electrical power capacity. An ulti-mat e core power level of 2900 Wt (974 We, t urbine limited) , is an ticipated at a future date and was used for the assessments i UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 1 l DIRECTORATE Of LKEK511Hi l j E-2 1 4
d I i I 11 111 i contained in this statement. The exhaust steam will be cooled nearby highway traffic but does have the potential of in. by a closed-cycle cooling system using a natural-draf t tower to creasing the number of hours river traffic could be affected. dissipa'a vaste heat to the atmosphere. Makeup water will be River traf fic must contend with local fogging conditions that taken f rom the Illinois Bayou arm of Lake Dardanelle through a already exist on the lake, and the possible additional 4400-f t intake canal.- The cooling tower blowdown along with few hours within 0.5 mile of the station on inf requent days , other liquid effluents f rom Unit 2 will be diluted by cooling f rom possible fog created by the natural-draf t cooling tower water f rom Unit 1 and discharged to an 80-acre embayment of is considered to pose no additional hazardous operation to Lake Dardanelle, river traf fic. No airports are in the vicinity to be affected by fogging.
- 3. Summary of environmental impact and adverse effects:
e) Introduction of chlorine as a blocide into the closed-cycle ' a) Water eelocity at the mouth of the 4400 ft intake canal cooling system is planned in such a way that no detectable will be about 0.8 fps when only Unit 2 is operating and amount is expected in the discharge to the embayment. about 1.5 fps when both units are in service. Wat er velocities f rom 2.0 to 2.2 fps will exist across the Unit f) Other chemicals discharged to the lake will be diluted 1 intake screens through which water will be pumped for such that the concentrations will not af fect organisms. Unit 2 liquid effluents dilution. The water velocities across the intake screens may result in substantial loss g) A very low-probability risk of accidental radiation exposure of fish by entrapment. Insuf ficient data are available to nearby residents will be created. to determine the number of fish that may be trapped in the intake canal or killed on the screens. This effect, if h) About 4350 curies of radionuclides in gaaeous ef fluents any, will be monitored and mitigating action taken if and 1005 curies of radionuclides in 11guld ef fluents adverse effects are confirmed. (including 1000 curies of tritium) will be released to ! the environment ann ually . No significant environmental b) Aquatic organisms small enough to pass through Unit 2 intake impacts are anticipated f rom the normal operational re-I screens and enter the closed-cycle cooling system are assamed leases of these radioactive materials. The estimated to have 100% mortality. Of the total flow in the canal, dose to the population withta 50 miles f rom operation of approximately 3.4% will enter the closed-cycle cooling system the station is 0.g5 man-rem / year. of Unit 2. c) At full Power, the cooling tower blowdown, estinated to range 1) The location of Unit 2 on the same site as Unit I will have between 2.6 and 10.6 cubic feet per second (cis) (1180 and less impact on the environment than its possible location on an alternate site. [ 4700 gallons per minute, spm), is mixed and diluted with , at least one half the flow (850 cfs or 383,000 gpm) of cir. j) The additional land areas disturbed by the construction of culating water from Unit 1 prior to diacharge to the embay- Unit 2 at the Arkanses Nuclear One site are primarily the a ment. The estimated temperature rise in the embayment . location of the unit itself, the enlargesent of the emer-resulting from Unit 2 operation is less than 0.2*F and is expected to cause no measurable change in the equatic organism gency reservoir to provide f or the requirements of Unit 2,
! life cycles in the embayment, and the additional transmission lines for distribution of the power generated. Areas of the site that will be dis-d) Operation of the natural-draf t cooling tower is estimated turbed during the constowtion period of Unit 2 have already i
to increase the natural occurring ground fog is the area been disturbed by the construction activities associated d by a maximum of 120 hours per year within 0.5 miles of the with Unit 1. At completion of construction, these areas Station. This fogging is not expected to interfere with will be landscaped in the immediate vicinity of the buildings; others will be seeded with native grasses and trees. 4 4 E-3
- r
_ __ _ _ __ .. _- .- . . . ~ . .__. _ . _ . _ - .m .. . - _ _ . _ ..m m. . ~~ . - - . . 1 l' l Sv v r i k) Larger land areas are af fected by construction and maintenance Safety Analysis Reports and the applicant's Environmental Reports of transsission lines (3700 acres for both units) than for Unit 1. dated June 1971 and Unit 2 dated September 1971 were the on-site construction (430 acres) and its surroundings received frem (734 acres). Parming or other applicable uses will be-feasible and permitted on parts of the transmission !!ne Department of Agriculture rights-of-way, but other parts may be too steep or otherwise Department of Defense encluded f rom this use. Department of Health. FJucation, and Welfare Department of the Interior
, 4 Principal alternatives considered: Environmental Protection Agency i
- Federal Power Commission i Purchase of power f rom outside sources.
and considered in the preparation of this Statement. Alternate fuel as a power source rather than nuclear f uel.
- 7. the Draf t Statement was made available to the public, to the Use of hydroelectric generators. Council on Environanntal Quality, and to other governmental agencies in July 1972.
Alternate heat dissipation methods including the use of mechanical-draf t cooling towers. 8. Comments in response to the requests referred to above were re-ceived from
- 5. The following Federal, State, and local agencies were asked to comment on the Draft Environmental Statement. Advisory Council on Historical Preservation Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Council on Environmental Quality Department of Connerce Department of Agriculture . Department of the Interior Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Department of Transportation Department of Commerce . Federal Power Commission Department of health, Education, and Welfare Environmental Protection Agency Department of busing and Urban Development Arkansas Hiatorical Preservation Program Department of the laterior Department of Transportation Arkansas Cane and Fish Consission Eavironmental Protection Agency and attached as Appendix E.
Federal Power Commission Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 9. This Final Statement was made available to the public. The Council Arkansas Planning Couumission Arkansas Pollution Control Commission on Environmental Quality, and the previously specified agencies in September 1972. Pope County (Arkansas) Cosumissioners
- 10. On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this
- 6. Comments on Arkansaa Power and Light Company Arkansas #wlear Statement , af ter weighing the envirorumental, economic, tech-Che Unit 2 - Syplement to Enpimuwnfal Raport, December 1971, nical, and other benefits of Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 (supersede. the original Arkaisas NwZsar Ons psic 2 Environ- against environmental costs and considering available alter-
. mrattal & port, September 1970, in its entirety) were received natives, it is concluded that the action called f or is the , from the Department of the Army. Corps of Engineers and used issuance of a construction permit, subject to the following in the preparation of this Environmental Statement. In addition, conditions for the protection of the environments comments relative to environmental aspects as based on the a) the liquid effluent f rom Unit 2, including the cooling tower blowdown and liquid radioactive vastes, will not t
4 E-4 l 4 I
= - - - _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _
Vil v1 be discharged at any time withet a dilution equivalent TABI.E OF CONTENTS to one half (about 383.000 spm) the full flow ef the Unit 1 PACE NO. circulating water pumps. SL*9fARY AND (DNCLUSIONS. .. . . .... . .. .. . 1 b) the Applicant will continue the ongoing environmental monitoring prograne described in Appendiz D of its Supple. FOREWORD... . . . . . . . . .... . .... .. ..... .. x1x ment to Environmental Report. dated December 1971, and augment the program to the extent considered by the geferences for Foreword.. . . . . . . . Ex111 regaistory staf f to be adequate to detect any adverse ef f ects of the design and operation of the intake canal and intake structures. The environmental monitoring program I. INTRODUCTION. . . .. . .... .. ... .. . 1-1 will be included as part of the plant operiting Technical Specifications. A. Site Selection....... . ...... . .. 1-1
- 5. Applicationa and Approvals, . . . .. . .... I-4 c) If, as a result of the monitoring program. hamful effects or evidence of irreversible damage are predicted f rom Unit 2 References for Section I. . .... . . .... I-6 or the ccurbined operation of both units the Applicant will provide an analysis of the problem and will develop a II. THE SITE.. . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .... . .. II-1 course of action to be taken tamediately to alleviate the problems. A. Location of Flant.. ............ . .. . II-I
- 3. Regional Demography and Land Use.. .. .... .. II-2
- 1. Human Populations.... . . .... . . , !!-2
- 2. Land and Resource Use. . .... . . II-11 C. Archaeology and History.... .. . ... . . .. II-14 D. Environmental Features. .. . .. ... 11-15
- 1. Geology. . . ... .. .. II-15
- 2. Hydrology. . . . .. . .... . II-17
- 3. Metaorology.. .. .... . .. . . ... .. 11-18 E. Ecology of the Site and Environs., .... .. 11-20
- 1. Ecology of Terrestrial Environs. . . 11-20
- 2. Ecology of the Aquatic Environs. .. II-23
- a. General. ... .. . . .. 11-23
- b. Birds. ...... .... .. . . 11-23
- c. Plankton and Botton Organi.ms. . 11-25
- d. Fish. .. . .. .. . .. ,. . . . .. II-26 I References for hection II. .. .. .. , . 11-27 W
E-5
_ _ _ _ . - . - _ - __ - . _ . - - . ~. . . ._. . . . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . , . . . - _. .. - . _ - . - . r l I witi g, l 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) i TA5!.E OF CONTENTS (cont'd) PACE NO. PAGE NO. I i C. Biological Impact.. . ... ... . , ,. . .. V-6 III. THE PLANT. . . . ... ...... ... ... .... .. . III-1 III-1 1.- Ecological Studies..... . ....... , , , V-6 A. External Appearance.... . . .... . . ....
- 2. Effects on Water Quality and Biota. . .. v.7
- 5. Transmission Lines.... ..... . . .... . .... III-3 C. Reactor and Steam Electric Systems.. . .... III-4
' III-6 a. Thermal. ... ........ . ... . .. , V-7 D. The Plant Effluent Systems.. ... ..
- b. Entrainment and Impingement.. . V-8
- c. Chemical...... ... ,. . . V-gg
- 1. Heat , ........ . .. ... ... . . . . III-6
.d. Radiological.. . . . ,, y-g2
- 2. Radioactive Waste., . . . .... ... .. . III-12
- 3. Biological Monitoring of Impacts.. ..... V-13
- a. Liquid Wastes. . .. .. ... III-12
! b. Caseous Waste. . ..... . . .... . . . III-15 Solid Wastes., . .. .... . . . .. . III-19 D. Radiological leq>act of Routine Operation.. . . V-16 c. Chemical and Sanitary Wastes.. 111-21 1. General Considerations and Framework
- 3. . . . . .
of Dose Estimations. . ... .. .... . V-16
- a. Chemical Discharges.. . . . . .. III-21 V-16 Sanitary Wastes... .. .. . III-24 s. Exposure Pathways.. . .. . .. ... ..
- b. . . ,
- b. Dose Models........ ......, ..... , V-18
- 4. Other Wastes. .. .. .. . . . III-25 c. Dispersion of Caseous Effluents. . . V ,
References for Section III. . .. .. . .. 111-26
- 2. Estimates of Dose. ... . . . V-19 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION.. . . ... .. . IV-1 s. Caseous Effluents. .. . ..... V-19
- b. Liquid Effluents... . .. .. .... .. . V-25 A. Area Involved. .. ... . .. . ... ... ... . . IV-1 ,
B. Social E f f c ets. . . ... .. ... . . ... ..... . .... 17-1 3. Radiological Monitoring. .. V-26 i C. Environmental Considerations.. . . .. . ...... IV-2 4. Assessment of Dose to Man... . .. . .. V-28 z D. Transmisalon Lines.. . .. .. . ..... .. IV-3 E. Transportation of Nuclear Fuel and References for Section IV...... .... . .. .. . IV-6 Solid Radioactive Waste. ... .. . . . . V-29 V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PLANT OPERATION.... .. V-1 1. Transport of New Fue l . . . . . . . .. . . . . V-29
- 2. Transport of Irradiated Fuel..... ..... . V-30 A. Land Use., . . ...... . . . . . .. . .. . V-1 3. Transport of Solid Radioactive Wastes. V-30 B. Water Use. .. .. . . . . .. . . ......... V- 3 4. Principles of Safety in Transport...... . V-30
- 5. Exposures During Normal (No Accident)
- 1. Ef fects of Chemicals....... . . .. ..... V-3 Conditions. . . .... . . . . . V-32 4 2. Effects of Heated Water..... . . . ..... . V-4
- 3. Effects of Radioactive Effluents... .. . .. V-5 a. New Fuel........ .. .. .. ,.. V-32
; 4. Effect of Cooling Tower Plume.. .. .. . V-5 b. Irradiated Fuel..... . ... .. . .., . V-32
- c. Solid Radioactive Wastes. . . . V-33 i References for Section V... . . . . V-34 E-6 a
. . - ~ . _ . - . _ , . - s- ._ . -- -- - . . - - - _ - _ - - ~ . - . - ~ .
x1 x TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) PACE NO. PAGE NO. VI. ENY1RONMENTAL IMPACT OF POSTUIATED ACCIDENTS..... . VI-1 a. Hydroelectric Power Generation. . .. 11-2
- b. Natural Cas.. .. .. ..... ...... . ... XI-2 A. Station Accidents.... . .... ................ VI-1 c. Coal..... .. . .. . .... ... ... ... XI-3 B. Transportation Accidents.. .. ... . .. ..... VI-5 d. Fuel 011. . .. .. . .... ..... .... XI-3
- 1. Exposures Resulting from Postulated 4. Alternative Nuclear Heat Sources. ......... XI-4 Accidents..... .. .. ....... ... .. . . VI-5 5. Alternative Cooling Methods. .. ... . XI-4
- 2. New Fue1........... . .. . ...., ... ... . VI-6
- 3. Irradiated Fuel.. . .. ...... ..... ... VI-6 a. Wet Cooling Towers.. ...... .. . II-5
- b. Once-Through Cooling.. ............. . 11-8
- a. Leakage of Contaminated Coolant., . . VI-6 c. Open-Cycle Cooling Tower Operation.. . XI-9
- b. Release of Cases and Coolant. ... . . VI-7 d. Dry Cooltas Towers.. . .. . .. . 11-10
- e. Cooltog Ponds. ...... ............. . XI-10
- 4. Solid Radioactive Wastes.. ..... .... .. .. VI-7 f. Floating Spray Modules for Cooling..... XI-11
- 5. Severtry of Postulated Transportation Accidents....... ... .... . . .. . . , .. VI-8 6. Alternative Methods for the Disposal of Radioactive Wastes........... ...... ... XI-12
- References for Section VI. . .... . .. . . . . . . . . . VI-9 7. Alternatives to Normal Transportation Procedures.. . . .. . . .... . . . XI-12 VII. ADVERSE EFTECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVO!DED.. . .. VII-1 S. Summary of Cost and Benefits.. .. ... .... XI-13 A. Effects on Land Use. . ..... .... .. . ,. VII-1
- 3. Effects on Water Reservoirs. .. .. .. ....... VII-1 1. Comparison of Environmental and Societal C. Begional Effects........ ... ...... ......... VII-2 Costs., . . ... . . . .. . .. .. . XI-13 VIII. SHORT-TERM DSES AND LONC-TERM PRODUCTIVITY..... .... VIII-1 a. Al te rnate Si t es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Il-13
- b. Proposed Site.... . . .. . . 11-16 11 IRREVERSIBLE AND 1RRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS c. Transmission Lines..... ... . .. . . 21-17 7 0F RESOURCES.. .. ... .... .. . . .... ... . .. 11-1 d. Chealcal Discharges....... . .. . . XI-17 I
- e. Releases of Radioactivity... . .. . Z1-18 K. THE MEED FOR POWER... ...... .. .. . .. .. ....... I-1 f. Societal Impacts - Impacts on Comenmity Services.. . . . . . . ... XI-18 References for Section I.......... .. ... ...... . X-8 g. Economic Impact. . ..... ... ... XI-21
- h. Aesthetica., . .. .. .. .. . 21-22
- 11. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSFD ACTION AND COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THEIR ENVIRONM*NTAL EFFECTS.. ....... . 11-1 2. Balance of Costs and Benefits. . . . .... II-23 A. Sulunary of Alternatives. .... ..... .. . .. 11-1 geferences for Section II. ... .. . .. XI-27
- 1. No Power or Purchased Power.... .. ... ... XI-1 III. DI:; CUSS 10N OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT l 2. Alternative Sites.. ..... .... . ...... 11-1 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT.... . . .. . . . . XII-1
- 3. Alternative Fuel.. ..... ..... .... ...... KI-2 A. Environmental Ef fects of Arkansas Nuclear One -
Unit 1. . . . . .. . . .. . ... ... XII-2 i E-7
. . . - . . . . _ _ . _ . . . . - __ - _ . .. . - . . . . . . .- - ._--m -~ . -- - - - - --. . - - . -~ .-4~~_< -
T 1 4 4 f til Kill t TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) PACE NO. PACE No. i -t
- 3. Gaseous Radiotodine Releases f rom Routine Appendix A. Forest Statistics Pertinent to Arkansas Operations of Unit 4 2..... ...... . ......... III-3 Nuclear One., .. ...... . ..... .. ,. . .. . A-1 C. Dilution Flow Required for Radioactive Liquid Eff1ments............................. .. . . III-4 Appendix 5 Wildlife Species of Dardanelle Reservoir.. ... B-1 D. Applicability of 10 CFR 50 Appendia I ,
Guide li nes . . . . . . . ..... .... .. .. .. .. . III-4 Appendiz C. Summary of Radioactive Waste Discharges E. Liquid Radioactive Waste System.... . . . ... . . III-4 to the Environment from Pressurised
- F. Thyroid Doses Associated with Radioactive Water Reactors 1959-1970.. .. . . . . . C-1 ' . Re le ases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ... . .. 111-5 C. Radioactive Secondary System Leakage.. . .... . III-5 Appendix D. Explanation of Cost-Benefit Table.. ..... ... D-1 H. Undetected Releases of Radioactivity.. .. III ,
I. Liquid Ef fluents Source Ters.. . . ... ... .. XII-6 Appendia E. Comments Received on Draf t Environmental J J. Cround Water Monitoring... ... . . . . . . . . . . . III-6 S tate men t . . . . . . ... .. . . ] K. Design for Flood Protection.. .. ... ..... III-7 L. Direct Shin External Exposure.. .... . . . . . . . . III-7
- 1. Advisory Council on Historical M. Atmospheric Dispersion Factors..... ... ... III-8 4 E.
0. Transportation sad Reactor Accidents... Cost-Benefit Analysis of Exempted Construction.
..... 111-9 XII-9
- 2. ra a H b'ric 'h r'ib t rbram .. -
I-
- 3. Federal Power Commission.. . . ...... . . E-3 L P. Rationing of Power......,........... ..... .. III-9 4 E-8 k Department of Agricult ure.. .. .. . . .
Q. Estimate of Future Coats and Eenefits....... . KII-9
- 5. Environmental Protection Agency... .. . E-12 R. Bioaccumulation Factors..................... .. III-10
- 6. Department of Army. Corps of Engineers. ,, E- 34 S. Air Pollutants Originating from Construction E-37
- 7. Department of Transportation..... ......
Ac t i vi t ies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-10
- 8. Arkansas Came and Fish Commission.. . E-39 T. Site Meteorological Data..... ... ............ 111-10 Department of Commerce. . . .. . . . . E-41 ?
U. Of f-Site Air Sampling Stations.. . ... . ..-. .. XII-10
- 9. . .. :
- 10. Department of the Interior . . . . .. E-48 V. Ozone Production f rom Pcwer Transedssion Lines. III-10 1
W. Noise Levels Associated with Arkansas Nuclear 0ns................... . ... .............. ..... 111-11 I X. Ef fect of Transmission Lines on Railroad Communication and Signaling Circuitry., ... ... XII-11 t Y. Environmental Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ZII-11
- 2. Alternative Design of Intake St ructure.. .. . III-12 AA. Environmental Impacts of Accidental Releases [
to Water......... .. . .... . ... ... .... III-12
, 58. Clase 9 Accidents .. . . . . .. . . . . .. ... .. XII-13
{ CC. Transportation Accidents.. ... . . ... . . III-13 f DD. Dilution of Discherges... . ................... III-14 EE. Location of Principal Changes in This Statement in Response to Comments..... ... . .. . ... . III-15 I
- Re ferences f or Sect ion L11. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KII-17 j
t b E-8 1 L 4
xir rv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd) Figure Page,. Figure Page a III-2 Arkansas Nuclear One transmission lines... .. . ... III-5 1-1 London Peninsula on Lake Dardanelle, showing pre-construction view of Arkansas Nuclear One III-3 Coolant system flowsheet. including off-gas site. The wooded hitle in the foreground hide system.. ... . .... .. .. .. ... . III-7 the statica from the mata channel of the reservoir.. ....... ........... ... ... .. .. 1-2 III-4 Heat dissipation system for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2.. .. ..... ..... . .... .. . .. . III-8 1-2 , Relationship of Arkansas Nuclear One to populated areas....... ... .... . . . . . . . .. . I-3 III-5 Intake structure f<,e Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2. ... . ....... ... . .. .... . III-9
, 11-1 Area within 50 miles of Arkansas Nuclear One. .. .. II-2 III-6 Simplified perspective of Arkansas Nuclear One. ; II-2 Area within 10 miles of Arkansas Nuclear One.... . II-3 showing interact *on of heat diasipation systems with the Dardanelle Reservoir. . . . . .. III-11 11-3 View of Arkansas Nuclear Qte station site and 1sumediate sur roundings. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. II-4 III-? Liquid chemical, and radioactive waste system for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2. .. . ... .... III-13 11-4 Population trends with distance from Arkansas d
Nuclear One..... ... .... . .. .. .. ..... ... II-6 III-8 Caseous exhaust system for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2... . . .... .. .. . .. . . . III-18 11-5 . Geographical regions around the Arkansas Nuclear One site................. .. ...... . .... .... , . II-8 V-1 General locations of monitoring stations for
' Arkansas Nuclear One... .. . . . . V-9 II-6 Population growth in Arkansas cospared with that for the U.S... . . . . . .... ..... ...... 11-9 V-2 Biological sampling points near Arkansas Nuclear One.. . ... . , . ... .. .. .. . V-15 II-7 Geological features of the region surrounding the Arkansas Nuclear One site. Taken from Arkansas V-3 Pathways for external and internal exposure of Polytechnic CoIIege. DardmelZa Baservoir.. ....... 11-16 man from atmospheric and aquatic releases of radioactive effluents.. . .. .. ... . . . . . . . . V-17 II-8 The McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System...... ............. .. ..... . ....... .. .. 11-19 X-1 Past and projected capabilities of Arkansas Power
- and Light Company. . ... .. .... .. .. .. . X-4 II-9 Majar forest types surrounding the Dardanelle Reservait and Arkansas Nuclear One Power Station... II-22 XI-1 Rnrollment data for Russellville School district.
Source: Superintendent of Schools. Russellville. II-10 Forest habitats within the oak-htckory forest Ark. , school system. Feb. 2.1972. . . .. . XI-19 type and dominant and associate woody species 4 and common herbaceous plants in the enviress of Arkansas Nuclear One. ........ ...... ... ..... 11-24 111-1 Appearance of Arkansas Nuclear One power station.......... . .... . ....... . . . .. .... . III-2 E-3 i
. . -- . - , - ~~ . -- . . - - ~ _ -- .a _ -- .w - - . . - ~n .x . - ,
t xvi ,,gg 1.15T OF TABLES LIST OF TABLg5 yable P_aje Table gge V-4 Summary of dose estimates to the population from 1-1 Federal and State authorisations required for immersion in the gaseous effluents released by construction of Arkansas Noclear One Unit 2. .. ... 1-5 V-23 Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2. . ... .. ... .. 11-1 Main characteristics and trends in agriculture in Pope County, Arkansas, which includes the VI-1 Classification of postulated accidents and t occurrences.. .... ......... ........ . .. . VI-2 3 Arkansas Nuclear One site.. .........,,,... . . .. 11-12 VI-2 Susmary of radiological coaequences of 11-2 Irrigation and use of cosmarcial fertiliser on postulat ed accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4 pastureland and harvested crops for farms la Pope County. Arkansas, with sales exceeding 1-1 Fossil fuel generating stations of Arkansas
$2500.. ..... ...... ......... . ..... . .... .. 11-13 X-3 Power and Light Company.. . ..... ... ... ........
111-1 Conditions used in determining releases of radio- Historical record of peak loads...... . . . . .. X-5 X-2 active ef fluents from Unit 2 of Arkansas Nuclear III-16 One.. ...... ..... . ..... . .. . . .... ... . .. X-3 Predicted peak loads for 1976.. ...... . .... 1-6 111-2 Calculated release of radioactive materials in 11-1 Flume increment to specific humidity.... ....., . XI-7 liquid effluents from Unit 2 of Arkansas Nuclear one... . .... ..... . . ... . . ... ..... . . III-17 XI-9 XI-2 Cooling tower plumes. Paradies Power Plant. . ... . 111 Calculated release of radioactive materials in 11-3 Benefit-cost comparison for Arkansas Nuclear gaseous affluents from Unit 2 of Arkansas One Unit 2 and alternatives.. . .. . . ......... XI-14 Nuclear One..... ... ..... ....... .. .... ... 111-20 Maximum amounts of chemicals in cooling water A-1 Vol me of forest growing stock on commercial 111-4 forest land in Survey regions of Arkansas.. .. . A-2 discharge to the Dardanelle Reservoir..... .... .. 111-23 Right-of-way areas for transmission lines A-2 Commercial forest land aronnd Arkansas IT-1 Nuclear one... . . . .. .. .. A-3 5 from Arkansas Nuclear One ..... .. ... .. .... .. IV-5 . ... . . A-3 Income and loss terms on the timber inventory....,. A-4 T-1 Areas of land used for Arkansas Nuclear One. ...... V-2 Summary of the estimated doses to individuals A-4 Growing stock volume on comercial forest land T-2 by species group and county, 1969., .... . . . A-5 per year of release at points of maximum exposure
' to gaseous and liquid ef fluents fra Arkansas Radioactive waste discharges to the environ-Nuclear One Unit 2. .... ...... ............ .. ... v-20 C-1 ment from Pressurized water reactors: annual V-3 Samary of estimated population doses per year liquid waetes, gross beta-gansa other than tritium.... .... . . ..... . . . . . . .. C-2 of release of gaseous and liquid effluents from l Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2... ., .... .. ...... T-21 C-2 Radioactive waste discharges to the environ- !
ment from pressurized water reactors: tritium C, in liquida... . . . .. ... ..... . ... . E-10
- m . .- .
_ . . . _ _ _ . , _ _ . - _ _ __ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . __ 4_ . .__m._ _ xv111 xix LIST OF TABIES FOR!NORD Table Page a This Final Environmental Statement escribes the staff's evaluation of the effects of the proposed construction and operation of the C-3 Radioactive waste discharges to the environ. station on the environment before the proposed issuance of a construc-ment from pressurised water reactors noble tion permit to Arkansas Power and Light Company (applicant) for the and activation gases. ....... ........ .. . .. C-4 construction of the Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 (Docket 50-368). It has been prepared by the Directorate of Licensing (the staff) of the C-4 Radioactive waste discharges to the environ- U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (Commission or AEC) with assistance from ment from pressurised water reactores halogens the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and particulates in gaseous effluents.... . ... C-5 This Statement has been prepared pursuant to the Commission's regula-tiona, 10 CFg part 50, Appendix implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969g.1,2 (NEPA). Section 102(2)(c) of the NEPA calla for a detailed statement on:
- 1. The environmental impact of the proposed action,
- 11. Any adverse environmental effects, which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented.
iii. Alternatives to the proposed action, iv. The relationship between local short-term uses of men'a environment sad the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and j v. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which could be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. The applicant submitted an Environmental Report, construction permit stage for the Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 in September 1970. Ccaments were received from: Department of Agriculture Department of Defense Department of Health, Education, and Welfare . Department of the Interior Environmental Protection Agency Federal Power Commission a These comments were forwarded to the applicant for consideration. The applicant submitted a complete revision, the .%ppl,vnent to i E-11
KK! am on the applicant's Supplement to Environmental Deport and its Dmborewscal Report.4 in December 1971 ta accordance with the responses are available for inspection by meneers of the public in the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street , N.W. , requirement of the revised Appendiz D to 10 CFR 50. Comments Washington, D.C., and the Arkansas River Valley Regic.nal Library, received earlier were considered la the preparation of the Dardanelle, Arkanama. supplement. The Commission forwarded copies of the revised report to the following Federal and State agencies requesting Independent calculations and sources of information were also their review and comments used as a basis for the Commsission's assessment of e%vironmental impact. In addition, some of the information was obtained by the Council on Environmental Quality staf f during a visit to the Arkansas Nuclear One site and sur-Department of Agriculture rounding areas in July 1971 and on January 31-February 4,1972. Department of the Army. Corps of Engineers Department of Counserce As a part of its safety evaluation leading to the issuance of Environmental Protection Agency construction permits and operating licenses, the Commission Department cf the Interior staf f makes a detailed evaluation of (1) the applicant's plans Federal Power Co mission and f acilities for minimizing and controlling the release of Arkansas Came and Fish Coimaission radioactive materials under both normal operating and potential Arkansas West Central Planning and Development Commission accident conditions, (2) the adequacy of the appitcant's affluent and eneironmental monitoring programs, and (3) the Copies of the report were placed in the Commaiselon's Pubite potential radiation exposure that might be received by station Document Room and the local Public Doctament Room (Arkansas River workers and members of the public. Inasmuch as these aspects Talley Regional Library, Dardnelle Arkansas). De availability are considered f ully in other documents, only the salient of the report was announced $ to the Telem1 #dgister, on January 6 features that bear directly on the anticipated dose to the 1972 and comments were requested from State and local agencies- public are repeated here. The comments that have been received The availability of the report in the local Public Document Room was from other Federal and State agencies te respect to overall reported la the Russellville newspaper. N a Couriar Dem m t. safety evaluation are not elaborated en here. The Corps of Engineers responded to the request and commented on the applicant's Supplement to Environmental Report. Copies of This Final Environmental Statement takes into account comments the c-ate received from the Carpe were forwarded to the applicant, received f rom Federal, State, and local agencies concerning the who was requested to respond to them, AEC's Draf t Environmental Statement issued in July 1972 and responses la April 1972 the applicant submitted supplemental information' by the Applicant. to the AEC in response to questions from the staf f and c-aata The AEC is transmitting copies of this Final Environmental Statement received on its Supplement to Environmental Report of December 1971. to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies. In addition. the AEC is publishing in the Federal Reaf ster a summary notice of The Draft Environmental Statement took all of the above writings the availability of the Applicant's Supplemental Environmental Report, inte account as well as the applicant's Freliminary Safety Analysis other submittals concerning the Appiteant's Supplemental Environmental Report and Amendments therete, the application for the proposed Report, the Draf t Environmental Statement of July 1972, and this construction license, the applicant's Summary of the Application e Final Environmental Statement. the Safety Evaluation by the Commission's regulatory staff. the report for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1 and 2 of the Advisory A Notice of Hearing on the application for a construction permit Comunittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), the applicant's Supplement f or the Station was published in the Federal Register on April 11, 1972 to Environmental Report for Unit 2 and applicable sections of its Environmental Report and supplements for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1. and its response, in accordance with Paragraph III of Sect. E of Appendia D to 10 CFR 50 as to why the construction permit previously issued for Arkansas Euclear One Unit 1 should not be suspended during the period of the NEFA environmental review. The ageactes' comuments E-12
. . . _ . . _ -_..m._ . __ -. _. . - - - . _ _ _ _ ._ . . _ _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ - - - _ . . _ . . , - - _ .. . - - _ . . _ . - . .. . . . . - . ---
l i xxii xx111 (37 FR 7357). A prehearing conference was held ce June 21, 1972, la Russellville, Arkansas. The Evidentiary Hearing was held on REFERENCES FOR FOREWORD July 25, 1972, la Russellville, Arkansas, and recessed subject to the call of the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for the Arkansas Nuclear one Unit 2. The seceed seselon 1. Revision of Appendix D to 10 CFR 50, red. Regist. 35(175): of the Evidentiary Beartag to this proceeding (devoted entirely 18071-76 (Sept. 9, 1971). to the enviroasental aspects of the pending application for a permit to construct Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 will reconvene 2. Revision of Appendix D in 10 CFR 50, Fed. Regist. 36(190): la October 1972. 19158-59 (September 30, 1971). The Applicant le required to comply with Section 21(b) of the 3. Kational Dtvimamental Polfoy AaC of 2Jde, Public law 91-190, i Feders! Water Follution Control Act, as amended by the Water list Congress, S.1075 January 1,1970. Quality Improvement Act of 1970. 4 Arkansas Power and Light Company, Arkansas Jualdar One Mr. D. Clenn Boyer is the AEC Environmental Project Manager (301- Wit 2 Applement to Empironmental Report, Docket 50-368, 973-7205) for this statement. December 1971.
- 3. " Arkansas rover & Light Co. Notice of Availability of Applicant's Supplemental Environmental Report " Fed. Regist.
a 37(3): 150 (Jan. 6, 1972),
- 6. Arkansas Power and Light Company, Arkansaa #walear One Unit 2 A pplement 2 to Environmental Report. Docket 50-368, April 15, 1972.
i
+
4 i t 5 , E-13 4 5 1
l I l l l-2 I L -1 l o 2 **
- 1. INTROTCTION
~N&
- The staff has evaluated the applicant's request for a construction f f ,,, *
, 2 3'8 permit for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 to determine if the con-
,,,f., , . ,
- l
;k.
struction of this unit is consistent with the power supply require- *@ , ,g
- ' e g, ;" <
ments of the applicant's service area and to determine the environ- **{ . 1, 4'*! mental impact of this unit. In addition, the applicant's responsi- y *, g,
- 1
, bility to assist in the fulfillment of reserve power supply require- ;;8 *y4l'*g f[ $#
- ments for its parent company, Middle South Utilities, and that - , , ,
- f
,j$.- '
d company's reserve-related power supply requirements for the Southwest ; V' 4(
.' , T,ye *,
1 Power Pool was considered. The staff concludes (see Sect. X) that .g ,j the power produced by Unit 2 or its equivalent will be required to e; .'. i 5 f i i assure that the applicant's system peak demand can be met in the summer of 1976 and to assure that sufficient reserves exist la the {7o i] -j[A. ., p.,? 1, M parent company's system as well as in the Southwest Power Pool. 5 4 y ,I ] .g jf The staf f concludes that the selection of the Russellville site 7C .- te; l for Unit 2 was appropriate. "7 *",. ( i o gG k t A. SITE SELECTIO't ; &. o ..& ., . The site before start of any construction is shown in Fig. 1-1. {! 'g e ',7; - The actual construction site is the land midway between the indicated ., ; .f*d f ',y, water intake and outlet sites. The wooded hills and shoreline 3 .* # l ' , '({
- r in the foreground are part of the peninsula tip outside the applicant's j g property. The alte selected by the applicant for Arkansas Nuclear One ;{
),j,(*,
p .. ,
, a Unit 2 is the Russellville site cf Arkansae Nuclear One Unit 1. The f.,,p -
j" applicant chose the Russellville site for its Arkansas Nuclear One j ; fj- [ Unit 1 after analysing fourteen separate sites. Its analysis ef L e g# [e r, i these altee considered the availability of cooling water, a6at ee+ ll -* I 4 to highway, rail, and river transportatioo, nearness to existing ,, A
" # g transmission lines, physical features t Mr affect construction To s
$f l I
costs, and nearness to population centers. All of these except the last have a direct bearing on the cost of a station at a ;y E q f 4 'g k a particular site. However, the aspect of distanca ff = population 30 pC ' O, centers (Fig.1-2 and Sect.11-3) would af fect the to,et of the gO
' transsission system. The site is near the westera > g remity of , . ,
f pg g,') j (f the applicant's and the parent company's power distrioution areas i in the Arkansas Valley. ,"O g ,L n $c. 4
;. N ls J k.nce one nuclear power station is 91 ready la constrbtion at this ** yk j
*]
st:e, many items could be shared by a second station, such as intake gR a f l and discharge canals, fire protection systems, external radiation gg
- Q p[*, s i monitoring systems, environmental manitoring, railroad spur, machine og # * ~ J' l shop, and administration buildings. The radiation exposure and [g i environmental 1:npact resulting f ro. ;he second nuclear unit at the g I
Russellville site are discussed in detail in Section. T. 4 I i l E-14 p'
- . . _ - _ . - _. - .- , _ _ . - . ~-. . ---_-- -- .. - . - - - . -
1-4 This statearnt is ma analysis of the environmental tapact of Cait 2.
, , ,. , . s . , , o o e A rigorous review and analysis of the environmental impact of the g f combined operation of both Unit I and 2 will follow as part of the
/**
g5*' y z N y environmental analysis of the proposed operattag license stage of U**' I* y - Ig] w { -- m3 , ". .
- 3. APPLICAT108tS AND ppALS
( jh g g. a es
, = ( k F- 4 s 4, 8I N
.f j ' Table 1-1 lista the applications illed by the appitcant and the n l 3
I <
' ig t
"**********"***********'"**d'***'***"***'
For these applications that have been granted, the date of
. "E ' I' b a lg issuance is included. The letters granting the permite are
- l j f j a (
a presented in Appendia A of the applicant's Supplearst to m h 4
- L J
[/ F g
'g% J!
Environmental Report. s _ e g il &J { h jl 8 The applicant's Supplement to Environmental Report indicated taat g r ,I g I it has aise contected the Arkansas Planning Comunission, the West
=. . , {k,) ; 2g - central Arhan. - risoning and nevetop.e.t oi.trict, a.d th. o .ru mes: at ne= top rat co 1.. . These or, ant .tro.. .ere
[ g. f 4 g {A I I' ..id to h..e .tated th.t the Arkansas Nuclest One Unit 2 is
&g compatible with their plans for this area's regional economic ?
R l ll )>l' w -- L p m 3 I
@ y*
5 su4 e J
} t
'~'~c-J g r
a a
- I-I a , ,
3 g lL l l s j j
- a y : ci g_N- u r a
? * .o -
3 I laI : Illi sk l s 5l7
- p r
- 3l! H[ijf[i .-!j!n. Na
~ : - s I .Jg at ;, N g gg r+
- li g e .it .. ..----
f 4 E-15
15 g4 REFERENCE FOR SECTION I TaWe b L Peduses and Semes segumed fue WAm =metesen nmetas2 1. Arkaneae Power and Light Companye Arberisas A:aale2r Ons Chsf t 2 Supplawns to Fwirosvgental Raporte Docket No. 50-368e nessa, , A*""* December 1971e Appendix A. Posemes
- DID10 Ae. - fas pensus LSAIC Deposesment eiche Anny, 12648 EasseseI Nm DAN}346 797 5mr the ssasMm8>
Ceepeof Easiesess, ensus unesseenmaan . . and se et en B.orele Raet Duernse -esus am ne "--"- Renesses asas Ceepsof Eaymmen 7549 lemmene No DACMi>246402 fue the and of an enke meal and a esechegs emmel Casps of f agemma 32519 Pereus Na e N45041Pueuus 241 se- e
. eusse Inseny Ceeps d iapesses Pendias Param se durhoge see s==geMe emme Deparesumes of f see 5-161e Cassa Gemed escase meseg me . far Ighaug es the enembe almeneuse seened Askommes Publes $speseC D1619 Deshes tem U2286. Ceredkase of C and Nummassey en . -and operaer e essesar geassegesg ease W Ceumel C S 4671 Poeng Nm 9e6 W.duyseni sysem far sosissg esser tenedome f
paumesse Comerai cosasmusam 52449 Penuss Ns GGk af , sswaye meene s d Poecesse Caesself S-IF71 Peren Na pe7-W. ef . esonge esustmous forsley tees, my eenefisesene l pneuseos Comeset Comunessen &F7t D se.e ef N ,2549 see - f ds.y .P see. PuMac $spus C . <78 Decket ha D2323. Cassericese af C , and Neseeney fue SeptV tuo fuldts Esmese C $24 73 Appluense fee Cetensene of C . and Nesensty See 5064V has and Pollueese Coetsid t 39 B77B Parana Na TS A, emese homeng heder W- Comesal C l} 27 73 Penne Na 9D A, ament tede E-16
!!-2 11-1
- 11. THE SITE A. LOCAy!ON OF PLANT Arkansas Nuclear One is being built in Pope County, Arkansas. '
! ,\
The station site is situated on a peninsula on the left bank of f 3' * \ ,\ the Dardanella Reservoir * (Figs.11-1 and 11-2) in a valley approx- -1 '/ [ , /, imately 350 ft above sea level and is surrounded by rolling g gg/ > \ j The Arkansas valley holds notable historic interest for Indian !h ' *
- g archaeology and history, exploration and settlement of the g jI (
- y,,4 Louisiana Territory area, and modernisation including creation I',,,v.
e / of the inland waterway that dominates many features of the P \* g * . p Dardanella Reservoir site. Industrialization along this waterway S i shg ^/ ' is juxtaposed with a reston having established, but still ex-panding, empt. asis on recreational valuaa. Geology hydrology. I I .
'\
D ?.y * ,.gj[ * , 5i meteorology, and ecology are all related to the rural and incip- e \ * - tent urban patterns of the site and its environs. O e -* \ d, '
*[
- 4 5 ,
5 D The site includes 1164 acres, about 150 acres of which will be s T f * . f
/ .
occupied by facilities directly associated with the generating o % g -# \ units (Sect. 111-A). 1ccluded are an emergency cooling pond, s O
'. } )%U L U
,> h holding 84 acre-ft of water, and a natural-draft cooling tower.
3 gA
. -g # / 0 - 'y? ,
/
Water for the station is obtained through an intske canal that extends 4400 ft due east from the station to 1111acis Bayou. e ly
/ .sf k ['N g
[ ,
- t j ., s Liquid ef fluents go through a discharge canal into an 80-acre m 'g -
embayment and thee into the Dardanelle Reservoir. Figure 11-3 is a simp 11fied perspective of the station site and the principal ( .%4[V g
** b g
- k-f ',
' g.[.T
., f j,
i {, k ,* l ' features that interconnect with the environment. The Corps of gagineers. Department of the Army, has granted ea~ementa l in se j
} >
I three embayments totaling 220 acres to the Arkansas Power and E s'
/,. ',
Light Company for the establishment, operation, and use of an [ ; - exclusion area in the Derdanelle Reservoir areat n $
@ 'N ! !' f j
? e
- t v .;
Ii!!** \ k l j }/ -
/ '
e The of f tet.1 nam is teks Dardanelle but it is referred to frequently as the Dardanelle Reservoir throughout this i l'f {- 3I6? i
\N(. j e /k g
stat. - at.
! * .gl ~v * -
r
\
E E-17
~
r ~. , W Q, j ' .*qf->,,.,,,j; Qh,_ .'W ' ~ = g-3. y.;
' N_. p -
3 ...
$$ % .s. ,
1 =~1rkm(2.. . _ _ -
. .~ 4cc(*'J'Nkt i- .
s =..e m-o ~ . m%wna .
-1~- Rmy;, -
~
+ . .
Fig. 11-3. View of Arkansas Nuclear one station site and inumediate surroundings.
?
O
.i e,
1N-- /M ~ Y#
/
. ' y&'
.5
_ g7 x % - s N '.
+ '- _
vg ,
. . . '- y m\ 4.**,yk
%g s
~o s
p %' -
'A .
-( ,*
,o
.: s ,- , J8I ,
e. e. 6 3 j - e.
~~- ,
};
8
. . M[.[5
?.f .s w
- j. Z.~
'. 0*=.*.'.
/.
s
/[ b ..I- .
Fig. 11-2. Area within 10 miles of Arkansas Nuclear One. I
i 11 4 11-5 8NN a i . ii s ig .,1, "The easement herein granted shall include the r'ghts . ff to prohibit human habitation and to exclude all persons f ff _ from the said area during such periods of time that .
/
the grantee feels that conditions of the nuclear gener-sting unit would present a hazard to the health and ~
/ ,b .
/ s safety of the public..." '
atrr#Enct Le=t or recronfiomativv -av scopoo -
/
The easement was necessary for the effective structuring and - Pomatica- aata t eams)a j -z implementation of emergency planning but is not expected to / 7 affect recreational use of the reservoir shores. The applicant * - intends to develop a plan to accomodate public access to the E
~
embayment shores. This plan will be mutually agreeable to the applicant. - ~ f the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U M t g'y',['t "*I'"""*** g / . and the Arkansac Game and Fish Commiselon. w / a / B. REGIONAL DEMOCRAPHY AND 1.AND USE { e 10.m y j
/
~
/
- 1. Human Populations a ; f The applicant's analysis 2of human populations within a S0-mile $
radius was analysed by the staff. o s - Figure 1-2 shows that the Arkansas Nuclear One site is a considerable I distance from any of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Aream 2 s,c go . of the 1970 Census.3*" The applicant's population data and projec- 2
~ _
tions were formulated for the w : g _~ schedule originally envisioned { ears 1967 andNuclear for Arkansas 2012, with Oneregard Unit 1.to the In I j f the Supplement to the Environmental Report for Unit 2, the applicant2 $
~
/
~
j adjusted those data in minor ways for the years 1970 and 2015 before s -
/ -
i the 1970 census data were available. The etsff has used the 1970 * .
/
l census data for Arkansas I e* to calculate a more up-to-date regional S /
~ '
population estimate out to a distance of 70 miles (Fig. I-2). The staff also considers a range of future patterns (i.e., lower and 100 :- -- upper limits) of population growth, between which the true (but unknown) 20mt CF toe Perutaf 60s aeovso : future trend might plausibly develop. annassas muctran ont The staff evaluation of both the near term and future population growth ~ were estimated to be somewhat lower than those used by the applicant. ~ However, in evaluating the radiological ef fects (Sect. V-D) the actual 1970 census data and the applicant's projected population data to the , ' ' , year 2015 were used. This resulted in a more conservative estimate of 'O the total population exposure to radiation. i maDiUS Fe0W PLa47, enee ' Fig. 11-4 Population trends with distance f rom Arkansas Nuclear One. E-19
s 11-1 II-s in the staff analysis of the projected population growth, the outer (50-70 mile) ring of Fig. 1-2 includes Little Rock and other populated .. s'. ,,, ,,. ,e. .,
~
areas. However, these metropolitan districts are balanced out by such I]
/"'
e large ring of sparsely populated area that the increase of population on the average is almost directly proportional to the increase in area ,
,, q of an imaginary expanding circle about the site. This is reiterated =** >
by competison with a reference straight line on Fig. 11-4, whose slope w is exactly proportional to cumulative area inside such a circle. Summaries from the 1970 census data confirm the applicant's 'a relatively refined local data showing low population, relative to this reference line of regional average population, for
/ [ [LO s M /
several miles around the Arkansas Nuclear One ette. Much of this fti g. 2-isolation is due to location of the waters of the Dardanella Reservoir 98
'v >
=&- 3 -
itself. Numerical population data for circles of increasing radit in 4 .cis' MY * (_r .' wedges along 16 compasa p ints are shown in the applicant's Supplement f $ LW . to Environmental Report. Figs. 1-4 to 1-7. Transient population within f [. .2 G2 5 miles of the station due to recreational use of the reservoir are ' g 3(43._3:>[n ; q -
;(fi",Qrh yt '* y. ~r 7 ,
included in Fig. 1-8 of the Applicant's Environmental Report for ,p- -i j. . . Unit 1.5. yg g.ot$ff71%i:.K(i&gQ kg
. _rr I p j.y ' g = :q y
For a 50-mile radius, calculations from 1970 census data showed p .,_ an overestimate of population by the applicant for that year in 12 of the 16 directional sectors. Since the four cases of under- .*** dW-
.-w
,," Uv" jy'
]'r. m' g 4 ; w.w"-O a e.ti-tio. can susho .re au .a.t.ri, ci.e., north.a.t. .a.t- ,
northeast, east, and southeast) it seems unlikely that this difference ... is an artifact of the calculational procedure. Based on these p p.%r3p2*g (% === calculations, the staff is of the opinion that the applicant has overestimated future populations. Therefore man-rem doses calcu-n.----,
. ia cf ',Mh* ,,h [ '"
.# \
lated using his projected populations will likely be overestimated. [ -[V ,* ,' ' - .%pK-The assumed expansion in the southeast sector seems plausible, *. Me1 } 4' where suburban fringes of Little Rock may well become urban in j, , ,'h. d M **%*4f' , == 33 years. W ether the assumed growth factor of 5 materia 11ses vill depend on how much of this growth extende over the arbitrary h y E O 50-mila line. In the 15 other directions expension was taken by ,, , . M",7 %' u. ,. (. ,.. . the applicant to approximate growth factors of 1.4 to 1.8. These differences make some allavance for the inherently rural character that is likely to continue indefinitely in the rougher lands of the Fig. II-5. Geographical regions around the Arkansas Nuclear One site. Quachite Mountains to the south and the Boston Mountains of the Ozark Province to the north (Fig. 11-5). E-20
11-10 II-9 Considering Arkansas as a whole, the growth of human population a; pears to approximate the classic logistic growth curve from 1850 to 1940 (Fig. 11-6, main fitted curve on left). For a variety of reasons including wartime displacement and perhaps lack of local annassas Poputanom o' PEOPLE industrial employment opportunities, a net drop in population was 2 , documented in the census records for both 1950 and 1960. The a ' T -" 'T ' ,.i-7 patterna of rural migration and urban growth have been described
, a , a l
in deta113 ** for 1970. powever, the 1940 peak population had not
- 8 been regained. A combination of emigration and reduced birth rates j
P , I might conceivably keep Arkansas populations at a level somewhere
} l near the projected 2.2 million. This level appears empirically to y
y * (' - 4 C offer one naturs1 extrapolation from the history of actual population growth of 1850 through 1940. By implication, population
* } } ;, 3 6 5 radiation dose near the end of reactor lifetime would hardly exceed k g I$3% 2)E
- : 3 that for 1970 or 1975 if the datted curve applied to the future.
a s
- 3) I For comparison, USA national census records are shown on the right g ', =; side of Fig. 11-6 (on a scale reduced by 1/100).' The fact that
, 9 y, , the drop in Arkansas population makes the two curves overlap for F
g both 1960 and 1970 makes obvious the fact that Arkansas has had
* ;I i
very slightly less than 11 of the national population in the past
> 0* .
22 decade. Its upturning relative growth rate has almost equaleJ that
;l. ff of the national average. Both the state and national average
\. g
$ r i populscions will probably continue increasing in spite of initiatives
! 4% i to recognise the environmental and economic (per capita) advantages j -
/ ,* \ of distributing resources over a limited population rather than an g" ' j exponentially increasing one. However, recent trends indicate
, jf l diminishing birth rates (15.8 children per 1000 in the first quarter
% a .
/
'. of 1972 compared with 17.3 for all of 1971 and 17.6 for the first 1 3
{ j/ G quarter of 1971) and hence possibly lower future population growth.7
" l e k The actual population level and schedule of growth that are approxi-
,E is \N mated by the projected state and national population growth curves
{ n
=
I 8, a k ;g
\
\ \
will become evident only in future censuaes; therefore the extra-polations shown in Fig.11-6 are necessarily conjectural. The 5 \ \ national growth curve could plausibly extend to a level near 300 E '3 :gf;j* \ \ million people if past trends and a classic logistic growth pattern a y \ g continue; higher or lower limite could depart widely depending on the f \ asessmed birth rates. The lower and upper bounds m>st likely to in-e Lf. \
\
g clude the actual future population growth for the State of Arkansas jo i t i \ are also included. The lower curve has a limit of 2.2 million people, based on maintaining or alightly redistributing the predominantly usa Poputanom os PtoPLE 8 e u 88 patte m . W cercm(cmHW I E-21
I~ 11 11 unrealistic in the staf f's opinion) assumes resumption of a growth rate like that of the early 20th century. The limit of this curve approximates 3.6 million. tahi,Il 8. Maan ." _ and esade m to PopeMe N To summarise, the applicant's projections2 of population growth as** -* sw asta m one em for the year 2015 range mostly f rom 1.4 to 1.8 times his 1970 ,,,, w projectiona varying with direction from the site. These are con-sidered reasonable under his estinstee of markedly stimulated economic ,,%,,,,, esa 33:1 growth. However, the actual 1970 census levels were mors commonly ,m,,, iseJie s96.ess below the applicants 1970 assumptions so there are reasons to sus- .,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, non e 149.s pect the growth will not be as large or as early as those projected ,p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, si, sos s2i.60s by the applicant. However both the staff's and applicants population go.gmpw le s 57.1 extrapolations for the area around the site are within the bounds of m g g.,yn , those used in calculating the radiaticra dose to population (Sect. V-D.). g,,,,,,,,,,m 39.472 te.as2 Furthermore, a real increase in electricity use is anticipated by the a p a.s.n 2os co its 2l mid 1970's (Sects. I, XI) and the uncertainties of the true population situation and energy demand expand rapidly as one projects beyond the year 1980. tet.stemcrec,iend 79 1 Oli
"'"' '3 "
Schools and hospitals near the station include the London Elementary d School (100 children) which is 2 miles away, and the Arkansas $H TSs Polytechnic College (2500), at about 5 miles. There are also three w 31.274 jo.us medical f acilities 5 miles f rom the site: the St. Mary's Hospital reapa ed e.d enly ser pener e y==s (105 beds) and two nursing homes (combined total of 163 beds). p .m. 640 Sia 4,,,, 27.379 M.6)s
- 2. Land and Resource tise As ether ceopland e
p, im Stone quatries are at Midway, Altus,and the Dardanelle damsite; there are sand and gravel deposits near Scranton and the Arkansas ***8'****'"8***d'***P'"* 3,, ,,, River at Dardanelle; and natural gas is produced in a ntsaber of ,",,",,' 54.12: 6s. sis locations within 10 miles of the site. Coal, of coking quality As enne s no in most cases, is found in strip minen north of Russellville, . , , , 6as a near Clarksville, and near New Spadra and in pit mines near a, , 3 3.ei s % .316 Paris. ,,,,,,,,,,, y 2s 36 Peaches are the main food crop raised in the area primarily for as 2.62s i.os2 human consumption. Pastured and cultivated land, as well as the distribution of dairy cattle for 1964 are described in detail in
- Net padme the applicant's reports on Unit 1. Figs. 1-9 and 1-10. Grazing sees on U s Depiment er Asr=ehues. Teenty Dow ArW %
ca.ney?m N h W M w land use increased greatly by 1969, with a shif t f rom woodland pasture to fertilized pasture and grazed cropland.6 The closest dairy herd is that maintained by Arkansas Polytechnic College, E-22
11- 13 11 14
, , , n approximately 5 miles from the site. The staff observed other j5ag,[g [< cattle closer to this site and hypothetical dose calculations
{ s [* were made considering the observed pasture nearest the site, f[fl1*hlIEl a Foultry and normally dairy cattle for auch of their diet are k IE '8l usually fed from material imported far from the site. The pre-M 9 j f( .h j j g E g
- Aominant crops in the area are soy beans cotton, and sorghuma, The major farm product is livestock. (Tables II-1 and 11-2).
e 'l 3
]
8
), Recreational uses and other features of the region around I 3 [rI b
( t* the Arkansaa Valley are described in a brochure on the Darda-celle Reservoirs g g prepared by Arkansas Folytechnic College for the U.S. Corps of Engineers. It identifies the features and locations g y ) E fl s-of 20 public use areas (besidea four marinas) and indicates four more for future development, including 1111ncis Bayou. a _
~*~** ***
= .- g=*= ~ '; g[
l 4 i Van Sickle's booklet' og Arkansas forest resource identiftea the f g,g sof t and hardwood forested areas and the commercial land use in [ :I O3__O,$g
.O 50 wGS g[ [ yl g
four forest survey regions (Northern and Southern Ozark. Northern sad Southern Ouachita) and the whole State of Arkansas (Appendix A). f , [L In all regions s.vlogs are most important, with pulpwood second and 3
,g {g pgfI veneer legs, poles, firewood, and other industrial uses less in-portant. Cubic foot volumes, as given in Tables A-1. A-3 and 1 A-4 of Appendix A. provide the single measure most nearly inclu-
[ hg 6 w- .~ Rt 8 ** 88 ** $8 sive of material for all these usees fuel includes some additional material smaller than that included in such statistics. The major
- f. j, tree species or groups of trees of Table A-1 are then readily
[ , ,3 * ;g== {g compared for the state as a whole and the so-called "Ozark" dis-3
- J p g [-.. trict (which the Forest Survey extends for convenience to the
. E m g, Arkansas River, thereby encompassing some of the low-elevation g
" ~*
*E **"{3
*gg
- g{
parts of the Ouachita Geographic Province as delimited geologically in Fig. 11-5). Appendix A gives the regional data for evaluating s 9 the impact of transmission line construction and regional resources. f 3 EE $5*.0$$ k 'I gE Softwoods average only slightly over 10% of the volume in the 3 ,,, northern two tiers of counties, including three counties (north
. . . [ p k of the Boston Mountains) with less than 1% essentially " pure" J [ hardwood regions. Among the remaining counties north of the g Arkansas River. Pope and Johnsou are respectively first and
, O . O l- second in importance of sof twood (pine and red cedar).
C. ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY None of the historic sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project. The Arkansas E-23
11-15 11-16 Bistoric Preservation Program Officer has indicated that the proposed construction would not adversely af fect soy historically , or archeologically significant property in the area. $-; a-Research by the University of Arkansas Museum along many parts of ,Z # the Arkansas River valley had revealed a'undant remains of cultures yL 4, k 8* of many ages back to Paleo-Indian times (over 8000 years ago), when # , fluted and nonfluted points were used by hunters of bison and mast . R ., odon.' A Dardanelle Reservoir survey preceding inundation2 un-covered a small workshop-campsite southeast of the tip of a peninsula {k
. E;" 3 7 7 ,
which has since been flooded. A survey of the peninsula above the E *.*. , . , floodline in 1969 revealed five more artifact-producing locations ., 2 I, k" # N g- 6. p {. I (Appendix B of the Supplement to Environmental Report 2), 9; l. ,j; g, g
. n .. ;
The most productive archaeological site, on the east slope of Round *4 ,, g
,b 4,
Mountain, vaa inferred to be a campsite of the Archaic Stage, ante- [$ A 8 e dating pottery. Sparse material from an eroding shoreline designated R3 Te j j { 'I I 'fi.O ., as the discharge drainage included a corner-notched arrowpoint believed to be associated with the Late Ceramic Stage. Collections from these no
. A l .,'N f ig
- and three other minor sites did not include ceramic materials. The 79 ,i t
'7 i
.g Arkansas Archaeological Survey requested notification if new dis- %* %g coversee were made. The relatively advanced stage of construction of *2 / ./ 9 (f j
- 'd Arkansae Nuclear One Unit 1 suggests that areas likely to be af fected Y'i f' by it or by Unit 2 would hav;: been detected already. However, the 8 g ,6 , .; .,4,4 short time available for surveys and the limited anpunt of excavation ;. .
, ih g, performed to date make it natural to inquire whether less hurried 15 !! y '
}l/
V; I' ! *
- t, exploration in and around the applicant's property could be advan- " k 8 8 tageously included in continuing scientific and educational activity. @
D. ENVIRONMENTAL TEATt'RES j A , , e .. j
** 4 .$
- 1. Geolorv Qi '
&k /e, A concise nontechnical discussion of the Geology and Paleontology of the Ouachite Province, including the Arkansas Valley (Fig. II-5)
'h E
'h i.U s,
, ,p 7: f F
is set forth in the Dardanelle Reservoir Report.8 After inter- !
, g, '
(8 C mittent submergence by relatively shallow seas during most of the /' [r~j ; ,I Paleosoic Feriods, the late Mississippis- time opened dramatic { / /~ , episodes of ocean trough development anc thick sedimentary and . F volcanic deposition, followed by late Petr g..anten aiountain l [. M.. / .[ g ,,'l 9, / .
',(
folding and faulting, which governs the bedrock structure to the - present day.M*31 The Ozark Province, including what later was 9 ), - left (after erosion) as the Boston Mountains, underwent less intri-cate deformation, so that many of their rocks were uplifted with
. i/ [ , $[
g) j";
,* l' l
E-24
. - __ . . - - . -- - _ .- - - z. -- - -
11-17 11-18 4 nearly horizontal orientation.12 These rocks and the formerly confined and is properly artesian water. lof ty peaks of the Ouachita Mountains were eroded repeatedly with each continental uplift relative to the new seas. which deposited The quality of the groundwater varies greatly. For example, at Coastal Plain rocks to the south and east. Within about the last pit values from acid to alkaline, the bicarbonate range is 444 to 35 million years. further uplifts and erosion resulted in etching 5 ppe. and total dissolved solids range from 1559 to 34 ppe. The out the patterns of the present topography eroding soft formations total hardness values are between 4 and 930 ppe, most deeply and leaving the outcrop areas of harder rocks to hold up" the higher ridges that remain as today's relief. 1.ake Dardanelle is one of 17 impoundments (or pools) built along the Arkansas River (Figure II-8) to provide navigation depths of Figure 11-7 51 res a 3-dimensional picture of both the rock column at least 9 feet from the Mississippi River to the vicinity of (somewhat idealized) and the pattern of rock structure and topo. Tulsa Oklahoma (Port of Catoosa). Four of the larger navigation graphy that resulted from the processes just outlined. For example, pools also provide for the generation of hydroelectric power. Round Mountain marks a downfold or syncline in a comparatively Flood control storage is not included in the 17 impoundments. hard rock layer (as do many other hills in the vicinity). The Complementing these structures are seven upstream lakes (Keystone Arkansas Nuclear One station is oriented along the same East. on the upper Arkansas River near Tulsa, Oklahoma; Cologah on the West syncline axis east of that mountain. upper Verdigris River; Fensacola Markham Ferry, and Fort Cibson on the Grand (Neosho) Rivert Tenk111er yerry on the Illinois River, Accordingly, the geology of the plant site is fairly simple. The and Eufauls on the Canadian River). All seven of these reservoirs site is immediately underlain by 13 to 24 ft of heavy clay or silty provide valuable flood control, and all except oologah have facili. clay, which rests on hard shale and sandstone of the McAlester ties for generation of hydroelectric power which increases low formation. These rocks are horisontal at this locality. The flows on the Arkansas River in times of drought. Oologah also nearest faults are 2.5 to 5 miles away and have not been active contains storage to provide supplementary water needed for navigs-since the Cretaceous period. tion on the Verdigris River during droughts. The bedrock at the site is actually part of a large syncline, the Lake Dardanelle is 51 elles long. is over 50 feet deep at its lower Scranton syncline, which strikes east and west. The syncline is and and covers about 36.600 acres. It is located about 258 miles bordered a few miles to the north by the gentle London anticline (1940 survey) upstream f rom the mouth of the Arkansas River and and a few miles to the south by the equally gentle Frairie view 205.5 miles upstream along the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Naviga-anticline. About 25 miles to the south, tha gentle structures of tion System channel. The top of the navigation pool is elevation the Arkansas Valley give way to the completely folded structures 336 feet m.s.1. and the top of the power pool is at elevation 338 feet of the Ouachita Mountains. An equal distance to the north, these m.s.l. so that 2 feet of power pondage is provided to raregulate same rocks form the flat-lying beds that underlie the Boston variable inflows for the generation of hydroelectric power. Mountains.
- 3. Meteoroloav
- 2. Hydroloav Considerable meteorological detail is provided in the applicant's Croundwater is not a major source of water in the area except for revised environmentaltoreports for Unita 1 and which are some-the farmhouses in this region that get their domestic supplies what complementary one another.S.2 The 2,5 first indicates that from wells.5 Most of these wells yield only a few gallons per ongoing local collection of data started in 1967, with tower wind minute; the best yield only as much as 50 gym. These small wells speed data at 20 and 190 f t heights being collected since June derive their water from joint systems in the shale and from the 1969. Temperature sensors at 5, 85, and 190 f t provide information interbedded sandstone, since the clay and silty clay overburden on inversion conditions, which af fect rates of vertical mixing are too nearly impermeable to yield even the modest quantities and hence of dilution of any atmospheric releases of radioective required for a domestic well. Because the clay overburden pro. material under scheduled or emergency conditions.
vides a seal, the water in the jointed shale and sandstone is E-25
_- __ . .__= .m._m.- _ - - . . . . .m . -. . . . . . . ~ . , _ _ - . - . . . .- _ . , - _m m .-.m.m._4m 11-20 11-19 na Supplement to Environmental Report 2 for IJnit 2 gives some results from these ongoing programs. Both reporta cover 7-year climatology ; records from the nearby station at Russellville, which should be ' ' locally applicable. The climate of the Arkansas River Valley in the I region of the site is continental. The July mean daily minimum and maximum temperatures are 70 and 94*F, and a corresponding range in January is from 30 to 53*F. The average annual precipitation is em .esee n..o 49 inches, with the highest precipitation occurring during
, i .. :, a '
spring and early sunumer. Only minor snowfalls occur in this area. l T~"~ g' a Thunderstorms occur on approximately 55 days of the year. hren ty l { , l tornadoes were observed in Pope County between 1916 and 1971. j O 7 Records from Little Rock 2 indicate 40 hourly occurrences of snow per winter and 12 hourly occurrences in spring. Hourly occurrences
*/. f l-- [~ '
/l8 l of general fog2 (and of ground fog) are Winter 268 (42), Spring y
,f
.g 1 Q 175 (60), Swamer 49.5 (72), and Fall 113 (61). Weather data taken at Russellville Arkansas, are comparable to mean data observed at
- s ". .{ Little Rock, Arkansas. The applicant's study assumed that records
.E l-- #
2 I . le
~
; of the occurrence of fogging at Little Rock are characteristic of E
{:{ { { g l the site. Since the latter data from Little Rock may be slightly O ! 8
*T ~
dif ferent f rom actual experience on a peninsula surrounded by
$ l gl F
'3 l .y g naturally or artificially warmed water, more study is needed to
& a
- g. g
; I better evaluate the local conditions af fecting prediction of cooling I. $ j= ; -
)
g1 I tower plumes. Data to be collected on ette will be used for further j "
> . . R.--[ a
. I$ h. evaluation.
$ I l I
"{ - {"p a
f Atmospheric stfLility conditions are already enumerated as showing g f, ,_ g ( _p 28% of the wind observations under "slightly stable" (Pasquill t n t .g) Type E) temperature conditions and 71 for " stable" (Type F) con-
}
se 7 g l}
- ditions when dilution of fog or radioactive ef fluent will be least.
Cenerally easterly winds are commonest for these winds as well l { as winds under " neutral" (D) and upst of the " unstable" (A-C) i g g -l ', , , , , , y hkNh conditions. One implication of these facts is that Round Mountain, Immediately vest of the station and cooling tower would probably g p,l- [ g . f, receive considerably more impact than other localities - even 4 g l = . g though uncertainties remain as to how great this impact would be D gA (see Sect. Y, VI). 8 , l{l} ! E $ ** E. ECOLOCT OF THE $1TE AND ENVIRONS g , g '((
,I 1. Ecolorv of Terrestrial Environs l The site is located in a gently rolling valley (Arkansas Valley) eg having diverse tcpographic f eatures, which contribute to the wide distribution of various plant species and commmunities. Soils are t
E-26 I, t
II-21 II-22 transitional between prairie and forest sotis, somewhat leached, supporting mainly oak-hickory forests.53 Soils are designated as Ultisols, low in bases with subsurface horizons of clay accumu- . g < 1ation, usually moist but often dry during the warm season.h Details of the forest, pertinent to Arkansas Nuclear One are g;M '
' 5 ;l '
. y,$
f ; .; , given in Appendix A. gg s .CG < , y. .; p f
- g. 'q' ,'
Major forest types (Fig. II-9) of the area surrounding the site a, g ..,.'L' ',' :,9, include:s .,
!~g.
f* ,.,,. s' .s % 2;
- M % h ,~
- 1. cak-hickory, in which 50% of the stand is oak and hickory, V. g with gun, yellow poplar, alm, and maple as consmin associates; ,[
g 4: .'y eo
- 2. loblolly-shortleaf pine, in which 50% or more of the stand is (( .
p @b ..'J J . loblolly, shortleaf, and other southern pines, with oak, go ;' 'D . , %/ - hickory, and gun as common associates; a,, oa g 4 l ,,g { @ ,,
- 3. oak-pina, in which 50% or more of the stand is upland oaks and ?a
' N .#v p .E' kOM southern pii.es contribute 25 to 49% of total composition; common associates include gum and hickory; and
{* s
.. ;.Q r.
e @ ,
.f;};['
s , oak-gua-cypress forest of bottom-lands and st ream banks com- 5 4. posed of tupelo, blackgum, sweetgum, oaks, and cypress, with o ,a : . cottonwood and willow as important associates. [ .'< . i
. s 6 . f. -@
The dominant forest community adjacent to the power station site on and over much of the land area surrounding the Dardanelle Reservoir a is oak-hickory, with red cedar and shortleaf pine on drier sites.2,8 7 In some instances the major forest cover is interrupted by prairie g openings, rock outcrops, end farmlands, g On flatter, poorer sites, a scrubby forest conmunity dominated by sp2 post and blackjack oaks, with occasional black hickory and winged g elm, occupies considerable area. Common associates within this " ~ communi are shortleaf pine, red cedar, persimmon, and gua E l E O O bumelia _ . In slope forests (north facing and stream valleys), white oak . A g$o @ shares dominance with red and black oaks. As in drier oak forests, O i i Ei e dogwood becomes an important understory species.13 Other tree k E j hk species found in this community are alms, hickortes, red and o 5 m 1 5 sugar maples, ash, black gum, walnut, and black cherry.e & RO e a Hetbaceous wild flowers abuund in these more mesic comununities. [ Oj
- S: ;
A % a 3 A E-27
11-23 I In occ.stonally flooded lowland areas along streams feeding the Dardanella Reservoir and lands adjacent to tl.e shoreline are distinct forest stands dominated by silver maple, black willow, river birch, and ela. Commen associates are oaks, sycamore, and sweetgum.e pp Modifications of major plant habitats within the oak-hickory forest are characterised by dominant tree and common herbaceous ga= e] [j species and identifiede g, ygg, gg.go, , o { 3,g, 7,
, g I
{ , zao : Salg i , I, l f l {e ,I [{* g
- 2. Ecolony of the Aquatic Environs l*[
g g j,
- a. ceneral IcI eg; rj$ g I
os. ) , I Lake Dardanelle at the site of Arkansas Nuclear One is charac- E*~ teristic of a man-made reservoir, with fluctuating water levels '5E ,g controlled by upstream and downstream dans and with coves and a; embayments where tributary streams feed the reservoir. ; a 3 yg9 l3 e gpr I gy [ap [.4 g*(II a 5 I et Fr - g4 {g - Water-based recreations 1 activities are widespread, although because of pollution some portions of the reservoir are we recom- [c
,g I*
ff fg {,,7 g J g Q j {I e o - mended for body contact sports such as swimming and water ska-. .' !~ Discussions in July 1971 with personnel of the Arkansas Pollution 2* g* [ f A fE i Control Commission revealed that coliform bacteria levels in the u ":r g((f main reservoir were unacceptable. However, most of the bays and :r o v inlets are relatively nonpolluted. (( ,, (( fa
- b. Birds EO IfII LN *(
The waters around the Arkansas Nuclear One site are particularly "Q Il-1
< ae a rich in waterfowl and birds whose feeding is associated with P I aquatic habitats.t.s Although no numbers are given, vintering EE and early spring population of both the bald and golden eagle is "2 reported.0 The bald eagle is included on the Department of the a ". =go Interior list of endangered species.15 Many waterfowl are attracted "
= .r4 g 793g to this area by the presence of Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge.
which is 7 air miles south of the site. This refuge is a concen- [* ' 1
.{4 gIflf'lI
[ [ tration point from which ducks and other waterfowl spread out to IE nearby bays during the winter months. I f4 ({ g] The identification and general habits of these waterfowl have been :a m-a reportede by the Advisory Conunittee for Leisure Science of Arkansas e, 5 e I E-28
_ . _ _ ___ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . ___m_ . _ 11-25 like the phytoplankton, varied with sampling date and location. Polytechnic College for the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Of the 30 Rotifers were the most consnonly occurring sooplankters, with the ' species of waterfowl (listed in Appendix B), about half are ducks. genus Frawhionka being most f requently observed. Crustaceans. Surt h e feeders such as widgeone, baldpates, gadwalls, mallards e particularly #JkPlii, were the second most abundant. and cittates pi stat 1s. and shovelers consume vegetation and bottom debris from were the least abundant scoplankters, shallow water bays. The teals and wood ducks can be expected to feed in the more narrow streams adjoining Lake Dardanelle. In the Bottom organisms varied in kind and number. Bottom samples con-open or deeper waters, diving ducks (canvasbacks, redheads, ring- taining from 4 to 236 organtama per square foot have beta reported.16 necke, buffleheads, and scaupe) are more abundant. In most cases these have been identified only with a family or higher order of classification. These organisms else are listed Waders, such as herons and bitterns, are found in the marshy and in Appendix 8. Larvae of Diptera (two-winged flies) were the most shallow water areas around Lake Dardanelle. These birds consume comanonly occurring bottom organisme. Chaoburus and Chimarna.a - fish, frogs, small reptiles, and crayfish. Crebes, mergansers, appeared frequently in bottom samples. Nerbers of the family and pelicans are observed in the more open waters, where th*F Tubtficidae (sludgeworma) also were common. Other organisms in-feed on fish. ciuded roundworms, segmented worms additional insect larvae, and mollusks.
- c. Plankton and Bottom Organisms
- d. Fish An environmental study of Dardanelle Reservoir by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock for the applicant has been in progress The fish of Dardanelle Reservoir are consumers both of smaller since June 1. 1968. Reports issued by this group 16 contain results organisms and of other fish. Information on both kinds and of sampling for plankton and bottom organisms. ,Phytoplanktone numbers of fish has been furnished by the University of Arkansas sooplankton, and bottom organisms are listed in Appendiz 3. at Little Rock stud 16 and by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.
Fisheries Division. 8 Appendiz 5 lista 29 species of fish for The primary producers (organisms that use solar energy to synthe* Dardanelle Reservoir. lio migratory fish have been observeJ in sise organic matter from inorganic raw materials) of Lake Darda* the area. nelle are the phytoplankton. These organisms also are the major food source for sooplankton and for many fish.D Samples from A recent survey 38 (September 1971) made in the embayment into which LakeDardanellehavecontainedfrom3.620to38.175phytoplankty Arkansas Nuclear One will discharge yielded 20.070 fish for a 4-acre organisme per liter, depending upon location and sampling date. collection site. Forage fish made up 94.4% of the total number of These organisms have been identified as to genera and relative fish collected (85.5% of the total weight). and predaceous fish made abundances have been tabulated. Diatoms (eight genera) are the up the remainder. Shad (gissard and threadfin) accounted for 76.6% dominant phytoplankters, with occasional large populations of of the total number of forage fish. The most common predaceous fish green algae such as Oedogon M . gacept for an increase in total were channel catfish, bass (largemouth and white), and crappie (white number of phytoplankton per liter during the summers, no clear-cut and black). The shad population was dominated by adult gissard shad pattern of species distribution has been shown. The appearance too large (6 to 9 in.) for small predators. The predator population and disappearance of certain forms, depending upon sampling date was composed largely of adult fish; for example, 17- to 19-in. Large-and location, may be due in part to the young age of the reservoir mouth bass were the prevailing year class. This reflects a high (about six years). Blue-green algae (four genera). green algae availability of food for large predaceous fish but a low availability (14 genera), and flagellates (three genera) have also been identified. ,g g g g , ,,,gy , Zooplankton feed on particulate organic matter, which includes phytoplaaf+ ton, bacteria, and detritus. Twelve genera (Appendiz B) have been identified in the Dardanelle Resevoir, and their relative
- abundances have been tabulated.16 Abundance of these organisms.
+
E-29
l 11-27 3g.23
'1 REFERENCES FOR SECTION Il 12. Caplac, W. M., Subsurfaae Geology of #0rthwestem Arkansas, Arkansas Geological and Conservation Commission Information Circular No. 19, 1957.
- 1. Arkansas Power and Light Company, Arkansas h lear One Unit 2 Supplement to Envi mnmental Report. Docket No. 50-368, 13. E. Lucy Braun, Aciduous Fonets of Eastern # orth America, December 1971, p A.8-1. Hafner Publishing Co., New York, 1964
- 2. Arkansas Power and Light Company, Arkansas #walear One Unit 2 14. U.S. Department of Agriculture A forest Atlas of the Sokch, Supplement to Empimnmental Report Docket No. 50-368, U.S. Covernment Printing Office, Washington, 1969.
December 1971, and subsequent supplements and amendments.
- 15. Department of the interior. Sureau of Sport Fisheries and
- 3. Bureau of the Census, Number of inhabitants, Arkansas, W11d11fe, Official List of L%1 angered Speoisa cf the L%ited PC(1)-A5 Ark., U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, D.C., States October 1970.
June 1971.
- 16. University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Ardanella Reservoir
- 4. Bureau of the Census, Cenem! Population Chameteristics, Illi sois 52pou Abbayment Background Stud "
d , Progress Reports 1 Arkansas, PC(1)-85 Ark., U.S. Department of Commerce. (January 1969) through 6 (June 1971). Washinton, D.C., September 1971. 5. 11, C. K. Reid Ecology of Inland Waters and Estuaries, Reinhold, Arkansas Power and Light Company, Arkansas Nuclear One Unit i New York, 1961. Supplement J to Environmental Report Docket No. 50-313, November 1971. 18. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Fisheries Division Fish
- 6. C. Taeuber, " Population Trends of the 1960's," Soienos 176: Population Saple Reports, Dudanelle Reservoir Backgmund Survey, September 1971.
773-77 (May 19. 1972).
- 7. Associated Press " Birth Rate Continues to Nosedive. First-Quarter Figure is 15.8/1,000,* Chattanoogrr Times, Saturday, June 3. 1972.
- 8. Arkansas Polytechnic College, Danlanelle Reservoir, U.S. Army.
Corps of Engineers, 1969.
- 9. C. C. Van Sickle, Arkansas Fonst Resource Pattems, USDA Forest Service Resource Bulletin S0-24, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, La.,1970.
- 10. Cranets, Carey, Coology of the Arkansas Paleosoia Area, Arkansas Geological Survey Bulletin 3,1930,
- 11. Maley, S. R., Geology of the Samnton and Neu Blain Quad-rangles Logan and Johnson Counties, Arkansas, U.S. Geological Servies Professional Paper 536-3, 1968. '
E-50
111-2 111-1 111. THE PL ANT Arkansas Nuclear One consists of two units. Unit 1 is a pressurized-2N ,#[ water reactor with condensers cooled by once-through cooling, while Unit 2 is designed to use a closed-cycle system with a natural-I g p ,' l Q l fyy, jJ i draf t cooling tower for heat release to the atmosphere. The 1 *3 following systems are shared between Units 1 and 2: raw water , (I e - ' storage, emergency cooling pond, startup boiler, radioactive laundry, 2
! ' , I J 3 aanitary waste system, chlorination system, intake and discharge ,,.f } fi canals, solid radioactive waste systems, hydrogen and nitrogen
{ systems, the auxiliary building crane, and portions of the boron C F i' 9j E {i '! i i management and liquid radioactive waste systems. .' CP. 4 f A minimum flow of 850 cfs from the Unit I circulating water system > vill be maintained during Unit 2 operation to provide dilution of % ., i f liquid ef fluents, including radioactive wastes and cooling tower I Q blowdown. Unit 2 discharge flow is estimated to be about 4 to 10 e ,; -
% N__-
cis. ?
,\
Y ~
- 9 b .< )
A. EXTERNAL APPTARANCE ?= --
,4 4 _ _ . _
> -rO The station buildings are of modern industrial architectural design. N O' f '" '
Variations in geometrical shape and colors that harmonize with the $ = surroundings have been used in an attempt to provide an attractive E e ,. structure. No exposed machinery will be visible from outside the ' . h'f , , ' station. Figure 111-1 is an artist's drawing of the completed station, showing the location and function of various components. g*'M fg
)Y
)hg' '
e a
'4 Very little noise due to operation will be audible outside the 7f h.i({(M buildings.
"i 3 ,
2
- s
- 4 _ ,
Unit 1 and 2 when completed will occupy 152 acres of the applicant's * ' 1 1164 acre site. This portion of the site has been altered exten-3 ;l%[s s sively by clearing, grading, excavating, and heavy construction ! '1 !)'
"E ' u{s %
activities associated with Unit 1 and portions of Unit 2. Upon # completion of construction the immediate plant site will be land- I scaped. About 45 acres are available for possible future units. S yM . The remainder of the site includes an additional 233 acres where o I j h' '- ' i exclusion or temporary disturbance may occur. The balance of 734 ? I Ol ' h*' y i {/ (g[, /f acres will be left undisturbed in its present undeveloped state undergoing natural ecological succession. Some modification to t" p i, ,' selected areas yet to be designated for public use and recreation -g./ ga ; will cover limited areas, so that alm 3st 601 will remain as an a unfenced reservation. ? ; Q
)
The reactors are housed in cylindrical structures, and the attached j buildings containing the control room and generating f acilities are ! (% j conventional in shape. The switchyard is east of these facilities. E E-31
_ _ . . . - -., .- -~ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ , . .--.mm. _ _. ~ . - . . , b 111-3 111-4 The natural-draf t cooling tower for Unit 2 will be approximately approximately 68 miles to the vicinity of Fort Smith (estimated 475 f t high, 390 f t in diameter at the base, and will be the most as 24 additional miles in Yell County,18 in Logan County, and conspicuous structure at the site. Based on observations at ex- roughly 26 in Sebastian County). 1 sting cooling towers the plume from the natural draf t tower may rise up to 1000 ft. The tower and the plume will be visible f rom From the same juncture near Danville and Ola, there is another most of the area within 10 miles of the site. existing 500-kV line with about 12 additional miles in Yell County. 21 in Perry County, and 34 in Pulaski County, crossing corners with on clear days the station will be visible f rom Sunset Lookout Point Saline County at several points. From the Mabelvale substation in Mount Nebo State Park, approximately y miles south of the site south of Little Rock there is not only exchange for local sales and at an 1800-ft elevation. The station can be seen clearly from but interconnection through the South Central Electric Companies this vantage point. The station will also be visible to motorists group established for the seasonal diversity interchange of energy f rom many points on 1-40, which runs east and west and is located with the Tennessee Valley Authority. Tae remaining two lines north of the site. The reactor building for Unit I at about 194-ft scheduled for Unit 1 will distribute energy at 161 kV directly above plant grade is visible from State Highway 326, which parallels into the high-voltage system, increasing the applicant's capacity the eastern bank of the lilinois Bayou from Russellville to and improving voltage regulation in the Russellville and Morrilton Russellville State Park along the shores of the Dardanelle Reservoir, areas, 4
- g. TRANSMISSION 1.INES One additional 500-kV line will be required to dist ribute the energy generated by Unit 2. The project involves constructing Five transmission lines (four planned by the applicant for Unit 1 approximately 92 miles of single-circuit line f rom the Arkansas and one for Unit 2) are required for the ef fective distribution of Nuclear One Substation, northwest of Russellville, southeasterly electricity f rom Arkansas Nuclear One. These lines will require via the proposed Mayflower Substation, southwest of Mayflower, over 3700 acres of rights-of-way.1.2 Faulkner County. to the existing Mabelvale Substation. The new 500-kV line will distribute the bulk of the energy from Unit 2 The 'cansmission plan for distributing the energy generated by east to the Mabelvale Subststion. The proposed Mayflower Substation Arkansas Nuclear One requires at least two new switchyards and will distribute energy at 115 kV using additional lines of unspect-additional f acilities in five existing substations. On the site fled extent directly into the high-voltage system, increasing adjacent to Units 1 and 2 a 500-kV switchyard will contain 500-kV C8Pacity and improving voltage regulations in the Little Rock,
'- North Little Rock, and Conway areas. The Mayflower Substation Positions for three transmission lines, a 500 to 161-kV transmission tie autotrarsformer bank, and 161-kV positions for two transmission will also terminate f uture incaming 500-kV transmission lines from lines with lines to the start-up transformer for both Units and the the east. Figure III-2 shows proposed routes for the three 500-kV 500 to 161-kV autotransformer bank. The switchyard will occupy an and two 161-kV lines.
area 1040 by 1240 f t immediately east of Unit 1. Lattice type galvanized steel structures will be used throughout the substation. C. REACTOR AND STEAM El.ECTRIC SYSTEMS Five new high-voltage transmission lines will distribute power The steam supply for Unit 2 is a pressurized-water reactor supplied from both units as mapped in Fig.1-3 of the applicant's Supplement by Combustion Engineering, Inc. , with sechtel Corporation as to Environmental Report.3 One pair of 500-kV 11ses scheduled for Unit I consultant.8 This reactor will have an initial core power of traverses 5.3 miles north and westward in Pope County and extends 2760 MWt reference design, giving an electrical output of 950 MW, ! southward from the river 8.4 miles in Logan County and about 10 including 10 MW for pump use. An ultimate Nuclear Steam Supply miles in Yell county. Then, from a juncture point near Danville System output of 2900 MWt with 974 MWe is anticipated. The environ-and Ola, the applicant's figure just cited shows one line connect- mental evaluation is made for the ultimate thermal output of Unit 2. ing westward for exchange of power with Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company. This 500 kV line traverses an additional distance of The steam generators are the vertical shell-and-tube type, containing moisture separators. Electrically driven, single-suction centrifugal E-52
III-5 III-6 pumps containing mechanical seals circulate the primary coolant. Steam is converted to electrical energy by means of an 1800-rps tanden, compound turbine consisting of three casings and designed
, ! for saturated steam conditions (see Fig. III- 3) .
1L ak 0 4 I i' ** l,\, D. THE PLANT EFFLt'ENT SYSTEMS n: _; 4 i . b S. 1. Heat sh 3l3 O y h ye ,r j' f* I ,
] t[
I ' l
, W Q Unit 2 employs a cooling tower and closed loop system for trans-ferring waste heat to the environment, es shown in Fig. III-4
, ###**** ***#,b F
3 E
' l I!) {'l I
3 A / ki : I g"g!! T ne turbine condensers will be cooled by a closed circulating water system, which will transfer nearly all of the waste heat 3 ' 33 \ i*f to the ambient air flowing through a natural-draft cooling tower. f i Ih ilD/ 4
,' h '
The remaining waste heat will be discharged to the embayment as g 8 / blowdown water from the cooling tower, diluted with at least 850 g f, f , fs cfs (383,000 gpm) of ef fluent water f rom Unit 1. ne quantity of a y% blowdown can be calculated f rom a material balance on the system. R ,f
\q
- f f ' ,\1 l d,! , The applicant has indicatedL that he foresees operating this system 7 , !
- q' 1 with concentration f actors in the range of 3 to 14, but the most l *
- _.w l l
/
- b( /
,i probable concentration factor is 7. In this operating mode, the waste heat discharged is about 0.2% of the total load.
F i ,* -s $ , l / ! Additional cooling water systems are provided for the nuclear
- , j l f,l jf and noenuclear auxiliary components, but their contributions to E
8
" j ' * /l
' a the Dardanelle Reservoir are negligible. Water for the Arkansas f Nuclear One station will be taken directly from the Illinois 3 [ ' [_,d *
.4 f* Bayou of the Dardanelle Reservoir and pumped through the intake
{ J.' l f , , lg : e structure at the end of a 4400-ft canal. This canal is approxi- _.4 j* mately 85 ft wide at the bottom, with its banks appropriately ff
# /
C /. i,l j sloped to minimize erosion. The sloped sides of the canal will E I%/ j
./
t be protected against erosion. The velocity of water flowing in r
* %,h '
f% the canal will be 0.8 fps at the minimum pool level of 336 f t above mean sea level when the circulating water pumps f rom Unit I supply-
\p -
A**[,,,,J , +--- ing dilution and the service water pumps supplying makeup for Unit 2 3 *h ' I are in operation. The Unit 2 intake structure contains the pumps P,. g .g % f . for supplying the makeup water. The Unit 1 intake structure contains 6 y ( l
* . the pumps for ef fluent dilution and the fire protection systems for a
* "IrJ I
)6 '., p, ~
l both units. g 1
* {^ The intake structure for Unit 2 will be provided by a continuation of the intake structure for Unit 1, but is shorter (Fig.111-5).
I - [~ 7 , The pumps are protected f rom damage by bar racks and traveling screens to keep out floating debris and fish above fingerling size. The bar racks, with a 3-in. maximum opening, are provided for the protection of the traveling screens. The screens are the vertical I E-35
tarustA 0*a8' CDQv46 fteta 9'I 6*4 E a 0* e b 4***MC CVCLf 54Co 'l'eF 4P5 ese t wa.Maabre'- < CSS- 40 goe +de I 7 wa wa C.As te-e*
... t .mpx p=_.
esnm. [r
.co [ 11r wtx. at. . a
'v- 4...
I H; be,.a , , .a'ea s i iu lff"* a I--e w - .==. " ' -
- =
M bW.*,?
-- j Mw,g-l]f i i E E E.g
s e,. .. a rwm u.r e i
-a...
- - .. s
,43 6 .
; .tw v.= 1 . ' s L T
-"*""F ,,,,,,..e) !
m,, , j . .w-si ewue . m L. llll5,* - + - - - - - >
.m,,.,._.- , , . -
^A tesse tett'
.se" 00 h84 5 m _
y,g ppgg -O^---~
.'~_.. -
_~_~'~~; * ' _ '
-:.R~~}--',-_-
-- __ _.^ " " ' --- -- +
'?
; ' ~ '. -
Fig. 111-4. Heat dissipation system for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2. 2 e La.1
,[..t.r. :.K,
'\'";,,,.:',*
... **? j
*- aes ,[
ew a f N
.- i T - - .
7 y li ) h(, -'I Q) - 50"" O.
. ( l -
_. . eas ae.as; _.._. . . .,... r-.
! *j* ,
.: ,m , g A l ens asces .ames
} m[ .
.c'
.g p= ene f4 .
-=._'.-15T' -
" =
. ,e r %......t
- i. e .v o- < . ,
.ae e-. an. <. .e,rs ,.
.a ,
we s,e r e-.aa== e W:t
. U ~. ~'
i a, su or ..r a p ,,,,.,., . . . .
. d -.. - .".
_-....a-
.s . -
' *a"-
i Fig. 111-3. Coolant system flowsheet, including of f-g ts system.
111-9 III-10 type, with a screening medium consisting of 9-f t-wide baskets car-ried on two st rands of 24-in.-pitch roller chain. Screen mesh is No. 12 galvanized steel with 3/8-in.-square openings. Under normal m.,___- operating conditions the water velocity will be 0.4 fps through the [ b'- - - screens3 for Unit 2. The dilution water intake velocity throegh [_ _// // the Unit I screens will be about 2 fps. [/ ', Makeup water to compensate for the system lossas through evapora- % // / tion, blowdown, and drift is estimated to be about 31 cfs or about [y
- // !
f, 13,800 gpm at maximum dry-bulb temperature conditions of the j/ * * ~ ambient air assuming a concentration factor of 7 in the closed cycle U . '
/
'N system. The tower blowdown will be released to the discharge 7 [/
P // , ,
\
* ','; structure af ter dilution with 383,000 gpm (850 cfs) from the Unit 1 circulating water ptanps, [The heat load that this blowdown stream
// /N \ \/,e imposes on the embayment is very small (less than 0.2'F) and should 7
S
// '
v r
% /fs>- ~~-{- %
L contribute an insignificant load to the waters of the embayment and the Dardanelle Reservoir.] The blowdown flow is estimated to range E ^ {p'; , [ \a between 2.6 and 10.6 cfs (1180 and 4700 gpm), and this heated water
= /
b will pass through an outlet of approximately 3440 f t# and then enters y \\' '- the main channel of the Dardanelle Reservoir. The system is shown N - schematically in Fig. III-6. e \ \ ' T The heat exchangers in the decay heat removal system are not de-p a \\ N
\
g
\_r[-
1 . 't e
\ c y
4 signed to operate for extended periods on the water available in the Dardanelle Reservoir because of its high mineral content. Thus, R g \it mg% 3 '
- 5 a % '6 during periods of shutdown when the decay heat removal systen. is in operation, the cooling water to the decay heat removal system g
4 i will be pumped by the service water pumps in the intake structure g 'g , 4 T
'{ fromanemergencycoolingpond. This pond, approximately 84 acre-ft u s fyj/
containing about 2.7 x 10 gal, will be constructed and maintained 7, / ' -- ' by the applicant on his property. The pond is equipped with a 7 e-
/ ~
(1 spillway to discharge overflows to the embayment north of Round 8' ;f _E Mountain.
" P g 4
*h_ _a.D ' " %
i k b7 e'
- w. . - Normally the water in the emergency pond will be maintained by e ,, rainf all and will have a relatively low mineral content. Water 5,
" 3 t, h can also be added f rom the Russellville water system.
a f d M [ j p( e-- In ca _ of an emergency, the water to the service water pumps will
; j .Mgry)[
~P i 0 g ".,...,"~' Latially be supplied by the Dardanelle Reservoir, and can then be supplied by either the Dardanelle Reservoir or the emergency 11 l f , hl q
cooling pond. These are redundant sources of cooling water shared h .,d , JQ by the two units. I E-35
111-11 111-12 Either source can provide suf ficient emergency cooling water for simultaneous shutdown of both units in the event tle other source is not available. The pond is sized to dissipate the heat load that would be transferred to the service water system f rom both units as a result of a design-basta accident tu one unit and the normal shutdown of the second unit. Under these conditions the 41 [ ] cooling pond can reach a limiting temperat ure of 120*F. Separate
;y ji '.g *t T q, , suction and discharge lines will be used for supplying pond water
; s= , O" \ . to Units 1 and 2. Blockage by debris is prevented. The pond will
;, g l, n
g
**I l8 ?*
be excavated f rom impervious clay st rata, and its bottom will be
~~ 1 located from 4 to 16 f t above rock. The intake st ructures will be 4 l g} ( inspected periodically and soundings of the pond will be taken at o
s- 3 f'. ;'- M 1 l tt 10-year intervals to determine the amount of sitting. g fj (( 3 7
- p k h o 2. Radioactive Waste
- ";: :; a
=
** f 3
,1 -
p d #/ ,I,/ During the operation of nuclear power reactors, radioactive
@ gi ;M 4< -
${ //4[
r material is produced by fission and by neutron activation of g a f7 3 ;j * , metals and other material in the reactor coolant system. Small M 2;
- -+ c '-
'C amounts of gasecus and liquid radioactive wastes enter the
) , , ,
effluent streams, which are monitored and processed within the 7%
- gr 't g= f. station to minimize the radioactive nuclides that will ultimately a n, a
- g g be released to the atmosphere and into the Dardanelle Reservoir.
," 'T p ,[f.
The radioactivity that may be released during operation of the e + ;C 7 station at full power will be in accordance with the Cossaission's
]*
; /
2d regulations, as set forth in 10 CFR 20 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1 j , as formulated.
@$ IA *b ne waste handling and treatment systems to be inatalled at the p ,
8 3 I 3 station are discussed in the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report,3 l" . 1 Nd in Amendments 1 through 19 to the Preliminary Safety Analysia c, 7 f /Qj s Report 3 in the applicant's Environmental Report , ard in Supple-
%0 R
f
, a
. Qat ments to the applicant's Environmental Report.I 53*
E" 'l s,;94 Qg' 33 s
- a. Liquid Wastes OF
- i *:
*d *h i ;!)( The liquid radioactive waste system will be designed to collect.
E' e ,' , \
\ 44 monitor, process, store, and dispose of radioactive liquid wastes.
2F
. i j nese wastes will be segregated into two separate subsystems f referred to as the boren management system (BMS) and the waste
]E
? ;j y[8 i Af management system (WMS) and are shown in the schematic flow diagram in rig. 111-7.
, 4 E-36
111-13 111-14 The boron management system is an integral part of the chemical and volume control system (CVCS). The CVCS provides a feed-and-bleed stream of approximately 40 gpm, which will pass through a mixed-bed
)hill I 1! purification ion exchanger, where ionic impurities will be contin-l fj IIj \i ! uously removed from the reactor coolant. A second demineralizer
'l l lgf fh will be employed in series approximately 20Z of the time for addi-I; Bl {II h. N l gf'.
!' y *I . .
8 ,y tional removal of cesium and lithium. A portion of the CVCS stream >g ! g g lti g will be diverted through the flash tank to the BMS to permit adjust- ?E ,i $* 8 ! l II ]hgII'h' I C j li1y i ment of the boric acid concentration in the reactor coolant. The BMS will also receive inputs f rom the reactor drain tank, which EC
- l b; }l e '. accumulates minor sources of reactor-grade liquid wastes. These
- 7 .. l1 7
*l **, I *i iF liquid wastes will be sprayed into the flash tank, where the dissolved EE 'II l. 8 i I.h hydrogen and fission gases released f rom solution will be purged by f k j!l:,][D E.
IC I N l~ l Y~ L,.
*
- 3 a
k{ nitrogen to the waste gas processing system. The liquid will then be pumped to one of four holdup tanks and stored until a suf ficient volume has accumulated for ef ficient operation of the boric acid b '$g 7k,i'li%] f. g g 3E e. I f '? j ! evaporator. The gross activity of the liquid will be reduced sig-n j] fI [. I s l nificantly during a 9-day storage period by decay of radionuclides. ak [e [! 1 phi Ate i !-[f i g h;{- #ljl{[]kjggg' g
-s Flexibility will be provided in processing the holdup tank liquid "E
p lh 1 Ig I5 LA*,] E d,_;![.- before it enters the boric acid evaporator. Flow paths will be provided to recirculate the holdup tank contents through the flash y*v tank or through one of the two ion exchangers located between the g lI $le,oh}s L r : holdup tanks and the boric acid evaporator, E i
*M."nQ, N e, h ',i_.j:t}Vrj t
1 (h Af ter passing through one of the ion exchangers the liquid will p p it be processed in the boric acid evaporator. The evaporator bottoms g 81 ,,p 'j.' will be sampled, diluted as required, and pumped to the boric acid [ g
* ! I- h *l f/ r-l' makeup tanks in the CVCS for reuse. The condensate, af ter passing i through one of the boric acid condensate ion exchangers, will be
* ;j
] ]La -"
] glII ,qj rg l j;,{ collected in the boric acid condensate tanks. The water will s
then be either recirculated to the holdup tanka or the condensate
*k Is T~g f;Q ~'llfpl ion exchanger for further reprocessing, or discharged to the Unit 1 circulating water canal. The radioactivity in the line to the 3 EP 27 9 PNR circulating water discharge will be monitond continuously.
The waste management system will process wastes that are not re-7
" g (, at
} usable, including radioactive steam generator blowdown, equipment y [ g? drains and leaks, decontamination area drains, and laboratory and d
id 5} It g l l.14 y h lh
.A
; I~ E jg la j gt .
sampling drains. These wastes will be collected in two waste tanks as shown in Fig. 111-7. When a suf ficient volume has been collected, the ef fluent will be pumped to the waste evaporator. The bottoms d T1 - f rom this evaporator will be pumped to the drumming room and
- " d, ,
packaged as solid waste. The condensate will be collected in the
)Q__ F%i O '
vaste condensate tank af ter passing through one of the condensate ion exchangers. Af ter the condensate has been sampled and analyzed, it will be discharged to the !? nit I circulating water discharge canal. The staff assumes that 100% of the condensate will be discharged. I E-37
- _ _ _ _ _ - - . - - __ - . . ~ - . ., . - .-
111-15 III-16 No laundry f acilities for contaminated clothing are planned for - Unit 2. Contaminated clothing will be washed in the Unit 1 laundry or will be washed in an appropriate of f-site f acility. Based on the system described in Supplements to the applicant's Environmental Report 1 on the assumptions in Table 111-1, and on the staff's evaluation, the anticipated annual release of radio-
- active material in liquid ef fluent from normal operation was cal-culated to be 0.17 C1. . To compensate for treatment equipment down-time and expected operation occurrences, the calculated values NH L C ==d h af on m were normalized to 5 C1 total as shown in *able 111-2. Tritium is
_s not included in this amount. From previous experience the staff a w ,,,,,, uwe 2** estimates that the amount of tritium released annually will be pi eisap eny raies e so approximately 1000 C1. The applicant's estimate of the expected 8ea=mi ef pa== re== fuss min e.fme cs 44ue e 2s + annual release, not including tritium, and based on 0.1% failed L****"""***'**'*****"=E*""*".sdeepw 2s fuel is 0.07 C1. This is in agreement with the staff's unnormalised calculated value. cas ,n.% ,wy.,, , heeman er sensemmens pww. imaevy , a
- b. Gascous Waste Caiaal =l===* d's===4 #d pseawd dwmg asemel apammeA ps year a Wans sne lmiday far decay, days )s During operation of the unit, radioactive materials released to ,,,,,1, '***',,m
,sP j the atmosphere in gaseous effluents will include low concentra-tions of fission product noble gases (krypton and sanon), halogens
- (mostly iodine), tritium contained in water vapor, and particulate material, including both fission products and activated corrosion products. The systems for the processing of radioactive gaseous waste and ventilation pathe are shown schematically in Fig. III-8.
Concentrations of various solutes, such as hydrogen and boron, in the primary coolant will be maintained at specified values, and the buildup of fission and activation products will be limited by withdrawing coolant at a normal rate of 40 gpm (the letdown stream). This coolant will De cooled,' depressurised, and diverted to the makeup and purification system and, as necessary, to the boron management system or li quid waste disposal system. Normally, the vent valves on the makeup' and purification system equipment will be closed and the system operated at a positive p ress ure. By this procedure, the inventories of noble gases in the coolant will increase to steady-state values, except in the
- case of long-lived Kr-85.- Only the coolant that is diverted to the boron control system will normally be degassed.
P E-33
~~D i,
- *' p r ..c 1
m m' . ___. - m: e --- M .=- - - -
" 1- .: --<, ,~a=
,I l s-.--.-
-- l , _._.._. ,
, .._. r - .
; g w. ,_3 A , Od -T] ? M 94 t 'E-' **!*
- O ll i j
7 pt L- t"l
, , , . g' .
. :-T 'r -
L- , m- d - J. ]. i . l 53= _ . a& 3 S' s.. 4 l C+v-+.-9, '- mmm - - [aJTC ie. tJ * "f' ),.'.'." _ Aems.JLseamen am a:na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . -_
- e. a*'** * . .
1 u-g;=_:.pg.li--m
- g -rfr'n'r r - . _ .....
R--ur
. .:=
c Ib 5br-cE.sf.'.::u..w.a) a.Yaa m .st.=re GE524155 Fig. III-8. Caseous exhaust system b r Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2.
.cn n.
w _1 . - i ? -. ==i i =n _r ; i 8% a s s _ a. . .E ~_ .E..s s _ .s .s. .a. .s. s .s li!
.s e-3 . !. =e =
e i 1 m E
.s
}s i i,
= _ _ _ , , a_ _ s s_
- cceakaeaette
. afd em _- m_ z 3 e_ s s _ : . . s, e .
7 l
. ..a O 11 g i er.: =-g s ts~ g "3 ? _:
1
.il.31str$5
. t s. .i .s...a g. t. ..! s_ ..E
- a. W ! B l l V i a = i a n s
. s .s e .s ..s .t .s .a .s .t .a s 3
a E 3 e ee e e A I ! t s.3_ s- -3.._-ss s f E s!. E ssa E E E E.E. 6s 6. E. E. 3 a_ z ma A>>>e>4 mmmmmm----ww-*_ .
..r. _ . _ _ ,_
l i I III-19 111-20 Gases stripped from the recycled reactor coolant, together with displaced cover gases, will be collected, compressed, and stored for 30 days af ter filling in three pressurised (343 peig) tanks for radioactive decay. With the exception of Er-85, the gases will decay to a small fraction of the original activity before being enemmh su prnmesu w N 2 released. Cases in the gas decay tanks will be released to the f emae ssi s. Cakuheed asemen et atmosphere through a roughing filter, a high-ef ficiency particulate filter, and a charcoal absorber. " N "ren is eu peI , ear Off-gases from the steam generator blowdown tank will be vented to a*** swe= . kek C*** m r t Tema the main condenser. Main condenser of fpas is discharged via the 3,,,,,,, a,.a _ g 4, si,,4 mechanical vacuum pump to the auxiliary building ventitation system. I'"'8' eerser e.ek oses This flow path results in passing these of f gases through a HEpA 8 filter and a charcoal adsorber before discharge through the con- Kreim 1 [2 tainment flute. ," , 2,g soo sie The major source of possible radioactive discharges f rom components (( if ** a 2 within the turbine building is the mechanical vacuum pump. This 44 8 discharge la vented to the atmosphere via the auxiliary building xe ina me. t 3h. 2
- 2 8
12 s 2 X*I n too >20 slo eso e ventilation system, which is monitored. The staff anticipates that
' 33 ]
the turbine building ventilation exhaust will contain low concen- A* g, 3,3,5," i, i, a trations of activity, primarily from steam system leakage, which x,g p i e 2 will be discharged to the atmosphere through vents on the turbine x ns 3 3 _ 6.L building roof. y ,g %,,, 4He a ni 0 o49 00,3 0 e22 es en Before the containment building is entered, it may be necessary g.n3 0 o06 03: eene os 80 to use the containment system for pre-access cleanup. This system
~ will draw contaminated air across a filter assembly consisting of a roughing filter, high-ef ficiency particulate filter, and char-coal adsorberst the air will pass through the system fan and then discharge into the atmosehere.
3 Based on the system described in Supplements to the applicant's Environmental Report,1 on the assumptions in Table 111-1, and on the staff's evaluation, the anticipated annual release of radio-active material in gaseous effluent for normal operation was cal-culated and is shown in Table 111-3. For noble gases, the staff estimated that the release will be 4350 Ci for 0.251 failed fuel whereas the applicant estimated the maximum expected release to be 15,000 Ci for it f ailed fuel. I
- c. Solid Wastes Radioactive solid wastes will consist mainly of spent resins f rom ion exchangers, evaporator bottoms, and spent filters. In addi-tion, there will be miscellaneous solid wastes such as paper, rags, and protective clothing.
E-O
111-21 111-22 n e spent resins from the CVCS and other system ion exchangers blowdown f rom the rocling tower basin will range from 5700 gpa will be flushed to a spent resin storage tank. Pe riodically, (10.6 cis), concent ration f actor = 3.5; to 1180 gpm (2.6 cis), con-batches will be transferred to the drumming station, where the centration factor = 11 The staf f has used a probable figure of i material is slurried into steel drums, dewatered, and shielded 1970 gpm (4.4 cfs), concentration f actor = 7, to estimate the l as necessary for of f-site disposal. Provisions are available contribution of coolicg tower blowdown to the minerals in the for solidificat f or., if required. Bo t t oms from the waste cooling water discharge in Table !!I-4. evaporator will also be sent to the drumming station, where the material is mixed with a suitable filler and binder for of f-site Drift loss from the Unit 2 cooling tower is expected to be approx- I dispos al. imately 40 gpa (0.09 cis). At the probable concentration factor ! Miacellaneous materials, such as paper and protective of 7, the drif t will carry with it about 0.9 lb / min of solids. clothing, will be compressed and containerized for of f-site burial. The makeup water in the cooling tower circuit to replace evapo- ! All solid waste will be packaged and shipped to a licensed burial ration and blowdown losses will be taken from the Illinois Bayou site in accordance with AEC and IX)T regulations. From experience (see Fig. 111-4). The hardness and high alkalinity of the water with stations presently in operation, the staf f expects that will require an estimated 15,000 lb/ day of sulfuric acid for approximately 370 f t3/ year of spent resin and 430 ft / year 3 of scale control. ho f ree acid will be discharged to the river, l evaporator bottoms, contained in 235 drums, approximately 20 sin 4 it will all have been used to neutralize the alkalinity i C1/ drum, will be t ransported of f-site. In addition, the staff (bicarbonate) of the makeup water. The pH of the blowdown water l will range from 7 to 7.4. Also, a maximiss of 500 lb/ day of chlorine estimates that about 600 drumm/vear of dry wasta containing less l than $ Ci/ year are espected to be transported of f-site. These ,g t ; he injected into the cooling tower makeup water for slime con- I trol. The maximum chlorine concentration in the condenser ef fluent drums will not be kept on site long enough to be subject to significant deterioration, is 1 ppm. The residual chlorine in the blowdown is expected to be ' small, probably on the order of 0.01 ppm, because of aeration in
- 3. nemical and Sanit ary Wastes the cooling tower. Lwever, dilution and reaction with the chlorine demand (2-4 ppe for a lO-minute contact tina) of the circulating
- a. Chemical Discharges canal water will reduce the chlorine concentration f ar below the limit of detectability before discharge to tt.e embayment.
The sources and flow of the chemical wastes are shown in Fig. III-7. (2) Demineralizer Regeneration Waste l Since Unit 2 has a closed-cycle turbine condenser cooling system, it will depend very largely upon the circulating water (at Ic es t 383,000 ! gpm) from Unit I foi dilution. The appiteant states that whenever Makeup water for the Unit 2 reactor will be purified by passing it is necessary to discharge wastes from either unit while Unit I Russellville city water through a cation demineralizer, an anion is shut down at le as t two circulating pumps will be operated to demineraliter, and finally through a mixed-bed " water polishing" provide dilution. demineraliser. The applicant's estimates of the quantities of acid and base required and the regeneration wastes produced The maximum concentratioas of themicals that may be discharged including the mineral ions stripped from the resina are given are listed in Table III-4 along with an averaged analysis of the in Table 111-4 Dardanelle Reservoir water. (3) Primary and Secondary Coolant (1) Condenser Coolina Tower Output Chemicals will be added to the makeup water for the reactor Unit 2 will use a closed-cycle natural-draf t cooling tower. A coolant: boric acid will be added for reactivity control, Iithium blowdown flow must be discharged from the system to control the hydroxide and ammonia will be added for pH control, hydrogen will concentration of solids lef t by evaporation. The quantity of be added to remove the radiolytic oxygen f rom the reactor coolant; E-41
i 111-23 III-24 sodium phosphate and sulfite will be used for corrosion control in the steam generators. Most of these additives will be removed with the bulk of the radioactive nuclides and corrosion products in the filtets and demineralizers, bur some of them will enter the circulating water canal via the liquid radioactive waste discharge. The applic. int's estimate of the amounts of these chemicata that u ,ise d u.m m _ - d twenda m smalias e dmin, se nw riodenae* Rm._ _ _ may be discharged are listed in Table 111-4. uusades t'>de ** (emenentium IPPme - (4) Waste Retention Pond
*d"*'
P fum go,,,m Dadrarter f som scogms ..se
***a* Chemical sol.ation used in the preoperational cleaning of Units 1 y ,,m id t nei 2b g
--. ~ i'**".. d,'* ."d.;'*;; - % .'~ , =ad 2 wi22 6 = tar d ad tiew d ta 9ar te in 350 f t = 150
** h'da 8'"*'*" ivro g~=
*'",d'**
t%s . ie72 f t pond having a nominal depth of 1 feet (1,125,000 gal, cap.) and s su tmio sPm M** d"** l'*d located immediately east of the discharge canal and south of the as**'**7 comeu.,tmo intake canal. Sides and bottom will be made impervious by compac-f a iar - 7 0 15 44 0 43 ting clay to 902 maximum density according to ASTM D1557. Method D. yn 73: N* 3 16,2*4 d 16J,, 35 250 0 02 The applicant estimates the following amounts of chemicals will be Q F 33 33 c ont os 1s used in cleaning a.id flushing: t risodium phosphate 11,300 lb; 6,422* 16,595 36 250 c 50 > i?2 i
, 3, e m,d He d9 odium phosphate. 5100 lb; DOW-F57, 770 lb; f ormic acid, 5000 lb; elm,_ 20 to hydroxyaurtic acid,10,000 lb; Armourhib 31A,1200 lb; hydrazine H 26 s
- 4s (352), 750 lb; and ammonia (302),100 lb.
r/
- 1he pond will receive the waster solution f rom Unit 2 cleanup af te r Ms 5
,,, og 3 laying dormant with the earlier batch of waste retained from Unit "S
t# 62 1 cleanup. d 1 1,025 I J129
$g8 57 # 46 16 76 0 02 H 3 50, 02 3 Following com:nercial operation of Unit 2 the applicart will remove 05 O mnitit
'I any remaioing liquid chemicata in accord with applicable State and L UM, , ,,,,,,
rua,
, ,3 ,, Federal regulations, and will fill in the excavation.
""* i o orm2 Waison I b. Sanit arv Wastes e
4n m a n d .p.n = 310.dev ePaa'ms y.or 8' The sewage treatment system is common for both Units 1 & 2. A 6
"**d* ***"'*'*8"*"82""2wi. .nd 210 m Nd'H P = 7 flow diagram of the permanent system, which is already installed,
*n ed en tso ressi=<am'an*** *8 u'n"H 'iO."and 46 lb N4Hf Ho* thr**urh dameretehmen aguain Ied
,,,,,,,,, t . en,4 m.d, agermssa persons with a load criterion of 35 gal / day per person; it uses 7,,N d f.h*=d advuory t ama"ta in tiw heewr ad th laiena' **' 0"*h C"I*C P20, both primary and secondary treatment as Well as Chlorination of Federet tata Polinnas ( catsoi 4desnnameremL Aptd tge,g esmn,de. ine.a un es chkmde hee hydretye of 50b miday Ga dded e es a bim id' the effluent. Duric,* Construction of Unit 2 it is planned to eima,an 39,000 m, day Haso. far ==eer tena'raea' serye 60 perennent employees plus 70 construction enreloyees. A temporary 2000 gal / day Aer-o-Flo package sewage treatment plant will serve 60 construction of fice workers, while portable toilets (Sani-Cans) are provided for the rest of the construction force.
E-42 i 9 w Q
*/ s E
f III-25 111-26 Permits for the temporary and permanent sewage treatment facil-ities have been received from the Arkansas Pollution Control Comunission and the Arkansas State Department of Bealth, respec- 1. Arkansas Power and Light Company, Aricrasas #wZsar As Wit 2 tively. An application has been made to the Corps of Engineers for permits for total liquid waste discharges, including cooling SuppZement to Envirorrwntal Report, Docket No. 50-368* system discharges, under the Refuse Act, and this application is 9 hmwhuMmhm now being considered.
- 2. Arkansas Power and Jght Company Arkans2s #welear Ad hit 2
- 4. Other Wastee Si4plsment No. 2 to Environmnt Report, Docket No. 50-313, Noverber 1971.
There are sewral sources of other gaseous discharges from Unit 2 at the Arkansas Nuclear One site, notably several fuel-oil 3. Arkansas Power and Light Company, Arkansas #weZear One Wit 2 burne rs."-# These include a startup boiler * *6 of 322 million PNZimmary Safety AnaZyals Report Docket No. 50-368; various Sto/hr thermal output, a firetube water-heating boiler5 of 31 mil- supplements and amendments to the report. lion Btu /br thermat output, and two emergency diesel generators, each of 23 million Stu/hr output. The startup boiler will consume 4. Arkansas Power and Light Company, Arkansas #ualear cms Wit 2 2350 gph of No. 2 fuel oil but is expected to be in use only about S'fF lament 2 to Empimnmental Report April 5,1972, Appendix 400 hr per year. The firetube water-heating boiler uses 225 gph #~I' pp. 15-16. of the fuel oil and is expected to be in use about 2880 hr per year. The diesel generators each consume 170 gph of fuel oil when 5. E d. pp. 17-18. In operation. he No. 2 fuel oil has a rating of 137,080 Stu/ gal and contains no more than 0.3% 5. 6. M 1. pp. 21-22. The low sulfur content of the fuel oil will limit discharges of 7. M d. p. 20. 502 to values significantly less than maximum 0.21 ppm 502 8. allowed by the Arkansas Air Pollution Code.8 Of these several Arkansas Pollution Control Commission. Air Codd and Fater units, only the startup boiler falls within the requirements of iMZity Criteria for Interetate E' reams for State of Arkansas, 42 CFR 466, which covers all new fossil-fuel burning facilities August 1969. with power rating in excess of 250 million Etu/hr. he applicant as yet has made no definite plans for trash dis-posal but is considering several alternatives (1) incineration at plant site; (2) disposal at a land-fill site; and (3) contract with an authorized waste disposal company in the area. E-M
17-1 IV-2 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT 01NSTRUCTION completion of Arkansas Nuclear One there may be a local recesalon. T*e ispects of site preparation and construction considered here 8 ac 8 eEPectd to be aman. have been limited to those actions caused by superimposing the construction of Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 on the existing con-C. ENVIRONMENTAL 0)NSIDERATIONS , struction activity for Unit 1. The construction of Unit 2 will During the construction at the site. large amounts of exca.ated not require any additional land, nor will it involve any expansion material were relocated. A causeway road west of the station site of the construction site. The environmental sepact of the addia was raised to an elevation of about 340 ft with rock spoil, and tional conatruction will be negligible. trregularities in the terrain in the immediate vicinity of the buildings were filled. Excavated material from the intake and A. AREA W N 3 discharge canala was used to fill a small cove of f the discharge
**
- I*"
The construction site is spread over approximately 4M seres for
- the combined construction activities of Arkansas Nuclear One Units 1 and 2. This includes the exclusion area. The land directly dis- At the 751 construction stage for Unit 1. the site was visited by turbed by construction activities will amount to about 150 seres. the staff to gala familiarity with it aad the surrounding country-sido Du% 4 mt% N mNM M m nW h B* SOCIAL EFFECTS P de ht cawed by tnUlc to a minimas. C e t meti n ac-tivities are not visible to the public except for a small number Clearing of land for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 was carried out am n se m enc u a m cate on un er 1 about M during the initial construction activities for Unit 1. Certain e ra e e atim. ua e sta im at the construction ,
nuclear facility construction began in July 1971 under an exemption entrance keep the general public from entering the site proper. to the regulations for construction permits then in ef fect. At that time, the construction of Unit 1 was approximately 50% complete. the intake and discharge canals have been dug. Their banks > The combined construction forces for Units 1 and 2 will probably will be covered to minimize the ef fects of erosion. Spoil from ductude approximately 1000 persons at the site during year 1972 the canals and prior excavations not required for backfilling was and 700 during 1973. After the completion of Unit 1. the forces spread in low areas ce the applicant's property and on the Corps required for construction on Unit 2 will decline gradually as major ,g g,g gm ,,. property. The aischarge enhayment was dredged for portions of Unir 2 are completed. and construction forces should a canal with a minimum depth of 9 f t for barging in heavy equip-be entirely absent at the site after completion of construction. ment. The dredged material was distributed along a low area on The construction of Units 1 and 2 now represents one of the largest the east bank of the embayment. Precautions were taken in all sources of employment in the Russellville area. Other major con- areas where spoil was placed to minimize washing of mud back into struction jobs in the area employ approximately 150 construction the embayant. personnel at the present time. The largest industrial employer in the area presently employs approximately 1200 people and is g pg g expecting to expand his operations to 1700 persons. The principal M Wm M W ud SW M M mm MM ef fect on manpower will probably occur in 1974 as the construction before placement of the hydraulic dredge spoils in order to minimize labor force employed at Unit 2 is reduced. Construction workers damage to existing areas and to provide convenient access for mus t then seek other local employment or search for jobe remote bank fishing along the discharge embayment. f rom the Russellville area. The construction of this unit is not expected to create any
* :ause of the phased scheduling over the past years of major con- eMeetimable nolu, since the site is remote f rom any residential ruction projects in the Russellville area, such as the construction areas and screened from them by hills and woods.
the Dardanelle Dam and Interstate-40. the construction of Arkansas E-% i
IV-4 IV- 3 cover and an additional food source. Larger game species will D. TRANSMISSION LINES especially ot111:e the low growing vegetation for browse. The Five transmission lines (Sec. Ill-B) are required for the ef fective applicant does not plan to use herbicides to control tree growth distribution of electricity. These lines require about 3700 acres under power lines but rather selective maintenance. of rights-of-way. Environmental considerations used by the app 11-ca"t in route selection for transmission lines included: The applicant's policy is to leave cedar, sumac, certata oeka, and a wide variety of native shrube, not only for visual screening and erosion control, but to enhance the diversity and esthetic
- 1. maximising use of natural screens to remove transmission appeal of cleared lands. The applicant and local owners can j facilitten from view, thereby minimize the monotony of the wide right-of-way. However
- 2. avoidance of urban areas where possible, the visual impact of the structures may be unappealing to some.
Extending slightly vest of north from the electrical switchyard
- 3. use of existing rights-of-way where possible, will be a corrodor 420 f t vide, to be kept in relatively low
- 4. avoidance of aircraf t approach sones to airports and flight "*8'E**I*** extending of f-site for a total distance of 1.5 miles for the three parallel 500-kV lines mentioned in Sect. Ill-B; strips, their further extension is evaluated in later paragraphs. Also, extending east f rom the switchyard a short distance and then
- 5. avoidance of recreational areas and known historical sites. slightly east of north is a pelt of 161-kV lines on a 220-f t Proposed transmission lines will alter present land use over portions right-of-way for two miles before they split into two routes, of the routes. The presence of lines across land used for agri-each to be cleared 100 f t wide.
culture will not alter present land use or productivity. Other portions of the line routes are presently used for natural forest The two 500-kV lines (320-f t corridor) heading westward will or tamber production. Some loss of trees due to right-of-way be visible f rom Interstate 40. Various topographic features clearing is expected in this latter case where hilly terrain and were used to minimise the prominence of view from the focal pine-hardwood forests are crossed. The applicant plans to minimise recreational viewing point atop Mount Nebo, but there is a clearing of vegetation and to replace cover where it is badly lisitt to the amount of screening that can be ace 11shed by dis t urbed. I Temporary cover will be established on those areas the additional plantings planned by the appitcant. The which are subject to soll disturbance during the time period be-two 161-kV lines extending generally eastward in 100-f t corridors tween initial clearing and construction of transmission facilities. are rather unequally screened at various points along their com-A post-construction evaluation of right-of-way damages and potential bined and separated routes.3 Limited information available to soil erosion will be made to determine implementation of permanent the staff indicates approximately the mileages and acreages of soil stab 111:stion measures. In addition to replacing cover where "oPen" land (including some low weedy growth and sone builtup areas it is badly disturbed by clearing operations, runof f water manage- and water) and forest or openly wooded land given in Table IV-1. ment will be achieved and consequent soil erosion and stream sedt-mentation will be controlled by the use of temporary structural Faulkner County figures include 32.5 acres of land cleared for the sediment trap impoundments as needed. Runof f water management Mayflower Substation, a proposed new intenmediate juncture in the by structural control is necessary in some areas to the successful 92-m11e line connecting Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 with the exist- ; establishment of permanent vegetative measures. With low shrub ing Mabelvale Substation. Where not specified by the applicant. or grass cover, the land should not be subject to serious erosion proportions of open and wooded land are taken as county averages problems, and these rights of way should provide enhanced habitat f rom Table A-2 and thus may require some revision based on actual for wildlife. The existence of these rights of way will provide t rave rses. Land in Perry County (and other northwest-southeast browse and edge cover not otherwise found in heavily forested land existing connections of Arkansas Nuclear One with the Mabelvale areas. Birds and other small game will be afforded protective Substation) is not included. Neither is the westbound line in Yell, Logan, and Sebastian Counties, connecting to an Oklahoma Cas and Electric substation near Fort Smith. E45
IV-5 IV-6 REFERENCES FOR SECTION IV
- 1. Arkansas Power and Light Company. Arkatsaa #wlear One Wit # >
Sqplanwns to Envircmnwntal Report, Docket No. 50-368, Decamber 19 71.
- 2. Arkansas Power and Light Company, Arketsas Kuolear Me Unit 1, SWplemmt 1 to Envircmmental heport, Docket No. 50-313, November 1971. p. F3-12.
- 3. Arkansas Power and Light Company, Ah.sas #aalear One hit Z, Envinnmeital Report, uocket No. 50-313. June 1971, pp 47-50.
TaWe IV 1. R@eef+ay asses for erassahamme home home Askaases Itecisse One tengst eedss) Ares tactest 16t kV 500 kV Upon M oeded
^
- cW Conway 21 5 22 4t h 280 t aulkner to t 212 168 tegna e4 144 100 pope 29 7 30 0 Sea 402 It0 puus 25 6 3), e 196 5mho, 34 0 15 $2 N 10 t 126 268 loen1 51 2 116 4 1852 t al 358 E I46
V-1 V-2
- v. ENVIROWENTAL DfPACTS OF Pt. ANT OPERATION A. IAND USE The land used for the Arkansas Nuclear One site was formerly used for pasture, small timber growth, and farming. There is a loss of habitat for animals that occupied the fields or forests now cleared for construction. However, abundant " edge" habitats are provided by the cleared and forested lands outside the area of construction. Areas known to be af fected are summarited in Table V-1.
Because of the large cooling tower for Unit 2, there will be Table V I. Ame ef land M fw ahwe h b some impact on nearby land as a result of the solids that are o,, a, .cm, carried over in the drift loss from the tower. This will be small, particularly because a natural-draft tower is used. Seme sme . Some chemicals will be discharged to the environment in entrained S'* 8*1** droplets of water leaving the tower. The applicant has indt- * ' cated the maximum anticipated drift loss to be 0.012 of the T'b a 8
,,,,,g is recirculation rate. These liquid droplets will contain dis- s, . g n. 45 solved solids at the same concentration as exists in the Esawema men and en.nuaneous 233 circ 'lating water. Some solids will be deposited from the plume
- m'8 "amimm ares m as it traverses the adjacent land, while the remainder will be Total ll'4 lof ted upward and washed down in rains and hence dispersed over g %
a wry large area. m e mys., B 527* mym.a to mews.ai, 6sa Assuming the stated drift loss and a concentration factor of 7 4'*0 5 0k8aham b *ad F'"w ms in the circulating system, the total solid transport from the tower is 200 tons per year. The amount of drift loss appears to be conservative. Recent measuremental made on mechanical. Tasal 3,,, draf t towers indicate that the actual drif t loss may be as low 3a,,d U6 ween of embud== ene wg=wed 4=8 aa' a1 0.0052. Even lower drift loss can be expected from natural- ti ,.a draft towers because of the lower velmity of air through the tower. Studies of distribution of liquid droplets from natural-draft towers show that they range up to 1000 meters'from the source, with the maximum occurring at 300 meters from the tower.2 The deposited minerals are for the most part those that occur naturally in the water, and they will be soluble and similar to lime in coeposition. Leaching by rainf all will remove anst of the deposit as it f alls. Experience with the operation of large cooling towers indicates that there is no apparent impact f rom the deposition of such drif t material.3 It has been calculated that there is an average of about 26 cfs (12,000 gra) vapor loan f rom a natural-draf t cooling tower handling the anticipated heat load. The temperature of the air discharged E-47
y-4 V-3 from the tower is estimated to be from 80 to 115*F, on the bests of factov of 7 in this system. Considering this concentration factor, the ambient temperatures indicated for this area. This air will be an average of 335 ppm for the dissolved solide content of the river, saturated with water vapor and will be returned to the atmosphere at and dilution by at least 383,000 spa from Unit 1, the resulting a height about 475 ft above the ground. Although the plume from increase in mineral content of the discharge stream will be about this tower will be visible at long distances f rom the site under 12 ppa. This is f urther diluted by a minimia stream flow of certain weather conditions, operation of such towers in both this 1.6 a 10' spa. Thus the total additional solids content of the country and abroad has not resulted in significant impact on the river flow is espected to be increased by about 2.5 ppm. neighboring environment. In cold weather or under very stable atmospheric conditions, some elight increased tendency for local The introduction of chemicals teto station components to required fog could be expected in the vicinity of the tower itself; how- for operation. The use of chlorine in the cooling tower is dis-ever, this should not be of any import at distancas 0.5 mile or cussed in Sect. 111.D.3.(1). Most of the other chemicals added to more from the tower. Much of the support for this conclusion is the systeus will undergo a chemical reaction so that the liquid based on studies of similar large natural draf t cooling tower ef fluent streams contain only inorganic salta. Table I11-4, i installations, such as the Keystone Flant of Pennsylvania Electric Sect. 111-D-3, lists the constituents of these substances. Mos t Company." During that study, aerial traverses were made and a of these constituents are now present in the waters of the sampling program conducted. Dardanelle Reservoir in greater quantity than will be expected from station operation. Boric acid is required for nuclear control, S. WATER USE but its concentration (0.02 ppm) when discharged, as diluted by the circulating water flow of 383,000 gpm, is not high enough to be Although the volume of discharge water f rom Unit 2 is small - harmful to any species living in the receiving waters. Those about 1970 gpa or 4.4 cfs - and of itself presents no significant chemicals normal to the Reservoir waters enter the lake largely by impact on the Dardanella Reservoir, the discharge from Unit 2 is the normal leaching of the drainage area by rainfall. Other required, as stated in the permit hfrom the Arkansas Pollution chemicals are now added by the discharge of ef fluents f rom cities Control Commtission, to be adequately diluted, as presently planned and industries upstream. with cooling water from pumps of Unit 1. Any suspended chemicals will be flushed downstream by natural ' For the purpose of evaluating the incrementet ef fects of Unit 2 conditions, or some will be deposited in the bottom sediment of the staf f assumed that Unit 1 le not in operation except for at the lake, where they can enter the various food chains. There is least two cooling water pumps which providd dilution of the no evidence that the chemicals in their present concentrations, or cooling tower blowdown and liquid radioactive effluent. The those added during station operation, will be harmful to the life dilution factor of 200 is suf ficient to reduce the temperature species using the waters of the lake. of the resultant mixed stream essentially to ambient. Under this operating condition, the thermal impact of Unit 2 on the embayment The applicant has no initial plans for the use of corrosion inhibi-is expected to be less than 0.2*. - tors except for small amounts of sodium phosphate and sulfite in the steam generator system, and indicates that in the design of the ,
- 1. - Ef fects of Cheatcals system corrosten-resistant materiala are used, so that the need i for such material is minimized. If inhibitors are required, the Chemical discharge resulting from the operation of Unit 2 will applicant intends to limit concentration so the dilution f actor vary, depending on the conditions set for the operation of the will prevent any significant concentration in the discharge.5 circulating water system. Minerals that occur in the river will be concentrated in the closed recirculating system by a factor 2. Ef fects of Heated Water of 4 to 11, depending on the operating ude for make-up water and system blowdown. The applicant has indicated that the most since Unit 2 disposes of its waste heat through a cooling tower, probable operating conditions will result in a concentration very little heat is discharged to the reservoir. A small thermal E-48
i i i 1 V-5 V-6 release occurs when the cooling tower circulating water is bled 475-f t stack onto the vicinity of the site. To determine the to the reservoir to reduce the concentration of dissolved nature of these ef fects, his meteorological consultants conducted minerals. an analytical study to determine the behavior of the cooling tower plume under prevalent weather conditions in the station area.5 The water for the blowdown stream is bled from the basin for the This study involved plume characteristics, lake hydrodynamics, cold side of the circulating water system to minimize the heat and a climatology analysis applicable to the station area. The added to the stream. Under the maximum discharge condition antic- staff reviewed the data and determined that under normal circum-1 pated, only about 0.6% of the station waste heat is expected to stances the plume will be buoyant and will not interact with the enter the river from this stream, or the equivalent of approx- lake itself. - However, under the most stable atmospheric conditions, imately 11 MW. This corresponds to a temperature rise of 0.2*F which occur about 28% of the time, it is theoretically possible for in the circulating dilution water (383,000 gpa), which is con- " plume surfacing" to occur. Althcugh this phenomenon la expected to sidered to be negligible. occur infrequently, if at all, the effect of this interaction between cowling tower plume and the lake was studied. It was Since the bicudown stream from Unit 2 represents a flow of about statistically determined that the most favorable conditions for 8 such an event would occur in the months of October, January, and 1970 gas, but the embayment has a volume of some 2 x 10 gal, the ef fect on the embayment from Unit 2 will be negligible. The July. Further, the maximum duration of the hypothetical event cooling tower will require makeup water at en average of 31 cfs was determined for each of clie above unnths. De maximas (13,800 gpa), as ccogared to the average Arkansas River flow of duration, using the most conservative estimates, would take place 40,000 cfs (1.8 x 10 gpa). nis consumption appears to be a in January and last 39 hr. From this conservative meteorological relatively insignificant amount. However, this represents about analysis and a previous analytical study of the surface heat 1% of the minimum reservoir flow of 3500 cfs (1.6 x 106 gpa). transfer processes taking place in the lake, it was possible to determine the potential thermal impact of the plume from the Under the planned refuellos conditions, the steam generating cooling tower interf acing with the lake. The results of this system will be cooled to 280*F by using the turbine condensers interaction determine the equilibrium temperature of the af fected and bypassing the steam to the condensers with the turbine bypass lake area. system.. The circulating water system will continue to cool the condensers during this period of operation. At 280*F the Isotheres were plotted for average surface water temperatures decay heat removal system will be cut in to provide the additional resulting from Unit 1 ance-through cooling and the additional cooling required. The heat exchangers in the decay heat removal ef fect of the plume from Unit 2 cooling tower superimposed under
- system will be cooled by the service water system in a closed stable meteorological conditions. From a review of the results cooling system, which makes use of the emergency pond. of this hydraulic n> del investigation and meteorological analysis, the staff concludes that no thermal block or excess water temper-
- 3. - Effects of Radioactive Effluents ature conditions would result from the cooling tower plume.
The nuclear generating station will emit small amounts (see C. BIOLDCICAL IMPACT Sect. III-D-2) of radioactivity in gaseous and liquid discharge streams. During the life of the station the radioactive effluents 1. Ecological Studies discharged to the environment will not be large enough to be detrimental to human, terrestrial, or aquatic life (see Sect. V-D). Information on the ecology of Dardanelle Reservoir has been pro-vided, and will continue to be provided, by several sources. The
- 4. Effect of Coolina Tower Plume ecological study is being conducted by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR). This study, funded by Arkanssa Power and in deciding to use a natural-draft cooling tower to reject the Light Company, is under the direction of Dr. Clarence B. Sinclair, vaste heat from Unit 2, the applicant considered the ef fects an ecologist from the Department of Biology, UALR. Beginning in of the plume of warm humid air that will be emitted from the E-49
.- - -- - ~+ . . . .- b V-7 V-8 1968, a background survey on thermal, chemical, radiological, and To establish temperature patterna in the reservoir and to deter-biological aspects of Dardanella Reservoir has been conducted. eine the extent of the thermal plume af ter station startup, temper-This study will continue until plant operation and for a period of atures are to be measured at the locations illust rated in Fig. V-1. about five years af ter station operation. Some of the details of For the five-year period before reactor operation temperatures this study are given in Sect. V-C-3. Sumary reports of data are being measured at selected points on the grid network during obtained by the UAIJL group are furnished to the applicant, Arkansas January, April, June, July, August, and October each year. After Game and Fish Commission. Arkansas Pollution Control Comission, reactor operation begins, measurements will be made monthly at Arkansas State Department of Health Corps of gngineers, and the all points in the network. At each location readings will be Decartment of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and W11dlige. taken at 1, 2, and 7 ft below the surface and at 5-ft intervals Reports are issued at approximately six-month intervals.6 In from there to the bottom. Based on a review of the preoperational sJdition, an annual meetles arranged by the applicant is held for data it is concluded that the system of measurements is adequate participating and interested parties to revbw this program. to define the thermal plume and to provide date for datermining any thermal impact of reactor operations on the reservoir. The applicant, with the assistance of the Arkansas State Department of Health, is conducting a radiological environmental monitoring b. Entrainment and Impinnement program which will continue for the lifetime of the plant. Unit 2 will take 31 cfs (13,800 spm) of makeup water Jor its The Arkansas Came and Fish Commission. Fisheries Division, has cooling tower from Illinois Bayou. The impact of ents iinuent depends 7 upon the proportion of the total volume of the river ci water that conducted fish surveys in Dardanelle Reservoir. This will be continued as part of this agency's fish management program, is diverted through the station. In the case of Unit 2, less than 1% of the minimum reservoir flow of 3500 cfs (1.6 x 10' spa) will Identification of biota and descriptive material on archaeology, pass into the heat removal system. Under these condit .ons only plant life, fish and wildlife, recreational resources, and a small fraction of the total plankton population vor.d be geology have been summarised for Dardanelle Reservoir by a grou entrained. of specialists at Arkansas Polytechnic College in Russellville.g This material was prepared for the U.S. Corps of Engineers to In the Creen River in Kentucky, biologists found that although inform visitors to the Arkansas River navigation project, sooplankton did not survive passage through the cooling system of Dardanelle Reservoir in particular, of the environmental resources the Paradise power Plant, repopulation occurred a short distance of the area, downstream.ll Although mechanical shock may kill 1srge numbers of organisms, it does not destroy the carcasses, and these plus
- 2. gffects on Water Quality and Biota the nutrients in the ef fluent can enrich the water and promote high densities of scoplankton in discharge areas.12 Algal forms
- a. Thermal such as filamentous algae and diatoms will also be subject to entrainment, but no serious depletion of these organisms should Heated blowdown water from Unit 2 will be released into an 80-acre result since the volume of water passing through the station is embayment of Dardanelle Reservoir and eventually into the main relatively small. Some shif ts in epecies composition may result body of the reservoir at a lower temperature. The volume of this in the thermal plume area, but can only be determined af ter the blowdown (2.6 to 10.6 cfs,1180 to 4700 gpm) will be mixed with station begins operation.
850 cfs (383,000 gpm) of water before discharge into the embayment. Thus the temperature increase in effluent released into the enbay- Some benthic species have weak-swimming or floating stages of ment will be less than 0.2*F. Subsequent dilution in the receiving their life cycle. For example, the pupal stage of the Tendipedidae water will occur. This slight rise in temperature from water dis- (midges) can be carried by the current and passed through the charged by Unit 2 will be ecologically insignificant.9 sIO plant's cooling-water system. Some of these organisms will be killed by mechanical damage or chemical toxicity. These organisms E-50
U-9 V-10 do not travel great distances, therefore, only those developing in the vicinity of the plant intake will be entrained. The sbundance and species composition are likely to vary near the outfall of the
- water asscharge, depending upon the dilution of chemical discharges
.e and heated water. Typical species that occur in such areas are
~ }' tubificids (segmented worms) and pollution-tolerant species of
/ chironomids (midges).13
? . Y,
- k. .
gf / {j Small and immature fish that pass into the cooling water makeup
, c
.I 4 ,, 4 h 6i system of Unit 2 will be killed. These fingerlings will be sub-O 4 i j ,<<
bf jected to mechanical shock, elevated temperatures, and chlorine E l ~55 3 h' , for about seven cycles before they are discharged, via blowdown, 2 3
" ) $$
back into the environment. Any small fish surviving this passage
$1~ gg through the cooling tower water system (a rare event) would be E #1* more susceptible to predation
- due to the physiological shock of l
S
*{
L .h entrainment. O quantitative estimates can be made at this time N A - ' *s 4 ' ' E
"' '* due to lack of data on the number of flagerlings that might be
{ subjected to this impact. E *$U \ .; A relatively larger number of fish may also be killed in the g [ k' f \ j[d. j d u service water intake structures.35 The velocity of the water o MI p' .,,,,,,M 4 r it [j entering the intake structure is one of the critical factors.
% ? gh ,
s[ As the intake velocity decreased from 1.2 to 0.8 fps, a signi-E m
}k ( (
4 ' \ l 1Q * ,.M} M h. l gz ficant decrease in the number of fish killed has been reported.15
", \ /
- 3?i KJ . h M -l$ 4E ? 6 ,h A 4400-ft antake canal f rom 1111nois Bayou will convey water to 7 ,
\ / fkb '
Units 1 and 2. A velocity of 1.5 fps in the canal will occur
/ l h ,j
', /
' when both units are operating; with only Unit 2 operating, this g .
N , .g velocity will be 0.8 fps. Velocities of 0.4 fps through the
= [.j
' f ,* y intake screens for Unit 2 and 2.0 fps for dilution water through p , d j the Unit 1 intake screens are reported by the applicant.S Due to n gf 47 p. .) a lack of data on fish population or migration paths in the Illir.ois R II .Q 5 l gkif b, d., -l Bayou, no estimate can be made at this time on the number of fish that 7
=
p'
,; { Tj(,
d may enter the intake canal. A high probability of loss of fish { j ? l'f y due to impingement Mainst antake screens when water velocities
,f f exceed I fps is reported.16 and some losses are expected even for g
/
/ J q velocities below I fps. Since insuf ficient data are available to g 1 determine the nunber of fish that may be entrapped in the intake y
canal or killed on the intake screens as a result of the intake
/3p
- l. i velocities, the stat f recommends that an environmental monitoring o -
g ( program be established and maintained for a perio of five years h 5-k i E-51
. , - . ~ . - . _ - . ~c. __. - . _ ~ _. _ . ~ . . a.
V-11 V-12 af ter the station begins operation to determine the adverse dif fusion and photosynthetic production, thus resulting in a effects, if any. If adverse effects are determined the applicant decrease in oxygen levels below those normally expected. Since will be required to take corrective action. The applicant pre- BOD measurements are not available for Dardanelle Reservoir, we sently plans to chop up debris, fish, and other organisms trapped are unable to predict the extent to which this might occur. on the screens, returning the residue to the reservoir with the
' However, measurements of dissolved oxygen in the reservcir during station discharge.
station operation can be compared to preoperational measurements
- c. Chemical for an estimate of this effect. It is concluded that these measure-ments be continued as part of the environmental monitoring program, and mitigating action taken by the applicant if adverse effects are Several chemicals' will be used in the Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 detected.
station and discharged into Dardanelle Reservoir. However, these discharges will be in low concentrations, as discussed in
- 4. Radioloalcal Sect. 111-D-3.
organisms living in the effluents of the Arkansas station will Sources of chemical d > charges from Unit 2 and their concentra-tions are given in Table 111-4. The estimated concentrations of receive an immersion (external) radiation dose f rom the radio- i nuclides released in the discharge water. In addition, they will these chemicals are all well below those for which ef fects on receive an internal radiation dose from radionuclides ingested in aquatic organisms have been measurable.17 Thg chemicals dis- their food or directly absorbed from the water, charged in largest quantities (Cl , S0d, Na ) are in concentra-tions much less than those occurring naturally in the reservoir. All chemical releases are well under permissible limits proposed To assees the possible ef fects of radiation on these organisms by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.38 the total accumulated dose was calculated. The dose calculation was based on the assumption that the concentration of radionuclides Chlorine will be added to the circulating water system as a in water remained constant. The radionuclides used for calculating biocide. This element has been shownL7 to be toxic to aquatic the dose are listed in Table 111-2. organisms with residual concentrations less than 0.1 ppa. Howevere no free chlorine will be discharged into Dardanelle Reservoir (see The immersion dose was computed with the EXREM computer code 24 Sect. III-D-3). The applicant states5 that when Unit 1 is not assuming that the organism remained continuously submerged. The operating, its cooling water will be maintained at a suf ficient total immersion dose to an organism was estimated to be less than 1 millirad / year, flow rate to maintain dilution of Unit 2 chemical effluents. Chemicals discharged from Unit 2 will add to those being discharged The computed internal dose to the organism is much larger than when Unit 1 operates. However, chemical discharges expectedI ' from the external dose because of the high biological accumuistion Unit 1 plus those from Unit 2 are still well below concentrations factors. Each species usually has a different accumulation shown17 to affect aquatic organisms. The concentration of chemicals f actor, which can be influenced by environmental factors; there-discharged will be limited by the Technical Specification of the fore the highest accumulation factors found in the 11terature23 operating license. for plants, invertebrates, and fish were selected. Dissolved oxygen concentrations near the surf ace of Dardanelle Internal doses were estimated from the equation Reservoir approximate air-saturation levels. Eighty measurements. at various locations and sampling depths, averaged 7.9 ppe in April D1 = 1.87 x 10 WCE, ii1 j and 12.1 ppa in January.6 Little or no dissolved oxygen shoul lost because of use of reservoir water for reactor coo 11ng.20.d21be
. However, the oxygen demand of materials in heated portions of the
, reservoir may be increased by increased water temperatures. An increased BOD could exceed the rate of reoxygenation from surf ace k E-52 i i 4
_ ._ ...._m_ ._ _m _ _ . m _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . , . _ _ _. 1 V-14 V-13 of the on-site program began during the Spring of 1972 and will where continue until the first nuclear reactor (Unit 1) goes critical. The same program will be continued as an operational monitoring Dg = dose rate due to 1,th radionuclide (m1111 rads / year)* program after the reactor is started up. 1.87 x 107 = a constant to convert microcuries per gram of The biological portion of this program, which is conducted by the organism to mi!!1rada per year. University of Arkansas at Little Rock, includes surveys of fish populations, bot tom organisms, and plankton. Sampling locations W = the amount of radionuclide in water (uct/al)* are shown in Fig. V-2. Cg = biological accumulation factor, and Fish surveys are made at three locations during midsummer and midwinter. Gill nets of dif ferent meshes with 24-hr sets are E o the ef fective absorbed energy (MeV)* used to collect fish, which will be identified by species and Estimated total doses for plants, invertebrates, and fish were 1800, 800, and 70 millirads/ year, respectively. These estimates are Bottom samples are taken in midsummer and midwinter with a based on organisms living in the ef fluent as it enters the embayment. 6 x 6-in. Ekman dredge, screen-washed, then bot tled for analysis. Therefore, they represent maximum estimated doses. Organisms are identified and counted, and the results are reported A voluminous literature relates to radiation effects on organisms. Most of the literature deals with acute, relatively high-level Plankton samples are taken along with bottom samples. Water from external exposure of laboratory animals. Very few studies have representative depths is taken using a 2-liter Van Dorn water samp-been conducted on the effects of chronic low-level radiation on ler. Plankton from 10 liters of this water is then concentrated by natural populations of aquatic organisms. The most rec smans of a plankton net (Wisconsin, No. 25, nylon) and transferred pertinent studies have been re ewedbyAuerbachetal.gtand and by to collection bottles. Plankton are identified, and results are Templeton, Nakatani, and Held. In general, the results of the reported as weight, type, and number of organisms per liter of water, studies covered by these two reviews support the prediction that i effects of radiation would not be detected at the dose rates cal- Physical and chemical data are obtained along with biological culated for the aquatic organisms, samples. Temperature and dissolved oxygen content are measured, depending upon sampling location, at from 4 to 12 depths. A'so, pH,
- 3. ,a.ofoeical t Monitorine of imoects turbidity, total hardness, iron, manganese, chloride, and boron are The applicant's environmental monitoring program, both preopera-tional and operational, is a cooperative program involving app 11- This information is available in summary report form,6 and the cant personnel, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR)* distribution and frequency of reports has been discussed in and the Arkansas State Department of Health (Division of Sect. V-C-1, Radiological Health). He contracted with UALR to conduct a comprehensive ecological study of the Dardanelle Reservoir to As a result of this review the staf f is of the opinion that the determine reservoir characteristics (thermal, chemical, biological
- biological aampling program should be expanded in the area near and radiological) five years before and five years af ter nuclear the intake canal in 1111nois Bayou and in the outf all embayment station operation. Theprogramisdescribedinmorepta11in Appendix D to the Supplement to Environmental Report. The Arkansas to more fully monitor dif ferences between the intake and outfall communities and provide additional data for a base upon which to State Department of Health will carry the major effort in the ,,g g gg gg g e.f-site radiation monitoring program,gtwhich began during the
!Pring of 1972, coordinating its program with UALR to avoid dup 11-
- ation of effort. The applicant's personnel will conduct the on-site radiation monitoring program with the assistance of the A. masas State Department of Health, and the preoperational phase T
E-53
- - ~ ~ ~ - - . ~ . - - - - ~ ~ . . . - . . . ---n.. ~ . . . _ . ~ - - _ . . _ _ - . , .= - - - ~ ~ . -._-u.. ~ . ~ . - _ - . ~ ~ - ~~
l V-15 v-16 4 i ! 5 D. RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF ROUTINE OPERATION 4 The radiological impact on man from radioactive effluents released ' l as liquida and gases iros Arkanaas Nuclear One Unit 2 is assessed. h.i r '1 lI The release of these af fluents will be conducted in accordance I 3 vg? h r- ,' h:~ .,,u. ! I
//
/( '
vith the limitatione set forth27 in 10 CFR 20 and the guidance 2s of 10 CFR 50 to keep the levels of radioactive material in effluents
** !# C '
3 3 j
/
to unrestricted areas as low as practicable. Operating experience
, j' 5 ; yh "} , 'y[ E..[ ^f N " ' (( ,
with other pressurised water' reactors licensed for operation by the 4.
'y$ .$. : g 3 /r AEC as summarized in Appendix C has shown that actual releases of t n.
1 3 % ,/ ,
%,l radionuclides from these reactors have generally been sas11 frac-
- e. 3 3 g h /A. ,,;/ % tions of the limits set forth in 10 CFR 20, (500 ares /yr - totst
- o .
f/ t body) consistent with the AEC policy of limiting radioactive e -[ F f~/ gf , hj releases to the lowest practicable level. t g t . , E
*"* .3 3
4 Y 1he limitations set forth in 10 CFR 20 are based upon recommenda- ; i I
- tions of the International Commission on Radiation Protection and l the Federal Radiation Council. The recommended limits of radiation
\ . .i I
O ,e , { h&' ;y 5 exposure to occupational workers and the general public are set '
"g f / where no detectable ef fects on man are expected to result from E ' ,w p s. releases of radionuclides meeting 10 CFR 20 limitations.
a i
-;I FYM 1. Ceneral Considerations and Framework of Dose Estimations m m s; d,
- jif . -
- i a.
Exposure Pathways
.qd i Pathways for external (radiation source outside the body) and g : P s e ll ., internal (radiation source inside the body) exposures are sche-
- g. -
matically illustrated in Fig. V-3. Issmersion in the gaseous 4 8 I ra ' , f,7:i* l J.i . . g'g , l,ag ef fluent as it is diluted and dispersed could lead to external l exposure. whereas the deposition of radioactive particulates on a @Dj g Q the land surface could lead to direct external exposure and to f jf f(/,,h internal exposure by the ingestion of food products through i y Yig(, f various food chains. Similarly. swisuming in waters in which
- h, h
/
(. , radionuclides have been discharged could lead to external exposure.
<i
/ j. I k, ' . fi, while the harvest of fish f rom or the use of these waters for e
.[ - #
, q y drinking trrigation, or food preparation could lead to internal j
I
! l-)l expos ures.
8 , j i
;ff 1
' I , p. " '
3 gs '( d Persons at or near the plant boundry could receive external exposure 2 from onsite storage areas containing radioactive materials (direct i 6! radiation pathway). This pathway is not expected to contribute gI significantly nor was it treated quantitatively. The staf f has P I E-54 7
I V-17 V-18 estiasted an upper limit of 0.1 aren/yr f rom this source (see a*vome aw,c Section Ill). However, onsite swasurements will be performed E*MS aw aws af ter the plant start-up to assure that this pathway is not si gnifican t. f
% +
+4 [_
- b. Dose Models Factors for converting internal radiation exposures to estimates
,,,g .5,3 taso suesu cos ta+%c,c,t sesan eum of dose were obtained with models and data published by the Inter-national Commission on Radiological Protection.2 9 These models and data have been incorporated in computer codes to f acilitate
?
[ DIRECT estimation of dose. Factors for converting external radiation exposures to dose were obtained with a cmputer code c<mtaining pacia nom models adapted f rom standard texts.33,31 E XW AL **=
- c. Dispe rsion of Caseous Ef fluent s Average annual concentrations of radionuclides contained in the air and deposited on the ground are obtained with an atmospheric trans-port mode 1 32 incorporated in a computer program.3 3 The gaseous ef fluents (Table 111-3) are to be released via exhaust ducts on the
#,Tg rNs' Perimeter of the reactor building at a height of 195 f t above grade.
Z'[] The exhaust ducts do not approximate a s tack release. The re fore , because of possible downwash caused by the reactor and turbine g/p buildings, the estimates of dispersion were made by assuming that
-3
%A[% the gaseous effluent completely downwashed to effectively becme a su-face release. The radionuclide concentrations were estimated f6 3f seg in each of sixteen 22.5" sectors at various distances up to 50 miles from the reactor using the applicant's site specific meteorological 5
datas discussed in Section II-D-3. The deposition velocities used O # in the calculations for the noble gases (Kr and Ze), methyl f odide
# (CH
# 10 g!), andand
,10-3, particulates 1 cm/sec,(Rb and Cs) or molecular respectively.3* iodineof(12radio-36 Reduction ) are
, nuclide concentrations in the air at ground level by radioactive
"'N* r$ * **'"aL 5
- 1Y[ 7,('] decay and deposition are taken into account in the atmospheric transport model.
2 (% f 5 g# d. Dispersion of 1.iquid Ef fluents
%,# , s 3 p The liquid effluents (Table 111-2) will be discharged into an embay-ment before entering the main body of Dardanelle Reservoir. How-ihTU NAL "a4 ever, because of the relatively small volume of the embayment, it is assumed that the circulating water which is discharged f rom the Fig. V-3. Pathways for external and internal exposure of man from atsw. spheric *nd aquatic releases of radiosctive ef fluent s.
E-55
V-20 V-19 station will not be diluted significantly until it enters the main body of the reservoir. The " flushing rate" of the edayment, or time la which the total volume of the embayment is replaced by the circulating water discharge, is only about 7-8 hours (at a discharge rate of 383,000 spa). Thus the quality of water in the embayment should closely apprcximate that of the discharge water. When the radionuclides leave the embayment and enter the main body of Tehh v 2. somemy st ehe sommed ames m hememb rar yses d sshese the reservoir their concentration will be reduced by a f actor of 88 Pomm er maammun espuom m m and hged ernmen tsam 42 because of the everage water flow of 36.000 cfs through the ******"*'"""*'0*"I reservoir. h m mdherie pathway te.sme .---
- 2. Estimates of Dose Gmeone e8fhants Estimates of average dose per year of statica operation, to both Individuals and the popuistion as a whole within 50 miles resulting
- i. SC ~ *. aes ak 0 32 a s2 from the expected radionuclide discharges f rom Arkansas Nuclear One -
me rman sreund sa handam e.0 6s ak on on 1 eme d esunanned eu se meadam t.06s ak W 11mit 2 during normal operation, are discussed below. A dose ralcu- 4 kne c0 04 1sted for one year of radionuclide intake (internal exposure nwe= 2 mh tos 2e pathways) is an estimate of the total dose an individual will accrue within his lifetime as a result of that one year of intake. The population dose (man-ren/yr) is the sum of the total-body doses & Denems weeer Mon tedy er seer e <e es gas to all individuals in the population considered. The dose esti- 1 aqueus feed stens Dmberse en&eyment is 20 mates were calculated for a population assumed to be composed 3 soumanas unin tedv er nem sen <ees <o oi entirely of adults. The assumption that the populatisas consists entirely of adults is reasonable considering the uncertaf ettes in the calculated radionuclide releases, the initial distribution of radionuclides in the environment, and the subsequent redistribution of radionuclides through exposure pathways to man except for the intake of milk containing radioactive iodine. For the case of radioactive iodine in slik, the dose estimated for a one-year-old child is about 10 times larger than the dose for an average adult.37.38 Estimates of dose are made for total body, liver, kidney, bone, thyroid, and gastrointestinal tract. Where signift-cant, the estimates of dose to organs other than total body are discussed. A summary of the dose estimates for individuals is given in Table V-2. Annual population dose estimates (in man-tem) are summarized in Table V-3. The population dose estimates pre-seated in the text are based on the 1970 census data discussed in Sect. 111-5.
- a. Caseous Effluente Dose estimates given for the individual as a result of exposure to the gaseous effluents are calculated for the location of maxi-saa potential exposure. This location is assumed to be the point E-56 i
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _- _. _ __ _ . _ _ _ _. - --- 4 V-22 V-21 having the highest average annual concentration of radionuclides in air at ground level - in this case, a point on the site boundary 0.65 mile west of the reactor. It is further conserva-tively assumed that the exposed individual resides at this loca-tion continuously, with no allowance for possible protective shielding provided by a residence, and that this location is the point of origin for any locally produced food excent milk g p a, , , y.e ar sessee involving a terrestrial pathway, g, gp, a w dnesen som arkenne m dse one tan 2 (1) Immersion ropa a.wimon-saar*
""' 20se seio The dose to an individual aa a result of immersion in the gaseous effluent at the location of maximum potential exposure is estimated m es*** to be 0.32 millitem per year. This estimated dose is contributed
. s1 85 by Ze-133 and Kr-88 primarily, 71 and 15% of the total dose,
,'2 Mm===ad rad '*f*,, e.s2 mes respectively.
=g a nnus emM t m w "'
a ve==*d hed d*== The population dose for immersion is estimated to be 0.2 man-rem /vr, woe.rn =m and the average annual dose to members of the population within 50
, , miles of the plant is estimated to be less than 0.01 millfres. The L D'"**8 *** population dose and average individual dose as a function of radial
- e. to f g"',*
, o nnnoe c onnot distance from the station are summarized in Table V-4 W#" (2) Exposure to the Land Surface sw , p,pa,.o. .une e so uar endem of Ho.am sue tem and 2M.me fus 2ais. The estimated dcsa to an individual at the location of maximum
*p.a n se.m n .d th, potentiel exposure due to external exposure to the contaminated as a*=== Ra* *="**** *" "d a""*m. "' am
******d st *"***p ed=== =nh= 58 =da 1and surface is 0.08 millires per year. todine-131 and -133 con-m nom me neman. n. wa ad ==== nele= 4 ==** H**"sh tribute nearly 89 and 71 of that total, respectively. The popu-
'"' 20ta lation dose for this exposure pathway is estimated to be 0.02 man-rem per year.
(3) Inhalation The inhalation dose estimates include no contributions f rom in-hated noble gases because the internal done from radioactive noble gases disswived in body tissue following inhalation from a cloud is negligible ~ that is, less than 12 of the associated external total-body dome.38 The eartmated total-body dose to an individual via inhalation at the location of maximum potential exposure is less than 0.01 milli-rem per year. This estimate is based on an inhalation rate of 2 x 10 11ters/ day.29 The corresponding dose estimate for the thyroid is 1.5 milltress per year. Most of the estimated dose E-57
. ___ _ .- _ - . -- . . . . - , _ - . _ . _. - . . ,- . . - ~ .
.~ - .
l 1 V-23 V-24 is due to 1-131e 77% of the total for total body and 83% of the total for thyroid. In this exposure pathway the dose estimate for the gastrointestinal tract (0.02 millirea/yr) is approximately Tahip V4 Summapp ef ame nhumles ta te , . Een times that for the total body. Rubidium-88 resulting from the f== * ** e==== N h 4 decay of Kr-88 produces most (82%) of this gastrointestinal tract arkenew Muchar Des tW 3 gg,,, medani 1" ruantame a*ase m pop.uains unisassai The estimated dose to the population via this exposure pathway is em ,u.i
<= des
'""" ] 4 t====*'
4.=
***M 6 0.0008 man-rem per year and the average total-body dose for members of the population is less than 0.01 millires per year. Corresponding average doses to the thyroid and to the gastrointestinal tract for es
[ t 41: [ easo e.amma
' members of the population via inhalation are each less than 0.01 millirem per year.
(4) Terrestrial Food Chains em 23m o ne am an Ingestion of radioactive particles and todine deposited on truck a 2e esa e mm2m crops is one possible terrestrial food-chain pathway, and ingestion
' ' 3' "# '" " " "
'# "# "" * * * " of radionuclides from milk and meat produced by animals pastured on areas exposed to gaseous ef fluents in the air is another. An
** I"" '" ""
additional pathway using all of these mechanisms also exists for nuclides deposited on the soil and incorporated into food plants through their roots. The only important contribution to dose from exposure to gaseous ef fluents released from Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 by these food-chain pathways is from I-131 via the air-pasture-cow-allk-man pathway. Concentrations in milk are based on the value of 0.2 9C1 of I-131 per liter resulting from an equilibrium level of I bCi of 1-131 per square seter of pasture.88 In addition to radioactive decay of the I-131, the contamination on the pasture is assumed to decrease by one-half every 14 days because cf weathering and grazing.*8 Doses to an adult drinking milk from cows pastured on the pasture nearest the site (approximately 2 miles north-northwest of the station) are estimated to be 0.41 millirens per year to the thyroid and less than 0.01 millirem per year to the total body. Cqarable values for a one-year-old child are a factor of ten larger.3 sa e These estimates of dose rates are based on consumption of 1 liter (1.1 quarts the child.2g,37,3 eof milk every day of the year by both the adult and E-53
__. .- _ .. ._. - __.m-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . __ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . . - Y*26 i-25 (3) Swi ming A population dose of 0.02 man-rem per year and an annual average individual dose to the total body of less than 0.01 millires are
- Swimming in the reservoir was also considered as a potential source estimated by assuming that each of the 6250 dairy cows within of external exposure. The dose to an individual (< 0.01 millirem / ,
50 miles of the station graze S six months per year and produce year of release) was estimated by assuming that he swiss in the main 25 liters per day, which is consumed by the population within reservoir downstream f rom the release point 1% of the year. the area, 1.iquiJ Effluents The total population dose was estimated to be less than 0.1 man-b. rea/ year of release by making the further arbitrary assumption that 12 of the total population within 50 miles of the site spends (1) Drinking Water I hr per day during the three summer unnths (approximately 11 of a Another exposure pathway of potential importance is drinking year) swimming in the reservoir downstrema from the release point. water. The dose to an individual was estimated by assuming When considerations within this exposure pathway are extended to include the possible dose contribution to the swinner due to radio-that all of his daily intake of drinking water (1200 al/ day)29 active sediments on the reservoir bottom and the beach the popula-comes from the Dardanelle Reservoir near the site, where an tion dose estimate is still less than 0.1 man-rem per year of effective dilution factor of 42 was assumed. Conversion of release. the annual radionuclide intake to dose gave an estimated dose for an individual of less than 0.01 millirem per year of radio- a nitoring .
. R ca RuClide release.
Airborne radioactivity will be monitored at four locations on site, The estimated dose from drinking water was not included in the at two locations within a 10-mile radius of the station, and at one total population dose estimate (Table V-3), since at no place on the Dardanelle Reservoir, or downstream from it, is the Arkansas control location 20 miles from the station. Data collected in
- River used as a source of municipal drinking water at the present the air monitoring network include (1) radionuclide concentra- '
tions in air, vegetation, and soil at all locations; (2) radio-time. nuclide concentrations in precipitation at one location on site i (2) Aquatic Food Chains and at the control location; and (3) integrated gamma doses l (direct radiation) at all locatione. The sample collection and The estimated dose to an individual for the fish ingestion pathway, analysis frequency will range from weekly for continuous air saur-1.8 millirens per year, was calculated assuming that the individual's Pling filters to semiannually for vegetation and soil samples.3 total annual intake of fish (7300 g/ year,16 lb/ year)" came from the Sample analysis will be limited primarily to gross activity and discharge embayment. The radionuclide concentrations in the fish gama spectral measurements, were assumed to be in equilibrium with the concentrations in the embayment water. Raw milk will be collected quarterly from local herds at six loca-tions about the station.26 The type analyses performed on the The man-rem dose estimate, 0.6 man-rem per year, for this exposure samples will ber (1) specific nuclide analyses for 1-131. Ca-137, pathway was calculated from an estimate of man's annual intake of ard Ba-140-ta-140; (2) gamma spectral measurements; and (3) gross game fish (1365 g/ year, 3 lb/ year)." It was assumed that these beta measurements. l game fish came f rom the main body of the reservoir rather than the embayment and that these reservcir fish represent 50% of the game The reservoir will be annitored by sampling water, fish, and bottom fish caught within 50 miles of the site. The estimated average sediments near the mouth of the discharge embayment and at two dose to members of the population for this pathway is less than sampling locations in the reservoir. Samples will be collected and 0.01 millires per year, analyzed semiannually before station operation and quarterly thereaf ter. For all samples, gross activity and gamma spectra will E-59
- . . - ~ - . - ..~ .. -- - -. ~ . _ . . . - - -- .~. ~ _. - ,
i' V-27 V-28 I ! be measured. In addition, specific radionuclide analyses will be The expansion of the monitoring program is recommended to be i made on water samples for H-3, 1-131, Cs-137, 2n-65, Mn-54, and part of the technical specifications of the license. The applicant , Ba-1404a-140 and on fish samples for 1-131 Co-137, and 2n-65. will be required to comply with AEC Safety Guide No. 21, " Measuring and Reporting of Effluents from Nuclear Power Reactors." These three stations will be identical to three stations already in use in the more extensive !!A1.R Dardanelle Reservoir Background . Assessment of he to Man Survey and serve as representative backup samples for that program. In the UAI.R program, aquatic biota samples (Fig. V-2) are taken at De radiation dose estimates for individuals and for the total various depths in the reservoir as well as various distances f rom population are summiarized in Tablea V-1 and V-2, respectively, the discharge embayment. All samples will be subjected to radio. The relative significance of these dose estimates may be judged logical assay (beta and gamuna). by comparing them with the dose due to natural background radia-tion and with a dose limit set forth in 10 CFR 20. De dose to Croundwater is monitored by collecting samples quarterly from total body and internal organs of an individual from natural back-one well on the station site and two wells within a 5-mile radius ground radiation near the site is estimated to be approximately of the station. Samples are analyzed for gross activity and 0.125 rem (125 milliress) per year."2 Title 10 CFR 20 establishes tritium. a permissible level of radiation in unrestricted areas such that it is unlikely any individual will reesive a dose to the total In the event of abnormal radioactive releases or unexpected changes body in excess of 0.5 ren in any year.27 in natural background, the applicant plans to augment the monitoring
. program or increase the frequency of sampling. The largest radiation doses estimated for the total body of an individual from the gaseous effluent occurs at the western The UAI.R cooperative radiation monitoring program was reviewed by boundary of the 0.65-mile-radius site. These estimates of dose the staff and considered generally of sufficient scope to allow an have not been reduced by the shielding provided by houses against adequate evaluation of the station's routine radiological impact. radionuclides contained in the air or deposited on the ground.
The sampling program in the Dardanelle Reservoir is judged to be Without any consideration for this possible dose reduction factor, adequate for defining radioactive concentrations in the reservoir the sum of the done estimates to the total body of an individual resulting from liquid waste discharges from the station. However, at the western boundary of the site is about 0.3% of the natural the highest concentrations will exist in f ront of the discharge background dose and less than 0.08% of the limit set forth in structure in the discharge embayment. The staff is of the 10 CFR 20, optaion that a sampling station should be installed in front of the discharge structure to provide measured concentrations of the The sum of the estimated doses to the thyroid at the location of released materials, which are more useful than calculated concentra, the pasture nearest to the site is 0.41 millirens per year of re-tions. Samples from this station should be analyzed for all radio. lease for an adult and 4.1 millirems per year of release for a nuclides that contribute sig11ficantly to the projected dose to child. These estimates of dose are 0.32 and 3.2% of the dose due humans in all exposure pathways from the use of reservoir water. to natural background, respectively. These dose estimates assume that the cow's feed is obtained from grazing at the designated Organisms !!ving in this discharge vicinity will be undergoing location, six sm:>nths per year. ecological succession as the reservoir natures. The staff is of the opinion that additional consideration be given to selecting The largest estimate of total-body dose to an individual from and monitoring biological indicators that may persist in spite of liquid ef fluents results from the consumption of fish taken f rom the natural or artificial changes. Since there le uncertainty the discharge embayment. That estimated dose is 1.4% of the dose about whether .he same species populations, much less the same com- due to natural background radiation and 0.42 of the 10 CFR 20 munity types or ecosystem types can so persist, early p'ans need limit. It is probably more reasonable to base this assessment to anticipate physiologically similar species to monitor and on a dose estimated fe,s the consumption of fish taken f rom the
, analyze in the discharge area. main reservoir, in which case the total dose estimate to an E-60
. _ _ . - ___ . - ~ a -. _ _ - _ .-m _ ._-a . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ , _ < _ m __ - ,m _ . a .- -
V-30 t T-29 year for replacement fuel and about 15 truckloads for the initial individual via the liquid effluent for the exposure pathways considered is 0.53 of the dose due to natural background and 4. Transport of Irradiated Fuel 0.13 of the 10 CFR 20 limit. These dose estimates indicate that the release of radioactive effluents f rom normal operation of Fuel elements removed f rom the teactor will be unchanged in Arkansas Nuclear one Unit 2 can be conducted within the limit appearance and will contain some of the original U-235 (which is
,of 10 Cf1 20. recoverable). As a result of the irradiation and fissioning of the uranium, the fuel element will contain large amounts of fission The sum of the estimated population doses fra exposure te both products and some plutonium. As the radioactivity decays, it gaseous and 11guld radioactive effluents released by the station produces radiation and heat. 1he amount of radioactivity remaining in the fuel varies with the length of time af ter discharge from the is 0.84 man-rem per year and is very small compared with the 18,000 man-res per year that the population within a 50-m11e reactor. After discharge from the reacter, the fuel elements are radius receives each year from natural radiation background. placed under water in a storage pool for cooling before being loaded
- into a cask for transport.
No discernible radiological impact on individuals and the popula- Although the specific cask design has not been identified, the tion is expected f rom normal operations of Arkansas Nuclear One applicant states that the irradiated fuel elements will be shipped Unit 2. , af ter at least 100 days cooling in AEC-DOT approved casks designed for transport by rail. The cask will weigh perhaps 70 to 100 tons. To transport the irradiated fuel, the staf f estimates ten shipments E. TRANSPORTATTON OF NUCLEAR FUEL AND SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE per year with six fuel elements per cash and one cask per earload. An equal number of shipments will be required to return the empty The nuclear fuel f or the Unit 2 reactor is slightly enriched uranium * * *
- in the form of sintered uranium oxide pellets encapsulated in Zircaloy fuel rods. Each year in normal operation, about 59 fue! 3. Transport of Solid Radioactive Wastes elements are replaced.
t Spent resins and waste evaporator bottoms will be solidified, and The applicant has indicated that new fuel for the reactors will sof t solid wastes will be compacted in drums for shipment and
, be transported by truck from Windsor, Connecticut. The applicant disposal. The staf f estimates that about 835 drums / year of has not indicated where the irradiated fuel or solid radioactive solid radioactive wastes will be generated by the operation of wastes will be shipped, but he did indicate irradiated fuel vill Unit 2, which is equivalent to about 12 trucklosas of wasta each be transported by rail and solid wastes by truck. The staff year.
assumed the shipping distance to the nearest fuel reprocessing plant and waste storage site to be 750 miles. 4. Principles of Safety in Transport e ran8Putathn d ramach matedal is ngulaW h th I 1* Transport of New Fuel ! Department of Transportation and the Atomic Energy Commission. I This protection is achieved by a combination of standards and The applicat has indicated that new fuel vill be shipped in AEC- requirements applicable to packaging, limitations on the con-DOT approved containers that hold two fuel elements per container. tents of packages and radiation levels f rom packages, and pro-About five truckloads of six containers each will be required each cedures to limit the exposure of persons under normal and accident conditions. Primary reliance for safety in transport of radioactive material is placed on the packaging. The packaging must meet Federal l E-61
_ .,m -. . _ , ~ m .. __ ._ ,. .-_m- _ _ _ __--- .m. .__m. ... m - >.mm.- m _ ._ , m-.. V-31 V-32 agency standarde d established according to the type and form of choose the most direct and. fastest route. Routing restrictions i- material for containment. shielding, nuclear criticality safety, that require use of secondary highways or other than the most { and heat dissipation. . Tne standarda provide that the packaging direct route may increase the overall environnental impact of
! shall prevent the loss or dispersal of the radioactive conte 1ts, transportation as a result of increased accident frequency or retain shielding efficiency, assure nuclear criticality safety, severity.
- and provide adequate heat dissipation tarder normal conditions of transport and under specified accident damage teet conditione. 5. Exposure Durine Normal (No Accident) Conditions The contents of packages not designed te withstand accidents are limited, thereby limiting the risk from releases that could occur a. New Fuel in an accident. The contents of the package also must be limited so that the standards for external radiation levels, temperature. Since the nuclear radiations and heat emitted by new fuel are pressure, and containment are met. small, there will be essentially no ef fect on the environment during transport under normal conditions. Exposure of individual 4 Procedures app!! cable to the shipment of packages of radioactive transport workers is estimated to be less than 1 millites per 1 . material require that the package be labeled with a unique radio. shipment. For the five shipments, with two drivers for each vehicle.
active materials label. In transport, the . carrier is required to the total dose would be about 0.01 man-rea/ year. The radiation exercise control over radioactive material packages including level associated with each truckload of new fuel will be less loading and storage in areas separated f rom persons and limitations than 0.1 milliren/hr at 6 ft from the truck. A member of the ., on aggregations of packages to limit the exposure of persons under general public who spends 3 min at an average distance of 3 ft
! normal conditions. The procedures carriers must follow in case of from the truck might receive a dose of about 0.005 millires per
- accident include segregation of damaged and leaking packages from shipment.- The dose to other persons along the shipping route people and notification of the shipper and the Department of would be extremely small.
! Transportation. Radiological assistance teams are available through an inter-Governmental program to provide equipment and b. Irradiated Fuel trained personnel, if necessary, in such emergencies.
Based on actual radiation levela associated with shipments of Within the regulatory standards, radioactive materials are re. irradiated fuel elements, the staff estimates the radiation level quired to be safely transported in routine commerce using con- at 3 f t f rom the rail car will be about 25 milliren/hr. ventional transportation equipment with no special restrictions on speed of vehicle, routing, or ambient transport conditions. Train brakemen might spend a few minutes in the vicinity of the According to the Department of Transportation (DOT), the record car at an average distance of 3 fr. for an average exposure of d of safety in the transportation of radioactive materials exceeds about 0.5 millirem per shipment. With 10 different brakemen that for any other type of hazardous commodity. Drrf estimates involved along the route, the annual cumulative dose for 10 ship-approximately 800.000 packages of radioactive material are cur. ments during the year is estimated to be about 0.05 man-rem. rently being shipped La the United States each year. Thus far, . L based on the best available information, there have been no known A member of the general public who spends 3 min at an average ' 4 deaths or serious injuries to the public or to transport workers distance of 3 f t from the rail car. might receive a dose of as due to radiation from a radioactive material shipment, much as 1.3 millirem. If ten persons were so exposed per shipment. l the am ual cumulative dose would be about 0.1 man-rem. Approxi-s(.ety is transportation is provided by the package design and mately 225.000 persons who reside along the 750-mile route over f a.mitations on the contents and external radiation letris and which the irradiated fuel is transported might receive an annual 4 does not depend on controls over routing. The regulations cumulative dose of about 0.07 man-rem. The regulatory radiation require all carriers of hazardous materials to avoid congested level limit of 10 millirea/br at a distance of 6 ft from the areas" wherever practical to do so; in general. carriers . vehicle was used to calculate the integrated dose to persons in an area between 100 ft and 0.5 mile on both sides 'of the shipping d 1 I 1 4 E-62 i i t Y
V-33 V-34 route. It was assumed that the shipment would travet 200 miles / day and that the population density would average 330 persons per square mile along the route.
- 1. " Development and Demonstration of Low-Lavel Drift Instrumen-The amount of heat released to the air from each cask will be tation," Environmental Protection Agency No. 16130 CNK, about 250,000 Etu/hr. For comparison, 115,000 Stu/hr is about Environmental Systems Corporation, October 1971.
equal to the heat output f rom the furnace in an average size home. Although the temperature of the air that contacts the 2. K. K. McKelvey and M. Brooke The Indastrial Cooling fouer, loaded cask may be increased a few degrees, because the amount Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1959, Chap. 9, of heat is small and is being released over the entire trans. portation route, no appreciable thermal effects on the environ- 3. T. Shapiro, Oak Ridge Gaseous Dif fusion Plant, personal ment will result. communication. c.. Solid Radioactive Wastes 4. Eric Aynsley, " Environmental Aspects of Cooling Tower Plumes," Illinois Institure of Technology Research Institute, paper Under normal conditions, the individual truck driver might receive presented at Cooling Tower Institute, Jan. 26, 1970. as much as 15 millirem per shipment. If the same driver were to drive 12 truckloads in a year, he could receive an estimated dose 5. Arkansas Power and Light Company Arkaness helsar One prit 2 of about 180 millirem during the year. The cumulative dose to 4plenant to Enviror:msntal Feport, Docket No. 50-368, all drivers for the year, assuming 2 drivers per vehicle, might December 1971, and later supplements and amendments. be about 0.4 man-rem.
- 6. L'niversity of Arkansas at Little Rock, Dar32rW!ls Reserpoir A member of the general public who spende 3 min at an average III58Cf8 A & N I O 29mCM8 3Gok distance of 3 ft f rom the truck af ght receive a dose of as much J Pokal Stal 3 , Progress Reports 1 (January 1969) through 6 (June 1971),
as 1.3 millires. If ten persons were so exposed per shipment, the annust cumulative dose would be about 0.2 man-rem. Approxi- 7. Arkansas Came and Fish Connaission, Fisheries Division, Fish mately 225,000 persons who reside along the 750-mile route over PoPhlGtion SePIs Reports, Dardanella Reservoir Background which the solid radioactive waste is transported might receive OkW#F e September 1971. an annual cumulative dose of about 0.1 men-rem. These doses were calculated for persons in an area between 100 f t and 0.5 mile 8. Arkansas Polytechnic College, A:rdertalla Reserooir Area,1969. on either side of the shipping route, assuming 330 persons per square mile, 10 millirea/hr at 6 ft from the vehicle, and the 9. U.S. Department of the Interior N.CA, Industrial W.2sts Cuida shipment traveling 200 miles / day. on Tbmal Pollution, Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon, September 1968.
- 10. U.S. Department of the Interior FWPCA, TOTert2 tun and Aquatic Life - Labceziory Insea tigations N3. 6. Technical Advisory and Investigations Branch, Cincinnati, Ohio, December 1967.
- 11. M. A. Churchill and T. A. Woj talik, Lel. #aos (Ninal2Ze, Ill.) 12(9)2 80 (1969)
- 12. C. C. Coutant, "Stological Aspects of Thermal Pollution," CRC Critimal slavieue in l'noiron. Cont. 1: 341-81 (1970).
E-63
~c - -. .- - . . - - . . . - ~ . - .
I jT v-36 V-35 ,
= 13. R. O. Brinkhurst, The P{ ology of the Tubifioidas with .special 24. S. 1. Auerbach D. J. Nelson, S. W. Kaye D. E. Reichle, and Referenas to Pollution. Pub. RealtJe Serp. PhM. 657 Public C. C. Coutant, " Ecological Considerations in Reactor Power Health Service, Washington, D.C., 1962. Plant Siting," pp. 805-20 in Ewim,riental Aspects of #wolezr Paper Stations, IAEA-SM-146/53 International Atomic Energy
- 14. C. C. Coutant. " Thermal Pollution - Biological Ef fects," Agency, Vienna. 1971.
1 /. Water Pollut. Conte. red. 43: 1292-1334 (1971). W. L. Templeton, R. E. Nakatani, and E. Held, " Radiation 25.
- 13. Consolidated Edison Company of New York. " Fish Protection Ef fects," pp. 223-39 in Radioactioity in tha &Mnd ,
at Indian Point No.1," in Ewinnmental Report Infian Point Environment, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C. No. 3, 1970. 1971.
- 16. E. C. Raney, " Discussion," pp. 371-74 in Biological Aspects of 26. ~B. H. Sheets, W. H. Oates. Jr.. D. D. Snellings, Jr. , and Themal Pollution, ed. by P. A. Krenkel and F. L. Parker, E. F. Wilson A Sertu j of EmpiNnmerettal B2fiation Sta'pdi!-
Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, Tennessee, 1969. latos Actioities in Arkansas, Division of Radiological Health. Arkansas State Department of health Little Rock,
- 17. J. E. McKee and H. W. Wolf, eds., Water Quality Criteria, September 1971.
The Resources Agency of California, Publication No. 3-A. 1963.
- 27. " Standards for Protection asainst Radiation," Title 10,
- 18. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Watsr Quality Code of Federal Regklatione, Part 20.
Critaria, April 1968.
- 28. " Licensing of Production and Utilisation Facilities." Title 10
- j. 19. Arkansas Power and Light Company, Arkansaa Nuelear One L' nit 2 Supplement to Environment Report. Docket No. 50-313 Cada of Fadsmi Regulations, Part 50.
i
- 29. International Commission on Radiological Protection.
November 1971. Recomendations of the International Comiselon on ,
- 20. J. S. Alabaster and A. L. Downing. "A Field and Laboratory . Radiological Protection, (Report of Committee 2 on Investigation on the Effect of Heated Effluents on Fi*h," Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation). ICRP Publ. 2, Fish. Invest. Ser., Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Pergamon Press, London,1959. '
Food, U.K. 6(4): 1-42, 1966.
- 30. C. J. Hine and G. L. Brownell, ed., Rafiation Ibaimetry,
- 21. J. R. Adams, "Therr.a1 Power, Aquatic Life and Kilowatts on Academic Press. New York, 1956.
. the Pacific Coast," .kl. #aus (Ninadala, 113.1 12(9): 75-79 (1969). 31. E. Z. Morgan and J. E. Turner, eds., Principles of R2diation Pmteation, John Wiley and Sons. Inc., New York,1967.
2:. W. D. Turner. The EXRE1 II Corruter Code for Estimting E.rtar%21 Doses to Populations fkm Construction of a Saa- 32. D. H. Slade, ed., %teorology and A tomic Ensegy 1968, 4.rpal Canal with Asolear EmpIoetFas CTC-8, Union Carbide USAEC Division of Technical Information. TID-24190, July 1968. Corporation. Oak Ridge Tennessee, Computing Technology Center. July 1969. 33. M. Reeves, III, P. C. Powler, and K. E. Cowser, A Computer Code for Routine Atmospheric Release of Short-Lived Radioactive 1 23. W. H. Chapman, H. L. Fisher, and M. W. Pratt, Concentratiour Nuclides, ORNL-TM-3613 (in preparation). Factors of Mm2l E!amente i't Edible Aquatio Orga'tisme,
. UCRL-50564, California Univ., Berkeley, Lawrence Radiation 34. D. H. F. Atkins, p. C. Chadwick, and A. C. Chamberlain, .x'
, Laboratory, 1968. " Deposition of Radioactive Methyl loding to Vegetation," Nealth Phys. 13: 91 (1967). .t t l E-64 7 , -- - _ . - - -
V-37 3
- 35. D. F. Eunch, ed. Controlled Emrinnerental Aaliciodine Tests, Progress Report fuo, IDo-12053, August 1966.
- 36. F. A. Gifford and D. B. Pack, " Surface Deposition of Airborne Material," Rael. Safety J(4): 76 (June 1962).
- 37. J. K. Soldat, " Environmental Evaluation of an Acute Release of 1-131 to the Atmosphere," Realth Phys.18 267 (1970).
- 38. 3. Shleten, "An Evaluation of Internal Radiation Exposure a Based on Dose Connaitments from Radionuclides in Milk, Food, and Air," Realth Phys. 18: 267 (1970).
.i
- 39. J. T. Whitton, Lbse Arising from Inhalation of Roble Cases, RD/3/31274, Central Electricity Cenerating Board, Serkeley, England, December 1968.
- 40. J. D. Burtoo, R. J. Carner, and R. S. Russell, "Possible Relationships Between the Deposition of Fission Products and Levels of Dietary contamination," p. 457 in R.afiasativity amf Rwere Diet,' R. S. Russell, ed. , Pergamon Press, London, 1966.
i
- 41. - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricieltural Statistias ISff, U.S. Covernment Printing Office Washington, D.C., 1969,
- 42. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measuremente, Bacio Radiation Protection CriterCa, NCRP Report 50. 39, Washington, D.C., Jan. 15, 1971.
- 43. Code of fedom! Regulations, Title 10, part 71; Title 49, parts 173 and 178.
- 44. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 49, Sect. 307.1(d).
1 E-65
~
VI-I VI-2 VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POST 11ATED ACCIDENTS A. STATIO!t ACCIDENTS A high degree of protection against the occurrence of postulated accidents in the Arkansas Euclear One Unit 2 facility is provided through proper design, manufacture, and operation and the quality assurance program used to establish the necessary high integrity of the reactor system. These aspects are ennsidered in the Commission's Safety Evaluation 3 of the Arkansas Euclear One ifnit 2 facility. Tath vi e. timesskanan d resembod amsdenm end ommemm Deviations that may occur are handled by protective systems to N ^# d'P"* ^#*"'* place and hold the unit in a safe condition. Notwithatanding this, , g, % the conservative postulate is made that serious accidents might , , , , occur, even though they may be extremely unlikely and engineered , , , w%
% g .,4 ,,4,,, ,,,,,,,,4 p.m ,pm safety features are installed to mitigate the consequences of these , , , , g ,,,,
postulated events. 3 4 ens =m pad == en seemory Na* apetee The probability of occurrence of accidents and the spectrum of " * " their consequences to be considered from the standpoint of envirun- 8 I "** P *d"'" '" P"*' 5'***"'"*'"**"'" mental ef fects have been analyzed with the best estimates of prob- '"d" # **" abilities and fission product release and transport assumptions, e astwhng endras Refwhas sumar=E ssem enmannerm For site evaluation in the Commission's Safety Review.3 extremely 7 Spet fwl bendhng acedens F uri teamg ammirat antner emusement conservative assumptions are being made to compare calculated doses a ac.34,na ami.ine a swam srassmenr enew e= puer resulting from a hypothetical release of fission products from the "ad m enanh Em men hanmpme fuel against the 10 CFR part 100 sating guidelines.2 The estiasted *'"""*"'h'8'"' C""'***"""'"**'"* doses that might be received by the population from actual accidents ""d'""*P"' ** "" would be significantly less than those presented in the safety ' "'P""""d - d'"""" """' evaluation. """***""8*** The Commission issued guidance to applicants on September 1,1971 requiring the consideration of a spectrum of accidents with assump-tions as realistic as the state of knowledge permits. The app 11-cant's response was contained in his Environmental Report.8 The applicant's report has been evaluated with the use of the standard accident assumptions and guidance issued as a proposed amendment to Appendix D of 10 CTR 50 by the Commission on December 1,1971. Eine classes of postulated accidents and occurrences ranging in severity from trivial to very serious were identified by the Cosuaission. In general, accidents in the high potential consequence end of the spect rum have a low occur-rence rate, and those on the low potential consequence end have a higher occurrence rate. The examples selected by the applicant for these cases are shown in Table VI-1. These examples are
/
Y E-66
i. 71-4 TI-3 r.n= vta, s====y er d or pw= heme.=edsmes E,.,
- a- w -
l n . iso. . e --
****""d"# seen reasonably hoogeneous in terms of probability within each class. e Certata assumptions made by the applicant (prior to the publicatf(st I **d""*'""' " "
i of the Annex to Appendim D) do not exactly agree with those in the 2 smes ammen e.nsee 6 6 proposed Annes to Appendia D, but the use of alternative assumptions _ does act significantly affect overall risk. 3 s.dmaope === spies = tweme s 829 63
- 3I Staf f estimates of the dose that might be received by an assumed re.s,msus
,,0 o imitase er si individual standing at the site boundary in the downwind direction. 22 a.i .t we e s2 using the assumptions in the proposed Annen to Appendix D, are n sm"'*""'is"w m en presented la Table VI-2. Staf f estimates of the men-rom dose that ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
might be delivered to the population within 50 miles of the site , ,,,,,g,, u,,,,,,, gg are also presented in Table VI-2 The rian-ren estimate was based ,, on the projected permanent and transient population around the , % ,, site for the year 2015. s s au, , 88 pues.hassas aw=e..md 6 6 To establish a realistic annual risk, the calculated doses in u w""""*"#"'"' w a ai Table VI-2 would have to be multiplied by estimated probabilities. ,,,,,,,,n,,,,,,,,, The events la classes 1 and 2 represent occurrences that are m e.,.a.s am I'sk anticipated during station operation, and their consequences, which " "'""N*"'"" 'I are very small, are considered within the f renework of routine effluents from the station. gacept for a limited amount of fuel
, , "("d"L g failure and see steam generator leakage, the events in classes 3 62 n , .mi-s e , e so 4, f=d = ===
3 througn 5 are not expected to occur f requently during station 1 operations but events of this type ould occur same time during 1
'8 sp as twe n edhns a.wd.me
* *d ****4 dae *** 8" *** s t?
! the 40-year station lifetime. Accidents in classes 6 and 7 and
- f small accidents la class 8 are of similar or lower probability y ,,,",M'"",,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,, , , ,
thaus accidents in classes 3 through 5 but are still possible. a The probability of occurrence of large class 8 accidents is very 11 e usi ma as , ett sa small. Therefore, when the consequences fadicated in Table VI-2 e aa.orm .m. are weighted by probabilities, the environmental risk is very low. ^**4* "
-m sema e m"e se"m"y 1
andy n.p.n 4 The postulated occurrences in class 9 involve sequences of succes- . si L rama mi aw*== sive failures more severe than those required to be considered in s=ne ==.a c a63 s1 the design bases of protection systems and engineered safety fea. ,,, jj e,s see tures. The consequences could be severe. However, the probability ,,,,,,,,,,, of their occurrence is so small that their risk to the general p =nene. umane public is extremely low. Defense in depth (multiple physical bar. s aa a me .isomm medene o esi a s aa sas a ,m=*= n.e .,,e.on, n,. .,,m.w. riers), quality assurance la design, manufacture, and operation, continuous surveillance and testing, and conservative des 1<tn are s ne si aer t t.irem . e.iee all applied to provide and maintala e high degree of assurance that potential accidents in this class are, and util remain, suf-C' - L.,, n a
.re con 4,
<sa ficiently law in probability that the environmental risk is *r""an me ab.utemd haswo of a whats tiedy ans of M mehm.E .t me deu as an estremely law. =v==
, Dhoes weseems ese es,m'end se he se assose wem the pen,.eed appendas I en te Os Se far emuume i efl%sses.ese,9 mallissemeryees se an undevidual hem og so.sene i E-6/
- - _m _ - .m = ._.- > _ - - <
's ",
I VI-5 y g.6 Table TI-2 indicates that the estimated radiological consequences or 1 in 100 of those involving Typs 5 packages might result in any of the postulated accidents would result in exposures of individuals leakage of radioactive material. In cane of an accident, proce-at the site boundary to concentrations of radioactive materials dures that carriers are required' to follow will reduce the conse-within the Maximum permissible Concentrations (MPC) of 10 CFR quences of an accident in many cases. The procedures include part 20. Table 11-2 also shows that the estimated man-rem dose within segregation of damaged and leaking packages f rce people and noti-50 miles of the station from each postulated accident would be fication of the shipper and the Department of Transportation, ordere of magnitude oms 11er than that f rom naturally occurring gadiological assistance teens are available through an inter-radioactivity, which corresponds to approximately 35,400 (based on Governmental progres to provida equipped and trained personnel. 2015 population) man-rems / year based on a nat*ral background of These teams, dispatched in response to calls for emergency assis-j 125 millire'as/ year.' tance, can mitigate the consequences of an accident. Radioactive liquid wastes in the Arkansas Nuclear one Unit 2 Plant are 2. New Fuel contained within Class I structures. Fatture of equipment within these structures would not lead to a release of radioactive liquid to the Under accident conditions other than accidental criticality, the environment. The quantity of low-level liquid radioactive materiale outside Class I structures is very small and release of this material pelletized
, form of thegnuclear fuel, its encapsulation}and the gg, would not af fect substantially the environmental impact determined for on the environment to negligible levels.
routine operattom of the plant. The doses calculated as consequences of the postulated accidents The packaging is designed to prevent criticality under normal and are based on airborne transport of radioactive materials resulting severe accident conditions. To release a ntmber of fuel assemblies under conditions that could lead to accidental criticality would in both a direct and m inhalation dose. The staff s evaluation require severe damage or destruction of more than one package, of the accident doses assumes that the applicant s environmental which is unlikely to happen in other than an extremely severe monitories progres and appropriate additional monitoring (which accident. ! could be initiated subsequent to an incident detected by in-plant J
. monitoring) would detect the presence of radioactivity in the The probability that an accident could occur under conditions that environment in a timely manner such that remedial action could be could result in accidental criticality is so small that the environ-takes if necessary to limit exposure f rom other potential pathways mental risk is negligibly small.
, to man. When considered with the probability of occurrence, the annual potential radiation exposure of the papulation fram all the postulated gf fects on the environment from accidental releases of radioactive accidents is an even smaller fraction of the exposure f rom natural materials during shipment of irradiated fuel have been estimated background radiation and, in f act, is well within natural occuring variations la the natural background. It is concluded from the for the situation where contaminated coolant is released and the situation where gases and coolant are released. : realistic analysis that the environmental rieb due to postulated 4 accidents is exceedingly small.
- a. Leaksee of Contaninated Coolant I B. TRANSPORTATI(21 ACCIDENTS ,
- Leakage of contaminated coclant resulting f rom improper closing of the cask is possible as a result of human error, even though the
- 1. grposures Resultina f rom Postulated Accidents shipper is required to follow specific procedures that include Based on recent accident statistics,5 a shipment of fuel or waste tests and examination of the closed container before each shipment.
Such an accident is highly unlikely during the 40-year life of may be expected to be involved in an accident about once in a the station. total of MO,000 shipment-miles. The staff has estimated that only about 1 in 10 of those accidents that involve Type A packages 14akage of liquid at a rate of 0.001 cm /sec 3 or about 00 drops /hr is about the smallest amount of leakage that can be detected by visual observation of a large container. If undetected leakage , 1 1 E-63 i 3 w e
. _-. m ..m.m -- - - . _ _ . ___ _ - - . _ _ _ . _. . _ _ . . . ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ t l
V1+7 - VI-E of contaminated liquid coolant were to occur, the asuiunt would be 3. Severitr M postulated Transportation Accidente so ses11 that the individual esposure um14 not exceed a few
' millireus, and only a very few people would receive such exposures. The events postulated in this analyste are unlikely but possible.
More severe accidents than those analysed can be postulated and
- b. Relene, of Cagee and Coolant their consequences could be severe. Quality assurance for design, manuf acture, and use of the packages, continued surveillance and .i Release of gases and coolant is an entremely remote possibility. testing of packages and transport conditione, and conservativs
- In the improbable event that a cask is involved in an est remely design of packages ensure that the probability of accidents of severe accident auch that the cask containment is breached and the thie latter poteattal is suf ficiently small that the environmental j cladding of the fuel assemblies penetrated, suam of the ecolant rtok is ent temely low. For those reasona, mote severe accidents and some of the noble gases eight be released f rom the cask. have not beee included in the analysis.
In such an accident, the ammint of radioactive material releanad would be limited to the available f raction of the noble gases ta the void spaces la the fuel pins and see f raction of the low-level contamination in the coolant. persons would not be expected to remain near the accident due to the severe conditions which would be involved. tecluding a major fire. If releases occurred, they would be expected to take place in a short period of time. Only a limited area would be af fected. persons in the dovratind region and within about 100 f t of the accident might receive doses as high as a few hundred e1111rene. t?pder everage weather em= ditions. a few hwadred square feet might be contaminated to the extent that it would require decontamination (that is, Range 1 contamination levela) according t o the standards 3 of the Environ-mental protection Agency. P
- 4. Solid Radioactive Wastes It is highly unlikely that a shipment of solid radioactive waste will be involved in a sever, secident during the 40-year life of the station. If a shipment of low-level waste (in drums) becomes favolved ta a severe accident, scue release of vaste might occur, but the specific activity of the wasta will be so low that the exposure of personnel would not be expected to be significant. Other solid radioactive wastes will be shipped in Type B packages. Considering the solid form of the vaste and the very remote probability that a shipment of such waste would be involved in a very severs eccident, the probability of release from a Type B package, in even a very severe accident. is suf-ficiently small that the like11 hood of significant exposure would be estrempty ses11.
I la either case, spread of the contamination beyond the immediate area is unlikely, and, although local cleanup might be required, no significant exposure to the general pub!!c would te expected to result. 4 E-63 f
- _ . , , , + , . - ,
. > > [l t t rt ; . " . .
h ' t 7 0 - 7 E - e, n 2 0 4s , 2 n rn o 6 i n o t r -
.d, 86 i o
e 8o
,tg t nid
, 6 5
t c o p - S. a 1- t i r e e Vr0 l a h t sn ti 2idlu msa , 4 7 t R e5 u nh eAaGe 1 l yv. y sb g e e, v8 es me y rdrt e o l 5, 1
,ic
- iE o R O63 eW zal ss n9 n o N r , Loias 1 o8 u
. ns l a a0 - u raoe ftRCF i o wat t se r e5 s9 a3 ot 1 t aeC i, nk 1 ac d e l
. e o.
M as tsR o S. ai
.l 71 iin f.t o rrD oA k o e . kNo F) 1 dN n
nl sue eat r s. t s e ni Rot ra ,
, f(
o st ae -- at drn;e c e fti I V tof2 o no r i ee9 n n S oSd'a - Mri t e1 1 sk nc ao op wdd6 a ai9 t rR no N O I ftU en d o0 c0 kD r i e tR c Ak d;A n1Co s n n efl a T ot ,4 A . eP f0 8 ,t o psr _ C E ae ,tr t R oC P7f3 i oee tdd e nMri 0h yw 29 o1d t S o d 1 p rN ,1 e a 9 R l e oh r er a nr ae P
, nri ot s.i l u w%F e
- O F
it a v a l g t a pK m na oi oesNl g e D n7 I V inl i r ol i r it mlbyaw R eo5
$ Ta Ce c t e aea$ s hi2 E
C N Dik en h e ".a6 p t n h et at ii d r rc nt a t sD eAeCl l a r tt raw ct gr aC e o n ,dlf E ti s i l R E yes sa i6 r9 i n R
- n. i yaB nuc d e
fea ve F bdn a e1 Lm no1 mt y T liC' E R sr ee r t , di np oi7 d r t r na at i cd cak i r5 ah l c1 t9 yo p f o retea3n'. iCA t . C . r K . i e ct , Aemdem. ar e i 6 a y y2 n7 er t p eo1 vt7 o no5 ur1 wPPci %. 0c 7 d o . m h P 90,1
,9 i
skma9e 1 iA S Ft1 9 oP e tgf i o
, Al 9 C1 6 y n, lCcutun n ,a1 dns;a Ma 8LM( 0, r0
. N sa etSir .ct e 0 8
s s w. 4 n tdi . t o0 a r aiJ l 17 e ye 2 t1 sa1 nt ast sb 7 rt ti t c nl oa, ria#im err e1 gd n 7 emh . fogr ati p at er Ra ap kpc. rue iN. t a4 C deaeht rt eeac t e l td in k cam. ate o S A I. A " P ASD N#D FCttSD Ta BSSN 5 2. 3 4, ' 5 6 7 m _ e ~
;4 t , ' , l !. 1 1 a i
. ~ , - -- u ,~ . ~ . . - - - - - ~ _- . . _~- . -- ~ -
L V11-1 VII-2 C. RFCIONAL EPTECTS V11. ADVERSE EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED The clearing for transmission lines for both Unite 1 and 2 is esti. A. EFFFCTS ON LAND 15E mat ed t o req ui re ab out 3700 acres. nis acreage includes agricul-tural, livestock, and fr.restry production areas. A portion of the The construction and operation of a large electrical generating right-of-way util remain in use for agricultural and livestock produc-atation such as Arkanese Nuclear One will cause some unavoid* tion. Assuming the entire acreage were lost of forestry production able effects. The land prior to const I was used it would represent about 1.4% of the comusercial forested land la partly for pasture, tisber production,{uction of Unit anJ marginal f arm operation. the 10 counties nearest the station and .00333 of the commercially Land for the ette le acw committed to long-term use (that is, f or forested land in the State of Arkansas, the life of the station), and some portion of this land will probably be coannitted for an indeterminate period of ties thereaf ter. The 734 acres of the ette which are unoccupied by buildings and f acil-ities but needed for an eactusion area can be used for recreational f acilities, timber growth, or other future uses. The remaining 430 acrea are comunitted for at least an estimated 40 years. It may be possible to dismantle the entire station at the end of Ste useful life and return the land to other uses, or another electrical gen. erating station could take its place. The construction of Unit 2 at the same site as Unit 1. instead of at a new location, results in no additional land comuniteents. B. EFFECTS W WATER RESERVOIRS When 1ktit 2 culy is operating, the velocity of water in the intake canal will be about 0.8 f ps. (Approntmately half of the 1.5 fps velocity when both units are operating.) The water intake struc-tures at the end of the canal near the station contain traveling screens throush which the velocity of the water varies f rom 2.0 to 2.2 fps as the reservoir varies f rom power level (338 f t a$ove mean sea level) to navigational level (336 f t). This velocity le suf= ficleat to trap, and thereby kill, small sises of some spectee of fish. The magnitude of thle ef fect cannot be determined at present. but will depend on the number, sise, and kind of fish leaving the reservoir and traveling the 4400-ft-long canal. Small fish
. (less than 3/8 in. in diameter) and lower forms of suspended aquatic life will pass on through the acreens and into the station water systems. This will result in ac unavoidable lose of some aquatic
, life. Total losses will be minimised by the requirements of the technical specification that will require the applicant to take immediate corrective action and/or modify the estating designs if , data from the environmental monitoring program indleate any significant adverse ef fe:ts.
-F E-71 1
E 4
. - - . _ _ . . _ _ . . m _,_. ._._.m._m _ _ . ._m -_ _ _ . - m-. mm4 ... . _. _ . - ~ _ = _ . ., 4 i yggg.g VIII*2 i
2 L I The applicant has estimated the cost of peram ently shut ting down v111, shont-Tf RM _AND 1.ONC-TERPt FmtMRTIVITY the f actitty - including reactor core removal, decontamination of l remaintag components, and building isolation - at $10,000,000 on a The principal uses of the property acw occupied by the stat 1<m or current cost basis, plus $40,000 annually to maintain the shutdown 1 to be used for transmissim lines were (or are) timber growing and facility la safe condition. Dese estimates are probably low, but farmin g. These unee (eacept for sme transmiseton line sections whers not appreciably so. f arming may att11 be practiced) will be curtatted for the estimated 40-year life of the station. At the termination of its useful life, The applicant's estimates do not include removing all equipment, the station can be retired and the transmission Itnes removed. In resing the buildinas, and returntag the ette to its original condi-j a few years er decades the land formerly occupied by t ransmiselon tian. The value of the small acreage thus made evallable for other
, lines could revert to its f ormer state. uses would probably not justify the added expense. Analysis of dismantitag cost experience t o date indicates that an amount equal '
f No specific plan for the decommissioning of Arkansas Nuclear One to 10-151 of the original construction cost (perhaps $25 million) has been developed. This is consistent with the Counleston a would be required to accomplish such restoration at the site. current regulations which contemplate detatted consideration of de- , camtssioning near the end of a reactor's useful life. The licensee In coat-benefit considerations, future decommissioning costs should initiates such consideration by preparing a proposed decommissioning be discounted to obtain their present worth. At a discount rate of I plan which is subattted to the AEC f or review. The licensee will be 61 per year for 30 years of operation, costs incurred at the end of
- required to comply with Commission regulatione then La ef fect and that operating period would be divided by S.7 to deterrine their decommissioning of the f actitty may not commence without authoriaa*
present worth. Thus, even if the plant area were to be restored to tion from the AEC. its original condition, the present worth of the future costs in-volved would be only about 2 or 2.5% of the ortatnal construction to date, esperience with decunnissioning of civilian nuclear power cut. This indicates that including decommisstaning costa would reactdre is limited to sin f acilities which have been shut down or set alter any of the conclusions of the cost-benefit analysis la f dismantled Hallam Nuclear Power Facility, Carolina Virginia Tube this Environmental statement. Reactor (CVTR), Boiling Nuclear superheater (sdNIIS) Power Station. Fathfinder Reactor, Fique Reactor, and the Elk River Reettor. The operation of L1 nit 2 as currently projected may result in a suba There are several alternatives which can be and have been used in stantial loss of aquatic lif e through entraFeent of fish an intake I the decommissientag of reacterst (1) Remove the f uel (Possibly st ructura screens. secause of the lack of data it la difficult to j f ollowed by decontamination procedures); seal and cap the pipes; evaluated the station's effect on aquatic productivity of the and establish an esclusion area aroisid the f acility. The Piqua Dardanelle Reservoir. An environmental monitoring pecgras will be !- deccente' stoning operation was typical of this approach. (2) !a continued to establish a base for determining adverse ef fects, if addition to the steps outlined te (1), remove the superstructure any, from station operation, and cctrective action teken if adverse and encase la ,oncrete all radioactive portions which remain above effects are identified. It seems unlikely that the aquatic pro-4 ground.g The Hallan deccesatsstantas operation wee of this type. ductivity of the reservoir will be significantly diminished in the (3) Remove the f uel, all superst ructure, the reactor vessel and all short term. For the long term, it is the staf f's opinion that no ! . contaminated equipment and f acilities, and flaally fill all cavities aquatic species util become extjact as a result of station operation. with clean rubble topped with earth to grade level. This last pro- not should any be unable to return to its former level of productivity. } cedurm is being applied to deccentostantas the Elk River Reactor. Alternative doesumisaloning procedures (1) and (2) would require The resource that will have been dedicated exclusively to the pro- ; long-term surveillance of the reactor site. Af ter a f tmal check to duction of elect rical power disring the 40 Tear antactpated life assure that all reactor-produced radioactivity has been remmed, span of the station will be the fuel conssened and the land itself. alternative (3) would not require any subsequent survettlance. No significent commitment of water for consumption or use will have Possible ef f ects of erosion or flooding will be included in these been made, since in the foreseeable f uture the Atiansas tiver will canaide rat ions. continue to be renewed. No significant deterioration of water quality due to the station effluents is anticipated. 5 E-72 i
II-2 12-1 The station will in see degree curtail the range of uses of the
- 11. IRRrVER$181.E AND 1RRETRIEVAB12 COPNITENTS OF Rest 0RCES environment. For example, the various structures including trane-mienton linea, though considered attractive by industrial standards, A large quantity of concrete, vartaus metals and other const ruction may of fend the tourist, nature lover, and those who enjoy rurst materials will be used in the construction of Arkansee nuclear one. life. The extent to which the range of uses of the environment la Unit 2. When the station is decammiseloned some of this material curtailed is not considered to be a serious commitment of this f orm may be recoveredg hartver, the reactor vessels and adjacent shields of resource.
would be irretrievable for several decades because of the activation of long half-life materials during operation. Most of the butidings could be used for industrial purposes or removed and the land restored to agricultural er forestry use. Approximately 26 cfs of water v111 be evaporated of lost during full power operation of the cooling tower. Although this will be a minor lecal lose to the Arkanaae River and Dardanelle Senervoir. it represente a loss of power generation by the Derdanelle Dam of 1430 kw-hr/ day. Through natural phenomena thle water will be returned to the surf ace of the earth as a form of precipitation, but because of the height of the natural-draf t cooling tower little or none will return locally. About 27.300 kan of U-235 will be coneused and converted to radio-active waste material having half-lives up to thousands of yeare. The power required to enrich the D-135 content of natural uranium to the approximately 2.6% U-235 enriched fuel used in Unit 2 ta 73 MW for the initial leading and 33 MW per year for the succeeding fuel loadinge. This represents about II and 0.4% respectively of the presently installed uranium eartchment plant capacity la the United $tates. A small but undetermined quantity of finger!!ngs (lees than 3/s in. in diameter) and lower forme of aquatic organisms will be dest royed la the operation of the closed-cycle cooling system. This quantity will be a fraction of a percent of the total quantity living in the Dardanelle Reservoir. An unknown quantity of larger fish (breeding eteck) will be destroyed by entrapment on the intake screens, depending on the else, kind, and number of fish leaving the reservoir and entering the 4400 ft. long canal. Due to lack of data, the quantity can only be determined af ter the stetten begins operattoa. An environmental sonitoring and reporting program will be required and mitigating action taken by the applicant to keep the total lose to a small number and a f rac-tional percentage of the total quantity of fish Ilving in the Reservoir. E-H
.-- - -. . - . - . _. . -. . . . . _ . _ _ . - - - - ~. . . ~ , .-. .a~
i
- i. .
4 1-1 E-2
- 1. THE NEED ft4 POWFR The precise retirement dates of the units currently owned and operated by the armber capanies of the Middle South system are The Arkansas Power and Light Company le a subsidiary of the managertal options. On the basis of the current ages of their Middle South Utilities Corporation, a utility holding company major units and an " average" station service life of 10 years, no whose subsidiaries operate a power pool that supplies the elec. large unite Q 100 We) are espected to be retired from the app 11-tricity needs of spot of Arkansas, southeastern Missouri, eastern cant a system untti af ter 1983, as shown in Table I-1. Thus, portions of Leutelana, and western Mississippi. na Middle South during the early ope rating years. Arkansas Nurlear One Unit 2 system, in turn, la a member of the larger Southwest Pcwor pool, will be used primer 11y to meet load growth requirements. Retire-a coordinating and planning group f or bulk power supply systems ment of small units with a tots! capability of 64 No from the 2
in the south central portion of the United States. ne construe. Middle South system is espectedd la the 1970's, and this la likely tion of Arkanp as Nuclear One Unit 2 will adJ an initial 920 We to be followed in the decade of the 1960's by retirement of same not electrical generation capability by aid 1976, with an ultimate 2600 MWe, which will include both small and large units, capacity of about 970 MWe. 3 The staff has projected peak loads in Fig. 2-1 for the applicant's la evaluating the need for this capability, the staf f believes system on the basis of the historical data shown in Table X-2, that the 1970 National pWr Survey of the Federal Power Commission,1 The peak loads projected by the staf f, the Federal Power Corudsstun, prepared with the assistar.ce of several regional advisory commit, and the applicant are compared in Table X-3, tees, constitutes b cad-based source matettal to aid A te j udgments. This material also reflects verf oue ownomic ledicator f orecaste The staf f agrees with the applicant's projected peak load of f rom a number of other Federal agencies. The projections of 3540 MWe 3for the muerner of 1976. The net capability of the electricity neede prepared sauer these auspices indicata that applicant's *" system can be calculated as f ollown s dortag the nest two decades a growth rate sitghtly higher than the national average may occur for the south central region se a Owned Capab(11ty 4,186 PNe , including Unit I whole, and that the area served by the Middle South system is in at 850 MWe, Unit 2 at conformity with this regional trend. The applicant estimates a 9 70 We. 1976 peak load of 10,800 MWe in the area supplied by the Middle Purchases w/o keserve 1 46 South system. This peak load could be met by planned system 4 capability of 12,6a6 MWo. As $11ustrative of its impact on the Total Capability 4 ,3 12 system generation capability, if the unit is built and operated as proposed, the net system reservj margia should be just under The applicaat predicts a peak load of 3540 MWe for the summer of 2456 We, or 23.91 by 1976. Area studies have generally 1976. The purchase of 90 MWe with reserve will reduce the impact indicated that a minimum reserve margin of 15% to nee *ded 2 g,y of the peak load to a load responsibility of 3450 MWe. Utilisation reliability, depending on mit etree in relation to system sizes of the applicant's total capability for sweting thin load respons1-and interconnectione, forced outage rates, and requirements for bility will provide a reserve margin of 882 MWe or 25.3%. This synchronous operation. If Unit 2 or its equivalent were not reservo margia will be reduced to 736 MWe or 21.4% of loaJ respons1 available to meet the projected 1976 peak load, the reserve mar. bility if the applicant dependa solely on its owned capability, ; sin for the Middle South system would drop to 1536 MWe or 14.21 of peak, thus lowering the minimum reserve margta available to If Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 is not available to furnish power , assure a reliable service in the event of equipment outage. to meet the stammer peak expect ed in 1976, the applicant's installed d Conalderation of the Southwest Power Pool load-supply situation generating capability will be insuf ficient to swet the projected indicates that similar reserve margins will be eve 11able, although peak of 3540 MWe, Use of 637 MWe of purchased power will enable the margins are not as severely influenced by this unit because of the applicant to m>et his expected peak load with an 8.8I reserve. the larger scale of the system. Reliance on these larger inter. Since this is less than the recousmended 152 reserve requireme nt , connections for firu power purchase would, however, make t he area the appiteent w!11 be required to uttitre reserves from the parent unduly dependent on long-distance bulk power trans fer, system, Middle South Utilities. This will, in turn, reduce the i k i E-14 I 4
I . I l l l i S000 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , i o n mL Pn0JECTto Pa An toA pa0JECit0 CAPACITY
- 4000*- "I" *' *
#0"s t av'tne 'O 8
(.- / c.. ,/ ACTUAL CAPACITY g * ~'_ FOR LOAD f ' .* e 3000-
- s. .r---" A
~
i 1 I /s M e 1 w i 3 2000- AppuC ANT'S . g l Pec~tcTeD PtAn Loao i ^ 1 O w Re$tavt uAR644 PROJECTED Instattf D GEttaATIIe4 CAPACTY 1000- " sisfru PEAU LOAD g I 3 3 a t i A t i a A I I I 1961 196219631964 49651966196F 1968 79691970197819721973 6974 ISTS 1976 TEAR Fig. I-1. Past arkt projected capabilities of Arkansas Power and Light Company, in N I baJ
]i **
~
gle f _g ts ! ! ! t i t t e:ss::r ! gli ~
*t I b
i=e I
,s e5
;3?3: 11 tp :: SS
[g ..--.- % .* y j' ~ [- It
*f i.
[j$ 3j - - e s s t a x :: : :. c r. y
} . l.l
- i
*s *a'
, m -n t
~ i n *1
-s a. ~ . i. . al al Y I.eI .sj *11 l s[. TI 3 3 ..j j *f
^
.s. . as . .
f Q.
% m' . k -
3 1
- -s a
,c ng F I 1
}
j JI Je 2 J 2
. is
- I E
$ $. 5g t *.
$ I3g* 4" 1 1 .
} I
?? E .pa .*
1 5 a p = : da E
' 1 i .g -
a 4*- .
" E g -f K
! ie ,l 118-0*i a.g a -- t t fj I ue 211]j!!i a 5 2 a
I. I
'il ! w
? 3 j
~
j* 5!!!IEE.E!.!]
-- . .. g3 s
,1 ! ).
%{ -
e } I E ) 1 5 t
- s g_.-
I b b
' 5fhh
] Ei!!!!?i!!!i i
.,12 ]!!}
g 5 s
-J
~ ~-
$$f! ! !!!ny %
ftEE h,I 5
. . ~ > _ - . . . . .. _ _ . . 4. ._._m __i._ .._m _ _. ___ _ _ _.m._. . . . .. m . . -. __..~ _ _ _. __ ~ . _.
4 I I-s I-7 Rrrr.RENCES FOR SF.CTION I ! available reserves in the Middle South system as well as in the
- Southwest Power Fool, of which the Middle South system to a part. 1. " Electric Power in the South Central Region 1970-1980-1990,"
Further capacity reductions of about 71 are exported at stations Part 111-1 of A kport to the Tedmal Pouer Caw (saton Pnpared designed to bum gas which are converted to burn oil as a result by the Smth Central Aglon,28 Alpison Ctremittee, Febemry i of the shortage of gas supplies. JJO, published for the Federal Power Cossatssion by the U.$. Covernment Fristing Of fice.
- A delay in the empletion of Arkaneae Nuclear One Unit 2 would, therefore, reduce the applicant's capability for meet tsg his 2. . gouthwest Power Pool Coordinating Council, hifabflity and
< expected peak load for the emner of 1976, as well as seduce Aleguay of slaatrio Powr 2#72 7##7, a repore to the Faferal the reserve capacity available for the Middle South Utilities Pawr Cam (salon weier Ordar #a JBJ-2 fasued 4cil JO, 2 pro, system e d the Southwest Power Fool. The applicant is obligated April 1, 1972. to provide suf ficient generating capability within his system to meet peak demand requirements of the service area plus a L Arkansas Power and Light Capany, Arkesas guelear One unit 2 reasonable amount of reserve capacity for contingencies.' If Agglement to Ahpfrerwatal Report, Docket No. 50-368, December power canausption in the app 1tcant's service area f alls to main- 19 71. Table 1-2, p. 35. tala its lot arnual growth rate, the unused capacities util be available and will permit the applicant to reschedule future 4. t!SAEC Quarterly Progress Report on St atus of Reactor Const ruction, addition to system generating capacity or reduce operation of AEC Form HQ 254 Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, submitted ' fossti fuel stattana, by Nartan T. Kolmes, Manager of Prode* tion Destan and Construc-tion, Arkansas Powe r and Light Ccmpany, January 6,1972. The staf f concludes that the construction of Arkansas Nuclear One , 1; nit 2 er its equivalent to required to assure that suf ficient 5. Let ter, John J. Naestkas, Chairman, Federal F<nrer Ceasatssion, j generating capacity exists to the appiteant's system to fill the to Harold 1.. Price, Director of Regulat tune, IISAEC, Aprt! 8, ' projected power needs of his service area durtug and af ter 1976. ' 1971. Steject t Coeuseets on Environmental Statement for I The Federal Fcaser Cossatssion's comments in Appendia E (p. E-3) Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. i support this conclusion. , , L P i t 4 l 1 4 E-/7 1 e t i
- > _ . - - ~~_m_.__ m.._~_ - . . - . _ _ . . . _ - _ _ - _ . m _ . ~ . _ _ _._m. .~- . _ - . . . . . _ _ . - _ . . _ - _ _ _ . . . . -
i. XI-2 X1-1 i structures at the site (385 acres). If 11 nit 2 were located at a l 11. . At.TritN AT1 yrs To TRg FMPOSP.D ACTinN AND CrMT-sF.NEFIT dif f erent site, the land area required would probably approminate i p41.Y5 t$ OF 1HF.lB tNV1WMENTAl. EfRCT5 the acreage of t,he existing Arluensas Nuclear One site (1164 acres) and would theref ore introduce environmental changes at that site A., SUPMARY OF A1.TERNATM comparable to those already committed at the Russellville site. Thua.
- locating Unit 2 on the sans site as Unit 1 is an effective use of ;
- 1. No Pwer er Purchased Power land. ,
4 h poselble purchase of power f rom outside the applicant's system locating IJnit 2 at another site to reduce the thermal load at the ! and the etternative of not adding capacity to the system were dia- Russellville site wea considered to be an insignificant aspect of , e carded because of the need for additional capacity to ensure system site selection, timing a cooltag tower to dissipats the waste heat reliability as discussed la Sect. E. of Unit 2 results is a maximum thermal discharge of only 11 h, with a cotresponding water tempe rature rise of about 0.2*F above subtent.
- 2. Alternative Sites contined chemical discharges expected f rom Unit 1 and 2 are well i Af ter an investigation of a number of sites along the Arkansas below concentratione shown to af fect aquatic organians. Consequently.
i giver and the White River the applicant concluded that the the added chemical discharge f rom Unit 2 was not a significant factor ' i Russellville site would be the best site for Arkansas helear One. in site selection, i Unit 1 for the following reammet
- 3. Alternative Fuel t
- a. Foundations are built on solid bedrock relatively near ground elevatim. a. Hydroelectric Power ceneration
- - b. Asple con 11ag is provided by the Dardanelle Reservoir. W FPCI 11sts five sites in the applicant's power service area for potential hydropower development by 1980. Two of these sites
- c. Only a short railroad spur from a nearby line is have a combined hydroelectric capacity of 220 We when fully de=
r required to serve the f acility. veloped, and three of these sites have a potential hydroelectric ' pumped-storage capacity of 1089 We when f ully developed. None , d. The site is naar entsting 500 KV and 161 KY trans- of these sites will meet the requirement for a base-load station. mission lines, ! which the applicant must have if his projected peak load material-i ises during the sunmer of 1976. Hydroelectric power generatica j e. stator components may be delivered to the site by barge. la cherefore not a feasible alternative to construction of a base- ' load generating station of 1000-Mie capacity. ,
- f. N site is within two miles of an Interstate Eighway, '
- b. Itatural Cas j
- g. Because of the elevation of the site with respect to j normal take levels, the danser of floods is remote. Natural gas providea a major source of energy for the Arkansas !
area. All the applicant's fossil-f uel generating stations are p
- h. The local community was receptive to the project. equipped to burn natural gas as a primary f uel, and f uel oil is !
the secondary fuel. Due to a shortage of natural gas the appli- , 1. A good labor market was present in the area, cant la now burning fuel oit 1.n seversi of its stations. h ability to contract for additional supplies of natural gas to The construction of the Arkansas Nuclear One Unit I committed the operate fossil-f uel stations is la question. As an enample, the Russellville site to nuclear power production. The additional land area's principal es.pplier of natural gas has been ordered by the required for structures associated with Ustt 2 (approntestely 45 Arkansas public Service Comunission2 to cancel all industrial i acres) increases by only 12% the total land associated with land contracts for the use of natural gas. including those contracts , i 1 l 1 E48 . s i i
)
_- ~ ._ ~ ~ - - - - - - - - ~ _- _ - w..- - - - ~ ~ . -~.-~~__.-s n - _ - _ - - ~ - - + -. - - - - - - i t r , I Il-4 II-5 1 .I j between the appiteant and his supplier. . N shortage of natural reston was seperated f rom oil as a fuel. It is recognised that ' i gas is a mattanvide problem. The severity of this shastage is the competitisna for low-sulfur fuel oil la intense as a result emphasised by the Chairman of the FPC, who recognised that of conversion of many industrial and dunestir. heating plants to discernible trends of supply and demand indicate a developing the use of this f usi to compilance with local air pollution control r natural gas ehortage in the United States.I The staff concludes regulattune. It is f urther recogatred that the Nation's oil impoir i that the applicant's ability to compete for the available natural quota policy restricts the amount of f uel ett that the appilcant ; may obtain f rom foreign soureen. The applicant would appear to be '! gas supplies is in doubt. in asi ideal position to use oil as a fuel, since his plant is located
- c. Coal on a navigable waterway, sad transporna ton of fuel oil supplied by barge would present no difficulty. Itowever, the shortage of low-sulfur 4
N use of coat as an energy supply for a 970->We station to oil, the restrictions on oil imports, and the dif ficulty of securing a femelble in the applicant's service area. At present, coal to rettable awply of domestic or foreign fuel oil combine at this ] used for 4.28T of the total energy produet ten in the FPC's south time to make the selection of et t impractical as a f uel for the central regica,' This percentage is espected to double by 1973, appiteant's station. J Local supplies are inadequate f or the applicant's neede, but he
- could ceneider utilisation of coal reserves la Kansaa, Oklahoma, 4. Alternative helear Heat Sources {
wes tern Kentucky, and southern 1111aots. (The use of coat util t require berge or mit train shipments to the site.) h selection The options available to the applicant when he selected a power ' i of the source of coal' aupply would be determined on availability system f or (3 nit 2 were Igght-water reactors of the boiling-water and lowest cost. The selection of foes 11 f uel will require that er pressurised-water type. These reactore have come into cousson t the station be equipped with all pollutte-control equipment use stace 1965. Technology for reactors of both types is avail-accessary to meet Federal. State, and local air pollution regula. able, practical, understood, and econmically feaalble. The appli- [ tions expected te be applicabis when it goes into service. When cant could not seriously consider the use of breeder reactors, j
- the stat tsus bestas operation to 1976, the applicant would, in state the technology is not at present amamercially availabis. ,
1 addition, be required to provide suitable ash storage and t reet- N applicant might have coreldered the High-Temperature Gas-ment f actitties to prevent the poselbtlity of ask migration into Cooled Reactor technology f or use la tinit 2 If his decision point the Arkansas River waterways and to prevent the passibility of had been reached in 1970, rather than some years earlier. The water pellation resulting f rom leathing of chasicale f rom the staf f concludes, therefore, that the applicant has considered the i ash depostted in the ash storase ponds. Liquid discharges from only two nuclear power systems ccamercially available at the time 1 ash treatment f acilities would be required to conform with all when the decisi m was made, applicable Federst, State, and local water polletion control l regulauona. The applicant made inquiries for fossil fuel supplies without success during preliminary studies for this plant.' He has con-j d. Fuel oil tracted7 the raw material for his nuclear fuel supply for 1: nit 2 i from a dmestic vendor in an amount adequate through the year 1987. I The applicant considered using fuel ott as the source af energy. I The FPC5 indicates that oil reserves are widely distriated in '5. Alternative Coolina Methade 1 regions near the applicant's station. The staff eatinates that , the plant would require 4.56 a lo sgal / year of f uel oil, based on the heat disespetten system selected for Arkansas Nuclear One j J n the assiamptions that the heat rate for the plant is 9500 sta per Unit 2 results in the rejection of over 991 of the wasta heat :
- set kilowatt hour and the att contains 150,000 5tu/ gal. The plant directly to the atmosphere via a estoral-draf t cooling tower, !
- factor is assmed to be 851. The system was designed to use a closed cooling cycle that will 1 cool the turbine condenser with rectreulated river water (ylg. j Stations in the south central reston currently use very little 111-4). Although the applicant chose a natural-draf t cooling -
i fuel oil for generattag yearer. The Rational Power Survey S indt- tower for 11 nit 2, othe r systems were considered. I a cates that only 0.071 of att power produced in the south central l l
- 4 1
l 1 5_ j E-73 1 4 7
- - ~. ___ . _ . _ . . ~ - . , _ _ . - - - _ . - _ - . _ ~ . ~_. _ _ _ . - . .. ~ _ . .~. . . ~ - ~ .~.. _ . _ ~ - .
i i XI-5 XI-6 a a, Wet Coolina TNere conditione, produce f ogging and result in the carryover of the The use of mechanical-draf t cooling towere is a well-known authod chemicals that are characteristic of the circulating water from s which they originate. A discusalan of drift lose was previously , of process coeling ta this country. In this sythod, warm water covered la Sect. V-1. is cooled by contacting atmospheric str la a tower that is filled with packing or !!!! material to promote ease and heat transfer in his analysis, the appiscant considered the probism of local , from the water to the air. Air is draum into the tower and fogging and icing to be less from a tall nat ural-draf t twe r than through the cascading water by large f ans, which are generally would be experienced with a bank of low mechanical-draf t towers. ' located at the top of the teneer. In this manner, the water is His decision was influenced by experience with natural-draf t towers cooled, primarily by evaporation, to a temperature approaching operating at the Keystone, Pennsylvania mine-mouth plant.I This b the wet-bulb temperature of the ambient ai r. plant, operating at high power levels, tende to confirm the above conclusion. Studies conducted over a 5-year period under the , Mechanical-draf t Emera auch as described were c.onsidered and sponsorship of the National Air Pollution Control Commissim con-could be used in conjunctica with the Unit 2 condenstes eyeren. Natural-draf t cooling towere perform the same function except c2uded that fogging and icing are not problems in the vicinity of the towere, and precipitation f rom the plee has not been observed.10 they do not employ fans to induce air circulation through the State the plume from a natural-draf t tower has an effert tee height tower. Instead draft le created by the dif ference in air denstry about twice the tower height (in this case, about 1000 ft) it is - between the top and bottom of the tower. la general, a cambi- lees likely to have near-field impact than that f rom the anchanical natica of cool adient temperature and high humidity is f avorable tower. The plum will undoubtedly be visible f or great distances , to the performance of natural-draf t towere, when the humidity of the ambient air is high. The cost of a closed mechanical,iraf t t war system was compared one method for determining the probability of additional f ogging it-ts with the nat ural-draf t towers selected.8 The appiteant's study le based upon the dif ference in vapor-mass between ett at saturation indicated that the base cost of these systema van $16,651,400 for (100% relative humidity) and air at its a e tent moisture content. j the mechanical-draf t system and $17,807.800 for the natural-draf t if the moisture cuatribution f rom the tower plum is greater than system. These figures f acluded all required equipment iteam such 80% of the annunt require <d for saturation, fogging is considered as condensers, p eps, and circulating water piptag. to be probable. There are, barever, operating costs that are characteristic of has been conducted fcr the applicant by his ' each system. These costs include power for the f ans in the case A study of this ty of mechanical towers, pumping costs for the circulating water, and architect-engineer I and is stenarized in Table 11-1. The ef'ect maintenance expense. The performance of natural-draft towers of the plume under very stable atmospheric conditiona is as follows: relates to the driving force provided by natural ambient air ' characteristics; the resulting outlet water temperature is variable The plumn can extend about 6 miles downwind, depending on and la see conditione may adversely affect turbine performance. ambient relative hts idity, and can add to exis ting low-level Bowever, in this case the applicant's specifications were written stratus clouds. Some visible downwash effect la possible to ensure coeling water temperature compatible with turbine per- but should occur less than 28% of the time. During downwash } formance mJer the unet adverse ambient condittene. in this local visibility may be af fected if a mechanicalwiraf t t we r j comparison the capital and operating cost was somewhat more f avor- Le used. From the information in Table Il-1 it can be seen able ($138,000 annually) for the natural-draf t tower system. Cost that same additional f ogging is probs' le in January and possible comparisons of such systems made in other situattens have f avored in October. j the choice of mechanical t wersi thus, the orthods are economically comparable at this time within the accuracy of pre 1Lainary cost Further analysis by applicant and staf f of weather data and sta-es timat es. bility characteristics indicates a maximum dowwind extension of about 10 miles in January, 2.5 miles la October, and 1 mile in Frcne an environmental standpoint, the two systeme are aise com- J ul y. Moram11y, under stable and cala conditions in winter, fog parable, inasmuch an their impacts result in the production of to estimated to occur in the vicinity of the station about 14% large pleurs of water vapor, which can, mder certain atmospheric of the time and ground fog about 22 of the time. As a result of i E-80
.-- - . - ~ - . - - - ._.. ~ .-. - - _ ~_. ~ .. - a _ _ - n .__._. - _ . . ~~~_ . .- , . _ _ , - . . . -~
i 4 13*7 ZI-8 i i the plume's contribution, this f requency coule be ennanced by a fact er of 2.5 la vinter. This analysis, which is conservatively high, indicates the equivalent of 5 soditional days of ground fog at this site during winter. No enhancement of fog is espected as a result of cooling tower operation in the siammer. Since the
- amount et moisture produced by mechanical towers le nearly the same as by the nat ural-draf t tower, the same concluelan can be ' l i drawn with respect to fogging enhancement f rom this sources bow- j ever. proximity to the ground would increase risks of diminished l
our f ace vialb(11ty, i i r*w 15 5. raams m e==*r **='swy Act ual cheervations of hyperbolic natural-draf t twers, such as < those under emsideration in this statement, were made by the
#"*"d'* ss u s tua 64*' .t a* *"' Tennessee Valley Authority at the paradise Power plant near og . -. i====at ANE s Cent ral City Kentucky. I' This fossil-fueled piant is generating 4 . awe meshandean ===a about 2600 MWe with three steam-producing units, which dissipate j waste heat to the starssphere through three naturs1-draf t wet-counterflow cooling towers. These towers are about 400 ft high i , se us se s2 s and 300 ft wide at the base, not greatly dif ferent from the cooling
- r 2s le tower proposed for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2. The pluswa f ran i
3""**' these towers were observed by aircraf t survey, during which the r a t? #$n et se length, height, and meteorological data were recorded. Table XI-2 a
* '8 oummarises the plume lengthe recorded during 1970 These obser- "
i pusy* vations confirm the conclusions reached by the analytitel sethode ' a a os t ** 17 1 28 Previously discusse.d.
%=,e mea. =**= <emees PW ** Ik N ****~ **""r'a*n=*"d b. Once-Through coolina a y - ins, o s 4.=== tamo r . La=== at j % , _,w in this method of cooling. the warm condenser water is discharged , directly to the river through an appropriately designed discharge i structure, allowing the heated water to adequately six with or l diffuse into the larger st ream. Unit 2 was designed with the assumption that Unit I would be in operation using once-through '
I' cooling and require 1700 cfs of water. The adjusted daily flow through the Dardenelle Reservoir is about 4000 cfs for the driest - {
; critical months'. If it is assumed that Unit 2 were also to une a i once-through cooling system and that both units were to operate 1 under the minimias low flow conditions, it was determined that a IS*F water temperature rise could result in the Dardenell Reservoir j and result in possible adverse thermal effects. Theref ore, this anth4ad of cooling wee canaidered marginal for Unit 2.
i c. Open-Cyc le Coolina Twer Operation s j In this amie of operation the cooling tower, either mechanical or natural-draf t, would be operated so that the cooled "of f-tower" , water is returned to the en6synent and to the reservoir. This would result in a greater impact en the embayment f rom the operation of Unit 2 because of the larger volume of water to be
- E-81 4
t
. . - _ . , _ _ _ . , _ . _ - . _ - - . _ . . .._._-_m- _ - . . ._- . . . . . ~ , _ . . . . - ~ ..__m_< . _m-..._. . - - . _ _ _ . . . . , - . - . & _
k i f l 1 21-9 t ? X1-10 6 returned (404.000 spa). This method would also necessitate pumping a similar quantity of water through the intaka structure, which would require increasing the size of all the water handling facilities, This method appears to have environmental disad . vantages and was not discussed by the applicant.
- d. g Coolina Towere Dry cooling towers can be used to reject heat fram cundensing i 1.nn sa t te=nas e=== % rwea=r r=== n==* steam to the anbient ai r. govever, in this method the cooling procese does not involve the evaporation of water, so that all the w ,, 4*'=s* *=*ha d n== ==sm enese heat of condensation must be transferred through the estal tobing awe.se Thse essimos to atmospheric air by convection, glace this is inherently a i less efficient procese, it requires extensive heat transfer sur-
! a,,,,,,,, t 2 82 S a. 2 a, t.5 face in the form of fins joined to the tube wall, either integrally w,,,,, is le se etetta or mechanically. In addition, very large quantities of air must ;
j me to 2 ao s o. e a. s e be brought into contact with the estendedgarface fins by large i 3,,, a 3 a.2 # 4 e 2. 4 2 f ans provided with the individual cella of the unit. Dry towers m to il es e sse t. s e appear to be attractive f rom an environmental standpoint ta that hise 14 31 es 9 e.0 7.e 1 they produce neither vapor plumes, potential foysing or icing, nor # 3,,, se a sa i s. l e.s e chemical f allout f rom liquid entrainment. At the present time dry
,,,, e4 a .I2 s e,4 a. 3 8 towers have not been developed for use with power stations havang !
, s.yi w e ta le as sa.etoa electrical capacities greater than about 200 Mine. t am g3 3 e6 S a.e s.e s w is 21 es e s. e s.*
- In addition to their high initial cost, dry towere suf fer penalties ,
for (1) the operation of their associated f ans and (2) energy lose
'he"'" *"C ***"8'"***d""" due to higher turbine exhaust pressures resulting f rom the use of this type candens tag system. Cost s t udies 'l have indicated that 4
the dry condenser system exceeds in cost the wet system by $17/W. For the reasona mentioned in the above discussion, dry towers do
. not appear to be a viable alternative at the Arkansas site, and
- j. they were not extensively considered by the applicant.
- e. Coolina Pando Cooling ponda can be used to dissipate heat f rom p<=ner station ,
condensers operating in closed cycle. Fonds transfer the beat l added f rom the candenser to the atmosphere by a combination of !. radiation, convection, and evaporation. Itule-of-thumb estimates
] indicate that f rom 1 to 2 acres of cooling surf ace is required per messwatt of electrical capacity. For the purpose of a concep-4 tual estimate, the staf f assumed that a cooling pcod would require j about 2000 acres. Since the Arkansas site consists of about 1100
, aerea, with topography which does not encourage construction of a large pond, this method was not canaidered feasible for limit 2. The .i size of the pond can be reduced by use of a spray system. The applicant II has estiasted that a spray pond large enough to handle 1 i E 1
l I l i g1-11 { Xf.12 I the heat load f rom Unit 2 would require about 120 acree and would 6, cost about $22 millian. On the beste of the land required and Alternative Methode for the Distoeal of Radleective Wastes the high capital cost, this method was rejected by the erP11 cant. . The u.anagement of radioactive wastes produced by a nucteer power
- f. Floatina Spray hfules for N11pg reactor involves the concentration and contaf ranent of radioisotopes ineofar as practicable, with minimal releases to the environment.
One method of canting not caeidered by the applicant at the time N principal treatment methods available for handling geoeous I of his engineering design etuJy appears to be a f emelble means of ef fluente are (I) storage for radioacttve decay, (2) charcoal . rejecting the 6.5 a 10 9Stu/hr f rom the turbine condenser of l'ait adsorbers to retain indine, (3) charcoal beds to delay the release
- 2. This system to presently being conaldered by a miamber of ut ti- of noble Gae*a, and (4) high efficiency (HIPA) filters. N j tales, but at the time the applicert made ite engineettag design prtacipal methode used to t reat 11guld effluente are (1) holdup studise operating data en large spray module heat rejection systema for radioactive decay, (2) filtration, (3) demineralisatlan, and ,
were not available. Yhte system involves pumping the heated water (4) evaporation. golid westes, which include radioaccive conces. I I t to a series of spray noasten that are arranged in floating modules. tretes on filters and demineraliser reetne and bottone from evapo.' ' When a suf ficient asamber of these edulee are inetailed in Img reters, een be solidified by dewatering end adding cement and 4 canale, it has been demonstrated that heated cmdenser dies.harge drummed to facilitate shipment to a licensed 1,urial ground la can be cooled to a very close approach to the ma61ent wet bulb accordance with AgC and DOT regulations. temperature. The refore, the perf ormance of the spray modules la comparable to the cooling towere previously discussed. glace this Tritium to the only radioactive contaminent that cannot be practic- ' systee does not involve large structures, f ene, or the wood-fill obly separated f rian water and must either be retained in the reactor
! motettal requited te normal coo 11eg towers, it is possible to sysses by recycling the t reated liquid ef fluent or released to the I provide a system of cosiventional water transport equipment having environment with adequate dilution. Tritium occure naturally in t
a low hydrau11e profile resulting in low internal maintenance and all sources of water; the principal concern is to ensure that the ,
; dilution to such that the water discharged into the environment en special requiremente for biological protection (as necessary in
' causes no mejor change in the f ootopic conctat tation of tritium in cooling towere const ructed of wood). State the units are contained the hydrotegical system. la canale havies f airly steep a1Jee, results based on experience ] with several unita to service to date indicate a low tendency for local fogging and icing even at very law dew potate. h cost of N design of the radteactive waste treatment and disposal system a system suf fletent to diestpate the heat f rom Arkansas Unit 2 for Unit 2 of Arkassas Nuclear Dr.e will lacorporate all of the has been eettmated by the staf f using tafermation supplied by the above listed alternative methods for waste management and will l manufactusar of such a system. approach the limits of present technology. N Unit 2 system will e therefore provide flexibility f or the ef ficient management et the nuclear wastes generated at the ette. A system having suf ficient thermal capacity for Unit 2 heat rejec-j tion at the following design characteristics requirca the comit- 7 ai meat of about 7500 ku and 19 acree of canal approminately a mile Alternatives to Normal Transoortation procedores j g,,g, Alternatives, such as special routing of shipewata, providing ' neat rejection 6.58 a 109 sta/hr escorte la separate vehicles, edding additional ahtelding to the l Cooling Range 11'T contatoers, and constructing a fuel recovery and fabrication plant approach 15 y on the ette rather than shipptag fuel to and fra the station, have been examined by the staff f or the general case. h legact en the
}
A conceptual eest estimate of the shove eyetem capta11 sed under environment of transportation ts der normat or postulated accident { the same ground rules en tha applicant uses reemite in a cost of conditions as not considered to be suf ficient to justify the addt. ; 4 $7.60/kW for a sprey system of this design. 11anel erfense regul ed to implement may cf the alternatives. 1 4 Based en the staff's evaluation, this concept may of fer o no eco- ] nomic advantages, but appears to of fer me significant environmental E J advantages (eacept poselbly la the area of aesthetice), than that r j system selected by the appitcant. 1 1 l i . I I E-d5 i
; r I
,% , -e- - - - . - - --
. .-- e m - - - - -
.. _.___- -_,-._..-._____m.. . m. ..~_...._._m- ._ _ _... __- _ _._.- .-...m_ _ . _ _ . . . . . . _ . _ .. . , . _m. . _ . - . _ _ .
I i 1 i
- gg.13 II-14 v
.s- . . . .
i - B. St'WiARY OF MT AND .BrWEFITS - - - . . , . - _ _ . _ ,_ _ _ _ , _ _ _
-**== - ...
This section assesses the cost and the benefits resulting from the I
' construction of a 970-mie anclear generating stattom at the existleg
**""**** ~ ~ ~
O ** a a -
}
~
_ _ _ _ _ . *l***
~
' site of Arkmese Nuclear One Unit 1. . it ccupares the applicant's _. _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ " . " . _ . __ _._ _ _"._""._ , proposal with the f allowtag alternativeet s.
.=. ..
.i .
.. n ..
Nuclear Af ternatives
.~=.s m.
n . in ., . . .. . , . M Noclear plant with mechanical draf t cleoed cycle cooling _ ayetes. t
"*""""* #- '" '" '" 'a 'a' "'
N-2 Neelear plant c1ceed cycle cooltag system with floating ,
! pensored spray modules. , _ , , , , , , , ,
.. . . a. . . . . . . .
2
- p. .' - Alternatives -
. .". ."u. '". u .
i.R, F Coal fired foneti plaat with closed cycle natural draf t .* - .=e ==. . .i
*=
cooling system. . 1 r t o v. . ' a F-2
- Coal #tred f osett plant with closed cycle mechanical draft _ , , _ . , , , , , , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
coettaa towers. , , , , , , - ~ ' - - - - * * *, ,' .' ,", -, ", ,- ,- .- - ~
~~
...- r p Coal fired fossil plant with closed cycle floating powered spray module coeltag system. "U""".". , ,,,, ...e
--~ -- --
i
.'.'2lll .
j The environmental costo and benefits f or the constructica of the *
. ,,,,,, ,,, g,, "
proposed unit and Sto alternates are aimmeertrek ta Table ZI-3. ,,,,,,,,,=,,,,, , , , , , , _ ,i Appendia D is lackaded to explata la detail the seesrces used to , ,-.L.g=,,,, =- obtain questifiable cost and benefits and the ocurces that the
' reenter may consult for verification of the conclusions reached M' ~
7.7 OZ for manquantifiable costs and benefits. ..M.'~. . 1'
* * * - *.*= a=
- 1. Cceparison of F.cvt rennent et and Sectetal Coste ,. ,
.ae . q.
. a. Alternattv, sitce ,, i . =- g , 1 The staf f reemene that if an alternettve ette were chosen for the uw .- . proposed unit the ette area would be approximately the same as "P".'"l".'"**, [ the area of the exteting Arkansas Ihaclear One ette. If the alter- ""**. lll"" ,,, ,, ...,,,,,,,, ,o,,,,,,,, aattve fomeil fueled station were placed on an alternative ette the . . . . , , , , , , , , _ _
- area required would be approziaately 575 acree. The use of an alter- " *ll- .,,,. .*..
- - _ _ _
astive site for the appiteaet's proposed unit er its alternative would "-- - .== - l
- . ,.. f regetre the construction of service reeds. .learing of land eat arer ...= .
a 5 allocated to electric generating facilittee, cometructten of rett "*'"." factittles to serve the ette, construction of the statica, and com- Ull 0 7. "l,# ;* oo= .. .
.W
. .J.7 4W
'( i 8'd.- .U6 gg es.,,.M, e
.4 e
- n. - -
* ".* M m 84
- h. .,g g ,
1 E-dIl L _
. , _ , . ,_ m _ . . _ _ . . .-.._ - _ _ . . . . _ _ m ___u _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ ._ _
- _ _ , . _ - _ m -- - -
Il-15 KI-16
----*==*==== struction of transmisalon lines to resswo the power generated at the !
4 y I , __ C o o o cate estating f acilittee at the Arkansas Nuclear One site and would,
* - *-* o . . therefore, be more cietly in terms of environment s! inac t as a
' ' ' ' ~
result of the imposition of all t he scanamie, environmental, and n ,, societ al costs resulting f rom the const ruction of the proposed g; ---- g g g unit er its alternative at a different location. s.'"'".- -- The appitcant has estimated that land costs of shout 50.7 million are sewed by using the same ette for Unite 1 and 2. In addition. i l* ; O %*"" !!* *"l""l% there is an estimated savings of appros taately $9.8 million as a j ;;, * ,,, "C l"lZlO result of the two units sharing equipment and f act!! ties, such as j
-- === ** intake and discharge samals and s tructures, evitchyard, administra-
'M."C"."'"""" = i= tion batiding, machine shope, lahorotories, and environmental muni-l' " .*
.'"" l00. lL*." toring system. Moreover, many of the staf f positione can serve t *! :'ll.*"'l" *l'= l**" l*" both m ita, so that additional staff required for Unit 2 will be less A ***** than one-half of that required at a new ofte.
, ***""J.a,l"=",,,.
- , - b. proromed $tte
=~==
g g _-- ~ **-" *" d The construction of a 970 *nie nuclear generating f acility at the
...---u.=
g,,,,
=== =
. 0l] ""
esisting Arkansas maclear One ette will not result la the alloca-
===== = tion of any additional land at this site for use as a generating
"[==.-==, ---,
- 6,,
f acilit y. The land related to site structures has been increased } u.-..-- -
* ~ ~ * * ' "
from 385 to 430 acree to permit construc tion of future unite at , i
*;-****" this ette. This allocation would diminish the esmunt of land avail- ;
e able for pelic recreation f acilities or other uses on the existing 1
;; ;;-ll== -,, l""" I"" site. The selection of this site for the construction of an alter-
*===g=====
nate fossil fueled generating facility would result in the allocation u---== = ** " i
'. - . - = '"" of an addittanal 190 acree of the emiating site f or use as generat.
* * " * ' * ~ " ing f acilities, fuel storage and handling f acilities, and ash hand-C U ling and disposal f acilittee. The selection of the applicant's
*==== proposal will result in the lowest environmental cost since the
==g= == - 1and required f or use as a nuclear gen = ating f acility w!!! be tha
;===,",%; *.' . ' , * * * "
minimum required for production of the . quired power and will be
- less than that required for a fosell twied facility of equivalent
==="**" size. The total amount of land ava11able3 ' f or public recreation
=.;--=_,,,,,
=
f acilities or auch other uses as the applicant may propose will be
*g,*,,====.== _="_ . , , , , , , , , , . 7 734 acres af ter cmpletion of construction of Ariansas maclear One
.; _ ll- = ====
. Unit 2. The castruction of the nuclew unit will ef ficiently utilise this developed alte and will not diminish the suitability y,*,*,"",,"****.**.".".",'",'.",E
.=
.=
T.*.--.. for additional nuclear powered unite. We renclude that a erste {
%,,===-=.-- icient present and f uture land use will result q
intensive if the applicant and eff,a propumal te selected rather than the alternate fossil fueled station. This intensive land use should also reduce i or post pone the app!! cant's f uture needs for generating station [ sites at other locatims. 4
%(
E-85 , 1 i l l
t I l } l l
- II+16 j II-17 i
- c. Transmiasion Linee touer roles 4. as a result of the reduction in blowdown water flow. (
which results f rom the higher thermal ef ficiency of the foset! , fueled plant. Bovever, the . fossil fuel unit would produce large i The const ructica of tialt 2 at the Arkaneae Nuclaer mm site will *** quantities of furnace bottom ash and porttemista mtter recovered I quire the coustruction of one additional $004T transmission line ? f rom electrostatic precipitators. This ash would require disposal,
.aten.11mg 92 miles from the site to Lbelvale, Artaneas. The appli- t reatment, and storage for the entire 60-year !!fe of the station, l cant states that to the nazismse esteet poselble, this transmisstee
' Ash storage ponds would be required, es well as equipment to neu-line will be routed, cometructed, and maintained la accordance with tretise all of the water flowing f rom the storage pond and to the Department of laterior and Departeset of Agriculture guideltnee le remove particulate met ter f rom thle ef fluent. The total quantity for environanntal criteria for electric transeteston itsee. N of chemicals released to air and water by an alternative fossil { construction of this line will require the allocattoa ll of !!64 fueled plant would t' erefore n be mucJa greater than the chemicals acres of land for use as transmission linea right-of-way. A portion released by the applicant *e proposed nuclear stattun. ) of this right-of-way cat be retained la its existing use if such use consists of agricultural production, !!vestock production, and e. Releance of Radioactivity
- low-density restdential development. Under current practices the i
presence of the transatseton itne will eucliale the use of the The radioactive releases that occur during operation will be 11aited I right-of-way for timber production but will provide approulmately by the technical specificatione to assure conformance with require-600 acree of edse cover for wilditte and will provide a better area ments of 10 CFR 20 and the proposed Appendia 1 to 10 CFR 50, as
; f or production of grassee, legumes, and browse for wildlife feeding, formalised.
j It to anticipated that 600 acres!! will be escluded f rom its pater use of timber production, and the cost of such esclusion is eettuated" f. Societ al Iwatte - !=arte on Coimmunity Se rvi ces to be a loss of approximetely 61 annual growth. It is difficwit to j aseese the economic lose resulting f rom the exclusian of timber l production f rom this transmission line right+ef-way, since a portlan (1) {ch nol o 1 et the right-of-way occupied by the line will be converted to livested ! er aartcultural production. If the eettre aczwage eriginally deeoted N Russellville, Arkansas, school system to one of five erhool I to timber production to lost this will annunt to 0.00132 of the dtstricts now operating schools in pope County. The Russellville ) tot al area new devoted te tieber productica la Arkansas (see Table system to the largest of these and includes schools in the towns of j A-2, Appendts A). N environmental impact of the transmise1on 11ae Russellville and London, Arkansas. Noe two towns are geographically 1 construction and operaties will be identical f or a fussil f ueled unit nearest to the site f or Arkansas Nuclear One Cait 2. The erhool j er a nuclear imit located en the Russellville site. facilities la Russellville have been expanded in the past to meet a f growing annual enrollumat. The staff finds that the total enrcilment 1 d. Che= feel Diecharres in the Russellville system has lacreased annually since 1944, aa in-dicated la pig.11-1. N increase is reported due to construction activities in the area much as the construction of the Dardanelle j The discharges of cheetcals f rom the applicant's proposed unit will 1 be Ilmited to thane found la Table 111-6 of this report. N effect Reservoir Dardanelle Hydroelectric pouer plant, Dardanelle Lock and Das, of the discharge of these chemicals will be mialaised during operettom the interstate hignvay system, and numerous small industrial f acilities i of Unit 2 as a result of the dilution of the chemical ef fluent with in the ares. Expansion of school f acilities has been neciesary to handle ! 383.000 gym of water provided as a result of the mandatory centinuoue the annual expanaton of enrollmest. The staff feels that the $spect operation of at least two of the circulating pumpe in the Unit 1 on school enrollment in the district would be no different f or the a cooltag system. Thte dilution =111 swduce the chemical concentratione applicant's proposed unit or for an alternate fossil fueled unit , la the efftwent te less than the minintas limits permitted for thee* since stallar stancer of canatruction workers would be required to chemicale by the local, State, and Federal water quality regulations, construct either. The canetruction of Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 will not tapose any additional burdens on the school systems. N j lt is anticipated that a fosett fueled station would release amounts Russellville school system will receive approximately $1.3 million 4 of water treaturst chemicals approssmately 30% lower then the annually f rom taaes on the capital investment in the applicant's j applicant's expected release f rem Unit 2. N etaf f menismes this proposed generating station. N corresponding figure for the alternate foe.11 f uel station would be approximately $1.6 million. These taxes 1 1 i .I f i E-66 i I i l
i X1-20 x1-19 are cali.utete44 on the beats of the estimated capital investment 21 for tax purposea for the two stat ione. The apparent higher capital investiment for a foesti fuel station se probably a consequence of loflatium; the nuclear station was ordered several years ago, whereas 3700 g 3 g i ; ; the entisated cost of the fossil fuel station to based on 1972 prices. The presence of a large capit al invest ment in Arkansas Nuclear One Unit J wt!! permit the school systen to finance the expansion and 3600 -
~
improvement of this mystem as the cuessunity arows in the f uture. The taxes paid to t he local school system v111 constitute a local benefit to the area, since the facilities are located entirely within _ the tauing limits of the Russellvilla school district. The operation of Arkansas % clear One Unit 2 will require 30 en-playees la adJ1 tion to the 60 required to operate Unit 1, and the 3400 - staff estimates that 13822 employees would be required for an equiv-alent fossil fueled station. These employees will not impose any $ sppreciable burden on the school system of the Pussellville area y since it will have been expanded to a size capable of handling the j 33o0 - 600 to 900 earloyees in residence during construction. k, ed (2) rwe rnmen t Serviree Other thanJhoch
~
3200 - The const ruct ion of the applic. ant's proposed st ation or the fossil fueled alternative will not impose any appreciable burden on the existing community services ex h as water, newsme, fire protection. 3 00 - _ police protection, and housing. The applicant's proposed station and the equiealent fossil fuel alternative will include its own provision for treating sanitary westes and therefore will not burden the esisting municipal weste treatment system. While the construction 3000 ~ of either station will not impose any additional burden on the avall-ability of auttable housing in the area, it will prolong the existing scarcity of available rental housleg, which has apparently prevailed I I f I I I since the beginning of construction activities in the Russellville 2900 area sometime early in the decade beginnina in 1960, t968-69 69-70 FO-h M-72 72*T3(EST1 gg The staff assumes that during operation of the station af ter 19 76 Fig. II-1. I'erollment data for Russellville School district. many permanert er ployees will const ruc t or acquire permanent housing Source: Super int endent of Sc hools, Rusee11ville, Ar k., sc hool in the Russellville area. In the absence of any large construction system, Feb. 2. 1971. project having a starting date coincident with the completion date of the Unit 2 construction program it is likely that housing in the area will be abundant as a reault of the decline in the number of constrection workers and the possible relocation of these workers to other const ruction jobs. This report does not attempt to specu-late on the desire of permanent employees to build additional E-d7
! i i I i I l l 11-21 II-22 I l h. Aestheafee i i mi.g. hut the staf f co-tudes that -ins wist be .vetta.1e ' for the permaneet staff. and the presence of the pernament staff N addittom of Arkansas Nuclear One t) nit 2 to the estatleg structure ] ' l for the applicant's propeeed stattom er the fenett fueled alternate of ilmt 1 uses the same architecture as the estettag structere for 4 will met impeee any burden en the estettag knustas market ta the Unit 1. The prestressed reactor contalement shall will be a duplicate f I guesellville ases. N etaff canctodes that the aanval payneet of of the estaties prestressed reactor containment shelt for tiest 1. N L 8276.000 fer tases for the applicant's proposed stattom er $327,000 building that contains the turbine and auzittery equipment will be for the cost. fired alternate will compensate the commualty for the cometructed en the same endule es similar bu1141mga for Unit 1, The , minimal addittamal sere 1ces required by any new residente brought mejor dif ference between Unit 1 and t) nit 2 wt!! be the saletence of [ <. by the station. The large natural draf t cooltas tower shown la Figure !!!-1. This ! j tower vs11 have a diameter of 390 f t at the base and a height of 475 L
- g. sconcate lupaJc ft. The plume f rom this tower le estimated to eatend to an elevation of 1000 ft above the reacter site ductag reacter operation. This
! The constructies of the applicaat's proposal er en alternate foee11 structure will be imposiss and irisible from many locations withis a ! fueled statten will result in the employment of 600 to 900 construction 10 mile radius from the statica. The plume will probably be viathie vorhere for a period of three yeare ending late la 1975 few the from o greater distance. The structure will not blend with the astural j proposed station and la late 1976 for any fossil fuel alternates. environment and may therefore be considered objectionable to esas i as ebeerve re. N applicant has chosen to construct this natural draf t 3 The staff settmates that these werkers will receive salartem i cooling tower la preference to low-silhouette archanical draf t coollag
. totallas $13 million deving this time. The departere of theos constructice workers may cause a temporary eccoomic dec11ae la the towers as a result of ecomanic studies , which indicated that the gueselville area. The staff assumes that the compemeation will be operation of this tower would have smaller annual cost than a comparable toestical for either type of station that the applicant desires mechanical draf t tower. N intuitive opinien of the staf f to that the to cometract. presence of this assural draf t cooltag tower structure will met be r detrimental to the views of natural objecte la the aussellville area.
' The operettag force required will be larger for the feestl fueled , stattom than for the nuclear stattom, and therefore the ecomunic N asethetic impact of a station constructed to accordance with the I impact ever the life of the esattee will be greater for the fase11 app!! cant's proposal or one constructed on the baef s of one of the i fuel stattee. N staff eetimates that tae average salary for each alternates described la Table II-3 would of fer verytas views free an employee will be $12.000/ year la 1974 and $14.800/ year la 1976. For aesthetic standpotat. For example, a nuclear station constructed a fossil feel station with 138 employees, the annual f aceae from with closed-cycle archanical-draft coo 11sg towers would embetitute operettag employees salaries will be $2.042.000 for the aree compared low profile mechanical draf t coallag towere for the large natural to $4a0.000 for the 30 additional employees required for the opera
- draft cooling tower structure. The other alternative would be the '
} ties of Catt 2. asseming a $14.800/ year salary. The staff concludes substituttom of powered spray modules en a 19-acre canal as a re- ! I that the ecamosic benefits to the consumity from the unit described placement for either type of cooling tower. The spray modules would i i la the applicant's proposal or from as alternate feme11 fuel unit be less vielble from a distance then either type coollag tower. ( j will esc.ed the ecomenic cost to the commmatty, stase the income Selectice of either the mechanical draft coo 11ng tcaser or a spray a received by the employees of the stattom and the property tan income module arrangensat would mialaise the visual impact and limit it to , { received by the governments will enable the county and the school the addittom of a seccad reactor containment structure havlsg a ' i district to provide for general improvemente to community services diameter and hetsht identical with the eulatics containment struc- ! j and educattomal f eellities. N single large base fram which the ture for Arkansas Nuclear One Cait 1. 1 tas revenue is outracted will greatly outweigh the small increase , a la ca - ity services required by the additional employees needed T.e cometruction of an alternative unit at thte site using coal as a to operate the station, fuel and any one of the three tooling methode proposed for the nuclear I j unit would predece an aesthetic tapact greater than that produced by a seclear unit of equivalent else. N fosett fuel station would i ] i require a very tell (MG to 800 f t) stack to disperse the gasecue ! products of conhustion. The statica wou!4 require rail facilittee. [ 4 i l 4 3 E-8d l 2 .. t
, . ..__ - - - - - - - _ - - - - m... .m v, . . - - -
i ,i , i 5 i t l 11-23 docking f acilittee, or both for receivtag coal. Truck unleedtag cents wit! occur regardless of the constructica of a nuclear facilittee for receipt of coal f rom local mines might eles be required. stetten of a rosett fueled stattom since the costo are common to Approminately 20 acres of the ette would be devoted to storage of a either type. 45-day supply of coal and approximately 170 acres tc. en ash disposal pond, which would have the capacity for etering spat of the ash A dectaten to permit construction of the appitcant's proposed station
. produced dartag the useful life of the imitt. or may of the foaell fueled alternates also imp!!es e tectative i acceptance of future coste resulting from the operation of the i N staf f concludes that the construction of a fossil fueled alternative station that is licensed for construction. The cost are enumerated
] to the applicant's proposed emit would produce a greater aesthette briefly as fellowes i 4 tapect than the cometructica of the mit described to the appitcant's
, propoest =1thout resard to the method of ecoltag used. This con- 1. Anouet discharge of approximately 1.? z 308 lb of cheatcale
[ j clustom to based en the greater acrease and larger number of required for water treatment ta the cooling tower system. * , aux 111ary f acilitsee required for the crerattom of the foeell fueled The discharge from this ocurce will be approximately 302 less alternative. for a fasett stattaa. N fase11 fuel station will aise
! discharge large quantities of chemicals that are leached
- 2. Salance of Coote and_._Benefite f rom the fly ash and bottom ash stored is the ash holding pond.
; The major environmental costs anticipated as a result of the l
construction of the statica are primarily the followtag: 2. Annual discharge of approximately 5 C1 of miscellaneous radio-activity and 1000 C1 tritium for the nuclear statica. The !
- 1. Cosmitment of 3700 acres of land for transmission line fossil fuel plante described to alterneres F-1. F-2 or F-3 I rights-ef-way for both units. may elao discharge some quantities of radioactivity depending ce the abundance of uranius and thorium as trece elemente in !
, 2. Centimmettom of eastrommental disturbance aristag f ree the the coal burned.
e cometruction of Unit 2 on the 430-acre porttom of the ette obared with Unit 1. 3. The operation of the nuclear station will require transporta-tion of 59 new fuel elemente annually to the plant la five l l 3. Removal of 441.000 ft1 et potential commercial esitwood ehtymacts. This minor cost is balanced against the annual i i timber and 578.000 f t ' of potential eaemercial hardwood transportation of 2.86 a 10' tone of coal la 28.600 rati care ; timber f rom the t renemiestce 11ae rights-of-way. The L 1 lose to increased annually (for several years, but act 4. The operatice of the nuclear statica will require the l j indeftaitely) by 4 to 61 of the original toes atace new transportattoo of 59 spent elements annually in ten !
! timber will not be allowed to grow to commeretal else en shipmeate and 12 truckloads (70 drums per load) of solid 6 i
these rights-of-way. radioactive waste per year. There la ao comparable ship- , meat of radioactive vastes required for a feesti fuel j 4 The constructica ette has been pernamently altered la statica of the type described in alternatives F-1, F-2 er F-3 ! j several areas as a result of excavation and illling ta but ash disposal would be required. j connection with constructies activities.
- 5. N operation of the applicant's proposed station will The principal economic cost associated with the construction of th* consume a net of 27.300 kg f1-235 (30 tons) during ite -
statise will occur when the salaries paid te cometruction werkere life and the foss11 fuated alternate will constmus cease and they seek employment elsewhere.- The constructica payro11 8.58 x 10 7 tone of coal during f ra Itfe. i a which everages approatmately $6 million annually, wit! be offset only slightly by the eettmated $440,000 operettas payroll for the 6. The operation of the station will result to an annual I plant described in the appitcant's proposal er the 82,042,000 for consumptive water lose of 5.30 a 10% gal for the the plant described la alternatives F-1. F-2 and F-3. N foreseing app!! cant's proposal and 3.71 x 10' gal for the fossil fueled alternative. j f , t a I E-d3 i I l i h
. . _ . ~ . . . - - - _ - - . -.__-_ ~... _ . . - - . _ - _ . . . . ~n-__ -.. _ ~ _ ~ , . - - - , . _ . _ - - ~ . . - ~ - - ~ ~ . ~ ,-.
l 1 J s!-2s xt-26 ? I 7. N operatten of the station as now designed will discharge st at ione . he nuclear fueled station is burdened with the beated blowdown water containing 1.08 a 107 Bau/hr late the responetbtlity for discharge of radioactivity into the air and ! enhayanat. Any foes 11 fuel alternate will discharge about water at the ette and the necessity for transporting radioactive ! 70% of this quantity of heat, spent fuel elemente f rom the site to e fuel reprocessies plant.
- 8. h operattoa of the proposed statica or any alternate that e coal fired station to responalble for puttleg large amounts of i cheatcal contaminanta in the air and water as a result of smoke i uses alallar intake and dilution water pumping systems will stack ef fluents and effluents f rom ash storage ponds. nese result in possible destructica of fish by impingement on er ef fluents will always laclude ontdes of sulphe.r and entrogen and l entrapment by the fatake screens.
1 bydrocarbana and may include mercury, thorium and areolum. N presence of the latter three elements will depend on the coal i 9. The operation of the proposed statim of any nuclear alternatives will result la the destractim of 1.ge a 10' ***d* i i Ib/ year plankton as a resalt of thernet shock to the coe-deaner coeting water system. The corresponding quantity as The staf f takes acte of these dif ferences and ebeerves that the ,! small quantittee of radioactivity released by the nuclear stattaa > the result of opstation of the f asett fuel alternative will are closely regalated by the Commission. The manimum quantities be 1.30 a 106 lb/yr. allowed to be released are considered to be environmentally N foregolas environmental costs resulting from constructica and insignificant. The chemical pollutants released by the fossil *
; operatica must be offset by the single benefit of the generation fuel station are in the range of millions of pounde per year. De environmental impact of these pollutants la mot well understood ,[
i of F.22 a 105 kwhr of energy la the applicant'a proposed statten j and alightly less energy la the alternatives. This energy satisfies even when the quantittee released are within the limits imposed the growing energy demanda of the applicant's service area. In by current federal regulations. I } aJditten the cometructica of a plant of 970-PtJe (met) capacity will provide the applicant with a reasonable geserve generettag he staf f costludes that the least environmental 1spect will be i capability, which can be used to support the applicant's system la obtained as a result of operation of a nuclear stattoa rather than 1 case of toes of lead on other generating unite er to support a f ase11 fuel station. This conclusion is based on the applicant's I I melghbertas systems la the Middle South I'tilittee Syntes, the ability to control the release of radioactivity from the statlan , ! Southuset Power Pool, or the South Central Power Costantes. through the use of cultable systems for the pre-release removal
; of radioactivity from games and liquids. ,
secondary benefits, each as tames te local goversarat and salaries to constructica and operating personnel, will contribute to the economy of the Russellville area. N eraff believes these benefits are suf ficleat to of fset any inconvenience that may evolve as a result
! of the construction and operation of this station.
I j h staff observes that the eevircemental costo due to construction of I the applicant's proposed stattom er alternativea 5-1 and s-2 are approat-i mately equal to the environmental cost of constructing a fossil fueled station as described la alternatives F-1, F-2, or F-3. The staff < 1 concludes that the environmental coet ettributable t3 coastrectloa [ activittee are approatmetely equal when the applicant's proposal to
; compared with any of the alternatives.
$ There are differences in environssotal cost associated with the i operettaa of the stetica choses for construction. hose relate , principally to the differences between nuclear anf coal-fired 4-f 1 i i h E-90 i ( _ _ _ . -_ __ ,. . - . . . . . - _ _ _ _ _ , _ _- -, __ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . m _ . , _ -- . . , , , _ _ . _ . , _ _ _ _
._ . . . , . __s___ ._ _. _. . _ _ _m ... .__ _ m _ . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . m__ . _. . . ..m.
i l i 11-27 II-28 i I* * * * * * ' * *
- RIFERENCES FUR SECT 103 11 Repest on inves'tigation of Cooling Tower Plume Behavior, Tennessee Valley Authority, Escle Shoals, Alabama, for
- 1. federal Power Cenateston, #aticzal thwr Arv.y-H?>, Pas t Ill.
fable 16, p. !!!-1-58, U.S. Government Frieting Office.
- 15. R. N. Johnson .sid C. C. Mktne, " Waste Heat Disposal la Power
**E** #* Y* ' I *
- 2. Arkansas Public Service t.oumisoton thicket No. U-2307, dated 16 Arkansas Power and Light Company, Arkesas holdar Ons lhelt 2
- 3. PPC Qairman stateneet, .*clet Commit see Print entit led 7%
Em%, Eur;y, ami the Osietww.st, ** * '
- A B&ge w] ft f
* " # 17. Artansas Power and Light Company Arkatsas halmar One usrle 2 sc e v. p. Sqvie=m. art Ro. 2 to paginmne=stal Report, Docket 50-368, 4 TPC, Artwy, Part 111, p. III-1-8. D II I'I *
- 5. IH d. Part Ill, Pss. 17. 18. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Interior, Dwircouwntal Criteria fcr Eisetrte Trannerission Systenar,
- 6. Arkansas Public Service Commise1on Duket 20. U-22Fe, * '
- Rearing Record, p. 27.
- 19. U.S. Department of Commerce / Bureau of the census, 2d## Canama y, g g3, , p, $ $, cf Africulture - Castg lata Arkmaan, Fqe Cowty, 465, November 1971.
B. Inster f rem M. T. noimee, Asaansas Peer and Lisht Capany 20. tarl Berry, Director, Tau Divialan of Arkansas Public Service to W. C. Stockdale ORNL, Feb. 17, 1972. Caumission, letter to Mr. Lester Rogere, Director Division of 9 Arkansas Power and Light Company Testimony before the adiol*51 cal and Environaratal Protectice, USAEC, Mar. 6,1972. 1 Arkansas Pollution Cent re! Comatosium, Mar. 30, 1971.
- 21. USAEC Quarterly Progress Report on Status of Raactor Can-10 E. Ayneley, "Ea=trannea6.t1 Aspects of Cooling Towers," IIT stnctim, W Pna W 2%, admitted by Marlan T. Bolams, Research Institute, Cooling Tower last f rute Presentation
- 8888" of FMdWtion, Design and Constnctim Arkansas Pau Jan. 26, 1970.. and Light Company, Jan. 6,1972.
- 11. Arkansas Power and Light Company, Arka' teas Ka-?e s Cate Mit 2 22* L. M. Olmstead, "17th Steam Station Cost Eurvey Reveals Steep q $ =wn! 20 Enuinm eta! !w;vrt, Doc h e t m*. 50- % 8, Rise for Busbar 1.nargf." flestriool liorld 176(9): 39-54 December 1971. ,g, 3973),
t
- 12. Cooling Tower Ef fects, Termont Yankee-Research Corporstlaei of 3. . . ann, . . ,a I, men, ac we ecting j
g g,g g ,,g, Historical and Projected Capital Coats of Nuclear Power Plants .
, la the United States," United Natione Coeference en Peaceful ;
- 15. Unoe of Armic Enngy Sesaton 1.4, AM 4WO37, e
,E.,
_lL.sWodruf rt ,t . D.
~w E. Jenne, C. L, Simpson, J,. J. Puquay, c tmff.,,a cf ;
Pe%wed Coa!ing Tawre at Asif.;p;f aw "C" tit,, satte11e Pacific Enthwest Labs, September 1971. G21 i j E-91 i M
.- _ __ _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _.-._.-_m._ .. _~._m. _ _ , _ . - . _ _m. . ._ _.______.m _ _ _ . . ..m. _ . , _ _____m_-
l i III-2 j 111-1 i' A. ENVIlhMotENTA!. EFTrCTS OF AAKANSAs utK't. EAR ONE - UNIT 1 (EPA, i IT iT- li T6 T6-2 71 ar gtneers, a.as s Commerce, E.6bu) Ill. DIMUSIN OF CD9FNTS RfCt!WD ON TME NLAFT ENVlgohmMT AL ST ATt*W N,,1
., geyegg1 commeste identified a need for additional informatioh en the i thernet, chemical, and radioactive discharges from Arkansas Nuclear one - Unit 1 te properly assess the impact Unit 2 will have whos ;
Puromaat to paragraph A.6 et Appeedia D te la CTR So, the Draft operated in cenpaction with Unit 1. Euch information for Unit 1 is o Environmestal Statement of Ju17 1972 was transmitted, with a request presented below. A detailed assessment of the combined environmental for cceanent, tot ef fects of discharges f or Unite 1 and 2 will be given to the Draf t i tavtrommental statement portaintes to the proposed operation of Unit 1. I i ' Advisory Counell em Ristorical Freeervatfoe Department of Agricettare 1. Thermal effects Departaset of Army Carpe of Engineere ; Departerat of Ceemerce Unit 1 will discharge 1700 cis of cooling water,15F" above ambient Department of Health, Education, and Welf are j water temperature, f ree a once-through coeling system directly to < Department of luusing and Urban Development , the discharge embayamat, Unit 2 will discharge between 2.6 to 10.6 t 1 Department of the laterier cfs of too11ag tower blowdown water teto the outlet conduit of Unit Department of Transportation j I where it is mined and diluted prior to dischstge to the embayment. 3 Federal Fawer r * *eion It is settasted that the thermal discharge f ree init 2 will make an l Environamatal Fretectice Agenc? lacremental addittom of less than 0.2*F to the 15'T temperature rise . Arkansas Game and Fish Commise1on free Unit 1. Thus, no measurable change in aquatic life is expected i
! Arkansas Plannass Commise1on to result f rom the operation of Unit 2.
Fope County (Arkansee) Commissioners ! i
- 2. O.eet cal ef fecte i la addition, the AEC requested comments ce the Draf t Enviropeestal Stateneet from interested persome by a motico published la the Dienical content of the discharge resulting f ree the operation of f federal Reg 4 tar on July 22, 1972 (17 FR 1673*h Innit I will total less than 0.1 ppa, due to the large dilation flow Ccaments la response to the requests referred to above were received of 766,000 spa. Of apet significance will be the chlorine added to r eestrol alcrobiological growths. Chlorisation will be intermittent frema j (1 to 2 hours each day or as necessary), and the concentration of .
Advisory Council on Ristorical Preservattaa reeldual chlorine (to the form of molecular chlertne, hypochloroue Department of Agrictatur* acid, and hypochlorite ton) will be limited to a nazimum of 1 ppe. ! Department of Army Corps of Engtaeers The applicant's system is designed se that only half of the cooltag Department of Commerc* water flow can be chlorinated at a time, reducing the manimum concem-trattom of reeldual chlorine la the circulating water canal to 0.5 Deportueet of the laterior i ppe. Analyses have shove that the chlorine demand of the Arkansas i Departarat of Transportation River water (i.e., the amount of chloriae required to oxidise sub- I Federst Power Moeios ^ Eavironmental Protection Agency stances in the water that reduce free chlorine) ranges from 2 to 4 pps f or a contact ties of 10 minutes. Reaction with the untreated Arkansas sistoric.a1 Freeervation Progree Arkansas Case and Fish Commiestos dilution water during the 4 to 5 minutes required for the flow to
' reach the discherse structure should reduce the concentration c f f ree our consideration of commente received and the dispoettles of the residual chlottaa below the level of detectability at the outlet to 1ssues involved are reflected la part by revised test ta ether sectione the embayment. '
of this Flaal Environmental Statement and in part by the following I discussion. The comments are tacteded in rate stateneet me Arpendia E. the incrosse of 12 ppe in the anneral content of the discharge stream due to the operation of Unit 2 alone will be reduced to 6 pra during the combined operation of Unite 1 and 2. L 4 e E-92 1 i h 1
, , - . , - - --=3w- w rm-r. . - _ , . - y , - -
__ __ _ __. ~ . ..__ .______ _ _m - ,_ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ __m__________m . . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . .m ._ _.y_ . _ _ . _ . . _._m l i 311-3 gg,,4 1 ' I The chemical wastee from both units will be discharged la the com. C. P_I_Liftf 0M FIDW REWIRED FnR RADLOSAIVE I,tWID FFFtMNTS i denser cooltag water from Unit 1. Concentratione of these chemicata ( "I' ' "~ I" ' II ' " #*' are well below those that have been shows to have detrimental ef fects
" "9"* ** . Questions were raised with reopert to the measures that would be taken in the event that the high d$1ution flow f rom Unit 1 is not
- 3. Radiological effects av e11able. As stated in the Sunraary and Conclusions Section, liquid
* ***** 'I ** * * "'I* * " * " '
The espected annual liquid and gasoons radioactive ef fluents from the
- I*II II" (* "" * " * * ' "
4 full power operation of Unit I while Unit 2 to in operation have beem operating Ilmits for Unit 2 will require this dilutice fim irrespe~ I settmated by the staf f. that 1 wit! discharge a total of about 6 C1 stn of the ultimate heign M the Unit 1 Mas mten. et fission and activated correstum products anaestly la its 11 geld waste, escludtag tritisan. Free previous esperience, we estimate that D. gFliCA31LITY OF 10 CFR SO APPENDIX t CUTITLINES (EPA,g.17, the am m t of tritium annually will be appremiastely 2000 C1 for g thit 1. h espected anamel gaaeems releases of thtt I have been settmated to be 13,000 Ci for the noble gasee, a total of 0.058 CS Fraposed Appendia 1 of 10 CFR 50 sets forth proposed guides for for geoeoas 1-131, and a total of 0.023 C1 few games 1-133. design objectives (expressed la quantities and concentrations in eM1uents) fp *e
- He ear pm" ructus taHng hto ,
I The staf f has estimated that thit 2 will discharge, esclusive of account the enetronmental characteristics of the alte and the conces- 5 trittism, a total of about S C1/yr of finatom and activated corroetam tratame and total quant ny of radioactin matnial nisased by su i products in its inquid wastes. La addittoa,1000 C1/yr of tritium t-wat e PN e Mc af pan reactus at the site in eithu HW will alee be discharged. The estimated espected annual gaseous "E***""* "***** j ef fluents of Datt 2 were 4350 Ci for noble gases, a total of 0.17 C1 j for gaseous 1-131, and a total of 0.13 Ci for gaseous 1-133. HM M M 1 W Nr 2 m dimd Mh j B. GASEOUS RADIOIOttikE RELEASES Fedet ROUTIME OPERATIONS OF t' NIT l Current Commission regulations la 10 CTR 20 and 10 CFR 50 require TLFA. E-12,1s.19, 20; commerce. E-4, 6s) releases to be as " law me practicable." The collective discharges of
! Several comments were raised conceratas the poteettal basardous it I and 18 are "Pecy u k "as im as padM# in se cordance with the Commission a regulations. Appropriate technical release of radteiedine to the environneet durtog the operattom of specifications will be developed to carry out the purposes of keeping , Unit 2. levels of radioactive materials in ef fluence to "as low as practicable." ,
Since the 1semance of the Draf t savironmental Statement, the app 11- Collective releases f rom operattom of both units are not expected 1 cast han incorporated design changes tate the gaseous radioactive to have any deletericua ef fects on the environment. Should the weste eyeten of Unit 2 which will essentially e11alaste C1.e gaseous collective discharge levela f rom both units exceed the limits of $ todines released f rom the steam generator blowdown tank and will the applicable regulations, alternate processing methods or addt-reduce by a facter of tem the gaseous todines released from the air tienen radioactive waste treatment equipment may be added if re-ejector stream. Revised Fiss. I11-3,111-7, and 111-8 of thte state
- quired to. seet Regulatory requirements to prevent harmful ef fects to meat depict the gaseous system as presently designed. The sneeous the pi.b11e and the environment.
effluents of Unit 2 are reported to Table 111-3. The calculated total annual release of gaseous 1-131 to 0.17 Ca t that of 1-133 to g. LtQt'ID RADIGACT!?E WA$7E SYSTDt (EPA, E.17) 0.13 Ct. a comment recommended that information regarding t ank storage capac-I The estimated possible dose to tafants f rom drinklag milk produced it tee, steam generator blowdma volumes requiring treatment, and by cows grazing on the pastare nearest the site was calculated to criteria for processing blaedown be provided. Tank storage capacities be 29 mrom/ year for the previously designed gaseous radioactive for Unit 2 taciudet f our holdup t anks of 40,000-gal each, two baric Y waste system. Treaternt of gaseous redtelodine by the redesigned gaseous radioactive waste system novers this thyreto alooe to 4.1 (, mreafyou. i t 1 I l { i
, E-95 I
- - - . . - - - . . _ _ . - - - - - . - _ - . _ , n.. _. . . - - _ , - _ _ _ ~ _ . - - - . _ _-_. . _ . _ . _ . . . .- ~ ~ ~ u 2 ~ ~ ~ _ .
T I t 6 L 111-5 X11-4 4 I ! acid canaemaate tanks of 30.000 get each, a to00-gal reactor drata evaporator, contributes approminstely 0.125 C1/yr (2.5%) of the 5-Ci ! i tank, two weste tens of 4.030 ga! each, and two 15.000-gal waste total retemee la liquid effluente (Table !!!-2). ! candensate tanka. Section 10.2.9 et the Unit 2 P1AR describes the i treatures of etem generatar blowdown with a steen generator tube . M. ' UNDETTCTED RELE.Asts OF RADf 0ACTTVITY (EPA, E.30) I leak. The appitcaat has sedicated that the waste cancentrator ca-I pacity has been upgraded f ram 10 spa to 20 gy m. glowdova condensate A commmet requested an evaluation of the massunte of liquid and gaseoue
, w111 be directed to the waste management system when Sta act ivity radioactivity that could be released undetected er before sionitoring t exceeds a predetermined level which to cuneisteet with malataining alarms are activated and discharges terminated. All radioactive
- 11guid raateact two discharge limite. gaseous and Itquid of fluents will be monitored during or sampled prior 6 te release to ensure that discherse Ilmite es set by the Technical
- F. TNTRotD DDSES ASSOCI Aft.D WITH RAD 1010 DINE gr1EA53 (EFA, s.ls; Specifications will be maintatoed.
l l C amarce. 3-+e) 1
- 1. LIQt'ID gFFirENTS $0tDCE TERPt (Commerce, E.45-46) j Comments were meJe with respect to the thyroid dose aseectated with radiotodine releases. The app 11 cant has agreed to engineertag changes A comment was made concerning ccuparisons of the staf f's and app 11- I l . to the design af Cott 2 which will reduce the 1-131 release to 0.17 cant's settmates of annwat radioactive Itquid discharges reported in C1/yr. The empected release f rom Unit 1 is 0.05g C1/yr for a total the Draf t Eartransental statement and taf erring reasons for the i 1-131 release of 0.22g C1/yr f rom the Arkansam meclear one Power differencee.
1 Station. 7 This waald reduce the potential taf ant thyroid dose of 29 arem/yr The applicant has stated that his reported value of 22 Ci for liquid efflorate for Unit 2 represents the number of curies discharged in free Datt 2 ao calculated la section T ef the Draf t Environmental the equilibrium cycle with 11 f ailed fuel, dirty wasta concentratione statement and would atm a total of 5.3 areelyr f rom both Unita 1 equal to reactor coolant concent rar tona, and no waste condensate ten-and 2 (4.1 aren/yr fra Unit 2), J exchangere in operation. Reace this value should not be used f or ; j comparison la espected annual estimates. To compare ce the same This estimated dcee (f rom both unite) la ce tr 4.4% of natural back- baste with the staf f's calculation, the discharged volum of 0.07 C1 grause dose and decreases rapidly with aae to 0.55 mres/yr er 0.441 reported la the appitcang's Environmental Report, Table J.1-1, should i i
+f natural backgremed for sa aJett. Only envircamental eunitortag
- af ter stattan operettom cas comitsu that the applicant is la ccu-be need. Correcting thte value for the staf f's assumptico of 0.25%
f atted fuel gives good agreement with the staf f's enorma11aed value pliance with Appendia 1 of 10 CIll 50 as finally forma 11 red because of 0.17 C1.
' l 1
of the uncertataties to the above estimate. ! l J. , CRotND WATER MONITORTIC ? G. gActoACTITT StCD C ARY SYSTFM LEAKAct (EPA, 3.20) L b A comment noted that an eettuate of the volume and radionuclide com- The groundwster monitoring system. as devised by the applicant, le
- centratione aseeciated witm secondary system leakage during pertada based ca the ground water hydrology study conducted by gech tel Cor- i of primary-twcandary leakage should be made. The radioactivity peration hydrologists, which is described in detail in Appendiz 2C of released f rom accandary systen eteem lentase with concurrent priea ry-the Unit 2 FSAR, and an area well study made by the applicant in 1971. .
} l
- te-secendary leakage to insignificant becasue of the high partitice 1
The three wella being mi. mitered are: f actor f or soldie isotopes in the steam generator and tacreseed 4 blowdma rates which may be required to maintata ecceptable activity levels . (1) On alte on the north shore of the discharge embayment, depth . j 20 to 30 feet, I b , A 20 gal / day primary-te. secondary coolant leak te one of the condt-(2) Tove of London water supply well ebout 2.5 miles f rom the plant. tiana (Table 111-1) moed la determistas releases of radioactive depth 450 feet , ) effluent f rre Qatt 2 ef Arkansas seclear me. The aream genererer
- umdm. oO spel. ,mee.ed thre. the w te m.m. gene.t s,et.m '
7 i il t b V y i J
- E-M
. t I
I i I
, _ _ _ _ _ _ ,. ._ ,__ , ,__ ~ - . - . . - ,. --_ __ - - _ - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - - __ __ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _._________ _
~~-~~_-._.-___,.a . _ - _ _ _ - - - _-__ __- -.- - ~ ~ __.~ _ ___ _.-- - - ~ -_.__- -_ n _ - - - - - - - -_ .
l g i XII-4
' 111-7 !
5, 72 hours of decay before head removed j (3) Outta necreation Area well on the east bank of the flitnets 6. 11,280 ft8 af reactor coolant i Bayou, depth 120 feet. 44.450 f t' f rom the sof ueling water t ank 7. 4
- 8. 3 weeks of f urther decay during refueling The wolle selected provide site, meerby ef f-aite, and a base hec k- 9. Twice-through the chemical and volume control system 4, ground lecet tom f or munitoring gewundwater empp ttee. N wette are demine ralise r .
i monitored on a quartetty baele. 10. T reat ment by the fus! pool desteeraliser before return to the + refueling tank , ~ E. DESIGN FOR FLOOD FRL7ffCTION (Agriculture. E.101 EF A, t.31; r f gagineers, E. 35) II. Domineraliser decontamtmatton f actors of at least 2 for ca and Rb, 102 for Me, and to for Y I, and all other
' mucitdee The highest flood esperienced at the Dardanelle Das site was a flow
- of 683,000 cfe to 1943. Discharges of 900,000 c f s f rom t he das c m The staf f is of the epistem that the potential total body does f ra be ac^C=ted and still beep the take level et 3 )$ f ee t ; at higher direct radiatlan fra this source is less than 0.1 aren/yr.
inflows, the lake level would rise. The Corps of Engsmeere bee
- ceagruted the manimum probable floud out-flow at Dardanelle Das em ATMOSPHERIC DISPTR$10M TACTORS (El>A E.22-23; Ccamerce, E.441 M.
1,500,000 afs; the corroepending lake level weald be 338 feet at the IMf , E.37) l site. Failure at the nearest upstream das (Orsrk) during a maalam i j probable flood would result la a meatmum 3el-foot water level et the For routine gaseoue dispersian calculations, the staff made an inde- [ ~ site. 5.minal plant grade and ground floor elevations are 353 and Pendent aseeeement using site specific meteorology available in . j 154 feet , respectively. All Class I etractures are designed to Prelleinary &2faty d=uaIysie Report, Arkansas blear lhe, Udt 2, j restat the 361-foot flood! all Claes 1 equipment is either located 84T!=8'nent No. 2, Section 2. A, February 1971, by te chniques described above 369-f oot elevattan er protected f rom flooding by Class 1 [ In References 32 and 33 of Sectim V in the Final Environments 1 j structures. $t at ement . The first 17 tapaundments alor.s the Arkansas River are primartly for The average annual dispersions (eec/m i
) la 16 sectors, at selected newt gat tom. uowever, seven upstress dme de provide flood cont rel. dist ances up to 50 miles, together with averaged radionuclide re- 5 pit 2CT $ Hist ErrtmNA!. t%PtMt1LE (EPA, g.22)
Lease, were used to calculate both indleidual and man-rem doses. j L. N volume of inf orestica generated is impractical to print in this ' Environematal statement. ' ! N appitcaat has eveteated the poteot tal direct ohine dose at the este boundary including the contetbetion of 5-16 within the c'perating Isas than $1 of the poteattal total body dose is available fra the I' reactor cooling sveten as Jess than S a 10 3 mrea/yr. containment purge watch is the only short-term discharge expected The sely storage t ask esternal to the reacter which v111 contata under normal operation. The gas-decay tanks are nominally operated radianaclides is a refueltag tank, b) feet high by 44 feet in diameter with 15 days of collection, 30 days of decay, and 15 days of release. l
! with 400,000-gal capacity, used to flood the ref uellsg canal. After less thm 38% of the potential total body dose is avalleble from gas- [
ref ueltag, the water is replaced La the t ank. This tank te over decay t ank discharge, and suf ficient flealbtlity exists to choose l j better than average dispersion conditions and sector choice when f 1000 matere insiJe the site boundary; the vialter's center will be eetside Enis perterter. discharging. The rematains ef fluents are discharged on an average l' b as is . Practical assemptismo to evaluate the pctential does f r m this Since this flemib(11ty esists and since the staf f dose estinstes source aret 1 for the maximum individual dose are based en the worst sector with i no adjustment for occupancy or shielding, the staf f believes the i
- 1. 2900 tas(t) power level averaatng procedure used is appropriata and realistic for routine
- 2. 313 full-power days in cycle
- 3. 9.21% f ailed fuel re leases.
4 Complete coolant degaesing i t I i 9 1 E-95 ! 1 i 4 , l I t
. . - _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . __.m- . . _ - _ _ _ m._~. - - . - _ _ _ . , ~,_. ..m. _
m_.__m ._._._.-._m.m. m w. m_.---_m__-.- l [ 1 i III-9 III-10
- l
} 3 The populet tas distributton t e such that* me appreciable change la economics of the war taus alternatives considered are not s ignifi cant ly , the man-rea calatations w* maid be espected f rom intermittent release, affected by the darfarence between 8.752 and 81 (used as the capital-4 recovery rate la the Draf t Statement) or lot as recommended by the h staf f done eettuates for accidents as ehma in Table VI-2 la the Envaresumatal Protection Agency, Flaal Eawaramuratal Statement are based on short-tera discharge and
- meteoroletical taf ormattea la the FrvliMaary Sqfety Amstysis hport, 2. Ten Seefits (EFA, E.29)
Areawas Nemales Aa, Wir 2, S4pleewnt No. 2, Secti m 2.A. February r 1971, together with the standard accident assumptions and guidance 1,ocal tazes to be paid by the applicant when the stattaa to operettog l j leeued as a proposed amendment to Appendia D of 10 CF1150 by the are included as a benefit in the area where the environmental impacta t Cammisstaa on Dec. 1, 1971. This analyste included the ef fecte of occur. Additional local benefits will result f rom employment at the i J cala condittoaa in the assesament of cusanlative percentage f requency plant during operation and f rom the associated payroll. I i et occurrence. 4 E. BIOACCW"1.ATIO1E FACTORS (EPA, E.30) { p. TRAMSPORTATIN AND RfACTOR ACCIDENTS GFA, E.24-23) i h bianceusnalattan f actore used to estimate the does to individuale i i h Environmental Protectima Agency and the Armic Emersy Agency are for the fish insestion pathway are given la Reference 23 of Section V. i presently making a cooperative study of f uel transpostattaa and reactor j eccidente to taeure that environmental tieks to the public are ad*- S. AIR P01.LCTAlfi$ ORIGT%ATING FROM CrmiSTRUCTION ACTIVIT ffS (EPA, gestely asseeeed. E.30) 4
- 0. CDST-EnstFIT ANALTSIS OF EXEMPTFD 00K4TRt*CTf 0N QFA E.29) The cement bat ch plant, located well within the ette bnundary, has a covered hopper to cet rol particulate eminalene, h applicant has The EFA comment regardlag esemption of below-grade eestruct ion from ladicated that it will empty with all app 11 cable federal, state, and considerettaa to the cost-benettt analyste s eems te be a mistaterpre- local regulations regarding air polluttan.
tattaa of the Draf t Environmental Stateneet wording. The total et , att economic and environmental coste le raneidered in the Flaal T. SITE N'TEORDIAGICAL DAT A (EFA, E.31g DUT, E.37) Stateswat La Sestian 11 and to sumanarised is the revised Table 11-3. Detailed site arteorotostcal data le available in the Prvliminan
! P. kATIm!WG OF p0WTE (Agriculture,1.10; EFA E.26-29) Sqfety Analysis Ap:rt, Manada NMs2r Ona, Wi12, Supp!sunt e i Nc. 2, Section 2.A, Fe6rwary 1971. h staff canaidere it inappre- +
j The concept of rattentag power or limiting the occamic growth et ao priate to add detail to the Environmental Stateneet meeful only to area tepresents a change la sational policy which to beyond the scope specialists. i af the fortediction delegated to the Atemic Energy ceamiselon by ' i Camaress and la therefore not considered appropriate for ceneideration tr. OFF-SITE AIR SAMPI.!NG STATIONS (EPA, E.31) l in thf e statement. l The locations of off-site air-easp. lag stations are shown on Fig. i Q. ESTTMATE or FUTIRE COSTS AND BENFFITS (EPA, E.29) D.)-3 in Sectie D of Arkansas Powe r arid Light Ccumpany, Arisseas { Ml*<.a= he, Wit 2, Splenant to Ensivemmental Report Docket ! The cest-benefit evolmation used in thte Flaal Statement is based en No. 50-368, December 1971. the AEC guide wha & specifies that evaluatten of the proposed plant "! and ice alternatives will be based on the present worth of generatins V. OTORE FR0rrCTION FanM POWYR TRAN9f f %51fB 1.1%T5 (EPA, E.31) a coste sa the date of first comunercial operation.
! Recent studiesL=1 have been carried out uhich ehm that no measurable
- 1. Capit al Recovery tates GPA, E.29) amounta at esone (less than 2 ppb) are f ormed due to the presence and f
) operet ton of t rans=1selon Innes carrytag up to 765 kV. so adverse 4 This Final Enviransestal St atement has need an annual discount rate effect am vegetattom or animala occurred ews during foul weather , j et 0.751 for the purpose of cmput tog presest worth. This le based when the heaviest corona lose occure. Righ voltage linee f or the i es an average cost of money to aprester-ewned wellities for the sale i of bonde , preferred stocA , and c - - s.ock. Cenerally the relative 4 E-96 , i ( 4 i 4
, m-,_ . - - - + + - . - . ,. ,e -- .--s, w.. -- - -- . _ . _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _
.m_ ._ _ i .. _ _ _ _ . ,_ __ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _
__.m_ __ m _ _ __z ... . _ . - - 1m K!!-11 III-11 station will carry a maalenas of 500 kV, and therefore no significant 2. ALJtRNATIVE DFSICN OF INTAKE STRUCTI'RE (Interior, 2.50) adverse ef fects are expected as a result of ceane f ormat ion. The mattomat Primary Air quality Standard for photochemical outdante a. The applicant has tedicated that he has considered two possible soeued by the Environmental Protection Agency is 30 ppb (by volusw) alternatives to the present fatake system. These devices, both of mahteuis arithmetic mean for a 1-hour concentratica act to be esceeded which would be placed at the entrance of the intake canal, are a once per year. fired parabelle s.reen to be butit out late the 1111aots Bayou sad i a horisontal traveling screen. W. WOISE IJYELS ASSoCI ATFD WTTW ARKAMAS MUCLEAR OTE (EPA, E.11) The parabolic screen would have a mesh stae small enough to stop l h applicant states that the noise f rom construction is act notic,. fieb and would be designed such that the water velocittee across it ! able at the nearest c-=S ty (landon - 2 mitee) or at the nearest would be less them those which caaee fish Septagement. However, residence (on Sunker ult! - 3/4 mile). Cometruction personnet have under these conditions, the screen might be susceptible to clogging, I been Anatructed to use care la all phases of the work to prevent which would cause incroues la velocity at some potats and poselbly isidesirable noise generation. Noise levela during operation will escesolve maintenance. The applicant believes it is impractical for be even lower than those present during construction. the station at this time. 4 I. LFFECT OF TRANSMISSION 1.IMES OM RAILROAD CtMMWICAf f 0N AND The horisontal trave!!as screen has had some success la small scale ! SIGN ALLING .CIRGJITRY (DOT , E. 3 7) applications, but little taformation is available en a scaled-up ! device large amough for use at Arkansas Nuclear One. In addittoa, m Arkanase Nuclear One-Nayflower 5004V line eroenes the Missourt vendore of travettag screens claim that fabrication of large units pacific Railroad at three potate. The minimum vertical clearance would be difficult and costly. to 29.5 ft at 120*F, which is well above established standards. The Mabelvale-Meyflower 500-kV line crosses two railroads at a total of N etaff suggeefs es a third alternative widentag the lateke canal , seven pelats. The mialaus clearance le 41 f t at 120*F, assin well te lower its velocity below the present 1.5 fps and reduce the number t above standards. The minimum vertical clearance between the 1154Y of fish that cannot reelat the drag due to the flow. underbo114 conductors and signal or communications circuite parattel-ing the railroad is 15 ft at 120*C.' This is ateo well above standards. The applicant intends te note the results of the moatterlag program, and me direct faulting or flashower is anticipated. and if a sigaf ficent fish entrapment results from operettom of the ' station, he will implement a program te develop a suitable fleh hre the 1tne parallele the rattroad so that laductive coupling protective system withis the state
- f-the-art at that time.
might occur, the applicant will cooperate with the rattroad to take corrective action if required. AA. EXV!,0NMENTAL IMyACTS OF ACCTDENTAL REIE.ASES TO EATER (Interior. E.51) Sailroad crossing permits that show adjacent structure type, size and location, angle of cresstag, conductor sise, spacing, tenaton, A comment was made that accidental releases to water should be ! sage and clearance to rait and signal or communication etreutta must evaluated. The doses calculated as consequences of the poetalsted ' be obtained by the appiteant. Pl ant operation accidents are bued on airborne transport of radio-active materials resulting to both a direct and am tabeletion dose. ' Y. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING (ACFC, E.40) The staff's evaluation of the accident dose aneumes that the app 11-coat a environmental monitoring (which could be tattiated subsequent j The monitoring progras of the Univoretty of Arkansas at Little Rock, to an incident detected by in-plant monitering) would decu t the [ sponsored by the appitcant (Sect. V.C.3), will continue f or 5 years presence of radioactivity la the environment to a tianly manner ' af ter initial operattom of Unit 2. W applicant's radiological such that remedial action could be taken if necessary to limit study of the aquatie environment, the fish, the bottaa organisms, and esposure from other poteattal pathways to man. The liquid radio-plankton will continue throughout the lif e of the plant, active waste system is contataed withia Class 1 structures (Su t VI.A). 1 I E-97 i
- . . ~ . - . . - - . ..- - - ... - - . - _ - - , . ... . - - . _ - -.- - - . . ~ ~ -.. ~ - . . +-.
I11-11 211-14 f ] Bs. (1, ASS 9 AO"!DrNTS (Interior. E.51) The waste itself to confined either la the form of solidified materiale, sus.h as concrete, or compacted solide. The low level of This comment requested a discuselon of the environmental consequences contamination of the waste, together with the form of the waste, of more severs accidents (Class 9) than those analysed. The proba. serves to mints.tse the cantamination in the unlikely evoet that there bility of accidents as>re severe than those which have been identified is a spill le an accident. is so small as to make the accidents nearly improbable, and evaluation of the consequences sa any deta11 does not appear to be justified. It is the opiales of the staf f that adequate precautione are already , prescribed in the regulations to provide for inf requent accidents ! CC. TRANSPORTAT10N ACCIDTNTS (epa, E.243 Interior E.51-52) which might occur involving shipmente of wastes f rom the station. 7 A ccament suggested that surrgency procedures be developed for samtmum DD. DILt" TION OF DISCH ARCE5 (E*A, E,)lg Interior, E.51) ' containment of low-level radioactive westes, as well as mistuun per-sonnel contamination, le the event of a spill of such westes as a The maximum rete at which liquid radioactive waste can be discharged I result of a severe accident. Provisions la transportatica regulations into ths 183,000-spa (850-cf s) circulating water flow is 75 spa, assure mantetsi ccatainment of wastes and minimum contesination from This results in a dilution f actor of about 5000. The maalasse dia- ? wastes in accidents. Shipments of wastes are likely to be made by charge f rom Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2, is 850 cis into an average exclusive-use truck, which meane that the vehicle is loaded by the reservoir flow of 36,000 cfe, givtag a further dilution of about 42. . consignor and unloaded by the consignee. In most cases the shipments The maaimum plant discharge (Caits 1 and 2) is 1700 cfs. glace the are made la closed vehicles. Since the shipment is exclusive use, plant intake is in Illinola Bayou (see Fig. T-2 to the Draf t Enviran-the shipper can provids specific instructions ta carrier personnel mental Starement), the staff believes that little recirculetten will regarding procedures in case of accidents, occur except under canditions of extremely low reservoir flow. This. occurs so inf requently that it does not cmpromise the yearly dose The regulations provide specif te instructions to carriers for segre- estimates based on the average flow. Any potential problem under gating daseged and leaking packages, keeping people away from the long-term drought canditions would be detected by monitoring in f ront , scene of an accident, and notif ying the shipper and the Department of of the discharge structure, and remedial action would be instituted. 1 Transportation. The chemical discharges from Unit 2 w!!! be limited by the Technical Each packass contalains radioactive material is labeled with the Specificattune for Unit 2. i radtoactive material label, a distinctive label which identifies the
- material and provides a visual warning. The regulations require '
i placards on the outside of the truck for identifying the presence + of shipments of large quantities of radioactive materials. An extensive program has been carried out over the pest several years , I by which emergency personnel, tecluding police departapnte, fire b i departments, and civil defense of fices, have been advised of proce- { dures to follow in accidents involving radioactive materials and i ! other basardous materials. Specific instructions with regard to j radioactive materials have been provided through the AEC's ef forts as well as those of carrier organisations such as the Bureau of Emplosives of the Associetton of AmPrican Rattroads, the American Trucking Association, and the Air Transport Association. An inter- , governmental progran to provide personnel and equipment to available 1 at the request of persona struck drivers, police, bystanders, or i ether personal at the scene of such accidents. i o k
't f
i l E-M - 1 9
-m
,y, y- 9 -9 y ,
z g-y-go-- m >- - - - - -- m 4 -nw, y----, e ,v--r-9 -,e ,-- , _ , - - - , _ , _ _ _ _ ___ _
__3 . . . _ . _ . . . __m_-._.._. . _ _ . m, _ . - 1 III-13 111-16 EE. 1.0CATIO4 OF PRLNQPAL CHANCES IN TH15 STATEMENT Clwatcal Discharges ACFC. E.40s III.D.3.a(1) IN RESPONSE To CMMENT$ Interior. E.49 Istake Screen Cleaning Interior. E.51 T.C.2.b SECT!UN WimRE I TOPIC CtD00'ETED tTPON ACENCY COPMENTING TOPIC 19 ADDRESSED Ventilation Systems EPA, E.18-19 III . ac. 2.b Histortcal and Archae. ACHP, E.1 11.C teleases from Turbine EPA, E.30 Ill.D.2.b clogical Resources Be11 dings Erosion Control . Agriculture. E.9-11 IV.C 3 App. D. ,1.8.2 Solid Waste Storage EPA, E.30 III.D.2.c , Transatselon Lines Agriculture. E.9-113 1V.D Interior. E.48-SO KI.S.I.c3 App. D, 3.4 Embayment Water Agriculture, E.10 V.D.1.d Quality
- Natural Water Agriculture. E.11 App. D, 1.9.3 Drainage Construction Labor EPA, E.30 II.B.1 3 Chlorine Releasee EPA. E.273 III.D. 3. a (1)
Interior, E.49
' Safety Guide No. 21 EPA, E.30 T.D.3 Naaradioactive $olid EPA, E.31 11!.D.4 Waste Disposal Sanitary Wastes EPA, E.32; III.D.3.b ,
Engineers, E.35 McClellan-Eerr Engineere, E.3&-35 11.D.2 Arkansas Elver Fig. 81-8 System Evapora&tve toes Engineers, E.35-36 II; App. D.1.1.1
. Flooding at Site Agriculture E.10; XI.A.2.3 EPA, E.31; XII.K '
Engineers E.35 Striped Bass . Ecgineers, E.36 App. 8 Public Accese ACFC E.39; II.A3 App. D.3.3g Interior. E.48 Table 11-3 i E-99
. _ _ _ . --. . _ . - . _ _ . _ . . . . . _ . . . _ , _ . , _ _ . . . . . . _ . _ . . . . . . _ _ _. ._ -,-.~ mm-. . ._. - . ... ~ . . ,._..m. _ . . .m..._ .. . -. .
l
\
l P 1 l n 111-17 , I L 4 REFERENCES (Chapter 111)
- 1. Transacttana reper T 72 551-0 of the itsE. Oxidant Measurements in the Vietatty of Energised 765 kV Lines, by M. Frydman, A. Levy,
. and S. E. Miller, July 1972.
1.
- 2. Transactione Paper T 72 550-2 of the IEEE. Geseous Ef fluente Due to ENV Transmiselon Line Corona, by R. N. Scherer, Jr. , B. J. Were, and C. M. Shik, July 1972.
I I F k l 4 P f 1 .s i i i f i i J i 3
+
1 t h i i E-100 t
-r v,-,. -. ,, .,-.,,-e , v. -- .,.. ._. -
-- -. . .. . _ - - - - . - x -
- -- . - - - ,. ~
A-2 A-1 't E Appendia A Ig I 11 !! gg U hg 5, ti g i}' { FOREST STATISTICS fERTINENT TO ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONg g ] Tables A-1 through A-4 present information on the growing stock El g , , ,, , ,, and area of Arkansas forests, with emphasta on the area subject -*-g'*6 ,'a f ;,g, U w p f,gI,$kg)f33[f3hf3[}hh~ffh hlf~"! gg to impact by Arkansas Nuclear One, including the power distribu- h tion system. . > j
~
1 __ . .
- The Ouachita Province, includir.g all of its higher "mountale" je*{ ,o"=g",E}}{*b;.$,..] ((
- s e, {
parte, is in the Ouachita Survey district and has been chosee la Table A-1 to give representative tree diameter distributtone. - . g The larger stac classes not only explain the importance of saw-timber but also the conservaticaist's interest in "old growth" [
*j h*r. =..... ;
**********"-*O-***,****
., *E5d303 -$.335 ***** ($
a stands of particular aesthette attractiveness. J . , ,, in brief, Table A-1 documents niamerically the genera 11ty that g y
**f I_ *
~.
w ,05"*,T
~ * * * * " " * * * *
- E w : e' shortleaf pine is the sof twood of importance la both the Osark and Ouachita districts, la contreet with loblolly pine, which g ._
"I ~
- e.3ERECO e . I
- e, f 3 E * * * * * * * * * * * *
- becomes more important ce the Coastal Plain Province (especially the "Sout hwest" Forest Survey region). Red cedar is lees impor- f ."*f- . g _.
tant in volume, but it attracts aesthetic attention in both the Missouri and Arkansas sections of the Osork Frovince, more locally {3l j w ;;((((j{ j * ; ** e in the Ouachitas and rarely in the Coastal Plata, Bald cypress =- . - _- l 1s restricted to bottomlands, minor in the Ozark and Ouachita 3 [gj * * **3(({3{ j ; 3 "f- la % regions - almost a " rare" species locally -- but it attains f [s high importance (502 out et a state total of 912 million board feet) la the Delta Survey region along the Mississippi River g -i
* *j *
- y g _;
*e g j }
g y g and its tributaries. Bardwood species are far more numerous . 4 than sof twoods but constitute slightly less than half of the .5 state's board-foot (sawtimber) volume. Yet within the Orath 33 *
; ;* j33;3 -j*{ if and Ouachita regions and most of the individual counties deco-mented separately in Table A-4, hardwoods are several times as - _-
*f g
a Important as the softwoods, Geographic differences among counties j{l ~ *
- g ; =, j *,; { { l *, { "y g
- fs I are of some importance and are tecluded in the latter table for r an indication of the main groups of forests likely to be dio- -
turbed by power line clearing along several routings. ,3l
;;"**** 3 l *, ,,* ff f Si :: :: :: :~;; il; ! !I l
4
- :l
{z{ I E-101 i 1
[ A-4 l A*) l ![ II lillI I. I. I !! f 1.I *, 11l1)lli'I=
= = = l= =1 g -
j[ [r13p. r 'p a......... .. g ,[ t[ 1.< .% o I I
. s ,
. , . - . , , g g [
>~
--. - .- - .. - - , . ;. p r 5::::::- r 1 1 ..... .~
c, is , ne .v. i23 . ins m F -
- ----- t
=
un m ye . --
.a
_t
=
t i;i l
~
. u.
. i s. .
m. ni, mi .,,
=- s- - ][-
- : j .
} [-
~
.. ii. ,
... m.
u. 32
- m. m j ,,
I f.j u.
. . m.
m. e r :::::::: [ t g i., . .. l .a - a [i
- .. .. .. .... .. ,,.. ,.2 =-
v .. .. ,,, .. . .. ,, , ; e,._,,,___ I. 1 ..n
- m. . ..
n,. , n., i.m . . . ,
., , , , . [
3 [ g((, , .
,, ---. g ;5 E ,i a
}[ [r[
.. ~ . - - c mo . .
I
.l
- -------- t
. _ - mu. .....-.~u....
l 1
- = -
[ y-N5 I ,5 5 3. E. E E. E f.f 1,[I, . [ f, . . . ..
. = , g =i E' E: - E
! iiiiiii:
s li' e![ I
'=. [l
_a. ? II :::::::- !]*l., 1 E-102
l l A-$ 1eMe Od Gouweg ekset sadnee se oesameneel fossellead by eresese peep and onesty,1960 Geoweg eseck tedhes cebw feetp Haseemed # County A5 SoRemed (siksessende af (fe'/ Total Ost %ese Othee ' Pome g,,,, heethose Osset Seseoy RegMe Besser 12 7 164 1 815 42 16 3 417e 234 8 499 Genece OS 1954 t il l el 14 2 IIS 9 199 6 619 posee GO 850 8 Ota 84 24 0 Ill e 199 $ 976 theeet M6 160 0 86 7 26 20 7 149 5 259 4 6 25 F elsen 16 7 50 3 423 25 98 67 9 247 0 2 71 tsare 11 4 64 6 42 9 45 176 75 0 240 0 129 tendose 77 203 5 131 0 12 9 St S III 2 3M 4 999 48ence 62 140 9 1856 41 21 2 lef t 2s19 323 esswees 31 4 274 7 17S I 28 2 79 4 312 1 478 0 454 Reedulge 49 Ile B 43 1 12 24 $ Iti 7 at 2 ene Searcy it S le4 2 90 1 45 46 4 142 7 Ile e 424 Shose 12 9 71 3 SS B I5 le 2 e6 2 25S 3 lle Esome 37 3 138 3 93 e 11 5 32 9 171 6 122 e Ses techmgeen S2 113 8 75 1 24 12 9 III 6 188 3 lee Sektoest 216.2 1779 9 1274 1 78 4 4t5 9 1.9871 39eeS 4 509 sephwe Osast Seney Royan* no.us es s ele at t 15 7 2S s I:s ? 240 7 s39 Coment 28 8 46 4 to e to i Il 7 61.2 131 5 est Crowdned It s los t 676 20 6 29 6 IMS 20s 0 624 Famikaee t* 44 0 26 8 60 li t 45 7 l% B 291 Feenkisa 22 6 1239 68 4 14 1 36 5 145 6 211 2 312 Isutrysedoms le i 101 4 ?? 3 29 25.2 Ilt i 344 3 489 Sebasse 68 7 175 7 lie 3 le 1 35 3 2464 2ee 4 795 Pope la 1 191 a 128 9 le 9 38 7 279 2 31s 4 52S Wee Sesea 44 8 IIe 6 32 4 57 25 S tes ? 165 0 529 thee $9 t il 5 72 1 22 4 MO IM4 222 6 626 Sebeutel 329.7 5127 9 691 2 149 9 2472 04129 2 5ml 9 619
%ershoseOmertieslessey Reyes' tesen te s 622 41 9 to si e ita s 2$4 2 eli Pesey 2nt i ss 9 39 5 11 e 78 200 0 271 6 9%G bebenesse 49 49 4 14 3 51 25 3 1544 210 Soest til S tat e 72 4 14 3 19 9 est t 44a 2 913 Teu 2Ml 135 i ts I 32 9 Mt 174 4 403 2 929 Selitoest 859 3 342.3 2MO el e se t 1.245 3 Estle 820 Beethese Osatese Sweey Repue Gestand 2 16.6 113.3 73 9 17 4 47 9 M49 319 5 104) ry 545 4 124 3 89 6 18 7 24 0 449 9 410 4 1841 Polk. 231 0 105 5 69 5 IS 6 20 5 3MS elle 774 Palede 73 4 57 6 58 4 15 4 I? 2 160 4 152 0 637 Sekee (77 0 led 6 85 9 38 4 37.5 542 4 972 6 919 habeoest into 4 994 7 377 7 10s 5 lie $ last 8 taos S 919 48 esenesse 6422 Sees de98 1496 9 2319 15.229 0
*The f asese Suruey endedse Adeasse % eury seentese merth of she spee to ties Seethera usark Repom med these seest of the nuse en the Northern Omerhees Repen Based se A tiedened and 2 RI Eeress, Fasear Sasvaures Jisr Anesanes tomarsse 15DA Fesses Seresse Roosesse Baseses 3G22, Seethere Paseet Ispetenese Besteen, Noe Orm Ls.1970 E-103 e-
_ _ . _ _ _ . . . __ _ . _ . _ . . - ~ . . .m.,_ . ._ - .m . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . _. _m . . _ . . . -- _m... . ._ . . . ..
, e l
i-B-1 B-2
- Appendia B Wilbl.lTE SPECIES OF DARDAllELI.E RESERY0lt Lasgemouth base (W ervpterus calm id**)
spotted base (Micrvpterus punctulatus) BIRDS Mixed black base (Micrrpferus hybridJ Striped been (Morens saaztills) Bald eagle White base (Roadus ehryeq>aJ White crapple (Pbn w is annularis) Colden eagle Black crappte (Po* w is afW dtk8) l Mined crapple (Ptm w ie hybrid) Deprey Boutin (Amfa os!0al i shortnoen gar (Lepisosteus platost<mel " e surf ace feeding ducks Crase pickerel (Escar americanus) American widgeon Channel catfish (Tetalurus punctatus) , i wedwell ' Warmouth (Ch2enobryttue gulosus) Mallard glueggil sunfish (Lap m(s macrochfrks) 1 Flatail Longaar seafteh (fdp(stis megalotia) I , shoveler Creen eunfish , (Lepcmis olfanellus) i Creen-winged real Orangespotted eunfish (Lepamie lasedits) i ! Bluewtoged teal Tellow bu!! head (letaZurus natalua) i Wood duck Black bullhead (letaZurus malas) Chubeucker (Frfwgaon pueettal i Diving duche spotted aucher (#fnytrema meZa usps) ! Bufflehead Redhorse (Mcaostcena opp.) Canwesback Drum (Aplodinotus gru mfans) Redhead Qu111back carpeucher (Carpioids eypr(nusJ Ringnecked Signouth buffalo (letfobus cyprins!!as) Creater scauP Carp (Cyprinus carpfoi Leeser scauP Clamard Shad (Derescenz eepsdiawn1 Threadfin shed (Dorosoraz patenensel Wadere Los perch (Pareina oJpmfae)
- Creat blue heron Pirate perch (Ap3uwdoderus sayamerJ Little blue heron Creen heron
- Black-crowned night heron Teltow-crowned night heron
, American bittern j Least bittern ,
- Open water birde Horned grebe
- Pied-billed grebe Ccemmon merganser Hooded merganeer Red-breaeted merganser Felican i
' r E-104 , I O' i g 2 ++v7-> t'=-'*
'M M - -+ r r -r m+- M 1
__ . _ . . . . . . , - ~ .~ _ _ ._ _. _ _ _ . _ . _ - . . - - . l l I l R-3 R-4 , FNYTOFIANKTON BOTTneq ORCAltisMs Blue-green Algas [@yhyta) Colden-brown Algae [Chrymyhyta) Worse Amahaem Trihovums Class Nematoda roundworms, unidentified species Am:0yetle Faucheria Order 018amhaetas signented worme, unidentified species Oseillatoria Family Tubtficidaat sludgeworms, unidentified species
$pirulins Dtatene lChryeophyta}
deterione!!a Anthropode Creen Algae (Chlomphyta] #avicula Hydrocarinal watermites, unidentified species , Anklatrodoomue Staruonele sneecto Chlore!!a fabeIZaria Family Tendipedidae midges Ondgminen Meridian Chironomun tarvae Pediastrwrt Commefe subfamily Peloptinae midges, unidentified species Sce*eedsamus StepM*olineus Spim gyra .%medm h 11oeks 4- Gooystie Fnrgilaria Not identified sphaerwystie Aatinastrwr Euglenoids [Fuglencphyta] CsMun Euglona y Miawapon ' Thytoconia Aandcrima zoorLAnston Rotifere Ciliates Branehtonus Epletylia Komtella Forfiaalla Auglanehire PiLinia Reazethm Crustaceans Cyelope
% hnia ,
Azuptii ! Polyphemue Bosmim: L r F P E-105
C-1 C-2 Appendia C SLMtART OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE DIScitARCTS TO TifE ENVIRONMENT FROM PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS 1959-1970 This appendis sumunarines discharges of radioactive wastee from the pressurised water reactors operatinit in the United States from 1959 to 1970, except for the Santon liuclear Experimental Reactor, d ich tam t i. =%e sene spe e. m. _ -e e.e : has a net electrical capacity of only 3.25 MW. enemas seem e.sess, pine 6.se p nas use.s shoe monen it should be noted that 10 CFR 20 provides alternatives for deter- ""*"'"'** mining permissible limits to the activity of radioactive liquid7 a.w sw v n., sea w t t o. urn c.am teanee c effluents. One of the limite specifically mentfotied is 1 = 10 "*""" '"" #""* ' ' " " " **'" s.C1/ca 8 . which is sut'ficiently restrictive that it can be used for teen sednal 8917 "*'**""'"'"m2 5960 I lu? 'n*""f I im, m un, ws* 175 em $7s 425 mixtures of fission and corrosion products in llauid waste f rom ,.n.,. til
,3 , wn n,,,,g ag yg g, Itght water nuclear sewer reactors without any identification of "* naea, ses 3,,,,, re , , , , , , sre ,,,,,,, n'u , ,,,
the radioisotopic composition of the mixture. Other alternatives ,, require kameledge of the identity and concent ration of the radio- te7e s oie e le is e 2n* 3 e el 22 37' es as nuclides present and establishing that certain isotopes are not two s ei, sov een es? 2s i s* a 14 12 t e* e o2 e4 pres ent. Typical compositions of radioactivity in water from sus see e ts eens ses 3e 4 i s,* in 2 ns 3, 33s light water piwer reactors are euch that much hither Ilmits are tu? e st als ooss co2 2s e a ss* e 32 e se e 22 e ns expected to be avallable to the Itcensee if he wishes to support 1984 e 86 e 27 c ole all 457 To t them by adequate radiochemical analyses. The values reported in lui e se es2 e e29 es as s en Table C-1 through C-4 were cisculated usina the limit of I = 10 7 t**4 e st a nd s on2 eos is e 22 SC1/ca'. except as noted. tus e tt oss s ant e.es o ise 6 24 1%2 e st too e m een e s se e 22 The corresponding 10 CFR 50 guideline (June 9,1971) is 0.2 = 107 sua es2 e s7 em een wC1/cm 3 , a value one-fifth as large as the 10 CFR 20 limit; 10 CFR 50 tone e 2s 4 93 makes no provision for analyste for specific radionuclides. There. 1959 e os en fore the percent of limit values in the table (for 10 CFR 20 timits) may be converted to the percentage of the 10 CFR 50 guideline by .gg ,, ,, , g multiplying these values by 5, except for the instances where the eg,,,,,,,g,,,,,gg,,,,,,,, Itcensee analyzed the discharge for specific radionuclides. In these cases, the 10 CFR 50 guideline of a maalaus discharge of 5 Ci per reactor can be used for comparative purposes. The values for 1e59 to 1968 are from Radi w ffee Waste Fia A 2rges to the EMnritcwewnt frr.w Ruele.1r Torkr Facilities, J. V. lx pedon and R. 1. Chissler, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welf are. P8-190717 (BRH/ DER 70-2), March 1970. The values for 1969 are from Rearings Before the Joint Commit tee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States, 91st Congress, Second Session, on Environ-usantal Ef f ects of Producing Electric Power January 27-30 Feb-ruary 24-26, 1970, Appendia 10, pp. 2316-17 The values for 1970 are f rom 3. Eahn. 5. Shleten, and C. Weaver, in Vol. 2 of U.S. Papers for the Fourth United Nations International Conference on the Peaceful 11ses of Atomic Energy, Geneve, Swit zerland, Sept. 6-16, 19 71, Session 3.3 to 3.3-4 5, A/ Conf-49/P-08 7 E-106
Toth c4. ahees essee testesse en me he. ps.narmed aster suerens mede and are=emen pass tamens somas hw Sksprosport % entee taeam humia i Sea Onerm Case tantes Gene I- - Pennst hme hheesem hre V.4 Caldorses t'oemerates fore t.t 1957 3%e 1962 19s7 t%7 19e9 Year mal .te 6J' het sapacsty, I t$ 2$5 4 10 $*5 4 25 g es d g es d g md # d d hast6 hasta haus) are lumst3 ere honest o tumsep 19 4 17 9 26 INS 9 63 IS@ S 24 ft'0 0 002 14.me 23 149 4 942 400 8 80 260 c ons 190 t si el 1%8 e get 6 0025 e st 6 808 $9 7 0 00)? 4 51 $3A49 3 14 9 00M C IMI 8 082 S up$ 13 214 4 92 9 0024 f 4 03e $ 6015 6 024 40tzel i sen s o,s 24 een m. .ao22
- 1965 S e32 O ca ti e 825 33 4 6002$
3%4 4 06:4 4 006 3 95 1 014 02 0 OtkW3 8943 4 351 9 87 74 St3 4a072 45719" 1 ~2 ..a sen u, en 4 mi . .. . 00 ....
- m. . u, .m m, ..,4 ..n
. is. e . .s .
~
C3 e-4 6 14.3 11 Il 1 22 .; j $!S E ET i i-i !'! el m. .z . s 112= ww-. c esas.- 99 a e .
}, j!is.
~
3w- { !. ..!. ! 6 i
} .l 3 j , _]
. p- 33 lj5E E *!EEE Js 'l I g : 5
} ,. ..
J Jf l ' * :- ** IR88RI __:mm_ 1 J !! ! !
. dit c ; ;1*E5;;; i 0
1 i ! 3i 1 II I.
. d,ef ,:!!:
. . , ! .! 3_ !!! }
.e _ !!.
4 E3 M 4 Lab Totte C4 Raeunusse some enemps se m - tem . ^eeuw seesters he>pme and , e passesamasam 4 named asisam hies Shsprogest Isense Indian Poes i See Qu ofse Cana 1 ashes Gene Laansa Penantasse ts ==%setes bro tart Cedarma Connethes !=re t et led s1msd te5? lete 8%2 4%7 IM7 l#4 Mrt sapa6 mig, Mte # 171 255 ele 575 12$ 44 es f%d f1 d E l ef E 4 of g 4 a uf g g g g haste ansu heurt chasso tasu
-amm it'0 8 8 a 10* 4 i = IS* 00'S 1 home ertaa esd 0 Ono% e 22 hee eenmens en a i%. ...i .i . 2s an <e i io ooi i en .. mi <ea i i%. . u . <i . <i e <i t%t & cl 3 at & <a 0%g 45
*Wered en ISO Ifte e 1%5 M
i l [ l i t
~~ - _ < -. . . _ - _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ __ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m - _.
D-1 D-2 Appendia D recent 1760-MW fossil fuel station scheduled for operation in 1976. EXPIA!tATION OF COST-BENEFIT TA81.E The base cost of this station is estimated to be $190.30/kWe af ter subtracting the cost of land and cooling towers. This cost locludes high-efficiency precipitators but does not incluue $02 removal equipment. Using a recent eettmats 8 of $31/bWe escalated at 4Z The information contained in this appendis is intended to clarify the statements and quantitles shown in Table XI-3. The statements to 1977 yields a cost of $41/kWe for this equipment. The staff has contained in this cabis are based on information available in the estimated capital cost for natural-draf t and mechanical-draf t cooling pubtle domain except where specifically stated, towers and for a floating spray sedule system. The cepital costs for these alternative stations are summertaed as follows: ECOWNIC IMPACT OF PTANT OPf2ATION Power - Base Imad capacity (MWe) 1977 Costs (m1111ons of dollars) The staf f has evaluated the ef fect of this station on the production Cross het Base plant SO2 Removal Cooling Total present of base load energy for use in the applicant's system (sect. 1). _ wnrth cost 1976 Dur evaluation is based 3 on a station life of 30 years, a 0.85 plant F-1 2000 f actor, a 1000-MWe maximum grose generating capacity
- and a 97&MWe 970 192 39.7 12.5 244.2 224.5 4 not generating capacity for the station. Our calculatione are based F-2 1000 965 192 39,7 3.9 235.6 216.6 on the asasmiption that maximum energy production will begin in 1976 F-1 1000 955 192 39.7 7.4 239.1 219,8 and continue for the 30 years of the station's useful life. We cal-Operating and plant Maintenance Costs culate that the met annual energy production of this unit will be as follows 970,000 kW x 8760 hr/ year a 0.85 plant factor = 7.22 m 10 5 kwhr. The study compares energy proJuction of this applicant's All the applicant's fossig fueled stations were gas fired in 1970 proposed station with five alternatives shown in Table 11-3. Differ- ne appif cant's actual operating expenses during 1970 for natural-t onces in not energy production result from changes in energy con- gas-fired fossil fuel sta:$ons are reported" as followst sumption within the station as a result of the dif fering energy requirements for the condenser cooling systems used in the alternates, Total production expenses $30,670,910 Less total fuel cost 27.108.507 Genererina Costs Coat of operation 6 maintenance 3,562.403 Cenerating cost for the applicant's station are calculated from available statistics covering the cost of operating the applicant's Total annual production staticas or stellar installations in 1970. These statistics are kwhr a 103 10,057,137 escalated et 42 annually to the first full year of operation. This
- study assumes that the nuclear station will be in its first full l'et operation and maintenance year of operation la 1976 and fossil fueled alternate will be cost mills / kwhr 0.354 l operated in 1977. Escalation factors are 1.265 for 1976 operation 1 and 1.317 for 1977 operation. The major components of generating The staf f assumes that the operation and maintenance cost for the cost are summarized to Table II-3. The method and sources for this applicant's proposed station will be equivalent to a gas fred information are described la the following paragraphs. station. We calculate this cost to be (0.354) (1.265) = 0.448 i mill / kwhr for operation in the year beginning January 1,1976. '
The cost of a 100AMWe coal-fired alternative as described la Alterna-tives F-1, F-2, and F-3 is derived from the announced base cost of a From a power survey by Efeetrioal FcrZd5 the nusber of employees per kilowatt-hour was 0.166 for coal-fired stations and 0.089 for t gas-fired stations. If the applicant considers a coal-fired station , 1 E-109 j 1
- _ - - - _ _ _ . . _ . _ m . _. ___ m . _,_ __ __ _ - ._m m_ _ _ . ._ - _ _ . . _ , -.m .._ ~ - . . _m. _ . _ . - _ . . __ - -, .
l ! D-3 D-4 as an alternative, the ratio of cost would be 0.166/0.089 = 1.865.- Summary of Variable Fuel and Operating Cost 1hte ratto, when applied to the applicant's 1970 coste for operation for Alternatives F-1 F-2, and F-3 i
. and maintenance at a gas-fired station would indicate that the cost l Costa of operation and maintenance in a coal-fired station would be 0.66 Item (mills / kwhr) mill / kwhr. This cost escalated at a 43 annually to the year beginning January 1,1977 (f actor 1.316) yields a cost of 0.868 mill / kwhr. Operation and plant malatenance 0.80 502 removat egulpment 0.21 Fuel Costo -
The cost of nuclear fuel for a station operating in 1976 to assumed tote pera og m a) 1.01 to be 2.0 mille / kwhr. I"*I " 3:.72 . The cost of fossil fuel in 1971 to assumed to be 31c/106 stu delivered. The cost of this fuel escalated at 41 annually to the year beginning Total variable Operation and January 1,1976 la estimated to be 1.265 (0.31) = 39.2c/10' Btu. The Maintenance 4.73 fuel cost assuming a 9500-Bts/ net kwhr heat rate is L 72 mills / kwhr. i SO2 Removal " NU Annual Cost = ' g g = $34.15 x 1@ Year Operating cost of $02 removal equipment (Cat-os Proceae) estimates' show that a capitalised operating cost r,f $11/kWe may be expected for this procese, assuming 141 fined charge rate and a 30-year life. Other Costs ( The cost of nuclear insurance is included in the generating cost Annua et , (Capit alized cost in $/kWe)(CRT)*(Flant Capacity in kWe). calculation. Other normal business expenses such as depreciation. Annual Generation. kwhr taxes, and capitol recovery have not been included, since these cost , are not specifically ennumerated la the May 1972 "CUIDE" for submission where CRT la the capital recovery f actor for 14% investment for 30 years. * * ** * # ' ** '" *"' * * ' ' * * * ' * * * " '""** 1.1.1 Isrect en Water - Evaporation - People i Annual Cast = $11/nW, (0.1426)(9.7 x 105 ktAr 10I mills /$ 7.22 kwhr a 10' Applicant's Froposal. Fig. 111-4. $ = 0.211 mille / kwhr The rejection of waste heat from the closed circulating water system to the atacephere threegh the natural-draf t cooling tower will re- . sult in an annual consumption loss of 5.30 x 10' get of water. This l is based on the following calculation: t (11820 + 40) gal /mia a 60 x 8760 x 0.85 plant f actor i
- 3.30 x 10' gal / year j The staff assumes that the consumptive lose of water for alternates ;
one and two will be identical with the lose calculated for the app 11- +
- cent's proposal.
P b t i i E-110 1 k i 3 - - - - - -- .y -
,-. r,-a-: yr- _ .- - ._ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _
_ ~ m . - . . ~ . . _a _ __ -- m___ __ .< ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _. , _ . mm_ - - - . _-__ _ ___ b3 p.6 The staff assumes that the consumptive loss of water f rom eash of the fossil fueled alternatives. F-1 F-2, and F-3, w!!! be less than W "#
- thee conausptive loss for the nuclear alterpatives N-1 and N-2. The j
fossil fuel alternatives will reject f01 as much heat to condeneer Applicant's Propoest - The impact on aquatic biota due to heated q blowdown water dierharges f rom the cooling system is thought to be cooling water as the nuclear alternattwo. Accordingly we calculate the consumptive loss to be ecologically insignificant. Ref. Sect. V-C-2-e. Alternatina N-1 and b2 - Same as applicant's proposal. 0.70 a 3. 30 m lo' sal / year = 3.7 a 101 gal / year t The U.S. Army Corpe of Engineers estimates that this eveporation will
* ' '"" ~ * " "
* ***" **"""'
- 8' 'I *I* "" " * ~
- cause an energy loss of 3.22 x 10 5kwhr /yr for the appitcant's prcposa!.
- I I
, The staf f estimates that evaporation f rom any of the fossil fuel alter-I" Pact a aquatic Wta. l nate F-1 F-2, or F-3 could result in the loss of 3.63 s 10 kwhr 5
/ year.
1.2.3 Migratory Fish The staf f assumes that water lost through evaporation will be un-available for downriver uses. , p , g of heated biwdwn water from the cooling system will be ecologically
'1.1.2 Isract on Water - Eveoration - Property insignificant for reasons and references cited in item 1.2.2, Applicant's Proposal - Ref, Fig.111-4 1.3 Chemical Discharge to Natural Water Body The consumptive loss of water for such f uture Ices uses as hydro-electric power generation, irrigation, and manufacturing is calcu- 1.3.1 Leq - Applicant's Proposal and Alternatives N-1 and b2 -
Contaminants in the water discharged from the station will be the lated to be 16,300 acre-f t annually. This calculation is based on the sum of the water toet by evaporation and by drif t from the coottog permissible limite established by the Federal Water Follution Control tower when the plant operates at a maatsum thermal capacity of 2900 Adelaistration. The staff concludes the possibility that these dis-MW for 852 of each year. The applicant has entered into an agreement 6 charges v111 af fect people's use of this water will be negligible, with the Corps of Engineers to pay the Government for water lost by evaporation and act available for the production of electricity at Alternatives F-1, F 2, and F Waste stream f rom fossil-fuel stations t hydroelectric facilities downetream from the applicant's site. Will probably include all chemicals listed in Table 111-4 and will in addition include chemicals leached f rom ash stored in the disposal Alternatives - The staf f assumes that selection of alternatives ponda. The chemicals may include 7 quantities of U, Th, B. P, and I N-1 or M-2 will result la a consumptive use of water of 5.3 x 10 1 other elements. These quantities will depend on the chemical content gal / year or 16,300 acre-ft/ year. The corresponding quantity for alter, of the coal consumed at the plant. Current practice does not require native F-1 F-2, or F-3 is 3.7 x IO sal S
/ year or 11,350 acre-ft/ year. removal of these elements before discharge, The current practice is to dilute sluice water from storage pond to reduce the concentrations The staf f further assumes that the applicant would be requ! red to to acceptable levels. The staf f concludes that chemical discharges j compensate the Government for this consumption loss of water in the from ash storage ponda can be monitored and controlled to mostre that same manner described in the applicant's proposal, discharges are within acceptable limite. The tots! quantity of chem-i icals released f rom any of the fossil fuel alternates will be greater 1.2 Heat Discharme to Natural Water Body than those released from a nuclear station of equivalent size. [
J 7 1.3.2 Aquatic Biots. 3 1.2.1 Cooling Capacity of Water Body - 1.08 a 10 Bau/hr for app 11 j cant's proposal and alternative bl and N-2. 0.76 a 10 7 Bt n r (total reject heat) for alternatives F-1 F-2, and F-3. These quantitles are AFPlicant's Proposal and Alternates N-1 and N Negligible ef fect, based on a blowdown water flow of 1970 spa, a riwr water temperature Ref. W C-2-c. (1alet water) of 85*F, and a blowdown water temperature of 96'F, , 1 Alternative F-1, F-2, and F See response to item 1.3.1. I I
\
h E-111 l I
.- - - ~~~ . - . - - . - ~ . - .. - + _- . - .- - . . ~ .-. -
D-7 D-8 1.3.3 Water cuality nadionuclide contamination of groundwater in the case of alter-nates F-1. F-2, and F-3 vill be limited to contamination by the thorium Applicant's Proposal and Alternatives bl and b2 - Chemicals to be dio- and uranium that may be present in the ash holding ponde. charged during operation of 11 nit are shown in Table III-4 Releases of these chemicals are espected to be less than permissible If mits 1.5.2 Plante and Animale - Same as item 1.5.1 for applicant's pro-proposed by Federal Water Pollution Control Adelnistratton, Ref* posal and all alternatives. Sect. b C-2-e. These releases are espected to have a neg1tstble effect on water quality. 1.6 Ratefaz or lowertnz Croundwater Isvela Alternative F-1, F-2, and F Releases of chemicals directly connect ed 1.b.1 FeQ - Zero environmental impact for applicant's proposal , with station water treatment should be acnewhat lower than rolesmes for and a11 71ternatives. The appitcant states that his operation of t the nuclear unit since blowdown water flow will be scoewhat lower. this station will not require the withdrawal of any groundwater f rom Discharges from the water treatment system would be espected to comply the water table and aquif ers underlying this site. with perateeible limits established by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. Bottom ash and fly ash f 1.6.2 Plants - Zero impact for applicant's proposal and all alter-
- alternatives would also be expected to contribute;om the coal-fired water contaminants natives. See 1.6.1 for statement of reason.
which are dissolved or suspended in water discharged f rom ash holding' or storage ponde. The contaminants may include boron, urantian, and 1.7 Effects on Natural Water Body of intake Structure and thorium. The boron could be present la quantities greater than nec* Condenser Cooling System eseary for a nuclear station, and the radioactive components would not be permitted at all to a nuclear station. g,y,3 pygmary Producers and Consumere - 1.9 s 10' to 19.6 s 106 lb/ year for a licante proposal and alternatives b l and M-2, 1.30 a 108 1.4 Chemical contamination of Croundwater to 13.72 a 10plb/ year for alt ernatives F-1 F-2 and F-3. These calcula-stone are based on the presence of 3620 to 18,175 organisme per liter 1.4.1 Peonle - Applicant's Propoest and all Alternatives (sect. Il-E-2-c), an organism weight of 10 5 g, a water totake of 52.233 liter /sta, and a plant f actor of 0.85. t . Negligible Effect - The groundwater in the area le protected by a
- nearly impermeable layer of clay overburden. The staf f concludes 1.7.2 I?nknown impact for appitcant's proposal and all alternatives that the sealing effect of this overburden will prevent contamination (Sect. 11-B-1-fh of ground water as a result of migration of salto deposited on land surrounding the cooling towers. Sect. 11-D-2* 1.8 Natural Water Dratnage
? 1.4.2 Plants - Appiteant's Proposal and all Alternatives 1.8.1 Flood Control - Acceptable for Applicant's Proposal and Alter- } natives N-1 and N The applicant has received Corps of Engineers ap-Regligible Effect - The impermeable nature of the sett will Itatt Provat to construct intake and discharge structures at the Arkansas i contamination of groundwater that feeds plants with deep root systems. ear U te, is a Sect. 11-D2-2* of Engineers Procedures."pp m document This al was given in compliance required a review ofwith theCorps flood control aspects of the proposed structure. The structures are j 1.5 Radtonucilde Contamination of Croundwater pressmed to comply with all Corps of Engineers requirements when constructed and maintained in accordance with the provision of that ! 1.5.1 People - Regitstble Impact for Applicant's Proposed and Al- agency a permit (Table I-1) for a circulating water factitty. ] ternatives bl and b2 (Sect. II-D-2) - The groundwater la the area le
- protected by a nearly impermeable layer of clay overburden. The i staff concludes that the sealing effect of this overburden will re- cause flo ding during heavy rains. The drainage patterns of the i duce to a negligible levet the possiblitty of groundwater contami- short intermittent streams will not be disturbed by construction of i mettoo resulties from nigratice of radionuclides from the ground O* *E*II'"-
j surf ace to the groundwater la the onderlytag artesten water in the , jointed shale and sandstone. 4 A i t i f E-112 i
_ . -. _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _m __ _. . . _ _ m. , ._.- < - _ , _ D-10 D-9 1.05 a 10l ' lb/ year discharged f rom alternatives F-1, F-2, and F-3. Cooling water is needed for removal of decay energy that is generated This quantity le calculated from the tonnage of coal required to pro-in the reactor core af ter the reactor to shut down. The site con- duce 7.22 x 104 kwhr / year at this station, Assumptions for this cal-tains a dam to impound an emergency cooling pond, which provides g ,1,ggo, ,,, ,, gag 3,,,, limited but adequate supply of cooltag water if the reactor is shut down if drainage of the Dardanella Reservoir causes toes of flow of plant factor 0.85 cooltog water to the condeneers. The dam structure has been studied' Heat rate 9500 stu/ kwhr not during the safety review as a part of the safety system for the Station capacity 970 MWe (net) > station. Furnace type Fuleerised coal, dry botton Coal analysteII The staff assumes that auttable attention to flood control would be provided by the applicant for alternatives F-1, F-2 and F-3. e1 Smrce 2 Assumed 1.8.2 Erosion Control - Unknman impact = The applicant's station te being constructed on this ette se an additional unit to en esteting Fixed carbon 48.8 51.0 50 ette where Arkansae Nuclear One Unit 1 is being const ructed. The excavation for Unit 2 will act contribute to erosion of the site, Asb 3 6J W W since the extent of this excavation to limited to the area occupied 8ulfure 1 3.3 2.9 3.0 Heat value, Bru/lb 12,000 12,000 12*000 by the Unit 2 containment structure, turbine building, and cooling teuer. The staff did not observe any certous erosion at the site Anaual coal consumption for stations when it visited there on February 1-2, 1972. The replanting program began in the spring of 1972 with the hydroceeding of intake and dis- [9.70 x 10'][0.851 18760][0500 stu/bWhr] = 2.86 x 106 tone / year. charge canal banks. There has been no erosion problems la other [12,000 5tu/lb}[20uo Ib/ ton] areas, which will be replanted at the completion of construction. The staff eseumea that erosion control plana for any alternatives For each pound of carbon burned, 3.67 lb CO 2 18 produced. The coal y chosen would be at least as ef fective as the asesures practiced during selected was assumed to have a fixed-carbon content of 50%. There-construction of Unit 1. fore, CO2 production will be, 1.8.3 Subsurface Drainage - The clay and sitty clay overburden et the site are nearly impermeable; thus station operation should not effect [2.86 a 10'year D j [2000 bton [0.5 l
**O coal "] [3.67 carbon]
N the water supply of any shallow wolle in the area. These normally derive their water supply f rom the jointed shale and sandstone layer = 1.05 a 10 ' lb/ year. 3 under the clay. 2.1 Cheetcal Discherme to Ambient Air 2.1.1.2 502 Froduction - 34,700 lb/ year for applicant's proposal and alternatives N-1 and M-2. This weight is based on the emisalon rate 2.1.1.1 Carbon Dioxide Discharte - 2.51 x 107 lb/yeer for applicant's reported by the app 11 cant 10 for the Unit 2 startup boiler and water proposal a E lternatives 5-1 and M-2. The CO2 emiselon originates from heating boiler. the startup boiler and the water heating boiler. The operating char-acteristicole follow Each uses No. 2 Diesel fuel with 871 carbon and Alternatives F-1, F-2, and F Weight of 502 for coal-fired stationa12 a Jensity of 7.05 lb/gol. The startup boiler has a firing rate of described in these alternativea a 38 a 1 sulfur per ton coal burned. 2350 gal /hr and a usage of 200 hr/ year, for a fuel consumption of and a 902 removat efficiency (103 escaping) 3.31 x 106 lb/ year. The water heater boiler has a firing rate of 225 gal /hr and a usage of 2880 hr/ year, for a fuel consumption of 10' lb/ year. Calculated from the combustion stoichiometry, the total 2.86 x 10' tons s 38 a 3.0 x 0.10 = 3.26 x 107 lb/ year. consumption of 7.88 x 10' lb/ year produces 2.5 a 107 lb/ year. i i i E-115
~~ -.. .-. -~ ~ ~ . . . . _ . ~. -- _.~ - - - - . . ~_. -. . , a l
o D-11 D-12 2.1.1.3 No, (Nitrogen Oxides) Productica - 89.500 lb/ year for app 11- 2.2.2 Man _t,e - Negitsible impac t is espected for the applicant's proposal or alternative M-1, since the salta deposited on the ground cant,a proposal and alternatives N-1 and N-2. This weight is calcu- are for the most part those that occur naturally (Sect. V-A and Table lated f rom annual fuel eeneianption reported by applicant (age 111-4). The stait estimates (Sect. V-A) that a total annual deposf-j item 2.1.1.2). N quantity of N0x is based on a reported produc- tion of 400,000 lb/ year will result from the planned operation at a ttomof80lb/1000galforabrisontallyfiredindustriagboiler. plant factor of 0,85. This salt will deposit primarily on the land ' N annual fuel consusetten la calculated to be 1.12 a 10 gal f rom withf s the site and entirely within a radius of 3281 f t (1000 meters) firing rates and hours of annual operation reported by the applicant, from the tower, which ta entirely within the bounds of the site except I" '""I"I' D *#"* "" * **I" * ** # ' Weight of N0g produced in alternative F 3, F-2, or F-3 is equal to boundary of the site. s 18 lb/ ton coal burned.12 [2.86 z lo tons][18 lb loix/ ton] = 5.15 a 10' lb/ year. Alternative N Negitalble Impact. The drift characteristics of power spray sedulea are not wil documented. The staf f feels that 2.1.1.4 Particulates - 16,800 lb/ year f or applicant's proposal and the area af fected by drif t will be less than the area af fected by alternatives h-1 and N-2. This quantity is based on production of natural-draf t or mechanical-draf t cooling towers of equivalent ca-15 lb of particulates per thousand gallons fuel consumed.3 3 pacity.
' Alternatives F-1, F-2 .and F Weight in pounda of particulate matter Alternatives F-1 and F 280,000 lb/ year - The staff assumes that the produced at the furnace exit in a coal-fired station per toa of coal salt deposition resulting from this unit wnuld be reduced in propor-burned to 17 times the ash percentage.3d A proclettator ef ficiency tion to the ratio of heat rejected by the f ossil fuel unit compared to of.99.52 is assumed, which reduces the emission of particulate to 0.51 the nuclear unit proposed by the applicant. N quantity of salt depost-of total produced wight of particulate released,12.86 a 10' toas/ tion is calculated as follows:
6 year][171[6.5)l0.5% released] = 1.58 x 10 lb/ year. j 2.1.).5 ot_her,- 6500 lb/ year for applicant's proposal and alterna ,3 (200 tons / year) x (2000 lb/ ton) s 0.70 - 280,000 lb/ year tives N-1 and N-2. This quantity is calculated f r<us values repor ted. for production of hydrocarbons, carbon monoulde, aldehydes, and sulf ur trioside in horizontally fired industrial boilers. N annual fuel Alternative F Negligible impset. See Alternative N-2 of this ites consumption le 1.12 a 10' gal / year. for statement of staff opinien. Alternatives F-1, F-2, and F A coal-fired station produces ti 1 lb 2.2.3 Property Resources 400,000 lb/ year for applicant's proposal CO, 0.3 lb hydrocarbon, and 0.005 lb aldehydes for each ton of cost and alternative N-1. The salts will deposit as a result of drif t burned. Total production of these contaminants is calculated to be losses, dtich are expected to be 0.01% of the recirculation rete [1.0 + 0.3 + 0.005] 2.86 a 10' tons / year = 3.7) x 10 6 lb/ year . (Sect. V-A). This deposition will be entirely within the boundaries 1 of the appiteent's site except for the 15 s<re parcel of land iden-tified in item 2.2.2. The deposition of these salts on structures 2.1.2 Air Quality odor - The staf f's intuitive opinion is that the and equipment normally exposed to ambient outside watber conditions appilcan?e propused station and all nuclear alternatives will have I * **I'* * " no odor. N coal fired alternatives will have a slight odor, which NN *
- will be minimised by includica of high-ef ficiency precipitators and Alternative N Negligible environmental cost la expected for reasons equipment for renoval of the osides of sulf ur f rom stack gases. stated in connect ion with alternative N-2, item 2.2.2.
4 ! 2.2 Sales Discharrei from rooling Towers l Alternatives F-1 and F 280.000 lb/ year - Nealigible environmental cost is expected for reasons stated in connection with applicant's pro- ) 2.2,1 teorie - Negitatble impact for applicant's proposal and all alternatives, for reasons stated in Item 1.4.1. P***I* t E-114
. . _ . . _ ~ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ ._ _. _ __ _ _ & _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . m; .mm .- . - . . , - - - - -- . ~ -
t . D-13 D-14 I f i \ Alternative F Negligible impact for reason stated for alternative the continued usage of approstastely 200 acres of land at the site N-2, item 2.2.2. until completion of cenetruction in January 1975. This usage will be i an eatension of the impact already created as a result of construction i 2.3 Festina and Ictna of Unit 1 at this site and w"1 utillae the existing construction facilities such as shops, ha ouses, material laydown areas, con-2.3.1 Cround Transpet tat ion - Neg!!sible impac t for applicant's pro- trete batch plants, and park ; areas. The staff does not foresee i posal and all alternatives. . The staff's appraisal (Sect. V-A) of the any significant espansion of the esisting construction area as e i potential for fogging indicates that local fog from the cooling tower result of the construction of 17mit 2. plume will be dissipated within 0.5 mile f rom the source. The staff concludes that local fog v111 not prove to be a harard for ground The construction of unita described in alternatives F-1. F-2, and F-3 transportation since the major roads. Interstata 40. U.S. Highway 64 could be progrenssed to ministre espansion of construction area if the and the Missourt Pacific Railroad are more than 1.1 miles f reus the acreage amt a11ctred to parkirig lots, material lay-down areas, and , cooling tower at their closest approach to the site. the amargency conting pond were allarated to the coal and ash storage ! 2.3.2 Air Transportation - Negligible impact for applicant 's pro-
- poeal and all alteractives. The nearest airport la pprominstely 9 3.2 Air (Natiry - Neglitible Ef fecta - Constructica of the unit de- }
l miles f rom the reactor atte. scribed in the applicant 's proposal and all alternatives should have L I negligible impact on air quality if the applicant emplies with all I 2.3.3 Water Transpor tation - Negligible impact for appilcant's pro- applicable Federal, State and local regulations regarding air pollu- ' l posal and all alternatives. The minimiss distance from the navigation tion, and he esercises a diligent prc. gram of dust abatement by imme- , channel is approntmately 1 mile. diste planting of excavated areas and spo!! areas and by sprinkling i excavated areas, fill areas, and haut roads during excavation. I 2.3.4 Plants - No impact for applicant h proposal and alternatives. 6 3.3 Water g a_Itty - Small Tupact - Applicant 's Proposal andJ11 Al-2.4 Compoalte Air and Wster impact lernet t ves. The staf f 's episton is that during any type of construc- . tion work that requ!res exposure of bare earth, some erosion may t 2.4.1 Radionuclides Discharge:i to Ambient Air and Water - The values result f rom temporary reenval of natural growth. The quantity of shown apply to the applicant a proposal and alternatives N-1 and N-2. soil lost as a result of this erosion is not predictable since it
; No effort has been made to assess radiological impact resulting from depends on meterological condittena during the period of exposure, operation of a fossil fuel station as deserthed by alternatives F-1, The construction of the unit as proposed by the applicant will extend i F-2, and F-3. the period of exposure for two years to 1975. The staff observed during its site visit on February 1-2, 1972, that erosion appears to 2.4.1.1 Peorie - 0.85 man-ren/ year (Sect. V-D-4). be under control The staf f assumes that the applicant wuld use practices that minimise water quality degradation resulting f rom 2.4.1.2 Plants - 1.8 rads / year (Sect. V-C-2-d). erosion if he elected to construct any unit described in alternatives I through 5.
2.4.1.3 Invertibrates - 0.8 rad / year (Sect. V-C-2-d). .i 3.5 Waterways Ef f ect s - Zero impact for Applic ant 'a Proposal and All 7 2.4.1.4 F_ish - 0.07 rad / year (Sect. V-C-2-d) Alternatives. The construction of f acilit ies for the applicant's i proposed plant or any of the alternatives will not int roduce any i 2.4.1.5 Animals - 0.32 milliren/ year [ Sect. V-D-2-a(1)]. hasards to navigation since the miniatas distance f rom the construc-tion site to the navigation channet le approsimetely 1 mile. Hazards j 3. Jemporary impact s of Construction to conseref al er noncommwrcial navigation will not be present since the intake structurs is located at the end c.f a canal approximately
- i 3.1 Land Disturbance - The construction of the unit described in 4400 feet from the lakeshore line at normal pool elevation of 338.0.
the applicant's preposal or alternatives N-1 and N-2 wi!! result in The discharge structure will be located at the head of an 80-acre embayment. i 1 i E-115 ' 1
- i. !
1 L
- I t ,
4 i
-- _ .- --m _. _m . _ . ._ ._m.. m m__ ._._ . . _ . _._.m_ _ . . - ~ . _ . _ _ . . . . _ .
I e i 1 D-15 D-16 The applicant has been granted a restrictive easement (Table 1-1) Ag ternatives F-1. F-2, or F The staf f assumes a storage capacity to use this embayment, which grants him permiselon to enciado all equivalent to 45 days at full burn. persone from the area. The staff assumes that the eae eent would apply to the applicant's proposal or to any alternative. ,86 a 106 ten igrn/ year s 45 dare storag Coal storage (h5)TO.85) days bure/ year 3.6 Sfo_ilan l
- The staf f estimates that the construction of the station described in the applicant 's proposal v111 require excavat ion
- 415,000 tons storage of about 40,000 ydi for the foundation of the reactor containment building, turbine butiding, and cooling tower. The applicant will This study assumes a coal density I " of 50 lb/ft3 and a storage depth depoett material removed irca thsee areae la specified locations. of 20 f t. Celeslations based on these annunptions indicate that ap-The etsff assumes that construction of alternatives 1 and 2 will re- proximately 19 acres will be required for coal storage.
quire the name quantity of excavation as the applicant's proposal, The staf f assumes that the escavation of the fose11 fuel alternat tees 1.4 Waste Freducte I 3, 4, and 5 would be approntmately equal to that required for the nuclear tasit since the nuclear contalement structure will be re- 1.4.1 fut! - Applicant's proposal and alternatives N-1 or N-2. placed by such structures as are necessary to house the boiler and See its related equipment. Section V-E-2 for description of packaging and disposal of spent feel elements. Fossil fuel alternatives F-1, F-2 and F Storage facil-SOCIETAL IMPACT OF STATION ities must be provided for all ash generated except for that porttoo not retained by precipitation equipment, 1.58 m 10' lb/ itas 2.1.1.4 above. Total ash generation = (2.86 m 10' year, ton / see year) Mrational Fuel Disposition (2000 lb/ ton) (0.065 lb ash /lb coal) = 3.71 x 10' lb/yaa r. 1.1 Fuel Transport for tattial Loading - Applicant's proposal and alternatives M-1 and u-2. The initial leading of the reactor will pet to storage a 3.71 m los Ib - 1.58 x 108 = 3.69 x 10' Ib/ year require 177 feel elemente. These elements will be packaged in con-tainere holding two elemente each. The elements will be transported (1.85 s 108 ton / yea r) , to the site in 15 truckloads of ela containers each. Yelume of ash = (3.69 a 10' Ib/ year) * (2.42 opecific arevity of ash) Alternatives F-1 F-2, and F-3. Startup of a fossil f ueled station will require accumulation of 415,000 tone ,of reserve coal for station (62.4 lb/ft') = 2.44 x 10' ftI / year. operation. Transportattom of this reserve coal will be in addition to the annual requirement for the first year of operation and w111 The annual acreage for sah storage based on a pmd depth of 10 f t require 4150 rail cars of 100-ton capacity or 276 barges of 1500-ton la calculated to be 5.6 acres, corresponding to 170 acres for the 30-year station life. capacity. 1.2 Fuel Transport for Annual Requirement - App 11cante proposal and 1.4.2 5 tid Radioac tive Weste - 20 euries/ drum applicant 's proposal and alternatives p-1 and M-2. See section 111-0-2-c and sectice V-E-3 alternatives N-1 and N-2. Annual ref ueling will require 59 new ele. ments traneported in ein truckloads. f or a description of packaging and dispoettion. Alternatives F-1. F-2, and F The annual burn was calculated to be 1.4.3 Solid Radioact ive Weste - 5 curies /driss. See Sec t ion 111-0-2-c a 2.86 x 106 too, in item 2.1.1.1 above. This will require 1906 barges and T-t-1 f or a description of packaging and disposition. having a capacity of 1500 tons each or 28,600 rail cars each hs%ng I a capacity of 100 tons.
- 2. Nietor tent and Archaeotonical sites j
' 2.1 Arc essibilit y 1.3 - Fuel Storage - Applicant's proposal or alternatives M-1 and B-2, The stet ten will require space f or temporssy storage of the elements required for annual refueling.
2.1.1 Historical Sites - Zero impact on accessib811ty. The con- ! i struction of the unit described in t.he applicant's proposal or any f f
, E-116
.__ . m . . _ - _ . _-.m_ _m , ~ , _ _ - . .. __ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . __ . __ .__ . . . _. . m ,- m - . . _ _ -
D-17 D-18 i i unit described in the alternatives will not af fect or displace any 4. Quanunity Benefite local site listed in the National Register of liistoric Places (Sects. 111-2 and Appendia E p. E-2). 4.1 Loi,le Tases 2.1.2 Archaeological Sit es - Negligible Ef f ect o - Applicant 's pro- The staf f estimates that the presence of Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 posal and All Alternatives - A survevII of the este by the applicant 's in the Ruesellville cosumunity will contribute approximately $1.6 archaeological consultant (Sect. 11-2) did not reveal any evidence million annually in tases to the Russellville school system and the 4 that construction activities at Arkansas Nuclear One would disturb pope County general fund. These taxes will be diveided between these the archaeological resources of the ret on, i and it recommended that two government bodies on the basis of 82.8% to schools and the re-additional survey was unnecessary. moinder to Pope County general fund. N staff concludes that the annual taxes paid as the result of constructing either of the nuclear 2.2 Set ting of Historical $1tes - No ef f ec t. The construct toe of powered alternative units would be approximately the same. The a station as described in the applicant's proposal or any of the annual taxes paid as a result of constructing a fosell f uel unit of l alternatives will not affect the historical ettes in the region equivalent capacity will be approximately $1.9 million and will be . (S ec t . 11-C). The staf f does not anticipate that the construct ica divided la the same ratio. of a station at the site will cause the loss of any visitor days at points of historical interest in the Russellville area. The staf f has calculated these taxes on the basis of an investment ' Land Use Change of $256 million in the combined Arkansas Nuclear One Unita 1 and 2.
- 3. !
This investment has been established ' by the tax division of the Arkansas public Service Comunf asion and dif fers from the $370 million . The acreases stated in Table X1-3 have been derived from information estimated combined value of these stations that the applicant has furnished in the applicant's report and in Sects.11 and V of this reper**4 to the AEC. For tax purposes, the investment appears to be report. The entries in the table are self-caplanitory and are based ev.22 c' the estimated total cost reported' to the AIX;. The staff i on the follming assumptions, haa ,seumed that this $47 million can be apportioned between ilnits 1 t.sd 2 on the bests of the ratio of the estimated costs. The AEC $ 1. Agricultural land undes transmission lines will be used jotatly reports that the total costs will be $170 million for Unit I and $200 i as agricultural land and transmissian line right-of-way. million for Unit 2. On this besia, the Unit 2 plant will be 542 of }
- 2. Agricultural land on the station ette will be escluded f rom the eiettmated total cost. Applying these percentages to the $47 million appraised value of the combined station, we find that Unit 2 agricultural production for the life of the station.
a will have an assessed value of $25.4 million. The local tax rate 3. for the Russellville school system is 53 mills and that for polk Lake acreage and related shoreline outside the applicant's property County la 11 mills for a total of 64 allis. Based on this millage. line held mder easement from the Corps of Engineers will be we calculate the annual taxes for the applicant's proposal and the accessible to the public-two nuclear alternatives to be $1.6 n!!11on. Our estimates indicate
- 4. Timber production will be prohibited on transmiselon If ne rights- that the fossil fuel alternatives having a net electrical capacity of-way, but these routes will provide edge cover for enhancement equivalent to that to the lasta11ed capacity of Arkansas helear One of wildlife habitat. Unit 2 will cast an estiasted $242.2 million for alternative F-3. $235.6 million for alternative F-2, and $239.1 million for alternative F-3.
- 5. The applicant will retain control of recreation areas created on the station site. The land will be open to public use. 4.2 New Jobe. Income
- 6. Recreation areas are assumed to be sus 11er for fossil alternatives The applicant estiastes that the operation of Unit 2 in conjunction q
i because of the acreage required for f uel handling faciliti.s. coal with Unit I will create approximately 30 new jobs, which will yield storage, and ash storage. an annual income in salaries to the area surroundf r.3 the station of
- approximately $440.000 beginning in 1975. The ntmaber of new jobs created for the applicant's proposal and nuclear alternatives N-1 and M-2 will be identical. The staff estimates tI ha t the operation of E-117 i
a
, - - - - - v - , , ,, ,- ,, w- , , -
_ _ _ -. _. _ . . . _ _ , _ _ . _ ..m_. . - _ . _ _ . .. _ m . _ .__ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ , . - _ _ __ . _ . _ _ _ _ .. =-m. 1 D-19 D-20 any of the fossil fuel alternatives rather than the applicant's pro- 6.1.2 twe11tna Unite - Value posed nuclear unit will result in the creation of 138 lobe. Creation of these jobs would result in a local annual inecue of $2,000,000 The construction of Arkansas Nuclear one Unit 2 or any of the alter-beginning in the year 1HF. natives W11 mot require the rampal of any dwelling units on the I esisting site. The appitcant reports that 22 structures of various
- 5. Aesthettee kinds having an estimated value of $50.000 were removed before con-struction of Unit 1 began. These structures were eettmated to have 3.1.1 Station . The various alternatives are ranked by staf f opinion a value of $50,000. N renovel of these structures and the compen-from rank 1 = beat to rank 6 = worst. sation of their ownera is not considered as a part of this report, since they have already occurred.
Applicant's proposal - Mautsua visual tapact. Rank 3. 6.2 Schools Alternative N Visunt impact expected to be lees than the app 11-cant's proposal as a result of untog low-profile mechanical-draf t The staff assumes that the growth in school enrollment will continue towers. Rank 2. at its present rate se a result of the construction of Unit 2 at this site. The staf f also assumes that this pattern of growth will con- *
- Alternative N Minimum viess! impact, limited to reactor containment tinue se a result of construetton of any alternative rather than the structures. Rank 1. unit described in the applicant's proposal. This report states that school enrollmeet has grown annually since the beginning of large-Alternative F Maximum visual inqra ct resulting from satural-draft scale construction activities in the Russellville ares in 1964 Con-cooling towers, smoke stack, and storage areas for coal and ash. etruction of Arkansas Nuclear One Dmit 2 or any alternative would Rank 6. e%tinue this growth pattern as indicated in Figure 21-1. The staff Jose not consider that this growth is due escluelvely to the con-Alternative F Visual impact less than alternative F-1 because of struction of Unit 2 but rather the result of a combination of use of low-profile mechanical-draf t towers. Rank 5. factors such as increased industrial development in the area, fa-creased size of the univeralty system in the area, and the continu-Alternative F Minimum visual impact for fosett fuel alternatives, atton of construction activity at the Arkansas Nuclear One site.
Rank 4 6.3 Traff e
- 6. Temporary tepacts of Flant Construction The staff concludes that the construction of Arkansas Nuclear One 6.1 Houstna Unit 2 or any alternate unit that ta ccastructed at the present site will not impose any new traf fic problems in the vicinity cf the sits 6.1.1 Reeldente Relocated or in the city of Russellville. The alte la served by an adequate !
paved secondary road, which connects to a well maintatnad yederal The staf f notes that the relocation of resident = will not be re- highway. These roads are capable of handling all traf fic at shif t-f quired for the construction of Arkansas Nuclear one Unit 2, since change hours and all commercial traf fic moving to and f rce the con-this unit la en addition to an existing station on this site. The struction site. appiteent states that $5 people 1tved on the land now occupied by Arkansas Nuclear One. These people were relocated before construc- 6.6 Commtmity Services tion of Unit One began and are therefore not considered ta this re-port. The staf f assumes that no relocation will be required for The staf f concludes that the construction of Arkansas Nuclear One construction of any unit described in any alternatives since any of tinit 2 or any alternative ,at this site will have an insignificant these could be constructed on the land ave 11able at the Arkansas ef fect on the quality of c~aily services presently of fered by the Nuclear one site. governments of the city of Russe 11v111e and Pope County to the citizens of these areas. The construction of this station will 3, i E-118 1
D41 D-22 REyERENCES FOR APPEND!! D peruf t significant improvemente to services rendered to the citisens ramalains la this area af ter construction to completed. l
- 1. Arkansee Power and Light Compny, Arkansas ble2r One Unit 2 6.5 Proncetco - Constructlen Wazes Surpleant to Environmental Poprt, Docket No. 50-368, December 1971, The applicant estimates that reestruction of Arkansas Nuclear One
' Unit 2 will require payment of constructtoo wages in the amount of
$40 million during the construction of the unit. The staff eettaates 2. USAtc Quarterly Progrees Report on Status of Reactor Construc-that the appitcant will be required to pay construction wages total- tion, AEC Para HQ 254 Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, submitted by karlan T. Holmes, Manager of Production, Design and Construction, ing at least $35 at11 ton during the construction of this unit, if Arkansas Power and Light Company, Jan. 6,1972.
17.31 of the estimated value of the station is represented ' by wages paid construction workers. The staff concludes that the appiteant's 3. 5. E. Vann, M. J. Whitman, and M.1. Sowers, "Pectore Af fecting estiaste of construction wages is reasonable. The staff estimates that construction wages paid for any of the fosof t fuel alternatives Historical and Projected Capits! Costs of Nuclear lower Plants in the United States," '%1ted Nations Conference on Peaceful will also total approzimately $40 million in construction wages. Usee of Atomic Energy session 1.4, A/ Conf. 49/P-437.
- 4. Federal Power Commise1on, Statistfos of Primztaly Ouned Util-ities in the United States - 1470, December 1971.
- 5. L. M. Olmstead, "17th Steam Station Cost Survey Reveals Steep R!se for Busbar Paergy," Flectrioal World 176(9)r 39-54 (Nov. 1, 1971).
- 6. Contnzt betunen the United Staten of Amerks and the Arlansan I
Fouer and Light Cor"pany for Von of D1rdanelle Reservoir for Cimulation of Cooling water for helear Power Plant, contreet No. DACWO3-71-C-0002.
- 7. P. A. Rohrman, "Analysing the Ef f ect of Fly Ash on Water Pol-tution," Pouer 115(6) 76-77 (August 1971).
t
- 8. Department of the Army, Of fice of the Chief of Engineers, Civil Begulatory Metions - PerMte - Policy, Pmetice and Prveed:ee, Regulation No. 1145-2-303, March 18, 1968.
- 9. Safety Enzinattion by the Division of Peactor Mernehg U.S.
Atomia L%engy Cominaion in the Mitter of Arkansas Pouer and light Company Arkansas klaar One Unit 2, Docket No. 50-368, Apr. 20, 1972.
- 10. Arkansas Power and Light Company, Arkana.2e klear C%s 0%it 2 Appleant No. 2 to Awvimnmental Paper, Docket 50-368. April 1972, pp. J-7-21-J-7-24.
l I l L E-119 r
+ -
D-23
- 11. U.S. Bureas of Mines, Analyses of firple and Delivered Szmples of Caxi Colleatei During fiscal fear 1978, Report et Inveett-sation 7568 Coat Sampling and Inspection Group College Park, Md.
- 12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Caepflation of Air 7tpl-lutant Drieeion Maatore, Bulletta AP.42, Of fice of Air Programa, Research Triangle Park, N.C., February 1972, Table 3-2.
- 13. Ibid. Table 1-5.
- 14. Pscry's Chemioat Digineering andbook, 4th ed. McCrew-Hill, 1963, p. 9-4.
- 15. Arkansas Power and Light Company, Arkanaze A,alear One f/mit 2 Applement No. 2 to Depimenental Report, Docket 50-368, April 1972. Appendix 3.
s
- 16. Earl Berry, Director, Tax Divistem of Arkansas Public Service i Commission, letter to Mr. Lester Rogers, Director, Divistoa of Radiological and Environmental Protection, USAEC, Mar, 6,1972.
- 17. E. E. Vaan. M. J. Whitman, R.1. Bowers, "Pactore Affecting Ristorical and Projected Capital Costs of Nuclear Power Plaats la the United $tates," United Natione Conference om Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy Session 1.4, A/ Conf. 49/P-037.
t d 4 E-120
E-1 53-368 g ges shrany a sH N e i t- ,'- f.7 L* I %-' tr
.=
non e stnic s nrms uvarsom r*, N/A. . 's -
. . s e . m . . . . c . .. .. , $v f , 8. s y ej , g 's-g, Aman AUG'l) q >t T3 rm n g {1 ,
CmMFNTS RFCRIVED (31 THE DRAFT FNVIRONNTNTAL STATFNTNT- beer Mr. Mullers '), ,
.. - ,.e g
This is in response to your request for comments on the environmental p impact statement identified by a copy of your cover letter attached to this document. The staf f of the Advisory Counc!! has reviewed the submitted impact statement and suggests the following, identified by checknark on tYa forms The final statement should contain (1) e sentence indicating that the National Register of Historic Places has been consulted and that no National Register properties will be affected by the project, g (2) a listing of the National Register properties to be affected, an analysis of the nature of the ef fecte, a discussion of the ways in which the ef f ects were taken into account, and an account of steps taken to assure compliance with Section 106 of the Nation.1 Historic Preservation Ac t of 19t4 (80 Stat. 915) in accordance with procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as they appear in the Federal Register, March 15,1972 e In the case of properties under the control or jurisdiction of the United States Governeset, the statement should show evidence of contact with the offietal appointed by your agency to act se liaison for pur-poses of Executive Order 115H of May 13, 1971, and include a discussion of steps taken to comply with Section 2(b) of the Executive Order. _ [Thefinalstatement should contain evidence of contact with the listoric Preservation Officer for the State favolved and a copy of his comments concerning the ef f ect of the undertakir.g upon historical and archeological resources. Specific comuments attached. Commente on environmental impact stateneste are not to be considered as cosunents of the Advisory Council in section 106 matters.
$ cerely you e.
{ + l 4491 Robert R. Garvey, Jr.l Executive Secretary CC Mr, William E. Henderson, Director, Arkansas Department of Parks 6 Tourism, State Capitol - Room 149, Little Rock, Arkansae 72201 w/inc.
,,m.w.e. .e o, ., o. . .
spaeweeredw me=wesw > e=pedMau.spunnwe. m8ef eM ps*=e8we.*as.s
. v , c
^
edramee etfhe _ . _ .
., , n , r_
e, se une.ma Ju amopegnes ye .it.e D g pd 9 . .S 4t* 9 e D.,W 0 #AS them a,Sh E-121
E-2 ARKANSAS HIPORIC PRESERVr lON PROGRAM -) 1023 WEST THIRD STREET LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 Sol 374-0375 FEDEMAL POWER COMMISSION A Toar .me nnesa A 3, August 11, 1972 g O g 50 368 W 368 g q .4 w> I h M e O b bug M [ M~j Mr. Daniel 3. Muller p s-Assistant Director for g 6(,[ h g, g= Environmental Projects 4 Y A,'sqfI ' $ " - Directorate of Licensing i SEP1 1372 - h U. S. Aronic Energy Comunission aA sc- r t'a - 20545 y [M , ,py * ., Washington, D. C. f
\g
@(8
) o; Dear Mr. Muller r.; .- i f/
x
- Lg' jgo.
i Mr. Daniel Muller, Assistant. Director ro for Enviornmental Projects Directorate of Licensing % M, _ nis is in response to your letter of July 21, 1972, requesting United States Atomic Energy Commission "7 ' m /
# casaments on the AEC Draf t Environmental Statement reisted to the issuance Washington, D. C. 20545 of a construction permit to the Arkansas Power and Light Company for the construction of Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 (Docket No. 50-368).
Dear Mr. Muller,
nese coannents are made in accordance with the Nations! Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and t&e Cuidelines of the President's Council on After reviewing the material pertaining to the Environmental quality dated Aprl! 23, 1971, and are directed to a review construction of Arkansas Nuclear 1, Unit 2; I have of the need for the f acilities as concerns the adequacy and reliability concluded that the proposed construction would not of the affected bulk power systems and related matters. adversely affect any historically or architecturally significant property within the area. The Pederal Power Cumnission's Bureau of Power st ef f has comunented on the need for the capacity of the Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 in a Sincerely, letter dated April 8,1971. In preparing these casunents, the staff has considered the AEC Draft Environmental Statement, the Applicant's Environmental Report and supplements thereto; related reports made in response to the Cownission's Statement of Policy on Reliability and [ 8
, Adequacy of Electric Service (Order No. 383-2); and the staff's analysia of these documents together with related information from other FPC William E. Henderson reports.
State Liaison Of ficer WEH:1w ne Arkansas Power ar.d Light Company is one of five subsidiaries
/
a3 of the Middle South Utilities Corporation, a public utility holding company, which through its Middle South Utilities System supplies elec- [p DDCCE3 tric service to most of Arkansas and portions of Louisiana and Mississippi. ne Applicant is a member of the Southwest Power Pool, a regional bulk power planning and coordinating group for the south
.,i gg
-4 3 -[ -
centret area. ne proposed Arkansas Nclear One Unit 2 will share the site of the Artansas helear One thit i on the Dardanelle Reservoir E MQ ug c%i h Dw:au in the Arkansas River System near the City of Russellville, Pope County, Arkansas. Unit 2 is currently scheduled for comunercial operation in
/ January 1976.
1820 E-122
- . _ - __ . - - _m . _ . _. . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
1 , E.S E-4
/
3
/ Mr. Daniel R. Muller g-Mr. Daniel R. Muller
,g 1976 Suruner Peak Toad-Supply Situation Need for the recilities Middle Sout.h e
, Arkansas PE Co. Systems MiddleSout%Udlittee,Inc.planegeneratingcapacitytomeetthe j load requirement y o'Tthe Middle South Utilities (MTU) System. Planning With Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2
. pseration requsteents to meet the needs of th entire MSU System permite (920 Merswatts) ! the
- system to bene.it from of larger generating unite.ghe% economies of scalearrangements, rough contractual af forded by construction reserves Total Net Capability - Megawatts 4,262 12,646 are shared by the ($we operating companies to achieve " equalised reserves" Load Responsibility - Messwatts 3,450 1/ 10,190 such that each company is obligated to maintain its everage generating Reserve Margin - Megawatte 812 2,456 capacity equal to its load plus reserve requirements. When the instal- Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load 23.9 23.9 lation of a large ugit gives one coryany a temporary excess of reserves, the cost of this m eess to shared by the other operating compentes. De Without Arkanses Nuclear One Unit 2 generation expansion program planned through 1976 for the MSU System is
, oAltaed plow: Total pet capability - Megawatts 3,342 11,726 Load Resyunsi.11ty - Megawatts 2.903 2/ 10,190 Station Service Date Company Type Capability (MW) genrve Margin - Megawatta 439 1,536 Mine Mila Pt. No. $ 3/73 La. PE Co. F 750 Arkansas Nucl. One Unit 1 9/73 Ark. P E Co. N 820 1/ Desired Reserve Margin - Megawatts 464 1,630 Waterford No. 1 3/74 La. PE Co. F 430 Shortage (made up by purchaud power)
Sterlington No. 7 5/74 La. PE Co. F 1/ 200 Megewette 637 Waterford No. 2 1/75 La. PE Co. F 430 Andrus No. I 1/75 Miss. P E Co. F 750 Arkansae Nucl. One Unit 2 1/76 Ark. P E Co. N 920 1/ J/ Load of 3,540 megewatta reduced by net purchase cf 90 megawatts. J/ Lead of 3,540 messwatts reduced by not purchase of 637 megawatts. F= Fossil steam; N-Nuclear stoma. 1/ Combined cycle. Ine service areas of both the Applicant and the Middle South Utilities 2/ Initial capability. Ultimate capabiltty is 50 MW greater
- system have a projected annual growth r'ste of 10 wercent which is in excess of the national average. Reliability studies by ut111ty system members of Se following tabulation shows the electric system loads to be served the Southwest Power Pool, which includes the Middle South Utilities System, by the Applicant and the Middle South Utilities System, and the relationship have indicated a minimum reserve margin of 16 percent is needed to provide of the electric power output of the Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 to the system reliability, and this criterion has been used by the Southwest available reserve capacities on the stummer-peaking Applicant e and suruner. Power Pool and its member systems including the Applicant.
peaking MSU Systems at the time of the 1976 summer peak load. D e 1976 summer peak load period is the anticipated initial service period of the ne availability of the Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 for the 1976 new unit, but the life of the unit is expected to be some 30 years or suesser peak load period would provide a reserve margia of 612 megawatta more, and it is expected to constitute a significant part of the Applicant,a or 23.9 percent of peak load. Should delays make the unit unavailable total generating capacity throughout that period. Derefore, the unit will for this peak period, the reserve margin on the Applicant's system will be depended upon to supply power to meet future demands over a period of h redd u 49 qwts a lbl put d W 14 W%e many years beyond the inittet service needs discussed in this report. The the Middle South Utilities System the reserve margin with the unit will Buteau of Power staff generally bases its evaluation of the need for a be 2,456 megawatta or 23.9 percent of the 1976 summer peak load and specific bulk power facility upon long term consideratione as well es the without the unit, the reserve margin is reduced to 1,536 megawatts or lead. supply situation for the critical peak lead period immediately following the commercial availability of the facility which, in the case of the ' Arkdhees Nuclear One thtt 2, is the 1976 oummer peak lead period. E-123
34 g.y Mr. Daniel R. Muller Mr. Daniel s. Muller 15.1 percent of the peak lead. nose reserves indicate the influence of existing Mabelvale Substation, southwest of the City of Little Rock, the " equalised reserves" practice of the Middle South Utilities System Arkansas, ne project, now completed, required construction of 92 miles on both systems' reserves. Without Unit 2, the Applicant must purchase of single-circuit line mounted on steel and aluminum towers, he right-power from the pool (637 megawatts) to maintain tta reserve position. of way passes through rural areas devoted en agriculture, livestock, and timber production. Se Appiteant states that the routing and construction he adequacy and reliability of the App!! cant,e and the Middle South of the transmission line are in accordance with the guidelines of the joint Utilities systems' not generating capability at the 1976 sunsoer peak are publication of the Department of the Interior and the Department of not only dependent upon the tiesty consseretal operation of the Arkansas Agriculture, Environmental Criteria for Electric Transmission Systems. It Nuclear One Unit 2 but also on the timely casseercial operation of all the is intended that maintenance and inspection practices will be in compliance units la the current construction program. Delays are being emperienced with the same guidelines. in bringing most large new units into commercial operation, and this trend may continue for some time. De unavailability of the Arkansas Unit 2 Alternatives and Costa and contingencies involving the loss of two other large units could produce a negative reserve margin on the entire Middle South Utilities System. We Applicant, in determining the need for additional generation to meet its projected demands, considered purchased power and a number of he staff notes that as recently as 1970 over 91 percent of the other alternatives including locations, types of plant, fuels and environ-electric pouer generation in the South Central Region was fueled by natural mental effects, and economics. Since undeveloped hydroelectric potential gas. Due to the curtallment of natural gas fuel supplies, any problems in in the area is inadequate to meet the capacity requirements and gas the conversion to fuel oil and procurement of such oil could disrupt power turbine peaking capacity would not satisfy the requirements, the final generation in the area. De Arkansas Nuclear one f acility la the inittel decision rested between a base-load nuclear-fueled plant and a base-load nuclear-fueled electric generating plant in the South Central Itagion, and coal-fired plant. Environmental considerations and economics led tu the it should increase system reliability since it will met be af fected by seleciton of the nuclear-fueled plant. The Applicant reported capital any curtailment of the supply of natural gas or disruption in the supplies cosn of $206 and $198 per kilowatt of capacity, respectively, for the of fuel oil. ,,,3,er-fueled and the alternative coal-fired plants. puel costs were estimated to be 2.0 mills per kilowettshour for the axlear-find plant ne Southwest power pool of which the Applicant and the Middle South * * "* * * " * "" * *** "* Utilities are members, reports a reserve margin of 20.4 percent for the "" * * * *"
- E* # * " ** *** * ""
1976 suanser peak period. However, a large portion cf these reserves are "* *" * * * ** * * * **"8* *# *** *"E"* vested in large new generating units that are not yet in operation. S e " * 'I " E 3** ** Pool's main function la the furthering of the reliability of bulk power systems in the Pool through coordisation of the members' plans for expansion and operation of their generation and transmission facilities, and provision for short term emergency relief in the event of contingencies Although the overall situation appears at this time to be less normally experienced on interconnected power systema. Itowever, this short M t h h m MW m mM h & m f f M W hw term emergency relief is not a substitute for adequate reserves and a of Power in recent times, the staff cmcludes that the electric power r rtionate reserve should be maintained by each system, based on its output of the Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 will be needed to meet the Applicant's and the Middle South Utilities systems' projected loads and to provide them with reserve margias in accordance with their stated Transmission Facilities criteria. Furthermore, a number of other large new units as indicated One overhead 500-kilovolt transmission line is required to integrate must a c eted and in senice a deme H de Weced anne margins are to be attained. the Arkansas Nuclear one Unit 2 into the Applicant's system. W e route of the Itae is generally east and south from the Arkansas Nuclear One Sub- Very truly yours, station, northwest of Russellville, to the proposed Mayflower substation. . southwest of Mayflower in Faulkner County, and then generally south to the
. ps Chief. Bureau of power E-124
a . . - -
~
6 E-9 E4 50-368 OCPAATMEteT OF AGRICULTURE vj orr.c s or ,== se castaa'
. - s scil CGEENVATIGI SERVICE, 05DA, COGENTS Of DRAFT UVIRGC(EETAL STAmtMT
%# usmactom. D. c soaso 'j f ,v* R t FREPARED BY THE U.S. ATOGC ENEDGY COMISSIGt, DIRECIMAM OF LICENSING, FCR
. .P
#J rie h ARKANSAS NTIE.AR GCE UtfIT 2, ARIAMSAS POfER AND LIGItT C04PANY sv-h DCCEET No. 50-366 I? k9 e,
a hhM'M Cur ocuments are directed respectively to impacts doe to construction activities of (1) Arkansas Nuclear 02e thit 2 and (2) related tronanission line instaBation. gs p/ *- t August 28,1972 k # f g
- p Arkansas nuclear one Unit 2: We note the statement's reurmce to
/ Appendix D, reference 1.5.2, pge b.10 indicates that the latect of Mr. D. R. N11er erosion control is unknown or was not determined by the staff when Atomic Energy Coamission it visited the site February 1-2,1W2. Also, we note that the Washington, D. C. , applicant's progree of planting of excavated areas was not caspletely successful and would require same replanting during the spring and
Dear Mr. N11er:
sunner of 15Fl2. We have been unatie to find reference to this revegetation operation in Appendix D supplement to envirarsmental We have had the draft environmental impact statement for the report. We believe the statement would be strengthened by including Arkansas Muclear One Unit of Arkansas Power and Light Company a detailing cf measures espicyed, including materials use in the , reviewed in the relevant agencies of the Department of stabilization of areas that have been sut.1ect to soil dicturbance. Agriculture. Coments from the Forest Service and the Soil in addition to the ecological importance of ainialzing sediment Conservation Service, both agencies of the Department, are delivery into tardanelle Reservoir, it would appear vital tc the enclosed.' #'
. maintenance of shoreline thit 2 facilities that erosion and s.dimen-tation be effectively controlled.
Sincerely, jf f
-p- .. . Transmission 11 ness In section IV-D we are pleased to note that the j/g o[ . ' g,/ presence of proposed transsiission lines over Iertions of land used fce' agricult u e will not alter present land use or prodactivity. Also, we note the applicant plans to minimize clearing of vegetation and to
, T. C. BYERLY replace cover where it to badly disturbed in those portions of right-Coordinator, Environmental of-way involved in hilly terrain and pine-hardwood forests. 31owever,
'. Quality Activities in view of natural drainace patterns crossed by transmission line right-of-way we believe the statement would be strer4thened by the Enclosures additi m of the folicving or a si=ti n statement: In additica to replacing cover where it is badly disturbed by clearing operations, runoff water management will be achieved and consequent soil erosion and stress sedimentatien will be controlled by the use of temporary structural sedimer.t trap impoundnents as needed. Runoff water management by structural control is necessary in same areas to the successful establish-ment of permanent vegetative measures. 4822 4822 E-125
E-10 E-11 Meit'sTe-e d 2 Cortsents on NMAS PuCir.AR OW - WIT 2 draft environmental statement. - - Page A-1. 7p.-ant Fee.pyes Pertinent to Arkansas Nvelcar One . - - Page IV-2 C. [cif ronm_ ental fonsh!ffALLEt As discusoed here, we svegost this title be changed to Forest Statisties Will the drainage and filling of alow areas" cause significant changes in, vegetation? If more forest vegetation ami wildlife habitat will be - - Page D-9 1.0 Piatml Water Drainar_e encouraged or killed as a result of this soil movearnt, this should te prevented. W succest aslin,t a discussion on the effects of the projecb on sub-surface drainge. Changes in the quantity, quality, and timir4 of seepage
- - Pago lW 2 and 3 D. Transnission Linfa could affect forest vegetation.
Criteria, used for plannin6 P acement of transmission lines, are satis-l - - Page D-13 1.8.2 [ronim Centrol - Unknown Imoet factory. Piere empt. asis could to given to the positive acrects of these rights-of-way, such as the tenefits to wildlife habitat. Control of vegeta- An agrow.ist ard/or landscape architect should to consulted to assure tion alorg the r16 hts-of-way can be done vell by selective maintenance. sta';,la sqctr. tion will to establinkd within one yet.r. Selectiva maintenance je the ruoval of vecctation in accord with surmi ecological principles. The ebjective is to develop a stable plaat cover = = Pr.ga D-lc 3. Isna Use Chap;g wMeh providea wildlife habitat, improved scenic values, and reeds a miniraan of mairter.ance. item 4 should be modified to mention enhancing wildlife habitat en trans-ainaion lire r;ghts-of-ways.
- - Page blS D. Dieterwinn of Licujj_AT.fluac ts P.r.4 the 8'flushird rate' of the embayment, with the project installed, been predicted? If thre is a significant aceutulation of some elements or heat energy in the ca.bayment, very a. ark ,4 ch.uy;es could occur. They may rot le desirable changes. - - Page V-26, fourth paragraph. RMiolo&ni Monitorinz We the ground water eaonitoring system devised by a ground water hydro-logint? Iocation, depth, and timir4 of umpling are also critical when it comes to obtaining crediola data. - - Pace TT-1. Enviree.t al 7 met of Por:tulated Accide-ts Ve reccr. Lend a discussion here of how well the project will be protected from ficod d ec.ges. uS.at flood Fctection is afforce.1 by the system of reservoirs on the river above tk project? What size (100-yr? $00-yr?)
flood could damags the project?
- - Page I-1. The Nx d fon _P. g Another concept that could be considered here is rationtr.g of pwer. *Need" for power derivss froi.; a "nocd" for continued econt ic growth.
Rationing of power ty time and custaaer adcht restrict some sconomic growth, but this may not be undesirable.
- - Page XI-16 c. Trs, mission Lines As menticaed previously, transr.ission line rights-of-ways can have some tenefits to wildlifs through habitat enhanceaant.
1822 1WJ2 E-126
E.13 E-12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 50 368 2 W ASHINGTON. D C. 20460 and the steam generator blowdown tank vent. The final statement should indicate the methods by which dis-Z'.' " charges frca these sources will be treated. 1 SEP B72 i' We will be pleased to discuss our comments with you or members of your staff. Sincertly, Mr. L. Manning Muntaing a SEPo. 132 qI Director of Regulation & LifC 0 MW S Y2 N%
/
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 ,D I 2 M vb
~~ /A She} os Meyers
Dear Mr. Muntaing:
QM Direttor office of Federal Activities The Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the draft environmental statement for Arkansas Nuclear one Unit 2, and we are pleased to provide our comments. We understand that it is the intention of the AEC to consider the collective environmental ef fects of Arkansas One Units 1 and 2 in the forthcoming draft statement for Unit 1. Although we agree that such considerations are appropriate, of equal importance is a complete assessment of the impact of Unit 2 prior to any action on the application for a construction permit for that unit. The draft statement on Unit 2, however, does not contain sufficient information on Unit I to determine the impact Unit 2 will have when operated in conjunction with Unit 1. This arises because the thenna1, chemical, and radioactive discharges from Unit 2 are combined with effluent from Unit 1. We recommend, therefore, that all current infonnation on the design and eperational characteristics of Unit I relevant to determining the impact of Unit 2 be presented in the final statement for Unit 2. Potentially, the most significant radiological im-pact due to routine operation of Unit 2 may be the dischargeofgaseousradiciodinetotheenv{ronment. Based on our analysis, it appears that the JII gaseous discharges from the Arkansas Nuclear One site may not be *as low as practicable," since two potentially significant discharge points from Unit 2 may be untreated - i.e., the condenser stream jet air ejector 1N5N E-127
E 15 A E.14 i INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS The Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the draf t environmental impact statement for Arkansas Nuclear EPAf D-AEC-00065-33 One Unit 2 prepared by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and issued on July 24, 1972. Following are our major ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY conclusions: Washington, D. C. 20460 1. We believe the draft statement for Arkansas One August 1972 Unit 2 does not contain sufficient information to ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COMMENTS fully evaluate the environmental impact of this unit. Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 In our opinion, such impacts can only be accurately TABLE OF CONTENTS determitted when additional information on the PAGE physical design and operational characteristics of INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS 1 Unit 1 is available. We recognise that this infor-RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS mation will be presented in the forthcoming draft Radioactive Waste Management 3 Dose Assessment 7 Transportation and Reactor Accidents statement on Unit 1 and that it is the intention of 10 the AEC to consider, in that statement, the combined NON-RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS Thermal and Biological Effects 12 impact of both units. We believe, however, that as Cost-Benefit 14 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 16 - plate an assessment as poesible of Unit 2 impacts should be available prior to action on the application for a construction permit. Thus, in this regard,we recommand that all current information on Unit I relevant to such an assessment be presented in the final statement prepared on Unit 2. It should be stated, however, that should the more complete infor-mation and analysis that will be presented in the
.b58 E-123
_ . . . . _ . . .. _ .. ~ , . _ _ . _ .m . _ _. _ 3 2 - n.a x-ni draft statement on Unit I warrant, we may revaluate
- 4. If in the opinion of the AEC, the guidelines our conclusions with regard to Unit 2.
in 10 CRP 50 Appendix I apply to the radioactive
- 2. In our opinion, minimisation of todine discharges gaseous and liquid discharges frnm the total plant from the condenser air ejector is important if the and not just discharges from Unit 2, th's final radioactive releases from Unit 2 and the total plant statement should discuss the capability of the are to be *as low as practicable." In order to plant systems to limit the collective discharge to evaluate such releases, we recommend that a more levels which are "as low as practicable." The detailed discussion be presented in the final state-final statement should also address the potential ment of the proposed iodine treatment system for the environmental impact of the radioactive gaseous and steam generator blowdown vent and the methods for liquid discharges from both units.
reducing iodine discharges from the condenser air ejector. RAD 70LOGTCAL ASPECTS I 3. In the draft statement the AEC assumed that a high Radioactive Waste Management liquid dilution flow from Unit I would be avalable The components included in the liquid waste systems for Unit 2 liquid waste discharge. Such dilution flow, appear to be representative of present waste treatment however, may not be available if it arises that the technology. However, from the information provided in the proposed once-through cooling system for Unit I cannot draf t statement, the FSAR, and the environmental report, meet Federally approved state water quality criteria we cannot determine if these systems can limit the discharge or leads toaan unacceptable impact on aquatic biota. of radioactive li, quid wastes to "as low as practicable" Therefore, the final statement should discuss measures levels. Thorpfore, the final statement should include that will be taken, in the event the high dilution flow information regarding tank storage capacities, steams is not available, to assure that liquid radioactive generator blowdown volumes that will require processing, discharges from Unit 2 will have an environmental and the criteria for processing the blowdown. impact that is "as low as practicable." 6 4 E-129 i
. m __-, _ _ . . - _ _. .
l l 4 5 g .18 E-19 The draft statement (page V-28) indicated that thyroid The final statement, in our opinion, should indicate if the doses to a child could exceed the proposed 10 CFR 50 turbine building ventilation system is designed to process Appendix I organ dose guidelines. It was also indicated the air ejector exhaust. that, prior to operation of Unit 2, the applicant will have Since it is specified in the draft statement that the to demonstrate the ability to meet 10 CFR 50 Appendix I condenser air ejector constitutes a major pathway for the i guidelines. Thus, it may be deemed necessary that addi- release of radiciodine, we recommend that the final state-tional gaseous effluent control systems be added. In this ment provide a description of how iodine discharges from regard, it should be noted that it may be practicable to the condenser air ejector will be reduced to "as low as add iodine control systems in the future, if the capability practicable." Furthermore, the draft statement indicated for such backfitting is provided in the present design. In that the chsrcoal and HEPA filtration will be available addition, the final statement should include a discussion for turbine building ventilation exhaust, gas decay tank of the following points concerning the treatment of radio-exhaust, and aerated low-activity system exhaust. However, iodine before the system design is finalized. " the PSAR and environmental report did not describe these We believe that the treatment of iodine discharges filter systems. In our opinion. these apparent inconsisten-from the condenser air ejector is important to the appli-cies should be resolved in the final statement. cants' efforts to limit iodine discharges from Unit 2 and g g g the total plant site to "as low as practicable". amounts, the stream generator blowdown will be discharged from a vent , However, it is not clear that the condenser air ejector located on the roof of the auxiliary building. The draft exhaust will, in. fact, be treated by HEPA and charcoal statement estimated this to be the major release pathway for filtration (1,.e. , page III-19 of the draf t stateme.at radiolodine from Unit 2 and indicated that additional equip-indicated that the condenser air ejector exhausts through ment will be provided for the control of iodine from the a turbine building vent and that the turbine building blowdown tank vent. We recognize that the applicant ventilation system contains HEPA and charcoal filters). apparently has not provided this information to the AEC and that the design of the system may not have progressed I E-130
_-. _. . _ . _ _ _ ~ . . _ _ _ . _ _ __ .- _ . - . - 6 7 E .21 E.20 i sufficiently to enable the equipment to be specified at system are found to be unacceptable and auxiliary means this time. ; However, we cannot evaluate the expected of cooling are required, the large volume of dilution effectiveness of measures to control gaseous radiolodin* water available for dilution of Unit 2 effluents may not discharges from the steam generator blowdown tank unless be present. For such a circumstance, in order to main-additional information is presented in the final statement, tain the concentration level of radioactive liquids at For example, it.would be beneficial if a qualitative ! acceptable levels, the annual discharge of radionuclides description of the design criteria is presented includin9 would have to be considerably less than the liquid dis-whether the system will provide for elimination or just charge estimates presented in the statement. Therefore, treatment of this iodine source. the AEC should discuss measures that will be taken, in the During periods of primary-to-secondary leakage, event the high dilution flow from Unit 1 is not available, secondary system leakage will be contaminated. The final to assure that liquid radioactive waste discharged from statement should provide an estimate of the volume and Unit 2 will have an environmental impact that is "as low radionuclide concentrations associated with this leakage. as practicable." rurthermore, there is no indication of the capability Dose Assessment for processing this liquid waste in the radioactive waste The statement indicates that the discharge of radio-systems. EPA believes that capability should be provided active effluents from Unit 2 will have to comply with the to process this potentially contaminated liquid through guidelines of the proposed Appendix I to 10 CfR Part 50. waste treatment equipment. Since the guidelines of Appendix I for gaseous effluents The draft statement (on pages III-6 and III-7) indi-are for total sit'e discharges, information on Unit I dis-cates that Urrit 2 cooling tower blowdown water and Unit 2 chargas is important in evaluating the ability of the liquid radwaste will be diluted with at least 383,000 plant to meet Appendix I concentrations and in estimating gallons per minute (gpm) of effluent water from Unit 1* the total potential environmental impact of the plant. If, in the opinion of the AEC, the environmental effects Therefore, details of the radioactive sources, discharges, due to the operation of the Unit 1 once-through cooling and control systems from Unit 1 should be included in the E-131
. . _ . _. _ _ -_ _ . ._ .m_ _ .-.m_._m . _ _. . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _
N 1 8 9 E -22 E-23 near the site boundary be evaluated using meteorological final statement for Unit 2 so that the overall environ. dispersion conditions more appropriate to short release mental, effects of the plant may be evaluated, persons at or near the plant boundary could receive Periods. We believe that the results of such an evaluation direct shine external exposure from on-site radioactive should be presented in the final statement. waste storage facilities or areas. Although the statement does indicate that on-site measurements will be performed after plant start-up to assure that this exposure pathway is not significant, the final' statement should include an evaluation of potential radiation doses from direct shine. In this regard, all pertinent assumptions and their bases should be included. The final statement should define the atmospheric dispersion factors used in daking the dose assessments. Apparently, an annual average dispersion factor was used in evaluating the radiological dose effects of all gaseous discharges. This assumption is probably valid for con-tinuous releases, but it is not apparent that it is valid for short-term (ischarges resulting from containment purging and gas decay tank discharges, since the popula-tion in only a few sectors near the plant may be exposed to the dose from these short-term radioactive gaseous dis-charges. Thus, in order to better estimate the environ-mental impact of the short-term discharges, it is recommended that the maximum dose to individuals residing E-132
.. ._. . m - . _ _ _ - _---m... . _ _ _ _,m. . _ . _ , - _ _ m m._ m . _ _m.._ .m -- .m ._.s . _ - -_ , - _ . -
9 l . 11 10 E.25 E.24 Transportation and Reactor Accideng ,, 1 in its review of nuclear power plants, EPA has identified a need for additional information on two types of accidents which could is based on the staadard accident assumptions and guidance result in radiation erposure to the publict 1) those involving issued by the AEC for light water-cooled reactors as a proposed transportation of spent fuel and radioactive wastes and 2) in-plant amendment to Appendia D of 10 CFR Part 50 on December 1,1971. EPA accidents. Since these accidents are common to all nuclear power commanted on this proposed amendment in a letter to the Commission plants, the environeeatal risk for each type of accident is amenable , g 39 ,, g to a general analysis. Although the AEC has done considerable work .for a detailed discussion of the technical bases of the assumptions for a number of years on the safety aspects of such accidents, we involved in determining the various clas.scs of accidents and expected believe that a thorough analysis of the prob.b111 Lies of occurrence convequences. We believe that the general analysta mentioned above and the expected consequences of such accidents would result la a will be adequate to resolve these points and that the AEC will apply I better understanding of the enviresmantal risks than a less-detailed the results to all licensed facilities. 4 . examination of the questions on a case-ty-case basis. For this reason we have reached an understanding with the AEC that they will conduct - such analyses with EPA participation concurrent with review of impact statements for individual. facilities and will male the results availalle la the near future. We are taking this approach primarily because we believe that any changes in equipment or operating pro-cedures for individstal plants required as a result of the investi-gations could be included without appreciable change in the overall plant design. Il major redesign of the plants to faciuda engineering ] changes were expected or if an immediato public or environmental risk were being taken while these two issues were being resolved, i wo would, of course, make our concerne known. 1 , l E-U3
13 13 E-26 E.27 Although the environmental impact of Unit I will be NON-RADICLCGTCAL ASPECTS thoroughly examined in the draft statement on that unit, Thermal and Biological Effects it would be appropriate for the final statement for Unit In the draft statement, the AEC indicates that 'This 2 to consider the environmental effects of Unit 2 should evaluation considers the incremental ef fect of Unit 2 it be necessary to modify the proposed once-through system operation. Unit 1 is assumed not to be operating except of Unit 1 or adopt an alternate cooling system (e.g. , con-for the equivalent of 2 or 4 circulating water pumps..... vert to closed-cycle cooling). Under such circumstances, The environmental effects of the combined operation of the quantity, chemical composition, and temperature of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 will be evaluated in the Environmental effluent from Unit I could change considerably from that Statement on the p.roposed issuance of an operating license characteristic of the once-through system. As a consequence, for Unit 1." In our opinion, however, the draft statement the a.ib ty of the discharge from Unit 1 to dilute chemicals for Arkansas one Unit 2 does not contain sufficient infor- and waste heat released in the blowdown from Unit 2 could mation to determine if this unit can be operated in be reduced. Thus, in our opinion, the thermal and chemical compliance with applicable Federally approved state impact of Unit 2 should be reevaluated in the final state-standards or in a manner adequate to protect aquatic ment in terms of possible alternative cooling systems that biota, We believe that as complete an assessment as could be employed for Unit 1. possible of such aspects of Unit 2 should be available The draf t statement does not indicate the enounts of prior to action on the application for a construction residual chlorin *e that will be released to Dardanelle permit. Thug, in this regard, we recommend that any Reservoir. The final statement should provide this infor-current information on Unit I relevant to such an assess- mation and indicate the methods by which releases will be ment be presented in the final statement on Unit 2. kept within limits that are safe for aquatic biota. EPA has recommanded in the past that levels in the receiving water of 0.1 mg/ liter should not persist more than 30 minutes / day and 0.05 mg/ liter for more than 2 hours / day. E-134
15 14 E-20 I'" Cost-Benefit to consumers to economize on energy, such as rates Evaluation of the costs and benefits of the construc- that progressively increase with the quantity of tion and operation of Unit 2 is hampered by the lack of energy consumed by each customer. sufficient data on Unit 1, particularly on environmental 2. An evaluation of the construction cost of the impacts. A combined environmental statement for Unit 1 and plant should not include the cost of transitional 2 would permit a more meaningful cost-benefit evaluation, unemployaient of the construction workers. Since on page i of the draft statement, the AEC indicated such transitional unemployment l's characteristic of that below-grade construction of the containment building, the construction trades, this unemployment would auxiliary building, service water intake structure, occe whether or not this particular station were selected vaults, and piping are exempted by 10 CFR 50 constructed, frosa consideration in a cost-benefit analysis. We believe, 3. Estimates of future costs and benefits should however, that these factors should be included in the cost- be in terms of dollars of present purchasing power benefit assessment. Therefore, we recommend the AEC int ." and not, in our opinion, the higher values presented a discussion of all site preparation and construction costs in Appendix D of the statetaent. 1 in the cost-benefit analysis to be presented in the final 4. For computing ' capital recovery,* we recommend statement. an interest rate of at least 10 percent be used The following comments on the cost-benefit analysis instead of 8 percent. in the statement, however, do et depend on data we would
- 5. Taxes are economic transfers and should not be expect to find ih a statement for Unit 1.
considered as economic cost or economic benefits.
- 1. The cost-benefit analysis should include a discus-sion of the alternative of not providing the additional generating capacity of Unit 2. In our opinion, this i alternative should be thoroughly examined in the final statement. This should include financial inducements E-US
. .- - ..-- .,-. - -. . - -- -- . ~ . - -. .- .- . - . - . - . . - .~. - - - . . ~ -. ~ ~- w.- . _ . . ~ . ~ - -
g-31 17 g.30 with all. applicable Federal, state, and local regulations regarding - ADDITIONA1. C N air Pollution; i During the review we noted in certate testances that the draft
- 7. meteorological date presented as a windrone or as wind statement does not present sufficient information to subatantiate the coactusions presented. We recognise that much of this information is
- 8. the location of off-site sampling stations for airborne I not of major importance in evaluating the environmental impact of the redloactivityg Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2. The cumulative effects, huwever, could 9: a discussion concerning potential problems of ozone production be significant. It would, therefore, be helpful in determining the from power transaission linegi impact of the plast if the folluwing information were included tu the 10. methoda to be used to dispose of non-radioactive combustible final statements wasteeg
- 1. verification that the provisions .af safety Guide 21 will
- 11. 'the distances from the plant to the closest residential coessunity be applied to the monitoring and reporting requirements of the (so that the environmental impact of noise f rom the construction t
Arkansas nuclear plant; and operation of the plant may be evaluated.) The applicant should
- 2. an evaluation of the amount of liquid and gaseous radl e also measure existing as, blent noise icvels and anticipated effects activity that could be released undetected and presentation of of these erfeting noise levelas r estimatas of the quantity of radioactivity that will be discharged
- 12. a discussion of contruction activities with respect to noise before monitoring alarms are activated and the discharges terminated; abstracnt and control procedures; i
- 3. verification that gaseous and liquid radiosctive discharges ,
- 13. a plan to measure existing ambicat noise levels and an '
from the turbine building will be sanpled and analyzed; *
- 4. the bioacctuulation factors used to estimate the doze to residences; i' individopis for the fish ingestion pathway;
- 14. a discussion of the technical specifications in the sperating
- 5. a deactiption of the measures planned to prevent damage or license for l'ntt 1 that will limit the chesical discharge from deterioration of the radioactive solid waste dreas while in storage; I
- 6. a description of the measures used to control particulate
- 15. infor=* tion presented in the draft la not sufficient to evaluate caissions f rom concrete batch plants to be used during construction.
l The final statement, should indicate that the applicant will comply ope with f looding; E-136
38 E-32 E-33 50-363
- 16. the use of a package-altivated sludge plant to treat wastewater M' DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY during the construction of the plant appears adequate. This plant ..
- w. utros mocet annaansas vasos
.s,e.v .e should, however, be equip **4 with a sand filter to dispose of the treated wastewater and the plant's operation estended to accomanodate 30 August 1972 the permaneet staf f rather than d1* mantling in favor of a septic tank with a sand illter.
Mr. D. R. Wller Asst Director for Environmental Projects Atomic Energy Constission Washington, D. C. 20545
Dear Mr. Muller:
Io conpliance with your request contained in letters dated 21 July and 1 Aucust 1972 (your Docket !b. 50-368), my ecaimenta on the Draft Enviror.- mental are Statement for Arkansas Power and Light Ceepany Nuclear One Unit 2 inclosed.
,3incerely yours,
- - /
1 Incl (dupe) As stated NILLIAM H. KEECH
#4Jor, Corps of Engineers Acting District Engineer
;- . 3 a tv 80 P+ 1m 9 ,,
7- m t Vi [3 2 b' y-<
$ U C
~
t. r 3 a; aa E & e4 1581 E-137
e
- t rle a h .
e aat rl t e d rn "h , ena el r e
.tr e
hl hwi eo h t i s eg s u. lot cis . few og s ni ri hiMhoi s Cw end .
- l. h ao ,t o r sot apc tr ce f
f o Nitt t n ehsMtivs g t t oa t f .oo m s. o w e s entdl cinofed naoo he u lt fo eh ss ui o R=t e i n Ldsn 1anun dei
- s. t ti rancharsh a
dt vrie e ecrpn a ae ts mso
,l at cllt t n fl r e reh er ce t 7 a7e Mtih n f.d cse era e ht c hpsMng w Tlihwca yt sod afr at hgg t
.fn tg r une re a ,, ocab falo6 S e ncoymoo ot dt ohy oas n ea ig nf o
e l. ei i6 s. l i rof tl w on elfta y aom mi t en t a d rl p
" e dgh, t
e cg s sfnf tiec it 2eg e br t
.bluoafttWm o gyl i
n t3mb F t a, h a i cnm hte nbi ,t n a3 g iner ti a dd noo
.lio uv e be v
d o ":2 . dt n a , tgd s e egns fiot f src fnp tow no csrWdsaUo ead rwy r h i ot p-b c voea eooocei ter t a ec t i s tg s e ie avf oacf on cofil sohaUr gc hifvt a8 e l l es w prn et nh g r y pse uyl ne i r t a w l aeee nf e o cr nio it l fi eeef o rv3t ee3a nis ahs .ut n rol t Sc l r o I d mb r ee nes ats st a es ufoh ggaay e cao drph vl ienu og l d* r lt cn a eec o hno goo hc t s. i q u hnWht iwl f t ee r l ot R sie sit r a D .hr t c aowd yd u ol o uit ot rat 4e na r e t s ig l tiv.o e n iss nii ghh isihsoo,M et nhsMvf m a els2 e dn _ W glg Res ae eeuel bgo i a rt n itt ee l* o slvr k emgenw in h a noe af ak w ev t a oio s t sy - aol o". l srias bas Ei "h sB o y t o, .Lut ni eae td aub t a e
.hnfo l
oo@c 2 k petr r e n 2 ruvr e l. drih d i f r e t, l o a hht Tta scymtel ihS n ey 5 Antdw oaeo i eoau sh e t l rd uee oy s
. t h
e m .wm dto si m ebn et c vein a ri ip ee eekt sh ! 3 rt si chMhhas ttle hMu s up oa rr, W t e e
- sen f
h
.it s %e ouonhon w E eaivc Kg
- ilrr nvopt oi at r
onrsee ti oe b 8sa 1 am p i cge aat - f r o T shi c ut e miea ne .y o
. tdmbd oe mn ae rt nh a
t a rt aao c s f s.idb h ttAma - s drs sgt tWd ? l l npse il t lertl utn.r e I ne I a eab M rpe i s P a ine cil w a r r r h eeMnreosmt a seMwfr m erkn eer e oee p W np o ir ie rfvOoi)t " t n h ei= m psam. ep h yovse lheeo Ctwgr t iPww6s rA u so Me o m bb a o vL . w et sot t esiru c F f pd y e o eo ad nh ner or ccetlnnd sh oty3w u 3n o i Feg grs re oNfn
. eat tl g 1
?
ig e do: t a cg r l et r oye u n c M6 e r a nn g e4. e ie r sb s lle&s ais be s a h ph pf tot o d o0 t0sao 1 etis K n
- a oi d I
- i l nbs e
e onW . hu ue r sd il darnd np aampd = r rntt .nh .er T p m s eaa n t a0f p ra toa ca M icno esh I tr 1 g fen neowio n 2 0, o odd f f v6 9 llac a .2cp 1 - w s oh l T p pt a o a 5 w nlefoci( losucl li e1 woneh e T T l e eoT I
- lc h
a s e t c 7
- dfd V nfl e
X hd@ tr T tD , e a XT tah c hnt t yr gasi ns n td u e aeu o s 1 si i p c m.tfr al e oen i sr l a e,f l ceo o d t e6e c r P j bg e w 1lh e ot
~ lae g r P o dhWhbeeudo ow e eeht e rnt eg t n e rno eaairdal rrr todf go WMc eJ e % he 1tf e er n pps u a Psm t rt as P
a rra eet ll fe ddhel lt t n eeernon m e .ien .t w . v ou sadfe phn uca2t TtafcfPo h hhvoolof ar np 6ip
.nr 7gT. h 8Ut m nhe 9wpa aon0feWfvoAR1ol l ofsi d
U-E n o d t i I s ,
. rda n e r
s e tr t daho m n t any S e e on o g so eea rir r k ce . f fal m g af d rcn e a eO csa oelnt L cpee n e b d e
,n na a
ens ro u ge( eutco nl o hl sl s at cpob enrt deen igve. w o%s l1e D a nm r oc ai. ltn i (l nucidvGnorK=es 8 l el rad l pedn h ru est ao o d l u i m e
- e Wira t e ak
,tat ygc eie as tfAftest lol ri o n; aro o v m r r, p f sapgp h lt s i tsm ie l5
- 6 3 nuoPp ao m h s r i r v et pn mvr oNo ar i usCd kenecoesssuu s snFvrenso a iiia r ti am5 0 T 0 ditei rrak e e o oi. r c bht ,ivieldRotked 2
- N 5 aa ,tae c ,nl arn ) pao rk n vird S
RM E Dv etit r h t y i . t no f naa o
' ifa n hv yei sesreaOasrlAig ldl pg o u as ,,iei osceoi vn d e2d t a n
ET 0 hAono se t oc ,iRr a onToreayneah rr t u EA NT2T 1 t vat il hl mr h e c uee 2 s a po iflt ul ri sorsrirftpu d eor ebe E y .rtesg e t rcg nas rtoast ue fav IS TA sin esi t e na n h t d t nr saa i nn ost oa ( gyslu cTTneenovotr s ea e 0dR i NLMC IA b d )9. R n r od u d nnh tae itl orrmehhsev 5e TLI U eG or ea r A A oec ckm ere sviort aaht t anotseht hoar w gi raa t s FI t - ece ct s ecs e O SMOY K-E a1 e9 nee f i nD l e t a ?
. eid h a ni bat nrt a
nnipn e c meincsrao oe nk rnocfos falr o ti von ol a PD N r c .ebr n k t tma ars ddvo eeM nl wsr ssr k RlRAl aon t L. d T e t a s sL t sK e e ni idhv uvet oti ,rvClsi yeoo g iia OiAP i n oohao Rare CVIM nPr e a h a If M U nh pnt prtglg l estsir nd
,te NiO w peae
,ECC meD . o
- aa mp iFnsoF gIh n
T U d c et rg n e, i o estV t 7t otw n iac.tsarncan CTNT .q w 4 3 IF RA3Gi nnslr uealo oreone ep i n A_ n rj l a O r aer rlo 1 r r ennseAxnch a r. l e oe o.f l so
- se
. E TRAI p
- r pcm aC ) eremk el e t
- u no L mft ar d a f8vewerFi erh SEG I ie d o e c Me o icolA k) .nisn lct DEAD HKN rdre e(eah 1
e y a P l o hu wet eI I R ar p g r r; enra e ha l o iau m 0m o KihA h rDt b - e thrn n oepilcoeeTvdc n 10 C A ter h ta iCpv iniho ON RORE R l eet N s P s t sfFn rper pi;Rahai 5 6, he C flfku oeeao nr!h g M i o n *a t ao o l .f suiht icstc is
.uRren esesval rl g
,wgt oa s6 t i3 ZSFM I T ea e i l
a r eacs sy Fiflthiiioeoi e( soent rRd rwCv at o eta m T3 T: S md ssu ariao na r v l m r ncoa urirroe c s a lur lof LmO I A c"l mA iil ceMuddod mni) nnp .n oyn oao Dtoh tod eb l itt a pre nv rhCcctr nam C N ae ,dd - da r r e ?.idtrye aieFhuees onVoed rgf dRh iho a d se rrr a
" tMtee i
f e fspe rrs oru S e r o d m t i s l a ch enmD dao r s t as a m).fpo an o9t1s e( yp ehot u rEtocodl nfldd ere aet tvsop oief e 1 t I t hc enmso7epdo e e ecu e e e yt eofe k en hue reb r p;d rr w e_l s e dkafoi1k ot un ( aalron ad) TDhsl d e g Pt a r:b P ee .Irtt ae AearhshG unysr " ae I erlbd ny tiu n s pt y eCetet auhee v ose n
.dnnth o .h a
.o r.
.ryh h ef k efl f e n a n h u afi a t9ogiletE votw mt dr nu es 1aiis Pc 3C 4pSt 1i ; I
z-H s-u o. DEFrRTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION j
- UNITED GTAT70 COA 3T GUARD L*,", *,*,*,lf,"O,.,D l
Their sole purpose is navigation, plus hydroelectric power generation M U- D - Y62 at t.he four large, main stem structures (Webbers Falls, Robert S. Kerr, 50-368 ozara, and Dardanelle). b 2 2 AUG 1972
- 11. Amn41x 9. m-* B-? - Fish. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission J s has stocxed a censideranic nu;.ncr of striped bass in Iake Dardanelle.
This species has been cuitted frun the fish inventory. ' Mr. funiel D. Mulle r -
*h $
Ansistant Director for g-12 Envirmmer.tal Projects SEPS 172.- G l Annenih D. wm D-5 mi 0 wrera 5 Id.1 - T~ct on Wter - Directorate of Licensing R @'i rm,
- Fyn -ratian - h M e. The s taff's ass 74 tion stated in paracraph 1.1.18 last sentence, la consider (d inccrrect since water is not used for fon- U. S. At amic Energy Cemsnission uhingt on, D. C. 20545 O k[
f4s d, 7 strova drir. king supplies. However, the evaporative loss is a power loss g at Dardanelle, except during periods when streamflow exceeds the generating D,ar Mr. Muller: C' capacity of all four power unita at Dardanelle Dara as mentioned in para-graph 1.1-2. This is in response to your letter of 21 July 1972 addressed to Mr. Hertert f. ImSimme, Assistant Secretary for Environment arat t.rban
- 13. AnneMix D. m a D-?% Ite s 8 Correct regulation number is Systems, c meerning the dra ft environmental tapact statement arul ER llD*2*303* envirornental report on the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, project located in Pope County, Arkarwas.
The concerned operating administrations and staf f of the Department of Transpertatim have reviewed tt.e s.aterial presented. The Crited States Coast Guard, an agency of this Departur.t, has not .cmpleted its review of the pertiner.t data regarding this project. It is anticipated that this review will be carpleted by 23 August 1972. Notest in the review by the Federal Rafiroad Administration is the following:
"The dra ft envirorsnental staten.ent and, in particular, aupplement cs.e of the envirorswntal report. catain en in-depth ar alysis of trar.smissim line location. Howver, our review failed to reveal any analysis of pmsible impact on adjetaing railroad properties.
The problem of inductive coupling, direct faulting cr flashover with railroad signal and comunication circuits is me which should t,e addressed. Destructior. of the integrity of railroad sigr.al and c<rsunication facilities is more than an inconvenier.ca as the poter.tial for serious accidents exists." Also, the Departner.t's Meteorological Branch submitted the follwing cements:
"We have reviewed the impact statement on the Arkansas he! car Prwer Plarit. An exceller.t study of the r.et.wrological cran 11tions has been cora!ucted. Ime can see no adverse influence of it.e plant upon the swteorological conditions in this area."
'M6 E-139
anesaw a ==sn o E- 3s .. E- 39 '
.'"." 07,:
Pending emnpletion of Cinnt Guard review this Department has no further ..u 7.* ;;* 50-368 c<mments to offer on the draft statement. It is recimmended that t he ]' concern of th= rederal Railroad Administration be addressed in the ,"*"***
" *J#.'."." $= d j9 Y44 final environnental impact stat went. Ariy ciaments that the Conat u * *
- Guard alght have regarding the dra ft statearnt will be forwarded to m,um
****-- gBM6 B# [/Sh COMM/SS/On : .
;(ej.,w,jft c; you shortly. *** * ,**';Z
, , ;g b gp G
. . .n tettta poca, annasusas 7:201 NC. '
The opportunity for the Department of Transportation to review and ""*a** c(unent on the draft statement and environnental report for Arkansas helear One, Unit 2 is appreciated. , , , l,Ll;,3
...n,om.
Sincerely' August 30, 1972 SkMg g gg b- Mr. L. Manning Muntzing g,ymv/gs, 8x
. .( ,.
Rur Mc; rat, U. S, Cort Cnd Direct r of Regulation {
- f gaf United States Atomic Energy Commission , ef, M Ch d *Jah b#c' antr 3 Washington, D.C. 20545
- and Systems s .y
". y -as
Dear Mr. Muntzing:
These comments are submitted concerning the Draft Environ-mental Statement of July,1972, on Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. As the state's wildlife agency, one of our concerns is with the fishermen's access to our reservoirs and streams. The site and embayment easement provides the possibility of excluding fishermen from the shoreline of the project if such is required for the health and safety of the public. Contact with Arkansas Power an? Light indicates that fenc-ing around the plant will be set back far enough from the shoreline to allow bank fi aMng. Access roads and parking areas should be provided for both sides of the discharge em-bayment. These are our recommendations in accordance with paragraph (o) of Mr. Kenneth D. McCalls' October 27, 1969 letter from the United States Department of the Interior to Mr. D. A. Schmand of the U. S. Corps of Engineers, Little Rock Office, (copy erlosed). In section II, the cocraents on the ecology of the site and envisions is quite thorough. 19:Ti E-140
l l < r.41 E-40 g//f, UNITru STATES N SvA y DEPARTMINT O*' Ti1C INTERIOR Mr. L. Manning Muntzing August 30, 1972 j> } '* J
,4 OFFICE 0 ~ TitC ICCRETARY scu a nvrst m oto.s Frot hAL sonw.G. P. o. box let
/ [h/ r
/ %
s -.a. - , - a ,- , in Section V, C, it is indicated that funding for ecological Octot.er 27,19f.9
,y[
.. i studies is provided for only five years after the begin.
ning of plant operation. It is understood that provisions {V will be made for continuing studies and expanded monitor- District Encineer 3.pruent of the Army M ing of the aquatic environment, fish populations, bottom corp of ucin.ers hpp' gp organisms and plankton throughout the life of the plant as needed. F.O. N 07 uttle M, Anansaa 72203 g It is important that any chemicals t.#ed to prevent the build-A m . D. A. ScWd up of scale or sigal growth in the cooling tower and plant, h ar Kr. Selmand; be completely neutralized before discharge into the reser-voir. Fleue refer to your actter of October 13, arst the inclosed draft of Terttit {o. W-16-O'O-03-1M!IT
; M1 covering cor.ctructica c.f ~
These are the cournents we have to of fer at this time. We ccolin; water intake ami discharce char.r.els ami ir.take structure appreciate the opportunity to consnent on this draft state-for Aronsu YerM Mt cam's ww. ww plant. q ment. You: proposed draft has been referred to the P,ureau of Qort Very truly yours, Ficherics w.4 W11d11re ar.4 the Teleral Wster 1%21utloo Ccotrol Adr inistrat4on, i.hlera t<ut'wr prov11c4 the princip1 innt to our corrent4 of Au o wt 77 Also 1 cor.ferred vitia!:r. Earlar. ifo3res of t!.e JJ sL Co. last Th:Ars4q in ry office and he ta. lied ther. to the k KationAl Puh Gervice, whteh was erecer,m4 ; about protection of arcreological val.ps la the construct 1re area. Director As a result of these reviews we ar- proposir.c *ertes cf the permit much like those su:mitted with your letter cf October 13 Tncy AHH:DGC:ac [g$1 " # * "# # Enc. (k) That the perrittee shs11 cca ply preeptly with ar.y lwful cc: Mr. Armand DeLaurell regulations, conditions, cr instructiccs affectin the work hereby autherirei if sna when issued by the State ntec pounion coi. trol State Planning Couzaission ~ a;e m y having jurisdictio. to at.2tc ct grsvent nter pilution an1/or tre Feder:d .iater Tonutiema Control Aln.inistration. Such reculsticca, card 1 tion 4 or instructims in erfs et or prescrital by the Stute aceac/ or the Psdersi 'leter Follutic.a Cor. trol Abinistration are herely cale a condition of tnis pert:.it. Opecificially, the follow:r.g restrictions, but not 11mitel to these fran the above acencies, are coniittons of this persit.
- 1. That the permittee shall serform the cor.struction cIerattom in a manner that will reLce turbility and alltatica to t6 lowest practicatie IcVel.
E-141
-- . __ _ _ - _ . . m ._._m_._ .-____m__ . _. . _ _ _ _ _ _ . .m____. . _ . _._ _ _ _ ~ . _.m ._ ._ _ ..__ _ _. . _ _ _ , _ _ . -4 .
\ E.42 j 2 43
- 2. ht permittee sM11 taka precautions in the handlinc Administration warts retained from our original letter of Aucust 27 or storce of bturdous enterials to Iwvent discharps or sp111 aces ht would result in decradation of the water Sincerely, quality.
(L) ht the penittee shall, by means of prspite meetings, ,f keep the Curpe of Engineers, the Federal Water h11utbT ctmtrol y J( f sIh ..As 4 .. U-Administratica, the Bureau of Sport Floheries and W11altre, the Kesmeth D. McCall Arkansas Pollutico Control C<es laattadhe_Arbnnan Cwe and Flah Begicz.a1 Coordinator Ccratsalon, and the Arkarans Ctate Departzent of Walth (balolor.ieal
~7(Division)
Be fully saformed cf plans for, and construction of, ec: the r.uclear pl at. B01, Atlanta B5Fful, AtInnta; Washinctta
- (a) ht the permittee shan advise the Federal Water Ib11utten 141T.A, Ihllas contrr,.1 Ada.taistration of any chances in the guantity or qu1 sty of h M , Micraond the waste water dischtf.c4 to W rucreoir, and W pregarc4 to takes SI A, Tulsa EPJ, Washington all rueessary and proper action to abate and prevent the recurrence of any conditions ht any cause a violation or the water gudity Arkar.sas com and Fish Ccmaission,1.1ttle Rock /
3 standards for the uservoir or the Arkansas River (o) ht the permittee shall continua a procram of surveillance to deterutne the effects of effluents ca aquatic life, water gaality and other uses. This program (Project F.o. Me) is being conducted by the thiiversity'%%QMmGtitle, bek_ (!)cU) in a rc.nner
~a,L1'M,rfesble to the Arkanr. a Power & Licjat Cts.,eny,' the Corps mf Engineers,' the leacral hter l'olhtlon Control Adainistratic,a, the
-Burea+ef sport Fichories ad U11111Te, thiAshnaas IV-11ut14.n control OcGiDston, Departrent of the- Arbnsas
!!cahn Ctrec and (bliolacical Fish'Comissing)and Ikalth Divistor. . In tiw it.c eventf rbnsas
~ ^ State" that the permittee ar61 the Interior ' agencies namel herein fall to acree 7
about some phase of the procras., the Decretary of tN Army will prescrite i j the steps necessary to proceed. r Copies of this prograe's reports including data, findings, 3 and conclusions,will be provided to the parties listed above, These reports will be issued at least every six months from the date of the perait issued by the Arkansas Pollution Control Ccmaission, I and monthly for the first sia sonths after the initial di.chr;e of l J ' 1 4 water. 4 (o) ht the pcaittee shall develop a plan of public fishing access which will es natually screeable to itself, the Corps of 3 Engineers, the Dureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Arkansas , Came and Fish Ccem:dssion, , i f I (p) ht this pemit is revocable at the vill of the Secretary of ta. Arsy. hae terms are as proposed to me by Mr. Holmes except for the item I have labele4 (a) which the Federal Water Pollution Control i j 2 3 4 ? 1 s E-142 1 i
E- 4 i 7 xs E. 45 THE ASSSSTAsIT &acRETARY OF COsassERCE
-(' -
. . ~ we o c. arz m so-us September 6, 1972 The " Summary and Conclusions" section of this draft statement
/ N S (page 1) contains the statement:
Mr. Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Director for Environmental Projects d d "This statement evaluates the environmental impact of coupleting the construction and the proposed Directorate of Licensing a SEPS 1072 e- 5 operation of Unit 2. This evaluation considers the Atomic Energy Conunission y MJpr incremental effect of Unit 2 operation. Unit 1 is Washington, D. C. 20545 0 . n.i 6 assumed not to be operating except for the equiva-
"" lent of 2 of 4 circulating water pumps, which will
Dear Mr. Muller:
'o provide dilution for Unic 2 liquid effluents. The o
environmental effects of the combined operations of The draft environmental impact statement for " Arkansas Nuclear Unit 1 and Unit 2 will be evaluated in the Environ-One, Unit 2," which accompanied your letter of August 1,1972, mental Statement on the proposed issuance of an has been received by the Department of Coannerce for review operating license for Unit 1." and comment. This theme is carried through the entire draft statement in con-The Department of Commerce has reviewed the draft environ- sidering radioactive effluents and their impact. mental statement and has the following coments to offer for your consideration. We do not consider this procedure of excluding recognition o' the existance of Unit I defensible on any logical grounds. The simple We have confined our review chiefly to the hydrologic and W;- f ac t is that both Unit 1 and Unit 2 will operate at the same time mospheric portions of the draft statement. We are pleased to on the same site and it is the combined ef fect which should be note that seven years of on-site meteorological data are available considered. because of the proximity of Unit 1 to Unit 2 While it is true that the above statement allows for this by the The utilization of a cooling tower for Unit 2 will tend to provision that the combined effects of Units 1 and 2 will be lessen the thermal effects on the lake, which were created by evaluated in the Environmental Statement on the proposed issuance the once-through cooling used in Unit 1 We find no sub- of an operating license for Unit 1, it is also true that at that scantive environmental impact from the proposed operations point in history Unit 2 will be well under construction and very of Units 1 and 2 little can be done about it. We are unable to evaluate the AEC staff's analysis of tbe enviton- It is our strong recommendation that this draft statement should mental impact of routine and accidental releases of gaseous radio- be modified to include the projected influence of both Units 1 and active effluents to the atmosphere. At no point in the document 2 with both units operating. With regard to radioactive effluents, are the meteorological assumptions specified nor the resulting the above coments are of importance particularly with regard to relative concentration (in units of sec m-3) and the probability the anticipated dose to the thyroid which might be received by of its occurrence. There is no indication whether or not the infants due to ingestion of allk. AEC staff used the relative concentration values listed on pages 22-25 of the Applicant's Environmental Report. We feel these We note that anticipated annual liquid radioactive effluents latter values are nonconservative primarily because of the ex. estimated by the AEC staff, excluding tritium, are 5 Curies clusion of calm conditions in the assessment of cumulative total while the applicant's estimate of the maximum expected annual Percentage frequency of occurrence. 1S13 l} E-Fd
E -4 7 t-M 3 4 release is 22 Curies. We also note that the anticipated annual We hope these comments will be of assistance to you in the release of gaseocs radioactive waste estimated by the AEC staf f preparation of the final statement. is 4?50 Curies, whereas the applicant's estimate is 15,000 Curies. In the case of gaseous effluents this differencais largely Sincerely, accounted for by the dif ference in estimated percentage of failed fuel (0.25% for AEC staff estimates and 1% for applicant's estimates). This presumably is also true for liquid radioactive . waste. Sidney'R. aller Deputy sistant Secretary It is also noted that equipment for the removal of iodine from for Environmental Affairs the blowdows tank vent before release to the atmosphere has been planned by the applicant but not yet selected, and that the AEC staff analysis assumed that this equipment is not in service. Since the blowdown tank vent is the source of 65% of the radio-active 131I and 133I released to the atmosphere as gaseous effluents, this assumption f.s of some importance and should be clarified. The estimated radiological impact on man of the above points are generally not serious because the estimated doses are quite low. This, however, is not true of the estis.ated possible dose to in-fants from drinking milk produced by cows grazing on the pasture nearest to the site. This estimated dose is 29 millireza per year or 231 of the dose due to natural background. If the assumption is made that the infant thyroid dose from the same source from Unit I will be coaparable, this would result in an infant dose, from AEC staff assumed effluent levels,of almost 50% of natural background. Assuming the applicant's estimated effluent levels could raise this infant dose almst a factor of 4 or greater,' this effect should be rectified in the final is: pact statement. While we recognize that the draft statement contains a specific provision (page V-28) that corrective measures to reduce the estimated thyroid dose will be required of the applicant before an operating license for Unit 2 is authorized, there seems little reason why this corrective action provision should not be required at this construction permit stage. This requirement should take recognition of the fact that both Units 1 and 2 contribute to this thyroid dose. E-144
i l t-48 50 368 E -49 United States Department of the Interior
@ be accomplished by including a short discussion of l OMCE OF THE SECAgTARY D, these areas on page II-ll and keying to maps similar to 6 i WASHmc.nm. nc snees figures II-1 and II-2. i
\
ER 72/895 gp g , yg .. i h) We suggest that the words "less tangible" on page II-11 paragraph 3 be omitted. They serve no purpose and may i j SEP20 g ** 5 I y sa s,., be misleading. t%e gh8g Archaeology and History
Dear Mr. Muller The proposed construction of Nuclear One,
Unit 2 will 4 not adversely affect any proposed or known potential _ units This is in response to your letter of July 21, 1972, of the National Park System, or any known historic, requesting our comments on the Atomic Energy Coussission't natural or environmental education sites eligible or j draf t statement, dated July 1972, on environmental considered potentially eligible for the National Land-j considerations for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2, Pope County, Arkansas. mark Program. However, a similar statement cannot be made for the 3,700 acres of rights-of-way for transmission W ! General lines without a more detailed evaluation of their location. Research has demonstrated that the Arkansas River Valley $ The Geological Survey has previously reviewed the geology contains abundant remains of a long range of Indian occupation. l of ,the proposed site with respect to safety aspects of j o ti and provided the Atomic Energy Commission Consequently, we recommend that the relationship between j j the applicant and the Arkansas Archaeological Survey be
- Many environmental concerns are alleviated by the use continued, that the Survey complete the necessary field of a cooling tower for Unit 2 however, we still have work on the enlargement of the emergency reservoir and
, some concerns. Our comments n regard to the adequacy on the transmission line rights-of-way, and that the final of the statement are presented in the following para- envimnaental statement reflect the results of the field graphs according to the format of the statement or accord, work. ing to specific subjects.
- Location of Plant It is stated on page III-21 that an estimated 15,000 !
j The last paragraph on page II-1 states that the Corps pounds per day of sulfuric acid for scale control will . of Engineers' easement is not expected to affect recrea. be added to the cooling tower circuit. Although it is I tional use of the reservoir shores. We suggest that in stated that no fMe acid will be discharged to the i order to insure this, the exclusion fences should be reservoir, we suggest that the pH of the discharge water placed well back from the shore and should not exclude should be given and its effect on the aquatic life bank or boat fisherman from any part of the public shore. discussed in the final statement. line and discharge canal except as may be necessary during emergencies and for public safety. Egress for Although the blowdown from the co 6 ing tower is only , i bank fisheruan should be provided around or over the about 3 11 cfs, and the maximum concentration in the l discharge canal. Road access and parking should be condenser effluent will be about 1 ppa, we think that
, provided along both sides of the discharge canal. sin u chlorine is known to be toxic to aquatic life, the ! statenant should discuss means and measures that could Land and Pesource Use be employed to eliminate free chlorine from the effluent. [ , . i ', The statement could be improved by including more infor- -
nation on esisting and potential recreation areas along i and adjacent to the new transmission lines. This could ; 2
! ,a;131 i
! E-145 4
. - - , _ _ . , ~ _ -
g.50 E-U Transmission Lines to the collection and disposal of fish and other debris and accumulations on the cooling water intake screens. According to the information on pages IV-2 through IV-5, The manner of disposal of this material should be the applicant is taking reasonable precautions to insure described on page V-10. that the environmental effects are adequately protected during construction. We think that the statement could General Considerations and Tramework of Dose Estimations be further improved by the inclusion of information on how these lines will be constructed and maintained. It is stated on pages V-18 and V-24 that liquid radioactive Erosion control, selective forestry practices, fish and wastes entering the main body of the reservuir will be wildlife development proposals, plans for revegetating reduced by a dilution factor of 42 based on the average i denuded areas, and public access for fishing and hunting discharge of 36,000 cfs through the reservoir. Because , and related recreational uses should be discussed. of the potential for recirculation, the statement should include determination of dilution based on a minimum Biological Impact discharge. We concur with the AEC staff that continuous monitoring of liquid radioactive waste concentrations
- Bureau of Fish and Wildlife" in the first paragraph of in front of the discharge structure would be more useful page V-7 should be corrected to read, " Bureau of Sport than calculated concentrations.
Fisheries and Wildlife." Environmental Impact of Postulated Accidents It is recognized on page V-10 that an intake velocity of 2.0 fps for dilution water through the Unit 1 intake This section contains an adequate evaluation of impacts screens could result in a significant loss of fish due to resulting f rom plant accidents through Class a for air-impingement against intake screens, especially since fish borne emissions. However, the environmental effects of may be unabla to swim against the current in the intake releases to water is lacking. Many of these postulated canal. A discussion of alternative designs should be accidents listed in Table VI-2 could result in releases included in the environmental statement which could be to the Dardanelle Reservoir and should be evaluated in implemented if unacceptable damage occurs to the fish detail. and other aquatic life due to impingement and entrapment. Generally, we think that intake velocities greater than We also think that Class 9 accidents resulting in releases 0.5 fps could cause significant and unacceptable damage to both air and water should be described and the impacts to fish resources. on human life and the remaining environment discussed as long as there is any possibility of occurrence. The We concur with the AEC staff opinion expressed in para- consequences of an accident of this severity could have graph 5, page V-15 that the biological sampling program far-reaching effects on land and in the Arkansas River should be expanded. The expanded biological sampling which could persist for centuries affecting millions of program should be conducted for at least one year prior people. to initial operation of each unit in order to determine the incremental effects of each unit and the cumulative Solid Radioactive Wastes impact of the two-unit plant. Entrainment and Impingement It is suggested that more details be given on emergency procedures for maximum containment of low-level wastes and for minimum contamination of personnel under the Consideration is given in the draft statement to the circumstances where a severe accident might result in possibility of a large number of fish being killed in i the cooling water intakoss however, no reference is made a 3 E-146
E-52 the spill of low-level wastes. The third paragraph on page VI-7 could be expanded to include this additional information. We hope these comments will be helpful to you in the prwparation of the final environmental statement. Sincerely ours,
. W Denty Assistant Secretary of the In rior Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Environmental Pmjects Directorate of Licensing U.' S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 i
E-147
l I APPENDIX F
SUMMARY
OF FISH COLLECTIONS FROM ANO-UNIT 1 INTAKE SCREENS DURING THE PERIOD JUNE 10, 1974 - JULY 29, 1975 Species Number Weight (lbs) Dorosoma petenense 15,634,090 2'4,662 D. cepedianum 748,581 12,680 Aplodinotus grunniens 14,621 474 Ictalurus punctatus 7,228 136 I. Furcatus 6,864 88 Menidia audens 4,661 39 Pomoxis annularis 4.030 195 Morone chrysops 1,424 61 Lepomis macrochirus 211 11 L. cyane11us 189 2 Pomoxis nigromaculatus 111 12 Ictiobus bubalus 89 16 Labidesthes sicculus 85 <0.5 Notemigonus crysoleucas 85 1 Notropis blennius 52 0.5 Pimephales notatus 46 <0.5 Alosa chrysochloris 45 18 Carplodes carpio 44 12 Tilapia sp. 40 ~ 10 Ichthyomyzon castaneus 32 4 Lepomis regalotis 29 1 L. humilis 25 <0.5 Ictaturus melas 25 0.5 Pylodictis olivaris 18 1 Cyprinus carpio 15 38 Micropterus salmoides 8 2 Stizostedion canadense 5 1 Polyodon spathula 4 2 Lepisosteus ossens 2 2 Morone saxatilis 2 <0.5 Hlodon alosoides 1 1 Ictalurus natalis 1 <0.1 Lepisosteus platostomus 1 1 Lepomis microlophus 1 <0.1 Percina caprodes 1 <0.1 Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 1 <0.1 F-1
. ~ - . . _ . =_ . - . - . . , . . . . ~. _-
d i t i i i APPENDIX G
, Results of Staff Calculations of Salt Drift Deposition, Induced Fogging and Salt Aerosol Concentration from Operation of a Natural ? Oraft Cooling Tower at Arkansas Unit 2.
l The results of the staff's calculations for the natural draf t cooling tower are presented as
- Figures G-1 through G-9. The drift levels are presented in grams per square meter. To convert these numbers to pounds per acre, simply multiply by 8.9. All distances are given in miles. The concentration of salt in air represents averages over the period indicated for each graph and are given in micrograms per cubic meter. The ORFAO computer program was used for staff calculations.
'The following parameters were used in these calculations:
Height of tower (meters) 136.86
! Range (F degrees) 30.70 Water / Air. Ratio 1.60 ! Inner Radius (meters) 40.06 j Efflux Speed (m/s) - 4.47 HeatOut(megacal/s) '
446.00 I Drift Fraction .0001 Latitude 35.18
. Longitude 93.13 i Elevation (feet) 347.00 AerosolHeight(meters) 4.00 The program utilized NOAA meteorological data from Little Rock, Arkansas. ? The salinities in the cooling tower basin were calculated from monthly average reservoir salln-i ities measured at Station Numter 3 (ER-OL), Appendix 2A, Station 3). Only June, July, and j August values were selected by staff since they represented the only significant chloride values
( for potential vegetative damage. The following cooling tower water basin salintties values were
! used in this model assuming an average concentration of 7:
1 June 570 ppm Nacl
) July 490 ppm Nacl August 665 ppm Nacl l In Section 5.4.1.1 it was stated that current published data indicate that selective vegttation i damage may occur from salt deposition ranging from 10-20 lbs. NaC1/ acre / month. The data generated a from the staff's model indicate that the predicted salt damage from Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 i natural draft cooling tower will not cause any unacceptable damage to either onsite or offsite ! vegetation.
The additional hours of fogging based upon the ORFAD model indicate that there will be little additional fogging due to cooling tower operation. 2 l l G-1
, j r ; 'Yi.' .!
mh 0 3 5 3 _ 00Sy4 \
\ (
y y 05Tg4 g _ 7 3.I. g0
\ l _
gW,.. 0 000p0 0 /, . s l234S u s s \
\
\
i - { p /
/
\ f
\ 0 l '
g s
%'s 4
5 1 , o s
/ , -
G % s' % 0 r e - ' O s s s
- p F * 's
%'t ,j ", s
% /
F - _ O . N '
~
's* .
s s. R-
~ -
. - , R S -
' , 1 ,
R ~
- - . -
- T U - ~ - ~
~
- - mR3 O 0-
,8 D
~
* - If w1
. H - ~ w .
~
., N .
_- - - T
- ~
,- - % E 2 * , ~ - % N G ,
O G s R - e r ""a\ - l/ l -;L ,*
%' s A E
,s x u
g /
- s Y
i
\
e e'o _ 0 s N
- F g s s s 0
, g
/ ' 1
. / ,
/
I 0 I \ \"
, 4 05 l8W-(5i i # -
8
\
s R
- / \ E
/
y 0 g W 0 ;i j 5
\
\
\
O 5 'q T
- \ iff I (
I i
\
g I
/
0 7 T
\
g 0
/
2 F
\ 0 ,
,.,em3 6 R
\ , .n .$ R a gs \
i' i - i y r q f 5 3 1 t n.a2L D
% y s g 0 / /
s s .
- / L
% - i a 4 '
i,3.* A - s
- g r
o a
# , R
~ U s' s s
s
, T s' ,
R s' ,
' jl - T N - ,.' s' .'
l
, F
- a -
- - ,' , * , I n
.N s
s
~-
- D R 2
~
~ ~
~ .
_ T
- ~ '
F V-
~ / i
,0
,0 O I
N
- 1
- - U p
_. m/ - e
~
~
, T
, N
/{.
- . ~
_ ~ - ~ _/- - .,
- U O
- f. ,'
' O N
-- /- 4 .
- s M A
. /
'j - ,.
R
- # i o. 's,\ ' s' %
E I g
%' s' s
N
- ' /, s 0 ss U
l 5 s J
- , ,,! n' ,
/ s
/ /
4 \
\' h l
p y
,# y g
0 0 t st t G
', I
,f s ) s\ s e s r
/ \
\ u g
I 0 \ i 1 9 \ f g
>,,q. I \
\ F
.s '
' l l.:i ,'
< :1} . h
$f M:u ...a4. .med -Si.h. 2..,- A. S ha.- eoa,,u .t__..,e m -_p.4 ,, .jy. su...z_,,.a ,J_,_3. a 4 ,,r_ __ 4 ,
I l' G-3 t b f f i T r & C ~,' O -. . d e
- LLI E*2E Por r 99*a=E
~~aaa J
T . T .. LLl p , - o$. a f % O p e / o %
/ O 1 N
/
a *E A
\ m
* = * \ a i ge ,# we %
i l j /
,e e' (a in 's \ Z l /
/
/ '" T~ s,'s ,,
N s -
- 4-i / ,
*, \
\ T ,. ,
l / e , s s \
/ /
g 's s \ Z~ i H / /
,' , .A - s % \ H t
g i - g \
% ,,'s f , *, g T y o ,*
. g H i g e '
s _J a l l l ' ; ,%, t \ g
' \
I I l \ t a 4 > s , % W i J I : # / i
\
i t. i i C g { i
- g. I .
+ - I. i i:
3i '
' , j .
> i-
) w1 s t l l I q C s ', . . i : , e 1 2 \ \ '
l I I e l ] \
\ \ \
; I I y . '
l N s Ns 's, g ,*
/ f I
.5?
j \ \
.._ ,.g..**', s / / LA.
H \ \ s e / /
! - g N 's ~ '
," /
/
I 2 's, * ,o' '
/
i D s s
....# - /
1 N / i s e / J
\ * '
s /.
.\ - g /%
.\ %
* . .. , ._ - - " s /
/
% /
% /
% /
i
% g p 4
g '- .. ;. 90 o I l I 4 E i i i 1 .f v 1 .i d
a i+ , l Ic L 0 5 0 3 I , g y
\ l l
,m
, \ 1
,4 \ /
, 4 /
0 0 i
,g 8 \' 0 i
, g l
.(i: i 5 t y
\
\
\ 1 ;
/
/ n
,i.* \ /
N s 0 - s 5 /, , G g
g g 8i 1a a o O s s a$ e s i / R F '
r 0 s i
- T 0 # /
F % % , , A O r g6* :i*
,;o , 's D
~
s' ' s G
' = , - ,
S ,
- 5 0
'o - ..
T R ~
- E U -
, ,~
O ~
~ .
^ - -
. M s' H -
~
~
r
' i. ,. , ,
a . ,, ,0 R 0-l l R
, i .
. - i
.J
. . r -
. .. E 5- - ., ., -
~ Y e.,
G - , ;- N
, . s .
- 0 er 1
u ,
'- ,s, ,~ *%
i F g h0g, 0 s R e 'p ~ %
- /
~ E
** 0 5 \
\
% W
/ 8 e: (5 s
s O
' s T
, s 4 \ t _
5 / 0
\
\
- T
_ 1 # 4 0. g \ \ \ F 3 I : S
/ A
/
\
N R 0 0 5 g D _ 0 I \ \ 9 5 l lq g
\ A
\ I 1. j g
,l L
\
\ !
l g A N 0
/
f y g 005 052ns R
% 0 / 100os o
U
, s ', i.( f / 5 809oe T
g / s
\
\
9', / 3 1 A N ,s -. 0 5 1
/
/
/ tf3 5 N
.s / /
g s s ', .
.}a/ /
/
2
% , o! /
/
% s s
* / T T
~ ..
,' , ' F I s
,' i -; y r/ / ', # ,
I N s R U
, D s #., e, ,
s ~ / # . F O
\g- .
* . ~
- O N r .
. . ~ 0 T R
_' - 0
- s N
- 1
~
- U Y N ~
. ~ L
. ' 5
' * . - O U
' N M J s * % ~
R s , ' g j 0 g
\
- m
. - , , *l 0 g', *
.- - e - , % 4-
/ %
- / ,
s G e '. (g'i, s s e
/ /,
s l s. s s s
\5 N
i r u g
\
m//, \2 2 0 F i I II .
- 0. &',\ \
3 g _. 'e / i 0 \
\
g
\
_ f 5 \
$g \
_ I .h'\ i
.n
A JULY ANO, UNIT 2 NATURAL 0 DRAFT TOWER 10 YERR MET. DRTR
,"'~~~,
~
/
s' %
/ .
\
/ ,- ' % N 95 g3
/ ,' % \
/ i \
p ,', . - - ~~~. \
/
/ / j ,
** '~, \ \
' 'g \
/ j ,
/ \ \
/ s
/
f ,'
, *,, -,' s j ,e ,- s, g \
g , s \ l l 4 , 's ', \ \ q g
,'y l .- -
's s \
g l ' 's s
# , , / / 4 h '. $
t I c) I : ,'] [ . . I i ,
\ \ % s 8 , , f y
\ \ %, bl ,'
, p' !
/
\ g 's '+ ,, ,,, f f /
\ \ e / /
\ %~ '
s' '
/ y
\ ,,' ;
\ %,.. .- ,/ f
\ ' / 0.025
\/
, , ,s
's -
3 0.012 s - n. . o..
.mo*
s s
~
s -
% p
~~~~~~. .
na Figure G-6 SALT IN RIR
=
M
0
, . ~~
, b
/ -
\
. s ,,
sn5 ,- ~, x N Figure G-8 j'
- , - s, 's HOURS OF FOG i .- , . .
, s s s
/ ,e' 'N 's \
/ , -
'i 's \
\
\
j i ,, \ 0 t 6 i ~. . \
- -y > e. w .
t i , s s g g
- ~~ %
5 0.03r 0.01s f ,
. /i,3 ,
s s
! ,J , A r
\= < i s
i 1 - , , s
,I I ' -s ' ' ' ** \ 95
. t I 315 f -
i ,1 % s 1 . W I 2 ~ M i / - 's s
- q. 5 0 3 00 . 0 .00 .5 I,e[_ . [ g. 00 f.'f0
,/ ,, , _ .
's \
g 's s ,_ /, # ' / ,-
'y 's s l g ,
f l i
\
\
\s '
l I t t ,' / p' ,
',-', , , . . i l ,,)
a, s f
\ \ \'
,e ,/ f
/ / i i s i
'- \ o
\ \ , p I '
l '
\ 's % \ $
/
\ \ % ,e ,r /
I ' o ; & s s,
\
t r , o o , , g
~
s
~~~~ ,' / l -: : : : - '.
, i s s , 270 ---,n- .;--, m s 7- 7 . ,3 Ith g 's, '
/ 135
,* I* N hS8 j
, ,f * 'I ,
% , \ g a I
~
s s' \ ' l l ! l
, g m
,s y o I l
' ~ ~ - , " ' f 1 0. 100 I '- / /
g f 180 0.090 \ t 3 0. 325 \ \
\ -
... f f 8 0.012 ,' # /
g \ 5 0.006 's
- i i e
/
/
/
\ g ,
,# /
\ .
\ w i
/
s i s / s i i - Figure G-7 AMOUNT OF DRIFT s - - {l ,- s s , i
- - J..__. 190 RUGUST RNO, UNIT 2 NATURAL DRAFT TOWER 10 YEAR MET. DATR
AUGUST ANO, UNIT 2 NATURAL 0 DRAFT TOWER 10 YERR MET. DATR
,, ~~~~,
- s
/
/ \
33, ,e ,
- - - ,. ', s <s
~
/ s' % \
s %
,/ ,' , .. - ~., \
e ,- \, s f , i ,'
, ~, s \
\ \
/
,/ ,
, s s s g i
/
~
\
s
\
t g i ; o ,. ~, s, t \ l ! ! l '
% '\,
\
8 l , _ i o
- q. s o s. c o
- k. ' k. h.s h{t.co ,. o 4 00 j.'s o t \ 's,
'\, %'/ ,
l
\ \ \ \ l , l l
\ ' '
s \ s, ~ ~,,j % ,-,' ,r I
\ i /
... ... - f
\ # / /
\ ' '
\ ,
f
\ 's # ,/
\ \ '%, <t /
\ N ' . . .. ,, / f
\ % e /
/ s , 3 0.040 II g g
'=-- -
,- p
/ 135 l 8
kh s ,f i 0...0 0.?
's ~, ,-
~~____. _._-
ISO Figure G-9 SRLT IN RIR h
1 APPEN'JIX H NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM AUTHORIZATION FOR ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE H-1
l l A. EFFLUENT LITIITATIONS AND S10NITORING REQUIREMENTS Dunne the period tennmg effective date end lastme throuch the expiration of this permit, the rerm.ttee is atoonzed to d.< harce from cutt.cfm wrul numterti) 001, once through cooling water and pervicusly menitored effluents. Sch 6 4 harp , sh di te 1,mtt.-a amt mmutored by the twrmitLee as sectifu4 twlow: Ff%nt Our u ten tv Diu bare. I.im t itum, hf anitorine Rcqmrements hg' day (11=l day) Ouier Umts (S imcify I btcasurement Sample Daily Asg Daily klas Dady Ang Daily hfan Frequency Type Flow-m tDay IMCD) 3 - - (1140) (1145) Continuous Rotord Te peratare N/A N/A 43.6'(105'F) 43.3*C(110*F) Contiousus Record Free Avalleble chlorire** N/A N/A 0.2 rg/l 0.5 mg/l 1/ Week Grab
*!nstantaneous ManirNm.
**5ee Part !!!.
4 The pH sha:t not be he than N/A standard units nor rrester tha" N/A standard units and sha!! be monitored gjg
= ,
There sha:1 be no dwharge of floatmi: sohds or visiNe foam in ether than trace amounts, I > Samph taken m comptmcc with the momtonrc requirements specif.cd above shall he taken at the follomng locatson(s): ru - At Outfall 001 where cece thrcush coolirig mater and previously monitored effluents discharge %' to tre canal. g 80 M
~
e- N 8 :E O 4 4 4 R
#5 n
7,. - h 0 S a u
< $' 3 o e J ? Q R
w 4 7o * ' o
.I- H _
o ** . ca / o z$ t $ U e e $; *0 2 *t w. 8 .so - gz u y $,3
% N H
as i i aa
- a n
e
=
Wm: N3 3 - R 3 - t3 k"U
; ii.'
3
- 5-a 8
- 2 -
3~ V 5 5. C*
.a t n G - b ; ;
- 2' i'A S
$$ T %
c t C $ S a ,@ .
"M " ,
a a c* s E5 s i E84 2 g ' M . vn - 2*n - E*; e a 9
$Q .se E .5; ; i. 08 -
b
<g sa :=.
lei'-. tEds ii :; ; = 2 33 ticaa
; Ed*
e i.; 4 3 : { eg F as <ms g <mm 3' R, u .E g5 g 54
<x ee SS-
- 7 c:
M o ,[ m ,V E a e.et
} 5 E
8 t* a M $ 3m 63 -3 ye 2 'E 5 a E c3 3 2 e "u a- T .s c =$.E E 3 7 e-
$ tJ E ! Pg g - , 5 i b
s.e . s ss ka t s :;
A. EFFLtlENT LIMITAT10NS AND MONITofitNG REQUtitEMENTS Durmg the per.od begmnme 7-l-77 and 1.sstmg thr +ch the expiratiors of this permit. the permittM is a athorned to discharge from outfal1(s) serial number (s) 001. Iow-volurie waste water.* Such dischar;es sril be hmited and momtored by the perm Ltce as specMed below: FfScat (%racterut < Dm-harge f amitatias Momtoricg itequirements kg' day (Ibs d W~ duMr Umts (Specify) mg/l eg/l Measurement Sample Daaly Avg Daly Mu D ly Avg Daily Max Frequency Type Fk, -m 3, Day WCD) - - - - Daily Average Estimate Total Suspe-ded Solids N/A N/A 30 100 1/ week Grab 011 and Grease N/A N/A 15 20 1/ week Grab
'See Part !!!
he r!! sh41 not be less than 6.0 standard umts nor creater than 9,o st.andard umts and sha:1 he momtored 1/ week ty grab sa71e. , , 5%
- There sha!! be no dub.vge of floatmg sohds or emble foam m other than u.ce amounts. I j Sam?cs turn in cwrhuce with the momeonrg requirementi srec3rd abose sha!! be taken at the follom,cglocation(s):
r.- D At sa ple point CI A where low-volurm waste water is discharged prior to mixing with any other waste strean 8; 9 M m
~.
4 A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITO:llNG REQUtitEMFNTS Durier the per.od beennrg ef fective date and tutmg through E-33-77 the per-.ttee in authenu d to dsharge from nutfar.(4.cmi numtxtts>0G1 low-vnlume Waste Water *. Such d.scharg:s sha:1 be Lmitcd and mon:tored by the pernttee as smesed tw4nw: FfNect aaractembe Dm ka ce Limitations Monitormg Requirements kg/ day (Ibs/ day i owr Umts (Specify) mg/l mig /l Meawrement Sam ple Dady Avg Daily Ma Daly Avg Daily Maa Frequency Type Flow-m /3 Day (MCD) - - - - Dally Average Estimate Total Sus; ended S-lids N/A N/A N/A N/A 1/ Week Grab 011 and Greese N/A N/A N/A N/A 1/ Week Grab
*See Part !!!.
The pit sha!! cot be less than N/A stand 4 umts nor gvester than N/A standard units and sha 1 be monitored 1/ week by grab sanle. , There sha'l be no am harge of flostmg schds or viuble foam in other than trace amounts. I{ [ 5g g s- . fr
$ampics At Sarple tden in comphance Point 01 A where wah the momtonne low-volu-:e requiremcets waste water skwifprior s discharged cd above to minshaft he 1 any alienoater th[ng,Ilonai=
gt 4 dg IncatiDre P waste strea'i. 8 NG 8
~
A. EFFLt'ENT LDt!T ATIONS AND MONITORINC IIEQt1RDtENTS During the per:cd tv pnn:eg 7-0l-77 and lastmg through the expiration of this permit, the prim.ttee is authonzcd to dm harp
- from outfa!!(s) wrial numtvr(s) 001 cooling tower blowdown.
Such d.s%rp s shM1 t e hmited and momtored by the swrmittee as specif:cd below: EfNc9t 0,arwter stic thub e 1senh S ms Momtormg Requirements kgMay (Ibs/d.n ) &Jwr Umts (Sawify) klenurement Sample Daly Avg Dady Max D,u!y Avg Dady Max F requency Type Flow-m 3Day iMCD) - - - - Daily Average [ stimate The pH ska!! cet be less than 6.0 swiaard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored 1/ week by grab sacple. There shi: be no d.sa hvge of flcatmg so!ds or unt4e foam m other than trace amounts. I$ 5 [ $ g as - Sam;O takm en compli2nce with the mimitonrg requiremrets specified ahose shall he taken at the follom,rg location (s)- p, At Sa ole rcirt 013 w%re ccoling tower blemdewn is dischargd prior to pising with any other g' waste stren- 8 ," O_
~ r
-E A. EFTLL'ENT LD !TATIONS AND MONITORING REQL1REMENTS Dur r.g the penod bepnmet ef fe:tive date and !ntmC through 6-30-77, the perm:: tee is authonred to d.sdurge from outfal:(s) scr:al numberts) C'J1 cooling tower blowdovn.
Such d:sch rps sh41 be I.mited and m.m:tored by the perm:ttee as spectf;cd below: EfLent O var *crwhc Dacharfe tam;tstions Monitonng Requirements kg ' day (lbsl day) Otner Umts (Specify) Measurement Sample Dady Avg DaJy Max Daaly Avg Daily Max Frequency Type Flow-m 3iDay (MCD) - - - - Daily Average Estima te lhe pli sh41 not be less than f!/A standard units nor greater than M/A standard unita and sha!! be monitored 1/ week ty grab sample. , There shall be no discharge of floating soLds or vinble foam in other than trace amounts. Samples t . ken in corrrliance with the momtanne requirements specif;cd above sha!! he taken at the fo!!owing location (s): g.$ g At Savle Point OD where cooling tower blowtun is discharged pr.or to mixing with any other $* waste stream. g. eu
s. mU
~O ] N* 3E
- Nio i"!
g -, e o ti u
- M O
{
~; [i IWt2 8.h
- ssa:
. . g 3
a E m .Eg I a
- . ;: u. a. fi.
b t% $ $ m
-a , Eg'u E 5"E t
7 $ E E.Ep "$ j
** t s ~
$ . . . RRR RRAM 4R.Ua
. 6 4 nem ~ neums ~ v Ik2 mugs 2' E3 =xv.g
} igE 2 E ki! 5 E
- 2a *; 5yC"[
yj
- w xcENE S E S t g. u "2 Ee-i- i .]
5 *2?"h2; Gv w .S ( *%U2cOS "E$~6 d y2E "t S"22; h.532
< *i ..;asse:- Ined8 3 54 EE1U'"fS*
E is AA'*%%%* JEE$E
. t j e !-
8 25 6 tg EEDY ED*
" " c 8 "E "* " e -
"*- U g6 0*g o
je g= %%2 -- % SE%2'E a e t S .* E 4 4 4 a a 3 g s ane b E" u E [* s 2; anu i35:sge s""E ;; u *3 W Ms ESOd OE04 a z ! E.eo 5 m" g e4 d Lrs e
- r A. ETFLt'ENT LD:!TATIONS AND StONITORING REQt'IRD!ENTS Dur.ng the penod bernnmg ef fective date and lastmg through the expiration of this permit.
the perm;ttee is author. zed to d.sc harge from outfa!!(s) senal number (s) 002, treated sanftary sewage effluents. Sah d.scharges shMI be 1.mited and monitored by the permitec as specifu4 below: EfNent Osruunmc Discharge I.amitations blonitonng Requirements kg/ day (fbs/ day ) OuVer Units (Specify) g/l mg/) &feasurement Sample DaJy Avg Da.ly hfax Daay Avg Daily Stax Frequency Type flow-m / Day otcD) 3 - - - - cally A,erage Estimate B00 5 N/A N/A 30 45 1/ week Grab Total Suspended Solids N/A N/A 30 45 1/ week Grab Fecal Co11 form N/A N/A 200/100 al* 400/100 ml 1/=eek Grab
- Fecal coliform count shall be calculated as geometric mean.
The pH shal1 not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and sha!! be monitored 1/ week by grab sample. I {, > There shall be no discharge of Do'atir.C sohds or visible foam in other than trace amounts. E $ y~ - Samp!cs taken in comphance with the mon:toring reqmrements specified above shall be taken at the fo!!oming location (s): L At outfall 002 where the sanitary sewer line discharges. E g-'" o 4
. .}}