ML20209C929
| ML20209C929 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 05/04/1984 |
| From: | Johnston W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1454 NUDOCS 8405170416 | |
| Download: ML20209C929 (24) | |
Text
.
n
]
DISTRIBUTION:
/ Dockets MAY s 7054 EHEB Rdg EHEB File Docket No. 50-500 i
e
!!DiORANDUli FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing. DL FROM:
William V. Johnston, Assistant Director lhterials Chenical t. Environnental Technology, DE
SUBJECT:
WPPSS-3: RESP 0flSES TO DES CDfTENTS AND FES INPUT
,BY THE ENVIR0iPENTAL ENGINEERING SECTION, EHEB l'
Attached, as per request fron Cecrge Knighton dated't' arch 2h,1904, are the responses to DES comments and FES input on acuatic and terrestrial resources and water quality prepared by the Enviromental Engineering Section of EHEB.
Attached, also, are narked DES pages that indicate typos and placenent of text changes resulting from the public comments.
The applicant's comments identified as WNP-3-1 and llNP-3-3 inply that they will be providing additional infomation. This infomation should be obtained before publication of the FES.
This review was perfomed by Clarence Hickey, Gemain LaRoche, and Fobert Samworth.
t
/5/
llillian V. Johnston, Assistant Director l'aterials, Chanical t Environmental Technology
.e Division of Eqineering Attachments:
As stated cc:
G. Knighton R. Dallard R. Samerth G. M
. itckey
[
8405170416 840504
/
S ADOCK 05000508 5f)*
P (See attached for previous concurrences.)
~ ~ ~
Wi 1
"""lDE: EHEB.....DE.:.EHEB..
..DE; EHEB..
..D E i
. DE;fDMCET...j..
.).
.. Vhohns.to.n...j.
l
?""*;CRHickey:ws..
..GL,aRoche.
...RBSamwo rth..
...Rt.Ba...ard.
W
""qsazs4..
..sz../84..
.1..s/..../84...
. su-/.84 s/.gs4..
..l.
hmnewe.=m -
nstggravvunera=reuaam
',m
~)
DISTRIBUTION:
DockIts EHEB Rdg EHEB File i
Docket o. 50-508 HB10RANDUM R: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL FRCN:
William V. Johnston, Assistant Director i
aterials, Chenical A Environmental Technology, DE J
SUBJECT:
HPPSS-3: RESPONSES TO DES C0?'ItEtiTS AND FES If1PUT BY E ENVIR0ff* ENTAL E!!GINEERIflG SECTION, EHEB
\\
Attached, as per recisest from George Knighton dated t' arch 29, 1984, are the g
responses to DES comentstand FES input on aquatic and terrestrial resources and water quality preparedsby the Enviromental Engineering Section of EHEB.
Attached, also, are marked DES pages that indicate typos and placenent of text changes resulting fran the public coments.
\\
This review was perfomed by Clarence Hickey, Gemain LaRoche, and Robert Samworth.
\\
\\
\\
\\
t
\\ lifiliam V. Johnston, Assistant Director
'l'atcrials Chenical & Environnental l
\\ Technology Division of Engineering Attachments:
\\
As stated cc:
G. Knighton R. Ballard i
R. Sarworth G. LaRoche C. Hickey I
l*"'" *J C
, EHE DE:EHEB DE:EHEB IDE:ADMCET GM y. s.
R
.h
...f., RLBah h.ard.hhohnston.,_,
S
.4/20/84....
.4/18/84_
.4/N/B4..
.h.4/../84...
. 4/..../84....
irc ronu na no se nacu ono OFFICIAL RECOR D COPY U
'~
l' Responses to Comments on the llNP-3 DES Department of the Army i
DA-1 Response - NRC staff acknowledges that Department of the Army permits are required by the applicant for performance of work in navigable waters of the United States.
Section 12 of the ER-dl lists the Section 10 and Section 404 permits issued by the Corps of Engineers to the applicant during the period 1977 through 1981.
Future work of a similar type will require subnittal of the appropriate applications to the Corps of Engineers prior to initiating new projects on the waters surrounding the site.
DA 3 and DA 4a - Both conment on the impact of chemical discharges on river sedime~nts and on bioaccumulation.
DA 3 mentions specifically chlorinated organics as being of concern.
Response - There are no extensive data available on bio-accumulation of chlorinated organics or on accumulation in sediment.
Anderson, et al (Chronic 0
~
Effects of Chlorination By-Products on Rainbow Trout, Salmo cairdneri, D. R. Ande' ion, R. M. Bean, R. E. Schirmer, PNL, published by NRC as r
NUREG/CR-0892, PNL-3045, November,1980), studied long tenn exposure of trout to chlorine and found no evidence of an increased amount of chloroform or other chlorinatio'n by-products.
Anderson and Lusty (Acute Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Chloroform to Feur Species of Freshwater Fish, D. R. Anderson and E. B. Lusty,
,7
~
PNL, published by NRC as NUREG/CR-0893, PNL 3' 46, August,1980) reported that 0
" accumulation of chloroform was less than one order of magnitude above water concentrations for all species."
R. M. Bean (Organonalogen Products from Chlorination of Cooling Water at Nuclear Power Station', PNL, published by NRC as NUREG/CR-3408. PNL-4788, October,1983) reported from studies at eight nuclear power units at seven locations in the U.S. as follows:
" Analysis of sediment samples for organohalogen material suggests that certain chlorination L
products may accumulate in sediments, although no tissue bioaccumulation could be demonstrated from analysis of a limited number of samples."
7 DA 4b proposes that waterborne contaminants be measured in sediments as well as in the flowing water.
Response
.The final determination of the content of the monitoring program is in the purview of the State of Washington under the NPDES program.
However, in light of the response to the above comment and in recognition of the high cost of measuring concentrations of these trace substances, it is not likely that monitoring of chlorinated hydrocarbons will be justifiable.
DA 4c proposes that baseline data on sediment chemistry be collected so that monitoring and effluents limits can be established.
Response - The responsibility for final determination of non-radiological acuatic Z
monitoring requirements and effluent limits rests with the State of Washington, w
_-----umim n"
(3 Howevar, based on the results of NRC sponsored research identified above, baseline (preoperational) sediment chemistry data are not of value for estab-lishing monitoring and effluent limits for chlorinated organics.
Washington Public Power Supply System WNP-3-1 Response - If the amended ER-OL Figure 2.1-1 is subnitted in time it will be included in the FES.
WNP-3-3 Response - Construction laydown area is not shown in DES Figure 4.2 which was obtained from the applicant.
If applicant submits a new figure showing the location of this laydown area, the text at the bottom of p. 4-1 of DES can be amended.
WNP-3-4 Response - The tex't has been modified to reflect the use of potassium chromate.
1 WNP-3-5 Response - The text has been modified.
WNP-3-6 Response - No response needed.
i I
l WNP-3-7 Response - Sentence added.
T WNP-3-10 Response - Sentence added to text.
WNP-3-ll
~
Response - The last paragraph of Section 5.3.1 has been revised to incorporate the bioassay studies conducted by the applicant to satisfy General Condition G.29 of the NPDES Pennit.
Text Change:
the last paragraph of DES Section 5.5.1 (p. 5-3) should be revised to read as follows:
"The State required that the applicant perform bioassay studies to determine the adequacy of the requirements for copper, and for 71nc.
The applicant completed the studies in September 1983 and submitted the draft report (Davis, et al.,1983*) to the State.
The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council has reviewed and accepted the study (by resolution during March 1984) as having satisfied General Condition G.29 of the NPDES Pennit for WNP-3.
The study found that the long-term no-effect levels for exposure to copper and zinc in the Chehalis River
~
Davis, W., III, T. E. Northstrom, G. S. Jeane, and J. E. Mudge. 1983.
" Toxicity of copper, zinc, and their chemical forms to coho salmon and steelhead trout in the Chehalis River, Washington".
Washington Public Power Supply System.
.q
-\\
, e were: 18 g/l of copper and 220 g/l of zinc for coho salmon; and 24 g/l of copper and 59 g/l of zine for steelhead trout.
The no-effect level of 7 g/l of copper noted in the previous paragraph, therefore, is conservatively low.
The State allowable discharge concentrations of 65 g/l and 30 g/l of copper appear to be adequate, given dilution with river flows.
WNP-3-13 Response - The last sentence of the second paragraph of DES Section 4.3.4.2 was a conclusion rather than descriptive and has been deleted from this FES.
The conclusions regarding the relocation of the diffuser discharge and the impacts to fishes are found in FES Section 5.5.2.2.
WNP-3-14 Response - Section 4.3.4.2 of this FES discusses the fisheries of the WNP-3 site vicinity. Angler surveys conducted by the applicant during the period 1978 through 1981 are summarized in the "1981 Environmental Monitoring Program" report prepared by Envirosphere Company in 1982 (see FES Section 4.4 for list l
of references). The mean number of anglers observed per weekday (by month) during the four survey years are shown in Figure 5-2 of that report, which i
l shows a range of about 0.2 to 26.4 anglers per day (as per applicant's comment).
For the uonths of msfor salmon fishing activity (August through l
November), Figure 5-2 shows the mean number of anglers per weekday to have ranged from about 2-18.
During the period of major steelhead fishing i
(December through March), the mean number of anglers ranged from about 1
i
'T 2-26 per day. The angler surveys conducted during December 1977 through liarch 1978 (Envirosphere Company,1978; Figure 3-9), showed the total number of anglers counted in the study area to have ranged from near zero to a high of about 50.
The majority of those anglers were fishing for steelhead.
FES Section 4.3.4.2 is revised to reflect these numbers.
WNP-3-15 Response - This comment provides additional information concerning the wildlife management plan, but does not require a change in DES Sections 5.2.1 and 5.5.1.
WNP-3-30 Response - Staff agrees that these changes are appropriate and they will be made (see attached page).
State of Washington Enerny Facility Site Evaluation Council EFSEC-3 Response - The last paragraph of Section 5.5.1 has been revised to incorporate the bioassay studies conducted by the applicant to satisfy General Condition G.29 of the NPDES Permit.
State of Washington Department of Fisheries DF-1 Response - Table 4.6 and the fisheries discussion of Section 4.3.4.2 have been revised to reflect the fish planted into the creeks draining the site during l
a
^
..1 1980 through 1982, based on information supplied to NRC by the State of Washington.
DF-2 Response - The last paragraph of Section 5.3.1 has been revised to incorporate the bioassay studies conducted by the applicant to satisfy General Condition G.29 of the NPDES Pennit.
State of Washington Department of Ecology DEC 2 comments that their " approval" relies on the understanding that low sulfur fuel oil will be used in the back-up diesels.
Response - Staff agrees with the DEC.
Sebastian Degens
~
l:
l l
SD 3 suggests that refueling be synchronized with river flow.
Response - The responsibility for, establishing limitations for the protection of surface waters rests with the State of Washington.
It is noted that the state has imposed certain conditions addressing operation during low river i
fl ow. The staff has found impact to the Chehalis River to be of such magnitude i
that no further assessment of impact was deemed necessary.
l l
i
es s
SD 4 questions using the earlier two unit review as a basis for assessing significance of one unit operation.
Specific inquiry is made about the discharge of sul furic acid.
Response - The sulphate ion concentration increase in the river will be about 2.5 mg/l at low river flow.
The staff found a higher sulphate discharge to be acceptable at the earlier (two-unit) review.
In the absence of significant new information regarding the effects of the sulphate ion, the staff has no justification for reexamining the one-unit discharge which produces a lower concentration.
l t
I
\\
l t
. - ~.,
.i "t{
, ei.
- Mh{%_h
,;k S-
^ 3-
_ -? -l wM p
-+ w
, _..g y
L~:
_ _ ~ _ _ - -
g
=ws h,.
.._. ' l } -
&' K.k.bn-y
. 'yKq re :....
..~;s,g' V 2 s v.
- . &iby
- , r~
M @ f f
- r. ~ y.:.;._,; E -nd i;;. -.;N.y,;gg.;Jf,. x:.,..y:-y3.
u..,. K.
~
Figure 4.9.
Commercial docks at Westport near the mouth of Grays Harbor, into which flows the Chehalis --
l River.
Steelhead trout and salmon migrate through Grays Harbor enroute to and from spawning areas within the Chehalis River system.
4-23 1
s' (f) Nonradioactive emissions from the plant, excluding cooling tower emissions, will include exhaust gases from the monthly testing of diesel engines.
This test, which is planned for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> a month, should.not contribute significantly to regional air pollution (Sec-tion 5.4.2).
(g) The staff presently foresees no significant adverse impact of plant operation on terrestrial biota of the plant site or on lands required for access and support facilities (Section 5.5.1).
(h Assessments of the impact of station operation on aquatic biota and fisheries of the Chehalis River system during the CP review found the impacts minimal and acceptable.
Since that time, the termination of WNP-5 has resulted in reduced station requirements for makeup water and a lowering of blowdown volume, design changes in the effluent diffuser location and in the supplemental cooling system have reduced further the potential for impact, and the State of Washington has established limitations upon water withdrawals and discharges and defined an allowable effluent mixing zone for protection of water quality and aquatic biota. Thu(,$e37h S.S.d. oJ; the conclusions of minimal impact of WNP-3 operation remain valid.
A I3
'(i The staff believes station operation to have little or no impac? r thebaldeagle,theonlyterrestrialthreatenedspeciesbeliev(dto f
be in the area (Section 5.6.1:).
There are no threatened or endangered aquatic species in the'WNP-3 site vicinity; therefore, no impacts will result from facility operation (Section 5.6.2).
(j) The staff's preliminary determination is that the operation and h
l maintenance of the station will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of significant historic resources (Section 5.7).
~
I I
(k) The socioeconomic impacts of station operation are analyzed in Sec-l tions 5.6 and 10.4 of the FES-CP.
Changes that have occurred since 6
the issuance of the FES-CP are outlined in Section 5.8 of this I
report. The impact of these changes wil.1 not be significant.
l (1) The staff concludes that the risk to the public health and safety from exposure to radioactivity associated with the normal operation of the facility will be very small (Section 5.9.3.2).
(m) Activities off site that might adversely affect the operation of the nuclear plant (nearby industrial, transportation, and military facilities that might create explosive,. missile, toxic gas, or similar hazards) has been evaluated.
The risk from such hazards has been found to be negligibly small (Section 5.9.4.4(2)).
(n) The staff has concluded that with respect to releases from severe accidents via the atmosphere, there are no special or unique circum-stances about the WNP-3 site and environs that would warrant,special l
mitigation features or operating procedures for the WNP-3 plant.
On WNP-3 OES vii h
3, 3
.)
4' PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.1' Risum6 This section contains a summary of changes that have occurred since the FES-CP was issued in June 1975.
The major change since the CP stage, as discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, resulted from the cancellation of WNP-5.
This change Sec-and its effects are detailed in various sections throughout the report.
tion 4.2.3 describes the planned water use methods and water treatment mea-sures for WNP-3.
Section 4.2.4 describes the cooling system intake and Sec-Sections 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 describe waste management systems.
discharge.
tion 4.3.1 provides updated data on the hydrology of the area surrounding the plant, including surface water, groundwater, and the supplemental water supply.
Also included is a description of water use in the region and for the plant.
Section 4.3.2 describes recently collected data on the quality of the water in Section 4.3.4 the region. Section 4.3.3 describes updated meteorology data.
describes the terrestrial and aquatic resources in the region, and Section 4.3.5 No threat-describes a possible threatened and endangered terrestrial species.
ened or endangered aquatic species are known.
Section 4.3.6 describes community Section 4.3.7 statistics on population, employment, recreation, and land use.
describes measures taken to identify historic and archeological sites.
4.2. Facility Description 4.2.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout Although A general deccription-of these topics is in Section 3.1 of the FES-CP.
Figure 4.1 provides more details than did the site layout available at the time of the CP review, the orientation and arrangement of major site structures An exception to this conclusion is the base diameter has not changed markedly.
of the twin natural draft cooling towers, which has been reduced from 155.4 m (510 feet) to 128 m (420 feet).
j 4.2.2 Land Use g10,/L-/
g
+'m, d
r i
The WNP-3 site consists of a central tract measuring 551 ha (
acres) that is fee-owned by WPPSS.
It includes an adjoining 336 ha (830 acres) for which WPPSS t as easement rights (ER-OL, RQ.AM) as.well as five nearby parcels, measuring a total of 154 ha (380 acres), which are used for access and support facilities.
In comparison, the FES-CP stated that the main portion of the site encompassed approximately 879 ha (2170 acres).
I3/O The exclusion area boundary, also shown in Figure 4.1, has a radius of 13, Cit m (4300 feet) centered on the WNP-3 containment building; it lies completely within the fee-owned and easement rights property.
The land used for access and support facilities was not well defined at the CP These areas, shown in Figure 4.2, include the construction water wells stage.
and game mitigation land, the main and west access roads, the makeup water well site, and the barge unloading facility.
I WNP-3 DES 4-1
~ ~ ' '
E
,3 These systems when it is necessary to control the inventory in these systems.
weste streams will be of higher purity chemically than other wastes routed through the low-level waste systems.
Wastes routed to the low-level system will contain particulates from ion ex-
~
change material and from corrosion products as well as chemical precipitates.
The pH values of waste streams will range from highly acidic to highly caustic.
The treatment system will provide neutralization and sedimentation of the waste streams.
4.2.6.2 Corrosion, Scale, and Biofouling Control Chemicals Chemicals are added to some of the water systems to control corrosion, scaling, and biological growth in critical components.
Hydrazine will be used in the primary and secondary cooling water systems and in the auxiliary boiler as an exygen scavenger and corrosion inhibitor.
Hydrazine reacts with oxygen to form nitrogen and water.
Hydrazine is highly reactive and is not expected in
/L4echoM "
N
'the station discharge in the unreacted for d**" et sN-d 4.6 cfar n! 9" fepha*7 Mat- (rp p /-de.4 N Ammonia will be used to control pH in the secondary f edwa er system, the ec-7Q' Discharges and component cooling water system, and the auxiliary boil ar.A' 1 be added will be leakage from the systems to which hydrazinep ammonia
,f routed to the secondary high purity waste s9 stem (SHP)/(wi This system (1) processes the flow streams, which will all be low in dissolved solids and particulates, and (2) recovers water for reuse as secondary makeup water.
When water quality is inadequate, the product water will be sent to the low-volume waste treatment system.
Hydrazine and ammonia concentrations in the
(
product water will be negligible.
Spent resins from the SHP ion exchangers will be sent to the spent resin storage tank in the solid waste system.
0 The applicant has increased by about 60% the estimate of the requirement of sulfuric acid to control scale in the circulating water system, to regenerate ion excha'nge resins, and to adjust pH.
During the CP review, the applicant l
estimated'that about 2180 kg/ day (4800 lbs/ day) of acid would be required per unit (ER-CP, Table 3.6-5).
The current estimate is for an average daily use of about 3360 kg/ day (7400 lbs) (ER-CP, Table 3.6-2).
Total use--and thus.the total discharge to the Chehalis River--will be less now because only one unit is' planned.
Because the usage for the one unit is higher than previously planned, the discharge concentration will be higher than previously evaluated.
But', with the greater dilution for the single unit, after the discharge mixes with the river flow the incremental concentration in the river will not be as great as previously evaluated.
Plans for chlorination to control biofouling have been revised since the CP review.
At the CP stage, the applicant planned to add gaseous chlorine to the circulating and service water systems to control biofouling (FES-CP, Sec-tion 3.6.2).
Discharge concentration objectives were to be met by delaying blowdown when concentration exceeded 0.1 mg/1.
Only one of the two units was to be chlorinated at any one time to provide additional dilution of the chlo-rinated effluent stream before discharge.
As currently planned, sodium hypochlorite rather than gaseous chlorine will be The condensers will also be fitted with a the source of free chlorine me e s cV+e WNP-3 OES 4-11
]
m:chanical tube cleaning system (Amertap), which should result in some reduction in the chemical requirements.
Hypochlorite will be added, as needed, up to two times a day for about 20 to 30 minutes each time.
One hundred and eight kg (400 lbs) of hypochlorite will be required for each addition; however, the cpplicant estimates that the actual average daily use of hypochlorite will be 91 kg (200 lbs).
The applicant anticipates that the residual chlorine concentration in the croling tower blowdown will be low, about 0.02 mg/1, and the applicant has provided a sys. tem for sulfur dioxide addition to completely reduce that residual chlorine. The addition of sulfate by this system is extremely small relative to the addition of acid for control of scaling.
Roughly 14 kg (30 lbs) of sulfur dioxide per day will be utilized, producing roughly 22 kg (48 lbs) per dry of sulfate.
4.2.6.3 Other Chemical Discharges The applicant now plans to use stainless steel condenser tubes instead of the cepper nickel tubes planned for use at the CP stage (FES-CP, page A-11).
Besed on concentrations of the edge of the mixing zone, copper addition to the cooling water by corrosion was judged acceptable during the CP review; however, the major source of the copper no longer will be present.
The applicant now estimates copper concentrati^n in the station discharge to average 21.5 pg/l (ER-OL, Table 3.6-1) in comparison to the 230 pg/l estimated at the CP review (FES CP, page 5-31).
Plant piping and equipment will be cleaned by flushing with water before startup (ER-OL, page 3.6-3).
At the time of the CP review, a phosphate wash w:s anticipated (FES-CP, page 3-23).
The flush water--which will contain hydrazine, metal oxides, and other debris from fabrication procedures--will be treated, if necessary, and ultimately released through the sedimentation b: sin.
Y N rA h'. h ll Y i W e k $, $
'lh ' h a u
a 4.2.7 Power Transmission System W ^" * "/O ' * " ' #'
~
I The transmission facilities included in the scope of this review consist of a 500-kV above ground line and a 230-kV underground low pressure oil-filled cable, each connecting the plant island to a Bonneville Power Amdinistration (BPA) substation on the site.
The single right-of-way for these lines is approximately 1476 m (4841 feet) long, lies completely within the site, and crosses no public roads (ER-OL, RQ 290.12 and accompanying figure).
The 500-kV line will be suspended from lattice Iteel, single-circuit delta towers cbout 37 m (120 feet) high and 12 m (40 feet) wide.
The system beyond the WNP-3 substation was evaluated, designed, and b.uilt by BPA, the lead Federal egency for the transmission lines.
4.3 Project-Related Environmental Descriptions 4.3.1 Hydrology 4.3.1.1 Hydrol,ogic Description WNP-3 DES 4-12
s clearcuts.
They were selected in matched pairs so that areas adjacent to the plant site could be compared with areas outside the influence of the plant.
4.3.4.2 Aquatic Resources Biota
)
The aquatic resources of the Chehalis River in the vicinity of the WNP-3 site w3re described in the FES-CP (Section 2.7.2).
Surveys of the site vicinity con-ducted since the FES-CP was issued are summarized in the ER-OL (Section 2.2.2).
These studies included phytoplankton, periphyton, macrophytes, zooplankton, b:nthic macroinvertebrates, river and tributary stream fishes', and counts and distribution of anglers using the river.
There appear to have been no signifi-cant changes in the biotic community of the Chehalis River system in the site vicinity since the CP stage assessments that affect or alter ~the previous ccnclusions.
As discussed above, design changes in station's cooling system have occurred since the CP stage.
Reductions in the intake and blowdown volume have reduced the potential for impacts to aquatic biota.
The location of the discharge diffuser has been moved from near the south river bank,to a position nearly midstream in the river (see Section 4.2.4 for details).- Before the location of the diffuser was finally determined, in 1976 and 1977 the applicant cojiF
)
ducted studies on the movements of salmon and steelhead in the river (Thotma et al.,1978).
Ultrasonic tracking ofe coho salmon and steelhead during a year of low river flow (1976) and one with more typical flows (1977) found that the preferred migration routes tended to be near the river banks just upstream of the discharge area and for a downstream distance of about 610 m (2000 feet).
Coho salmon showed a strong preference for the southern half of the river
(
)
while they moved through the discharge area.
The southern portion of the l
rivermear the south bank was the proposed location of the blowdown diffuser l
at the CP stage (Figure 4.6 above and FES-CP Figure 3.7).
Studies conducted during 1978 and.1979 (WPPSS, Envirosphere, 1979 and 1980 and summarized in the l
ER-OL) showed that several species of fishes and the young of some species l
(e.g., dace, shiners, largemouth bass) pere collected more frequently in the shallow near-shore areas of the river. 7 % '22- ": A v m e.
Ort 9 ou-:...po d g tc.t-:M fcc : d :M :w.}
l p ---
- 1. m m co-wow =
Fisheries Fisheries in the WNP-3 site vicinity were discussed briefly in the FES-CP (Section 2.7.2.4).
The ER-OL (Section 2.1.3 and RQ 291.02, 291.04, 470.05, 470.03) provides updated discussions of fisheries resources.
The discussion below summarizes recent information and includes harvest data compiled for NRC by the State of Washington Department of Fisheries and Departmen of Game.
WYW kQ' Fishery h'arvests of the Chehalis River and Grays Harborgare dominated over-lh whelmingly by salmon (chinook, coho, chum) and steelhead trout, with recent annual harvests ranging to greater than 1,000,000 lbs (Tables 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5).
Annual harvests of other species include green and white sturgeon (2000 to 69,000 lbs), sockeye salmon (50 to 100 lbs), and a small amount of other fish species and crabs.
l WNP-3 DES 4-21
)
Table 4.3 Commercial fishery harvests for Grays Harbor, Chehalis River, and Humptulips River (tributary to Grays Harbor) during 1974-1982 in lbs*
Grays Harbor and Humptulips Year Chehalis River **
River ***
Total 1974 1,011,636 172,081 1,183,717 1975 465,878 162,565 628,443
' 1976 709,518 241,846 951,364 1977 462,235 38,665 500,900 1978 402,341 25,153 427,494 1979 154,031 20,868 174,899 1980 835,787 198,325 1,034,112 1981 631,762 124,464 756,226
)
1982 1,295,399 188,284 1,483,683
- To convert pounds to kilograms, multiply values shown by 0.454.
- Harvest includes salmon (chinook, chum, coho, sockeye), steelhead trout, white and green sturgeon.
- Harvest includes the above species except for 2
sockeye salmon.
Source:
Washington Department of Fisheries Angler surveys were conducted by the applicant from December 1977 to March 1978 along a 15 to 16 km section of the Chehalis River between the South Elma Bridge (upstream of WNP-3) and the mouth of the Smith Canal near Montesano (downstream of the site) (Envirosphere, 1978).
Boat and shore anglers were counted between 9 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. on weekdays, weekends,.and holidays.
During 1978 to 1981, surveys were conducted in the same area from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., but only on weekdays (Envirosphere, 1982).
Thus, th.e surveys.subsampled the actual number of anglers present throughout a given fishing day or week.
The surveys do not reflect the significant amount of fishing done in tributaries to the river.
The major months of salmon fishing were August.through. November, with peaks in October.
Thg mean n mb r of anglers observed (during the morning
. any ( g'.
Surveys) ranged from about T to157 ay during 1978 to 1981.
Salmon fishing A
primarily was by boat (58 to 78% of all anglers).
Anglers fishing from shore were concentrated in the area immediately downstream of the c'onfluence of the Satsop and Chehalic Rivers where access is provided by the Fuller Bridge and the Union Pacific Railway tracks along the south -bank of the Chehalis River.
In early December, and lasting through March, angler emphasis shifted to steelhead trout, which were sought primarily from shore.
The mean number of L
anglers observed during 1978 to 1981 ranged between ge-to 26 per day; the WNP-3 DES 4-22
x s,
.)
)
Table 4.4 Recreational harvest of salmon for Grays Harbor and Chehalis River during 1979 and 1980*
Mean weight Estimated total Species No. of fish per fish (lbs) weight (lbs) 1979 Harvest Chinook 414 4.0 1,656
(<24 inches)
Coho Adult 2,165 9.4 20,351 Juveniles 200 3.0 600 Total 20,951 22,607 Subtotal 2,779 1980 Harvest Chinook 1,880 4.0 7,520 g
(<24 inches)
Coho Adults 344
'9. 4 3,234 Juveniles 406 3.0 1,218 Total 4,452 Subtotal g'j0 11,972
- HarvestinnumbersandmeanweightoffishsuppliedtoC. Hickey,{
d NRC, by W. Young, Washington State Department of Fisheries, via telephone August 16, 1983.
To change pounds to kilograms, multiply the values shown by 0.454.
l l
Y e
FO 4 9...
WNP-3 DES 4-23
)
3 i
' Table 4.5 Recreational and commercial harvest of steekhead for Grays Harbor and Chehalis River Numbers of fish
- Estimated total weight Indian (lbs), at mean weight 1
Year Recreational commercial harvest **
of 8.0 lbs per fish ***
1977-78 882 3,581 35,704
~
1978-79 447 3,355 30,416 1979-80
'1,105 3,790 39,160 1980-81 319 3,393 29,696 1981-82 806 2,282 24,704 5 year mean 712 3,280 31,936
- Harvest in numbers of fish supplied to NRC by Gary Fenton, Washington State Department of Game, through Emergency Facility Site Evaluation Council letter of July 7,1983 (M. E. Mills to A. Vietti).
To change pounds to kilograms, multiply values shown by 0.454.
- Quinault Tribe and Chehalis Tribe.
- Mean weight of fish supplied to C. Hickey (NRC) by W. ' Young, Washington State Department of Fisheries, via telephone August 16, 1983.
Table 4.6 Fish planted in three creeks near WNP-3 site
)
t No. of fish planted Creek Coho Rai_nbow Cutthroat Fuller Creek 1980 7,700 3,600 1,400 1981
-8 820' 1,800 3,200 Rh
$O0 500 D
~
Workman Creek 1980 46,550'~
6,400 4,100 1981@
48,804 3,700 6,400 1.1!
41,000
- 6 %
Elizabeth Creek
~ ~
1980 18,550 N%t kl0S
~
- 1989. Eita'. m <do 5s
% 404 Q E h
% M s % ~bea& A 4@Ma<M,Iff+ en., u.R.u.itAusm);w &&
n JoZir.m SWlAuf 04= @pted.To c.R.n% asn eC, by %g fdo,,,
ps m 4 GW, wk AA dm emsh m M 13,lTM, WNP-3 DES 4-24
ga t
?.
)
preJBAPAO number ranged -trpi o about 50 per day in the 1977 to 1978 survey.
Angling was t
oncentrated in t'he area downstream from the confluence of the Satsop and Q
q Chehalis Rivers, and near the mouths of Hyatt and Elizabeth Creeks.
The E
+
average angler success for catching salmon is reported to be 0.055 to 0.065 k'
t fish per hour.
This suggests that anglers expend (on the average) 15 to 18 5
hours of effort to catch a salmon. Angling success for steelhead is reported 8
to be less than for salmon (e.g., more hours of effort expended per fish a
caught).
Fish caught range between about 1 to 15.kg (2 to 30 lbs) with mean
?
e weights of about 9.1 kg (20.1 lbs) for adult chinook, 4.3 kg (9.4 lbs) for y
adult coho, and 5.6 kg (12.4 lbs) for chum salmon.
The Washington Department of Fisheries conducts a' fish hatchery and planting
- DE program to supplement natural fish production and to ensure adequate productior
%[T E
of fish for the state's user groups.
Salmon and _steelhead are planted annualb
%gg [
into the Chehalis River and many of its tributaries.
The number of coho salmon planted into the river from 1976 to 1981 ranged between about 29,000 p}
and 40.2,000 yearling fish annually.
Three creeks'in the immediate WNP-3 site g
5 j
vicinity also have been planted with coho salmon by the Washington Department p/
of Fisheries (Mills,1983), and with inbow trout and cutthroat trout by thy ).
y Washington Department of Game (Envir phere, 1982), as shown in Table 4.6.A g
ce 4 SIS.}, P Sh
~k "Si "
Assessments of the imp' acts of station opera 1. ion on aquauc biota and fisheries i
of the Chehalis River system during the CP review found the impacts minimal I
and acceptable.
The termination of WNP-5 has resulted in reduced station requirements for makeup water and a lowering of blowdown volume.
Design I
changes in the effluent diffuser location and in the supplemental cooling system have reduced further the potential for impact.
The State of Washington l
has established limitations upon water withdrawals and discharges and defined an allo,,able effluent mixing zone for protection of water quality and aquatic biota. Thus, the conclusions of minimal impact of WNP-3 operation remain i\\
valid.
/
4.3.5 Endangered and Threatened Species Q 40 N) p' g
@~ s.s.a. 61r((
IN J tt 4.3.5.1 Terrestrial The FES-CP (page 2-30) lists 16 bird species that might occur on and near the site and access roads.that are considered to be threatened by th~e State of Washington or U.S; Fish and Wildlife Services.
On July 6,1983, the NRC staff, by letter (Knighton,1983b), notified the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regional office in Portland, Oregon, of the proposed licensing of WNP-3.
The letter formally requested information on any Federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered plant or animal species in the vicinity of the project.
The FWS responded on August 30, 1983 (Bottorff, 1983) that "to the best of our present knowledge there are no listed or proposed species occurring within the area of the subject project."
As part of NRC's environmental review, the staff asked the applicant for updated information of any sightings of bald eagles on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (Knighton,1983a).
The applicant's response (Bouchey, 1983) states that bald eagles were sighted during February, April, May, June, WNP-3 OES 4-25 t
1
~
,% /L..r.nf.s.'
/
.- LN
- s - -..
October the limit is 30 pg/1, if the startup period should include these months (State Order Number 568, October 8,1979).
These are the limits in the current NPDES Discharge Permit (see Appendix G).
Tha basis for the State determination that a 65 pg/l limit would provide ade-qu:te protection during startup was that a dilution of the discharge of at least 20 to 1 would occur before the effluent encountered areas or routes of biologi-cal significance.
At a background concentration of 4 pg/1, a 20-to-1 dilution would provide a copper concentration o 7 g which is believed to be a level that has no effect g ~,he sa1monid species. AGrc,< e m edch
- pcepc,w is e mpe Q m(AE - / )h Ace kyourr yfn flt,
The State required that the applicant perform bioass y studies to determine the ad:quacy of the requirements for copper.
The applicant has completed the studies.
However, the results have not ye been made availabl. h, K f [ '
9 Oc QQ/t Rs/trb:(
5.3.2 Water Use
,7uoppoe a o wrw'619g FES-CP Section 5.2 statss that WNP-3 and WNP-5 would have some impacts on the local and regional surface water and groundwater.
No adverse impacts were,ex-pected to the tidal portion of the Chehalis River.
The consumptive withdrawal of approximately 1.7 pg/sec (60 fts/sec) was expected to lower the river level nur the plant during low flow conditions' and cause some elimination of riffle ficw in a shallow area known as " Green Banks." Withdrawal from the Ranney col-lectors was also expected to cause drawdown of Elizabeth Creek and the adjacent m rsh, causing it to become dry during low flow periods.
With the cancellation of WNP-5, water use has been approximately cut in half.
(
The above-stated impacts of water use will be appreciably smaller because of the diminished water use.
I
~
5.3.3 Other Hydrologic Impacts Construction of the site had already begun at the time Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, was signed in May 1977.
It is, therefore, the staff's p
conclusion that consideration of alternative locations for any of the struc-tures identified as being in the floodplain is neither required or practicable.
Th2 100 year flood discharge on the Chehalis River adjacent to the site, as i
determined by a study performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
Seattle District, is 2209 m3/sec (78,000 ft3/sec).
Estimated stages for this 100 year flood varied from 5.8 to 6.1 m (19 to 19.9 feet) msl for the precon-struction river geometry.
The plant itself is located well above any conceiv--
able flood on the Chehalis River.
The only plant-related structures that could b2 affected by the 100 year flood would be the discharge structure, the Ranney wall intake structures and associated bank protection, and a barge slip.
These structures are considered by the staff to be a relatively minor intrusion on the floodplain of the Chehalis River for which no alternatives are readily ap-parent.
The only likely consequences of these plant related features would be g
a sm:11 loss in habitat.
The applicant calculated the maximum increase in post-construction 100 year flood levels because of these structures to be about 0.1 m I
(0.2 feet).
The staff concurs in this evaluation.
Figure 5.1 shows the preconstruction floodplain including the various plant-related features that would be within its limits.
s-3
~
[
}
5.4 Air Quality 7
i 5.4.1 Fog and Ice The impacts of the operation of the natural draft caoling tower, as described in the DES-CP (NUREG-75/009), are still applicable relative to the potential occurrence of ground fog or icing.
5.4.2 Other Emissions Nanradioactive emissions from the plant, excluding cooling tower emissions, will include exhaust gases from the monthly testing of diesel engines.
This testing, which is planned for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> a month, will produce limited amounts of NO ' S' X
and ash, and should not contribute significantly to regional air pollution, as descri. bed in the annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality for the year 1978 (CEQ, 1978).
5.5.D54y TddW4&h=P_ @^ 43 O-
- 5. 5.1 Terrestrial Ecology The staff presently foresees no significant adverse impact of plant operation on terrestrial biota of the plant site or on lands required for access and sup-port facilities.
However, uncertaintytexists as to the effects of salt drift from the cooling tower on the vegetation.
The results of modeling salt drift are presented in ER-OL Figure 5.1.4.
The predicted highest annual depositp..
]
(50 kg/ha or 45 lb/ acre) beyond 457 m.(1500 feet) from the tower oc. curs outside the area cleared for construction (on forested land) (ER-OL, RQ P90.13).
Be-cause of the importance of this area for timber and the uncertainty of the effect o.f drift, a monitoring program will be required (see Section '5.11.2 below).
Although not a result of plant operation, detrimental impacts to the terrestrial i
ecology of the site will occur from logging operations (see Section 5.2.1).
As a consequence, the applicant will implement a wildlife management plan.
This plan must be approved by the State of Washington and the NRC and will help minimize the detrimental impacts of logging.
5.5.2 Aquatic Resources _
~
The impacts of WNP-3 operation on aquatic resources of the Chehalis River sys-tem were considered and assessed in the FES-CP (Sections 5.5.2, 10.1,2, and 10.2.2) and in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision of April 8, 1977 (LSP-77-25, 5 NRC 964 (1977)).
Both those assessments examined the impact potential to the Chehalis River system from operation of two units.
Construction of WNP-5 has been terminated since _those CP-stage reviews, thus r:ducing the makeup and blowdown volumes.
Other design changes have been made in the location of the blowdown diffuser and its discharge ports (see Section 4.2.4 of this report).
The major findings of the FES-CP and the ASLB decision are summarized in this section and updated based upon the recent design changes.
Findings by the State of Washington on the impacts to the river system also are summarized below.
WNP-3 DES 5-5
s 3
,)
w:uld be close to or exceed the tolerance level of several organisms.
Some crganisms unable to escape the plume in situations in which the temperature differential is great or the absolute temperatures are high will, no doubt, be affected.
In the event of plant shutdown, some fishes may be killed by thermal.
sh:ck; however, it was concluded that the thermal effluent would have a minimal effect upon aquatic life because only a small portion of the river would be affected and the difference between the temperature of the discharge and anbient river temperature would be small.
Fcr protection of the aquatic environment, since the CP stage review the State of Washington has imposed thermal limitations and imposed mixing zone require-c;nts on the blowdown effluent in conjunction with issuance ~ of an NPDES Permit for WNP-3 and WNP-5 (see Section 4.2.4 above and Appendix G).
To ensure that th;re is compliance with the State's thermal criteria, WNP-3 will use a' supple-m;ntal cold-side heat exchanger on an as-needed basis.
This capability should cnsure that the effluent temperature is within the acceptable range for impor-tant aquatic' organisms.
Additionally, there will be less interaction between fishes and the effluent because of (1) a reduction in effluent volume by more than 50% (as a result of the cancellation of WNP-5) and (2). relocation of the diffuser away from fish migratory paths.
This further reduces the potential -
and probability for impact compared to that evaluated at the CP stage.
The
~
conclusi ns th t tNre will be minimal effects on aquatic biota remain valid.
p Cn dw & P +-a s oo.me<R 5.6 Endangered and Threatened Species,
5.6.1 Terrestrial Th2 staff expects station operation to have little or no impact on the bald eagle.
Although the Ranney wells are located near a bald eagle's nest (Sec-tien 4.3.5)', these wells protrude only about 20 feet above the floodplain.
Cullision with cooling towers or other buildings is not likely because bald eagles have keen eyesight and fly mostly along the river, away from where/Js structures are located.
The potential that bald eagles would be electroc(ted J
b;cause they touch two conductors at the same time is negligible because eagles have wing spans from 1.9 to 2.4 m (6 to 8 feet), while the minimum vertical spread distance between phase lines of a given structure will be 3 m (10 feet)
_and the horizontal spread will be 9.1 m (30 feet).
- 5. 6. 2_
Aquatic g
Th;re are nu thre tened or endangered aquatic species in the WNP-3 site vicinity f (see Section 4.3.
); therefore, no impacts will result from facility op; ration.
5.7 Hist 6'ric and Archeological Impacts As stated in Section 4.3.7, there are no properties listed or eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places in the vicinity of WNP-3.
Tha staff's preliminary determination is that the operation and maintenance of thm station will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of significant historic resources.
A final determination will be made after further consulta-tien with the State Historic Preservation Officer.
WNP-3 DES 5-7
);
-; ~
Table 6.1 Benefit-cost summary Quantity
- Primary impact and effect (Section)
Impacts **
i on population or resources i
I BENEFITS k
Direct 6 billion kWh/yr Large 1
Electrical energy 1240 MWe large Additional capacity (Section 6.4.2)
COSTS Environmental Damage suffered by other water users 1.2 m /sec Small 3
Surface water consurration 3
(42 ft /sec).
(Section 5.3.2)
Small Surface water contamination Groundwater consumption (Sdction 5.3.2)
None Groundwater contamination (Section 4.3.2)
None Damage to aquatic resources (Section 5.5
)[ N.None Impingement and entrainment (Section 5 Small hermal effects (Section 5.3.2)
Small Chemical discharge b
]
Damage to terrestrial resources 5 ation operations (Section 5.5.1)
Small Cooling tower emissions,
-(Section-5-STJ-Small o4-ing-leke-drawdownh Transmission line maintenance (Section 5.2.2)
Small 9-
\\ Adverse nonradiological health effects (Section 5.3.2)
None
- @h K (h Water quality changes (Section 5.4)
Air quality changes Adverse radiological health effects (Section 5.9.3)
Small Routine operation (Section 5.9.4)
Small Postulated accidents (Section 5.10)
Small Uranium fuel cycle Adverse socioeconomic effects Effect on historic and archeologi-Small (Section 5.7)
Small cal resources (Section 5.8)
Traffic Demands on public facilities and (Section 5.8)
Small services l
l
- See footnotes at en'd of tables.
6-2 WNP-3 DES Ob5%%%%
&&)W