ML20214Q725

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rev 1 to Suppl to Applicant Environ Rept
ML20214Q725
Person / Time
Site: Framatome ANP Richland
Issue date: 09/12/1986
From: Malody C, Pieper J
SIEMENS POWER CORP. (FORMERLY SIEMENS NUCLEAR POWER
To:
Shared Package
ML20214Q688 List:
References
27418, XN-NF-14, XN-NF-14-R01, XN-NF-14-R1, NUDOCS 8609260267
Download: ML20214Q725 (66)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:; I I XN-N F-14 g REVIS ON 1 I I SUPPLEVEN~ TO APPLICA\\lT'S I ENV RO\\lVE\\~~AL REPOR~- I I I SE3TEV 3E91986 I I I 9 C _A\\D, WA 99352 ,,,--,,,--.m.,--e -_.,.._,.,..-y,_,..- . _m 41. -~. _m_- m w _ _.- ~_ _ e_ a &ma.. .,_i_ s _ x _ _ _ w a, _ r.2 _ m u _,_ w u I g EXXON NUCLEAR COMPANY, INC. I G609260D67 060rfja I {DN ADOCK 0/coty37 PDH

5 i I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Issue Date 9/12/86 E \\ lt SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICANT'S ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 'll i 4 ii Prepared by os\\.b [% I J. E. Pieper RECBVED '- s m e n ss > tq / b".\\ u,s.Nuttta accutncu com;cs y I tud <y9:2, v;.y

E

! I ,I lI

I

) g. E(ON \\UC_ AR COV JA\\Y \\C. >\\l sp7Wf

I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Issue Date: 9/12/86 SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICANT'S ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I / M/v~. Prepared by: c_ J. E. Pieper / / Date Corporate Licensing Approved by: /// C. W. Malody, Manager ate Corporate Licensing i i i I I I i i

I ii XN-NF-14, Rev. I I SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICANT'S ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE INTRODUCTION 1.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND EFFLUENT CONTROL I 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION I I 2.1 Location i 2.2 Land Use and Regional Demography 4 2.3 Meteorology and Climatology 9 2.4 Geology and Seismology 15 1 2.4.1 Geology 15 2.4.2 Seismology 18 ' 2.5 Hydrology 21 2.5.l Surface Water Hydrology 21 2.5.2 Groundwater Hydrology 23 2.6 Ecology of 'the Site and Environment 24 3.0 EFFLUENT SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING PROGRAM 26 g 4.0 EFFECT OF OPERATIONS ON THE ENVIRONMENT 26 g 4.1 Water Quality 26 4.2 Air Quality 27 4.3 Terrestial Quality 28 APPENDIX A - Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring Program A-l APPENDIX B - Data Tables B-l i I i e i i i

I iii XN-NF-14, Rev. I I L ist of Tables i Table Page 2.1-1 Distances from the Facility to Of f-Site Developments 3 2.2-1 Estimated Population Distribution (1980) Within 50 Miles of the Exxon Nuclear Site S 2.2-2 Projected Population Distribution (1985) Within 50 Miles of the Exxon Nuclear Site 6 2.3-i Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction and Atmospheric Stability Applicable to the Exxon Nuclear Plant Site lI 2.3-2 Annual Average Atmospheric Dilution Factors 13 E List of Figures ~ E Figure 2.1-1 Plant Location in State 2 2.2-1 Horn Rapids Triangle Year 2000 Development Plan 7 2.3-1 Wind Roses for Exxon Nuclear Site and Vicinity 10 2.4-1 Major Geological Features of Washington State 16 2.4-2 Schematic Geological Cross Section Through Pasco Basin 17 2.4-3 Seismicity and Tectonics, Vicinity of Exxon Nuclear Site 19 2.5-1 Flooding Potential, Exxon Nuclear Site 22 I I i i E

i XN-NF-14, Rev. l I INTRODUCTION The original Environmental Report JN-14 for the Exxon Nuclear Company's Fuel Fabrication Plant was issued in June 1970. Subsequently, five addendums were issued. The last addendum, number 5 issued in 1979, provided data on the UO2 plant cperating two UF6 lines at a capacity of two tons per day. During August 1981, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued on environmental impact appraisal for the renewal of Exxon's Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-1227. I This report consist of a summary /compilatiori of relevant portions of previous reports and presents an analysis of environmental data for the years 1981 through 1985. It is presented in support of the most recent opplication for renewal of License No. SNM-1227 as presented in document number XN-2, Revision 13 dated September 1986. I I s 1 E I .I 8

I I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page I SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICANT'S ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I I 1.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND EFFLUENT CONTROL The f acility description is provided by Part II, Chapter 10 of the License Applic. 2-I' tion XN-2. The methods used to control and monitor the effluents are described by Part I, Chapter 5 of that same application. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION I 2.1 Location i The Exxon sclear site lies just inside the northern boundary of the City of Richland in the southeasiern portion of the State of Washington, and is approxi-I mately 110 miles west of the Idaho "/ashington border, 180 miles south of the Canadian border, and 225 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. As shown in Figure 2.1 - 1, it is bordered on the north by the Hanford Reservation. The site coordinates are 46o 22' north latitude and l190 16' west longitude. The buildings lie to the north of the site, and the center of the plant lies approxi-mately 930 feet south of Horn Rapids Road which forms the northern boundary of the site. The Columbia River flows southward at a point approximately l-3/4 miles east, and the Yakimo River flows toward the southeast roughly 2-1/2 miles southwest of the plant. Table 2.l-1 gives the distance from a number of of f-site developments. I I

... - -. - ~. - -. ( CANADA MT. B AKE R aee VANCOUVEH ISLAND 3 M a ( PUGET 4 f SOUND-j n ^ 3 a l e A 3 / a ^ 3 a OLYMPIC M T5. ^w. 8 ,,v b ) ^ 9 e S c o t,* *, a e'[ a l a4 a SEATTLE ^ 3 WA8 I N G T O is LDAliO aqr ^ ^ e. ^ k ^ n 9 e EPHR ATA ^ TACOMA A oa STE8LACOOM PASCO uASIN A 3 ELLENSBURG f MT. H ANIEH _...jeOTHE O A / ^ ^ EXXON s ^ e.g yAglMA Abb.- RESEHVE k Si1E { ^ a 3 k MT. 5T. HELENS a ^ PHO$$LH Mg i a CK,gggg wattA 3 HousL HE AVEN 3 hills e A^ g 7 A UMdl e A o pHLL g)Lg VANCOUVEH CDi d 8 8 A g e A A ^ ^ 4 g= n PO R T L AN D OflEGON WALLOWA ^ [ ^ 3 ^ MIS ^ M I. HO OD g A A PLANT LOCATION IN STATE w FIGURE 2 l-1

XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page 3 I Table 2.1-1 Distances from the Facility to Off-Site Developments I I Developments Distance Direction Horn Rapids Road 930 feet North Stevens Drive 4,600 feet East Industrial Plant I mile East (Battelle Northwest) State Route 240 2 miles Southwest Closest Farm (alfalfa field) I mile Southeast Closest School (Hanford High) 2-l/10 miles Southeast Closest Residence 2-1/10 miles Southeast (Sprout Road and Harris Avenue) j Closest Airpor i 3 miles South (Port of Benton) { Closest Hospital 4-3/4 miles South l (Kodlec Medical Center) } !I 4

!I 1

,!I

I I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page 4 I 2.2 Land Use and Regional Demography The City of Richland in which the Exxon Nuclear Company is located, along with Pasco and Kennewick, comprise a metropolitan area known as the Tri-Cities. In 1970, the Tri-Cities population was approximately 56,000. During the following 10 years, due mainly to the increased activities on the Hanford Reservation, the population of the Tri-Cities area had increased to 84,750; i.e., a 51% increase. Table 2.2-l shows the 1980 population distribution within a 50-mile radius of the I ENC by compass direction and radii interval. Projected population within 50 miles of ENC for 1985 is presented in Table 2.2-2. The Exxon Nuclear site is on a 6,100 acre parcel of land known as the Horn Rapids Triangle. This land was acquired by the USAEC in 1942 as part of the Hanford Reservation and was subsequently annexed to the City of Richland in 1967. The triangular tract is bounded on the north by Horn Rapids Road, on the south by the Horn Rapids irrigation Ditch, on the east by a strip of AEC land, and on the southeast by the Port of Benton airport. State Route 240, Hanford Highway, runs I diagonally through the Triangle. The City of Richland owns two-thirds of the land in the Triangle; the remaining third, arranged in a checkerboard pattern, is owned by the Bureau of Land Management. At present, a portion of the Triangle is zoned for light industry and the remainder is zoned agricultural. The 160 acre Exxon Nuclear site lies in the northeastern portion of the 800 acre rectangle which is zoned industrial. Exxon Nuclear has purchased the 160 acre parcel directly to the west of its original property. I The City initiated a comprehensive planning study for the entire area. A 1970 development study of the Horn Rapids Triangle is being used as a guideline for this section of the City within the present plan. The year 2000 plan for the Horn Rapids Triangle is shown in Figure 2.2-1. It is estimated that 2,000 to 3,000 acres of the Triangle will be required by the year 2000, assuming a population growth I I l

m e M W M m M m e a m m m m m e M M m Table 2.2-1 Estimated Population Distribution (1980) Within 50 Miles of the Exxon Nuclear Site (By Cornpass Sector and Distance) Compass Miles Sector 0-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 TOTAL N 0 0 140 520 1,350 1,050 3,060 NNE O 20 250 530 4,450 1,420 6,670 NE O 130 700 1,500 1,220 550 4,100 ENE 50 150 500 180 270 250 I,400 E 100 200 250 250 150 550 1,500 ESE I20 2,700 4,260 420 650 900 9,050 SE 2,730 3,780 48,880 2,600 1,160 690 59,840 SSE 13,750 13,030 15,160 410 1,920 1,900 46,170 S 13,710 5,680 4,550 4,670 l 1,680 3,030 43,320 SSW 960 320 450 260 2,600 1,200 5,790 SW I,i20 240 880 510 320 410 3,480 WSW 170 1,750 1,360 6,200 10,240 810 20,530 W 250 430 1,020 1,650 15,450 17,510 36,310 WNW 0 0 0 1,280 1,300 2,670 5,250 NW 0 0 0 110 590 l,160 1,860 NNW 0 0 0 10 300 1,580 1,890 'O X SZ TOTAL 32,960 28,430 78,400 21,100 53,650 35,680 250,220 [k N ? m

M M W M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Table 2.2-2 Projected Population Distribution (1985) Within 50 Miles of the Exxon Nuclear Site (By Compass Sector and Distance) Compass Miles Sector _ 0-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 TOTAL N O O I80 560 1,500 l,i10 3,350 NNE 0 30 320 570 4,750 1,530 7,200 NE O 150 840 1,560 1,350 610 4,510 ENE 70 170 510 180 280 270 1,480 390 300 150 570 1,860 E 150 300 ESE 280 2,950 4,400 430 670 930 9,660 SE 4,250 5,300 58,600 3,100 1,450 720 73,420 SSE 16,000 15,500 18,200 500 2,020 2,000 54,220 S I6,500 6,600 5,300 5,850 13,300 3,400 50,950 SSW I,750 340 540 350 2,750 1,280 7,010 SW 1,200 250 950 600 330 430 3,760 WSW 170 2,000 1,500 7,600 10,550 830 22,650 W 260 450 1,080 1,750 16,800 18,800 39,140 WNW 0 0 0 1,650 1,330 2,800 5,780 NW 0 0 0 110 620 1,200 1,930 NNW 0 0 0 10 320 1,660 1,990 0 X TOTAL 40,630 34,040 92,810 25,120 58,170 38,140 288,910 SZ Z

  • 7

? O< u

I I XN-NF-14, Rev. I I Page 7 I N N ] I HORN R APtOS ROAO l 1 I OPTIONFO EXXON 4 I FUTUR E RESIDENTIAL OR INDUSTRI AL LAND NUCLEAR IDEPENDING ON DEMAND) l l g T X.-r,= } I LjG HT LsGHT ANO I PHASE 1) NOUSTR AL (PHASE 11 l s } I FUTURE RESIDENTIAL 4 l lj$ O, 1o INDUSTRI AL RESERVE 0, p l e l 3 t / A ~ 2 R R A MEDICAL p l !s h* Qg \\ AN C l R P pg Cy 9) 4;;" =' R. R V 4 R ygg t I ,$/ RICHLAND AIRPORT > / S /,., OR OFFICE RESEARCH Z I HBORHOOD COMMERCIAL-6 /, CC VIC CENTER 4 # R SING F AMILY RES10ENTI AL

  • E LWENTARY SCHOOL

,I - -STUOY AREA BOUNCARY --INITI AL STUOY AREA BOUNOARY VAN GiESEN STREET C 1000 2000 3000 FEET HORN RAPIDS TRIANGLE YEAR 2000 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FIGURE 2.2-1 .I

I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page 8 I rate in the range of 2% to 2.5%. (2% is estimated by the Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company.) The residential development, which is planned adjacent to Hanford Road, is not expected to be required until 1990 or later (if development in the area annexed in 1970 south of the Yakima River proceeds rapidly). It is planned that roughly 10-20% of the Triangle will be developed for industry, and that the industrial development will take place to the south and west of the I existing Exxon Nuclear site. The land use in Benton County within a five-mile radius of the facility comprises rural residential southwest of the plant, high density residential southeast of the plant, and unoccupied desert northeast and northwest of the plant. Approximately 180 acres of land are being formed for alfalfa east-southeast of the plant, and an additional alf alf a field of about 65 acres lies southeast of the plant. Because the soil is salty, land close to the Exxon Nuclear plant is not well-suited for cash crops. However, a number of acres of irrigated pasture supports horses, beef I cattle, and a few sheep cnd milk cows, it is estimated that there are a few hundred head of cattle within five miles of the plant in Benton County. The closest herd of about 50 beef cattle are located about three miles southwest of the plant. I The portion of Franklin County which lies within a five-mile radius of the facility is primarily an agriculture area. The principal crops are alfalf a, hoy, and potatoes. There are two commercial dairy herds in this area comprising roughly 150 cows. There are, perhaps, an equal number of beef cattle. I Richland of ficials encourage the continued development of nuclear energy in the In particular, the development of commercial endeavors and the diversifica-area. tion of existing government research are intermediate term goals. The Exxon Nuclear development was considered a major step forward in the attainment of these goals. I I I

I I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page 9 I 2.3 Meteorology and Climatology The prevailing wind at the Exxon Nuclear site is f rom the southwest along the Yakima River corridor, which enters the Columiba Basin near the site. Secondary direction f requency maximo are from the northwest and the southeast along the axis of the Columbia River Valley, and the lowest f requencies are f rom the east I and northeast. This pattern holds most of the year, with the exception of a few months in the f all and early winter, when the winds from the southwest and I less frequently and the wind direction is predominantly from the southeast occur north and northwest. Measurements of the wind characteristics in the vicinity of the Exxon Nuclear site are summarized by Figure 2.3-1 and Table 2.3-1. The annual average X/O values for the ENC site are tabulated on Table 2.3-2. I Periods of relative stagnation occur frequently because of the interaction between Pacific high pressure systems and the basin terrain, although stagnation is seldom I reduced to totally calm conditions. There results extended periods of light variable winds. On a statistical basis, periods of 10-day stagnation (i.e., 5 mph) can be expected every other year, and periods of 8-day stagnation can be expected two out of three years. I Unusually large temperature variations in the Richland area are caused by the mountain ranges to the west, which prevent moderating Pacific Ocean breezes from reaching the creo, and the orientation of the Rocky Mountains, which permits cold Canadian air to spill into the basin in the winter. The normal maximum tempera-I tures of 950F occurs in July, and the normal minimum temperatures of 200F occurs in January. The record high temperature was I150F and the record low tempera-ture of 270F below zero. The temperature falls to below freezing an average of approximately 100 days per year. Minimum temperatures of zero or below have occurred on as many as 14 days per month during both January and February. Maximum temperatures of 1000F or more have been recorded on 16 days each during July and August. I I

I ~ g XN-NF-14, Rev. I

3 Page 10 i

% CALM I 0-3 MILES PER HOUR NORTH l 12.2*/o I 3.2% m/s 18.0 5 */o 3.3 38 20 % 30 % 5.0 <0 5 I h 2.4 i 10 % [ i t 300 AREA L4 / EXXON NUCLEAR r II.s 17.8 4 7 J,,ig 3.= 25 Vor, low. speed 5.0 % /O.6 Colm 0.6 % i \\ ~. ~.. 1e--- E \\ u f 1 a l l / I RICHLAND RICHL A ND AIRPORT 8.9 % / I2.7 4.6 m/s 4.6

  • /

'I 13.8 4.6 N-4.8 I 2.6 !*.8 8.8 8 3.8 20.3 4.9 Vor. Iow speed 8.4% /O.7m/s I Calm 8.7 % 4 E WIND ROSES FOR EXXON NUCLEAR SITE & VICINITY g FIGURE 2.3-1

M M M W m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Table 2.3-1 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction and Atmospheric Stability Applicable to the Exxon Nuclear Plant Site Pasquill Wind Direction Wind Speed Stability NE E SE S SW W flW N Total Calm G 0.10 0.11 0.26 0.14 0.12 0.058 0.097 0.20 (presumed F 0.10 0.11 0.26 0.14 0.12 0.58 0.097 0.20 0-0.5 mph) D 0.033 0.035 0.087 0.046 0.042 0.019 0.032 0.065 C 0.10

0. l l 0.26 0.14 0.12 0.058 0.097 0.20 ALL 0.33 0.35 0.87 0.46 0.42 0.19 0.32 0.65 3.59 %

0.5-3 mph G 0.66 0.69 1.71 0.90 0.81 0.38 0.63 1.28 F 0.66 0.69 1.71 0.90 0.81 0.38 0.63 I.28 D 0.22 0.23 0.57 0.30 0.27 0.13 0.21 0.43 C 0.66 0.69 1.71 0.90 0.81 0.38 0.63 1.28 ALL 2.19 2.30 5.71 2.99 2.72 1.26 2.11 4.28 23.56 % 4-7 mph F l.08 1.17 3.49 2.36 3.26 2.12 2.84 2.64 0 0.18 0.19 0.58 0.39 0.54 0.35 0.47 0.44 C 0.54 0.58 1.75 1.18 1.63 1.06 1.42 1.32 ALL l.80 1.95 5.82 3.94 5.43 3.53 4.73 4.40 31.60 % 8-12 mph F 0.38 0.24 0.97 0.95 2.76 2.18 2.96 0.94 D 0.063 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.46 0.36 0.49 0.16 C 0.19 0.12 0.49 0.47 1.38 1.09 1.48 0.47 ALL 0.63 0.40 1.61 1.58 4.60 3.63 4.93 1.57 18.95% %y 2 13-19 mph F 0.16 0.19 0.52 2.09 0.93 1.47 0.29 D 0.027 0.032 0.087 0.35 0.16 0.25 0.048 g C 0.082 0.097 0.26 1.04 0.46 0.74 0.14 __ n -p ALL 0.27 0.32 0.87 3.48 1.55 2.45 0.48 9.42% 19-24 mph F 0.24 1.00 0.26 0.60 m D 0.039 0.17 0.043 0.10 C 0.I2 0.50 0.I3 0.30 ALL 0.39 l.67 0.4 ^ 1.00 3.49%

M M M M M M M m M M M M M M M M M M M Table 2.3-1 (Continued) Pasquill Wind Direction Wind Speed Stability RT' E $E S SW W RW N Total 25-31 mph F 0.095 0.42 0.043 0.34 D 0.016 0.070 0.007 0.057 C 0.047 0.21 0.021 0.17 ALL 0.16 0.70 0.072 0.57 1.50 % 32-38 mph F 0.18 D 0.031 C 0.092 ALL 0.31 0.31 % G 0.13 0.14 0.35 0.18 0.16 0.076 0.13 0.26 Variable a 0-3 mph F 0.13 0.14 0.35 0.18 0.16 0.076 0.13 0.26 D 0.044 0.046 0.12 0.060 0.055 0.025 0.043 0.086 C 0.13 0.14 0.35 0.18 0.16 0.076 0.13 0.26 ALL 0.44 0.46 1.15 0.60 0.55 0.25 0.43 0.86 4.74 % Variable" F 0.067 0.072 0.22 0.15 0.20 0.13

0. i 8 0.16 4-7 mph D

0.011 0.012 0.035 0.024 0.034 0.022 0.029 0.027 C 0.033 0.036 0.11 0.073 0.10 0.065 0.088 0.082 ALL 0.11 0.12 0.35 0.24 0.34 0.22 0.29 0.27 1.94 %

  • Direction frequency distributed proportional to distribution within 0-3 mph class.
    • Direction frequency distributed proportional to distribution within 4-7 mph class.

?z e.

  • Z G73

m je XN-NF-14 Rev. I 0 g Page 13 I %%%%mm%%%%%%%%%m QQQQCQQQCQQQQQQQ %%%N ANNmme NNN O e e e e e e e e e e a e e e e e QQQQ QQCQQQ QCQ m wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww N@CNC@cmA 4w@~N@w e a e e e e e e e e a e e e e a

a. w w w ~w ~w w w w w w~e wwwwww Q

mm@NNQm@cmCO3m%m m.m.m.m.m.m.m.=.N. .N.N. w%= mwmN mNwmNm w mmwCNmmwemmmm@wm CCCCCQQQQQQQQCQQ O m.=.=.=.m.m. m.m.m.m.m.m.m. =.N. m. I m QQCCQQCCCQQCQQCQ %%%%%%%%%%%%%N%% %NNNmNN%NNm%% ANN QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQCQQQQQQQQQ Q e e e e e e e o e e a e e e e e e e e e e e o e e e e e e e e e w wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww e %Nm@mm%@mmmwNQwC Q @Q4mNmommmONm-m@ O Q==@=wmNCmwww@N2 N.N.N. a. m.m.=.N.N.N.=. =.=.N. m.N. NddemNe@MNNNNNmv e O . m. m. m. m. m. m.. m. m. m. m. m. N. m. N. CCOQCCOQQCCCQQCC w QCQQQQCoccQCQQCC I QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQCQQC.Q.QQQ e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e o e e e e e e e e e e e e e s wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww m wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww C. m@mCNew@me@M%mQm o Nmo-Nom @wCN@-NmA wm4Cmhmmmm@hmmew C "NmmmN@wNmm-N@@m M.M.M.N.m.N.N.e.w.m.N.N.N.e.m.e. N O N. N. N. N. m. m. N. N. m. N. m. m. m. e. w. M. m I QQQQQQQQQQQQCQQQ CCCQQQCCCCCCQQCQ W %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%m NmmmNNNNNNNNNN.A 6 QCQQCQQCQQCQQQOc QQQQQCQQQCOCCCQQ O e e e e e e e e e e e e e e a e wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww O e e e e e e e a e a e e e e e e I g =wommMmm@mmmm@N N wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww e @ m w @ m N m mm @ '% mew @m U NmMNemmmmmmmmMN Q cQNmN=Qememo-mo-g C w w w m.N.N.m.w.w.w.m.N.N.e.m.m. m.w.@.w.m.w.m.@.m.m.m. w.w.%.~.m. N m g QCCCCQQQQCQQCCCC CCQQQQCCQQCCQQCC CO I "M %N %%%N4@NNNA QQ QQQCQQQCQQ QQ @N@@@@ %%D@@@ a e e o e e e e e e e e e e e e g wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww QCQQQQ QQQQCQ e e e e e e e e e e a e e e e e mgm@mm-%==m@mmwm @mCCM wQmmm@cNmM C wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww m NNN@mNwmNW@Q~Qm= O O

m. @.

. %. m. . Q w m. m. @. @. @. m. m. m. wwmmeQNGmem%3%cm e = .m.m.N.m.m.m.m. =.m.m.m. m N.m QQQCCCCQQQQQQQCQ e m I U e = CQCCCQQQQQQCCQQQ b O $.$.$888888888$888 e 2 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e = e wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww m @N@@w-@mMNmw @@m W Q QC Q I O e. mwommmC@Nw@@ mNm o e e a e e e o e e a e. e e e e = wwwwwwwwwww--www E Z N.N.N. =.=.=.N.N.M.N.m. *.=.N.w.e. e mmmme m@m@@Qwwww eCeeCoQCQooCCQQQ ,6 y w ~=m~o wo~%= mmwm= = N. N. N. N. m. =. ~. m. m. ~.. m. .. w. m. ,e QCQQCCCCCCOQCCCC g c e = W 8888888888888868 Q I = e e e e o e e e e e e a e e e e L wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww w d NemwamNC@@NmwNWm C U = w* NMe@mmMmmNmNNONw 88888 88@QQ @ 8 @Q Q C Q Q

m. m. m. ~. m. ~. N. e. w. m. N. ~. N. e. m. w.

e e e e e e e e a e e o e e e s QQococoCocoCocco 9 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww e %-mm~mmQm~~@~mem A w w- ~- ~ m m N m @ @ ~ e m m Q I e NmwomN~~w@m .= 8888888888888888 dddddddddddddddd c e e e e o e a e a e e e e e e e C wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wNQmmN%.N=Q@m~m~ %mm @wmNwcNNmmm@ m wwm Newm@wemmm.@ dddddddddddddddd 8888888888888888 I e e a e e e e e e e e e e e e e m m wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Ow5sw-%mm -mm-m-e m ~ m-ewm%~m--~@cm 8

        • "'*******N-*
a. @w. 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 e e e e e e e o e e o e o e o QQoCoccoacoQCCCC

= wwwmwwwwwwwwwww I

m. e.. ~ @.m N m _ m m N m N ~ w Nw mm~N=

,o m. ~mw~Owm w e N = .ww. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. a. H N mmmm4@memc@@@mmm C00QQQQ000C0C000 QQCQQCCCQQCCCCCQ m e a e e e e e e e e. e e e e e e 7 m N wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww s wmwmmNomq@mNmemm ea mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm A m NNACQQmMwNem%cNN I m.a. m.m.h.@.m. *.=.=.C.C.W.m N.m 3 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ v w e e e e e e e a e e e e e e e e g wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww e QQQOCCCCCCQQCQQC 6 w m N N Ne3 C @ @ N w % C N M Q -NM%NommCmwwe@@m b e N. N.N. m. m.m.m.M.N.N. m. m.m. N. M. N. Q w m w u E QQCCCQQQCCQQQQCQ I W 5 QQQQQQQQCQQQQCCC e m e e e e e e e e e a e a e a e e d a e wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

m. NQmwdQwe@Nw?w"N2 9e w

dmmmmmmmmmmmmm m 3 w@N 2@mOC@mmmwm QQQQQQCQQQQQQQ Q W m.m.m.N.=.N.m.M.w.m N.N.N.e @ w 8 C e e e e e e e e o e e e a e e e wwwwwwwwwwWWwwwW b e. m@@hmmmmmmmmadwm o QQCCQQCCCQQCCCCC. =. w% c-mmNammmC@wNmwmmC g= I -w C @ @ @ @ M.w. m.N.C.@. w.w.w. N. m W g %m e COQQCCCCCCCCOOQC 6 m u 9 1 e Ce e6 W Ow w w- -m y > Ce em 34 Qw C w I K o = 6 w w w w 3 3 3 3 m we w w w w 3 3 g = - 6 wZ mwm m3m Z3~ = g u = mwm m3m w Qw 2 Ewwwmmmmm3332Z Q 3 9 2 wwwmmmmm333 Z n 6 M ~6 w Qw I

I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page 14 5 The total annual amount of precipitation in the Richland area is 6.4 inches on the average which is typical of a desert biome. It is distributed unevenly, with nearly an inch per month occurring during November, December, and January, while July and August average only about 0.2 inches. The extreme annual amounts of precipi-tation on record are a maximum of 12.43 inches a minimum of 3.26 inches. Snowf alls of one inch or more occur on the overage of twice each month in December and January. Periods of snow accumulations of three inches or more average about five days in January. The largest snowfall on record resulted in an I accumulation of 43.6 inches. Severe weather in the Columbia Basin consists of wind, thunderstorms, and occa-sionally a tornado. No tornadoes have been recorded within 20 miles of the f acili ty. Wind speeds of approximately 60 mph are expected one year out of two, and speeds in excess of 50 mph are expected every year. The average annual f requency of thunderstorms in the Richland area is only eleven. Hail occurs during I only about one thunderstorm in ten, or about once a year on the average. Hurricanes do not occur in Washington State. I Fourteen tornadoes have been recorded in the Columbia Basin during the past 56 years. All were of short duration, reaching ground level only for brief periods and causing only slight damage. Based on a review of tornado occurrences in the northwestern states during the period 1950-1969, individual storms and their occurrence along preferred paths or channels in the mountainous terrain, several conservative conclusions have been drawn: I 1. Within a 100-mile circular area centered at the EN Site, the expected number of tornadoes is 0.4 per year. I 2. The mean (or expected) probability that a tornado will strike the specific EN Site during any given year is 6.1 x 10-6, I l I

V T I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page 15 5 3. The probability is 0.95 that the.vind speed will not exceed 168 mph in any given tornado, and over a forty-year period, the best estimate of the i maximum wind speed is 174 miles per hour. I 2.4 Geology and Seismology E W 2.4.1 Geology The Columbia Basin is underlain by very thick sequences of basaltic lava flows more than 10,000 feet thick. Within the area of the basaltic lava flows are a number of structural basins that contain layers of unconsolidated sands and gravels tens to hundreds of feet thick over the basaltic bedrock. Elsewhere, the basaltic is at or within a few feet of the surface. The Exxon Nuclear site, as shown in Figure 2.4-l, lies near the southeastern margin of the largest of such structural basins, which is known as the Pasco Basin. g 5 Borings and excavations at the site show a shallow layer of loose sand overlying interbedded sand;, gravels, and silts that are partly consolidated at depths. The depth to basaltic bedrock has been estimated at about 150 feet. Engineering studies have shown that the unconsolidated materials at the site provide good natural foundations for structures and have no potential for liquef action under the proposed seismic design criteria. The materials are easily excavated with hand and power tools and are good sources of sand and gravel for construction purposes. I The lava beds and some of the overlying materials in the Pasco Basin are gently deformed into very broad folds that have overall dips toward the center of the basin. This structure is broken by several east-west trending linear zones of discontinuous folds and small faults that are marked by ridges and chains of hills and buttes that stand above the general basin topography. The basin is bounded on the north and south by zones of sharper folding and faulting in which resistant lava beds have been uplif ted to form hilly ridges. A schematic geological cross-section through the Pasco Basin is given in Figure 2.4-2. I i I

__h-_4+.._e o.Ae.

  • --e---

-ah --w-----,.*Aw.s.+ihe 46M-- ame--oh-s-en4 .6. - - -. --.mm.ti..--%_ ..a-%m* .h.m.- ae, u ---A.--ma---_--a.m -___a +.4-A..-As-m. 434-vmA.---,s-_.

m_,4_-e

-_.-ma_M _+as--sA. e.- 4J + e / KEY BHITISH COLUMBIA ^*

  • P t ;* *..
  • I.**

CHIEF LY UNCONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS. ) MT. BAKER ' .i:k;: : +. y.- b f,*

.i:i.

.. ~

-,;,5

. / ** CHIEFLY SEDIMENT ARY ROCKS. 4 u,m.;.::;: - e i Q 9a j nu l.!' - CHIEF LY GR ANITIC ROCKS. j-M yfi { i l'; g g.

cout e &....

f ... ~. ~. g. O-- I SE ATTLE ),:..* l : - CHIEFLY VOLCANAC ROCKS. *,y / I f. hl 7,,,,i 7 7 / / SCALE IN MILES OL YMPI A j:{p / d['NUCL E AR.2 / j. / a 3,3e 3 8' .....4.- M.J. * ,/ ' fkh..:::.:. Al( / g" amw' PASCO BASIN z ,,. s d ; a sae g: &m / .A. .....h WALY h [y vm o =wm o MT. ST. H.E.t..F. N x:!. M,, T.. AD AMN [ g / Li ~!, . :3 / , x /' hMH1A Q ygy. _p + m? 5m J MT. HOOD I i /- POHTL AN.D { <. w-MAJOR GEOLOGICAL FEATURES OF WASHINGTON STATE 2./ - 1 FIGURE 4

E"[?"d $5 Io"E Ez3$zg ar(S o o z >x i;l o M E ($ 5 +... Io T z**

+

m mm g m o <: ra <* 825 z Q g,. y Qw m 4 g? *E5 E g.G n o 5 sz, x m-zo tts

E
:L::'4!p[/,:i:3</.p: M.i:i:4 7:p/<::..7<
6.

04:: ::(S;;:!::: RATTLESNAKE i Sgi::?.:::::{:

iN8i:..QP::@[Q D f:%)j..

.M HILLS l ' ' Q<...D.M : 4

. :6

,...,!g.:: LINEAMENT .. 7...:..:.:.: c").:: :(:(.:. <.Y/..!!) jii.] 0.7 p). :

'/. pM. y::.
.ye )

y <p p*;;;f.fji!!.9f::y./p/;:%py..):i.j)," 9:e : 6:0</.9 9 [::i:/, f).. v *".: :,r...y -?./ y.<y/' ?.9:., ,t : :.:.v

il!8i1::~::/::/'.::W:9/.:::.:.. g:i'8f::] :?/.:!j '.,'.

5: .0Z:8!/.::: .W_, z i YAKIMA RIVER 'i!${:i i::Mi. !!:\\:ilf..:y:[iii lii !!!s::i, ?,A,.Ii:fli!E!I!!!!!ilil! i:lI!!!!:ililih"'d.'I i m i: E h !!'i!.Y!!!!!.i!! iiili!i: i lii ' 'Ip' 5

+.:g:.:+g:+ o,'

g

</+ :.l:j gg!f! !!!!! ! !f:lfe[,',

!!Ii W

.:1:::5g!!!!!N gygi:, gig::i;g+3yg.g ;;;;q. [

. ++ ln: O r- .!?J.iij1.:+):::. ::p).3

p::...
g

,Ti,,a O .8/.8.::p1::!!jiilji g!!!/..!! ,3,'-b O

<f..:.[+:. :.!?.f.!:l::/.!8!,i,),,u_',1 0

5

i i<
/ < y',',,sj L t

,.::p- .,g/,: r-I;!::/.:i'.':::p /:

'9/D D I :!/ :l+:::./. j.jij:j C',f,j 9/ '-76 n :O

? -D

?.f: !!!/.(!! jf::e.. ;.

OO +I:' , \\,\\ !!:/:5! 7,* ',, y C$ It - I:5!

jkI5'l '\\'-[I I

!!:\\ii.. !![8!)\\:iiiiiXi! < <k, m$ i. 5: : \\::, -O b'.::\\':f:::(Niiii::(gj@ii.Y!. ';'-g .N o s COLUMBIA RIVER < N::.@i.ii....... i.

  1. -4 1:!f::a('O) gii;;g71:i..., sj: gi.g j i:j;q ;.gil g!:f.!.,',',,',

i-NO .Z jg i:. f U!!.\\i[ii;\\!. !! i 's O 2 ...*:. i! c::. +k.\\i.!::Oi.i.,(N :i. Q:.::. ; 3,,,, T '/i,- E

D

..N. -::v :..g.ygi::.y0;f:::g..:,::g:... V.

',h, y _,

O

... h.s;5:::S ::.g C

...N.,:. g.< s ' E ... : \\. '::: ~ ;: p:.\\'::? !:: f:8:\\':g:N$. Y; j.,. Q' o 8\\:: ::.6<;.!::g::.{:i: v F: g !!::Ti,.,li.$:.Y:i i ii. J' 9 s'.' ' if,' E c I

::,.. +:gi :.\\5. : ' '!

', -R

.$::::.0.g:':. :::\\i::y:':. :::ti8i ;t :y;:

,3,,'V, '/j,7 y cn 3:::- -:: g :.

0:b..g.: -

,3 t.',,. 0 $$$ 'i:g5 ::.g0X:::.g:g::+ + +g':.- ::\\::\\':!$.U::i.p. ::b

5 3 - r',. gN O

+gpmN:::k:.\\D:::..,' ','-O ,# J:

4. :

-5 tD .: ya+. j,, y ie Li: i:

!ji (: !

k. 5: i f,y,, ,\\:.::v.. v+...v:..q.:::. :.,g.y.:.. :::v.. $.N(y..,.:< :- . :. :...:...:... ).:' .y,.: .g:. .g : ' i,- S.:::.. 5..\\.:. :::h.:.3.N. :i.:::i.: 6.. .\\. 'J%,,. - v

g
.

l J:g::.i.:.:.' '::

v....:...:.

z., 4::!.::i. D.,,,

%n.. :\\:::.

.yq ;:.t.$(M4^.'% .. ' ::p::: <yjFO.g::

N::i:'i:

q- .:.N...:::q: g.0.:.p..@..N..y.l,, 5.:.g:...::g :*:-: 0: ..:..gs.... .: g::.: ~ ::.N+..:p N'*N ::!.y..\\..v.s SADDLE

v. < <
sv :: g.::.NN O 8)s:O MOUNTAINS

'ii:::8V,D:g i:1,.. 2..r., ]

y:: ::y:: Oi::

~ = 9 8 8 0 8 = m a8 go ? 5 r-3 LI a60d I *^a8 '# 1-JN-NX I

I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page 18 8 2.4.2 Seismology I Considerable attention has been given to the seismicity of the area by many geologists and geophysicists, including those of the U.S. Geological Survey and I private consultants to Exxon Nuclear Company. The Exxon Nuclear site, as shown in Figure 2.4-3, lies in a region classified as Zone 2, correspondino to intensity Vil I on the Modified Mercalli Scale of 1931. No f aults or other active tectonic features have been identified at the Exxon Nuclear site. The following three nearby structural zones have been considered as loci of potential earthquake activity: I 1. Saddle Mountain lineament - a zone about 25 miles north of the site in which lava beds are sharply folded and faulted, and along which the epicenter of a I damaging earthquake was located in 1918. Eg 2. Gable Mountain lineament - a series of folds with minor faulting about 15 miles north of the site on which no movement younger than 40,000 years has been identified. 3. Rattlesnake Hills lineament - a zone approximately seven miles southwest of the site in which lava beds are folded and moderately faulted, and which has been interpreted by some geologists as a major, continuous feature extending I northwest to the Pacific Ocean and by others as of more local significance. The characteristics of this lineament are not well enough known to fully assess its importance as a potential locus for earthquake activity.

However, the existence of minor fault movements that may have occurred in historic times and the location of epicenters of two damaginc earthquakes on or near the lineament suggest that parts of the feature may still be tectonically alive.

I I I

um um am nas em um num man em ese sum aus ama sus ame sua um aus 8 R I T I 5 H C OL U M B iA av E ARTHOUAME EPICENTERS & INTENSITY $ v" e iv - - MT.ftxER I ) O vi I Ov @.M ~" i. ) TECTONIC LINE AME NTS COLU4% n 8 Zen.s et foksene and GRAND l O d i feutime m wumity of COULEEg g SPOK ANE . SEATTLE 4

  • Shown only w.then app.omemas.ly

.. m.N. o. Io e ee 7 ,,,I 7 Y W A S g)H I N G T O N I-SCALE IN helLES h e N \\ h EXXON l 7 \\ l NUCLEAR ( A \\ SADDl E M r+. O SITE l M T. R AINlER u Ce suv, e m SNAd h 9.,!r U YAKIMA GABLE My e g# g@ O { ASTORIA 4 D e RICHLAND \\ A g 4, WALLA WALLA ,I MT. ADAMS MT ST. HELENS g, U \\. . -Oh. _ _. -..- \\. ,x 'e Os jj l I Cotou g aivER \\ g-s. _,. - ~. ,_.-~-A \\ n s 1 ( POR T L AN D M T. HOOD f 1 A e ee m / O R E G O N y SEISMICITY AND TECTONICS. VICINITY OF EXXON NUCLEAR SITE FIGURE 2.4-3 \\

I I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page 20 I Although no domoge from earthquakes has been reported at the site, there have been three earthquakes during the past 100 years of intensity large enough to cause moderate damage to structures within 30 to 60 miles of the site. The closest epicenters were in the vicinity of Umatilla in 1983 and near Walla Walla in 1936. The maximum intensities of these quakes were estimated to be Vil (intensities are given in the Modified Mercalli Scale). The distribution of the epicenters of these I and other less intense earthquakes in the vicinity is given in Figure 2.4-3. It has been estimated that the maximum intensity experienced at the Exxon Nuclear site during historic earthquakes was approximately V on the Modified Mercolli Scale, producing a maximum horizontal ground acceleration of 0.02 g. Because the two largest nearby quakes had epicenters on or near the Rattlesnake Hills lineament, it is assumed that future ecrthquakes in the vicinity of the site are most likely to occur there. By assuming a geologic structure for the Rattle-snake Hills and by analogy with other regions where the geology is better known, I the maximum seismic event likely to affect the plant is estimated to have an intensity of Vill at an epicenter seven miles from the site, and would induce a maximum ground acceleration of 0.25 g at the site. This is greater than ten times the estimated rnaximum intensity of any earthquake felt at the site during recorded history and is consistent with the basis for analyses of two nearby nuclear reactor sites. The Fast Flux Test Facility, located about 5 miles to the north, character-izes the design basis earthquake as 0.25 g. The safety evaluation of the Hanford No. 2 Nuclear Power Plant, which is located about 8 miles north of the Exxon site, states that "....an acceleration of 0.25 g. is adequate for representing the ground I motion from the maximum earthquake likely to affect the site." The Ccscade Range to the west of the proposed fuel plant contains a number of active or recently active volcanoes. The nearest volcano is nearly 80 miles away. Therefore, volcanic eruptions, including lava flows or ash falls, are not considered to be a potential hazard. I I I

1 l XN-NF-14, P,ev. I Page 21 l I 2.5 Hydrology 2.5.1 Surface Water Hydrology The Exxon Nuclear site lies between the Yakima and Columbia Rivers. The Columbia, one of the three largest rivers in North America, is fed by snowmelt in I mountains far to the north and by ground water along its path. It is subject to flooding, chiefly during the spring melt season. Four large floods have occurred during the past 100 years. The flow of the Columbia is presently highly regulated by the many dams upstream of Richland in Washington State and British Columbia. The average daily discharge ranges from a controlled minimum of 76,000 cfs to 239,000 cfs. At the closest point, the site lies about 25 feet above the river level at a Columbia River flow rate of 260,000 cfs. The Columbia's water is of good chemical and bacteriological quality and the river is used for irrigation, power generation, municipal water supplies, transportation, fishing and water sports. The Columbia River has been the subject of extensive flood frequency studies. Estimates have been made of maximum probable floods based on combinations of extreme natural hydrologic conditions and taking into consideration the flood-control storage af forded by existing and planned dams. The maximum probable flood assumes a flow of 1,440,000 cfs on the main stem of the Columbia River in the vicinity of the City of Richland. On the basis of such estimates, the site is considered subject to maximum flooding, to a depth of about 7 feet. The general extent of such flooding, which exceeds any historical documentation, is shown on I Figure 2.5-1. Normal monitoring of hydrologic conditions within the basin could be expected to provide on early warning for such floods. The applicant estimates that a 30 day period is provided by early warning, which is sufficient to afford time for diking and movement of radioactive material inventory to in plant elevations above flood levels. I I I

I XN-NF-14, Rev. I pm, ??q ) Le-a L. M. ' ovL q g. /; y9 C pr E g:p Y f.-f %s.'e { [- l N. ..fm. q# 1 ta k. sq s xEv y j, f, 3 epgg g p.., ',,A t 'dj x [ g EXXON NUCLEAR SITE e or p lJ 'o 1 2 k f P( N l I ce 'j t< .g ij ( NORMAL RIVER LEVEL y ; L y,' e'\\ 7 'O e d -i AREA SUBJECT TO MAXIMUM PROBABLE FLOOD, EXCLUDING. 3

j.'

/ D, L f :p -{.j f UPSTREAM DAM FAILUHE. I d:m u s i [# 4..l , C' tu = r,yI 'd.! ') J r io = = . l =t:: [1 MMO AeN/ R l~e / (I 19 I y

w...

t - = - -- 99 /^/,.rp y-7 y =wlil s. n 1 f s'm.i b*.,.- --l I %g.. >++ s. 7 pw g 1 b f f) \\,(', / I )\\\\f,>;o. NlW I ? @3r ]l 3

J
1.3, j g #. e

-.I r 3 A / 5 4, / -- - de /_ /h l ,j w'r 7 t y y c. r g. , n 7 l b [ K A,,,).&N i ler %%A.$14KT M\\ I w[I!/ a i Ly;.-l\\p <g .r. v L i

4 Q

f i j _\\ [ I 1 4 0 __1 MILE i \\w p x x s s N 1 CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET 4 DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL 16g,.N. xK' I h. %.v y i ft-3,. C 7i : y l FLOODING POTENTIAL, EXXON NUCLEAR SITE I FIGURE 2.5-1

I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page 23 I The 500 year flood is estimated to have a flow of 775,000 cfs in the Hanford reach of the Columbia. The facility, which is 371.5 feet above mean sea level is about six feet above the level expected from the 500 year flood. I Flooding on the Yakima River would not affect the Exxon Nuclear site. The only other surface drainage in the area consists of two abandoned irrigation ditches I one-half mile east and west of the site that contain water during, and for short periods following, rains. 2.5.2 Groundwater Hydrology Groundwater occurs in unconfined sand and gravel aquifers with the water table at between ll and 30 feet below the surface at the site. Groundwater under artesian I conditions also occurs at great depths within the basaltic bedrock. Recharge of shallow aquifers is chiefly from the Yakimo River to the west. "'oter movement is mainly to the east with the water table discharging to the Columbia River. Deep aquifers have recharge creas in hills to the west and southwest. The site is not considered susceptible to flooding by groundwater seepage. To bring the water table to or near the surface at the site would require flooding on the Columbia River to a level and for a duration that is not credible. I Previous hydrogeologic studies of the Hanford area have found the region to be largely dominated by the Pasco gravels and the Ringold Formation. Both of these strata were deposited as sediments of the ancestral Columbia River. The Ringold formation can consist of two subgroups, one composed of sand and gravel, while the second consists of sands and silts with some clay. The area is underlain by the Columbia River Basalt group. I Drilling logs of wells drilled on the Exxon Nuclear site indicate the presence of the Pasco gravels (along with eolian sand deposits) f rom the surface to a depth of I about 18 feet. Sand and gravels of the Ringold formation occur below this to about I I

I I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page 24 I 43 feet, at which point a layer of impervious silt and clay (also of the Ringold formation) extends for at least 17 feet. Drilling was stopped at 60 feet when it was determined that this impervious sitt and clay layer was not simply an isolated lens. Data exists which implies that this silt layer is anywhere frorr 20-40 feet I thick. Below this layer is about 100 feet of sand and gravel underlain by a second layer of impervious silt and clay, approximately 20-40 feet thick. Below this lies I the Columbia River Basalt group. Onsite monitoring wells indicate the water table is presently located in the Ringold formation. This unconfined acquifer has a lower boundary elevation of about 332' at this location, which is formed by the impervious silt and clay layer. The local groundwater hydrology at the ENC site was investigated in late 1977 and I early 1978 because of previous leakage from the lagoons. Additional investigction of the groundwater hydrology was performed in 1982 by JUB Engineering and reported in the document " Groundwater Quality and Flow Characteristics in The Vicinity of The Exxon Nuclear Company Inc., Fuel Fabrication Facility, Richland, Washington", XN-JUB-82-86, October 1982. 2.6 Ecology of the Site and Environment The Exxon Nuclear site is located in a relatively flat, desert steppe. Sagebrush and I antelope bitterbrush predominate among the pristine plant communities in the area. Cheatgrass,' brome, and Sandberg bluegrass prevail in the understory. The annual herbage production has been estimated to be roughly 100 gms of dry matter per square meter. Throughout the years, the local vegetation has been disturbed by homestecding, fire, l and grazing, leaving areas exposed to wind erosion and done formation. As a result, alien vegetation such as Russion thistle, mustard, and rabbitbrush have encroached l on the native floro. A few barely surviving locust trees testify to the homestead-l l lI l

XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page 25 ing history. A severe wildfire in 1970 encompassed an area of approximately 19,000 acres of the Hanford Reservation north of the Exxon Nuclear site, but it did not spread into the Horn Rapids Triangle. The fire destroyed a majority of the established shrubs, forbs, and grosses in its path. Initial revegetation of disturbed areas is dominated by annual grosses and forbs, such as cheatgrass, with little or no perennial plant recovery. The most abundant mammals in the vicinity of the site are pocket mice and deermice. Jackrabbits and coyotes are also scottered throughout the area. By far, the most abundant mammal is the pocket mouse, which subsists largely on the seeds of grosses. Larger and more mobile mammals, such as mule deer, prefer the shores and islands of the Columbia River, with limited use of the more barren, inland steppe, in the fall and winter, however, the mule deer may wonder inland to forage upon the shoots of cheatgrass and the leaves and smaller twigs of bitterbrush. In the summer, the deer are frequently found in the distant Rattle-snake Hills. The most abundant reptile is the side-blotched lizard. Snakes, especially the gopher snake and the Pacific rattlesnake, are occasionally encountered. Birds are not abundant in the sagebrush-bitterbrush type of vegetation. The most common resident birds are meadowlarks and horned larks. The loggerhead shrike, although not an abundant bird, is conspicuous. During periods when food and cover are adequate, game birds, such as the chukar portridge, quail, ringneck pheasant, I and mourning dove may be found in the vicinity of the site. The region is used as a hunting ground for birds of prey, such as the marsh hawk and golden eagle in the winter and the burrowing owl and Swainson's hawk in the summer. The bold eagle is occasionally observed in the area, and is the only wildlife species in the vicinity that is on the list of endangered species. During the f all and winter, migrating flocks of Canadian geese forage upon the cheatgrass and alfalf a in the vicinity of l the site. l i I I

i XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page 26 I Waterfowl are of major importance in the area. Approximately 200 pairs of Canadian geese reside on the river islands in the vicinity of the site, and produce an average of roughly 700 goslings annually. An estimated 100 pairs of ducks also rest on these islands. Two islands, one near Ringold and another near Coyote Rapids, are used as rookeries by colonies of California and ring-billed gulls. Approximate!y 6000 nesting pairs produce IO,000-20,000 young annually. I 3.0 EFFLUENT SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING PROGRAM Compliance with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission License No. SNM-1227, Washington State Department of Ecology Waste Discharge Permit No. 3919 and Washington State air quality limits are assured by the implementation of Exxon Nuclear's Environmental Safety Standards. The essence of this standard is included as Appendix A of this document. I The data resulting from the surveillance and monitoring program is summarized in Appendix B of this document. 4.0 EFFECT OF OPERATIONS ON THE ENVIRONMENT 4.1 Water Quality Radioactive concentration discharged to the sewer system is limited by 10 CFR 20.303. The uranium released to the sewer has consistently been less than 0.1 ppm I (0.16 E-9 Ci/l) which is more than a factor of 100 less than the limiting concentra-tion allowed to be averaged over one month per 10 CFR 20.303(c). From the environmental monitoring performed at Hanford for 1985 by Battelle Northwest (PNL-5817) the average concentration of uranium in the Columbia River is approxi-mately 0.4 E-12 Ci/l. By simple ratio of average sewer flow and concentration to average river flow and concentration the uranium concentration in the river would be increased by less than 0.0l%. The total radioactive material discharged to the sewer is limited to one curie per year by 10 CFR 20.303(c). The radioactive I I

XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page 27 I material released to the sewer during the past five years is listed in Table 2 of Appendix B and the uranium released has remained below 1/10th of the one curie per year limit. I Discharges to the sewer system are limited by the State Effluent Discharge Permit No. 3919. The chemicals and solids discharged to the sewer have remained well below the State license limits listed in Table 2 of Appendix A. A review of the chemical discharges shows on increase in suspended solids, NO3 and fluoride during I These ircreases are associated with the controlled release of low uranium, 1985. low ammonia liquids from the lagoon system. The release of these materials at below State license limit is expected to continue with no significant effect on the environment. I 4.2 Air Quality I The radioactive yoseous ef fluent concentrations remained consistently below that required by 10 CFR 20.106. Uranium discharges out of plant stacks has averaged I less than 25 microcuries per year during the last five years. This amount of uranium (less than 16 grams) has had essentially no impact on the cumulative of f-site dose due to uranium fuel cycle operations. Using a worst case chi /Q of 0.1 14-Cf. from Table 2.3-2 and 25 microcuries per year of uranium released. The average exposure to a person.5 mile from the site will be on the order of 21 microRem. Chemical air quality is controlled by the State and requires the monitoring of fluoride and oxides of nitrogen emissions from our gaseous ef fluents. Fluoride is monitored at the stacks periodically; however, limits are placed on ambient air and forage, and not on stock emissions. NOX monitoring is used to verify that the NOX at the site boundary is less than 0.05 ppm. Monitoring for these chemicals has provided no indication that these limits have been exceeded. I I I

I I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page 28 8 4.3 Terrestrial Quality The surface outside of the fenced exclusion area has essentially remained unchanged during the last five years. Review of the data obtained from the test well and lagoon liner sample has indicated that there have been no leaks of lagoon solution I to the environment during the last five years. Due to the nature of low enriched uranium there has been no increase in direct radiation exposure at the plant site Laundary. There has been no discernible increase in radiation levels, contamination levels nor chemical levels in the environs near the plant site as measured by our environmental monitoring program. I I I I I I I I I I I

i XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page A-l lI i I i APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING PROGRAM 1 'I 1E I iI i ji i !I i!I I 4 4 1

I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page A-2 I TABLE OF CONTENTS E Section Page ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING PROGRAM A-3 1.1 Caseous Effluents (Exhaust Air) A-3 1.2 Liquid Effluents (Sewer) A-3 1.3 Groundwater A-4 1.4 Environmental A-S I ~ List of Tables I I Exhaust Air Sampling / Monitoring Matrix A-6 2 Liquid Effluent Sampling Matrix (Sewer) A-7 3 Groundwater Sampling Matrix A-8 4 Field Sampling Matrix A-9 I List of Figures l Field Sample Station Locations A-10 2 Lagoon Test Well Locations A-1I I I I I

I 4 XN-NF-l 4, Rev. I Page A-3 I I ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING PROGRAM l.1 Gaseous Effluents (Exhaust Air) I Continuous isokinetic sampling is provided on all exhaust air stocks servicing areas in which uncontained radioactive materials are used, processed, or otherwise handled. These samples are analyzed on a weekly basis for gross alpha activity (and beta activity when appropriate). I Each stack's air flow is recorded weekly and used with the stock sample data in determining the quantity of radionuclides released. The sampling analysis and record requirements for radioactivity is outlined by Table 1. I l.2 Liquid Effluents (Sewer) I Waste liquid ef fluents from the ENC plant are discharged to the municipal sewer system of the City of Richland. Continuous sampling of this ef fluent stream I occurs prior to its discharge into the Richland municipal sewerage system per Table 2. Composited samples are collected daily for uranium and selected chemicals Monday through Friday. The Monday sample is representative of the weekend. I For each measurement or sample taken, the following information is recorded: (1) the date, exact place, and time of sampling; (2) the dates the analyses were performed; (3) who performed the analyses; (4) the analytical techniques or methods used; and (5) the results of all analyses. I I I

I I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page A-4 I All records of monitoring activities and results, including all reports of recordings from continuous monitoring instrumentation shall be retained for a minimum of five (5) years. This period of retention shall be extended during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding the discharge or when requested by the State Authority. I 1.3 Groundwater I The liquid waste storage lagoons are monitored by sampling the "between liners" leak detection systems monthly, if liquid is found, an investigation shall be / initiated to determine the source and magnitude of the leak and appropriate corrective action. I Test wells around the periphery of the lagoon system are utilized to indicate whether leaks have penetrated both upper and lower lagoon liners and have released any of the stored liquid chemical waste to groundwater. These test wells also monitor the concentrations and movement of chemicals in the groundwater. I Test well locations relative to the storage lagoons are shown in Figure 2. The groundwater sampling program is outlined in Table 3. I For each measurement or sample taken, the following information is recorded: (1) the date, exact place, and time of sampling; (2) the dates the analyses were I performed; (3) who performed the analyses; (4) the analytical techniques or methods used; and (5) the results of all analyses. I I I I I

I ~ XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page A-5 I All records of monitoring activities and results, including all reports of recordings I from continuous monitoring instrumentation shall be retained for a minimum of five (5) years. This period of retention shall be extended during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding the discharge or when requested by the State Authority. I l.4 Environmental I . This part of the monitoring program supplements that previously described and consists of periodic collection and analysis of samples from the local environs, I including ambient air, soil and vegetation. The " field" sompling program is outlined in Table 4. Field sample station loca-tions are diagrammed in Figure 1. I Soil samples shall be approximately 500 grams each collected from between I cm and 5 cm beneath the surface of the topsoil on a quarterly basis. The records of the analysis shall be retained for the life of the plant. I I I I I I I I

I l l l XN-NF-14, Rev. l l Page A-6 I Table l Exhaust Air Sampling / Monitoring Matrix I Exhaust Exhaust Oxides of Stack ID Volume Radioactivity Fluoride (S) Nitrogen K-3 W Room 100 C FM K-6 W NAF C K-9 W Etch C FW K-10 W Line i POG C FM M K-21 W Room 182 C I K-25 W ELO C K-31 W Line 2 C FM K-32 W Line 2 POG C FM M K-37 W U Og C 3 K-42 W Laundry C K-46 W ELO Add. C M K-47 W ELO C K-44 W ITE C-Fission Product 1 C Continuous isokinetic sampling. M Stack sampling (isokinetic) at least monthly during operations. S Semiannually determine total (particulate + gaseous) fluoride. I W Weekly reported to Safety and Security (HPT) by Maintenance (Air Balance). FM Continuous one week per month (isokinetic). FW - Continuous and analyzed least weekly (isokinetic). lI

I

I ~ XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page A-7 I Table 2 Liquid Effluent Sampling Matrix (Sewer) I Daily (l) Daily (2) Monitoring Sample Parameter Average Maximum Frequency Location Type Flow 500,000 gal 500,000 gal Daily Waste Effluent Meter NH3 as N 25 mg/l 30 mg/l Daily Waste Effluent Composite NO3 as N 600 lb/c 700 lb/d Daily Waste Effluent Composite Fluoride as F 2500 lb/d 3500 lb/d Daily Waste Effluent Composite pH > 5.0 Caily Waste Effluent Composite Total Suspended Solids 300 mg/l 600 mg/l Weekly Waste Effluent Composite Radioactivity Daily Max (3) 9x10-4 p Ci/mL (562 ppm) or 0.1 p Ci Monthly Max (3) 9x10-4 p Ci/mL Yearly Max 1.0 Ci total Action Level (3) >0.1 ppm investigate 1.6-7 p Ci/mL >l.d ppm Shutdown 1.6-6 u Ci/mL I (1) The daily average is defined as the avernge of the measured values obtained over a calendar month's time. (2) The daily maximum is defined as the greatest allowable value for any I calendar day. (3) Based on 3 wt% enriched uranium 1.6 p Ci/gm. I I

!I E c. XN-NF-14, Rev. I E Page A-8 Table 3 Groundwater Sampling Matrix 1 !I Parameter Monitoring Frequency Location Sample Type i Fluoride as F Ouarterly Well Group B Grab NO3 as N I per 6 months Well Group A Grab NH3 os N I per 6 months Well Group A Grab pH I per 6 months Well Group A Grab Presence of liquid Monthly Lagoon interliner Grab sampling system Gross Alpha / Beta Quarterly Well Group B Grab i Gross Alpha / Beta Semiannually Well Group C Grab un E j Monitoring Well Group A is Wells I, 2, 9, 13, 14, 15 and 16. Monitoring Well Group B is Wells I-7,1I,12,13 and 19-21. Monitoring Well Group C is Well 9, 14, 15, 16.

I
I II I

i i I 1 ' I

t XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page A-9 I 4 Table 4 Field Sampling Matrix l4I } Sample Sample Sampling i Station Type Frequency Analysis l l Soil Quarterly Uranium j I 2 Soil Quarterly Uranium 3 Air Monthly Fluoride 4 Air Monthly Fluoride 5 Forage Monthly

  • Fluoride 6

Forage Monthly

  • Fluoride I

g During the growing season only (April-October). I I !I I I 4 1 ' I I i

XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page A-10 l _M I 1 p i I ' fi y d2E1 0 okI! 0 a 1 o 1 88 i, s4 o a 8 i s ENC l @ BATTELLE I I f 1 N k e l i a \\ I I FIGURE 1 FIELD SAMPLE STATION LOCATIONS I I

XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page A-l1 I- \\ I ) HORN RAPIDS ROAD /~ / [ ( .,4 15 16 g

  • is I

I ( I .e N x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x 2 I LAGOON LAGOON i = No.5-A No., "l 'O (By N.E. Corner ho.5-B of S.F. Building) 21 4 I .e SAND TRENCH LAGOON I .e i No.3 M I i LAGOON No. 4 I t-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. y k LAGOON TEST WELL LOCATIONS I FIGURE 2 I

!I i l XN-NF-14, Rev. I j i Page B-l lI } APPENDIX B Table I Gaseous Effluent Data I 2 Liquid Ef fluent (Sewer) Data 3 Environmental Sampling Data Well I Data for Test Well #1 2 Data for Test Well #2 3 Data for Test Well #3 4 Data for Test Well #4 ) 5 Data for Test Well #5 6 Data for Test Well #6 7 Data for Test Well #7 1 9 Data for Test Well #9 II Data for Test Well #11 12 Data for Test Well #12 13 Data for Test Well #13 14 Data for Test Well #14 )I 15 Data for Test Well #15 1 i am 16 Data for Test Well #16 1!g 19 Data for Test Well #19 1 20 Data for Test Well #20 21 Data for Test Well #21 I

i 1 XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page B-2 i Table i Gaseous Ef fluent Data i i Microcuries Maximum Fluoride (ppm) Year U Pu FP K3 K9 K 10 K31 K32 I98I <20 <.I 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.10 l 1982 <22 <.I 0.07 1.87 I8.60 0.02 0.11 1983 <24 <.1 0.03 1.31 3.70 7.68 2.38 1984(I) <.7 <.I 0.07 0.45 1.60 0.01 0.12 1985 <l5 <.02(2) < 2.88 0.02 0.12 21.99 0.01 0.69 I I I i I I I There was a reduction in total exhaust when some of the building exhaust systems were shutdown for maintenance during the July-August 1984 furlough. 2 Reported only for the first half of the year. i i i k . - ~. - ~-.--

XN-NF-14, Rev. I I Page B-3 I Table 2 Liquid Effluent (Sewer) Data I Limit Limit Daily Daily Daily Daily Parameter Avg. Max. Year Avg. Max. 1981 3.6 E+5 4.2 E+5 I Flow (gal) 5 E+5 5 E+5 1982 2.6 E+5 3.4 E+5 1983 2.4 E + 5 4.1 E+5 1984 2.8 E+5 3.5 E+5 1985 3.9 E+5 4.5 E+5 NH3 as N (mg/l) 25 30 1981 3.6 17.2 1982 3.7 34.6 1983 5.3 28.8 1984 4.0 26.3 1985 9.5 22.2 1981 NO3 as N (Ib/d) 600 700 1982 1983 40 239 I 1984 64 149 1985 341 593 Suspend Solids 300 600 1981 (mg/l) 1982 1983 30 65 I 1984 27 65 1985 163 181 PH > 5 1982 5.8 5.8 I 1983 5.8 5.8 1984 6.3 6.3 1985 5.6 5.6 Fluoride mg/l 1982 6.3 44 l 1983 4.0 21 1984 28 149 i lE 3 Fluoride Ibs/d(l) 2500 3500 1985 1215 2204 1 4 i ) I Change in units due to revision of state discharge permit. 4 i i

] i i 3 XN-NF-14, Rev. I , g Page B-4 4 Table 2 Liquid Effluent (Sewer) Data (Cont.d) 3 I Limit Limit Daily Daily Daily Daily ) I Parameter Avg. Max. Year Avg. Max. Yearly Total I 1981 <.085 Uranium (Ci) 1.0 Ci/ year 1982 <.080 i 1983 <.093 i 1984 <.068(2) l 1985 <.080 1 l li 1 i I 1 i l I II 1 1 2 Thorium was identified as an ef fluent of the ELO Gadolinia Separations operation, approximately 0.47 curies of Thorium-234 and Protactinium-234 were discharged in addition to the uranium. 4 1! --

XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page B-5 I Table 3 Environmental Sampling Data Station Station Station Station Station Station No. I No.2 No. 3(a) No. 4(a) No. 5(b) No. 6(b) Type of Sample Soil Soil Air Air Forage Forage Frequency Qtr Otr Mo. Mo. Mo.(c) Mo.(c) Otr Avg Qtr Avg Otr Avg Qtr Avg Units Yr/Qtr U (ppm) U (ppm) F (ppb) F (ppb) F (ppb) F (ppm) 81-1 0.1/ 0.23 7.6 81-2 0.5 0.4 0.25 0.25 0.52 14.0 I 81-3 0.4 0.4 0.08 0.07 3.6 12.0 81-4 2.0 0.3 0.04 0.05 17.0 82-1 0.2 0.3 0.II 0.06 82-2 0.2 0.2 0.26 0.19 10.3 24.0 82-3 < 0.1 6.0 0.15 0.23 6.3 25.0 82-4 0.05 0.06 10.2 83-1 0.04 0.05 l1.3 7.8 83-2 < 0. 7 0.4 0.17 0.12 7.5 83-3 1.0 4.9 0.90 0.07 7.0 17.9 83-4 < 0. 3 0.4 0.05 0.04 3.0 14.0 84-l 0.7 2.0 0.I3 0.09 84-2 8.6 1.2 0.08 0.07 8.0 8.5 84-3 0.06 0.06 12.0 84-4 0.7 2.6 0.10 0.09 4.2 2.4 85-1 8.0 1.0 0.09 0.06 85-2 G. 0.5 0.I9 0.I3 2.5 2.9 85-3 0., 0.1 0.07 0.07 85-4 0.1 0.1 0.15 0.14 I Avg. l.49 1.3 0.157 0.11 5.8 I 2.5 Limit 19 @ 3 w/o(d) 0.5(e) 40(f) (a) Data prior to 6/84 are from Stations 12 and 11, respectively. (b) Data prior to 6/84 are from Stations iI and 12, respectively. (c) During growing season only (April-October). I (d) EPA acceptable level, 30 pico Ci/gm. (e) WAC 18-48-130 (f) WAC 18-48-120 I I

XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page B-6 1 I WELL #1 U Alpha Beto F NO3 NH3 Yr/Qtr ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm ppm ppm 81/1 < 0.1 5.20 68 72 81/2 < 0.1 5.10 79 81 81/3 < 0.1 7.60 3E 26 81/4 < 0.1 Il.20 27 30 82/1 < 0.1 21.80 72 73 82/2 < 0.1 9.70 63 94 82/3 < 0.1 6.00 49 107 82/4 <0.1 11.70 81 108 83/I < 0. I 4.00 99 72 63/2 < 0.1 6.00 81 69 83/3 <0.1 4.80 60 35 l 83/4 < 0.1 2.90 52 46 84/I <0.I 3.80 52 49 84/2 24.4 24.4 4.00 I 84/3 8.7 46.4 5.00 53 29 84/4 9.9 91.7 4.00 85/1 11.1 55.6 4.00 71 90 85/2 12.I 29.2 2.00 85/3 8.0 18.0 2.90 64 85/4 42.4 30.4 6.20 I

l

!I I

I

_ - _ _ _ _ -. _. _. _ _ __ _ -. _ -. _ _ _.... -. ~.. _. - - - - - -., - -. - - - - _ - - - -. -,.. _.

!I i 4 XN-NF-14, Rev. I I Page B-7 I j i WELL //2 lI i l U Alpha Beta F NO3 NH3 i Yr/Qtr pp m pCi/L pCi/L ppm ppm ppm 81/! < 0.1 14.00 34 145 81/2 < 0.1 9.70 65 147 l 81/3 < 0.1 7.00 42 85 81/4 < 0.1 6.50 18 85 82/l < 0.1 18.90 34 99 82/2 < 0. I I l.60 37 II4 1 82/3 < 0.1 7.10 33 102 j 82/4 < 0.1 8.00 39 29 1 l 83/l < 0.1 8.50 65 163 I 83/2 < 0.1 3.30 57 108 83/3 <0.1 4.50 18 55 1 83/4 < 0.1 4.10 6 46 84/I < 0. I 7.60 44 60 84/2 148 77.6 7.20 84/3 131 61.1 7.00 43 36 j mg 84/4 III 68.1 7.00 j 85/l 91.1 70.1 7.50 57 823 85/2 281.0 87.3 4.00 l 85/3 98.3 50.3 8.40 69 85/4 86.2 30.4 5.20 1 I I!I lI lI I i I

i; I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page B-8 i I WELL //3 U Alpha Beta F I Yr/Qtr ppm pCi/L pCi/L epm j l 81/l < 0.1 0.92 I 81/2 < 0.1 0.60 81/3 < 0.1 0.54 81/4 <0.1 0.46 82/I <0.1 0.52 82/2 < 0.1 0.8I 82/3 <0.I 0.56 I 82/4 < 0.1 0.40 83/1 < 0.1 1.30 1 I 83/2 < 0.1 0.65 83/3 < 0.1 0.41 83/4 < 0. ! 0.45 84/I <0.1 0.46 84/2 5.! 40.6 0.50 84/3 5.6 I 9.9 1.00 I 84/4 I l.6 31.7 6.00 85/I I9.8 48.5 0.80 I 85/2 44.I 24.5 1.50 85/3 9.2 22.4 0.50 85/4 6.6 28.2 0.48 I I I I I i

lI ilE XN-NF-14, Rev. I jg Page B-9 l WELL #4 I l 3 U Alpha Beto F j g Yr/QJ ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm 8l/I < 0. l 0.83 lI 81/2 < 0.1 0.63 81/3 < 0. I 0.68 81/4 < 0.1 0.65 1 82/I < 0.1 0.45 82/2 <0.1 0.67 82/3 < 0.1 0.39 82/4 < 0. l 0.43 J 83/l < 0.1 0.91 83/2 < 0.1 0.37 83/3 < 0.1 0.36 83/4 < 0.1 0.42 { 84/l < 0.1 0.35 1 84/2 46.4 28.6 0.40 9 84/3 5.0 26.2 0.70 84/4 7.I 26.7 0.50 85/I 6.9 29.1 0.70 ] 85/2 9.9 33.I 2.00 85/3 7.6 I 9.5 0.50 2 85/4 3.9 19.8 0.45 i a I i ) l

i i I I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page B-10 !E 1 lI WELL #5 !}g U Alpha Beta F 5 Yr/Otr ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm 81/l < 0.1 0.51

I 81/2

< 0.1 0.28 81/3 0.29 81/4 0.31 82/I 0.27 82/2 0.60 82/3 0.27 I 82/4 0.4 I 83/l 0.85 I 83/2 0.40 83/3 0.28 83/4 0.28 84/I 0.35 84/2 3.2 32.9 0.45 5 g 84/3 3.3 28.8 I 4.0 g 84/4 1.8 5.54 0.30 85/I 7.8 38.9 0.40 I 85/2 1.4 10.7 0.50 85/3 0.2 10.4 0.30 85/4 0.03 8.8 0.2I I I I i!I 4 I 4

I XN-NF-14. Rev. I I Page B-1I I WELL #6 U Alpha Beto F I Yr/Otr ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm 81/l <0.1 0.51 I 81/2 < 0.1 0.54 81/3 < 0.1 0.25 81/4 < 0.1 0.33 82/I < 0.1 0.53 82/2 < 0.1 0.49 82/3 < 0.1 0.30 82/4 < 0.1 0.34 83/I < 0. I 0.83 I 83/2 < 0. I 4.80 83/3 < 0.1 0.30 83/4 < 0.1 0.40 84/I < 0. i 0.39 84/2 8.3 l 9.7 0.60 84/3 3.4 9.0 0.40 84/4 4.4 27.2 0.30 85/I 8.8 23.1 0.80 85/2 6.7 14.6 1.30 I 85/3 0.1 11.0 0.50 85/4 5.4 14.3 0.30 I I I I I lI

) XN-NF-14, Rev. I I Page B-12 I WELL #7 I U Alpha Beta F I Yr/Qtr ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm .i 81/I < 0. l 0.39 l 81/2 < 0.1 0.28 81/3 < 0.1 0.35 81/4 < 0.1 0.38 82/I < 0. l 0.42 82/2 < 0.1 0.48 82/3 < 0.1 0.31 82/4 <0.1 0.37 83/I < 0. I l.53 83/2 < 0.1 0.50 i 83/3 < 0.1 0.33 83/4 < 0.1 0.40 84/I < 0.1 0,39 84/2 2.2 5.1 0.47 l 84/3 2.6 4.5 0.70 84/4 3.1 5.7 0.40 85/I 3.2 5.0 0.70 85/2 3.9 5.9 0.70 85/3 2.0 7.0 0.30 85/4 2.0 5.3 0.30 I I ll I I I I t

I XN-NF-14, Rev. I I Page B-13 I WELL #9 3 I i U Alpha Beta F NO3 NH3 Yr/Otr ppm rCi/L pCi/L ppm gpm p_p m 81/l 75 193 i 81/2 75 i29 }ER 81/3 40 112 81/4 37 90 82/I 47 107 82/2 64 164 j 82/3 < 0. I 53 131 { 82/4 <0.I 56 130 83/l < 0.1 58 132 83/2 < 0.1 67 120 I 83/3 < 0. I 48 96 83/4 < 0.1 1I 95 84/l < 0.1 21 105 84/2 < 0. I 84/3 109.0 47.0 86 178 84/4 85/I I 7.4 73.8 94 84 85/2 lI 85/3 69.4 36.3 75 14 85/4 'I I i I I I I I

i !I l l13 XN-NF-14, Rev. I E Page B-14

I lI

'NELL #11 U Alpha Beta F I Yr/Gtr ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm 81/1 0.51 I 81/2 0.46 81/3 0.38 i 81/4 0.38 82/1 0.45 82/2 0.62 82/3 0.37 82/4 <0.1 0.43 3 83/I < 0.1 0.62 }E 83/2 < 0.1 0.50 5 83/3 < 0.1 0.42 83/4 < 0.1 0.43 84/l <0.1 0.34 84/2 1.3 7.5 0.38 84/3 2.1 5.0 0.70 l 84/4 4.3 5.0 0.40 l 85/I 3.9 9.0 1.00 !E 85/2 4.6 9.1 0.60 l,3 85/3 0.1 6.6 0.30 4 85/4 2.7 3.9 0.30 I lI I .I i ,iI !I !I

I XN-NF-14, Rev. I I Page B-15 I WELL #12 I U Alpha Beta F I Yr/Otr ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm 81/l 0.60 I 81/2 0.39 81/3 0.39 81/4 0.40 82/1 0.49 82/2 0.65 82/3 0.40 82/4 < 0.1 0.33 83/I < 0.1 0.6 I I 83/2 < 0. I 0.55 83/3 < 0.1 0.35 83/4 < 0.1 0.57 84/I < 0.1 0.4 I 84/2 7.I 7.0 3.00 84/3 0.8 8.3 0.60 84/4 1.8 5.0 0.40 85/I 0.2 7.3 1.00 ,iE 85/2 2.6 6.7 i.00 i 85/3 3.7 4.0 0.30 l3 85/4 1.0 6.7 0.23 iI I I 4 i, I 1

I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page B-16 I WELL #13 I U Alpha Beto F NO3 NH3 I Yr/Otr ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm ppm ppm 8l/I 0.35 2.6

0. I 9 I

81/2 0.27 3.2 0.02 81/3 0.55 2.1 0.19 81/4 0.38 1.4 0.53 82/l 0.29 2.5 0.33 82/2 0.46 3.1 0.12 82/3 0.38 1.4 0.16 I 82/4 < 0.1 0.25 0.8 0.22 83/I < 0. l 0.41 3.5 0.10 I 83/2 < 0.1 0.45 4.4 0.90 83/3 < 0.1 0.39 1.6 0.35 83/4 <0.1 0.60 1.3 0.67 84/l < 0.1 0.34 2.8 0.11 84/2 2.1 C.5 0.47 84/3 2.6 0.7 0.70 2.7

0. i 6 84/4 3.1 1.9 85/I 4.3 6.9 8.00 10.2 0.74 I

85/2 3.0 5.6 85/3 1.6 3.5 8.00 5.6 85/4 1.8 6.6 I ~ I I I I I I

I I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page B-17 I WELL //14 U Alpha Beta F NO3 NH3 I Yr/Otr ppm pCi/L pCi/L pp m ppm ppm 81/l 53 71 I 81/2 77 43 81/3 34 58 81/4 21 84 82/l 40 86 I 82/2 37 Ill 82/3 Si 170 I 82/4 < 0.1 65 72 83/I < 0.1 68 84 I 83/2 < 0.1 68 85 83/3 <0.1 52 148 I 83/4 < 0.1 41 71 84/l <0.1 75 120 84/2 84/3 25.0 18.0 64 77 84/4 85/I 68.0 25.0 46 38 l I 85/2 l 85/3 55.0 23.0 49 85/4 I I II I I I I

I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page B-18 I WELL #15 I U Alpha Beta F NO3 NH3 I Yr/Qtr ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm ppm ppm 81/1 80 225 81/2 65 123 81/3 39 134 81/4 22 129 82/l 46 101 82/2 61 123 i 82/3 41 135 l 82/4 < 0.1 31 160 l 83/l <0.1 54 94 i 83/2 < 0.1 51 90 83/3 < 0.1 1I 69 83/4 < 0.1 39 87 84/l < 0.1 64 73 84/2 84/3 88.0 52.0 53 122 84/4 85/l 82.0 80.0 85 100 l E 85/2 5 85/3 29.0 34.0 49 85/4 I I I I I I I l

I I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page B-19 I WELL #16 E U AlpFa Beta F NO3 NH3 3 Yr/Otr ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm ppm ppm l 81/1 I l 81/2 81/3 81/4 82/l 82/2 82/3 < 0.1 24 43 I 82/4 < 0.1 13 72 83/l <0.1 41 36 I 83/2 < 0.1 0.90 32 83/3 < 0.1 1.2 43 83/4 < 0.1 1.5 38 84/I < 0. I 1.4 33 84/2 84/3 2.3 10.0 1.4 54 I 84/4 85/I 4.9 20.0 1.8 44 I 85/2 85/3 0.9 l 1.5 1.1 85/4 I I I I I I I l

~" I I XN-NF-14, Rev. I i Page B-20 ' I WELL #19 I l U Alpha Beto F I Yr/Otr ppm pCi/L pCi/L opm 81/1 I 81/2 81/3 81/4 82/l 82/2 82/3 82/4 < 0.1 0.46 83/l < 0.1 l.70 I 83/2 < 0.1 0.55 83/3 < 0.1 0.40 83/4 < 0.1 0.55 84/l < 0.1 0.43 84/2 4.2

5. 5 3.00 84/3 2.8 5.0 2.00 84/4 1.0 4.4 0.30 85/I 4.9 9.3 1.50 I

85/2 4.1 l 9.1 2.00 85/3 4.5 I 9.0 0.20 85/4 4.0 11.5 0.20 I I I I I I I

l 3 XN-NF-14, Rev. I g Page B-21 lI l WELL #20 I U Alpha Beta F I Yr/Qtr ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm 81/l I 81/2 81/3 l 81/4 82/l l 82/2 i 82/3 82/4 < 0.1 0.35 83/l < 0.1 0.50 I 83/2 < 0.1 0.50 83/3 < 0.1 0.35 83/4 < 0.1 0.41 84/I < 0.1 0.37 84/2 2.2 4.8 1.00 84/3 0.8 3.2 1.00 84/4 1.5 5.9 0.40 85/I 3.8 11.0 1.00 I 85/2 2.4 19.0 C.70 85/3 2.8 8.9 0.30 85/4 3.I 4.I 0.30 I I I I I I I

I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Page B-22 WELL #21 I 3 U Alpha Beta F l 5 Yr/Otr ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm 81/1 i 81/2 81/3 81/4 82/l 82/2 'I 82/3 82/4 83/I <0. I I 83/2 <0.1 0.80 83/3 < 0.1 0.35 t l 83/4 < 0.1 0.51 84/1 < 0.1 0.41 84/2 3.2 8.2 84/3 2.4 5.9 1.00 84/4 1.6 7.1 0.40 85/I 4.I I 7. I 0.50 I 85/2 2.5 24.0 0.80 85/3 2.6 4.0 0.30 85/4 3.5 4.0 0.30 I I I I I I I

I XN-NF-14, Rev. I Issue Date: 9/12/86 I SLIPPLEMENT TO APPLICANT'S ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I DISTRIBUTION I Copy No. Name l 1-10 W. T. Crow - USNRC iI H. L. Caudill 12 R. G. Frain 13 S. R. Lockhaven 14 R. W. McCullugh 15 C. W. Molody 16 J. E. Pieper 17 T. C. Probosco j 18 R. H. Purcell 19 M. K. Valentine l 20-25 Document Control I I I I I}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20214Q725&oldid=3984053"