ML23291A377: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING 2.4.1 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION 2.4.1.1 Site and Facilities Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 2.4.1.2 Hydrosphere Included in this section is a description of the location, size, shape and other hydrologic characteristics of the streams and reservoirs comprising the surface water hydrosphere. A description of the groundwater environments influencing plant siting is included in Subsection 2.4.13.1.
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-1
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4.1.2.1 Rivers and Streams Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 FSAR Rev. 66                    2.4-2
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4.1.2.2 Dams and Reservoirs Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 START HISTORICAL Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 FSAR Rev. 66                        2.4-3
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 2.4.1.2.3 Downstream Water Uses Information has been collected for known points of water use within a 50 mile water route distance from the Susquehanna SES site as required by 10 CFR 50 Appendix I. Included are users on or near the Main Branch downstream of the site, since these are the only locations where detectable amounts of radioactivity could possibly affect such use. The types of use found are municipal water supply, industrial use, and recreation. Most of this information was obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) (Ref. 2.4-9 through 2.4-13). Listed in Table 2.4-3 are known water users on or near the Main Branch of the Susquehanna with their location, type of use, radial and water route distance from the station site, present total and consumptive use and, where available, projected use with sources and dates of projections. The locations of the water users in Table 2.4-3 are indicated on the map of the river presented in Figure 2.4-7. Users on the map can be identified by the column entitled "map code" in Table 2.4-3.
Information on municipal water users was provided by the Pennsylvania DER through Water Company Consolidated Inventory Report (Ref. 2.4-9), Surface Water Use Summary Reports (Ref. 2.4-10) and Personal Communication (Ref. 2.4-11). Four municipal water supply companies withdrawing directly from the reach of the Susquehanna downstream of the station site have been identified. These four companies serve the towns of Berwick, Danville, Sunbury, and Shamokin Dam. Projected use for these water companies is presented in Table 2.4-3; however, many water companies in the area have multiple sources and it is not possible to project that their entire use will be drawn from the Susquehanna River. Groundwater is presently the primary source of water supply in the region. The Susquehanna and its tributaries provide a secondary source, but as water demand increases, direct withdrawal from the Susquehanna is expected to increase.
Information concerning industrial water users is also supplied by the Pennsylvania DER (Ref. 2.4-12). Name and type of company, location, water source, and total withdrawal is given in Table 2.4-3. Information on water return to the river or future water demand for these companies is not generally available. The Pennsylvania DER does have estimates of consumptive use vs. total use and also future water demand estimates on an area wide basis for various types of use (municipal, manufacturing, mining, etc.) (Ref. 2.4-13). For the region under study, the consumptive use for manufacturing is about eight percent of the total water use. Total and consumptive use for manufacturing is projected to increase 15 percent by 1970 to 1990. Therefore, a rough estimate of 30 percent may be used for industrial water use increase in the general areaover the station life. Of course, these values should be used only as guidelines, as they pertain to industry for the area FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-4
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 in general and not necessarily to those companies withdrawing water from the Susquehanna. A tabulation of groundwater users is included in Subsection 2.4.13.2.
Points of known recreational use along the Main Branch of the Susquehanna within 50 miles of the station site are listed in Table 2.4-3. Five of the locations are considered to be good fishing locations. Four of these five are listed in the "100 Best Bass Spots in Pennsylvania," a brochure distributed by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission (Ref. 2.4-14). The remaining recreational area is Shikellamy State Park and Marina. The marina is located on the southern tip of Packer's Island at the confluence of the West and Main Branches of the Susquehanna. This portion of the river is called Lake Augusta, a 3,000 acre lake created by the Sunbury Fabridam located 3 miles downstream of the confluence. The Lake Augusta is heavily used for boating activities, including water skiing.
END HISTORICAL 2.4.2 FLOODS 2.4.2.1 Flood History This Subsection discusses the historical flood events which have occurred on the Main Branch of the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Susquehanna SES site. The most severe flood event for this region occurred in June 1972 as the result of the passage of Tropical Storm Agnes through Pennsylvania. In spite of the fact that this flood produced discharges of nearly 1.4 times as great as those of the previous flood on record, the Susquehanna SES site remained over 150 feet above the flood crest. This very substantial margin of safety is additionally reinforced by findings of the flood mechanism evaluations discussed in the following sections. Therefore the classification of the Susquehanna SES as a "dry" site is therefore justified.
2.4.2.1.1 Flood Records Detailed records of historical floods in the immediate vicinity of the Susquehanna SES do not exist.
Data is available, however, from USGS Gaging Stations located at Wilkes-Barre (about 22 miles upstream of the site) and at Danville (about 31 miles downstream). The Corps of Engineers has compiled flood stage and discharge information for the Susquehanna River at Wilkes-Barre (Ref.
2.4-15). These data are based on records of flood stages dating from 1891. Data for the four most severe floods on record are presented in Table 2.4-4. Table 2.4-4 also includes the stages and discharges for floods at Danville. Discharges at the Susquehanna SES site are linearly interpolated between the reported Wilkes-Barre and Danville discharges on the basis of drainage areas.
Corresponding river stages at the site are estimated by use of the stage-discharge curve presented as Figure 2.4-8. The development of this curve is discussed in Subsection 2.4.3.5.
2.4.2.1.2 Tropical Storm Agnes The passage of Tropical Storm Agnes through Pennsylvania on June 22 and 23, 1972 resulted in record flood levels in the Susquehanna River Basin. Flood crests exceeded the previous record FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-5
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 flood level of 1936 at Wilkes-Barre by 7.5 feet. At Danville, a local maximum gage level resulting from a 1904 ice jam was exceeded by 1.6 feet. Peak discharge at Wilkes-Barre was an estimated 345,000 cfs or a unit discharge of 34.6 cubic feet per second per square mile (cfsm). Accumulated runoff for the drainage area above Wilkes-Barre for the period of 0000 hours, June 21, 1972 through 2200 hours, June 27, 1972 totaled 4.32 inches (Ref. 2.4-16 through 2.4-18).
High water marks were recorded at two locations in the vicinity of the site (river mile 165.6). A downstream flood mark of 506.0 ft msl was noted at Beach Haven (river mile 161.5). An upstream flood mark of 525.6 ft msl was noted at Shickshinny (river mile 170.1) (Ref. 2.4-16). A profile of the June 1972 flood in the vicinity of the site is provided as Figure 2.4-9. This profile shows the site to be at least 150 feet above the high water level. The river gaging station maintained at the site biological laboratory recorded a flood crest elevation of 516.6 ft. msl on June 23, 1972.
2.4.2.1.3 Flood Resulting from Ice Jams The only recorded instance of ice related-flooding on the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Susquehanna SES occurred near Danville on March 9, 1904. This jam resulted in a local maximum flood level of 462.0 ft msl which was not exceeded until the June 1972 flood (Ref. 2.4-19 and 2.4-20). Additional discussion of ice jams is found in Subsections 2.4.7 and 2.4.11.2.
2.4.2.2 Flood Design Considerations Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-6
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 FSAR Rev. 66      2.4-7
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 2.4.2.3 Effects of Local Intense Precipitation The effects of local intense precipitation were investigated to ensure that flooding at the plant site, if any, produced by a probable maximum precipitation (PMP) would not endanger the integrity of the safety-related facilities and that adequate drainage systems are provided for the roofs of all safety related buildings. Drainage systems for the roofs are designed so that hydrostatic loadings on the roofs resulting from a local PMP are within the design limit.
The all-season 24-hr PMP was derived using the procedures suggested by the National Weather Service (formerly US Weather Bureau) (Ref. 2.4-21). The maximum 6-hr precipitation was disaggregated into one-half hour increments in accordance with a time distribution proposed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Ref 2.4-22) and is presented in Table 2.4-5. For storms less than one-half hour, the rainfall increments were determined using the ratios suggested by the National Weather Service (Ref. 2.4-23), and are shown in Table 2.4-6.
The grading and natural topography of the plant site area are such that storm runoff is directed away from safety related buildings by a system of culverts, surface drainage channels, and underground storm drains. In the evaluation of the effects of the PMP relative to the flooding of the safety-related facilities, all the culverts and underground storm drains, except the culverts in the emergency spillway for the spray pond were assumed to be blocked by debris or ice accumulation.
The runoff from the PMP was assumed to occur only as surface flows, traversing the plant site in drainage channels or over low sections in the roads (Figure 2.4-10).
Drainage areas are based from the Existing Stormwater Report for PPL SSES in Salem Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, (Ref 2.4-100).
The peak flood discharges resulting from the PMP were computed at a number of locations and for the roofs of the safety related structures using the "rational" formula:
Q = CIA                                                                    (Equation 2.4-1) where:
Q      is the peak rate of runoff in cubic feet per second at the section of interest FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-8
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 C    is the runoff coefficient depending on the characteristics of the drainage area:
conservatively assumed to be 1.0 for all impervious surfaces such as a paved area or roof surface, and 0.9 for all other types of surfaces for PMP conditions I    is the rainfall intensity in inches per hour for a storm duration equal to the time of concentration for the location of interest A    is the drainage area, in acres, contributing to the flow at the point of interest The points of interest and their corresponding flow cross-sections are shown on Figures 2.4-11, 2.4-12 and 2.4-13.
The flow depth in a drainage channel was calculated using Manning's equation:
Qn AR 2 / 3 =        1/ 2                                          Equation (2.4-2)
                                . (S) 149 where:
A    is the cross-sectional area of the flow in square feet, at the check location perpendicular to the flow direction R    is the hydraulic radius at the check location in feet Q    is the peak flood discharge in cubic feet per second n    is the Manning's roughness coefficient S    is the slope of the energy gradient in feet per foot.
The peak discharges resulting from the local PMP and the corresponding flow depths at the check sections are shown on Figures 2.4-11 through 2.4-13.
Pressure resisting doors are provided to prevent water from reaching safety-related equipment should any water build up or ponding occur adjacent to the power block. These doors are 1-3/4 inch thick, flush type, hollow steel doors with 12 ga. pressed steel frames and 12 and 14 ga.
steel face sheets. Hinges are heavy duty, stainless steel, locksets are heavy duty mortise type and strikes are wrought box type. Gaskets are provided between doors and bearing (sealing) surfaces of frames and thresholds. Door and frame assemblies are designed to withstand various combinations of seating and unseating pressures depending on their locations in the plant.
Prototype assemblies are tested to insure their conformance to the specified performance criteria.
The performance criteria includes testing the seating and unseating pressure at the specified temperature as well as testing the leakage rate of each prototype. The results of these tests are documented. The flood flow is from the 61-acre area north of the spray pond and would be diverted away by a periphery channel. The channel is designed to accommodate the peak discharge of 1,259 cfs resulting from the local PMP as shown on Figure 2.4-13. Therefore, the possibility of flooding any of the safety-related facilities due to PMP is precluded.
FSAR Rev. 66                                        2.4-9
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 The peak rates of runoff from the roofs of these buildings resulting from the all-season PMP are presented in Table 2.4-7.
Direct rainfall on the roofs of the reactor building, diesel generator buildings, and control structure is drained by a system of roof drains, supplemented by a series of scuppers and/or openings in the parapet walls forming the perimeters of the roofs of the buildings. The dimensions of the scuppers and parapet openings required are shown in Table 2.4-7.
In the evaluation of the effects of the local PMP, the roof drains were assumed to be blocked by debris or ice accumulation and only the scuppers or parapet openings remain functional. The rating curve for each parapet opening or unsubmerged scupper was derived using the equation:
Q = CLH1.5                                                                  (Equation 2.4-3) where:
Q      is the discharge capacity of the parapet opening or unsubmerged scupper in cubic feet per second C      is the discharge coefficient assumed to be 2.5 for a broad-crested weir condition L      is the effective length in feet of the parapet opening or scupper, taking flow contraction at entrance into consideration H      is the head in feet of water above the invert of the parapet opening or scupper To compute the flow capacity of a submerged scupper, the flow equation for an orifice was used:
Q = CA (2gh)1/2                                                            (Equation 2.4-4) where:
Q      is the discharge through the submerged scupper C      is the discharge coefficient conservatively assumed to be 0.45 because of the limited submergence conditions encountered A      is the cross-sectional area of the scupper inlet in square feet g      is the gravitational acceleration equal to 32.2 ft/sec/sec h      is the upstream head in feet of water measured to the centerline of the flow through the scupper Ice accumulation could affect the site drainage by blocking drains and culverts. This effect has been considered in the overall evaluation of the effect of the local PMP described in the section.
FSAR Rev. 66                                        2.4-10
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (PMF) ON STREAMS AND RIVERS The conditions producing the PMF are defined by the Corps of Engineers as the "hypothetical flood characteristics (peak discharge, volume, and hydrograph shape) that are considered to be the most severe reasonably possible at a particular location, based on a relatively comprehensive hydrometeorological analysis of critical runoff-producing precipitation (and snowmelt, if pertinent) and hydrologic factors favorable for maximum flood runoff" (Ref. 2.4-25). The PMF for the Susquehanna SES was derived for the only water system, except local runoff that could affect site flooding, the Susquehanna River. A maximum PMF water elevation on the Susquehanna River with coincident wind-generated waves of 548.0 ft msl was calculated in the site vicinity, which is over 120 feet below site grade elevation of 670 ft msl. There are no other adjacent streams that would have an impact on plant flooding.
The guidelines provided in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.59 were followed throughout the analyses. Because the Susquehanna SES is a flood-dry site, conservative assumptions and baseline conditions were adopted to maximize the PMF water elevations.
2.4.3.1 Probable Maximum Precipitation To determine the PMF for this study, the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) storm location, magnitude and temporal distribution were taken directly from Corps data (Ref. 2.4-26).
The Corps had previously computed the Standard Project Flood (SPF) at Wilkes-Barre (Ref. 2.4-27). Both the storm pattern used on the basin (Ref. 2.4-26) and the magnitude and distribution of precipitation (Ref. 2.4-28) were derived by the Corps. The storm pattern thus obtained was laid over a map of the basin, the sub-basin outlines were drawn on the map and, by inspection, an average value of total rainfall on each sub-basin was estimated from the storm pattern isohyets. This is shown on Figure 2.4-14. The 12 six-hour time segments into which the 72-hour PMP storm was divided (Ref. 2.4-26) were converted into 18 four-hour time segments.
This division allowed direct use of the available unit hydrographs previously derived by the Corps of Engineers (Ref. 2.4-29) as discussed in Subsection 2.4.3.3.
2.4.3.2 Precipitation Losses In order to determine the PMP rainfall excess for the Susquehanna River drainage basin, an initial loss of 1.0 inch followed by an infiltration loss rate of 0.05 inches per hour were adopted (Ref. 2.4-30 and 2.4-31). These precipitation losses are consistent with values reported in the Susquehanna River Basin Study (Ref. 2.4-32). Since the maximum PMF water elevation computed in Subsection 2.4.3.6 is over 120 feet below the site, precipitation losses are not a critical factor in the derivation of the PMF. The assumed values represent reasonable conservative basin conditions appropriate for use with the PMP.
FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-11
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4.3.3 Runoff and Stream Course Models In a previous study (Ref. 2.4-29), the Corps computed the SPF from actual storm data, synthesized four-hour unit hydrographs for 68 sub-basins and determined routing coefficients from observed flood hydrograph movement using the Coefficient Method of Routing (Ref. 2.4-28) for some 105 reaches in the Susquehanna River Basin above Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. A tabulation of the drainage areas and unit hydrograph characteristics for each sub-basin is shown on Table 2.4-8.
These sub-basins are delineated and numbered on Figure 2.4-12. Table 2.4-9 provides the flood routing coefficients used in the basin runoff model (Ref. 2.4-32).
Since the previously derived PMP was divided into 18 four-hour periods, this division allowed direct use of the available unit hydrographs previously derived (Ref. 2.4-29). These hydrographs were combined and routed in accordance with the procedures developed in Reference 2.4-29. The site is over 120 feet above the PMF water level as determined in Subsection 2.4.3.6. Because of this substantial margin of safety against river flooding, no adjustments of the unit hydrographs for non-linearity were made.
2.4.3.4 Probable Maximum Flood Flow Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-12
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4.3.5 Water Level Determination Backwater computations have been carried out for the reach of the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the site shown in Figure 2.4-16. The developed stage discharge curves for river cross-section 2 (Berwick Bridge) and upstream of river cross-section 7 (site) are shown on Figures 2.4-17 and 2.4-18 respectively. The procedures for developing the stage discharge relationships are described in the following Subsection.
2.4.3.5.1 Hydraulic Characteristics of Channel and Overbank The excellent discharge records of the flood profile from the March 20, 1936 flood (Ref. 2.4-34),
combined with the channel cross-section data (Ref. 2.4-35) and the USGS topographic maps (Berwick Quadrangle), allowed computation of the hydraulic characteristics of the channel and of the overbank area in the vicinity of the site. The profile data (Ref. 2.4-34) are shown on Figure 2.4-18. The river mile locations of the selected eight Sections (Ref. 2.4-35) are also shown on Figure 2.4-18 and on Table 2.4-10. The configurations of river cross-sections 1 through 8 are shown on Figure 2.4-19. The cross-section of the river at the site is shown on Figure 2.4-20. Since the 1937 survey (Ref. 2.4-35) there has been no construction (roads, bridges, excavation, etc.)
which would have appreciably modified the cross-sections. Therefore, it is assumed that these sections are still representative. The 1936 flood level elevations of the Sections were taken from the plotted profile Figure 2.4-18. Elevations of the river bank edge, that is, the level which separates channel flow characteristics and overbank flow characteristics, were estimated by site inspection and from the data on Figures 2.4-19 and 2.4-20. Levels of about 12 to 16 feet above the main river channel bottom were selected on this basis. The bank elevations of the Sections are shown on the profile Figure 2.4-18 (Ref. 2.4-31).
The Corps of Engineers Method I backwater curve calculations (Ref. 2.4-36) were used to estimate Manning "n" values between pairs of river cross-sections using the 1936 flood profile data. This method is a trial and error computation procedure applicable to situations in which channel and overbank reach lengths may be assumed as equal (Ref. 2.4-31).
Discharge values of the sections were estimated by linear interpolation along the river between the maximum discharge values of 232,000 cfs and 250,000 cfs at Wilkes-Barre and Danville, respectively (Ref. 2.4-31).
The values for "n" thus estimated are shown on Table 2.4-10. Because of rather small contribution of the overbank flow to the total flow it was impractical to determine separately the "n" values for the overbank and the channel. Therefore, it was assumed that the overbank "n" was consistently 0.10 and the channel "n" values were then computed. Even doubling an assumed overbank "n" value to 0.20 did not result in significantly different channel "n" values. Table 2.4-10 shows that the channel "n" values range from 0.027 to 0.052. This range of values might be attributed to changes in the channel configuration. References to Figure 2.4-19 show river cross-sections 1, 2, 7 and 8 to have relatively flat river bank slopes. The channel between river cross-sections 3 through 6 has steep bank slopes (Ref. 2.4-31).
Backwater curve calculations using the Corps of Engineers Method III (Ref. 2.4-36), a graphic solution technique described below, reproduced the 1936 flood almost exactly when the computer FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-13
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 "n" values of Table 2.4-10 were used. Thus, these "n" values were adopted. The head loss of the 1936 flood passing through the Berwick Bridge, as computed by the Yarnell Method (Ref. 2.4-37),
was only 0.05 ft. Thus, all head losses due to this channel construction were subsequently ignored (Ref. 2.4-31).
2.4.3.5.2 Backwater Curve Calculations Upon initial inspection, it was apparent that the Susquehanna River would not reach a critical depth level, irrespective of discharge, at any point downstream of the site. Therefore, it was necessary to select some arbitrary point downstream from which to begin the backwater calculations. The point selected was river cross-section 1, downstream from the Berwick Highway Bridge. Two different sets of backwater curves were calculated; one with the Berwick Bridge completely washed out and the other with the bridge intact. Both profiles are shown on Figure 2.4-16. The procedure used was that suggested in Reference 2.4-36. That is, at several assigned values of discharge, including the PMF, backwater curve calculations were begun at river cross-section 1 using an assumed elevation and carried upstream to river cross-section 8. The error resulting from an incorrectly assumed trial starting elevation will tend to diminish as computations progress upstream. Additional sets of computations were made beginning at the same downstream location, but at a different trial starting elevation. If the starting location is sufficiently far downstream, and if the assumed trial starting elevations are reasonably near to the true elevation, the corresponding backwater curves will merge into one before the computations have progressed to the reach for which the back water curve is desired. This procedure was followed until the backwater curves conveyed, indicating that the derived water surface elevations are reasonably correct (Ref. 2.4-31).
The backwater curve calculations were performed in accordance with standard procedures (Ref. 2.4-36). The increase in wetted perimeter at river cross-section 2 was considered because of the bridge piers remaining intact. The backwater curve for PMF is shown on Figure 2.4-17 (Ref.
2.4-31).
It was conservatively assumed that the Berwick Highway Bridge (a truss) would remain intact and that the truss would be completely covered with debris. Thus, there would be no appreciable weir overflow over the bridge deck. This was considered to be the worst possible condition in creating high backwater at the site. On this basis, the water would pass as channel flow and as orifice flow (Ref. 2.4-31).
The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has replaced the Berwick Bridge with a new structure at a higher level. The new structure results in lower head losses since the orifice flow situation is eliminated. Backwater calculations based on the intact old bridge structure become even more conservative since the bridge has been replaced.
The elevation of the lower edge of the existing bridge deck on the right bank of the river is 531.5 ft, and on the left bank is 509.0 ft. The length of the bridge between abutments is 1517 ft. The discharge at the bridge Section at a water surface elevation of 509.0 ft would be about 530,000 cfs.
Any water passing under the bridge at an elevation above 509.0 ft would be partially open channel (some channel and some overbank) and partially orifice discharge. The capacity of the open channel portion was estimated from the stage-discharge relationships obtained from the curve developed with the bridge assumed to be washed out. The orifice discharge was calculated using an orifice coefficient of 0.7 from Reference 2.4-36. Because of the sloping of the bridge deck, the FSAR Rev. 66                                        2.4-14
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 maximum head at each discharge would be at the lowest point or the east end. The orifice discharge was added to the open channel discharge and the stage-discharge curve derived at river cross-section 2, the bridge, is shown on Figure 2.4-17 (Ref. 2.4-31).
At the PMF discharge of 1,100,000 cfs, the existence of the intact bridge raises the water surface elevation about 6 feet at the bridge. Backwater curves were generated upstream from Section 2 with the new elevations. The results for the PMF are shown on the profile Figure 2.4-18 (Ref. 2.4-31).
The profiles of the PMF are shown on Figure 2.4-18 for the two conditions of bridge washed out and bridge intact. The site is at mile 165.6; the elevations reached by the PMF are 544.8 ft for the bridge considered washed out, and 545.7 ft for the bridge intact (Ref. 2.4-31).
START HISTORICAL 2.4.3.6 Coincident Wind Wave Activity The wind-generated significant waves on the probable maximum water surface elevation would be about 2.3 feet estimated from a crossriver 5,000 ft fetch with an average depth of 45 ft and a wind velocity of 45 mph along the fetch shown in Figure 2.4-21 (Ref. 2.4-31). The Susquehanna SES is located far above any potential flood level. The design basis for river flooding includes a PMF stillwater elevation of 545.7 ft, plus 2.3 ft for setup and wave runup effects for a total elevation of 548.0 ft msl (Ref. 2.4-31).
Consideration is also given to coincident wind wave activity with floods of a more frequent nature.
Because of the plant's great safety margin against river flooding, an extremely conservative procedure was adopted to estimate water levels under the combined occurrence of frequent flooding, with coincident probable maximum gradient winds. The analysis procedure considers a 100-year flood level with the maximum supportable wave height, i.e., the breaking wave height and its associated wave runup.
Federal Insurance Administration, Type 15, Flood Insurance Study has been performed for the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) in the vicinity of plant. Results of the study have been provided by the SRBC. These results are preliminary in nature until accepted by both the concerned municipalities and the Federal Insurance Administration. However, they represent the most up-to-date 100-year flood profile estimates.
Figure 2.4-9 shows the profile of the 100-year flood in the vicinity of the Susquehanna SES as estimated by the Flood Insurance Study. The 100-year flood level at the site is 513.6 ft. At this level, the water depth to the river bed is 33.6 ft. The maximum wave height which is physically possible is the breaking wave height. This wave height is 26.2 ft. based on a 33.6 ft. water depth (Ref. 2.4-42). The bank slope is estimated to be 1:30 (V:H). Wave runup associated with the breaking wave height on this slope is estimated to be 5.2 ft. (Ref. 2.4-42). The maximum water level at the site, under the effects of a 100-year flood with coincident wind wave activity resulting from the simultaneous occurrence of an extreme wind, is very conservatively estimated to be 539.8 ft. at the breaking wave height. This level is well below the plant grade elevation of 670 ft. The FSAR Rev. 66                                        2.4-15
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 simplified, albeit, very conservative approach is, therefore, justified. This water level is also below the PMF level of 548 ft.
Dynamic effects of wind waves are not considered in this section since there are no safety-related facilities in the Susquehanna Flood Plain.
END HISTORICAL 2.4.4 POTENTIAL DAM FAILURES SEISMICALLY INDUCED Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 START HISTORICAL Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-16
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 2.4.4.1 Dam Failure Permutations Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 FSAR Rev. 66                      2.4-17
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4.4.2 Unsteady Flow Analysis of Potential Dam Failures 2.4.4.2.1 Singular Dam Failures Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 2.4.4.2.2 Multiple Dam Failures - Chemung River Basin Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 FSAR Rev. 66                                2.4-18
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 2.4.4.2.3 Multiple Dam Failures - East Susquehanna River Basin Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 FSAR Rev. 66                                2.4-19
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4.4.2.4 Multiple Dam Failures - Lackawanna River Basin Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 END HISTORICAL 2.4.4.3 Water Level at Plant Site Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 2.4.5 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE AND SEICHE FLOODING The Susquehanna River is the only major water body in the vicinity of the site. Consideration of seiche flooding potential is therefore not applicable in this case. The site is located about 165 miles upstream of the mouth of the Susquehanna River in Chesapeake Bay. Flooding through propagation of an open coast surge upstream to the site is also not applicable.
Wind waves and associated wave run-up acting in conjunction with a 100-year flood are discussed in Subsection 2.4.3.6. The very conservative analysis for these conditions results in a maximum wave height of 23.4 ft with an associated wave run-up of 9.4 ft. The maximum water level for the 100-year flood with coincident wind wave activity is 519.4 ft msl. This level is 28 ft below the PMF level and 150 ft below the plant grade. Based on the great margin of safety against flooding obtained through this simple but very conservative analysis, a detailed wave analysis including probable maximum hurricane winds is not considered necessary.
Consideration of flooding mechanisms in the spray pond are discussed in Subsection 2.4.8. The very short fetch lengths involved prevent the development of any significant wave activity in the spray pond.
2.4.6 PROBABLE MAXIMUM TSUNAMI FLOODING Not applicable to the Susquehanna Site.
FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-20
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4.7 ICE EFFECTS Portions of the Susquehanna River are subject to freezing during the months of November through April. Information on river freezing at Harrisburg for the period of 1870-1955 has been compiled by the Weather Bureau Airport Station at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (Ref. 2.4-39). This information is provided in Table 2.4-11. The Susquehanna River remained open all winter during 22 of the 86 years of record. During the remaining years, 98 instances of freeze-over were noted. Thirty six of these freeze-overs were for periods lasting 14 consecutive days or less. There have been only 9 occasions when the river has remained frozen over for more than 60 consecutive days.
Flooding due to ice jams or "gorges" caused by ice break-up and subsequent re-freezing is sometimes a problem in the late winter months. Jamming may occur at locations where floating ice is retained and builds-up, such as at bridges, dams, narrow bends in the river, islands and reaches of the river with shallow rocky bottoms. Neither the Baltimore District Corps of Engineers nor the National Weather Service Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center at Harrisburg currently have programs for systematically recording details of ice jam occurrences. Ice jams receive mention only when they cause flooding conditions.
Instances of ice jam-related flooding on the Susquehanna River have been recorded at Danville and at Wilkes-Barre. The dates of these occurrences and the resulting stages are provided in Table 2.4-12. Three such events have occurred at Danville over a 58 year period of record, or about once every 19 years. Seven ice-related flooding events have occurred at Wilkes-Barre over a 68 year period of record, or about once every 10 years. (Ref. 2.4-40.) Information on ice jams in the immediate vicinity of the site is not available. However, the regional data suggest an average recurrence on the order of 10 to 19 years. The most severe ice-related flooding occurred at Danville in 1904. Gage heights of 26.2 ft on January 25, 24.6 ft on February 10, and 30.7 ft on March 9 were recorded (Ref. 2.4-19, 2.4-20, and 2.4-40). All levels exceeded the Danville Flood Stage of 20 ft. The flood stage of March 9, 1904 remained the maximum gage height of record up until the flooding resulting from Tropical Storm Agnes in June 1972 (Ref. 2.4-41).
Remaining incidents of ice jam-related flooding have occurred substantially downstream of the Susquehanna SES. Probably the most damaging of these ice jam floods occurred in February 1963 at Duncannon, near the confluence of the Juniata and Susquehanna Rivers. Ice layers broke up and fused upstream of Duncannon causing a severe jam resulting in flood levels higher than the 1936 flood. Damage was reported from the mouth of the Juniata to Newport, 12 miles upstream. The jam was so severe that it diverted the flow of the Juniata River to the Susquehanna River upstream of the mouth.
The above discussion, along with reference to Tables 2.4-4 and 2.4-12, show that ice-related flooding in the general vicinity of the Susquehanna SES has resulted in flood stages comparable to precipitation-related flood stages. These stages are, however, appreciably below the estimated PMF water level, which is itself over 120 feet below the plant grade. Ice jam flooding is, therefore, no threat to any safety-related facilities.
Ice jam flooding or low water as a result of upstream jams on the river do not affect the availability of essential cooling water supplies. Any potential damage to the river intake structure from ice jamming in no way effects the safety of the plant. The plant can be safely shut down without the use of makeup water from the river. Design for potential icing conditions in the spray pond is discussed in Subsection 9.2.7.
FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-21
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4.8 COOLING WATER CANALS AND RESERVOIRS 2.4.8.1 General The purpose of the spray pond system is to satisfy the ultimate heat sink criteria outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.27 (Rev. 2, 1/76). In this section, only the hydrologic and hydraulic design aspects of the spray pond system are considered.
2.4.8.2 General Description of the Spray Pond System The spray pond system is located northwest of the cooling towers and the reactor-turbine building.
The pond is freeform in shape. Embankments and ditches are provided to direct surface water runoff in a controlled manner. The bottom elevation of the pond is 668 ft msl. Under normal operating conditions, the water surface elevation in the pond is at elevation 679 ft msl, and is controlled by an overflow weir in the ESSW pumphouse with crest at elevation 678.5 ft msl. The pond and ESSW Pumphouse are described in more detail in Subsection 3.8.4.1 and shown on Dwgs. M-284, Sh. 1, C-64, Sh. 1, C-65, Sh. 1, C-66, Sh. 1, and C-67, Sh. 1. The water level is maintained by (a) rainfall (primary), (b) separate makeup pumped through a pipe adjacent to the ESSW pumphouse (secondary), or (c) cooling tower blowdown (backup as required). An uncontrolled spillway is located at the east end of the spray pond and has a bottom width of 30 ft and side slopes of 10 to 1. Invert elevation at the entrance is 680.5 ft and the longitudinal slope of the exit channel is 0.5 percent with side slopes of 2 to 1.
A railroad embankment is located some 159 feet downstream from the outlet of the spray pond. At this location, the channel is replaced by four 6 ft. x 3 ft. concrete box culverts with security gratings installed at both ends. The channel has a drop some 133 feet downstream of the culverts before merging with the drainage ditch located just to the north of the spray pond, and discharges into a natural waterway leading to the Susquehanna River. If this natural water course could become blocked, safety-related structures will not be affected. The drop in the spillway channel is designed to prevent any possible backwater effect which could develop from flows in the drainage ditch and which could affect the hydraulic performance of the spillway channel. The channel upstream of the box culverts is concrete-lined to a depth of 3.5 feet to prevent any possible erosion that could cause a blockage in the culverts. Downstream from the culvert, the channel is grass-lined. A longitudinal section of the spillway channel is shown in Figure 2.4-27.
2.4.8.3 Design Bases for the Capacity of the Spray Pond The design bases for the capacity of the spray pond are addressed in Subsection 9.2.7.
2.4.8.4 Hydrologic Design Bases for the Spray Pond System The spray pond system is designed to remain functional under the most adverse hydrometeorological conditions such as the probable maximum storm (Subsection 2.4.2.3) and FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-22
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 tornado, or the hydrodynamic loadings resulting from waves generated by the safe shutdown or operating basis earthquake (Section 3.7).
2.4.8.4.1 Design Basis Flood Level (DBFL)
The Design Basis Flood Level (DBFL) for the spray pond was determined in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.59 (Rev. 1 4/76) by superimposing the effects of coincident wind-generated wave activity on the various flood levels; namely:
: 1)    A sustained 40 mph wind on the probable maximum flood (PMF) level
: 2)    The worst wind of record at Avoca on the standard project flood (SPF) level
: 3)    A probable maximum gradient wind on a 10-year flood level.
The probable maximum flood was derived from the probable maximum storm (Subsection 2.4.2.3) assuming no rainfall losses on the land portion of the drainage area. Since the longest distance from the drainage divide to the edge of the pond is only about 400 ft with a slope of 3 to 1, no time lag between rainfall and runoff to the pond was assumed. The inflow probable-maximum-flood hydrograph was derived by assuming that the entire probable maximum precipitation (PMP) on the 18.6-acre drainage area runs off instantly. The resulting hydrograph is shown on Figure 2.4-24.
The probable maximum flood was routed through the spray pond under the following assumptions:
a)    A normal operating water level of 679.0 ft is maintained in the spray pond.
b)    Blowdown water from the cooling towers may be routed through the spray pond at a constant rate of 10,000 gpm (22.3 cfs).
c)    The blowdown outlet conduit at the ESSW pumphouse, which serves as the exit for the excess water in the spray pond, has a maximum capacity of about 41 cfs.
Figure 2.4-25 shows the rating curve of the spillway channel, assuming no blockage of the culverts by debris or ice accumulation. The spillway rating curve was derived by assuming a discharge, computing the corresponding critical depth at the downstream control point, calculating a water surface profile upstream to the spray pond, adding an entrance velocity head and associated losses to obtain the proper spray pond water surface. The entrance loss for the channel was assumed to be 0.5 of the velocity head and that for the culverts was estimated using data suggested by the Bureau of Public Roads (Ref. 2.4-97). Manning's equation:
1.486 Q=        AR 2 / 3S 1/ 2                                            (Equation 2.4.8-1) n was used to determine the channel resistance. In this equation, Q      is the discharge, in cfs n      is Manning's roughness coefficient assumed to be as follows:
FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-23
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 0.06 for the grassed channel downstream from the culverts and upstream from the confluence with the drainage ditch. 0.015 for the concrete-lined spillway channel upstream from the culvert inlet. 0.013 for the concrete box culvert.
A      is the cross-sectional area of the flow in sq ft.
R      is the hydraulic radius in ft.
S      is the slope of the energy gradeline.
The blowdown-water outlet in the ESSW pumphouse is a submerged orifice, 2 ft in diameter, with the centerline at elevation 674.75 ft and is located 8 ft downstream of the overflow weir. The rating curve of the blowdown water outlet shown on Figure 2.4-25 was derived using the equation:
Q = 0.6A (2gh)1/2                                                      (Equation 2.4.8-2) where Q      is the discharge in cfs.
A      is the cross-sectional area of the submerged orifice in sq ft.
g      is the gravitational acceleration equal to 32.2 ft/sec2.
h      is the upstream head in feet of water measured to the centerline of the submerged orifice.
The elevation-area-storage capacity curves of the spray pond are shown on Figure 2.4-26.
The results of the flood routing studies are shown in Table 2.4-13. The maximum water level under the PMF condition was found to be at elevation 682.3 ft.
The maximum water levels in the spray pond for the Standard Project Flood (SPF) defined as one-half of the PMF, and the 10-year flood conditions, were also calculated and found to be 681.8 ft and 679.6 ft msl, respectively (Table 2.4-13). In deriving the maximum water level under the SPF condition, a coincident earthquake was assumed (Regulatory Guide 1.59, Rev. 1, 4/76) causing failure of the blowdown discharge conduit downstream from the ESSW pumphouse. The 10-year flood level was derived assuming that the entire 10-year flood runoff from the spray pond watershed would be stored in the pond. In deriving the 10-year flood volume, the 24-hour 10-year rainfall suggested by the US Weather Bureau (Ref. 2.4-23) was used assuming that 50 percent of the rainfall on the level portion of the spray pond drainage area would run off.
The worst winds of record at Avoca were found to be 65 mph and the probable maximum gradient wind for the site area was estimated to be 80 mph, the derivation of which is presented in Section 2.3.
The effects of the coincident wind-generated wave activity were estimated in accordance with methods suggested by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Ref. 2.4-42). Wind setup in the spray pond was found to be negligible. The results of these computations are presented in Table 2.4-14.
FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-24
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 Assuming a standing wave condition at the ESSW pumphouse, the DBFL resulting from a 1 percent wave will be at 684.8 ft. This water level does not represent a threat to any safety-related facility because all the safety-related equipment is located at elevation 685.5 ft. or higher and is protected from splash effects by the walls of the pumphouse and slab at top elevation 685.5 ft.
(refer to Dwg. M-274, Sh. 1). The run-up elevation on the side of the spray pond from a 1 percent wave will be 684.6 ft. The side of the spray pond is protected by a concrete lining up to elevation 685.5 ft. This protection will preclude any erosion of the bank due to wind wave action.
Wave forces on the ESSW pumphouse and the pipe supports were also estimated for the different flood water levels under the assumed coincident wind wave activities using methods suggested by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Ref. 2.4-42). In estimating the wave forces on the ESSW pumphouse, the water level inside the pumphouse was assumed to be at the corresponding static water level in the spray pond. Table 2.4-15 presents the results of the wave force computations on the ESSW pumphouse and pipe supports. The force due to hydrostatic pressure is not included.
The peak outflow through the spillway channel during the design flood condition (Case 2, Table 2.4-13) is estimated to be 150 cfs. The calculated water surface profile along the spillway channel for the peak outflow is shown in Figure 2.4-27. It was derived using the standard-step method (Ref. 2.4-24), with the assumption that critical depth occurs at the drop located upstream from the confluence between the spillway channel and the drainage ditch north of the spray pond.
A minimum of 3 ft of freeboard is provided in the spillway channel. At most points along the chute, the actual freeboard is greater than 3 ft because it is governed by the elevation of the bottom of the chute relative to the adjacent ground surface. This amount of freeboard exceeds recommended practice by the US Bureau of Reclamation (Ref. 2.4-43) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Ref. 2.4-44) for similar design conditions.
Consideration was also given to the possibility of having a wave propagated into the channel coincident with the occurrence of a probable maximum storm. The critical maximum breaking-wave height, coincident with a 40 mph wind, was found to be approximately 1 ft and would not affect the freeboard allowance stated previously.
2.4.8.4.2 Safe Shutdown and Operating Basis Earthquakes The safe shutdown and operating basis earthquakes (SSE and OBE) for the project are presented in Section 3.7. In accordance with the design criteria set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.59 (Rev. 1, 4/76), the SSE and OBE were assumed to occur coincidentally with a 25-year flood and a standard project flood (one-half of a PMF), respectively. Since the spray pond discharge conduit is not designed to withstand an earthquake, it is conceivable that a portion of this conduit could collapse causing a blockage. It was, therefore, assumed that no water would pass through the discharge conduit following a design earthquake condition.
Assuming failure of the discharge conduit, the maximum water levels in the spray pond during a 25-year and a standard project flood (SPF) event were estimated to be at elevation 681.4 and 681.8 ft, respectively. The 25-year flood level was derived by routing the 25-year flood (peak flow 45 cfs) through the spray pond. The peak discharge through the spillway channel was estimated to be 65 cfs. In deriving the 25-year flood peak, the rainfall duration-frequency atlas published by the US Weather Bureau (Ref. 2.4-23) was used assuming that 50 percent of the rainfall on the land portion FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-25
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 of the spray pond drainage area would run off. The derivation of the SPF level was presented in Subsection 2.4.8.4.1.
At the ESSW pumphouse, the wave heights generated during the SSE and OBE under the stipulated hydrologic conditions were estimated to be 2.9 and 1.6 ft, respectively. These wave heights were computed using the equation developed by Biesel (Equation 2.4.8-3) for a piston type of wave generator (Ref. 2.4-45).
2Sinh 2 (2d / L)
H =2S                                                                      (Equation 2.4.8-3)
(2 d / L)+(Sinh(2d / L))Cosh(2d / L) where:
H      is the wave height generated in ft.
S      is the design displacement (amplitude) caused by the earthquake in ft.
d      is the initial depth of water in ft.
L      is the wave length in ft and is a function of the period of the design basis earthquake.
In this computation, the design displacement (amplitude) and period were derived from Figures 2.4-28 and 2.4-29 as 10.1 in. and 2.7 sec for the SSE, and 5.4 in. and 2.7 sec for the OBE, respectively.
Assuming a standing wave condition at the ESSW pumphouse, the maximum forces and moments about the base of the structure were estimated to be 75.6 kips and 1156 ft-kips during the SSE and 61.7 kips and 871.5 ft-kips during the OBE, respectively, using the methods suggested by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Ref. 2.4-42).
At the pipe supports near the center of the pond, it is possible that the earthquake-generated waves coming from the opposing sides of the spray pond could be in-phase. For this condition, the maximum wave heights during the SSE and OBE were conservatively estimated to be 5.5 ft and 3.2 ft, respectively. The wave forces and moments at the base of each support would be 1.1 kips and 13.3 ft-kips for the SSE and 0.5 kips and 5.2 ft-kips for the OBE conditions, respectively.
The resultant maximum hydrodynamic force acting on the pipe supports as a result of earthquake shaking was estimated using the equation (Ref. 2.4-45):
F =C m Va x                (Equation 2.4.8-4) where:
F      is the maximum hydrodynamic force due to earthquake.
FSAR Rev. 66                                          2.4-26
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 Cm    is the virtual mass coefficient assumed to be 1.5 (Ref. 2.4-44).
is the mass density of the water equal to 1.94 slugs/cu ft.
V    is the volume of the submerged structure (displaced water) in cu ft.
ax    is the maximum horizontal acceleration due to earthquake in ft/sec/sec.
For the case of the ESSW pumphouse, the equation used is that suggested by Tennessee Valley Authority (Ref. 2.4-46) for a rigid structure with water fronting on one side:
ax F =36.5 H 2                          (Equation 2.4.8-5) g where:
F    is the maximum hydrodynamic loading in lb/lf.
H    is the depth of water fronting the pumphouse in ft.
ax    is the maximum horizontal bedrock acceleration due to earthquake in ft/sec/sec.
g    is the gravitational acceleration equal to 32.2 ft/sec/sec.
For earthquakes with motion along the east-west axis, the ESSW pumphouse was analyzed as a rigid body. The maximum hydrodynamic loading exerted on the wing-walls adjacent to the embankment was estimated using Equation 2.4.8-4. In this case, the virtual mass coefficient (Cm) adopted was 0.32 as given by Sarpkaya (Ref. 2.4-47).
The maximum hydrodynamic loadings resulting from the design basis earthquakes are presented in Table 2.4-16. These loadings do not include those due to hydrostatic or earth pressures, or impact from the earthquake-generated waves originating from the sides of the pond.
Since the natural period of the water body in the spray pond is substantially larger than that of the design earthquakes, the formation of seiches in the spray pond due to earthquakes is not possible.
START HISTORICAL 2.4.9 CHANNEL DIVERSIONS The drainage basin of the Susquehanna River upstream of the site lies within the physiographic provinces of the Appalachian Plateau, and the Appalachian Valley and Ridge. Within the Appalachian Plateau Province, the terrain is characterized by deeply eroded, steep-sided flat bottom valleys and flat to gently rolling plateaus. At Pittston near the mouth of the Lackawanna River, the Susquehanna River enters the Appalachian Valley and Ridge Province and flows through the Wyoming Valley which is lined by even crested ridges on both sides (Ref. 2.4-39). Near FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-27
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 Wilkes-Barre, the Susquehanna River flows through a broad, flat plain which is bounded by moderately steep mountains. In the general vicinity of the site, the terrain is steeply sloped on both banks with dense forests and wooded areas (Ref. 2.4-15). The Upper Susquehanna is thus characterized as possessing a stable stream course flowing through well defined ridge and valley topography. As such, this portion of the Susquehanna River is not subject to major meandering realignment and diversion by natural causes.
END HISTORICAL 2.4.10 FLOODING PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS As discussed in Subsections 2.4.1.1 and 2.4.2.2, the safety-related structures and facilities are secure from flooding. Hence, flooding protection requirements are not necessary.
2.4.11 LOW WATER CONSIDERATIONS 2.4.11.1 Low Flow in Rivers and Streams Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 2.4.11.1.1 Low Flow Resulting from Hydrometeorological Events The low flow and water level design bases consider the fact that the Susquehanna River is used as a source for non-essential water supplies only. Essential water supplies are provided for the Engineered Safeguards Service Water System from the spray pond located on the site. The statistically derived one day low flow with a 100-year recurrence interval is taken as a satisfactory definition of the low flow resulting from a 100-year drought. This value is taken to be the low flow design basis for operation.
For purposes of this study, the available flow data for the USGS Wilkes-Barre stream gage (station 01536500) were used. The drainage area above the Susquehanna SES is some 2.4 percent greater than the drainage area above the Wilkes-Barre gage. Use of the Wilkes-Barre flow data thus provides a conservative estimate the low flows at the Susquehanna SES Site. Frequency analysis of the Wilkes-Barre gage data for the years 1900-1967 yield a one day 100-year low flow of 520 cfs (Ref. 2.4-31). Recent log Pearson Type III frequency analysis, performed by the USGS using flow data for the years 1900-1972, resulted in a one day 100-year low flow of 520.7 cfs at Wilkes-Barre. Peak consumptive use for the Susquehanna SES as described in Subsection 2.4.11.4.2 amounts to 74.7 cfs. This usage represents less than 15 percent of the one day 100-year low flow. The Susquehanna River is thus an adequate source of non-safety related water during the 100-year drought. The stage-discharge relationship for the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the site is provided in Figures 2.4-5 (0-3,000 cfs) and 2.4-6 (1,000-37,000 cfs). Stage levels were measured at the site by means of a gage installed for this particular purpose. Discharges corresponding to the measured stages were obtained by direct FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-28
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 interpolation between the mean daily discharges at Danville and Wilkes-Barre as reported by the USGS. As shown on the Figure 2.4-5, the stage discharge curve was extrapolated down to zero discharge by constructing the curve so as to intersect the zero discharge at an elevation of 480 ft msl which is the bottom of the stream channel at the site. There were no observations at interpolated discharge values of less than 1200 cfs (Ref. 2.4-30 and 2.4-31).
Based on the stage-discharge relationship of Figure 2.4-30, the stage elevation for the one day 100-year low flow at the Susquehanna SES site is 483.5 ft msl. This elevation is the low water level design basis for non safety-related water supplies. Essential water supplies are provided by the spray pond. The low water design basis for these supplies are discussed in Subsection 9.2.7.
2.4.11.1.2 Low Flow Resulting from Dam Failures Security-Related Information Text Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 2.4.11.2 Low Water Resulting from Surges, Seiches, or Tsunami The Susquehanna River serves only as the source of non-essential makeup water for the plant.
Safety-related water supplies are drawn from the spray pond described in Subsection 9.2.7.
Therefore, low water levels on the Susquehanna River resulting from the occurrence of probable maximum meteorological or geoseismic events, do not affect the ability of safety-related features to function adequately. Ice formation or possible ice jams on the Susquehanna River also affect only non-essential water supplies.
In order to demonstrate the adequacy of this non safety-related water supply even in extreme conditions, a conservative set down analysis was performed. The 100-year fastest mile wind of 80 mph as derived in Section 2.3 is taken as a steady wind blowing directly across the river away from the intake structure. This wind condition is assumed coincident with a 100-year low flow condition in the Susquehanna River. The resulting setdown amounts to 0.22 ft.
Even though makeup from the river is not required for any safety function, the intake is designed so that the top of the intake water passage is submerged 1 ft during the 100-year low flow condition (see Figure 2.4-52). The discharge diffusers are also below the river low flow level (see Figure 2.4-53).
Because of its location and small size, consideration of the effects of seiche and tsunami is not applicable to the spray pond. The very short effective fetch lengths which are available in the spray prevent the development of any significant wave and setdown. Thus, severe wind conditions as would result during a Probable Maximum Hurricane, would not create a low water condition in the spray pond which could affect the dependability of this safety-related water supply. Design features which assure the availability of safety-related water supplies are discussed in Subsection 9.2.7.
FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-29
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4.11.3 Historical Low Water Flow data on historical low flows available in the records of the Wilkes-Barre gage (Station 01536500) is used in Subsection 2.4.11.1 to estimate the one day 100-year low flow at the Susquehanna SES site. The instantaneous minimum flow of record for this station is 528 cfs. This flow, as well as the lowest mean daily discharge of 532 cfs, occurred on September 27, 1964 (Ref.
2.4-6 and 2.4-49). Since statistical methods were not used to extrapolate flows and/or levels to provable minimum conditions, no further discussion is presented.
2.4.11.4 Future Controls 2.4.11.4.1 Legal Consumptive Use Restrictions On September 30, 1976, an amendment to 18 CFR Part 803 (Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Part 803 - Review of Projects Consumptive Use of Water) was published in the Federal Register (Ref. 2.4-50). This amendment requires compensation in an amount equal to the projects total consumptive use when the stream flow at the intake equals or is anticipated to equal a specified low flow criterion. This criterion includes the 7-day 10-year low flow plus the projects total consumptive use and dedicated augmentation. Compensation may be provided by one or a combination of the following means:
: 1. Construction or acquisition of storage facilities
: 2. Purchase of available water supply storage in public or private facilities
: 3. Purchase of water to be released as required from a water purveyor
: 4. Releases from existing facilities owned and operated by the applicant
: 5. Other alternatives including reducing or halting consumptive water use and using alternative source unaffected by the compensation requirement The provisions of this regulation apply to consumptive uses initiated since January 23, 1971.
Consumptive uses beginning after this date must comply with the requirement within a time period to be determined by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission at the time of the permit application review. This compliance delay feature was included in the amendment with specific consideration of the Susquehanna SES project.
The low flow criterion value will be specified at the time of the permit application review. The Q7-10 flow, being a statistical quantity, will not vary substantially as additional years of base data are included in its computation. The Q7-10 value of 820 cfs for Wilkes-Barre (Ref. 2.4-51) can thus be taken as an approximation of the value which will be included in the low flow criterion. Dedicated augmentation and the plant consumptive use must also be added to determine low flow criterion.
2.4.11.4.2 Changes in Consumptive Use Upstream Information on present and projected values of consumptive water use including inter-basin transfer is available from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Pennsylvania DER (Ref. 2.4-13 and 2.4-52). Total consumptive use plus inter-basin transfer for the drainage area upstream of the Susquehanna SES for the period 1970-1974 was 81.4 cfs.
FSAR Rev. 66                                        2.4-30
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 Projections for this same area for the period 2010-2020 set the consumptive use at 364.2 cfs or an increase of 282.8 cfs over the 1970's level. These projections included the originally-estimated average Susquehanna SES consumptive use of 62 cfs. A substantial increase in projected acreage of irrigated farm land in the Chemung and East Susquehanna River Basins account for about two-thirds of the estimated 2010-2020 consumptive water use.
The "Environmental Report - Operating License Stage" (ER-OL, Ref. 2.4-98) estimated a design maximum cooling tower evaporative loss of 28,700 gpm. The "Final Environmental Statement" (FES, Ref. 2.4-99) gave a conservative estimate of 600 gpm for all other consumptive uses, independent of power level. The maximum total consumptive use is the sum, 29,300 gpm or 65.3 cfs.
With power uprate the maximum cooling tower evaporative loss is expected to approach 32,900 gpm. Adding the 600 gpm FES estimate for other consumptive uses results in an uprated maximum total consumptive use of 33,500 gpm, or 74.7 cfs.
2.4.11.5 Plant Requirements The safety-related cooling water is supplied by the ESW system and the RHRSW system. These systems are described in Subsections 9.2.5 and 9.2.6.
The minimum safety-related cooling water flow required is approximately 7,000 gpm for the ESW system and approximately 8000 gpm each for the Unit 1 and 2 RHRSW systems. Each of these systems has been designed with sufficient capacity and redundancy so that no single active or passive failure in either system will prevent the system from achieving its safety objective.
The cooling water for both the ESW and RHRSW systems is pumped from a concrete lined spray pond, the configuration of which is shown on Figure 2.4-2. This pond has a normal water surface area of approximately 8 acres and contains approximately 25 x 106 gal of water. The pond is designed to supply ESW and RHRSW for both units for 30 days after shutdown initiation without receiving makeup water. A complete discussion of pond design capability is given in Subsection 9.2.7.
The elevation of the bottom of the pond is 668 ft above msl and the minimum water level during normal operation is at elevation 678 ft-6 in. above msl. The ESSW pumphouse is located at the edge of the spray pond as shown on Figure 2.4-2. The top of the pumphouse foundation mat is at elevation 660 ft above msl. The minimum water level which will satisfy NPSH requirements at all flows of the vertical ESW and RHRSW pumps are at elevations 667 ft and 668 ft above msl, respectively. Therefore, sufficient NPSH is always available.
Details of the pumps are in Subsections 9.2.5 and 9.2.6.
2.4.11.6 Heat Sink Dependability Requirements The water supply for normal shutdown is provided by:
FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-31
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 a)    The cooling tower pond, which supplies cooling water to the condensers and service water system by means of the circulating water pumps and service water pumps, respectively (see Subsection 10.4.5).
b)    The spray pond, which supplies cooling water to the RHRSW system for dissipating reactor decay heat in the RHR heat exchangers.
The water supply for emergency shutdown is provided by the spray pond, which is the ultimate heat sink, and provides cooling water to both the ESW pumps and the RHRSW pumps as described in Subsections 9.2.5 and 9.2.6.
Subsection 9.2.7 describes the design bases for operation and normal or accident shutdown and cooldown under the following conditions:
a)    The most severe natural and site-related accident phenomena b)    Reasonable combinations of less severe phenomena c)    Single failures of man-made structural components The ultimate heat sink and the piping network located in it are designed to conform with Regulatory Guide 1.27 (Rev. 2, 1/76), which requires that the system operate both during and after the most severe natural phenomenon. Makeup water to both the cooling tower basin and the spray pond is provided by the Susquehanna River by pumps located in the river intake structure as described in Subsection 9.2.7.2.2.
Low level alarms are provided in the river intake structure, in the cooling tower basin, and in the RHRSW and ESW pump chambers.
The river water make-up pumps are tripped at the river low low level alarm setpoint of 485'-4". A low level alarm is provided and set at 485'-0" to alert the operator to a potential low river flow.
The volume of water to be contained within the pond was selected because various water losses (see Subsection 9.2.7) can be absorbed over a 30-day period without makeup. This absorption takes place when the pond is being used simultaneously to cool down one unit that has undergone a design basis accident and to safely shut down the second unit.
During the 30-day period, it is estimated that the decay heat generated for each core which has to be removed by the RHRSWS (Section 9.2.6) will be 2.5x1010 BTUs.
Table 9.2-3 lists all users of the ESWS (Subsection 9.2.5); Tables 2.4-18 and 9.2-4 relate users to time for two types of shutdown.
Tables 2.4-18 and 9.2-4 are based on one of the four aligned diesels being taken out of operation and placed on standby status after 24 hours of operation. The cooling load (Tables 2.4-18 and 9.2-4) is carried out to 30 days after the shutdown initiation; 30 days is the design life of the ultimate heat sink for operation without makeup water. The operation of all equipment listed at the cooling duty shown represents design conditions. Under actual operating conditions certain pieces of equipment may be shut down or operated under reduced loads.
FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-32
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 The ultimate heat sink is used solely as a cooling water supply for the RHRSW and ESW systems.
No interdependent water supply systems are used.
START HISTORICAL 2.4.12 DISPERSION DILUTION AND TRAVEL TIME OF ACCIDENTAL RELEASES OF LIQUID EFFLUENTS IN SURFACE WATERS The Susquehanna River is the only major surface water body in the vicinity of the station which could potentially be affected by the highly unlikely postulated spillage of liquid radwastes. The ability of the Susquehanna River to disperse, dilute as well as transport these wastes which reach it, is discussed with primary emphasis on the reach of the river extending from the station downstream to Danville, a channel distance of approximately 31 miles. The bulk of the potential dilution of such effluent releases occurs within this reach. In addition, standby and active uses of river water, as identified in Subsection 2.4.1.2.3, first occur within this reach.
Table 2.4-3 presents water users and uses within 50 miles downstream of the station. The location of these users is provided on Figure 2.4-7. Of principal importance to this discussion is the municipal water usage at Berwick (7 miles downstream), Bloomsburg (19 miles downstream) and Danville (31 miles downstream). Of these only Danville maintains active usage of the river water.
Both Bloomsburg and Berwick maintain river intakes for use as standby water supplies. Five industrial users and one recreational usage have also been identified in this reach.
The following paragraphs provide a discussion of certain hydraulic characteristics of the Susquehanna River which are important to the dilution and transport of radionuclide releases.
Accident conditions which result in such releases are postulated. Finally, estimates of the dilution of these wastes are provided.
END HISTORICAL 2.4.12.1 River Flow Characteristics 2.4.12.1.1 Flow Duration The flow past a particular point represents a measure of the dilution potential of the stream. For the Susquehanna River the average flow past the station is about 13,600 cfs. A more complete description of the flow is provided in Figure 2.4-30. This figure shows the flow duration curves of daily discharge for the Susquehanna River gauging stations located at Wilkes-Barre and Danville.
Flow duration characteristics at the stations can be interpolated from this figure. Such flow values are suitable for estimating the dilution of routine low level radioactive releases from the station. For FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-33
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 accidental releases, however, a more conservative approach must be taken. The determination of a suitable low flow value is described in the following sections.
START HISTORICAL 2.4.12.1.2 Extreme Low Flow The minimum historic daily low flow rates were recorded on September 27, 1964 at both the Wilkes-Barre and Danville gages. The flows were 532 cfs and 558 cfs respectively (Ref. 2.4-49).
The minimum historic daily low flow at the Susquehanna SES is estimated to be 538 cfs. This value is obtained by interpolation between the Wilkes-Barre and Danville values on the basis of drainage basin area. For comparison purposes, the 100-year low flow at the site is estimated to be 520 cfs (see Subsection 2.4.11.1.1).
No modification of this value was made for purposes of evaluation. Increased consumptive use of the Susquehanna River is projected to occur during the operational life of the station. Legislation described in Subsection 2.4.11.4.1, however, prohibits uncompensated consumptive water use when the flow rate approaches the 7 day, 10-year low flow value. The 7-day 10-year low flow value at the site is 820 cfs.
The major impact of new consumptive water uses initiated after regulation specified date of January 23, 1971 will essentially be limited to periods when the flow exceeds the 7-day, 10-year low flow value. Since no significant upstream changes in consumptive use occurred between the recorded historic low flows of 1964 and the controlling legislation date of 1971, the consumptive use situation which existed in 1964 is essentially preserved with respect to its influence on extreme low flows.
Use of the unmodified historic low flows for purposes of discussion of dilutions of accidental liquid radwaste releases is considered to be reasonable.
2.4.12.1.3 Travel Times Time-of-travel studies have been conducted by the USGS which include the reach of the Susquehanna River downstream of the station (Ref. 2.4-53). These dye studies were conducted between 1965 and 1967 during periods of low to medium flow. Data for the reach of the Susquehanna River between Shickshinny (about 4 miles upstream) and Danville (about 31 miles downstream) are presented in Figure 2.4-31.
Time-of-travel values for both the leading edge of the dye cloud, as well as for its peak concentration, are plotted. Discharge values are those for flow rates at Shickshinny, the dye injection point. For the historic low flow case with a flow of about 537 cfs at Shickshinny, Figure 2.4-31 indicates a range of travel times of about 135 through 155 hours. Proportioning these times on the basis of channel length, the travel times for the reach from the Susquehanna SES to Danville under historic low flow conditions range from 120 to 138 hours.
The flow velocity for this reach can be estimated through use of the peak concentration time-of-travel (138 hrs); the average flow velocity is 0.3 ft/sec. The 18 hour difference between the occurrence of the dye cloud leading edge and the peak concentration is a measure of the longitudinal dispersion which could contribute to the dilution of transient effluent releases.
FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-34
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 END HISTORICAL 2.4.12.2 Accidental Releases Because of the subsurface location of the radwaste tanks and processing facilities, as well as the procedures for handling radwastes at the Susquehanna SES, a direct release of liquid radioactive wastes via surface pathways to the Susquehanna River is not considered.
However, a highly improbable release of liquid radwastes into the Susquehanna River via a groundwater pathway has been postulated. A detailed discussion of the groundwater transport of the radionuclides is provided in Section 2.4.13.3. A brief description of the postulated accidental release along with the estimated radionuclide concentrations entering the river are provided in the following paragraphs.
The largest radionuclide concentrations in the radwaste system are found in the two 7,400-gallon Reactor Water Clean-Up (RWCU) Phase Separator Tanks. These tanks are located in the Radwaste Building and are entirely below grade. The postulated accident consists of a rupture of one of these tanks and a release of its contents into the groundwater system. The contaminated groundwater then moves downgradient toward the Susquehanna River. The location of the aquifer discharge into the river is shown on Dwg. FF62005, Sh. 1.
The aquifer rate of discharge to the river is estimated to be about 108 cubic feet/day per foot of aquifer width. Analysis performed under Section 2.4.13.3 indicated that the estimated radionuclide concentrations at the point of discharge into the river dropped off to below one percent of the peak centerline concentrations within a width of about 640 feet. Taking this value as the width of the contaminated flow, the inflow of contaminated groundwater to the river is calculated as 69,120 cubic feet/day (0.8 cfs).
Table 2.4-38 presents the estimated peak concentrations of radionuclides in the groundwater entering the Susquehanna River as a result of the postulated rupture of one of the RWCU Phase Separator tanks. As shown in the table the estimated peak concentrations for Sr-90 and Pu-239 at the point of entry into the river exceed the effluent concentration limits (ECL) for an unrestricted area as defined in 10 CFR 20 Appendix B. The remaining radionuclides analyzed in Section 2.3.13.3 have activity concentrations at the river that are at least an order of magnitude lower than their associated effluent concentration limits. When consideration is given to the downstream dilution effects discussed in the Subsection 2.4.12.3, in no case does the estimated peak concentration of any of the analyzed radionuclide exceed the effluent concentration limits given in 10 CFR 20 at the nearest downriver public potable water supply (Danville).
2.4.12.3 Effluent Dilution The groundwater accident discussed above results in a release of contaminated water to the Susquehanna River over an extended period of time. For such a continuous release condition, lateral as opposed to longitudinal diffusion becomes the more important mixing mechanism. The maximum potential dilution occurs when cross-sectional homogeneity of concentration is achieved.
For the case of the contaminated groundwater entering the river during the extreme low flow FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-35
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 occurrence, the maximum potential dilution ratio, is 1:650, which is the ratio of the groundwater flow (0.8 cfs) to the estimated 100-year low river flow at the site of 520 cfs (Section 2.4.12.1.2).
A relatively simple model was used to quantify the dilution downstream of the station. A steady state analytical streamtube model (Ref. 2.4-56) was employed for that purpose. The model is applicable to non-tidal rivers where the flow is assumed to be uniform and approximately steady.
Such conditions occurred during the low flows of September 1964. Flow variation was within 10 percent of the minimums for 3 preceding days at Danville to 11 preceding days at Wilkes-Barre (Ref. 2.4-49). Similar flow behavior can be expected during future drought conditions severe enough to result in these low flow rates. The model is further limited to portions of the river removed from the influences of the discharge. For the groundwater release condition, the lack of momentum at the discharge location makes this model applicable for the entire reach downstream of the discharge.
Figure 2.4-33 shows a cross-section at the groundwater release point. The contaminated groundwater is seen to flow toward the river and flow into the river through the bank and bottom approximately to the mid-stream line. The contaminated groundwater inflow can be approximated as a line source perpendicular to the river flow. Equation 8 of Reference 2.4-56 provides the closed form solution for this type of release.
Additional conservative assumptions are made in the application of the model. The channel is taken to be straight, thereby removing any possible increase in cross stream diffusion at river bends. Effluent concentrations in the river are not reduced through any potential sorption of the radionuclides by suspended and bottom sediments. The analysis also conservatively neglects any additional dilution provided by tributary inflow at downstream locations along the Susquehanna River.
Flow characteristics at 32 cross-sections between the site and Danville were estimated from a HEC-2 computer simulation of the historic low flow condition as described in Subsection 2.4.12.1.2.
These flow characteristics provide the basis for the determination of the diffusion factor D at each of these cross-sections. The longitudinal variation of D within this reach is relatively small. Therefore, the mean value of D is used to calculate the radioisotope concentration as a function of distance from the site.
The model results indicate that a fully mixed flow condition is approached within about 47 miles downstream of the station. Concentrations of the radionuclides at Berwick, Bloomsburg and Danville are reduced to 1.29, 1.02 and about 1.0 times the final fully mixed flow concentrations.
The estimated concentrations at Danville of the three most important radionuclides are presented below relative to the limits presented in 10CFR20, Appendix B, Table 2 Estimated                10 CFR 20 Effluent Concentrations
( Ci/ml)                  ( Ci/ml)
Sr-90          1.2 x 10-8                    5 x 10-7 Cs-137          1.3 x 10-9                    1 x 10-6 Pu-239          4.6 x 10-10                    2 x 10-8 FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-36
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 In summary, a simple analytical model was used together with conservative assumptions in order to roughly approximate the dilution of the contaminated groundwater entering the Susquehanna River.
It was found that dilutions approaching the fully mixed flow limit of 1:650 were achieved at Danville where the first active municipal water usage downstream of the station is found. Concentrations of all radionuclides released in the postulated accident are substantially below their effluent concentration limits.
START HISTORICAL 2.4.13 GROUNDWATER 2.4.13.1 Description and Onsite Use 2.4.13.1.1 Regional Groundwater Conditions From the point of view of groundwater, the region will be defined in this report to be the area within a 20-mile radius of the Susquehanna SES. Included in this area are the major portions of Luzerne and Columbia Counties, the northern portion of Schuylkill County, the northwestern corner of Carbon County, and the southeastern corner of Sullivan County.
The region lies in the Appalachian Highlands, which is made up of the Appalachian Plateau Province and the Valley and Ridge Province. The Valley and Ridge Province makes up almost the entire region, while the Appalachian Plateau occupies only the northernmost three percent of the area as shown on Figure 2.4-34.
In the region, the geologic formations of hydrologic significance are either consolidated formations of Paleozoic age or unconsolidated deposits laid down during the glacial age. In the Appalachian Plateau Province, the Paleozoic formations are nearly flat lying, while to the south in the Valley and Ridge Province, these formations have experienced pronounced folding. This folding, which occurred at the close of the Paleozoic Era, produced a number of northeast-southwest trending anticlines and synclines accompanied by the development of a number of normal and thrust faults.
As seen in Figure 2.4-34, seven major folds occur in the region. From north to south, they are the shallow syncline on the crest of North Mountain (in the Appalachian Plateau Province) the Milton anticline the Lackawanna syncline (including the Wyoming Valley) the Berwick anticline (on which the Susquehanna SES is located) the synclinorium of the Eastern Middle Basin in the vicinity of Hazleton the Selinsgrove anticline and the Mahanoy Basin, a synclinorium (Ref. 2.4-57). Faults, striking generally along the axis of the folds, occur within the Lackawanna syncline, the Berwick anticline, the Eastern Middle Basin and the Mahanoy Basin (Ref. 2.4-58).
With the exception of some of the Pleistocene deposits, no formation in the region has a high primary transmissivity. Both the primary porosity and permeability of the consolidated Paleozoic rocks are generally low. Thus, the joint systems, faults and solution channels caused by tectonic processes, weathering or solution activity subsequent to the deposition of these formations, take on considerable importance in enhancing the rocks' ability to transmit groundwater. Systems of FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-37
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 fractures or solution channels in bedrock can serve as groundwater pathways over distances of many miles, provided the openings have not been filled by precipitates or other solid matter.
In addition, the presence of sharply folded anticlines and synclines in the region in some cases provides special constraints on the flow of groundwater. Dips in the region range from 0o to 40o, with the maximum dips found on the rims and within the synclinal basins (Ref. 2.4-57).
Groundwater will tend to flow within a specific formation to the extent that continuous pathways, fractures or solution channels occur preferentially in that formation. This would be particularly true of solution channels in limestone formations. In such cases, artesian or flowing wells are common, particularly in synclinal valleys (Ref. 2.4-57). However, to the extent that fracture systems extend across several adjacent formations, groundwater will not be confined to a particular formation, and the dip of the formation will provide no constraint on the flow of groundwater. In such a case, the alignment and interconnections of the joints or faults provides a major constraint on the flow, along with the direction and magnitude of the hydraulic gradient.
In general, groundwater in the Paleozoic rock formations of the Appalachian Highlands flows from the topographically higher areas (recharge areas) to the valleys (Ref. 2.4-57). It is believed that this groundwater discharges to springs and to the streams and rivers of the region, except at flood stage. However, no quantitative data in the form of piezometric contour maps are available to convey an accurate picture of the local or regional groundwater flow for any of the consolidated formations. In addition, there is no information at all on the flow of deep groundwater in the region.
An aquifer is defined as a rock unit or unconsolidated deposit that is saturated at least over a portion of its thickness, and is capable of transmitting groundwater through it readily. In the region around the Susquehanna SES, few of the bedrock formations have regularly yielded 100 gpm or more to an individual well. Yet, few, if any, of the formations can be considered to be aquitards, or non-aquifers. All the rock units to be described in this section are tapped by wells that provide, at the least, small domestic supplies of a few gallons per minute. This is because all the rock formations of the region contain to a greater or lesser extent the fracture systems or solution channels common to bedrock in the Valley and Ridge Province. To aid in the appraisal of the groundwater resources of the region, the discussion to follow will divide the geologic units into two groups, primary aquifers and secondary aquifers.
Primary aquifers are those generally tapped by the higher yielding industrial or municipal wells, and on the average, produce higher yields than secondary aquifers. Secondary aquifers generally provide water to only low-yielding domestic wells. The primary aquifers of the region include:
: 1)      Pleistocene-age outwash deposits and kame terrace deposits
: 2)      The Pottsville Formation
: 3)      The Mauch Chunk Formation
: 4)      Upper Silurian Formations The secondary aquifers include:
: 1)      The Llewellyn Formation
: 2)      The Pocono Formation
: 3)      The Catskill Formation
: 4)      Marine Beds (Devonian age)
: 5)      The Mahantango, Marcellus and Onondaga Formations FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-38
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60
: 6)    The Bloomsburg Formation The only geologic units exposed in the region that are not included in the discussion to follow are those belonging to the Clinton Formation, the oldest group outcropping in the region. These units are exposed along the axis of the Berwick anticline about 11 miles southwest of the site, as seen in Figure 2.4-34. They are relatively unimportant with respect to groundwater, as they form a high ridge in outcrop (Ref. 2.4-57).
The extent of outcrop, or subcrop, of the consolidated rock units is shown on the bedrock geologic map (Fig. 2.4-34). The location of sand and gravel deposits laid down in the glacial age is shown in Figure 2.4-35. The stratigraphic relationships of the different geologic units of the region are given in Table 2.4-21, along with their groundwater yield characteristics.
2.4.13.1.1.1 Primary Aquifers of the Region Pleistocene - Age Deposits Where there is sufficient saturated thickness, Pleistocene sand and gravel deposits generally serve as the highest yielding aquifers in the region. Figure 2.4-35 shows the location of the major surficial sand and gravel deposits in the region. These are, in general, part of the stratified drift resulting from the last (Wisconsin) ice invasion of the area. The location of the Wisconsin terminal moraine, indicating the farthest advance of the ice, is also shown on Figure 2.4-35.
From the point of view of groundwater, two types of stratified drift deposits generally serve as good aquifers, outwash sediments and kame terraces, both being confined to the valleys or low-lying areas. Outwash sediments were laid down by melt waters flowing ahead of the ice front. They consist of fine-grained well-sorted gravels (Ref. 2.4-59). Outwash sediments in the region are found chiefly in the valleys of Huntington and Fishing Creeks and along the Susquehanna River (Ref. 2.4-57). Kame terraces were formed by running water at the contact of the ice and the valley walls. They are commonly not as well sorted as the outwash sediments, and, hence may exhibit lower permeability. Kame terraces occur along the margins of the Susquehanna River valley (Ref.
2.4-60) and also in the smaller tributary valleys (Ref. 2.4-59). Not all of such small tributary deposits are shown in Figure 2.4-35.
The glacial sand and gravel deposits directly overlie the bedrock formations, or local colluvium.
They are in places overlain by recent alluvium, which is generally either unsaturated or too thin to be considered important as a groundwater source. The thickness of the glacial sand and gravel varies widely from place to place. In some places, old deep valleys have been filled in primarily with glacial materials. In the Wyoming Valley of the Lackawanna Syncline (Figure 2.4-34), for example, such stratified deposits including clay layers, reach thicknesses of up to 300 feet (Ref. 2.4-57). In general, the stratified drift deposits usable as aquifers in the region range from 20 to 150 feet in thickness (Ref. 2.4-57).
Aquifer tests of four wells tapping the sand and gravel deposits of the Wyoming Valley indicated transmissivities ranging from 1,400 to 72,000 ft2/day, and horizontal hydraulic conductivities ranging from 240 to 530 ft/day (Ref. 2.4-60). Storage coefficients obtained from the tests, with one exception, ranged from 0.01 to 0.13 indicating water-table conditions. In the one case, the aquifer was locally confined by a clay layer, and the storage coefficient obtained was 2.0x10-4 .
FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-39
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 Water levels in the sand and gravel deposits are responsive to both recharge from precipitation and the river or stream stage of the water body in the valley in which they are located. The water level in a well tapping a gravel and sand deposit in the Wyoming Valley, responded to the high stages of the Susquehanna River, during the Agnes storm in 1972 by rising from 16 feet below ground to 16 feet above ground (Ref. 2.4-61). Normally, in the deposits in the Wyoming Valley, the water table ranges from less than 10 feet below ground near the Susquehanna River to more than 30 feet below ground in the areas underlain by kame terraces or alluvial fans (Ref. 2.4-60). Seasonal water-level fluctuations were measured from 1965 to 1967 in shallow observation wells in this valley (Ref. 2.4-60). The amplitude ranged from 7 to 14 feet with the peaks occurring in the spring of the year. Water levels have been recorded in the USGS observation well (Lu-309) located in the Borough of Wyoming, north of the Susquehanna River and tapping outwash sand and gravel. In 1975, the water level in the well fluctuated between 9.8 and 20.3 feet below ground (Ref. 2.4-62).
Groundwater discharge from these deposits to the stream or river generally tends to occur at most times except during flood stage.
Recharge to the sand and gravel deposits of the region occurs primarily by direct infiltration of precipitation and by infiltration from the stream and river beds during periods of high stage. The groundwater moves generally from areas of recharge to areas or points of discharge, whether a stream, spring, marsh, or a pumping well. The average hydraulic gradient in the glacial deposits over a section of the Wyoming Valley was determined to be 11 feet per mile (Ref. 2.4-60). Based on this and on an average transmissivity of about 8000 ft2/day, it was estimated that the average rate of discharge from the aquifer to the Susquehanna River is approximately 15 inches per year, amounting to 39 percent of the average annual precipitation. The amount has been equated approximately to the average rate of recharge to these deposits (Ref. 2.4-60).
Because of the variability in the saturated thickness of the aquifer and in the quality of local well construction, well yields range widely. In Luzerne County yields from 6 to more than 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) are reported for glacial sand and gravel deposits (Ref. 2.4-57 and 2.4-62). The gravel-packed wells near Pittston in the Wyoming Valley were tested at 1,280 gpm each with a drawdown of only nine to ten feet after eight hours of pumping (Ref. 2.4-57). In Columbia County, two wells along Fishing Creek tapping glacial sand and gravel deposits were reported to yield 140 and 830 gpm (Ref. 2.4-57). For the region as a whole, the median yield of wells tapping Pleistocene sand and gravel deposits is 100 gpm, based on 26 wells for which data were available (Ref. 2.4-57 and 2.4-62). Seaber's analysis indicates that where sufficient saturated thickness of these glacial deposits occur, 75 percent of properly constructed wells should yield 250 gpm or more (Ref. 2.4-63).
The Pottsville Formation The Pottsville Formation is generally a hard quartzose unit consisting of gray conglomerate as well as white, gray or brownish sandstone (Ref. 2.4-57). Because of its resistance to weathering, it commonly forms ridges or mountains where it crops out. This is illustrated by the inner hills ringing the western part of the Wyoming Valley and by the hills aligned in an ENE-WSW direction in the Hazleton area. The Pottsville Formation underlies the Lackawanna syncline (Wyoming Valley), the Eastern Middle Basin in the vicinity of Hazleton and the Mahanoy Basin, but is absent elsewhere in the region. The Pottsville Formation, where it is not exposed in these basins, directly underlies the Llewellyn Formation, which is a Post-Pottsville formation and which is the primary coal-bearing unit of the region.
FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-40
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 The Pottsville is of significantly greater thickness in the southern basins than in the Lackawanna syncline. In the Western Middle Basin, it is about 850 feet thick and in the Hazleton area it is about 500 feet thick, while in the Wyoming Valley its thickness ranges from only 150 to 300 feet (Ref. 2.4-57).
Of the 35 wells tapping the Pottsville in Luzerne County and for which recent data are available, 12 are reported to be flowing wells (Ref. 2.4-63). The static water level in the remaining wells is reported to range from 4 to 220 feet below ground, the wide range no doubt reflecting differences in topographic position and in the season of year when the measurement was taken. Of seven Pottsville wells studied in the 1930's in Schuylkill County, two were flowing and the static water levels in the remaining wells ranged from 10 to 32 feet below ground (Ref. 2.4-57). Large seasonal fluctuations in the water level are common in the region (Ref. 2.4-63).
No tests to estimate the aquifer parameters of the Pottsville Formation have been reported. Over a large part of the area where the formation occurs in the region, the fractured beds of sandstone and conglomerate are good water producers. In Luzerne County reported well yields range from less than 5 gpm to 160 gpm, with a median yield of 50 gpm (Ref. 2.4-63). The many flowing wells reportedly have large flows, but yield data are lacking. In Schuylkill County, yields ranging from 65 to 125 gpm have been reported, depending on the season. Here, a few deep wells in the Pottsville have been unsuccessful because of the absence of fractures in the formation at those locations (Ref. 2.4-57).
The Mauch Chunk Formation The Mauch Chunk Formation consists of red, green, yellow or brown shale with some sandstones (Ref. 2.4-57). It is easily weathered and eroded and, consequently, has formed valleys or lowlands in the area where it outcrops in the region. As shown on Figure 2.4-34, its outcrops area comprises a large portion of the southern one-third of the region, surrounding the Eastern Middle Basin and the Mahanoy Basin. It crops out as a relatively narrow band around the Lackawanna syncline, making up a narrow valley between the hills of the Pottsville Formation and those of the Pocono Formation. These hills act as the double rim enclosing the western end of the Wyoming Valley.
The Mauch Chunk Formation underlies the Pottsville Formation within the Synclinal basins, and is underlain by the Pocono Formation. In the region it is missing in the Berwick anticline area and north of the Lackawanna syncline.
The thickness of the Mauch Chunk Formation ranges from more than 2,000 feet in the southern part of the region to only 200 to 300 on the north side of the Wyoming Valley (Ref. 2.4-57).
Northeast of Pittston, outside the region but still in the Lackawanna syncline, the Mauch Chunk is absent and the Pottsville Formation directly overlies the Pocono Formation.
Of the 51 wells tapping the Mauch Chunk in Luzerne County and for which recent data are available, seven are reported to be flowing wells (Ref. 2.4-63). The static water levels for the others are reported to range from 1 to 202 feet below ground, the wide range again reflecting differences in topographic position and the season of measurement. Data taken in the 1930's indicated that water levels in 48 wells tapping the Mauch Chunk in the portions of Carbon, Columbia, and Schuylkill Counties included in the region ranged from 1 to 130 feet below ground (Ref. 2.4-57).
Only two of these had water levels at depths greater than 60 feet. In addition, six wells were reported as flowing.
FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-41
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 No tests to determine the aquifer parameters of the Mauch Chunk Formation have been reported.
The fractured beds of shale and sandstone in this formation yield moderate to relatively large supplies of water. The formation is particularly important as a source of groundwater because of the large areal extent of its outcrop in the southern part of the region. Well yields from the Mauch Chunk in Luzerne County range from 5 to 250 gpm (Ref. 2.4-63). Most wells in the county of more than 200-foot depth yield 25 gpm or more. The sandstone beds appear to be more productive than the fractured shale. In 50 wells tapping the Mauch Chunk in the portions of Carbon, Columbia, and Schuylkill Counties included in the region, yields in the 1930's were reported to range from 4 to 375 gpm (Ref. 2.4-57). The median yield based on 101 wells in the region for which data were available is 22 gpm (Ref. 2.4-57 and 2.4-63).
Upper Silurian Formations Included in the Upper Silurian Formations in the region, in order of increasing age, are the Keyser Formation the Tonoloway Formation and the Wills Creek Formation. The Keyser Formation consists of alternating beds of sandy limestone and calcareous sandstone, some conglomeritic sandstone and a bed of soft shaly limestone (Ref. 2.4-57). The Tonoloway Limestone is about 100 to 150 feet thick and consists primarily of platy, laminated and argillaceous limestones with thick beds occurring locally at the top (Ref. 2.4-57 and 2.4-58). The Wills Creek Formation is made up of about 300 feet of alternating limestone, limy shales, and fissile shales (Ref. 2.4-57 and 2.4-58).
Some of the units included under these three formations and underlying the Onondaga Formation have been mapped as the Helderberg Formation (Ref. 2.4-57 and 2.4-58) assumed to be lower Devonian. More recent work by the Pennsylvania Geological Survey does not use the term Helderberg (for more information, refer to Subsection 2.5.1).
These formations crop out within the Berwick anticline from Berwick through Bloomsburg. They are underlain by the Bloomsburg Formation. Outside the Berwick anticline, the Upper Silurian Formations are overlain by the Onondaga Formation and the Marcellus Shale.
Groundwater in the Keyser and Tonoloway Formations occurs chiefly in solution channels and in some places in bedding planes and fractures enlarged by solution (Ref. 2.4-57). Static water levels of wells tapping these formations in the region are reported to range from 12 to 42 feet below ground in the 1930's (Ref. 2.4-57).
Some large yields have been recorded for wells tapping these formations. Within the region, recorded yields in four wells range from 16 to 250 gpm, and three of them yielded 125 gpm or more (Ref. 2.4-57). In addition, two wells tapping these formations near Berwick are reported to yield large, although unmeasured, supplies, with small drawdowns. A large spring, probably issuing from either the Tonoloway limestone or the Keyser Formation, is reported to occur in the bed of the Susquehanna River at the foot of the cliff below Berwick (Ref. 2.4-57).
2.4.13.1.1.2 Secondary Aquifers of the Region Llewellyn Formation The Llewellyn Formation consists of sandstone, conglomerate, shale, fire clay, slate and numerous anthracite coal beds (Ref. 2.4-63). Beds of conglomerate and, in places, fireclay occur between the coal beds, which are the primary source for coal in the region (Ref. 2.4-57). The Llewellyn Formation in the region occurs only in the central portions of the Lackawanna syncline, the Eastern FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-42
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 Middle Basin and the Mahanoy Basin. It is directly underlain by the Pottsville Formation. The thickness of the formation is about 700 feet in the Hazleton area, 2,000 feet in the Mahanoy Basin, and nearly 2,200 feet in the Wyoming Valley (Ref. 2.4-57 and 2.4-60). The reported depths to water level in the Llewellyn range widely, from 1 to 342 feet, with four of the eight wells having reported water levels at depth greater than 150 feet (Ref. 2.4-63). No tests to determine aquifer parameters have been reported.
Small to moderate yields are obtainable from the fractured sandstone and conglomerate beds.
Yields of wells tapping the Llewellyn Formation in the portions of Luzerne and Schuylkill Counties in the region range from 2 to 80 gpm (Ref. 2.4-57 and 2.4-63). The median yield of the 11 wells for which data were reported is 10 gpm. In the vicinity of the mining operations, some of the formation water drains into the mines. In addition, because of proximity to the mining operations, the quality of the groundwater is commonly poor. Highly acidic water results from the oxidation of pyrite found in the coal (Ref. 2.4-57).
Pocono Formation The Pocono Formation consists of a hard massive gray sandstone and conglomerate, including some shale layers (Ref. 2.4-57). It is highly resistant to weathering and, consequently, over its outcrop area makes up the predominant ridges or hills of the region. These include, from north to south, North Mountain, Huntington Mountain/Shickshinny Mountain, Lee Mountain/Penobscot Mountain, Catawissa Mountain, Nescopeck Mountain, Little Mountain, and Broad Mountain.
Huntington Mountain/Shickshinny Mountain and Lee Mountain/Penobscot Mountain serve as the outer rim of the Wyoming Valley. The Pocono Formation underlies most of the southern part of the region as well as the Lackawanna syncline. It is absent in the Berwick anticline Formation underlies the Mauch Chunk Formation and directly overlies the Catskill Formation. The Pocono Formation ranges in thickness from over 1,000 feet in the southern part of the region to about 600 feet in the north (Ref. 2.4-57).
Data from 10 wells tapping the Pocono Formation in the region indicate that four of the wells were flowing (Ref. 2.4-57 and 2.4-63). The depth to the static water level in the remaining wells, with one exception, ranges from 14 to 80 feet. One well yielding 133 gpm had a reported water-level depth of 300 feet (Ref. 2.4-63) which may more properly represent a pumping water level.
According to the available literature, no tests have been performed to estimate the aquifer parameters of the Pocono Formation. Moderate yields are obtainable when wells penetrate well-fractured saturated zones. Most all the wells tapping the Pocono in the region are in Luzerne County, and many of these are located along the north rim of the Wyoming Valley (Ref. 2.4-57).
The formation is reported to be a productive aquifer on the Appalachian Plateau when it occurs below drainage level and has a significant saturated thickness (Ref. 2.4-92). In this area, but probably outside of the region to the northwest, yields from the Pocono of more than 200 gpm are likely (Ref. 2.4-92). Within the region, reported yields range from 3 to 133 gpm (Ref. 2.4-63).
Neglecting the one high flow of 133 gpm, the average yield is about 10 gpm.
The Catskill Formation The Catskill Formation consists of red to brownish shales, red and gray crossbedded sandstone, and gray to green sandstone tongues (Ref. 2.4-58 and 2.4-63). As seen in outcrop (Figure 2.4-34)
FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-43
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 it forms the outer limbs of the Milton, Berwick and Selinsgrove anticlines, and underlies about 75 percent of the region. It directly underlies the Pocono Formation, and is, in turn, underlain by the Devonian Marine Beds. The maximum exposed thickness of the formation over the major part of the region is about 1,700 feet. There is evidence, however, that the thickness may increase to 3,000 to 4,000 feet in the southernmost part of the region (Ref. 2.4-57).
Out of 75 wells tapping the Catskill Formation in Luzerne County for which data are available, six wells were reported as flowing (Ref. 2.4-63). Static water levels in the remainder ranged from 6 to 215 feet below ground, with 62 of the wells having water levels within 70 feet of the surface. During 1976, water levels in a USGS observation well (LU-243) tapping the Catskill Formation in the northern part of Luzerne County fluctuated between 49.5 and 55.1 feet below ground (Ref. 2.4-62).
Water levels in Catskill wells located in Columbia and Carbon Counties were reported in the 1930's to range from 6 to 60 feet below ground (Ref. 2.4-57).
In general, the hard fractured sandstones of the Catskill Formation yield more water than do the shale beds of the formation (Ref. 2.4-57). The range of reported yields of wells tapping Catskill beds in Luzerne County is 2 to 325 gpm (Ref. 2.4-63). For the 63 wells in the county for which data are available, the median yield is 12 gpm, and 75 percent of the wells yield 25 gpm or less (Ref.
2.4-63). Seventeen Catskill wells in Columbia County and the portion of Carbon County included in the region were reported in the 1930's to yield from 1 to 75 gpm (Ref. 2.4-57). Seventy-five percent of these wells yielded 10 gpm or less.
Marine Beds The Devonian Marine Beds, together with the Catskill Formation, has in the past been mapped as an undifferentiated unit termed the Susquehanna Group (Ref. 2.4-58). Within the region, the primary constituent of the Marine Beds is Trimmers Rock, which consists principally of hard gray to greenish-gray massive to flaggy sandstone containing little shale (Ref. 2.4-57). Brallier Shale and Harrell Shale are minor members of the Marine Beds and they appear to be missing over at least a portion of the region. The Marine Beds are present in most of the region, and are overlain by the Catskill Formation except within the Milton and Berwick anticlines. The Marine Beds overlie the Mahantango Formation. The total known thickness of the Marine Beds in the region ranges from about 1,500 to 3,000 feet, of which nearly the entire thickness of Trimmers Rock (Ref. 2.4-57).
Out of 16 wells tapping the Marine Beds in Luzerne County for which data are available, two were flowing wells (Ref. 2.4-63). The remaining wells have static water levels ranging from 18 to 63 feet below ground. Static water levels for wells tapping Marine Beds in Columbia County were reported in the 1930's to range from 3 to 50 feet below ground, with one of the 15 wells studied being a flowing well (Ref. 2.4-57).
Low yields are obtainable from wells tapping fracture zones in the Marine Beds. The range of the measured yields of 21 wells tapping Marine Beds in the region ranged from less than 1 to 15 gpm, with a median yield of 5 gpm (Ref. 2.4-57 and 2.4-63). Newport states that some of the wells tapping the Marine Beds are reported to yield large supplies, however, no measurement has been made (Ref. 2.4-62).
The Mahantango, Marcellus and the Onondaga Formations FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-44
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 On a regional scale, the Mahantango Formation and the Marcellus Shale have been mapped together as the Hamilton Group (Ref. 2.4-58). The Mahantango Formation is the youngest unit, and overlies the Marcellus Shale, which in turn overlies the Onondaga Formation.
Within the region, the Mahantango Formation is about 1,100 feet thick and consists chiefly of bluish-gray to brownish sandy shale, with some interbedded sandstones, and locally thin bluish-gray limestone (Ref. 2.4-57 and 2.4-58). The underlying Marcellus Shale consists of about 400 feet of black, gray or dark-blue fissile shale (Ref. 2.4-57). The Onondaga Formation generally consists of a non-cherty limestone member overlying a gray calcareous shale (Ref. 2.4-57). It is reported to be 140 feet thick in the Selinsgrove anticline (Ref. 2.4-57).
The Mahantango Formation crops out in the vicinity of the Susquehanna SES and underlies almost the entire region, with the exception of the central portion of the Berwick anticline between Berwick and Bloomsburg (Ref. 2.4-58). These formations are underlain by Upper Silurian Formations, and except within the central portions of the Milton and Berwick anticlines, are overlain by the Marine Beds.
Water levels in the Hamilton Group Formations have been reported to range from 7 to 40 feet below ground (Ref. 2.4-57 and 2.4-63). One well in Columbia County was reported in the 1930's to be flowing (Ref. 2.4-57). Yields have been reported to range from 2 to 21 gpm (Ref. 2.4-57 and 2.4-63) although one well in Columbia County tapping the Mahantango Formation (or possibly Marine Beds) was reported to have a "large" yield at a large drawdown (Ref. 2.4-57).
Bloomsburg Formation The Bloomsburg Formation is about 800 feet thick in the region. It consists of dark-red sandy shale with a few thin layers of bright-green shale and a few beds of red sandstone (Ref. 2.4-57). The underlying McKenzie Formation is about 150 feet thick and consists of red to green shale, gray calcareous shale and some dark blue limestone (Ref. 2.4-57). It underlies essentially the entire region and immediately overlies units of the Clinton Formation. Except in the core of the Berwick anticline, the Upper Silurian formations overlie the Bloomsburg Formation.
Static water levels in the 1930's of four wells tapping the Bloomsburg in the region ranged between 12 and 55 feet below ground. During 1976, water levels in a USGS observation well (Co-45) tapping the Bloomsburg Formation and located near the Town of Bloomsburg, fluctuated between 81.0 and 86.3 feet below ground (Ref. 2.4-62). Yields of the Bloomsburg Formation range from 5 to 20 gpm, although one well was reported to give a "large" though unmeasured supply (Ref. 2.4-57).
2.4.13.1.2 Local Groundwater Conditions The local area is herein defined as the area within a two-mile radius of the Susquehanna SES.
Within a two-mile radius of the Susquehanna SES, three rock formations crop out and are tapped for groundwater supply. These are, from south to north, the Mahantango Formation, the Trimmers Rock Formation and the Catskill Formation, shown on Figure 2.4-36. In addition, several wells tap unconsolidated deposits, including Pleistocene sand and gravel, Holocene alluvium and residual soil. Most of these are located on the Susquehanna River flood plain. No withdrawal greater than 3,000 gallons per day is made from any existing well within two miles of the station. The general description of these formations and deposits is given in Subsection 2.4.13.1.1.
FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-45
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 A door-to-door inventory of wells and springs utilized for water supply within two miles of the Susquehanna SES was performed in March 1977. Details of the results of this inventory are presented in Tables 2.4-22 and 2.4-23. The locations of the wells and springs are shown on Figures 2.4-37 and 2.4-38, respectively.
The Mahantango Formation, a blue-gray siltstone, underlies more than half of the two-mile radius area and is found immediately beneath the Susquehanna SES (Figure 2.4-36). On the north side, along its contact with the Trimmers Rock Formation, it is commonly a limey siltstone. In the vicinity of the station, boring log and pressure test information indicate the rock to be moderately well fractured in the upper 10 to 20 feet, with significantly fewer fractures at greater depth. Thus, in many locations in the local area, one would expect that wells tapping the Mahantango may obtain most of their supply from the upper 10 to 20 feet of rock.
Table 2.4-22 indicates that out of a total of 185 wells inventoried within the two-mile radius, 125 tap the Mahantango Formation. Of 114 Mahantango wells for which data were obtained, the range of depths is 20 to 354 feet with a median depth of 90 feet. Neglecting two large questionable values, reported yields from Mahantango wells range from 2 to 130 gpm with a median value of 15 gpm.
Reported estimates of depth to static water level indicate a range of 1 to 100 feet with a median of 20 feet. Eighty local residents having wells tapping the Mahantango Formation (comprising nearly 70 percent of those giving water quality information) report their well water to be hard. Of these, 14 stated the water also contained iron, a sulfide, or both. The quality of water in three of these wells is so poor it cannot be used for drinking.
Table 2.4-23 indicates that out of a total of 33 springs used for water supply in the local area, only six are believed to issue from the Mahantango Formation.
The Trimmers Rock Formation in the local area consists of thinly laminated siltstone or silty shale and hard, often flaggy, fine-grained sandstone. Groundwater occurs primarily in the rock fractures, as the primary porosity of the rock is essentially nil. The contact between the Mahantango and the Trimmers Rock Formation is located about 1,500 feet north of the center of the Susquehanna SES plant area.
Forty-five of the 185 wells inventoried in the two-mile radius are believed to tap Trimmers Rock, and 15 of the 33 springs utilized for water supply are believed to issue from this formation. As taken from Table 2.4-22, the range in well depths is 20 to 460 feet, and the median depth is 150 feet, significantly greater than that for Mahantango wells (90 feet). The difference may be due in part to the fact that the area underlain by Trimmers Rock is topographically higher than that underlain by the Mahantango Formation.
The data given in Table 2.4-22 indicate that of seven wells for which data were reported, the well yields from Trimmers Rock range from 6 to 60 gpm with the median value 9 gpm. The largest yielding developed spring in the local area is owned by the Citizens Water Company of Wapwallopen and is given as No. 7 in Table 2.4-23. It is believed to issue from the Trimmers Rock Formation and supplies about 8,200 gpd.
The reported depths to static water level in Trimmers Rock wells in the local area range from 0 to 50 feet with a median of 22 feet. Water from approximately 55 percent of the Trimmers Rock wells is FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-46
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 reported to be hard; and of these, 40 percent are reported to contain iron, a sulfide or both. The quality of water in three of the wells is so poor that it cannot be used for drinking.
The Catskill Formation in the local area consists of reddish-brown to maroon sandstone, siltstone or mudrock, and greenish-gray or olive-gray fine-grained sandstone, siltstone, silty shale or shale. The size of the area underlain by this formation within the two-mile radius is small (Figure 2.4-36). None of the wells inventoried in the area appear to tap the Catskill Formation. One spring believed to be issuing from the Catskill Formation is utilized for water supply (No. 33 in Table 2.4-23).
The primary source for relatively large groundwater supplies in the local area is Pleistocene sand and gravel deposits. However, only 10 existing wells within two miles of the station are believed to tap these deposits; and they withdraw only small quantities, for domestic or stock watering purposes as seen in Table 2.4-22. Essentially all the Pleistocene deposits within two miles of the station are mapped as kame terrace deposits. As seen on Figure 2.4-36, the kame terrace deposits (Qkt) cover nearly one-fourth of the two-mile radius area. In addition, the sand and gravel deposits commonly underlying the Holocene alluvium (Qal) are, in all likelihood, kame terrace deposits.
The major portion of the kame terrace deposits consists of stratified sand and gravel, including varying amounts of silt, grading with cobbles and boulders particularly in the lower part of the deposit. The overlying portion commonly consists of well-sorted fine to medium sand, or fine sand and silt, which exhibit both simple and complex bedding structure. In general, thicker sequences of the deposits would be expected to occur close to the river. The permeability of the kame terrace deposits can vary considerably areally and with depth.
The ten wells in the local area tapping these deposits range in depth from 20 to 100 feet with a median depth of 22 to 24 feet. The wells are mostly dug wells two to three feet in diameter. The reported static water level ranges from 5 to 75 feet below ground with the median value of 12 feet.
Eighty percent of the well owners having wells tapping kame terrace deposits reported the water to be soft and of good quality.
Four other wells within two miles of the site tap unconsolidated deposits other than kame terrace deposits. Two are believed to tap Holocene alluvium, one along Wapwallopen Creek and the other along Walker Run. These have shallow depths (<18 feet) and have reported static water levels of two feet below the surface. North of the site there are two dug wells apparently completed in the residual soil or the upper highly weathered portion of the underlying Trimmers Rock. These are of shallow depth (<15 feet) with a reported static water level just four feet below the surface.
END HISTORICAL 2.4.13.1.3 Onsite Use of Groundwater Plant use of groundwater is anticipated during the operation of the plant. Two production wells, TW-1 and TW-2, exist on site and are located about 1,200 feet northeast of the turbine building.
They have been used for construction purposes, and have an approximate capacity of 50 gpm and 150 gpm, respectively. During plant operation, these wells fill the clarified water storage tank and the domestic water storage tank and supply seal water for the circulating water pumps and the FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-47
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 service water pumps. Clarified river water may occasionally be used to supply some of these needs.
Two 30 gpm wells exist at the River Water Make Up facility and are utilized for seal water to the River Water Make Up pumps. These wells are located about 200 feet north of the River Water Make Up facility.
START HISTORICAL 2.4.13.2 Sources 2.4.13.2.1 Water Well Inventory A complete water well inventory in the local area was performed by making a house-to-house survey within two miles of the Susquehanna SES during March 1977. The results of this inventory with the available well data are presented in Table 2.4-22. The locations of these wells are given in Figure 2.4-37. Wherever springs were utilized for water supply they were tabulated separately.
The pertinent information on the springs used locally is given in Table 2.4-23 and their locations are shown in Figure 2.4-38. A summary discussion of the information given in these two tables is provided in Subsection 4.13.1.2. Estimates of present withdrawal rates from each well or spring were calculated on the daily per-person or per-animal consumption rate shown at the bottom of Tables 2.4-22 and 2.4-23, based primarily on Reference 2.4-64.
A total of 185 water wells and 33 developed springs were inventoried in the two-mile radius area.
The vast majority of the wells are used for domestic or stock-watering purposes. Nineteen of the wells are used, at least in part, for commercial purposes; seven are currently unused, and one is used as standby for public supply purposes by the Citizens Water Company of Wapwallopen. The largest estimated average withdrawal from a single well in the area is about 2,700 gpd. With one exception, the developed springs in the local area provide supplies of water only for domestic and stock use. At Wapwallopen, the Citizens Water Company withdraws an average of 8,200 gpd from a spring believed to issue from the Trimmers Rock Formation.
In the region, an inventory of major wells (with the exception of public-supply wells) located between 2 and 10 miles from the Susquehanna SES was performed. A major well was defined as one with a reported tested yield of 15 gpm or more. In addition, an inventory of all public supply wells located between 2 and 20 miles from the station was carried out. The source for both these inventories were a published report (Ref. 2.4-63) and unpublished records and computer printouts from Bureaus of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (Ref. 2.4-65 through 2.4-69).
The results of the major-well inventory are presented in Table 2.4-24 and include well location, owner, use, total depth, probable aquifer tapped, reported well yield, specific capacity and static water level. The locations of these wells are shown on Figure 2.4-39. A total of 77 major wells has been enumerated. Reported well yields range up to 550 gpm, and the median value of those wells for which yields are reported is 20 gpm. With the exception of three industrial wells located near Nanticoke, the remaining wells are used exclusively for domestic or stock-watering purposes.
FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-48
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 The results of the inventory of public-supply wells are provided in Table 2.4-25, and their locations are shown in Figure 2.4-40. A total of 213 public-supply wells was enumerated over the 20-mile radius area. The area has a large number of small water-supply companies or municipal departments, and because of the relatively low yield of many wells completed in rock, a considerable number of wells is required. As shown on Figure 2.4-40, the majority of these wells are concentrated either in the vicinity of the Wyoming Valley, northeast of the station, or in the southeastern quadrant, in the Freeland-Hazleton-Mahanoy City area.
2.4.13.2.2 Groundwater Withdrawal The estimated average groundwater withdrawal rate during 1976 from all wells and springs within a two-mile radius of the site is 56,000 gpd, which is equivalent to only 38.9 gpm. Table 2.4-26 shows the estimated withdrawals from wells and from springs, as well as from individual geologic units within this local area for that year. Approximately 52 percent of the withdrawals is from the Mahantango Formation. Spring withdrawal amounts to about 25 percent of total groundwater use in the area. The values in Table 2.4-26 were obtained by summing up the appropriate figures in the column for "estimated present average withdrawal" in Tables 2.4-22 and 2.4-23.
The estimated projections of groundwater use through the year 2020 in the two-mile radius area are given in Table 2.4-27. It is estimated that by the year 2000, local groundwater withdrawal will amount to about 64,000 gpd. The projections are based on the population projections given in Tables 2.1-7 through 2.1-16.
Estimates of regional groundwater withdrawals are based on records and computer printouts of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (Ref. 2.4-70) a personal communication with a water department (Ref. 2.4-71) and the U.S. Census publication for 1970 (Ref. 2.4-72).
Tables 2.4-28 and 2.4-29 summarize the information and calculations on which we based the estimate of the groundwater withdrawal rate for 1975 within 20 miles of the station. As shown in Table 2.4-29, the estimated average withdrawal in 1975 from all geologic units by water departments or companies and by industries was 6.3 mgd and that from private domestic wells and springs was 5.2 mgd. Thus, the estimated average withdrawal rate in 1975 was 11.5 mgd for the 20-mile area.
Table 2.4-27 gives the estimated projections of groundwater use in the region through the year 2020. The projections are based on population projections as found in Tables 2.1-15 through 2.1-16. The estimated average groundwater withdrawal rate within 20 miles of the station for the year 2000 is 12.1 mgd.
FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-49
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4.13.2.3 Aquifer Characteristics and Groundwater Conditions at the Site 2.4.13.2.3.1 Data Sources Previous Investigations As defined herein, the site or site area refers to property owned by PP&L at the Susquehanna SES.
A number of borings, observation wells and test or production have been drilled on the PP&L property at the Susquehanna SES as a part of previous investigations. These have been drilled at different times since 1965 under the supervision of different engineering contractors. Data from a total of 328 borings or wells on the property have been used in evaluating the hydrogeologic conditions on site. Their locations, along with those for test pits, are shown in Figures 2.4-41 and 2.4-42.
The data utilized from these borings and wells include boring log data, with lithologic and structural notations, and the results of water pressure tests performed at several borings. In addition, pumping tests of the overburden materials were carried out in the two production wells located on the north side of the property, TW-1 and TW-2. Laboratory tests, including grain-size, dry density and permeability tests, have been performed on a number of soil samples obtained from the borings on site. Water-level data have been obtained in borings in the process of their being drilled, and at frequent intervals in observation wells constructed on the property.
The data from these previous investigations have been obtained from published documents, reports submitted to PP&L, and unpublished records (Ref. 2.4-73 through 2.4-85).
Investigations Performed for this Report Some of the observation wells constructed during previous investigations were found to be usable for this investigation. They were each confirmed to be in hydraulic continuity with the geologic unit(s) they are open to. This was done by pouring in a slug of water of known volume (two to five gallons) and measuring the rate of recovery of the water level. A total of 11 observation wells (Nos.
2, 8, 11, 19, 109, 124, 1111, 1113, 1114, B-1 and CPW) were found to be in satisfactory condition and have been used for groundwater level monitoring since early November, 1976. The location of these observation wells is shown on Figures 2.4-32 and 2.4-43. Details of their construction are given in Table 2.4-30.
Six new observation wells were constructed in the summer of 1977 as a part of this investigation (Nos. 1200A, 1201, 1204, 1208, 1209A, and 1210). Four of these are overburden wells and tap the overburden and the upper two to three feet of bedrock. The remaining two (1201 and 1209A) are bedrock wells and tap the zone between 4 and 34 feet below the top of bedrock. The location of the new observation wells is along a narrow band running east from the plant area to the river as indicated in Figure 2.4-32. Details of the manner of their construction are given in Table 2.4-30.
Figures 2.4-44 through 2.4-49 provide the boring log information and schematic well construction details for each well.
Water pressure tests (packer tests) were performed in both of the bedrock observation wells (Nos. 1201 and 1209A). Pumping tests were conducted for overburden wells 1204 and 1210. The purpose of the water pressure tests (packer tests) and pumping tests was to provide estimates of FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-50
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the upper bedrock and the overburden soils, respectively, along the groundwater path from the plant to the river.
2.4.13.2.3.2 Groundwater Parameters and Movement at the Site On the PP&L property at the Susquehanna SES, the saturated portion of the overburden serves as an aquifer. The underlying fractured portion of the Upper Mahantango siltstone also contains groundwater, but its generally lower porosity (storage capacity) and permeability make it of only secondary importance as a local aquifer.
The overburden consists primarily of kame terrace Pleistocene deposits. East of Route 11 on the flood plain, these deposits are covered with up to 10 to 20 feet of Holocene alluvial material consisting of silty fine sand or fine sandy silt.
The Pleistocene kame terrace deposits are poorly to moderately well-graded stratified deposits consisting dominantly of sand and gravel, with variable amounts of clay, silt, cobbles and boulders.
In portions of the area, the upper layers tend to consist of well-sorted fine to medium sand, or fine sand and silt, exhibiting both simple and complex bedding structures. The lower layers are generally more coarse-grained and more well graded, with cobbles and boulders occurring most abundantly near the top of bedrock. Elsewhere, these deposits consist of alternating layers of: (1) relatively poorly-graded sand and gravel; and (2) a well-graded mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders.
The lenses and layers of poorly graded (uniform) sand or sandy gravel are most important from a groundwater point of view, as they are high in permeability. Thus, the bulk of the groundwater flow will tend to flow through these layers where they are continuous for some distance. Boring log information indicates that a moderately to highly permeable zone exists within the lower 20 feet of overburden, over considerable distances within the station area.
An isopach map of the Susquehanna SES area, which indicates the approximate thickness of overburden across the site, is given in Figure 2.4-41. The thickness of overburden on site ranges from 0 to 125 feet. By comparison to Figure 2.4-42, which gives the approximate top-of-bedrock contours for the site area, it is seen that the greatest thickness of overburden occurs in the two east-west oriented buried bedrock valleys, which occur on the northern side of the site. One of these valleys (called the "major bedrock valley") appears to extend all the way from the west side of the property to the river, between Pennsylvania coordinates, N341,500 and N342,500. A prominent kame terrace with a thickness of up to 70 feet occurs along the southern flank of this valley, between the plant and Route 11, as seen on Figure 2.4-41. The other important east-west bedrock valley is located about 1500 feet further north and extends from the location of Route 11 to the river.
Figure 2.4-42 also shows a secondary bedrock valley extending from the plant in a northeast direction until it joins the major bedrock valley.
Apart from the above described features, the overburden thickness in the site area west of Route 11 is 20 feet or less. On the flood plain, the overburden thickness is seen to range from less than 20 feet up to 125 feet, with the average probably in the range of 50 to 80 feet, clearly higher than that in the upland area. To illustrate the nature of the topography and the thickness of the overburden over the site area, Figure 2.4-33 shows a geologic cross-section extending eastward FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-51
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 from the northern part of the turbine building to the Susquehanna River. The location of the cross-section along a groundwater flow path is shown on Figure 2.4-33.
Of greater importance than the overall overburden thickness is the height of the groundwater level above the top of bedrock. Where groundwater is unconfined, this corresponds to the saturated thickness which varies from season to season and from year to year depending on the quantity of water recharging the groundwater. Where groundwater is confined, as on the flood plain, the saturated thickness of the aquifer generally remains constant, while the height of the groundwater level fluctuates. The height of groundwater in the overburden at the site ranges from 0 to about 90 feet, and the values at various borings or wells and at different times are given in Tables 2.4-31 and 2.4-32.
On the flood plain, the height of the groundwater level above bedrock in the overburden generally ranges from 30 to 90 feet, with the greatest thickness found along the river and within the two major bedrock valleys, as shown by wells B-1 and CPW in Table 2.4-32. On the uplands, the height of the water level above bedrock ranges from less than zero to about 65 feet. The greater thicknesses are always found in the center of the bedrock valleys; and generally, the greater the distance from the axis of the valleys, the less the thickness. For example, as shown in Table 2.4-32, in early November, 1976, the height of the water level above bedrock at observation well 109 located in the center of the major bedrock valley was 65 feet, while at nearby observation well 124, located on the north flank of that valley, the thickness was only 20 feet. The saturated thickness of unconfined Pleistocene deposits near the center of the major bedrock valley, about 500 feet west of U.S. Route 11 at Well 1208, was found to be 8.8 feet in August 1977. Forty feet to the east at Well 1210, it was only 3.9 feet.
Static water levels measured in 1972 indicate that in the vicinity of the reactor area, turbine building and the cooling towers, the height of the groundwater level above bedrock ranges from 0 to 18 feet.
This is shown in Table 2.4-31 for the relevant borings: 116, 202, 205, 206, 209, 211, 215, 301, 312, 317, 319 and 444. With the exception of the June 1972 reading at boring 319, the groundwater levels in this area were only 0 to 8 feet above the top of rock.
At one observation well, No. 1114 located in the spray pond area, groundwater levels in the period 1974 to 1977 were in the bedrock. Tables 2.4-31 and 2.4-32 indicate that static water levels in this well ranged between one to five feet below top of rock.
The approximate height of the groundwater level in the Pleistocene deposits along the assumed groundwater flow path from the northern part of the plant to the river is shown on Figure 2.4-33.
The underlying bedrock at the site consists primarily of the Mahantango siltstone, while the Trimmers Rock sandstone borders the Mahantango on the north, approximately along coordinate N343,500. The logs of borings penetrating up to 250 feet of the Mahantango siltstone were examined. Broken or severely fractured zones commonly occur at the bedrock and alternate between massive and moderately fractured zones. No uniform pattern was observed with respect to the occurrence of fractures at depth. There does, however, appear to be a tendency for the fractures or joints at depth to be filled in with calcite, pyrite or quartz crystals. This is also true of the many brecciated zones occurring in the rock cores. However, open or partially open joints and fractures do occur at depths greater than 20 feet below the top of rock. The joint planes or cleavage planes examined were nearly always in the range of 30o to 60o from the horizontal, and generally opposing or nearly perpendicular to the bedding planes.
FSAR Rev. 66                                        2.4-52
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 Water pressure tests (packer tests) in the 300-series, 900-series and 1200-series borings on site indicate a clear tendency for the effective rock permeability to decrease with depth within the upper 50 feet of bedrock (Ref. 2.4-75 and 2.5-84). This is shown in Tables 2.4-33 and 2.4-34.
Water level data from the overburden and bedrock wells of the 1200-series indicate this upper relatively permeable bedrock zone is not everywhere in direct hydraulic connection with the overlying Pleistocene deposits. Water levels measured in bedrock Well 1201 have been about 11 feet higher than in overburden Well 1200A, 6.4 feet away, as shown in Table 2.4-30. With the exception of the uppermost fractured bedrock zone of one-to-three-foot thickness (tapped by the overburden wells in the 1200-series), it appears that groundwater filling the underlying bedrock fractures forms in places over the site area a hydraulic system essentially separate from that of the overburden.
Many of the static water level readings presented in Tables 2.4-31 and 2.4-32 were made in borings or observation wells in hydraulic connection with both the bedrock and the overlying overburden.
Thus, assuming that water levels in the upper bedrock do not generally coincide with those for the overburden, the water levels in such cases represent composite levels probably dominated by the overburden. This would clearly be the case for borings 7 through 209 and 215 through 319 as given in Table 2.4-31 and for observation wells 8, 109 and 124 in Table 2.4-32.
The fluctuation of the groundwater table at the Susquehanna SES is indicated in Tables 2.4-31 and 2.4-32. From July 1974 to July 1975, water levels in observation wells 1111, 1113 and 1114 fluctuated within a range of five feet, while from November 1976 to late April 1977, they fluctuated within 0.9 to 7.5 feet. For wells 1111 and 1113, groundwater levels were one to eight feet higher between November 1976 and May 1977 than for the same period in 1974-75. At well 1114, on the other hand, groundwater levels were three feet lower in 1976-77 than in 1974-75. This reversal of groundwater level trends in the same general area may possibly be ascribed to the effect of large amount of earth-moving work performed over this period in close proximity to the spray pond area.
The construction of the railroad embankment, settlement of fill material and excavations in the immediate vicinity could have a profound affect on the elevation and gradient of the local water table.
For the other seven observation wells for which full records are available, groundwater levels onsite fluctuated within a range of 5.5 to 11.2 feet for the period from early November 1976 until mid-September 1977. The exception to this was Well 109 which experienced a water level decline of 22.2 feet between April 14th and September 20th because of its proximity to the production wells TW-1 and TW-2.
Figure 2.4-50 shows the approximate groundwater contours onsite recorded in June 1971. These contours should be considered largely a composite of overburden and upper bedrock water-level contours, with the overburden levels exerting primary influence. Figures 2.4-32 and 2.4-43 show the groundwater contours in September 1977 and April 1977, respectively, over the portion of the site area for which wells were available. As Wells 1201 and 1209A are clearly bedrock wells, their water level data were not included in the contours shown in Figure 2.4-32. Wells 1111, 1114 and 1115 were destroyed in May 1977 in the process of constructing the spray pond. Hence, data for that area were not available for contouring in Figure 2.4-32. None of the 1200-series wells were contoured in Figure 2.4-43 as they were constructed after April 1977.
The direction of groundwater flow away from the plant area, as shown in Figures 2.4-32, 2.4-43, 2.4-50 and Dwg. FF62005, Sh. 1 is generally toward the northeast, and hence, eastward to the FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-53
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 river. There seems to be a clear tendency for the groundwater flow paths to follow the major and minor buried bedrock valleys shown in Figure 2.4-42. A portion of the groundwater flowing eastward discharges as springs along the stream running eastward toward Route 11, approximately along Pennsylvania coordinate N342,100. However, it appears that most of the groundwater discharges ultimately to the Susquehanna River.
Consistent with the topographic relief, the average groundwater gradient is quite high between the plant area and observation Well 1210, located 550 feet west of U.S. Route 11. The average hydraulic gradient over this reach of the groundwater path is about 0.068, based on groundwater levels taken in the fall of 1970 and in September 1977. The average gradient in the flood plain from Well 1210 to the river is estimated to be only 0.0073 based on September 1977 water level readings.
The slope of the piezometric surface toward the east in the upper bedrock between Wells 1201 and l209A had a magnitude of 0.084 in September 1977.
A summary of the aquifer tests and permeability tests carried out in previous investigations in the overburden materials and the upper bedrock on the site is presented in Table 2.4-33. The results of tests performed for this investigation are summarized in Table 2.4-33. It is seen that the estimated horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the Pleistocene kame terrace deposits varies widely, from 0.022 to 200 feet/day, while estimates for the vertical hydraulic conductivity range from 2.3 to 63 feet/day.
Horizontal hydraulic conductivity values obtained from packer tests for the upper 20 to 30 feet of bedrock range from 0 to 2.5 feet/day. Table 2.4-33 indicates that the upper 20 feet of bedrock commonly is significantly more permeable than are intervals lower than 20 feet, presumably because of the greater frequency of open joints in the uppermost bedrock zone. The values given for borings 305, 1201 and 1209A shown in Table 2.4-34 support this finding.
Two of the drawdown curves used to obtain estimates of horizontal hydraulic conductivity from the pumping tests of Wells 1204 and 1210 are presented in Figure 2.4-51. Well 1204 was pumped at a constant rate of 25.8 gpm for six hours. The range of values shown in Table 2.4-34 for the pumping test of Well 1204 derive from analysis of the time drawdown curves and the recovery curves for both the pumping Well (No. 1204) and the observation Well (No. 11). Well 1210 was pumped for nearly six hours at a constant rate of 1.1 gpm with no drawdown observable in Well 1208, 40 feet away. Transmissivity and horizontal hydraulic conductivity in the vicinity of Well 1210 were estimated from the recovery curve of the pumped well as shown in Figure 2.4-51. Calculations are shown on the figure.
Slug tests were performed in Wells 1208 and 1210 by quickly introducing 5 gallons of water into the well and measuring the subsequent sudden rise and gradual decline of the water level with time.
The results in both cases were analyzed using the formula for a well point filter in a uniform soil given by Lambe and Whitman (Ref. 2.4-93).
To estimate groundwater movement in the Pleistocene deposits from the plant toward the river, it was necessary to divide the groundwater flow path into segments because of the deposits' wide range in horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kh). Based on the results of pumping tests summarized in Tables 2.4-33 and 2.4-34, values for Kh were selected for each segment. It is reasonable to assign a value of 8 ft/day for Kh for the deposits west of Well 1210. The segment from Well 1210 eastward to Well 1204 is assigned an average Kh of 22 ft/day. And, eastward of well 1204 to the river, the average Kh may be taken as approximately 120 ft/day.
FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-54
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 It is difficult to estimate movement of groundwater in the upper bedrock because of uncertainty about the areal extent of the open fractures tested by packer tests in the borings. Based on the results of packer tests summarized in Table 2.4-34, the average horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the upper bedrock over at least the western portion of the groundwater path shown in Dwg. FF62005, Sh. 1 would probably be less than 0.50 ft/day.
As discussed earlier, over much of the site area where there is a significant saturated thickness of Pleistocene deposits, there are overlying layers of lower permeability, consisting commonly of sandy silt or even clayey silt. These layers serve to confine the water in the aquifer materials, at least locally. Indeed, the results of the pumping tests of these deposits at wells TW-1 and TW-2, indicated a storage coefficient ranging from 1 x 10-4 to 4 x 10-4 which implies the aquifer at that location is confined (Ref. 2.4-80).
Similarly, on the flood plain, analysis of the pumping test of Well 1204 indicated the aquifer to be confined with a storage coefficient of 7.0 x 10-5 to 1.5 x 10-4. But in the vicinity of Well 1210, just west of U.S. Route 11, analysis of slug tests based on the method of Cooper, Bredehoeft and Papadopulos (Ref. 2.4-94) yielded a storage coefficient of about 0.10, indicating the groundwater there is unconfined.
The total porosity of the Pleistocene deposits was estimated from laboratory values for dry density obtained on relatively undisturbed soil samples. The equation used was:
n = 1 - B / s where:
n is the porosity B is the bulk density (dry density) in g/cm3, and s is the particle density assumed to be 2.65 g/cm3.
Dry density values were obtained for 29 samples taken in the depth range 22 to 75 feet from 16 different borings onsite. The dry density values ranged from 1.57 to 2.31 g/cm3 and the median value was 1.72 g/cm3. The corresponding range of total porosity values was 0.13 to 0.41 with a median of 0.35.
The effective porosity (ne) of the Pleistocene deposits was estimated by applying a factor of 0.90 to the total porosity values. This factor was derived from the results of column studies performed on sandy and loamy soils in which non-reactive tracers were used to estimate the actual fraction of the total porosity that was effective in transporting an aqueous solution through the column (Ref.
2.4-86). The column studies indicated a ratio of effective to total porosity ranging from 0.87 to 0.96.
The value of 0.90 was selected as an average value for the saturated Pleistocene deposits at the site. Applying this factor to the foregoing total porosity values, we obtain an estimated effective porosity range of 0.12 to 0.37 with a median of 0.32.
Regarding the Mahantango siltsone, it is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately determine values for the total and effective fracture porosity that are representative of the upper bedrock over a distance of hundreds of feet at the site. Examination of the boring logs from this and previous FSAR Rev. 66                                        2.4-55
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 investigations does, however, provide a basis for making a rough estimate of fracture porosity. In general, the spacing between natural joints and fractures in the Manhantango at the site is in the range of 2 inches to 2 feet or more. Assuming that the average width of opening of a fracture is 0.05 inches, the range of fracture porosity would be about 0.002 to 0.025. In general, the higher porosity figure would apply particularly to the upper foot or two of rock.
The velocity () of groundwater movement in the Pleistocene deposits can be estimated from Darcy's law:
K    i
                                            =    h ne where Kh  is the horizontal hydraulic conductivity i  is the hydraulic gradient, and ne  is the effective porosity Over the reach of the groundwater flow path from the plant to observation Well 1210, the estimated average gradient is 0.068. Based on the value of 8 feet/day for Kh, and the median value of 0.32 for ne, an average velocity of 1.7 feet/day was obtained. Between observation Well 1210 and the river, the average hydraulic gradient is 0.0073 and the estimated horizontal hydraulic conductivity is 70 feet/day. The estimated average velocity of groundwater flow for this reach is then 1.6 feet/day.
Preliminary evaluation of the hydraulic gradient of groundwater in the upper bedrock based on bedrock Wells 1201 and l209A, indicates the gradient is close to that for the overburden for the same reaches of groundwater flow. Thus, comparison of groundwater velocities in the two domains can be made on the basis of the ratio Kh/ne. Derived from field test data, Kh for the upper bedrock is conservatively taken as 0.50 feet/day, while effective porosity is assumed to be 0.02. Thus, Kh/ne =
25 feet/day. For the overburden, in the reach of the groundwater path from the plant to observation well 1210, Kh/ne = 8.0/0.32 = 25 feet/day, while over the reach from Well 1210 to the river, Kh/ne =
70/0.32 = 219 feet/day. Thus, groundwater velocities in the upper bedrock are expected to be approximately the same as those in the overburden over the portion of the flow path from the plant to the western edge of the flood plain. But beneath the flood plain, velocities in the overburden are estimated to be nearly 10 times greater than those in the upper bedrock.
There is virtually no possibility for the groundwater gradient of the overburden or bedrock in the upland area to be reversed. The slope of the underlying bedrock surface is so steep and it controls the groundwater flow so completely, that no condition could conceivably develop that would alter the direction of flow. On the flood plain, the gradient toward the river could be reversed for short periods when the river is in flood stage; and this reversal would no doubt occur only over a few hundred feet west of the river. An example of such a temporary and localized reversal is shown on Figure 2.4-32 (on September 20, 1977, the water level was 1.5 feet higher at Well B-1 than at Well 2). No long-term flow reversal of this type is likely unless an impoundment of the river were effected downstream. In such a case, the entire flood plain area would probably be inundated, and groundwater from the upland area would discharge directly into the reservoir.
Pumpage from regional wells or wells in the vicinity of the site is unlikely to have any effect on groundwater levels or quality in the station area. Pumpage in the Mahantango Formation will probably not affect groundwater levels in the plant area because of the generally low yields of such FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-56
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 wells, and consequently, the limited area of influence of such pumpage. As discussed previously, the primary aquifer on site is the saturated Pleistocene deposits located within the major and secondary bedrock valleys. These materials are recharged almost entirely within the PP&L property, and they drain directly toward the river. Thus, they are largely isolated from the effects of the pumpage offsite. Local pumpage in the Pleistocene deposits is low.
As shown in Figure 2.4-37 and in Table 2.4-22, existing wells in the flood plain within a two-mile radius of the plant are used for domestic or small commercial requirements. The estimated current groundwater withdrawal within a two-mile radius is extremely low -- 56,000 gpd. There are no plans for large increases in the level of groundwater pumpage in the future near the property boundaries.
END HISTORICAL 2.4.13.3 Accidents Effects This Subsection describes the potential effect on groundwater quality of an accidental release of liquid radwaste at the Susquehanna SES.
2.4.13.3.1 Postulated Accident and Potential Flow Paths The postulated accident to be analyzed is a rupture of one of the two Reactor Water Clean-Up (RWCU) Phase Separator Tanks, which are located in the Radwaste Building at the far northwest corner of the building. The bottoms of the tanks rest on a reinforced concrete slab at elevation 646 feet, approximately 30 feet below the original land surface. The tanks are each ten feet high and approximately 11 feet in diameter, with a total capacity of 7,400 gallons and an assumed fluid volume of 5,920 gallons (80% of tank volume). The two tanks are used to collect backwash sludge from the fuel pool and RWCU demineralizer systems. The tanks are alternated at 12-month intervals, each tank being in the sludge-collection mode for 12 months, and then at rest for 12 months to allow radioactive decay of isotopes with short half lives. Table 2.4-35 provides the expected content of those radionuclides which are a potential concern from a safety and environmental point of view, and which will be evaluated in this section; Mn-54, Fe-55, Co-60, Sr-90, I-131, Cs-137 and Pu-239.
The bottoms of the RWCU Phase Separator tanks are located approximately 14 feet below the top of the original bedrock surface. Boring log information indicates that at this location the upper 15 feet of bedrock is moderately fractured siltstone with some slickensides. It grades to massive below this level. As shown in Table 2.4-34, packer tests performed in a nearby boring (No. 305) reveal that the upper 12 feet of bedrock is nearly ten times as permeable as the underlying 40-foot interval (Ref. 2.4-75). Overlying the bedrock, before the excavation took place, was approximately 18 feet of Pleistocene deposits, consisting, at the bottom, of sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders. The position of the water table in this location was approximately at the bedrock surface plus or minus two feet.
A complete and instantaneous rupture of one of the RWCU Phase Separator tanks, the bottom slab and the adjacent wall of the Radwaste Building is postulated. The liquid contents of the tank would FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-57
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 seep out into the zone of coarse rock fill surrounding the Radwaste Building and thence into the upper 10 to 15 feet of fractured bedrock.
The postulated groundwater flow paths (Flowpaths 1 and 2) taken by the groundwater contaminated by the slug of radioactive solution are shown in Dwg. FF62005, Sh. 1. Flowpath 1 is initially toward the north and then follows the east-west valley toward the east to the Susquehanna River. Flowpath 2 parallels Flowpath 1 on the south, but then merges with Flowpath 1 at a point in the stream in the north valley just east of the railroad tracks. A hydrogeologic cross-section along Flowpath 2 to the discharge point at the river is presented in Figure 2.4-33. The selection of the two flow paths was based in part on the groundwater contours shown in Figure 2.4-50 and in part on the top-of-bedrock contours shown in Figure 2.4-42. No wells, other than those owned by PP&L on its property, occur anywhere near the two flow paths.
The possibility of the slug of contaminated liquid following a third flow path to the closest offsite private well was considered. The well is located about 2,300 feet southeast of the RWCU Phase Separator Tanks. However, such a flow path is quite unlikely as the top-of-bedrock contours shown on Fig. 2.4-42 indicate that the pathway would be at least cross-gradient and possibly against the gradient of the top-of-rock surface. It is reasonable to assume that the bottom surface of the highly fractured rock zone making up the top 10 to 15 feet of the bedrock closely reflects the top-of-rock surface shown on Figure 2.4-42. Flow from the RWCU Phase Separator Tanks is far more likely to take the easier course along Flowpath 1, or possibly Flowpath 2.
To reflect the differing hydrogeologic properties along different portions of the two flow paths, they were divided into segments:
FLOWPATH 1 Segment No.                      Description 1              RWCU tank north to buried valley 2              Along buried valley to Well TW-2 3              Well TW-2 to stream just east of RR tracks 4              From point in stream to Lake Took-A-While 5              From Lake Took-A-While to River FLOWPATH 2 Segment No.                      Description 1              RWCU tank east to north stream just east of RR tracks 2              From point in stream to Lake Took-A-While 3              From Lake Took-A-While to River In Flowpath 1, the contaminated slug would migrate northward through Segment 1 in the fractures of the upper 10 to 15 feet of bedrock until it reached the east-west oriented buried valley aquifer located about 800 feet north of the Radwaste Building. At this point it would enter the Pleistocene deposits of the aquifer, and would follow Segment 2 eastward to Well TW-2.
From Well TW-2 it would migrate over Segments 3 and 4 eastward through shallower Pleistocene deposits constrained within a narrow valley to Lake-Took-A-While. The last FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-58
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 segment of the flow path to the river would be through the deeper and more permeable Pleistocene deposits beneath the flood plain.
In Flowpath 2, the slug of contaminated water would flow eastward through Segment 1 in the fractures of the upper bedrock. In the vicinity of Boring 348, the bedrock surface dips sharply toward the northeast as shown on Figures 2.4-33 and 2.4-42. At this point, beneath the stream in the north valley just east of the railroad tracks, the slug would emerge from the bedrock into the shallow Pleistocene deposits. The remaining two segments (Segments 2 and 3) of Flowpath 2 are identical to Segments 4 and 5 of Flowpath 1.
2.4.13.3.2 Description of the Models Used Both a contaminant transport analytical model and a flow and transport numerical model were used in the analysis. The analytical model used was SLUG3D, which was previously certified and utilized in the initial version of this section of the SSES FSAR. The flow and transport numerical model used was the combination of the public-domain codes MODFLOW and MT3D96, as implemented in version 2.2 of the ground-water modeling system, Visual Modflow (Refs. 2.4-86a through 2.4-86c).
SLUG3D, simulating the movement of dissolved solutes in groundwater, was used to predict the likely migration of the radionuclides over the entire lengths of Flowpaths 1 and 2 assuming no effect of the pumping of the station's main supply well TW-2. The combination of the MODFLOW and MT3D96 model was used to simulate the effects of the continuous pumping of Well TW-2 on the fate of the radionuclides passing through the buried-valley aquifer in Flowpath
: 1. The domain of this finite-difference model was the entire buried-valley aquifer lying north of the plant, which is 3,100 feet long (east to west) with an average width of approximately 500 feet.
The factors affecting solute movement that were incorporated into both models include: the natural downgradient movement of the groundwater, hydrodynamic dispersion of the solutes due to the range of pore-water velocities in the formations, adsorption of cations on the clay minerals present in the Pleistocene deposits, and the decay of radioisotopes with time. One of the assumptions of the SLUG3D model is that solutes can disperse freely in all directions, the extent of dispersion limited only by the magnitude of the velocities and the dispersivity assigned for each dimension. The dispersion results in dilution by mixing in three-dimensional space with native groundwater, assumed to be initially free of the particular isotopes. Recharge of an unconfined aquifer by rainfall increases the saturated thickness of the aquifer and, thus, can provide increased dilution capability. This process was directly incorporated into the numerical simulation in Visual Modflow.
The equation utilized in SLUG3D was derived by the integration over the volume of the slug, of the equation for the instantaneous introduction of a slug having an infinitesimally small volume (Ref.
2.4-87a through Ref. 2.4-87e):
mRf                                              ( x  u X t )2    y2    z2 +
C=                                                    exp  {                +      +      + i t }
n( 4DX t )1/ 2 ( 4DY t )1/ 2 ( 4DZ t )1/ 2            4DX t        4DY t 4DZ t (1)
FSAR Rev. 66                                                2.4-59
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 for the case where uy = uz = 0, where, point of interest (cm) y      =        Distance horizontally and normal to flow from the centerline of the flowpath (cm) z      =        Distance vertically and normal to flow from the centerline of the flowpath (cm) i      =        Decay coefficient = .693/ T1/2, where T1/2 is the radionuclide half-life in seconds (Sec-1) t      =        Time since introduction of slug of liquid (Sec) ux    =        The average velocity of the radionuclide in the x direction (cm/sec) ux    =        (Rf)(ux), where:
ux      =        see page velocity in the x direction, (cm/sec)
Rf      =        the reduction factor due to absorption or cation exchange (dimensionless) 1 + (  / n)K d                                (Ref. 2.4-88)
: where,
                =        bulk density of the aquifer (gm/ml),
Kd      =        Distribution coefficient of the radiouclide on the aquifer material (ml/gm)
                  =        (Q!/c)(E), where Q!      =        concentration of native cations absorbed on the exchange complex of the aquifer materials (milli-equivalents/g) or (meq/g) c      =        total concentration of native cations in the groundwater at equilibrium (meq/ml)
E      =        equilibrium exchange constant for radionuclide cation displacing native cations on the exchange complex Dx    =        reduced dispersion coefficient in the x direction
                  =        DxRf (Ref. 2.4-89)
Dy    =        reduced dispersion coefficient in the y direction
                  =        DyRf, and FSAR Rev. 66                                          2.4-60
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 Dz    =      reduced dispersion coefficient in the z direction
                =      DzRf,
: where, Dx Dy, and Dz are the dispersion coefficients in the x, y, and z directions, respectively, and Dx    =      (L)(Ux)
Dy    =      (T)(uy)
Dz    =      (v)(uz), where L, T and V are, respectively, the dispersivities in feet in the longitudinal (x) direction), in the horizontal transverse (y) direction and in the vertical (z) transverse direction.
To obtain an expression for the concentration of radionuclides introduced into the groundwater as a finite prismatic volume, at any point (x, y, z) down gradient of the slug origin, equation (1) is integrated with respect to x, y, and z, over the limits -xo/2 to xo/2, -yo/2 to yo/2 and -zo/2 to +zo/2, respectively. Here xo, yo and zo are the dimensions of the slug in the groundwater along the respective axes at time to=0, and x, y, and z are measured from the center of the prismatic volume of the slug. The resulting expression is given as Equation (2):
x + x      o /2 - u        t                x - x    o  /2 - u    t x                                        x C = C      o R  f
{ erf    (                                  ) - erf    (                          )}
8 4D        t                                  4D      t x                                          x y + y        /2                    y - y    /2
                    * { erf      (              o
                                                          ) - erf      (        o
                                                                                          )}
4D      t                        4D      t y                                y z + z      o  /2                z - z  o  /2
          * {  erf    (                      - erf      (                  ) } { exp      (-  i t)}
4D          t                    4D        t z                              z Where:          Co      =          the initial concentration in the interstitial liquid in the slug
                        =          m/nxoyozo This equation was derived for the case of a slug introduced instantaneously into a saturated porous medium, where the slug has a finite volume at t = 0. The inclusion of the factor, exp (-  i t) , implies that radionuclide decay is accounted for in the calculated concentration (c). SLUG3D was used to FSAR Rev. 66                                            2.4-61
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 calculate the values of concentration at the particular points of interest over the range of time during which the peak occurs.
2.4.13.3.3 Selection of Parameters for SLUG3D Simulations Conservative parameter values were selected from the range of values determined by field and laboratory tests and from a review of the literature. A summary of the values selected and used in the analysis is given in Table 2.4-36. A description of the parameter-value selection follows.
A sensitivity analysis was previously performed to evaluate what parameter value in each case would yield the highest computed concentration. For all ranges of isotope half life, the results were the same wherever the cation exchange capacity was assumed to be zero. Highest concentration values resulted as the initial slug length approached twice the width, as the total and effective porosities and the dispersion coefficients decreased, and as the flux rate increased. Flux rate is defined as the product of horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kh) and hydraulic gradient (i). With the cation exchange capacity equal to 0.016 meq/ml, highest concentration values resulted as the initial length of the slug approached twice the width as effective porosity (ne) decreased as the dispersion coefficients decreased as cation exchange capacity (Q) decreased as the exchange constant (E) decreased as total porosity (n) increased as flux rate increased and as the cation concentration increased.
: a.        Distance to Discharge Points (x)
As described in Subsection 2.4.13.3.1, the postulated flow paths are shown on Dwg. FF62005, Sh. 1. The calculated distances follow:
Flowpath 1 Flow Path                                                                Distance Segment      Description                                                  (x)(feet) 1        RWCU tank north to buried valley                                    805 1a        RWCU tank north to buried valley model edge                        680 2        Along buried valley to Well TW-2                                    725 3        Well TW-2 to stream just east of RR tracks                          860 4        From point in stream to Lake Took-A-While                        1,420 5        From Lake Took-A-While to River                                  1,720 Flowpath 2 Flow Path                                                                Distance Segment        Description                                                  (x)(feet) 1        RWCU tank east to stream just east of RR tracks                  1,865 2        From point in stream to Lake Took-A-While                        1,420 3        Lake Took-A-While to River                                        1,720 FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-62
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60
: b.        Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity (Kh)
As described in Subsection 2.4.13.2.3, different values of hydraulic conductivity characterize the different segments of the flow paths. Based on the pumping tests and packer tests performed in borings or wells located on or close to the flow path, the following conservative assignment of values has been made:
Flowpath 1 Flow Path                                                    Horizontal Hydraulic Segment              Geologic Unit                            Conductivity (Kh) 1              Upper 15 ft of bedrock                        0.5 ft/day 2              Lower Pleistocene deposits                  18.0 ft/day 3              Lower Pleistocene deposits                    8.0 ft/day 4              Lower Pleistocene deposits                  20.0 ft/day 5              Lower Pleistocene deposits                  60.0 ft/day Flowpath 2 Flow Path                                                    Horizontal Hydraulic Segment              Geologic Unit                            Conductivity (Kh) 1              Upper 15 ft of bedrock                        0.5 ft/day 2              Lower Pleistocene deposits                  20.0 ft/day 3              Lower Pleistocene deposits                  60.0 ft/day
: c.        Hydraulic Gradients (i)
Hydraulic gradients were estimated based on the groundwater contours in October 1985 and on a river-level elevation of 491 feet, the latter serving as the groundwater elevation at the discharge point on the Susquehanna River. The elevation of the water table in the vicinity of the RWCU Phase Separator tank was taken as elevation 662 feet, based on water level readings taken in Boring 305 and Boring 116.
The magnitude of water-level elevations at the intermediate points (edge of buried-valley aquifer, Well TW-2, downgradient edge of buried-valley aquifer, and Lake Took-A-While) were taken from the groundwater level data for October 1985 shown on Dwg. FF62005, Sh. 1. The calculated gradients follow:
FLOWPATH 1 Flow Path                Hydraulic Gradient (I)
Segment                    (Dimensionless) 1                            0.060 2                            0.024 3                            0.042 4                            0.0388 5                            0.0081 FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-63
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 FLOWPATH 2 Flow Path                  Hydraulic Gradient (I)
Segment                      (Dimensionless) 1                              0.055 2                            0.0388 3                            0.0081
: d.        Total Porosity (n)
As discussed in Subsection 2.4.13.2.3, based on 29 formation samples obtained from onsite borings, the values of total porosity of the more permeable Pleistocene deposits range between 0.13 and 0.41 with a median of 0.35. Using data from samples taken from borings in the vicinity of the groundwater flow paths, an average value of 0.30 has been selected for the porosity of the lower saturated Pleistocene deposits for the two flow paths.
For the first segment of both Flowpaths 1 and 2 through the upper bedrock, a relatively high horizontal hydraulic conductivity (0.50 feet/day) has been estimated for the upper bedrock. Because of this, a relatively high fracture porosity of 0.02 seems justified for the upper bedrock, particularly as the upper 11 feet of bedrock at Boring 305 (located close to the Radwaste Building) was described as severely fractured.
: e.        Effective Porosity (ne)
As described in Subsection 2.4.13.2.3, the effective porosity for the Pleistocene deposits was obtained by multiplying the total porosity by a factor of 0.90. This factor is an approximate ratio of effective to total porosity for such materials, based on column studies using non-reactive tracers (Ref. 2.4-86d). Thus, for the Pleistocene deposits, effective porosity is estimated as 0.30 x 0.90, or 0.27. For segment 1 of the flow path, the effective porosity of the fractured bedrock is taken as equal to the estimated total fracture porosity.
: f.        Dispersivities (L, T, v)
The dispersivities in the longitudinal (x) direction, in the horizontal transverse (y) direction, and in the vertical (z) transverse direction are denoted, respectively, by L, T, and v. Table 4.1.2.2 of Reference 2.4-90 shows values for longitudinal and transverse dispersivities determined at different sites with different rock or sediment materials.
Based on this information, the following conservative values for dispersivity have been estimated for the site:
L (ft)      T (ft)    v (ft)
Upland Flow Paths                    10.0          0.5      0.001 Flood Plain                          30.0          2.0      0.05
: g.        Size and Dimensions of the Slug The volume of liquid involved in the accident is 5,920 gallons or 791.34 cubic feet. It was assumed that the slug would have a thickness of 8 feet in the rock immediately, or very soon after, the rupture occurred. Then, assuming the slug would initially be square FSAR Rev. 66                                        2.4-64
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 in plan view, and taking 0.02 as the upper bedrock total porosity, the initial x0 (or y0) dimension of the slug in the ground would be {791.34 cu. ft./[(8 ft.)(0.02)]}1/2 or, 70.3 feet.
: h.        Radionuclides Seven radionuclides were selected for analysis--Mn-54, Fe-55, Co-60, Sr-90, I-131, Cs-137 and Pu-239. These are believed to be the most significant from the safety and public health point of view and those with half lives on the order of days or years. Table 2.4-35 indicates the radionuclides studied, their half lives and their presumed initial concentrations at the time of the accident.
: i.        Distribution Coefficients (kd)
The distribution coefficient (kd) defines the equilibrium ratio of the mass of a cationic species adsorbed on the exchange complex of geologic materials to that in the interstitial solution. The concentration of native cations adsorbed on the formation material (Q'), concentration of cations in the interstitial fluid (c), and the equilibrium exchange constant (E) for each species are the parameters uniquely involved in the process of adsorption through cation exchange and are related to the distribution coefficient by:
kd = (Q'/c)(E)
Considering that the concentration of native cations adsorbed on the formation material would be large compared to that of radionuclide cations of concern here, for purposes of this analysis we have approximated Q' (concentration of adsorbed native cations on the formation) by Q, the total cation exchange capacity. Thus, we have kd = (Q/c)(E)
It is recognized that this model of cation exchange will not strictly imitate the actual cation exchange process that would follow the postulated accident which would simultaneously involve many radionuclide cations from the RWCU Phase Separator tank. However, to minimize the complexity of the adsorption model it was decided to use this equation to model the process assuming a simple binary system of calcium-radionuclide cation and using the native groundwater cation concentration at the site.
For conservatism, calcium was chosen as the native cation in solution in the groundwater rather than sodium, as calcium can displace strontium or cesium much more readily than can sodium.
Cation exchange capacity determinations were performed previously on ten soil samples obtained from the lower part of the Pleistocene deposits, in borings, located on or very near the groundwater flow paths. Values ranged from 0.006 to 0.05 milliequivalents/gram (meq/g).
For Segment 1 of both Flowpaths 1 and 2, the cation exchange capacity for the fractured bedrock was assumed to be zero. For the remainder of the two flow paths, occurring in the Pleistocene deposits, estimated Q values ranged from 0.016 to 0.026 meq/g, based FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-65
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 on the values obtained for the borings located along the flow paths. An average value for Q for migration through these deposits of 0.021 meq/g was adopted.
Water samples were obtained from observation wells onsite in three different seasons during 1977. Total cation concentration for overburden wells in the vicinity of the flow paths ranged from 7.4 x 10-4 meq/ml to 3.7 x 10-3 meq/ml. A value for C is unnecessary for the analysis of flow in Segment 1 of both Flowpaths 1 and 2, as the cation exchange capacity there is assumed to be zero. It was concluded that the average cation concentration in the groundwater in the Pleistocene deposits along the flow paths ranges from 2.1 x 10-3 to 3.7 x 10-3 meq/ml. An average value for C of 3.0 x 10-3 meq/ml was selected for each segment of the flow paths passing through these deposits.
Considering the case of Strontium-90 first, a simple binary system of Ca-Sr was assumed. Accordingly, an equilibrium exchange constant (ESr) was estimated from the literature for this condition. An E value of 1.0 was obtained for Strontium-89 and Strontium-90 from Reference 2.4-95a. Thus, the kd value for Sr-90 in the Pleistocene deposits was calculated to be:
(0.021 meq/g) (1.0) / (0.003 meq/ml) = 7 ml/g Reference 2.4-95b indicates that the kd for cesium on less than 100-&#xb5; fraction of sediments from the Savannah River Plant ranged from 18.3 to 130 ml/g. For this analysis, a kd of 18 ml/g for Cs-137 was selected, which was the lowest of this range.
For Cobalt-60, the estimate for the kd was based on Table 1.11 of Reference 2.4-96a. In the table, the ratio [kd(Co-60)]/[kd(Cs-137)] for adsorption at pH 6.0 on Clinch River Sediment in Tennessee ranged from 0.56 to 0.81. Applying the lowest ratio (0.56) to the estimated kd for Cs-137 of 18 ml/g, we obtain 10.0 ml/g for Co-60.
For Manganese-54, Appendix B of Reference 2.4-96b indicates that the ratio of Mn-54 adsorbed to large colloids (pre-filter) to that of Co-60 ranged from 0.87 to 2.04. For this analysis, the lowest ratio value, 0.87, was applied to the kd value estimated for Co-60 of 10 ml/g, to obtain an estimated kd of 8.7 ml/g for Mn-54.
For Iron-55, Reference 2.4-96c indicates typical kd values for radioisotopes in desert soils. Relatively high kd values are given for Strontium, Cesium and Cobalt: 20, 200, and 75 ml/g, respectively. The value given for Iron is 150 ml/g. Using the principal of proportionality based on the values selected in the foregoing paragraphs, the estimated kd's for Fe-55 range from 13.5 to 52.5 ml/g. For this analysis, the lowest of these values, or 13.5 ml/g is selected for Fe-55.
No kd values were estimated for Iodine-131 or Plutonium-239. I-131 has a half life of only 8.04 days and its concentration would be expected to decline below the maximum permissible levels in a period less than the travel time to possible receptors. Because the concentration of Pu-239 in the RWCU Phase Separator tanks, as shown in Table 2.4-35, is only about ten times the limits for unrestricted areas, natural attenuation through dispersion in the course of the migration would be expected to reduce its concentration to acceptable levels without assuming adsorption due to cation exchange.
FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-66
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60
: j.        Calculation of Mean Parameter Values to Each Receptor Because the SLUG3D program provides an analytical solution for the case where the groundwater parameters are assumed constant over the entire flow path, it was necessary to calculate a weighted average for each parameter based on the values from each flow-path segment. The parameter values for each segment of the flow-path were weighted on the basis of the segment length or the time for water to travel over the segment, whichever was most appropriate. Time of travel was the weighting factor in determining the mean horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kh) and the mean effective porosity (ne), while the segment length was the weighting factor to determine the mean gradient, the mean dispersivities and the mean kd values.
2.4.13.3.4 Numerical Model Simulation of Buried-Valley Aquifer The combination of the MODFLOW and MT3D96 model was used to simulate the effects of the continuous pumping of Well TW-2 on the fate of the radionuclides passing through the buried-valley aquifer along Flowpath 1. The domain of this finite-difference model was the entire buried-valley aquifer lying north of the plant, which is 3,100 feet long (east to west) with an average width of approximately 500 feet.
The aquifer was modeled as a single-layer water-table aquifer, and a finite-difference grid 3,100 feet east to west and 1,000 feet north to south was established. The grid consisted of 36 rows and 13 columns with cell widths ranging from 50 to 100 feet. The finer grid was set up for the area around Well TW-2 located on the eastern side of the grid domain. A series of cells on the northern and southern sides of the grid were set to be inactive so that the boundaries of the aquifer could be approximated as closely as possible. Constant-head boundaries were established at the eastern and western edges of the model. These head values were based on interpolated head values from the October 1985 water-table contour map ( Dwg. FF62005, Sh. 1).
The flow model, using MODFLOW, was calibrated under steady-state conditions on the basis of the October 1985 static water-level data and it was verified, or the calibration task was completed, by transient simulations of a 7.11-day pumping test of Well TW-2 performed in December 1992. In the process of calibration, recharge and hydraulic conductivity values were adjusted in several different zones making up the model until satisfactory matching to the measured water levels resulted. Hydraulic conductivity values in the final calibrated model ranged from 4 to 50 ft/day, with the zone in the immediate vicinity of Well TW-2 having a Kh of 18 ft/day. Recharge across the final calibrated model ranged from 0.0003 to 0.0085 ft/day. For the transient calibration, the specific yield, representing the primary storage coefficient, was 0.20.
The calibrated flow model was run in the steady-state mode with Well TW-2 pumping at a series of different rates to determine the maximum long-term pumping rate possible. The maximum pumping rate was found to be 33 gallons per minute (gpm). It was decided to perform the simulations in which MT3D was to be coupled by having TW-2 pump continuously at a conservative rate of 31 gpm (average daily pump rate).
FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-67
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 The MT3D component in Visual Modflow was run in conjunction with the steady-state flow model by specifying a number of transport steps. A constant-concentration boundary cell serving as the contaminant source was established at cell (17,8), which was located approximately 680 feet north of the RWCU Phase Separator tanks and along Flowpath 1. This was the edge of the modeled buried-valley aquifer.
A simulation with SLUG3D was employed to evaluate the transport of the slug of contaminated fluid from the tank to cell (17,8) of the numerical model. The duration of the appearance of the contaminants at that point lasted, for all intents and purposes, no longer than 500 days. Based on the results of the SLUG3D simulation, an average concentration for the 500 days for each of the seven radionuclides of concern was computed taking into consideration the rise and decline of concentration with time and the decline of concentration with distance from the center of the slug. These mean concentrations averaged over time and space are given in Table 2.4-37, which presents the parameter values used in the numerical model. The assumed values for dispersivities and kd's, consistent with the values given in Section 2.4.13.3.3, are also included in Table 2.4-37.
Simulations with the MODFLOW/MT3D model were performed for all the radionuclides of concern except for I-131, which was omitted because the SLUG3D simulation showed that its peak concentration at cell (17,8) was well below the effluent concentration limits for unrestricted use. MT3D was run primarily using the upstream finite-difference option, although in most cases parallel runs were made using the Method of Characteristics (MOC) option as well. The finite-difference method was preferred because it was more stable, it had much lower mass balance errors, and it gave peak concentration values comparable to the MOC method.
An observation point was established in the cell where Well TW-2 was located and in the cell at the far downstream boundary of the model. Concentrations were obtained over time at these observation points, and the transport simulations were run in each case well past the time of the peak concentration for each radionuclide. As shown in Table 2.4-39, for those isotopes for which adsorption was included in the model (Mn-54, Fe-55, Co-60, Sr-90, and Cs-137) the computed time to peak at Well TW-2 ranged from 3,100 to 19,140 days and that for the most downgradient cell 4,050 to 92,110 days. Plutonium-239, for which no adsorption was assumed, was computed to peak at 708 days at Well TW-2 and at 1,740 days at the farthest downgradient cell.
2.4.13.3.5 Discussion of Results of Analysis The results of the groundwater transport simulations are presented in Tables 2.4-38 and 2.4-39.
Table 2.4-38 presents the results of the SLUG3D simulations for the two probable flow paths.
Of the radionuclides evaluated the peak concentrations for Sr-90 and Pu-239 are predicted to exceed the 10 CFR 20 Appendix B effluent concentrations values at the entry point to the Susquehanna River via either flow path. The peak concentrations for the other isotopes evaluated are predicted to be well within the regulatory limits prior to discharging into the river.
Table 2.4-39 provides the results of the simulations with the numerical model of the buried-valley aquifer based on MODFLOW and MT3D. All of these simulations include steady state pumping of Well TW-2 at 31 gpm, which was not simulated in the SLUG3D runs. The results of this analysis indicate that most of the contaminated water can be expected to be captured by FSAR Rev. 66                                    2.4-68
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 the onsite TW-2 Well and that of the radionuclides studied, the longer half-life isotopes, Co-60, Sr-90, Cs-137, and Pu-239 would exceed their respective effluent concentration limits.
However, at the down-gradient boundary of the aquifer, all isotopes are found to be below their effluent concentration limits for unrestricted or public use.
Since Well TW-2 is on site, access to the use of this water can be restricted if post accident well-water monitoring determines that the radioactive content exceeds the 10CFR 20, Appendix B, Table 1 occupational does limits. As indicated in Subsection 2.4.12.3 the nearest potable water system that utilizes the waters of the Susquehanna River is at Danville, approximately 31 miles downstream of the plant. Dilution due to mixing of the contaminated groundwater with the river water is expected to be in excess of a factor of 650 at Danville. Thus at the nearest potable water system the concentration of all significant radionuclides will be significantly below the effluent concentrations limits for unrestricted public use.
It is believed that flow of groundwater from the RWCU Phase Separator Tanks is more likely to occur along Flowpath 1 rather than Flowpath 2. The bedrock contours shown on Fig. 2.4-42 lend credence to this belief. Thus, if the most likely scenario is for the slug of contaminated fluid to migrate along Flowpath 1 into and through the buried-valley aquifer, then the influence of the constant pumping of Well TW-2 is seen to have a profound effect on the concentrations of radionuclides migrating downgradient of the aquifer through the sediment-filled narrow valley toward the Susquehanna River. Plant records indicate that Well TW-2, sometimes in combination with nearby Well TW-1, withdraws an average of 30,000 to 45,000 gallons a day from the buried-valley aquifer, or an average of 21 to 31 gpm. Should this constant withdrawal be maintained during the months and years following the postulated accident, it should significantly enhance the attenuation of the radionuclides when they appear at the Susquehanna River.
2.4.13.4 Design Bases for Subsurface Hydrostatic Loadings Plant safety-related structures were designed assuming subsurface hydrostatic loadings caused by a groundwater table at an elevation of 665 ft. This is higher than the expected maximum water table because the groundwater configuration in the region is primarily controlled by topography. At the site the natural topography has been modified by plant excavations. The modified topography in the vicinity of safety-related structures restricts the maximum elevation of the water table to approximately 660 ft. Groundwater levels are further reduced due to a decrease of the effective recharge area by placement of plant structures. These structures and paved other areas intercept rainfall and divert it, reducing infiltration in that area.
At the spray pond, a liner has been designed to restrict the seepage rate from the pond to limit buildup of a groundwater mound in the glacial materials underlying the pond. The pond has been designed for a maximum groundwater elevation of 665 ft. Detailed description of design criteria for control of groundwater levels and seepage at the spray pond, and the stability of the pond, are found in Subsection 2.5.5.
2.4.14 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AND EMERGENCY OPERATION REQUIREMENTS The possibility of adverse hydrologically-related events at the plant site is precluded due to the configuration of the plant site topography. Consequently, there are no emergency protective FSAR Rev. 66                                          2.4-69
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 measures designed to minimize the water associated impact of adverse hydrologically-related events on safety-related facilities. In addition, there is no need for technical specifications for plant shutdown required by accidents resulting from these events. Further discussion may be found in Subsections 2.4.1.1 and 2.4.2.2.
The ultimate heat sink, as described in Subsections 2.4.8 and 9.2.7, has been designed with appropriate consideration to adverse hydrologically-related events.
2.4.15 REFERENCES 2.4-1            , Surface Water Supply of the United States, Part 1-3, U.S. Geological Survey, Annual Water Supply Papers through 1960 Water Year.
2.4-2            , Water Supply Paper 1302, Compilation of Surface Water Records through September 1950, Part 1-B, U.S. Geological Survey (1960).
2.4-3            , Water Supply Paper 1722, Compilation of Surface Water Records, October 1950 to September 1960, Part 1-B, U. S. Geological Survey (1964).
2.4-4            , Surface Water Records of Pennsylvania, U.S. Geological Survey Annual Publications, Water Years (1961-1964).
2.4-5            , Water Resources Data for Pennsylvania, Part 1, Surface Water Records, U.S.
Geological Survey, Annual Publications, Water Years (1965-1974).
2.4-6            , Water Resources Data for Pennsylvania, Water Year 1975, Volume 2, Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins, Water-Data Report PA-75-2, U.S.
Geological Survey (1976).
2.4-7            , Susquehanna River Basin Flood Control Review Study, Reservoir Systems Analysis, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District (1976).
2.4-8          Personal Communication with Mr. Michael Kenowitz, Baltimore District Corps of Engineers, August 1976.
2.4-9            , Pennsylvania Water Company Consolidated Inventory, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Resources Programming (Unpublished Information).
2.4-10            , Pennsylvania Water Company Surface Water Use Inventory, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Resources Programming (Unpublished Information).
2.4-11        Personal Communication with Mr. Steven Runkle, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
FSAR Rev. 66                                      2.4-70
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4-12          , Pennsylvania Manufacturing Water Use Report, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Bureau of Resources Programming (Unpublished Information).
2.4-13          , Pennsylvania Consolidated Water Use Report, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Resources Programming (April 1976)
(Unpublished Information).
2.4-14          , 100 Best Bass Spots in Pennsylvania (Brochure), Pennsylvania Fish Commission (June 1971).
2.4-15          , Flood Plain Information, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, Susquehanna and Lackawanna Rivers, Luzerne County Planning Commission, Prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District (June 1974).
2.4-16      Miller, R. A., Hydrologic Data for the June 1972 Flood in Pennsylvania, Water Resources Bulletin No. 9, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources (1974).
2.4-17      Bailey, J.F., Patterson, J.L. and Paulhus, J.L.H., Hurricane Agnes, Rainfall and Floods, June - July 1972, Geological Survey Professional Paper 924, U.S.
Geological Survey and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1975).
2.4-18          , Tropical Storm Agnes, June 1972, Basins of the Susquehanna and Potomac Rivers and Maryland Portions of Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast, Post Flood Report Volume I Meteorology and Hydrology, U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore Corps of Engineers (November 1974).
2.4-19      Hout, J.C., Anderson, R.H., Hydrography of the Susquehanna River Drainage Basin, Water Supply Paper 109, U.S. Geological Survey (1905), p. 175.
2.4-20      Tice, R.H., Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in the United States, Water Supply Paper 1672, Part 1-B, U. S. Geological Survey (1968), p. 376.
2.4-21      US Weather Bureau (1956) Seasonal Variation of the Probable Maximum Precipitation East of the 105th Meridian for Areas from 10 to 1,000 Square Miles and Durations of 6, 12, 24, and 48 Hours, Hydrometeorological Report No. 33 (April).
2.4-22      US Army Corps of Engineers (1965) Standard Project Flood Determination, Engineering Manual (EM) 1110-2-1411, Revised (March).
2.4-23      US Weather Bureau (1961) Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States for Durations From 30 Minutes to 24 Hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100 Years, Technical Paper No. 40 (May).
2.4-24      Ven-te Chow, Open Channel Hydraulics, McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc. New York (1959).
FSAR Rev. 66                                  2.4-71
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4-25          , Regulatory Guide 1.59 Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April 1976.
2.4-26      Goodyear, H.V. and Riedel, J.T., Probable Maximum Precipitation, Susquehanna River Drainage above Harrisburg, Pa. Hydrometeorological Report No. 40, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau (May 1965).
2.4-27          , Standard Project Flood Determinations, Civil Engineering Bulletin No. 52-8, Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers (1952).
2.4-28          , Routing of Floods through River Channels, EM 1110-2-1408, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1960).
2.4-29          , Unit Hydrographs and Flood Routing, Susquehanna River Basin Study-Draft, U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore, Basin Planning Branch (November 1968).
2.4-30          , Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report Amendment No. 4 (1971), pp. 5-29.
2.4-31          , Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company ( ).
2.4-32          , Susquehanna River Basin Study Appendix D Hydrology, Susquehanna River Basin Study Coordinating Committee (June 1970), p. D III-38.
2.4-33          , HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package Computer Program 23-X6-L270, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center (1969).
2.4-34          , The Floods of March 1936, Part 2, Hudson River and Susquehanna River Region, Water Supply Paper 799, U.S. Geological Survey (1937).
2.4-35          , Map of Susquehanna River and North Branch, Mile 150-170, U.S. Engineer Office Baltimore (1937).
2.4-36          , Backwater Curves in River Channels, EM 1110-2-1409, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1959).
2.4-37      Henderson, F.M., Open Channel Flow, Macmillan, (1966), pp. 304-312.
2.4-38          , Master Manual for Reservoir Regulation, Susquehanna River Basin, Vol. 1, Upper Basin, U.S. Army.
2.4-39          , Susquehanna River Freeze-Over at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1870-1955, Weather Bureau Airport Station, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (January 1956)(Unpublished Information).
2.4-40      Busch, W.F. and Shaw, L.C., Floods in Pennsylvania Frequency and Magnitude Open File Report, U.S. Geological Survey (1960).
FSAR Rev. 66                                2.4-72
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4-41          , Water Resources Data for Pennsylvania Part 1, Surface Water Records, U.S.
Geological Survey, Water Year 1971 (1972), p. 105.
2.4-42      US Army Corps of Engineers (1973) Shore Protection Manual, US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
2.4-43      US Bureau of Reclamation (1973) Design of Small Dams, Second Edition.
2.4-44      US Army Corps of Engineers (1970) Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels, EM 1110-2-1601.
2.4-45      Wiegel, R.L., Oceanographical Engineering, Prentice- Hall, Inc., New Jersey (1964).
2.4-46      Tennessee Valley Authority (1951) Kentucky Project, Technical Report No. 31, Figure 306.
2.4-47      Sarpkaya, Turgut, Added Mass of Lenses and Parallel Plates, ASCE Proceedings, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, EM3 (June 1960), p. 141.
2.4-48          , Comprehensive Water Resources Planning Inventory No. 1, Dams, Reservoirs and Natural Lakes Water Resources Bulletin No. 5, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Forests and Waters, Bureau of Engineering, (1970),
pp. 49-50.
2.4-49          , Surface Water Records for Pennsylvania U.S. Geological Survey (1964), p. 84.
2.4-50      Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 191, Thursday, September 20, 1976, 41FR43134.
2.4-51          , Pennsylvania Streamflow Characteristics, Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration, Water Resources Bulletin No. 1, Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters (now Department of Environmental Resources) and U.S. Geological Survey (April 1966), p. 99.
2.4-52          , Consumptive Water Uses in Chenung and East Susquehanna Basin, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Unpublished Information).
2.4-53      Kauffman, C.D., Armbruster, J.T., and Voytik, A., Time-of-Travel Studies Susquehanna River Binghamton, New York to Clarks Ferry, Pennsylvania, Open File Report 76-247, U.S. Geological Survey, Harrisburg, Pa. (March 1976).
2.4-54      Eichert, W.S., Water Surface Profiles Computer Program (HEC-2), Program No. 723-X6-L202A, Hydrologic Engineering Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (19 ).
2.4-55      Perrego, D.W., Director, Bureau of Design, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, Personal Communication (July 1976).
2.4-56          , Regulatory Guide 1.113, Estimating Aquatic Dispersion of Effluents from Accidental and Routine Reactor Releases for Purposes of Implementing Appendix I, Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (April 1977).
FSAR Rev. 66                                2.4-73
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4-57      Lohman, Stanley W., Groundwater in Northeastern Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey Fourth Series, Bulletin W4 (1937).
2.4-58      Gray, C., Shepps, V.C., and others, Geologic Map of Pennsylvania, 1:250,000, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, Topographic and Geologic Survey, Map 1 (1960).
2.4-59      Peltier, Louis C., Pleistocene Terraces of the Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Department of Internal Affairs, Topographic and Geologic Survey, Bulletin G23 (1949).
2.4-60      Hollowell, J.R., Hydrology of the Pleistocene Sediments in the Wyoming Valley, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Water Resources Report 28 (1971).
2.4-61      Hollowell, J.R., "Groundwater Conditions Caused by Tropical Storm Agnes",
Pennsylvania Geology, The Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 5(2), (1974), pp.2-9.
2.4-62      U.S.G.S., Unpublished data, U.S. Geological Survey, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (1977).
2.4-63      Newport, Thomas G., Summary of Groundwater Resources of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Water Resources Report 40 (1977).
2.4-64      Fairbanks Morse Pump Division, Hydraulic Handbook, Kansas City, Kansas:
Fairbanks Morse Pump Division, Colt Industries (1965).
2.4-65      Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, Water Quality Management Information System (WAMIS),
Unpublished Computer Printouts of Water Supply Identification Reports (1976).
2.4-66      Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Unpublished Computer Printouts of Geo-Survey Groundwater Inventory Reports (1976).
2.4-67      Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Unpublished Records of Reports by Drillers Concerning Water Well Completion.
2.4-68      Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Water Quality Management, Unpublished Computer Printouts of Health Groundwater Well Reports (1975).
2.4-69      Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Water Quality Management, Unpublished Computer Printouts of Health Groundwater Spring Reports (1975).
FSAR Rev. 66                                2.4-74
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4-70      Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Division of Comprehensive Resources and Planning, Unpublished Records and Computer Printouts Regarding Groundwater Pumpage (1970).
2.4-71      Hillard, R.L., Manager, Hazleton City Authority Water Department, Personal Communication (1977).
2.4-72      U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population, Number of Inhabitants, Pennsylvania, PC(1)-A40, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.(1971).
2.4-73      Gilbert Associates, Inc., "Preliminary Susquehanna Site Report, Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., Allentown, Pennsylvania," (July 1966).
2.4-74      Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Vol. 1, Allentown, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Power & Light Company (April 1971).
2.4-75      Dames & Moore, "Report on Foundation Investigation, Proposed Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company" (May 12, 1972).
2.4-76      Dames & Moore, "Progress Report #1, Water Well Construction on Flood Plain, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company" (September 1, 1972).
2.4-77      Ranney Method Western Corporation, "Report on Hydrogeological Survey for Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Berwick, Pennsylvania," (January 31, 1973).
2.4-78      Dames & Moore, "Report on Exploratory Drilling Program for Proposed Water Intake and Discharge Structures, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company" (May 2, 1973).
2.4-79      Dames & Moore, "Report on Supplemental Foundation Investigation, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company," (September 1973).
2.4-80      Dames & Moore, Letter to Pennsylvania Power & Light Company Reporting Results of Water Well Construction and Testing at Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (February 7, 1974).
2.4-81      Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Amendment No. 3, Allentown, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Power & Light Company.
2.4-82      Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Amendment No. 4, Allentown, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Power & Light Company.
FSAR Rev. 66                                  2.4-75
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4-83      Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Amendment No. 5, Allentown, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Power & Light Company.
2.4-84      Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Amendment No. 17, Allentown, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Power & Light Company.
2.4-85      Dames & Moore, Boring Log Records and Field and Laboratory Data Relative to the PP&L Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
2.4-86      Routsen, R.C. and Serne, R.J., Experimental Support Studies for the PERCOL and Transport Models, Richland Washington: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, BNWL-1719.
2.4-86a      Guiguer, N. and T. Franz, Visual Modflow User's Manual, Version 2.2, Waterloo Hydrogeologic, Inc. Waterloo, Ontario (1996).
2.4-86b      McDonald, M.G., and A.W. Harbaugh, A Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference Ground-Water Flow Model, Book 6, Modeling Techniques, Chapter A1, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC (1988).
2.4-86c      S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc., MT3D96, A Modular Three-Dimensional Transport Model for Simulation of Advection, Dispersion and Chemical Reactions of Contaminants in Ground-Water Systems, Documentation and Input Instructions, S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland (1996).
2.4-86d      Routsen and Serne, R. J. Experimental Support Studies for the PERCOL and Transport Models, Ricland, Washington: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, BNWL-1719.
2.4-87      Baetsle, L.H. and Souffriau, J., "Installation of Chemical Barriers in Aquifers and their Significance in Accidental Contamination," in Disposal of Radioactive Wastes Into The Ground, Proceedings of a Symposium, 29 May to 2 June, 1967, Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency (1967).
2.4-87a      Baetsle, L.H., and J. Souffriau, "Installation of Chemical Barriers in Aquifers and Their Significance in Accidental Contamination," in Disposal of Radioactive Wastes into the Ground, Proceedings of a Symposium, 29 May-2 June 1967, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria (1967).
2.4-87b      Codell, R., Discussion of "Two-Dimensional Plume in Uniform Ground-Water Flow" by Wilson, J.L. and P. J. Miller, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, HY12, pp.1682-1683 (1978).
2.4-87c      Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry, Groundwater. Prentice-Hall1 Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1979).
FSAR Rev. 66                                  2.4-76
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4-87d      Wilson, J.L. and P. J. Miller, "Two Dimensional Plume in Uniform Ground-Water Flow," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, HY4, pp. 503-514 (1978).
2.4-87e      Wilson, J.L. and P. J. Miller, Discussion Closure of "Two-Dimensional Plume in Uniform Ground-Water Flow". Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, HY12. pp.
1567-1570 (1979).
2.4-88      Kaufman, W.J., "Notes on Radionuclide Pollution of Groundwaters," in Water Resources Engineering Series, University of California, Berkeley, California (1973).
2.4-89      Lai, Sung-Ho and Jurinak, J.J., "The Transport of Cations in Soil Columns at Different Pore Velocities," Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, 36 (1972),
pp. 730-733.
2.4-90      Mercer, J.W., Rao, P.S.C., Thomas, S.D., and B. Ross, "Description of Parameters and Data (And Typical Values) Useful for Evaluation of Migration Potential at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities," Letter report to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68 6464 (1982).
2.4-91      Lenda, A. and Zuber, A.,"Tracer Dispersion in Groundwater Experiments," in Isotope Hydrology 1970, Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency (1970).
2.4-92      Seaber, Paul R., An Appraisal of the Groundwater Resources of the Upper Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania (An Interim Report), U.S.G.S., Water Resources Division, Prepared in Cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1968).
2.4-93      Lambe, T.W. and Whitman, R.V., Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, New York (1969), pp. 284-5.
2.4-94      Cooper H.H., Bredehoeft, J.D., and Papadopulos, I.S., "Response of a Finite-Diameter Well to an Instantaneous Charge of Water," Water Resources Research, 3(1), (1967), pp. 263-269.
2.4-95      Heald, W.R., "Characterization of Exchange Reactions of Strontium or Calcium of Four Clays, "Soil Science Society of American Proceedings," (1960), pp. 103-106.
2.4-95a      Heald, W. R., Characterization of Exchange Reactions of Strontium or calcium of Four Clays, Soil Science Society of American Proceedings, (1960), pp. 103 - 106.
2.4-95b      Elprince, A.M., Rich, C.I., and D.C. Martens, "Effect of Temperature and Hydroxy Aluminum Interlayers on the Adsorption of Trace Radioactive Cesium by Sediments Near Water-Cooled Nuclear Reactors," Water Resources Research, 13(2), pp. 375-380 (1977).
2.4-96      Parker, F.L., Strunness, E.G., Tamura, T., Bruscia, G., Morton, R.J., Eastwood, E.R., and Sorathesn, A., "Clinch River Studies," Health Physics Division Annual Progress Report for the Period Ending July 31, 1960, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL-2994 (1960), pp. 45-57.
FSAR Rev. 66                                  2.4-77
 
SSES-FSAR Text Rev. 60 2.4-96a      Parker, F.L., Strunness, E.G., Tamura, T., Bruscia, G., Morton, R.J., Eastwood, E.R., and Sorathesn, A., Clinch River Studies, Health Physics Division Annual Progress Report for the Period Ending July 31, 1960, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL-2994 (1960), pp. 45 - 57.
2.4-96b      Buddemeier, R.W. and J.R. Hunt, "Transport of Colloidal Contaminants in Groundwater: Radionuclide Migration at the Nevada Test Site," Applied Geochemistry, 3(5), pp. 535-548 (1988).
2.4-96c      Antommaria, P.E. and H.L. Crouse, "Report on Tailings Management Practices at Tailings Pond at Gas Hills, Wyoming," Project RM77-419, D'Appolonia Company, Denver, CO (1977).
2.4-97      U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads. Hydraulic Charts for the Selection of Highway Culverts. Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 5, December, 1965.
2.4-98      Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, "Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Environmental Report - Operating License Stage" (ER-OL), May, 1978.
2.4-99      U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NUREG-0564, "Final Environmental Statement related to the Operation of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc." (FES), June, 1981.
2.4-100      LandStudies, Existing Stormwater Report for PPL SSES in Salem Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, (August 31, 2010), EC-099-1018.
FSAR Rev. 66                                2.4-78
 
Table 2.4-1 HISTORICAL INFORMATION EXISTING AND PROPOSED DAMS LOCATED IN THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN Security-Related Information Table Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390
 
Table 2.4-2 HISTORICAL INFORMATION MINOR UPSTREAM DAMS AND RESERVOIRS Security-Related Information Table Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390
 
Table 2.4-3 HISTORICAL INFORMATION WATER USERS Security-Related Information Table Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390
 
SSES-FSAR TABLE 2.4-4
    ,I HISTORIC FLOODS IN THE VICINITY OF THE SU!9UEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION Flood Dab!
Danville(a)
Elevation(c)    Discharge Susquehanna SES Elevation(d)    Discharge Wilkes-Barre(b)
Elevation(e)                                    Discharge (ft-msl)          (cfs)      (ft-msl)        (cfs)      (ft-msl)                                          (cfs)
June 24, 1972(&#xa3;)        463.6          363000        516.6        349000        552.7                                          345000 March 9, 1904            462.0 Sept. 27, 1975          458.8          257000        510          252000        547.2                                          251000 March 20, 1936          458.6          250000        510          236000        545.2                                          232000 (a) :n Kiles Downstreaa of Susquehanna SES
'  (b)  22 Miles Upstrea of Susquehanna SES (c)  Danville Flood Stage 451.3 Feet, HSL (d)  Susquehanna SES Flood Stage 670 Feet, KSL (e)  Wilk.es-Barr~ Flood Stage 534.1 . Feet, MSL (f) High Stage Due to Ice Jaa Flooding Rev. 35. 07/84
 
SSES-FSAR I IIU,JL1a.!:~
ALL-SEASON 24-HOUR PROBABLE ~~XI"Oft PRECIPITATION
  ---  .... - *---~-*-*-- *-..,,_--------- .. ~-~--..-~~~ ... -.. --. ____ ......_. .... ._. .. ______ _
tit~_jflQYtl                    fxt,i~i11ti2~-U~I!l&sect; D!_11n,h&sect;&sect;l 0 - q                                                2.52 q.s                                              1. 2Q 10.0                                                1. 2Q
: 10. 5                                              1.49 11.0                                                1, 74 11.5                                                1.74 12.0                                                2.13
: 12. S                                              6.70 13.0                                                1.98 13.5                                                1.74 14.0                                                1. 119 14.5                                                1.Q9 15.0                                                1.24
,s -    26'                                          _,&#xa3;J&sect; Total                        29. 72
 
SSP.S-FSlR IAfLJ_l.1.~:~
PROBARLE ~~X!~U" PRFCIPITATIOH FOR DUFATIONS L!SS TRAW 30 ,.INUTES
                                        ~~~>>!Ylt1i~-R~i-Jl~~h~&sect;l 5                                        2.ll8 10                                        3.82 15 30
 
Table 2.4-7 PEAK RUNOFF RATES FROM AND MAXIMUM PONDING DEPTHS ON ROOFS OF SAFETY RELATED STRUCTURES FOR LOCAL ALL-SEASON PMP Security-Related Information Table Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390
 
SSES-FSAR TABLE 2.4-8 ADOPTED 4*BOUR UNIT HYDROGRAPHS AND CHARACTERISTICS STATION WO. DRAINAGE AREA          -1.._      Tc*    ~        tp-H-(sq. ai.)
101          351              48.31    27.99    .423  27.30 102          164              14.79    11.83    .471  11.49 103          118              11.46    16.02    .630  13.42 104          43                2.10      2.00    .423    3.46 lOS          108              16.14    12.81    .500  13.07 106          102                9.60      8.60    .S79    8.00 107          98                5.71      S.62    .499    5.59 108          196              18.46    19.85    .579  18.60 109          94                4.67      7.04    .S78    6. 22 110          79                S.96      4.04    .426    4.53 111          121              12.00      7.00    .430    9.00 112          28              10.03      2.00    .402    S.30 113          116                7,36      6.03    .479    6.34 114          622              28.30    22,39    .483  20.34 1261          40                7.38      S.95    .477    6.29 115          264              16.04      7.06    .334    7.81 116          58              11.04      2.03    .374    5.76 117          84              u. 78      2.03    .364    5.87 118          192              14. 78    7.23    .3!>2  7.79 119          36.4            11.31      4.52    .376    6.03 120          27.8              9.91      2.00    .389    5.57 121          231.8            16.69      7.70    .354    8.37 122          255              15.09    16.06    .579    14.48 123          184              24.67    12.17    .357    12.00 124          95              13.60      7.66    .382    7.92 12S          64                9.30      3.94    .396    S.44 126          118                7.46      5.99    .470    6.33 127          70                5.32      4.86    .486    4.75 128          113              13.00      7.SO    .485    7.11 129          186              11.82    10.10    .405    4.70 130          lSl              12.10    10.50    .405    8.00 131          370              20.05    14.81    .477    14.19 132          30                4.52      6.15    .539    s.s2 133          56                4.48      6.18    .541    5.53 134          96                4. 79    6.19    .539    5.68 135          160                6.35      7.22  5.260    6.74 136          114                4.94      5.04    .554    5.43 137          72                3.66      S.82    .510    4. 73 138          402                5,59    10.~l    .601    8.03 139          298                8.47      6.91    .457    6.95 140          70                6. 74
                                                ,      5.08    .460    S.49 Rev. 35, 07/84
 
SSES*FSAR TABLE 2.4-8 (Continued)
STATION RO.      DRAINAGE AREA          ~          Tc*  ~      tptt (14. i.)
141            72                  8.85    5.97  .441  6.55 142            66                19.00      5.50  .276  7.05 143            2S4                35.00      9.06  .2S8  10.89 144            75                19.20      4.34  .270  6.55 145            77                20.90      2.00  .260  6.52 146            44                  9.64    4.93  ;410  6.05 147            127                12.61      4.83  .359  6.35 148            80                18.39      9. 7l .405  10.42 149            67                10.92      6.40  .396  6.99 150            143                13.00      7,00  ,531  6.50 151            227                10.60      7.16  .403  7.26 152            193                16.00      8.40  . 738  9.00 153            144                  9.60    10.00  .480  9.60 154            150                  6.18    5.33  .479  S.51 155            215                  8.11    7.68  .469  7.19 156            101                  6.48    5.27  .472  5.56 157            223                15.96    13.50  .475  12.06 158            159                14.47    13.87  .sos  12.11 159            114                14.00      7.00  .556  6.50 160            114                12.00      8.00
* 738  7.70 161            383                  2.50    28.00  .860  13.70 163            37                  5.44    5.63  .502  5.49 165            41                  s.11    ~.30  .481  s.02 168            97                  6.89    6.43  .498  6.47 171            1S7                  6.94    7.43  .507  6.94 172            116                12.80      8.10  . 738  7.90 173            206                11.04      9.93  .505  9.28
          ... Clark coefficient Snyder coefficients Rev. 35, 07/84
 
Table 2.4-9 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN ROUTING COEFFICIENTS Security-Related Information Table Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390
 
SSES-FSAR TABLE 2.4-10 MANNING "N" VALUES COMPUTED FROM 1936 FLOOD River      Reach            "n" Section    Elevation  Mile        Length  Channel    Overbank 1          493.2    157.2      10,050    0.041        0.100  Berwick Bridge 2          497 .l*  159. 0 . 6,900    0.035        0.100 3          500.0    160. 31      4,400    0.037        0.100 4          502.0    161.15      8,970    0.031.      0.100 5          506.0    162.85      3,960    0.027      0.100 f          507.6    163.6        S,808    0.046      0.100 1          511.0    164.7        7,650    0.052      0.100 8          514. 3    166.15 Site                  165.64 Rev. 35, 07/84
 
SSES-FSAR TABLE 2.4-11 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER FREEZE OVER AT HARRISBURG (1870-1955)
Number Days                            Number of Frozen                                  Freeze Overs 1-14                                      36 15-30                                      33 31-60                                      20 61-90                                        8 91+                                          1 Month                                  Number of Ye11rs River Frozen Nov.                                          2 Dec.                                        36 Jan.                                        54 Feb.                                        49 Mar.                                        22 Apr.                                          l Rev. 35, 07/84
 
SSES-FSAR TABLE 2.4-12 ICE JAM FLOODING Danville (Flood Stage* 20  ft.)
DATE                        STAGE                ELEVATION Jan. 25. 1904                26.2                  457.5 Feb. 10. 1904                24.6                  455.9 Mar. 9, 1904                30.7                  462.0 Wilkes Barre (Flood Stage* 22 ft.)
Mar. 11. 1893                28.7                  540.8 Mar. J. 1895                27.0                  539.l Jan. 16, 1898                21.8                  533,9 Jan. 7, 1899                25.0                  537.l Feb. 9, 1900                17.8                  529.9 Mar, 12, 1901                21.5                  533.6 Jan. 23, 1902                18.2                  530.3 Rev. 35, 07/84
 
66(6)6$5
7DEOH5HY
7$%/(
                                                          
                                                          
6800$5<2))/22'5287,1*678',(6635$<321'


2XWIORZ
0D[LPXP        7KURXJK        2XWIORZ2YHU    7RWDO2XWIORZ
:DWHU        &RQGXLW#        (PHUJHQF\        IURPWKH
(OHYDWLRQ        (66:            6SLOOZD\           3RQG 
&DVH                &RQGLWLRQ                      IW             FIV               FIV               FIV 
      1RUPDORSHUDWLRQ JSP                                                      
EORZGRZQLQWRSRQG 
      JSPEORZGRZQLQWRSRQG                                                      
        30)30)KUODWHU
I
      JSPEORZGRZQLQWRSRQG                                                      
        30)30)KUODWHU
I
      JSPEORZGRZQLQWRSRQG                                                      
        30)30)KUODWHU
I DQGIDLOXUHRIGLVFKDUJHFRQGXLW
DW(66:
      JSPEORZGRZQLQWRSRQG                                                      
        \UIORRGDQGIDLOXUHRI
GLVFKDUJHFRQGXLWDW(66:3
      JSPEORZGRZQLQWRSRQG                                                        
        \UIORRG

        6SLOOZD\ GLVFKDUJH DQG WRWDO GLVFKDUJH VKRZQ WR QHDUHVW  FIV H[FHSW IRU WKRVH XQGHU
QRUPDORSHUDWLQJFRQGLWLRQV
                                                                                                            

)6$55HY                                                                                        3DJHRI
 
66(6)6$5
7DEOH5HY

                                          
7$%/(
                                          
                                          
5(68/762):,1':$9(&20387$7,21
:LQGVSHHG PSK                                           
6WDWLFZDWHUOHYHO IWPVO                      
- - - - - - - - - - t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t                        I
:DYHKHLJKW IW                                               
          6LJQLILFDQW                                  
                                                    
5XQXSHOHYDWLRQIURPZDYH IWPVO                         
          DW(66:SXPSKRXVH                       
          DWVLGHRIVSUD\SRQG                   

)6$55HY                                                  3DJHRI
 
66(6)6$5
7DEOH5HY
                                        
                                        
7$%/(
                                        
                                        
0$;,080/2$',1*65(68/7,1*)520:,1':$9($&7,9,7,(6


0D[LPXP
                                6WDWLF          0D[LPXP
                                                                0RPHQWDW
:LQG    :DWHU      :DYH  5HVXOWDQW
                                                                  %DVHRI
6SHHG    /HYHO      +HLJKW  )RUFHV
6WUXFWXUH                                                6WUXFWXUH
PSK     (OIW       IW     NLSV 
IWNLSV 
3LSH6XSSRUWV                                      
                                                    
                                                    
(66:3XPSKRXVH                                      
                                                      
                                                      

)6$55HY                                                    3DJHRI
 
SSES-FSAR Table Rev. 36 TABLE 2.4-16 MAXIMUM HYDRODYNAMIC LOADING RESULTING FROM EARTHQUAKE Maximum      Maximum Moment Earthquake              Resultant Forces  at Base of the Structure    Type      Direction      (kips)      Structure (ft-kips)
Pipe Support          SSE      E-W & N-S          0.6              5.0 OBE      E-W & N-S          0.3              2.4 ESSW Pumphouse        SSE          N-S          263.3            2250 E-W          140.6            1910 OBE          N-S          145.7            1271 E-W            77.5            1062 FSAR Rev 62                                                        Page 1 of 1
 
Table 2.4-18 ESW COOLING DUTY ON SIMULTANEOUS LOSS OF ALL AUXILIARY POWER TO BOTH UNITS Security-Related Information Table Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390
 
SSES-FSAR HISTORICAL INFORMATION
-  -~ ~ ...                                                                            T --r-TABLE 2.4-21 REGIONAL HYOROGEOLOGIC SECTION (within 20-mile radius of Susquehanna SES)
Estimated Range ol Era            Perm                    Eood1            Group or Formation                                Litholoo c Character              Thickness in Reoion {ft)                      Groundwater Yield Characteristics Ceoozoic        Quantemary        Pleistocene            Stratified glacial drift            Primarily outwash sediments or kame ten-ares                Oto 300                  Yield per weD ranges from 6 to 1300 gallons per ronsisting of sand and gravel deposits, with                                          minute (gpm). with a median yield of 100 gpm.
occasional layers ol clay.                                                            Where sufficient saturated thid<fless occurs. property
                                    . --~-                                                -                                                                                ..        ~~tructed wells should yield more than 250 9E.!!1.:._
Paleoioic * *Pi::&deg;nnsylvanian.                            llewelyn Formalbn                    Sandstone, mnglomerate, shale, fire clay, slate          700to 2200                  Yield per weJ ranges from 2 to 80 gpm, with a acid numerous anthracite coal beds.                                                  median yiekf of 10 gpm. Hghty acidic water is common because of proximity to coal mining
                                  --*                                              --                                                                                                opera!i<Jn~; _..
Pottsville Fon-nation                Generally a hard quartzose unit consisting of gray          t50to850                  Yield per weP ranges from 5 to 160 gpm, with a conglomerate and white, gray or brovmish                                              median yield exceeding 50 gpm.
sandstone.
Mississippian    Mddle Mississippian    Mauch Chunk Foonation                Red,  green, yellow.orb~shaie-: with some                20010 2000                  Yiek:l per wen ranges from 4*10 375gpll\ with  a*
sandstones.                                                                          median yield of 22 9pm, based on 101 we!ls tor which data were available.
                                  -Tower Mississippian    Pocono FormaiKm*-                    Hard massive gray sandstone and C01"9lomerate,    600 ti:i  more  than *1000 Yield per wel ranges from 3 lo 133 gpm, but the indudiNJ some shale layers.                                                          median yiek:I for 8 wells for whidl data were available
~* . *---* - -- . --- .. ----  ..  ...  ,.          -~- ...    ......      . .. . ..... . -
                                                                                      ~      '                                                                  -*.. . ... ~--- . -- ..E.QQ.ly.E.g~.
HISTORICAL INFORMATION Rev. 54, 10/99                                                                                                                                                                                                          Page 1 of 2
 
SSES-FSAR HISTORICAL INFORMATION
    ---***-* *-- ... *-        -*-* .. ** ..                                                                          .... *-*-                                            *- ~- .........._.._~- ......... ......- .........
TABLE 2.4-21 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGIC SECTION (within 20-mile radius of Susquehanna SES)
Estimated Range of Ero          Penod          EDOCh                  Group or FOITTlation                                  litholooic Character            Thickness in Rooion (fl)                      Groundwater Yield Characteristics Paleozoic    Devonian    Upper Devonian            Catskfl Formation                        Red to brownish shales, rad and gray                      1000to3000              Yield per well ranges from 2 to 325 gpm, and the aossbedded sandstone. and gray to green                                              median yield is 12 gpm.
sandstone IO!!jues.
                                                  -Marinebedsronsisin11i .,_                  Hard gray to greenish-gray massive to flaggy ***
* 1SOO toJOOO              Yield peJ well ranges from*,- tc.i 15gpm, with a essentially of TnmmetS                    sandstone, containing tittle shale.                                                  median yield ol 5 9pm.
Rodi: Formation Middle Devonian          Mahantango Formation                      Bluish,iray to.brownish sandy shale wi1h                  ***:.,100""' -            Yield per we!l ranges from 2 to 21 gpm in nine        wens interbedded sandstones, and locally thin                                            for which data were available.
flmestone.                                                            -- ...
MarceQus Formation                        Black. qrav or darl< blue fissile shale.                        -400
                        -**Middle to Lower' * *** -*Ononda:Ja Formation                                                          a Non-chert}' lmestone overtyir);1 -~jray calcareous              -150              --,:jo weQ yield data are available.        Nol believed 10 be Devonian                                                            shale.
                                                                                                                                                                        ***-- .Jl.~b_yjelding in the ~ion.                                        ..
s~unan--    Sforian                    Keyser Formation                        Alternating* beds-of sandy limestone and                          ?                  Yield per well ranges from 16 to 250 gpm, with three calcareous sandstone, some conglorrerttic                                            ou1 of the four wells for which data were available sandstone and ~ ~.. ~ ~ sha,!y timestone.                                          yielding 125 gpm, or more.
Tonoloway Formation                      Platy, laminated and argillaceous fimestones. with          100 to 150 ti]~ ~~ ooo.ming local!}'. at the toe.                  ...                                                                            ---* .. **--
Wills Creek Formation                    Alternating limestone, limy shales and fissile                  -300
                              ,-~---- -----*                  ~
shales.
Dark-red sandy shale. with a t~ thin .layers of
                                                      -  *' 4*  *** - - .......... -
Paleoiow;    Silurian    Middle Silurian            Bloomsburg Formation                                                                                    -800                Yield*pa;*well range;;fiom 5 1o 20 gpm. One well is brriJht,green shale, ancl a few beds of red                                        reported to give a "large*, although unmeasuroo sandstone.                                                                    .. __ s~ppt)'....
                                                    "dntoo Formation                            Unit's of the Clinton Fomi"aiion in lhe region              600 to 700              No wells tapping units of the Clinton Forrration are consist to a large extent of hard feniterous red                                    recorded, as they form a high ridge in the ou:crop sandstone and yel\mish green and owe-green                                          area .
                                                                                          ..  . t~le.                                              .. -~,                                              ..                    --    *---~--
HISTORICAL INFORMA TJON Rev. 54, 10/99                                                                                                                                                                                                                Page 2 of 2
 
Table 2.4-22 HISTORICAL INFORMATION WATER WELL DATA WITHIN TWO MILES OF THE STATION Security-Related Information Table Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390
 
Table 2.4-23 HISTORICAL INFORMATION SPRING DATA WITHIN TWO MILES OF THE STATION Security-Related Information Table Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390
 
Table 2.4-24 HISTORICAL INFORMATION DATA FOR MAJOR WATER WELLS1, OTHER THAN PUBLIC WELLS, LOCATED BETWEEN 2 AND 10 MILES FROM THE STATION 1
Major water wells are defined as those with a reported yield of 15 gpm or more.
Security-Related Information Table Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390
 
Table 2.4-25 HISTORICAL INFORMATION DATA FOR PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS LOCATED BETWEEN 2 AND 20 MILES FROM THE STATION Security-Related Information Table Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390
 
SSES-FSAR TABLE 2.4-26 ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL IN 1976 WITHIN TWO MILES OF THE STATION Rate, in gpd Geological Unit From Wells                From Springs  Total Mahantango Formation                          27,800                    1,060    28,860 Trimmers Rock Formation                      10.790                  11,310    22,100 Catskill Formation                                0                      300      300 Pleistoncene Sand & Gravel                    2,070                    1,550    3,620 Recent Alluvium                                  210                        0      210 Residual Soil                                    300                        0      300 TOTALS                            41,170                  14,220    55,390 Note: gpd - gallons per day Metric Conversion Factor: 1 gallon          = 3. 785 liters H'1siokicii.tltflit=6RMA
                                ***.-.--*---- ........ -* **-****rioN Rev. 54, 10/99                                                                      Page 1 of 1
 
SSES-FSAR
                                                                                      *. *.*j TABLE 2.4-27 PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL WITHIN 2 AND 20 MILES OF THE STATION Year Area 1980      1990  2000    2010      2020 For area within 2-mile radius of station, in mgd                                      0.060      0.063 0.064  0.066    0.066 For area within 20-mile radius of station, in rngd                              11.7      12.1  12.1    11 .5    10.9 Notes:
Groundwater Withdrawal Projections were based on population projections, as found in Tables 2. 1-7 through 2.1-16.
mgd - million gallons per day Metric Conversion Factor: 1 gallon  = 3. 785 liters Rev. 54, 10/99                                                              Page 1 of 1
 
I SSES-FSAR
 
TABLE 2.4-28 MAJOR GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL, AND POPULATION SERVED BY WATER SUPPLY COMPANIES WITHIN 20-MILE AREA APPROXIMATE POPULATION    ESTIMATED AVERAGE GROUNDWATER USER OR WATER SUPPLY COMPANY  SERVED WITHIN 20-MILE      GROUNDWATER RADIUS IN 1970*    WITHDRAWAL IN 1975* (GPOl Keystone Water Company (Berwick Water Company)                                16,982            2,900,000+
Bloomsburg Water Co.                                    14,768                        0 Benton Water Co.                                        1,022                  60,300 Catawissa Municipal Authority                            1,701                175,000 Orangeville Municipal Water Company                        431                19.400 Pennsylvania Gas and Water Company                    159,705                        0 Dallas Water Company                                    4,292                390,000 Freeland Municipat Water Authority                      6,102                316,400 Hazleton City Authority;
: 1) Derringer Division                                      209              27,668 +
21 Lattimer Division                                      378              62,767 +
: 3) Ebervale Division                                      610            116,644 +
: 4) Tomhicken Division                                      101              6,748 +
: 5) Delano Division                                        518                    O+
6} Buck Mountain Division                                  969                    o+
: 7) Hazleton Division                                  42,501              423,296 +
Williams and Son Water Co.                                    75                    0 Conyngham Water Company                                  1,556                120,600 Citizens Water Company                                      200              8,200 +
Mocanaqua Water Company                                  1, 1 51                    0 Indian Springs Water Company                                150                  9,500 Beaver Brook Water Co.                                      232                10,000 Garbush Water Company                                        16                  700 John Fielding                                              137                12,000 Shavertown Water Co.                                    1,212                268,300 Midway Manor Water Co,                                      263                30,000 Trucksville Water Co.                                      553                      0 Shaverstown-Kingston Township Water Co.                    158                22,000 Hillcrest Water Co.                                          53                9,600 Meadowcrest Water Co.                                      369                72,000 William A. Still, Estate Water Company                      106                12,000 Oakhill Water Supply Co.                                  444                50,000 Rev. 54, 10/99                                                                Page 1 of 2
 
SSES-FSAR TABLE 2.4-28 MAJOR GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL, AND POPULATION SERVED BY WATER SUPPLY COMPANIES WITHIN 20-MILE AREA APPROXIMATE POPULATION    ESTIMATED AVERAGE GROUNDWATER USER OR WATER SUPPLY COMPANY        SERVED WITHIN 20-MILE      GROUNDWATER RADIUS IN 1970*    WITHDRAWAL IN 1975*[GPDl Village Water Company                                            44                    2,800 Shickshinny Water Co.                                        1,832                        0 Warden Place Water Co.                                          -30                    2,000 Whitebread Water Co.                                            37                  11,200 Harvey's Lake Water Co.                                          60                    5,500 Honey Brook Water Co.                                        6,133                720,000 Oneida Water Co.                                                319                  23,000 Nuremburg Water Co.                                            486                  33,300 Ringtown Boro Water Co.                                        909                  38,400 Shenandoah Boro Municipal Authorlty                          10,311                        0 Keystone Water Company, Frackville Div.                        357                        0 Mahanoy Township Authority                                    7,538                    4,000 Weatherly Municipal Authority                                1,916                146,700 Beaver Meadows Municipal Authority                            1,057                        0 Wilbar Realty Company:
: 1) Forest Park Division                                        146                  10,000 2} Penn Lake Division                                          36                    2,000 White Haven Municipal Authority                              1,323                      -0 Native Textiles, Dallas, Pa.                                      0                  3,150 White Haven State School                                          ..                  22,460 Pennsylvania Institution For Def. Delinquents
                                                                  ..                167,650 TOTALS                                  289,498              6,315,283
* Information taken from Reference 2.4* 70
    +  Information obtained from the local water department and from Reference 2.4- 70 Note: gpd  ~ gallons per day Metric Conversion Factor: 1 gallon = 3. 785 liters Rev. 54, 10/99                                                                      Page 2 of 2
 
TABLE 2.4-29 ESTIMATION OF TOTAL GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL IN 1975 WITHIN 20-MILE RADIUS OF THE STATION
: 1. Total Estimated 1970 population within 20-mile radius*
352,852
: 2. Estimated Population within 20-mile radius served by water companies or municipal water departments in 1970 +
289,498
: 3. Estimated population using private wells or springs to supply water needs in 1970                                                  63,354
: 4. Estimated population using private wells or springs in 1975:
Approximate ratio of 1975 to 1970 population fn area = 1.022 *
* Therefore, 63,354 x 1.022                                                  64,748
: 5. Estimated withdrawal from private wells and springs in 1975 {for domestic and livestock uset:
: 64. 748 x 80 gpd/person        -
5, 179,840gpd
: 6. Estimated total withdrawal from public supply and industrial wells and from major springs within 20-mile radius, in 1975 +
: 7. Total Estimated Groundwater Withdrawal in region in 1975 11.495.123 gpd Based on Reference 2.4~ 72 !U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population, Number of Inhabitants Pennsylvania PC( 1)-A40, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.)
Based on Tables 2. 1-3 and 2.1-5
  +  Source is unpublished records and computer printouts from the Division of Comprehensive Resources and Planning of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (Reference 2.4-70}.
Note: gpd
* gallons per day Metric Conversion Factor: 1 gallon - 3. 785 liters Rev. 54, 10/99                                                                      Page 1 of 1
 
I                                                      SSES-FSAR TABLE 2.4-30 DETAILS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF OBSERVATION WELLS AT THE SUSQUEHANNA SES Approx.                                    Static Casing,            depth                                  water level internal        interval of Orig;nal    Present  Depth to    in late diam. &        any screen depth of plunbable    top of  April ,77  Probable geologic zone(s) in Observation  type of        or slotted    boring    depth    bedrock  (ft be\ow    hydraulic connection with well no. material        casing    (ft)  (ft)      (ft)      (ft)    ground)                well 2    1.8", PVC
* 160.        54.4      60. 15.9    Lower Overburden (silty sand and gravel) 8    , .611,      PVC      +        264.    >200.        75.      9.4    Lowermost overburden and bedrock 11    1. 511 , PVC
* 80.      46.5      60.      9.0    Lower overburden (coarse sand and silty gravel lilyers) 19    1,6 11 r PVC          ,i,
: 80.      42.6      53.      9.2    Lower overburden (coarse  sar.d and gravel) 109    l. 7", PVC        90      176.      116.3      a1.      16.2    Lower overburden and upper bedrock 124    1,6II t PVC        38      168_      46_        40.      19.5    Lower overburden and bedrock (sandy gravel) 11 11    1.a 11 , PVC      95      109.      104.      99.      70.5    Lower overburden (sandy gravel with boulders) 1113    1.8 11 , PVC      80      97.      85.8        83.      60.6    Lower overburden (gravel, boulders and sand) 1114    1~9 11 , PVC      -40
* 60      74.      64.2        63.      57.6    Lower overburden (boutders, gravel and sand)
B-1    8 11 , steel    84.5 - 89.5    96.      87.S      >96_      5.4    Lower overburden (sand with fine grave{)
CP'-'        12 '
11        42 - 57      B2.      54.5      80.      4.5    Lower overburden (gravel and stee!                                                              sand) 1 1200A      3 11 ,    PVC    20 - 32      32.        32.      30.      31.2    Lower overburden and upper two feet of bedrock 1201    ,.. , steel            ...        69.        69.      34. 19. 5:  Upper 35 feet of bedrock 1
1204      411, PVC          42 - 54      54.8      54.      52.5    13 .5    Lower overburden and upper two feet of bedrock 1208      3", PVC          26 - 38      38.        38.      36.      26.6 1  lower overburden and upper two feet of bedrock 1209A    4 11 , steel          +          60.        60.      26.      15.91    Upper 34 feet of bedrock 12l0      4  11
                      ,  PVC    26
* 38      39.5        38.      35.5    31.zl    lower overburden and upper I                                                            three feet of bedrock
* Not known
            + Only blank casing used I
Measured in September 1977 Metric Conversion Factor:          1 foot= 0.3048 meters Rev. 54, 10/99                                                                                      Page 1 of 1
 
SSES-FSAR TABLE 2.4-31 GROUNDWATER LEVEL DATA TAKEN AT SUSQUEHANNA SES 1972 THROUGH 1975 Depth of    Elevation of Estimated height Probable zone(s) in                water level  groundwater  of groundwater Boring  Oepth hydraulic connect;on with    Date of    below ground  level <ft  level above top or Well  (ft)        boring or well        measurement surface {ft) above m.s.L.) of bedrocl<: (ft) 7      75  Overburden and upper        6-30-72        8.7          497.3          42 bedrock                      8-18-72        19.0        487.0          32 7-25-72        23.0        626.2            0 104      122  Bedrock                      8* 18-72      31.1          618.1            0 107      208  Overburden and bedrock      8*16*72        S4.S        608.8          46 8-18-72        54.3        609.0          46
  , 1,    110  Overburden and bedrock      6-30-72        10.6        672.8          23 8-18-72        14.7        668.7          19 116      95  Overburden and bedrock      7-10-72        15.0        663.1            6 8-18* 72        15.8        662.3            s 202      57  Overburden and upper        7-10-72        24.8          640.2            6 bedrock.                    8~11-72        26.0          639.0            5 205      46  Overburden and upper        7 72        18.7        646.3            8 bedrock                      8-16-72        20.5        64G..5          7 206      116  Overburden and bedrock      7-18-72        19. 5        645.5            7 8-16-72        21. 1        643.9            6 209      30  Overburden and upper        7-18*72          7.7        661.3 .          2 bedrock                      8-18*72        9.4          659.6            i 7-10-72        7.2          696.8            0 211      38  Bedrock                      8*18-72        9.7        694.3            0 215      44  Overburden and upper        7-10-72        25.0*        644.0*          o*
bedrock                      8-18-72        19.0        6,0.0            3 301      42  Overburden and upper        6-30-72        13.7        666.3            2 bedrock                      7-18-72        15.2        664.8            1 6-30-72        18,2          659.8            0 305      70  Bedrock                      8-1-72        25.7        652.3            0 312      62  Overburden*and upper        6*30-72        5.2        698.8            4 bedrock                      8-18*72        9.9        694, l            0 317      50  Overburden and upper        6-30*72        19.3        696.7            5 bedrock.                    8-01*72        23.7        692.3            0 319      60  overburden and upper        6-30-n          3.7        688.3            18 bedrocl(                    8-18-72        15.0        677.0            7 410      73  Overburden and upper four    7-18-72        57.0        626. 1          12 feet of bedrock              8-18-72        65.3        617.8            4 411      70  Overburden and upper        7-18-72        58.5        629.4            9 three feet of bedrock        8-01*72        60.4        627.5            7 4B      67  overburden and upper four    7-18-72        48.4        640.5            15 feet of bedrock              8-18*72        48.7        640.2            14 1-21-n        25.5        672.8            33 415      59  Overburden                  B* 18-72      36.0          662.3          23 422      24  Overburden and upper four    7*26*72        7.2          509.7          17 feet of bedrock Rev. 54, 10/99                                                                        Page 1 of 2
 
SSES-FSAR TABLE 2.4-31 GROUNDWATER LEVEL DATA TAKEN AT SUSQUEHANNA SES 1972 THROUGH 1975 Depth of      Elevation of    Estimated height Probable zone(s) in                    water level    groundwater      of groundwater Boring    Depth  hydraulic connection with    Oate of    below ground    level  (ft      level above top or ~ell  (ft)          boring or well      measurement  surface (ft)  above m. s. l . ) of bedrock (ft) 444      15    Overburden and upper four  8-08*72            4.2          719.7                  7 feet of bedrock 605      25    Overborden and upper six    8-08*72            6.0          689. l                13 feet of bedrock 606      10    Bedrod:                      8*08-72          4.2          691.2                  0 1002      18    Overburden                  4-08*74          3.3          505.7                >15 1006      24    Overburden                  4 74          6.1          504.9                >18 1008      22    Overburden                  4-08-74          10.8          501.2                >11 1010      15    overburden                  4-08-74          12.8          501.7                >2 1111      109    Overburden                  7-31*74          74.7          610.7                22 11*07-74          78 .7        608.7                20 1-17-75          n.?          609.7                21 5-15*75          73.7          613.7                25 1113      97    Overburden                  7-31-74          69.0          633.1                14 11-08-74          73.0          629.1                10 1-17*75          70.0          632.1                13 5-15*75          70.0          632.l                13 1114      74    Overburden and upper 11    7-31*74          64.0          647.7                .1 feet of bedrock            11*14-74          65.0          646. 7                *2 1-10-75          64.0          647. 7                *1 5-15-75          64 . 0        647.7                -i
* Reading in doubt                              Metric Conversion Factor:    1 foot : 0.3048 meters Rev. 54, 10/99                                                                                  Page 2 of 2
 
SSES-FSAR TABLE 2.4-32 GROUNDWATER LEVEL DATA TAKEN AT SUSQUEHANNA SES 1976 THROUGH 1977 Observation Zone{s) Tapped            Date of      Defth of Water        Elevation of  Height of Groundwater wen              By Wel 1      Measurement    Leve Below Ground    Groundwater Level  Level Above Top of Surface (ft)      (ft above m.s.1.)      Bedrock (ft}
l1 *09*76            17. l              495.3                  43 01*04*76              21.2              491.2                  39 2
Lower        04* 14-n              ,~.2              496.2                  44 Overburden        07-26-77              23.0              489.4                  37 08-16-77              22.9              489.5                  37 09-20*77              22.0              490.3                  38 11-10*76              10.4              495.7                  65 01-05-76              13.5              492.6                  62 Lower        04-14*77              8.5              497.5 4      Overburden and                                                                      67 07-26-77              14.9              491.1                  60 Bedrock:
08-16*77              14.9              491.1                  60 09-20-77              13.5              492.6                  62 04-14* 77              7.8              500.6                  52 11 Lower        07-26-77              12.9              495.5                  47 Overburden        os-16-n              12.9              495.5                  47 09-20-n              12.7              495.6                  47 11*10-76              ,2.0              493.1                  41 01-05-76              iS.1              490.0                  38 lower        04-14*77              11.2              493.9                  42 19        Overburden        07-26-77                                488.4 16.7                                      36 08-16*77              16.4              488,8                  37 09-20*77              13. 1              492. 1                40 11-09-76              16.3              593.0                65 01-04-n            21.e*                567.S                59*
Lower          04.-14-77            15.5              593.9                  65 109        Overburden and      07-26-77            26.3*              583.0                55*
lipper Bedrock      08-16*77            30. 1*              583.0                51*
09-20-n            37.6**              579.2                43**
571.7 11-08*76              19.7              523. 7                20 01-04-77            22.7                520.7                  17 Lower          04-14-77 124        Overburden and                            17.5              625.9                23 Bedrock:        07*26*77            27.S                615.9                  13 08*16-77            28.4                615.0                  12 09-20-n              28.7                614.7                  11 11*08*76            71.2                616.9                29 111,              Lower          01-04-77            16.0                612.1                24 Overburden        04-14-77            68.5                619.5                31 04-27-77            70.5                617.6                29 11-09*76            60.2                634. 1                15 1113 lower          01-04-77            61.4                634.9                14 Overburden        04-14-n              59.8                634.5                15 04*27*77            60.6                633.7                  15 11-09-76            57.2                644. 7                -4 1114              Lower          01-04-77            58, 1              643.8                  -5 Overburden        04-14-77            57.3                644.6                  -4 04*27*77            57.6                644.3                  *4
    ... Pu-np in well T~-2 C170 feet from ob~ervation well 109) was on durin9 measurement .
  **      Pumps in wells TW-1 (31 feet from observation well 109) and TW-2 were on during measurement.
Rev. 54 10/99 1                                                                                    Page 1 of 1
 
SSES-FSAR
(:_:::::/:::::*.:<=::\:*:::::T**\.r:.-:::::-.-:::-:-:-: :-: : :.:.*_...    ~-~--*. _.-,._.****~--==-=        ,.:*.;- :::-t!'~ToR~q-~~-:-1NFORM.~ r,p,-.,::::::\:\:}::::::.::.::-.. :c_=:=:::::;*:-: =:-: -::-:::-        .:: *,*,***:.'*                *:**.*.**:*.*.: *              *; *:=:*-::)-.\/,;:)
TABLE 2.4-33
 
==SUMMARY==
OF PERMEABILITY TESTS OF OVERBURDEN AND UPPER BEDROCK AT THE SUSQUEHANNA SES PERFORMED DURING PREVIOUS INVESTIGATfONS Volue(s) of hydraulic conductivity obtained Location of test or Safll)le Type of Test                                                                                    Geologic material tested                                                                      ( ft/day)                                                  Reference col tection Horizontal (Kh)
I              Vertical (Kv)
Punping Tests                                            Wells TW-1 & TU-2                Lower 40 feet of Komc terrace                                  3_3 to 15.0                                    I                                                            25 deposits
                                                                                              ~ell    C      Lower 43 feet of Kame terrace                                          200.**                                                                                              21 deposits Uetl CPW            37 feet of permeable materials                                          194.**                                                                                              22 within Kame terrace deposits Falling-head Laboratory                                            Approximately 1500 ft.                            Upper silty soils                                                                                                      0.028                                  20 Permeability Test                                        northeast of plant center Prospective retention pond                      K.unc terrace deposits                5.7 (Tests performed in                                                    13. to 63. (Tests                              27 Open-End                                                              areas                                                                          29 borings                                                  performed in 29 borings)
Spray pond area (borings                      Kame terrace deposits              0.022 to greater than 11_8                                                                                                    29 Tests                                        1111, 1112, 1115, 1122, 1123, 1124, & 1125) in                                        Spray pond area (borings                  Kame terrace deposits and          I                      1.0 to 3.8                                    I                                              I              29 1113 & 1114)            underlying few feet of siltstone Borings+                                        Spray pond area (boring            Makantango siltstone in interval          I                              2.S                                  I                                              I            29 1117)                12-22' below top of rock Near railway bridge over            Mahantango siltstone and black              0.013 to 0_76 (Median of 41                                                                                                    29 Rt. 11 (borings 929-935,            shale, upper 50 feet of rock                  tested intervals~ 0.22)
Packer Tests                                                    and 937-940>
in Borings+                                            Reactor area and Hnhantango siltstone upper 20 feet                                          0.85                                  I                                              I            27 prospective retention pond areas      Mahant~ngo siltstone below 20 feet                                  1.0      X      ,o*r,                      I                                              I            27
                        **                  Based on specific capacity data, assuming wells were 85 percent efficient.
                        +                    Performed in accordance with designations E-18 and E-19 of the U.S. Bureou of Reclamation's Earth's Manuat.
Metric Conversion Factor: 1 foot= 0_3048 meters.
I*, ....,  .                                                                                                            HISTOR_JCAL_ *JNF_ORMA H_Of,/__'.:\/(:                                                                                  **:                          _:*::;.:.:**:*.            **.]
Rev. 54, 10/99                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Page 1 of 1
 
SSES-FSAR
(:-; ,:: ..-.:' *.                    "                *..*...*. ,................. ::.i\:/*::-r'.*-::<<.ffl~.TOR_IC~_L,'}f':I.F._9~MA !,l.0,N__'.*_._:/ *:):,-:_//)*:i ;-:.:.::-:::,*:;**'  *:_::.. *..: ;::*.* .* :*., .. ;.:::;./:::-.-.:_*::;-:::-''.':':.        *. _:_:::.;:,::.-:-:J TABLE 2.4*34
 
==SUMMARY==
OF PERMEABILITY TESTS OF OVERBURDEN AND UPPER BEDROCK AT THE SUSQUEHANNA SES PERFORMED FOR THIS INVESTIGATION Location of Test or Geological                                                                                                                                                  Values of Hydraulic Material Average Thickn~ss of                Depth of Interval Conductivity Dbtoin~d (ft/day}
Type of Test    I        Soil Sal"l'f)Le                                                          Saturated    Zone    Below        Top      of    Bedrock Col lac:tion                                Tested                        Tested (ft)                            (ft)                              Horizontal (Kh)                                I              Vertical (Kv)
Const.mt-head Laboratory Boring 1200A at 27- foot depth
                                                              !Come terrace deposits
                                                                                                                        -                                    -                                                -                            I                    2.3 Perme~bility Test
                                ~ell 1208                    Saturated k'.ame                                I        11.5          I
                                                                                                                                                              .                            I                1.8                            I                    .
terrace deposits and upper 2 to 3 feet of I                                                  I                                                    I                                                I                                              I 'l bedrock Slug Tests                  I l.'el l 1210              !saturated Kame                                    I        6.8            l                                                    I                6.6 terrace deposits and upper 2 to 3 feet of bedrock
                                \.Jell 1210                ls~turated Kame                                  I        6.8            I                                                    I                7.8 terrace deposits and upper 2 to 3 feet of 6-Hour Pumping Test!.                        I \Jell 1204                l bcdroclc:
Saturated Kame                                  I        19.3"'          I                                                    I    21.7 to 29.2 terrace deposits Jnd upper 2 to 3 feet of bedrock Boring 305+                  Hahantango siltstooc                                                                    7 to 12                                            0.41 bedrock                                                                                12 to 17                                            0.048                            I Packer                        I                                                                                                                      17 to 52                                          0.0061
                                \Jell 1201                IMahontongo siltstone                                                                  6.7 to 15                                              0.063 bedrock                                                                              15 to 25.3                                            0.0021 Tests I\.l<?l l 1209A              IH,hantango s;ltstone 25 to 35.3 5.7 to 14                                            0.0012 0
bedrock Average thickness for the confined aquifer between wells 1204 ~nd 11.
14 to 24 24 to 34                              I            0.028 0                            I Only the nnolysis was p(?rformed for this inve5tigation.
Metric Conversion Factor: 1 foot= 0.3048 meters 1:,r .....                                                                .*:::**  .,****
                                                                                                        ._'*Ht_S_TORICAL :INFOR(t1A Tl.ON :*                        .-_:,=,:.::/*-::.-:**-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ':)
Rev. 541 10/99                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Page 1 of 1
 
SSES-FSAR Table Rev. 54 TABLE 2.4-35 RADIONUCLIDE CONTENT OF THE TANK POSTULATED TO RUPTURE
              - REACTOR WATER CLEANUP (RWCU) PHASE SEPARATOR TANKS -
SUSQUEHANNA SES CONCENTRATION RADIONUCLIDE            HALF                HALF            TOTAL CURIES          ON BASIS OF 80%
OF CONCERN              LIFE                LIFE            IN TANK (Ci)          OF TOTAL TANK FOR ACCIDENT                                (DAYS)                                VOLUME OF 7400 GAL ANALYSIS                                                                              (Ci/ml)
Mn-54              312 d                312                  38.6                1.72E+00 Fe-55              2.7 y              986.18                719.0                3.21E+01 Co-60            5.272 y            1,925.60                307.0                1.37E+01 t---------+------------------il Sr-90              29 y            10,592.25                5.68                2.53E-01 t---------+------------------il I-131            8.04 d              8.04                  46.0                2.05E+00 Cs-137            30.17 y            11,019.59                16.2                7.23E-01 Pu-239          2.411E+4 y          8.8062E+06              0.0015                6.87E-05 NOTE: Liquid volume of 5,920 gallons x 3.785 liters/gal x 1000 ml/liter = 2.24072E+7 ml FSAR Rev 64                                                                                  Page 1 of 1
 
11                -----*111 SSES-FSAR Table 2.4-36 GROUNDWATER PARAMETER VALUES USED FOR SLUG3D SIMULATIONS ACCIDENT ANALYSIS FOR SUSQUEHANNA SES Geologic Unit            Horizontal                                  Oispersivities (ftl                Kd values {mUg}
In Which      Travel  Hydraulic FlowPa1t1                              Flow Occurs    Distance Conductivity Hydraulic  Total  Effective Seament          Description                            (~)    (ft/day)  Gradient  Porosity Porosity  al . aT            av  Mn*54 Fe-55 Co-60      Sr-90  Cs*137 FLOWPATH 1 RWCU Tank North To      Upper 15ftof                                              0.02    10.0    0.5      0.001  0.0  0.0    0.0      0.0    0.0 1                                                  805        0.5      0.0600    0,02 Buried Valley          Bedrock Lower Along Buried Vatley To                                          0.0240    0,30    0.27    10.0    0.5      0.001  8.7  13.5    10.0    7.0    18.D 2                                  Pleistocene    725        18.0 Well TW-2 Deposits Lower TW-2 To Stream Jusl East    Pleistocene    860        8.0      0.0420    0.30    0.27    10.0    0.5      0.001  8.7  13.5    10.0    7.0    18.0 3            Of RR Tracks            Deposits Lower From Point In Stream To Lake                            20.0      0.0388    0.30    0.27    10.0    0.5      0.001  8.7  13.5    10.0    7.0    18.0 4                                  Pleistocene    1420 Toak-A-While Deposits Lower From Lake Took-A- While                                60.0      0.0081    0.30    0.27    30.0      2.0      0.050  8.7  13.5    10.0    7.0    18.0 5                                  Pleistocene    1720 To River Deoosi1s FLOWPATH 2 RWCU Tank East To North Upper 15 ft of                                            0.02  10.0      0.5      0.00\  0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0 1        Stream Just ~asl Of RR                    1865        0.5      0.0550    0.02 Bedrock Tracks Lower From Point In Stream To Lake  Pleistocene    1420        20.0    0.0388    0.30      0.27  10.0      0.5      0.001  8.7  13.5    10.0    7.0    18.0 2            Took-A-While Deposits Lower From Lake Took-A* While To                  mo          60.0      0.0081    0.30      0.27  30.0      2.0      0.050  8.7    13.5    10.0    7.0  18.0 3                                  Pleistocene River Deposits Rev. 531 04/99                                                                                                                                              Page 1 of 1
 
SSES-FSAR Table Rev. 54 Table 2.4-37 RANGE OF PARAMETER VALUES USED IN CALIBRATED NUMERICAL MODEL OF BURIED VALLEY AQUIFER NORTHERN SIDE OF SUSQUEHANNA SES PARAMETER                      UNITS              VALUE FLOW MODEL (MODFLOW)
HEAD IN CONSTANT-HEAD CELLS Upgradient Boundary                                ft (msl)        648.0 - 649.0 Downgradient Boundary                              ft (msl)        562.0 - 564.0 HOR. HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY                          ft/day            4.0 - 50.0 RECHARGE                                            ft/day        0.0003 - 0.0085 SPECIFIC STORAGE                                      1/ft            1.15E-05 SPECIFIC YIELD                                          -                0.20 TOTAL POROSITY                                          -                0.30 EFFECTIVE POROSITY                                      -                0.27 TRANSPORT MODEL (MT3D)
INITIAL CONCENTRATIONS At cell (17,8)
Mn-54                        Ci/ml            0.0765 Fe-55                      Ci/ml              2.290 Co-60                        Ci/ml              1.080 Sr-90                      Ci/ml            0.0219 Cs-137                      Ci/ml            0.0625 Pu-239                      Ci/ml            6.01E-06 elsewhere                      Ci/ml                0 CONSTANT CONCENTRATION CELL At cell (17,8) first 500 days Mn-54                        Ci/ml            0.0765 Fe-55                      Ci/ml              2.290 Co-60                        Ci/ml              1.080 Sr-90                      Ci/ml            0.0219 Cs-137                      Ci/ml            0.0625 Pu-239                      Ci/ml            6.01E-06 At cell (17,8) after 500 days            Ci/ml              0.0 AQUIFER BULK DENSITY                              (lb/cu.ft.)          115.75 TRANSPORT MODEL (MT3D) - cont FSAR Rev. 64                                                                  Page 1 of 2
 
SSES-FSAR Table Rev. 54 Table 2.4-37 RANGE OF PARAMETER VALUES USED IN CALIBRATED NUMERICAL MODEL OF BURIED VALLEY AQUIFER NORTHERN SIDE OF SUSQUEHANNA SES PARAMETER                    UNITS              VALUE DISPERSIVITIES L                          ft                10.0 T                          ft                0.5 V                          ft                0.001 DISTRIBUTION COEFFICENTS (kd)
Mn-54                      ml/g                8.7 Fe-55                      ml/g                13.5 Co-60                      ml/g                10.0 Sr-90                      ml/g                7.0 Cs-137                      ml/g                18.0 Pu-239                      ml/g                0.0 DECAY CONSTANTS Mn-54                      1/day            2.2212E-03 Fe-55                      1/day            7.0272E-04 Co-60                      1/day            3.5989E-04 Sr-90                      1/day            6.5425E-05 Cs-137                      1/day            6.2888E-05 FSAR Rev. 64                                                          Page 2 of 2
 
SSES-FSAR Table Rev. 54 Table 2.4-38 ESTIMATED PEAK CONCENTRATION OF RADIONUCLIDES IN GROUNDWATER RESULTING FROM POSTULATED RUPTURE OF RWCU PHASE SEPARATOR TANK
                                        - RESULTS OF SIMULATIONS WITH SLUG3D MODEL -
SUSQUEHANNA SES At Well TW-2                At Biology Lab Well          At Susquehanna River            10 CFR 20 Time of Peak        Peak        Time of Peak        Peak        Time of Peak      Peak        Appendix B Table 2 Radionuclide Since Accident      Concen.      Since Accident    Concen.      Since Accident    Concen. Effluent Concentration Limit (days)          (Ci/ml)        (days)          (Ci/ml)        (days)      (Ci/ml)          (Ci/ml)
FLOWPATH 1 Mn-54*        10,350        7.70E-15            -          < 1.0E-30            -        < 1.0E-30          3.0E-05 Fe-55*        18,660        4.27E-08            -          < 1.0E-30        79,100      < 1.0E-30          1.0E-04 Co-60*        15,850        1.38E-04            -          < 1.0E-30        73,870      9.16E-16            3.0E-06 Sr-90*        12,010        5.34E-04            -          < 1.0E-30        59,720      5.60E-07            5.0E-07 I-131          360          5.83E-18            -          < 1.0E-30            -        < 1.0E-30          1.0E-06 Cs-137*        28,240        2.08E-04            -          < 1.0E-30        141,770      3.34E-09            1.0E-06 Pu-239          560          6.75E-06            -          < 1.0E-30          1,570      2.86E-07            2.0E-08 FLOWPATH 2 Mn-54*          np              np              -          < 1.0E-30        22,030      1.54E-29            3.0E-05 Fe-55*          np              np              -          < 1.0E-30        39,480      1.69E-16            1.0E-04 Co-60*          np              np              -          < 1.0E-30        33,760      6.56E-09            3.0E-06 Sr-90*          np              np              -          < 1.0E-30        25,400      7.49E-06            5.0E-07 I-131          np              np              -          < 1.0E-30          630        3.33E-30            1.0E-06 Cs-137*          np              np              -          < 1.0E-30        59,900      8.55E-07            1.0E-06 Pu-239          np              np              -          < 1.0E-30          900        3.00E-07            2.0E-08
* Adsorption through cation exchange on Pleistocene deposits included in simulation
        +    10CFR20 Appendix B (2007) np  not on flow path FSAR Rev. 64                                                                                                              Page 1 of 1
 
SSES-FSAR Table Rev 54 Table 2.4-39 ESTIMATED PEAK CONCENTRATION OF RADIONUCLIDES IN GROUNDWATER IN BURIED VALLEY AQUIFER RESULTING FROM POSTULATED RUPTURE OF RWCU PHASE SEPARATOR TANK
                                          - RESULTS OF SIMULATIONS WITH SLUG3D MODEL -
SUSQUEHANNA SES At Entry Point to Aquifer              At Well TW-2              At Downgradient Boundary Cell (17,8)                      Cell (27,6)                      Cell (36,1)                  10 CFR 20 Time of Peak          Peak        Time of Peak        Peak        Time of Peak        Peak        Appendix B Table 2 Radionuclide  Since Accident**    Concen.**    Since Accident      Concen.      Since Accident      Concen. Effluent Concentration Limit (days)          (Ci/ml)        (days)          (Ci/ml)        (days)          (Ci/ml)          (Ci/ml)
Mn-54*            281            1.78E-01          3,100          3.33E-09          4,050          1.25E-27            3.0E-05 Fe-55*            300            5.10E+00          7,020          3.97E-06          11,180          2.09E-20            1.0E-04 Co-60*            300            2.41E+00          8,140          1.03E-04          28,210          7.24E-13            3.0E-06 Sr-90*          300            4.87E-02          8,540          5.78E-05          46,140          3.59E-08            5.0E-07 I-131            190            1.49E-09            ns              ns                ns              ns              1.0E-06 Cs-137*            300            1.39E-01          19,140          3.14E-05          92,110          8.70E-10            1.0E-06 Pu-239            300            1.34E-05            708          4.97E-07          1,740          1.20E-08            2.0E-08
* Adsorption through cation exchange on Pleistocene deposits included in simulation
      **    Computed from SLUG3D simulations of migration from ruptured tank to buried-valley aquifer
      +      10CFR20 Appendix B (2007) ns    Simulation not run because of low I-131 concentration at entry point to aquifer NOTE: These simulations were performed with Well TW-2 pumping continuously at 31 gpm FSAR Rev. 64                                                                                                                      Page 1 of 1
 
Security-Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT PLANT COMPLETE SHOWING STORM DRAIN PIPE LAYOUT FIGURE 2.4-3
 
Security-Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN FIGURE 2.4-4
 
FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STAGE DISCHARGE CURVE AT LOW FLOWS FIGURE 2.4-5, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_5.dwg
 
FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STAGE DISCHARGE CURVE, DISCHARGE RANGE 1000 - 37000 CFS FIGURE 2.4-6, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_6.dwg
 
Security-Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT WATER USERS ON THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER FIGURE 2.4-7
 
FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STAGE DISCHARGE CURVES AT PLANT SITE FIGURE 2.4-8, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_8.dwg
 
          ,10---------------------------------------------,
PLANT IRAOE (ELEY. 670 n .)
670
                                                                ~122  n  FllEUOAII.D
: n. FllEUOAIID 5)0 STANDAIID P'kOJECT FLOOD WITH Pll08A9L&#xa3; MAXIIIUM FLOOO 11.ll.UI.ATION av COWAN&#xa3;5QUE ~ - - -
* MO TIOCiA HAl'IIONO OMS
(&#xa3;LEV. 51i8 n.)
                                                                                              ---- ------ ------- _.-o
____ f
. ..,    520
  ...~..,        (lili7 ,000 CFS)
                                                                                      -~;;a;r-*
C
  ~
I w        510
__.---** 7--- -----**
                                                                        --    - - - - J...!.
IIITEll,-OLATCD    nooo
                                                                                                                                              ~E 1,12 FLOOO 11'-.0f'ILE I              __.cz,                      ---
( )4,000 C'S)
                              *
* I 100 VEAR FLOOD 11'11.0FILE                                                                                    i SHICKSHINNY IIEAC~,
SIi.SC (266,000 CFS)              i"'                                                                        ..
i I                                                                          !..
STII.EM ato
            ,10 I  LOW[ST IANK lLl-ATIOM E>  all'OllTlO nooo MIU(S JZ..! FLOOD ClllST AT SS(S Sill I) JUlt[ ,,n
                                                                                                                    ..SU FLOOD CAEST AT SSES SITE 17 aa,T. t 7S we+------------------------------------=--.                                                                    . . .-------..... ,,,          110          171 160              161                                                  165 NILES MOvt IIOUTH SUSQYEHANNA 11.IYEII 1'7 DATA SOURCE:
aALTIMOIIE DISTRICT COIi.PS OF ENGIN((llS 1,71,,
DATA SOUIIC[ ,011 TH[ 100 Y[AA FLOOD P'AOFILlt FEDEIIAL INSUAANCl IUININISTAATIOH, TYP'l 15, FLOOD INSUUNC[ STUOY,NTAINEO FIi.OH SUSQUEHANNA RIYEII aASIN t"ISSION (SIi.BC)                    FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FLOOD PROFILES ON THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AT THE SITE FIGURE 2.4-9, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_9.dwg
 
Security-Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT GENERAL SITE DRAINAGE PLAN FIGURE 2.4-10
 
Security-Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SITE DRAINAGE LOCATIONS A & B FIGURE 2.4-11
 
Security-Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SITE DRAINAGE LOCATIONS C & D FIGURE 2.4-12
 
Security-Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SITE DRAINAGE LOCATIONS E & F FIGURE 2.4-13
 
                      -~z-I          \
  . __n        :
~
a FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION STORM PATTERN &
OUTLINE OF SUB-BASINS, SUSQUEHANNA RIVER ABOVE WILKES BARRE, PA FIGURE 2.4-14, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_14.dwg
 
1/)  0                                    I 0:::
INFILTRATION RATE
        ~ \_
:::>                        .J            I 0
::c 0.2 INCHES PER 4 HOURS
"<I-  2                                                                                          1.2 0:::      l1NITIAL w          INFILTRATION c..
1/)
w    4 1.0 INCHES                  I~                                                      1.0 (/)
I        \
::c u
~
                        -                                                                          LL
(.)
                                                    \                                                LL 6                                                                                          0.8 0
....J
....J
~
z
<(
                          -      I                  \                                              1/)
z 0
::J 8                                                                                          0.6 ....J I                      \
0:::                                                                                                ~
RUNNOFF HYDROGRAPH                                                      w
(!)
0:::
0.4 <(
::c I                                                                      u 1/)
0 0.2
_/
V                  BASE FLOW 12,000 C.F.S.~ r---.._
I      I        I 0.0 0        20      40      60      80    100      120      140      160    180  200 220 240 TIME FROM BEGINNING OF STORM -        HOURS FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION ON SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN & PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD HYDROGRAPH AT WILKES BARRE, PA FIGURE 2.4-15, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_15.dwg
 
FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT
* 1- .\.
                                                                                    ';J
      ~ 1-': ~
:1 i~-,z:/.,.
                                                            ~:r--
                                                                              \, '1.'
                                                                                          ~
6[                        j C            I i
                                                                                                                                          &sect;    ;
MAP OF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER RIVER MILES 150 - 170
      . !\
q1~~~i \
                              '\..
                                        ~
:-*\
I
                                              ~
I l.
                                                                                                ;_ l
:* ~
i I
I
                                                                                                            -11
: i. I,  rI '1' ** -~  *I  *I
                                                                                                                                          ;  I !,
I,.I I
FIGURE 2.4-16, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_16.dwg
 
_j
(/)
~
z    520 0
~
G'.i
....J w    510 w
(.)
ti a::
(/)  500 a::
w
~
s::
490~--~---~---~---~---~---~---~---~--~
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5        0.6          0.7        0.8  0.9  1.0 1. 1 DISCHARGE, MILLIONS OF C.F.S.
FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT STAGE DISCHARGE CURVE AT SECTION 2 -
BERWICK BRIDGE FIGURE 2.4-17, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_17.dwg
 
w I-vi
                                                                                        <(
z LO                      z        CX)
                                                                        <O      r--    <(
I        z z                                                  z 0
z      z      w        0 0                                                          0        0      ::>
            ~                                                  &sect;      ~        ~
0 VJ      ~
w w          c.,  w      w          w                      w        w      ::>      VJ VJ              VJ      VJ        VJ              VJ    VJ      VJ 560 0
0::                                                            CZ
                                                                                                ,I          .
m
                        ~
i  ;BRIDGE INTACT NO WEIR OVERFLOW W.S. ELEVATI ON AT SITE 548.0 I:: =--PROBABLE MAXIMUM I
_j    540              c.,                                                                              FLOOD 1.1 x 10 6 C.F.S.
                        -- ::=:-- -~
uj                      :i:
~                        \..                                                                              I
                                                                                              '--BRIDGE WASHED OUT W.S. ELEVATHON AT SITE 546.7 I;:
z 520
                                                                                                            - 1936 FLOOD 0
~
i:;'.j 500
_J
            ~--- -
w BANK
                    ---              V 480                                                                                                    BOTTOM OF STREAM l.----""'~                    ~
                                                                          ~
L---
460                                                                                                  -
157    158      159  160        161      162        163      164      165    166          167 RIVER, MILES FROM MOUTH NOTE:
W.S. ELEVATIONS REFLECT ADJUSTMENT OF +2.3 FT.
FOR WIND-WAVE RUNUP FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT RIVER AND WATER SURFACE PROFILES OF SUSQUEHANNA RIVER IN VICINITY OF SITE FIGURE 2.4-18, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_18.dwg
 
_j      !$40
_j 0                                                                                              ui
::I:                                                                                          :ii    520 z
0      500
            ~
            ~      48 0  . . _ ~---+--        --+--  ...-.. --+--  --+-- ...._-+<_-+---<
w 460 '-----"--      -'---  ~
SECTION 1 -          MILE 157.05                                                    SECTION 3 -          MILE 160.31
_j vj      54 O l---&-----l--_._____.~
::I:
z      !S 2 0  l---'-L--L.-1 0
~
~w SECTION 4 -          MILE 161 .15 SECTION 2 -BRIDGE AT BERWICK 560                                          ..              ~-                        HO 0
_j 540
                        ~                                        I                          0
_j 540 r--....                                                I
::I:
z
                                .. ~                              I                          ::I:
I"                                      /
V 520                                                                                  z ISZO 0
  ~                                                            I 0
                                                                                              ~
['..,                  i
  ~w 500
                                                                                              ~w 500                                                                                                                                                        ***-
I\
I I
480                                                                                      410                                                      ---
SECTION 5 -          MILE 162.85                                                            SECTION 7 -          MILE164. 70
_j ui
:ii 540        "  r'\..
I"-.
_j ui
:ii 5 40 l---+-1r---+--+--+--                  +----ir----+--+-~--t Z        520                                                          -
0
                                        \
~        !S0O                                                        --
~                                        \_
480 460
                                                        -                                                                  SECTION 8 -          MILE 166.15 SECTION 6 -          MILE 163.60 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CROSS SECTIONS LOOKING UPSTREAM                                                                        UNITS 1 & 2 SCALE - HORIZONTAL- 1"=2000FT.                                                      FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT VERTICAL-              1"= SOFT.
CROSS SECTIONS AT THE EIGHT RIVER SECTIONS NEAR THE SITE FIGURE 2.4-19, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_19.dwg
 
700---------------------..--
                      ------REACTOR              LOCATION 650~------lf--1'-----t--------t----t--;----c
  ~
en
  ~  600----------------------
z
-~0                                PM F HIGH WATER
  >                              W.S. ELEVATION 545.7
  ~  550r-------,r---'""l-=t======l=====-=t==la;rt----,
..J
~
450---------'.____ ____.________._ _ ____._ _ ___
MILE        165.64 SECTION AT PLANT SITE CROSS SECTIONS LOOKING UPSTREAM SCALE - HORIZONTAL, I"* 2000 FT.
VERTICAL
* IN* 50 FT.
FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT CROSS SECTION OF RIVER AT THE PLANT SITE FIGURE 2.4-20, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_20.dwg
 
                                          \
                                              \
                    ' \
I\
I \
                                              ' \
                                                  \
                        \
I \                  \                                                        N
                        \      \          \
                          '\\ \\              \
                                                \
                                                    \
                              \ \
                                \      ', \          \
                                    ' '\.' '~          \        't\
                                                  \                l
                                                    \              \
                                                        \              \
                                                          \
                                                          \
                                                                        '\
                                                                          \
                                                            \                \
l I
                                                                            'I I
I I
                                                                            'I I
I I
                                                                          /
I SITE                                                I                  /
I                I I            I I              I I
I I            '1 I
I I
I              \
I                \
I                                              PHF FLOOD LEVEL I
                                                                  \
I J
I I
I I                  I
                                  ,,,, /
                        .,,, .,,                .,,      /
NORMAL RIVER CH~NEL
                                            /
          /
      /
        /
FSAR REV. 65
    /        /
SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT WIND FETCH, SUSQUEHANNA RIVER PMF FIGURE 2.4-21, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_21.dwg
 
Security-Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT TIOGA DAM & HAMMOND DAM RESERVOIR AREAS AND SECTIONS FIGURE 2.4-22
 
FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SURFACE DRAINAGE PATTERNS AROUND THE SPRAY POND FIGURE 2.4-23, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_23.dwg
 
300 280                                              PEAK INFLOW - 275 CFS 260 240 220 200 PEAK OUTFLOW -  185 CFS 180 I
160 140 120 OUTFLOW FLOOD 100                                                    HYDROGRAPH
                                                                      .t:UIIES:
80                                                                  1. PEAK OUTFLOW FROM EMERGENCY SPRAY POND CONSISTS OF 150 CFS lHROUGH EMERGENCY SPILLWAY CHANNEL 60                                                                    AND 35 CFS lHROUGH SLOWDOWN WATER OUllET IN ESSW PUMPHOUSE.
40                                                                    2. INFLOW INCLUDES A CONSTANT SLOWDOWN WATER OF 10,000 GPM (22.J CFS) 20 0 10 20 JO 40 50      60      70      80        90        100            110 TIME (HOURS)
FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SPRAY POND INFLOW AND OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 2.4-24, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_24.dwg
 
(f) 683 .0 - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
E 1--
w    682 .5 w
LL
  ~
z    682 .0                                          EMERGENCY SPILLWAY 0
w
_J  681 .5 w
w
~    681 .0 LL 0:::
::,  680 .5 (f) 0:::
w 680 .0          BLOWDOWN OUTLET
~                      CONDUIT @ ESSW 3:                        PUMPHOUSE 0    679 .5 z
0 Q_
679 .0
~
0:::
Q_
(f)  678 .5 - + - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - -
0          50              100            150      200    250 DISCHARGE, CUBIC FEET PER SECOND FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SPRAY POND OUTLET RATING CURVES FIGURE 2.4-25, Rev 49 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_25.dwg
 
U1        30 I        I                          I
_J
_J I        I j
<(                  NORMAL OPERATIO          ~
(.'.)
<O 0
..-      20 I
X i:'.:                                                  z 0
<(        10 0
                                                        ~
                                              /  _J Q_                                              <(
<(                                              ~    a:::
0 J      a::: w 0
z 0 Q_
0      1        2            3                4      5 SURFACE AREA (10 5 sf.)
CAPACITY VS WATER SURFACE AREA CURVE vi'      30-----------------
_J
_J
  <(
(.'.)
                                                                "FLOOD"
<O
  ~        20 - - - - - - - - - - - f - - - - - + - - - -
x i:'.:
  ~
o_
  <(
10 - - - - - - - - - - - -                ~
                                                    ~
0                                                  ~
0::
0 z
660    665      670          675              680    685 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION (ft)
CAPACITY VS WATER ELEVATION CURVE FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SPRAY POND ELEVATION AREA STORAGE CAPACITY CURVES FIGURE 2.4-26, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_26.dwg
 
Security-Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SPRAY POND EMERGENCY SPILLWAY WATER SURFACE PROFILE FIGURE 2.4-27
 
to                          Ill
                                                                      * ._ ....        .              '                *                  *                    '            11                      ...                          **            H Cla;,,,.,---w~.,;-
ao
...I*~~
 
~
~
~ 'iC:              -,.... *_
A,.      X , :'I
        ~ ~ - ~ -- : *
* a..                                                            r ..-_*".- ,,
i""'v'S-                          ,., (                                                        .-, >.'* *.
    . v .;e,        *--~( ';~1 ...:                                                                .- !;-s.{':.-.(.
        ~ -            A,,,,._          7-.,,.                                                        .,,_/., ~ ~ "Ii ,, **
    -~* *-                ""'--'*--* r_,                                                        ~.I-,,,;~,-..._. l~ ** *
* r                                                                , . . )rf                    ,          *.
                      , .')(''..-.. *-y*
                                                                                                                                                                ~
* v*
                            , ~.-A            ::'I(                          , l ** _
                                                                                      ., . .*. ,, , ,,-,**.,,..* ,.r.    . ._.,*>'*.,v*t,. -..:1~ ,* ->~            * '-                                                            '
                            \...~r/ ",                                          *******                                                                                  <                                                                  *
                                                                      . *'.( r i
                      -,, )( -y                                          11,                              I    *
* _,,        4      *
                                                                                            " * *.* * *                  -.        "-' * .,      '*            "v * * *~
                          ,,          ~    *                      *    .>. *' -, * *** *!                                  . * -.:_ *
* T, ~ (                              I "
                          . ~* * *,, y
                  - X.....
                                                                /(
                                                                    *., r      1' i- * *
                                                                    , ** *._ t
                                                              ... , .. ,. . I, " ' ... ~
                                                                                      ~
                                                                                                    ., * -    w:
                                                                                                            '1 ... 6
                                                                                                                          '_-"I,
_,1
                                                                                                                                                                *: ~ .r *
                                                                                                                                                            ~ *
                                                                                                                                                                    ,I.~
                                                                                                                                                                  ../'4
                                                                                                                                                                                  * ,.~~
r*~
                                                                                                                                                                                      *1..
                                                                                                                                                                                  "-! .. i.
                                                                                                                                                                                        ... I -.
                                                                                                                                                                                                              ,a '
i *.- .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ... I 4    *    .* !a,                              ,.    **
_,t
                                                                                                                                                                                                  ~ ....-....*,),
f-
                                                    *,('/I''~' ,.,1.(
* I                          * **~.*** > * ~--                            :,(, *,- ).,.., y                    I'--=
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ~
r            * *
        =
t:,
                                              ~
i    ,< ) A
* r * * ; ** * ;r **,.
                                                                                        ,I
                                                                                                    / .
r .    *
                                                                                            * ,. 7' /_ Y' *7* *. . *-r.*_
                                                                                                                                      ---~ - r
                                                                                                                                                              ** * * *
* y 4 **
4
                                                                                                                                                                                        *x *
                                                                                                                                                                                                .. .., * ,., ~ - ,.*
                                                                                                                                                                                                          "T    -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  >        ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ~
            ~
I(. -                              _...-*~*=,;-
                                                  ;s      ,I      -~      *    ; . * ..:          ..
* _..        :.    ~ *- -. - ....~ ~                          ;..    * :..., ),,    " " ' : --      ~ ... 1 :*y  *                  ~- -
        ,;_~                              -.        ~* .. *                ,          -        .        **2*        - ,,_. - .                4        .. . .                  :-            ..      ,..  '
        ':!'        .. _          .. -    ,c,      *    .*                  ,(          *          .*.                    _ ~-* *. ~ .>                                          4      . _ . , .. .          ) ... -:*~ *                  .
        ~...i 1 Ii ~"'-..,,&#xa3;~-~-r..                      :~~=It!'~ ~ ~      1 t"1-1        l  *        .... * ~ , . _ ~ ... ~.\"~ -...                        *I.A~' ..~          L ~ J ~ .. .1**                            ~
11      ....    **              1
                                            .,      ..            a.QI*                                                  f              I**                                      I                            I              1-4                I  I FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SPRAY POND DESIGN SPECTRUM FOR SSE FIGURE 2.4-28, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_28.dwg
 
FREQUENCY (cps)
        ~ 20 I!! 10  7    !I            2  l!!        Q7 O!I 03 oz oe 01 60 10
 
8
...I w
P[RIOO (MCI )
FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SPRAY POND DESIGN SPECTRUM FOR OBE FIGURE 2.4-29, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_29.dwg
 
1:000 40, 1000 I0,000 too
                                                                                                ,oo SUNBURY, PA.              700 to,000                                                                                *oo 100 400 100 100 0                                                                                                    0 iu                                                                                                    g u
"'11'1                                                                                                _,
Ill Ct:                                                                                            100    &'.
It'      IOOO                                                                                  90    r_,
...                                            DANVILLE, PA.                                  10 70    &'.
IIJ II.I    1:000                                                                                  10 u                                                                                              10    w
!u ii Ill 1000 too 40 10    5 iE IC          100 u
11'1 i5
            'PO()
100 100 WILKES-BARRE, PA.                  10 IMz 400                                                                                        ~
10 IOO                                                                                *.,
I 100                                                                                *I 4
tOO                                                                                I 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.Z 0.1 I I    I    10  to    10 40 IC 10 70      IC  90 IS .. "
PERCENT OF TIME: INOIUTEO DISCHARGE WA.S EOUALEO OR EXCEEDED SOUR.CE    USGS OPEN FILE REPORT 76-247 , 1976 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT DURATION CURVES OF DAILY DISCHARGE FIGURE 2.4-30, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_30.dwg
 
1000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
800 600 RANGE* 135 - 155 HOURS u,
a::  200 8
:I:                                                      SHICKSHINNY TO DANVILLE z
II.I
:E    100
    .... 80 II.I i.... 60 a.o KEY :
O LEAD ING EDGE 20            D PEAK CONCENTRATION TIMES 200      ltO0    600      1000        2000  3000    6000 10.000 DISCHARGE@ SHICKSHINNY CFS FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT TIME OF TRAVEL SUSQUEHANNA RIVER SHICKSHINNY TO DANVILLE SOURCE:    uses. 1976                  FIGURE 2.4-31, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_31.dwg
 
Security-Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT MAP AT SUSQUEHANNA SES SHOWING GROUNDWATER CONTOURS IN SEPTEMBER 1977 FIGURE 2.4-32
 
                                                                                                                                                                              .i
                                                                                                                                                                                    &#xa3;,tE~~TIOll fFr_A<<JVC 1t$t.J
                                                                                                                                                                                            "'          ."              i                l                                  "'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~
                                                                                                                          .8                      '
                                                                                                                                                  ~          &  ~  ~
                                                                                                                                                                                            "                                                                                                      ~
                                                                                                                                                      \
I I
                                                                                                                                                      \
I II
                                                                                                                                        \
I
                                                                                                                                              \
                                                                                                                                              \
I FSAR REV. 65 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_33.dwg FIGURE 2.4-33, Rev 55                              SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION I LJ. 11 I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      " Gil I
mi Ii      !i ~I  m1 jii*            ,I ii HYDROLOGIC CROSS SECTION
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  *! :*sJ .i,!            **  I 1, 11:' =i=*                1!!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ,~i 1-::
I i
i      !- **;* 1.r  -*=*              H~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              !jl I :;.~ !i=!
FROM WEST TO EAST ALONG
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      *~      tI i ~!; !i:i UNITS 1 & 2 ii) 1 i l1! !~~z                Ht
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ~t. o::"I m
ij,JI j                I GROUNDWATER FLOW PATH i            *u I
i      -        ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        - !,! :11 i i,;
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ~1~
m !::
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ,p
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ! It!
i FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        !  ;!i AT THE SUSQUEHANNA SES 1r            .!: * 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ~                    -:..t.
I l
I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ~
g
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  '8                      ~
t
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ~            .,.,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ~
 
LIUIIII*
0                  5                10
~VMIAII
* UftlU.YN FORMTIOI                                                    MILES II        1'111'TSYILLI FOWTIDII HISTORICAL NlllltSIPPIM
    ~
IIll 11111C11 CRUNK FOMliTIIIII PIICOIID l'OaflATION
                                                                --~---*-***-*
c.-.,.c.-.*-*-**--**
                                                                * * * * * -..... MIN. . . . . . . . .,
                                                                **u--n--*---*
MUI tf tfllf. . -  ff -    --        ....
A ltff, FSAR REV. 65 ll&#xa5;m11M r:'!':";1
    ~
CATSKILL
                ,_.,.TIDN 1  (UIIDIFl'EIIIITfATII                          SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 IWIINl IIDS FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT
              ~MIO. IWICILLUS MID --MA IN
(. . IFPIIIINTIATEDI SIUIIIIM llYSEII, TOIIDLOIMJ' MIi WILLS CIIEU                                    BEDROCK GEOLOGIC MAP OF AREA IBID      FIIIIATIOIIS WITHIN 20 MILES OF
[:El      IUCINHIIIIG    rOIINATI ON SUSQUEHANNA SES I!]        CLINTON rOIINATION FIGURE 2.4-34, Rev 55 IZI        IIIUOII ANTI CLI 11A1. OIi SYIICL IIIAL AIIIS AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_34.dwg
(;;3      DIVISION IITIIIIN ,NYSIOGMPIIIC PIDIIIICH
 
LEGIIO:
BORGER OF WISCONSIN ORI" HISTORICAL BORDER OF ILLINOIAN ORI" FSAR REV. 65 PLEISTOCENE SAND ANO GRAVEL DEPOSITS SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 0          5            10 NILES                                MAJOR PLEISTOCENE SAND &
GRAVEL DEPOSITS WITHIN 20 MILES OF SUSQUEHANNA SES FIGURE 2.4-35, Rev 55 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_35.dwg
 
  \:}\ffjfffY ,.
REFERENCE :
THE BASF. FOR Tl! IS MAP WAS PREPARED FROM TliE FOLLOW I NG 7.5 MINUTl U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC QUAORANGL[S: BERWICK PA., 1969; MIFrLINVILLE, PA., 1969; SYBERTSVILLE,PA.
1969. CONTAC1S lltRE OFTERHINED DURING FIELD HAPPING PERFORMED 8Y DAHFS & MOORE IN SPRING OF 1977, SYMBOL SJATION PROPERTY BOIINDARY
_, ,....,. APPROXIMATE STATRIGRAPHIC CONTACT
                                                                                                                                        ~            BERWICK ANTICLINE LEGEND :
OQal          QUA I ERNIIRY AL LIJV I UM f:,";lQkt    PI.E ISTOCENE KAME lHRACE
                                                                                                                                        ~
MISSISSIPIAN l    ~_:~~-,;.*~~I
                                                          .    -    -~    ~ t""-- -J;....--Q.- ~                                      ~-Mp
                                                                                                                                        ~
POCONO FORMAT I ON
-w_;c _                                            ,_;e--_:::- A_.;_:-"5'. ;.:'                                                    DEVONIAN
,=--;
----- -            --...::-- "'"~-c-  *.-,- .... - - ~-=        ---      -,-t--'f~.,,-,
                                                                            - -- --=                  - - --                          lm::xlock
                                                                                                                                        ~
CATSKILL FORMATION
  -~----  - -- - -- .---~-::-------------------
__ ,,... -- -                        - --..-r->>*-----.,.- --:--..... ------ --- _.;
                                    --    ::,;f'.'~ ------- --- --...,;- -          .-:!Y.,.- -- --- -- -*                              go,r          "IR I MHERS ROCK FORHAT I ON
    ~..:-- - --,;:-......
                      ,lo: - -              . ...-;:::-
                                          ---    * - -      ------~--- *.,,,.....-t----
___  _]--=-""" -:-_;::-      - --  ---:..::-
                                ~~: --x__;--
_      --  ~-z,    -  '
--:-""''        __ ..,,..,;,.                                -~ ;~                          -- -
r::-:;::J
      ...::'"_::-'_::-""---                  --;_i::; &#xa3;--...:.K--_;-'...l-"            _.::--_;;'."--                                    ~Om          MAHANTANGO FORMATION
::-- --...::-- --:-.-                    ,,.,.-*  -;:-Y.-~*      ~~,..,.~**
                                              ----..-:-~ ..-. :;.-- -----
                                                                                            --__;.-~
    -:;~*
*******mi                  ---~-***"~--'*.,  ___      ..,.*11-= -
1/2                    0
,I  ,_oo**    /)~f'I                                        ,*        - - - * "- .,:'t.
Miu
;*1.""!;..,_ 0 "!a:t*:                                                                                                                                              0
, * '      ~ *
* s* * *          *
' .* 'J*
{/ *****          <>    ..  "'1:
KM 0  .. * \
-~--'-,,,;-*C"'.'~),              *****.
  -~*-~*~<!lo*~.- ..            <:.*.*., **,,
_'t.*-:.:~~.~o,:~,; ~~,::::*                                                                                              HISTORICAL
  ~~~,:.;~..4~t:. :**
_,~y:_;:~                                                                                                          FSAR REV. 65
* ~ ~ - *_**.~~-~~t:.
              ,f*: ..::.                                                                                                      SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l~  ,t l, ,    ,                                                                                                                UNITS 1 & 2
* ~ * ~ - ~ ~ - *_J.
FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT
                                                                            ,. D*,-41  *  ~ "', '"
GEOLOGIC MAP OF AREA WITHIN TWO MILES OF THE STATION FIGURE 2.4-36, Rev 55 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_36.dwg
 
I ltTI II I
I IS I
I I
I
                                                                                    ,/
0--===--=--Yl!::::a-==--='          MILES HISTORICJ~L FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION IIDTE:
      . . .IIIS INDICATI APPIIO .. MTI LOCATION o, IIILU                                  UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT WATER WELLS WITHIN TWO MILES OF THE STATION FIGURE 2.4-37, Rev 55 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_37.dwg
 
I IITI I
IS I
I I
O--==--==*'f!ii!!=-=--=-' IIIUS HISTORICi~L FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION NOTE:
UNITS 1 & 2 NUMBERS INDICATE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SPRINGS                FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SPRINGS USED FOR WATER SUPPLY WITHIN TWO MILES OF THE STATION FIGURE 2.4-38, Rev 55 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_38.dwg
 
I                                    I                I I
I
              /                                              .,        '
                                                                \
I                                                      '
HISTORC:IAL I
      ~
FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT MAJOR WATER WELLS TWO TO TEN MILES FROM THE STATION EXCEPTING PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS FIGURE 2.4-39, Rev 55 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_39.dwg
 
  ....I                                                  I N
_..,  ... t HISTORIC/\L I
* FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS TWO TO TWENTY MILES FROM THE STATION FIGURE 2.4-40, Rev 55 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_40.dwg
 
Security-Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT MAP OF SUSQUEHANNA SES SHOWING ISOPACH CONTOURS OF OVERBURDEN THICKNESS FIGURE 2.4-41
 
Security-Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT MAP OF SUSQUEHANNA SES SHOWING TOP-OF-BEDROCK CONTOURS FIGURE 2.4-42
 
Security-Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT MAP OF SUSQUEHANNA SES SHOWING GROUNDWATER CONTOURS IN APRIL 1977 FIGURE 2.4-43
 
BORtN8                  1200
_...,.,.,,1.,2 NJ'l,7al.6t u.,u,201.lt6
                                                                          * - SILTY FIN&#xa3; SAND, TRACI COARSE S - fO COAIISE GRAVEL IIIOWII SILTY COAIISE GRAVEL, SOM( CLAY, OCCAS I ONAL COIILES BLACK SILTSTONE IHING C-lETEO TO A OtPTH Of' Zlt.O' tELOW H-                                THE I.AND SURFACE ON 6/27 /77 IOIIING -ONEO A1111 IACICFILLED -      CASIIIC REftOVtD ON 61%9/77 LOG OF BORING 1200 WELL 1200A                                                                                                                  P mECTI VE STEIL Cl#
DEl'TH "1
II              ..,_.CE IIIVATIOII 636.44 FEET        ~    NJ4t ,726.0lt                                                                                                                            /    ;IICIUND LEVEL 0  t:Ollfl/T EZ,44),24).)7
                                          ...,,,,.,.,.                                                                          .........-~*a_
LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE 5AIII                                -o
                                                                                                                                                -      CEIIENT GAOUT
                                                                                      ---                      1  IENTONI TE 1
BROWN TO VAR !COLORED SMDY, SILTV FI NE -VEL DCCAS I ONAL CDHLES -        IOULDERS 6                                          - - 5'
                                                                                                                                            - - 7' I' SILTY SAND
                                                                                                                                                ~              )" P.V' C. CASING IO                                                                                    --10
                                                                                                                                                .,,...,.- II'' STEEL CASIU 16              GM                                                                    ---16 GIIADING WITH fil&#xa3;D1'-'" GMVEL                                                                                    ,,,,.. IIDAI E NO. Z GMVU PACK
                                                                                      --6()                                                  - - 20 1 H' OF J" I ,D. ,.v.t. SCREEN
                                                                                      --a                                                        (TO, 6&deg; IS .02'' SLOT, IOTTON 6' IS            .OJ" SLOT)
BROWN FINE TO HEDIU" SAND, S&deg;"E SILT (DENSE)
MOWN SILTY FIN&#xa3; TO NEDI~ SAND, SOl1E GIIAVEL WITH LENSES OF CLAY AND CARB011Arrn11'1 ....TERIAL llACK MIISSIVE SILTSTONE                                    --80
                                                                                                                                              - - )I.%'
BORING CDll'LETED TO A DEPTH OF )2' BELOW                                                                        - - 3%'
THE LAND SURFACE DN 61)0/77 S6-                                                                                  --u                                                      IOTTIIR OF DIIILLED HOLE NR: WELL IO..lETH ON 7/1/77 USED \ESCO P.v.c. SCREEN FSAR REV. 65 LOG OF WELL 1200A SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT HISTORICAL LOG OF BORING AND OBSERVATION WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS - 1200, 1200A FIGURE 2.4-44, Rev 55 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_44.dwg
 
WELL 1201
        -              ,u,-no,,      0,.1 *                                        --**-W}_,
        * ,.1,725."
u.**,.2,,.11
                                                                                                              /  ""'i.s*
o-GMDI NC 111111 COMIE SAND IIIOW CLAYEY, AIIIIULAI FINI &RAVEL                  s-                                                -
* 11 DIA. snu wt*
                                                                              &* DIA, STIIL CASING 10-J6-B-
LIGHT * - SILTY FIN( TO MEDIUM SMID, SOIE CLAY LITR.t CARIOIIAl:tOUS ~TU IAL GIAIIIIG TO CIIAAH CRAVEL WITH TAIi SILTY CLAY AND CAIIIONM:&#xa3;1115 MTERtAL                                      Clllllll' IUVT 29' Lll:IIT -* TO l:RAI' CLAYEY SILTY ICDIUII TO COM$&#xa3; CIIAVEL BLACK SILTSTONE
                                                                                                                \)9.0' 8 FMCTUllts, PUDCIIIIIWITLl 01-L, S -              40-HOAIZONTAL, C-LY 111TH FIIAGlllllTATIOII OIi "E~ICAL GRINDING
                                                                                                                    '- IOTTOII OF CMLE*TOOL HDLt 13 FMCTUIIIES, DIA- -        -IZIIIITAI.,        46-C-LY 111TH FIIMIIENTAIION OR NECIWIICIII.
GRINDING, SCIO'& IRON STAINIIIII, SOIi&#xa3; IISSlMII*
ATED JUE PYIIITE CRYSTALS so-10-NX HOU B FIIACTIJUS, PRE-IIWITLV DIAGONAL, SOME DISSEMINATED FINE PYRITE, TRACE OF CAHOIIATE    66 - -
TO--            BOltlNG C-UTED TO A DEPTH Of 69.00' llLOW THE LAND SURFACE ON 6/27/77 TO-NOTE: WELL CC MrLUED ON 6/27/77 LOG OF WELL 1201                                                                          CONSTRUCTION DETAILS OF WE.LL 1201 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT HISTORICAL LOG OF BORING AND OBSERVATION WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS - 1201 FIGURE 2.4-45, Rev 55 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_45.dwg
 
                                                                                                          ,/ l'liiftCTIW ffla      c>>
WELL 1204.
W              .,.,,.            508.94
      .,..,,.,.11                                                                                                                -Lnll El,"5,31 *. 19
              . . . . SIL1T, SM11Y CLAY
                                                                -0
                                                                -      II            l'SIL1T SMI It'' ,.v.c. WIii
                                                                -      /0 11M SIL1T, SMDY, Fl* . . . . 111111 SN CUY
                                                                                                                    ** SfflL CMIIIG GUIii* IIITII IDIII.DEIIS IOUI.DEIIS GMDI 11G OUT
                                                                --                                              *11 ** I IIIAVIL MCI GMDIH Tl -          CIIAYEU.Y FM Tl cual ....
HIii SiLT I- fllll TO COAIISE -          - fllll IMVlL 0 TMCI SILT IIIICMI, SILTY, IIEIIIUlt TO C - SAND, Ml
              ,i111 Tl MIIIII GMIIIL. Hlil CUW. CMIWEIUI MTEIIALI-)
12 1 a, *"    1.1. ,.,.c.
                                                                --                                                        SCIIIII (I.DJ'' SLIT)
ILACI. SI LTSTIIIE
                                                                                                                    ~-It' IOIIING Cllll'LETEO TO A DEPTH Of s,.a,
                                                                                                    *      -      s*.**
IILOW THI I.MO SURFACE ON 9/8/77                                                              ..__ IOTTOII Of ORI LLEO IIOLE IIOTE I [LL CWLETlD OI 9/8/77 LSED WESCO P V,C, -
* CONSTRUCTION DETAILS LOG OF WELL 1204                                                                              OF WELL. 1204 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT HISTORICAL LOG OF BORING AND OBSERVATION WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS - 1204 FIGURE 2.4-46, Rev 55 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_46.dwg
 
      !II    WELL 1208                                                                                                          ,,,. 'MITECTtvt STtEL C,_,
DEPTH ~    .,,,,._ AIWJTIOII m .oe'
~r    I    113U,0S6, 13 E2,ltliJt,0liO.S9 o=,. **.*-*....____.,_..,,              __,,,,,.
________                      -o
                                                                                                                          ..,.__._ _...L_ _GROIIIID LEVEL 111101111 SAIIOV, SILTY FINE TO IIEDIUII GIIAVEL, SOM CLAY                                                                                                    -    5 ' CENENT GROUT
                                                                                -6              I' HITOIITE I' SILTY SMII              ~ -
* 7'
                                                                                                                                -        3" PVC CASING BROWN TO V.UICOLOUD SILTY, CLAYEY FINE GIIAVIL, OCCASIOIIAl IOIILDIRS (DENSE)                            -10
_.. 1' 0 STEIL CASINI;
                                                                                -16
                                                                                -60 GWING TO GRAVELLY, CLAYIV SAID UOW11 SILTt Hf:DIUII IIWlL WITH SN SW Ml                  -I'll CLAY, TMt:t COARSE lillAVIL Ml SIIALL CGIILU
                                                                                                                                /    1111111 I IIO. 2 GRAVEL ,ACK GIWIING 111TH IIOtlE CODLES AT 31' 12' OF      J"  1,0. P.V.C  SCREEN
                                                                                                                                -        (0,0Z" SLIT TOP 6"1 0, OJ'' SLOT ,oTTOII 6 n. )
II.ACK $ILTSTONE IORIM COMPUTED TO A DIPTH Of JI. 2' IELDII TNE L - SUIIFACE ON 812177 40-                                                                            -40                                              IOTTGII OF hi LLID IIOU IIOTI: WILL CWLITID tll I/Z/77 UHO IIEICO PVC SC'-IEN CONSTRUCTION DETAILS LOG OF WELL 1208                                                                                  OF WELL 1208 FSAR REV. 65 HISTORICAL                                                            SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT LOG OF BORING AND OBSERVATION WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS - 1208 FIGURE 2.4-47, Rev 55 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_47.dwg
 
WELL 1208,A
    -            lll1/IIITIOII su. 76                                                                                                    -Lill&.
NJ1,1,IOl.'9 U,"-\,5'0. 13
* 111'111          --o
                                                                                        ** IIA, SfflL CASINI                        .., IIA. ffllL CASINI GMDI 11G VI ffl MOIIE SMID
                                                                      -10 UADINI Willi -        HAVEL IMtlNI 111111 -        SMO IMIINI 111111 -        DAVEL
                                                                      -16
                                                                      -20 12 FUC'TUIES, PU-IIIMTLT IIGUGN, laUDI L                                                                                                                      - o , CAILI
                                                                                                                                          ,._ IIGLE 17 l'MCTIIHS, VlllTICAL, HOIIIZONTAL,NID D I - ,
MOSTLY IIIEVIII -      IA-STAINED, IICCASI- FOSSILS IIIECC IATD -        AT liO*                              --40 10 ,wtvaES, PRIDCIIIIMTI.Y UNEVEI IIDIIIZOIITAL SOIII IIIE'H D I - , -          * - STAINl"41 MSSIYI
* ND FMCTUIIES
                                                                      -45
            ' FMCTUIIES, PREDIIIIINMTLY SIIDOlll OR 1111:YEN NOllZOITAL
                                                                      --50 MSSIVE
* ND FMCTUlES H MOLE
                                                                      -55 25 FIIAUIIIES, PIIEIIOIUMN'TI.Y HOalZDNTAI., GtllERALLY UNEVEN, C - Y IRllll*STAIIED
                                                                      -*-60                                                -M.o*
IOllNG CIIMPLET&#xa3;D 10 A 1111'111 0, 60.0' IIELIIW TNE LA1111 SUIFACE ON 7/21117 N11111: VELL CllllrLETED 1111 7/22/77 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS LOG OF WELL 1209A                                                                              OF WELL 1209A FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT HISTORICAL LOG OF BORING AND OBSERVATION WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS - 1209A FIGURE 2.4-48, Rev 55 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_48.dwg
 
WELL              1210                                                                        / ' PIGTECll&#xa5;E STEIL CAP
              ..,,,,. AIMtTIOII m. s1i 11}112,052,~5                                                                            ~
* GNIUIID LEVEL EZ,li~li ,080, 70 T
2.}'
FILL - Sltl.LI, SAND, "IAVCL
                                                                                -0                                        5' CEIIEIIT l,ACIUT 0 &=~
IW01111 ILACK FIN&#xa3; TO "IDIIIII SANO, SOIi&#xa3; SILT, TRACE CLAY HIIIII SILTY SMDY GIIAVEL, S01E CLAY, TRACE                        I' IDTIIIIITI CMIGMClOUS MTEII IAL ( VERY DENSE)
                                                                                                                    -s*
1' SILTY $MIO
                                                                                                                            "" PVC CAi,ING
                                                                                -/0 I'' STEEL :11511141 GRADING TO IROWN,IIOTTlED 11&#xa3;D, YELLOW, AND CIIEEN,
                                                                                -IO WIDY SILTY MDII.II TO COARSE GIUIVU,SDIIE CLAY (YIIY DENSE) 2,.,,
MORIE Nl. 1 WVEL PACI<
                                                                                                                          ,1.2*
IIUIWN SANDY, COAIISE ClMvtL, SDIIE SILT, TRACE CLAY (LOOSE) 12' OF *I" l,D, PVC SCIIUN
(.OJ IN. SLOT)
ILACK SIL TSTONf BDR ING COMPLETED TO A DEPTH OF "O. 5' IELOW
                                                                                  -40                    Lt.=:t***~ -4'0.i' rnE LAND SURFA,E ON  8111171
                                                                                                              ~            IOTTON o, I AILLED NOLI 46-                                                                                                        NOTE: WEU COll'LETED ON 8/11/77 AND DEIIILOPEO IY AIR 1011 Ii HOURS USID WESCO PVC ICHE&#xa3;11 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS LOG OF WELL 1210                                                                                        OF WELL 1210 FSAR REV. 65 HISTORICAL                                                              SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT LOG OF BORING AND OBSERVATION WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS - 1210 FIGURE 2.4-49, Rev 55 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_49.dwg
 
Security-Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT MAP OF SUSQUEHANNA SES SHOWING GROUNDWATER CONTOURS IN JUNE 1971 FIGURE 2.4-50
 
                            ~
11 * " * ' -  ('1.1 I.M
                                                                                    ,  11.1 n  1n.s -i LO          -  ,, a a oa~
a.._                          l 2.0
                                                      *-,                        I
      ; JO I. 0 T ~
A*
                                                                      ~          ~ ---
264121-!E!!I l.'7
                              * ,-57.5  -n      ("2.t ,ii I ...)
5.0 te*I z**t:WIII* .........
s * ..!:.!..!...!!,
rZ
        ,.o
* O,J(NJ.SI(-                *15xro-*
                                        <n II z                                !
                                                                    ,r *I).,;., f IM0,l I      t.O "t.
* T I * * ~
* 119.1 ... ,
I IO TIM (IIIWIII)
I
                                                                                                  / IA&#xa5;l TIME-DRAWDOWN CURVE AT WELL 11 DURING PUMPfNG OF WELL 11CM                                                          SUSQUEHANNA SIES 0 S
                                            ~                                                      Q
* 1 15 IPII I* H lPIII 0
        ' 0 It r  ..!!i.l.
At' zs 16' (I 15)
* o.fi
* os
* Jt',) ... I ,r
                                              ""*  T/
                                                * ~
* t l . 0 ... / ,rl                                          0 l o
* 7.1  nt  W  u.,
* I IIIWI 0
JS I                              10                                            100                                  11100 t/1 1 RESIDUAL DRAWDOWN CURVE AT WELL 1210 FOLLOWING 348 MINUTES OF PUMPING WELL 1210 SUSQUEHANNA SES FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT I
HISTORICAL                                                                                                                          I DRAINDOWN CURVES FROM PUMPING TESTS OF OBSERVATION WELLS 1204 AND 1210 FIGURE 2.4-51, Rev 55 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_51.dwg
 
Security-Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT RIVER INTAKE STRUCTURE FIGURE 2.4-52
 
FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT RIVER DISCHARGE DIFFUSER FIGURE 2.4-53, Rev 47 AutoCAD: Figure Fsar 2_4_53.dwg
 
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG.
A-12, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 2.4-54 replaced by dwg.
A-12, Sh. 1 FIGURE 2.4-54, Rev. 57 AutoCAD Figure 2_4_54.doc
 
THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY DWG.
FF62005, Sh. 1 FSAR REV. 65 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 2.4-55 replaced by dwg.
FF62005, Sh. 1 FIGURE 2.4-55, Rev. 55 AutoCAD Figure 2_4_55.doc}}

Latest revision as of 10:04, 13 November 2024

1 to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 2, Section 2.4, Hydrologic Engineering
ML23291A377
Person / Time
Site: Susquehanna  Talen Energy icon.png
Issue date: 10/12/2023
From:
Susquehanna
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML23291A105 List: ... further results
References
PLA-8081
Download: ML23291A377 (172)
v • d • e


Text

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML23291A377&oldid=3693851"