ML062210506: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:6--.' e/.7 ý --./5-0 y,;z S-- -S-6 4 -57d.V0 '/ 2 67,6 q&td hf 0 4 0- -a related to the proposed ALVIN W.VOGTLE NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-424, 50-425, 50-426 and 50-427 MARCH 1974 UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION DIRECTORATE OF LICENSING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT RELATED TO THE PROPOSED ALVIN W. VOGTLE NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1, 2,3 AND 4 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-424, 50-425, 50-426 AND 50-427 MARCH 1974 U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION DIRECTORATE OF LICENSING wi AS10
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
 
==SUMMARY==
AND CONCLUSIONS This Final Environmental Statement was prepared by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing.
: 1. This action is administrative.
: 2. The proposed action is the issuance of a construction permit to the Georgia Power Company for the construction of the Alvin W.Vogtle Nuclear Plant, located on the Savannah River (Docket Nos.50-424, 50-425, 50-426, and 50-427). Each unit of the Vogtle Nuclear Plant will employ a pressurized water reactor to produce up to 3,425 megawatts thermal (MWt). A steam turbine-generator will use this heat to provide 1,100 MWe (net) of electrical power capacity.
A design power level of 3,579 MWt (1,159 MWe) is anticipated at a future date and is considered in the assessment contained in this statement.
The exhaust steam will be cooled by a closed-cycle cooling system employing natural-draft cooling towers and using makeup water from the Savannah River.3. Summary of environmental impact and adverse effects: a. The construction impact will affect 1,011 acres of the site, 245 acres for a railroad spur, and 12,660 acres for transmission lines. About 0.03% of the State's timber acreage will be removed by transmission-line construction.
The potential exists for severe erosion during plant construction; however, erosion can be mitigated by strict adherence to preventive and corrective techniques. (Sections 4.1 and 4.3.1)b. In June 1973, an archaeological field survey of the Vogtle plant site was conducted under supervision of the Georgia State Archaeologist.
The survey concluded that the artifacts found were not archaeologically significant and did not warrant salvage. The field survey was reviewed for the AEC by the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural Hi tory, Smithsonian Institution who concurred in the approach and conclusions. (Sections 2.3.3, 4.1.1, 11.5.1 and 11.9.1)c. The use of hyperbolic natural-draft cooling towers for dissipating waste heat will result in consumptive water use at an average rate of 14, 930 gpm per unit (14,860-gpm evaporation and 70-gpm drift) from the Savannah River. For four units, this will total about 1.3% of the river's average flow. This loss will not measurably affect present uses of the Savannah River.(Section 5.2).iii
: d. The plume from the cooling towers is not expected to add d. The plume from the cooling towers is not expected to add significantly to fogging or icing conditions in the area.(Section 3.4.4)e. Entrained organisms that enter the circulating-water systems will be killed. Under average river-flow conditions, entrain-ment losses represent about 1.7% of the river's planktonic populations.
This removal is not expected to have an adverse effect on these populations or on the organisms that feed on them. (Section 5.5.2.2)f. Liquid effluent from the plant will be discharged to the river at an average rate of about 17,140 gpm; it will consist pri-marily of main-cooling-tower blowdown at a rate of 4,000 gpm/unit.
This discharge will enter the river through a 60-ft-long section of diffuser pipe located on the ri-:ei. bottom.The thermal effects of this discharge will cause no significant impact. (Sections 3.3, 3.4 and 5.5.2.4)g. The chlorination procedure proposed by the applicant could adversely affect river organisms.
By limiting the total residual-chlorine concentration in the discharge to 0.1 ppm, this potential adverse impact will be avoided. (Sections 5.5.2.3, 6.2.4 and 9.2.5.1)h. Based on the information available, impingement on the intake-structure screens is not expected to be significant; however, the Applicant must submit for the staff's analysis sufficient aquatic survey data on the population density of anadromous fish in the vicinity of the proposed intake structure to verify the Applicant's evaluation. (Sections 4.5.2, 5.5.2.1 and 11.3.5)i. The commuting of the labor force and the transport of materials to the site may overload certain local roads during certain hours of the day. The main access road to the site, Hancock Landing Road, has been hard-surfaced as far as River Road.Other roads in the Waynesboro area may need to be improved.(Sections 4.4 and 9.3)J. Indiscriminate broadcast application of herbicide by spraying from a helicopter could result in excessive impact on the vegetation adjoining the transmission lines rights-of-way.
This potential adverse impact will be avoided by using commonly-accepted practices which limit the application of herbicide to the right-of-way in non-sensitive areas and only where this type of control is considered essential. (Sections 4.5.1 and 5.5.1.2)iv
: k. The risk associated with accidental radiation exposure is very low. (Section 7.1)1. No significant environmental impacts are anticipated from normal operational releases of radioactive materials within 50 miles. The estimated dose to the population within 50 miles from operation of the plant is 29 man-rems/year
-less than the normal fluctuations in the 71,000-man-rems/year
-background dose this population would receive and well below the limits prescribed by 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50. (Section 5.4)4. Principal alternatives considered:
.Purchase of power from outside sources.* Non-nuclear sources of energy.* Alternative sites.* Alternative cooling systems.* Alternative discharge structures.
: 5. The following Federal, State and local agencies and individuals were asked to comment on this Draft Environmental Statement:
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Department of Commerce Department of Health, Education and Welfare Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency Federal Power Commission National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution Governor, State of Georgia Governor, State of South Carolina State Clearinghouse, State of Georgia State Clearinghouse, State of South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, State of Georgia Georgia Public Service Commission Georgia Water Quality Control Board V Georgia Historical Commission Central Savannah River Area Regional Planning and Development Commission Burke County Board of Commissioners Waynesboro City Council Aguugusta Archaeology Society Augusta Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Georgia Power Project Richard C. Palmer Victor Shorapa Comments on the draft environmental statement issued in August 1973, were received from the following Federal, State and local agencies and other parties: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Health, Education and Welfare Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Interior Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency Federal Power Commission Smithsonian Institution Beaufort-Jasper County Water Authority Central Savannah River Area Regional Planning and Development Commission Georgia Public Service Commission Governor's Science Advisory Council (State of Georgia)Lower Savannah Regional Planning and Development Council South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control South Carolina Water Resources Commission Augusta Archaeology Society Georgia Department of Natural Resources Georgia Department of Transportation These comments are appended to this Final Environmental Statement in Appendix L.6. This Final Environmental Statement was made available to the public, to the Council on Environmental Quality, and to other specified agencies in March 1974.vi
: 7. On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this statement, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical and other benefits of Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, against environmental and other costs and considering available alternatives, it is concluded that the action called for under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 is the issuance of a construction permit for the facility subject to the following conditions for the protection of the environment:
: a. The plant shall be designed such that: (1) the plant discharge stream is continuously monitored for total residual chlorine concentration. (Sect. 6.2.4)(2) The total residual chlorine concentration within 5 feet of the diffuser ports will be less than 0.1 ppm when all four units are in operation. (Sects 5.5.2.3, 6.2.4 and 9.2.5.1)(3) All the cells in the intake structure will normally be used during operation of the intake pumps. (Sect. 5.5.2.1)(4) The volume of water enclosed by the 5*F isotherm will not exceed 2400 ft 3 when all four units are operating and discharging effluent at the maximum expected blowdown rate. (Sects. 3.4.3.2 and 9.2.3)b. The construction program and practices shall incorporate the following features: (1) Rate of pumpage during dewatering will be low enough to prevent siltation in Beaverdam Creek. (Sect. 4.3.2.1)(2) The Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines for the operation of retention basins will be followed in order to minimize the potential adverse effects on Beaverdam Creek as a result of erosion during construction. (Sect.4.3.2.2)(3) The retention basins will be drained between storms when the turbidity of the impounded water has decreased to acceptable levels. (Sect. 4.3.2.4)vii
: c. Prior to construction of the intake structure, the applicant shall submit the results of the aquatic monitoring programs and an evaluation of the environmental impact of the intake canal and intake structure which will satisfy the staff that impingement will not have a significant adverse effect on the adult population of resident and anadromous fish in the Savannah River.d. The applicant shall take the necessary mitigating actions, including those applicant commitments summarized in Section 4.5 (p. 4-29)of this Environmental Statement, during construction of the station and associated transmission lines to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental impacts from construction activities.
: e. A control program shall be established by the applicant to provide for a periodic review of all construction activities to assure that those activities conform to the environmental conditions set forth in the construction permit.f. Before engaging in a construction activity which may result in a significant adverse envirormental impact that was not evaluated or that is significantly greater than that evaluated in this Environmental Statement, the applicant shall provide written notification to the Director of Licensing.
: g. If unexpected harmful effects or evidence of irreversible damage are detected during facility construction, the applicant shall provide to the staff an acceptable analysis of the problem and a plan of action to eliminate or significantly reduce the harmful effects or damage.viii FOREWORD This final statement on environmental considerations associated with the proposed issuance of a construction permit for the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant was prepared by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licen.ing (staff) in accordance with the Commission's regulation, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix D, imple-menting the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).The NEPA states, among other things, that it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, pro-grams, and resources to the end that the Nation may:* Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.
* Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.
* Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environ-ment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.
Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our natural heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice." Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities." Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.
Further, with respect to major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, Section 102(2)(C)of the NEPA calls for preparation of a detailed statement on: (i) The environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, ix (iii) alt'rnatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.
Pursuant to Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50, the AEC Directorate of Licensing prepares a detailed statement on the foregoing consider-ations with respect to each application for a construction permit or full-power operating license for a nuclear power reactor.When application is made for a construction permit or a full-power operating license, the applicant submits an environmental report to the AEC. The staff evaluates this report and may seek further information from the applicant, as well as other sources, in mak-ing an independent assessment of the considerations specified in Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA and Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50.This e,,aluation leads to the publication of a draft environmental statement, prepared by the Directorate of Licensing, which is then circulated to Federal, State, and local governmental agencies for comment. Interested persons are also invited to comment on the draft statement.
After receipt and consideration of comments on the draft statement, the staff prepares a final environmental statement, which includes a discussion of questions and objections raised by the comments and the disposition thereof; a final cost-benefit analysis which considers and balances the environmental effects of the facility and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects with the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of the facility; and a conclusion as to whether, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental costs and considering available alternatives, the action called for is the issuance or denial of the proposed permit or license or its appropriate conditioning to protect environmental values.Single copies of this statement may be obtained by writing the Deputy Director for Reactor Projects, Directorate of Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. 20545. Richard J. Clark is the AEC Environmental Project Manager for this state-ment. (301-443-6980) x TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
 
==SUMMARY==
AND CONCLUSIONS
............................
iii FOREWORD ...... ............
................ix 1. INTRODUCTION.........
.................
1-1 1.1 THE PROPOSED PROJECT ..............
1-5 1.2 STATUS OF REVIEWS AND APPROVALS
...........
1-6 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1 .............................
1-7 2. THE SITE. .............2-1 2.1 PLANT LOCATION .......2-1 2.2 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY, LAND USE, AND WATER USE ...2-5 2.2.1 Regional demography
............
2-5 2.2.2 Land use .................
..2-12 2.2.3 Water use ...............
.. 2-14 2.3 HISTORIC, PALEONTOLOGICAL, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND NATURAL LANDMARKS
.............2-16 2.3.1 Historic sites ....*...........
2-16 2.3.2 Paleontological sites ........... 2-16 2.3.3 Archaeological sites ...............
2-16 2.3.4 Natural landmarks
...... .................
2-17 2.4 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY
...............
2-17 2.4.1 Geology ..................
2-17 2.4.2 Seismology
.................
2-20 2.5 HYDROLOGY...........
...............
2-21 2.5.1 Surface water .................
2-21 2.5.2 Groundwater
............2-25 2 .6 METEOROLOGY
.....................
2-26 2.7 ECOLOGY......
................
2-30 2.7.1 Terrestrial ecology ............
.. 2-30 2.7.2 Aquatic ecology ..............
2-39 2.8 RADIATION BACKGROUND
............... .2-44 2.8.1 Natural radiation background
..........
.. 2-44 2.8.2 Radiation background due to nearby nuclear facl it ises ................
2-45 REFERENCES FOR SECTION2.
.... ............
2-47 3. THE PLANT ......................
3-1 3.1 EXTERNAL A E PEARANCE ...........
3-1 3.2 REACTOR, STEAM ELECTRIC SYSTEM, AND FUEL INVENTORY
.............
.........
3-4 3.3 PLANT WATER USE.......................
...... 3-5 3.3.1 Groundwater
..............
..........
3-5 3.3.2 Surface water ..............
3-7 xi 3.4 HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEMS ...-. ........ 3-9 3.4.1 Main circulating water systems ............
3-9 3.4.2 Nuclear service cooling-water system .... 3-12 3.4.3 Thermal effluent dissipation to Savannah River ...............
3-12 3.4.4 Thermal effluent dissipation to the atmosphere
.... ...........
3-18 3.5 RADIOACTIVE WASTE ...............3-19 3.5.1 Liquid radioactive wastes .......3-19 3.5.2 Gaseous wastes .........3-25 3.5.3 Solid waste ................
3-30 3.6" CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE EFFLUENTS
......*... 3-31 3.6.1 Cooling-tower discharges
..... ...3-31 3.6.2 Demineralizer-regeneration discharge
.... 3-36 3.6.3 Other chemical discharges
.......3-37 3.7 SANITARY WASTES AND OTHER EFFLUENTS
......3-38 3.7.1 Sanitary wastes ............3-38 3.7.2 Nonradioactive gaseous wastes .....3-39 3.7.3 Nonradioactive solid wastes ......3-39 3.8 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES
............3-39 3,9 CONSTRUCTION PLAN ...............3-42 3.9.1 Schedules
...............3-42 3.9.2 Manpower ................3-42 3.10 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN .............3-43 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3 ................
3-44 4. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION AND OF PLANT AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
.. .4-1 4.1 IMPACTS ON LAND USE ................
4-1 4.1.1 Site preparation and plant construction
...... ........ .4-1 4.1.2 Transmission-line construction
..... 4-3 4.1.3 Railroad spur construction
...... 4-4 4.2 IMPACT ON WATER USE ................ 4-4 4.3 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS ................ 4-5 4.3.1 Impact on terrestrial ecosystems
.. .4-5 4.3.2 Impact on the aquatic environment
.. .4-19 4.4 EFFECTS ON THE COMMUNITY
............. 4-22 4.5 MEASURES AND CONTROLS TO LIMIT ADVERSE EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION
...... ................
4-29 4.5.1 Applicant Commitments.
............
4-29 4.5.2 Staff Evaluation
.............. 4-30 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4 ...T............
4-32 5. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF THE PLANT AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES
...........5-1 xii Page 5.1 IMPACTS ON LAND USE ................ 5-1 5.1.1 Impact from plant operation
........ 5-1 5.1.2 Impact due to transmission facilities
.o
* 5-1 5.2 IMPACTS ON WATER USE .... ........ .....5-2 5.3 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ON BIOTA OTHER THAN MAN .... 5-3 5.3.1 Exposure pathways and dose-rate estimations
................
5-3 5.3.2 Dose assessment
............. 5-7 5.4 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ON MAN .........5-7 5.4.1 Radioactive materials released in liquid effluents
......t.s..... 5-9 5.4.2 Radioactive materials released to the atmosphere
.......... ... 5-10 5.4.3 Direct radiation
.............
5-11 5.4.4 Population doses from all sources ... .. 5-11 5.4.5 Occupational Radiation Exposure.
......5-14 5.4.6 Evaluation of radiological impact .....5-14 5.5 NONRADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS ON ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS ...5-15 5.5.1 Impact on terrestrial ecosystems
...... 5-15 5.5.2 Effect on aquatic environment
....... 5-17 5.6 EFFECTS ON THE COMMUNITY
.............5-25 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5 .........
...... 5-28 6. ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS ...6-1 6.1 PREOPERATIONAL PROGRAMS 6-1 6.1.1 Radiological 6-1 6.1.2 Biological
..............
6-1 6.1.3 Thermal ...................
6-6 6.1.4 Chemical .....6-6 6.2 OPERATIONAL PROGRAMS ........6-6 6.2.1 Radiological
................
6-6 6.2.2 Biological 6-7 6.2.3 Thermal .... ... ..................
6-7 6.2.4 Chemical ....o.. ............ 6-7 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6 ...................
... 6-9 7. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS
...........
7-1 7.1 POSTULATED PLANT ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
... ............
7-1 7.2 TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
.. .............
7-5 REFERENCE FOR SECTION 7 ............. .7-7 8. THE REQUIREMENT FOR POWER .... ..........
... 8-1 8.1 THE APPLICANT'S SYSTEM AND SERVICE AREA ........ .. 8-1 xiii
 
===8.2 HISTORICAL===
 
RECORD OF ELECTRIC POWER DEMAND AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION
.......8.3 PROJECTION OF ENERGY USE AND PEAK LOADS ..8.4 PLANNED ADDITIONS TO THE APPLICANT'S SYSTEM 8.5
 
==SUMMARY==
AND CONCLUSIONS
........REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8 ..........9. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT .9.1 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES 9.1.1 Alternatives not requiring new generating capacity ......9.1.2 Energy-source options ..9.1.3 Alternative sites .......9.2 ALTERNATIVE PLANT DESIGNS .......9.2.1 Cooling systems .....9.2.2 Intake system .........9.2.3 Discharge systems ....9.2.4 Chemical system .....9.2.5 Biocide system ......9.2.6 Sanitary waste system ....9.2.7 Transmission system ....9.2.8 Transportation procedures
...9.3 ALTERNATIVES FOR MINIMIZING EFFECTS ON THE COMMUNITY
.....
 
==9.4 CONCLUSION==
S
........ .. ..REFERENCES FOR SECTION 9 .......10. CONCLUSIONS
.................
Q* ...* .* ..* ..Page 8-5 8-11 8-14 8-17 8-20 9-1 9-1 9-1 9-3 9-8 9-10 9-10 9-12 9-13 9-17 9-17 9-18 9-18 9-19 9-19 9-20 9-22 10-1 10-1 10-1 10-1 10-6 10-6 10-6 10-7 10-10 10-10 10-11 10-11 10-14 10-14 10-16 10.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 10.1.1 Abiotic impacts .........10.1.2 Biotic impacts ..........10.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
...........10.2.1 Summary ...............
10.2.2 Enhancement of productivity
....10.2.3 Uses adverse to productivity
....10.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
..... ..........
....10.3.1 Commitments considered
... .......10.3.2 Biotic resources
.........10.3.3 Material resources
........10.4 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS ..........10.4.1 Benefit description of the proposed facility ...............
.S 10.4.2 Economic transfers associated with the proposed facility ............xiv Page 10.4.3 Cost description of the proposed facility .................
10.4.4 Summary of benefit-cost balance .REFERENCES FOR SECTION 10 ..........11. DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
.... ........ ..... ..11.1 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
...........
........11.2 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
.............
11.3 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ..... ...........
11.4 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE .........
.................
11.5 DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR ..........
11.6 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
.......11.7 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ......11.8 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
.... ..........
11.9 SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
.............
11.10 GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
.11.11 SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL .............
11.12 SOUTH CAROLINA WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION.
11.13 LOWER SAVANNAH REGIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ..... .............
11.14 AUGUSTA ARCHAEOLOGY SOCIETY ............
11.15 GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
11.16 CENTRAL SAVANNAH RIVER AREA REGIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
..... 10-18*. .. 10-20* ... 10-22* ...11-1.... 11-3* ... 11-3* ...11-4 11-8.11-8... .11-12... .11-13.... 11-19....11-20....11-20... .11-21... .11-23 11-26....11-26 11-27 11-28 I I 0 *SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
...................
SB-I xv Page APPENDIX A.APPENDIX B.APPENDIX C.APPENDIX D.APPENDIX E.APPENDIX F.APPENDIX G.APPENDIX H.APPENDIX I.APPENDIX J.APPENDIX K.APPENDIX L.COMMON TREES OF THE VNP SITE. .........COMMON SHRUBS AND VINES OF THE VNP SITE ....SPECIES OF OLD-FIELD PLANTS IN A ONE-YEAR OLD-FIELD AT VNP SITE ..........AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES EXPECTED TO BE FOUND ON THE VNP SITE ..........
* ..BIRDS EXPECTED TO BE FOUND ON THE VNP SITE ...MAMMALS EXPECTED TO BE FOUND ON THE VNP SITE .............PHYTOPLANKTON IN THE SAVANNAH RIVER NEAR VNP SITE ...............
PROTOZOA IN THE SAVANNAH RIVER NEAR VNP SITE .............MACROINVERTEBRATES IN SAVANNAH RIVER NEAR VNP SITE ...o .......* .....A-i B-I C-i D-1 E-i F-i G-1 H-i I-i J-1 K-i L-1 FISHES IN THE SAVANNAH RIVER NEAR VNP SITE ...ESTIMATES OF TIMBER: VOGTLE NUCLEAR PLANT SITE AND TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDORS
..........
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
.... ............
..........
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation..
Department of Agriculture.
..........
Department of Commerce ...........Department of Health, Education and Welfare.Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Department of the Interior .........Department of Transportation
........Environmental Protection Agency ...........
Federal Power Commission
..........National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute
........Georgia Public Service Commission.
.....Governors Science Advisory Council, State of Georgia .............State Clearinghouse, State of South Carolina L-1 L-2 L-5 L-10 L-11 L-14 L-21 L-23 L-4 2 L-4 7 L-48 L-50 L-51 xvi Page South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control .........
...... L-52 South Carolina Water Resources Commission
... ........ ..L-54 Lower Savannah Regional Planning and Development Council .....* * ...........L-58 Beaufort -Jasper County Water Authority.
........L-59 Augusta Archaeological Society. ...............
L-60 State Clearinghouse, State of Georgia ..........
.L-66 Georgia Department of Natural Resources
......... .L-66 Georgia Department of Transportation
.... .............
L-68 Central Savannah River Area Regional Planning and Development Commission.
...............
L-70 xvii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. 1.Page Federal Power Commission's Southeast Regional Advisory Committee
.1-2.................1.2. The Southern Company System and ts power-producing affiliates
...........
..................
 
===1.3. Georgia===
Power Company service area and its divisions
.....................2.1. Area within 50 miles of Vogtle Nuclear Plant .....2.2. Area within 5 miles of Vogtle Nuclear Plant .....2.3. Burke County and the Savannah River Plant ......2.4. Area within the Vogtle Nuclear Plant site boundary .................
........................
 
===2.5. Population===
 
changes for Georgia Counties during the period 1960-1970
...........
..................
 
===2.6. Population===
 
distribution in Georgia in 1970 .........2.7. The Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission (CSRA) ............
 
===2.8. Indian===
artifacts (potsherds) from Vogtle Nuclear Plant site (from surface of ground near proposed site of intake and discharge structures and barge slip) ....................2.9. Physiographic map of Georgia ..............
2.10. The Savannah River Basin ....... .................
2.11. Annual wind rose observed at the Savannah River Plant, March 1966-February 1968 ...........
2.12. Vegetation of the Vogtle Nuclear Plant site .....1-3 1-4 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-18 2-19 2-22 2-29 2-37 2.13. Number of species of algae and protozoa collected during low flow at river mile 149 ........2-42 xviii Figure Page 3.1. An artist's concept of Vogtle Nuclear Plant ..... 3-2 3.2. Vogtle site plot plan .................
3-3 3.3. A schematic representation of the main features of VNP's cooling and discharge systems .........3-6 3.4. Vogtle Nuclear Plant intake structure
........ 3-8 3.5. Vogtle Nuclear Plant discharge structure
............
3-10 3.6. Cross-section of maximum expected extent of 5 F 0 isotherm ................
...........
.3-16 3.7. Liquid radioactive waste systems for Vogtle Nuclear Plant ...................
............
3-21 3.8. Gaseous radioactive waste systems for Vogtle Nuclear Plant .....................
..........
3-27 3.9. Approximate routes of transmission lines required for Vogtle Nuclear Plant. ..............3-41 3.10. Existing 230-kV transmission line towers at the Vogtle site .......0 .............3-42 4.1. An example of erosion at the Vogtle site resulting from road construction
.....o ..........4-6 4.2. Effects of deforestation on ecosystem processes in Watershed Number 2 in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest ....................
.... .............
.. 4-13 4.3. Local payroll, new residents in Burke and Richmond Counties, and taxable evaluation during construction
.4-23 5.1. Generalized exposure pathways for organisms other than man .......................5-4 5.2. Generalized exposure pathways to man .........5-8 5.3. Summary of residual-chlorine toxicity data ...... 5-20 6.1. Aquatic-studies stations on the Savannah River ....6-5 xix Figure Page 8.1. Distribution of power stations (and their capacities) and power service areas in Georgia that are not operated or served by the Georgia Power Company ...8-2 8.2. Distribution of Georgia Power Company power stations ............
.......................
... 8-3 8.3. Monthly peak power demands ..............
.8-6 8.4. Georgia Power Company divisional annual sales .... 8-8 8.5. Historical growth in peak power demand.. ....... .... 8-9 8.6. Historical growth in annual electrical energy demand ..............
........................
... 8-10 8.7. Predicted peak power demands for several service areas ...............
........................
... 8-12 8.8. Predicted annual electrical energy demand for several regions ....................
8-13 8.9. Comparison of predicted power demand values for Georgia Power Company service area .... ..........
... 8-15 8.10. Sites of planned power plants in Georgia for the period 1972-1985
........ ...................
.... 8-16 8.11. Power-producing capacity planned by Georgia Power Company ................
....................
8-19 9.1. Thermal plumes from surface discharges from Vogtle Nuclear Plant into the Savannah River ... ........ ... 9-15 9.2. Thermal plume, subsurface discharge from Vogtle Nuclear Plant into Savannah River water ....... 9-16 xx LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1.1. Federal and State environmentally related authorizations required for the construction and operation of Vogtle Nuclear Plant ....... 1-6 2.1. Agricultural survey of Burke County ........ .. .2-13 2.2. Total number of vessel trips on the Savannah River below Augusta, 1958-1969
... ...........
..2-15 2.3. Chemical composition of Savannah River water .... 2-21 2.4. Savannah River hydrology.
..............
..2-24 2.5. Representative chemical compositions of well water from the Tuscaloosa aquifer ............2-26 2.6. Climatology, Bush Field Weather Station near Augusta .................
............ .. .2-27 2.7. Summary of the preferred habitats and foods of 136 vertebrate species commonly occurring in the area of the site ... .............
.2-38 3.1. Acreage occupied by plant facilities
........3-4 3.2. Staff's calculation of the 5 F* mixing zone under several discharge conditions
............
3-17 3.3. Principal assumptions used in calculating releases of radioactive effluents
.. .........
..3-24 3.4. Calculated releases of radioactive materials in liquid effluents from Alvin W. Vogtle Plant ....3-25 3.5. Calculated annual release of radioactive material in gaseous effluent from Alvin W. Vogtle Plant (per unit) ....... ..................
...3-26 3.6. Chemicals and wastes in the cooling water discharge to the Savannah River from the Alvin W. Vogtle.Nuclear Plant ....................
3-32 xxi Table 3.7. Concentrations of chemicals and wastes from the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant ..... ..........
 
===3.8. Construction===
 
force for the Vogtle Nuclear Plant ......................
.......................
4.1 Acreages, mileage, and right-of-way widths for VNP transmission lines .............4.2. Summary of the acreage of the various community types of the VNP site ............4.3. Transmission line rights-of-way required for Vogtle Nuclear Plant ....... ......4.4. Estimated sawtimber and growing stock losses by volume for transmission line rights-of-way
....4.5. Estimated timber growth and removal per year (1971) for transmission line rights-of-way
.....4.6. Taxable evaluations in Burke County .....4.7. Taxes and tax rate in Burke County in 1972 ....5.1. Freshwater bioaccumulation factors ......5.2. Annual individual doses from liquid effluents
...5.3. Annual individual doses due to the gaseous effluents
...................5.4. Cumulative population, avcrage annual cumulative dose, and average annual total-body dose in selected annuli about the plant ............5.5. Environmental impact of transportation of fuel and waste to and from a typical light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor ..........5.6. Estimated 1977 annual population doses .....5.7. Estimated taxes and tax rates .........7.1. Classification of postulated accidents and occurrences
....................Page 3-33 3-42a 4-1 4-11 4-16 4-18 4-18 4-27 4-27 5-5 5-9 5-10 5-11 5-13 5-13 5-27 7-2 xxii Table Page 7.2. Summary of radiological consequences of postulated accidents
..........
.....................
...7-3 7.3. Environmental impact of accidents during transportation of fuel and waste to and from the Vogtle Nuclear Plant ...........
..7-5 8.1. Power-producing capacity of the Georgia Power Company in 1972 ...............
..........8-4 8.2. Peak power demand of urban load centers in 1970 .............
........................
...8-7 8.3. Distribution of electrical energy by class of use (1970) ....................
8-7 8.4. Additional power-producing capacity planned between 1972 and 1985 by Georgia Power I Company ....................
............8-18 9.1. Estimated capital and operating costs for a nuclear-, coal-, or oil-power plant consisting of four 1,159-MWe units .. ........... 9-4 10.1. Unavoidable environmental impacts .........10-2 10.2. Estimated resources required to support the Vogtle Nuclear Plant (four units) for 40 years at 80% capacity .... ...............
...10-13 10.3. Irretrievable materials contained in fuel and control rods expended in the Vogtle Nuclear Plant (four units) in 40 years ...........
..10-14 10.4. Benefits from the proposed facility ........ ..10-15 10.5. Economic transfers associated with the proposed facility .........
......................
.. .10-17 10.6. Costs of the proposed facility .... ............
.10-20 xxiii
: 1. INTRODUCTION The applicant, Georgia Power Company, has applied for a construc-tion permit for the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, to be located in east-central Georgia, on the southwestern bank of the Savannah River, about 26 air miles south-southeast of Augusta, Georgia.Georgia Power Company (GPC) is a public utility incorporated under the laws of the State of Georgia and is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Southern Company System, a utility holding company which makes up one of the four power pools in the Federal Power Commis-sion's Southeast Regional Advisory Committee (Fig. 1.1). The Southern Company System (Fig. 1.2) is composed of six affiliates:
Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, Southern Electric Generating Company (which operates the Gaston Steam Plant, jointly owned by Alabama Power Company ;;nd Georgia Power Company), and Southern Services, Inc. (the engineering and operating service company for the Southern Company Systems).
The 57,000-square-mile service area of Georgia Power Company includes about 97% of the state's land area and 154 of its 159 counties (Fig. 1.3).The future need for power in GPC's service area is discussed in detail in Sect. 8. The staff has concluded that the power generated by Vogtle Nuclear Plant (VNP) will be required to meet the service area demands, with adequate reserves, by the time this plant is completed.
The objective of this Environmental Statement is to present an independent assessment of the impact of this proposed nuclear plant on the environment, in accordance with the National Envi-ronmental Policy Act of 1969 and as set forth in Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 of the Commission's regulations.
Major documents prepared by the applicant and used by the staff in this assess-ment were the applicant's Environmental Report and amendments thereto, 1 the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and amendments thareto, 2 and the License Application.
3 Material submitted by the applicant in support of the application, the environmental report and supplements, and other pertinent non-proprietary docu-ments, are available at the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and in the local public document room in the Burke County Library, Waynesboro, Georgia.Independent calculations and sources of information were also used as a basis for the staff's assessment of environmental impact. In addition, information concerning the Vogtle Nuclear Plant, the site, and its environs was obtained directly by the Commission's repre-sentatives responsible for this assessment during a site visit in March 1973.1-1 1-2 GULF OF MEXICO-POWER POOL AREAS as 0 0 Soo ISO SCALE IN MILES Fig. 1.1. Federal Power Commission's Southeast ReFional Advisory Committee.
G E 0 R G I A VOGTLE ALABAMA t A L A AM ANUCLEAR PLANT GASTON OSTEAM 'PLANT -GEORGIA POWER ALABAMA POWER COMPANY COMPANY ,<I 0 0 9L0% GULF POWER .-S COMPANY...................)L%GULF OF MEXICO Fig. 1.2. The Southern Company System and its power-producing affiliates.
1-4 51410"me Urft..,,.Fig. 1.3. Georgia Power Company service area and its divisions.
1-5 As part of its safety evaluation leading to the issuance of a construction permit, the staff makes a-detailed evaluation of (1) the applicant's plans and facilities for controlling the release of radioactive materials under both normal-operating and potential-accident conditions, within the plant and (2) the potential radiation exposure that might be received by plant workers. Inasmuch as these aspects are fully considered in other documents, only the salient features that bear directly on possible radiation doses to members of the public are repeated here.1.1 THE PROPOSED PROJECT The application of Georgia Power Company for a construction permit for Vogtle Nuclear Plant was docketed on February 13, 1973, at which time the applicant's Environmental Report and Preliminary Safety Analysis Report were also accepted.
The four Westinghouse pressurized-water reactors planned for VNP were assigned Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, 50-426, and 50-427. Each unit will have an initial output of 3,425 MWt and 1,100 MWe. Ultimate output from each unit will be 3,579 MWt and 1,159 MWe, and the staff's assess-ment of the effects of plant operation was based on these outputs.Large, hyperbolic, natural-draft cooling towers will be used to dissipate most of the waste heat to the atmosphere.
The physical facilities are further described in Sect. 3.The Vogtle Nuclear Plant will be located on a 3,177-acre site whose exact location and characteristics are described in detail in Sect. 2. Acquisition of the land began in late 1971 and was completed in early 1972. Aside from the construction of a meteor-ological tower (completed in early 1972) and the drilling of test wells and boreholes to obtain hydrologic and geologic information, no construction activities directly related to the Vogtle Nuclear Plant are planned until a construction permit is issued. However, construction activities related to the on-site Vogtle combustion turbine units, including construction of an all-weather, hard-surfaced road, are in progress or have recently been completed.
The total plant and initial core costs have been estimated by the applicant as $2,362,700,000 for all four units.3 Earliest completion dates for Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 are estimated by the applicant to be October 1979, October 1980, October 1981, and October 1982, respectively.
3 Latest completion dates are esti-mated to be Avril 1981, April 1982, April 1983, and April 1984, respectively.
1-6 1.2 STATUS OF REVIEWS AND APPROVALS Table 1.1 lists most of the environmentally related applications that must be filed by the applicant to obtain construction and operating permits and licenses from State and Federal governing bodies or agencies.
A license to operate each unit must be ob-tained from the Atomic Energy Commission before operation of that unit. At present, no permits or approvals are required from local governing bodies or agencies.Table I.A. Federal and State environmentally related authorizations required for the ,onstruction and operation or Vogtle Nuclear Plant Agency License, permit, or approval required Status Atomic Energy Commission Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army)Department of Transportation Federal Construction permit Operating license Construction perm intake and discharge structures
...w barge slips Permits to discharge liquid wastes Permits for transmission lines to cross navigable rivers Federal Aviation Administration requirements for aeronautical navigational lighting on cooling towers Coast Guard requirements for marine navigational lighting on structures on river bank State Construction permits for Intake and discharge structures, barge slip. and sewage treatment plant Approval of potable water supply Permit to discharge liquid wastes Permit to operate start-up boilers Building fire safety requirements Permits for transmission lines to cross highways and railroads Filed August 1972 Future Fulure Future Fulure Future Future Georgia Environmental Protection Division Future Future Future Future Future Georgia Fire Marshal Georgia Department of Transportation
*A water quality certificate pursuant to Section 401 Water Pollution Control Act dated February 14, 1974, obtained from the Environmental Protection Division, Natural Resources, State of Georgia.of the Federal has been Department of 1-7 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1 1. Georgia Power Company, Alvin W. VogtZe Nuclear Plant &hviron-mental Report, vol. I, Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, 50-426, and 50-427, issued February 1973, and including Amendment No. 1, issued May 1973.Hereafter in this Environmental Statement, the applicant's Environmental Report will be cited as ER. The citations will appear in the body of the text and will be enclosed in paren-theses. The ER will be followed by a specific volume, section, page, figure, table, appendix, or supplement number, e.g., (ER, vol. 1, pp. 5.4-2-5.4-5).
: 2. Georgia Power Company, Prelirinary Safety Analysis Report, Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, February 1973, including Amend-ment No. 1 (April 1973), Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, 50-426, and 50-427.Hereafter in this Environmental Statement, the applicant's Preliminary Safety Analysis Report will be cited as PSAR. The citations will appear in the body of the text and will be enclosed in parentheses.
The PSAR will be followed by a specific volume, section, page, figure, table, appendix, or supplement number, e.g., (PSAR, vol. 1, pp. 5.4-2-5.4-5).
: 3. Georgia Power Company, Alvin W. VogtZe Nuclear Plant, License Application, vol. I, issued February 1973.
: 2. THE SITE 2.1 PLANT LOCATION Georgia Power Company plans to build the Vogtle Nuclear Plant in Burke County, Georgia. This cour.ty is at the eastern boundary of Georgia approximately 150 air miles east-southeast of Atlanta.The 3,177-acre site is located on the southwest side of the Savannah River at approximately river mile 151 across from the AEC's Savannah River Plant (SRP). Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show the relationship of the site to the surrounding area, with maximum radii of 50 and 5 miles, respectively.
It is approximately 15 air miles east-northeast of Waynesboro, Georgia (1970 population, 5,530), and approximately 26 air miles south-southeast of Augusta, Georgia (1970 population, 59,864), at latitude 330 08' 31" and longitude 810 45' 53".1 The area is part of the Coastal Plain Province with elevations generally 150 to 250 ft above mean sea level (MSL). However, there are some low rolling hills with top elevations of 260 to 280 ft MSL at the site. Average Savannalh River elevation at the site is about 84 ft MSL.The nearest airport with scheduled passenger service is Augusta's Bush Field, about 19 air miles north-northwest of the plant. Served by three airlines, it has approximately 60 arrivals and departures each day. Smaller airports are located near Waynesboro, Millhaven, and Rowan, about 17 miles west-southwest, south-southeast, and southeast of the plant, respectively (Fig. 2.3). The air space over the Savannah River Plant is restricted; consequently, traffic which would normally fly over SRP is directed around it. There is a Federal IFR (instrument flight rules) airway, Victor 185, pre-sently established on a direct course between Augusta and Savannah, the centerline of which passes about three miles southwest of the site. The airway extends four miles on either side of the center-line. The peak day IFR traffic count for 1972 reported that 36 aircraft operated on the Victor 185 airway.2 Air traffic control regulations for this airway prescribe a minimum enroute altitude of 2200 ft AMSL (above mean sea level), well above the tops of the cooling towers (about 770 ft AMSL) and above the projected height of potential fog plumes. FAA estimates that approximately 20 aircraft operate daily between Augusta and Savannah on VFR (visual flight rules) and it can be assumed that such aircraft may utilize the Savannah River for course guidance.
However, aircraft operating VFR should be more than 500 feet above the surface and, under VFR 2-1
*JINTERSTATE ROUTE v US ROUTE (.STATF ROUTE 4AIRPORY-.-- V, t'3 Fig. 2.1. Area within 50 miles of Vogtle Nuclear Plant.
Mr. Fig. 2.2. Area within 5 miles of Vogtle Nuclear Plant.
/ -.,--"-.'- -*A..... -.: PRODUCI ON PLANT]. .........
igo,. AI, F 3o a S Lvan RPARATIver A nE .Fig. 2.3. Burke County and the Savannah River Plant.
2-5 regulations, should not be flying under conditions such that the pilot would not be able to see the cooling towers in time to adjust his flight path as necessary to avoid the towers and any fog plume.The closest railroad, located across the Savannah River in South Carolina, parallels the river and passes within about 5 miles of the VNP (see Fig. 2.3). The closest railroad in Georgia passes about 12 air miles west of the site. A 14-mile connecting rail spur (requiring approximately 245 acres) is to be built to trans-port materials and equipment to the site. It will connect with the main line about 8 railroad miles north of Waynesboro.
Georgia State Highway 23, about 5 air miles south-southwest is the nearest road on which there is appreciable commercial truck traffic. There is commercial traffic on the Savannah River composed mainly of tug-drawn barges using the river between Savannah and Augusta.The exclusion area for the plant will be the site boundary (Fig.2.4). The exclusion area is defined in 10 CFR Part 100 as "that area surrounding the reactor, in which the reactor licensee has the authority to determine all activities including exclusion or removal of personnel and property from the area. This area may be traversed by a highway, railroad, or waterway, provided these are not so close to the facility as to interfere with normal oper-ations of the facility and provided appropriate and effective arrangements are made to control traffic on the highway, railroad, or waterway, in case of emergency, to protect the public health and safety. Residence within the exclusion area shall normally be prohibited.
In any event, residents shall be subject to ready removal in case of necessity.
Activities unrelated to operation of the reactor may be permitted in an exclusion area under appro-priate limitations, provided that no significant hazards to the public health~ and safety will result." The minimum distance from a reactor to the site boundary is 3,600 ft from Unit 1 to the river.Unit 3 will be the closest to an on-land boundary, the distance being 5,000 ft.2.2 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY, LAND USE, AND WATER USE 2.2.1 Regional demography Census Bureau information 3'4 shows that Georgia grew at a faster ratd than the United States (16.4 vs 13.3%) between 1960 and 1970.With the exception of the past decade and the period between 1930 and 19L0 (when the Georgia increase was 0.1% above that for the U.S.),
D&* tSo~M. .g... .... ... ..... ..,.. _sf 4 '1-.... ,. -Fig. 2.4. Area within the Vogtle Nuclear Plant site boundary.One-mile radius from center of nuclear complex also indicated.
2-7 LEGEND CHATTANOOGA PLACES OF 100,000 OR MORE INHABITANTS
* PLACES OF 50,000 TO 100,000 INHABITANTS 777 7 PLACES OF 25,000 TO 50,000 INHABITANTS V, OUTSIDE SMSA'S PERCENT CHANGE.13.3 OR MORE 0 TO -9.9 0 TO.I 3.2 -10 OR MORE/ STANDARO METROPOLITAN AT STATISTICAL AREAS (SMSA'S) VOGTLE NUCLEAR' PLANT Fig. 2.5. Population changes for Georgia Counties during the period 1960-1970.
Source: 1970 Census of' Population an~d H~ousing, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, PHC(2)-12, July 1971, p. 2.
0O 09 to 0 oa a 10 N t. cr 0 OQ 0'a -J 2-9 Fig. 2.7. The Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission (CSRA).
2-10 the Georgia increases since 1900 have lagged by about 4% or more.In general, except for metropolitan areas and the coastal counties, most counties in central and southern Georgia lost population in the decade 1960-1970 (see Fig. 2.5). The population distribution in Georgia, based on the 1970 census, is shown in Fig. 2.6. Popula-tion projections to 2017, within a 60-mile radius of VNP, are pre-sented in the Environmental Report (ER, vol. I, Sect. 2.2).Burke County is part of the 13-county Central Savannah River Area (CSRA) (Fig. 2.7) which has metropolitan Augusta as its "hub." The CSRA includes about 9% of the state's area but only about 6.5%of its population.
The population of this region increased 11.1%between 1960 and 1970 compared with 16.4% for the entire state.This increase was due almost entirely to the influence of Augusta since Richmond County and Columbia and McDuffie Counties adjacent to Augusta showed large increases (19.8, 66.3, and 21.0%, respec-tively), whereas all the other, more rural, counties (with the ex-ception of Emanuel County which had a modest 2.1% increase) showed decreases ranging from 0.6 to 28.1%.In the periods 1950-1960 and 1960-1970, Burke County decreased in population by 12.0 and 11.4%, respectively.
This is believed to be due to the migration of rural workers into metropolitan areas seeking jobs. The influx of Vogtle construction workers is ex-pected to only temporarily reverse the Burke County trend, since, when the plant is completed, only about 150 operators will be re-quired for the four units. A study performed for the applicant by graduate students at the Georgia Institute of Technology (ER, vol.II, Appendix A, p. A24) projected that 70% of the construction workers and 80% of the operating staff would likely reside in Rich-mond County based on the current availability of housing, shopping facilities, community services and recreational opportunities.
Many of the construction workers may choose to live in mobile homes.During the site visit in March 1973, the staff noted that a new trailer court was being constructed between Waynesboro and the plant site. While additional trailer courts are likely to be developed in Burke County, the above study indicated that many of the con-struction workers might prefer the older, established mobile home parks in Richmond County since they provide more services and extras such as swimming pools and community club houses. In March 1973, the staff met with the Waynesboro City Council, the Burke County Board of Commissioners, the Burke County Development Authority, local businessmen and residents of the area. Based on their recent success in attracting several new industries into the area, the discussions 2-11 on proposed services, the reduced commuting time and the attractions offered by living in the Waynesboro area, it is the staff's opinion that housing and governmental services will be available as the need arises and that a majority of the approximately 150 people on the operating staff will choose to live in Burke County.Figure 2.1 shows that the 50-mile radius includes all of the Augusta Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (1970 population, 253,460).
Augusta is also a "population center" (1970 population, 59,864) as defined in 10 CFR Part 100. In addition, there are four cities of 10,000 or more within the 50-mile radius. These are Ft. Gordon, Ga. (1970 population, 15,589), North Augusta, S.C.(1970 population, 12,883), Aiken, S.C. (1970 population, 13,436), and Statesboro, Ga. (1970 population, 14,616).Cities of interest beyond the 50-mile radius include Atlanta (150 air miles west-northwest, 1970 population, 496,973), Athens (108 air miles northwest, 1970 population, 44,342), Macon, (106 air miles west-southwest, 1970 population 122,423), Savannah (86 air miles south-southeast, 1970 population, 118,349), and Columbia, S.C. (70 air miles northeast, 1970 population, 113,542).The area surrounding the site is sparsely populated.
The nearest occupied house is about 3 air miles southeast of the center of the containment for Unit 1. There are four churches within a 5-mile radius. The closest, Ebeneezer Church, is 1.7 miles south-southwest.
There are approximately 230 permanent r.isidents within a 5-mile radius, and Girard, Georgia (1970 population, 241), 8 air miles south-southeast, is the only town within a 10-mile radius. There are no public or private schools, hospitals, commercial plants, sports facilities, residential areas, parks, or recreation areas within a 5-mile radius.The nearest school is Girard Elementary, which has a sLudent body of about 300 and a staff of 12. The Sardis-Girard-Alexander (SGA)High School (in Sardis, Georgia -13 air miles south of the site)has a student body of about 400 and a staff of 20. It also has a gymnasium that is the nearest sports facility.
The total public school enrollment in Burke County is approximai.ly 4,500. The entire system is operated by the Burke County Board of Education.
All schools are operating below capacity, with the exception of Girard and Palmer Elementary schools (ER, vol. II, Appendix A, p. A52).5 There are two private schools in Burke County, one in Waynesboro (649 enrolled) and one 10 miles northwest of Waynesboro (183 enrolled).
6 2-12 There are five medical care facilities in Burke County, four in Waynesboro, and one in Keysville.
The facilities in Waynesboro include the Burke.County Hospital (56 beds, 60% occupancy rate), the Pine Intermediate Care Home (29 beds, 100% occupancy rate), the new Andress Nursing Home (100 beds, 40% occupancy rate), and the Thompson Hospital, Inc., for alcoholics.
The nursing home in Keysville has 85 beds and a 100% occupancy rate.Across the river from the site are the facilities of the AEC's 315-square-mile Savannah River Plant. Within the area are a nuclear reactor-fuel preparation plant, three operational reac-tors, two fuel-separation plants, and a facility for producing heavy water (see Fig. 2.3). The closest facility is the heavy water plant (approximately 4 miles north-northeast from the center of containment for Unit 1). The closest operating reactor is about 7 miles northeast.
There are two additional nuclear facilities nearby in South Carolina.
These are the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant (17 air miles east-northeast) and Chem-Nuclear Services, Inc. (18 air miles east-northeast).
2.2.2 Land use Burke County, the second largest county in Georgia (831 square miles), is located in the coastal plains section of a region of the country generally described as the Southeastern uplands. The soils in this region are of the red-yellow Podzolic group, predom-inantly acid in reaction and low in organic matter and plant nu-trients.7 Burke County has soils which are grouped into 18 soil association areas. However, soils at the site fall into just two categories, area number 12 (Lakeland-Fuquay-Lucy) and area number 15 (Wehadkee-Swamp), which are further discussed in Sect. 2.7.1.1.Several of the soil types occurring in this region, even though currently under relatively intensive cultivation, are better suited for uses such as pasture grasses and pine plantations.
Such uses minimize erosion problems and reduce nutrient losses by leaching.At the site, approximately 379 acres were in cultivation at the time of purchase, the crops being soybeans, peanuts, and corn. Except for two small ponds, the rest of the land was in timber. Approxi-mately 300 acres of the timber consisted of slash pine and was cleared by the prior owner.Approximately 30% of the land within a 5-mile radius from the site is farmed, the rest being wooded. The main cash crops are soybeans, corn, cotton, peanuts, and cultivated slash pine. Although there 2-13 are no dairies within the 5-mile radius, there are two dairy herds 6 air miles away. One is south-southeast and the other is south-east of the plant. An agricultural survey of Burke County is pre-sented in Table 2.1.8 Table 2.1. Agricultural survey of Burke County Number of farms 553 Grade A dairy farms 18 Head of dairy cattle 1,800 Head of beef cattle 22,000 Head of swine 12.750 Acres of cropland 155,000 Acres of pasture land 20,000 Acres of farm woodlands 110,000 Acreage alloted to crops Soybeans 60,000 Colton 28.000 Corn 25.000 Peanuts 6,500 Wheat 5,000 Orchard crops 2,000 Vegetable crops 1,000 Source: Letter from William H. Craven, Jr., Burke County Agricultural Agent, to R. A. Gilbert, Nov. 13, 1972.Other special facilities near the site are a U.S. fish hatchery, about 20 miles southwest near Millen in Jenkins County, and the country's first National Environmental Research Park (NERP). The latter facility includes all of the Savannah River Plant exclusive of the fenced-in production and manufacturing areas, thus making SRP lands available to others than AEC for environmental research.Examples of such studies would be the effects of thermal and radio-logical effluents on aquatic and terrestrial biota.Burke County contains four comparatively large manufacturing plants, all located in Waynesboro:
9 Keller Industries (aluminum chairs)employment 963; Samson's Manufacturing (curtains and drapes) em-ployment 250; Burke Manufacturing (jackets and swimwear) employ-ment 198; and Perfection Division, Hupp Corporation (room heaters)employment 168.
2-14 Within 50 miles of the site, Richmond County, Ga., and Aiken County, S.C., are the most industrialized, containing 137 plants employin2 29,000. The Savannah River Plant employs approximately 5,800.2.2.3 Water use Water for plant use will be obtained from the Savannah River and from wells. Intake and discharge structures will be built on the river bank. Downriver from the site only two public water systems utilize river water. The Beaufort-Jasper Water Authority draws water from the river 112 miles downstream and furnishes water for most of Beaufort County, Soutf Carolina (1970 population, 51,136).In addition, Savannah, Georgia (1970 population, 118,349), at the mouth, uses river water to supplement its domestic wells. However, if extensive water removal from the underground aquifer continues or increases at Savannah with resultant saltwater intrusion, the city may have to use more river water in the future.The Savannah River is used for commercial traffic composed primarily of tug-drawn barges operating between Augusta and Savannah.
Approx-imately 66,000 short tons of cargo was shipped by barge in 1971 (ER, vol. I, p. 2.2-6). The yearly number of vessel trips for 1958-1969 is shown in Table 2.2. The Corps of Engineers currently maintains a channel depth of 9 ft in the river by checking the bottom contours quarterly and dredging yearly, unless there is an emergency.
How-ever, long-range plans of the Corps call for a dam about 27 miles downstream from the plant at Johnson's Landing to add to the facil-ities necessary to provide a future channel depth of 12 ft. The river is also normally used recreationally for water skiing and fishing.Commercial fisheries are in operation on the river. An American shad fishery is located along the lower 40 miles of the Savannah (approximately 110 river miles below the site). In addition, a commercial fishery for channel catfish is in operation in the river near the site. No catch records are available for the latter.Other nuclear facilities which are currently or will ultimately be discharging into the Savannah River are the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant (BNFP), the Savannah River Plant (SRP), and the Oconee Nuclear Generating Station on Lake Keowee, South Carolina, about 125 miles northwest of the site. Radioactive discharges to the Savannah River from these facilities are discussed in Sect. 2.8.
2-15 Table 2.2. Total number of vessel trips on the Savannah River below Augusta, 1958-1969 Number of Year trips 1958 422 1959 384 1960 362 1961 315 1962 559 1963 388 1964 233 1965 315 1966 316 1967 412 1968 497 1969 518 Source: Georgia Statistical Abstract 1972. p. 258.Liquid discharges from the SRP into the Savannah River are of additional interest since at times their temperatures are sig-nificantly above ambient river water temperature.
The SRP cur-rently discharges into the Savannah River through five streams (see Fig. 2.3). The reactor facilities are the primary sources of the thermal effluents.
The significant SRP thermal discharges with respect to possible interaction with VNP discharges are those which reach the Savannah River by way of Fourmile Branch Creek;other thermal discharges from SRP are about 10 or more miles down-stream. When Fourmile Branch enters the swampy area about 1 mile from the river, it splits into several smaller creeks. Some of these go almost directly to the river but others meander through the swampy area for a considerable distance before joining the river at a point about 4 miles downstream from where the first ones entered the river. The applicant has indicated that there are three major creeks which handle most of the discharge from Fourmile Branch; upper Fourmile Creek, middle Fourmile Creek, and lower Fourmile Creek, which empty into the Savannah River about 1.4 miles upstream, 0.4 miles downstream, and 3 miles downstream, respectively, from VNP's liquid discharge point (ER, vol. I, p.2.5-1). Measurements near the mouths of upper and middle Fourmile Creeks, over a 1-year period, gave temperatures up to 10*C above those measured near other tributaries of the Savannah River (ER, 2-16 vol. I, p. 2.5-5). Therefore, it is only these two discharges from SRP which are of possible importance with regard to potential interaction with the VNP liquid discharges.
However, no information is available concerning the rates of discharge from these creeks to the river.Local well water use is minimal, with the closest well being about 1.5 miles west of the center of the reactor complex.1 0 2.3 HISTORIC, PALEONTOLOGICAL, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND NATURAL LANDMARKS 2.3.1 Historic sites The closest sites listed in the National Register of Historic PlacesIl are the Birdsville Plantation near Millen in Jenkins County (26 miles southwest of the site) and five National Historic Places and two National Historic Landmarks in Augusta. The Waynesboro Historic Museum is the nearest historical site recognized by the Georgia Historical Commission.
This museum commemorates the early history of Burke County. Shell Bluff Landing, site of the original grave of Dr. Lyman Hall, one of the Georgia signers of the Declaration of Independence, is located 7 air miles north-northwest of the site.It was important during the era of steamboat river traffic and was fortified during the Civil War. Silver Bluff, approximately 15 miles northwest of the site, is thought to be near the location where, in 1540, Hernando de Soto crossed the Savannah River from Georgia to South Carolina.
It was also the site of a trading post in the middle 1700's.2.3.2 Paleontological sites Shell Bluff Landing also has paleontological significance.
It is the site of a large bed of fossils of the giant oyster Crzssostrea gigantissima, formed during the Eocene Age when the Atlantic Ocean covered the Georgia Coastal Plain. These deposits also occur at other sites along the river, such as at Griffin's Landing, approx-imately 4 miles downriver from VNP.1 2 2.3.3 Archaeological sites One area of archaeological significance near VNP is the site of a former Indian village that lies between the town of Shell Bluff and Boggy Gut Creek and is approximately 7.5 air miles west-northwest 2-17 from the plant (ER, vol. I, p. 2.3-1). Indian presence at the site itself was clearly evident since pieces of pottery and other arti-facts were easily found by the staff during the site visit (see Fig.2.8) at locations near the proposed construction areas for the in-take and discharge structures, and barge slip.The site was visited in late March 1973 by the Georgia State Archae-ologist.12a A preliminary evaluation of the archaeological resources within the plant boundaries located three archaeological sites that appeared "to be Late Archaic to Middle Woodland in time, but which perhaps have pre-pottery Archaic occupations on them. These sites are quite extensive and were rather intensively occupied as indi-cated by the abundance of flint chips and broken pottery on the surface.t'12a The applicant has funded a survey of the site by the State Archaeilogist which was started in June 1973 to locate and map the existing erchaeological resources.
 
====2.3.4 Natural====
landmarks Although there are no natural landmarks (as listed in the National Registry of Natural Landmarks) close to the Vogtle site, and none at all in South Carolina, there are two such landmarks in Georgia.These are the Marshall Forest, Floyd County (near Rome), and Wassaw Island Chatham County, 14 miles south of Savannah in the Atlantic Ocean.1 3 2.4 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY
 
====2.4.1 Geology====
A physiographic map of Georgia is presented in Fig. 2.9. The site lies in the Georgia Upper Coastal Plain about 30 miles below the fall line. This fall line is the geologic boundary between the ancient crystalline "hard" rocks of the Appalachian Piedmont (north of the fall line) and the younger, softer, more easily eroded rocks of the Atlantic Coastal Plain (south of the fall line). This area of "fall-line hills" is marked by steep cliffs, waterfalls, and rapids. The underlying formations at the site are consolidated but uncemented sediments ranging in age from Cretaceous to Quaternary.
These sediments are, in turn, underlain at a depth of 950 ft by hard crystalline basement rock of the Triassic basin. This portion of the basin is about 30 miles long, 6 miles wide, and trends north-east. Normal faults are presumed to exist at the northwest and INCHES Fig. 2.8. Indian artifacts (potsherds) from the surface of the ground near the proposed site of Vogtle Nuclear Plant's river water intake and discharge structures.
2-19 UM APPALACHIAN PIEDMONT 10 UPPER COASTAL PLAIN Fig. 2.9. Physiographic map of Georgia. Source: Georgia State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1972, vol. I, p. 60, December 1972.
2-20 southeast boundaries, with some minor transverse faulting.
The consensus is that the Triassic basin faults have been inactive for nearly 200 million years.A 60 to 70-ft-thick, unjointed, hard clay marl with limestone nodules (McBean formation) forms an aquiclude (a geologic stratum that confines water in an adjacent aquifer) throughout the site area at a depth of 80 to 110 ft and is the bearing horizon. Be-cause of its low permeability, there is little leaching even though the formation is highly calcareous.
There is some surface leaching of permeable calcareous materials from a sand and shell zone over-lying the bearing horizon. This results in depressions that are formed gradually rather than as a result of sudden collapse, as would be the case with sink holes. Since all major structures will be founded on the bearing horizon (the applicant plans to re-move from foundation areas the sand and shell layer overlying the marl), the applicant does not expect that they will be affected by this continual but slow leaching (ER, vol. I, p. 2.4-2).Considerable geological detail is presented in the applicant's Environmental Report and Preliminary Safety Analysis Report.2.4.2 Seismology Seismic risk areas of the United States are generally grouped into categories ranging from Zone 0 (no damage) to Zone 3 (major damage;intensities of VIII or higher on the Modified Mercalli Scale). The Vogtle site is in a Zone 2 (moderate damage) region. Most of the rest of Georgia (south and west of the site is in Zone 1 (minor damage). The closest Zone 3 region is centered around Charleston, South Carolina, about 100 miles east of the site. The next nearest Zone 3 region covers eastern Missouri and Arkansas and western Kentucky and Tennessee (ER, vol. I, Fig. 2.4-4).Although earthquake activity in the area can be classified as moderate, the earthquakes are of low magnitude and intensity.
The great Charleston earthquake of 1886 caused the highest in-tensity of shaking at the site. Reports of local damage suggest an intensity of VI MM (Modified Mercalli Scale of 1931) or low VII MM.
2-21 2.5 HYDROLOGY 2.5.1 Surface water The Savannah River Basin (Fig. 2.10) is part of the South Atlantic Drainage Region. This basin has an area of 10,577 sq miles; of which about 8,200 are above the site; annual average runoff is 15 in. compared with the U.S. average of 8 in. Table 2.3 gives analyses of Savannah River water by the Georgia Power Company and the U.S.Geological Survey.Table 2.3. Chemical composition ofSavannah River water Analyses by Georgia Power Company and the U.S. Geological Survey Concentration (ppm)Chemical constituent Maximum Minimum Average GPC USGS GPC USGS GPC USGS Bicarbonate 36.6 25.6 22.0 19.5 28.8 22.4 Calcium 9.6 3.4 4.0 2.7 6.5 3.0 Carbonate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chloride 17.0 4.4 0.0 2.5 4.8 3.1 Fluoride 0.67 0.0 0.08 Iron 0.48 0.750 0.12 0.100 0.3 0.45 Magnesium 5.8 1.4 0.5 1.1 3.5 1.2 Manganese 0.0 0.070 0.0 <0.050 0.0 0.05 Nitrate 0.48 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.28 0.25 Phosphate 0.22 1.0 0.0 <0.05 0.09 0.23 Potassium 2.7 1.5 1.1 0.8 1.9 1.3 Silica 9.4 12.0 5.8 7.6 7.5 10.2 Sodium 9.8 5.6 4.2 4.0 7.3 4.9 Sulfate 18.8 6.0 2.1 3.0 7.3 4.8 Dissolved solids 76.3 56 41.8 24 59.9 37.8 Alkalinity 30.0 21 18.0 16 23.2 18.3 Hardness 38.0 14 20 10 30.8 12.3 Ammonia 0.56 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.21 0.25 Source: ER. vol. 1. pp. 2.5-6.2.5-7.
The Savannah River is a regulated navigable stream to Augusta, with a guaranteed 9-ft channel maintained by the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
There are a number of dams upstream providing water and storage power. About 36 river miles upstream is the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, which is nonpower producing, and above that the Clark Hill and Hartwell reservoirs.
These latter two dams, between normal and minimum pool, provide 2,445,000 acre-ft of storage.
JO HA IDEF OF 2-22 CASSEE CEOWEE EE NUCLEAR ATION RTWELL RESERVOIR RSON(S.C.)
4 GREENWOOD (S.C.)N -CLARK HILL RESERVOIR G .C AIK EN (S.C.)UGUST'GOR06K ISA ANNAH RIVER!* PLANI -CHEM-NUCLEAR SERVICES, iINC.TLE BARNWELL NUCLEAR PLULEANT FUEL PLANT PLANT PROPOSEnADIN DJOHNSON'S LANDING DAM GA. S.C.SAVANNAH , o.0 SOUTHEAST RIVER BASINS AREA 0 10 20 30 SCALE IN MILES Fig. 2.10. The Savannah River Basin.
2-23 The flow in the Savannah River has been controlled by discharges from the Clark Hill Reservoir since 1951, and the minimum release from the New Savannah Bluff Lock and 'Dam is 5,800 cfs. This may be considered the "dependable minimum daily flow" and will be main-tained at all times except in the event of a critical dry period more severe than the most critical dry period of record, a remote possibility estimated to occur only once in 150 years.1 4 In addi-tion, the Corps of Engineers states that the upstream storage would be sufficient to provide 3,350 cfs for one year without further inflow. Over a 63-year period of study, the average flow was 10,150 cfs.Although flow rates as low as 5,700 cfs have occurred on rare occasions (ER, vol. I, Table 2.5-1), the staff feels that the 5,800 cfs flow is a reasonable minimum value and uses this value for its evaluations.
At 5,800 cfs the river stage is taken as 80.4 ft and at 10,000 cfs 84.2 ft. The width at 5,800 cfs is 345 ft. The respective river mean velocities are 1.53 and 1.95 fps (ER, vol. I, Fig. 2.5-3a), with the mean river bed taken as 70 ft.The river bed contours for the center and 50 ft out from the right and left banks are provided by the applicant (PSAR, vol. I, Fig.2.4-19). Additional information was obtained by the staff from nautical 1 5 and navigation 1 6 charts of the Savannah River. Opposite the discharge, the river bottom is level at about 70 ft. There are a number of small undulations in the bottom and, at a curve about 2,000 ft downstream, a significant shallowing occurs on the Georgia side and center (74 ft MSL), with the South Carolina side deepening to 62 ft MSL. The existence of this curve plus the small undulations opposite the discharge and the substantial bottom undu-lations at the curve suggest a high degree of mixing of VNP liquid effluents with the river would be reached at this point.The top deck of the intake structure is designed to be at 125 MSL.This was based on the Standard Project Flood stage of 119.9 MSL plus a 5-ft freeboard allowance for waves.The probable maximum flood from runoff has been computed for the Savannah River system and is based on the largest regional storm along with 50-mph winds at the site. These parameters lead to a flood water level of 134.4 MSL with a wave run-up on the bank to 161.6 MSL.
2-24 The highest possible flood level is developed from a combination of the Standard Project Flood and an earthquake-induced failure of the Jocasse Dam at the headwaters of the Savannah River system, and subsequent overtopping of all the downstream dams. The result-ing flood water level would be 141 MSL with a maximum wave run-up on the bank to 168.2 MSL. Both of the above flood conditions would render the intake system inoperable.
However, there is sufficient water in the cooling tower basins to shutdown and safely cooldown the plant for 30 days; this is in addition to the 6000 gpm available from the wells supplying the nuclear service water systems and the 8000 gpm available from the eight standby wells.The highest predicted flood waters (168.2 MSL) will not affect the buildings on the site since their floors will be at grade level 220 MSL.The hydrology of the Savannah River is summarized in Table 2.4.The flow is highest on the average in April and lowest in November.The water temperature peaks in July and is lowest in January. Dis-solved oxygen levels are above 5 ppm at all times of the year, with a maximum in February and a minimum in August.Table 2.4. Savannah River hydrology Average Elevation Velocity Dissolved Month flow' at siteb at bte oxygen Water temperature
('F)a at site Maximum Minimum (cfs) (MSL) ((ps) (ppm)January 13,866 NAC 2.6 9.5 55.9 40.8 February 14,288 NA 2.7 10.0 58.1 40.8 March 17.727 NA 3.2 8.5 66.0 42.8 April 18,201 NA 3.3 8.0 71.2 52.5 May 13,088 NA 2.5 7.5 77.9 59.0 June 9,983 84.1 2.0 7.0 79.9 64.6 July 9,207 83.4 1.9 7.0 83.8 68.9 August 8,915 83.2 1.9 6.0 82.9 71.6 September 9.306 83.6 1.9 6.5 82.0 68.9 October 8,580 82.9 1.8 6.0 78.1 59.9 November 8.130 82.5 1.8 8.0 74.1 50.5 December 10.732 NA 2.1 9.0 62.2 43.7 aBurton's Ferry Bridge -22.5 river miles downstream from site.bBased on average flow.CNA , not available.
Sources: ER, vol. I. Fig. 2.5-3a, Fig. 2.5-4. Fig. 2.5-6, Table 2.5-1. Letter from C. C. Brown, Savannah District, Corps of Engineers.
to R. A. Gilbert. Jan. 3. 1973.
2-25 The applicant has provided additional details of the area hydrology (ER, vol. I, Sect. 2.5; PSAR, vol. I, Sect. 2.4).2.5.2 Groundwater A shallow water table aquifer (maximum depth 80 to 100 ft) and the deeply confined Tuscaloosa aquifer (below 140 to 170 ft depth) exist at the site. They are separated by the 60 to 70-ft-thick "bearing horizon" of hard clay marl which is an effective aquiclude (barrier).
The area on which VNP will be located is bounded by stream channels which have cut down to the impervious marl and which act as drains for the shallow-water aquifer, thereby intercepting the groundwater that moves laterally through the sands and prevents inflow or out-flow to adjacent areas. These streams include the Savannah River to the northeast, the Hancock Landing drainage -to the north, and Beaverdam Creek and its tributaries to the west and south. This means that the water table aquifer is hydraulically isolated on an interfluvial high and that groundwater at the VNP site, replenished by natural precipitation, eventually drains to the Savannah River either through one of the interceptor streams or by way of springs located along the bluff above the Savannah River.The Tuscaloosa aquifer system is the most extensive and productive in the Coastal Plain (PSAR, vol. I, Sect. 2.4.13). The sands of the Tuscaloosa formation form a band of aquifer about 60 miles wide extending from the northern boundary of the Coastal Plain near Augusta, where the aquifer is actively recharged, to a line some 30 or more miles to the south of VNP where it becomes overlain by other younger, water-producing formations.
The most permeable aquifer sands of the Tuscaloosa system are below the 470-ft depth at the site. The major users of water from the Tuscaloosa aquifer, within a 30-mile radius of VNP, are the Savannah River Plant and the Augusta area (to supplement river water use), each withdrawing less than 5,000 gpm. However, since the piezometric surface of this aquifer is about 100 MSL, and since the marl has been removed by erosion in some areas of the Savannah River bed, some upper portions of the aquifer are free to discharge to the river. Esti-mated total discharge by this means to the river, in an approximately 40-mile stretch below Augusta, is only 120,000 gpm (PSAR, vol. I, p. 2.4-18) since the upper portions of the aquifer have relatively poor permeability.
The estimated safe yield of the Tuscaloosa aquifer has been estimated at 5 billion gallons per day (PSAR, vol. I, p. 2.4-17). The water from this t'quifer is generally of excellent chemical quality; representative analyses are presented in Table 2.5.
2-26 Table 2.5. Representative chemical compositions of wen water from the Tuscaloosa aquifer Chemical constituent Observation point (ppm) 34 121 135 24 Sodium 13.3 15.9 16.3 4.6 12.5 Magnesium 5.4 7.3 8.3 11.2 8.1 Potassium 3.2 3.2 2.8 1.5 2.7 Calcium 15.2 12.8 28.8 4.0 15.2 Carbonate 0.0 0.0 14.4 16.8 7.8 Bicarbonate 95.2 84.2 114.7 45.1 84.8 Sulfate 7.7 3.6 17.4 7.6 9.1 Chloride 3.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 2.5 Nitrate 0.31 0.00 6.20 0.00 1.6 Fluoride 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.02 Phosphate 0.15 0.66 0.26 0.50 0.39 Iron 0.57 0.31 0.12 0.15 0.29 Silica 7.9 8.0 9.2 7.4 8.1 Total dissolved solids 127.9 112.5 106.0 89.6 109.0 Total alkalinity as CaCO3 78.0 69.0 118.1 65.0 71.6 Total hardness as CaCO 3  60.0 63.0 105.6 56.2 82.5 Source: ER, vol. 1, Table 2.5-6.2.6 METEOROLOGY The area experiences four distinct seasons. Spring and fall are both mild but differ in several ways. Spring has more frequent and abrupt changes in weather than fall and has stronger winds and generally cooler temperatures.
Long periods of sunny and pleasant mild weather are typical of the fall. The summers are long, humid, and rather hot with many days of temperatures 90OF and above. Since the region is sheltered to a significant extent by the Appalachian Mountains from the cold air masses sweeping down through the continental interior in winter, the cold air that does reach this area is warmed by its descent to the relatively low elevations of this region, as well as by convection heating. Al-Ehough morning frost conditions are frLquent in winter, daily mean temperatures below freezing are uncommon, and the temperature rarely stays below freezing all day. The climatology at the Bush Field Weather Station (near Augusta) iq summarized in Table 2.6.Strong winds due to occasional tropical storms and hurricanes are much reduced because of the inland location.
Fastest monthly aver-age winds, 7 to 8 mph, occur in winter and the slowest, 5 to 6 mph, Table 2.6. Climatoloky.
Bush Field Weather Station near Augusta Temperature Precipitation (in.) Snow. slet Reilauve humidity Wind Thunderstorms tavy fog Extremes Monthly Maximum in monthty at specified hours Prevailing td-ayI iii'.")Daily Daily MuIthly Maximum MImimum Average Maximum Minimum 24 hr average 0il) 01 07 13 19 speed direction maximum minimum averale January 59.4 35.7 47.6 78 5 2.94 8.48 1.14 3.61 0.2 79 83 53 66 6.9 W I 2 February 61.: 37.1 49.3 80 12 3.52 7.67 0.69 3.39 0.3 76 80 48 60 7.7/ WNW 1 2 March 67.3 42.5 54.9 87 23 4.17 9.57 0.88 5.31 Trace 73 82 45 54 8.0 WNW 3 1 April 76.5 49.8 63.2 92 31 356 8.43 0.60 3.96 0.0 81 86 47 56 7.6 SE 4 1 May 84.3 58.8 71.6 99 35 2.99 6.98 0.48 4.41 0.0 86 87 49 62 6.4 SE 6 1 June 90.6 67.2 78.9 102 SO 3.04 5.67 1.75 3.2S 0.0 89 89 54 67 6.0 SE 10 2 July 91.3 70.0 80.7 100 57 450 13.43 1.46 3.25 0.0 90 90 59 72 5.8 SE 14 2 August 91.1 69.2 80.2 104 54 3.89 9.91 1.31 5.98 0.0 92 91 59 76 5.5 SE 10 3 September 86.5 64.1 75.3 94 36 3.00 7.17 0.61 4.93 0.0 92 93 55 79 5.7 NF 4 3 October 78.1 52.3 65.2 90 29 2.01 6.90 Trace 2.67 0.0 89 91 53 78 5.7 NW 1 3 November 67.7 40.4 54.3 86 Is 2.18 6.18 0.09 2.63 Trace 84 87 47 71 6.1 NW I 3 December 59.3 35.1 47.2 82 17 3.33 7.55 0.32 3.12 0.1 82 85 53 71 6.6 NW I 3"Local time.Source: ER, vol. 1. Table 2.6-1.!
2-28 in the summer. From data obtained at the Augusta airport, 19 miles northwest of the site, the highest recorded wind speed during a 20-year period was 62 mph. Using a procedure described by Thom 1 7 who fitted extreme winds to a statistical distribution, it is esti-mated that speeds of 85 mph occur once in 50 years and speeds of 95 mph once in 100 years (ER, vol. I. p. 2.6-8). A wind rose is shown in Fig. 2.11, as measured at the Savannah River Plant over a two-year period.An examination of meteorological maps showed that the area is one of moderate tornado activity (1.5/year/l square) as opposed to a high-frequency area such as that near Oklahoma City-which has 5/year/l&deg; square. Assuming that a typical tornado covers an area of 2-1/2 sq miles, that a 10 square covers 4,000 sq miles, and using a conservative estimate of 3 tornados/year/l1 square (since more tornados may occur than are spotted and reported), it can be shown that a given point in this area will on the average be affected by a tornado once in 500 years.The area experiences relatively high precipitation in winter and summer since warm, moist air masses from the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic receive little modification.
The highest precipita-tion occurs in July and March; October and November are usudlly the dry months. The normal yearly total is 39.1 in. On occasion, remnants of tropical hurricanes cause unusually heavy rains sus-tained over several hours. The maximum precipitation for 1-, 3-, 12-, and 24-hr periods was 3.08, 4.46, 7.79, and 9.82 in., respec-tively, for the period of record 1903-1961.
Snow is infrequent and heavy snow Is rare. The maximum monthly snowfall was 14.0 in., and the maximum snowfall in 24 hr was 13.7 in. in February 1973.18 Freezing rain, based on 10 years of records, may occur about twice a year at the site.The region experiences heavy fog (visibility less than 1/4 m'le)about 10% of the days throughout the year. These fogs generally last until midmorning unless a frontal condition exists, in which case they may extend on into the day.The site is in the Appalachian Atmospheric Area which has the most frequent stagnation conditions of any region east of the Rocky Mountains." 9 There is a high incidence of stagnating anticyclones that are associated with high air-pollution potential.
Korshover, in a study of stagnating anticyclones east of the Rocky Mountains, 2 0 estimates that there are about 10 "stagnation days" per year in the site area.
2-29 N 10.9%1 73%4.0%8.75%!a5% ,,h3.4% 075/W8.7% W E3.5%Z7.%/ 4.8%Z.9%77% 6.8% 6.9%S Fig. 2.11. Annual wind rose observed at the Savannah River Plant, March 1966-February 1968. Source: PSAR, Fig. 2.3-18.
2-30 Additional meteorological detail is provided in the applicant's Environmental Report (ER, vol. I, Sect. 2.6) and Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR, vol. I, Sect. 2.3).2.7 ECOLOGY 2.7.1 Terrestrial ecology 2.7.1.1 Soil characteristics The topography of the site consists of low rolling hills with ele-vations ranging from 200 ft to 280 ft. All streams and creeks in the area drain naturally into the Savannah River. The geology of the site was discussed in Sect. 2.4.The soils of the site are of the Lakeland-Fuquay-Lucy association and the Wehadkee-Swamp association.
7 The Lakeland-Fuquay-Lucy association occurs on uplands. Lakeland soils make up about 55%of this association; the Fuquay soils, about 15%; the Lucy soils, about 15%; and minor soils, the remaining 15%.The major soils on the site are of the Lakeland Series, 2 1 occurring on slopes that range from 2 to 17%. The surface layer is gray loose sand. It is underlain by pale-yellow to light yellowish-brown loose sand that extends to a depth of more than 40 in. A representative profile of Lakeland sand, 5 to 8% slopes, is as follows: 2 1 A-I 0 to 5 in.; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2)* sand: weak, fine, crumb structure; loose; many fine roots; strongly acid; clear wavy boundary.A-2 5 to 11 in.; dark gray (10YR 4/1) sand; structureless, single-grained; loose; few fine roots; strongly acid; gradual, wavy boundary.C-11 11 to 25 in.; yellowish brown (IOYR 5/4) sand: structureless, single-grained; loose, strongly acid; gradual, wavy boundary.C-12 25 to 49 in.; brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) sand; structureless, single-grained; loose; strongly acid; gradual, wavy boundary.Soil color indices of hue, value, and chroma which are based on the Munsell soil color charts.
2-31 C-2 49 to 72 in.; very pale brown (lOYR 7/4) sand with few fine, faint, pale brown (lOYR 8/3) mottles; structureless, single-grained; loose4 strongly acid; gradual, wavy boundary.lIB 72 to 92 in.; pale brown (10YR 6/3), compact, sandy clay loam with common, medium, distinct yellowish red (5YR 4/8), soft plinthite nodules and light gray (2.5Y 7/2) mottles; moderate, medium, subangular blocky structure; friable, hard, slightly sticky; very strongly acid.The permeability of Lakeland soils is rapid, and the available water capacity is low. Because this soil is very droughty and plant nu-trients are rapidly leached, it is poorly suited to cultivated crops.It is well suited to pasture grasses and pine trees. The available water capacity is moderately low in the Fuquay and Lucy soils; these soils are moderately well suited to cropland and well suited to pasture and woodland.The Wehadkee-Swamp association is characterized by broad, nearly level flood plains along the Savannah River.7 The water table is at a depth of less than 15 in. for as much as 6 months every year.The 1ehadkee soils make up about 65% of the association; Swamp about 30%, and minor soils the remaining 5%. This association is in woodlands consisting of mixed hardwoods.
The Briar Creek Soil and Water Conservation District, Soil Con-servation Service, located in Waynesboro, has made a survey of the soil types on the site and has prepared a soil map and a soil and water conservation plan for Georgia Power Company. The plan recom-mends specific treatment for the various areas (type of ground cover, fertilizer, soil preparation, mulch, emulsified asphalt mix on slopes, etc.), recommended trees to be planted or preserved and suggestions to benefit wildlife, including the possibility of re-establishing wild turkeys and wood ducks in the area, since the site will oe a refuge from hunters.2.7.1.2 Producers Vegetation of the site may be placed into three general categories:
(1) pine communities, (2) hardwood communities, and (3) old-field communities.
Fifteen distinct community types may be subdivided on the basis of species composition.
As approximately 1,980 acres of the 3,177-acre site are of the Lakeland sand series, nine of 2-32 the communities occur on this soil type. Because of the poor sandy soil, the site is only sparsely covered with trees and shrubs. The applicant made a detailed survey of the existing vegetation (ER, 2.7.1). The description of the community types provided by the applicant is as follows: Pine communities
: 1. Pine-Upland Hardwood, sand, 1,183 acres.Turkey oak and longleaf pine are the most abundant trees greater than or equal to 4 in. dbh (diameter breast height).Pine sawtimber was removed by the previous owner. The under-story is mostly turkey oak saplings, but water oak, bluejack oak, post oak, and longleaf pine are also important.
There is 80% cover by understory vegetation.
There are approximately 44 canopy trees and 2,130 understory trees per acre for a total of 2,175 trees per acre. The total basal area of trees greater than 4 in. dbh is 10.46 ft 2/acre. About 18 of the species from Appendix A are comno" in this community.
: 2. Planted Slash Pine-Upland Hardwood, sand, 713 acres.This community is similar to No. 1 except that planted slash pine is the most abundant canopy tree, followed by longleaf pine. Eighty percent cover is furnished by understory vege-tation. Turkey oak is abundant in the understory here but only about half as dense as in community
: 1. Slash pine, long-leaf pine, post oak, and sassafras also are abundaut.
There are 55 canopy trees and 1,355 understory trees per acre for a total of 1,410 trees per acre. The total basal area of trees greater than 4 in. dbh is 11.22 ft 2/acre. Pine sawtimber was removed by the previous owner. Understory species are similar to community
 
===1.7. Slash===
Pine Plantation, 10 to 15 yr, sand, 149 acres.There are 222 canopy trees and 17 understory trees per acre for a total of 239 trees per acre. The total basal area of canopy trees is 43.08 ft-/acre.
The merchantable pine pulp-wood was removed by the previous owner. Sixteen species of shrubs and vines are found here. The understory is sparsely covered (40%) with shrubs, vines, and annuals.
2-33 8. Slash Pine Plantation, 1 to 2 yr, sand, 10 acres.This slash pine plantation was planted on an 8 ft x 8 ft spacing in a field. There was poor initial survival of the pines, and heavy grass cover now exists. There are 400 trees per acre.11. Longleaf Pine, sand, 17 acres.This community is pine-dominated but differs from communities 1 and 2 by having much greater density of longleaf pine and lesser density of oak species. Common understory vegetation includes eight species of vincs and shrubs, also turkey oak, black oak, post oak, and water oak saplings.
Eighty percent cover is furnished by understory vegetation.
There are 117 canopy trees and 500 understory trees per acre for a total of 617 trees per acre. The total basal area of canopy trees is 24.1 ft 2/acre.12. Longleaf Pine, sand, 7 acres.This community is a monoculture of longleaf pines. There are 176 canopy trees and 1,000 understory trees per acre with a total basal area of 22.53 ft 2/acre in the canopy. Understory trees furnish 80% cover. Sawtimber was removed by the previous owner. Sparse ground cover is composed of broom sedge, grasses, and herbs.13. Longleaf Pine, sand, 17 acres.In the communJty, longleaf pine is the only tree species over 4 in. dbh. Seven species of vines and shrubs and the under-story trees of longleaf pine, black gum, plum, northern red oak, and bluejack oak furnish 80% cover. There are 62 canopy trees and 2,000 understory trees per acre for a total of 2,062 trees per acre. The total basal area of canopy trees is 33.14 ft 2/acre. Pine sawtimber was removed by the previous owner.Hardwood communities
: 3. Branch Hardwood, 75 acres.Black gum is the most abundant canopy species. Water oak, red maple, yellow poplar, and sweetbay also are abundant.
Yellow 2-34 poplar, red maple, and sweetbay are the only species in the understory and cover is 100%.4. Branch Hardwood, 64 acres.Black gum is abundant here. Sweetbay, yellow poplar, and hornbeam are the only trees in the understory and cover is 100%. There are 193 canopy trees and 550 understory trees per acre for a total of 748 trees per acre. The total basal area of canopy trees is 106.7 ft 2/acre. All species of hard-wood sawtimber were removed from a small area near the county road by the previous owner. There are 29 common shrut and vines in this community.
: 5. Branch Hardwood, 71 acres.This community has many more understory species than commun-ities 3 and 4. No one species greater than 4 in. dbh dominates the community (although black gum, hickory, ash, and white oak are more important here than in communities 3 and 4). White oak, southern red oak, water oak, blackjack oak, sweetgum, red maple, and hickory are important understory species and cover is 100%. There are 98 canopy trees and 1,085 understory species per acre for a total of 1,183 trees per acre. The total basal area of canopy trees is 38.12 ft 2/acre. Shrubs and vines are similar to communities 3 and 4. In this community there is a 3.9-acrs pond. The bank is quite steep and vegetation grows almost to the water's edge.6. Cove Hardwood, 15 acres.This community faces the river and is different from the above three hardwood communities.
There are only eight common tree species, and the most abundant are water oak, hickory, and sweetgum.
The understory of water oaks, hickories, shrubs, and vines forms medium cover and is almost parklike.
There are 101 canopy trees and 800 understory trees per acre for a total of 901 trees per acre. The total basal area of canopy trees is 70.27 ft 2/acre. There was light removal of hardwood sawtimber by the previous owner.9. Bluff Hardwood, 60 acres.The community is dominated by hickory and northern red oak.In some places the bluff meets the river and in other places there is a narrow floodplain.
White oak, northern red oak, 2-35 water oak, ash, and mulberry are the understory species.There are 61 canopy trees and 1,800 understory trees per acre for a total of 1,861 trees per acre. The total basal area of canopy trees is 41.66 ft /acre. Seventeen common shrub and vine species were noted. Seventy percent cover is provided by understory vegetation.
There was light re-moval of hardwood sawtimber by the previous owners.10. Bottomland Hardwood, 55 acres.Although black gum is the most numerous tree, tupelo gum has the largest basal area. Black gum and sycamore are the only understory tree species. There are 136 canopy trees and 600 understory trees per acre for a total of 736 trees per acre.The total basal area of canopy trees is 81.01 ft 2/acre. Seven species of shrubs and vines are commonly seen in this coimmunity.
The understory is sparse (30% cover) and has a parklike appear-ance. There was light removal of cypress and hardwood sawtimber by the previous owner.O:Ld-field communities
: 15. Cleared Sandhill, 281 acres.This sandhill area was cleared by the previous owner in preparation for row planting of slash pine. Presently, the vegetation consists of annual and perennial herbs and grasses, turkey oak, sassafras, and persimmon sprouts.16. Old Fields, 440 acres.This land was under cultivation prior to purchase by the applicant in 1971. Old fields are abandoned agricultural land whose recovery from previous disturbance is predictable.
During the first years after abandonment, herbaceous species, especially composites, usually are the dominant vegetation.
As ecological successiun proceeds, the herb species are re-placed by grasses such as broom sedge (Andronogon spp.).Recovery then proceeds through a pine stage and finally to a hardwood stage. On most sites hardwood is the st~ble eco-system endpoint.
The actual species present, the density of plants, and the time required to proceed from one state to the next are dependent upon the previous cultivation, the size of the area, the location, the presence of seed sources, and other factors.
2-36 Figure 2.12 shows a vegetation map of the VNP site, illustrating the locations of the communities just described.
The applicant gives a detailed description of each community in Tables 2.7.1-13 of his Environmental Report. A list of the common trees of the VNP site is in Appendix A, the common shrubs and vines in Appendix B. A list of species of old-field plants found in a one-year old-field near the VNP site is in Appendix C. The applicant's Environ-mental Report provides more detailed information about old-field plant species in Table 2.7.17.In addition to acreages listed for various vegetation types, the site has approximately 4 acres of ponds and 16 acres of county roads.2.7.1.3 Consumers Table 2.7 presents a summary of the preferred habitats and foods of 136 vertebrate species commonly occurring in t'c area of the site. Of these, two species of amphibians, one species of rep-tile, five species of birds, and three species of mammals are typically associated with pine communities.
Herbivores and grani-vores such as the slate-colored junco, brown-headed nuthatch, pine mouse, and fox squirrel, often prefer pine communities.
Insecti-vores such as the oak toad, fence lizard, and pine warbler, and omnivores such as the blue Jay, crow, and raccoon are commonly found in pine communities.
The vertebrate species commonly associated with hardwood commun-ities include those preferring brushy thickets, deciduous wood-land, and swampy bottomland forests (Table 2.7). Five species of amphibians, two species of birds, and 20 species of mammals have preferences for these hardwood communities.
Herbivores such as the woodrat, white-footed mouse, flying squirrel, gray squirrel, and swamp rabbit occur in these communities.
Consumers, preying on a variety of terrestrial invertebrates, include dusky salamander, cricket frog, brown snake, golden-crowned kinglet, yellow-shafted flicker, pileated woodpecker, and short-tailed shrew. Predators of terrestrial vertebrates include Cooper's hawk, red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, barred owl, gray fox, and bobcat. Omnivores such as raccoon, opossum, and feral swine are found in these communities.
The Environmental Report (Sect. 2.7.2) contains a discussion of the insect fauna expected to be found in the old-field communities.
Of the commonly occurring vertebrate species (Table 2.7), four r-07-L-9Z1 SANHOILL .UPLAND HARDWOOD, PINE SANOHILL.
UPLAND HARDWOOD, PLTO. SLASH PINE BRANCH HARDWOOD BRANCH HARDWOOD BRANCH HARDWOOD COVE HARDWOOD SLASH PINE PLANTATION 11o-i1 YNS )SLASH PINE PLANTATION t I YR. )BLUFF HARDWOOD BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD IRIVER SWAMP)SANDHILL LONGLEAP PINE SANDHILL LONGLItAF PINE SANOHILL LONGLEAF PINE POND SANDHILL CLEARED FIELDS CLEARED 100 FT R/W ROAD RELOCATION.S15O1 L-49 */*I)-4O-ExISrIsk COUNTY ROADS Fig. 2.12. Vegetation of the Vogtle Nuclear Plant site. Source: ER, Fig. 2.7-2.
2-38 Table 2.7. Summary of the preferred habitats and foods of 136 vertebrate species commonly occurring in the amea of the site Preferred habitats Amphibians Reptiles Birds Mammals (19 species) (16 species) (61 species) (40 species)Old fields, meadows, open land 4 2 14 7 Brushy thickets 1 2 7 2 Deciduous woodland 4 11 8 Pine woodland 2 1 5 3 Swampy bottomland forests 5 10 Swamps, marshes, ponds 4 2 12 S Rivers, lakes 4 7 Sky 2 Buildings 3 Variable habitats 2 5 2 Preferred foods Amphibians Reptiles Birds Mammals O0finivores 5 9 13 Terrestrial invertebrates 18 3 24 6 Terrestrial vertebrates 3 5 S Terrestrial plants 8 Seeds, nuts, berries 1s 6 Carrion 3 Aquatic invertebrates I I 2 Aquatic vertebrates 4 2 1 Aquatic plants I I 2-39 species of amphibians, two species of reptiles, 14 species of birds, and seven species of mammals would show a preference for'this habitat.Festuca, Andropogon, and Lespedeza are consumed by herbivores and granivores such as bobwhite, eastern meadowlark, field sparrow, old-field mouse, harvest mouse, and cottontail rabbit. Insectivores such as southern toad, six-lined racerunner, loggerhead shribe, and least shrew may be found in old-field communities.
Carnivores prey-ing on terrestrial vertebrates such as the eastern hognose snake, marsh hawk, and sparrow hawk, and omnivores such as the spotted skunk, raccoon, and opossum may occur commonly in old-field communities.
Eight species of amphibians (Appendix D), nine species of reptiles (Appendix D), 12 species of birds (Appendix E), and five species of mammals (Appendix F) are associated with aquatic habitats, in-cluding swamps, marshes, ponds, lakes, and rivers. Beaver is an herbivorous aquatic species. Aquatic omnivores include snapping turtle, stinkpot turtle, mallard, and black duck. Predators of aquatic invertebrates and/or, vertebrates include red-spotted newt, leopard frog, bullfrog, brown water snake, cottonmouth, pied-billed grebe, great blue heron, mink, and river otter. American alligators are known to live in the Savannah River. GPC biologists have sighted alligator tracks on the shore of Mallard Pond. The alligator is considered an endangered species.2 2 Some species are commonly found in a variety of habitats.
Two such herbivores are the cotton rat and white-tailed deer. Many of these species are omnivores, such as the eastern box turtle, mockingbird, brown thrasher, robin, common grackle, cardinal, raccoon, and striped skunk.2.7.2 Aquatic ecology Biological studies of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the proposed VNP site (river mile 151) have been conducted since 1951.The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia conducted base-line studies on the river during 1950-1951 between river miles 123 and 162. Subsequent studies have documented changes that occurred in the river ecology through 1970. The Institute of Paper Chemistry has conducted similar studies since 1959 from river mile 149 to 188. The Environmental Protection Agency (Southeast Water Labora-tory) conducted a water quality survey of the Savannah River and 2-40 its tributaries from 7 miles north of Augusta, Georgia, to appox-imately 72 miles southeast of Augusta during July and August 1970.The applicant, since October 1971, has conducted studies in the vicinity of the proposed site. Information obtained in the above studies will be used in characterizing the ecology of the Savannah River in the site vicinity.2.7.2.1 Primary producers Algae and macrophytes (aquatic vascular plants) serve as a base of the food web in aquatic environments.
In flowing environments, attached algae (periphyton) assume a greater role in food produc-tion than free-floating algae (phytoplankton), since the latter develop in areas of still water or where flow is very limited.2 3 Algae Phytoplankton in the vicinity consist primarily of detached peri-phytic forms as well as forms that are discharged from the reservoir behind Clark Hill Dam and tributaries of the river. Quiet backwater areas and marshy areas adjacent to the river also provide suitable habitats for phytoplankton development.
These areas serve to"seed" the river with free-floating algal forms.2 4 In view of the above discussion on phytoplankton, it is apparent that in-formation on the periphyton in the river provides a more reliable base for a description of the primary producers of the river.The construction of Clark Hill Dam (about 90 miles upstream) in 1951 resulted in decreased turbidity downstream, thus allowing greater light penetration.
The increased light penetration re-sulted in increased primary productivity and greater diversity in the periphyton community of the river.2 5 However, in recent years there has been a decrease in diversity (Fig. 2.13). This decrease has been attributed to a general deterioration of water quality resulting from an increase in organic loading of this section of the river.2 5 A list of the more common species of algae collected during a survey of the river in 1968 is presented in Appendix G. During that survey samples were collected at river miles 134, 149, 157, and 175.A total of 403 species of algae were collected, including green algae (62 species), blue-green (41 species), red (7 species), diatoms (291 species), and yellow-green (1 species) algae.2 6 2-41 Macrophytes The applicant has identified 8 genera of aquatic plants in the vicinity of the site. All are rooted except Lemna sp. The distri-bution of the rooted forms is spotty, restricted to oxbows, behind sand bars, around spur dikes, and in other areas of reduced current flow with suitable substrate.
Although no estimate of density was made, the genera are ranked according to relative abundance into 5 categories(i
= most abundant, 2 = very abundant, 3 = abundant, 4 = not abundant, 5 -scarce). The rooted forms reported by the applicant in October 1972 and their ranks in abundance are as follows: Scientific name Common name Relative abundance MyriophyZZwn sp. Water milfoil 1 CeratophyZZun sp. Hornwort 1 AZternanthera sp. Alligator weed 2 Anacharis sp. Water weed 3 Sagittaria sp. Duck potato 4 Pontederia sp. Pickerel weed 5 Typha sp. Cattail 5 2.7.2.2 Protozoa Two hundred seventy-six species of protozoans were collected in 1968 in a comprehensive survey of the river tributaries and marsh areas.2 6 No quantitative estimates of relative abundance of the various protozoan groups were made. A list of the species iden-tified is presented in Appendix H. For the species collected in the river, a general trend of increased species diversity among protozoa subsequent to the construction of Clark Hill Dam is shown in Figure 2.13. The decrease in diversity in 1965 (35 species vs 63 species collected in 1960) was primarily among phytoflagellates (more than 50% reduction in diversity).
The decrease in diversity was attributed to a decrease in available nutrients to this group since organics were apparently mineralized further upstream.25 The species diversity found in 1968 was slightly lower than in 1960 (56 vs 63) and possibly reflects a general deterioration of water quality over that period.
130 120 110 100 90 ta 80 C70~L76 0 60 50 Z 30 20 I0 B ALGAE PROTOZOA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I v I Jl A L........Itl1 I I I I rti I a a VA I I9I 1952 1953 9954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 196&0 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 YEAR Fig. 2.13. Number of species of algae and protozoa collected during low flow at river mile 149.
2-43 2.7.2.3 Benthic invertebrates This group includes organisms that live in or on the bottom deposits, or attach themselves to any suitable substrate (submerged logs, pil-ings, etc.). Approximately 360 species of invertebrates have been identified in the Savannah River between river miles 123 and 162 from studies conducted since 195125-29 (Appendix I). These studies have included extensive sampling in marshy areas adjacent to the river as well as in oxbows and quiet backwaters and in shallow water regions. The majority of the forms identified was associated with these areas.The applicant established a biological sampling program on the river in October 1971. Five stations were selected between river miles 145 (control station) and 159.Sampling by the applicant on three dates (October 1971, January 1972, and February 1972) provided the following information (ER, vol. I, Tables 2.7-29, 30, 31). Thirty-three samples with a total of 39 taxa represented were collected in October 1971. Oligochaetes (aquatic earthworms) represented 32%, Chironomidae (Diptera) 24%, Hydropsyche 9%, and unidentified Mollusca 8% of the number of organisms collected on that date. The 35 samples collected in January were composed of 19 taxa. The predominate taxon was Chiro-nomidae (91% of the number of organisms collected).
Oligochaeta and chironomidae accounted for most of the organisms in the 35 samples collected in February (23 and 65%, respectively).
Thirty-nine taxa were identified in the February samples.The Savannah River supports a very diverse benthic fauna in the vicinity of the site. Most of the suitable habitat is associated with areas of shallow water with silty substrate or in marshy areas and quiet backwaters.
The bottom of the river itself consists primarily of shifting sand that does not provide optimum habitat for bottom-dwelling inverte-brates. Although results obtained in GPC studies are inconclusive, it appears that most of the diversity of the benthic fauna demonstrated in earlier studies 2 5-2 9 was associated with areas adjacent to the main channel of the river.2.7.2.4 Fishes Species of fish collected from the Savannah River and its associated oxbows, backwaters, and marshy areas are listed in Appendix J.
2-44 Anadromous species (those migrating from saltwater to freshwater for spawning) include striped bass, blueback herring, hickory and American shad, hogchocker and needlefish.
The only catadromous (those migrating from freshwater to saltwater for spawning) species reported is the American eel.Population surveys were carried out by GPC personnel in May and September 1972 (ER, Tables 2.7-33, -34, -35 and -36). At the two sampling stations forage fish predominated, ranging from 53.5%(58.8% of the total weight) in September to 71.6% (55.3% of the total weight) in May. The most abundant forage fish collected in all samples was gizzard shad. The predominate predaceous fishes collected were longnose gar.2.7.2.5 Other environmental features The south bound try of the proposed site is bordered by Beaverdam Creek which orl iates in a marshy area southwest of the site and empties into thL Savannah River. Studies of the resident fauna of this creek have not been completed and data are not available to characterize the community present.2.8 RADIATIUN BACKGROUND
 
====2.8.1 Natural====
radiation background The Environmental Protec ion Agency has reported average background radiation dose equivalents for Georgia and South Carolina, respec-tively, as 125 and 135 millirems/person/year (whole body dose).3 0 Of these totals, 40 millirems/person was attributed to cosmic radiation.
External gamma radiation (primarily from K-40 and the decay products of the uranium and thorium series) was estimated at 60 and 70 millirems/person for Georgia and South Carolina, re-spectively.
The remainder of the whole body dose is due to internal radiation dose (mostly H-3, C-14, K-40, Ra-.226 and Ra-228 and their decay products), which was estimated to average 25 millirems/person throughout the United States.
2-45 Measurements of external gamma radiation in the vicinity of Vogtle Nuclear Plant have been made since 1951 in connection with the USAEC's Savannah River Plant operations.
In the period 1966-1970 (ER, Table 5.5-1, p. 5.5-2.) the gamma radiation dose was approx-imately 75 millirems/year in the vicinity of the SRP plant, with no significant difference between the values at the plant boundary and those at a distance of 25 miles. These values have declined in the most recent years (1970 and 197131) to approximately 55 millirems/person.
The values are considered not to be signifi-cantly different from the Environmental Protection Agency state-wide estimates.
The applicant has also been conducting background radiation surveys on site using thermo luminescent dosimeters.
 
====2.8.2 Radiation====
 
background due to nearby nuclear facilities As mentioned in Sect. 2.2, four other nuclear facilities are located in the Savannah River drainage basin. These are the Savannah River Plant, the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant, Chem-Nuclear Services, Inc., and Oconee Nuclear Station (Fig. 2.10). Two other nuclear plants are located within 100 miles of VNP. The Summer Nuclear Station is located about 74 miles north-northeast of VNP, and Hatch Nuclear Plant is located about 77 miles south-southeast of VNP.The operation of the Chem-Nuclear Services facility is not expected to result in release of radioactivity to the atmosphere or hydro-sphere. Releases of gaseous radioactivity from Oconee, Summer, and Hatch are not exptcted to contribute significantly to the dose within the 50-milL :adius of Vogtle Nuclear Plant. Oconee Nuclear Station is expected to release 3 Ci/year of liquid waste (excluding tritium) into the headwaters of Hartwell Reservoir.
3 2 When diluted by the average flow of the Savannah River (10,150 cfs at VNP), the average radioactivity of river water at the site will, without con-sidering radioactive decay from Oconee to VNP, be 3.3 x 10-10 VCi/cm 3.Tritium release from Oconee, in liquid effluents, is estimated to be 3,000 Ci/year. Its contribution to the average tritium concentration in the Savannah River near VNP is estimated at 3,3 x 10-7 iCi/cm 3.No radioactive liquids are expected to be released from the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant; gaseous releases of Kr-85, H-3, 1-131, 1-129, 0-y particulates, and a particulates from its 100-m stack are esti-mated to be at the rate of 430,000, 18,000, 0.012, 0.0015, 0.37 and 0.01 vCi/sec, respectively.
3 3 With the exception of tritium, re-leases of airborne radioactivity from the Savannah River Plant have 2-46 not been detectable at the plant boundaries for several years.3 1 In 1971, the average tritium concentration in air at the SRP boundary was about 1.6 x 10 10 VICi/cm 3 , as compared to about 0.4 x 10-10 UCi/cm 3 at points 25 miles from the plant.3 2 In 1971, the only radionuclides of SRP origin detectable in river water downstream of the plant were H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, and Cs-137. Their average concentrations (viCi/cm 3) were 5.6 x 10-6 , 7 x 10-10, 9 x 10-10 and 1.6 x 10-10, respectively.
3 1 2-47 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2 1. Georgia Power Company, Alvin W. VogtZe Nuclear Plant Environ-mental Report, vol. I, Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, 50-426, and 50-427, issued February 1973, and Including Amendment No. 1, issued May 1973.2. Letter from R. M. Robinson, Chief, Airspace and Procedures Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, to R. A. Gilbert, Apr. ZO, 1973.3. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Nu-ber of Inhabitants
-Georgia, p. 7.4. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1971, p. 5.5. Letter from J. D. Smith, Superintendent of Schools, Burke County, Georgia, to R. A. Gilbert, Apr. 15, 1973.6. Letter from Mrs. M. Kane Henderson, Administrative Assistant, Burke County, Georgia, Schools, to R. A. Gilbert, Mar. 30, 1973.7. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conseivation Service, Soil Suitability for Land Development, Burke County, Georgia, October 1967.8. Letter from W. H. Craven, Jr., Burke County Agricultural Agent, to R. A. Gilbert, Nov. 13, 1972.9. Economic Development Profile for Waynesboro, Georgia, Georgia Department of Community Development.
: 10. Georgia Power Company, Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, February 1973, including Amend-ment No. 1 (April 1973), Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, 50-426, and 50-427, Fig. 2.4-21.11. Fed. Regist. 38(39, Part II): 5401 (1972).12. J. McPhee, "Travels in Georgia," The New Yorker 49(10): 92 (1973).12a. Letter from L. H. Larson, Georgia State Archaeologist, to M. G. Jewett, Director, Georgia Historical Commission, Apr. 3, 1973.
2-48 13. Fed. Regist. 37(20): 1497 (1972).14. Letter from C. C. Brown, Chief, Planning Branch, Savannah District, Corps of Engineers, to R. A. Gilbert, Jan. 3, 1973.15. Savannah River, Brier Creek to Augusta, Nautical Chart 635-SC, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ed. 5, March 1972.16. Savannah River Below Augusta, Georgia, Navigation Charts, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, Savannah, Georgia, 1972, pp. 17-18.17. H. C. S. Thorn, "New Distribution of Extreme Winds in the U.S.," J. Standards Div., Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Engrs. 94(ST7): 1787-1801 (1968).18. Letter from E. R. Mahaffey, Meteorologist in Charge, National Weather Service Office, Bush Field, Augusta, Ga., to R. A.Gilbert, Mar. 12, 1973.19. Fed. Regist. 33(10): 549 (1968).20. J. Korshover, Climatology of Stagnating Anticyclones East of the Rocky Mountains, 1936-1970, NOAA Technical Memorandum, ERL-ARL-34, 1971.21. Letter from J. R. Brown, Soil Scientist, Soil Conservation Service, Box 130, Statesboro, Ga., to Environmental Informa-tion Systems Office, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, February 1973.22. U.S. Department of the Interior, Endangered Species of the United States, official list as revised in October 1970.23. H. B. N. Hynes, The Ecology of Running Waters, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1970.24. C. E. Cushing, "Filter-Feeding Insect Distribution and Plank-tonic Food in the Montreal River," Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 92: 216-219 (1963).25. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Summary of Studies on the Savannah River 1951-1970, for the E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Inc., 1970.
: 3. THE PLANT The Vogtle Nuclear Plant consists of four pressurized-water reactor units. Each unit utilizes a closed-cycle condenser cooling system that transfers the waste heat to the atmosphere by means of a hyper-bolic natural-draft cooling tower. The plant will be constructed as 2 two-unit stations with Units 1 and 2 being constructed as one station and Units 3 and 4 as the other station. Consequently, a significant an:ount of space and equipment will be shared by Units 1 and 2 and by Units 3 and 4. Physical separation of Units 3 and 4 from Units 1 and 2 is provided and, during initial operation of Unit I (or 3) prior to completion of Unit 2 (or 4), the construc-tion area will be separated from the operating area.1 Each closed-cycle cooling system will require an average of about 19,000 gpm of makeup water. Evaporative and drift losses are esti-mated to average 14,860 and 70 gpm, respectively, while blowdown (to the river) is expected to average 4,000 gpm.The engineering and design of the VNP is the responsibility of Southern Services, Inc., the service company of the Southern Company System. Bechtel Corporation has been retained by Southern Services and will be responsible for most of the architect-engineering work.Westinghouse Electric Corporation will provide the four pressurized water reactors and General Electric Company will supply the turbine-generators.
 
===3.1 EXTERNAL===
APPEARANCE An indication of the external appearance of the finished plant is given by an architectural rendering presented in Fig. 3.1.^ A detailed layout of the plant's major facilities is shown in Fig.3.2. Twenty-four acres of the 3,177-acre site is used for a 329-MWe combustion turbine plant (6 units, to meet peak loads); the other plant facilities will require the acreages shown in Table 3.1. The plant will be situated on relatively high ground (grade elevation, 220 ft MSL) overlooking the Savannah River (average elevation about 84 ft MSL). The Unit 2 cooling tower will be the closest major structure to the bluffs that rise fairly steeply from the river;tower to bluff distance will be approximately 1,000 ft (see Fig.2.4).3-1
.&deg;.,. ..... * .... !U'I'.3 Fig. 3.1. An artist's concept of Vogtle Nuclear Plant.
P4 jTRANSMISSION, R/W--ROA D) UNIT I REACOR SLOG I 1 UNIT 2 REACTOR SLOG UNIT 3 REACTOR $LOG" -230 v 4) iUNIT, 4 EACTOR SLOG-~ ~ o z I #ISIC4YARD 0 5) TURBINE GENERATOR SLODG ITRANSMISSION RW 4. CONTROL A FUEL HANDLING BLOG c-?AUXILIARY SLDG I.9)NUCLEAR SERVICE COOLING TOWER"...0 'D- CIRCULATING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE 10) GUARN STATION I PLANT WAREHOUSE B TEMPORARY OFFICES L TEMPORARY RETENTION BASIN--i RIVER MAKE-UP INTAKE STRUCTURE Q0e BARGE UNLOADING FACILITY SDISCHARGE STRUCTURE RIVER MAKE-UP WATER LINE MAIN ACCESS ROAD NI7) COOLING WATER SLOWDOWN LINE (I&#xfd; UNIT I COOLING TOWER'D UNIT 2 COOLING TOWER , UNIT 3 COOLING TOWER ,2)g UNIT It COOLING TOWER Fig. 3.2. Vogtle site plot plan.
3-4 Table 3.1. Acreage occupied by plant facilities Facility Acreage Main power block and cooling towers 310 River intake, discharge, and barge facility 9 Transmission rights-of-way (on site) 250 Roadways 80 Meteorology tower and access road 27 Construction debris basins 88 Construction facilities 247 Total occupied by VNP facilities 1,011 Combustion turbine 24 Remainder essentially undisturbed 2,142 Total 3.177 The cylindrical, concrete containment structure for each unit will be enclosed by a steel-framed building which will be covered with metallic siding. The tops of these buildings will be approximately 187 ft above ground level. The largest structures at the site will be the hyperbolic natural-draft cooling towers, which will be about 550 ft high and 440 ft in maximum diameter.The Savannah River and Georgia State Highway 23 (approximately 5 miles distant) will be the locations from which the public will normally view the plant structures.
Generally, only the cooling towers will be visible, with the enclosure building below the line of sight. However, when the plant is in operation, the visible plumes from the cooling towers may at times rise as high as 1,500 to 2,000 ft and extend several miles downwind.
Under average meteorological conditions the visible plumes are expected to dis-appear within 500 ft of the tower top. Thus the plumes will be visible from a greater distance than that from which the structures will be seen.3.2 REACTOR, STEAM ELECTRIC SYSTEM, AND FUEL INVENTORY Each of the four Westinghouse pressurized water reactors of VNP will have a design maximum net core output rating of 3,565 MWt plus 14 MWt of nonnuclear heat (mainly from pumps) for a four-unit total output of 14,316 M~t. The corresponding electrical output from each unit will be 1,159 MWe (4,636 total). The difference between the gross thermal and net electrical outputs (2,420 MWt/unit) will be transferred to the environment at a rate of approximately 8.3 x 109 Btu/hr/unit.
More than 99% of this waste heat will be 3-5 transferred to the atmosphere by the cooling towers; the remainder will go to the Savannah River with the cooling-tower blowdown.The reactor design is similar to that of the McGuire and Watts Bar pressurized water reactors currently under construction.
Each core will contain approximately 224,000 lb of U0 2 in 51,000 cold-worked 0.374-in.-OD Zircaloy tubes. Each of the 193 fuel assemblies in the core will contain 264 of these fuel rods. The three-region cycled core will contain U-235 in enrichments of approximately 2.25, 2.80, and 3.30 wt %. Each reactor coolant system will contain four loops by which heat will be transferred from the core to the four U-tube steam generators.
These steam generators operate at about 620 0 F on the primary side and 540eF on the secondary side at design pressures of 2,235 and 985 psia, respectively.
The turbine-generator is to be furnished by General Electric Company;throttle conditions will be 965 psia and 540*F. The condenser is a three-shell, two-pass divided water box constructed using l-in.-OD, 18-BWG-inhibited Admiralty (70% copper, 30% zinc) tubes, each 45 feet long; total effective surface area is 725,000 ft 2.The condenser design pressure is 4.45 in. Hg abs.3.3 PLANT WATER USE The largest water requirement for VNP will be for makeup water for the natural-draft cooling towers. This will come from the Savannah River and will average about 19,000 gpm/unit.
The other major water requirement will be for the nuclear-service cooling towers (mechan-ical draft). These will utilize an average of about 268 gpm/unit of on-site well water for their makeup requirements.
A schematic representation of the main features of VNP's cooling and discharge systems is given in Fig. 3.3.3.3.1 Groundwater Water from the Tuscaloosa aquifer will be withdrawn at the average rate of about 2,000 gpm by means of three on-site wells (two oper-ating, one spare) to supply water to the general service water system (ER, vol. II, Sect. 3.4). Each pump is rated at 2,000 gpm.This system includes the nuclear-service-water cooling towers, the demineralizer system, the potable and sanitary water system, the fire protection system,'as well as other, smaller systems. The largest well water use will be the average 268 gpm/unit (1,072 gpm total) required as makeup for the mechanical-draft cooling towers of the nuclear-service-water cooling system. Because of the impor-tance of this system to reactor operation and shutdown, each of the eight mechanical-draft cooling towers has its own standby well and 1,000 gpm pump.
STEAM TURBINE He (is 6PN816119) j PER UNIT I, STEAM GENERATOR MAIN CONDENSER.. 4 PER UNIT I PER UNIT EVAPORATION 14860 P- CONTINGENCY FLOW DRIFT ?0 op.~N ,3O 4 FOO SCALE CONTROL IQ UNIT'Oll CL ONRMAL FLOW 0 P....RATR PIAYI PER RUNT1[SSE of? CO T C O P TLVOLUME OF CIRCULATING WATER U 4 .12.000.000 g.1 /UNIT*CTON MAKElUP lSTOA TANK RADIATN LINER UNIT MI wN MAEU ,,PER2S IP U0MINCflAL-IZErO
-*-_HjUNITS
.... .... A38.000 NYDRAZINE IOM[ALE PLANT -w "@OTNg AMMONIA DEI WTiNESTALIED I PE 2 NT F PHOSPHATEWAESTRGOP TANPK OSEDLOOP I PER 2 UNITS /ION RECVCLE L. A-1 i on IN 14504 FOR SCALE -SLSTEMGE .T~~SR CO.103 260 MAKEUP WELL IS P 4 UNTS UT 0 EVAPORATION S LET Down TO 02DRIFT. -LIOUID RADWASTE DI SYTOIPOTASSIUM SO 50op. TNBYWL CHROMATE : *,ITS IS I~NORMAL FLOW OgPff NCIlLEAR SEIRVICE I COOLING TOWE --:(N(,,,-CLOSED I OCR UNitIT I STEAM GENERATNR I C ORN INPON -,SPAR EN UN .IT BA SSIN STORAGE CAPACITY SLOWEOWN SE ROOLINE SYSTEM C.HLHR OREE N ATION iMOHRE M PROCErSSIG.
F IOW I PE R 4 UNITS 4.00001P Fi.33 Ashmti4ersetto ofm pthe maiNS n feaure o VH.NIAO P'sT--coo gNo ONTINUOUS and d i ha s y/ IL SUMPMAYt TO RADWASTE SYSTEM NOMt0,p LTO I -MOITO I PERN 2 UNIT, 4a" " lMAX 15O000' ,IOP.F N I PER 4 UNITS STEAM GENERATOR r- ;l OLOWDOWN NORMAL 2q- tP, / UNIT M_ IXIC CHAMBER ,-J/SURGEr TANK l IMAXIMUM ?Sjpm/UNIT -iI PN 4 UNITS [ ~ ~ OIO i PRUI RNCOU RADWASTE I 40-' OP. r PE UNITS 0 PNGCES~SING SYSTEM, -2 NO4 NR HCO- VI---H A I W I N l A N * ......RE T E N T IO N R E T E N T IO N 1. I S O R E T E N T IO N _Y i m M A O U F A L O NE'lN &#xa5; (T M 10 11q+SLUDGE PITOE IE I STRUCTUR'E AVG, FLOW+" ,,,0.I PCER 4 UNITS 4.600.000 9100 Fig. 3.3. A schematic representation of the main features of VNP's cooling and discharge systems.0' 3-7 3.3.2 Surface water The Savannah River will furnish the makeup water for the natural-draft cooling towers. This will be the largest water requirement of VNP and will average about 19,000 gpm/unit.
Occasionally (when liquid radioactive waste is being discharged), an additional 15,000 gpm of dilution water may be required from the river. The required intake and discharge structures are described below.3.3.2.1 Intake structure Diagrams of the plan and cross-section of the VNP intake structure are shown in Fig. 3.4, and it is described further in the Environ-mental Report (ER, vol. II, Sect. 3.5.4). The structure is separated into two parts, one for each two units, and each having three rectangular "cells" opening to the river. Each of these cells has its own trash rack (vertical 1/2-in, steel bars on 3-1/2-in.
centers)and a 10-ft wide, 3/8-in. mesh stainless steel screen that travelt vertically at the rate of 10 ft/min. A stationary screen can be lowered on the intake pump side of the traveling screen; this stationary screen will be used only when the traveling screen has been removed for maintenance.
Leaves, twigs and other material washed off the traveling screens will be returned to the river.As shown in Fig. 3.4, the three 22,000-gpm makeup water pumps (two operating, one spare) and the 15,000-gpm dilution pump, which occupy each half of the intake structure, are located in a common chamber.Water velocity through the traveling screens is dependent upon he number of pumps operating and on the river level. The applicant has indicated (ER, vol. !I, Sect. 3.5.4) that, at a river level of 80 ft MSL (minimum flow of 5,800 cfs) when two makeup pumps and one dilution pump are operating (total flow 59,000 gpm), the water velocities through the trash rack and traveling screen will be less than 0.5 and 1.0 fps, respectively.
At the average river elevation of about 84 ft MSL (at 10,150 cfs), these velocities would probably be reduced to less than about 0.35 and 0.7 fps, respectively.
If only the two makeup water pumps were operating (normal conditions) at river elevation 84 ft HSL, water velocities through the trash racks and traveling screens are expected to be less than 0.27 and 0.55 fps, respectively.
The above calculations assumed that all three cells were open to the river. A reduction in the number of cells operating would increase the water velocity through the remaining screens.
a CIO* ii"i.......
... e- MINIMUM SURFACE; .EL. 0'r-".........
..~ I..EL. LAN5ECTI Fig. 3.4. Vogtle Nuclear Plant intake structure.
3-9 3.3.2.2 Discharge structure The discharge structure is shown diagramatically in Fig. 3.5. It includes a mixing chamber into which-the blowdown of the plant effluents from all units will be discharged and mixed prior to release to the river. Provisions are made to add 15,000 gpm as a dilution flow, if necessary, when liquid radioactive waste is being discharged.
The mixing chamber will be situated about 350 ft from the river bank.From the mixing chamber, liquid discharges from the plant will flow through one of two (one operating, one spare) 450-ft-long, 48-in.-diam lines into the river. Each line will extend about 100 ft into the river; these lines will be perpendicular to the river flow and will be half buried in the river bottom. The last 60 ft of each line will contain 24 nozzles, 8 in. diam, spaced on 30-in. centers.These nozzles will extend about 2 ft from the outer diameter of the pipes, at an angle of about 228 30' from the river bottom, and will be pointed downstream.
The ends of the nozzles will be about 1-1/2 ft above normal river bottom (about 70 ft MSL in this area). The placement of the diffuser nozzles was selected to prevent scouring of the river bottom and to prevent the warm water effluent from reaching the bottom (ER, vol II, Sect. 3.5.3.1).
At minimum river elevation of 80 ft MSL (5,800 cfs flow), the ends of the discharge nozzles will be about 8.5 ft below the river's surface.When four reactors are operating and their cooling towers' blowdown is at its expected maximum (5,500 gpm), the total plant flow (see Fig. 3.3 for other sources) will be about 23,140 gpm (see Sect. 3.4).At this discharge rate, the average velocity of the water jet at each nozzle will be about 6.2 fps.3.4 HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEMS Each unit of VNP will require two heat dissipation systems. The largest, employing the hyperbolic natural-draft cooling towers, will dissipate the waste heat from the main circulating water system. The smaller heat dissipation systems will use mechanical-draft cooling towers to dissipate the waste heat from the nuclear service system.3.4.1 Main circulating water systems The main circulating water systems provide cooling water for the main condensers and the plant heat exchangers.
The turbine con-densers require a flow of 460,800 gpm at an inlet temperature of E~LANL APPROX. GROUND LINE SAVANNAH RIYJ:R MIN. EL. 80*-0\=01 DISCHARGE PORTS)0 Fig. 3.5. Vogtle Nuclear Plant discharge structure.
3-11 90*F to maintain the design pressure of 4.45 in. Hg abs within the condenser and to dissipate a heat load of about 7.94 x 109 Btu/hr.The plant heat exchanger cooling system requires about 14,000 gpm of circulating water to transfer a heat load of approximately 0.21 x 109 Btu/hr (ER, vol. II, p. 3.5-1). Thus the total main circulating water flow will be 474,800 gpm with a heat load of about 8.2 x 109 Btu/hr to be rejected to the atmosphere by the natural-draft cooling towers. Total water volume of each circu-lating system will be e.bout 12,000,000 gallons, wnich includes about 7,570,000 gallons in the tower basin.Each of the four hyperbolic natural-draft cooling towers will be about 440 ft in maximum diameter and 550 ft high. The towers will have an internal concrete support structure with cement-asbestos fill material.
The applicant estimates an annual loss of 450 lb of asbestos, 2,065 lb of cement, and 1,237 lb of silica flour from this material due to leaching and erosion. The design character-istics of these towers will be as follows: 78*F wet-bulb tempera-ture, 12*F approach (approach to wet-bulb temperature), and a 34.5 F 0 cooling range (the temperature difference between the hot and cold water). The average water temperature to the cooling tower will be 121i.5*F, with an average water temperature in the basin of 90 0 F. The basin water temperature will vary from about 84*F in January to 92*F in August. At a circulating water flow of 474,800 gpm, the maximum drift loss for each tower is estimated to be 70 gpm (0.015% of flow), while the maximum evaporative loss will be about 16,400 gpm (3.45% of flow). Average drift and evap-orative losses are estimated by the applicant to be 70 and 14,860 gpm, respectively.
The concentration of dissolved solids in the circulating water will be maintained within acceptable limits by removing a continuous flow designated as the blowdown.
The appli-cant has indicated that this blowdown will range from 2,200 to 5,500 gpm, which would result in increasing the concentration of dissolved solids 8 to 4 times, respectively, over the concentration present in the makeup water (i.e., tower operation will normally be in the range 8 to 4 cycles). Average blowdown is expected to be 4,000 gpm (5 cycles). Thus, assuming average drift, evaporation, and blowdown to be 70, 14,860, and 4,000 gpm, respectively, the average makeup water requirement will be about 19,000 gpm/unit to be withdrawn from the Savannah River.Air, saturated with water vapor, will exit from the top of each cooling tower at an estimated average temperature of 109*F, an estimated velocity of 10.4 fps, and with an estimated rate of 176,500,000 lb/hr (ER, vol. II, Sect. 3.5.3).
3-12 3.4.2 Nuclear service cooling-water system The nuclear service cooling-water system removes heat from the component cooling water system and other safety related equipment and transfers it to the atmosphere via mechanical-draft cooling towers (PSAR, vol. VI, Sect. 6.4.1). The component cooling water system transfers heat from equipment in contact with reactor cool-ant to the nuclear service cooling-water system (PSAR, vol. VI, Sect. 6.4.2). These two systems provide an overall cooling system with a physical barrier between components carrying reactor coolant and the mechanical-draft cooling towers' circulating water system to prevent the escape of radioactive reactor coolant to the outside environment.
These systems are also used for decay-heat removal from the core during reactor shutdown.Each VNP unit has associated with it two mechanical-draft cooling towers. Makeup water for these towers will come from on-site wells (see Sect. 3.3.1). During normal operation only one tower will be in service. Circulating water flow through the tower will be at a rate of about 20,700 gpm, and the normal heat load will be about 0.1 x 109 Btu/hr (PSAR, vol. VI, Table 6.4-2). Normal blowdown (at 90&deg;F) and evaporation/drift will be 65 and 203 gpm, respectively, thus requiring an average makeup rate of 268 gpm per unit. Maximum evaporation and drift, blowdown, and makeup rates are 380, 90, and 470 gpm/unit.
Maximum blowdown temperature will be 95*F. During normal shutdown of each unit, both cooling towers will be in opera-tion. Total water flow will then be about 41,400 gpm/unit, with a maximum heat load of about 0.28 x 109 Btu/hr. Makeup rate for shut-down conditions will be about 300 gpm/tower (PSAR vol. VI, Table 6.4-2).3.4.3 Thermal effluent dissipation to Savannah River As described in Sects. 3.4.1 and 3.4.2, over 99% of the waste heat from VNP will be rejected to the atmosphere by the cooling towers.Less than 1% will be trangferred to the Savannah River as blowdown from these towers.The maximum transfer rate of heat to the Savannah River will occur when all four units are operating at maximum blowdown of 5,500 gpm from each of the natural-draft towers and at 90 gpm from the mechanical-draft towers. Although during shutdown of a unit the blowdown rate from its mechanical-draft towers will increase tv about 180 gpm/unit, this increase will be insignificant compared with the decrease in blowdown from the natural-draft tower.
3-13 The maximum extent of the 5 F* mixing zone (volume of river water which is elevated 5 F&deg; or more above ambient water temperature by the thermal discharge from VNP) will occur in January or February when river water temperature is the lowest (41*F) and the differ-ence between its temperature and that of the VNP discharge (84*F)is the greatest, and when all four units are operating at blowdown rates of 5,500 gpm. All other cases with less blowdown, fewer units operating, or higher ambient river water temperatures, will give a 5 F" mixing zone that is smaller in extent.The extent of this mixing zone was estimated by both applicant and staff. These calculations, which were in very close agreement, are described in the following sections.3.4.3.1 Applicant's analysis of the thermal discharge into the Savannah River The multiport jet discharging into shallow moving water is a system that has received relatively little experimental or theoretical consideration.
Consequently, only approximations can be made for the sizes and shapes of the mixing zones for this type of system.The applicant has used t~o theoretical analyses to redict the properties of the discharge plume. The Koh and Fan3 model has been used to predict the behavior of a multiport jet discharging into deep, nonmoving water. The applicant has used this near-field model to calculate the volumes and temperature distributions of the plumes (near-field is the region where the discharge jet momentum and buoyancy are responsible for causing the dilution).
The river velocity will deflect this plume; its orientation downstream from the diffuser was determined from the monograms of Shirazi and Davis.'4 The applicant made calculations of plume properties for flows of 22,000 gpm (maximum expected blowdown from 4 units) and 37,000 gpm (blowdown plus dilution flow) under both winter and summer conditions (ER, vol II, Figs. 3.5-4 through 3.5-9). For the undiluted flows, the 5 F&deg; isotherm extends downstream about 20 ft in winter and about 7 ft in summer; maximum width is about 64 and 61 ft, respectively.
With dilution, the 5 F* isotherm extends downstream about 11 ft in winter and 4 ft in summer; maximum widths are about 62 and 61 ft, respectively.
During the winter under no-dilution conditions when the 5 F* plume had its maximum extent it was estimated to be not more than about 4 ft thick. In none of the applicant's evaluations did the 5 Fe plume reach the river's surface nor touch its bottom.
3-14 3.4.3.2 Staff's analysis of the thermal discharge into the Savannah River Recent work by Jirka and Harleman 5 has shown that most multiport diffusers can be analyzed as slot jets, where the separate circular ports are replaced by a continuous slot of the same area as the com-bined ports. The case of a slot jet in a flowing environment has been studied experimentally by Cederwall 6 and both experimentally and theoretically by Jirka and Harleman.5 Both studies show that when the horizontal momentum of the receiving water is large com-pared with the discharge buoyancy, the discharge does not exhibit the typical buoyant jet behavior, as assumed by the applicant, but mixes completely with the ambient flow over the diffuser.
Jirka 5 and Adams have also shown that a diffuser discharging in the same direction as the ambient flow tends to entrain water from outside the immediate diffuser region. As the mixed flow moves away from the diffuser it tends to contract.
Both these effects are included in Jirka's analysis.
For a river velocity of 1.7 fps, a depth of 10 ft, and maximum diffuser discharge, a dilution of approximately 21 is obtained.
Jirka notes that his experimentally observed dilu-tions were approximately 20% lower than those calculated, where observed dilutions were defined in terms of the maximum temperatures at the end of the near-field zone (2 to 3 times the water depth from the diffuser).
Thus, based on this approach, it appears that under the worst conditions (maximum discharge of 23,140 gpm, an initial 43 F* temperature difference between the river water and the discharge) the maximum temperature rise should be less than 3 F 0 within 30 ft from the diffuser.
This figure is supported by work done by Cederwall, 6 Adams, 7 Harleman et al.8 Note that this anal-ysis shows the applicant's estimate to be conservative.
As the mixed flow proceeds downstream, lateral mixing is expected to occur, particularly because of the small spur dikes extending into the river a short distance downstream of the discharge (ER, vol.II, p. 4.4-3a) and the bend in the river about 1/2 mile downstream.
The width of the river at the point of discharge is about 345 ft.Under the conditions described above, when the discharge is mixed with half of the total river's flow, the river temperature would be increased only about 0.76 F 0.Complete dilution with the entire river flow reduces this increase to about 0.4 F 0.Under average river flow (10,150 cfs) or under average January-February flows (about 12,000 cfs, see Sect. 2.5.1) the values cited above would be about halved. For annual average blowdown volumes (4,000 gpm/unit), these values would be further reduced by a factor of about 0.7. It should also be noted that the calculations described above were for the maximum expected temperature difference between 3-15 the river and the VNP discharge.
The average temperature difference is expected to be about 12 F 0 (ranging from an average value of 17.5 in February to 6.5 in September);
combining this estimate with average river flow (10,150 cfs) and average blowdown (4,000 gpm) leads to a calculated average river temperature rise of 0.045 F 0 (assuming no heat loss from the river by evaporation or other processes).
The diffuser length/depth ratio 6 is much smaller than those usually considered
(>20), and three dimensional effects may be even more important than those observed by Jirka.5 For this reason, and to check on the computations of the applicant, the staff also used the Koh and Fan 3-Shirazi and Davis8 4 approach.
In addition to performing evaluations under some of the same conditions as the applicant's, the staff evaluated the discharge plume properties under other conditions.
The latter conditions encompassed situations when lesa than four units might be operating (as for example, prior to the completion of all units or when one or more units might be shut down) as well as different conditions of discharge jet velocity.The latter condition can easily be varied by changing the diameter of the exit ports. For example, we calculate an exit velocity of about 6.2 fps when the total blowdown is about 23,140 gpm; reducing the diameter of the exit ports from 8 in. to 6 in. will increase this discharge velocity to about 11 fps.As noted above, the staff evaluated several alternative discharge systems in addition to the design proposed by the applicant; the results of these analyses are reported in section 9.2.3. Two of the alternatives were not as desirable as the applicants proposed design.The third alternative was a slightly modified version of the appli-cants' proposed diffuser system using 6" rather than 8" ports. For the same discharge rate, the use of a smaller diameter port increases the velocity of the discharge at the exit from the ports. As demon-strated in the tests conducted by TVA and the Corps of Engineers at the Waterworks Experiment Station on the model for the Browns Ferry diffuser system, higher exit velocities draw more of the river water into the jet stream and promote more ra&#xfd;id and more thorough mixing and dilution of the effluent.
While the thermal effects of the Vogtle Plant on the Savannah River are insignificant with the applicants proposed design based on 8" ports, with 6" ports thermal effects would become almost negligible.
Moreso than from a thermal effects standpoint, the more rapid mixing associated with 6" ports would be beneficial in rapidly diluting residual chlorine in tne effluent with river water.Some results of the staff's calculations are shown in Fig. 3.6 where a profile view of the discharge plume is shown for a dis-charge of 23,140 gpm (5,500 gpm per unit from four units, plus RVRSURFACE AT 5.0, i 80 cr)'7--J 23,140 gpm DISCHARGEin. DIFFUSER PORT 70 RIVER BOTTOM 05' 10 15 20 25 FEET DOWNSTREAM Fig. 3.6. Cross-section of maximum expected extent of 5 F&deg; isotherm.
3-17 additonal expected plant discharge flows) (see Fig. 3.3) into the river, in February, at minimum river flow and at minimum expected river temperature (41*F). A sumnmary of results for several other discharge conditions is given in Table 3.2.Table 3.2. Staffs calculation of the 5 F* mixing zone under several discharge conditions Initi IVolume Port Total Discharge Initial enclosing diameter units flow discharge the S i*(in.) operating (gpm)a velocity isothermb (fps) (ft 3)8 I S.785c 1.5 2,300 4 9,500d 2.5 3,200 4 16,600r 4.4 4,000 4 23,140c 6.2 4,300 6 I S,78Sc 2.7 1,700 4 23,140c 11.0 2,400 alncludes other plant discharges in addition to blowdown.bVolume of water 5 F* (or greater) above ambient river water temperature.
CMaximum expected blowdown of 5,500 gpm/unit.dMinimum expected blowdown of 2,200 gpm/unit.eAverage expected blowdown of 4,000 gpm/unit.The volumes of water contained within the 5 F 0 isotherms, as calcu-lated by the staff, are in reasonable agreement with the applicant's results. In some cases the lengths and shapes differed slightly, but these differences are not considered to be significant.
In evaluating these results, one must consider that the models used for the calculations are somewhat different from the situation actually present when the diffusers operate in the Savannah River.The moving river changes the jet properties:
the shallowness of the river at minimum flow also limits the calculations.
Thus the procedure of combining the calculations for a multiport jet into stagnant water with those from a single jet into moving water is uncertain and may be physically meaningless.
In conclusion, two dissimilar methods were used to analyze the plume behavior.
In one approach, the diffuser is represented as an equivalent slot jet and experimental results from similar sys-tems were used as a basis for analysis.
In the staff's opinion this approach is the best one. The staff also checked the appli-cant's approach for a range of conditions.
Both approaches show that thermal effects will probably be of limited significance.
3-18 3.4.4 Therma" effluent dissipation to the atmosphere The surrounding atmosphere will be the heat sink for more than 99%of the heat rejected to the environment.
Each of the four natural-draft towers will transfer heat to the atmosphere at a rate of about 8.2 x 109 Btu/hr by evaporating water at an average rate of 14,860 gpm. The behavior of this plume of warm air, saturated with water vapor, may lead to fogging under certain meteorological conditions.(Icing in connection with the use of natural-draft cooling towers equipped with drift eliminators has never been reported, and no generally accepted quantitative means exist to predict such situa-tions.) The staff has evaluated this possibility of increased fogging.Estimates of potential ground fogging were made possible from a knowledge of the ambient saturation-deficit history in the region and from the moisture content of the cooling-tower plumes. Satur-ation deficit is the grams of water that must be added to a cubic meter of air to cause the air to become saturated.
A joint fre-quency distribution, on an annual average basis, of dry-bulb tem-perature and wet-bulb temperature was available from the Air Weather Service, Climatic Center, Asheville, N.C., for 10 years (1951-1961) for Bush Field (about 19 air miles from the site) and was used to calculate cumulative frequency distribution of the corresponding saturation deficits.
The moisture concentration in the cooling-tower plume at ground level was calculated as a function of down-wind distance by use of the Pasquill-Gifford equation.9 This equation was solved for the case of annual average meteorological conditions (relative humidity, 72%; average temperature, 63*F)and for neutral and stable turbulence conditions.
Under these conditions, the average wind speed at the top of the tower was 7 and 9 mph for stable and neutral conditions, respectively.
The total plume rise was calculated for stable and neutral condi-tions, under the assumptions of both no water-vapor condensation and complete condensation (condensation of vapor in the plume will release heat and therefore will increase the plume buoyancy).10,11 For neutral conditions, plume rises of 1,200 and 3,300 ft were calculated for noncondensing and condensing 1 2 conditions, respec-tively. For stable conditions, the corresponding plume rises were 1,150 and 2,000 ft.At a distance of about 5 miles (nearest highway) for stable con-ditions with no condensation, the excess moisture along the plume centerline at ground level was calculated to be about 4 x 10-3 g/m 3 3-19 per operating cooling tower. This moisture content is considered by the staff to be very small and not to contribute detectably toward the formation of ground fog. For conditions with conden-sation, or for neutral stability conditions, these concentrations would be lower; consequently, the calculations were not continued.
Therefore, the staff considers that the operation of the natural-draft cooling towers at VNP would not measurably increase ground fogging in the area. The applicant also reported that no increase in the frequency of ground fog was expected to result from natural-draft cooling-tower plumes (ER, vol. II, Sect. 5.1.5).The condition of high wind fumigation was also examined.
The ex-istence of this condition under neutral stability gives the highest possible ground concentrations of moisture for all possible wind speeds and directions.
A maximal concentration of 0.15 g/m 3 per cooling tower was found at about 5 miles with a wind speed of 22 mph. According to the cumulative moisture-deficit frequency curve, the total additional moisture from four cooling towers (0.60 g/m 3) will cause fog an additional 20% of the time' that the high wind fumigation occurs. However, the occurrence of a wind of this velocity in a specific centerline direction would be very rare, as would be the existence of a high wind along with a low moisture deficit.Plume visibility was also estimated.
Calculation of the visible plume for average conditions indicated that it would disappear about 450 ft above the tower top and about 35 ft downwind.02
 
===3.5 RADIOACTIVE===
 
WASTE During operation of the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, radioactive materials will be produced by fission and by neutron activation reactions of metals and materials in the reactor coolant systems.Small amounts of gaseous and liquid radioactive waste will enter the effluent streams, which will be monitored and processed within the plant to minimize the radioactive nuclides that are released to the atmosphere and into the Savannah River at low concentrations under controlled conditions.
The levels of radioactivity that may be released during operation of the plant will be in accordance with the Commission's regulations as set forth in 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50.The waste handling and treatment systems installed at the plant are discussed in the applicant's Preliminary Safety Analysis Re-port and Amendments and in the applicant's Environmental Report.In these references, the applicant has prepared an analysis of 3-20 his treatment systems and has estimated the annual effluents.
The following analysis is based on our model, adjusted to apply to this plant, and uses somewhat different operating conditions than those assumed by the applicant.
Our calculated effluents are, therefore, different from the .,plicant's; however, the model used results from a review of available data from operating power plants. On the basis of the staff's evaluation, the radio-active waste management systems planned for the Vogtle plant are expected to be capable of providing "as low as practicable" discharges of radioactive waste to the environment.
 
====3.5.1 Liquid====
radioactive wastes The primary coolant loop of a nuclear reactor will contain small amounts of radioactive fission and activation products.
The liquid radioactive waste system shown in Fig. 3.7 consists of the process equipment and instrumentation necessary to collect, monitor, store, and dispose of radioactive liquid wastes from boron recycle sys-tems, equipment drains, floor drains, decontamination operations, and steam generator blowdown.A portion of the primary coolant is processed for control of the boron concentration and will normally be returned to the reactor makeup storage tank. Liquids from equipment drains, waste gas system drains, the sample room sink, the containment sump, and the reactor coolant drain tank are collected in the waste holdup tank and processed through an evaporator and demineralizer.
Liquids from floor drains, laboratory equipment rinses, and de-contamination operations will be collected in the floor drain tank and processed through an evaporator and demineralizer.
Steam generator blowdown will flow through a heat exchanger and a pressure reducing valve before processing through four demin-eralizers in series.Each of the four units has facilities to process the liquid wastes generated in that plant. The only portion of the radioactive liquid processing system that is shared is the boron recycle system.Prior to release of any treated liquid waste, samples are analyzed to determine the type and amount of radioactivity in the batch.Based on the results of the analysis, thes: waters are either released under controlled conditions via the cooling tower blowdown discharge system or retained for further processing.
Radiation monitoring equipment automatically terminates liquid waste dis-charge from individual subsystems if radiation levels are above a predetermined level in that system.
REACTOR STEAM GENERATORS CONDNSE N3 LAB Fig. 3.7. Liquid radioactive waste systems for Vogtle Nuclear Plant.
3-22 Excess liquid from the Chemical and Volume Control System (shim bleed) is collected in one of two 112,000-gal holdup tanks that is shared with another unit. The shim bleed will be at an activity of the primary coolant before it has passed through two mixed-bed demineralizers in series and will flow into the holdup tanks at a rate of about 1,840 gal/day. Sixty days decay is assumed for the wastes during batch accumulation.
After a sufficient quantity has been accumulated, the liquid wastes are normally passed through the recycle evaporator and an anion demineralizer that are shared with another unit. Normally, the processed liquid flows to the reactor makeup storage tank. However, in our evaluation we assumed that 10% of the processed liquid flows to the 5,000-gal monitor tanks from which it is discharged.
Liquids that could contain significant quantities of radioactivity are collected in various drains feeding into the 10,000-gal waste holdup tank. Sources of liquid wastes include reactor coolant liquid from controlled leakoff, leakage from primary auxiliary equipment, drains from the laboratory sink, and liquids from the reactor containment and auxiliary building sumps. In our evalua-tion, we assumed 166 gal/day of liquid at primary coolant activity will flow into the waste holdup tank. From the waste holdup tank the liquid is processed through a 15-gpm waste evaporator and a mixed-bed condensate demineralizer.
The demineralizer effluent is normally collected in the 5,000-gal waste condensate tank for reuse in the plartt. However, in our evaluation we assumed that 10% of the processed liquid flows to the 5,000-gal monitor tank from which it is discharged.
We estimate that less than 0.01 Ci/year of liquid waste will be released from this system and the shim bleed system.Liquids from floor drains, decontamination operations, and labora-tory equipment rinses will be collected in the 10,000-gal floor drain tank. In our evaluation, we assumed that 900 gal/day of liquid wastes at 7% of the primary coolant activity will flow into the floor drain tank. From the floor drain tank, the liquid is processed through the 15-gpm waste evaporator and a mixed-bed condensate demineralizer.
The demineralizer effluent is normally collected in the 5,000-gal waste monitor tank from which it is discharged.
In our evaluation, we assumed 100% discharge of these processed liquids with 30 days decay during batch accumulation.
We estimate that approximately 0.03 Ci/year of liquid waste will be released from this system.
3-23 The blowdown from the steam generators will flow through a heat exchanger and a pressure reduction valve at approximately 20 gpm per unit. If activity in the blowdown exceeds a preset level due to leakage in the steam generator tubes, the water will be processed through two cation demineralizers in series and two mixed-bed demineralizers in series and collected in a 1,500-gal surge tank from which it is discharged with approximately 1-hr delay. We estimate that approximately 0.21 Ci/year of liquid waste will be released from this system. Any leakage from the secondary loop to the turbine building that occurs will be released untreated through the turbine building drains. We estimate that approximately 0.16 Ci/year of liquid waste will be released from this system.An average of 450 gal/day of laundry and shower waste is considered to be collected in the 10,000-gal laundry and hot shower drain tank that is shared with another unit. Experience has shown that these wastes can be released with no treatment at activity levels less than 10-7 jCi/cm 3.In our evaluation, we assumed all these wastes would be released without treatment.
Based on our evaluation, we do not consider that this source will be a contributing source of radioisotopic releases.Annual releases of fission product radionuclides from Vogtle were calculated based on reactor operation at 3,525 MWt (maximum power)for 292 full-power days with 0.25% of the operating power fission product source term. Corrosion product activities were based cn operating experience with pressurized water reactors.Based on the assumptions shown in Table 3.3, the annual releases of radioactive materials in the liquid waste were calculated to be a fraction of the quantities shown in Table 3.4. To compensate for treatment equipment downtime and expected operational occurrences, the calculated releases were normalized to 0.4 Ci/year, excluding tritium. Based on operating experience at R. E. Ginna, H. B. Robinson and Point Beach, we estimate that about 350 Ci/year of tritium will be released to the environment.
Since the estimated release of liquid radioisotopes, excluding tritium and noble gases, is less than 5 Ci/year, we conclude that the liquid waste processing equipment meets the as low as practicable guidelines.
The applicant estimates that approximately 2 Ci/year, excluding tritium and noble gases, and 70 Ci/year of tritium will be released from the plant. The applicant does not provide the basis for his estimate of annual tritium releases.
3-24 Table 3.3. Principal assumptions used In calculating releases of radioactive effluents Reactor Therma I power Plant factor Total steam flow Number of steam generators Steam generator blowdown rate Fraction of operating power equilibrium fission prodlct released Primary coolant shim bleed Gas decay time Primary coolant degassed Primary coolant gas decay time Containment volume Containment purge Volume or primary system Weight of steam in each generator Weight or liquid in each generator Leaks Reactor building Auxiliary building Primary-secondary coolant Turbine building Removal coefficients for iodine Steam generator internal Condenser air ejector Primary coolant leakage to containment Primary coolant leakage to auxiliary building 3,565 MWt 0.80 1.52 X 107 lb/hr 4 9,120 lb/hr 0.25%1.33 gpm 90 days 2 times/yr 90 days 2.75 x 10' ft 3 4 times/yr 12.750 ft 3 8,500 lb 95,000 lb 40 gal/day 20 gal/day 20 gal/day 5 gal/min 0.01 0.0005 0.01 0.005 Decontamination factors Shim bleed Equipment drains Dirty wastes Blowdown I l0s 10e 10t 10 3 Cs, Rb 10' 1O0 1Os 2 X 10 3 Mo IO0 10e 106 102 Y 10' lOs tOs 10 Others IOs 1Os 1O0 106 3-25 Table 3.4. Calculated releases of radioactive materials in liquid effluents from Alvin W. Vogtle Plant Release per unit Release per unit Isotope (Ci/year) isotope (Ci/year)Br-82 0.00006 Cs-I 34 0.013 Br-83 0.00007 Cs- 136 0.0018 Rb-86 0.00002 Cs-I 37 0.0090 Rb-88 0.00002 Cs- 138 0.00003 Sr-89 0.00008 Ba-I 37m 0.0084 Y-90 0.00007 Ba-140 0.00003 Y-9 Iin 0.00063 La-140 0.00003 Y-91 0.0043 Ce-141 0.00001 Y-92 0.00016 Ce-144 0.00001 Y-93 0.00008 Pr-144 0.00001 Zr-95 0.00001 P-33 0.00004 Nb-95 0.00002 Cr-S 1 0.00015 Mo-99 0.072 Mn-54 0.00005 Tc-99m 0.086 Mn-56 0.00005 Tc.127m 0.00008 Fe-55 0.00031 Tc-I 27 0.00008 Fe-59 0.00011 Tc-] 29m 0.00023 Co-S8 0.0022 Te-129 0.00015 Co-60 0.00038 Te-I 31 m 0.00004 Ni-63 0.00003 Tel 32 0.00074 Nb-92 0.00001 1-130 0.00028 W-185 0.00001 1-131 0.13 W-187 0.00004 1-132 0.0050 Np-239 0.00001 1-133 0.073 I-i 34 0.00011 Total (excluding 0.40 1-135 0.013 tritium)Cs-134m 0.00001 Tritium -350 3.5.2 Gaseous wastes During power operation of the plant, radioactive materials released to the atmosphere in gaseous effluents include low concentrations of fission product noble gases (krypton and xenon), halogens (mostly iodines), tritium contained in water vapor, and particu-late material including both fission products and activation products.The primary source of long-lived gaseous radioactive waste will be from the degassing of the primary coolant during letdown of the cooling water into the chemical and volume control tank. A nitro-gen purge sweeps the gases from the chemical and volume control tank to gas decay tanks for decay. Additional sources of gaseous waste activity include ventilation air released from the auxiliary 3-26 building, turbine building, and reactor containment building, re-sulting from system leakages.
Off-gas from the main condenser air ejectors will contain radioactive gases and is included as a source of gaseous release from the plant.Gaseous waste processing and ventilation systems are shown in Fig.3.8. A list of assumptions used in evaluating the systems is given in Table 3.3. Our estimated releases from the systems are listed in Table 3.5.Table 3.5. Calculated annual release of radioactive material in gaseous effluent from Alvin W. Vogtle Plant (per unit)Ci/ycar pe Auxiliary Containment Gaseous Air Turbine building purges system ejector building K1-83m I a a I a 2 Kr-85m 5 a 5 5 a 10 K--85 S I S 950 8 a 980 Kr-87 4 a a 4 a 7 Kr-88 9 a a 9 a 19 Xe-131m 6 2 4 a a 13 Xe-133m 3 a a 3 a 6 Xe-! 33 120 20 5 130 a 275 Xe-135m I a a I a 2 Xc-i 35 II a a 12 a 23 Xc-137 I a a 1 a 2 Xe-138 3 a a 3 a 5 Total noble 1340 gases 1-131 0.007 0.0004 0.011 0.02 0.04 1-133 0.009 0.0004 0.006 0.01 0.03 a lndicates less than 1.0 rot noble gases.Most of the gaseous radioactivity received by the gaseous waste system will be from the degassing of the primary coolant during letdown of the primary coolant and from the boron recycle evapo-rator. These gases (mostly hydrogen with small amounts of en-trained noble fission gases) will enter a circulating nitrogen stream. The resulting mixture of nitrogen-hydrogen-fission gas will be pumped by one of two compressors to one of two hydrogen-oxygen recombiners.
Enough oxygen is added in the recombiner to reduce the volume by removing the hydrogen and forming water vapor.The water vapor will be removed by a moisture separator.
The re-sulting gaseous stream (consisting mostly of nitrogen with small 3-27 r -YSTEM COMPRESSOR TANKSP I I wASE__GAS
_TREATM.ENT
_SYSTEM_ JSHAREni AIR E1 j j{ f M. :6j00f 1 M PRIMY VENT SYSTEM REACTOR CONTAINMENT R E AQTO.R_ _C NT AINM ENT_ PU.RGE  AIR P A PRIMARY SYSTEM VNiT C Fo LEAKS OR_EATO CNTINEN ,,uEL LEAKS, I 2 AUXILIARY BUILDING OR IFUEL HANDLING BUILDING)_FUEL- HANDLING_
QR_.AUX ILIARY_ .P.ILDINGq
_V.ENTkATION_
S YST.EM_AIR PA PRIMARYSYSTEM800
.000 C F SYSECONDARYTURBINE BUILDING LEAK ROOF EXHAUSTS TURBINF BUILDING P -PREFILTER A -ABSOLUTE FILTER TURBINE BUILDING VENTILATION SYSTEM C -CHARCOAL FILTER Fig. 3.8. Gaseous radioactive waste systems for Vogtle Nuclear Plant.NT NT 3-28 amounts of the noble fission gases) will be circulated through one of eight gas storage tanks and back to the compressor suction to form a circulating loop. The eight gas storage tanks have the capacity to hold waste gases estimated to be generated over a 40-yr period. Therefore, the waste gases can be recirculated and held up for the expected life of the plant and no gaseous radwaste need be released to the environment.
The gaseous wastes will be distrib-uted among the storage tanks by alternating use of the tanks.During cold shutdowns, when the residual fission gases and the hydrogen contained in the reactor coolant are removed, the gaseous waste system will be operated in the normal manner until the cool-ant fission gas concentration is reduced to the desired level.Then hydrogen addition to the volume control tank will be stopped, and most of the remaining hydrogen in the primary coolant will be stripped while maintaining a nitrogen atmosphere in the volume control tank. Also at this time, the operating gas storage tank will be valved off and one of two storage tanks reserved for shut-down use will be placed in service between the compressor discharge and a hydrogen-oxygen recombiner.
The circulating gas leaving the recombiner will return to the compressor suction to complete the loop. After the first unit shutdown, the gas in the shut down tanks will be reused as the nitrogen cover gas in the volume con-trol tank.The gaseous waste system has been designed to hold up gases from the volume control tank, recycle evaporator, and reactor coolant drain tanks for the lifetime of the plant. We calculate a holdup time of greater than 90 days. To compensate for leaks from pres-surized tanks, treatment equipment downtime and expected operational occurrences, we have based our release estimates on a 90-day holdup time for decay. We estimate that about 950 Ci/year of noble gases and negligible amounts of iodines will be released from this system.Radioactive gases may be released in the auxiliary and turbine buildings due to leaks. The ventilation system for the auxiliary building (shared by two units) has been designed to ensure that air flow is from areas of low potential to areas having a greater potential for the release of airborne radioactivity.
The exhausts from the auxiliary building will be filtered by prefilters, HEPA filters and charcoal adsorbers.
Exhaust from the fuel handling areas will also be filtered by prefilters, HEPA filters and char-coal adsorbers, before release through the plant vent. Gaseous fission products from the steam system leakage which may occur in the turbines and/or ancillary equipment will be released directly 3-29 to the atmosphere without treatment.
We estimate approximately 1,085 Ci/year per unit of noble gases and 0.007 Ci/year per unit of iodine-131 will be released from the auxiliary building.
We also estimate that approximately 0.02 Ci/year per unit of iodine-131 and 3 curies of noble gases will be released from the turbine building.Off-gas from the condenser air ejectors (which remove radioactive gases collected in the condenser as a result of primary-to-secondary system leakage) will flow through charcoal adsorbers before being released through the plant vent. We estimate that approximately 1,100 curies of noble gases and 0.01 Ci/year per unit of iodine-131 will be released from the air ejectors.The steam generator blowdown liquid will pass through a high pressure heat exchanger and a pressure reducing valve that controls the down-stream pressure.
If the blowdown contains significant activity, it will be processed through two cation demineralizers in series and two mixed-bed demineralizers in series to the surge tank. The pro-cessed blowdown liquid will be pumped from the surge tank to the cooling tower blowdown discharge.
We estimate that essentially no gases will be released from this system.Radioactive gases may be released inside the reactor containment building when components of the primary system are opened to the building atmosphere or when leaks occur. The reactor containment atmosphere will be purged through HEPA filters and charcoal adsorbers to the plant vent. Prior to purging, the containment internal char-coal adsorber systems (2 units at 15,000 cfm each) will reduce the iodine and particulate activity by recirculating the containment atmosphere through HEPA filters and charcoal adsorbers.
Our esti-mate of releases from the containment purge assumes a 16-hr opera-tion of this system before purging. We estimate that about 190 Ci/year per unit of noble gases and less than 0.001 Ci/year per unit of iodine-131 will be released from this system.We estimate about 1,340 Ci/year per unit of noble gases and 0.04 Ci/year per unit of iodine-131 will be released.
The applicant, in the Environmental Report, estimates 13,000 Ci/year of noble gases and 0.25 Ci/year of 1-131 will be released from each unit.The applicant's original release estimate of 1-131 did not include treatment of the air ejector exhaust with charcoal adsorbers.
3-30 3.5.3 Solid waste Solid wastes, containing radioactive materials, are generated by the treatment used to reduce the radioactive materials in the liquid effluent and by plant operation and maintenance.
These solids con-sist of spent demineralizer resins, chemical drain tank effluent, evaporator concentrates, spent filter cartridges, and miscellaneous dry wastes. The solid wastes will be compacted or encapsulated in 55-gal drums.Evaporator concentrates and chemical drain tank effluents are pumped into 55-gal drums containing vermiculite and cement. Depleted de-mineralizer resin beds are discharged to 55-gal drums with steel and concrete shielding in the annular space. Other solid wastes consisting of contaminated rags, paper, protective clothing, and miscellaneous contaminated items will be packaged by a hydraulic compressor into drums or placed in other suitable containers for disposal.All containers will be shipped to a licensed burial site in accord-ance with AEC and Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations.
We estimate approximately 235 drums per year with an activity of 21 curies per drum of resins, evaporator bottoms, and chemical tank effluents will be shipped offsite from the plant. The appli-cant estimates 233 drums per year of these wastes with an activity of approximately 25 curies per drum. The applicant also estimates that 300 drums of steam generator blowdown resins containing 0.05 curies per drum will be shipped offsite for burial. For dry, solid waste, we estimate that the plant will generate 200 to 600 drums of this material per year, depending on the degree of compaction, for offsite disposal, with a total contained activity of less than 5 Ci/year. The applicant estimated that when all four units are in operation, operations and maintenance will produce approximately 240 (55 gal) drums of dry, compressed, solid waste per year, con-sisting primarily of paper, plastic, disposable rubber gloves, shoe covers, scrap, etc. Each time maintenance work is performed on contaminated equipment, it is standard procedure to cover the floors and work areas with plastic and absorbent paper to avoid potential contamination problems.
While the volume of this waste is relatively large, the total activity therein was estimated to be less than 1 Ci/year.Based on our evaluation of the quantities of solid waste that will be generated in this plant, the provisions for handling the waste, 3-31 and shipment in accordance with AEC and DOT regulations, we con-clude that the solid radwaste handling system is adequate and acceptable.
 
===3.6 CHEMICAL===
AND BIOCIDE EFFLUENTS Figure 3.3 shows the sources and flow of chemical wastes. Table 3.6 gives the maximum and average daily quantities of chemicals and wastes that may be discharged.
Their concentrations at the discharge point, at the edge of the 5-F* mixing zone, and down-river after mixing are listed in Table 3.7 along with the results of an analysis of the Savannah River water, which is used in the closed-cycle turbine-condenser cooling systems. The Savannah River water data are averaged from water-quality analyses done by the United States Geological Survey and by the Georgia Power Company (Table 2.3).3.6.1 Cooling-tower discharges 3.6.1.1 Main-condenser cooling-tower output Each of the four reactors will use a closed-cycle natural-draft cooling tower. A blowdown flow must be discharged from each of the four systems to control the concentration of dissolved solids left by evaporation.
The quantity of blowdown from each cooling-tower basin will normally range from 5,500 gpm (concentration factor = 4) to 2,200 gpm (concentration factor = 8); the blowdown is expected to average 4,000 gpm (concentration factor -5). The staff has used these parameters to estimate the maximum and average contributions of the main cooling towers to the minerals in the cooling-water discharge (Table 3.6, columns 2 and 3). The amounts and concentrations of copper and zinc expected in the tower efflu-ent from the structural materials (Admiralty brass and Muntz metal)of the main condenser are included.
The values for copper and zinc in Tables 3.6 and 3.7 are based on annual corrosion-rate data sup-plied by the applicant (ER, vol. II, Sect. 3.5.1).Drift loss from each unit is expected to be about 70 gpm. At con-centration factors of 5 and 8, resectively, the drift from each of the four natural-draft cooling towers will carry with it 0.2 to 0.3 lb of dissolved solids per minute.The makeup water in the condenser-cooling-tower circuits to replace evaporation and blowdown will be taken directly from the Savannah River (Fig. 3.3). To prevent scale formation, the applicant plans Table 3.6. Chemicals and wases in th cooling water discharge to the Savannah River from the Alvin W. Voptle Nuclear Plant Quantities for conditions of maximum and average concentration (lb/dayg)Blowdown from Wastes from Main Nuclear services Steam Makeup-water.
Sanitary cooling cooling generators de mineralization sewer Total Chemacel or towers (4)b towers (4)c (16) plants (2)e system (I) discharge Max.. Av.. Max.. Av., Continuous Max., Av.. Continuous j 8.0 5.0 5.6 3.4 flow 6.0 1.5 flow cycles cycles cycles cycles Max. AV. 1s/day hr/day Max. Av.Flow (spn) 8.800 16.000 260 260 300 200 245 245 7 S Na 5,150 5.850 218 133 133 901 225 6,400 6,210 K I,350 1.530 47 29 29 7 1.430 1.570 NH4* 211 240 <1 <1 211 240 Mg 1.940 2.210 141 86 4 86 21 2,170 2,320 Ca 3.970 4.510 265 161 7 161 40 1 I 4,400 4.710 Mn 17 19 2 I 1 <1 20 20 Fe 321 365 5 3 3 1 329 369 Cu 9d 9d 9 9 Zn 3d 3d 3 3 F 68 77 <1 <1 <i <1 68 77 Ca 3.290 3.740 44 27 4 26 7 -I <I 3.360 3,770 NOs= 135 154 28 17 17 4 180 175 H -O 6.030r 6,8350 40k' 24h 43 6.110 6,870 S0s V21.600(" 24.1401" 1.540f 931f 4 2,290 573 2.,400 25.600 P043. 135 154 7 4 194 47 4 I 340 206 SiO 2  7,520 3.540 141 86 86 21 7.750 8,650 HIB0 3  61 61 Hydnrzie <1 <1 TDSI 51,700 58.400 2.480 1,500 47 3,600 900 4 2 58,200 60.800 Total chlorinei 5,400 276 BOD (5-day) 3 I 3 1 8All amounts based on a 292-day operating year.bSgvannah River wastertanlysis data averages from Table 2.3 used in estimation.
Deeep-weU-water analysis data. Table 2.5 used in estimation.
d~ased on annual corrosion rate of condenser tubes with 0.7 plate-out factor in circulating-water system."Estimated from aerated system at pH -7.5 and 95" F.Includes S042- from acid added for scale cc.-itrol.
ISum of aUl dissolved constituents reported.hEstimated from aerated system at pH -7.0 and 95' F.ilncludes chloride ion and all free and combined forms and assumnes no evaporative loss of chlorine from the system.)Assuming the max. concentration of each chemical in each contributing system times the associated daily volume.KAssuming the average concentration of each chemical in each contributing system times the associated daily volume.t3 Table 3.7. Concentrations of chemicals alid wastes from the Alvin W. Volftle Nuclear Plant Concentration (ppm)Effluent location Constituents Downriver after mixing" Edge of Average Discharge mixing Minimum annual pointa zoneb flow flow Max. Av. Max. Av. Max. Av. Max. Av.Savannah River waterd Federal Water Quality Criteria permissible' Na K NH 4*Mg Ca Mn Fe Cu Zn F a N03" HCO 3 SO 4 3-P042-SiO 2 H 3 DO, TDS(Residual chlorineh Free Total 80 48 18 13 8.4 3.5 1.9 1.2 0.52 21 13 5.4 40 27 i1 0.20 0.10 0.05 3.0 1.9 0.82 0.08 0.05 0.013 0.03 0.02 0.005 0.60 0.39 0.17 30 19 8.3 2.0 1.2 0.47 54 35 30 283 172 52 3.1 1.1 0.65 70 45 19 0.54 0 0.09 602 373 150 13 &.4 6A4 6.3 6.3 2.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.41 C.26 0.26 0.25 0.25 4.1 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 8.4 4 8 4.8 4.8 4.8 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.63 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.008 0.0003 0.0003 0.002 0.0002 0.003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 6.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.33 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 27 26 26 26 26 34 7.1 7.1 6.7 6.7 0.32 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 15 9.1 9.1 9.0 9.0 0 0.002 0 0.001 0.0 113 63 C 3 62 62 6.1 1.6 0.25 2.3 4.7 0.02 0.38 0.08 3.9 0.16 25.6 6.1 0.16 8.9 0.0 60.3 0.6 0.059 0.39 1.0 5.0 0.8 250 44 250 L&)w L.a S00 0.5>0.5<0.08>0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 gEffluent volumes used were 9.500 gpm and 16.600 gpm for maximum and average values, respectively.
bConcentration at the 5-Fr isotherm at a AT -43 F*.cThe minimum and average annual river flow rates used are 5,800 and 10, 150 cfs, respectively.
dAverage from Table 2.3.'Report of the National Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior "Water Quality Criteria,-
: p. 20. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
ISum of all dissolved constituents reported above.IFillerable.
hMaximum values after fourfold in-ptant dilution (Sec. 3.6.1.1).
3-34 to operate the towers at a pH of 7.4 to 7.8. The staff estimates that, at five and eight cycles of concentration, about 18,000 and 16,000 lb of sulfuric acid, respectively, will be required each day to maintain a pH of 7.5. No free acid is expected to be discharged to the river.The applicant estimates that silt will deposit in each tower basin at the rate of 1 in./year and will amount to 500 to 600 tons/year.
This buildup will be removed at unspecified intervals and dumped on site, probably in the spoil area used for excess materials from excavation and grading during construction.
The applicant plans to use standard gas-chlorination equipment to inject chlorine into the four main condenser-cooling-tower circuits and the associated makeup water systems. This equipment will be used to indicate and to control the biocide (chlorine) feed to the circulating-and-makeup-water system at the inlet side of the appro-priate water pumps.The applicant plans to chlorinate of the four cooling-tower circuits and the two makeup-water lines sequentially for 30 min at a maximum frequency of twice daily. The amcunt of chlorine required for each chlorination is related to the chlorine demand of the makeup-and-circulating water (the difference between the amount of chlorine injected into the water and the amount of total residual chlorine remaining at the end of a specified contact period).The applicant recently determined that the chlorine demand of the Snvannah River at the site ranges from 1.3 to 3.4 ppm for contact Limcs of about 1 min with little increase (0 to 13%) up to contact times of 60 min (ER, vol. II, Table.3.7-1a).
Since each condenser-cooling-tower circuit contains about 12 million gallons with a circulating-water flow of 474,800 gpm, about 25 min will be required for a chlorination treatment of the water system.The staff estimates that about 5,400 lb of chlorine per day will be required to dose the cooling water with 4 ppm to yield at the outlet of the condenser and makeup water inlet pipe (based on a chlorine demand of 2 ppm) a free-residual-chlorine level of 2 ppm.This concentration of free residual chlorine will be further re-duced by additional chlorine demand of the water and by the bio-logical slime on the surfaces of the tower, tower basin, canal, and components of the condenser-and-makeup-water system.The increase in free residual chlorine during chlorination and the subsequent disappearance of the chlorine over a period of time has been observed by the applicant in the basin of a smaller but similar 3-35 natural-draft cooling-tower system (ER, vol. II, Fig. 3.7-2). The staff expects that, concurrently with this reduction of free resid-ual chlorine, chlorination reaction products such as chloride, chloramines, and miscellaneous chloro-organic and -inorganic mate-rials may (depending on their stability and volatility) concentrate in the cooling-tower circulating water. For such products, the maximum buildup in the tower basin will be 5 and 8 times the chlo-rine injection level for blowdown flows of 4,000 and 2,200 gpm, respectively.
However, chloramines and reactive chloro-organic compounds that make up the combined residual chlorine in the cooling-tower water may satisfy some of the chlorine demand of the untreated inlet water, interact with sludge and slime, or dissociate and thus be reduced in concentration.
Without ary loss whatsoever of these compounds, thc- chlorine concentration in the circulating water theoretically could be more than 10 ppm. On the basis that some of the 4-ppm initial chlorine dosage is con-sumed by organic and inorganic reductants, and further, considering the limited stabilities of the constituent compounds that will con-tain the combined residual chlorine in the condenser, tower, basin, and canal, the staff estimates that the concentration of total residual chlorine in the tower-blowdown stream may be greater than 2 ppm for a period during and immediately after each chlorination cycle. Since the four-tower systems may be dosed as much as twice daily, the staff considers that a continuous effluent discharge having a total-residual-chlorine concentration in the range from greater than 0.1 ppm to above 2 ppm may occur. However, the high velocity jets in the diffuser system promote such rapid mixing of the effluent with river water that the free residual chlorine down-stream of the diffusers is expected to be less than 0.1 ppm.The applicant will monitor continuously the free-residual-chlorine concentration in the effluent discharge at the outfall structure beyond the mixing chamber and has stated that it will be limited to a maximum of 2 ppm by reducing the blowdown rate and simulta-neously bypassing a corresponding amount of makeup water.No significant in-plant dilution for the main cooling-tower blow-down for Unit 1 will be made. However, when subsequent units come on line, blowdown from a unit being chlorinated will be diluted with the blowdown from the other units.3.6.1.2 Nuclear service cooling-tower output Each of the four reactors ill have one operating and one standby closed-cycle mechanical-draft cooling tower. At a normal blowdown 3-36 flow of 65 gpm for each tower, the cycles of coacentration will.range from 5.6 to 3.4 for maximum and average evaporation rates, respectively.
The estimated contribution to the minerals in-the cooling-water discharge is indicated in columns 4 and 5 of Table 3.6.The staff estimates that drift loss from each tower will be about 14 gpm. At average and maximum factors of 3.4 and 5.6, respectively, the drift will carry with it 0.06 to 0.11 lb of dissolved solids per minute.Makeup water will come from makeup and standby deep wells at the site (Fig. 2.4). The applicant plans to maintain the pH of the blowdown between 7.0 and 7.5. The staff estimates that at 3.4 and 5.6 cycles of concentration about 850 and 1,400 lb of sulfuric acid, respectively, will be required each day.The staff also estimates that each nuclear-services cooling-tower system may use as much as about 80 lb of chlorine per day to con-trol slime and algae. The chlorination schedule, the injection point relative to the blowdown point, the monitor point, and the control will be similar to those described for the larger natural-draft cooling-tower cycle.Blowdown from each tower basin, which will hold 3,200,000 gal of water, will contain less residual chlorine than 0.1 ppm after a 30-min chlorination of the 20,700-gpm circulating-water stream.3.6.2 Demineralizer-regeneration discharge Two demineralizer-water makeup plants serving the four reactor units (Fig. 3.3) will purify deep-well water by passing it succes-sively through an activated-carbon filter, a primary cation-resin bed, a degasifer, a working mixed-resin bed, and finally a polish-ing mixed-resin bed. Organic matter and extraneous solids will be retained on the filter; bicarbonate will be converted to water and carbon dioxide, which will be removed by the degasifer; and the other ions will be retained in the resin beds, which must be regenerated after the demineralization of about 315,000 gal of well water. The average daily'regeneration wastes produced from the acid and base added and from the mineral ions stripped from the resins are listed in columns 8 and 9 of Table 3.6. This waste amounts to a single regeneration batch of 22,000 gal and will be released to the discharge pipe at a flow rate of 245 gpm. The 3-37 applicant estimates that, during the initial plant cleanup, as many as four batches may be processed daily by the two plants but that the discharge rate of the wastes will be limited to 245 gpm.3.6.3 Other chemical discharges 3.6.3.1 Primary and secondary coolant Chemicals will be added to the makeup water for each reactor-coolant loop (Fig. 3.3). Boric acid will be added in the primary loop for reactivity control, lithium hydroxide and ammonia for pH control, and hydrogen to remove radiolytic oxygen. Additives in the primary-coolant loop will be removed effectively via the waste evaporators in the liquid-radwaste system. Hydrazine and a mixture of sodium phosphates will be added to the secondary loops for pH and corrosion control, along with small amounts of ammonia and/or organic amines used to adjust the feedwater pH. The concentration of dissolved solids in the nonradioactive blowdown from the second-ary coolant loop via the steam generators will not exceed 125 ppm;the solids will consist of the chemicals listed in column 6 of Table 3.6. If significant steam-generator-tube leakage occurs, the radioactive blowdown will be diverted automatically through the steam-generator-blowdown processing system, where the secondary-loop chemicals and radionuclides will be removed prior to release into the main discharge pipe.3.6.3.2 Closed-loop systems The applicant will route all drainage, including leakages from closed-loop auxiliary-cooling systems that use potassium chromate for corrosion inhibition, through the waste-processing system.If the makeup requirement for a closed-loop system becomes appre-ciable (Fig. 3.3 shows schematically the component cooling system), samples from the waste-monitor tank will be analyzed for chromate as well as radioactivity.
If chromate is found, the effluent will be processed through the waste evaporator prior to being released to the river.3.6.3.3 Temporary waste-retention basin Chemical solutions used in the preoperational cleaning of each reactor unit will be stored in a retention basin located about 250 yd north of the Unit-i natural-draft cooling tower and near the main cooling-water-discharge pipe (Fig. 3.2). The applicant has not yet decided on the dimensions of the basin and has no plans for special treatment of the sides and bottom to make them impervious.
3-38 The applicant estimates that the following amounts of chemicals will be used to clean and flush each reactor unit: 320,000 gal of de-mineralized water with debris; 320,000 gal of a 1% solution of tri-sodium phosphate which contains 0.05% wetting agent (Triton X 101)and 0.05% detergent (Dow 2A1); and 640,000 gal of rinse water that contains traces of the above chemicals.
The basin will receive the waste solutions from Units 2, 3, and 4 after the solutions have layed dormant with any residual from the earlier batches of waste.The applicant states that any releases of solution from the retention basin will be monitored carefully so as to limit the concentration of phosphate to not more than 6 ppm in the cooling-water-discharge header to the river. Following the commercial operation of Unit 4, the applicant will remove any chemicals in accord with State and Federal regulations and will excavate, if necessary, and fill in the basin.3.7 SANITARY WASTES AND OTHER EFFLUENTS 3.7.1 Sanitary wastes The plant will have a single permanent sewage-treatment system.This prefabricated extended-aeration system (Fig. 3.3) will be sized to serve a maximum of 300 people with a load criterion of about 33 gpd/person and a 5-day biological-oxygen demand (BOD) of 45 lb. The plant uses both primary and secondary treatment as well as hypochlorination of the effluent and the staff estimates that it will remove 85 to 90% of the BOD and the suspended solids.The applicant anticipates a maximum work force of about 3,450 dur-ing construction of Units 1, 2, 3, and 4. A larger second package plant of identical design and having a capacity of 30,000 gpd also will be installed so that as much as 40,000 gpd of raw sewage can be treated. This latter plant will be disconnected and removed at the end of the plant-construction period.The applicant will install the treatment systems described above within four months after receiving the plant-construction permit and will ensure that the plants and their effluent meet all the requirements of the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
Portable chemical toilets, serviced 3-39 by contract, will be provided by the applicant for use until the package plants become operational.
Portable toilets also will serve persons in areas where it is impractical to tie into the plant san-itary-waste system.3.7.2 Nonradioactive gaseous wastes 3.7.2.1 Open burning Open burning will produce a small amount of air contamination.
The applicant has stated the intention to use open burning to clear the area of burnable debris prior to and during the con-struction period, as permitted by county regulation.
3.7.2.2 Nonradioactive gaseous wastes Eight identical diesel-electric generators will be used as a standby source of emergency auxiliary power. These engines will burn No. 2 diesel fuel at the rate of 380 gph, and each will be test-run for 1 hr/month.
The expected gaseous pollutants, based on a total ex-haust flow of 18,000 cfm/diesel, are given in the Environmental Report (ER, vol. II, Sect. 3.8.1). These are the only significant nonradioactive gaseous pollutants expected from VNP.3.7.3 Nonradioactive solid wastes The applicant does not yet have a definite plan for trash disposal, but several alternatives are: (1) incineration at the plant site, (2) disposal at a land-fill site, and (3) contract with an authorized waste-disposal company in the area.3.8 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES Six corridors containing eight 500-kV and three 230-kV transmission lines will be used by the applicant to integrate the Vogtle Nuclear Plant into the Georgia Power Company system and for start-up power, also for off-site power for operation of the plant's safety features (ER, vol. II, Sect. 3.2). This is an area of considerable environ-mental impact since approximately 12,660 acres will be affected.All routes, with the exception of the north corridor (partially obtained), are still tentative.
3-40 The three 230-kV lines will be used to furnish off-site power for the operation of the safety features of VNP and also for start-up power. They will also be used to integrate the power output of the Combustion Turbine Plant into the GPC system and for GPC system support purposes, and will be constructed prior to operation of VNP-l.The north corridor will eventually have a right-of-way 387.5 ft wide (275 ft has already been obtained) and will contain the VNP-Goshen No. I and No. 2 500-kV lines and the VNP-Goshen 230-kV line.In the staff's evaluation of VNP's environmental impact, 112.5 ft was assigned to the Vogtle Combustion Turbine Plant's 230-kV line (which was constructed in 1972) and 275 ft to the two 500-kV lines for VNP. This corridor generally parallels the Savannah River and is the most direct route between stations.The northwest corridor will be occupied by the Evans No. 1 and No. 2 500-kV lines. It will be approximately 70 miles long and will have a 275-ft right-of-way.
It is now tentatively routed south and west of the Ft. Gordon Army Base.The west corridor will have a 275-ft right-of-way for 40 miles for the 500-kV VNP-,Gainesville and VNP-Klondike lines. At the end of this 40 miles, the VNP-Gainesville line turns northerly and con-tinues in a 150-ft right-of-way-for approximately 110 miles. The VNP-Klondike line will bear northwesterly with a 150-ft right-of-way for approximately 105 miles.The southwest corridor will accommodate the 500-kV VNP-Bonaire line. The right-of-way is 150 ft wide and the length is approx-imately 120 miles. The route will pass near the town of Wadley where a future 500-kV substation will be constructed.
The south corridor will be occupied by the 500-kV VNP-Hatch line for approximately 92 miles with a right-of-way 150 ft wide.A final undesignated corridor will contain the VNP-Waynesboro 230-kV lines 1 and 2. It will have a 200-ft-wide right-of-way and be about 23 miles long. The most direct feasible route will be used.All of the above routings are shown in Fig. 3.9. The current Georgia Power Company transmission and primary-distribution system is shown in the applicant's Environmental Report (ER, vol. I, Fig.1.2-1). A typical 230-kV steel transmission tower, in use at the site by the applicant for the VNP-Goshen line, is shown in Fig.3.10.
3-41'I..Cm.5'M. .2 6-"k C .. so. k .. ,*t -" KLONDIKE 001".CAN*a~so "AS OSHEN C5Ctt&#xa3;O1 *VIVO ."OT LE NUCLEARW.6 $ OR0PLANT'00w pm M.9 'a, I .W.TONWAYNESBORO
."Z~z -LS!, asWADLEYje~
or NULEucea laT tct WK Li4 004s__ "LOO 'i H TC forCL Vogl NuCLEAR PPanN.
3-42
,,.,-=.-.-- .. .Fig. 3.10. Existing 230-kV transmission line towers at the Vogtle site.
3-42a 3.9 CONSTRUCTION PLAN 3.9.1 Schedules The projected construction schedule for the Vogtle Nuclear Plant anticipates that the construction permit for all four units will be obtained by July 1, 1974. If this occurs, concrete work will be started by November 1, 1974. Earliest fuel loading for Unit 1 is estimated to be October 1, 1979, with commercial operation occurring April 1, 1980. The latest completion date for Unit 1 is estimated to be April 1981. Units 2, 3, and 4 follow the above sequences in 1-year increments.
Construction milestone schedules for VNP are given in the applicant's Environmental Report (ER, vol. II, Figs. 4.1-1, 4.1-2). Excavation schedules for the river bank structures are as follows: barge slip -November 1976; dis-charge structure
-June 1978; intake structure
-June 1977 (ER, vol. II, p. 4.4-3).3.9.2 Manpower An extensive study of the construction labor force required and the sources of these workers is given in the applicant's Environ-mental Report (ER, vol. II, App. A, Ch. II). Fourteen different crafts will be required for construction of the Vogtle Nuclear Plant. A majority of the skilled work force is expected to come from the Central Savannah River Area (CSRA) and from Aiken County, South Carolina.
The laborers and apprentices are also expected to come from the CSRA. However, some specialized crafts (boiler-makers, operating engineers, iron workers, and sheet metal workers)are located in Savannah and will be recruited from that area. An estimated 200 Georgia Power Company employees now working at other locations will transfer to the project during the construction period.The total construction force as a function of time is shown in Table 3.8.Table 3.8. Construction force for the VoStle Nuclear Plant Year Total employment 1974 400 1975 1.750 1976 2.050 1977 3,450 1978 2.800 1979 2.450 1980 1.400 1981 700 1982 300 1983 ISO Source: ER, vol. 11, Fig. 4.1-3.
3-43 3.10 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The applicant states (ER, vol. II, pp. 9.1-2-9.1-4) that, when the plant is decommissioned, they will maintain it in a permanently shut-down state rather than return the site to preplant conditions.
This means that removal of major pieces of equipment such as the NSSS components or turbine building equipment will not be completed.
GPC's decommissioning plan is as follows: 1. Remove spent fuel from the site, thus removing the main source of radioactivity.
: 2. Decontaminate auxiliary systems by chemical cleaning and flushing.3. Dispose of chemical-cleaning and flushing water and other radioactive waste water. These will have to be removed from the site since they are not of acceptable quality for discharging in the river.4. Dispose of resins, filters, and miscellaneous radioactive material by transporting them from the site.5. Seal the containment by cutting off and capping all piping close to the containment, welding shut the equipment hatch, and permanently locking persoLnel access locks.6. Make a radiation survey to determine the levels of decon-tamination achieved.7. Maintain a security force for permanent surveillance of the site.Steps 1 through 6 are estimated to cost $7,700,000 per unit, while the annual cost of the security force is estimated to be $200,000.
3-44 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3 1. Georgia Power Company, Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, February 1973, including Amendment No. 1 (April 1973), Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, 50-426, and 50-427, Sect. 1.2.2.2. Georgia Power Company, Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant Environ-mental Report, vol. I, Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, 50-426, and 50-427, issued February 1973, and including Amendment No. 1, issued May 1973, frontspiece.
: 3. R. C. Koh and L. M. Fan, Mathematical Models for the Pre-diction of Temperature Distributions Resulting from the Discharge of Heated Water into Large Bodies of Water, Water Quality Office, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Pol-lution Control Research Series 16130 DWO, October 1970.4. M. A. Shirazi and L. R. Davis, Workbook of Thermal Plume Prediction-Submerged Jets, vol. I, Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Ore., August 1972.5. G. Jirka and D.R.F. Harleman, The Mechanics of Submerged Mhltiport Diffusers for Buoyant Discharges in Shallow Water, Technical Report No. 169, R. M. Parsons Laboratory for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, March 1973.6. K. Cederwall, Buoyant Slot Jets into Stagnant or Flowing Environments, W. M. Keck Laboratory for Water Resources and Hydraulics, Report No. KH-R-25, California Institute of Technology, April 1971.7. E. E. Adams, Submerged Multiport Diffusers in Shallow Water with Current, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, S.M.Thesis (Civil Engineering), June 1972.8. D.R.F. Harleman, K. D. Stolzenbach, and G. Jirka, A Study of Submerged Multiport Diffusers with Application to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, R. M. Parsons Laboratory for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Technical Report, June 1971.9. D. H. Slade, Ed., Mteorology and Atomic Energy 1968, USAEC Report TID-24190, July 1968, p. 99.
3-45 10. G. A. Briggs, "Some Recent Analyses of Plume Rise Observations," Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., Contribution No. 38, 1970.11. G. A. Briggs, Plume Rise, USAEC Report TID-25075, 1969, p. 58.12. S. R. Hannah, "Rise and Condensation of Large Cooling Tower Plumes," J. Appl. Meteorol.
11: 793 (1972).
: 4. ENIIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION AND OF PLANT AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
 
===4.1 IMPACTS===
ON LAND USE The construction of any large power plant results in considerable modification of the land where the permanent installations will be located and of larger areas that must be transformed temporarily into roads, storage, lay-down areas, and temporary storage and office facilities.
The acreage to be affected by plant facilities is shown in Table 3.1 and the acreage and mileage involved in transmission lines in Table 4.1. The entire 3,177 acres will be excluded from ftture agricultural and recreational use for the estimated 40-year life of the plant.Table 4.1. Acreages, mileage, and right-of-way widths for VNP trans.nssion lines Transmission Line Mileage Right-of-way Acreage lines voltage (miles) width (it) (acnes)(from VNP to:) (kV)Goshen 500. 20 275 670 Evans 500 70 275 2,330 Gainesville 500 40 137.5 670 100 ISO 2,000 Klondike 500 40 137.5 670 105 150 1.910 Hatch 500 92 !50 1.670 Bonaire 500 120 150 2,180 Waynesboro 230 23 200 560 Totals 620 12,660 Source: ER. vol. 11,Table 5.4-1 and staffevaluation.
4.1.1 Site preparation and plant construction A total of about 1 011 acres will be cleared for the construction of the four units." Of this, about 764 acres will be covered by buildings, parking lots, roads, power lines, the meteorology tower, detention basins, and the railroad spur. This total includes 9 acres (out of a total of 55 acres) on the flood plain near the Savannah River that will be cleared for construction of the intake 4-1 4-2 and discharge structures and barge facilities.
The remainder (247 acres) will support facilities for stockpiling of building materials and for construction.
After selling any salable cleared material, the applicant plans to bury, windrow, or carry to a land-fill the remainder.
There will also be some regulated open burning (ER, vol. II, p. 4.3-2.). Then, after construction is complete, as many acres as practicable will be cleaned up and landscaped.
The total impact of this site-clearing process is judged by the staff to be relatively slight. There is no particular importance or significance (other than archaeological, see below) to be attached to the land to be cleared. It is typical of most land in the upper coastal plain region.The river road that passed diagonally through the site from north-west to southeast is being relocated.
The present road will term-inate at each end of the site boundaries, and these termination points are being connected by a hard-surfaced perimeter road now being constructed by the applicant (see Fig. 2.4). The new section of road is 22,080 ft long and has a 100-ft right-of-way.
Fifty acres has been cleared for its construction.
Construction of this public, hard-surfaced road is judged by the staff to be an asset to the community.
Because the sandy nature of the land results in rapid drying, dust generated by traffic will be a problem during dry weather. It will be minimized by watering down the construction
'area. Gravel will be used on heavily traveled on-site roads to minimize erosion problems and reduce the dust problem. The staff Judges that these measures will be adequate and that effects from dust will not in-convenience the general public.Dust from the concrete batch plant would have an impact on the site land. To minimize this impact, the batch plant design will include a dus. control system, such as a bag filter or precipitrons (ER, vol. II, p. '.ll.The staff judges this to be adequate precaution.
Evidence indicates that areas of the site may be of archaeological significance (Sect. 2.3). The construction process will sufficiently disturb portions of the site so that archaeological areas in their vicinity may be destroyed.
The Georgia StateArchaeologist has recommended 01... that the area be completely surveyed to locate and properly map the existing archaeological sites. Such an inventory is necessary if salvage excavation is going to proceed prior to construction of the various facilities planned within the area."'2 The staff strongly concurs in recommending this procedure.
The 4-3 staff also recommends that the construction permit include condi-tions to the effect that if portions of the site to be disturbed by construction activities are found, by this archaeological sur-vey, to be of possible significance, that procedures be implemented to complete the necessary archaeological field work prior to con-struction.
Construction traffic, including both heavily loaded vehicles and extensive automobile traffic, will cause an impact on the Burke County highway system. The four access roads to the project are all unpaved and three have one-way bridges with capacities of less than six tons (ER, vol. II, App. A, p. A46). Hancock Landing Road, which has no bridges, will be hard-surfaced in the near future to State Highway Department Standards and thus should accommodate the heavily loaded vehicular traffic. Automobile traffic problems are discussed in Sect. 4.4.4.1.2 Transmission-line construction Eight 500-kV and three 230-kV lines are needed for plant operation (Sect. 3.8). There could be considerable impact since these lines will require about 12,660 acres of rights-of-way.
Final route selection will be made with the aid of aerial photography and, insofar as it is feasible and practical, will conform to the Federal Power Commission publication Electric Power Transmission and the Environment.
The applicant will also use Environmental Criteria for Electric Transmission Lines, published by the De-partment of Interior/Department of Agriculture in 1970 as a guide to route selection and to determine programs for the clearing, construction, cleanup, and maintenance of the rights-of-way (ER, v '. II, p. 5.4-3).,iough the most direct route will, in general, be used between&#xfd;.rminations, consideration will be given to locations of future substations and plants. Consideration will also be given to avoiding possible conflicts with any natural or man-made areas where adverse environmental effects would result. If people might have to be relocated because of a route selection, an alternate route will be considered.
In addition, the applicdnt will ask the Georgia Historical Commission to determine whether any structure or site of historical or archaeological signiiicance will be disturbed (ER, vol. I, p. 2.3-1).
4-4 Since the lines will be constructed on land obtained by easements and special permits, the property owners will be allowed to con-tinue to use their land for agricultural or other purposes which do not interfere with operation and maintenance.
However, about two-thirds of the transmission line acreage is presently wooded (Sect. 4.3.1.2) and cannot be used for timber production while serving as a transmission line corridor.
GPC will offer affected property owners a land-management programi whereby the owner will be paid up to, at present, $75.00 an acre to clear, disc, and plant the right-of-way to GPC standards.
The requirements of the Georgia Department of Transportation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be followed relative to the location of the lines at highways and navigable river crossings.
Railroad tracks will be crossed approximately 33 times. The staff estimates that major rivers will be crossed approximately nine times;however, only two of these crossings will involve navigable water-ways. The required clearances over the railroads will be based on the National Electric Safety Code, Sixth Edition.The staff is of the opinion that, if the applicant follows the route.selection and clearing procedures and guidelines that he has indi-cated, the impacts of transmission line construction will be mini-mized to an acceptable level.4.1.3 Railroad spur construction The construction of the rail spur to the site will remove about 245 acres of land from its current uses in Burke County. This will probably be mostly cropland, pasture land, or farm woodland.Since Lhere are 285,000 acres in these categories in the county (Table 2.1), the staff feels that this impact will be minor.4.2 IM~PACT ON WATER USE The Savannah River will be disturbed by the construction of a barge slip, river water intake structure, and outfall structure.
Although these activities will temporarily increase the sediment load on the river, the added sediment should have settled out before the first consumptive use of the river water 112 miles downstream.
Construc-tion activities should not interfere with navigation, commercial fishing, and recreation, and will not cause any flooding.
Runoff from the construction area will be funneled to debris and silt basins (see Sect. 4.3 for an evaluation of the adequacy of these basins).
4-5 There will be some impact on the semi-isolated, near-surface, ground-water aquifer since dewatering Of the sands above the marl will be required during construction.
This will reduce the spring outflow at the Hancock Landing drainage but not eliminate it.This impact will be slight since this aquifer is completely con-tained within the site area and will be allowed to return to its former level following construction (ER, vol. II, p. 4.4-2).There will also be an impact on the Tuscaloosa aquifer (Sect. 2.5.2)since water for construction purposes will come from this source.Since the safe yield of the aquifer has been estimated to be 5 billion gal/day (ER, vol. I, p. 2.5-18) and amounts used during construction will be small (ER, vol. II, p. 4.4-2) the effect will be minimal.4.3 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS 4.3.1 Impact on terrestrial ecosystems 4.3.1.]. Plant site Erosion In the construction area, terrestrial ecosystems will be affected by clearing, excavating, filling, grading, stockpiling, and build-ing. Because of the nature of the soil associations occurring on the site (Sect. 2.7.1.1), water-soil erosion will be a significant problem (Fig. 4.1) during construction activities.
The main source of this water will be precipitation that results in extensive runoff and consequent erosion of exposed land surfaces.The kind of soil and the type of vegetation growing in it have a major effect on the amount of precipitation that runs off. Mechan-ical disturbances on a watershed, along with its topography and shape, also affect the runoff rate. The highest rates of runoff from small watersheds are usually caused by intense rainfall.
The volume of runoff is affected by the soil and its hydrologic condi-tion more than any other single factor. Reducing the water absorp-tive and holding capacity of land by removing its natural vegetation during land clearing accelerates and increases the volume of runoff.Using the following information, peak discharge of runoff may be estimated.3 4-6 K D-%-?~ =*4.Fig. 4.1. An example of erosion at the Vogtle site resulting from road construction.
4-7 1. Soil type Acres at site % Hydrologi-group Lakeland 1,980 62 A Lucy 567 18 A Fuquay 567 18 B Wehadkee 63 2 D 2. Approximately 1,011 acres will be cleared for VNP construction.
: 3. Using 1 and 2, an average runoff curve, No. 60, is used for the site (Fig. 2.10, Ref. 3).4. The slope factor is moderate because of 3 to 8% average watershed slopes.5. A type II storm distribution iv appropriate for Burke County.6. The 25-year 24-hr rainfall in Burke County is 6.8 in. (Ref. 3).7. The 2-year 24-hr rainfall in Burke County is 3.7 in. (Ref. 3).Peak discharges in cubic feet per second have been calculated for each watershed of the plant site for 2-year and 25-year 24-hr rain-falls.2-ye-,r 25-year Watershed Acreage (cfs) (cfs)Daniels Branch 1,370 100 550 Mallard Pond 900 80 400 Beaverdam Creek 834 80 400 Savannah River 417 50 250 The applicant plans to stockpile excavated materials on-site for use as backfill during later construction stages. A maximum of 4-8 4 x 106 yd 3 will be stockpiled at any given time (ER, vol. II, Sect. 4.3). A summary of the stockpile and disposal areas is as follows: Location Volume (yd 3) Acreage occupied Stockpile A 2,606,096 32 Stockpile B 4,000,000 49 Stockpile C 900,000 17 Disposal area 1,100,000 27 Runoff from stockpiling, disposal, and excavation sites wil. be diverted through sediment retention basins. Two basins will be constructed downstream of the stockpile and disposal areas. The basin located southeast of the power block will have a storage capacity of 140,000 yd 3 , and the one located southwest of the power block will have a 50,000 yd 3 capacity.
Stockpiles A and B and the disposil area will be located above (upstream) the southeast sediment basin. Stockpile C will be located above the southwest sediment basin. A maximum annual sediment accumulation of 40,000 yd 3 in the southeast basin and 20,000 yd 3 in the south-west basin is estimated by the applicant.
The 40,000 yd 3 maximum annual sedimentation into the southeast basin represents a 1% soil-water erosion loss from the 4 x 106 yd 3 stockpile B alone.Direct consultation with the Soil Conservation Service is required for accurate calculations of erosion losses. The applicant has consulted with the SCS. The Briar Creek District, SCS, has made a soil survey and has prepared a soil and water conservation plan to minimize erosion and to provide food and a suitable environment for wildlife.
In some areas of the site, it was recommended that the applicant take almost immediate action to establish permanent vegetation.
The applicant estimates the basins will provide a detention time of about 10 minutes for the peak flow during a storm, with a re-currency period of 25 years. Studies by the applicant indicate that a 10-min detention time is sufficient for removal of 80% of the suspended particles entering the basin (ER, vol. II, p. 4.3-ib).Detention times for the basins under conditions of a 2-year and a 25-year 24-hr rainfall have been calculated by the staff.
4-9 Detention time Drainage area Basin 2-yr 25-year above basin volume rainfall rainfall Watershed (acres) (vd 3) (hr) (hr)Daniels Branch 685 50,000 3.8 0.7 Beaverdam Creek 834 140,000 13.1 2.6 Periodic cleaning of the basins will be necessary.
The applicant plans to clean the basins once every twu years and place the mate-rial in the disposal area.The applicant has indicated that a number of preventative and cor-rective measures will be undertaken (ER, vol. II, Sect. 4.3). Berms, dikes, interceptor ditches, and other ditches will be used on the plant construction site. Permanent ditches will be lined with Gunite, and temporary ditches will be lined with either Gunite or asphaltic concrete.
Heavily traveled site roads will be graveled if necessary.
Slopes resulting from cuts and fills will be stabi-lized with chemical soil binders applied as an imediate temporary protection, as soon as the slopes are formed. The top surface of the stockpile embankments and disposal area will be stabilized with a chemical binder if required.
Slopes exposed for long periods and those that will become permanent will be seeded after the chem-ical stabilization.
A hydroseeder slurry containing mulch, seeds, fertilizer, and a chemical binder will be applied to the permanent stockpile and disposal slopes to establish vegetation.
During germination and early growth, special blankets will be installed if additional protection against erosion is required.
Permanent excavation slopes, stockpile slopes, and disposal area slopes will have benches at 30-ft vertical-height intervals and collector down-dra1ins ac 400-ft intervals.
In addition to these prevention tech-niques, sandbag check dams can be used as a corrective procedure.
Sandbags are placed so that runoff is allowed to sheet over the bags, aud silt is deposited on the upstream side. Wind erosion and the resulting dust will be controlled by techniques such as seeding, watering, and natural windbreaks.
In a construction project of this sine and duration, some erosion problems will occur. If the applicant implements these various preventative and corrective techniques, as stated in its Environ-mental Report, these problems will be mitigated.
4-10 Impact on biota The construction of VNP will result In the disturbance of vegeta-tion on approximacely one-third of the site. Two hundred forty-seven acres will be cleared but this land -ill be available for restoration.
The VITP site is predominantly composed of (1) pine-upland hardwood (37%), (2) planted slash pine-upland hirdwood (22%), (3) old fields (14%), and (4) cleared sandhill (9%), as indicated in Table 4.2.Several communities will be unaffected, or only slightly affected, by construction activities.
Some communities (No. 8-100%, No. 15-57%, No. 16-60%) will be reduced considerably; however, the ecolog-ical impacts due to construction are minimal because of previous clearing and other land-use practices in these communities.
The actual c~onstruction area of the plant and, to a lesser extent, the transmis;sion line corridors on the site, will use 364 acres of pine-upland hardwood community.
Approximately 18 tree species will be affected; the dominant trep- are longleaf pine and turkey oak.Approximately 16,000 canopy trees (species over 4 in. dbh) and 776,000 understory trees will be cleared. Clearing for the stock-pile areas, disposal area, and the retention basins will occur in approximately 59 acres of branch hardwoods (Nos. 4 and 5). Black gum is the most abundant canopy species. About 11,700 canopy trees and 32,500 understory trees will be removed. Construction of the intake aud discharge structures and barge facilities will require about 9 acres of bottomland hardwood forest. Black gum is the dominant species; both tupelo and cypress occur here. Approximately 1,350 canopy trees and 6,000 understory trees will be cleared. Con-struction activities in this area, including a small retention basin (ER, vol. I, Fig. 2.1.3), roads, and pipelines associated with these facilities, will result in disturbances of two other community types.About 15 acres of cove hardwoods may be affected.
There are only eight common tree species; water oak, hickory, and sweetgum are the most abundant, There are 1,500 canopy trees and 12,000 understory trees that may be affected.
Seventeen acres of bluff hardwoods (hickory and red oak) also may be disturbed by these activities.
Estimates of trees affected are 1,000 canopy trees and 30,600 understory trees.These communities are not unique in the area of the site. With the exception of the bottomland hardwood forest, most occur commonly in the Upper Coastal Plain of Georgia. Construction activities will result in the removal of the standing crop biomass and the cessation of the primary productivity of approximately 31,550 canopy trees and 857,100 understory trees.
4-11 Table 4.2. Summary of the acreage of the various community types of the VNP site Preconstruction Postconstruction
%Numbera Community type 2cegb ceg' ls acreageb acreagec loss I Pine-upland hardwood 1,183 820 31 2 Planted slash pine-upland 713 633 .1I hardwood 7 Slash pine plantation (10 to IS 149 125 16 years)8 Slash pine plantation (I to 2 years) 10 10 100 II Longleaf pine 17 17 0 12 Longleaf pine 7 7 0 13 Longlcaf pine 17 17 0 3 Branch hardwood 75 33 56 4 Branch hardwood 64 26 59 5 Branch hardwood 71 59 i7 6 Cove hardwood 15 0 1o0 9 Bluff hardwood 60 43 28 10 Bottomland hardwood 55 45 18 is Cleared sandhill 281 121 57 16 Old fields 440 178 60 14 Pond 4 4 0 17 County road 16 16 0 Total 3.177 2,154 32 adrom Fig. 2.12 in Sect. 2.7.1.2.bPreconstruction acreages are from the ER. vol. 1, Sect. 2.7.1.Cpostconstruction acreages result from independent estimates by the staff, based on the applicant's vegetation map, proposed site layout, and other related information.
4-12 In addition to the direct loss of the vegetation, clear-cutting tends to reduce the nutrient capital of a forest ecosystem by (1)reducing transpiration and hence increasing the amount of water passing through the system, (2) reducing root surfaces able to re-move nutrients from the leaching waters, (3) adding to the organic substrate available for immediate mineralization, and (4) producing a microclimate more favorable to rapid mineralization.
In general, nutrient loss may be greatly accelerated in cut-over forests. A summary of some effects of deforestation are presented in Fig. 4.2.5 When construction is completed, areas that are no longer needed for operational activities will be replanted with appropriate grasses, shrubs, or trees. This restoration will consist primarily of (1) landscaping around the buildings and service areas, (2) seed-ing of transmission line corridors on the site, (3) seeding the top surface of the disposal area and the retention basins, and (4) seeding of stockpile areas after the stockpiles are removed.The applicant has indicated that the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) will be consulted for advice on landscaping and replanting procedures.
The staff recommends that in addition to the SCS, agencies and institutions such as the Forestry Service and the Georgia Fish and Game Division be consulted for revegetation and habitat restoration procedures and recommendations.
Construction activities will have a direct effect on the consumer populations of the site. Clearing, excavating, filling, and grad-ing will kill many of the less mobile species, such as terrestrial invertebrates, terrestrial amphibians and reptiles, and small mam-mals in the area of that activity.
Most birds and mammals will leave the immediate vicinity of construction as activities increase.The more adaptable species are expected to return as construction activities subside. Increased traffic in the area will result in an increase of road kills, usually mammals and, to a lesser extent, amphibians and reptiles.
An indirect effect of construction activ-ities on consumer populations occurs through loss of suitable hab-itat. Construction activities will eliminate about 1,011 acres of wildlife habitat. Many of the less mobile and/or highly territorial consumer species such as soil and litter invertebrates, most amphib-ians, many breeding birds, and certain small mammals will be unsuc-cessful in relocating.
Mobile and/or nonterritorial organisms (such as flying insects, many reptiles, wintering birds, and larger mammals such as opossum, skunk, and deer) will move to other areas of their preferred habitats.
Of the vertebrate consumers alone, construction activities in pine communities may affect 11 species;in swampy bottomland forests, 15 species; in upland deciduous forest3, 23 species; and in old fields and brushy thickets, 39 species (Table 2.7).
VEGETATION CUT TURNOVER OF ORGANIC VEGETATON CUTMATTER ACCE[LERATE[D TRANSPRATIO NEW GROW'TH NITRIFICATION INCREASED._
I TRANDUC ATIO 100 RErPRESSJED PErRHAPS BY RELEASE 0WTH 1 E FROM INHIBITION BY I l VEGETATION
'! I I EVAPOTRANSPIRATION I MICROCLIMATEI REDUCED 70%- WARMER SOIL I MOISTEI IN II SUMMER I ACIDIFICATION OF III I j XCHANGE SITES I"R LT O CATIONIIc I -P RICLAI8 -[STRE:AM VELOCITYBOI EGLTO CONCENTRATIOGNICf.In BIOICFiE%&kYOI-I DISSOLVED INOGAI 6)DOWN IN SUMMER i I I I i I, I I-4 I I I SUBS5TANCIES UP 4-* r" TIMES IN STREAM I WATER I I f
* I! i I I I I I It 'II I STREAM FLOW NET DSOLVE INTORFNI UP 1.4 TIMES OUTPUT OF I I NET OUT PUT OF SUMMER MATTER UP I TIMES pH OF STEAM FOUR TIMES I WATER CHANGED III FROM 5.1 TO 4.3 I TO I D DOWNSTREAM I ECOSYSTEM L .. ..... ._Fig. 4.2. Effects of deforestation on ecosystem processes in Watershed Number 2 in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest.
4-14 Destruction or local elimination of populations of native plants or animals must always be considered to be detrimental for the following reasons. The greater the number of species in an eco-system, the greater the potential for stability in the function of that ecosystem.
Ecosystem boundaries usually do not coincide with proposed construction areas, therefore the resultant insta-bility will probably extend beyond the area directly altered.The elimination of top carnivores is likely to threaten the sta-bility of local ecosystems because of the population-control functions these animals perform. Since top carnivores usually have very large territories these effects would be felt in ad-jacent, unmanipulated ecosystems.
Any decrease in total genetic diversity caused by elimination of individuals from any population lessens the future evolutionary adaptability of the species con-cerned. This decreases the probability of successful adaptation to future environmental changes. These influences are especially serious when considered in conjunction with other widespread en-vironmental changes which also result in the reduction and elim-ination of other populations.
A positive impact will result from the applicant's decision that no hunting will be permitted on the site. Such action will aid in the preservation of many reptilian, avian, and mammalian predators.
Many of these predators, such as the alligator, red-tailed hawk, marsh hawk, red fox, grey fox, long-tailed weasel, and bobcat still occur in the area of the VNP site, as well as across the Savannah River Plant Reservation (Appendices D, E, F).Protection of carnivores will permit natural controls of herbivore and omnivore species, thus largely eliminating the necessity of population control by hunting. Population control of certain species such as white-tailed deer may be necessary; in such cases, game management should be practiced.
The construction of any large power plant causes considerable dis-turbance to and modification of the land. The staff concludes that construction at the VNP site will result in impacts on local terrestrial ecosystems, but that when considered alone, the con-struction should not result in serious impacts on terrestrial biomes on a larger scale.4.3.1.2 Transmission facilities The VNP transmission facilities are discussed in detail in Sect.3.8. The approximate locations of the transmission line rights-of-way are presented in Fig. 3.9. Routing criteria include the 4-15 effect of the transmission lines on the environment and the effect of the environment on the transmission lines. The applicant has indicated (ER, vol. II, Sect. 5.4) that whenever feasible and practical, route selection will conform to the Federal Power Com-mission publication Flectric Power Transmission and the Environment and the Department of Interior/Department of Agriculture publication Environmental Criteria for Electric Transmission Systems. Those guidelines applicable to the terrain encountered will be used.Guidelines involving highways, scenic areas, joint use of rights-of-way, natural growth, planned land use, open expanses of water and marshlands, parks, monuments, recreation and historic areas, access and construction roads, and natural screens would apply.The environmental impacts of transmission line construction pri-marily result from the right-of-way clearing operation, including effects such as loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife, erosion (see Fig. 3.10), and the visual impact on the scenery. The ter-rain crossed by most of the VNP lines varies from flat to low rolling hills. Many of the wooded areas are second-growth pine.The applicant usually clear-cuts the right-of-way when the route passes through this combination of terrain and vegetation.
Wood-lands are cleared by caterpillar tractor. Stumps are sheared off at ground level to eliminate soil disturbances which would be caused by their removal. Around streams, lakes, and on steep slopes, chain saws, instead of caterpillar tractors, are used for clearing in order to reduce erosion problems.
The removal of vegetation from slopes along the rights-of-way can lead to erosion problems (Fig. 3.10). Construction of transmission lines requires the use of heavy equipment for tower erection and con-ductor stringing.
Such equipment may cause temporary rutting along the right-of-way.
New rights-of-way will require about 12,660 acres (Table 4.1).A summary of the land-use types through which the proposed VNP transmission line corridors will pass is given in Table 4.3.Of the 12,660 acres necessary for transmission line rights-of-way, the applicant estimates that 8,422 acres (66.5%) will be woodlands.
Since the final routes have not been selected, specific estimates of timber removal are not possible.
General estimates were made by the staff using the forest statistics provided by the USDA Forest Service.6'7'8 As those forest statistics are county aver-ages, timber estimates must be made using the total acreages affecteu by the rights-of-way.
These estimates are based on the routing indicated in Fig. 3.9. Estimates of sawtimber and growing 4-16 Table 4.3. Transmission line rights-of-way required for Vogtle Nuclear Plant Goshen Evans Gainesville Klondike Hatch Bonaire Waynesboro Total Length, miles 20 70 150 145 92 120 23 620 Width, ft 275 275 a b ISO 150 200 Acres 670 2,330 2,670 2,580 1,670 2.180 560 12,660 Wooded Percent 59 58 65 68 71 73 73 66.5 Acres 395 1.351 1.735 1,755 1,186 1,591 409 8,422 Cultivated Percent 36 23 25 25 27 24 24 25.3 Acres 241 536 668 645 451 523 134 3.198 Wetlands Percent 2 2 4 3 2 I 1 2.4 Acres 14 47 107 77 33 22 6 306 Urban Percent 3 17 6 4 0 2 2 5.8 Acres 20 396 160 103 0 44 II 734 a 4 0 milesat 137.5 ft; 110 miles at ISO ft.b40 miles at 137.5 ft; 105 miles at ISO ft.
4-17 stock removals associated with this acreage are presented in Table 4.4. This loss of growing stock represents about 0.05% of the volume of growing stock on commercial forest land in Georgia.9 Table 4.5 gives estimates of the timber growth and timber removal which could he expected for this number of acres (about 0.03% of the state's total 9) for 1971. A further breakdown of these esti-mates by corridor is given in Appendix K.After clearing wooded areas, the applicant will fertilize rights-of-way and seed most cleared areas with fast-growing annuals, such as rye or wheat, mixed with a perennial, such as Sericia Zespedeza, to control erosion and provide wildlife food and cover where it is in keeping with the surrounding environment.
Other treatments will be in keeping with the environment of the corridor segment. Many forms of wildlife, such as the quail, dove, and deer, feed where annual and perennial weeds and grasses flourish.
The creation of an overstory of low-growing, spreading trees would hinder the growth of annual and perennial weeds and thus reduce or eliminate a source of food for wildlife in such areas.Debris from the clearing operation will either be removed from the rights-of-way or disposed of by burying or other methods. The applicant has investigated several methods of disposal of debris.Chipping of debris and the scattering of these chips on the right-of-way has been attempted.
This proved to be a detriment to right-of-way management in that the large quantity of chips on the right-of-way increased the acidity of the soil to a point where growth of grasses and weeds was inhibited.
Presently, the lack of mobility of this type of chipping equipment makes it unsuited for cross-country clearing.
Methods of crushing trees and brush into the ground proved to be undesirable in that it hinders land-owners who often desire to utilize the cleared right-of-way for pastures or crops. This method of debris disposal makes the ground very difficult to work, but it lessens erosion problems.The impact of transmission line construction on other types of environments, such as pasture, cropland, or urban is less severe in that tree clearing is usually not required.
Usually these areas can be restored to their original condition prior to transmission line construction.
There will be approximately 4.2 lattice-type towers per mile of 500-kV line. Approximately 5,184 ft 2 per tower will be required for tower construction.
After construction, 38.6 ft 2 of this area will be covered by concrete, leaving approximately 5,145 ft 2 4-18 Table 4.4. Estimated sawtimber and growing stock losses by volume for transmission line rights-or-waya Sawtimberb Growing stockb (Thous.nd bd ft) (Thousand ft3)Pine 12.604 4,192 Other softwood 676 171 Soft hardwood 6.548 2.567 Hard hardwood 4.146 1.738 aUSDA Forest Service Bulletins (6. 7. 8).bDelinitions given in refs. 6. 7. 8.Table 4.5. Estimated timber growth and removal per year (1971) for transmission line rights-of-way 0 Sawtimber Growing stock (thousand bd .") (thousand fl 3)Growth Pine 1.188 387 Other softwood 21 5 Soft hardwood 296 98 Ilard hardwood 237 89 Removal Pine 875 215 Other softwood 1 4 Soft hardwood 230 61 Hard hardwood 169 39'USDA Forest Service Bulletins 16.7.8).
4-19 of the original 5,184 ft 2 per tower that can be restored.
The VNP 230-kV lines require 4 to 4.5 11-frame structures per mile. Approx-imately 24,000 ft 2 of area per structure will be required for con-struction purposes.
After construction, approximately 18 ft 2 per structure will be covered by concrete and anchor rods, leaving approximately 23,082 square feet per structure that can be restored.However, guywires will inhibit some uses that require mechanical cultivation.
The staff believes that if the applicant follows the guidelines that he has outlined for transmission line construction then the resulting environmental impacts will be at an acceptable level.4.3.2 Impact on the aquatic environment The impact of construction activities on the aquatic environment will be due to an increase in suspended particulate matter in the receiving waters. There are several potential adverse effects that may result from this increase.
These include reduction of light, alteration of nutrient concentration, release of toxic substances, clogging of egg membranes and gills, and smothering of benthic populations.
Construction activities expected to potentially con-tribute to the increase in suspended particulate matter and the siltation of Beaverdam Creek and the Savannah River are: (1) de-watering of sands above the marl in the interfluvial high during excavation of the plant site, (2) erosion of stockpiled material from construction, and (3) dredging and excavation on the flood-plain for construction of the intake and discharge structures and the barge slip.4.3.2.1 Dewatering Several large excavations are planned during construction.
This will require dewatering of the near-surface aquifer. The appli-cant plans to pass the discharge from the dewatering equipment into the three silt and debris basins to be constructed on the site (Fig. 2.4). Information on the detention time of these basins for projected rates of pumpage has not been furnished by the applicant.
The staff recommends that the rate of pumpage during dewatering be low enough to assure adequate detention in the basins for settling of suspended particulates present in the dewatering discharge, thus preventing siltation of Beaverdam Creek and the Savannah River.
4-20 4.3.2.2 Erosion of stockpiled materials Using the applicant's estimate of 80% settling in the construction silt and debris basins during the peak flow resulting from a 25-year 24-hr rain, the remaining 20% of the sediment will pass through the basins. Adverse effects on Beaverdam Creek would include thosu discussed above. Since the substrate in Beaverdam Creek is vari-able, grading from sand to rubble, a great variety of available habitats exist for many diverse forms of bottom-dwelling animals.Siltation of this substrate due to construction activities would result in a reduction in diversity of bottom-dwelling animals with only burrowing forms present in the extreme case where the bottom is blanketed with silt. Under less extreme conditions of runoff, the detention time of the basins would be increased with an accom-panying increas in retention of silt in the basins.The extent of utilization of Beaverdam Creek for spawning by blue-back herring has not been established by the applicant.
Siltation would alter the substrate of the stream making it unsuitable for spawning by this form. The degree of siltation of Beaverdam Creek will depend on measures taken to prevent erosion at the construc-tion site and in the operation of the silt basins. Guidelines for the operation of retention basins have been set forth by the EPA.1 0 The staff recommends that the applicant follow these guidelines.
If the basins are operated properly, no significant adverse effect on the receiving streams is anticipated by the staff.4.3.2.3 Construction of intake and discharge structures and barge slip All floodplain sttuctures will be built on the river bank with no intake or discharge canal. After each structure is completed, the river bank is excavated.
The disturbance to the river will result, therefore, only from river bank excavation.
Approximately 550 yd 3 of excavated material is expected to enter the river as a result of excavation.
Studies by the applicant (ER, vol. II, p. 4.4-1) show that approximately 450 yd 4 of the material will settle out in an area downstream along the southerly bank of the river. The applicant estimates the area of expected sedimentation to be approximately 2,667 yd 2 of river bottom. This would result in a 6.82-in.-thick layer of sediment deposited over the 2,667 yd of river bottom. A more liberal estimate is the ex-nected area to be affected by a 1-in. deposition of sediment.
This 4-21 area would cover 18,200 yd 2.Using the applicant's estimate of a 60-ft width of river bottom being affected, this would mean the length of river below the site subjected to siltation would be from 400 to 2,730 ft, depending on the depth of deposition.
Sev-eral taxonomic groups would be adversely affected by sedimentation.
These include periphytic (attached)l algal forms, filter feeding species, including mussels, and several taxa of insects such as Chironomidae, hydropsychidae, and Simuliidae.
Potential spawning sites for sunfish in the area of silt deposition may be destroyed, 1 2 and if sedimentation occurs during the spawning season (spring), the eggs would be smothered.
Although the area of the stream receiving the sediment deposition as a result of construction activities will be adversely affected, these impacts will be temporary since recolonization is expected to occur within a relatively short period. MUller1 3 conducted experiments in which a section of stream bed was removed (includ-ing organisms) and replaced with clean substrate.
He found that recolonization of the area to predisturbed levels occurred in 11 days. His studies, it should be pointed out, dealt with destruction and replacement of habitat, while this is concerned with habitat alteration.
That is, there will be an additional layer of the same type of material added to the affected area as is already present, so that a shift in species composition is not expected.An estimate of 11 days would be an absolute minimum expected time for recolonization.
In a large river like the Savannah, alloc-thonous sources (material originating outside the stream) of food for forms that recolonize the silted area are more important than autochthonous (internally generated) sources.1 4 The forms inhab-iting the new substrate would not be food-limited.
Fish-spawning sites in the area of projected impact have not been identified.
In order to minimize the adverse effects of siltation, the appli-cant plans to schedule construction so there will be a minimum conflict with spawning activity in the area.The staff conclvdes that there will be no significant long-term adverse effects resulting from activities associated with con-struction of the intake and discharge structures and the barge slip.4.3.2.4 Recommendations Sediment releases to receiving streams below the retention basins would be decreased if the basins were emptied during dry periods 4-22 (between rains) when turbidity is lowest. Maximum basin capacity would be available for subsequent storm runoff with a result in-crease in detention time. This would allow for a greater settling of sediments in the basins.The staff reconmmends that the basins be designed so that a maximum capacity for storage of runoff is available.
By "maximum capacity" the staff means the basins should be drained between storms when the turbidity of basin water has decreased to acceptable levels.The basin drainage rate should be low enough to prevent erosion and scouring of the receiving stream.4.4 EFFECTS ON THE COMMUNITY The aspects of Vogtle plant construction which will tend to cause social or economic effects on the local and other communities dur-iug the construction period are: (1) the services and facilities required by the workers and their families who move into the local area, (2) the public services used by the construction effort, (3) the sights, sounds, and odors of the construction, (4) the payroll of the work force, (5) the materials, equipment, and land used by the construction project, and (6) the taxes paid by GPC.The latter three aspects are interrelated in that they each affect the local and other economies.
It is estimated that 360 construction workers, plus about 200 Georgia Power Company employees, with an average family size of 3.75 persons per worker, would move into the area (ER, vol. II, App. A, pp. A14, A15, and A24); the peak influx into Burke County is estimated to be 565 people with 1,560 people moving into Richmond County. This influx, like the total work force (see Table 3.8), will tend to build to a maximum in about two years, remain high for about four years, and then decline to an operating force of 150 GPC employees as shown in Fig. 4.3. Richmond County and Augusta are large enough so that the expected influx of people will not cause a large impact.Burke County and Waynesboro may be affected to a larger extent be-cause of their smaller size and the proportionately greater effect of the incoming construction workers and their families.The school system is adequate to han~dle the expected influx of 200 students (at peak construction labor force; ER, vol. II, p.A49; Sect. 2.2.1). Housing may be in short supply; one study (ER, vol. 11, App. A, p. A28) found only 73 available rental units that 4-23 1000,r 7 5 r-800So-60(*600-0 C-0.2 E 0 45 0 z 0&0 a z hi ta U)W 0: 3: hi 400 .-30-2001-15-K OL 0 1979 YEAR 1985 Fig. 4.3. Local payroll, new residents in Burke Counties, and taxable evaluation during construction.
and Richmond 4-24 were not substandard in Waynesboro, whereas 150 families may wish to move into Burke County. It is expected that mobile homes will be used; additioni'l local regulations of mobile home parks were recommended (ER, vol. II, App. A, p. A41). Public utilities and health care are adequate in Waynesboro; the police force was indi-cated to be understaffed (ER, vol. 11, App. A, p. A61).In general, if most of the influx of construction families is to the Augusta area, then although there will be some additional load on services in Waynesboro and improvements would be desirable, the staff believes that no particular area or service would be critically overloaded.
Whether the predictions are right or wrong, the fact remains that Augusta, a large city, is nearby and will offer choices to incoming workers; these choices will tend to dis-perse the workers and their impact on the communities.
It is predicted that the only community service which would be significantly used by the construction effort itself would be the roads. Transport of materials and construction workers will occur over the road system. The commuting of the labor force and the transport of materials to the site may overload certain roads during certain hours of the day. The paving of roads to the site from Waynesboro and the construction of a bypass around Waynesboro were recommended (ER, vol. II, App. A, p. A48); the first priority improvement, namely, the hard-surfacing of one road to the site (Hancock Landing Road), is planned by the Georgia State Highway Department to be completed (at State expense) in the immediate future. The staff judges that although traffic congestion during certain periods of the day will result in inconveniences to local residents, these inconveniences will in general be relatively minor and, in any event, will be at a maximum for only a few years during peak construction activity.The construction activities at the site will result in the sights, sounds, and odors common to large construction activities.
The remoteness of this location (with the closest residence 3 miles away) makes the importance of this impact on local communities small.The construction payroll, the acquisition of materials, equipment, and land, and the taxes to be paid by GPC will tend to result in interrelated economic impacts. The applicant (ER, vol. II, App.A, p. A75) indicated that the average hourly rate for local labor would be $8 per hour or about $16,000 per year. This corresponds to a $55.2 million payroll during the year of peak employment 4-25 (3,450; see Table 3.8). The total payroll for the entire 15,700 man-year effort is estimated to be about $250 million. Later estimates by the applicant (ER, vol. 1, p. 1.4-1) indicate that the peak annual payroll for 3,800 workers might be as high as$75 million (average annual wage $19,700), resulting in a total construction payroll of $309 million. The staff believes the rate of $16,000 per year to be more realistic and has assumed a peak labor force of 3,450 (Table 3.8).It was estimated (ER, vol. II, App. A, p. A73) that 74% of the payroll would be taken to Richmond County; 23% to Burke, Jefferson, Jenkins, and Screven Counties (primarily to Burke County); and 3%to places outside the five-county area, primarily to Savannah, Georgia. The above-mentioned five-county region (see Fig. 2.7)will experience an economic impulse from the payroll during the years construction is in progress.
The economic impulse will be very noticeable; note~ that the peak construction force of 3,450 is of magnitude similar to the total construction work force of 4,738 now residing in the five-county (Richmond, Burke, Jefferson, Jenkins and Screven Counties) area; note that the applicant's ex-pected average construction wages of about $320 per week are con-siderably larger than the present construction force wages (in the five-county area) of $65 to $110 dollars per week; also note that there was in 1970 a 5.9% unemployment rate in the five counties (ER, vol. II, App. A, p. A6). The economic impulse of the construc-tion payroll will tend to reduce unemployment, to increase worker wages, and possibly to encourage workers to learn higher paying crafts. It may discourage, for a time, the coming of more permanent industries because they would be competing (in general to their dis-advantage) with construction pay scales.The economic letdow-n after construction will tend to regenerate unemployment, to reduce average wages, and perhaps to encourage locally trained craftsmen to move to other locations where their craft is marketable for wages comparable to those received during construction.
The ability of the area's economic activity to ab-sorb this letdown is indicated by the size of the present construc-tion work force and by the number of manufacturing jobs; there are 1,579 jobs in Waynesboro and 29,000 within a 50-mile radius. The construction will tend to provide the leaders of the area with two additional tools with which to encourage more industry and hence to absorb the economic letdown without returning to the present high rate of unemployment.
First, Burke County will have the pos-sibility of increased tax revenues that may be used as one tool to attract new industry.
Second, the construction effort will have-trained a number of craftsmen through apprentice experience; hence, there is the possibility of an increase in the level of training of the local work force.
&deg;4-26 The total cost of plant construction, excluding initial core costs, was estimated to be almost $2.2 billion (ER, vol. II, p. l1-c-l);about 28%, or $615 million, would be spent locally (about $250 mil-lion of this would be payroll money); an additional 7%, or $154 mil-lion, would be spent within the State of Georgia; the remaining 65%, or $1.43 billion, would be spent within the United States. The acquisition of materials and equipment for the Vogtle Nuclear Plant will therefore result in a significant amount of industrial and commercial activity, both within and outside the local area.The acquisition of the 3,177 acres of land resulted in the re-location of four families; two were owmers and two were tenants.One of the land owners has purchased a new farm in Burke County;the places to which the others relocated are unknown.At present, GPC (and other public utilities) must pay ad valorem tax to Burke County on 40% of the fair market value of the prop-erty as estimated by the Tax Division of the State Revenue Depart-ment (ER, vol. II, App. A, p. A76). The taxable evaluations in Burke County in 1972 (before construction) 1 5 and the estimated taxable evaluations in 1983 (after construction) are shown in Table 4.6. The tax rate in Burke County, its breakdown, and the approximate dollar amounts 1 6 are given in Table 4.7. The taxable evaluations in Burke County will increase, due to VNP construction, by about a factor of 20. The taxable evaluations year by year can be derived from the recent estimate of total construction costs (ER, vol. II, p. ll-c-l) and relative year by year cumulative in-vestment during construction (ER, vol. II, App. A, p. A79); the estimated year by year taxable evaluation of VNP is shown in Fig.4.3. Some additional tax revenue will also accrue to the surround-ing counties through which the transmission lines pass. Average construction costs of existing lines were approximately
$55,000 per mile for 230-kV lines and $56,000 per mile for 500-kV lines (ER, vol. II, p. 4.2-2). Corresponding assessed valuations per mile are $38,500 and $39,600 for 230- and 500-kV, respectively.
There will be a total of about 733 miles of individual transmission lines (see Table 4.1) that will traverse about 27 counties (see Fig. 3.9). This indicates a total increase in taxable evaluation of about $41 million. Since this evaluation is diffused over about 27 counties, the average increased evaluation per county will be about $1.5 million, and the beneficial impact of these taxes will be small.
4-27 Table 4.6. Taxable evaluations in Burke County$ Millions 1972 1983f Net taxable evaluation (except utilities) 42.00 42.00 Taxable evaluation of utilities (except GPC) 2.70 2.70 Taxable evaluation of GPC (except for VNP) 1.65 !1.6 5 b Taxable evaluation of VNP None 8 1 0.00c Total taxable evaluation 46.35 866.35 aEstimated.
bThis value is based on an estimated market value of the Vogtle Combustion Turbine Plant of $25 million.c 4 0% of $2.025 billion. 2.025 X 109 dollars is the estimated cost of the plant without fuel and minus the costs of pollution control systems (cooling towers.etc.).Note: All taxable evaluations in Burke County are 40% of estimated fair-market value.Table 4.7. Taxes and tax rate in Burke County in 1972 Tax fate (S0100) Tax (M)For county schools 1.30 607.000 For county services 0.55 256.000 To the State of Georgia 0.025 12.000 Total 1.875 875.000 4-28 The study prepared for the Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission (ER, Appendix A), in recognition of possible detrimental impacts of construction, recommended the following county actions: "(1) improvement of existing highways, (2) enact-ment of county-wide zoning controls, (3) improvement of the over-all quality of both the education and the facilities in the public schools, (4) improvement of first the quality, and then the quantity, of available community services and facilities.
Increased tax rev-enues could feasibly help with all these things." The impacts of the payroll, the economic activity of the acquisition of the materials and land, and of the taxes to be paid by GPC are as follows: the lives of four families were disrupted by the land acquisition; this is certainly an important impact, but the staff judges that alternate sites would likely have caused the same, or more, family disruptions; hence this cost is judged to be as small or smaller than at alternate sites. Whether the local economic pulse from the construction payroll, the business associated with acquisition of materials, and the taxes paid during the construc-tion period are assets or 'liabilities depends on: (1) one's judg-ment regarding the relative advantages of urban vs rural ways of life, (2) local alternatives regarding the development of suitable employment for the local people, and (3) the success of local enterprise and government to identify and achieve local objectives.
The staff does not have any bias in favor or against either urban or rural living. The staff judges that Burke County probably does not have any viable alternative to increased urban development in order to provide adequate means for local people to make their living. The facts are (1) the Burke County unemployment rate in 1970 was 7.7% and the average agricultural wages were low that is, $23 per week (ER, vol. II, App. A, pp. A6, All), and (2) much of the soil in this area is not suitable for intensive cultivation (see Sect. 2.2.2). Therefore, increased growing of row crops that would provide more agricultural jobs (see Sect. 2.2.1.1) is not recommended.
Instead the land is increasingly beiiig used for the growing of pine trees and grasses. The staff judges therefore that increases in industry and commerce would be desirable in Burke County, both in the short term to alleviate unemployment and low wages, and in the long term to take the pressure of intensive cultivation off more of the land. It is noted that another avenue for some increases in employment and income in Burke County may be through additional development of recreational services.
4-29 The VNP construction job with its payroll, commercial activity, the training of some craftsmen, and the increased local taxes, will not directly deliver long-term economic security to Burke County. It will give Burke County an economic impulse. This impulse (along with the possibility of continuing increased taxes as described in Sect. 5.6) will provide the county with important advantages in its.competition for new industry.4.5 MEASURES AND CONTROLS TO LIMIT ADVERSE EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION
 
====4.5.1 Applicant====
 
Commitments The following is a summary of the commitments made by the applicant to limit adverse effects during construction of the proposed station.1. Burning of construction debris will be in accordance with state and local regulations (E.R., vol. II, p. 4.3-2).2. The concrete batch plant design will incorporate a dust control system (E.R., vol. II, p. 4.1-1).3. Insofar as it is feasible and practical, route selection for transmission lines will conform to the Federal Power Commission Publication "Electric Power Transmission and the Environment" and the Department of Interior/Department of Agriculture publi-cation entitled "Environmental Criteria for Electric Transmission Systems" (E.R., vol. II, p. 5.4-3).4. The Applicant will submit proposed right-of-way locations for transmission lines to the Georgia Historical Commission for determination of whether or not the right-of-way will disturb any structure or site of historical or archaeological significance (E.R., vol. I, p. 2.3-1).5. The location of transmission lines at highways and navigable river crossings will comply with the requirements of the Georgia Department of Transportation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (E.R., vol. II, p. 5.4-4a).6. Where transmission lines cross railroads, The National Electric Safety Code, Sixth Edition, will be the guideline for establishing required clearances (E.R., vol. II, p. 5.4-4a).
4-30 7. There will be no spraying of herbicides from helicopters on transmission line rights-of-way in sensitive areas such as along roadsides, around lakes or areas surrounded by residential housing or crops. Spraying from helicopters along rights-of-way will be limited to weather conditions and to equipment that will not damage trees, plants or crops adjacent to the rights-of-way (E.R., vol. II, p. 5.4-4a).8. During the initial construction phase, portable self-contained facilities will be used to control sanitary wastes. During the period of major construction, sanitary wastes will be processed in a packaged sewage treatment plant (E.R., vol. II, p. 4.4-la).9. Material which is dredg..d from the Savannah River will be deposited in an inland disposal area (Letter, Mr. Chas F. Whitmer, GPC to Mr. Gordon K. Dicker, AEC dated December 18, 1973).10. To control siltation of Daniels Branch, Telfair Pond, Beaverdam Creek and the Savannah River, the applicant has committed to a number of preventive and corrective measures (E.R., vol. II, Sect. 4.3), including: (a) measures to control erosion of stockpiled materials such as use of berms, dikes, interceptor ditches, sandbags, benches, seeding, collector drains, sheet piling and soil binders.(b) construction sediment retention basins to collect onsite runoff, adequately sized to collect and detain for 10 minutes the peak flow during a storm with a recurrency period of 25 years.(c) periodic cleaning of the retention basins.(d) the Soil Conservation Service will be consulted on erosion control practices and procedures.
: 11. When construction is completed, areas that are no longer needed for operational activities will be replanted with appropriate grasses, shrubs or trees and made available for use by wildlife as much as possible (E.R., vol. II, p. 4.3-2).4.5.2 Staff Evaluation Based on a review of the anticipated construction activities and the expected environmental effects therefrom, the staff concludes that 4-31 the measures and controls committed to by the applicant, as summarized above, are adequate to ensure that adverse environmental effects will be at the minimum practical level with the following additional precautions:
: 1. The retention basins shall be drained between storms when the turbidity of the water has decreased to acceptable levels (Section 4.3.2.4).2. The rate of dewatering of the retention basins shall be low enough to prevent erosion and scouring of the receiving stream (Section 4.3.2.1).3. The applicant shall follow the guidelines set forth by EPA for operation of retention basins ("Water Quality Considerations for Construction and Dredging Operations," Environmental Protection Agency, Southeast Region, April 1971) (Section 4.3.2.2).4. Prior to construction of the intake structure (scheduled to begin June 1977), the applicant shall submit for the staff's analysis sufficient data on the population density of resident and anadromous fish in the river in the vicinity of the proposed intake structure to verify the applicants' conclusion that inclusion of an intake canal will not increase impingement losses such that the losses would significantly effect the population of adult fish in the river. (Section 11.3.5).
4-32 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4 1. Georgia Power Company, Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant Environ-mental Report, Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, 50-426, and 50-427, issued February 1973, and including Amendment No. 1, issued May 1973, p. 2.1-1.2. Letter from Lewis H. Larson, Georgia State Archaeologist, to Mary G. Jewett, Director, Georgia Historical Commission, Apr. 3, 1973.3. Manual of Standards and Specifications for Control of Soil Erosion and Sediment in Areas Undergoing Urban Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Athens, Ga.4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Predicting RainfalZ-Erosion Losses from Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains, a Guide for Selection of Practices for Soil and Water Consern'ation, Agriculture Handbook No. 282.5. G. E. Likens and F. H. Bormann, "Nutrient Cycling in Eco-systems," in Ecosystem Structure and Function, J. A. Wiens, Ed., Oregon State University Pres, 1972.6. U.S. Department of Agr-.culture, Forest Statistics for South-east Georgia 1971, Forest Service Resource Bulletin SE-21.7. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Statistics for Central Georgia 1972, Forest Service Resource Bulletin SE-22.8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Statistics for North Central Georgia 1972, Forest Service Resource Bulletin SE-24.9. Georgia Statistical Abstract, 1972, Division of Research, College of Business Administration, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.10. Water Quality Considerations for Construction and Dredging Operations, Environmental Protection Agency, Southeast Region, April 1971.11. A. J. Cordone and D. W. Kelley, "The Influence of Inorganic Sediment on the Aquatic Life of Streams," Calif. Fish and Gane 47(2): 189-228 (1961).
4-33 12. J. D. Hamilton, "The Effect of Sand-pit Washings on a Stream Fauna," Vera. Int. Ver. Limnol. 1959: 435-439; also Water PoZ. Abstr. 1962.13. K. MUller, "Investigations on the Organic Drift in North Swedish Streams," Rep. Inst. Freshwat.
Res. Drottningholm 35: 133-148 (1954).14. II.B.N. Hynes, The Ecology of Rnning Waters, University of Toronto Press, Ontario, Canada, 1970, pp. 411-442.15. Letter from J. F. West, Jr., Burke County Development Authority, to R. J. Davis, May 18, 1973.16. Economic Development Profile, Waynesboro, Georgia, Georgia Department of Community Development, P.O. Box 38097, Atlanta, Ga., 1971.
: 5. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF THE PLANT AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES
 
===5.1 IMPACTS===
ON LAND USE 5.1.1 Impact from plant operation Although the major impact on land use at the Vogtle site will occur during the construction period, operation of the plant will cause continuing restrictions because of the conversion of the land from agricultural, silvicultural, and recreational pursuits to an area that has buildings, transmission lines, parking lots, electrical switchyards, and cooling towers. Of the approximately 1,011 on-site acres cleared during construction, about 247 acres will be revegetated and landscaped and thus will be returned to some form of natural productivity.
However, none of the 3,177-acre site will be used for agricultural or recreational purposes (such as huntingl).
The staff expects that this restriction will have no measurable impact on the community or region since several hundred thousand acres of similar land are in the area. Removal from agricultural production of the 379 acres of the site which were under cultiva-tion prior to purchase by GPC represents a decrease of only about 0.25% of the land currently under cultivation in Burke County (Table 2.1).Drift from the natural-draft and mechanical-draft cooling towers will deposit to some extent on nearby land (Sect. 3.6.1). The staff concludes that the impact of this drift on land use will be negligible.
 
====5.1.2 Impact====
due to transmission facilities The presence of transmission lines across land now used for agri-culture (25.3% of the total) is expected not to alter appreciably its use for this purpose or its productivity.
The use of other portions of the land which are currently used for forests or tim-ber production (66.5%) will be altered. Trees will be replaced by grasses and other low-growing types of ground cover that should serve as enhanced habitats for wildlife.
About 2.4% of the trans-mission-line acreage will be wetlands; its current land use should not be altered significantly.
About 5.8% of the acreage will oe in urban areas; usage of that land will be restricted, although not entirely eliminated.
5-1 5-2 The need for continual maintenance is an impact on land use caused by transmission lines. This effect is discussed in Sect. 5.5.1.2, and the impact is shown to depend on the applicant's ability to implement a satisfactory maintenance program.Transmission lines parallel to railroad tracks can lead to inductive coupling, which interferes with railroad-communication systems. No impact is expected to result from the Vogtle transmission system since the lines are expected not to closely parallel railroad tracks (ER, vol. II, p. 5.4-4a). Transmission lines will cross railroad tracks about 33 times. Adequate clearances between these lines and the railroad-signal or -communications circuits must be maintained to prevent direct faulting or flashover interference.
The applicant intends to follow the guidelines of the National Electric Safety Code, 6th ed., to establish these clearances (ER, vol. II, p. 5.4-4a).The staff believes that the applicant's planned procedures will re-duce to acceptable levels any interactions between transmission lines and railroads.
 
===5.2 IMPACTS===
ON WATER USE The four natural-draft cooling towers will dissipate most of the waste heat to the environment by evaporating water drawn from the Savannah River. The amount of water so lost (average 133 cfs) is estimated to be 2.3% of the 5,800-cfs low flow and 1.3% of the 10,150-cfs average flow. The staff expects that loss of this small amount of water from the Savannah River will not measurably affect navigational or recreational uses or consumptive uses down-stream.The four units of VNP will normally discharge heated water at a maximum rate of about 23,140 gpm to the Savannah River; during brief periods of radiological discharge, an additional 15,000 gpm will be used as dilution flow (ER, vol. II, p. 3.5-2a). The ther-mal effects of this discharge are described in Sect. 3.4.3. Same chemicals will also be discharged (Sect. 3.6). These discharges will be diffused rapidly into a relatively small area of the river.Therefore, the staff does not expect these discharges to affect navigational, recreational, or consumptive uses of the Savannah River.The diffuser pipe will not affect the barge channel since the pipe will be laid close to the Georgia bank and since the navigational channel is close to either the middle of the river or the South Carolina bank in the site vicinity.
The staff believes that the overall impact of the intake structure, discharge structure, and barge slip will be small.
5-3 Some water for plant use will be taken from the Tuscaloosa aquifer.The maximum rate at which the water is to be extracted is 4,000 gpm (about 6 million gal/day).
Since the safe yield from the aquifer has been estimated to be 5 billion gal/day (ER, vol. 1, p. 2.5-18), these withdrawals will be well within the capacity of the aquifer, and the staff expects that the impact will be negligible.
 
===5.3 RADIOLOGICAL===
 
IMPACT ON BIOTA OTHER THAN MAN Two recent comprehensive reports have been concerned with radio-activity in the environment and with the pathways by which the radioactive materials can reach biota.2 , 3 Depending on the path-way being considered, terrestrial and aquatic organisms will re-ceive either about the same radiation doses as man or somewhat greater doses. No guidelines have been established for desirable limits for radioactive exposure to species other than man. How-ever, the general agreement is that the limits established for humans are also conservative for other species.4 The staff has estimated the quantities and kinds of radionuclides expected to be discharged annually by Vogtle in liquid and gaseous effluents; Tables 3.4 and 3.5, respectively, give the estimates.
 
====5.3.1 Exposure====
pathways and dose-rate estimations The pathways by which biota other than man may receive radiation doses in the vicinity of a nuclear power station are shown in Fig.5.1. For the determination of doses to biota other than man, spe-cific calculations are done primarily for the liquid effluents.
Doses to terrestrial animals, such as rabbit or deer, due to the gaseous effluents are very similar to those calculated for man (Sect. 5.4). The liquid effluent, when diluted by the total annual coolant discharges of VNP, would produce an average gross activity concentration, excluding tritium, of 5.0 x 10-8 pCi/ml in the plant-discharge area. Under the same conditions, the tritium concentration would be 4.4 x 10-5 PCi/ml. Section 5.4 gives additional discussion concerning liquid dilution.The maximum doses to aquatic organisms living in the water that contains radionuclides discharged from the station will be delivered to fish. This effect is a consequence of physiological mecha.tisms that concentrate a number of elements which can be present in their aqueous environment.
The extent to which elements are concentrated in fish, invertebrates, and aquatic plants on uptake or ingestion has been estimated.
Table 5.1 gives the values of relative biolog-ical accumulation factors of a number of water-borne elements for several organisms.
I ~RADIVACTVE EFFLUIENT ivb I -I-WATER SUPPLY I I-4 SEDIMENT 0 conCENTRATION Z IW )iSUBMERGEO ORGANISMS'Balrom and Sedimmet Ovellers 3J w Moti1e OrqonIe-16 TTrnrstria AI n wvmmIr.Iiro aim Fig. 5.1. Generalized exposure pathways for organisms other than man.
5-5 Table 5.1. Freshwater bioaccumulation factors Bioaccumulation factor Element [pCi/(kg of organism) per pCif(liter of water)]Fish Invertebrates Plants C 4,550 9,100 4,550 Na 100 200 500 P 100.000 20.000 500,000 Sc 2 1.000 10.000 Cr 200 2,000 4.000 Mn 400 90.000 10,000 Fe 100 3.200 1,000 Co 50 200 200 Ni t00 100 50 Zn 2,000 10,000 20,000 Rb 2.000 1,000 1,000 Sr 30 100 S00 y 25 1,000 5,000 Zr 3 7 1,000 Nb 30.000 100 800 Mo o0 10 1,000 Tc Is 5 40 Ru 10 300 2.000 Rh 10 300 200 Ag 2 770 200 Sn 3.000 1.000 IO0 Sb I 10 I.S00 Tc 400 ISO IOO 1 15 S 40 (C- 2.000 100 500 Ba 4 200 500 La 25 1.000 5.000 Cc 1 1.000 4.000 Pr 25 1.000 5,000 Nd 25 1.000 5.000 Pm 25 1.000 5,000 Sm 25 1.000 5.000 Eu 25 1.000 5,000 Gd 25 1,000 5.000 W 1.200 10 1.200 Np 10 400 300 Pu 4 100 350 Am 25 1.000 5.000 Cm 25 1,000 5,000 Source: W. It. Chapman, 11. L. Fisher, and M. N. Pratt, Concentration Factors of Chemical Elemenis in Edible Aquatic Organisms, UCRL-50-564, Dec. 30.1968.
5-6 The annual radiation doses to both aquatic and terrestrial biota (including man) were estimated on the assumption of constant con-centrations of radionuclides at a given point in both the water and the air. Figure 5.1 shows that radiation dose has both internal and external components.
External components originate from immer-sion in radioactive air and water and from exposure to radioactive surfaces.
Internal exposures result from ingesting and breathing radioactivity.
Doses to aquatic plants and to fish that live in the discharge region which are due to water uptake and ingestion (internal exposure) were calculated to be 1.4 x 10-2 and 7.6 x 10-1 millirad/year, respectively, for Vogtle operation.
The discharge-region concentrations were those described above; these organisms were assumed to spend all year in water having maximum concentra-tions of discharged radionuclides.
All calculated doses are based on standard models.5 However, the doses are very conservative since the possibility is highly unlikely that any of the mobile life forms will spend a significant portion of their life-span in the discharge region that has maximum concentration of radioactivity.
Both radioactive decay and additional dilution would reduce the dose at other points in the river.External doses to terrestrial animals other than man are determined on the basis of gaseous-effluent concentrations and of direct-radiation contributions at the locations where such animals may actually be present. Because the concentrations are primarily used in the calculations for dose to man, they are discussed in Sect. 5.4. The external doses to animals at the same locations are the same as those to man.An estimate can be made for the ingestion dose to a terrestrial animal such as a duck that is assumed to consume only aquatic vegetation growing in the water in the discharge region. The duck ingestion dose was calculated to be about 16 millirads/year.
All the calculated ingestion doses represent upper-limit estimates because equilibrium was assumed to exist between the aquatic orga-nisms and all radionuclides in the water. A nonequilibrium condi-tion for a radionuclide in an actual exposure situation would result in a smaller bioaccumulation and therefore in a smaller dose from internal exposure.
Also, many pathways of internal exposure to terrestrial biota exist, but the pathway selected is based on the assumption that the animal consumed only aquatic vegetation that grew in the water near the discharge region.
5-7 5.3.2 Dose assessment The literature relating to radiation effects on organisms is ex-tensive, but very few studies have been conducted to determine the effects of continuous low-level exposure to radiation from ingested radionuclides on natural aquatic or terrestrial populations.
The most recent and pertiuent studies point out that, whereas the ex-istence of extremely radiosensitive biota is possible and whereas increased radiosensitivity in organisms may result from environ-mental interactions, no biota have yet been discovered which show a sensitivity to radiation exposures as low as those anticipated in the area surrounding the Vogtle Nuclear Plant. The "BEIR' re-port 6 states, in summary, that evidence to date indicates that no other living organisms are very much more radiosensitive than is fran. Therefore, no detectable radiological impact is expected in the aquatic biota or in terrestrial mammals as a result of the quantity of radionuclides to be released into Savannah River and into the air by Vogtle.5.4 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ON MAN Routine power generation by Vogtle will result in the release of small quantities of fission and activation products to the environ-ment. These releases will be kept as low as practicable in accord-ance with 10 CFR 50 and well within the limits specified in 10 CFR 20. The staff has estimated the probable nuclide releases from Vogtle which are based on experience with comparable operating reactors and on an evaluation of the radioactive-waste-treatment system.Estimations were made of radiation doses to man at and beyond the site boundary via the most significant pathways, which are dia-grammed in Fig. 5.2. The calculations are based on conservative assumptions regarding the dilutions of effluent gases and radio-nuulides in the coolant discharge and regarding the use by man of the plant surroundings.
Radiation doses calculated by the AEC staff are intended to apply to an average adult. Specific persons will receive higher or lower doses, depending upon their age, living habits, food preferences and recreational activities.
Based upon experience at comparable operating reactors, an estimate has been made of the occupational radiation exposure expected to result from operation of the Vogtle Nuclear Plant (Units 1, 2, 3 and 4).
z z-4 5 z a a ly, 0-4 M x 0*1 C m Lo I O0 Fig. 5.2. Generalized exposure pathways to man.
5-9 5.4.1 Radioactive materials released in liquid effluents Expected radionuclide releases in the liquid effluent have been cal-culated for Vogtle and are listed in Table 3.4. In the immediate vicinity of the discharge, the concentration of gross radioactivity, exclusive of tritium, is estimated to be 5.0 x 1 0-8 UCi/ml. Under the same conditions, the tritium concentration would be 4.4 x 10-5 VCi/ml.During normal reactor operations, a fraction of the noble gases produced could be released in the coolant water and subsequently discharged into the Savannah River. The AEC Directorate of Reg-ulatory Operations has analyzed coolant water discharged from an operating reactor for noble-gas content. Under conditions of highest annual average noble-gas concentrations in the discharge water, no significant doses would be delivered to human beings.Other pathways of relative importance involve recreational use of the river in the vicinity of the discharge zone. Individual doses from consuming fish and invertebrates caught in the immediate dis-charge area were evaluated by use of the biological accumulation factors listed in Table 5.1 and of standard models.5 Swimming, boating, and fishing in the discharge region were also included in the evaluation.
Table 5.2 summarizes the potential individual doses from the liquid effluents.
Table 5.2. Annual individual doses from liquid effluents Location Pathway Dose (millirem/yr)
Total-body Gastrointestinal Thyroid Bone tract Coolant Fish 2.2 x 10-1 3.9 x 10-2 3.6x10-2 7.3xi0-discharge ingestion  2 -1 region Invertebrate 1.6 x 10 6.1 x 10 5.6xi0 1.8x10 ingestion Swimming 2.5 x 10-(100 hr/yr)Fishing and 6.2 x 10 boating (500 hr/yr) 5-10 The Savannah River in the vicinity of the Vogtle site is now a muddy stream with a limited human population along its banks. The first public use of the river as a source of drinking water is made 112 miles downstream of the Vogtle site in the area of Jasper-Beaufort counties, with an estimated (1977) population of 70,000. Ingestion of 1.2 liters of untreated river water per day would result in a maximum annual dose of 3.4 x 10-3 millirem to an individual, or 0.24 man-rem to the population.
If the river were rendered free of industrial pollutants and of suspended solids and were thus made potably desirable, higher doses close to the Vogtle discharge point might occur; the maxi-mum annual dose in any case would be 0.1 millirem, incurred by drinking of the Vogtle effluent (after discharge into the river).Obviously, the concentration of radionuclides, and hence the associated dose, would dimhi-sh as mixing and dilution occurred.5.4.2 Radioactive materials released to the atmosphere The staff's estimates of the probable gaseous releases listed in Table 3.5 were used to evaluate potential doses. All dose calcu-lations were done by use of annual average site meteorological conditions and were based on the assumption that releases occur at a constant rate. The annual average x/Q values are based on data from the Vogtle Nuclear Plant site.The primary food pathway to man involves the ingestion by dairy cows of radioiodine deposited onto grazing areas. Consumption of milk from these cows can cause the human thyroid to be exposed to radiation.
Doses to a child's thyroid which would result from consuming one liter of milk daily from a cow that had grazed 12 months annually (3.8 mrem/yr) were calculated for the nearest farm by use of recognized models.7 Another food pathway to man of secondary importance involves the consumption of leafy vegetables subject to radionuclide deposition from the gaseous effluent plume. The thyroid dose resulting from an annual consumption of 72 kg of leafy vegetables produced at the nearest farm during the three-month growing period was evaluated.
Table 5.3 summarizes all doses due to gaseous effluents.
5-11 Table 5.3. Annual Individual Doses Due to the Gaseous Effluents Dose (millirem per year)Location X/Q (sec/r 3) Total-Body Skin Thyroid Site Boundary 1.22 x 10-6 .081 .350 1.1 (a)1 mile N Nearest Farm 2.30 x 10-7 .015 .066 3.8 (b)3 miles WNW .22 (a)a) Calculated dose to adult thyroid via inhalation and ingestion of green leafy vegetables.
b) Calculated dose to the infant thyroid via the cow-milk pathway.5.4.3 Direct radiation The plant design includes specific shielding of the reactor, holdup tanks, filters, demineralizers, and other areas where radioactive materials may flow or be stored. Therefore, direct radiation from these sources is expected not to be significant at the site boundary.Confirming measurements will be made as part of the applicant's environmental-monitoring program after plant start-up.
Low-level-radioactivity storage containers outside the plant are estimated to contribute less than 0.01 millirem/year at the site boundary.5.4.4 Population doses from all sources The combined dose (man-rem) due to gaseous effluents to all indi-viduals living within a 50-mile radius of the plant was calculated by use of the projected 1977 population data furnished by the applicant (ER, Sect. 2.2.1). Table 5.4 summarizes values for the man-rem dose at various distances from the plant.
5-12 Table 5.4 Cumulative Population, Average Annual Cumulative Dose, and Average Annual Total-Body Dose in Selected Annuli About the Plant Cumulative Cumulative Average Annual Average Annual Radius Population Cumulative Dose Total-Body Dose (Miles) (man-rem) (millirem/yr) 1 5 3.0 x 10-4 6.0 x 10-2 2 15 6.0 x 10-4  4.0 x 10-2 3 55 1.2 x 10-3  2'1 x 10-2 4 125 1.7 x 10-3 1.4 x 10-2 5 350 2.8 x 10-3 8.0 x 10-3 10 4,370 1.1 x 10-2 2.4 x 10-3 20 63,810 4.8 x 10-2' 7.6 x 10-4 30 319,500 1.1 x 10-1 3.4 x 10-4 40 434,600 1.3 x 10-1 3.0 x 10-4 50 573,000 1.4 x 10-1 2.4 x 10-4 To estimate the combined doses that result from the consumption of fish harvested from Savannah River, the conservative assump-tion was made that, each day, 10% of the population within 50 miles of the plant consumed 5 g of fish caught in the region where the coolant-water discharges were diluted, on the average, 300 times greater than those in the immediate discharge region.The exposed fishing-and-boating population was estimated to repre-sent 25% of the total population within a 50-mile radius, and each person was assumed to be exposed during 1 hr per year of swimming and 5 hr per year of boating in the mixing zone.The transportation of cold fuel to a reactor, of irradiated fuel from the reactor to a fuel-reprocessing plant, and of solid radio-active wastes from the reactor to burial grounds is within the scope of the AEC report titled, EnvironmentaZ Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants. Table 5.5 summarizes the environmental effects of such transportation.
5-13 Table S.S. Environmental Impact of transportation of fuel aM waste to and from a typical light-water-cooled nuclear power reactore Normal conditions of transport Shipments per year (number)Unirradiated fuel and return of empty containers 12 truckloads Irradiated fuel and return of empty containers 120 truckloads, 20 railcarloads, or 10 ba:ges Solid radioactive wastes 46 truckloads or I I railcarloads Environmental impact Heat, weight, and number of shipments Negligible Radiation doses Estimated dose Cumulative Recipient Persons exposed range to exposed dose to exposed (number) individuals p o selto ex sed (millirems/year)b population (man-reis/year)c Transport workers 200 0.01 to 300 4 General public Onlookers 1.100 0.003 to 1.3 3 Along route 600,000 0.0001 to 0.06'Data supporting this table are given in the Commission's "Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radio-active Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants," dated December 1972i bThe Federal Radiation Council has recommended that the radiation doses from all sources of radiation other than natural background and medical exposures should be limited to 5.000 milliremslyear for individuals as a result the occupational exposureand should be limited to S00 millirems/year for individuals in the general population.
The dose to individuals due to average natural background radiation Is about 130 millirems/year.
'Man-rem is an expression ror the summation orwhole body doses to individuals in a group. Thus, if each mem-ber or a population group of 1.000 people were to receive a dose of 0.001 rem (0 millirem).
or if two people were to receive a dose nf 0.5 rem (500 millirems) each, the total man-rem dose in each case would be I man-rem.The population doses from all sources, including natural background cloud immersion, drinking-water ingestion, consumption of fish, recreation, transportation and occupational exposure, are summarized in Table 5.6.Table 5.6 Summary of Annual Total Body Doses to the Population Within 50 Miles Category Annual Cumulative Dose (man-rem)Population Dose from Background Restricted Area Occupational Radiation'Exposure Unrestricted Area Transportation of Nuclear Fuel and Waste Fish Ingestion Gaseous Cloud 71,000 2,000 28 0.8 0.14 t 5-14 5.4.5 Occupational Radiation Exposure Based on a review of the applicant's Safety Analysis Report, the Staff has determined that individual occupational doses can be maintained within the limits of 10 CFR 20. Radiation dose limits of 10 CFR 20 are based on a thorough consideration of the biological risk of exposure to ionizing radiation.
Maintaining radiation doses of plant personnel within these limits ensures that the risk associated with radiation exposure is no greater than those risks normally accepted by workers in other present day industries.
8 Using information compiled by the Atomic Energy Commission 9"i 0 and others 1'12 of past experience from operating nuclear reactor plants, it is estimated that the average collective dose to all on-site personnel at large operating nuclear reactor plants will be approximately 400-500 man-rem per year per unit. The total dose for the Vogtle Nuclear Plant will be influenced by several factors for which definitive numerical values are not available, but the aggregate of which are expected to lead to lower doses to on-site personnel than estimated above. Improvements to the radioactive waste effluent treatment system to achieve offsite popu-lation doses as low as practicable have the potential for causing a small increase to on-site personnel doses, all other factors remaining unchanged.
However the applicant's implementation of Regulatory Guides 3 and other guidance provided through the Staff review process regarding reducing available exposures and maintaining on-site radiation doses as low as practicable is expected to result in an overall re-duction of total doses from those currently experienced.
 
====5.4.6 Evaluation====
 
of radiological impact By use of conservative estimates, the total man-rem in unrestricted areas, from all effluent pathways, received by the approximately 573,000 persons who will live within a 50-mile radius of Vogtle would be about 29 man-rems/year.
By comparison, an annual total of about 71,000 man-rems will be received by the same population as a result of the average natural background dose'rate of 0.125 rem/year in the vicinity of Vogtle.1 4 The estimated radiation doses to individuals and to the population from normal operation of the Vogtle Nuclear Plant (Units 1, 2, 3 and 4) support the conclusion that the releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents are as low as practicable.
Operation of the Vogtle plant will cause an extremely minor contribution to the radiation dose that persons who live in the area normally receive from natural background radiation.
5-15 5.5 NONRADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS ON ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS 5.5.1 Impact on terrestrial ecosystems 5.5.1.1 Natural-draft cooling towers The physical parameters of the natural-draft cooling towers have been discussed in Sect. 3.4. The evaporative process involved in the operation of a cooling tower is equivalent to distillation; thus, the droplets formed from condensation of the water vapor after it reaches the atmosphere contain almost no impurities.
Any deposition of solid chemicals from the cooling towers will be from the drift. The applicant estimates a maximum drift of about 70 gpm or about 0.015% of the 474,800-gpm flow rate.The only significant concentrations of chemicals transported in the cooling-tower drift will be total dissolved solids. Because of the low concentrations of chemicals in the makeup water taken from the Savannah River, the concentrations of these chemicals in the drift will be low as well. The expected maximal and average concentrations of total dissolved solids in the drift are the same as those for the blowdown when the towers are operated at 8 and 5 cycles, respectively (Tables 3.5 and 3.6). The applicant has esti-mated a deposition of solids of 0.014 lb/ft 2/year spread over a 1-mile radius around the four cooling towers. The staff estimates dissolved-solids deposition of 0.2 to 0.3 lb/mmn from each of the four cooling towers. The staff expects that these particles will be carried vertically with the plume for 1,500 to 2,000 ft before being "released" to disperse and eventually to settle on the land area. The staff has not calculated deposition patterns at the VNP site; however, analyses at other locations suggests that maximum drift deposition will occur within 2 to 3 miles of the towers.1 5 If all the drift is assumed to be deposited within 3 miles of the towers, the annual rate of deposition of total dissolved solids would be about 2.3 lb/acre (assumed amount averaged about 5 x 10-5 lb/ft 2). This small deposition, with about the same relative con-centration of minerals as occurs in the Savannah River, will be available for uptake by vegetation but probably will be either fixed in the soil or transported via runoff back to the aquatic environment.
The staff expects that the effects of deposition of drift on the surrounding terrestrial ecosystems will be negligible.
Each of the cooling towers will receive gaseous chlorine as a biocide for 30 min at a time and at a maximal frequency of twice daily. During cooling-tower chlorination, small concentrations of free residual chlorine (1 to 2 ppm) could be present in the 5-16 drift. However, some of this chlorine possibly-will have under-gone chemical reaction prior to contact with the ground. There-fore, the staff expects that the effects of this chlorine on the surrounding terrestrial ecosystems will be insignificant.
Birds migrating via the Savannah River may fly into the cooling towers, but the size of the towers and the visual nature of avian migration should minimize the occurrence of such events.5.5.1.2 Transmission facilities Rights-of-way will be recleared every three years. This reclear-ing will be done with rotary mowers and by some hand clearing with chain saws and hand tools. No permanent access roads will be main-tained along the rights-of-way.
In addition to reclearing, a herb-icide will be sprayed by helicopter in selected areas every six years. The herbicide will consist of 1.5 gal of chemical (either 2, 4, 5-T or 2, 4, 5-TP at a concentration of 4 lb/gal), 1 gal of diesel fuel, and 6.5 gal of water. It will be sprayed at a rate of 9 gal/acre from a helicopter with a microfoil boom. Spraying will be limited to periods when the wind speed does not exceed 1.5 to 2 miles/hr.
The applicant has indicated that herbicide will not be sprayed along roadsides, around lakes, or on areas surrounded by crops or residential housing.The herbicide will be used primarily to control sprouting from hardwood stumps. The elimination of the hardwood sprouts on the rights-of-way permits growth of grasses and annual herbs. Main-taining herbaceous vegetation in open areas adjacent to forests tends to increase the food supplies of forest birds and small mam-mals. Plants that provide increased yields of herbage and seeds will tend to increase total ecological productivity.
A serious problem of herbicide treatment of rights-of-way results from the drifting of spray or volatile fumes from the site of application to crops or woodlands adjacent to the treated areas.An alternative to helicopter spraying is the application of the herbicide by a low-pressure hydraulic spray directly on the stumps.The staff concludes that indiscriminate broadcast application of herbicide by helicopter spraying may result in excessive impact on the vegetation that surrounds the rights-of-way.
The staff will require that only discriminate direct application be used in the areas where herbicide control is considered to be essential in right-of-way maintenance.
The applicant has indicated that the use of transmission-line corridors by persons riding trail-type motorcycles presents a problem in right-of-way maintenance.
Such off-the-road vehicles 5-17 can be highly destructive of vegetation, especially grasses and annual herbaceous plants. In addition to the loss of vegetation as such, the removal may result in erosion and thus in a general decline in productivity of eroded areas through loss of soils and nutrients.
The applicant discourages the use of transmission-line corridors by such vehicles but believes that State-level legisla-tion is required for effective control of this problem.The applicant has a right-of-way land-management program that will pay as much as $75/acre to the landowner to plant the cleared right-of-way in pasture, crops, or game-food plots. Planting is limited to grasses, crops, and low-growing shrubs and trees that will not reach a height which will hinder the operation of the transmission lines. The program is actively publicized through advertisement and is administered by;GPC foresters.
Each acre planted can be maintained by the property owner in a manner both suitable to him and acceptable to the applicant.
The use of easements enables property owners to continue to use their land for agricultural or other purposes that do not interfere with operation and maintenance of the transmission lines.Ozone is recognized to be a major component of the photochemical air pollution-oxidant complex. The National Primary .2.r Quality Standard for photochemical oxidants, as issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, is 80 ppb (by volume) maximum arithmetic mean for a 1-hr concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year. The toxicity of ozone to vegetation is well-documented; susceptible species show symptoms of damage from exposures to ozone in concentrations as low as 30 ppb.1 6 , 1 7 One source of ozone pro-duction is believed to be associated with the coronal discharges of high-voltage transmission lines. However, recent studiesl8,19 have shown that no measurable concentrations of ozone (less than 2 ppb) are formed due to the presence and operation of transmis-sion lines that carry up to 765 kV. High-voltage lines for VNP will carry a maximum of 500 kV. Any possible deleterious effects on plants directly beneath these lines and on those adjacent to the corridors which could be affected by chronic exposure to ozone drift have not been identified and are expected by the staff to be undectable.
 
====5.5.2 Effect====
on aquatic environment Several sources of potential adverse impacts on aquatic environments are associated with the operation of nuclear-power-generating facil-ities. The extent of these impacts depends on the availability of water for cooling and on the mode of operation of the plant (once-through vs closed-cycle cooling).
These impacts are associated with both the plant intake (entrainment and impingement) and the release 5-18 of water (thermal, chemical, and radiological impacts) back to the aquatic ecosystem.
Radiological impacts are evaluated separately in Sect. 5.3.5.5.2.1 Impingement The intake structure (Sect. 3.3.2.1) will be placed flush with the river bank; therefore, an intake canal or embayment will not be a part of the design. The water-intake velocity through the trash racks will be less than 0.5 fps, and the velocity through the traveling screens (3/8-in. square openings) will be less than 1.0 fps at minimal river flow (5,800 cfs) and at a maximal pumping rate of 202.7 cfs (Sect. 3.3.2.1).
The applicant plans to return to the river the leaves and organisms that have been impinged on rne traveling screens.Since no intake canal or embayment will exist to attract fishes and since the minimal current velocity in the river passing the intake structure will be 1.53 fps, impingement is expected not to occur to the extent that a significant adverse effect on the aquatic biological community will result. The staff recommends that mate-rials removed from the intake trash rack be disposed of elsewheri rather than being returned to the river. The staff also recommends that all the "cells" (Sect. 3.3.2.1) of the intake structure be used during operation of the intake pumps (except during periods of required maintenance of traveling screens) to ensure minimal intake velocities.
5.5.2.2 Entrainment During operation of the four units, water at a total flow of 76,000 gpm (169.3 cfs) will be pumped from the river for cooling-tower makeup. Since all of this water enters the cooling towers, the resultant mortality to fauna that are entrained will be 100%. The fauna will be forms small enough to pass through the 3/8-in.-mesh traveling screens. Periodically (about 21 hr/month), an additional flow of 15,000 gpm (33.4 cfs) will be pumped for dilution of radio-active wastes. Under worst-case conditions of maximal pumpage (202.7 cfs) and miniimal guaranteed river flow ("t5,800 cfs), a max-imum of 3.5% of the flow will pass through the plant. Assuming a random distribution of planktonic organisms, this flow would repre-seht a removal of 3.5% of planktonic populations in the river as it passes the intake. Since the planktonic populations in this area of the Savannah River are replenished by recruitment from upstream, from marsh areas, and from side streams, and since the flow past the intake structure is constant, this removal (3.5%)is expected not to have a significant adverse effect on these 5-19 populations or on organisms that feed on them. Under annual average operating conditions (169.3-cfs makeup flow; 1O,150-cfs river flow), the entrainment losses represent about 1.7% of the river's plank-tonic populations.
The importance of the areas upstream from the intake on the Georgia side of the river for spawning of American shad, striped bass, and blueback herring has not been determined.
However, no streams enter on this side of the river immediately above the intake, and the river in this area has no unique features that would attract these species during spawning.
Therefore, no significant adverse impact on egg and larval stages of those species due to entrainment is expected.5.5.2.3 Chemicals A description of VNP's chemical and biocide systems is given in Sect. 3.6. Table 3.7 lists the chemical species and their concen-traLions in the effluent due to station operation.
Dissolved solids At eight cycles of operation, during low river flow (5,800 cfs), the concentration of dissolved solids in the river, after complete mixing, will be increased by ru5% due to concentration in the cooling-tower blowdown.
An exception to this average increase in concentration is sulfate, which will increase by 1%4%. However, this increase is expected not to have any significant adverse impact on the biota of the river.Chlorine The applicant's chlorination procedure is discussed in Sect. 3.6.The relationship between time of exposure and concentration for toxicity of chlorine to aquatic life (mostly freshwater fish) is summarized in Fig. 5.3. The expected total-residual-chlorine con-centration of >0.5 ppm (Table 3.7) will be lethal to any organisms that pass through the cooling system. After the %,13-sec passage through the mixing zone with a dilution of 6.25, the level is expected to be 0.08 ppm. After complete mixing with the river (at a minimum river flow of 5,800 cfs), the expected total-residual-chlorine concentration will be <0.01 ppm. The staff estimates that complete mixing will occur about 1 mile downstream from the diffuser.
At an average river velocity of 1.53 fps, organisms entrained in the discharge plume would be exposed to total resid-ual chlorine at concentrations
>0.01 ppm for "57 min.
100 Z z 2 0 z 0_j 0 0 0 cc Co 0,.RECOMMENDED CHRONIC.TOXICITY THRESHOLD 10 1 10i 10' 104 lO EXPOSURE TIME (min)Fig. 5.3. Summary of residual-chlorine toxicity data. (Key and references follow.)
5-21 The calculated residual-chlorine concentrations given above are based on dilution by the river. In the calculations, no decrease in residual chlorine due to the chlorine demand of the dilution waters is factored; therefore, the estimate concentrations are high.The staff concludes that the expected chemical releases from VNP during operation will not have a significant adverse effect on the ecology of the Savannah River if the total residual chlorine con-centration in the discharge, prior to entry into the river, can be kept below 0.1 ppm. After dilution in the mixing zone (see Sect. 3.4.3 for estimates of its extent) this concentration is expected to be reduced below 0.01 ppm.Dissolved oxygen The effect of cooling-tower blowdown on the dissolved-oxygen levels in the mixed area of the receiving stream will be to slightly de-crease levels when intake levels are at saturation and to slightly increase levels when intake levels are below saturation
(>1.0 ppm below saturation).
Since the closed-cycle cooling system will kill all entrained organisms, the biochemical-oxygen-demand (BOD) levels downstream from the diffuser pipe from this source will be somewhat higher, although the increase is expected to be negligible, since the existing BOD taken into the cooling tower will be used up more rapidly due to high temperatures and oxygen levels in the cooling system. The staff doubts whether any effects, either beneficial or harmful, due to the very slight changes in dissolved-oxygen levels, could be detected in the discharge area.5.5.2.4 Thermal Undef normal conditions of four-unit operation, the combined flow to the river from VNP will be 23,140 gpm (51.5 cfs). During periods of additional pumpage for radioactive-waste dilution, the total discharge to the river will be 38,140 gpm (85 cfs). The tempera-ture increase at the discharge point will range from 43 F 0 (winter, with no dilution pumpage) to 8 F 0 (summer, with dilution pumpage).The maximum expected temperature of cooling water that enters the river is estimated by the applicant to be 93*F. The heated dis-charge will enter the river through a diffuser pipe (Sect. 3.3.2.2)located on the river bottom and extending about 100 ft into the river (Fig. 3.5). The diffuser portion of this pipe will begin about 40 ft from the river bank and extend for 60 ft.
5-22 Key to Fig. 5.3. Exposures of aquatic organisms to total residual chlorine All concentrations were measured SpecsPoint Effect end poine Reference No.Scud Trout fry 8rook trout Fingedrng rainbow trout Rainbow trout Chinook salmon Coho salmon Pink salmon Fathead minnow White Sucker Black bullhead Lazp mouth bus Smallmou th bass Yellow perch WAleyC fish Rainbow trout DsrpAhn manor 3 Safe concentration 4 Safe concentration 5 Lethal (2 days)7 Medlia mortality (90 min)8 Mean survival time 3.7 hr 9 Mean sarvival time 14.1 hr 10 Mean siurvia time 20.9 hr I I Mean survival time 24 hr 12 67% Lethality (4 days)14 7-day TL50 17 Lethal (4 to 5 h)16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 37 38 Lethal (2 hr)96-hr TOS0 7-day TLSG Lathsl (12 days)lin3t death 2.2 hr 7-day TL50 100% kil (1-2 days)MaxImum nonlethal 100% kill (1-2 days)Maximum nonlethal TLSO (I hr)TL50 (12 hr)96-hr TLSO 7-day TLSO Safe concentration Lethal (30-60 min)7-day TLUG 96-hr TLSO TLSO (I hr)TU0 (12 hr)Arthur. 1971 Arthur and Eaton. 1972 Coventry et al.. 1935 Pyle, 1960 Dandy. 1967 Dandy. 1967 Dandy, 1967 Dandy. 1967 Dandy. 1967 Arthur. 1971 Taylor and James. 1928 Taylor and James 1928 arch. 1971 Mertens, 1958 Sprague and Drury. 1969 Holland et &L. 1960 Arthur, 1971 Holland et aL. 1960 Holland et al.. 1960 Holand et al.. 1960 Holland et a!., 1960 Arthur, 1972 Arthur. 1972 Zillkh. 1969 Arthur, 1971 Arthur and Eaton. 1972 Fobes, 1971 Arthur, 1971 Arthur. 1971 Arthur, 1972 Arthur. 1972 39 Median mortality (IS hr)40 TLSO0 ( 41 TL.50 (12 hr)42 7-day TL50 43 7-day TLSO 46 Initial kilt! ramin 47 100% lethal in plant effuent 48 0 scovery Pyle, 1960 Arthur. 1972 Arthur. 1972 Arthur. 1971 Arthur. 1971 Tnachan. 1971 Michigan Water Resources Commission.
1971 National Water Quality Lab. 1971 OTLSO: median tolerance limit.
5-23 References for Fig. 5.3 Arthur, John W., and John G. Eaton. 1972. Toxicity of chloramines to the amphipod.Gammarus pseudolimnaeus Bousfield, and the rathead minnow, Pi'mephales promelas Rafinesque.
J. Fisheries Res. Board Can.Arthur, J. W. 197 1. Progress reports. National Water Quality Laboratory.
Duluth, Minn.Arthur, J. W. 1972. Progress MportL National Water Quality Laboratory, Duluth, Minn.Basch, Robert E. 1971. In-situ investigations of the toxicity of chlorinated municipal wastewater treatment plant effluents to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) and fathcad minnows (f'imephales promelas).
Bureau of Water Management.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Mich. 48926. 50 pp.Brungs, W. A. 1972. Literature review of the effects of residual chlorine on aquatic life.Environmental Protection Agency, National Water Quality Laboratory, Duluth, Minn.Coventry, F. L, V. E. Shelford, and L F. Miller. 1935. The conditioning of a chloraminc treated water supply for biological purposes.
Ecology 16: 60-66.Dandy, J. W. T. 1967. The effects of chemical characteristics of the environment on the activity of an aquatic organism.
Thesis. University ol Toronto, Ont. Dissertation abstracts 29, B. 3132 (1969). Water Pollution Abs. (Brit.) 42 1708 (1969).Fobes, Ronald L 1971. Chlorine toxicity and its effect on gill tissue respiration of the white sucker, Castostomus commersoni (Lacepede).
MS thesis. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.Holland, G. A., J. E. Lasater, E. D. Neumann, and W. E. Eldridge.
1960. Toxic effects of organic and inorganic pollutants on young salmon and trout. State of Washington, Department of Fisheries, Research Bulletin No. 5, September, 1960. Pp. 198-214.Merkens, J. C. 1958. Studies on the toxicity of chlorine and chloramines to the rainbow trout. Water and Waste Treat. J. 7: 150-151.Michigan Water Resources Commission, 1971. A survey of chlorine concentrations in the Weadock Power Plant discharge canal. Processed report. 6 pp.National Water Quality Laboratory.
1971. Processed report. Duluth, Minn.Pyle, E. A. 1960. Neutralizing chlorine in city water for use in fish-distrlibution tanks.Prog. Fish-Cult.
22: 30-33.Sprague, J. B., and D. E. Drury. 1969. Avoidance reactions of salmonid fish to representative pollutants.
Advances in Water Pollution Research, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference.
Pp. 169-179.Taylor, R. S., and M. C. James. 1928. Treatment for removal of chlorine from city water for use In aquaria. U.S. Bur. Fish. Doc. 1045. Rept. U.S. Comm. Fish. App. 7: 322-327.Truchan, J. G. 1971. As reported by Brungs (1972).Zillich, J. A. 1969a. The toxicity of the Wyoming Wastewater Treatment Plant effluent to the fathead minnow and the white sucker, July 28-August 1, 1969. Michigan Water Resources Commission, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
7 pp.Zillich, J. A. 1969b. The toxic effects of the Grandville Wastewater Treatment Plant effluent to the fathead minnow, Pinephalespromelas, November 17-21, 1969. Michigan Water Resources Commission, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
9 pp.Zillich, J. A. 1969c. The toxicity of the Wyoming Wastewater Treatment Plant effluent to the fathead minnow, December 8-12, 19-59. Michigan Water Resources Commission, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
12 pp.
5-24 Exclusive of a small area (about 1,200 ft 2) in the immediate vicin-ity of the diffuser, water temperature will not be increased more than about 1 F&deg; in the summer and 3 to 5 F* in the winter as a result of the addition of the thermal discharge during conditions of guaranteed minimal river flow (5,800 cfs). During average river flow (10,150 cfs), the mixing zone that will result in a temperature increase of 5 FO in winter and 1 F* in summer would be smaller due to increased dilution available at the discharge.
At the current velocity of the river (1.53 fps) at low flow (5,800 cfs), planktonic forms in the river water passing over the diffuser would pass through the mixing zone in about 13 sec. During passage through this zone, organisms in the most-extreme case would be subjected to a temperature increase of 43 F&deg; followed by a 38 F* temperature decrease during the 13-sec time of passage. Studies have demon-strated that the duration of exposure to elevated temperatures is very important in determining possible effects on organisms.
2 0 Due to the very short time of exposure of organisms to elevated temper-atures and the relatively small size of the mixing zone (Iv16% of the cross-sectional area of the river), no significant adverse thermal effects are expected.
Since the plume is not expected to interact with the river bottom, no effect on benthic forms or peri-phyton is expected.
Most fish species will avoid the unfavorably warm temperature in the immediate vicinity of the diffuser during summer but will be attracted to that area at other seasons. Num-bers of fishes present in that area in winter would probably not be large enough to result in severe losses to populations due to rapid shutdown of the plant for repairs or for refueling.
The location of the diffuser in the river should not interfere with the upstream migration of anadromous fishes during the spawning season. A 40-ft-wide corridor on the Georgia side of the river and a 245-ft-wide corridor on the South Carolina side should pro-vide adequate room for fish passage (river width is about 345 ft at this location).
The area of the expected mixing zone (1,200 ft 2) is well within the recommendations of the EPAI 1 in that P-83% of the river flow at minimal conditions (5,800 cfs) is unaffected by the discharge.
Based on the limited mixing zone and that effluent from the Vogtle plant will not create an objectional or damaging pollution condi-tion, it is the staff's opinion that discharges from VNP will meet the water quality standards published by the State of Georgia and EPA in August 1972.The above evaluations were based on the applicants' proposed design for the diffuser system using 8" diameter parts. With 6" parts, as recommended in sections 3.4.3.2 and 9.2.3.3, there would be even less impact from thermal effects and chlorine on fish and aquatic organisms.
5-25 5.6 EFFECTS ON THE COMMUNITY Effects not discussed elsewhere, on the local and other communi-ties, may result during the operating life of the plant due to: (1) operating personnel, their families, and their pay; (2) exist-ence of the plant as something to be seen, heard, or smelled;(3) commercial activity associated with the fueling and operating of the plant; (4) electric power generated by the plant; and (5)taxes.The operation of the plant will require about 150 employees (ER, vol. II, p. 11-F-1); the annual payroll is estimated to be about$1.5 million. The staff judges that the families of the 150 employees, with their dependable incomes, will be considered as assets to the local communities in which they live; the impact of this small number of families on local services such as schools and roads will be small.The operation of the Vogtle Plant is expected not to result in any odor detectable offsite. Some noises will result from operation; the noisiest components of the plant will probably be the relatively small mechanical-draft nuclear-service-system cooling towers; at the site boundary along the road, the noise from the cooling towers will meet the standards of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (ER, vol. II, p. 3.5-8). The staff expects that noise from plant operation, including that from the switchyard transformers, will not cause any inconvenience (or generally be audible) to the public at the site boundaries.
Pollutants from the diesel generators used to provide emergency power for the nuclear units are considered to be negligible since emissions will occur on a very infrequent basis, will be of short duration, and will meet applicable standards.
The Vogtle Plant will be a system of very large but clean structures; the four cooling towers will be 440 ft in diameter and 550 ft high.The plumes will often rise a few tower heights to perhaps 2,000 ft or so, depending on meteorological conditions.
These towers and plumes will be constantly visible from the nearby land areas, which are generally pastoral in appearance and in aesthetic quality. Therefore, the view of the plant will contrast with the existing pastoral scene.The staff judges that this contrast will not constitute a significant environmental cost but also recognizes that, since the appreciation of beauty is a personal response, these new sightj may offend some individuals.
5-26 From the Savannah River, the plant will probably not be audible but may be visible from certain angles, although from most points most of the structures will be hidden by the relatively high bluffs, trees, and other foliage (ER, vol. II, Sect. 3.1). Of course, the intake, outfall, and barge slip will be visible from the river.The river with the bluffs and the foliage along the banks, espe-cially with the several uninhabited miles along the South Carolina side, is a place of considerable natural beauty and vitality.
The construction along the river will be an intrusion into this natural setting and hence will constitute an environmental loss. The staff believes that this loss of natural beauty and vitality along part of the river will be compensated by the fact that the ecology of most of the 1-1/2 to 2 miles of river-bank site boundary will be protected from agriculture and from hunting as a consequence of the plant operation and that this protection will tend to increase the plant and animal life and to increase the corresponding aes-thetic value of this section of the Savannah River.The VNP power costs are estimated (ER, vol. II, p. 8.3-la) to be 1.48 cents/kWhr, which corresponds to $481 million/year.
Of these estimated costs, $353 million would be for fixed charges (e.g., interest on capital, overhead, and transmission costs), $103 mil-lion would be for fuel costs, and $26 million would be for operating and maintenance (including the local payroll) and for nuclear in-surance. These costs will represent some industrial and commercial activity within the region and the nation; however, the staff believes that the local effects will be small.The Vogtle Plant will have the power-producing capability of about 4,636 MWe, which will be, in 1983 (the first year of operation of all four Vogtle units), about 16% of the total power-producing capacity of the Georgia Power Company. The Vogtle Plant, along with the rest of the GPC system, is expected to satisfy the pro-jected demand for power (Sect. 8); indirectly, this power will make possible some of the things that the people of Georgia demand, such as economic and commercial activity and residential amenities.
The ad valorem taxes paid by GPC to Burke County and indirectly to the State of Georgia may result in very major impacts. Section 4.4 describes the tax structure, current tax rate, and current county budgets. Most important, the initial assessment on VNP for tax purposes will increase the taxable evaluation in Burke County by a factor of about 20. The evaluation of VNP for ad valorem tax purposes is made annually by the Tax Division of the State Revenue Department as follows: 2 2 (1) the fair-market value the entire GPC system is appraised, and (2) the value of each unit is taken to be the total GPC market value multiplied by the original cost of the unit and divided by the total of the original costs of all units.Therefore, the VNP evaluation as a function of time during the next 30 years is a complicated function of several parameters.
5-27 Past experience 2 2 indicates that the evaluation will remain more-or-less constant; for instance, the Tallulah Falls hydroelectric plant was built in 1913 at a cost of $4.03 million and is now valued at $4.40 million. Therefore, the staff chose to use the construction cost of $2.025 billion (of the plant minus pollution-control systems) as an estimate of the fair-market value during the estimated 30-year life of the plant. Taxable value in Burke County is 40% of fair-market value; hence, the taxable VNP value is taken to be $810 million. The total of other taxable value in Burke County can be expected to increase during the next 30 years from its 1972 value of $56.35 million, but its effect on the total taxable value will be small; therefore, a constant total taxable value of $866.35 million (Table 4.6) was assumed.The staff has assumed that the tax structure will remain as it now is, that the State will receive $0.025 per $100 of taxable value, and that Burke County will receive the remainder of the ad valorem taxes according to the locally determined tax rate. The local tax rate cannot be predicted with any useful accuracy.
Probably, two limits exist that are based on the extreme assumptions that: (1)the county budget will remain about constant and the tax income (to the county) will remain constant at $863,000, and (2) the county tax rate will remain constant at $1.850 per $100 taxable evaluation (plus $0.025 per $100 to the State) and will result in a tax income of $16,000,000.
The applicant made a third estimate on the basis of previous experience with large power plants in rural counties (ER, vol. II, p. 4.2-2); the estimate was that GPC will pay about$3.14 million per year on the complete VNP plant. Table 5.7 shows the implication of these three possibilities.
The possible taxes to be paid by GPC, the possible county tax rates, and the possible county tax incomes vary widely.Table 5.7. Estimated taxes and tax rates Based on Constant Constant GPC budget tax rate estimate Tax rate, $/$100 (For county 0.100 1.850 0.382 (For State) 0.025 0.025 0.025 Tax income (for county), $ 863,000 16,000,000 3,310,000 Tax income (for State), $ 216,000 216,000 216,000 Tax paid by GPC, $ 822,000 15,200,000 3,140,000 5-28 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5 1. Georgia Power Company, Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant Environ-mental Report, vol. II, Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, 50-426, and 50-427, issued February 1973, and including Amendment No. 1, May 1973, p. 4.2-5a.2. Radioactivity in the Marine Environment, Panel on Radioactivity in the Marine Environment of the Committee on Oceanography, Natural Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, 1971.3. R. J. Garner, "Transfer of Radioactive Materials from the Terrestrial Environment to Animals and Man," CRC Crit. Rev.Environ. Countr. 2: 337-385 (1971).4. S. I. Auerbach, "Ecological Considerations in Siting Nuclear Power Plants. The Long-Term Biota Effects Problems," Nuci.Safety 12: 25-34 (1971).5. International Commission on Radiological Protection, Recommen-dations of the International Commission Radiological Protec-tion, ICRP Publication No. 2, Pergamon Press, New York, 1959.6. The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ion-izing Radiation, Report of the Advisory Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, 1972.7. J. F. Fletcher and W. L. Dotson, HERMES -A Digital Computer Code for Estimating Regional Radiological Effects from the Nuclear Power Industry, Hanford Engineering Development Labo-ratory, HEDL-TME-71-168, UC-80, Reactor Technology, December 1971.8. ICRP Publication 22, "Implementation of Commission Recommenda-tions that Doses Be Kept As Low As Readily Achievable," adopted in April 1973.9. Fifth Annual Report of the Operation of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's Centralized Ionizing Radiation Exposure Records and Reports System, July 1973.10. Letter to the Atomic Industrial Forum from H. R. Denton, AEC, dated August 13, 1973, subject Occupational Radiation Expo-sures.
5-29 11. Additional testimony of Dr. Morton J. Goldman on behalf of the Consolidated Utility Group (Part 1) Occupational Exposure;Docket Number RM-50-2, dated November 9, 1973.12. R. Wilson, man-rem, Economics and Risk in the Nuclear Power Industry, Nuclear News, February 1972.13. Regulatory Guide 8.8, "Information Relevant to Maintaining Occupational Exposures As Low As Predictable
[Nuclear Reactors].
: 14. "EPA Lists Background Levels by States," Nucl. News, January 1972, p. 47.15. Directorate of Licensing, Draft Environmental Statement on Newbold Island Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-354 and 50-355, December 1972, Sect. 3.3.6.7.16. A. C. Costonis and W. A. Sinclair, "Relationships of Atmos-pheric Ozone to Needle Blight of Eastern-White Pine," Phyto-pathology 59: 1566-1574 (1969).17. P. R. Miller, J. R. Parmeter, Jr., B. H. Flick, and C. W.Martinez, Ozone Dosage Response of Ponderosa Pine Seedlings, University of California, Berkeley Press, 1968.18. M. Frydman, A. Levy, and S. E. Miller, "Oxidant Measurements in the Vicinity of Energized 765 kV Lines," IEEE Transactions Paper T 72 551-0, July 1972.19. H. N. Scherer, Jr., B. J. Ware, and C. H. Shih, "Gaseous Effluents Due to EHV Transmission Line Corona," IEEE Trans-actions Paper T 72 550-2, July 1972.20. C. C. Coutant, Time-Temperature Relationships for Thermal Resistances of Aquatic Organisms, Principally Fish, ORNL-EIS-27, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in press.21. Water Quality Criteria, Report of the National Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, April 1, 1968, p. 31.22. Letter from J. D. Barnett, Georgia State Revenue Department, to R. J. Davis, dated May 25, 1973.
: 6. ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 6.1 PREOPERATIONAL PROGRAMS 6.1.1 Radiological The applicant has proposed an offsite radiological monitoring program to provide surveillance and backup support to detailed effluent monitoring (as required by Safety Guide 21). This pro-gram is needed in order to evaluate individual and population ex-posure and the ecological significance, if any, of the contributions to the existing environmental radioactivity levels that result from station operation at design levels. The monitoring program is to provide assurance that the contribution of radioactivity to the environment, and hence population dose, is indeed negligible.
The applicant proposes to monitor aquatic organisms, terrestrial vege-tation and crops, river water, groundwater, airborne particulates, radiation dose and dose rate, river bottom sediment, and milk.The staff believes that the program should be further developed and defined and that the preoperational phase should be implemented for two years before operation of Unit 1. The program is detailed in the applicant's Environmental Report and includes discussion of criteria for selection of sampling location and collection frequency, as well as type of sample or measurement.
 
====6.1.2 Biological====
6.1.2.1 Terrestrial A survey of the terrestrial plant communities was conducted by the applicant and is described in detail in Sect. 2.7 of its Environ-mental Report. For information about the terrestrial consumers, the applicant has relied upon existing ecological literature, pri-marily from studies conducted at the Savannah River Ecology Labo-ratory, and has done no preoperational censusing per se. These studies have provided good preconstruction descriptions of all but a few components of the ecosystems to be affected.The terrestrial monitoring program discussed by the applicant (ER, vol. II, Sect. 5.5.2.1.2) is concerned with operational effects and does not provide any information about preoperational procedures.
A preoperational terrestrial monitoring program is necessary to (1) obtain further preconstruction baseline data on certain crit-ical species populations, (2) assay the effects of construction activities on these populations and on the terrestrial ecosystems 6-I 6-2 in general, and, therefore, indicate any corrective measures neces-sary during construction, and (3) provide information for the de-sign and implementation of a postconstruction habitat restoration program.At the applicant's request, the Soil Conservation Service has made a soil survey of the site and has prepared a soil and water con-servation plan to control erosion and to provide food and a suitable environment for wildlife.1 The applicant should continue to consult with the Soil Conservation Service, the Georgia Forestry Commission and the Fish and Game Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and should implement the plan prepared by SCS. Generally, this plan recommends that "all areas of land are to be managed in such a way as to maintain the entire tract of land in the natural state as near as possible.".
The plan recommends the types of cover grasses to be planted in specific areas, the amount of fertilizer and mulch, etc. and a schedule for implementation.
The plan recom-mends that brush and some construction debris not be disposed of but left in piles on site to provide cover and protection for rabbits and other wildlife.
Under the plan, the nut and acorn producing trees would be increased to increase the number of small mammels, which in turn increases the food supply for predators.
All wetland areas are to be left in the natural state as much as possible.
The area around Mallard's Pond is not to be disturbed.
The plan also recommended that, after construction, efforts be made to attract Wood Ducks to the area and, possibly, to reestablish wild turkeys on the site. Under the plan, the wildlife on the site should increase significantly after construction is completed compared with the wildlife on the property before it was acquired by the applicant.
The applicant should continue to survey the terrestrial plant com-munities in order to provide documentation reparding the nature and extent of habitat alteration and destruction.
Quantitative descrip-tions, vegetation maps, and aerial photographs should be utilized to indicate construction-effects on the terrestrial producers.
The populations of some critical consumers should be studied in detail immediately before and periodically during construction.
This will not be necessary for the majority of very common species, those with a very high biotic potential or dispersal ability, or those consumers near the base of the trophic structure.
However, some species which occur in the area are already in danger of extinction.
All top carnivorous birds in North America probably fall in this category.
The precise number of such predatory birds that do occupy territories on the site should be determined.
6-3 For breeding birds, all nests on the site belonging to birds having such territories should be located and an adequate monitoring pro-gram set up to determine the yearly fledgling success and recruit-ment. The birds which should be examined in such detail are Accipiter cooperi (Cooper's hawk), Buteo jamaicensis (red-tailed hawk), Buteo lineatus (red-shouldered hawk), Circus cyaneus (marsh hawk), and Strix varia (barred owl). The applicant should consult the Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Fish and Game Division of the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Georgia for appropriate methods to conduct these studies. The applicant should also provide the results obtained to the appropriate agencies.
If comparison with population replace-ment data for the same species in nearby unaffected areas (for example, SRP) shows that construction or operation is decreasing reproductive success, then studies should be conducted to determine the specific cause of the failure and steps should be taken to remedy the situation.
It is important to ensure the preservation of these species because of their functional importance, because they influence other ecosystems, and because they are already in danger from other causes. Remote areas such as this site may be important to their survival.Since hunting wi'll not be permitted in the area, a census of the white-tailed deer population on the GPC property should be made periodically during construction.
This will be necessary for the implementation of effective management procedures.
Care should be exercised to ensure that predators such as bobcats are not harmed since they may be important in deer population regulation when control by hunting is relaxed and more suitable habitats are created. Agencies to be consulted would include the Georgia Fish and Game Division and others mentioned previously.
6.1.2.2 Aquatic Sampling of the Savannah River and its associated tributaries, backwaters, and swamps for the characterization of algal, proto-zoan, and zooplanktonic populations has been part of a continuous monitoring program conducted by the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences for the E. I. duPont de Nemours and Co. since 1951.2-6 The studies, which have been primarily qualitative, provide infor-mation on species belonging to these groups. The applicant has initiated studies but at the time of this assessment, data was not available for evaluation.
6-4 Georgia Power Company's biologists and consultants have studied the relative abundance of aquatic vascular plants at four stations (Fig. 6.1).Benthic invertebrates have been sampled at five stations since October 1971 (Fig. 6.1). Sampling is conducted at six-week inter-vals by a variety of methods. On each sampling date, five grab samples are collected at equal distances across a transect of the river with a modified Petersen dredge. In addition, stations I and 5 each has two styrofoam floats, one near either bank of the river. Each float supports two rock-filled baskets, six Dendy multiplates, and one diatometer with eight slides that serve as artificial substrates.
Stations 2, 3, and 4 each has one float on the Georgia side of the river. All samples are initially washed into a U.S. No. 30 sieve, after which they are preserved in 10% formalin solution.The staff recommends that the environmental programs in progress be continued and be expanded in scope and frequency to include additional sites of potential impact as well as additional taxa of aquatic organisms that will be subjected to the effects of construction and operation.
Additional sampling stations should be established on Beaverdam Creek to evaluate the effects on the resident stream fauna of sediment that will enter the stream (from the silt and construction debris basins). The staff further recom-mends that the extent of use of Beaverdam Creek by anadromous fishes for spawning be established and that the effects of con-struction on spawning be determined.
The extent of use of projected areas of sedimentation (including the area where the diffuser pipes will be located) in the Savannah River by fishes (resident and anadromous) for spawning should be determined, and the effects of construction on spawning and on the suitability of the affected areas for future spawning be determined.
In addition to the taxa now being sampled, 7 the staff recommends that macro planktonic forms (fish eggs, larval fish and macro invertebrates) be sampled at suitable stations above and below the plant site.The number of samples collected on each date at each station should be based on the number required to statistically determine differences between the results from comparative sampling stations for samples taken before and after construction and operation.
Two years of preoperational data are necessary to determine annual variation.
ftI 6~6-5~N t+LANING SOUTH CAROLINA SAMPLING STATIONS* GEORGIA POWER CO FISHERIES 6I1 O GEORGIA POWER CO. BIOLOGY o STEWART LABORATORIES VOGTLEPLANT SITE N, DAN 4SCAL.E INIIt $PG .GEORGIA 0 GIRARD Fig. 6.1. Aquatic-studies stations on the Savannah River.Source: ER, Fig. 5.5-2.LOGY 6-6 A condition for beginning construction which affects the aquatic environment will be the establishment of a sampling program on Beaverdam Creek and the accumulation of at least one-year's data on the diversity and standing crop of resident fauna and the use of this stream for spawning by anadromous fishes.6.1.3 Thermal Temperature measurements will continue to be taken at several stations on the Savannah River. These will be taken at weekly intervals throughout the construction of VNP and into plant operation.
Permanent monitoring stations will be set up at locations about one mile upstream of the intake structure and also about one mile and seven miles downriver.
 
====6.1.4 Chemical====
The applicant will continue to investigate sampling and analysis methods that can be used to determine the minimal quantity and duration of chlorinatinn to control biological fouling. Studies will be continued on the residual-chlorine levels in the effluent discharge from operating power plants as a function of chlorination procedures.
The applicant will continue to update background data obtained on the Savannah River and on deep-well waters.6.2 OPERATIONAL PROGKAMS 6.2.1 Radiological The applicant plans to continue the radiological monitoring program during, the operating period but will modify it, as necessary, to reflect any changes required as a result of preoperational ex-perience, local population growth, operational data from Vogtle and other plants, and appropriate regulations.
The operational monitoring must include as a minimum the identification and quan-tification of the radionuclides discharged from the station.Review of the proposed environmental radiation-monitoring program by the staff will continue during the design and preoperational phases, and adjustments in the program will be considered in estab-lishing technical specifications and the operational phase of the 6-7 program. For example, the sampling frequency for milk should be increased to weekly in the operational phase, with weekly analysis for 1-131 and monthly composite analyses for Sr-89, Sr-90, and all gamma emitters.6.2.2 Biological 6.2.2.1 Terrestrial Since the action proposed pertains to a construction permit, a subsequent Environmental Statement will be prepared on request by the applicant for an operating license. Additional ecological data will be available at that time, and operational studies agreed upon by the Commission and the applicant will be included in the Technical Specifications for plant operation.
6.2.2.2 Aquatic Operational monitoring involves the continuation of preoperational monitoring; however, the emphasis will be on the Savannah River since no impact of plant operation on Beaverdam Creek is projected.
The assumption is made that sufficient preoperational data will be compiled for a valid comparison to assess operational effects.Since the action proposed pertains to a construction permit, a subsequent Environmental Statement will be prepared on request by the applicant for an operating license. Additional ecological data will be available at that time, and operational studies agreed upon by the Commission and the applicant will be included in the Tech-nical Specifications for plant operation.
 
====6.2.3 Thermal====
In addition to the permanent water-quality monitoring stations (which will make temperature measurements) to be established in the Savannah River (Sect. 6.1.3), the applicant will monitor, near the outlet of the mixing chamber, the temperature of the plant's liquid discharge.
 
====6.2.4 Chemical====
The staff recommends that the plant-discharge stream be monitored continuously to limit the total-residual-chlorine concentration 6-8 at the point of discharge into the river to 0.1 ppm during normal operation of all four units. A total-residual-chlorine recorder should be used which will be standardized at appropriate intervals by laboratory analyses.
The applicant has indicated that this discharge will already be monitored for free residual chlorine, pH, and conductivity.
6-9 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6 1. Briar Creek Soil and Water Conservation District, SCS, Soil and Water Conservation Plan for Georgia Power Company, May 11, 1973.2. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Suemnary of Studies on the Savannah River 1951-1970, for the E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company, 1970.3. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Savannah River Biological Survey, South Carolina and Georgia, May-August 1968, USAEC Report TID-25393, 1970.4. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Savannah River Biological Survey, South Carolina and Georgia, May-June and August-September 1960, USAEC Report TID-14772, 1961.5. R. J. Patrick, J. Cairns, Jr., and S. S. Roback, "An Ecosys-tematic Study of the Fauna and Flora of the Savannah River," Proc. Acad. Natur. Sci. Philadelphia 118: 109-407 (1966).6. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Savannah River Biological Survey, South Carolina and Georgia, May-June and September 1965, USAEC Report TID-23709, 1967.7. Georgia Power Company, Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant Environ-mental Report, Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, 50-426, and 50-427, issued February 1973, and including Amendment No. 1, issued May 1973, Sects. 2.7.6-2.7.10.
)7. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS 7.1 POSTULATED PLANT ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS A high degree of protection against the occurrence of postulated accidents in the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant is provided through correct design, manufacture, operation, and the quality assurance program used to establish the.necessary high integrity of the reactor system, as will be considered in the Commission's Safety Evaluation.
Deviations that may occur are handled by protective systems to place and hold the plant in a safe condition.
Notwith-standing this, the conservative postulate is made that serious accidents might occur, even though they may be extremely unlikely;and engineered safety features are installed to mitigate the con-sequences of those postulated events which are judged credible.The probability of occurrence of accidents and the spectrum of their consequences to be considered from an environmental effects standpoint have been analyzed using best estimates of probabilities and realistic fission product release and transport assumptions.
For site evaluation in the Commission's safety review, extremely conservative assumptions are used for the purpose of comparing calculated doses resulting from a hypothetical release of fission products from the fuel against the 10 CFR Part 100 siting guide-lines. Realistically computed doses that would be received by the population and environment trom the accidents which are postulated would be significantly less than those presented in the Safety Evaluation.
The Commission issued guidance to applicants on September 1, 1971, requiring the consideration of a spectrum of accidents with assump-tions as realistic as the state of knowledge permits. The appli-cant's response was contained in the "Environmental Report" sub-mitted by Georgia Power Company dated August 1, 1972.The applicant's report has been evaluated, using the standard accident assumptions and guidance issued as a proposed amendment to Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 by the Commission on December 1, 1971. Nine classes of postulated accidents and occurrences ranging in severity from trivial to very serious were identified by the Commission.
In general, accidents in the high potential consequence end of the spectrum have a low occurrence rate and those on the low potential consequence end have a higher occurrence rate. The examples selected by the applicant for these cases are shown in Table 7.1. The examples selected are reasonably homogeneous in terms of probability within each class.7-1 7-2 Table 7.1. Classification of postulated accidents and occurrences Class AEC description Applicant's examples I. Trivial incidents Spills and leaks inside containment
: 2. Small releases outside Spills and leaks outside containment containment
: 3. Radioactive waste system Equipment leakage or malfunction and reklase failure of liquid/gas wastes from slorage tanks 4. Fission products to primary Not applicable system (BWR)S. Fission products to primary and Failed fuel and steam generator tube leak, and secondary sysLems (PWR) steam generator tube rupture 6. Refueling accident Fuel assembly drop in containment and heavy object drop onto fuel in core 7. Spent fuel handling accident Fuel assembly drop in fuel storage pool. Ileuvy object drop onto fuel tack and fuel c-sk drop 8. Accident initiation events Loss of coolant accident.
steam line break.considered in design-basis instrument line break, and rod ejection evaluation in the Safety accidents Analysis Report 9. Hlypothetical sequence of failure Not considered more severe than Class 8 Commission estimates of the dose which might be received by an assumed individual standing at the site boundary in the downwind direction, using the assumptions in the proposed Annex to Appendix D, are presented in Table 7.2. Estimates of the integrated exposure that might be delivered to the population within 50 miles of the site are also presented in Table 7.2. The man-rem estimate was based on the projected population within 50 miles of the site for the year 2017.To rigorously establish a realistic aunual risk, the calculated doses in Table 7.2 would have to be multiplied by estimated proba-bilities.
The events in Classes 1 and 2 represent occurrences which are anticipated during plant operations; and their conse-quences, which are very small, are considered within the framework of routine effluents from the plarit. Except for a limited amount of fuel failures and some steam generator leakage, the events in Classes 3 through 5 are not anticipated during plant operation; but events of this type could occur sometime during the 40-year plant lifetime.
Accidents in Classes 6 and 7 and small accidents in Class 8 are of similar or lower probability than accidents in Classes 3 through 5 but are still possible.
The probability of 7-3 Table 7.2. Summary of radiological consequences of postulated accidenti' Estimated fraction Estimated dose of IOCFR Part 20 to population in lEvent imit at site SO-mile radius boundaryb (man-rems)
 
===1.0 Trivial===
incidents c c 2.0 Small releases outside containment c c 3.0 Failures In radioactive waste system 3.1 Equipment leakage or malfunction 0.026 1.9 3.2 Release of waste gas storage tank contents 0.1 7.6 3.3 Release of liquid waste storage contents 0.003 0.21 4.0 Fission products to primary system (BWR) NAd NAd 5.A Fission products to primary and secondary systems (PWR)5.1 Fuel cladoing defects and steam generator c c leaks 5.2 Off-design transients that induce fuel failure <0.001 <0.1 above those expected and steam generator leak 5.3 Steam generator tube rupture 0.035 2.5 6.0 Refueling accidents 6.1 Fuel bundle drop 0.006 0.4 6.2 Ileavy object drop onto fuel in core 0.096 7.0 7.0 Spent fuel handling accident 7.1 Fuel assembly drop in fuel rack 0.004 0.25 7.2 Heavy object drop onto fuel rack 0.014 1.0 7.3 Fuel cask drop NAO NAd 8.0 Accident initiation events considered in design basis evaluation in the SAR 8.1 Loss-of-coolant accidents Small break 0.06 7.7 Large break 0.049 10.0 8.1(a) Break in instrument line from primary system HAd NAd that penetrates the containment 8.2(a) Rod ejection accident (PWR) 0.005 1.0 F 2(b) Rod drop accident (BWR) NAd NAd 8.3(a) Steamline breaks (PWR's outside containment)
Small break <0.001 <0.1 Large break <0.001 <0.1 8.3(bW Steamline break (BWR) NAd NAd"The doses calculated as consequences of the postulated accidents are based on airborne transport of radio-active materials resulting in both a direct and an inhalation dose. Our evaluation of the accident doses assumes that the applicant's environmental monitoring program and appropriate additional monitoring (which could be initiated subsequent to an Incident detected by in-plant monitoring) would detect the presence of radioactivity in the environment in a timely manner such that remedial action could be taken If necessary to limit exposure from other potential pathways to man.bReptesents the calculated fraction of a whole-body dose of 500 millirems, or the equivalent dose to an organ.rThese releases are expected to be In accord with proposed Appendix I for routine effluents (i.e., S millitems/
year to an individual from either gaseous or liquid effluentls).
dNA mcauls "not applicable."
7-4 occurrence of large Class 8 accidents is very small. Therefore, when the consequences indicated in Table 7.2 are weighted by prob-abilities, the environmental risk is very low. The postulated occurrences in Class 9 involve sequences of successive failures more severe than those required to be considered in the design bases of protection systems and engineered safety features.
Their consequences could be severe. However, the probability of their cazcurrence is judged so small that their environmental risk is extremely low. Defense in depth (multiple physical barriers), quality assurance for design, manufacture and operation, continued surveillance an 'd testing, and conservative design are all applied to provide and maintain a high degree of assurance that potential accidents in this class are', and'will remain, sufficiently small in probabilicy that the environmental risk is extremely low.The AEC is currently performing a study to assess more quantitatively these risks. The initial results of these efforts are expected to be available in early 1974. This study is called the Reactor Safety Study and is an effort to develop realistic data on the probabilities and sequences of accidents in water cooled power reactors, in order to improve the quantificat-on of available knowledge related to nuclear reactor accidents probabilities.
The Coimmission has organized a special group of about 50 specialists under the direction of Professor Norman Rasmussen of MIT to conduct the study. The scope of the study has been discussed with EPA and described in corre-spondence with EPA which has been placed in the AEC Public Document Room (letter, Doub to Dominick, dated June 5, 1973).As with all new information developed which might have an effect on the health and safecy of the public, the results of these studies will be made public and would be assessed on a timely basis within the regulatory process on generic or specific bases as may be warranted.
Table 7.2 indicates that the realistically estimated radiological consequences of the postulated accidents would result in exposures of an assumed individual at the site boundary to concentrations of radioactive materials that are within the Maximum Permissible Concentrations (MPC) of 10 CFR Part 20. The table also shows the estimated integrated exposure of the population within 50 miles of~the plant from each postulated accident.
Any of these integrated exposures would be much smaller than that from naturally occurring radioactivity.
When considered with the probability of occurrence, the annual potential radiation exposure of the population from all the postulated accidents is an even smaller fraction of the expo-sure from natural background radiation and, in fact, is well within 7-5 naturally occurring variations in the natural background.
It is concluded from the results of the realistic analysis that the en-vironmental risks due to postulated radiological accidents are exceedingly small and need not be considezed further.7.2 TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS As discussed in Sect. 5.3.4, the Commission's staff has recently completed an analysis of the potential impact on the environment of transporting fuel and solid radioactive wastes for nuclear power plants under existing regulations.
The results of this analysis were published in a report entitled "Environmental Survey of Trans-portation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants," dated December 1972. The report contains an analysis of the prob-abilities of occurrences of accidents and the expected consequences of such accidents, as well as the potential exposures to transport workers and the general public under normal conditions of transport.
For the Vogtle Nuclear Plant, the characteristics of the reactor fuel and wastes and the conditions of transport for the fuel and waste fall within the scope of the Environmental Survey of Trans-portation.
The initial fuel supply for each of the VFP units will be supplied by Westinghouse.
At present, the Westinghouse fabrica-tion facilities are located in Columbia, South Carolina.
The new fuel elements will be shipped the approximately 110 miles from the fabrication plant to the site by truck.Each unit of the Vogtle Nuclear Plant will replace about 72 of the 193 fuel assemblies each year. Spent fuel elements and high--level radioactive wastes can be shipped from the site by either rail or truck. The Vogtle plant is located across the Savannah River from the Barnwell Fuel Reprocessing Plant and from the Chem-Nuclear Services, Inc., waste disposal facilities.
Even if the spent fuel is shipped to either of the other commercial fuel reprocessing plants in New York or Illinois, the shipping distance is within the 1,000 miles used as a basis for analysis in the survey. Like-wise, if the solid, drummed radioactive waste is shipped to More-head, Kentucky, rather than Barnwell, the shipping distance is within the 1,000 miles used as a basis for evaluation in the survey.In accordance with the proposed amendmeni (section F) to Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50, published on February 5, 1973, and the subse.-quent rule-making hearings, Table 7.3 summarizes the environmental 7-6 Impact of accidents during transportation of fuel and waste to and from the Vogtle Nuclear Plint. (Normal conditions of transport were summarized in Table 5.5.)Table 7.3. Environmental impact or accidents during transportation of fuel and waste to and from the Vogtle Nuclear Plant Aspect Environmental risk Radiological effects Small Common (nonradiological) ca u&deg;:s I fatal injury in 100 years; I nonfatal injury in 10 years; $475 property damage per year 7-7 REFERENCE FOR SECTION 7 1. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Regulatory Standards, Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and From Nuclear Power Plants, December 1972.
: 8. THE REQUIREMENT FOR POWER 8.1 THE APPLICANT'S SYSTEM AND SERVICE AREA The Georgia Power Company (GPC) is the predominant producer and distributor of electricity 1 in Federal Power Commission (FPC)Supply Area 23,2 which includes the land area of the State of Georgia except for a small portion in northern Georgia served by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).GPC is a wholly owned subsidiary 3f the Southern Company 3 (SC), which in turn is the predominant producer and distributor of electricity in the area in Fig. 1.1, labeled Southern Company System.1 The Southern Company System (Fig. 1.2) also cooperates with power producers in neighboring pool areas (Fig. 1.1), namely, the TVA system, the Carva Pool, and the Florida Group, through the Southeastern Reliability Council 4 (SERC), in order to maxi-mize the reliability of power supplies.
The system of power pools is the FPC Southeast Regional Group 111;2 it is also the South-eastern Reliability Council.The distribution of power stations and power service areas in Georgia that are not operated by or serviced by GPC are shown in Fig. 8.1; the power-producing capacitiesI of these stations, as of 1972, are also indicated.
The Savannah Electric and Power Company serves the Savannah area with 523 MW capacity from fossil-fueled stations.
The Crisp County Power Commission serves Crisp County with power from a 13 MW hydroelectric station and 18 MW from the burning of fossil fuels. The Southeastern Power Admin-istration (SEPA) operates a system of hydroelectric stations in Georgia with a combined capacity of 736 MW; the power from these stations is either distributed by means of the GPC transmission system to customers within the area or sold to GPC (345 MW in 1972,. The grand total power-producing capacity from these sta-tions as of 1972, within FPC Supply Area 23 but not operated by GPC, is 1,290 MW.The distribution of GPC power stations is shown in Fig. 8.2, and the power-producing capacitiess of these stations are tabulated in Table 8.1. The system includes 423 MW of hydroelectric capacity, 6,115 MW of capacity from coal-fired plants, and 557 MW of capacity from combustion turbine plants. The grand total is 7,095 MW, with most being located in the northern half of the State. The changes in Georgia population during 1960-1970 and the population distri-bution in 1970 are shown in Figs. 2.5 and 2.6, respectively.
A comparison of Figs. 2.5 and 2.6 with Fig. 8.2 indicates that, in general, the GPC power stations are located in the most populated sections of the State where power demand is the greatest.8-1 8-2-1[MSERVICE AREAS Of POWER COMPANIES OTHER THAN GEORGIA POWER COMPANY NATIONAL FOREST OR WILDIFEt REFUGE U.S MILITARY RESERVATION
* MAJOR CITIESDAM SITE'LOS~OA -Fig. 8.1. Distribution of power stations (and their capacities) and power service areas in Georgia that are not operated or served by the Georgia Power Company.
8-3 NIATIONAL FOREST OR WILDLIFE REFUSE U.S. MILITARY RESrERV&llC MAJOR CITIESDAM SITE A FOSSIL FUELED PLANT F L OaR I A -Fig. 8.2. Distribution of Georgia Power Company power stations.
8-4 Table 8.1.. Power-producing capacity of the Georgia Power Company in 1972 Station Design capacity (MW)Hydro Bartlett's Ferry, Goat Rock, Oliver, and No. Highlands 18i Morgan Falls 17 Burton, Nacoochee, Tcrrora, Tallulah.
Tugalo. and Yonah 166 Lloyd Shoals 14 Sinclair 45 Total 423 Coal-fired Atkinson 240 McDonough 490 Yates 550 Hammond 800 Bowen 1,400 Arkwright 160 llarlee Branch 1,540 Mitchell 170 McManus 115 Urquhart 150 Gaston (1/2) 500 Total 6.115 Combustion turbine Atkinson 79 Bowen 39 McDonough 79 Arkwright 31 Mitchell 118 McManus 158 Vogtle 53 Total 557 Grand total 7,095 8-5 The recent variation in monthly peak demands for power for the Georgia Power Company, for the Southern Company System (ER, vol.I, Tables 1.2-4a and 1.2-5a), and for the FPC Southeast Regional Group 6 are shown in Fig. 8.3. The GPC major peak demand occurs in midsummer as does the peak demand of the Southern Company Sys-tem; minor peaks occur in winter. The Southeast Regional Group power demand peaks in midsummer and again in midwinter.
The location of the urban load centers and the approximate bound-aries of the Georgia Power Company Divisions 7 are shown in Fig.1.3. Table 8.2 shows the approximate 1970 peak power demands of each urban center in Georgia;8 69% of the total peak demand was due to these centers and 7.9% of the demand came from the Augusta area. Figure 8.4 shows the total annual electric energy sales in each GPC Division (ER, vol. I, Table 1.2-2); during the, last several years the Augusta Division consumed about 9% of the total. In contrast, GPC power stations within the Augusta Division area (namely Urquhart and Vogtle combustion turbine stations)5 had (in 1972) a capacity of 203 MW, which is only 2.9% of the total GPC capacity.
However, the Vogtle combustion turbine station (with a capacity of 53 MW in 1972) is used only during peak power demand periods. It follows that the Augusta Division area de-manded approximately three times as much power in 1972 as could be produced there.Table 8.3 indicates the distribution of electrical energy consump-tion, according to class of use, for FPC Supply Area 23 (Georgia), 9 for Supply Areas 22 and 23 (Southern Company System), 9 for the FPC Southeast Regional Group 111,9 for the Southeastern USA 1 0 (as de-fined in Table 8.4), and the whole USA.1 0 The distributions are similar for each supply area considered.
The applicant (ER, vol. I, Fig. 1.2-2) has estimated that during the years 1980 through 1983 demand would be such that about 40%of the annual peak-hour load would be required 95% of the time.This fraction was indicated to be essentially constant during 1980-1983 and is directly related to base-load requirements.
 
===8.2 HISTORICAL===
 
RECORD OF ELECTRIC POWER DEMAND AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION The annual peak power demands for the last several years are shown in Fig. 8.5 for the FPC Southeast Regional Group, 1 1 for the Southern Company System, and for GPC (ER, vol. I, pp. 1.2-5 and 1.2--6). The total annual electrical energy consumption for the last several years and for the same three areas12,7,13 are given in Fig. 8.6.
8-6 5 0 FPC SOUTHEAST REGIONAL GROUP, 1970 0 0 03 z w 2-THE SOUTHERN COMPANY SYSTE1M,972 0 CL Wd T-GEORGIA POWER CO. 1972 CL t I I I I I JAN. FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT NOV. DEC.MONTH Fig. 8.3.Monthly peak power demands.
8-7 Table 8.2. Peak power demand of urban load centers in 1970 Percent of total power demand of FPC Supply Area 23 (Georgia) due to load center Dalton-Rome
 
===7.3 Atlanta===
28.5 Macon 7.9 Tipton 5.2 Brunswick-Waycross
 
===3.2 Savannah===
4.6 Columbus 4.4 Augusta 7.9 Total 69.0 Table 8.3. Distribution of electrical energy by class of use (1970)FPC Power FPC Power FPC Southeast Supply Area Supply Areas Regional Southeastern USA 23 (Georgia) 22 and 23 USAd (Southern Co. System) Group !1U Percent of total energy consumed Industrial 44 47 47 44 41 Commercial 22 20 17 17 22 Residential 29 29 30 35 32 Other 5 4 6 4 5'From an independenl survey of Chapman et al.; area includes Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky.
Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
8-8 310 0 U)z wL C)0X w-w-1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 YEAR 1972 Fig. 8. 4.Georgia Power Company divisional annual sales.
8-9 0 0 0 ix wL 0L wL a-1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 YEAR Fig. 8.5. Historical growth in peak power demand.1972 8-10 It, 0 z W 0 a:: Id z Id A I I I I S.1 I.I,.4 21-.- ' -FPC SOUTHEAST REGIONAL GROUP I THE SOUTHERN COMPANY SYSTEM'---GEOZIA POWER COMPANY, I I-I f ii 1960 1962 1964 1966 YEAR 1968 1970 1972 Fig. 8.6. Historical growth in annual electrical energy demand.
8-11 The power and energy demands of the Southeast Region approximately doubled in the period 1960 to 1970; the power and energy demands in the Southern Company System increased by about a factor of 2.5, and the demands on the GPC increased by almost a factor of 3. Thus, energy requirements of the Southern Company System and Georgia Power Company are increasing at a faster rate than the rest of the South-east Region.8.3 PROJECTION OF ENERGY USE AND PEAK LOADS Predicted annual peak power demands are plotted vs year in Fig. 8.7;the predicted values are those reported by different organizationis and pertain to the southeast or different portions of the southeast.
Two predictions of power demand for the whole southeast (i.e., FPC Region III) are shown; one is from the Southeastern Reliability Council (SERC)1 4 and the other is from the Federal Power Commission (FPC).8 The SERC prediction for 1982 is approximately 20% larger than the FPC value. Predicted peak power demands as reported by SERC are also shown for the power pools in the southeast; these include TVA, 1 5 the Carva Pool, 1 6 the Florida Group, 1 7 and the Southern Company System.1 8 Two additional curves are shown for the Southern Company System, one reported by the applicant (ER, vol. I, p. 1.2-8) and the other reported by the FPC.8 The indi-vidual power pools are predicted by SERC to grow at different rates; the Carva Pool is predicted to have the steepest growth curve, TVA the shallowest, with the Florida Group and the Southern Company System in between. Note also that the Southern Company System's prediction of its growth is intermediate to the SERC and FPC predicted growths.Two predictions of peak power demand in the applicant's service area are shown. The growth rate predicted by the FPC 8 is less than that predicted by the applicant (ER, vol. I, p. 1.2-7).Predicted annual electrical consumption is plotted vs. year in Fig. 8.8; predictions of the FPC for the Southeast, 1 2 for the Southern Company System, 1 2 and for the applicant's service area 1 2 are plotted as well as a prediction by Chapman et al.1 0 for the southeastern United States. Chapman et al. made a particular effort to include the effects of the price of electricity and the population growth on future power demands.The predictions in Figs. 8.7 and 8.8 can be approximately sum-marized as follows: the GPC anticipates the power demand to in-crease by a factor of about 2.75 in the decade 1975 to 1985; in the same period, the Southern Company expects power demand to il 8-12 If'lu.v I SOUTHEAST II I I/14 12 X 0 0'r 0 n 13-LI n~SOUTH EAST (BY SERC)lq&#xfd;SlOU 4/ I (BY///FPC)/S/s 10-2 8 6 5 POWER POOLS rSOUTHERN COMPANY IN SOUTHEAST SYSTEM (BY SERC _CARVA POOL (BY SERC) :0 I 4 SOUTHERN COMPANY SYSTEM (BY SOUTHERN COMPANY co)<:VYCTIM itry I-FLORIDA GROUP (BY SERCI-GEORGIA GEORGIA POWER CO.-POWER CO. (BY GPC)GEORGIA POWER CO.(BY FPC)01 19~72 I I I a 1974 1976 1978 YEAR 1980 1982 1984 Fig. 8.7. Predicted peak power demands for several service areas.
8-13 I"5 FPC SOUTHEAST 2 0o REGIONAL GROUP C;z D. CHAPMAN et. al. PREDICTION FOR SOUTHEASTERN U.S.A.*z I4 SOUTHERN COMPANY SYSTEM (FPC)-J Z --- GEORGIA POWER CO. (FPC)< 1970 1980 1990 2000 YEAR Fig. 8.8. Predicted annual electrical energy demand for several regions. (The predictions by Chapman et al., are for Va., W. Va., N.C., S.C., Ky., Tenn., Ga., Fla., Ala., Miss., La., and Ark.)
8-14 increase by a factor of 2.6; the FPC (for the whole Southeast Region Group, for the Southern Company System, and for the appli-cant's se-vice area) predicts power and energy demands to increase by a factor of 1.6. These growth rates can be compared with a factor of 3 increase in power demand observed by the GPC during the 1960-1970 decade.These fractional growth rates were accepted as estimates of the future growth rate of the power demand from the GPC; the calcu-lated peak power demand value curves and the bases for each curve are shown in Fig. 8.9.The predictions vary widely; the lowest values predict a need of an additional 7,500 MW of capacity (from 1975 to 1985), and the highest values predict a need of 25,000 MW. The predicted values of additional needed capacity by 1980 vary between 5,000 and 12,000 MW. The staff recognizes the obligation of the applicant to plan for capacity adequate to any reasonably anticipated growth, and that the applicant must initiate plans several years in advance of power production.
Partly because of these reasons, the staff agrees that the GPC predicted growth in peak power demand is a reasonable basis for advance planning.
The planning and construc-tion schedule of new power-generating capacity can be stretched out if the power demand is later found to grow less rapidly than predicted.
 
===8.4 PLANNED===
ADDITIONS TO THE APPLICANT'S SYSTEM The sites of planned power plants within the state of Georgia are indicated in Fig. 8.10. Organizations other than GPC have planned to construct facilities producing 1,481 MW of electrical capacity between 1974 and 1981,19 which may be compared to these organiza-tions' current capacity of 1,290 MW (see Sect. 8.1). The Savannah Electric and Power Company plans to build 420 MW of fossil-fueled power producing capacity by 1981. The Southeastern Power Admin-istration (SEPA) anticipates an addition of 1,061 MW of hydroelec-tric capacity by 1983; the applicant plans to purchase 918 MW from SEPA annually in the period 1976-1985, as compared to a 1973 pur-chase from SEPA of 345 MW. The Carters and West Point Dam projects are presently under construction, and the Trotter's Shoals and Spewrell Bluff projects (488 MW) are being contested by conserva-tion organizations.
2 0 It is not expected that GPC will be able to acquire significant amounts of power (in addition to currently planned purchases) from these organizations.
8-15 BASED ON GPC GROWTH-.. DURING 1960-1970 XEORGIA POWER CO PREDICTION 0 0"- SERC PREDICTION P2-z/ PREDICTION W 0 PREDICTION FROM... CHAPMAN et. al.W 0.1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 YEAR Fig. 8.9. Comparison of predicted power demand values for Georgia Power Company service area.
8-16 T Fig. 8.10. Sites of planned power plants in Georgia for the period 1972-1985.
8-17 Table 8.4 lists the MW capability which the applicant plans to add to its system between now and 1985, according to location and type of fuel. Figure 8.11 is a plot vs time of the power-producing capability according to fuel type, the estimated peak power demand (ER, vol. I, p. 1.2-7) and the estimated peak de-mand plus 15% (which is a recommended excess capacity to provide reliability).
The reduction in power-producing capacity due to retirement of old plants 5 is not included in the Fig. 8.11 data;however, this effect will be small. Assuming that coal-fired plants will be retired after 30 years of service, it was deter-mined that only 1,235 MW of capacity (or about 4% of the total)would be retired by 1985. In summary, the planned capacity of GPC is indicated to be barely adequate to supply the demand (including reserves) predicted by the staff.In 1985 the applicant plans to have about 40% of its power-producing Capability derived from nuclear power plants, 18% of which would be from the Hatch and Vogtle plants. Hatch and VNP are planaed to be base-load suppliers; this is entirely consistent with the fact that the GPC base load is anticipated to be about 40% of the peak demand load and with the predicted low-operating cost of nuclear plants in comparison to other type power plants (ER, vol. I, p. 1.2-28, see also Sect. 9.1).8.5
 
==SUMMARY==
AND CONCLUSIONS The staff has considered the past, present, and planned power-producing capability of and predicted power demands from the GPC and the power producers from which GPC might reasonably buy power.The staff has concluded that the GPC prediction of its future power demands is a reasonable basis for planning for 1980-1984 and that GPC cannot expect to acquire a significant portion of that demand by purchase from neighboring producers other than currently planned purchases.
Thus, the Vogtle Nuclear Plant will be needed to meet the service area demand in approximately the time frame projected.
Furthermore, the applicant's plan to use VNP to supply part of its base-load demand is reasonable since the economics of nuclear plants favor that use and the estimated base load is larger than the output of the Hatch and Vogtle plants.The Federal Power Commission's evaluation of the need for power is contained in their letter of October 2, 1973 (p. L-42).
8-18 Table 8.4. Additional power-producing capacity planned between 1972 and 1985 by Georgia Power Company Station Capability (MW)Hydro Wallace Dam 108 Bartletts Ferry 100 Goat Rock 67 Total 275 Pumped hydro Wallace Dam 216 Rocky Mountain 675 Total 891 Coal-fired Bowen 1,820 Yates 726 Wanslcy 3.640 Unlocited 1.820 Total 8,006 Combustion turbine McManus 31b Vogtle 328 Unlocited 2,050 Total 2,694 Nuclear Hatch 1,603 Vogtle 4,400 Unlocated 6.600 Total 12,603 Grand total 24,469 8-19 (0 0 0 n-0 I-a.4 a: 4 z 0 0-a-i I (ii 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 YEAR 1982 1984 1986 Fig. 8.11.Power Company.Power-producing capacity planned by Georgia 8-20 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8 1. Southeastern Electric Reliability Council, Coordinated Bulk Power Supply Program, 1972-1981, Report to the Federal Power Commission, Apr. 1, 1973, Southern Companies Subregion, Table II.2. Federal Power Commission, The 1970 National Power Survey, Part II, Electric Power in the Southeast, 1970-1980-1990, April 1969, p. 11-3-2.3. Moody's Public Utility Manual, 1972, Moody's Investors' Services, Inc., New York, N.Y., p. 1825.4. 1970 National Power Survey, Part II, p. 11-3, 4.5. Georgia Power Company, Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant Environ-mental Report, vol. I, Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, 50-426, and 50-427, issued February 1973, and including Amendment No. i, issued May 1973, Table 1.2-17.6. Ref. 2, Table 5, p. 11-3-11.7. Georgia Power Company Annual Report 1971, p. 1 (also in Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, License Application, vol. I, received Feb. 13, 1973).8. Ref. 2, p. 11-3-14.9. Ref. 2, p. 11-3-15.10. D. Chapman, T. Tyrell, and T. Mount, "Electricity Demand Growth and the Energy Crisis," Science 178: 703-706 (1972).11. Ref. 2, Table 4, p. 11-3-10.12. Ref. 2, Table 2, p. 11-3-8.13. The Southern Company 1971 Annual Report (also in Alvin W.Vogtle Nuclear Plant, License Application, vol. I, received Feb. 13, 1973).14. Ref. 1, Preamble Table I.15. Ref. 1, Tennessee Valley Subregion, Table 1.
8-21 16. Ref. 1, Virginia-Carolinas Subregion, Appendix A, Item 1.17. Ref. 1, Florida Subregion, Table 1.18. Ref. 1, Item 1, Table I.19. Ref. 1, Table II, Sheet 10.20. Atlanta Constitution, May 12, 1972; March 22, 1973;October 6, 1971; October 14, ].971; October 28, 1971.
: 9. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 9.1 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES 9.1.1 Alternatives not requiring new generating capacity 9.1.1.1 Power purchases Georgia Power Company has planned purchases of 1,074 MW/year for the period 1979-1985, which is roughly the period corresponding to the startup of the four Vogtle units. Of this total, 918 MW will be purchased from the Southeastern Power Administration and 156 MW will be purchased from the Tennessee Valley Authority.
1  Based on the predicted load forecasts, Georgia Power Company, without the addition of the Vogtle units, would have to purchase additional power in an amount approaching the capacity of Vogtle Unit 1 by the early 1980's and an amount approaching that of all four Vogtle units by the mid-1980's in order to have reserves near a 15% margin.Power purchases by the applicant can be made from members comprising the Southern Company or neighboring systems. However, planning of the future generation additions by the applicant and other members of the Southern Company are done on a system basis (ER, vol. I, p. 1.2-28). The Southern Company system load is used to determine the total generating capacity additions, and each operating company load is used to determine each member's proportion of these capacity additions.
Sales and purchases of power between the members of the Southern Company are on a year-to-year basis to equalize the reserves among the member companies.
Although it may be possible for the applicant to purchase power from other members of the Southern Com-pany on a short-term basis, purchases of a long-term nature needed to replace the proposed base load generating units would not be possible.Neighboring systems of the Georgia Power Company (the Florida group, TVA, and the Carva pool) have all made load and capacity projections through 1982.2 Based on these data, none of these systems are ex-pected to have excess power in the amounts needed by the applicant.
On the basis of load and capacity predictions by the applicant, the Southern Company, and neighboring utilities, the staff concludes that purchasing power in the amounts necessary to satisfy the pro-jected power requirements is not a practical alternative since other utilities in the area are not expected to have the necessary reserves to supply the applicant reliably and for long periods of time.9-1 9-2 9.1.1.2 Reduced growth rate for power demand Because of the long lead times involved in the planning and con-struction of major power facilities, electric utilities have no option but to base their plant expansions on demand forecasts.
The applicant's estimates of load growth in the past have been responsive to the demand growth.Power demand growth rate predictions for the future could be in error for several reasons.3 However, no immediate or dramatic effect on the power demand growth rate is likely to be observed, nor is the power demand in the applicant's service area likely to be significantly altered from-the applicant's estimates by the time Vogtle Unit 1 is completed.
Should a power demand prediction change, the applicant has several alternatives available to counteract a reduced growth rate. One alternative open to the applicant would be delaying or foregoing the construction of the other Vogtle units.In addition to the Vogtle units, the applicant currently has plans for adding 11,000 MW capacity between 1972-1985 (see Table 8.4), of.which 5,250 MW is expected to be completed after Vogtle Unit 4 (ER, vol. I, Table 1.2-8). Thus, the applicant could consider a modification of the construction timetable for these facilities, should a reduced growth rate occur before they are completed.
In summary, the staff expects that the growth of power demand in the applicant's service area will require that at least one of the Vogtle units be constructed.
The staff concludes that the applicant's construction schedule is sufficiently flexible to accommodate any reduced power demand growth rate that may occur before 1985.9.1.1.3 Not supplying power Georgia Power Company is the principal power supplier to the State of Georgia. Not only does the applicant supply power to its direct customers who reside or operate businesses in 154 of 159 counties, but the applicant also supplies electricity to 50 municipalities and 39 rural electric cooperatives that redistribute the power to their customers.
Since the applicant is the principal supplier of elec-tricity in the State, it is unlikely that any other utility system in Georgia could supply the power should the applicant forego the addition of new generating capacity to its system. Based on the load predictions of the applicant and the staff, the State of Georgia would become deficient in power in the 1980's should the applicant decide not to add new generating capacity.
This would ultimately lead to load shedding (ER, vol. I, p. 1.4-1), brownouts, and blackouts unless the power demand is drastically curtailed.
9-3 Should not supplying the power result in discontinuance or curtail-ment of any privilege or service presently being rendered to the public, it would be necessary for the applicant to have the consent of the Georgia Public Service Commission (ER, vol. II, p. 8.1-1).The staff concludes that not supplying the power is not a viable alternative to the proposed Vogtle Nuclear Plant.9.1.2 Energy-source options 9.1.2.1 Fossil fuel Coal and oil The use of coal or oil as a fuel could be considered as alternatives in the applicant's service area. At present, the majority of the applicant's fossil fuel plants are coal-fired plants located mostly in northwestern Georgia.The applicant could consider the use of coal reserves in Alabama, West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, eastern Tennessee, and southern Illinois.4 The selection of the source of coal supply would be determined by the availability and cost. Oil could be transported to the site by barge and by pipeline from Savannah.As shown in Table 9.1, the staff has estimated the capital and operating costs for a nuclear-, coal-, or oil-fired power plant with the same net electrical output. Cost data from the referenced sources, including that supplied by the applicant, was adjusted to a base of 4636 MWe. From these results, it is seen that a nuclear plant has a definite economic advantage over the coal- and oil-fired plants despite higher capital costs.In addition to higher estimated costs for an oil-fired plant, the staff at this time does not feel that an oil-fired plant should be considered as a viable alternative because of the uncertainty in securing a reliable supply of domestic or foreign fuel oil. Since the restriction on oil imports has been removed, it may be possible to obtain the necessary oil from foreign sources, but this would involve risks concerning future oil costs and delivery reliability.
A recent Federal Power Commission questionnaire 5 asking electric utilities how much of their generating capacity could be converted from oil to other fuels adds to the uncertainty in using oil for future electric power plants. This questionnaire was in response 9-4 to a recent report by the Office of Emergency Preparedness 6 which concluded that one way to conserve oil and to reduce the nation's dependence on oil imports would be to have electric utilities con-vert their oil units to coal units. Considering the projected supply and cost of oil, the effects of SO 2 and NOx emissions on air quality, the potential hazards in oil handling and storage and the environmental damage from oil spills, the staff concurs with the applicant's analysis that a nuclear plant is the preferred alternative.
Table 9.1. Estimated capital and operating costs for a nuclear-, coal., or oil-power plant consisting of four 1,159-MWe unitsa.b$ Millions Cost Nuclear Coal Oil Opcration/Maintcnacec 205 420 177 Fueld 768 1,652 3,167 Capital costse'- 1,838 (2,188) 1,432 11,46219 (1.233) 1.271 (950)Total 2,811 3.504 4.615 aCalculations based on 80% plant factor and assumption that 4.636-MWe plants begin operation in 1983 and operate for 30 years. Present worth in 1983 for operation, mainte'nance, and fuel costs computed, assuming 8.75% discount factor. Costs based on prior 1983 estimates escalated at 4% per year until 1983.bCapital costs for plants include natural-draft cooling towers. Coal plant also calculated with S0 2-removal equipment.
Capital costs for units 2-4 taken to be 95% of Unit I.COperation and maintenance costs: (1) nuclear (Federal Power Commission.
The 1970 National Power Survey, Part IV, p. IV-I-60).
(2) coal (Federal Power Commission, Statistics of Privately Owned Utilities in the United States -1970. December 1971). (3) oil [L. M.Olmstead, "17th Steam Station Cost Survey," Elect. World 176: 39-S4 (1971)1.dFuel costs from Elect. World 178(10): 30-32 (1972).eCapital costs: (I) coal and nuclear (Federal Power Commission, 7The 1970 National Power Survey, Part 1, p. 1-19-4), (2) oil calculated assuming ratio of coal with SO 2 removal equipment to oil is 1.25, which is in agreement with applicant's estimates and other similar estimates, (3) natural-draft cooling towers and SO2 removal equipment (H. E. Vann, M. J.Whitman, and H. I. Bowers. "Factors Affecting Historical and Projected Capital Costs for Nuclear Power Plants:" Fourth United Nations Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Sept. 6. 1971, Session 1.4, A/Conf. 49/P-037).
JEstimates in parentheses are applicant's estimates (ER, vol. 11 Table 8.3-1).1 Based on applicant's estimated base costs for 1760-MWe.
Yellow Dirt Coal Plant to begin operation in 1976 (Georgia Power Company, News Release. Oct. 7, 1971).
9-5 From an environmental viewpoint, the major effects of the alternative generating systems result from the relative condenser cooling-water requirements and the radioactive and nonradioactive particulate and gaseous effluents.
A coal-fired plant would have essentially the same type of condenser cooling water system as would a nuclear plant, but because of the higher efficiency of a coal-fired plant and because some waste heat is discharged to the atmosphere with the stack gasses, both consumptive water use and heat discharge to the river would be less (by about 30%) than a nuclear plant. The partic-ulate and gaseous effluents from a coal-fired plant would be signifi-cantly higher than those from the nuclear plant but they would meet applicable standards.
Although the radioactive effluents from the nuclear plant may be higher than those from a coal-fired plant, the controls imposed on the nuclear plant would result in such effluent being equivalent to only a fraction of the natural background radioactivity.
The transportation and on-site storage of coal for a coal-fired plant has environmental effects which could be serious. In addition, the use of coal as a fuel would require the storage or disposal of large volumes of ash. From an aesthetic standpoint, the presence of smokestacks and their plumes at coal-fired plants is an addi-tional feature not present with a nuclear plant such as VNP.Assuming that a coal-fired plant could be built so that gaseous discharges would not deteriorate air quality the staff concludes that, from an environmental viewpoint, neither a coal-fired or nuclear plant offers a significant advantage at this site. Thus, the staff concludes that the significantly lower generating costs of a nuclear plant, compared with a coal-fired plant, favors the selection of a nuclear plant.Natural gas The applicant could consider the use of natural gas as a primary energy eource for his proposed plant. This energy source would be superior to all other fossil fuels with respect to particulate emissions and the emission of sulfur. The applicant presently purchases natural gas on an interruptible basis for use as boiler fuel in several generating plants. However, the ability to contract for additional supplies of natural gas to operate base-load fossil fueled stations is doubtful at this time. This is due to the fact 9-6 that the Southern Natural Gas Company, who is the major supplier of natural gas to Atlanta Gas Light who, in turn, supplies the applicant, has filed with the FPC a curtailment plan pursuant to which gas sold for generation of electricity is reduced prior to gas sold for other purposes.7 This plan was implemented by the FPC in December 1971 and has resulted in a reduction of 40% in the amount of gas the applicant has been able to purchase from Atlanta Gas Light for the first 11 months of 1972, as compared to the same time period in 1971 (ER, vol. II, p. 8.3-2).The staff concludes that the applicant's ability to compete for the available natural gas supplies and contract for the required non-interruptible supply of natural gas for a base-load plant is doubtful, and the selection of this fuel as an energy source cannot be con-sidered to be a viable alternative.
9.1.2.2 Hydroelectric The applicant currently has a number of pumped storage and conven-tional hydroelectric plants planned. These plants will be able to produce nearly 1,200 MWe of power, of which 890 MW will be pumped storage (ER, vol. II, Table 8.3-2). However, pumped storage hydro-electric generation can only be considered for peaking facilities and not base-load generating facilities.
In 1972 the Federal Power Commission appraised the undeveloped conventional hydroelectric potential in the Southeast and listed 21 sites in Georgia with a potential capacity of about 3,091 MW, 8 of which 811 MW is currently planned by the Southeastern Power Administration and 275 MW by the applicant (ER, vol. I, Table 1.2-15a), leaving 2,005 MW for future development.
The staff concludes that although hydroelectric facilities are possible sources of power in Georgia, they do not constitute an alternative to the proposed base-load nuclear units because of their relatively small potential capacity.9.1.2.3 Other Geothermal energy Geothermal electric power generation, at favorable geologic sites, has been found to be feasible and competitive with other commercial sources of energy. It can make a significant contribution to the 9-7 power supply of certain regions of the nation, especially in the West. However, geothermal sources are only beginning to be developed.
With respect to the State of Georgia, there are no areas of potential geothermal production listed by the Department of Interior.9 There are, however, eight thermal springs listed by the Department of the Interior10 located in West Central Georgia, the most noted being Warm Springs, Georgia. However, the potential of these warm springs for geothermal development are not known. The tem erature at the surface of these springs ranges from 690 to 870F, 1 t compared to the steam temperatures of 400*F at the power-producing Geysers steam field in California."'
Use of the lower temperature springs would require substantial drilling and also the development of turbines that use secondary fluids such as isobutane.11 Environmental prob-lems related to waste-water disposal and land subsidence are also factors that must be considered in the development of geothermal power.The staff concludes that geothermal power cannot be considered an alternative for large base-load units needed by the applicant, especially in the time frame that they are needed.Combustion turbines Combustion turbines are not usually considered as an alternative to nuclear or fossil plants, because the turbine is better suited to peaking service, while the other two are better suited to base load.The combustion turbine is primarily considered only for peaking services because of the higher fuel costs (ER, vol. II, p. 8.3-2)and its higher forced-outage rate when operated at base load. The applicant presently employs combustion turbines for peaking service and plans increased use of such units. The staff does not recommend the combustion turbine as an alternative because of the general un-suitability of combustion turbines for base-load service.Future sources of power There are a number of other alternative energy sources that were considered by the applicant but found either to be not technically feasible at this time or not available in the quantities needed.These alternatives included solar energy, tidal energy, nuclear fusion, and magnetohydrodynamic generation.
The staff has reviewed the present statur of these alternative methods and agrees with the applicant's findings.
9-8 9.1.3 Alternative sites The applicant has stated that its system planning studies indicate that the need exists for base-load generation in East Central Georgia. Such studies consider such factors as the availability of land, reliability and quality of transmission service to various areas of the system, and environmental factors. At present, most of the applicant's base-load generating power is located in the west and north central portions of the State (Fig. 8.1) where Georgia's population is concentrated (Fig. 2.6) and is growing (Fig. 2.5). The applicant has stated that the addition of base-load generating power in the east central portion of the State would greatly enhance the reliability of its system. It would also reduce transmission losses in transporting power to this reg-ion since the only base-load GPC plant in this area (Urquhart, 150 MWe, see Fig. 8.2 and Table 8.1) does not furnish enough power to supply the needs of the Augusta Division (3 x 109 kWhr in 1972, see Figs. 1.3 and 8.4). In considering sites in East Central Georgia, the applicant anticipated the necessity of evaporative cooling towers to meet water quality standards relative to the allowable temperature riae for a total plant capacity of 4,636 MW.The only body of water in East Central Georgia where the water consumption of the cooling towers for four large base-load units (about 132 cfs total annual average evaporative loss rate) would be acceptable is the Savannah River. For this reason, the appli-cant's considerations of alternative four-unit sites were restricted to the Savannah River.The sites considered by the applicant along the Savannah River were the Vogtle site, the Shell Bluff site located 11 miles upstream from the Vogtle site, the Boggy Gut site located 12 miles upstream from the Vogtle site, and the Clark Hill site located 22 miles up-stream from Augusta, Georgia, on the west side of the Clark Hill Reservoir.
The sites at Boggy Gut and Shell Bluff were ruled out by the applicant as alternatives since there was a serious question as to the adequacy of the foundation materials from the standpoint of licensing a nuclear power plant. The Vogtle site was considered more suitable than the Clark Hill site, primarily because of the recreational use made of the Clark Hill Reservoir and the potential increase in population density near the Clark Hill site. Another factor favoring Vogtle over Clark Hill is that barges bringing building materials and components would have direct access to the Vogtle site. In order to reach the Clark Hill site, building mate-rials and components would have to be brought overland from a barge unloading point below the Clark Hill Dam.
9-9 The staff, after reviewing the applicant's reasons for selecting the Vogtle site, concludes that the Vogtle site is more adequate than its alternate sites for the location of new generating capacity.In view of the proposed location of this large (4,636 MWe) base-load generating facility at the boundary of the applicant's service area, relatively far from the applicant's major load centers (see Fig. 1.3 and Table 8.2), and noting also that considerable trans-mission line mileage and acreage will be required to distribute the power from these four units (see Fig.'3.9 and Table 4.1), the staff briefly considered a potential siting arrangement whereby two units would be located at the Vogtle site and two units in central Georgia. Several locations in central Georgia have water supplies adequate for two units (with cooling towers) equivalent in size to two Vogtle units.1 2 In considering this possibility, the staff estimated the demand for power, in Georgia, within a 60-mile radius of the Vogtle site to the year 1997. Projected populations in 1987 and 1997 were reported by the applicant to be 502,000 and 560,000, respectively (ER, vol. I, Figure 2.4-4). Estimated per capita consumption of electricity was based on staff projections of United States averages for the period 1920-1970,13 and was estimated at 2.28 x 104 and 4.10 x 104 kWhr per person for 1987 and 1997, respectively.
Such projections might tend t- overestimate projected demand for electric power, since in the east, per capita consumption has been lower for Georgia than for the nation as a whole, and the national trend from 1920-1970 may not continue for the next several decades. However, for the past several decades the Georgia per capita consumption of electricity has been increasing faster than the national average, and thus the use of the national average for the period 1987 to 1997 seems reasonable.
From the above information, the staff calculated that the total con-sumption of electricity within a 60-mile radius of Vogtle would be 1.14 x i010 and 2.30 x 1010 kWhr/year for the years 1987 and 1997, respectively.
If it is assumed that each of the four units at Vogtle operate at a maximum of 1,159 megawatts for 80% of the 'time and that 15% of their capacity is allowed for reserves, then the expected annual capacity of VNP would be 3,150 MWe. The figures given above for power demand indicate that in 1987 41% of the expected net plant capacity of VNP would be used within a 60-mile radius, and in 1997 about 83% of this capacity would be used within that area. Thus it would appear that within 15 to 20 years after operation of all four VNP units commences that about 80 to 90% of the expected available capacity of VNP would be used within 60 miles of the site. If the area that utilizes the VNP output is 9-10 assumed to have an 80-mile radius (the approximate distance to the closest site suitable for two units in central Georgia), the capac-ity of VNP would be utilized at an even earlier date. Power losses during transmission at 500 kV are relatively minor for this distance.Therefore, the alternative of putting two units at Vogtle and two units at another location was not further investigated.
 
===9.2 ALTERNATIVE===
 
PLANT DESIGNS 9.2.1 Cooling systems At full load, each Vogtle unit will reject about 2,420 MWt of heat (8.3 x 109 Btu/hr) to the environment.
9.2.1.1 Once-through cooling system If the waste heat from the Vogtle Nuclear Plant were transferred to the environment by means of once-through cooling, whereby the temperature of the water that passes through the condensers would be raised about 20 F 0 , about 1,930 cfs of water per unit would be required from the Savannah River (ER, vol. II, p. 8.5-1). The total for four units would be about 7,720 cfs, which flow exceeds the 5,800 cfs guaranteed minimum flow of the river. Thus, oncc-through cooling is clearly not possible for all four units. If only one reactor used once-through cooling, the 1,930-cfs flow from this unit (heated about 20 F* above ambient river-water tem-perature), when discharged back into the river and completely mixed with it, would raise the temperature of the river about 6 F 0 under minimum-river-flow conditions.
State of Georgia water-quality standards do not permit the temperature of the receiving body of water to be raised more than 5 F*.1 4 Thus, once-through cooling for even one unit would not be acceptable.
9.2.1.2 Mechanical-draft cooling towers Use of mechanical-draft cooling towers at VNP would require about the same amount of makeup water as is required by natural-draft towers. Evaporative losses would also be similar, as would rate of blowdown and its accompanying thermal effects on the river.Chemicals used in treating the circulating water occur in the blowdown to about the same extent for either type of tower. Drift 9-11 deposition from mechanical-draft towers is expected to be higher than from natural-draft towers. However, in any event, drift is relatively small and is not a crucial factor in tower selection at this site. Cooling-tower noise also falls into this category, being greater for a mechanical-draft tower but, because of the large exclusion area and remote surroundings at VNP, not a crit-ical factor in the comparison of the two types of wet cooling towers at this site.The most important factor in the selection process, as indicated by the applicant (ER, vol. II, Sects. 5.1.5 and 8.5.5), was the greater potential increase in fogging and icing at the site due to the mechanical-draft towers, as compared with the natural-draft towers. Fogging potential for mechanical-draft towers greatly exceeds that for natural-draft towers because plumes from mechanical-draft towers usually do not penetrate normal atmospheric mixing depths and are held in the lower layers of the atmosphere where moisture-absorbance capacities are lowest. Another aspect is the requirement of several mechanical-draft towers to dissipate the same amount of heat as one natural-draft unit. The combination of several separate plumes does not effectively increase plume-penetration height, and additional problems may arise as a result of plume entrainment and downwash associated with the presence of adjacent tower cells.With regard to economics, the applicant has estimated that mechanical-draft towers have the advantage by about $1,400,000/unit, according to present-worth evaluation techniques (ER, vol. II, Sect. 8.5.4.1).This result is consistent with those of other studies on relative costs of the two systems.In view of the greater potential for large mechanical-draft cooling towers to increase fogging and icing in the vicinity of the site, the applicant concluded that the additional cost of the natural-draft towers was justified.
The staff concurs in this decision.The selection of relatively small mechanical-draft cooling towers for the nuclear service cooling system is not inconsistent with the above decision.
No significant environmental impact is expected from these smaller towers.9.2.1.3 Dry cooling towers Dry cooling towers have been used for fossil-fueled power plants (mostly in Europe) but not for those with capacities greater than 9-12 about 250 MWe. The advantage of dry cooling towers is that there is no consumptive use of water; condenser circulating water is pumped through finned heat exchangers where atmospheric air absorbs the heat and carries it away. Disadvantages are, in general, a higher operating temperature for the condensers (with resulting lower turbine efficiencies) and much higher capital costs than those of wet cooling towers. Considering these disadvantages, to-gether with the technological problems of constructing dry cooling towers for large units such as those planned for VNP, the staff concludes that this cooling method is at present not a viable alternative to the applicant's proposed system.9.2.1.4 Cooling ponds The applicant considered construction of a large (about 8,000 acres)cooling lake south of the site to be formed by a dike across Beaver-dam Creek. However, after investigation, this was discarded due to serious questions as to the amount of seepage loss from the lake.There was also a question of whether a plant design based on a closed cooling water system using a pond could meet Georgia water quality standards.
The staff concurs in this decision.9.2.1.5 Spray ponds or spray canals Spray ponds or canals would require relatively large acreages in terrain that is not particularly suited to their construction.
The problem of soil permeability (Sect. 9.2.1.4) would add an additional uncertainty.
Moreover, the potential for fogging and ining would be great because of the low altitudes at which the vapors are released.
Thus, the staff concludes that a spray pond or canal is not a viable alternative.
 
====9.2.2 Intake====
system The principal environmental impacts associated with the intake of large quantities of water are the damage to free-swimming and float-ing organisms.
The proposed intake structure incorporates features such as screening devices which, when combined with the low intake velocity (<l fps) are such that the entire intake system is environ-mentally protective at the site (Sect. 5.5.2.1).
Since the water requirements of the plant are essentially fixed by evaporative losses 9-13 in the cooling towers, significant reductions in intake velocities would have to be achieved by enlarging the area of the intake inter-face. Enlargement of the intake structure would increase the con-struction costs. No environmental impact of fish entrapment has been projected; therefore, the staff does not find a change in cooling-water intake design to be a necessary alternative at this time.Plant-makeup-water requirements for the closed-cycle cooling system are almost minimal. If the assumption is made that makeup-water requirements for the plant cannot be reduced, then no way remains to reduce the entrainment of floating organisms in the intake water.9.2.3 Dischargc systems Regardless of the type of discharge structure considered for VNP, the AT (difference between the temperature of the thermal discharge and that of the receiving river water) and the discharge rates will remain the same as those discussed in Sect. 3 since they are fixed by the cooling system. Three alternative discharge systems are discussed below, and the impact of each is considered and is com-pared with the applicant's proposed discharge structure (diffuser).
9.2.3.1 Surface-jet discharge This system would use a surface discharge from a 2.6-ft 2 opening (perpendicular to the river's flow) which would discharge hori-zontally into the river. When four units are in operation at maximal blowdown rate of 5,500 gpm/unit, at minimal river flow (5,800 cfs), and at maximal predicted AT of 43 F, the maximal impact on the river ecosystem would be expected.
The thermal plume (entering the river at a velocity of about 7.5 fps) is assumed to remain on the surface (to a depth of 2.6 ft) and not to mix with water in the lower depths of the river. The area in-cluded in the 5-F 0 isotherm was calculated 1 5 by the staff to be 11,500 ft 2.For a 2.6-ft depth, n,30,000 ft 3 of water would be subjected to a AT of 5 to 43 F 0.An isotherm having a AT in this range would extend downstream for a distance of "'325 ft (Fig. 9.1).Organisms entrained at the discharge point would be subjected to such temperatures.
Juvenile fishes and planktonic forms drifting downstream which would be entrained in the plume on the Georgia side of the river would be subjected to high AT with an entrain-ment time of A'4 min (at a river velocity of 1.53 fps). These 9-14 parameters, which indicate the volume within the isotherm of 5 F 0 AT (30,000 ft 3) and entrainment time (about 4 min), are signifi-cantly greater than the corresponding values for the diffuser system (4,300 ft 3 and 13 sec, respectively).
Therefore, the staff concludes that the comparative impact of the surface-jet discharge on the ecology of the Savannah River would be greater than the impact of a diffuser.Figure 9.1 shows calculated extents and areas of thermal plumes for other operating conditions (one, two, or three units). In no case was an additional dilution flow assumed.9.2.3.2 Submerged-jet discharge The staff has examined the effects of the thermal plume to be ex-pected if a subsurface discharge were used. The discharge struc-ture was assumed to consist of a 2.6-ft-diam circular pipe with its opening centered at 75 ft MSL (halfway between the river's bottom and its surface at its minimal expected flow). Discharge velocity is about 9.7 fps when the rate of discharge is 23,140 gpm (four units operating).
Figure 9.2 shows calculated 1 6 directions and centerline temperatures for discharge plumes in the Savannah River for two cases (one and four units operating at maximal blowdown) for the conditions when the thermal discharge is expected to exert its maximal effect. A 23,140-gpm subsurface discharge at 9.7 fps undergoes relatively rapid mixing with the river. The volume calculated to be within the 5-F* isotherm was about 1,800 ft 3.The calculated entrainment time for organisms was about 13 sec. These two parameters are close to the values obtained for the diffuser discharge (Sects. 3.4.3.2 and 9.2.3.3) and indicate that a subsurface discharge might be a viable alternative.
However, the possibility exists of a thermal blockage near the bank on the Georgia side of the river. Anadromous fishes moving upstream during the spawning season would encounter temperatures greater than 5 F* above ambient in this area and might be forced to the center of the river to avoid them. Therefore, the staff believes that the diffuser discharge system (modified as de-scribed in Sect. 9.2.3.3) is the preferred discharge arrangement.
9.2.3.3 Alternative diffuser systems When all four units at VNP are operating at maximum expected blow-down of 5,500 gpm, total plant liquid-discharge rate is expected hi Li z 4 I-U'a hi U'U'0 U.0c 10C g.0 Bobo 4)95 h ~-0. 000 zo S00 40 000 0o 700 68 0 4M0 'K woo z 4>4 U, 0; K0 2 UNI1TS OPLkAT-NG
-,.%'0 10".26.-00f.-rZ g i --- ------- ...... .. ."&deg;--..&deg;..I 30)0 DOWNRIVER DISTANCE, feet 0 00 zwO 300 400 3(0 00w 700 800 900 DOWNRIVER DISTANCE, feet 000 I U zr (n Cn 0 Ln 300 400 W0O0 700 DOWNRIVER DISTANCE.
feet 30 400 500 400 70 0 DOWNRIVER DISTANCE, feet Fig. 9.1. Thermal plumes from surface discharges from Vogtle Nuclear Plant into the Savannah River. (Discharge port, 2.3 x 2.3 ft; river flow, 5,800 gpm; AT, 43 F 0; -5 F&deg;isotherm; 3 F&deg; isotherm; numbers are areas enclosed by isotherms having the respective AT.)
q -16 IS 20 25 30 DISTANCE DOWN RIVER, ft Fig. 9.2. Thermal plume, subsurface discharge from Vogtle Nuclear Plant into Savannah River water. (Volumes having AT greater than 5 F 0 are 770 and 1,800 ft for 5,785 and 23,140 gpm, respectively.)
9-17 to be about 23,140 gpm (excluding dilution flow). The staff has calculated a jet velocity from the 8-in.-diam diffuser ports of about 6.2 fps at this discharge rate -a velocity considerably less than optimal for efficient mixing with the river. By reduc-ing the diameter of the discharge ports from 8 to 6 in., the dis-charge velocity could be increased to about 11 fps, a velocity that would improve the mixing. The extent of this improvement is indicated in Table 3.2, where the volume enclosing the 5-F 0 iso-therm is given as 2,400 and 4,300 ft 3 for 6- and 8-in.-diam ports, respectively.
Therefore, to improve the characteristics of the mixing of the thermal discharge into the Savannah River, the staff recommends that 6-in.-diam diffuser ports be used.Although the 5-F 0 mixing zone calculated for the subsurface dis-charge (1,800 ft 3) is less than that for the diffuser system with a 6-in.-diam ports, the staff believes (Sect. 3.4.3.2) that the diffuser system will actually permit more-rapid and more-thorough mixing with the river than these calculations indicate.
In addi-tion, with the diffuser system, the river temperatures near the bank remain near ambient; thus, an unrestricted zone of passage for fish is left. Therefore, the staff concludes that the diffuser system is the preferred discharge system.9.2.4 Chemical system Chemical releases to the Savannah River during the operation of Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 are listed and discussed in Sect. 3. Our independent assessment of these releases shows that, at the edge of the permitted dilution zone in the river, the concentration of individual chemicals is uniformly low when compared with the existent Federal Water Quality Standards, as listed in Table 3.6, and with the concentrations of these chemicals already present in the Savannah River. Therefore, no alternate chemical treatment systems are recommended.
 
====9.2.5 Biocide====
system There are several alternatives to the use of chlorination with elemental chlorine gas to keep the closed-cycle cooling tower systems free of microorganisms which otherwise would foul them.In the staff's judgment, the applicant has selected an environ-mentally acceptable alternative.
9-18 Chlorination by injection of aqueous hypochlorite is sometimes used, but offers no advantage over gaseous chlorine injection be-cause of higher cost and the contribution of an additional cation concentration, such as sodium or calcium ion, to the discharge stream. The addition of other chemical biocides and corrosion inhibitors such as chromates, acrolein, thiocycanates, and copper salts would be less acceptable alternatives because of their tox-icity in the effluent stream.The use of mechanical methods to control biological growths, such as a system of captive brushes or sponge balls that can be forced through the condenser tubes, might be considered as an adjunct to chlorination but would not eliminate the need for chemical control in the cooling towers and other parts of the system outside the condenser tubes.9.2.5.1 Dechlorination As discussed in Section 3.6, the applicant plans to chlorinate each of the four cooling tower circuits sequentially for 30 minutes at a maximum frequency of twice daily. EPA's current recommended limit on residual chlorine (free and combined) for plants intermittently discharging chlorinated effluent for not more than 2 hours per day is 0.2 ppm (for warm waters that do not contain trout or salmon).Since the Vogtle plant may discharge effluent containing residual chlorine for more than 2 hours per day when all four units are operating, the staff and applicant agreed that residual chlorine at the point of discharge into the river should be limited to 0.1 ppm.It is expected that this can be accomplished without dechlorination of the effluent.
Since the applicant has agreed to limit the chlorine residual to 0.1 ppm and to continuously monitor the residual chlorine concentration in the effluent and since the high velocity jets in the diffuser system promote such rapid mixing of the effluent with river water so as to dilute the concentration of chlorine to which aquatic life in the river is exposed, the staff is not recommending a sur-veillance program to relate chlorine levels to biological effects.9.2.6 Sanitary waste system An alternate to the proposed standard, packaged, secondary-treatment plants would be a tertiary-treatment facility.
This would further reduce the BOD of the effluent, 85 to 90% of which is expected to be removed by the packaged plant (Sect. 3.7.1). The applicant has indi-cated that this could be added if it becomes necessary (ER, Vol. II, Sect. 8.6.3).9.2.7 Transmission system A dc transmission system for the Vogtle plant does not appear to be a viable alternative since, to be economically competitive, a dc line should be 400 to 1,000 miles long.1 7 The longest Vogtle line is 150 miles.
9-19 Underground transmission lines, another alternative, would reduce aesthetic impacts and acreage requirements but do not appear to be a good choice (except in densely populated areas) because of their cost and the need for further research to advance the state of the art.18 Another possibility appears to be the use of voltages as high as 765 kV, which are presently being used in some systems. However, this alternative cannot be tried because of the existence in the United States of two distinct voltage patterns, 115/230/500 kV and 138/345/765 kV.1 9 Since GPC is in one of the areas that uses the first pattern, its next-higher voltage step would probably be in the 1,000-kV range, which has never been used commercially and is only now being studied.The staff concludes that any benefits to be derived from alternative transmission systems are insufficient to justify their higher costs.9.2.8 Transportation procedures Alternatives such as special routing of shipments, providing escorts in separate vehicles, adding shielding to the containers, and con-structing a fuel-recovery and fabrication plant on the site rather than shipping fuel to and from the station have been examined by the staff for the general case. The impact on the environment of transportation under normal or postulated accident conditions is not considered to be sufficient to justify the additional effort required to implement any of the alternatives.
 
===9.3 ALTERNATIVES===
 
FOR MINIMIZING EFFECTS ON THE COMMUNITY As shown in Sects. 4.4 and 5.6, the construction and operation of the Vogtle plant will have only a minor effect on the surrounding community.
However, the access roads to the site are one area where an alternative to the present situation may be needed. As now proposed, only one of the roads that lead from the site area to Georgia state highways is to be hard-surfaced.
Therefore, that road will be crowded at shift changes, and delays and inconvenience will be caused not only for the workers but also for those of the community who wish to use this facility.
The staff suggests that, to alleviate these possible inconveniences, possible alternatives be considered, such as hard-surfacing an additional road from the 9-20 VNP site either towards Augusta (such as 12 to 14 miles of River Road, north from the site to Highway 23) or to connect with High-way 23 near Girard (ER, vol. II, Appendix A, p. A.48).
 
==9.4 CONCLUSION==
S After reviewing the alternatives to the proposed action, the staff concludes that: 1. The applicant has a clearly discernable need for a base-load plant, to supply the requirements of the applicant's service area within the 1980-1985 time frame.2. Nuclear fuel is the most economical fuel available to the applicant.
: 3. The proposed nuclear plant will have lower generating costs than any of the fossil-fueled alternatives.
: 4. None of the fossil-fueled alternatives offer any environ-mental advantages over the proposed nuclear plant.5. The plant site is a reasonable location for a four-unit nuclear plant.6. Evaporative cooling towers are preferable over the other alternative cooling systems.7. The biological impacts from the intake and discharge systems are acceptable.
However, a slight modification to the dis-charge system to use 6" rather than 8" ports will further minimize this impact.8. The biological impacts from chemical releases will be accept-able providing the discharge of total residual chlorine from the daily biocidal treatment is controlled to a maximum concentration, at the point of discharge, of 0.1 ppm.9. The benefits from alternative transmission systems are in-sufficient to justify their higher costs.10. The impact of transportation
'on the environment under normal or postulated-accident conditions will not be sufficient to justify the additional cost of alternatives.
9-21 11. The impact of markedly increased vehicular traffic on local roads at shift-change during VNP construction may be suffi-cient to warrant the construction of additional hard-surfaced roads that will lead to the site. The applicant should request the Georgia Highway Department to consider road improvements suggested by the Waynesboro City Council and the Burke County Board of Commissioners.
These included extension of Ga. 80 into Jackson, S.C. by constructing a bridge over the Savannah River and improvement of US 25 and Ga. 56 between Burke County and Augusta -at least to the extent of constructing a third lane on long up-grades to allow traffic to pass slow moving logging and construction trucks.
9-22 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 9 1. Georgia Power Company, Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant Environ-mental Report, vol. I, Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, 50-426, and 50-427, issued February 1973, and including Amendment No. 1, May 1973, Table 1.2-15a.2. Southeastern Electric Reliability Council, Coordinated Bulk Power Supply Program, 1973-82, Apr. 1, 1973.3. A. L. Hammond, "Energy Needs: Projected Demands and How to Reduce Them," Science 178: 1186-1188 (1972).4. Federal Power Commission, The 1970 National Power Survey, Part II, p. 11-3-47.5. Elect. World 179(4): 39 (1973).6. Office of Emergency Preparedness, "Potential for Energy Conservation:
Substitution for Scarce Fuels," January 1973.7. Federal Power Commission, Docket No. RP 72-74, Dec. 26, 1971.8. Federal Power Commission, Hydroelectric Power Resources of the United States, Developed and Undeveloped, January 1, 1972, Table 4, p. 75 & 76.9. Department of the Interior, Classification of Public Lands for Geothermal Steam and Associated Geothermal Sources, Geological Survey Circular 647, 1971.10. G. A. Waring, Thermal Springs of the United States and Other Countries of the World -a Summary, Geological Survey Profes-sional Paper 492, Department of the Interior, 1965.11. A. L. Hammond, "Geothermal Energy: An Emerging Major Resource," Science 177: 978-980 (1972).12. Industrial Water Sites in Georgia, Industrial Development Department, Georgia Power Company, Atlanta, Georgia.13. S. H. Schurr, Ed., "Energy, Economic Growth, and the Environ-ment," The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md., 1972, p. 158.14. Environmental Protection Division, Department of Natural Resources, State of Georgia, Water Quality Standards, Chap.730-3, September 1972.
9-23 15. L. H. Motz and B. A. Benedict, Heated Surface Jet Discharged into a Flowing Ambient Strean, prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. 16130 FDQ 03/71, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., March 1971.16. E. A. Hirst, Analysis of Round Turbulent Buoyant Jets Dis-charged to Flowing Stratified Ambients, ORNL-4685, June 1971.17. The Transmission of Electric Power, report to the Federal Power Commission by the U.S. Federal Power Commission Tech-nical Advisory Committee on Transmission, February 1971, p. 115.18. W. D. Metz, "New Means of Transmitting Electricity:
A Three-way Race," Science 178: 968-970 (1972).19. R. F. Lawrence and J. H. Cronin, Proc. Amer. Power Conf. 34: 875-877 (1972).
: 10. CONCLUSIONS 10.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Unavoidable environmental impacts are listed in Table 10.1. The following paragraphs describe the consequential unavoidable adverse environmental effects that the staff judges to be the most impor-tant.10.1.1 Abiotic impacts 10.1.1.1 Effluents to natural surface water body The expected consumption rate of Savannah River water will not have a significant adverse environmental effect. The water quality is not expected to be significantly adversely affected by thermal, chemical, or radiological effluents.
Construction of the intake and discharge structures and of the barge slip will temporarily increase the turbidity.
No loss of commercial use of the river is expected.
Recreational use will be affected (adversely to some users) because of the added view of the plant.10.1.1.2 Effects on groundwater The groundwater level of the shallow water-table aquifer in the vicinity of the construction will be lowered during the construc-tion period; no one is known to use this aquifer. The effect on the groundwater level during operation will benegligible, both for the shallow water-table aquiier and for the Tuscaloosa aquifer.The groundwater quality will be unaffected.
10.1.1.3 Effluents to the air The chemical, radioactive, thermal, and dust emissions into the air will not significantly affect air quality..10.1.1.4 Effects on land The 3,177-acre site will be unavailable for other economic uses, but 2,142 acres will be undisturbed; 1,011 acres will suffer adverse environmental effects (24 acres were used for the combustion tur-bine plant). Significant erosion may occur during construction wiless adequate guidelines are followed.
After construction, 247 acres that were disturbed will be revegetated.
The 12,660 acres of 10-1 10-2 Table 10.1. Unavoidable envionmental impacts Description or effect Unit Magnitude Section I. Natural surface water body 1.1 Impingemcnt or entrapment by cooling-water-intake structure 1.1.1 Fish (loss)1.2 Passage through or retention in cooling systems 1.2.1 Phytoplankton and zooplankton (resulting fish loss)1.2.2 Fish (loss)1.3 Discharge arda and thermal plume 1.3.1 Water quality, excess heat (volume heated 5 Fr)1.3.2 Water quality, oxygen availability (volume with <5 ppm 02)1.3.3 Aquatic biota (resulting fish loss)1.3.4 Wildlife.
including birds, aquatic and amphibious mammals and reptiles (area of habitat consumed)1.3.5 Fish, migration (resulting fish loss)1.4 Chemical effluents 1.4.1 Water quality, chemical (volume within mixing zone)1.4.2 Aquatic organisms (fish loss)1,4.3 Wildlife, including birds, aquatic and amphibious mammals and reptiles (area of habitat consumed)1.4.4 People (loss of recreational use when water quality is below water-quality standards)
 
===1.5 Radionuclides===
 
discharged to water body 1.5.1 Aquatic plants (dose)1.5.2 Fish (dose)1.5.3 Animals which feed on aquatic plants (dose)1.5.4 People, external (dose to individual)(dose to population) 1.5.5 People, ingestion (dose to individual)(dose to population)
 
===1.6 Consumptive===
 
use (evaporative losses)1.6.1 People (loss of potable water)1.6.2 Property (loss of water for agriculture)
 
===1.7 Plant===
construction (including site preparation)
 
====1.7.1 Water====
quality, physical (volume to dilute to water-quality-standard concentrations)(area of water contaminated) lb/yr lb/yr lb/yr ft 3 Small 5.5.2.1 Negligible 5.5.2.2 Small 4,300 5.5.2.2 3.4.3.2 5.S.2.3 acre-ft 0 lb/yr Negligible 5.5.2.4 ft 2 8g0 3.3.2.2 Ib/yr Negligible 5.5.2.4 ft 3 4.300 3.4.3.2 lb/yr ft 2 Negligible 5.5.2.3 800 3.3.2.2 user-days None rad/yr 1.4 X 10 tad/yr 7.6 X 10..4 rad/yr 1.6 X 10-2 radlyr 8.7 X 10-1 man-rem/yr Negligible rad/yr 3.8 X 10'man-remlyr 1.04 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 gal/yr 2.5 X 10t&deg; 3.4 acre-ft/yr 7.7 X 104 3.4 acre-ft Small 4.3.2 acres Small 4.3.2 10-3 Table 10.1 (continued)
Description of effect Unit Magnitude Section 1.7.2 Water quality, chemical (volume that may exceed water-quality-standard concentrations) 1.7.3 River-bottom siltation (area covered by I in. of sediment)2. Groundwater
 
===2.1 Raising===
and lowering of groundwater levels 2.1.1 People (loss of potable water)2.1.2 Plants (land area affected)2.2 Chemical contamination of groundwater (excluding salt)2.2.1 People (loss of potable water)2.2.2 Plants (land area affected)2.3 Radionuclide contamination of groundwater
 
====2.3.1 People====
(dose to individual)(dose to population)
 
====2.3.2 Plants====
and animals (dose)3. Air 3.1 Fogging and icing (caused by evaporation and drift)3.1.1 Ground transportation (increased time of fogging)3.1.2 Air transportation (increacsed time of airport closing)3.1.3 Water transportation (increased time of reduced river-traffic speed)3.1.4 Plants (area damaged)3.2 Chemical discharge to ambient air 3.2.1 Air quality, chemical (emission ratei 3.2.2 Air quality, odor (perceptable or not)3.3 Radionuclides discharged to ambient air and direct radiation from radioactive materials 3.3.1 People, external, total body (dose to individual at site boundary)(dose to population) 3.3.2 People, ingestion (dose to individual, thyroid)tdose to population)
 
====3.3.3 Plants====
and animals Idose. av. on site)4. Land 4.1 Site selection 4.1.1 Land,amount (area preempted)
 
===4.2 Construction===
 
activities (including site preparation) 4.2.1 People, amenities (number affected by audio, visual, or olfactory impact)(time affected )acre-ft Negligible 4.2 ft 2 164,000 4.3.2.3 gal/yr 0 acres 0 gal/yr 0 acres 0 rad/yr Negligible man-rem/yr Negligible rad/yr Negligible 5.2 4.2 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.4 3.4.4 3.4.4 3.4.4 3.4.4 hr/yr hr/yr hr/yr acres 0 0 0 0 tons/yr Negligible 3.7.2 (yes or no) No 3.7.2 rad/yr 2.1 X 10' 5.4 man-rCm/yr 14.7 5.4 rad/yr 5.3 X 10-2 5.4 man-rem/yr Negligible 5.4 rad/yr 3.0 X 10"3 5.3 acres 3.177 2.1 number Small years 9 4.4 3.9.1 10-4 Table 10.1 (continued)
Description of effect Unit Magnitude Section 4.2.2 People. accessibility of historical sites (visitation loss)4.2.3 People, accessibility of archaeological sites (accessibility lost or not lost)4.2.4 Wildlife (disturbance to animals)4.2.5 Land (volume erroded)(area erroded)4.3 Plant operation 4.3.1 People, amenities (number affected by audio. visul, or olfactory impact)4.3.2 People. aesthetics (effect)4.3.3 Wildlife (habitat lost)4.3.4 Land, flood control (effect)4.4 Salts discharged from cooling towers, drift 4.4.1 People (Salts added to potable water)4.4.2 Plants and animals (area affected beyoi'd tolerance)
 
====4.4.3 Property====
resources (damage to buildings, etc.)4.5 Transmission-route selection 4.5.1 Land, amount (length)(area)4.5.2 Land use and land value (length of sensitive route)(area of sensitive route)4.5.3 People, aesthetics (highway crossings)(waterway crossings)(ong views)4.6 Transmission-facilities construction 4.6.1 Land adjacent tp right-of-way (length of access roads)4.6.2 Land, erosion (volume eroded)(area eroded)4.6.3 Wildlife (effect)4.7 Transmission-line operation 4.7.1 Land use (% of land not in multiple use)4.7.2 Wildlife (effect)number 0 2.3.1 (yes or no) No 4.1.1 (yes or no)yd3lyr acres Yes 4.3.1 60,000 4.3.1 1,011 3.1 number Small 5.6 (yes or no) Yes (small) 5.6 acres 764 5.1.1 (yes or no) No 2.5.1 lb/ft 2/yr Negligible
 
====5.3.1 acres====
S/yr miles acres miles acres number number number miles yd 3 acres 0 5.5.1 Negligible 5.1.1 620 4.1 12.660 4.1 Not available Not available Many 9 Not available 0 Not available 12.660 4.1.2 4.1.2 3.8 4.1.2 4.1.2 5.5.1.2 4.1 4.1 (yes or no) Yes 4.3.1.2 70 5.1.2 (yes or no) Yes 5.1.1.2 10-5 transmission corridors will undergo changes; about 30% may be in multiple use. About two-thirds of the transmission-line-corridor area is wooded, and the timber will be cut. This fraction represents about 0.03% of the State's total forested land. No loss of known historic or archaeological values will occur if provisions are made for archaeological salvage operations prior to construction.
Chemical and salt depositions from cooling-tower drift are expected to have less-than-measurable effects.10.1.2 Biotic impacts 10.1.2.1 Thermal effects Thermal discharges into the Savannah River are expected not to adversely affect fish migration or spawning.
Populations of fish and of other aquatic organisms are expected not to be affected adversely by the thermal plume. Mortality of small aquatic orga-nisms will occur due to their passage through the cooling-water system; however, this mortality is not expected to have a signifi-cant adverse effect on their populations or on organisms that feed on them.10.1.2.2 Chemical effects Municipal water supplies will not be affected adversely by chemical discharges.
Aquatic organisms that pass through the mixing zone will not be significantly affected adversely.
10.1.2.3 Erosion and siltation effects Deposition of sediment in Beaverdam Creek as a result of erosion during construction will probably be alleviated by adequate design and operation of retention basins. Sedimentation on the Savannah River bottom in the vicinity of the construction of the intake and discharge structures and barge slip will temporarily adversely affect this part of the river.10.1.2.4 Mechanical effects The cooling towers and transmission lines are expected not to result in significant mortality in populations of migrating birds.Impingement is expected not to occur to the extent that a signifi-cant adverse effect on the aquatic biological community will result.
10-6 10.1.2.5 Radiological effects Radiological impacts resulting from radioactive effluents from VNP, either on man or other natural organisms, are expected not to be significant.
10.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 10.2.1 Summary The purpose of this section is to set forth the relationship be-'tween the proposed use of man's environment implicit in the pro-posed construction and operation of the nuclear generating station and the actions that could bc taken to maintain and enhance the long-term productivity.
Special emphasis is placed on considering the tradeoffs of the values to be derived in the short term from the proposed use of the site with the possible values and the range of options of values that might be derived from the site in the future. The context of short-term is taken to be the periods of construction and operation; the context of long-term is the period beyond the operational period.The economic productivity of the site during plant operation (re-sulting from electrical generation) will be extremely large com-pared with possible agricultural productivity.
After plant operation, the productivity of the site will suffer from the un-availability of the area occupied by the permanently shut-down plant; the site productivity will be enhanced by the railroad spur and barge slip. The taxes to be paid to Burke County (which depend on the stability of the tax structure and tax rate) have the poten-tial of a large positive impact on local industry and economic productivity (Sect. 5.6).The plant construction and operation will consume natural resources that may tend to inhibit, in a national context, future productivity.
The staff believes that this cost to future generations will be offset by those products of the economic activity generated by the electricity made available by VNP which have long-lasting value or enhance future productivities.
10.2.2 Enhancement of productivity The Vogtle plant will be capable of producing 4,636 MWe of power, which is about 55% of the present power-producing capacity in Georgia (Sect. 8.1). This power is expected to accommodate a
10-7 demand in Georgia for increased industry and commerce; the appli-cant has predicted (ER, vol. II, pp. 11-A-5) that 31% of the power output will serve Georgia industry and 23% will serve Georgia commerce.
Since these percentages are similar to the present power distribution among customer classes (ER, vol. I, pp. 1.2-4), it follows, approximately, that the Vogtle-plant output will support an increase in industry and commerce equal to about half the present total industrial and commercial activity in Georgia. The Vogtle plant will help ensure the availability of power within the GPC service area, i.e., approximately within Georgia; hence, the direct support of industry and commerce will be a statewide effect.Locally, within Burke County, and depending on local choices and the stability of the tax structure, the ad valorem taxes payable to the county may result in increased local industrial activity (Sects. 4.4 and 5.6).About 764 acres of the site will be used for the VNP activities, 24 acres will be used for the combustion turbine plant, and the rest will be in ecological production.
An effect of VNP on national economic productivity will occur as a consequence of commerce, and its magnitude can be approximated as follows. The total electric consumption in the USA during 1971 was 1,613,935 GWhr (or 106 kWhr)1 and, as shown in Table 8.3, the relative consumption of electricity by industry, commerce, resi-dents, and others is about the same in the overall U.S.A. as it now is -and is predicted to be -in Georgia. The Vogtle plant, if it operated 80% of the time, will produce about 32,500 GWhr/year or about 2% of the 1971 national total. The staff assumes that expansion of economic activity will depend to some extent on the availability of electricity.
Therefore, the estimate is made that the energy produced by the Vogtle plant will enable an in-crease of the national economic activity by 2% of the 1971 total national economic activity.10.2.3 Uses adverse to productivity In this section the options for productive uses of the site, of the transmission-line corridors, and of nearby areas that are lost as a consequence.of the VNP plant construction and operation are considered.
10-8 10.2.3.1 Land usage The site has been used in recent years for agricultural production.
Of the site acreage, 379 acres were cultivated, and the remainder were growing trees; some 300 acres of trees were harvested shortly before the site was purchased by GPC (Sect. 2.2.2). The recom-mended agricultural use of the soil at the site is for growing grasses or trees (Sect. 2.2.2). About 788 acres (Table 2.1) of the site will be unavailable for other uses; the remaining 2,389 acres will be left to resume ecological production.
Effluents from plant operation are predicted to not affect agricultural production.
The 12,660 acres of transmission-line corridors (Sect. 3.8) will pass mostly over forested land (although most of the routes are still tentative).
Transmission-line-corridor usage precludes the growing of trees but not of grasses or cultivated crops. The staff estimates that, of the 12,660 acres, about 8,422 acres are now in tree production (Table 4.3). This acreage is about 0.03% of the State's total (Sect. 4.3.1.2).
The main effect on economically productive uses of the land is that the option to use these 8,422 acres for tree growing will be foreclosed.
The staff estimates that nearby road traffic will not be adversely affected by increased fogging. Neither will fogging affect river traffic.10.2.3.2 Water usage The liquid effluents from the plant to the Savannah River are ex-pected to have no effect on the economic uses of the river. The plant will not inhibit river traffic (indeed, the existence of the new barge slip might enhance traffic).
The present amount of barge traffic on the river is small, i.e., about 500 trips during 1969 (Table 2.1).Consumption of water will amount to 2.5 x 1010 gal/year.
No hydro-electric plants are located downstream of Vogtle, nor are any such plants planned. The water consumption is predicted not to affect possible barge traffic. The agricultural productivity
'of this area is not limited by water availability.
The staff believes that the water consumption will not affect economic productivity.
10-9 10..2.3.3 Decommissioning The applicant's general plan for decommissioning (Sect. 3.10) is consistent with the Commission's current regulations, which contem-plate detailed consideration of decommissioning near the end of a reactor's useful life. The licensee initiates such consideration by preparing a proposed decommissioning plan that is submitted to the AEC for review. The licensee will be required to comply with Commission's regulations then in effect, and decommissioning of the facility may not commence without authorization from the AEC.To date, experience with decommissioning of civilian~nuclear power reactors is limited to six facilities that have been shut down or dismantled:
Hallam Nuclear Power Facility, Carolina Virginia Tube Reactor (CVTR), Boiling Nuclear Superheater (BONUS) Power Station, Pathfinder Reactor, Piqua Reactor, and Elk River Reactor.Several alternative procedures exist which can be and have been used in the decommissioning of reactors:
(1) Remove the fuel (pos-sibly followed by decontamination procedures), seal and cap the pipes, and establish an exclusion area around the facility (example, Piqua Reactor decommissioning).
The applicant intends to follow this procedure (Sect. 3.10). (2) Follow the steps outlined in (1) and, in addition, remove the superstructure and encase in con-crete all radioactive portions that remain above ground (example, the Hallam decommissioning).
(3) Remove the fuel, all superstruc-ture, the reactor vessel, and all contaminated equipment and facil-ities and finally fill all cavities with clean rubble topped with earth to grade level. Procedure (3) is being applied in decommis-sioning the Elk River Reactor. Procedures (1) and (2) would require long-term surveillance of the reactor site. Alternative (3) would not require subsequent surveillance after a final check to ensure that all reactor-produced radioactivity had been removed. Possible effects of erosion or of flooding will be included in these consid-erations.Estimated costs of decommissioning at the lowest level are about$1 million plus an annual maintenance charge of the order of$100,000.2 Estimates vary from case to case, a large variation arising from differing assumptions as to the level of restoration.
For example, complete restoration, including regrading, has been estimated to cost $70 million.3 The applicant estimated a cost of about $30.8 million to decommission the Vogtle plant in accordance with the general plan proposed in Sect. 3.10 of the environmental 10-10 report. At present land values, consideration of an economic balance alone would likely not Justify a high level of restora-tion. However, the planning required of the applicant at this stage will ensure that variety of choice for restoration is maintained until the end of useful plant life.The degree of dismantlement would be determined by an economic and environmental study involving the value of the land and scrap value versus the complete demolition and removal of the complex. In any event, the operation will be controlled by the rules and regulations to protect the health and safety of the public which are in effect at the time.10.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Irre~versible commitments generally concern changes initiated by the proposed action which, at some later time, could not be altered so as to rcstore the present order of environmental resources.
Generally, irretrievable commitments are the use or consumption of resources that are neither renewable nor recoverable for subsequent use.Commitments inherent in environmental impacts are identified in this sectiuon, whereas the main discussions of the impacts are in sects. 4 and 5. Commitments that involve local long-term effects on productivity are discussed in Sect. 10.2.10.3.1 Commitments considered The types of resources of concern in this case can be identified as: (1) material resources (materials of construction, renewable resource material consumed in operation, and depletable resources consumed) and (2) nonmaterial resources, including a range of ben-eficial uses of the environment.
Resources which, generally, may be irreversibly commit 'ted by the operation are: (1) biological species destroyed in the vicinity;(2) construction materials that cannot be recovered and recycled with present technology; (3) materials that are rendered radioac-tive but cannot be decontaminated; (4) materials consumed or re-duced to unrecoverable forms of waste, including U-235 and U-238 consumed; (5) the atmosphere and water bodies used for disposal of heat and certain waste effluents, to the extent that other ben-eficial uses are curtailed; and (6) land areas rendered unfit for other uses.
10-11 10.3.2 *Biotic resources Construction of VNP will result in permanent habitat alteration that will cause the displacement and/or loss of biota in those areas. Permanent habitat alteration in the aquatic environment will result from the placement of the diffuser pipe on the river bottom. The altered habitat will amount to N800 ft 2.A loss of 764 acres of primary producers and the displacement and/or loss of consumers that would inhabit these communities will be a conse-quence of construction of the site. The staff concludes that the expected habitat alterations that will result from the construction and operation of VNP will not constitute a threat to the ecologicnl stability of the area.10.3.3 Material resources 10.3.3.1 Materials of construction Materials of construction are almost entirely of the depletable category of resources.
Concrete and steel constitute the bulk of these materials, but numerous other mineral resources are incor-porated in the physical plant. No commitments have been made re-garding whether these materials will be recycled when their present use terminates.
Some materials are of such value that economics clearly promotes recycling.
Plant operation will contaminate only a portion of the plant to such a degree that radioactive decontamination would be needed to reclaim and recycle the constituents.
Some parts of the plant will become radioactive by neutron activation.
Radiation shielding around the reactor and around other components inside the primary neutron shield constitute the major materials in this category, for which separation of the activation products from the base materials is not feasible.
Components that come in con-tact with reactor coolant or with radioactive wastes will sustain varying degrees of surface contamination, some of which could be removed if recycling is desired. The quantities of materials that could not be decontaminated for unlimited recycling probably repre-sent very small fractions of the resources available in kind and in broad use in industry.
Many materials on the List of Strategic and Critical Materials 4 (e.g., aluminum, antimony, asbestos, beryl-lium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, platinum, silver, tin, tungsten, and zinc) are used in nuclear plants. The required quantities of such materials have been discussed in other detailed statements.
5-7 10-12 Construction materials are generally expected to remain in use for the full life of the plant, in contrast to fuel and other replace-able components discussed later. A long period of time will lapse before terminal disposition must be decided. At that time, quar.-tities of materials in the categories of precious metals, strategic and critical materials, or resources having small natural reserves must be considered individually, and plans to recover and recycle as much of these valuable depletable resources as is practicable will depend on need.10.3.3.2 Replaceable components and consumable materials Uranium is the principal natural resource irretrievably consumed in plant operation.
Other materials consumed, for practical pur-poses, are fuel-cladding materials, reactor-control elements, other replaceable reactor-core components, chemicals used in processes such as water treatment and ion-exchanger regeneration, ion-exchange resins, and minor quantities of materials used in mainte-nantte and operation.
Except for the U-235 and U-238, the consumed resource materials have widespread usage; therefore, their use in the proposed operation must be reasonable with respect to needs in other i:xdustries.
*The major use of the natural isotopes of uranium is to produce useful energy.8 Estimated nuclear fissile-fuel resources far exceed the reserves of fossil fuels, which also are useful raw materials for other industries.
The estimates of energy resources and demands for the United States compiled by the Bureau of Mines show that the total recoverable resources, expressed as theoretically available equiv-alent energy, are 27 x 3101 joules (J) for all forms of fossil fuels, 62 x 1021 J for uranium, and 39 X 1021 J for thorium.9-1 1 These estimates consider only reasonably ensured reserves and addi-tional potential resources in conventional deposits recoverable at a ccst of $10 or less per pound Of U 3 0 8 or Th0 2.The contained quantities of uranium and thorium are 710,000 and 478,000 metric Lcns, respectively.
Inclusion of by-product uranium and of uranium reserves and resources recoverable at a cost of $10 to $15 per pound of U 3 0 8 increases the energy equivalent by 40 x 1021 J, that is, by 492,000 metric tons of uranium.The Vogtle Nuclear Plant will be fueled with uranium enriched in the isotope U-235. After use in the plant, the fuel elements will still contain U-235 in amounts slightly above the natural fraction.This slightly enriched uranium, on separation from plutonium and from other radioactive materialf (separation is done in a chemical-reprocessing plant), is available for recycling through the gaseous 10-13 diffusion plant. Scrap material that contains valuable quantities of uranium is also recycled through appropriate steps in the fuel-production process. Fissionable plutonium recovered in the chem-ical reprocessing of spent fuel is valuable for fuel in power reactors.The quantities of ore that will have to be produced and processed and the volume of space that will be required for storage of wastes can be inferred from the Commission's report Environmental Survey of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. 12 The quantities that pertain to the Vogtle Nuclear Plant have been estimated by the staff (Table 10.2).In the long term, the stock of depleted uranium may be used as feed material in breeder-reactor fuel cycles. In consideration of the reserves of all depletable fuels, uranium consumption in the pro-posed operation is a reasonable productive use of this resource.Table 10.2. Estimated resources required to support the Vogtle Nuclear Plant (rour units) ror 40 years at 80% capacity Resource Amount Uranium mined, metric tons 23,200 Separative work for 3.2% enrichment and 0.2% tails assay. SWUa 22.5 x 1fl 6 New fuel input to reactors (contained uranium), metric tons 4.850 Consumption (burnup and unrecoverable process losses), metric tons U-235 120 U-238 340 Recovered material Fissionable plutonium, metric tons 30 Process waste and scrap, m3 High-specific-activity 270 to 550 Low-specific-activity 3.400 Uranium in enrichment plant tails. metric tons 22,71 aKilogram separative work units, computed in accordance with estabi.uranium enrichment criteria.Source: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, AEC Gaseous Diffusion Plant Operations, Report ORO-684. January 1972; and U.S. Atomic Energy Commis-sicn. "Uranium Enrichment Services Criteria," Fed. Regist. 31: 16479 (1966);as amended in Fed. Regist. 35: 13546 (1970) and in Fed Regist. 36: 4562 (1971).Other significant depletable resource materials used in fuel and reactor controls have been estimated by the staff (Table 10.3) and could not be recycled.
10-14 10.3.3.3 Water and air resources The expected releases of chemicals and radioactive materials and their consequences are discussed in Sects. 3 and 5. In plant oper-ation, both air and water resources must be used to bear these discharges.
Therefore, these resources are committed for this pur-pose. (Appropriate discussion of implication on water as a resource to be added.) No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of air are made.Table 10.3. Irretrievable materials contained in fuel and control rods expended in the Vogtle Nuclear Plant (rour units) in 40 years Material Weight Cadmium 2.700 kg Indium 8.200 kg Silver 44 metric tons Tin (in fuel cladding) 16 metric tons Zirconium 1.100 metric tons 10.3.3.4 Land resources Land areas required for the power generation, transmission, and transportation facilities total about 16,000 acres. Except for areas occupied by large power-plant structures, which 'will be sit-uated on about 310 acres of the site, this land could easily be converted to other uses when the presently proposed use terminates.
The small area occupied by power-plant structures could also be cleared if future usage of these particular land areds were to jistify the cost. Under these circumstances, the temporary commit-ment of -he required land areas is reasonable.
10.4 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 10.4.1 Benefit description of the proposed facility Benefits that are anticipated to accrue from the construction and operation of the plant are listed in Table 10.4. The only commer-cial (salable) product from VNP will be electric power. The staf.assumes that this base-load supplier will operate at full power (4,636 MWe) 80% of the time; hence, it will generate 3.25 x 1010 kWhr of electric energy per year. The applicant indicated that the 10-15 distribution of the electrical energy among customer types would be about the same for the Vogtle output (ER, vol. II, pp. 11-B-2)as for the output of the GPC system during 1972 (ER, vol. I, pp.1.2-4). The staff has used recent FPC values for this distribution (Table 8.3) to ensure that standard definitions of industrial, commercial, and residential uses were used (although the applicant's estimated distribution is similar).
On this basis, the energy dis-tribution indicated on Table 10.4 was calculated.
An estimated 44% (14.3 x 109 kWhr) of the total will go to industrial uses, 22%(7.2 x 109 kWhr) to commercial uses, 29% (9.4 x 109 kWhr) to resi-dential uses, and 5% (1.6 x 109 kWhr) to other uses.Table 10.4. Benefits from the proposed facility Direct benefits Electrical generation Average annual electrical generation, kwhr 3.25 x 1010 Proportional distribution of electrical energy. %Industrial 44 Commercial 22 Residential 29 Other 5 Annual revenue from electricity (to GPC), S 481.000,000 Other products None Indirect benefits Research Environmental-monitoring program Employment Construction.
man-years
!5.700 Operation, number of employees ISO Education a Environmental benefits 2.389 acres returned to ecological production Capital improvements with possible multiple uses Railroad spur, barge slip Regio. Al (Georgia) economic activity Industrial and commercial activity equal to about half of present total in Georgia aThe construction may involve training of some craftsmen via apprentice pro-grams.The annual dollar value of the electric energy is also a measure of the benefit; the applicant predicted (ER, vol. II, pp. 8.3-1a) -and the staff agrees -that the cost of power from this plant would be about 14.8 mills per kWhr, which indicates a total revenue from the annual electric production of 3.25 x 1010 kWhr of $481 million.
10-16 The major direct effect of the availability of this electrical energy is expected to be increased industrial and commercial ac-tivity and increases in residential amenities in Georgia. The staff estimated (Sect. 10.2.2) that the increase in economic ac-tivity which VNP (along with predicted demands for such activity as described in Sect. 8) will make possible will be equal to about half the present total economic activity in Georgia. The staff assumes that this expected increase in economic activity and the electric power that precedes it will be a benefit because a demand for it exists.In addition to the directly and indirectly beneficial electric power, the plant will also result in an environmental-monitoring program (Sect. 6) that will add to the knowledge about this region and, hence, will have research value that may help future genera-tions to make better decisions regarding their use of the environ-ment. The plant will employ some local people; a total of 15,700 man-years of labor are expected to be used during construction (Sect. 4.4), and 150 people will be employed during operation (Sect.5.6). Some Educational value may be derived from apprentice pro-grams during construction; this value was not quantified.
Much of the site (2,389 acres) will be excluded from intense agri-culture and hunting; this acreage will return to natural ecological production, that is, natural processes will be allowed to occur unencumbered.
The plant construction includes a railroad spur to the site and a barge slip; these structures are not planned to be used except by GPC, but their existence makes other uses possible.10.4.2 Economic transfers associated with the proposed facility Estimates of the monetary transfers that will occur as a conse-quence of the construction and of the operation of VNP are shown on Table 10.5. These monetary transfers indicate approximately where and when the economic activities will be generated.
The site was purchased from 15 property owners (ER, vol. II, pp. 4.2-5a)for $950,000.13 The distribution of the construction costs according to where the money will be spent and according to whether the money will be spent for labor or for other purposes is shown in Table 10.5. The values shown were estimated from the relative distribution of cap-ital costs of construction given by the applicant (ER, vol. II, pp. 4.2-3) and from the staff's estimate of the local labor costs of $250 million (Sect. 4.4). The taxes during construction (1972-1982) were estimated by the applicant (ER, vol. II, pp. 4.2-2); a small portion of the estimated
$17 million in ad valorem taxes 10-17 Table 10.5. Economic transfers associated with the proposed facility Land acquisition (millions of dollars)Payments to land owners for site 0.95 Construction Materials, equipment, Labor Taxes Totals and subcontracts (millions of dollars)Central Savannah River area 294 250 544 (except taxes)Taxes to Burke County 17 17 Georgia (except CSRA) 113 0 113 U.S.A. (except Geo. gia) 1,460 62 1,522 Totals 1,867 312 17 2.196 Operation (millions of dollars per year)Local payroll 1.5 Other operating, m3intenance, and nticlear-insurance costs 24.5 Fuel cost 103 Taxes, county 3.3 T.xes, State 0.2 Otiher fixed charges treturn on investment and depreciation) 348.5 Total 481 Decommissioning (millions of dollars)Costs of decontamination, survey3, etc. (mostly labor) 30.8 After decommissioning (millions of dollars per year)Cost of security force 0.2 10-18 would go to the State of Georgia, but most of it would be received by Burke County.During plant operation, a total annual cost of $481 million was estimated; this estimate corresponds to the total estimated electric energy production (Table 10.4) and the applicant's estimate of the cost of production of 14.E mills/kWhr (ER, Vol. II, pp. 8.3-la).The breakdown into operating, maintenance, nuclear insurance, and fuel costs and fixed charges was estivated by the applicant (ER, Vol. II, pp. 8.3-la). The staff assumed that the local payroll (Sect. 5.6) will be part of operating and of maintenance and nuclear-insurance costs and that the taxes would be part of fixed charges.In summary, the land acquisition involved a transfer of $950,000 from GPC to the prior owners of the site. During construction, a large amount of capital ($2.196 billion) will buy $250 million worth of local labor and $294 million worth of local materials, equipment, and subcontracting effort. It will but $1,460 million worth of materials, etc. outside of Georgia but all within the U.S.A. Taxes are a small part of the total of economic transfers.
During operation, the people of Georgia will pay about $481 million/year for electric power from VNP. Most of this money will go to pro-vide return on the capital invested and depreciation.
Again, taxes (ad valcrem) are estimated to be a small part of the total of economic transfer.After operation, $30.8 million would be spent (ER, Vol. II, pp. 9.1-4), largely for labor, to decommission the plant; thereafter, $200,000/year would but a security force for.permanent surveillance of the plant. The relationships of these economic transfers to the benefit-cost balance is considered in Sect. 10.4.4.10.4.3 Cost description of the proposed facility The anticipated environmental costs of construction and normal opera-tion of VNP were developed in detail in Sects. 4 and 5 and are sum-marized in Sect. 10.1. Possible environmental costs from accidents were considered in Sect. 7.Possible effects on the tavironment which could result in costs in terms of human health have been considered in detail, particularly those due to radiological dose. The staff believes that the magni-tude of effects on human health (including immediate effects, like discomfort; longer-term effects, like life shortening; or very-long-term effects, like genetic damage) will be insignificant.
The occu-pational radiation exposure to all onsite personnel will be approxi-mately 1600 to 2000 man-rem per year for the four VNP units; the risks associated with this radiation exposure is no greater than those risks normally accepted by workers in other present day industries.
10-19 Possible effects on the vitality of biotI other than humans have also been considered.
Measurable effects are expected, as summa-rized in Sect. 10.1. The major effects at the site during construc-tion are erosion and loss of vegetation.
Effects during operation are expected to be insignificant.
The effects of the decommissioned plant will depend on the final decommissioning plan.Possible effects on the well-being of people, other than those effects that pertain to the physical health of people, were also considered (Sects. 4.4, 5.6, and 9.3). The staff recognizes the inherent difficulty of summarizing these effects because they inevitably pertain differently to each individual depending on where, when, and how he lives. The acquisition of the site dis-placed four families and agricultural activity associated with 379 cultivated acres and with about 632 acres of timber (Sects.2.2.2 and 4.1). The construction will probably cause some local inconveniences related to commuter traffic to and from the site and possibly from increased use of local (Waynesboro) municipal services.
Overloading of services is not expected.The operation of the plant is expected to result in increased eco-nomic activity within the power-distribution are. (i.e., Georgia).The staff assumes that, since a demand for power (Sect. 8) exists, much of the population of Georgia will consider increased economic activity to be a benefit. Furthermore, the increases in economic activity will tend to occur in those areas where the people demand it. There will probably be individuals, however, for whom the inferred trainsition from lower to higher population densities and from agricultural employment to industrial or commercial employment will result in a net cost.The long-term local cost will be the loss of a part of the site which is planned not to be available for any productive use. The decommissioned plant will, according to plan, be guarded to ensure public safety at an estimated annual cost of $200,000.
Presumably, this cost will be incorporated into GPC's price of electricity; hence it will be borne by the State of Georgia. Nationally, a cost will have to accrue to the future as a consequence of the national resources that will have been consumed; this cost is described in Sect. 10.3.A summary of the significant costs, showing where and when the costs will occur, is given in Table 10.6.
10-20 Table 10.6 General Costs of the Proposed Facility Where When Construction and Operation Post site acquisition operation The Site Four families moved, 764 acres About 310 1,011 acres out of out of agri- acres out agricultural pro- gricultural of pro-duction, errosion, production duction and loss of vegetation Burke County Increased load Transition to on municipal more-urban services living Georgia Highway con- Transition to $200,000/struction and more-urban year to maintenance living maintain site U.S.A. Natural resources National consumed resources consumed 10.4.4 Summary of benefit-cost balance Associated with VNP will be several benefits (summarized in Sect.10.4.1), several costs (summarized in Sect. 10.4.3), and several economic (dollar) transfers (summarized in Sect. 10.4.2). Overall, the major benefit is the electric power; the power will allow eco-nomic growth in Georgia during the 30-year period of plant opera-tion, and this economic growth is in demand. The costs are more diffuse; they are borne unequally by people according to when, where, and how they live. Particularly with such a large project as VNP, some individuals may possibly suffer considerable uncompen-sated costs, even though the total benefits may greatly exceed the total costs. The staff, therefore, has considered the distribution of costs and of the minor as well as the major benefits in order to disclose possible occurrences of gross and uncompensated costs.
10-21 The acquisition of the site required the purchase of land from 15 owners and the moving of four families.
Two of the relocated familes were also among the owners.The construction will cause some inconveniences to the people of Burke County because of increased commuter traffic and use of municipal facilities; this cost will be compensated to some extent by increased ad valorem taxes.The construction will also cause some damage to life on the land at the site and in the river adjoining the site because of unavoid-able erosion and siltation.
The staff believes that this damage will not be permanent, that the ecological process will heal the scars nf construction, and that the ecological production during plant operation on the large unused part of the site will compen-sate for this cost.The operation of the plant is expected to result in increased eco-nomic growth in Georgia, which will be accompanied by pains of transition to urban and industrial life. The staff assumes that these costs of transition will be compensated through social pro-grams. Ecological costs of plant operation are expected to be insignificant.
In summary, the staff believes that the benefits from the Vogt]e plant will outweigh the costs and, furthermore, that the distribu-tion of costs and benefits do not place unreasonable costs on any segment of the population.
10-22 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 10 1. Newspaper Enterprises Associates, The 1973 World Almanac, 230 Park Ave., New York, N.Y., pp. 490.2. Atomic Energy Clearing House, Congressional Information Bureau, Inc., Washington, D.C., vol. 17, No. 6, p..42; vol. 17, No.10, p. 4; vol. 17, No. 18, p. 7; vol. 16, No. 35, p. 12.3. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Supplement No. 2 to the Environmental Report, Units 1 and 2, Diablo Canyon Site, July 28, 1972.4. G. A. Lincoln, "List of Strategic and Critical Materials," Office of Emergency Preparedness; Fed. Regist. 37(39), 4123 (1972).5. U.S. Atomic Energy ;ommission, Draft &nvironmentaZ Statement on Newbold IsZand Nwulear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-354 and 50-355, December 1972, Sect. 10.6. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Draft EnvironmentaZ Statement Related to Continued Construction and Proposed Issuance of an Operating License for Diablo Canyon Units I and 2, Docket Nos.50-275 and 50-323, December 1972, Sect. 10.7. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Draft Environmental Statement Related to the Proposed Construction of the Limerick Station Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, December 1972, Sect. 8.3.8. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Mineral Facts and Problems, 1970 ed., p. 230.9. Ibid., pp. 14-19.10. United States Atomic Energy Commission, Statistical Data of the Uranium Industry --January 1, 1972, Grand Junction Office, Grand Junction, Colo., Report GJO-100.11. R. L. Faulkner, "Outlook for Uranium Production to Meet Future Nuclear Fuel Needs in the United States," Fourth United Na-tions International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Geneva, Switzerland, September 6-16, 1971, paper A/Conf.49/P/059.
10-23 12. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Fuels and Materials, Direc-torate of Licensing, Environmental Survey of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, November 1972.13. Quarterly Progress Report on Status of Reactor Construction, Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant Unit No. 1, Report to the U.S.Atomic Energy Commission, Jan. 15, 1973.
11-1 11. DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Pursuant to paragraphs A.6 and D.1 of Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50, the Draft Environmental Statement was transmitted, with a request for comment, to: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Department of Health, Education ar-i Welfare Departmedt of Housing and Urban Development Department of Interior Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency Federal Power Commission National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution Governor, State of Georgia Governor, State of South Carolina State Clearinghouse, State of Georgia State Clearinghouse, State of South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, State of Georgia Georgia Historical Commission Georgia Public Service Commission Georgia Water Quality Control Board Governor's Science Advisory Council, State of Georgia Water Resources Commission, State of South Carolina Central Savannah River Area Regional Planning and Development Commission Burke County Board of Commissioners Waynesboro City Council Augusta Ar 'chaeology Society Augusta Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Georgia Power Project Richard C. Palmer Victor Sharapa In addition, the AEC solicited comments on the Draft Environmental Statement from interested persons by a notice published in the Federal Register on August 6, 1973 (38 FR 21201). Comments on the Draft Statement were received from the following agencies and organizations and have been considered in the preparation of this Final Environmental Statement:
I 11-2 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Health, Education and Welfare Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency Federal Power Commission National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution State Clearinghouse, State of South Carolina Georgia Public Service Commission Governors Science Advisory Council, State of Georgia South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control South Carolina Water Resources Commission Central Savannah River Area Regional Planning and Development Commission Lower Savannah Regional Planning and Development Council Beaufort -Jasper County Water Authority Augusta Archaeological Society Georgia Department of Natural Resources Georgia Department of Transportation Our consideration of these comments is reflected principally by the following discussion and in part by revised text. The full texts of the comments received are given in Appendix L.
11-3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 11.1 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION (ACHP)11.1.1 Include Comments of Director, Georgia Historical Commission (L-1)ACHP suggested that the comments of Ms Mary G. Jewett, Director, Georgia Historical Commission be included in the environmental statement.
The staff met with Ms Jewett on Wednesday morning, March 21, 1973 to solicit comments from the Commission prior to issuance of the DES. The Commission's comments on the Draft Environmental Statement were solicited through the Georgia State Clearinghouse.
No specific comments on the Vogtle Nuclear Plant were received from the Historical Commission.
11.2 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (AGR)11.2.1 Transmission Line Acreage (L-3)The Soil Conservation Service commented that the acreage listed in Table 4.1 of the DES for transmission lines did not completely agree with the data in Table 5.4-1 of the Environmental Report.As indicated in the footnote to Table 4.1, the data therein was obtained from the applicant's Environmental Report (Table 5.4-1) and the staff's evaluation.
The staff considered that for the 500-kv VNP-Goshen lines 1 and 2, the amount of land required by two lines of this type (a 275-ft right-of-way) should be assigned to VNP's transmission line requirements.
The applicant, in Table 5.4-1 of his report, had assigned to these lines only the land to be acquired in addition to the current right-of-way, which is 275 ft for the existing 230-kv line. Normally, a 230-kv line requires a right-of-way of only about 112.5 ft. Thus, the staff's estimated right-of-way requirement for two 500-kv lines, 275 ft, repre-sents the extra land in the current right-of-way (162.5 ft) plus the additional land to be acquired by the applicant (112.5 ft) as indicated in his Environmental Report.11.2.2 Estimating Seasonal Runoff Yield (L-3)The paragraph on estimation of runoff in the DES was deleted as recommended by the Soil Conservation Service.
11-4 11.2.3 Decommissioning (L-4)The staff does not concur with the comments of the Forest Service on decommissioning of the Vogtle Plant. The Commission's current policy on decommissioning was explained in Section 10.2.3.3 of the DES. A number of possible alternatives were discussed; other alternatives include construction of a replacement facility on the same site, utilizing the auxiliary buildings with an advanced reactor design, etc.If the Vogtle Plant should be decommissioned, it is very probable that a new generating souce of comparable size or larger would be required in the near vicinity.
Thus, it is reasonable to assume that a major portion of the transmission lines constructed for the Vogtle Plant would be utilized to the greatest possible extent for its replacement source. Even without a major generating source, a substantial number of miles of this transmission will be required to maintain the reliability of the transmission network and bulk power supply to the Augusta load area.11.2.4 Effect on Wildlife (L-4)As discussed in Section 6.1.2.1, the Soil Conservation Service made a soil survey of the site and prepared a soil and water conservation plan to control erosion and to provide food and a suitable environment for wildlife.
Under the plan, wildlife on the site should increase after construction is completed compared with the wildlife on the property before it was acquired by the applicant.
U. 3 DEPARTMENT OF COHMMERCE (COM)11.3.1 Combined Environmental Effects of Vogtle Plant and SRP (L-5)The Savannah River Plant withdraws a large volume of water from the Savannah River to cool the Production Reactors, for use in fossil-fueled steam power plants, to extract the D 2 0 in the Heavy Water Production Facilities and for other heat dissipation uses. SRP does not utilize cooling towers so there would not be any interaction with plumes from the Vogtle plant. Specific information on thermal enrich-ment of Par Pond or the streams draining the SRP site is classified, since this data could be related to production data. Most of the heat is dissipated in Par Pond, the receiving streams or the swamp on the SRP side of the river before the water enters the Savannah River.The SRP plant has been operating for two decades. The river water 11-5 temperatures reported in the Environmental Statement (Table 2.4) are downstream from SRP and thus take into account the thermal discharge to the river by SRP.11.3.2 Fogging (L-6)Commerce questioned whether the Vogtle plant plumes would create fogging conditions under frontal conditions.
The applicant's initial submittal was based on mechanical draft cooling towers. Because of the high natural fogging potential of the region, the applicant elected to install natural draft cooling towers at an increased cost over mechanical draft towers. (See subsection 8.5.4 of the Environmental Report.) As indicated in subsection 5.1.5 of the Environmental Report, no increased density or frequency of ground fog is expected to result from the natural draft cooling tower plumes.Under frontal conditions, the incremental increase in fogging in the area from cooling tower operation is expected to be insignificant.
11.3.3 Effect of Nocturnal Inversions (L-6)Commerce stated that it is conceivable that a nocturnal inversion could contribute to an early to midmorning fogging or pollution episode. The plumes from the 500' natural draft cooling towers, which are situated on the bluff overlooking the river, are expected to penetrate any inversion layer under nearly all expected meteor-ological conditions.
11.3.4 Upper Air Data (L-6)COM called attention to the upper air stations operated by the National Weather Service at Waycross, Ga., Atlanta, Ga., and Charleston, S.C.According to the applicant, the upper air readings are only taken twice daily at the referenced stations and are of limited value for estimating stability and air flow patterns of plumes from the cooling towers. Although more data would refine the calculations to some extent, the staff does not expect that the conclusions reached would be changed significantly.
11.3.5 Construction of Intake & Discharge Structure and Barge Slip (L-6)Commerce suggested leaving the river end of the barge slip plugged during e.cavation.
This will be done. By letter dated November 26, 1973, the applicant submitted Amendment No. 2 to their Environmental Report relocating the river water intake structure.
In the revised 11-6 design, there will be a 420 ft intake channel. As discussed in 11.3.6, there is sufficient data from drift samples and velocity measurements to conclude that entrainment with the revised design will not be any greater -and probably less -than estimated in the DES. In any case, entrainment losses are not expected to have an adverse effect on planktonic populations in the river or on the organisms that feed on them. However, there is not as yet sufficient data available to determine whether the revised design will significantly increase impingement losses. The applicant will be required to demonstrate to the staff's satisfaction that impingement losses with the revised design will not have a significant adverse effect on the adult popu-lation of resident and anadromous fish in the stretch of the Savannah River bordering the plant.The Savannah River Plant has two large pump houses upstream of the proposed Vogtle intake which withdraw considerably more water from the river than the Vogtle Plant will withdraw (see 11.3.1). Both pump houses have intake canals, one 1850 feet long and the other 1900 ft long. The average velocity in the canals and at the entrance to the river is 1.5 fps. There has been no significant accumulation of fish in the intake canals. The pump houses are equipped with traveling screens, fabricated with # 10 wire with 1/2" openings.The operators "very seldom" see any fish impinged on the screens and then only in the order of a few.Based on the observations and fish trapping studies conducted by the Savannah River Plant (including those conducted for SRP by the Acad-emy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and the University of Georgia), anadromous fish are apparently not attracted to SRP's intake channels during their upstream spawning runs. There were relatively few species of anadromous fish caught in the river and these were low in number. They concluded that anadromous fish do not constitute a major portion of the fauna.As indicated in subsection 4.4.1 of the Applicant's Environmental Report, the river intake structure and the barge unloading facility excavations will be performed inland of the river bank, maintaining a natural plug of native material at the river bank to minimize siltation and disturbance of the river bottom. After the struc-tures are completed, or very near completion, the river bank will be excavated between the structures and the river.The schedule for excavation at the river bank is as follows: intake structures, June 1977; outfall structure, June 1978; barge slip, November 1976. The schedule is flexible and is expected to be sub-ject to adjustment to accommodate the most favorable spawning periods of anadromous fish.
11-7 11.3.6 Entrainment (L-7)Since mid-1973, the applicant has been' collecting about 20 drift samples every 6 weeks in the Savannah River near the proposed intake canal. Five samples of 15 minutes duration each have been collected in each of four quadrats (quarter of the river width). The sampling technique used a net with one-meter diameter mouth and a 00 mesh bag suspanded'in the current approximately one foot off the bottom.No anadromous fish, eggs or larvae were collected during this period.However, invertebrates were collected and it is assumed that their distribution would be similar to that of eggs and larval fish forms.The current carries drift orgarnisms away from the Georgia side of the river (quadrat I) so that only 11% of the organisms which pass the intake site occur in quadrat I. The four quadrats are signifi-cantly different at the one foot level. At low flow conditions of 5800 cfs (guaranteed by the Corps of Engineers at Clark Hill Dam), 18% of the water in quadrat I will be entrained.
Since actual flow will exceed 5800 cfs, entrainment should be less than the estimated 18%. If a homogeneous distribution of organisms is assumed in quadrat I, 18%, x 11% or 2% of the total drift organisms will be entrained by Vogtle Nuclear Plant. 95% confidence intervals place an upper limit of 2.2% and a lower limit of 2.0% on these data.Although animal densities and water volumes will change seasonally, the proportion of organisms in each quadrat are expected to remain similar.The drift study now in progress will characterize the distribution patterns of anadromous fish, eggs, and larvae in the Savannah River near the Vogtle Plant.11.3.7 Radiological Environmental Monitoring (L-7)The post operational monitoring program will be covered in the Tech-nical Specifications for the Operating License.11.3.8 Aquatic Monitoring (L-8)The aquatic monitoring program has been expanded by the applicant and is in progress (see 11.3.5 above). The staff concurs with the Department of Commerce that data from two or more consecutive years are needed to estimate the annual variation in density of aquatic organisms.
11-8 11.3.9 Gaseous Releases (L-8)Although the application of average annual meteorological conditions to all releases is not always appropriate, overall it is considered quite conservative.
For example, the applicant has stated his inten-tion to hold-up gaseous wastes in large underground storage tanks.The staff only gave credit for 90 days holdup in our calculations and assumed what we judge to be conservative estimates of leakage.If the applicant chose to release the stored, decayed gaseous wastes, the release is under control of the plant operators and can be timed to coincide with favorable meteorological conditions over a period of several days. Releases of gaseous wastes will be covered by the Technical Specifications at the Licensing stage and will include limits on radioactivity release rates.11.3.10 Meteorology (L-8)In December 1973, the applicant submitted a year's on-site meteor-ology data, with a comparative analysis of data from the Savannah River Plant's tower across the river. The analysis indicated rea-sonable agreeement between the two locations.
11.4 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE (HEW)Social impacts of construction and possible economic letdown in Burke County after completion of-construction have been discussed in Sections 4.4 and 5.6 of the Environmental Statement.
11.5 DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (INT)11.5.1 Archaeological Survey .(L-14)In June 1973, an archaeological field survey of the Vogtle plant site was conducted under supervision of the Georgia State Archae-ologist. The survey was made in response to a request by the Georgia Power Company to the Georgia Historical Commission to deter-mine whether or not construction of the proposed plant would dis-turb any structure or site of historical or archaeological signifi-cance. The survey found numerous pieces of pottery and chert tools, weapons, flakes and chips on the river bluff that indicated the bluff area was occupied by hunting-gathering parties of Late Archaic/Early Woodland people. The field survey was supplemented by more extensive excavations in December 1973 in the vicinity of the pro-posed intake structure.
Funding of both surveys was supplied by the applicant.
The survey concluded that the artifacts found were not archaeologically significant and did not warrant salvage. The 11-9 field survey was reviewed f or the AEC by the Department-.of Anthro-pology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution who concurred in the approach and conclusions.
See als.o 11.9.1 and p. L-47.11.5.2 Potential Natural Landmarks
-(L-15)The seven potential natural landmarks listed by Interior have been called to the attention of the applicanr.
The applicant will sub-mit proposed right-of-way locations for transmission lines to the Georgia Historical Commission for determination of whether or not the right-of-way will disturb any structure or site of historical or archaeological significance.
See 4.5.1.-11.5.3 Cumulative Thermal Effects (L-15)See response to 11.3.1.11.5.4 Geology and Seismology (L-15)Interior commented that the description of the geology was not ade-quate to permit an independent assessment of the geologic environ-ment. The information in Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 on geology and seismology is not intended to b~e sufficient for an independent assessment of the adequacy of the facility design with respect to the geologic environment.
Such adequacy is determined by the AEC in the Safety Evaluation-Report of the proposed station. As noted in the comment, the Geological Survey, D.I., by agreement with the AEC, is assisting in the geologic and seismologic analysis of the applicant design. As a result of this review, the applicant has extensively supplemented the initial data in the PSAR by recent amendments.
The results of the staff's evaluation of these two areas will be presented in the Safety Evaluation Report. The Department's com-ments are being referenced in Section 2.4.1. The staff has used Geological Survey maps to evaluate runoff and erosion potential.
Potential erosion problems and proposed controls are discussed in Section 4.3 of the FES.11.5.5 Topographic Map (L-16)Interior commented that the DES should have included a topographic map of the general area. Topographic maps of the site are included in the applicant's Environmental Report (see Fig. 2.1-3, ER).
11-10 11.5.6 lydrology (L-17)Interior stated that there is a need to monitor stage in local deep wells. There is extensive discussion of the ground water hydrology in Subsection 2.4.13 of the applicant's Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) including the results of a survey of 280 wells within a ten-mile radius of the Vogtle Plant site and the results of piezo-metric observations of the confined ground water below the acquiclude.
These observations are being performed monthly.With regard to sealing the annulus of each of the eight on-site make-up wells where they penetrate the acquiclude, Subsection 2.4.13.1.3.2 of the PSAR contains the following statement: "A cement grout seal is placed in the annular space above a depth of 150 feet to prevent movement of water between the aquifers above and below the marl acquiclude." 11.5.7 Recreation Development (L-17)The applicant is unable to quantify the existing recreational uses of the Savannah River. There are public boat launching sites on the river located at river miles 151.8 (immediately upstream) and 143.7 (approximately 8 miles downstream).
Present recreational use con-sists of limited sport fishing.The applicant feels that recreational use of the undeveloped plant site area is not compatible with the use of this land as an exclu-sion area. As discussed in Section 6.1.2.1, the land will be seeded and planted to serve as a game refuge.11.5.8 Solid Radioactive Waste Disposal (L-18)The Department of Interior commented that projected solid wastes had not been adequately described and that the environmental statement should consider an evaluation of the solid radioactive waste dis-posal site.Most of the solid waste is absorbent paper, kraft paper, plastic sheeting, disposable rubber gloves and shoe covers, ventilation air*filters, tools, laboratory glassware, rubbish, scrap material, etc.Whenever maintenance work is performed on equipment in a regulated area, it is standard practice to put down plastic sheeting and absorbent or kraft paper to keep the floor from becoming contaminated and/or to prevent the spread of contamination.
A major maintenance operation, such as refueling, could fill dozens of drums depending on how often the paper and plastic are changed. However, it is 11-11 seldom that there is any measurable activity at the surface of these drums. This waste paper could be disposed of in properly designed incinerators (to prevent release of gaseous activity);
at present, it is apprently more economical to drum and ship the waste to an approved burial site.The sources of solid radioactive waste that constitute most of the activity are the solidifi..ed evaporate bottoms, spent ion exchange resins and filters. We have considei..'d that high level solid wastes will be stored on site an average of 180 days prior to shipment.
By the time these drums are shipped, the short-lived activity has mostly decayed, leaving the longer lived corrosion and fission product nuclides, principally Co-58, Co-60, Fe-55, Cr-51, Cs-134, Cs-137, Ru-103, Ru-106, Ce-141, Ce-144, Ba-La-140 and Zr-95. Based on our evaluation of similar type reactors and data from operating reactors, we estimate that approximately 5000 Ci/yr of higher activity solid wastes will be shipped from the site in drums or shipping casks.The concerns expressed in this comment are appropriately addressed in the AEC document "Environmental Survey of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle." As noted in that document, the environmental effects of the entire uranium fuel cycle with regard to an individual reactor are small.Further, the potential for any significant effect from the disposal of solid radioactive.wastes from a reactor is extremely limited due to (1) the small quantity of radioactivity contained in the wastes, and (2) the care taken in establishing and monitoring commercial land burial facilities.
Commercial land burial facilities must be located on land which is owned by a State or the Federal government, and after radioactive wastes are buried at a site the land must not be used for any other purpose. Authorization to operate a com-mercial land burial facility is based on an analysis of the nature and location of potentially affected facilities and of the site topographic, geographic, meteorological, and hydrological character-istics; which must demonstrate that buried radioactive waste will not migrate from the site. Environmental monitoring includes sampling of air, water and vegetation to determine migration, if any, of radioactive material from the actual location of burial.To date, there have been no reports of migration of radioactivity from commercial burial sites. In the event that migration were to occur, plans for arresting any detected migration have been developed.
On the basis of the general environmental considerations of burial sites now developed, the wide range of wastes that can be buried, and the observation that an applicant is not restricted to a speci-fic burial site, the staff believes that a detailed discussion of solid radioactive waste disposal sites is inappropriate to an environmental statement for any one nuclear power plant facility.
11-12 11.5.9 Construction of Intake & Discharge Structure and Barge Slip (L-19)See response to 11.3.4 11.5.10 Chemical Impacts (L-20)The applicant plans to use chlorine as an algaecide until such time as feasible alternatives are available.
The use of chlorine by the applicant will meet EPA and State of Georgia standards.
11.5.11 Postulated Plant Accidents (L-20)A comment was made by Interior and by EPA concerning the analyses of the probabilities of occurrence of the classes of accidents discussed in Section 7.1. The text of this section has been revised to respond to this concern."The doses calculated as consequences of the postulated accidents are based on airborne transport of radioactive materials resulting in'both a direct and an inhalation dose. Our evaluation of the accident doses assumes that the applicant's environmental monitoring program and appropriate additional monitoring (which could be initiated subse-quent to an incident detected by in-plant monitoring) would detect the presence of radioactivity in the environment in a timely manner such that remedial action could be taken if necessary to limit expo-sure from other potential pathways to man.""Radioactive liquid wastes in the Vogtle Nuclear Station are con-tained within Category I structures.
Failure of equipment within these structures would not lead to a release of radioactive liquid to the environment.
The quantity of low-level liquid radioactive materials outside Class I structures is very small and release of this material would not affect substantially the environmental impact determined for routine operation of the plant." 11.6 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)11.6.1 FAA Requirements (L-21)FAA commented that the applicant must submit appropriate notice to the FAA prior to construction of the cooling towers. The applicant has indicated that he is aware of the Federal Aviation Administration regulations, and applications for necessary permits for the cooling towers and transmission lines will be made as required.
11-13 11.7 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)11.7.1 Combined Thermal Effects of Vogtle Plant and SRP (L-23, L-27, L-34)See 11.3.1 11.7.2 Radiological Environmental Surveillance Program (L-23)EPA recommended that the applicant develop an environmental surveil-lance program that will identify the location of the critical path-ways and receptors.
The first real cow is used for evaluating as low as practicable and in deriving technical specifications.
The text of Sections 5.3 and 5.4 have been extensively revised to reflect changes made by the applicant in the plant design, the availabilit:y of a year's on-site meteorological data and recalculation of the radiological impact of the proposed plant. The calculated hypo-thetical dose to a child's thyroid, from consumption of milk pro-duced by the first real cow is only 3.8 mrem/yr.11.7.3 Critical Dose Pathways (L-26, L-29)EPA commented that the applicant should develop a program to identify the location of milk cows. Starting 2 years prior to initial opera-tion, a survey of the area within 5 miles of the Vogtle Plant will be conducted annually to determine the approximate numbers of milk cows, goats, and vegetable gardens and the location of the nearest potential pasture land. Data obtained from the surveys will be used to determine locations for obtaining samples for radiological analysis.T.c Savannah River Plant reservation will be surveyed by SRP and AEC.A preliminary survey of this nature was conducted in July, 1973. The results of this preliminary survey are given in the Environmental Report (Amendment 2), page 5.5-21.11.7.4 Generic Studies of Postulated Accident Classes (L-26, L-32)See response to 11.5.11.11.7.5 Iodine Partition Factor (L-28)EPA commented that the FES should indicate the basis for the iodine partition factors in table 3.3. The iodine partition factor given in table 3.3 includes the decontamination factor of 10 for the char-coal adsorbers in the containment purge stream. The iodine partition 11-14 factor actually used, therefore, is consistent with the value given in Vol. 2, WASH-1258, "Final Environmental Statement Concerning Proposed Rule Making Action: Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion "As Low as Practicable" for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents".
11.7.6 Dose Assessment (L-28)EPA commented that table 5.3 should be expanded to show the doses and their sources. As discussed in 11.7.2, above, the text of sections 5.3 and 5.4 have been revised. The calculated thyroid dose to an infant child ingesting milk produced by the nearest cow is only 3.8 mrem/yr. All calculated doses in sections 5.3 and 5.4 are based on the simultaneous operation of all four units of the Vogtle plant at 3579 MWt each.11.7.7 Regional Effect of Multiple Nuclear Facilities (L-29)EPA commented that the FES should provide a discussion of the sources of liquid radioactive waste from other nuclear facilities to the Savannah River. As discussed in Section 2.8.2, the staff evaluated the regional impact of nearby nuclear facilities.
The estimated impact of radioactivity releases from the Savannah River Plant (SRP), Oconee and the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant (BNFP) was based on data in References 31 through 36, Section 2. The estimated total poten-tial population doses (man-rem) to persons living within a 50 mile radius of SRP, BNFP and VNP in 1983 would be less than 0.2 percent of the exposure these same people would receive from natural back-ground radioactivity.
11.7.8 Baseline Radiological Monitoring (L-30)EPA commented that the FES should indicate the applicant's commit-ment to the preoperational monitoring program. A preoperational radiation monitoring program for the purpose of establishing baseline data will begin two years prior to start-up for those samples for which seasonal variations should be established (aquatic and ter-restrial vegetation and aquatic organisms) and one year prior to start-up for the remainder.
The program will be conducted as described in Table 5.5-10, page 5.5-25 of the applicant's Environ-mental Report.11.7.9 Meteorology (L-30)EPA commented that SRP meteorological tower should be shown located relative to the Vogtle site. The location of the Savannah River 11-15 meteorological tower is shown relative to the Vogtle Plant site on Figure 2.6-7 of the Environmental Report. Information on the sensor location is given in Table 2.6-2 of the Environmental Report. The period of record for the data used is March, 1966 through February, 1968.It is the staff's understanding, based on discussions with personnel from SRL and SROO, that only two years of complete data (delta-temperature, wind direction and wind velocity) from the Savannah River tower have been reduced and are readily available.
In December 1973, the applicant submitted a year's on-site meterology data with a comparative analysis of similar data from the Savannah River Plant's tower across the river. The analysis indicated reasonable agreement between the two locations.
The available data from the site and from the Savannah River Plant is considered ade-quate to predict dispersion with reasonable accuracy.11.7.10 Joint AEC-EPA-Industry Field Studies (L-30)EPA commented that based on the results of the joint AEC-EPA-Industry cooperative field studies, it is possible that the scope and extent of present environmental monitoring programs and requirements for costly iodine control equipment may be reduced in scope. The staff concurs with EPA's comments on the potential results of the cooper-ative test programs being conducted at operating reactor sites.11.7.11 Evaporative Water Losses (L-34)EPA commented that the rate of evaporation from the cooling towers used in the staff's analysis was excessive.
The estimate of the consumptive loss of water and make-up requirements were based on 90 percent heat rejection due to evaporation as a worst situation.
A lower evaporation rate is expected which will result in lower make-up rates than those rates estimated in the Draft Environmental Statement.
The make-up rate for the ccoling towers will be automatically con-trolled and will be dependent upon the actual losses due to evapor-ation, drift and blowdown.11.7.12 Entrainment (L-35)EPA commented that closed cycle operation would minimize impingement and entrainment.
Drift samples and velocity measurements taken in the Savannah River in the vicinity of the intake show that entrain-ment with the proposed make-up rates will not have an adverse effect on planktonic population in the river. See also response to 11.3.5 and 11.3.6.
11-16 11.7.13 Drift Losses (L-35)EPA commented that drift losses may have been over-estimated.
Amend-ment 2 to the applicant's Environmental Report gives the manufacturer's guaranteed and expected drift losses as 0.03% and 0.015% respectively.
These are considered to be state-of-the-art for the cooling towers as purchased for the Vogtle Plant. Even if these drift loss rates may be over-estimated, the effects from this drift are considered to be minimal, and any reduction in the estimated drift rates would not affect this evaluation.
11.7.14 Chemical Discharges (L-35)EPA commented on the treatment that may be required by July 1977 and July 1983. The effluents from VNP will meet present applicable state and Federal regulations.
The applicant has indicated that, due to uncertainty surrounding the proposed guidelines set forth in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, he believes it unnecessary to evaluate the closed-cycle waste treatment systems at this time. Except for chlorine, which can be controlled by other means, thermal and chemical effects from Vogtle effluents are negli-gible; the staff does not believe the additional cost of closed cycle operation would be warranted.
11.7.15 Steam Generator Blowdown (L-37)EPA suggested that the FES address under what conditions the steam generator blowdown would be released without treatment.
Unless there is a leak in one or more of the tubes in the steam generators, there should not be any activity in the boiler blowdown.
The boiler blow-down is relatively high purity water compared to the well water used for plant make-up; it might be economically worthwhile to recycle this through the make-up water treatment system to remove corrosion products and treatment chemicals.
On the other hand, there is no adverse effect in discharging the blowdown with the cooling tower blowdown as long as the activity is monitored and does not exceed prescribed levels. If the blowdown contains a significant level of activity, it will be processed through ion exchange untis and/or the Radwaste System as necessary to reduce the concentration of activity to acceptable levels. Table 3.4 assumed that treatment of the steam generator blowdown will be provided as required to meet limits which will be prescribed in the Technical Specifications.
11-17 11.7.16 Filtration of Off-gas From Condenser Air Ejectors (L-37)EPA commented that the FES should discuss moisture control of air entering the charcoal filters. The off-gas from the condenser will be diluted with turbine building air prior to entry into the charcoal absorbers so that the organic iodide removal efficiency will not be impaired (Ref. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report -Figure 9.4-5).It should be kept in mind that the Vogtle units are pressurized water reactors and the steam to the condensers will not contain activity unless there is leakage in the steam generators.
If there is signi-ficant leakage, it is likely that the applicant would plug the leaking tubes as soon as possible.
In any case, our evaluation assumed that the iodine from this source was all elemental iodine.This is a conservative assumption since elemental iodine is a more important contributor to the thyroid dose than is organic iodine.11.7.17 Commercial Catfish Catches (L-38)EPA commented on the location and catch data from commercial fishing in the river. The Savannah River commercial catfish fishery consists of trap effort below the Seaboard Coastal Railway bridge at Augusta and commercial trout-line effort (more than 50 hooks) anywhere on the river. No catch data is available other than Georgia Landings which are given only by districts with the Savannah River included in the northern district.
The aquatic monitoring program which the applicant is conducting will determine the population density of resident and anadromous fish in the river.Mr. Herb Moye, Chief of Licensing for the Game & Fish Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, has advised the applicant that there are no state records available that would reveal the number of commercial fishermen, or their fishing areas, that have utilized or are presently utilizing the Savannah River.11.7.18 Activity in Liquid Effluents (L-38)EPA commented on the rationale for normalizing liquid effluent acti-vity to 0.4 Ci/yr. In Table 3.4, the sum of the activity, exclusive of tritium, from each sub-source is approximately 0.2 Ci/yr. This value was normalized to 0.4 Ci/yr to compensate for equipment avail-ability and downtime as reported in the DES. The normalization was done as outlined in WASH-1258, Vol. 2 (Ref. 11.7.5).J 11-18 11.7.19 Noble Gases and 1-131 Discharges (L-39)EPA noted that there was a discrepancy between the text and Table 3.5. On page 3-29 of the draft statement, the quantities given for noble gases and 1-131 discharges did not agree with Table 3.5. The values in Table 3.5 are correct; the text on page 3-29 has been revised to correct the error.11.7.20 Laundry and Shower Wastes (L-39)Laundry and shower waste are considered in our evaluations.
Our evaluation for this plant indicates that laundry and shower waste will be a negligible so~urce of radioisotopic releases.
The text has been revised to explain the basis for the staff's evaluation.
11.7.21 Emergency Plans (L-52)Emergency plans are being evaluated as part of the health and safety review and will be discussed in the AEC's Safety Evaluation Report.11.7.22 Construction Techniques for Discharge Line and Diffuser (L-39)For the construction of the discharge lines at the outfall structure the amount of excavation at the river bank and river bottom is neg-ligible since only 100 feet of the discharge lines will be located on the river bed. Excavation for the discharge lines will be done using a hydraulic dredge and the material will be deposited in an inland disposal are~a. If required, the discharge lines will be anchored to the ri-,er bottom by use of either anchor blocks, anchor posts driven into the river bed, or some type of screw anchor.11.7.23 Trash Racks and Intake Screens (L-40)The Applicant has stated that logs and debris removed from the trash racks will be disposed of by acceptable methods, such as placing in an approved sanitary landfill.
The staff concurs with the EPA that material collected on the traveling screens will contain viable organisms and nutrient material such as leaves and should be~ returned to the river. The Applicant has stated the washings from th~e screens will be returned to the river. Continuous operation of the ttaveling screens is not contemplated, based on the experience with the Savannah River Plants' two large intake structures approximately 3 miles upstream.
11-19 11.7.24 Use of Sewage Plant Effluent (L-40)The average sewage treatment plant effluent flow is only approximately 5 gpm. When compared with the make-up requirements of about 76,000 gpm for the four natural draft cooling towers, the 5 gpm would not be a significant contribu:tion towards reducing make-up requirements from the Savannah River.For once-through cooling systems, recent fossil fuel plants discharge to the environment about 3,900 Btu/kwhr via the condenser cooling water discharge.
Approximately 6,600 Btu/kwhr is discharged in the same manner from light water reactors.
Thus, the cooling water require-ments of the fossil fuel plant are about 40 percent less than that of the nuclear plant; correspondingly, the nuclear plant requires abuut 70 percent more cooling water than a fossil plant of the same size.11.7.25 Burning of Construction Debris (L-40)EPA commented that any open burning should be in accordance with state regulations.
Subsection 4.3.2 of the Environmental Report states the following: "There may be some open burning of brush and trees during land clearing activities.
Any burning will be done in accordance with all state and local regulations, and all necessary permits will be acquired." In accordance with the Soil and Water Conservation Plan developed by the Soil Conservation Service for the Applicant, some brush from land clearing operations will be left in brush piles to provide cover for wildlife and for erosion control on slopes.11.8 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION (FPC)11.8.1 The Requirement for Power (L-42-46)FPC provided the analysis by the FPC staff of the "Need for Power".By footnote, the FPC comments have, in effect, been incorporated in Section 8.11.8.2 Hydroelectric Power (L-46)FPC commented that the staff should have used a more recent FPC publication to evaluate potential hydroelectric power resources.
Section 9.1.2.2 has been revised in accordance with the data in FPC's Hydroelectric Power Resources of the United States dated January 1, 1972.
11-20 11.9 SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION (SI)11.9.1 Archeological Field Survey of Site (L-47)In June 1973, the Georgia State Archeologist completed a field sur-vey of the Vogtle site to determine whether the artifacts evident on the site were significant enough to warrant salvage, prevention of construction or revision of the areas to be disturbed by con-struction.
The State Archeologist concluded that the artifacts found were not archeologically significant and did not warrant salvage. The staff requested the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution to review the report of the field survey and the comments and letters from the Augusta Archaeology Society. The professional staff at the Smithsonian endorsed the manner in which the field survey was con-ducted and the conclusions.
See also 11.5.1 and 11.14.11.10 GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 11.10.1 Balancing Benefits and Costs of Environmental Requirements (L-48)The staff concurs with the comments by the Georgia Public Service Commission.
Careful consideration has been given to all environ-mental monitoring proSrams to insure that they are necessary and reasonable.
11.10.2 Reducing Lead Times and Costs of Nuclear Plants (L-49)The Atomic Energy Commission shares the concern of the Georgia Public Service Commission over the lead time to bring nuclear power plants into service and, within the past year, has taken several actions to reduce the licensing review time. It now requires about 10 years to review and build nuclear power plants, of which two years have been attributed to the licensing process. In the past year, the AEC has reduced the licensing time to about 19 months. Under new procedures announced January 28, 1974, it is expected that site work will be authorized with 6 to 10 months after applications are accepted for review.The AEC has also been concerned over the higher capital costs of nuclear power plants compared to fossil fuel plants. The Commission has urged standardization and other measures to reduce costs as well as the time required for design, review and construction.
11-21 The Georgia Public Service Commission noted that long lead times, the higher capital costs for nuclear power plants and financing consider-ations are forcing utilities into substituting less desirable gener-ation methods. All of us share this concern and are trying to improve the areas over which we have control. The ability of util-ities to finance the most desirable generation methods is more directly related to State than to Federal governmental agencies.11.11 SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 11.11.1 Multiple Source Concept (L-52)The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control noted that there are currently three nuclear facilities in operation and discharging radioactive liquid waste to the Savannah River and that the cumulative effect of the Vogtle plant had to be considered.
This was discussed in Section 2.8.2 and in the response to 11.7.7.11.11.2 Tritium in Rivers (L-52)HEC commented on whether tritium releases would restrict use of the river as a drinking water supply by Beaufort and Jasper Counties.When all four units of the Vogtle Plant are operational, it is esti-mated that approximately 1400 curies per year of tritium will be discharged from the station. It was originally estimated that the three Oconee units, which are also pressurized water reactors, would discharge about 3000 curies per year of tritium. Based on the exper-ience to date at Oconee, the annual release of tritium from the station may be reduced to 500 curies per year. The first public use of the river for a public water supply is the Beaufort-Jasper County Water Authority intakes, 112 miles downstream.
As discussed in Section 2.8.2 and Section 5.4.1, the activity added to the Savannah River by Vogtle, SRP, Oconee and Allied-Gulf will not restrict the use of the river as a public drinking water supply by Beaufort-Jasper.
11.11.3 Monitoring of Outfall (L-52)HEC commented no radiation monitor was listed for the outfall struc-ture. All normal radioactive releases paths are monitored separately, which is more accurate than analyzing the diluted combined effluent.11.11.4 Monitoring of Nuclear Service Cooling System (L-52)HEC commented that no radiation monitor was listed for the nuclear service cooling water system. When the nuclear service water cooling system is in operation, it is at a higher pressure than the component 11-22 cooling water systems thus preventing contamination of the nuclear service water system. Monitoring requirements during operation will be covered in the Technical Specifications.
11.11.5 Emergency Plans (L-52)HEC commented that the accident evaluation was too general for emer-gency planning purposes.
Emergency plans are covered in the health and safety review and will be reported in the AEC's Safety Evaluation Report.11.11.6 Automatic Termination of Discharge (L-53)Section 3.5.1 was not clear as to how plant waste streams would be secured if a significant increase in radioactivity were detected.The text has been modified to correct this. The discharge from an ineividual system will be terminated upon a high radiation signal from that system rather than terminating the discharge from all systems.11.11.7 Diagram of Liquid Radwaste Systems (L-53)Figure 3.7 was misleading and has been revised. The figure was drawn as though the Vogtle Plant used once-through cooling whereas heat rejection is through natural draft cooling towers. The two indivi-dual release lines for Units 1, 2, and Units 3 and 4, are routed to the mixing chamber at the plant outfall where the effluent is mixed with cooling tower blowdown.
The liquid from the mixing chamber is released through the plant outfall line to the river.11.11.8 Laundry and Shower Wastes (L-53)Laundry and shower wastes were considered to be a negligible source.See response to 11.7.20.11.11.9 Description of Radwaste Systems The DES did not contain a detailed description of the radioactive liquid waste systems. In gener~l, detailed design data presented in the PSAR and ER are only summarized and not repeated in the DES and FES. What is presented is the staff's evaluation of the adequacy of the applicants design. For the radwaste systems, the staff's analysis is based on data from operating nuclear power plants. The bases for the principal parameters used in source term calculations are contained in the report, WASH-1258.
11-23 11.12 SOUTH CAROLINA WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION (SCWRC)11.12.1 Groundwater (L-54)In addition to the information in Section 2.5.2, there is extensive discussion of groundwater hydrology in the Applicant's Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, particularly subsection 2.4.13.1.3, which addresses these comments, including the results of a survey of 280 wells within a ten-mile radius of the Vogtle Plant site and the results of piezometric observations of the confined ground water below the acquiclude.
These observations are being performed monthly.The pumping tests at the site indicate that conservative values for the hydraulic characteristics of the Tuscaloosa aquifer underlying the plant site are a transmissibility of 150,000 gallons Eer day per foot of aquifer width and a storage coefficient of 4 x 10 4 (ratio).The pumping tests indicate a specific capacity greater than 55 gpm per foot of drawdown at a discharge rate of 1800 gpm. From the well test data, the area of influence would be negligible beyond a distance of 20,000 feet, assuming that all water is withdrawn from storage with no credit for recharge.
The applicant will continue the monthly monitoring of water levels in the wells during construction.
11.2.2 Surface Water (L-54, L-55)With all four units operating, although 19,000 gpm per unit will be taken from the river, on the average, blowdown will return about 4,000 gpm/unit, so that net loss to the river flow will be about 15,000 gpm/unit, or about 60,000 gpm total. This amounts to about 86,000,000 gpd. Although the lowest recorded flow of the Savannah River at a point 12 miles downstream from Augusta may have been 648 cfs in 1939, this occurred prior to construction of a number of impoundments upstream.
The dependable minimum daily flow can be considered to be 5,800 cfs (Sect. 2.5.1). The 60,000 gpm loss referred to above is about 134 cfs, which represents only about 2.3 percent of the expected minimum river flow, and only about 1.3 percent of the average expected flow of 10,150 cfs (Sect. 2.5.1).The above-mentioned comparisons were discussed in Sect. 5.2 of the Draft Environmental Statement.
It is not expected that these relatively small evaporative losses will detectably affect the behavior of the salt water wedge at the mouth of the Savannah River, nor of the dilution factor of the river. See also the com-ments of the Beaufort-Jackson County Water Authority (p. L-59).Also, it is unlikely that the presence of the Vogtle Nuclear Plant will have any effect on the plans for operating the upstream dams.
11-24 The estimate of the consumptive loss of water and of make-up require-ments for the cooling towers were based on 90 percent heat rejection due to evaporation, which was to be considered the worst situation (most consumptive use of water). A lower evaporation rate is expected which will result in lower make-up rates than those rates estimated in the Draft Environmental Statement.
The make-up rate for the cooling towers will be automatically controlled and will be dependent upon the actual losses due to evaporation, drift and blowdown.11.12.3 Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers (L-55)Pumping tests on site have demonstrated that the loss of water in the mechanical draft cooling towers associated with the nuclear service cooling water systems will not significantly affect piezo-metric levels beyond the plant site.11.12.4 Once-through Cooling (L-56)The staff concurs with the philosophy of the South Caroline Water Resources Commission that "water quantity is as equally important as water quality" and "that cooling requirements for each generating plant need to be evaluated on an individual basis." Once-through cooling offers many advantages over cooling towers in addition to the reduced evaporative water losses discussed in the comments.Cooling towers can create fogging and icing potential; there are recorded instances where this has caused traffic accidents and fatalities and has interfered with small planes using the waterway for visual flight guidance.
Drift from cooling towers adds particu-late and chemical containments to the air, some of which deposits in the environs.
Cooling towers add considerably to the capital and operating costs of a plant which results in higher costs to the customers. (See comments of Georgia Public Utilities Commission, p. L-48.) The use of wet natural draft cooling towers vs once-through cooling causes approximately a 3% loss in net power output of a plant. To achieve a given output, requires more fuel con-sumption.
For all plants, cooling towers result in an increase in the chemical wastes associated with control of biological growth. The major benefits of cooling towers are reduced thermal modification of the receiving stream and, possibly reduced entrainment losses. Studies in progress -including those being conducted in South Carolina with participation of State agencies (.e.g., at Par Pond on the Savannah River Plant and the Duke-Sport Fisheries and Wildlife pro-gram at Oconee) -may show that thermal modification can be beneficial to fishery resources and that with certain design restraints, impinge-ment and entrainment losses are no greater with once-through cooling than with cooling towers.
11-25 With respect to evaporative water losses from cooling towers compared with those from once-through units, questions often arise concerning the calculated losses, depending on how much of the naturally occurring solar evaporation is charged to the power plant. For a large, existing body of water or river, the staff's approximate "rule of thumb" com-parison is as follows: once through -10 cfs per 1000 MW cooling towers -30 cfs per 1000 MW cooling lake -20 cfs per 1000 MW The 20 cfs for cooling ponds is quite variable, depending on the size of the lake or impoundment.
The South Carolina Water Resources Commission commented that "the EPA and AEC are rather arbitrarily requiring cooling towers for all pro-posed nuclear generating stations.
The AEC cannot issue a construction permit or license unless the applicant has a certification from the appropriate state agency, as required by Section 401, Public Law 92-500, that discharges from the facility will meet the applicable water quality standards.
As discussed in Section 9.2.1.1 of the Vogtle Draft Environ-mental Statement, once-through cooling for even one of the proposed Vogtle units would exceed the State of Georgia temperature standards.
Unless the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended, the proba-bility of the applicant and the State of Georgia getting approval from Region IV of EPA for a variance from the established temperature standards is questionable, as judged by the recent case with the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant in Wake and Chatham Counties of North Carolina.
The original design for the Shearon Harris plant was based on a 10,000 acre impoundment which the AEC staff and the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources concluded would have economic, social and environmental advantages over the alternative cooling methods of spray ponds, mechanical draft towers and natural draft towers. The EPA would not approve a variance in the temperature limit, even though t.ne independent evaluations by the AEC, the State of North Carolina and the applicant indicated that there would not be any significant adverse impact by granting the variance.
The revised Draft Environment Statement for the Shearon Harris Plant con-tained the following statement in the summary and conclusions:
The originally proposed Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant wotild have utilized a cooling lake which the staff found, on balance, to be the cooling alternative which was environmentally most attractive and thus best fulfilled the goals of NEPA (see Foreword).
The staff still believes that the use of a cooling lake as originally proposed 11-26 is, from the standpoint of technical considerations reflected by NEPA, superior to the presently proposed cooling tower system. How-ever, decision by EPA and the State of North Carolina, in implementing their responsibilities under the FWPCA, preempt the NEPA and thus pre-clude the AEC from granting a construction permit based on the cooling lake design. In this current assessment, the staff finds that natural-draft cooling towers, which are mandated by requirements of other agencies, are, on balance, an acceptable cooling alternative.
11.13 LOWER SAVANNAH REGIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 11.13.1 Commuting of Construction Workers (L-58)All information presently available on migration or commuting of con-struction workers from Aiken County, South Carolina is provided in Chapter 2, Appendix A, of the applicant's Environmental Report. The staff does not expect that the number of families settling either temporarily or permanently in South Carlina as a result of construction activities at VNP will be so extensive as to put a significant burden on facilities of any community in that state.11.13.2 Use of Savannah River for Public Water Supply (L-58)The staff does not expect there to be any restrictions on the use of the Savannah River as a future source of public drinking water as a consequence of the operation of VNP.11.13.3 Nearby Nuclear Facilities (L-58)Nearby nuclear facilities are shown on Figures 2.3, 2.10, and 3.9.11.14 AUGUSTA ARCHAEOLOGY SOCIETY 11.14.1 Survey Along Transmission Lines (L-65)The feasibility and cost-benefit of conducting an archeological survey at proposed tower locations, where the transmission lines will cross major drainages and rivers, has been discussed with the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, with the Georgia State Archeologist and with the applicant.
The applicant will submit proposed right-of-way locations for trans-mission lines to the Georgia Historical Commission
-which includes the State Archaeologist (ER, Vol. I, p. 2.3-1). The Historical Com-mission will be requested to review the proposed routing to determine whether or not the right-of-way will disturb any structure or site 11-27 of historical significance or any site reported to have archaeological deposits.
It is the intention of the applicant to obtain the land for transmission line rights-of-way by the use of easements and special permits. The use of easements and special permits enables the property owners to continue to use their land for agricultural and other purposes which would not interfere with the operation and maintenance of the lines. The only rights acquired by the appli-cant for the use of this land is for the construction, operation and maintenance of the transmission line. All other rights remain with the property owner. It is the applicants intention to avoid routing transmission line rights-of-way such that tower construction would be located in a known archaeological deposit of any consequence.
If archaeological artifacts are found in the rights-of-way during sur-veys or construction of the towers, the applicant will notify the Georgia Historical Commission.
11.15 GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 11.15.1 Replanting of Transmission Line Rights-of-Way (L-66)As discussed in Section 4.3.1.2, after clearing wooded areas, the applicant will fertilize rights-of-way and seed most cleared areas with fast-growing annuals, such as rye or wheat, mixed with a perennial, such as Sericia lespedeza, to control erosion and provide wildlife food and cover where it is in keeping with the surrounding environment.
Other treatments will be in keeping with the environment of the corridor segment. Many forms of wildlife, such as the quail, dove, and deer, feed where annual and perennial weeds and grasses flourish.
As discussed in Section 4.1.2, the applicant has a program wherein property owners who agree to participate in a land-management program are paid up to $75.00 an acre to piant the cleared right-of-way in pasture, crops or game food plots. The program is actively publicized through advertisement and is administered through GPC foresters (ER, Vol. II, Sect. 5.4.1.2).
It is the staff's opinion that if the applicant follows the programs he has outlined for restoring the site and transmission line corridors, there will be a positive impact on fame game habitats.11.15.2 Radiological Effects on Aquatic Environment (L-66)The effect of radioactivity releases from the Savannah River Plant on aquatic ecosystems in the river are currently being monitored by SRP.The cumulative effect of SRP, Vogtle, Oconee and the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant on radioactivity levels in the river has been evaluated.
The activity added by the multiple plants is not expected to 11-28 significantly effect aquatic organisms in the river. This will be confirmed by the post operational monitoring program. See also Section 2.8.2 and the response to 11.7.7 and 11.11.1.11.15.3 Chlorine in River (L-67)The applicant is required to limit the total residual chlorine con-centration in the Savannah River to 0.1 ppm. The applicant expects that this can be accomplished without a dechlorination system.11.15.4 Sedimentation in River (L-67)See response to 11.3.5.11.15.5 Intake Screens (L-67)The swim speeds of fish fry that would pass through 3/8" but not 1/4" mesh screens is not sufficient to overcome even the relatively low velocity through the intake screens at the Vogtle Nuclear Plant, and therefore those fry would be impinged on the screens. Thus, the overall fry mortality would not be expected to be significantly reduced by the use of 1/4" screens and their use for this purpose would not seem to be warranted.
11.15.6 Solid Radioactive Waste Disposal (L-67)See response to 11.5.8.11.15.7 Burning of Construction Debris (L-68)See response to 11.7.25.11.16 CENTRAL SAVANNAH RIVER AREA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 11.16.1 Location of Railroad Spur Line (L-70)The relocation of the railroad spur has been discussed with members of the Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commis-sion, the Burke County Development Authority and the applicant.
The relative locations of Shell Bluff Landing, Shell Bluff, Greens Cut, Branch Creek, Highways 23, 56 and 80 and the railroad are shown in Figure 2.3 and Figures 2.1-1, 2.2-5, 2.2-7 and 2.2-8 of the appli-cant's Environmental Report. As discussed in Sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2 and 2.3.3, the Shell Bluff Landing is an area of historical, pale-ontological and archaeological significance.
Preliminary estimates 11-29 indicate that the additional grading and bridging associated with running the spur line northwest parallel to the Savannah River would increase the cost in the order of $5 to $6 million dollars.There apparently also has been some recent local reconsideration of the industrial potential of the area. The staff and applicant are continuing to evaluate the suggested alternative.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY W. F. Blair, A. P. Blair, P. Brodkorb, F. R. Cagle, and G. A. Moore, Vertebrates of the United States, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1957.W. H. Burt and R. P. Grossenheider, A Field Guide to the Mammals, The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1964.Conant, R., A Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern North America, The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1958.A. D. Cruickshank, Ed., "Seventy-second Christmas Bird Count, Aiken, S.C.," American Birds 26: 287 (1972).F. B. Golley, "Structure and Function of an Old-Field Broomsedge Community," Ecol. Monogr. 35: 113-131 (1955).F. B. Golley and J. B. Gentry, "A Comparison of Variety and Standing Crop of Vegetation on a One-Year and a Twelve-Year Abandoned Field," Oikos 15: 184-199 (1965).G. B. Golley, J. B. Gentry, L. D. Caldwell, and L. B. Davenport, Jr.,"Number and Variety of Small Mammals on the AEC Savannah River Plant," J. Mamtnal. 46: 1-18 (1965).F. B. Golley, Mamnals of Georgia, University of Georgia Press, Athens, 1962.V. J. Hurst, T. J. Crawford, and John Sandy, Mineral Resources of the Central Savannah River Area, vols. I and II, Geology Department, University of Georgia, July 1966.J. H. Jenkins and E. E. Provost, The Population Status of the Larger Vertebrates on the Atomic Energy Commission Savannah River Plant Site, USAEC Report TID-19562, 1963.T. M. Langley and W. L. Marter, The Savannah River Plant Site, E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Inc., Savannah River Labora-tory, Aiken, S.C., DP-1323, TID-4500, UC-2, January 1973.E. F. Menhinick, Insect Species in the Herb Stratum of a Sericea Lespedeza Stand, AEC Savannah River Project, Aiken, South Carolina, USAEC Report TID-19136, 1963.R. A. Norris, "Birds of the AEC Savannah River Plant Area," Contr.Charleston Museum Bull. XIV, 1963.SB-i SB-2 Norris, R., "Breeding Bird Census. Two South Carolina Censuses," Audubon Field Notes 11: 437-438 and 451-452 (1957).G. A. Petrides, A Field Guide to Trees and Shrubs, The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1958.E. P. Odum, "Organic Production and Turnover in Old-Field Succes-sion," Ecology 41: 34-49 (1960).J. E. Wood and E. P. Odum, "A Nine-Year History of Furbearer Popu-lations on the AEC Savannah River Plant Area," J. Mammal. 45: 540-551 (1965.Georgia State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1972, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Division of Planning and Research, vols. I and II, December 1972.Plan for Development of the Land and Water Resources of the South-east River Basins, Appendix I, Savannah Basin, United States Study Commission, Southeast River Basins, 1963..0 APPENDIX A Common trees of the VNP site Scientific name Common name Quercus lae'is Turkey oak Quercus incana Bluejack oak Quercus inarilandica Blackjack oak Quercus nigra Water oak Quercus borealis Northern red oak Quercus stellata Post oak Quercus Pelutina Black oak Quercus rubra Southern red oak Quercus alba White oak Quercus laurifolia Laurel oak Liquidambar slyraciflua Sweetgum Nyssa kylvatica Black gum Nyssa aquatica Tupelo gum Pinus caribaca Slash pine Pinus palustris Longleaf pine Pinus echinata Shortleaf pine Pinus toeda Loblolly pine Pinus rigida var. serorina Pond pine Caprinus caroliniana American hornbeam 11ex opaca American holly Tilia spp. Basswood Juglans nigra Black walnut Salix nigra Black willow Carya spp. Hickory Fraxinuspp.
Ash Acer sacchanim Sugar maple Sassafras albidum Sassafras Taxodium spp. Cypress Mimus spp. Elm Liriodendron tulipifera Yellow poplar Acer rubvmm Red maple Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Cornus florida Dogwood Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Prunus serotina Black cherry Prunus spp. Plum Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Acer negundo Box elder Morus rubra Red mulberry Persia palustris Swampbay Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust A-1 APPENDIX B Common shrubs and vines of fhe VNP site Scientific name Common name Viiis spp.Vilis rotundifolia Rhus quercifolium Rhus radicans Rhus vernix Myrica cerifera Rhus spp.Parthenocissus quinquefolia Vaccinium spp.Rubus spp.Rubus spp.Crataegus spp.Prunu: spp.Smifax spp.Ilcx glabra Viburnum spp.A Inus nigosa Lonicera spp.Rhododendron nudiflorum Decumaria barbara Iiea vlrginica Berchemia spp.A ralia spinosa Callicarpa americana A esculus spp.Bumelia spp.A simina parviflora Baccharis spp.A melanchier arborea Rhamnus caroliniana Let'cotheum spp.Cephalanthus occidentalis Polypodiceae Arundinaria tecta Lappula spp.Sporobolus sp.Tillandsia sp.Eupatorium capillifolium A ndropogon virginicus Solidago sp Gnaphalium obtusifolium Leguminosac Grape Muscadine Poison oak Poison ivy Poison sumac Southern wax myrtle Sumac Virginia creeper Farkleberry Blackberry Dewberry Hawthorn Plum Greenbriar Gallbcrry B~jckhaw IHazel alder Honeysuckle Wild azalea Southern decumaria Virginia sweetspire Rattam Devils walkingstick American beautyberry Buckeye Bumelia Pawpaw Baccharis Serviceberry Carolina buckthorn Dog hobble Common buttonbush Fern Cane Beggarlice Wiregrass Spanish moss Dog fennel Sedge Goldenrod Rabbit tobacco Legumes B-1 APPENDIX C Species of old-field plants in a one-year old-field near the VNP site Scientific name Common name Festuca sciurea Eragrostis hirsuta Triplasis prupurea Aristida tuberculosa Aristida oligantha A ristida purpurascens Cynodon dactylon Leptoloma cognatum Panicum commutatum Ccnchrus pauciflorus Andropogon virginicus A ndropogon ternorius Sorgum halepense Cyperus compressus Bulbostylis cappilaris Juncus tenuis Rumex acetosella Chenopodium album Froelichia floridana Mollugo verticillata SIlpulicida selacea Silene antirrhina Lepidium virginicum Cassia tora Cassia deeringiana Crotalaria sagiftalis Desmodium tortuosum Lespedeza cuneata Lespedeza striata Strophostyles helovola Croton glandulosus IHypericum gentianoides Oenothera laciniata Linaria canadensis Girardia fasciculata Campsis radicans Diodia teres Richardia scabra Specularia perfoliata Haplopappus divaricatus Heterotheca subaxillaris Erigeron ramosus Leptilon canadensis Gnaphalium purpureum Gnaphalium obtusifolium Eupatorium capiltifollium Fescue Love grass Sand grass Three-awn Three-awn Three-awn Bermuda grass Fall witch grass Panic grass Sandbur Broom sedge Beard grass Johnson grass Galingale Path rush Red sorrel Lamb's quarter Carpet weed Catchfly Pepper grass Sickle-pod Rattlebox Tick-trefoil Bush clover Japanese clover Wild bean Si. John's wort Toad flax Trumpet creeper Buttonwood Mexican clover Golden aster Diasy Horseweed Cudweed Dog-fennel C-1 APPENDIX D Amphibians and reptiles expected to be found on the VNP site CLASS: AMPIIIBIA Ambystomidae" mbystoma lalpoideum" mbystoma opacum" mbystema maculatum" mbyutoma tlgrinum Salamandridae Notopthalamus viridescen$
Plethodonlidae Devmornathus fuscus Plethodon glutinoits Pseudoirlton montanus Pseudotriton rtber Euryceea bislineute Euryceea longicauda Manculus quadridigitatu:
Pelobatidae Scaphinopus hotbrooki Butonidae Bufo terrestris lutO quercleus gufo fowleri Hylidae Hyla crucifer Hyla cinerea Hyle gratiosa Hlyla squirella Pseudaceri nigrita Pseudacels ornate Acriegryllus Microhylidae Gas rophryne carolinensis Ranidae Rana catesbeiana Rana clamitans Rana piplens Rana palustris Rana areolata CLASS: REPTILA Chelydridae Chelydra serpentine Kinosternidac Kinosternon subrubrnm Sternothaerus odoratus Emydidae Clemmys gllateo Chrysemys picto Mole salamander Marbled salamander Spotted salamander Tiger salamander Red-spotted newt Dusky salamander Slimy salamander Eastern mud salamander Red salamander Two-lined salamander Long-vailed salamander Dwarf salamander Eastern spadefoot toad Southern load Oak toad Fowler's load Spring peeper Green treefrog Barking treefrog Pine woods treefrog Squirrel treefrog Chorus frog Ornate chorus frog Cricket frog Eastern narrow-mouthed toad Bullfrog Green frog Leopard frog Pickerel frog Gopher frog Snapping turtle Eastern mud turtle Stinkpotled turtle Eastern painted turtle Terrapene carolina Pseudemys scripta Pseudemys floridana Deirochelys reticularia Trionychidae Trionyx ferox Crocodilidae Alligator missisripienris lquanidae A nails carolinensis Sceloporur undulatus Anguidae Ophisaurus ventralis Ophisauras attenduatus Teldae Cnemidophorus sexlineatus Scincidae Lygosome laterale Eumeces fasciarus Eumeces latikeps Colubridae Natrix taxispiotot Narrix erythrogarter Nairix sipedon Natrix rigide Seminareix pygea Stoareni dekayi Storenra occipiwomoculata Thamnophis 1rtallts Thamnophis sauritur Haldee irriatula Haldea valeriae Heterodon platyrhinos Heterodon rimus Dliadophlgpunctatus Farancil abacura A bettor erythrogrammus Coluber consterctor Masticophis flagellum Opheodrys aestivus Elaphe guttata Elaphe obsolete Pituophis melanoleucus Lampropeltis getulus Cemophora coccinea Tantilla corOnata Crotalidae Ancistrodon contoret ix A ncistrodon pischorous Crotaltus horrndus Sistrurus mitiarhus Eastern box turtle Pond slider Cooler Chicken turtle Spiny softshell turtle American alligator Green anole Fence lizard Eastern glass lizard Slender glass lizard Six-lined racerunner Ground skink Five-lined skink Broad-headed skink Brown water snake Red-bellied water snake Banded water snake Glossy water snake Black swamp snake Brown snake Red-bellied snake Eastern priter snake Ribbon snake Rough eart' snake Smooth eafth snake Eastern hognose snake Southern hognose snake Ringneck snake Mud snake Rainbow snake Black racer Coachwhip snake Rough green snake Corn snake Rat snake Pine snake Eastern kingsnake Scarlet snake Southeastern crown snake Copperhead Cottonmouth Canebrake rattlesnake Pigmy rattlesnake D-1 APPENDIX E Birds expected to be round on the VNP site CLASS: AVF.S Podicipififoomes Pod rlymbur podiceps Ciconjiffrrmes A rd~e herodMss klorida Cevenhee casmemsltius elba, Anseriformes Asses platyrhynehos Anu s, ubel pes Abx sponto Aythys cofllen, Lophodyici cucullatuis Fulcornfolymes Caiherres oura Ceteagyps attn rus Aceipizer epefiI Buin, lamaicensis Ruino, liuestus Cinu, eyanus Petra sparsverius Galliraforeg Cofhnus, Pirginunus cruiformes Rellus edearns Fulka am., kane Charadrifformes Cespelia gailinag A citiis mtandrie torus del. waren sit Columbiformes Zenaidura macmu,.r Cucutitosmes Cocceyzus aimencennui Sitingiformes Sirix venfa Captimnulgiformet Cwpemulgsus carol inensif Chars-dlefs nrnino Apodiformes; Clidetura pefagice Arehilorhus colubris Corucilformes Megace, yin akcyo Piciforines Cokrpiei ourvasr Dryocopus pike gusr Melesserper eryt hens.phalus Centurur cemrlinus Sphyropicsur "retes Dendwocpo, pubescent l'asseriformes Tyrannus tytennus Alykrhur sedninsr Pied-billed grebe Great blue heron Little blue heron Common egret Mallard Black duck Wood duck Ring-necked duck flooded merganser Turkey vulture Black vulture Cooper's hawk Red-tailed hawk Red-shouldered hawk Marsh hawk Sparrow hawk Bobwhite King rail American coot Common snipe Spotted stndpiper Ring-bellied gull Mourning dsove Yellow-billed cuckoo Barred owl Chuck-will's-widow Common nighthawk Chimney swirl Ruby-throated hummingbird Belted kingfisher Yellow-ulafted flicker Pilealed woodpecker Red-beaded woodpecker Red-bellied woodpecker Yellow-bellied sapsucker Downy woodpecker Esstern kingbird Great crested flycatcher Enspldonax virescent Conropu wb'ent Stielidopteryx isjkcolfl Progme mabis Cyenoelta r1 starte Corvus brachyrhynchos Paiur Perue bk'olor Sifte pusilte Thryothorus a,,dovklanut l
rte Dumeteina coao imensir Toxostomu rufum Ttrdus mlrio-orius ltyloclchk mustellfr Hyloeckhlk guitatr Ilylockhta fuelesens Siis slalis Polloplile ceerulee Regulur stinpe Regulus celenduet A nthus spinoleiie LenIubs ludovykmnut Vireo gristus Vheo jlavifions Vireo ottivceur Pronsnotarl ltre.Limnortlypis 1welnsomn Dendrdica ceruescens Dendroce eteonair Dendroice plnut Dendroice discolor Dendroke petmanim Seiwrns eurocepfirus Selyrus novebowensk stel' tr moraecla Oporornis foenrsons Geothlypit inkcas ictera vrkens kilhonk eirine Setophema atkcilla Pentr, domettwur Dolichonyx oryh ivous Sturnella nsegn Agel ut phoenkeur Iciefur spurtusuas quhmLsc Piranyt ofilmen Pfengn oubre Rkhmondene
*rdimefot Gubwce cewrules Pesserine tyanef Pessernna deft Spinut irististryshrophthalmui Pssemuatu undwichenrsa Pooeceres grmnmneus Aimophila eesrtiref Ju rico Ayttnalts Spirellfe passrin Spizell putiae Zonorchln elbicollls Melospits tnelodio Acadian flycatcher Eastern wood pewee Rough-winged swallow Purple marlin Blue jay Common crow Carolina chickadee Tufted tlitmouse Brown-headed nuthatch Carolina wren Mockingbird Catbird Brown thrasher Robin Wood thrush llermit thrush Veery Eastern bluebird Blue-gpay Inatcatcher Golden-crowned kinglet Ruby-crowned kinglet Water pipit Loggerhead shrike White-eyed vireo Yellow-throated vireo Red-eyed vireo Prothonotary warbler Swainwn's warbler Black-throated blue warbler Myrtle warbler Pine warbler Prairie warbler Palm warbler Ovenbird warbler Northern water thrush Louisiana water thrush Kentucky warbler Yellowthroat Yellow-breasted chat Ilooded warbkr American redstast Ilouse Sparrow Bobolink Eastern meadowlark Red-winged blackbird Orchard oriole Common grackle Scarlet tanager Summer tanager Cardinal Blue grosbeak Indigo bunting Painted bunting American goldfinch Rufous-sided towhee Savannah sparrow Vesper sparrow Bachman's sparrow Slate-colored jian'o Chipping sparrow Field sparrow Whitethroated sparrow Song sparrow E-1 APPENDIX 1: Mammals expected to he found on (he VNP siWe CLASS: ;%IAMN.IALJIA IDide 1 ,his inarsupiais.V~or4X~ Irnginoslris Chyplinfs CPanD Blarina hreviicauda Copid riura crislato.&#xb6;calopris aquaratics J/* ivnis hiciijugur L~asion i 'cftris noreiciagatts Pipistrel,,s subJ~arwv.
ILasirtrils horcalis A'iciicv'ius Ihu,,,eralis SYlvilaxiis J1orida~nts S.I.11idaj.'i Patti- wris S.Vt'Iiilaxils aqjuaticus Sciiiridajc Schorrux itiger Schuirri carrduternis W;altreoilI1*s 1'olarx C~cisoridic Castor canaderisis Orvzom, Vs Pahinsti/s Re'irItrodontenni's Ihumulis Sou1lia1 c%trn shtrew Shornimcild swu1n I..II c-now tInl Silver-Iiaired hii Fai'icrn pipkitelle~
Red hat I luwity bat IFvening Kat Con iontuil ribhit Nfar'.Igi ribbil Sw~amnp rtahhii CrIay %tjttirCI Saai Itu'thecrn ptickei voaalletc Peroin
* iscits Polionofles Perottv,,urss Ilidt-oplis lper(PI11,t-stj gassyri nits Pero,,*itscris Inftialli Sigillocdn ltispidiss Netowinna Jleoridatia Pilltimns JaiJWIforitri Oridatra :ilw f/fla lMuridic Rat Pus no~rlt'gici~s Rattus rattios Allis Fruasen IIns.Cainidae Vulpes Julla Urtwevott vinwertwargentrus 11rsidac Ifisus appirica,,us
%Iu%lelidae.
AkfPhitis finephilis Spi/ogah.le putrills l~uira Cauad11rit.vis Ielidatr Lynix rupjtil Sits secoita Cervidac ()docwilenls t-iginiatius Old-ficd m1ousec Cotlain lannutc Gol)de'n nitoI%e Obti on rat Fistern wuuidrat%lu~k rat Norway rat Roofia rat Red 1,41\(Gray I'll\111lak heart Mtink.wtripcal
%kmatk Srot tca %ktsink I C ral sI II%Rierat Ilarvcli nlou%e F-1 APPENDIX G Phytoplanklon in the Savannah River near VNP site cysuitpfytyi Wbue-%teen jIl.,ct A mac vziti montana Eninphy ia/is rivirfaris AWirsactnrs Irnghracenuis At. raginatui' Os4.jlea~rif rwprmctps 0. rdq:ii Pawphi'u,,sfphnon niiiarivii P. splirpdkthis Schiaoghrix arenaria S. rahrirula S. ,uIhdja Crfindr.,fsperi*,ani Ik-rnildwsrr Nousridiipsis bla Sag Chknrophyls
$green ialgae Plisasmowire pratub/ers.Is Tess. span. Agdarinuse Schizamnsci Iribleinil Sti ieacdonium Iubhneum" flasidaladl chewlsuiu pith'iphiwa orjroxsria Spiffigita' .p.Choseiumv,~
hoarda Cg'smarrhm prramodaiurn
&#xa3;Chaa &#xfd;p&#xfd;Cbrynpfiyua tyeffim~-preef iel~Viuchena'd P, Bacillsrlaphyls Idikjn,im~.Veiffkira diftens'.41 granulates At. italwa At. variants C-rlrdtetta
/?hwicM C. menexhinjina C. pseudnisieltise.
C. stelbgrra Bidduiphia kariug Ilvdrusera trgeitljes Aterjndir,,i cina/are Fragitaria twevirthiata F. ennhtruens F. lepvinraurvni Opepivwoa mfarine 0. mart iif Svriedra afifinis S. meniscutag
.1. parasitic&
S.1 pritc/deli S. lnimpens'o I1 enter.S. wined$S. raiudtflse Defezmogtmiumv ,ahen/mrstiiaum bAn.,unff hundeau F.pretinalis
: f. inel/a Occaf~nets dintinula C lacreri/is A crhnatthei apira/etus A. hiptar., t'41. rxiquir.4 hetkarktan A. lince,,/eta A. minutifitimatl A. nesatapil A mphipleura pelludd.Ca i. tnci /aadl/om Capartagramna cTuck-ula Fnastutlk rhomboides P. moarits Stauroneis Anceps S. kreiseri Gomphonerna ansm taatum G. augur G. breziliensis G. xrecile G. intriwarum G. hrnpceps G. paryulume G. spharrephoram Amphora ovalis Cyninbtla tumida C. turgida C. Venicoose Rhopattis gshibbenala Bacillarla paradox&ftrarosird triquetlre Nitzschia acua taris N. emphibia N. bcrate N. brevissima N. clausil N. confinis N. dissipata N. elliptice N. filifarmis-N. (rusnlum N. inlermedia N. I N. linaarn N. pales NV. sigme N. sublitis N. tand.N. tropica Surirella ansugta, SI Ortst S. leter.F. Iurls F. atrinholdii Gyrosnima acaminaium G. spencerii G. mawnsbeckii Navknula aikenentis N. arrenji N. stomut N. becil/iformir N. clnots N. clemeneis N. confer,,ace N. contena N.
N. decuasis N. dticephata N. exigue N. germainits N. hungarka N. ainceolasa N. Waseropuncraaa N. mtin/ma N. muticad N. nothe N. paucirvls/tea N. pelliculosa N. pupuls N. radios.N. rhynchocephala N. scheitestri N. zceterri N. secrete N. seminalum NV. iripdula Neldium effuse Pinnularie brounii P. fbba P. intermnpta P matewr Nm bunalani generaJ G-1 APPENDIX If Protozoa in the Savannah River near VNP site PIoeozos Cllss Masuigsphola Chommulina oralis OiAonUmial mleilol 0. termn Synure upella A wthophly regetens Mona,,sttcurle M. soclabitis
: l. sociolis Oehromons creneta Ceyptomeorat rawe C. Chi mots pereameium Cyathomoa$
insmirata Chkmd eomsZioglbm C. Arvelli$C. monadina Chloeogonium sp.Certeria glohusm Gonium pectfoale Atairilosphaera  andewrina mturom J't'mfew:
@rut E. muldata E. des ehrenhergi klebif" minima A" minute mutehilis A. oxyuris A; pisnflwmis E. pietydesma A" lubre A:. splegyr.s splendent E. fripteirt A: viridis LCepoinclis eckularis..ovum I.. texta lIacum acuminata P aketus , hrek-wudta P. helick"des P.longkuesde P. otcilkips A. pluronectlt P. pyrum P. torte P. triqueler ormolt T. Aispido r. horrhk T. obnNimn T. saicet.T1rushelomorres Wvucom T. olsociri Asiles Aklegi A nWionenm arinut A. emargfnalum Otnema griheohum Ieletronema aeug II. acullnimum II. mutahilk Ntwolremns spocemprus Peenenm tridhophorum Trentonmia flagellate Gymnrxdinium fuicum G1. palustre Gyrodinium hyalinum Glenodinium cinctum Bode emoebinus B. caudarus B. edax B. gf,,bouas A.  ,B'. osveams Cerc-mr'e-crm skaoude C fongiceudo Colponeme
*ip.Rhtynehmnemat vwasua,Ollznlto (Iav Samwsdira A moea ha d ia A. gorgonw A. guttua A. plroes A. eadmimo A. spumote A. strkta A. vrspertijto Dinamueha mirabilis Pehmnyxe rearlinensh Vohlkempflo linwx Vemp yrella latrailiw Atiella dentate A. dimcJdes A, nitrta A. vulgaris Vochlionpdium blimiNhoum Difftlta cononrrce 0. ceomne D. glohltite A. oblong 0. piomlls C oremi Euslypha (rittel.Cyph derest empu lie Actlinophryt mol RaphidocKvtis (lan ribiala llolophiya kabiato Lacryweria oloe Plt at rya Iotn Prorodon discolor PA irriw Coleps biwuspis C. elongatur C. hietus C octospinus E'nehelydlum fu$la ng F. tirens llomalozoom vermlicdare Penordlella crts" leeas Mesodinium pulex Ansphleptu cdparedei Lkionotulc ygnus I.. fozesola Loxoph viluum mleagmos L. ulili'marfe Ttachelius ovum Dileptui emericmnus
: 0. ana, A. cygnus A. mofnilotu Loxodes vormx Thwhile paei$tris Chilmodfuefle mculluius C /~ivriotiffi Nesmk Bure N. ornte Chikdontopsis vrwax Cyloguamma Orthodonelle sp.Colpode alperm C. eucutuls C inlate Spirmone ecdeats Lepteipharynx sp.Colpidium coalwda (;laucom rtintillons G. fetow retrahyrmeAe pyriformir Cohnilembus fusiftwmis Paramecium uarelia P. burswoe P. caudogum P calinsi Smultimicronuceeatum FPinton adcuminate F depeesm F. legcas FRnmton iele complAnete Cinelochilum Eslpriife sp.Lembadium buflinum L. magnum Makeophreys otasn Pletymnmilum sp.
luro Pleuronute crem m O~isktrrephoenfix C:yiu Idam xglauma C. fitomesum C musirola Stentor orwenrlut S. igneus A muller, S. pyriformis altep o reny usdnettn Ssrobildousm gyrann Oxytticha felige O. getplgrr A upluhisliena oblong.(Gastmstl.,.
muselonum sure nuurm Ilolottirha duscoceptaluta II. ternuos On ye Anronsas grendiz peoc'era Pleurotrikha gxmndis Stichotriche intermedie Stronuryisiuam cressitm Styrmichaa mytilus S.lartphora A. pussut lat.S. putrino Tech rs'ma pelhluxuella 104drueptus mushilis 1). phsei IsU~tsm.t eculmunate Luuu'st~melarg nfl.Voistlt vkp.Af.upit rmunvslomun h: pateld .A'. ph~isumpe Aspidisce costatet A. I v i-euu A. msk'u e Saprodinuhom dentatum Pelxthinium renifswrm Vorrk-elle campanula V, kenti Vulwuelle mnogilate V. picla Caerciheium plruinuk m clnhamnn us aerisusnla Dph atyli pla'eti.l s Ophrydium vemnalix VAgincre ann,,fte V. longipes CA umame ennulat c: ovate TlhpksAeo folirtsIta
('lass Suclosra Adneta up.AnermaAes
'eis Prerrineta sp, Trichtphrae epirts-lphd H-1 APPENDIX I Macroinvertebrates in Savannah River near VNP site Poelfera (spo.ngell spongilia frarilih Plarlyhelnsinthe (flalwninisl bugerio figrina Annelids (.semented worms)Erpobdella .rujfcftar Plato bdella parasitint"ftlobldella dongfaa IL lineal.It. punctara-lineata Arcieonnis
? lomondi Limnordrus hoffmcitteri L.udehemlanrus
'Fiunella ftresedr.Molluscs G3Ws jkW3 15na (ulk)A mnlrnla limose Campelorna lime;o~oosis vatenarda Peu don, seines enlumella l~r?"isia, fuisa Physo croeafla Ilielmoma fVeafris Mlentrut uiletatur Gyraulus paivuz Peletypsida 1ldamu)Euiaptin asiteI"nu E. crauuidens E~. laneeuoatu E, eomplanevul Uniornenus usbean.4nodonto tmlbeclis Canreneullna Pan%vmm.o wihez V. delumbus law'poills crapl,.I.. splendida Spharelum tuansreesnum S. kewuzre S. ffir-uds Atidium nltidlsm Eupera Sansleyi Ectopradta (moss animals)Plusnawiai repjent Arthropod&
(',usatase A sellut militants lhafrllla artera Ganmnwput jeiarlus Palatmoneter pa~udorsu Pesseambarus pubescent lnmneui. op.Lebefia sp.'MInet Odumnala fdrago n fits and damsel nits)l Caloplepyx nvndaia lie feernna litii ArPa snrl.l A. moesta A. ififolit A. vlolseea Enallagma clivle E. signatum E. weew.lIchnum posite Bauiaeschna
/anala Nattaescdna penm'canir Boyerla winos.Gomphus lStylutus) bauvae Dromogomphus ermasut?Epicordulia princeps Neurweordulia alabamenusi MacromiA sp.Paf ydipukx lonsrpennlr Sympetrum victnium Libellula ribeans Perlithemis fener, Ephemeroplera I mayflies)Ephusun sp.Caels sp.Tricoeythodes sp.Ephemerella temporealk Iwynchia sp.Pseudobtoron sp.Neoslaen sp.Baeliso op.Callibseeis sp.Heptarenir nr. diabauia H. maculipennls Plecopiera (slnneffbes)
Prrlessa pLacid.Paregnetina kansensirllemiplera Ibugs)Alesovelia mulsantl Ifydrometra martini Gerrit sp.G. canalkldatut G. nebularis G. conformis G. remfgis Limotonus heuione Trepobates inermni r. pflrus Rheurnatobatet teniper R. rlleyl R. hungerfordi Velf. sp.? brathiali Mcruooleds sp.Rhamovelua distinct.Sakd. sp.Gelastonris oculatus PrIocorts femorasus Rantra buenof Belowsoma lutarium Notonecta op.NV. krrorett N. nutler Phchocouea tvha Neuroptesa (dobson flies)Climaced areo"arit Megaloptera (spongilla flies)Stalls Ip.Corydalis coemutus N~gronla sp.Coleopteta Ibeetles)Peltrodytei festius P. simplex P. mitticir liallphis boreelft H. lufopuu Dineute assimilit D. emargvintus D. hoeni D. caroinus D. analis Gyrinui spacus G. pre.oralfr G. lutent G. Fenttralf G. gibber Suphisetlur gibbutut S. bicoko Hydrocanthus iricolor Laceophirt manculosur L proximus Didestsu keusitt Collambus dissimills C. imperISrpUnctatus C. hsiequalls Celina angutta ronvexa Hydropoms diversicornas H. purcker H. stedatopufnclatue H. uidukals H. wickhaml Hydroratus pustulatks Coptolomut interrogatut Rhanthus bistriatus Helophoeinut Iaberculaefut Helophoeus Ilneatus Ereoehrs einch,,s E. nebulonsu E oehreceout E, peeplexus
&ia be, T. lafter. ifs T. striokafs Beron s, sp.Parcynmus disrulms P. aubeupreus Pheenotum etiaturn 0yptopqueurm .mhw um ff. lithophius Phanoceoss sp.Maduonychu globta. uts Stenelmlt op.S. douglasends uitnuata e Ancyronyx wasleratn Optioseryus Dubleophia ilttata Trichopuera (caddis flies)Chimarra rocp.Neureclipsis sp.Phylocentuoput sp.PolycenFro put p.
or. curanis'H. no. frisoni H, Orris Cheunmtoplyche sp.Maoronemum
:ebualum M. Carolina Hydroprlla sp.Leptocela at. equisita Trtenodes tarda A thripsodes or. transwvers Oecetis nt. eddlestoni PVynopsyrhe sp.Lepidopters (aquatic calerpill's)
Parargyraetls op.Diptera (lwo-winged flies)Helius sp.Dicranoyma, sp.A nopheies p.Chaoborus punctipennis Palpomy o p.Bezzia or Proben:ia sp.Culkoides sp.A trichopogon sp.Coeforanyput concinnus Clinotanypus plnguis Psectrotanypus sp.Tanypus caernafit 7 vannihes betlus Labrundinia pilosetla A babesmyua mellochi A. moanl: Brilli sp.Cerynonesura xen.Cnieotopus bicinctut C, jgur Oashocrladn sp.Pheetrocladius sp.Eukieffemiela sp.E. sotdent Rheorthoctadius sp.Srenoehironommus sp.Haernlshia abortive Sergxntle A-Makits Endoehlaonomus grkeans Po(ypedilum illinoense' P. 1faiea Chkonomus aetenuatuit RAeotan utamot exg.uus Simuihim sp.Tanbeus sp.aMot abundant genera.I-1!
APPENDIX J Fishes in (he Savannah River near VNP site Chordata (fishes)Amia cali'a (bowrfin)Lepisosteus osseus (Iongnose gar)A losa sapidissima (American shad)Dorosoma cepedianum (gizzard shad)DA petenese (threadfin shad)Umbra pygmaea (Eastern mudminnow)
Esox americanus americanusa (redfin pickerel)E, nigera (chain pickerel)Hybognathus nuchalis (silvery minnow)Hybopsis rubrifrons (roseyface chub)Notemigonus crysoleucos (golden shiner)Nofropsis chalybaeus (ironcolor shiner)N. cummingsae (Cumming's shiner)N. hudsonius (spottail shiner)N. iMncuadtuSa ttaillighl shiner)N. petersoni (coastal shiner)Opsopoedus emilae (pugnose minnow)Moxosloma sp.Erimyzon oblongus (creek chubsucker)
Erimyzon sucetra (lake chubsucker)
Atinytrema melanops (spotted sucker)lctalurus natalis (yellow bullhead)1. nebulosus (brown bullhead)I. brunneus (snail bullhead)L platycephalus (flat bullhead)I. punelatus (channel catfish)Noturus gyrinus (tadpole mAdtom)N. insignis (margined madtom)N. leptacanthus (speckled madtom)Anguilla rostrata (American eel)Fundulus lineolatus (killifish)
Gambusia affinisa (mosquitofish)
Labidesthes sicculus (brook silverside)
Sfrongvlura marina (billfish)
Cholagaster cornutus (swamp blindfish)
Aphredoderus sayanusa (pirate perch)Centrarchus macroptenis (flier)Chaenobryttus gulosusa (warmouth)
Elassoma zonatuma (banded pygmy sunfish)Enneacanthus gloriosus (bluespot ted sunfish)Lepomis auritus (redbreast sunfish)L. macrochirusa (bluegill)
L. marginaius(dollar sunfish)L. megalotis (longear sunfish)L. microlophusa (redear sunfish)L. punctatusA (spotted sunfish)Micropterus salmoidesa (targemouth bass)Pomoxis annularis (white crappie)Pomoxis nigromaculatus (black crappie)Etheostoma fisforme (swamp darter)E. Olmstedi (tessellated darter)Percina nigrofasciato (blackbanded darter)Perca flavescensa (yellow perch)Trinectes maculotus (hogchoker)
Morone (roccus) saxatilis (striped bass)Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass)Alosa mediocris (hickory shad)Alosa aestivalis (blueback hcrring)Cyprinus carplo (carp)ahlost abundant genera.J-1 APPENDIX K Estimates of timber: Vogte Nuclear Plant site and transmission line corridors Sawtimber Growing stock (thousand bd ft) (thousand ftW)Plant site Timber standing (1972)Pine 458 177 Other softwood 68 15 Soft hardwood 452 123 Hard hardwood 255 8 Growth (1971)Pine 52 25 Other softwood 2 1 Soft hardwood 21 6 Hard hardwood is 6 Removal (1971)Pine So II Other softwood Soft hardwood 14 3 Hard hardwood 9 2 North corridor (Goshen)Timber standing (1972)Pine 534 195 Other softwood 65 14 Soft hardwood 540 200 Hard hardwood 181 84 Growth (1971)Pine so 22 Other softwood 2 1 Sort hardwood 21 7 Hard hardwood II 4 Removal (1971)Pine 25 7 Other softwood Soft hardwood 5 S Hard hardwood 4 1 Northwest corridor (Evans)Timber standing (1972)Pine 1,278 459 Other softwood 159 41 Soft hardwood 1.273 466 Hard hardwood 554 264 Growth (1971)Pine 119 51 Other softwood S I Soft hardwood 49 18 Hard hardwood 34 15 K-1 K-2 Appendix K (continued)
Sawtimber Growing stock (thousand bd fA) (thousand ft 3)Removal (1971)Pine 90 20 Other softwood I Soft hardwood 33 7 Hard hardwood 20 4 West corridor (Gainesville-Klondike)
Timber standing (1972)Pine 6.355 2.113 Other softwood 113 33 Soft hardwood 2.038 844 Hard hardwood 1.552 715 Growth (1971)Pine 611 185 Other softwood 5 I Soft hardwood 113 38 Hard hardwood 103 40 Removal ( 1971 )Pine 406 104 Other softwood I Soft hardwood 91 26 Hard hardwood 79 19 South corridor (Hatch)Timber standing (1972)Pine 2.239 670 Other softwood 144 39 Soft hardwood 981 400 Hard hardwood 432 165 Growth (1971)Pine 185 54 Other softwood 4 1 Soft hardwood 41 12 Hard hardwood 22 7 Removal (1971)Pine 130 31 Other softwood I I Soft hardwood 24 7 Hard hardwood 21 S Southwest corridor (Bonaire)Timber standing (1972)Pine 1.878 631 Other softwood 148 34 Soft hardwood 1.400 535 Hard hardwood 1.249 421 Giowth (1971)Pine 187 58 Other softwood 4 I Soft hardwood 57 19 Hard hardwood 54 18 K-3 Appendix K (continued)
Sawtimber Growing stock (thousand bd ft) (thousand ft 3)Removal ( 97 1)Pine 189 46 Other softwood I Soft hardwood 67 18 Hard hardwood 39 8 Waynesboro lines Timber standing (1972)Pine 320 124 Other softwood 47 10 Soft hardwood 316 122 Hard hardwood 178 89 Growth (1971)Pine 36 17 Other softwood I I Soft-hardwood IS 4 Hard hardwood 13 5 Removal (1971)Pine 35 7 Other softwood Soft hardwood 10 2 Hard hardwood 6 2 L-1 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION WASHINGTON.
D.C. 10240 August 17, Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Environmental Projects Directorate of Licensing U.S. Atomic Energy Corm-ission Washington, D.C. 20545 50-424 50-425.50-426 '50-427
 
==Dear Mr. Muller:==
This is in response to your request of August 7, 1973, for cotanents on the environmental stater.cnt for the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, Georgia. Pursuant to its responsibilities under Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has determined that your draft envirormental statement appears procedurally adequate.
Howaver, we have the following substantive comments to make: Although your statement contains evidence of contact with Ms. bary G. Jewett, the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer, we suggest that a copy of her Marci 23, 1973, com=nents concerning the effect of the undertaking upon archeological resources be included in the envirormental statement.
Should you have any questions on these conments or require any additional assistance, please contact Jordan Tannenbaum of the Advisory Council staff..- .'7 ... .'I..',2".J.Sincerell ours, Ken Tapman Compliance Officer oi:,r irm 11 ". u,,;: ': 4l ." I ..t l e f: .t.' I --I1-...:a " .f * , I et.' ." 'a+ in e th, , I+ O '. ..4. 1 --
L- 2 50-424 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 50-425 O..-oCC 01 or sccRC:AY 50-426 WASHINGTON.
: 0. C. 20250 50-427 Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Environmental.
Projects OCT2 2 19 Directorate of Licansinga Atomic Ener.,r Cor-ission Washington, D. C. 2045 45 ;:'
 
==Dear Mr. Muller:==
We have had the draft environmental statement for the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, Georgia Power Company, reviewed in the relevant agencies of the Department of Agriculture, and comments from Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, both agencies of the Department are enclosed.FRED H. TSCEILE Coordinator, Environmental Quality Activities Enclosures L- 3 SOIL CO!SERVATIO1 SERVICE -USPA CO?1EIITS CG &#xa3;?.AFT EIVI.cGMIENTAL STAT [IdT PREPARE BY THE IUITIED STA11-2. ATC.1LIC IIERT, CCI..:ISSION DIR.ECTCPATE OF LICEiSI:G FCR TLIHE ALVM.1 W. VOGTLE NUCLEAR PCWER PLANT UNITS 1, 2, 3, "UD h, GBDRGiA POW'ER CGI-LPANY DOCKET Nos. 50-42h, 50-425, 50O-426, and 50-h27 The draft enwircnnental statement is very 'well prepared.
The land use changes to take place at the plant site and within the transrission lines rights-of-'way are recognized and described in detail. Areas of potential erosion are recognized, and the application of the planned conservation measures will keep erosion from becoming a significant adverse impact.Section h, Page h-1 Table 4.1 does not completely agree with the Source: ER,Vol.II,Table 5.4-1 (see mileage and right-of-way widths).Section I, Page L-7 Suggest that the next-to-the-last paragraph be omitted. Seasonal runoff yields from a watershed are normally camputed for beneficial
'vater stcrage requirements such as irrigation, municipal, etc., and therefore are not applicable for sedimrent detention basins.
L-4 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service RE: ALVIN W. VOGTLE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 1,2,3, & 4 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY The statement should include a realistic estimate of the cost of restoration of all lands (after decommissioning) to a satisfactory level of forest and/or agricultural production.
The cost of dismantling towers and the removal of towers and tower bases from the 12,660 acre transmission R/W and the complete restoration of the 3,177 acres plant site (including the 310 acres occupied by structures) so as not to require subsequent surveillance should be a part of the total project cost.Setting up a security force to guard the closed facility amounts to charging the consumer (the public) for the protection of Private lands which are producing little or no public benefit for an indefinite period and defers costs of this project to other operational future projects.
Carried far enough into the future, the $200,000/year security force cost could result in a negative cost henefit ratio for the Vogtle Plant. Thirty years is a short period. This project should bear the full cost of restoration of all lands used in the project instead of deferring it to the future.The statement should address itself to specific sources of electric power to supply the economic growth spawmed by the Vogtle Nuclear Plant after the Vogtle Plant is decommissioned in 30 years.There seems to be adequate data on Forest resources and erosion impact. No mention of wildlife impact.
L-5 OFFICE OF THE ASSISTAMT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE V.-: .Washincton.
D.C. 20230 50-425 50-426 50-427 September 20, 1973 SEP251973
>Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Ii:.:: Environmental Projects V- /Directorate of Licensing U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545
 
==Dear Mr. Muller:==
The draft environmental impact statement for the proposed"Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1,2,3, and 4,"which accompanied your letter of August 7, 1973, has been received by the Department of Commerce for review and comment.The statement has been reviewed and the following comments are offered for your consideration.
The absence of the Environmental Report and the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report volumes, as referenced in the draft environmental impact statement, has created difficulty in our analysis.
In view of this absence, we can only ask the tollowing specific questions and make general comments.1. What are the combined environmental effects of the A. W. Vogtle plant and the Savannah River Plant (SRP)? For example: a. Does the SPIP use the Savannah River for heat dissipation?
: b. Are cooling towers used at SRP and, if so, how do the plumes interact with the Vogtle plant plumes?
L-6-2 -2. The draft environmental impact statement states that heavy fog (visibility k mile) occurs naturally 10% of the time. Will the Vogtle Plant plumes, in addition to effects from SRP, create extended fogging conditions under frontal conditions?
Increases in fog occurrence and duration could have adverse effects on river traffic. Frontal fogs have been known to last late intc the afternoon in this area.3. Under stable atmospheric conditions, topography can become a major controlling factor on plume dispersion and channeling.
It is conceivable that even with a 500-foot tower a nocturnal inversion on the 260 to 280 foothills could contribute to an early to midmorning fogging or pollution episode.4. A climatological summary from Bush Field Weather Station was used along with an annual wind rose from SRP to determine stability information and air flow patterns.
The National Weather Service operates upper air stations at Waycross, Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia, and Charleston, South Carolina.
Data from these stations would give a better indication of mixing heights and transport winds when used with the surface observations at SRP and the Vogtle Plant.Answers to the above questions used with the already obtained theoretical information will provide additional data about the actual conditions the plant must operate under.4. Environmental.
Effects of Site Preparation and of Plant and Transmission Facilities Construction 4.3.2.3. Construction of intake and discharge structures and bar7-e sliPs Page 4-20 -To reduce the silt load to the Savannah River, we sutgest that the applicant explore and discuss the feasi-bility of either using silt screens or leaving the river end of the barge slip plugged during excavation.
L- 7-3-5. Environmental Effects of Ooeration of the Plant and Transmission Facilities 5.5.2.2. Entrainment Page 5-17 -The applicant assumes random distribution of planktonic organisms and a resultant 100 percent mortality of 3.5 percent of these organisms under worst-case conditions when 3.5 percent of the river flow will pass through plant.We suspect that the reported random distribution of planktonic organisms is an incorrect assumption.
Fish eggs and larvae are not usually randomly distributed either spatially or tem-porally. Assuming non-random distribution of fish eggs and larvae, the percent kill for any one species could be greater than 3.5 percent.Since the importance of upstream areas for spawning of American shad, striped bass, and blueback herring has not been determined, we do not believe the statement should be made that "no significant adverse impact on egg and larval stages of those species due to entrainment is expected." American shad and striped bass are characteristically main-channel spawners, whereas blueback herring spawn outside the main channel.We strongly reco.mend that the preoperational monitoring program include samples of fish eggs and larvae, as suggested in section 6.1.2.2. The sampling program should determine the times of year that eggs and larvae are present in the area of the intake, as well as the species that are present at these times. The pro-portion of spawning by anadromous species upstream from the plant site should be determined.
It is also important to determine distribution patterns in the river. That is, are the eggs and larvae concentrated near the banks of the river, or are they distributed evenly across the river?6. Environmental Measurements and MonitoringPrograms The radiological environmental monitoring program is not described in the draft environmental impact statement, although it is de-scribed in the applicant's environmental report.According to the latter report, tentative locations for sampling the aquatic environment are one mile upstream, one mile dow.-nstrca:-:
L- .-4 -and seven miles downstream.
One station should be located near the effluent discharge outlet, preferably within 500 feet.During the first year of operation, sampling will include water, sediments and aquatic organis-ms.
Thereafter, however, aquatic samples will not be analyzed unless certain discharge rates of wastes areexceeded,thereby indicating that detectable quantities would be in the environment.
We believe that samplin&#xfd;should be continued during plant operation regardless of the effluent concentrations of radioactivity.
6.1.2.2. Aquatic Page 6-4 -The last sentence in the sixth paragraph states that "Two years of preoperational data are necessary to determine annual variation." We believe that conditions would be very rare indeed if collecting two years of data were to accomplish this objective.
In our experience, several consecu-tive years of data are needed to estimate the annual variation of most aquatic organisms.
Table 3.5 indicates that most of the annual release of radioactive gaseous effluent to the atmosphere is through the gaseous waste system (955 Ci/yr/unit).
The system includes decay tanks each with a hold-up capacity of at least 90 days.However, no information is given on how often and over what period of time these releases to the atmosphere will be made.We can only assume at this time that releases will be sporadic and infrequent.
Consequently, the use of annual average relative concentration values (section 5.4.2) appears inappropriate for the subsequent radiation dose values.We also are concerned about the use of the Savannah River TV tower data in categorizing the atmospheric stability of the site. Table 2.6-3 of the applicant's Environmental Report shows a 56 percent frequency of very unstable (Pasquill Type A) conditions.
This, in our opinion, is an unusually high frequency and we sus-ect that it is erroneous.
L-9-5-Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide these corments, which we hope will be of assistance to you. We would appreciate receiving a copy of the final statement.
Sincerely, Sidney R. Gailer Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs L-10 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION.
AND WELFARE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON.
D.C. ?72MI October 3 , 1.973 50 42 50-424 ' 9-" 50-425 50-426 50-427 Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Environmental Projects Directorate of Licensing Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545
 
==Dear Mr. Huller:==
The following com.nents are based upon reviews perforteC:
by our regional office in Atlanta and the Bureau of Radiological Health concerning the draft Environmental Impact Statement on Alvin W.Vogtle Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4.It is estimated that approximately 25 percent of the potential work force will reside in rural Burke County. This work force, about 225 employees, will reside in mobilehormes.
Presently, there are no controls outside the ',aynesboro City Limits that govern mobile home parks. The only governing authority is the local health department.
The project could bave an adverse effect by initiating the propagation of temporary mobile homre parks surrounding the construction site. Such temporary parks could become health (hazards.There is a potential for economic letdown after construction.
The economy of Burke County will be inflated by the average hourly wage of $8.00 per hour for construction workers. At present, the minimum hourly wage of $1.60 per hour appears to prevail throughout the county. It would appear that more consideration should be given to this economic letdown.The radiological effect upon the population appears to be minimal and no detectable health effects from radiation are expected, provided that the documented design criteria are met and maintained.
Acting Chief Office of Environmental Affairs L- 1f 4' : ,j! "!* Il. WjlI R EGION IV rc ncht r mhIuodn SO Se,-nth Sireel. N.E.Alfania. Geor&#xfd;trn 30J2J DE-PAITMENT OF HOUSING AND URCArI DeVELOPMENT ATLAN4TA AREA OFFICE PEAClITREE CENTER BUILDING.
230 PEACHTREE STREETI, M.W.ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30203 August 29, 1973 IN REPLY I{I-I:04 TO: 4.1PP 50- 424 50-425 50-426 Hr. Dnniel R. Muller "" Assistant Director for Environmental Projects Directorate of Licensing United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545
 
==Dear lit. Muller:==
 
==Subject:==
Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant Georgia Power Company Burke County, Georgia In response to your request for coni.ents on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, we have completed our review and have no objection to any of the items on the Statement and our revie%: is enclosed.Sincerely, Enclosure r~irrn r''~ r*: M~.tFT Project Identit'flction:
Alvin 14. Vogtle Nuclear Plant Ceorgia Power Com. pany Project Location:
Burke County, Ceorgia The following includes the general caveats and remarks which we feel should be brought to the a~tention of ann State, local or Federal agency which has requested DHUD review of and co.-ent on a draft Fnvironmental Statement undier the Environmental Policy Act of 1969 und the CI:Q Guidelines.
We have checked those co.-.ents which seem to be particularly applicable to the draft statement identified above.COMEN'TS X inasmuch as HUD has no direct program involvement in Historic sites or structures affected by the subject project, we defer to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation with respect to HLstoric Preservation matters.HUD'has direct.program involvement in the Historic Preservation aspects of the proposed project and appropriate comment'is included under PrEL&RKS.The subject project affects an urban park or recreational area and appropriate comment is included under REMLARKS.The subject project effects only'rural parks and recreational areas and HIUD therefore defers to the Forest Service of the Department of t.griculture, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Bureau of Land hianagement, ::ational Park Service and the Bureau of Sports Fisheries aiid Wildlife .jtn respect to cor.--ents on the Parks, Forests and Recreational effects thereof.This review c:overs the HUD re%'onsibilities under Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act of,1966.The Draft Statement fails to seflect clearance or consulta:ion with the appropriate local planning agency which is: The Draft Environmental StatemenL fails to reflect consultation or clearance with the appropriate areawide planning agency which is: The Draft Environmental Statement fails to reflect consultation or clearance with the appropriate State Clearinghouse as required by Circular A-95, Office of Management and Budget. The A-95 Clearinghouse of jurisdiction is: The project apparently requires the displacement of businesses or residences.
The Draft Envirc,.mentai ztatc:cnt does no. reveal fulk consideration of the rcluiremcnts of the uniform Ielocation Assiztancn and Real Property Acquisition Polities Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-3-s6).If relocation assistance is desired, please contact Mr. Frederick A.Russell, Aasistant Directdr, Plannin; and Relocation Branch, Atlanta Area Office, 230 Fcachtrce Strect, N.W., Atlanta. CeorGia, 30303, at Area Code 404 52u-6527.
In the local co...unity the person or office most faniliar with relocation resource-is:-I /.
L-l;x 2 The draft star..:.,i:t does not discurs npr.iore-itly fc,.-sible alternatLives which taiy have a -ore beneficial effect on the urban ervironment.
See PREMARK!S fr.r possibly overlooked altern',tives.
In general, HUT) defers to other agencies with respect to establishing and renforcing air and water quiality standards, thermal pollution standards, radiation and general safety standards.
We have no formal jurisdiction over such matters and no co:.-ients contained herein should be construed as assuming such responsibility or jurisdiction.
Since this project raises issues involving radiation safety, we recommend consultation with: Dr. Joseph Lieberman, Radiation Office, E.P.A., 5600 Fishers Lane, Parklawn Building, Rockville, Maryland 20852.Date Prepared by./ CP&#xfd;M Representative Date Concurred in: Environmental Clearance Officer Da te Approved by:,' Dircetor of Operations REMIARKS This aIency e.ndorscs the project because of the increased irunediate and longer-run povtei supply for utilization by nearby urban areas.
L- 141 United States Department of the Interior  OFFICE OF TP!E SECRETARY NOV 16 197: WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 U. AT'UC A In reply refer to: 50-424 (ER-73/1094 ) 50-425 _-JJ 50-426 NOV 16 1973 50-427
 
==Dear Mr. Muller:==
Thank you for your letter of August 7, 1973, transmitting copies of -the Atomic Energy Commission's draft statement, dated August 1973, on environmental considerations for Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, Burke County, Georgia.Our comments are presented according to the format of the statement or according to specific subjects.Historic, Paleontological and Archaeological Sites and Natural Landmarks The proposed action will not directly affect any existing or proposed unit of the National Park System, any registered National Historic, Natural, or Environmental Education Landmark, or any site now being processed for registration.
We are pleased to ncte the high level of concern shown for cultural (historical, archeological, architectural) resources in the development of the proposal.
We are further pleased to note that the applicant will be required to finance a professional archeological survey of the plant site and any salvage excavation deemed advisable on the results of the cultural values, we suggest that these same requirements be extended to the development of transmission lines rather than allowing the developer to rely solely on the Georgia Historical Commission, which may or may not have the financial resources to determine and mitigate the effects of the applicant's action on cultural values.It should be understood that if the proposed archeological survey identifies cultural resources deemed by the Director of the Georgia Historical Commission (who serves as State Historic Preservation Officer) to be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, the issuance of a Federal license should not take place until the procedures for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic L-15 2 Preservation Act (80 Stat. 915, see the Federal Register of February 28, 1973, for an explanation of Section 106 p-vocedures) have been observed and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has been presented with an opportunity to comment on the proposed undertaking.
We note that *the Advisory Council is being asked to review the environmental statement.
We recommend that more attention be focused on natural values that may be affected by the proposed action. While mention is made of two eligible National Natural Landmarks, we would draw attention to seven potential natural land-marks located in the vicinity of the proposed plant and associated transmission facilities.
We request cognizance of these sites by the Atomic Energy Commission in order to preserve their integrity.
Alcovy River Swamp -Newton County Altamaha River Swamp -Toombs, Jeff Davis, Montgomery, and ;Aheeler Counties Big Dukes Pond -Jenkins County Charles C. Harrold Nature Preserve -Candler County Little Ohoopee River Swamp -Emanuel County Middle Oconee River -Jackson County Murder Creek Swamp -Putnam County We find it appropriate to note these sites because the place-ment of the transmission lines cannot be determined from the information given. We would again encourage, therefore, that m'ps of transmission lines be presented in greater 1 " that we may review them in a more effective manner.An ' on any of these sites which is a consequence of the p osed action should, of course, be discussed in the appropriate sections of the environmental impact statement.
Cumulative Impacts Th, cumulative thermal effect of Vogtle Nuclear Plant and othr sources of heat should be discussed in the statement.
Geology and Seismology The description of the geology is not adequate to permit an independent assessment of the geologic environment.
It is indicated on page 1-5 that test wells and boreholes were drilled to obtain hydrologic and geologic data, but the draft environmental statement contains only a highly generalized summary of such data. Even though geology may L-1 3 be discussed in detail in the applicant's Environmental Report and Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, this subject is of sufficient importance in relation to environmental concerns that it should be adequately summarized in the final environmental statement.
This concern is particularly applicable to the Vogtle N~uclear Plant because it has been acknowledged that an adequate foundation-bearing horizon is not encountered in excavations until a hard clay marl is reached, at a depth of 80-110 feet, necessitating removal of the-.entire thickness of overlying material (chiefly a "sand and shell" layer subject to subsidence) from foundation areas. This construction requirement, which is the direct result of geologic conditions at the site, will make it necessary to stockpile up to 4i million cubic yards of excavated material, covering up to 125 acres of the site, and creating soil erosion hazards. Consequently, geologic conditions are recognizable as being intimately related to the design, construction, maint-enance, and environmental impact of this plant and they should be accorded more detailed treatment, including a geologic map and section across the construction site.We believe that the environmental statement should present a more comprehensive summary of the regional and local site geology and seismology, and should specify how the geologic and seismologic analysis have been taken into account, As a result of previous agreements with AEC, the Geological Survey is currently reviewing geologic and seismologic aspects described in the applicant's Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. Since this review is not complete, we reserve our final views on these environmental aspects.A topographic map of the site should also be included in the environmental statement to permit an interpretation of the direction of drainage.
This is important because of the necessity of using several retention basins to minimize siltation of major streams. Beaverdam Creek is stated to be a potential site of environmental damage from siltation as a result of construction of the plant, yet the creek is shown on only one highly generalized sketch map (fig. 2.2), and the document does not make clear what drainage area threatens this creek, nor to what extent.
L- 17 Hydrology It does not appear that our comments of May 10, 1973, were considered in the preparation of this draft statement.
Oar concerns and suggestions expressed in the May letter are also applicable to this document.
Some of these concerns are included in the following paragraphs.
There is a need for monitoring stage and water quality in local shallow wells. Based on this draft statement, a visit to the site, and recently provided information for the safety analysis review, we feel that only stage in the local deep wells need be measured; we anticipate no difficulties with contamination or drawdown in the shallow aquifer.The use of a 7-day low river flow figure for computing liquid waste concentrations from the Vogtle plant as well as from other facilities should be considered.
The possibility of contaiminating the deeper artesian aquifer via the eight on-site make-up water wells has not been addressed by the AEC. The desirability of sealing the annulus of each of these wells where it penetrates the aquiclude should be considered.
Recreation Development It is indicated on page 2-11 that there are no public parks or recreation areas within a 5-mile radius of the power plant site. However, it is. also indicated that the river is used for water-skiing and fishing. The statement would be improved if it quantified these existing recreation uses and also listed access points on the Savannah River in the general vicinity of the plant site used by the public for launching recreation watercraft.
The total area of land under the applicant's direct control amounts to 3,177 acres. In addition, 12,660 acres will be affected to some degree, under easements and special permits for transmission lines and attendant rights-or-way.
It is stated on page 4-1 that the entire 3,177 acres will be excluded from future agricultural and recreational use for the estimated 40-year life of the plant.The Georgia Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan in-icates that Central Savannah River area of Georgia, which L- 13 5 includes the plant site, is in need of additional recreation opportunities, including hiking trails, picnicking areas, and areas for fishing. The plan dlso suggests that river and stream floodplains should remain open and available for recreation, fish and wildlife resources, and other com-patible uses.It is apparent that at least certain types of recreation would be a compatible land use within the exclusion area.Therefore, we question complete exclusion of agricultural and recreation pursuits on the 3,177 acrea, especially the 2,142 acre tract of unused land. We urge the applicant to re-examine its apparent dicision to exclude all public use of its land holdings not needed for power generation and prepare a land use plan which would include recreation.
In developing its plan, we suggest that the applicant seek appropriate advice and assistance from, and coordinate with: (1) Joe D. Tanner, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 270 Washington Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334; and (2) Robert M. Baker, Regional Director, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, U.S. Department of the Interior, 810 New Walton Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.It is indicated on page 4-3 that consideration will be given to avoiding possible conflicts with any natural or man-made areas where adverse environmental effects will result. We assume that this will include established or planned park or similar recreation areas. We suggest that the applicant coordinate its route selection works with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources to preclude undue interference with planned recreation areas.Solid Radioactive Wastes The solid radioactive wastes that result from operation of Units 1 through 4 are discussed briefly on pages 3-30 to 3-31.Estimates are given that between 700 and 1200 55-gallon drums of such wastes, containing a total activity in the vicinity of 5,000 curies, will be shipped offsite to an unspecified burial site annually.We believe that the offsite disposal of the operational solid radioactive wastes from the Vogtle Nuclear Plant constitutes an important long-term environmental impact, and that the AEC must satisfactorily solve the problem of proliferating opera-tional wastes from all nuclear plants before they present a major problem. Therefore, we believe and strongly recommend L-1 9 6 that the environmental statements for all reactors (including Vogtle Units 1 through 4) should specify the kinds of radionuclides, their physical states, their concentrations in the wastes, and the estimated total volume of wastes for the expected operating life of the reactor. If an environmental impact statement has not been prepared for the proposed burial or disposal site, or if such a statement does not fully consider wastes of the nature and quantity of those generated at the Vogtle Nuclear Plant,then we believe it incumbent on the AEC to include an evaluation of the disposal site in this present environmental statement.
Such an evaluation should discuss the Federal and State licensing provisions, cirteria, and responsibilities for the site in connection with: (1) determination of the hydrogeologic suitability of the site to isolate the wastes of the Vogtle Nuclear Plant (and any other wastes accumulating at the site) from the biosphere for specific periods of time; (2) curient and continuing srveillance and monitoring of the site; and (3)any remedial or regulatory actions that might be necessary throughout a specific period oi time in which the wastes will be hazardous.
We are aware that "radioactive wastes other than high-level", which apparently include reactor operational solid wastes, have been discussed on pages G-2 through G-9 of the AEC document "Environmental Survey of the Nuclear Fuel.Cycle".
We do not consider the generalized descriptions in this document of the management and the disposal of these wastes as being adequate to cover the concerns expressed above because the descriptions (p. G-2 through G-9 and G-12 through G-14) are not specific to a particular site and to the particular wastes being disposed there. Similarly, the environmental considerations (p. G-16 through G-21) are not specific to a particular site or the particular wastes.Construction of Intake and Discharge Structures and Barge Slip The use of dikes, curtains, or other suitable devices to control erosion and sedimentation during dredging and construction operations should be discussed, Dredging operations should not be accomplished during the months of January 1, through April 1, since this is the period of spawning activity for anadromous fish species utilizing the area.
L-2.1 7 Transmission Facilities The possible undesirable effects resulting from the use of herbicides along the rights-of-way are properly discussed on page 5-15, this Department concurs with the AEC staff in recommending that only discriminate direct application be used where herbicidecntrol is considered essential.
Chemical Impacts Due to the recognized detrimental environmental imipacts of chlorine on the aquatic environment, we believe that' this element should be eliminated from power plant effluents.
Other chemicals and techniques should be developed and registered under Public Law 92-516 for eliminating pests from power plant cooling and service water systems. The feasibility of utilizing alternative methods for the purpose of reducing or eliminaq:ing chlorine from power plant dis-charges should be considered and discussed in the final statement.
Postulated Plant Accidents Involving Radioactive Materiail The environmental effects of class 9 accidents should be considered in AEC's environmental statement.
We think that accidents resulting in both air and water releases should be described and the impacts on human life and the remaining environment discussed as long as there is a reasonable possibility of occurrence.
The consequences of an accident of this severity could have far-reaching effects on land and in Lake Ontario which could persist for centuries.
We also think that plant accidents through class 8 involving releases to water should be discussed.
Many of the postulated accidents listed in tables 7.1 and 7.2 could result in re-leases to the Sav&#xfd;.nnah River and should be evaluated.
We hope these comments will be helpful in the preparation of the final environmental statement.
Sincereiy you s.AssistantSelrc tary of th I terior Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Environmental Projects /Directorate of Licensing Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 L-2i DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAILING AO~lLoES (G-WS/83)UNITED STATES COAST GUARD -.CVSTGUR 400 SEVCNTH STHRZT'-WASHINGTON.
D C 2C*.O P9oN.. (202) 14206-,,7.062
> fe. I &#xa3;1 4 SEP 1973~ ( 50-424 n ""50-425 Mr. Daniel R. -,uller -426 50-427 Assistant Director for X) ".""' J 50-42?Enviro:xmental Projects .-.* /Directorate of Licensing
'" " , Atomic Energy Commission V.Washington, D. C. 205.45
 
==Dear M4r. Muller:==
This is in response to your letter of 7 August 1973 addressed to Captain Riedel concerning the draft environmental ihpact statement on the Vogtle Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, Burke County, Georgia..The concerned operating administrations and staff of the Department of Transportation have reviewed the material submitted.
The Federal Aviation Administration coimnented as follows."Georgia Power Lompany must submit appropriate notice to this agency prior to the construction of the four cooling towers which 'iJi be about 500 feet above ground level. Only aft.er the proper notice is sutmitted and reviewed can we determine if constructic-, of these cooling to'vers would adversely affect aeronautical operations."The final selection of the s.x corridors for the routing of the transmission lines should be coordinated with FAA to determine if notification is required under Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, Obstructions iavigable Airspace.
There was insufficient information included in the statement for us to make this determination." The Federal Railroad Administration made the following complimentary comment."The Federal Railroad Administration is pleased to note that the draft environmental impact statement gives highly acceptable treatment to the problem of inductive coordination as it applies to railroad signal and communication lines." The Department of Trans portation has no further comments to offer ior do we have any objection to the project.
L-22 The final state-ent, however, should address the concern of the Federal Aviation Administration.
The opportunity to review this draft statement is appreciated.
Sincerely P.. !. FP n, q.... .. r .-,t C ;P :1 ICF;: P 9 .r!r 2 T -I) ol 11 L n 50-424 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 50-425 WASHINGTON.
D.C. 20460 50-427 8r11[ OFFICE OF THE" OCT 5 1973, >.ADMINISTRATOR Mr. L. Manning 4untzing 'iJ 2~j Director of Regulation U. S. Atomic Energy Commission CI OCT 5 1973 Washington, D.C. 20545 Dear Ir. Muntzing The Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the draft environm'nntal impact statement for the Alvin W.Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4. This statement was issued in conjunction with the utility's application for a construction permit.It appears that the thermal discharges from the Vogtle station, considered by itself, will meet the applicable water quality standards.
However, substantial thermal discharges are made from the nearby Savannah River Plant to the Savannah River. The final statement should evaluate the total thermal discharge to the Savannah River from both sources and discuss: (1) the thermal interaction, (2) the effects on biota, and (3) the ability of the Vogtle plant discharges to meet the applicable water quality criteria (32.2* C maximum temperature and 2.80 C maximum temperature rise).The radioactive waste management systems planned for the Vogtle plant are expected to be capable of providing"as low as practicable" discharges of radioactive waste to the environment.
Although the calculated exposure rates at the nearest real receptor are within regulatory guides, the calculated hypothetical dose to a child's thyroid, from consumption of milk produced at the potential nearest pasture to the site boundary, would be excessive (27 mrem/yr.). Therefore, EPA recommends that the applicant develop an environmental surveillance program which will identify the location of the critical pathways and receptors and will have sensitivity adequate to document compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.42.
L- 24 2 Our detailed comments on this draft statement are enclosed.
In light of our review of this draft statement and in accordance with EPA procedure, we have classified the project as LO (Lack of Objections) and rated the draft statement as Category 2 (insufficient Information).
We would be pleased to discuss our classification or comments with you or members of your staff.Sincerely yours, Sheldon Meyers Director Office of Federal Activities Enclosure L--2.--D-AEC-06115-GA U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Washington, D.C. 20460 October 1973 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATeIENT COIENTS Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS 1 RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS 3 Radioactive Radioactive Waste Management 3 Dose Assessment 3 Transportation 6 Reactor Accidents 7 NON-RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS 9 Thermal Effects 9 Chemical Wastes 10 ADDITIONAL COM4ENTS 12 L- 2`INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, prepared by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and issued on August 7, 1973. The following are our major conclusions:
: 1. With the exception of the gaseous radioiodine releases, the proposed gaseous and liquid waste treatment systems are expected to be capable of limiting radionuclide releases and, subsequently, offsite doses, to levels within those in the proposed Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. Our calculated potential thyroid dose from the consumption of milk and vegetables, assumed to be produced at the site boundary, exceeds the guides in the proposed Appendix I and the interim Regulatory Guide 1.42. However, the calculated doses at the nearest farm are within these guidelines.
Thus, the applicant should develop a program to identify the location of milk cows and to monitor the critical dose pathways in order to assure that the real doses are within the applicable regulatory guides throughout the plant's lifetime.-2. The final statement should present sufficient information concerning the AEC's dose model and the bases for the assumptions used for determining the thyroid dose due to vegetable consumption to enable evaluation of the AEC dose model. Also, the thyroid doses calculated from each significant pathway should be presented.
: 3. The final statement should (either directly or by publicly available references) provide information on the nature, expected schedule, and level of effort of those generic studies which are L- 27 2 expected to lead to a basis for a subsequent assessment by the AEC concerning the risk from all potential accident classes in the Vogtle station.4. It appears that the thermal discharges from Vogtle station, considered by itself, will meet the applicable water quality standards.
However, substantial thermal discharges are made from the nearby Savannah River Plant to the Savannah River. The final statement should evaluate the total thermal discharge to the Savannah River from both sources and discuss: (1) the thermal interaction, (2) the effects on biota, and (3) the ability of the Vogtle plant discharges to meet the applicable water quality criteria.i L-2 -3 3 RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS Radioactive Waste 'Management The radioactive waste treatment systens of the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Power Station appear to be capable of limiting the offsite release of radionuclides to "as low as practicable" levels and of maintaining doses to within the guidelines proposed in the AEC's Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.36a, with the exception of hypothetical exposure pathways (milk and vegetable) at the site boundary.The AEC should indicate in the final statement the basis for the iodine partition factors given in Table 3.3 and should provide a discussion of the credit allowed for iodine control from the use of various charcoal adsorber systems. In particular, clarification should be given for the iodine partition factor assumed for iodine releases from the containment building.
The assumed partition factor is ten times smaller than the one indicated in the draft statement for the rulemaking action for the proposed Appendix I and the environmental statements for other plants similar to the Vogtle plant. Clarification of these points is important since the partition factors given in Appendix I would lead to significantly higher iodine release estimates and resulting higher potential thyroid doses.Dose Assessment Our calculations for milk ingestion doses to the thyroid of a one-year-old child are in reasonable agreement with those of the AEC. For instance, at the nearest farm we calculated a thyroid dose of about 3.1 mrem/yr via milk consumption and a dose of 27 mrcm/yr for the hypothetical exposure from consumption of milk produced at the site L-2n 4 boundary.
The respective AEC estimates of the annual thyroid doses were 2.8 mrem/yr and 24 mrem/yr. It is uncertain if the AEC doses included the vegetable pathway doses. For clarification, the final statement should expand Table 5.3 of the draft statement to show the doses and their sources, for both the child and adult cases. Also, explicit identification of tables, such as Table 5.3, as to whcther or not they represent doses per unit or per site should be provided.
The final statement should also include references and/or detailed information used in obtaining the leafy vegetable dose estimates.
For example, there appears to be a significent difference between the Alvin W. Vogtle and the Beaver Valley draft statements regarding vegetable consumption rates, e.g., 72 kg/yr at Vogtle versus 18 kg/yr at Beaver Valley.To ensure that the thyroid dose due to milk consumption does not exceed the proposed Appendix I guidelines and the provisions of Regulatory Guide 1.42, the applicant should include a description of the program to be used to identify the significant dose pathways (e.g., location of nearest vegetable gardens and actual pastures) in the operational environmental surveillance program. Also, the analytical sensitivity of the environmental sampling program should be developed to be capable of detecting the exposure levels given in Regulatory Guide 1.42.The final statement should provide a discussion of the sources of liquid radioactive waste from other nuclear facilities to the Savannah River and the relative contribution to the total from the Vogtle plant.In addition, the hunan exposure levels fron the total load of radionuclides in the river should be evaluated.
L-39 5 The rndiation background due to nearby nuclear facilities will be a determining factor in establishing a radiological baseline in the vicinity of the Vogtle nuclear plant. Although post-operational radiological monitoring will be necessary when the plant goes on-line to comply with AEC licensing, baseline data should be obtained at least one year prior to plant operation.
The final statement should clearly indicate the applicant's commitment to this program because of its importance in the continuing assessment of radiological effects to the environment and public. Nearby nuclear facilities will be fully operational by the time the Vogtle nuclear plant goes into operation, which should result in meaningful monitoring data for a unique regiona.area with a heavy concentration of nuclear facilities.
The location of the Savannah River meteorological tower, referred to in Section 5.4.2, should be specified relative to the Vogtle site. The height of the wind sensors above ground (above treetops also) should be clearly stated as weil as the period of record on which the "annual average" is founded. Since the Savannah River Plant has conducted monitoring continuously for over 20 years and remains in operation under the AEC's control, data better than the 2-year average wind rose of Figure 2.11 of the draft statement should be presented.
The large differences in wind direction frequencies between Figure 2.11 in the draft statement and Figure 2.6-10 in the applicant's Environmental Report should be explained and dosage estimates adjusted, if appropiate.
The EPA expects that the results from a current and from planned joint EPA-AEC and industry cooperative field studies in the environs of operating nuclear power facilities will greatly increase knowledge of L- 31 6 the processes and mechanisms involved in the exposure of man to radiation produced through the use of nuclear power. We believe that, overall, the cumulative assumptions utilized to estimate various human doses are conservative.
As more information is developed, the models used to estimate human exposures will be modified to reflect the best data and most realistic situations possible.
Based on the results of the cooperative studies, it is possible that the scope and extent of present environmental monitoring programs and requirements for costly iodine control equipment may be relaxed in scope.Transportation EPA, in its earlier reviews of the environmental impact of transportation of radioactive material, agreed with the AEC that many aspects of this problem could best be treated on a generic basis. The generic approach has reached the point where on February 5, 1973, the AEC published for comment in the Federal Register a rulemaking proposal concerning the Environmental Effects of Transportation of Fuel and Waste from Nuclear Power Reactors.
EPA commented on the proposed rulemaking by a letter to the AEC, dated March 22, 1973, and by an appearance at the public hearing on April 2, 1973.Until such time as a generic rule is established, the EPA is continuing to assess the adequacy of the quantitative estimates of environmental radiation impact resulting from transportation of radioactive materials provided in environmental statements.
The estimates provided for this station are deemed adequate based on currently available information.
I ~7I Reactor Accidents EPA has examined the AEC analysis of accidents and their potential risks which AEC has developed in the course of its engineering evaluation of reactor safety in the design of nuclear plants. Since these accidents are common to all nuclear power plants of a given type, EPA concurs with the AEC's approach to evaluate the environmental risk for each accident class on a generic basis. The AEC has in the past and still continues to devote extensive efforts to assure safety through plant design and accident analyses in the licensing process on a case-by-case basis. EPA, however, favors the additional step now being undertaken by the AEC of a thorough analysis on a more quantitative basis of the risks of potential accidents in all ranges. We continue to encourage this effort and urge the AEC to press forward to its timely completion and publication.
EPA believes this will result in a better understanding of the possible risks to the environm~ent.
In order to provide a fuller understanding of the direction of these efforts, it is requested that the final statement (either directly or 1-1 publicly available reference) provide information on the naturp, expected schedule, and level of effort of those generic studies which are expected to lead to a basis for a subsequent assessment by the AEC concerning the risk from all potential accidents classes in the Alvin 14.Vogtle Nuclear Plant. It is recognized that this subsequent assessment may be either generic or specific in nature depending on the ourcome of the generic studies. In addition, the final statement should include an AEC commitment that this assessment will be made publicly available within a reasonable time period following completion of the generic studies. Clearly, if the above efforts indicate that unwarranted risks L-35 8 are being taken at the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, we are confident that the AEC will assure appropriate corrective action. Similarly, if EPA efforts related to the accident area unccver any environmentally unacceptable conditions related to the safety of the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, we will make our views known.
L-94 9 NON-RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS Thermal Effects The Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, will employ a closed-cycle cooling system, with heat dissipation accomplished by four wet, natural-draft cooling towers for condenser waste heat and four wet, mechanical-draft cooling towers (plus four spares) for nuclear service water cooling. This system will prevent all but a small portion of the station waste heat from reaching the Savannah River. Makeup water for the condenser and service water cooling systems will be drawn from the Savannah River and Tuscaloosa aquifer, respectively, and the discharge will be to the Savannah River.It appears that the thermal component of the discharge from the Vogtle station will meet applicable water quality standards when considered independently; however, sizable thermal discharges to the river from the AEC Savannah River Plant exist in the nearby vicinity.The final statement should evaluate the total thermal discharge to the Savannah River from both sources and discuss the thermal interaction, the effects on biota, and the ability of the Vogtle plant to meet the applicable water quality criteria of 32.20 C (90* F) maximum temperature and 2.8* C (50 F) maximum temperature rise when considering the interaction with the Savannah River:Plant.
The average evaporation and makeup rates for the plant cooling systems (mechanical and natural draft cooling towers) appear to be based on approximately 90 percent of the total plant heat lead being transferred to the atmosphere by evaporation.
We believe this rate of evaporation is excessive in that only about 60 percent of the total heat will probably he lost by evaporation on an annual basis (assuming an 80 percent capacity factor and 25 percent loss of heat by convection).
If the plant L- 35 10 is operated assuming the 60 percent factor, makeup rates can be reduced accordingly.
For example, estimates of the annual average consumptive loss of water and the makeup requirement per natural draft tower would be reduced to as low as 2,500 and 12,300 gpm, respectively.
Similar reductions for mechanical draft towers also can be In our opinion, operation of closed cycle systems at the lowest possible makeup rates (or correspondingly the highest possible concentration factors) consistent with meeting water quality standards and limiting factors for proper cooling system operations, is recommended.
This would serve to minimize environmental impacts associated with the intake of cooling water, such as impingement and entrainment.
We suggest, therefore, that the final statement evaluate this type of operation and the environmental benefits that would accrue.The draft statement evaluates drift losses from the cooling tower systems. In our opinion, these drift loss rates are excessive since well designed natural draft and mechanical draft towers currently available can attain rates considerably lower than those used in the statement.
Consequently, drift impacts may be over-estimated.
EPA has determined that many natural draft and mechanical draft towers currently in use can obtain rates as low as .002 and .005 percent of the circulating water flow, respectively.
Since it is almost certain that towers planned for the Vogtle plant will be state-of-the-art, the final statement should provide a more realistic assessment of drift loss impacts based on the above lower figures.Chemical Wastes Section 301 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act At-endments of 1972 will require chemical waste treatment facilities to meet "best 11 practicable control technology currently available" by July 1, 1977 a~nd"best available technology economically achievable" by July 1, 3.983.Since the four units are scheduled for commercial operation in the 1980-1983 period, the best practicable control technology currentl~y available and, possibly, the best available technology economically achievable f or Unit 4 will be required as the units become operational.
Although guidelines defining these terms are not scheduled for promulgation until late October, it is probable that treatment beyond that presently proposed w~iill be required for Vogtle nuclear plant. Since guidelines may require closed-cycle systems for non-radioactive wastes, such a system with in-plant re-use of reclaimed water should be evaluated in the final statement and discussions should include total costs, as well as expected increase in busbar cost.Adequacy of proposed treatment for laundry wastes and similar waste streams containing organics, ammonia, and other oxygen-demanding constituents cannot be determined from information presented in the draft statement.
Secondary biological and/or equivalent physical-chemical waste treatment to provide 85 percent removal is required to meet conditions of applicable water quality standards.
L- 37 12 ADDITIONAL C0MMENTS During the review, we noted in certain instances that the draft statement did not present sufficient information to substantiate the conclusions presented.
We recognize that much of this information is not of major importance in evaluating the environmental impact of the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant. The cumulative effects, however, could be significant.
It would, therefore, be helpful in determining the impact of the plant if the following topics were addressed in the final statement.
: 1. The liquid effluents from steam generator blowdown will be released directly into the environment without treatment, if the blowdown contains no significant activity.
The final statement should address under what conditions this mode of operation will occur and if the releases are accounted for in Table 3.4 of the draft statement.
: 2. The AEC eLtimates the concentration of gross radionuclides in-8 the liquid effluents, exclusive of tritium, to be 5 x 10 VCi/ml.According to the proposed Appendix I guidelines, 2 x 10 )lCi/ml should not be exceeded in the effluent.
The final statement should indicate whether the value given in the draft statement is the concentration in the liquid discharge with or without the use of the dilution pumps. The environmental consequences of using the dilution pumps should be weighed against the minimal health risks of having higher tritium concentrations in the discharge structure.
: 3. The off-gas from the condenser air ejectors will flow through charcoal adsorbers before being released.
Since this off-gas 13 contains water vapor, the efficiency of charcoal to remove organic iodide inay be reduced-substantially if adequate moisture control is not provided.
The final statement should include an estimate of the organic lodides released and discuss moisture control of air entering these adsorbers.
: 4. The indicated local -ommercial catfish fishery is not addressed in sufficient detail to evaluate its potential significance as a dose pathway. Its location, volume of catches, and location of commercial fishing areas are needed to independently assess its potential involvement in population exposure pathways.5. On page 3-23 of the draft statement, the AEC states that the values for liquid release of radioactivity in Table 3.4 (exclusive of tritium) have been normalized to 0.4 Ci/year in order to delineate the extent of "...allowance for equipment downtime and expected operational occurrences
....." However, the sum of the discharges given for each sub-source is 0.41 Ci. The final statement should indicate more clearly if they have actually allowed for equipment downtime, etc., in their normalization, and also, the rationale for normalizing to 0.4 Ci/year rather than some other quantity should be discussed.
: 6. In Table 5.2 of the draft statement, an invertebrate ingestion pathway is used to calculate doses from the liquid radwaste discharges.
Clarification of this pathway should be given in the draft statement.
L-110 14 7. On page 3-29 of the draft statement, the quantities given for noble gases and 1-131 discharges do not agree with Table 3.5. These discrepancies should be clarified in the final statement.
: 8. The draft statement indicates that laundry and shower waste need not be treated. Such releases are a part of the total impact of the plant. Thus, radioisotopic release estimates from this source should be given in the final statement.
: 9. In the event of a serious reactor or transportation accident involving radioactive materials, the implementation of a sound emergency respcnse plan will be of paramount importance.
Although it is premature to expect details of such a plan to be available at this preconstruction phase, the final statement should include an outline of the components of the applicant's proposed emergency plan and a discussion by the AEC of its adequacy.
This will provide other agencies which have responsibility in this area with an opportunity to comment on the applicant's plan in its early formative stages.10. Discussions of construction tethniques proposed for control of erosion and siltation due to plant and transmission line construction appear acceptable.
We concur with AEC that such techniques should be incorporated to assure that adverse effects on Beaverdam Creek and the Savannah River are minimized.
However, specific details of construction techniques for the discharge pipeline and diffuser in the Savannah River are minimal and should be provided in the final statement.
It is recomnmended that the applicant provide bulkhead or curtains during excavating operations 15 along the shoreline.
Also, any dredging activity in the rivcr should be limited to hydraulic means.11. Relative to debris removal from the intake screens, it is stated that "The staff recommends that material removed from the intake trash rack be disposed of elsewhere rather than returned to the river," as proposed by the applicant.
EPA concurs with AEC and recommends that debris be placed in an approved sanitary landfill or disposed of by another acceptable method. An exception to this, however, is that viable organisms should be returned to the river.Additionally, continuous operation of the screens should be.evaluated.
: 12. Permitting agency for the discharge of liquid wastes in Table 1.1 should be EPA rather than the Corps of Engineers.
Additionally, a permit under Section 402 of the FW-PCA will be required for discharge of pre-operational cleaning wastes.13. Use of sewage treatment plan~t effluent for a portion of the cooling tower makeup should be evaluated in the final statement.
: 14. Discussions on page 9-5 of the draft statement present an unusually low difference in heat rejection and evaporative loss between nuclear and fossil-fueled plants. Nuclear plants generally discharge some 60 to 65 percent more waste heat than modern fossil-fired plants rather than 30 percent as stated.15. A statement should be included in the final statement giving assurance that any open burning of construction or vegetation debris will be in accordance with state regulations.
L-,Al 16 16. An acoustical survey of the nuclear station should be performed to project the maximum sound level along the boundary.
This data should be checked against standards published in the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development Departmental Circular 1390.2. If these noise criteria are exceeded in terms of existing or proposed land uses, then noise abatement measures should be instituted.
In addition, if necessary, noise abatement procedures during land clearing and construction of the plant should be specified, and these procedures should comply with existing local or state ordinances.
L- 42 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION 50-424 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 I L0-1, 25 50-426 PWR-PSR 50-427 boT 2 1973 Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Environmental Projects Directorate of Licensing U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545
 
==Dear Mr. Muller:==
This is in response to your letter dated August 7, 1973, requesting comment on the AEC Draft Environmental Statement for the proposed issuance of a construction permit to the Georgia Power Company for the construction of the Alviu W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Dockets Nos.50-424, 50-425, 50-426, and 50-427) located on the Savannah River in Burke County, Georgia.These comments by the Federal Power Commission's Bureau of Power staff are made in compliance with the N .ional Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the April 23, 1971, Guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality, and are directed to the need for the 4,1,00 megawatts of capacity planned for the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, and to related bulk power supply matters.In preparation of these comments, the Bureau of Power staff has con-sidered the AEC's Draft Environmental Statement; the Applicant's Environ-mental Report and Amendments thereto; related reports made in compliance with the Commission's Statement of Policy on Reliability and Adequacy of Electric Service (Docket No. R-362); and the staff's analysis of these documents, together with related information from other FPC reports. The staff generally bases its evaluation of the need for a specific bulk power facility upon long-term considerations as well as upon the load supply situation for the peak load period immediately following the availability of the new facility.
It s',"uld be noted that the useful lives of the Alvin W. Vogtle units are expected to be 30 years or more. During that period, the units will make a significant contribution to the reliability and adequacy of the electric power supply in the Applicant's service area.I L- 4.., Mr. Daniel R. Muller The Applicant is the largest of the five operating entities comprising the parent holding company, the Southern Company. The others are the Alabama Power Company, the Gulf Power Company, the Mississippi Power Company, and the Southern Electric Generating Company. A sixth corpora-tion, Southern Services, Inc., is the holding company's service corpora-tion which directs the integrated planning and operation of all bulk power facilities.
The Applicant is a member of the Southeastern Electric Relia-bility Council (SERC) and the Southern Companies Subregion of SERC. SERC provides a forum for coordination of system planning for bulk power supply reliability but this does not relieve the member systems of the responsibility of assuring reliable service within their own systems. The Southern Company uses a planning criterion for system reliability of a loss-of-load probability of one-tenth of one day per year.The Applicant is strongly interconnected with the Alabama Power Company and Gulf Power Company, the neighboring subsidiaries of the Southern Company System, to effect the integrated system operation of the operating subsidiary companies as a single system. In addition, the Applicant is interconnected with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA), Savannah Electric and Power Company, Crisp County Power Commission, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Duke Power Company, and Florida Power Corporation.
These interconnections provide intersystem facilities for sales, purchases, and exchanges of power, and also provide facilities for mutual support in emergencies.
The following tabulations show the projected capabilities, load responsi-bilities, and reserve margins for the Applicant's system, the Southern Company System, and regional SERC systems for the 1980-1983 summer peak periods. All of these systems are summer-peaking systems. One of the proposed four Vogtle units is scheduled for commercial operation in April of each of the years from 1980 to 1983, and the summer-peak period is the initial operating period for each of the 1,100-megawatt units.
L-44 Mr. Daniel R. Muller-3-SUMMER PEAK LOAD-SUPPLY SITUATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 Georgia Power Company With the Vogtle Units Reserve Margin -Megawatts Reserve Margin -Percent of Peak Load Without the Vo~tle Units Reserve Margin -Megawatts Reserve Margin -Percent of Peak Load 3,015 19.3 1,915 12.2 3,392 19.4 1,192 6.8 4,502 23.1 1,202 6.2 4,853 22.4 4Ji3 2.1 Southern Company System With the Vogtle Units Reserve Margin -Megawatts Reserve Margin -Percent of Without the Vogtle Units Peak Load 5,447 18.8 4,347 15.0 6,252 7,222 19.5 20.4 4,052 3,922 12.7 11.1 7,751 19.8 3,351 8.6 Reserve Margin -Megawatts Reserve Margin -Percent of Peak Load SERCY1/With the Vogtle Units Reserve Margin -Megawatts Reserve Margin -Percent of Without the Vogtle Units Reserve Margin -Megawatts Reserve Margin -Percent of 23,955 28,030 18.1 19.5 33,674 36,894 21.7 21.2 Peak Load 22,855 17.3 25,830 18.0 30,574 19.6 32,494 18.7 Peak Load I/ Data Source -SERC Report 383-2 dated April 1, 1973.The load growth on the Applicant's system during the 1962-1972 period was at an average annual rate of 10.8 percent. During this period the average annual growth for the Southern Company System was 9.8 percent. The estimated loads for the 1980-1983 period for both systems coincide with projections of these historical growth rates. These load growth rates are substantially greater than the national load growth rate of about seven percent which results In a doubling of the load every ten years.
i L45 Mr. Danicl R. Muller The Bureau of Power staff considers that most thermal electric systems require a reserve margin of 15 percent to 25 percent of the annual peak load to attain adequate system reliability.
TIe staff considers that adequate reliability is suitably provided by the p Lobability of the loss-of-load not exceeding one day in ten years, a generally used reliability standard within the electric utility industry.
For the types and sizes of units on the Applicant's system in the 1980-1983 period, the Bureau of Power staff con-siders the reserve margin needed to meet its reliability criterion to be approximately 20 percent of the annual peak load.If the four Alvin W. Vogtle units were available on the Applicant's system as scheduled, the reserve margin is estimated to vary from 19.3 to 23.1 percent of the peak load during the 1980-1983 period. During this period the Applicant's installed capacity would be augmented by net purchases of 1,073 megawatts, equivalent to one of the Vogtle nuclear units. If these proposed units were not available, the Applicant's reserve margin would decline to 12.2 percent in 1980 and to 2.1 percent in 1983, and the Applicant would not be able to meet the system reliability standards.
The Southern Company System would have reserve margins of 18.8 percent to 20.4 percent of peak load during the 1980-1983 period with the units available.
Without the units, the reserve margin would decline to 15.0 percent in 1980 and to 8.6 percent of peak load in 1983; the result would be a serious loss in reliability of the electric systems serving the greater portions of the states of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.
The SERC region would have reserve margins of 18.1 percent to 21.2 percent of peak load during the 1980-1983 period with the initial three Vogtle units available.
These reserves would decline to 17.3 percent in 1980 and to 18.7 percent of peak load in 1983 without the four Vogtle units.The effects of the units are not as pronounced on the larger SERC region as on the Applicant's and the Southern Company systems. The 1980 SERC estimated summer capacity resources of 156,002 megawatts represent new capacity additions of 70,216 megawatts during the 1973-1980 period. It is not certain that this capacity expansion schedule can be met. Nuclear generating units of the type which comprise the bulk of this new capacity have experienced lengthydelays in construction, and even when completed, have not always been licensed for opera-tion at full rated output.The Southern Company System is adjacent to the Florida Subregion of SERC.Serious interruption of electric service to customers in southern Flcrida occurred on April 3 and 4, 1973. Recomnmendations to avert these interruptions of elcctric service included construction of a 500-kilovolt transmission system to interconnect with the Southern Company System in Georgia, in order to increase the eniergency capabiliLy available from outside peninsular Florida.Since the Southern Company System is the only direct external source of emer-gency power supply for the Florida Systems, the adequacy of the bulk poeer supply of the Southern Company System would be of great importance to the reliability of the Florida area.
Mr. Daniel R. Muller-5-The App] iclnt's plans include power purchases of 1,073 megawatts during the 1979-19.25 period. The Bureau of Power staff considers that purchases of this magnitude may not be available to the Applicant due to the severe capacity demnnd situation in the SERC area. Reliance upon power purchases for reserve requirements could reduce system reliability if these supplies were not ivailable.
The discussion of transmission lines and alternative sources of power in the draft environmental statement is considered adequate.
The Federal Po,,er Commission's Hydroelectric Power Resources of the United States, January 1, 1972, reports data of undeveloped hydroelectric capacity in Georgia at variance w-ith that contained in the discussion of Hydroelectric Alternatives in the Draft Envirconmental Statement.
It is recommended that this difference be resolved.The AEC staff has adhered to the Federal Power Commission's 1970 National Power Survey regional boundaries and load predictions in the discussions of load and capacity projections.
These projections are no longer normally used for this purpose by the Bureau of Power staff. The data source now used more frequently by the Bureau of Power staff Aor projections of system loads and capabilities for this area are derived from the SERC report submitted to the Commission on April 1, 1973, in compliance with FPC Docker R-362. The Bureau of Power staff recor.rnends that all reference to the FPC Southeast Regional Groups, 1970, be deleted from the final environne2ntal statement.
The Bureau of Power staff concludes that the capacities of the Alvin W.Vogtle Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 are needed on the Applicant's system to meet the projected loads and provide adequate reserve margins to meet the reliability standards for the regional systems.Very truly yours, Chief, Bureau of Power L-17:-.Ntional Muse of Nahtral History 5millisonian In 1 HI 1VAjilIN;GrQO., 205500 TEL. 20-381.- 5!S26 28 September 1973 Mxr. Gordon K. Dicker, Chief REF: Docket i10s. 50-424 Environ:::ental Projects Branch 2 50-425 Directorate of Licensing 50-42S United Statec Atomic EnerLV Commission 50-427 Washington, D.C. 20545
 
==Dear M1r. Dicker:==
Dr. Waldo Wedel, Senior Archeologist on our staff and I have read all the docui.cnts which you sent with your letter of Aug. 24 concerning the survey and reports made of the Vogtle Site in Georgia iunder the direction of State Archeologist Dr. Le-:is H. Larson personally and can vouch for his integrity and competence as an archeologist.
We are sure, a].so, that the person he had working for him on this survey is also competent, because Dr. Larson would not be associated with anyone that was not 100 percent Satisfactory.
As we both read the reports, there is no reason to question the competence of the reporting, the findings, or the recommendations and we tee no reason to ask for other studies to be made by anyone.We hope that our scientific judGe.ent of the men, the report and the situation it possible for the Atomic Co:.-nission, the Georgia Power Company and all parties involved to reach a satisfactory agreement on the course of action.Sincerely yours, lif; rEvn.'a .1. .../. EveIzta n s Cehaitman;,.'~ /z Department of Anthropology S..... '50-424.' 50-425 COMIg~5,p.E~
: ~50-426 arm T.WlOGIiNs C.A'-A" ~504 WILI-AM H--.;...U5, 50-427 f^AC aAROCn 77 ROOCCT CIPOJ1 .aY,.rFC1D rcrIo 8 SPINKS A.O. RAND4LL .S~r r....244 WASHINGTON STREET, S.W.ATLANTA.GEORGIA 30334 <" September 24, 1973 Mr. Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Director for Environmental Projects ...Directorate of Licensing
/.. ./N7 United States Atomic Energy Commission
\/,-.. ./Washington, D.C. 20545 -'.)I, , "
 
==Dear Mr. Muller:==
The Georgia Public Service Commission appreciates this opportunity of making conunents on the Draft Environmental Statement prepared by the United States Atomic Energy Co~mmission on the proposed Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant of the Georgia Power Company.Much of the Draft Environmental Statement relates to very technical environmental
&#xfd;.latters.
These matters will undo."tredly be cormented on by other knouledgeable agencies of the State of Georgia and will not be dealt with specifically by the Georgia Public Service Cormiission.
The Georgia Public Service Commission is the regulatory agency in Georgia concerned with costs (i.e., rates) and service matters. We are, therefore, concerned with those portions of the Draft Environmental Statement that deal with these areas, or which have implications in these particular areas.Historically, the public service comriss.ions have encouraged the utility industry to improve effectiveness and efficiency.
An abundant, reliable and economical supply of electric energy is necessary for the well-being of the people of Georgia. The industry, in Georgia, as well as nation-wide, has responded to this interest by developing, installing and operating increasingly sophisticated generation and distribution equipment.
This has made electric service available to all of the people, and at rates where it could be freely used.Recently, this irmprovement in efficiency appears to have stopped. This has been caused by .nany factors, but a major consideration has been concern for the environment.
A great many of the environmcitally related procedures and facilities not; being installed have decreased the efficiency of gcetration and distriburion and has increased labor cost and other costs, without increasing production.
Page 2 We, of course, must be concerned about the environment and protecting it. Many very knowledgeable people, however, are becoming concerned over whether we are receiving benefits and returns for many of the expenditures being made.Specifically, we have noted that the staff has recommended an increase in the various environmental monitoring programs at Vogtle Nuclear Plant, both in the pre and post operational phase. These additional programs should be most carefully considered, and not required unless their benefits outweigh the cost involved.
Any costs involved will have to be passed on to the consumers in the Rtate of Georgia by the Applicant, so it should be certain that the people of Georgia will benefit from any increased cost items.The Georgia Public Service Commission is also very much concerned over planning for future generation.
We are aware of the problems involved in predicting the needed capacity of an area, even for a short period of time. We support long range planning.
However, we are concerned when the time of construction of actual committed for facilities, or the lead time necessary to bring new units into service, becomes excessive due to administrative or licensing problems.
This means that firm decisions must be made by the utility further and further in advance of their actual implementation.
This reduces the ability of the utility to react to changing conditions.
When the lead time for desirable genera-tion methods becomes excessive, then less desirable but shorter lead ti-.:e generation methods muct oftcntir.cs be substituted zo take care of changing conditions.
Long lead times may result even in obsolete or obsolescent methods and equipment at the time of implementation.
It increases the cost of financing such construction work.Environmental agencies are still developing guidelines and regulations on water quality which will be applicable to the Vogtle Nuclear Plant and implemented in the time frame of 1977-1982.
The implications
.-f these regulations cannot be fully anticipated, so it would appetr pre:2ature to recoi:mnend dimensions, such as the port diameters in the diffuser pipes in the Sawvnnah River, at this time.With kitidest regards, I am Sincerely, Bont T. 1:iggins i'fW : cc S 9 GOVERNOR'S SCIENCE ADVISORY COUNCIL STATE OF GEORGIA SUITE 706 225 PEACHTREE STREET. N.E.ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30305 (404) 656-3990 50-424 50-425 50-426 50-427 Jil?JIMMY CARTER Goveenor JOHN E. MOCK SCien&#xa2;, Advitsr to th. ao.-,no.ROBERT C. ANOERSON JAMES A. BAIN JAMES a. BOVO J. ALLEN BRENT M.W.N. COLLINS. JR.H. etIKINLEY CONWAY J.J. DOHERTY PAUL A. OUKE LARRY' L. CCLLERSTEOT.
JR._EN S. OILME#R JOHN T. GODWIN JAMES L. GREEN EOWIN I. MATCH J. RHO.ES HAVEERTY THOMAl 0. JARIETrT A.H. LE TTON MAURICE W. LONG CHAPPELLC MATTHEWS JOHN 0. McCARTY ROnERT A. Mc IORIE C.C. MURRAY ROBERT 0. ORMSBY EOWARO PAST GLEN P. ROBINSON.
JR.DEAN AUSK COWARD 0. SMITH LUCY L. SMITH THOMAS E. STELSON ROBERT E. STIEMKE LOUIS W. TRUMAN.August 31, 1973 SEP e C1 Mr. David R. Muller Assistant Director for Environmental Projects Directorate of Licensing U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545
 
==Dear Mr. Muller:==
With reference to your letter of August 7, 1973, I have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement related to the proposed Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, and agree with the conclusions presented therein.E. Mock ice Advisor to the Governor JEM:mhb L-51 1f i III C r01 1alfficr o~f t[he (Gmirruirr
--I../7-7 I.. I I---, V -'-4.\ " .4..* ,. ' ..4.'-* 9 Septem'ber 19, 1973 JOHN C. WEST COVEnNOR DIVISION OF ArY!11NISRATIC'i Haar A. Erown ttate Ct11' tjii-Columbia, South Carolhr.3 2Sk1j Mr. Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Director for Enviror:-2ntal ProjccC-s Director-at-?
f Licen.;sinr United Staetes Ato;'iic Erery Co,.imission W!ashinnton, D. C. 20545 Referenc2:
Dock, et Niur"bers 50-424, 50-425, 50-426 and 50-427
 
==Dear Sir:==
The Draat Environrental i,->act Statcment related to the proposed Aivin '.. Vo~zle Nticlear Flant, Units I, 2, 3, ar~d 1 has bcn revie-ed in .ac co-:.: " '!-' i.ra Enviro;ni.-.-ntai Policy P.ct and the Office of and EudJoet Circu'ir A--?:.-.Attachcd --re the s,:bstantive ccrments r'ade by the South Carolina .:ater Pe:.".r'cs Co.:niissii:i, th'e Sou'tL Car3lir-.part'.-nt of -.2alth anl Enviro.x-:ental Co.it-rol ,nd thle Lc'.!2r Sava-An :a Dil.nnnin.fi in, -_ .;n Co-,..ncil.
Th";_=e c -"-n ss,.,l be ai '-ss_2d in thL fit al staZte ,..nt to ?ssure an a rra'eri.te and careful cI r si .-C .-tion of the &#xa3;nvironm-2ntal aspects of the prcnosad projzct.If office can be of any further assistance, please ccntaF.* me.Sincerel1i~
:~Eli-,or C. ".hi1 tLecn, Jr. /State Clczrin-w!,ouse E C'!j r/b f Encl o3,:ros cc. 1:1.. a- n .R.,'f" St.tie l0"Iso'0 f f i --, .I..,Cv .u&#xa2;: Office of t.10,-.v r:o 27.1
:t~ t S.'..".-, "- ,: 3 , '.
L-52" of Lea/o.-. n~clSEP 10 (& Vii, 7 i~ , I l~fnlnart.
dO, ~.'E. Aycock, M.D., IA.P.H. 2600 Bvul Strect Commissicnc Columbia.
S.C. 29201 Septe:.ber 5, 1973 Mr. Don Higgins South Carolina .a-:r Resources Cocnission 700 Knox, " Drive Cayce, South Carolina 29033
 
==Dear l1r. Higgins:==
The South Carolin= Dart..ent of Health and EnvironmeCntal Control, Division of -cl ,'.ai th, has rvici-..:ed the U. S. Ato;.-ic Energy Co-iissiont Lrft nrwiron:Aental related to tY.-a proposed Alvin !.. ;:.,te.-ie
*;jclcknr Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Georgia Pu..:er Cc.:-ny 0oc:.et Nos. 50-424, 50-425, 50-425, and 50-427.Listed below are o-n" comients relative to this project:*1. Sp.cia .cmphois s!hould be placed on. the .iultiple sou-rce conceot, includin9 1icui". -.aste disc',':rces fro".' the Ocon," ,itclear Station -hich is lo-zat=-t J rc ' ...... fr:;- +* Wtlv clr Plant. Both t:.: S--avar,2h .i,'r Plant and th'e /,llied-Gulf Nuclcar Fuel Pi-nt disch.-aeo radic.ctive liquid waste to the Savannah River. it is ir..ierative ti~at tie liouid  discharge fro::: --i1 four plants be as a total Savannah River t.rden.2. Of concern is tE,
!.I.-tCer Su:,)ly with thle added radioactive rele".scs, in particular TritiL';n to the river.3. Monitors are disc.:ss:d fc, the outfall structures for Ph, conu.:ctivity,'
'rwo, and tc;parazL're.
There sho-uld also be,.iatien x.:.z trs .t this point -cv,.n' if all normal dischirge pzt'. c-conitored sepira tely.4. N1o radiation r-znitors are listed or sh-m: (in figure 3.3) fcr the rmuclear service cooling system or its blo;-:J;,:
1ine.5. The accident ects:ripticn.
ar.nj evalua.tion arc too general to be Cf any vIlue for C. .,rt;ecy planniwng ,urcaes.
L-53 Mr. Don Higgins September 5, 1973 6. In paragraph
 
====3.5.1 concerning====
 
autotmatic discharge termnation there is no mention of what syster, 1 or syste-..s these u-ergency shutdo.:n valves are in, i.e. wuill all blo,.do'..ns and discharges be securecd or .:ill individual discharge systc;is be tcrminated?
: 7. From fivxre 3.7 it is not clear just where the discharge is goirz- -frcu, this diagmra, it appears that it may go into the coolinD tov.er
: 8. Laundry and sho.:er wv.stes .,ere not considered as a contributing source even thnough, at the concentrations arnd voluw'.ms listed on page 3 -23, .0, ci/yr. i.ould be rele--sed.
This release is grea-ter tn:an th,,t fro'il the %..-%ste holdip tank evaco",n-tors and floor drains v:hich ;!ere inzludad in t;,e considerations.
: 9. In general, the cwvoluation of radioactive l icuid waste releases was skt C, 1 containinl1 fe': deta.ils of release flo;.; rr.ths and relying h-,-Zvily on broad genzirlizations aerd pnrallels
;.ith other plants such as HiNiR w.-hich is half the size of one Vcgti.le unit as proposed.Very truly yours, Hopyi.rd G. Shealy, Oirector Division of Radiolc.3ical Health HGS: bo L-54 St;:tc of Soutth Calrc, int\IV&#xa2;0r c~ourccz (A.Clair P. Cuc-,S, Jr.Execulivc Dirctor September 12, 1973 1'1r. E].mat" C. ':hlittelu State. Cle.::riuIhousc Office of t1c Jcvcrnor Divisior of Ad::inistraJ'n 1205 Peindctcn Strcct, 4Z!. loor Colur.bia, South Carolina 29201
 
==Dear Mr. Un:==
itten: The South Czrolein_
Uatcr ne-ourcos CcFn.issiei, hzs rcviewedc the Draft Environ:.::Lt:.l S&#xa3;tac:.ent
: b. th2 U. S. Atcic nrgy Co::nsion for thc Alvin 1. Vo-gze Nuclr-f.- " .n:t Units 1,2,3, c.-d 4 of the c,-crfia Pc;:er Company located on the Sav:,uinh liver, Burke. Couuty, C-orZia.The follc%.!in.
are several itc-., within the Environntnral Stactement that need furtha" c]arification and warrant co:-.-_ant:
Ground-r.7t cr 1. .-rhat is the short-terla and lonfl-tcle-.
ir-.pact of pu:r.'ing wells at the plant site?a. Pur!ping tests should be i.-.dc to detcr~rtina Ghc arca of infc::z.b. Are there -nyv exisLi.lg, public or private w.c-ll, Within th' a*ea of influence? (i.e. A.E.C,'s.
Savannhh !Jiver .iant)2. Gcncrali::aticns
%:ivhi-n t'-e Draft Statc.-cnt, relating to the safe yic].d of L it,::.J.z:l "ICILicr a-ply to the c.ntivc Tu.;ca~ocz,.
area (::orih CL~o i >:t to Altaba:.I ) rid not nec rt::.ari]* " to t`.: ? -plant site. S z-. yieldL at tha rl.lnt siLt can czn., blie r i::cc ifter a co:.v 1pro;ra. of drilling an," t&#xa2;c;ting in cC:n:-U t,..3. 1'ro\vis;on.,;
should also be 1;wah in the ..)nitori -pre. :r .: r observation vol!z to record thc l:v'-Lern icprtact on zrou:.:atcr levels and gqru.::1tLr quality.4. Will Lhere 5o c:1n: IcT-1l 0..?li.a:ic;;.;
b: .r- und..t .r and F-urfztcz
:a'cr ur,'ace 1:,"*,.r due tO the u L , " n.iLu".'l dI' t Ceii .i- tA:.', ' ,t thic \o tj .tI.. a.
L-55 Mr. Witten September 12, 1973 From the A.E.C'r, Environ:ncnt Statement it is stated that abo-at 19,000 g:=:/uui water will be withdrawn from the Savannah River. The 19,000 ;:'7/unit
;:: neup w:ater Is to supply averaze drift (70 p-./unit), e',apcration (14,E60 frpm/unit), end bloWddc-..:n (41,000 ,/.. L) ":ith all four units operati.--n, 76,000 grof water is being lost or ,-.ppro'.:i:..ately 109,440,000 gallon.; in a 24 hour pcriod. This aould s'ipply the water needs of 1,C94u,,C,-
persons for a da3: usin; the per capita consumption as 100 gallons per person per day.2. The 109,4A'0,fI p,..d of t:ater lons converts to a flow of 169.6 cfs. The lowest recorc.:-
flu.. of the Savannah Rivar (12 mil.es do.:.-. 'treat from Augusta, Ccer-ia) .as 648 c'.s on Septcmber 24, 1939. 163.6/6-"s
= 2.2%of ti.e recor-ocd lo.:-flo; of the Savnn:2!i Rliver near th- -Jarnt site would be leart to the at-:moz.nhere..
The 2'3.2Z figure is not accurtLe since therc vxould be additionel inflc: to the river b-rue.n the gaging rtation 12 miles below AuZusta and the prop-.sed pla.n: site. But, on the othcr hanO., the 26.2,: is a very stril-ing f-ire when the possibitiy cf evaporating onte-fourth of the fe.; of rhe Savannah ",Niver coes eauist. We realize also thet the U-.:'trCa., fr-:.of tl:e vc-nnnh could be a.-r .a..ted by ..ke Por Conpar.:s I['.:ee-Tox.way Projcct z.nd the U. S. Ari.-.y Corns of Engineers Rservoirs' c.'ltart&#xb6;:all and Cla1h .i.Hill. If flou: aur::'entation become r.'ccssir:
We would be reducing.
the elcatrical -eneraring of %h-se three rerervoirs
.-nd also the cooling capabilities.
The }Zec:ee-Toxaw,.ay Project bas three nuclear units located there.. !e fur.-.her realize that tiLe prevncuuuiy
:.:.ed three reservoirs w:ecre not constructcd to au-ier=t flow&#xa2; for the purpose of nuclear ccoiinr.3. Since the surface watcr evaporation losses could an.ount to 25% of the l,,w recore-:d flow of the Savannah 11iver near the proposed plant site we would likc to knowr the following:
: a. M.iat effects, if any, will this have upon the salt ,oter vc-age in Savanna1h Clarbor?b. Bow far upstrcea could the salt water wedge move?C. If the wc.' .e :.ovei "upstrecm, could it affect present or p]:annc,1 industry olcng the river?d. Could frv.l-h water int.hcs be converted to sAlt Watcr by the upstrear, movt:-:ont of the e,'cge?e. .That effects could the % sLre'x, r:ovcu.:ent of the wce'."- have on shonling in the Savannah P.-arbor area?f. )10;,? J151 t.l lnr'.-e. ev,.porative losses affect the dilution lazier of the Rn.... .j v" r?4. Mechniiical-draft cooling tc.:ers will bh ussed for the nualeo..r r-.:':.-Cool i p\.Lo r Tho,.: 'i:rvhn~n -r f tc.':ers, uill o -.. -!-
.L-56 Mr. 1.h,%tten  September 12, 1973 wells for r.1.:eup water. It is stated that during ncrmal operation only one tc,::er will be in use and that 26G &#xa3;.-m of iakeup water will be require,..
:ovor.tion and drift co:..prise 203 pn :il nor7.-a1 blowdo..-I is the re-.iuiin 65 gpm. During nor-.al shuzdc.-,n, the ma.taup watcer rL.quir ....nt will be 300 Zp:::/Lower and both nechnical-draft to,:ers will be in operation.
This amounts to 600 gpi during shutdc..,-n operation.
The rn':eup water rcquirce.;ants from ground-uater sources is small w.:hen comparvd to thore from surface water sources, but then th-ese losses are accumulated over the life of such a project, they become very sizable.5. It is apparent from the one paragraph alterntive of on.ce thrcugli(p:-e 9-10 of the Draft Statem::ent) that this cooling zmethod was not conlidercd in e cLth. It is stated that 7,720 cfs would be requircd for once through ceooling of all four units and since this exceeds the 5,300 cfs guarantced ri:ninum flct., of the river then once thlrou;;h cool, nZ, is not pessible.
In the first pl.ca, a guaranteed flow for any river is a physical i.:'ossibility and secondly the average flow. of the Sav.-nnaih ritver is 10,133 cfs over 64 years of record. The 7,720 cfs required does net exceed the 10,130 cfs averar.e flow and this would appc.r to be .!ecquate for once through cooling. Supplemnental cooling toc-crs cculd be used when the flu,: of tile river is not adequate for the once through method.Since developa.ent along the Savannah River itnmediately below the proposed sitc is m:inimal, it would appear feasibla to allcwi: a few degrees rine in w.ater teoperaturc versus 109,440,00')
n.c of water to be envpornted to the atmosphere.
Furtberimore a few degreas rise in water tc-'perature has not been proven to be totally destructive to the receiving waters of this nation.The co.-:ents and qunstions contained in this letter are not ei-.d tew:ard delaving this project, but to point out the ccncern for ,ossible unnreceesarv water lcosscs due to the use of cooln- tc-vers. We understazr.
the critical situation of the eierg.y crisis, but also rccognize the fact that  gu~ir~it is s ectially :.'otnt v w.oter 011.l44v The South Carolir~a
'.ter r.esources Co-!:lission has gothercd frcn* past similar projects, that Lhe Inviroz.enta.
Protection A Zc:c-. -nd the Atomic Energy Coi.u.....sicn are raLhler .rhitrar'ly req:irirng ccii2:: tc.:ers for all proposed nuclepr generation stztions.
If this trend conti.ues, then the r. ,.ntivoly u2."t -round and uuIrfce Water resources C: South Carolina will be .-horL-livcd.
We hope th:at arbitrary d:.cisions are not dv.:;troyvi,,-, our r.rt :ecieus natur;.l re:;surcu, ad feel :.h.t coa!2'-* rf:o.l::.'ut.
fur 11e : l .:i nc,.d to b' ev,!.'c.-u,-ctcd c" z- :: i;-1ividu t basis and not on a --nniownl policy.Thle South C::rolhna .aer Resourceo Commission appreciates the opportunity L-57 Mr. lsliitten--4-.Septenzber 12, 1973 to comment on this Draft Environrntal Statcmcnt and hopes the U. S.Atomic Enerrgy Co-._..issicn
":ill give serious consideration to these cornmmentr.
Sincerely yours, yo er Clair P. Guess, Jr.Executive Director I CPGJr:se I
.' r r..... .a' q
.. ...., jfi J 4 Z. ..-L** X ...L.t. '....J '.':tt'LL" *" jon.es I z-t,.nar,.
It. r eenA... O.,t,'a, August M, 1073 t 5:" South Car" i::~ ' tcr 2.s..,:,-
-.. .Cc.: :ission 709 :..r .c: : ':. t .. i.C .eyco , , .... .. i.t. 2C. 72" C--'.31in.
2 _;.:$3 Att: 11.,,. Con
 
==Dear Sirs:==
As Fnviir... .t, i P v.; :r rer tbe Lorzr %x-"=,w,.h
.. Ccr:-ci1, I I ,r.,rre...
-Fite o t'z Draft Tnvi ronuln: t.l S. ..z..-t fore V ,1 ::'..-, : : , '. .:i:'. .: -.First, I z ' i f:n v :' of this p jr C&#xfd;Ct. I p:.p c --,. 5' .'. s frL:: t .'. s;, ' ..." ""' r 'a ' "'! th 't ' " of .. " ... .. " o f' C-, , E-n ' C .'r- '-.- .SiCI, uiV.JCJ a. --~~~~ :.~ 4-C :r;2iiC sit:. LW.:LI .! L, L-'and h,:'c.:'c~st c<.::ic..
bes:nzcd b:.ica. ai-2 a fti' -SL% ctiC"".Z 1) 11rovi ". f, -,C.-r di' cussi:i. cm tne en : .. .- ,,ic.-',tion or i, 2) 'A....-"-o F Cc C. Ily; A.i!C L .CL" SothC C-3l i n an.t.2) Soi D' 7i2';' 1 n2 c21- ts f rcxi P: uci r t h'1 cons'U set cr,'" :"v m". .t .:. .......strc-: f'c .-' a Th turo s. ::rcc ,, f!' ijc dii.g:i,.-
...it2 r c CL t  2 : ..,1 t ih. :.t.rct J-J SpC.r :... .3) P " "* ,'..-c- c,.ticofnarbv nOfclc., feac itizs" (I,.:.- -- .. )4) E:,.- 1' 'tc:;.s su.:ch as X/Q ([.., 5-10) for L'c'efit c. the lay r. .In , tir d .F. v',,ai cl?-hl da. e. frc:- SfP s.s oftc n , t...I n r ,,... I Z .;: Cd .. C F L i V 1&2tCL: .:: I cvt12r si('C of ":, .riv-:'. i'v >>,:.- "-.x' :":..u-Lh.
Cnr:'.i",;
i1 V*, nzccive f: .: ,," tih rlan:,' Lzn'_, its "L' k a...,f r,' '. '. p.roj,'ct..Y
" Thua;, ycu.S inccr-lv1 cnvi 2. .r.'-"C i Lp2s, .Crr cc: '-:r. EI .y C. "v:i ""
L-59 Ai3 ~vx~j~~ -i:~~( j7-1:~ &#xb6;~aD r.i P. 0. BOX 275 TEL. 803 524-7322 PAUL SCNlWARTZ Mz-or fm$CHAlRMAN, .ZIP CODE 29902J. L. B11ANTLry E A POLLOCK J.S. HULIx.R. J SECCOELTAR l L. E. RITTCR F W. -c-rrrc".
JP. D. E. So.UmAN TycAsur.rn E. L. SVwrAT Jo a M. DOVILN3 LrCAL CCU'.LCL October 5,1973 CENCRAL M'AHAat Mr. Denial R. Muller,Assistant Director for EnvironmentF;z Projects United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington,D.C.
20545
 
==Dear Sir:==
Ref: Docket 1Nos. 50-424,50-425,50-426,&
50-427 The Lowcountry Regional Planning Council has provided us with copies of comments made on the Draft Environmental Impact Statcment on the subject Project made by the following agencies.The State of South Carolina 'Water Resources Commission, the South Carolina Dcpt.of 1}calth & Environmental Control, and the !lower Savannah Regional Planning and Devopnent Council.Even though we have not seen the Draft Environmental Statement, the comments of the above agencies generate the following questions and comments.1. Due to the much larger minimum and average flow of the Savannah River at the Beaufort-Jasper County Water Authorities intake the porminant withdrawel of approx. 86,400,000 gal./day would probatbly have very little effect on the avalable supply or salt intrusion in The Authorities arcathe quality of the some 23,000,000 gal./day of blowdown does cause concern.2. The comment made by the Water Resources Commission about once thru cooling apears valid in this case and would certainly satisfy any quc.tions regarding the effects of the Plant on River volume.This would leave only the possibility of Radioa.ctive or other contaminntion as the only aparent items of concern to the Beaufort-Jasper County Water Authority.
The Beaufort-Jasper County W"ater Authority would appreciate the opertunity of looking over a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement on this Project.Yours very truly B. Lee Wcbb,PE General Manager CC: Lowcountry Regional Planning Council B.P.Barbcr
& Assoc.,Inc.
Engineers AUGUSTA ARCHAEOLOGY SOCIETY Augusta, Georgia* .* I 6 1ove0.'e" ,O7 Doc.et t-os.5o-b ?5 50-1,26 50--h27 Vr. Gordon Dic!'er, CThief Director.-te of Licensing Tnvorojraent:-?.
rejects Br.-nch 2 US Atomic ?&#xfd;nergy Ccrn-ission Wshington, D.C. 2051!5-zL.It J. ek-!4f LIK i'.-,~' l Depr .1r. Dicker: This will achkn-oledge recei-t of your comuranication of October 2h, Vo73 wzith enclosures, .nertaining to Vogtle Thuclear Pl~nt of Georgia tower ConT"-ny.In our coment of ,ugust With, we noted we were in substnntie). -gree.i-.-t wit1l your DES. Since thl.t tMie we have also received q. cony of Dr. !prson's reo'v"., and find nothing contradicto.-j with our ccr'nents.
We have the feeling of hPvLng re;i1-sterile anpraisal comraent i.rY Gentlemen of the c.imithsonipn, however, we do Fgree w*ith them on their cc.-7-nart.
We note only that there h's been no snecific mention of wh.'t they p].'n to dn about the tr.nsmission rights-of-w.y, and no co.urient on our suggestion o- how we see it. Your Yay renbnber thbt -,ierce .-eid w.as- .bit ilrimed over the nrc-pects of th--t survey renuire-.nt from yojr "Blue Book".Harold Johnston indic-t3d that at the recent hearing you held in Vl!st.., .,'t.GP officipls told hin we i:;ouid be cont-cted within a few dpys nbout their ore-posed excav.,tion
-- not that it re,,lly mptters insofar rs 13 v-sing is concerned, but just for the record, we h'nve heard nothing.We sincerely th,-nk you for your interest and effor f to get the iob d-,-- dcrrn 4-*e plan' site, .nd if we c;n ever be of some Pssistance to you, nle'se rio not.hesitate to cn.l on us.Sincerely, " G.'OqGTIJ S. L.7-'is President I cc: Dr. Calduell Univ. of Georgia L- 61 AUGUSTA ARCHAEOLOGY SOCIETY Augusta, Georgia 2206 Mura Drive Augusta, Ga. 30906 August 14, 1973 Docket Nos. 50-424 .Z 50-425 / h\, s0-426 *X 50-427. a'~Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant .. .. 9 7 3.--Units 1,2,3 and 4 " Georgia Power Company U. S. Atomic Energy Commission
-.ATTN: Deputy Director for Reactor Projects Directorate of Licensing Washington, D.C. 20545
 
==Dear Sir:==
We have received and reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement related to referenced facility, issued August 1973. Our review and comments con-cern the environmental impact and adverse effects of the facility, and related features, on archaeological resources. (Sects. 2.3.3, 4.1.1 and 4.1.2)We are in substantial agreement with the published data on the erchaclogical aspects of the V.P site as set forth in the statement, and strongly support the AEC staff reco-mmendation (Sect. 4.1.1, pgs. 4-2 and 4-3) that should areas of possible archaelogical significance be found which will be disturbed by construction activities, procedures be inplementcd to complete archaeological salvage work prior to construction.
The indicatad time frame for construction work permits this with no apparent difficulty.
Since the State Archaeologist's report on his VNP survey has not as yet been made available to us as promised, it is impossible to evaluate the importance of his findings at thir time. His findings during his initial reconaissance of the V.P site, (Sect. 2.3.3), however, substantiate our contention that there was extensive prehistoric occupaticn of the area.The dearth of typologically significant projectile points and other dateable stone artifacts, and the "abundance of flint chips and broken pottery on the surface" are not of themselves necessarily valid indicators of the total Fast occupation, as this area has been intensivelv and ex-tensively combed for "arrowheads" and other aesthetically pleasing artifacts by trcasurc-z&#xa2;(&#xfd;.rs fr miny. m years, leavirn- behind a residue of w:nat they co: -id*. z z. _t'1%;lc s -:-`1o. ?r a .r ze t-: itti o7 in, sLi :.-.I-excavation of the sites would, of course, disclose the relative period of earliest occupation and remove the "perhaps" aspect from the study.
L-62 Knowledgeable members of the Society have witnessed evidence of pre-ceramic occupation from observation of artifacts garnered from the VNP area by various relic collectors and pothunters who frequented the area in the past. The occupation of this general area is also quite well known to knowledgeable professional archaeologists.
Here again, lack of availability of the State Archaeologist's report on the survey funded by the applicant (Sect. 2.3.3), which was to be accomplished during three weeks of June 1973, renders impossible any intelligent evalua-tion of this aspect. Further comment on this specific matter at this time is purely academic.It is our recommendation that, (1) the State Archaeologist's report be made available to those concerned at the earliest possible date, and (2)the AEC staff recommendation for salvage archaeology (Sect. 4.1.1. pgs.4-2 and 4-3) be followed, commencing as soon as is reasonably possible.
Con-sideration should also he given to formal excavation at a later date cf those sites not immediately threatened by planned construction, to preclude destruc-tion by future expansion of the facility, which is a distinct possibility.
If such sites are so located as to render them inaccessible later because of safety hazards or plant security, then excavation of these should 'e accomplished as a second priority to final plant construction, or at least commencement of plant operation on nuclear fuel.With reference to transmission-line construction (Sect. 4.1.2 and others), recarding archaeological site impact, this matter, although mentioned in the statement, has seemingly been passed over rather lichtly.The subject was addressed during a meeting with GPC officials in June 1973, as it appeared at that time to have been somewhat overlooked by them, even though the subject and requirements are spelled out in USAEC Regulatory Guide 4.2, Section 2.3, dated March 1973. The subject was again addressed at a July 16, 1973 meeting in Augusta, attended by AEC and GPC officials, and a delegation from our Society. An initial alarm was raised by GPC officials, as they felt this requirement to be in the realm of an imocssi-bility, or at best a Herculean task, as the rights-of-way would spin a web hundreds of miles long, spanning several counties.We restate at this time, as we brought out at the July 16th meeting, that although the task seems monumental, there would be only certain points along the proposed transmission routes where the rights-of-way would most likely intersect archaeological deposits of any consequencfC.
These points can be quite closely predicted by a competent archaeolc.zsz once the rights-of-way locations are established.
*.:any sites enroute likely already known :o archaeologists and others, and this prior kno-ledge could perhaps be used to good advantage.
Although the total impact of the transmission line features on other environmental aspects may be considerable, owinq to the 12,660 acres involved, we feel that any major impact on archaeological resources may be rendered less adverse because of several oti;or factors: 2 L- 63 1. Wise employment of modern land-clearing equipment, such as hydraulic shears, minimizes terrain alteration and subsequent erosion, and use of hand tools on steep terrain further reduces initial disturbance and subsequent severe erosion. (Sect. 4.3.1.2)2. Most route clearing and line construction operations will disturb only a relatively shallow depth. Much of the area to be traversed has already been dealt more violent disturbance by repeated agricultural operations, and other developments, than will accrue as a result of transmission line construction.
: 3. Coupled with the fact stated in paragraph 2, above, is the consideration that if any surface and near-surface archaeological deposits are in true context, it perhaps can be safely assumed that they represent a relatively late cultural affiliation, extending even into historic times, about which much has already been studied and documented.
Conversely, if these deposits are already out of context due to prior disturbance, there is no real knowledge lost, only the physical evidence of occupation, which, out of context, is of value only to a collector or souvenir hunter and of no archeological value except to mark the location of a site for the record and possible later investigation.
We submit that the possible and probable major damage to be done to the archaeological resources of the transmission line rights-of-way will result from erection of the transmission towers at specific points along the way. We base this on the following:
: 1. Within the 620 total point-to-point miles of transmission line rights-of-way there will be approximately 687 line-miles of 500kV trans-mission line and 66 miles of 230kV transmission line. (Sect. 3.8 and Table 4.1) This line mileage will apparently require some 2885 lattice-type and around 280 H-frame towers. (Sect. 4.3.1.2) Expanding the per-towez requirements given on pages 4-17 and 4-18 of the statement, this will require some 343 acres and 154 acres, for construction of the 500kV and 230kV line towers, respectively, of which about 25 -27 acres will remain covered with concrete and forever out-of-bounds for future archaeological investigation and excavation.
: 2. Based on observation of existinc transmission lines, we assume that in crossing major drainages and water courses, a tower of some description is usually erected on each side of the course on hicher ground. This location scheme also coincides with the most likely loca-tion of major archaeolocicai sites, ccrticns of which would he heavily disturbed or destroyed by such construction.
Intermediate towers on probably archaeologically barren areas of no impact.We submit further that there is a certain archaeologically iriportant advantage to he gained by the very nature of line and tower construction, to wit: 3 L-64 1. Once the line routes and tower locations are established by survey, the specific areas involved can be rapidly investigated, as major disturbance will ensue on only perhaps .1 -.3 acres at each tower site, with extreme total disruption finally encompassing that which will he dug and filled with concrete, etc. The total site, then, need not be salvage-excavated, only that significant portion which will be destroyed.
: 2. The transmission rights-of-way and tower sites provide the State Archaeologist with a unique opportunity to establish a survey transect with well-defined dimensions, and provide a good representative sampling of some 27 different counties, with portions of some counties being traverse%
up to six times. (Fig. 3.9) This occurs in Burke County, which is notably rich in archaeological deposits.
Multiple crossing of Brier Creek into Jefferson County is also noticed. The Brier Creek drainage is often cited (Waring, Caldwell etal) as a likely location of extremely important Paleo-Indian occupation sites.3. Knowing well in advance where severe disruption will occur provides the opportunity to salvage archaeological data from an area of pre-determined dimensions, while relagating the residual of such sites to further investi-gation at a later date.In summary and conclusion, we submit the following:
: 1. We are in substantial agreement with that which has been dona, and is proposed, to safeguard extraction and retention of archaeological information in connection with construction of VNP and attendant facilities.
: 2. We strongly support the AEC staff recommendation on salvage ex-cavation prior to construction at the VNP site, and recommend its commencement at the earliest possible date.3. We deeply regret the unavailability of the State Archaeologist's survcy rcport at this time, and strongly urge its completion and proper distribution, so his recommendations may be acted upon in an efficient manner.4. We strong1,'
recommend that any archaeological sites within the VNP complex which will be unattainable later due to safety hazards or plant security, or which are subject to possible destruction by anticipated future expansion, be excavated as soon as possible, preferably prior to construc-tion.5. We recommend that as soon as transmission line rights-of-way are obtained and tower locations determined, the State Archaeologist or oth6r acceptable qualified personnel be requested to make an archaeological survey of the most likely site occurrences along t1he proposed route and any indicated salvage be accomplished as efficiently as is reasonably possible.4 L-65 6. We do not feel that we are recommending anything unreasonable, nor do we feel that recovery of archaeological data, or salvaging of the resources within practical limits will cause the Georgia Power Company any undue fiscal hardship.
It is altogether reasonable, and is accepted practice, that when the activities of corporations will result in damage of archaeological or historic remains, the corporations should pay for the necessary procedures to recover as much information as is reasonably possible.We commend both the Georgia Power Company and the Atomic Energy Commission for the manner in which the problems associated with such a major undertaking as a nuclear power plant are being approached and solved., We stand in absolute awe as we view and review the maze of tech-nical complexities involved, most of which we cannot even begin to comprehend, but through which is woven the strong thread of faith in the technical competence of those responsible for designing and assembling the monument to the advancement and endurance of Man.With all the pressing need for more electrical energy, it is reassuring to find that while this need for power is plainly urgent, in its fulfill-ment, the need does not run rampant over our environment and utterly destroy recognition of the impact on so much as an insect, a weed, one displaced family, or an Indian's ancient story recorded only in the soils of our bountiful land.We thank you for the honor and opportunity you have given us to be recognized, and participate in a small way in this project.For the Society, I am, Most sincerely, GEORGE S. LEWIS President cf: Dr. Joseph R. Caldwell University of Georgia 5 a L-66 (Office of V-lfalliitl anih &#xfd;Bubgg Fxecdile epnartimcnt James T. McIntyte.
Jr.Director Februazy 1, 1974 Mr. Gordon K. Dicker, Chief Environmental Projects Branch 2 1 , Directorate of Licensing-, -- .U.S. Atomic Energy Comtmission 91?Washington, D.C.- 20545 Re: Results of State of Georgia Review, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Alvin W.Vogtle Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4; Georgia State Clearinghouse Control Number: 73-03-10-04
 
==Dear Mr. Dicker:==
The Georgia State Clearinghouse has coordinated a State-level review of the above-referenced draft. As a result, several state agencies have submitted the follow7ing conitents which are forwarded for your considera-tion.The Georgia Department of Natural Resources stated: 1. Approximately 3,177 acres at the plant site which is woodland will be permanently closed to hunting. This represents a significant loss of hunting land and future potential to Georgia sportsmen.
An additional 12,660 acres of mixed woodland and agricultural land within the proposed D.owerline corridors will be cleared and converted to low gro.wing vegetation.
This may result in significant changes to the existing woodland wildlife and farm game habitats.
It is recoimmended that the applicant be advised to encourage landowners to replant these acres with vegetation of high value to wildlife.2. Aquatic life in the Savannah River will be submitted to low levels of radiat:ion over an extended period of time as a result of the 270 PtI~9iington pt.. 5:. M. -&#xfd;Ntlu~tdn Q 3 corgin 30133-1 Mr. Gordon K. Dicker February 4, 1974 Page 2 L-67 discharge from the Vogtle Nuclear Plant and the Savannah River Plant directly across the river. Further investigation should be made to determine the probable effects of prolonged low level radiation on the aquatic ecosystem.
The combined effect of such effluent from both these facilities on downstream areas was not discussed in this Draft Environ-mental Statement.
: 3. It is estimated that the total residual chlorine concentration of the Vogtle Nuclear Plant effluent may range from 0.1 to above 2.0 ppm.The AEC has recommended installation of a dechlorinating system to reduce chlorine levels to 0.1 ppm or less. We are in agreement with the AEC.4. Sedimentation on the Savannah River may be severe during. construc-tion of the intake and discharge structure.
Extra precautions should be taken to reduce sedimentation in the river to the lowest level.5. The intake structure should be provided with screens having a mesh size of one-fourth inch or smaller to prevent entry of fish fry.6. On page 3-30 the disposal of solid radioactive wastes is discussed.
The statement is made that "all containers will be shipped to a licensed burial site in accordance with AEC and t'Ue Department of Transportation regulations".
As radioactive waste is an integral part of the operation of any nuclear plant, the environmental impact of such disposal should be dis-cussed in detail. The fact that burial sited as licensed does not necessarily indicate that disposal will have no significant environmental impact. A more complete discussion should include the following informa-tion: a. The location of the burial sites;b. The type of maintenance required to insure that leaks of radioactive materials do not occur;c. The probable impact of burial on the physical (geologic)and biologic environments; i.e., groundwater and subsurface geology;d. The time necessary for the wastes to become non-toxic.
What is the probability that there will be changes in the geologic conditions during the time span? What would be the probable effects of such an occurrence?
: 7. The Water Quality Control Section, Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, agrees with the conclusions of the EIS. Georgia Power Company will have to obtain construction permits from Mr. Gordon K. Dicker L-68 February 4, 1974 Page 3 the Air Quality Control Section of that Department for diesel engines (if greater than 3000 hp), and combustion engines. The reference to open burning on page 3-39 should be made for compliance to the State regulations on open burning.The Georgia Power Company has cooperated fully with the State Archae-ologist in an effort to locate and protect or salvage archaeological sites within the Vogtle Plant boundaries.
The Company, in recognition of its responsibilities vis-a-vis those sites, has already carried out an archaeological survey of the site. The report concerning the archaeological resources of this property has been sent to the Georgia Power Company by the State Archaeologist.
The Brown's Cabin site salvage archaeology was carried out in Deceirber, 1973. Archaeological sites located by this survey that will not be affected by development will be protected.
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources concurs with the following concerns raised by reviewing agencies in South Carolina: 1. The effects, if any, of the surface water evaporation losses on the movement of the salt water wedged in the Savannah Harbor should be carefully assessed.2. We agree that the multiple source concept should be used to evaluate the cumulative impact of radioactive waste discharge from the three existing facilities on the Savannah River and that this impact be considered the total Savannah River burden.3. In addition to the monitors at the outfall structures for Ph, chlorine, conductivity and temperature, there should be radioactive monitors at these locations.
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources recomnends fiat all the above considerations be addressed by the Applicant before further activity is devoted to this project and that the Department be notified of any and all changes in the project design pursuant to these recommendations.
The Georgia Departnent of Transportation stated: This project presents no conflict with existing or proposed transportation facilities in the project area. If any problems should develop along this line in the future, please contact the Second District Engineer, Mr. Roy E. Brogdon, 801 Fourth Street, Tennille, Georgia 31089, Mailing Address: Post Office Box 8, Telephone Number: (912) 854-7311.
Mr. Gordon K. Dicker February 4, 1974 Page 4 L-69 The Georgia Department of Community Development, the Georgia Department O.Human Resources, the Office of Planning and Budget and the Georgia Forest Research Council reviewed this draft and raised no objections to it.The Coastal Area Planning and Development Commission reviewed the draft and did not raise any objections.
A letter from Mr. Pon Starnes, Director of Planning, Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission, dated August 20, 1973, is attached.Sincerely, John Robins Administrator Georgia State Clearinghouse Attachments:
(1)JR:bl L-70 IJURKE .COLUMBIA .JEFFERSON -R -" JENKINS. EMANUEL. SCREVEN TALIAFERRO
-MDUFFIE -GLASCOCK / WARREN
* WILKES .RICHMOND.
LINCOLN CENTRAL SAVANNAH RIVER AREA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 2123 WRIGHTSBORO ROAD
* AUGUSTA. GEORGIA 30904
* BOX 2800
* TELEPHONE (404) 738-5337 August 20, 1973 RECEIVED Mr. Chuck Badger AUG 2 4 1973 Office of Planning and Budget 270 Washington St. oFrIcE OF PLANNING Atlanta, Ga. 30303 AND BUDGET Re: SC 73-08-10-04
 
==Dear Chuck:==
We received a copy of the Draft Environmental Statement for Alvin Vogtle Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, 3 and 4. Our Board of Directors will not officially review the document until our September meeting due to our scheduled Annual Meeting on August 30.I, as technical staff representative of the Commission, wish to make several comments which should be considered prior to construction of this project. One, the CSRA Planning & Development Commission Board of Directors and local governments have already expressed support for this project and see no major environmental problems.
As staff, I would like to suggest, how-ever, that more long-term benefit could be derived by construction of the railroad spur line along the Savannah River and the Shell Bluff area rather than the Greens Cut area.The Shell Bluff area has been designated as a prime large-scale industrial site by the State of Georgia, the CSRA Planning & Development Commission, and Burke County. This site is within the natural growth pattern for industrial development of the Metropolitan Augusta area now that available Richmond County industrial sites are rapidly depleting.
Indeed, Burke County is presently considering a zoning resolution which will protect this land for industrial purposes.
Railroad spur lines must be provided to the site in the long run;thus, it appears that construction of these lines now would significantly enhance its develonment now. Local landowners are generally in favor of a railroad spur within this area.II L-71-2-The Greens Cut railroad spur alignment, although cheaper and slightly shorter in d~istance, would disrupt present agricultural patterns of some of-the best agricultural lands in Burke County. Also of significant importance, it would cross three highways (State Routes 56, 80 and 23) and create possible safety hazards. The Shell Bluff route would cross only State Route 80, but would do so in an area of minimal traffic flow. A local association of pro-perty owners opposing the Greens Cut route have already formed and are ready for a legal battle if such area is finally chosen for the railroad spur.The Greens Cut area is an agricultural community now, and is so designated on the Burke County Land Use Plan and proposed Burke County Zoning Resolution.
In summary, the long-term environmental benefits to the community for the Shell Bluff route for the rail spur appear to outweigh the Greens Cut route.Sincerely yours, (KI" c4tz~i Ron Starnes Director of Planning RLS/ssj cc: Mr. Jim Motz Environmental Planning Georgia Power Company L-72 Date: 4-24-73 6 RECEIVE .50-424 APR 27 1973t- 50-425 I.S. *Tc1:1c 3-Y 50-426 50-427 Mr. Gordon K. Dicker, Chief ictia Environmental Projects Branch 2 Directorate of Licensing United State Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 2054S FROM: Name: Ronald L. Starnes Title: Director of Planning Regional Clearinghouse:
C.S.R.A. Planning and Development Comm.
 
==SUBJECT:==
PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW Applicant:
Georgia Power Company Project: Alvin W1. Vogtle Nuclear Plant Environmental Report State Clearinghouse Control Number: 73-03-30-01 Regional Clearinghouse Staff Contact: Ronald L. Starnes The Regional Clearinghouse has reviewed the Summary Notification for the above project.As a result of the review it has been determined that the proposed project is in accord with regional and local plans, programs and objectives as of this date. You should now complete and file your formal application with the appropriate Federal agency(s).
A copy of this form must be attached to your application.
If you have any questions, please contact the clearinghouse staff member named above, who will be pleased to assist you.Comment: The Board of Directors of the C.S.R.A. Planning and Development Commission met Monday, April 23, and unanimously voted to issue a positive review for the proposed Georgia Power Company's Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant Environmental Report. There will be no significant environmental problems anticipated with this project cxcept minor fog problems upon completion and dust problems during construction.
The proposed site is located within an area which Copy to State Clearinghouse cont'd State of Georgia Form RC-A95 4 BUREAU OF STATE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (May 70)qPG-70-4.70 Page L- 73 contains less than S persons per square mile and is situated across the Savannah River from the Savannah River AEC installation.
The most signifi-cant environmental impact anticipated will be related to guiding new develop-ment caused by the economic impact of nearly 3,800 workers at peak employment at the plant site during the 10 year construction period.The responsibility for controlling land use and development patterns to insure that additional growth within the Burke -Richmond County area will be beneficial, rests with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission, the C.S.R.A. Planning and Development Commission, and the Burke County Planning Commission plus the governing authorities of Burke and Richmond counties.
L-74/ ..I,'~ I .(- ~~-; \~..-50-424 50-425 50-426 50-427 JENKINS * [MANUEL .SCREEN WARREN -WILKES -RICHMOND -LINCOLN BURKE -COLUMBIA
.JFFERSON TALIAF EUR4 -McDUFFIE -GLASCOCK CENTRAL SAVANNAH RIVER AREA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 2123 WRIGHTSBORO ROAD
* AUGUSTA, GEORGIA 30904
* BOX 2800
* TELEPHONE (4041 738-5337 April 17, 1973 J 1e Mr. Gordon K. Dicker, Chief Environmental Projects Branch 2 Directorate of Licensing United State Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20S45
 
==Dear Mr. Dicker:==
We will review the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant Environmental Report at our ncxt Board Meeting which will be held on April 23.Our review and comments will be mailed out on April 24.Sincerely yours, Ronald L. Starnes Director of Planning RLS:egt cc: Mr. Jim Motz -Georgia Power Company Mr. John Robins -State Clearinghouse Administrator}}

Latest revision as of 07:29, 15 January 2025

Final Environmental Statement Related to the Proposed Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4
ML062210506
Person / Time
Site: Vogtle, 05000426, 05200011, 05000427  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 03/01/1974
From:
US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
To:
US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
Guerrero, C, NRO/DSER/RAP1, 415-2981
References
+findbmpk, +reviewedcja
Download: ML062210506 (387)
v • d • e


Text

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML062210506&oldid=5359725"