ML18191A135
| ML18191A135 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 03/21/1977 |
| From: | Renberger D L Washington Public Power Supply System |
| To: | Rusche B C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| G02-77-124 | |
| Download: ML18191A135 (778) | |
Text
I 14'3 g M-911 D-P/-77 7/I/Id/Bg-,>'
~~)p c 0~/6 Z!'.-'">P ASNIIKQVQN PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
Washington Public Power Supply System A JOINT OPERATING AGENCY P.0.BOX 966 3000 GEO.WASHINGTON WAT RiCHLAND, WASHINGTON 99352 PHONSI 509)946~l6ll Docket No.50-397 March 21, 1977 G02-77-124 Mr.Benard C.Rusche, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555
Subject:
WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT-OPERATING LICENSE STAGE SUBMITTAL FOR DOCKETING
Reference:
Letter, R.S.Boyd, NRC to D.L.Renberger, WPPSS, dated February 17, 1977.
Dear Mr.Rusche:
Washington Public Power Supply System is hereby submitting for docketing forty-one (41)copies including three (3)notarized originals of the subject document as requested in the referenced letter.Within (10)days of notification of docketing, distribution will be made according to the attached distribution list and an affidavit to that effect provided.Environmental Technical Specifications are being prepared for submittal by June 1, 1977, Very truly yours, DLR:RKW:vws D.L.RENBERGER Assistant Director Generation and Technology Attachment cc: Distribution List I I W l
Subject:
WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT-OPERATING LICENSE STAGE SUBMITTAL FOR DOCKETING STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF BENTON)ss D.L.RENBERGER, Being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is the Assistant Director, Generation and Technology, for the WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, the applicant herein;that he is authorized to submit the foregoing on behalf of said applicant; that he has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof;and believes the same to be true to the best of his knowledge.
DATED~~~, 1977 D.L.RENBERGER , 1977.On this day personally appeared before me D.L.RENBERGER to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and seal this/~~~day of Notary Public in and.for the State of Washington Residing at s V DOT REGIONAL OFFICE (1)cc: (transmittal letter only)Secretarial Representative U.S.Department of Transportation 3112 Federal Building 915 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98174 ENV I RONMENTAL PROTECTI.'GENCY Chief, Energy Systems Analyses (1)Branch (AW-459)Office of Radiation Programs U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Room 645, East Tower'01 M Street, S.W.Washington, D.C.20460 Chief, Environmental Evaluation (1)Branch (WH-548)Office of Water and Hazardous Materials U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Room 2818, Waterside Mal,l 401 M Street, S.W.Washington, D.C.20460 EPA REGIONAL OFFICE (4)Environmental Statement Coordinator U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Region X Office 1200 6th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 ARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICT U.S.Department of the Army (1)Corps of Engineers, Seattle 4735 East Marginal Way South Seattle, Washington 98134 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1 Hr.Robert Garvey, Executive Director Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1522 K Street, N.W., Suite 430 rlas hi ngton, D.C.20005 Director Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission P.0.Box 1128 Olympia, Washington 98504 NATIONAL'ABORATORY Dr.Philip F.Gustafson, Manager (10)Environmental Statement Project Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, Illinois 60439 RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission (2)P.0.Box 908 1 Columbia River Vancouver, Washington 98660'OUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT REGIONAL OFFICE Regional Administrator (1)ATTN: Environmental Clear ance Officer U.S.Department of'ousing and Urban Development Arcade Plaza Building 1321 Second Avenue Seattle,"Washington 98101 cc: (transmittal letter only)Mr.Richard H.Broun Environmental Clearance Officer Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 7th Street, S.W., Rm.7258 Washington, D.C.20410 DISTRIBUTION LIST:~ENVIPOi'l~icNTAL REPORT, AMENDMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTS Number in parens indicates number of copies DEPAR il NT OF COi~!N'"s'ICE Or.Sidney R.Caller 6)Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs U.S.Department of Commerce 14th&Constitution, i'l.W., Rm.3425 Washington, D.C.20230 Mr.Robert Ochinero, Director (1)National Oceanographic Data'enter Environmental Data Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S.Department of Commerce Washington, D.C.20235 DEPARTS'!ENT OF INTERIOR Hr.Bruce Blanchard, Director"(18)
Office of Environmental Projects Peview, Room 4239 U.S.Department of the Interior 18th&C Streets, N.',I.Washington, D.C.20240 cc: (transmittal letter only)Chief Division of Ecological Servi.ces Bureau of Scor.Fisheries 8':lildlife U.S.Department of the Interior 18th&C Streets, N.W.Washington, D.C.20240 DEPARTliENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE Mr.Charles Custard, Director (2)Office of Environmental Affairs U.S.Department of Health, Education and~riel are, Room 524F2 200 Independence Avenue, S.W.Washington, D.C.20201 FEDERAL PO'IER COl Il'1 ISS ION Mr.Whitman Ridgway, Chief (1)Bureau of Power Federal Power Commission, Rm...5100 825 North Capi tol Street, N.E.Washington, D.C.20426 Dr.Carl N.Schuster, Jr.(2)Federal Power Commission, Rm.4016 825 North Capitol Street, N..E.Washington, D.C.20426 D EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION transmittal letter only addressed to:)Mr.Joseph Canny Office of Environmental Af fair s U.S.Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.tl., Rm.9422 Washington, D.C.20590 cc:.transmittal letter to: Capt.William R.Riedel tlater Resources Coordinator.W/S 73 USCG, Poom 7306 U.S.Department of Trans-portation 400 7th Street.S.W.Washington, D.C.20590 (After DES is issued, send 4 copies of ER&Amendments to Riedel)cc: w/1 cy of enclosure:
.Mr.Ja~es T.Cur ti s, Jr., Di r.~t!aterials Transportation Bure 2100 Second Street, S.W.Washington, D.C.20590 ADJOINING STATES Di.rector, Oregon Department of Energy (1)528 Cottage Street, N.E.Salem, Oregon 97310 Or.Kel'ly Woods (1)Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council 528 Cottage, Street, N.E.Salem, Oregon 97310 CLEARINGHOUSES Office of the Governor (10)Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management Olympia, Washington 98504 Benton-Franklin Governmental (1)Conference 906 Jadwin Avenue Richland, Washington 99352 Librarian/Thermal Reactors Safety (1)Group Building 130 Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton.L.I., New York 11973 Atomic Industrial Forum (1)1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C.20006 LOCAl OFF I.CIAL Mr.James 0.Zwicker, Chairman (1)Benton County Board of Cottmissioners CourthoUse Prosser, Washington 99350 STATE OFFICIAL State Planning (1)Office of Pr ogram Planning 8 Fiscal Management Room 105, House Office Building Olympia, Washington 98501 Mr.Roger Polzin, Executive (1)Secretary Energy Facility Site Evluation Council 820 East Fifth Avenue Olympia, Washington 98504 R C (~l WNP-2 ER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Title PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY~Pa e l.0-1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Definition Need for Power Other Objectives Consequences of Delay THE SITE AND ENIVRONMENTAL INTERFACES 1.0-1 1.1-1 1~2 1 1~3 1 2.1-1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 Geography and Demography Ecology Meteorology Hydrology Geology Regional Historic, Scenic, Cultural, and Natural Features THE PLANT External Appearance Reactor and Steam-Electric System Plant Water Use Heat Dissipation System Radwaste Systems and Source Term Chemical and Biocide Wastes Sanitary and Other Wastes Reporting of Radioactive Material Movement Transmission Facilities 2.1-1 2~2 1 2~3 1 2.4-1 2.5-1 2.6-1 3.1-1 3.1-1 3~2 1 3.3-1=3.4-1 3.5-1 3.6-1 3~7 1 3.8-1 3.9-1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 ENVI RONMENTAL EFFECTS OF S ITE PREPARATION g PLANT AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION Site Preparation and Plant Construction Transmission Facilities Constuction Resources Committed Radioactivity Construction Impact Control Program ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION 4.1-1 4.1-1 4.2-1 4.3-1 4.4-1 4.5-1 5.1-1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Effects of Operation-of Heat Dissipation System Radiological Impact from Routine Operation Effects of Chemical and Biocide Discharges Effects of Sanitary Waste Discharges Effects of Operation and Maintenance of the Transmission Systems 5.1-1 5.2-1 5.3-1 5.4-1 5.5-1 WNP-2 ER" TABLE.OF CONTENTS (Continued):
C~ha ter 5.6 5.'/,5~8 c.,6 I 4 l~s~a~;6~1.6~2 6.3 6.4 Title Other Effects.Resources Committed Decommissioning and Dismantling EFFLUENT AND.ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING PROGRAMS Preoperational Environmental Programs Operational Environmental Programs Related Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs Preoperational Environmental Radiological Monitoring Data.ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF'CCIDENTS Page 5.6-1 5.7-1 5'-1 6.1-1 6.1-1 6.2-1 6.3-1 6.4-1 ,7',-~7.2..8'.Stat'ion Accidents I'nvolving Radioactivity Other Accidents J ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 701-1 7'-1 8.1-1 8.1 8.2 Benefits Costs 8.1-1 8.2-1 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES 9.1-1 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 10 Alternatives Not Requiring the Creation of New Generating Capacity Alternatives Requiring the Creation of New Generating Capacity Selection of Candidate Areas Cost-Benefit Comparison of Candidate Site-Plant Alternatives PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 9~1-1 9.2-1 9.3-1 9.4-1 10.1-1 10.1 10.2~10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10 Cooling System Alternatives Intake System Discharge System Alternatives Chemical Waste Treatment Biocide Treatment Sanitary Waste System Liquid Radwaste Systems Gaseous Radwaste Systems Transmission Facilities Other Systems
SUMMARY
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 10.1-1 10.2-1 10.3-1 10.4-1 10.5-1 10.6-1 10.7-1 10.8-1 10.9-1 10.10-1 11.1-1 3.2.
WNP-2 ER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Conte.nue Chapter 12 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 13 Title ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATION General State Licensing General Federal Licensing State and Federal Water Related Permits State, Local and Regional Planning-Economic Impact Specific Permit Status Other REFERENCE S~Va e 12.1-1 12.1-1 12.2-1 12.3-1 12.4-1 12.5-1 12.6-1 13.1-1 APPENDIX I.ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX II.RADIOLOGICAL DOSE MODELS APPENDIX III.STATEMENT'Y HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER APPENDIX IV.NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM WASTE DISCHARGE PERMIT I-1 II-1 III-1 IV-1 Table No.1.1-1(a)1.1-1(b)-1.1-2(a)1.1-2(b)F 1 3 1.1-4 1.1-5 1.1-6 1.1-7 1.1-8 2.1-1 2.1-2 2.1-3 2.2-'1(a)2.2-1(b)202-2 WNP-2 ER-OL LIST OF TABLES PACIFIC NORTHWEST UTILITIES CONfERENCE COMMITTEE WEST GROUP AREA-COMPARISON OF ACTUAL WITH ESTIMATED WINTER PEAK LOADS PACIFIC NORTHWEST UTILITIES CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WEST GROUP AREA-PERCENT DEVIATION BETWEEN ACTUAL AND ESTIMATED WINTER PEAK FIRM LOADS PACIfIC NORTHWEST UTILITIES CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WEST GROUP AREA-COMPARISON OF ACTUAL WITH ESTIMATED 12 MONTHS AVERAGE FIRM LOADS PACIFIC NORTHWEST UTILITIES CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WEST GROUP AREA-PERCENT DEVIATION BETWEEN ACTUAL AND ESTIMATED 12 MONTHS AVERAGE FIRM LOADS
SUMMARY
OF LOADS AND RESOURCES WEST GROUP RESOURCE ADDITIONS BY SCHEDULED DATE 5 COMMERCIAL OPERATION WEST GROUP RESOURCE ADDITIONS BY PROBABLE ENERGY DATES PUBLIC AGENCY-BPA ENERGY RESOURCES 5 REQUIREMENTS WEST GROUP CAPACITY (PEAK)RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS WEST GROUP ENERGY RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY COMPASS SECTOR AND DISTANCE FROM THE SITE DISTANCES FROM WNP-2 TO VARIOUS ACTIVITIES INDUSTRY WITHIN A 10 MILE RADIUS OF SITE TERRESTRIAL FLORA AND FAUNA NEAR WNP-1/4 AND WNP-2 COLUMBIA RIVER BIOTA NUMBER OF SPAWNING FALL CHINOOK SALMON AT HANFORD, 1947-1977 1V Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table No.2.3-1a 2.3-1b 2\32a AVERAGES AND EXTREMES, OR CLIMATIC ELEMENTS AT HANFORD AVERAGES AND EXTREMES OR'LIMATIC ELEMENTS AT HANFORD (cont.)ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY'OR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT VERY UNSTABLE 2.3.2b ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT UNSTABLE 2.3.2c ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR.WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT-NEUTRAL 2.3.2d ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 and 33 FT-STABLE 2~3+2e 2.3-2f 2%3 3a 2.3-3b 2.3-3c 2.3-4 ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT-VERY STABLE.I ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY; CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT-STABILITY UNKNOWN ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY OF WIND SPEED AND'DIRECTION FOR WNP-2 AT 7 FT FROM 4/74 TO 3/75 ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION FOR WNP-2 AT 33 FT FROM 4/74 TO 3/75 ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION FOR WNP-2 AT 245 FT FROM 4/74 TO 3/75 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, APRIL 1974 2.3-5 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, MAY 1974 WNP-2 ER LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table No.2.3-6 2~3 7 2.3-8 2.3-9 2.3-10 2~3 1 1 2.3-12 2.3-13 2.3-14 2.3-15 2.3-16a-e MONTHLY SUMMARXES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, JUNE 1974 MONTHLY SUMMARXES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, JULY 1974 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, AUGUST 1974 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP 2 g SEPTEMBER 1 9 7 4 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WXNDS FOR WNP-2, OCTOBER 1974 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, NOVEMBER 1974 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOXNT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, DECEMBER 1974 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, JANUARY 1975 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, FEBRUARY 1975 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, MARCH 1975 SEASONAL PERCENT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND WIND DIRECTION AT HMS VS.ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY USING TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 3 AND 200 FOOT LEVELS AND WINDS AT 200 FEET FOR THE PERIOD 1955-1970 2.3-17 2.3-18 2.3-19a CLIMATOLOGICAL REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE YEAR USED IN THE DIFFUSION COMPUTATIONS COMPARISON OF ONSITE AND LONGTERM DIFFUSION ELEMENTS JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES BY PASQUILL STABILITY GROUPS FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS.SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS 2 FOR 33 FT LEVEL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN-2.1 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL DEGREES F PER 200 FT)
WNP-2 ER LIST OF TABLES (conte.nued)
Table No.2.3-19b 2.3-19c 2.3-196 2.3-19e 2.3-19f 2.3-19g 2.3-19h 2.3-20 2~3 2 1 (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN-1/9 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL-2.1 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)(TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN-1.6 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL-1.9 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)(TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN-0.5 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL-1.6 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)(TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS TAHN 1.6 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL~0.5 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)(TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN 4.4 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL 1.6 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)(TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL 4.4 DEGREES F PER 200 r T)(TEMPERATURE CHANGE IN DEGREES F PER 200 FT UNKNOWN)COMPARISON OF MONTHLY AVERAGE AND EXTREliES OF HOURLY AVERAGE AIR TEMPERATURES COMPARISON OF MONTHLY AVERAGES OF WET BULB TEMPERATURES 2.3-22a 2.3-22b 2~3 23 2.3-24 2.3-25 2.3-26a 2.3-26b FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF WET BULB VALUES A FUNCTION OF TXME OF DAY BASED ON WNP-2 SITE DATA 4/74-3/75 MONTHLY AVERAGES GF PSYCHROMETRIC DATA BASED ON PFRIOD OF RECORD 1950-1970 MISCELLANEOUS SNOWFALL STATISTICS:
1946-1970 AVERAGE RETURN PERIOD (R)AND EXISTING RECORD (ER)FOR VARIOUS PRECIPITATION AMOUNTS AND INTENSITY DURING SPECIFIED TIME PERIODS AT HANFORD WNP-2 ONSITE JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WINDS FOR RAIN INTENSITY CLASSES, RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO.016 INCHES PER HOUR RAIN INTENSlTY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.50 INCHES PER HOUR WNP-2 ER Table No.LIST OF TABLES (continued) 2.3-.26c 2.3-26d 2.3-26e 2~3 27 2.3-28 2.4-1 2.4-2 2.4-3 2.4-4 2.4-5 2.4-6 2.4-7a 2.4-7b 2.4-7c 2.4'-8 2.4-9 2.4-10 RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO.100 INCHES PER HOUR RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO.016 INCHES PER HOUR RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO.500 INCHES PER HOUR MONTHLY AND ANNUAL PREVAILING DXRECTIONS, AVERAGE SPEEDS, AND PEAK GUSTS: 1945-1970 AT HMS (50 FT DEVEL)MONTHLY MEANS OF DAILY MIXING HEIGHT AND AVERAGE WIND SPEED COLUMBIA RIVER MILE INDEX MEAN DISCHARGES IN CFS, OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, WA MONTHLY AVERAGE WATER TEMPERATURE
~IN C g AT 0 RXCHLAND, WA MONTHLY AVERAGE WATER TEMPERATURE, IN C, AT RICHLAND, WA
SUMMARY
OF WATER QUALITY DATA FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER AT SELECTED SITES CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COLUMBXA RIVER WATER AT 100 F-1970 (RESULTS IN PARTS/MILLION)
SUMMARY
OF WATER QUALITY ANALYSES OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAM (RIVER MILE 395)FOR 1972 WATER YEAR 1972 WATER YEAR (cont.)1972 WATER YEAR (cont.)AVERAGE CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER AT PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, OCTOBER 1971 TO SEPTEMBER 1972 DISCHARGE LINES TO COLUMBIA RIVER FROM HANFORD RESERVATION TOTAL ANNUAL DIRECT CHEMICAL DISCHARGE FROM HANFORD RESERVATION TO COLUMBIA RIVER V3.i i Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER Table No.LIST OF TABLES (continued) 2.4-11 2.4-12 3~3 1 3.5-1 3.5-2 3.5-3 3.5-4 3.5-5 3.5-6 3.5-7 3.5-8 0 3.5-9 MAJOR GEOLOGIC UNITS XN THE HANFORD RESERVATXON AREA AND THEIR WATER BEARING PROPERTIES AVERAGE FXFLD PERMEABILITY (FT/DAY)PLANT WATER USE NOBLE GAS CONCEVTRATION IN THE REACTOR STEAM NUMERICAL VALUES-CONCENTRATIONS IN PRINCIPAL FLUID AVERAGE NOBLE GAS RELEASE RATES FROM FUEL CONCENTRATIONS OF HALOGENS 1N REACTOR COOLANT AT REACTOR VESSEL EXIT NOZZLES (pCi/gm)CONCENTRATIONS OF FXSSION PRODUCTS XN REACTOR COOLANT AT REACTOR VESSEL EXXR NOZZLES (pCi/gm)CONCENTRATIONS OF CORROSION PRODUCTS IN REACTOR COOLANT AT REACTOR VESSEL EXXT NOZZLES (pCi/gm)CONCENTRATIONS OF WATER ACTIVATION PRODUCTS iN REACTOR COOLANT AT REACTOR VESSEL EXIT NOZZLES (pCi/gm)RADIONUCLXDE CONCENTRATIONS XN FUEL POOL ESTIMATED RELEASES FROM DRYWELL AND REACTOR BUILDING VENTXLATXONS SYSTEMS ESTIMATED RELEASES FROM TURBiNE BUILDING VENTILATION 3.5-10 3.5-11 3.5-12 3.5-13 3.5-14 3.5-15 ESTIMATED RELEASES FROM RADWASTE BUILDING ESTIMATED RELEASES FROM MECHANICAL VACUUM PUMP ANNUAL RELEASES OF'ADIOACTIVE MATERIAL AS LIQUID RADWASTE OPERATING EQUIPMENT DFSXGN BASIS RADWASTE SYSTEM-PROCESS PLOW DXAGRAM DATA (9 PAGES)EQUIPMENT DRAIN SUBSYSTEM SOURCES Amendmant 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table No.3.5-16 3.5-17 3.5-18 3.5-19 3.5-20 FLOOR DRAIN SUBSYSTEM SOURCES CHEMICAL WASTE SUBSYSTEM SOURCES OFF-GAS SYSTEM PROCESS DATA RELEASE POINT DATA NOBLE GAS RELEASE RATE INTO ATMOSPHERE FROM OFF-GAS SYSTEM 3.5-21 3.5-22 3.5-23 ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS FROM BUILDING VENTILATION SYSTEMS, GLAND SEAL AND MECHANICAL VACUUM PUMPS EXPECTED ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF SOLIDS SIGNIFICANT ISOTOPE ACTXVXTY ON WET SOLIDS AFTER PROCESSING 3.5-24
SUMMARY
OF RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT MONITORING AND CONTROL POINTS 3.6-1 3.8-1 3.9-1 5.1-1 5.1-2 5.1-3 WATER COMPOSITION COLUMBIA RIVER, DEMINERALIZER WASTE, COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT 500 KV AND 230 KV LINE ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS TlMING OF SALMON ACTIVITIES IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER NEAR HANFORD FROM L.O.ROTHFUS TESTIMONY IN TPPSEC 71-1 HEARINGS (EXHIBIT 62)ESTIMATED ANNUAL PERCENT PERSISTENCE OF ELEVATED VISIBLE PLUME LENGTHS ESTIMATED ANNUAL PERCENT PERSISTENCE OF ELEVATED VISIBLE PLUME LENGTHS WITH THE AIR TEMPERATURE 0 C OR LESS 5.1-4 5.1-5 MONTHLY ELEVATED VISIBLE PLUME LENGTHS PERCENT PERSISTENCES PREDICTED VISIBLE PLUME WXDTHS IN METERS AS A FUNCTION OF MONTH AND DOWNWIND DISTANCE WNP-2 ER LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table No.5.1-6 5.1-7 5.2-1 5.2-2 5.2-3 5.2-4 5.2-5 5.2-6 5.2-7 5.2-8 5.2-9 5.2-10
SUMMARY
OF FOGGING IMPACT ESTIMATES INCREASEIN RELATIVE HUMIDITY AT POINTS OF MAXIMUM POTENTIAL IMPACT RELEASE RATES AND CONCENTRATION OF RADIONUCLIDES IN THE LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM WNP-2 RELEASE RATES AND CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES XN THE AIRBORNE EFFLUENTS FROM WNP-2 ANNUAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERXC DILUTION FACTORS (X/Q')CONCENTRATIONS OF IMPORTANT RADIONUCLIDES IN VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR BIOTA DOSE ESTIMATED ASSUMPTIONS USED IN ESTIMATING DOSES FROM THE LIQUID PATHWAY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN ESTIMATING DOSES FROM THE GASEOUS PATHWAY ANNUAL DOSE RATES TO BIOTA ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE WNP-2 NUCLEAR PLANT (mrad/yr)ESTIMATED ANNUAL DOSES TO AN INDIVIDUAL FROM THE LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS OF WNP-2 ESTIMATED ANNUAL DOSES TO AN INDIVIDUAL FROM THE LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS OF WNP-2, WNP-lg~AND WNP-4 5.2-11 FRACTION OF RADIONUCLIDE PASSING THROUGH WATER TREATMENT PLANTS 5.2-12 5.2-13 ASSUMPTIONS FOR ESTIMATING DOSES FROM CROPS AND ANIMAL FODDER SUBJECT TO DEPOSITION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS RELEASED BY THE PLANT CUMULATIVE POPULATION g ANNUAL POPULATION DOSE g FROM SUBMERSION IN AIR CONTAINING RADIONUCLIDES FROM THE WNP-2 AND COMBINED RELEASES OF WNP-2 AND WNP-1 AND WNP-4 X3.
Table No.5.2-15 5.3-1 5.8-1 6.1-1 6.1-2'6.1-3 6.1-4 6.1-5 6.2-1 6.3-2 7.1-1 7012 7.1-3 7.1-4 8.1-1 8.2-1 8.2-2 8.2-3 8.2-4 WNP-2 ER LIST OF TABLES continued ESTIMATED ANNUAL POPULATION DOSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO WNP-2 AND COMBINED RADIONUCLIDE RELEASES OF WNP-1, WNP-2 and WNP-4 MAXIMUM POTENTIAL CHANGE IN COLUMBIA RIVER WATER QUALITY RESULTING FROM WNP-2 CHEMICAL DISCHARGES PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF DISMANTLING AND DECOMMISSIONING COSTS MASS SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF DRIFT DROPLETS FISH SAMPLING FREQUENCY BY STATION AND METHOD RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MiONITORING PROGRAM KEY FOR FIGURE 6.1-3 MAXIMUM VALUES FOR THE LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION (LLD)WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE SCHEDULE-1979 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE NETWORK WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION, JUNE 1978 CLASSIFICATION OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS AND OCCURRENCES RADIATION EXPOSURE
SUMMARY
TABLE OF EVENT PROBABILITIES SOME U.S.ACCIDENTAL DEATH STATISTICS FOR 1971 ELECTRIC POWER REQUIREMENTS BY MAJOR CONSUMER CATEGORIES IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST COST COMPONENTS OF WNP-2 INFORMATION REQUESTED BY NRC ESTIMATED COST OF ELECTRICITY FROM WNP-2 POPULATION DATA FOR THE TRI-CITY AREA X11 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER Table No.8.2-5 8.2-6 10.1-1 10.1-2 10.2-1 10.2-2 10.9-1 12.1-1 LIST OF TABLES (continued)
PROJECTED SHORT-TERM POPULATION GROWTH IN TRI-CITY AREA
SUMMARY
OF REGIONAL GROWTH INDICATORS CAPITALIZED TOWER ENERGY CONSUMPTION COST CAMPARISON OF MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS INTAKE SCHEMES DIFFERENTIAL COST COMPARISON COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE INTAKE SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION ROUTES PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION Amendment 1 May 1978
~Fi use No.1.1-1 1.1-2 1.1-3 1.1-4 1.1-5 1.1-6 1.1-7 2 1.1-8 201-1 2.1-2 2.1-3 2.1-4 2.1-5 2.1-6 2.1-7 2.1-8 2.1-9 2.1-10 2.1-11 2.1-12 WNP-2 ER-OL LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ESTIMATED VERSUS ACTUAL WINTER FIRM PEAK LOADS PNW-WEST GROUP AREA ESTIMATED VERSUS ACTUAL ANNUAL AVERAGE FIRM LOADS PNW-WEST GROUP AREA U.S.5 PNW (WEST GROUP AREA)PEAK LOADS ELECTRIC ENERGY RE(UIREMENTS BY MAJOR CONSUMER CATEGORIES PACIFIC NORTHWEST (WEST GROUP AREA)FACTORS CAUSING INCREASE IN ENERGY SALES TO DOMESTIC CONSUMERS IN WEST GROUP OF PNW 1950-1973 WEST GROUP AREA LOAD CRITICAL WATER 1981-1982 ESTIMATED CAPACITY RESERVES 1977-1987 ESTIMATED ENERGY DEFICITS 1978-1987 SITE LOCATION MAP HANFORD RESERVATION BOUNDARY MAP SITE PLAN SITE PLOT PLAN HANFORD RESERVATION ROAD SYSTEM'ANFORD RESERVATION RAILROAD SYSTEM PROJECT AREA MAP-10 MILE RADIUS PROJECT AREA MAP-50 MILE RADIUS DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSIENT POPULATION WITHIN 10 MILES OF SITE DELETED DELETED DELETED X1V Amendment 5 July 1981
~Fi ure No.2.1-13 2.1-14 2.1-15 2.1-16 2.1-17 2.1-18 2.1-19 2.1-20 2.2-'1 2.2-2 2.2-3 2.2-4 2.2-5 2.3-1 203-2 2~3 3 WNP-2 ER-OL LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS continued DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DISTRIBUTION Of MAJOR PLANT COMMUNITIES (VEGATATION TYPES)ON THE ERDA HANFORD RESERVATION, BENTON COUNTY, WA FOOD-WEB OF COLUMBIA RIVER SEASONAL FLUCTUATION OF PLANKTON BIOMASS SEASONAL FLUCTUATION OF NET PRODUCTION RATE OF PERIPHYTON TIMING OF UPSTREAM MIGRATIONS IN THE LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER WIND ROSE FOR WNP-2 FOR 4-74 TO 3-75 AT THE 7 FT LEVEL WIND ROSE FOR WNP-2 FOR 4-74 TO 3-75 AT THE 33 FT LEVEL WIND ROSE FOR WNP-2 FOR 4-74 TO 3-75 AT THE 245 FT LEVEL" XV Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (continued)
Fi ure No.2.3-4 2.3-5 2.3-6 WIND ROSES FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES AT WNP-2 FOR 4-74 TO 3-75 AT THE 33 FT LEVEL.WIND ROSE AS A FUNCTION OF HANFORD STABILITY AND FOR ALL STABILITIES OF HMS BASED ON WINDS AT 200 FT AND AIR TEMPERATURE STABXLITIES BETWEEN 3 FT AND 200 FT FOR THE PERIOD 1955 THROUGH 1970 SURFACE WIND ROSES FOR VARIOUS LOCATIONS ON AND SURROUNDING THE HANFORD SITE BASED ON FIVE-YEAR AVERAGES (1952-1956).
SPEEDS ARE GIVEN IN MILES PER HOUR 2~3 7 2.3-8 2.3-9 2.3-10 2~3 1 1 MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMXDITY MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGE OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE MONTHLY PRECIPITATXON AMOUNTS BASED ON THE PERIOD 1912-1970 AT HMS 2.3-12 RAINFALL INTENS ITY i DURATION i AND FREQUENCY BASED ON THE PERIOD 1947-1969 AT HMS 2~3 1 3 2.4-1 2.4-2 2.4-3 2.4-4 2.4-5 PEAK WIND GUST RETURN PROBABXLZTY DIAGRAM AT HMS UPPER AND MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN DISCHARGE DURATION CURVES OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, WA FREQUENCY CURVE OF ANNUAL MOMENTARY PEAK FLOWS FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, WA FREQUENCY CURVES OF HIGH AND LOW FLOWS FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAMg WA CROSS SECTIONS OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER IN THE PLANT VICINITY WNP-2 ER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS cont>.nued)
Fi ure No.2.4-6 LOCATION OF INTAKE AND DISCHARGE LXNES WNP 1 g WNP-4 AND WNP-2 2.4-7 2.4-8 ELEVATION CONTOURS OF THE RIVER BOTTOM AT THE WNP-2 DISCHARGE (FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL)RXVER WATER SURFACE PROFILES FOR SEVERAL FLOW DISCHARGES IN THE VICINITY OF THE PLANT SITE 2.4-9 2.4-10 2.4-11 AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURE COMPARISON FOR PRIEST RAP I DS DAM RICHLAND~FOR 1 0 YEAR PERIOD 1965-1974 COMPUTED LONG TERM TEMPERATURE ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER AT ROCK ISLAND DAM (1938-1072)
ONE HOUR DURATION FREQUENCY CURVE OF HXGH RIVER WATER TEMPERATURE IN THE VICXNITY OF THE PROJECT SXTE 2.4-12 2.4-13 2.14-14 2.4-15 2.4-16 3.1-1 3~1 2 3.1-3 3.1-4 3.1-5 3.1-6 TWENTY-FOUR HOUR DURATION FREQUENCY CURVE OF HIGH RIVER WATER TEMPERATURE IN THE VICINITY OF THE PLANT SITE SEVEN DAY DURATION FREQUENCY CURVE OF HXGH RIVER WATER TEMPERATURE IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE SIMPLIFIED GEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTXON OF THE HANFORD RESERVATIONS WASHINGTON GROUNDWATER CONTOURS AND LOCATIONS OF WELLS FOR THE HANFORD RESERVATION g WASHINGTON g SEPT 1 9 7 3 POINTS OF GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL XN THE VICINITY OF WNP-2!WNP-2 PLANT SITE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLZNG TOWER ELEVATION MAKE-UP WATER PUMPHOUSE ELEVATION WNP-2 MAKE-UP WATER PUMP HOUSE WNP-2 EFFLUENT RELEASE POINTS Xvi 1 Amendment 3 January 1979 WNP-2 ER L1ST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (continued)
Fi ure No.3~2 1 3~2 2 3~2 3 3.2-4 3.2-5 3.2-6 3~2 7 3~3 1 3.4-1 3.4-2 3.4-3 3.4-4 3.4-5'3.4-6 3.4-7 3.4-8 3.4-9 3.4-10 3.5-1 3.5-2 CORE ARRANGEMENT TYPICAL CORE CELL FUEL ASSEMBLY ENRICHMENT DISTRIBUTION STEAM AND RECIRCULATION WATER FLOW PATHS GE REACTOR SYSTEM HEAT BALANCE FOR RATED POWER DIRECT CYCLE REACTOR AND TURBINE SYSTEM NET PLANT HEAT RATE VARIATIONS VS.TURBINE BACK PRESSURE PLANT SYSTEMS WATER USE DIAGRAM MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS PLOT PLAN TOWER CENTER SECTION THRU FILL COOLING TOWER PERFORMANCE CURVE MONTHLY AVERAGE FLOW RATES AND TEMPERATURES INTAKE SYSTEM PLAN AND PROFILE MAKE-UP WATER PUMPHOUSE PLAN AND SECTIONS PERFORATED INTAKE PLAN AND SECTIONS PERFORATED PIPE INTAKE DISTANCE VS.INTAKE FLOW VELOCITIES
\PERFORATED PIPE INTAKE VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION 3/8" AWAY FROM SCREEN SURFACE RECTANGULAR SLOT DISCHARGE FLOW DIAGRAM PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM LIQUID FLOW DIAGRAM RADIOACTIVE WASTE SYSTEM EQUIPMENT PROCESSING XVi1.i
~Fi ure No.3.5-3 3.5-4 3.5-5 3.5-6 3.5-7 3.5-8 3.5-9 l 3.5-10 3.5-11 3.5-12 3.5-13 307 1 3.9-1 3.9-2 3.9-3 3.9-4 4.1-1 4.1-2 5.1-1 WNP-2 ER-OL LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS continued FLOW DIAGRAM RADIOACTIVE WASTE SYSTEM FLOOR DRAIN PROCESSING FLOW DIAGRAM CHEMICAL WASTE PROCESSING'LOW DIAGRAM PROCESS OFF-GAS SYSTEM LOW TEMPERATURE N-67-1020 FLOW DIAGRAM OFF-GAS PROCESSING SYSTEM RADWASTE BUILDING FLOW DIAGRAM OFF-GAS PROCESSING TURBINE BUILDING FLOW DIAGRAM HVAC-O.G.CHARCOAL ADSORBER VAULT RADWASTE BUILDING FLOW'IAGRAM HEATING 5 VENTILATION SYSTEM REACTOR BUILDING fLOW DIAGRAM RADWASTE BUILDING HEATING AND VENTILATION SYSTEM FLOW DIAGRAM HEATING 5 VENTILATION SYSTEM TURBINE BUILDING FLOW DIAGRAM RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL SOLID HANDLING FLOW DIAGRAM FUEL POOL COOLING AND CLEANUP SYSTEM SANITARY WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM 500 KV, 230 KV, 115 KV POWER LAYOUT CONFIGURATIONS OF BPA TRANSMISSION TOWERS 230 KV RIGHT-OF-WAY DETAIL MAP BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION'S H.J.ASHE SUBSTATION CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS
SUMMARY
WNP-2 PERSONNEL ESTIMATE BLOWDOWN PLUME CENTERLINE TEMPERATURES Xix Amendment 5 July 1981
~Fi use No.5.1-2 5.1-3 5.1-4 5.1-5 5.1-6 5.1-7 5.1-8 5.1-9 5.1-10 5.1-11 5.1-12 5.2-1 5.2-2 6.1-1 6.1-2 6.1-3 6.1-4 6.1-5 WNP-2 ER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS continued PLAN VIEW OF WNP-2 AND WNP-1/4 BLOWDOWN PLUME ISOTHERMS CROSS-SECTION OF WNP-2 BLOWDOWN PLUME ISOTHERMS DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED
SUMMARY
OF TEMPERATURE EXPOSURE AND THERMAL TOLERANCE OF JUVENILE SALMONIDS EQUILIBRIUM LOSS AND DEATH TIMES AT VARIOUS TEMPERATURES FOR JUVENILE CHINOOK SALMON R.E.NAKATANI, EXHIBIT 49, TPPSEC 71-1 hear ing SALT DEPOSITION PATTERNS OUT TO 0.5 MILE (lb/acre/yr)
SALT DEPOSITION PATTERNS OUT TO 6.9 MILE (lb/acre/yr)
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS FOR ORGANISMS OTHER THAN MAN EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TO MAN AQUATIC BIOTA AND WATER QUALITY SAMPLING STATIONS NEAR WNP-1, 2, AND 4 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY STUDY SITES IN THE VICINITY OF WNP-2 RADIOLOGICAL SAMPLE STATION LOCATIONS PERCENT CANOPY COVER OF HERBS IN VICINITY OF WNP-2 AVERAGE HERB PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY IN VICINITY OF WNP-2 XX Amendment 4 October 1980
~Fi ure No.6.3-1 6.3-2 6.3-3 10.2-1 10.2-2 10.2-3 10.2-4 10.2-5 10.9-1 10.9-2 10.9-3 10.9-4 10.9-5 WNP-2 ER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS continued HANFORD EVIRONMENTAL AIR SAMPLING LOCATIONS 14 RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING STATIONS AT HANFORD OPERATED BY DOE i1 STATEWIDE SAMPLING LOCATIONS MODIFIED CONVENTIONAL INTAKE PI AN AND SECTION MODIFIED CONVENTIONAL INTAKE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT PLAN INFILTRATION BED INTAKE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT PLAN INFILITRATION BED INTAKE PLAN AND SECTIONS PERFORATED PIPE INTAKE IN OFF-RIVER CHANNEL OVERALL MAP OF ROUTES"A" AND"B" RIGHT-OF-WAY DETAIL MAP ROUTE"A" AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF LAND CROSSED BY TRANSMISSION LINES LAND USE HANFORD RESERVATION RIGHT-OF-WAY DETAIL MAP ROUTE"B" XX1 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP~2 ER CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY 1.0 DEFINITION In order to satisfy power needs of the Pacific Northwest.
region, a nuclear electric generating facility has been proposed to be operated in the State of Washington'by the Washington Public Power Supply System (" Supply System").The proposed nuclear electric generating project, Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear, Project No.2 (WNP-2)rated at 1,100 MWe, is located on a site within the U.S.Department of Energy (DOE)Hanford Reservation in Benton County, Washington, approximately 12 miles north of the city of Richland, Washington.
1.0.1 The Su ly S stem The Supply System is a joint operating agency formed under Chapter 43.52 of the Revised Code of Washington.
The Supply System was originally formed in 1957.As a joint operating agency, the Supply System is legally empowered"to generate, produce, transmit, transfer, exchange or sell electric energy and to enter into contracts for any or all such purposes." (RCW 43.52.300)
The Supply System is specif-icatlly authorized to issue revenue bonds to finance the construction of projects and facilities undertaken by it.The management and control of the Supply System is vested in a Board of Directors composed of a representative of each of its members.The members of the Supply System have a pre-ference right to purchase all the energy generated by the Supply System.A joint operating agency may not acquire or operate distribution properties, nor does it have a general taxing authority of any kind.The Supply System is specifi-cally authorized to make contracts relating to the purchase, sale, interchange
'or wheeling of power with the Government of the United States or any agency thereof, or with any municipal corporation or public utility within or outside the State of Washington.
The business of the Supply System is conducted in public meetings of the Board of Directors and all actions taken are by resolution or motion of the Board of Directors, and all records and minutes are public pursuant, to the laws of the State of Washington.
An Executive Committee composed of 7 members administers the business of the Supply System be'tween regular meetings of the Board of Directors.
A Managing 1.0-1 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER Director, appointed by the Board of Directors, is the chief executive officer of the Supply System and is authorized to administer the business of the Supply System pursuant to rules, resolutions and policies promulgated by the Board of Directors.
A joint operating agency such as the Supply System must obtain the approval of legislative bodies of a majority of its members prior to undertaking any project.All bonds or notes issued by the Supply System must be sold at public bidding and all contracts over a stipulated amount.are required to be entered into under public biding proce-dures.The Supply System has no authority to impose any debt or financial obligation on the State of Washington or any of its political subdivisions, including its members.The authority granted to the Supply System by statute applies equally to the generation of electricity by"water power, by steam power, by nuclear power or by any other means whatsoever" (RCW 43.52.260).
The Supply System, whose membership is made up of 19 opera-ting public utility districts and the municipal electrical systems of Richland, Seattle, and Tacoma, all located in the State of Washington, has its principal office in Richland, Washington.
It has the power of eminent domain, but is specifically precluded from the condemnation of any plants, works or facilities owned and operated by any city, public utility district or privately-owned electric utility.The Supply System will operate WNP-2 and have continuing respon-sibility for its maintenance.
The Supply System owns and operates the Packwood Lake Hydro-Electric Project with a nameplate rating of 27,500-KWA.
It also owns and operates an 860,000 kilowatt electric genera-ting plant and associated facilities (the"Hanford Generating Project")located on the Hanford Reservation.
Steam is provided from the New Production Reactor ("NPR"), owned and operated by the United States Department of Energy (DOE).DOE has recently negotiated a contract with the Supply System to supply steam from the NPR until July 1983.The Supply System is building two other nuclear electric generating plants on the Hanford Reservation;-
such facilities are known as the Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project No.1 (WNP-1)and the Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project, No.4 (WNP-4).In addition, two nuclear electric generating plants, Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project No.3 (WNP-3)and Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project No.5 (WNP-5)are under construction about 16 miles east of Aberdeen in Grays Harbor County, Washington.
1.0-2 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER 1.0.2 WNP-2 WNP-2 ("the Project"), is being undertaken pursuant to the Hydro-Thermal Power Program described, in Section 1.1 developed jointly by the util'ities of the Pacific Northwest and BPA.The Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee ("PNUCC")represents the entities serving the loads of the West Group area of the Northwest Power Pool and assembles the loads and resources forecasts of the individual utilities into an ll-year forecast, known as the West Group Forecast past issues of which are on file with the Federal Power Commission (FPC).The forecast includes loads and resources for Northern Idaho, Washington, Oregon (except for the southeastern part of the state), a portion of Northern California, the loads and resources of Pacific Power and Light Company and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)in Western Montana, the BPA loads and the United States Bureau of Reclamation
("USBR")resources in Southern Idaho.PNUCC also expands the forecast into a 20-year planning document titled,"Long-Range Projection of Power Loads and Resources for Thermal Planning West Group Area".Except for minor corrections and additions to the West, Group forecast data, the first 11-year data of the Long-Range Projection is'he same as the West Group Forecast.In its planning, PNUCC seeks to: a)Optimize available resources; b)Reduce reserves required for adequate system reliability by providing for the inter-utility sharing of reserve, requirements; and c)Improve service and reliability of the region's inter-connected system.The Projects have been timed, sized and located to economi-cally meet regional power requirements consistent with the basic philosophy of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program, of contributing to the growth and stability of the Pacific Northwest.
The basic tenets of this philosophy are to: a)Continue to preserve the environmental and natural beauties of the Northwest.
b)Make efficient and economic use of the federal regional transmission system.c)Obtain the economics of scale from large thermal gen-erating plants.1.0-3 WNP-2 ER d)Coordinate the required large thermal generating plants with existing Pacific Northwest hydro plants, both federal and non-federal, and with future peaking gen-rating units (both hydro-electric and combustion turbine), to achieve an economical, reliable power supply to meet the electric power requirements of the Pacific Northwest.
WNP-2 will be constructed and operated by the Supply System as part of Phase 1 of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program, a program designed'o meet the anticipated needs for power in the Pacific Northwest.
Ninety-four consumer-owned utilities in the Pacific Northwest will participate in WNP-2.The public agency participants, all of which are statutory preference customers of BPA, currently obtain all or part of their power supply and other services from BPA.Each participant's share of annual costs of plant operation will be"net-billed" against the billings made by BPA to the participant on a monthly basis under its power sales and other contracts.
Under the net billing arrangement, each participating utility contracts with the Supply System to purchase a portion of the WNP-2 electrical output and in turn sells this electricity to BPA for distri-bution over its regional transmission grid system.Xn payment for this power, BPA credits the amounts paid by each partici-pant to the Supply System against amounts the participant owes BPA for power purchased and other services.Since the participant's payments to the Supply System will be net billed, the cost of their shares of the power pro-duced by WNP-2 will be borne by BPA customers.
BPA has assured.Congress that"any costs or losses to Bonneville under these agreements will be borne by all Bonneville ratepayers through rate adjustments, if necessary".
1.0-4 WNP-2 ER 1.1 NEED FOR POWER Until the present decade, the Pacific Northwest has relied on hydro-generation for nearly all of its electric energy requirements.
Future hydro-developments in the Pacific Northwest, however, will consist largely of the installation of peaking generation because nearly all the economically feasible regional hydro sites have been developed.
The integration of new thermal generating resources with the hydro resources of the Northwest.
to maximize reliability has been a goal of the region's power planning for many years.Utilities of the region commenced practicing coordination on a voluntary basis more than 30 years ago by the establish-ment of the Northwest Power Pool (NWPP).In 1964, 14 utilities and three federal entities formalized this coordination in the area by signing the long-term Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement which expires in 2003, a copy of which is on file with the Federal Power Commission (FPC).To meet the Northwest's firm energy requirements, five Northwest investor-owned utilities, 104 consumer-owned agencies, the Supply System and BPA, acting in concert as the Joint Power Planning Council (" The Council"), in 1968 conceived the Hydro-Thermal Power Program.The Hydro-Thermal Power Program was approved by the Secretary of the Interior on October 22, 1968, and the federal portion of the program was approved through 1981 by the Congressional enactment of the Public Works Appropriation Act of 1971.Installation schedules were established for seven large~thermal plants needed in addition to the probable hydro-generation installation to supply the requirements of the region through the operating year 1981-1982.(Phase 1 of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program.)A review of load and resource forecasts for the region was undertaken in mid-1973 to reassess the resource requirements of the region because of slippage in the federal hydro installation schedule, the inability of the large Centralia Thermal Project to reach rated capacity because of environ-mental considerations, the energy crisis, and the then impending shutdown of United States Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA)NPR which furnishes steam to the Hanford Generating Project.Consideration was given in the review.to the effect on the use of electrical energy to be expected from a continuing educational program for the efficient use of all types of energy.The revised forecast indicated a continuing deficiency of both capacity and energy.1.1-1 WNP-2 ER Because of the projected resource deficiency, Phase 2 of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program was formulated.
It contains a schedule of thermal plant installations to eliminate, as rapidly as possible, the forecasted resource deficiencies.
This installation schedule (date,,of commercial operation) extends through 1985.Recently the PNUCC has taken over the functions of the Joint Power Planning Council and the Council has become inactive.The Supply System serves the region as a bulk power supplier for the numerous consumer-owned utilities throughout the region.As such, facilities built by the Supply System can realistically be considered as regional resources.
1.1.1 Load Characteristics The characteristics of both the Pacific Northwest loads and the electrical power supply system have developed together and are relatively unique within the United States.Most of the regional power is presently being generated at hydro-electric projects, many of which are owned by the federal government.
Much of the power flows to the distributing utilities over Bonneville Power Administration transmission lines.Customers in the area, other than industrial direct service customers of BPA, are served by either investor-owned utilities, public utility districts, municipal systems, or cooperative rural electrification systems.Due to the region's vast hydro-electric resources electrical energy costs in the Pacific Northwest have been quite low, leading to high per capita consumption of electrical energy.As a consequence, per capita use of other forms of energy are less than they might otherwise have been for some industrial and commercial uses and for such residential uses as cooking, water heating, and space heating.Some electrical-energy-intensive industry has also developed in the region.The electrical supply resource of the region is entering a transition period sin'ce the major part of the economically attractive energy potential obtainable from hydro-electric projects has already been developed.
Because demand fluctu-ates on a daily, weekly, and annual basis, additional capa-city is being installed at existing hydro projects to shape energy to load requirements.
The region foresees greater usage of hydro resources for peaking, with thermal resources such as WNF-2 operating as baseload units at high plant fac-tors except for times when sufficient water supply is avail-able to displace thermal output.To properly assess the need for the Project, consideration must be given to the unique features of the power supply in the Pacific Northwest.
Although hydro capability in the area is abundant, firm energy and dependable peaking capacity, produced from existing regional hydro resources, are limited WNP-2 ER not only by installed machine capacity but also by usable water storage volume available to the region.Existing hydro projects in the West Group area have nearly exhausted the sites that can be developed on an economical and environ-mentally acceptable basis.Most additional developments that can meet these conditions are either under construction or in firm planning stages with substantial amounts of money committed for planning and engineering.
These additional projects have been included in load forecasts made by the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee (PNUCC).The West Group utilities have established a"critical period" of adverse water conditions to be used in both planning and operations.
Adverse stream flows of historical record, coupled with installed machine capability and storage volume usable for power production, determine the length of such critical period.By definition, under a repeat, of the most adverse stream flows of historical record, no water is spilled past generating facilities except for water spilled past existing run-of-the-river facilities that are incapable of fully utilizing such adverse flows.Although additional dependable capacity, needed to shape energy to load require-ments, can be added to the coordinated system by installing additional generators at existing hydro projects, only a small amount of additional firm energy can be produced by such additions.
As previously stated, there is very little potential in the West Group area for additional reservoir volume required to increase firm energy production.
For this reason, the area is required to construct base load thermal plants to supply the forecasted energy requirements of the area and to add hydro capacity to shape such thermal energy production to load requirements.
1.1.1.1 Utilit Or anizations of the Area Prior to 1940, few high-voltage inter-tie transmission facilities existed between utilities in the Pacific North-west.Existing tielines were used primarily for emergency purposes.Very little benefit was derived from inter-utility or intra-regional diversity.
Because of isolated system operation, both firm and nonfirm power were not totally available to serve loads of the area.Early in the 1940's, war-related industries in the area were rapidly increasing their power requirements on the utilities.
At the urging of the Federal War Production Board, the utilities stepped up construction and installation of gen-erating facilities and joined together to coordinate the power output of all installed facilities.
Bonneville Power Administration had been formed by an act of Congress in 1937 and was given authority to construct transmission facilities 1.1-3 WNP-2 ER in order to market federal power produced by projects in the area built by the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.
These BPA lines formed a transmission network interconnecting most of the utilities in the area and made power from all the major power projects in the Pacific Northwest available on an areawide basis.Because of this transmission network, the area's utilities were able to coordinate resources.
a)The Northwest Power Pool (NWPP)The NWPP was formed by the operating management of the generating utilities in the Pacific Northwest for the purpose of coordinating the operation of the hydro and thermal resources of the area in order to optimize, to the extent possible, the availability of firm power to serve the loads of the area.Coordinated operation also provided a means: 1)Of resolving problems of interconnected operation of utility systems;2)Of utilizing to the greatest advantage possible nonfirm power in the area;and 3)Of reducing required reserves to a minimum by pooled use of such reserves.Membership in the NWPP includes consumer-and investor-owned generating utilities, BPA, the Corps of Engineers the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)and two Canadian utilities.
Member utilities in the United States serve loads in the states of Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon and Northern California.
In order to accomplish the objectives of pooling, the NWPP employed a staff of engineers, known as the Coordi-nating Group, to make.studies and forecasts, on a short-term basis, necessary to best utilize the pooled resources to serve the loads of the area.A"critical period" concept was developed.
Reservoir regulation studies are made on a coordinated system basis and reservoir operating rule curves are established each year for each reservoir, such that with a repeat of the most adverse water conditions of history, firm loads of the area can be carried.Loads above the critical period firm resource capability are relegated to a nonfirm or interruptible basis.Voluntary coordiantion worked to the advantage of both the utilities and industry and therefore was continued after the war ended.1.1-4 y'r;One ggj the/actors.~contri!buting-tox the!success.'oV NWPP rroq~r.g,was ghat eachr.member,!@titty-'unai.ntai:ne&;:itmfirrdepyndent ut!i.3,<ty>wesponsibilw<y
>in;plan'ningrranduopeza~ng<d.ts
.a~'!;g r!cpy>temi but;, work'ed!throu'gh the>pool;.<o,.ccooMimhtexRhese functions with other utilities to the best advantage of-q-;-'the~"region!'.
bgqo ja'y.>.'Jr,w
),o<ypr,~jLg'p bg j jog:jrroo eAT efcfFbrreqeb crt.3 aces'e<r:.i r>na J<~~;,rroo boo3..;aebivoxq ass.ov b)o'-q.Paci-f i,cr[Nprthyes4!gtilitiesy;Conference~!Commh.ithaca'o F)PNUOC)err~
.~r,r'.xov r,51 r..i.dn;v j:o3 erf t Ero aloe j.oxq xswoq a&.i 69 i>>bBDL!rrJ 9ia j"'Izing.f i" I~r,f o9q3+DE 9'x~BfIT~BG:)698 ear.exorr 5'heirNWPPp deyoteazd.t s'f for'<'sr primary~t.o>>shdrtf~rm planning andr xesou'rce>rcoordi~Irh'tion"anted:o)xurzfentr~
operating problems.Management soon recognized the e jan)s,belief iks=Chatj wj re!-af folded.'tb~ztififties'r Chreugh=.the o:.ef fo'xmas;oX
<he'JlWPP~:and) deci.de'd yto'-" e~andprthosr
<bene-v~i Xwt sz>hxough<
coordiinaCion!;Gfx.-1ong-term~~1!anningkdrer
!re b.constructionrragd~
installabi~o'nr of:-genera&ng<aciibities.
r)PNUCCr.whsoror,ganized;i,.a~lso
<on:>arolunka~i basi's,ego rr.ac'complish!
Qd.s3!purpose.;.ro<PNUCClri~sj ran>sinf ormazd-rasso-brrs iciaILi,onr o5;:p'ublicarhnd~:p'rd:vate ptil>ties<<i'n
<her6'.aMif ic-err Northwest.art!Membership~
w'sPropen-., ito ralj.nxti M~esx6g the Pacific Northwest but many<!off ther."smalrU'eruxCtKMCH>s depend upon BPA to represent them.PNUCC established a-z8 oadsz.'and~
Resourcesf.S'ubcommittee;.andf=delhgakedJ<te3 it theknesponsibiG.ityiXokr,.ass'embl+ng>!trhevc3:eadss andamesources rrsv<f oxOcast:srranada-annual3~y>
by>;trhe-,uti,li<yranembarsf and ydg.carhpi:lnhgi.them 4ntor~ai:Jai.ngM!
forecahti daeurrfen~<58%hen ypxe!PJlUCCG wasi Xormed+,n.lea6f
'time!for.rrims'ta11atiox&
dM~dro-.generah3.onrlwa,s:approxiina<e1y) faur,~year's=evZorecasd=s p>wareSana6e Cor can-lL-'.ye'arl>.pa'ri.od>>beyond.
themcuRzent,-q.operating~ryeam;to prov>der';
adequh4ey trims f os~.p3.hnhing y~-'.andy!insMMaMon.>:.o5>.'addi tiona3!3.yi
>regui~ed Iresogdce s.dao;rr o0 yxr aaeo=~rr ac~,aziarif air/..few beq~rfe'~eve!re brrs By 1968 lead time foxy,inal;lani'on'o&
geneiaOingiXaci-lities had increased to about 10 years, necessitating 9(f-thet exphnsion.
o f,<her!XesQ;Groupi,Karecast.:
tcqraarldhg-geicfoxecastr;covering~!rloads.andi.probablelzesburces 9ff9!'r f orI'<an~!additional 9.'-,yean;.period.";.:!
a,Thks>.eexpandedhdore-rr;ca'st~<a<1'hd,dQ'Long;."Range'rod ection a&Pmwexe Loads ad so!and>Eesources~
Sorq Therma!ld>
1 arming"a andPd.sn:comindnly rekergedsito ass<the~!."Bluei BookAM.because't.ofs'the:f;do3.or o f 3o:fat!s coOer:-ivpepnoD.sinxo'liLsD rri a9aoo nojdovbo~q 6Lfr'go~f I,s)od bfoa rr'so P!r5 Bsw:f!reh"6j.D>>
SrlH!rsxbs!r63 elf'r<c3>zoiCanadianiZrea~
hindi Columbia>Storages Power@Exchange erfC ripuoxri3 sirr~o3..ilc~DQo
~tr~8 ader o3 bedjLmr!roe asw-9 Jdl.On3 Janu'axys3.7g!i.l9'63.,I.the
."Treater Between RheI: Usted.!rw St'a4esg of" hmerk0a.and!..Canada'elating
<to the"=Cooperative Development of the Water Resources of the Columbia River Basin" (" Canadian Treaty")was signed by the United States and Canada.Among other things, this WNP-2 ER treaty and the notes exchanged pursuant to the treaty provided for the construction, maintenance and operation by Canada of three dams and storage reservoirs in British Columbia on the Columbia River and its tributaries.
The controlled release of water stored in those reser-voirs provides flood control and increases the dependable capacity and.usable energy produced at hydro-electric power projects on the Columbia River in the United States.The treaty specifies that the United States and Canada are each entitled to one-half of this increase of dependable capacity and usable energy.Canada offered to sell its share of the Treaty Benefits to a single entity in the United States in order to obtain money to construct the dams.No single entity with the ability to finance such a purchase existed in the Pacific Northwest so utility management formed a non-profit-no-stock corporation called the Canadian Storage Power (CSPE)to raise the capital required and purchase the Canadian entitlement to the treaty'bene-fits (Canadian Entitlement).
CSPE resold the Canadian Entitlement to 41 investor-owned and consumer-owned utilities in the Pacific Northwest under tri-party exchange agreements between CSPE, Bonneville and the individual utilities whereby CSPE delivers Canadian Entitlement capacity and energy as received from the Columbia River hydro-electric developments in the United States to the purchasing utility.Each utility, in turn, exchanges such capa-city and energy with Bonneville for federal capacity an'd energy shaped within limits, as necessary to meet the utilities load requirements.
Although the Canadian Entitlement was surplus to the needs of the Pacific Northwest at the time'of the purchase, forecasts indicated it would be usable in the area in the early 1970's.The cost of the Canadian Entitlement was higher than the power production costs in the Pacific Northwest but was lower than power production costs in California.
Consequently, most of the Canadian Entitlement was in turn sold to California utilities on a five-year pull-back provision.
A portion was committed to the State of California through the 1982-1983 operating year.All of the Canadian Entitle-ment, sold to California utilities has been withdrawn.
I 1, 1-6 WNP-2 ER d)Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement Early in the negotiations pertaining to the Canadian Treaty and to CSPE it became apparent that voluntary coordination could not insure compliance with all the provisions and operating procedures that would be required when Canadian Treaty power became available.
Negotiations were therefore started to formalize coordination of generating utilities affected by the Canadian Treaty provisions.
On September 15, 1964, the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement (" Coordination Agreement")was signed by three federal entities and 14 generating utilities having facilities affected by the treaty.Among other things, the Coordination Agreement provides, on a regular basis, for: 1)Establishing a Critical Period based on historical water records.2)Making Critical Period reservoir regulation studies on an integrated system basis and establishing reservoir operating curves (Energy Content Curves and Critical Rule Curves).3)Determining Firm Load Carrying Capability (FLCC)for the Coordinated System and for each System.4)Establishing required forced outage reserves for the Coordinated System and for each System.5)Coordinating maintenance outages for the best.resource usability by each System and by the Coordinated System.6)Mandatory interchange of capacity and energy between Systems to assure the ability of each System and the Coordinated System to carry firm load up to the determined FLCC.7)Conservation of nonfirm energy by coordinated use of available reservoir storage volume.8)Use of third party transmission, as available, for Coordination Agreement requirements.
9)Mandatory release of water from upstream reservoirs, stored above Energy Content Curve, or delivery by upstream reservoir owner of equivalent energy in lieu of water releases.
WNP-2 ER 10)Computation of'and payment for upstream and coordina-tion benefits, subject to the FPC approval.ll)Determination of priorities on use of facilities for Coordination Agreement requirements.
12)Determination of rates to be paid.for Coordination Agreement services.13)Restoration of FLCC to those Systems whose FLCC is reduced due to the lengthened Critical Period occasioned by the additional storage provided under, the Canadian Treaty.Restoration is accom-plished by the Systems who gain FLCC from the increased storage (Columbia River main stream projects)sharing a portion of the gain with the Systems (off stream projects)who lose FLCC.The Coordination Agreement treats the Coordinated System as being a single utility system having a single capacity and energy requirement and with total resources dedicated to serve that requirement.
The NWPP Coor-dinating Group was expanded to provide the necessary engineering required to assemble and publish load and resource data relating the immediately upcoming Critical Period, to run reservoir regulating studies for planned reservoir operation, to determine FLCC and reserves and, in general, to guide operations under the Coordi-nation Agreement.
Under provisions of the Coordination Agreement each System representative, in joint meeting with other System representatives, is permitted to adjust, within limits, the plan for reservoir operation of its System reservoirs to meet its System's individual requirements.
Such adjustments do not permit the reduction of coordi-nated System firm capability without a commensurate reduction in estimated firm load to be carried.By coordinating the resources of the Coordination Agreement signatories, both in planning and under operating conditions,, additional firm capability is made available to the area and nonfirm energy is con-served to a greater extent than is possible under isolated utility planning and operation.
Emergency assistance is provided to each System as required.Coordinated System-wide sharing of forced outage reserves xeduces the amount of such reserves below what would be required under isolated system operation.
Additional resources brought on line by a System become 1.1-8 WNP-2 ER a part of tne Coordinated System resources unless the System constructing such facilities declares them to be outside the Coordinated System and operates then on an isolated basis.Signing of the Coordination Agreement did not eliminate the NWPP since some members of the Pool do not have generating facilities that are affected by provisions of the Canadian Treaty, and therefore, are not signa-tory to the Coordination Agreement.
The NWPP coordi-nates the resources of its members, including utilities in British Columbia, who are not in the Coordination Agreement with the resources of the Coordinated System and further assists the area by analyzing and, to the extent possible, solving the operating problems of regional interconnected operation as they arise.West Grou Area of NWPP NWPP was divided into two groups early in its exis-tence, because of technical communication problems within the NWPP, mainly due to the inability of the telephone company to set up conference calls between all members.Utilities in Montana, Idaho, Utah and Wyoming became the East Group and those in Washington, Oregon and Northern California, plus BPA, the Corps of Engineers and the USBR became the West Group.When PNUCC assigned the responsibility for load and resource forecasting to'its Subcommittee on Loads and Resources, all NWPP members were requested to submit relevant data to the subcommittee.
The East Group and British Columbia declined.The PNUCC Forecast there-fore became known as the West Group Forecast.The West Group Area utilities serve loads in the area comprised of Northern Xdaho, Washington, Oregon except for the southeastern part of the state, a portion of Northern California, the area in Western Montana served by BPA and Pacific Power and Light Company and the area in Southern idaho served by BPA with resources of the USBR located in that area.
ER f)Western S stems Coordinatin Council (WSCC)ln 1967 management of the major utilities in 13 western states organized the WSCC in order to improve system reliability through coordinated planning and operation and to assess adequacy of power resources to meet forecasted load.Full membership is open to all utili-ties in the area who have bulk power supply resources or major transmission facilities that could affect bulk power deliveries.
Associate membership is available to all utilities in the area who do not meet the require-ments of full membership.
Membership is voluntary.
WSCC through its planning and operating committees has formulated and published"WSCC Reliability Criteria" consisting of two parts, namely: 1)Reliability Criteria for System Design 2)Minimum Operating Reliability Criteria Systems in the Pacific Northwest have agreed to adopt these criteria.WSCC was the first reliability council to be formed.As other areas organized councils, WSCC promoted the formation of the National Electric Reliability Council (NERC)to which all regional councils belong.NERC coordinates the activities of all regional councils and correlates regional council replies to requests from the FPC for information relative to reliability and adequacy of power resources and reserves.The NWPP, as a subregion, reports on such matters for all member utilites through WSCC.l.l.l.2'West Grou Hi'stori'cal Data PNUCC, since it was organized, has coordinated planning and forecasting for the West Group area and has a long-term record of reliability in forecasting.
The historical winter peak firm load, the historical 12-month average firm load (energy demand), and the projections of these same values for each year's West Group Forecast from 1967 through 1977 have been summarized in Tables 1.1-1 (a)and (b)and 1.1-2 (a)and (b)respectively.
Tnis information has also been presented graphically in Figures 1.1-1 and 1.1-2.Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER 1.1.1.3 Lon Ran e Pro'ection of Power Loads and Resources for Thermal Plannin-West Grou Area (Lon Ran e ,.'Forecasts assembled by the PNUCC Loads and Resources Subcom-mittee treat the West Group area as one large system having a single capacity and energy load requirement and a single critical period capacity and energy capability.
Each utility member of PNUCC annually submits forecasts of the following items by months for the ensuing ll years, and by years for an additional 9 years: a)Capacity and energy load requirements; b)Critical period capacity and energy capabilities; c)Schedule of imports into, and exports from, the West Group area;d)Exchanges of capacity and energy with other utilities within the West Group area;e)New resources to be added and existing resourc'es to be retired.The first)l years are included in both the[fat Group Forecast and in the Long-Range Projection but the final 9 years are included only in the Long-Range Projection.
Table 1.1-3 is a summary, on a noncoincidental basis, of the recently prepared Long-Range Projection for the years 1978-1979 through 1997-1998.
This forecast is a basis for planning for transmission line construction, resource instal-lation and reserve requirements for the West Group Area.Table 1.1-3 shows a cumulative annual load growth for the 11-year period from 1978-1979 through 1988-1989 of 3.9%from 16,721,000 average kilowatts to'4,445,000 average kilowatts.
This compares to the estimated national cumulative annual load growth of 4.5%(see Figure 1.1-'3).New generation planned for installation in the West Group Area through 1985 is discussed in Section 1.1.2.The Pacific Northwest region has strong transmission ties with the'Southwest and British Columbia and uses these ties for interregional transfers of surplus capacity and energy and for emergency assistance.
Some firm capacity and energy interchanges also flow over these inter-ties.
Only the firm interchanges over these ties are included in the compilation of the Long-Range Projection.
The need for WNP-2 is based on the forecast contained in Table 1.1-3.l.l-ll Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER 1.1.1.4 Methodolo of Forecasts No single method of forecasting loads and resources is employed in compiling the Long-Range Projection.
Rather, it is a compilation and summarization of the forecasts of the individual utilities serving the loads of the West Group area.The compilation and summarization is done by the PNUCC Loads and Resource Subcommittee.
The smaller consumer-owned utilities in the West Group area do not submit individual load and resource forecasts directly to the PNUCC Loads and Resource Subcommittee.
Forecasts for such utilities are prepared cooperatively by the utility and BPA and are then included in the BPA loads and resource report to PNUCC.The method used by BPA and the utilities in the preparation of the fqrecasts is described in a BPA"Load Estimating Manual".~>The technique suggested in this manual is to break the load into component parts and examine the factors affecting growth in that component.
Although historical trends are recognized as one method, the need to relate the growth of each component to economic pressures is emphasized.
For example, because of the large space heating component of load in the region, that load is usually treated independently within the service area,.with population growth and heating load saturation considered.
Seven large member utilities of the Supply System listed below submit individual forecasts to PNUCC.a)The City of Seattle, Department of Lighting b)The City of Tacoma, Department of Lighting c)Snohomish County Public Utility District No.1 d)Cowlitz County Public Utility District No.1 e)Clark County Public Utility District No.1 f)Chelan County Public Utility District No.1 g)Grays Harbor County Public Utility District.No.1 1.1-12 WNP-2 ER The methodology used by these utilities are described below.Cit of Seattle, De artment of Li htin Both peak and energy forecasts are based on historical data adjusted to current conditions.
Loads are segre-gated by standard classifications:
residential, commer-cial, light industry and heavy industry.Historical growth trends for each classification are analyzed and an estimated future growth rate assigned.Previous year data are then extrapolated for current year and for the next three years and adjusted to meet the previous ll-year forecast load curve at the end'of the third year of the new forecast.Xf a large adjustment is required, a completely new analysis is done and a new 20-year forecast is prepared.Seattle has recently had a study prepared by an independent consultant, titled Energy 1990, in which an independent load and resource forecast is included.Cit of Tacoma, De artment of Li htin Loads are segregated as to heat sensitivity.
A heat sensitivity curve is drawn for 100%sensitivity at 20-degrees F and 0%.sensitivity at 70-degrees F.Normal months temperatures are taken from the Weather Bureau's long-term determination.
Previous year's heat sensi-tive loads are temperature adjusted by months.A curve fitting program has been developed to extrapolate temperature adjusted historical data on a month by month basis to derive the peak and energy forecasts for an ll-year.period.A*similar program is used for non-heat sensitive loads.The two forecasts are then combined to give an ll-year forecast of peak and energy requirement for use as required by planning programs.This forecast is then expanded by years to complete the 20-year forecast.Snohomish Count PUD The previously mentioned BPA Load Estimating Manual is used as a guide to developing forecasts of peak and energy requirements.
Power Supply personnel of the District work closely with BPA in applying this guide.Because of the large loads of such industries as aero-space and wood processing, adjustments to'he metho-dology are incorporated to assure a forecast represen-tative of the utility load.1.1-13 WNP-2 ER New forecasts are made at intervals of approximately three years and upgraded yearly.If a yearly review indicates wide variance from previously used data, such , as population growth rate, customer usage or industrial expansion, a completely new forecast is prepared.Cowlitz County PUD Each class of customer is evaluated independently.
Population growth, levels of usage, saturation and expected changes in large industrial loads are con-sidered in the load forecasts.
In estimating the power requirements of the District, a number of general assumptions have been.made relative to the future economy of the region.The recent announce-ments of expansions by both Longview Fibre Company and Weyerhaeuser at the Longview site and the dedication to environmental improvements at the sites indicates the local economy will remain strong;therefore, in the current forecast the economy of the county is assumed to remain healthy with continued expansion and techno-logical improvements of the industrial sector.The load estimated is normalized for average weather conditions and other variable factors that affect the power and energy requirements.
It is assumed that, awareness of the need to conserve all forms of energy resources will not drastically change'the historic pattern of electric energy growth.The assumption is based on the opinion that more efficient use of electric energy will be made, but electric energy will be substi-tuted for other energy resources because of environmental and conservation reasons.The load forecast does not provide for a major conversion from other energy resources to electric energy;for example major conversion to electrified vehicles.Completely new forecasts are made whenever an annual review of the previous forecast, as updated, indicates that data relative to population growth rate, industrial expansion or customer usage have changed to the extent'hat updating of previous load data has given a distorted forecast.
WNP-2 ER Clark Count PUD The District makes its own forecasts of peak and energy requirements essentially based on the BPA guidelines adjusted to fit the District's needs.The forecast is then reviewed in detail with BPA both to ensure that data used are reasonably in accord with regional data and to fit that forecast into those of other BPA cus-tomers.The forecast is updated annually based'on the previous year's data.A completely independent analy-sis and forecast is made whenever there appears to be a major change in the'demographic or industrial trends.Chelan Count PUD This utility has two separate systems and makes a separate forecast for each system since the character of the loads in the systems vary somewhat.These two forecasts are then combined into a single utility forecast to be submitted to PNUCC.Historical records of monthly and annual energy con-sumption and system load factors are used for forecast purposes.By means of computer programs, load growth rates by months are established and monthly percentages of annual energy consumption are determined.
This historical annual energy consumption curve is plotted and extrapolated for the forecast period.Monthly peak requirements are then determined by applying average historical monthly load factors to forecasted monthly energy consumption.
Gra s Harbor Count PUD This utility prepares a load forecast in cooperation with BPA based on the BPA guidelines, modified to meet the particular needs of the District.This major load projection is made on approximately four or five year intervals and updated annually.The methodology used by these utilities has been included to suggest the detail used in developing the Long-Range Projec-tion.Three points should be emphasized.
The first is that most of the larger utilities look at their load growth in individual segments, considering population and economic growth within their service areas.Generally they do not rely on straight projections of historical trends but temper such projections with insight into causative factors.1.1<<15 WNP-2 ER W Secondly, BPA, in its capacity of providing regional trans-mission facilities, provides an overview of the independent forecasts, particularly for the smaller utilities.
Finally, Table 1.1-1 (a)and (b)and 1.1-2 (a)and (b)together with Figures 1.1-1 and 1.1-2 show the degree of accuracy of the PNUCC at predicting peak demand and energy load.This record shows a general success of the methodology as applied.1.1.15 Accurac of Forecasts The 10-year history of West Group forecasts compared to loads has been presented in Tables 1.1-1 (a)and (b)and 1.1-2 (a),and (b).The percent accuracy of, the forecast is the difference between actual load experienced and the forecasted load, unadjusted for weather, divided by the forecasted load.Fo'r forecasted capacity., the percent accuracy ranges overall 1)from+16.7%to-3.4%.Accuracy for the three operating years next succeeding the date of forecast ranges from+11.8%to-3.4%.For the operating year next succeeding the date of forecast, the accuracy ranges from 11.1%to-3.4%.The range of accuracy for forecasted energy is as follows: Overall from 15.9%to-0.7%Next three operating years 9.6%to-0.7%Next operating year 5.7%to-0.4%Because of the rapidly changing conditions relative to energy use, it is difficult to estimate the accuracy that has been achieved in the forecasts recently issued.There are a number of factors which must be considered in such an estimate.The operating years 1972-1973 and 1973-1974 (through December 1973)were very dry.Coupled with the national energy shortage, these dry months caused a severe reduction in area reservoir storage.All utilities of the area engaged in intensive conservation compaigns and were able to effect, on the average, a 7%to 8%reduction from expected use of electric power.Because of these reductions, no mandatory curtailment of firm loads was required.Weather conditions changed radically in January 1974 with rain and snow falling in abundant quantities.
Reservoirs soon returned to normal elevations and surplus power was generated for transmission to California to assist.utilities in that state in fuel conservation efforts.Precipitation continued in above-normal amounts, not only assuring reservoir 1.1-16 Amendment 2 October 1978 refilling, but also building up a snow pack far above normal with consequent predictions of heavy spill conditions in the run-off months.Campaigns for electric power use curtailment were rapidly switched to educational programs for wise use of energy.Generation of excess power continued to the point of loading inter-regional transmission lines to max-mimum capacity.Because of the surplus power availability in the area, loads have increased to near normal and export of surplus energy still continues.
The effects of conservation and of conversion to electric power usage are in opposing directions.
It is difficult to determine at this time which effect will be dominant in the next few years.West Group utility forecasters have consid-ered these matters and folded them into the recent.forecast of future loads.Consensus among those responsible for compiling the forecast is that its accuracy is probably within the range of accuracy of previous forecasts.
1.1.16 Area Purchase from Outside Nest Group Area Consumer-owned utilities estimate no capacity imports and energy imports of 123 million EWH per year through 1982-1983 operating year and zero purchases of firm capacity and energy from outside the Nest, Group area during the remaining period of the forecast;however, these do from time to time purchase available nonfirm energy from British Columbia and California utilities and elsewhere when such nonfirm energy is not available from within the West Group area.The federal system estimates energy imports during the next decade of up to 4.1 billion kilowatt-hours per year on the basis of energy returned from peak/energy exchange contracts with Caifornia utilities.'nvestor-owned utilities estimate an import of capacity and energy ranging from maximum of 2,020,000 kilowatts of capacity and 10.8 billion kilowatt-hours of energy in 1980-1981 down to 240,000 kilowatts of capacity and 0.6 billion kilowatt-hours of energy per year in 1997-1998.
Imports include Pacific Power 6 Light Company transfers from Pacific Power 6 Light Company Wyoming Division, Portland General Electric Company Contract with Southern California Edison Company, Washington Water Power Company peak/energy exchange contract with San Diego Gas 6 Electric Company, Washington Water Power Company contracts with the Montana, Idaho, and Utah Power Companies and Puget Sound Power&Light Company contracts with Salt River Project and Utah Power Company.1.1-17 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER~'xcept.for the purchase of plant service power when a plant is not operating, the applicant does not make any purchase of power from either within or outside the region.Its only sales are of power from its projects to the participants in those projects.1.1.17 Load Components The power needs of a nation or region depend largely upon the size of the population, the standard of living of its people, and the character of its economy.Economists use, as a measure of the standard of living and productivity of an economy, the quantity of energy used residentially, industrially and commercially.
The proper perspective for analyzing past load growth and estimated future load growth can be obtained by comparing the power needs in four main categories:
a)Residential, including f arms b)Commercial c)Industrial d)Combined use for irrigation, street and highway lighting and other miscellaneous uses.Figure 1.1-4 shows load growth past and future by these categories.
Figure 1.1-5 shows that from 1950 to 1973, the increase in total residential load of the Pacific Northwest (from 5 1/2 billion kilowatt,-hours in 1950 to 33 billion kilowatt-hours in 1973), was more than five times the 1950 total residen-tial load.Of this total growth, less than 20%was due to the increase in the number of residential consumers occasioned by population growth;thus, approximately 80%resulted from the rise in the use per consumer.The increase in electric space heating load, from 378 million kilowatt-hours in 1950 1.1-18 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER to 10.9 billion kilowatt-hours in 1973 (more than 28 times)was responsible for over 38%of the increase in residential consumption.
Unless electric space heating load is limited by supply or regulation, it is predicted that there will be approximately three times as many homes electrically heated 20 years from now.Total residential space heating load is expected to reach 25 billion kilowatthours by that time.Commercial loads and service industries have historically been one of the fastest growing segments of our economy.If past trends are used for projection, it is expected that an additional 160,000 new commercial customers will be on line in the next 20 years.Commercial loads are expected to increase from 1.1 billion kilowatt-hours in 1970 to 3.8 billion kilowatt-hours in 1990.Technological advances historically have resulted in greater availability and use of electrical equipment, increased automation and improved working conditions.
These, in turn, have resulted in a higher per capita energy usage, a higher per capita production, and a higher per capita income.Several of the heavy industries involving the use of elec-trical energy in the Northwest include pulp, paper, plywood, lumber, chlorine, aluminum, fertilizers, steel, and other manufactured materials produced and used in, or exported from, the region.Industrial loads are expected to more than double from about 50 to 117 billion kilowatt-hours by 1990.Figure 1.1-6 is the coordinated System load duration curve for the operating year 1981-1982.
This load duration curve is expected to be similar to those for the first few years that WNP-2 i.'s scheduled to be in service.1.1.1.8 Interru tible Loads As federal hydro project power became available in the late 1930's not all of it was salable to the utilities of the area.The surplus was therefore available to BPA to sell to industry at a very attractive price.During the war years of the early 1940's, the light metals and other industries developed rapidly in the Pacific Northwest.
These industries were able to consume large amounts of both firm and nonfirm energy and contributed greatly to the economic and electrical growth of the region.Firm power sales contracts were written by'BPA to cover the base loads of these plants and nonfirm power was sold on an interruptible-type contract to provide the industries with power for excess production from 1.1-19 WNP-2 ER time to time without the necessity of increasing the base firm power purchases.
Power sold under interruptible contract could be curtailed any time nonfirm power was unavailable.
Until recently, curtailment was made only for lack of nonfirm energy supply since the federal system had a large surplus of installed capacity.However, in recent years, curtailment has been made on several occasions because of insufficient capacity to supply excess energy during heavy load hours.Some utilities have contracts with indus-trial customers for interruptible power and are able to serve such customers either from nonfirm power developed on their own systems or by purchase from BPA or a combination of both.In some instances, utilities have written agree-ments or signed contracts for firm power sales, interrupti-ble on peak hours if required to reduce the utility's peak hour demands.The City of Seattle Lighting Department had such a contract with Alcoa and presently has a letter of agreement with the Boeing Company Wind Tunnel and with Bethlehem Steel, Company for such interruptible power.In recent years, as firm utility loads increased at a rate greater than the rate at which firm resources were being installed and industrial loads also increased, it became necessary for BPA to limit sales of additional firm power to industry.BPA and area industries cooperatively worked out a new type of industrial rate under which industry purchases up to 75%of its load requirements on a"Modified Firm Power" rate and the remainder of its needs on the"Inter-ruptible Power" rate.Modified firm rate is 5 cents per kilowatt per month less than the Firm Power rate.When present direct service industrial power sales contracts expire,.Bonneville Power Administration expects to replace them with contracts for the sale of power under the new rate schedule for industrial firm power included in BPA's revised rate schedules, which became effective on December 20,1974.The following quote from the 1974 Bonneville Wholesale Power Rate Schedule describes these classes of power: "1.1 FIRM POWER: Firm power is power which the Admini-strator wz.ll make continuously available to a purchaser to meet its load requirements except when restricted because the operation of generating or transmission facilities used.by the Administrator to serve such purchaser is suspended, interrupted, interfered with, curtailed or restricted as the result of the occurrence of any condition described in the Uncontrollable Forces 1.1-20 WNP-2 ER or Continuity of Service sections of the General Contract Provisions of the contract.Such restriction of firm power shall not be made until industrial firm power has been restricted in accordance with section 1.4 and dance with section 1.2.1.2 MODIFIED FIRM POWER: Modified firm power is power which the Administrator will make continuously availa-ble to a purchaser on a contract demand basis subject to: (a)the restriction applicable to firm power, and (b)the following:
When a restriction is made necessary because the operation of generating or transmission facilities used by the Administrator to serve such purchaser and one or more firm power purchasers is suspended, interrupted, interfered with, curtailed or restricted as a result of the occurrence of any condition described in the Uncontrollable Forces or Continu-ity of Service sect'ions of the General Contract Provisions of the contract, the Administrator shall restrict such purchaser's contract demand for modified firm power to the extent necessary to prevent, if possible or minimize restriction of any firm power, provided, however, that (1)such restriction of modified firm power shall not exceed at any time 25 percent of the contract demand therefor and (2)the accumulation of such restrictions of modified firm power during any calendar year, expressed in kilowatt-hours, shall not exceed 500 times the contract demand therefor.When possible, restrictions or modified firm power will be made ratably with restrictions of indus-trial firm power based on the proportion that, the respective contract demands bear to one another.The extent of such restrictions shall be limited for modified firm power by this subsection and for industrial firm power by section 8 of the General Contract Provisions (Form IND-18)of the contract.1.3 FIRM CAPACITY: Firm capacity is capacity which the Administrator assures will be available to a pur-chaser on a contract demand basis except when operation of generating or transmission facilities used by the Administrator to serve such purchaser is suspended, interrupted, interfered with, curtailed or restricted as the result of the occurrence of any condition described in the Uncontrollable Forces or Continuity of WNP-2 ER Service sections of the General Contract Provisions of the contract.1.4 INDUSTRIAL FIRM POWER: Industrial firm power is power which the Administrator will make continuously available to a purchaser on a contract demand basis subject to: (a)the restriction applicable to firm power, and (b)the following:
(1)The restrictions given in section 8,"Restric-'ion of Deliveries," of the General Contract Provisions (Form IND-18)of the contract.No sa (2)When a restriction, is made necessary because of the operation of generating or transmission facilities used by the Administrator to serve such purchaser and one or more firm power purchasers is suspended, interrupted, interfered with, curtailed or restricted as a result of the occuirence of any condition described in the Uncontrollable Forces or Continuity of Service sections of the General Contract Provisions of the contract, the Adminis-trator shall restrict, such purchaser's contract demand for industrial firm power to the extent necessary to prevent, if possible, or minimize restriction of any firm power.When possible, restrictions of industrial firm power will be made ratably with restrictions of modif ied f irm power based on the proportion that the respective contract demands bear to one another.The extent of such restrictions shall be limited for modified firm power by section 1.2(b)of the General Rate Schedule Provisions and for industrial firm power by section 8 of the General Contract Provisions (Form IND-18)of the contract.I additional Firm Power is presently available to BPA for le to industry under new long-term contracts.=
Availability of non-firm power has been very high over a period of many years, but the building of new dams in the West Group area and on the Columbia River and its tribu-taries in Canada has converted much of the energy previously available only on a nonfirm basis into firm energy.Future availability of nonfirm power is expected to be much lower than it has been in the past and will be sold by BPA under the BPA H-5 wholesale non-firm energy rate.l.1-22 WNP-2 ER 1.1.1.9 Facts Potentiall Affectin Demand Electrical power, like many other products, has an elasti-city of demand.This elasticity varies from area to area depending upon the relation between many factors such as availability of electric power compared to availability of alternate sources of power, relative costs of alternate sources, intensity of'promotional advertising and activities with respect to competing types of energy, and energy costs compared to average consumer income.These factors as they exist in the Pacific Northwest are discussed in this section.a)Advertisin and Ener Conservation The Pacific Northwest electrical energy supply has depended on the development of hydro-electric resources throughout the region, particularly on the Columbia River.The development of this resource was encouraged, on a multipurpose basis, for the hydro-electric supply as well as for flood protection, navigation, and irri-gation.In the past, excess energy was available for sale, particularly during high flow, off-peak periods.By encouraging the sale of such energy, the average price to consumers of the region was reduced to levels among the lowest in the nation.As the economical hydro resource approaches full utili-zation, the picture changes, particularly with the advent.of the Columbia River's large upstream hydro storage reservoirs which permit considerably more latitude in energy usage timing.That, the picture was changing was generally foreseen by regional utility management a few years ago, and the advertising policy o f the region changed markedly towards conservation-the wise usage of energy.The programs followed by some of the larger utilities in the region are: 1)Seattle Cit Li ht-Promotional advertising and acta.vasty was ended January 1, 1971.At that time a program of education relative to the wise and efficient, use of electricity was started.This program was carried on mostly through bill stuffers and handouts.Early in 1973, an intensive conservation program was begun using bill stuffers, handouts, radio, televison, and newspaper advertising.
Because of the critical shortage that had developed in hydro capability (reduced stream flows and below-normal reservoir elevations) the public was urged to reduce their energy consumption as much as possible.1.1-23 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER In 1977 a Conservation Office was established to coordinate and monitor a long-range conservation program with a goal of reducing the projected 1990 demand by about 20 percent.This program involves conservation projects in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors.Tacoma Cit Li ht-Early in 1970, Tacoma ceased all promotional advertising and activity.Little advertising was done until the summer of 1973 when the"Be-A-Watt-Watcher" educational program was started using mostly bill stuffers and handouts.Consideration is now being given to starting an educational campaign urging installation of storm windows and doors, and adding insulation to homes plus education relative to efficient use of electricity.
Snohomish Count Public Utilit District-Promo-motional advertising and activity was ended early in 1972.An intensive educational program was started in early 1973 apprising customers of the critical hydro capability shortage and advising them to use electricity wisely and efficiently and promoting the installation of home insulation.
The present program is based on providing information relative to wise use of energy.Cowlitz Count Public Utilit District-All promotional advertising and activity ended early in 1972.In the summer of 1972 an educational program was instituted relative to the need for economical use of electricity.
In early 1973, an intensive campaign on conservation was begun using all news media, bill stuffers, handouts, etc.Speakers were made available to civic organizations, church and community groups and schools to help educate the general public on the immediate need to conserve electricity and the long-range need to conserve electricity and the long-range need.to conserve energy of all kinds.Presently, the effort is toward economical use of energy in total.Clark Count Public Utilit District-All promo-tional advertising and activity ceased in early 1972.An educational program on nuclear power production and the wise use of electricity was started late in 1972.Early in 1973, and intensive campaign was stated to inform the public of the hydro capability shortage.Since January 1974 the campaign has gone back to education on economical use of power.1.1-24 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER 6)Chelan Count Public Utilit District-Promotional acta.vztxes and advert'.sang were reduced early in 1972 and ended entirely in August 1972.Early in 1973, an intensive conservation program was put into operation using radio and newspaper advertis-ing.Presently, American Public Power Association's recommended advertising is being used.7)Electric Lea ue of the Pacific Northwest-The utxlxtz.es of the Puget Sound Area Seattle City Light, Tacoma City Light, Snohomish County Public Utility District and Puget Sound Power and Light Company), electrical contractors and electrical equipment supply firms are members of this organi-zation.The League has for many years advertised for the benefit of League members.Prior to 1971, this advertising was promotional in nature.In 1971 and 1972, the thrust was shifted to environ-mental aspects of power production and use.In 1973, the League institued in intense conservation program encouraging installation of insulation and economical use of energy.Advertising was by radio, television and new media.In 1974, the program dropped back to education on efficient use of energy.b)Bulk Power Costs Prior to the establishment of BPA in 1937, each utility in the area operated essentially on an isolated system basis, providing its own power supply, including reserves, as well as its own required transmission.
The few inter-tie transmission lines that.existed were relatively light and were used primarily for emergency purposes.A small amount of nonfirm power transactions occurred from time to time.Power supply was from a mixture of hydro and thermal plants.Cost of power varied from utility to utility.In 1938 BPA adopted its first schedule of wholesale power rates based on a kilowatt,-year concept.At-site delivery (within 15 miles of generation) was priced at,$14.50 per kilowatt-year and elsewhere on the Bonneville System the charge was$17.50 per kilowatt-year.
Based on a"capacity with associated energy" concept, this rate translates into 2 mills per kilowatt-hour for 100%load factor and 4 mills per kilowatt-hour for 50%load factor.Nonfirm power was sold for$11.50 per kilowatt-year.1.1-25 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER These rates were basically demand charges with no charge for associated energy that could be fitted into a load.A utility with hydro generation and associated reservoir seasonal storage could absorb energy at 100%load factor for the greater part of the operating year while the utility without such facilities could only absorb energy at its system load factor rate.As more utilities requested federal power for use in their system load, BPA added rate schedules to meet the needs of these customers.
In addition to existing rates, firm capacity rates and demand-energy rates were developed.
The nonfirm rate was eventually broken into two parts with a demand rate maintained for"Interrupt-ible Power" and a straight energy rate established for nonfirm energy purchases used for such purposes as thermal displacement.
The cost of power under the BPA wholesale rate schedules remained basically unchanged until December 1965, when the cost of firm power was increased by an average of about 3%.On December 20, 1974 BPA established the rate schedules presently in effect which increased wholesale power costs by an average of 27%.Transition of the power supply available from BPA from mostly hydro generation to a mix of hydro and large thermal power plant generation is the major factor contributing to the necessity for the increase in rates.The con-sumer owned and Federal portions of Phase 1 of the Hydro-Tehrmal Power Program, previously described, melds the higher cost of thermal power into the lower cost federal hydro power through the use of the"net billing" concept previously described.
Thus, the cost of nonfederal thermal power delivered to BPA under Phase 1 of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program is spread to all BPA ratepayers through the cost-melding process.WNP-2 is included under the net billing portion of the Phase 1 program.In addition to increasing the cost of power, the present BPA schedule of rates changes the concept under which power is sold in order to more nearly approach a cost-of-service concept.The rates are in the form of a two-part, demand-energy type with the level of the rates being higher for winter loads than for summer loads.1.1-26 BPA estimates that an increase in wholesale power costs to.a total requirements custo'mer (a utility that purchases all of its power requirements from BPA)does not have more than a 40%impact on that customer's resale rates since that's the approximate qgycentage of total costs associated with power supply.Future increases in the cost of wholesale power will have an effect on future load requirements.
The degree to which the load growth pattern of the area is impacted depends upon several factors.The most important factor to a given utility its ability to meld higher costs of power purchased from the federal system with the relatively stable cost of the hydro that is either self-generated or purchased from other nonfederal low cost hydro sources.The amount of federal power pur-chased in comparison to the total power supply deter-mines the degree to which the increased cost of federal power will affect the overall cost of power required to serve load.Another factor relative to the effect on the load growth of a system is the affluence of the customers served by a utility.In a community where the cost of electricity to a customer is relatively low compared to the customer's income, the'rate increase will have little effect while in a low income area where the cost of power consumers a much larger share of income, more reduction in growth rate may be noted.The West Group area utilities have considered these factors in preparing the data submitted to PNUCC for inclusion in the West Group Forecast.PNUCC is study-ing a program to account for price elasticity of demand.But at present, the majority of the individual fore-casts do not account for this.The applicant is a member of PNUCC, the cooperative group of utilities'in the Pacific Northwest presently responsible for coordinating regional long-range power supply planning.PNUCC assembles forecasts made by individual utilities and publishes a composite forecast for this group of utilities.
The Northwest.
Power Pool (NWPP)is the cooperative agency responsible for short-range planning (up to the length of time encompassed by the existing Critical Period of the area)and for day-to-day operation.
Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER The NWPP, including both the East Group and the West.Group, is considered a sub-regional group of the Western Systems Coordinating Council and reports to WSCC for the entire area on such matters as: (1)load and resource forecasts; (2)system reliability; (3)transmission capabilities; (4)capacity and energy transfer capability with other regions;(5)answers to Federal Power Commission Dockets which can be submitted on a regional basis;(6)regional operating pro-blems that could affect other areas, and (7)major regional power outages.The applicant is not a utility and therefore makes no direct report to any of the region's organizations.
But all of its resources and operating characteristics are included in all regional reports through the utilities who are parti-cipants in the applicant's projects.WNP-2, scheduled for initial operation in December, 1980, will be one of the major thermal projects constructed under Phase 1 of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program, which was planned to meet the load requirements of the West Group area through 1985.The Hydro-Thermal Power Program is discussed in more detail in Section 1.1.2.1 of this report.Prior to 1967, long-range plannz.ng for power supply require-ments was carried on individually by each utility in the area with the PNUCC summarizing and.correlating load and resource forecasting of the individual utilities and acting as a forum for review of resources required to carry pro-jected firm area loads.Up to that point in time, federal forecasts showed a surplus of federal resources over the amount required to carry forecasted non-federal resources.
Northwest utilities capable of installing resources planned to do so only to the extent that the long-range costs of power from such resources would be less than the expected costs of federal hydro-power.
By 1967 it was apparent the era of federal resource surplus was rapidly drawing to a close.Also the ability of utilities to install additional hydro capability was limited since few hydro sites remained that could meet the test of economic development as well as environmental acceptability.
Since thermal generation was the only"viable alternative to hydro generation, utilities recognized that cooperative long-range planning was necessary to obtain economy of scale for future resource installations.
Formation of the Joint 1-1-28 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER Power Planning Council provided the vehicle for such cooperative planning.The Hydro-Thermal Power Program was conceived by the Council, consisting of 110 electric cooperatives, public utilities and private utilities in the Pacific North-west.Recently PNUCC whose membership is nearly identical to that of the Council has expanded its responsibilities to include those formerly attributed to the Council and the Council has become inactive.Most of the power supply in the region has been historically generated from hydro-electric resources, but the remaining hydro projects to be developed will be essentially for peaking power rather than for base load.Thermal power will provide an increasing portion of the base load resources in the future.The combination of hydro peaking and large-scale thermal generating plants was found by the Council to be the soundest approach to achieve the aims of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program.The principles of Phase 1 of this program and the federal government's participation through BPA, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, have been endorsed by current and previous Administrations and by Congress.In summary, the members of the Council have concluded that the Hydro-Thermal Power Program will: a)Best preserve the environment, including the natural beauties of the Pacific Northwest.
b)Make efficient and economic use of the Federal Columbia River Power System.c)Obtain the economies of scale from large thermal gener-ating plants.d)Meld the large thermal generating plants with exiting hydro generating units and the peaking generation units which will be installed at existing dams, to achieve the most economic and reliable power supply to meet the power requirements of the Pacific Northwest.
Phase 1 of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program of thermal gene-rating plants for installation through 1985*is tabulated as follows:*Extended from 1981 to 1985 due to slippage in plant construc-tion schedules.
l.1-29 WNP-2 ER Principal S onsor Location~Te Scheduled Date of Probable Capacity Commercial Energy Pacific Power Light Co.and The Washington Water Power Company (Centralia Project)Portland General Electric Company (Trojan Project Centralia, Coal-WA fired 1,400 Operating St.Helens, OR Nuclear 1,130 Operating Pacific Power Light Co.(Jim Bridger Project)Rock Springs, NY Coal-fired 500 500 Operating Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project No.2)Washington Public.Power Supply System (Nuclear Project No.1)Washington Public Power Supply System (Nuclear Project No.3)Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Project No.1)Hanford, WA Hanford, WA Satsop, WA Boardman OR Dec 1980 May 1981 Nuclear 1,100 Nuclear 1,250 Dec 1982 June 198 Nuclear 1,240 Jan 1984 June 1984 Nuclear 1,260 Apr 1986 Apr 1986*Date on which construction schedule is based.**Most probable date energy will be available, based on national experience.
This is the basis for resource planning.Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER Xn response to the combined efforts of the Council, BPA, and the individual utilities involved, legislation was enacted to allow consumer-owned and investor-owned utilities jointly to construct, own and operate generating facilities.
Plans for the first of such plants were formulated and executed for the construction of the 1,400 MW Centralia coal fired thermal project under the joint ownership concept.Four investor-owned utilities own 72 percent of the project and four consumer-owned utilities own the other 28 percent as tenants-in-common.
Under the Hydro-Thermal Power Program, the federal system will supply transmission and install peaking generation at federal projects to integrate the output of thermal plants, to be built by Northwest utilities, into the total genera-ting resources of the area.Phase 1 of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program is expected to provide the resources required in the region through 1985.Under Phase 2 of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program, announced on December 14, 1973, the area utilities identified addi-tional projects which are currently under investigation to meet forecasted load growth through 1989.While the specific role of BPA has changed somewhat from Phase 1, in Phase 2 the area will continue to build generation and transmission facilities on a cooperative schedule.The thermal genera-ting plants included in Phase 2 are tablulated as follows: Principal Location T~e Scheduled Date of Probable Capacity Commercial Energy Puget Sound Power a Light (Colstrip Project No.1)*Colstrip, MT Coal-fired 330 Operating Puget Sound Power Supply-(Colstrip Project No.2)*Colstrip, Coal-330 MT fired Operating Pacific Power&Light Co.(Jim Bridger Proj.No.4)Rock Springs, Coal-334 fired Dec 1979 Dec 1979*Not specifically identified as a Phase 2 project.1.1-31 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER Principal S onsor Puget Sound Power Supply (Colstrip Project No.3)*Location Colstrip MT~Te Coal-fired Scheduled Date of Probable Capacity Commercial Energy 700 Apr 1982 Apr 1982 Portland General Boardman, Coal-Electric Company OR fired (Carty Coal Proj.)530 July 1980 Nov 1980 Puget Sound Power 6 Light (Colstrip Project No.4)*Colstrip, Coal-MT fired 700 Feb 1983 Feb 1983 Puget Sound Power Sedro 6 Light Company Wooley, (Skagit Proj.WA No.1)Washington Public Hanford, Power Supply WA System (Nuclear Proj.No.4)Washington Public Satsop, Power Supply WA System (Nuclear Proj.No.5)Puget Sound Power Sedro a Light Company Wooley, (Skagit Proj.WA No.2)Nuclear 1,288 July 1985 July 1985 Nuclear 1,250 June 1984 Dec 1984 Nuclear 1,240 July 1985 Dec 1985 Nuclear 1,288 July 1987 July 1987 Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Project No.2)Boardman, Nuclear 1,260 Apr 1989 Apr 1989 OR Although the overall planning of resource installation is carried out on a cooperative basis, each utility reserves the right to determine which project it will participate in and the extent of such participation.
Since planning is done on the basis of installing sufficient resources in the area to meet load requirements, individual utility forecasts of power requirements are included in the regional plan.*Not specifically identified as a Phase 2 project.1.1-32 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER l.1.2.2 Short-Term Plannin The NWPP carries out the short-term, cooperative planning for all systems in the pool.This short-term planning consists of: a)Planning the coordinated use of both federal and non-federal resources, including pooling of reserve require-ments, to provide the greatest practicable output of firm power from those resources.
b)Determining the length of the Critical Period to be used and the adverse water available for power pro-duction in that period.c)Determining the amount of firm capacity and energy loads that can be carried under adverse water conditions by each member of the pool and by the pool as a whole.d)Determining operating rule curves for each reservoir included in pool resources.
ln addition to the short-term planning functions for NWPP, the Coordinating Group performs additional short-term plan-ning functions required by the Coordination Agreement such as (1)Computing the reserve requirements of each System and the Coordinated System: (2)preparing a schedule of capacity and energy interchanges between Systems based on water availability under adverse conditions; and (3)other plan-ning functions, some of which are listed under d)"Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement" in Section 1.1.1.1 of this report.Under c)above, any System having either capacity or energy load greater than the amount of firm resource available to that System must: a)Supply firm resources at least equal to the indicated deficiency, from those within the Coordinated System which are not currently committed to serve Coordinated System firm loads, or b)Supply firm resources at least equal to the indicated deficiency, from outside the Coordinated System;or c)Assign the estimated firm load which is above the capability to carry such load (as determined in b)above)to a nonfirm status and serve it only from nonfirm power available from any source;or 1.1-33 WNP-2 ER d)Totally interrupt such excess firm load if no nonfirm power is available.
Although these planning functions are carried out on a group basis, each system maintains the right, within limits, to operate its system to meet its system requirements.
One such limitation contained in the Coordination Agreement is that planned reservoir operation cannot be altered to a degree that will cause spill of firm energy on the Coordinated System.1.1.3 Ca acit Re uirements In order to determine system generating capacity requirements, a number of factors must, be considered, not the least of which is the amount of firm capacity load that the system expects to serve.Other factors to consider include: a)Capacity required to replace units out of service for scheduled maintenance; b)Capacity required for replacing the capacity of units that are forced out of service or that are forced to reduce output;c)Capacity to serve unanticipated load growth;and d)Capacity required to assure system reliability.
The forecasting methods used in the West Group area to determine the future capacity load that the system expects to serve were discussed in Section 1.1.1.4.All the other factors can be grouped under the general heading of reserves.1.1.3.1.Ca acit.Reserves System reliability (the ability to serve firm load with interruptions held to a level acceptable to both customer and system)is dependent upon the amount of capacity availa-ble to the system with which to serve the requirements of its customers at the time those requirements occur and, is measured in percent.Thus, a system with 100 percent relia-bility would always be capable'of serving its customers'equirements without interruption or curtailment.
It is entirely possible, although not economically feasible, to install enough generating capability to attain 100 percent reliability of power supply and to install enough transmis-sion, transformation and distribution equipment to deliver that capacity to customers without interruption.
Each system, or pool of systems, must therefore determine the level of reliability it can maintain, on an economic basis, that will be acceptable to customers.
l.1-34 WNP-2 ER The degree of reliability attainable on a system or pool of systems is dependent upon the amount of capacity maintained in the system over and above the capacity demand of the load being served.This capacity surplus to load can be generally classified as reserves.All of the factors previously mentioned that go into determining the total generating capacity requirements of a system, except, load requirements, can be put in this classification.
Some of the factors previously mentioned overlap;therefore, a subdivision of classification is helpful in discussing reserves in general.One possible subdivision is as follows: a)Standby Reserves 1)Load Growth Reserves for: (a)Forecasted Load Growth (b)Unexpected Load Growth 2)Scheduled Maintenance Reserves 3)Forced Outage Reserves for (a)Total Unit Outage (b)Partial Unit Outage (c)Capacity unattainable due to nonpower purposes (d)Capacity unattainable due to operating conditions b)Spinning Reserves 1)Reserves for largest single contingency outage for: (a)Generation Outage (b)Transmission Line Outage 2)Reserve for continuous load regulation 3)Reserves for frequency bias obligations Spinning reserves are standby reserves that are immediately available to replace generation forced out of service or curtailed for any reason.1.1-35 WNP-2 ER r Reliability can also be expressed in terms of the frequency of loss of load due to power supply being less than load requirements.
Although many large utilities use a criteria for adequacy of reliability based on loss of load not more frequently than once in 10 years, the West Group area uses a criteria of loss of load not more often than every 20 years.Excerpts from the 1970 FPC National Power Survey relative to adequacy of reserve levels follows: Reserve Practices"Individual systems and power pools utilize a variety of methods for determining appropriate reserve levels.The methods vary from use of a simple percent of peak load, to matching reserves to the capability of the largest unit or pair of units in service, to.very complicated calculations of outage probability taking into consideration such elements as number and size of units, forced outage rates, and expected load patterns.Reserve margins considered adequate for most systems, including the spinning reserve component, range between 15 and 25 percent of peak load.Each system, pool, or coordinating group develops spinning reserve criteria which it believes will show the minimum appropriate reserve for that particular power supply entity.Generally, the level of such reserve and its distribution among generating units takes into consideration the system characteristics and rate of required responses.
The variations in practices refl'ect such things as differences in sizes and types of units, the'umber and capability of transmission interconnections, the geographical extent and configu-ration of a system, and pertinent operating agreements among interconnected systems." The West Group Systems of the Northwest Power Pool serve a large geographical area.Major systems serving customers in the West Group area are parties to the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement.
A major benefit of such an agree-ment is to provide for capacity reserves on a coordinated use basis.The Coordination Agreement states"The Coordinated System shall maintain reserve capacity at a level sufficient.
to protect against loss of load to the extent the probability of load loss in a contract.year shall be no greater than the equivalent of one day in 20 years.The determination of such probability shall be based upon characteristics of peak load variability and generating equipment forced outage rates." 1.1-36 WNP-2 ER The Coordination Agreement provides that every utility, to the extent practicable, will operate its own system as though the Coordinated System were being operated by a single entity.Provision for capacity and energy exchanges assures each utility of assistance from the entire Coordinated System such that a loss of resources on one system will not cause loss of load on that system as long as there are resources in the area capable of carrying the total area load, and assures that nonfirm loads of the area will be curtailed in order to supply power to firm loads regardless of the utili-ties involved.The Coordination Agreement is a contractual agreement which determines the actual reserves that each utility is required to maintain under normal operating conditions during the current operating period, based on the"Critical Period" of record (adverse water).V The region is, presently experiencing a shift from a system which is nearly all hydro to one of combined hydro and thermal generation.
Such a shift in the nature of power supply requires a corresponding shift in reserve planning.Past experience has shown a reserve of 5 percent of installed hydro generating capacity to be adequate and for planning purposes the area had assumed a thermal reserve requirement equal to 15 percent of installed thermal capacity.Recently, agreement has been reached in the PNUCC that the following criteria for capacity reserves will be used for planning: a)For the first operating year of the forecast total planned reserves for capacity will be 12 percent of total area peak load for January.b)For each subsequent year the percent of area peak load for January required for total reserves will be increased by one percent (1%)of January peak load until the percentage reaches 20 percent.1.1.3.2 Effects of 0 eration of the Pro'ects on the Coordinated S stem For purposes of this statement adjustments have been made to the Long-Range Projection (1978 Blue Book)because of recent changes in expected plant capacity and energy output and expected commercial operating dates for the WPPSS nuclear projects under construction and planned.These changes and 1~1 3 7 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER their effect on the Long-Range Projections are incorporated in Table 1.1-4.If WNP-2 is available as expected (Probable Energy Date)to meet the winter peak load of the operating year 1981-1982, the capacity reserves, based on the data on the Blue Book will be 22.9 percent of area loads." If WNP-2 does not begin operation as planned the capacity reserves will be reduced to 19.3 percent.Capacity.reserves with and without WNP-2 are compared to the desired reserves in Figure 1.1-7.Thermal plants like WNP-2 are planned as base-load additions to the system and thus are important elements of the energy capability of the system.In the ten year period 1978-1987 there are total energy deficits ranging from 450 to 2373 average megawatts (MWe)with deficits on the order of 2000 MWe in the period 1980-1984, as shown in Figure 1.1-8.The Federal System interruptible loads of approximately 1000 MWe could reduce the deficits to the level shown in Figure 1.1-8 for firm energy.Firm energy deficits range from 64 MWe to 1298 MWe in 1978-1984, with surpluses of 316 MWE to 655 MWe in 1985-1987.
However, without WNP-2 there are firm energy deficits in every year 1978-1987.
1.1.4 Statement on Area Need As explained in Section 1.1 and elsewhere in this report, tha applicant does not itself engage in the distribution of electrical power to the retail market but serves as a bulk electrical power supplier to utility systems in the West Group area.The need for capacity and energy was therefore developed in Section 1.1 on the Coordinated System basis rather than on the applicant's requirements.
This section contains additional statements relative to regional power requirements and to reserve criteria of the West Group area.The Public Power Council (PPC), an organization of 104 consumer owned utilities in the Pacific Northwest, has determined that the Project is needed in the area to assure an adequate power supply for such consumer owned utility customers.
Table 1.1-6 indicates how the capability of the Project will be utilized in the BPA and Public Agency loads.The Joint Power Planning Council and the PNUCC have made regional studies to determine the regional resource require-ments and have promulgated the results of these studies by issuance of a tabulation of projects required under Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Hydro-Thermal Power Program as discussed in Section 1.1.2.1 Tables 1.1-7 and 1.1-8 indicate how the 1.1-38 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER Project fits into area resource requirements.
Each of these tables shows the regional deficiency with and without the Project.Also each shows such deficiency based on the probable energy date (milestone concept)and on the scheduled date of commercial operation.
PPC and PNUCC commi'ttees regularly review updated load forecasts and plant installation schedules in order to ensure a reliable power supply.Xf needed, requests to advance or delay plant installation dates will be made by these organizations to plant sponsors.1.1.4.1 Reserve Criteria of the Area For planning purposes the PNUCC has agreed upon the follow-ing minimum reserve requirements (previously stated in Section 1.1.3.1)for use in resource requirement analysis for the Long-Range Projection which is the study used by the region in planning power supply.Starting with the forecast for the 1974-1975 to 1994-1995 years the following criteria for capacity reserves were adopted for planning: a)For the first year of the current forecast total planned reserves for capacity will be 12 percent of total area.peak load for January.b)For each subsequent year the percent of area peak load for January required for total reserves will be increased by one percent (1%)of January peak.load until the percentage reaches 20 percent.Also WSCC through its planning and operating committees has formulated and published"WSCC Reliability Criteria" con-sisting of two parts, namely: a)Reliability Criteria for System Design (6)b)minimum Operating Reliability Criteria Planned Area Reserves can be found in Figure 1.1-7.Required reserves for actual operating conditions are determined in Critical Period Reservoir Regulation Studies and Reserve Studies prepared annually for the ensuing Critical Period (presently a 43-1/2 month period).Reserves are calculated for the Coordinated System by probability methods and distributed among Systems according to iso-probability as specified in Exhibit 4 of the Agreement.
A more detailed discussion of the reserves required by the Agreement is contained in Section 1.1.3.1.1.1-39 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER 1.2 OTHER OBJECTIVES The applicant has discussed potential beneficial byproduct uses of cooling water from Supply System projects with federal, state and local agencies as well as several poten-tial private sponsors.The Supply System will continue to cooperate with these potential sponsors and report develop-merits in the area of possible agricultural, industrial, recreational and economic aspects of any byproduct use of the project's cooling facilities.
The design, construction and operation of this project, the scheduling of which is vital to the power needs of the region, cannot be made contingent upon unknown restrictions and/or successful implementation of a complex unrelated byproduct use.In the event that the cooling water facili-ties, included as a part of this project, can be adapted to byproduct uses the Supply System will cooperate to the maximum practicable extent.1.2-1 WNP-2 ER 1.3 CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY If WNP-2 is delayed beyond the scheduled commercial operation dates the most important direct effects will be to increase the cost of the Project and decrease the energy generating capability that is an integral part of the region's electric generating resource planning schedule.A delay could also produce secondary effects which are less well defined, such as curtailment of power to serve industrial loads.A delay in Project development schedule prior to commercial operation would cause an increase in cost, the magnitude of which would depend upon when such a delay occurred.Under the present financing scheme for WNP-2, a delay which is incurred near the end of the construction period after essentially all o'f the construction funds have been expended would cause the largest increase in cost.This would be due to the requirement to pay carrying costs on the funds expended until WNP-2 can begin to generate power and thus revenues.Additional costs would be incurred for salaries and other fixed costs associated with maintaining the staff for WNP-2.Shortages of electricity would create increased demands for alternative energy sources such as coal, oil and natural gas.The substitution of fossil fuel resources for electric energy means using scarce depletable resources, particularly oil or natural gas, when relatively abundant nuclear fuel could be used instead.Power shortages would only intensify our existing shortages of oil and natural gas.The problem of air pollution, particularly in urban areas, would be aggravated by the substitution of fossil fuels for nuclear or hydro generated electricity.
Consequent damages to property and hazards to public health associated with increased air,pollution, while difficult to evaluate in monetary terms, would nevertheless be real and substantial.
An industrialized economy depends on electricity.
Two-thirds of all electric energy, both in the nation and in the Pacific Northwest, is used in commerce and industry.An inadequate power supply for industry means reduced capital investment, fewer jobs, decreased payrolls, less production and lower living standards.
To government it means the increased burden of welfare and unemployment payments, concurrent with a decrease of personal and corporate tax receipts.1.3-1 WNP-2 ER l.3.1 Power Curtailment A qualitative calculation of the impact of power curtailment in terms of dollars would be difficult to perform.However, there is presently a method which has been developed on how to curtail the use of electrical power if the system is unable to meet demands.A permanent deficiency in electric power generating sources would result first in a shutdown of large industrial loads utilizing interruptible power.Long term.shutdown of these facilities would undoubtedly reduce the residential demand as a result of reduced employment and economy in the area.In the Northwest, the thermal generating resources must be scheduled to allow the region to serve the firm load require-ments.during the period of low flow in the region's rivers.,(critical water period).During the average water years, it i.s possible to generate amounts of electric energy that are greater than would be available during a critical water year.This power, however, cannot be sold as firm power and is unusable by the average consumer.In 1972 the Northwest Power Pool drafted plans for curtail-ing loads in the event of long term power shortages.
These plans supplement but serve an entirely different purpose from, the existing procedures, which cover short term load shedding.The latter are designed to limit power system breakup in the event of sudden power failures, and expedite the return to normal operation.
The load curtailment pro-cedures are intended to minimize the impact of prolonged power shortages.
These long term emergencies could result from weather conditions, shortages of transmission capacity, generating capacity, energy capability or combinations thereof.The load curtailment proposal has been drafted jointly by 18 power generating utilities and agencies serving the four northwestern states, British Columbia, Utah, and portions of adjacent states.Following curtailment of interruptible power there, are three possible curtailment levels that might be followed in an emergency.
The first two would be voluntary, and the third would involve mandatory curtailment of firm customer power loads.The first level measures would be implemented by the systems actually experiencing an emergency and consist of the following:
1~3 2 WNP-2 ER Level One Curtailment l)Curtail non-essential utility uses such as floodlighting, sign lighting, display light-ing,office lighting, etc.2)Eliminate electric heating and air conditioning in utility owned houses, buildings and plants where feasible.3)Indicate, and instruct employees to turn off lights, motors and other uses of electricity when not needed.4)Discontinue service to electrical customers in accordance with contractual provisions.
5)Request large industrial customers to reduce non-essential load.6)Request all other customers to reduce non-essential load by appeals through appropriate news media channels.7)Where feasible, reduce voltages at the distribution or subtransmission level.Level Two Curtailment If the above actions do not solve the problem and additional assistance is required, then level two is implemented.
This involves assistance from the balance of Northwest Power Pool systems.Level two curtailment involves essentially the same steps in the same order as level one-with the entire Northwest Power Pool participating.
If application of level one and two measures fail to resolve the problem it will be necessary to curtail customer load on an involuntary basis by individual systems.This would occur at the third level.Level Three Curtailment Level three constitutes load shedding in a manner and sequence which will maintain the integrity of the maximum portion of the total system.Level three will be accomplished as follows: l~3 3 WNP-2 ER 1)Interrupt service to industrial customers to ,the extent that this can be done after considering customers load and system conditions.
2)Interrupt service to selected distribution feeders throughout the service area for a short period of time, alternating among circuits.Service to distribution feeders should be interrupted in order of the classi-fication priority-that is interrupt service to the least essential first, and so on.Every effort.will be made to provide conti-nuous service to the essential public utilities, police, fire stations, hospitals and the like.3)Records will be maintained so that during subsequent power shortages, care will be taken to locate interruptions throughout the service area in an equitable manner.This plan has been formally adopted by the Operating Committee of the Northwest Power Pool and has been submitted via the Western Systems Coordinating Council to the Federal Power Commission in response to FPC Docket R-405.Power cutbacks were experienced in the winters of 1972-1973 and 1973-1974 where interruptible power was curtailed so that water could be conserved for firm power requirements.
The costs of these cutbacks are not known but are certainly substan-tial;obviously, this is an adverse situation.
The current power supply with its lack of thermal.base-load generating capacity must be supplemented as soon as possible to minimize the social and economic damage to the area.Without new thermal resources added to the region's power supply, the Pacific Northwest faces a period of many years of serious deficiency in'capacity.
Although future regional load is expected to increase at a reduced rate, significant increases in generating capacity will be required and are scheduled.
A means for reducing future deficiency; especially in 1980, 1981 and 1982, is completion of the Supply System's WNP-2.One can anticipate that any delays in the completion of this project or other planned projects, according to'urrent 1.3-4 WNP-2 ER forecasts, will increase the period of inadequate capacity and increase the economic impact on the area.(See Table 1.1-7)An additional important advantage of WNP-2 is that it will improve the reliability of the area power supply.The Pacific Northwest's reliance on hydro-electric power has made it uniquely dependent upon nature.
TABLE l.1-l(a)PACIPIC NORTHWEST UTILITIES CONFERENCE COHHITTEE WEST GROUP AREA COHPARISON OF ACTUAL WITH ESTIHATED WINTER PEAR LOADS (HEGAWATTS)
Date of Estimate 1967-68 1968-9 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1967 (Jan.17)13,919 15,021 16,021 16,922 17,427 18,809 1968 (Feb.1)1969 (Fcb.15)1970 (Jan.15)1971 (Jan.1)1972 (Feb.1)1973 (Feb.1)1974 (Peb.1)1975 (Peb.1)1976 (Har.1)15'32 15~943 16/927 17~377 18 848 15,645 16,634 17,125 18,531 16,424 17,061 18,593 17,022 18,407 17,902 Actual Winter Peak 13,309 15,540 15,030 15,725 16,876 18,259 20,285 20,487 19,843 19,764 19,742 19,270 19,227 18,707 21,675 21,772 21,101 21,134 20,949 20,567 20,400 20,413 18,444 23,083 23,086 22,228 22,267 22,089 21,796 21,649 21,612 21,333 19,580 24,519 24,664 23,450 23 495 23,278 22,945 22,814 23,311 22,503 22,080 21,457 1/Hinimum temperatures of record occurred at a number of weather stations in the Pacific Northwest durinU December 1968 Source: BPA Requirements Section, unpublished data, February 7, 1978 8 3'4 0 co llNP-2 ER TABLE 1.1-1(b)PACIFIC NORT!l'i(EST UTILITIES CONFERENCE COHHITTBB l'lEST GROUP AREA PERCENT DEVIATION DETl(EEN ACTUAL AND ESTIHATED HINTER PEAK FIRH LOADS Date of Estimate 1967 (Jan.17)1967-68 1/1968-(39 2 (3.4 6.2 7.1 3.2 2.9 7.8 16.3 15.2 12.5 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-7'7 1968 (Peb.1)1969 (Peb.15)4'5.5 1.5 1.5 (3.4)5.7 7.1 2.9 3.1 8.7 16.7 5.8 14.0 15.2 11.9 13.0 8.5 1970 (Jan.15)1971 (Jan.1)1972 (Feb.1)1973 (Peb.1)1974 (Peb.1)1975 (Peb.1)1976 (Har.1)1.8 0.9 0.8 (1.6)5.4 5.3 3.0 2.8 14.1 13.4 1.1.8 11.1 11.1 12.1 ll.4 10.2 9.6 9.4 8.2 8.7 6.5 5.9 8.0 4.6 2.8 Ql Hinimum temperatures of record occurred at a number of weather stations in the Pacific Northwest during December 1968 2/Parentheses
()indicate actual Source: DPA Requirements Section, loads greater than estimated loads unpublished data, February 7, 1978.
HHl ER TABLE 1.1-2(a)PACIFIC NORTHWEST UTILITIES CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WEST GROUP AREA COHPARISON OF ACTUAL WITH ESTIHATED 12 HONTNS AVERAGE FIRM LOADS-(MEGAWATTS) otte of 84tfmttt 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 86 888 96 562 108252 108 826 119056 ll 852 129 815 1967 (Jan.17)1968 (Feb.1)1969 (Feb.15)1970 (Jan.15)1971 (Jan.1)1972 (Feb.1)1973 (Feb.1)1974 (Feb.1)1975 (Feb.1)lar 1 13,663 13,277 14,081 129730 13~565 12,779 13,681.12,507 13,279 12,375 13,100 12,409 13,054 12,971 99649 106 970 104 970 1 16 215 124 1 12 106 061 109 745 1 lf 020 1 16 868 10,617 10,964 11,988 10,807 11,688 11,541 1976 ()~)Actual 12-Ho.Avg.8,722 9,628 10,101 10,537 10,694 11,321 11,703 12,329 Source: BPA Refluirements Section, unpublished data, February 7, 1978.1/Firm loads differ from total loads by the interruptable loads supplied by BPA to large industrial customers.
Firm loads are used in this comparison because of the high variability to interruptable loads 14,508 14,842 14,208 14,321 13,947 13,846 13,807 13,678 13,446 12,836 15,334 15,819 14,896 15,033 14,614 14,482 14,472 14,719 14,173 13,934 13,299 W C6.6D P'V S co v llHP-2 ER TABLE 1.1-2(b)PACIFIC NORTHWEST UTIl.ITIHS CONFl'.EENCE COMMITTEE WEST GROUP AREA PERCENT DEVIATION BE'IWHEN ACTUAL AND ESTIMATED 12 MONTllS AVERAGE FIRll LOADS Date of Estimate 1967 (Jan.17)1968 (Feb.1)1969 (Feb.15)1970 (Jan.15)1971 (Jan.1)1972 (Feb.1)1973 (Feb.1)1974 (Feb.1)1975 (Feb.1)1976 (Mar.1)1967-60 1.9 0.2 1.9 3.9 4.7 (0.4)1.9 3.0 0.8 2.5 1.0 1/1960-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 2/(0.7T 1.5 2.7 3.3 8.7 9.8 11.5 13.3 6.5 4.6 5.6 3.1 1.9 11.9 8.4 6.4 5.4 12.4 9.1 9.9 7.1 5.9 13.5 9'10.4 8.0 7.3 15.9 10.7 ll.5 9.0 8.2 5.7 5.5 7.0 8.1 4.9 6.2 4.5 9.6 6.2 4.6 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1/Minimum temperatures of record occurred at a number of weather stations in the Pacific Northwest during December 1968 2/Parentheses
()indicate actual loads greater than estimated loads Source: BPA Requirements Section, unpublished data, February 7, 1978.c9 3 ln 9-9 Q.%3 M 8 OO W
'VA)3?..l-3
SUMMARY
OP LOADS AND RHSOURCHS (SheeL.l oX 3)FJ6nrcs arc Sanllary I'cak snit Contrart Yetir Energy Jn ltcgaMatts I 97 8-l9 pK Avri I'179-ri'1 PK AVG 198'I" 81 pK avc I 9S 1-82 TK aVG I 952-hl AV fi 1953-84 PK AVG 1984-5"i PK AVI: Loans I SYSTEtt LOAOS I/z ex>nvfs 7/~Tof/t.Loans 24fi16 2148 26764 16071 ris 0 16721?5871 209C 2 7961 I Adair 6?9 I/496 I'7228 17717 210s 647 29l36 18404 25591 17C9 303CO 18715 4'16 19211 298/h I/II 31 ri89 19505>39 19844 3097 9 1562 12541 Z0219 ZC3 204?2 3?23'I I 563:33 tin 2 2997?ZOS 2 I I ll f Of AL ltYO>o 7 EX~Stt~fltvtt~I 8 Cottn TttvttItlES 9 IIAIIFnttn 6/If IttrnvfS 11 rrufpaLIa Iz Tpnaatt I~mt sfpfp I I 4 lt"iP 2 15<<navnttas ICAoT 16 cntsfrfp 3 I 4 I/ttt:P Witf>4 19 ttVr'5 SKAri T f I?I ltttP 5??PFilnLE SPPI!tGS Z.l SKAri f T 2?ti liC'13LE SPR ittcs H ISC~s/COAL I 25 rntaL eESQUQGFS PESnueCES ka Iu tlYOPO 3/5 IttnFPEUOEttT IIYORO 27242 116 I 2 659 433 28939 659 27991 243 1225 0 I 697 1.31 3 113C 33G C 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 12045 56 tC3 515 I 394 919 791?"i I 6 C 0 0 0 5 0 h I 0 0 29598 243 12?5 C 1986 I-fl 3 I 1.30 1 Q~I 0 5 C C$3 5 19 1607'i 35625 116l'3 433 12666 56 t09 rt5 1550 919 791 2'5 l~I C 5 0 0 e 0 0 I rizh7 29?46 6'5 9?99en P'3 f I 22r.ZOZC 1 313 113" 3'3 0 r 477 h tr C r t1677 4:33 I?I IC 55 t09 515 1668 919 7'l I 2ri I I IO 191 h i 0 0 0 0 0 0 29745 659 35tinl 236 1225 0 1868 1313 1135 3 3'3 I lfi3 477 5 0'5 5 5 11717 433 12150 55 I C9 515 t5f 7 919 791 2'5 I f Al 334 74 h C L 0 0 C'1 0?.9973 659 3C 6lZ?.36 I izcj h 1816 1313 I ITC 330 110(477 49C n C C 0 0 ii 0 I 17'19 433 12142 55 109 515 1501 919 7 tl 251 tl:i 5 358 4 l5 63 C 0 e C 6 G C 3~63F 16659 35086 17452 38/49 17964 3C425 6 ri 9 319 84 236 12?5 0 1757 1313 1130 330 IIOC 477 9 tt 0 1250 0 h C 0 0 0 4ctldz 11714 4'33 30496 6'5'I I I/16 12147 55 169 C 1477 791 251 358 6 9.3 765 G 62 n C C 0 0'31155 236 I??5 0 1695 I t 10 339 I I"ie 4'/7 9An 1 250 I 25n ci e 5 0 I?14'3'55 I!1 9 5 I'lib 9 l'I/91?51 hZS 358 7 lii 938 437 76n n n C n 18452 43 lhl 19l06 Og rt 8 0 b A 8 9 8 I rt.26 ttvn9oistt
'f ttt!I.~I!II st;PFS~zr t.Aorf rttFttNaL pfs.go ZS PLAtt"tfttG PFSEPVES JO 29 t.r>an GvnÃ1 I<pESEpvES Qo 3c 9E AL I zaf lott Far Tntt 9/31 Uvttvn<<A)ttTEtlattcE 10/lz npa tttt-stt fttTEpf TE LnssEs ttf f eESnuttCES 14 SttttPLUs OP nf'.F fc IT 8/1468 416 533 537 9?9 C JJ/54 Z9872 0 n 0 l4h 0 5'3 20 15 iS 416 872 522 15"7 0 84 n 0 0 316 9 ri3 PQ 1565 4bh I?I r 546 1509 84 15661 31'3)I 15598 31731 31CS-1060 3410-159S Z395 321 0 ri3 ZC I fi?65-2 I'39 1593 653 1433 613 1034 57 32/06 2406 0 0 0 3'/3 5'5 lt 17013-Zt tbi 1604 726 I 895 555 I C4'5 0 57 0 0 6 341 e 53 t'3286 7 I 7'569 I zlb-22/5 16t!/967 2059 593 1068 C 5C 34498 0 0 0 349 e 0 18049-2373 I'368 2187 625 I'1/?'1 rib 36456 2 654 0 0 0 57 0 19?SC-1897 l5'lPA I!to IttTEPkUPT IRLE JZ/983'196 1037 I C3'5 I I I" I I 0 1 I I 13 1115 106'5 1065 1075 1075 1085 1085
'IDLE 1.1-3 (Sht et 2 of 3)Flgurea arc January Peak an>l Contract Tear Energy)n)toga>>acre 1985-86 PK AVG 1986-57 AVr, 1987-55 PX AVG 1985-Se PK AVG 1959-90 PK AVI'>>199')-91 AVr, I 19)-ez pK Avri LOA')S I SYSTEN LOAOS?EXP>)RTS 3 TOTAL LOAOS 33511 1565 35076?1751 207 2lo5S 34 85:I 989 35S42 ZZr50 ZC9 227re Tazee 24h 36"i43 21393 ZCI 23594 37740 106 37846 2i>271 174 Zi>445)9249 106?518?I l4 25356 40513 103 4cet6 26125 171 2 6291 42)47 101 42459 27C SC Ii I 272 I I RESOURCES>IAIN NVeoo 5'I:t<<EPEtiOENT HYOOO 6 tnt AL HYOPO 7 EX~SH TII44a t>IISC>>8 Cn>t I tit>><<INES 9 NANFORO IC l>>PORTS Il rENTRALIA 12 t>>n Jhtt 13 rnISforr I t 2 I 4 H>>P 15<<na>In~AN ICARtv COAL)16 COL'itolP~C 4 H>>i I 4>iP i>>19 MNP?0 SKA'>IT I ZI HNP 5 ZZ PF11LF SPPINr>>S I 2)SKAiilt?4.FOSLE sperNGs z?5 t:)TAL RESOURCES 30535 659)1197 225 1225 0)eza 1313 1 130 33C I ICC 47l 98C 1250 125C 1240 1258 1240 0 0 0 455la 11697 433 30 5'54 659 I 16o6 433 30607 659 11680 433 3061 5 11674 659 43 i'50613 659 11674 XhelS 6'5 9 I t 674 433'I061'I>>5 9 I If>>74 4t3 IZ I)9 51 109 0 1318 919 791 251 825 35S 7 3f>>938 hen 930 773 434 189 n 0'11193 2?5 I 2?5 C 1557 1313 1130)I I)I IQP 477 980 12SC 1250 1240 1288 1240 I 260 0 C 12129 53 Ice 0 11hZ 919 79I Zr>>I 525 358 7~6 9'>5 9YS 930 966 553 803 0 1 31?6(.22'5 12Z5 C 1479 l)13 I>3P 3')0 I IOC 477 JSC 1250 125C I 24i;IZSS 124C (?f>h izah 12113 53 109 C S90 919 791 251 525%58 716 9)5 935 93" 966 930 945 7 l.t 3127?225 1225 0 1396 1313 1130 33)1101 477 980 I 25')!250 1240 1288 1240 I 26')1288 0 121 CI 53 Ice 0 eiI3 919 l91 2<1 SP5)55 73 935 935 930 966 9'I0 945 9 6f>>I>Ie'll 27?22'5 1225 0 I 14?1313 1130 130 t 100 477 930)25" 125C 1240 1255 124C 1260 1288 I 26'1 lzt07 53 109 0 6CZ ele 79)251 525 358 l36 9)h 9th 930 966 I3 t>'i>5 966 SOS 31272 225 1225 0 1025 13)3 1130 3:IC 1100 477 980 IZSC 1250 124C 1?ah I?40 IZ60 l?58 1260 12107 r>>3 109 0 507 919 7'3 t 251 8?5 35h lx6 9'ta 9'>Q 930 966 9%C 945 966 94 r>'tl>72?2'5 I?25 i>>907 131)I)TO>)1 1 103 477')8')IP50 I 25')1241 I?88 I 24>>3 I 261 12itd I 26'J 12117 5'i I')9 i>447 9 I<3 751 I 5~5>r>>8 7X6 9th<<$il 966 9xn')45 9A6 945 21614 47058 22761 45341 23465 4S264 23634 492?C 24167 49156 74?I 4 49<>5 Z4)'54 26 HVU.O~SN TP>IL~C I I>C~PFS~Zl LANCE fHEPHtL PES, Zh"LA'INliiG PESEPVES 29 LOAO G>>OH)4 PESEPVES vn PEAL T?ATTOtt FACTOP 31><YORO HATtifF>IAtJCE
'tz>>H>>A NH-SH TNTEPtlE'OSSES 3)NET RESOIJPCES 34 SIJ>)PLUS OR OEFICIT 1632 174C 2360 615 1074 I;50 38382 C>I 0.')77 0 58 0 2117'I 3306-l79 163?1929 27xl 679 I Clio 0 Pf 359&7 314r 0 0 0 394 0 58 1'2 2309 1636?.122?814 687 1077 C I 40nQ4 0 0 0 411 5a C 22996-598 I 636 Zl 22')0 78 712 1078 0 0 0 42~C~i>I 0 39638 23153 I 79?-I 292 1636 2311 3164 739 1078 C II ii0342 0 n 43S 0 ri I 0 23678-16 78 1636 2111 3461 755 IC75 C C 39915-1001 0 0 450 06 2311 571>iIC7 I".78 1 0 39488-?162 5 0 0 473 SI C 236TC-36?I npA ltio INTERpupTI<<LE 1095 1095 110'5 I I C5 1115 1115 I I zr>1125 1135 1145 1145 I 15>>1155 TABLE.1-3 (Sheet 3 of 3)PIS>>rea arc Jan>>ary Peak and Contract Year Energyln tteaa>>attn 1992-93 PK AVG 199:5-94 PK AVG PK AUI>1995-96 PK AVG 1996-97 PK AVG I 99'7-9 8 PK AVG LOA3S I SYSTFH LOAOS 2 EXI ORrs TOTAL LOAOS 4405C 133 44153 ZAQ sr IT I 2S250 45818 45921 29153 172 29325 47659 103 t>7762 5025'I 211 30i4 7C 49607 103 49713 31410 239 31649 5176C 32952 5tf>30 32625 122 327 53752 IZZ 5<h/4 3'3099 327 342?6 RESOuoCES HAI>l HYGRO 5 It>OEPEt>OEttl 4YOco 6 rnraL IIVORO 7 f X~S>t I 4>>H A H'ISf~8 coH9 ruRRIHEs 9 Ha>IFOoO I".I<>>0 or 9 I I CE>tr'MALTA I Z rooJAtt I 5 coLsrr'Ip I c RttP IoaanHatt IcaRrv coaL)Ir..roLsrprp~I 4 17 MttP I I h Ntlo 19 MH>>~ZQ SKAGIT I 2 I Vttn 5 22 PE'lhLF SPRrtlGS I c SKAGIT?24 PE.OBLF Sno IHriS Z 25 totaL KEsnuRrfs 30613 659 I I 674 433'>0613 659 11674 433'Por>13 659 11674 433'31272 225 1225 0 777 1313 1 130 I'50 I!00 477 9SC 1250 I 2">0 124C I?88 1240 126C lzaa 1260 1210 T IC9 0'314 91'I 791 251 825 35A r36>93S 938 93C 966 930'l45 96r>945 31272 225 1225>>636 1313 1130 3$~I IQC 477 9QC 1250 1250 1240 IZSO 1240 I Zr>0 1280 1260 12107 109 0 249 919 7'I I 251 875 7">tl 7 6 93S 9~8 9>Q 966 i)3)945 966 945 3lzrz Izlcr 225 53 IZ?5 In9 0 0 484 I Zt 1313 919 113C 791 330 251!ICC 875 477 358 986 736 I 25C 9~8 I 25O 93S I Z40 933 I?Sh 96f>I 24C 931 I?6C 945 Izbb 966 IZr,n 4a905 24021 48764 23956 4aelz 23A?h 3oe 13 659 31272 225 1225 0 321 1313 1130 333 I 161 477 980 1250 1259 1240 I zrs I 24'I 1263 IZas 1260 48449 11614 433 3C61'3 659 11674 433 30613'1614 659-: 433 IZICT IC9 0 Tr 919 7'9 I 251 a25 358 TV6 938 9~8 9'>0 966 930 945>966 945 31272 225 1225 0 240 I<I~1 130'530 I IQG arr'th>G 125C 1750 124C 1288 1240 I 26" 1288 I 2ric Iztor 53 109 0 67 791 251 8?'5 158 7 Xf>9'I 8 938 9'30 966 930 il4 n>966 945 31272 725 1225 0?40 1313 1130 V36 IICO 471 OhC 1250 1250 1240 126S t 240 I zfio IZSS 12f>C I ZI"7 5't In 9 C 67 91'I?51 A 25 358'13e 930 930 930 9!>6 930 945 966 945 23780 403ea 23774 48340 23rr4 0 J 13 I I fO?r.HYGRO~S.".THHL.T'trsc ofs~27 LA<0>E THERHAL RES~zh PI.ANH'Illo RESERVE>I 79 LOAO GRO>trt>RESERVES>>EALI7Al lot>~ACTOo 31 I>VO>tO>>a I tt r f tt At>CE 37 RPA t>W-SH IIITCRTTF LOSSES 1636 2 311 4024 8:19 1078 0 0 0 0 Q 501 0 51 0 1636 23II>>342 875 1078 C n 0 0 0 521 0 51 1636 2 3 I I 4658 92r I hrh C 0 0 545 51 0 1636 2311 5001 9t>7 I Crh 3 3 0 0 0 574 C<2311 5%75 1006 lorh C r.0 0 694 0 51 C 1636 2311 5758 1045 1010 r, 0 0 0 n 6~5 0 n 33;>Er>>FROu>>CES Stt>>f>Llts OR Of F IC I T 39017-5136 Z'3469 3 h522-4 rhn 5941 3AQCZ 23232-723h-9rr,n 37450 23155-122fh-h4'94 56962-14198 Z3119-9833 36540 23088-17334-11138 RPA Itto I>trER>>ttPTI>ILF.
1164 1165 1 174 1174 IIA4 1184 1194 I 19'3 I 20'4 1203 1214 1213 FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE l.1-3 Area loads aze est~ted firm loads of private utility and publ'c agency systems, Federal agencies, and BPA industrial customers.
BPA industrial customer loads also include interruptible loads.Loads also include area transmission losses..2/Exports includ.deliveries to California utilities under the CSPE agreement, peak/energy exchange contracts with PSW, transfers of Centralia powez to Central Valley Project, WWP Co.contracts with Utah, Idaho, and Montana Power Companies, PSP&L Co.contracts with Utah Power Co.and Salt River Project, PGE Co.contracts with Pacific Gas and Electric Co.and Southern CaLifozaia Edison Co., Eugene Water and Electric Board contracts with Southern California Municipalities, BPA contracts with Yuntana Power Co.(M.P.Co.)for geographic preference, wheeling paymaats, Hanford-NPR exchange, Hanford-NPR extension, WNP No.1 deliveries, and M.P.Co's.share of restoration from the West Group Area as per Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreemeat, 3/Hydro resources are the same as those shown in the 1978 West Croup Forecast Report.4/Existing small thermal and miscellaneous includes old existing steam plants, small diesel generators, and miscellaneous small industrial purchases.
5/Combustion turbines include PP&L's Libby unit, PGE's Bethe', Harborton,'nd Beavez units, PSP&L's Whicibey Island and Whitehora units, and WWP's Othello and Northeast units.6/Haaford-NPR operation is.based on gross production oC 4.5 billion kilowatt<<hours per year in 1978-79 through 1982-83.The plant is considered not dependable as a peakiag resource.7/orts include energy returned to the PNW from peak/energy excnange contracts with PSW utilities, PGE Co.contract with Southern Cali-fornia Edison Co., PP&L Co.transfers from PP&I Co.Wyoming Divi-sion, PSP&L Co.contract with Montana and U~~Power Companies and Salt River Project, WWP Co.contracts with-Montana and Idaho Power Companies, and EW&EB contracts with Southern California Municipali ies.Total reserve requirements on peak are based on 12 percent of the total area loads for the first yeaz, increasing at a rate of one percent per year up to 20 percent, and remaining at 20 percent thereafter.
Reserve requirements oa energy are based on one-half year's load growth of utility-type loads.Reserves are broken dawn into major components.
9/10/Realization factor is the adjustmeat to the Federal hydro peaking capability to reflec inability of the Federal system to achieve its full p aking capability at any one specific instance.Hydro maintenance on energy is the estimated maintenance
'requi ed during the critical stozage period and is tne same as shown in the 1977 West Group Forecast report.Peak hydra maintenance is included with the peak forced outage reserves.BPA's N!1'-SW Intertie'ossa" are associated with deliveries ove the Intertie under coatzacts 4th Pacific Southwest.
utilities.
1.2/BPA industrial interzuptible loads are se~ed directly by BPA and are included'n Line~above.Line losses associated with the intezruptible loads are not included.Amendment 2 TABLE 1.1-4 WEST GROUP I ARGE THERMAL ADDITIONS BASED ON SCHEDULED DATES OP COMMERCIAL OPERATION (I)CAPACITY IN MEGAWATTS ENERGY IN A VERAGE MEGA WATTS ynu a l.nal I naJ Jun>>)0 19/I I/1 hv 19UO Lik hv I OUI I'k hv IaJU2 lak hv I J>al IUU4 Iuh/>v IUUb I'k Av 19>>4 1907 I aJUU)9&I 0.hv I'L Av I'k hv Iak hv Ua>ua aalu.>n (Oua I y)IUII'~ak>la Ia a)a-'Ia4 au>a-)a a IIIII'-365 uk>>u)a LL2.~I'a:14>lu a)I>rin>JO-I a2 I>uulnnul Tuaulua hnnua>I Oauau 1u a I va>I'u)>lin huunuy Vuaa>)ua hnnuu)Oa>wulna lvu 4'I'I 2u&I IOO 550 I2 24U 4JU 74 1250 4 lu 2I 490 4 16 145 12bu 62 l/bo 7/I 764)09 55U 1240 744 12UU 773)93 12UU I/I)uaJ 1260 756 IU9 15'I I U16 I/40 0 l2 490 J41 249>>675 1324 2520 IU15 124U I I ab)2I>U 7/I IU5 1100 550 1250 496 5//Jllu LUI I lb I)116 7'l9 IU9 I a'I 0 109 l lou 55u 2'150 123(2/50 I/43 444u 2UUI, 444u)249 55u4 4022 5 l73 bu40 52'I)bu60 5777 6049 15'l7 aa I4 1'll I 16>9 IUU7 261)62ll7 32JU 6297 44)4 0025 642 J IU,QUb'l544 I I~I I J 0 1 17 I I, 370 0526 II)-Uaua:al<<n I/uul.>a>un)>L'uruuuul 3-1 70 TABLE 1.1-5 WEST GROUP LARGE THERMAL ADDITIONS BASED ON PROBABLE ENERGY DATE (1)PEAK CAPACITY IN MEGAWATTS ENERGY IN AVERAGE MEGAWATTS Uuur Lwillws Bawau lo 19 Is I'k Av 19UO I'k hv I JUI I'k hv I<JUI j'L Av 9UI I'k Av l<JU4 hv 1~i Av 1906 I'k Av 1 9U'I I'k Av IUUU Ok'v 1909 I'k Av Iwia ralwan I Cur 4 Q I IUII'~~~~~~Culntrila-ll4 47'I 101 141 IIU IIOU 570 24 4iJ0 160 490?5iJ III I I'-I l I IIIIU 715 Oku<J I L-I l2 I'ul lalu ot<rlw<JU-ll?
lcuQlcinal 7'aatalac AIII<alu I~6?L?50'l04-1250 610 422 70 6?1240 CiJU l?40 604 l?UU 77)4IU lo IiJ3 l?UU 171 IUS I<CO 614 142 477 JUI lloo IJ5 490 503 1740 1025 2490 1351 25?U 1900 1260 I"IQI l?QQ 993 O 19$'UU IU?Cwwa I I a I.I vu I'wlil I c: A<J<<caw@'fulul wc AIII I I I<I I~~Ciwwclal.lvcc 47'I'JOI 157'I lOSt 2Ot7 16IS 3007 2704 62S7 4055 UU?5 6043 10,005 I146 ll,ill UIJ9 Il~I I I QI?I 1100 5'IU IUJ 1250 74'I 2110 1099 1116 J60 109 546<J I 20 I IUO 5'IU lloo 7I'I?150 15?4 4460 2621 5504 54?U 57'I l 974 5'l73 CUII?3 6093 III Uauag awa Iluwl Ciruuli I'urouawC 3 I-IU TABLE 1.1-6 PUBLIC AGENCY-BPA ENERGY RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS (Average Megawatts)
Probable Ener Date Scheduled Date Year Ending June 30 Estimated Requirements (1)Estimated Resources (1)Unsatisfied WPPSS No.2 Unsatisfied Requirements c'"""-'stimated Resources Unsatisfied (Adjusted)
Requirements (2)(3)Unsatisfied WPPSS Requirements c'"""'979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 10,980 11,453 12,214 12,725 13,016 13,290 13,666 14,045 14,435 14,858 15,294 10,490 10i620 10,809 11,266 11,376 11,771 12,866 13,811 14,205 14,080 14,080 490 833 1,405 1,459 110 687 1,519 800 234 230 778 1,214 825 825 825 825 825 825 1,640 825 490 833 1,515 2,146 2,465 2,344 1,625 1,059 1,055 lg603 2,039 10,490 10g602 11,259 11,379 11,750 12,237 13,272 14,168 14,274 14,080 14,080 490 833 1,346 1,266 1,053 394 (123)161 778 1,214 550 798 825 825 825 825 825 825 825 1,505 2,144 2,091 1,878 1,219 702 986 1,603 2,039 (1)Blue Book Table 2 adjusted for duplication in Federal and public Agency values.(2)Adjusted for difference in added resources between Probable Energy Date and Scheduled Date.(3)()denotes surplus resource over requirements Amendment 3 January l979 TABLE 1.l-7 WEST GROUP ENERGY RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS (Average Megawatts)
Probable Ener Date Scheduled Date Year Ending June 30 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Estimated Requirements (1)16i721 17g496 18'04 19,211 19,844 20,422 21,177 21,958 22,759 23,594 24,445 Estimated Resources (2)15,661 15 p 89()16'65 17,013 17,569 18,049 19,280 21,179 22,309 22i996 23,153 Unsatisfied Requirement With WPPSS No.2 1,060 lg 598 2,139 2,198 2,275 2I373 1,897 779 450 598 1,292 WPPSS No.2 110 687 825 825 825 825 825 825 825 Unsatisfied Requirement Without HPPSS No.2 lg060 1,598 2g2$9 2,885 3,100 3,198 2I722.1,604 1,275 lg423 2gll7 Estimated Resources Ad)usted (3)15,661 15 g 898 16g800 17,148 17,943 18,515 19,686 21,474 22,386 22,996 23,153 Unsatisfied Requirement Hith WPPSS No.2 1,060 1,598 1;604 2,063 1,901 1,907 1,491 373 598 li292 WPPSS No.2 550 798 825 825 825 825 825 825 825 Unsatisfied Requirement Without HPPSS No.2 2,154 2,861 2,726 2I732 2,316 1,309 1,198 1,423 2, 117 (1)Prom 1978 Blue Book, Table 1, Line 3 (2)From 1978 Blue Book, Table 1, Line 33 (3)Estimated Resources adjusted from Probable Energy Date to Scheduled Date.Amendment 3 January 1979 TABLE 1.1-8 WEST GROUP CAPACITY (PEAK)RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS (Megawatts)
Probable Ener Date Scheduled Date Year Ending June 30 1979 1900 1981 1902 1903 1904 1905 1986 1907 1908 1909 Estimated Requirements
~(1)26,764 27i961 29,336 30,300 31,589 32,541 33,002 35,076 35,842 36,543 37,046 Estimated Resources~2>29,872 31,371 31,731 32,706 32,067 34,490 36,456 38,382 38,907 40,004 39,638 Unsatisfied Requirements With WPPSS No.2 (4)(3,100)(3, 410)(2,395)(2,406)(1,270)(1,957)(2,654)(3,306)(3,145)(3,461 (1,792)WPPSS No.2 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1, 100 1,100 1,100 1,100 Unsatisfied Requirement Without WPSS No.2 (4)(3,108)(3,410)(2,395)(1,306)(178)(057)(1,554)(2,206)(2,045)(2,361)(692)Estimated Resources Adjusted~3)29t872 31,371 32,031 32,706 3,4117 35,730 36,456 30,382 38,907 40,004 39,630 Unsatisfied Requirement With WPPSS No.2 (4)(3,100)(3,,410)(3,495)(2,406)(2,520)(3,197)(2,654)(3,306)(3,145)(3,461)(1,792)WPPSS No.2 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1, 100 1,100 1,100 Unsatisfied Requirements Without'WPPSS No.2 (4)(3,108)(3,410)(2,395)(1,306)(1,428)(2,097)(1,554)(2,206)(2,045)(2,361)(692)(1)Prom 1970 Blue Book, Table 1, Line 3 (2)Prom 1978 Blue Book, Table 1, Line 33 (3)Estimated Resources adjusted from Probable Energy Date to the Scheduled Date.(4)()Indicates surplus over requirements Amendment 3 January 1979 PNN-WEST GROUP AREA MW(0001 26 24 EXTREMELY COLD WEATHER aaaa geog~yg18 aa ACTU Al.22 20 18 16 1967 E STlM TE 12 10 1967-1968 1970-1971 1973-1974 1976-0 1977 Amendment 2, October 1978 HKSHibiGTON PUSLiC POOF~SUPPLY SYSTK4 NPPSSÃJCLZAR PROJZCT NO.2 Znv~rozxental Report ESTZKKTED VERSUS ACTUAL NZNTER FZRi~j PEAK LOADS PNN-WF.T-T>FZG.
KSTIIIA7%9 VS.ACTUAL AQMUAI.AVKRAGK I:IRS I.QAQS PNW-WEST GROUP AREA MW(000)18 1967 ESTlMATE~a~16 12 ACTUAL 10 19 67-1968 1970-1971 197 3-1 97 4 0 197 6-1 97 7 Amendment 2, October 1978 HASBENGTON PUBLEC POWER SUPPLY S'EST~WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJZCT NO.2 Environmental Report ESTENATED VERSUS ACTUAL ANNUAL AVER9.GE FiRN LOADS D FIG.1.1 2 U.S.EI PNW (WEST GROUP AREA)ENERGY LOADS 10.000 9,000 8,000 7.000 8.O00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l i l HAT)OHaL I I)978-1995 co Z 0 1,000 900 800 700 I I I I I I I I I)I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I (2)I PNW I I I 1978~1995 100 50 80 70 50 I I I I I I I I I I 1978 1980 1982 1984 1988 1988 1990 1992 1994 1995 YEAR ll ELECTRICAL WOR LO, SEPT.15, 1977 2)BLUE oOOIC 1978~79 THROUGH 1997~98 Amendment 2, October 1978 WSEZHGTOM PUBLZC POWER SUPPLY SYSTK4 NPPSS NUCLZAR PROJZCT NO.2-nvirormen~~l Report U.S.&PNN (NEST GROUP AREA)PEAK LOADS PZG-PNW Electric Energy Requirements OTHER 250 ,'.:,INDUSTRIAL';
200 Y.U Q 150 co Z O 100 RESIDENTIAL 1955 1965 1975 19&5 1995 0 WASHINGTON PUBLIC PO~SUPPLY SYSTKK ELECTRIC ENERGY REQU1REMENTS BY Y WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 CONSUMER CATEGORIES PACIFIC NORT T Environmental Report (WEST GRO P FIG.1.1-4 Factors Causing Increase in Energy Sales to Domestic Consumers in PNW 1950-1973 PNW-WEST GROUP AREA.M)K , 10.9 35 AMOUNT OF ENERGY SALES OUE TO: ELEC.SPACE HEAT~LUMP:~j INCREASE IN USE PER CONSUMER OTHER THAN ELEC SPACE HEAT INCREASE IN NO.OF CUSTOMERS ISEO USE EXCLUOING SPACE HEAT 2.5 g::1.6@8.1:.~i(',"a(j 4iwkg 4.3 PN:~Ay.?@g"&12.1)~'EN YCP'.I:.".'.
Ng'V.'5 Z 20 r 0 EO Z O 15 Cl 10 5.1 6.1 5.1 S.l 1950 1970 1973 0 WASHXNGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report FACTORS CAUSING INCREASE IN ENERGY SALES TO DOMESTIC CONSUMERS IN WEST GROUP OF PNW 1950-1973 FXG.1.1-5 XcoQ QUlN f MQ Q" 5 Q Pl Q 4 ncaa P+CI rt R M Q P IOO 90 80 70 60 0 0 50 z 40 30 20 ANNUAL LOAD DURATION CURVE AVERAGE HYDRO ENERGY 12090 MW APPROXIMATE DURATION CURVE FOR TOTAL LARGE TERMAL PLANT WNP¹2 IO AVERAGE THERMAL ENERGY 4941 MW H Q 0 IO 20 30 40 50 PERCEN T OF TIME 60 70 80 90 IOO EXPECTED RESERVES 25 EST IMATEO RESERVcS r WITHOUT NNP 2 20 N C yi I 10 OESIREO RESERVES 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1988 1987 1988 1989 YEAR ENOING JUNE EO Amendment 2, October 1978~~NRSHZFiGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM HPPSS NUCLEAR PROX CT NO.2 Environmental.
Ressort ESTIMATED CAPACITY RESERVES 1979-1989 F XG.1.1-7 TOTAL ENERGY DEFICIT FIRM ENERGY OEFICIT~W/0 WN P 2 1500 1000 FIRh1 ENFRGY OEFICIT WITH WNP.2 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 i!I 1985 1985 1987 YEAR 8EGINING JULY I Amendment 2, October 1978 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POSER SUPPLY SYSTK4 HPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report ESTIHATEO ENERGY RESERVES 1978-1987 FIG~1.1-8 WNP-2 ER CHAPTER 2 THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENT INTERFACES 2.1 GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHY 2.1.1 Site Location and Descri tion h 2.1.1.1 S ecifi,cation of Location The Washington Public Power Supply System's (WPPSS or the Supply System)Nuclear Project No.'(WNP-2)is on property leased from the United States Department of Energy (DOE)(formerly the Energy Research and Development Administration) within the Hanford Site in the south-eastern part of the State of Washington (See Figure 2.1-1).The Han-ford Site is comprised of 134 square miles (86,050 acres)in Grant and Franklin Counties, and 425 square miles (271,930 acres)in Benton County (See Figure 2.1-2).WNP-2 is located in Section 5 of Township 11 north, Range 28 east, Willamette Meridian.The center of the primary containment vessel is located at latitude 46o 28'8" N and longitude 119o 19'8" W.The approximate Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates are 5,148,840 meters north and 320,930 meters east.The plant is approximately 3 1/4 miles west of the Columbia River.WNP-2 is 12 miles north of the center of Richland, Washington, the nearest incorporated community.
Approximate airline distances from the site to major cities in the Pacific Northwest are listed in the foll owing table.Cit Spokane, Washington Butte, Montana Walla Walla, Washington Boise, Idaho Portland, Oregon Yakima, Washington Seattle, Washington Vancouver, British Columbia Directi on From Site Northeast East Southeast Southeast West-Southwest West Hest-Northwest Northwest Distance From Site 120 mi1 es 330 miles 55 mi 1 es 260 miles 180 miles 55 miles 160 miles 260 miles Within the Hanford Site, WNP-2 is 18 miles southeast of the Hanford Generating Project and 2 3/4 miles northeast of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF)which is under construction for DOE.WPPSS Nuclear Projects Nos.1 and 4 (WNP-1/4)are under construction 0.9 miles 2.1-1 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER east-southeast and 0.8 miles east-northeast of WNP-2, respectively.
The H.J.Ashe Substation is located 0.5 miles north of WNP-2 (See Figure 2.1-3).l The site is about 11 miles north of the Richland Airport and 18 miles northwest of both Vista Airport near Kennewick and the Tri-Cities Airport near Pasco.The Tri-Cities and the Richland Airports have regularly scheduled coranercial airline service.Hughes Air West 4~serves the Tri-Cities Airport and Cascade Airways services both airports.Adjacent to the WNP-2 site but not within the confi nes of the plant boundary, is a 9-acre burial site containing radioactive waste matter disposed by the Atomic Energy Commission (See Figure 2.1-3).Known as the Wye Burial Ground, the area is appropriately marked and will be adequately secured.The area is under the control of the DOE waste management program and is not considered a hazard to the public nor to the plant's operation.
Neither the public nor the WNP-2 operating personnel will have access to this burial site.2.1.1.2 Site Area The Washington Public Power Supply System has leased from DOE 1089 acres of which approximately.202 acres will be modified by construc-tion activities.
Of these, only about 30 acres will be used for WNP-2 structures and auxiliary facilities during its operation.
The remain-ing 1059 acres will remain or will be returned to their natural state.The plant property line is shown in Figure 2.1-3.In addition, Figure 2.1-4 and 3.1-1 show the location of pertinent structures, facilities and the railroad spur linking the site with the Burlington Northern Railroad at Richland.The site area, as defined by the tract of land over which WPPSS will'control access of individuals consists of the plant property and the area included within the exclusion area (See Figure 2.1-3).Part of the exclusion area is beyond the property line of WNP-2 and its con-trol is discussed in greater detail in sub-section 2.1.2.The site area is entirely within the boundaries of DOE's Hanford Site.The site is situated near the middle of a relatively flat, essentially featureless plain which is best described as a desert shrub-steppe with sage brush and bitter brush interspersed with native perennial and alien cheat grasses extending in a northerly, westerly and south-erly direction for several miles.On the east, the site is bounded by the Columbia River., The plain is characterized by slight topographic 2.1-2 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER relief with a maximum relief across the plant site of approximately ten feet, and a plant site grade level of 441 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL)(See Figuurre"2.1.4).
As shown in Figure 2.1-3, the exclusion area is a circle with its center at the reactor and a radius of 1950 meters., This area meets the 10CFR Part 100.11(a)(1) criteria.Industrial facilities located in the site area are the WNP-1/4 projects, the H.J.Ashe Substation, and a permanent meteorological tower.An Emergency Response/Plant Support Facility is planned for a location 3/4 mile southwest of the plant on WPPSS property.Highway and railway facilities near the site area are shown in Figures 2.1-3, 2.1-5 and 2.1-6.2.1.1.3 Boundaries for Establishin Effluent Release Limits.An area slightly larger than one square mile has.been established as the limit of the restricted area for which radiation concentrations have been calculated in conformance with.10CFR Part 20.106(a).
The restricted area includes the WNP-2 plant and facilities, meteor-ological tower, a portion of the main railroad line and access road, as well as the Wye Burial Ground (See Figure 2.1-3).The plant's effluent release points are shown in Figures 3.1-6.2.1.2 Exclusion Area Authorit and Control 2.1.2.1~Authorit A letter from the DOE Richlang gperations office to the Managing Director of the Supply System(>)advises that DOE has the authority to sell or lease land on the Hanford Site.The letter further states as follows: "This authority is contained in Section 120 of the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955, as amended, and Section 161G of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as'mended.
There is also general federal disposal authority available under the Federal Property Admin-istrative Ser vices Act of 1949, as amended." As shown in Figure 2.1-3, the 1950 meter radius exclusion area does extend outside the plant property at several locations.
All land outside the plant property but within the exclusion area is managed by DOE as part of the Hanford Site.In recognition of requirements spec-ified in 10CFR 100.3(a), that require a licensee to have control over access to the'exclusion area, the following terms have been made a part of the site property lease, agreement between the Supply System and DOE.guoting from page 8, item 7"Exclusion Area": 2.1-3 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER"The Commission recognizes the exclusion area as provided for in the operating license and will undertake no action or activity which would interfere with or restrict the Supply System's right to fully comply with this condition of the operating license." Any actions taken within the exclusion area but outside the plant property are under the control of DOE.All rail shipments on the track which traverses the property are also under control of DOE and are also subject to the above quoted provisions of the Lease.The only roads which traverse the exclusion area are the.WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 access roads shown in Figure 2.1-3.Access by land from outside of the Hanf ord Site to the project site is by other DOE roads.Travel within the exclusi on area on the access road will be restricted by the.Washington Public Power Supply System.In the event that evacuation or other control of the exclusion area should become necessary, appropriate notice will be given to the DOE-Richland Operations Office for control of non-Supply System originated activities.
2.1-4 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER-OL The above provisions provide the necessary assurances that the exclu-sion area will be properly controlled.
If at some time in the future, the Supply System should decide that an easement would be useful in ensuring continued control, there is a provision in Paragraph 5(b)of the lease as follows: "Subject to the provisions of Section 161(q)of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Commission has authority to grant easements for the rights-of-way for roads, transmission lines and for any other purpose and agrees to negotiate with the Supply System for such rights-of-way over the Hanford Operations Area as are necessary to service the Leased Premises." Pursuant to this provision, the Supply System could obtain from DOE an easement over the exclusion area in question which would assure that neither the construction of permanent structures nor the conducting of activities inconsistent with the exclusion area would be carried on therein.2.1.2.2 Control of Activities Unrelated to Plant 0 er ation The exclusion area will encompass the WPPSS Nuclear Projects Nos.1 and 4, their respective access roads, and the H.J.Ashe Substation.
Other than these facilities there are no activites unrelated to the operation of WNP-2 within the exclusion area.Both WNP-1 and 4 and their respective access roads (see Figure 2.1-3), will be owned and operated by WPPSS.The H.J.Ashe Substation will be owned by the Bonneville Power Administration and is considered a part of WNP-2 nor-mal operation.
2.1.3 Po ulation Distribution Table 2.1-1 presents the compass sector population estimates for 1980 and the forecasts for the same compass sectors by decade from 1990 to 2030.*Cumulative totals are also shown in Table 2.1-1.This table may be keyed to Figures 2.1-7 and 2.1-8 which show the sectors and major population centers within 10 and 50 miles of the site.The pop-ulation centers, within 50 miles of the site are the Tri-City area of Population estimates out to 50 miles were derived to serve the licensing requirements of WNP-l, 2, and 4.Therefore, estimates were made relative to the centroid of the triangle formed by the three reactors.This point is located 2800 ft east of WNP-2 and has coordinates Long 119o19'18"W, Lat 46o28'19" N.This shift does not affect the.overall accuracy or applicability of the population distribution projections.
2.1-5 Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER-OL Richland, Pasco and Kennewick, and the communities lying along the Yakima River from Prosser to Wapato.It can be seen from Figure 2.1-7 that there are no towns located within 10 miles of the site, with the exception of a small part of Richland.There are no residents of incorporated Richland within the 10-mile radius.The 1990 to 2030 forecasts presented here(2)are based on: a)1979 population figures provided by the Washington State Office of Finan-cial Management; b)Benton and Franklin County Traffic Analysis Zone population distributions; c)computed annual average area growth rates from 1975 through 1979 which were utilized to obtain the total 1980 population estimated for each area, and d}pointy forecasts prepared by the Bonneville Power Administration.(3).(4) 2.1.3.1 Po ulation Within 10 Miles The 10-mile radius around the site is shown in Figure 2.1-7.In 1980, an estimated 1306 people were living within this.r adius.The nearest inhabitants occupy farms which are located east of Columbia River and are thinly spread over five compass sectors.There are no permanent inhabitants located within three miles of the site.Only about 80 persons reside between the 3-mile and the 5-mile radii and all are east of the Columbia River.Within a 5-mile radius of the site, there are no proposed public facilities (schools, hospitals, etc.), business facilities, or primary transportation routes for use by large numbers of people.In 1980, an estimated 1,306 persons, 65K of whom are in the NE to SE sectors in Franklin County east of the Columbia River, resided within a 10-mile radius of the site.This number represents only 0.5X of the total population within a 50-mile radius.The population within the 10-mile radius is estimated at 2,676 in 1990, 3,614 in 2000, and 3,877 in 2010.By 2020, the population within the 10-mile radius is estimated at 4,073 which is a 212K in-crease over 1980.No significant changes in land use within five miles are anticipated.
The Hanford Site is expected to remain dedicated primarily to indus-trial use without private residences.
No change in the use of the land east of the Columbia River is expected since it currently is ir-rigated to about the maximum amount practicable.
The industrial areas in the northern part of Richland and the residen-tial area SSW of the Yakima River near the Horn Rapids Dam are within the 10-mile radius.The residential area near the Horn Rapids Dam is unincorporated.
The primary increase in population within the 10-mile radius is expected to be in this area (see Figure 2.1-7).2.1-6 Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER-OL 2.1.3.2 Po ulation Between 10 and 50 Miles As indicated in Table 2.1-1, about 251,684 people were estimated to be living within a 50-mile radius of the WNP-2 project in 1980.Begin-ning with the 10-mile radius, the population count increases rapidly because of the Tri-City region to the south and south-southeast:
Total population within the 20-mile radius was estimated to be 91,734 in 1980 or about 37K of the total within 50 miles.When the 30-mile radius is reached, another 52,000 persons can be added to the resident population, making the number of residents within the entire 30-mile radius total 143,735.Most of this zone's population count stems from the contribution of compass sectors containing the Tri-Cities and the residents of the fringe areas.Based on 1980 census reports, the Tri-Cities are the only significantly large population centers located in the 10 to 30-mile zone: Richland (33,578), Kennewick (34,397), and Pasco (17,944).The next 10 miles (to the 40-mile range)adds another 41,135 persons for a total 40-mile radius count of 184,870 while the 50-mile range adds the final 66,814 persons for a total of 251,684 persons living within a 50-mile radius of the construction site in 1980.The primary future increase in population is expected to be in the SE to SSW sectors which include the entire Tri-Cities and adjoining areas.Little increase is generated westward.The population in-creases in the rural areas are based on the expected increase in irri-gated agriculture.
The rest of the population is primarily in the Tri-City area as a result of increased activity on the Hanford Site and expansion of agricultural activities throughout the general region.From the estimated 1980 population of 251,684, the population is pro-jected to be 301,943 in 1990, 336,115 in 2000 and 360,395 in 2010 within the 50-mile radius.By 2020, the population within the 50-mile radius is estimated at 379,930, and by 2030 at 383,828, which is a 53K increase over 1980./2.1.3.3 Transient Po ul ation The transient population consists of agricultural workers needed for harvesting crops produced in the region, industrial and construction workers both on and off the Supply System's WNP-1/4 project sites, and sportsmen engaged in hunting, fishing, and boating.Figure 2.1-9 shows the distribution of the transient population relative to the point cited on page 2.1-5.Table 2.1-3 lists industrial employment within ten miles of the pro-ject site.The majority of these individuals are directly involved with research and operation of various programs and facilities for the Oepartment of Energy and its contractors on the Hanford Site.Most of this workday population reside within 10 to 30 miles of the project 2.1-7 Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER-OL and are included in the totals discussed in Subsection 2.1.3.2.The workday population total of approximately 19,500 includes the WNP-2 construction work force'which will be reduced to operating levels at the time of OL issuance.Agricultural workers within the 50-mile radius during ear ly spring and late fall months, consist mostly of permanent residents numbering be-tween 2000 and 3000 laborers.In the summer months during gyak har-vest, the agricultural labor force is an estimated 34,000.(>3 With-in the 10-mile radius an estimated 1000 migrant workers are employed during the peak months of May and June.These workers are concen-trated in the north to south-southeast sectors on the irriga$eg fyIm units located east of the Columbia River in Franklin County.<6)i(~~
Approximately 925 of these workers reside temporarily between the 5-10 mile radii;the remaining 75 are located within 5 miles of the site.Hunting and fishing activities within the 10-mile radius are also centered in the north to south-southeast sectors along the Columbia River.The number of fishermen and hunters in this area varies with the season, the weather,'the day of the week, and the time of day.The main hunting season is from mid-October until the end of January, and the main fishing season is from June throu'gh November.The heav-iest use of the area for both sports is on weekends and holidays in the early morning hours.It is estimated that the peak numPep qf hunt-ers and/or fishermen present in the area would total 1,000.<6>~~8)
It is estimated that, on the average, 10 hunters are present in the area on weekdays;the number increases to 50 on weekends and holi-days.The average number of fishermen present are 50 and 100 for weekdays, and weekends and holidays, respectively.
Hunters and fish-ermen also have access to the Yakima River in the SW and SSW sectors where they may total 50.2.1.4 Uses of Ad'acent Lands and Waters Land use within a three (3)mile radius of the WPPSS Nuclear Projects includes the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF).Also included are the associated roadways and railroads, circulating water pumphouses on the Columbia River,,and the Supply System's Emergency Response/Plant Sup-port Facility.No other facilities are located in this area.Between the three (3)and five (5)mile radii, in the five eastern sectors, is an area devoted to agriculture.
Significant changes in land use outside five miles'nclude urban resi-dential and irrigated agricultural development.
Most major new irri-gation developments have occurred in the Hermiston-Boardman area in Oregon and in the Plymouth area in Washington.
Other new developments are in the hills adjacent to the Snake River east of Pasco, along the Yakima River west and north of West Richland, and in the hills north-west of the Hanford Site.Significant new irrigation development is expected in the Horse Heaven Hills southwest of the Tri-Cities (about 300,000 acres)and in the Columbia Basin Project north and east of the Columbia River (now totaling 570,000 acres).2.1-8 Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER-OL The principal sources of water for the irrigated areas south and west of the Tri-Cities are the Columbia, Snake, and Yakima Rivers.Ground-water is being pumped in the hills northwest of the Hanford Site and is expected to be used for new areas surrounding Pasco.New irriga-tion in the Columbia Basin Project will receive its water from Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River.Scattered throughout the area within 50 miles of the project are a number of livestock and dairy operations.
The number of individual livestock animals per location ranges from one to 250 and are utilized for both personal and commercial beef processing, as well as for breeding.There are eight beef processing plants located within 50 miles that provide beef to outlets outside the area, with the largest plant processing approximately 1000 head per day.The area within 50 miles is predominantly a feeder area during non-growing season, and causes the number of, livestock to fluctuate on a seasonal basis.There are three (3)dairy operations located within ten (10)miles of the site.An estimated 95 additional milk prqdgcers are located with-in the area between the 10 and 50 mile radii.(9)The milk produced from these dairies is collected and transported to processing plants located as far away as Portland, Oregon and Spokane, Washington.
Table 2.1-2 provides distances to the nearest livestock, dairy animals, and vegetable gardens.Hunting and fishing is extensive within the fifty (50)mile radius.Much of the farm land is open to hunters, with upland bird and water-fowl being the most popular.Fishing occurs on the Columbia, Snake, Yakima, and Walla Walla Rivers, as well as in isolated lakes and ponds.The Columbia River is the closest area in which hunting and fishing can occur.Fishing and hunting can occur on both banks of the river as far upr iver as the Hanford Townsite.Within 10 miles of the site is an area designated as Controlled Hunting Area B.This area contains the Ringold Wildlife Refuge and the Wahluke Wildlife Refuge, consisting of approximately 4,000 acres of Department of Energy land managed by the Washington State Department of Game.Located adjacent to this area's southern boundary and within five miles of the site is the Ringold Fish Hatchery.This facility encourages steelhead fishing within one mile of its location.These three (3)areas experienced a total of 291,000 user-days by hunters and fishermen in a one (1)year period between 1978 and 1979.(10)2.1-9 Amendment 5 July 1981 TABLE 2.4-1 (SHEET 3 OF 2'lPOPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY COMPASS SECTOR AND DISTANCE FROM THE SITE Oisaaeee esaes 0-3 3-5 5-10 10-20 C~~~~ro Ci 9 ro 00 M Ul Qirection (Compass~Se ment+All tt-ttNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE-ttttW tt NNE ttE ENE E E5E SE SSE 5 SSW SM MSM-ttNM tt!QIE ttE ENE E EST SE SSE 5 SSM SM WSM M'WttW NW NNW 1980 Number 0 10 22 22 22 4 0 26 83 155 114 135 168 190 45 50 235 25 0 332 328 399 792 461 192 4155 49178 28943 1592 3106 950 0 0 0 0 Cumulative
~Tata>0 IO 32 54 76 80 80 106 189 344 458 593 761 951 996 1046 1281 1306 1306 1638 1966 2365 3157 3618 3810 7965 57143 S6086 87678 90784 91734 91734 91234 91734 91734 1990 N~umber 0 35 43 43 43 6 0 58 126 L98 157 200 2?e 406 253 272 535 25 0 371 371 562 835 4?9 430 5221 63483 37622 1772 3597 104S 0 0 0 0 Cumulative Total 0 35 78 121 164 170 170 228 354 552'?09 909 L185 159L 1844 2116 2651 26?6 2676 3042 3418 3980 4815 5294 5724 10945 74428 IL2100 113872 112469 118512 ILSSI?118512 118517 118517 2000 Number 0 0 48 56 56 56 9 0 72 152 224 122 257 341 536 308 483 809 25 0 398 397 588 855 544 576 5821 70917 45434 1922:S94 1108 0 0 0 Cumui at ive~Total 0 0 48 104 160 216 225 225 302 454 678 855 1112 1453 1989 2297 2?80 3S89 3614 3614 4012 4409 4997 5S52 6396 6972 12793 83710 129144 131066 134960 136068 136068 136068 136068 136068 2010~It+aber 0 52 60 60 60 ll 0 83 162 240 190 276 366 575 330 518 Se?27 0 427 426 630 917 583 618 6242 76043 487 L?2061 4175 1188 0 0 0 0 Cumulative soaaa 0 0 52 112 172 232 243 243 326 488 728 918 1194 1560 2135 2465 2983 3850 3827 3827 4304 4730 5360 6277 6860 7478'L3?20 89763 13848Q 140541 144?L6 145904 145904 145904 145904 145904 2020 Number 0 55 63 63 63 11 0 87 170 2S2 200 290 385 604 347 544 911 28 0 449 447 662 964 613 650.6561 79932 51208 2166 4389 1248 0 0 0 Q Cumulative Total 0 55 118 181 244 255 255 342 512 764 964 1254 1639 2243 2590.3134 4045 4023 4073 4522 4969 5631 6595 2208 7858 14419 94351 145559 147725 152114 153362 153362 153362 153362 153362 203Q ttumber 0 86 64 64 64 12 0 88 172 254 202 293 389 610 350 550 920 29 0 454 452 669 974 619 657 6627 80734 51722 2188 4433 1260 0 0 0 0 Cumulative
~lot 1 0 86'50 214 278 290'90 328 550 804 1006 1299 1688 2298 2648 3198 4118 4147 4147 4601 5053 5722 6696 7315 7972-14599 95333 147055 149243 153676 154936 154936 154936 154936 154936 TABLE 2.1-T fSHEET 2 OF 2)Distance/Hallos ZD-30 30-40 40-50.~tb Ca B CD C3~Vl Direction (Coepass~Se~ent N NtlE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 5 SSM SM MSM MtlM NM NNM NtiE NE EtiE E ESE SE SSE 5 SSM SM MSM M MtiM tilt ftNM N ttNE tiE ENE E ESE SE SSE 5 SSM SM MSM M MttM ttM NNM J 980 Number 1501 5759 2015 1717 151 153 6138 24116 187 875 6I65 1626 1191 185 4D 182 980 3198 650 421 128 167 464 592 4680 256 473 21871 3578 1399 703 1575 17872 893 926 213 241 864 2084 1740 16540 2610 421 809 18515 1742 8)2 532 Cumulat ive Sosa)93235 98994 IO)009 102726 1028V 103030 109168 133284 133471 134346 140511 142I37 143328 143513 143553 143735 144715 1479)3 148563 1489S4 149112 149279 149743 150335 155015 155271 155744 177615)81193 182592 183295.)84870 202742 203635 204561 204774 205015 205879 207963 209703 226243 228853 229274 230083 248598 25D340 251152 251684 1990 Number 1837 6487 2174 1760 194 240 6512 32559 678 12JS 7147 1799 1325 280 44 200 1096 3663 800 447 136 176 484 844 5653 424 661 24729 3949 1459 770 1738 19730 10)9 1139 243 258 925 2245 1920 16406 2895 443 892 20481 1903 859 587 Cumul at i ve assai 120354 126841 129015 130V5 130969 13)209 13VZI)70280 170958 172176 179323 181122 182447 182727 182771 182971 184065 IBV28 JBBS28)88975 189111 189287 189771 190615 196268 196692 197353 222082 226031 227490 228260 229998 249728 250747 251886 252129 252387 253312 255557 2574 V 273883 276VB 27722)278113 298594 300497 301356 301943 tiumber 2055 7123 2274 1786 220 305 6738 36360 975 1426 7737 1908 1429 297 48 218 1127 3983 745 475 141 182 497.955 6368 529 786 26890 4273 1579 836 1899 2)572 1121 1275 375 268 961 2349 2072 17708 2972 476 965 22179 2043 905 642 Cumulative Zosaa 138123 145246 147520 149306 149526 149831 l56569 192929 193904-195330 203D67 204975 206404 206701 206749 206967 708094 2)2077 212822 213297 213438 213620 214117 215072 221440 221969 222755 249645~253918 255497 256333 258232 279804 280925 282200 282575 282843 283804 286153 288225 305933 308905 309381 310346 332525 334568 335473 336115 2010 tlumber 2203 7638 2438 1915 236 327 7225 38987'045 1529 8296 2046 JS32 318 51 234)208 4271 799 S09 152 195 533 1023 6828 567 842 28833 4582 1693 896 2036 23130 1202 1367 402 287 ID30 2518 2222 18987 3186 509 1035 2378'0 2191 970 688 Cumulative aasas.148107 J55745 158183 160098 160334 160661 167886 206S73 207918 209447 2 I V43 219789 221321 221639 22I690 221924 223132 227403 228202 228711 228863 229058 229591 230614 237442 238009 2388SJ 267684 272266 273959 274855 276891 300021 301223 302590 302992 303279 304309 306827 309049 328036 331222 331731 332766 356546 358737 359707 360395 2020)lumber 2316 8029 2563 2013 248 344 7594 42032 1098 1607 8720 2151 1610 334 54 246 1270 4490 846 535 160 205 560 1076 7172 596 885 30362 4816 1780 942 2140 24312 1263 1437 423 302 1083 2646 2336 19958 3349 535 1088 24996 2303 1020 723 Cumu)a t I ve Total 155678 163707 166270 168283 168531 168875)76469 218501 219599 221206 229926 232077 2336S7 234021 234075 234321 235591 240081 240927 241462 241622 241827 242387 243463 250635 251231 252116 282478 287294 289074 290016 292156 316468 31773J 31916S 319591 319893 320976 323622 325958 345916 349265 349800 350888 375884 378187 379207 379930 2030 Number 2339 8110 2589 2033 250 348 7670 42454)109 1623 SBOS 2173 1626 338 55 249 1283 4536 850 540 162 208 566 1087 7250 602 894 30665 4864)798 952 2161 24556 1275-" 1451 427 305 1095 2673 2359 20158 3428 541 1099 25247 2326 1030 730 Cumul at I ve rate>157275 165385)67974 170007 J70257 170605 178275 220729 221838 223461 232269 234442 236068 236406 236461 236710 237993 242529 243379 243919 24408)244289 244855 24S942 253192 253794 254688 285353 290217 292015 292967 295128 319684 320959 322410 322837 323142 324237 326910 329269 349427 352855 353396 354495 379742 3S2068 383098 383828 e:
TABLE 2.1-2 DISTANCES FROM WNP-2 TO VARIOUS ACTIVITIES Radius miles N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW Site Boundary Milk Animal Nearest Residence Nearest Vegetable Garden Nearest Dairy 10 Nearest Livestock 10 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.1 1.5 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 3.9 4.3 4.3 4.9 3.9 4.3.4.3 4.9 75 65 6.0 3.9 4.3--7.5 9.5 9 Pl M I O I I WNP-2 ER-OL EMPLOYER TABLE 2.1-3 INDUSTRY WITHIN A 10 MILE RADIUS OF SITE NO.OF EMPLOYEES Department of Energy 400 Area (HEDL-FFTF) 300 Area (HEDL)3000 Area (PNL)1100 Area (Rockwell) 600 Area (Rockwell)
Pacific Northwest Laboratory (non-DOE)Exxon-Horn Rapids Road Facility George Washington Way Facility UNC Commercial Nortec U.S.Testing Sigma Olympic Associates Western Sintering Futronix, Inc.Quadrex Miscellaneous Washington Public Power Supply System Headquarters Complex WNP-2 Site (Construction Force)WNP-1/4 Site (Construction Force)WNP-2 Site (Projected Oper ations Personnel WNP-1/4 Site (Projected Operations Personnel) 1,187 2,918 2,016 440 220 380 750 90 80 80 55 30 18 14 12 9~60 1,021 3,000 7,000 295 588 Note: DOE employment outside the 10-Mile radius includes: 200 Area (Rockwell, E-1779, W-1361)100 Area (UNC)700 Area (DOE)3,140 993 1,800 Employment totals are as of January 1981.Amendment 5 July 1981 NASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report SITE LOCATION MAP FIGHT 2.1-1 R.23 E.WA U R.24 E.R.25 R.26 R A N C 0 U N TY CI7 I-I-0-I-z'UNT N A D M S C 0.OTH ELLO TTAW ILA I STAT Hl OH WAY fOIIIOLFF AA O'AL R.3 E.PRIEST HI 0 O HWA IUD 0 ITE BLUFFS AAANCII C YAKIMA OUNTY AY ITA S STATION BPA)IMA I IKl lOelA NFORO F RANK L N OUNT PCt$1OLFF CANAL MESA I 6 5 4 3 2 I 7 8 9 IO II I2 IS I7 IB I5 I4 I3 I9 20 21 22 23 24 30 29 2S 27 26 25 3I 32 33 34 35 36 E NTON o~~o op.c~+N P-4 ARR ADE YB WNP-I HORN RAPI DNERSCN OAM~WN ELTOPIA WES RCHLANO R H AN O I RICH LAND ANOVIEW V~1%KENNEWICK l UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION NANFDRD RESERIIATIDN BOUNDARY HANFORD RESERJ4T ION BOUNDARY MAP 0 l t$4~~$~~$$ll I$0~l$$$$VILOO WASHINGTON PUBLXC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO 2~Environmental Report HANFORD RESERVATION BOUNDARY MAP FIGE 2.l-2 Hanford No.I I I!!ARID LANDS ECOLOGY RESERVE WNP-4 O~WNP.2 Qe W-I RICHLAND BENTON CITY~HANFORD RAILROAD SYSTEM I 0.2 4 rI II la MILES WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report HANFORD RESERVATION RAILROAD SYSTEM FIGHT 2.1-5
-N-Qz~~24 5 8 I I ARID LANDS ECOLOGY RESERVE HanIord No.1 I o 1~Wl C 4~pa~I dB I 5 I I I L g g J I I I I WNP-4 WNP-2 lR po C4~)I g WNP-1 I I I I I I RICHLAND CITY QIP-QJC Vg~Qua HANFORD RESERVATION ROADS STATE HIGHWAYS 2 1 0 2 MILES 0 8 10 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report HANFORD RESERVATION ROAD SYSTEM FIG.2.1-6 AI~I~~I 4~~I~~s I.I~,~soe II~.I I vo i4 I'IT OOSL~~~oettte I~10 Os I'~~se II~,.i.N 10.M L I~s.I 10 I sv~il)I NQ'." 4~~I~io~I~lo~I S~Q ,I v~n'I~~14~SSIN CIST Io I~n si[as~0~I~t~I~~~I~Ss I~~I I~SSLLTLO N tsvattitao
~I I~~I ST ls~I~I~I lt I 500 S~S ISS 11 ss I 14 io~~~I s I~so I 11 It'is II 11 OII TL avsIN 0 I~~~solo~\~I I~10-~s~~~~~I I io 0 W WN I~0 I~VT I~)lo[~I I~~I s~~SI vt~I I~Ii Il Ss I~Il~~sa I 0 y I aL I tis cat tts 1 I~s~to I OIN a I~I I~II IO I I~~4.~I~I,see vo E ai I I z gi It]t it 4 S s~)10 SS I I la~~'is~I C@II II 10 I ror I(~I~]I~li I~I~CLCLS 5 CMIT OCCSSS~IIT~~~Vt 5~aaNJ I~TLTOA 4 I~Ss'00 so so CL Nv SLTC~I~is I IO s~s~t,~~I~n~0~I v~I I~I~0 It Se~0 al I so os~I-WSW I as~'I I~st S IT n I~0~~0 10~I~~~S~~~V~D V v I 10 II~000 I v Ivn~~~~~I I~I St S n v~4~v Oe~i as I:~~I~~I~~4 s~~I Ie 11~I J Q~4 s~~OS TIS r I~v444O~s 10 i so c ao TI I~trr I~I~Otto~QI~~~I lt I I~~it II~~st ia~~~I~av 4 to IN COUNT I~~st 0 tel I (I~RANK~40~I I~~'3 I~I~I~I I I'li I I I i~~I\v ne O 14 V Isliooto~I~OIO N I~V~V~I~SS IO~'I~I~at~I r sl L I~st ss I4 ls 5 L'ss'I~~~~'start S Ia I~aso44'S I~",~at~o ao~I~~I~~I I~I~'I~~tall~I~TL r at~I~4 L I~ti',~~I Io tt~0 to Op OTO Into~ao I~~ecotao rl oa I oo-r.i NICN.ON i~ae~l I J~I~I CI T OO LO c>BK N TON~tS~ts Ot Iso~oc-0 COUNTY~savon vs OIOSS~I I Cvg so ss OTS~SSCO I IOINC vsCN'Of I 1 I Amendment 5, July 1981 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO..2 Environmental Report PROJECT AREA MAP-10 MILE RADIUS FIG.2.1-7 eLNI trt CO KITTITAS CO CMIOTO GRANT CO.I 0 Wllr N R, B 0TII 4 AMS CO.vtsr Tvc COrrtL TAltlltA 0 Ol C OTT FR tl, Oflk YAKIMA CO.WSW l2 rkl vr~vrtrr'VLITCOVOO WALLA LLA O OICCLCTOr BENT N CO.W IO Ol OOlt w~w~I KLICKITAT CO.~I~LV rcrrICTor 0 S IO IS 20 MILES SCALE~MORROW CO.OMATILLA CO.WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~2 Environmental Report Amendment 5, July 1981 PROJECT AREA MAP-50 MILE RADIUS NW NNW Q45 NNE Q130 Q150 NE WNW W 10 MILES 2 3000~Q pe 25 35 Q150 Q150 ENE WSW Q150 ESE SW Q50 SE SSW 750 7443 SSE KEY ,Industrial Employees Migratory Agricultural Workers Sportsmen 3000 Q150 Amendment 5 Jul 1981 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSIENT POPULATION WITHIN 10 MILES OF SITE FIG-2.1-9 FIGURES DELETED Amendment 5, July 1981 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report PIG~2.1-10 thru 20 1+(,'Err so Cup 4~-rk4 zvE BARR ACAOE EXCLUSION AREA~'-BOUNDARY~6 0 q,~C.Q1 I I QWNP 0 PUL'P oUSE~ACCESS,<<>I/I/I/gg+/I o>~~gg//I Lgg gg s/I'rrr//1 o/I g g p~/I/r/r//r/r/I I~1 1.-WYE.BURIAL SROuHD', I i.I I///t I/I r I/I c--1/i I I I~1 l r I I II I I I I 1 I I/1///r g\I I)i r r 0 O O w r r/I O fD 41~~\g I I I I 1 I~<<f I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I r I I r1C/I I'I/'L'L rr PUMP HOUSL I I 4\1 Q'fLR LIORAL TAllfL@O/TATfON MO S L 1 I 1 1 T 1 I g RP HO 2 I g I I CAS SOTTLL , STORACL SLD7C I\'I I I 0 O O QI TRAHSIONMLIL YARD 0LMSAT I STOOACL TAIf TURSINL CLMLRATOR SLO4 7f/\//I I l/OC rc'/w r/Ol~0 ,P)-'I I I ll-%d'LL)d g L~dr r\I ogo 1\',1 qL'S l l Lri I I I I I I" I HcggsL Nol~1 Ro~w I I g I I xX/1 5 I\I\I/I l 1 (I l I/I rr/H ISOOO/I N IRSOO I--t---I I N 12CMLR..'l I 1\I l I I I I OIIICL RAOIIAST 2 OLD C RLACTO R O'LOC DII,SLL~LMLRATOR 61.OC SLRYICL OLO4 1 1 I g Ig I I ll I T Ill I (I\I I<IT O>>IO a/I/II I 1 gl/I~/I~I 1/I gg II/IIl TILL Ill'Ih%tl VLL qiyGL x'gX LL C)I.\R'L1 H I I SOO PARfLINC I r--J r rr-r r 1 I No 2S RL SL/I//I g, I g I l 1 No IS COOLIMC TOHLA (rYR j wgg IO SPRAY POND IS SPRAY POND IA 0 V I I 1 I I I I I l\(i y l XXLL I r ii 1T,Li111 i L"-r/rr)r (N 11 OOO Mo 2A I'LC.O'04 Ma2 Ha 2C LLC SLOC Hol Ho IA r r/rior 4I t 1 L/r I//r/)I//r/)///f///r/r r r r/l 1+L 11 RAPHI~aa m m 445 Amencment 1 i1a<-l978 ALP/I//(r-//I/\/I 1 t l I r I ,~~/r g g~~r I rr rr I r I T 1 I I~o io I 1 I I g I I gg gg gg WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report-SITE PQ7Z PLAN PIG.2.1-4 l~I I 4 ,1 r i I I'{I Ih WNP-2 ER-OL 2.2 ECOLOGY 2.2.1 Terrestrial Ecolo The sagebrush-bitterbrush vegetation type surrounds and occupies about 100 square miles on the Department of Energy Hanford Site (Figure 2.2-1).The WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 exclusion zone and corridor to the Columbia River occupy about 8 square miles of the same vegetation.
Although sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata, and bitterbrush, Purshia tridentata, are the conspicuo~us p ants in stands without a fire history, much o~the and in the vicinity of RNP-2 and WNP-1/4 is devoid of shrubs because of yn extensive wildfire (17,000 acres)which occurred in the summer of 1970.(3)The conspicuous vegetation on the burned acreage consists of about 30 herbaceous species, especially cheatgrass, I Russian thistle, Salsola kali, and Sandberg bluegrass, Poa~sandbar ii.Even without the stresses imposed by wildfire, the vegetation is not repre-sentative of pristine conditions.
The widespread occurrence of cheatgrass, an introduced alien weed, suggests that overgrazing by sheep and cattle in past years (pre-1943) has been instrumental in the spread of cheatgrass.
There are no plans to reintroduce livestock grazing to the site area nor is there any evidence to expect that cheatgrass will be replaced by native plant species over a 30 to 40 year time span.Cheatgrass does play an important role in community function by retarding wind erosion, providing seed for birds and pocket mi ce, and herbage for insects.Past experience and field observations indicate that the soil is very sandy and susceptible to wind erosion, especially following events that destroy the sparse vegetation cover.Vegetation distrubances must therefore be kept to.minimal acreage.Reseeding of distrubed soil requires special attention to the selection of plant species and planting season to successfully reestablish a suitable vegetative cover in a reasonable time period.Table 2.2-1a pre-sents a list of terrestrial organisms identified near the project site.Five vegetation stgdy locations were established in the vicinity of the pro-ject si te in 1974.<2")Host of the 1 and immedi ately around the constr ucti on zones had been burned in the 1970 fire, leaving only small unburned patches of shrubs.Three stands were selected as"unburned" study locations.
The other two sites were selected as representative of"burned" vegetation.
Plots were read in April or early Hay at what was judged to be the peak of vegetation development.
Five plots, each O.l m2, were harvested to obtain an estimate of peak live above-ground herbaceous phytomass during the years 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978.Four species of shrubs were encountered in 1978 on the study plots.(29)
These were bitterbrush, P.tridentata; sagebrush, A.tridentata; and two bi<<h,~<<d.i<<1.I 2.2-1 Amendment 4-October 1980 WNP-2 ER-OL buctwheat,~Eric onum niveum Dougl., a sub-shrub, was abundant in only one plot.One plot was dominated by sagebrush with a sparse representation of rabbitbrush; a second plot was dominated by bitterbrush; and a third consisted of bitterbrush and sageb~ush (mixed)in approximately equal proportions.
Total shrub canopy-cover r anged between 14 and 37 percent., The sagebrush plot had the lowest density, 85 shrubs per 1000 m2;the bitterbrush plot had 95 and the mixed plot 114.In 197)twenty-nine species of herbaceous plants were observed on the study plots.<~9>
These were grouped into four categories:
(1)annual grasses, (2)annual forbs, (3)perennial grasses and (4)perennial forbs.Cheatgrass, Bromus tectorum, clearly dominated the canopy cover.Nonburned and burned~pots were similar as far as canopy cover was concerned.
Sixteen species of annual forbs were counted on the study plot.Tansy mustard, Descurainia innata;tumble mustard, Sis brium altissimum; jagged chickweed, Holosteum umbel atom and Russian thistle, Sa souaaka s r were the most important con-tributors to canopy cover.Anno~a forbs contributed about 25 percent to canopy cover and nonburned and burned plots had about the same amount of forb canopy cover.Only two species of perennial grasses were observed on the study plots.Sandberg bluegrass, Poa~sandber ii Vasey, contributed 9 percent to canopy cover.Needle and thread,~Stv a comate, was present but in small amounts.Nine species of perennial forbs were encountered on the study plots but they contributed only three percent to canopy cover.A summary of four years of field observations (1975-19)8)shows that the smallest amount of canopy cover was produced in 1977.(29~It was also by far the driest of the four years with only 1.21 inches of rain between October 1976 and April 1977.This was the only year in which cheatgrass failed to dominate canopy cover.The 1978 growing season was wetter than usual and cheatgrass promptly regained vegetative dominance.
Annual forbs also con-tributed more canopy cover in 1978 than in previous years., Canopy cover was not greatly different between nonburned and burned plots except in 1976 when annual grasses contributed 61 percent of the canopy cover in the burned plots compared to only 42 percent in the unburned plots.The production of herb-aceous phytomass is expressed as g/m2/yr.The year of lowest production was 1977 when only 10 g/m2 of dry phytomass was produced.Mean annual values ranged between 10 and 195 g/m2 while the 4-year average was 126 g/m~.The animal populations are sparge apd characteristic of the shrub-steppe ecosystems of the Hanford Site.(~2)The only big game mammal is the mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus.With the sparse cover around WNP-2 and WNP-1/4, deer use the area as a foraging zone, retiring to the sand dune area a mile or so north where they are infrequently disturbed by human trespass.The nearest surface water available to deer is the Columbia River.The sparse riparian shrub-willow community also provides deer forage but little cover.The bulk of the Hanford Site mule deer herd subsists in the sand dunes area near the abandoned village of Hanford, about 7 miles north of WNP-2 and WNP-1/4.2.2-2 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER-OL The important fur-bearing animals are the coyote (Canis latrans)and the badger (Taxidea taxus).These animals are wanderers and use the area as a foraging ground.They are noi numerous and accurate estimates of population density and daily movement patterns are the objective of specialized research studies.There is no information on harvests for pelts because the Hanford Site area is not open for trapping of animals.The most important medium-sized manmal is the black-tailed jackrabbit (Le us californicus).
Populations of jackrabbits in steppe regions fluctuate wide y from year to year depending upon a number of environmental variables including weather, predation, and disease.Small mammal populations were investigated in burned and unburned portions of the bitterbrush-cheatgrass ecosystem from 1974 to 1978 using live traps.(29)
Five hundred and six individual animals representing five species were trapped, marked and released over a total of 11,600 trap nights.9 b i t~P~<<j<<b trapped with 418 individuals captured.Secon was the deer mouse (~Perom scus maniculatus) with 65 individuals.
The northern grasshopper mouse (Onynchom s wl i ii 1,h Reithrodontom s~e<ealotis) by eight individuals, and the Townsend ground trapped in the unburned vegetation than on the grid with a recent fire history.Clearly the most abundant small mammal in the bitterbrush cheatgrass ecosystem in terms of population numbers and food chain dynamics is the pocket mouse.The yearly cycle of activity for this species begins in March and April as the adults emerge from winter torpor to breed.A second peak is normally seen in late summer with the recruitment of young into the population.
Birds were counteg in a 20-acre study plot, established in 1976, located just west of WNP-2.(29>The study plot was surveyed on three consecutive mornings of observations during the spring breeding season of 1977 and 1978.The west-ern meadlowlark, horned lar k, sage sparrow and white-crowned sparrows were observed most cormonly;all other species were observed incidentally.
The habitat in the vicinity of the project site is not suitable for California quail or Chinese ring-necked pheasants, which are more abundant elsewhere on the Hanford Site, especially riparian habitats along the Columbia River north of WNP-2 and WNP-1/4.Although chukar partridges normally live and reproduce in dry, shrub-steppe habitats, the project area is not suited for these birds.The birds are especially abundant in the Rattlesnake Hills ten miles west of the project site, where the topography is more broken, vegetation more grassy, and the soils stony.The region is a hunti ng ground for birds of prey, with the Swai nson's hawk prevalent in spring and sumner and the golden eagle in the winter season.The bald eagle has been observed on the Hanford Site at various times and is the only wildlife species observed to frequent the area that is on the list of 2.2-3 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER-OL threatened or endangered species.Habitat significant to the bald eagle will not be disturbed by the construction and operation of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 project.The islands in the immediate vicinity of the site and downstream have a mixed composition with a substrate of either sand and gravel or cobblestone and gravel.Sagebrush cormunities and willows are established on the dunes of the larger islands.Approximately 200 pairs of nesting geese produce 700 goyliqgs annually and an estimated 100 pairs of ducks also nest on these islands.<30)
The Columbia River is a natural migration route for the Pacific Flyway waterfowl.
Several million ducks and geese use the Columbia River Basin during movement to and from the northern breeding grounds.The waterfowl common to the area are shown in Table 2.2-1a.An aer ial census was made in 1973 to estimate the number of ducks, Capadi an geese, Great blue heron, and eagles nesting on the Columbia River (31>.In mid-November, more than 20,000 ducks and 1,200 geese were observed resting on the river.The majority of these birds wer e located upstream of the project site.Two islands, one near Ringold (river mile 354)and another near Coyote Rapids (river mile 382), are used as rookeries by colonies of California and ring-billed gulls.Approximately 6000 nesting pairs produce 10,000 to 20,000 young annually.2.2.1.1 Threatened and Endan ered S ecies The plants and animals living in the area are widespr ead and common in steppe vegetation (rangeland) in the dry parts of Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washing-ton.However, rangeland acreage diminishes each year primarily as a result of an expanding agricultural use of land through extensi on of irrigati on sys-tems.As the land is converted from rangeland to irrigated agriculture, native plant and animal populations diminish.One function of the 100 square mile area of Arid Lands Ecology (ALE)Reserve (Rattlesnake Hills Research Natural Area)qn the Hanford Site is to provide a refugium for native plants and animals.(4) h l gi (Illa'11 l i<<i 1<<1 i p (Federal designa~tion to occur in the area of the WPPSS projects.The pop-ulation on the Hanford DOE Site has increased over the years from five (5)birds in the 1960's to over 15 birds in the late 1970's.Eagles generally arrive during mid-November, with a peak abundance occuring in late November through early February, and begin to depart in mid-February.
They do not nest in the area.There are no other Federally designated threatened or endangered
~animals or plants living in the WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 site area.The American peregrine falcon (Falcon ere rinus anatum)is an endangered specie (Federal designation) shish may at times appe~ar a ong the corridors although the exact ranges are not known.The construction and operation of the nuclear facilities is not expected to result in the damage or loss of any species presently regarded as endangered or threatened.
2.2-4 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER-OL 2.2.2~iE The physical and chemical characteristics of the Columbia River in the vicinity of WNP-1, 2 and 4 are presented in Section 2.4.Comprehensive evaluations of the ecological characteristics of the Columbia River are presented in references 5, 6, 7, 12, and 32.Studies concerned with the various aquatic organisms in the Columbia River, relating mainly to influence of reactor operation, were conducted for over 30 yeare a bibliography with abstfacts of these investigations was published in 1973<l and updated in'1979.<~gl The following paragraphs summarize the d essential ecological characteristics of the major communities.
Figure 2.2-2 is a simplified diagram of the food-web relationships in selected Columbia River biota and represents probable major energy pathways.The Columbia River presents a very complex ecosystem in terms of trophic relationships due to its size, the number of man-made alterations-, the diversity of the biota, and the size and diversity of its drainage basin.Streams in general, especially smaller ones, depend greatly upon allocthonous input of organic matter to drive the energetics of the system.Large rivers, particularly the Columbia be'cause it is a series of lentic reservoirs, contain a significant population of autochthonous primary producers (phytoplankton and periphyton) which contribute the basic energy needs.The dependence of the free-flowing Columbia River in the Hanford area upon an authochthonous food base is reflected by the faunal constituents, particularly the herbivores in the second trophic level.Filter-feeding insect larvae such as caddisfly larvae, and periphyton grazers such as limpets and some mayfly nymphs are typical forms present.Shredders and large detrital feeders (such as the large stonefly nymphs)which are typical of smaller streams are absent.The presence of large numbers of the herbivorous suckers also attests to the presence of a significant periphytic population.
Carnivorous species are numerous, as would be expected in a system of this size.A list of aquatic organisms identified from the Columbia River is presented in Table 2.2-lb.2.2.2.2~h Diatoms are the dominant algae in the Columbia River, usually representing over 90K of the population.
The main genera in the vicinity of WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 include C clotella, Asterionella, Melosira, and S nedra;lentic forms 2 2 this section of the river.The phytoplankton also contain a number of species derived from the periphyton or sessile algae community.
This is particularly true of the Columbia River in the vicinity of the project site because of the fluctuating water levels due to operation of Priest Rapids Dam inmediately upstream from Hanford.Periphytic algae exposed to the air for part of the day may dry up and become detached and suspended in the water when the river level rises again.Peak biomass of net phytoplankton is about 2.0 g dry wt/m3 in Hay and winter values are less than 0.1 g dry wt/m3.(9)Figure 2.2-3 illustrates the seasonal fluctuations in plankton biomass.A spring increase with a second pulse in late summer and autumn was observed in the 2.2-5 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER-OL Hanford section of the Columbia River in previous studies.(10.11)
The spring pulse is probably related to increasing light and warming of the water rather than to availability of nutrients.
The coincident decrease of P04 and N03, essential nutrients for algae growth, may be partially related to uptake by the increasing phytoplankton populations but is also highly influ-enced by the dilution of these nutrients by the increased flows due to high runoff at this time.The extent of dilution depends upon the concentration of these nutrients in the runoff waters.However, these nutrients do not de-crease to concentrations limiting to algae growth at any time of the year.Green and blue-green algae occur mainly in the warmer months but in sub-stantially fewer numbers than the diatoms.Aquatic studies were performed in (he viqinity of WNP-2 and WNP-1/4, September 1974 through March 1980.~34-39>
The Columbia River phytoplankton community passing WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 have been examined to determine species composition, relative abundance and pigment concentration.
Community comp-osition was similar 1975 through 1979.Seasonal trends for phytoplankton pigment concentrations and density (No/ml)were also similar.Micrograms of chlorophyll a per liter ranged from 1.)to 20.2, while density values ranged from 119 in January to 2878 in May.(38)2.2.2.2~Per'i h ton 4I Dominant diatom genera include Melosira and Gom honema and in spring and Ulothrix occur.Net Production Rate (NPR), as measured from 14-day colon-ization of artificial substrates, varied from 0.07 mg dry wt/cm2/day ip August to less than 0.01 mg dry wt/cm2/day in December and January.<13)
Figure 2.2-4 shows the seasonal pattern of NPR.This represents the 14-day growth on clean glass slides and not the increment on an established com-munity.NPR was highly correlated with solar energy and chlorophyll a con-centration on the slides during the 2-week exposure.The colonization con-ditions obtained in these studies began from a bare surface, and after 2 weeks the communities were probably still in the log-growth phase.Correlations among biomass measurements were highest between dry weight and ash weight, due mainly to the high population of diatoms with silica frustules.
4 I Nacrophytic sobstrates along the river bed and shoreline in the vicinity of the project site consists mainly of Ringlold formation with sand, gravel, and larger boulders on the surface.The widely varying diurnal flows cause large areas along the river shoreline to be alternately flooded and dry during each day.These characteristics have precluded the development of a rooted macro-phyte comunity such as is comonly found in sloughs and backwaters.
2.2-6 Amendment 4 October 1980 MNP-2 ER-OL.2.!.~1k The zooplankton population in the Columbia River at WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 is low in number and varies seasonally.
Seasonal trends for microcrustacea are similar 1974 through 1980.(39)Copepods dominate in the late fall, winter and spring.Cladocerans dominate in the sumner and early fall.,Bosmina sp.is the dominant cladoceran observed at NNP-1/4 and NNP-2.The denss ty (number/m3) of zooplankters was similar 1974 through 1980.The density ranged from 22 in November to 776 in August.(39)
Zooplankton form only a minor'dietary item (0)X of the total diet)for young salmon in the Hanford portion of the river.i~6) 2.2.2.5 Benthos Dominant organisms presently found in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and MNP-2 site include insect larvae, sponges, molluscs, flatworms, leeches, crayfish, and oli gochaetes.
The daily fluctuating water levels, due to the manipulation of flow by an upstream hydroelectric dam, have destroyed a part of this fauna in the littoral zone.Near the old Hanford townsi te, ten miles upstream, midge larvae (Chironomidae) and caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera) are the most numerous benthic organisms, averaging 121 and 208 organisms/ft2, respectively.(5>
Caddisfly larvae and molluscs (Nollusca) are predominant in terms of biomass, averaging 2.24 and 1.23 g wet wt/ft2, respectively.
Total benthic organisms averaged 375/ft2 and 3.59 g wet wt/ft2 during 1951-52.These figures are approximations of these populations due to the difficulty in sampling all of the bottom in a large river such as the Columbia.Sampling was restricted to the shallow shoreline, and even there variations between replicate samples'ere sometimes greater than seasonal variations.
Since September 1974 benthic macrofauna and microflora samples have been collected in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and MNP-2.(34-39>
Benthic microflora are dominated by diatoms and the most cordon genera are Navicula, Nitzschia and~Snedra.The highest density (number/m2) was observed in March and December when small pennate diatoms dominated the benthic flora.(39)
Benthic macrofauna populations near WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 are dominated by midge fly (Chironomidae) and caddisfly (Trichoptera) larvae.These two taxa comprise 905 of the benthic macrofauna with other taxa never accounting for more than a few percent of the total community.
The highest densities have been observed in September.
The seasonal trend is for densities to increase between June and September and decrease between September and December.2.2.2.6 F ish Forty-four species of fish have been identified in the Hanford area of the Columbia River,<40) none of which are presently considered rare, threatened, or endangered.
Table 2.2-lb lists the species present and although most are resident, the anadromous salmon and steelhead trout represent the species of greatest comnercial and recreational importance; hence, most fisheries research has been concerned with the salmonids.
2~2 7 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER-OL Salmon spawn in the fall, leaving eggs to incubate in the redds from late fall to mid-winter.
From mid to late winter the eggs hatch into fry which emerge from the gravel from February through April.Following emergence, the juveniles begin their migration to the Pacific Ocean.The peak seaward migration of all juvenile salmonids in the lower Columbia River, including those produced in the Hanford reach, occurs in mid-April to.mid-June.However, the out-migration of salmonids produced in areas upstream of Priest Rapids Dam is now later than in the payt apparently because of delays in passage through the reservoir complex.<2~)
The salmonids all have a similar life cycle but each species and race matures at a different rate.This results in differences in timing and duration of life stages and activities.
Timing and numbers of upstream migrants are shown in Figure 2.2-5.These data were obtained at, and in the vicinity of, Bonneville Dam.Corps of Engineers fish counts at other dbms on the Columbia River and major tributaries also show timing of migration.
24)Only slight variations will be noted in timing of migration pulses depending on river miles traveled and migratory pathway, i.e., main channel migrants or tributary migrants.Adult salmonids move through the Hanford portion of the river during all months of the year, but the greatest numbers pass through during the spring to early fall.Peak adult migration periods are generally as f oil ows: 4)Sockeye-July-August Chinook-April-May, July-September Coho-September-October Steelhead-August-October Studies on the routes of migration through the Hanford stretch of the river indicate the preference for the east-northeast bank (across the river from the intakes for the plants)a pattern which persists from Priest Rapids Dam downstream to Richland.(22)
The Hanford reach of the Columbia River serves as a migration route to and from upstream spawning grounds;fall chinook salmon and steelhead trout also spawn in the Hanford section of the river.Population estimates were made of the locally spawning chinook salmon redds in the section of river from Richland to Priest Rapids Dam (Table 2.2-3).For the period 1947 to 1972 the average number of chinook salmon spawners was almost 9500 fish, with a range of 450 to 31,600.(26)
Since 1962, the local fall chinook salmon spawning populagiog represents 15 to 20K of the total fall chinook escapement to the river.'127)
This recent increase in relative importance of the Hanford section for chinook spawning may result from the destruction of other mainstem spawning grounds by river impoundments.
The chinook juveniles move through the Hanford section of the Columbia in two age cl asses: young-of-the-year and yearlings.
The young-of-the-year in particular inhabit the areas near shore where they feed as they move downstream.
They are present from late winter through midsummer, with greatest numbers in April, May, and June.2.2-8 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER-OL Average annual steelheqd ppawning population estimates for the years 1962-1971 are about 10,000 fish.<28~Counts in 1976 and 1977 were about 9800 and 9200 fish, respectively.
The annual estimated 1963-1968 sport catch in the section of river from Ringold, just downstream from the Hanford Site boundary, to the mouth of the Snake River (a distance of about 30 miles)was approximately 2700 fish.The shad, another anadromous species, may also spawn in the Hanford section of the river.Young-of-the-year of this fish are collected during the summer.The upstream range of the shad has increased since the mid 1950s, possibly as the result of increased impoundment of water in the lower and middle river.In 1956 fewer than 10 adult shad ascended McNary Dam;in 1966 about 10,000 passed upstream.The whitefish are resident in the Hanford section of the river and support a winter sport fishery.During the period of maximum plutonium production reactor operation, upstream movement of whitefish and other resident species was demonstrated by the capture of fish containing greater than background levels of radionuclides at Priest Rapids Dam, upstream of the Hanford Reservation.
Other game species such as sturgeon, smallmouth bass, crappie, and sunfish are also fairly abundant in the Hanford section of the Columbia, and are important game speci es.A total of 37 species representing 12 families of fish have been collected from September 1974 through March 1980 in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2.Greatest catches and, hence, assumed abundance of most fish species near occur in spring and surfer and coincide with spawning, fry emergence and increased I~0 tshaw tscha), Northern squawfish (Pt chocheilus ore onensis), redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus), sculpins Cottus spp., suckers (Catostomus spp.), 4 annual total catch.Most Hanford fishes are opportunistic and utilize juvenile and adult aquatic insects, mainly caddisf lies and midge flies, smaller fish and occasionally zooplankton for food.8ottom feeders ingest periphyton.
2.2-9 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER-OL TABLE 2.2-1a TERRESTRIAL FLORA AND FAUNA NEAR WNP-1/4 and WNP2 Pl ants Shrubs Big Sagebrush Bi tterbrush Green rabbitbrush Gray rabbitbrush Spiny hopsage Snow Eriogonum Forbs Artemesi a, tri dentata Purshi a tri dentata id f1 C.nauseosus~Era ia~s>nona~Erin onum n>veum Longleaf phlox Balsamroot Sand dock Scurt pea Lupine Pale evening primrose Oesert mallow Cluster lily Sego lily Tansy mustard Tumbl e mustard Cryptantha Russian thistle Fleabane Grass'es Phlox~ion ifolia~Ba samorhiza~care ana Rumex venosus Psoral~ea anceolata~Lu inus laxiflorus Oenotheraa~u aida Brodiaea~dou~asii Caccoc ortus macrocar us um Cr tantha circumscissa Salso a kali~Eri aron f~Tifolius Sandberg bluegrass Cheatgrass Indi an ricegrass Squirrel-tail Six weeks fescue Thickspike wheatgrass Poa sandber ii Bromus tectorum~0r zo sos h enoides S>tanion h strix Festuca octof ora rar.ian Ve etation Wil 1 ow Cottonwood Sedges Rushes Horsetail Cocklebur Wild onion Salix exi ua and others Car ex spp.Juncos sp.~Euisetum sp.Xanthium sp.'nnnium sp.Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER-OL TABLE 2.2-1a Cont'd Birds Mall ard Green-winged teal Blue-winged teal Cinnamon teal Gadwall Baldpate Pintail Shoveller Canvas-back Scaup American goldeneye Buff 1 e-head Ruddy duck Amer i can mer g ans er Coot Horned grebe Western grebe Pied-billed grebe Canada goose Snow goose White-fronted goose Whistling swan Great blue heron Whi te pel i can Cormor ant Calif ornia gull Ring-billed gull Comnon tern Foster's tern Killdeer Long-bil 1 ed curl ew Chukar partridge Calif orni a quail Ring-necked, pheasant Sage hen Mourning dove Red-tailed hawk Swainson's hawk Sparrow hawk Golden eagle Bald eagle Osprey Burrowing owl Horned owl Raven American magpie Nettion carolinense g.c ano tera Chaule asmus~stre erus Nareca americana~Dafi a acute tzitzihoa Y~Yatu'a~c cata~N roca va ss>neria N.affinis Glaucs onetta clan ula americana Charitonetta a beo a Ner us e'er anser ameri canus Fu ica americana~~Co bus aur>tus Aechmo horus occidentalis
~Pedi bus od>ce s Branta cana ensss then h erborea Anser a bi rons~yynus~co umb>anus Ardea herodius h Phal acrocorax auritus L.del ewarensi s Ster na her undo S.f orster~5x echus vociferus Numenius amer>canus
~Aectori s recce~Lo hurt x ca>orica Phasianus~co chicus tor uatus Zenzi dura macroura Guten bore~a>s B.swainsoni Falco s arverius W~uiTa~chr saetos canadensis Haliaetus leucoce~ha us Pandion haliaetus caro inensis S eot to~cunlcu arse corvus corax Pica pica hudsonia Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER-OL TABLE 2.2-1a Cont'd Red-shafted flicker Horned l ark Western meadowlark Loggerhead shrike Western kingbird Eastern kingbird White-crowned sparrow Sage sparrow Say's phoebe Manmal s~Cola tes cafer Octocoris~~a estris Sturnella~e<electa~Lanius udovicianus
~Tranus v~ertica is Zonotric~hia euco hr s~sa arnis~sa a~sa a Mule deer Coyote Bobcat Badger Skunk Weasel Raccoon Beaver Muskrat P orcupi ne Blacktail jackrabbit Cottontail rabbit Ground squirrel Pocket mouse Deer mouse H ar vest mouse Grasshopper mouse Pocket gopher Reptiles Northern Pacific Rattlesnake Great Basin gopher snake (bull snake)Western yellow-bellied racer Northern si de-blotched l i zard Western fence lizard Short-horned lizard Great basin spadef oot toad Odocoil eus hemi onus Canis latrans~Lnx rufus Taxidea taxus~Me hi t i s~me hi t i s Mustela frenata~Proc on 1otor Castor canadensis Ondatra zibethica Ereth>zoon ursa Le us caTITornzcus Perom acus~arvus P.manicu atus Ileithrodontom s m~e alotis~Thcmom s sp.Crotalus viridus orecranus P>tuo his~me anoleucus esert i col a Uta stansburiana stansbur>ana
~Sca hio us intermontanus Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.2-1b COLUMBIA RIVER BIOTA O anise Phy)sra Acantnocepna)
~Heoechinorhvnchvs rutili H.cristatus Pffphotn ncnus bulbocolli Bulbodactnitis sp.0 anise Phyl un Arthropoda C)ass Arachnida~Hd I p Aranedia sp.Class Crustacea~nice phy)un Artnroooda (contd)Order Decapoda Pacifasticvs
()en)us~t Class Insects Or an1se Order Hee)ptera Hotonecta Sp Barris sp.~Sl ara sp.Order Co))sebo)a Phy)uo Bryotoa I'I II p.~PI 11~p.Phy)ua Ho))uses C)ass Castropoda
~lit t I I I 1~II I I~ph sa~nut 1111 fl I I I IIN III Piahero)a nuttal1 i i~5t<<I Radix~a onset G~ll~fl~dl ff P,.~II Id td~tl I~Lea 5D.p'lanorb1s sp.Class Bivalvia~Nt tl llf I~I4 Itif tu~tlf Pisidiue~ol It)sieve Anodofl ta SSe+tSSSve Anodonta californiensis Phylve Annelida Class Olipochaeta t~ft~Cha to~at r sp.C)ass Hirudinea Dlacobdella
~rontsf ra~lt 1l Id ll I VG ld ll~The Son rude~P!cicola sp.He)oboe)l~~sa na'I l Order Anostraca~lt t h I It Order Diplostraca Sg~ore~ind is~Ofa ha~tra~bt n urus A~)na tSSSS nguu)A.~eff$ni A.~ua t n~irk A.~sat ri~n~ri HE~pl vroxv itSnnt~leH
~~ll~I~Ill t G~ac~st tc g~rr 1~trf~annie~)~a~~4~Sca holebSgis~i<1~ll I Boseina sp.B.)OeL))is~)S O r i~tv SOtdfdvS g.~tnt'II tl I~4tf~NI I~dl~~dl I~dl I~PI~Ill Order Calanoida~snth~oca~u sp C.~Cl1 td C.~vetna$.~bi us i l~atu~thoro 1 D~ia toeus sp.D.ash)andi~Br etang~ttthokt 1 Order Cyclopoida
~sp.Order Aeon)poda~Garutatu sp, Order Co)eoptera~Grinvs sp.Order Epheeero ptera Parole to hlebia:cornuta p Euhmn Ah))'.~ill h..III iV It E.sp.~Hera enia sp.S'tenoneefa
$D.Order Plecoptera
~Ate he~pter r~ral1a Pt n Ill I~)so anus sp.Perlodes aeericana Otdet Tfichaoteta Gl~dd h I I I I~Hh p.H.I 1f I I I Il p.Lienoohi)us sp,~dill~P<<I ld I I Rhacoohila coloradensis
~PI N tl Id~C C.wee)a I tl hi GIII~t I M II t~ht Id l fit\Id I t hi Order Lepidoptera
~Att~lit Order Oiptera Tiovlidae Chironoeidae Sievliue vtttatea Sievliue sp.Feei ly Hypogastvr)dae Phy)va Tard)Brads lh hl IP.
WNP-2 EP 2.2-lb TABLE (Cc)std 0 4niin Phylun Chlorophyta Ul I th~5L1 I I I II I I C.SI I I hl ll n Itl C.~vul eris O~~onlus sp.~51 50.Pl do I 50~PHI I!C~lt R~bt t d 0, PsndorIna sp.~55 llhl I I f ll" Phylus Chrysophyta 5 I I N.Variant~CI&11 C.~lt C.I I I~~5\.dl S.s.v4r.)inuta g.~nels area~51 I I~t I I~t~lt t O~lt~l~ft1 I sui F.~ftl F.~F, V~Ire os~I I 11 I S.u.vsr.d~anic S.acus S.~ens S.~michel I 4 S.111 C~f~l Oraanisn Phyl)44 chrysopnyta (contd)C.~eaieulus t It~IC F~ll Nediun groductux 0~Ii I~ill 5 N4VICula~colon~~tl I~5 I I C.turuida C,~l C.I III C.cistu'Ia C.~cl C.tunids~~5-""I'.~al i vs un~<tsmla~tur ida RR~ldl Rt lb N~It this d~lssi 4 4 li.~al C~t 5P.~RRIcura~ale g.~l11 ic rttriell4~ll nesri Phylun Cysnophyta A~vl Ir~11 xs~II I s~ari~nn 9.~hal Q.~II 9, gravid g Q.Lrrin g,~ndI g.~nuI var, h~n Id P.favasux P.Jmmhm P.retail P.~subfu cun P.~tcnu~.I t l~b I.~ae t rii g.O~fu t11~Slots~corsxx Or anise Phyl)ss Cyanopnyta (contd)0)u I 5~Ixx~fl~tlÃh I~dl T lanata T.tcnuis Pl t R~ht I U Cslatnriv~rte sns 0~Ii O~asian phyiuss pyrrnopnyta phyiu)4 Tracheoohyta F4nily NlJsdsctst 0~!~.Fanily Kycracharltaccat Anschsris sp.Fa)sily kt)xnactae ksn)ns SO.Fanlly Polygonactse
~pa I onus)sp.Fanily Ceratophyl 1scese C~ll 5 Faaily Cyptractse Fst)ily Juncaceae Anls)4 1s Phyl)44 Protozoa R~l~sat RI0,, I I I I 0.~55 11 0.Phyl)44 Poriftra~Ill I~ll Phylut Coe'lenterats I~Hdrs sp.t)CI 111 11 ft.I.I.Si, It.5.051 5, R.C.51 bbl J.H.Hybakkcn, central Tooloa, Fifth edition, NcOrau-Hill Took Co..Ncu Tort, I 0 snssn Phylun Platynelninthes Class Turbel'larla I~hi~dl Class Treoatooa Id~.0 I~td p.'1'GC I 5pp.~PI I dl 50.\It.t Ihl I~al I 0.0~iI&I I~Ill.'lessons spp.Rl I dl IP.I~CI I P~0 P I I, I I~pl I Ph.Class Cestoidea I II I\I IIRI~PI I~~l I I tl~.nul I 0.~PI Il b U I p.~CI Il 5p.I~It I\I 0~th I I I\0.f~ht I I 0.I 11 lldl I I I Il I Phy'lun Aschelninthts Class Rotifera O~aidia Sp.Ill t~.5~It 50.~Not lca sp.~PI tl 0.I I I p.Zersteita Sp.Class Nematode Rl h h C~P P~lt I p.I*I~~lt p.
MNP-2 ER-OL TABLE 2.2-lb Cont'd Or dani sm Phylum Chordata Cl'ass Cyclostcmata intosohenus tridentatus Tamoetra avresi Class Osteichthyes Pacific Lamprey River Lamprey 4I 4)4I Acioense.transmontanus llncornvnchus
- shawvtscha 5.nerxa Talmo~asrdnert c arK1 Yal~ve Tnus malma Trosoolum TwTTIImscnt
%toss scold!as!Ilia unseat~amus
~aryan nchus co manlmlus T,~macroenes us ivor!nut caroio ines!n%icnar asonius balteatus~tcnocne us or.oonensls Acroches us alutaceus~acne's ceunnus.cataractae K.~esto Us K.~&CETUS Tc:aiulus nehu'lusus
~me as T.~nata ls T ounctatus'Kaster osteus aculeatus~r"a ra ves=ens T;!austen!on vi:reuo LeoomTs macrocnTrus L.Gllloosils tlmsoxls mlnul arts K nlorm~aaca atua Hicrooterus sa~moides N.dolomieui iot~aora T.ottus asoer be~lllQll.~aero exus r II ot'll!US C.Uairai 7ercoos Ts bransnountana Tor annus~cuoeavormls White Sturgeon Chinook Salmon Sockeye or Blueback Salmon Coho or Silver Salmon Steelhead or Rairbow Trout Cutthroat Trout Oolly Varden Nountain Whitefish American Shad Nountain Sucker Bridgelip Sucker Largescale Sucker Carp Tench Redside Shiner tlorthern Squawfish Chiselmouth Peamouth Longnose Oace Speckled Oace Leopard Oace Brown Bullhead Black Bullhead Yellow Bullhead Channel Catfish Threespine Stickleback Yellow Perch Walleye Bluegill Punpkinseed-White Crappie Black Crappie Largemouth Bass Smallmouth Bass Burbot Prickly Sculpin Piute Sculpin Reticulate Sculpin Torrent Sculpin Not.led Sculpin Sand Rolle~Lake Whitefish Amendment 4 October 1980 WKP-2 ER NUMBER OF SPANNING (o ulation TABLE 2.2-2 FALL CHINOOK SALMON AT HANFORD, 1947-1977 estimate based on 7 fish er redd)Year 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Number of Redd 240 785 330 316 314 539 149 157 64 92 872 1485 281 295 939 1261 1303 1477 1789 3101 3267 3560 4508 3813 3600 876 2965 728 2683 1951 3240 Population Estimate 1680 5500 2310 2210 2200 3770 1040 1100 490 640 6100 10400 1970 2070 6570 8830 9120 10300 12500 21700 22900 24900 31600 26700 25200 6130 20800 5100 18800 13657 22680 (a)Redd counts obtained by aerial surveys-Amendment 2 October 1978
~i!!!:-'::
SAGEBRUSH/BLUEBUHCH WHEATGRASS
~iiii!!i: SAGEBRUSH-BITlERBRUSH
~///j SAGEBRUSH.
COLUMBIA':':::::.'::::'::.',:::;:::::;::::::::::::j::-':::::P.'.!,:..".:.'.':', R I VER YAKIMA RIVER-N-0 5 MILES QSFZNGTON PUBLZC PORN SUPPLY SYSTEM H PSS NUCL~PROJECT NO.2 Ervizonmen~3.
Repo t DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR PLANT Ol1MUNITIES (VEGETATION TYPES)'iE'RDA HANFORD RESERVATION, BENTON COUNTY I NA" ZG.2.2-1 FORAGE F I SH~~WATERFOWL SWALLOWS CARNI VOROUS F I SH HERBIVOROUS F I SH ADULT INSECTS~~~GRAYISH MOLLUSCS DFATH AND FECES (BACTERIAL BREAKDOWNI ZOOPLANKTON PHQOPLANKTON, WA ER%i/SEDIMENTS IINORGANIC AND ORGANIC)MACROPHYTES WASHINGTON
'PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM'PPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report FOOD-WEB OF'COLUMBIA RIVER FIG.2.2-2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1,2~10 0.8 0.6 0,4 0.2 0 A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A S 1963 1964 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report SEASONAL FLUCTUATION OF PLANKTON BIOMASS FIGHT 2.2-3 0.08 DR Y WE I GHT---ASH+REE DRY WEIGHT N 0.06 0.04 C)C3 C5 C)0.02 0 I I I I I LJ I I AUG 1963 I I I I I DEC JAN 1964 MAY I, g I I I I'I II'I.J.I WASHINGTON PUBLXC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report SEASONAL FLUCTUATXON OF NET PRODUCTXON RATE OF PERIPHYTON FXG.2.2-4 COHO SUMMER STEELHEAO 8000 4000 M le 0~1966 COMMERCIAL
~FISHING SEASONS OPEN CHUM FALL CHINOOK~,', SHAD 80 70 o 60 50 ES 5.40'N.SPRING CHINOOK SMELT SOCKEYE.---SUMMER CHINOOK r NAA WATER TEMPERATURE, BONNEVILLE, DAM 1965 WINTER STEELHEAO 25 20 O 15 m 10~JAN FEB MAR APR'MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP'CT NOV OEC~Dotted-Bonneville Dam Fishway data 1966~Slant-estimated based on gill netting in lower river~Crosshatch
-estimated based on 17-yr average run size and timing of gill net catches~Vertical-Bonneville Dam data (minimum estimate, not quantitative)
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report TIMING OF UPSTREAM MIGRATIONS IN THE LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER FIG-2.2-5 WNP-2 ER 2.3 METEOROLOGY The Hanford Reservation lies in the Lower Columbia Basin, lowest elevation of any part of Central Washington.
The low elevation assists in creating a relatively mild continental steppe climate, subject to somewhat wide seasonal range in temperature.
Annual precipitation of approximately 6.4 in.falls mainly during the winter months.The average summer temperature is 73.7'F, while during the winter months the mean daily temperature is 32.4'F.The primary source of meteorological data for WNP-2 is the 240-ft tower with a complete meteorological data system, which operated between March 1974 and June 1976.The system will be reactivated upon plant fuel load.The Hanford Meteorology Station (HMS)and the 410-ft Hanford Meteorology Tower located about 14 miles northwest of the WNP-2 site provided the data for the construction permit Environmental Report.A 23-ft temporary meteorology tower was was operated for 2 years previous to the installation of the 240-ft tower for the purpose of evaluating cooling tower orientation.
The meteorological equipment located at these sites is discussed in Subsection 6.1.3.Table 2.3-1 presents the averages and extremes of various climatic elements at Hanford revised to include data up to and including 1975.More comprehensive climypylogical summaries of Hanford data are presented by Stone based on observations up to 1970.The data for the following subsections are detailed in the tables and figures.While the tables and discussion of the onsite meteorological measurement program pertain specifically to the first year of data (April 1, 1974-March 31, 1975), the second annual cycle of data displayed the same general characteristics.
The complete data set is presented and.discussed in Section 2.3 of the WNP-2 Final Safety Analysis Report.2.3.1 Stabilit , Wind S eed and Direction Annual average wind roses for the site are given in Figures 2.3-1 to-6.The wind rose in Figures 2.3-1,-2 and-3 are for onsite data for the three measurement heights (7, 33 and 245 ft).Figure 2.3-4 gives the onsite wind rose breakdown by four Hanford stability classes at the 33-ft level.HMS wind roses for the 200-ft level derived from 15 years of data (1955-1970) are given in Figure 2.3-5.Surface winds at various stations in the region are summarized as 8-point roses in Figure 2.3-6.The onsite joint frequency of wind speed, direction and stability data for winds at 33 ft are contained in Table 2.3-2 for five classes of Hanford stability criteria while Table 2.3-3 contains the annual summaries for 2.3-1 Amendment May 1978 WNP-2 ER 7, 33, and 245 ft for direction and speed.Tables 2.3-4 through-15 present joint distributions of wind speed and direction on a monthly basis (April 1974 through March 1975)for the onsite data.Table 2.3-16 shows the joint distribution of stability, wind speed and direction derived from 15 years (1955-1970) of data taken at the HMS tower.These seasonal and annual tables are based on winds at 200 ft and stability defined by the temperature difference between the surface and 200 ft.The climatological representativeness of the year of onsite data used in the diffusion computations is listed in Tables 2.3-17 and-18.Table 2.3-17 is a month by month comparison of climatic elements at HMS with longer term values.Average wind speed, insolation, precipitation, and relative humidity were close to the long-term values.Table 2.3-18 presents a summary comparison of diffusion elements computed from the 1 year of WNP-2 data with similar elements computed from 15 years HMS data.The difference in the number of recorded calms is primarily the result of the lower threshold of the onsite instruments, these differences may also be partly the result of topographic influences.
The wind direction frequencies cannot be expected to necessarily be comparable because of the separation between the stations.Comparison of the HMS and onsite data demonstrate differences which are readily attributable to local topographical effects such as the orientation of the river valley near the site.Although the differences in the stability classes are partly the result of the layer used for the stability definition, there is some evidence that part of the greater percentage of stable conditions at WNP-2 may be a real difference.
Tables 2.3-19a through-19h contain joint.frequency summaries of the onsite data grouped by Pasquill stabilities categories.
The nearest routine radiosonde data that may be applied to this region are obtained at Spokane, the only station located in the relatively flat basin region between the Cascade Mountain Range to the west and the Rocky Mountains to the east.These data will be representative in a regional sense, but cannot be expected to be exact in near surface atmospheric structure as a result of the distance (180 km)and elevation differences (site~440'MSL, Spokane+2350'MSL).
Table 2.3-28 gives the monthly average daily maximum and minimum mixing height data for Spokane.2~3 2 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER 2.3.2 Temperature Table 2.3-20 contains a temperature comparison between the WNP-2 site and HMS.These onsite temperatures are from the 8-ft level on the.newmeteorological system.By assuming an adiabatic lapse rate of 0.548 F/100 ft, over the 283-ft elevation difference between HMS and the WNP-2 site, a temperature difference can be expected of about, 1.5'F between the dry bulb temperature data measured at the two sites.2.3.3~Humidit Table 2.3-21 gives a comparison of monthly wet bulb temperatures from the 1 year of onsite data and HMS.Table 2.3-22 contains the frequency occurrence of wet bulb values as a function of time of day based on data from the onsite meteorological system.Figures 2.3-7 to-10 indicate diurnal and monthly and annual averages and extremes of temperature and humidity at HMS.Summaries of onsite humidity data have been prepared both on a monthly and annual basis in joint frequency wind speed direction formats.In addition, computer tapes of hourly summarized operation including humidity data have been generated.
During July 1975 the moisture in the lower atmosphere at HMS was abnormally high.In the period of record, 1957-1970, hourly wet bulb temperatures in a range 70 to 74'F had occurred an average of three times each July.In the period July 4 through July 12, 1975,,there were 104 hourly observa-tions in the range 70 to 74'F.On July 9 there were 17 consecutive hours in that range.Wet bulb temperatures o 75'F have not occurred in the Hanford area until this episode.On July 8, 9, and 10 there were a total of seven such hourly observations.
The air temperatures were also high during this period.The HMS average relative humidity for July 1975'as 37.5%compared to the record of 40.5 set in 1955.Figures 2.3-7 to-10 and Table 2.3-1 and Tables 2.3-23 present additional climatological humidity information from the HMS.2.3.4 Precipitation Precipitation data are presented in Figures 2.3-11 and-12, and Tables 2.3-24 and-25.Tables 2.3-26a through e are joint wind direction and speed summaries of rainfall inten-sities over the year of onsite data.No deviation from the regional low precipitation pattern was found.2~3 3 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER 2.3.5 High Velocity Winds Surveys of data on high winds over this region indicate that higher winds tend to occur at, the higher, more exposed elevations, although all sites in this region have experienced relatively high winds.High wind speeds result from squall lines, frontal passages, tight pressure gradients and thunder-storms.One small tornado has been observed on the Hanford Reservation.
There is indication that this area has been affected by hurricanes, but no complete statistics are readily available that present frequency of occurrence of high winds produced or accompanied by a particular meteorological event.The highest reported winds produced at HMS by any cause are tabulated in Table 2.3-27.The Hanford tower is at a slightly higher elevation and hence might be expected to experience higher winds than at the WNP-2 site.Although based on different periods this tendency may be inferred from Tables 2.3-17 and 2.3-18.Figure 2.3-13(2)indicates the return probability of any peak wind gust at HMS again due to any cause.The highest recorded peak gust at the.50-ft level at HMS in the period 1945 to the present was 80 mph 2.3.6 Severe Weather E Since the submission and the construction permit Environmental Report the local climatology for thunderstorms and tornados has not significantly changed.No additional observations of tornados have been made in the Hanford region.The frequency of occurrrence of thunderstorms has been updated in Table 2.3-1.2.3-4 Amendment 1 May 1978 TABLE 2.3-la AVERAGES AND EXTREMES OF CLIMATIC ELEMENTS AT HANFORD (BASED ON ALL AVAILABLE RECORDS TO AND INCLUDING THE YEAR 1975)fel, Ate.Mey Ju(y Se(L Yeee eo)IO 454 5LS 4LI 7$4 IL2 1L1 Ni 71.4 45)(L4 T(MJ(RA(Uk(Iefl HII Hls AV(RAC(5 o>>eo 222 JL4 3)1 NO IL4 5$4 4LI)L)$41~41)L5 24.0 2t.4)LI 451 SLI 4(1 Q.i JLS JL)452 5$0~kt)IJ ns)NSI N24 l(N Wl I(72 WO INJ NQ l>>2 ION~ION Ju(y INO II I JLI)ki~LS 450 JI(Q.t SLC 4LC)I)TLS~L5 (L5 44'I 5t.i 4LC JL(CLl IL5 JLJ SO.O 4(0 420 IL~(L3 SLI n)0 NN WS 1155 n)l N5)W)W(NN N)3 155 ION Joe n(o it)1'IHS (Xfktwts DAILT J(AXIMUJI DAILY MIHIMIJM~o K 8 oo 2(>>e.2)2((I 41 5 Q Sl)l N.3 5>>n)o WO N($ION NN IOTO ln(e lt35 1155 ION S>>4 nso>>nn 11)2 IOQ N(4 NN NJI W5 NQ JOSS)O($>>N>>o IOJS July Nls 72 JI 1)15 a)In ln ln)32 10 15 41 1171 W((NO ION NN>>NIJ 11)1 7NI Il50 n)3>>5 N))Ju(y n>>>>$5 5(a 70 Il II 72 40 52 54 NN NSO 1155 n)5 15(N))n)5 lon N24 11)$N$5 len Dec NN 5.21 I Q Il 3)(I I.27.27 D(CR((DAYS (IA5t IS Sl H(ATIHC H(5 HIS IOIAI5 C OO (I H C I'140 H15 IOTA(5 X4$771 Nl)N 15(N)5 5 377 N7 (%l n(o n)4 155 n)5 Wl W)N)S INO 1177 ION 1155 W(Je>>c IO>>N(S74~N IQ N)0 0 5 Ja 5U QI 55)n>>W1 N(1 Wl It54'N5>>ION>>INJ Wl IW INT July>>5>>0 0 0 I Nl~N)N IOJ 2 0 0 0 0 0 0))t 15 0 0 0 IQO IN 7 JN$22 55 22 IN~71 (cct (224 0 D 0 5 11 NO$(1 501 2(4 lt 0 0$(l NQ 115 NQ NQ WT IOU NJI Ju(y INO 527)le(0 n5 (142 NJI IN)W(NJO n5.N5>>4Q 4(0 IL'U 4)l aa 454 als alo aa asl 444 4N LI 7 LQ LI4 L22 IO)IQ an Ln LN 272 La 2.5)LN LCC NJD NQ N57 nn NJJ nso N(4 N20 IO(7 NSJ 531 f>>4.l(a M 41)0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 411 JR(cltIIAIIOH IIHCH(SI HI 2 HJS IOIAIS SHOW.IC(y(LLETS ISI((II~~a etl 1.1$4 Il 1 I 0 0 0 0 Ls LI n>>55 N51>>lt75>>540 Ll Ii 4)1 I 0 0 0 0 I L)H 2)4 2(0 Ll 1 1 D 0 0 0 Ls III N.l n)0 1114 nsl LLD 340 I)0 0 0 0 0 Ls Sl III NQ>>NQ>>NQ>>Nno N)l Nn N)le NSS>>Wlo NIT~N)(o 11(4 0(L I(47 INI IN4 nn nsl N72 NN NN 55 IN1 5>>1144 IO>>Juew ION LCC L24 a>>4>>L31 La 45 act 4Q L11 471 La Ltl>>5 Nss NQ SQ.Wi 55>>55 N4$JHC Ns(ILO N.D nn W4 INI Dec.W((XIR(M(AV(RAC($Ok'IOTA(5 AHD T(AR OR$(ASOH OS OCCUkk(HCE n(2'NJSTTJ(t(RAIVRE AVERAC($Al IVC(ksf A(44(AL$42 n>>e LCW(5T AJDAJAISL2 NN'(VC(ksf w(HNka JTJ ILI n)3-N (Cw(STWIHT(R-
-242 NQW H(ceksf stk(HC(H.AuV ski WJ IVI(ST 57RIHC ILO>>55 H(c(LSI SUJUKR U I AJ 7L1 lnl LCWfsf SUM(OX Jal N5((HURST SAll (S~544 IN)LOC(ST SA(L 414 Wi N(2.1175 tkf C(tl TATIOI IO(A(5 U ILI CRflltsf AJIRJAL IL($n>>(EAST AJRRJAL).5 WJ SHOW.IC(y(UBS ($(f(TJ OR(AT($15(AS(HAL (LI Nls li (EAST SEAS(HAL 4)1157 Sl NU.>>75W(HO 5t(EO AVtklQ (eeyhl JOCK 51 AJIRJAL L)l(elo (CREST ANNAl 4.)Nsl Jeu.Sea Mek le.Mey July So(L 0(L Heu D>>L Y co('Ry 5=RB Li 14)J.l Le Ll H(7 kl ILI Lt)CS Ll tll Li 1.4 LO 11 7.5 RJ Ll LI L I 7.1 Ll I.)1.7 ILI NJJ WI W(NJJ>>n(5>>Nn NQ ION Wl ION WS INI Aee.NJJ Ll L4 51 1X LC U LC LO 5,~~I I.t I'I WIHD (util IHS Hls AV(RAC($eo IL'4S JO 5 5 72 55 (4 45 Q Q 5 Sw sw sw SSW SSW sw WSW sw 55W 5$w ssr SW a sw N72 NJI NN NJJ NQ NS7 NQ INI ns)WO INO N>>Im t(AX COSTS RELA'IIV(HUMIDITY (5(SLY COV(R(SCAI(010 HI4~H15 AV(RACES 52 740)LI 44$LI))LS)LI'Nl 444 SLO 7$5 Xl1$11 ILC (41 Qt 4LS ILO sks~4$()I 5$)N2 CL I Hls NOO W)n(o IN)11(I IOOO W5 INI n>>NQ N72 n(o Dec IO>>(40 5(0 4.0)4'I)Ll X(0 2LO 2(.$)Ll Q.S 4(1 410 JLO W)Wl Ws W4 lon n>>1174 Wl W)NQ Ju(y N>>>>5>>N5>>NJ(o 115>>115>>NJJ.n72 NJJ>>NQ>>>>5>>55>>NJS>>Dec.N5>>>>K ll N (2 1 a n a N 24 Wl INI ns(ns)N4(o le)i Wl NQ>>n(2 N>>N72 July NSI e>>1.~JA Lt 44 LI L)Ll ll LO 7.4 Ll 10 Ll Lt Ll 1.7 ID LS LI LD O.l~2 S.t 1.2 N(l n>>INI Na IO>>nN IOQ n>>55 NJJ NQ Oec.NQ u>>K Lt Lt LJ L)Il at ai L()1 4,2 i,l 44 lo(1 NQ W5 Nsl INO Wl ns)1155 Ith NQ (157 55(Aui 11$$IHI'H1$AVERAC($H(4 H75 (Xfk(M(5 15UHRIS(10 SUHS(IJ HH I'715 AVC.DAILY IOTA(5 I'1$)lt15 (Xlk(M(OAILT IOIALS UO JCI)Q (5 S74 QC 4>>W 421 JQ)32 l)4 134 3Q SN Q(Ql 5(45 ei)217 Ia IN>>5 Net INS 55 NJO NQ n5 N)5 55 WI N57 1170 Ju(y>>5 Q 14(Xi)N Sll S4)SQ Qs IN 17 Q Ws N5('Wl N4)INJ Ns)NSS Wl N>>nls IN(N44 DM.IOQ>>o X K 171 Ql 5Q XH 7(7 Ql 771 51((N 25 W Ql Wl n>>NQ N72 IO>>nn NN 5>>NJO 55 NTI n72 Juue NJI~e 14 37 Q ls Q I)7 IQ X(7 41))N 1 nno NN>>N12 NN INI N4S>>72 lt>>574 NQ NJI Dec.Im SOLAR RADIATIOH (IAHCL(YSI W4.>>1S Rt(ATIVE IAJJHDIIY AV(RAQ (OJ H(CJLST AJRIJAL$1.'I n>>o NW($1 A(II(A(41.4 WJ Wi.>>5 Sir Cata AV(RAC($(s(RQ(st 10 svws(T.5cA(f (y)o IRC(RST AJRIJAL Li lwi LO>>e(51 AJ44JAL Ll ION nsl N5 SOAR RADIATICH AV(RAC(Oll LT ICfA(((AHC((YSJ H(CJ(ST A(44(AL)a NJl I(X(EST AJOCJAE)57 NQ TABLE 2.3-1b (sheet 2 of 2)C(f Ak NY LO CLO(PDY I>>ttND(RSIORN5 H(AVY TOC IVIS.Ni MI.Ok (f550 NUP(lfk Of DAYS II'Iis 11150 Uo Lo Pk(CIP.0.10 INCH OR P(OR(SNOW 1.4 INCH OR Not(NVJ(lik Of DAYS CLIARM)T(PRUS SXY COVER, 50 105)I CRfAI(5fAM(t(AL(INOYA Nl'N51 IIASI APDAJAL (144 7N 15>>04 fek Wy Jueee Ju(y AVS Sept Ocr Nee.0>>5 4 70 N 15 n)l(2 7 1 12 12 N n 24 30 27 N 10 7 IM)>>No N42 105 IMI INO 155 n5 1070 lt)7 N72e AVO 1955 0 1055e nn.2>>41 I IM)2 INO s nn.I)Wi II 1041 4 1940 105 n5.I LO(to Jete 0 ISN 7 7 0 II II n 1 7 I I 4 4 10 17 5 I)II n 1 I)n 27 24 n n N 15 I)I)n 25 21 19>>>>$4 Wk IN)Nio n5.It 4 NQ Wt nn Itne NQ Dec.N(2 11 Q 4 5 I 4 I 5 ll IN)>>4()04$N$4 10)l Woe IOOI 11$$>>75)070)tel ltne Wt~Nn.lt>>e WO IYA Nn.>>7$>>$)NH It5o Itil Jute lt pre e It>>e lt5e It5e 107(e W)e nn.>>7(e 1075e ltpie It>>e LI Il 5 I I I 0 I I 4 I)17>>4$W)>>51 Npse NSI ltil IYA>>$7 W2 WS>>30 Dec i@A Wt 1071~It5o>>Tie>>5e 105e N5e n5.)07(~10(4 Wte 4 1070 0 5 Wle 0 4>>57 0 5 Wl 4 WIe 0 t>>$0 4>>7(~0~>>5 0 S 1039 0>>$0 0 10>>5 0>>4(0 Oec.Wi 0)in.nn.>>5e Nne NQe Nne ltne itic e n>>e>>n.>>He SepL>>7$e 10 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 4 4>>$0>>75e It57e 105)0$5 19N Jeu.7050 12 IOIJe NHe 105e 195e Nice Wie c((LJDTa.nr(NTHssxycotr(L salossp Ck(AT(sr APPAJAL(IO(4-50 Nl>>He IIA51 APDA(AL (10(D 750 N NH HLM(f RSTORtks rAfAI($1 Aptk(AL(10(STN 2)L(AST AMeJAL (70(5.>>e PCAVY fOC (VIS.IN WLI CR IISSP Ctfkl(SI$(AS(POLL(WS YA 42 H)0 51 L(A5I$(AS(y(AL (WS.FA~l94I<t PR(CIPI IAI I CN (Ill I NO(OR NOR(CRfATfs(AMRJAL(10(4 TN H 1030 IIA5'I AM47AI(3004.57 n)04$SNOut LO INCH (R AKNf Ck(ANSI$(A)CHAL IWt JN 5 N)$-S4 L(A51 5(AS(y(AL(104.5I 0 IOS1.51 NUP(lfk Oi DAYS 4)0($10757 r oa Jeotf skp)U cN cpo.J(AC cuss 40 HJH oa ct(Arra~e NVP(l(k Of OATS Iltll.ltl)P o NIN.\TAP.)2 (N D(LOU r 25 WPL I(HP DOR If(CW I IN.Ca NORE SHOU CN Ck(ktko CRfA551$(ASONAL (W4.YA 40 (fASt$(ASCNAL (l0(4.7Q 0 P(AX CVS'I 49 NPH OR CRfA((k Ck(AT(sr AMR(AL (Ii($YA~I (EAST AMRJAL(10(S.TD I)0(AX.T(AP(RA(Vpf 00 OR AIO(f CkfA(fsrAMtPJAL(HI2 50 15)00)e LIA5(AM4JAI (ltll 50)I Wi JHL (Wo Nee, p(ey Juue Ju(y AVO Sepk Oc(Nuo.Dec.2)N 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 n N lt)5 N)5 INA lt7$e NMe II 1 I 5 I 5 Hn Wlo le)4 nn It 71~nn n(2 NSI ION(ION nn>>$7 Jeu It 72 0)tile O>>5 I>>5e 0 WJ 0)04)e 0 it>>e 0>>5e 0>>7(e O It>>0 N>>e 0>>7(e 0 Wie 0 0 4 I)2)N 5 0 0 0 0 0 II 20 14 I 0 0 Rfr(k(NC(NOHS 0 CA(OR((skur N AT C(N(k AND PR(C I 7(IAI(ON Ols(RVAI (ONS NO(1(CVN (Ae T(L)NO 0 L($$IVAN lo~A(50 (4 EARL(fk TIARS Nri Wte Wl>>1$>>31 lt))Ju(y WI~>>5e Npie>>$3 le Wl npoe l95e 0 0 0 0 I 0 14 14 1 0 0 4 Wo HJI~WI>>$$e July>>71~>>5e 105e W)e>>5e 105e li)I 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 2 I 20 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 15 N>>5 155 NN Jete 187 WPe>>4e H>>e>>5e>>4e>>74 10 n 14 5 I 0 0 0 I 5 H 24)I 2l 2$5)0 0 0 L2 Xl)I Woe Wie)We>>5 103l 703)~NN 1034 N4)e Dec.le)e 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N>>$3 1054)ONe 104e It5e lt75e)0(2e ltn 105 LOCA(ICH ANO HIST(ay Ppf5(NTLOCAI(ON>>
WLIS NW I R(CIRANO.WAS(UNCTCN (A(IT(ME 44 4'4: LCNC(TVC(l~'W (L(TAT(ON I))i((I Ots(RV AT I O5 (R Ol IOI2 (0 NM Wrk(RY VN(i(D 5IAT($N(AVER DUREAU COOP(RATIVf Olsfktt(RS A'I A 5(i(AQUI HW(IS(INN HI($(NIIOCAI((OL
$(pkf W4015fRVAIICNS HAV(t((N NAINIA(ef D (y(A 24 Ht(VR A DAY tASIS DY Iptf(D(rf(R(NT 1 RDA CCNTRACIORS.
4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I N>>5e 107$e N(JL ILW(kir(NN 32 OR tf((NT CR(AT(SI SfASOoLL (ltll IH Nl I(A)I 5(Aso(AL Hin TH 5 NIN, Iretp(RA(VII OOR t(LOU CR(AT($'($(A)CHAL(1011 TH ll IIA5I 5(AS(yoAL (lt)2 FA 0)0(e.n 1051.54 Wt&Nii 5e 4(ktL l(A(PERAIUR(ND (4 4 IOt(CtfAT(SIAMAPAL(>>12 YA 32 Wl ((AS I AMAJAL (>>lr 75(I IYA HAX.I(pep(RA(VRI 32 OR 0(LOW Cit(ANSI S(AS(HAL (N)2 50 5)>>5.$4 L(A51 S(ASCNAL(NQ 50 I>>37.>>
WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-2a ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT-VERY UNSTABLE (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN-2.5 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)NNE ENE E 5qf qC SSE S SS>>$4 HS KNk'A NN>>VAR CALu O'.K'"0 TOTAL CALN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0}+3 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4~7'0 0--.0 0 0 0 0 0---." 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 SPEED CLASS(NPH) 8 12 13 18 19~24 25 UP 0 0 0 0 1 0 0'0 0 0 0---" 0----0"---" 0--"" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 2 1 0 0 1 o o 0--0--0}0 0 0 1 0 0 10 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0-0"--0-0--~0 0 0 0 0 o.n o o 0 2 0 0 4 4 2 1 UNKND TOTAL--0.----0 0 0 0 0--1-0 1 0 2 0 n 0-0---0 0'3 12 TABLE 2.3-2b ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES.FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 and 33 FT-UNSTABLE (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN-1.5 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL-2.5 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)NNE NE gir-~E ESE SE SSE S 5 5>>xsrt~tNN Vh V AR CALH UN~sO tntAL CALM 0 0 0-0 0 n 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0}e3 11 6 1 3 2 3 4 3--"7 5 5 7 8 8 13 0 95 4>>7 50 2}22 Cl 17 37 63 uh 29-33 24 37 28 31 49 82 42 0 17 637 S(HPH)19 2u 25 UP SPEED CLAS 8-12 13"18 26 11 15 1 17 0 1 1~-('0 9 0 25 82 21 48 31 1?5 i?0 30.29 15 19 21 15 37 13~3Q 5 0 0 0 13 3 uu3 2o8 rOtAL UNKNO 0 0 0'98 43 0 0 0 40---0---0---0----2 3~~0 0 0 0 0 0 25 47 9P 158}20 107-9?.110 5 0 7 0-}5 1 10 6?17 6 92 lu-9 0 o Q,.P 0 0 75.2u 0 0 15 22 60 0 50 1504 3 1 0 111-0-0"-0"-140--
WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-2c (sheet 2 of 3)ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT-NEUTRAL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN-0.5 AND GREATER THAN EQUAL-1.5 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)EiE F ESE C,S SSE 8 SSk>S>>k l>4>I k>>Hq'>>~>.vra C gL>.O'.K'.0 TOTAI.CALH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 18 18--16 32 22 23 33 22.18 33 33 29 18 0 3 a33 SPEED CLASS(HPH) a-7 8-12 13-fII 19-2a 25-UP LINKNO TOT'L 38 18 2 0 0 2 78 23 ln t 2'O 5a 32 12 0 Q 0 1 63--27--7---n--o---o--1---.51--30" 0 0 0 1 67 a3 8 a=O.O 1 88 67 29 3 0 0 0 121 66 73 31 0,~1 nb 62 83 65 8 3 2>I~--3"-32--la--" a.-.1'-.-la" 17 1 6 9 1 0 91 3p 26..26 10" 6 3 119 a7 a7 a2 30 6 1 206 77 53 38 2t 81 38 1 a 2 0 2 176 a2--ab--11-.0--0--0--12>I-12 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0.0-0 0 2 3 0 0 0 a 12 733 512 285 103 25 33 212a TABLE 2.3-2d (sheet 2 of 3)ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33'T AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT-STABLE (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN 3.5 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL-0.5 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)~Ia'E EiE 8 SE Sc,c S$jk 5>>>>Ck>>>>~, II>~k I.;A VA9 D>>l~.O TOT4L CALH 0 0 0----0 0 0 0 0 0-'--n n 0 0 0 0~----n 0 1 0 1 SPEED CLASS(>'PH) f>>3 a 7 8 12 13 18 19 2a a3 3a 5 0 0 ir 2 3 Q 28 35 2 0 0-26-.P3.-2 0 0~31~2 1<<3 123 f 03 12 1 fa fpa 38 f 39 108 75 52 28--3'5-83-33-3a 6<<5 68 47 6 ub 78 69 17 72 lll 139 82 24 bo 176 136 33*"~'>>7 1 a 1 an 7 0--" bn-55-1O 1 0 31 15 3 1 0 0 0 0---0"--.0 2 ln 6 1 o 760 1315 820'95"*77 25-UP 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 Q 0 0 0 0 0 la NKNO 0 3 6 TOTAI 82 05 71 0 0 1 a 5 4-3 7'1 0 0 21 65-52-71 138 285 317 Sfo-fny-lna"<<37<<f2 26>i 1 27.5n 1 ap 33<<7 TABLE 2.3-2e (sheet 3 of 3)ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT-VERY STABLE (TEMPERATURE CHANGE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL 3.5 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)NE ENE 8 ESE Sc SSE S SS~'S'H h k'v'vv'i vWv N y CAI vl'"v i.)Q TOTAL CALH 0 0 0 0 0 0~0 0 0~-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fe3 69 72 56~5]up 20 23 23?1 31 29 19 36 5]59.79 28 0 0 707 4~7 41 37 28----7}]31 68 67 42--25?4}6 29 62 75-".-5?.4 0 1 620 SPEED CLA 8>>}2 13ii 1 1 3 0---0----0 1 25 50 20 5 5 11 10~17~5-1---0 0 0]54 SS(HPH)8]9e24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0---.0 0 0 0'Q 0 0?0 0----0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0--0 0 0 0-.0 0 0 3 0 25 UP 0 0 0---0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0--0 0 0 0 0 TOT 1 1 AL 11 12 84 q vv 118 143 85 59 46 77 32 39 32-3?0 11 504 1 1--1--ip 0 0 10 20 UNKNO 0 Q 0---0" 0 0 2 3 0 TABLE 2.3-2f (sheet 3 of 3)ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES FOR WNP-2 BASED ON WINDS AT 33 FT AND TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 245 AND 33 FT-STABILITY UNKNOWN (TEMPERATURE CHANGE IN DEGREES F PER-200 FT UNKNOWN)C~'E SE c.E Sec S5~9vlv S~h Tt~I 0 y'4 CALH UNK'vO TOTAL CALH 0 Q 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0]vi3 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0~--0 0 0 0 0 1 I 0 0 3 lo 4iv 7 3 3 2 1 2 0 0-0 1 0 0 3 0--.n 0 0 7 26 SPEED CLASS(HPH) 8~}2 13 18 19"24 25 UP UNKNO TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 3}0 0 0 0~5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0"--0---0---0"--5-0 0 0 0 0 2*o O 0 o 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0*0 2 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0-0--'0-o n o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0~'~" 1~~0"~-0-7 0 0 0 0 0-1-0-O'0--0--'--0 0 0 0 0 0 0-0i-".0." 0" 0" 0 4 3 0 0 214 23}12 6 1 0 214 269 WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-3a WIND SPEED AND ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY OF DIRECTION FOR WNP-2 AT 7 FT FROM 4/74 TO 3/75 CALH tc!;E 0 95 0)(c 0 E 0 SPEEO CLASS(HPH) ti3 4 7 8 12 13"18 19~24 130 132 34 1'Tb 92 10 2 0 77 85 13 0 0 64 59 8 0 0-ESE--0-101-64 8 0 0 SE 0 175 147 29 2 0 SSE-0 S 0 5cg S'~0 236 30O-52-=-=3-'--0 265 424 251 21 2 240 248" 232-'6-" 4 259 171 123 87 10 hlvA 0 4 tl 0 tiNN 0 308~212-179~-1 lb~"-27 566 330 154 66 11 25T 25"""~88---12'---'216 163 74 5 0-sSA 0-199-1 a 3-9b-52-8 IE 0 231 169 103 42 15 25~UP~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-"---0 0 0 0----3~1 0~0 TOTAL 302 185~'76 131 173-UNKNO 5 3 1 0 0 1 1 5 3 1 3--" 5o2 946--" 795 651 5ol-570 855~" 954~.*10-.6)~3 1 615 459 3396 3065 1442 476 78 TOTAL 0.---v.~--n-tee->n-s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Usavo 0 3 2----0-0-"--0 0-268-0 259 8760 0 0--0--254 299 TABLE 2.3-3b ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION FOR WNP-2 AT 33 FT FROM 4/74 TO 3/75 H'JE t.E EHE---" ESE cE SS': 5 Sc g SK h5 tl H K al A~II fibre~g YAH C ALH U'i%'aO TOTAL CALH 0 0 0 0~0 0 0 0 n 0......0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 25 UP UHKHO TOTAL 0 2 0 0 7 3T2 300 260 98 69 20 0 0 11 3"---88--t 4-0--0 0 2 189-0-1-?16--0 1 527 88 tot 50 6 1 92 525 182 16 3 lab 293 315 91 8 0 5 619 0 8 b 13 7 7 779 515 ub 241 229 151 a3 99 169 9b 98 39 101--143-94-48-26 88 tgt 136 73 19 211 144'1-9--7--428--11 497 812 18 5 349 228 88 17a 3ab.129 34-5 177 231 9b 2u 0 14 13 6 0 1-0--0-0 0 0 26u 90-.-.-..73".8..--.-1.-0 0 0 0 0 0 10 38 26*9-" 0 2005 3332 1945 801 258 64 354 885 695 529 172--1 547 8760 SPEEO CLASS(HPH) 1 3 4" 7 8 12 13" 18 19 24 141 166 50 13 0 13t 127 32 5 2 1 A3 119 31 0 0 WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-3c (sheet 2 of 2)ANNUAL JOINT FREQUENCY OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION FOR WNP-2 AT 245 FT FROM 4/74 TO 3/75 NNE NE E"E-" ESE SE SSE S SS'>l HSh il>('ll ha hhn tl OAll UN<>lO 70 7 A 1.CAJUN 0 0 0 0~~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-3 58 4 2 37 38 59 68 58 74 62 62-~"~'56 49 57 64 68 71~*-35 0 1 959 SPEED ClAS 4 7 8 12 13 18 129 101 26 15 59 11 35 3--1 lu--41--u 165 91 29 2?8 186, 106 321 210 174 212 236 133-116--V3-81 144 105 102 147 187.201 239 295 289 231 205.97 187 137 4 1---31.---9---:3 0 0'10 2580 2268 1543 S (MPH), 19" 24 4 2 2 1-3 8 13'57 ln9 62--33 61 184 132 11 6~--0 0 0 688 2b gP UNKNO 707A1.0 3 321 5 o 253 0 1 206 0 2 175-0--0--227--2 367 ll 0 59$1 901 80 2 883 55 496--33--5--417-2u 8" 493 108.14 898 71 6 1096 1-5 618 0 4 446--0--o--78-0 0 0 O 27O 290 398 324 8760 TABLE 2.3-4 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, APRIL 1974 FREQUENCY OF'CCURRENCES HIND DIRECT ION VS SPEED DURING 4/74 AT WPPSS2 FOR SPEED CLASS(HPH)
-NNE Nt ENE E ESE SE, SSE S SSw sw WSH HNH NW NNW VAR CALN UNKNO TOTAL CALH.]+3 0'5 0 2 0 1 0 o 6 0 4 0~0~-~8 0 0-0 3 0 0'7 0 0 0-.0 2 0~--0 0 0.0 69 4eT S]5 2 4 f2 26-18 fe 18 fo f4 19 23 17 f 4, 5 0 0 224 8 12 b 4 0 0 1 6 21 29 9 12*lb 26]5 0 0 0 174]S]S 19>>24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0-0 0-~12-o 30]>3 40 21 0 1 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 45 25-UP 0, 0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0*0 1 1 S 5 0 0 0 0 0 13 UNKNP 0 1 0 0 0 0 T 13 6 7 S 2 1 2 0 0 0 14 64 TOTAL.19 22 ll 23 54 64 94 gb 41 65]25 67 30 23 7 ip 14 720 TABLE 2.3-5 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, MAY l974 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE>
>?ND D?RECTlON VS SPEED DURl NG 5/74 AT i4PPSS2 FOR 33 F SPEED CLASS(MPH)
NE ENE E ESE SSE S SS'H SW wSH WNW NH NNH VAR CALH UNKNn TOTAL CALH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0)~3 5 7 1 8 6 1 9 10 5 3 3 11 3 4 7 0 0 93 4~'7 11 3-6~--6.9.)e 38 27.30 15.19 23.24)4 13 7 8 0 0 269 8~12 0 3 2 0 0 1 13 45 49)8 30 35 34 10 1 1 0 0 0 248)3~)8)9~24 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 10-0 lb 4 13 3 13)5)7 10)3 0 o 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0'9b~7 25 UP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 UNKNO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 TOTAL le 13 9 14 15 18 60 92 lob 52 69 79 96 47 23 12.15 0 8 744 TABLE 2.3-6 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, JUNE l974 FREQUENCY OF OCCURREt4CEp HIND D1RECT ION VS SPEED DURTNG 6/74 AT HPPSS2 FOR 33 F t Nk NE ENE.E ESE SE Ssk S SSw SW WSW HNH-h'l4-NNH N VAR CAL~UNKNO TOTAL CA)N 1 e3.tle7 0~5 12.0 P 6 16-0 3----14 0 0 23 0 7 34 0---4-20 0 6'0 o-"---3-"-0 3 15-0-2-18 0 2 24-.---o-.---3---15 0 6 17 o.--.-6.-11 0 0 ,p.0 0 O 1O.o.el..317 SPkFO CLASS(NPH)
Si.12.13i18 19~24 1 0 0...4.0 p~9 p p 7.0 0 6 0 0 10 0 o ll 0 0 1O 12-12~~6 5 5 14 13 2 19 10 10 20 0 0--.-1-0 o 0 1 0 0 0 0=26 9.p 172 lo 26 25~UP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-0-1~3?~-0 0 0 0 0 8 ONKNO 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 46 TOTAL 18-.21 31 24 26 2~@55~51 p9 26 52 67 53 26 18 5 0 720 TABLE 2.3-7 MONTiiLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, JULY l974 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE<
>fND DIRECTION VS SPEED DUHiHG 7/74 AT WPPSS2 FOR SS NNE vE ENE E ESE Sh SSE S SSH SN HSH Vi NH NNa VAR CALM UNKNO TOTAL CALM 0 0 0 0 0-0 0-0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 f a3...Qe7 3 13 11'--12-=3 9 10~14 e 1 10-'26 3 31 6 21 9~~--7--22-6 f4 5 18 10 25.8 22 24 0 0 0 0 120.327 SPEED 8~12 2 1 6 b 1 4 16 32 18 f4 11 19 18 21-4 5 0 0 181 CLASS(MPH) 13"18 19~24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0=-0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 9.e..0 3-9 0 f7 5 13 2 0 0 0 0~0 0 0 0 0 12 2geUP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 UNKNO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 36 TOTAL fR$4 30 25 40 57 70 54 50 63 67 41 35 32 0 36 74Q TABLE 2.3-8 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, AUGUST 1974 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRE,NCE q WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED DURING 8/74 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 NNE NE FNE~E ESE SE" SSE S SSW SW WSW WNW NW NNW N VAR CALH UNKNO TOTAI, CALH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1~3 16 1?9 10 12 6 8 7 ll 8 9 8 12 4 15 12 0 0 163 4s7'1 19 6 4 9 i?5 33 24 16 18]3 19 27$5 32 5 0 0 345 SPFED CLASS(HPN) 8a]2 13i]8]9~24 11,.0 0 6 0 0 0 4 O O-0.0 0 1 O.0 16 0 0 28 17 13 1 8 0" 1 o o 6 3 0 22]O 8 8 10 0 o 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]44 53 c?5 2beUP 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0"0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 UNKNO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 013 13 TOT AI 42]5 18 21 32 63 75.66 28 26 73 67 57 18 0]3 744 TABLE 2.3-9 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, SEPTEMBER 1974 FRE,QUENCH OF OCCURRENCE/
w'INO DIRECT lON VS SPEED DUHING 9174 AT HPPSS2 FOR 33 SPEE,D CLASS(HPH)
NNE i'm ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSH Sq WS rf WNW NVw N YAR GALS VNKNO TOTAL CALH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 li5 19 20 17 15 7 1-,8 5.12 8.12 9 12 15 10 0 0 2l)0 4+7 29 11 20...7 ll 11 13.....22 18 11 10 12 29 8 0 0 274 8e12'10 5 0 0 1 3 7 25 11 3.3--10 17 24 28 1 0 0 162 13-18 19-24 11 0 2.0 0 0-0 0~0 0 0.0 0 0 4.0 3 3 1 0 4 0 12 5 8 3 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'3 10 25~UP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 UiMK NO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 8 8 TOTAL 69.39 40 24 27 21 21 b9 58 29 17 36 56 65 59 93 19 0 8 720 TABLE 2.3-10 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, OCTOBER l974 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED DURING 10/74 AT WPPSS2 FUR 33 F NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW WNW NW NNW N VAR CALN UNKNO TOTAL GALS 0 0-,0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 i?6 26 26 20 15-15 16 13 15 12'5 12 21 17 29 37 16 0 0 331 4e7 15 17 22 19 21 25 2'1 13-11" 11 17 2o 24 4-0 0 255=SPEED 8~12 1 1 0 1 0.0 i?8 13-.1-2 10 15 12 9 3 0 0 0 83 CLASS 18 0 0 0~0 0 0=0 0 0 0 0 5 ll 7 2 0 0 0 0 25 (HPH)19r24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 25iUP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 uNKNO TOT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 42 AL 42 43 49 24.17 36 45 42 26 28 37 64 53 60 64 20 l 42 44 TABLE 2.3-11 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS'OR WNP-'2','OVEMBER 1974 FREQUENCY OF'CCURRKNCKg HIND DIRAC T?ON VS SPEED DUR?NG ff/74 AT wPPSS2 FOR 33 F NNE, NK KNE.E ESE.S.E S S E S SSW Sw wSW W WNW N'W NNW N VAR CALH UNKNO TOTAL CALH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fo3.18 10 13-.6--12 7 12 11--'12 9 12 22 27~~24~--30 11 0 0 250 SPEFD~4~2-8~}2 f4 4 10 7=-=-2-0 5 0}=3 7 28 15 29.20-6 f4 3 7~-34-1-7--3 0~-0 0 0 0-285.1.16.CLASS}3~}8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 19 8 2 1 5 43 (HPH)}9e24.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0--4 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1}25 UP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~0 0 0 UNKNO 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 15 To TAL 38 2e 31 15 53 75 71 50 24.35 51 75 eo 50 13 0 5-720 TABLE 2.3-12 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, DECEMBER 1974 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE WIN"'?RECT?ON VS SPEED DUR1NG 12/T4 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 NE ENE Esk Sh SSE S SSW SH WSW WNW NW NNW N VAR CALN UNKNO TOTaL CALM 0 0~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 fe3 12-~9-9 5 11 14 f4 16 20 27 17 29~21 8 0 0 231 4e7 5 1 1 6 26 39 23 11 17 15 2'5 59 27 12 3-0 0 277 SPEED 8~12'2-2 0 1 5 35 29 9 7 21 11 0 1 0 0 160 CLASS 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 9 2 S S 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 ub (MPH)19~24 0 0 n 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0~0'0 12 25-UP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNhNO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 10 TOTAL 17 fe 7 10 21 60 100 e2 36 4'b 52 81 91 o2 34 12 0 9 744 TABLE 2.3-13 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, JANUARY 1975 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCES
>IND DIRECT?ON VS SPEED DURING}/7b AT'wPPSS2 FUR 33 F NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSw SH HSW HNH Ne NN>VAR CALM UNKNO TOTAL SPEED CLASS(HPH)
CAL."--1 3=-.4 7----8 12.--13 1-8--19 24-.25 UP 0 il.17.6 O o 0-0----13----1"1-------4-"-.
--=..-0-"-
---0--.---0 0 10}2 5 0 0 0 0----5----}0-------1.
--0.--0--.0 0 15-5 2 0 0 0-'-.0----}4------}4--}----0------.}=---0 0 13 17 15 2 1 0 0==-10--}4-----16"----6---.0 0 O 6 18}O 15 3 O 0--}5-14--5---7-----.4 2 0}3}6 4 3 6 3 0-~8---8-----8----4-~---0---~0 0 23 14 13 0.0 0 0 20.37-'---19=-.3----0-.0 O 29 47 22 O O 0 O-11 17----15 0..O 0.0 7 3 1 o-o o-0----~-0.--0-----0-----0-0~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-0-219-----274----1.47-'----4.0-----1.5--5 UNKNO 0 0 6 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0.0 1 lory 1 0 0}7 44 TOTaL 34 28 33 18 23 27 46 52 48 28 51 89 102 44 l}0 17 744 TABLE 2.3-14 MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WINDS FOR WNP-2, FEBRUARY 1975 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCES WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED DURING 2/75 AT WPPSS2 33 F NNE-NE=-ENE E-ESE SE SSE S~SSW SW-WSW.W'HNW NW.NNW H-VAR CALN UNKNO TOTAL----CALH--}<<3 0 15-0-=-.8 0 5-0-4 0 5-----0----.e 0 14-----0--~14 0 9-----0.0 9 0--4 0 7 0~12 0 14.0}e 0 5 0 0 0 0~0~151--4<<7-15 8 2.5---10 20=il 8 9 7 11 14 54 45 19 2 0 0 248.SPEED 8-12 2 0 0~0 1 3 13 18 10 3 b 9 45 24 19 1~0 0.}57 0 0 0 0 0 l.0 0 0.0 0 0 1 2 18 4 7 1-2 2 10.3 14-1 0 ee 35 CLASS(HPH) 13<<18--19<<24 25<<UP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 UNKNP 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 TOTAL 32 16}3 e il 20 52 53 55 33 3}24 35 126-97'55 8 0 5 b72 TABLE 2.3-15 MONTHLY SUMMARI ES OF JOINT FREQUENCY OF WI NDS FOR WNP 2 I MARCH 1 9 7 5 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE g WIND DIRECTION VS SPEKD DURING 3i75 AT SPPSS2 FOR 33 f NNK NE ENE E ESE SE SSK S'SW SW WSW NW NNW VAR CALH" UNKNO TOTAl CAlM 1i3 0 6 0.".-5 , 0 4 0-.6 0 9 0'0 5 0" 3 0 1-0-----5 0.4 0 0 6 0'f3-0 9 0.11 0 7 0-----0 0 0 0-97 8 5"-f'1-i?5 1 6'-'7 24 22-"--28-"-35 15 24 9" f4 7 12 21 19.2 0 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 13 0 le 6 31-14 8 6 0--1 2 0--32----27-----"-6--37.23 f2 5'"18" 6'--9 0 0--0---0-'0 0-237-*-201-0 0 0--0 0 0 105'3 SPEED ClASS (HPH)---4r7--" 8r 1 2""-1 3r f 8 f'9+24 25'P:-UNK NO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'0 0 0-.0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0-0 00 0 63 8 ej TOTAl 2f'0'10 15 18 54 79 62 73 3?16 52 83 86 12 0 63 744 TABLE 2.3-16a SEASONAL PERCENT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND WIND DIRECTION AT HMS VS.ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY USING TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 3 AND 200 FOOT LEVELS AND WINDS AT 200 FEET FOR THE PERIOD 1955-1970 (Winds eeds are in MPH in the left column.)~g~~S~P~G NNE NE EtlE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNK)IW NNW N VAR OALt'OTAI.
0-3 ys 0 15 0.13 o,n9 0.14 o.21 0,23 0 16 o,i3 0.14 o.21 o.15 O.38 0 2t 0.31 0 27 0 22 n 14 n.23 3 55 VS~~~~~e~~~~~~~~~~)t'.S 0 08 0 11 oen8 0 10 0 17 Oe20 0 07 0 08 0~08 0 08 0 07 0 14 n'09 0~10 0 14 oe12 n 08 h 08 1,86 to 0,10 0)20 0 11 0,14 0,20 0 19 0 07 0 07 0,06 0 07 Q 03 0,12 0 06 0.13 0,18 0,22 n 15 h 07 2;1" U o,si'oI70 oi39 o,46 o.a9 o 31 o,ia o ao 0.16 o.14 O.ii oIi4"o,i7 o.3o o,36"0,67 n.so n.oi"5.56 VS Oe15 0e13 tIS 0 08 0 12 to 0 e Ooo 0~in U leoo 1~03 Oeia 0~15 0 18 0 30 Oe20 Oe24'O.ao O.35 O.sa O,93 6,99"0,9a" Oj58 Oe34 n,ni h,"6',25 Oeio 0,16 0,18 0,33 0~16 0 18 0.15 0,19 0.-27 0 44 0,37 0.37 0~23 0 22 OL01 h, 3,57 oan~o,Xo o.ee o-ee o,i~o,ia o n7 o.ooo'o.in oo,iT o,i~o.i o,ie o io n,oe n,~oF 0)69 0.61 0.52 0 71 0,46 0,60 0.56 0.65 0.38 0,40 0,58 1.28 1.19 1,?7 n.23 n.12.1~8-12 VS 0 11 0 15 Oe14 0 10 0 08 0 13 0 22 0 14 0~14 0 24 0;61 1 29 2 06 1~54 0)51 0?2 n.n.7,67.tl$0 11 0 10 0 04'0;0'6 0~07 0,20"0,21 0" 15 lt;28 0,37.0;58 1,13 1;45 0;98 0';25 lJ 14 0, n 6,1'0 tn OI07 0 04 Oeh5 0 05 0,06 0 10 0 10 0 06 0.09 0 14 0 18 0 18 0 31 0.39 0 10 0 08 n n, 1 98 1318 VS 006 0.04 Oen4 0,04 0,00 005 017 0,03 O.OQ 0.0i 034 05O 120 i 34 O i5 01i 0, n, 4 i6 tone 0,09 0,07 0,02 0,03 0 02 0)09 0,16 0,12 0,26 0,58 1;12 1,75 3 43 1.89 0)14 0')12 0 Il,-9 84 t O,O9 O,O2 Oeni O'.Oi O.Oi"0,05"0,05 O,OS"0.1O',20"0.20',ai O,'39 O.38" 0,04 O,'O4"n, h;"i,95.n..!19 24 VS Oe Ils 0 05 to 0 i 02 U 0'2 0~Oo Oooo 0~01 0~0~Oi 0)02 Oi01 0~0~Oi 0~04 oeoa 0~06 0 20 OI01 0~n~no 0~38 Oeo2 Oenl ojoi 0,00 0,04 Oe08 Oe07 Oo18 Oo51 Oo72 Oe45 le99 1.36 0,03 Oj02 ne ne 5e52 0 F 02 Oeni 0~0~0 F 01 0 F 02 Oe07 0'10 0'9 0 20 0'8 0 30 0 35 0 Oi 0 F 01 0 n 1 41 0 06 Olnl 0 01 0~Oe O~o01 Oe04 026 063 072 Oe21 052 075 002 004 n.:--n." 340 OVER 24 VS I'to.....U Oi 0~0 l 0~0~0~Oe 0~0~0~00 Oe010)010)0
~0~0)oeol oi05~0~190e45 oeoi Oooo 0)00 Oooo Oo Oo Oeol Oe01 0.07 Oe24 0 02.k 03,0ln.a.o
..Q;...Oi.....0
.....Q).Q2.
Q.$7..0, 84 0~01 Oe 0~00 0~0~Oe 0~O;26 O,O6 O,75 O,84 Oe O,Oi n;O.'i4'O,O3 o,'24-0.'2',-
0 o"..Q i 59.Q).i"..O.e.33..0 56..0i.oi.Q.i 01.n.e Oe Oool n 2'?.e.e---n, iona.hi 2~73 JTTTQAQ Q$gg47 Og46 Oe39 Q 44 0 47 Q)72~76 Og54 0 5Q+89~.6)~3~24 58 4~32~47~088 h+5 h 23 22 03 AS 0,42 0 42 0)25 0,36 0,45 0 85 0,69 0 67 1,15 2,17 3,02 3,97 8,09 5.54 0)79 0 62 0,09 n,08 29,61 N Oe35 0'8 Oe24 0'3 0 F 39 Oe61 Oe37 Oe40,0 48 Oo91 0'5 0'5 i)48 1 72 0)48 Oe45 Og17 ne07 10 F 54.U 2 62 2 46 i)35 1 23 0 93 1 32 0,90 1 23 2.07 3 89 3.52 1 74 3 25 5;58 2,25 2 76 0,74 h 01 37 83 TABLE 2.4-l6b gEA.SQL~SUNDER.......NNE...NK EHE...X...ESF-
..SE..SSE.S..SStI SK.MSK K.KNX.."IM..NNK
..N VAR e CALt'OTAL IIS 0 05 0.04 O)O4 0 05 0 08 0)12 0,04 0 07 0 04 0 05 0 06 0 12 0,09 0 11 0,04 0 F 07 0 06 0 05 1 16...........I'.
O,1O 0.1O..O)09.0.12..0.10.
0.15 O,O7 O,O6.O.O7 O,O6 O,OS.O O7.O,O7 O~11 D 10 0 15 0,10-h 05 1,64 U 0,42 0,65 0)78 0 37 0,36 0 37 0,18 0 31 0,16 0 32 0,21 0 24 0,1S 0.35 0,37 0 57 0,93-h~02',28 7 vs 0 14 0 13 0)10 0 13 0~12 0 21 0,14 0 11 0.13 0,18 0 35 0,78 0,81 0.51 0,3s 0,21 0,01 n, 4,4<~~o~o~e a~~..own mor o.a~az'n..xr.n.a.a.o..e.o.oar ,oa.a.,o.a.a.o,ns o.aa.e.a,an N 0 09 0 07 0 nS 0 08 0 16 0 21 0,08 0 09 0.07 0 10 0 09 0 17 0 16 0.22 0 15 Oo'2 0 03 h 1...U.ia58.1~55 0t88.1~08,0~89 1~16 0~76 0 a 98 0~92 1~11 0~84 0~88 0o85 1~66 1~47 1~79 0~S7 h~19~27 1~28 0~44 0~18 n~*n~S.12...VS Ot14 Ot16 0)09 Qa09 0~11 Q)08 Qti6 0)Q9 0~06 0~13 0~49 1)18 2t04 0 09 0 10 0 03 0 09 0 11 0 12 0 10 0 05 0 06 0 19 0 48 1 25 1 49 0~63 0 13 0 12" 0~~~m..an~a..a~os.
a ae e ne a.oa..o a~,oo.a,as n.anw.zo.n~w as...o os a..a.U on78 0~54 0~20 0~18 ooi8 0~23 0~15 0~22 0~53 1~21 1 06 0~62 0~99 1 95 0~66 Oo66 Oeoi h, 6,71 5o04.1o46 10,17 13-18 VS...HS N Oe04 0'4 0~n2 0 F 03 0~On06 0'5 0)04 0~04,0)04 0'2 0 F 08 Oe01 0~01 0 F 02 0~11 0'0 1~36 0'3.0'5 Oa03 0.~07 0~18 0'2 1)47.4o79 1.44 0~15 0~03 0~0~2~03.Oe13 0~05 0~0~0 02 0 02 Oahl 0 01 0,00 0 02 0 03 0 03 0,03 0,10 0.29 0 24 0,44 0.36 0,02 0 02 n, n Jl~~g o 0.6~QMg og O~s~.lL)0.,03 0~~87~o4 0 37 QM2~0.9 Q&O 0 m 0 n 3,65 9,64 1o64 6~02.i'tI 34..YS I'N U Oo Qe01.Oeoo, Oa...oe 0)0)...Oa.O.n...Oo.Oo.oi.o,a
...Oo03.0..22..0 F 00 0)02 0~03 0~02 0~01 0~00 0~00 0)01 0~02 0~03 0~09 0~18 0~29 2~77 2~70 0~02 O.eoi 0.F 03..0t.pi.
0>.ok O.a..Oa....Q>..
Qa.....o.OZ.oeo?..Q.
16.0.~,07.0)51..0
'8..0~oi Oj05 0 F 07 0)01 0 F 01 0~0~Oe02 Ot02 0 F 07 0'7 0'5 0'5 0'8 1 27 0'2 Oa...t'e..na Oe01'," n, O,Oo.n, n..0,01 n, n,.0.27 6, 1at io47 2,84 OVER 24 VS oe Oooo 0)Oe Oe Oe Oe Oe 0.0>>Oo Oe Oeoo PS, 0 a.oo.0,~0.1 0 t.Qf 0 e.....o.a.o.p..o).00
.0 t 00..0 aoi.0~03.0~03.0~02.1 a02 0.0, Oe 1~63..0i.oo.
0~N 0~00 0~01 ot 0~oe 0~0)01 0~Oi 0~01 0~03 Oo08 Ooo'2 0~49 0~79 Otoo 0~0~0 a03 0 t 01..0).....0w....o e,.0 a 0)..0,03.0 ai5 0 i240~07,0 a26...1~02..0~01.0~n, n, 0, n, 0, n, O, n, o,oe 2e77 1,44 1,'Sn HS 0 30 0 31 Oti'9 0~27 0 37 0 46 0 27 0 27 0,27 0 70 1 58 3 5410 44 7~33 0,46 0 30 0~Q7 h 05 27,iat I)D.29...0.25 Q>2Ã.O 25.k 32.J)44..0,23.0.
21 0.23,A 43.Q..S5..0 76.i 96 2 35 0,33 0 31 0 12.0 05.9.62 U 3,08 3 00 1 45 1~67 1 45 1 81 1,15 1 57 1,SS 3 94 3 83 2,32 3~73 7~93 2,63 3 17 1~81 n~02 46~42 TABLE 2.3-16c (sheet 3 of 5)....SEASON
~.FAI.L..NNE IIE ENE E ESE SE SSW.SH WSH HNH NH NNH N VAR, rALte TOTAL YS..P.31.Q 31 Oi25 P 32.0.43 0 Oj...o 34 9 35 rs 0 20 0 21 0 19 0~27 0 38 0 54 0 23 0 20 N pe37 0~43 Oe38 0~41 0~40 0~51 Qe21 Oei6 U 0 71 0 97 0 57 0 63 0~48 0 31 0 14 Oeil Oo32 0.12 0 o 15 Oo06 Oo31 0e12 0,11 Oof3 Oo 31 Qo18 0,08 Oop9 a.55 0,54.O.66 P,63 O,52 0,3O 0.87 0,17 o,23 0.37 0,29 0,39 n,15 n,6o 0,13 o,16 0.35 o,46 0,37 0,16 n,39 0 11 0 15 0~31 O,53 0,7O 0,36 n,08 7'.91 4,84 5,24 6,4?7 VS 0 28 0 23 Oei7 0 18 HS Oe19 Oei2 Oaf6 Ooi5 N 0,13 0 13 Oen6 0~12 p,88 0,74 0,46 0,48 Oo28 Oe50 Oe27 Oe44 0,25 Q)31 O.6O O 52 Oe47 Oe29 0,13 Oe23 Oe43 Ooil Oe09 Oe 18 0,38 Oo19 0,07 o.25 oo49 pe20 0,08 O,24 0'7 Ooi9 0,08 Oo21 1~20 ie53 1~48 0~92 pe49"~02 0,33 O,51 0,70 O,47 0,32 O,O1 0 1.3 0,21 0~54 0,36 0 15 O,pi O,17 O.36 O.94 1.?3 1,22 neOS n, Oe n, n, 9,73 4,71 2,85 8,81 8 12 VS 0e17 0~08 0~n6 0~06 rS Oelp 0~05 nen3 0~03 h Qe05 0'5 nenf Qe03 U Oe45 Oo26 nen5 Oo03 Oo04 Oe17 0~10 0~23 0,03 Qe09 Oo05 pelf Oe31 oe27 Oe08 Oe04 0~11 Oe16 Oe07 Oepp Oo13 Oo22 po05 O.17 Qo32 O.43 Oe07 Q,28 0~68 Oo48 Oe15 0,35 ie50 Oe76 0)11 Oe20 2,49 2.37 0,77 1,26 1.45 0,41 0,23 0,60 Qef7 0 32 1.11 0 56 0,27 n, n, 0 13 ne 0,06 n', n, 0,44 n,pp n, 9,55 6oln 1,85 4,5n 13 18 VS 0 F 06 0 F 03 0~ni 0~02 rs o,o9 o.o5 o no o.o2 I O,O4 O.Q2 O,nO O,OO LI p,g5 Q,g2 ofgi 0, popo Oe05 O.O1 O.O9 Oe04 0~Peo3 Oelp Oe15 0,04 Qap3 Oe03 Po18 0,07 Oa03 Oo02 Oo31 0,09 Oelp Oeop Oe63 0,14 O 34 O.25 0 F 87 0,21 Oe45 0e43 1~54 1~93 0~21 Oe97 2e18 1.85 Oe17 Oeii 0,26 0.37 0,09 pe 1 pe42 0.63 Qep9 O,O4 n, Oef2 ne O,O5 n;Qe13.0e n.Oe n, n, 4,7o 7.7n 1,55 2,78 19-24 vs o, 0 oo oeno o.rS 0~05 0 F 03 0'3 0~h Oepo 0~ol O)ni 0~U O,O4 O,O3 O,ni O.Pe.Oe popo Oeol 0, oe02 0~Oe Oe 01 Oe Ol Oe05 OeiS Oe02 Oe04 Oeoi Oepl Oopi 0.?7 0,10 O.O7 0 F 01 Oe57 Oe19 Oe32 Oo04 0'4 0,?0 0,34 Oe 03 Oo24 0,02 peon Oe09 0.19 Po Oo99 1.04 Pe03 0,13 0.23 0,01 O,23 O.37 O.O1 o,oo n 0 02 n 0,02 Oe02 tIe.n, n, n, p,38 4o04 1,On 1,55 OVER 24 VS Oe 0~.Pe 0~NS Oe Oeoi Ot Oe N Oeol pool 0~no 0~V 0epi 0~05 O~ni 0~Oo Oo 0, Oo Oe Oe Oe Oe Oeol Oe Oe02 Oepi Oe Oeol Oe02 poop pool Oo30 0,09 Oo09 Oe Oe43 Oe19 O.39 Oooo 0~21 0,09 0.24 Oe Oe 0.Oe Oe07 Oe31 0.40 0,01 Oe03 Oe07 0 13 oooo Oe07 ne09 0.21 Oepl 0, n, Oe ne 0,00 n, Oe 0;n, n, n, n, 0.02 f,84 0,66 f e fn.TGTALS..VS 0~83 Qe66 0!4'I Qe58 IIS 0~63 0~46 0'0 0~46 h Oe60 0'4 ne47 oe56 U 2,34 2.17 1 fo l.f4 0.76 1 32 0,68 0,96 1.13 0,97 1~02 0,49 o,45 0 e 76.1)32.le 22 Q)94 Oe98 0,46 O,42 Qo97 lo40 0,56 0,75 ie21 2o38 Oo78 1 71 ie95 2.48 0,82 1~69 3,70 6,f8 6,63 2,52 ie32 n,32 n,87 2 53 5 49 5.82 1 37 0~7 n,f6 n,60 0,54 1,08 2.23 1,09 0,65 n,f6 n,39 0,77 1,57 3.56 2,43 2,5p n,44 n,p8 32e38 29 24 13ei6 25,23 0493 TABLE 2.3-16d sheet 4 of 5)SEASON WINTER sE ssE s ssM SV NSv VARI CALM TOTAL NNW vNM ESE E ESE NNE Vs 0 29 NH Oe58 0035 Oo>3 0030 003d 0 39 0037 0~27 0~30 003 006 084$Oe54 0 35 0973~050 0 4 7 36 NS Oi38 0036 ao34 0042 0~6 00 ao4 0~39 00'24 0~24 0'0 0040 004 0~6 OI64 0~9 0'1~30 J 43 0~62 0~64 OI51 0 66 0~74 0~91 Of 55 0~32 0~23 0~22 Oi21.0~39 0 45 0075 0 89 0091 0 14 1~42 10 0 at 0 0 0 4 oe e 0 f 0 I 0 1 f 0 U Oif30 0 25 OI20 0~15 0 12 0 07 0003 Oit05 0 04 0 03 0 01 0 06 0 08 0 14 0 22 0 23 0 OS n,ob 2.oS 4+7 VS 0029 HS 0 33 0020 U at31 0021 0 029 Oe21 0 f25 Ooid 0 21 0 22 0 MS 0,30 OI36 0~25 0 36 0,48 0~93 0,99 i.iO 0 92 0 53 0,06 0 f,7h 0222 D.21 0.26 D 47 0 31 D 23 0.20 0~27 D;27 0,53 0 84 1~42 1400 0,65 O,D3 II.7,62 0010 0 16 0 23 0 2 0023 0009 0 07 0 14 0 16 0 23 0 53 1 23 DI66 0 34 0 00 II 4 93 0 16 0 12 0,10 0 09 of 04 0,03 0,05 OJ02 0.02 0 OS of12 0.64 0 55 0,41 Ofai 00.2,96 8 4912 VS Oe09 0005 0 io3 0003 0005 0013 0015 0012 0~13 0029 0059 0095 1041 1~79 0070 0015 0 0~6'67~0 0~~~~0 4~0 J 0'I'S 0 15 0 07 0 03 0 06 0 11 0 30 0 19 0 13 0.25 0,36 of45 0,69 1,67 3~10 0,72 0 18 0,00 0 8,45 N 0 07 0 06 0003 0 0 0 03 0 09 0 od 0'3 0.05 0 07 0 08 0 10 OI86 1 87 0 28 0 09 0 0 3 78 U 0, i4O,H tI o~i, O,l~~, FD.~3 a.f4 O,Y5~0 A~.~,29 O;f4 13 18 VS 0,05 0 03 of 0 00 0 0 0+0004 0005 0 09 0 19 0 31 0 51 0,89 1~41 0,17 0 03 0 0 3f81 NS 0015 0005 Oooi Oeoi 0 05 0008 0 16 0026 0036 0078 0088 0 76 1 73 3916 0 29 Oe12 0 00 8 85 0 t J 0 0 0 t I 9 I, I f N 0 07 0 01 OIII0 0 01 0.01 0 02 0 oz oi03 0~of 0 14 0 15 0 08 of67 1~2i 0>08 0 06 0 0 2I62 0 13 0 03 0~00 0 00 0.0, 0 DO D 01 0 08 0 10 0 2D 0 11 0 26 0 44 0 06 0 08 0 II 1 51 19 24 VS 0.f.HS Oo04 N 0 03 t U 0,03 0 oi 0 0 0 01 Oi02 0 01 0.04 0 07 0 05 0 0%0 08 0.12 0 00~~J 0 03 oo 0 0 01 0 03 0 10 0 18 0 36 0 96 0 56 0 35 0,44 0~70 0 05 0'1 Oo 0 F 00 0 F 01 00 OJ01 0003 0009 0~14 0'2 0~03 OJ07 0418 oiai o,o4 o,ni o,'.9;oO o,'oo o,oi o.o'4 o,iS 0',i4 o,o3 o,od o,i4"0;oo a.O', no O,45 9 OS O3 Po 0~3',85 OIO6 O n~O 74 0003 0~0~0067 OVER 24 VS N 00 OI Oe Oo a,oo o,ai a,oi 0,04 o,o4 o.oi 0001 0,02 O,QO..OI...Q,...,.
9,, 0,92 0,06 0,21 O,69.0.,9.9.
0,.41, 0,11.0~03 0~02 OI 0~0~0~0~01 0003 0014 0~23 Oi05 0~02 204 OQO Oo 0~0~0, 0, 0201 0~0+020 0216 0~02 00 09 af 0212,0213.Qgoi.Oeal 0.02 00 0801 0'04 oj00 O, 0, 00 0'2 0.092 P.I.Oi..2.i74 0003 00 00 0,61 O Oi 0 n O'57~.0 2 7~~~~72~~03 0~4$~5~~6~0 0~9~2~9~0~0~26 1~7~~22 3 7 05,g3 2'43/3~25 0~4~073 6~7 YS 1 07 0 81 0 g5'5t 0 70 1 12 1 73 1 30 1 39 2~10 3.61 2,77 2 85 5 26 9,17 2,77 1 59 0 26 1 30.40,34..tg...1 f02 0096 OI72 0~83 1001 1~30 QI87 0~52 0066 Q093 0~77 0~85 2f60 5 26 1g93 1049 of 14 1042 23I24 U 0,95 0 d6 0,41 0,29 0.23*0,18 0,08 0,13 0,36 0 53 0,64 0 34 0 so 2~46 1,i3 0 91 0,06 0 Od i0,20 TABLE 2.3-16e (sheet 5 of 5)ANNUAL NNE NE ENE E" ESE SE'SE'S SSK SK KSX K KNK NX NhX N VARe CALH TOTAL 0~3 VS 0..21 0.21 Oe15 Oe20 0-26 0.38 0.23 0.23 0 20 Oe23 0.22 Oe40 0.34 0.43 0~37 Oe35 0~21 Oo48 5e11 N0.3003402" 0330360440220150130110.100180180.330410410.130484,87"u"'6.4964" 0'6 0 40 0:31 0;27 0"1'2 O'J7 6'10 0"16 b.16 0'4 O.ia.27 6"'37 0 54 0'46 0'04"5 0<C---X"vs o.21-O.ie'o.isa o,.i7'0~20 0'33 0~2F b.;Ze'6:24 6,35 tj..56 06 f..Oe.i.ioo f.69 0 39 b~02 O.l.02-PS 0,17 0.15 0,13 0,15 0.22 0,36 0,21 0,17 0.15 0,21 0,24 0,42 0.50 0,68 0,47 0,31 0,02 0.4,56 U 0 94 0~90 0~55 0~58 0'53 0~62 0~37 0~45 0'45 0~51 0~37 0~38 0~48 1~13 1 11 1~98 0~30 0~10~84 8 12 VS 0 13 0~11 0~08 0~07 0~Q7 0~13 0~21 0~11 0 12 Op24 Qe59.1~23 2~00 1~74 0~60 0~20 0~0~7~65 NS 0;11 0,08 0,03 0;06'0:10';21 0';19"0,13 0~20 0,34 0';50 O;96';47'.'53 0,38 0;14 0;00 0,"6;43 N 0.06 0.04 Oe03 Oe03 0 04 Oe09 Oo07 Oo04 0.06 Oe09 0.14 Oe14 0~42 0.78 0.1 Ge06 0.Oo 2e2" 0.10 0,05 0,02 0,02 0.02 0,07 0,13 0,15 0.25 0,54 0,87 1,24 3,04 2,23 0,18 0,10 0, 0, 9,03"""A'b~5 0'i 0 01 0 01 00 0'3"0"0'4 0.05 O 67"U,fa 0'24'1'6 0 44"0'58 0'oa"0 0'"".1.94" u o.26 o.13 o.o3 o,oi 0.01 o.03 Q.oa Q.os 0.18 0.54 0.68 0.26 0.64 0.98 0.09 o,ia o.0.a.07-'-'-='-"---4-0:oa o oR-o,'IIf 8;'oo.4;oo--o IIS o',-ok-8;-ik-4N:Sx-IN-;8K-II-;-5o-8 SS-f Ss-x-'.-45-0:-o~"o cR-o-';--II'----0 91-N O.O2 O,O2 o.OO o,oO O.OO o.O1 o.O1 O.n3 O~Oe 0.15 O.17 O,o5 o.25 o.34 O.oi O 02 o.O, 0 0~06 0'05"Oe01 0eoo F Geoo'ooi Oooo'6'11 0 34'Oi'41 Ui12"0 32 0 6T 0'ioi Fe03'Oi 0e"2oi3 HS 0.01 0.01 0, 0, 0.0,01 0,02 0,08 A D 01 0 Qi"Oooo 0e00 0 0~0~01 0~02 U 0~02 0~03 0~01 Oe 0~0~0~0~01 TOTALS VS 0'0 0'4 0'9 Qe47 0 53 0 F 88 Q~83 0'7~+~~50-0.~6..~~:W9-rhre~~a-.
N 0.56 0 55 0.42 0 49 0.60 0,82 0.49 0.40 0 2.25 2'08 1ooe 1'e09"0.94 io07 Oo65 Oe84~~e~~0 30 0'7 0'2 0 F 06 r:08 V-.x7-O.o9-o.;o3 0 09 Qo40 Oo31 Oeoe II W 0.55 0.76 0.00 0 01 0.0 2 50 0.21-0:3r O'oo O.oz z.-O'.--.W.9r O.17 O.46 O.O1 O,QO O.O.1.57 0'1 e95 io61 3e05 4o73 4.89 1.83 ieOO 0.23 Oohe 24o29 2-.<~e~~~C-.g~87~~;8~W5M 0'8 0,76 Q,85 0,72 1.78 2.88 0,95 0 72 0.15 Oe48 14.11 1~27 2'53 2.43 1e30 2'35'.90 2~19 2e34 0~77 Oo04 30i03
TABLE 2.3-l7 CLIMATOLOGICAL REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE YEAR USED IN THE DIFFUSION COMPUTATIONS (These data are based on climatological observations at the Hanford Meteorology Station located 14 miles northwest of the site)Month Insolation 50'ind S eed 4-74 5-74 LT 31 9'MPH 8.9 6-74 685 628 7-74~639 659 8-74 578 558 9-74 456 423 10-74 287 262 11-74 107 132 12-74 90 92 1-75 113 120 2-75 208 202 3-75 348 340 9.0 8~1 7~5 7.3 5.6.5.5 5.9 6.4 7.5 8.9 9.2 8.6 8.0 7.5 6.7 6.2 6.0 6.6 7.1 8.4 AVERAGE 378 372 7.6 7.7 1M 440ly 475ly 10.3 MPH 590 576 9.0 3'verage Air Tem erat~e 1M LT 59 57.9 72.6 74.5 75.5 68.0 52.5 41.6 36.2 32.5 33.7 42.5 53.4 61.8 69.4 76.4 74.2 65.2 53.1 40.0 32.6 29.4 36.2 45.2 53.1 52.9 oF 53.2 oF 0.46" 0.28 0.12 0.71 0.01 0.21 0.71 0.97 1.43 0.98 0.40" 0.45 0.57 0.14 0.19 0.30 0.58 0.8'5 0.86 0.93 0.62 0.33 0.36 6.21 6.25 Preci itation 1M LT 59 1M 50.4%43.5 30.4 32.0 33.0 33.0 46.0 74.7 78.7 79.0 74.0 56.0 52~6 LT 30)46.5%42.3 39.5 31.8 34.8 40.6 57.0 73.5 80.1 75.2 70.0 55.8 53.9 Relative.Humidit KEY: LT(N)-long term for N years for entry 1M-single month as listed at left T-Trace WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-18 COMPARISON OF ONSITE AND LONG-TERM DIFFUSION ELEMENTS Annual Percent an Frequency of Occurrence Stabilit Classification Very Stable Moderately Stable Neutral Unstable WNP-2 Onsite Data (1 ear)17.74 38.47 25.05 17.74 lIanford Meteorology()Stat@on (15 ears)24.29 31.58 14.21 30.01 Wind Direction NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW~W WNW NW NNW N Var Calm 33'.42 4.22 3.07 2.38 2.56~3.88 7.35 9.69 8.93 6.11 5.07 5.89 9.65 10.49 8.27 5.94 2.04 0.01 503.4 2.1 2.4 2'3.7 2.8 3.2 4.1 7.2 8.5 9.8 16.0 16.6 4.9 4.5 2.4 2.2 Wind S eed (m h)Calm 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-up 0~01 23.73 39.63 23.09 9.47 3.05 0.75 2.20 25'3 33.30 23.89 11.58 4.45].36 temperature between 33 and 245 ft.Values normalized to 100%data.(b)1955-1970 winds at 50 ft, stability based on change in air temperature between 3 and 200 ft.
WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-19a JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES BY PASQUILL STABILITY GROUPS FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 FT LEVEL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN-2.1 DEGREES F PER 200 FT).CAL>..HNK~0 0)IE...0.0 ENK 0 0 K 0 0 SPEEO CLASS(HPH}
4~7.8"12.13~.10..19~24~5~UP.UHKNO..TOTAL 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0.;....6 0 0.0.0.6 3 0 0 0 0 2 l It~Q~~KSK 0 SE 0 SSE 0 S',.0 SSw 0 S9.4 wSw 0 w wNH , 0 Hw 0 4ww 0 w...0 VAR 0 CALM UNlcw0 0 TOTAL......0 0 0 0 0 0....0 0.0 0 0'0 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 2......2 0 0 6...28 1~0 0 0 0 2.................0
.....-- --0---0----3--3 1 0 0 0 7 9......5.....3.......0....,0
.....17 2 5 0 0 0 8 1 5~~~5 0,3'3 2 10 3......,5 2 2.0....2 4 7 2 0 16 3....3........4...., 0....'12.6 2 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 Q..b 0 0', 0~0 0.....0.0..'0..0....0.....,.0 5 0 0 2 20.48.....42.......22..
13......4......i.bl Note: The speed class headings represent the following wind speeds.Calm: 0 to 0.22 mph 1-3: 0.23 to 3.49 mph 4-7: 3.50 to 7.49 mph 8-12: 7.50 to 12.49 mph 13-18: 12.50 to 18.49 mph 19-24: 18.50 to 24.49 mph 25-up: 24.50 mph and up WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-19b (sheet 2 of 8)FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCEI WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 FT LEVEL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN-1.9 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL-2.1 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)CAlN 1~3 4~7 kvE 0'0 3.NK 0 0 4.EkE 0 0 0 0.1 1 ESE 0.0 SE 0.0...7 SSE 0 0 8 8.0 0.....4 SSw 0.0'$H~.0.0 3 NSw 0 1 w...0...1....
11 0 0..kw.......o.....o....e Nkw 0 1 7 0 0 0 1 5...CAi,tl...........
0,......0...,..0 VkXVO 0 1 2 TDTA1....:..0..6....87 I 1 0 0.72 38.3 7 9~20 SPEED Cl.ASS(NPH) 8~12 13e18 19 24.-2'S~UP.'wl<k.o
-TOTAL.4.1 0 0 0'8 3.....0........0...
0,.....0.7..0 0.0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 2..........0..........0.
0..0.9.3 0 0'0 11.....17-'.7..0.0 0 28..7'1 2 0 0~1Z 2'~9 1 3 1 1 13 0 0..0 23.2 8 3 2 0'20 7 4..2',1 0 20 8 4 0 0 0 20 1 0 0 0'0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 tfote: The speed class headings represent the following wind speeds.Calm: 0 to 0.22 mph 1-3: 0.23 to 3.49 mph 4-7: 3.50 to 7,49 mph 0-12: 7.50 to 12.49 mph 13-18: 12.50 to.18.49 mph 19-24: 18.50 to 24.49 mph~25-up: 24.50 mph and up WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-19c (sheet 3, of 8)FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 for 33 FT LEVEL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN-1.6 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL-1.9 DEGREES F PER 200 FT).CA/N 0 0 0 0 f 003 or7 6 33 4.fo 0 12 5 SPEKD CL.ASS(XPX) 8 12..$3.$8..$9~2k....25.UP...UNffHO.-.TOTAf.:-16 7 0 0 0 62 5....1...., 0.......0...:....0
......., 20.12 0 0 0 0 an 2 0 0'~l 5 KSE SE SSK S SSw.5 fi'0t SM H ff NM N0i HNH YAR Clf,H VN>(No TOTAL.0 2.~13 2 0 o 0 0 17 0 0 19 4.....0:-~.0..........0.............0
..23 0 1 31 18 0.0 0 0 50 0 3 34 40.-.,7......2...,0.......0.........86 0 1 2n 28 21 3'1 70.0.2 22...I2 25 5 0 I~I 0 u 13 17 12 4.1 O.51 0.2...f~ao.......ftf.
3 1 1....60..0 3 16 5 6 5 1.0 36 6 17...7..7..708.0 3 28 13'6 2 0 0'2 0.....0...5o a8 7 o 0 o 8L 0 8 27 3 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0....0.....0...0.....0.
0 n 1 9 4 o O O 9 a3 ,0.51.382.....20$...$03,......31...7..$
2 827,.I Note: The speed class headings represent the following wind sp<<<<ds.Calm: 0 to 0.22 mph 1-3: 0.23 to 3.49 mph 4-7: 3.50 to 7.49 mph 8-12: 7.50 to 12.49 mph 13-18: 12.50 to 18.49 mph 19-24: 18.'50 to 24.49 mph 25-up: 24.50 mph and up WNP-,2 ER TABLE 2.3-19d (shee0 4 of 8)FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 FT LEVEL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN-0.5 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL-1.6 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)SPKKO Cf.ASS(MPH)
CALrr'>3 Oi7 8~f2..fgsff}.,f9w2lf, 2'PeUP'HQP TPTAL kMK'23 50 2rr rr 0 0 2 103 20.26, 12....., 1......2..0....9=.61 KMK 0 19 38 14 0 0 0'72.0.......17..20.....9.
O.0 9 U 95 KSK 0 32 31 rr 0 0 0 1 68 SK 0 33 53..9....4.....0...0...1
.100.SSK 0'rr 88 30 3 0 0 0 frr5 S 0 24 Trr 91...3rr...2.:.......0........1...226
....SSX 0 35 68 95 69 10 3 7 287 9M,.O....31.......'l<
..R2 18 23 9~i1 XSX 0 22 34 22 20 ll 1 0 110.0..20..36...29 30...11..6.,3 135 xHH 0 3>53 53 rr3 32 7 1 226 Nrr.....,0....,33...,Srr...59,...3".,..255 9 252-Nwx 0 rr3'3 rr8 l>5 2 0 2 203 9 r>.5<'H lt~>Lhk VkR 0 22 22 1 0 0 0 0 45 CALH..........
0...,...o.0...,0....,.0......0
.0,.0..0.l(ote: The speed class headings represent the followfng wfnd speeds..Calm: 0 to 0.22 mph 1-3: 0.23 to 3.49 mph 4-7: 3.50 to 7.49 mph 0-12: 7.50 to 12.49 mph 13-18: 12.50 to 10.49 mph 19-24: 18.50 to 24.49 mph 25-up: 24.50 mph and up~
WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-19e (sheet 5 of 8)FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCEi WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 FT LEVEL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN 1.6 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL-0.5 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)...CALM..1~3 NNK 0 25 NK.0 22 KNK 0 lb....K=..0..la KSK 0 26 SK 0 23 SSK 0 31 S.n 38 SSw 0 22.SN.0..19 NSw 0 2u 0 32'N!Nw 0 50 Nw.0 33 NNW 0 a3 ,.H......0..38 VAR 0 la~CALN 1 0 UNKN0 0 T0TAL...1.a71:a 7 12 31 25 18 15 39 67 59 57 aa 51 62 121 82~..3'5 9 0 6 822 SPKKO CLASS(MPH) 8 12..13~18.19~2A..25eUP UHMO TOTAL-'-2 0 0 0 0 39.1....0....0..0.....2....56'o'0 0 0 3 aa 2!!0!!~~S a 0 0 0.0 a5.22........2.,-
-~1-.---0----0----87-7a 11 3 0'189 bb...29....1......0.......0....201...
a8 a5 28'5 210 al 12 6 3 3 133 52 15.3 0.2....155 103 82 2a 6 1 348 115......, 32..5.....0........
0........306.7.0 0 3 178!'Q I!U!!9 1.0 0 0 27..0.......0.....0 0 0 1 0 0 11 25 77.=19..4b 23.0.6 tlote: The speed class headings represent the follow5ng wind speeds.Calm: 0 to 0.22 mph 1-3: 0.23 to 3.49 mph 4-7: 3.50 to 7.49 mph 8-12: 7.50 to 12.49 mph 13-18: 12.50 to)8.49 mph 19-24'8.50 to 24.49 mph 25-up: 24.50 mph and up WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-19f (sheet 6 of 8)FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 FOR, 33 FT LEVEL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE LESS THAN 4.4 AND GREATER THAN OR EQUAL.1.6 DEGREES F PER 200 FT)C<L~le3 0 30 M5 0 15 EuE, 0 21 f.....0.....1 9 E S K 0 1 6 SE 0 17.SSK.0 17 0 20 SSW 0 20..O..2O WSW 0 29 0 20 Wuw 0 33 0.34 uuw 0.0.38 u VAR 0 2i?n.0'uuxu0 0 1 TOTAL,'.0.007 a 7 28 20 16 6$6 ao 76 63 68 32 35'2 39 76 33 7 0 655 32.67......130 14a......131 65'0 0 0...0.........0...
O.'o,....0......5: 0 0 a Q 0 0 10...0 1 o7 35 8 9 7 0 0 0 0 71 26....2..., 0'5 85 4'3'0'0 2 118 25........$.....0...0 3.127.8 0 0 0 ,1'$16 0 0'O~R 0 0'0 0~29....0.0..o..0 0'o o.0 0 10 15.2SP..R6.=0.0.H W15 8<<$2 13 18$9 Za..25~uP;.uNNN0...TOTAL,$
3 0 0 0 0.65..3..o.....0.........1
......al.....
2 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.'5~~e~~~~~'ote: The speed class headings represent the following wind speeds.Calm: 0 to 0.22 mph 1-3;0.23 to 3.49 mph 4-7: 3.50 to 7.49 mph 8-12: 7.50 to 12,49 mph 13-18: 12.50 to 18.49 mph 19-24: 18.50 to 24.49 mph 25-up: 24,50 mph and up WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-19 (sheet 7 of 8)FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2, FOR 33 FT LEVEL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL 4.4 DEGREES F PER 200 FT).C>L, NuE BE EhK E ESE SE SSE S SSV Sw, 5 wSA@HE NM Nnw N VAR GALS UNKNO TOTAL, fl f o3 4e7 0 53 35 0 69 29 0 47 22 0 44.-b 0 36 0 15 21 0 fh ab 0.21....51 0 18'3 0, 27....19 0<<1 13 0...13..11 0 25 19 0.44..53 0 52 58 P.63.0'3 3 0 0.0 0 0 1 0 50P 458 0 0..2........0..0.3 0 0...13.......0,....
0 3'0 0 i~tt 1 Q.26 1 48 1 1'1.0 113 0~0 0 0 0, 26 Q......0..0.9 0..0 0 0 0 0 10 11 f 04:.....,,.1.....0......0
.....$0....$170 SPEED Cf.ASS(HPH)
.8~$2..13>>18...19~24..25rUP UNKHO..TOT,AL.'1 0'0 0 89 2........0.....,.0.0..0...100 0 0 0 0'0 o a~a 0 0 0 0 Q 45~..0-..........0..-
--..-0.--0..0....36.18 0 0 0 2 84......41.0.'.0..0, 2 115 12 1 0 0 0 54, Jl 1 5 I Note: The speed class headfngs represent the followfng wfnd speeds.Calm: 0 to 0.22 mph 1-3: 0.23 to 3.49 mph 4-7: 3.50 to 7.49 mph 8-12: 7.50 to 12.49 mph 13-18: 12.50 to 18.49 mph 19>>24: 18.50 to 24.49 mph 25-up: 24.60 mph and up\
WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-19h (sheet 8 of 8)FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED FROM 4/74 THROUGH 3/75 AT WPPSS2 FOR 33 FT LEVEL (TEMPERATURE CHANGE IN DEGREES F PER 200 FT UNKNOWN)QAL, Nh'K hE KHK...E ESK SK SSK 5 SSw S'rl HSH M HAM Nw NNbf VAR:,.CALH.UHKh0 o,...TOTil SPEE0 CLass{HPHi 4~7...8 12..13m.18 19~24 2s.v UP UHKNQ T.O.LAI~: 3 0 0.0 0'o 3-..--1-.,0.-..0 0'5 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 J)0 0 0 0 5 N 1e3 0 0 0...1 0 0 O.2 0 0 0'0 0 2-0"---.0---0-----0-"-
--2-2 0 0 0 0 0 n.....,.2....0....0 0.o 2 0 2 1'0',o~a o 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 n 0 0~4 0 0 0 0.1 0 1 0 0 0.0 1 0.....0 0 0 0'.3 0 1-0 0 0 0 0 7 0....26 0 0 0 0 0.....o...o..o.o a.o.0 0 0 0.0 0 1 2 1'0...0.0 0 0 0 0 1 0~0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0-...-0-.....0......
0.0.O 0 4 3 0 , 0 2]o 231-..12"----6.1 0 214--269 Note: The speed class headings represent the following wound speeds.Calm: 0 to 0.22 mph 1-3: 0.23.to 3.49 mph 4-7: 3.50 to 7.49 mph 8-12: 7.50 to 12.49 mph 13-18: 12.50 to 10.49 mph 19-24: 18.50 to 24.49 mph 25-up: 24.50 mph and up TABLE 2.3-20 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY AVERAGE AND EXTREMES OF HOURLY AVERAGE AIR TEMPERATURES Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 41.9 64.8 21.8 52.2 76.2 35.1 57.4 84.8 36.9 72.5 73.6 74.7 103.5 45.9 104.5 49.6 103.8 50.6 66.9 91.5 45.9 51.7 80.8 31.7 42.1 60'24.7 lfHP-2 (1)One Year of Data Averacee Max Min 32;3 55.4 18.1 33.8 60.4 12.8 HMS (3'One Year of Data Average 32.0 33.6 42.0 52.5 57.9 73.3 74.8 76.3 68.3 52.0 42.1 Lon-Term Summar~verarV e 29.4 36.2 45.2 53.2 61.8 69.4 76.4 74.2 65.2 53.1 40.0 Max Min 66-23 71-23 83 26 95 12 103 28 110 33 115 41 113 40 102 25 90 6 73-1 Dec YEAR 33.8 53.5 (F)59.6 20.8 104.5 12.8 35.7 53.5 32.6 53.1 68-27 115-27 (1)One year of data at 7', 4/74 to 3/75.All values are hourly averages.(2)Surface air temperature observations at Hanford townsite and HMS for period 1912-1970.
Maximums and minimums are observed values.
WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-21 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY AVERAGES OF WET'BULB TEMPERATURES Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug'Sep Oct Nov Dec YEAR WNP-2 One Year(1)30.3 30.9 36.2 44.7 47.2 56.0 57.4 58.0 52.6 43.8 39.3 34.5 44.3 (F)HMS 2)One Year 30.0 31.0 36.0 43.9 46.5 54.5 41.0 43.2 52.0 42.0 38.0 33.0 43.4 HMS Long Term(27.9 33.6 37.3 42.8 49.1 54.5 42-.3 42.8 52.6 45.4 36.4 31.2 43.8 TIl->>',/"/(2)One year of HMS data at 3', 4/74 to 3/75.(3)'0 years of HMS data at 3', 1950-1970.
TABLE 2.3-22a FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF WET BULB VALUES A FUNCTION OF TIME OF DAY BASED ON WNP-2 SITE DATA 4/74-3/75 (Wet Bulb intervals are iven in the left column in'F.)TlNE OF DAY 1"20 0 20~]5 0-15-]O O-10~5 O o o 0 5 0 5]n O 15 2 15 2O 20 25 lu 25 jn 35 30 35 uu 35 un 54 un 45 73 as 50 sn 55 48-"0 60 o5 70 0 70 7 0 75 80 8 0]]~<Io TOT kf.365 2 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 15 33 51 51 73 44 5o 33 e!0.0 3os 3 4 0 0 o n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 7 f8 la 35 42 46~47 58 57 es 65 52.54 a9 4]]27 23 5 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 4~4 365 365 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n 0 0 O 0 1 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0..0~0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O n O 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 8....9.8 5.3 3.S]4 f6]8 15 9 8 8 6 4]43 50 45 41 34 30 24 14 10 42 37 S2 33 39 43 51 51 2S n 0 0 0 38 39 43 42 39 44 4]36 S8.49 So 8 18 23 33 39 43 0 0 3 5 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0....0..0..%..0..0 0.n.n 0 o o 0 o o o 5 5 365 365 S 18 48 37 19 1S 365 365 365 365 365 365 oG 67 eo sl aa 41 45 S9 se 53 SS 52 5]S2 SO-51..47..51 u7 39,49 51 sq 13 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,3.6 7 33 50 45..52.49 so 46 12 n 0 12 365<<ER4GE F')R HOUR 41'58 40'79 40'62 u2,287 4S,282 ue,998 1~852 40 930 40~leo 41~040 43~750 46~103 4~eo2 TABLE 2.3-22b (sheet 2 of 2)TTHE OF DAY~'20"20~)5-15-)O)C~5 0 0 5 5 lo 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30 35 35 40 ao 45 a5 50 50 55 55 60 65 h5 70 70 5 75 80 80 UVQQO TOTAL 14-15 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 3...2 6 6 7 7 26 24 49 51 53 51.Sn 49 52 52 47 47 45 15 21 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 365 365)6 17 18 19 20 21 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o 0 0 0.0 0 0.0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2..2.113 5 7 8 10 9 8 lp 1 1 lu 16 16 2$28 3)35 u)ab 47 SV 5O b2 48 ub u8 51 u8 au u8 Sg 62 48..4749
..52...55 43 51 61 43 42 4'9 55 ub aa 51 ub 39 45 kk 45 44 41 3$24 23 17 14 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D...,D 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 b 3 3 S 365 365 365 365 36b 365 2i?0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 10.26 55 aa 56..52 48 46 19 1 0 0 0 4 365 23 24 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 9 12 35 39 4'7 44 56 49'57 oS.52 49 44 48 44 11 1 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 4 4 365 365 tOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i?5 88 251 597 948 1220 13jo 1178 1124 974 601 164 0 0.0 234 8760 AVERAGE F~)R HOUR 48~166 48o279 47~205<<5~191"3~472 42~290 48~430 47~950"bo 198 44~272 42~846 44~266 TABLE 2.3-23 MONTHLY AVERAGES OF PSYCHROMETRIC DATA BASED ON PERIOD OF RECORD l950-70 Jan Fe AVERAGES Nar A~r 8~a Jun Ju AucC~Se Oct Nov Dec Dry Bulb Ifet Bulb Rel.Hun.Dewpoint 30.3 37.5 27.9 33.6 76.0 69.7 23.2 27.4 44.0 52.5 61.8 69.9 77.5 75.3 67.0 37.3.42.8 49.1 54.5 57.9 57.3 52.6 55.0 46.4 41.8 39.4 31.5 34.9 39.9 27.3 30.4 36.0 41.2 42.3 42.8 39.5 53.2 45.4 57.7 36.9 40.1 33.4 36.4 31.2 72.6 80.8 31.1 27.5 53.5 43.8 53.8 33.8 DRY BU.B NONTHLY AVERAGE EXTRENES Highest Year Lowest Year 43.0 44.0 1953 1958 12.9 25'1950 1956 48.7 56.2 68'75.5 1963 1956 1958 1969 39'48.3 57.2 64.2 1955 1955 1962 1953 82.8 82.5 72.0 1960 1967 1967 73.2 70.6 61.6 1963 1964 1970 59.1 1952 50.3 1968 45.8 38.8 1954 1953 32.3 26.5 1955 1964 56.3 1958 51.0 1955+IIET BULB NONTHLY AVERAGE EX P~ES Highest Year Lowest Year.39.3 40.7 1953 1950 12.4 23.4 1950 1956 40.8 1968 32.9 1955 45.1 54.6 1962 1953 39.345.4 1955 1959 58.6 61.2 1958 1958 51.4 55.6 1954 1954 61.1 56.5 1961 1963 54.9 48.3 1964 1970 47.7 1962 42,4 1960 42.3 35.8 1954 1966 29.6 25.0 1955 1964 I 46.5 1958 41.8 1955 REL.HUN.NONTHLY AVERAGE EXTRENES Highest Year Lowest Year 89.0 87.0 1960 1963 60.0 54'.0 1963 1967 66.0 1950 44.0.1965 64.0<<52.0 54.0 1963 1962+1950 37.0 31.0 34.0 1966 1966 1960 40.0 1955 22.0 1959 44.0 55.0 1968 1959 24.0 34.0 1967 1952'74.0 1962 42.0 1952 Co.0 90.0 1956 1950 64.0 69.0 1963+1968 58.0 1950i 49.0 1967 DEIIPOZNT NONTHLY AVERAGE EXTRENES Highest Year Lowest Year 34.4 36.7 34.0 37.1 1953 1958 1961 1953 6.5 17.3 20.3 26.2 1950 1956 1965+1955 43.8 1957 30.4 19f4 47.5 46.6 46.9 1958.1958.)961 37.5 35.4 38.4 1954<<1959<<'1955~V 45.4 1963 33.8 1970 43 5 1962 32.1 1970 30.3 34.3 1954 1950 24.0 21.0 1959 1951 37.7 1958 31.5 1955 a I y Although not included in thcsc tables.an average of 63t was recorded in 1943 TABIB 2.3-24 MISCELLANEOUS SNOWFALL STATISTICS:
1946 THROUGH 1970 AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS WITH DEPTH AT 0400 PST 1" or More 3" or More 6" or More 12" or More Oct Nov Dec Jan 10 Feb Mar Season 21 ll 5 RECORD GREATEST NUMBER OF DAYS WITH DEPTH AT 0400 PST 1" or More 3" or More 6" or More 12 or More (1955)ll (1955)10 0 0 (1964+)17 (1955)14 (1964)12 (1964)4 (1969)31 (1969)23 (1965)23 (1969)1 (1950)17 (1950)16 (1969+)8 0 (1951)3 0 0 0 (1955-56)54-(1949-50)33 (1949-50)23 (1964-65)4 PZCORD GREATEST DEPTH (1957)0.3 (1946)5.1 (1964)12.1 (1969)12.0 (1969)10.0 (1957)2.3 (Dec 1964)12.1 GREATEST IN 24 HOURS (1957)0.3 (1955)4.8 (1965)5.4 (1954)7.1 (1959)5.2 (1957+)2.2 (Jan 1954)7.1 AVERAGE PERCENT OF WATER EQUIVALENT OF ALL PRECIPITATION 14 46 48 29 14 26+Denotes also in earlier years*Denotes less than 1/2 day TABLE 2.3-25 AVERAGE RETURN PERIOD (R)AND EXISTING RECORD (ER)FOR VARIOUS PRECIPITATION AMOUNTS AND INTENSITY DURING SPECIFIED TIME PERIODS AT HANFORD (BASED ON EXTREME VALUE ANALYSIS OF 1947-1969 RECORDS)AMOUNT (INCHES)TIME PERIOD R (Years)20 Min 60 Min 2 Hrs 3 Hrs 6 Hrs 12 Hrs 24 Hrs INTENSITY (INCHES PER HOUR)TIME PERIOD 20 Min 60 Man 2 Hrs 3 Hrs 6 Hrs 12 Hrs 24 Hrs 2 0.16 5 0.24 10 0.37 25 0.47 50 0.53 100 0.60 250 0.68 500 0.73 1000 0.80 0.50 0.62 0.59 0.67 0.96 1.17 0.74 0.83 1.21 1.45 0.72 0.81 0.93 1.02 l.11 0.85 0.96 0.96 1.07 l.11 l.22 l.22 l.33 l.33 l.45 l.40 l.59 1.82 2.00 2.20 l.66 1.87 2.13 2.34 2.55 0.26 0.30 0.36 0.48 0.62 0 40 0 48 0 55 0 77 0 95 0.72 1.06 l.28 l.56 l.77 l.99 2.26 2.47 2.63 0.49 0.72 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 0.26 0.40 0.50 0.62 0.72 0.81 0.93 1.02 1.11 0.30 0.22 0.37 0.28 0.16 0.20 0.098 0.053 0.121 0'65 0.42 0.32 0.23 0'8 0.55 0.61 0.67 0.27 0.30 0.36 0.41 0.44 0.33 0.48 0.37 0.138 0.156 0.177 0.195 0.212 0.074 0.083 0.094 0.103 0.112 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.052 0.030 0.24 0.18 0.13 0.079 0.044 DATE 0.59 0.88 1.08 1.68 1.88 1.91*0.59 0.44 0.36 0.28 0.157 0.080 I 6/12 10/1 10/1 10/1-2 10/1-2 10/1-2 6/12 10/1 10/1 10/1-2 10/1-2 10/1-2 1969 1957 1957 1957 1957 1957-1969 1957 1957 1957 1957 1957 No records have been kept for time periods of less than 60 minutes.However, the rain gage chart for 6-12-69 shows that 0.55 inch occurred during a 20-minute period from 1835 to 1855 pST.An additional 0.04 inch occurred between 1855 and 1910 to account for the record 60-minute amount of 0.59 inch.
WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-26a WNP-2 ONSITE JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF'WINDS FOR RAIN INTENSITY CLASSES, RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO.016 INCHES PER HOUR ka,<E NE E<;<E ESE Sc SSE S SSw Sw wSR wkM NW N VAR C'L'I t,"4K'<O TOT AI.CALI<0 0 0~-.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~-0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 7 4 3 1 1~0 0 j 2~--~0 2 0 0 5e SPEED CLASS(HPH) 4 7 8 12 13 18 19 24 25 OP 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 0 0 0---~4---0~---0---0---<<0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 e 4 1 o 5 0-o o 3 4 3 1 0.----3-4-1---o-0 2 1 0 1 0 3 2~~~0 0~1 7 0 0 0 1O 5-1 0~0 10'0 0 0--1 0 0-0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0~~0*--0"~-0"-"0 , 0 0 0 0 0 eo 38 10 3--1 gkKNO TOTA1.0 4 n 0~---0---'5-0 9 0 0 21 0 11 0 14--0-9--0 5 n 0 12 0 21 0 14-0-0 3 0-.~0 1 149 TABLE 2.3-26b WNP-2 ONSITE JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WINDS FOR RAIN INTENSITY CLASSES, RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.50 INCHES PER HOUR NNE kE ENE Et$'5 5P S SSw'<S<I k'<w k VAR CALH OI'<"0 TOTAL CALM 1<3 0 0 1 0'0---0 o n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-----0--0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-"0 0 0 0~0 0 0 0 2 TOTAL 2 1 0-0--0 1 5 0 2 0 1 2~--~4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0--"-0--"-0--'---0"--" 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2--" 0'"'-"-0'"-0-""" 21 0 0'-0 5----1'SPEED CLASS(HPH) 4 7 8 12 13<<18 19 24 25 UP UNKt O 1 o o o o o 0 0 0<<0 0 0 0 0 0 0--n--n--o-p--0--.p 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0"'" 0~~0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0~0 0~-0-~--" 0--~0 0 2 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0<~0...1'"--0"~--0~"---0-----~0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1---3.-" 0-----0<--0----~0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0-<<0 0 0 WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-26c~sect 2~o3)WNP-2 ONSITE JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WINDS FOR RAIN INTENSITY CLASSES, RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO.160 INCHES PER HOUR hiK g>C E h S'Sc i SS1.S SSH NSw ti 4 N hd@if'AR VII<<'O TOTAL CALM 1r3 0 0 0---0 0 0 0 0 0 0-0 Q 0 0 0 0 0""-.0 Qa7 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~-0~~--0 0 0'-.0~~-~0 0 0-0 0 0 0~--.-0----0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o~-n--n--o 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0-0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0---0----0~----0 0 0 0 0 0 0>>---0----0--0---"-0~~-SPEEO CLASS(MPII) 8"12 13 18]9r24 25rUP UNKNO TOTAL 0,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-.0-0-"0 0-.0-0-0 0 0 0 0'0 0 0: 0-Q 0 0 0 0 0'0 0 0 0.0 0".0--0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o n o TABLE 2.3-26d WNP-2 ONSITE JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WINDS FOR RAIN INTENSITY CLASSES, RAIN INTENSITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO.016 INCHES PER HOUR N.IL'wg cSS SE.SSC S SS I'I SA'HS tl li h4h htiw VAR CALM U4Kho TOTAL CALM 0 0 0~~n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0..0 0 0 0 0]r3 Qe7 0 0 0-0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0--0 0 0 0 a 0-,-.0 0 0 0 0...0 0 0 0~0 SPE80 CLA 8r]2 13 1 0 0 0-~0--SS(MPH)8 19r2Q 25 UP 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0--0-0 0 0 0 0~0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0--0-0 o O 0 0 0,., 0 0 0 0 O.O-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0'---0--" 0 0 0 0 0...0.,-0 UNKMO'TOTAL 0 0 0 Qi~0 0~0 0 p 0 0-0-0 0-o WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-26e~se0.t 3~O3)WNP-2 ONSXTE JOXNT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WINDS FOR RAIN INTENSITY CLASSES, RAIN INTENSXTY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 0500 INCHES PER HOUR qD;8 00$E~DK f 0.SK SSE S SS~00$00 Il 00 0<00.$'00 ND;h N V34 CAD u UD'.%SO TOTL CaLv 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 r3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SPEED CLA 4 1 8 12 13 f 0 0 0 0 0 0--0----0~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-0-0-0 0 n o 1 0 0.0 0.---D.-0.-0 0 0-~-0 0 0 1 SS(MPH)8 l~u24 25~UP UN<>>n TOT>L 0 0 0 0 0 O O O=O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0---0---0"-".-" 0--0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 o o" n" o--o O 0 O O O 0-'0-0-0-O O O O 0 o....o....o...o..o..0 0 0 0 1 0 o.n 0 0 o 0 o 0 1 0.0-D-0-0-0 0 0 0 0 0.-..0.....0..0,.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~" Q~3 a H~'
WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.3-27 MONTHLY AND ANNUAL PREVAIL1NG DIBECTIONSI AVERAGE SPE DSg AND PEAK GUSTS: 1945-1970 AT HNS (50 foot, level)iHOiVTH P REV IOUS DEiVSETY AVERAGE SPEED HIGHEST AVERAGE YEAR LOWEST AVERAGE PEAK GUST SESS SPEED DEESZTY YEAR Jan Feb 6.4 7.0 9.6*, 9.4 1953 1961 3.1 4.6 1955 65**1963 63 SW 1967 1965 EVar 10.7 1964 5.9 1958 70 SW 1956 Apr IVay Jun W EVW WNW 9.0 8.8 9.2 10.5 10.7 1959 1965+1949 7.4 5.8 7.7 1958 60 1957 71 1950+72 WSN SSW 1969 1948 1957 Jul Aug Sep Oct Vov Dec YEAR W'aCC NW Whd 8.6 8.0 7~5 6.7 6.2 6.0 7.6 9.6 9~1 9.2 9.1 7.9 8.3 8.3 1963 1946 1961 1946 1945 1968 6.8 6.0 2.9 3.9 1968+6.3 1955 55 1956 66 1957 65 1952 63 1956 64 1963+71 1957, 72"*WSW SW 1968 1961 SSW SSN SW SW 19SO 1949 1955 1957 (Jun)SSW 1953 The average speed:or January, 1972, was'0.3 mph.*" Dn January'1, 1972, a new all-time record peak gust of 80 mph was established.
TABLE 2.3-28 MONTHLY MEANS OF DAILY MIXING HEIGHT AND AVERAGE 1IIND SPEED l1eters Avera e Dail Minimum Morning Meters/sec Avera e Dail Maximum Afternoon Meters Meters/sec January February March April May June July August September October November December 302 341 388 350 288 263 208 235 189 192 300 367 4.8 4.8 5.6 5.4 4.7 4.3 3.9 F 1 3.6 3.8 4'4.5 295 658 1331 1966 2243 2440 2703 2439 1922 1076 505 316 4.6 5.3 5.6 6.7 5.9 5.7 5.2 4.8 4.9 5'4.6 4.6 a.Spokane, HA, Radisonde Data, Period of Record 1/60-12/64.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 WIND SPEED GROUPS (MPH)0-3 I.INE 4-7 SHADE 8-12 OPEN 13-18 SHADE 19-24 25 UP OPEN SHADE Amendment 4, October 1980 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report WIND ROSE FOR WNP-2 FOR 4-74 TO 3-75 AT THE 7 FT LEVEL FIG-2.3-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 WIND SPEED GROUPS (MPH)0-3 LINE 4-7 SHADE 8-.12 OPEN 13-1$SHADE 19-24 OPEN 25 UP SHADE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report WIND ROSE FOR WNP-2 FOR 4-74 TO 3-75 AT THE 33 FT LEVEL FIGHT 2.3-2 W E k 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 WIND SPEED GROUPS (MPH)0-3 LINE 4-7 SHADE 8-12 OPEN'3-18 SHADE 19-24 OPEN 25 UP SHADE Amendment 4, October 1980,'ASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report WIND ROSE FOR WNP-2 FOR 4-74 TO 3-75 AT 245 FT LEVEL FIGHT F 3 3 1 2 PERCENT SCAlE WIND SPEED GROUPS IMPH)0-3 LINE 4-7 SHADE 8-12 OPEN 13-1B SHADE 19-24 OPEN 25 UP SHADE STAB I LI'TY DEF INITION OF hT I F 1200 IO UNSTABLE: hT(-1.5 NEUTRAL-0.5>6T>.1.5 MODERATELY STABlE: 3.5>hT>-0.5 VERY STAB!.E: dT>3.5 UNSTABLE NEUTRAL MODERATELY STABLE VERY STABLE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~2 Environmental Report WIND ROSES FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES AT WNP-2 FOR 4-74 TO 3-75 AT THE 33 FT LEVEL FIGHT 2.3-4 0,77 O.DI Ot15.48 UNSTABLE NEUTRAL CL 14 48 hIODERATELY STABLE VERY STABLE STAB I ll T Y OEF IN I 7 ION OF AT A'7200 IB UNSTABLE: AT(-15 NEUTRAL.05>AT>-1.5 h'IODERATELY STABlE: 35>AT>-0.5 VERY STABLE: hT>3.5 4.9 0 IL25 ILS 0.75 1 1.25 PERCENT SCALE WIND ROSES BY STABILITY 24>24 VAR 1-3 4-7 8.12 CA WIND SPEED GROUPS LMPN)All 8'TAB ILI TIES 0 1 2 3 4 5 PERCENT PERSISTENCE SCALE FOR All.STABILI TIES WIND ROSES AS A FUNCTION OF HANFORD WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~2 Environmental Report OF HMS BASED ON WINDS AT 200 FT AND AIR TEMPERATURE STABILITIES BETWEEN 3 FT AND 200 FT FOR THE PERIOD 1955 THROUGH 1970 FIG.2.3-5 r~L g 1&.6 S.S 6.1 7.7 9 2.7 3.9 I I 4.1 L~I I L~I I I I I I 5.5 1 l 8.?, I WAHLUKE Vg~4.54 45 829 S.l 2.5 4.5 SLOPE-N-4.8 3.9 2.9 I'----1 L~I I I I I I I I I I I I HANIORO Ikd 9 3.6 3.1 2.8 2.1 10 4.8 6.8 2.1 6.4 5.3 6.3'4 RINGOLO 5.3 6.5 33 4.4 4.7 7.5 12 7.1 7.1 11 210 23 13 5.8 3.8 I I.S%SCAIE 0 10 20 30 41 50 3.6 516.4 64 40 3.6 74 1.3 48 83 14 VAR.CIM.~OF 1IME y--4LO I 10.9 I 17 7 4 7.3 SPEEO 5.1 5.9 O.d" P S.S 0 I~2 3 4 5 I 15 I l,l 7 dl c 71%93 I I 4.2 SCAIE M IIES S.S">>;18 7.0.,~4.1 kl 23 3.3~I'.7 (I,'(REICHIAN D 4.1 SINlON C I IY~3 r-~r r" I r-L 7.5 PASCO KINNEWICK SHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report SURFACE WIND ROSES FOR VARIOUS LOCA-TIONS ON AND SURROUNDING THE HANFORD SITE BASED ON FIVE-YEAR AVERAGES (1952-1956).
SPEEDS ARE GIVEN IN PER HOUR FIG.
80 70 JANUARY FEBRUARY R.H.'r'r 80 R.H 70 60 MONTHLY AND ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGES OF DRY BULB (D.B.)AND WET BULB (W.B.)TEAIPERATURE RELATI VE HUMI DI TY (R.H.)~AND TEMPERATURE OF THE DEW POI NI'D.P.)(1957.1970) 90 50 40 10~0 D.P.TEMP.D.B.50 i=i 40 c 30 10 W.B.D.B.TEMP.D.B.02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 PST 02 04 06 08 10 12"~14 16 18 20 22 24 PST 80 t 70 50 40 10 l'r\R.H,'TEMP.D.B.W.B.D.P.MARCH 80 70 60 50 Ch z 40 30 20 10 APRIL TEMP.D.B.W.B.'D.P.02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 (ST 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 PST WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES.OF WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~2 TEMPERATURE AND REL'ATIVE HUMIDITY Environmental Report FIG~2'-7 MONTHLY AND ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGES OF DRY BULB ID.B.)AND WET BULB IW.B.)TEMPERATURE RELATI VE HUMI 0 I TY IR.H.), AND TEMPERATURE OF THE DEW POINT (D.P.)I1957-1970) ee yWO~'TEMP.D,B.W.B.'r~o DP~o 70 50 CI 40 o~30 JUNE TEMP.D.B.~a~W.B.~Ot~r~e D.P.,r~~R,H.10 02 04 0$08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 PST 02 DI 06 W 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 PST',90.JULY TEMP, D.B.'90 AUGUST TEMP.D.B.50 O 10 W.B.r~D.P.~e'~~~P r 70 60 Vl 50 40 10~1 0.P.~0~0 r~e R.H.02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 PST 02 04 06 08 10 12.14 16 18 20 22 24 PST WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~2 Environmental Report MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY FIG.2.3-8 MONTHLY AND ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGES OF DRY BULB (D.B.I AND WET BULB (W.B.I TEMPERATURE RELATIVE HUMIDITY (R.H.I~AND TEMPERATURE OF THE DEW POINT ID.P.I (1957-1970II SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 70 TEMP.0.8.W.B.D.P.'+v~r R.H.70 60 50 a 40~~++>o R.H.TEMP.0.B.W.B.~~0.P.10 10 02 Ol 06 0$10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 PST 02 Dl 06 08 10 12 14 1 6 18 20 22 24 PST 60 a 50 o 40 NOVEMBER v 0'4~o+'h~~4 P R.H.MP.O.B.W.B.0.P.70 DECEMBER~~~o r\R.H.TEMP, 0,8, W.B.D.P.10 10 02 Di 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 PST 02 Ol 06 R 10 LZ 14 16 18 20 ZZ 24 PST WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY FIG.2.3-9 MONTHLY AND ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGES OF DRY BULB (0.B.)AND WET BULB (W.B.)TEMPERATURE RELATIVE HUMIDITY (R.H.), AND TEMPERATURE OF THE DEW POINT (D.P.I (1957-1970)
ANNUAL~.70 50 CI 40 O 30 TEMP.(D.B.)R.H.'W.B.~e'0, P.10 oz oa oe os io iz ia ie is zo zz za PST WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGE OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY FIGHT 2'-10 XMO P NC f wo~o5 X 45~OOl 0 HV ct R M Q P l.00.80.70.60 L/l UJ.50.40 0.93 0.62 Q.36 040 0.45 0.57 0.58 0.85 086 Ixj M Q bJ 0 GJ I CQ RW I Cl M 3.'0 bJWR I PR re L'XL MUM C)OC en ARM Z W d M M OO U R.30.20.lo JAN FEB MAR APR MAY UNE 0.30 O.l4 O.l9 JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC tzf H A lV 4J I bJ MUH R Hg~OWN UIO V C ZITI H MR R~A R MQ ITI I H Ql ol MM R Q w~oa 8 C ZRl MAR 0 R XMO QUlM II P f WO~OS III W+AOl 0 HCl O Q 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 M 0.4 0-I vl 02 I~O.l 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 R RN PER IOD (YEARS)~C 250 10 10 15 20 30 40 50N MINUTES DURATION 2 3 4 56 8 1012 18 24 HOURS TO USE THI S CHART, SELECT ANY DESIRED RAINFALL INTENS ITY AND DURATION AND READ FROM THE DIAGONAL LINES THE EXPECTED FREQUENCY OF SUCH INTENSITY AND DURATION.FOR EXAMPLE, RAINFALL INTENSITY OF 1.3 INCHES PER HOUR FOR 10 MINUTES CAN BE EXPECTED TO OCCUR, ON AVERAGE, ONCE EVERY 5 YEARS (POINT A).HOWEVER, SUCH INTENSITY CAN BE EXPECTED FOR 30 MINUTES DURATION ONLY ABOUT ONCE IN 100 YEARS (POINT B).THE RETURN PERIOD FOR THIS INTENSI FY FOR 60 MINUTES DURATION IS GREATER THAN 1000 YEARS (POINT C).THERE ARE, OF COURSE, VARIATIONS IN USE OF THE CHART.SUPPOSE, FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS DESIRED TO FIND THE"100-YEAR STORM" FOR 60 MINUTES.THIS IS 0.8 INCH (POINT.D).
XMO g MC l.g M P MO~O 5 8 X m os Q QC't CW OV 100 90 80 0 C M 0 bo 00 21.22 0 0 0 0 0 I~0 0 w 0 0 0 0 Cl a 0 2 Cl v 0 22l, Y,pP gc)5 y9 ,I D a 0~~I 2 I.~I I I 2 Cl a I'2 2I lo O~I M M 70~~I'l2~I II~I 2~~~I~60 I~'>>~~2~I le H A hD l 4)H R a RR 3'H 50 40 22 21 D M N Pl 0-0 0 0 Mis+0sb b b o I 0 o OOO OOO 0 M 0 4 0 Do Q DOD 00 o o 0.o oo 0'0 000 00 O 0 O'OO O 0'8 00 M I~O~0 0 0 0~O 0 00~Average number of years between occurrence of a given speed and that of an equal or greater speed WNP-2 ER-OL 2.4 HYDROLOGY The WNP-2 site is located at an elevation of 441 ft above mean sea level (MSL)about 3 miles west of the Columbia River at River Mile 351.75 and about 8 miles northeast'f the Yakima River at Horn Rapids Dam.The major waters that could be affected or influenced by plant oper-ation are the Columbia River and the groundwaters of the site and the immediate environs.2.4.1 Surf ace Water 2.4.1.1 Columbia River H drolo and Ph sical Characteristics The Columbia River and its tributaries are the dominant water systems in the Pacific Northwest region (Figure 2.4-1).The main stem of the Columbia River originates at Columbia Lake on the west slope of the Canadian Rockies and flows into the Pacific Ocean near Astoria, Oregon.The river drains a total area of approximately 258,000 square miles in Canada, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, and Nevada.The Columbia River dryiqage upstream of the site is approximately 96,000 square miles.<1)Since a large part of the Columbia River originates as runoff caused by snowmelt, high dis-charges are experienced in late spring or early summer while low di s char ges occur in wi nter.Numerous dams and reservoirs have been constructed in the Columbia River Basin for power production, irrigation, navigation, flood control, and recreation.
Table 2.4-1 lists the major Columbia River tributaries and main stem dbms with their location by river mile above the Columbia River mouth.(2>The reservoirs maintain approximately 46;7 million acre-ft of aqtjve storage of which 37.5 million acre-ft are upstream of the site.(3)Arrow and Mica Dams in Canada and Grand Coulee and John Day dams in the United States are the only main stem projects providing sufficient storage for seasonal flow regula-tion, while the remaining main stem dams are run-of-river projects providing only daily flow control.Much of the activities of flood control and hydroelectric power production are presently controjlqd under the Columbia Treaty between Canada and the United States.<4)
The Columbia River is tide-affected from the mouth to Bonneville Dam (River Mile 146).The only other free flowing stretch of the river is the 49-mile reach downstream from Priest Rapids Dam (River Mile 397)to the head (approximately River Mile 348)of the reservoir behind McNary Dam.The proposed Ben Franklin hydroelectric dam site on the 2.4-1 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER-OL Columbia River is about four miles downstream from the WNP-2 site.The planning studies for this project by the Corps of Engineers were suspended in 1969 and reinitiated in 1978 as part of the development of a management plan for the Hanford reach.While the Benton and Franklin County Public Utility Districts have shown a recurring interest in revitalizing the project, previous studies have disclosed significant economic and environmental impediments.
The flows in the Columbia River in the vicinity of the site are highly regulated by Priest Rapids Dam located approximately 45 river miles upstream from the site.The momentary minimum discharge of the Colum-bia River at Priest Rapids was recorded to be 4120 cfs in 1936 before the construction of Priest Rapids Dam which was built in 1956.After the construction of the dam, the daily river discharge at Priest Rapids has never been below 36,000 cfs, the minimum flow adminis-tratively set by the Federal Power Commission License.The annual average discharge measured at the River Nile 394.5 (634.8 KN)just downstream from the dam is 120,200 cfs.(1)Monthly discharges below Priest Rapids Dam for the period 1928 th~ough 1958 adjusted for 1970 conditions are presented in Table 2.4-2.'l5 The listed flow values represent measured flows which were adjusted to reflect flow regulation by dams and diversions existing in 1970.Discharge duration curves derived from these values are shown in Figure 2.4-2.Because of the regulation, it is estimated that the minimum and maximum mean monthly flows will be 60,000 and 260,000 cfs in the vicinity of the site.The flow in this reach varies not only due to seasonal floods but also due to daily regulation by the power-producing Priest Rapids Dam.Flows during the late summer, fall, and winter may vary from a low of 36,000 cfs to as much as 160,000 cfs during a single day.The four largest known floods occurred in 1876, 1894, 1948 and 1956.The 1894 flood was the maximum known flood on the Columbia River near ,the proposed site and had an estimated discharge of 740,000 cfs.The largest recorded flood occurred in 1948 when a flow of 692,600 cfs was recorded at Hanford.The maximum possible flood (NPF)under present regulated conditions has been estimated by the U.S.Corps of Engineers to be 1,440,000 cfs at Ringold (River Nile 357).Figure 2.4-3 shows the exceedance frequency for annual momentary peak flows below Priest Rapids Dym derived from 1913 to 1965 records ad-justed for 1970 conditions.<7)
The frequency curves for both high and low flows for the period 1929-1958 adjusted for 1970 conditions are given in Figure 2.5-4.The minimum calculated 7-day average flow between 1960 and 1972 was 46,000 cfs.2.4-2 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER-OL River cross sections have been determined for a number of flows.(8)Cross qeptions between River Miles 351 and 352 are shown in Figure 2.4-5.I9)The river width in the vicinity of the project varies between 1200 and 1800 ft, depending on the flow.Figure 2.4-6 shows the location of the WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 intake/discharge structures and Figure 2.4-7 shows river bottom contours near the outfall.River water surface profiles for several flows in the vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 2.4-8.(10i11i12)
Diurnal depth fluctuations caused by Priest Rapids Dam regulation can be as much five feet.The maximum velocities measured vary from less than three feet per.second (fps)to over ll fps, again depending on the river cross section and fl ow rate.WNP-2 is at an elevation of 441 ft above MSL, which is approximately 65 ft above the water surface of the maximum recorded flood, approx-imately 50 ft above the water surface of the maximum possible flood, and approximately 22 ft above the water surface elevation estimated for a Grand Coulee Dam failure.(10 11 12>The pumphouse for the WNP-2 plant water intake is at'n elevation of 375 ft above MSL, which is the approximate water surface elevation of the maximum recorded flood.14 A low flow test of the Columbia River conducted on April 10, 1976 controlled the flow to 36,000 cfs for the purpose of verifying river surface elevations.
Test results indicate that the river water surface elevation in the area of the WNP-2 intakes and discharge is approx-imately 341.7 ft MSL instead of the 343.0 ft MSL value determined from previously available data.2.4.1.2 Columbia River Tem eratures Water temperatures of the Columbia River have been recorded both above and below the site for many years.(13-18)
Tables 2.4-3 and 2.4-4 present the monthly average and extreme temperatures just below Priest Rapids Dam (1961-1974) and at Richland (1965-1974), respectively.
A comparison of monthly average temperatures between the two locations is shown in Figure 2.4-9.Monthly average temperatures at the two locations range from 1.5oC (34.7oF)to 20.2oC (68.4oF), with the lowest temperatures generally occurring in February and the highest in August.Average monthly temperatures for the 10-year period (1965-1974) range from 3.3oC (37.9oF)to 18.3oC (64.9oF)below Priest Rapids Dam and from 4.2oC (39.6oF)to 19.3oC (66.7oF)at Richland, indicating a slight warming.from Priest Rapids Dam to Richland.Average daily'emperatures at the two locations show a low of 0.3oC (32.5 F)and 2.4-3 Amendment.
4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER-OL a high of 20.2oC (68.4oF)below Priest Rapids Dam and a low of 0.2oC (32.4oF)and a high of 21.5oC (70.7oF)at Richland.A diurnal variation in water temperature of about 2.2oC (4oF)in the spring and summer, and 1.1oC (2oF)in the fall and winter, can be expected to occur as a result of diurnal reservoir discharge.var-iations from Priest Rapids Dam.The free flowing stretch of river along the Hanford reach responds more rapidly to thermal modification from both weather and industrial inputs than impounded regions.Hence, in this stretch of river, warming in the sumner and cooling in the winter occur more rapidly.Studies indicate that about 65K of the heat input in the Hanford reach of the river is dissipated by the time it reaches the Washington-Oregon border.(18)
The temperature rise from natural heating along the Hanford stretch during August and September is about 0.5 to 0.75oC (0.9 to 1.35oF).Upstream impoundments have influenced water temperatures by delaying the arrival of peak surmiser water temperatures, reducing supner water temperatures, and increasing winter water temperatures.
(>The (14)change in average annual water temperatures, however, has been less than 1oC (2oF)over the past 30 years.These tr ends are shown in Figure 2.4-10 for the years 1938-1972 at Rocky Reach Dam.The river has not frozen over in the Hanford reach during, at least, the last 25 4 years.The Columbia River has been thermally modified since 1944 by the operation of up to nine plutonium production reactors at Hanford.This modification was quite significant since the heat additions from man-made thermal energy sources were over 23,000 MW in 1964.A portion of the heat load was added directly to the river by reactor effluents at temperatures in excess of 85oC.In addition, numerous"warm springs" were created along the plant shoreline by disposing of warm wastewater in trenches that paralleled the shore.Only one reactor, 100-N, remains in operation at present.One-hour', 24-hour, and 7-day frequency duration curves projected for 1980 dam operations for high river water temperatures at the project site are shown in Figures 2.4-11 through 2.4-13.2.4-4 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2'R 2.4.1.3 Columbia River Water Qualit (7I 19/20)The water quality of the Columbia River is quite good.The Columbia River is classified as"Class A Excellent" from its mouth to Grand Coulee Dam by the Washington State Department of Ecology.This means that the water is generally satisfactory for use as water supply (domestic, industrial, agricultural), wildlife habitat, stock watering, general recreation and aesthetic enjoyment, commerce and navigation, and fish and shellfish reproduction, rearing and harvest.Applicable water quality stye(ards and regulations imposed by the State of Washington are presented in Section 5.1 and 5.3 A summary of mean and extreme values for important water quality parameters derived from measurements taken at different periods between 1957 and 1973 at~qlygtgg)locations in this region is presented in Table 2.4-5.'The Columbia River shows little change in mineralization from the International Boundary at Northport, Washington (River Mile 734), to the point of its confluence with the Snake River (River Mile 324).As it enters the United States from Canada it is a calcium bicarbonate type water with an average dissolved-solids concentration of approximately 90 mg/R (milligrams per liter).In samples collected daily at Northport since 1952, the dissolved-solids have ranged between 71-158 mg/R.The water'is moderately hard, ranging from 50-159 mg/2, in hardness.In the vicinity of the proposed project, the dissolved-solids have ranged between 70-154 mg/R, and the hardness between 55-85 mg/R.Mean dissolved oxygen (DO)levels in all reaches of the Columbia River from Northport to Pasco have an average value of about 10 mg/R;the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration reported was 6.8 mg/R at Pasco.The Washington Water Quality Standards impose that no wastes be discharged into the Columbia River that cause dissolved oxygen levels to fall below 9.5 mg/R above Grand Coulee Dam or 8.0 mg/R below Grand Coulee Dam.The average coliform count below Priest Rapids Dam is 131/100 mR which is much less than 240/100 mR imposed by the Washington State Water Quality Standards in this area.Turbidity in the river is very low, generally measuring less than 5 Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU).The pH is normally slightly alkaline (up to 8.6).The passage of water over the spillways of upstream dams has caused nitrogen supersaturation in the river water.Values of dissolved nitrogen in excess of 120%, of saturation have 2.4-5 Amendment 1 Mav 1978 WNP-2 ER been observed below Priest Rapids Dam and in the Hanford reach of the river.It is anticipated that increased flow regulation by new upstream dams vill decrease the amount of wate" spilled over the dam spillways, and as a consequence, decrease the nitrogen supersaturation problem.Table 2.4-6 shows the chemical characteristics of the river water measured at 100-F Area (River Mile 374)of the Hanford Reservation.(22)
A summary of water quality measurements of the river below Priest Rapids Dam (River Mile 395)for the 1972 water year is'presented in Table 2.4-7.(22)
Averages computed from these measurements are listed in Table 2.4-8.Samples for chemical analyses of Columbia River are taken routinely at Priest Rapids Dam, at Vernita, the 300 Area, and Richland.(23)
'Several investigations studied the effect of reactor effluent on chemical quality of the water.One report(24) includes analyses of river samples taken semi-monthly at Vernita (downstream of Priest Rapids Dam but upstream from the Hanford Reservation) and within the Hanford boundaries but downstream of reactor effluent discharges.
Other than hexavalent chromium, statistical comparison of the mean sample values showed no significant differences at the 90%confidence level in any of the species.2.4.1.4 Hanford Effluents Fourteen liquid effluent lines from Hanford facilities dis-charge their contents directly to the Columbia River.(25)
Pertinent data for each discharge are given in Table 2.4-9, and a summary of annual amounts of the principal chemical discharges is given in Table 2.4-10.At present, the only thermal discharges of sufficient magni-tude to affect Columbia River temperatures occur either from the 100-N Reactor or from the associated WPPSS Hanford Generating Plant (HGP)when the N Reactor is operating.
The largest heated stream arising from this operation is the cooling water from the HGP (Table 2.4-9), which has a thermal capacity of 3780 MW (megawatts) and an electrical capacity of 860 MW.The cooling water flow rate is 940 to 1260 cfs depending on incoming river temperature, and is discharged at 15 to 20'C (27 to 36'F)above ambient river temperature.
Surveys(26) of the thermal plume created by this discharge showed a maximum measured temperature increment in the plume of 4.5'C (8.1'F)with a river flow rate of 44,000 cfs, and a maximum increment of 2.5'C (4.5'F)at 100 yards downstream at, which point, the width of the plume becomes well mixed across the river width.Directly below an island some 2.4-6 WNP-2 ER 2.4.1.3 Columbia River Water Qualit The water quality of the Columbia River is quite good.(7, 19, 20)The Columbia River is classified as"Class A Excellent" from its mouth to Grand Coulee Dam by the Washington State Department.
of Ecology.This means that the water is generally satisfactory for use as water supply (domestic, industrial, agricultural), wildlife habitat, stock watering, general recreation and aesthetic enjoyment, commerce and navigation, and fish and shellfish reproduction, rearing and harvest.Applicable water quality stsp$ards and regulations imposed by the State of Washington are presented in Section 5.1 and 5.3 A summary of mean and extreme values for important water quality parameters derived from measurements taken at different periods between 1957 and 1973 at~qlygtg8)locations in this region is presented in Table 2.4-5.'The Columbia River shows little change in mineralization from the International Boundary at Northport, Washington (River Mile 734), to the point of its confluence with the Snake River (River Mile 324).As it enters the United States from Canada it is a calcium bicarbonate type water with an average dissolved-solids concentration of approximately 90 mg/R (milligrams per liter).In samples collected daily at.Northport since 1952, the dissolved-solids have ranged between 71-158 mg/R.The water is moderately hard, ranging from 50-159 mg/R in hardness.In the vicinity of the proposed project, the dissolved-solids have ranged between 70-154, mg/R, and the hardness between 55-85 mg/R.Mean dissolved oxygen (DO)levels in all reaches of the Columbia River from Northport to Pasco have an average value of about 10 mg/i;the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration reported was 6.8 mg/R at Pasco.The Washington Water Quality Standards impose that no wastes be discharged into the Columbia River that cause dissolved oxygen levels to fall below 9.5 mg/R above Grand Coulee Dam or 8.0 mg/R below Grand Coulee Dam.The average coliform count.below Priest Rapids Dam is 131/100 mR which is much less than 240/100 mk imposed by the Washington State Water Quality Standards in this area.Turbidity in the river is very low, generally measuring less than 5 Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU).The pH is normally slightly alkaline (up to 8.6).The passage of water over the spillways of upstream dams has caused nitrogen supersaturation in the river water.Values of dissolved nitrogen in excess of 120$of saturation have 2.4-5 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER been observed below Priest Rapids Dam and in the Hanford reach of"the river.It is anticipated that increased flow regulation by new upstream dams will decrease the amount of water spilled over the dam spillways, and as a consequence, decrease the nitrogen supersaturation problem.Table 2.4-6 shows the chemical characteristics of the river water measure)yt 100-F Area (River Mile 374)of the Hanford Reservation.
A summary of water quality measurements of (27 the river below Priest Rapids Dam (River Mily>pf)for the 1972 water year is presented in Table 2.4-7.Averages computed from these measurements are listed in Table 2.4-8.Samples for chemical analyses of Columbia River are taken routinely at (yjyst Rapids Dam, at Vernita, the 300 Area, and Richland.Several investigations studied the effect of reaqggy effluent on chemical quality of the water.One report includes analyses of river samples taken semi-monthly at Vernita (downstream of Priest Rapids Dam but upstream from the HanforB Reservation) and within the Hanford boundaries but downstream of reactor effluent discharges.
Other than hexavalent chromium, statistical comparison of the mean sample values showed no significant differences at the 90%confidence level in any of the species.2.4.1.4 Hanford Effluents Fourteen liquid effluent lines from Hanford facilities gis-(2)charge their contents directly to the Columbia River.Pertinent data on quantities and contituents for each discharge are given in Table 2.4-.9, and a summary of annual amounts of the principal chemical discharges is given in Table 2.4-10.At present, the only thermal discharges of sufficient magni-tude to affect Columbia River temperatures occur either from the 100-N Reactor or from the associated WPPSS Hanford Generating Plant (HGP)when the N Reactor is operating.
The largest heated stream arising from this operation is the cooling water from the HGP (River Mile 380), which has a thermal capacity of 3780 MW (megawatts) and an electrical capacity of 860 MW.The cooling water flow rate is 940 to 1260 cfs depending on incoming river temperature, and is discharged at 19 to 24'C (35 to 43'F)above ambient river temperature (Table 2.4-9).The calculated temperature increment for complete mixing (about 2>/2 miles downstream) at the minimum river flow rate of 36,000 cfs would be 0.6'C (1.1'F).During operation, N Reactor, immediately downstream from HGP, discharges a cooling water stream of about 140 cfs, with a temperature up+o 16 C (28.8'F)above ambient river tem-perature, to the river.This discharge increases the river 2.4-6 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER temperature by only 0.14'C (0.25'F)at the minimum river flow rate of 36,000 cfs and 0.0(2C)(0.08'F) at the average river flow rate of 120,000 cfs.Chemicals are released to the Columbia River at three loca-tions: 1)(2$)e 100-N Area, 2)the 100-K Area, and 3)the 300 Area.The primary source of chemicals released to the river is the 100-N Reactor operation.
The quantities of chemicals released are shown in Table 2.4-10.In addition to these chemicals, impurities removed from the river water by the treatment plants also are returned to the river.The intermittent filter backwash contains suspended solids, principally an aluminum hydroxide floe, plus an accumulation of suspended solids removed from the raw river water during the filtration process.Several of the smaller effluent streams, consisting largely of treated water, may contain free chlorine at concentrations up to a maximum of 1 mg/i.Other chemical concentrations in treated water are mostly the result of use of alum (aluminum sulfate)and small quantities of polyacrylamide filter aids in the water filtration plant.While the production reactors which were cooled directly with river water have been shutdown, the Hanford reservation still has several sources of low level radioactive effluents.
These include cooling water at 100-N, animal farm waste at 100-F and 300 Areas, and trituim migrating to(Qy river with groundwater from the 200 Area disposal sites.2.4.2 Groundwater The Hanford Reservation is underlain by three principal rock types, from top to bottom: 1)unconsolidated silts, sands, and gravels;2)semiconsolidated lake and stream sediments (Ringold formation);
and 3)doggy, hard basalt which forms the bedrock beneath the area.The lithologic character and water bearing properties of the several geologic units occurring in the Hanford area are summarized in Table 2.4-11.In general, groundwater in the superficial sediments occurs under unconfined conditions, while water in the basalt bedrock occurs mainly under confined conditions.
In some areas the lower zone of the Ringold formation is a confined aquifer, separated from the unconfined aquifer by thick clay beds, and possesses a distinct hydraulic potential.
Figure 2 shows a simplified geological cross section of the Hanford Reservation.
Wells 699-9-E2, 699-10-E12, 699-14-E6, shown in this figure are located in the vicinity of the project site..5-14 The Ellensburg Formation (beds between basalt flows)and Ringold Formation beds are flood-plain and shallow lake deposits.The glacio-fluvial sediments are largely the result of several catastrophic floods.These sediments 2.4<<7 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER (actually Pasco Gravels)are about 100 times as permeable as the Ringold Formation gravels, both of which exist at the plant site.The average field permeabilities, determined by a variety of'ethods, for the Ringold Formation gravel, the glaciofluvial sediments (Pasco Gravels)and mixes of the two are given in Table 2.4-12.The values were obtained on ma-terials comparable to those at the FFTF and WNP-2 sites and, of course, are appreciably higher than at sites where the Touchet Silts and Ringold Silts and clays predominate.
The median specific yield or available porosity is estimated to range between 4.8 to 11%and the average effective porosity is about 9%.From 1944 through 1972, the Hanford chemical processing plants gischarged to the ground over 130 billion gallons (4 x 10 acre-ft)of wastewater and cooling water with a profound effect on the regional water table.Figure 2.4-15 shows the unconfined water table contours over the area interpreted from measurements in September 1973.It also indicates the locations of wells.As shown in this figure, the impermeable aquifer boundaries are the Rattlesnake Hills, Yakima Ridge, and Umtanum Ridge on the west.and southwest sides of the Reservation.
Gable Mountain and Gable Butte also impede the groundwater flow.The current estimate of the, maximum saturated thickness of the unconfined aquifer is about 230 ft.In the vicinity of the project site this thickness is approximately 100 ft to 160 ft.The depth to the water table varies greatly from place to place depending chiefly on local topography, rang-ing from less than one to more than 300 ft below the land surface.The ground surface is about 60 to 70 ft above the water table at the WNP-2 Site.The groundwater flows to the Columbia River in a direction perpendicular to the contour lines shown in Figure 2.4-15.Groundwater flow near the river up to 3 miles jg$ynd is affected by seasonal river stage fluctuations.
2.4-8 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER 4 The natural recharge due to precipitation over the low lands of the Hanford Reservation is not measurable.
The major artificial recharge of groundwater to the unconfined aquifer occurs near the 200 East and 200 West Areas.As is clearly shown in Figure 2.4-15, the large volumes of process water disposed to ponas at this site have causea the formation of significant mounds in the water table.Upon reaching the water table, chemical and radioactive contaminants from the 200 Area disposal sites are convected in the direction of groundwater movement.Nitrate (NO3)(>9ag8) tritium (H)ions had reached the project site in 1972.Hyggver, the plume of gross beta.emitters calculated as (Ru)does not reach the site at(Qy present time and is not likely to do so in the f uture.East of the Columbia River is a very intensive 500,000 acre irrigated farming area (Columbia Basin Project area).The water table in that region is 40 to 60 ft higher than the river elevation.
The water table in the region be$ggyn Eltopia and Pasco has risen 40 to 60 ft since 1960 due to an increase in irrigation in the area.Although no specific studies have been conducted, it is apparent from the water table elevations.that the flow of water is into the Columbia River.Xt is believed that there is a hydrau-lic connection between the unconfined aquifers under the Hanford Reservation and under the Columbia Basin project area.Groundwater east of the Columbia River may be contamin by the agricultural activities.
However, the Columbia River acts as a discharge boundary for the unconfined aquifers.An underground disposal site for radioactive wastes is located immediately adjacent to the northwest corner of the WNP-2 site (Figure 2.1-3).The disposal site covers an area of 8.6 acres and was used between 1962 and 1967 to dispose of a broad spectrum of low-to high-level~gy)ioactive wastes, primarily fission products and plutonium.
Cartoned low-level waste was buried in trenches, and medium to high-level waste was buried in caissons or pipe facilities.
The buried wastes are approximately 45 ft above the water table.atea The points of groundwater withdrawal in the vicinity of the WNP-2 site are shown in Figure 2.4-16.Two on-site wells draw from the unconfined aquifer in the Ringold formation and a third well penetrates the confined aquifer in the underlying basalt flows.During construction these wells supply potable/sanitary water requirements and provide water to support construction activities (concrete, dust control, pipe flushing, fire suppression, etc.).Well water consumption for these purposes is not expected to exceed 10,000 gpd for the balance of construction.
For tne operating phase, the wells will provide potable and service water to the plant auring outages.The design is for a peak requirement of 250 gpm although average usage should be less than 20 gpm.When the plant's operating,-
'normal water supply will be from the river and the wells will serve as a stand-by supply for service and supplemental fire protection.
2.4-9 Amendment 3 January 1979 WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.4-1 COLUNBEA RIVER MILE INDEX River Mouth Bonneville Dam The Dalles Dam John Day Dam McNary Dam Snake River Descri tion Yakima River WNP-2 Intake and Dischar e Proposed WNP-1 and 4 intake and Discharge Existing Hanford Generating Plan" Priest Rapids Dam Wanapum Dam Rock island Dam Wenatchee River Rocky Reach Dam Chelan River Wells Dam Chief Joseph Dam Grand Coulee Dam Spokane River United States-Canadian Boundary River Mile 0.0 146.1 191.5 215.6 292.0'24.2 335.2 351.75 351.85 380.0 397.1 415.8 453.4 468.4 473.7 503.3 515.6 545.1 597.6 638.9 745.0 TABLE 2.4-2 MEAN DISCHARGES IN CFS, OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, WA 1970 Conditions t:acer Tear 1928 1929 1930 82300$7900 76400 89800 101100 102700 103000 93500 Occ.Ltne.Dec.Jan.108000 90700 72600 83100 85200 12500 Nav 62000 81700 June 71300 90200~Jul 224000 87600 93800 90900 94300 92700 109900 97000 97600 86900 90100~Au-Se t.Annual L931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1935 1937 1939 1'939 19'$6doo$7%00$9doo 100600 62000 90200 6 7600$9300$3400 85800 89600 88100 69700 104200 72400 86200 67500 83100 17100 85400 100000 102000 102700 128000 109200 107900 105400 88700 91700 90500 82200 95000 126800 139600 132100 119>>00 96600 111000 1'27200 133200 90800 109200 167100 203400 132000 79800 100600 124100 90400 98000 SSCOO 77800 97900 196 700 111300 80400 84COO 86800 83000 89200 74SOO 90700 118900 243100 117600 81500 63500 110700 108500 110700 81700 104000 157500 156700 185900 196600 221200 168800 147500 156900 160500 123300 70>>00 76900 142400 146800 100000 112400 89700 101700 102200 74600 180300 104500 131!00 83400 87800 154100 95500 94100 99400 91900 121900 100000 99300 93200'02SOO 90>>00 96 900 96000 85900 90>>00 90600 102300 100200 130000 101000 150900 o6900 115700 89'00 99600 91500 81900 89200 109700 90900 96400 91600 97200 19>>l 19>>2 19>>3 19C4 1945$4300 96000 87900 81300 90100 19600 82700 65800 77200 90900 92500 91400 86800 96800 103600 99400 114100 10$600 99300 88500 92200 119000 1$0600 110600 94000 81900 84600 116000 78700 86500 137400 76900 73200 115900 105300 148400 132400 202600 134300 8S200 88000 69100 77800 112800 67800 84000 101400 147700 81200 88800 91500 102000 101300 94600 99300 88100 90600 88300 10>>100 89900 1'L8300 84400 87400 87400-90600 1946 1947 19>>9 19'1950 1951 1952 l 953 19$>>1955 19S6!9$7 1959..ean 86200 79doo 94100 SSOOO 19000 85700 81300 96000 83600 69500 92500 93100 113900 97700 106600 95600 116000 113200 126000 123300 117 100 137800 202800 114000 155200 91800 94200 85500 83600 98700 102600 112200 103900 110300 126600 87900 98800 83900 69800 103400 223400 155200 124800 153600 143900 115'00 126500 95500 122 100 132400 206500 145100 123700 108100 132100 120200 95700 87400 ll 00 94500 8'2900 75'200 97000 109400 d3300 sleoo e41oo 1ol 7oo 1132oo 1321oo 90600 135200 166700 80000 145400 ledloo 113300 87800 13S200 102700 200600 101200 107300 109600 91100 112500 85500.121500 LO190O 1496OO 87800 110200 96200 136COO 134SOO 136300 194700 82 700 211900 9>>COO 89900 122900 92200 llCSOO 178100 170900 LSC400 163400 193400 257600 166COO 181600 197500 200200 112200 155900 137700 123000 136 COO LL0303 esloo 99000 163600 111900 174300 145100 141400 228COO 193300 195600 1346OO 98700 124200 110500 188800 171300 172400)35800 174000 168300 191200 224900 104300 161800 91700 144900 85900 121900 89200 112700 114400 14 5100 91OOO 12$OOO 103600 89000 2 00400 120900 90700 152400 86900 119000 173500 113600 125000 245800 212600 182700 176500 172800 172900 119000 L47900 lt 7200 132800 102400 9!800 11>>100 WNP-2 TABLE 2.4-3 MONTHLY AVERAGE WATER TEMPERATURE I IN C, AT PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, WA (>)Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 Jan Fe 5.4 4.7 4~1 3.6 5.3 3.8 5.5 4.6 Mar~Ar 4.7 7.4 3.6 6.5 4.6 6.5 4.7 7.2 M~a 10.4 10.0 10.4 9.7 Month Jun Ju 13.7 17.3 13.7 16.1 14.0 16.6 12.8 15.3 AucC 18.9 17.4 18.4 17.1 17.8 14.9 10.4 17.1 14.8 11.9 18.3 16.3 11.9 16.3 14.6 10.8 Annual D A~6.6 11.0 8.9 10.6 7.7 11.2 6.3 10.4 1965 1966 1967 1968~1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 4.4 3.3 4.1 4.8 4.1 4.5 5.9 5.7 5.0 4.6 3.3 4.6 2.4 1.5 3.4 4.3 4.1 4.8 4.0 3.5 3.6 3.6 1.9 4.0 2.3 2.9 4.8 4.0 3.0 4.9 6.6 7.8 6.8 7.1 7~2 6~8 6.6 7~2 7.7 F 7 10.0 13.3 10.6 12.4 10.1 13.3 11.1 13.4 10.8 14.6 10.9 14.8 10.7 12.6 10.6 12.9 12.5 15.4 10.8 13.6 16.1 18.4 15.3 17.5 16.1 18.5 16.1 17.5 17.1 18.2 18.0 19.2 15.3 18.4 15.2 17.3 17.6 18.8 17.2 18.7 17.3 17.5 18.2 17.2 17.7 17.5 17.2 16.8 17.8 18.4 15.3 11.9 14.6 11.6 15.4 11.3 14.2'0.9 14.8 11.5 15.2 10.6 15.2 11.3 15.4 11.3 15.2 10.3 15.5 11.8 7.8 10.7 8.4 10.8 7.2 11.1 6.8 10.6 7.6 10.6 6.2 11.0 6.8 10.4 7.3 10.3 7.7 11.1 8.6 11.2 Average 1965-74 4.0 3.3 4.4 7.2 10.8 Minimum Daily 0.3 0.3 2.2 4.3 7.5 Maximum Daily 7.6'.2 6.9 10.1 14.6 10.6 13.1 16.6 15.3 12.2 7.7 2'17.1 19.3 20.2 20.0 18.7 14.4 10.5 13.6 16.4 18.3 17.6 15.1 11.3 7.4 10.8 measurement errors and missing data.
WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.4-4 MONTHLY AVERAGE WATER TEMPERATURE, IN C, AT RICHLAND, WA~cl)Year 1963 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Jan 6.1 5.9 7.4 5.7 2.7 5'4.2 3.3 3.2 3.2 Fc Md r'.4 6.3 6.2 6.8 7.0 6.6 5.0 6.0 1.9 4.3 4.9 5.7 3.4 3.8 2.2 3.7 3.0 4.7 3.2 5.2 A~r 9.1 10.3 8.8 8.8 8.0 7.9 7.0 7.0 7.8 8.2 Month M~a Jun 11.0 14.2 12.1 13.5 12.0 13.9 12.8 14.3 11.4 15.3 11.7 15.4 11.1 12.9 11.0'3.3 12.9 15.6 11.3 13.7 Ju 17.3 16.2 17.0 17.0 17.9 19.0 16.4 15.5 18.3 17.4 Aucu 19.8 18.8 20.2 18.7 19.3 19.9 19.5 18.1 19.6 19.4~Sc Oct 18.5 16.4 19.4 15.6 19.4 16.1 18.3 15.0 18.6 15.2 17.5 14'17.8 15.0 16.9 14.0 18.3 15.0 18.8 15.4 Nov Dec 12.6 8.4 12.6 9~5 12.0 7.8 11.4 7.4 11.7 7.0 10.6 5.9 10.7 6.2 10.5 6.,'1 9.9 7.6 11.5 7.9 Annual A~12.1 12.2 12.4 11.7 11.1 11.6 10.7 10.1 11.3 11.3 Avcragc 1965-74 Minimum Daily Maximum Daily 4.2 5,3 8.3 11.7 14.2 17.2 19.3 18.4 15.3 11 F 4 7.4 11.4 0.7 2.4 5.1 8.6 11.2 14.2 17.3 14.6 11.1 7.7 2.4 8.3 8.6 12.8 15.0 17.7 20.4 21.5 21.1 18.5 15~9 11~3 a Rccor s s ncc Junc 1964.
TABLE 2.4-5 Northport, WA (River Mile 734)
SUMMARY
OF WATER QUALITY DATA FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER AT SELECTED SITES Coliform Color Ortho D.P.T MPN/PT-CO Hard.Turbidity PO4-P NO3-N (mc(/1)('C)100 mt.pH Units~(m/1)(JTU)(mc(/1)(mc(/1)Mean Minimum Maximum Wenatchee, WA-(River Mile 471)11.5 10.2 14.3 9 8 385 7 6 4 0.0 36 6.6 0 21.0 ,2,000 8.5 30 78 50 159 17 0 32 0.05 0.00 0.18 0.05 0.00 0.40 Mean Minimum Maximum Columbia River below Rock Island Dam (River Mile 451)11.8 8.0 15.5 11.0 2.5 21.6 310 8.0 5 2 6 9 0 7,300 8.6 25 66 50 112 4 0 25 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.00 0'4 Mean Minimum Maximum Columbia River below Priest Rapids Dam (River Mile 395).12.3 10.6 691 7.8 8 93 15 10 6~4 3 15.9 19.6 8,000 8.4 30 82 55 132 4~1 32 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.73 Mean Minimum Maximum Columbia River, Pasco, WA (River Mile 330)11.9 11.4 9.5 1.8 15.9 19.2 131 7.7 5-0 6 5 0 2,000 8.5 33 69 55 81 3 0 29 0.08 0.01 0.15 0.10 0.02 1.50 Mean Minimum Maximum 10.8 12.2 6.8 3.0 14.3 22.0 182 8.1 8 1 6 8 0 4,800 8.6 68 73 40 90 15 0 140 0.1 0.19 0.01 0 F 05 0.02 0.37 TABLE 2.4-6 CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COLUMBIA RIVER WATER AT 100 F--1970 (RESULTS IN PARTS/MILLION)
McC 1/6 6.0 0.03 1/20 4.0 0.01 2/3 5.0 0.01 2/17 5.0 0.01 3/3 5.4 0.02 3/17 6.2 0.03 3/31 6.2 0.07 4/14 4.4 0.22 4/28 6.3 0.12 5/12 5.5 0.02 6/16 4'0.00 7/21 4.2 0.09 8/4 3.9 0.02 8/18 4.0 0.03 9/8 4.8 0.03 9/22 5.3 0.02 10/6 4.0 0.03 10/20 5.4 0.02 11/3 5.3 0.01 11/16 4.9 0.02 12/1 3.8 0.01 12/15 6.6 0.01 Annual 5 p p p4 Average NA indicates there was Diss Phth 0 Alk-2-MO Alk-4 SO PO CI 0.00 0.33 0.05 0.36 2.0 68.2.0 71.2.0 69.2.0 68.1.0 65.1.0 65.2.0 69.1.0 66.1.0 70.2.0 72.2.0 56.1.0 61.15.0.002 20.0.004 22.15.7.8 0.002 21.13.0.06 0.33 12.19.0.004 22.0.01 0.33 11.8.3 0.002 22.17.0.04 0.26 0.02 0.50 13.0.02 0.39 12.0.004 19.0.005 20.17.17.0.002 24.20.0.05 0.60 12.12.0.02 0.56 24.0.005 22.0.02 25.0.01 22.0.007 23.23.0.005 0.40 12.0.04 0.29 11.13.15.9.6 0.02 0.16 70.70;0.007 25.17.0.02 0.46 9.6.1.0 1.0 8.9 0.02 0.26 0.08 0.43 0.03 0.26 0.02 0.66 13.0.004 24.0.005 23.3.0 70.2.0 63.2.0 66.0.0 92.2'70.6.0 69.15.9.0 9.4 0.002 17.13.0.003 21.20 8.2 0.01 0.32 11.0.006 16~0.001 19.0.003 20.12.0.11 ,0.49 0.11 0.58 18.NA 9.8 15.Hard-ness 74.73.72.75.76.73.76.77.82.85.68.76.78.77.77.65.70.66 68.70.0.002 20.16.0.01 0.46 NA 2.0 66.65.0.000 18.0.006 22'6.16.0.11 0.53 NA 0.04 0.40 10.2.0 76.1.8 68'3.74.no analysis made.Analysis was made from sing grab samples.Solids 93.84.100 100 96.81.81.100 120 100 74.75.86.110 73.87.99.80.80.86.92.97.90.
TABLE 2.4-7a
SUMMARY
OF WATER QUALITY ANALYSES OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDS DAM (RIVER MILE 395)FOR 1972 WATER YEAR TDTAI.DISSOLVED DISSOLVED DISSOLVED DISSOLVED ALKALINITY DISSOLVED DISSOLVEO KJELDAHL INSTANTANEOUS CALCIUM MAGNESIUM SODIUM POTASSIUM SICARSONATE AS SUlfATE CHLORIDE NITROGEN DISCHARGE (CII (M9I (NSI (KI (HC03(CSC03 (504((CD (NI DATE TIME (CFSI QSGIU.IMGJU (MGIU (MG(U (MGJU (MGIU (MGIU (MGIU (MGIU OCTO SER ll 1630 N NID NOVDISER 08 NIO LS LKO DECOISER D 1515 27 TNO JAMJARY 24 1350 FESRUARY 07 195 21 D50 JAARCH'1410 27 N30 APRII.10 N(0 24 D25 NlAY 08 NZS 22 TNO JUNE 12 NID 26 N35 JULY 10 14(0 24 1530 AUGUST 07 1%0 21 1440 SEPTEMBER ll 1410 25 1510 IDS(TO 01((XI IOI(m ID(QXI I07(xo 135m 17?m DI(TO ZISm 13QXI Irs(XO 3Nm 241m 107(XO IIKOO (44m 131mO 020(O 19 10 10 19 21 20 21 22 21 21 21 20 21 16 ll 0 18 18 18 19 18 4.2 4.2 K2 24 4.1 2.0 4.S-?.1 4.9 2.3 4.8"?.0 4.7~ZI 4.9 4.9 2.1 ZI 4,8 4.0 3.0 Z,4 4.0 2.5 4.4 2.1 xe 3.7 LI LS 3.6 3.8 Le Lr ZI L9 IA 2.3 4.0 2.1 LO Xl Ll Ls ar Ll a&Ll LZ LO 0.0 L4 1.0 0.7 a0 (18 ar 0.8 O.l 0,7 G.l 0.0 74 13 N 72 re 75 78 82 16 68 6(65 es or el IZ 1 s aIZ 60 13 2,0 (L13 el u ar acs 59 11 ZD 0.79 e?ls LO a02 62 13 L9 als 63 16 66 xs 62 15 56-14 52 53 0.5 9.8 Ie 52 16&,6 53 55 9.6 9.5 sl 51 9.8 II~LZ (130 L2 0.31 a6 ((14 (L19 0,6 al0 0,9 a30 LS 0,93 0,1 0.37 LO 0,84 LO 0.16 a3 0.24 a0 070 L3 O.Il 0.6 0 13 es-14 xl 0.12 6!14 Ll a OS 67: 14 L8 0,13 TABLE 2.4-7b (sheet 2 of 3)D ISSDLVEO OISSOLVEO DISSOLVED AMMONIA DISSOLVED ORTHO TOTAL SOLIDS NITRITE NITROGEN NITRATE PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHORUS (RESIDUE HARDNESS NONCARBONATE SPEC(f(C UD 00 (NI (P)(PI AT IBBOCI (Ca MB(HARDNESS CONDUCTANCE PH DATE (MGRJ UAGIU (MGIU (MGIIJ (MGILI (MGILI UAGIU (MGJIJ (MICROMHOSI (UN(ISI OCTOBER ll 18 NOVEMBER 08 15 DECEMBER 0 27 JANUARY 24 f EBRUARY 07 21 MARCH 0 27 APRIL 10 24 MAY 08 n JUNE 12 26 JULY 10 24 AUGUST 07 21 SEPTEMBER ll 25 (Lm QOS Qll 0.01D a(m ao6 ao7 QDID Q(03 Qol 0,16 0020 Qolo 0.21 Q31 0020 QDID aol a?0 QDID Qolo Q(O (L?5 0,020 a(ED am a4s amo QOTD Qol (L(H O.m a(m aos ale amo 0010 (105 Q32 QOXI aolo ao7 T.s aolo Qolo (103 QI4 (Lo?0 aolo aos am QDID Qm Q05 QO4 IL010 acm a os ao7 aolo Qolo (130 LI a(XO a(OI Qos 0.10 Qolo a(03 ale als aolo aolo ao?an amo aolo ao(aoe ao(0 Qolo Q24 Qlo 0.010 Q(m 0 0l Q 10 a(EO aolo 3m a31 aolo 0030 amo 88 Te 112 Q 060 152 ao70 136 154 Hl QOTO (1020 112 70 ao?0 Q020 104 I(H 0.010 Q030 Qo(0 134 0.030 112 65 65 75 n 73 73 55 58 63 62 11 5 8 10 ll 8 145 145 151 348 171 165 156 159 164 370 128 134 150 135 140 IYI 7.8 7.8-7.7 7.8 7.4 7.6 7.6 7.8 P.S 8,0 ao ao 7.8 7.6 7.7 7.6 8.1 7.9 a?8.5 TABLE 2.4-7c (sheet 3 of 3)COlOR IMMEDIATE OISSOLVEO OISSDLVEO DISSOLVED TOTAL DISSOLVED IP (AT I NUM DISSOLVED COLIFORM CHR(BIIIUM COPPER LEAD MERCURY ZINC TEMPERATURE COBALT TURBIDIIY OXYGEN (COL.PER (Cr(ICu)(PBI U49((Z(0 OAIE (DEG CI UNITSI (JTUI (MGIU lEIMU (UG(U (UGIU (UG/LI iUGIU LUG(0 OCTOBER ll IB NOVEMBER 08 15 DECEMBER D 27 JAWARY 28 FEBRUARY 07 21-MARCH D 27 APRIL ID 24 MAY 08 JUNE 12 26 JULY ID 24 AUGUST 07 21 SEPTEMBER 11 25 17.9 15.1 1(LS 1LT L?.5.2 LB Ld 4.7 RI'7.8 , IQO 9.4 ILT 13.1 I'k6 152 17.5 19.2 UL9 18.7 14.8 12 5 12 21 33 16 18 12 9.9~UN 2., Lao 2xo ,2 2 2 1L7 SD 1 RS 2 IL2 2 EL$30 LO IL6 LL4 40 7 K9 4$M.4 2M 3" lL3 NTI LL3 (30 9 LL8¹Xl 29 IL0 400 5 RB?00 RO ILd 4(0 (3(O 1 10.1 400 1 ILO'20-2 IL3 110 2 IL0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,1 Q3 3 (LS 3 (LB Q3 9 Ql 8 O,d 3 02 5 ao 5 (L3 To 5.3 a7 5 0,2 5 QB 2.01 2 ad 2 10 4 L3 1 25 1 2.LI 10 30 0 WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.4-8 AVERAGE CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER AT PRIEST RAPIDS DAM, OCTOBER 1971 TO SEPTEMBER 1972 Chemical Calcium Magnesium Sodium Potassium Chromium Copper Lead Total Mecury Zinc Bicarbonate-Sulfate Chloride Kjeldahl Nitrogen Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Nitrate Nitrogen Ortho-Phosphorus Total Phosphorus Total Alkalinity Hardness Noncarbonate Hardness Specific Conductance pH Dissolved Solids Color Concentration 19.(mg/R)4.3 (mg/R)2.1 (mg/R)1.4 (mg/R)0 2.6 (pg/R)8.0 (pg/R)0.9 (pg/R)32.0 (pg/R)72.(mg/R)13.(mg/R')l.5 (mg/R).29 (mg/I).07 (mg/E).006 (mg/R).26 (mg/R).013 (mg/a).037 (mg/R)59.(mg/R)66.(mg/R)06.8 (mg/R)158.(micro-mhos) 7.8 (units)107.'mg/R)15.(platinum-cobalt units)
TABLE 2.4-9 DISCHARGE LINES TO COLUMBIA RIVER FROM HANFORD RESERVATION Are4 100 BIC 100-0/C 100 Ke and KN 300-Xe and KN 100 N Dischar~Lines 12-in.steel pipe I2-ln.steel p)Pe Tvo SI-in.steel pipes Dischar~Rates cfs 1.2 6.000 gallons 5,000 gallons 3 tines 4 ye4r 15,000 gallons 3 tines a day Vse Backtlush punp inlet screens Drains and tilter backvash Backtlush punp inlet screens Drains, overtlov and cooling vater for conpressors and punps Backf lush pusp inlet screens Anb(ent 2.0'C, above~bow anbient Anb(ent 2 O'C abow anbient Anbient Other Potential water lit tftects None-untreated rav river vater Total Sot(di, Turbidity, Alon(nun, Sulfate, Chloride None-untreated river water Total Solids, Turbidity, Alusinun, Sulfate, Chloride, Chlorine (0.2S sxl/tl None-untreated river vater 100 N 3-by I-ft concrete chute 100 N 100 N 42-in.steel pipe 66-in.pipe to 12-ft concrete>>tlune on riverbank 100-N 102-in.steel pipe NPPSS 132 in.steel pipe 300 300 1I-in.concrete pipe tern)sating as~30-in.half-round corregated natal pipe 36 in.steel pipe 300 12-in.steel pips 100-D.'DR 12-in.steel pipe 100-D/DR Two I1-in.steel pipes 0.01 1IO 300 (extrenes lto and Ilo cfs)')IO vhen river<25>>C 1260 vhen riwr>>2S'c I.~(2.2 to 22)2 2 (4verags)0~01 1.1 (0~OI to 2.3)6.000 gallons once 4 sooth 6 to 12/day batches of 12,000 gallons Overflov fran filtered vater and raw vater storage tanks, conden-sate tron bed(un pressure stean systea>>filter backvash ylltered vater overflbv, and vesta tron tloor drains Turbine condenser cooling vater and graphite heat exchanger cool-ing vater Stean condenser cooling vater Stean condenser cooling water Backf lush punp inlet screens once a nonth tilter backvash and process coolant and vash)water, hydrau-lic test loop vaterl tilter backvash (fron vater treat-nsnt plant)Air conditioner cooling vater and tloor drains Drainage tron root and parking lot.tanks for aquatic organ(ass 11 to 20'C above anbient I to O'C above 4nbient 16'C above~nbient S.S>>C above ann(ant 1S to 20>>C~bove anbient Ann(ant 2.0'C above anbient Anb(ent 25>>C above ann(eat 2 to 3'C~bove anb(ent Total Solids, Asnon(~(as vali as radio-active vesta)Chlorine (O.OS ng/1)Turbidity Sulfate, Chloride, Chlorine (O.OS ng/tl-Aluninun, Turbidity Turbidity, Annonia, Sultate, tron.Sod(un.(occasionally 0.3 ng/t orthophosphatel.
Chlorine-2 to Io ppb (Sane 44 4bove)None-untreated river vater Total Solids, Turbidity, A)un(nun, Sulfate, Choride, Chlorine (0.1I ng/I)(naxinun 2.2 ng/t)Total Solids, Turbidity, Alon(nun, Sulfate, Separon (a proprietary polyacrylanide filter a(d)Chlorine (O.S ng/I)Alon)nun, Sulfate.Chlorine (>>0.5 ng/tl Total Solids.Turbidity.
Organic nitrogen WNP-2 ER TABLE 2.4-10 TOTAL ANNUAL DIRECT CHEMICAL DISCHARGE FROM HANFORD RESERVATION TO COLUMBIA RIVER Materials Aluminum Sulfate Chlorine Polyacrylamide Salt (rock)Sodium Dichromate Sulfuric Acid Ammonium Hydroxide Hydrazine Morpholine Sodium Hydroxide Quantity from All Facilities (tons)260 20 0.8 22 650 60 l.5 230 TABLE 2.4-11 MAJOR GEOLOGIC UNITS IN THE HANFORD RESERVATION AREA AND THEIR WATER BEARING PROPERTIES
~Sstam Series Geolo ic Unit Fluviatile and glacio-fluviatile sediments and the Touchet forma-tion.(0-200 ft thick)Material Sands and gravels occur-ing chiefly as glacial outwash.Unconsolidated, tending toward coarse-ness and angularity of grains, essentially free of fines.Water-Bearin Pro erties Where below the water table, such deposits have very high permeability and are capable of storing vast amounts of water.Highest permeability value determined was 12,000 ft/day.Quaternary Pleistocene Palouse soil (0-40 f t thick)Ringold formation (200-1,200 ft thick)Wind deposited silt.Well-bedded lacustrine silts and sands and local beds of clay and gravel.Poorly sorted, locally semi-consolidat-ed or cemented.Gener-ally divided into the lower"blue clay" por-tion which contains con-siderable sand and gravel, the middle con-glomerate portion, and the upper silts and fine sand portion.Occurs everywhere above the water table.Has relatively low permeability; values range from'1 to 200 ft/day.Storage capa-city correspondingly
!low.In very minor part, a few beds of gravel and sand are sufficiently clean that permeability is moderately large;on the other hand, some beds of silty clay or clay are essentially impermeable.
Miocene and Pliocene Columbia River basalt series.(>10,000 ft thick)Rocks of unknown age, type, and structure.
Basaltic lavas with interbedded sedimentary rocks, considerably de-formed.Underlie the unconsolidated sedi-ments.Probable metasediments and metavolcanics.
Rocks are generally dense except for numer-ous shrinkage cracks, interflow scoria zones, and interbedded sediments.
Permeability of rocks is small (e.g., 0.002 to 9 ft/day)but transmissivity of a thick section may be con-siderable (70 to 700 ft2/day)
NNP-2 ER TABLE 2.4-12 AVERAGE FIELD PERMEABILITY (FT/DAY)Tested Pumping Tests Specific Capacity Tests Tracer Cyclic Tests Fluctuations Gradient Method Glaciofluvial 1700-9000 (gravels)1300-900 8000 2200-7600 Glacial and 120-670 Ringold (gravels)130-530 130-800 Ringold (gravels)1-200 8-40 20-66 13-40 Amendment 1 May 1978
'ANADA UNITED STATES Northport Grand Coulee Oam Wells Oam'I SPOKANE RI VER Rocky Reach Dam Rock Island Dam Spokane I Lower Granite Dam RIVER I Hanfor Reservation Ri chl n Lewiston Pasco Wanapum Dam Priest Rapids Dam Lower Monumental Dam g Little Goose Dam John Day Oam The Oalles Dam COLUMBIA RIVER Kennewick McNary Dam Ice Harbor Oam Hei OREGON DANS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN AEC TEMPERATURE MONITORING STATIONS OTHER TEMPERATURE STATIONS WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~2 UPPER AND MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN Environmental Report FIGHT 2'-1 300 PERIOD: 1929-1958 1970 COND IT IONS 200 CD CD CD.LaJ CO OC C/l CD 100 MONTHL Y ANNUAL 0 0 20 40.60 80 PERCENT OF TIME-EQUALED OR EXCEEDED 100 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~, 2 Environmental Report DISCHARGE DURATION CURVES OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST"RAPIDS DAM, WA FIG.2.4-2 0 9'0 0 ff'Q M N Q Q C)C)1000 500 99.8 99.5 99 EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY PER HUNDRED YEARS 95 90 80 50 20 10 5 2 td&%PC Ocn 0'd 8 n QMC MOW 0'0 Cd%H Un R MOC UCt P 3'WZ H Q P 3'a PAR M t3 LU 200 CD 10<)PERIOD:-1913-1965 1970 CONDITIONS 10 50 500 EXCEEDENCE INTERVAL, YEARS W PO 0 CA Q A Co p+C OV 300 200 100 PERIOD OF RECORD 1929-1958 1970 CONDITIONS HIGH FLOWS EAN 114,100 CFS 12 MONTHS PERIOD 1 MONTH.3 MONTHS 6 MONTHS 12 MONTHS H Q W 0 C 0 M 2e 0%0 AgO H C M%4l-3 td W 500 U P~R MWH H A UWR e5 0 LU 50 cC V)Cl LOW FLOWS 1.5 2 3 5 10 RECURRENCE INTERVAL, YEARS 20 30 50 6 MONTHS 3 MONTHS 1 MONTH E 342.2 MSL M1LE 352 10 E 342.0 MSL M1LE 351.8 10 MlLE 351.5~E*34L7 MSL 10 Ml LE 351.3 E-341.5 MSL P 10 COLUMB lA R1 VER 0'36, 000 CF S 200 400 600 800 1000 DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK, ft WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report CROSS SECTIONS OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER IN THE PLANT VICINITY FIG~2.4-5 E1 5500 E16000 E1 6500 E1 7000 H Q FO I Ch hiMQ 4 MC o ne g m)n-t'~o 4ncn o RQ Q g hJ ol i I O ro mM I/I O~~O U n M M V Um I'CI QP CI Q M III I m N1 3000 N1 2500 N1 2000'U O O N11500 O INTAKE WNP-1/4 PUMP HOUSE RIVER MILE 351.86 DISCHARGE O 0 U7 C m))t((>})I~>)~I WNP-2 PUMP HOUSE I))370 380 I 1~A ,8 cINTAKE RIVER MILE 351.75 DISCHARGE~~g~no+l')id': '6~350.v.'".;."'<
l.:,":g';v.
I 360 J EDGE OF RIVER AT 120,000 cfs I~~l,'~I".~;~.~EDGE OF RIVER AT REGULATED LOW FLOW (36,000 cfs)
III M 0 5 MM I.g 4 o OPa g VV P MO~05 O M 0 RC<ted%0 P f16,423 340 339 338 trj M A td td W 04 NOH td 3lO W R RO 0%RZ OCR 4 53 0 ITI C MIM ITI'II I 0 hD~maw WMW DO~H A td td Xl E16,523.7 E16, 623 N11,682 Nll, 782 336 N11,882 FLOW D I RECTI ON 335 Nll, 982 N12,082 N12, 157 WNP-2 DISCHARGE 45%R XMO 5 MR V gW rt P MO ID td~OM Q HV ct C M Od)o Z C)l GROUND ELEVATION AT WNP-2 SITE GROUND ELEVATION AT WNP-2 INTAKE PUMP HOUSE 7,200,000 CFS 5,969,000 CFS 1,360,000 CFS 4,800,000 CFS)460 O~440 Q g 420 H A M I CO M H.0 0ZM U Q RMW woo X h9 PQX RWO HM M H MHQ Hg LTI M R 0 358 355 345 RIVER MILES.725,000 CFS 300,000 CFS 36,000 CFS 335 334 300 20 18 16 14 o 12 LIJ CY 10 8 I I I-RI CHLAND--PRlEST RAP l DS DAM J F M A M J J A S 0 N D\WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURE COMPARISON FOR PRIEST RAPIDS DAM RICHLAND FOR 10-YEAR PERIOD 1965-1974 FIG~2.4-9 70 UPPER EXTREME o 60 OC I-<<C CY LU CL 50 Ltl)CY MEAN 40 LOWER EXTREME 32 1940 1948 1956 CALENDAR YEARS 1964 1972 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~2 Environmental Report COMPUTED LONG TERM TEMPERATURE ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER AT ROCK ISLAND DAM (1938-1972)
FIG.2.4-10 txj Q 8 BC Onto~o~OM 0 RC OV 0 WOW 3.'C OWCO M g td C PRO LCMU C HQR OQQH h3 0 n<<a x a~NH HZFP HH<<0 Ca O 8 C RRR Htan C)o O<<D 5 23 22 C3 O 21 20 19 18 17 0.1 PERCENT OF TIME TEMPERATURE EQUALS OR EXCEEDS INDICATED VALUE 0.5 LO 5.0 M I 4 one I)O I'~o O M o GC OV td 3'WON WPd 0'OH 0 gggC%RA RAfC 0 C H4HP WON H HWO 0QX3 C 3 fD CL (D ct C)o O O<D 23 22 O Laf 21 g 20 19)18 17 O.l PERCENT OF TIME TEMPERATURE EQUALS OR EXCEEDS INDICATED VALUE 0.5 1.0 5.0 H A bJ I 4l l.g 4 f~o OS e" 0"+OCo 0 RC ct R W Q P eng 4nM 0RC OV A H M 0 H RE 0 0 TSI H 9 H gX tsI p ta a AXQ HW tsI 8 ml 0 Q<D BOO OAQ gQH 0 tsI V tsI O 40 P M H M 0 a NW ST45 T~ST ao/ss AE.SS I SS 55 SO-SS~145 I~'Ie~o.ss~5 ISA.T.I',~T I.l.I I.GLACIOFLLIVIAL DEPOSITS..T
.'.': I.'e e I I 7 N..~Pl I MSALT FLOWS WNITE Sloffs ASSOC WELL SE T I WElL OAAWN TO~LANE Of SECTION A t WEll IN flANE Of 5ECTION ALLWELL NVNSEAS SNOVLD~E NETIXEO ST 515 0~a 5 STA'TVTE MNES 1a.s~~.LT-.'I IIITEII'e'e'.'>.e e'I=.I 5 EIs.w.=~=J RINGOLD FORMATION\V'i~y v'SEALEVEL CCOMllA A IVCS P'o~s~~e so~o o es~~~so oee oooo so~Oeo~o~~ss (~~~sS~I~~ee~~~se~os ees~s~~~iC oee~so s<~oso~e~os~se~e se~so ee~~~os'5~CASIC A+~os\AP~~~e~\e~ss AIS 7~.->>~O>>~IO gy C4~e se~e~se I~e>>~ee 7 s>~os~es~)p~o seo~s so~\so~s~eo~es g~e~coo~AS~///i'~eo sos so o~le~o~~o~~oeo oo see~SASAII OIICAOl ASOVS IIAIIA IAIIS~WAISA IASCC CO IOIAS III IQS ASOVS AICAII SCA IMC~'ASL S I?I l 5 VACIIIA SIVN.WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTK4 WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~2 Environmenta1 Report, GROUNDWATER CONTOURS AND LOCATIONS OF WELLS FOR THE HAiNFORD RESERVATION, WASHINGTON SEPTE>lBER, 1973 FIG.2.4-1S 3 WE LLS 9 234,244 AND 695 F EET CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION SUPPORT 10,000 GPD Q'o WNP-2 WNP4 o~Q 0 0 0 0 0 WNP.1'WELLS O 372 FEET AND 465 FEET CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT 10,000 GPD NORTH FFTF 5000 SCALE IN FEET 2 WELLS AT 294 AND 399 FEET CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION SUPPORT 100,000 GPD Amendment 3, Januar 1979 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYS WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report POINTS OF GROUNDWATER WITHDREW IN THE VICINITY OF WNP-2 FIG.2.4-16 WNP-2 ER 2.5 GEOLOGY The basic geology of the site and region was described in the AEC Final Environmental Statement (December 1972).Additional geologic and seismic studies of the site area have been conducted in support of construction and safety studies for WNP-1 and WNP-4.Applicable results are reported in the WNP-2 FSAR.These additional studies have not indicated any need to further evalu-ate the interface between the plant and its operation, and the geologic environment.
2.5-1 WNP-2.ER 2.6 REGIONAL HISTORIC g SCEN I C g CULTURAL AND NATURAL FEATURES No historic placq~as listed in the"National Register of Historic Places"~~occur within a 30-mile radius of the WNP-2 site.The three nearest sites on the National Register are Olmstead Place State Park, Marmes Rockshelter, and Whitman Mission National Historic Site.Olmstead Place State Park is located 70 miles northwest of the Project near Ellensberg, Washington.
Marmes Rockshelter is 52 miles northeast of the Project near the confluence of the Palouse and Snake Rivers, and the Whitman Mission is 53 miles to the southeast near Walla Walla, Washington.
One natural land-mark listed in the National Register~1~
is within a 50-mile radius of the proposed Project.This is the Ginkgo Petrified Forest State Park, approximately 47 miles to the northwest.
None of these sites will be affected by the Project.However, as of February 10, 1976, three years following the granting of permits and authorities to construct WNP-2, six properties have been determined to be eligible for inclusion on the"National Register of Historic Places" and are within a 30-mile radius of the WNP-2 site<1~.These properties are entitled to the same protective measures provided for pro-perties on the National Register pursuant to the procedures of the President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
The six properties are: the Hanford Island Archaeological Site, 18 miles north of Richland;the Hanford North Archae-ological District, 22 miles-north of Richland;the Paris Archaeological Site, Hanford Works Reservation; the Snively Canyon Archaeological District, 25 miles northwest of Richland;the Wooded Island Archaeological District, north of Richland;and the Savage Island Archaeological District 15 miles north of Richland.The location of all six of the properties is within the boundary of the Hanford Reservation which has provided protection to these archaeological sites from destruction by relic collectors through security procedures and restricted access.The Wooded Island Archaeological District is located about two miles south of the WNP-2 intake, and the WNP-2 pumphouse will be visible from the.north end of Wooded Island.Other than this specific visual alteration, none of the six properties are anticipated to be adversely affected by WNP-2.The State Historic Preservation Officers review of the impact of plant operation on the Wooded Island site is contained in Appendix III.2.6-1 WNP-2 ER The historic-ethnographic people who aboriginally occupied the stretch of Columbia River from Priest Rapids to Pasco, Washington, were the Wanapam*Indians (" River People").Historically, thy main village of the Wanapam was located at Priest Rapids,(>approximately 43 miles upstream from the WNP-2 area.There is archaeological evidence, however, that other village sites closer to the project area were important in prehistoric times, such as the extensive village at Wahluke, located 24 miles upstream from the Project area, which was excavated in 1926-27 by the U.S.National Museum.(There is no ethnographic evidence that the Wanapam people occupied the immediate Project.area.The last Wanapam occupation of the Project area was in 1943 when the Hanford Reservation was established and the area evacuated.
Today, remaining descendants of the Wanapam people live at Priest Rapids and on the Yakima Indian Reservation.
Their recent history has been preserved by Relander.(4)
The archaeology of the middle Columbia River in South Central Washington is largely unknown.Large-scale research was conducted in the 1$cN~ry Dam Reservoir area to the south in the early 1950's.<<<)Upstream, approximately 69 miles, some research was conducted in the Wanapum Dam Reservoir area.~g~The only archaeology conducted on the Hanford Reservation since Krieger's~3~
work at Wahluke was a ppg pm-inary survey and test program along the Columbia River'nd a field and laboratory investigation near the Hanford No.1 Generating Plant carried out by Rice(1)under contract with the Washington Public Power Supply System.This study provided a comparative collection of artifacts from an area that has not been studied for over 40 years.It also pro-vided archa'eological evidence that demonstrated aboriginal culture stability and continuity for at least 6500 years.It further demonstrated that the archaeological resource within the Hanford area is considerable and warrants further investigation and preservation.
The services of Dr.David G.Rice, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Idaho, a professional archae-ologist with experience in the Pacific Northwest, were retained by Burns and Roe, Inc.(architect engineer for WNP-2)in order to determine whether or not archaeological and historical resources might, be affected by project construc-tion or transmission line relocation for WNP-2.Field examination of ghy complete Project area was conducted on August 19, 1972<)and of the pumphouse and intake area again between January 6 and 10, 1975 and on February 3, 1975.(13)*Students of Anthropology spell the Indian name as Wanapam.Historical references spell it Wanapum.2.6-2 WNP-2 ER No archaeological features or historic structures were observed at the reactor site.~l~Geological work at the reactor site indicates that the sediments present include glacial flood gravels and associated sediments which by their nature are not likely to contain archaeological deposits.These observations also pertain to thy corridor between the reactoi site and the Columbia River.'uring the 1972 field examination, evidence was observed of intermittent occupation by aboriginal people adjacent to the west bank of the Columbia River in the vicinity of the WNP-2 pumphouse and water intake.Neither surface concentrations of archaeological materials nor any accumulated depth of occupational debris were observed.Also no historical structures or features were obsexved.Dr.Rice recommended that no further archaeological or historical work be provided for WNP-2 except that the excavation of the pumphouse be re-examined at the time of construction for p~~~j.ble sub-surface evidence of aboriginal occupation.
Approximately 400 to 500 ft.southeast of the intake water pumphouse area are two archaeological sites (45-BN-113 and 45-BN-ll4) located on the gravel beach on the west bank of the Columbia River.These sites will not be disturbed, and future access wij.l remain unchanged.
In January 1975, Dr.Rice conducted archaeological investigations in the area of the WNP-2 pumphouse and water intake to determine whether or not subsurface evidence for aboriginal occupation existed.Scattered fire cracked rocks and three cobble implements were recovered in an area 40 feet by 30 feet.Dr.Rice's interpretation of the cultural materials observed is that the immediate project area was intermittently used as a camp site by small groups of prehistoric peoples over the last few hundred years.Their stay at these camps was evidently brief judging from the sparse accumulation of cultural material and artifacts.
Since aeolian sediments overlie the cultural material and since the cultural material lies comformably upon overbank river deposits, Dr.Rice concluded that the archaeological material has been deflated by wind erosion into a single floor.The absence of organic material like bone or shell tends to corroborate this view.No earlier occupations were encountered in the sediments of the river terrace.Dr.Rice recommended that no further archaeological work be provided for tge construction site of the WNP-2 pumphouse And water intake.<2.6-3 WNP-2 ER The transmission line from the Project makes connection to the Bonneville Power Administrations 500 kV switchyard in the 100-N Area of the Hanford Reservation.(See Figure 2.1-2 for location of the 100-N Area).The 18.3 mile long by 135 ft.wide corridor goes in almost a straight line from WNP-2 to the switchyard.
Since the corridor is well inland from the Columbia River it does not traverse areas likely to be rich in artifacts from earlier river-oriented tribes.2.6-4 WNP-2 ER CHAPTER 3 THE PLANT 3.1 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE Figure 2.1-4 shows the relative location of the WNP-2 plant, makeup water pumphouse, adjacent roads, railroads and trans-mission lines.Figure 2.1-3 shows the layout of the buildings, structures, roads, and railroads for the plant.Figure 3.1-1 is a color oblique aerial photograph from the west of the construction site looking east with the Columbia River in the background.
Shown in the photograph are the main plant buildings, spray ponds, and cooling towers.Figure 3.1-2 is an artist's conception of the finished plant (looking south-west) including the spray ponds and the cooling towers.Two spray ponds are located approximately 600 ft.southeast of the diesel generator building.Each is 250 ft.square and 15 ft.deep.Six round concrete mechanical (induced)draft cooling towers (See Figures 3.1-3 and 3.4-1), each 60 ft.high and 200 ft.in diameter, and the circulating water pumphouse, are located approximately 700 ft.south of the radwaste and control building.The makeup water pumphouse (See Figures 3.1-4 and 3.1-5)is located 3 miles east of the plant on the west shore of the Columbia River Mile 352 (at an elevation of 374 ft.6" above MSL), and will supply makeup water for WNP-2.The bottle storage building, for storing hydrogen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen, is located 367 ft.north of the turbine generator building (See Figure 2.1-4).Two 400,000 gallon, 40 ft.high condensate storage tanks are located 36 feet north of the turbine generator building.An 800,000 gallon concrete dike, surrounding the tanks, will contain any spills.The locations and elevations of all gaseous and liquid radio-active release points are shown in Figure 3.1-6.All of the structures are functional in design and the maxi-mum effort has been made to achieve an esthetically pleasing appearance.
Within the plant fence line, the grounds will be seeded with grass or stabilized with gravel.Unused plant property not seeded or graveled will be left in 3.1-1 WNP-2 ER its natural state.Nothing will be allowed to grow within 20 feet, of the plant security fence line.Seclusion of the plant is achieved by it's location within the Hanford Reservation where travel by the general public is restricted.
Low profile mechanical draft cooling towers and appropriate coloring of the plant, facilitate the intre-gation of the plant with the desert plain surrounding the site.3~1 2 hi M 0 5 Mg go/Q o nba m fo 0~8<Rm 0RC ct 8 W Q P l99 76'IAMETER OUT TO OUT OF TOWER r'ASED STAIRWAY EOUIPMENT ACCESS DOOR MANWAY ACCESS DOOR hf H Q 4J I lA
<OR H EgEVATIOlv b 0 r Ww EAWPST teTH CIIEP%T~~AHA~~SCCA Co~b4d Eas EVATioN
-4S FIGURE 3.1-5 WNP-2 MAKE-UP WATER PUMP HOUSE XTI)O g MC Pe g rI M 8 I Xg OV LEGEND QI, VENT STACK-REACTOR BLDG.QE VENT-(ONTROL BLDG.-QS EXN.PLENUM VENT-CONTROL BLDG Q4 Q5 (@~~QT VENT-RADWASTE BLDG<<Qb<I Q<<l SLOWDOWN RELEASE PT.SW 204 w I 51 W ISSW I I4 W I2,1 W 241 W Il.110 E E<5 N 25 N 145 I85)45 IBS 91 5 I 24 5 Ial5 232 N G1 I 545 542 509 338 v(Su tLEV.(f~)T RBINE G N~H II 5~RA(~TO R bLDG.~R<W<<<N PART PLAN', T<S, H Q 4P I Ch i SEE PART PIAN Nl rr~PROPERTY LIHE--WNP t AEO ESS ROAD CBDD)I WNP"t bLOW DOWH LINE II)L~~$g THUD).)>~TKHP"2 MAKE UP WATER LIHE WNP t 0 0 LSPRAY PONDS 0 0 4OO LING TOWERS I!WATER PUMP HOUSE OVE A IT P A I I WNP E HAKE UP WATER PUMP NOUSE-mm Ie TIHP.E ACCESS ROAD TO 8ENTON SWITOIING STA.R'\III y>o IK<<.
NNP-2 ER 3.2 REACTOR AND STEAM ELECTRIC SYSTEM NNP-2 is a single unit nuclear electric generating plant having a nominal electric power output of approximately 1100 MNe.The plant, designed by the architect-engineer Burns and Roe, Inc., consists of a boiling water reactor, turbine generator, evaporative cooling tower system, a pumphouse which takes makeup water from the Columbia River, a 500 kilo-volt transmission line leading to the Bonneville Power Administration's H.J.Ashe Substation adjacent to the site, and other associated facilities required for the generation of electric power.3.2.1 Nuclear Steam Su 1 S stem The Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS)consists of a General Electric Co.boiling water reactor and the necessary auxiliary systems required to control, contain, and service the nuclear core.The system has a guaranteed'output of 3323 megawatts.
A reactor pressure vessel houses the nuclear core where nuclear fission provides the energy required to produce steam.The core contains 764 fuel assemblies, 185 control rod assemblies, and other supporting hardware.The fuel consists of uranium dioxide pellets with enrichments varying from natural (0.71)to 3.0 weight percent U-235 clad with zircaloy.The initial core will contain fuel assemblies having an average enrichment ranging from approximately 0.71 to 2.19 weight percent U-235.The core average enrichment will be about 1.87%U-235 depending on initial cycle requirements.
Each assembly will contain between one and seven different enrichment rods.Selected rods in each assembly will, in addition, be blended with gadolinium burnable poison.The reload fuel will also contain four'ifferent enrichment rods with an average enrichment between 2.5S and 3.1%U-235.The reload fuel average enrichment will be about 2.71%U-235 depending on operating cycle requirements.
Five to seven different U-235 enrichments are used in the en-riched fuel assemblies to reduce the local power peaking.Low enrichment uranium rods are used in the corner rods and in the rods nearer the water gaps;higher enrichment.
uranium is used in the central part of the fuel bundle.The fuel rods are equipped with characteristic mechanical end fittings to assure proper assembly preventing a higher enrichment, rod to be fitted in a location of a lower enrichment rod.The general layout of the core, core cell, and fuel assembly uranium enrichment is shown in Figures 3.2-1, 3.2-2, and 3.2-3.Cooling of the core is accomplished by boiling water which is recirculated using jet pumps located in the peripheral area 3.2-1 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER around the core inside the reactor.The pumps are powered from twe'xternally located motor driven centrifugal pumps which draw a fraction of the reactor water from the vessel and return it with increased pressure, to the jet pumps.(See Figure 3.2-4)The power level and rate of steam produc-tion is controlled by hydraulically activated control rods.The steam that is produced in the core is separated from the reactor water and dried in the top of the vessel prior to exit from the vessel.The guaranteed steam-flow is 14,295,000 lbs.per hour with 985 psi absolute and 0.3%moisture outlet conditions.
The thermodynamic parameters of the reactor are shown in Figure 3.2-5.The reactor is controlled at a nearly constant pressure.During normal operations, the steam admitted to the turbine is controlled by the.turbine initial pressure regulator which maintains essentially constant pressure at the turbine inlet, thus controlling the vessel pressure.The integration of the turbine pressure regulator/control system and the reactor recirculation flow control system permits the quantity of steam being produced to respond automatically to the tur-bine demand.The nuclear system is supported by the specialized functions of its auxiliary systems.The major auxiliary systems used for normal operation are: Reactor Water Cleanup System-Residual Heat Removal System Fuel Pool Cooling and Filtering System Cooling Water Systems Radioactive Waste Disposal Systems Details of these systems are described in the Final Safety Analysis Report.Other auxiliary systems are provided as backup or emergency systems to ensure safe shutdown of the reactor during any design basis accident including those resulting from natural phenomenon such as earthquakes,.tornadoes, and floods.3.2.2 Turbine S stem The turbine system (See Figure 3.2-6)uses the Rankine steam cycle with a closed regenerative feedwater heating cycle.Steam leaves the reactor vessel at 985 psia and enters the turbine at 970 psia with a.38%moisture content.The turbine-j.s an 1800 rpm tandem compound turbine generator of 0 3~2 2 WNP-2 ER Westinghouse Electric Corp.manufacture having a six-flow exhaust end with 44" last stage blades.Steam is exhausted into a condenser with 792,000 sq.ft.of surface and designed for a 2.5 in.backpressure.
The net plant heat rates at the backpressure variations ranging from 1" Hg to 4" Hg for maxi-mum load at 5%'overpressure, 75%, and 50%are plotted in Figure 3.2-7.Six stages of regenerative feedwater heating are provided including four from the low-pressure turbines, arranged in three parallel strings and two from the high-pressure turbine, arranged in two parallel strings.The final design feedwater temperature at normal full load is 420oF.The power cycle includes a reheater at the high-pressure tur-bine exhaust.Reheating is accomplished in two stages by using steam from the reactor and from one extraction stage of the high pressure turbine.Two reheater moisture separator assemblies are used.The turbine generator is guaranteed to deliver 1154 MWe, measured at the generator terminals, when operated at steam conditions listed above, associted with Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS)guaranteed power.In-plant.electric power con-sumption is expected to be approximately 50 MWe resulting in an estimated net plant electrical output of approximately 1104 MWe.The turbine building is arranged with the longitudinal axis of the turbine-generator oriented in an approximate east-west direction.
The reactor building is immediately south of the turbine building (See Figure 2.1-4).3~2 3 81 80 69 68 57 68 55 54 53 62 50 0~9 48 oc3 GQQDGE3 GD QGGo QHaoo o+o Q+Q o+o Q+Q ooo+o oo QClCP CI O C~ICIO~CI C~3CI Q~CI yC!C~ICI g GG OG CIQ CIO OG+C3C3C3 ClC30 C3Cl 00 0Cl GO Cl+odQa+a%oo
+Qo+o+oo+o Qa~HQQ Qoooo~H QQH&o+o~oo+on+no+o o+ooo+oc++oo+28 Q 25-"--98 CqlO CljCI QyCl yCI QyoOCI yCl~ooyClOqCI
~CICqlCI gal opal ao oa ox aa oo co ClCI GQOClClCIGQC1CIGClClCIOO 21~Ckl~Cylo QP OP CylCI C~IQ QP CylCI CPI Q!CI go F88~@cl88@cl Q~RRpcl O OCkl QRE 17 18 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 08 05 04 03 02 01 0 avon 0 QOClCl Cl C3CI Cl aaaooaaaaaoaa RaPao~oo~oc+
Qpoo+H P R 0ÃR 0~<4 0 0 8 e X g 5 8 0 S 8~8~h e t e g g+g n e~<n el NUMBER OF FUEL ASSEMBLIES 764 NUMBER OF CONTROL ROOS 1BB NUMBER OF LPRM'S 43 oo oo oooooooooc+iooo o oooo'--H+H%P'8-'+8"PQ'P QP"Po~~o WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report CORE ARRANGEMENT FIG~3.2-1 00000000 000000~00000000 00008000 00080000 0000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 I 00000000 00000000 00080000 00008000 00000000-00000 0000 l ROO O.O.C.4133 in.INSIOE RAOIU5 C LAO THICKNESS 0.032 in.FUEL PELLET O.O.G 4'0 in.1 2 3 4 S 4 7 4 g F 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 14 17 I 0 19 20 21 22 23 24 I 25 2d 27 25 30 31 32 33 34 3$79 30 41 42 43 44 4S 44<7 44 49 50 S I 52 53 54$5 54 S7 Sl 59 d0 41 d2 dl d4 WATER ROO OIM.IDENTIFICATION OIM.INCHES 12.0 5.278 0.261 0.260 E F 0.100 0.157 OIM.IOENTIFICATION OIM.INCHES 4.84 0.261 1.58 0.38 0.158 0.640 Amendment 2, October 1978.NhSHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report TYP ICAL CORE CELL PIG.3~2 2
~~8 x 8 LATTICE (2.19%ENR ICHMENT)10 10 ROD TYPE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NO.19 7 10 10 8 4 1 1 2 2 WT 9a U235" 3.00 2.60 2.20 2.00 1.70 1.30 Gd203 Gd203 Gd2O3 WATER ROD'OES NOT INCLUDE 6 IN.OF NATURAL URANIUM AT TOP AND BOTTOM OF FUEL COLUMN.Amendment 2, October 1978 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report FUEL ASSEMBLY ENRICHMENT DISTRIBUTION FIG~3.2-3 STEAM DRYERS STEAM SEPARATORS MAIN STEAM FLOW TO TURBINE DRIVING FLOW~MAIN FEED FLOW FROM TURBINE CORE JET PUMP RECIRCULATION PUMP WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report FIGHT 3.2-4 STEAM AND RECIRCULATION WATER FLOW PATHS LEGEND=FLOW, Ib/hr F=TEMPERATURE oF H,h='ENTHALPY, Btu/Ib M=%MOISTURE P=PRESSURE, psia=ISOLATION VALVES 35,700,000 A'34 F1 528.7 h 2RECIRCULATION LOOPS 20 INTERNAL JET PUMPS 1020 P I I (3323 MWt TOTAL CORE FLOW 108.5 xlOSN ASSUMED SYSTEM LOSSES THERMAL 1.1 MW MAIN STEAM FLOW 14,295,000 0 1191.5 H 0.3 M 985 MAIN FEED FLOW 14,389,000
$P 14,256,000 g 420 F, 397.8 h 420.0 F,397.6 h hh=i+2 Core thermal power Pump heating Cleanup demin.system loss Other system losses TURBINE CYCLE USE 4.4 1.1 3329.9 MW ROD DRIVE FEED FLOW 39,000 ((80 F 48 h CLEANUP DEMINERALIZER SYSTEM 436 F 415.3 h 133,000$/533 F 527.5 h FROM CONDENSATE STORAGE TANK WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report GE REACTOR SYSTEM HEAT BALANCE FOR BATED POWER FIG~3.2-5
~~0 e pPfHilff$I aq~qa I I',E I I-~-~-~-~I I 12,200 12,000 11,800 NOTE AUX POWER AT MAX LOAD=4'%OF GROSS GENERATXON 75%rom=4.8%50%Lom=5.2%11,600 50%LOAD$11,400 F11'00 5 11,000 c-l10,800 75%LOAD 10,600 MAX.LOAD 5%O.P.10,400 10,200 10,000.5 1.0 1.5 2.0'.5 3.0 BACK PRESSURE, ZNCHES Hg 3.5 4.0 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report NET PLANT HEAT RATE VA RIAT IONS VS TURBINE BACK PRESSURE PIG.3.2-7 WNP-2 ER 3.3 PLANT WATER USE 3.3.1 Overall Plant Water to meet normal operating requirements is withdrawn from the Columbia River by the cooling tower makeup pumps.Hydro-logical data'for the river are presented in Section 2.4.1.During periods when the cooling tower makeup pumps are not operating, small quantities of makeup demineralized water and potable water may be produced using the standby well water supply.The quantity of plant makeup water withdrawn from the Columbia River is primarily dependent upon water losses from the circulating water system in the form of cooling tower evaporation, drift and blowdown.Other systems in the plant.water balance include: process water treatment system, potable water and sanitary waste system, and chemical and radwaste systems.Figure 3.3-1 is a water use flow diagram for the plant.Table 3.3-1 lists plant water use when operating at maximum power operation (expected average power operation) and tempor-ary shutdown conditions.
Average consumptive water use, that is, water withdrawn but not returned to the river, at 100%load factor, is approximately 13,000 gpm which is 0.026%of the annual average Columbia River flow and 0.08%of the mini-mum licensed"iver flow of 16,200,000 gpm.3.3.2 Heat Dissi ation S stem A recirculating cooling water system with mechanical draft wet cooling towers will dissipate excess heat from the condens-ing steam in the main condenser and other plant auxiliary heat exchange equipment, to the atmosphere.
The temperature of the closed cycle cooling water is increased by about 28 F by passing through the main condenser and other plant auxil-iary heat exchange equipment.
The cooling water temperature is reduced in the cooling towers by the evaporation of water and by the transfer of sensible heat to the atmosphere.
The evaporation rates from the cooling towers varies, with plant operation power level, ambient air temperature and humidity.A small quantity of water is entrained in the air passing through the cooling tower and is lost from the system as"drift".Drift eliminators are used in the cooling towers to minimize this loss, which will average about 285 gpm.Dissolved and suspended solids, originally present in the river water, are concentrated in the cooling towers by the evaporation process.A small portion of the circulating water is withdrawn, by blowdown, to control the solids level as part of cooling water chemistry management.
When operating at fullpower operation, it is expected that the cooling tower 3.3-1 NiilP 2 ER blowdown flow, returned to the Columbia River, will average 2580 gpm.A detailed discussion of the heat dissipation system is given in Section 3.4.Environmental effects are described in Section 5.1.3.3.3 Process Water Treatment S stems Process water treatment systems'prepare river water for station use, potable and sanitary water use, and miscellaneous water requirements.
River water, which is used for potable water, sanitary water, and demineralized water, is first treated by filtration for the removal of suspended matter.A maximum of 250 gpm of filtration capacity is provided.lt is anticipated that the average operating demand for filtered water will be approximately 10 gpm.The makeup water demineralizer provides high quality water for station use including filling and replacement of losses from the nuclear steam supply system, chemical control solution preparation, and the replacement of water lost in waste treatment processes.
Virtually all liquid wastes from normal station operations are treated in the radioactive and chemical waste system and recovered to the extent possible for reuse in the primary system.The makeup water demineralizer has an operating capacity of 150 gpm but is expected to operate at an average flow rate of about 6 gpm during normal operation.
At times of system fill and outages, the system will operate near design capacity.Filtered water will also be used in the potable water and sanitary waste system.This facility has a capacity of 50 gpm but is expected to operate at an average daily rate of about 2,500 gal/day.3-3.4 Chemical and Radwaste S stems Virtually all chemical waste from the station is processed through the radwaste system.Consumptive water use is approximately 100 gal/day.This represents the quantity of liquids lost through solid waste processes.
Solidified wastes in sealed radioactive waste containers will be removed by a licensed contractor for storage at a licensed facility.A detailed discussion of the radwaste system is given in Section 3.5.3~3 2 Amendment 1 i>ay 1978 TABLE 3.3-1 PLANT WATER USE WNP-2 Maximum Power 0 eration Tem orar Shutdown A.Circulating Water S stems Total Flow (gpm)Con-sumptive Use (gpm)Re-turned to River (gpm)Total Flow (gpm)Re-Con-turned sumptive: to Use River (gpm)(gpm)a)Evaporation b)Drift c)Blowdown 12,588 12,588 285 285 2,580 2,580 368 368 d)Process Water Treatment Chemical and Radwaste*Potable and Sanitary*10 6 2 10 6 2 C.Total (a+b+c+d)15,463 12,877 2,586 378 372*Source-Process Water Treatment CMFT LGvSS TO ATMOSI'HERE
)vs 485 GPM Evaa RATION LOSS<<V.SPHERE AYS IT,S!5 OPIA MAINI NEAT ISSIP T>>kvv GVS\VV PLaNT MAKEUP FAGM RIVER MAx 25,000 GPM HEAT DISSIPATION Sva Ev vk Ia AVG.I!443 GPM Max.23000GPM AIS!~!!Sxy Max 250 GPM A'VG<<IO GPM PN CONTROL IS LP Vve Acio I v I>>v>>!CC 4 Ih>>.R>>L kv+]CIRCULATIIVC>>
WATER>>R~4!C OO i>>G~vwLA~P ANT NlWCL WATER&~0 X a>>L w>>RA'LYST LM 5 O'L>>I OGLING TO>>ERELCN Ow>>AE'IUA>>ED IOHIVEN<<ax.vcc avb ELGOGPM RETURNED TO RIVER AV6 2555 GPM NEUTNA I E W, AvG I CPM EVAPORATION 4 TANK VENT LOSSES TO AIMOSPHERE>>I 000 GPO wELL WATER CSIANUGV)FILTF.R GKIC CE 54>>a MAKEUP~wa T~MI N R~AI R G 6GPM STaTIDN UsE 42.445 GPD~MI 5,~NEAT~DT I~YTEM I WASTE COLLEC'FOR SUOSVSTEM IE536 GPD I FLOOR DRAIN COLLECTOR SUbSYSTEM 4 I52 GPD CKEMICAL 4 DETERGENT WASTES 3800 GPD~RA A~VI~HM~IA~YT M SOLID WASTES TO SOLID wASTE HANDLING)00 GPD SLUOGES C 400 GPO EXCE55 CONDENSATE AVG~i000 GPO DEMINERa<<EEDNATER TJOOGPD'v 3 WATER 0 SO CPM RECOVER!0 FROM RADWASTE 34.345 GPD SACKwAS~WATER, 0100GFM avG IGPM.I MAX.SCGPM sa>>ITARY WI ST!To s!p'IIc Ta>>K SYSTEM 2300 GPCI STCAM AND ROOF CRklHS!.4~caallc>>aI 0 Ltac>>IN)PONDS Amendment 1,!l g 197M WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report PLANT SYSTEMS MATER USE DIAGRAM FIG.3 3-1
-0 e p4 WNP-2 ER 3.4 HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM Heat is dissipated from the WNP-2 turbine condensers by a mechanical draft cooling tower system.Thermal impacts on the Columbia River are avoided.A description of the heat dissipation facilities for WNP-2 is provided in the following subsections.
The environmental effects due to the operation of the WNP-2 heat.dissipation system are discussed in Section 5.1.3.4.1 Mechanical Draft Coolin Towers 3.4.1.1 General A mechanical draft tower system utilizes evaporative cooling by contacting the warm water with air.The water is cooled both by sensible and by evaporative heat transfer.Intimate contact of water with air is accomplished by introducing the warm water at the top of the tower causing flow by gravity, through fill material, crosscurrent to the air.Air is in-troduced into the tower through louvered side panels, flows upward through the tower fill material, passes through the drift eliminators, through the fan stack (which houses the air moving equipment) and finally discharges to the atmos-phere.The cooled water is collected in basins at the base of the tower.During this cooling process, a small percentage of the total water inventory is lost due to evaporation and drift.In addition, water is discharged from the system through system blowdown, required to limit the concentration of naturally occurring river salts in the closed cycle as a result of the evaporation process.The water makeup system, which provides the necessary water to keep the system in equilibrium, is discussed in Subsection 3.4.2.1.3.4.1.2 Desi n of the Mechanical Draft Coolin Towers In the design of the cooling tower system, the following features related to environmental matters were considered:
a.blowdown requirements including outfall structures, b.makeup requirements, c.meteorological effects, d.hydrological effects, and e.chemical and thermal effects on natural bodies of water.3.4-1 WNP-2 ER The heat dissipation system is designed to cool 570,000 gpm of cooling water, rejecting 7.88 x 109 BTU/hr to the environs.The heat load for the WNP-2 cooling towers comes almost en-tirely from the 550,000 gpm circulating water system (with a travel time across the condenser of 15.17 seconds).The only major WNP-2 heat dissipation subsystem is the plant ser-vice water system.This system provides cooling water for most of the plants cooling coils, etc.and results in less than 4%of the heat load as provided by the circulating water system.The effect on the environment due to the added heat resulting from the plant service water system is insignifi-cant in comparison to the heat to be dissipated by the cir-culating water system.As shown in Figure 3.4-1, six towers are used, with each cooling tower approximately 60 feet to the top of the fan stacks and approximately 200 feet in diam-eter (see Figure 3.1-3).Each tower is provided with 6-200 hp, 30 foot diameter fans used to induce the draft required to operate the tower.The discharge velocity from the fan stacks will be approximately 33 fps.Figure 3.4-2 is a cut away view of one tower and Figure 2.1-4 shows the relation of the towers with the main plant structures.
Cooling water for the condensing of the turbine exhaust sys-tem is supplied to the tube side of the condenser by circu-lating water pumps located in the circulating water pump house.These pumps take suction from the tower basins and are designed with sufficient head to pump through the con-denser back to the cooling tower distribution system.Design values for the cooling towers are: Wet-bulb temperature Approach to wet bulb Range Cold-side temperature 60 F 16.3 F 28 F 76.3 F These numbers indicate that under design conditions, cooling water at 76.3oF enters the condensers where it is heated 28oF to 104.3oF.From there this hot water is pumped to the cool-ing tower where, in air with a wet-bulb temperature of 60oF, it is cooled to 76.3oF, which is within 16.3oF of the wet-bulb temperature.
The 76.3oF water is returned to the con-denser and the cycle is repeated.A cooling tower perform-ance curve is shown in Figure 3.4-3.Although the individual towers are designed for a 60 F wet-bulb temperature, it is necessary to provide for plant oper-ation at less favorable conditions, so a conservative worst-case value of 70oF wet-bulb temperature was chosen for plant capacity design calculations.
This is reasonable in terms 3.4-2 WNP-2 ER of data shown in Table 2.3-22, which shows that the annual wet-bulb temperature for the WNP-2 site is such that a wet-bulb temperature between 60o and 65oF would not prevail more than 6.68%of the year and one higher than 65oF not more than 1.87%of the-'year.3.4.2 Circulatin Water S stem Balance Water is lost from the heat dissipation system by evaporation, drift, and blowdown.To balance these losses, makeup water from the Columbia River is required.The design values used for blowdown are based on a dissolved solids concentration factor of about five (with a range of 3-10)in the cooling tower water as compared to river water.The nominal blowdown rates calculated for normal operation vary from about 2000 to 4000 gpm.A higher rate, i.e., up to 6500 gpm, may be needed on occasion to lower the concentra-tion of dissolved solids in the circulating water system (The composition of the Columbia River and blowdown water is given in Table 3.6-1)Expected values of evaporation rates, blowdown temperatures, normal river temperatures, and blowdown rates are given in Figure 3.4-4 as a function of time of year.These curves each give an expected average over the month.Actually, a range of values above and below the curves would represent conditions from expected maxima to expected minima.For example, the average blowdown water temperature is shown to be about 75oF in August.Xn August the range of blowdown tem-perature extends about 7oF above the average, to a maximum of 82oF.This is the maximum temperature expected at which water would be returned to the river.This maximum value is based on the assumption that heat transferred in the cooling towers is entirely by evaporation, with no transfer of sen-sible heat from the warm water, since in summer the ambient air dry-bulb temperature would be high.The following table gives both maximum and annual average values for the heat dissipation system.Consumptive use is evaporation plus drift, where drift is taken as 0.05%of the circulating water system flow, rate.Drift was determined through the use of empirical relationships determined from experimental data(1).Required makeup is evaporation plus drift plus blowdown.Maximum Annual Average Consumptive use Blowdown Required makeup 16,500 6,500 23,000 12,873 2,580 15,453 3.4-3 WNP-2 ER The actual makeup water capacity for WNP-2 is 25,000 gpm (See Section 3.4.2.1).See Figure 3.3-1 for a plant water balance chart.3.4.2.1 Intake S stem Makeup water for WNP-2 is taken from the Columbia River via a river intake which is located approximately 3 miles due east of the plant site.The intake system is made up of three parts: two perforated pipe inlets supported offshore above the bed of the river and approximately parallel to the river flow, two 36 inch diameter steel lead-in pipes approximately 900 ft.long, and the pump structure embedded into the river bank with a major portion below grade.The intake system general plan is shown in Figure 2.4-6.Figure 3.4-5 is a detailed plan and profile of the intake system.The pump structure contains three makeup water pumps, each having a capacity of 12,500 gpm.Two pumps with a combined pumping capacity of 25,000 gpm will supply maximum plant water requirements, the third pump will be a spare.Architec-tural elevations and an artist's conception of the pump struc-ture are shown in Figure 3.1-4 and 3.1-5.Plan and sections of the pump structure are shown in Figure 3.4-6.The pump house contains only the pumps, pump operating auxiliaries and flow control provisions.
There are no screens or other water cleaning facilities in the structure.
Details of the"T" intake section and its connection to the two lead-in pipes are shown in Figure 3.4-7.Each"T" inlet is constructed of perforated steel pipes, with an outer 42-inch diameter pipe having 3/8-inch diameter holes covering about 40 percent of the area and an inner 36-inch diameter sleeve with 3/4-inch diameter holes covering about 7 percent of the area.The perforated pipe surface serves as the water cleaning facility.The outer sleeve is designed to prevent trash and fish entrainment, and the inner sleeve is designed to provide uniform intake velocities through the outer sleeve perforations.
The inlet velocities are expected to be well below the accept-able limit required for suitable.protection of small fish when water is being taken into the system.At the external screen surface under maximum operating conditions, with 12,500 gpm flowing through each"T", the velocity through the external screen openings is approximately 0.5 fps.At a distance of less than one third inch from the outer s"reen surface, the inlet approach velocity drops to less than 0.2 fps.Figure 3.4-8 shows the velocity profile of water approaching the inlet for two modes of circulation flow, as determined by hydraulic model testing~2).
Figure 3.4-9, from the same model test.series, shows the velocity distribution for 25,000 gpm 3.4-4 WNP-2 ER through one inlet at 3/8-inch distance from the screen surface (abnormal or emergency condition).
As shown in Figures 3.4-8 and 3.4-9, during normal or abnormal flow, flow velocities are low and flow distribution is even.During reduced flow, the perforated pipe intake velocity characteristics would be proportionately reduced.Undersirable debris is not expected to pass through the outer perforations with these very low inlet velocities.
A back-wash system has been provided to permit low velocity flow reversal through the perforations.
The perforated sleeves have been designed to reduce the potential for debris collec-tion and to permit complete removal for periodic inspection, cleaning, repair and replacement.
The frequency of backwash-ing and sleeve removal for the objective of minimizing bio-, logical damage will be determined from a one year monitoring program including, but not limited to visual inspections of the intake and sampling to determine fish losses.3.4.2.2 Dischar e S stem The blowdown discharge system is a single pipe of varying diameter, running from the plant to the Columbia River.The layout of the discharge line is shown in Figure 2.4-6.It is buried underground and runs parallel to the makeup water line.The blowdown line in the river is located downstream of the intakes and is buried in the river bed.The exit point is a rectangular slot (See Figure 3.4-10)and is located as shown in Figure 2.4-6, about 175 feet from the river low water line.Adequate riprap has been placed around the discharge to avoid any erosion to the river bed.The line has been designed to accommodate a maximum blowdown rate of 6,500 gpm.However, the average blowdown will be in the range of 2,000-4,000 gpm.Capability has been provided for greater discharge rates, should it become desirable.
Control of slimes and algae within the circulating water , system is discussed in subsection 3.6.3.Removal of any algae and slimes will be via the blowdown.Discharge of blowdown to the river will not occur during chlorination.
Two concrete basin spray ponds are provided for emergency cooling.In accordance with present requirements, the water inventory contained therein is adequate for emergency cooling for a period of thirty days.Each pond is 250 feet square with a combined surface area of 2.87 acres.Each pond is 15 feet deep, consisting of 14 feet of water and 1 foot of free board.Figure 2.1-4 shows the location of the spray ponds.3.4-5 WNP-2 ER Slimes and algae in the spray ponds will be controlled with chlorine.Any discharges to the river would occur via trans-fer to and mixing with the cooling tower basin water.3.4-6
-ELEV.507.7
'IR FLOW MARLEY MULTIBLADE FAN GRP FAN CYLINDER NORMAL OPERATING WATER LEVEL STEEL PERIMETER FANDECK HANDRAIL DISTRIBUTION FLUME MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SUPPORT MARLEY GEAREDUCER ELECTRIC MOTORS PRECAST FANDECK ELEV.4e7.I'2'CB PERIMETER WIND SCREEN DISTRIBUTION BASIN I.O'.75 PRECAST RADIAL BENT PANELS DECK SUPPORT BEAMS PRECAST LOUVERS PRECAST CIRCUMFERENTIA L P4NELS-AIR FLOW~ACB ELIMINATORS IN NONCOMBUSTIBLE GRP~SUPPORT FRAMES DECK AND FAN SUPPORT COLUMNS ACB SPLASH BARS IN NONCOMBUSTIBLE GRP SUPPORT GRIDS CSIN FLOOR ELEV.444.0,'-KN.OF QJRB ELEV.4480'VERFUR/
WEIR El EV.447.598SHED GRADE ELEV 4440't ELEV.44350'ORMAL OPERATING WATER LEVEL ELEV.444.2 ELEV.439.0 ELEV.439.5 0'ONCRETE BASIN TOWER SYMMETRICAL ABOUT 1 J 1 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM'PPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report KNFR CENTER SECTI(M THRU FILL FIG-3.4-2
.0 O.
ENCLOSED STAIRWAY O lI?II?l~LOUVER PERIMETER BASIN CURB N-I l,2OI.42ATUM OVERFLOW WEIR OPEN STAIRWAY/////I I CW"CT-2B I I'I I I I 1 1 I I//I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I/I/J//r r~1 UM'W-CT-IB r r///J/r J I/\~I 1~I/~I I 1!I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I r I I//OVERFLOW WEIR OPEN STAIRWAY FAN CYLINDER////I l CW CT-2A/J I I'!j I I 1 I I J r-I r/I 1 r!\I J r rr OPEN STAIRWAY/I 1 r 1 J I I!1 I I r 1 I/r I ENCLOSED I STAIRWAY I/!/OPEN STAIRV(AY/////r'J I 1 1 I I r!1 I I I r r/I'1 1 I I'1 1\I I I'l CENTUM-I 1'I I I r I 1\I r.J r I\I I 1 I I I I I I l I////ENCLOSED STAIRWAY PAVEMENT AND ROAD SYSTEM.CW-CT-2 C OVERFLOW WEIR ELECTRICAL BUILDING N0.2-ENCLOSED STAIRWAY\I I r I\1 1 I I/OPEN STAIRWA/l (mn UM=I I 1!1 I J 1 1 1 I I I I I I/I////N-I0,900'~~j,i I!I r/1 I 1 I I r 1 I J CW-CT-IA 72"HOT WATER INLET TYPICAL ELECTRICAL BUILDING NO.I OPEN STAIRWAY///////I I I/I I 1 OVERFLOW WEIR ENCLOSED STAIRWAY/I I I r I EQUIPMENT ACCESS RAMP-TYPICAL I (PCATUM I I l'I\//I I/ENCLOSED STAIRWAY I I I///CW-CT-IC 1 r I/84"COLD WATER OUTLET TYPICAL II OVERFLOW WEIR 230'-0" I85'-0 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~2 r Envirormental Report MECHANICAL DRAFZ COOLING TOWERS PZOT PLAN FIG.3.4-1 0 0 90 MAXIMUM EXPECTED BLOWDOWN TEMPERATURE BASED ON S R 1973 DATA 85 80 g 75 70 0 0 DESIGN~VALUES MAXIM MEAS I I l I I WET BULB TEMPERATURE ED IN SUMMER 1973 I I I 60 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 WET BULB TEMPERATURE, F 0 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report, COOLING TOWER PERFORMANCE CURVE FIG.3.4-3 18 EVAPORATION, BLOWDOWN s DRIFT RATE 16 c 5 o i4 O 0 0 EVAPORATION RATE 10 B LOWDOWN TEMP.80 NORMAL RIVER TEMP.70 H M ON 0 P P 4I BLOWDOWN DIFFUSER EX IT VELOCITY BLOWDOWN FLOW RATE w 0 50 Q 40 J F M A M iT J A S 0 N D MONTHS WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report MONTHLY AVERAGE FLOW RATES AND TEMPERATURES FIG.3.4-4 I~'~~~QI II.~I~~~IJ I I~~~II~~II 1 t 2 OO.l5'0d.55 x l L Or OPLQAllgg Pl~CLDQS 0'" lPLT'l 5 OO 0 6<'lSO 55 W E D QA A P AN-324-0"A V ELSE.0 QMP 005~i.fL 50LO Lll~0 PC PUMPPlf FLOOR fL5t450~~A-A I WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Envirormental Report MAKE-UP WATER PUMPHOUSE PLAN jQK)SECTIC6S FIG.3.4-6 1 0 pip MIN.LOW WATER EL.SOI.T3 I RI V CR SOT TOM p 6USSLEIL Pi PE~LIFTINa LUS 42 4 tERFORATCD OUTER Pltt (TYP)36>INTERNAL PERFORATED PIPE (TYP)SUPPORT tILCS (TY1)~~~'I 36 t I'll'C ROCK Rl~RAP SECTION B-B N IE,ISO'SU66LER I'IPC (RtMOTC tLCVATION SENSOR 36 S~Itt~~M 0 0 42 F PERFORATED PI FC ROCK RIP RAP I 6 MIN.EL.340.93 MIN LOW WATER CL 341~73 tL.341.30 SLOPES DOWN 42 4 Ttt SECTION 42 t PERFORATED OUTCR PIPE LIFTINO LUO RIVCR QSOTTOM 42 F PERFORATtD Pltt 34~PIPE I l x I C'I 4'2 F PERFORATED.PIPE.C IC,%SO RIVER~~L(u i'u v LI!4'2 4 PERFORATED OUTtR PIPE SECTION A-A 36~PIPC SUPPORT tlLES (TYt)I\OCK RIP RAP 3O Oi PLAN MSHINGTON PUBLIC POMER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~2 Environmental Report PERPORATED INTAKE PLAN AND SECTIONS FIGHT 3.4-7
O'Q l0 9)d)4J a C 0)C~~5-E O 3 O C~~2 C~~O 0 CI EO O ROM TH EXTE P 3 8" 3 4 NAL SC EXTER EEN SU FACE L SCR EN SUR INT RNAI ACE LEEVE I 2 3 4 5 6'8 Flow velocity in ft/s.9 lo Q 25,000 GPM (u.s.)Q>l2,500 GPM (U.S.)WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report PERFORATED PIPE INTAKE DISTANCE VS.INTAKE FLOW VELOCITIES FIG.3-4"8
~O 0 O 7.2 jo I J Z LIJ 0 O UJ lai CC M 4J I O'z bJ hl K JJJ O W LIJ 4J Vl R bJ J R I I I 62%I I 1 Q.C5 O O O th Ol ll 6.lo/o I 1 I I 1 I J I I I I I-l 72go I e co w e a w e cv o o o o 6 o o o o cv.NI r.n e r co o o o o" o o o 6 o o Velocity in ft/s.Velocity in ft/s.WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report PERFORATED P IPE INTAKE VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION 3/8" AWAY FROM SCREEN SURFACE FIGHT 3.4-9 4IC 333'O tA--I4 4~I~4 O 0 II I3,043'OCK RI~RAR 0 o PLAN MIII, LOW WATCR CL,3AI~T3 4I4'II~IRC~CL.334,TO RIVCR 4OTTOM~ROCK Rlt RAR~ORAVtL SECTION A-A Amendment 5, July 1981 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report SZOZ DISCRETE FIG~3.4-10 0
WNP-2 ER 3.5 RADWASTE SYSTEMS AND SOURCE TERM 3.5.1 Source Term 3.5.1.1 General The source terms for both normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences are based on a noble gas release rate of 60,000 pCi/sec after 30 minutes decay as detailed in ANS Standard N237,"Source Term Specification."'(1)
Estimates of release rates to the environment followed the guidance in the Draft Regulatory Guide"Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Boiling Water Reactors (BWR's)."(2)
Where guidance is not provided (e.g., fuel pool concentrations) reliance is placed on reported measurements.
Improved fuel cladding integrity may result in lower releases than those indicated by measure-ments on early plants.Reference is made to other subsections of Section 3.5 and to the SAR where appropriate.
3.5.1.2 Noble Gas Leaka e Rates From Fuel For normal operation, the average source terms for the environ-mental release are based on a total noble gas leakage rate from the fuel of 60,000 pCi/sec (after 30 min decay).This leakage rate is based on the recommendations in the proposed ANS N-237 standard on source terms.()Table 3.5-1 shows concentrations in units of pCi/g of steam at the reactor vessel steam nozzle, i.e., at decay time t=0.Multiplication by the steam flow rate, 1.8 x 106 g/sec yields the release rate in pCi/sec.Table 3.5-2 lists the calculated radionuclide release rates at t=0 and t=30 min decay.The latter is the rate at t=0 multiplied by the decay factor e~t at t=30 min.3.5.1.3 Halocaens The equilibrium concentrations in the reactor water and steam at the reactor exit nozzles for computing average source terms are shown in Table 3.5-3.The iodine carryover fraction from reactor water to steam is taken as 0.02.(3.5.1.4 Other Fission Products and Corrosion Products The other fission product and corrosion product source terms are shown in Table 3.5-4 (fission products)and Table 3.5-5 (corrosion products).
The carryover gg~ction from reactor water to the steam is taken as 0.001.'.5-1 WNP-2 ER 3.5.1.5 Water Activation Products The water activation products used in the source term calcu-lations are shown in Table 3.5-6.3.5.l.6 Tritium Xn a BWR, tritum is formed from: l.the fissioning of uranium within the fuel, 2.neutron reactions with boron in the control rods, and 3.activation of naturally-occuring deuterium in the primary coolant.The tritium concentration in the reactor coolant is taken as 1 x 10 2 pci/g of water or steam.<1)The tritium released annually in liquid waste is estimated to be 0.01 pCi/ml from reference 2.The tritium released through the building ventilation system is listed on Table 3.5-21.The principal sources are the equip-ment and valve leakages from the turbine and reactor buildings.
The sources of leakage from individual valves, pumps and other types of equipment, are each too small to detect.Release estimates are therefore based on measurements made at opera-ting plants.3.5.1.7 Source Terms for Fuel Pool The 376,000 gallon fuel pool is provided with a cooling and cleanup system to minimize the release of fission products, activation products and tritium to the reactor building envi-ronment.The cleanup system, through filtration and ion exchange, removes fission and activation products from the coolant while the cooling system minimizes evaporation of the tritum bearing water.Exposure of personnel to airborne radioactive material is further reduced by the placement of ventilation exhaust ducts around the periphery of the fuel pool and reactor well.The fuel cooling and cleanup system consists of two circula-ting pumps, two heat exchangers, two filter demineralizers and two skimmer surge tanks together with the required piping, valves and instrumentation.
The pumps circulate the pool water in a closed loop, taking suction from the surge tanks, circulating the water through the heat exchangers and filters, and discharging it through diffusers at the bottom of the fuel pool and reactor well.The water flows from the pool surface through scuppers and skimmer weirs to the surge tanks.3.5-2 WNP-2 ER The flow diagrams for the fuel pool cooling and cleanup system and the fuel pool ventilation system are Figures 3.5-13 and 3.5-9 respectively.
The Bureau of Radiological Health reports concentrations measured at Dresden 1 for normal operating conditions.
These results are listed in Table 3.5-7.Data on air conditions above the pool are limited.Since the radionuclide concentration in the air above the fuel pool is speculative, the total releases from the reactor building are taken as a better value and include the contribution from the fuel pool.3.5.1.8 Releases from Buildin Ventilation S stems Estimates of radioactive releases from ventilation systems are based on measurements of releases at operating boiling water reactors.The measurements and calculations used are those detailed in reference 2 and are summarized below.3.5.1.8.1 Reactor and Containment Buildin s Measurements at nine boiling water reactors indicated that the average Iodine-131 release rate during normal operation was 0.11 curies per year.Measurements of Iodine-131 released from two of the plants during outages indicated an average ratio of Total I-131 released to I-131 released during normal operation of 3:1.The ratio (3:1)of total release/operating release was multiplied by the average of operating release rates (O.ll Ci/yr)to obtain the expected total I-131 release rate.Iodine-133 release's were calculated using the ratio of I-133/I-131,in the reactor coolant.The estimated noble gas release is the average of values measured at two operating boiling water reactors.Estimated releases of particulates are also based on measure-ments at operating boiling water reactors;however, the values are adjusted to reflect an 80%plant capacity factor.Of the 20%downtime, 60 days are assumed to be long term outages (one week or more)while the remaining 13 days are short term shutdowns.
Because of the differences in containment design between the measured plants and the WNP-2 design, the estimated releases were equally divided between the reactor building and contain-ment.Appropriate decontamination factors were then assigned to the containment releases to.account for the effect of the standby gas treatment system.3.5-3 WNP-2 ER Estimated releases from the reactor building and containment are listed in Table 3.5-8.3.5.1.8.2 Turbine Buildin Releases of radioactive iodines, noble gases and particulates were estimated in the manner described for the reactor build-ing.Estimated values are contained in Table 3.5-9.3.5.1.8.3 Radwaste Buildin Radwaste building releases were also based on measurements at operating plants and calculated in the manner described for the reactor building.Credit is taken, however, for HEPA filters located in the ventilation exhaust which considerably reduce the particulate releases from this source.Expected release rates are listed in Table 3.5-10.3.5.1.9-Releases from Mechanical Vacuum Pum Estimates of radioactive releases via the mechanical vacuum pump are based on measurements made at two operating plants as detailed in reference 2.It is assumed that the mechani-cal vacuum pump is operated for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> during each of four shutdowns per year.Expected release rates are contained in Table 3.5-11.3.'5.1.10 Releases from Gland Seal Exhauster Because non-radioactive steam is used in the turbine gland seal system, it is expected that particulate and noble gas releases will be less than one curie per year and that iodine released will be less than 10 4 curies per year.3.5.1.11 Answers to A endix 3 Questions a 0 Q A: Plant capacity factor 80%b.A: Isotope release rates of noble gases to the reactor coolant and at 30 minutes decay, (pCi/sec)See Table 3.5-2 c~d.Qe A: Concentration of fission products in the reactor coolant, pCi/g.See Table 3.5-4 Concentrations of corrosion and water activa-tion products in the reactor coolant, pCi/g See Tables 3.5-5 and 3.5-6, respectively 3.5-4 WNP-2 ER e.Q: Tritium release rate A: Annual average taken as~025 Cl/Mwt x 3300 Mwt 2/7 3.15 x 10 sec/yr 2.Q: The maximum core thermal power (MWt)evaluated for safety considerations in the SAR 33 23 MWt 3.Q~A: The total steam flow, lb/hr 1.43 x 107 lb/hr 4.Q-': The mass (lbs)of primary coolant in the reactor vessel 5.53 x 105 lbs at normal water level.5.a~Qo The average flow rate through the reactor coolant cleanup demineralizer 133,000 lb/hr at temperature
=533 F and enthalpy=527.5 Btu/lb with both deminerali-zers in operation b.The type of resins used Powdex, strong base anion and strong acid'cation c~Qo A The DF's used for the cleanup demineralizer Anion 10 Cs, Rb 2 Other 10 6.Q: A: The total mass (lb)of uranium and plutonium in an equilibrium core (metal weight).For Uranium cycle, 15,000 MWD/T U=136.4 Tonne Pu=0.8 Tonne For Plutonium cycle U=134.9 Tonne Pu=1.4 Tonne 7.Q: The percent enrichment of uranium in reload fuel A: Uranium cycle: 2.4-2.8%Plutonium cycle: 2.4%8.Q: The percent of fissile plutonium in reload fuel A: Uranium cycle: 0.51%Plutonium cycle: 0.62%3.5-5 WNP-2 ER 9.a 0 A: The regeneration frequency (days)for the condensate demineralizers These are powder type demineralizers which are backwashed every 14 days b.Q-A: The type of resins used Powdex c.Q: The DF's used in the evaluation for the condensate demineralizer A: Anion 10;Cs, Rb 2;Other 10 10.Q: The flow rate (gpm)of water used to dilute liquid waste prior to discharge A: 2500-6500 gpm ll.Q: A The input sources, average flow rates and activities of the wastes processed through the high purity waste system 18,380 GPD at 0.213 x Primary Coolant Activity Q'-A: Description of the system used to process the high purity waste.The process flow diagram for the high purity waste system, indicating all decon-tamination factors used in the evaluation See Section 3.5.2 for description and flow diagram: DF for Iodine=1000 DF for Cesium=20 DF for other nuclides=1000 13.Q: A: 14.Q: A: The high purity waste holdup times used in the evaluation and the fraction of the processed stream expected to be discharged over the life of the plant.The capacities (gal)of all tanks con-sidered in calculating the holdup time See Section 3.5.2 for tank capacities:
Collection time=0.435 days Process time=0.0617 days Fraction discharged
=0.01 The input sources, average flow rates (gpd)and activities (fraction of Primary Coolant Activity)of wastes processed through the low purity waste system.5700 GPD at 0.132 x Primary Coolant Activity 3.5-6 WNP-2 ER Description of the system used to process the low purity waste.The process flow diagram for the low purity waste system, indicating all of the decontamination factors used in the evaluation See Section'3.'5.2 for description and flow diagram: DF for Iodine=1000 DF for Cesium=4 DF for other nuclides=1000 The low purity waste holdup times used in the evaluation and the fraction of the processed stream, expected to be discharged over the life of the plant.The capacities (gal)of all tanks considered in calculating the holdup times See Section 3.5.2 for tank capacities:
Collection time=1.403 days Process time=0.0617 days Fraction discharged
=0.10 The input sources, average flow rates (gpd)and activities (fraction of PCA)of water processed through the chemical waste system'400 GPD at, 0.02 x Primary Coolant Activity Description of the system used to process the chemical waste.The process flow diagram for the chemical waste system, indicating all decontamina-tion factors used in the evaluation See Section 3.5.2 for description and flow diagram: DF for Iodine=10,000 DF for Cesium=10,000 DF for other nuclides=10,000 The chemical waste holdup times used in the evalua-tion and the fraction of the processed stream expected to be discharged over the life of the plant.The capacities (gal)of all tanks considered in calculating the holdup times See Section 3.5.2 for tank capacities:
Collection time=8.571 days Process time=0.833 days Fraction discharged
=0.10 The stream leakage rate (lb/hr)to the turbine building considered in the evaluation.
Descrip-tion of special design features used to reduce steam leakage and the fraction of iodine released.If ventilation air is treated through charcoal adsorbers, the bed depth and the iodine decon-tamination factor used.3.5-7 WNP-2 ER Steam leakage estimates were not used in evalua-tion of turbine building releases.Release estimates are based on measurements made at operat-ing plants as detailed in reference 2 There are no special treatment provisions for turbine building exhaust air.The steam flow (lb/hr)to the turbine gland seal and the source of the steam.The total sealing steam flow to all turbines is 28,000 lb/hr of non-radioactive steam.The mass of steam (lb)in the reactor vessel 21,801 lbs during operation The design holdup time (hrs)for gases vented from the gland seal condenser, the iodine parti-tion factor for the condenser and the fraction of iodine released through the system vent.Descrip-tion of the treatment system used to reduce the iodine releases from the gland seal system There is no design holdup time for gases vented from the gland seal condenser.
The gland seal steam is clean steam rather than process steam;see Question-Answer 21 above The primary coolant leakage rate (lb/day)to the reactor building, the temperature of the coolant and the iodine partition factor used in calcu-lating releases from the reactor building in the evaluation Coolant leakage to the reactor building is not used in evaluation of reactor building releases.Release estimates are based on measurements made at operat-ing plants given in reference 2 Description of the treatment provided for the reactor building ventilation air to reduce iodine prior to discharge.
The decontamination factor and the bed depth of the charcoal adsorber used in the evaluation See Section 3.5.3.3.2'he holdup time (min)for off-gases for the main condenser air ejector prior to processing by the off-gas treatment system.The holdup time is in excess of 10 minutes during normal operation 3.5-8 WNP-2 ER Description and expected performance of the gaseous waste treatment system of the off-gases from the condenser air ejector.The expected air inleakage per condenser shell, the number of condenser shells and the-iodine partition factor for the condenser.
There is one condenser shell which is divided into three chambers, each at its own pressure.The total expected air inleakage is 30 cfm for the entire system.See Section 3.5.3.2 for details The mass of charcoal in the charcoal delay system used to treat the off-gases from the main condenser air ejector, the operating temperature of the delay system and the dynamic adsorption coefficient for Xe and Kr, based on the system design used in calcu-lating the respective holdup times.The operating temperature is 0 F.The mass of char-coal in the system is approximately 24.6 tons.The dynamic adsorption coefficients used in calcu-lating holdup times are 105 cm/g for Kr and 2410 cm3/g for Xe Description of cryogenic distillation system, frac-tion of gases partitioned during distillation, holdup in system storage following distillation and expected system leakage Not applicable inputs to the solid waste system: volumes, curie contents and sources of wastes.Principal radio-nuclides, on-site storage times prior to shipment.Description of solid waste processing systems See Section 3.5.4 Sources, flow rates (gpd)and activities of deter-gent wastes.Description of treatment processes, volumes of holdup tanks and decontamination factors used in the evaluation See Section 3.5.4.Note: No on-site laundry Process and instrumentation diagrams for liquid, gaseous and solid radwaste systems and all other systems influencing the source term calculations.
See Figures 3.5-1 to 3.5-11.Process and instrumentation diagrams for fuel pool cooling and purification
'systems and for fuel pool ventilation system.Provide the volume of the fuel pool and refueling canals, identify the sources 3.5-9 WNP-2 ER of makeup water and describe the management of water inventories during refueling.
Provide an analysis of the concentration of radioactive materials in the fuel pool water following refuel-ing and calculate the releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents due to evaporation from the surface of the fuel pool and refueling canals during refueling and during normal power operation.
Provide the basis for the values used See Section 3.5.1.7'3.5.2 Li uid Radwaste S stem 3.5.2.1 General The liquid radwaste system is composed of a group of sub-systems designed to collect, control, process, handle, store, recycle and dispose of liquid radioactive wastes generated as a result of normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences.
These subsystems and the classification of wastes that, these systems process are as follows: a~Equipment drains subsystem-processes high purity wastes.These wastes have a normal conductivity level less than 50 who/cm and a radioactivity level less than 10 pCi/cc.b.Floor drain subsystem-processes intermediate purity wastes.These wastes typically have a higher conductivity level than equipment drains but have a lower radioactivity level on the order of 10-7 to, 10 pCi/cc.c~Chemical waste subsystem-processes low purity wastes.These wastes are of such high conductivity so as to preclude treatment by ion exchange.The radioactivity concentrations are variable and substantially affected by chemical cleaning and decontamination solutions.
These systems are discussed in Subsections 3.5.2.2 through 3.5.2.5, respectively.
The water that is generated from liquid waste processing is recycled for plant reuse to the maximum extent practical.
Excess water is discharged from the plant to maintain an overall plant water balance.Excess water is discharged to the cooling tower blowdown line which is, in turn, dis-charged to the river.Table 3.5-12 lists the estimated 3.5-10 WNP-2 ER radionuclide concentrations that are discharged to the river cooling tower blowdown line.The concentrations listed were estimated using the methods and parameters of the GALE Code detailed.in reference 2.The parameters used in this evalua-'ion are not neces'sarily the same values used for design.Design basis values for the equipment decontamination factors are listed in Table 3.5-13.These factors are defined as the ratio of the input radioactivity concentration to the output concentration.
The liquid radwaste system equipment is designed for a maximum of 150 psig and 150oF operation.
Collection and storage tanks are vented to the radwaste building exhaust system.The mixed bed demineralizers, precoat filters and concentrators are con-tained within pressure vessels.The quality classification for the system is in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.26.The liquid radwaste system is essentially a manual-start, auto-matic stop process.Process and radiation instrumentation allows for the initiation of batch processing from the Radwaste Control Room area or local operation areas.Inputs to the various subsystems originate from both occasional unscheduled sources such as sumps and from scheduled events such as process equipment flushing.The portions of the radwaste and control building which are Seismic Category I are the radwaste area for El.437'-0" to El.467'-0" and the vertical portion of the building encompas-sing the area of the control room.The remainder of the building is Seismic Category II.A process flow diagram, Figure 3.5-1, together data, Table 3.5-14, shows the tank capacities, rates, design capacities of components, holdup total radionuclide inventories for the various subsystems.
with process system flow times and radwaste Piping and instrumentation drawings of the subsystems with collection and discharge piping are shown in Figures 3.5-2 through 3.5-4.3.5.2.2 E i ment Drain Subs stem Descri tion The equipment drain subsystem collects and treats wastes from the following sources: a.Drywell equipment drain sump b.Reactor building equipment drain sump 3.5-11 WNP-2 ER c.Radwaste building equipment drain sump d.Turbine building equipment drain sump e.Reactor water cleanup system f.Residual heat removal system g.Cleanup phase separators (Decant water only)h.Fuel pool seal rupture drains i.Condensate phase separators (Decant water only)Table 3.5-15 lists the quantity from each of the above sources that are processed in this system.The wastes from these sources are pumped or drained into the waste collector tank.The waste collector tank contents are pumped through the waste collector filter and waste deminerali-zer to the waste sample tanks where the liquid is monitored prior to release to the condensate tanks or the cooling tower blowdown line or recirculated for further processing.(See Figure 3.5-2)ln the event, of a component malfunction within the equipment drain subsystem, sufficient-crossties are provided to the floor drain collector subsystem to permit continued processing of the wastes.Sufficient capacity is provided in the equip-ment to handle such conditions.
3.5.2.3 Floor Drain Subs stem Descri tion The floor drain subsystem collects and treats wastes from the following sources: a~b.c d.e.Drywell floor drain sump Reactor building floor drain sumps Radwaste building floor drain sumps Turbine building floor drain sumps Waste sludge phase separator 3.5-12 WNP-2 ER The wastes from these sources are pumped into the floor drain collector tank.Table 3.5-16 lists the quantity from each of the above sources that is processed by this system.The-floor drain collector tank contents are pumped through the floor drain collector filter and the floor drain demineralizer to the floor drain sample tank.Here the fluid is sampled prior to discharge to the condensate storage tank or the cool-ing tower blowdown line.(See Figure 3.5-3)Similar to the equipment drain subsystem, the floor drain sub-system normlly functions as an independent process string.Xntersystem crossties are provided with the equipment drain subsystem to allow continued processing of floor drain wastes.3.5.2.4 Chemical Waste Subs stem Descri tion The chemical waste subsystem collects and treats wastes from the following sources: a.Detergent.
drains b..Shop decontamination solutions c~Reactor, turbine and radwaste building decontamina-tion drains d.Low purity wastes from either the equipment or floor drain subsystems e.Chemical cleaning solutions from filter deminerali-zer units f.Battery room drains g.Chemical system overflows and tank drains h.Laboratory drains i.Chemical waste sump (radwaste building)The quantities from the above sources are listed in Table 3.5-17.These wastes are collected in the chemical waste tank.The contents of this tank are recirculated through a mixing eductor in the tank.During recircula-tion, the fluid is sampled and a neutralizing solution is added as required from one of the chemical addition tanks.3.5-13 WNP-2 ER Samples are taken and if a neutral solution is indicated, the liquid is pumped to the decontamination solution con-centrator.
The'concentrator bottoms are blown to one of the decontamination solution concentrated waste tanks.From here, the concentrator bottoms are pumped to the decontamination solution concentrator waste measuring tank.This tank admits a pre-determined quantity of wastes for processing through the solidification system.The concentrator distillate is condensed in the decontamina-tion solution condenser and stored in the distillate tanks The distillate is sampled and if the radioactivity level and water quality is acceptable, the distillate is pumped to the condensate storage tanks.If the radioactivity level or water quality is unacceptably high, the distillate is processed through the distillate polishing demineralizers or reprocessed through the decontamination solution concentrators.
It is resampled, and if acceptable, it is pumped to the condensate storage tanks.As with the other subsystems, when condensate storage is not available, the purified liquid is sent to the cooling tower blowdown line (See Figure 3.5-4 for an illustration of this system).Equipment reduncancy is provided in the chemical waste pro-cessing system to allow bypassing of any failed component.
Sufficient capacity is provided in the equipment to handle such conditions.
3.5.2.5 Deter ent Wastes Detergent wastes are collected in the detergent drain tanks.These wastes consist of primarily laboratory and decontam-ination solutions which contain detergent and laboratory wastes.Because of a tendency to foul ion exchange resins, these liquid radwastes are treated separately.
They are filtered through the detergent drain filter prior to dis-charge to the chemical waste system for cleanup and recycling.
3.5.2.6 Slu~qes Expended filter demineralizer ion exchange resins are removed ,,when necessary by backwashing.
Condensate filter deminerali-zer resins are backwashed to the condensate backwash receiv-ing tank and pumped to the condensate phase separator tanks for processing.
Reactor water cleanup system sludges are collected in the RWCU phase separators where excess backwash water is decanted to the waste collector tank.The remaining sludge is processed through the radwaste solids system.3.5-14 WNP-2 ER The fuel pool filter demineralizer, waste collector and floor drain filters are backwashed to the waste sludge phase separa-tor tank.The accumulated resins and sludges are processed through the solid radwaste system after a suitable decay period.The processing system for these sludges and resins is described in Section 3.5.4.3.5.3 Gaseous Radwaste S stem 3.5.3.1 General The gaseous radwaste system is designed to process and control the release of gaseous radioactive effluents to the site environs so that the radiation dose to off-site persons is"as low as practicable" as defined in 10CFR50, Appendix Z.Gaseous effluents that are released to the off-site environs emanate from the following sources: a~effluent released from the off-gas treatment system, b.effluent released from the ventilation system in the various buildings, and c~effluent released from the mechanical vacuum pump.3.5.3.2 Off-Gas Treatment S stem 3.5.3.2.1 General The off-gas system can be divided into the following subsystems:
a~b.c~d.e.Recombiner subsystem Condensing-moisture separator subsystem Cooler condenser-glycol subsystem Filter subsystem Desiccant dryer regeneration system Activated carbon refrigeration-adsorption subsystem 3.5-15 WNP-2 ER Each of these are discussed in Subsections 3.5.3.2.2 to 3.5.3.2.7.
The source of radioactive gases is the steam jet air ejec-tors which remove main condenser noncondensible gases during plant operation.
The condenser off-gas contains both fission product gases which leak through the reactor fuel element cladding as well as the coolant activation gases.The acti-vation gases result from the irradiation of reactor coolant as it passes through the neutron field in the fuel portion of the core in the reactor vessel.The production of these gases is dependent upon the reactor power level rather than the amount of leakage in the fuel cladding.Condenser off-gas activity is principally due to N-16, 0-19 and N-13.The N-16 and 0-19 have very short half-lives (secs)and decay rapidly, whereas N-13, with a ten (10)minute half-life, is only present in small amounts.The condenser off-gas contains radioactive noble gases including daughter products of these nuclides.The concentration of noble gases depends on the amount of tramp uranium present and any fuel element defects which exist.The source terms forthe off-gas treatment system are based on the average noble gas release rate of 60,000 pCi/sec after 30 minutes decay (See Subsection 3.5.1).The system has a design basis of 100,000 pCi/sec with the capability of processing 300,000 pCi/sec of noble gases activity without affecting the delay time of the noble gases.Based on a condenser air inleakage of 30 scfm, the charcoal system will present a residence time delay for krypton of at least 46-hours and a xenon residence delay time of at least 42 days.The off-gas system's first processing function is to catalytically recombine radiolytically produced hydrogen and oxygen.The off-gas is then cooled to approximately 130 F to remove condensibles, and in the process, reduce the mass of gas per unit volume.The remaining non-condensible gas, which consists primarily of air plus trace concentrations of krypton-xenon, is delayed in the ten (10)minute holdup system.The gas is cooled to 45 F and filtered through a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA)filter.The gas is then pas8ed through a desiccant dry8r that reduces its dewpoint to-90 F and then is chilled to 0 F.Charcoal adsorption beds, operating in a refrigerated vault at about 0 F, selectively 0 adsorb-and delay the trace quantities of xenon and krypton in the bulk carrier gas.The refrigeration system of the 3.5-16 WNP.-2 ER charcoal adsorber vault is designed with sufficient flexi-bility to maintain the vault temperature down to-40 F.After this delay, the gas is then passed through a HEPA filter and then discharged to the environment through the reactor building elevated release point.Radioiodine is present in reactor steam and, to a small extent, carries over through the condensation and filtration stages of the off-gas system.Removal of off-gas train iodine, however, is virtually complete in passage of the process gas through granular activated carbon.Thus, the radioactive noble gases control the release rate of gaseous wastes from the off-gas system.Figure 3.5-5 shows a schematic of the process flow diagram for the system.Table 3.5-18 lists the process data which apply to this system.The process and instrumentation diagrams are given in Figures 3.5-6 and 3.5-7.The release rate of the noble gas isotopes into the atmosphere are listed in Table 3.5-20.3.5.3.2.2 Recombiner Subs stem During plant operation, the steam jet air ejector removes the non-condensible gases from the main condenser, provides the motive pressure at the inlet to the off-gas system, and dilutes the hydrogen present in the off-gas with steam to maintain the maximum hydrogen concentration less than four percent by volume at all power levels.The actual hydrogen concentration in the effluent gas to and from the recombiner is much below the four percent level.The'off-gas effluent from the air ejectors is directed to the recombiner preheater.
Of these, there are two 100 percent capacity units, with one of the units on standby service.II The recombiner preheater raises the off-gas temperature to approximately 350oF to allow efficient catalytic recombiner operation Xn the recombiner, the gas temperature increases up to 850oF due to the heat of formation of water and this further improves recombiner efficiency.
At the outlet of the recombiner, a hydrogen analyzer monitors the hydrogen concentration and inititates alarms at abnormal hydrogen levels.3.5-17 WNP-2 ER 3.5.3.2.3 Condensin Subs stem The off-gas condenser is utilized to cool and condense the recombiner effluent and reduce entrained water vapor from the off-gas stream.The effluent noncondensible gases are then directed to the water separator where additional'ntrained water droplets are removed.From the water separator, the off-gas is routed to the holdup line, which is designed to provide lag storage of the off-gas for at least ten (10)minutes at, the design flow rate.From'here the off-gas stream is routed to one of the two 100 percent capacity cooler condensers.
The second unit remains on standby service.In the cooler condenser, the off-gas is further cooled to a lower dewpoint temperature to remove more condensibles.
Upon leaving the cooler condenser, the off-gas stream is discharged to one of the moisture separators.
There are two 100 percent units with one unit on standby service.In the moisture separator, additional entrained moisture is removed.From here the off-gas stream is routed to the filter-dryer subsystem.
3.5.3.2.4 Filter-Dr er Subs stem The off-gas stream effluent from the moisture separator is directed to one of the two 100 percent capacity HEPA pre-filters.These filters are of the high efficiency absolute type particulate filters which remove particulate form radio-nuclides.Based on DOP tests, the filter elements remove at least 99.97 percent of particles larger than 0.3 micron in diameter.Gas leaving the prefilter is directed through a disiccant dryer to further reduce the dewpoint level to reduce the competition of water for adsorption sites on the charcoal beds.There are four desiccant dryer units arranged in two independent trains as described in Subsection 3.5.3.2.7.
Thus, while regeneration is being performed on one of the trains, the dryers in the second train are avail-able in the process system, one of.which acts as a standby unit.Each of the four dryers is capable of drying the process gas stream to-90 F dewpoint.From the dryer train,-the off-gas stream is directed to the refrigerated adsorption subsystem.
3.5.3.2.5 Refri crated Adsor tion Subs stem Off-gas effluent from the desiccant dryers under normal operation flows through one of the four off-gas coolers which are each designed to cool the process gas stream to 0 F.From the cooler the gas passes to one of the two banks of charcoal adsorbers.
There are four adsorber 3.5-18 WNP-2 ER vessels in each of the banks.From two of the coolers, the gas stream is directed to the first vessel of each bank of adsorbers.
The remaining two coolers are arranged so that one of the coolers feeding each bank of adsorbers can bypass the first adsorber in each bank in the event of the presence of excess moisture in that adsorber vessel.The gas stream effluent from the last unit of each bank is routed to one of the two afterfilters.
Each of the afterfilters is capable of treating 100 percent of the normal process gas flow, thus one unit is in the standby condition.
The afterfilters are of the HEPA high efficiency moisture resistant absolute particulate type.Particulate daughter products and charcoal fines are removed by the afterfilter before the gas is monitored for radiation level prior to being directed to the reactor building elevated release point and then is released to the atmosphere.
This type of filter has better than 99 percent efficiency for particulates larger than 0.3 microns based on DOP tests.The charcoal adsorbers provide selective adsorption of the xenon and krypton isotopes from the bulk gas (air)in the off-gas stream.Selective adsorption permits a major fraction of xenon and krypton isotopes to decay in place, thereby reducing activity releases to the atmosph re.The holdup time at design flow is in excess of 42 days for xenon and 46 hours5.324074e-4 days <br />0.0128 hours <br />7.60582e-5 weeks <br />1.7503e-5 months <br /> for krypton gases as mentioned earlier.The Kr and Xe holdup time is closely approximated by the following equation: t=KM d F Where: holdup time of a given gas, (sec)Kd dynamic adsorption coefficient for the given gas, (cm3/sec)weight of charcoal, (g)flow rate, (cm/sec)3.5-19 WNP-2 ER Dynamic adsorption coefficient values for xenon and krypton have been reported by several authors, including Browning.(The off-gas charcoal adsorber vault is maintained at 0 F during normal plant operation by two independent, full capacity, closed loop, brine refrigeration systems.The re-frigeration system has been designed with sufficient flexi-bility to maintain the vault temperature-down to-40oF.The off-gas charcoal adsorber vault refrigeration system is schematically shown in Figure 3.5-8.During normal plant operation, one refrigeration system operates with the second system in standby mode.Each system consists of a rotary screw type liquid chiller, a centrifugal pump, two refrigeration fan coil units and associated piping, distribution ductwork and accessories.
3.5.3.2.6 Gl col Subs stem This subsystem consists of three refrigeration machines through which a closed-type glycol system is fed.The cold glycol solution is pumped to the off-gas process stream's two cooler condensers described in Subsection 3.5.3.2.3 and the desiccant dryer's regenerative dryer chillers described in Subsection 3.5.3.2.7.
This subsystem consists of four desiccant beds in two independent trains, each train having a full set of regenera-tion equipment.
The regeneration cycle uses only captive air from the off-gas process stream which is cooled in the dryer chiller, circulated by the regenerative blower and heated and dried by the dryer heater before being directed through the desiccant dryer being regenerated.
Under normal operating conditions, a desiccant unit can be regenerated in a 12-hour period including cooldown.The desiccant dryer regeneration system is also piped to allow its use in supplying relatively dry (45 F dewpoint), heated (250 F)air at the rate of 250 cfm to be used in defrosting and drying the charcoal adsorber beds during the annual refueling outage, should gross moisture be present.Service air is utilized for this purpose and circulated through the regeneration system prior to being circulated through the charcoal adsorber beds.3.5-20 WNP-2 ER 3.5.3.3 Buildin Ventilation 3.5.3.3.1 General The Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)systems that service the reactor, radwaste and turbine building are designed to the following performance objectives:
a~To provide fresh air and maintain appropriate temperature and humidity conditions for plant personnel and ecruipment.
b.Control and monitor all potentially radioactive airborne releases from the plant to within the objectives of 10CFR50, Appendix I.c~Control and limit airborne contaminants within the plant structures by inducing air flow from areas of low radiation potential to areas of high radiation potential.
d.Maintain the various buildings at a negative pres-sure with respect to the atmosphere.
This prevents the exfiltration of radioactive material.Details of the HVAC system used in each building are discussed in the following paragraphs.
3.5.3.3.2 Reactor Building The reactor building heating and ventilating system is schematically shown in Figure 3.5-9.The system is basically a push-pull heating and ventilation system providing once-through air flow with no recirculation.
It consists of the following subsystems which can potentially release radioactive effluents.
Su 1 Air S stem The supply air system consists of a ventilation unit, air distribution ductwork, two isolation butterfly dampers on the fresh air intake and the associated controls.During normal plant operation and shutdown, the supply air system isolation dampers are open and the ventilation system operates continuously.
This pxovides 100%outdoor air throughout the building.3.5-21 NNP-2 ER The reactor building supply air.system also provides makeup air to the primary containment during a primary containment purge.During purging, isolation valves in the supply purge duct to the primary containment are opened, and air is blown from the supply air system into the primary containment.
In the event of a reactor building isolation signal, the supply system ventilating unit stops and the two isolation dampers on the fresh air intake close.The signals which cause reactor building isolation are as follows: a.reactor vessel low water level, b.high drywell pressure, and c.high radiation level in the reactor building exhaust ventilation system.Exhaust Air S stem The reactor building exhaust system draws air from all areas with radiation contamination potential and discharges it to the elevated release point.The elevated release point is located on the roof of the reactor building.In the event of a primary containment purge, the exhaust air is discharged through the reactor building exhaust system or through the standby gas treatment system.Ducts connect the primary containment drywell and wetwell with reactor building exhaust system and standby gas treatment system.The reactor building exhaust system is normally used.The standby gas treatment system is used to process building exhaust during an accident to maintain reactor building under negative pressure.It consists of two independent, full-size systems.Each system contains a demister which removes excess moisture, a prefilter which removes particulate matter present in the effluent, and electric heating coil to reduce the relative humidity of the air, a high efficiency particu-late air filter (HEPA)which is capable of removing 99.97%of all particulate-matter which is 0.3 micron or larger in size, two activated charcoal iodine filters which remove 99%of the iodine and an afterfilter.
This equipment is listed in the order of air treatment.
See Subsection 6.5 of the FSAR for further details.3.5-22 WNP-2 ER Sum Vent Exhaust Filter S stem All potentially radioactive liquid leaks and/or spills in the reactor'uilding are channeled to the euqipment or floor drain system.In order to minimize the release of radio-active contaminants from the building, the drain system sumps and drain headers are maintained at a negative pressure and are vented through a filter system.The sump vent exhaust system is composed of two full-capacity, 1000 cfm filter units, each consisting of moisture separator, electric heater, HEPA filter, charcoal filter and fan.The units which draw air from the sumps and drain headers pass it through filters and discharge it into the main reactor building exhaust system upstream of the radiation monitoring instruments.
3.5.3.3.3 Radwaste Buildin The radwaste building heating and ventilating system is schematically shown in Figure 3.5-10.The main system is a push-pull heating and ventilating system providing once-through air flow with no recirculation.
In addition, indi-vidual air conditioning units are provided for all rooms which personnel will normally occupy for extended periods of time.The main radwaste building supply air system consists of a supply ventilation unit and distribution ductwork.During normal plant operation, the supply unit operates continuously.
This provides fresh air throughout the building via the supply duct distribution system.The radwaste building exhaust system is composed of three 50%capacity exhaust filter units.Only two of these units are in operation at any one time.Each exhaust unit fan is pro-vided with an automatic air operated inlet vane for volume control.The inlet vanes are controlled by differential pressure controllers set to maintain the tank enclosures in the lower level of the radwaste building at a negative pres-sure with respect to the atmostphere.
All radwaste building exhaust air is processed by the exhaust units and monitored by radiation detectors prior to discharge.
The release point for the ventilation exhaust, is located on the roof of the radwaste building.All exhaust air is passed through HEPA filters prior to discharge, thus minimizing the release of radioactive particulates.
3.5-23 WNP.-2 ER 3.5.3.3.4 Turbine Generator Buildin The heating and ventilation systems of the turbine generator building are schematically shown in Figure 3.5-11.The pri-mary system is a push-pull heating and ventilating system.It consists of the following subsystems which can potentially release radioactive effluent.Main Su 1 S stem The turbine generator building supply air system is composed of four supply ventilation units and distribution ductwork.The units are operated in pairs, with one pair discharging into a common supply duct system servicing the west side of the building.The other pair supplies the east side of the building.Each ventilation unit contains a centrifugal fan.This fan is furnished with automatic inlet vanes for fan capacity and control.These are used to control the air flow and to main-tain the turbine building at a negative pressure with respect to the atmosphere.
Automatic dampers are provided on the intake of each ventila-tion unit that permit the unit to draw either 100%outdoor air or 100%recirculation air from the turbine building.Recircu-lation is only performed in the event of a plant outage, when airborne contamination potential does not exist, to reduce building heating reauirements.
Main Exhaust S stem The main exhaust system consists of four roof-mounted cen-trifugal fans, all of which draw air from a central exhaust duct system.Three of the exhaust fans normally operate continuously with one fan as standby.Air flow through the operating fans is maintained at a'constant rate by automatic volume dampers on the fan discharges.
Almost all exhaust air is drawn from the shielded areas of the turbine building where the potential for airborne radio-active contamination is highest.This induces flow from the cleaner areas.All exhaust air is monitored for radioactive contamination prior to discharge.
In the event that supply air to the turbine generator building is reduced, as during a plant outage, only one or two exhaust.fans may be operated.Motor operated shut-off dampers are provided in all main branches of the exhaust duct system so that exhaust can be stopped on an area-by-area basis.Auto-matic volume dampers are provided in the exhaust system so 3.5-24 WNP-2 ER that full exhaust flow can be drawn from the shielded equip-ment vaults on the lower level of the turbine building when the exhaust system is operating at full capacity.These vaults house equipment with higher contamination potential such as the air ejectors and the off-gas system hydrogen recombiners.
3.5.3.3.5 Effluent Released from Buildin Ventilation Flow rate, elevation, heat, content and description of the three release points are listed on Table 3.5-19.Reactor Buildin The reactor building ventilation system supplies fresh air to the reactor building and exhausts air through the elevated release point.Table 3.5-21 lists the radionuclide concentra-tion in the reactor building effluent;basis for these values are discussed in 3.5.1.8.1.
The reactor building sumps are vented through a bank of HEPA and activated charcoal filters;however, no credit is taken for this sump vent treatment syst: em when calculating releases.Turbine Buildin The turbine building ventilation system supplies fresh air to the various building areas and exhausts air to the atmos-phere.Table 3.5-21 lists the radionuclide concentration in the turbine building effluent.These values are based on measurements at operating plants as discussed in 3.5.1.8.2.
The turbine building sumps are vented through the ventila-tion system directly to the atmosphere.
The contribution to the total building ventilation effluent is included in Table 3.5-21 values.Radwaste Buildin Sources of gaseous radioactivity in the radwaste building include: a.Air ejector off-gas system leakage b.c~Liquid leakage to the radwaste building Hydropneumatic transfer of resins 3.5-25 WNP-2 ER Leakage of radioactive gases from the off-gas treatment system is limited by the use of welded piping connections where possible and bellows stem seals or equivalent for valving.The system operates at a maximum of 7 psig during startup and less than 2 psig during normal operation so that the differential pressure to cause leakage is small.Liquid leakage, which is at ambient temperature, is retained in trenches, cells and concrete rooms and returned to the system for additional processing.
Any radioactivity displaced from filter precoats and bed resins during processing is routed to the building ventila-tion exhaust system and high efficiency filters.Estimated radioactive material releases from the radwaste building ventilation exhaust are listed in Table 3.5-21.3.5.4 Solid Radwaste S stem 3.5.4.1 General The solid radwaste system collects, monitors, processes, packages and provides temporary storage facilities for radioactive solid wastes for off-site shipment and perma-nent disposal.The following describes the design basis for the solid radwaste system.a~The solid radwaste system is designed such that the solid radwaste collected and prepared for off-site shipment does not result in radiation exposure in excess of the limits set in 10CFR20.b.The solid radwaste system is designed to package radioactive solid wastes for off-site shipment and burial in accordance with aoplicable requla-tions including 49CFR170-178.
c~The solid radwaste system is designed to prevent the release of significant quantities of radio-active materials to the environs so as to restrict the overall exposure to the public within the limits of 10CFR50, Appendix I.d.Shielded casks are provided as necessary which conform to applicable federal regulations.
3.5-26 WNP-2 ER The solid waste processing system processes both wet and dry solid wastes.'et solid wastes include backwash sludge and spent resins from the reactor water cleanup system, the condensate filter demineralizer system, the fuel pool filter demineralizers, the floor drain filter, the waste collector filter, the floor drain demineralizer, the waste deminerali-zer, the decontamination solution concentrator and the distil-late polishing demineralizer.
Dry solids wastes include rags, paper, small equipment parts, solid laboratory wastes, etc.The processing of these wastes is discussed in Subsections 3.5.4.4 and 3.5.4.5.The input of the various radioactive solid waste inputs are shown on the radwaste process diagram, Figure 3.5-1.The expected frequency of solid waste input, the quantities of solids generated and the radioactivity level in the solids after accumulation are listed on Table 3.5-22.Figure 3.5-12 shows the waste packaging portion of the solid radwaste system.The radionuclide inventory in the streams that serve as input into the radwaste is listed in Table 3.5-23.3.5.4.2 Radwaste Dis osal S stem Descri tions 3.5.4.2.1 Radwaste Dis osal S stem for Reactor Water Cleanu Slud e The purpose of the radwaste system for cleanup sludge is to process the highly radioactive backwash waste which is dis-charged from the reactor water cleanup system.The.reactor water cleanup system includes two filter-demin-eralizer units, each of which are precoated with powdered ion exchange resin (powdex), which is retained on a permanent stainless steel septum.These filter demineralizer units remove, by filtration and ion exchange, the suspended and dissolved solids from the recirculating primary reactor coolant.These solids consist of radioactive and stable elements.Upon exhaustion of either its filtration or ion exchange capability, the cleanup filter demineralizer is taken out of service.Then it is backwashed and precoated.
The backwash waste discharged from a cleanup demineralizer consists of a slurry which has a suspended solids content of about 0.5%by weight.This slurry is accumulated in one of the two cleanup phase separators.
Each backwash batch received by the working phase separator is allowed to settle and the resulting decantate is pumped to to the waste collector tank.The bottoms, or sludge, is 3.5-27 WNP-2 ER stored in the phase separator, and when sufficient sludge has accumulated, the working phase separator is isolated for a period of one to two months to permit additional time for radionuclide decay.At the end of this decay period, water is added to the sludge until about 5%solids content by weight is reached and it is then pumped to the centri-fuges for dewatering.
See Subsection 3.5.4.4 for a descrip-tion of the centrifuges.
3.5.4.2.2 Radwaste Dis osal S stem for Condensate Demineralizer Slud e The purpose of this system is to process the radioactive backwash waste which is discharged from the condensate filter demineralizer system.The condensate filter demineralizer system consists of six filter demineralizer units which are precoated with powdered ion exchange resin (powdex).Five of these are in continuous operation and one is in a standby mode.These filter demin-eralizer units remove, by filtration and ion exchange, the suspended and dissolved solids from the reactor steam condensate.
These solids consist primarily of corrosion products and trace radionuclides.
Upon exhaustion of either its filter or ion exchange capability, the exhausted demin-eralizer is taken out of service and is backwashed and pre-coated.The backwash waste discharged from a condensate demineralizer consists of a slurry which has a suspended solids content of aoubt 0.5%by weight.This discharge is collected in the condensate backwash receiving tank.After collection, the waste is transferred-by pumping to one of the two condensate phase separators for processing.
Operation of the condensate phase separators is similar to that for the cleanup phase separat'ors (See Subsection 3.5.4.2.l).
Backwash sludge is received by the phase separators at a suspended sludge concentration of 0.5%by weight.The slurry is retained to allow setting and is then decanted to the waste collector.
The sludge fraction is routed to the centrifuges for dewatering and solid waste packaging.
3.5-28 WNP-2 ER 3.5.4.2.3 Radwaste Dis osal S stem for Fuel Pool, Floor Drain and Waste Co'llector Filter'Slu e The purpose of this system is to collect backwash sludge wastes from the floor drain filter, waste collector filter and fuel pool filter demineralizers.
These wastes, which have a solids content of about 0.5%by weight, are drained by gravity to the waste sludge phase separator.
The waste sludge phase separator decants the wastes to a solids content, of 5%by weight.The resulting decantate is pumped to the floor drain collector tank.When a predetermined quantity of waste sludge has been accumulated, water is added to it until a solids content of 5%by weight is reached.Then the sludge is pumped to the centrifuges for dewatering.
3.5.4.2.4 Radwaste Dis osal S stem for S ent Resin The purpose of this system is to collect spent resin from the floor drain, waste collector and distillate polishing demineralizers.
These wastes are hydropneumatically trans-ferred to the spent resin tank.The spent resin tank is designed to accept one batch of resins from any of the aforementioned demineralizers plus resin transfer water plus free board.Each batch of the spent resin is trans-ferred, in slurry, to the centrifuges for dewatering.
3.5.4.3 Radwaste Dis osal S stem for Concentrated Solutions The purpose of this system is to process wastes from the decontamination solution concentrators which are discharged to the concentrator waste tanks.These wastes consist of radioactive chemical wastes, detergent wastes and excess inventory floor drain'wastes whose chemical content is too high to permit economical purification by ion exchange.These wastes are concentrated in the decontamination solution concentrator.
The waste solution from the decontamination solution concen-trator is blown down with steam to one of two decontamination solution concentrated waste tanks.Fach concentrated waste tank is sized to handle half of a batch of concentrated waste solution from each concentrator.
Prom the concentrated waste tank, the concentrated solution is pumped to the decontamination solution concentrator waste measuring tank.From here, the solution is fed into the solids waste processing system for solidification and dis-posal.Note that these wastes are not pumped to the centri-fuges prior to disposal.3, 5-29
%%P-2 ER 3.5.4.4 Radwaste Solids Handlinq S stem The purpose of this system is to process the waste sludge slurries from the cleanup phase separators, the condensate phase separators, the waste sludge phase separators, the spent resin tank and the concentrated solutions from the decontamination solution concentrator waste measuring tank.The system dewaters the bulk volume of the solid water slurries and prepares the dewatered concentrated waste for off-site shipment in disposable containers.
The system also reclaims the water from the wet solid wastes for reuse within the plant.Concentrator waste solutions can be solidified in disposable containers for off-site shipment.In addition, the system has the capability for solidifying all dewatered solid wastes in disposable containers com-patible for off-site shipment.Two processing trains are provided for processing the solid waste slurries.Each processing train consists of a centri-fuge, hopper, controls and piping to dewater and concentrate the solid waste slurries.In addition, one processing train contains equipment for solidifying the dewatered solid wastes.This equipment consists of a waste processing pump, static mixer and associated polymer storage tanks, polymer day tank, catalyst tanks and pumps to deliver predetermined amounts of polymer and catalyst for solidification.
Sludge and resin wastes are pumped from the cleanup phase separators, the condensate phase separators, the waste sludge phase separator or the, spent resin tank and are reduced in volume by dewatering in either one of the two centrifuges.
Water effluent from the centrifuges is transferred to the waste sludge phase s'eparator tank for decanting, reprocessing and reuse in the station.The dewatered solid wastes are discharged from the centrifuges by gravity into their re-spective hoppers, which are used for filling 50 cubic foot containers for disposal.If solidification is required, the solidification processing train is used and the hopper is filled to a predetermined level with dewatered solids from the centrifuge.
The.re-quired amount, of water is then added to each hopper.An empty disposable container is placed on the transfer dolly and the transfer dolly and container are then moved to the filling station underneath the hopper.The hopper discharge valve is opened, which permits the flow of wastes to the waste processing pump.A set of hopper augers forces the wastes into the, discharge bin and a conveyor transports the 3.5-30 WNP-2 ER waste to the throat of the pump.The speed of the waste processing pump, polymer processing pump and.the amount of catalyst are set to achieve the proper ratio of solids, polymer and catalyst required for proper solidification of the mixture.The processing pumps are started and pump the mixture through the static mixer where the solids, catalyst and polymers are well mixed.Then, the mixture is dis-charged into a disposable container from the static mixer.An identical process to the above is used to solidify de-contamination solution concentrator wastes.The concentrator waste measuring tank discharges directly to the waste proces-sing pump.The speed of the waste processing pump, polymer processing pump and catalyst processing pump are set to achieve the proper ratio of concentrate, polymer and catalyst required for solidification of the mixture.The processing pumps are started and pump the mixture into the static mixer where mixing occurs;then the mixture is discharged into a disposable container.
Dewatered solid wastes are packaged in 50 cu.ft.disposable containers that meet the requirements established in 49CFR170-178.
The containers are brought into the processing area and loaded on the dolly and the dolly is moved to the filling station where dewatered waste is added.The quantity of wastes packaged in the container is measured by a level indicator.
The filled container is moved to the container capping sta-tion where it is remotely capped by the operator.After capping, the container is moved to the smear and washdown station and decontaminated prior to being sent to the storage area station.The storage area is capable of storing up to seventy-two 50 cubic foot containers.
High radioactivity containers can be stored for periods of up to, and in excess of, six months to allow for additional decay prior to shipment.3.5.4.5 Miscellaneous Solid Waste S stem Dry waste consists of air filter media, miscellaneous paper, rags, etc.from contaminated areas.It also consists of contaminated clothing, tools and equipment parts which cannot be effectively decontaminated, and solid laboratory wastes.The radioactivity level of much of the waste is low enough to permit direct handling by personnel.
These wastes are collected in containers located in appropriate zones around the plant as dictated by the volumes of wastes generated 3.5-31~
WNP-2 ER during operation and maintenance.
The filled containers are sealed and moved to a controlled access area for temporary storage.Compressible wastes are compacted into 55-gallon steel drums in a hydraulic press-baling machine to reduce their volume.The compressed solid wastes are stored temporarily near the truck loading area in the radwaste building.Non-compressible solid wastes are packaged manually in similar 55-gallon steel drums.Because of its low radioactivity level, this waste can be stored until enough is accumulated to permit eco-nomical transportation to an off-site burial ground for final disposal.3.5.5 Process and Effluent Monitorin The locations and elevations of all radioactive release points are shown in Figure 3.1-6.Table 3.5-24 lists all radioactive effluent monitoring and control points.Indicated are those monitors that auto-matically terminate effluent discharges upon alarm or those monitors, upon alarm, which automatically actuate standby or alternative treatment systems or which automatically divert streams to holdup tanks.3.5-32 WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-1 NOBLE GAS CONCENTRATION IN THE REACTOR STEAM NUMERICAL VALUES-CONCENTRATIONS IN PRINCIPAL FLUID~(LICi/)ISOTOPE Kr 83 m Kr 85 m Kr 85 Kr 87 Kr 88 Kr 89 Kr 90 Kr 91 Kr 92 Kr 93 Kr 94 Kr 95 Kr 97 Xe 131 m Xe 133 m Xe 133 Xe 135 m Xe 135 Xe 137 Xe 138 Xe 139 Xe 140 Xe 141 Xe 142 Xe 143 Xe 144 REACTOR STEAM 1.1 E-3 1.9 E-3 6.0 E-6 6.6 E-3 6.6 E-3 4.1 E-2 9.0 E-2 1.1 E-1 1.1 E-1 2.9 E-2 7.2 E-3 6.6 E-4 4.4 E-6 4.7 E-6 9.0 E-5 2.6 E-3 8.4 E-4 7.2 E-3 4.7 E-2 2.8 E-2 9.0 E-2 9.6 E-2 7.8 E-2 2.3 E-2 3.8 E-3 1.8 E-4 (a)The reactor steam concentration is specified at the nozzle where reactor water leaves the reactor vessel;similarly, the reactor steam concentration is specified at time 0.These values are ANSI N237 Table V values multiplied by 0.6 to convert from the 100,000 pCi/sec-30 minute mixture design basis case to the 60,000 pCi/sec normal operating basis suggested by ANSI N237 and subsequently by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.70.27 references.
WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-2 AVERAGE NOBLE GAS RELEASE RATES FROM FUEL ISOTOPE Kr 83 m Kr 85 m Kr 85 Kr 87 Kr 88 Kr 89 Kr 90 Kr 91 Kr 92 Kr 93 Kr 94 Kr 95 Kr 97 HALF-LIFE 1.86 h 4.4 h 10.74 y 76.m 2.79 h 3.18 m 32.3 s 8.6 s 1.84 s 1.29 s 1.0 s 0.5 s 1.s LEAKAGE RATE ATt=0 (p Ci/s)2.0 E3 3.4 E3 1.1 El 1.2 E4 1.2 E4 7.4 E4 1.6 E5 2.0 E5 2.0 E5 5.2 E5 1.3 E4 1.2 E3 7.9 EO LEAKAGE RATE AT t=30m (pCi/s)1.7 E3 3.1 E3 1.1 El 9.1 E3 1.1 E4 7.4 El Xe 131 m Xe 133 m Xe 133 Xe 135 m Xe 135 Xe 137 Xe 138 Xe 139 Xe 140 Xe 141 Xe 142 Xe 143 Xe 144 11.96 d 2.26 d 5.27 d 15.7 m 9.16 h 3.82 m 14.2m 4.0 s 13.6 s 1.72 s 1.22 s.96 s 9.s 8.5 EO 1.6 E2 4.7 E3 1.5 E3 1.3 E4 8.5 E4 5.0 E4 1.6 E5 1.7 E5 1.4 E5 4.1 E4 6.8 E3 3.2 E2 8.4 EO 1.6 E2 4.7 E3 4.0 E2 1.3 E4 3.4 E2 1.2 E4 TOTALS 1.4 E6 5.6 E4 (a)NRC Draf t Reg.Guide (Ref.2)
WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-3 CONCENTRATIONS OF HALOGENS IN REACTOR COOLANT AT REACTOR VESSEL EXIT NOZZLES (pCi/m)ISOTOPE Br 83 Br 84 Br 85 I 131 I 132 I 133 I 134 I 135 REACTOR WATER 3 E-3 5 E-3 3 E-3 5 E-3 3 E-2 2 E-2 7 E-2 2 E-2 REACTOR STEAM 6 E-5 1 E-4 6 E-5 1 E-4 6 E-4 4 E-4 1 E-4 4 E-4 (a)Values from ANSI N237 Table 5 WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-4 CONCENTRATIONS OF FISSION PRODUCTS IN REACTOR COOLANT AT REACTOR VESSEL EXIT NOZZLES (pCi/)ISOTOPE REACTOR WATER REACTOR STEAM Rb 89 Sr 89 Sr 90 Sr 91 Sr 92 91 Y 92 Y 93 Zr 95 Zr 97 Nb 95 Nb 98 Mo 99 Tc 99 m Tc 101 Tc 104 RQ 103 Ru 105 RG 106 Ag 110 m Te 129 m Te 131 m Te 132 Cs 134 Cs 136 Cs 137 Cs 138 Ba 139 Ba 140 Ba 141 Ba 142 La 142 CB 141 Ce 143 Ce 144 Pr 143 Nd 147 W 187 Np 239 5 1 6 4 1 4 6 7 7 5 7 4 2 2 9 8 2 2 3 1 4 1 1 3 2 7 1 1 4 1 6 5 3 3 3 4 3 3 7 E-3 E-4 E-6 E-3 E-2 E-5 E-3 E-6 E-6 E-6 E-6 E-3 E-3 E-2 E-2 E-2 E-5 E-3 E-6 E-6 E-5 E-4 E-5 E-5 E-5 E-5 E-2 E-2 E-4 E-2 E-3 E-3 E-5 E-5 E-6 E-5 E-6 E-4 E-3 E-6 E-7 E-9 E-6 E-5 E-8 E-6 E-9 E-9 E-9 E-9 E-6 E-6 2 E-5 E-5 E-5 E-8 E-6 E-9 E-9 E-8 E-7 E-8 E-8 E-8 E-8 E-5 E-5 E-7 E-5 E-6 E-6 E-8 E-8 E-9 E-8 E-9 E-7 E-6 (a)Values from ANSI N237 Table
ÃNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-5 CONCENTRATIONS OF CORROSION PRODUCTS IN REACTOR COOLANT AT REACTOR VESSEL EXIT NOZZLES (pCi/)ISOTOPE Na 24 P 32 Cr 51 Mn 54 Mn 56 Fe 55 Fe 59 Co 58 Co 60 Ni 63 Ni 65 CQ 64 Zn 65 Zn 69 m REACTOR WATER'E-3 2 E-4 5 E-3 6 E-5 5 E-2 1 E-3 3 E-5 2 E-4 4 E-4 1 E-6 3 E-4 3 E-2 2 F,-4 2 E-3 REACTOR STEAM 9 E-6 2 E-7 5 E-6 6 E-8 5 F-5 1 E-6 3.E-8 2 E-7 4 E-7 1 E-9 3 E-7 3 E-5 2 E-7 2 E-6 (a)Values from ANSI N237 Table 5 WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-6 CONCENTRATIONS OF'WATER ACTIVATION PRODUCTS IN REACTOR COOLANT AT REACTOR VESSEL EXIT NOZZLES (IICi/cd)ISOTOPE N 13 N 16 N 17 0 19 F 18 REACTOR WATER 5 E-2 6 E-1 9 E-3 7 E-l 4 E-3 REACTOR STEAM 7 E-3 5 E-1 2 E-2 2 E-1 4 E-3 (a)Values from ANSI N237 Table 5' WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-7 RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN FUEL POOL RADIONUCLIDE I 131 H 3 Mn 54 Co 58 Co 60 Sr 89 Sr 90 Cs 134 Cs 137 Ba 140 RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATION p Ci/mL<lx 10 8.8 x 10 6 x 10 1.8 x 10 7.4 x 10 2.0 x 10 1.8 x 10 3.1 x 10 7.6 x 10 1.5 x 10 (a)Radiological Surveillance Studies at a Boiling Water Nuclear Power Reactor, BRH/DER 70-1, February 1971.
WNP-2 ER'ABLE 3.5-8 ESTIMATED RELEASES FROM DRYWELL AND REACTOR BUILDING VENTILATION SYSTEMS Kr 85 m Kr 87 Kr 88 Xe 133 Xe 135 m REACTOR BUILDING Ci/r 46 CONTAINMENT BUILDING Ci/r 3 66 46 Xe 135 Xe 138 I 131 I 133 Cr 51 Mn 54 Fe 59 Co 58-Co 60 Zn 65 Sr 89 Sr 90 Zr 95 Sb 124 Cs 134 Cs 136 Cs 137 Ba 140 Ce 141 34 70 0.17 0.68 3 x 10 3 x 10 4x10 6x10 lx10 2x10 9 x 10 5x10 4 x 10'x 10 4 x 10 3 x 10 5xl0 4 x 10 lx10 34 70 1..7 6.8 3 x 3 x 4 x 6 x'1 x 2 x 9 x 5 x 4 x 2 x 4 x 3 x 4 x 1 x x 10 x.10 10 10'0 10 10 10 10 10 10'0 10 10 10 10 10 (a)Based on NRC GALE Code (Ref.2)
WNP-2 ER TABLE'3.5-9 ESTIMATED RELEASES FROM TURBINE BUILDING VENTILATION Kr 85 m Kr 87 Kr 88 Xe 133 Xe 135 m Xe 135 Xe 138 I 131 I 133 Cr 51 Mn 54 Fe 59 Co 58 Co 60 Zn 65 Sr 89 Sr 90 Zr 95 Sb 124 Cs 134 Cs 136 Cs 137 Ba 140 Ce 141 C~i/r 68 190 230 280 650 630 1400 0.19 0.76 1.3 x 10 6x10 Sx10 6 x 10 2 x 10 2 x 10 6 x 10 2 x 10~1 x 10 3x 10 3 x 10 5x10 6 x 10 1.1 x 10 6 x 10 (a)Based on NRC GALE Code (Ref.2)
WNP-,2 ER TABLE 3.5-10 ESTIMATED RELEASES FROM RADWASTE BUILDING Ze 133 Xe 135 I 131 I 133 Cr 51 Mn 54 Fe-59 Co 58 Co 60 Zn 65.Sr 89 Sr, 90 Zr.95 Sb 124 Cs 134 Cs 136 Cs 137 Ba 140 Ce 1.41~Ci/r 10 45 5.0 x 1.8 x 9.0 x 4.5 x 1.5 x 4.5 x 9.0 x 1.5 x 4.5 x 3.0 x 5.0 x 5.0 x 4.5 x 4.5 x 9.0 x 1.0 x 6.0 x 10 10 10'0 10 10 10 10 10 10'0 10 10 10 10'0 10 (a)Based on NRC GALE Code (Ref.2)
WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-11 ESTIMATED RELEASES FROM MECHANICAL VACUUM PUMP Xe 133~Ci/r 2300 Xe 135 I 131 Cs 134 Cs 136 Cs 137 Ba 140 350 3 x 3 x 2 x 1 x 1.1 10 10'0 10 x 10 (a)Based on NRC GALE Code (Ref.2)
WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-12 ANNUAL RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL AS LIQUID CONCENTRATION IN PRIMARY HALF-LIFE COOLANT NUCLIDE (DAYS)(MICRO CI/ML)CORROSION AND ACTIVATION PRODUCTS HIGH PURITY (CURIES)LOW PURITY (CURIES)ADJUSTED TOTAL LWS TOTAL TOTAL (CURIES)(CI/YR)*(CI/YR)NA 24 P 32 CR 51 MN 54 MN 56 FE 55 FE 59 CO 58 CO 60 NI 65 CU 64 ZN 65 ZN 69M ZN 69 W 187 NP 239 6.25E-01 1.43E 01 2.78E 01 3.03E 02 1.07E-01 9.50E 02 4.50E 01 7.13E 01 1.92E 03 1.07E-01 5.33E-01 2.45E 02 5.75E-01 3.96E-02 9.96E-01 2.35E-OO 8.38E-03 1.96E-04 4.90E-03 5'89E-05 4.08E-02 9.82E-04 2.94E-05 1.96E-04 3.93E-04 2.45E-04 2.77E-02 1.96E-04 1.85E-03 0.0 2.84E-04 6.77E-03 0.00034 0.00001 0.00026 0.00000 0.00050 0.00005 0.00000 0.00001 0.00002 0.00000 0.00106 0.00001 0.00007 0.00008 0.00001 0.00034 0.00041 0.00002 0.00050 0.00001 0.00032 0.00010 0.00000 0.00002 0.00004 0.00000 0.00122 0.00002 0.00009 0.00009 0.00002 0.00057 0.00075 0.00003 0.00077 0.00001 0.00081 0.00016 0.00000 0.00003 0.00006 0.00000 0.00228 0;00003 0.00016 0.00017 0.00003 0.00090 0.00656 0.00026 0.00671 0.00008'.00712 0.00136 0.00004 0.00027 0.00055 0.00004 0.02000 0.00027 0.00139 0.00146 0.00027'.00792 0.00660 0.00026 0.00670 0.00008 0.00710 0.00140 0.00004 0.00027 0.00055 0.00004 0.02000 0.00027 0.00140 0'0150 0.00027 0.00790 FISSION PRODUCTS p)I 0~g~e)(BR 83 BR 84 RB 89 SR 89 SR 91 Y 91M Y 91 SR 92 1.00E-01 2.21E-02 1.07E-02 5.20E 01 4.03E-01 3'7E-02 5.88E 01 1.13E-01 2.31E-03 3.50E-03 3.43E-03 9.81E-05 3.64E-03 0.0 3.93E-05 8.20E-03 0.00003 0.00000 0.00001 0.00001 0.00012 0.00008 0.00000 0.00011 0.00002 0.00000 0.00002 0.00001 0.00013 0.00008 0.00001 0.00007 0.00004 0.00000 0.00002 0.00002 0.00025 0.00016 0.00001 0.00017 0.00037 0.00003 0.00021 0.00014 0.00222 0.00139 0.00007 0.00152 0.00037 0.00003 0.00021 0.00014 0.00220 0.00140 0.00007 0.00150 WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-12 (Cont'd)2 I g~el I NUCLIDE Y 92 Y 93 NB 98 HO 99 TC 99M TC101 RU103 RH103H TC104 RU105 RU105H RH105 TE129H TE129 TE131H TE131 I131 TE132 I132 I133 I134 CS134 I135 CS136 CS137 BA137H CS138 BA139 BA140 LA140 LA141 CE141 HALF-LIFE (DAYS)1.47E-01 4.25E-ol 3.54E-02 2.79E-OO 2.50E-ol 9.72E-03 3.96E>01 3.96E 02 1.25E-02 1.85E-01 5.21E-04 1.50E 00 3.40E 01 4.79E-02 1.25E 00 1.74E-02 8.05E 00 3.25E 00 9.58E-02 8.75E-Ol 3.67E-02 7.49E 02 2.79E>>01 1.30E 01 1.10E 04 1.77E-03 2.24E-02 5.76E-02 1.28E ol 1.67E-OO 1.62E-ol 3'4E 01 CONCENTRATION IN PRIMARY COOLANT (HICRO CI/HL)5.04E-03 3.65E-03 2.96E-03 1.94E-03 1.76E-02 6.25E-02 1.96E-05 0.0 5.60E-02 1.72E-03 0.0 0.0 3.92E-05 0.0 9.54E-05 0.0 4.87E-03 9.71E-06 2.30E-02 1.84E-02 5.01F.-02 2.95E-05 1.69E-02 1.95E-05 6.87E-05 0.0 7.00E-03 7.71E-03 3.92E-04 0.0 0.0 2.94E-03 HIGH PURITY (CURIES)0.00020 0.00013 0.00001 0.00010 0.00051 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00004 0.00004 0.00001 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00026 0.00000 0.00024 0.00080 0~00010 0.00008 0.00048 0.00005 0.00019 0.00017 0.00021 0~00004 0.00002 0.00000 0.00001 0.00000 LOW PURITY (CURIES)0.00015 0.00013 0.00000 0.00017 0.00051 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00003 0.00003 0~00001 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001 0.00000 0.00047 0.00000 0.00015 0.00110 0.00006 0.00077 0.00042 0.00049 0.00179 0.00167 0.00062 0.00002 0.00004 0.00001 0.00001 0.00000 TOTAL LWS (CURIES)0.00036 0.00026 0.00001 0.00027 0.00102 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001 0.00006 0.00006 0.00002 0.00001 0.00000 0.00001 0.00000 0.00073 0.00000 0.00039 0.00190 0.00016 0.00085 0.00090 0.00054 0.00197 0.00184 0.00083 0.00006 0.00006 0.00001 0.00002 0.00000 ADJUSTED TOTAL (CI/YR)*0.00313 0.00230 0.00008 0.00233 0.00893 0.00002 0.00003 0.00003 0.00006 0.00055 n.ooo56 0.00018 0.00005 0.00003 0.00010 0.00002 0.00643 0.00001 0.00345 0.01667 0.00144 0.00741 0.00788 0.00473 0.01730 0.01618 0.00724 0.00053 0.00053 0.00011 0~00017 0.00004 TOTAL (CI/YR)0.00310 0.00230 0.00008 0.00230 0'0890 0.00002 0';00003 0.00003 0.00006 0.00055 0~00056 0.00018 0.00005 0.00003 0.00010 0'0002 0.00640 0.00001 0.00350 0.01700 0.00140 0.00740 0.00790 0.00470 0.01700 0.01600 0.00720 0.00053 0.00053 0.00011 0.00017 0~00004 WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-12 (Cont'd)HALF-LIFE NUCLIDE (DAYS)CONCENTRATION IN PRIMARY COOLANT ,(MICRO CI/ML)HIGH PURITY (CURIES)LOW PURITY (CURIES)TOTAL LWS (CURIES)ADJUSTED TOTAL (CI/YR)*TOTAL (CI/YR)LA142 6.39E-02 CE143 1.38E 00 PR143 1.37E 01 ALL OTHERS TOTAL (EXCEPT TRITIUM)TRITIUM RELEASE 3.89E-03 2.87E-05 3.92E-05 1.32E-02 4.11E-01 12 Curies per year 0.00003 0.00000 0.00000 0~00000 0.00685 0.00002 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.01246 0.00004 0.00000 0.00001 0.00001 0.00036 0.00003 0.00005 0.00007 0.01931 0.16931 0.00036 0.00003 0.00005 0.00007 0.17000*Adjusted total includes an additional 0.15 ci/yr with the same isotopic distribution as the calculated source term to account for anticipated occurrences such as operator errors resulting in unplanned releases.
WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-13 RADWASTE OPERATING EQUIPMENT DESIGN BASIS EQUIPMENT Deep Bed Demineralizers Conductivity Radioactivity Precoat Filters Suspended Solids Radxoactxvxty Evaporators Concentration (Input/Bottom)
Radioactivity DESIGN BASIS DECONTAMINATION FACTOR~~~~o~o~~o o~~o 20 Soluble 100 Insoluble 50 Equipment Drains 20 Floor Drains 100 Soluble 1 Insoluble 2 2/25 1000 WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-14 RADWASTE SYSTEM PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM DATA EQUIPMENT DRAIN SUBSYSTEM (sheet 1 of ll)Flow Path Batches/Day (Normal)Batches/Day (Maximum)Volume/Batch (gal)Normal Daily Volume (gal)Normal Activity (uCi/cc)Max.Daily Volume (gal)Max.Activity (uCi/cc)Flow Rate (gal/min)Daily Activity (uCi/day)8.5 63.4 455 3,860 4.92E-2 28,800 1.72E-O 50 4.1 15.8 909 3,755 1.24E-2 14,400 4.32E-l 50 909 1,000 6.84E-5 1,000 2.39E-3 50 6.3 6.3 909 5,725 1.82E-5 5,725 1.26E-2 50 1.0 2430 4.0/2.0 13,500 l.52E-2 2,430 5.32E-l 6.84E-6 27,000 3.59E-4 50 450 1.0/3.4 4.0/7.4 Normal Maximum 7.19E5 2.51E7 1.76E5 6.14E6 2.59E2 9.05E3 3.94E2 2.73E5 4.89E6 3.67E4 See page 9 of Table for notes, definitions and explanation of entries.
'WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-14 (sheet 2 of ll)EQUIPMENT DRAIN SUBSYSTEM (Cont.)Flow Path Batches/Day (Normal)Batches/Day (Maximum)Volume/Batch (gal)Normal Daily Volume (gal)Normal Activity (uCi/cc)Max.Daily Volume (gal)Max.Activity (uCi/cc)Flow Rate (gal/min)Daily Activity (uCi/day)11,250 8.79E-7 11,250 3.08E-5 Batch 15,000 15,000 1.11E-2.104,825 3.59E-l 190 1.0/30.0 1.0 1.0/30.0 7.0 33 1.0 7.0 15,000 15,000 5.54E-3 104,825 3.53E-l 190 12 1.0 7.0 15,000 15,000 1.11E-4 104,825 3.53E-3 190 14 1.0 7.0 15,000 15,000 1.11E-4 104,825 3.53E-3 190 Normal Maximum l.31E3 6.28E5 , 3.12E5 4.9E7 4.82E7 6.28E3 4.82E5 6.28E3 4.82E5 FLOOR DRAIN SUBSYSTEM WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-14 (sheet 3 of ll)Flow Path Batches/Day (Normal)1.5 17 2.2 18 1.1 19 2.2 20.3 21 Batches/Day (Maximum)Volume/Batch (gal)Normal Daily Volume (gal)Normal-Activity (uCi/cc)Maximum Daily Volume (gal)Maximum Activity (uCi/cc)Flow Rate (gal/min)Daily Activity (uCi/Day)Normal Maximum 63.4 455 700 6.84E-6 28,800 6.84E-2 50 1.81E1 1.81E5 16.5 909 2,000 1.00E-6 12,000 1.00E-3 100 7.57EO 7.57E3 1.1 909 1, 000 1.37E-5 1,000 4.78E-4 50 5.18E1 1.61E3 2.2 909 2, 000 6.84E-7 2,000 2.39E-5 50 5.18EO 1.81E3 1.3 19,305 6,615 9.53E-5 52,062 1.08E-2 190 2.39E3 5.40E5 WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-14 (sheet 4 of ll)FLOOR DRAIN SUBSYSTEM (Cont.)Flow Path Batches/Day (Normal)Batches/Day (Maximum)Volume/Batch (gal)Normal Daily Volume (gal)Normal Activity (uCi/cc)Maximum Daily Volume (gal)Maximum Activity (uCi/cc)Flow Rate (gal/min)Daily Activity (uCi/Day)Normal Maximum 23.3 1.3 19,305 6,615 4.76E-5 52,062 1.08E-2 190 1.19E3 5.40E5 107.3 1.3 19, 305-6, 615 9.53E-7 52,062 1.08E-4 190 2.39El 5.40E3 108.3 1.3 19,305 6,615 9.53E-7 52,062 1.08E-4 190 2.34El 5.40E3 WNP-2 ER WASTE SURGE SUBSYSTEM TABLE 3.5-14 (sheet 5 of ll)Flow Path Batches/Day (Normal)Batches/Day (Maximum)Volume/Batch
.(gal)Normal Daily Volume (gal)Normal Activity (uCi/cc)-Maximum Daily Volume (gal)Maximum Activity (uCi/cc)Flow Rate (gal/min)104 1.0/yr 1.0 56,720 6.84E-6 56,720 3,59E-4 Batch 37 l.0/yr 1.0 56,720 6.84E-6 56,720 3.59E-4 190 WNP-2 ER CHEMICAL WASTE SUBSYSTEM Flow Path 27 TABLE 3.5-14 (sheet 6 of ll)109 120 121 122 Batches/Day.(Normal)
Batches/Day (Maximum)Volume/Batch (gal)Normal Daily Volume (gal)Normal Activity (uCi/cc)Maximum Daily Volume (gal)Maximum Activity (uCi/cc)Flow Rate (gal/min)1.0 2.0 1,000 1,000 1.0E-5 2,000 1.0E-5 25 1.0 24,305 2.63E-3 24,305 190 1.0 24,305 2.58E-3 24,305 2.67E-3 10 1.0 760 1.45E-2 760 1.50E-2 Batch 3.0 230 1.45E-2 760 1.50E-2 30 WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-15 (sheet 7 of 11)WASTE SLUDGE SUBSYSTEM (Condensate Backwash)Flow Path Batches/Day (Normal)Batches/Day (Maximum)Volume/Batch Solids (lbs).Liquids (gal)Normal Daily Volume (gal)Normal Activity Solids (uCi/Batch)
Liquids (uCi/cc)Maximum Daily Volume (gal)Maximum Activity Solids (uCi/Batch)
Liquids (uCi/cc).Flow Rate (gal/min)56 4.0/7.4 4.0 330 13,500 13,500 2.10E6 6.84E-6 54,000 5.26E7 3.59E-4 2,500 58 4.0/7.4 4 0 330 13,500 13,500 2.10E6 6.84E-6 54,000 5.26E7 3.59E-4 450 60 1/18.5 3300 7527 1.20E7 6.84E-6 7527 2.67E7 3.59E-4 20 4/7.4 4.0 13,500 6.84E-6 27,000 3.59E-4 450 WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-14 (sheet 8 of ll)WASTE SLUDGE SUBSYSTEM (Radwaste Filter Backwash)Flow Path 61 63 62 65 Batches/Day (Normal)Batches/Day (Maximum)1.0 2.9 1.0/3.4 1.0 1.0/5.2 1.0/5.2 1.0 1.0/3.4 1.1 Volume/Batch Solids (lbs)Liquids (gal)Normal Daily Volume (gal)Normal Activity Solids (uCi/Batch)
Liquids (uCi/cc)Maximum Daily Volume (gal)Maximum Activity Solids (uCi/Batch)
Liquids (uCi/cc)Flow Rate (gal/min)41.36 1692 1692 3.15E4 6.84E-6 4906 3.15E4 3.59E-4 376 41.36 1692 8.03E1 6.84E-6 1692 8.03E1 3.59E-4 376 59.4 2430 1.40E4 6.84E-6 1.41E6 3.59E-4 540 28,800 varies 28,800 varies 20 219 527 4.64E4 6.84E-6 527 7.33E5 9.88E-4 20 WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-14 WASTE SLUDGE SUBSYSTEM (Cleanup Backwash)Flow Path (sheet 9 of ll)54 59 Batches/Day (Normal)Batches/Day (Maximum)Volume/Batch Solids (lbs)~Liquids (gal)Normal Daily Volume (gal)Solids (uCi/Batch)
Normal Activity Maximum Daily Volume (gal)Maximum Activity Solids (uCi/Batch)
Liquids (uCi/gal)Flow Rate (gal/min)2.0/3.4 2.0 29.7 1215 1215 2.43E7 1.52E-2 2430 7.68E8 5.33E-1 270 1.0/60 1.0/60 1048 2391 2.25E8 1.52E-2 2391 3.59E8 5.53E-1 20 2.0/3.4 2.0 1215 1.52E-2 2430 5.33E-1 53 WASTE SLUDGE SUBSYSTEM (Spent Resin)Flow Path WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-14 (sheet 10 of 11)64 119 69 71 Batches/Day (Normal)Batches/Day (Maximum)Volume/Batch Solids (lbs)Liquids (gal)Normal Activity Solids (uCi/Batch)
Liquids (uCi/gal)Maximum Activity Solids (uCi/Batch)
Liquids (uCi/gal)Flow Rate (gal/min)1.0/66 1.0/29 1539 746 2.28E6 6.84E-6 2.74E7 3.59E-4 37 1.0/67 1.0/49 1539 746 5.86E3 6.84E-6 2.34E5 3.59E-4 37 1.0/25 1.0/22 1863 930 1.56E2 6.84E-6 1.72E2 3.59E-4 47 1539 3210 6.84E-6 3.59E-4 20 WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-14 (sheet 11 of ll)NOTES a~The following definitions are used for this data: b.c~Normal Volume-Expected flow during steady state normal operation.
Maximum Volume-Maximum expected flow during unsteady state operation such as startup, shutdown, etc.Normal Activity-Activity level expected during operation with no fuel leaks and corrosion product reactor water activity concentration of 0.1 uCi/cc.Maximum Activity-Activity level expected during operation with fuel leak rate equivalent to reactor water activity concentration of 2.3 uCi/cc and total noble gas stock release rate of 100,000 uCi/sec (corrosion and fission products present).Maximum volume and maximum activity are not necessarily concurrent.
-1 1 For Activity Values: E-l.=number x 10 4,.El=number x 10 4 E-4=number x 10;E4=number x 10 Fractional values on tables denote the number of items per occurrence divided by the number of days between each occurrence (i.e., 1/30 batches/day means one batch processed every 30 days).d.Waste system input activities are based on a reactor water-to-steam decontamination factor of 1.0E-3.
WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-15 EQUIPMENT DRA'IN SUBSYSTEM SOURCES Source Startup Flows (GPD)Regular Daily Flows (GPD)Irregular Flows (GPD)Maximum Flows (GPD)Equipment Drains Drywell 3,800 Reactor Bldg.3,800 Turbine Bldg.5,700 Radwaste Bldg.1,000 3, 800 3,800 5,700 1,000 28,800 14,400 5,700 1,000 Reactor Hydrotest&Thermal Expansion Water 56,700 Suppression Pool Drain 11,300 11,300 (4)RHR System Flush Water 4,000 (5)Condensate Demin.Backwash 27,000 13~500 (1)40JS00 (3)Cleanup Demin.Backwash 2,400 2,400 (2)Water Inleakage to Condenser 111,700 14,300 14,400 104,800 2.Under normal operating conditions, one condensate filter demineralizer would be precoated every four days.Under normal operating conditions, each cleanup demineralizer would be precoated every 3.4 days.3.The maximum daily.flow is based on a condenser inleakage of 10 gpm, which corresponds to two condensate demineralizer precoats daily and maximum leak and drain inflows.Higher condenser inleakage rates can be accommodated up to a maximum of 36 gpm.This requires precoating of one condensate de-mineralizer every three hours.This leakage rate would result in overloading the equipment drain subsystem but could be tolerated for short periods of time during location and repair of the leak.
WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-'l5 (Cont'd)Once every thirty days during testing of reactor emergency core coolant systems.Occurs every shutdown prior to placing the RHR system in operation for shutdown cooling.
WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-16'LOOR DRAIN SUBSYSTEM SOURCES Source Floor Drains Regular Daily Flows (GPD)Irregular Flows (GPD)Maximum Daily Flows (GPD)Drywell Reactor Building Radwaste Building Turbine Building Waste Sludge Phase Separator Decant 700 2,000 1,000 2, 000 5,700 s,4oo 8,400 7,200 12,000 1,000 2,000 8,400 31,200 (1)Under normal operating conditions, the waste sludge phase separator tank is decanted every 3.4 days.
WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-17'CHEM'ICAL'ASTE SUBSYSTEM SOURCES Source Regular Daily Flows (GPD)Irregular Flows (GPD)MBx imum Daily Flows (GPD)Detergent Drains/Shop Decontamination Solutions 1,000 2,000 Laboratory Drains Decontamination Drains Reactor Turbine Buildings From Floor Drain or Equipment Drain Subsystem Filter Demineralizer Chemical Cleaning Solutions Battery Room Drains Chemical System Overflow 6 Tank Drains 400 1,000 20,000 Infrequent 2,000 Infrequent 100 Infrequent 400 1,000 20,000 2,000 100 1,400 25,000 wNp-2 ER TABLE 3.5-'18'OFF'-GA'S SYSTEM PROCESS DATA The information contained in this table is proprietary and will be transmitted separately with other PSAR proprietary
=information as Sheet 761E918AD.
WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-19 RELEASE POINT DATA Height of release oint above rade 230'-8" 65'07'nnual average total.air flow from release oint 95,000 82,000 261,000 cfm Annual average heat content flow from release oint 15.09 x 10 41.46 x 10 13.02 x 10 BTU/Hr Type and size of release oint DUCT 3 LOUVER HOUSES 45" x 120" 54" x 96" x 30" 4 DUCTS 57N x 79 WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-20 NOBLE GAS RELEASE RATE INTO ATMOSPHERE FROM OFF-GAS SYSTEM~ISOtO O Kr 85 m Kr 85 Xe 131 m Xe 133 Total Avg.Release Rate (Ci/r)270 22 299 WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-21 ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS FROM BUILDING VENTILATION SYSTEMS, GLAND SEAL AND MECHANICAL VACUUM PUMPS COOLANT CONC.NUCLIDE (MICROCURIES/G)
DRYWELL GASEOUS RELEASE RATE (CURIES PER YEAR)TURBINE REACTOR RADWASTE BLDG BLDG BLDG GLAND SEAL MECH VAC PUMP Kr 83 m 1.100E-03 Kr 85 m 1.900E-03 Kr 85 6.000E-06 Kr 87 6.600E-03 Kr 88 6.600E-03 Kr 89 4.100E-02 Xe 131 m.4.700E-06 Xe 133 m 9.000E-05 Xe 133 2.600E-03 Xe 135 m 8.400E-04 Xe 135 7.200E-03 Xe 137 4.700E-02 Xe 138 2.800E-02 Total Noble Gases I 131 3.449E-03 I 133 1.477E-02 Tritium Gaseous Release 0.0 3.OE 00 0.0 3.0E 00 3.0E 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6E 01 4.6E 01 3.4E 01 0.0 7.0E 00 1.7E-02 6.8E-02 0.0 6.8E 01 0.0 1.9E 02 2.3E 02 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8E 02 6.5E 02 6.3E 02 0.0 1.4E 03 0.0 3.OE 00 0.0 3.0E 00 3.0E 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6E 01 4.6E 01 3.4E 01 0.0 7.0E 00 1.9E-01 1.7E-01 7.6E-01 6.8E-01 68 Curies/Yr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0E 01 0.0 4.5E 01 0.0 0.0 5.0E-02 1.8E-01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3E 03 0.0 3.5E 02 0.0 0.0 3.0E-02 0.0"0.0" Appearing in the table indicates release is less than 1.0 Ci/Yr for noble gas and less than 0.0001 Ci/Yr for Iodine.
WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-21 (Con't'd)ESTIMATED'NNUAL'VERAGE RELEA'SES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS FROM BUILDING VENTILATION SYSTEMS, GLAND SEAL AND MECHANICAL VACUUM PUMPS AIRBORNE PARTICULATE RELEASE RATE (CURIES PER YEAR)NUCLIDE Cr 51 Mn 54 Fe 59 Co 58 Co 60 Zn 65 Sr 89 Sr 90 Zr 95 Sb 124 Cs 134 Cs 136 Cs 137 Ba 140 Ce 141 CONTAINMENT BLDG 3.0E-06 3.0E-05 4.0E-06 6.0E-06 1.0E-04 2.0E-05 9.0E-07 5.0E-08 4.0E-06 2.0E-06 4.0E-05 3.0E-06 5.5E-05 4.0E-06 1.0E-06 TURBINE BLDG 1.3E-02 6.0E-04 5.0E-04 6.0E-04 2.0E-03 2.OE-04 6.OE-03 2.0E-05 1.0E-04 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 5.0E-05 6.0E-04 1.1E-02 6.0E-04 REACTOR BLDG 3.0E-04 3.0E-03 4.0E-04 6.0E-04 1.0E-02 2.0E-03 9.0E-05 5.0E-06 4.0E-04 2.0E-04 4.0E-03 3.0E-04 5.5E-03 4.0E-04 1.0E-04 RADWASTE BLDG 9.OE-05 4.5E-04 1.5E-04 4.5E-05 9.0E-04 1.5E-05 4.5E-06 3.0E-06 5.0E-07 5.0E-07 4.5E-05 4.5E-06 9.0E-05 1.0E-06 6.0E-05 MECH VAC PUMP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0E-06 2.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.1E-05 0.0 WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-22 EXPECTED ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF SOLIDS 50 Ft'~/Normal Activity pCi/Container Maximum Activity pCi/Container Cleanup Filter Demineralizer Sludge Condensate Filter Demineralizer Sludge Waste, Floor Drain&Fuel Pool Filter Demineralizer Sludge Distillate Demineralizer Resin Waste Demineralizer Resin Floor Drain Demineralizer Resin Concentrated Waste Solution 10 100 36 26 1.39 x 10 8 2.47 x 10 6 1.37 X 10.96 x 10 2 1.78 x 10 6 4.56 x 10 3 2.05 x 10 2.23 x 10 8 5.5 x 10 6 2.16 x 10 6 1.05 x 10 2 2.14 x 10 7 1.82 x 10 5 2.12 x 10 4*50 cubic foot containers WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-23 SIGNIFICANT ISOTOPE ACTIVITY ON WET SOLIDS AFTER PROCESSING Stream Clean Up~died e Waste~dlud e Distillate Resin Waste Resin Floor Drain Resin Condensate Concentrated Waste Batch Solid Production 1048 lbs/60 days 219 lbs/3.4 days 1863 lbs/25 days 1539 lbs/1539 lbs/66 days'7 days 3300 lbs/18.5 days 690 lbs/3 days~Iso to et Mo 99 Sr 89 Sr 90 Cs 134 Cs 137 Ba 140 Np 239 I 131 I 133 Co 58 Co 60 Cr 51 40 6.7 4.5 0.67 116 29 4.5 0.3 0.15 0.015 0.006 0.015 0.35 0.76 0.39 0.15 0.015 0.015 5.3 x 10 1.1 x 10 1.1 x 10 5.3 x 10 1.1 x 10 1.1 x 10 5.1 x 10 1.1 x 10 3.2 x 10 1.6 x 10 1.6 x 10 1.6 x 10 1.07 2.14 0.21 0.1'1 0.21 2.14 10.3 2.14 0.64 2.14 0.21 O.ll 9.1 x 1.8 x 1.8 x 9.1 x 1.8 x 1.8 x 8.7 x 1.8 x 5.5 x 1.8 x 1.8 x 9.1 x Ci/50 Cubic Foot Container 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 10 10 10 10 10 1.16 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.66 0.44 2.26 0.44 0.17 1.3 x 1.1 x.8.5 x 6.4 x 8.5 x 2.3 x 1.1 x 2.5 x 1.9 x 2.1 x 2.1 x 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 WNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-24
SUMMARY
OF RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT MONITORING AND CONTROL POINTS RELEASE POINT Reactor Bldg.Vent Stack LOCATION OF DETECTOR OR SAMPLE PROBE Probe at Elev.650'n Stack Probe in Off-Gas Line from Outlet of Charcoal Ad-sorbers to Reactor Bldg.Vent Stack Detector in Line from (Condenser)
Mechanical Vacuum Pumps to Vent Stack Four (4)De-tectors in Reactor Bldg.Ventilation Exhaust Plenum (Discharge to Vent Stack)TYPE OF MONITOR Continuous Noble Gas Detector (Gamma), Iodine and Particulate Sampler Cartridge Dual Continuous
~Noble Gas Detector GM Tubes (Gamma), Iodine and Partic-ulate Sampler Car-tridge Continuous GM Tube (Gamma)Detector Continuous GM Tube (Gamma)Detector RELEASE POINT ALARM OR SHUTDOWN AS SHOWN ON FUNCTION.FIG 3.1-6 High Radiation Alarm High Radiation Alarm Automatically Isolates Off-Gas from Vent Stack High Radiation Alarm, Automatically Shuts Down Vacuum Pumps and Gland Seal Exhauster High Radiation Alarm, Automatically Trips Valves to Isolate HVAC Exhaust fran Vent Stack, Closes Containment Vent Valves and Initiates Standby Gas Treatment System REMARKS Effluent Monitor Process Monitor D17-5011 Process Monitor RE-21 HVAC Monitor D17-N009A, B, C, D HNP-2 ER TABLE 3.5-24 (Cont'd)'
SUMMARY
OF RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT MONITORING AND CONTROL POINTS RELEASE POINT Turbine Bldg.HVAC Exhaust LOCATION OF DETECTOR OR SAMPLE PROBE Probe at Elev.551'n Duct Bet.Col.11 a 12 7'-6" North of Col.K Continuous Noble Gas Detector (Gamma), Iodine and Particulate Sampler Cartridge High Radiation Alarm ALARM OR SIIUTDOHN TYPE OF MONITOR FUNCTION RELEASE POINT AS SHOIIN ON FIG 3.1-6 34(55'66'EMARKS Effluent Monitor Radwaste Bldg.(llVAC Exhaust)Vent Probes in Bldg.(IIVAC Exhaust)Vent Fan Discharges Continuous, Noble Gas Detector (Gamma), Iodine and Particulate a m p 1 e r C a r t r i d g e High Radiation Alarm Q C88'(P Effluent Monitor, Probe in Each of the three Fan Set Dis-charges Plant Blow-down Line CBD (l)-l Detector in Blowdown Line 24" CBD (1)-1 Detector in Line 4" FDR (7)-1 Dis-charging to Blowdown Line 36" CBD (l)-l Continuous Liquid High Radiation Radiation Detector Alarm In Line, Gamma Scintillation Continuous Liquid High Radiation Had ia ti on Detector Alarm, Automatically in Line Gamma Isolates Radwaste Scintillation Discharge Effluent Monitor, D17 RE NOOG Process Monitor, D17-RE-N006
NYDROTEST RNR FLUSH DRYW'ELL RADWASTE EQUIPMLNT BLDG EQUIP P 3 DRAIN SUMP DRAIN SUMP TA 5-I TURBINE BLDG EQUIP DRAIN p 4 SUMPS g)TAbLE 35 l5 I WASTE SURGE TANK P 70.000 CAL WASTE.COLLECTOR TANK.20000 GAL l2 IIASIt SAMPIE'ALI K.P 20.000 GAL lisle sulPLt TANK 20,000 CAL I I I I k I I 4 couotusATL STORAGE'IAHK 350 000 GAL CouoeusAle, STORAGE TAll IC 350 000 GAL hloi ES: I.VALVES, INST RUMENTATIOM, DRAINS.Veuls.UTILITY uuts.AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT.
ETC.NOI suowLI To PREYENT cLUTIER 2 FIGURES WIIHIH b,letuTIFY FlOW PAIN.SEE TABLE 3.5.14 f'R CllARACTERISTICS 3 PARALLEL COMPOutuTS MwY St OPERATED SEPARATELY, OR COMCURENILY.
PROM FLOOR ORANI SAMPLE.TANK.4.ALL TANKS HAVE RECIRCUlA-BlOWDOWII Ltuf TION CAPABILITY.
RE AGIO R BLDG REACTOR SLOG DRAIN SUMP EQUIPMeuT EQUIPMENT DRAINS TASLK 3.5.lb 2 MISC.WASTE REACTOR BLDG otTERGENI DRAIN TANK p I 500 GAL OLIERGENT DRAIN TANK P I SOD CAL F SPENT RESIN TANK CII t M ICAL WASTE TAMK I4200 GAL CHEMICAL WASTE TANK l4.200 CAI.P P CONCENTRATOR to I I CONCENI ZO CONDENSER COIICEMTRAIeo WASTE TAIIK 700 CAL CONCENTRA ASIE TANK TOO CAL CONDENSER GPEIIT RRSN INK 49 I I I I I p I DISTILLATE TANK.l4 200 CAL I I I DISTILLATE I TANK I l4.200 GAL I I I BLGwDowu LUIR WASIE MEASURING TALIK.QP PUMP QP.FILTER QH NEATER Qo-DEMIMERALlztR
~PRIMARY FlOII PAIN--~ALIERNAle.
FLOW Will BACKWASH FROM CLEAN.UP ALTERS I I I BACKWASH FROM CONDENSATE FILTERS I I SNOP DECONTAMLHATIOH SOLUTIOH CHEMICAL ADDITION PUMPS LABORATORY ORAIHS I DECO MIAIIINAII ON DRAtus.REACTOR 4 I URSPIE BIG I I OENSAI PNASL-EPARAIOR 400 CA I PHASE epA RAID 2.GLEAu.Up PRAN-A RAID gO GA~L P CLEAM UP PHASE tPARATOR 4 OOGAL CENTRIFUGES DRYIVELL flOOR DRAIN SUMP A<<t 3.S-IG RADWASIE BLDG FLOOR N SLHPSI 3I TABLE 35 IO BACKWASH FROM FUEL POOL ALTER P WASTE SLUDGE PHASE sePARAIO 000 CAL 1 L CONDEHSAIE eb BACKWASH RECEIVIMG TANK l8 200 GAL SOILOS WASTE HANDLING 41 SOLIDS WASTL NANOLI 4 SOLIDS WASTE MAHDUMC~vu'.wL SLOG FLOOR p DRAIN SUNPSIZ TABLE 35.IG REACTOR B(OG FLOOR REACTOR<<OG DRA:NSUMPSI4>
IABLE 3.5 IG FLOOR DRAIN COLLECTOR p El F TANK KOOOO GAL I I I I I I I I I I 23 D WASTE DEMINERALIZER 0 IST I LATE DEMINERALIZE R I FLOOR DRAIN SAMPLE TAN 20,000 GAL spe uI Rtslu TAMK l>IOO CAL TO CONDENSATE STORAC4 TANKS I I SLOWDOWN LINE I SOLIDS WASTE WADDLING WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report FMH DIAGRAM PKCESS F03ÃDIAGRAM LI~FIG.
-3 WASTE DIMINIRALIZER.ILOOR DRAIN DEMINCRALIZER CROSS'TIE CHEMICAL WASTL-TANK WASTE PRECOAT TANK AASTE SLUOOt PHASE SEPARATOR feooR DRAISI nLTea fLOOR DRAIII FtLTER flOOR DRAIN TANK CROSS TK CONDENSATE PNASt SEPARATOR CNSNCAL ADDITION (CAUSTIC)cutMICAL ADDITION (ACID)CLEANUP PNASe StPAfLAIOR TUREO Otu BLOD EOUIPMINT DRAIN SUMP RtAC TOR BLDO EQUIPMENT DRAIN SUMPS RADWASTE BLDG EQUIPMENT DRAIN SUMP wASTE FILTER AID TANK$I I Ai I'5/gl gl WASTE CCLLIClOR N'IANK 20,000 CAL P I I I I L Vtllt 5 tt d I I I I I I I I I I)I I WASTE SURES TANK 70,000 CAL P I I I I Z Z r--I I I I I I Ntv NT SPENT RESIN TANK I,IOO CA I.I I I I t WASTE SNIPLE TANK 20,000(idL 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I k I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L RESIN ADDITION TANK ij I CENT RIFUCES WASTE IIA NPlt (fLOOA DIVIW SAMPLO TANIC\CAOSS>If WASTE SSNPLt TANKl, 20,000 GAL I I I COO<INC TOWER CKCWVOOAIN I I I I CON OENSAT t STORAf I~VALVES.INSTRUMENTA'T NN, DRAI NS, VENTS, UTILITY LINESI AUXILIARY EITUIRVIENTI ETC NOT SHOWN TO PREVENT CLUTTER 2~ALL TANKs HAvc REEIREULATIDN CAPABILITY.
JfGGND P-PUMP~RIMARY FLOW PATH--~hL'TERNATE FLOW PATH RIVCU SYS'TtM RMR CUISM CL.OOR DRAIN COLLECTOR TANK WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report FQN DIAGRAM RADICCKTIVE WASTE SYSTEM EQUIP~DRAIN PKCESSING FIG.3.5-2 0 0-'
WASTE FILTER AID ANK WASTE PRECOA TANK WSSTS DfM>NCRALMOR FLOOR OFAH OILOMERPLNfk CROSS SIP.l I I I VENT Z~3 L I I I I I T I I I I L O g O ta.SES,II FIL SPENT RESIN TANK~TFS-l.VALVES.INSTRVMENTATIONy DRAINS VENTS@UTII.ITY LlNEbsANLILIRRY EQVIPMEWT, ETC.NOT SHOWN TG PREVENT CLMTTE R 2./LL'IRNKS HAVE RECIRCULATION CAPABILITY
(--lZ~~PRIMARY FLOW PATH~ALTERNATE FLOW PATH CHEMKAL WASTE TANK WASTE COLLKIOR TANK CROSS TIE~TE BLDG FLOOR DEN M EUSSY CH OMICAL ADDITION (CAUSTIC)CHEMKAL ADDITION (ACID)RHR FLUSH REACTOR B.OG fIOOR DRAIN BUMPS(4 I'EL~ML f/0 VENT WAS'IE COLLECTOR f ILIER VELIT CENTRIFUGE 8Y-PASS 2: CEMTRIFUEA GRAVITY RETURN FUEL POOL F/D BACKWASM fUEL POOL RES;N TAIK CHDACAL WAS I(TANK T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FLOOR,DRNII SAMPLERS INSIE SAMILE TANKS CROSS TIE I T.G BLDG fLOOR DRAIN SVMPS (2)WASTE COI.LECTOR FILTER RADWASTE FLOOR DRAIN SUMP FLMR DRAlu CO W~R gAHK 2C,COO GAL I WkSN COLLSOLOR 0 FLOORORMMM<IOIXTRRKS~
CROSS NE WASTE SLUDGE PHASE p SE?ARA OR I3 000 GAL FLOOR DRAIN SAMPLE TAMK 20.000 GAL CONDENSATE STORAGE CAKING TOWER BLOWCOWN 1 f j ENTRIFLGES I CONDEMN oHAS-SEPARATOR WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report FZlM DIAGRAM RADICQKTEVE WASTE SYSTEM FIDOR DRAIN PRX'.ESSING FIG-3.5-3 e 4 CHEMICAL WASTE REACTOR BUILDING FUEL POOL PRECOAT TANK RWCV CHEMICAL WASTE FEIfE PCKL FILTER DEMINERAEIXER CHEMICaL ClfAN>NO CONNECTION CHEMICAL SUMP WASTE COLLECTOR FILTER NOTES: I.VAIVfSIN5TRVMIHTAl IDRAWS,VENTS, UTILITY L~S, AVKIEIARY EOUPMEHT>f TC~NOT SHOWN TO PPIVZNT CLVTTfR Z AEE'TANIES HAVf RfCIRC'AAT~M CAPABILITY.
O LEGEND P-PVMP PRIORY FLOW PATH ACIf RHATf FlOW PATH HADWASTE BUILDING FLOOR DRAIN SAMPLE TANK FLOOR DRAIN FILTER RESIN FILL CONDENSATE FILTER OEMINERALIZEQ MISCELLANEOUS WASTL REACTOR BUILDING CONDENSER CONDEN%R POLISHING OEMINERALIZER SPECIE REIN TANK CHV"ICAL ADDITION TAX CAUSTIC ZOO GAL HEATING E.LEMEHT DECONTAMINATION SOLUTION CONCENTRATOR DECOIITANIHATION SOLUTION HEATING CONCENTRATOIZ ELENLHT CHEMICAL ADDITION TANK ACID 200 GAL DBE RGBJT DRAIN IILTIR O DISTIEATE TANK IE225 GAL DISTIEATE TANK.Ih225 GAL 0 O O O DETERGENT DRAIN TANK f530 GAL I 2 DETERGENT 0"AIN TANK ISSOGAL~S RJ SI 4I gl oI I CHEMICAL WASTE TANK p p l4.ZZ5 GAL CHEMICAL WASTE TANK l4,2Z5 GAL I I I I I L CONCENTRATED WASTE TANK TOOGAL.COIICENTZAI WASTE TANK TOO GAL CONDENSATE STORAGE I BLOWDOWN LINE~I I CONCENTRATED WASTE MEASV RING TANK WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report FQN DIAGRAM CHEMICAL WASTE PROCESSING FIG~3 5-4
-0 SJAE INTER CONOCl4SER STCAM DILUTCD OFP GAS CATALYIIC RE.CON SI HER NOT1LS l VALVES INSTRUMENTS.
COk&EWSATS DRAIN.MAIHICAIAAICC OPAAAS.UTILIIY UPS.ETC.NOT SHOWN TO PREVKN CLIITTSR g FOR PPOCSSS PLOW CHARAC($4STICC SOS TASLS ILS IO O II CONDENSATE CONDSHSATE AIR OFF.GAS CONDEN SER: WATER SEPARATOR CONDENSATE LEGEND SJAE STEAM JCT AIR EJECTOR F-FILTER AIR~-PRIMARY FLCVI PATH ALTCILN ATE PLOW PATH I L SJAE SJAE ,PREHEATER CA'TALYllG RECOMSINER HOLD-UP LINE IO MINUTES CHARCOAL AOSOASSR VAUI'T DRYER EQUIPMENT ASSEMSLY C AS COOI SR CHARCOAL AOSOQSERS (<)VENT YOl ATMOSPI4CR AIR MOISTURE SEPARATOR COOLER CONDCNSSR COND ENS ATE MOISTURE SERARATOR DRAIN TQ RADWASTK COI LECTION SYSTEM (TYP)I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAIN TO RADWASTK COI LECTIOM SYSTEM DRYER EQUIPMSNT A'SSEMSIY DRAIN TS RADWASTE COLLECTION O'<STEM GAS COOI OIL CHARCOAL'ADSORSERS (4)I I I I I I I I I COOL'E R COIIDEIISER I I I COtsC4'HSAIT WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report FD3H DLIGRM PROCESS QPF~SYSTEM Q3W TEMPKQTURE N-67-1020 FIG.3.5-5
.~y ka T AM SJAE INTER-~OMDENSER SJAE STEAM DILUTED OFF%PS PRENEATER CATALYTIC BIMER fJCiT E~I.lAWIb iNSTRO&ENTS CoiefNLATf ORAiHL, MAINTTHANCf GRAiNS, VTiliTT LINES,E'TC NOT SHOWN TO PRTVTNT CLLITTfR 2.FOR PROCfSS FLOW CHARACTERISTICS Sf f TABLE 3.5-Ie~N 5JAf STTALL JfT AlR fJTCIOR PRIMARY FLOIY PATH Al'lf ANATE FlOW PATH~~SAMPLINQ LIMf S.EA,M SJAE I SAMPLING LIME DRAIN TO MAIN CONDENSER MAIM CONDENSER I I I I I I I I L 1 I I I I I I STEAM I I I I I I I I I COMDENSATL SJAE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I INTER.CONDENSER SAMPLIMG LINE r I I I I f KAE I I I CONDEN ATE I DRAIN TO MAIM CONDENSER I I L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PZENEATER~CATALYTIC BIMER WATER 5EPARATOR OFF-GAS CONDENSATE COMDE LJSE NL ALIALYLER NL ANALYZER L D RAIN TO MAIM COLIDEMSER TO HOLD VP UNE IM RADWASTE BL¹5T EAM SJAE SAAAPLIMG LINE SAMPLlllG EOVIPMENT DRAIM TO RADWASTE COLLECTION SFS EM WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report FU3W DIAGRAM OFF~PRCjGHSING TURBINE BUILDING FIG.3.5-6 g C~'%g=a ORTS'S AT SR.DESI C C ANT O'RYSR DRYER CIIILLER&AS COOLS R CHARCOAL AOSOQSSR (TYP)I I I I e I T I L NOTES I VAlVES.INSTROMENTS CONDENSATE DRAINS.MAINTENANCE OQAtNS.ttttLIIY LINE'3, ETC, NOT SIIOWN tb PQSVCI4f CLIITTSR R FOR POOCCSS FLIAY CIIARACIERISTICS SKS'TASLE 35-IS LS.I3eND SJAE.STEAM JEf AIR SJSCfOR F-FILTER PRiMARY FLOW PATRI--~-At TERNATE FLOW PATRI RADIATION SAMPLE&l.lNE YSNT<<O ATMOSPttSQS PRAIR TO RAOWASTE COLLScttou emTEM AIR MO SttAtE SEPARATOR DESICCANT DRYER HOLD~UIIE IO MINIITES COot.ER CONDENSER CONOSNSATS AIR r-~-I I I I AIOISTIIRE SEPARATOR DRAIN'fO RAOWASTC COLLECTIOM SYSTEM+4 I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I DRYER NEATER OE51CCANf DRYS R I CRY SQ CtttLLCR DRAIN,O RAOWASTE COLLSCTlOM SYSTEM DES I CC ANT DRYER I I I I I I I I I I I I GAS COOI.SR I I I I I I PROCCSS QAO1AtldN MCNIIORINS EotIIPMENT COOLS R CCIIOENSER CONoeNute J I I T OeAtN to IIADWAtte cdtteet<dN setters e IC WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report FDN DIAGRAM OFF~PROCESSING SYSTEM RADWASTE BUILDING rIG.-3.5-7
-~
~S IVALVSS, V4STRVMSNTATIOH ORRIS UIILIIV LINES, STC HOT SHOWN TO PRSVSNT CI.VTTSR STWO SVSTS'MS~WII IN PARALLEL,'OIIHA'AY~SYSTEM tS OPSRATINS IN STIJL SY CHILLSR PACKAGE COOl AP4T CIRCULATION I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L AIR NANOLIN&UNIT 8 o A'IR NALQLIN&UNIT COOLAl4f CIRCULATION AIR NANOLINS S PMSNT ROOM COOLANT CIRCULATION AIR NANOUNS UNIT AIR NANOLI~IPIIT ECIRCVLATIOI OOO CPM 55OO/I3COO CPM 20OO/4OOO CPM Cf C.GAS COOLER A C SOS IPM PCOO/4OOO CPM 0PP-CAS COOLER 5'5OO/I OOO C.PLI CHILLER, PACKAGE COOLANT CIRCVI ATION WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report FIDN DIAGRMvL HVAR.G.CHARQQAL ADSORHER VAULT HM3WASTE~IKQ FIG-3~5 8
-0 O.~C O MO CTlvl~IOC AIR Vsse TI I 39 24 I pe 4(I 23 91350 22 2I 2o II 8I NI I I I~O NIQ I l9 I(3 l7 yC)g IO l5 I I l2 l3<<'<<*<<D\WC'~i VO4faLTlOhs VN(f INC'VDINS ROIPSNINS FILTER,S1CPk4 NCATQ4S CCaL, Alt WASNER04%RATlN&
SVPPIY ARRAN 4 ST~.ST AA.E (NOOSE'u E SVWae~~OCR PURCyt SUPAV E CQVIPI4CMT ACCT~AREA'4, Vip RCCOMOINCR MCC ROOMS(~~(WTN T C"SQ/eCNCY~SVS
)ECOLVMA1OR AREA i 3 OPAL OOOO 4 CVEL QOOI.NELTEXCNLNE4A, C POUND'Z SCNERAL AREA.WEST O.CRD MOOVLXS WCCf 9 AC.VNIT IN ACCESS A'RCAi C~iKS ROCOaR~NsuN(r CQ Drys~~(Wtfll ONC CMCRSCNCY COOLQISSYS)
Il~~~~~IT SNVf Oawll CCxx I<<44<<SISPl V PJCk.CRO QOV<<PMCs4f LOIN 4 SWJl OWN C~yEINO~<<OARCA IS NCAA iS VALVE RCKWA(GCNWAL A~)s Ig RNt(pv"p Roasse~Ltis(vntN NREE CMERsc cv clou~cvsfc"3)El\Dc LlccRooM(DwTXQIIN(Hi ME~COOLINS SYSTVPA R<<S~OY LIOVIO~T$OL SVSTCM AREA~~OOQPli APE SPACC 4 R(~i ANALYtHC QOIMV)44IIN:Itig ROOMIS(WlTHTVCI CMCRSCN Y COOUNCe SA~SI IESSRRM-i SLSMEklMCAT AMA Nbt tll 4 NEW FV6, M>LAIC VAVLT l%RHR NT QXCAANSCR WC%A'o ResEI4 I INN RcseN.NEAT c~~CONP.JCCKSlb PJ3EAC RPS Q%CC T(~RQO'~s X(b CACCE~~ZtCRP MOOVLCS KASf CPIPC~I'solve Mcc RccN (AA wJ4ouNC vN"I (w~aa cecal caouus svs~)'ACRO RCMIR ROCM Z56CNERPL ARXAi LlCVTQON Mau~nvS DRIVC l4CCNANIOM AQCA.t4'TIP R SNITDSA4 COOLQ46(OOPA JktAi vllVC ACC,455 AREA YZLRNR PVHP RM ALPCS POMP QM g iNPCS ASAP RM ta WlfH'TNRCC ENSA4CNCf COOLINS SVST&49)RLSCNCRAI.
AR'EA'K CRD PVMP R~4 JVCII ORf CORO.DVMP RldH 3R VAIR MJC,IDNC ROOM I 3(,EQNPMCNT ACCKSS AREA 31.%lEVAT(Q'l4CNINE ROOM E ilblLKT 55FVKL/004 54RtACRA~LL 35KXb&t~OR EOOL 34RNR Nr~SCR ROOM's 31.SVMF VENT Ea"AVSf EIIJKR~Q (OC OP%RkAl4S i ONC STAND SY SSYKMI~SVS MI"C~A CCMISTCR, AN KLSCAtlC.NQPZlN&
COII A ROVSNINS TlLtER,l%$
%ACRR CWRCOkL AL1KR WtlH DELVSE'WQ ASCEMELY i EXHAUST PAI4)%OMAN SICAM 4)4CI COOLEID SV 1%A AIR HANDLINS VNIIS SJCN OOOO C~3%EXN PK AIR CPh4S(ONC~~aa'INS CONK O STANDEY: 0 R RADIAYIOI4 MOLIIIORSCWCCCAtOAS (IDLER SIRDAR~OCI%CIORS C EOVR R IATNNMOHITOAS 4 INOICA(N'SC EPCN RECOURSE(3) 0 OC>KJCKS~Kf SPAC,C IS SCRVED 8Y QSACRR N~S4Hl&ENCr COOLINS SYOff<<MS 37 0 35 ,0 32 ol QO Ir~=-I"I~I<p~II/3I f)I 30 29 2S 27 2(o (J WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report FDM DIAGRAM HFATING 6 VENTILATION SYSTEM REAC1QR BUILDING FIG.3 5-9
.0-~C aa 85 IT,GOO CPM a 30,000 CFI4 2I 20 a O'+a Qu aa.E 19 OUTSIDE AIR 32.430 CCM IO l7 0 a 0 0 afg V O O sl O~A aaa O I 15 O O aa, V la 4.V a La u O l3 O O a'a la.29,900 CFJ4 IZ, 23 ZIO/ZZJOO CFM aa'u R g~O aaa m aaa~C I.ROUGHING FILTER 2.STEAM HEATING COIL 3AI R WASHER 4CENTRIFUGCL FANS(ONE OPERATING 4 ONE STAND BY)5AQER E.XHAUST AREA 4 AIR NANDUNG UNIT SERVING I OFFICE,MENS/LowER ROOM/HOT 3 COLD SHOWERS I TOILET.WOMENS LOCKER ROOMS NOT I COLD SHOVJEL9 I TOILET(NEALTii PNVQCS AREA)2 OFF4aAS EOUIPMENT ROOM, BOFDGAS EOUIPMENT REMOVAL AREA 9 ELEVATOR MACHINE ROOM IO.FILTER VALVE I puMP ROOM ILCORRIDOR BETWEEN VALVE AREA-ACCESS ARE J Iz.ACCESS.AREA.CENTRIFUGE ROOM I MWR TANK Is CORJJDOR OUTSIDE PRECCAT ARL (CONTAMINATION ROOM.l4.PRECOAT ROOIaI iS VESTIBu(EJOFF.GAS FILTER R(."sl I C EOIXPMEMT ACCESS AREA 3KUJPJa TRUCK AREA.DRUM/CASKPERATIN(I STORAGE AREAS.DECONTAMIIJATKJ.
ARLA,J HOPPER MIXER ROOM IZ TAIJK CORRIDOR NL REFRICkRATIOLl EOUIIaML4JT ARE<l9 DRYER EOUIPMENT ROOMS, VEST-IBULE VALve JJJOM.CJJOLER I MOISTURE E()VIPMEHT ROOM 20 PUMP AREAs I TANK R00Ms Zl.DIESEL GENERATOR CABLE CORRIDOR sZZ.AI R CLEANING WITS IN RADIO CUE M.LABORATORY
~23, AIR CLJANING UNIT IN SNJPLE ROOM s24 AIR CLEAN4JG UNIT IN MECNJaH ICAL EOINPMENT AREA zR AIR NAJILIHG UNITv(ouNIING8cM 2AAIR HANDUNG UN<~ilKAL LABORATORY 22 AIR HAND(INC UNIT/SAMPLE ROOM Zi)a EOUIPMENT ARL-A 29 CORRIDOR 30 DEMINERAIJZATION REMOVAL ROOM s 3L AIR HANDUNG4 AIR CLUING UN@.HOT iNStRUMEHT SHOP.32.HOT MAC NINE ROOM 33.AIR NANDUNG UNIT/RADIIIASTE CONTROL RDQM 434,AIRCLEANING UNIT A WilN DELUGE VALVE ASSEMBLY S3SAIR CIEANING UNIT'B WITIJ DELJJGE VALVE ASSEMBLY S 34 AIR CLEANING UJJIT C WITH DELUGE VALVE ASSEMBLYRADIATIOM MONITOR Ja-AIR CLEANING UNITS CONSISTIIXaOF ROUGHIIJG FILTER;NEPA FILTER, AND EXHAUST FAM V~a N a V V 9 0 29 3ZO/30430 CAJI O a u4 O 33 32 3)30 29'8 27 25 24 23 22 4SO CFM O I O O X V 8 V b aa 8 aVf'u O IK I O O aa'V Ia.V O caa aaJ 0 WASHINGTON PUBLIC, POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report PIQW DIAGRAM ZADPmSZE BUILDING HEM".ENG AND V mrueZCN SYSTEM FIG.3.5-10
-~C 4 50 CM MR CCM 23 R.45R IB l49 500 Cl'M 2555530 clwq F4900 CFM ICA 430 CPM OUTMOC AIR RtCIRC AIR 55450 CCM ouTSIOS All('.CPENO Ikllo.AIR WASWER SYSTEM C055555tl55(5
'or (RcucMA.FIL~wtAT Na co<4 WATS SPRAY SECTl0555 4 Surly CVR Clc\24lt5, SAMC AS A I IS EXCEPT FOR CAP)CI()K 3, ExwAOST PLENuM'.5 txwAustto sY TwRCE OPERAT5N45 CAtS t 054)St*AO ST FAN 4 CORRIOOR B.KV 50XC 5.CSENSPAl)R 4 CXCITRR AREA MANS TCII.KT 25 IRC AIR (500 TO tAST COI>>L I 200 SOO CROM M-'2 RECIRC, AIR ltoO CFM 5'8us c)oct AREA g SWITCWE54AR AREA (3 CCRR50CR rcLSV.41 I W 9.ME)5'5 TO(LC(S (Q.5542 4 SL44'W)50500550ENSATC puMps AREA SM~5~CF(RATP555 CuCOA tco TC 5 52 COO 55000 15 lg (500 55500tc Cl I(C 2IOCO o 54 I I I.CCAORNSATC SCOSTKR PIX455 AREA 4 55455 5 TCXLST 5254)h5CRAL VCS S ARSA (5 44545)l5, Wt SRAI Oll.ROOM l4.ELEVATOR SOIXPMC5NT ROOM 555 CREN%RAL CAST AREA(5050 4 EL 41 IWCc)K5 COICOSICSER AREA==5 4'TI.O MSZ2ANINS A~OSPw ERS~400 CFM TWR)EN(C)R 5COCCM CRIM 53 7 SCO CCM CRC54 0 5coT 1 2oo FRCMP5 2CO FRCMr>>1 15 55 Coo TC t 1200 tc TC20TO I 19 21 35oo IS TO N(5250CR IN)Rccwhttt 8go 20 22 30000 17 55,005 FROM o 15000 cr)4 Oc)TSIOE A)R I M5 Il)CAT CRS AREA Iatucctcxt Ccl.RSSSRICIR 5%CORRIDOR (l 4TIX)I 25.N W CC555COR ts E.w c(RROOR tt SOLER ROPM tA AIR IIAOO555(~uccct 24 152&55%.OIL TREAS5(5F AREA 25 OEIIERAL EAsr AREA 2(4 AR CowPRSSSCR AREA tl TR)ASCORMER R0054S 22(AIR t)ECTOR AR51AS'Ag S 2%REACNR Ftwo PVMP A'REA Ac S 35 vACI)5)M PVMP AREA 3(CORR5COR 32>>Y~ANALvztR ROOM 33 SAMPLt ROOM(F)LTERP5SIP)IT4 AIR CC55R CP)IT))A CO550(54SER S5RAO()35 PIPS PANEL 34 or'F OAS RSCO S NER AREA 0 (2 R5N)IAT)OM MONITOR 24500 SooT55 Sl II I tc 300 TII 5 TI 34 54000 4500RI 2)l35ccc)ccMFRccc 55 2CAOOO CCM FR(M ICJI(lt I 500 24 I TO 5 I 205 To 35 2 OCC rrM ROM 5M I 45000 CCM 45050~55 12 t8oo O)O'Tlo TO 35 5)CO TO lt 320O 5300 FRcMrIS 53000 4so Tclr st 3 I Socio lp 555 555 To 53 54,5cc cFM FRPM t4,25 4 tu 54555 FRC54 55 450 CCI4 CRCMPSI l4 r55554 I 4515 55 25'24C!010 Sl 255 so 5000 CPM CROM P 53I l3055o To 25 BO 55PCO CCM CROM 55 l35O I~350(25550 FRC54 55 K EV 445 0 CPROOND 5~WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report FZOÃDIAGRAM TURBINE BUIZDZNG FIG.3.5-11 O.r WASTE SLUDGE PNASE SEPARATOR SPENT RLSIN TANK CLEAN-UP PRAT SEPARATOR COMDENSATL PIIASE SEPARATOR MOTS: I, ZAsVES,INSTRUMEMTATIOM,GYERFLOX DRAINS.MAINTENANCE DRAINS.>TILITY LIMES,LTC MOT ENOWM 0 PREVENT CLUTTER LEGEND PUMP 5-MOTOR PRIMARY'LOW PATM ALTERNATE FLOW PATM STATIC M<XSR wASTE SLUDGE PNASE SEPARATOR WASTE SLUDGE PMASE SEPARATOR CENTRIFUGE'ENTRIFUGE CONDCNSATC CONCENTRATED WASTETANK CONCENTRATED WASTE-TAMK r (OVERFLOWI WASTE MEAQRIIIG TANK.WASTE SLUDGE.PNASE SEPARATOR (GRAVITY RETURN)5'V I V CENTRIFUGE LIQUID EFFLUENT CCNDf N SAl C POPPER MIXER.MOPPER MIXER gONDCNSXTC POLYMER TAMIL 50 CUE FT.DISPOSABLE CONTAINER SOCUF(DISPOSABLE CONTAINER CATA LTS(MIXING TANK WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM FUN DIAGRAM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2'ADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL SOLID HANDLING Environmental Report FIG.3.5-12"
-0 a E C 0 V C~v K IMMER SURGE.IANiK PUEL POOL SKI MME SURGE TANK CON Dt NM4 f CONOCNIhIC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PRECOAT RETURN PRECOAT SUPPLY P PITTER DEMI NERAUTE PRECOAT BACKWASH CILTER DEMINERAL ITR WASTE SNDGE PHASE SERVVLTOR IIGTES.I VAL+5 INST R~Ni VTATKM OVERFLOW GRAINS,MA'Ni ENANCE CCMNSVTILIT I LINES ETC NOT SOILS TO PREVENT CLUTTER.?PARALLEL COMPONENTS IgAY BE OPERATEO SEPARATELY R iANCVRENTLY LEGEND'P'-PiiMP HEAT EXCHANGER PRIMARY PLOW PaTH ALTERNATE RLCW PATH'+Joie,CMpiIN.
OLINO iliiR CNEMKAL WASTE TANK N/X SUPPRESSION POO'AIN CONDENSER WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM FMW DIAGRAM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO 2 (~~~~~~~M S~M Environmental Report FIGHT 3.5-l3
'~%
WNP-2 ER 3.6 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE WASTES 3.6.1 General Waste waters discharged to the Columbia River will meet the requirements given in 40 CFR Part 423"Effluent Limitations, Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gen-erating Point Source Category", issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, October 8, 1974.Waste water streams actually and potentially containing radionuclides will be processed in the liquid radwaste system as described in Section 3.5.2.3.6.2 Chemical Waste Treatment S stem The makeup water demineralizer produces low dissolved solids makeup water by ion exchange, for plant use.Periodically, the makeup water demineralizing equipment requires regeneration to restore the ion exchange capacity.The regeneration pro-cess requires a maximum of approximately 180 lbs of 66o Be sulfuric acid and 192 lbs of 100%sodium hydroxide.
Excess regenerant.
chemicals are collected along with rinse waters from the regeneration cycle, neutralized and tested before discharge to the heat dissipation system.The total volume of waste water produced by one demineralizer regeneration cycle, is approximately 9100 gallons, with a typical composition as shown in column D, Table 3.6-1.When operating on average composition river water, the makeup water demineralizer will produce approximately 110,000 gallons of demineralized water to service, per cycle.Normal operating plant demand will require on the order of 5 gallons per minute of demineralized water makeup, so that the regeneration of this equipment will be infrequent.
The total plant is being built"clean" so that conventional chemical cleaning prior to start-up is not anticipated.
In the future, if chemical cleaning is required, cleaning wastes will not be discharged to the Columbia River.3.6.3 Heat Dissi ation S stem The removal facilities are discussed in Section 3.4.The evaporation of water in the cooling towers will cause solids concentrations in the circulating water to increase as dis-cussed in Section 3.3.Control of the cooling water chem-istry is required to preclude reductions in plant efficiency and service life.This includes adjustment of the pH of the circulating water to maintain a non-scaling and non-corros-ive condition; intermittent chlorination to control biologi-cal growths such as slimes, algae and fungi;and the blowdown or withdrawal of a portion of the circulating water to con-3.6-1 trol the dissolved solids concentration.
Typical composi-tion of the Columbia River water used for cooling makeup, is shown on Table 3.6-1, (columns A, B, C).The composition of the water in the heat dissipation system which will be the same as the cooling tower blowdown is shown on Table 3.6-1 (columns E, F, G).Sulfuric acid is added to the circulating water to maintain the circulating water pH in the range of 6.5-8.5, for scale and corrosion control.The anticipated sulfuric acid con-sumption will be in the range of 1700-3400 lbs/day.If the pH of the circulating water, hence the cooling tower blow-down water, should fall below 6.5 or rise above 8.5, ope-rating alarms within the plant will alert the operating per-sonnel who will initiate corrective action.It is anticipated that.adequate corrosion control in the heat dissipation system can be maintained by pH control by means of the addition of sulfuric acid and the control of the dissolve'd solids in the system by the means of blowdown.No other corrosion or scale inhibitors are to be used.Condenser tubing is 94%admiralty and 6%70-30 copper-nickel.Erosion/corrosion of the tubes is expected to contribute a copper concentration of 35 to 110 micrograms per liter to the cooling tower blowdown effluent at ten (10)cycles of concentration.
Wood has not been used in the construction of the cooling tower or as a fill material.Therefore, chemical preserva-tives will not be extracted and discharged to the river.The cooling tower fill material is corrugated asbestos cement strips, 3/16" thick, supported by fiberglass re-inforced polyester grids.The fill is 18%asbestos by weight.Based on conservative estimates of erosion rates the concentration of asbestos in blowdown is expected to,be less than 0.02 ppm.Biological growths on heat transfer surfaces result in fouling and a loss of efficiency.
Also, algae, slimes and bacterial growths can cause an increase in the corrosion rate of metal surfaces.Therefore, biological activity in the heat dissipation system will be controlled by chlorination.
It is anticipated that about 240 lbs/day of chlorine will be injected, intermittently into the circulating water line up-stream of the main condenser.
3.6-2 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER Chlcrine dosage will be automatically controlled so that a concentration of about 0.5 ppm will be present after the condenser, in the water going to the cooling tower, during periods of chlorinator operation.
A small portion of this will be dispersed to the atmosphere and the remainder ef-fectively consumed by the small quantities of organic matter present in the circulating water.During the time the chlo-rine is added, the cooling tower blowdown valve will closed.It will remain closed until the total residual chlorine concentration has been at or below 0.1 mg/1 for 15 minutes.The total cumulative operating time of the chlorination system will not exceed 2 hrs/day.Interrupting the blowdown flow during periods of chlorinator operation and for a short period afterwards, assures compliance with the NPDES Permit (see Appendix IV).The anticipated composition of the cooling tower blowdown is given in Table 3.6-1.This discharge flow will be essentially continuous during normal operation, except during periods of chlorinator operation and for a brief period afterwards.
A small portion of the circulating water will be lost from the cooling towers in the form of small droplets.This"drift" is of the same composition as the circulating water containing some dissolved and suspended solids (Table 3.6-1).Drift eliminators are incorporated in the design of the cooling towers so as to limit the drif t to a maximum of 285 gpm, as discussed in Section 3.4.The total solids contained in the drift would amount to about 1,425 lbs per day under full load conditions (assuming a drift rate of 0.05%).The deposition of drift in the vicinity of the cooling towers is discussed in Section 5.1.4.3.6-3 Amendment 3 January 1979 Q>>j>>TABLE 3'.6-1'ATER COMPOSITION
'COLUMB'IA'IVERS
DEMINERAL'IZER WASTETH COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN D'o'lumbi'a River Demineralizer Wast'e'~oolin Tower Blowdown Calcium, Ca ppm++A~v~23 Ilax.Min.32 18 309 A~v~116 liax.-160 Min.90 Magnesium, Mg ppm+++Sodium, Na ppm 7 2 52 5 0 1466 21 12 34 24 10 Bicarbonate, HC03 ppm Carbonate, C03 ppm Sulfate, S04 ppm Chloride, Cl ppm Nitrate, N03 ppm Phosphate, P04 ppm>>72 80 50 15 28 10 1 2.6 0.2 0.24 0.62 0 0.03 0.13 0 514 3495 56 32 92 236 1.24 0.06 92 415 13 3.1 0.63 92 109 Total Hardness ppm CaC03 Total Alkalinity ppm CaC03 74 88 63 76 64 41 988 422 375 150 540 150 265 150 pH Silica, Si02 ppm Dissolved Soilds, ppm 8.7 9.1 8-8.5 6 9 3 8.3 76 87 115 72 6022 7.5 30 435 8.5 45 600 6.5 360 WNP-2 ER-OL 3.7 SANITARY AND OTHER WASTES.7.1~5 A septic tank/drain field system was originally selected for'reatment and disposal of sanitary wastes.The installed system was designed for plant operation on the basis of 100 persons at 25 gallons per capita per day.Construction phase wastes were treated in temporary septic tank/tile fields or hauled offsite to a sewage lagoon.With the buildup of a construction force at WNP-1 and WNP-4, concurrently with the construc-tion activity at WNP-2, the Supply System chose to build a central waste treatment system to serve the three plants and the Emergency Response/Plant Support Facility.This system will also provide treatment during maintenance/refueling outages when much larger than normal work forces are on site.The sanitary waste treatment system uses aerated lagoons in series with lined facultative stabilization ponds.Flow from the ponds is dosed to four percolation/evaporation beds with a combined area of about two acres.The percolation beds are located about 45 feet above the water table and'here is no discharge to a surface water course.Wastes are delivered to the treatment plant via a gravity collection system.The treatment system is sized (0.17 mgpd)to accommodate the largest antici-pated combined construction/operation work force for the three nuclear plants.During normal power plant operation, when the flow will average 0.05 mgpd, the aerated lagoons can be bypassed.The location of the facility and arrangement of the ponds are shown in Figure 3.7-1.3.7.2 Storm Water and Roof Drains Storm water and roof drains will be collected in a separate drain system and routed to an evaporation/leach area located at about N12600, W325 (see Figure 2.1-4).3.7.3 Filter Backwash Water Periodically, filter backwash water from the makeup demineralizer sys-tem, is routed to the evaporation/leach area.The filters accumulate and store backwash water that is released at a flow rate of up to 525 gpm for a period of about 5 minutes per week.3.7.4 Gaseous Wastes During plant shutdown and outages, a diesel oil fired auxiliary boiler furnishes auxiliary steam and heating.In addition, three standby die-sel generators will operate on an infrequent, intermittant basis.Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER-OL The three standby diesel engine driven generators will be test run for about one (1)hour monthly.Also, each generator set will be operated at full load for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> at least once during an 18 month period.Two of the units consume 340 gph of fuel, each at full load, while the third will use 170 gph at full load.Assuming full load operation, with a fuel oil sulfur content of 0.4X, this equipment will exhaust about 1400 lbs of S02, 980 lbs of NOX and 34 lbs of particulates per year.The heating boiler provides building heat and supplies steam to the rad-waste system, when needed.It is expected that the equivalent of only three months at 25K of full load operation, will be required'annually.
The heating boiler, consuming No.2 fuel oil, containing 0.4X sulfur will produce approximately 13,650 lbs of S02, 9,800 lbs of NOX, and 340 1bs of particulates per year.3.7-2 Amendment 5 July 1981 7 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report Amendment 5, July 19S1 SANITARY WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM FIG.3.7-1 WNP-2 ER 3.8 REPORTING OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT Generation of electrical energy in a nuclear power plant requires periodic shipment of new fuel assemblies to the plant, spent fuel assemblies to a fuel reprocessing or storage facility, and packaged low level radioactive materials to licensed waste burial grounds.The shipments are made in compliance with fed-eral and state requirements pertaining to the proper packaging and transportation of the materials.
3.8.1 New Fuel 3.8.1.1 Description New fuel for the WNP-2 plant is made of slightly enriched ura-nium dioxide ceramic fuel which has been compacted and sintered to form very dense pellets having high strength and high melting point.The pellets are about 0.41 inch in diameter, 0.41 inch long, and are stacked in Zircaloy-2 tubing to provide an active ,fuel length of 150 inches with a plenum left at the top end to provide for collection of gas generated during the fission pro-cess.The tubes are welded shut at both ends and are subjected to rigorous quality control to ensure their integrity.
Sixty-two fuel rods and two water rods (tubes of Zr-2 cladding without UO fuel)are assembled in an eight-by-eight array to form a fuel bundle.Each fuel bundle will contain fuel rods of either five or seven different enrichments, whose average bundle enrichments will be approximately 1.8 or 2.2 percent U-235 for the first core.The reload fuel will have average bundle enrichments in the range of 2.4 to 3.0 percent U-235.A fuel assembly consists of a fuel bundle weighing approximately 615 pounds and a fuel channel weighing 83 pounds.The fuel channel is used to control coolant flow within the reactor core.Normally the channel will be reused and assembled at the plant site with a new fuel bundle.The reactor core will contain a total of 764 fuel assemblies.
3.0.1.2 New Fuel Shi ment Prior to shipment, plastic spacers are inserted between the rows of rods in the fuel assembly to provide protection for the fuel against the normal shock and vibration during transport and to assure that, when the fuel is placed into the reactor, the pro-per spacing has been maintained between the fuel rods for heat transfer purposes.New fuel assemblies are enclosed in a plastic bag and placed in a metal container which provides insulation for fire protection and which supports the fuel assembly along's entire length during the course of transportation.
This metal container also provides necessary impact protection.to meet drop 3m 3 1 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER test requirements provided for in NRC regulations.
The metal container is gasketed and bolted shut, then placed into an outer wooden box.The fuel properties and a typical description of the fuel shipping containers follows: NEW FUEL PROPERTIES AND CONTAINER DESCRIPTION Fuel Pro erties Container Descri tion 1)No radioactive fission 1)Metal container in wooden products box 2)Non radioactive gases 2)Dimensions:
3)High melting point, insoluble Metal container, 11" x 18 1/2" x 182" long Wooden box, 33" x 32" x 207" long 3)Capacity-two BWR assemblies 4)Weights: Empty-1400 pounds Loaded-2800 pounds There are no components of the package or its contents which are subject to chemical reaction in the normal transportation environment.
The package connot be opened inadvertently, uses no coolant, and has no lifting devices or tie-down attachments.
During normal transport conditions, containment integrity and nuclear safety are not significantly affected by ambient tem-peratures,+0.5 psi pressure differntials or road vibrations.
3.8.1.3 Method and Fre uenc.of Shi ments The General Electric Company is responsible for shipment of the initial core fuel assemblies from its fabrication plant at Wil-mington, North Carolina, to the WNP-2 reactor site, a distance of about 3000 miles.This fuel will be shipped.by truck in quantities of up to 16 shipping containers per load, each con-taining two fuel assemblies, thereby providing a maximum of 32 fuel assemblies per truck shipment.About 24 shipments will be received at the plant for the initial core.Reload fuel assemblies will be shipped from the Exxon Nuclear Company plant located less than ten miles from the WNP-2 plant site.About 180 fuel assemblies will be required annually.3.8-2'Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER Inherent in the generation of power by a nuclear reactor is the fact that fissionable isotopes in the nuclear fuel are depleted to the extent that they need to be replaced with new fuel.However, the spent, fuel, which has essentially the same weight as fresh fuel, still contains fissionable uranium and plutonium.
Although these materials could be recovered in a fuel reprocessing facility and re-used in fabricated fuel assemblies, current policy is to indefinitely defer commerical reprocessing and recyling of the plutonium produced in the U.S.nuclear power programs.The Supply System will continue to closely monitor both government policy and development concerning spent fuel disposition, reprocessing, and plutonium recycle.Present planning calls for storage of the spent fuel in the plant spent fuel pool until at least 1988.Because of the installation of additional spent fuel storage capacity, loss of full core discharge capability should not occur prior to 1993 for WNP-2, and the pool should have sufficient capacity for reloads until at least 1998.In is anticipated, however, that by the 1990's the ultimate disposition of the spent fuel, whether it will be temporarily stored and later withdrawn for reprocessing, or whether it will be regarded as waste and ulti-mately disposed of in a pemanent repository, will be known.Spent fuel removed from the reactor during annual refueling contains, on a weight basis, in excess of 99.99 percent, of the fission products formed inside the fuel.These fuel assemblies are temporarily stored in the spent fuel pool at the plant after removal from the reactor core.This spent fuel is covered by about ten feet of water at all times which serves as a radiation shield and coolant while the short-lived fission products decay.During this period, the fuel assemblies are monitored to identify"leaking" fuel elements so that they may be canned prior to insertion in shipping casks, thereby reducing even further the remote likelihood of a release of fission products.The temporary storage period will be a minimum of 180 days to allow for decay of short-lived fission products.The planned average fuel bundle burnup over the plant lifetime will be approximately 27.,500 megawatt days per metric ton (MWD/tonne).
It is expected, however, that the burnups could vary from 10,000 MWD/tonne to 35,000 MWD/tonne for individual discharges.
3.8.2.2 S ent Fuel Shi ment The NRC and U.S.Department of Transportation (DOT)regulations specify both normal and accident conditions against which a package designer must evaluate any radioactive material packaging.
3.8-3 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER These conditions are intended to assure that the package has the required~integrity to meet, all conditions which may be encountered during the course of transportation.
The normal shipping conditions require that the package bg able to withstand conditions ranging from-40 F to 139 F and to withstand the normal vibrations, shocks, and wetting that would be incident to normal transport.
In addition, the packages are required to withstand specified test conditions with the release of no radioactivity except for slightly contaminated coolant and up to 1,000 curies of radioactive noble gases.The test conditions for which the package must be designed include, in sequence, a 30-foot free fall onto a completely unyielding surface, followed by a 40-inch drop onto a six-inch diameter pin, followed by 30 minutes in a 1475 F fire, followed by eight hours immersion in three feet of water.Prior to use, the proposed container design and transport system are reviewed and approved by NRC and DOT, and tran-sportation is authorized by an NRC license.Lincense provisions include adequate quality assurance and testing programs to assure the equipment is constructed and used in accordance with approved desgins and procedures.
After loading, containers are decontaminated and carefully surveyed and inspected to assure that they have.been properly prepared for shipment and are in full compliance with license provisions governing transportation.
The container is also labeled in accordance with federal regulations.
3.8.2.3 Method and Fre uenc of Shi ment There is presently a considerable diversity of shipping methods proposed for the very heavy irradiated fuel containers, ranging from legal weight truck shipments which will ship approximately two BWR fuel assemblies at a time to large rail casks which will ship as many as thirty BWR fuel assemblies at.a time.Shipment of 200 spent fuel assemblies from the WNP-2 plant would annually involve about 100 truck shipments or ten rail shipments.
Since the plant will have rail access, it is expected that spent fuel will be shipped exclusively by rail.Truck shipments are planned only for those few assemblies left over from rail shipments.
3.8.3 Radwastes A variety of radioactive wastes will be shipped by truck or rail to duly licensed burial locations for disposal.Radioactive wastes shipped off-site during normal operation will be in the form of solids or solidified liquids in amounts as shown in Table 3.8-1.These wastes will include (activities are given in Table 3.5-22): 3.8 4 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER a.RWCU f'Lter demineralizer spent resins b.Condensate filter demineralizer spent resins c.Fuel pool demineralizer spent resins d.Radwaste demineralizer spent resins e.Radwaste filter sludges f.Evaporator bottoms g.Miscellaneous solid wastes The miscellaneous solid wastes include spent control rods and fuel channels, small pieces of contaminated instruments and instrument cable, filter cartridges, contaminated tools, and compressible radioactive solid waste.The compressible radio-active solid waste will include contaminated clothing, paper, and rags.Processing of these miscellaneous solid wastes prior to shipment off-site is discussed in Section 3.5.4.3.8.3.2 Radioactive Waste Shi ment Fifty and one-hundred cubic foot steel containers will be uti-lized for packaging the majority of the solid wastes to be shipped for off-site disposal.Off-site shipment of packaged material will be contracted to a firm specializing in the transportation of solid wastes.This specialist will hold the necessary permits and licenses and be responsible for the ship-ment in transit.In conformance with Federal Regulations, the Supply System will be responsible to assure that the site packaged containers are sealed and labeled properly.The low activity compressible waste will generally be packaged for shipment in steel drums.Spent fuel radioactive equipment and other solid waste components will be shipped by contract with a specialist in the field who will provide the necessary containers, such as modified spent fuel casks.3.8.3.3 Method and Fre uenc of Shi ment The expected quantities of radiactive waste materials to be shipped from the WNP-2 plant are shown on Table 3.8-1 and are detailed in Section 3.5, Radwaste Systems and Source Term.It is expected that all low-level radioactive waste will be buried on the Licensed burial site on the Hanford Reservation
-a distance of about ten miles from the WNP-2 plant site.Demineralizer resins, filter sludges, and evaporator bottoms are collected in the plant and dewatered and solidified into fifty and one-hundred cubic foot containers.
The packaged wastes are then stored as necessary to allow decay of short lived isotopes.3.8-5 Amendment, 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER Storage area is provided for a minimum of 60 days decay time.The waste containers will be placed in shielded shipping casks as required to comply with the limitations of 49 CFR and placed on flatbed trucks for shipment to the burial site.'ompressible low-level wastes in 55-gallon drums will also be shipped by truck to the burial site.Zt is not expected that additional shielding will be required for these wastes.Radioactive equipment components will be stored in the spent fuel pool until a sufficient amount is accumulated for a ship-ment.They will be shipped by contract with a specialist in the field who will provide the necessary containers.
3.8.4 Summar of Radioactive Material Movement A summary of the principal shipments of radioactive materi'als, type of transportation systems and the estimated distance involved in shipment of radioactive materials to and from the WNP-2 site appears as Table 3.8-1.3.8-6 Amendment 2 October 1978 TABLE 3.8-1 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT
SUMMARY
Radioactive Material Transportation Mode Material~Qnantit Vehicle Shipment Quantity Miles New Fuel Initial Core Reloads Truck Truck 764 Assemblies 3000 Mi.180 Assemblies 10 Mi.Per Yr.32 Assemblies 32 Assemblies 72,000 0 Spent Fuel Rail 200 Assemblies Unknown 18 Assemblies (3)Per Yr.60 60 60 (2)0 Radwastes Sludges&Resins Truck 9850 Ft/Yr.or 10 Mi.3 100 Containers 3 Containers 420 420 420 420 420 Og'te oo O'0$9 5$Vlt Miscellaneous Solids Truck 100 Drums 10 Mi.50 Drums 20 20 20 20 20 (1)One-way distance (2)No fuel discharge from spent fuel pool anticipated until at least 1988.(3)Ultimate disposition of spent fuel as yet unknown.Refer to discussion in paragraph 3.8.2.1.
WNP-2 ER 3.9 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES 3.9.1 General Descri tion of Facilities The Bonneville Power Administration is planning, designing, and constructing the 500 KV transmission and 230 KV start-up lines and the H.J.Ashe Switching Station for WNP-2.BPA has submitted an environmental statement(1) concerning these facilities.
The information in this Section is taken from that report.To provide power for the construction of WNP-2, a 115 KV line was erected in 1972.This line comes from the Bonneville Power Administration's Benton Switching Station utilizing a 115 KV line that extends from'ection 3, Township 11 North, Range 28 East.The interconnecting line to WNP-2 is slightly over 1 mile in length and requires a 90 foot right-of-way.
After plant start-up, the 115 KV line will be used as an emergency back-up power source for WNP-2.This is an existing line, and will not be considered in the following sections.3.9.1.1 500 KV Tr'ansmission Line This transmission line will be the primary transmission-line originating at WNP-2 (See Figure 3.9-1).It travels 1/2 mile making connection to the BPA Ashe Substation, then 18 miles northwest to the 500 KV Hanford switchyard.
The entire line is within the Hanford Reservation and will be approximately 18.3 miles in length, requiring a 125 foot right-of-way (See Route"A", Figures 10.9-1 and 10.9-2).Lattice steel, single circuit, delta configuration, 500 KV towers will be used on this line (See Figure 3.9-2).The towers will average 123 feet in height and 44 feet in width.The average spacing between towers will be 1,150 feet.Three conductors will be used for this line with the average con-ductor ground clearance being 51 feet.Land requirements for each tower will average 400 square feet.See Table 3.9-1 for this line's electrical characteristics.
3.9.1.2 230 KV Start-U Line This three conductor transmission line (A-HEW03)will extend from the existing Bonneville Power Administration 230 KV grid connection, located in Section 32, Township 13 North, Range 27 East, East Williamette Meridian to the H.J.Ashe sub-station.This interconnection is approximately 10.1 miles long and will require a 125 foot right-of-way (See Figures 3.9-3 and Route"A" 10.9-1).Lattice steel, single circuit, flat configuration, 230 KV towers will be used on this line (See Figure 3.9-2).Steel 3.9-1 WNP-2 ER from existing towers, taken from a BPA line to be removed, will be used for the towers of this line.The towers will average approximately 80 feet in height with a base 28 feet square and a span length between towers averaging 1,150 feet.Three conductors will be used for this line with the average conductor ground clearance being 47 feet.See Table 3.9-1 for this line's electrical characteristics.
3.9.1.3 Howard J.Ashe Substation The H.J.Ashe substation, as shown in Figure 3.9-4, is being built by BPA to handle the WNP-2 500 KV transmission line and 230 KV start-up line.As shown in Figure 2.1-3, the Ashe substation is approximately 1/2 mile due north of WNP-2.The substation requires about 37 acres of land and an access road about 2,000 feet long for a total land, requirement of about 38 acres.Construction on the Ashe substation was completed in May, 1976.3.9.2 3.9.2.1 Environmental Parameters Non-Ele'ctrical A total of 648 acres will be required for the right-of-way for the 500 KV and 230 KV lines.The land to be crossed by the transmission lines is shown in Figures 10.9-3 and 10.9-4.A detailed discussion of the 500 KV and 230 KV routes impact on land, vegetation, wild life and their crossings of high-ways, railways, water-bodies, areas of acheological, histor-ical and recreational interest are discussed in Section 10.9.2.1.Alternative right-of-ways and the rationale for the selection of the proposed rights-of-way is given in Section 10.9.3.9.2.2 Electrical Radiated electrical interference is insignificant beyond 1000 feet from the rights-of-way and no receptors are antici-pated within this range due to the land classification.
Radiated acoustic noise is insignificant on lines with volt-ages below 345 KV.The 500 KV lines will be designed to minimize acoustic noise.Ground currents, in normal operation, both induced and con-ducted are insignificant.
The magnitude of such currents depends on the magnitude and balance of the load current in the conductors.
Procedures for grounding metal structures and'equipment, along with other precautions used by BPA substantially eliminates the possible hazard and nuisance from these sources.Under phase to ground fault conditions the current can reach 23 KA in the immediate vicinity for a maximum of one half second until the line protection devices operate.3.9-2 WNP-2 ER The magnitude of induced currents beneath the transmission lines can be estimated from BPA design criteria.One design criterion is that the electric field strength, as measured one meter above the ground, not exceed 9 kv/m.under typical maximum operating conditions.
Zt is additionally specified that the field strength at the edge of the right-of-way not exceed 5 kv/m.Xn such a field, the short-circuit current under the lines could be 0.14 mA in a person and about 5 mA for a large trailer truck.No short-or long-term effects~3)on humans in fields of this magnitude have been documented.
High voltage transmission lines exhibit corona discharge which is associated with the formation of ozone.Because corona discharge represents a power loss, transmission lines are designed to minimize this loss for economic reasons.The ozone formation per'hree-phase mile of 500 KV trans-mission line would be approximately 0.9 lb/day, and will be considerably less for the 230 KV line.The effects of this ozone formation are difficult to evaluate since the natural formation rate is high in'comparison.
Over the rights-of-way the natural ozone generation is one or two orders of magnitude above that caused by corona discharge from trans-mission lines.Field measurements of ozone concentrations in the vicinity of transmission lines have failed to record any increases that were attributable to the power lines.For these reasons, ozone formation is expected to cause no significant environmental effect.3.9-3 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER TABLE'.9-1 500 KV AND 230 KV LINE ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS 500 KV Ashe'an'foidgl Transmission Line-Conductor type: Capacity/conductor':
AC Resistance:
ACSR CHUKAR I at 50 C rise over 25 C ambient with sum=1458 amps 0 Centigrade ohms/mile 25 50.0560.0609 75 80 100.0659.0670.0709 230 KV Ashe HEW 53 Startu Line: Conductor type: Capacity/conductor:
AC Resistance:
ACSR DRAKE I at 50 C rise over 25 C ambient with sum=906 amps 0 Centigrade ohms/mile 25 50.1177.1293 75 80 100.1408.1431.1523 G.Q.CP lQ BACK-UP 5ECOklDARY RUM5 TO 5WITCHCj EAR QJ,CK.OP AUX PWR TRAH5.TR-Ml REACTOR 0 yl MOKV I I I TR.M'Z Z3OKV STA TA M3 TR-lA4 RT UP PNR Tg.g WWP-2 TURB.GEhl BLDG NORMAL AOX.PWa (2)SM.I SM 2 RADWAST'E BLDG SM7 5M-8 5TA,fg.UP 9ECOMDARY RUM5TO rWA START-VP AUX.PWR, TRAM5.WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report 500 KV, 230 KV, 115 KV power Layout FIG.3~9 tvf M 0 M 2g go g ftt 40~05 4 nm 0 t-3 t-OV l 54'~H Q 4)'EQ I M R 0 tTi 3,'C H H 0 0 0 0 6 I/4h Zi Single Circuit Delta Configuration 500,000 volt Ashe Sub to Hanford ttl Sub 6 Mon Sinttlc Circuit Flat Confitturation 230,000 volt Athe Tap to HEW<3 loop fine YAKIMA~<0~OgO>0 pO~0 ez.300 AREA SUB.FFTF 0 o,~g9..U.S.G V.8@SHE SUB~OO y8 WNP-2 SITE DETAIL C DETAILS II~D ss si I g I a I g-J ABOVE DRAWING NOT TO SCALE SCALE OF DETAILS BELOW ARE I"-200 DETAIL"C" PARALLEL TO 500 KV DETAIL D NEW R/W SECTION DETAIL'PARALLEL TO HEW 3 r-H 5 OKV a/w HEW 230 KV~NEW R/W FFTF R/W A-H A-HEW 3.HEW M-8 WWP FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY RIGHT OF WAY~ASHE-HANFORD I~ASHE TAP TO HEW 3'ENTON-RICHLAND HANFORD ENERGY WORKS~MIDWAY-BENTON.WASHINGTON WATER POWER WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report 230 KV RIGHT OF WAY DETAIL MAP (1)FIG.3.9-3 FIGURE 3.9-4 BONNEVILE POWER ADMINISTRATION'S H.J.ASHE SUBSTATION WNP-2 ER CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATIONS PLANT AND TRANSMISSION FACXLITXES CONSTRUCTION 4.1 SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTXON Total construction activities associated with the WNP-2 pro-ject encompass approximately 353 acres of land entirely within the boundaries of WPPSS's leased property or the Han-ford Reservation.
The following is an approximate breakdown of the construction acreage required by the WNP-2 project.Construction Activit On WPPSS's leased property (1)Plant structures A roximate Acres Makeup water pumphouse+parking lot 16 Makeup water and blowdown pipe lines 15 Access road to makeup water pumphouse 11 Cooling towers and spray ponds Other (parking lots, temporary buildings, etc.)25 131 TOTAL 202 On Hanford Reservation (off of WPPSS property)(2):
Ashe Substation
+access road 500 KV line and access roads 230 KV line and access roads 51 63 37 TOTAL 151 Only a small percentage of the land area supporting the shrub-steppe vegetation types common to the Hanford Reserva-tion will be disturbed.
Figure 4.1-1 is the WNP-2 construction schedule showing key dates of construction activities concerning major structures and auxiliary facilities.
Figure 4.1-2 is a combined actual and estimated schedule of the WNP-2 construction work force.4.1-1 WNP-2 ER 4;1.1 Impacts on the Local Po ulation There is widespread public acceptance of nuclear installations within the communities surrounding the Reservation.
Figure 2.1-9 shows the proximity of permanent population.
These communities consist of a high percentage of people skilled in the engineering, construction, and operation of a wide variety of nuclear facilities.
The construction of WNP-2 affects the local communities in a positive way by providing jobs for people living in the local communities (approximately 78.4%of the construction work force is from the Tri-Cities region(3))
and the prevention of displacement of the construc-tion workers to other regions.As shown in Figure 2.2-1 and Figure 3.1-1, the WNP-2 site is characterized by a sagebrush-bitterbrush vegetation and is designated as"unclassified." A letter(4)from the Benton County Office of the County Engineer states: "the use of that area,"WNP-2 site,"for the construction and operation of a nuclear generating project is consistent with zoning ordi-nances prepared by the Benton County Planning Commission." The construction activities are far removed from inhabited areas, public roads, and from the FFTF site.There has been no measurable noise (except from the movement of trucks to and from the site)upon anyone other than the work force.Therefore, with the exception of localized construction and the normal dust and traffic problems associated with any large construction activity, the ecology of the area surround-ing the site has not and is not expected to be significantly changed by construction.
Upon completion of the work, a land-scaping program will be implemented for the purpose of im-proving the aesthetics and preventing erosion at the site.Specific discussions on past, present and future construction impacts on local land and water uses is discussed in the following subsections.
4.1.2 Construction Im acts on the Environment 4.1.2.1 Land Use 4.1.2.1.1 Past and Present Im'acts In July 1970, a lightning originated fire effectively removed the greater portion of the pristine vegetation on the site, leaving only a sparse ground cover with little wildlife present.Due to the relatively barren condition of the land, the construction of the WNP-2 plant has had minimal effects on land usage.Environmental effects relating to water usage have also been considered during all phases of site prepara-tion and plant construction, and will be discussed in Section 4.1.2.2.4.1-2 WNP-2 ER The construction site is in the early state of recovery from the fire and provides limited food and cover for resident wildlife.Construction activities, destroying the habitats of small mammals (o f which the pocket mouse is the dominant species), has not had any measurable effect on the transitory wildlife of the large shrubsteppe.
The pocket mouse population near the construction site has been monitored for thge7)years as part of the monitoring program for WNP-1/4.There has been virtually no change in the population during that time.It appears that the pocket mouse is impacted only if directly within the disturbed construction area.The major disturbance and displacement of fauna in the area occured as a result of the fire.The more productive shrub-steppe and riparian habitats are remote from the site, and construction appears to have had little influence on the wildlife associated with these habitats.Several temporary vegetation recovery study areas near WNP-2 are under investigation for grass and sagebrush regrowth.(Nineteen thousand acres of its vegetative cover was burned in July 1970.)These study areas (two burned and three unburned plots)are located approximately within a mile of the site in west, south, and east quadrants (see Figure 6.1-2).Knowledge from these studies applies to construction impacts because the 1970 fire was extremely hot, destroying virtually all plant life and all seeds which would have normally germinated the next year.As with construction areas, revegetation of, these areas depends on new seeds blowing in from unburned areas.Information on these plots is contained in Section 6.1.4.3.Following the range fire in 1970, the construction site had a sparse cover of annual vegetation in early successional stages, which has partially stabilized the soil and provides only a marginal habitat for resident wildlife.The exposed area is subjected to wind erosion and consequently blowing dust occurs frequently.
Since the construction activities are not visible to the general public, they have no aesthetic impact with the possible exception of an incremental dust burden to the air.Rainfall at the Hanford Reservation averages 6.25 inches per year.The surface soils are very permeable and minimal natural surface runoff occurs.Erosion control has been successfully accomplished by proper grading and terracing.
No known historical or archaeological sites are located within the WNP-2 site or the transmission corridors.
During the construction period a competent archaeologist is employed and his expertise has been utilized during excavation activities.
Archaeological sites south of the WNP-2 lease area along the river bank were roped off to avoid disturbance.
A discussion of findings is presented in Section 2.6.4.1-3 Amendment 3 January 1979 WNP-2 ER Sanitary wastes have been and will continue to be disposed of through septic tanks and tile fields supplemented by temporary chemical toilets.The chemical toilets are serviced, when necessary, by an outside contractor.
This is in com-pliance with State of Washington Department of Labor and In-dustries Safety Standards for Construction Work, WAC 296-40-055-Sanitary Facilities.
Separate wash facilities are housed in a heated building, and the waste water is disposed of through a drainage tile field.Waste flow from these facilities is estimated at 15-30 gallons per day per person.No adverse affects on the environment have been experienced.
Combustible construction scraps were initially burned in a burn pit approximately 1/4 mile east of the main plant but are currently being buried.Petroleum wastes have been accumulated in drums and disposed of off-site.Chemical wastes have been and will be accumulated in drums and returned to the manufacturer for disposal or otherwise disposed of in a manner determined to adequately protect the environment.
4.1.2.1.2 Future Construction Effects Future work, off of WPPSS's property, includes the completion and erection of the transmission lines and their associated access roads.Section 4.2 describes their construction effects.Major construction still to be completed at the site includes those major items listed in Figure 4.1-1.Future work at the WNP-2 site will continue to be controlled by the Construction Impact Control Program (see section 4.5).4.1.2.2 Water Use 4.1.2.2.1 Past and Present Impacts In accordance with the site certification agreement with the Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council (TPPSEC), con-struction activities involving work in the Columbia River was to be limited to the period from July 31 thru October 15, 1975.During those months the river level and velocity and migrant fish levels were low and construction impacts would be minimal.However, additional work to return the river bed to its natural contours required TPPSEC notifica-tion and rip rap repair in the vicinity of the intake"T"'s and the cooling tower blowdown line.This repair was performed during February 11 to March 15, 1976.To reduce possible biotic and water quality impacts during initial work and repair work, the small gravel used for pipeline bedding was screened and rip rap was placed by a clam shell.An'assessment of the construction effects, is given in Reference 6.1-7.4.1-4 Amendment 3 January 1979 WNP-2 ER The water used during construction has been pumped from on-site wells at an average withdrawal rate of approximately 25)3 gpm.This withdrawal rate has had no measurable effect on the ground-water profile, since ample recharge of the aauifer is available.
4.1.2.2.2 Future Construction Effects There is no further construction or excavation scheduled to take place in the Columbia River.Well water withdrawal is not expected to exceed 10,000 gallons per day, and as experi-ence has shown, no adverse environmental effects are expected.4.1.3 Final Site Construction and Restoration Landscaping will serve both a functional and an aesthetic purpose.Suitable grasses and hedges will be planted to fa-cilitate erosion and dust control plus the added benefits of the aesthetic appeal.Landscaping will integrate excess ex-cavated materials (spoils)with the site contours to ensure runoff away from all buildings and auxiliary structures.
In compliance with the WNP-2 security program, no landscaping is to be provided within an isolation area extending 20 feet on either side of the perimeter security line.Figures 3.1-2 and 3.1-5 are an artist's conception of the finished plant and makeup water pumphouse showing the landscaping and plant facilities.
4.1-5 Amendment 3 January 1979 Status as ol: December 23, 1977 BURNS AND ROE.INC.CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSSUIJMARY WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 1973 1974 1978 I-204 Fiekl f atxcreo Tanks 2 205.208.221 224, 226.230.232 Complete 3 206 Conelet Con>>nrct 3A C5426 I250i Genrar~ion I Inter imi 38-206A IZSII Genre.Onnscructionjfinsti 4 207 Structlxa'Sere 5 209 Rx5>>9o'eac=
ore>>ure Ve>>et 6 ZiOA>>nneccva r~~~>>n Weidtt Cone M A.039S 100 100.0063 54.8 62.6.0029 50 8 50.8.0027 100 100.0151 61.2 68.6.0011 100 100 AII 5 I III 100.1452 100 100 3 M J J 8 OND f M A M J J A S 0 N 0 J F M M J J A J F A M J J A 8 0 N D J F A M S 0 J F M A M J N D'J A 5 0*N"0 I~IIIIILI~IIIIIIII~1l Ill J f*M 4 M J J A 8 0 I~lsllllll III~I~n I I~II II I~I N 0 7 213 Prknry CcNrJ~ant Ve>>et 7A 213A Contairune
.Ve>>ei Retrofit 8 214 Turtxne Grrro rm>ration JI180.0192 09.8 I GO 18.6 15 2 8'I.6 01.7 70 9 215 Meehan>>s~Ec>>, install.d Pein9 SA 215 f it Mec..Eo.lp.I rWI 4 Pisxn9 10 216 NVAC 5 O u-~rnttalratiOn
.1159 100 100.Zm a2 9.5.0315 39.7 43.8 10 11 217 Fire Prccse:4-Syrrn 12 218 Erectrrc twJ:at r 13 219 Spec>>r Coat~pl 14 220 In>>rume" tr o I SUCet>>n 15 222 f k>>t See Wrx 16 223 Coo4n9 Tonrs 17 225Mskeopssa>>
ou pr>>use 18 228 Commun>>at~
Systems 19 H f mists Pa'mtllf 20 231 Security Srre 1 21 233 Spray POiC o22 36 Product>>" d m rrrr ol Conc ete 23 74 Maintenance d V sc future 24 Project Corrtingrcr TOTALS 25 Startup Support 550 000 Manhours 7.0 6.9.1728 39.3 43.6.0036 42.4 46.0.01 64 2.5 2.4.0058 0.0 0.0.0153 100 100.OO72 09.4 09.7.0015 1.0 5.4.0014 O,O 0,0 0019 OJI 00.OO I 9 0 0 0.0.006'I 08.0 08.0.0087 68.0 SkO.0420 0.0 OAI 1.00 56.1 583.53.8 55.9 M A~I~I lll I~111 M J J Ills~Ill 5 OND 11 16 J F M>>I lp'I J J A S 0 N 0 J 13, tuat 8 A M J 12 J A 5 0 7 N D JFMAMJ 11'A Sto N D J F 14 18 A M 21 S 0 F M A M 15 N D r~I I j I I J F A M J J A S\i I 0 N D I~~~JjF M A M J J A 5 0 N 0 20 10 8 8 4 2 0 9 7 5 I 1973 1974 1976 1977 1978 1979~Contract Duradon ms II III>>S ScheduNd Work Complete in Place~Actual Work Complete In Place~~~~Schedul>>I Expenditures Arnendnent l May 1978 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~2-Environmental Report CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS
SUMMARY
P.IG.4.1-1
"~~I'~(l I~gt'C 2000 1500 G 1000 O 500 0 O Actual Estimated I I I I I 1\1 C 8 0 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 YEAR Amendment 1, Ma 1978 HASHIHGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM%N2PSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO 2 Environmental Report.WNP-2 CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL~
PIG-4.1-2 WNP-2 ER 4.2 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION The effects of clearing the rights-of-way and installing transmission towers and conductors, on the environs and the people living in the adjacent area, are discussed in this section.Bonneville Power Administration is constructing the Howard J.Ashe Substation and the WNP-2 500 KV transmission line and 230 KV start-up line entirely within the Hanford Reservation.
Access to the Hanford Reservation is partially restricted and any construction activities by BPA will not have an effect on the general public.BPA has submitted an environmental statement~1~discussing the Howard J.Ashe Substation and the 500 KV and 230 KV lines.The information for the following sections was taken from that document.Work on the 230 KV line took place from November 1975 to March 1976.Work on the 500 KV line is scheduled from January 1977 to January 1978.Work on the H.J.Ashe Substation was intiated during November 1975 with the substation to be energized in September 1976.4.2.1 Clearin the Ri hts-of-Wa and the Substation Site For construction purposes, sagebrush will be removed from the rights-of way only at the tower sites in an area of about 20 feet square for the 500 KV towers, 28 feet square for the 230 KV towers, and on main access roads.The total construction land requirements for the 500 KV and 230 KV lines amounts to approximately 100 acres.Sagebrush will be removed at tower sites to facilitate tower erection.Grass will be left grow-ing on all portions of the rights-of-way to the extent possi-ble.Construction of the substation will remove approximately 51 acres of sagebrush-bunchgrass/cheatgrass vegetation and associated wildlife habitat.The site is essentially level except for some local microrelief and only minimal grading will be required.4.2.1.2~Im acts A description of the standard mitigation measures that will be used during construction operations to mitigate impacts to the natural, cultural, and socioeconomic resources can be found in the BPA General Construction and Maintenance Program statement~2~.In addition to the General Construction and Maintenance Program statement, the publication entitled,"Environmental Criteria for Electric Transmission Systems" jointly published by the Departments of Agriculture and In-terior, summarizes the measures that will be used to lessen visual impacts of transmission lines.4.2-1 WNP-2 ER Where required, clearing will be by bulldozer; no spraying will be used to clear the rights-of ways.Section 4.2.4.3 discusses the effects of construction on identified endangered species, and Section 4.1 gives an estimate of land require-ments during construction.
The corridors do not cross any streams or come near the.Columbia River and the substation will be located approxi-mately 3000 feet north of WNP-2 and 3 miles east of the Columbia River.Therefore, no environmental impacts on the river or streams will occur.Clearing the transmission routes and the substation site will not create noise noticeable to the general public.Erosion is discussed in Subsection 4.2.4.4.2.2 Method for Erectin Transmission Line Structures L Construction of transmission lines involves establishment of temporary construction access roads for movement of materials and heavy erection machinery to construction areas;clearing vegetation, structures, and other obstructions on the rights-of-way that might, interfere with construction of the trans-mission lines;burning or otherwise disposing of cleared veg-etation;leveling areas necessary for tower sites and tower steel storage and staging areas;excavating for and install-ing tower footings;erecting transmission towers;stringing and tensioning conductors; construction of permanent main-tenance access roads on and off the rights-of-way as dictated by terrain and other factors;and reseeding or otherwise re-vegetating disturbed soil areas where appropriate.
4.2.3 Access and Service Roads A total of 16.4 miles of new access and service roads will be constructed.
Ten and one-half miles of access roads will be on the rights-of-way, 5.5 miles will be off the rights-of-way, and 0.4 miles will be for the substation.
With the total length of the corridors being 20.9 miles, the remainder of the access roads will be comprised of existing access roads from other transmission lines and service roads from existing telephone lines.For example, through the sand dunes area, approximately 3 miles of an existing grav-elled telephone access road will be utilized.Short spur roads to the individual tower sites will be necessary.
4.2.4 Environmental Effects 4.2.4.1 Erosion Wind erosion potential of the sandy loam soil in this dry 4.2-2 WNP-2 ER climate is extremely high.When vegetative cover is removed and soil is disturbed during construction and clearing of access roads and tower sites, wind erosion can be severe.In most areas, the fall germination of cheatgrass will re-stabilize the area in a few years.Blowouts, dunes, and other wind produced features found widely scattered across the area, however, attest to the chronic erosion potential in the absence of control measures.The lines cross 3 miles of sand dunes.Some sand dunes are not stable due to lack of vegetation cover and construction will impact on these as well's on stabilized dunes with a high potential for additional erosion.Sand dunes are up to 30 feet high and capable of moving eastward at a rate of up to 1 foot per year.~In order to minimize wind erosion caused by construction as many existing roads as possible will be used and gravel will be used to cover the principal new access roads.If possible, spur roads will not be graded.Existing roads that are well gravelled seem to be very stable with little wind erosion.It has also been found that in a disturbed area such as tern-porary access roads, grass will establish itself within 1 to 2 years and again be capable of minimizing wind erosion.4.2.4.2 Loss of Agricultural Productivity The Hanford Reservation is owned and controlled by the Energy Research and Development Administration.
The 500 KV and 230 KV transmission lines will be entirely within the boundaries of the Reservation.
Most of the land (excepting Gable Mountain)is a shrub steppe with no other productive (agricultural and other)uses planned by ERDA.Therefore construction activities will have no foreseeable affect on agricultural productivity.
4.2-3 Amendment 3 January 1979 WNP-2 ER 4.2.4s3 Pish and Wildlife and Endan ered S ecies Adverse effects upon resident wildlife including the sage grouse will be largely limited to the construction period.The routes do not cross any streams, therefore, aquatic life will not be affected.Due to clearing of sagebrush from main access roads and tower sites, song birds, birds of prey, and upland birds within the vicinity will be temporarily disturbed and some habitat will be lost.Sage grouse, although few in number, have been able to sur-vive on the reservation due to the presence of exclusion areas and the lack of hunting.The Bald Eagle is the only threathened animal species (Pederal designation) to occur in the WNP-2 Site Area.The population on the Hanford DOE Site has increased over the years from five (5)birds in the 1960's to over 15 birds in the late 1970's.Eagles generally arrive during mid-November with a peak abundance occuring in late November through early February and begin to depart in mid-February.
They do not nest in the area.There are no other Federally designated threatened or endangered animals or plants living in the WNP-2 Site area.The following threatened wildlife species may at times appear along the corridors although their exact ranges are not known.~Secies Bald Eagle S>>'merican peregrine falcon Federal Status Threatened Endangered 4.2.4.4 The transmission routes do not cross any streams or rivers and the water.table of the Hanford Reservation is well below ground level, therefore, construction activities will have no affect on the local water quality.4.2.4.5 Noise Due to the isolation of the transmission routes and the sub-station, construction will create no noise impacts upon the general public.4.2.4.6 Historical and Archeological Sites Neither the lines nor the substation is near any historical or archeological sites.4.2-4 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER 4.3 RESOURCES COMMITTED~~The portion of the Hanford Reservation affected by WNP-2 con-sists of land mostly covered with sagebrush and desert grasses.This land is not currently being used for any productive pur-pose.In general, the land has no agricultural value without irrigation.
Approximately 30 of the 1,089 acres originally leased by WPPSS for WNP-2 will be utilized for plant operation..
An addition-al 80 acres on the Reservation will be used as tower sites for power transmission lines, access roads and for a sub-station's land requirements.
Except for concrete (which would be considered lost for any-thing but sanitary landfill or similar use), much of the un-contaminated materials used for WNP-2 could be salvaged after decommissioning the unit.However, the cost.of retrieving these materials would in some instances, far exceed the pur-chase price of new materials.
Some components of the facility will have become radioactive through activation and/or con-tamination and thus, will essentially be irretrievably lost.Upon the inevitable decommissioning of WNP-2, the area (app-roximately 3.5 acres)occupied by the reactor facilities may be placed on permanent restricted use because of the residual concentrations of radioactivity that would result from oper-ating the plant.Air and water are resources which, during the construction of this project, will also be affected, but consumption will be minimal.Small quantities of liquid and gaseous effluents will be dispersed into, and diluted by, these two natural re-sources.Neither of these forms of effluents will render the the air and water unsuitable for additional-use by man.In addition, capital resources were committed prior to and dur-ing construction.
This resource should be totally recovered assuming the facility is operated throughout its planned life-time.'ome additional disturbance of the site has been nec-essary to accommodate materials, construction equipment, and temporary buildings during construction.
This has been kept to a minimum consistent with appropriate safety, reliability, and environmental criteria.These disturbances do not re-present an irreversible commitment of resources since the temporarily disturbed area will revert to its natural veg-etative state within several years when these facilities are removed.The characteristics of the land for the site are representative of much of the adjacent underdeveloped land which is covered with sagebrush, bitterbrush, other alien weeds, and desert grasses.The land is not considered un-usual, and in all probability would otherwise be undeveloped for many years.Thus, the use of this site involves no area of limited supply or unique potential.
Construction of WNP-2 4.3-1 is having no significant impact on wildlife.=Native forms of wildlife, which may once nave been present in this small area,,have not been destroyed; rather they have been displaced to the vast expanse's of the Hanford Res-, ervation, much of which has remained essentially in its na-tural condition.
Thus no net reduction in either the num-bers or diversity of wildlife species has resulted from the construction of WNP-2.4.3-2 WNP-2 ER 4.4 RADIOACTIVITY The scheduled fuel load for WNP-2 is March 1980.WNP-1 and WNP-4 are scheduled for fuel loading during June 1982 and December 1983, respectively.
DOE's Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), located approximately three miles from WNP-2 in a southwesterly direction, is scheduled for fuel load in June 1979.It has been estimated that operation of this facility will contqjQute a dose of about 10-3 mrem per year.to individuals at WNP-2.~'ased on the projected construction force for the last year of construction, the total dose to site personnel would be on the order of 0.5:(10 3 man-rem per year.No past or future adverse effects of radioactivity from other nuclear power plants has, or is anticipated to affect the WNP-2 construction workers.4.4-1 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER 4.5" CONSTRUCTION IMPACT CONTROL PROGRAM 4.5.1 Controls WNP-2 is located in a shrub steppe region, consisting of several shallow rolling hills, with the eastern extremity having a general slope to the river.Surface drainage is good due to the open and dry nature of the area (average rainfall is 6.25 inches per year)and sandy soil types.During construction, contractors are required to maintain proper drainage and erosion control around the construction areas and especially in areas of excavation or fill.Con-trols are being employed to insure proper embankment slopes.These slopes were further recommended not to be yp steeper than one vertical on one and one half horizontal Borrow pits are'prepared by grading to minimize wind and water erosion and to conform, where possible, to the natural topography.
Any accumulation of precipitation within the excavation area are allowed to infiltrate into the permeable soils~Site roadways are watered by sprinkler trucks as necessary to decrease the impact of windblown soil.Because of the remote location, there are no off-site impacts from dust and noise.Combustible construction scraps are buried on site.Petroleum wastes are accumulated in drums and disposed off-site.Salvageable non-combustible materials (scrap metal, etc.)are accumulated and removed periodically from the site for recycling.
Sanitary wastes are disposed of through septic tanks and tile fields supplemented by temporary chemical toilets.The chemical toilet.s are serviced, when necessary, by outside contractors.
Landscaping and final site construction will serve to both control dust and improve the site aesthetics.
Landscaping will integrate excess excavated material (spoils)with the site contours to ensure runoff away from all buildings and auxiliary structures.
4.5.2'ature of Control Implementation Control of the environmental quality protection requirements are implemented and maintained via two main methods: 4.5-1 Amendment 3 January 1979 WNP-2 ER a.written direction to contractors through, specifications and correspondence; and b.routine inspection of the site by a con-struction management representative.
Construction activity impacts are, controlled by the Site Certification Agreement between the State of Washington and WPPSS, the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Construction Permit, the U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Construction Permit (No.EPPR-93), the Department of Energy, and the State Environmental Policy Act.The requirements of these legal entities and documents are implemented by the Supply System through auditable contractual agreements between WPPSS and contractors.
Construction management personnel inspect construction activities to ensure contract adherence, and the Supply System in turn audits the construction activities through periodic on-site inspection.
4.5-2 Amendment 3 January 1979 MNP-2 ER CHAPTER 5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION 5.1 EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM 5.1.1 Effluent Limitations and Mater gualit Standards The Water guality Standards of the State of Washington'(1) classify the Col-umbia River from its mouth to Grand Coulee Dam (River Nile 595)as"Class A Excellent".
Different water temperature standards are formulated for various reaches of the river.Since the WNP-2 plant is not expected to affect the water temperature of the Columbia River downstream of the Washington-Oregon border (River Mile 309), only the standards applicable for the reach from that point to Priest Rapids Dam (River Mile 397)are described here.The standards specify that water temperatures, outside a specified mixing zone, shall not exceed 20oC (68oF)due in part to measurable (0.3oC)increases resulting from human activities and that temperature increases from human activities at any time shall not exceed t=34/(T+9), where t is the permissible increase and T is the water temperature in oC due to all causes combined.Applicable guideline of 40 CFR Part 432.25(2)state that there shall be no discharge of heat from the main condensers; however, heat may be discharged in blowdown from recirculated cooling water systems or cooling ponds.This is allowed if the temperature of the blowdown water does not exceed the lowest temperature of the recirculated cooling water prior to the addition of the makeup water.Discharges from WNP-2 to the river are controlled by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit (No.MA-002515-1) issued by the State of Washington in compliance with Chapter 155, Laws of 1973 (RCM 90.48)as amended and the Federal Mater Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 (PL 92-500).The above incorporates by reference State of Washington Mater guality Criteria contained in Washington Administrative Code 173-201.The mixing zone specified extends from 50 ft upstream to 300 ft downstream of the discharge with lateral boundaries separated by 100 ft.Vertically the mixing zone extends from the surface to the river bottom.The discharge from MNP-1/4, located approximately 650 feet upstream, has a mixing zone of the same dimensions.
5.1.2 Ph sical Effects 5.1.2.1 Summar S stem Descri tion The heat dissipation system is discussed in detail in Section 3.4 and the thermal/flow characteristics of the blowdown and receiving stream are pre-sented in Figure 3.4-4.Only a few of the operating parameters which deter-mine the environmental effects of operation will be suomarized in this section.5.1-1 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER The waste heat generated by WNP-2 will be dissipated to the environment by two paths: 1)heat transfer to air through the use of mechanical draft wet cool-ing towers and 2)cooling tower blowdown discharged to the Columbia River.The components of the cooling system which might have some effect on the environment are: 1)the intake structure, 2)the bl owdown water discharge system, and 3)the cooling tower vapor plume.The environmental effects of these are discussed in the following subsections.
Figure 2.4-6 depicts the 4 location of intake and discharge lines.5.1.2.2 Intake Eff ects The intake for the makeup water of the cooling system of WNP-2 will consist of two 42 in.diameter perforated pipes placed parellel to the river flow above the river bottom.The top of the pipes will be submerged below the water sur-face for the lowest regulated flow of 36,000 cfs.The maximum pumping rate will be 25,000 gpm (55.6 cfs)which is about Oe15'4 of the lowest regulated flow and 0.05/of the average river flow (120,000 cfs).The average makeup 4 water requirement will be about 15,500 gpm (34.4 cfs).Detailed hydraulic moPef studies of the intake structure were done by Lasalle Hydraulic Laboratory.(3)
These studies concluded that the perforated pipe inlet with an internal sleeve would give uniform flow distribution and would offer maximum protection to small fish during all operating conditions.
At the maximum withdrawal rate of 12,500 gpm at each intake, the maximum inlet velocity at the external screen surface will be approximately 0.5 fps, but at a distance of one (1)inch from the outer screen surface the velocity will be approximately 0.1 fps.It is noted that intake velocities will generally be below these values since the normal withdrawal rate will be approximately 7,730 gpm at each intake.Undesirable debris is not expected to pass through the outer perforations with these low velocities.
A backwash system will permit low-velocity flow reversal.Riprap protection of the river bed has been provided to prevent scour around the intake.A buoy has been placed outboard of the intake to war n boaters and prevent damage to the boats and the intake structure.
A previous evaluation of alternate intake systems concluded that perforated pipes placed above the river channel bed would provide the best alternative water i ntake system for a nuclear power plant on the central Columbia River considering potential enviroqmental impacts and costs for construction, operation, and maintenance.(4i 5.1.2.3 Blowdown Dischar e Effects The blowdown discharge pipe is buried in the river bottom and has a 8 x 32 in diffuser outlet discharging perpendicular to the river flow direction and at an upward angle of 15o from the horizontal.
The exit flow velocity.will be 4 approximately 8.5 fps at the maximum blowdown rate of 6500 gpm and 3.5 fps at the average blowdown rate of'2585 gpm.Riprap has been placed around the discharge to prevent riverbed erosion.5.1-2 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER River velocities were measured during 1972 near the location of the WNP-2 outfall.Surface velocities varied between 2.5 and 3.3 fps for river flows varying from 36,000 to 50,000 cfs.A river velocity transect was also made during Mar ch 1974, in which current meter measurements were made at three depths for'our cross-river locations.
Sased on the Ringold gauging station, river flow during the survey was estimated at 130,000 cfs.Measurements in the vicinity of the proposed discharge for WNP-1 and WNP-4 indicated the river velocity to be about 4.2 fps and to be near constant with depth.Measurements made in Oecember 1979 at the WNP-2 diyc arge location showed velocities of about 5 fps at a flow of 135,000 cfs.<5 Mathematical predictions of the blowdown plume dispersion were conducted for a combination of cqn4itions which are considered representative of a"worst case" situation.(<)
The river flow was taken as 36,000 cfs, the minimum regulated flow.While this flow may be attained for short durations at Priest Rapids Oam, it will rarely, if ever occur, at the discharge site 45 miles downstream.
Oepth and velocity at the discharge are 4 feet and 2.5 fps, re-spectively.
The ambient river temperature was assumed to be 20oC (68oF), the baseline maximum specified by water quality standards.
Maximum blowdown, 6500 gpm, was assumed with a temperature of 28.8oC (82oF).This temp-erature corresponds to a wet bulb of 21.loC (70oF).Historically, wet bulbs greater than 70oF have an annual frequency of occurrence of about 0.05K although such events occurred with a much greater frequency in 1975 (see Section 2.3.3).To consider the additive effects of the future bl owdown from WNP-1/4 it was assumed that these units were discharging at the maximum combined rate of 15,500 gpm.The point of discharge is about 650 feet upstream from the WNP-2 outfall.It was also assumed that the WNP-1/4 plume center line was carried directly over the WNP-2 discharge.
A description of the thermal plume model and its assumptions is given in Subsection 6.1.1.1.Calculations are based on an eddy diffusivity of 4 ft2/sec which was derivyd from a review of data from a dye dispersion study at the outfall site.'l6)Results of the mathematical simulations are shown in Figures 5.1-1 to 5.1-3.Under the assumed critical conditions, the temperature increase 300 feet down-stream of the WNP-2 discharge is estimated to be 0.1oC (0.2oF)in the absence of a discharge from WNP-1 and WNP-4.Within 15 feet the temperature excess is 0.6oC (loF).With the concurrent maximum discharge from WNP-1/4, the temperature increase at the end of the WNP-2 mixing zone is estimated to be 0.3oC (0.5oF), the limit specified by the water quality standards.
The loF temperature excess is attained about 30 feet from the discharge.
As shown in Figure 5.1-3, temperature increases of more than 0.3 C (0.5oF)are confined to a distance of about 20 feet on either side of the plume centerline.
The above predictions are for a combination of extreme conditions most likely'o occur in late summer.Seasonal variation of meteorological and hydro-logical conditions will result in greater initial temperature excesses (blow-down temperature minus river temperature) at other times of the year (see 5.1-3 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER Figure 3.4-4).These higher initial temperature differentials would, however, be offset by the greater plume dilution associated with the higher river flow.Generally, at distances beyond the point of complete vertical mixing, the predicted excess temperature at a point downstream will vary directly with initial excess temperature and discharge flow and inversely with river depth and square root of river velocity.Absolute river temperatures downstream from the discharge would be less than for the critical conditi on which was modeled.The maximum combined thermal load from WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 is expected to be less than 75,000 Btu/sec.This heat load would raise bulk river temper ature less than 0.033oF at minimum river flow and by about 0.01oF under average flow conditions.
5.1.3 Biolo ical Effects 5.1.3.1 Effects of'ntake Structure lt The effects of the intake structure upon aquatic biotic populations are expected to be insignificant.
Only those small fish that cannot escape the approximate maximum intake velocity of 0.5 fps at the 3/8-in intake screen openings will probably be impinged and lost.Essentially all of the drifting biota occurring in the water column (phyto-and zooplankton, drifting insects, 4)fish fry or larvae)which are drawn into the intake structure will be killed.This loss, however, will be so slight in comparison to the total populations of these organisms in the river water passing the site that the loss will not 4)significantly affect the ecosystem.
As noted in Subsection 5.1.2.2, the max-imum water withdrawal will be less than Oe15X of the river volume at the low-est-regulated flow of 36,000 cfs.Sports and commercial fish species which may be affected are the whitefish (~Prose ium willi amsoni), steelhead trout (Salmo~airdneri), and saimon r r s tsng arvae may encounter the intake structure.
Juvenile salmonids emerging from the gravel upstream from the intake structure may also be vulnerable to impingement; again, however, the fact that such a small volume is impacted'renders the total impact minimal.The fact that most young salmon pass through the area of the intake structure during the spring runoff when flows are high further decreases their susceptibility to impingement.
The WNP-2 intake structure was inspected for fish impingement in December 1978 and May through December$979.No fish were observed on the intake screens during the inspections.(51 Also, a fish entrainment study was conducted on the WNP-2 intake system in May 1979 through May 19(0 Analysis of 69 entrain-ment samples revealed no fish eggs or, fish larvae.(53 During these tests the makeup water pumps were operated in a manner that approximated actual plant operating conditions.
5.1.3.2 General Effects of Thermal Effluents Thermal effects of the WNP-2 blowdown discharge are expected to be negligible from either a thermal increase effect or from"cold shock".Thermal effects 5.1-4 Amendment 4 October 1980 NP-2 ER involve two factors: 1)the change in water temperature above or below ambient and 2)the duration of exposure of the organisms to the change in temperature.
Because of its direct and/or indirect effects, temperature is a pr incipal factor determin'ing the suitability of a habitat for aquatic organ-isms.The introduction of heated water into an aquatic ecosystem will cause some biological changes with effects on metabolism, develppmeqt, growth and reproduction, and mortality documented in the literature.'l~igl The tolerance of organisms to any thermal increment is species specific, depending on the magnitude of the thermal increment and the duration of the exposure, as well as previous temperature acclimation.
5.1.3.3 Thermal Effects on Peri hyton Periphyton communities in the Hanford reach of the river are typically at a subclimax level of growth, with turbulent riverf low and seasonally llaw pater temperatures being factors limiting the biomass in the main channel.<10'n both the periphyton and phytoplankton populations, diatoms are the dominant forms.The dischar ge of heated water may cause an increase in the growth of periphyton in the iomediate vicinity of the outfall in an area within the 2.5oF isotherm, but such an effect is expected to be small and negated by loss fppm turbulent river flow.In Columbia River studies by Coutant and Owens,(~1) thermal increments of 18oF increased the standing crop of peri-phyton only during a short pyriqd in winter, with the domination by diatom spec'ies persisting.
Patrick~12) reported that water temperatures less than 50 to 59oF limited the growth and reproduction of phytoplankton populations dominated by diatom forms, while higher temperatures increased the biomass until the temperature of the water reached 84.2 to 86oF.Temper atures ex-ceeding 86 to 93.2oF caused a measurable decrease in the number of species and population size as compared to that between 64.4 to 72.2oF.5.1.3.4 Thermal Fffects on Benthos The upper temperature limits for the majority of benthic organisms reported to occur in the Hanford reach of the river (see Subsection 2.2.2.5)appear to be in the range of 85 to 92oF, with tolerance dependent somewhat on the species, stage of development, and acclimation
'temperature.<9)
Curry(15)found the upper thermal tolerance of several families of aquatic dipterans to be temperatures between 86 and 91.4oF.Caddisfly larvae, and stonefly and mayfly nymphs acclimated to 50oF had a 96-hour median tolerance to temp-eratures ragging fromm 70 to 87oF, with mayflies being the most sensitive species.(><)
Becker<17~
reported that caddisfly larvae acclimated to a river temperature of 67.1oF had a 50K mortality (L050)after a 68-hour exposure to an 18oF increment, whereas, mortality to temperatures 13.5oF above ambient were insignificant.
Thermal increase up to a temperature differential of.18oF resulted'n wejl-gefinedincreases in growth for all of the species tested,(17>
and Coutant<18>
has reported a 2-week earlier, emergence in heated zones as compared to ambient temperatures in the Columbia River.5.1-5 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER 5.1.3.5 Thermal Effects on Pl ankton af 4 Although prolonged exposures to elevated temperatures have been reported to affect the growth rate and species composition of phytoplankton and zoo-plankton in the area of thermal discharges, the time interval in which plankton will be entrained in the thermal plume is considered too brief to cause significant changes.During low flow and with a 24oF temperature differential at the point of blowdown, the time intervals in which organisms would be exposed to temperatures greater than 2.5oF above ambient in the WNP-1/4 plume and WNP-2 plume would be approximately 12 and 4 seconds, respectively.
These exposures are below those reported to have measurable eff ects (9,12,19)The ecological consequences of thermal discharges on planktonic and benthic organisms are expected to be negligib)e, with lethal effects, if realized, being restricted to sessile benthic organims in an area qf the initial mixing (within 15 ft of the outfall), and any sublethal effects~18s20) to the smal'l at ea within the 2.5oF isotherm.Such'changes would have no measurable effect on the abundance and composition of food organisms in the stream drift, and no impact on the fish resourc'es.
5.1.3.6 Thermal Effects on Fishes Temperature, through both direct and indirect action, is one of the important parameters influencing the fishery resources in the Columbia River.The anadromous fish, particularly the salmonids, are the fish with the greatest sport and comnercial value.A review of the tolerance and thermal require-ments of fish indicates that, in the Hanford reach of the river, salmonids are the ygeqies most sensitive to and directly affected by thermal dis-charges.L~l J The Hanford reach of the Columbia River is used extensively as a spawning and rearing area by chinook salmon and steelhead trout, as well as a major migration route for other adult and juvenile salmonids.
A description of the salmon activities in the Hanford reach of the river is shown in Table 5.1-1.Steelheads are essentially present throughout all periods of the year, with spawning activity commencing from late March to June.'122>
The optimum temperatures most conducive to salmonid activities have been reported as: 45 to 60oF for migration, 45 to 55oF for spawning areas, and 50 to 60oF for rearing areas.<>>)
The ambient water temperatures in the Hanford reach are typically below the preferred levels in March and April during the initial emergence of chinook fry, while temperatures during May and June are within those levels reported optimum and the preferred temperature of juvenile salmonids.
The most critical period is during the months of July through a(September, when temperatures rise into the upper zone of salmonid thermal tol er ance.The thermal plume from the discharge of coojing tower blowdown does not intersect with any reported spawning areas.<23>
The nearest potential salmonid spawning areas are approximately 3/4 mile downstream and 1000 ft east 5.1-6 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER of the plume centerline and the thermal increment in the river after.mixing is expected to have no measurable effect on spawning or on the growth and development of egg and larval stages in these areas.In a study on the effects of temperature
'on varying developmental stages of salmon eggs and fry, no adverse effects were noted when the thermal increments were less than 2.9oF and only a slight increase in mortality was noted when temperatures averaged 4.9oF above a 5-year mgan ambient water temperature in the Hanford reach of the Columbia River.(24~
If minimum flow were to occur during the spring spawning period concurrently with the maximum initial temperature excess of 24oF, a differential of 1.2oF would occur approximately 100 ft downstream of the outfall in an area where no spawning or rearing would be anticipated because of water turbulence and cobble substrate.
The thermal increment at the nearest potential chinook and steelhead redds, as well as in areas within approximately 200 ft of the western shoreline, will be less than 0.05oF.During movement in the main channel, juvenile salmonids could be involuntarily carried through the effluent plume, with their downstream velocity assumed to be essentially that of the riverf low, e.g., 2.5 to approximately 5 fps, during minimum and average flow rates.Figure 5.1-9 summarizes the average monthly thermal increment at the point of discharge and after initial mixing with respect to ambient river tempyraturqs and the thermal requirements and tol-erance of juvenile salmonids.~19i25~
During May through September the temperatures of the receiving water will be above the upper incipient lethal temperature (69.8oF)at the point of discharge.
However, even under worst-case conditions (periods of low flow, an ambient river temperature of 68oF, an effuent temperature of 82oF, and simultaneous discharges from WNP-1 and WNP-4), temperatures in the receiving water would be below the upper incipient lethal temperature after a time interval of a very few seconds..The preferred temperatures for juvenile salmonids are reported as 41 to 62.6oF.(22)
Temperatures above 68oF are considered to be adverse for juvenile salmonids,(19) and 69.8oF is the upper incipient lethal temper-ature(25)(i.e., that temperature which will kill a stated fraction of the population when brought rapidly to it from a lower temperature, within an indefinite prolonged exposure).
Brett reported that juvenile salmonids (five species of the genus Oncorhynchus), when acclimated to temperatures of 41 to 75.2oF, had a preferred temper ature range of 53.6 to 57.2oF and avowed($temperatures above 59oF except under conditions of feeding stimuli.~2 i In the same study, the ultimate incipient lethal temperature was 74.8 to 77.2oF with juvenile chinook and coho exhibiting the greater thermal resis-tance.Figure 5.1-10 shows the geometric meantime for loss of equilibrium and death when juvenile chinogk pre exposed to temperatures above the ultimate incipient lethal temperature.(26~
A minimum of 5.4oF below the ultimate incipient temperature has been recormended as the maximum allowable for juvenile salmonids"to avoid significicant curtailment of activity," pith temperatures near 62.6oF considered the upper optimum temperature.<19~
Mean survival time curves, based on a revi ew of experimental data on the thermal tolerance of juvenile salmonid to variable temperature as a function of exposure duration and acclimation, have been sunmarized in a 1971 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER report.(19)
Snyder and Blahm(27)reported that juvenile chinook salmon acclimated at 55oF exhibited no mortality within a 72-hour observation period after being suddenly exposed to a temperature of 70oF for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, while fish exposed to 80oF exhibited the first mortality after 100 sec of exposure.Juvenile chum salmon acclimated at higher temperatures (60oF)had no mortality when subjected to temperatures of 75oF;at a temperature of 80oF the first mortality was observed after a 44-min duration.The recent study by Bush, Welch, and Mar(28)presents data relating pre-ferred and suboptimal temperatures to the expected effects of increasing water temperatures upon Columbia River fishes.These data indicate that temperatures of 24oC (75;2oF), if present continuously, would erradicate the salmon species in the Columbia River and that temperatures of 32oC (89.6oF)would eliminate the remaining salmonids.
Although the temperature increments in the plume at the determined exposures are less than those reported to cause direct lethal effects, indirect effects have been reported tq occur at sublethal thermal doses.In preliminary studies by Schneider(29~
juvenile rainbow trout acclimated at 59oF were exposed to temperatures ranging from 68.8 to 86oF to determine the effect of sublethal thermal exposures on the vulnerability of juvenile to predation.
Exposure to an elevated temperature of 69.8oF had no effect on the suscep-tibility of juveniles to predation.
At temperatures of 71.6 to 73.4oF an exposure duration of 12 min was required to increase the vulnerability of juveniles above the control, while exposures for 2.5 to 4 min were required when temperatures were 80.6 to 82.4oF.In another study, the thermal dose (temperature and exposure duration)that first initiated differential preda-tion was abogt$0 to llew of that reported for the median dose for loss of equilibrium.<30)
There was no evidence of an enhanced incidence or infec-tion of C.columnaris disease in fish in areas below the thermal discharges from the early sanford reactors as compared to areas not influenced by the thermal plumes.<30>
During periods of migration, adult anadromous fish would be expected to avoid the thermal plume and the potentially lethal temperatures associated with the areas of initial mixing.Ambient water temperatures whic)exceed 70oF are reported to impede or block adult salmonid migration.(19>
During the periods of peak adult salmonid migration, the maximum cross sectional area of the river which would experience thermal increases greater than 1oF, and would be expected to evoke an avoidance response, is less than 3X of the main channel during worst-case conditions, and assures free passage of adult mi grants.Temperatures between 50 and 70oF were reported to cause no avoidance or blockage of migration near the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers, whereas when the ambient temperatures exceeded 70oF, mi gration preference was in the lowest temperature zone.(19~27>
In a study on the Hanford reach of the river, adult salmonid demonstrated a general preference for migration along the eastern shoreline (across)he river from WHP-2 outfall)from Priest Rapids Dam downstream to Richland.(30)
The study also indicated that the thermal discharges from the early Hanford reactors had no si gnif i cant eff ects on mi grati on.5.1-8 Amendment 4 October 1980 MNP-2 ER From the above discussion; it is evident that temperatures considered to have lethal or sublethal effects on Columbia River fish will occur only very briefly in time and space in the area downstream from the MNP-2 discharge.
From predictions of the near-field temperatures and incremental additions to the bulk river temperature (including the MNP-1/4 discharge), it is concluded that thermal effects upon the Columbia River ecosystem will be insignificant."Cold shock" is an additional concern at scme nuclear power stations utilizing natural bodies of water as cooling sources.Cold shock problems stem from the sudden cessation of thermal discharge upon plant shutdown, since the thermal plume issuing from power plants acts as an attractant to aquatic organisms, particularly fishes.These organisms reside in the artificially heated waters for long periods, becoming acclimated to the elevated temperatures and, in fact, dependent on them for survival.Fish mortalities have occurred at a few plants following shutdowns and much effort has recently gone into devising ways to eliminate these fish kills.Cold shock is never expected to occur at MNP-2 because of its location on a swiftly flowing reach of the Columbia River.For fish to become acclimated to the warmer temperatures of the plume they would have to occupy these waters for several days, which is not expected to happen in the strong river currents.Fish populations downstream from the mixing zone, i.e., where the river has become thermally homogeneous, will experience temperatures that are essentially natural.The only other aquatic community that might have a continuous exposure to the effluent and thus become acclimated to the higher temperatures is the benthic community.
However, any impact on this population from cold shock would be minimal in terms of the, aquatic community in the vicinity of the site since the potentially affected area is so small.5.1.4 Effects of Heat Dissi ation Facilities 5.1.4.1 Ph si cal Descri ti on of Coolin Tower Plumes The operation of mechanical draft evaporative cooling towers at the MNP-2 site will produce visible plumes of liquid water droplets under certain atmospheric conditions.
These plumes will extend from the cooling towers to varying distances di ctated by prevail i ng meteorol ogi cal conditions.
5.1-9 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER PAGE DELETED 5.1-10 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER PAGE DELETED 5.1-11 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER The models and assumptions used in assessment of the impact of cooling tower plumes are outlines in Subsection 6.1.3.2 and are presented in detail in Reference 31.These models and assumptions are conservative and overestimate the poten-tial impacts discussed below.Len th of Elevated Plumes.Table 5.1-2 contains summaries of the annual percent persistence of plume length for operating mechanical draft cooling towers at the present site.The plumes are predicted to extend to distances on the order of 30 km on rare occasions.
The highest frequen-cies occur between SE and SW, and between NNW and NNE.Table 5.1-3 summarizes the persistences of plume lengths when the ambient air temperature is at freezing or below.This represents the total potential for icing by the elevated visible plume.Actual ice accumulation will be much less than these summaries indicate because of solar and artificial heating of surfaces.The monthly persistences of plume lengths are given in Table 5.1-4 for all plumes and plumes during freezing condi-tions.The winter months clearly have the longest and most persistent plumes predicted.
The shortest plumes are pre-dicted for summer.In August the longest plume extends only to 8 km, compared to beyond 30 km in January.Average predicted visible plume widths are given as a function of month and downwind distance in Table 5.1-5.The widest plumes occur in winter.The vertical dimension of the visible plume will generally be of the same order of magni-tude as the width near the site, and as much as an order of magnitude smaller than the width at the longer distances.
Ground Level Effects.The frequencies of ground level inter-action were calculated to evaluate the potential imapcts.Table 5.1-6 summarizes the results of these calculations.
The only ground level interactions predicted were on the high bluffs agricultural area on the east side of the Columbia River (7 to 8 km NE to ENE of the plant).A 1 km wide arc receives 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 0.5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> of fogging and icing, respectively.
Such results may be sensitive to the assumptions used in the calculation.
The effects of varying the plume rise and reflection factor terms were studied.These results are discussed in Reference 31.Effect of Fo in and Icin on Commercial 0 erations.No groun leve znteractzons o t e va.sz e p ume were predicted at local airports.A few hours per year of elevated plume occurrence over the Richland and Kennewick airports were 5.1-12 WNP-2 ER predicted.
No elevated or ground fogging was predicted for the Pasco airport (known as the Tri-Cities Airport).The persistences at the Richland airport (18 km south)show no ground fogging and 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> of elevated plume occurrences in the annular segment containing the airport.Ef the impact in the sector is apportioned to the 2 km square area bounding Richland airport operations, then about 4 and 1 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> per year of elevated fogging and icing are predicted, respectively.
Hence the actual interference is expected to be relatively small.At distances as great as the Kennewick and Pasco airports, the direction estimates cannot be expected to be necessarily accurate, so it is reasonable to interpret the results as pre-dicting several hours of fogging out to 30 km, which may or may not hit these targets.The potential impact on local agricultural operations by the invisible plume was assessed.The atmospheric cooling tower plume is assumed visible out to the point where the lowest possible saturation point is reached.The further mixing with ambient air results in the concentrations within the plume being reduced towards the ambient air concentrations.
The invisible plume consists of incremental increases in heat and moisture.Considering the very dry conditions indigenous to the summer season in this region,(Table 2.3-1), any incre-mental effect of increased moisture is expected to have a positive effect on plant growth.The only exception to this is during the grain harvesting when low hum'dities are desired for drying the crops.The invisible plumes from WNP-2 were considered in detail during the month of June.Later months tend to have lower humidities and June was considered a conservative choice of summer months.The evaluation considered plumes every 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> in the direction sectors clockwise between 45'nd 135't distances of 8 and 10 km.These represent the closestimpact areas on the top of the bluff on the east side of the Columbia River.The plumes considered represented about 1/4 of the total plumes.The maximum plume centerline change in humidity was at 8 km at 0400 PDST.This is given in terms of ambient humidities in Table 5.1-7.Even for this highest centerline value in the analysis, the increase at high humidities is only slight.The average centerline value of all cases is also given.Realis-tically a certain amount of wandering o f the plume can be expected and these centerline values are considered conserva-tive estimates.
Hence, the increase in moisture is not believed to be a potential problem.Based on these results, 5.1-13 WNP-2 ER the impact on local agriculture is expected to be small.The harvesting period of mid-July to the end of August has lower relative humidities and higher temperatures than any other time of the year.The above estimates show that even the maximum impact of the plume is only slight.Therefore, except in rare and very localized situations, the plume from the plant cannot be expected to interfere with harvesting operation.
Effect of Fo in and Icin on Traffic.The nearest public highway to the site x.s State Highway 240, which runs about 10 km southwest of the site.In this sector, no fogging or icing at ground level is expected to occur.Other roads closer to the site are on the Hanford Reservation and access by the public is controlled.
Workers traveling the project road to the FFTF site, to the Hanford operations, and to the WNP-1 and WNP-4 site will rarely if ever encounter ground level fogging or freezing.Effect of Chemical Interaction.
The WNP-2 cooling tower plumes are not expected to have any significant interaction with other pollutant sources.There are no major single pollutant sources in this region.The Hanford operation has several small fossil-fuelled plants serving specific Hanford facilities.
Their impact on the region is very small as evidenced by very low levels of ambient sulfur and nitrogen oxides.The fact that those sources are widely dispersed and mostly 9 to 18 miles from the the site indicates that the probability of the plumes interacting at any significant concentrations is extremely small.The small probability when coupled with the small probability of the plumes contact-ing the ground makes the likelihood of a surface impact insignificant.
5.1.4.2 Coolin Tower Drift De osition Theo potential impact.from the cooling tower drift was esti-mated using methods and assumptions described in Subsection 6.1.3.2.Table 5.1-8 presents the results obtained.The first column lists distance from the cooling tower.The second column presents the gross salt deposition rate per year assuming the wind blows equally as often from all directions.(The salt deposition in this table refers to salts naturally occurring in the Columbia River water which is used as makeup water.The contribution of plant additives is small by comparison.
The third and fourth columns contain estimates of deposition rates based on the observed maximum wind direction frequencies at the WNP-2 site and at the HMS site.The maximum wind direction frequency at WNP-2 was 9%from the south (drift to the north).The measurement elevation was 23 ft.At an elevation of 400 ft at HMS, the maximum direction frequency was 20%from the northwest (drift to the southeast).
5~1-14 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2*ER The maximum direction frequency observed at the HMS 50-ft elevation (17%)is smaller than that, at the HMS 400-ft elevation (20%), but is considerably larger than that at the WNP-2 23-ft elevation (9%).Since maximum salt deposition would be directly, proportional to direction frequency, use of the HMS 400-ft data might be expected to yield an exces-sively conservative (high)estimate of salt deposition.
In contrast, since plume heights were presumed to be between 330 and 1300 ft, use of the 400-ft direction frequencies is more reasonable than use of those measured at lower elevations.
The deposition rates in Table 5.1-8 are put into perspec-tive by comparison to the amount of salt which could be added to soil through irrigation as shown in the last three columns.Locally, 48 in.of water is a reasonable annual average irrigation requirement.
The relatively high drift deposition at the 0.25-and 0.3-mile distances as compared to greater distances is due to winter-time high humidities which permit the larger diameter drift droplets to intersect the surface before significant evapora-tion takes place.Patterns of salt deposition on the surrounding region were estimated using the wind direction frequencies from the onsite meteorology tower.These are given in Figures 5.4-11 and 5.4-12.5.1.4.3 Effects of Heat Dissi ation S stems, Salt De osition, and Accumulation in Soil The operation of cooling towers.is, expected to.increase the concentration of salts in the soil profile.The salts originate in cooling tower drift droplets that are expected to be deposited on the soil surface, mostly in the near vicinity of the cooling tower.Due to low rainfall, salts are expected to remain in the root zone and with time their concentrations may build up to the point deleterious to the growth of plants.The operational activities of the WNP-2 station are expected to have little effect upon game bird and mammal populations.
However, the operation of the cooling towers may have an impact on nesting populations of shrub-steppe birds, espe-cially the horned lark, western"meadow lark, and the would occur from salt drift released from the mechanical draft cooling towers, especially from salt buildup in soils which in time may build up in the soil profile in concentrations of sufficient strength to prevent the growth of cheatgrass which presently provides the main vegetative cover.5.1-15 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER The loss of'cheatgrass and other vegetative cover probably would make the habitat unsuitable for the nesting of these birds.It is likely that vegetation loss, if it occurs, would be a gradual process and effects would not be notice-able during the early years of operation.
The impacted acreage is likely to be relatively small, but extending beyond the limits of construction damaged habitat.If the postulated impact were detected it could be mitigated by temporary irrigation to flush salts below the root zone.The loss of habitat acreage associated with cooling tower drift, if it occurs at all, would affect the food chain described in Section 2.2.1 in a deleterious fashion.The magnitude of the impact is likely to be closely.related to the number of acres affected.5.1-16 Amendment 1 May 1978 TABLE 5.1-1 TIMING OF SALMON ACTIVITIES IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER NEAR HANFORD FROM L.0.ROTHFUS TESTIMONY IN TPPSEC 71-1 HEARINGS (Exhibit 62)S ecies Fresh-Water Life Phase Month Jan Fe Mar~A r 8~a Jun Ju AucC~Se Oct Nov Dec Spring Chinook Summer-Fall Chinook Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel development Fresh-water rearing Downstream migration Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel development Fresh-water rearing Downstream migration X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X~X Coho Pink Chum Sockeye Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel development Fresh-water rearing Downstream migration Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel development Fresh-water rearing Downstream migration Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel development Fresh-water rearing Downstream migration Upstream migration'pawning Intragravel development Fresh-water rearing Downstream migration X X X X X X X 3g X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X TABLE 5.1-2 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PERCENT PERSISTENCE OF ELEVATED VISIBLE PLUME LENGTHS Direction N Distance (km)10 14 18 24 30 3.79 3.68 2.62 1.75 0.63 0.21 0.12 0 3.12 2.75 1.50 0.43 0.13 0.02 0 NE 1.53 1.28 0.90 0.38 0.07 0 1.03 0.90 0.46 0.22 0.11 0 0.88 0.73 0.41 0.15 0 1.85 1.42 0.73 0.41 0.11 0 , 0 SE 2.74 2.18 1.51 0.87 0.35 0.23 0.06 0 4.11 3.65 2.59 1.14 0.26 0.04 0.04 0.04 0 3.78 3.32 2.36'.19 0.51 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.06 SW 3.32 2.96 1.87 1.37 0.48 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 3.34 2.95 1.63 1.08 0.38 0 1.04 0.74 0.45 0.30 0.05 0 0 91 0 59 0 45 0 25 0 09 0 1 42 1 11 0.59 0 29 0.08 0 1.45 1.22 0.88 0.42 0.06 0.06 0.06 0 Total 3.67 3.09 2.20 1.10 38.0 32.5 21.1 11.3 0.28 3.6 0.06'.06 0.81 0.52 0 0.23 0 0.12 0 0.06 TABLE 5'.1-3 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PERCENT PERSISTENCE OF ELEVATED VISIBLE PLUME LENGTHS WITH THE AIR TEMPERATURE 0 C OR LESS Direction N 0.72 0.72 4 0.69 6 Distance (km)10 14 18 24 30 0 0.69 0.41 0.12 0.12 0 NE 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 0..0 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 06 0 06 0 SE SW 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.29 0.23 0.06 0 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.04 0 0.77 0.73 0.73 0.54 0.37 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.06 1.16 1.03 0.81 0.63 0.20 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 0 98 0 92 0 27 0 15 0 06 0 0.07 0.07 0.07 0 0.09 0.09 0.09 0 0 0 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0..06 0.06 0.06 0 Total 0.32 5.09 0.32 4.86 0.30 3.93 0.30 3.12 0.12 1.68 0.06 0.69 0.06 0.52 0 0.23 0 0.12 0 0.06 TABLE 5 i-4 MONTHLY ELEVATED VISIBLE PLUME LENGTHS PERCENT PERSISTENCES Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec AVERAGE 46.2 43.9 37.8 33.1 46.7 40.0 39.4 33.1 31.0 25.6 33.1 25.0 26.5 21.0 29.9 22.0 42.2 36.4 41.6 34.3 29.0 26.1 60.6 58.7 38.0 32.5 34.5 19.6 31.7 23.2 16.3 14.7 11.6 8.5 20.8 24.1 20.3 34.9 21.1 Distance (km)for All Plumes 13.5 19.2 12.0 8.5 5.41 0.68 0 6.67 1.67 0 2.82 0 1.55 0 7.35 4.42 1.22 11.0 13.1 8.7 17.4 11.3 1.47 0 0 1.30 4.38 2.90 0 7'3.6 1.84 0.81 0 0.92 0.52 0.92 0.23 0 0.12 0 0 0 0.058 22.8 10.5 5.26 3.51 1.75 1.17 0.59 Month Distance (km)for Free@in Plumes 10 14 18 24 Jan Feb 21.1 6.08 20.5 5.41 18.13 5.41 14.0 4.73 7.6 3.38 4.68 0.68 3.51 1.75 0 0 1.17 0.59 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec AVERAGE 2.8 2.8 5.83 2.8~0 0, 0 2.2 2.2 2.2 0'25.7 5.1 0.7 23.9 4.9 0.7 12.8 3.93 5.83 5'3 2.8 1.5 0.7 8.3 3.12 1.4 0.73 0.7 2.8 1.68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.92 0.69 5.83 3.33 1.67 0 0 0 0 0 0.92 0.52 0.92 0.23 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.12 0 0.058 TABLE 5.1-5 PREDICTED VISIBLE PLUME WIDTHS IN METERS AS A FUNCTION OF MONTH AND DOWNWIND DISTANCE%Distance (m)'onth Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 1000 120 110 105 130 130 175 165 180 170 155 145 125 2000 130 125 115 150 170 200 175 200 195 185 170 150 6000 185 155 110 180 260 275 310 305 265 270 230 215 14000 0 0 (320)350 0 (270)0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (385)0 0 0 0*Values are averages of all nonzero values.Values in parentheses are based on three or less cases.
TABLE 5.l-6
SUMMARY
OF FOGGING IMPACT ESTIMATES Location Richland Airport Tri-Cities Airport (Pasco)Kennewick Airport Top of Red Mountain Rattlesnake Hills High Areas Rattlesnake Hills Slopes Bluffs Area on East Side of Columbia River Distance Direction Hei ht**20 km S Groundlevel Plume centerline 29 km SE Groundlevel 200 feet All plumes 29 km S Groundlevel All plumes 20 km SSW 20 km WSW-SW 11-17 km Wsw 11 km N-NE 7-8 km NE-ENE 8-9 km E 9 km ESE 9 km SE 10 km SE 0 0 1.6" 1.6 0 0 0.44 0.44 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 Average Plume Frequency*(Hours km)All Ice Average Plume Width (km)All Ice 0 0 0.38 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 km SSW-SW 10 km SW 11 km SSE FFTF State Highway 240 300 Area Buildings Project Highways L'xxon Facility 200 Area West Buildings 200 Area East Buildings Top of Federal Building Gable Mountain 3 and 6 km NW-WNW 0 0 0 0 14 km SSE 23 km WNW 14 km WNW 20 km SSE 20 km NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Top Hanford Meteorology Tower 20 km WNW*Frequenc es are given as the number of hours that fog was computed for 1 km arcs within the sectors.These arcs are defined as 1 km sections of circles with centers at the cooling tower and radii of the specified distances to the cooling towers.**Groundlevel unless specified.
TABLE 5.1-7 INCREASE IN RELATIVE HUMIDITY AT POINTS OF MAXIMUM POTENTIAL IMPACT Ambient 0400 8 km 10 km All Hours 8 km 10 km 90%80 60 40 20 91.7 83.4 66.8 50.2 33.6 90.8 81.6 63.2 44.8 26.4 90.6 81.1 62.3 43.4 24.6 90.3 80.6 61.1 41.7 22.2 TABLE 5.1-8 SALT DEPOSITION RATE VERSUS DISTANCE Salt Deposition (lb/acre r)%of Normal 48 in.of Irri ation Distance from Tower (miles)Equal Direction 9%a from Single Direction 20%from Single Direction Equal 9%from Direction Single 20%from Single Direction 0 to 0.22 0.22 to 0.28 0.28 to 0.33.0.33 to 0.6 0.6 to 3 nil 271.0 166.0 0.4 0.7 0.7 nil 390.0 239.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 nil 867.0 531.0 1.3 2.2 2.2 nil 29.0 18.0 0.04 0.07 0.07 nil 42.0 26.0.06 0.10 0.10 nil 93.0 58.0 0.13 0.22 0.22 (a)(b)16-point site was 16-point site was compass presumed.Maximum wind direction frequency observed at WNP-2 9%.Measurement elevation was 23 ft.compass presumed.Maximum wind direction frequency observed at HMS 20%.Measurement elevation was 400 ft.
txj H Q Ul I tdPn 0 POlQ I.g 4 0 OS m Jn f~o O Ol 0 HC OV Ffl TTT Kl U7 I I TTT D D I TTl~Ftl I-I Fl Ftl l/)ID CL 3 ID Tl C+O CJ'D 2 44 g 2 IL I-tf)10 O X z IC 1 I Z 0 0+!II l!iff,!!II!il!I I'ii'ill III'"'ji;',I!.'L-I:.'
I t!'I llii lilt Iiffi iIL Ifjf'll!ii 1!!il t~Ii if f1 ILlf", RATVRE,, li.1!jl'll, tl fl EMPE l Ill IIII FACET!!.!I I SVR:.I il.I.ill j~~iiii~44 I~till!~I I~4 ,, 41 ls;'I;!!i!:i!
~~ii:I i::I: l1 jt~~I I LLII!iLI II!!If!'if'~ii!'fij III!jil i:ti:I lili 4!!Ii liii fff!'~j.'I'jlj I!j."i!!!!I!I i:lil LII IIL 4"I'll 44~~-~Iili Ifjf OM T~ll ift ill: '}II!EMP li!lill jlfi tt Ii!: ii!BOTT ER II i ATV 1",;~III~I I I~!ii:,!I!',I'.-j'j j;!i ii!!!i!', El i'!l'l!i!,",!iI'!Ii': Iijj il I!Elj!j!l!i!!ill!1141 t 4 i'.I!I'Il!I'ii!i!.
I j lsl:, I t 4'I I~\4 4 1st 444~\'I l1 a It ls fts I'4~'.a I I}'1 1 1~~, It!:,;:,!Iii 11!I I I'f, I~fill fjl~'li lit~f 11 fi~I fill!411 i I I 1 I~'11 1 ill.4 RIVER FLOW 38,000 CFS WNP-2 BLOWOOWN~d,d00 GPM WNP.2 g To 14oF WITHOUT WNP.I/4 OPERATING WITH WNP-III OPERATING 4 4~I I~ifff'll: I'I,'1: J~s~~I il'1 fii'I'", 1st"i 4~j i~",I;iijl!: I I':ii ail~fii~I I;.11 I"i tt tff': liii i!Ii 4 4'4 I la~I~J 4'Ii!~'l l I II I!1!i at'i!I jt)'!~~I 4~~I 111 I li,f~li 4~I I~, I~1'4~~I Iili!It'f:1 1"'I'-:-fi'4 I~-.4!!Ii 4~~4',I!i'l II!ii!I;!I'll'f!I I!: 1 I~1 I~~~~'I ll!i'4':.~'I~il!.I!I!I!!!aj'.1 i'i!-;ill::!Iii!ail~Nl I':I 4 llii'j I lii!I~I ii:i i!II ij!I I~4:I H I I J'*.I!fjll If!i\~I'.I!!ilj'l!li':,: i ill I I!Iii:I!: i.:.!!i l.l~~ij!I i!!I I!!I i!lll!jilt aaf I 4III it~~, If'I slit ii'ili!I',!I;III l!l!ii!I!Iit jl.!I!III i!!.I j I i i!~I 4~~t i!I!I I!!--!iil l!V.I Ijjj 4 4~~*all fgs 4 t sail I 10 30 50 100 300 500 DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM FROM WNP.2 DISCHARGE, FEET XMQ 50)4 O Cll 0 RC rt R W Q Q 80 60 I-40 O 20 Z I-ch 0 Q 2O K I-60 1 ooF ESTIMATED 0.26 F ISOTHERM IF DEPTH WERE UNIFORMLY REDUCED 050 F 0 25oF I ooF O.S'F ISOTHERM PLOT FOR WNP-I/4 AND WNP.2 PLUMES RIVER FLOW~36,000 CFS Ol I FO P I O(~M om DZ~O ll U I m a mi M C/l Qo C)(mm I Vl&C)o pl O (D 80 100 WNP-2 OUTFALL DISTANCE FROM WNP-1/4 OUTFALL, FFET 1200 75 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF DISCHARGE 045oF 05 F 0 75oF 0 SoF 045oF 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 LATERAL DISTANCE, FEET 200 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF DISCHARGE 045oF 0 5oF 025oF 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 LATERAL DISTANCE, FEET Amendment 4, October 1980 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO..2~Environmental Report CROSS-SECTION OF l<NP-2 BLOllDOMH PLUI)E ISOTHER1S FIG.g 13 FIGURE DELETED HINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report PIG.5.1-4 FIGURE DELETED WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report FIG-5.1-5 FIGURE DELETED HINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report FIG.5.],-6 FIGURE DELETED NASHINGTON PUBLIC PONER SUPPLY SYSTEM NPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report FIG~5.1-7 FIGURE DELETED SHlYGTON PiJBLXC POb'ER S(.'PPLY SYS'ZKZ~~~h~aPGS NUCLEAR PRO JECT NO.2 F.nvi.".oriental Re"or t PXG.5.].-8 Vl I I 0Otd g c 4 OM 0 (-3C rt W V OV OC, td g 0 td C I-CL UJ 8~z I-$O CL Qo I-Z C7 cC 30 20 10 18 CD CD 14 D z" I-~~O m D 10 L1J I-ga 0 X zz 6 CO 2)~e~~~40 50 A PREFERRED TEMPERATURE B ZONE OF THERMAl TOLERANCE C IN'I ENT LETHAL TEMPERATURE D ULTIMATE INC I P I ENT LETHAL TEMPERATURE TEMPERATURE AT POINT OF BLOWDOWN~TEMPERATURE 15 ft.BELOW THE OUTfALl 0 D(77.2 F(C(69.8 F(A(43.6-57.2 f.)0 0 e ee e 12 16'0 24 AMB I ENT RIVER TEMPERATURE, C 60 70 80 AMB I ENT Rl VER TEMPERATURE, F
-DEATH (D)--EQUI LI BR IUM LOSS (EL)~GEOMETR I C MEAN DEATH TIME 0 GEOMETRIC MEAN EQUI LI BR IUM LOSS TIME 10, 000 1, 000 I-IN 0=9.06-1.05 IxI IN EL=8.82-1.15 ixI WHERE x=TEST TEMPERATURE
-25 100 JUVENILE CHINOOK SALMON, 1970 OF 10 74 76 78 80 82 24 25 26 27 28 TEST TEMPERATURE, C 29 30 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~2 Environmental Report EQUILIBRIUM LOSS AND DEATH TIMES AT VARIOUS TEMPERATURES FOR JUVENILE CHINOOK SALMON R.E.Nakatani, Exhibit 49 TPPSEC 71-1.5eari::n RIG 5.1-10 200 300 200 100 0.50 mi W 100 10 200 300 400 300 200 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~2 Environmental Repor t SALT DEPOSITION PATTERNS OUT TO 0.5 MILE (lb/acre/yr)
FIG.5.l-ll O'1.0 1.6 1.4 1.2 LO 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.6 04~18mi 0.465 ml I'0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 3.6 mi 4.4 mi 5.0 mi 5.3 mi 6.9 mi Siv 1.0 1.0 1.2 SE HKSZZNGTON PUBLiC POWER SUPPLY SYSTZM NPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report, SALT DEPOSITION PATTERNS OUT TO 6.9 NILE (1b/acre/yr)
FIG~5.y-3.2 VrNP-2 ER 5.2 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT FROM ROUTINE OPERATION During normal operation o any nuclear plant, radioactive material's generated.-Regardless of the effectiveness of the advanced liquid and gas treatment systems it is a prudent design practice and an NRC design requirement that potential release paths be identified and any offsite effects evalu-ated.Details of the radwaste system and design assumptions regarding overall plant perfogayce are described in Sec-tion 3.5 based on conservative assumptions regarding fuel ray failures and system leakage.The system is designed to meet the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 and applicable sections of 10 CFR 20.Radiological impact calculations have been performed in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.109 or models developed by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
5.2.1 Exposure Pathways The potential release paths considered in the design of this nuclear plant include releases to the atmosphere as a gas or vapor and release to the river.Radionuclides released to the atmosphere would be primarily noble gases, which w'ould not be taken up by vegetation or animals.However, any radioiodine and particulates released may be deposited on or taken up by vegetation, from which they, may enter into a food chain ending in man or other biota.Radionuclides in liqu'd effluents would be available for uptake in algae and other water plants, fish, clams, and crustaceans living in the river.Radionuclides may be accumulated by these organisms to concentrations greater than in the surrounding water.Predators of the more simple organisms, such as small animals, fish and birds, may concen-trate these nuclides still further.In addition, some radionuclides may be deposited with the silt on the river bottom and shoreline and lead to external exposure of biota;Figure 5.2-1 shows the exposure pathways to biota from~iP-2.Radionuclides released into the plant liquid effluents reach man through a variety of pathways, involving both external exposure and internal exposure.Pathways of external expo-sure include such activities as swimming, boating and skiing on waters downstream from the plant, also hiking, fishing, etc., along the river shore.Pathways leading to internal exposure include the consumption of drinking water,.fish and waterfowl from the river, produce from gardens irr'gated (a)In this context,"conservative" assumptions are those which will increase the expected release of radioactive material.5.2-1 Amendment 3 ,January 1979 WNP-2 ER with river water, and animal products such as meat, eggs and milk from animals who eat irrigated feed or'pasture grass.a~Exposure via the airborne pathways includes both external exposure to skin and total body from the noble gases and internal exposure from inhalation of tritium, radioiodines and particulates released from the plant.Also, internal exposures may be received from the consumption of foods produced from vegetation on which radionuclides of plant origin may be deposited.
Such foods include fresh leafy vegetables from local, gardens and milk from cows foraging on pasture grass.In addition, direct exposure may be received from the transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes outside the pl'ant boundary and from the plant itself.Figure 5.2-2 shows the exposure pathways to man from WNP-2.5.2.2 Radioactivit in the Environment, Table 5.2-1 lists the amounts of radionuclides and the associated concentrations in a blowdown flow of 5.76 cfs.A few feet downstream from the discharge point, the effluent will be diluted to 10%of its original concentration, while a few miles downstream the effluent will be entirely mixed in the river with a dilution of 1:20,000, assuming an average river flow of 120,000 cfs.Table 5.2-2 lists the amounts of radionuclides that may be released to the atmosphere from WNP-2.Also listed in Table 5.2-2 are the associated concentrations in the effluent of WNP-2 which are discharged to the atmosphere.
The effluent is then diluted further by prevailing meteorological conditions.
Table 5.2-3 lists, the annual average atmospheric dilution factors (X/Q')derived from 1 year of meteorological data collected at the site (see Section 6.1 for a discussion of the methodology and release point assumptions used to determine the X/Q values).Effluents from WNP-1 and-4 used to calculate radiation doses from those plants in this report were taken from Section 5.3 of the Environmental Report for WNP-1 and-4..t3 Table 5.2-4 lists concentrations of several radionuclides in various environmental media and foodstuffs.
The nuclides listed were chosen because they may be important in terms of radiation dose to man.5.2-2 II Amendment.
'3 Ja'nuary 1979 WNP-2 ER 5.2.3 Dose Rate Estimates for Biota Other Than Man Using the source terms and assumptions in Tables 5.2-5, 5.2-6, 5.2-7, and models in Appendix II, doses were estimated for organisms living in or close to the water such a fish, clams, and crustacea which derive an internal dose from sorption of the'ater in which they live and from consumption of plankton.External doses are received from the,.surrounding water and sometimes from the mud on the river bottom.Animals and birds, which prey on these smaller creatures, derive an internal dose from the radionuclides contained in their diet and external doses from air, water, and shoreline.
Some geese reside near the Hanford Reservation most of the year.These birds do not consume aquatic food and so receive most of their radiation dose from external exposure to contami-nated water or shoreline.
Animals such as deer, coyotes, and field mice that do not consume aquatic food or spend much time at the river bank, will receive their dose through direct radiation from the plant's gaseous effluent plume, ingestion of terrestrial vegetation and external doses due to exposure to contaminated ground.The dose from inhalation of radionuclides and consumption of terrestrial vegetation will be small.Animals such as deer may receive an external dose rate of less than 1 mrad/yr from WNP-2 if near the plant boundary 50%of the time.A slight additional dose may be received by such animals due to grazing.Table 5.2-8 lists dose rates to biota associated with airborne and waterborne releases of radioactive material from WNP-2.Numerous investigations have been made on the effects of radioactivity on biota.No effects have been observed at dose rates as low as those associated with the proposed WNP-2 effluents.
Investigations of Chironomid larvae, bloodworms, living in bottom sediments near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where they were irradiated at the rate of about 230 to 240 rad/yr for more than 130 generations, have shown no decrease in'abundance, even though a slightlylj.ncreased number of chromosome aberrations have occurred.Studies have shown that irradiation of salmon eggs and larvae from the Columbia River at a rate of 500 mrad/day did not affect the number of afoot fish returning from the ocean or their ability to spawn.Previously, when all the Hanford reactors were operating, studies were made on the effect of their released radionuclides on spawning salmon.These studies have shown that these salmon have not been effacing(by dose rates in the range of 100 to 200 mrad/week., 5.2-3 Amendment 3 January 1979 WNP-2 ER Since the estimated doses to Columbia River biota from the radioactive effluents released by WNP-2 will be many times less than those mentioned in the above studies, no percep-tible effect on the biota in the environs is expected.5.2.4 Dose Rate Estimates for Man Using the source terms and assumptions in Tables 5.2-5, 5.2-6, 5.2-7 and the models in Appendix XI, doses were estimated for individuals living near the plant and for the population within 50 miles of the plant.Tables 5.2-9 and 5.2-10 summarize the annual radiation doses to an individual which could be attributed to WNP-2 only, and in combination with WNP-1 and WNP-4.5.2.4.1 Li uid Pathwa People may be exposed to the radioactive material released in the liquid effluent from WNP-2 by drinking water, eating fish, eating irrigated farm products and by participating in recreational activities on or along the Columbia River.Drinkin Water The population within 50 miles of the site utilizing Columbia River water for drinking includes the cities of Pasco and Richland.The city of Kennewick utilizes groundwater drawn from collectors placed along the Columbia River.Historically, the Kennewick city water has contained significantly lower concentrations of radionuclides of Hanford origin than the water in the Pasco municipal system immediately, across the river.The water table slopes toward the river from the Kennewick highlands, channeling uncontaminated water into the aquifers adjacent to the river.The cities of Richland and Pasco have efficient alum-floe water treatment plants capable of removing a significant fraction of the radionuclides in the incoming water.Samples of the water entering and leaving these two water treatment plants were collected and analyzed for several years under the AEC environmental monitoring program at Hanford.Results of these measurements have been used to define the removal efficiencies for specific radionuclides during the years 1960 through 1968.These data, which represent the fraction passing through the treatment plant, are summarized in Table 5.2-11 along with estima)g$values for chemically similar nuclides not measured.The Hanford Reservation 300 Area utilizes Columbia River water for drinking purposes also.This intake is located approxi-mately seven(7)miles downriver from the WNP-2 discharge.
The 300 Area also has an alum-floe water treatment plant which removes a fraction of the radionuclides.
The water from the 5.2-4 Amendment 3 January 1979 WNP-2 ER plant is mixed with a significant portion of well water prior to consumption.
The concentration of radionuclides in the river water used here is not expected to be significantly different than that used in Richland or Pasco.When estimating radiation doses, the radionuclide content of drinking water in the cities of.Pasco and Richland was calculated.from the annual releases (given in Table 5.2-1)diluted in the average river flow.The resulting concentrations in the river were then reduced by the factors in Table 5.2-11 and decayed for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> travel time from the effluent discharge point downriver and through the water plant to the consumer.Assuming a consumption rate of 2.0 R/day,of water, a typical adult would receive a total-body dose rate of 1.7 x 10 mrem/yr from, this source.The total estimated population of consumers in 2020 (75,000)drinking an average of 1.2 R/day would receive an integrated total-body dose rate 7.7 x 10 man-rem/yr.
The radiation dose rate to the individual adult thyroid from consumption gf 2.0 R/day, of drinking water was estimated to be 9.0.x 10 mrem/yr.Radiation doses due to consumption of river water were not calculated for workers in the 300 Area of the Hanford Reservation since they are not considered to be a critical group.These individuals are in a restricted area where occupational dose limits are applicable.
Effluents from the WPPSS site could contribute only a very small fraction of the occupational exposure limits.Since most individuals working in the 300 Area live within'0 miles of the site, population dose estimates due to plant effluents include these people when they are not on the Hanford Reservation.
When WNP-1 and, WNP-4 begin operation, the calculated radiation 3 dose to a typical adult in Richland or,Pasco would be 1.8 x 10 mrem/yr to the total-body.
The calculated population total-body dose is 8.0 x 10 man-rem/yr.
Pish and Waterfowl Because fish will concentrate most radionuclides from the water<hey inhabit, the potential radiation dose from consumption of Columbia River fish was estimated for both the individual"and the population within 50 miles of the plant.There is some waterfowl hunting around the perimeters of the Hanford Reservation.
Some of these waterfowl could conceivably derive part of their diet from fish or aquatic plants from water downstream of the plant,, but most waterfowl eaten by people (i.e., ducks and geese)consume primarily grains.5.2-5 Amendment 3 January 1979 WNP-2 ER Based on the assumptions found in Table 5.2-6 the internal (5)dose rate to the individual fisherman would be 2.2 mrem/yr to his total body due to effluents from WNP-2.4 Integrated dose rate to the population would be 3.9 x 10 man-rem/yr from fish consumption.
After WNP-1 and WNP-4 have begun operation, the fisherman would receive a total-body dose of 2.3 mrem/yr.The (otal-body dose rate to the population would be 4.3 x 10 man-rem/yr.
The radiation dose to an individual due to consumption of waterfowl will be insignificant.
Water Recreation Aquatic recreation is a popular pastime in the stretch of the Columbia River below the plant site.Swimming, boating, water skiing and picnicking along the shore or on islands could(gysult in small incremental doses to the local popula-tion.Using the assumptions listed in Table 5.2-6 the total-body dose rate to an individual from external exposure would total about 9.3 x 10 mrem/yr.The qgyulation dose received during water recreation activities can be estimated on the basis of the assumptions listed in Table 5.2-6.Under these conservative assumptions, the integrate[
popula-tion dose rate from water sports would be 3.0 x 10 man-rem/yr, principally from exposure to the contaminated shoreline.
No detectable increase in radiation dose will result from this pathway when WNP-1 and WNP-4 begin operation.
Irri ated Farm Products I Estimates were made of doses derived from consuming food products produced on farms and gardens downstream from the plant using irrigation water from the river.It was assumed the individual will eat food that will be grown directly under such irrigation plus eggs, milk, and meat from animals consuming feed grown under irrigation.
Table 5.2-12 lists the food paths considered along with some typical parameters used in the calculation of the dose to the individual.
The dose to the population was estimated using these assumptions, except that the consumption rates were reduced by one-half.The holdup is the period between the release of the radionuclides and deposition on the ground or on plants plus any time periods between harvest and consumption.
In the case of eggs, beef or pork, when the animal will eat grain, the holdup also includes the time between the grain harvest and its consumption by the animal as well as the time between the slaughter of the animal (or egg laying)and consumption of the animal product by an individual.
For the forage-milk pathway, the holdup includes the time between irrigation of plants and consumption by the cow as well as the time between milking and consumption of milk by an individual.
The dose rate estimated to the total-body of an individual from the consumption of all 13 food types which are irrigated is 5.9 x 10 mrem/yr.5.2-6 Amendment 3 January 1979 WNP-2 ER At the present time, the nearest point at which Columbia River water is withdrawn for irrigation of farm products downstream of the site is at the Tavlor Flat area, approxi-mately 4.2 miles ESE of the plant.A second point of withdrawal is the Riverview District of Pasco.Other irrigation water used either adjacent to the site or in the Kennewick area comes from the Grand Coulee Dam area or the Yakima River.Water use at Taylor Flat is for irrigation of an estimated 300 acres of hay crops.The total land availa()y for irrigation in the Riverview District is about 5300 acres.It is doubtful that this amount of land could produce food for more than a few thousand people.Since some additional irrigation occurs near Burbank using Columbia River water, it was conservatively assumed that a maximum of 10,000 persons could consume irrigated food products or this population dose estimate.The point at which water is taken from the river for irrigation in the Riverview District is about 12 miles from the plant outfall.This coupled with the fact that there are several islands between the outfall and the point of withdrawal will give complete mixing of all effluents in the river.From these assumptions the annual whole-body dose to the population from irrigated food products is estimated to be 1.6 x 10 man-rem.When WNP-1 and WNP-4 begin operation, the radiatiog dose to an individual from this pathway will be 2.3 x 10 mrem/yr to the total-body.The annual total-body population dose would be 8.0 x 10 man-rem/yr.
5.2.4.2 Gaseous Pathwa s People may be exposed to radioactive material released to the atmosphere by WNP-2 via inhalation, air submersion and ingestion of farm products.Air Submersion Maximum offsite exposures occur in the southeast sector.An individual located 0.5 miles from4the plant could recieve a total-body dose rate of36.7 x 10 mrem/hr while his skin dose would be 1.2 x 10 mrem/hr.However, since the location is now on Federally-owned land (the Hanford Reservation), the general public would not ordinarily be allowed access.A more probable location for occupancy by the general public would be a point just offshore from the plant about 3.5 miles ESE, where a fisherman might fish from a boat.Here the atmospheric dilu)ion factor at.the shoreline is the greatest, 3.0 x 10 sec/m.The external total-body dose ratm to the fisherman at this point is estimated to be 5.4 x 10 mrem/hr.An avid fisherman remaining here 50$hr/yr would receive an annual total-body dose of 2.7 x$0 mrem;his skin dose would be approximately 4.8 x 10 At present the closest point to the plant at which people reside is across the river at Ringold Flat, approximately 4 miles ENE of WNP-2.However, the atmospheric dilution 5.2-7 Amendment 3 January 1979 WNP-2 ER factor is greater at the second closest residence across the river at Taylor Flat.Airborne radiation doses were estimated for an individual occupying this location (Taylor Flat)all year.Thy atmospheric dilution factor was estimated to be 2.6 x 10 sec/m at this location.The total-body and skin dose rates from external radiation were estimated to be 0.14 mrem/yr and 0.28 mrem/yr, respectively.
When WNP-1 and WNP-4 begin operation, the individual at Taylor Flat would receive 0.17 mrem/yr to the total-body and 0.69 mrem/yr to the skin."The annual total-body air submersion dose to the estimated 2020 population residing within a 50-mile radius of the plant was estimated.
Table 5.2-13 shows that the estimated 270,000 persons living within the region in 2020 would receive an annual external dose of only 1.6 man-rem from the radioactive gaseous effluents released into the atmosphere by WNP-2.With the later addition of WNP-1 and WNP-4, a total-body dose would increase to 2.1 man-rem/yr.
Xnhalation An individual residing at Taylor Flat would receive a dose'o the total-body of 8.1 x 10 mrem/yr due to inhalation of P radioiodines and particulates and absorption of tritium through the skin.The radiation dose to the thyroid of this individual would be 7.8 x 10 mrem/yr.The fisherman located 3.5 miles from the plant for 500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> duping the year would receive a total-body dose of 5.1 x 10 mrem/yr via this pathway.The annual total-body radiation dose to the population within 50 miles of WNP-2 due to inhalation/
transpiration would be 2.3 x 10 man-rem.When WNP-1 and WNP-4 begin operation, an individual at Taylor Flat would receive a total-body dose of 4.4 x 10 and a thyroid dose of 9.5 x 10-2 mrem/yr.At that time, the annual total-body radiation dose to the population would be 0.10 man-rem/yr.Farm Products Estimates were made of radiation doses received from consum-ing farm products produced in the vicinity of the plant which might be affected'y airborne effluents.
Table 5.2-12 lists the 14 food items considered along with some typical parameters used in the calculation of dose to the individual.
The dose to the population within 50 miles of the site was estimated using these same assumptions, except that the consumption rates were reduced by one-half.The dose rate from this pathway)or an individual residing at Taylor Flat woujcl he 8.9 x 10 mrem/yr to the total-hocty aud l.8 mrem/yr to the thyroid.5.2-8 Amendment 3 January 1979 WNP-2 ER For the population dose estimate, i't was assumed that all land not on the Hanford Reservation or in an urban area could be used for agriculture and that the entire population within 50 miles (270,000)might eat food grown in this area.Using these assumptions, the annual total-body jose to the population from this pathway would be 6.9 x 10 man-rem/yr.
When WNP-1 and WNP-4 begin operation, an individual at Taylor Flyt would receive a dose rate to the total body of 4.4 x 10 mrem/yr and 2.2 mrem/yr to the thyroid.The total-body dose rate to the population at that time would be 0.27 man-rem/yr.
Milk The air~grass~cow~milk pathway, which for some nuclear plants is quite critical because of milk cows actually pastured on or near the fenceline, is of less importance for these projects because cows are not pastured very close to the plant.Since the plant is on DOE property and natural pasture is sparse, it.is very unlikely that milk cows would be pastured at, the fenceline in the foreseeable future.The closest point at which a milk cow is now pastured is across the river 4.3 miles southeast of the site at Taylor Flat.The atmospheric7dilutign factor at this location is estimated to be 2.6 x 10 sec/m.The estimated thyroid dose rate to an infant consuming 1 i of milk each day from cows pastured 9 months of the year at this farm would be 9.0 mrem/yr.The dose rate to an adult consuming the same amount of milk would be 1.2 mrem/yr.When WNP-1 and WNP-4 begin operation, these doses would increase to ll mrem/yr to an infant's thyroid and 1.4 mrem/yr to an adult's thyroid.5.2.4.3 Direct Radiation From Facilit Radiation From Facilit Wastes from WNP-2 will be stored in tanks within concrete buildings so that radiation levels to workers within the plant boundaries will be below applicable standards.
In addition, tanks containing low levels of activity will be situated and shielded to reduce dose rates at the site boundary to very small levels.Since the plant is located inside the Hanford Reservation it is not expected that the general public will be close to the plant site long enough to receive any measurable radiation exposure from turbine shine.5.2-9 Amendment 3 January 1979 WNP-2 ER-OL Construction workers at WNP-1 and WNP-4 will receive some radiation dose due to the operation of WNP-2.If an individual were to work 0.5 miles from WNP-2, he would receive a total-body dose of 2.5 mrem/yr from N-16 turbine shine.(10)
This worker would also receive about 0.7 mrem/yr due to the airborne, release of radioactive material from WNP-2.When WNP-2 begins operation, approximately 3200 construction workers will be building WNP-1 and WNP-4.If these workers are located an average of 1 mile from WNP-2, the total-body radiation dose to those workers would be 4.4 man-rem/yr.
Trans ortation of Radioactive Materials Since the locations of fuel fabrication plants, reprocessing plants and waste disposal facilities have not been determined, transportation routes have not been decided.However, a generic study(8>has estimated that radiation dose rates to the general public from transportation of radioactive materials will not exceed 5 man-rem/yr per (3 unit.It is expected that the value estimated from the actual routing of the plant's radioactive material transport will be lower than this since much of the route will be through sparsely populated regions of the western United States or the waste may not be transported outside of the Hanford Site./3 5.2.5 Summar of Annual Radiation Doses Table 5.2-14 lists the annual radiation doses received by individuals residing near the site from the major pathways.It is conceivable that one individual residing at Taylor Flat could be exposed simultaneously via several pathways.If this individual were an avid fisherman, drank milk from the nearest cow and ate farm products affected by plant effluents (liquid and airborne), he might receive a total-body radiation dose of 2.3 mrem/yr, a thyroid dose of 2.4 mrem/yr and a bone dose of 1.8 mrem/yr.The estimated annual doses to the population affected by the operation of the WNP-2 and the cqmPined operation of WNP-2, WNP-1 and WNP-4 are given in Table 5.2-15.<a)
The total populat'ion dose estimate includes the transportation of radioactive materials (spent fuel and wastes)from the plants as well as the doses received via the air and water pathways.The dose to the population from the direct radiation from the R I a The population doses presented in the preceding subsect'ions and in Tables 5.2-13 and-15 are based on population estimates documented in Ref.6.1-47.These estimates were revised (see Section 2.1, Amendment 5)by Ref.2.1-2, however, the doses were not recalcu-lated because approximately 75K of the population dose is associ-ated with radioactive material shipment and because the changes in projected population would not greatly change the dose from the liquid and gaseous pathways.I5 5.2-10 Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER-OL plants is assumed negligible, since the closest point to the site con-tinuously occupied is more than 3 miles away from any one plant, and the point occupied intermittently by a fisherman is more than 2 miles.The annual population dose from all sources attributable to all three plants operating simultaneously is 18 man-rem.By comparison the background radiation dose rate from natural sources in this region is approximately 105 mrem/yr,(a) resulting in an annual dose of 28,000 man-rem to the same population.
Therefore, routine operations of the WNP-l, WNP-2 and WNP-4 operating simultaneously at this site, will con-tribute a very small increment to the total-body dose already received as a result of the natural background radiation.(a)Approximately 80 mrem/yr from external sources and 25 mrem/yr from internal sources (mostly K-40).(8)Amendment 5 July 1981 NNP-2 ER TABLE 5.2-1 RELEASE RATES AND CONCENTRATION OF RADIONUCLIDES IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM NNP-2~Zsoto s H-3 Na-24 P-32 Cr-51 bin-54 Mn-56 Fe-55 Fe-59 Co-58 Co-60 Ni-65 Cu-64 Zn-65 Zn-69m Zn-69 Br-83 Br-84 Rb-89 Sr-89 Sr-90 Sr-91 Sr-92 Y-90 Y-91m Y-91 Y-92 Y-93 Mo-99 Release~(Ci/)12.0 6.6E-3 2.6E-4 6.7E-3 8.0E-5 7.1E-3 1~4E-3 4.0E-5 2.7E-4 5.5E-4 4.0E-5 2.0E-2 2.7E-4 1.4E-3 1.5E-3 3.7E-4 3'E-5 2.1E-4 1.4E-4 7.0E-5 2.2E-3 1.5E-3 7.0E-5 1.4E-3 7.0E-5 3.1E-3 2~3E-3 2.3E-3 Concentration in Plant Effluents (Ci/R)2.3E+3 1.3 5.1E-2 1.3 1.6E-2 1.4 2.7E-l 7.8E-3 5.2E-4 1~lE-1 7.8E-3 3.9 5'E-2 2.7E-l 2'E-1 7.2E-2 5.8E-3 4.1E-2 2.7E-2 1.4E-2 4.3E-l 2.9E-l 1.4E-2 2.7E-1 1~4E-2 6-OE-1 4.5E-1 4.5E-1 Amendment 1 May 1978
WNP-2 ER TABLE 5.2-](sheet 2 of 2)~Zeoto e Tc-99m Tc-101 Ru-103 RQ-105 Rh-105 Te-129m Te-129 Te-131m Te-131 Te-132 I-131 I-132 I-133 I-134 I-135 Cs-134 Cs-136 Cs-137 Cs-138 Ba-139 Ba-140 La-140 La-141 La-142 Ce-141 Ce-143 Pr-143 W-187 Np-239 Release~(ci/)8.9E-3 2.0E-5 I 3.OE-5 5.5E-4 1.8E-4 5.0E-5 3.OE-5 l.OE-4 2.OE-5 1.0E-5 6.4E-3 3.5E-3 1.7E-2 1.4E-3 7'E-3 7.4E-3 4.7E-3 1.7E-2 7.2E-3 5.3E-4 5.3E-4 1.1E-4 1.7E-4 3.6E-4 4.0E-5 3.0E-5 5.0E-5 2.7E-4 7.9E-3 Concentration in Plant Effluents (Ci/a)1.7 3.9E-3 5.8E-3 1.1E-l 3.5E-2 9.7E-3 5.8E-3 1.9E-2 3.9E-3 1.9E-3 1.2 6.8E-1 3.3 2.7E-1 1.5 1.4 9.1E-1 3.3 1.4 1.0E-l 1.0E-1 2.1E-2 3 3E-2 7.0E-2 7.SE-3 5.8E-3 9.7E-3 4.7E-2 1.5 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER TABLE 5.2-2 RELEASE RATES AND CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN THE AIRBORNE EFFLUENTS FROM WNP-2~Zsota 8 H 3 Cr-51 Mn-54 Fe-59 Co-58 Co-60 Zn-65 Kr-85m Kr-85 Kr-87 Kr-88 Sr-89 Sr-90 Zr-95 Release Rate (C')68 1.3E-2 4.1E-3 1.1E-3 l.3E-3 1.3E-2 2.2E-3 76 270 200 240 6.1E-3 2'E-5 5.1E-4 Concentration in Plant Effluent 8.3 l.6E-3 S.OE-4 1.4E-4 1.6E-4 1.6E-3 2'E-4 9.3 3.3E+1 2.5E+1 2.9E+1 7'E 4 3.4E-6 6.2E-5 Zsotooe Sb-124 Z-131 I-133 Xe" 131m Xe-133 Xe-135m Xe-135 Xe-138 Cs-134 Cs-136 Cs-137 Ba-140 CG-141 Release Rate (Ci/v)5.OE-4 4.6E-1 1~7 5.0 2700 740 1100 1400 4.4E-3 3.6E-4 6.3E-3 1.1E-2 7.6E-4 Concentration in Plant Effluent 6.1E 5 5.6E-2 2.1E-1 6.1E-l 3.3E+2 9.1E+1 l.4E+2 1.7E+2 5.4E-4 4.4E 5 7.7E 4 1.4E-3 9.3E-5 ANNUAL AUERAGE AL" ATMOSPIIERXC DILUTION FACTORS (X/9')Direction 5 Hl f ron Source'3'4E-06 NNE?~65f.06 ht 2}OE"Ob tNt 2<<04E-06 1.5 Hl 8'4E 07 6'2t 0'I b<<47E 07 b<<36E-07 2~5 Hl 4~30E 07 3'4t 07 2'0E.-D7 2'5t-07 3.5 Hl 2~83f 07?<<3}E-07 1<<90E-07 1~Ubf Dl 2'7t-Ol 67t.-o7 1~3UE-07 1~36E<<O I l<<OUE-Ol 8~6bf.08 7.167.-0 8 6'9t-DU 4'0E'-08 3'5E-DB 2 ABASE-08 2<<78E-08 Bande (mile)4<<S Hl I~5 Hl 15 Hl 25 Hl 2'2E 08 1~72E 08 1~41E 08 1~3Ut, 08 35 HT 1~40E OU 1~08E OU 8<<82E 09 8<<bDE-09 45 Hl 9'2E-09 7~59f-09 6'8t<<09 6'3E-09 TOTALS 4'7t-06 4'3t-06 3'9E 06 3'1E,-06 E tSE SE SSE 5 SSM SM MS't HNH NNll 1 9UE-06 3'3E 06 3'2f.-n6 3<<C}E-06 3 l}E 06?.38E-oe 2.13E<<06 1~BSE Ob 1~3UE-06}<<66f"Ob 1~7SE 06 2'5E Ob 5<<}OE 07 8.73E-07 1~03f-oe 9<<bhf"07 8'3E>>07 6.52E-O7 6~0}E D7 b.nUE-O7, 3~81E,-07 4~33E nl 4~47E 07 7<<l}E 07 2'9E-O'I 4'3E 07 b.505-07 5 13t-07 4~49t, 07 3<<55t<<07 3~31}: 07 2~7lt.07 2~DUt>>07 2<<30t.07 2'bt-O'I 3'26-07 1.75E-O7 3'3E Ol 3~38t Ol 3~3bf.-o I 2'UE.-07 2~3IE" D I 2~22t.07 1 84E-07 1.30E-07 l<<SDE 07'},b4E.-DI 2<<b2E 07 l<<27E'-07 2'0t-07 2<<64E-OI 2~4'I t 0 I 2'At-07 1~74E-0'I}<<64t~07 l<<36E 07 1<<02t.O'I 1.}Ot-O7 1~12E 0)1~84t-07 6'8E OU 1<<13t,"0 I 1~37t-0 I 1~29E-0 I 1~}SE.-07 9'5E-OU 8'5t.-oU 7.19f,-oU b<<39E 08 5'9E-08 5'4t DU 9'7E DU 2<<54E DU 4<<45E 08 5~Sof 08 5'}E.08 4'8E'-08 3<<79E-OB 3'2E 08 2'4E OA 2'0E-08 2'7E"08 2'8E"DU 3<<92f-08 25E'8 2~20E 08 2'5E-OU 2<<6}E-DB 2'5E>>OB 1~91E-08 1~83E-08 l<<4UE-08 1~loE-OU 1~12E-OU 1<<13E-OU 1~9UE 08 7'9E"09 1~37E 08 1~72E<<OU l<<64E-08 1~48E, 08 1~2}E 08 1~16E OU 9<<32E OP 6 92E-0')T.nlf-n9 T.oof-n9 l<<25f.-08 5.45E-09 9~SBE D9 1<<2}f.-08 1~16E-OU 1~04E 08 8'9E-09 8'7E>>09 6,b6E-O')4'7E-09 4'1E-09 4'7E 09 8'2E-09 3~17E-06 5<<<<39E"06 6'4E 06 ST 9DE 06 5~12E 06 3'7E-06 3'}f 06 3~Oot 06 2'Dt.-06 2'9E-ne 2<<80t.06 4'6E-06 TOTALS CUH TOTL 3.9SE-nb 1<<OSE-Ob AUSE-05 5~ODE 05 b<<o2t 06 3<<olE db b<<set-nb S.)3t-ob 2~7}E" ob 1~41 f-nb 5 69E-07 6.20}.-05 6.34t-o>6.39t-n5 2~obE-07 1 79E-07 6'2f Db 6'4E 05 1.26t-n7 e.4st-o5 6<<45t'.05 b<<45t 05 TABLE 5.2-4 CONCENTRATIONS OF IMPORTANT RADIONUCLIDES IN VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA IIIvcr Hatur ut Point of Air at Sedlt<cnt Soll ut Pish ut hrinkin<J Watur irrigation raylur p)ats ut outfall'raylur plots outfall ci<uts at Iilchland Hucl idu~pCIQ})PC~I<<<}j~ik}II<CIA)~<CI kg))VCI/k<g})I<Ctrl I Vc<lutution ut Hllk fror<1'aylur Vials ItuarusL Cou MI<Ilk J}..E<J<JU at'ruylor Pluts h~iiikE}Hui<L at'ruylor Plots MWM<<5 L II-3 l.It:-I lie-24 I'-3'2 Hn-56 2.4V.-6 Co-60 5.18-6 Kr-87 0 Kr-88 0 Sr 89 1.3V-6 Sr-90II)6.58-7 1-131 6.08 5 I-I J2 1-133 J-135 Xu-135 0 Xu-134 0 Cs-IJ4 6.9V-5 Cs 136 4'8-5 CS-137 1.68-4 Cs-138 Uu-I40 4.98-6 (aI This wou1d&<u 5.6V.-I 1.18-4 1.9V.IO 1.68I 0 0 1.9LI 0 0 5.08-5 2 3L'-7 3 UE-3 1.48-2 9.OLIO 0 l.2Lt1 0 3.68-5 9.68IO 5.2t'-5 1.48I2 9 4L-5 a factor of 1.2 LI<<<us hlqhur 7.OLIO l.18-1 1.4E-3 7.08-4 I 7Y-1 6.7E-2 2.lYsi 2.1VI3 I.3VI 2 I.3VI 2 1.5L'll.I.SYII 5.5LI2 5.5LI2~5'LIO 5.48IO 0 0 0 0 0, 2Y I U.2L'-I IY.-I 4.1L-I 1.9PIl 1.9YII I.OVII I.OEII 5.0EII5.08II 2.38tl 2.38'I.58-2 I~68-1 6.7L 4 0 0 2.9I'.I3 2.9VI3 1.88I 3 I.OL'I3 6.6YI 3 6.68I3 2 UI'I3 2.8I;I'3 4.18-1 4.18-1 if<JuaLs'<l I k is uonsu<<<ud.
1.1L-I S.SY-5 3.3V-S l.08-7 0 2.6L'"7 1.38-7 4.8V-S 2.6L'-5 I.J8-4 S.<JL'-5 6.18" 5 J.<JL-5 I.4Y-4 6.1I:-5 2, OY.-6 6.4811 3.1V.-2 1.2V-2 2.0V-4'3.7VIO I.It:IO I.OV-2 l.SV-2 1,3V-2 3.1L'I l 9.48-4 2.18IO'"'3.18-1" 2.6I.'-3 3.88-3 1.iEI I 7.4L-6 I.SL-I 2.18-2 2.7L 3.0LI I 2.9L-6 I.28-1 1.6L'-3 3.OI'Amendment 3~January l979~
WNP-2 ER TABLE 5.2-5 t ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR BIOTA DOSE ESTIMATES."-ish, Clam.Crustacea 0 0-oÃaa k-at-Zn equ'librium with 10%plant e<<luent Bf<<ect'e radius<<2 cm BioaccumuLation factors listed in Appendix I" Spends 33%of t~~e 33%an lard B ect've radius~Body mass~1 kg Cansumes 100 g/day ei luent in LOS plant ef<<luent;33%in riverbank den: 5 cm aquatic vegetation growing in LOS plant Raa"aaa Ccat Spends 25%o<<twe on shoreline washed with 10%plant e<<<<luent act've radius~14 cm Body mass~'kg Consumes 20 g/day<<ish 1'ving in LOS dlant effluent (LO'h of total d'et).(.he other 90%of his diet's assumed to be free of rac'o-nucl'des of NHP-2 ar'gin.)Heron Spends 50%of time float'ng in,10%plan" ef<<iten" and 508 of time on shoreline washed wi>D i0%plant ef<<'uent B fact've rad'us~5 cm Body mass<<1 kg Consumes 100 g/day acuat'c vegetat'on 1'v'ng in 10%plant e<<f'nt o Spends 33%of time standing in 10%plant ef luent)33%an r'ver-bank washed with 10%plant effluent o Bf ective rad'us~11 cm o Body mass~4.6 kg o Consumes 600 g/day f'sh 1'v'ng in 10%plant ef Luent 0 0 o Saands 50%of time f'aat'ng in 10%plant ef<<luenc and 501 af time on shoreline washed with 10%plane, ef<<luent B<<ective radius~10 cm Body mass.~3 kg Consumes 500 g/day af gra'n Rc"arnaL dose to musk"at, coot and heron frcm gaseaus ef<<luents are received at shoreline 3.5 mi MZ of the cantainment building.External dose to racoon-<<ram gaseous ef<<luents are received at shoreline (253)and at, a Location 0.5 mi SZ (75%).Amendment 3 January 1979 PPiVP-2 ER TABLE 5.2-6 ASSUi41PTIONS USED EN ESTIi<4&TENG DOSES FROM THE LiQUZD PATHNAY Drinkinc water Fish Liquid effluent diluted by annual average river flow (120,000 cfs)24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> delay between release of radionuclides and consumption of water (plus holdup Ln water plant)Fractions of radionuclides passing hrough~ster plant were those given Ln.able 5.2-11 Consumption rate of 2.0 I/day (730 Z/yr)for ruiximum individual and 1.2 1/day (440 1/yr)for the average Lndividual.
Total population consuming drinking water downstream frcm the plant is approxima ely 75,000 Pish caught Ln waters containing plant effluent diluted by a factor of 0.1 for maximum individual and by annual average river flow for population average.Ono-day delay between harvest o.fish and consumpt<on for population and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> for maximum individual.
Consumption rate of 40 kg/yr for maximum individual3 and 1.4 x 10" kg/yr (edible weight)for population living Ln the 50-mile radius of the plant.(The approxL-ate edible weLght of sportfish harves ed f" om the river between Ringold and Soardman.(5))
Ho losses Ln preparation of fish.RECREATIOXAL ACTIVITIES Maximum Individual
~Recreation in or near waters containing 10%effluent.0.1 hou" delay between re)ease and location of shoreline actLvity, swL<x<<lng and boating.500 hrs/yr shoreline activLties.
100 hrs/yr swirming (complete L~erslon)100 hrs/yr boating or water skiing (surface)Averace Individual Members of the Population Recreation Ln or near waters containing plant effluent fully diluted Ln the annual verage iv 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> delay between release g>~-adionuclides and location of recrea ion.17 hrs/yr shoreline activities<
10 hrs/yr swimming (complete immersion) 5 hrs/yr boating and water skiing (surface)Total population using Colu.J>La River downstream rcm the plant for recreation Ls approximately 193,000.(c)
Irri ated Food Products~Irri,gation water contains effluent nuclides diluted with annual average rives lowe~Radionuclide buildup period Ln soil Ls 30 years.~25%of radionuclide which falls out Ls retaLned cn crops.~All radioiodine released Ls Ln inorganic!orm.~Environmental half-life of deposition on plants is 14 days.~Holdups, Individual Consumptions, Ir igation Rates, Yields, and Crowing Periods are listed in Table 5.2-12~Average ember of population Ls assumed to eat 1/2 of consumptions listed Ln Table 5.2-12~Population consuming irrigated foods assumed to be 10,000.t<ime to southwest Benton County was ignored.The majority (ove 50%)of the exposed populatLon resides Ln the vicini.ty of the Tr'-CitLes, (Pasco, Kennewick, and R<chland).(b)Receptor assumed 3, t above Lnfinite plane.Resulthag dose decreased by factor of 0.2 to account for finite wLdth of shoreline.(c)The population within 50 miles of the s<e in the sectcrs between the H:<E and the SW directions, inclusive, are the persons who travel to the Columbia River downstream of the plant.'or heir aquatic,recreation.
This popuLation Ls estimated to otal 192,710 persons in 2020.
WNP-2 ER TABLE 5.2-7 ASSUMPTIONS USED IN ESTIMATING DOSES FROM THE GASEOUS PATHWAY For external beta dose 2n geometry used.For external gamma dose 2m geometry used.Ground level release with wake correction.
2020 population distribution.
TABLE 5.2-8 ANNUAL DOSE RATES TO BIOTA ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE WNP-2 NUCLEAR PLANT (mrad/r)Or anism Air Submersion Water Immersion Shoreline, or Bottom Sediment Contaminated Ground Internal Total Fish Clam Crustacean Muskrat Raccoon Coot Heron Goose Deer Cattle 2.3E-1 3.9E+0 3.3E-1 3.3E-1 3.3E-1 9'E-1 1.6E-1 2.0E-4 2.0E-4 2.0E-4 6.6E-5 5.OE-5 3.3E-5 5.0E-5 2.6E-2 2.6E-2 8.5E-3 6.5E-3 1.3E-2 8.5E-3 1.3E-2 7.9E-3 1.4E-1 4.5E-2 7.8E-3 1.3E+1 2.1E+2 2.1E+2 7.1E+1 1.4E+0 6.9E+1 1.4E+2 1.5E-4 2.7E-4 2.7E-4 1.3E+1 2.1E+2 2.1E+2 7.1E+1 4.9E+0 6.9E+1 1.4E+2 2.9E-l 8.5E-1 1.5E-l TABLE 5.2-9 ESTIMATED ANNUAL DOSES TO AN INDIVIDUAL FROM THE LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS OF WNP-2 LIQUID Pathwa Annual E~xo"oro Location Dilution Factor~or/0 Annual Doses (mrcm)to an Adult Total Shin~hod Gl-l.l<T~h roid hono Drinking Water Fish Water Recreation Irrigated Food Products: Produce Eggs Hi lk Heat Ground Contamination AIR ATr Submersion Inhalation/Trans-portation Food Products: Produce Eggs Hi,lk (cow)Heat Ground Contamination 730 i Richland 40 kg Hear Outfall (a)Hear Outfall (b)(b)(b)(b)4,400 h Riverview Ar<<a Riverview Area Riverview Area Riverview Area Riverview Area (b)(b)(b)(b)4,400 h Taylor Flat Taylor Flat Taylor Flat Taylor Flat Taylor Flat 8,766 h3 Taylor Flat 7,300 m Taylor Flat 1/20,000 1/10 1/10 1/20,000 1/20,000 1/20,000 1/20 F 000 1/20,000 2.6xlO 2.6xlO 2.6xlO 2.6xlO 7 2.6xlO 2.6x10 2.6xlO 1.18-1 2.28-4 2.88-1 4.2E-3 2.78-5 5.4E-7 2.4E-S 7.68-6 1.98-4 1.18-5 4.1E-7 5.0E-6 1.68-6 (1.98-4)1.48-1 (1.48-1)8.18-4 8.68-4 5.68-3 5.98"5 3.08-3 2.78-4 3.4E-3 5.38-3 5.28-5 2.18"3 2.3E-4 (3.48"3)1.78-5 1.18-5 2.2 2.08-1 9.38-2 (9.38-2)9.0E-5 2'E-1 (9.38-2)6.S8-5 2.78-6 1.68-4 4.9E-6 (1.98-4)(1.48-1)7.88-2 6.08-1 8.9$dt 1.2 1.6E-2 (3.48-3)6.78-6 1.6 (9.3E-2)2'8-5 5.48-7 1.98-5 6.38-6 (1.98"4)(1.48-1)2.3E-4 1.78-3 2.18-5 2.68-3 5.68-5 (3.4E-3)a (b)(c)(d)See Table 5.2-12 for consumption rates for farm products.Parentheses around a number indicate that the radiation dose to an internal organ is due to an external source and is estimated to he equal to the external total-body dose.This would be a factor of 1.2 times higher if goats'ilk is consumed.Amendment 3 January 1979 TABLE 5.2-10 ESTIMATED ANNUAL DOSES TO AN INDIVIDUAL FROM THE LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS OF WNP-2, WNP-1 AND WNP-4 I IQUID Annual PnkkwnZ E~xo nzo Inocatlon Annual Doses (mrem)to an Adult ota1 T Skin SodZ GZ-LLZ T~k zoid Spun Drinking Mater Fish l(ater Recreation Irrigated Food Products: Produce Eggs Hi 1k Heat Ground Contamination AIR 730 l 40 kg (a)(b)(b)(b)(b)4,400 h Richland Hear Outfall Hear Outfall Riverview Area Riverview Area R(verview brea Riverview brea Riverview brea 1.1E-l 2.28-4 F 08-3 2.3 9.38-2 1.38-3 6.98-5 6.68-4 2'8-4 1.98-4-1.3E-3 6.98-5 6.58-4 2.28-4 (1.9E-4)1.3E-3 6-98"5 8.18"4 2.38-4 (1.98-4)1.88-3 1.98-3 2.6 3.18-1 (9.38-2)(9.38-2)6.78-6 1.6 (9 38 2)c 2.58-5 5.48-7 1.98-5 6.38-6 (1.9E-4)hir Submersion Inhalation/Trans-portation Food Products: Produce Eggs Hilk (cow)Meat Ground Contamination 8,766 h3 7,300 m (b)(b)(b)(b)4,400 h Taylor Flat Taylor Flat Taylor Flat Taylor Flat Taylor Flat Taylor Flat Taylor Glat 6.98-1 5.38-3 3.48-2 3.28-4 9.1E-3 1.68-3 4.18-3 3.38-2 3.18-4 En08-3 1.58-3 (4.1F.-3)7.48-1 1.1(df 1~4 2.18-2 (4.18-3)2.08-3'2.5E-S 3.18-3 6.38"5 (4.18-3)1.78-1 (1.78" 1)(1.78" 1)(l.7E-1)4'8-3 4.58-3 9.58-2 2 68-4 (b)(c)(d)See Ta e 5.2-6 for exposure rates for water recreation.
See Table 5.2-12 for consumption rates for-farm products.Parentheses around a number indicate that the radiation dose to an internal organ is due to an external source and is estimated to be equal to tlte external total-body dose.This would be a factor of 1.2 times higher if goats'ilk is consumed.Amendment 3 January 1979 WNP-2 ER TABLE 5.2-11 FRACTION OF RADIONUCLIDE PASSING THROUGH WATER TREATMENT PLANTS~4)Element Fraction Element Fraction H Cr Mn Fe Co CQ Zn Br Sr 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.2 Mo Tc Te Cs Ba La Ce Pr W Np 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.7 TABLE 5.2-12 ASSUMPTIONS FOR ESTIMATING DOSES FROM CROPS AND ANIMAL FODDER SUBJECT TO DEPOSITION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS RELEASED BY THE PLANT Produce Pood T~es Irrigation (b)11oldup Consumption Ra/e-~t/.~/>~f//Atomspheric Growing Dilutjon Yielg Period (s/m)~(k/m)~(da)Leafy Vegetables Beans,'eas, Asparagus Potatoes Other Root Vegetables
-Berries Helons (water)Orchard Fruit Nheat Other Grain (sweet Corn)Eggs Milk Meat 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 10 1 30 30 110 72 30 40 265 80 8.3.'0 274/200 160 180 150 180 180 180()150 150 200 2.6xlO 2.6xl0-7 2.6xlO 2.6xlO 2.6xlO 2.6xlO 2.6xlO 2.6xlO 2.6xlo 2.6xlo 2.6xlO 1.5 0.4 5 5 2.7 1.4 2.1 0.72 1.4 0.66 1.3 70 70 100 70 60 100 90 70 100 130 30 Beef Pork Poultry 15 15 2 40 40 18 160 150 140 2.6xlO 7 2.6xlO 2.6xlO 2.0 0.69 0.66 130 130 130 (a)(b)(c)Consumptions are for maximum individual.
one-half of those quantities.
Typical irrigation rates for the region.No irrigation of wheat.Average population member is assumed to eat Amendment 3 January, 1979 WNP-2 ER TABLE 5.2-13 CUMULAT IVE POPULAT ION I ANNUAL POPULATION DOSE, FROM SUBMERSION IN AIR CONTAINING RADIONUCLIDES FROM THE WNP-2 AND COMBINED RELEASES OF WNP-2 AND WNP-1 AND-4~Radius (miles)Cumulative Population (2020)Annual Average Dose (mrem)Co z.ned WNP-2 Combe.ned WNP-2 Cumulative Annual Population Dose (man-rem)0 0 5'30 0.0086 0.010 0.56 20 30 40 50 108,060 157,760 201,270 267,790 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.2 10 12,650 0.44 0.066 0.035 0.012 0.078 0.045 0.016 0.0093 0.013 0.0075 0.010 0.0058 0.0081 (a)Population estimates in Section 2.1 were revised by Amendment No.5.These revisions reflect a projection of 380,000 people in the year 2020 living within 50 miles.However, because all the increases are beyond 10 miles, the cumulative population dose is not expected to increase significantly and is, therefore, not recalculated.
See also note on P.5.2-10.Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER TABLE 5.2-14 ANNUAL DOSES RECEIVED VIA MAJOR PATHWAYS FOR WNP-2 AND FOR WNP-2, WNP-1 AND-4'COMBINED Annual Dose (mrem)Appendix I., WNP-2 WNP-1&-4 Combined Limits er Reactor AIR PATHWAY Air Submersion (a)Total Body Skin 0.47 0.84 0.38 0.60 0.85 1.4 5 15 Infant s Thyroid Nearest Resident Thyroid Total Body LIQUID PATHWAY Drinking Water Total Body Fish Consumption Total Body Bone Nearest Resident (d)Total Body All Others AIR DOSE (mrad/r)Gamma Air Dose Beta Air Dose 9.1 1.8 2.0 0.37 0.15 6-8E-2 1.7E-5 1.8E-3 2.2 1.6 6.2E-2 4.0E-8 2.9 1~9 0.10 2.9E-2<0.10<3.0E-3 2.4 0.22 1.8E-3 2.3 1.6'0.13"0.1 15 15 10 3 3 10 3 10 10 20 (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)Located 3.5 miles ESE of WNP-2.Milk and inhalation at nearest residence.
Inhalation, air submersion, ingestion of farm'products, contaminated gZ'ound.Swimming, boating, shoreline, ground contamination, ingestion of farm products.At a location 0.5 miles southeast of the plant.Amendment 3 January 1979 TABLE 5.2-15 ESTIMATED ANNUAL POPULATION DOSES ATTRIBUTABLE AT WNP-2 ()AND COMBINED RADIONUCLIDE RELEASES OF WNP-l, WNP-2 AND WNP-4 Total Body Dose Man-Rem Pathwa WNP-2 Combined Remarks AIR Submersion in Cloud Direct Radiation Inhalation/Transpiration Farm Products 1.6 2.3E-2 6.9E-2 2.1 1.0E-1 2.7E-l No credit taken for shielding.
WATER Fish Consumption Drinking Water Water Recreation 3.9E-4 7.7E-4 3.0E-4 4.3E-4 8.0E-2 3.0E-4 Complete mixing in river was assumed.Complete mixing in river was assumed.Complete mixing in river was assumed.Irrigated Farm Products 1.8E-4 8.0E-3 TRANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS 15 From reference 8.(a)See notes on Page 5.2-10 and Table 5.2-13 Amendment 5 July 1981 Gaseous Effluents Liquid Effluents Consumption C.O C (<)t Immersion Direct Irradiation
/y 4'ear.~oo Seafood Consumption 4 A~P Consumption
())r Immersion Q>'-c (I I Ingestion WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~2 Enviroranental Report EXPOSURE PATHWAYS FOR ORGANI~OTHER THAN MAN FIG.5.2-1 GASEOUS EFFLUENTS NUCI.EAR FACILITY C V C~r LIQUIO EFFLUENTS Direct Iirattiation
~ti I/.ri/yQ,,ptas q~0~os ,~,.~JAN,~e>re osr ep rre co C o 07 CI 0)C FUEL TRANSPORT Shoreline postrre Water]mers~ori an~o'rr/ece 4~/c 0 O~O 0'gl WASHINGTON PUBLIC POW~SUPPLY SYST~NPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Envi onmental Repor" EXPOSURE PATHP/AYS TO MAN PIG.5.2-2 WNP-2 ER 5.3 EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE DISCHARGES 5.3.1-Li uid Dischar es The expected impacts of chemical and biocide discharges were presented in the AEC Final Environmental Statement (December 1972)'as prepared at the construction permit, stage.The basic data and conclusions presented in that statement have not changed and are included herein by reference.
However, supplemental discussion follows.WNP-2liquid effluent discharges will comply with the condi-tions of the Site Certification Agreement Between the State of Washington and the Washington Public Power Supply System for Hanford No.2 (May 17, 1972)as amended (September 25, 1975).This incorporates a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit (in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 90.48 RCN as amended and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972, Public Law 92-500)and applicable State of Washington Water Quality Criteria or Standards contained in Washington Administrative Code 173-'201.The State criteria or standards appear in Chapter 12.Since the construction permit, application, the requirement that total dissolved gas not exceed 110%of saturation has been added.Nitrogen and oxygen are considered the gases of potential biological concern.The equilibrium concentrations of these gases in water, are controlled by the temperature and the dissolved gas concentration in blowdown effluents will comply with the supersaturation limitation.
Even though the concentration of gases in the blowdown will be subsaturated with respect to the river at the discharge point, the State dissolved oxygen stand-ard will be met within a few feet of the discharge due to rapid dilution with the river water which normally has an oxygen content ranging from 9.5 to 14.0 mg/R.The NPDES permit.(No.WA-002515-1) is contained in Appendix IV wherein discharge and monitoring conditions are given.Table 5.3.1 lists the maximum potential increase of chemical concentrations of the Columbia River water which could result from the WNP-2 discharges.
The basic information is not changed from that reported at the construction permit stage, but is presented in a format that more directly defines the impact on river concentrations.
The maximum potential change was computed assuming a maximum chemical waste stream of 150 gpm and a maximum blowdown of 6,500 gpm, and complete mixing with the minimum regulated Columbia River flow of 36,000 cfs.The table indicates that the increases in river concentrations are very small in comparison to ambient concentrations.
5.3-1 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER Storm water, roof drains, and makeup demineralizer backwash waters will be collected in a separate sewer system and forwarded to an evaporation/leach area noted in Sections 3.7.2 and 3.7.3..No rad-waste, chemical wastes, or sanitary wastes, will enter this system.Trash and solid nonradioactive wastes generated by the plant will be disposed of offsite by an independent contractor.
The environmental concentrations and effects of cooling tower drift are discussed in Section 5.1.4.5.3-2 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER TABLE 5.3-1 MAXIMUM POTENTIAL CHANGE IN COLUMBIA RIVER WATER QUALITY RESULTING FROM WNP-2 CHEMICAL DISCHARGES Calcium, ppm Ca++++Magnesium, ppm Mg Sodium, ppm Na Bicarbonate, ppm HCO3 Sulfate, ppm S04 Chloride, ppm Cl Nitrate ppm N03 Phosphate, ppm P04 Total Hardness, ppm CaCO3 Total Alkalinity, ppm CaC03 Silica, ppm Si02 Dissolved Solids, ppm Maximum Concentrations Change in River 0.066 0.014 0.Ol 0.038 0.171 0.005 0.0012 0.003 0.222 0.062 0.019 0.247 , Maximum Concentrations in River Upstream of WNP-2 32 80 28 2.6 0.62 0.13 88 76 9 115 WNP-2 ER-OL 5.4 EFFECTS'F SANITARY WASTE DISCHARGES The amount of sanitary wastes processed at the central sanitary waste treatment facility is small relative to the capacity of the soil to ac-commodate these wastes.'uring peak loading an average of 100 gpm will be percolated to the soil while long term operation will result in 25 gpm or less.The treatment system is efficient at removing BOD and sol-ids.Approximately 45 feet of soils will provide disinfection of resi-dual bacteria before the liquids enter the unconfined groundwater.
Nu-trients (principally nitrogen and phosphorus) which may eventually reach the Columbia River (three miles east)will have no measurable effect on water quality or biota.The nearest water supply wells are 3000 feet from the percolation beds.Because of the limited zone of potential contamination and the limited use of groundwater at the site, the opera-tion of the treatment facility will have no measurable effect on ground-water resources.
There is no discharge to surface waters.The ponds may attract waterfowl, however, they will not be adversely affected;the lagoons wi ll not receive wastes which present a toxicity problem.The facility will be fenced to preclude entry by deer which could damage the pond liner with hooves.During normal operation, the aerobic process will not be a source of odors.In summary, the waste treatement system, utilizing oxidation and photo-synthesis, will have no significant or lasting environmental effect.The sanitary waste treatment facility was designed according to criteria of the State of Washington Department of Ecology and its construction was subject to approval by the State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.5.4-1 Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER 5.5 EFFECTS OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM Effects of operating and maintaining the transmission lines are expected to be as described in the FES for the construc-tion permit stage.However, the li.J.Ashe substation which is being constructed by the Bonneville Power Administration to handle the WNP-2 5.00 KV transmission line and 230 KV start-up line has not been described and assessed previously.
The Ashe substation is located about 1/2 mile due north of WNP-2.The substation requires about 37 acres of land with a 2000-ft long access road requiring about 1 acre.The Ashe substation is scheduled to be completed just prior to the startup of WNP-2.NEPA requirements for the construction and operation of the Ashe substation and transmission lines serving WNP-2 are being addressed by the Bonneville Power Administration.(1) 5.5-1 WNP-2 ER 5.6 OTHER EFFECTS All known effects of plant operation except noise are dis-cussed in other sections.The effects of noise caused by the operation NNP-2 are expected to be as described in the FES for the construction permit stage.5.6-1 WNP-2 ER 5.7 RESOURCES COMMITTED The estimated irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources due to the operation of WNP-w have not changed sig-nificantly since evaluated in the AEC Final Environmental Statement (December 1972)except as noted below in an updated discussion of fuel utilization.
5.7.1 Uranium Resources Operation of WNP-2 will require the initial loading of 139 metric tons (MT)of uranium ag3granium dioxide with and average isotopic enrichment of 1.87%U.This initial loading required 605 short tons of U30 of natural isotopic composition.
This corresponds to obtaining 288,300 short tons of ore containing 0.21%U 08, which is a very small fraction of the estimated domestic uranium ore reserves.The enrichment of uranium for the initial loading of WNP-2 required about.289 MT separative work units which is 1.8%of the annual separative work capacity of the three DOE gaseous diffusion plants if fully loaded.DOE had indicated it may be necessary to increase the oper-tional tails assay in the future.Fuel requirements for continued operation of WNP-2 will depend on the fuel management practices adopted and the use made of the plant to meet.power requirements.
Under equilibrium conditions, and an average output from the plant of 711 MWe, the plant yjll require about 31 MT/year of uranium enriched to 2.71%U;this corresponds to the utilization of 220 short tons of natural U 0 and 88 MT separative work units annually.This would rlq5ire 22 MWe of power, which would be 2.8%of the average power produced by WNP-2.235 lf the plutonium generated in WNP-2 is recycled, the U content of the fuel can be lowered to about 2.4%.Under these conditions annual requirements for natural uranium would decrease by 14%, and for separative work would be decreased by 19%.5.7-1 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER 5.8 DECOMMISSIONING AND DISMANTLING The necessity for complete dismantling of the reactor complex and return of the site to its former appearance may be both unnecessary and impractical.
The site selection process for these projects has a long, continuous history which dates back to January 1943 when the Manhattan District of the Corps of Engineers selected the Hanford area for nuclear development.
Among considerations in the selection of Hanford were the isolation of the area;the number of residents to be displaced; the general nature of the area;and abundant sources of electric energy and cool-ing water.In considering the future following the useful life of WNP-2, the site within the Hanford Reservation originally selected for its isolation, ecological simplicity and abundant cooling water coupled with its historical"reinforcement" and connec-tions to important transmission networks, will become even more viable than it is today.Therefore, it would likely be a logical site for the installation of future power stations, whether nuclear or fossil, a site too valuable to abandon..5.8.1 Sco e of Dismantlin As a possibility it might be considered desirable to: a.Remove the structural steel framing and metal siding of the turbine-generator building, salvage the crane and all equipment, leave the nonremov-able parts of the turbine-generator foundation and block all entrances.
b.Salvage the equipment, as practicable in the general services building, raze the structural walls and block the entrances.
The disposition of other auxiliary structures will depend on future use of the site.c.Remove all fuel, control rods and accessories in the containment and fuel storage area, and salvage the cranes and other equipment.
For these build-ings, detailed plans will have to be established immediately preceding the decommissioning to allow maximum reuse of site land areas while eliminating any radioactive hazard.The degree of building demolition, the extent of practicable decontamina-tion, the possible reuse of certain equipment or structures, and the subsequent use to be made of the site must be evaluated in establishing these plans.5.8-1 WNP-2 ER In the above operations, equipment would be decontaminated where necessary and practicable or transported with suitable precautions.
5.8.2 Im act on the Environment Dismantling the plants would have many of the same impacts on the environment as the original site preparation and station construction.
Cars, trucks and rail traffic will increase, as would the noise level.Some land would have to be used for laydown area.5.8.3 Radiolo ical Im act on the Environment The dismantling of the reactor buildings would have radio-logical impact characteristic of transporting irradiated fuel and radioactive wastes from the site.After dismantling is complete, however, it is expected that the proposed action would have no further significant radiological impact on the environment.
5.8.4 Dismantlin Plan An overall work plan, including cost estimates, may be prepared near the end of the reactor's useful life.The dismantling operations would be conducted in accordance with detailed pro-cedures, specifications and schedules.
The specifications would define the scope, methods and sequence of accomplishing major tasks.When required to supplement the specifications, detailed work procedures would be developed to meet the exist-ing field conditions, state-of-the-art technology and shipping ,, and burial ground requirements.
All procedures would be reviewed~ith NRC.All spent fuel will be withdrawn and transported to a licensed nuclear fuel processing plant.Steam generators and other components likely to be contaminated by"detectable radio-activity" would be decontaminated, cut if necessary, or shipped whole with protective coverings.
The cutting of radioactive components would be done within containment and with monitoring.
Immediate work areas would be enclosed within a contamination control envelope to prevent release of activity to the environment.
Tanks, machines and other components capable of being decon-taminated would be so treated and shipped to salvage dealers.Solid wastes will be properly packaged in approved containers which will be sealed and thoroughly surveyed for external contamination before they are removed.5.8-2 WNP-2 ER The subgrade levels of all buildings would be decontaminated and sealed.Provisions would be made so that any leakage of groundwater can be detected.5.8.5 S stems To Be Utilized Durin Dismantlin Typical plant systems which would likely need to be kept activated during dismantling are: demineralizer, gaseous waste disposal, fuel element storage well system, ventila-tion, air conditioning and heating, service water, emergency electrical, service air and plant communication systems, as well as radwaste systems.5.8.6 Pre arator Work Prior to dismantling, certain preparatory work would be ini-tiated.This includes: a.preparation of detailed plans and accumulation of tools and equipment, b.selection and qualification (if required)of neces-sary personnel, c.maintaining security precautions to keep out unauthorized personnel, d.construction of an enlarged change room and personnel decontamination area, e.space for storage areas for contaminated and uncon-taminated wastes, f.establishing personnel and area radioactivity monitoring procedure for the additional personnel and areas involved.5.8.7 Post-Dismantlin Surve After program completion, but prior to any backfitting opera-tions,~a thorough radiation survey of the plant site would be performed to verify that any detectable radioactivity does not represent a source of contamination and is within estab-lished regulatory limits.5.8.8 Routine Ins ection and Maintenance After completion of the dimantling or securing of the reactor building, it would be inspected at appropriate intervals to insure that the secured building remains sealed.Minimal maintenance is expected.5.8-3 WNP-2 ER 5.8.9Co's'tsof
'Di'sman'tlin'an'd Decommissionin Preliminary estimates of costs to decommission WNP-2 in 1979 dollars and at 1979 costs are given in Table 5.8-1.Cost estimates are for entombment and dismantling although the existence of the plant on the ERDA Hanford Reservation may result in other options.5,.8-4 WNP-2 ER TABLE 5.8-1 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF DI'SNANTL'ING
'AND DECOMMISSIONING COSTS 7 Do ars and Costs Program Scope Licensing Activity Facility Preparation Equipment Removal Building Removal Seal Bio.Shield Shipping, Disposal, Burial Radiation Protection Equipment and Grounds Improvement Fee (7%)Contingency (25%)TOTAL Entombment 270,000 510,000 420,000 2,700,000 460',000 1,100,000 210,000 400,000 1,500,000$7,570,000 Dismantlin
$270,000 499,000 429,000 8,300,000 5, 500, 000 10,009,000 349,000 1,800,000 6, 909,000$34,020,000
WNP-2 ER CHAPTER 6 EFFLUENT AND ENYIRONMENTAI MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 6.1 PREOPERAT IONAL ENY IRONMENTAL PROGRAM 6.1.1 Surface Water 6.1.1.1 Ph sical and Chemical Parameters Previous Studies.Numerous studies have been conducted for approximately 35 years in connection with the Hanford Project activities concerning the physi-cal and chemical characteristics of the Columbia River in the vicinity of WNP-2 and WNP-1/4.These studies have included both general observations and detailed analyses of the effects on the river of effluents from the plutonium production reactors.These reports, which pere reviewed, evaluated, and sum-marized by Becker and Waddel(1)and Neitzel(2), provide an accurate and comprehensi ve hi s tori cal pi cture of the ri ver.Measurements b Others.Stage and discharge of the Columbia River are mea-sured continuous y at the U.S.Geological Survey gygjng station below Priest Rapids Dam, 45 miles upstream of the project site.(~)The USGS also rou-tinely monitors river temperatures and water chemistry at the Vernita bridge six miles below the dam and at the intake of the City of Richland water supply treatment plant about 11 miles downstream of the project site.Samples for chemical analyses of the Columbia River have been taken at Priest Rapids Dam, Yernita, the 300 Area, and Richland by Battelle-Northwest and the Hanford En-.vironmental Health Foundatign under a contract with the Energy Research and Devel opment Admi nistrati on.(4)Measurements b A licant.Dye dispersion studies and velocity measurements have been performed by the Supply System to'determine hydraulic character-istics of the Columbia River in the vicinity of the project site.Four dye releases were made on February 26, 1972, at RM 351.75 in 5 to 7 ft of water off the wept bank of the river, the location of the cooling tower blowdown discharge.(5)
River flows were low during the releases and ranged from 36,000 to 50,000 cfs.The studies showed that complete vertical mixing occurs rapidly at this location, and that dye releases made from the river bottom mix more rapidly than releases from mid-depth and the surface.For all releases, complete vertical mixing occurred within 250 ft downstream of the release point.Velocities r anging from 2.5 to 3.3 fps were measured at the water sur-face during these tests.6.1-1 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER River velocities were also measured by the Supply System on March 14, 1974, at four locations and three depths at each location at a river transect just up-stream of the WNP-2 intake.'l6'>
Three of these locations were in the right (west and main)channel, and the fourth location was in the middle of the left (east and secondary) channel.The river flow at the time of the measurements was about 130,000 cfs, and measurements were made between 3.3 ft and 19.7 ft from the water surface in the right channel and between 3.3 ft and 13.1 ft in the left channel.The velocities near the water surface ranged from 4.2 to 4.6 fps in the right channel and were 0.8 fps in the left channel.Velocities in the vicinity of the WNP-2 discharge were also measured in December 1979 when the river flow was about 135,000 cfs and the depth was about 20 ft.Ve]ocities varied from 3 1/2 fps near the bottom to 7 fps near the surf ace.(1<<~Measurements of suspended sediment concentrations and turbidity were performed at various locations upstream and downstream from the outfall structures dur-ing excavtign of the river bed and installation of the intake and outfall structures.(>)
The purpose of these measurements was to assure that the construction activities required to install the intake and outfall minimized scour, erosion, runoff and turbidity.
The measurements were conducted daily during excavation activities in the river.Sediment concentrations were mea-sured by a conventional suspended sediment sampler.A low flow test of the Columbia River on April 10, 1976 controlled the flow to 36,000 cfs for the purpose of verifying river surface elevations.
It was con-cluded that the water surface is about 1.3 ft lower than was indicated by pre-vious data.Subsequently, river bottom elevations in the vicinity of the WNP-2 discharge were surveyed by the Supply System to obtain more accurate flow depths than were available from previous surveys by others.Modelin of Blowdown Plume Tem eratures.A mathematical model was used to estimate the hydrodynamic and water temperature regime of the cooling tower blowdown plume in$hp Columbia River under different blowdown and river dis-char ge conditions.(81 The model was selected on the basis of its applica-bility to thermal plume behavior in general and observed conditions in the Columbia River in particular.
6.1-2 Amendment 4~October 1980 WNP-2 ER The basic equations available for the computation of thermal plumes are the equations of state, continuity, energy, and momentum.However, these equations are extremely difficult to solve in their more general, nonsteady and three-dimensional formulations.
Various assumptions are therefore necessary to simplify the equations to develop practical numerical solutions.
Simplifications may involve the assump-tion of steady-state, reduction of a three-dimensional pro--blem into fewer dimensions (if possible with symmetry), and the division of a complex problem into smaller sequential problems.For a submerged discharge of effluent entering a swiftly moving turbulent river in a direction perpendicular to the mainstream current, three regimes of flow can be defined: l.the very near field, where the momentum of the effluent jet causes intensive mixing resulting in rapid reduction in maximum effluent concentration; 2.a region (loosely termed the intermediate field)where the effluent stream has been turned and is moving along with the current, almost like a part of the mainstream, and is diffusing laterally and vertically predominately 4ue to river turbulence and some buoyant action;and 3.the far field, defined here as the region where the effluent is moving downstream passively, fully mixed in the vertical dimension with river turbulence dominating lateral diffusion.
T These definitions of the conceptual regimes are based on observations made during dye studies on a test stretch of the Columbia River (5)and on stream data collected during operation of the now decommissioned Hanford production reactors(9) and the existing Hanford Generating Plant (HGP)(0)These measurements indicated that a downstream heated plume will be vertically well-mixed in the test stretch even at low flow conditions.(1~)
Regime 1 encompasses a region extending from the point of discharge downstream to a location where cross-stream velocity is no longer significant.
This flow regime is extremely complex because of the strong interaction between the jet and ambient streams.Numerous analytical and experimental studies concerning similar problems have been conducted in recent years.(12 i~3)6.1-3 WNP-2 ER A simplified analytical approach is through similarity analysis, in which the governing three-dimensional partial differential equations are reduced to or-dinary differential equations by assuming experimentally determined profiles for velocity and temperature (or concentration).
Unfortunately, similarity approaches are strictly applicable only to discharges to semi-infinite water bodies.Hence, similarity theory cannot be applied with a great deal.of con-fidence to discharge flow behavior which is modified by a confining free sur-face or riverbed.The blowdown effluents from WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 are categorized as severely confined discharges because at low flow the discharge orifice size is of the same order of magnitude as the water depth.Therefore a similarity solution would not be expected to yield accurate results.Additionally, it is doubtful that the jet will detach from the river bottom because of the expected rapid dilution of the buoyancy, the jet-i nduced turbulence, and the intense river turbulence.
The confining nature of the stream (surface and bottom)is a factor which tends to decrease jet dilution compared with predicted discharge to a semi-infinite ambient.Conversely, turbulence in the Columbia River as in other swiftly-moving streams, is very in'tense and since similarity theory does not provide for ambient turbulence, this factor tends to cause greater dilution than theory would predict.Because of these limitations in applying the theory to the blowdown dis-charge, dilution for the very near field cannot be predicted very accu-rately.However, the theory is valuable for predicting the approximate tra-jectory of the plume and thus the point where cross-steam velocities become insignificant.
These simulations can indicate the importance of the initial jet behavior and the point at which the intermediate zone solution can con-fidently be started.The very near-field dynamic behavior and dilution has little influence on downstream conditions (i.e., at distances greater than 20 jet diameters downstream) in cases of discharge to swiftly moving streams.The effluent in Regime 2 is flowing downstream with a velocity equal to that of the river flow.However, both lateral and vertical diffusion processes are important and buoyant forces may need to be considered.
In this case, the advection-diffusi on transport equation for heat or other constituents can be applied.6.1-4 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER The downstream river velocity is assumed to be known a riori frcm river ve-locity transect data, and secondary (transverse and vertical flow effects are masked by mainstream turbulence.
In accordance with the definition of this regime, downstream velocity perturbations caused by the discharge effluent are also assumed to be insignificant compared to the mainstream flow.Considerable simplification may be achieved if the-turbulent behavior of the mainstream dominates buoyant effects.This behavior is typical of shallow, swiftly moving streams such as the river reach which will receive the WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 blowdown discharges.
Also, steady flow can be assumed for the analysis of selected blowdown and river flow conditions which do not vary rapidly with time.The advection-diffusion equation for Regime 2 can then be written: 3T 3T 3T=K-+K ax ya2 za2 where k y u k K z u and T=temperature x=downstream coordinate y=cross-stream coordinate z=vertical coordi nate u=downstream velocity component ky, kz=eddy diffusivities for heat in the y and z directions, respectively In this equati on downstream diffusi on has been eliminated because the contri-bution is small compared to downstream advection.
The following summarizes assumptions used in deriving the advection-diffusion equation: 1.The downstream velocity distribution, ur, is known a~riori from field data.2.Buoyancy effects are insignificant.
6.1-5 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER 3.Vertical and lateral velocity components are insignificant.
4.Eddy diffusivities are homogeneous, but possibly anisotropic.
5.Downstream diffusion is insignificant compared to downstream advecti on.6.The flow is steady in time (i.e., 8T/Bt=0).7.Atmospheric effects are insignificant.
The advection-diffusion equation has the form of the classical transient heat conduction equation and may be easily solved for any desired boundary condi-tion using well-tested numerical techniques.
For application to WNP-2 and WNP-1/4, an alternating direction implicit finite difference solution was used.Regime 3 is identified as the far field, where the effluent is moving down-stream passively and is fully mixed in the vertical dimension.
Atmospheric effects, i.e., heat transfer across the air-water interface may become signi-ficant.The approximate beginning of this region is ascertained by the cal-culation procedure outlined for Regime 2.Regime 3 was not modeled since Regime 2 assumptions were adequate to encompass the mixing zone.6.1.1.2 Ecolo ical Parameters
-A uatic Studies at the Hanford Site for more than 35 years have resulted in a sub-stantial amount of qualitative and quantitive information useful for impact assessment.
In addition, the Supply System has conducted a preliminary pro-gram including literature studies[f, 2)and field studies of the Columbia River from 1973-1980.'(15 16a 16>>(See Section 2.2.2 also.)These historic and preoperational studies have resulted in the knowledge of the com-position, structure, and function of the aquatic ecosystem and provided a basis for the design of the operational monitoring program.The preoperational program concentrated on obtaining baseline data from which impacts of plant operation can most probably be measured if'they should oc-cur.Accordingly, the portion of the river immediately adjacent to the plant site received the most attention as did the biota most likely affected.Monitoring of those aquatic populations unlikely to be affected by plant oper-ation was retained in the program, but with a lower level of effort.The major preoperational monitoring program tasks included benthic biota, fish, and plankton monitoring.
6.1-6 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2" ER The preoperational program was curtailed in March 1980 with the concurrence of the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC).(>>i These studies provide a continuous data series on the natural variations in the sea-4 sonal occurrence and abundance of important aquatic species near the WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 sites from 1973 through early 1980.This knowledge of the extent of natural variations permits evaluation of changes in the abundance of important aquatic species in the vicinity of the projects before and after operation.
A comparison of changes in species abundance in the vicinity of the intake and discharge in relation to changes in control areas outside the influence of the plant will be made before and after operation.
Benthic Or anisms.Alterations of the Columbia River aquatic biota due to the influence of the plant effluent should be most readily indicated by changes in the structure of the benthic community in the irmydiate vicinjty of the dis-charges.The Supply System's aquatic ecological L15s 16a-16f)program has characterized the composition, density and seasonal abundance of the benthic fauna near WNP-2 and WNP-1/4.The preoperational benthic program focused on[4 the benthic flora and fauna in the area of expected discharge impact.Figure 6.1-1 indicates sampling locations for the aquatic biota program.Station 1 above and Station 8 below the area influenced by the discharge plume and Stations 7 and 11 in the plume were utilized.These stations were sampled four times per year (March, June, September, and December)to establish baseline information on comnunity composition and abundance.
For benthic fauna, rock-filled baskets were incubated on the bottom for three months.On recovery, species composition, biomass and commuinity dominance were deter-mined.For benthic flora, glass microscope slides were incubated at the same sites as the rock-filled baskets and sampled on the same frequency.
gualita-tive species analysis, chlorophyll-a and biomass measurements were made.Replicate benthic flora and fauna samples were taken to allow for statistical analysis of community changes.Fish.Identification of the species present in the Hanford stretch of the rsver is essentially complete.The Supply System's program has examined the spatial, and temporal distribution, species relative abundance, age structure and feeding habits of fish found near the site.In the preoperational program, emphasis was placed on fish found in the immediate vicinity of the intake and the discharge plume.Species and numbers of fish residing season-ally near the plant were examined with particular attention given to anadro-mous outmigrants.
Samples were obtained using one or more of the following sampling methods: hoop-nets, electroshocking, gill netting or beach seining.Sampling locations for each of these methods are shown in Figure 6.1-1.A tag and release program was used in an attempt to determine population size and time of residence within the study area.Fish sampling was conducted at least monthly, February through October.Table~4 6.1-2 provides the sampling frequency by method.6.1-7 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER 4I 1 Plankton.Some fraction of the river's plankton will be drawn into the plant with the cooling water and another fraction will be exposed to the effects of entrainment in the discharge plume.The numbers so affected are an extremely small fraction of the population passing the plant.Studies conducted by the Supply System on the Columbia River indicate that planktonic algae and micro-crustaceans in the aquatic system near WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 do not have a major role in energy transfer pathways.No significant impact on the plankton com-munity is expected because of the small volume of water withdrawn by WNP-2, and the small volume influenced by the discharged water compared to the total river flow.Nonetheless, phyto and zooplankton studies were conducted, on a limited basis.Investigations by the Supply System indicate that samples representative of j:he rjveq plankton population may be obtained from any one station and depth.'115.
~6ai Therefore, during the preoperational program monthly plankton samples were taken at one station (Station 1, Figure 6.1-1)and one depth.These samples were used to determine phyto and zooplankton species relative abundance and baseline biomass.This program provided a con-tinuouss indicator of changes in the plankton population.
Groundwater The Department of Ener gy (DOE)through its contractors has drilled about 1,500 wells on the Hanford Reservation.(>>>
Nore than 20 wells are located withi n 5 miles of the pqgjpct site and 6 wells are installed in the iomediate vicin-ity.of the site;<~">see Figure 2.4-15.Extensive environmental monitoring programs concerni ng the physical, chemical and radiological characteristics of groundwater have been conducted under the DOE auspices<18a).
These monitoring programs and investigations have al-ready accumulated quite comprehensive information on groundwater character-istics and are expected to'e continued routinely as part of the DOE program.The Supply System has no plans to monitor non-radiological groundwater quality parameters during the preoperational phase.'.1.3 Air 1.3.1 Onsite meteorological data were collected at the WNP-2 site from April 1, 1974 through May 31, 1976.The meteorological data collection system consisted of a 245-ft tower, an auxiliary 7-ft instrument mast, sensors with associated electronics and recording devices, and a meteorological building.A temporary meteorological system began collecting data at the same location in March 1972 and was discontinued (September 1974)once the satisfactory op-eration of the new system was verified.The temporary meteorological system consisted of a 23-ft mast with an aerovane wind sen'sor.Data was recorded on chart paper.Air temperature and relative humidity were recorded by use of a hygrothermograph in an adjacent weather screen.6.1-8 Amendment 4 October 1980 The permanent meteorological system consists of a primary tower 240;ft high with an extending 5-ft mast.The primary tower is triangular in shape and of open lattice construction to minimize tower interference with meteorological measurements.
Wind and temperature measurements on the main tower were made at the 245-ft and 33-ft levels.At the 33-ft level the instruments (wind, temperature, and dewpoint)were mounted on an 8-ft horizontal boom extending west-northwest of the tower.Mind and temperature measurements were also made at the top of the 7-ft mast which is located approximately 80 ft to the southwest of the 240-ft tower.Wind speed measurements wer e made using, conventional cup anemometers (Climet Instruments, Nodel 01101 Mind Speed Transmitter).
The instruments have a re-sponse threshold of about 0.6 mph and an accuracy of+15 or 0.15 mph (whichever is greater)over a range of 0.6 to 90 mph.The instruments were 4 calibrated at speeds between approximately 5 and 20 mph.Wind direction measurements were made using lightweight vanes (Climet Instru-ments, Model 012-1 10 Wind Direction Transmitter).
The response threshold of these vanes is about 0.75 mph, and their damping ratio and distance constant are approximately 0.4 and 3.3 ft, respectively.
Dual potentiometers in the wind direction transmitter produce an electrical signal covering 540o in azimuth with an accuracy of within+2o.Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER In addition, electronics have been included to provide signals which are proportional to the standard deviation (v6)of the wind direction fluctuations at each level.Temper'ature instrumentation provided measurements of both the ambient air temperature at the 245, 33, and 7-ft levels and the temperature differences between these levels.The ambient air temperature and the temperature difference sensors are independent of each other to provide reliability.
All temperature measurements for both systems are made in aspirated temperature shields (Climet Instruments Model 016-1 or-2)using platinum resistance temperature devices (Rosemount Engineering Co., Model 104 MB6ABCA).These instruments provide an ambient temperature range from-30 F to+130 F and a temperature difference range of+15 F.The accuracy of the instruments exceeds+0.9 F in tEe measurement of temperatures and+0.18 F in the measurement of temperature differences.
The dewpoint temperature was measured at the 33-ft level of the tower using a lithium chloride dewpoint sensor (Climet Instruments, Model 015-1 12)housed in an aspirated tempera-ture shield (Climet Instruments, Model 016-2).The accuracy of this measurement in the normal range, of measurement is better than+0.9 F.Precipitation was measured at ground level using a tipping bucket rain gage (Meteorology Research, Model 302)located about 40 ft west of the'ain tower.This instrument, is accurate to within+1%at rainfall rates,up to 3 in./hr and has a resolution of 0.01 in.The instrument building provided a climate-controlled environ-ment near the tower,.to ho'use'the instrument electronics and record the data,.Both digital magnetic tape'and analog strip chart recorders were used providing redundant data recording capability.
The primary data recording system is a, 2-track digital magnetic tape rec'order'Kennedy, Model 1600)that uses lj'2-in.tape.Logarithmically, time-averaged wind speed, wind direction,.temperature, temperature difference, and dewpoint temperature signals were recorded at 5-minute intervals.
The time constant of the averaging process is 5 to 15 minutes.The standard deviation of wind direction fluctuations during the prec'eding 5 minutes at each level and the.total precipitation were recorded along with the wind and temperature information.
All data, except the wind direction, standard deviations, were recorded on strip 6.1-10 Amendment 1 May 1978 NNP-2 ER charts.Besides enhancing data retrievability, the strip chart records provided a rapid means of identifying instrument malfunctions and were useful in system calibration.
Strip charts and magnetic tapes were changed weekly.In summary, the total system (sensor, recorder, analysis, etc.)accuracies for the measured meteorological parameters meet or exceed the following specifications:
air temperature temperature difference humidity (dew point,)wind speed wind direction+0.5 C 0 2oC+0.5 C,+0.5 mph~50 These are verified by the end-to-end calibrations.
Data recovery was better than 90%.To ensure the quality of the meteorological data collected by the monitoring system, an extensive quality assurance program was instituted.
This program covered all phases of meteorological monitoring from the initial instrument acquisition through the analysis of data.Periodic checks and calibration of the instrument systems and individual components were instituted.
These periodic checks ranged from daily inspection of the strip charts to semiannual calibration of the complete system.Calibrations were performed at three-month intervals during the duration of data collection (April 1, 1974-liay 31, 1976).Pull system (system electronics and sensors)calibrations were performed (dated)July, October 1974, April, October 1975, and April 1976.Calibrations of just the system electronics were performed at the intervals between.Prior to April 1, 1974 the system was calibrated by the vendor.The final calibration, prior to shutdown, was an electronics calibration during June 1976.All checks, calibrations, and maintenance were fully docu-.mented including traceability of test and calibration equip-ment to the National Bureau of Standards where necessary.
These calibrations and routine daily and weekly inspections demonstrated that the meteorological system remained electronicallv stable in terms of obtaining data of sufficient quality to meet the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.23.Corrections to the'ata have been applied per the quarterly calibration gindings and all data have been summarized in the form of monthl'y reports.The data, once collected, were protected, from loss to the maximum extent possible.The digital tapes were examined to identify possible instrumentation malfunctions.
The data were then copied onto two'aster tapes.The'riginal weekly tape and one master tape were stored in vaults.The second Raster.tape was used in the preparation of data summaries.
6.1-11 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER Finally, to ensure proper operation of computer hardware and'oftware, all computer programs used to summarize or analyze the data were checked quarterly.
These checks were per-formed using a standard data input.The computer output from these tests was saved to document computer operation.
6.1.3.2 Models Dis ersion Estimates.
Short-term diffusion yy$ipgfes were made xn accordance with applicable documentssing data from the 245-ft meteorology tower at the NNP-2 site.The basic Gaussian diffusion model for a groundlevel release is employed using lateral (ay)and vertical (a)~p'ead parameters determined experimentally at HanforB.(For long-term diffusion estimates, the Hanford speed para-meters are used in the Gaussian diffusion model for a ground-level release.Assumptions in the calculation are reflection of the plume at the ground, no plume depletion by surface deposition or washout, and uniform'occurrence of the plume within each sector.The appropriate form of the Gaussian model is 2n Q.(2~)~g (2)6.l-lla Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER where~=normalized air concentration Q n=number of sectors u=mean wind speed Sixteen sectors were used.The values of ay and vz used for stable atmospheric conditions pere determined experimen-tally at Hanford and are given by:<2=A a=At-2 1-exp 2(a u)e 2 (aou)t (3)13.0+232aou (4)a=a 1-exp(-k t)+bt 2=2 2 z (5)x/u (6)where t=time x=downwind distance a=horizontal wind-direction standard deviation e=and the coefficients are given as: Moderately Stable 97 m 2 Ver Stable 34 m b 0.33 m/sec k 2.5 x 10 sec 0.025 m/sec 8.8 x 10 sec (8)"For neutral and unstable atmospheric conditions the Sutton f ormulations a=-x 2 y (2 m)2 (7)2 2 z (2-m)a=-x z 2 6.1-12 l'KP-2 ER used where the coefficients for a groundlevel release are given as: C C Wind Speed m/sec 0.10<u<2.0 2.0<u<7.0 7.0<u 0.22<u<2.0 2.0<U<7.0 7.0<u Unstable 0.35 0.30 0.28 0.35 0.30 0.28 0.20 Neutral 0.21 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.25 For the purpose of comparison, the dT stability classifica-tion that.has been used in diffusion studies at Hanford, and which has been used here, is compared with the hT/hz Pasquill classes identified in the AEC Regulatory Guide 1.23 (where hT=change in air temperature and b,z=change in vertical distance):
Re ulatory Guide 1.23 Pasteur.ll DT hz Class ('F/200 ft)Definition for Hanford Di fusion Parameters Class 6T hz ('F 200 ft)<-2.1 Unstable<-1.5 e-2.1 to-1.9-1.9 to-1.6 Neutral-0.5 to-1.5 D-1.6-0.6 to-0.6 to 1.6'Moderately Stable 3.5 to-0.5 1.6 to 4.4>4.4 Very Stable>3.5 The above described model is consistent with standard methods with the exception that the plume growth rates used are those 6.1-13 WNP-2 ER determined to be most.appropriate for the Hanford area based upon many diffusion'xperiments at.Hanford.(9)To demonstrate the effect of dilution in the building wake cavity on estimates of sector-averaged values (crosswind integrated), v was replaced by z 1/2 a+cB z IT where c=empirical coefficient, conservatively taken as 0.5 B=cross-sectional area of building normal to wind Hourly 30-minute averages of a and hT were used to determine the plume growth parameters, a5 discussed above, and x/Q for each hour of the year for each sector and selected distances.
For calm wind conditions, a speed of 0.22 mph was assumed (threshold of the instrument);
for a less than 1', a value of 1'as assumed.The straight-line Gaussian diffusion model using empirically derived diffusion coefficients based on Hanford experimental data is expected to provide the best estimate of transport and dispersion for the WNP-2 site.The Hanford dispersion parameters described above are particularly applicable, since they are based on the results of numerous field tracer studies over local terrain representative of the terrain downwind of WNP-2 out to the distances where the maximum individual doses and population doses are computed.Based on available information, the inherent transport assumptions of the straight-line Gaussian methodology will not cause a substantial underestimate'f individual or population doses.Additional discussion of the adequacy of the Gaussian diffusion model is given in Section 2.3.5.2 of the FSAR.Methods Used for Modelin Coolin Tower Atmos heric Plumes.A computer program, utilizing diffusion and cumulus cloud models was used to estimate'he environmental effects of the circular mechanical draft evaporative cooling tower.Because the cooling tower analysis preceded the availability of data from the permanent, onsite meteorological system, one year of onsite hourly data from the temporary meteorological system was combined with hourly stability data from the Hanford meteorology tower for the analysis.Individual plume characteristics are calculated and the results summarized in monthly and annual tables./6.1-14 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER The plume rise from the circular mechanical draft cooling towers of WNP-2 are calculated using a mygj$ied heat input term in the Briggs plume rise equations.
This heat~24 input term was calculated based on the Weinstein and Davis cumulus cloud model at 0400 and 1600 hours0.0185 days <br />0.444 hours <br />0.00265 weeks <br />6.088e-4 months <br /> each day.The cumulus cloud model and the Briggs model predictions were compared and correction factors calculated for the heat input to the Briggs model.The correction factors were then linearly interpolated for other hours and applied to the Briggs model predictions for those hours.The plume rise est'mates were used to define the centerline of the plume, while the prevailing wind direction defined the direction of movement.It was assumed that for a given set of design and meteoro-logical conditons, vapor leaving a cooling tower diffuses 6.1-14a Amendment 1 May 1978
WNP-2 ER outward from the center of a plume according to the Gaussian plume formula regardless of whether some of the vapor condenses to fog.The criteria for visible plume formation and subse-quent dissipation were based on a comparison of the calculated water vapor concentration of the plume and the corresponding value from a curve of saturation vapor pressure as a function of temperature.
Whenever the latter was the greater quantity, the plume was assumed to be no longer visible.If ground fog is predicted to be present at a given distance, the width of the plume at groundlevel is determined by the relationship, Y=3 (a)ln (Xmax X (10)When Y is the plume width, Xmax is the maximum value of X along the centerline, and X is the minimum humidity asso-ciated with fogging based on ambient conditions.
The analysis was performed for an entire year of data.The results of visible plume lengths, widths, and ground inter-actions as a function of distance and direction were tabulated for all conditions, and for freezing conditions.
The results are given in Section 5.1.4.Although this model is a combination of a number of physical processes for which experimental verification is available, an overall verification of the plume estimates with field data has not been performed.
The impact estimates can be expected to be generally conservative as a result of the choice of conservative assumptions relative to plume rise and water source term.A more detailed discussion of the model, assumptions, and results is contained in Reference 26.Drift Im act Model.The drift estimates are based upon the graphical method of estimating deposition rates of salts from evaporative cooling towers developed by Hosier et al.(27)They describe the problem as follows: "Drift drops are car-ried by the plume updraft up to a certain height and then they fall to the ground while traveling with the wind.The surface over which this salt will be distributed depends on the wind speed and the time the drops will spend in the air.This time depends on the maximum height the drop reaches and the drop fall velocity.The fall velocity of the drift drops is reduced with time because of evaporation.
The rate and extent of evaporation depends on: 1)salt concentration, which regulates vapor pressure, 2)size of the droplet, and 3)ambient rela-tive humidity.For the same environmental conditions, drops of different sizes may or may not achieve the same degree of evaporation before reaching the ground.To simplify the pro-blem only three degrees of evaporation were considered:
1)no evaporation, 2)evaporation to saturated solution, and 6.1-15 WNP-2 ER 3)evaporation to dry salt particles..A graph was constructed for each degree of evaporation.
These graphs can be used to determine the surface to be covered by the salt, from the knowledge of the drift mass distribution as a function of drop size, the salt concentration, the maximum height of the drop, and the wind speed.(the cited model: 18.2 m 610,000 gpm 4.2 x 10 310 gpm 36 fps Height of tower Water circulated per unit time (b)Mass of salt per mass of circulating water(a)Drift (0.05%of circulated water)Stack exit velocity Table 6.1-1 lists the mass size distribution of drift droplets.Based on long-term climatological records at the Hanford Meteorological Station (HMS), the year was divided into two primary classes: 1)summer (April through September), when relative humidities averaged 40%and 2)winter (October through March), when relative humidities averaged 78%.Plume height was allowed to vary with atmospheric stability.
The hei,ghts used were based on estimates made by Woodruff et al.<")for mechanical draft cooling tower plumes.Presumptions were that the plume would rise to a height of 1000 ft above stack top during summer neutral and unstable atmospheres, and to 330 ft during summer stable atmospheres.
During winter the comparable heights for neutral/unstable and for stable situations were 1300 ft and 430 ft, respectively.
Hosier et al.(27)found minimal differences in deposition rates calculated by using mean wind speeds and by using observed wind speed distribution.
Mean speeds observed at the 400-ft (a)(b)(c)Thz.s value is five times the average of dissolved con-stituents of the Columbia River during 1969-70.The additional concentration is presumed to account for"distillation" in the cooling tower evaporation process.There is an additional mass of salts added to the river water as it enters the cooling system, but this addition amounts to only 1/610 of that contributed by the raw river water, and thus is ignored in the calculations.
Larger than final design value of 570,000 gpm.Final design value is 285 gpm.6.1-16 WNP-2 ER elevation at the Hanford Meteorological Station were used in the calculations.
Xt was assumed that the period 0600 to 1800 hours0.0208 days <br />0.5 hours <br />0.00298 weeks <br />6.849e-4 months <br /> daily was thermally unstable or neutral, and that the nighttime period, 1800 to 0600 hours0.00694 days <br />0.167 hours <br />9.920635e-4 weeks <br />2.283e-4 months <br />, experienced stable atmospheres.
Mean 400-ft wind speeds associated with these periods were 9.5 mph for winter days, and 10.9 mph=for winter nights.'offman and Van Vleck show that the state-of-the-art (28)of predicting the salt deposition from drift, droplets is such that the values obtained by various methods vary by a factor of+10.The present estimates are considered a maximum as a result of the choice of generally conserva-tive assumptions for the calculation.
As a result of the small quantities of nonradiological air pollutants to be released, the Applicant does not propose to initiate a nonradiological preoperational air quality monitoring program.An independent system is operated by the Hanford Environmental Health Foundation.
This program includes measurement.
at several locations in the Hanford area of airborne particulates, S02 and NO2.These measure-ments as well as other air quality aspects of the site have been discussed in the PSAR (Section 2.3.1).6.1.4 Land Much applicable land-monitoring information related to the WNP-2 site has been collected over the years by ERDA.(17)Research field studies, particularly of soils and terres-trial ecology, were carried out on the Hanford Reservation by ERDA contractors.
Thus, the data base in this case is substantial with regard to land monitoring information.
6.1.4.1 Geolo and Soils The Hanford Project, including the WNP-2 site, has been the object of many geologic studies, mainly of a topical nature.McHenry(30) characterized the chemical and physical proper-ties of soils of the project from drilling samples collected from approximately 40 wells spaced about the project.Hajek(31)classified the soils of the project.on an agri-cultural basis.Earlier topical geology studies, related primarily to aspects of radioactive waste disposal, included subsurface geology of the Hanford area, identification of stratigraphic units, correlation of volcanic flows, and aquifer descriptions.(32 37)6.1-17 WNP-2 ER Additional and detailed information on geologic studies, soil boring patterns, and analytical and testing methods used are contained in the Final Safety Analysis Report.Although research studies have been carried out over a number of years con-cerning terrestrial ecology on the Hanford Reservation, none of these studies have been aimed at assessing impacts of cooling tower drift.Cooling tower drift will be a new kind of environmental stress for Hanford Reservation ecosystems.
'TW wegetative cover growing in the near vicinity of the cooling towers con-sists pr imarily of cheatgrass, Bromus tectorum.This grass provides the main biotic protection against soil cross on.Because the climate is dry, salt dis-solved'in drift droplets is expected to accumulate in the soil profile.Salt accumulation is expected to be most concentrated near the base of the cooling tower and rapidly decrease with increasing distance from the tower.The longer the cooling towers are operational, the more intense the salt accumulation.
Although it is expected that cheatgrass will be tolerant of moderate increases>
in soil salt and pH values, there are no data presently available to judge the'agnitude of increased soil salt concentrations needed to significantly impair the germi nability of cheatgrass seeds.This is an important point because cheatgrass is an annual grass and the stand originates from seed each year and there is no known plant that is as successful in this habitat as is cheatgrass.
A preoperati onal monitoring program to detect and assess si gnificant changes in soil chemistry in the vicinity of WNP-1/4 and WNP-2 caused by salt drift will be initiated prior to plant operation.
Soil samples will be collected at study plots located at distances bracketing the area of expected maximum im-pact in the predominant downwind directions (N and SE).A control plot in similar soil, but removed from influence of the cooling tower plumes, will be selected.Each study plot will be marked so that the same plot can be exam-ined during post-operational monitoring.
Less than optimum locations may have to be selected to avoid undisturbed soil and working areas.At each study plot, composite samples will be taken to a depth of approxi-mately six (6)inches below the surface.Samples will be analyzed for salt content, electrical conductivity, and pH.Chemical analyses will be for the dominant ions in the cooling tower drift and in the soil: the cations Ca, Mg, Na, and K and the anions C03, HC03, S04, and Cl.6.1-18 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER 6.1.4.2 Land Use and Demo ra hic Surve s Land use in the immediate vicinity of the WNP-2 site is under the control of Department of Energy (previously ERDA), and the staff of the Richland Operations Office provided the source material required for land use descriptions of Hanford Project facilities.
Additional information related to off-project land uses was obtained primarily from the Bureau of Reclamation Regional Office, which is responsible for much of the land development in surrounding areas, from the Soil Conservation Service, and from the Washington State Depart-ment.of Agriculture.
Some.information was provided by the County Planning Offices in adjacent counties;however, this was generally related to county zoning rather than actual current land use.The collected published data were supple-mented with information obtained from personal conversation with county planning and other local, county, State and Federal agency officials and through reconnaissance surveys of those areas where missing or questionable data were concerned.
Demographic data for the latest census year (1970)were obtained from Bureau of the Census publications.
Informa-tion for population projections was available from the'Washington g$~e Office of Program planning and Fiscal Management,'he Portland Btyts University Center for Population Resegcf and Census, the Bonneville power)Administratjggj the Pacific Northwe])giver Basins Commission, Pacific Norg2@qst Bell, and the Tri-City Nuclear Industrial Council.'Rural population trends were based also.on estimaggI developed for the Columbia Basin Development League.'nformation from these sources were used by the Applicant to project population for fufure census years over the expected life of the plant.<" In conjunction with the construction of WNP-1 and-4, the Applicant is conducting a program to monitor the socioeconomic effects.The results of this study will be partially appli-cable to WNP;2.The purpose of the study is to document, assess,.and project the primary and secondary socioeconomic effects and impacts of construction and operation of WNP-1 and-4.Two phases are defined in implementing the study.The first phase will emphasize measurement and documentation
, of socioeconomic effects into the peak of construction of the WNP-1 and WNP-4 projects.Preliminary reports will be on an annual basis for each of these years.The second phase of the, study will be to prepare a final report which vill;1)make an evaluation of the accuracy og a previously conducted impact projection report and 2)make new pro-jections, if found necessary, independent of the previous study,,Based on u~$~tyd information developed in the pre-liIrjinary reports., Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER-OL The important socioeconomic factors expected to be studied in detail are list-ed below: o in-migrant workers and families o resident workers and families o the relationship between contract construction on WNP-1 and-4 and secondary employment o economic'onditions in the study area o schools o housing a I o government services and facilities o traffic flow and transportation o social and health services o police and fire protection 6.1.4e3 Terrestrial Ecolo The important local flora and fauna are being identified to the species level, 1 and the relationships of the fauna to the vegetation and to the salient cli-matic and soil features of the local environment are being described (48-51).The Bald Eagle is the only threatened animal species to occur in the area.No other Federally designated threatened or endangered animals or plants live in the area.Recommendations will be made to preserve special habitats necessary for the continued protection of such species should they occur.The impor'tant shrub-steppe food chains are also being identified.
The preoperational monitoring program will focus'on establishing a baseline for evaluating cooling tower drift effects.h.11dh h 1 1 dd d 1<<h s>te and adjacent area were made by the Supply System to provide a'basis for mapping the extent of existing plant communities between the plant site.and the Columbia River.Photography is not believed to$e pophisticated enough to detect incipient changes due to cool'ing tower drift.<48>
Future terrestrial impact assessment will rely on analysis of vegetation study p(NP and soil chemistry data (Section 6.1.4.1)but not aerial photography.
6.1-20 Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER-OL Ve etational Anal ses.A program to establish a data base for terreqtrial ecosystems in the vicinity of WNP-1, 2, and 4 was initiated in 1974.(48)Vegetation study areas were established at five locations within approximately one mile of the site.Two of these plots are located within an area burned by wildfire in 1970 and thr ee are in areas that escaped the fire.Figure 6.1-2 shows the location of terrestrial ecology study sites.Knowledge from these studies wi 11 apply to construction impacts because the 1970 fire was extremely hot, destroying virtually all plant life and all seeds which would have nor-mally germinated the next year.As with construction areas, vegetation of these areas depends on new seeds blowing in from unburned areas.Species composition and relative abundance of seed plants at the five study plots were measured according to a canopy cover method of vegytagional anal-ysis developed for shrub-steppe and meadow-steppe vegetation.(38J The per-cent of canopy (ground)cover provided by various botanical categories for 1975 through 1978 is shown in Figure 6.1-4.The dominant species in burned and unburned areas is cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)which comprises almost all the annual grass category.The primary productivity (grams of dry matter produced per square meter per year)of the Hanford bitterbuyg-qheatgrass ecosystem is similar to other United States arid land ecosystems.(>>)
The data presented in Figure 6.1-5 reflects that pri-mary productivity varies from year to year depending upon the weather and other environmental variables.
The preoperational monitoring program will include continued analyses of plant communities on the five (5)previously established study plots.Field exami-nation of these plots and a control will be conducted yearly at the time of peak flowering.
Primary productivity, canopy cover,'nd frequency of occur-rence will be obtained.The emphasis of preoperational studies will be to establish a baseline for assessing impacts on indigenous vegetation caused by cooling tower drift.Vegetation study plots are established>>adjacent to the soil sampling plots discussed in Section 6.1.4.1.Litterfall sampling was performed in 1979 and 1980.Due to the extreme variability seen in the collection it is question-able whether this method could be used to detect changes in shrub productivity over gimp.Accordingly, the Supply System, w'ith the concurrance of EFSECi>>i, has deleted this approach from the terrestrial monitoring pro-gramso Animal Studies.Studies have focused on censuses of manmals and birds in the vicinity of the site.Small mammal populations were sampled using a live trap-mark-release-recapture technique in two contrasting plant communities.
One is a burned community, dominated by cheatgr ass, and the other is an un-burned, shrub-dominated community (Figure 6.1-2).Trapping is done.period-ically throughout the year to obtain information concerning the seasonal ap-pearance of young animals.The weights, age, sex, general health, and the occurrence of external parasites are recorded before release.6.1-21 Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER-OL The small mammal population is dominated by one species, the Great Basin Pocket Mouse.The pocket mouse population varies greatly according to the season of the year.The largest population normally occurs in late summer with the addition of young animals.A comparison of pocket catches in burned and unburned study plots is shown below: Year Unburned S rin Summer Burned S rin Summer 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 36 52 43 15 64 46 27*53 30 56 27 8 7 1 9 TO 29 13*2 14 5*Trapping session conducted in July These data indicate that a large population of pocket mice resides in the un-burned plot and only a small population resides on the burned plot.It is not known if the small population on the burned plot is a result of the burning or whether some other factors are involved (i.e., predation).
Analysis of the 1974-1979 pocket mice data indicates that about one-half percent of the total pocket mouse habitat on the Hanford Site may be already effected by construc-tion of WNP-2 and WNP-1/4.Based on the low level of impact and the project that future impacts would not be more sever e, pocket mice studies were deleted from the environmental monitoring program in 1981.(53)An aerial census of larger mammals, i.e., deer and coyote, was made once in winter to obtain an estimate of the use of the local areas.A land census of deer and rabbits was initiated in 1981.(53)The pellet group count tech-nique will be performed semiannually on sample plots to obtain an estimate of use of the WNP-1, 2 and 4 site by these animals.Bird surveys have been taken on a twenty (20)acre study plot near WNP-2.Only three resident species were spotted during a three-day period in June 1976.The total was fourteen (14)Western Meadowlarks, six (6)Horned Larks, and two (2)Shrikes.The 1977 and 1978 results are similar to those of 1978.(51)In 1981, four new 20 acre sample plots were established in shrub and river habitats.(53)
Species composition and density of birds will be determined during spring and fall censuses.Studies to date have revealed no detrimental effects of plant construction on the indigenous animal and bird populations.
Plant operation is expected to be less disruptive and detrimental than plant construction.
6.1-22 Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER 6.1.6 Radiolo ical Monitorin The preoperational program is designed to provide measurements of radiation and radioactive materials in those exposure pathways, and for those radio-nuclides, which are expected to lead to the highest radiation exposures of i ndi vi dual s f rom the operati on of WNP-2.The preoperati onal program wi 1 1 begin two (2)years prior to the fuel loading of WNP-2, and follow the dur-ation speci,ied in the schedule below: Two years of sampling for: Direct radiation Fish Vegetati on Sediment One year of sampling for: Airborne particulate Milk (except iodine)River water Drinking water Ground water Six (6)months of sampling for: Airborne iodine Milk (iodine)The preoperational program objectives are to measure background levels and their variations in exposure pathways surrounding the site;to train person-nel;and to evaluate procedures, equipment, and techniques.
Table 6.1-3 describes the sample type, approximate location, sample collec-tionn, and analyses to be performed on each sample.Analytical techniques will be used such that the detection capabilities in Table 6.1-5 are achieved.Figure 6.1-3 shows the approximate location of the stations, and Table 6.1-4 shows the samples to be obtai ned at each stati on.Airborne sample stati ons have been chosen based on the projected population distribution around the site, adjacent land use, and meterorological data pre-sented in Chapter 2.Airborne measurements will be obtained from the vicinity of a residence which has the highest calculated atmospheric dilution factor., In selecting the locations, special attention was given to the zone within a ten mile radius of the site, especially areas in the prevailing down-wind directi on.6.1-23 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER Consideration was also given to existing facilities on the Hanford Reservation in selecting these stations.In the terrestrial monitoring part of this program (vegetation and farm products), the area within a ten-mile radius of the site is of concern, and attention is given to the area of Franklin County which uses Columbia River water for irrigation and is in the previling downwind direction.
Samples collected will be those primary food chain components available which lead to man.Milk samples will be obtained from farms or individual milk animals which are located in sectors with the higher calculated annual average atmospheric dilution factors.,Aquatic sampling locations have been chosen based on the need to determine the WNP-2 impact on the aquatic environs separately from other facilities on the Hanford Reservation.
The intake water will be sampled to identify the isotopes and concentrations present prior to use by WNP-2.The water from the discharge line will be sampled prior to dilution by the Columbia River, and analysis will identify the isotopes and their concentrations which may be due to WNP-2 operation.
Similar samples will be taken from the WNP-1/4 intake and discharge when those units begin operation.
The Columbia River will be sampled at the first downstream user which is the Department of Energy (DOE)300 Area.The water will be sampled, prior to any treatment or.mixing, in the vicinity of the river water intake.The City of Richland drinking water will be sampled at the Municipal Water Treatment Plant.This will be representative of the water consumed and not of that withdrawn from the river.Ground water will be obtained from wells on the site which are being used to provide drinking water for construction workers.Fish will be obtained from the area of the plant discharge and,since there is no commerical fishing in this area of the river, the species selected will be those which are seasonally available.
Due to the veloci,ty of the Columbia River in area of the site, sedimen-tary deposits are minimal and will be obtained from available areas above and below the discharge.
The type of analysis to be performed for the various media was chosen to provide measurements of radionuclides fr'om which the population doses may be estimated or verified to be below that specified in Appends I, 10CFR50.In some cases, the analysis provides a trend indicator, and will signal the need to perform additional specific analyses of individual samples'.The frequencies selected are those expected to minimize the effect of day-to-day variations, and provide an adequate quantity of sample,to meet.minimum sensitivity requirements of Table 6.1-5.The samples will provide statistically valid data which is used to compare to subsequent results, and detect changes from expected~Blues, 6.1-24 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER'TABLE 6;-l-l MASS SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF DRIFT DROPLETS (Mechanical Draft Tower)Diameter, pm Percent of Mass 0-50 50-100 100-150 150-200 200-250 250-300 300-350 20 21 16 13 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER TABLE 6.1-2 FISH SAMPLING FREQUENCY BY STATION AND METHODa Frequency Month Per Month Beach Seine Hoop Gill/c Electro-Net Travel Shockin January 1 no sample no sample 4 stations no sample February 1 6 stations no sample 4 stations no sample March 1 6 stations no sample 4 stations April 2 6 stations no sample 4 stations May 2 6 stati ons 4 stati ons 4 stati ons June 2 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations July 1 6 stati ons 4 stati ons 4 stati ons August September 1 October 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations 6 stations 4 stations 4 stations N ovember 1 December 1 no sample no sample 4 stations no sample no sample no sample 4 stations no sample aSee Figure 6.1-1 for sample sites bTwice monthly 4 cGill net sampling was terminated in July 1979 per EFSEC Resolution No.157 Amendment 4 October 1980 HR TABLE 6.1-3 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONhlENTAL hlONITORING PROGRAM Sam le T e Airborne Particulate and Radioiodine Direct Radiation4 River Water rt Locations 1.2 miles S of WNP-2 1.5 miles NNE of WNP-2 2.0 miles SE of WNP-2 9 miles SSE of WNP-2 7 miles SE of WNP-2 8 miles S of WNP-2 3 miles WNW of WNP-2 4.2 miles ESE of WNP-2 30 miles WSW of WNP-2 1.2 miles S of WNP-2 1.5 miles NNE of WNP-2 2.0 miles SE of WNP-2 9 miles SSE of WNP-2 7 milses SE of WNP-2 8 miles S of WNP-2 3 miles WNW of WNP-2 4.2 miles ESE of WNP-2 30 miles WSÃof WNP-2 3 miles E of WNP-2 3 miles ENE of WNP-2 7 miles NNW of WNP-2 13 stations at 22~~sectors Intake WNP-1/4s Discharge WNP-1/4 Intake WNP-2 Discharge WNP-2 Sampling and Collection Fre uenc Continuous Sampling Weekly Collection Quarterly, Annually Composite Aliquots for month Type and Frequency of Anal sis Particulate:
Gross B~Gamma isotopic'n quarterly composite (by location)Radioiodine:
Gamma for I-131 Meekly Gamma Dose Gamma isotopic Tritium NNP-2 ER TABLE'6.'1-3 (Continued)
Sam le T e 1 Location Sampling and Collection Fre uenc Type and Frequency of Anal sis Drinking Nater 7 miles ERDA 300 Area'll miles Richland I'(ater Treatment Plant Composite aliquots for month Gamma isotopic Tritium7 Ground Naters tl well NNP-2 N2 well IMP-2 well I'INP-1 well NNP-4 Quarterly Gamma isotopic Tritium Sediment~l mile upstream~2 miles downstream Semi-annually Gamma isotope.'cs h1ilks Closest milk animal Farm SE~7 miles SE Farm SE~8 miles ESE Control, 30 miles NSN Semi-monthly grazing season Monthly at other times Gamma isotopic Iodine-131 Fish 4 in vicinity of discharge 1 control Snake River Semi-annually Gamma isotopic Fruit and Vegetables Nithin 10 mile radius hIonthly during growing season Gamma isotopic~Deviation may be required if samples are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions, seasonal availability, malfunction of automatic sampling equipment, or other legitimate reasons.All deviations will be documented in the annual report.~Particulate sample filters will be analyzed for gross Beta after at least 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> decay.If gross Beta activity is greater than 10 times the mean of the control sample, gamma isotopic anal-ysis should be performed on the individual sample.Gamma isotopic means identification and quantification of gamma emitting radionuclides that may be attributable to the effluents of the facility.
WNP+TABLE 6.1-3 (Continued) 4 Thermoluminescent Dosimeter (TLD)badges which contain 3-5 chips will be used.Each station will have two badges;one will be changed each quarter and one will be changed annually.The badges in each 22<sector will be placed at the exclusion areas of the plants.5 Sampling of the river water from the intake and discharge of 18lP-1/4 will begin at least 60 days prior to the fuel loading for NNP-l.<Composite samples will be collected with equipment which is capable of collecting an aliquot at time intervals which are short relative to the compositing period.7 Tritium analysis will be performed on a quarterly composited sample.8 Wells sampled will be those which are being used to provide drinking water for construction personnel at each of the plants.~Milk samples will be obtained from farms or individual milk animals which are located in sectors with the higher calculated annual average ground-level
/Q's.If Cesium-134 or Cesium-137 is measured in an individual milk sample in excess of 30 pCi/1, then Strontium 90 analysis should be performed.
~~Fruit and vegetables will be obtained from farms or gardens which use Columbia River water, if possible, for irrigation and different varieties will be obtained as they are in season.One sample each of root food,-.leafy vegetables, and fruit should be collected each period.>>Frequency of analysis will be as collected or as stated in these footnotes for special cases.Note In addition to e e preoperational I Q The monitoring W 8 co a preoperational above guidance for operational monitoring, the following material is supplied for the programs.program defined will be instituted 2 years prior.to the fuel loading of'i(NP-2.The program should follow the duration specified in the schedule below.
NAP-2 ER TABLE 6.1-3 (Continued)
Two Years direct radiation fish vegetation sediment and soil One Year airborne particulate milk (except iodine)river water drinking water ground water Six hfonths airborne iodine milk (iodine)The Preoperational Radiological htonitoring Program objectives are to measure background levels and their variations along anticipated critical pathways surrounding the Supply System site, to train personnel,.
and to evaluate procedures, equipment, and techniques.
WNP-2 ER TABLE 6.1-4 KEY FOR FIGURE 6.1-3 Station Number 1 through 7 Sam le T e Particulate Radioiodine Direct Radiation Particulate Radioiodine Direct Radiation Milk Fruit and/or Vegetables 10 through 25 Particulate Radioiodine Direct Radiation Milk Fruit and/or Vegetables Direct Radiation 26 River Water 27 and 28 River Water Fish 29 and 30 Drinking Water 31 through 34 35 and 36 Ground Water Sediment 37 and 38 Milk Amendment 1 May 1978 TABLE 6.1-5 MAXIMUM VALUES FOR THE LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION LLD a Anal sis gross beta 3H 54zn 5gFe 58,60Co 65Zn g5Zr g5Nb 1311 Water C i/1 2000 15 30 15 30 30 15]c Airborne Particulate or Gas Fish Ci/m3 Ci/k wet 1 x 10-2 130 260 130 260 7x 102 Milk Vegetati on Sediment Ci/1 Ci/k wet Ci/k dr 60 134Cs 137Cs 140Ba 140La 15 18 60 15 Sxl02 6 x 10-2 130 150 15 18 60 15 60 80 150 180 aAcceptable detection capabilities for thermolominescent dosimeters used for environmental measurements are given in Regulatory Guide 4.13.
TABLE 6.1-5 Continued bTable 6.1-5 indicates acceptable detection capabilities for radioactive materials in environmental samples.These detection capabilities are tabulated in terms of the lower limits of detection (LLDs).The LLD is defined, for purposes of this guide, as the smallest concentration of radioactive material in a sample that will yield a net count (above system background) that will be detected with 95K probability with only 5X probability of falsely concluding that a blank observation represents a"real" signal.For a particular measurement'ystem (which may include radiochemical separation):
where LLD=4.66 sb E~V~2.22~Y exp-AAt n 5't CD O D CZ'CD$CD C3 M C)LLD is the lower limit of detection as defined above (as pCi per unit mass or volume)sb is the standard deviation of the background counting rate or of the counting rate of a blank sample as appropriate (as counts per minute)E is the counting efficiency (as counts per disintegration)
Y is the sample size in units of mass or volume)2.22 is the number of disi ntegrations per minute per picocurie Y is the fractional radiochemical yield (when applicable)
X is the radi oactive decay constant for the particular radionuclide ht is the elapsed time between sample collection and counting The value of sb used in the calculation of the LLD for a particular measurement system should be based on the actual observed variance of the background counting rate or of the counting rate of the blank samples (as appropriate) rather than on an unverified theoretically predicted variance.In calculating the LLD for a radi.onuclide determined by gambia-ray spectrometry, the background should include the typical contributions of other radionuclides normally present.in the samples (e.g., potassium-40 in milk samples).
TABLE 6.1-5 Continued b (Continued)
Analyses shall be performed in such a manner that the stated LLDs will be achieved under routine conditions.
Occasionally background fluctuations, unavoidably small sample sizes, the presence of interfering nuclides, or other uncontrollable circumstances may render these LLDs unachievable.
In such cases, the contributing factors will be identified and described in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report.c LLD for drinking water.
AG AF PG PF AG AF PG PF AG AF PG PF ll 2 3 1 6 1 5 NON-8 URNED 1975 1976 1977 1978 12 BURNED AG AF PG i7 2 PF 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 PERCENT CANOPY COVER AG ANNUAL GRASS AF ANNUAL FORB PG-PERENNIAL GRASS PF PERENNIAL FORB Numerical Values Indicate the Number of Species in Each Botanical Category WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM%HPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report Amendment 4, October 1980 PERCENT CANOPY COVER OF HERBS IN VICIikITY OF WNP"2 FIG~6.1-4 YEARS ,1975 PHYTOMASS 195 233/1976 159 t18 1977 1052~1978 139 2 12 I 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 GRAMS PER m, DRY VItT Average Live Aboveground Herb Phytomass+One Standard Error WASHINGTON PUBLIC POHER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~2 Environmental Report Amendment 4, October.1980 AVERAGE HERB PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY IN VICINITY OF WNP-2 FIG.6.1-5 N WNP-1&4 DISCHARGE WNP-2 DISCHARGE HN GN BS EF'I2 EF~11 HN~g C GN p-HN O BS 1000 FT.BS-BEACH SEINE SITES HN-HOOP NET SITES GN-GILL NET SITES EF.~ELECTROFISH AREAS~.SAMPLING STATIONS FOR PLANKTON, BENTHOS, 5 WATER QUALITY WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM HPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Enviroamental RePort Rneminent 2, October 1978 AQUATIC BIOTA AND%GER QUALITY+~LING STATIKIS NEAR MV-1, 2, AND 4.E IG.6.1-1 RAILROAD'r.,"..,-:
"','..',.,SAND DUNES':,:.;.
wa%,~~,'y UNBURNED BURNED I SLAND ll I SLAND 12 WYE~BARR I CAGE.I 0 f FIF C3 OUTE 10 WNP-4 WNP-2 WNP-I E 0 I ROUTE 4 SOUTH)0/'//I SLAND.13 I SLAND 15 I SLAND'14: I SLAND 16 0 UNBURNED VEGETATION PLOT o BURNED VEGETATION PLOT A SMALL MAMMAL'PLOT---APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF BURNED VEGETATION BIRD SURVEY 300 AREA I SLAND.ll Amendment.
1, Ma 1978 HASHINGTON PUBLIC POMER SUPPLY SYSTEM HPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY STUDY SI~IN THE VICINITY OP WNP-2~FIG.6, 1-2 04 0 WYR ARRICAO 2 18 1/15+14 3 19 20 21 4 22+23~3 24 t 5 1 1 I I/I//FIR DOGWOOD ROAD~38 ROAD 5/I 7 I GRMOOR ROAD O O 6 ORN O RA@'OS ROAD z Amendment 1 Nav 197 RADIOLOGICAL SmPZE STATION LOCATIONS NPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report FIGHT 6.l-3 MNP-2 ER 6.2 OPERATIONAL ENV IRONNENTAL PROGRAM The scope and general content of the operational environmental monitoring pro-gram and special topical studies are described in the following subsections.
In all cases these programs may be modified based on the results of the pre-operational programs and the first year of operational data.Program details, including administrative controls and reporting plans, are contained in the Environmental Technical Specifications in Appendix I.6.2.I Mater ua 1 i t The planned operational phase water quality monitoring program is described by Table 6.2-1.Continuous recordings will be made of the temperature of the blowdown and the makeup water.These mesurements will be made in the circu-lating water pumphouse and in the makeup water pumphouse, and will be repre-sentative of blowdown discharge temperatures and ambient river temperatures ,near the intake.Temperatures in the intake pumphouse will not be representa-tive of ambient river conditions when makeup water is not being withdrawn.
Total residual chlorine will be measured every fifteen minutes during chlori-nation and for two hours after blowdown commences, or until it reaches un-detectable levels.Chlorination requirements will be studied during the first year to determine the minimum daily discharge duration of free available and total residual chlorine which will allow the plant to operate efficiently.
6.2.2 A uatic Environment The operational aquatic monitoring program will be designed based upon results of the preoperational program described in 6.1.1.2.The programs will be similar in scope.6.2-1 Amendment 4 October 1900 WNP-2 ER The operational radiological monitoring program will be the same as the preoperational program described in Section 6.1.5 for the first year of operation.
The scope of monitorinq in subsequent years will be determined based upon the results of the two-year preoperational program and the first year'operational program.6.2.4 Meteorolo ical The operational monitoring program will include wind speed, direction and temperature measurements made at the 245 and 33 foot levels, and dewpoint measurements at the 33 foot level.Rainfall amounts and intensities will also be measured.Real-time wind speed, direction and stability data will be available in the control room.6.2.5 Land The first year operational program will continue the preopera-tional programs described in 6.1.4 unless preoperational results indicate changes are necessary.
6.2-2 Amendment 1 May 1978 TABLE 6.2-1 WATER UALITY MONITORING PROGRAM Measured Items Quantity (flow)Temperature Dissolved Oxygen pH Turbidity Total Alkalinity Filterable Residue (Total Dissolved Solid)Nonfilterable Residue (Suspended Solids)Conductivity Iron (Total)Copper (Total)Nickel (Total)Zinc (Total)Sulfate NH4+Nitrogen N03-Nitrogen Station 1*WNP-2~Dischar e Station ll*Station 8*H H M H H Wells in vicinity of Plant Site Ortho Phosphorus Total Phosphorus Oil and Grease=Chlorine, Total Residual C=Continuous W=Weekly H=Monthly Q=Quarterly*Refer to Figure 6.l-l for station location WNP-2 ER 6.3 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING PROGRAMS Currently, a number of related studies are being carried out in the vicinity of the WNP-2 site by the Applicant and by or under sponsorship of several State and Federal agencies.Some of these studies are of a continuing nature and date back 20 or more years, particularly those associated with assessment of effluent releases from the operation of the Hanford Production reactors.6.3.1 H drolo ical and Water Qualit Studies in Pro ress A enc'ro ram U.S.Geological Survey, Tacoma District Office Continuous water stage and dis-charge measurements of the Columbia River below Priest Rapids Dam (RM 394.5).<1)
U.S.Geological Survey, Tacoma District Office Continuous water temperature measurements of the Columbia River at the City of Richland water supply treatment plant (RM 338)and at Vernita (RM 391).(2.3)
U.S.Energy Research and Development Administrat ion, Richland Operations Office Weekly pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, and coliform sampling of the Columbia River at, the City of Richland water supply treatment plant (RM 338), 300 Area (RM 345), and Vernita (RM 391), by Battelle-Northwest.(4)
U.S.Energy Research and Development Administration, Richland Operations Office Weekly coliform, fluoride and nitrate sampling of Columbia River at City of Richland water supply treatment plant (RM 338), 300 Area (RM 345), and 100 Areas (to RM 384), by Hanford Environ-mental Health Foundation.(U.S.Energy Research and Development Administration,'ichland Operations Office Monthly to annual groundwater depth and water quality measure-ments for observation wells on Hanford Reservation, by Battelle-Northwest and Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company.<6.3-1 WNP-2 ER A enc Pro ram U.S.Energy Research and Development Administration, Division of Reactor Research and Development Studies by Battelle-Northwest related to environmental aspects of the potential estab-lishment of a nuclear energy center yt the Hanford Reserva-tion.<7>U.,S.Energy Research and Development Administration, Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research Studies by Battelle-Northwest on sediment and radionuclide transport in Columbia River below Priest Rapids Dam.(3)U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division Review of Columbia River and tributaries water resources.(8)
Washington State Department of Ecology U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Water temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, color, pH, turbidity, total coliform bacteria and fecal coliform bacteria sampling in the Columbia River at Highway 24 bridge near Vernita (RM 338.1)(semimonthly during water year 1972, quarterly during water year 1975, semimonthly since October 1975), and at the Port of Pasco public dock (RM 328.4)(semimonthly December 1971-September 1972), and occasional biochemical oxygen demand and streamflow determinations at both sites.Sampling of addi-tional 21 parameters at Vernita bridge during water year 1972.(9)Miscellaneous water quality measurements in STORET data system for period 1957 to present at following Columbia River locations between McNary and Priest Rapids Dams: RM 292.0 (McNary Dam), 292.4, 292.5, 293.0 324.9 (above mouth of Snake River), 326.3, 328.0 (Kennewick-Pasco railroad bridge), 328.3, 329.0, 330.0 (Kennewick-Pasco State Highway 12 bridge), 334.7 6.3-2 WNP-2 ER A enc Pro ram (below mouth of Yakima River), 388.1 (Vernita State Highway 24 bridge), 388.5, 395.5, 395.6, 397.0 (Priest Rapids Dam).6.3.2 Ecolo ical Parameters-A uatic Studies in Pro ress A enc Pro ram Washington Public Power Supply System Studies by Battelle-Northwest in the Columbia River in the vicinity of WNP-2 to systemati-cally collect baseline ecological data on the plankton, benthos, and fish.This pro-gram constitutes the proposed operational monitoring program for WNP-1 and WNP-4, and the preoperational studies for WNP-2.Washington Public Power Supply System Studies by Battelle-Northwest of the preoperational baseline data and operational effects of the Hanford Generating Plant near the 100-N Reactor.Current efforts on operational effects are assessing the loss of fish by impingement on the intake screens,<lli12)
U.S.Energy Research and Development Administration, Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research Annual (since 1947)census of the fall chinook salmon spawn-ing population in the Columbia River between Richland and Priest Rapids Dam, by Battelle-Northwest.
Weekly aerial obser-vations have provided data to evaluate the fluctuations in the spawning populations in this section of the river and to examine the relationships between the numbers and pertur-bations in the river.<U.S.Energy Research and Development Administration, Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research Investigations by Battelle-Northwest on the combined effects of heat and chemical pollutants on warm and cold water fishes and on fish food 6.3-3 WNP-2 ER A enc Pro ram organisms.
These studies are intended to quantify the com-bined effects of thermal insult and chemical stress on the physiology of fish and fish food organisms.(l4)
U.S.Energy Research and Development Administration, Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research Studies by Battelle-Northwest on the physiological effects of rapid temperature decline on warm and cold water fish and crayfish.The objective of cold shock studies is to define the interactions between biota and the varying hydrographic regimes occurring in thermal mixing zones.following cessation of heated discharges.<>4)
U.S.Energy Research and Development Administration, Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research Investigations by Battelle-Northwest on the effects of thermal discharge on fish behavior and sensory physiology including sublethal effects that might impair the capacity of a fish to function effectively in its environment.(>4>
U.S.Energy Research and Development Administration, Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research Studies by Battelle Northwest on the effect of thermal dis-charges on aquatic organisms.
This project addresses mainly two specific impacts of thermal discharges and their effects: gas bubble disease and effects of fatigue on thermal toler-ance.<>>)U.S.Energy Research and Development Administration, Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research Studies by Battelle-Northwest on fish behavior in waters whose quality has been altered by various perturbations.
Emphasis in this work makes use of radio-tracking telemetry to examine the response of fishes encountering such conditions.(14) 6.3-4 WNP-2 ER A enc Pro ram U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Grant County PUD, Chelan County PUD National Marine Fisheries Service Study'.es of upstream adult migrant fish passing Columbia River dams.These fish counts are generally made from April to October each year.Research on the enhancement of downstream passage of juvenile salmonids at Priest Rapids Dam and other PUD dams on the Columbia River.6.3.3 Ecolo ical Parameters
-Terrestrial Studies in Pro ress A enc Pro ram Washington Public Power Supply System Studies by Battelle-Northwest including characterization of small mammal populations in burned and unburned shrub-steppe plant communities, avi-fauna of shrub-steppe plant communities, ecological charac-terization of burned and unburned shrub-steppe plant communities, primary production of cheatgrass, and aerial photography of shrub-steppe plant communities.
U.S.Energy Research and Development Administration, Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research U.S.Energy Research and Development Administration, Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research A small mammal trapping study by Battelle-Northwest is on the WYE burial ground located immediately west, of the WNP-2 site.This study has been in progress for 2 years and yields information on abundance, age, weight, and sex ratios of great basin pocket mice.(>4)Extensive ecological studies by Battelle-Northwest concerning plant and animal communities have been conducted on the Arid Lands Ecology (ALE)Reserve since 1968.The ALE Reserve is located about 10 miles west of the WNP-2 site.(14)6.3-5 WNP-2 ER A enc Pro ram U.S.Energy Research and Development Administration, Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research U.S.Energy Research and Development Administration, Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research Mule deer fawns have been tagged by Battelle-Northwest along the , Columbia River for a number of years to determine mule deer movements beyond the Hanford Reservation.
A nesting survey of the Columbia River Canada goose population has been conducted for nearly 30 years.~14>
Radiotracking of coyotes and breeding ecology of raptors and long-billed curlews are currently being studied by Battelle-Northwest on tPe Hanford Reservation.
~6.3.4 Meteorolo ical Monitorin Pro rams in Pro ress A enc Pro ram Washington Public Power Supply System Meteorological data collection at the WNP-2 site by Battelle-Northwest from March 1972 to September 1974 with temporary system and from April 1974 to June 1976 with permanent system.Temporary system measurements included wind speed on 23-ft mast, air tempera-ture and relative, humidity.Permanent system measurements included wind speed and air temperature at top of 7-ft mast.and at 33-ft level and top of 245-ft tower, dewpoint tempera-ture at the 33-ft level, and precipitation at ground level.U.S.Energy Research and Development Administration, Richland Operations Office The Hanford Meteorological Station, 14 miles west-north-west of the WNP-2 site, is operated for ERDA by Battelle-Northwest.
This station is manned by an observer-forecaster 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day.Complete surface weather observations are made hourly.Wind and tempera-ture profiles from the surface 6.3-6 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER A enc Pro ram~v QC j g to 400 ft are monitored con-tinuously.(17~
In addition a network of nine telemetered wind and temperature stations is operated on the Hanford Reservation including the WNP-2 site, and assists in definition of airflow patterns.Micro-meteorological and climatologi-cal records dating from 1944 are available from the ganglord Meteorological Station.<1O>
U.S.Energy Research and Development Administration, Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research Glimatological measurements of maximum and minimum temperature, humidity, and precipitation are currently being made on ERDA's Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE)by Battelle-Northwest.(9~The ALE Reserve lies to the west of WNP-2 U.S.Energy Research and Development Administration, Division of Production an'd Waste Management Wind speed and direction are being measured at the site of the ERDA's Fast Flux Test Facility, 3 miles west of WNP-2 Measurements have been at this location since 1971.U.S.Energy Research and Development Administration Wind speed, direction and temperature have been measured at the surface and at the 50 200, and 300-ft levels on a meteorological tower operated by United Nuclear Industries near the N-reactor approximately 19 miles northwest, of the WNP-2 site.(20>This data is not presently collected on a routine basis.6.3.5 Radiolo ical Monitorin Pro rams in Pro ress A enc Pro ram U.S.Energy Research and Development Administration A comprehensive radiological monitoring program for the Hanford plant and surrounding environs is carried out by 6.3-7 WNP-2 ER A enc Pro ram Washington State, Division of Social and Health Services Battelle-Northwest to evaluate the disposition and transloca-tion of Hanford plant-released radionuclides (continuous since before 1960).Table 6.3-1 pro-vides a summary of the program, taken from reference 21, and Figures 6.3-1 and 6.3-2 show sampling locations.
Annual reports provide surveillance program details(>and results.(22i23)
A state-wide radiological surveillance program is carried out by the Radiological Control Unit.(24)Samples of Columbia River water, air, milk and shell-fish are obtained at a number of locations relevant to WNP-2 are shown in Table 6.3-2 and Figure 6.3-3.Results are reported to the Environmental Protection Agency and are pub-lish'ed annually.6.3-8 WNP-2 ER TABLE 6.3-1 ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE SCHEDULE-1979 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY T e of Sam le T e of Anal sis W BW M BM Q SA A WATER Columbia River Water Sanitary Water Groundwater Wells AIR: Fil ter s Molecular Sieves Charcoal Cartridge OTHER: Radi ati on Level Shoreline Survey Waste Site Survey Road Survey Aerial Survey Railroad Survey Milk Fish (Columbia River)Wild Fowl Mammal s Soil Vegetation Foodstuff s: Meat Produce Radi oacti vi ty Dose Rate Chemical Biological Radi oacti vi ty Chemi cal Radi oacti vi ty Chemi cal Radi oacti ve Particulates Tritium Radi oi odi nes Dose Rate Dose Rate Radi oacti vi ty Radi oacti vi ty Radi oacti vi ty Radi oacti vi ty Radi oacti vi ty Radi oacti vi ty Radi oacti vi ty Radi oacti vi ty Radi oacti vi ty Radi oacti vi ty Radi oacti vi ty Radi oacti vi ty 1 2(a)2 2 2 44 6 10 34 61 11 1 1 2 10 5 1 340 36 255 40 35 3~66 3 3 21 21 1 1 1 6 II Heal th Foundati on.Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER TABLE 6.3-2 ENV IRONMENTAI RADIATION SURVEILLANCE NETWORK WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION, JUNE 1978: Station Code Puget Sound PS 0101 0102 0201 1302 1702 1704 3201 3301 3401 3501 3601 3602 3603 3604 Coastal Peninsula CP 1801 2401 Southwest SW 0301 0904 0905 0906 1100 2002 2100 3100 4100 Northwest NM 0204 0501 1501 1601 Southcentral SC 0202 Northcentral NC 0103 0701 Location Seattle-Smith Tower, Seattle-Boeing Field Cedar River-Lansberg Puyallup River-Puyallup Puget Sound-Bangor Puget Sound Naval Shipyard-Bremerton Olympi a Edmonds Bremerton Bangor Pack Forest-Lt.Br.of Spring Pack Forest-Rt.Br.of Spring Pack Forest-Ditch below Spring Pack Forest-Ditch 200'phill Elma Port Angeles Kalama River-Kalama Columbia River-Longview Cottonwood Island-Columbia River Columbia River-East Shore, Trojan Kalama-Sewage Treatment Plant Woodland Kelso-Vision Acres Longview, Ocean Beach Substation Trojan Plant-Meteorology Tower Skagit River-Con'crete Skagit County-General Area Bellingham Lyman Yakima River-Yakima (Parker)Okanogan River-Malott Menatchee-Sewage Treatment Plant Sam le T e Air TLD*Surf ace Water Surf ace Mater Oyster, Sediment Sediment TLD TLD TLD TLD Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water TLD TLD Surface Water Surf ace Water Sediment Sediment TLD, Soil Milk TLD, Soil TLD, Soil TLD Surface Water Milk TLD TLD Surface Water Surf ace Water TLD*Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Amendment 4 October 1980 WiMP-2 ER TABLE 6.3-2 (Cont.Station Code Southeast SE 0011 0012 0013 0104 0601 0701 1101 1201 1202 1203 1204 3201 3202 3203 3204 3208 3235 3236 Location Hanford-Well 699-17-5 Hanford-Well 699-9-E2 Hanford-Well 699-2-3 Columbia River-Richland Water Treatment Plant Benton County-General Area Franklin County-General Area Richland Hanford-NECO Burial Site-NE Corner Hanford-NECO Burial Site-HW Corner Hanford-NECO Burial Site-SW Corner Hanf ord-NECO Burial Site-SE Corner WPPSS-2-Station 1 WPPSS-2-Station 2 WPPSS-2-Station 3 WPPSS-2-Station 4 WPPSS-2-Station 8 WPPSS-2-Station 35 WPPSS-2-Station 36 Sam le T e Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Surface Water Milk Milk TLD*TLD, Soil TLD, Soil TLD, Soil TLD, Soil TLD, Soil TLD, Soil TLD, Soil TLD, Soil TLD, Soil Sediment Sediment Northeast HE 0101 0102 0103 1101 2101 2103 2105 2106 2107 2109 2121 2122 2123 2124 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2138 2139 Spokane-C Chattaroy-Spokane Deer Park-Sherwood U.Sherwood U.Sherwood U.Sherwood U.Sherwood U.Sherwood U.Sherwood U.Sherwood U.Sherwood U.Sherwood U.Sherwood U.Sherwood U.Sherwood U.Sherwood U.Sherwood U.Sherwood U.Sherwood U.Sherwood U.ity Hall 20 miles north of Spokane General Area Mill-Station A Mill-Station C Mill-Station E Mill-Station F Mill-Station G Mill-Rajewski Ranch Nil l-Stati on L1 Mill-Station L2 Mill-Station L3 Mill-Blue Creek Mill-Station S1 Mill-Station S2 Mill-Station S3 Mill-Station MWl Mill-Station NW2 Mill-Station MW3 Mill-Station NW5 Mill-Station MW6 Air TLD TLD Milk Soil, Air Soil, Air, TLD Air, TLD Air Soil, Air, TLD Soil, Air, TLD Sediment Sediment S.Water, Sediment S.Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water*Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Amendment 4 October 1980
FLOUTER SECTOR SAMPLING LOCATIONS~INNER SECTOR SAMPLING LOCATI OiVS YAKIMA RIVER WASHTUCNA A BARRICADE,'ARR I CADE$RRC FIR ROAD RATTLESNAKE'
-~ALE~g3~PETIETT SPRINGS BENTON'---4-~BYERS LANDING CITY~o~o PASCO RRC~HANFORD OTHELLO BOUiVDARY WAHLUKE 82o Q~.~BERG RANCH VERNITA+L~WAHLUKE~CONNELL B RIDGE~COOKE BROTHERS SUNNYSIDE MILES 0 10 20 0 16'32 KILOMETERS McNARY DAM RICHLAND AREA WALLA WALLA a WASHINGTOiV OREGON NASHXNGTON PUBLXC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report Amendment 4, October 1980 HANFORD EiVVIROi]f'IENTAL AIR SAI'IPLING L'OCATIONS P XG~6.3-1 VERNITA BRIDGE COLLL'LABIA RIVER HANFORD BOUNDARY IITIBQ'OOC LIKE LOCK~STATE HIGHWAY 24 LRD/I 1 OLD HANFORD TOWNSITE.'A gg SUIBNYSI DE YAKlhlA I BARRICADE 1IXhY I BAOIOICOIOOY I I I OO IABOIIAIOBY j P ROSSER STATE Hl GIDVAY BARRICADE j BIO ERC 0 2 4 6 8 Ih ILES BENTON CITY x$., YAKlhLA RIVER~AIR SAMPLES, TLD IPART+ll hLIUB*WATER WYE r BARRICADE I BWPPSS RICHLAND~BARRICADE EXXON ViEST~!I Rl CHIAND 300 AREA NORTH RICHLAND': ':II RICHLAND'.:;,"I Amendment 1, May 1978 WASEINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING STATIONS AT WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 HANFORD OPERATED BY DOE Environmental Report FIG~6.3-2 H Q CFI CA3 I CA3 tttt M 0 Q NQ tJp g 4 Atn 0HCN rt R Pd OV I/l TTT C)ETT CT I Gl I CD n CD V)CD C3 C+O n3 S Canada State of Washington Department of Social 8, Health SefvKes o I I I'PEIKD~STEVENS p ORE ILLE NATCON 0KANOGAN FERRT 3 NORTHWEST 4~0 CAtt Jtt~, g':r31~7 It0501 H CENTRAL NORT I NORTHEAST'a.0 STATIOttS) 1 0P 0 IRNOCT, Pp.'ECI%9103 SNONOtl I SN 2401 CLALLAN 1 101 11@0102'~Q 0~0101 0103 DOIIGLAS~I p';~PUGET SOUND cs ENELA ltt3591 KING KITSIPVgl 21011~a0201~0 LP@1302,....3 1'IERCE p~<<p)'I.ill;Si TWRSTOII~p COASTAL PENINSULAR JEFPERSIJI n lptc Ocean NASOtl I I I I I 070 4f'-~SPOKAVE LINCOLN Pl NNI I VJII It tDA$~0 I I SOUTHEAST K I'I I I T AS j GRAttr 0 It tret CPSVS NARSOR Q K K 1 FRAttK'N 1 TAKIN 0202 SOUTH CENTRAL.'ART IELDQ g 0701 0(:.NANf PRJl Ettg'RVA ION PACIFIC LENIS IIANKIAKIINI CONLI'T7 Q c>>~Cll K I Tct/j ITOI/'TOI~ASO'l l.J I I'O'PSIA 1 NALLA NA'A SOUTHWEST l 0301-pp tuC LEAR 2%2/I SKAIIANIA 2100 3100 CLARK I II100 0 Environmental Radiation Surveillance Network Jl¹tt 1978 SENTON KLICKITAT Oregon Idaho
, WNP-2 ER 6.4 Prep erational Environmental Radiolo ical Monitorin Data The data below represents results of samples taken from March, 1978 through June, 1980.Sediment Sample Date 5-17-78 5-17-78 11-27-78 12-21-78 7-10-79 7-10-79 11-19-79 11-19-79 5-08-80 Stati on Number, 35 36 36 35 35 36 35 36 35 Co-60 0.59+0.21 0.32+0.11 0.38+0.11<0.15 0.13+0.06 0.46+0.12 0.13+0=.06 0.61+.11<0.15 Isoto e Ci/Cs-37 0.36+0.13 0.38+0.09 0.49+0.09 0.22+0.05 0.31+0.07 0.42+0.08 0.31+0.06 0.48+0.07 0.20+0.03 Other"Garana
<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.15, Zn-65=0.37+0.11<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.15 Soil Sample Date Stati on Number Isoto e Ci/C s-137 Zn-6 e-59 Other Ganrna 5-08-78 5-08-78 5-08-78 5-08-78 5-08-78 5-10-79 5-10-79 5-10-79 5-10-79 5-10-79 5-08-80 5-08-80 5-08-80 5-08-80 5-08-80 1 2 3 7 9 1 2 3 7 9 1 2 3 7 9 0.5+0.1<0.15 0.7+.1 0.50+0.07 0.14+0.04<0.15 0.55+0.07 0.14+0.03<0.15<0.15 1.65+0.14<0.15 1.12+0.12 1.88+0.14<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.26<0.26<0.26<0.26<0.26<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.15<0.15 Natural K-40 in the soil ranged from 7-14 pCi/g with an average of 10 pCi/g for the, ten (10)samples.6.4-1 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER Garden Produce Sampl e~TB Chard Chard Carrots Apricots Onions Cabbage Apricots Onions Beans Chard Carrots Appl es Onions Appl es Chard Carrots Grapes Chard Car rots Tomatoes Chard Carrots Tomatoes Comfrey Carrots Tomatoes Comf rey Lett'uce Onion Strawberry Carrots Comf rey Cherries Chard Carrots Cherries Collection Site Pasco Pasco Grandview Pasco Pasco Pasco Grandview Grandview Grandview Pasco Pasco Pasco Grandvi ew Grandvi ew n Pasco Pasco Pasco Grandvi ew Grandvi ew Grandvi ew Pasco Pasco Pasco Grandview Grandview Grandvi ew Grandvi ew Pasco Pasco Pasco Grandview Grandvi ew Grandview Pasco Pasco Pasco Collection Date'/20/78 6/20/78 6/20/78 7/24/78 7/24/78 7/24/78 7/24/78 7/24/78 7/24/78 8/21/78 , 8/21/78 8/21/78 8/21/78 8/21/78 9/25/78 9/25/78 9/25/78 9/25/78 9/25/78 9/25/78 10/23/78 10/23/78 10/23/78 10/23/78 10/23/78 10/23/78 5/22/79 5/22/79 5/22/79 5/22/79'/25/79 6/25/79 6/25/79 6/25/79 6/25/79 6/25/79 Gamma Emitters~Ci/<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.13<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08 6.4-2 Amendment 4 October 1980
'vlNP-2 ER Garden Produce (Cont.)Sample~TB Apples Carrots Peppers Chard Carrots Appl es Carrots Cabbage Appl es Tomatoes Comf rey Apples Cabbage Carrots Tomatoes Chard Carrots Turnip Tops Oni on Comfrey Onion Swiss Chard Beets Comfrey Beets Col 1 ec ti on Site Pasco Pasco Pasco Grandvi ew Grandview Grandview Pasco Pasco Pasco Grandvi ew Grandvi ew Pasco Pasco Pasco Grandview Grandvi ew Grandview Pasco Pasco G r andvi ew Grandview Pasco Pasco Grandvi ew Grandvi ew Col 1 ecti on Oate 7/29/79 7/29/79 7/29/79 7/29/79 7/29/79 7/29/79 8/21/79 8/21/79 8/21/79 8/21/79 8/21./7,9 9/18/79 9/18/79 9/18/79 ,9/18/79 9/18/79 9/18/79 5/08/80 5/08/80 5/08/80 5/08/80 6/23/80 6/23/80 6/23/80 6/23/80 Gamma Emitters Ci/i<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08 6.4-3 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER Fish Stati on Sampl e Date~Sec i ea Co-60 Cs-137 Ci/wet Fe-59 Zn-65 Other Gamma Col umbi a Snake Col umbi a Col umbi a Col umbi a Snake Columbia Columbi a Columbi a.Col umbi a Col umbi a Columbia Col umbi a Columbi a Snake Col umbi a Snake Columbi a Columbi a Columbi a Col umbi a Snake Well Water Stati on 4/26/78 4/26/78 4/26/78 4/26/78 4/26/78 10/24/78 10/20/78 10/20/78 10/20/78 10/20/78 4/25/79 4/25/79 4/25/79 4/25/79 4/25/79 10/29/79 10/30/79 4/23/80 4/23/80 4/23/80 4/23/80 4/21/80 Sample Date Sucker Trout Squawf is h Salmon Carp Trout Salmon Salmon Salmon Catf ish Salmon Salmon Trout Trout Trout Whitefish Steelhead Whi tef ish Whitefish'hitefish Whi tef i sh Steelhead~Ci/t Tritium<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13 (0.13<0.13 (0.13 (0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13 (0.13<0.13<0.13 (0.13 (0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13 (0.13 (0.13<0.13<0.13 (0.13 (0.13 (0.13<0.13<0.13 (0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13 (0.13 (0.13 (0.13 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26<0.26<0.26 (0.26<0.26 (0.26<0.26 (0.26<0.26<0.26<0.26<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13-<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13 (0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13 (0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13<0.13 (0.13 WNP-2 Well j"3 11/19/78 380+340 Direct Radiation Direct radiation measurements were made during this period using thermo-lumi nescence dosimeters (TLD)at twenty-five (25)stations around the site.The results of these measurements were 0.25+0.03 mrem/day.6.4-4 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER CHAPTER 7 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS 7.1 STATION ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVITY The postulated accidents discussed in this chapter are also found in the Safety Analysis Report.In keeping with the over-all objective of the Environmental Report, the assumptions used to analyze these accidents are conservative but more realistic than the very conservative assumptions utilized in the Safety Analysis Report.In this chapter credence is given to the correct design, manufacture and operation of the reactor safe-guards system.Both the probability of occurrence and the consequences of the postulated accidents are reviewed.The spectrum of accidents, ranging in severity from trivial to very serious, is divided into classes.These classes are shown in Table 7.1-1.Each class is characterized by an oc-currence rate and a set of consequences.
To determine the resultant doses from each accident, the annual average atmospheric dispersion parameter, X/Q was calculated using one year of onsite meteorological data.The X/Q values as a function of distance and sector are shown in Table 5.2-3.The analytical models used to calculate the doses for each of the accidents found in this chapter are discussed in detail in Reference l.7.1.1 Class 1-Trivial Incidents These incidents are included and evaluated under routine re-leases in Section 5.2.7.1.2 Class 2-Small Release Outside Containment These incidents are included and evaluated under routine re-leases in Section 5.2.7.1.3 Class 3-Radwaste S stem Failure Events identified for consideration in this category are those resulting from inadvertent pumping of a liquid radwaste storage tank to the blowdown line (considered an operator error)as well as failure of the drain seal on the offgas system.While these events do not result in appreciable offsite exposures they typify events and consequences which may be expected to occur infrequently as a consequence of normal operation.
More serious failures of the radwaste systems are postulated and described under Class 8 events.
WNP-2 ER 7.1.3.1 Li uid Radwaste S stem Leaka e A radwaste tank is assumed to be inadvertently pumped to the blowdown line as a result of one of the following single operator errors: l.the operator commences pumping without taking a batch sample;2.a batch sample is misinterpreted or the results are incorrectly communicated to the operator;or-3.the operator, notified of an acceptable batch sample pumps the wrong tank.However, when this occurs, the high radiation alarm on the liquid effluent monitor will signal the valve on the discharge to close if concentrations are in excess of those allowed by technical specifications; thus any release is con-trolled to levels allowed during normal operation.
7.1.3.2 Off as S stem Leaka e (OGSL)Examination of the offgas system equipment indicates that the most likely source of potential release, other than the normal effluent path, is leakage through the drain lines.These drain lines are close to the inlet and outlet of the holdup pipe and normally have a water seal to prevent gaseous leaks.For this case, it is assumed that the water seal for the inlet drain is lost.7.1.3.2.1 Estimated Release A 60,000 pci/sec off-gas release rate-at 30 minutes is equiva-lent to 270,000 pci/sec at 2 minutes.Correlating the ratio of drain line to holdup pipe diameters to flow rates results in approximately 4.0%of the 2 minute old mix (10,800 pci/sec)being released.This release continues for 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> until the leak is sensed by radiation monitors and corrected by operator action.The resultant total release is 155 curies.7.1.3.2.2 Estimated Dose The dose calculation for this event is shown in Table 7.1-2.7.1.3.2.3 Probabilit Considerations The water seal is a passive device which holds water and is inherently simple and reliable.Three failure modes have been identified:
l.the water can evaporate, 7~1 2 WNP-2 ER 2.the water seal can be overpressurized, 3.the water can leak through a faulty"drain.Although the failure of the water seal is unlikely, it is nevertheless p"aced in the upset category (Section 7.1.11).7.1.4 Class 4 Fission Products to Primar S stem Events which lead to the release of activity into the primary system are a result o transitory stress which exceeds the mechanical properties of the cladding material.7.1.4.1 Fuel Cladding Defects Random cladding defects are allowed for in design and are included and evaluated in Section 5.2.4.2 under normal operation.
7.1.4.2 Offdesi n Transients that Induce Fuel Failures Above Those Ex ected The plant design criteria includes the requirement that any anticipated transient event concomitant with a single equip-ment malfunction or single operator error must not result in a minimum critical power ratio (MCPR)less than 1.06 for any normal p yet operating mode.Since the design basis cor-relation used in determination of the CP is conservatively selected with a large margin between predicted and observed CP, fuel which experiences a MCPR of 1.06 is not likely to have cladding failure.It is, therefore, concluded that there are no offdesign transients other than the control rod drop accident identified in section 7.1.8.3, which induce fuel failure above that normally expected.7.1.5 Class 5-Fission Products to Secondar S stem In the direct cycle BWR,"secondary system" is interpreted to mean the secondary side of heat exchangers whose primary side contains primary system coolant.The BWR system has several heat exchangers in this category: l.main turbine condenser, 2.RHR heat exchangers, 3.drywell cooler heat exchanger, 4.spent fuel storage heat exchang r.All of these heat exchangers are operated in a mode or employ an intermediate heat exchanger which precludes the release of activity to the environment.
The main condenser is protected 7.1-3 Amendment 1 Nay 1978 NNP-2 ER during plant, operation by the normal vacuum.The drywell, and spent fuel heat exchangers are protected by being cooled with a closed cooling loop, the RHR heat exchangers are pro-tected by being cooled by the cooling towers or spray pond.Xn addition during shutdown cooling the cooling water side is maintained at a higher pressure to prevent.any out leakages to the Cooling System.7.1.6 Class 6-Refuelin Accidents (FUHA)The fuel bundle is the heaviest, object which could be dropped onto the core during normal refueling operations.
The fuel bundle drop is postulated to occur as a result of equipment failure during the refueling process and occurs within the reactor cavity above the core.7.1.6.1 Estimated Release The following parameters are used to determine the amount of activity released to the environment.
1.The accident occurs four days after shutdown.2.8 fuel rods are damaged.'3.A water partition factor of 10 is used for iodine.3 4.SGTS filter efficiency is 99.9%for all forms of iodine and 0$for noble gases.5.The volumetric leak rate from the reactor building is 100%/day.7.1.6.1.2 Estimated Dose The dose calculated for this accident is shown in Table 7.1-2.7.1.6.1.3 Probabilit Considerations See subsection 7.1.7.1.3.
7.1.7 Class 7-S ent Fuel Handlin Accident.Spent fuel handling accidents are of dropping a fuel bundle onto the fuel and dropping a spent fuel cask.The is a design basis accident;the cask peated to result in fuel damage.two essential types: in the fuel storage area, fuel bundle drop accident drop accident is not ex-7.1.7.1 Fuel Assembl Dro in Fuel Stora e Pool (FUHA)This accident is postulated to occur while a fuel'undle is 7.1-4 WNP-2 ER being transferred or suspended over the spent fuel storage pool.7.1.7.1.1 Estimated Releases h y4 The following parameters are used to determine the amount of activity released to the environment.
1.The accident, occurs four days after shutdown.2.8 fuel rods are damaged.3.A water partition factor of 10 is used for iodine.3 4.SGTS filter efficiency is 99.9%for all forms of iodine and 0%for noble gases.5.The volumetric leak rate from the reactor building is 100%/day.7.1.7.1.2 Estimated Dose The dose calculated for this accident is shown in Table 7.1-2.7.1.7.1.3 Probabilit Considerations For this accident to occur, either the hoist must go out of control or one of the supporting components must fail.For the hoist to go out of control, the limit switch must fail to decelerate the bundle's falling rate.The probability of either of these events occurring would constitute a fault con-dition (see Section 7.6.11).A random failure of the cable grapple, handle, or tie rod would be no more likely than an emergency condition and is probably closer to a fault con-dition.Since there is less than one chance in four that such a failure could occur while the fuel is at the maximum height above the core, the combined event is no more likely than a fault condition for each bundle transferred.
Assuming that one-fourth of the core is transferred each year, the likelihood of the event becomes that of an emergency condition.(See Section 7.1.11)7.1.7.2 Fuel Cask Dro (FCDA)Design of the fuel storage pool and cask transfer hatch pre-cludes the cask from being moved over the fuel storage pool.Consequently, the worst accident occurs when a fully loaded spent fuel cask becomes detached from its lifting mechanism and falls a distance of 99 feet onto the yielding surface of a railroad flatcar.The rail car is in position under the cask while it is being lowered thus providing a yielding type of impact surface.(The 10CFR 71 cask drop accident is 30 feet onto a non-yielding impact surface.)7.1-5 NNP-2 ER 7.1.7.2.1 Estimated Release The cask is loaded with a maximum of 24 fuel bundles which have been out of the reactor for at least 90 days.The cask closure head will remain intact upon impact with the yielding surface of the rail car.No fuel damage or fission preduct release is expected.However, for the purpose of analysis, it is assumed that 1000 Ci of nobile gas are released as per lOCFR 71 criteria.7.1.7.2.2 Estimated Dose The dose calculated for this accident is shown in Table 7.1-2.7.1.7.2.3 Probabilit Considerations By inferring a frequency of occurrence from other crane ac-cidents, the cask drop accident should be placed in the emer-gency category (Section 7.1.11).7.1.8 Class 8-Accident Initiation Events Considered in Desi n-Bass.s Eva'lu'ati'o'na.n'he Safet.Anal sz.s'e ort, These events are described in chapter 15 of the Safety Analysis Report and are briefly outlined in the following paragraphs.
Included are the inside containment loss-of-coolant accident (recirculation pipe break)the outside containment loss-of-coolant accident (steam line break), and the reactivity ex-cursion accident (control rod drop).Two non-design-basis accidents (catastrophic failures of a liquid radwaste tank and of the offgas holdup system)are also treated here.The design-basis refueling accident falls in Class 7 and is reviewed in 7.1.7.1.7.1.8.1 Loss of Coolant Accident'(LOCA)A sudden circumferential break is assumed to occur in a recir-culation line, permitting the discharge of coolant into the primary containment from both sides of the break.Concurrent with this failure, a single active component failure is assumed to occur.This additional failure can occur to the HPCS diesel generator or the standby diesel generator.
7.1.8.1.1 Estimated Release To calculate a realistic core heatup following a LOCA, the re-sults of parametric studies were applied to the standard core heatup models currently in use (4).7.1-6 WNP-2 ER The approach in the thermal-hydraulic analysis was to select'ealistic values for those key assumptions normally used in the Safety Analysis Report in which very conservative estimates are made.Other assumptions which are of lesser significance use values as described in the SAR or in NRC regulatory guides.Where parameters are not specifically mentioned, NRC assumptions, whose inherent conservatism has been well documented, have been employed.Peak clad temperatures were calculated for a spect-rum of break sizes.The realistic analysis shows no heatup of fuel into the per-foration range.The parameters used to predict the activity released to the environment are: l.no fuel rods are damaged, 2.fission products released are a result of coolant activity and spiking activity from reactor shutdown, 3.primary containment leak rate is 0.5%per day, 4.reactor building leak rate is'00%per day, 5.plateout and condensation effects are assumed to reduce the source term by a factor of 4, 6.standby gas treatment system filter efficiency is 99.9%for X2 and CH3X and 0%for noble gases.7.1.8.1.2 Estimated Dose The dose calculated for this accident is shown in Table 7.1-2.7.1.8.1.3 Probabilit Considerations Based on estimates of pipe failure rates contained in the literature and on the number of pipes that satisfy the con-ditions for a large break design basis accident, the pro-bability of a large break is within the range of an emergency condition (See Section 7.1.11.)The probability that an HPCS diesel generator will be unable to start when desired should also fall within the range of an emergency condition based on an analysis using failure rates from references 5, 6, and 7 considering anticipated downtime and the interval between HPCS diesel tests.Since each probability is low and the outcomes are not criti-cally interdependent, the joint probability of pipe break and HPCS failure is expected to be very low so as to place this event in the fault condition.(See Section 7.1.11).7~1 7 WNP-2 ER 7.1.8.2.Steam Line Break Accident (SLBA)The postulated accident is a sudden circumferential severance of one main steam line outside the containment.
This results in steam being released to the steam tunnel and the turbine'building.
7.1.8.2.1 Estimated Release The mass of coolant released during the 4 second isolation valve closure time is 23,000 pounds of steam.Because there is no fuel damage during this accident, the iodine released to the turbine building is proportional to the amount of steam re-leased.Based on past BWR operating experience, the I-131 coolant activity is assumed to be 0.005 pci/gm with corresponding amounts.of I-132 and I-135.7.1.8.2.2 Estimated Dose The dose calculated for this accident is shown in Table 7.1-2.7.1.8.2.3 Probabilit Considerations The design basis main steam line break accident postulated complete severance of one of the main steam lines while the reactor is at power followed by total isolation of the break within four seconds.The probability of this event is es-sentially the probability of the severance.
Based upon esti-mates of pipe failure rates contained in the literature(8) and considering the number of locations where the rupture could occur in the main steam system, the probability of pipe sever-ance should be well within the"emergency category" (See Sec-tion 7.1.11.)7.1.8.3 Control Rod Dro Accident (CRDA)The postulated accident is a reactivity excursion caused by accidental removal of a control rod from the core at a rate more rapid than can be achieved by the use of the control rod drive mechanism.
In.the CRDA, a fully inserted control rod is assumed to fall out of the core after becoming disconnected from its drive and after the drive has been removed to the fully withdrawn position.The design of the control rod velocity limiter limits the free fall velocity to 3 ft/sec.Based on this veloce.ty and-assuming the reactor is at full power, the maximum rod worth is approximately 1$, resulting in the perforation of less than 10 rods.7.1-8 Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER The activity released from the 10 rods is insufficient to cause a radiation level high enough to trip the main steam line isolation valves.However, it is high enough to cause isolation of the offgas system For the purpose of evaluating the consequences of this accident, it is assumed that 100%of the noble gases and 1%of the iodine activity released from the failed fuel rods is transferred to the condenser.
Since the offgas system and ultimately the reactor vessel are isolated, it is assumed that the condenser activity achieves an equilibrium condit'on between the condensate and the free volume and is released unfiltered to the environment at a rate of 0.25%of the condenser free volume per day.7.1.8.3.2 Estimated Dose The dose calculated for this accident is shown in Table 7.1-2.7.1.8.3.3 Probability Consideration For a rod drop accident to occur the control rod must first become detached from the drive, remain lodged in position while the drive is fully withdrawn from the core, and then, become disloged and fall freely.This complex series of events is offset by the many annunciators and procedures that are meant to avoid such an event, for example: rods are tested weekly, thus providing many opportunities for a uncoupled rodto be detected.Actual experience has been good.However, conservative judgement indicates that this event should be assigned as an emergency condition (See Section 7.1.11).7.1.8.4 Li uid Radwaste Tank Accident (LRTA)The postulated accident is assumed to occur as a result of a catastrophic failure of the waste storage tanks.The design of the radwaste building precludes the release of liquid radwaste.The liquid contents of the tanks will be contained by an unlined 18-inch high concrete dike around the radwaste tank area.This dike can contain in excess of 80%of the total liquid inventory of all the tanks.7.l.8.4.1 Estimated Releases The liquid radwaste tanks are not pressurized nor are they kept at a high temperature.
Nevertheless, because of evaporation, it is assumed that 0.5%of the iodines become airborne and are released to the environment.
7.1.8.4.2 Estimated Dose The resultant doses for this accident are shown in Table 7~1 2~7.1-9 Amendment 1 Hay 1978 7.1.8.4.3 Probabilit Considerations Although the below grade liquid radwaste tanks are unpres-surized accumulators, they are designed in accordance with the appropriate ASME codes.There are no other parts other than piping attached to the tanks.Therefore, the probability of a radwaste tank failure is so low as to place it in the fault category (See Section 7.1.11).7.1.8.5 OffGas S stem Accident (OGSA)The postulated accident for this category is the failure of a charcoal tank in the offgas system.The tank with the largest noble gas inventory is assumed to fail and spill the contents of the tank.7.1.8.5.1 Estimated Release The activity inventories of the offgas system are based on an offgas release rate of 60,000 microcuries per second for noble gas and on a reactor water coolant concentration of.005 microcuries per gram for I-131, with 2%steam cherry over, and a condenser decontamination factor of 7.2'10.It is also assumed that 5%of the noble gas inventory and 0.5%of the iodine inventory are released.These.release fractions are based on evaluation of the retention characteristics of charcoal for spillage of the entire contents of the tank.7.1.8.5.2 Estimated Dose The dose calculated for this accident is shown in Table 7.1-2.7.1.8.5.3 Probabilit Consideration The offgas system is designed and constructed in accordance with appropriate ASME codes.In the unlikely event that the tank fails only a small fraction of the contents would be released to the environment.
The probability of such an oc-currence is so low as to classify a release to the environment in the fault category (See Section 7.1.11).7.1.9 Trans ortation Accidents Accidents in this category have no significant impact on the environment, however, they are discussed for the purpose of completeness of this report.7.1.9.1 Shi ment of S ent Fuel An evaluation by the AEC of the frequency of accidents in-volving the shipment of high level radioactive wastes shows 7.1-10 WNP-2 ER that, on the average, approximately 0.05 accidents may occur in trggsportation during the lifetime of a light water re-actor<">.In addition to the very low occurrence rate of accidents, the consequences of an accident involving radioactive material are mitigy)~p by the procedures which carriers are required to follow.These procedures include: separation of persons from packages or materials and immediate notification of the shipper and DOT in case of an accident, fire, or leaking package.Therefore, in the unlikely event an accident occurs, the radiological exposures will be limited to a relatively small number of persons and does not present any concern to the general population.
7.1.9.2 Low Level Radwaste Shi ments The only time a radiological exposure could be received in radwaste shipment is for the case of an accident involving the solid waste containers.
These containers usually contain a very"stiff" or viscous slurry or are actually mixed with polymer and catalyst to form a solid.Such exposures would be minor and would be limited to those workers involved in any necessary cleanup following the accident.The effect to the population is judged to be insignificant.
7.1.9.3 New Fuel Shipment New fuel is normally shipped by rail in containers designed to protect them from physical damage due to.the normal handling and vibration of-transportation.
Because new fuel contains practically no fission products or radioactive gases, the results for an accident, even if the fuel should be damaged, would be limited to an economic loss.7.1.10 Su~a'r~of Radiolo ical Effects of Accidents The radiological effects of each of the accidents evaluated in Chapter 7 are shown in Table 7.12.Also shown for the purpose of comparison, is the average normal background and man made radiation exposures.
When compared to background and manmade exposure it.is clear that the exposure received by the population as a result of postulated accident is extremely small.7.1.11 Prob'abi'li:t A'ssessment In Reference 11, the Commission requires that"in the consid-eration of the environmental risks due to postulated accidents, the probabilities of their occurrence must...be taken into account." Consideration of the yearly probabilities of abnormal conditions is necessary to an assessment of environmental risk for the obvious, reason that such conditions are not expected to occur 7~1 1 1 Amendment 1~Iay 1978 rÃNP 2 ER as often as once a year or even once in a plant lifetime.Com-parison of accident exposures with the man-rems per year fully expected from natural sources and normal operation of the plant operation of the plant requires that the former be weighted by their annual frequencies in order to predict an average an-nual effect.It will be noted, however, that the forgoing analyses have concentrated principally on prediction of expo-sures iven the occurrence of the accident and have factored in the probability of the event, in the overall dose affect.The reason for this treatment is two-fold.1.It emphasizes the fact that radiological exposures due to the accidents are in fact exceedingly low in themselves, without, additionally complicating the issue with probabilities; 2.The"classes" of accidents tend to be less homogeneous in their probabilities than in their releases;thus, to propose a two-significant figure probability as"typical" of a class would be not only inaccurate but misleading as well.7.1.11.1 Probabilit Cate pries To alleviate the problem of inhomogeneity mentioned above, the probability of occurrence of each"class" of accidents and in-cidents has been placed in a broad probability category about two decades wide.The system chosen for this categorization is derived from Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.,These classes"are used by the General Electric Company in design'safety analyses and have appeared in safety analysis reports for several stations.A brief semi-quantita-tive description of each class is given below.7.1.11.1.1 Normal Condition (P=1)A normal condition is any planned and scheduled event that is the result of deliberate plant operation according to pre-scribed procedures.
7.1.11.1.2 U set Condition (1>P>2.5x10)An upset condition is a deviation from normal conditions that has a moderate probability of occurring during a 40-year plant lifetime.These conditions typically do not preclude subsequent.plant operation.
7.1.11.1.3 Emer enc Condition (2.5x10>P>2.5x10)An emergency condition is a deviation from normal plant operation that has a low probability of occurring during a 40-year plant lifetime.Emergency condition events are typified by transients 7.1-12 WNP-2 ER caused by a multiple valve blowdown of the reactor vessel or a pipe rupture of an auxiliary system.7.1.11.1.4 Fault Condition (2.5x10>P>2.5xl0)A fault condition is a deviation from normal conditions that has an extremely low probability, of occurring during a 40-year plant lifetime.These postulated events include, but are not limited to, the most drastic that must be designed against (the limiting design bases).7.1.11.2 Basis for Probabilit Estimation The occurrences described in this analysis are of such a nature that their frequencies cannot be derived from historical data.The nuclear industry is too young to have accumulated much in-formation even on the most frequent events.The events with the more serious consequences are not likely to occur and historical data is not possible.As a result, probabilities on most events must be inferred from our knowledge of other events.Table 7.1-3 is a listing of event descriptions and their associated probabilities as reported in the literature.
These findings, reinforced by individual modeling studies of the postulated events specified in this analyses, lead to the assignment of each occurrence to one of the four probability categories described in Section 7.1-3.As a point of reference, Table 7.1-4 is in-cluded which gives some mortality statistics experienced in the U.S.A.It must be emphasized that the probability assignment is one of judgement, and can never be proven.However, the broad classification of probability ranges and the assignment of each event to a category does quantify the best that is known about the relative frequency of occurrence of many events and is informative and useful on a comparative basis.7.1-13 TABLE 7.1-1 REACTOR FACILITY CLASSIFICATION OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS AND OCCURRENCES NO.OF CLASS DESCRIPTION AEC EXAMPLE (S)PLANT DESIGN-ANALYSES Trivial Incidents Small spills Small leaks inside containment None Misc.Small Releases Outside Containment Radwaste System Failures Spills Leaks and Pipe breaks Equipment Failure Serious malfunction or human error Reactor Coolant leaks (below or just above allowable tech spec limits)outside primary cont-tainment or plant boundary Any Single Equipment Failure or Any Single Operator Error Events that Release Radioactivity into the Primary System Events that Release Radioactivity into Secondary System Refueling Accidents Inside Containment Fuel Failures during normal operation Transients outside expected range of variables Class 4 and Heat Ex-changer Leak Drop fuel element Drop heavy object onto fuel Mechanical mal-function or loss of cooling in transfer tube Fuel Failures during transients outside the normal range of plant variables but within expected range of protective equipment and other parameter operation Primary Coolant loop to auxiliary cooling system Secondary side of heat exchanger leak Dropping of fuel assembly on reactor core, spent fuel rack, or against pool boundary TABLE 7.1-1 (continued)
NO.OF CLASS DESCRIPTION AEC EXAMPLE (S)PLANT DESIGN-ANALYSES Accidents to Spent.Fuel outside Containment Drop Fuel element Drop heavy object onto fuel Drop shielding cask-loss of cooling to cask Transportation accident on site Dropping of fuel assembly on spent fuel in refueling storage pool Dropping of spent fuel shipping cask on site Accident Initiation Events considered in Design-Basis evaluation in the Safety Analysis Report Reactivity Transient Rupture of Primary piping Flow Decrease-Steam-line break a.Reactivity Transient b.Loss of Reactor Coolant inside or outside primary containment TABLE 7.1-2 DISTANCE (MILES)SOURCE RADIATION EXPOSURE
SUMMARY
EA-REM INTEGRATED WHOLE BODY EXPOSURE, PERSON-REM 1.2 5.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 1)NATURAL (PER YEAR)2)MANMADE (PER YEAR)3)EVENT CLASS 1.4E-01 1.0E-01 1.8E 01 1.8E 03 1.5E 04 2.2E 04 2.8E 04 3.7E 04 1.3E 01 1.3E 03 1.1E 04 1.6E 04 2.0E 04 2.7E 04 OGSL 3 FUMA 6/7 FCDA 7 LOCA 8 SLBA 8 CRDA 8 LRIA 8 OGSA 8 3.1E-.06 5.3E-07 1.4E-07 1.8E-07 2.5E-07 5.4E-10 4.4E-09 5.3E-05 1.6E-05 4.2E-06 5.3E-06 6.2E-06 1.6E-08 1.1E-07 2.5E-03 8.5E-03 9.7E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 1.2E-03 5.5E-03 6.5E-03 7.0E-03 7.6E-03 3.1E-04 1.5E-03 1.8E-03 1.9E-03 2.2E-03 3.7E-04 1.1E-03 2.3E-03 2.4E-03 2.6E-03 3.2E-04 1.1E-03 1.2E-03 1.3E-03 1.4E-03 1.2E-06 5.6E-06 6.4E-06 7.3E-06 8.0E-06 6.1E-06 2.0E-05 2.1E-05 2.2E-05 2.4E-05 1.1E-06 5.0E-05 1.9E-03 8.4E-03 9.8E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-02*Exclusion Area (EA)Individual Dose For Duration of Event**Integrated over year 2020 population estimate (see Table 2.1-1)for each area;ie: 0-5 mile radius, 0-10 mile radius, etc.*9*Refers to that manmade background radiation not associated with WNP-2 (medical, television, industry, etc.).
WNP-2 ER TABLE 7.1-3 TABLE OF EVENT PROBABILITIES EVENT Reactivity Fault at Power Emergency Injection.System Failure Reactor Bldg.Atmosphere Washing and Cooling System Failure Core Spray System Failure Operator Error Diesel Generator Unavailability Loss of Load Excessive Load Increase Loss of One Feedwater Pump Loss of Flow (one pump)Primary System Pipe Rupture Failure to Isolate Containment Core-Flooding System Failure Operator Error Reactivity Fault at Startup Instrument Part, Rupture Pipe Severence Rate Reactor Shutdown System Failures Failure to Tri.p Reactor Emergency Power Unavailability Large Aircraft Crashing into Reactor 5 mi.from Airport Failure to Trip Reactor Truck Accident Rate (severe)PROBABILITY 10 2/year 10 2/demand 10 2/demand 2.lx10 3 to 5.2x10-2/demand 10 2 to 10 3/operation 0.004 years/year
>10 3/year>10-3/year
>10 3/year>10 3/year 10 3/year 10 3/year 10 3/demand 10 2 to 10 4/trial 10 4/year 5xlO 4/year 6.3x10 4/year/plant 10-5/demand 7x10 5/demand 2xlO 5years/year 2.4xlO 6/year 2xlO 7/demand 5xl0 7/mile SOURCE 12 13 13 12 14 15 16 16 16 16 13 15 13 17 12 12 18 13 15 15 18 16 14,18 WNP-2 ER TABLE 7.1-4'SONE lJ.S'.ACCIDENTAL DEATH STATISTICS
'OR'1'9'7'3: '(Ref.21)ACCIDFNT Notor vehicle Falls Fire Drowning Poisoning Firearms Cataclysm*
Lightning*
TOTAL DEATHS 54,700 17,900 6,700 7,300 5,100 2,400 155 110 PROBABILITY DEATH/PERSON/YR 2.7 x 10 4 8.7 x 10 3.2 x 10-5 3.5 x 10 2.5 x 10 1.2 x 10 8.0 x 10 5.5 x 10*Reference 21 (1966 statistics)
WNP-2 ER 7.2 OTHER ACCIDENTS The environmental effects of accidents not related to the release of radioactive materials are considered in this section.Accidents which fall into this category include the spill or leakage of chemicals (caustic or acid), gaseous releases (hydrogen or chlorine), fires within the plant fence-line, and fuel oil spillage from oil storage or transfer operations.
The probability of accidents of this nature happening is small and the Supply System will take all necessary actions to prevent the occurrence of such ac-cidents.The proper training of operating personnel, the specification of detailed procedures to be used in handling the materials and the proper design of equipment are all positive steps to be used by the Supply System in preventing such accidents.
In addition, these same steps will assist in mitigating the effects of an accident if it does occur.The primary environmental impact to be considered is the ef-fect on the Columbia River.Other areas of possible impact are the groundwater, land, and air in the vicinity of the plant.The environmental effects of the postulated accidents on each of these areas are discussed below.7.2.1 Li uid Chemical S ill Accidents The only two chemicals which are used in reasonably large quantities in the plant are caustic (sodium hydroxide) and acid (sulphuric acid).The caustic and acid will be transported to the site in chemical tank trucks which conform to applicable Department of Transportation regulations.
The chemicals will be pumped via an outside hose connected to phenolic lined steel storage tanks in their respective buildings.
The acid is stored in a 6,000 gallon tank in the circulating water pump house (for neutralizing the circulating water alkalinity) and in a 5,000 gallon tank in the service building (for regeneration of the make-up demineralizers).
The caustic is also stored in a 5,000 gallon tank in the service building for use in regeneration of the demineralizers.
Two 200 gallon tanks, one in the reactor building and one in the radwaste building contain acid for general neutralizing uses.The radwaste building also has a 200 gallon-tank of caustic for general neutralizing uses.The 200 gallon tanks will be filled from smaller containers which are transported to the buildings by hand pulled carts.Any spillage of the chemicals during storage or transfer operations in the buildings are collected in sumps, neutralized and disposed of harmlessly through the normal chemical waste treatment process stream (see Section 3.6).7~2 1 WNP-2 ER Hence, the loss of these chemicals will not have an adverse impact on the environment.
7.2.2 Gaseous Release Accidents The only two gases which are stored in sufficient quan-tities to have an effect on the environment are hydrogen and chlorine.Hydrogen is used in the generator cooling system and chlorine is used for water purification and as a biocide.Hydrogen will be transported to the site in standard gas bottles, each containing 140 standard cubic feet (scf).Eight bottles of hydrogen are stored in the bottle storage building 367 feet north of the turbine generator building and 563 feet north of the reactor building.The hydrogen is piped to the turbine generator building via an underground pipe.The gas transfer pipe is con-tained in a larger shielding pipe to insure the integrity of the transfer pipe.In the event of an explosion, any resulting fire would not spread since the fenced plant area is devoid of flammable material (see Subsection 7.2.3).Liquefied chlorine is transported to the site in one ton and 150 lb bottles.Ten one ton bottles are stored in the chlorine storage room in the circulating water pump-house building with all of the bottles hooked up to the manifold, however, only one bottle outlet valve will be opened at a time in order to minimize the amount of released chlorine in the event of a break in the piping.Three 150 lb bottles are stored in.the chlorine storage room in the service building.In case of a chlorine release in either of the chlorine storage rooms, the gas, which is heavier than air, would be taken out of the buildings by floor level vents and exhausted from the top of the respective building to the atmosphere.
A fourth 150 lb bottle is located on the exterior of the warehouse building.If failure of this exterior bottle occurs, chlorine would be released directly to the atmosphere.
A chlorine release inside the circulating water pumphouse could result in the emission of a maximum of 2000 lbs of chlorine to the environment.
Calculations performed for the most restrictive dispersive conditions which could result in maximum offsite chlorine gas concentrations (no cooling tower interference with the chlorine cloud and extremely stable (light wind)atmospheric conditions), show that the magnitude of chlorine concentrations in amounts considered to be"dangerous in 30 minutes to one hour", (1)could be experienced.by persons at the site boundary.However, in order for this level of chlorine concentrations to be available, this extreme case requires a chlorine cloud translation speed of approxi-mately 1.7 mph.Due to this low cloud translation speed and 7~2 2 WNP-2 ER resultant small cloud size, there would be a personnel alert time of over 40 minutes for persons at the site boundary and an associated total chlorine exposure time of only 17 minutes.The same calculations show that chlorine concentrations at the nearest population zone (3.6 miles)would be less than the"least amount required to cause irritation of throat"(1) and gives an alert time of over 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.Since a decreased alert time is only possible due to an increased wind speed, and the approximate proportional decrease in chlorine con-centrations (due to the greater atmospheric turbulent dilu-tion), the possible worst case environmental impacts would be the loss of some vegetation (due to chlorine poisoning) and the resultant slight loss of land cover.When realistic-ally considering the possible interaction of the chlorine cloud and the cooling towers coupled with the long alert time, the possible adverse chlorine affects are reduced substan-tially.7.2.3 Fire Prevention and Effects The occurrence of a major fire at any of the plant site buildings is improbable.
If one does occur the effect of the fire on the environment would be limited to the smoke produced.Because of the low density of people (see Section 2.1.3), crops, and wildlife in the'icinity of the plant the smoke would produce no measurable effects on the environment.
A fire located in the area of the main plant buildings would be a minimum of 100 feet from the site fence.Since no readily combustible material will exist between the fenceline and the fire location, the fire could not spread to the surrounding vegetation beyond the site fence unless windblown.
The effect of fires on the Hanford Reservation has been studied in the past.()The primary fuel for fires in the vicinity of WNP-2 is the litter accumulated from the crop of annuals.The areas affected by fire are naturally reseeded relatively quickly with various annuals.The return of other plants such as sagebrush is normally slower.Fire prevention measures which will be taken include instruc-tion of plant personnel on the possible sources of fire, on the various aspects of fire prevention and on the proper actions to be taken if a fire does occur.In addition, the plant is designed to reduce both the probability of starting a fire and the extent and effects of a fire should one occur.7.2.4 Fuel Oil Accidents Fuel oil (No.2 and diesel)is required in the plant for the auxiliary boiler and the diesel engines.The diesel engines consist of two plant emergency diesel generators (4650 kW each)one HPCS diesel generator (2600 kW), two diesel driven air com-7~2 3 WNP-2 ER pressors (l5 hp each), and one diesel driven fire pump (250 hp).Fuel oil for the auxiliary boiler is stored in one 50,000 gallon underground storage tank just to the east of the diesel generator building.Oil supply to the boiler is directly from this tank.Diesel oil is stored in three underground storage tanks partly underneath the diesel generator building (two of 60,000 gal-lon capacity and one of 50,000 gallon capacity), and three day tanks (3,000 gallons each), one located in each of the three rooms of the diesel generator building.Diesel oil for the fire pump engine is stored in a 280 gallon above ground, out-door storage tank to the rear of the circulating water pump-house.The four underground and day tanks are Seismic Cate-gory I, Quality Class I tanks.Oil is delivered to the site by truck and is transferred to the four primary storage tanks.Oil delivery personnel present during the tank filling operation can stop the filling operation prior to overflowing the storage tanks.The three diesel generator day tanks are each filled from their respec-tive storage tanks.This operation is accomplished by controls which automatically start and stop the supply pumps mounted on the storage tanks.The day tanks are each located in an individual room which is"diked" off to retain any tank leak-age.The diked volume exceeds the capacity of the day tank.The detection of oil leaks is carried out by routine inspec-tion of oil storage and transfer facilities by the monitoring of oil flow lines and by.accurate inventory of all oil on hand.Should a loss of oil be detected action will be taken im-mediately to isolate and repair the faulty equipment and to take the appropriate steps to remove excess oil and effect cleanup.To reduce the probability of a fire due to the ignition of fumes, all rooms where the fuel oil is kept have intake and exhaust vents equipped with fire arresters.
Xn addition, the large storage tanks are buried.7.2.5 Nearb Industrial, Trans ortation, and Militar Facilities The possible accidents effects caused by nearby industrial, transportation and military facilities effects are discussed in the Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 2.2.7.2-4 WNP-2 ER CHAPTER 8 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 8.1 BENEFITS 8.1.1 Primar Benefits The primary benefits of WNP-2 are those inherent in the value of the generated electricity which will be delivered by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)to 27 municipalities, 22 public utility districts, and 45 electric cooperatives, collectively called the Participants, located principally in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and California and each of whom is a statutory preference customer of BPA.The Participants'hares of the WNP-2 output range from approxi-mately 15 percent to 0.005 percent.An aggregate of approx-imately 22.5 percent of the output is shared by 64 of the Participants each of whom has a share of less'han 1 percent.8.1.1.1 Electric Ener As explained in Section 1.0.2, projections for electrical energy demands and resources in the Northwest are based on the West Group Forecast.This forecast assumes the project supplies 688 MW (average)of energy (6.0 billion kW-hr)in its first full year of commercial operation (1981-82).*
The following year, and each year thereafter, it is scheduled to supply 825 MW (average)of energy (7.2 billion kW-hrs.), according to the projections in the West Group Forecast.As part of Phase I of the Hydro Thermal Power Program, the plant is expected to supply base load energy, to the Pacific Northwest while peaking requirements will be met increasingly by hydr'o facilities.
The demand for electric energy from the Project is expected to be similar to that experienced in the West.Group Area in 1970.The estimated contribution of each class of consumer to the West Group Area coincidental electric power peak and the share of electric energy consumed by yach, based on available data for 1970, is as follows: 1970 Residential Commercial Industrial Other TOTAL Peak 50.0%21.3%28.O~o 0.7%100.0%EnercnE 31.4%13.4%50.2%5.0%100.0%*The West Group Forecast uses a water year calendar which runs from July 1 to the following June 30-Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER For 1990 the contribution of each class of consumer to the West Group Area coincidental peak and the percentage of energy consumed are estimated as follows:(1)
Residential Commercial Industrial Other TOTAL Peak 50.0%24.0%25.0%1.0%100.0%1990 EnercnEr 30.9%15.3%48.1%5.7%100.0%Actual and estimated electric power requirements in the West Group Area are shown on Table 8.1-1.A lower annual average growth rate is expected for the period'rom 1976 to 1990 than was experienced in the period from 1950 to 1976.This change is the result of consumer and producer efforts to conserve energy, higher nonpromotional electric rates, more efficient electrical appliances, electrical appliance saturation, and a leveling off of population.
8.1.1.2 Benefits of Avertin Electrical Shorta es The probability of electrical shortage with and without the Project on schedule is discussed in Section 1.1.3.2 in regards to effects on capacity reserves and the magnitude of a deficit to meet firm energy requirements.
In the West Group Forecast of Power Loads and Resources, July 1978-June 1987, dated March 1, 1978, the expected date of commercial operation for WNP-2 is May 1981.Based on that date, the forecast states the cumnlative probability of meeting total energy load through June 1982 with the Project on schedule is 26.6 percent and of meeting firm energy load is 69.7 percent.With all projects, including WNP-2, on schedule, the probability of meeting total energy loads in any year through 1989 ranges from 87 to 60 percent.Similarly, the probability of meeting firm energy loads ranges from 98 to 82 percent.Without WNP-2 the probability of meeting total energy loads decreases about 10 to 12 percent and the probability of meeting f irm energy loads decreases about 4 to 17 percent.Long term shortages of electricity would result in severe social and economic impacts since two-thirds of all electric energy is used in commerce and industry in the Pacific Northwest.
An inadequate energy supply for industry means reduced capital investment, fewer jobs, decreased payrolls, less production, and lower living standards.
Unemployment would increase demands on governments for welfare and unemployment assistance at the same time that the tax bases financing governments would be declining, and tend to increase social and sociopolitical stresses.8.1-2 Amendment 1.May 1978 WNP-2 ER The Northwest Power Pool has drafted an emergency plan for curtailing loads in the event of long term power shortages.
This plan is discussed in Section 1.3.1.The voluntary level one curtailment portion of the plan was utilized in the winters of 1972-1973 and 1973-1974 when low flow and adverse hydro conditions were experienced; firm power requirements were met but some interruptible power utilized by industrial customers was curtailed.
The costs of these cutbacks are not known but are clearly substantial.
As the probability for meeting total and firm energy loads in all periods of 1978 to 1989 decreases, the need for projects, such as WNP-2, being available as scheduled becomes greater with the hope that, if a deficit occurs, only the voluntary portions of the emergency plan will need to be utilized.8.1.1.3 Beneficial Uses of B-Product Heat The Supply System as a condition of the Site Certification Agreement with the State of Washington, is cooperating in a project to demonstrate the beneficial use of condenser cooling water.WNP.-2 will be the warm water source for studies on the response of crops and trees to warm water irrigation.
Other possible areas of study include aqua-culture, soil heating, and greenhouse and animal enclosure environment control.During operation, 4,000 GPM of water, taken from the hot leg between the plant and the cooling towers will be available to the warm water agricultural project.Cold water will be utilized when warm water is not available.
The project is coordinated by the Board of Directors of the Hanford Warm Water Utilization Laboratory (HWWUL)composed of representatives of Washington State University, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, the state governments of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, the U.S.Department of Energy (DOE)and the Supply System.DOE has leased approx-imately 900 acres to HWWUL for the research project.A pilot study of tree growth on the leased area funded by the Pacific Northwest Regional Commission was initiated in 1976.Funding for expanded studies involving the use of the WNP-2 warm water has not yet been secured.8.1.2 Other Social and Economic Benefits 8.1.2.1 Pa rolls and Em lo ment Construction began in September 1972 and is expected to extend through March 1980, with a total construction payroll outlay of about$300 million, an average of approximately
$3.3 million per month over the entire period.In 1978, the anticipated year of peak employment of approximately 18SO 8.1-3 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER construction workers, peak payroll outlays will be about$8.0 million per month.These payrolls represent an addition to the regional income as the labor force is primarily drawn from the Pacific Northwest, much of it resides in the greater Tri-City area.During the 40 year operation period beginning in 1980, 104 permanent operation staff will be employed plus an addi-tional WPPSS support staff of approximately 25 workers.The annual payroll outlay for these employees is estimated to be approximately
$2.4'million.8.l.2.2 Tax Revenues During the construction of the Project, approximately
$32 million in sales taxes will be paid to state and local government.
During operation the Project will pay sales taxes in excess of$72 million.Since the Project is entirely owned by WPPSS, a joint operating agency and public utility, no real estate taxes will be levied.During the operation period, the Supply System is required by law to pay a"privilege tax" as imposed by RCW 54.28, which is one and one half percent of the wholesale power cost.Over the life of the plant, it is estimated that approximately
$72 million will be paid in privilege taxes, with approximately
$36 million of this figure to go to Benton county and a number of other taxing districts within a 35-mile radius of the plant.Zn addition to this privilege tax, the Supply System is making payments during the construction period to local school districts experiencing increased enrollment as a result of the Project.En addition to the maintenance and operation payments prescribed by RCW 54.36, (which are ap-proximately
$400 per project pupil year), the Supply System has voluntarily entered into an agreement with the school districts in the Tri-Cities area to provide funds for capital construction purposes.Upon meeting minimal eligibility requirements, the districts are immediately eligible to draw upon their allotted share of these funds.8.1.2.3 Public Facilities During plant construction, visitors have access to a tem-porary outdoor display located outside the security fence near the southwest gate.With regard to a permanent visitor facility, the Supply System is planning to construct an infor-mation center at its central office facility approximately nine miles South of the WNP-2 and WNP-la4 sites.Present plans are for a 5,000 sq.ft.building which will include archaeol-ogical and energy-related displays and demonstrations.
Amendment 1 May 1978 i~ER TABLE 8.1-1 ELECTRIC POlJER RE(UIREMENTS BY MAJOR CONSUMER CATEGORIES IN THE PACIfIC NORTHllEST
'liest Group Area 1950 1960 Actual 1970 1976 1980 Estimated 1990 1995 Population (000)gl No.Domestic Consumers (000)No.Commercial Consumers (000)KNh Per Consumer 4,675 1,073 140 5,490 1,407 177 6,435 1,986 242 7,016 7,414 2,394 2,620 276 302 8,498 8,977 3,260 3,575 362.392 Domestic Commercial Ener Sales billions kl<h 5,112 9,841 16,799 29,143 13,831 15,742 17,000 20,500 22,000 50,035 63,088 71,500 95,000 107,800 Domestic Commercial Industrial Irrigation Other Total Losses Total Requirements Ten Year Annual Growth Rates 5.5 2.4 ll.1.1.6)9.7 3.1 22.8 13.8 5.2 22.3 1.0.8 43.1 4.7 47.8 7.7X 27.5 12.1 44.1 2.6 1.4 87.7 9.6 97.3 7.4X 37.7 17.4 51.0 3.9 2.1 112.1 11.0 123.1 44.5 21.6.65.3 4.6 2.5 138.5 13.2 151.7 4.5X 66.8 34.4 93.4 6.3 4.3 205.2 19.5 224.7 4.0X 78.6 42.1 113.8 7.6 5.1 247.2 22.9 270.1 gl States of Hashington, Oregon, Idaho, and western Montana.Source: BPA Requirements Section, March 6, 1978
TABLE 8.2-1 COST COMPONENTS OF WNP-2 Direct Costs a~b.C~d e.fo gi h.l 0 Land and land rights Structures and site facilities Reactor (boiler)plant equipment Turbine plant equipment Heat rejection system (cooling towers)Electric plant equipment Miscellaneous plant equipment Spare parts allowance Contingency allowance 68,000 138J840~000 111,529,000 102,926,000 11,590,000 58,473,000 42,257,000 4,876,000 111 065 000 Subtotal$581,624,000 Indirect Costs a~b.c d.Construction facilities, equipment.
and services Engineering and construction manage-ment services Other costs Znterest during construction*
28~857I000 116,439,000 222g315/000 35,103,000 Escalation during construction 92,662,000 Total capitalized Plant Cost, at start of commercial operation$1, 077,000, 000 (r"Does not include debt service on bonds issued for plant construction between the date (September 1977)when payments are to commence under net billing agreements with Bonneville Power Administration and the scheduled commercial operation date (December 1980).This amount is currently estimated to be$199,908,000.
Amendment 2 Oct 1978 TABLE 8.2-2 INFORMATION REQUESTED BY NRC WNP-2 2.3.Znterest during construction Length of construction work week Estimated site labor requirement Total manhours of construction effort 6.68%/year 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> 9.82 manhours/KWe 10.8 million 4 5.6.Average site labor pay rate (including fringe benefits)effective at month and year of NSSS order Composite escalation rates for 1978 Composite escalation rates for 1979 Composite escalation rates for 1980 Total plant cost at start of commercial operation$12.00/hour(7.7%/year 7.6%/year 7.2%/year$1~077'00'00 Weighted'average effective interest rate.(a)NSSS was ordered in April 1971 before site construction began.The$12.00/hour represents average site labor pay rate for March 1976, the delivery date for NSSS.Zn January 1978 the average labor cost was$14.23/hour.
Amendment 1 i%ay 1978 WNP-2 ER The occurrence of the rapid increase in population projected by Woodwazd-Clyde Consultants is substantiated by the numbers of new residential telephone hookups experienced by General Telephone in 1974 through 1977, and the expansion of the residential housing market in the Tri-City area.The zesidential population increase is scattered among the Tri-Cities and outlying communities.
The association of WNP-2 to the total residential population increase can be estimated from the results of a survey of WNP-2 workers in February 1975 performed as part of the socioeconomic study by Woodward-Clyde Consultants.
It was found that 65 percent of the workers surveyed (about 70 percent of 550 workers)lived in the Tri-City area before construction on WNP-2 began and that about 80 percent of the workers surveyed lived in the Tri-Cities.<3~
At the time of the survey in February 1975, approximately 1200 construction workers were employed on the FFTF Project.In making pro-jections of total population growth in the Tri-City area, Woodward-Clyde Consultants assumed that 40 percent of the peak construction work force on WNP-2 in 1977 or 660 workers, would be new residents.
Xt is significant that the demand for workers on WNP-1 and WNP-4 will be increasing to about 3300 workers from 1975 to 1980.It is also significant to note that FFTF and WNP-2 will have been completed by then, or will be near the end of the downside of their manpower curves.Since the mix and magnitude of building trades workers is similar on these projects, it is expected that the new resident workers on FFTF and WNP-2 will remain in the Tri-City area to work on WNP-1 and 4.An attempt to confirm this hypothesis began in February 1978, when a question on"place of previous employ-ment" was included on the revised"1st Day,.Worker Survey" for WNP-1/4 workers.This questionnaire is one of several data sources developed for the socioeconomic monitoring effort required by the State of Washington Site Certifi-cation Agreement for WNP-1/4.As construction activities on WNP-1/4 peak and are completed between 1979 and 1983, construction population growth in the Tri-City area is expected to decline;however, the expansion occuring in other local industries and irrigation agri-culture is expected by 1982 to take up the slack in population growth caused by a decline in construction industry employment.
It is likely that other construction projects related to energy research and development will occur in the Tri-City area during the 1980-1989 decade.t The increase in population from 1974 to 1978 is anticipated to have certain adverse effects rel'ated to the increased burden of new residents on community services and facilities.
8.2-3 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER Although conceived as adverse effects in the short-term, the act of increasing community services and facility capacities during the late 1970's will be a benefit in the 1980's as the area population stabilizes at a higher permanent level.The anticipated effects of short-term population growth on community services and facilities are summarized on Table 8.2-6.The housing requirement noted in Table 8.2-6 is being met by the number of new homes and apartments which have been and are being constructed.
The local residential housing market sector seems capable of responding to the short-term need which is anticipated.
The effects of population growth on school enrollments is a problem in the Tri-City area which is being met by intra-district busing and the construction of new facilities.
The Supply System has negotiated an agreement with school districts effected by WNP-1 and 4 to make financial assis-tance payments for construction of new facilities.
Also included in the agreement is a procedure for compensating for enrollment increases caused by WNP-2 and WNP-1/4.The conditions of the agreement are consistent with WPPSS authority as a public agency and are detailed to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of funds when and where need exists.Local hospitals are not expected to be impacted by the anticipated short-term population increase.In fact, Table 8.2-6 depicts a condition of excess capacity in all three local hospitals.
However, need for increased fire and police protection is anticipated.
The various public Works Departments in the Tri-Cities are aware of the general pressures of growth, and have adopted a policy of meeting the overall area growth as part of their normal functions.
Quantity and pressure within water systems is not a problem, except during those weather abnormalities when there are more than two weeks of temper-atures in excess of 100 F.Almost all of the communities are planning or building significant increases in water supply and/or pressure systems to come on line during the 1979-1982 period.Increases in the size and capabilities of sewage treatment and collector systems are also being planned or constructed, although none of the public works departments would even characterize the peaks under current conditions as"critical".
Traffic congestion associated with workers traveling to the Hanford Reservation through the City of Richland is a problem on George Washington Way and the By-Pass Highway during peak periods during the morning and afternoon.
However, progress 8.2-4 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER is being made towards placement of two additional lanes on the By-Pass.Planning and design for the project will be carried out in 1978 and early 1979, and the project has top priority for construction during Washington's 1979-81 budgetary biennium.Barring any major budget surprises from the 1979 Legislative'Session, the project will be constructed during June through September, 1979.These improvements, coupled with a decrease in construction personnel from PFTP and WNP-2, will greatly ease congestion on this highway.Since the WNP-2 site is located on the DOE Hanford Reser-vation, twelve miles north of the City of Richland and two miles west of the Columbia River, noise and temporary aesthetic disturbances on residential populations are expected to be negligible.
In addition, the acquisition of land for WNP-2 did not cause any affect on local residents because the land is leased from DOE and has not had residents since 1943 when it was acquired by the Manhattan Project of the Army Corps of Engineers.
8.2.2.2 Lon-Term External Costs Long-term external costs are those associated with the operation of WNP-2 beginning in 1980 for approximately 40 years.The operation of the Project will not impair recreational values, deteriorate aesthetic values, or degrade or restrict access to areas of scenic, historical, or cultural interest.The Project is located 12 miles north of the City of Rich-land on the DOE Hanford Reservation and, as such, is not anticipated to create locally adverse meteorological con-ditions or noise.The increased costs to local governments for services required by the permanently employed plant workers and their families are expected to be compensated for by local taxes paid by individual workers who become permanent residents.
In addition, the project will provide abundant tax revenues to the area taxing districts from the privilege (generation) tax ($36 million)and from the sales tax on fuel reloads (approximately
$7.2 million)during plant operation.(WNP 1 and 4, also in the Tri-Cities area, will also be providing$126 million from the generation tax and$33.4 million in sales taxes to local governments during approximately the same time period as WNP-2.)8.2-5 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER There is no known economic incentive for heavy industry to be attracted to the WNP-2 site area.There are no electric rate incentives or deterents to influence the growth of residential or commercial customers in the WNP-2 site area.Therefore, no long-term external costs are anticipated with respect to further industrial development in the area.8.2-6 Amendment 1 May 1978 TABLE 8.2-1 COST COMPONENTS OF WNP-2 Direct Costs a 4 b.c~d.e.f.g h.3.~Land and land rights Structures and site facilities Reactor (boiler)plant equipment Turbine plant equipment Heat rejection system (cooling towers)Electric plant equipment Miscellaneous plant equipment Spare parts allowance Contingency allowance 68,000 138,840,000 111,529,000 102,926,000 11,590,000 58,473,000 42,257,000 4,876,000 111,065,000 Subtotal$581,624,000 Indirect Costs'a~b.c~d 0 Construction facilities, equipment and services Engineering and construction manage-ment services Other'costs Interest during construction*
28,857,000 116,439,000 222,315,000 35,103,000 Escalation during construction 92,662,000 Total capitalized Plant Cost, at, start of commercial operation (September 1980)01 i 077, 000 I 000*Does not include debt service on bonds issued for plant construction between the date (September 1977)when payments are to commence under net billing agreements with Bonneville Power Administration and the scheduled commercial operation, date (September 1980).This amount is currently estimated to be$199,908,000.
Amendment 1 May 1978 TABLE 8.2-2 INFORMATION REQUESTED BY NRC WNP-2 1-2.3.Interest during construction Length of construction work week Estimated site labor requirement 6.68%/year 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> 9.82 manhours/KWe Total manhours of construction effort-10.8 million 4~5.6.Average site labor pay rate (including fringe benefits)effective at month and year of NSSS order Composite escalation rates for 1978 Composite escalation rates for 1979 Composite escalation rates for 1980 Total plant cost at start, of commercial operation$12.00/hour 7.7%/year 7.6%/year 7.2%/year$lg077g000g000 Weighted average effective interest rate.(a)NSSS was ordered in April 1971 before site construction began.The$12.00/hour represents average site labor pay rate for March 1976, the delivery date for NSSS.In January 1978 the average labor cost was$14.23/hour.
Amendment 1 May 1978 TABLE 8.2-3 ESTIMATED COST OF ELECTRICITY FROM WNP-2 Fixed Costs Interest and Amortization Insurance Payment to Reserve and Contingency Fund Operation and Maintenance (fixed)Administration and General Subtotal Annual Cost 80,526,000 2,259,000 8,053,000 12,183,000 6,,977,000 109,998,000 mills/kilowatt hour 13.20.37 1.32 2.00 1.14 18.03 Less: Surplus of Prior Year'Payment to Reserve and Contingency Fund Interest Earnings Total Fixed Cost 5,305,000 2,712,000$1011 981 4 000-.87-.44 16.72 Variable Costs Nuclear Fuel Cycle (b)Cost.of U 08 (yellow cake)Cost of skipping Cost of conversion and enrichment Cost of conversion and fabrication Cost of reprocessing Carrying charge on fuel'inventory Cost of waste disposal Credit for plutonium, U-233 or U-235 Total cost for fuel Taxes Total Variable Cost Net Annual Cost 33,055,000 1,971,000 1 35,026,000 8137,007,000
.97.23 2.69~70.00.10.73 F 00 5.42~32 5.74 22.46 All variable costs are calculated at 63 percent plant factor.Mills/kWh derived from data developed for the 1978 Fuel Mana ement Plan by B.M.Moore, WPPSS.The cost is levelized over a 15 year period and is escalated.
Amendment 1 May 1978 NiitP-2 HR TABLE 8.2-4 POPULATION DATA FOR TIIE TRI-CITY AREA 1940 1950 1 960 1970 197 1*1972" 1973'974 1976 1976 1977 Benton County Fra nkl in County TOTALS 12,053 51,370 62,070 67,540 67,700 67,800 68,200 69,800 73,300 78,700 84,500 6 307 13 563 23 342 25 816 26.000 L6,000'26,000 26.200 26.700 27,500 20,300 18,360 64,933 85,412 93,356 93,700 93,800 94,200 96,000 100,000 106,200 112,800 Kenneviick Pasco Richland Mes t Richland TRI-C ITY TOTALS 1,918 10,106 14,244 15,212 15,400 15,580 16,200 16,800 18,253**21,301~~
23,638"*3,913 10,228 14,522 13,9?0 247 21,809 23,548 26,290 13,920 26,300 14,000 14,050 14,100 14,450 14,618 15,500 26,350 26,600 28,000 28,600 30,009**31,040 1.347 1 107 1 143 1.159 1.225 1.247*'477+*1,561*'2,024**
6,078 42,143 53,661 56,529 56,763 57,089 58,075 60,147 62,780 67,489 72,202'Estimates from Tri-City Chamber of Commerce and the l<ashington State Office of Program and Fiscal blanagement.
"'"Actual Census.Source: 4" 6 Socioeconomic Stud: l<PPSS Nuclear Pro.ects Nos.1 and 4by lloodward-Clyde Consultants, April 1975, Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2.1974-1976"llashington Information Report;State of Ilashington, Population Trends, 1976", Population Studies Division, Office of Program I'lanning and Fiscal Hanagement, Olympia, August 1976.1977.Prelimi>>ary Estimates, yet to be certified, unpublished data, Benton-Franklin Council of Governments.
WNP 2 ER TABLE 8".2-5 PROJECTED SHORT-TERM POPULATION GROWTH IN TRI-CITY AREA Actual 1974 1975 1976 Projected 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Yearly Chancae+4,332+6,667+7,500+6500 1000 1500+500+1500 108,026 112,358 119,025 126,525 130,500 129,500 128,000 128,500 130,000 a After 1978 changes will depend upon new major construction.
Sources: Socioeconomic Stud: WPPSS Nuclear Pro'ects Nos.1 and 4, April 1975"Washington State Information Report-State of Washington Population Trends, 1976," Population Studies Division of the Office of Program Plan-ning and Fiscal Management, Olympia, Washington, August 1976.Amendment 1 May 1978
- UivP-2 ER TABLE 8.2-6 SUM/1ARY OF REGIONAL GRO'HTN INDICATORS Richland 19~419 5 I976 191~1978 Kennwrick Pasco 1 6 19 7 1%8 Popul a t i on Population increases*
Mousing Required School Enrollment~'ncreases 600 1,409 1,031 725 1,453 3.048 2,337 362-350 168 882 900 200 470 345 242 4&5 1,020 780 120-120 36 295 300 7,648 7,843 7,979 8,080 8,016 7,632 7,839 8,517 8,842 9,000 4,825 4,782 5,033 5.473 5,955 195 136 101 80-207 678 325 158-(43)251 440 482 28,000 28,600 30,009 31,040 32,050 16,800 18,253 21,301 23,638 24,000 14.100 14,450 14,618 15.500 16,400 Mater Requirements (liGD)Plant Capacity Average Use Peak Use 36 36 13.7 13.7 35.0 35.1 36 36 36 13.5 14.0 14.0 14.0 19.5 20 20 20 20 20 13.8 13.8 13.9 4.5 4.8 5.2 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.7 35.2 35.2 35.3 9.1 11-0 13.1 13.5 15.5 14.5 14.8 14.9 15.0 Sewage Disposal Use (HGD)Plant Capacity Average Use Peak Use 6 6 6 6 6 8.0 8.0.8.7 8.7 8.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.8 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.3 3.2 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.9 Policemen Firemen 35 35 37'7 38 38 39 26 29 30 30 32 22 24 24 24 25 35 40 40 20 27 30 30 32 24 27 27 28 29 ilospital Beds Available Average Use 135 135 91 93 135 135 135 60 60 60 60 60 80 80 80 80 80 90 90 90.40 36 34 32 32 55 54 53 52 51 UOTES: 1974 through 1976 data source-The agencies providing the service or facility.5 9 1977 through 1978 estimates based on projections and/or per capita deamnd.<8*Excluding 1977-78 annexations, m g**For 1977, May 1, 1977 only MS co Q WNP-2 ER CHAPTER 9 9.1 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES ALTERNATIVES NOT REQUIRING THE CREATION OF NEW GENERATING CAPACITY At the time of application for a Construction Permit for WNP-2, it was concluded that the projected power requirements of the region could best be met by addition of a new base load thermal plant.This conclusion is still valid;and according to the latest West Group Forecast, the power output of the unit will be fully utilized when it commences operation.
An updated evaluation of the need for power was presented in Chapter l.9.1-1 WNP-2 ER 9.2 ALTERNATIVES REQUIRING THE CREATION OF NEW GENERATING CAPABILITY Several alternate energy sources'ere given consideration during the early planning stages of WNP-2.There have been no changes in the technology or economics of any of these alternatives that would indicate that the project should be abandoned in favor of an alternative generation method.9.2-1 WNP-2 ER, 9.3'ELECTION OF CANDIDATE AREAS The selection of the site for WNP-2 has been fully discussed in previous documents of public record.No new information has come to light as a result of construction activities or environme'ntal monitoring programs that would indicate in.any way that the sele'cted site is unsuitable for the project.9.3-1 WNP-2 ER 9.4 COST-BENEFIT COMPARISON OF'ANDIDATE SITE PLANT ALTERNATIVES There is no alternative plant-site combination that would afford a better balance of economic, social, and environ-mental factors than the proposed project.This situation has not.changed since the original analysis was made.9.4-1 WNP-2 ER CHAPTER 10 PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 10.1 10.1.1 COOLING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES Ran e of Alternative Coolin S stems The cooling system for dissipating the waste heat from WNP-2 is described in Section 3.4,"Heat Dissipation System." At the time of application for a Construction Permit for WNP-2, the Supply System investigated the following alternative heat dissipation methods: variations of mechanical draft cooling towers, natural draft wet cooling towers, spray ponds, once-through cooling,'nd a cooling pond (1,2).The selection of the WNP-g heat dissipation system was based on: determining what systems were available', selection an'd analysis of realistic alternatives, and optimization of the selected type of system.Analyses considering environmental and economic factors we'e performed for the various alternatives.
Rectangular mechan-ical draft (induced)wet cooling towers were selected to pro-vide the-best combination of characteristics for WNP-2 as shown in the WNP-2 Construction Permit Stage Environmental'eport.
Since that document, further advances in mechanical draft'ooling tower technology has resulted in round concrete mechanical draft cooling towers as an alternative to the rec-tangular design.No technological advances in any of the other alternatives looked into in the Construction Permit Stage Environmental Report.has resulted (to date)in an improvement over mechanical draft cooling towers.A cost-benefit comparison performed in 1972 resulted in the decision to construct round mechanical draft cooling towers'see Figure 3.1-3).An environmental and economical costs-benefits comparison between round and rectangular cooling towers, if done today, would not be expected to result in a different conclusion, especially when considering the asso-ciated sunk environmental and economical costs.However, it is relevant to show how the selection of the round cooling towers over the rectangular cooling towers was made.There-fore, the following is a summary of the evaluation of these two types of mechanical towers"perform'ed by the Supply System in December 1972 to determine which tower exhibited better economical and environmental characteristics.
10.1-1 WNP-2 ER 10.1.1.1 General Both of the alternate cooling systems are based upon the eva-porative cooling process;Thus it is appropriate to discuss the evaporation of water to a moving air stream, the rate con-trolling properties, the limits of the process and other phenomena inherent in the process.The heat transfer process involves a'latent heat transfer due to change in state of a small portion of the water from liquid to vapor and a sensible heat transfer due to the difference in temperature of the water and air.Approximately 1000 Btu are required to evaporate one pound of water.The properties which control the rate, of evaporation are the degree of satur-ation of the air and the difference between the,"wet-bulb" temperature and the cold water temperature.
This temperature difference is called the"approach to the wet-bulb" or simply the"approach".
The degree of cooling;ie, the temperature difference of the water entering and leaving the cooling sys-tem is called the"range".When water is evaporated, the chemicals, mineralsand dirt which were in the water either, as dissolved solids or.sus;pended.solids remain behind.Thus, if the water evaporated,is simply replaced.by an equal amount (makeup)the concentra-tion of dissolved solids in the system would continue to-increase.This can cause corrosion or scaling of the system components.
The increase of dissolved solids in the system is'ontrolled by adding more makeup water than is evaporated, and intentionally returning, the excess (blowdown) from the system back to the river.The pH is controlled by chemically treating the water, in this.case by adding sulfuric acid until the pH is between 6.5 and 8.5.The location and orientation of cooling towers with respect to nearby buildings, electrical structures, and prevailing winds is important from the standpoint of noise, fog, and icing conditions created by the saturated air discharge, and interference with the free movement of air into the tower intakes.-These factors are balanced with piping and power transmission costs and site related installation factors.The air flow designs used in both mechanical draft tower alternatives is induced draft, where fans are located in the air outlet.Heated water entering the tower is broken into drops increasing water surface area and facilitating evapor-ation.Release of the latent heat of vaporization to the air, which is expelled from the tower by the fans, cools the water droplets which are collected and recirculated back through the plant condenser.
10.1-2 WNP-2 ER 10.1.1.2 Selected Coolin S stem 0 timization A system of conventional mechanical draft (induced)cooling towers (MDCT)is considered the optimal design to minimize environmental and economic costs.Upon selection of the con-ventional MDCT, the Supply System conducted a series of indepth studies" of MDCT designs.As a result, six, round concrete MDCT's were selected as the cooling system for WNP-2.The round mechanical draft cooling towers were determined to have a number of advantages over the conventional (rectangular) mechanical draft cooling towers.The following information comes from the study made by the Supply System in 1972.A 10.1.2.1 Com arison of Desi ns Item Rectangular Towers Round Towers No.of towers Total Land required Design wet-bulb Cold side temp Approach to wet-bulb Range Turbine back press.Fan horsepower 19.5 acres 60 F 76.5 F 16.5 F 28 F Base 200 hp 9.2 acres 60 F 76.3 F 16.3 F 28 F Same 200 hp No.of cells No.of fans 10.1.3 Power Consum tion 36 36 36 Table 10.1-1 compares the relative energy requirements of the two tower systems in terms of 1972 capitalized energy consump-tion (turbine back pressure was taken as equal for both sys-tems).10.1.4 Effect on Ca acit, Factor Neither alternative would have an effect on the capacity factor.10.1-3 WNP-2 ER Monetized Costs As shown in Table 10.1-2, evaluated 1972 differential con-struction cost is$616,200 in favor of the round towers.It is not expected that the relative ranking of the two sys-tems would be different if the same evaluation were performed today.10.1.6 Environmental Costs The round towers are constructed of concrete, while the con-struction of the rectangular towers would have required wood.Since wood has not been used-in the construction of the round cooling towers or as a fill material, chemical preser-vatives will not be used in the round towers, as would have been the case for rectangular towers.This eliminates the possible discharge of preservatives to the river.Both systems have similar blowdown, evaporation, makeup re-quirements; therefore, their relative effects on the Col-umbia River and its aquatic life would be similar.The greatest difference would result from the difference in the towers'lume rise.The plume rise from round towers would be greater than from rectangular towers.This is due to the concentrated heat content of the combined six stack exhausts of the round towers, as compared to the less concentrated heat content in the plumes of the multiple cell rectangular towers.The higher plume rise results in reduced local fogging and icing at the plant and on the environment in the Hanford area.This re-duction in fogging and icing potential is responsive to the Thermal Power Plant.Site Evaluation Councils request that.the applicant investigate improvements in this area.10.1-4 WNP-2 ER TABLE 10.1-1 CAPITALIZED TOWER ENERGY CONSUMPTION Ca italized 0 eratin Costs a)Capitalized Plant Output due to a fan Outage b)Capitalized Energy Consumption for Tower Fans c)Capitalized Differ-ential Plant Output due to 0.2oF Cold Water Temperature Difference Four Rectan ular Towers 232,900 1,991,700 147,000 Six Round Towers 362,300 1,842,300 Base d)Total Capitalized Costs$2,371,600$2,204,900 e)Differential Capi-talized Costs$167,000 Base NOTE: Based on December, 1972 costs (when analysis was performed).
WNP-2 ER TABLE 10~1-2 COST COMPARISON OF MECHANI'CAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS Four Ca italized Construction Costs Rectan ular Towers Six Round Towers a)Tower Direct Installa-tion Cost, b)Expanded Engineering Cost on Base Design by Tower Contractor, c)Piping and Electrical Installation Costs, d)Additional A-E Cost, 7,226,000 3,950,800 7,226,000 25,000 3,291,600 18,000 e)Total Tower Cost, f)Differential Tower Cost 11,176,800 616,200$10,560,600 (Base)Note: Based on December 1972 costs (when analysis was performed)
WNP-2 ER 10.2 INTAKE SYSTEM The makeup water intake system is made up of three parts: the water inlets, two lead-in pipes approximately 900 feet long, and the pump structure almost fully buried in the river bank.The intake system is designed for a maximum capacity of 25,000 gpm.Although the quantity of makeup water depends on evaporation, drift and blowdown requirements, the average annual makeup water demand is expected to be approximately 15,500 gpm.Three 12,500 gpm pumps are provided with one to serve as a spare.The infiltration bed intake was the selected intake system at the time of the Construction Permit Stage Environmental Re-port.However, the Supply System has re-evaluated that decision and the following is a summary of that 1973 evalu-ation of the environmental, performance, and cost factors of several alternatives.
The perforated pipe type of inlet optimizes the previously mentioned factors and therefore was selected as the system to be used for WNP-2.The following discussion shows the procedure and pertinent factors evalu-ated in selecting this type of intake in 1973.Since no superior designs have become available since 1973, the rela-tive rankings of alternatives would probably still be the same if this analysis were performed today.Consideration of the sunk environmental and monetized costs would result in a decided advantage for retaining the completed system.10.2.1 Ran e of Alternatives Many intake alternatives were considered.
The following four schemes were evaluated in detail(li2):
a.Perforated pipes mounted above the river bed b.Conventional intake (modified for fish protection) c.Infiltration bed d.Perforated pipes located in an off river channel 10.2.1.1 Perforated Pi es Mounted Above River Bed This intake (See Figure 3.4-7)utilizing a perforated pipe for water screening is described in Section 3.4 and is the selected intake system for'NP-2.For fish protection, the design utilizes an external sleeve with 3/8" perforations and an internal sleeve with 3/4" per-forations.
This design provides a uniform inlet velocity through the external sleeve.10.2-1 WNP-2 ER 10.2.1.2 Conventional Intake (Modified for fish protection)
A plan and section of the intake are shown in Figure 10.2-1.The essential mechanical features are: trash racks, traveling screens and vertical mixed flow pumps.The structure differs from conventional intakes in that the screens are mounted flush with their supporting walls and fish escape openings are provided in the outer walls.This combination permits a clear fish escape passage directly to right or left from the face of the screen.Traveling screen mesh openings are 1/4 inch clear with possibility that smaller openings may be re-quired seasonally to reduce intake of small fish.The approach water velocity at.the screens would not exceed 0.5 fps at minimum river level.In order to avoid a potential fish trapping slackwater inlet in the shore line, the structure would be located on the low water bank of the river.Access to the structure from the high water bank would be provided by a trestle as shown in Figure 10.2-2.10.2.1.3 Infiltration Bed The infiltration bed is shown in Figures 10.2-3 and 10;2-4..It would be located in an off-river channel and water would be drawn into the system through a porous medium composed of sand, gravel, and stone.The water passes through the medium into underlying pipes which lead to the pump structure loca-ted several hundred feet inland.A backwash system would be provided to remove materials which collect on the porous bed during operation.
At the infiltration, channel entrance a gate structure would be provided to control the water velocity in the channel and across the porous bed.10.2.1.4 Perforated Pi es Located in an Off River Channel The perforated pipe intake would be located in a concrete lined channel off the mainstream of the river as shown in Fi'gure 10.2-5.It would utilize the same inlet concept as the perforated pipes located in the river.This scheme would avoid any obstruction to navigation and the necessity for providing the long lead-in pipe to the pump structure.
With the low channel velocities, sediment will settle at, some point along the channel.A two section stilling basin would be provided to divert this sediment into areas where the material can be removed.The individual stilling basin sections can be isolated by gates from the normal flow to the 10.2-2 WNP-2 ER operations would not be carried into the intake area and beyond into the discharge channel.10.2.2 Normalization of Cost Com arison All of the alternatives considered were evaluated at a pump-ing rate of 25,;000-gpm.Difference in pumping power required were calculated by estimating the head loss between the inlet and pump suctions.The differential power cost for the alter-natives is tabulated in Table 10.2-1, with the perforated pipe intake taken as base.10.2.3 Effect of Ca acit Factor There would be no effect on plant capacity factor from any of the alternatives.
10.2.4 Monetized Cost The total differential costs are tabulated in Table 10.2-1 for each alternative.
The perforated pipe is the least costly and the infiltration bed is the most costly, based on March, 1973 cost levels.All schemes were evaluated at a pumping rate of 25,000 gpm.If another economic analysis were made today, it is expected that the relative rankings of the sys-tems would be the same.10.2.5 Alternative Environmental Costs The following environmental impact factors were considered for this system.-a~Impingement and entrainment of microscopic plankton organisms, fish eggs, larvae and juvenile fish with little or no swimming ability.The volume of water to be pumped in all schemes in relation to the river flow is very small (.15%of minimum river flows).b.Temporary turbidity increase due to construction dredging and backfilling activities.
c.Permanent damage to river bottom and shoreline.
Table 10.2-2 shows a summary comparison of the four intake schemes with the perforated pipes mounted above the river bed as base.10.2.5.1 Perforated Pi e Mounted Above River Bed Very low intake approach velocities and the beneficial effect, of the river current sweeping past the exposed inlet pipe 10.2-3 WNP-2 ER surface will keep impingement of organisms to a minimum.The inlet is also located well away from the shore, where out-migrating salmonoid fry concentrations are expected to be less than along the shore.During construction of the perforated pipe intake, some river turbidity was developed.
This was due primarily to the fact that the perforated pipes are located away from the shore.However, temporary turbidity resulting from construction had no noticable effect upon spawning of adult salmon,-which takes place upstream of the facility.Construction of the intake system was undertaken during the low water period July, 31 through October, 1975.Adverse effects on migrating juvenile salmonoids were minimal.Adult chinook salmon spawn up river and migrate past the Project primarily along the opposite bank of the river.The permanent facilities use a minimum of river bank and area compared with other schemes.Only the perforated pipe itself is in the waterway.10.2.5.2 Conventional Intake (Modified)
The potential for damage to aquatic life would be greater in this type of intake than for the perforated pipe.Entraining of larval fish and other microscopic river organisms drifting or swimming weakly in the water would occur through the 1/4 inch openings of the screens.Decreasing the size of the screen openings would decrease entrainment but increase impingement of these forms.This structure would extend riverward across the current flow.This would create an eddy below the structure where fish could congregate, which would be an undesirable effect.Construc-tion would have temporarily increased river turbidity.
The permanent structure at the shoreline would remove a small area of the benthic habitat and shoreline and interfere with the river's flood flow.10.2.5.3 Infiltration Bed This scheme offers the greatest protection from entrainment and impingement of the aquatic life, including fish and non-swimming forms.Intake velocities would be well below the velocities that might affect even the smallest fish.The major problem for existing facilities of this type has been the clogging of the bed and the need for frequent inter-mittent backwashing.
Backwashing operation would raise river turbidity to some degree, and it is anticipated that during normal operation, turbidity would periodically exceed the acceptable limits.10.2-4 WNP-2 ER Turbidity during construction and op'eration would have had no impact on the spawning of the adult fall chinook salmon.Construction of the canal and infiltration bed would have caused temporary disturbance to the existing river bed and would have increased river turbidity.
A significant portion of the shoreline.'would have been taken up by the infiltration bed.Although this system has some merits, the overall environ-mental impact is found to be greater than the selected system.10.2.6 Perforated Pi e in a Diversion Channel This alternative has some advantages over the system used in that it eliminates all obstructions in the river and would cause the least disruption to the river bottom.During con-struction, there would be some river turbidity.
The side channel would tend to collect out-migrating salmonoid fry, and it would be expected that a greater number of fish would pass the perforated pipe in this channel than the one placed in the river.Velocity of the water flow passing the inlet would be far below that for the open river thus reducing fish protection.
Hence, the effect on fish greater than for the selected system.Considering the overall environmental impact, this scheme is less favorable than the selected system.10.2-5 WNP-2 ER TABLE 10.2-1 INTAKE SCHEMES DIFFERENTIAL COST COMPARISON Perforated Pipe In Off-River Infiltration Costs Perforated Pi e Channel bed A.Con-struction Conventional (Modified)
Direct Costs Escalation (Base)$487,000$1gl25g000$245g000 (2yr.)53,000 (2 r.)192,000(24 r.)27,000(2 r.)540/000 lg317g000 272g000 Modelling Laboratory Field'ngineering 50,000 38,000 30,000 150,000 92,000 10,000 19,000 Contingencies
" (15%)628,000 94,000(15%)
722,000 1 g589 F000 301 F000 377,000 (20%)-40,000 (10%)1/966g000 261~000 Financing and Interest (20%)tl Subtotal A (Base)138,000 860,000 380,000 2,346,000 66,000 327,000 and Maintenance Annual Cost 0aM+Capitalized 0 s M Incremental Power Subtotal B C.Total Cost (Base)*Il Base 3,000 37,000 37~000 8,700 110,000 3,000 113,000 800 10,000-2,000 8,000 (A+B)(Base)$897,000$2,459,000$335,000+Based on total Construction Cost'*Based on 2ft.incremental head loss over conventional scheme"*Based on lft.incremental head loss over conventional scheme Note 1: Costs include all elements of the scheme up to the point of entry into the makeup water pipeline leading to the plant.The electrical substation common to all schemes, is not included.The estimate for the conventional scheme includes the trestle and the pipe section parallel with the trestle.Note 2: All costs are based on 1973 prices (time of selection.
If the same analysis were performed today, the relative rankings of the systems would not change.
TABLE 10.2-2 (SHEET l o f 2)COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE INTAKE SYSTEMS Incremental Capital Cost Perforated Pipe Intake Perforated Pipe in Off River Channel$897 F 000 Infiltration Sed$2,459,000 Conventional (Nodified)
Pumphouse;
$335 F 000;Environmental Costs U it*i~it'd i ii M~lt d i ti~Mit d i tio~Mjt d i ii 1.Natural surface water body 1.1 Fish Impingement Adult salmonids Juvenile salmonids Other adult game fish Other juvenile game fish 5 Loss 0 PS g Loss 0 NL 5.1 0 LP 0 NL 10.2 0 N 0 N 10.2 0 8 0 10.2 1.2 Passage through cooling system 1.2 1 Phytoplankton Zooplankton 1.2.2 Juvenile salmonids Other juvenile game fish 1 3 Discharge plume 1.4 Chemical Effluents 1.5 Radionuclides discharged to water 1.6 Consumptive water usc 1.7 Plant construction effects 1.7.1 Physical water quality volume area 1.7.2 Chemical water quality volume area y Change 5 change gal/day acres-ft acres acre-ft acres 40.1<0.1 N NA NA N 0.25 5.1 5.1 c 0.1 4: 0.1 N NA NA N 2.0 10.2 10.2 c 0.1 4 0.1 I NL NA N 2.0 10.2 10.2 c 0.1 c.0.1 PS I N NA NA N 1.0 10.2 10.2 1.8 Other impacts none , 5.1 none 10.2 none 10.2 none 10.2 1.9 Combined or interactive effects 1.10 Net effects 2.Ground Water 3.Air PI none 4.1a 5.1 4 1&5 1 N PI none 10.2 10.2 N none 10.2 10.2 N none 10.2 10.2 TM3LE 10.2-2 (SHEET 2 of 2)Perforated Pipe Intake Perforated pipe in Infiltration Conventional Off River Channel Bed Pumphouse Environmental Costs Utt~Mktds ti~ltd s t se'cd 5 tf M~ltd5 t Land 4 1 Site selected (all additional land required is desert)4.2 Construction activities acres 1.0 5.1 1.0 10.2 1.0 10 2 1 0 10 2 4.2.1 People affected 4.2.2 Historical places affected 4.2.3 Archeological site disturbed by cooling system 4.2.4 Wildlife none none none 4.1 2.3 2.3'.7 none none none 2.3 none none none 2.3 none none 2.3 none 4.2.5 Land disturbed acres 2.0 5.1 2.0 10.2 2 0 10.2 2.0 10 2 4 3 Plant operation 4.3.1 People affected 4.3.2 Aesthetics 4.3.3 Wildlife 4.3.4 Plood Control none none 2.2 3.1 2.7 none none N NI none none N NI none N PS 4.4 Salts from cooling 4.5 Transmission route NA HA NA NA NA 4.6 4.7 4.8 Transmission facilities construction Transmission line operations other land impacts none 5.1 a 10.2 NA HA none NA NA 10.2'none 10 2 NA NA none 10.2 4.9 Combined effects 4.10 Net effects none N 5.1 a 10.2'.5.1.a 10.2 N 10.2 10 2 none N 10.2 none N 10.2 10.4 LP Larger Potent>a PS Potentially Significant S Significant NL Ni nor Locally HI No Implications HA Hot App@cable I Insignificant N Negligible PI Probably Insignificant 5RIQGE CRANE g--s'I---a I I E,NCLOSUR E.TRAVELING SCREEN S-PUMPS I'2>5OOGPR.
EACH'2 HOP IZ.CEI'TRIF.SCR,E,Btl WASH PuMPS.EXTREME.H.W.3'T S TRESTLE I 2, GOO G PM.I I f"" I I I I 1 I~I I--f I-I I I I II...I I f I I 1 f r TRASH RAKING OECK 359 TRASH RACK,-TOP OI: (DES'.GN FUR STOP LOGS CRI~ERION EWATERING)
EKISIING GRACE TO PLANT hCC E SS TO TRASH P hiCING DECK.I I I I r I I TRASH P ACKET 33 I I FISH PA$5AGE, 1 FISH PASSAGE 2 SE CTI ON A-A THRUST I5LOCK DECK PLAN WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report, MODIFIED COHVENTIONAL INTAKE PLAN AND SECTION'IG.10.2-1 0 0
'o Cn OOO SUCKS'lA,'t 1 0'hl~TO Pl A,NT ACCESS TRESTLE/I I X IN TAKE, STWuCTuzt-:
f//Goo 3658 350 i I I r j.//r 948 i/0~//-"~x!0 n~go//'b/./o lg)4)WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report MODIFIED CONVENTIONAL INTAKE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT PLAN FIGHT 10.2-2 W Ql 0 5 KQS f OO Q Pl Q III X A Ul 0RC OV ygO 3&o~E&)Oii0 70 JN puM STRucTUIZE-
)~'=Zf(.OI5Tal SUTIO S RG I)I I'I I&T ILLIHGe BASIblS FLOW CONT$ZOL STRU TUR656ATE5 H Q O M I ErJ Q H ig:i Q~g w 35o FILT,EQ.8CP yIVS~COIu<~'"'A z IVBR5IOg'HALI FILTER.CAPACIT'(~c.S,OC'Ogp~
(9 C&LL5 IN OPERATION, 2 CELLS SAC.KWAS HID&)I 3~IS PELF.Plr"w I puMP 5TQUcTURE' I I-I LI LJ (-)-+I (r IL Ir I I-DISTR,IEU.IOH~4~+I TRUCTLIr.E'
~I ((II I I I)Cop AIR-s~c~e,~~-I I I IZ 4 VVTI:-I." 4 I I I I I I I I I f'I-II I I-.V..I dl V SHE.ET PILI WCz g.L.W.34&-'I;;!6-4@AIR P I P t-;&G~~DEDje<ou~
~FILT'ER E E.D&EQUI.8 A.-A TYF.'ILTCP.
CC,LL!42PLIMP5 l2,&CCq~~EACI-I (I~Pa~a)II I i II.II II-,[I I I i I I IL I I I L I II[, I I I Li)LL i I~s I N L W.343-'~~o'4 4 4 Bl.B5S SHEET PILING BECTIOg P.-R F IL'TE:I" BED hloT'To TALC WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report INFILTRATION BED INTAKE PLAN AND SECTIONS FIG.10.2-4
'0 I 0 TO[LANT PUMP STRU ftIRE 980 370'N~(At'tc tc rt(aarb bacA I L II II II II II STILCIII4 IIASIN A LI tat+P Itt IA OHTROL STRUCTURE O'TILLIHR SASIHS (CSEE EXH 8~~tt~330 OIVERSIOH WAI I E IIP(000~~~aa(: CCIHCRETE aCHAHHE~L+IP T.Pa""'tall IÃ(>>Tat IIPT CLCC a(b Ab f IC'O.I.CATb TTtat~I I't i!I I I Tb PI.ANT-'Tbcvk L, I Ia~~~, (,:(~~Cblbbbat N.Ltaf SPTI I CIITTINT bPCL>>II CAT b I'.I.'~'."'-~w~~,~~~~C~riltb'PPCaa@ra(tb j V U~P S T.P.uCTVEr
~CT~T I WATER JET PIPES OISCHA (PE CANAL I II II If'r~PERP.PIPE SHEET PILE WALL STILLIHC EASI S SEE EARS CONCRETE a..a CHAHNEL VIATER JET I (--SHEET PILIH6 PIPES FOR i~OIVIDITIIP WALl>ILT AC(ITATIOg A 5EC rIOH A-A, EhlLARGEO PLhIII WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report PERFORATED PIPE INTAKE IN OFF-RIVER CARTEL FIG.10.2-5
WNP-2 ER DISCHARGE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES The single rectangular slot jet was chosen as the preferred discharge type for WNP-2, based on cost and effectiveness of mixing of the effluent with the river.An evaluation of the alternatives that were considered during the selection of the discharge system, including their economical and environmental costs, is given in the WNP-2 Construction Permit Stage Environ-mental Report and the WNP-2 USAEC Final Environmental State-ment.Since those documents, no technological advances have occured which would result in a discharge with a better economical-environmental cost-benefit balance.10.3-1 WNP-2 ER 10.4 10.4.1 CHEMICAL WASTE TREATMENT Ran e of Alternatives The design for the WNP-2 chemical waste treatment system is described in Section'.6.
In this design, chemicals are neu-tralized and discharged to the heat dissipation system.Ulti-mately, these wastes are discharged to the Columbia River"'.with the cooling tower blowdown.An alternative to this design would be to treat only the small volumes of strong chemical waste produced by the demineralizer.
These wastes would be neutralized so as to avoid system cor-rosion and would be reduced in volume, for eventual off-site disposal, by evaporation.
The following techniques were con-sidered: a~Thermal Eva oration b.Thermal evaporation has the advantage of recover-ing useful water from the chemical wastes.Steam or electrically heated evaporator equipment would produce distilled water and concentrate non-vola-tile salts for periodic off-site disposal.Atmos heric Eva oration Atmospheric evaporation of excess water in any evaporation-leaching pond has the advantage of negligible operating attention.
A large evapora-tion-leeching pond is being used for the collection and disposal of storm water, roof drains, area run-off and other miscellaneous drains from the site.The additional load imparted by the chemical waste treatment system would be negligible.
10.4.2 Alternatives Com ared Based on Short Term Environmental Effects The short-term environmental effects due to construction would be negligible.
The small incremental load imparted by the chemical waste system would not produce any measurable short term environmental effect.10.4.3 Alternatives Com ared Based on Lon Term Enyxron'men'tal'ffects The two alternates suggested would have a minimal long term environmental effect as no chemical wastes would be discharged to the river.The, non-volatile salts present in the neutra-lizer wastes would ultimately be returned to the environment either at an off-site disposal location or through percolation 10.4-1 WNP-2 ER into the ground at the evaporation-leaching pond.10.4.4 Selected S stem Monetized costs for the alternative systems were not determined.
The incremental cost associated with disposal by means of the heat dissipation system or the evaporation-leaching pond were too small to be calculated in a meaningful manner.Meaningful costs for the thermal evaporation approach were not calculated because of the low costs involved.in alternative methods of disposal.The recommended system described in Section 3.6 was chosen for the following reasons: a.It provides the simplest and most reliable system.b.The environmental impact, of discharging treated neutralized effluents to the river will be minimal.This is discussed in subsection 10.4.8.c~While the wastes will be produced infrequently, in small batches, it will be neutralized, monitored, and released to the Columbia River with the cooling tower blowdown, so that it will be subject to con-tinual surveillance.
10.4.S Power Consum tion Thermal evaporation would require small amounts of energy to vaporize the water present in the neutralized wastes.An average of under 200 pounds per hour of saturated steam would be required.Pumping power requirements for either evaporation method, or the method to be installed, would be negligible.
10.4.6 Effect on Ca acit Factor.Neither of the alternatives considered would have any effect on the plant capacity factor.10.4.7 Monetized Cost The annual cost of the alternatives was not calculated because of the very small size equipment required for evaporation and the negligible incremental cost of evaporation-leaching pond method.10.4.8 Environmental Effects The chemicals returned to the river by the selected method will increase the concentration of dissolved solids in the Columbia River, however, the increase in concentration of dissolved solids would be too small to be measured.The neutralized chemical waste produced by the demineralized plant 10.4-2 WNP-2 ER would contain approximately 2300 pounds of neutral salts per month.The blowdown water from the cooling tower would con-tain about 360,000 pounds of dissolved salts per month, with-drawn from and returned to the river.10.4-3 WNP-2 ER BIOCIDE TREATMENT 10.5.1 Ran e of Alternatives The design for the WNP-2 biological control system is described in Section 3.6.In this design intermittent chlorination of the circulating water will be used for the control of fouling organisms.
No other chemical biocides are anticipated at this time.Experience indicates that the most effective means of control-ling biological growths in electric generating utility cooling water systems, compatible with EPA guidelines, is intermittent chlorination.
It is anticipated that approximately 240 lbs of chlorine per day will be injected, intermittently, into the circulating water line upstream of the main condenser.
Chlorine feed will be at a rate of approximately 2.5 ppm, based on the circulating water flow'rate, for a period of 15-'20 minutes every 6-8 hours, to control biological growths.Chlorine dosage will be automatically controlled so that a con-centration of about 0.5 ppm will be present after the condenser, in the water going to the cooling tower.It is anticipated that this residual level, after the condenser, will be suf-ficient to control biological growths.In order to prevent excessive quantities of chlorine passing to the environment, the cooling tower blowdown valve will be closed automatically, during the period when chlorine is being added to the system and until the concentration has dropped to below 0.1 mg/l.This, combined with the natural chlorine demand of the cir-culating water will prevent the concentrations of chlorine in the cooling tower blowdown from becoming too great.At the present time there are no demonstrated effective alter-nates to chlorination for biological control of utility cir-culating water systems.The following methods were considered:
a~Mechanical Cleanin Mechanical cleaning, via abrasive materials, of con-denser tube surfaces has not been demonstrated to be effective as a means of controlling fouling.Ex-perience indicates that it is necessary to use inter-mittent chlorination along with mechanical cleaning methods to maintain station availability.
b.Acrolein Treatment Acrolein is an extremely toxic agent, capable of con-trolling biological activity and growths in recir-culating water systems (on an experimental basis).The effectiveness of acrolein treatment has not been 10.5-1 WNP-2 ER 10.5.2 demonstrated in utility cooling water systems.Also, acrolein may not be discharged to the environ-ment and would require neutralization with sodium sulphite which in turn could be considered a pollu-tant.There are no available automatic analyzers for acrolein so that routine monitoring would not be a possible alternate.
Alternatives Com ared Based on Short Term Environ-ment'al'f fee'ts The short term environmental effects due to construction would be negligible.
The use of mechanical cleaning along with chlorination would make no difference in the quality of the discharge.
The environmental effects of acrolein or neutra-lized acrolein-sodium sulphite solutions have not been fully determined.
10.5.3 Alternatives Com ared Based on Lon Term Enyi'r'on-mental E fects The long term environmental effects of chemical cleaning com-bined with chlorination would be the same as the intermittent chlorination method currently proposed.The long term effects of the discharge of acrolein or neutralized acrolein-sodium sulphite solutions is not fully understood.
10.5.4 Selected S stem Monitized costs for alternative systems were not, determined.
Neither of the alternatives considered were operationally nor environmentally superior to the intermittent chlorination pro-posed.The recommended system described in Section 3.6 was chosen because: a~Intermittent chlorination has been demonstrated to be effective in similar systems.b.Chlorine monitoring and feeding equipment has been demonstrated to be reliable in similar systems.C~The total system can be operated under control using established analytical methods and instru-mentation capable of monitoring discharge, and capable of detecting residuals present, if any, in the blowdown water.10.5.5 Power Consum tion Mechanical cleaning of the condenser using an abrasive ball technique would require small amounts of energy to collect and transport the abrasive materials.
The exact energy re-10.5-2 WNP-2 ER quirement was not calculated.
Energy requirements for the acrolein system would be comparable to the intermittent chlorination system.10.5.6 Effect on Ca acit Factor None of the alternatives considered would have any effect on the plant capacity factor.10.5.7 Monetized Cost'he annual cost of the alternatives were not calculated be-cause of the lack of real value of the alternatives.
10.5.8 Environmental Effects The composition of the cooling tower blowdown water with bio-logical control by means of intermittent, chlorination or inter-mittent chlorination combined with mechanical cleaning would be essentially identical.
The environmental effects of small quantities of acrolein or acrolein neutralized with.sodium sulphite have'not been fully explored.10.5-3 WNP-2 ER-OL 10.6 SANITARY WASTE SYSTEM The WNP-2 sanitary waste treatment system has been designed for a maxi-mum population of 5750 persons, at 30 gallons per capita per day, pro-ducing a total maximum of 170,000 gallons of waste water per day.10.6.1 Ran e of Alternatives The design for the WNP-2 sanitary waste treatment system is described in Section 3.7.Alternative methods for the disposal of sanitary waste include: a.Munici al Sewa e Plant Disposal of WNP-2 sanitary waste to a municipal waste treat-ment facility would result in no disposal facilities at the site.However, the nearest municipal plant is some 15 miles remote and would present extreme problems in the transport of the sewage, cost of the pipe line and maintenance of the re-mote pumping stations.I b.'iolo ical Sewa'e Treatment Facilit A standard package type biological treatment facility of the extended aeration type could be provided.This type of system would include aeration of.the incoming waste with recycled activated sludge, gravity separation of the biological floe and excessive sludge.The clarified supernatent would be dis-charged to the Columbia River./c.Se tic Tank/Drainf i el d Fac i l it At Construction Permit stage, a septic tank system was selec-ted on the basis of least cost and the negligible environ-mental impact.The system was designed for 100 persons and was supplemented during, the construction phase by holding tanks and chemical toilets, the contents of which were hauled'o off-site sewage lagoons.Continued use of this system would require rehabilitation and expension of the drainfield to accoranodate greater than anticipated loads.10.6.2 Aternatives Com ared Based on Short Term Environmental Effects The shor t term environmental effects of the selected system are slightly greater than those resulting from continued operation of the pre-existing septic tank and waste disposal operation.
This is because of the necessary disruption of soil and vegetation caused by construction of the lagoons and sewer lines.The environmental effects of the selec-ted system are not significantly greater than those that would result from the other alternatives.
10.6-1 Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER-OL 10.6.3 Alternatives Com ared Based on Lon Term Environmental Effects The selected system is expected to have less long term environmental effects than continued operation of the pre-existing septic tanks and holding tanks.The large, but highly variable, loads experienced during the construction and start-up phases requires that a significant frac-tion of the wastes be hauled off-site to a private lagoon in east Pasco with a round trip distance of 70 miles.This represents a significant expenditure of fuel.Futhermore, the sewage lagoon doesn't comply with the State treatment standards.
and is subject to closure for possible groundwater contamination.
The selected system will provide a greater degree of treatment for wastes discharged to the soil than was provided by the septic tank and drainfield.
The long term effects of the other alternatives are no greater than those associated with the selected system.1..4'11 S<<The aerobic lagoon/stabilization pond system described in Section 3.7.1 was chosen for the following reasons: a.It is the simplest and most reliable system for providing a central waste treatment facility that serves the three Supply System nuclear projects.It is the most flexible system for accommodating the variable waste loads from the three plants from construction through operation.
b.Operation of the system would not result in significant environmental impacts.c.The system provided a least-cost method of treating wastes anticipated for the duration of the plant operat-ing life.d.The Supply System's construction activities were not vul-nerable to closure of an off-site sewage treatment faci 1-ity or to increases in the disposal charges as they would be with continued operation of the septic tank and chem-ical toilet operation.
10.6.5 Ener Consum tion Although the selected system requires electrical energy for blowers and pump stations, net energy consumption in the near-term should be less than experienced with the septic tank/holding tank/chemical toilet oper-ation because of the fuel expended in hauling the waste off-site.In the longterm, energy consumption will be reduced because during the 10.6-2 Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER-OL operation phase for the three projects, the total work force and, hence, the waste load wi 11 be reduced resulting in corresponding decreases in the requirement for pumping and forced aeration (the latter perhaps being eliminated).
10.6.6 Effect on Ca acit None of the alternatives considered would have any effect on the plant capacity factor.10.6.7 Monetized Cost A cost comparison showed that the selected system enjoyed a 10:1 advan-tage in annual cost over continued operation of the numerous septic tanks and holding tanks at the three Supply System plants.With respect to an upgraded and enlarged septic tank/drain field, ratio was 1>:1 and compared to an activated sludge package plant it was 2>>'.1.0 10.6.8 Environmental Effects The selected system is expected to have the least environmental effect of the alternatives.
The most significant effect of the selected system is the disturbance of soil and vegetation caused by its construction and the long-term occupation of approximately 17 acres.10.6-3 Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER 10.7 LIQUID RADWASTE SYSTEMS The design of the plant limits the quantities of radioactive materials in effluents including liquid wastes to levels which are within the numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions of operations set forth in 10CFR50, Ap-pendix I, as indicated in Sections 3.5 and 5.2.10.7-1
WNP-2 ER 10.8 GASEOUS RADWASTE SYSTEMS The design of the plant limits the quantities of radioactive materials in effluents including gaseous wastes to levels which are within the numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions of operations set forth in lOCFR50, Appendix I, as indicated in Sections 3.5 and 5.2.10.8-1 WNP-2 ER 10.9 TRANSMISSION'FACILITIES The Bonneville Power Administration, is planning, designing, and constructing the transmission facilities for WNP-2.BPA.has submitted an environmental impact statement~
~and the following assessment of the alternative facilities is taken from that document.H.J.Ashe Substation Evaluation The requirements for a location in a specified relationship to transmission lines coming from WNP-2 did not allow con-siderable flexibility for the location of this substation and therefore only one potential site was identified.
See section 3.9 for a description of the substation.
10.9.2 General Descri tion of the Pro osed and Alternate Routes Basic considerations in identifying the routing for the 500 KV Ashe-Hanford line were: l.availability of corridor width to accommodate additional parallel circuits, 2.avoidance of physical barriers, 3.compatibility with testing activities in the explosive test area, 4.environmental impact considerations, and 5.economic costs.Two alternative routes were identified and considered.
Route A, the proposed route, is almost a straight-line cor-ridor between Ashe and Hanford passing through the explosive testing area.Alternative Route B would avoid actual ex-plosives testing areas but is longer and therefore more costly than Route A.No other viable alternate routes which are practical and competitive from either environmental or economic points of view have been identified.
Table 10.9-1 gives a comparision of the alternative transmission routes.The considerations in locating the 230 KV start-up line were based mainly on paralleling the 500 KV Ashe-Hanford line as far as possible, for the purpose of joint corridor use.For this reason, only the alternative 500 KV lines are con-sidered in the following sections.For information con-cering the 230 KV start-up line see Section 3.9.Figure 10.9-1 is an overall map of the alternative routes.10;9-1 WNP-2 ER 10.9.2.1 Descri tion of Route A and its Im acts Route A has been separated into three sections.The line location is shown in Figure 10.9-2.Section I The 18.3 mile Route A begins at WNP-2, passes through BPA's Ashe Substation (1/2 mile north of WNP-2)and proceeds north-westerly for 4.6 miles, turns west at a slight angle and continues northwest for another 3.1 miles to a crossing of the existing HEW No.3, 230 KV line.The first 7.7 miles are located 120 feet east of and parallel to the 230 KV Ashe Tap to ERDA's HEW No.3 line.Section II From the crossing of the 230 KV line, Route A continues for 3.4 miles to an angle point on Gable Mountain, then turns at a slight angle to continue northwest for 4.5 miles to the existing lower Monumental-Hanford 500 KV line right-of-way.
Section III The last 2.2 miles will be parallel to and 110 feet west of the existing 500 KV steel structured Lower Monumental-Hanford line.Additional right-of-way width for a future line will be ac-quired along the east side of the proposed route over its entire length.New right-of-way width required is as follows: Section Ri ht-of-Wa Width 350 feet, to include WNP-2 230 KV start-up and other future lines.230 feet, except for the last 0.5 miles where the right-of-way width increases" from 230 feet to 350 feet.92.5 feet, of additional right-of-way will be needed west of and 87.5 feet east of the Lower Monumental-Hanford line.10.9-2 WNP-2 ER 10.9.2.1.1 Costs of Route A Estimated costs for Route A, based on prices current in September, 1973, are: Transmission Line$3,705,000 One Hanford Switching Station 500 KV terminal 640,000 Terminal equipment at Ashe Substation and land for the future 500 KV switch-yard at Ashe Modifications at Hanford Substation Power System Control TOTAL 603,000 F 123,000 455,000$5,526,000 10.9.2.1.2 Land Use Access road requirements for the proposed route will be ap-proximately as follows: Section I New Location on right-of-way New location off right-of-way 3 miles 5 miles Through the sand dunes area, approximately 3 miles of existing gravelled telephone line access road will be utilized.Short spur roads to the individual tower sites will be needed.Section II New location on right-of-way New location off right-of-way Improvement on and off right-of-way
-6 miles-0.5 miles-None The existing Midway-Eagle Lake line access roads will be used on top of Gable Mountain.Only short spur roads will be required on top of the mountains.
Figure 10.9-3 is an aerial photograph of the proposed route and Figure 10.9-4 is a map of land use.The following table itemizes land cover crossed by Route A: 10.9-3 WNP-2 ER Sagebrush and Grass CommentsSection I Route in Miles 7.7 Included the pro-posed 500 KV and 230 KV lines and future lines New easement acreage 331 Section II Route in Miles 7.9 Includes the pro-posed 500 KV line and the future line.New easement acreage 229 Section III Route in Miles 2.2 Includes the pro-posed 500 KV line and the future line New easement acreage 52 New easements for the 18-mile Route A corridor will require 612 acres of land.10.9.2.1.3 Im act on Land Use Since the land crossed by the Route A (See Figure 10.9-3)is mostly open space, impacts will be minimal.If the reservation were opened for public use, existing cover and potential land use would be disrupted to the extent required for easement and access road requirements.
Route A, however, is within the Hanford Reservation in which the public use is restricted by ERDA for safety and security reasons.The route will cross the explosives testing area;however, there will be little interference with actual testing.BPA and ERDA have reached an agreement which calls for relocation of certain facilities in the testing area.Erosion is discussed in Section 4.2.4.10.9.2.1.4 Im act on Natural and Cultural Resources Recreation There are no recreational facilities within the Hanford Reservation.
10.9-4 WNP-2 ER Historic and Archeolo ical Sites As shown in Figure 10.9-4, route A does not come near any identified historic or archeological sites.The Washington Archeological Resource Center conducted a survey in March 1974 and concluded that no archeological, historical or paleonto-logical sites will be endangered.
Wildlife and Ve etation Route A would not adversely affect any wildlife other than sage grouse, except during the construction period, when some animals would be driven away for a short time.This route would not cross any streams.Due to the clearing of sagebrush from main access roads and tower sites, songbirds, birds of prey, and upland birds with-in the vicinity may be temporarily disturbed.
Scenic Except for Gable Mountain, Route A does not cross any scenic resources.
Towers constructed on Route A will be visible from quite a distance due to the flat terrain in the Reservation,.but are not expected to adversely affect the public.10.9.2.2 Descri tion of Alternate Route B and Its Im acts The discussion of this alternative contemplates that the pro-posed Ashe Tap to AEC HEW No.3, 230 KV line and a future line would be built parallel to Route B, Thereby retaining all facilities in a single corridor.Alternate Route B has been separated into three sections in order to discuss the associated impacts and requirements.
The line location is shown in Figure 10.9-5.Section I The 18.8 mile route would begin at WNP-2 the travel 0.5 miles to the BPA Ashe Substation, then proceed northwest for 5.9 miles to a crossing of the Ashe Tap to the HEW No.3, 230 KV line.The first 5.9 miles would be parallel to an 120 feet east of the Ashe Tap to the HEW No.3, 230 KV line.Section II Route B would continue for 6.6 Miles to an angle point.It would then turn north for 4.5 miles to a point 110 feet west of the Lower Monumental-Hanford 500 KV line.10.9-5
~WNP-2 ER Section III This route would then turn northwest and proceed for 1.8 miles while parallel to the Lower Monumental-Hanford line at a sep-aration of 110 feet, from the BPA's Hanford Switching Station.Additional right-of-way width for a future line would be acquired along the east side of this alternative.
New right-of-way width that would be required is as follows: Section Ri ht-of-Wa Width 355 feet, would include WNP-2 230 KV start-up and other future lines.240 feet, except for the last 0.5 miles where the right-of-way width would increase from 240 feet to 355 feet.107.5 feet, of additional right-of-way would be needed west of the 87.5 feet east of the Lower Monu-mental Hanford line for a total of 195 feet.Tower design for Alternate B would be identical to that.de-scribed for proposed Route A.(See Figure 3.9-2).10.9.2.2.1 Costs of Route B Estimated costs for Route B, based on prices current in September 1973, are: Transmission Line$3,940,000 One Hanford Switching Station 500 KV terminal 640,000 Terminal equipment at Ashe Substation and land for the 500 KV switchyard at Ashe Modifications at Hanford Substation Power System Control TOTAL 603,000 123,000 455.000$5,761,000 10.9-6 WNP-2 ER 10.9.2.2.2 Land Use Access road requirements would be approximately as follows: Section I New location on right-of-way New location off right-of-way Section II 3 miles-6 miles Existing dirt roads would be used for access to Gable Mountain.Section III In Section III there are no new access road locations, improve-ments, or easements, on or off right-of-way required.The existing Lower Monumental-Hanford access road system would be used.Short spur roads from the existing access roads to the individual towers of Route B would be required.Figure 10.9-3 is an aerial photograph of the proposed route and Figure 10.9-4 is a land use map.The following Table describes the miles of line and acres of land use covered by the proposed route.Sagebrush and Grass CommentsSection I Route in Miles 5.9 Would include the ,alternate 500 and 230 KV lines and the future line.New easement acreage Section II Route in Miles 255 11.1 Would include the alternate 500 KV line and a future line.New easement acreage 322 Section III Route in Miles 1.8 Would include the alternate 500 KV line and a future line'.10.9-7 WNP-2 ER New easement acreage 42 New easements for the 18.8 mile Route B would require 619 acres of land.10.9.2.2.3 Im acts on Land Use Since the land crossed by Route B is mostly unused (See Figure 10.9-3), open space impacts will negligible.
If ERDA opened the reservation for public use, existing cover and potential land use would be disrupted to the extent quantified for ease-ment and access road requirements previously indicated.
This route would be with the ERDA Hanford Reservation where the public access is restricted by ERDA for safety and security reasons.Route B would be near the explosive testing area's western fringes.The effects of Route B on erosion would be the same as that caused by Route A.10.9.2.2.4 Im acts on Natural and Cultural Resources Recreation There are no recreational facilities within the study area.Historic and Archeolo ical Sites As shown in Figure 10.9-4, route B would not cross any identified historic or archeological sites.Wildlife and Ve etation Same effects as Route A.Scenic Due to flat terrain, this route's towers could be seen from several miles.Some towers on Gable Mountain would be sky-lined and therefore would be visible from greater distances than in the case of Route A.10.9-8 TABLE 10.9-1'ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION
'ROUTES Sheet 1 of 2 Alternatives Proposed, (A)(B)Capital Cost Base+$235,000 Reference Section 10.9.2.1 10.9.2.2 Environmental Costs Units 1.Land Use~Rank Alternative routes in terms of amount of conflict with present 6 planned land uses)from worst to best 2.Pro ert Values (Rank Alternative routes in terms of total loss in property values)NTA NTA (Rank Alternative routes in terms of envisioned multiple use of land preempted by right-of-way)All rights of way may be used Same as proposed 4.Length of New Rights-of-Way Required Miles 18 18.8 5.Number and Length of New Access and Service Roads Required Miles 14.5 19 TABLE 10.9-1 Alternatives ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISS'ION ROUTES (Sheet 2 of 2)Proposed (A)Number of major road crossings in vicinity of intersection or interchanges 14 a)Number of major water ways b)and railroad crossings 0 3 Number of crest ridge, or other high point crossings Number of"Long Views" or transmission lines perpen-dicular to highways 6 water-ways Length of above trans-mission line in or through visually sensitive area Miles NTA-NOT AVAILABLE gO'" Hanford~~~r-~f j C C~lU Lower Mon.-Honford le IL nfl r s E E 0 CP,>TS Ky gpss Gable IL1gdw eon ron Q g unrai3Q-K~C W O E'Government
'>ro ci WNP-2 Ashe Benton SW Sta.0'i 2 3 4 6 8, N Scaia ln Miles FFTF C oo WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report (1)OVERALL MAP OF ROUTES nA" AND"B" FIG.10.9-1 DETAIL C r-~LM-H D a O 0 Al HANFORD I SUBSTA.Q r-a+o I-,,I I Df TAIL 8~o+B+MIDWAY-BENTON I I 5 KV DE TAIL A HE-HANFORD I P 1 ASHE SUBSTA.HE W 3 230KVI I.~WNP-2 ABOVE NOT TO SCALE DETAIL"A" SCALE OF DETAILS BELOW ARE I=200 DETAIL B'ETAIL"C PARALLEL TO 230 KV R/W NEW R/W SECTION R/W (For turure lloe PARALLEL TO LM-H R/W-H 500 KV PI A-HEW+3 23 KV N rR/W A-H 500 KV u(gR/W LM-H 500 KV R/W 7A-H 5 0 KV R/W A-H A-HEW 3 LM-H M-EL HEW RIGHT OF WAY ASHE-HANFORD I ASHE TAP TO HEW LOWER MONUMENTAL-HANFORD MIDWAY-EAGLE LAKE HANFORD ENERGY WORKS NEW R/W WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report (l)RIGHT OF WAY DETAIL MAP ROUTE"A" FIG.10.9-2
@gal 4fg" WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF LAND (1)CROSSED BY TRANSMISSION LINES FIG.10.9-3
'~Ž~'14 N p>))j~)i')i Qs ri hil)i I/s s1/s4 ,sllr,)i rains...tlr Hanford*l st ,t(in ssli>>iitl),.1lo'is ,>>il,!s'-'.'.-R.26'E,-,'-.
,.:s."R"'27,;"E.',,-,".tie>>'Ill, ev t R 28,E*i 0~e s ower on.-en or olin a w',tr,,>>li tla eo ra Kv ,t(,"i'(,'lia)Ie,>>n ,tlfi S k, ittr tl j, sv/O4+t aint..iso v",-ti)'HEW""" I)W O E'D.+re ,'i Goi)pinment
'0 N n l%att'MICIS a'l'1, r2",.)3,','4
"'.Si",6 t ,,-Scale iq.lgiles;.."..
RANGELAND Grassland OTHER AEC Installation r,$.~q<<(q>>x+gag 7t g~qb4)t'e,bs" st')i sii WNP-2"'gi,Benton, SW Sta Explosive Test Site Active Sand Dunes Archeological Site'a 8 17 0 FFTF ,o yen%0 s WASHXNGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~2 Environmental Report.(1)'LAND USE-HANFORD RESERVATION FIG.lo-9-4 DETAIL C I-a LM-H o c.MIDWAY-BENTON (I5 MIDWAY-BENTON I I5 KV HANFORD+I 3<SU BSTA.C)0 0 O DE'TAIL B r-+g~DETAIL A+r"~O 0+$0~+p5 q,g ABOVE NOT TO SCALE ASHE SUBSTA.DETAIL"A'CALE OF DETAILS BELOW ARE I=200 DETAIL'B'ETAIL"C" PARALLEL TO 230 KV R W O I A-H 500 KV Io NEW R/W SECTION R W r'~nr I+For urure line Y~Py9a I'~R W PARALLEL TO LM-H R/W 0 LM-H 500 KV+ru~RW R/W..RIGHT OF WAY A-H ASHE-HANFORD I A-HEW 3 ASHE TAP TO HEW 3 (ALTERNATE)
LM-H.LOWER MONUMENT A'L-HANFORD M-EL HEW MIDWAY-EAGLE LAK E HANFORD ENERGY WORKS Viiir NEW R/W WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report RIGHT OF WAY DETAIL MAP (l)ROUTE"B" FIG.10.9-5 WNP-2 ER 10.10 OTHER SYSTEMS There are no other systems that need to be considered for this plant.10.10-1 NNP-2 ER CHAPTER ll
SUMMARY
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
11.1 INTRODUCTION
In the Environmental Report at-the construction permit stage, and in earlier sections of this Environmental Report, data have been presented on the need for the facility, environmental and monetary costs and benefits of the faci-lity, and on various project and facility alternatives.
The purpose of this section is to summarize and weigh the over-.all benefits and costs of operating the completed plant.This final balancing must of necessity be qualitative, since it, is not possible to quantify all of the costs and benefits in uniform units of measure.11.1-1 WNP-2 ER 11.2 NEED FOR POWER The need for the electrical energy to be furnished by WNP-2 has been described in Chapter 1.The project is an essential component of the hydrothermal program in the Pacific Northwest, and will be depended upon to help fulfill the future power requirements projected in the West Group Forecast of Power Loads and Resources.
Based upon the West, Group Forecast of March 1978, which assumed a May 1981 commercial operation date, the probability of not meeting firm energy loads in 1981-1982*
is 14.5%with WNP-2 and 18.9%without WNP-2.In 1982-1983 these respective probabilities, with and without, WNP-2, are 15.2$and 24.4%.In 1983-1984 the probability of 1 not meetI.~g firm loads is 17.8t with wNp-2 and 30.5t without WNP-2.*July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1982 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER ll.3 Alternatives Numerous alternatives were considered in the Environmental Report for a construction permit.During plant construction, certain plant alternatives were incorporated into the plant design in an attempt to continuously optimize the benefit-cost balance of the project.Among these later changes were the selection of the cooling tower configuration and make-up water intake system design.At this stage of the project, any further major changes can not be expected to show a desirable benefit-cost ratio.Since enviromental factors have been considered since early design stages and have continued to receive consideration during the construction phase, the Supply System is confi-dent that the project can be operated as presently designed and constructed with no significant or lasting harm to the environment.
11.3-1 WNP-2 ER 11.4 BENEFIT-COST BALANCE 11.4.1 Benefits The major benefits of operating WNP-2 are listed in Table 11.4-1.These various benefits have all been discussed in detail in the text of earlier chapters and are only summarized here.11.4.2 Costs The capital construction cost of WNP-2 is expected to be$1.077 billion.Annual operating costs ar'e estimated to be about$137 million or 22.5 mills/kwhr at 63 percent, plant factor.The environmental costs of operating WNP-2 are summarized in Table 11.4-2.11.4.3 Summar Benefit-Cost Anal sis After considering the various monetary, social, and environ-mental costs of operating WNP-2 and the corresponding benefits to be derived from its operation, the Supply System concludes that operation of WNP-2 represents a positive value to the immediate area where it is located,and to the Pacific Northwest.
Every effort has been made during design and construction of the facility to minimize environmental, social, and monetary costs of the project so that the plant is currently optimized form a benefit-cost standpoint.
11.4-1 Amendment 1 May 1978 NNP-2 ER TABLE 11.4-1
SUMMARY
BENEFITS OF OPERATING WNP-2*2.Item Expected Average Generation Proportional Distribtuion of Electrical Energy (1990)Benefit 6.1 billion kwhr/yr 30.9%Residential 15.3%Commercial 48.1%Industrial 5.7%Other 100.0%Total 3.Generation Taxes 4.Use of By-Product Heat 5.Direct Employment 6.Public Facilities Over$2 million/year 50%to State for schools 22%to Counties 23%to Cities 38 to Fire Districts 2%to Library Districts 4,000 GPM warm irrigation water for agricultural research 104 operation staff 25 support staff 129 total employment A permanent visitor center will be sponsored.
- Refer to Section 8.1.1 for details Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER TABLE 11.4-2
SUMMARY
ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF OPERATING WNP-2 (Sheet 1 of 4)Effect Reference Section Si nificance Land Approximately 30 acres of shrub-steppe land diverted to industrial use at the plant site.2.1 Negligible
-represents a very.small percentage of the available acreage of similar type (see Fig.2.2-1).Approximately 648 acres.of right-of-way will be required for transmission.
3.9 Negligible
-represents a very-small percentage of the available acreage of similar type (see Fig.10.9-4).Surface Water Consumptive use of water will=be about 13,000 gpm.Thermal load from blowdown of WNP-2 plus WNP-1/4 is 75,000 Btu/sec.5.1.2 5.1.4 5.1.2 Negligible
-represents only.05%, of average steam flow.Negligible
-raises bulk river tem-perature only 0.033 F.0 Thermal increases within a limited mixing zone.5.1.2 Slight-thermal increases will vary according to a sliding scale permit-ting increases at the mixing zone boundary of a few degrees at cooler river temperatures and a maximum of 0.5 F contributing to a reer tem-perature not exceeding 68 F.
WNP-2 ER TABLE ll.4-2 (Continued)(Sheet 2 of 4)Effect Reference Section Si nificance Increased total dissolved solids in Columbia River and within a limited mixing zone.Ground Water 5.3.1 Negligible
-will increase bulk river concentrations by a maximum of 0.2%, and;.concentrations at the limit of the mixing zone by a maximum of 14;.f'L Discharge of 2 gpm sanitary waste to tile field.5.4 Negligible
-area has adequate drainage and absorption capacity.Loss of drifting biota from impingement
&passage.5.1.3 Slight-less than 0.15%loss at worst flow conditions.
Short time exposure of free floating plankton to heated water and chemical discharges.
5.1.3 Negligible
-exposure time is only 5-35 seconds and increases are small.Adverse effect of heated effluent and chemical discharges on salmonids.
5.1.3 Negligible
-increases will be small and limited-to a very small percentage of the river area.Acclimation and congregation will be discouraged due to intermittancy of discharges and fast stream velocities.
Adverse effect of heated and chemical effluent discharges on benthic flora and fauna.5.1.3 Negligible
-will be small and limited to a very small percentage of the available habitat.
WNP-2 ER TABLE 11.4-2 (Continued)(Sheet 3 of 4)Effect Reference Section Si nificance Terrestrial Biota Accumulation of cooling tower drift salts in soil.Negligible
-a slow cumulative impact predicted to occur over a small area which can be mitigated by irrigation leaching if necessary.
Air Some additional fogging and icing from cooling tower plume.5.1.4 Negligible
-less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> fogging and 0.5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> icing per year in worst sector.None on public highways.Increased exposure of biota to radiation.
Increased individual exposures.
5.2 5.2 Negligible
-exposures of terrestrial and aquatic biota will be extremely small compared to those known or expected to cause significant somatic or genetic effects.Negligible
-doses are projected to be less than lOCFR50 Appendix I-Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limit-ing Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion"As Low as Resonably Achievable."
WNP-2 ER TABLE 11.4-2 (Continued)(Sheet 4 of 4)Effect Increased population exposures.
Reference Section 5.2 SicCnificance Negligible
-the population total body dose from all pathways including radioactive materials transportation is estimated to be less than 0.02%of that received by the same population due to natural sources.Aesthethic Tall structures intrude on a flat plain landscape.
Noise level from operation of cooling towers.3.1 5.6 Negligible
-facility is more than 12 miles from centers of population.
Negligible
-facility is far removed from residential or unique wildlife habitats.Socioeconomic Some increases needed in public sector services.8.2.2.2 Negligible
-direct, project taxes and personal property taxes offset public sector costs.
WNP-2 ER CHAPTER 12 ENVIRONMENTALAPPROVALS'ND'ONSULTATION 12.1 GENERAL'STATEICENSING As an initial step in obtaining the required approvals WPPSS filed a Site Certification Application for WNP-2 with the Washington State Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council on January 28, 1971 Application Number 71-1.The 1970 Washington State Legislature adopted an act creating a Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council.The purpose of the act was to balance the increasing demands for thermal power plant location and operation in conjunction with the broad interests of the public and to assure the preservation and protection of the quality of the environment while pro-viding abundant low cost electric energy to the citizens of the State of Washington.
In 1976 the authority of this council was extended to all energy sources and is now named the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC).The Siting'Council consists of the Directors of the various departments of State government which have an interest in or are affected by the construction of energy facilities in the State.The legisla-tion creates a means by which a utility proposing to build a thermal powered generating plant, having a capacity in excess of 250,000 kilowatts can, through one proceeding, satisfy all requirements of State law as well as the standards adopted pursuant to the legislation and, in an orderly manner, obtain certification from the State for a proposed site of such a generating facility.The effect of the issuance of certifi-cation is to bind the State and its departments, agencies, boards and commissions to the approval of the site and the construction and operation of the proposed plant.The issuance of the certificate is in lieu of any permit, certificate or similar document required for any department, agency, commis-sion or board of the State and has therefore been termed a"one stop" procedure for obtaining thermal power plant siting approval.The original statute establishing TPPSEC was adopted as Chapter 45, 1970 Session Laws of the State of Washington, Second Extraordinary Session, 41st Legislature, (which is also Chapter 80.50, Revised Code of Washington and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto in Chapter 463 of the Washington Administrative Code)and the amendment estab-lishing EFSEC was adopted in 1976.Site Certification Hearings were held, starting January 10, 1972.The Site Certification was issued by the Governor of the State of Washington on May 17, 1972.Amendment 1 to the Certification, including the NPDES Permit, was issued September 25, 1975'.12.1-1
~Aenc TABLE 12.1-1 10 3 PERMITS AND APPROVALS RE UIRED FOR PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION Statutor and Other Author it Permit or A royal Date Approval Re uired U.S.Atomic Energy Comission 42 U.S.C.2131 et.seq.;42 U.S.C.4321 U.S.Nucl.Regulatory Com.42 U.S.C.2131 et.seq.;42 U.S.C.4321 et.seq.;42 U.S.C.5841 et.seq.;1.Plant Construction Permit 1.Plant Operating License 2.Nuclear Instrumentation License 3.Special Nuclear Mat.License 3/73 1/79 7/77 7/77 Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District Federal Aviation Admin.and State Aeronautic Com.Division of Highways and Transpor tation State Department of Labor and Industries Sec.10 (33 U.S.C.403)Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77;WAC 12-24 Washington Industr ial Safety and Health Act, 1973 1.Dredging and Construction Permit for work in navigable waters.Notice of Proposed Construction 1.Meteorological Tower 2.Reactor Building 1.Permit for oversize or overweight vehicles.Open for inspection for following items:.a.Tunnels b.Occupational Health c.Electric Wiring and Apparatus d.Electric Workers e.Construction Standards f.-General Safety Standards 3/75 4/72 7/77 As required
..-TABLE 12.1-1 PERMITS AND APPROVALS RE UIRED FOR PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION~Aenc Washington State Boiler Inspector Statutor and Other Authorit Chapter 70.79 Revised Code of Washihgton and Chapter 296-104 of Washington Administrative Code Permit or A royal l.ASME Certificate of Authorization Date Approval Re uired 3/74 (expires on completion) a 0 b.C.d.e.g.h.k.l.m.n.Department of Ecology Department of Social and Health Services Department of Game Department of Fisheries Department of Natural Resources State Parks and Recreation Commission Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Department of Commerce and Economic Development Utilities and Transportation Commission Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management Department of Agriculture Planning and Con+unity Affairs Agency Department of Emergency Services Benton County Commissioners Washington State Thermal Power Chapter 80.50, Revised Code of Plant Site Evaluation Council.Washington, and Chapter 463 Council includes directors or Washington Administrative Code designees from the following agencies: 5/72 Approval of site and construction and operation of the plant.(Appli-cation filed 1/71)(Includes all state required approvals.
)The Certification Agreement to be issued is based upon consideration of, among other things: 1.Plans for public visitation facil-ities.-2.Plans for protection and/or inter-pretation of archaeological and historical sites encountered during construction 3.Consideration of multipurpose use of cooling water 4.Land use, zoning conformity 5.Plans for borrow pits or other excavations 6.Plans for controlling wind and water erosion 7.Plans for site access 8.Design for intake and outfall facilities 9.Plan for protection of fish and wildlife in plant area 10.Plans for water use 11.Radiation Monitoring Plan 12.Plans for public safety and plant safety
~Aeec TABLE 12.1-1 3of 3 PERMITS AND APPROVALS RE UIRED FOR PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION Statutor and Other Authorit Permit or A royal Date Approval Re uired Department of Natural Resources National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (402)Lease of river bed occupied by and facilities including dis-charge diffuser and barge unloading area.Federal Water Pollution Control State Certification of Compliance Act Amendments of 1972 with Water equality Regulations (401)(PL 92-500)and Chapter 463 Washington Administrative Code 3/72 9/75 5/75 U.S.Coast Guard, Seattle Office Code of Federal Regulations Title 33, Section 66 Private Aid to Navigation Permit (For buoy marking intake structure) 4/76 NNP-2 ER 12.2 GENERAL FEDERAL LICENSING The Application for a Construction Permit was filed with the Atomic Energy Commission on August 19, 1971.The docket number assigned the project was Docket 50-397.The Statutory Authority for this action was 42 N.S.C.2131 et.seg.;42 N.S.C.4321.The hearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was held January 16, 1973.The Construction Permit was awarded on March 19, 1973.Application is currently being made for an Operating License with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Statutory Authority for this Action is 42 N.S.C.2131, et.seq.;42 N.S.C.4321 et.seg.and 42 N.S.C.5841 et.seq.12.2-1 WNP-2 ER 12.3 STATE'ND'EDERAL'ATER'EL'ATED PERMXTS The authority to grant an NPDES Permit,was given to the State of Washington by'he Environmental Protection Agency.Xn the case of new power'lant's, the authority has been delegated to EFSEC.A mixing zone for the blowdown discharge was defined in the NPDES permit issued by the Washington State Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council on September 25,, 1975.That zone will, conform with the qualitative requirements set forth in WAC 173-201-040(4).
Additionally, the FWPCA of 1972 requires that, as a condition of receiving a construction permit or operating license, WPPSS provide the NRC with a certification that Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 as applicable, of the FWPCA of 1972 will not be violated.A Section 401 Certification was issued by TPPSEC on March 17, 1975.During construction of WNP-2, in-river and shoreline con-struction occured for the intake and discharge system.Such construction caused some minor increase in localized temporary turbidity conditions in the area near the construction.
This situation was not in violation of water quality standards since the present water quality standards specifically permit a temporary waiver WAC 713-201-040(5).
This waiver was ob-tained in July, 1975, for work conducted in'he river between August 1, 1975 and October 15, 1975.The location of the liquid waste discharge is on the Columbia River (River Mile 352)in Benton County, Washington.
The river flows southward from the plant site forming the border between Oregon and Washington (River Mile 309)and then west toward the Pacific Ocean, forming the boundary between Washington and Oregon.Applicable water standards for the Columbia River in the State of Washington are given below.State of Washington Department o Ecolo (Abstracted Water Quality Standards)
Water Zone Standards Water Uses to be Projected Columbia River Washington-Oregon Class A Border (River Mile 309)to Grand Coulee Dam (River Mile 595)12.3-1 Fisheries, wild-life, recreation, water supply, navigation, Hydropower WNP-2 ER Water Qualit Standards for Class A Water Use Fecal Coliform Or anisms shall not exceed a median value of 100 organisms 100 ml, with not more than 10 percent of samples exceeding 200 organisms/100 ml.Dissolved ox en shall exceed 8.0 mg/l.border to Priest Rapids Dam).Water temperature shall not exceed 20.0 Celsius dye to human activities.
When natural conditions exceed 20.0 Celsius{freshwater), no temperature increase will be allowed which will rgise the receiving water temperature by greater than 0.3 Celsius;nor shall such temperature increases, at any time, exceed t,=34/{T+9).pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 with a man-caused variation within a range of less than 0.5 units.when the background turbidity is 50 NTU or less, or have more than a 10 percent increase in turbidity when the back-ground turbidity is more than 50 NTU.Toxic, radioactive, or deleterious material concentrations shall be below those of public health significance, or which may cause acute or chronic toxic conditions
=to the aquatic biota, or which may adversely affect any water use.Aesthetic values shall not be imparied by the presence of materials or their effects, excluding those of natural origin, which offend the senses of sight, smell,.touch, or taste.12.3-2 Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER 12.4 STATE, LOCAL AND REG'IONAL'LANNING' ECONOMIC IMPACT The Benton-Franklin Governmental Conference is the regional A-95 clearinghouse and has been made aware of the potential socio-economic impacts of WPPSS projects in the region.The estimated impacts are discussed in Chapter 8.12.4-1 WNP-2 ER 12.5 SPECIFIC PERMIT'TATUS The specific details of the status and Statutory Authority of Permits required for WNP-2'are listed in Table 12.1-1.12.5.1 WNP-2.ER 12.6 01HER i'he Bonneville Power Administration is constructing and will operate the ASHE Substation and transmission lines serving WNP-2 and has responsibility for all permits, approvals, and NEPA requirements associated with those activities.
12.6-1 WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 1 Section 1.1 1.Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee Sub-committee on Loads and Resources, West Grou Forecast, March 1, 1978 (prepared annually).
2.3.Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee Sub-committee on Loads and Resources, Lon Ran e Pro'ection of Power Loads and Resources for Thermal Planning 1978-79 to 1997-98 (prepared annually).Bonneville Power Administration, Load Estimatin Manual, July 1965.4~DELETED 5.Bonneville Power Administration, Final Environmental Statement-Wholesale Power Rate Increase, August 15, 1974.6.Western Systems Coordinating Council, Reliabilit Criteria, Part I-Reliabilit Criteria for S stem Desi n, July 16, 1971.7.Western Systems Coordinating Council, Reliabilit Criteria, Part II-Minimum 0 eratin Reliabilit Criteria, June 191 1970.Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER-OL REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 Section 2.1 2.Letter, Appendix 2.P, Atomic Energy Commission, Richland Opera-tions Office, to Managing Director of the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, Washington, November 25, 1970.Yandon, K.E., Pro ections and Distributions of Po ulations Within a 50-Mile Radius of Washin ton Public Power Su 1 S stem Nuclear Pro ects Nos.1 2 and 4 b Com ass Direct on an Ra 1 1 n erva s-, cto er 3.Bonneville Power Administration, U.S.Department of Energy, Wash-in ton Po ulation Em lo ent and Household Pro'ections to 2000~bCount, u y 9 9.4.Bonneville Power Administration U.S.Oepartment of Energy, Oreqon Po ulation Em lo ent and Household Projections to 2000 b~Count.5.6.Personal Communication, J.R.Zuniga, WPPSS, with Job Service Rep-resentatives, Washington State Department of Employment Security,'ovember 20, 1979.Hansen, Warren, Feasibilit of 10-Mile Emer enc Plannin Zone Evacuation Hanfor ate, onsu tant s eport to as langton u lic ower Supp y System, December 1980.7.Migrant Farmworker Ten-Mile Radius Survey, prepared by Washington State Migrant Education Identification and Recruitment Program, 1981.8.Personal Communication, Warren Hansen, WPPSS Consultant, with Gary Scrivener, Game Warden for Franklin County, and John McIntosh, Game Warden for Benton County, April 28 to May 2, 1980.9.Letter, E.Thompson, Cooperative Extension Service, to J.R.Zuniga, WPPSS, January 25, 1980.10.Personal Communication, J.R.Zuniga, WPPSS, with J.Benson, Wash-ington State Department of Game, November 8, 1979.Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER-OL REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 Section 2.2 2.3.4, 5.6.7.8.9 10.12.Fitzner, R.E.and W.H.Rickard, Avifauna of Waste Ponds ERDA Hanford Reservation Benton Count Washin ton, BNWL-1885, Battel le-Northwest, Rich and, Washington, 1975.Rickard, W.H.and J.D.Hedlund and R.G.Schreckhise, Mammals of the Hanford Reservation in Relation to Mana ement of Radioactive Waste, BNWL-1887, Battel le-Northwest, Rich and, Washington, 1974.O'Farrell, T.P., W.H.Rickard and K.R.Price, Energy Flux During the 1970 Wildfire, p.12, In: Pacific Northwest Laborator Annual Re ort for 1970, BNWL-1550, vol.1, pt.2, Batte e-Northwest, Richland, Washington, 1971.Dryness, C.T., et al., Research Natural Area Needs in the Pacific N orthwest, P ac if i c N orthwe st F ore st and R ange Experiment S tati on, U.S.D.A.Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, 1975.Robeck, G.G., C.Henderson and R.C.Palange, Water Qualit Studies on the Columbia River, PHS, R.A.Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, 1954.Davis J.J., D.G.Watson and C.C.Palmiter, Radiobiolo ical Studies of the Columbia River Throu h December 1955, HAPO, HW-36074, 1956.Watson, D.G., C.E.Cushing, C.C.Coutant and W.L.Templeton, Radioecolo ical Studies on the Colum ia River, Parts I and II, BNWL-1377, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1970.Seeker, C.D., A uatic Bioenvironmental Studies in the Columbia River at Hanford 1945-1971, A Bibliography with Abstracts, BNWL-1734, Batte e, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1973.Cushing, C.E.,"Concentration and Transport of 32P and 62Zn by Columbia River Plankton," Limnol.Oceano r., vol.12, pp.330-332, 1953.Coopey R.W.,"Radioactive Plankton from the Columbia River," Trans.Amer.5.,".7;>>.15-27, 155.Cushing, C.E.,"Plankton-Mater Chemistry Cycles in the Columbia River," Hanford Biolo Research Annual Re ort for 1963, HW-80500, p.212-218, 1964.Final Re ort on A uatic Ecolo ical Studies Conducted at the Hanford Generatin Project 1973-1974, WPPSS Co umbi a River Ecology Studies, Vol.1, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, March 1976.Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER-OL REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 Section 2.2 Cont'd 13.14.15.16..17.18.19.20.21.22.24.26.27.28.Gushing, C.E.,"Periphyton Productivity and Radionuclide Accumulation in"1 2,.A.ll.,"~il 1, 1.22.125-139, 1967.DELETED DELETED Becker, C.D., Food and Feedi n of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Central Columbia River in Re ation to Therma Dischar es and ther Environmenta Features, BNWL-1528, USAEC, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Rich and, WA, 1971.DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED Becker, C.D.and C.C.Coutant, Tem erature Timin and Seaward Mi ration of Juvenile Chinook Salmon from the Centra Co umbia.River, BNWL-1472, Batte e, Paci ic Northwest Laboratories, Rich an, WA, 1970.DELETED Columbia River Thermal Effects-Stud Vol.1.Biolo ical Effects Studies, Environmenta Protection Agency, Atomic Energy ommission, and Nationa Marine Fisheries Service, January 1971.DELETED Watson, D.G.,"Fall Chinook Salmon Population Census," Pacific Northwest 2<<1>><<1 Environmental Research, Vo., Part 2, p.6.16-6.7, 1973.R Watson, D.G., Fall Chinook Salmon S awnin in the Columbia River near Hanford 1947-1969, Batte e, Paci ic Northwest Laboratories, BNWL-1515, 1970.Watson, D.G., Estimate of Steelhead Trout S awnin in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, ontract No.DACW67-72-C-0 00, Batte e, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1973.Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER-OL REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 Section 2.2 cont'd 29.30.31.32.33.34.35.36.37.38.39.40.Rickard, W.H., and K.A.Gano, Terrestrial Ecolo Studies in the Yicinit of Washin ton Public Power Su S stem Nuc ear Projects 1 and 4 Progress Report for 1978, Batte e Paci ic Northwest Laboratories, Fichland, Washington, August 1979.Hanson, W.C.and L.L.Eberhardt,"Canadian Goose Population Studies on the Hanford Reservation (AEC), Southeastern Washington, During the Period 1950-1970" In: Pacific Northwest Laborator Annual Re ort for 1970 to the AEC Di vi si on of Bi o o an Medi cine, Lif e Sci ences, Part 2, Ecol ogi ca Sciences, BNWL-1550, Vo., p.4-1.15, 1971.Rickard, W.H.and J.D.Hedlund,"Ecological Monitoring of the Hanford Reservation" In: Pacific Northwest Laborator Annual Re ort for 1974, BNWL-1950, Part 2, p 58-62, 974.Su lemental Information on the Hanford Generatin Pro'ect in Su ort of a 316 a Demonstration, Washington Public Power Supply System, November 1978.Neitzel, D.A., A Summar of Environmental Effects Studies on the Columbia River 1972 throu h 1978, Battel e, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, August 1979.A uatic Ecolo ical Studies Conducted Near WNP 1 2 and 4 Se tember 1974 Throu h Se tember 1975, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol.2, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, May 1977.A uatic Ecolo ical Studies near WNP 1 2 and 4 Se tember 1975 Throu h March 1976, WPPSS Columbia River Eco ogy Studies Yol.3, Batte e, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, July 1977.A uatic Ecolo ical Studies near WNP 1 2 and 4 March Throu h December 1976, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vo.4, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, July 1978.A uatic Ecolo ical Studies near WNP 1 2 and 4 Januar Throu h December 1977, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vo.5, Batte e, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, March 1979.A uatic Ecolo ical Studies near WNP 1 2 and 4 Januar 1978 Throu h Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, June 1979.Preo erati onal Environmental Monitorin Studies Near WNP-1 2 and 4 Au ust 9 8 Throu arch 9 0, P Co umbia iver co ogy tu ies, Vol.7, Beak Consultants, Inc., Portland, OR, June 1980.Gray, R.H.and D.D.Dauble,"Checklist and Relative Abundance of Fish Species from the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River," Northwest Science, Yol.51 (3), pp.208-215, 1977.Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER REMHU"NCES'OR CHAPTER 2~Section 2.3 1.Stone, W.A., et al.,'l'ima'to r'a h'o'f':th'e'a'n'fo'r'd'ea, BNWL-1605, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, June'1972.2;Jenne, D.E.,'re uen'c Ana'1 s'i's'oSome'l'imat'olo
'i;c'al'xtremesa't'anfo'rd, HW-75445, General Electric, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Richland, WA, April 1963.
WNP-2 ER-OL REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 Section 2.4 U.S.Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Washin ton Volume 2, Eastern Washin ton, 978.Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission, Hydrology and Hydraulic Committee, River Mile Index-Main Stream Columbia River, July 1962.if'i i C"Comprehensive Framework Study of Water and Related Lands," Vancouver, WA, September 1972.U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Columbia River Treat Flood Control 0 eratin Plan, North Pacific Divisson, Portland, OR, October 19 2.U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Draft Environmental Im act Statement McNar Pro ect Lake Wal lul a Columbi a River Washman ton and re on, Wa a Wa a D>strict, WA, March 974.DELETED Pacific Northwest River Basic Commission, Water Resources, Comprehensive Framework Study of Water and Related Lands, Appendix V, Vol.1, Vancouver, WA, April 1970.Honstead, J.F., Columbia River Surve 1951 1952 1953, HW-32506, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Rich and, WA, 1954.U.S.Atomic Energy Commission, Environmental Statement Related to the Pro osed Hanford Number Two Nuc ear Power P ant, Washington Public Power Supply System, December 1972.U.S.Corps of Engineers, Artificial Flood Possibilities on the Columbia River, Special Study S-5-1, Milstary Hydrology RED Branch, U.S.Army Engineer District, Washington, D.C., 20 November 1951.U.S.Corps of Engineers, Artificial Flood Considerations for Columbia River Dams, U.S.Army Engineer District, Seattle, WA, 1965.Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER-OL 12.13.14.Isaacson, E., Calculation of Severe Floods in Develo ed River, AEC Computing an App ied Mathematics enter, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences;New York University, New York, NY, January 1965.Jaske, R.T., and M.0.Synoground, Effect of Hanford Plant 0 erations on the Tem erature of the Columbia River 1946 to Present, BNWL-SA-845, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland, WA, November 1970.Jaske, R.T., and J.F.Goebel, A Stud of the Effects of Dam Construction on Tem eratures of the Columbia River, BNWL-345, Batte e, Paci ic Northwest Laboratories, Ric an, WA, November 1970.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.Jaske, R.T., An Evaluation of the Use of Selective Dischar es from Lake Rooseve t to oo the Co umbia River, BNWL-208, Batte e, Paci ic Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1966.Jaske, R.T., Potential Thermal Effects of an Ex andin Power Industr-Columbia River Basin, BNWL-1646, Batte e, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1972.Jaske, R.T., Columbia River Tem erature Trends-Fact and Fallac , BNWL-SA-2536, Batte e, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Rich and, WA, 1969.Jaske, R.T., and D.G.Daniels, Simulation of the Effects of Hanford at the Washin ton-Ore on Border, BNWL-1344, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1970.P RR<<R<<RR B R C Pollution Control, Comprehensive Framework Study of Water and Related Lands, Appendix XII, Vancouver, WA, December 1971.U.S.Geologic Survey, Water Resources Data for Washin ton Part 2 Water ualit Records 1971, 972 and 1973.Washington State Ecology Department, State of Washinaton De artment of Ecolo Water ualit andar s, ecember 19, 9 7.Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER'EFERENCES'OR
'CHAPTER 2 Section 2.4 U.S.Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Washin ton, Part 1, Surface Water Records, 1974.Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission, Hydrology and Hydraulic Committee, River Mile Index--Main Stream Columbia River, Jul 1962."Comprehensive Framework Study of Water and Related Lands," Vancouver, WA, September 1972.U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Columbia River Treat Flood Control 0 eratin Plan, North Pacific Division, Portland, OR, October 1972.-U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Draft Environmental Xm act Statement, McNar Pro'ct (Lake Wallula), Columbia River, Washin ton and Ore on, Walla Walla Distr>.ct, WA, March 1974.Letter to M.J.Hroncich from G.H.Fernald, Jr., Department of the Army, North Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers, 14 February 1972.Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission, Water Resources, Comprehensive Framework Study of Water and Related Lands, Appendix V, Vol.1, Vancouver, WA, April 1970.Honstead, J.F., Columbia River Surve 1951, 1952, 1953, HW-32506, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Richland, WA, 1954.U.S.Atomic Energy Commission, Environmental Statement Related to the Pro osed Hanford Number Two Nuclear Power Plant, Washington Public Power Supply System, December 1972.U.S.Corps of Engineers, Artificial Flood Possibilities on the Columbia River, Special Study S-51-1, Military Hydrology RGD Branch, U.S.Army Engineer District, Washington, D.C., 20 November 1951.U.S.Corps of Engineers, Artificial Flood Considerations for Columbia River Dams, U.S.Army Engineer District, Seattle, WA, 1965.
WNP-2'R'EFEE~ES'OR CHAPTER 2 continued Section 2.4 12.Isaacson, E.,=.Calcula'tion.of Severe Floods in Develo ed River, AEC Computing and Applied Mathematics Center, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University, New York, NY, January 1965.13.Jaske, R.T., and M.0;Synoground, Effect of Hanford Plant 0 erations on'the Tem erature'f the'o'lumbia River 1946 to Present, BNWL-SA-845, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland, WA, November 1970.14.Jaske, R.T., and J.F.Goebel, A Stud of the Effects of Dam Construction on Tem eratures of the Columbia River, BNWL-1345, Pacific Northwest Laboratory.es, Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland, WA, November 1970.15.Jaske, R.T., An Evaluation of the Use of Selective Dischar es from Lake Roosevelt to Cool the Columbia River, BNWL-208, Battelle, Pacz.fxc Northwest Laboratory.es, Richland, WA, 1966.16.Jaske, R.T., Potential Thermal Effects of an Ex andin Power Industr-Columba.a Raver Basin, BNWL-1646, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1972.17.Jaske, R.T., Columbia River Tem erature Trends-Fact"'--K.'aboratories, Richland, WA, 1969.18.Jaske, R.T., and D.G.Daniels, Simulation of the Effects of Hanford at the Washin ton-Ore on Border, BNWL-1344, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1970.19.and Pollution Control.Comprehensive Framework Study of Water and Related Lands, Appendix XII, Vancouver, WA, December 1971.20.U.S.Geologic Survey, Water Resources Data for Washin ton, Part 2, Water Qualit Records 1971, 1972 and 1973.21.Washington State Ecology Department, Stat'e o'f Washin ton, De artment of Eco'lo , Water Qualit'St'anda'rd, August 1973.
WNP-2 ER 22.REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 (continued}
Section 2.4 Washington Public Power Supply System, WPPSS Nuclear Project No.1, Environmental Report, vol.1, no date.23.Bramson, P.E., and J.P.Corley, Environmental Surveil-lance at Hanford for CY-1972, BNWL-1727, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, April 1973.24.tion of Basic Data Relatin to the Columbia River, Sections I-VI, HW-69368, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Richland, WA, 1961.25.U.S.Energy Research Development Administration, Final Environmental Statement, Waste Management Operations, Hanford Reservation, Richland, WA, December 1975.26.Field Determinations of the Tem erature Distribution in the Hanford Number One Condenser Coolin Water Dischar es, Plume, Research Report, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, November 1972.27.Bierschenk, W.H., A uifer Characteristics and Ground Water Movement at Hanford, WH-60601, June 9, 1959.28.Tillson, D.D., D.J.Brown, and J.R.Raymond, River Water Groundwater Relationshi s Alon a Section of the Columbia River Valle , BNWL-SA-823, Pacific North-west Laboratories, Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland, WA, December 1968.29.Kipp,'K.L., Radiolo ical Status of the Groundwater Beneath the Hanford Pro'ect, Jul-December 1972, BNWL-1752, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, August 1973.30.Kipp, K.L., Radiolo ical Status of the Groundwater Beneath the Han ord Pro ect, January-June 1972, BNWL-1737, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, May 1973.31.Bramson, P.E., J.P.Corley, and W.I.Nees, Environmental Status of the Hanford Reservation for CY-1972, BNWL-B-278, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, September 1973.Amendment 2 October 1978 WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 Section 2.6~~National Re ister of Historic Places, Federal Register, National Park Service, Dept.of the Interior, Vol.41, No.28, Part II, February 10, 1976.Mooney, J.,"The Ghost Dance Religion," 14th Annual Report, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 2, pp.641-1110, Washington, 1896;Krieger, H.W.,"A Prehistoric Pit House Village Site on the Columbia River at Wahluke, Grant County, Washington," U.S.National Museum Proceedin s, Vol.73, Publication No.732, Arts.cle No.11, pp.1-29, Washington, 1928.Relander, C., Drummers and Dreamers, Caxton Press, Caldwell, Idaho, 1956.Osborne, D.,"Excavations in the McNary Reservoir Basin Near Umatilla, Oregon," Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 166, Washington, 1957.Osborne, D., A.L.Bryan, and R.Crabtree,"The Sheep Island Site and the Mid-Columbia Valley," Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 179, pp.267-306, Washington, 1961.Shiner, J.,"The McNary Reservoir:
A Study in Plateau Archaeology," Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 179, pp.149-166, Washington 1961.of the Wana am Reservoir, M.A.thesis, University of Washington.
Swanson, E.H., Jr.,"The Emergence of Plateau Culture," Occasional Pa ers of the Idaho State Universit Museum, No.8, Pocatello, 1962.Rice, D.G.,"Archaeological Reconnaissance
-Ben Franklin Reservoir Area, 1968," Washington State University, Laboratory of Anthropology, Pullman, 1968.l Rice, D.G.,"Archaeological Investigations at the Washington Public Power Supply System Hanford No.1 Nuclear Power Plant, Benton County, Washington," Department of Sociology-Anthropology, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, October 1, 1973.
12.Letter from D.G.Rice to Burns and Roe, Inc.on the subject: "Archaeological/Historical Reconnaissance WPPSS Hanford No.2 Reactor" and dated September 13, 1972.13.Letter from D.G.Rice to Burns and Roe, Inc.on the subject: "Archaeological Investigations during Exca-vations for WNP-2 Pump house and Water Intake, Benton County, Washington" and dated April.30, 1975.14.Personal Communication, Dr.D.G.Rice, University of Idaho, Department of Sociology/Anthropology.
May, 1974.
WNP-2 ER REFERENCES'OR CHAPTER 3 Section 3.4 The Marley Company, Drift Techno'lo for Coolin Towers, 1973.LaSalle Hydraulic Laboratories Ltd., Air and H draulic Model Studies of the Perforated Pz.'e-In'letn
'ro'tec't'won Dol hz'n of'thanfor Nuclear Pro"e'c't No.2, February, 1974.
WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3 Section 3.5 1.American Nuclear Society ANS 18.1 Working Grouo, Radio-active Materials in Principal Fluid Streams of Li ht Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants, ANSI N-237, Rev.2, March 1975.2.'.S.Atomic Energy Commission, Draf t Regulator Guides for Xmolementation
-Numerical Guides for Design Ob ect-ives and Limitin Conditions for 0 eration to Meet the Criterion"As Low as Practicable" for Radioactive Material in Li ht Water Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors, Docket No.RM-50-2, February 20, 1974.3.C.A.Pelletier, J.E.Cline and J.H.Keller, Measurement of Sources of Iodine 131 Releases to the Atmosphere from Nuclear Power Plants, ZEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, Vol.NS-21, NO.1, 478-483, (Feb.1974).4.USAEC, Final Environmental Statement Concernin Proposed Rule Makin Action: Numerical Guides for Desi n Objectives and Limitin Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion"As Low as Practicable" for Radioactive Material in Light Water Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents, WASH 1258, July, 1973.5.Browning, W.E.et.al., Removal of Fission Product Gases from Reactor Off-Gas Streams b A sorption, ORNL CF-59-6-47, June 1, 1959.
WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3 Sects.on 3.9 Bonneville Power Administration, 1975 Fiscal Year Pro osed Pro ram Environmental Statement, p.V-2.Letter from B.Kennedy of BPA to J.J.Verderber of Burns and Roe, April 22, 1976 Bonneville Power Administration, Draft Environmental Statement on the Role of the Bonneville Power Administration in t e Pace.fz.c Nort west Power Su 1 S stem, Appen zx B, DES-77-21, July 22, 1977.Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER 2.3.4.5.6.REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4 Section 4.1 Architect-Engineers Estimate, April 15, 1976.Phone call to D.Roe of BPA, May 1, 1976.Woodward-Clyde Consultants Socioeconomic Stud: WPPSS Nuclear Pro'ects 1 and 4, April 1975.Letter: Robert J.Kuhta, Engineer-Planner of Benton County to S.K.Billingsley of WPPSS, January 5, 1971.Architect-Fngineers Estimate, February 7, 1978.Terrestrial Ecolo Studies in the Vicinit of Washin ton Public Power Su 1 S stem Nuclear Power Stations 1 and 4, Progress Report for the Period July 1974 to June 1975, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to Burns and Roe for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, November 1976.7.Terrestrial Ecolo Studies in the Vicinit of Washington Public Power Su 1 S stem Nuclear Power Stations 1 and 4, Progress Report for 1976, Battelle, Pacz.fic Norhtwest Laboratories to Burns and Roe for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, February 1978.Amendment 1 Nay 1978 WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4 Section 4.2 Bonneville Power Administration 1975 Fiscal Year Pro osed Pro ram, Environmental Statement, Face.lxt Evaluate.on A endix.2.Bonneville Power Administration, Environmental Statement:
General Construction and Maintenance Pro ram, August 1974.3.United States Atomic Energy Commission, Environmental Statement:
Fast'lux Test Facilit , May 1972.Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4 Sect>;on 4.5 1.Shannon 6 Wilson Inc., Su olementar Soils Investi ations WPPSS Han'ford No.2 Nuclear Power Plant, Central Plant Faczlzties, amendment No.8, June 30, 1972, Revised July 28, 1972.
WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5 Section 5.1 1.Washington State Department of Ecology, Washin ton State Water ualit Standards, December 19, 1977.2.Feder al Effluent Guidelines and Standards Steam Electric Power Plants, 40 FR 423.25, Federa Register, ctober 8, 1974.3.Alam, S., F.E.Parkinson, and R.Hauser, Hanford Nuclear Pro'ect No.2-Air and H draulic Model Studies of the Per orated Pi e n et and Washington Public Power Supply System and Burns and Roe, Inc., February 1974.q.Schreiber, D.L., C.D.Backer, J.J.Fuquay, and R.A.Chitwood, Intake S stem Assessment for Central Columbia River, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, December 1973.E 5.Prep erational Environmental Nonitorin Studies Near WNP-1 2 and 4, Au ust 978 throu h March 980, WPPSS Co umbia River Eco ogy Studies, Vol.7, Beak onsu tants, Inc., Portland, Oregon, June 1980.4 6.Kannberg, L.D., Mathematical Modelin of the WNP-1 2 and 4 Coolin Tower Blowdown Plumes, Batte e, Paci ic Northwest Laboratories, ichland, WA, Apri 980.7.NOT USED 8.Coutant, C.C.,"Thermal Pollution-Biological Effects," J.Water Pollu-tion Control Fed., vol.43, p.1292, 1971.9.Jensen, L.D., et al., The Effects of Elevated Tem eratures U on A uatic Invertebrates, Edison Electric Inst.Res.Report, Project RP-49, pp.232, 1969.10.Owens, B.B., Columbia River Peri h ton Communities under Thermal Stress, BNWL-1550, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Rich and, Washington, vo.1, no.2, p.2a19, 1971.11.Coutant, C.C.and B.B.Owens, Productivit of Peri h ton Communities under Thermal Stress, BNWL-1306, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Rich-and, Washington, vol.1, part 2, p.3.1, 1970.12.Patrick, R.,"Some Effects of Temperature on Freshwater Algae," Bio-lo ical As ects of Thermal Pollution, P.A.Krenkel and F.A.Parker eds., Yanderbi t Univ.Press, pp.199-213, 1969.Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5 Continue Secti on 5.1 13.DELETED 14.DELETED 15.Curry, L.L.,"A Survey of Environmental Requirements for the Midge (Diptera: Tendipedi dae)," Bi olo ical Problems in Water Pollution, C.H.Tarzwell (ed.), P.H.S.Publ.No.999-WP-25, 1965.16.Nebeker, A.W.and A.E.Lemke,"Preliminary Studies on the Tolerance of Aquatic Insects to Heated Waters," J.Kansas Ent.Soc., vol.41, p.413, 1968.17.Becker, C.D., Res onse of Columbia River Invertebrates to Thermal Stress BNWL-1550, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, vo.1, no.2, p.2.17, 1971.18.Coutant, C.C., The Effects of Tem erature on the Develo ent of Bottom~0r anisms, BNWL-7 4, Pacifsc Northwest Laboratories, Rich and, Washington, 1968.19."Columbia River Thermal Effects Study," Vol.I: Biolo ical Effects Studies Environmental Protection A enc, pp.102, January 1971.20.Pearson, W.D.and P.R.Franklin,"Some Factors Affecting Drift Rates of Bactis and Simuliidae in a Large River,"~Ecoloo, vol.49, p.75, 1966.21.Su lemental Information on the Hanford Generatin Pro'ect in Su ort of a 316 a Demonstration, Washington Pub ic Power Supp y System, November 1978.22.Testimony of D.R.Eldred, Dept.of Game, in hearing on Application TPPSEC 71-1 before State of Washington Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council, Exhibit 62.Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5 (Continued)
Section 5.1 23.Salo, E.O.and R.E.Nakatani, in hearings on Application TPPSEC 71-1 before State of Washington Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council, Exhibit 26.24.Olson, P.A., Effects of Thermal Increments on E s and Youn of Columbia Raver Fall Chinook, BNWI-1538, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, 1971.25.Brett, J.R.,"Temperature Tolerance of Young Pacific vol 9 g p 265@1952~26.Nakatani, R.E., in hearings on Application TPPSEC 71-1 before State of Washington Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council, Figure 13, Exhibit 49.27.Snyder, G.R.and T.H.Blahm,."Effects of Increased Temperature o'n Cold-Water Organisms," J.Water Pollution Control Fed., vol.43, p.890, 1971.28.Bush, R.M., E.B.Welch and B.W.Mar,"Potential Effects t of Thermal Discharges on Aquatic Systems," Environmental 29.Schneider, M.J., Vulnerabilit of Juvenile Salmonids to Predation Following Thermal Schock, BNWL-1150, Pacif ic Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, vol.1, part 2, 2.19, 1971.30.Templeton, W.L.and C.C.Coutant,"Studies on the Biological Effects of Thermal Discharges from the Nuclear Reactors to the Columbia River at Hanford," IAEA-SM-146/33, Environmental As ects of Nuclear Power Stations, pp.591-612, 1971." Effects'f Circular'echanical Draft Coolin Towers at Washington Public Power Su 1 S stem Nuclear Power Plant Number Two, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to Burns and Roe for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, November 1976.Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5 Section 5.2 Blaylock, B.G.,"Cytogenetic Study of a Natural Popula-tion of Chironomus Inhabiting an Area Contaminated by S o'sium on Dis osal of Radioact'ave'a'stes
~'nto Se'as, Oce'ans and Rivers, IAEA, Vienna, 1966.2.Templeton, W.L., R.E.Nakatani and E.E.Held,"Radia-tion Effects," Radioactivit in the Marine Environment, Committee on Oceanography, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, pp.223-239, 1971.3.Watson, D.G.and W.L.Templeton,"Thermal Luminescent, Dosimetry of Aquatic Organisms," Proc.Thi'rd Na'tional S m'o'sium on Radioecolo (Ma 10-12,'1'971 pp.1125-1130, CONF 710501-P2, Oak Ridge, TN, 1973.4~Denham, D.H.and J.K.Soldat,"A Study of Selected Parameters Affecting the Radiation Dose from Drinking Water Downstream of Nuclear Facilities", He'alth Ph sics 2 B:139-144, 1975.5.Soldat, J.K.,"A Statistical Study of the Habits of Fishermen Utilizing the Columbia River Below Hanford," pp.302-308, Environmental Surveillance in the Vicinit of Nuclear Facilities (W.O.Reinig, Ed.), Charles C.Thomas, Publisher, Springfield, IL, 1970.6.Honstead,,J.
F., Recreation Use of the'olumbia River-Evaluation of Environmental Ex osure, USAEC Report BNWL-CC-2299, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, 1969.7.Shipler, D.B., G.W.R.Endres, N.M.Robinson, T.H.Essig, and J.F.Honstead, Results of a Whole Bod Countin Stud of Families Lzvzn on Irrx ated Farms Downstream of the Hanford Pro'ect, A Research Report for the Envz.ronmental Protects.on Agency, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, September 1972.8.Environmental Surve of Trans ortation of Radioactive Ma'tera'a'ls to andfrom'u'cl'ear Powe'r'la'n'ts, Directorate o Regulatory Standards, U.S.Atomic Energy Commission, WASH-1238, p.7, December 1972.
WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5 Conte.nue Section 5.2 9.Klement, A.W.Jr., et al., Estimates of Ionizin Radiation Doses in the United Sta'tes', 60-2000, U.S.Envxronmenta Protection Agency, ORP CSD-, p.12, August 1972.10.Zaradoski, R.W.,"BWR N-16 Turbine Building Radiation:
Environmental Considerations," Letter to H.R.Denton, U.S.Atomic Energy Commission, November 16, 1971.
WNP-2 ER-OL REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5 Section 5.4 Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5 Section 5.5 l.U.S.Department of the Interior, Bonneville Power Administration.
Draft Environmental Statement, Fiscal ear 1975 Pro osed Pro ram, vol.2, pp.SA3-ll to 14 and Figure, Ashe-Pebble Springs Study Region 3a, Portland, OR.
WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6 Section 6.1 Becker, C.D.and W.W.Waddel, A Summar of Environmental Effects Studies on the Columbia River, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, November 1972.Neitzel, D.A., A Summar of Environmental Effects Studies on the Columbia River 1972 throu h 1978, Bate e, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, August 1979.U.S.Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Washin ton Volume 2 Eastern Washin ton, published annual y.Bramson, P.E.and J.P.Corley, Environmental Surveillance at Hanford for CY-1972, BNWL-1727, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, April 1973.Vertical Mixin Characteristics of the Columbia River at River Mile 351.75 WNP No.2, Batte e-Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Rich and, WA, March 16, 1972.Page, T.L., E.G.Wolf, Ra H.Gray and W.J.Scnneider,~Ecolo ical Com arison of the Hanford Generatin Plant and the WNP-2 Sites on the Columbia River, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Constructors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, October 1974.Page, T.L., An Evaluation of Sedimentation and Turbidit Effects Resultin from Excavation in the Columbia River at the WNP-2 Site Au ust to October 1975, Batte e, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to Burns and Roe for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, August 1976.Kannberg, L.D., Mathematical Modelin of the WNP-1 2 and 4 Coolin Tower Blowdown Plumes, Batte e, Pacific Nort west Laboratories, Rich and, Washington, April 1980.Jaske, R.T., An Anal sis of the Ph sical Factors Governin the Size and Tem erature Gradi ents o t e an or uent umes, BN L-Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, November 1972.Field Determination of the Tem erature Distribution in the Hanford Number One Condenser Coolin Water Dischar e Plume, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories,>ch an , A, Novem er 9 2.Jaske, R.T., Personal Comunicati on, 1974.Qendoent 4 october 1980 WiNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6 Continued Secti on 6.1 12.13.Benedict, B.Ar t J.L.Anderson and E.L.Yandell, Jr ,.~Anal tical Modelin of Thermal Dischar es-A Review of the State-of-the-Art, ANL/ES-18, Argonne National Laboratory, Apri 1974.Trent, D.S., and J.R.Welty, A Suranar of Numerical Methods for Solvin Transient Heat Conduction Problems, Engineering Experiment Station Bu etin No.49, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, October 1974.14.Becker, C.D., A uatic Bioenvironmental Studies in the Columbia River at Hanford 1945-1971, A Bibliography with Abstracts, BNWL-1734, Batte le, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA 1973.15.Final Re ort on A uatic Ecolo ical Studies Conducted at the Hanford eneratin Pro ect 1973-1974, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol., Batte e, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Constructors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, March 1976.16a.A uatic Ecolo ical Studies Conducted Near WNP-1 2 and 4 Se tember 1974 to Se tember 1975, WPPSS Co umbia River Ecology Studies Vo ume 2, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, July 1976.16b.A uatic Ecolo ical Studies Near WNP-1 2 and 4 October 1975 throu h W Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, July 1977.16c.A vatic Ecolo ical Studies Near WNP-1 2 and 4 March throu h December 1976, WPPSS Co umbia River Eco ogy tudies Vo ume 4, Batte le, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, July 1978.16d.A uatic Ecolo ical Studies Near WNP-1 2 and 4 Januar throu h December 1977, WPPSS Columbia River Eco ogy Studies Vo ume 5, Batte e, Pacific Northwest Laboratori es, Ri chl and, WA, March 1979.16e.A uatic Ecolo ical Studies Near WNP-1 2 and 4 Januar throu h Au ust 978, WPPSS o umbia River co ogy tudies Vo ume 6, Batte e, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, June 1979.16f.Preo erational Environmental Monitorin Studies Near WNP-1 2 and 4 Au ust 1978 throu h March 1980, WPPSS Co umbia River Eco ogy Studies Volume 7, Beak Consu tants, nc., Portland, OR, June 1980.17.U.S.Atomic Energy Commission, Final Environmental Statement Waste Mana ement 0 erations Hanford Reservation, Richland, WA, December 975.Amendment 4 October 1900 WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6 Continued)
Section 6'18.Hanford Wells, BNWL-928, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, pp.8, 126-127, 129, October 1968.18a.Myers, D.A., J.J.Fix and J.R.Raymond, Environmental Monitorin Re ort On The Status of Ground Water Beneath the Hanford Site Januar-December 1976, BNWL;2199, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, April 1977.19.USAEC Regulatory Staff, Standard Format.and Content of Safet Anal sis Re orts for Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1, October 1972.20.Office of the Federal Register, Code of Federal Regula-tions, Title 10-Atomic Ererg , part 100, Revised January 1, 1972.21.Regulatory Guide 1.4,"Assumptions Used for Evaluating The Potential Radio'logical Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident.for Pressurized Water Reactors," USAEC.22.Slade, D.H., ed., Meteorolo ical and Atomic Energ USAEC, TXD-24190, July 1968.23.Briggs, G.A., Plume Rise, AEC Critical Review Series, USAEC Report TXD-25075, p.81, November 1969.24.Weinstein, A.I , and L.G.Davis, A Parameterized Numerical Model of Cumulus Convection, Report No.11, NSFGA-777, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Meteorology, 43 pp , 1968.25.EG&G, Xnc., Potential Environmental Modifications Produced b Large Eva orative Coolin Towers, Final Report on Contract No.14-12-542, to Federal Water Pollution Administration, Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory.
EGGG, Inc., Environmental Services Opera-tion, Boulder, CO.26.Ef ects of Circular Mechanical Draft Coolin Towers at Washin ton Public Power Su 1 S stem Nuclear Power Plant Number Two, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to Burns and Roe for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, November 1976.Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6 (Contr.nued)
Section 6.1 27.Hosier, C.L., J.Pena, and R.Pena, Determination of Salt De osition Rates from Drift from Eva oratzve Cooling Towers, Pennsylvania State University, Dept.of Meteorology, May 1972.28.Roffman, A.and L.D.Van Vleck,"The State-of-the-Art of Measuring and Predicting Cooling Tower Drift and its Deposition," Jour.of Air Pol.Control Assoc., vol.24, No.9, pp.855-859, September 1974.29.Woodruff, R.K., D.E.Jenne, C.L.Simpson, and J;J.Fuquay, A Meteorolo ical Evaluation of the Effects of the Pro osed Cools.n Towers of Hanford Number Two"C" Site on Surroundin Areas, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory,es
'to Burns and Roe Znc~Hempsteadf NYP September 1971.30.McHenry, J.R., Pro erties of Soils of the Hanford P~ro'ect, HW-53218, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Richland, WA, 1957.31.Hajek, B.F., Soil Surve--Hanford Project in Benton Count , Washington, BNWL-243, Battelle, Pacific North-west Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1966.32.Brown, D.J., Geolo Underl in Hanford Reactor Areas, HW-69571, 1962.33.Brown, R.E., and D.J.Brown, The Rin old Formation and Its Relationshi to Other Formats.ons, HW-SA-2319, Hanford Atomic Productions Operation, Richland, WA, 1961.34.35.Raymond, J.R.and D.D.Tillson, Evaluation of.a Thick Basalt Se uence in South-Central Washin ton, BNWL-776, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1968 Shannon and Wilson, Inc., Hanford No.2 Nuclear Power Plant Central Plant Facility.es, prepared for Burns and Roe, Xnc.and WPPSS, 1971.36.Bierschenk, W.H.A uifer Characteristics and Groundwater Movement at Hanford, WH-60601, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Richland, WA, 1959.37.Brown, D.J.and P.P.Rowe, 100-N Area A uifer Evaluation, HW-67326, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Richland, WA, 1960.Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6 Continued Section 6.1 38.Daubenmire, R., A Canopy Coverage Method of Vegetational Analysis.Northwest Sci., vol.33, pp.43-64, 1959.39.State of Washin ton, Po ulation Trends, 1975, Population Studies Division, Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management, Olympia, WA, 1975.40.Population Estimates:
Oregon Counties and Incor orated Cities, Center for Population Research and Census, Portland State University, Portland, OR, July 1, 1975.41.Po ulation, Em lo ment and Housing Units Pro'ected to 1970, Bonneville Power Administration, February 1973.42.Columbia-.North Pacific Re ion Com rehensive Framework Stud of Water and Related Lands, A endix VI, Economic Base and Pro ections, Paci xc Northwest Rxver Basins Commission, Vancouver, WA, January 1971.43.Po ulation and Household Trends in Washington, Ore on and Northern Idaho, 1970 to 1985, Pacify.c Northwest Bell, January 1972.44.Clement, M., et al., Stud and Forecast of Tri-Cit Economical Activit and its Related Im act on Gasoline Needs and House.n , Battelle, Pacific Northwest Labora-tories to Trz.-City Nuclear Industrial Council, Richland, WA, May 1974.45.Cone, B.W., The Economic Im act of the Second Bacon Si hon and Tunnel on the.East Hi h Area, the State of Washin ton and the Nation, Columbia Basin Develo'p-ment League, P.O.Box 1980, Ephrata, WA, 1970.46.Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Socioeconomic Stud: WPPSS Nuclear Pro'ects 1 and 4, Prepared for Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, April 1975.47.Yandon, K., Assum tions for Po ulation Estimates and Pro'ections b S ecz.fic Com ass Sectors and Radar.z, Distances from WNP-2 Site, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory.es to Burns and Roe for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, February 1977.Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER-OL REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6 ontsnued Section 6.1 48.Terrestrial Ecolo Studies in the Vicinit of Washin ton Public Power Su 1 S stem Nuclear Power Stations 1 and 4, Progress Report for the Period u y 9 4 to une , Batte e, acific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, November 1976.49.Terrestrial Ecolo Studies in the Vicinit of Washin ton Public Power Su 1 s stem Nuclear Power Stations and , Progress Report for 976, Battel e, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Constructors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, December 1977.50.Terrestrial Ecolo Studies in the Vicinit of Washin ton Public Power Su 1 S stem Nuclear Power Stations and 4, Progress Report for 97 , Battel e, Pacifi'c Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., for the Washington Public Power Supply Sys'em, Richland, WA, April 1979.51.Terrestrial Ecolo Studies in the Vicinit of Washin ton Public Power Su l S stem Nuclear Power Stations and 4, Progress Report for 1978, Battel e, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Constructors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, August 1979.52.Letter, G.H.Hansen, EFSEC, to N.0;Strand, WPPSS,
Subject:
"Termination of WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 Preoperational Monitoring, Aquatic Ecology" with EFSEC Resolution No.166, March 26, 1980.53.Letter, W.L.Fitch, EFSEC, to R.L.Ferguson, WPPSS,
Subject:
"WNP-2 and WNP-1/4 Terrestrial Monitoring Program," with EFSEC Resolutions Nos.193 and 194, May 28, 1981.Amendment 5 July 1981 WNP-2 ER'EFERENCES'OR
'CHAPTER 6 Sect@on 6.3 U.S.Geological Survey,"Water Resources Data for Washington, Part 1," Surface Water Records, 1973.Hilty, E.L.and J.P.Corley, Personal Communication, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, 1975." Onishi, Y., Columbia River Quality Radionuclide and Sediment, Transport, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Labora-tory, letter to Paul G.Hoisted, U S.Atomic Energy Commission, Richland Operations Of f ice, December ll, 1974.,Bramson, P.E.and J.P.Corley, Environmental Surveil-lance at Hanford for CY-1972, BNWL-1727, Battelle, Paci zc Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, April 1973.Schultz, M.J., Chemical and Biolo ical Pollution Surveil-lance of the Hanfor Environs, Quarterl Report, Hanford Enyo.ronmental Health Foundation, Richland, WA, October 1-December 3 , 72.Kipp, K.L.Jr., Radiolo ical Status of the Groundwater Beneath the Hanford Pro ect, Jul-December 1972,,BNWL-1752, Batte e, Pace.xc Nort west Laboratory, Rzc and, WA, August 1973.U.S.Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Reactor Research and Development, Evaluation of Nuclear Ener Centers, WASH-1288, 2 Volumes, January 1974.U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division,"The Columbia River and its Tributaries," July 1972.Cunningham, Richard, Supervisor, Water Quality Monitor-ing Section, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington, letter to Albin Brandstetter, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, May 26, 1976.U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Storet Data, 1976.Final Re ort on A uatic Ecolo ical Studies Conducted at t e Hanfor Generation Pro ect, 973-7 , WPPSS Co umbia River Ecology Studies Vol.1, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Constructors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, March 1976.
WNP-2 ER'REFERENCES FOR CHA'PTER 6 Continued Section 6,.3 Page@T~L g ED G.Wolf, R.H.Gray and M.J.Schneider, Eco'1'o i'c'al'om arison of the Hanford Generatin Pla'ntand the WNP-2 Sites'on t e Columbia River, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Constructors for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, October 1974.Watson, D;G., Fal'1 Chinook Salmon S awnin in the Columbia River Near Hanford, 1947-1969, Report BNWL-1515, Battelle, Pacific Nort west Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1970.Pacific Northwest Laboratories Annual Re ort for'1'975'o t e U.S.Zner Research and Develo ment Administra'tion, Divi,'sion of Biomedical
'and Environmental Re'search, Part-Eco o ica Sciences, Report: BNWL-0, Part 2, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1976.Fickheisen, D.H.and M.J.Schneider (editors), Proceedin s of Gas Bubble Disease Worksho , Conference Oa Ri ge, Tennessee, 7 Terrestrial Ecolo Studies in the Vicinit o'f Washin ton Publi'c Power Su 1'S stem Nuclear Power Stat'ion's 1'nd 4, Progress Report for the Period Ju y 1974 to June 1975, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, to United Engineers and Constructors for Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, November 1976.Stone, W.A., Meterolo ical instrumentation o'f the Hanford Area, HW-62455, March 1964.Stone, W.A., D.E.Jenne and J.M.Thorp, Climato ra h of the Hanford Area, BNWL-1605, Battelle, Paci ic Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1972.Thorp, J.M,"1972 Microclimatological Measurements on the Arid Lands Ecology Reserve," in Pacific Northwest Laborator Annual" Re ort'or 1972 to the USA'ivi'sion o Biome ica'and'nvironmenta Research, Volume II: Ph sical'ci'ences
-Part 1', Atmos heric Sci'ences, BNWL-175 , Part 1, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Labora-tories, Richland, WA, April 1973.Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ERREFERENCES'OR CHAPTER 6 Conte.nued)
Section 6.3 20.Baker, D.A., Di'ffusion Climatolo Stud of'he 100-N Area, Hanford Wash'in ton, DUN-7841, Douglas United Nuclear, Inc., Richland, WA, 1972.21.Blumer, P.J., D.A.Myers and J.J.Fix, Master Schedule for CY-1976, Hanford Environmental Surveil'1'ance Routine~Pro ram, BNWL-B-, Batte le, peer zc Northwest Labora-tories, Richland, WA, December 1975.22.Speer, D.R., J.J.Fix and P.J.Blumer, Environmental Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, April 1976.23.Raymond, J.R., et al., Environmental Monitorin Re ort on Radiolo ical Status of the Groundwater Beneath the Hanford Sate, Januar-December 1974, Battelle, Pacz.fic Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, March 1976.24.Mooney, R.R., Environmental Radiation Surveillance" in Washin ton State, t Annua Re ort Ju'-June-975, Radiation Control Unit, Division of Social and Health Services, State of Washington, Olympia, WA, 1975.
WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7 Section 7.1 Horton, N.R.Willians, W.A., Holtzclaw, J.W.,"Analytical Methods for Evaluating the Radiological Aspects of the General Electric Boiling Water Reactor,: APED5756, March 1969.B.J.Garrick, W.C.Geklev, L.Goldfisher, B.Shimizu, J.H.Wilson, The Effect of Human Error and Static Com-ponent Failure on Engineered Safety System Reliability, H N194, Holmes and Narver, Inc., Los Angeles, California, November, 1967.BWR Thermal Anal sis Basis (GETAB): Data, Correlation, and Des', n A location, NEDO-10958 an NED0-3.0959, General Electric Company, San Jose, California, November 1973.Slifer, B.C., and J.E.Hench, Loss-of-Coolant Accident and Emer enc Core Coolin , Models for General Electric Bowling Water Reactors, NED010 29, General Electric Company, San Jose, California, April 1971.Garrick, V.J., B.Shimizu, W.C.Gekler, J.H.Wilson, Collection of Reliabilit Data at Nuclear Power Plants HN199, Holmes and Narver, Los Angeles, Calzfornxa, Dec.1968.Garrick, B.J., W.C.Gekler, 0.C.Baldonado, E.H.Behrens, B.Shimizu,"Classification and Processing of Reliability Data from Nuclear Power Plants," HN193, Holmes and Narver, Inc., Los Angeles, California, February, 1968.Failure Data Handbook for Nuclear Power Facilities, Vol.1, Failure Data and Apple.catzons Technology, Vol.II, Failure Category Identification and Glossary, Liquid Metal Engineering Center, Revised, June, 1970'.R.Vandenberg,"Reactor Primary Coolant System Rupture Study, Quarterly Report No.22, July-September, 1970, GEAP1020722, General Electric Company, San Jose, California."Environmental Survey of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle," USAEC, November 1972.United States Atomic Energy Commission Rules and Regulations Title 49, Part 171, 174, and 177.U.S.Atomic Energy Commission,"Scope of Applicants" Environmental Reports with Respect to the Transportation, Transmission Lines, and Accidents," September 1, 1971.Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER 12.Otway, Harry J., et.al., A Risk Anal sis of Ome a West Reactor, LA-4449I Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory o the University of California, March, 1970.13.Otway, Harry J., The A lication of Risk Allocation to Reactor Sitin'an'd Desi n, LA-4316, Los Alamos Sczentx ic Laboratory of the University of California, June, 1969.14.Green, A.F.,"Safety Assessment of Automatic and Manual Protective Systems for Reactors," trans.A.N.S., 12, 172 (1969).15.Garrick, B.J., W.C.Gekler, H.P.Pomrehm, An Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Operating and Safety Experience, HN-185 Vol.1 and 2, Nuclear Division, Holmes and Narver;Inc., Los Angeles, Cali f ornia, December 15, 19 66.16.Gangloff, W.C., An Evaluation of Antici ated 0 erational Transients in Westin house Pressurized Water Reactors, WACP-7486, Westinghouse.Electric Corporation, Pittsburg, PA, May, 1971.17.Morgan, K.Z.,"Ionizing Radiation:
Benefits versus Risks," Health Ph sics, 17, p.539 (1969).18.Wall, I.B., and Richard C.Augenstein,"Probabilisitc Assessment of Aircraft Hazard for Nuclear Power Plants," ANS 16th Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, California, June 30, 1970.19.New York Times Encyclopedic Almanac, 1970, p.672.20.The Washington Star New World Almanac, 1973, P.953.21.Otway, Harry J., Robert C.Erdmann,"Reactor Siting and Design from a Risk Viewpoint," Nuclear En ineerin and Desicen, Vol.13, No.2, 1970, pp.365-376.
WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7 Section 7.2 Chlorine Institute, Inc., Chlorine Manual 3rd Ed., New York 1959 Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories,"Terrestual Ecology Studies", In: Annual Re ort for 1970 Vol.I, Life Sciences, Part II, Ecological Sciences, BNWL-1550, pp.1.1-1.7, 1971 WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR.CHAPTER 8 Section 8.1 1.Bonneville Power Administration, Impact Stud of BPA Proposed Rate Increases, November 1975.
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 8 Section 8.2 Washington Public Power Supply System, WNP-2 U dated Pro'ect Construction Bud et, Effective January 1, 1978.Washington Public Power Supply System, 1978 Ten-Year Fuel Mana ement Plan, A endix D, April 1978.Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Su Stud: WPPSS Nuclear Pro'ects lement to Cocioeconomic Nos.1 and 4, April 1975.Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 10 Section 10.1 Washington Public Power Supply System, Environmental Re ort, Hanford Number Two, August 16, 1972.U.S.Atomic Energy Commission, Environmental Statement, Hanford Number Two Nucl'ear Power Plant, December 1972.
WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 10 Section 10.2 Water.Intake S s'tems on the Central Columbia'iver, for Washington Power Supply System, March 1973.2.Burns and Roe, Inc., Intake for the Makeu Water Pum in S stem, WPPSS Nuclear Pro ect No.2, May 1973.
WNP;2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 10 Section 10.9 1.Bonneville Power Administration, 1975 Fiscal Year Pro'osed'r'o ram, Environmental Statement Facult Eva'lu'atm.on'A
'e'n'dz,x REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER ll Section 11.2 1.Letter from R.A.Duncan of the Northwest Power Pool Coordinating Group to B.W.Bentley, WPPSS, February 24, 1978.Amendment 1 May 1978
- /
APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX II RADIOLOGICAL DOSE MODELS WNP-2 ER APPENDIX II RADIOLOGICAL DOSE MODELS Biota Dose Model The equations used for the calculation of internal doses to biota other than man are outlined below.The internal biota dose from a particular radionuclide can be expressed by Dose=A c b (mrad/yr)(see Reference,l).
where A=conversion factor: 3.1558 x 10-1.6 x 10 3 7 x 10-')-2 dis.sec-pCi 100 erg pCi-MeV-yr c=effective absorbed energy in MeV per disintegration (dis.)corresponding to the effective radius of the organism, b=specific body burden in pCi/kg.The specific body burden of a primary organism, bl, (one for which bioaccumulation factors are known)is given by bl--W C (pCi/kg)where C=bioaccumulation factor in pCi/kg of tissue per pCi/I of water, and W=radionuclide concentration in water in pCi/R.The concentration W, is obtained from W=(exp-ART)(pCi/R)where B=conversion factor: 12~10 Ci Ci 1 ear 3.1558 x 10 sec 7 3~3 28.317K Ci-sec-R G=recirculation factor (assumed to be 1 for this plant),'=radioisotope release rate in Ci/yr, WNP-2 ER F=dilution flow rate in cfs, E=any additional dilution factor, T=delay time between release and point of calculation in hours, and=radioactive decay constant in hr-1 Then the internal total-body dose to this organism is Dose>=0.0187 cl bl (mrad/Yr)~The specific body burden for a secondary organism, b2, (one which consumes primary organisms) can be obtained from b2 1-44 bl P2 w2 (pCi/kg)(see Reference 1)where P2 consumption rate of primary organism by secondary organism, in grams per day/f w2 fraction of uptake reaching total body of secondary organism, m2 mass of critical organ of secondary organism in-grams, X2=effective decay constant in secondary organism in day-1 B2 T2=+2 biological removal constant in secondary organisms, 0'93 d X2 period of exposure in days Then, the internal total-body dose to the secondary organism can be calculated from Dose=0.0187 c2 b2 2 External doses to biota from air, water, and shoreline are calculated similar tothose to man by means of a model shown below.
WNP-2 ER Models Used For Dose Estimates to Man, Normal Plant 0 eration The fundamental relation for calculation of radiation dose to man from the pathways described in Section 5.2 is given as follows for any radionuclide:
~R.CD U DE ipr=ip p ipr where R.=the dose rate to organ r from nuclide i via pathway p z.pr C.=the concentration of nuclide i in the media of pathway p U=usage: the exposure rate or intake rate associated with pathway p, and D.=a dose factor: a number specific to a given nuclide z.pr i, pathway p and organ r which can be used to calculate radiation dose rate from exposure rate to a given concentration of a radionuclide or the intake rate of that radionuclide.
The three terms comprising Equation l are discussed in the following subsections.
Concentrations in Environmental Media, C.ip Concentrations in air, water, soil or food are calculated as an integral part of computer programs developed for dose cal-culations.
~>Concentrations in water, aquatic foods and on shoreline sediment are calculated from the radionuclide release rates, the effluent flow rate, the mixing and dilution in the receiving waters, and bioaccumulation factors for aquatic foods.Concentrations in irrigated farm produce and animal products are'alculated from concentrations of radionuclides in the irrigation water, irrigation rate, facility lifetime (to deter-mine long-term soil buildup), and decay time between nuclide release and produce consumption.'(3)
Concentrations in air are generated from radionuclide release rates and atmospheric dispersion information from Section 2.3.Hours of exposure to external sources of radiation and intake rates of ingested water and food are supplied for each calcula-tion.Since the principal contributors for external air submersion dose are noble gases, the assumption was made that the air concentrations of radionuclides will be essentially WNP-2 ER the same indoors as outdoors.For the population dose estimates from water related recreation the usages of the average adult were multiplied by the size of the population involved.For the dose estimates from fish consumption the total fish catch (edible weight)was used.Dose Factors, DE Equations for calculating internal dose factors were derived from those given by the ICRP fog body burden and MPC, and have previously been published.(~>)Effective decay energies for the radionuclides were calculated from the ICRP model, which assumes all of the radionuclide is in the center of a spherical organ with an appropriate effective radius.Where data were lacking, metabolic parameters for the Standard Man were used.These dose factors have units of mrem/yr per pCi/yr taken into the body, either via ingestion or inhalation.
The dose factors for external exposure to air and water were derived on the assumption that the contaminated medium is large enough to be considered an"infinite volume" relative to the range of the emitted radiations.
Under that assumption the energy emitted per gram of media is equivalent to the energy absorbed per gram of media.Conversion from MeV per disintegration per gram to rem is made and corrected for the difference in energy absorption between air or water and tissue, the quality factor of the radiation under consideration and for physical geometry of each specific exposure situation.
The dose from submersion in air or immersion in water is an external dose either to the skin, or to both the skin and total body, depending on the penetrating power of the radia-tion emitted by the airborne radionuclides.
Only beta and gamma radiation, which could penetrate 7 mg/cm of tissue, was considered in calculating skin dose.Gamma radiation dose at a 5-cm depth in tissue was used for calculating exter-nal dose to the total body (and for internal organs).These dose factors have units of mrem/hr per pCi/m3 air and mrem/hr per pCi/R water.1 Material deposited from the air or from irrigation water onto the ground represents
'a fairly large, nearly uniform, thin sheet of contamination.
The factors for converting surface contamination in pCi/m to gamma dose a l rj above a uniformly contaminated plane have been described.(-
<<5~Dose factors for exposure to soil (or river sediment)have units of mrem/hr per pCi/m2 surface.Pathwa E uations Individual equations tailored to each specific exposure'ath-way were derived from Equation l.The principal difference WNP-2 ER among pathways is the manner in which the radionuclide con-centrations are calculated.
This section develops the set of equations required for the liquid pathway model and atmospheric pathway model.(2)Drinkin Water The dose from ingestion of water is calculated from Equation 2: R=1119 where F p Q.N~M exp (-X.t)UP D.f.a.p P ipr i i=1 (2)R=total dose rate to organ r from n nuclides i in pathway p (mrem/yr)Ni=The reconcentration factor as defined in Reference 2 (dimensionless)
Q.=the release rate of nuclide i (Ci/yr)3.F=the flow rate of the liquid effluent (ft/sec)3 M p the mixing ratio at the point of exposure (or the point of withdrawal of drinking water or point of harvest of aquatic food).-1 radiological decay constant of nuclide i (hr)1119 the'ransit time required for nuclides to reach the point of exposure.For interal dose, tz is the total time elapsed between release of the nuclides and ingestion of food or water (hr)3 a constant.which converts from (Ci/yr)/(ft
/sec)to pCi/R, and the water plant transmission factor (dimensionless) and represents the fraction of radionuclide in water passing through a municipal water treatment plant (see Table S.2-11)The summation process adds the dose contribution from each of the nuclides for which dose factors have been derived to yield the total dose for the pathway-organ combination selected.Q.N.The first three terms in Equation 2,~, define the concentra-tion of nuclide i in the effluent at the point of discharge.
WNP-2 ER The expression Q~N.F M exp (-X.t)P 3-P yields the concentration at the time that the water is consumed.The latter concentration is.term C.in Equation l.3.P Concentrations of radionuclides in aquatic foods are directly related to the concentrations of the nuclides in water.Equi-librium ratios between the two concentrations (bioaccumulation factors)are those for freshwater organisms.
The'nclusion of the bioaccumulation factor Bi in Equation 2 converts it to Equation 3 below, which is suitable for calculation of inter-nal dose from consumption of aquatic foods.U M R=1119+~pr F i=1 where Q.N.B.D.exp (-X.t)3.3.3.P 3.PZ 3.P (3)B.=the bioaccumulation factor for nuclide i in pathway p (pCi/kg per pCi/R;see Table l.Farm Products The model presented for estimating the transfer of radionuclides (except for 3H and C)from irrigation water or from air to plants through both leaves and soil to food products was derived by Soldat(3)for a study of the potential doses to people from a~nuclear power complex in the year 2000.De osition on Food Products The source of the radionuclide contamination of the foods may be either deposition with water used for sprinkler irrigation or deposition of airborne radionuclides.
De osition b Irri ation Water where: de=C.I (water deposition) i 3W deposition rate or flux[pCi/(m d)]of radio-2 nuclide i (4a)C~3.W concentration of radionuclide i in water used for irrigation (pCi/R)
WNP-2 ER I=irrigation rake[R/(m.d)].Amount of water sprinkled on unit area of field in one day.De osition Directl from Air where: d.=86,400 X.Vd.(air deposition) 3.3.di (4b)86,400=dimensional conversion factor (sec/d)Vd.=deposition"velocity" of radionuclide i (m/sec)d3.3 Xl=annual average air concentration (pCi/m)of radionuclide i.Concentration in Ve etation The concentration of radioactive material in vegetation result-ing from deposition onto the plant foliage and uptake from the soil of prior depositions on the ground is given in Equation 5.CD=de 3.V 3.r T (1-e Ei e)B.(1-e i b)-X.t, v 3.V p v Ei A~th e (5)where: iv concentration of radionuclide i in edible portion of plant v (pCi/kg)fraction of deposition retained on plant (dimension-less), taken to be 0.25 Tv factor for the translocation of externally deposited radionuclides to edible parts of plants (dimension-less).For simplicity it, is taken to be independent of radionuclide and set to 1 for leafy vegetables and fresh forage, and 0.1 for all other produce, including grain.(Reference 3 lists values of this parameter which vary with nuclide.)-1 radiological decay constant for radionuclide i (d).Ei effective removal constant of radionuclide i from plant (d 1)XEi=Xi+Xw, where Xw=weathering removal constant=0.693/14 (d 1).time of above ground exposure of crop to contamina-tion during growing season (d).
WNP-2 ER y=plant yield[kg (wet weight)/m].2 B.=concentration factor for plant uptake of nuclide i from soil[pCi/kg(wet weight)per pCi/kg (dry soil)].tb=time for buildup of radionuclide in soil (d), taken to be 30 years if the source of the radionuclide is an operating nuclear facility.P=soil"surface density"[kg(dry soil)/m)].Assuming 2 a uniform mixing of all radionuclides in a plowlayer of 15 cm depth, P has a value of 224 kg/m2.'h=holdup time (d).The time between harvest and consumption of the food.The first term inside the brackets relates to the concentration derived from direct, foliar deposition during the growing season whereas the second term relates to uptake from soil and reflects the deposition throughout the time from start of deposition until harvest of the plant.Concentration in Animal Products The radionuclide concentration in an animal product such as meat, milk or eggs is dependent on the amount of contaminated feed or forage eaten by the animal and its intake of contami-nated water.The following equation describes this calculation.(ia where: ia L iF F iaw aw k.g+C.(6)C.ia S.ia concentration in animal product (pCi/R)or (pCi/kg)transfer coefficient of radionuclide i from daily intake of animal to edible portion of.animal pro-duct[pCi/R (milk)per pCi/d]or[pCi/kg (animal product)per pCi/d]CD F concentration of nuclide i in feed or forage (pCi/kg)calculated from Equ'ation (5)above QF consumption rate of contaminated feed or forage by animal (kg/d)iaw concentration of nuclide i in water consumed by animals (pCi/R);assumed usually to be equal to C., and iw consumption rate (R/d).of contaminated water by animal Xl-8 WNP-2 ER The second set of terms in the brackets in Equation 6 is omitted if th'e animal does not drink contaminated water.Animal con-sumption rates normally assumed are given in Table 2.Values for various plant concentration factors and animal product transfer coefficients for the elements considered are given in Table 3.Plant concegtpation factors were taken originally from UCRL-50163, pt.IV<>and ygpplemented with~radionuclide data as explained in HERMES.(~>
Coefficients of transfer from feed to animal products for a limited number of radionuclides were available in the literature.
For those for which data were lacking comparisons were made with the behavior of chemically similar elements in man and animals.In some instances, identified with an asterisk in Table 3, the value used was set to 9.9 x 10 4.Tritium and Carbon-14 Model The concentration of tritium or C in.environmental media (soil, plants and animal products)is assumed to have the same specific activity (pCi of nuclide per kg of soluble element)as the contaminating medium (air or water).The fractional content of hydrogen or carbon in a plant or animal pro/got is then used to compute the concentration of tritium or C in the food product under consideration.
Hydrogen content.in both the water and the nonwater (dry)portion of the food product is used to calculate the tritium concentra-tion.It is assumed that plants obtain all their carbon from airborne carbon dioxide and that animals obtain all their carbon through ingestion of plants.When C is present.only in the water used for irrigation it is difficult to model the transfer of this nuclide to vegetation, because plants acquire most of their carbon from the air.At this time we have not yet determined the transfer of carbon from the water to the air or soil.We have there-fore conservatively assumed that plants obtain all their.carbon from the irrigation water.Such an assumption could lead to plant concentrations which are high by about an order of magnitude or more.To date no operating nuclear facili-ties have been identified which specify releases of C in their liquid effluents.
Table 4 lists t g parameters used in the computer program for tritium and C.These values may be altered based on site-specific data.The concentration of tritium in vegetation is: iv=(C'w)(9)(Fh
- (7)*The subscript 1 refers to tritium which is the first nuclide in the isotope li~ting;similarly the subscript 3 in Equation 6 refers to C.
WNP-2 ER where: C 1=concentration of tritium in the environmenta 1 water (pCi/R)=concentration in.irrigation water (for water release)=pCi H/m air: absolute humidity (R/m)(for air-~3 3 3 borne release)1/9=fraction of the mass of water which is hydrogen Fh=fraction of hydrogen in total vegetation (see Table 4).The concentration of tritium in the animal product is: 1F F law aw la FhF F+~aw 9 ha (s)where C 1 F concentration of tritium in f eed or f orage (pCi/kg)calculated by Equation 7 above, where now C=Cl Fh=fraction of hydrogen in animal feed, where now Fhf=Fhv g Fh=fraction of hydrogen in animal product (see Table.4)ha Cl=concentration tritium in animal drinking water (set to 0 unless there is a release to water).Similarly, 3v where 14 the concentration of C in vegetation is:.F (a)3W cv (9)C3=concentration of C in the environmental media 14 divided by carbon concentration in that media (pCi C/kg carbon)pCi C/R divided by carbon concentration in irrigation water (kg/R)for water release pCi C/m divided by carbon concentration in air 14 3 (kg/m)for air release (a)The subscript 1 refers to tritium which is the first nuclide in the isotope listing;similarly the subscript 3 in Equation 9 refers to, 4C.II-10 WNP-2 ER F=fraction of carbon in total vegetation.
CV The concentration of C in the animal product is: C Q+C 3F F 3aw aw F cw aw (1O)For an air release C3aw 0 and since Fcw is very small compared to F , Equation 10 reduces to: cf'=C ca 3a 3F F cf Dose Calculations for Man The dose, R , in mrem to a person consuming vegetation is: vr n R vr CD U DE iv v ir (12)Similarly the dose from consuming a particular animal product 1s: n R=~CD U D.ar~ia a ir i=1 (13)where U , U=annual consumption of contaminated vegetable or animal products in kg DE=a factor which converts intake in pCi of nuclide i to dose in mrem to organ r.The exposure mode is assumed to be a one year chronic inges-tion at a uniform rate.The dose factors employed have been derived from the ingestion and inhalation models given in ICRP Publication 2.<1)Dose Calculations for Biota Since the program output lists the radionuclide concentrations in the final product from the consumption by animals of both contaminated feed and drinking water, the internal radiation dose to animals can be estimated in a manner analogous to WNP-2 ER calculation of internal dose to man.If the assumption were made that the concentration of the radionuclides in meat were similar to the average concentration in the whole animal, then the total body concentration would be similar to that in the meat.The following equations can be used to calculate the dose rate in mrad/yr to an animal containing a constant concentration of a radionuclide.
n R=18.7 s.C.i=1 (14)where c.=effective absorbed energy of nuclide i in the animal (MeV/dis)18.7=conversion factor calculated as follows: 6.*-1.-1-5-1 (1.17 x 10 dis.yr.pCi)(1.6 x 10 g-mrad.MeV
)pCi.yr.MeV C.=concentration of nuclide i in the animal (pCi/g)1a Air Submersion The formulas used to calculate doses from air submersion are given below: n R (x,O,B)=U>g X D pr i=1 (15)where R (x,O,d)pr the external dose rate from n nuclides via pathway p to organ r of a person located a point x meters from the source in a direction d averaged over a sector width of.O radians (mrem/yr)U.,p, 8766 hr/yr for air submersion, and WNP-2 ER D~zpr xi=dose factor for nuclide i (mrem/hr per pCi/m)3 based on a half infinite cloud geometry and corrected for the fractional penetration of beta and gamma radiations to the appropriate tissue depth (7 x 10 3 cm for skin 5 cm for total body).3 annual average concentration (pCi/m)of isotope i at point.(x,8,d).Equation 15 yields the yearly external dose to a person located at point (x,8,d).The population dose in man-rem/yr is deter-mined by multiplying the.dose from Equation 15 by the population located within the sector of the annulus of concern.Values of the dose at point (x,8,d)are assumed to be applicable to all individuals located in that sector.Inhalation The equation used to calculate air inhalation doses is given by n (xg 8 g d)~W3 1 69 x 1 0 D X Up RD ipr zpr z.P D 1=1 where R.(x,8,d)=internal dose rate from n nuclides i via pathway p or organ r of a person located at a point x meters from the source in a direction d, averaged over a sector width of 8 radians (mrem/yr)3.169 x 10=dimensional conversion constant (pCi/sec per Ci/yr)I D.=dose factor for organ r from inhalation of nuclide i (mrem/yr per pCi/m2)U=occupancy factor in fraction of a year, and p RD=cloud depletion factor for iodines.(ref ll, p.c2).More information on the models used for calculating radiation doses may be found in References 12 and 13.
REFERENCES Appendix II International Commission on Radiological Protection, Re ort'of'ICRP Committee II on Permissible Dose for Interna'a'dig't'ion, ICRP Pub ication 2, Pergamon Press, New Yor , 5 2.Soldat, J.K., et al., Models and Com uter Codes for Eva'lu'at'in Environmen't'a
Radiation Doses, USAEC Report BNWL-1754, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, February 1974.3.Fletcher, J.F.and W.L.Dotson (compilers), HERMES-Di ita'1'om ut'er'o'de'or'stimatin Re ional'adiolo ical E ects'ome'u'c ear'ower In ustr , USAEC Report HEDL-TME-71-168, Hanford Engineering Development Labora-tory, Richland, WA, 1971.4~Soldat, J.K.,'o'd'e'1'ing of Environmental Pathwa s and Rad'iat'i'on" Do's'e's'rom Nucl'ear Facilities, USAEC Report BNWL-SA-, Paci ic Nort west'a oratory, Richland, WA, 1971.5.Soldat, J.K.,"Conversion of Survey Meter Readings to Concentration (pCi/m)," Item 04.3.4 in Emer ency Radio-'1'oic'a'1'l'ansan'd'roce'dures, K.R.Heid (editor), USAEC Report HW-7 3 , Han or Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1962.6.7.Mraz, F.R., et al.,"Fission Product Metabolism in Hens and Transference to Eggs," Hea'1'th Ph sics, no.10, pp.77-782, 1964.f Ng, Y.C., et al., Pr'e'd'i'ct'i'on
'of the Maximum'o'sa e to Man'--'f'r'om':t'h'e'a'1'lout ou'clea'r'eVices-
IV,'an'dbook or-Est'imat'in
'e Maximum In'tern'a'ose'om Ra'dionuclides Released'o the Bios'phere, USAEC Report, UCRL-50163, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, University of California, Livermore, CA, 1968.8.Annenkov, I.K., et al.,"The Radiobiology and Radio-ecology of Farm Animals," USAEC Report AEC-tr-7523, April 1974.9.Anspaugh, L.R., J.J.Koranda, W.L.Robinson and.J.R.Martin,"The Dose to Man via Food-Chain Transfer Resulting'from Exposure to Tritiated Water Vapor," pps.'05-422 in'ri't'i'um', A.A.Moghissi and M.W.Carter, (editors), Messenger Graphics, Publishers, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1973.
10.Thompson, S.E., C.A.Burton, D.J.Quinn and Y.C.Ng, Concentratin
Fa'c't'ors oh'emical Elements in Edible Aquatic Or ani'sms, USAEC Report UCRL-50564 Rev.1, Lavrence Livermore Laboratory, University of California, Livermore, CA 1972.Guide 1.109, Ca'1'culation of Annual Doses to Man from Rout'ine Re'1'e'as'es'
Reactor Ef luents or t e Pur ose of Evalua't'xn Com'1'x'an'ce with 10CFR50, A enda.x I, 0 ace o Stan ar s Deve opment, March 976.12.Soldat, J.K., D.B.Shipler, D.A.Baker, D.H.Denham and N.M.Robinson,"Computational Model for Calculating Doses from Radionuclides in the Environment, Appendix F (May 1973),." Fin'a'1" Environmental Statement Concernin Pro ose'd Rul'e'a zn'ction, vo., Ana tz.ca Mo e s and'alcu'la't'ions, WASH-1258, July 1973.13.Baker,'.A., G.R.Hoenes and J.K.Soldat, FOOD-An In'te'ra'ct'ive'ode To Calculate Internal Radiation Doses fr'om Contamzna'ted Food Products, U.S.ERDA Report BNWL-SA-3, Paci zc Nort vest Laboratory, Richland, WA, February 1976.(For presentation at and inclusion in the Preceedings of the EPA Sponsored Symposium"Conference on Environmental Modeling and Simulation," Cincinnati, OH, April 20-22, 1976.)
WNP-2 ER TABLE 1 BIOACCUMULATION FACTORS FOR FRESHWATER ORGANISMS AND WATER PL'ANT TRANSMISSION FACTORS Element Bi (Fish Ci k or anism er Ci/R water)Crustacea Molluscs Algae Na P Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cn Zn Br Rb Sr Mo Tc Ru Rh Te Cs Ba 0.9 100 300*20 400 100 50 100 50 65*420 2,000 30 25 10 15 10 10 400 15 2,000 4 0.9 200 20, 000 2, 000 90,000 3,200 200 100 400 10,000 330 1,000 100 1, 000 10 300 300 75 100 200 0.9 200 20,000 2, 000 90, 000 3,200 200 100 400 10,000 330 1,000 100 1, 000 10 300 300 75 100 200 0.9 500 50,000 4,000 10,000 1,000 200 50 2, 000 20,000 50 1,000 500 5,000 1, 000 40 2, 000 200 100 40 500 500 25 1, 000 1, 000 1, 000 10 La 1, 000 1,000 1,000 10 5, 000 4, 000 5, 000 1,200 300 Ce 25 1,200 10 400 Np 400 All values from reference 10, except those marked with asterisk<a>which are derived.from Hanford data for 32P and 6 Zn.
WNP-2 ER TABLE 2 CONSUMPTION RATES OF FEED AND WATER BY FARM ANIMALS Milk Cow Beef Cattle Pig Poultry (chickens)
Feed or Forage (k/da)QF 55 4.2 (fresh forage)(dry feed)(dry feed)0.12 (dry feed)Water~(R/da)Qaw 60 50 10 0.3 WNP-2 ER TABLE 3 PLANT CONCENTRATION FACTORS AND ANIMAL PRODUCT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS Element Plant/Soil (Dimensionless)
B iv Egg/Feed Milk/Grass Beef/Feed~(da~k)~(da ((>~(da k-S ia Pork/Feed Poultry/Peed
&'e N F Na P Ca Sc ,Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Se Br Rb Sr Y 21 Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd Sn Sb Te I Cs Ba La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Tb Ho W Pb Bi Po Ra Ac Th Pa U Np Pu Am Cm Cf 4.7E-04 7.58+00 2.0E-02 5.0E-02 5.08+01 4.08-02 1.18-03 2.5E-04 F 08"02 4.0E-04 9.4E-03 1.9E-02 1.3E-01 4.0E-01 1.38+00 7.68-01 1.38-01 2.0E-01 2.5E-03 1.7E-04 9.48-03 1.3E-01 2.5E-01 1.0E-02 1.38+01 5.0E+00 1.5E-01 3.08"01 2.5E-03 1.18-02 1.3E+00 2.0E-02 2.08-03 5.0E-03 2.5E-03 5.08-04 2 BISE-03 2.4E-03 2.5E-03 2.5E-03 2.5E-03 2.6E"03 2.68-03 1.8E-02 6.8E-02 1.58"01 9.0E"03 1.4E-03 2.5E-03 4.2E-03 2.58-03 2.58-03 USE-03 2.5E-04 2.58-04 2.58-03 2.5E-03 2.0E-02 9.98-04*9.9E-04 2.0E-01 1.08+01 1.0E+00 9.9E-04 9.9E-04 1.0E-01 1.08-01 1.08-01, 1.0E-01 2.0E-01 4.0E-03 2.1E+00 1.6E+00 3.0E-OO 4.0E-01 5.0E-04 1.28"03 1.28-03 4.08-01 9.9E-04 4.0E-03 4.08-03 4.0E-03 9'E-04 9'E-04 9.9E-04.7.0E-02 F 08-01 1.68+00, 6.0E-Ol 4'E-01 2.08-03 3.0E-03 4.08-03 2.08-04 7.0E-03 7.08-03 7.08-03 7.0E-03 7.0E-03 9.98"04 9.9E-04-9.98-04 9.9E-04 2.0E-05 2.08-03 2.0E"03 2.0E-03 3.4E-01 2.0E-03 2.0E"03 2.0E-03 2.08-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-06 1.18-02 7.0E-03 4.0E-02 1.2E-02 8.0E-03 2.5E-06 1.18-03 1.08-04 6.08-04 5.0E-04 3.4E-03 7.08-03 6.08"03 2.3E-02 2.5E-02 1.08-02 1.5E-03 5.08-06 2.58-06 1.2E-03 4.08-03 1~2E-02 5.08-02 5.08-03 5.0E-03 2.5E-02 6.2E-05 1.3E-03 7.58-04 5.08-04 1.0E-02 5.08-03 4.0E-04 2.5E-06 1.0E-05 2.5E-06 2.5E-06 2.58-06 2.58-06 2.5E-06 2.58-06 2.5E-06 2.5E-04 1.0E-OS 2.5E-04 1.2E-04 2.0E-04 2.58-06 2.5E-06 2.5E-06 6 08-04 2.5E-06 2.5E-08 2.58-06 2.58-06 7.5E-07 8.0E-04 9.9E-04 2.08-02 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 3.3E-03 6.0E-03 9.9E-04 5.08-03 2.0E-02 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.08-02 5.0E-02 1.0E+00 2.0E-02 1.5E-Ol 3.0E-04 5.08-03 S.OE-04 5.0E-04 1.0E-02 9.9E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 9.98"04 1.6E-02 9.9E-04 3.08-03 S.OE-02 2.0E-02 3.08-02 S.OE-04 5.08-03 1.0E-03 S.OE-03 S.OE-03 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 5.08-03 5.08-03 5.08-03 9.98-04 9.98-04 9.9E-04 9.98-04 9.9E-04 5.08-03 5.08-03 S.OE-03 5.0E-03 5.08-03 5.0E-03 S.OE-03 F 08-03 5.08-03 1.0E-02 9.9E-04 9.0E-02 1.08-01 5.4E-01 3.3E-03 1.0E-02 9.9E-04 2.0E-02 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 S.OE-03 1.5E-02 1.4E-01 4.5E-01 9.0E-02 2.0E-01 7.3E-03 S.OE-03 1.0E-03 1.08-03 2.0E-02 9.9E-04 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 S.OE-03 9.9E-04 1.6E-02 9'E-04 7.0E"03 1.0E-02 9.0E-02 2.6E-01 1.0E-02 5.0E-03 S.OE-03 S.OE-03 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 S.OE-'03 5.08-03 S.OE-03 S.OE-03 9.9E-04 9.9E-04 9.98"04 9.9E-04 9.9E-04 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 6.0E-04 1.08-02 1.0E-02 1.08-02 1.0E-02 1.08-02 4.OE"Ol 9.98-04 9.9E-04 1.0E-02 1.9E-01 3.38-03 4.08-03 9.9E-04 1.1E-01 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 2.0E"03 2.0E-03=3.7E-01 4.08-03 2.0E+00 9.08-04 5'E-04 1.0E-04 1.0E-04 2.0E-03 9.98-04 3.0E-04 3.08-04 3.08-04 9.9E-04 1.68-02 9.9E-04 6.0E-03 1.08-02 4.0E-03 4.5E+00 5.0E-04 4.0E-03 6.08-04 1.0E-03 4.0E-03 1.0E-04 4.0E-03 4.0E-03 4.0E-03 4.0E-03 9.98-04 9.9E-04 9.9E-04 9.98-04 9.9E-04 4.0E-03 4.0E-03 4.0E-03 1.2E-03 4.0E-03 4.0E-03 4.08-03 4.08-03 4.0E-03 W ere va ue default value of 9.98-04 was used.
WNP-2 ER TABLE 4 CALCULATION OF FRACTIONS OF HYDROGEN AND CARBON IN ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA, VEGETATION, AND'ANIMAL'RODUCTS Food or Fodder Carbon Hydrogen Carbon Hydrogen (a)(b)Water~(dr)~(dr)(wet)(wet)f f fh F , F FhV, Fha Fresh Fruits, Vegetables 0.80 0.45 0.062 0.090 0.10 and Grass Grain and Stored Animal Feed 0.12 0.45 0.062 0.40 0.068 Eggs Milk Beef Pork Poultry 0.75 0.60 0.092 0.88 0.58 0.083 0.60 0.60 0.094 0.50 0.66 0.10 0.70 0.67 0.087 0.15 0.070 0.24 0.33 0.20 O.ll 0.11 0.10 Odll 0.10 Absolute Humidity.Concentration of carbon in water Concentration of carbon in air 0.008 I/m 2 0 x 10-5 kg/a(c)1.6 x 10 kg/m a (b)(c)(d)Assumes a typical bicarbonate Assumes a typical atmospheric concentration of 100 mg/R C02 concentration of 320 ppm
APPENDIX III STATEMENT BY HISTORICAL PRESERVATION OFFICER A7g 0~e Daniel J.Evans Governor State of Washington June 30, 1976 Arthur M.Skolnlk State Historic Preservation Officer In-Reply Refer To: WPPSS Nuclear Project No.2, Wooded Island Archaeological District 40-1900-0220 Mr.R.A.Chitwood Manager, Licensing and Environmental Programs Washington Public Power Supply System P.O.Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352
Dear Mr.Chitwood:
Mr.Charles H.Odegaard, Director of Washington State Parks 8 Recreation Com-mission has referred your letter to me as the State Historic Preservation Officer, responsible for the identification and protection of the cultural resources of the State of Washington, for coiimient.
Our records indicate that the Wooded Island Archaeological District contains six known archaeological sites (45-BN-107 through 45-BN-112) which relate to the Wanapum Indian people who occupied the area historically.
The condition of these sites remains undisturbed and they preserve scientific date pertinent to both the cultural history and the environmental history of the area.The WNP-2 pumphouse and water intake facility is at a distance from the site and on the west bank of the Columbia River.Primary impact to these significant non-renewable resources does not appear eminent.Thank you for your concern for these properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places and for the cultural heritage of the State of Washington.
Sincerely, ARTHUR M.SKOLNIK State Historic Preservation Officer b>~<c J eanne M.Welch, Archaeologist kb Poet Office Box 2228 Olynpia, Vashington 98504 (206)753-4022 I
APPENDIX IV.NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM WASTE DISCHARGE PERMIT Issuance Date: September 25, 197S Expiration Date: September 25, 1980 ATTACHMENT II NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM WASTE DISCHARGE'PERMIT State of Washington Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council Olympia, Washington 98504 r In Compliance With the Provisions of Chapter 15S, Laws of 1973, (RCW 90.48)as amended and The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972, Public Law 92-SOO WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM 3000 George Washington Way Richland, Washington 99352 Plant Location: Section 5, T.llN, R28E W.M.North of Richland Benton County, Washington Receiving Water: Columbia River Discharge Location: Outfall 001 Latitude: 46'28'17" Longitude:
119'15'45" Industry Type: Nuclear Steam Electric generating Plant (Hanford No.2)Water Segment No.: 26-03-00 is authorized to discharge in accordance with the special and general conditions which follow.Approved: April 28, 1975 Amended: July 14, 197S Acting Chairman Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council Page 2 of ll Permit No.WA-002515-1 SPECIAL CONDITIONS r S.1 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS During the period beginning with the issuance of this permit and lasting until the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge effluents from Outfall Discharge Serial Number 001 subject to the following limitations and monitoring requirements:
A.LOW VOLUME WASTE SOURCES PORTION OF DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER 001 PARAMETER EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONITORING RE UIREMENTS Daily Daily.M l.~A Minimum Fre uenc Total Suspended Solids (lb/day)pH 34 Between 6.5 and 8.5 at all times 3 times per week 3 times per week Grab Grab Oil and Grease (lb/day)Flow (GPD)2.5 40,000 20,000 Weekly Each Discharge Grab Log tank con-tents prior to discharge.
Compliance with these limitations shall be determined by monitoring all low volume waste sources including liquid radwaste prior to their confluence with the recirculated cooling water.Note (1)Permittee is allowed on an intermittent basis to discharge subject to the provisions of G.5 herein to a maximum of 285,000 GPD additional flow originating from the liquid radwaste treat-ment system.MO 0 m I CO o Ul Ul I B.RECIRCULATED COOLING WATER BLOWDOWN PORTION OF OUTFALL DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER 001 PARAMETER EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONITORING RE UIREMENTS Daily Daily Maximum~Avera e Minimum Fre uenc Sam le T e Temperature Total Residual-Chlorine (mg/1)Note (3)0.1 mg/1(1)Continuous Contiauous(Instantaneous Grab pH Between 6.5 and 8.5 at all times Continuous(Instantaneous Flow (GPD)9 4 x 106 9.4 x 106 Continuous Instantaneous Note (1)Upon initiating chlorination, permittee shall terminate all discharges from the recirculating water system to the re-ceiving water until the total residual chlorine concentration has been at or below 0.1 mg/1 for 15'minutes.For compli-ance chlorine will be measured at and will be characteristic of the unit being chlorinated.
Note (2)Permittee shall include an alarm system for the pH control to provide an indj.cation of any variance from established limits.Note (3)The temperature of the recirculated cooling water blowdown shall not exceed, at any time, the lowest temperature of the recirculated cooling water prior to the addition of the makeup water.Note (4)Continuous recording=
of total residual chlorine during periods of active chlorination and for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after recommencing dis-charge or until chlorine residual reaches an undetectable
- level, 0-Page 5 of 11 Permit No.WA-002515-1 GENERAL CONDITIONS Gl.No discharge of polychlorianted biphenyl, such as trans-former fluid, is permitted.
G2.All discharges and activities authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit.Permittee is authorized to discharge those pollutants which are: (1)contained in the raw water supply, (2)entrained from the atmosphere, or (3)quantitatively and qualitatively identified in the permit application; except as modified or limited by the special or general conditions of this permit.However, the effluent concentrations in permittee's waste water shall be determined on a gross basis and the effluent limitations in this permit mean gross con-centrations and not net addition of pollutants.
The discharge of any pollutant more frequently than or at" a level in excess of that authorized by this permit shall constitute a vio-lati'on of the terms and conditions of this permit.The effluent limitation for the total combined flow discharged from outfall No.001 for any particular pollutant, excluding pH, shall be the sum of the amounts for each contributing inplant stream as authorized by the special or general con-ditions of this permit.G4.Permittee shall not discharge any effluent which shall cause a violation of any applicable State of Washington Water Quality Criteria or standards contained in WAC 173-201, as they exist now or here'after are amended, outside the mixing zone whose boundaries shall be: a)The boundaries in the vertical plane shall extend from the receiving water surface,to the riverbed;b)The upstream and downstream boundaries shall be 50 feet and 300 feet, respectively, from the center line of the outfall;and c)The lateral boundaries shall be separated by 100 feet.4 Excess process water shall not be discharged to the river unless sampling and analysis has demonstrated that the water complies with the applicable regulations on liquid radio-active disch'arges.
Excess process water not meeting these conditions shall be processed in the liquid radwaste Page 6 of ll Permit No.WA-002515-1 treatment system prior to discharge to the river.The liquid radwaste treatment system shall provide facilities with 24-hour retention capabilities; liquids may be discharged only after sampling and analysis demonstrate that all applicable regu-lations are complied with at the holding facilities.
No other liquid radwaste shall be discharged.
G6.The permittee shall provide an adequate operating staff which is qualified and shall carry out the operation, maintenance, and testing activities required to insure compliance with the conditions of this permit.G7,.Permittee shall handle and dispose of all solid waste material from any waste retention basins or any other source in such a manner as to prevent their pollution of any ground or surface water body.Further, permittee shall not permit leachate fz'om such solid waste material to cause adverse effect on ground or surface water quality.G8.Whenever a facility expansion, production increase, or process.modification is anticipated which will result in a new or in-creased discharge, or which will cause any of the conditions of this permit to be exceeded, a new NPDES application must be submitted together with the necessary reports and engineering plans for the proposed changes.No change shall be made until plans have been approved and a new permit or permit modification has been issued.If such changes will not violate the effluent limitations specified in this permit, permittee shall notify the Council of such changes prior to such facility expansion, production increase or process modification.
G9.If the toxic effluent standard or prohibition (including any schedule of compliance specified in such effluent s'tandard or prohibition) is established under Section 307(a)of the Federal Act for a toxic pollutant which is present in the permittee's discharge and such standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation upon such pollutant in this permit, this permit shall be revised or modified in accordance with the toxic effluent standard or prohibition and the permittee shall be so notified.Glo.If, for any reason, the permittee does not comply with or will not be able to comply with, any daily maximum effluent limitation specified in this permit, the permittee shall provide the Council with the following information, in writing, within five (5)days of becoming aware of such condition:
a.A description of the discharge and cause of noncompli-ance;and Page 7 of ll Permit No.WA-002515-1 b.The period of noncompliance, including dates and times;or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the non-compliance is expected to continue and steps being taken to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the non-complying discharge.
The permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order and efficiently operate all treatment or control facilities or systems installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the te'rms and conditions of this permit.The diversion from or bypass of any discharge from facilities utilized by the permittee to maintain compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit is prohibited, except{a)where unavoidable to prevent loss of life or severe property damage, or (b)where excessive storm drainage or runoff would damage any facilities necessary for compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit.The permittee shall promptly notify the Council in writing of each such diversion or bypass in accordance with the procedure specified in condition G-13.In the event the permittee is unable to comply with any of the conditions of this permit because of a breakdown of waste treatment, equipment or facilities, an accident caused by human error or negligence, electrical power failure, or any other cause, including acts of nature, the permittee shall: a.Immediately take action to stop, contain, and clean up the unauthorized discharge and correct the problems.b.As soon as reasonably practicable,,notify the Council so that an investigation can be made to evaluate the impact and the corrective actions taken and determine additional action that must be taken.c~Promptly submit a detailed written report to the Council describing the breakdown, the actual quantity and quality of resulting waste discharges, corrective action taken, steps taken to prevent recurrence, and a'y other per-tinent information.
Compliance with these requirements does not relieve the permittee from responsibility to maintain continuous compliance with the conditions of this permit or the resulting liability for failure to comply.
Page 8 of ll Permit No.WA-002515-1 G14.Permittee shall install an alternative electric power'source capable of operating any electrically powered pollution control facilities; or, alternatively, permittee shall certify to the Council that the terms and conditions of this permit will be met in case of a loss of primary power to the pollu-tion control equipment by controlling production.
M~K G15.Permittee shall comply with the Monitoring Program require-ments set forth herein.Monitoring results for the previous quarter shall be summarized on a monthly basis and reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA 3320-1), postmarked no later than the 28'" day of the month following the end of the quarter.The first report is due by the 28'" day of the first month following the end of the quarter in which the first discharge under this permit occurs.Duplicate signed copies of these, and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to EPA and the Council at the following addresses:
U.S.EPA Region X 1200 6+Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Attention:
Permits Branch M/S 521 TPPSEC Attention:
Executive Secretary 820 East 5'" Avenue Olympia, WA 98504 G16.The permittee shall retain for a minimum of three years all records of monitoring activities and results, including all reports of recordings from continuous monitoring instru-mentations, record of analysis performed and calibration and maintenance of instrumentation.
This period of.retention shall be extended during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding the discharge of pollutants by the permittee or when requested by the Council.All samples and measurements made under said program shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge.
G17.The permittee shall record each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit for the following information:
(1)the date, place, and time of sampling;(2)the dates the analyses were performed; (3)who performed the analyses";
(4)the analytical techniques or methods used;and (5)the results of the analyses.
-ec~Page 9 of ll Permit No.WA-002515-1 G18.As used in this permit, the following'terms are as defined herein: a e b.The"daily maximum" discharge means the total discharge by weight during any calendar day.The"daily average" discharge means the total discharge by weight during a calendar month divided by the number of days in the month that the respective discharges occur.Where less than daily samplings is required by the permit, the daily average discharge shall be determined by the summation of the measured daily discharges by weight divided by the number of days during the calendar month when the measurements were made.c, d."Composite sample" is a sample consisting of a minimum of six grab samples collected at regular intervals over a normal operating day and combined proportional to flow, or a sample continuously collected proportional to flow over a normal operating day."Grab sample" is an individual sample collected in a period of less than 15 minutes.G19.All sampling and analytical methods used to meet the monitor-ing requirements specified in this permit shall conform to regulations published pursuant to Section 304g of the Federal Act, or if there is no applicable procedure, shall conform to the latest edition of the following references:
1)American Public Health Association, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewaters.
2)3)American Society for Testing and Materials, A.S.T.M.Standards, part 23, Water, Atmospheric Analyst.s.
Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office Analytical Control Laboratory, Methods for Chemicals Anal sis of Water and Wastes.'G20.Alternative methods may be utilized.if approval pursuant to 40 CFR 136 or as amended is received by the permittee.
The Council shall be notified of each such alternative method approved for use.Except for data determined confidential under Section 308 of the Act, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the Council and the Regional Administrator.
As required by the Act, effluent data shall not be considered confidential.
Knowingly making a false statement on any such
~~Page 10 of 11 Permit No.WA-002515-1 report may result in the imposition of criminal penalties as provided in Section 309 of the Act.Other Provisions G21.After notice and opportunity for a hearing this permit may be modified, suspended or revoked in whole or in part during its term for cause including but not limited to the following:
a.b.Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit;Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts;A change i.n any condition that requires eithex a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the permitted discharge.
G22.The permittee shall, at all xeasonable times, allow author-ized xepresentatives of the Council upon the presentation of credentials:
a.'o enter upon the permittee's premises for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the pollution of, or possible pollution of any of the waters of the state, or for the purpose of investigating compliance with any of the terms of this permit;b.To have access to and copy any records required to be kept under.the terms and conditions of this permit;c.To inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required by this permit;or d.To sample any discharge of pollutants.
G23.G24.Nothing in this permit shall be construed as excusing the permittee from compliance with any applicable Federal, State or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations., Nothing in this permit shall'be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee is or may be subject.
Page 11 of 11 Permit No..MA-002515-1 Permittee shall study the use of chlorine in cooling tower operation for one year to determine the minimum daily dis-charge duration of free available and total residual chlorine which will allow the plant to operate efficiently.
The results of this study will be evaluated for possible inclusion in this permit.
,'1~, I I~AMENDMENT NO.l TO THE SITE CERTIFICATION AGREEMENT FOR HANFORD NO.2 BETWEEN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON AND , THE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM This amendment to the Certification Agreement was made and entered into pursuant to Chapter 80.50 of the Revised Code of Washington by and between the State of Washington, acting by and through the Governor of the State of Washington, and the Washington Public Power Supply System, a municipal corporation and a joint operat'ing agency of the State of Washington organized in January 1957 pursu-ant to Chapter 43.52 of the Revised Code of Washington.
It includes changes to the terms for the construction of the in-I take system, commencement of the meteorological and environmental surveillance program, scope of the agreement limitations, dimensions of the mixing zone, and specifications for management of waste water discharges.
The entire section containing water discharge limitations has been superseded and replaced by the issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 90.48 RCW as amended and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972, Public Law 92-500.
This amendment, when duly authenticated, becomes a part of the Certification Agreement and will be filed in front of the Agree-ment.The following is changed: A.Section II.C.L.is amended to read as follows: This Certification Agreement, together with those commitments made by the applicant expressed in its application, as amended, except as to commitments made for the design for the intake and discharge systems, constitute the whole and complete agreement between the parties and supersedes.
any'ther negotiations, representations, or agr'eements, either written or or,l.B;Section-III.G.4.(a) is deleted.C.Section III.G.4.(b) is replaced with the following:
The Supply System shall schedule the construction of the intake structure in the portion of the river bed during the period after July 31 and before October 15.Any work at other times'irectly in the stream bed of the Columbia River shall require approval of the Council..D.Section III.H.Add the following as Paragraph 6: The outfall shall include features as required to achieve dilu-tion within the limits prescribed in General.Condition 4 of the attached NPDES Permit.
E.Section IV.B.is deleted and replaced with the Hanford No.2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Dis-charge Permit hereby appended as Attachment II to the Certi-fication Agreement.
Section V.B.l.The last sentence of this paragraph is deleted and replaced with the following: "The Supply System agrees to begin the meteorological and envi-ronmental surveillance program no later than two years prior to fuel loading;provided that fish impingement monitoring shall begin no later than intake pump startup." Dated at Olympia, Washington, this~day of 1975.FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON anze.v s overnor FOR THE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM t xn, nagging erector pproved as to II't~(t~~'P<~A arre L.eep es" Assistant Attorney General/form this'U day of+o'~m%p.1975