ML17275B127
| ML17275B127 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1981 |
| From: | BOUCHEY G D WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| To: | DENTON H R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17275B128 | List: |
| References | |
| GO-2-81-187, NUDOCS 8107240468 | |
| Download: ML17275B127 (65) | |
Text
RKGULATORY I ORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYST"M (RIDS)ACCESSION"HBRt8%07240468, DOC~DATE4 8]/07/17 NOTARIZ'ES'OCKE>>T"¹FACILit50; 397 HPPSS Nuclebr" Propre'cti, Unit>>2'r leash'ington Publ ic'owe!05000397 AUTH.,NAME), AUTHOR'FFILIATKON BOUCHEIY<G,D", Hash>>ington Public Power E Supply System RECIP~NAMEl RECiIPXENT AFFILIATION<
DENTONiH'o.
Officel of'uclear Reactor>>Regulationr Dir eetori SUBJECT)'orwards Amehd 5 to>>ehviron rept',Largest-portion>>of amend refle'its:-revisions to estimates&proaections"'f population>>
distributions DISTRISUTION CODEI>>COOIS COPIES'ECEEVED>>LTR,'NCL'ISIZD'ITLEft Ehvir on..Repor t Amendments
&Rel eked Cor r espondencel NOTEStPMt 2'.copies of al l mate'r ial~1 cytBNR'RG PM(L>>,RIB) 05000397 RECIPIENTS ID CODE/NAMEl ACTION:" L'ICI BR>>¹2'C 18AULUCKrR, 05)INTERNAL ENV ENG.BR 0'6'&El 15i'RE6 F l 0'1>>N-BR 08 COPIES L>>TTR ENCL'1-1>>2;.2'~0 1 1 RECIPIENT ID'ODE/NAMEi LCC" BR¹2>>LA" 19 HYD'/GEO" BR NRC'DR 02'AD ASMTR 09 SZ>>T>>ANAL!BR'7 COPIES LTTR ENCL<1 1 1 1>>1 1 1 1 1.EXTERNAl>:-
ACRS NSIC" 20.04 LPDR NTIS'3 1 1>>1 1>>Jgt 28$81 g.c>>-g'l TOTAL'UMBER<
OF COPIES'EQUIRED tI LlTTR"~ENCL<HF Washington Public Power Supply System P.O.Box 968 3000 George Washington Way Richland, Washington 99352 (509)372-5000 July 17, 1981 GO-2-81-187 Docket No.50-397 Mr.Harold R.Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555
Dear Mr.Denton:
((jl ff t)i~A
Subject:
WPPSS Nuclear Project No.2 Environmental Report-Operating License Stage Amendment No.5 The Supply System her eby submits sixty-one (61)copies, including three (3)notarized originals, of Amendment 5 to the WNP-2 ER-OL.The largest portion of the amendment reflects revisions to estimates and projections of the population distribution out to fifty miles.Estimates of radi-ological dose to the population reported in Section 5.2 have not been revised because changes in the population projections would not sub-stantially alter the estimated dose.Other portions of the amendment address sanitary waste treatment and terrestrial environmental monitor-ing programs.Distribution is being made concurrently according to the ER-OL dis-tribution list provided by the NRC.Very truly yours, G.D.Bouchey, Di e tor Nuclear Safety shm
Enclosures:
61 copies of Amendment 5 to the WNP-2 ER-OL cc: J.R.Lewis, BPA, w/encls.N.S.Reynolds, Debevoise 8 Liberman R.Auluck, NRC, w/encls.Si07240468 Hi07i7 PDR ADOCK 05000397 C'DR
\'R".p'I 1 lt II'll III t I Letter, G.D.Bouchey to H.R.Denton
Subject:
WPPSS Nuclear Project No.2 Environmental Report-Operating License Stage Amendment No.5 STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF BENTON)G.D.BOUCHEY, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is the Director of Nuclear Safety., 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 G.D.BOUCHE On this day personally appeared before me G.D.BOUCHEY 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 herein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and seal this day of , 1981.T RY PUBLIC an for the State of Was gton, residing at
,)yh>'*'l't' WNP-2 ERTABLE OF CONTENTS (Contr.nued)
Chapter 12 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 vitae ENVIRON TAL APPROVALS AN CONSULTATION General Sta Licensin General Feder Lice ing State and Feder W er Related Permits State, Local and gional Planning-Economic Impact Specific Permi Stat Other Pacae 12.1-1 12.1-1 12.2-1 12.3-1 12.4-1 12.5-1 12.6-1 13 REFERENCE 13.1-1 APPENDIX APPENDIX I.E IRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SP FICATIONS C II.IOLOGICAL DOSE MODELS APPENDIX I I.STATEMENT BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFF ER I-1 II-1 III-1 APPENDIX IV.NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM WASTE DISCHARGE PERMIT IV-1 Table No.1.1-1(a)1.1-1(b)1.1-2(a)1.1-2(b)101 3 1.1-4 1.1-5 1.1-6 1.1-7 1.1-8 2.1-1 2.1-2 2.2-1(a)2.2-1(b)2%2 2 WNP-2 ER 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'ONFERENCE 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 IN 50-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 BY 10-MILE RADII AND COMPASS SECTOR IN 10-YEAR PERIODS 1970-'020 DISTANCES IN MILES FROM CENTERLINE OF CONTAINMENT BUILDING TO VARIOUS ACTIVITIES 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 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER Table No.LIST OF TABLES (contr.nued) 8.2-5 8.2-6 10.1-1 10.1-2 10.2-1 10.2-2 10.9-1 12.1-1 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 WNP-2 ER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS l.1-1 1.1-2 1~1 3 l.1-4 l.1-5 1.1-6 1.1-7 x z-s 2.1-1 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 ESTIMATED VERSUS ACTUAL WINTER FIRM PEAK LOADS PNW-WEST GROUP AREA ESTIMATED VERSUS ACTUAL ANNUAL AVERAGE FIRM LOADS PNW-WEST GROUP AREA U.S.G PNW (WEST GROUP AREA)PEAK LOADS ELECTRIC ENERGY REQUIREMENTS 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 HANFORD RESERVATION RAILROAD SYSTEM ORIENTATION MAP OF THE AREA WITHIN A 10-MILE RADIUS OF THE SITE FOR WNP-2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION IN 25 AND 50 MILE RADII AROUND THE SXTE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 1970 POPULATION WITHXN A 10-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 1980.POPULATION WITHIN A 10-MXLE RAIUS OF WNP-2 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 1990 POPULATION WITHIN A 10-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2-GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 2000 POPULATION WITHIN A 10-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2~~'3.V Amendment 2 Octaber 1978 WNP-2~ER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (continued)
Fi ure No.2.1-13 2.1-14 2.1-15~y P GEORGAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 2010 POPULATION WITHIN A 10-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 2020 POPULATION WITHIN A 10-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 GEORGAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 1970 POPULATION~WITHIN A 50-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 2.1-16 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTXMATED 1980 POPULATION WITHXN A 50-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 2.1-17 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 1990, POPULATION WITHIN A 50-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 2.1-18 GEOGRAPHIC DXSTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 2000 POPULATION WITHIN A 50-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 2.1-19 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRXBUTION'F THE ESTIMATED 2010 POPULATION WITHIN A 50-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 AND WNP-4 2.1-20 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 2020 POPULATION WITHIN A 50-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 2.2-1 2.2-2 2~2 3 2.2-4 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 2.2-5 TIMING OF UPSTREAM MIGRATXONS IN THE LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER 2.3-1 2~3 2 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 2~3 3 WIND ROSE FOR WNP-2 FOR 4-74 TO 3-75 AT THE 245 FT LEVEL WNP-2 ER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (continued) 2.3-4 2.3-5 2.3-6 2~3-7 2.3-8 2.3-9 2.3-10 2.3-11 2.3-12 2.3-13 2.4-1 2.4-2 2.4-3 2.4-4 2.4-5 WIND ROSES FOR HANFORD STABILITY CLASSES AT WNP-2 FOR 4-74 TO 3-75 AT THE 33 FT LEVEI WIND ROSE AS A FUNCTION OF HANFORD STABILITY AND FOR ALL STABILITIES,OF HMS BASED ON WINDS AT 200 FT AND AIR TEMPERATURE STABILITIES 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 MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY MONTHLY HOURLY AVERAGES OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY ANNUAL HOURLY AVERAGE OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AMOUNTS BASED ON THE PERIOD 1912-1970 AT HMS RAINFALL INTENS ITY g DURATION J AND FREQUENCY BASED ON THE PERIOD 1947-1969 AT HMS PEAK WIND GUST RETURN PROBABILITY DIAGRAM AT HMS UPPER AND MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN DISCHARGE DURATION CURVES OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW PRIEST RAPIDSDAM, 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
~Fi use No.3.5-3 3.5-4 3.5-5 3.5-6 3.5-7 3.5-8 3.5-9 3.5-10 3.5-11 3.5-12 3.5-13.3.9-1 3.9-2 3.9-3 3.9-4 4.1-1 4.1-2 5.1-1 WNP-2 ER LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS continued FLOW DIAGRAM RADIOACTIVE WASTE SYSTEM FLOOR DRAIN PROCESS ING FLOW DIAGRAM CHEMICAL WASTE PROCESSING FLOW DIAGRAM PROCESS OFF-GASS 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 BU ILD ING FLOW DIAGRAM 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 500 KV, 230 KV, 115 KV POWER LAYOUT CONF IGURATIONS 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 4 October 1980
~Fi ure 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 DEI ETED 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 hearing 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 WNP-2 ER The above provisions provide the necessary assurances that the exclusion area will be properly controlled.
lf 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 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 ERDA 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 eration The exclusion area will encompass the future WNP-1 and 4, their respective access roads, and the H.J.Ashe Substation.
Other than these facilities there are no activities 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 normal.operation.
2.1.3 Po ulation Distribution As described in Section 2.1.1 WNP-2 is located on the Hanford Reservation at a point approximately 3.5 miles from the east boundary and approximately 8 miles from the south boundary.The Reservation is surrounded on all four sides by unoccupied desert land which is dedicated primarily to nuclear activities.
Table 2.1-1 presents the compass sector details for 1970 and the forecasts for the same compass sectors by decade from 1980 to 2020.For convenience, cumulative totals are also shown in Table 2.1-1 for the various radii.Figures 2.1-7 and 2.1-8 show the locations of towns and major physical features within 10 and 50 miles of the site.The major population centers within 50 miles of the site are the Tri-City area of Richland, Pasco and Kennewick, and the cities lying along the Yakima River from Prosser to Wapato.Zt can 2.1-5 WNP-2 ER 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.Nuclear facilities in the vicinity of the site are the planned WPPSS Projects No.1 and 4 (WNP-1 and WNP-4)about 1 mile to the east of the site, the ERDA facilities on the Hanford Reservation (including the FFTF and the Hanford N Reactor), and the Exxon fuel fabrication facilities in the Horn Rapids industrial triangle approximately 8 miles to the south, and the Exxon research laboratory in North Richland.The 1980 to 2020 forecasts presented here are based on a number of county forecast series generated by such sources as Bonneville Power Administration, (2)Pacific Northwest Bell,(3)Washington Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management,(4)
Portland State University Center of Population Research and Census,(5)
Tri-City Nuclear Industrial Council,<6)
Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission,(7) and Woodward-Clyde.(8)For those counties in Washington and Oregon included in the 50-mile radius, a composite of all forecast series which serve as control totals was developed.
To forecast the population for the rural farm sectors the availability of.irrigation water was estimated; then in some cases, county trends had to be extrapolated to the year 2020.Following this quantification an average of 16 persons/irrigated acre was applied to the acres represented in the sector.<>)
Projections for nonfarm areas were made by assuming the difference between the computed rural additions and the total projected population as available from the composite estimate.The assumptions for all population fore-casts and distributions are documented in a separate report.<10) 2.1.3.1 Po ulation Within 10 Miles Figure 2.1-9 presents the distribution of the 1970 population within 10 miles of the site, while Figures 2.1-10 to 2.1-14 present the estimated populations by decade from 1980 to 2020.As indicated in Table 2.1-1 about 5,860 people were estimated to be living within a 10-mile radius of the project site in 1970.Since the site is situated within the Hanford Reserv-ation, there are no significant clusters of population within a 10-mile radius except a small part of North Richland.The closest inhabitants to the project site occupy farms that are thinly spread over four compass sectors east of the Columbia River.None of these farms are located within 4 miles of the proposed plant.site.Only 130 persons reside in the 4-to 5-mile sector and all are east of the Columbia River.Within a 5-mile radius of the site, there are no public facilities (schools, hospitals, etc.)or 2.1-6 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER business facilities.
There are no primary transportation routes or other causes for use by large numbers of the public.In 1970, an estimated 5,860 persons, 70%of whom are to the SSE in North Richland and the rest primarily east of the Columbia River, resided within a 10-mile radius of the site.This number represents only 3%of the total population within a 50-mile radius.No population growth within the 5-mile radius is forecast.The Hanford Reservation is expected to remain dedicated primarily to industrial use without, private residences.
No change in the use of the land east of the Columbia River is expected since it currently is irrigated to about the maximum practical amount.Recreational use of the Columbia River is expected to remain near the current level.Population growth between the 5-and 10-mile radius will occur primarily in the S and SSE sectors due to residential expansion in North Richland.By reactor start-up time in 1980, the population in the 10-mile radius is estimated at 8830 which is a 51%increase over 1970.The population is estimated at 10,320 in 1990, 11,070 in 2000 and 11,810 in 2010 within the 10-mile radius.By the end of the reactor life in 2020, the population within the 10-mile radius is estimated at 12,550 which is a 114%increase over 1970.2.1.3.2 Po ulation Between 10 and 50 Miles Figure 2.1-15 presents the distribution of the 1970 population within 50 miles of the site, while Figures 2.1-16 to 2.1-20 present the estimated populations by decade from 1980 to 2020.As indicated in Table 2.1-1, about 185,660 people were estimated to be living within a 50-mile radius of the WNP-2 project in 1970.Beginning with the 10-mile radius, the population count increases rapidly because of the Tri-City region to the south and southeast.
Total population within the 20-mile radius was estimated to be 63,960 in 1970 or about 34%of the total.By the time the 30-mile radius is reached, another 38,140 persons can be added to the resident population, thus making the number of residents in the entire 30-mile radius total 102,100.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 1970 census reports, the Tri-Cities are the only sig-nificantly large population centers located in the 10-to 30-mile zone: Richland (26,290), Kennewick (15,212), and Pasco (13,920).The next 10 miles (to the 40-mile range)2.1-7 WNP-2 ER adds another 30,030 persons for a total 40-mile radius count of 132,130 while the 50-mile range adds the final 53,530 persons for a total of 185,660 persons living within a 50-mile radius of the construction site in 1970.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 increases in the rural areas are based on the expected increase in irrigated agriculture.
The rest of the population increase is primarily in the Tri-City area as a result of increased activity on the Hanford Reservation and expansion of agricultural activities throughout the general region.By reactor start-up time in 1980, the population in the 50-mile radius is estimated at 219,730, which is an increase of 18%over 1970.The population is estimated at 236,590 in 1990, 248,480 in 2000 and 256,210 in 2010 within the 50-mile radius.By the end of the reactor life in 2020, the popula-tion within the 50-mile radius is estimated at 267,690, which is a 44%increase over 1970.2.1.3.3 Transient Po ulation A significant employment force related to the Hanford Reserva-tion exists near the project site.The North Richland industrial complex is closest to the site (about 9 miles)and includes such facilities as Battelle, Washington Public Power Supply System, U.S.Testing, Exxon, and the various service facilities of Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company.Employment in this area amounts to about 4,000 with most of the workers on the day shift.Also within the 10-mile radius are about 2,100 operations workers employed three shifts a day at the various Hanford operations within the Reservation area.In early 1974, there were about 2,600 construction workers employed within the 10-mile radius as well, with many of these close to the proposed construction site.Most of these workers are included in the population counts furnished earlier.The majority of them live in areas from 10 to 30 miles from the project.A transient agricultural labor force ranging from 2000 in January to nearly 6000 at the June peak exists within the 50-mile radius from the project site.Some of these workers may come within 4 miles of the site during.various parts of the year.Since this labor force consists of migrant workers and their families, it.has not been covered in the population forecasts.
2.1-8 WNP-2 ER 2.1.4'Uses of A'd'acent Lands and Waters Significant changes occurred in the uses of adjacent lands and waters in the.last 5 years, as a result, of increased construction activ'ity on the Hanford Reservation, new indus-trial development in the Tri-Cities, and expansion in irrigated agriculture near the Tri-Cities.
New land uses within a 5-mile radius of the WNP-2 site are the construction of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF)and of WPPSS Nuclear Projects No.1 and 4 (WNP-1 and WNP-4), associated roads and railroads, and intake and outfall facilities on the Columbia River for WNP-1 and WNP-4.No significant changes have occurred or are foreseen for the small agricultural area within the 5-mile radius east of the Columbia River.Major changes in land use outside the Hanford Reservation include urban residential growth and new industrial plants in the Tri-Cities.
This growth is described in Section 2.1.3.Xn addition, significant expansion in irrigated agriculture has taken place in the Tri-City area.Most major new irri-gation developments 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 northwest of the Hanford Reservation.
The Tri-City Herald reports that 204,000 new acres have byway irrigated in the Mid-Columbia Region in the last 5 years.<Significant new irrigation development is expected soon 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 (about 470,000 acres).The principal sources of water for the irrigated areas south and west of the Tri-Cities are the Columbia, Snake, and Yakima Rivers.Groundwater is being pumped in the hills northwest of the Hanford Reservation and is expected to be used for new areas surrounding Pasco.New irrigation in the Columbia Basin Project will receive its water from Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River.As a result of the population increase in the Tri-Cities, increased use is made of the Columbia River for water supplies and for recreation.
New parks have been constructed fronting the river in north Richland and near Plymouth.A recreational community known as"Desert-Aire" is being developed on the Columbia River just north of Priest Rapids Dam.2.1-9 WNP-2 ER The locate.ons of the nearest potential milk cow (out to 5 miles), nearest potential milk goat (out to 15 miles), nearest potential resident (out to 5 miles), nearest potential vegetable garden (out to 5 miles)and nearest site boundary are shown for the 16 compass sectors in Table 2.1-2.2.1-10 TABLE 2.1-1 POPULATION IN 50-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 BY 10-MILE RADII AND COMPASS SECTOR IN 10-YEAR PERIODS 1970-2020 Radik Hllea 6 1910 a ax Total 1980 Total Number 1990 a aa Total 2000 uz Total 2010 uK aa Total Number Number 2020 uj Total TOTAL ALL O NORTH NNE NE ENE E ESE Se SSE S e SSM SW MSM N WÃM NW NNW NORTH NNE NE ENE e ESE o SE I SSE en 8 SSW SN WSM W WNM NW NNW 185,660 0 0 20 40 50 20 0 60 120 240 2~0 280 250 240 4,080 10 200 10 0 130 219,730 0 0 20 40 50 20 0 60 120 240 240 2$0 250 2'Srloo 1.960 200 10 0 130 8,700 236,590 0 0 20 40 50 20 60 120 240 240 280 250 240 5,610 2,9~0 200 10 0 130 10,190 248,480 0 0 20 40 50 20 0 60 120 240 240 28O 250 240 5,$70 3g~30 200 10 0 130 10,9l 0 256g210 0 0 20 40 50 20 0 60 120 240 240 280 250 240 6~120 3,920 200 10 0 130 11,680 267,690 0 0 20 40 50 20 60 120 240 240 280 250 240 6,370 4~410 200 10 130 12g420 NORTH NNE NE ENE e ESE o Se", sse oS~SSM SW WSM'M b7lW NW NNW 370 360 220 620 510 240 5,880 35 F 580 11,120 1i920 600 660 0 0 10 10 58,100 370 360 220 620 510 240 6'30 46,910 13'lo 2,650 940 7$0 0 0 10 10 73,190 370 360 220 620 510 240 6'60 52,5SO 14,300 3,020 1, 110 8~0 0 0 10 10 80~TSO 370 360 220 620 510 240 6,6$0 55r420 14g830 3g210 1,200$70 0 0 10 10 84,550 370 360 220 620 510 240 6~810 SENT 250 15i360 3,400 1,2SO 900 0 0 10 10 88,3lo 370 360 220 620 510 240 6'40 63,910 16,360 3,590 1,360 930 0 TABLE 2.1-1 (sheet 2 of 2)Rsdll Niles 6 d 1970 Nuadber Total 1980 Total 1990 mzl Number Total 2000 lugl Rumba r Total 2010 Nosher Total 2020 IIHH Total O n I O eg O I O NORTH NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW'W NW NNW N"NNE NE ENE FSE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W h7IW hW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W h7OI hW NNW 760 5~020 820 1,370 260 110 2,750 18,560 300 620 4,770 2,080 100 70 190 360 880 2,550 780 590 200 130 1~120 280 1~150 100 850 19,940 2,450 360 550 1,100 17,650 530 830 110 200 500 2,910 720 10,940 680 670 3,280 12,790 390 460 870 38r 140 30g030 53,530 760 5,690 820 2g 400 260 110 3,290 20g550 470 620 5,070 2,080 100 70 190 360 880 2,850 800 590 200 130 1,120'80 lg490 100 850 22 r 1oo 2,450 500 550 1,420 17,850 530 850 110 200 500 2r910 720 13r 550 1~590 670 3,330 14,010 390 460 890~2, 840 36,310 58,560 760 S,SSO 1~030 3,330 700 110 3'60 21~540 540 620 5~220 2,080 100 70 190 360 880 3.000 890 900 200 130 1, 120 280 1,660 100 850 23, 180 2,450 570 550 1,580 17,950 530 860 110 200 500 2~910 720 14~860 2 F 050 670 3,360 14,620 390 460 900 46'90 38,340 61,090 760 5,970 lg 310 3,590 700 110 3,700 22,030 570 620 5,300 2,'OSO 100 70 190 360 880 3'70 lr890 2,360 200 130 lr120 280 1,750 100 850 23,720 2,450 610 550 1,660 18,000 530 1.360 lroio 200 500 2.910 720 15,510 2,280 670 3,370 14,930 390 460 910 47,460 41,620 63,780 760 6'70 1, 310 3,840 700 110 3,830 22r530 640 620 Sg370 2,080 100 70 190 360 880 3,150 1,900 2,360 200 130 1,120 280 1,830 100 850 24,260 2,450 640 550 1,740 18 F 050 530 lr 370 1,040 200 500 2,910 720 16,170 2,510 670 3,380 15,230 390 460 910 48,580 42, F 40 65,040 760 6,170 1,310 4,090 700 110 3r960 23,030 710 620 5,440 2,080 108 70 190 360 800 3g480 1,910 2,360 200 130 1g 120 280 1,910 100 850 2'800 2,450 670 550 1,820 18r200 530 1g 390 110 200 500 2,910 720 16,830 2,740 670 4~430 15,530 390 460 910 49,700 43,510 66r520 d dr\ddr igr~
TABLE 2.1-2 DISTANCES IN MILES FROM CENTERLINE OF CONTAINMENT BUILDING TO VARIOUS ACTIVITIES N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W NNW 1.Potential milk cow (5 mi)2.Potential milk goat (15 mi)3.Nearest potential residence (5 mi)8 7 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 6 10 8 7 10 4.Nearest site boundary 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 5.Nearest potential vegetable garden (5 mi)--5 4 4 4 4\
0 NNW HAIOORO RI$TRVA SION NNE NW ROOTS IIA r Qg/g//P SM I TH RANCH NE MSINCITV WNW ENE TITOPIA RINCCL 0 WVI RARRICAOT WAP'I WNPQ ILTOPIA WIST RCAO WSW IIII 3$0+ESE HOOCT$RANCH HORN RAPIOS OAM SW g/@$O SSW+/c TxxON CROSSCOP RANCH 10 S IT RATTRIT 1 IT OOINAAS lAIS I SSE SE 0 I 2 3 4 5 SCALE IN MILES 10 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROZECT NO.2'nvironmental Report.ORIENTATION MAP OF THE AREA WITHIN A 10-MILE RADIUS OF THE SITE FOR WNP-2 FIGHT 2.1-7 I J SOAP LAKE I~R.oso)~EPHRATA (5.2so)g ODESSA ((.o7s)~OUINCY~MOSES LAK ()o.300)(3.2K)GEORGE GRANT ROYAL I ITY~wARDEN (1.250)ADAM WENATCHEE (1 8.800)~~CLE ELUM (),725)KITTITAS ELLENSBURG (13.5701 T RITZVILLE (1.875)C BEVERLY (2)5)($75)I SMYRNAI LIND~~'CORFU (7)(e2o)'OTHELLO H.)2o)T 1~MESA (275)f FRANKLIN MATTAWA (180)~SELAH (3.o7o)~MOXEE (soo)I I)BUENA (530)YAKIMA (is.seo)~UNION GAP (2.0(o)Q~GOLD ENDALE (2.486)~PILOT ROCK (2.soo)W EST WApATp'(2 840)~ZILLAH ().)+>).RICHlAND~I 1 I+ELTOPIA I GRANGER (1,570)B((01 TOPPENISH~~SUNNYSIDE RICHLAND (25.260 (6,7')~(5 751)PASCO (>>>>0)WAITSBURG y GRANDVIEW BENTpN~BURBANK (550)~~~l (850)1 YAKIMA g pRpssER ().o7o)KENNEwlcK WALLA WALLA a.CITY~DIXIE (250)~I BENTON~/WALLA WALLA (23.520)A PLYMOUTH~~~(76)~MILTON-FREEWATER (5.000)KLICKITAT g~uMATlum uM*T~u~/(517)~WESTON (785)IRRIGON ATHENA (Leoo)BOARDMAN HERMISTpN (6.200~((63)~~STANFIELD (7<5)ARLINGTONpENDLETON (18.soo)MORROW l~MEACHAM (120)GILLIAM 1 SOURCES FOR POPULATION DATA RAND McNALLY ROAD ATLAS I1972I WASHINGTON STATE CENSUS BOARD I1970I WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Repor t POPULATION DISTRIBUTION IN 25 AND 50 MILE RADII AROUND THE SITE FZG.2.1-8 WNW NNE 120NNW WSW 10 0 0 p 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 p 0 p p 0 40 2 0 p 0 0 3 0 4 5 p 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 1 p 0 0 20 240 280 ENE ESE SW 10 4080 SE SSW 10 S SSE'WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 1970 POPULATION WITHIN A 10-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 FIGHT 2.1-9 NNE NE 240 WNW WSW p p 0 p 0 p p 0 p p 00 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 p 0 p 0 0 p 4 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 20 0 40 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 20 0 0 240 250 ESE 10 240 19 5100 SE SSW 10 S SSE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER.SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 1980 POPULATION
~WITHIN A 10-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 FIG.2.1-10 NNW NNE WNW 0 w WSW 10 0 0 0 0 p p 0 0 p 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 p 0 0 3 p 4 0 5 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 40 0 0 50 240 240 250 ENE ESE SW 2940 5610 SE SSW 10 S SSE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 1990 POPULATION WITHIN A 10-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 FIG.2.1-11 NNE NW NE w WSW 10 0 0.0 Ip 0 0 0 p 0 0 p p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 2 o'.o 0 3 o 4 0 5 0 20 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 O 50 0 0 p 0 20 0 p p 0 240 240 240 250 ESE 5870 SE SSW 10 S SSE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 2000 POPULATION~
WITHIN A 10-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 FIG~2.1-12 NNVI NNE ,NE VIE VISiV 10 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 p p 0 p 0 20.p 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 o 0 0 p p 0 p 0 o o p 0 p 2 0 p 3 0 4 0 5 240 240 280, ESE SVI 6120 SE 10 SSE Amendment 1, May 1978 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION WASHINGTON PUBLZC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM'F THE ESTIMATED 2010 POPULATION WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 WITHIN A 10-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 Environmental Report FIGHT 2.1-13 NSV NNE V(0 V(S1V 10 0 0 0 p 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 p 0 p p 0 p 0 40 0 0 0 0 50 0 o o 20 0 0 p 0 0 0 1 0 po o 0 p 0 p p 3 0 o 5 240 240 250 ESE 4410 6370 SE SSW 10 S SSE Amendment 1, 1978 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO'.2 Environmental Report GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 2020 POPULATION WITHIN A 10-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 FIG.2.1-14 NNW 17,650 NW 1100 NE 550 760 360 W 12, 790 WSW 2450 19, 940 10 370 360.220 p60@p y 620 0 330 510 0>>o 100 0 600 10 5880 1920 35,580 11.120 20 4770 18,560 300 850 660~~@@+a 240 110 110 ESE SW r 100 30 40 10,940 50 S SSE 2910 SE NASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM hPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report.Amendment 1, Mav 1978 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 1970 POPULATION NITHIN A 50-MILZ RADIUS'OF NNP-2 FIG.2.1-15 17,850 1420 2850 550 760 56%WS)V 3330 14,010 70 0 2450 100 5070 220 2400 620 510 I 200 0 540 2650 Pig-~~+0 240 cP cg g 6330 46, 910 13,240 3 20 20,550 110 130'10'.370 10 p 60~a 0 0 0 330 110 ESE SYl 100 30 1490 13,550 SSE Blp SE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~2 Environmental Report Amendmenh 1 Mav 1978 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 1980 POPULATIQ-WITHIN A 50-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 FIG.2.1-16 17, 950 530 NNE 1580'E WQV 390 550 10 0 760 360 p 60 0 1030 220 3330 620'10 W 14, 620 2450 0)M 0 0 0 gQ 330 510 eg 1VSW 3360 23, 180 840 2080)))0 850 3020 52,580 00 14,3 20 620 540 21,540 3560~~+y 240 6560 110 1120 130 ESE 670 SSW$00 4p 14,860 SSE 2910 SE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report.Amendment 1, iMa 1978 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 1990 POPULATION WITHIN A 50-i4iILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 FIG.2.1-17 910 NNE 1660 3070 ONE WNW WSW 610 14, 930 2450 23, 720 3370 SW 760 360 5970 190 10 370 360 Io 010 100 0 3/M 22,030 30 1750 220 o 0 60+0 330 510 0 Cy 870 x>~g ao+P 240 12M'0.6680 300 3210 14 830 55'20 1890 3590 110 1120 2910 SE ESE 15,510 50 S SSE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER'SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO~2 Environmental Report Amendment 1, Ma 1978 GEOCRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 2000 POPULATION WITHIN A 50-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 FIG.2.1-18 NNVI 910 1740 18, 050 3150 NNE 1370 NE 550 760 iVQV 3%190 10 3 10 1310 220 3840 620 g 330 510 700 240 70 0 60 0 0 0 0 lp@8 10 900 2080, 1280 110 6810 58, 250 60 3830 24, 2'380 5370 15,3 20 620 640 30 EVSW 1 1120 22,530.100 183 2510 16, 15, 230 2450 100 0 130 2910 SE 1040 ESE SSV SSE Amendment 1 Na GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION NASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM OF THE ESTIMATED 2010 POPULATION WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 WITHIN A 50-MILE RADIUS OF NNP-2 Environmental Report FIG.F 1-19 NNW 910 18, 200 530 1820 NE WNW 390 550 6170 0 370 360 Dlp 1910 ENE 110 15,530 2450 108 0 0 0 0 p 8 510~10+y 240 4430 WSW 24, 800 5440 1360 3590 16 36 20 6940 p 63,910 3960 110 500 ESE SW 670 850 2740 SSW 71 30 1910 40 16, 830 50 S 23,030 SSE 2910 SE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report Amendment l Ma 1978 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED 2020 POPULATION WZTHZiV A 50-MILE RADIUS OF WNP-2 FIG.2.1-20 N I2,062 OC g WO II A.N tA I 6~PIPC 0 o 2 IC 222'OCK RIP RAP 0 0 PLAN MIN.I.OW WATCR 21.3AI~73~2I., 3'58~TO RIVCR BOTTOM~ROCK RIP~RAI'ECTION A-A WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Environmental Report RECTANGULAR SIDT DISCHARGE PIG.3.4-10 0 0 WNP-2 ER 3.7 SANITARY AND OTHER WASTES 3.7.1 Sanitar Waste The sanitary waste system has been designed on the basis of 100 persons, at 25 gallons per capita per day, producing a total maximum of 2500 gallons of wastewater per day.This will be processed and disposed of by means of septic tanks, a distribution box and a tile field facility located at about N11500, W600 (See Figure 2.1-4).The invert at the distribution box is at elevation 419.83 while the water table is at approximately 379.6.A septic tank and seepage pit are also located at the makeup water pump house.The invert will be at elevation 366.5 while the water table is at approximately 341.2.The septic tank/tile field method of sanitary wastewater disposal is expected to have minimal environmental impact due to the good soil drainage characteristics above the ground water table.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 demin-eralizer system, 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 fuel burning auxiliary boiler furnishes auxiliary steam and heating.In addition, three standby diesel generators will operate on an infrequent, intermittant basis.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 18month 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 0.4%, this equipment will exhaust about 1400 lbs of S02, 980 lbs of NO , and 34 lbs of particulates per year.The heating boiler proVides building heat and supplies steam to the radwaste system, when needed.It is expected that 3.7-1 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER the equivalent of.only 3 months will be required annually.The No.2 fuel oil, containing 0.4%13,650 lbs of SO2g 9g800 lbs of per year.at 25%of full load operation, heating boiler, consuming sulfur will produce approximately NO , and 340 lbs of particulates x 3~7 2 Amendment 1 May 1978 TABLE 5.2-15 ESTIMATED ANNUAL POPULATION DOSES ATTRIBUTABLH AT WNP-2 AND COMBINED RADIONUCLIDH 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 4.3E-4 7.7E-4 8.0E-2 3.0E-4 3.0E-4 Complete mixing in river was assumed.Complete mixing in river was assumed.Complete mixing in river was assumed.Irrigated Farm Products 1.8H-4 8.0H-3 TRANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS 15 From reference 8.Amendment 3 January 1979 Gaseous Effluents Liquid Effluents Consumption C.O C I,<'.")t Direct Seafood Irradiation Consumption Plant Consumption Immersion/g~esr/o+l~+~~~/IJf Immersion)g>~Ci 5 WASHINGTON PUBLlC POWER SUPPLY SYST~~'4 NPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.2 Znvirormen&1 Repoz t EXPOSURE PATHWAYS FOR ORGANiS;..
'THER THAiN MAN PEG~5.2-1 WNP-2 ER'ABLE 5'-14 ANNUAL DOSES RECEIVED VIA MAJOR PATHWAYS POR WNP-2 AND FOR WNP-2, WNP-1 AND-4 COMBINED Annual Dose (mrem)Appendix I WNP-2 WNP-1&-4 Combined Limits oer Reactor AZR PATHWAY Air Submersion (a)Total Body , Skin Infant's Thyroid Nearest Resident Thyroid Total Body LIQUID PATHWAY 0.47 0.84 9.1 2.0 0.15 0.38 0.60 1.8 0.37 6-SE-2 0.85 1.4 2.4 0.22 5 15 15 15 10 Drinking Water Total Body 1.7E-5 1.8E-3 1.8E-3 Pish Consumption Total Body Bone Nearest Resident (d)Total Body All Others AZR DOSE (mrad/vr)Gamma Air Dose Beta Ai" Dose 2.2 1.6 0.10<0.10 2.9 1.9 6.2E-2 4.0E-S 2.9E-2<3.0E-3 2.3 1.6 0.13"0.1 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.
Znhalation, air submersion, ingestion of farm products, contaminated groundo Swimming, boating, shoreline, ground contamination, ingestion of farm products.At a location 0.5 miles southeast of the plant.Amendment 3 January 1979 WNP 2 ER TABLE 5.2-13 CUMULATIVE POPULATION, ANNUAL POPULATION DOSE,"FROM SUBMERSION IN AIR CONTAINING RADIONUCLIDES FROM THE WNP-2 AND COMBIN"D RELEASES OF WNP-2 AND WNP-1 AND-4 Radius (miles)Cumulative Population (2020)0 r Annual Average Dose (mrem)Combined WNP-2 WNP-2 Com aned Cumulative Annual Population Dose (man-rem)10'zo 30 50 130 12,650 108,060 157,760 201,270 267,790 0'4 0.56 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.1 1.5 1.6 2.1 i 2.2 0.0086 0.010 0.066'0.035 0.012 0.078 0.045 0.016 0.0093 0.013 0.0075 0.010 0.0058 0.0081 WNP-2 ER 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 frog natural sources in this region is approximately 105 mrem/yr, 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, vill contribute 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~oyd 25 mrem/yr from internal sources (mostly K-40)5.2-11 Amendment 3 January 1979 WNP-2 ER Construction workers at WNPl and WNP-4 will receive some radiation dose due to the operation of WNP2.If an indi-vidual were to work 0.5 mile from WNP-2, he would receiye0y total-body dose of 2.5 mrem/yr from N-16 turbine shine.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, transportatioy8youtes have not been decided.However, a generic study has estimated that radiation dose rates to the general public from transportation of radioactive mate-rials will not exceed 5 man-rem/yr per 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 Reservation.
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 combined operation of WNP-2, WNP-1 and WNP-4 are given in Table 5.2-15.The total popula-tion 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 plants is assumed negligible, since the closest point to the site continuously occupied is more than 3 miles away from any one plant, and the point occupied intermittently by a fisherman is more than 2 miles.5.2-10 Amendment 3 January 1979 WNP-2 ER 5.4 EFFECTS OF SANITARY WASTE DISCHARGES The amount of sanitary waste processed at the plant is quite small relative to the capacity of the soil to accommodate these wastes.Consequently, the environmental effects of sanitary waste discharge due to the operation of WNP-2 are negligible.
Less than 2 gpm of sanitary waste will be generated at maximum operation of the facility.By compari-son, WNP-1 and-4 will generate about, 3 gpm.(l)The disposal of the sanitary wastes to a septic tank and subsequent discharge to tile fields will have no measurable effect on the water quality or biota of the Columbia River.The arid climate and porous ground result in satisfactory drainage without the waste surfacing due to ground satura-tion or plugging.Proper design of the tile fields results in ample disinfection before the liquids enter the water table and eventually the Columbia River.The maximum nutrient loading to the river under steady conditions would be 0.5 lb/day of nitrogen and 0.2 lb/day of phosphorus.
This waste loading would cause an increase in concentration for these constituents of less than 0.003 ppb for the lowest river flow.This compares with ambient concentrations of from 20 to over 1000 ppb.Much of the liquid will not enter the water table (60 feet below the ground surface)because the moisture in the ground at the shallow depths of the leach lines moves toward the surface due to evaporation and evapo-transpiration.
Contam-ination of the groundwater by pathogenic bacteria, if it occurs, will be restricted to within a few feet of the tile field where saturated-flow conditions exist.All of the plant water for normal operation of WNP-2 comes from the Columbia River rather than groundwater sources.A well will supply makeup to the makeup water filters during outages and emergencies.
Because of the limited use of groundwater at the site and because of the limited zone of potential contam-ination of groundwater by tile field drainage, the operation of the sanitary tile fields will have not measurable effect on the overall groundwater resources outside the plant boundary.The sanitary waste disposal system will conform to applic-able State and County regulations, and will comply with the Washington State Site Certification Agreement which requires that sanitary wastes not enter State waters.5.4-1 Amendment, 1 May 1978 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 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'reas where missing or auestionable 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 gape Office of program planning and Fiscal Management,'
the Portland BtQ University Center for Population Beseygy and Census, the Bonneville Power Administratjgg~
tile Pacific Northwest>giver Basins Commission, Pacific Nort;lgqst Bell, and the Tri-City Nuclear Industrial Council.'Rural population trends were based also.on estimably~
developed for the Columbia Basin Development League.'Information from these sources were used by the Applicant to project population fp flsure 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 wr'll;1)..make an evaluation of theaccuracy of a previously conducted impact projection report and 2), make new pro-jections, if found necessary, independent of the previous study, based on up)gtgd information developed in the pre-liminary reports.', 6.1-19 Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER The important socioeconomic factors expected to be studied in detail are listed 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 conditions in the study area o schools o housing o government ser vi ces and f acil i ti es o traffic flow and transportation o social and health services o police and fire protection 6.1.4.3 Terr estri al Ecol o The important local flora and fauna are being identified to the species level, 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.Recoranendations will be made to preserve special habitats necessary for the continued protection of such species should they occur.The important shrub-steppe food chains are also being identified.
The preoperational monitoring program will focus on establishing a baseline for evaluating cooling tower drift effects.site 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 be sophisticated enough to detect incipient changes due to cooling tower drift but, if done repeatedly, it may reveal destructive vegetational damage over a long period of years.In the year preceding plant operation, the site will be photographed during the seasonal peak of plant growth in early May, meteorological conditions permitting.
6.1-20 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER Ve etational Anal ses.A program to establish a data base for terreytrial ecosystems in the vicinity of WNP-1, 2, and 4 was initiated in 1974.l4B)Vegetation recovery study areas were established at five locations within ap-proximately one mile of the site.Two of these plots are located within an area burned by wildfire in 1970 and three are in areas that escaped the fire.Figure 6.1-2 shows the location of terrestrial ecology study sites.Knowledge from these studies will apply to construction impacts'ecause 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, vegetatioh 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 vegytational anal-ysis developed for shrub-steppe and meadow-steppe vegetation.'l3B)
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 bitterbuyh-qheatgrass ecosystem is similar to other United States arid land ecosystems.(51)
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 var iables.The preoperational monitoring program will include continued analyses of plant coranunities 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, and 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 for litterfall analysis will be established adjacent to the soil sampling plots discussed in Section 6.1.4.1.The species studies will be sagebrush and bitterbrush.
Both are long-lived evergreen shrubs about 0.75 meters tall that put on new leaves every year.Leaves are dropped more or less continuously throughout the year and can be collected in specially designed litterfall collectors.
Means and standard errors will be calculated for litterfall collections.
The collected material will be pooled, dried, and chemically analyzed for mineral content.These litterfall studies will com-mence one year prior to plant operation.
6.1-21 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER Animal Studies.Studies have focused on censuses of marshals 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 cheatgrass, 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.The small matinal population is dominated by one species, the Great Basin Pocket Mouse.The pocket mouse population varies greatly accordingly to the season of the year.The largest population normally occurs in late suomer with the addition of young animals.A comparison of pocket catches in burned and unburned study plots is shown below: Year Unburned S ri~numner Burned S rin Yumner 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 46 36 27*52 53 43 30 15 56 27 8 7 1 29 13*2 14 5 37 42 13~Trapping session conducted in July I 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.
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.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 t2)Shrikes.The 1977 and 1978 results are similar to those of 1978.(51)These preliminary studies have revealed no detrimental effects of plant con-struction on the indigenous animal and bird populations.
Plant operation is expected to be less disruptive and detrimental than plant construction.
6.1-22 Amendment 4 October 1980 WNP-2 ER The approach in the thermal-hydraulic analysis was to select realistic 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: 1.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 100%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 I2 and CH3I 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 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 ci/gm with corresponding a-mounts 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 velocity 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 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 The 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 10.6 SANITARY WASTE SYSTEM The WNP-2 sanitary waste system has been designed on the basis of 100 persons, at 25 gallons per capita per day, producing a total maximum of 2500 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 nonradioactive sanitary waste include: a.Munici al Sewa e Plant Disposal of WNP-2 sanitary waste to a municipal waste treatment facility would result in no dis-posal facilities at the site.However,'the nearest municipal plant is some 12 miles remote and would present extreme problems in the transport of the sewage, cost of the pipe line and maintenance of the remote pumping systems.b.Biolo ical Sewa e Treatment Facilit A standard package type biological treatment facil-ity 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 discharged to the Columbia River.10.6.2 ,Alternatives Com ared Based on Short Term Environ-mental Effects The short term environmental"effects due to construction would be negligible in the case of the biological sewage treatment plant.Short term effects of the pipe line would be the nor-mal disruption of soil and vegetation caused by the construc-'tion of buried utilities.
10.6.3 Alternatives Com ared Based on Lon Term Environ-mental Effects There would be no measurable alternative environmental effects if the waste were transported to a remote municipal sewage facility.Barring operator error or mechanical failure there would be no significant environmental effects upon the Columbia River (minimum licensed flow of 2.3 x 1010 gpd)from the dis-charge of an anticipated maximum of 2500 gallons of treated waste water per day.10.6-1 WNP-2 ER 10.6.4 Selected S stem The recommended septic and tile field system described in Section 3.7.1 was chosen for the following reasons: a~It provides the simplest and most reliable system.b.The environmental impact of discharging approximately 2500 gallons per day of sanitary waste water to a subsurface tile field would be negligible.
No san-itary waste would be discharged to the Columbia River.10.6.5 Power Consum tion Power costs associated with the transport of 2500 gallons per day would be very small.Power requirements for an extended aeration type biological treatment facility would be about 1 hp.10.6.6 Effect on Ca acit Factor None of the alternatives considered would have any effect on the plant capacity factor.10.6.7 Monetized Cost A cost comparison for the alternat'ive systems was not made because of the large range in costs.Incremental costs as-sociated with transport to the municipal facility would be extremely great while incremental costs associated with dis-posal by means of a package sewage treatment facility would be negligible.
The annual cost of the alternatives was not calculated because of the small size equipment involved and the lack of value.10.6.8 Environmental Effects The addition of approximately 2500 gallons of sanitary waste water per day would have a negligible effect upon local sewage treatment facilities.
Similarly, when properly operated, with all components functioning as designed, the extended aeration type biological waste water treatment plant effluent would have no perceptible effect on the Columbia River.The discharge from the selected system to the permeable soils at the site is expected to have the least environmental effect of the alternatives.
10.6-2 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 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 19, 1970.Amendment 2 October 1978 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 Sect@on 2.1 Atomic Energy Commission, Richland Operations Office, Letter, Appendix 2.P to Managing Director of the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, November 25, 1970.2.Bonneville Power Administration, Po ulation, Em lo ent and Housin Units Pro'ected to 1970, February 1973.3~Pacific Northwest Bell, Po ulation and Household Trends in Washin ton, Ore on and Northern Idaho, 1970 to 1985, January 1972.4~Population Studies Division, Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management, State of Washin ton, Po ulation Trends, 1975, Olympia, Washy.ngton, 1975.5.Po ulation Estimates:
.Ore on Counties and Incor orated Cities, Center for Population Research and Census, Portland State University, Portland, OR, July 1, 1975.6.Clement, M., et al., Stud and Forecast of Tri-Cit Economical Acitvit and z.ts Related Im act on Gasoline Needs and Housin , Battelle, Pace.fic Northwest Labora-tories to Tr~-Catty Nuclear=Industrial Council, Richland, WA, May 1974.7.Columbia-North Pacific Re ion Com rehensive Framework Stud of Water and Related Lands, A en xx VI, Economic Base and Pro'ections, Pacific Northwest River Basins Commxssz.on, Vancouver, WA, January 197.8.Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Socioeconomic Stud;WPPSS Nuclear Pro'ects 1 and 4, Prepared for Washy.ngton Pubis.c Power Supply System, Richland, Washington, April 1975.9.Cone, B.W., The Economic Im act of the Second Bacon Si hon and Tunnel on the East Hi h Area, the State of Wash>.n ton and the Nation, Columba.a Basin Development League, P.O.Box 1980, Ephrata, Washington, 1970.10.Yandon, K.E., Assum tions for Po ulation Estimates and Pro'ections b S ecz.fz.c Com ass Sectors and Radii Distances from WNP-2 Sate, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to Burns and Roe for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, February 1977.Tri-City Heraldg The New Frontier", Kennewick, WA p.6, March 7, 1976.Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER'REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5 Section 5.4 1.Washington Public Power Supply System,'PPSS'u'cl'ear Pro'ect'o'.
1', Env'i~onmental'e ort, Volume 1, Amendment 3, October 1974.
WNP-2 ER REFERENCES'OR CHAPTER 5 Section 5.5 l.U.S.Department of the Interior, Bonneville Power Administration.
'ra'ft Environmental Stat'ement,'isc'al'a'r 1975'r'o'ose'ro ram, vol.2, pp.SA3-11 to 14 and Figure, Ashe-Pebble Springs Study Region 3a, Portland, OR.
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 Washington, Pn 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 Housin 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, Pacxfz.c Northwest River Basins Commission, Vancouver, WA, January 1971.43.Po ulation and Household Trends in Washin ton, Ore on and Northern I aho, 1970 to 19 5, Pacific 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 Housxn , Battelle, Pacific Northwest Labora-tories to Tri-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 Develop-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.x Distances from WNP-2 Site, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to Burns and Roe for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, February 1977.Amendment 1 May 1978 WNP-2 ER REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6 Continued Secti on 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 Ju y 1974 to June 1975, Batte e, Pacific 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 1 and 4, Progress Report for 1976, Batte le, 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 S stem Nuclear Power Stations and 4, Progress Report for 977, Batte e, Paci ic Northwest Laboratories to United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA, April 1979.51.Terrestrial Ecolo Studies in tho Vicinit of Washin ton Public Power Su S stem Nuclear Power Stations 1 and 4, Progress Report for 1978, Battel e, Pacific Northwest Labor atories 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.Amendment 4 October 1980