ML19208A904

From kanterella
Revision as of 18:40, 15 August 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Environ Rept,Amend 1.W/oversize Drawings
ML19208A904
Person / Time
Site: Waterford Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 09/11/1979
From:
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19208A901 List:
References
ENVR-790911, NUDOCS 7909180233
Download: ML19208A904 (350)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:Before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET No. 50-382 In the Matter of Louisiana Power & Light Company AMENDMENT NO. 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Lcuisiana Powet & Light Company Applicant in the above captioned proceeding, hereby files Amendment No. 1 to its Final Environmental Report. 9 This Amendment No. 1 amends the Final Environmental Report to reflect additional information. Wherefore, Applicant requests the licenses specified under Docket No. 50-382.Respectfully submitted. LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BY D. L. Aswell Vice President-Power Production DATE: September 11, 1979. . ,-v o y h.b*'d*+ O$ WSES-3 ER LOUISIANA POWER & LIGitT CO. WATERFORD SES UNIT NO. 3 RESPONSE TO NRC QUESTIONS ON Ti!E OPERATING LICENSE STAGE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT (OLER) AMENDMENT NO. 1 INSTRUCTION GilEET This Amendment contains additional information which is submitted in re-sponse to the NRC letter dated May 3,1979, as well as updated information. Each revised and new text page of the Waterford 3-OLER bears the notation Amendment No. 1, (9/79) at the bottom of the page. Vertical bars with the number 1 have been used in the margin of pages, as applicable, to indicate the location of the revisions on the page. The following page removals and insertions should be made to incorporate Amendment No. 1 Into the OLER. Remove Insert (Existing Pages)(Amendment No. 1 Pages) Table of Contents Table of Contents 2-lii/2-iv 2-lii/2-iv 2-vii/2-viii 2-vil/2-viii 2-xi/2-xii 2-xi/2-xii 3-vii/3-viii 3-vil/3-viii 5-1/5-11 5-1/5-vii 5-iii/5-iv 5-lii/5-iv 5-v/5-vi 5-v/5-vi 5-vii 5-vii 6-1/6-11 6-1/6-11 6-iii/6-iv 6-iii/6-iv O :sts,7 .?;R. %ve m.IS-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Chapter 2 Chapter 2 2-iii/2-iv 2-111/2-iv 2-vii/2-viii 2-vii/2-viii 2-xi/2-xii 2-xi/2-xii 2.1-9/2.1-10 2.1-9/2.1-10 2.1-15/2.1-16 2.1-15/2.1-16 2.1-17/2.1-18 2.1-17/2.1-18 2.1-19/2.1-20 2.1-19/2.1-20 T 2.1-12 T 2.1-12"" 13 13"" 14 14"" 15 15"" 16 16"" 17 17 F 2.1-15 F 2.1-15 2.1-11/2.2-12 2.1-11/2.2-12 2.2-21/2.2-22 2.2-21/2.2-22 2.2-23/2.2-24 2.2-23/2.2-24 2.2-25/2.2-26 2.2-25/2.2-26 2.2-27/2.2-28 2.2-27/2.2-28. 2.2-29/2.2-30 2.2-29/2.2-30 2.2-33/2.2-34 2.2-33/2.2-? T 2.2-11 (Sh 1) T 2.2-11" (Sh 2)-" (Sh 3)-" (Sh 4)-T 2.2-12 (Sh 1) T 2.2-12" (Sh 2)-" (Sh 3)-" (Sh 4)-T 2.2-13 T 2.2-13 (Sh 1) -T 2.2-13 (Sh 2) -T 2.2-13 (Sh 3) _T 2.2-13 (Sh 4) T 2.2-14 (Sh 1) T 2.2-14 (Sh 1) T 2.2-14 (Sh 2) T 2.2-14 (Sh 2) _T 2.2-14 (Sh 3) -T 2.2-14 (Sh 4) T 2.2-15 T 2.2-15 T 2.2-16 T 2.2-16 (Sh 1) -T 2.2-16 (Sh 2) 3382.fi IS-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Chapter 2 (Cont'd) Chapter 2 (Cont'd) T 2.2-17 T 2.2-17 T 2.2-18 (Sh 1) T 2.2-18 T 2.2-18 (Sh 2) -T 2. 2-18 (Sh 3) -T 2.2-18 (Sh 4) -T 2.2-19 (Sh 1) T 2.2-19 T 2.2-19 (Sh 2) -T 2.2-20 T 2.2-20 (Sh 1) -T 2.2-20 (Sh 2) -T 2.2-20 (Sh 3) -T 2.2-20 (Sh 4) T 2.2-21 T 2.2-21 (Sh 1) -T 2. 2-21 (Sh 2) T 2.2-22 T 2.2-22 T 2.2-23 T 2.2-23 T 2.2-24 T 2.2-24 T 2.2-25 T 2.2-25 T 2.2-26 T 2.2-26 T 2.2-27 T 2.2-27 T 2.2-28 T 2.2-28 T 2.2-29 T 2.2-29 T 2.2-30 T 2.2-30 T 2.2-31 (Sh 1) T 2.2-31-(Sh 2)--(Sh 3)--(Sh 4)--(Sh 5)-T 2.2-32 T 2.2-32 T 2.2-33 (Sh 1) T 2.2-33 T 2.2-33 (Sh 2) -T 2.2-33 (Sh 3) --T 2.2-34 (Sh 1) -T 2.2-34 (Sh 2) -T 2.2-34 (Sh 3) -T 2.2-34 (Sh 4) -T 2.2-34 (Sh 5) -T 2.2-35-T 2.2-36 (Sh 1) -T 2.2-36 (Sh 2) -T 2.2-36 (Sh 3) 2.3-1/2.3-2 2.3-1/2.3-2 2.3-3/2.3-4 2.3-3/2.3-4 2.3-5/2.3-6 2.3-5/2.3-6 2.3-7/2.3-8 2.3-7/2.3-8 2.3-9/2.3-10 S yg,'j,("i,,, 2.3-9/2.3-10 '2.3-11 2.3-11/2.3-12 -2.3-13 2.4-3/2.4-4 2.4-3/2.4-4 2.4-5/2.4-6 2.4-5/2.4-6 2.4-9/2.4-10 2.4-9/2.4-10 2.4-11/2.4-12 2.4-11/2.4-12 2.4-13/2.4-14 2.4-13/2.4-14 2.4-15/2.4-16 2.4-15/2.4-16 T 2.4-2 (Sh 1) T 2.4-2 (Sh 1) IS-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Chapter 2 (Cont'd) Chapter 2 (Cont'd) T 2.4-2 (Sh 2) T 2.4-2 (Sh 2) T 2.4-11 T 2.4 -11 T 2.4-12 T 2.4-12 (Sh 1) -T 2.4-12 (Sh 2) T 2.4-13 T 2.4-13 T 2.4-14 T 2.4-14 F 2.4-4 F 2.4-4 F 2.4-7 F 2.4-7 Chapter 3 Chapter 3 3-vii/3-viii 3-vil/3-viii 3.1-1/3.3-2 3.3-1/3.3-2 3.3-3 3.3-3 T 3.3-1 (Sh 1) T 3.3-1 (Sh 1) T 3.3-1 (Sh 2) T 3.3-1 (Sh 2) F 3.3-1 F 3.3-1 3.5-3/3.5-4 3.5-3/3.5-4 3.5-15/3.5-16 3.5-15/3.5-16 T 3.5-6 T 3.5-6 T 3.5-11 T 3.5-11 F 3.5-1 F 3.5-1 F 3.5-7 F 3.5-7 3.6-1/3.6-2 3.6-1/3,6-2 3.6-3/3.6-4 3.6-3/3.6-4 3.6-5/3.6-6 3.6-5/3.6-6 T 3.6-1 (Sh 1) T 3.6-1 (Sh 1) T 3.6-1 (Sh 2) T 3.6-1 (Sh 2) T 3.6-2 (Sh 1) T 3.6-2 (Sh 1) T 3.6-2 (Sh 2) T 3.6-2 (Sh 2) T 3.6-3 (Sh 1) T 3.6-3 (Sh 1) T 3.6.3 (Sh 2) T 3.6-3 (Sh 2) F 3.6-1 F 3.6-1 3.7-1/3.7-2 3.7-1/3.7-2 3.7-3/3.7-4 3.7-3/3.7-4 Chapter 4 Chapter 4 T 4.1-2 T 4.1-2 Chapter 5 Chapter 5 5-1/5-11 5-1/5-11 5-lii/5-iv 5-lii/5-iv 5-v/5-vi 5-v/5-vi 5-vii 5-vii 5.1-1/5.1-2 5.-1-1/5.1-2 5.1-3/5.1-4 5.1-3/5.1-4. . , . , , , , , 5.1-5/5.1-6 5.1-5/5.1-6 ,0 0 0& <5.1-7/5.1-8 5.1-7/5.1-8 5.1-9/5.1-10 5.1-9/5.1-10 5.1-11/5.1-12 5.1-11/5.1-12 5.1-13/5.1-14 5.1-13/5.1-14 5.1-15/5.1-16 5.1-15/5.1-16 5.1-17/5.1-18 5.1-17/5.1-18 IS -4 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Chapter 5 (Cont'd) Chapter 5 (Cont'd) 5.1-19/5.1-20 5.1-19/5.1-20 5.1-21/5.1-22 5.1-21/5.1-22 5.1-23 5.1-23/5.1-24 -5.1-25 T 5.1.1 T 5.1-1 F 5.1-6 F 5.1-6 F 5.1-7 F 5.1-7 F 5.1-8 F 5.1-8 F 5.1-9 F 5.1-9 F 5.1-10 F 5.1-10 F 5.1-11 F 5.1-11 F 5.1-12 F 5.1-12 F 5.1-13 F 5.1-13-F 5.1-14-F 5.1-15-F 5.1-16 5.2-5/5.2-6 5.2-5/5.2-6 T 5.2-7 T 5.2-7 T 5.2-8 T 5.2-8 Chapter 6 Chapter 6 6-1/6-11 6-1/6-11 6-iii/6-iv 6-iii/6-iv 6.1.1-1/6.1.1-2 6.1.1-1/6.1.1-2 6.1.1-7/6.1.1-8 6.1.1-7/6.1.1-8 6.1.1-9/6.1.1-10 6.1.1-9/6.1.1-10 6.1.1-11/6.1.1-12 6.1.1-11/6.1.1-12 6.1.1-13/6.1.1-14 6.1.1-13/6.1.1-14 6.1.3-1/6.1.3-2 6.1.3-1/6.1.3-2 6.1.3-3/6.1.3-4 6.1.3-3/6.1.3-4 6.1.3-5/6.1.3-6 6.1.3-5/6.1.3-6 6.1. 3-7 / 6.1. 3-8 6.1.3-7/6.1.3-8 6.1.3-9/6.1.3-10 6.1.3-9/6.1.3-10 -T 6.1.3-2 T 6.1.5-5 (Sh 1) T 6.1.5-5 (Sh 1) T 6.1.5-5 (Sh 4) T 6.1.5-5 (Sh 4) T 6.1.5-5 (Sh 5) T 6.1.5-5 (Sh 5) T 6.1.5-6 T 6.1.5-6 (Sh 1) -T 6.1.5-6 (Sh 2) -T 6.1.5-6 (Sh 3) F 6.1.5-3 F 6.1.5-3 Chapter 8 Chapter 8 8.1-1/8.1-2 8.1-1/8.1-2 0 Chapter 12 Chapter 12 'Ai$.,[,';g T 12.1-1 (Sh 1) T 12.1-1 (Sh 1) IS-5 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Appendix 2-5 Appendix 2-5 -1/2-3-T A.2.5-1 thru T A.2.5-34 Appendix 3-1 Appendix 3-1 T A-3a-T A-Sa Appendix 5-1 Appendix 5-1 F SA-1 F SA-1 O...y.n Q 'y ,,;3,(a..s ?O IS-6 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER NRC Questions NRC Questions _Insert Response to NRC Questions into separate Binder entitled" Volume 1, Response to NRC Questions". _301.1-1.301.2-2_301.3-1-301.4-1-301.4-2 301.4-3-301.5-1--301.6-1-301.7-1-301.7-2-301.7-3-301.8-1_301.9-1_301.10-1-301.11-1.301.12-1-F301.12- 1 -F301.12-2-301.13-1-301.13-2.301.13-3-T301.13-4_301.14-1-301.14--301.14 ;-301.14-4_301.14-5-301.14-6.301.15-1 301.15-2__301.16-1_301.16-2_301.17-1_301.18-1_301.19-1_301.20-1-301.20-2_301.20-3_301.21-1.301.21-2_301.22-1_301.23-1.301.23-2 301.23-3_301.23-4-301.23-5 4g6230-301.24-1__301.25-1_301.25-2 301.25-3--301.26-1-301.26-2 IS-7 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER NRC Questions NRC Questions -301.27-1 301.28-1--301.29-1 301.30-1--301.31-1-301.31-2-301.31-3-301.32-1-301.33-1-301.33-2-301.33-3-301.34-1-301.34-2-301.34-3-301.34-4-301.34-5-301.34-6-301.34-7-301.34-8-301.34-9-301.34-10-301.34-11-301.34-12-301.35-1 301.35-2--301.35-3-301.35-4-301.35-5-301.35-6-301.35-7-301.35-8-301.36-1-301.36-2 301.37-1--301.37-2-301.37-3-301.38-1-301.39-1-301.40-1-301.40-2-301.41-1-301.42-1-301.43-1-301.43-2-301.43-3-332.1-1-332.1-2-332.1-3-332.1-4-332.1-5.'] , , ( ,,l' , * .IS-8 Amendment No. 1, (9/79: WSES 3 ER NRC Questions NRC Questions 332.1-6-332.1-7-332.1-8-332.1-9-332.2-1-332.3-1-332.3-2-332.3-3--332.3-4-332.4-1 332.5-1--332.6-1-332.6-2-332.6-3-340.1-1-371.01-1-371.02-1 371.02-2-F371. 02- 1 --372.01-1-372.02-1 T372.02-2--372.03-1-372.04-1-372.05-1-372.06-1-372.07-1-372.08-1-372.09-1-372.10-1 372.11-1-_372.12-1-372.13-1 372.14-1--372.15-1 NU$$373 IS-9 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) CHAPTER 2: THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES Page 2.3.2.5 Atmospheric Stability 2.3-5 2.3.2.6 Air Pollution Potential 2.3-6 l 1 2.3.2.7 Precipitation 2.3-7 2.3.3 SEVERE WEATHER 2.3-8 2.3.3.1 Maximum Winds 2.3-8 2.3-9l1 2.3.3.2 Hurricanes 2.3.3.3 Thunderstorms 2.3-9 2.3.3.4 Tornadoes 2.3-10 1 REFERENCES -2.3-12 TABLES AN' FIGURES FOR SECTION 2.3 2.4 HYDROLOGY 2.4-1 2.

4.1 INTRODUCTION

2.4-1 2.4.2 REGIONAL SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY 2.4-1 2.4.2.1 Flooding 2.4-1 2.4.2.2 Flow Volume 2.4-3 2.4.3 SITE AREA SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY 2.4-3 2.4.3.1 Drainage Patterns of the Waterford 3 Area 2.4-3 2.4.3.2 Flooding Potential 2.4-4 2.4.3.3 Bathymetry 2.4-4 2.4.3.4 River Currents 2.4-4 2.4.4 GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY 2.4-6 2.4.4.i Regional and Site Area Aquifers 2.4-6 1.4.5 WATER QUALITY 2.4-10 o -; e n . . v o 0,Rd 9

2.4.5.1 Regional Water Quality 2.4-10 2-111 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)

WSES 3 ER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) CHAPTER 2: THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES Page 2.4.5.2 Waterford 3 Area Water Quality 2.4-13 REFERENCES 2.4-15 TABLES AND FIGURES 4f0R SECTION 2.4 2.5 GEOLOGY 2.5-1 2.5.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 2.5-1 2.5.2 SITE GEOLOGY 2.5-1 2.5.2.1 Groundwater 2.5-2 FIGURES FOR SECTION 2.5 2.6 HISTORIC, ARCHEOLOGICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, SCENIC, CULTURAL AND NATURAL FEATURES 2.6-1 2.6.1 HISTORIC, ARCHEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL FEATURES 2.6-1 2.6.2 RECREATION FACILITIES AND SCENIC AREAS 2.6-1 2.6.3 VISUAL EFFECT OF STATION OPERATION 2.6-2 2.6.4 EFFECTS OF TRANSMISSION LINE Co'3STRUCTION OR LOCATION 2.6-2 REFERENCES 2.6-3 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR f,ECTION 2.6 2.7 NOISE 2.7-1 2.

7.1 INTRODUCTION

2.7-1 6 2.7.2 NOISF, SURVEY IN THE WATERFORD 3 VICINITY 2.7-1 2.7.2.1 Noise Measurement 2.7-1 2.7.2.2 Survey Instrumentation 2.7-2 2.7.3 AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN THE WATERFORD 3 VICINITY 2.7-2 REFERENCES 2.7-4 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 2.7 233,3:z;s,1 21, WSES 3 ER LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) CilAPIER 2: TIIE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES TABLE TITLE 2.2-10 Average Densities, Numbers per M , of Dominant Zooplankton Taxa in Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-11 Rank of Average Zooplankton Densities, by Station by Date Col-lected in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 1 2.2-12 Rank of Average Zooplankton Densities, by Depth by Date Col-lected in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-13 Macro and Microbenthic Organisms Collected in the Vicinity of l1 Waterford 3 from June 1973 through September 1976 2.2-14 Density of Benthic itacroinvertebrates Collected by Shipek l1 Sampler in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 before Start up of Waterford 1 and 2 2.2-15 Average Densities of Benthic Macroinvertebrates by Date in l1 Samples Collected by Shipek Sampler in the Vicinity of Water-ford 3 2.2-16 Shipek Sampler in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 af ter Start up ofl 1 Densities of Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Samples Collected by Waterford 1 and 2 2.2-17 Average Densities of Benthic Macroinvertebrates by Date l1 in Samples Collected by Shipek Sampler in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-18 Average Densities of Benthic Macroinvertebrates by Date in l1 Samples Collected by Smith-McIntyre Sampler in the Vicinity of Waterf ord 3 2.2-19 Friedman's Two-Way Analysis of Variance: Testing the Null Hypo- l 1 thesis (li ) of Equal Oligochaete Concentrations at 5 Water-g ford Stations 2.2-20 Species of Fish Collected in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 April l1 1973 through September 1976 2.2-21 Total Numbers and Weights of Fish Collected by All Gears during l1 Years I, II and III in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-22 Total Numbers and Weights of Fish Collected per Unit Eff ort II Each Month during Years I, II, III in the Vicinity of Water-ford 3 fKiS KiG 2-vii Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) CilAPTER 2: THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES TABLE TITLE 2.2-23 Average Number and Weight per Unit Effort of Representative !1 Species of Fish Collected Each Month during Years I, II, III in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-24 Number and Weight of Representative Fish Species Captured per l1 Unit Effort at Each Station during Years I, II, III in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-25 Total Number and Weight of All Fish Species Captured per Unit l1 Effort at Each Station during Yeers I, II, III in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-26 Friedman's Two-Way Analysis or Ve.rtence;TestingtheNullHypo-l1 thesis (11 f qual atcW m ort at 5 Waterfod Stations 0 2.2-27 Friedman's Two- ty Analysis of Variance; Testing the Null l1 Ilypothesis (11 ) f Equal Catch / Effort at 5 Waterford Stations 0 2.2-28 Average Densities by Station of Ichthyoplankton in Samples l1 Collected in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-29 Average Ichthyoplankton Densities by Species in Samples l1 Collected in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-30 Densities by Depth of Ichthyoplankton in Samples Collected in l1 the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-31 Friedman's Two-Way Analysis of Variance; Testing the Null l1 Ilypothesis (11 ) f Equality of Ichthyoplankton Concentrations 0 (Number per Cubic Meter) at 5 Waterford Stations during Year III 2.2-32 Rank for Friedman's Two-Way Analysis of Variance; Testing the Null llypothesis (11 ) f Equal Ichthyoplankton Concentrations 1 0 by Depth Collected in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-33 Commercial Catches from Mississippi River between Baton Rouge, l1 Louisiana and the Mouth of River, 1971-1975 (in Pounds, Round or Live Weight and Dollar Value) 2.2-34 Length Frequencies of Selected Fish Species Collected in the l1 Waterford Area (April 1973-September 1976) 2.2-35 Monthly Average River Flows at Tarbert Landing, Louisiana l1 (Rm 306.3) 2.2-36 Ita bi ta t s , Spawning Areas, Migration Routes and Foods of Some l1 Fish Species Present in the Vicinity of Waterf ord 3 b[.5 N M5 2-viii Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) CHAPTER 2: THE SITE AND ENVIkut. MENTAL INTERFACES TABLE TITLE 2.4-5 Probabilities of Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Mississippi River near St. Francisville, La., 1954-68 2.4-6 Chemical Analyses of Water from Selected Wells 2.4-7 Inorganic Water Quality Parameters of the Mississippi River near Waterford 3 2.4-8 Heavy Metal Concentrations in the Mississippi River near Water-ford 3 2.4-9 Other Water Quality Parameters of the Mississippi River near Waterford 3 2.4-10 Sediment Concentrations in the Mississippi River at Luling Ferry, La. 2.4-11 Mississippi River Water Temperature Data Summary from the Con-tinuous Water Quality Monitoring stations for che Period July 1976 to June 1978 j1 2.4-12 Mississippi River Water Temperature Data Summary from the Con-tinuous Water Quality Monitoring Stations for the Period July 1976 to August 1978 l1 2.4-13 Mississippi River Water Temperature Data Summary from the Con-tinuous Water Quality Monitoring Stations for the Period July 1976 to August 1978 l1 2.4-14 Monthly Water Temperature Data from the Mississippi River near Westwego, Louisiana (1951-1978) gi 2.6-1 Summary of Prehistoric Cultural periods, Waterford 3 2.6-2 Recreation Facilities Within 5 Miles of Waterford 3 2.7-1 Weather Observations at Waterford 3 Site during the Acoustic Measurement Period 2.7-2 Sound Levels in Waterford 3 Site Area, Automatic Observations 2.7-3 Residual Sound Levels in Waterford 3 Site Area, Manual Obser-vations*5 E ${.&2-xi Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 2: THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES FIGURE TITLE 2.1-1 The Region Within 50 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-2 The Region Within 10 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-3 The Area Within 5 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-4 Waterford 3 Site and Nearby Structures 2.1-5 Effluent Release Points and Restricted Area Boundary 2.1-6 Resident Population Nithin 10 Miles of Waterford 3: 1977, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030 2.1-7 Resident Population Within 50 Miles of Waterford 3: 1977, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2000. 2010, 2020, 2030 2.1-8 Transient Population Within 10 Miles of Waterford 3: 1977, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030 2.1-9 Recreational Facilities Within 10 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-10 Transportation Network Within 10 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-11 Major Industrial Properties Within 10 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-12 Land Uses in the Vicinity of the Applicant's Property 2.1-13 Major Pipelines Within 5 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-14 Transmission Lines Within 5 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-15 Nearest Location of the Five Parameters Within 5 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-16 Land Use Within 5 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-17 Schools and Recreation Areas Within 5 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-18 Major Industries and Oil and Gas Fields Within 5 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-19 Zoning Districts Within 5 Miles of Wateiford 3 2.1-20 Municipal and Industrial Surface Water Users Downstream of Waterford 3 2.1-21 Recreation Areas Downstream of Waterford 3 sss u 2_f1 WSES 3 ER LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 3: THE STATION FIGURE TITLE 3.1-1 Waterford 3 Building Layout 3.1-2 Profile Line of Sight from the North 3.1-3 Profile Line of Sight from the South 3.1-4 Waterford 3 - Aerial View 3.2-1 Pressurized Water Reactor Simplified Diagram 3.3-1 Schematic of Water Flow, Waterford Unit 3 1 3.4-1 Circulating Water System General Plan 3.4-2 Circulating Water System Intake Canal 3.4-3 Circulating Water System Intake Structure 3.4-4 Circulating Water System Discharge Structure and Canal 3.4-5 Turbine Closed Cooling Water System - Flow Diagram 3.4-6 Component Cooling Water System - Flow Diagram 3.5-1 Fuel Pool System Simplified Block Flow Diagram 3.5-2 Chemical and Volume Control System Simplified Block Flow Diagram 3.5-3 Boron Management System Simplified J_ock Flow Diagram 3.5-4 Waste Management System Simplified Block Flow Diagram 3.5-5 Steam Generator Blowdown System Simplified Block Flow Diagram 3.5-6 Gaseous Waste Management System Simplified Block Flow Diagram 3.5-/Building Ventilation and Exhaust System Block Simplified Flow Diagram 3.6-1 Schematic Diagram Waste Treatment Facilities 3U82.30 3-vii Amendment No. 1,(9/79) WSES 3 ER*LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd) CHAPTER 3: THE STATION FIGURE TITLE 3.9-1 2.0 KV Transmission Line 3.9-2 230 KV Steel Tower Design 3.9-3 Diagram of Modifications to Waterford 230 KV Switchyard for Unit 3 Switchyard O O 3-viii SE>S'J2<iO WSES 3 ER TABLE OF CONTENTS CIIAPTER 5: EFFECTS OF OPERATION Page 5.1 EFFECTS OF OPERATING HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM 5.1-1 5.1.1 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 5.1-1 5.1.2 PHYSICAL EFFECTS 5.1-1 5.1.2.1 Background 5.1-1 5.1.2.2 Predictive Modeling Approach 5.1-2 5.1.2.3 Model Input Data 5.1-2 5.1.2.4 Description of Thermal Effects 5.1-3 5.1.2.5 Predicted Thermal Plume Effects and Water Quality Standards 5.1-4 5.1.3 BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS 5.1-5 5.1.3.1 Effects of Water Intake 5.1-5 1 5.1.3.2 Effects of Thermal Discharge 5.1-16 REFERENCES 5.1-22 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 5.1 5.2 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT FROM ROUTINE OPERATION 5.2-1 5.2.1 EXPOSURE PATIIWAYS 5.2-1 5.2.2 RADI0 ACTIVITY IN T11E ENVIRONMENT 5.2-3 5.2.2.1 Surface Water Models 5.2-4 5.2.2.2 Groundwater Models 5.2-5 5.2.3 DOSE RATE ESTIMATES FOR BIOTA OTHER TilAN MAN 5.2-5 5.2.4 DOSE RATE ESTIMATES FOR MAN 5.2-6 5.2.4.1 Liquid Pathways 5.2-6 5.2.4.2 Gaseous Pathways 5.2-6 5.2.4.3 Direct Radiation From Facility g rgg3(* ], 5.2-6 5-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) CHAPTER 5: EFFECTS OF OPERATION Page 5.2.4.4 Annual Population Doses 5.2-6 5.2.5

SUMMARY

OF ANNUAL RADIATION DOSES 5.2-7 REFERENCES 5.2-8 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 5 ' 5.3 EFFECT OF CHEHICAL AND BIOCIDE DISCHARGES 5.3-1 5.

3.1 INTRODUCTION

5.3-1 5.3.2 MIXING AND DILUTION 5.3-1 5.3.3 EFFECT ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATER QUALITY 5.3-1 5.3.4 BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF CHEKICAL DISCHARGE 5.3-1 5.3.5 BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF BIOCIDE DISCHARGE 5.3-2 REFERENCES 5.3-4 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 5.3 5.4 EFFECTS OF SANITARY WASTE DISCHARGE 5.4-1 5.

4.1 INTRODUCTION

5.4-1 5.4.2 MIXING AND DILUTION 5.4-1 5.4.3 D4 PACTS ON THE WATER QUALITY OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER 5.4-1 5.5 EFFECTS OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM S 5.5-1 5.6 OTHER EFFECTS 5.6-1 5.6.1 LAND USE AND CULTURAL EFFECTS 5.6-1 5.6.2 NOISE EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 5.6-1 5.6.2.1 Introduction 5.6-1 5.6.2.2 Acoustical Treatment of Plant Noise Sources 5.6-1 5.6.2.3 Plant Operation Sound Level Estimates-Methodology 5.6-2 5-11!?5fG2 WSES 3 ER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) CRAPTER 5: EFFECTS OF OPERATION Page 5.6.2.4 Plant Operation and Maintenance Noise Impact 5.6-4 REFERENCES 5.6-5 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 5.6 5.7 RESOURCES CONHITTED 5.7-1 5.7.1 MATERIALS CONSLHED IN THE NUCLEAR REACTION PROCESS 5.7-1 5.7.2 OTHER RESOURCES COMMITTED DUE TO PLANT OPERATION 5.7-1 5.7.2.1 Land Resources 5.7-1 5.7.2.2 Water Resources 5.7-2.5.7.2.3 Aquatic Resources 5.7-2 REFERENCES . _5.7-4 5.8 DECOMMISSIONING AND DI94ANTLING 5.8-1 5.8.1 DEC0HMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES 5.8-1 5.8.2 COST OF DECO 3MISSIONING 5.8-2 5.8.3 ENVIRONHENTAL DiPACT OF DEC04MISSIONING 5.8-2 REFERENCES 5.8-4 TABLES FOR SECTION 5.8 353,7A3 5-111 WSES 3 ER LIST OF TABLES CllAPTER 5: EFFECTS OF OPERATION TABLE TITLE 5.1-1 Input and Existing Conditions for Thermal Analysis - Typical Low Flow Conditions of about 205,000 CFS 1 and Extreme Low Flow Condition of 100,000 CFS 5.1-2 Input Conditions for Thermal Analysis - Average Flow Conditions 5.1-3 Characteristics of Thermal Plumes Measured in Previous Surveys of the Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy Discharges 5.1-4 Combined Thermal Impacts of Waterford 1, 2 and 3 and Little Gypsy Discharges 5.1-5 Intake Designs of Waterford 1 and 2 Versus Waterford 3 5.1-6 Percent of Time Average Monthly Mississippi River Stage Is 15 Ft 5.1-7 Selected Data on Plant Operation during Impingement Monitoring at Waterford 1 and 2 5.1-8 Percent of Mississippi River Flow Entrained by Waterford 3 5.1-9 Percent of Mississippi River Flows Entrained by Water-ford 1, 2 and 3 and Little Gypsy 5.1-10 Contribution of Cyanophyta to the Phytoplankton Community 5.2-1 Caseous Effluent Concentrations Contributed to the Background 5.2-2 Relative Noble Gas Concentrations 5.2-3 Relative Radioiodine and Particulate Concentrations 5.2-4 Relative Deposition for Radioiodine and Particulates 5.2-5 Radionuclide Concentrations from Liquid Effluents from Routine Operation of Waterford 3 5.2-6 Annual Dose to Biota Other than Man from Liquid Effluents f rom Waterford 3 5.2-7 Estimated Year 2000 Food Production Q &,:/Vh--,3,..4 5.2-8 Annual Population-Integrated Doses (Man-Rem) from Waterford 3 5.2-9 Compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix I 5- iv Amendment No.1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER LIST OF TABLES (Cont 'd ) CHAPTER 5: EFFECTS OF OPERATION TABLE TITLE 5.3-1 Summary of Chemical Waste Concentrations above Ambient Concentrations in the Mississippi River for Average Winter Flow Conditions from Discharge by Waterford 3 5.3-2 Summary of Chemical Waste Concentrations above Ambient Conce nt rat ions in the Mississippi River for Average Spring Flow Conditions from Discharge by Waterford 3 5.3-3 Summary of Chemical Waste Concentrations above Ambient Concentrations in the Mississippi River for Average Summer Flow Conditions from Discharge by Waterford 3 5.3-4 Summary of Chemical Waste Coccentrations above Ambient Concentrations La the Mississippi River for Average Fall Flow Conditions from Discharge by Waterford 3 5.3-5 Ef fect s of Chemical Discharges on Aquatic Organisms 5.3-6 Chlorine Dilution in the Waterford 3 Plume 5.6-1 Noise Sensitive Areas and Sound Pressure Levels Produced by Continuous Operation of Waterford 3 (dB( A)) 5.6-2 Noise Sensitive Areas and Sound Pressure Levels Produced by Intermittent Noise Sources of Waterford 3 (dB( A)) 5.8-1 Relative Costs of Decommissioning Alternatives 5.8-2 Radiological Environmental Impacts of Decommissicaing bbb2/I()5-v WSES 3 ER LIST OF FIGURES CllAPTER 5: EFFECTS OF OPERATION FIGURE TITLE 5.1-1 Mississippi River Depth Contours at Waterford 3 Li-2 Predicted Excess Isotherms ( F) at the Surface, Combined Field - Average Winter River Flow Condition 5.1-3 Predicted Excess Isotherms ( F) at the Surface, Combined Field - Average Spring River Flow Condition 5.1-4 Predicted F.xcess Isotherms ( F) at the Surface, Combined Field - Average Summer River Flow Condition 5.1-5 Predicted Excess Isotherms ( F) at the Surface, Combined Field - Average Fall River Flow Condition 5.1-6 Predicted Excess Isotherms ( F) at the Surface combined 1 Feild - Extreme Low Flow Fall Condition 5.1-7 Excess Isotherms (OF) at the Surface, Combined Field - l1 September 9, 1976 Low Flow Condition 5.1-8 Excess Isotherms s' F) at the Surf ace , Combined Field - l1 September 10, 1976 Low Flow Condition 5.1-9 Combined Thermal Plucne Cross-Section at Little Cypsy for 1 Typical Low F .ow Conditions S.1-LO Co:nbined Thermal Plume Cross-Section at Little Gypsy 'Rm 1 129.2) for the Extreme Low Flow Condition 5.1-11 Co,nbtned Thermal Plume Cross-Section at (Rm 128.5) for the 1 Extreme Low Flow Condition 5.1-12 Impingement of River Shrimp (Macrobr_achium) on the Screens l1 of Waterford 1 and 2 (1976) over a 24 lir. Period h 5.1-13 Weight of Docuinant Fish Impinged at Waterford 1 and 2 over a 24 fir. Period k 5.1-14 Number of Fish Impinged at Waterford 1 and 2 over a 24 fir. Pe r iod 5.1-l5 Averade Water Temperature in the Intake Pu'np Screen Wells ll of Waterford I and 2 during Impingeinent Study Periods l1 5.l-16 Allowable Ther:nal Plume Temperatures for the Miniinization of Cold Shock in the Event of Plant Shutdown 5.2-1 Radiation F.xposure Pathways to Aquatic Or3atis u y y [3/pa (5-vi Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd) CHAPTER 5: EFFECTS OF OPERATION FIGURE TITLE 5.2-2 Radiation Exposure Pathways to Terrestrail Organisms 5.2-3 Radiation Exposure Pathways to Man 5.3-1 Chlorine Time / Dilution Curves for Waterforu 3 5.6-1 Plant Operation Sound Contours - Waterford 3 5.6-2 Noise Sensitive Land Uses Located within 10,000 Ft of Waterford 3 t *5-vii WSES 3 ER TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 6: MONITORING PROGRNIS 'Page 6.1 PREOPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM 6.1.1-1 6.1.1 SURFACE WATERS 6.1.1-1 6.1.1.1 Physical and Chemical Parameters 6.1.1-1 6.1.1.2 Ecological Parameters 6.1.1-7 REFERENCES 6.1.1-15 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 6.1.1 6.1.2 CROUNDWATER 6.1.2-1 6.1.2.1 Introduction 6.1.2-1 6.1.2.2 Groundwater Monitoring During Construction 6.1.2-1 FIGURES FOR SECTION 6.1.2 6.1.3 PREOPERATIONAL METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM 6.1.3-1 6.1.3.1 Introduction 6.1.3-1 6.1.3.2 Equipment 6.1.3-1 6.1.3.3 Quality Control and System Maintenance 6.1.3-5 6.1.3.4 Data Analysis Procedures 6.1.3-6 1 6.1.3.5 Models Used 6.1.3-6 6.1.3.6 Operational Meteorological Monitoring Program 6.1.3-9 y REFERENCES 6.1.3-10 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 6.1.3 6.1.4 LAND 6.1.4-1 6.1.4.1 Geology and Soils 6.1.4-1 6.1.4.2 Land Use and Demographic Surveys 6.1.4-3 O b 5$r & (] 6-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) CHAPTER 6: MONITORING PROGRAMS Page 6.1.4.3 Ecological Parameters 6.1.4-12 REFERENCES 6.1.4-16 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 6.1.4 6.1.5 RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING 6.1.5-1 6.1.5.1 Preoperational Phase 6.1.5-1 6.1.5.2 Operational Phase 6.1.5-4 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.1.5 6.1.5-9 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 6.1.5 6.2 OPERATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM 6.2-1 6.

2.1 INTRODUCTION

6.2-1 6.2.2 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM 6.2-1 6.2.3 OPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL SURVEILLANGE PROGRAM 6.2-1-6.2.4 h0N-RADIOLOGICAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS 6.2-2 O g.-,..,,,, ddDA..'(.) 6-11 WSES 3 ER LIST OF TABLES CllAPTER 6: MONITORING PROGRAMS TABLE TITLE 6.1.1-1 Sampling Stations for Preoperational ' vironmental Surveillar.ce Program for Surface Waters 6.1.1-2 Sampling Dates, Preoperational Environmental Surveillance Program, 1973 to 1976 6.1.1-3 Parameters Sampled, Minimum Detectable Levels, Accuracy and Methods 6.1.1-4 Parameters Included in Effluent Limitations and Uater Quality Criteria 6.1 1-5 Description of Equipment, Continuous Water Quality Monitors, Preoperational Monitoring Program 6.1.1-6 Preoperational Monitoring Program - Aquatic Ecology Sampling Schedule 6.1.1-/Number of Verifiable Fish Samples Taken at Each Station by Each Gear Type During Each Month 6.1.1-8 Number of Verifiable Benthic Samples Taken at Each Station on Each Sampling Date and Analyzed Using a Number 80 Sieve 6.1.1-9 Number of Verifiable Benthic Samples Taken at Each Station on Each Sampling Date and Analyzed Using a Number 10 and/or 30 Sieve 6.1.3-1 Summary of Meteorclogical Monitoring Program, Parameters Measured and Equipment Used During rariods of Monitoring 6.1.3-2 Waterford Onsite Meteorological Monitoring System 1 Overall System Accuracies of One Hour Averages 6.1.4-1 Sumnary Comparison of Demographic Methodologies 6.1.4-2 Correlation and Regression of Growth Rates Versus Development Suitability Within Five Miles of Waterford 3, 19/3-19// 6.1.4-3 Probability of Residential Development Within Different Levels of Development Suitability ES2SO 6-111 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) CHAPTER 6: MONITORING PROGRAMS TABLE TITLE 6 .1. 5 -1 Regional Background Radiological Characteristics 6.1.5-2 Monthly Fallout Deposition Collections, New Orleans, Louisiana 6.1.5-3 Airborne Particulate Activity, Miami, Florida 6.1.5-4 Preoperational Environmental Radiological Surveillance Program 6.1.5-5 operational Environmental Radiological Surveillance Program 6.1.5-6 Detiction Capabilities for Environmental Samp1= Analysis 6.1.5-7 Locations of Nearest Dose Pathway Within a Five Mile Radius of Waterford 3 e sss u 6-iv WSES 3 ER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) CHAPTER 2: THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES Page 2.3.2.5 Atmospheric Stability 2.3-5 2.3.2.6 Air Pollution Potential 2.3-6lt 2.3.2.7 Precipitation 2.3-7 2.3.3 SEVERE WEATHER 2.3-8 2.3.3.1 Maximum Winds 2.3-8 2.3-9l1 2.3.3.2 Hurricanes 2.3.3.3 Thund e rs t o rms 2.3-9 2.3.3.4 Tornadoes 2.3-10 1 REFERENCES 2.3-12 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 2.3 2.4 HYDROLOGY 2.4-1 2.

4.1 INTRODUCTION

2.4-1 2.4.2 REGIONAL SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY 2.4-1 2.4.2.1 Flooding 2.4-1 2.4.2.2 Flow Volume 2.4-3 2.4.3 SITE AREA SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY 2.4-3 2.4.3.1 Drainage Patterns of the Waterford 3 Area 2.4-3 2.4.3.2 Flooding Potential 2.4-4 2.4.3.3 Ba t h yae t ry 2.4-4 2.4.3.4 River Currents 2,4-4 2.4.4 GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY 2.4-6 2.4.4.1 Regional and Site Area Aquifers 2.4-6 2.4-10 2.4.5 WATER QUALITY , _ _ , , , , u G DC s>r. 2.4.5.1 Regional Water Quality 2.4-10 2-111 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) CHAPTER 2: THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES Page 2.4.5.2 Waterford 3 Aren Water Quality 2.4-13 REFERENCES 2.4-15 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 2.4 2.5 GE0 LOGY 2.5-1 2.5.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 2.5-1 2.5.2 SITE GEOLOGY 2.5-1 2.5.2.1 Groundwater 2.5-2 FIGURES FOR SECTION 2.5 2.6 HISTORIC, ARCHEOLOGICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, SCENIC, CULTURAL AND NATURAL FEATURES 2.6-1 2.6.1 HISTORIC, ARCHEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL FEATURES 2.6-1 2.6.2 RECREATION FACILITIES AND SCENIC AREAS 2.6-1 2.6.3 VISUAL EFFECT OF STATION OPERATION 2.6-2 2.6.4 EFFECTS OF TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION OR LOCATION 2.6-2 REFERENCES 2.6-3 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 2.6 2.7 NOISE 2.7-1 2.

7.1 INTRODUCTION

2.7-1 2.7.2 NOISE SURVEY IN THE WATERFORD 3 VICINITY 7-1 2.7.2.1 Noise Measurement 2.7-1 , 2.7.2.2 Survey Instrumentation 2.7-2 2.7.3 AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN THE WATERFORD 3 VICINITY 2.7-2 REFERENCES 2.7-4 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 2.7 ~~~O N$16.3 2-iv WSES 3 ER LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) CHAPTER 2: THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES TABLE TITLE 2.2-10 Average Densities, Numbers per M , of Dominant Zooplankton Taxa in Samples Collected in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-11 Rank of Average Zooplankton Densities, by Station by Date Col-lected in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 1 2.2-12 Rank of Average Zooplankton Densities, by Depth by Date Col-lected in the Vic.inity of Waterford 3 2.2-13 Macro and Microbenthic Organisms Collected in the Vicinity of l1 Waterford 3 frem June 1973 through September 1976 2.2-14 Density of Benthic Macroinvertebrates Collected by Shipek l1 Sampler in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 before Start up of Waterford 1 and 2 !1 2.2-15 Average Densities of Benthic Macroinvertebrates by Date in Samples Collected by Shipek Sampler in the Vicinity of Water-ford 3 Shipek Sampler in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 af ter Start-up ofl 1 Densities of Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Samples Collected by 2.2-16 Waterford 1 and 2 2.2-17 Average Densities of Benthic Macroinvertebrates by Date l1 in Samples Collected by Shipek Sampler in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-18 Average Densities of Benthic Macroinvertebrates by Date in l1 Samples Collected by Smith-McIntyre Sampler in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-19 Friedman's Two-Way Analysis of Variance: Testing the Null Hypo- l 1 thesis (H ) of Equal Oligochaete Concentrations at 5 Water-n ford Stations 2.2-20 Species of Fish Collected in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 April l1 1973 thm gh September 1976 2.2-21 Total Numbers and Weights of Fish Collected by All.Cears during l1 Years I, II anc III in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-22 Total Numbers and Weights of f ish Collected per Unit Ef f ort Il Each Month during Years I, II, III in the Vicinity of Water-ford 3* b?'la&4 2-vii Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) Y CllAPTER 2: THE SITE AND ENVIR0!OiENTAL INTERFACES TABLE TITLE!2.2-23 Average Number and Weight per Unit Ef f ort of Representative 1 Species of Fish Collected Each Month during Years I, II, III in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-24 Number and Weight of Representative Fish Species Captured per l1 Unit Effort at Each Station during Years I, II, III in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-25 Total Number and Weight of All Fish Species Captured per Unit l1 Effort at Each Station during Years I, II, III in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-26 Friedman's Two-Way Analysis of Variance; TestingtheNullHypo-l1 thesis (H ) f Equal Catch / Effort at 5 Waterford Stations O 2.2-27 Friedman's Two-Way Analysis of Variance; Testing the Null l1 Hypothesis (H ) f Equal Catch / Effort at 5 Waterford Stations O 2.2-28 Average Densities by Station of Ichthyoplankton in Samples l1 Collected in the Vicinity of Waterf ord 3 2.2-29 Average Ichthyoplankton Densities by Species in Samples (1 Collected in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-30 Densities by Depth of Ic.hthyoplankton in Samples Collected in l1 the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-31 Friedman's Two-Way Analysis of Variance; Testing the Null l1 Hypothesis (H ) f Equality of Ichthyoplankton Concentrations 0 (Number per Cubic Meter) at 5 Waterford Stations during Year III 2.2-32 Rank for Friedman's Two-Way Analysis of Variance; Testing the Null Hypothesis (H ) f Equal Ichthyoplankton Concentrations 1 O by Depth Collected in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 2.2-33 Commercial Catches from Mississippi River between Baton Rouge, l1 Louisiana and the Mouth of River, 1971-1975 (in Pounds, Round or Live Weight and Dollar Value) 2.2-34 Length Frequencies of Selected Fish Species Collected in the l1 Waterford Area (April .373-September 1976) 2.2-35 Monthly Average River Flows at Tarbert Landing, Louisiana l1 (Rm 306.3) 2.2-36 Ha bi ta t s , Spawning Areas, Migration Routes and Foods of Some l1 Fish Species Present in the Vicinity of Waterford 3 c.-,..,.. , 00M A*2-viii Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) .CHAPTER 2: THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES TABLE TITLE 2.4-5 Probabilities of Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Mississippi River near St. Francisville, La., 1954-68 2.4-6 Chemical Analyses of Water from Selected Wells 2.4-7 Inorganic Water Quality Parameters of the Mississippi River near Waterford 3 2.4-8 Heavy Metal Concentrations in the Mississippi River near Water-ford 3 2.4-9 Other Water Quality Parameters of the Mississippi River near Waterford 3 2.4-10 Se diment Concentrations in the Mississippi River at Luling Ferry, La. 2.4-11 Mississippi River Water Temperature Data Summary from the Con-tinuous Water Quality Monitoring Stations f or the Period July 1976 to June 1978 l1 2.4-12 Mississippi River Water Temperature Data Summary from the Con-tinuous Water Quality Monitoring Stations f or the Period July 1976 to August 1978 l1 2.4-13 Mississippi River Water Temperature Data Summary from the Con-tinuous Water Quality Monitoring Stations f or the Period July 1976 to August 1978 l1 2.4-14 Monthly Water Temperature Data from the Mississippi River near Westwego, Louisiana (1951-1978) l1 2.6-1 Su= mary of Prehistoric Cultural Periods, Waterford 3 2.6-2 Recreation Facilities Within 5 Miles of Waterford 3 2.7-1 Weather Observations at Waterford 3 Site during the Acoustic Measurement Period 2.7-2 Sound Levels in Waterford 3 Site Area, Automatic Observations 2.7-3 Residual Sound Levels in Waterford 3 Site Area, Manual Obser-vations N?5.h'iG 2-xi Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 2: THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES FIGURE TITLE 2.1-1 The Region Within 50 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-2 The Region Within 10 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-3 The Area Within 5 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-4 Waterford 3 Site and Nearby Structures 2.1-5 E f fluent Release Points and Restricted Area Boundary 2.1-6 Resident Population Within 10 Miles of Waterford 3: 1977, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030 2.1-7 Resident Population Within 50 Miles of Waterford 3: 1977, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030 2.1-8 Transient Population Within 10 Miles of Waterford 3: 1977, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030 2.1-9 Recreational Facilities Within 10 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-10 Transportation Network Within 10 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-11 Major Industrial Properties Within 10 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-12 Land Uses in the Vicinity of the Applicant's Property 2.1-13 Major Pipelines Within 5 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-14 Transmission Lines Within 5 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-15 Nearest Location of the Five Parameters Within 5 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-16 Land Use Within 5 Mir.es of Waterford 3 2.1-17 Schools and Recreation Areas Within 5 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-18 Major Industries and Oil and Gas Fields Within 5 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-19 Zoning Districts Within 5 Miles of Waterford 3 2.1-20 Municipal and Industrial Surface Water Users Downstream of Waterford 3 2.1-21 Recreation Areas Downstream of Waterford 3 usw 2_1L WSES 3 ER not total employment. In the subsequent sect ions (Sect ion 2.1.3 ) manu-facturing employment is presented in terms of total employment. The project ion methodology is explained in Section 6.1.4.2. In 1977, there was a daily peak of 5,324 industrial employees within 10 miles of Waterford 3. Of these, 3,230 worked within five miles of Waterford 3. Construction workers on capital improvement projects at industrial sites were not included in these totals or projections because it would be highly s pe cula t ive to predict where and when such projects will take place. In such instances, the number of employees at a particular site, and therefore in a particular annular sector, could be larger than those shown on Table 2.1-9.Large construction projects generally last from two to five years. The industries within 10 miles of Waterford 3 include chemical manuf ac-turers, oil refineries, oil storage facilities, grain elevators, a sugar producer, and a paper company. The largest manuf acturer within the study area, i g rus of employment, is Union Carbide, with 1225 workers on the day shift Union Carbide is a diversified chemicals manufac-turer producing such products 303

  1. ' " I " E'plasticizers, and acrylic acid Union Carbide's property is approximately 1.2 miles east-southeast of the Waterford 3 site.

The closest manuf acturer to the site is Beker Industries, a producer of f ertilizer chemicals with a daily peak of 144 employees at its plant. B ek e r 's property line is 0.6 miles east-southeast of the Waterford 3 site. East of Beker is the Hooker Chemical Company, a manuf acturer of chlorine-based chemicals, 0.8 miles east-southeast of the Waterford 3 site. Hooker and various subcontractors and subsidiaries employ a total of 528 people on the peak shift. Two other small chemical companies, Argus and Witco, are located adjacent to Union Carbide, Argus is 1.1 miles southeast of the site and has a peak daily employment of 40 people. Witco, located 1.2 miles southeast of the site, has a peak daily employment of 41 people. Shell Chemical Company, employing 300 people at peak, is located across the Mississippi River in Norco, approximately 2.5 miles to the east of the Water-1 ford 3 site. Other major chemical companies within 10 miles of Waterford 3 include Dupont (peak of 350 employees) 5.3 miles northwest of Waterford 3, Monsanto (peak of 500 employees) 8.5 miles east-southeast, Sewell Plastics Company (peak of 40 employees) 8 miles to the northwest, and USAMEX (peak of 15 employees) 8.8 miles east-southeast of Waterf ord 3. There are three refineries located in Norco and Good Hope: the Shell 011 Company located 3.5 miles to the east of Waterford 3, with a daily peak of 700 employees, the Chevron 011 Company located 4.2 miles to the east of the site with a daily peak of 17 employees, and the Good Hope Refinery located 1 4.3 miles to the east of Waterford 3, with a daily peak of 120 employees. Also in this area is the General American Transportation Company (CATX), a tank storage firm storing oil, chemicals, and food oils. CATX employs a peak of 115 people and is located 4.2 miles to the east of Waterford 3. Other refineries and oil storage f acilities within 10 miles of Waterford 3 include Texaco (peak of 70 employees) 7.0 miles south-southeast of Waterford 3, Marathon 011 Company (peak of 200 employees) O miles west-northwest, and International Tank Terminal (peak of 60 employees) O miles east-southeast. LSK,8-2.1-9 Amendment No. 1,(9/79) WSES 3ER Other industries within 10 miles of Waterford 3 include tha Bunge Grain Elevator Company (peak of 210 employees) 8.3 miles east-southeast of Waterford 3, the Godchaux-Henderson Sugar Company (peck of 112 employees) 7.3 miles northwest, and the St Joe Paper Company (peak of 51 employees) 8.6 miles northwest, ADM Milling (peak of 46 employees) 7.4 miles east-southeast, Bayside Grain Elevator (peak of 65 employees) 7.0 miles west-northwest, Cargill (peak of 6 employees) 8.0 miles west-northwest, Coastal Canning Company (peak of 30 employees) 8 miles northwest, and St Charles 1 Grain Elevator Company (peak of 60 eaployees) 7.5 miles to the cast-southeast of the site. Manuf acturing is expected to continue its growth in St John the Baptist and St Charles Parishes. In the past, the area has been attractive for develop me nt of refineries and petrochemicals because of the easy avail-ability of oil resources in the Louisiana coastal areas. Depletion of petroleum resources in Louisiana could have negative ef fects on these industries, but the construction of the Louisiana Offshore 011 Port (LOOP) should offset declining state resources as a source of raw materials. Additionally, the fresh water and navigational access provided by the Mississippi River are likely to continue to make the area attractive ().Projections by the U.S. Department of for indus Commerce {g{gldevelopment and{'ggjectionspreparedfortheLOOPenvironmental ~ were analyzed to determine future industrial impact assessment employn a nt trends. This analysis indicates that coastal Louisiana employ-ment in petrochemical industries is expected tc grow rapidly, by 4% to 57 per year, while empicyment in refineries is expected to grow by about 17 per year until 1990, after which it should level off. Food products industries, which include grain elevators and sugar producers, are not expected to grow rapidly. Estimated f uture industrial employment ty annular sectors is shown on Table 2.1-9. These numbers reflect an assumed employment growth at suitable industrial sites along the Mississippi Piver. In general, the most rapid industrial development is projected to take place southeast and northeast of Waterford 3. There are some large industrial sites within three miles of Waterford 3 and these can be expected to be developed for industrial use during the life of the plant. These properties consist of a 3100-acre parcel owned by Koch Industies immediately to the west of Killona, and the as yet undeveloped portions of the Hooker Chemical and Union Carbide properties. .OskhN$)@2.1-10 Amendment No. 1, (9/ 79) WSES 3 ER 2.1.3 USES OF ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS 2.1.3.1 Existing Land Uses on the Applicant's Property The Louisiana Power & Light Company property, which includes the Waterford 3 uite, encompasses 3,561.3 acres. A map showing existing land uses on and near this property appears in Figure 2.1-12. A statistical summary of land use acreage on the property is given in Table 2.1-10, and a statistical sum-mary of land use acreage within the exclusion area only is shown on Table 2.1-11.Land uses have been classified according to USGS Professional Paper 964, as discussed in Section 6.1.4.2. Approximately 52.5 percent of the LP&L property is forested wetlands, totaling 1,868.6 acres. The wetland areas are all south of Louisiana Highway 3127. Agriculture is the next largest land use category, covering 785 acres on the north end of the LP&L land, or 22 percent of the property. Up to the present time, the agriculture has consisted mostly of sugar cane farming, with a few areas planted in soybeans. Transportation routes crossing the property include Louisiana Highways 18 and 3127 and the Missouri Pacific Railroad. Transportation facilities utilized by LP&L pe rsonnel to travel to and from Waterford 3 are shown on Figure 2.1-3. Pipelines traversing the property are shown on Figure 2.1-13. The major ones include four Texaco pipelines running along the eastern edge of the pro-pe r t y , including one 26-inch and one 20-inch natural gas pipelines, and two 6-inch propane pipelines. Sugarbowl Natural Gas Company has a 12-inch natural gas pipeline running east-west across the center of the property, and LP&L maintains a 10-inch natural gas pipeline to serve Waterford I and 2. The re is also a 4-inch liquid anhydrous ammonia pipeline owned by Gulf Cen-tral Pipeline Company running south of the site. Utility facilities on the property include the Waterford 1 and 2 and Water-ford 3 generating station faci.ities, and associated fuel tanks, storage areas, offices, parking areas , switchyards, and transmission lines. These are shown on Figure 2.1-4. Transmission lines crossing the property are shown on Figure 2.1-14. The total acreage of utility uses on the property is 402 acres, or 11.3 percent of the property. This acreage does not include some of the transmission lines which are counted as agricultural land when the lines pass over agricultural areas. Other land uses on the property include the levees (shown as "Other Urban or Built-Up Land"), nonforested wetland, forest land on the batture, barren lands on the batture, a canal in the southern portion of the pro-perty, and a small area devoted to aboveground f acilities for the Texaco pipeline, which is labeled industrial on Figure 2.1-11 and Table 2.1-10. These areas total 404.9 acres, or 11.4 percent of the property. The re is no residential or recreational land on the property. Killona, a residential area with an estimated 1977 population of 1,203 persons, is adjacent to the LP&L property on the west. Also adjacent to the pro-perty on the west is the Killona Elementary School, which includes Kin- .de rgarten and grades 1-6. School membership in March 1977 was 152 2.1-15 c-c n y)Q D,@t). WSES 3 ER)pupils Ad jacent to the property on the east are the manufacturing .f acilities of Beker Industries, a producer of fertilizer. The Mississippi River abuts the property on the north, and the southern half of the property is surrounded by forested wetlands. 2.1.3.2 The Exclusion Area The exclusion area, with a radius of 914 meters, encompasses 625.6 acres. Within the exclusion area, the predominant land use is utility facilities, as shown in Table 2.1-11. The exclusion area also includes a portion of the Mississippi River. Agriculture represente 22 percent of the total. Other land uses within the exclusion area include forest land, the levee, barren land on the batture, and a small portion of the Missouri Pacific Railroad right-of-way. Louisiana Highway 18 also traverses the exclusion area.2.1.3.3 Proposed Land Uses on the LP&L Property There are no proposed land uses on the LP&L property or within the exclu-sion area other than the structures and facilities associated with Water-ford 3, and these are contained within the category " Utilities" shown on Figure 2.1-12. All proposed offsite access corridors, cooling wa ter conveyances, and transmission facilities will be contained within eration and transmission of electricity beyond those shown on Figure 2.1-4 is not anticipated. There is no visitor center or recreation area planned within the LP&L property.The only other expected change in land use configuration on the property is the addition of two lanes Louisiana Highway 3127, which is planned to take place during the 1980's 2.1.3.4 Nearest Residences and Agricultural Activities In April 1976, a field survey was conducted to locate, in each sector within l1 a five-mile radius of Waterford 3, the nearest:

1) beef and milk cows, 2) milk goat, 3) vegetable garden (of 500 square feet or larger), and
4) residence.

In June 1979, an update of this survey was performed for the purpose of confirming that the parameters identified in the original survey had not significantly changed. The 1979 survey was conducted as follows: a)The study area ms divided into 16 equal sectors centered on the I sixteen cardinal compass directions with associated distance annuli. b)Aerial reconnaissance was conducted to detemine initial locations for each parameter. c)Cround surveys were then perf ormed by driving all passable roads within a five mile radius of Waterford 3. p

  • e ; rg , . 4 JUDM)s.@-2.1-16 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)

WSES 3 ER d)All parameters located nearest to the pla nt were recorded and mapped , by annular sector. e)Where possible , local people were interviewed to aid in determining the location of beef cattle, milk cows and milk goats. In addition, local vetenarians and feed store operators were contacted to obtain 1 information on livestock in the area. Table 2.1-12 summarizes the results for each parameter by sector. Figure 2.1-15 illustrates these results within the five mile radius study area. Tables 2.1-13 through 2.1-17 contain detailed data on milk cows, beef cattle, milk goats, vegetable gardens, and residences, respectively. Each table indicates annular sector, distance, direction, and survey identifica-tion number. These data indicate that the nearest location to Waterford 3 for each parameter is as folicws: a)Milk Cows - 0.9 miles, in the NW sector; b)Beef Cattle - 0.8 miles, in the NW and NNW sectors; I c)Milk Coats -3.1 miles, in the E sector; d)Vegetable Gardens - (500 square feet or larger) 0.8 miles , in the UNE sector; e)Residence- 0.8 miles, in the N and NE sectors; and f)Nearest Site Boundary - 0.17 mile in the NNE sector. The nearest site boundary is considered to be the LP6L property boundary at the edge of the Mississippi River. 2.1.3.5 Land Uses Within Five Miles of Waterford 3 2.1.3.5.1 overview Land uses in the area within five miles of Waterford 3 were inventoried in February and March of 1977. The inventory was carried out principally through interpretation of aerial photographs, with field chec Land uses were classified according to USGS Professional Paper 964gg) The.quantitative results of the survey appear on Table 2.1-18. Land uses on this table are broken down into three levels of classification, with Level I being the least detailed and Level III the most detailed. Figure 2.1-16 shows land use distribution for Level I and 11 classifications with-in five miles of Waterford 3. Detailed discussions of the survey and land use classification methodologies are in Section 6.1.4.2. Much of the area within five miles of Waterf ord 3 is wetlands, both forested and nonforested. Wetlands account for 19,306 acres, or 38.4 percent of the total area within five miles. Urban or built up land and agricultural land are generally concentrated within one to two miles of the Mississippi River.Urban or built up land covers 7,256.5 acres, or 14.4 percent of the total within 5 miles. Nearly 30 percent of this category is industrial, composed of large refineries and petrochemical complexes along the banks of cy yn ' . > uabnw i 2.1-17 Amendment No. 1, (9/79 ) WSES 3 ER the rive r. Residential acreage is next largest in the urban or built-up category, composed primarily of communities flanking the river. Agricultural land comprises 10,306.5 acres, or 20.5 percent of the total area within five miles. The richest agricultural land lies between the Mississippi River and the wetlands. Up to the present time, most of this land has been planted in sugar cane and, to a lesser extent, soybeans. Other categories of land use include forest land, water (mos tly the Mississippi River) and barren lands (transitional areas, open batture, and sand pits). These account for 26.6 percent of the area within 5 miles of the plant. Future land use is expected to reflect a continuation of past trends: the urbanization and industrialization of the area primarily at the expense of agricultural land. Additions to the regional highway network, improving access to New Orleans, suggest rapid urban growth in the vicinity of Waterf ord during coming years. Population within five miles of the plant is expected to grow from its present 17,268 to 18,701, by 2030 (see also Sect ion 2.1.2.1) . Projections a'so indicate that areas along the Missis-sippi River between New Orleans and ston Rouge should continue to be attractive for industrial development. 2.1.3.5.2 Urban or Built up Land Urban or built up land comprises 7,256.5 acres within five miles of Water-ford 3.The subcategories are discussed below, a)Residential The residential land use classification includes facilities for both resident and transient population. The total category covers 1894.6 acres within five miles of Waterford 3. Most of this acreage consists of single family units. The remaining acreage includes several mobile home parks, a few apartment buildings, a motel, and campground. Principal population centers in the vicinity include Killona, Norco, Hahnville and Laplace. There are also smaller settlements at Lucy, Montz and New Sarpy. Recent residental growth patterns within five miles of the plant have varied widely. The most extensive growth has taken place in the Laplace area. Residential growth has also occurred in the vicinity of Hahnville. However, the Norco area has grown more slowly, be-cause it is nearing its capacity for development, is now bounded by industrial facilities and the Bonnet Carre Floodway, and has little vacant land remaining in its vicinity. The area northwest of the plant, including Lucy and Edgard, has also grown slowly, because it is considerably less accessible to New Orleans than areas to the east or north of the plant. There is relatively little large scale tract housing development taking place within five miles of the plant. Most of the resi-dential development in the study area has consisted of the con-struction of individual homes or very small subdivisions. The 2.1-18 Amendment No. 1,(9/79) c ,, d$er WSES 3 ER only large residential subdivision currently under construction in the area is " River Forest", a 263-acre, 327-lot development off US Highway 61 (Airligg) Highway) near Laplace. This development should be completed by 1980 Most of the large-scale tract housing .development has taken place and is expected to take place in the next 10 years to the east and north of the Uaterford area. The area north of Laplace and the eastern portion of St Charles Parish abutting JeffersonParishareexgetggtocontinuetoattract housing develop-ment during this period One of the largest subdivisions

  • .currently under construction is "Ormond Plantation Estates", imme-diately outside the five-mile radius to the east, near Destrehan.

This subdivision includes 1200 acres, and plans call for the develop-ment of 282 lots by 1980 and 1400 lots after 1980. The mos t significant foreseeable trend which is expected to affect residential development within fi*a miles of the plant is highway c ons t ru c t ion. I-410 is scheduled for completion in 1981 connecting I-10 g US Highway 90 near Luling via a bridge across the Mississippi River In addition, Louisiana Highwa completedfromKillonatoEdgardby1980[6]l27isexpectedtobe The completion of these roads will probably make currently vacant land around Hahnville , Lucy and Edgard attractive for development of large subdivisions. Rapid residential growth can therefore be projected in the vicinity of Edgard, Lucy, and Hahnville after 1981. Also, the present rapid growth rate in the Laplace-Montz area is expected to continue during the pl2nt life. Ho we ve r , residential growth is not expected to take place in any significant amounts in che area between Lucy and Hahn-ville because of present or projected industrial development there. Population growth trends within five miles of the plant are also dis-cussed in Sections 2.1.2.1 and 6.1.4.2. b)Commercial and Services The USGS commercial and services land use classification system includes retail and services as well as schools and other public-institutional land uses. Within five miles of Waterford 3 there are 279.9 acres within this category. There are 143.3 arres of commercial land uses within five miles of the plant, mostij serving local residential settlements. The remain-ing are highway-oriented uses on U.S. Highway 61 near Laplace and Norco.There are no large shopping centers within five miles of the plant, although there are some just outside of the five-mile radius in Laplace. Most of the shopping center or larger scale comme rcial development during the next ten years is expected to take place outside the five-mile radius, along U.S. Highway 90 near Luling, Boutte and Mimosa Park, on the east bank of St Charles Parish between Destrehan and Jefferson Parish, and north of Laplace on the U.S. Highway 61. Within the five-mile radius, substantial commercial development prior to 1986 will probably be limited to US Highway 61(4, 5) , gs: r.n e .1..5 Q biry ': 2.1-19 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Beyond the next ten years, it can be assumed that commercial de-velopment should grow with residential development. Thie assump-tion would indicate expansion of commercial f acilities in Hahnville and the Laplace-Montz area. The Lucy-Edgard area, which presently has iew commercial or service uses, is anticipated to experience rapid growth of these land uses if the projected population expan-sion in that area materializes. There are twelve schools located within five miles of Waterford 3, comprising a total of 101.3 acres. The school locations are shown on Figure 2.1-17, and membership statistics for 1973 through 1977 are shown on Table 2.1-19. The closest school to Waterford 3 is Killona Elementary School (grades K-6), approximately 5100 feet from the plant. This scho adeclinefrom215in1973g)had152studentsinMarch1977, It is possible that this school .will b tinues[8ghased out of operation if this decline in membership con-All other schools are farther than three miles from Waterford 3. Membership has been static or declined in all schools within 5 miles except those in Laplace, where population growth has been the greatest in the area. The trend towards slight declines in member-ship has occurred in all of St arles and St John the Baptist Parishes as well since 1973 in spite of general population , increases. These declines in membership probably reflect the reduc-tion in birth rates since the mid-1960's. There are no plans at the present time for congrugion of new school facilities within five miles of Waterford 3 'However, reduced school enrollments .cannot be expected to persist for the life of the plant in the face of popula tion growth. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the con-struction of new school facilities in the Lucy-Edgard area and possibly in the Laplace-Montz and Hahnville Area prior to 2030. Other institutional facilities within five miles of Waterford 3 in-clude the St Charles Parish Courthouse in Hahnville, and several churches and cemeteries in the residential communities. These uses com r 35.3 acres. c)Manufacturing Industrial land uses cover 2,148.6 acres within five miles of Water-ford 3.The industries include chemical manufacturers, oil re-fineries, and an oil storage facility. Table 2.1-20 lists the major manufacturers within five miles of Waterford 3, and Figure 2.1-18 shows their locations. In terms of employment, the largest manuf acturer within five miles of Watg d 3 is Union Carbide, with a total of 1528 workers on all shif ts Union Carbide is a diversified chemicals manufacturer producing aromatics, et g ne oxide , epoxy plas ticizers , acrylic acid and other products , and is located approximately 1.2 miles east-southeast of the Waterford 3 site. Union Carbide is currently undertaking a large expansion at 2.1 20 Amendment No. 1 (9/79) QS'Y3 WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.1-12 LOCATION BY ANNULAR SECTOR

  • OF PARAMETERS NEAREST TO WATERFORD 3 Direction (Se. tor)

Category N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW Milk Cows--2 2--5-------1 5 Beef Cattle 4 4 2 2 3 3 4-----1-1 1-------- -5 1----4 Milk Goats 4 Vegetable Gardans 2 1 1 1 3 3 4-----1 1 1 3 Residences 1 1 1 1 3 4 5 4--3 3 5**1 1 1 3* Annular Sector refers to the area between origin and/or mi.ie radius lines (annuli) as shown on Figure 2.1-15.The numbera in this table refer to the mile radius (annulus) in which the parameters nearest to Waterford 3 are located. For example, N-2 indicates that the parameter nearest to Waterford 3 is located in the north sector between mile radius (annulus) 1 and mile radius (annulus) 2.

    • Hunter's camp.

C F E!u.-~.. b'g.a t" 5 ;Z.'D 8 WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.1-13 LOCATION OF t! ILK COWS IN WATERFORD 3 STUDY AREA, BY ANNULAR SECTOR (I) Distance fr$3)?!ile Radius Waterford 3 Survey Sector (Annulus)(In tiile_s) Number N---NNE---NE 2 1.1 1 ENE 2 1.1 2 E---ESE---SE 5 4.6 3 SSE---S---SSW---SW---1 WSW---W---WNW---NW 1 0.9 4 Nh:J 5 4.8 5 (1) Annular Sector refers to the area between origin and/or mile radius (annuli) as shown on Figure 2.1-15. For example, N-2 indicates that area in the north sector between mile radius (annulus) 1 and mile radius (annulus) 2. (2) Distances have been rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a mile. (3) Refers to numbers shown on Figure 2.1-15. c < $ r *: c+-QfA>d JD Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.1-14 LOCATION OF BEEP CATTLE IN WATERFORD 3 STUDY AREA, BY ANNULAR SECTOR (Distance fr Waterford3g Survey (3) MileTadiu{) Sector (Anne 8us)(In Miles) Number N 4 3.6 6 NNd 4 3.7 7 NE 2 1.4 8 ENE 2 1. /.9 E 3 2.5 10 ESE 3 2.4 11 SE 4 3.9 12 SSE---S---SSW---1 sw___WSW---W 2 1.0 13 WNW---NW 1 0.8 14 NNW 1 0.8 15 ( ) Annular sector refers to the area between origin and/or mile radius (annuli), as shown on Figure 2.1-15. For example, N-2 indicates that area in the north sector between mile radius (annulus) 1 and mile radius (annulus) 2. (Distances have been rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a mile. (Refers to numbers shown on Figure 2.1-15. bbb5)M3 AmerJment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.1-15 LOCATION OF MILK COATS IN WATERFORD 3 STUDY AREA, BY ANNULAR SECTOR (1) Distance fr Mile Radius Waterford 3 Survey (4) Sector (Annulus)(In Miles) Number N 4 3.9 16 NNE---NE---DE---E 4 3.1 17 UE---SE---SSE---3-__SSW---y___1 wsw--_W---WNW---hy-__NNW 5 4.6 18 (Annular sector refers to the area between origin and/or mile radius (annuli), as shown on Figure 2.1-15. For example, N-2 indicates that area in the north sector between mile radius (annulus) 1 and mile radius (annulus) 2. (2) Distances have been rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a mile. (Refers to numbers shown on Figure 2.1-15. 358260 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.1-16 (1)LOCATION OF VEGETABLE CARDENS IN WATERFORD 3 STUDY AREA, BY ANNULAR SECTOR Distance fr )Mile Radius Waterford 3 Survey ( ) Sec to r (Annulus)(In Miles) Number N 2 1.1 19 fdE 1 0.8 20 NE 1 0.9 21 ENE 1 1.0 22 E 3 2.3 23 ESE 3 2.3 24 SE 5 4.0 25 SSE---S---i SsW---SW---my___W 2 1.0 26 WNW 1 0.9 27 NW 1 0.9 28 13W 3 3.0 29 (1) Annular sector ref ers to the area between origin and/or mile radius (annuli), as shown on Figure 2.1-15. For example, N-2 indicates that area in the north sector between mile radius (annulus) 1 and mile radius (annulus) 2. (Distances have been rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a mile.( ) Ref ers to numbers shown on Figure 2.1-15. @[,382WO Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.1-17 LOCATION OF RESIDENCES IN WATERFORD 3 STUDY AREA, BY ANNULAR SECTOR (1) Distances f Waterford 3{gy Mile Radius Survey k)Sector (Annulus)(In Miles) Number N 1 0.8 30 NNE 1 0.8 31 NE 1 0.9 32 ENE 1 1.0 33 E 3 2.2 34 ESE 4 3.3 35 SE 5 4.0 36 SSE 4 3.1 37 s--_SSW---1 SW---WSW 5*4.1 38 W 2 1.1 39 WNW 1 1.0 40 NW l 0.9 41 NNW 4 3.1 42 (Annular sector refers to the area between origin and/or mile radius (annuli), as shown on Figure 2.1-15. For example, N-2 indicates that area in the north sector between mile radius (annulus) 1 and mile radius (annulus) 2. (Distances have been rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a mile. I ) Refers to numbers shown on Figure 2.1-15.

  • llunter's camp.

[jsh??Y?L Amendment No. 1, (9/79) . . . . . . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, I. . /.&ntchartrain },*.._j0 ; + -;.. . -1. * :. . -.f.,*,*'.,,.**... -10 .--. -,. . . ._. . .-,. -*. .+. _. _ .. _ _. -* , . . .*, ,..*-.... . -_,.*~_.*' ,.*.,,,. . ..,*..-( ' *. .,*,. . :.; *, _ *. '.^_.-l , ' --. ...,..'*,-*, , , ,.e-v', ? . ....-*./ '*'...,.'N/..*/.. . . ,**~,.5-MILK COW A&',. *7 : . ,-+'./,.... . . . , f'!.. ' . , . ' BEEF CATTLE

  • ,p '~j_-:...* " ""*NORCO 48 J..-__..GARDEN OVER 500 Ft' S ,..q7 , RESIDENCE llr q s$2 WATERFORD 3 SITE k s a.. - -EEEE. ;,-

'cooo'm-.,g '- '~ r \.URBAN ARE AS __,.~.is'%:s 48 NEw 35.SARPY ROADS~c*y%.5/, ', RAILROADS ,.!\g;g _HAHNVil; g;.t---3:~$LEVEES.. . ..... /:*WATER BODIES .?E , i! - : , g k-I PARISH BOUNDARY

, 25\y 36" - *WETL ANDS[--]s , p, ,.\e. . , , '

  • O 1 2 3 4 3,: ww_w=_ m-SE:r_uitES-..O I 2 3 4 5 K I LO MET ERS

-(/\]NSZ?2--(x A ENDMENT NO. 1 ( 9/ 79) ATION OF THE FIVE PARAMETERS FIGURE= MILES OF WATERFORD 3

2. i - is I\.. . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . .

. ..#4 si. ..-J@-.sa wua~i.'ae-._,/., n m 4'.r..1'-x , i a w.;..K* . . .upgsERVE.--%-s28 ,..!44 .^.. -n;; 3-'...;. . . .z,zL I.-fil _/['8-:--/s-.. ..a',,.' p'-,/ ,' . ,*.'--10 3., =y=}7(%NS / SS/Pf,/-

  • \/, ,%! x/ .M!.fx\\,5] 'ji. . - . .-EDG.ARO e, 4'o t'i N ,-x , , is , g dl.- -}-/, fl#x 2 '.3 , , ,., O , g 43 l.3+.pd..cos,---:* . e c tl e, g, N/cie=a s$ 616 sl**O*0W-s'd eg'ws.**l%21 5: 1/v.*>s es/I ,m 1%r. P,,,*3. ~, . . _ -,*-=====5*Cg,y~i'e e:%5%;^i*.. ., :/', x CZ: 26'!.c.*, ' . ~ . * -. J . _.i?:- :-._4-., s=r-19/. .-: 5. . . .

/,-A-=i m -i.m . e. ,~. .+,-.?s; * ',/w 4 # ~ j ^gpT7 A-+; m... .. ; ; .x.,oJ' =m eldg.:. .i..*9/..,..u.,....,.'Q.:..r--g;,.. ...-v,.., y;. , , m- .er m_- L; _. ..-[; }J*[._p~.g- ,-43-,~_.', g#21.en_ __26=__. . ~ _ _=. _=_ _ _=_ M3 . :

  • 'yp,.,%,.w s:a-'----. . ;..+./z ,,,,"; _. ,....-.i..-,-!: t. . ... . . - -. . _ .,-,. , , ...:-.,...ty.g.~;...x , y t*.e-..{-C. -...:;_.

s ,. .s..-....,...;..N . .;;-3.,.....\.;-' . .,-~I ; . "*. .. . :;' .. - ~ ~ . \-.: ~~.,;.. . *.;c.,.c.,,' *.._.-+.?'..'.; .- ,.-+. s... , .q' *'_g....*x .','._L...x;.._. -., F:..*4 -'-.... . . ~- .-..g)_ * .} _ ' . ' V';...M-. f . . . . ~. ._3 . . . . .. . ..y'19.;~i ;. - . _- g-_/.. ...s:....,.: 4 .. .f, :. .. y. . . , . tz7 2 ../=_-_.',. , * . . . . g . . . s. . ,.Z. %. ; . --. :4. _.... ~_*;;.- . ,..3_,-'.-,. _ ,..,. .p-y.-n,4.-..*'......l.' .^* . * *.,., , ,- . . . -- _-p, . .. . ..- . . -.ys.x... x ._'* . ., -. 9 av.,'. '....4 ....--:.s:__-- -.C- ..*.. ..-*.-.........: . n.-+ -.--.-..:.- -.& l. . . .- .-s. . . : ...;.{L. .. ....',_ . ,. . ........ /..-./( ;-..-%y.m..-.~... ..5 Q- , ?(}>\-- _,- ,.'7,., ,;,.'-i_;.g._. . .;;. : 9 ,. . _ .JL,ac;: Y\.i..+ - R -.'-,1 >L:..:ces~ :m :u .; \~_': -.;.--. ~.. ' .\ :.,. : ;...--s'.-8. .p ....-..2 8:1- == zity . 3 ~ :.I::..-=s:25.ii 3i2=w==&: .t L . . . . -: . vM. ..LV ~~x..s.. ,_-*-8 r ni-..-n;,,,,a a.s .. -t-*/ -~.:--X-~:=_ 3:2=.....a*.-_.:.-..= x.-: W- ai e.-y .;-,: y:.=2 ; y, .-... .:.*-;%. - . -. ..~. ~:.ii.i-:- s-. .._.~:~- e m .. .- -. . . '; ..,._.13 =;;?i b:: s:2 ~~J~* *-~':1 4 :::-b;~*. .. .n*. . . .: g : iin ri:n:qij_, y . -~~: :.' .[* *-. J I' f ~ ( * '

  • e ' .n: ..;;... a *; .-

..-?. 2 : - -' ' -~,~- ~ ..,..- ~-.-~~t.outstANA NEAREST LOC POWER & UGHT Co. S5SZ73 WATERFORD STEAM WITHIN ELECTRIC STATION i WSES 3 ER Benthic and Pelagic Macroinvertebrates The most abundant benthic r.ac roinvertebrates found in the Mississippi in the Waterf ord area were aquatic worms and a siatic clams (Corbicula sp). However, even these organisms were present in relatively low numbers. Average monthly densities for all magroinvertebrates in the fi r st sampling year (1973-74) were 58.9 organisms /m'. Al though third year (1975-76) samples were not quantitatively evaluated (see Section 6.1.1.2), they did indicate higher densities than those found in the first year. Both Corbicula and the worms are utilized as food f or fish. Corbicula has bec ome a nuisance species in some areas. The number, growth, and distribu-tion of benthic macroinvertebrates in the lower Mississippi are principally limited by scouring (caused by high current velocities and suspended so-lids), and shif ting bot'.om substrate. None of the benth_c macroinvertebrates found near the Waterf ord 3 site are considered to be rare or endangered species. The only macroinvertebrates of possible commercial importance in the Waterford area were river shrimp and blue crab. Occurrence of blue crab is infrequent. River shrimp are present in greater numbers. River shrimp 'in be rry" (carrying eggs), and larvae believed to be river shrimp, we re f ound in the river near Waterford 3, indicating that spawning may take place there. The Waterford 3 site is not uaique in this respect. The species occurs far upstream and studies of the lower Mississippi River (at a location 400 miles upsgggam ei Water-f ord site) f ound evidence of river shrimp spawning activity Fish The Waterford area does not contain any unique fish habitat s in comparison to other areas in the lower Mississippi. Fish which are abundant in the Waterford area include gizzard shad, threadfin shad, blea catfish, fresh-water drum, striped mullet, and skipjack herring. During periods of ex-tremely low river discharge, bay anchovy and gulf menhaden are also rela-tively abundant. Common commercial and sport fish in the area include freshwater drum and freshwater catfish; gizzard shad are caught and sold as bait.None of the fish listed on the 1979 U S Fish and Wildlife Service's List 7 of Endangered and Threatened Wildlif e and Plants were collected f rom the river in the Waterford area (see Section 2.2.2.4.3). Life history inf ormation suggests that most of the fish present in the lower Mississippi River spawn in shallow areas, sheltered areas, small streams, backwater areas, areas with aquatic vegetation, and areas characterized by sand or gravel bottoms, all cf which are typically not found in the Waterford area. Fish species that might spawn in the Waterford area include river carp-sucker, threadfin shad, gizzard shad, possibly blue and channel catfish (though not likely), possibly f reshwate r drum, and possibly skipjack her-ring.The life histories of these species are described in Section A2-3.3, contained in Appendix 2-3. rm5 , ,.h3 M s * !- 2.2-11 Amend rae n t No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER The following families of fish larvae were found in the Waterford area: LARVAL FAMILIES COMPRISING Herrings Cizzard shad, threadfin shad and skip-Jack herring. Minnows and Carps Chubs, minnows, shiners, and carp. Freshwater Catfish Blue catfish and channel catfish. Sunfish Sunfish, bass, and crappies. Drum Freshwater drum. Fish larvae densities were low in the Waterford area. Given the spawning characteristics of these fish, it seems probable that much of the larvae were washed downstream from other habitats. Additional support for this conclusion can be derived f rom a study of the types of fish eggs, larvae, and juveniles collected at River Bend, about 120 miles upstream from the Waterf ord site (see Section 2.2.2.2.4). Although ten species of fish eggs, la rvae and juveniles were collected in the Mississippi mainstem at River Bend, only three of these (carpsucker, f reshwater drum and chub) were found solely in the mainstem. The other apecies were also found in a nearby ba-you system and may have been washed into the river. Information presented in Section 2.2.2.2.4 thows that spawning sized adults of most of these species were not collected near the Waterf ord site. The Mississippi River at the Waterf ord site does appear to be utilized as a nursery area oy blue and channel catfish, f reshwater drum, gizzard shad and threadfin shad. Young blue catfish were also among the most abundant fishes caught in the mainstem at River Bend. It appears that these species are fairly ubiquitous in the lower Missicsippi River. Community Structure In the Mississippi River aquatic community, organic detritus rather than phytoplankton is the cornerstone of the fo&3 chain or energy flow. Much of this basic f ood material is probably derived f rom sources other than the Mississippi itself. This conclusion is supported by other studies of large riverine systems, and corroborated by low densities of phytoplankton ob-served f rom samples taken in the Mississippi River at Waterf ord 3. Zoo-plankton and benthic macroinvertebrate densities were also low, as des-cribed in the following sections. Many of the dominant fish species feed on organic detritus and benthic organisms. Others, however, do feed on plankton. The gizzard shad and many young fish are in this category. Certain representative important fish including blue catfish, channel catfish, drum, and skipjack herring are to a degree piscivorous (part of their diet is composed of fish). In that se nse they would represent the top carnivores within the aquatic com-munity.-<.m e-m#^#*2.2-12 WSES 3 ER During Year II, dominant zooplankton taxa (10 percent or greater of total number during any month sampled) included Calanoida, Cyclopoida, Daphnia sp, Ceriodaphnia sp, Bosmina sp and Diaphanosoma sp. Year III Zooplankton were collected during Year III on a monthly basis from October 1975 through September 1976. Again there were no noticeable dif ferences in zooplankton densities by station or depth (Tables 2.2-8 and 2.2-9) but there were monthly dif ferences (Table 2.2-8). Average total monthly zooplankton gensities, given in Table 2.2-8, were highest in ear in January and February (8.4and2.3/m}ySeptember(1363/m)andlowest re spect ively) . This seasonal pattern was quite differ- , ent f rom the one characterizing Year 1. Except f or July and early Septem-ber (compared to August), monthly densities for the zooplankton were much higher during Year I than during Year III. Dominant zooplankton taxa during Year III were similar to the dominant ones found during the other two sampling years, except that Moina was f ound only in Year III. Year III dominant taxa included: Calanoida, Cyclopoida, Daphnia sp, Moina sp, Bosmina sp and diptera larvae. Calanoida peaked in March 1976 and June 1975; Cyclopolua peaked in early September 1976. Daphnia sp and Bosmina sr peaked in September 1976; Moina sp peaked in July 1976 and diptera larvae (in the zooplankton) peaked February 1976 and March 1976, as shown in Table 2.2-10. Although Years I and III were dis-similar with regard to monthly densities and peak months, their dominant ta xa we re similar, as were the months of their (the dominant taxa's) peak occurrences (except for Cyclopoida). In general, the zooplankton data were quite variable and theref ore no statistical analysis of temporal distribution was attempted. However, densities among the different stations appeared to remain stable, i . e . , al-though densities fluctuated greatly in time, relationships between station de nsit ies remained constant. For example, when densities dropped during certain months of Year III, they dropped at all stations. The same held true during times of " peak densities". Non parametric statistical analysis of spatial data in Table 2.2-8 (sampling station averages by date) and Table 2.2-9 (sampling depth averages by date) revealed that there were no 1 statistically significant dif ferences among sampling locations (Table 2.2-11, stations Table 2.2-12, depths). Densities of zooplankton in the Mississippi near the Waterf ord area would be considered low when compared to densities of zooplankton species i ggkesor in other rivers. Cyclops alone can reach densities of 2,000/ liter in lakes and crustacean zg pggnkton in Lake Erie have been reported to range from 2,000 - 200,000/m in the Danube range from up to 357,000/m (1ggpepoda densities 3 3 0 to 300/m zooplankggy)of larger rivy{g)in-Rotifers are a dominant component of the cluding the Mississippj) River, according to Hynes Bryan et al , , and the USDHEW study The low densities of rotifers in the zooplank- .ton samples taken during the Wcterford study were probably a function of g n ny .c; ObrJ t \1 2.2-21 Amendment No. 1, (9/79). WSES 3 ER the large mesh size (243 microns) of the plankton net d.Rotifers usually g ge in size from 100 microns to 500 microns Likens and Gilbert indicate that a smaller mesh size (35 microns) is needed to accurately sample rotifer populations. The River Bend study, when using plankton nets with a mesh sizc which sam-pled for larger zooplankton, indicated a high relative abundance of clado-ceransgpecially Daphnidae), copepods (especially Cyclopidae), and insect la r vae , which is similar to the results of the Waterford studies. Ilowe ve r , insect larvae appeared to be present in noticeable numbers only in September of the Year I samples and in the samples taken in June , Novem-ber and August of Year II. Many of the zooplankton occurring in the River Bend area of the F ssippi River had originated " upstream in a more gently flowing habitat" At the Waterford area, some of the common zooplank found, such as Daphnia and Ceriodaphnia, which are not listed by Ilynes as being found in rivers, were probably strays from other habitats. These species are probably not contributing to the secondary productivity of the lower Mississippi River ecosystem. 2.2.2.3.3 Benthic and Pelagic Macroinvertebrates Benthic Invertebrates A list of the benthic organisms found during the three year Environmental Surveillance Program conducted in the Mississippi River near Waterford 3 is gi ven in Table 2.2-13. Since the Year I study included a poriod of exten-l1 si ve flooding, it is possible that the samples collected may not ha ve been indicative of the " normal" benthic popula tion. During Year I (June 1973-April 1974), the average density of the benthic macroinvertebrate sample population was 58.9 organisms /m (those retained in a number 10 and/or 30 seine). Yearly densities given in Table 2.2-14, (the location of the sampling stations is shown on Figure 6.1.1-1) were found to be highest at Station B and lowest at 3tation B Highest.monthly densities (Tgble 2.2-15) were observed on,, June 8, k973 (350/m ),l1 2 July 29, 1973 (140/m ) and January 21, 1974 (52/m'). 011gochae te s generally accounted for the higher densities on these dates. Dominant ta xa it.cluded 011gochaeta, Corbiculidae, Ephemeroptera larvae and Diptera lar-vae.Densities of oligochaetes appeared to be maximum on June 8,1973, July 29, 1973 and on January 21, 1974. Corbicula densities were highest on July 29, 1973 and September 29, 1973 and Ephemeroptera were present on August 22, 1973 and September 29, 1973; Diptera larvae were present throughout the Year I sampling. Benthic microinvertebrates (those retained in a number 80 sieve) peaked on July 29, 1973, July 11, 1973, August 22, 1973 and November 29, 1973 (Table 2.2-17).011gochaetes peaked on November 29, 1973; Corbiculidae on July 1 11, 1973 and Diptera larva on July 2 ,1973. The microbenthic average den-sity for Year I was 26.5 organisms /m The sampling undertaken during Year II (1974-1975) found that densities were higher during August 1974 and 1975, February 1975, and April 1975 than 2.2-22 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) w r .n y ,&CY $ Y WSES 3 ER h during the corgesponding months of Year I. The highest a ve ra ge monthly density (320/m ) was found on February 27, 1975. Average densities are shown in Tables 2.2-14 and 2.2-16 by sampling station, and Table 2.2-15 by l1 month.During Year II, benthic macroinvertebrates were also sampled with a insamplescollectedbyl1 Smith-McIntyre sampler. Densities of invertebrates this gear type are presented in Table 2.2-18. In Year III, as in other years, oligochactes and Corbiculidae were dominant. Oligechaetes, as a group, were the most abundant benthic macroin vertebrates collected at sampling stations. High numbers provided the opportunity for comparison of stations on the basis of gggentrationsoftheseorganisms. Friedman's two way analysis of variance yielded the result of no sig-nificant difference among stations (Table 2.2-19). Although densities of l1 oligochaetes may differ between stations, possibly in response to dif fer-ences in the habitat at these stations, these dif ferences were not shown to be statistically significant. A comparison between data collected be fore and af ter start-up of Waterford 1 and 2 was limited to the two months of data collected after startup (see Section 6.1.1.2 for an explanation of limitations of Year III data): August 1975 (Year II) and October 1975 (Year III) (Table 2.2.2-16). Luring l1 August 1975 densities dropped at A tut were higher at all other stations E than during August 1973 and 1974. During October 1975 densities at all stations were higher than during October 1973. No conclusions regarding t he e f fe ct of the operation of Waterford 1 and 2 can be made based on these di f ferences . The densities of the benthic organisms were found to be extremely low. The lower densities encountered during Year I may be attributed to higher flows wh ich scoured the bottom during the floods occurring in the spring of 1973. 011gochaetes and burrowing mayflies were found to be the dominant be nthic organisms in the Mississippi River in both the River Bend study and the 1971 pilot study near the Waterford site. However, only Year I Waterford samples contained mayfly larvae in dominant numbers; da ta from all three years of sampling near the Waterford site confirmed the dominance of the oligochaetes. Oserall, benthic invertebrate data from the Year I to Year III sampling of the Mississippi near Waterford 3 did not appear to indicate a relationship between sediment type and the species or total number of crganisms. The 1971 pilot study and the Ri ver Pend s tudy, howe ver, did indicate such a relationship. Pelagic Macroinvertebrates The only commercial macroinvertebrate found in noticeable numbers in the Mississippi in the vicinity of the Waterford site was the gg er shrimp, Macrobrachium ohione. The results of impingement studies conducted at Waterford 1 and 2 indicate that river shrimp were present every month in which impingement sampling was done (i .e. , February 1976-January 1977). The greatest number of river shrimp were impinged in the beg iqqing, o,f_ Jul y, the end of April, and the beginning of October 1976. .30 6,6,7) 2.2-23 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER In the River Bend study of the Mississippi, described in Section 2.2.2.2, river shrimp dominated the seine catches of invertebrates (in the December 1971-May 1973 data) . Although data collected af ter spring al]gd not 19 been analyzed at the time t he repo rt was written, Bryan et commen-ted on the large numbers of shrimp which were observed in the summer of 1973 a fter flood waters subsided. River shrimp was the dominant in ve r te-brate species in the trawl samples collected during the 1971 pilot study in the Waterford area (Section 2.2.2.2). ver shrimp we re also common in the impingeoent traps set by Cauthron Decapod la r vae , probably river shrimp, were found in the zooplankton sam-ples taken near the "aterford site from May to September, with a peak in June.River shrimp larvae were abundant in the River Bend zooplankton sample g early June and increased in relative abundance through mid-August 2. 2. 2. 3. 4 Fish A listing of the fish species collected, and the number and weight of each species caught during each of the 3 years of sampling near the Waterford site is given in Tables 2.2-20 and 2.2-21. A summary of the numbers and {1 bicmass (weight) of common species and total fish collected each month per unit effort (per 48 hr gill net set, per 1 hr electrofinhing ef fort) is given in Tables 2.2-22 and 2.2-23. The number and weight of the dominant fish l1 and all fish captured per unit effort during each year, at each station utilized, are given in Tat les 2.2-24 and 2.2-25. l1 Sixty-one species of fish were collected during the 3 years of study at Waterford. The number of species represented in fish collections during Years I, II, and III was 45, 34, and 49, respectively. Dominant species (among the fiw most abundant in at least 2 out of 3 sample years) were the gizzard shad, threadfin shad, blue cat fish, freshwater drum and the striped mullet.These were similar to the dominant species collected during other studies of the lower Mississippi River. Table A2.4-7 in Appendix 2-4 presents t he number of fish caught per unit e f fo rt by month, by station, for each of the fi ve dominant species giwn abo ve . Seasonal trends in the abundance of gizzard shad, freshwater drum, and striped mullet were either nonexistent or were obscured by high month to month variability in the numbers of these species caught by gill netting and electroshocking (Table A2.4-7). During Years 1 and III, the number of the blue catfish caught by electro-shocking is higher during the fall and winter months than during the spring and summer (Table A2.4-7). This trend was consistent among all stations.The number of blue catfish caught by electrofishing was consis-tently low in all months in Year II, with the exception of November 1975. No such trend was observed in gill net catches. The number of threadfin shad caught by electroshocking appeared to decrease during the winter months, either due to decreasing ef fectiveness of the sampling gear at this time or to a decrease in the size of the local population. The low numbers of thread fin shad caught by gill netting through the year prohibited the confirmation of this observation by seasonal trends in gill net catches. n:7m.Aauabr 2.2-24 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER In Figure 2.2-2 the numbers of the fi ve most common species caught per unit e f fort of gill netting and electrofishing are plotted in relation to the da te of sampling. High month-to-month seriability in these numbers may obscure any seasonal or yearly trends in the abundance of these fishes. l1 The shocking and gill netting data in Ta51e 2.2-24 indicate that neither the blue cat fish nor threadfin shad show a preference for shoal (A Sta-tions) as opposed to channel areas (B Stations). The freshwater drum, gizzard shad, ar.d striped mullet, howe ver, appeared either to fa vor channel stations or to be more susceptible to sampling methods at these locations. On a per unit e f fo rt basis, highest numbers and weights of these fish are associated primarily with B Stations for Years I, II, and III . Table 2.2-25 indicates that the overall number of fish caught per unit l1 ef fort at Station B during Year II exceeded that for all stations during all years. The higEest weight of fish per unit effort was also observed at Station B ; howe ver , this occurred during Ycar III. The lowe st number of fish caugEt during any year occured at Station A during Year II, while the lowest weight was observed at Station B during Year I. In terms of the number of fish caught, channel stations yielded slightly higher catch per effort figures than did shoal stations during Year II, al-though no such trend was observed for Years I and III. In terms of the total weight of fish caught , channel stations exhibited slightly higher catch per unit effort figures than did shoal stations during Years I and II, although not in Year III. Control Stations ( A , B ) yielded a slightly higher catch per ef fort during Year III 1E terms of both the num-ber and the total weight of fish caught. No such trend was observed for Years I or II. Spatial and temporal trends in the abundance of common species are of in-terest in light of questions typically posed in an environmental assessment (i.e., What are the ef fects of plant operation?). The abovementioned obser-vations of dif ferences in the catch of fish at control stations (those not affected by thermal discharge) vs treatment stations (those af fected by thermal discharge) (see Section 6.1.1.2) or at channel vs shoal stations, and changes in these relationships between years were testyg2{ r statistical significance using Friedman's two-way analysis of variance Friedman's two-way analysis of seriance is a statistical test which analyzes the variability in observations between types of stations in relation to the seriability within a single type of station. For this, ranks were assigned f rom one through five to the five sampling stations according to the yearly average catch per unit effort for a given species at that station. Five such sets of ranks were assigned, one for each of the five ccamon species: blue cat fish, freshwater drum, gizzard shad, thread fin shad , and striped mullet. For the purpose of Friedman's analysis of variance, the fi ve species were considered independent trials and the stations were considered treatments. The hypothesis of no dif ference in yearly catch between stations ~was tested for Year I data and could not be re jected at any le vel greater than a = .40.(Under the hypothesis of no difference between stations, values as extreme as those observed could be expected, purely by chance, forty percent of the time.) The same test for Year III data yielded similar (l result s (Tables 2.2-26 and 2.2-27) . Again, the hypothesis of no difference between stations could not be re je c te d . In addition, the sums of ranks 2.2-25 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)bdb,20 WSES 3 ER produced by Year III data were r.early identical to those produced by Year I data.These results imply that no difference between stations existed, or at least differences, if they existed in the population, could not be detected from the samples taken. Thermal plume models (described in Appendix 5-1) for Waterford 1 and 2 suggest that sampling station A experienced pronounced post-operational thermal effects (i.e., temperature elevations) during Year ITI. Howe ve r , the fact that the sum of ranks (Friedman's test) for this station did not change any noticeable degree between Year I and III suggests that this station did not experience a change in the abundance of fish relative to other stations. The hypothesis of n f ference between Years I and III was examined using the sign test " Catch per unit e f fo rt for Year I was subtracted from that .for Year III at station A f r each of the five common species. Given t that no difference between Years I and III existed, t 'ie occurrence of plus and minus signs was equally likely. These signs did occur in approximately equal numbers, suggesting no difference in the abundance of coamon species between Years I and III; that is the hypothesis of no difference between Years I and III could not be re jected at any level of significance greater than a = 0.5. In summary, significant differences between stations within years could not be detected. The relationship between stations did not vary between Years I and III. Catch per unit effort at Station A was not found to vary significantly between Years I and III Ichthyoplankton During Year I (June, 1973-May, 1974), ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and lar-vae) we re separated from zooplankton samples, but were not identified. Thereafter, ichthyoplankton were sampled- in # 0 nets (see Section 6.1.1.2) and were identified to the family taxa le ve l. During Year II, ichthyoplankton were sampled in November 1974 and February, April,andAggust 1975. Highest densigies were encountered in November 1974 (.024/m ) and August 1975 (.027/m ), as shown in Table 2.2-28. l1 Dominant families repcesented in the ichthyoplankton samples collected dur-ing Year II, shown in Table 2.2-29, included Centrarchidae and Clupeids. l1 The Clupeids were probably gizzard and threadfin shad. During Year III, ichthyoplanki.on were sampled on a monthly basis from Octo-ber, 1975 through September, 1976, using the techniques described in Sec-tion 6.1.1.2. Additional ichthyoplankton samples were taken on one extra sampling day each month from June to August 1976 (June 8, July 7 and August 12, as shown in Table 2.2-28). Ichthyoplankton appeared in sampges only l 1 from March ghrough August, with peaks occurring in gpril (.026/m ) and Mgy(.021/m) (routine samples) and in June (.106/m ) and July (.017/ m ) ( e xt ra samples). Dominant classes h1 the routine samples consisted l1 of Cyprinidae and Centrarchidae, as shown in Table 2.2-29. Dominant clas-ses collected in the extra ichthyoplankton saeples are also given in Table 2.2-29 and consisted of Clupeidae and Sciaenic;ae. I1 Densities of ichthyoplankton by depth and by date are given in Table 2.2-30. l1 2.2-26 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)m c.-,m U d DKM), WSES 3 ER Spatial variation by station in total ichthyoplankt79,,goncentration was examined by Friedman's two-way analysis of variance " using Year III cb t a , since they were the most complete. A plot of the a verage density of ichthyoplankton (number per cubic meter) caught at each station on eight da t e s , shown in Figure 2.2-3, suggests the ,ssibility of such variation. For each date, ranks are assigned to each station according to the a verage ichthyoplankton concentration observed there (Table 2.2-31). These ranks l1 then summed, and an overall rank is assigned to each station. a re He shallower Stations A and A are ranked 1 and 5, respectively, and B Stations are ranked 2,c3, and 4. Af fected by thermal discharge, Stations A, B, and B ccupy ranks 1, 2, and 3, while the two controls rank

  • and 5.tlOn the basis of data presented in thu form, A stations t (shallower) and B stations (deeper) do not dif fer with respect to ichthyo-plankton concentration.

Stations af fected b; thermal discharge do appear to dif fer from control stations. The statistical significance of the bs e r va-tions was tested ring the Friedman's two-way analysis of variance The hypothesis of no dif fere ae between any of the five stations could not be re jected at any level of significance bel,w a = .40. Therefore, these data indicated no significant spatial difference.- in ichthyoplankton densities in the Mississippi in the Waterford vicinity. Similarly, a Friedman test of the data in Table 2.2-30 on average ichthyoplankton densities by doth revealed no significant differences. Table 2.2-32 y presents the results of the Friedman's test Thus it appeats that .ichthyoplankton are distributed fairly homogeneously in the Mississippi Ri ve r a t Water ford . In a study conducted near St Francis ville , Louisiana (10 species of , ichthyoplankton were found to be common in the Mississippi River mainstem. These included Dorosoma sp (March - July), Cyprinus carpio (April - June), Ilybopsis sp (May - August), Carpiodes carpio (May - August), Poxomis sp (April - June) and Aplodinotus grunniens (May - September). Carpiodes carpio, Aplodinotus grunniens and Hybopsis sp ichthyoplankton were found only in the mainstem. Approximate estimates of ichthyoplankton sities in the Mississippi in the vicinity of St Francis ville included

3 a)25-50 shad /100m of wager sampled in daylight tows (Aprigin July);less than 10 drum /100m from May - June; 20-30 drum /100m July and August. Maximum densities for total ichthyoplankton were encountered ig May, June and early July and usually ranged from 50 - 90/100 m in the main channel of the Mississippi.

b)Highest ichthyoplankton densities were encountered in the main channe ich tended to be t he a re as of greatest turbulence. Conner feels that this may ha ve been due to decreased ability of larvae to a void the sampling net in those more tu rbu le nt areas. c)Total ichthyoplankton densities seemed to be slightly lower in the Waterford area of the Mississippi than in t he ma in channel in the St Francis ville area. Ichthyoplankton collected during the Water-ford study were identi fied only to family while tt,se collected at St Francisville were identified to species. Howe ver , a comparison ry ~u d d e,n o. x s 2.2-27 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER of densities of families to corresponding species re veals lower densities in the Waterford area. These dif ferences are probably due to the presence of backwater areas in the St Francis ville area. These areas probably provide spawning habitat not a vaila b le in the Waterford area.2.2.2.4 Commercial, Sport and Endangered Species 2.2.2.4-1 Commercial Species Valuable commercial fish species in the lower Mississippi Riser include buffalo fish, freshwater cat fish, gar and fresnwater drum. The commercial catches from the Mississippi River from Baton Rouge to the mouth are shown in Table 2.2-33 (in both pounds and dollar values) for the pe g 1971 to 1 1975. This information, from the U.S. Department of Commerce shows , that freshwater cat fish had the highest dollar value of all of the commer-cial species, reaching a high of $401,903 in 1975. The only valuable commercial species which were common in the Waterford area were t he fresh-water cat fish and freshwater drum. Commercial catches of riwr shrimp in the lower Mississippi River from 1971 to 1975 are shown (Table 2.2-33) to haw ranged from 900 to 4,200 pounds l1 and to be valued from $297 to $2,940. 2.2.2.4.2 Sport Species Fish sought by sport fishe rmen in the River Bend area incluite blue cat fish, channel catfish, flathead sh, white bass, yellow bass, white crappie, sauger and freshwater drum Although all these specira are present in the Waterford area, the only ones that can be considered c~nmon (more than 200 collected during any sampling year during the Waterford 3 study) are blue cat fish and freshwater drum. Largemouth bass, another valued sport fish, was collected only occasionally during the Waterford 3 Environmental Su r veillance Program (Table 2.2-21). 2.2.2.4.3 Endangered Species None of the fish species actually found in the area sampled in the Water-ford study, or expected to be present in t he a rea , a r e included in the January 1979 Fish a ildlife Service's List of Endangered and Threatened l1 Wildlife and Plants There aro some species collected in the Waterford area which may be con-sidered rare, or whose number have been recently decreasing. These include the pallid sturgeon, shovelnose sturgeon and paddlefish. Their life his-tories a re included in the discussion in Appendix 2-3. Personal communica-tion with the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission has indica te d , howe ve r , that the sho velnose stu n and paddlefish are still relati vely common the State of Louisiana Of the species listed by Miller as threatened and/or rare in the State of Louisiana, only the brown bullhead, pallid sturgeon and suckermouth minnow were found in the Wa te r fo rd area. Howe ve r , as discussed below, the suckermouth minnow and brown bullhead do not appear to be endangered if their entire range and not just the State o f Louisiana is considered. Brown bullhead are ab le to 2.2-26 Amendment No. 1, (9/79).b eJ 0r*/o nYD r.cm WSES 3 ER withstand conditions of pollution, i.e., high CO , I w dissolved oxygen, 2 many toxic substances, etc. The reason they are considered rare i uisi-ana is probably that they have only recently been introduced there While suckermouth minnows were not encountered in the sampling programs of either the Waterford study, the River Eend s tudy, or the 1971 pilot study, the impingement study conducted at Waterre d 2 from February through July 1976, did recover one suckermouth minnow Because its" sedentary"gitat consists of rif fle areas and it is characterized as it , would not ha ve been expected to occur in the Waterford area. It is possi-ble that the specimen was washed downstream from another area. The suckermouth minnow is common in states other than Louisiana. Fo r e x-amp le , it occu rs throughout Kansas and is abundant in sg)al small tribu-taries of the Missouri River. Trautman (cited by Cross noted that the eastward weansion of the suckermouth minnows ' range in the Ohio River system correlated sith increased stream siltation and a decline of other ri f fle species which require firm rock bottoms and clear water. The habitat preference and life history of the pallid sturgeon are describ-ed in the life history discussions contained in Appendix 2-3. Miller algggpscrM th Mundace sWer and Munuose Mnnow as ra re in Louisiana and neither species was encountered in the studies near , Waterford 3. They were caught in the Mississippi River in the River Bend s tudy, howe ver, after the Mississippi by the spring floods of 1973gbably being washed into The blu. face shiner is rarely found in creeks with mud or sand bottoms, bluntnose minnow principally inhabit streams with rocky bottoms They would not be expected, the re f ore , to be found in the Waterford 3 area. 2.2.2.4.4 Ri ver Habitat Utilization in the Waterford Area From the description of the life histories of the fish species that occur in the Waterford area, contained in Appendix 2-3, it appea rs that most species spawn in shallow areas, sheltered areas, smaller ctreams, back-waters, areas of aquatic ve ge ta tion , or over gravel and sand bottoms. The only abundant (A), commercial (C), sport (S), or threatened (T) species that might spawn over the clay or mud substrate in t he wa te rs found in t he vicinity of the Waterford area are threadfin shad (A), possibly gizzard shad (A), possibly blue (A and C) and channel (C) catfish (though not likely), and freshwater drum (A and C) (although some vegetation may be necessary). The ichthyoplankton data gathered for the River Bend study and the Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Pro- am support these conclu-sions.Based on the length distribution of the abundant, commercial, sport or threatened fish species collected in the Waterford area, given in Table 2.2-34 and Figure A2.2.2-1, it would appear that blue ca t fish, fre s hwa te r 1 drum, gizzard shad and threadfin shad ju ven iles utilize t he a rea as a nursery area during specific times of the year. [j[yf2,'j,1 Life history information on sport, commercial, abundant or threatened species in the Waterford area suggests that some species may undertake 2.2-29 Amendment no. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER spring or sumaer migrations through the Waterford area. These include lo ng-nose gar (C), gizzard shad (A), bigmouth buf falo (C), channel cat fish (C) and striped mullet (A). Actual data collected in the Waterford area indicated, howe ve r , that longnose gar and bigmouth buf falo do not pass through the area in sizable numbers. Comparison of other studies of fishery resources in the lower Mississippi River (which are described in Section 2.2.2.2) with the Waterford study, in addition to consideration of life histories of fish collected in the area, suggests that the Mississippi River in the Waterford area is not a unique fish habitat. In fact , it appears to be especially unsuitable as a spawning area for most species. 2.2.2.5 Community Interactions 2.2.2.5.1 Preexisting Environmental Stressea De information presented above shows that the Mississippi River supports a viable aquatic community, including numerous commercial finfish. Howe ve r , its biological resources are limited when compared to other riverine envi-ronments.The populations of aquatic organisms in the lower Mississippi River appear to be limited mainly by hea vy river traffic, high turbidity, chemical pol-lutants, high concentrations of total suspended solids, high current ve lo-cities, and fluctuating water levels. The high turbidities (49-625 JTU during the Waterford study as given in Section 2.4), can restrict phytoplankton and periphyton growth due to light limit a t ion . Productivity of the phytoplankton is further limited by the high turbulence and mixing in the Mississippi, which may prevent phyto-pla nkt on from remaining in the euphotic zone for sufficient lengths of time.High concentrations of suspended solids (reaching values as high as 345 ppm in the Waterford study) and high current wlocities (2.78 to 7.01 fps in the April 1973 to September 1976 study period) result in scouring of fish eggs and larvae (in nests or attached to submerged ob jects), scouring of benthic and periphyton communities, clogging of fish gills and the filter-feeding mechanisms of invertebrates, and shif ting bottom sediments. Resultant sedime nt deposition in areas with slower currents smothers fish eggs and larvae as well as benthic organisms (both fauna and flora), fu r - ther limiting their composition and density. The variation of the flow regime in the lower Mississippi River appears to make it a difficult habitat for fish.(The total discharge during the Waterford Environmental Surveillance Program is gi ven in Table 2.2-35, ex-l1 cluding those valu es reached during the spring 1973 flood, showing that flows ranged from 222,000 to 1,086,000 cfs.) For certain species, high water fa vo rs spawning, and breeding fails in its absence; howe ve r , if water le vels are too high, "much oviposition occ n flooded land away from the river bed, and young fish become stranded" Howe ve r , this probably would not occur in the Waterford area, since the lesee system results in a relatively steep shoreline. h water a f ter spawning may lead to the dis-pla ce ment of e88s and larvae p rq.J amu)2.2-30 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Other stresses placed on the aquatic organisms in this reach of the Missi-ssippi include: a)Low le vels of dissolved oxygen in the warmer months (D 0 dropped to 4 ppm in the summer of 1973) b)Low pH; dropped to 4.0 in May 1976 (most of the wastes discharged to the Miggjysippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans are acidic)c)High mercury levels (reached 2.9 pbb in April,1974) d)High cadmium le vels (reached 20 ppb in August , 1973) The Year III study, however, did indicate some amelioration of these condi-tions.The average yearly concentration of iron dropped from 0.26 ppm for Year I to 0.06 ppm for Year III; cadmium le vels dropped from a yearly mean of 5.1 ppb (Year I) to 3.5 ppb (Year II) to less than 1.0 ppb in Year III; mercury le vels dropped to less than 0.3 ppb (Year III) from 0.61 ppb (Year I); dissolved oxygen levels never fell below 5.5 ppm during Year III. According to a 1969-g 71 Environmental Protection Agency study of the lower Mississippi River sixty industrial plants between St Francis ville , , La. and Venice, La. discharged wastes containing high quantities of heavy metals and organics into the river. Pollutants discharged included lead, copper, zinc, cadmium, chromium, arsenic, mercury, cyanide, phenols, and solids.At the time the EPA report was completed, " substantial improvemenk3b3, ^ quality of the waste discharges" was expected for the near future Howe ve r , as indicated by the Waterford study, concentrations of at least two of these substances, cadmium and mercury, in 1973 and l for freshwater organisms {}g)were still in excess of those considered safe According to cyggjusions reached by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration endrin, a pesticide, was responsible for extensive , fish kills in the lower Mississippi River from 1963-1964. At the time the FWPCA report was written in 1969, endrin levels in the lower Mississippi River had dropped to concantrations which were not harmful ty f sh. The concentrations were expected to remain at these lower le vels During the 1973 to 1976 Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, pe s ticide le vels were found to be below detectable le vels. 2.2.2.5.2 Trophic Relationships As a result of its unstable substrates, high turbidity values , high concer-trations of suspended solids, high current ve loc it ie s , and industrial dis-charges along its banks (as described in Section 2.2.2.5.1), the lower Mississippi River mainstem would not be expected to be a " productive" area. The Waterford studies seem to support the prediction of low productivity for ce rtain biotic communities in t he area. The three year study conducted in the vicinity of Waterford has indicated extremely low concentrations of phytoplankton and attached algae, low zooplankton censities, and an absence of macrophytes. The dominant be nthic in vertebrates collected,j f.q.,h .uoQCt 2.2-31 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Corbicula and oligochaetes, are prey for fish and also play a role in processing organic matter. Ilowe ver , their numbers are so low as to make their contribution minimal. River shrimp (Macrobrachium ohione), however, is probably an important forage species. Although its feeding habits are knowncg tely, river shrimp are belie ved to be primarily not ca rni vorous A sto contents analysis of fish captured during the River Bend study indicated that benthic invertebrates such as burrowing mayfly la r va e , diptera larvae, and molluscs play a role as fish food items. It is expected that oligochaetes also serve as food for certain fish species. In addition to being prey for fish species (acting as a link between detrital level and higher tropic levels), benthic macroinvertebrates are also impor-tant in flowing water ecosystems because of their role in essing organ-ic material, i.e.they aid in the degradation of detritus Aquatic oligochaetes, which were the dominant benthic fauna collected in the Water-ford samples, feed on bottom mud and mix it "much a rthworms effectively mix the surface layers of gardens and meadow soils" Ilowe ve r , as in- .dicated in Section 2.2.2, benthic invertebrate densities are quite low in the Waterford area, and their contribution to the productiv r: of the i Waterford area is probably limited. 'Ih e fish population, in general, has been limited to few if any specialized feedegdue to the highly dynamic environment of the Mississippi Ri ve r Most of the important fish species found in the Waterford area, including blue cat fish, channel cat fish, and gizzard shad, feed on organic de t ritus, as well as on plankton and insect larvae and Corbicula. Gi d shad, in tu rn , is an important forage species while they are small The habitats , spawning areas, migration routes, and .food of fish species found in the Mississippi near Waterford 3 are summar-ized in Table 2.2-36. Given the low densities of the other components of the ecosystem (phyto-plankton, zooplankton, benthic invertebrates), it is logical to assume that organic detritus, probably allocthonous, plays a significant role in the trophic relationships of the lower Mississippi River ecosyst Stream ecosystems, in general, uaually rely on allochthoncus production , YSN[f 9 2.2-32 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER REFERENCES 1.Penfound, W T and E S lbthwat." Plant Communities in the Marshlands o f Southeaste rn Louisiana. " Ecol. Mono. 8:1-56. 1938.2.G H Lowery, Jr. Louisiana Birds. Louisiana State Uni versity Press. 1974.3.Penfound, W T." Southern Swamps and Marshes." The Botanical Review 18 (6): 413-446.1952.4.U S Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District." Final Supple-me nt to Final Environmental Statement, Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black Louisiana." 1976. 5.Butler, Murrell."The Bald Eagle." Louisiana Conservationist. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. No v-Dec 1976. Vol 28, Nos . 11 and 12. 1976.6.U S Department of the Interior." Reclassification of the American Alligator to Threatened Status in Certain Parts of its Range, ' Federal Register 42(6): 2071-2077. 1977.7.Personal Communication. Louisiana Air Control Commission, Louisiana Health and Human Resources Administration. March 15, 1977. 8.US Atomic Energy Commission." Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. Missis-sippi Power and Light Company." Docket Nos. 50-416, 50-417. August, 1973.9.Conner, J V and C F Bryan."Re view and Discussion of Biological In ves t iga tions in the Lower Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers." Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the S E Association of Game and Fish Commissions. 1974. 10.US Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. Endrin Pollution in the Lower Mississippi River Basin, South Central Region, Dallas, Te xa s . J une , 1969. 11.Bryan, C F, J V Conner, and D J DeMont."Second Cumulative Summary of An Ecological Study of the Lower Mississippi River and Waters of the Gulf States Property Near St Francis ville , Louisiana." 1973. 12 .Cauthron, F F. A Survey of Invertebrate Forms of the Mississippi River in the Vicinity of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. M S Thesis, Louisiana State Uni versity. 1961.13.US Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Mississippi River and Tributaries-Mississippi Ri ver Le vees and Channel Impro vement . Vicksburg, Ms. 1976. 14 .US Atomic Energy Commission. FES Related to Construction of River Bend Nuclear Power Station Units 1 6 2. Culf States Utilities Je)Dra>M')) p.-<.c g 2.2-33 WSES 3 ER Company.Docket Nos. 50-438 and 50-459. 1974. 15.Gunter, G." Notes on Invasion af Freshwater by Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico with Special Reference to the Mississippi - Atchafalaya Ri ve r System" . Copeia (2): 69-72. 1938. 16 .Personal Communication, Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District Office. 17 .Hynes, H B N. The Ecology of Running Waters. University of Toronto Press. 1972. 18 .Re id , G K. Ecology of Inland Waters and Estuaries. Van Nostrand Rheinhold Company. 1961. 19 .Watson, HHF." Zooplankton of the St Lawrence Great Lakes - Species Composition, Distribution and Abundance." Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 31 (5):783-794 May, 1974. 20.Pennak, R W. Fresh Water Invertebrates of the United States. The Ronald Press Company, New York. 1953.21.Likens, G E and J J Gilbert." Notes on Quantitatise Sampling of Natural Populations of Planktonic Rotifers." Limnology and Oceanography 15(5): 817-820. 1970.22.Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1956. 23.Espey, Huston and Associates, Inc. Quarterly Data Reports - Waterford Environmental Studies. 1976 - 1977. 24.Conner , J V." Observations on the Ichthyoplankton of the Lower Mississippi River". ASB Bulletin 23 (2). April, 197o. 25.Conner, J V, Personal Communication, 1977. 26.Personal Communication, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. 1976.27.US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. " Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants". Federal Register, Volume 44, (12). January 17, 1979. 28 .Personal Communication, Chief, Division of Fish, Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, July 7, 1977. 29 .Miller, R R." Threatened Freshwater Fishes of the US." Trans Am Fish Soc . 101, (2). 1972.30.Dou gla s , N. Freshwater Fishes of Louisiana. Claitor's Pub Co, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 1974.31.Cross, F.Handbook of Fishes of Kansas. University of Kansas Museum OhbbO 2.2-34 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2-11

  • RANK OF AVERAGE ZOOPLANKTON DENSITIES, BY STATION BY DATE COLLECTED IN Tile VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 St at ion Ra ak Year /Date Ac At Bc Bc Btl I June 8, 1973 4 1 2 3 5 July 17, 1973 2 3 1 5 4 Augast 22, 1973 1 3 2 5 4 September 28, 1973 1 2 4 5 3 October 25, 1973 2 1 5 4 3 November 30, 1973 1 5 3 2 4 December 19, 1973 3 2 5 1 4 February 13, 1974 5 3 2 4 1 March 27, 1974 3 4 1 5 2 April 20, 1974 4 1 c 3 5 April 23, 1974 2 4 5 3 1!!ay 17, 19/4 5 2 1 4 3 II June 4, 1974 5 4 2 3 1 June 24, 1974 3 4 5 2 1 August 22, 1974 2 4 3 5 1 1 November 13, 1974 1 3 2 5 4 February 26, 1975 4 1 2 3 5 April 23, 1975 1 4 2 5 3 August 8, 1975 2 1 3 5 4 III October 30, 1975 3 2 5 4 1 Noveaber 20, 1975 3 5 2 1 4 December 22, 1975 2 4 3 1 5 January 30, 1976 3 5 2 4 1 February 26, 1976 1 5 2 4 3!! arch 25, 1976 3 2 4 5 1 April 29, 1976 1 4 3 2 5 May 27, 19/6 1 5 4 2 3 June 24, 1976 1 3 5 2 4 July 29, 1976 2 1 4 5 3 September 10, 1976 3 1 5 4 2 September 26, 1976 2 1 4 3 5 Sua of Ranks 76 90 95 109 95 Sum of Ranks Squared 5776 8100 9025 11881 9025 X=7 Fail to Reject if.e., stations wetM not significantly different with 0 respect to the number of zooplankters per cubic meter.
  • Stations were ranked by date, according to the average number of zoo-

@'plankton per cubic meter. Source: Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. !!cCraw-Hill Book Company Inc., 1956. r; re 3 u s1 G i... Je .Anendnent No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2-12 RANK OF AVERACE ZL) PLANKTON DENSITIES, BY DEPTH BY DATE COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 DEPTH-Year /Date Botton Middle Surface 1 June 8, 1973 1 2 3 September 28, 1973 3 2 1 October 25, 1973 2 1 3 November 30, 1973 3 2 1 December 19, 1973 1 2 3 February 13, 1974 1 2 3 March 27, 1974 1 2 3 April 20, 19/4 2 3 1 April 23, 1974 1 2 3 May 17, 1914 3 1 2 II June 4, 1974 1 2 3 June 24, 1974 2 1 3 August 22, 1974 3 1 2 Novenber 13, 1974 3 1 2 February 26, 1975 1 2 3 April 23, 1975 3 1 2 August 8, 1975 3 2 1 1 III October 30, 1975 2 1 3 November 20, 1975 3 1 2 December 22, 1975 3 1 2 January 30, 1976 1 2 3 February 26, 1976 2 1 3 March 25, 1976 3 1 2 April 29, 1976 2 3 1:tay 27, 1976 2 3 1 June 24, 1976 2 3 1 July 29, 1976 2 3 1 September 10, 1976 3 2 1 September 26, 1916 2 3 1 Sum of Ranks 61 53 60 Sum of Ranks Squared 3721 2809 3600 X2 , g,49 r 0 I***.depths were not significantly different with Fall to Reject 11 respect to the number of zooplankton per cubic meter.

  • Depths were ranked by date, according to the average number of zooplankton per cubic meter (ties were averaged).

Source: Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. !!cGraw-!!ill Book Company Inc., 1956. gcyg u d Du ., x Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER 1 TABLE 2.2-13 MACR 0 AND MICR0 BENTHIC ORGANISMS COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 197_6 (Sheet 1 of 4) PROT 0ZOA Order - Foraminiferida COLLENTERATA Class - Hydrozoa Order - Hydroida Family - Hydridae Hydre sp.P LATYHELMli:Th6S Class - Turbellaria Order - Tricladia Family - Planariidae Dugesia trigena Order - Rhabdocoela Family - Catenulidae Stenostomum sp N EMA TODA ANNELIDA Class - Oligochaeta (Clitellata) Order - Plesiopora Family - Naididae Fanily - Enchytraeidae Fanily - Tubificidae Branchiura sowerbyi Class - Hirundinea {;jgeg Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2-13 (Cont'd) 1 MACR 0 AND MICR0 BENTHIC ORGANISMS COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 2 of 4) Order - Pharyngobdellida Family - Erpobdellidae Erpobdella punctata MOLLUSCA Class - Gastropoda Order - Ctenobranchiata Family - Viviparidae Viviparus intertextus Family - Amnicolidae Amnicola sp. Family - Pleuroceridae Goniobasis sp. Pleurocera sp. Order - Pulmonata Family - Physidae Pnysa sp.Family - Planorbidae Parapholyx sp. Gyraulus sp. Family - Lymnaeidae Limnaea sp. Class - Pelecypdoda {}[j[ ,$3[3[). j Order - Herterodonta Family - Corbiculidae Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2-13 (Cont'd) l1 MACR 0 AND MICR0 BENTHIC ORGANISMS COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 3 of 4) Corbicula sp. Corbicula manillensis Family - Sphaeriidae Musculium sp. Pisidium sp. ARTHROPODA Class - Arachnida Class - Crustacea Subclass - Malacostraca Order - Isopoda Order - Amphipoda Gammarus sp. Order - Decapoda Family - Palaemonidae Subclass - Copepoda Class - Insecta e_coskeleton larvae Order - Hymenoptera Order - Ephemeroptera Order - Odonata Suborder - Anisoptera Order - Coleoptera r; - -S t-u G Donn)~a

-Order - Hemiptera Amendment No. 1 (9/79)

WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2-13 (Cont'd) l1 MACR 0 AND MICR0 BENTHIC ORGANISMS COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 FROM JUNE 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 4 of 4) Family - Corixidae Order - Trichoptera Order - Diptera adult larvae Family - Chironomidae Family - Culicidae Order - Dermaptera Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, explained in Section 6.1.1.2. bbb1M]Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2-14 1 DENSITY

  • OF BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED BY SHIPEK SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 BEFORE START-UP OF WATERFORD 1 AND 2 (Sheet 1 of 4)

STATION , Ac At Bc Bt Bt1 DATE YEAR I 73 JUN 08.II)350.00...73 JUL 1 1 ** 100.00 25.00 12.50 25.00.73 JUL 29 140.00....,, 7 3 AUG 22 ** .00 -29.17 37.50 4.17 4.17 73 SEP 29 12.50 15.00 55.00 62.50 31.25 73 OCT 2 7 ** 20.83 16.67 8.33.00 8.33 73 NOV 29 66.67 29.17 16.67 4.17.73 DEC 21 25.00 105.00 33.33 8.33 8.33 74 JAN 21.00 79.17.00 183.33.00 74 FEB 14. 00.00. 00. 00.00 74 MAR 26 4.17.00.00 8.33 4.17 74 APR 24 25.00 1 5. 00.00..YEAR II 74 JUN 26.00 500.00 25.00 4.17 35.00 74 AUC 20 2 5. 00. 00 37.50 58.33 4!6.67 74 NOV 13** 16.67 29.17 29.17.00.00 75 FEB 27 20.83 50.00 1258.33 91.67 191.6: 75 APR 22 12.50 79.17 937.50 116.67 179.17 AVERAGE *** 21.73 65.50 175.99 52.12 60.53 Density expressed in terms of number /m

      • Samples taken over more than one date Density excluded adult and terrestrial insects, exoskeletons, and
      • sheil fragments (1)= no sample collected

.(2).00 = no organisms in sample Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, explained in Section 6.1.1.2 p , ,,,,y.]U D A.n J) Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2-14 1 DENSITY

  • OF BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED BY SHIPEK SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 BEFORE START-UP OF WATERFORD 1 AND 2 (Sheet 2 of 4)

DIPTERA *** STATION Ac At Bc Bt Btl DATE 73 JUL 11** .00(I).00 6.25.00.73 JUL 29 (2)5.00....73 SEP 29 6.25 5.00 5.00 4.17 25.00 73 OCT 2 7** 8.33 4.17 4.17.00.00 73 NOV 29 16.67.00.00.00.73 DEC 21. 00 5. 00 4.17.00.00 74 JAN 21.00 4.17.00 8.33.00 74 APR 24 12.50.00.00..74 JUN 26.00.00.00 4.17.00 75 FEB 27.00. 00 4.17 25.00 4.17 75 APR 22.00.00.00 8.33.00 AVERAGE 2.23 2.06 1.48 4.23 1.94 Density expressed in terms of number /m

      • Samples taken over more than one date
      • Only dates with organisms collected are listed.

For all dates sampled see Sheet 1 of this Table. (1) 00 = no organisms in sample (2)no sample collected =.Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, explained in Section 6.1.1.2 35S237 Amendment No. I (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2-14 1 ( Sheet 3 of 4) DENSITY

  • OF BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED BY SHIPEK SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 BtFURt. b'1 ARL-UP OF WA'1ERFURD 1 AND Z OLICOCHAETES***

STATION Ac At Bc Bt Btl DATE 73 JUN 08.II}350.00...I2'73 J UL 11 **

50. 00 16.67.00.00.73 JUL 29 85.00....73 SEP 29.00 5.00.00 12.50.00 73 OCT 27**

.00 12.50.00.00.00 73 NOV 29 33.33. 00 4.17.00.73 DEC 21.00 90.00 4.17 8.33 8.33 74 J AN 21. 00 75.00.00 175.00.00 74 MAR 26.00.00.00 4.17.00 74 JUN 26. 00 475.00 25.00.00 30.00 74 AUG 20** 16.67.00 33.33 54.17 391.67 74 NOV 13 12.50 29.17.00.00.00 7) FEB 27 16.67 45.83 1120.83 50.00 187.50 75 APR 22 12.50 79. 17 929.17 104.17 175.00 AVERAGE 10.12 55.22 154.17 37.95 52.83 Density expressed in terms of number /m

      • Samples taken over more than one date
      • Only dates with organisms collected are listed.

For all dates sampled , see Sheet 1 of this Table. (1)= no sample collected .(2) .00 = no organisms in sample Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, ex pl ain ed in Section 6.1.1.2 S5SZSS Amendment No. t (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2-14 i ( Shee t 4 of 4) DENSITY

  • OF BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED BY SHIPEK SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 BEFORE START-UP OF WATERFORD 1 AND 2 CORBICULIDAE***

STATION Ac At Bc Bt Btl DATE 73 JUL 29.lI)40.00...73 SEP 29.00(2).00 25.00 20.83 6.25 73 OCT 27** 4.17.00.00.00.00 73 NOV 29 4.17 8.33 4.17 4.17.73 DEC 21.00.00 4.17.00.00 74 MAR 26.00.00. 00 4. 17.00 74 NOV 13.00.00 16.67.00.00 75 FEB 27.00.00 116.67.00.00 75 APR 22.00.00.00.00 4.17 AVERACE 0.60 0.56 10.42 5.00 0.97 EPHEMEROPTERA*** STATION Ac At Bc Bt Btl DATE 7 3 AUG 22 **. 00 29.17 2 5. 00 4.17.00 73 SEP 29.00.00 15.00.00.00 AVERAGE O 1.94 2.50 0.32 0 Density expres. sed in terms of number /m

      • Samples taken over more than one date Only dates and stations with organisms collected are listed.

For all***dates and stations s am pl ed , see Sheet I of this Table. (1)= no sample collected .(2) .00 = no organisms in sample Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, ex pl ained in Section 6.1.1.2.S*[$b2bb Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER 1 TABLE 2.Z-15 AVERACE DE::SITIES ('} OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES BY DATE IN SNfPLES COLLECTED BY SHIPEK SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATEkf0RD 3 BENTHIC GROUP DATE CORBICULIDAE DIPTERA EPHEMEROPTERA OLICOCilAETES OTHER(d)TOTAL 73 JUN 08((b) YEAP I.00.00.00 350.00.00 350.00 73 JUL 11 b,c) .00 1.56.00 16.67 20.31 38.54 73 JUL 29(b) 40.00 5.00.00 85.00 10.00 140.00 73 AUG 22(C} .00.00 11.67.00 3.33 15.00 73 SEP 29 10.42 9.08 3.00 3.50 6.33 32.33 73 OCT 29(b). 83 3.33.00 2.50 2.50 9.17.73 NOV 29 5.21 4.17.00 9.37 8.33 27.08 73 DEC 21(b) .83 1. 83.00 22.17 10.17 35.00 74 JAN 21.00 2.50.00 50.00.00 52.50 74 FEB 14.00.00.00.00.00.00 74 MAR 26(b) .83.00.00.83.00 1.67 74 APR 24.00 4.17.00.00 1. 39 5.56 YEAR 11 74 JUN 26(c) .00.83.00 106.00 6.00 112.83 74 AUG 20.00.00.00 99.17 5.83 105.00 74 Nov 13 3.33.00.00 8.33 2.50 14.17 75 FEB 27 23.33 6.67.00 284.17 5.83 320.00 75 APR 22.83 1. t> 7.00 260.00 1.67 264.17 75 AUC 07.00 3.33.00 55.83.00 59.17 YEAR III 75 OCT ?d C) 79.17 8.33.00 75.00.83 163.33 (O C CD-O C'2 g (a)Densities expressed in terms of number /m (b)At least one sample taken on these dates was not verifiable (see Sections 6.1.1.2 and 2.2.2).(c)Samples taken on more than one date (d)Other excluded adult and terrestrial insects, exoskeletons and shell fragmenta i a y-Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, explained in Section 6.1.1.2 @.e.@C* WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2-16 (Sheet 1 of 2) DENSITIES

  • OF BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES IN SAMPLES COLLECTED BY SHIPEK SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 AFTER START-UP OF WATERFORD 1 AND 2 TOTALS ***

STATION DATE Ac At Bc Bt Btl 75 AUG 07.00.00 70.83 216.67 8.33 75 0CT 28** 25.00 62.50 220.83 237.50 275.00 OLIGOCHAETES* STATION DATE Ac At Bc Bt Btl OLIGOCHAETES 75 AUG 07.00.00 70.83 200.00 8.33 75 OCT 28** 12.50 41.67.00 45.83 275.00 CORBICULIDAE+ STATION DATE Ac At Bc Bt CORBICULIDAE 75 OCT 28** 4.17 8.33 208.33 175.00* Density expressed in terms of number /m

  • S am p l e s taken on more than one date
      • Tatal excluded terrestrial and adult insects, exoskeletons, and shell fragments.
  • Only dates and stations where organisms were collected are listed, however, " TOTALS" includes all dates and stations sampled.

Amendment No. 1 (9/79) 58301 WSES 3 ER I TABLE 2. 2- 16 (Sheet 2 of 2) DENSITIES

  • OF BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES IN SAMPLES COLLECTED BY SHIPEK SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 AFTER START-UP OF WATERFORD 1 AND 2
  1. DIPTERA LARVAE STATION DATE Ac At Bc Bt DIPTERA 75 AUG 07.00.00.00 16.67 75 OCT 28**

8.33 8.33 12.50 12.50* Density expressed in terms of number /m

    • Samples taken on more than one date.
      • Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, explained in Section 6.1.1.2
  • Only dates and Stations where organisms were collected are listed, however " TOTALS" (given on Sheet 1) includes all dates and stations sampled.3:_iSUOF, Amendment ho. 1 (9/79)

L's ES 3 EPl1 table 2.2-17 AVERACF DENSITIFS OF BENTHIC MICROINVERTEBRATFS BY DATE IN SAMPLES COLLECTED BY SHIPEK SAMPLEk IN THL VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 BENTHIC CROUP DATE CORBICULIDAC DIPTERA EPHEMEROPTtFA INZECTA-0THER OLIGOCHAETES OTHF R( d ) TOTAL YEAR I 73 JPN 08.00*.00.00.00.00.00.00#73 JUL 11 54.17. 60. 00. 00 4.17. 00 58.33 73 JUL 29 16.67 12.50.00 2.08 18.75 14.58 64.58 73 AUG 22(C' .8)8.50 1 5. 00 6.33 6.67 13.33 50.57 73 SEP 29.00.00.00 8.33.00.00 8.33 C 73 OCT 27 00 3.33. 00. 00 23.33 1.67 28.33 73 NOV 29.00 3.00.00.00 42.00 7.00 52.00 73 DEC 21.00 4.83.00. 00 8.17 1. 00 14.00 74 JAN 21.00 7.50.00.00 27.50.00 35.00 74 FEB 14. 00.00.00.00 1.67. 00 1.67 74 MAR 26.00.00.00 2.50.00.00 2.50 74 APR 24.00.00. 00.00. 00 3.13 3.13 YEAR II 74 JUN 26.00 4.17.00.00 4.17.00 8.33 YEAR III 75 OCT 28 ' 7.50. 00. 00. 00 17.50 2.50 27.50 76 J AN 28 .00.00.00.00.00.00.00 C'76 APR 27 2.50.00.00. 00 7.50.00 10.00 76 JUL 27.00.00.00.00 117.50 2.50 120.00 LO Qi CD C:.~~~-)W E h (a) Density expressed in terms of number /m 2 g (b) Those invertebrates collected in a #80 sieve (see Section 6.1.1.2)(c) Samples collected on more than one date " (d) Excludes adult and terrestrial insects, exoskeletons, a nd shell fragments

  • .00 = No organisms in sample.
G Source of data
  • Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, explained in Section 6.1.1.2 WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2-18 l1 (a)AVERAGE DENSITIES OF BENTHIC HACR0 INVERTEBRATES BY DATE IN SAMPLES COLLECTED BY SMITH-MCINTYRE SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 BENTHIC GROUP DATE CORBICULIDAE DIPTERA OLICOCHAETES OTHER(c)

TOTAL_74 AUG 20(b) .00*.00 603.33 16.67 62.000 74 NOV 13.00.00.67 2.00 2.67 75 APR 22.00 1.00 340.67.33 342.00.33.00 41.00 1.00 42.33 75 AUC 07(D) 75 OCT 28 66.00 8.33 9.33 3.00 86.67 (a) Density expressed in terms of number /m (b) Samples taken on more than one date (c) Excluding adult and terrestrial insects, exoskeletons and shell f ragments

  • .00 = no organisms in sample Source of data:

Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, explained in Section 6.1.1.2 Amendment No. 1 (9/79) -.,os n b)DU%) g.t u WSES 3 ER 1 TABLE 2.2-19 FRIEDMAN'S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H, ) " of EQUAL OLICOCHAETE CONCENTRATIONS AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS ALL DATA*Station Year I Ac A t_Bc Bt Bt y Aug 22, 1973 3 3 3 3 3 Sept 29, 1973 2 4 2 5 2 1 Oct 27, 1973 2.5 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Dec 21, 1973 1 5 2 3.5 3.5.Jan 21, 1974 2 4 2 5 2ll Feb 14, 1974 3 3 3 3 3 March 26, 1974 2.5 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 Sum of Ranks 16 26.5 17 27 18 .5 Sum of Ranks 256 702.25 289 729 342.25 Squared i X = 6.15 r Fail to Reject H : 1.e., stations were not significantly different with g respect to the number of oligochaete per sq. meter.

  • Stations were ranked bf date, according to the average number oligochaete per square meter (ties were averaged).

Source: Siegel S.:ionparametric Statistics For the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc. 1956.[3Ub335 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2-20 1 SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 APRIL 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMtER 1976 (Sheet 1 of 4) Osteichtyes Ac ipe n se r i fo rme s Acipenseridae Scaphirhynchus albus (Pallid Sturgeon) Scaphithynchus platorynchus (Shovenlose Sturgeon) Polyodonitidae Polyodon spathula (Paddlefish) Semionot i fo rme s Le pisos te idae Lepisosteus oculatus (Spotted Gar) Lepisosteus osseus (Longnose Gar) Lepisosteu- platostomus (Shortnose Gar) Lepisosteus spatula (Alligator Gar) Amii fo rme s Amiidae Amia calva (Bowfin) Elop i f o rme s Elopidae (Lady Fish) Elops saurus Anguilli fo rme s Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata (American Eel) Clu pe i fo rme s Clupeidae Alosa chysochloris (Skipjack Herring) Brevoortia patronus (Gulf Menhaden) i<f<r c q # .'# '# ' " Dorosoma cepedianum (Gizzard Shad) Uo~rosoma petenense (Threadfin Shad) Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2- 20 i SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 APRIL 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 2 of 4) Engraulidae Anchoa mitchilli (Bay Anchovy) Os t eoglos s i f o rme s Hiodontidae HioJon alosoides (Goldeye) HioJon tergisus (Mooneye) Cy pr i n i f o rme s Cy pr i n id ae Cyprinus carpio (Carp) Hybognathus nuchalis (Silvery Minnow) Hybopsis aestivalis (Speckled Chub) Hybopsis amblops (Bigeye Chub) Hybopsi s storeriana (Silver Chub) Notemigonus crysoleucas (Golden Shiner) Notropis atherinoides (Emerald Shiner) Notropis blennius (River Shiner) Notropis eciliae ( Pugnose M'.nnnw) Notropis fumeus (Ribbon Shiner) Notropis shumardi (Silverband Shiner) Notropis venustus (Blacktail Shiner) Pimephales vigilax (Bullhead Minnow) Catostomidae Carpiodes carpio (River Carpsucker) Carpiedes cyprinus (Quillback) Ictiobus bubalus (Smallmouth Euffalo) Ictiobus cyprinellus (Bigmouth Buf f alo) Siluriformes letaluridae , Ictalurus turcatus (Blue Catfish) Ict alurus melas (Black Bullhead) Ic talurus natali s (Yellow Bullhead) Ictalurus Itebulosus (Brown Bullhead) Ictaturus punctatus (Channel Catfish) , , , , , Pylodictis olivarts (Flathead Catfish)(f.jgyg; y 4 Atherinitormes Amendment No. l (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2. 2- 20 1 SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 APRIL 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 3 of 4) Poeciliidae Cambusia affinis (Mosquito Fish) Atherinidae Menidia audens (Mississippi Silverside) Pe rc i fo r:ue s Percichthyidae Morone chrysops (White Bass) Morone mississippiensis (Yellow Bas Morone saxatilis (Striped Bass) Centrarchidae Elassoma ranatum (Bandea Pygmy Sunfish) ~-Lepomis cyanellus (Greet- Sunfish) Lepomis gulosus (Warmo <b) Lepomis macrochiru- . Bit < >;ill) .Lepomis megalotis (Longear Sunfish) Lepomis microlophus (Redear Sunfish) Micropterus punctulatus (Spotted Bass) ~Micropterus salmoides [Largemouth Bass) Pomoxts annularis (White Crappie) i Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Black Crappie) Pe rc id ae Percina sciera (Dusky Darter) Stizostedion canadense (Sauger) Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens (Freshwater Drum) Mugilidae Mugil cephalus (Striped Mullet) Pleuronec t i fo rme s <3 S'3(33 Lothidae cU Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2- 20 1 SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 APRIL 1973 TilROUGil SEPTEMBER 1976 (Sheet 4 of 4) Paralichthys lethostigma (Southern Flounder) Soleidae Trinectes maculatus .3bhEN.$UO Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER I T A B LE 2. 2- 21 IOIAL SLAbERS AND mEIG:iTS OF FIsd LOLLECTED En Aii GEARE DURING YEARS I, II, AND III, IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFt'RD 3 (Sheet 1 of 2) YEAR YEAR YEAR I 11 Ill COrin0N NM1E N UM B E R WEIGHT *N UM B E R WEIGHT NUM BER HEIGHT ALLIGATOR CAR 2 856.1 0.2 3,706.2 AMERIC AN EEL 7 3,444.3 2 276.3 2 363.3 .bat ANCHOVY I 2.5 0 133 301.4 blGEYE CHUB 3 3.7 0 0 blGnOUTH BUFFALO 5 2,755.2 7 3,415.0 1 1,866.0 BLACK BOLLHEAD 1 33.8 6 552.4 0 BLACK CRAPPIE 10 871.6 6 763.3 12 2,324.2 blACKTAIL SHINEN O.O I.6 BLUE CAIFISH 553 66,320.4 76 20,708.1 1451 142,947.8 BLUEGILL 40 1,305.4 20 1,045.7 42 1,024.8 BOWFIN 1 1,918.0 0 0..B h D= h BULLHEAD 5 2,202.8 0.0.BULLHEAD hlNNOW I 3.4 0.I 1.7 LAkP 17 12,933.6 34 50,575.6 20 37,230.1 LHANNEL CAIFISH 82 12,140.2 15 2,984.8 41 9,192.8 uudK) D ARI ER I 259.6 0.0.OsERALD SHINER 0 I 6.1 2 4.9.FLATHEAD CATFISn 10 7,468.4 8 2,528.4 11 6,948.3 eRESHwAIER DR UM 368 9,336.9 24 2,624.9 403 25,381.3 GltlARD SHAD 2451 97,214.6 799 75,096.6 1111 199,627.3 GO LDEYE 10 320.7 3 763.7 5 647.9 unttd SUNFISH 0 35 764.4 0..GULF MENHADEN 6 168.1 0.91 3,163.1 HOGCHOKEk 0 0 3 9.5..IMMATURE SUCKER 0 0 2 1.2..LADif1SH 0 I 86.4 4 675.8.LAAGD10VTH BASS 8 1,957.7 9 4,000.8 7 3,873.9 LO6CEAR SUhflSH I 13.9 0 5 162.1 LONGh0SE GAR 5 1,481.3 5 2, 64 7.2 5 5,951.7 MISSISSIPPEE SILVERSIDE O 2 6.4 1 4.7.MOONEYE 1 4.1 0 O.0 I./0 MOSQUIT0 FISH .3 Y P AD DLE F I S H 'M 6 261.1 O I 1,299.1$PALLIO SIURGEON 3 360.4 0 I 144.4-.$PUGNOSE MINNOW C/'O 0.1 0.7.$rtGhY SUNFISH (,4 1 0.1 0.O QUILLBACK CARPSUCKER F#0.0 1 274 .2"[M t.0 EAR SUhf1SH C 1 45.0 0 0*KInoch Sn1NER 0.0.3 2.9.'" RIVER CARPSUCKER 50 9,918.6 7 1,758.5 13 5,567.1 81V6a SHINER 0.0.3 4.0-s I$SAUCEn 8 683.8 0 3 1,238.8}SHOMIh0SE GAR 3 3,371.0 3 1,816.5 3 1,620.5 WsEs 3 ER 1 TABLE 2.2-21 (Cont 'd ) TOTAL NbHBERS AND WEIGHTS OF FISH COLLECTED BY ALL GEARS DURING YEARS I, II, AND Ill, IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 (Sneet 2 of 2) YEAR YEAR YEAR I II III CQM.atGN NAME NtMBER WEIGHT *NLMBER WEICHT NUM BE R WEIGHT SHOVELNOSE STURGEON 22 1,954.3 2 2.0 5 1,796.310 d1LVEN LHJb 20 92.4 1 9.9 7 43.800 dlLV6RBAND SHINER 3 4.8 0 I 2.000.alLbrRi MINdow 0 0.3 5.230.dAirJACK HERRINO 130 13,697.4 48 5,364.0 71 9,227.530 L AL12t00TH BUFFAw 24 7,802.2 14 10,229.0 10 12,950.270 douTHERN FLOUNDER 0 0 10 7,157.790..SFtLKLED CHUB 3 4.1 0.1.4 00 SrOITED BASS 0 I 1.9 0..SruTIED GAk 4 4,237.7 5 1,991.9 8 3,837.600 SThlPED BASS 20 3,589.7 6 3.685.5 10 10,626.680 STRIPED MULLET 233 49,229.2 497 75,656.2 467 84,013.035 TnREAD FIN SHAD 1058 6,434.5 387 2,078.7 222 2,796.610 wAhtt0UTH 0 I 38.6 1 6.770.knITE BASS 10 782.0 7 1,044.1 14~4,036.290 IvHITE CRAPPIE 19 2,200.2 4 226.6 1 156.670 YELLOW BASS 2 94 .7 2 203.7 1 111.900 YELLOW BULLHEAD 1 1.3 0 0..O C ry'N*e p'pA N&a, r ,E* Expressed in grams ?Source of data: waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, explained in Section 6.1.1.2 -&a-WSES 3 ER 1 TABLE 2.2-22 TOTAL NUMBERS AND WEIGHTS OF FISH COLLECTED PER UNIT EFFORT

  • EACH h0 NTH DURING YEARS I, II, III IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 YEAR AVERAGE AVERAGE AND h0 NTH N UM B E R *
  • WEIGHT ***

73 APR(Il 1.0 379.7 73 JUN(2 } 14.3 9 ,741.8 73 JUL 12.6 897.1 73 AUG 25.4 4,875.9 73 SEP 92.4 12,754.4 73 OCT 32.2 3,955.6 73 NOV 62.7 9,119.4 73 DEC 27.1 5,968.7 74 J AN 19 .5 4,687.8 74 FEB 11.8 2,637.6 74 MAR (I 34.3 8,791.2 74 APR 96.6 10,572.5 74 JUN 41.4 8,209.7 74 AUG 33.4 11,743.6 74 NOV 139.4 16,274.4 75 FEB 100.4 14,158.5 75 JUN 10.2 1,423.1 75 AUG 8.4 2,210.0 75 OCT 48.2 9,845.2 75 NOV 25.0 6,699.7 75 DEC(2)57.1 15,681.8 76 JAN 14.0 4,038.4 76 FEB 65.2 16,922.2 76 hAR 80.4 15,330.1 76 APR 42.5 11,375.3 76 MAY 26.1 5,945.5 76 JUN 3. 5 .1 5,953.5 76 JUL 21.9 6,301.9 76 AUG 54.6 12,150.0 76 SEP 40.1 8,143.3* In 2 nours of electroshocking and 48 hours of gill netting

  • w Number of individuals
      • Expressed in gra.as Source of data:

Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, explained in Section 6.1.1.2 (1) 48 hrs gill netting only (2)2 hrs electroshocking only , , , , ,_.J O Ge.3 t. O Amendment No. 1 (9/70) WSES 3 FR T AB LE 2.2-23 AVEHAGE NtHBER AND WEIGHT PER UNIT EFFORT

  • OF REPRESENTATIVF SPECIES OF FISH CutLECTED E ACH MONTH DURING YEARS I, II, ll! IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 iEAR BLUC CATFISH FRESHJATER DRUM CIZZARD SHAD STRIPED MULLET THREADFIN SHAD a nd AVE RAGE AVERACE AVERAGE AVERACE AVE RAC E AVERACE AVERACE AVERAGE AVERAGc AVERACE MONTH N UM BER *
  • WEIGHT **N UM BE R WEIGHT NtHPER WEIGPT N LH E E R WEICHT NUMBER WE!CHT 73 APR(II 1.0 379.7-I3)..73 J UN 4.0 9 ',6 . 4.3 26.4 4.0 476.6.7 23.7 1.3 11.4 73 JUL.6 l.2.8 3.0 3.0 254.n 2.6 253.3 2.4 5.1 l22 73 AUG.5 457 9 1.5 832.6 12.0.,387.5 4.0 827.0 1.6 7.7 73 SEP 3.0 741.2.4 120.6 53.4 3,926.1 19.4 4,680.4 6.0 48.3 73 OCT 6.6 322.6.8 122.7 9.8 637.2 3.6 1,039.8 2.0 12.6 73 h0V 1.8 692.9.3 46.6 49.6 4,952.4 4.0 983.4.2.9 73 DEC 8.3 3,200.9.2.2 15.4 2.584.0 1.2 55.4.4 1.3 74 J AN 5.2 1.134.8 12.3 2,306.7.6 81.3 2.7.74 flo 2.4 475.7 7.4 1,239.0 4 1.3.74 M AR( g )

2.0 542.8.1.7 288.6.16.3 1,033.1 74 APR 5.0 2,269.8 1.0 36.3 47.5 2,010.3 13.0 2,382.5 15.2 274.3 7* JUN.4 799.2.8 118.0 17.4 837.6 12.0 2,300.3 1.8 29.8 74 4UG.8 1,251.3.6 116.3 3.8 206.6 20.2 5,996.4 1.6 4.7 74 h0V 7.2 1,055.6 1.0 96.1 67.6 4,433.7 38.8 4,931.2 4.4 33.3 75 FLe.2 45.3 1.0 99.2 65.0 9,264.1 26.4 1,633.1..75 JUN.8 298.0.2 46.3 1.0 86.4 1.6 227.7 4.8 27.2 75 AUG 2.4 625.1 1.6 155.5.4 42.4.4 4.7 75 OCT 1.6 669.5 27.6 5,475.5 11.0 3,1 04 .8 1.8 24.7 75 NOV 1.2 601.9..15.4 1,849.1 2.2 365.5..75 DEC 10.2',473.1 1.4 196.3 30.6 4,534.3 5.8 1,366.7.2 1.5 I2)76 J AN.3 270.1.13.8 3,768.3...76 FEB 7.2 2,838.0.8 227.8 50.6 11,932.1.2 117.8 1.0 6.9 76 M AR 9.0 4,480.6.6 204.1 56.2 7,834.2 2.6 3 04 .9 7.2 129.2 76 APR 4.3 2,661.6 1.9' .19 . 7 8.3 72 7.3 15.0 2,008.6 6.9 124.9 76 MAY 1.4 65.4 1.3 331.6 4 .0 672.9 6.6 705.3 6.2 63.7 7o JUN 2.5 2,174.5.2 50.3 3.7 569.1 6.2 789.0.5.3 76 JUL 1.7 1,621.5.5 88.8 1.7 253.6 12.0 1,801.1 2.8 26.9 76 AUG 3.2 2,855.4 1.0 421.8 4.4 1,340.4 23.2 4,812.6 4.2 58.2 76 SEP 4.3 2,065.1 2.0 462.0 5.4 2,045.4 12.0 1,830.1 3.0 78.9*In 2 hours of electroshocking and 48 hours of gill netting ""eL3Jer Of Ind1Vidua!S [}.="=txaressed In graas {-k u*(l) 48 nrs gill netting only h";w<g@(2) 2 nrs electroshocking only b#?:5"[(3) S pe c ie s no t found during sampling !" source at data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, explained in Section 6.1.1.2.-s?- WSES 3 ER fI TABLE 2.2-2 4 N UM BER AND WLIGHT OF REPRESENTATIVE FISH SPECIES CAPIURED PER UNIT EFFORT

  • AT LACH STATION DURING YEARS 1, II, 111 Ih THE VICINITY OF WAILRFOkb J GIZZARD SHAD STRIPED MULLET THktADFIN SKAD BLUE CATFISH FRESHWATER DRUM

__YEARLY AVLKAGL YLARLY AVLRAGL Y LARLY AV L KAGL YLAhli AVEAAbt i LAh LY AV L KAGL STATION YEAR N UM BE R *

  • WEIGHT ***

N UM B ER WEIGHT NUMtcR HEIGHT N UM BE R WEIGHT N UM BER WEIGHT Ac I 5.4 898.3.5 141.4 24.5 1974.0 2.4 527.3 1.5 16.5 II.3 138.2.2 35.2 7.2 452.7 9.8 2465.4 1.0 16.6 III 5.0 1612.6.4 76.2 20.1 1911.8 9.0 1901.0 3.0*u.7 At I 5.2 1050.0.3 84.7 15.4 1814.4 4.1 974.3 7.8 224.7 11 2.3 601.8.8 113.7 14.5 1646.4 10.2 1239.2*.0 28.5 III 7.4 4979.7.9 296.5 10.6 2484.5 2.5 989.8 3.9 39.4 Bc 1 4.1 1768.5.3 67.5 25.9 2681.8 3.6 712.9 3.6 42.1 II.7 463.9.63.3 5342.5 12.3 2707.1 1.7 17.8 (II III.9 561.5.5 164.4 37.2 8346.1 9.9 1470.0 3.6 82.9 Bt I 2.4 958.1 1.0 311.8 23.4 2140.8 12.0 2457.3 4.3 193.7 11 5.7 1657.6.7 73.1 28 . 0 2780.8 30 .8 3245.7 3.0 12.6 III 6.0 2444.0.9 223.5 14.8 2320.8 11.1 1779.9 3.1 45.0 Et I 1.7 218.2.5 2.6 21.6 1737.5 3.1 645.6 2.9 94.6 g[/;II.8 5 14 . 0 1.3 174.6 17 .3 2264.3 19 .7 29 52.0 1.2 7.5 III 1.8 1936.5 1.6 420.3 11.4 2748.4 7.6 1194.9.9 6.8 Ck1%s.'3 e p#h*In 2 hours of electroshocking and 48 hours oi gill netting

    • Number of individuals f *** Expressed in gr ams (1) Species not found at this station So ur c e of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, explained in Section 6.1.1.2.

$.W 3* WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2-2 5 1 TOTAL NQ4BER AND WEIGHT OF ALL FISH SPECIES CAPTURED PER UNIT EFFORT

  • AT EACH STATION DURING YEARS I, II, III IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFOR: ), YEARLY YEARLY AVERAGE AVERAGE STATION YEAR NUM BE R**

WElGHT***Ac I 43.7 6,924.4 II 25.3 8,243.7 III 50.6 10,585.1 At I 39.5 5,202.1 II 35.5 5,014.6 III 37.4 11,071.2 Be I 46.8 8,562.3 II 95.5 11,981.2 III 55.6 12,051.5 Bt I 47.9 9,229.0 II 74.0 9,731.7 III 39.3 7,893.9 Bt I 34.0 3,463.2 g II 47.3'0,044.8 III 26.7 9,198.6*In 2 hours of electroshocking and 48 hours of gill netting

    • Number of individuals
      • Expressed in grams Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance. Program, explained in Section 6.1.1.2

'* h. <s s : E $a]]J<Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2- 26 1 FRIED 4 AN'S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H O EQUAL CATCH / EFFORT

  • AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS YEAR I Catch / Effort STATION Ac At Bc Bt Bt g Blue Catfish 5.429 5.233 4.089 2.375 1.700 Freshwater Drum

.486.322.322 1.042.500 Gizzard Shad 24.543 15.411 24.944 23.403 21.550 Striped Hullet 2.443 4.100 3.600 12.000 3.075 Threadfin Shad 1.500 7.800 3.600 4.431 2.900 Rank **Blue Catfish 5 4 3 2 1 Freshwater Drum 3 1.5 1.5 4 5 Gizzard Shad 4 1 5 3 2 Striped Mullet 1 4 3 5 2 Thread fin Shad 1 5 3 4 2 Sum of Ranks 14 15.5 15.5 19 11 Sum of Rauks 196 240.25 240.25 361 121 Squared 2.68 X=#Fail to reject H =i significantly dif ferent with 9 esp'e~e stations were not ct to catch / effort

  • Per 48 hour gill net set and I he.ur electroshocking ef fort
    • Stations ranked according to catch /ef fort for species listed (ties were averaged).

Source: Siegel S.Nonparametric Statistics for the behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1956. ',2, 3 b[.O b Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER 1 TABLE 2.2-27 FRIEDHAN'S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; TESTING THE NULL MYP0 THESIS (H OF O EQUAL CATCH / EFFORT

  • AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS YEAR III Catch / Effort STATION Ac At Bc Bt Bt g Blue Catfish 5.015 7.389.875 6.000 1.773 Freshwater Drum

.432.889.458.917 1.573 Gizzard Shad 20.697 10.622 31.167 14.845 11.355 Striped Mullet 9 . 0 30 2.456 9.917 11.083 7.600 Threadfin Shad 3.008 3.900 3.583 3.083.909 Rank **Blue Catfish 3 5 1 4 2 Freshwater Drum 1 3 2 4 5 Gizzard Shad 4 1 5 3 2 Striped Mullet 3 1 4 5 2 Threadfin Shad 2 5 4 3 1 Sum of Ranks 13 15 16 19 12 Sum of Ranks 169 225 256 361 144 Squared 2.40 X=r Stations were not significantly different Fail to reject H -O with respect to ca*ch/ effort.

  • Per 48 hour gill net set and I hour electroshocking effort
    • Stations ranked according to catch / effort for species listed (ties were averaged)

Source: Siegel S.Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavorial Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1956 ~ < -> s vt .<) s J i3. ) .L # .Amendment No. i (9/79) .4-w m t.4 O N~O O O O O e 4- e N~N m O O@O-O O O O O.=w N O O N O O O Q O O N N O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.0-O.-O.O C O O>.es.g O i M W Hc:n.O O~O O>-.O O O~O O O O-*te.~eo ao~O O O O u O O.= ~O O O O d -*O em O O.O.O.O.O O.O.O.O.O O.O.O.-O-O-O O O e***en e.e-e/*.U.-L.s Z>=N O.J t H O O M e o'h==0 0 0 U h3 u O O O 4 O O N N m=* ==0 C O J m O O O A.J O O.O.O.O.O.O.O.==.0 0 O.O.O......O*O m W.J a D y_N<e m N 2 m 2 O.*N..H W 2=8 m gf,.A O P yy C M u O O O.a O en e=8*O m o e O O em H e O O e m==0 C O O 3*O.- 8 O.O.8 8 O.O.O.O.O.-O.M>*E a O 8 O.....a a.O>E H*Z-e.ee O.te.O e D.s E" O..u u N O O O C O om e O 4 O O O O c Hc O M O O O O e H<N.*O O O O-eo O~.*-O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O-m......>e t se.3N-m m.J**e=..~>H_e u , v ce ,..P.88 w o-.u ,.O O O O~O m O O O O m a.u o 8 8 8 8 8 8 O O o N ee O O O O O O a0> e 4 M 8 w-O.O.O-o.O.o.O.O.O.O.o.8 O.O-O.o.cm%88 u.na..m ..a.>e eE o.s 3e n. T e i u oe.c.e=-. >=o u "Ch.o m e M eT=:s e=u G U u .e a.5o e.a a u O e e a k f>..-N ee O m N es m N N m ee O N O N-O~e.n O~en 4~ e N m e.e ao O O N.e e o-N.u a e a H z z.4.J o a.a.5 5 as.a.a.es.o H:> u 8 cI v w m.c n o a o a w w=O 8 8.n m m%m.x < z%n%m<m m m c<z$. m a U e o e e e o e o e.e e.<4.a.a e e.n.n e e e , m e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bdbt.$Ame ndn.e n t N o . 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2-29 1 AVERACE ICHTHY 0 PLANKTON DENSITIES

  • BY SPECIES IN SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 Unidenti-Centrar-Cyprin-Icta-Scimen-Date fiable chidae Clupeidae idae Esocidae luridae idae Nov 13 74--.019----Fed 26 75-------Apr 24 75---.002---Aug 8 75-.015.005.004-.004-Oct 30 75-------Nov 20 75-------Dec 22 75-------Jan 30 76-------Feb 26 76------Mar 25 76--.002.008---Apr 30 76.004.008-.005.002.002.003 May 27 76.003.007-.012---Jun 8 76.002.003.065---.029 J ri 24 76

-.002-----Jul 7 76--.004---.012 Jul 29 76.003------Aug 12 76------.003 e k (2 Sep 10 76-------R C ',-------g Sep 27 76 o g C.]N* Densities expressed in number /m 3*-C Source of data: Water ford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program,~g explained in Section 6.1.1.2 D o v WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2-30 1 DENSITIES

  • BY DEPTH OF ICHTHYOPLANKTON IN SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 DEPTH DATE BOTTCH MIDDLE SURFACE 74 NOV 13.049.000.000 75 FEB 26.000.000.000 75 APR 24.000.010.000 75 AUG 08.024.047.011 75 OCT 30.000.000.000 75 NOV 20.000.000.000 75 DEC 22.000.000.000 76 JAN 30.000.000.000 76 FEB 26.000.000.000 76 MAR 25.005.027.004 76 APR 30.044.000.017 76 M AY 27

.;14.015.034 76 JUN 08.119.054.106 76 JUN 24.000.008.000 76 JUL 07.025.013.010 76 JUL 29.007.000.000 76 AUG 12.000.013.000 76 SEP 10.000.000.000 76 SEP 27.000.000.000* Densities expressed in number /m Source of data: Waterford 3 Cnvironmental Surveillance Program, ex pla in ed in Section 6.1.1.2 <2<se..nf D-. >k o'.e \..g. - /Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER 1 TABLE 2.2-31 FRIE&iAN'S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H,) 0F EQU'.LITY OF ICHTHYOPLANKTON CONCENTRATIONS (NU4BER PER CUBIC HETER) AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS DURING YEAR III NUMBER PER CUBIC HETER STATION Date Ac At Bc Bt Bt g March 25, 1976 .000.010.009.023.004 April 30, 1976 .000.0 81.007.026.015 day 27,1976 .020.009.069.000.007 June 8, 1976 .127.176.030.139.058 June 24, 1976 .000.000.000.000 008 Julv 7, 1976 .003.034.013.017.107 Juk, 29, 1976 .000.000.000.011.000 Augu.t 12, 1976 .000.000.006.000.007 RANKS *Harch 25, 1976 1 4 3 5 2 April 30, 176 1 5 2 4 3 day 27, 1976 4 3 5 1 2 June 8, 1976 3 5 1 4 2 June 24, 1976 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 5 July 7, 1976 1 5 2 3.5 3.5 July 29. 1976 2.5 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 August 12, 1976 2 2 4 2 5 Sum ot Ranks 17 29 22 27 25 overalt Rank 1 5 2 4 3 X= 4.40 Fail to Reject H

      • ""**#*"* E"##" Y O'different with respect to ichthyoplankton densities.
  • Stations ranked according to ichthyoplankton densities (ties were averaged)

Source: Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences H:Graw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1956. 30E,:XC*Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.2-32 RANK FOR FRIEDMAN'S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TESTING THE NULL llYP0 THESIS (11 ) 0F EQUAL ICHTilYOPLANXTON CONCENTRATIONS BY DEPTil COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 D E P T 11 Year /Date Bottom Middle Surface Novembe r 13, 1974 3 1.5 1.5 April 24, 1975 1.5 3 1.5 August 8, 1975 2 3 1 March 25, 1976 2 3 1 April 30,1976 3 1 2 May 27, 1976 1 2 3 June 8, 1976 3 1 2 1 June 24, 1976 1.5 3 1.5 July 7, 1976 3 2 1 July 29, 1976 3 1.5 1.5 August 12, 1976 1.5 3 1.5 Sum of Ranks 24.5 24.0 17.5 Sum of Ranks Squared 600.25 576.0 306.25 X 2.91 r Fail to Reject H i'*** depths were not significantly different with O respect to the number of ichthyoplankton per cubic meter.

  • Depths were ranked by date, according to the average number of ichthyo-plankton per square meter (ties were averaged).

Source: Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics For the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-liill Book Company, Inc.1956. 338322 Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WS ES 3 FE TABLE 2.2-33 1 C(MMERCI AL CATCHES FROM MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA ANO 'HE Mo"TH of"[ :VER , 1971 - 1975 (IN POUNDS, ROUND ON LIVE WEIGHT AND DOLLAR V All'E ) 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Species Founds$ Value Pounds$ Value Pounds$ Value Pounds S Value Pou'ds$ Value n bowtin--1,000 80 1,000 60 900 63 Bu f f al o fi sh 10,700 1,317 28,900 3,749 60,800 8,289 88,400 13,054 139,600 20,992 Carp 10,200 836 10,900 1,064 9,300 8,079 7,300 474 16,200 9 P4 Cat fish, FW 227,500 71,372 190,200 56,428 360,000 111,883 818,000 259,504 1,198,400 401,903 Garfisn 13,500 1,746 34,000 4,479 53,700 6,385 42,900 4,572 42,600 6,755 Paddlefish --3,000 295 200 19 200 14 Ga s pe rg ou 3,500 392 11,600 1,364 57,600 7,341 46,700 5,986 80,300 11,763 (freshwater drum)Crawfish 14,100 2,826 16,700 3,725 45,600!!,400 35,000 11,200 54,200 16,260 River Shrimp 900 297 1,900 855 2,700 1,005 3,500 1,400 4,200 2,940 Drum: Black (()200 18----Red (j '1,400 291----C, C, Sea Trout: ,fT 2,300 569----i S po t t ed Wnite (.100 11----$)Turtle, Snapper 4,100 885 400 176-700 258 200 70 g Source: Personal Communication, De pt . o f Commerce, j National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. , 1976 5 m O.F W D 3 )LENGTH FREQUENCIES FOR BLUE CATFISH FOR YEAR I LEkGTH 0.30.60.90.120.150.180.210.240.270.300.330.360.350.450.480.510.540.PCNTH.................................. ........=-_--_ _..................................... ....................... 73 APR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 J UN O O O 1 0 2 2 5 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 J UL 8 41 2 1 6 2 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 AUG 0 16 21 15 5 5 1 2 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 5E P O 17 24 5 1 2 7 4 1 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 13 Ot f 0 6 60 35 3 0 4 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 NCY 0 1 15 7 0 3 4 6 5 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 OEC 0 0 7 8 2 1 5 18 17 4 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 14 JAN O O 1 1 0 1 2 11 9 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 FEB 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 MAR 0 1 7 5 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 APR 0 0 4 5 0 1 0 5 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 FOR YE AR 11 LENGTH 30.6C.90.120.150.100.210.240.2 70.3 00.330.450.480.540.570.630.PCNTH 74 J UN O O 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 14 AUG O 1 0 1 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 14 NOV 1 23 5 1 0 0 2 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 15 FEB 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 JUN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 AUG 3 1 9 3 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 FOR YEAR III LENGTH 30.60.90.100.150.180.210.240.270.30 0 .330.360.390.420.450.480.510.540.570.600.PCNTH- - - -15 OC T 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 l' NCV 302 429 85 11 11 6 0 2 3 C 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 CEC 1 4 3 3 5 1 4 5 9 8 4 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 y 9 16 JAN O O O O O O O O O O O 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 76 FEB D 0 8 8 9 7 20 7 5 6 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0[_C 76 MAR 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 10 13 10 5 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 e ,1 76 APR 20 116 17 12 15 5 4 1 3 3 0 2 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 C 4'76 MAY 0 35 17 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h 7 76 J UN O 5 12 2 2 1 0 1 3 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ()76 J UL 2 6 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , y>* 7e A UG 1 27 15 6 1 0 3 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 E/*7e SE P O 4 7 3 4 3 2 1 1 5 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.M DATA EXPRESSED IN LENGTH INTERVALS OF 30MM -IE 30 = 30 - 59MM

  • m 60 = 60 - 89MM (ETC~$LOUISl AN A Tabl'POWER & LIGHT CO.

LENGTH FREQUENCIES OF SELECTED FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN THE WATERFORD AREA Waterfurd Steam (APRIL 1973 SEPTEMBER 1976) 2.2.M 1 (SHEET 1 OF 5) Electric Station LENGTH FREQUENCIES FOR FRESHWATER DRUM FOR YEAR I LENGTH 0.15.30.45.60.15.90.105.135.150.165.180.195.2 10 .225.260.255.270.300.PCNTH-.---------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13 J UN O O O O O O O O O 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 JLL 1 48 76 58 12 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 AUG 0 0 5 17 l e, 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 13 SEP O 17 7 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 CCT C 1 6 6 15 24 7 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 73 Nov 0 1 1 1 2 e 6 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 13 DEC C 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 MAR 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 APR 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOR YE AR !! LE NG TH 15.45.75.105.120.135.150.165.180.195.210.MCNTH_74 JUN 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 14 AUG 0 0 1 0 C 0 0 0 0 1 1 14 NOV O 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 15 FEB 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 15 JUN O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FOR YEAR I!! LEhGTH 15.30.45.e0.75.90.105.120.135.150.165.180.195.210.225.260.255, 270.PCNTH- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 OCT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 15 NOV 0 9 18 29 29 20 12 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 OEC 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 16 SEB 0 0 1 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 76 utA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 76 AvR 0 0 1 7 16 15 6 6 6 11 5 5 8 2 1 4 2 0 7e MAY 0 0 0 1 4 3 4 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0>3*A lt JLN 30 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0$N le JUL 20 31 12 3 0 1 6 8 1 4 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 a 4-7e AUG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 1 2 0!2 ie SEP O O 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 3 1 1 0 0?[)g DAT A EXPRESSED IN LENGTH INTERV ALS OF 15VM (, IE 15 = 15 - 29VM i y 30 - 30 44MM

  • ETC-I LOUISI AN A Tabl*&POWER & LIGHT CO.

LENGTH FREQUENCIES OF SELECTED FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN THE WATERFORD AREA / APRIL 1973 - SEPTEMBER 1976) Waterford Steam 2.2J 1 w*3 (SHEET 2 OF 5) Electric Station LENGTH FREQUENCIES FOR GlZZARD SHAD FOR YEAR I LENGTH 20.40.60.80.100.120.1 60 .160.180.200.220.240.260.280.300.PCh A e 73 J UN 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 3 1 3 3': 0 0 13 JUL 139 349 55 5 1 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 13 A UG 10 417 378 37 3 3 1 0 1 2 1 6 5 0 1 13 SEP O O 9 121 e4 14 7 2 1 9 17 17 7 4 0 73 OCT 0 17 128 23 13 6*2 2 3 4 3 0 0 0 13 ACV 0 2 31 48 73 20 9 6 7 38 30 13 6 1 0 73 DEC 0 2 2 3 4 2 4 11 4 18 14 2 5 0 0 14 J AN O O 1 2 8 4 2 2 0 13 7 5 6 3 0 14 FEB 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 4 6 12 7 2 0 0 14 M AR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 74 APR 0 0 2 31 77 33 12 10 12 11 2 0 0 0 0 FOR YEAR 11 LENGTH 40.60.80.100.120.14C.160.100.200.220.240.260.2 80 .MCN TH- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 74 JLN O 3 3 13 45 14 3 2 2 4 2 0 0 14 AUG 0 10 2 2 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 74 NOV 2 15 72 49 58 44 45 15 26 9 7 3 0 15 FEB 0 1 4 10 18 28 52 53 95 42 15 4 3 15 J W 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 15 AUG 1 6 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 FOR YEAR Ill L E NG TH 3 ' 0.20.40.60.60.100.120.140.160.1 80.200.220.240.260.280.300.320.4 NCNTH= =- -------------------

_ ----.------.--------------- - ---------------------------------------------- - --------------

15 OCT 0 0 2 20 37 2 1 4 4 13 15 3 9 22 5 1 0 15 NCV 0 0 4 15 26 7 2 8 2 11 5 3 2 4 1 1 0 15 DEC 0 0 1 6 23 9 7 4 24 48 16 8 4 0 3 0 0 7 e J AN 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 16 19 4 4 7 1 0 0 76 FE8 0 0 5 5 4 2 3 9 35 65 44 35 15 20 8 3 1 16 MAR 0 0 5 6 16 44 13 16 48 80 27 10 7 5 3 1 0 (C le APR 0 0 0 4 15 6 4 0 4 3 5 1 1 0 1 0 0 h ( To M AY 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 C 76 J UN 1 7 1 C 2 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 E b 76 J tst 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 if W 16 AUG 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 3 2 6 2 4 3 0 2 0 0@N 76 SEP O O O O O O C 0 2 6 3 6 4 1 2 1 0 d DATA EXPRESSED IN LENGTH INTERVALS OF 20MV 4]" IE 20 = 20 - 39MM Z 40 59MM ,o ETC-~LOUISI AN A TobI*LENGTH FREQUENCIES OF SELECTED FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN THE WATERFORD AREA ^POWER & LIGHT C0~ e ( APRIL 1973 - SEPTEMBER 1976) s 2.2-34 I y W0terford Stem" (SHEET 3 0F 5) Electric Station -- LENGTH FREQUENCIES FOR STRIPED MULLET FOR YEAR I LENGTH 60.80.103.120.140.160.160.200.220.240.260.280.300.320.340.PCNTH...________ _......____....________... ________________ _...._____......____......_....._._____________________. 73 JUN O O O 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 JLL 5 1 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 AUG 0 0 4 0 1 1 2 8 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 13 SEP 0 1 5 8 12 6 23 28 15 8 7 3 1 0 0 13 OC T 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 4 e 1 1 0 0 0 13 NCV 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 3 7 2 0 0 0 1 1 73 CEC 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 JAN O O O 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 APR 0 0 0 1 1 1 12 18 13 4 0 1 0 0 1 FOR YEAR II LENGTH 80.100.120.140.160.180.200.220.240.260.280.300.320.360.380.M ON TH 14 JUN O 0 2 12 14 7 5 6 4 3 4 2 0 0 1 14 AUG S 1 0 7 14 9 12 15 18 10 5 3 1 1 0 14 NCV 26 47 29 10 7 li 22 13 6 9 3 3 2 0 0 15 FEB 9 51 34 14 9 3 7 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 15 J UN O 0 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 A UG 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOR YEAR ll! LENGTH 80.100.120.140.160.180.200.220.240.260.280.300.320.340.360.PCNTH 75 CCT 1 3 8 2 2 7 7 5 4 5 1 4 3 3 0 15 NOV O O 3 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 15 CEC 0 3 3 1 2 4 4 3 4 1 1 1 1 0 1 16 FEB C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 le MAR C 0 4 2 1 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 76 APR 0 1 10 15 12 12 13 6 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 le MAY 0 1 9 14*2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0*.D'>it JLN O O 7 7 5 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 c3 le J UL 10 6 4 6 13 5 6 6 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 o ,s 76 A UG 6 24 14 5 3 12 17 18 5 7 2 0 2 0 1$d it SE P 3 21 9 3 1 2 0 0 3 3 1 1 1 0 1 r-..DATA EXPRESSED IN LENGTH INTEHVALS OF 20VM 'f+IE 20 = 20 - 39MM , y 40 = 40 - 59VM

  • ETC--LOUl51 AN A Table POWER & LIGHT CO.

LENGTH FREQUENCIES OF SELECTED FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN THE WATERFORD ARE A ^3 Waterford Steam (APRIL 1973 - SEPTEMBER 1976) $Electric Station (SHEET 4 OF 5) 2.2-34 1 G LENGTH FREQUENCIES FOR THREADFIN SHAD FOR YEAR I LENGTH 10.20.30.40.50.60.70.60.90.100.110.120.130.140.150.190.P C N TH 13 JUN 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 JLL 2 102 172 LO*41 7 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 73 AUG 0 14 118 153 63 27 7 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 SEP O O O 13 36 11 10 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 OCT 0 1 1 5 18 15 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 NOV O O O 5 4 8 5 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 DEC 0 0 0 1 4 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 JAN O O O O O 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 FEB C 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 MAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 8 28 11 1 74 APR 0 0 0 0 2 12 9 11 9 4 6 0 1 5 3 0 FOR YEAR II L E NG TH 10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.90.100.140.PCNTH 74 JUN 5 23 41 36 9 2 4 4 1 1 1 14 ALG 0 0 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 14 Nov 0 0 0 3 26 108 57 21 7 0 0 15 J UN 0 0 10 3 0 0 4 5 2 0 0 1* ALG 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 FOR YEAR lli LENGTH 20.3C.43.50.6C.70.60.90.100.110.120.130.1 40 .WCNTH 15 OCT C 0 0 1 0 4 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 15 NOV O 1 3 1 2 6 3 C 0 0 0 0 0 15 CEC 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 FEB 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Q 16 MAR 0 0 0 0 3 18 1 5 0 1 5 3 0 76 APR 0 0 0 0 2 9 9 4 6 1 4 0 1 b,'16 MAY 1 0 0 0 3 17 7 7 1 0 0 0 0>$CP 1e JUN 0 4 1 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 76 JLL 0 0 3 16 8 7 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 D h{i t it AUG 0 0 1 0 1 1 8 10 0 0 0 0 0 C 76 SEP 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 4 2 0 0 0 iL=DATA EXPRESSED IN LENGTH INTERVALS OF 10MM r-IE 10 = 10 - 19MM ,"E 20 = 20 - 29MM ETC-'LOUISI AN A Tabl'G POWER & LIGHT CO. LENGTH FREQUENCIES OF SELECTED FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN THE WATERFORD AREA ( APRll 1973 - SEPTEMBER 1976) N y Waterford Steam 2.2 34 i (SHEET S OF 5) Electric Station - wa t., 3 ER TABLE 2.2-35 MONTHLY AVERACE RIVER FLOWS AT TARBERT LANDING LOUISIANA ( RM 306.3) Yaar I Year II Year III Flow Flow Fl ow Month (1000 efs) Mont h (1000 cfs) Month (1000 cfs) Apr il 1973 1305 May 1974 594 Oc t obe r 1975 333 May 1973 1372 Jun.1974 800 Novambar 1975 346 Jane 1973 978 July 1974 491 lkeember 1975 396 July 1973 447 August 1974 239 January 1976 555 August 1973 305 Septembar 1974 328 February 1976 4 54 Se pt emba r 1973 222 October 1974 221 M arch 1976 658 October 1973 370 November 1974 3 54 April 1976 511 November 1973 373 December 1974 435 M ay 1976 429 Dec embe r 1973 849 January 1975 620 June 1976 341 January 1974 976 February 1975 716 July 1976 352 February 1974 1084 March 1975 862 August 1976 232 March 1974 824 April IS'5 1086 Saptember 1976 173 April 1974 799 ()>e , k Nlt id'c.-2 e%\cW.o W%o 3 s 3 TABLE 2.2-3) l ilAb1 TATS, SPA.NINv AktAS, MILKATIuN hui!Ld AND F u,0S OF SOME FlbH bPttlts FKtsthi lh Iht klLINlli (F W Althbenu 3=(sheet 1 or J) M i g r a t i on bpecies habitat Spawninz Area and Ege Type kaut e s Foods bigmouth Widely dist ributed but most Shallow ba y s ; sloughs ; wait Move into shallow bay a bot t om feeder; also fil-buffalo co mmonl y foumi in larger unt il wat er levels rise in a nd up t ributary ter f eeder on plankton rivars, lakes, oxbows and the spring. Eggs are adhe-st reams to spawn. sloughs.si ve a mi are deposit ed in dead veget at ion on t he bottom.Blua Prefer large lakes and Construct Nests Zooplankton (for fish Cat f i sh ** deeper po r t ions of major under 125 mm); larger rivers wh e re a not ice-fish feed on insect able c u r r e nt is p re s

  • nt larvae (benthic), or-ganic, det ritus and fish bowfish Usually found in clear, Shallow weedy areas ; a de-Adult s f eed on fish, sluggish wat e rs of bayous, pression is built in 2-3 crustaceans; young borrow pit s and back-feet of water.

Eggs are feed on insect s, small wat ers of rive rs where adhesive. Young cling to shrimp, vegetable aquat ic veget ation is veget at ion at the bot tom natter.present , of t he nest for 7-9 days post hatching. brown Clear, we ed y lakes, muddy Build next s adjacent to Fish up to 75 ma feed Bu l l he ad pools of int e rmi t t ent drain- stones, logs, or other shel-on zooplankt on and chi-ageways, slow moving st reams ter, on sand or mud bot toms romida; adult s eat in-with abundant veget at ion and in water up to 2 feet deep. sects, fish, fi sh eggs, sand t o mud t at t oms. Eggs are ad h e s ive . molluscs and plant a Carp Widely dist ributed but pre-Shallow areas - Eggs are There is frequently Bottom fauna, chiromids f e rs quiet shallow wat e rs adhesive a nd a re s cat t e r ed a migration to the pla nt material, small of rivers and impoundment s , at random over plant be d s , shallow water spawning molluscs, small crust a-debris and ru bb le . areas.ceans, organic detritus vS a-N ,* ' ' ..y Fr a i.a sc U T %"%es#\9$\bW.w k A[1 inf ormat ion a nd sources can be f ou nd in the Lita Histories of Import ant Species, Appendix 2-3.

      • Dominant species dr ER I table 2.2-36 (Cont 'd )

HABITATS, SPA NING AREAS, MICKATION kOUTES AND FOODS OF SOME FISH SPtllts PktSthI lh Ibt VIClhlli LF mAltkFURD 3* tsneat 2 or 3) Mi grat ion Spacies Habit at Spawning Area and Egg type kautes Foods Chanral Found in st ra ams , rivars, Under overhanging 1*dges, Migrat ion into rivers Omnivorous - feed on aquatic Cat fish lakas a nd ponts but pretar hollow logs or in similarly during spawning periods, insect.s or uther fish. In t he moderat e t o swi f t ly flowing shelt ered areas. Also Rive r Bend st udy *** t hey we re st reams wit h warm wat er and spawn in lakes and ponds: found to feed on detritus, oligo-bot t om of sand, gravel or They will not spawn in chaetes, microcrustacea, crayfish, rubble. During dayt ima , in clear ponds. Eggs depos-mayfly larvae, caddially larvae streams, adult s inhabit poo l ited in a ge lat inous mas s. and dipteran larvae. areas and remain near cover; at night they move int o stronger, deeper, riffle areas for feeding. F re shwa* er Lakes and large rivers, Spawn on mud and sand bot t om Bot t om f eeding foods include may-D rum **especially in t he shallow generally in areas where flies, amphipods, fish, crayfish, areas of the Red and Missi-aquatic vegetation is pre-small molluses and detritus ***. ,_ssippi Rivers., seat.Eggs are buoyant. Gizzard Success f ul in both st reams Pond bott oms; shallow There may be a spawning migra-Young feed on zooplankton and later Shad **and lakes, water.Eggs are demer-tion upstream in the lower on bot t om organisms. Adults are sal and adhesive. Mississippi River. filter feeders - Strain det ritus f rom the bott om and plankton f rom the water. Largemouth All types of freshwater Sheltered bays among aquatic Young feed on zocplankton. Ad ult s Bass bodies from small creeks veget ation in 6 inches to 6 feed on insects, crawfish, small to large lakes but is most ieet of water over bottoms turtles and frogs. Cannibalism is common in non-flowing water which vary from gravelly common, charact erized by abundant sand to marl and soft mud, aquatic veget at ion and sof t bottoms.p Longnose ()Sluggish poo l s , ba ckwat ers , Shallow open sioughs and Spawning is often preceded by Young feed at the surface on small $Gar[[ , oxbows; adults usually founa backwaters. Eggs are upstream migrations into smaller insects, crustaceans and fish; $(jl in larga deap pool s . Often adhesive; larvae attach streams.adult s are piscivorous.

  1. \inhabit brackish wat er and thesselves to st ones and S{1 soma t ime s salt wat e r.

ot her object s by means of a sucking disc.

    • o.-Paddlafish Seem to be generally con-Over sand and pebbles snd In the Osage Rive r, an upst ream Plankton, fish, insects (mayfly

-.'fined to large riv*rs and gravel bars in strong cur-migration follows the warming of naiads). 2 mpoundma nt s , rents; generally spawn in the waters to 50"F. o hf. .________ _____schools.v Uomi na nt spacias ==*** Frvan CF, JV n wr.sr ! DJ Damo n t , "An E col n-gi c al Study of tha lower Mississippi Rivar and Alligator Eav, naar St. Frarrisvilla, Louisiana" In environ ant al haport, River band _St at ion Unit s 1 and 2, Const ruct ion Permit St age , Volume Ill, Appendix E , Gulf St at e Ut ilit ies Company, 1973 - _ER 1 TAELE 2.2-36 (Cont 'd) HABIIATS, SPAWNING AREAS, MICRATION h0UTES AND FOODS OF SOME FISH SPttild PhtdtNI lh IHL VILIN1IY OF WAltkFuku 3*(Sheet 3 ot 31 .. - - - - - _ . . . -_Migration Speci*s ,_,_ Habi t at Spawning Area-and Egg Typ* koutes Foods Palli: Largest, muddlest rivars Sturgaan of the Missouri-Mississ-ippi Syst em. Bo t t om in-habitant, usually living in st rong current s over firm sandy bot t oms. kiver st reams and riv*rs. Pre-i-3 teet at wat er in lakes Indiscriminate omnivore; bottom Carpsucker ferred habit at is quiet silt - and reservoirs over a firm feeder.bottomed pools, backwaters, sand bot t om ; in silty shoals; and oxbows or large st reams in shallow silty bays; on silt delt as at t he mout h of tribu-taries extending upstream; and over tree roots and vegetation in moderately deep water. Saortnose Lakes, oxbows, backwaters Eggs deposited in small masses Doe s t. ' t appear to be any Young teed on ost racods, worms Gar t it pref er the mainst reams held together by a clear particular spawning migration. and aquatic insects; adult s are or large muddy rivers, gelatinous substance which piscivorous but sometimes feed at t aches t o weeds. on crawfish and shrimp. Shovelnose Larger rivers of Mississi-Rocky bottoms in switt water. Upstream migrations precede Insects, algae, aquatic vegeta-St ur ge on ppi Basin and Rio Grande. spawning. Enters tributaries tion (bottom feeder). Lives on t he bot t om in for spawning when water is high. areas characterized by st rong current s. Skipjaca Deep swift waters - usually In Loutstana-spring migration other itsh; invertebrates. Herring avoiding high turbidities, when it travels to the head-waters or larger streams and in-to connecting lakes. Sma ll mou t h Oxbow lakes, backwater Areas of aquatic vegetation Bott om feeder, indiscriminate Buffalo areas of large rivers, or innundated terrestrial omnivore.swi f t shallow riffles, plants, a nd sloughs. cre*ks.dtriped Marine wat e rs - soma-They do not seem to spawn Schools of mullet are known Miscroscopic organisms includ-Mullet **timas come up int o waters in fresh water. to ecma up tLe Atchafalaya ing diatoms and formanifera, pg of t he Gulf St at es and River in t he spring as far detritus, j California and up th* as Avoyelles Parish. }_ _ _ _ _ _Inreadfin Pretars large bodies et open water; under brush and Plankton, thmoborus, lend 1 ped 1Js. Mississippi River. s S Shad **wat er and is most abun-floating logs. Spawns in a dant where st rong current schools. Eggs are adhesive is found - Pelagic _ ..w Vh b er\v^.M s+O. ',~*V Qw es WSd%%6. Y WSES 3 ER 2.3 METEOROLOGY Requirements pursuant to Section V.B.1 of Appendix I to IOCFR50, fulfilled previously and transmitted to the NRC on June 4, 1976, have been used in parts of this section. This transmittal is contained in Appendix 3-1. 2.3.1 REGIONAL CLIMATOLOGY AND AIR QUALITY 2.3.1.1 General climate The clim of southeastern Louisiana is classified as humid sub-It is influenced to a large degree by the many water sur-tropical.faces ided by lakes and streams and by the proximity of the Gulf of Mexico During mid-June to mid-September, the prevailing southeast to southwesterly winds carry w,rm, moist tropical air inland, creating conditions f able for sporadic, often quite localized, development of thundershowers occasionally, the pressure distribution of the atmosphere changes, bringing in a flow of hotter and drier air. In the summer mo.. .is( 2 ') the prevailing southeast to southwest winds are , usually associated with the area of high pressure that often remains sta-tionary over the Atlantic Ocean off the sout hea s t coast of the United States.This area of high pressure is commonly referred to as the " Bermuda lii g h " . On some days, howeve r , the southeast to southwest winds merely reflect a localized sea breeze. The hotter drier conditions, on the other hand, are usually caused by changes in the pressure distributior., often by the formation of a high pressure system over the western Gulf of Mexico. Cool continental air rarely reaches the site region in summer. If a cold front passage does occur, the cold air behind the front has usually been greatly moderated by solar heating over the plains states to ne north or northwest. From late f all until early spring, bursts of cold air do reach southeastern Louisiag but the cool temperatures which result seldom last more than a few days Even during these seasons, the weather is .sti usually dominated by m itime tropical air from the Gulf of Mex-ico The interaction between this moist air and the much colder,.drier air to the north of ten generates or gte ifies winter storms, which then usually pass to the north of the site 'The many water surf aces in the site area modify the relative humidity and temperat regime throughout the year by decreasing the range between extremes These effects are increased during periods of southerly .wind flow, imparting the characteristics of a marine climate to t he area . Relative humidities of less than 50 percent occur in each month of the year; h er, they are less frequent in the summer than during the other seasons Freezing temperatures are not common and are generally restricted to the per mid-December to mid-March. Some years have no freezing temperatures nqq g..-dl C*.h J V 2.3-1 WSES 3 ER Measurcable snowfall in the region is rare. Only 4 times in the 100 yeare of dat collected prior to 1975 has the snowfall depth exceeded 2 in-ches(2 A fairly definite rainy period exists from mid-December to mid-March, when precipitation falls on about third of the days. Rainy a conditions in this period often persist for several days at a time. (2,3)Damaging hall and sleet are not frequently reported in the site area .2.3.1.2 Regional Air Quality The air quality in the site region is acceptabic, and the levels of oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, ozone, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons generally meet all local ambient air quality standards. Existing levels of air pollutants will have little ef fect upon Waterford 3 operations. For sixty 24-hour periods of sampling in nearby 'fetairie, Louisiana in 1976, no violations of ambient air quality standards for oxides of sulfur or nitrogen occurred (4). Even if occasional localized violations of some standards do occur, the facility's ability to operate will not be affected. The emergency diesel generators and the auxiliary boiler, the principal sources of fossil fuel pollutants from the plant, will operate only infrequently, and therefore are not likely to contribute to ground level concentrations that exceed standards. 2.3.2 LOCAL METEOROLOGY Four years of onsite data covering the periods July,1972 to June, 1075 and February, 1977 to February, 1978 have been collected in support of the licensing activities for Waterford 3. In addition, long-tern climatological data ( , 3), collected by the National Weather Service Station at New Orleans International Airport (formely known as Moisant International Air-port), about 13 miles east of the sit ere utilized in the preparation of this repo rt. Climatological records of temperature and precipitation for stations at Audubon Park in downtown New Orleans and the cooperative weather station at te s e rve , Louisiana, about 7 miles northwest of the site, were also utilized. All of the offsite data are considered to be generally representative of site conditions because these offsite stations are all within 22 miles of the Waterford site and have similar topographic and regional characteristics. Both the site and the offsite stations are located in generally flat terrain which is characteristic of the New Orleans area. The maximum dif ference in mean sea land elevations between the four locations }does not exceed 15 feet and there are no land features with elevations higher than 30 feet above sea level between the site and the stations. Addition-ally, the site and offsite stations are each from four to eight miles from Lake Pontchartrain and within a mile of the Mississippi Piver, and thus will experience similar meteorological effects of these water bodies. The off-site data used and the respective periods of record are listed in Table 2.3-1.Although each of these stations will have its own unique microclimatic characteristics, data from each of the stations are representative of the climatological Waterford site (gonditions throughout the general area surrounding the )-.% 53 9 2.3-2~Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER 2.3.2.1 Cloud cover, Sunshine and Solar Radiation ne mean annual cloud cover (in tenths of the celestial dome) from eunrise to sunset at New Orleans is 5.4. On the average, the maximum number of cloudy and clear days occurs in January and October, respectively, and totals 16 in both cases. The percentage of possible sunshine likewise ranges f rom a Janusry minimum of 49 to an October maximum of 70. The mean daily total solar and sky radiation received on a horizontal surface (in BTU per ft ocr day) increases from December to cid-June. These values show a decrease in the latter half of June and J because of increased cloudiness associated with thunderstorm activity Average monthly cloud cover, sunshine, and solar radiation are listed in Table 2.3-2. 2.3.2.2 Temperature The long-term temperature records of the area show the typical annual cycle.The monthly average temgerature varies from a minimum of 54.6 F in January to a maximum of 81.9 F in August at New Orleans International Airport. Temperature records for New Orleans Aududon Park and for Reserve, Louisiana show similar annual cycles, as given in Table 2.3-3. On the average, there are only about seven days a year in the New Orleans area when the temperature rises to 95 F or higher. The highest tempera-ture of record for the reg is 102 F, occurring most recently on June 30, 1954 in Orleans Parish The longest period in New Orleans with daily maximum temperatures of 90 F or higher was 64 days, from J 21 to Augus: 23, 1917; however, the temperature did not exceed 96 F The warmest s was 1951, when the temperature for June, July and August averaged 84.7 F ne average diurnal temperature distribution at New Orleans Intarnational Airport is presented in Table 2.3~4. This table points out that extremes in temperature in the site vicinity range from 6 F, recorded in February 1899, to 102 F in June 1954. The mean number of days during the period of 1947 to 1969 when maximum and minimum temperatures exceeded the threshhold values of 0 F, 32 F, and 90 F are listed in Table 2.3-5. For purposes of comparison, temperature data from the Waterford site for the period July, 1972 to June, 1975 and February, 1977 to February, 1978 were tabulated, and are presented in Table 2.3-6. It can be seen f rom this table that the onsite temperature data show the same tendencies as the of f-site data. Though the diurnal temperature range is several degrees less at the Waterford site, the annual mean temperatures are within 0.7 F. 2.3.2.3 Relative Humidity, Dewpoint and Fog From December to May, the waters of the Mississippi River are usually colder than the air temperature, and a par-southerlywinds"'grformationofriverfog, ticularly with light Nearby lakes also serve to .^o r ' ', U"d* [!) udv 2. 3- 3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER modify the extremes of temperature and to increase the incidence of fog over narrow strips of land along their shores (2). January is the month with the greatest f requency of fog occurrences. Monthly and annual mean relative humidity at 12 midnight, 6 a.m., 12 noon and 6 p.m. CST (2) jewpoint temperatures (5) and the mean number , mea of days with heavy fog are listed in Table 2.3-7. In about half of the winter hours, the relative humidity is under 80 percent. Humidity values of less than 50 percent are about twice as frequent in winter as in the summer. Maximum dewpoint t em pe ra tur e s , persisting for 12 hours or more, were es-timated from climatological maps (5) , and are presented for each month in Table 2.3-7. These temperature values range from 71 F in January ai.d February to higher than 78 F for the months June through September. 2.3.2.4 Wind Characteristics and Local Air Flow Trajectories 2.3.2.4.1 General Wind Regimes The t ransport trajectories of airborne effluents potentially released from the plant will ne a function of low level wind patterns. These in turn are determined by large scale meteorological conditions, and are modified to some extent by local water bodies and terrain features. The diffusion and deposition of airborne effluents is also a function of wind conditions and, additionally, is dependent upon atmospheric stability. The seasonal migration of the area of high pressure, generally located in the western portions of the Atlantic Ocean or couth-central areas of the United States and commonly referred to as the " Bermuda High", exerts a strong influence on airflow trajectories in the Waterford 3 site area. During the winter, spring and summer months, the typical position of the Bermuda High is about 500 miles east of the Florida or South Carolina coast. This results in a general southerly flow in the Waterford 3 site region. However, during the fall, the Bermuda High migrates westward, taking a position over Tennessee or Kentucky. The clockwise circulation around this high thus results in a general northeast flow in the sitc region during the fall months. Although southern Louisiana is south of the usual track of winter storm centers moving across the United States, the site area is occasionally influenced by storms that deviate southward. In such situations, strong southerly wind flows may exist ahead of the storm, with the storm passage generally followed by northerly winds. 2.3.2.4.2 Offsite Wind Data Surface wind data (9) taken at the New Orleans International Airport , during the 10 year period of 1451-1060, were used to define long-term wind conditions for the New Orleans area. The annual wind rose data show that south is the predominant wind direction (0 percent of the total hours), although 8 of the remaining 15 points of the compass have a percentage 2.3-4 Amendment Ng. 1,(4/,7j) 'e*ArUmW WSES 3 ER f requency of 6 to 8 percent. The annual wind rose at the airport is shown in Figure 2.3-1. Monthly wind roses are given in Figures A?.3-1 to A2.3-12, contained in Appendix 2-1. These wind roses strongly suggest a wide variation in wind direction. The wind rose data are given in a tabular form, on an annual basis, in Table 2.3-8. Wind speeds by month are given in Tables A2.3-1 to A2.3-12, and are contained in Appendix 2-1. Calms occur 12 percent of the total hours. An examination of the wind data from 1951 to 1060 from New Orleans Inter-national Airport, given in Table 2.3-8 and Tables A2.3-1 to A2.3-12, indicate that wind speeds have a definite seasonal variation and, to a lesser extent, vary with wind direction. Over this period, minimum average monthly wind speeds of 6.2 mph were recorded in August and maximum average monthly speeds of 10.9 mph were recorded in March, with intermediate speeds recorded in the spring and f all. On an annual basis, winds with a northerly component have the maximum average monthly speeds (9.0 mph). It should be noted that there may be deviations from these average values, depending on specific mete-orological conditions. 2.3.2.4.3 Onsite Wind Data Tabulated annual wind rose data and annual wind roses for the onsite meteorological station, at the 30 foot level, for the four years of onsite observation (July,1972 through June,1975 and February,1977 through February, 1978) are presented in Table 2.3-9 and Figure 2.3-2, respectively. The monthly onsite wind speed and direction values, for the ambined four years of data, are given in Tables A2.3-13 to A2.3-24, of A; pendix 2-1. This appendix also presents these data as onsite wind roses in Figures A2.3-13 to A2.3-24.As these data indicate, winds at the site show fewer calms and more f r eq uent southeasterly components than do the airport data. These dif-ferences are most likely due to the effects of Lake Pontchart rain and the different relative location of the lake with respect to the airport and the Waterford site. The onsite wind data were used in all of the diffusion analyses performed in conjunction with this report. Since a substantial base of onsite data now exists, it was not felt necessary to compare the onsite data to of fsite data to determine the long term representativeness of the onsite data. The onsite data are available on magnetic tape. 2.3.2.5 Atmospheric Stability Temperature dif ference between 30 feet and 130 feet, recorded onsite during the periods July, 1972 through June, 1975 and February, 1977 to Fe b ru a ry , 19 78, indicate that stable atmospheric conditions (stability classes C, F, and C) occurred about 56 percent of the time and unstable conditions (Classes A,B, and C) occurred about 19 percent of the time. The remaining observations (about 25 percent) fall into the neutral (Class D) category. The average monthly and annual frequency of the various stability categories (defined in accordance with USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.23) for the same period of record are presented in Table 2.3-10. Percistence .,m.m p) D O..M & c 2.3-5 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) ', WSES 3 ER O of certain stability categories was analyzed for the four years of data gathered.Stable conditions (Classes E, F or G) persisted for a maximum of 47 hours in September,1074. Extremely stable conditions (Class C) persisted for 15 hours on six different occasions all during the 1072-1975 data period in the months of October through January. Tables 2.3-11 through 2.3-17 are the annual average joint f requency tables (wind speed / wind direction / stability class) for the period July,1072 through June, 1975, combined with the period February,1977 through February,1078. The monthly average joint frequency for July, 1472 through June, 1075 are presented in Tables B-13 through B-96, contained in Appendix 3-1. These tables are based upon wind data collected at the 30 foot level of the onsite meteorological tower, and upon data for the temperature dif ference between the 130 and 30 foot levels. The temperature difference data were converted to stability class summaries using the procedures outlined in USNRC Degula-tory Guide 1.23. Data recovery percentages for the onsite program on a monthly and annual basis are summarized in Table 2.3-18. 2.3.2.6 Air Pollution Potential Relative estimates of the air pollut!on potential of a specific site can be made from tabulated summaries of meteorological data. Two types of data summaries readily available are tabulations of mixing height and tabulations of stagnating anticyclone occurrences. Knowledge of potentially restrict-ing terrain features is also an important consideration. 2.3.2.6.1 flixing Height Data The mixing height of the atmosphere is defined as the height of that sur-face based layer through which pollutant material released to the atmos-phere will he thoroughly mixed. The lower the mixing height, the more unfavorable dispersion conditions become. When low mixing heights are in turn combined with low wind speeds in the mixing layer, af r pollution problems can result. Using mixin height and wind speed data for Holzworth(g0)examinedandgenerallysummarized the period 1960-1964, the relative potential for adverse dispersion conditions for urban areas throughout the contiguous United States. Although the Waterford site is located in a non-urban area, Holzworth's analyses are still felt to be reasonably applicable for the purposes of this etudy. Holzworth's results indicate that the site area can expect to experience between 10 and 15 daye each year of adverse dispersion conditions. This value is somewhat high in comparison to much of the eastern US where 5-10 such days generally occur each year, but is quite low in comparison to areas west of the Rocky Mountains. Seasonal morning and af ternoon mixing heights as chtained by Holzwarth (10) are shown in Table 2.3-10 As would be expected, mixing heights are higher in summer than winter; the fall values are slightly higher, on the average, than spring values. Strong, low inversions are a common pheno-menon in the area on winter mornings when the colder air over the Mississippi De lt a is surrounded by warm, moist air over the Gulf of Mexico. O$b.I 2.3-6 Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER 2.3.2.6.2 Stagnating Anticyclone Data The occurrence frequency of stagnating anticyclones, i.e., high pressure systems, represents another easily obtainable index of high air pollution potential. Stagnating anticyclones are, in fact, a cause of low mixing heights.Using pressure gradient and low wind speed criteria, Korshover (11) has determined that approximately 30 stagnation incidents, covering a total of 110 days, occurred in the site area from 1936 through 1065. Such statis-tics are higher than those for the Northeast and the Midwest, but considerably lower than those for the Southeast - especially the inland Carolinas and northern Georgia. Korshover also has concluded that only 2 stagnation incidents, lasting for 7 days or longer, occurred in the site area during the entire 30 year period examined. 2.3.2.6.3 Local Terrain Features The terrain in the Waterford site region is very flat and contains num-erous lakes, bayous, and streams, in addition to the Mississippi River. Figure 2.3-3 shows topographical features within 5 miles of the project site.Figure 2.3-4 shows that there are few significant terrain features within 50 miles of the site, because of the flat character of the area. Maximum elevations for distances up to 10 miles from the center of the station are given in Figure 2.3-5, for the 16 cardinal points of the compass. This figure shows that no land features exist with elevations higher than 30 feet above sea level. This is generally the case within a 50 mile radius of the site, except for a few small hills less than 60 feet high, which are abmit 35 miles to the northwest. Because of the flat nature of the terrain, it is felt that terrain cross-sectional plots are not necessary beyond the 10 mile distance given in these figures. 2.3.2.6.4 Air Pollution Summary In summary, it may be concluded that limited dispersion days occur with greater frequency in the New Orleans area than in much of the eastern US, but that this frequency is f ar below that experienced west of the Rocky Mountains. Both the mixing height and anticyclone data support this conclu-sion regarding air pollution potential in the site area. In addition, dis-persion in any direction from the plant will not he restricted by any signi-ficant confining terrain features. 2.3.2.7 Precipitation A f airly definite rainy period occurs from mid-December to mid-March. Dur-ing this period, measurable precipitation occurs on about one third of the days in conjunction with a weather front which has stalled over the northern Gulf of Mexico. During this period, rain is generally continuous and may last for several days. Snowfall amounts are generally light, with the snow usually melting as it falls. In fact, snowfall amounts in excess of two inches have only been recorded four times in the 100 years of available data r:r&Us)%qe} ' y =~e se a *.2 2.3-7 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER prior to 1975 (5.0 inches in January 1881, 8.2 irches ig ry 1895, 3.0 inches in February 1899 and 2.7 inches in December 1963 Only one glaze storm was reported in the g ion by the U.S. Weather Bureau for the 28 year period between 1925-1953 Although the Weather Bureau data has only limited information on glaze occurrence in the New Orleans area, communicatio th the Lead Forecaster at the National Weather Service New Orleans office indicates that since the early 1920's there have been only three significant glaze occurrences in the site vicinity. The i most severe occurred in the early 1920's when approximately 1/4 inch of glaze ice accumulated on vegetation in the area. The accumulated glaze com-pletely melted within less than 24 hours. The other two glaze storms occurred of January 1940 and in the mid to late 1950'a. Each of these storms deposited less than 1/4 inch of glaze on vegetation, automo-biles, etc., and in both cases the glaze accumulations melted within several tours .Although April, May, October and Novembet are generally dry, there ha ve been some extremely heavy showers in those months. The greatest 24-hour precipitation total recorded since 1871 was 14.01 inches, wh fell April 15-16, 1927, while 13.68 inches fell October 1-2, 1937 The.heaviest recorded rate of rainf all in the New Orleans area was one inch in 5 minutes, measured during a thunderstorm on February 5, 5.Such a rate, however, has never been sustained for a long period In contrast, one can expect a period of 3 consecutive weeks without measureable rainfall about once in 10 years. he longest period was 53 da y s , from September 29 to November 20, 1924 Average monthly and annual precipitation values representative of the area have been given in Table 2.3-3. Extreme monthly and daily precipi-tation data, and the mean number of days per month when precipitation equaled or exceeded 0.01 inch, are listed i ble 2.3-20. Maximum short period precipitation data for Audubon Park are shown in Table 2.3-21.Table 2.3-22 shows monthly f requencies of occurrence of precipi-tation by time of day at New Orleans International Airport for the pe riod 1951 through 1960. Annual and seasonal precipitation wind rose data for the US Na Air Station at New Orleans, located about 26 miles ESE of the site , 7 were obtained from the 17 year period of record (1949-1965). Table 2.3-23 presents the percentage f requency of wind direction during precipi-tation.The data show that the highest annual frequency (13.6 percent) of precipitation occurs when the wind is calm (equal to or less than 2 mph), and the lowest annual frequency (1.9 percent) of precipitation occurs with wind directions of WSW and WNW. 2.3.3 SEVERE WEATHER 2.3.3.1 Maximum Winds Thom (} has computed the return period for extreme winds (fastest mile l1 of wind exclusive of tornado winds) at 30 feet about the ground. Based 2.3-8 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) .WSES 3 ER on Thom's analysis, a fastest mile of wind value of 100 mph (one mile of air passing in 36 seconds) can be expected to occur in the area on the averggonceevery100 years. Based on a gustiness factor developed by l1 Huss , the highest instantaneous gust expected once in 100 years is 130 mph.Ext reme wind speeds at New Orleans, for recurrence intervals from 2 to 100 years, are presented in Table 2.3-24. Uinds greater than 50 knots occur less f requently than every 2 years. For comparison purposes, maximum observed 1 minute wind speeds and directions at New Orleans Inter-national Airport, for the period 1"21-1067, are presented in Table 2.3-25. The distribution of high wind speeds with height is an important factor in building design. Using the once in a hundred year wind (100 mph) and a standard logarithmic wind profile, the distribution of extreme winds with height is as follows: 0-50 feet 50-150 feet 150-400 feet 100 mph 110 mph 138 mph 2.3.3.2 Hurricanes During the period 1871-1977, 55 tropical storms or hurricanes passed within i 100 nautical miles of the Waterford site (20,21). Beginning with 1886, the National Weather Service (formerly the US Weather Bureau) has dif ferentiated between tropical storms (maximum wind less than 74 mph) and hurricanes (maximum wind equal to or 8reater than 74 mph). Since 1886, 26 hurricanes and 23 tropical storms have passed within 100 nautical miles of the je. Since 1900, the centers of 3 hurricanes have passed over New Orleans .At 9:12 a.m. on September 19, 1947, during the passage of a hurricane, the highest wind recorded at New Orleans International Airport was measured as 08 mph.Af te rwa rds , and shortly before the eye of the hurricane passed over the station, the wind velocity became indistinguishable on the indicator, but the wind was estimated to reach 110 mph, with gusts estimated to 125 mph. In 1965, Hurricane "Betsy" brought destructive winds to the New Orleans Metropolitan area. On September 9, 1065, at 11:47 p.m. the winds at New Orleans International Airport reached 86 mph from the east, with gusts to 112 mph.In downtown New Orleans, an extreme wind of 125 mph from the east was estimated from measurements taken on tcp of the Federal Building. Since 1963, five tropical cyclones with winds in excess of 50 mph,'(all hurri-canes - including Betsy), have passed within 100 nautical miles of the Water-I ford site. Of these, Betsy was by far the most severe in the New Orleans-Waterford site area. A summary of these five hurricanes is presented in Table 2.3-26. 2.3.3.3 Thunderstorms Th un de rs t o re s , accompanied by damaging winds and hall, are relatively infrequent in the region. The most damaging thunderstorms are those associated with the passage of a cold front or squall line(2) .g.. ,- e n 8 A J J b .r t A 2.3-9 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Based on 21 years of records (1940-1069) of the US Weather Bureau at New Orleans International Airport, also called the Moisant International Airport during this period, the mean number of days with thunderstorms is: January 2 May 6 September 7 February 2 June 0 October 2 March 3 July 16 November 1 April 5 August 13 December 2 Annual 68 The maximum thunderstorm occurrence during the months of July and August is also reflected in the monthly average precipitation. Hall occurrences are relatively infrequent, and during the period 1055-1967, hail 3/4 inches or more in diameter was reported only 13 times in I the 1 latitude - longitude square containing the site (22) This is.rare, especially when compared to over 100 such hail reports from some localities in Oklahoma. 2.3.3.4 Tornadoes severe thunderstorm or hurricane will generate a Occasionally, an especially(23), the total frequency of tornadoes for the tornado. According to Thom 10 year period 1953-1962, by one-degree latitude-longitude squares for south-eastern Louisiana is: 84 00W 00-01W 29-30 N O a 30-31 N 12 11 The mean annual frequency of tornadoes per one degree square in the site area, therefore, is about one. Thom(23) also gives the probability of a tornado striking a point based on the path width and length of all tornadoes reported in Iowa during in53-1963. The average path area of the Iowa storms is given by Thom as 2.820o square miles. Using this information, the tornado frequency presented above and the me thod suggested by Thom, the agnual probability of a tornado striking the site is approximately 6.3 x 10 or about once every 1585 years. An examination of tornado statistics for 1950-1977(24) showed that during this period a total of 112 tornadoes had been reported within 50 nautical miles (58 statute miles) of the Waterford site. The average path length and width of these 112 tornadoes is 3.36 miles and 318 'eet, respectively; these values yield an average path area of 0.20 square miles. Using the above, site specific statistics and Thom's method, the probability -5 of a tornado striking the Waterford site is 7.68 x 10 or once in approximately 13,000 years. 3683 G g 2.3-10 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER The site specific tornado data described above show that the two most severe tornadoestooccurinthesiteg nity were classed F4 according to the Fujita Tornado intensity scale This scale, which was developed by TT Fujita of the University of Chicago, classifies tornado intensity and maximum wind speed based upon the observed extent of damage attributable to the storm. The F4 classification is associated with wind speeds (rotational and translational combined) estimated to be between 207 and 260 mph. 1 Even though the probability of a tornado at the site is small, all struc-tures and equipment necessary to initiate and maintain a safe plant shut-down have been designed to withstand short-term loadings resulting from a tornado funnel with a peripheral tangential velocity of 300 mph, a trans-lational velocity of 60 mph and an external pressure dro of three psi in. three seconds. .3bih.3Q.7 2.3-11 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER R EF ERENC ES 1)Trewartha, G T, An Introduction to Climate, McGraw-Hill, New York. 1954.2)U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion, Environmental Data Service, Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data for New Orleans, Louisiana. 1972.3)U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Weather Bureau, " Climates of the States for Louisiana, Cli=atography of the United States No. 60-16. December, 1959. 4)Personal Communication, Surveillance Unit, Air Quality Section, Louisiana Air Control Commission. May, 1977. 5)U.S. Dept. of Commerce, ESSA, Climatic Atlas of the United States. 1968.6)U.S. Dept. of Commerce, ESSA, " Climatological Data, National Summary". Annual 1969. 7)Personal communications, L Mayne National Weather Service Of fice, y New Orleans, La., with A P Letizia, Ebasco Services Inc., New York, N Y, May 1979. 8)" Weekly Mean Values of Daily Total Solar and Sky Radiation", Weather l1 Bureau Technical Paper No. 11. 1949.9)U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Weather Bureau, "Climatography of the United l1 States No. 82-16, Summary of Hourly Observations for New Orleans, La. , Moisant International Airport, 1951-1960". 1962.10)Holzworth, George C, " Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential l1 for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States". Div. of Meteorology, Of fice of Air Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. January,1972. 11)Korshover, Julius, "Climatography of Stagnating Anticyclones East lof the Rocky Mountains, 1936-1964", U.S. Dept. of Commerce, ESSA, National Center for Air Pollution Control, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1967.12)Climatological Record, New Orleans, La, supplied by the National Climatic Center, Asheville, NC. 7 13)U s Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Local Climatological Data, New Orleans, Louisiana (Moisant Field) December,1963. 14)Bennett, Iven, " Glaze-Its Meteorology and Climatology, Geographical 1 Distribution, and Economic Effects", U.S. Army Environmental Protection Research Division Technical Report EP-105. March,1959. 15)Personal communication, R F Haslin, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, New Orleans, Louisiana with A P Letizia, Ebasco Services Inc, New York, N Y, December 12, 1978 n'jdb,ay i' T 2.3-12 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ERl1 16)U.S.Dept. of Commerce, Weather Bureau, "flaximum Recorded United States Point Raifall for 5 minutes to 24 hours at 296 First-Order Stations", Weather Bureau Technical Paper No. 2. Revised 1963. !1 17)llosler, C R," Low Level Inversion Frequency in the Contiguous United States", Monthly Weather Review. Vol. 89 (9), 1961. 18)Thom, 11 G S , "New Distribution of Extreme Winds in the United States", !1 Proceedings of the ASCE, Journal of the Structural Division. July 1968. 19 )llus s , P 0," Relation Between Gusts and Average Wind Speed, Report l1 140", David Guggenneim Airship Institute, Cleveland, Ohio. 1946.20)" Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean", Weather Bureau l1 Technical Paper No. 55. 1965.21)Neuman, C J et al., 1978, " Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic y Ocean, 1871-1977", U S Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Climatic Center, Asheville, North Carolina. 22)U.S.Dept. of Commerce, " Severe Local Storm Occurrences", Technical l1 Memorandum WBTil FCST 12. 1969.l1 23)Thom, 11 C S , " Tornado Probabilities", Monthly Weather Review, U.S. Weather Bureau, Washington, D.C, pp 730-736, October-December 1963. 24)U S Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Severe Storms Forecast 1 Center, Listing of Reported Tornadoes within 50 miles of the Water-ford Site for the period 1950-1977. 25)Fujita, T T, 1973: Memo to National Weather Service Offices re: FF/ 7 Classification of Tornado. o r ~ as.u n2Dsy,d e 2.3-13 Amendment No. 1, (9/19) WSES 3 ER New Orleans, and to insure the safety of New Orleans and the downstream delta area during major floods. The spillway and floodway are operated to prohibit the river stage on the Carrollton Cage from exceeding 20 ft, a stage about 5 ft below levee grade. 2.4.2.2 Flow Volume Flow reco rd s have been maintained on the lower Mississippi at Red River Landing (1900-1963) and Tarbert Landing (1964-1976). The re a re no major tributaries below these points, and these flows are characteristic of the lower reach of the river and the Waterford 3 site, except f or flood flows. Yearly maximum, minimum, and mean flows of the Mississippi River are given on Table 2.4-2. For the 77 years of record, the mean annual discharge was 494,000 cfs. ,The average annual maximum flow was 1,043,000 cfs, and the average annual' minimum flow was 155,000 cfs. Although flood season is from mid-December to July, on the average, flows are generally above the mean{omFebruarytoJune, and below the mean for the remainder of the year as shown in Figure 2.4-6. , 2.4.2.2.1 Low Flows A icequency analysis from a hydrologic investigation conducted by the Louisiana Department of Public Works, in concert with the USGS, reports that the 95 percent exceedance flow (that flow g}ich will be equalled or exceded 95 percent of the time) is 131,000 cfs Recently, however, the 95 percent exceedanceflowfyy)the lower Mississippi River has been up-dated to 140,000 cfs by the USGS for a hypr. hetical gaging station lo-cated midway between Red River Landing and Tarbert Landing. Figure 2.4-7 presents daily flow frequencies computed for this station. The Old River Cont rol Structure, (which was completed in 1963) as well as additional construction of storage reservoirs on tributaries are designed 1 to sustain a minimum flow of 100,000 cf s during low flow periods, i.e., it is doubtful that pgjly flows in this section of the river will ever be less than 100,000 cfs The Mississippi River has a typical low flow condition of about 200,000 cfs. This typical low flow is estimated to have a recurrence interval of approxi-mately 0.7 years as a monthly average river flow. Based on the period of record - 1936 to 19 75, t he seasonal average flows are 580,000, 650,000, 1 280,000 and 240,000 cfs for winter, spring, summer and fall, respectively. 2.4.3 SITE AREA SURFACE WATER INDROLOGY This section deals with the physical aspects of the hydrology of the Missis-sippi in the Waterford 3 area, and describes the area's drainage, flooding pot en t ia l , river current, bathymetry, dispersion and diffusion characteris-tics.2.4.3.1 Drainage Patterns of the Waterford 3 Area Surface and subsurface drainage in the re g ion flows southwestward into the Lac des Allemands - Lake Salvador drainage system. This drainage area is .0?Ei.$.2.4-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER bounded on the north and east by the levee of the Mississippi River. Bayou La Fourche and an abandoned distributary form a low divide to t he we st , where the drainage system is bounded by the Atchaf alaya Basin. To the south, drainage is through Little Lake and Barataria Bay into the Gulf of Mexico. The waterways and lake that make up this drainage system are used for navigation, but are not a source of drinking water. Natural surface drainage at the Waterford 3 site is away from the Mississippi River and toward the southwest. The surface topographic characteristics of the Waterford 3 site, and the immediately surrounding area, are shown in Figure 2.4-8. 2.4.3.2 Flooding Potential During the site safety studiet, three possible types of flooding were ana-lyzed in detail f or the Waterford 3 site. The flooding potential at the site can be described from the conclusions reached by these studies, which are discussed in detail in Section 2.4 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The design basis flood inf ormation is summarized primarily f rom the FSAR, which should be consulted for the methodologies and computational techn iq ue s . The three types are: a)Precipitation in excess of the capacity of the pla nt site drainage system.b)Levee failure. c)Probable maximum hurricane surge. The maximum ef fective water surface elevation at the site (26.5 feet MSL) was found to result f rom hurricane surge and wind-induced waves. In con-sideration of the flooding potential, Waterford 3 has been equipped with flood proofing to an elevation of 30 feet MSL. 2.4.3.3 Bathymetry The Waterford 3 site is located on the outside (eroding) bank of a bend in the Mississippi River, f ormed by 35 Mile Point. The lowest elevation of the bottom, in this reach of the Mississippi, is in excess of -129 MSL. Bathymetry f or the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the Waterford 3 site is presented in Figure 2.4-9. 2.4.3.4 River Currents 2.4.3.4.1 Calculation of River Current at the Waterford 3 Site Long-term information on current velocity at the Waterford 3 site is not presently available. Ilowever, long-term stage and discharge information is available from the records of the Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District; and f rom these data, cross sectional averaged velocities, in feet per second (fps), can be determined for the river at the Waterford site.Obv'*}>[[f ,. q 2.4-4 WSES 3 ER The flow rate was established at the Carrollton Station by takiag the Tarbert Landing and Red River Landing flow data, and assuming that arrival time at Carrollton was at a later time. Thus, the flow rate was estab-lished at Carrollton by time. The calculated Carrollton data and the measured stage were then used to construct a rating curve at Carrollton. From this information, a rating curve was th m back-calculated at the Waterford 3 site, using cross-section data and the Manning's Coefficient provided by the Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District. After construction of the rating curve at the site area, seasonal flow data over a 39 year period f rom Red River Landing was examined, and the mean monthly flows were calculated for the Waterford site. Using this flow data in conjunction with the site rating curve , the stage at the site was deter-mined.For each stage, cross-sectional areas calculated from bathymetry I we re determined f or the site area. Velocity data f or the site area were calculated from the expression: Y 9_" CA Where: V = mean velocity in fps Q = flow in cfs CA = cross-sectional area in f t 2.4.3.4.2 River Current at the Waterford 3 Site Table 2.4-3 summarizes the calculations described above. The 39 year average current velocity calculated at the Waterf ord 3 site is 2.3 fps. The minimum is 1.1 fps. While this is an approximation, it falls within the range previously recorded. As noted, these values are cross sectionally averaged velocities. The actual velocity distribution is controlled by the channel geometry, described further in Section 5.1, and can be expected to vary greatly along the cross-section. During similar studies made between December 1970 and October 1973( ) , a backwater eddy current was also observed near the Waterf ord 1 and 2 dis-charge structure, and is estimated to occur when the mean river flow is less than approximately 600,000 cfs. This eddy current was investigated with both dye studies and drogue tracks. In a hydrothermal study conducted for Louisiana Power & Light Company (, a program utilizing drogues and current mete rs was undertaken to establish the current velocity in the Mississippi near the Waterford site. Current speed and direction measurements were taken at several sampling stations, which are shown in Figure 2.4-10. Table 2.4-4 gives the current velocity profiles developed from measurements taken on September 16 and 17, 1976, when the Mississippi was at a stage of 2.19 feet, as measured at the Carrollton Gage. This s ta ge indicates that the river was in a low flow condition, i.e., this flow has the probability of being exceeded approxi-mately 90% of the time. <-e n ,,' i.

  • F.I_2.4-5 WSES 3 ER 2.4.3.4.3" Time of Travel" Studle; Everett( ) presented the results of dye dispersion studies that are 1 performed at Baton Rouge (RM 219) when the river discharge was 364,000 cfs.

Everett developed time of travel curves for the leading edge, peak concentration, and trailing edge of dye plumes. The results for the peak concentration are shown in Figure 2.4-11. This figure indicates that the travel time from Baton Rouge to the Water: ord site, a distance of 90 river miles, is approximately 77 hours. 2.4.4 GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY 2.4.4.1 Regional aad Site Area Aquifers The major aquifers in the region are unconsolidated sands that dip south-ward, and in general, these sand deposits are separated and confined by relatively impermeable clays and silts. Major water-bearing zones can be correlated in a northwest-southeast direction along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. The connate water within the aquifers, which is the water in an aquifer at the time of deposition, is generally brackish or salty in southeastern Louisiana. Fresh water is found only near areas of recharge where the salty connate water has been displaced. Because of the southerly dip of the aquifers in the region, deep aquifers h approach the land surf ace further to the north than shallow aquifers. Since the topography of the region rises from south to north, the recharge areas for the deeper aquifers are at a higher elevation than those for the shallower aquifers. This circumstance is considered to induce, under natural conditions, a general piezometric gradient which f alls f rom north to south and concurrently causes an increase in piezometric head with depth at a given location. ^The principal aquifer systems which exist within the Waterf ord 3 region are (in order of increasing depth): 1)The Shallow aquifers 2)The Gracercy aquifer 3)The Norco aquifer 4)The Gonzales-New Orleans aquifer The aquifer systems are named for areas in which they are used intensively. The aquifers of the Waterford 3 site area are correlative with the regional aquifers. The geological materials underlying the site area have been divided into five zones, as shown in Figure 2.4-12, which gives a brief description of each zone and its permeability. From piezometric levels recorded during dewatering f or the Waterford 3 foundation construct:on, described in Section 6.1.2, it is evident that clay strata isolate the plant from t he groundwater system by a minimum of 300 feet of impermeable clay interbedded with dense sand lenses. This is also shown in Figure 2.4-12. g..-r n~c in ) d d i-) , 2.4-6 Amendmen t No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER h of 17.5 mgd in 1950 horco aquifer, d in .how y,e has decreased from a hig~d below 11 mgd through 1976g7 Usage has generally remaine to a mg The hydrostatic pressures in the Gramercy and Norco aquifers have been re-versed by the pumping in the Norco area. Water levels are now higher in the Gramercy (Figure 2.4-15) aquifer than those in the Norco aquifer, given in Figure 2.4-17, and therefore groundwater presently moves f rom the Gramercy aquifer, through the area of convergence, into the Norco aquifer. Water levels in the Norco aquifer, given in Figure 2.4-17, are as low as -50 ft MSL in the vicinity of Norco and -15 ft MSL in the New Orleans area. The body of freshwater in the aquifer east of Luling, shown in Figure 2.4-16, is probably related to upward movement of water from the Gonzales-New Orleans aquifer through a permeable zone in the confining bed overlying the Gonzales-New Orleans aquifer. The transmissivity of the Norco quif er in the site area is about 200 000 3 to 225,000 gpd/ft and the permeability is about 1,600 to 1,800 gpd/ft .Most wells in the Norco aquifer yield from 1,0 1,500 gpm and most specific capacities range from 45 to 75 gpm/ft 2.4.4.1.4'Ihe Gonzales-New Orleans Aquif er The Gonz s g Orleans aquifer is a fine grained quartz sand of uniform 'texture present over a large part of the lower Mississippi g , Bat on Rouge to New Orleans, and not _.. east from New Orleans to Ft Pike .It is the primary aquifer in New Orleans and the Geismar-Gonzales area. It is correlative with f shallow, coarse grained aquifers underlying LakePontchartrain(i63n The Gonzales-New Orleans aquifer is recharged primarily north of Lake Pontchartrain where it outcrops. The Gonzales-New Orleans aqu varies in thickness from an average of 175 feet hlhheNewOrleansarea to 225 feet in the vicinity of Norco In the Waterford 3 site area, it ranges in thickness from less than 175 to mare than 325 feet in thickness, and is continuous. The top of the Gonzales-New Orleans aquifer occurs at about -600 ft MSL at the site, as shown in Figure 2.4-18, which illustrates the configuration of the top of this aquifer. The piezometric gradient of the Gonzales-New Orleans aquifer slopes toward the center of heavy industrial pumping in New Orleans, as shown in Figure 2.4-19, which gives the configuration of the potentiometric surf ace of this aquifer in the site area. Other minor drawdown cones in the Norco and Laplace vicinity act as minor perturbations on this surf ace . Pumpage fro e Gonzales-New Orleans aquifer in the Waterford 3 area is about 6 mgd for irrigation and industrial purposes. Large scale future developments in the aquifer are not considered likely in the Waterford 3 area because of the advantages of a higher transmissivity in the overlying Norco aquifer..c w n, . . UYDOd0 2.4-9 .WSES 3 ER In the site area, the transmissivi ty of the Gonzales-New Orleans aquifer is lower than that of the Norco aquifer, averaging about 148,000 gpd/ft. The permeability is on the order of 680 gpd/f t and most yields of wells are between 1,000 and 1,500 gpm. 2.4.5 WATER QUALITY Water quality information for the Waterford 3 site has been obtained from available literature sources, and from site specific studies. Most of the available information concerns with the surf ace water quality of the Mississippi River. 2.4.5.1 Regional Water Quality 2.4.5.1.1 Surface Water (8) has analyzed 14 years of lower Mississippi River quality l1 Everett data from St Francisville, Louisiana and most of the information presented in this section has been derived from his work. St. Francisville is located downstream of the major tributaries to the Mississippi and the Old Rive r Cont ro". t ru c t ur e . Because it is above the effluent sources of Baton Rouge, water c

y at this station can be considered to represent the"unaf fected" conoition for the lower Mississippi River. In general, daily ve;iations of water quality are small; however, seasonal fluctuations do occur in the chemistry, sediment concentrations, and temperature of the river water.

a)Chemical Quality Variations in the chemical and physical qualities of the lower Mississippi River at St Francisville are presented in Table 2.4-5. St Francisville is located approximately 139 river miles upstream of Waterford 3. Downstream of St Francisville, ionic concentrations increase as the river receives effluents from municipal and industrial sources, as shown in Figure 2.4-20. Everett found downstream increases in chloride, sulfate, sodium, and calcium concentrations, with the greatest increase in the chloride concentrations. It was estimated that, as of 1964, approximately 7500 cfs of industrial effluent was discharged into this section of the Mississippi. Each day, this discharge added approximately 20,000 tons of dissolved solids to the river. During high flows, this increase was barely discernible because of dilution effects. Under low flow conditions, however, this effluent caused significant increases in the total dissolved solids, Everett also estimated that abu i 200 tons per day of organic material was discharged to the river from sewage plants, chem-ical and petrochemical plants, oil refineries, and pulp and paper mills. Generally, the effect on the dissolved oxygen content of the water was a downstream decrease of less than AmendmentSo%1,.$ M O (9/79)2.4-10. WSES 3 ER 1 mg/1. During the 1969 water year, the oxygen content was greater than 70 percent of saturation for 80 percent of the t ime . On two occasions of brief duration, the oxygen content dropped below 65 percent of saturation. Coliform bacteria content of the water showed the ef fects of sewage discharge. At the Carrollton Street intake (RM 104.7), coliform counts exceeded 5000 colonics/100 ml 13 percent of time.At Algiers (RM 95.8), the counts exceeded 5000 colonies /100 ml 34 percent of the time. Maximum reported counts are in excess of 500,000 colonies /100 ml. Since the bed of the lower Mississippi River ic below sea level, salt water from the Gulf of Mexico intrudes as a wedge under the freshwater discharge. The extent of the saline front upstream of the river mouth, as well as the depth of the top of the wedge, is highly dependent on river flow volume and duration. The saline front gen-erally does not extend above New Orleans. However, in two instances of relatively long duration of low flow (less than 100,000gs), the front was found to extend up to River Mile 115 and beyond l1 For observations made since 1929, the maximum salt wa ter int ru-sion occured in October 1939, when the wedge was detected at River Mile 120. Flow during the period was slightly less than 100,000 cfs for several days. The wedge also passed the Kenner Hump (RM 115) during October 1940. During 1953-54 and 1956, the wedge encroached to the Kenner Hump, but did not go beyond it as flow slightly exceeded 100,000 cfs. Future int ru sions of the wedge should be limited by flow control on the river. b)Thermal Quality Temperatures in the Mississippi River below St Francisville vary both seasonally and spatially. Seasonal variations range between a minimum recorded temperature of 1 C, to a maximum of 31 C, as shown in Figure 2.4-21. Spatial distribution is strongly influ-enced by thermal discharges from industrial sources. Approxima tely 95 percent of the wa lower Mississippi River 1 is used for coolin8 {g withdrawn from the During high and intermediate flows, the .return of this heated water causes only local variations in tempera-ture, but is indiscernible with respect to the overall temperature of the river. During low flow, thermal discharges have been found raise the g bient water temperatures between St Francisville and to Luling Ferry -c)Sediment 1 Sediment is transported by the Mississippi River as either a bed load or a suspended load. The amount of eaterial in suspension is generally a f unct ion of river discharge , turbulence, particle s iz e , and temperature. Whether flow is increasing or decreasing also 'appears to influence suspended sediment concentrations. Usually, on the Mississippi, peak sediment concentrations slightly precede peak 41 *

  • c '
  • y r , e2*J e3 j s) < 3

.2.4-11 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER flow. During high flows, the sediment concentrationgegygllyin-Figure creases downstream. The converse is true for low flows .2.4-22 gives the duration curve for suspended sediment condition at Red River Landing, Louisiana. Sediment size varies with depth, river mile, and discharge. In general, the percentage of coarser particles increases with in-creasing depth and river discharge, as shown in Figure 2.4-23. At a given discharge and depth, particle size decreases down-stream. The latter relationship is shown clearly in the size distribution of the bottom sediment in the Mississippi, which is given in Figure 2.4-24. Values for the Mississippi River sediment near the Waterford 3 site should fall between the two plots shown in this figure. 2.4.5.1.2 Groundwa ter Groundwater in the Mississippi Delta is highly variable in quality. A given aquifer may yield good quality wacer or high saline water. The dis-tribution of the fresh water zones are a function of the depositional en-vironment of the aquifers and recharge patterns. The connate water was saline for all of ;he regional aquifers except the point bar deposits. Flushing of the saline water has occurred from recharge either from the north of Lake Pontchartrain, from the Mississippi River thrpygg the point bar deposits, or from interconnections of the a g e t f e rs The extent of the flushing can be seen for each of the .major aquifers on Fi;ures 2.4-14 through 2.4-19. Each aquifer has water with a characteristic quality, if it is not mixed with water from other aquifers. Water from the shallow (point bar) aqui-fers is generally hard, and has a high iron content. Chloride content is naturally low; but in some areas where the shallow aquifers are connected with s {{ge aquifers of a higher head, higher chloride concentrations are noted The Grammercy aquifer water quality is strongly af fected by recharge flow affected,thewaterisamixedc{-) from other aquifers. Where it is not cium and magnesiue bicarbonate, sodium chloride type, and is very hard .Down-dip sodium chloride concentrations increase more rapidly than other ions.The Norco aquifer water quality also shows the ef fects of interaquifer re-sodium chloride charg g )The water ranges from a sodium bicarbonate to a ty pe liardness typically ranges from 40 to 60 mg/1. Iron is.generally less than 0.5 mg/1. Minimum and maximum recorded pH are 7.1 and 9.0, but most values range between 7.5 to 8.0. Where the water is {ggaldissolvedsolidsare characteristically between 750 and fresh, the 1000 mg/l The Gonzales-New Orleans aquifer is generally quite un if o rm in its water quality characteristics. Where variations do occur, they are of a gradual nature. Mineralization increases to the south of the recharge U U D. n q.)s)u n.--2.4-12 WSES 3 ER area.In general, water is of a mixed sodium bicarbonate chloride type, and is soft Hardness of the fresh water ranges from 10 to 40 mg/1. Iron is generally less than 0.3 mg/1, and the pH range is between 7.4 and 8.4. In the New Orleans area, the water is yellow-colorg hich is possibly the result of the presence of organic material Analyses of waters from a number of wells in the Waterford 3 region are presented in Table 2.4-6. 2.4.5.2 Waterford 3 Area Water Quality Surf ace water quality data have been obtained for the Waterford 3 site from two sources. Since 1973, water samples have been taken at five locations as part of the Environmental Surveillance Program, described in Section 6.1.1. Since 1976, river water temperature has been monitored near the Waterford 3 site and the Little Gypsy Steam Electric Station. Site area groundwater quality is not considered to vary greatly from the regional trends, described above. Because of the isolation of Waterf ord 3 from the groundwater system, explained earlier, detailed groundwater quality at the site is not presented. 2.4.5.2.1 Surface Water Water samples were collected and analyzed during the Environmental Surveillance Program. Analysis of the data, presented in Tables 2.4-7 to 2.4-9, shows significant seasonal variation of values for most of the parameters sampled. No statistically significant differences were noted between the stations, which are described in Section 6.1.1. 2.4.5.2.2 Sediment Concentrations Recent work by the US Geological Survey at Luling Ferry has yielded preliminary information on the relationship of discharge and some in the vicinity of the Waterford 3 site (18) sediment concentrations The results of these studies, given in Table 2.4-10, are comparable to total suspended solids values derived during the Environmental Sur-veillance Program, as given in Table 2.4-9. The largest percentage of material was found to be silt-sized or smaller, under all condi-tions of flow. 2.4.5.2.3 Temperature There are currently two principal thermal discharges which alter the ambient river temperature regime in the vicinity of Waterford 3. These are the Little Gypsy Sceam Electric Station, and Waterford 1 and 2. The two facilities are owned and operated by LP&L. Little Gypsy has a combingd generating capacity of 1250 MW, and discharge is approximately 7.5 x 10 Btu /hr (1448 cfs at 23 F above ambient); Waterford 1 and 2, witg a combined generating capacity of 822 MW, discharges approricately 4.1 x 10 Btu /hr (960 cfs at 14 F above ambient). Section org v ,."#g*'2.4-13 WSES 3 ER 5.1 contains a discussion of the combined effects of these discharges under various river conditions. Continuous water temperature monitoring is being conducted at three depths at two water quality monitoring stations located near each bank of the Mississippi near Waterford 3. This monitoring program is described in Section 6.1.1. The monthly maximum, minimum, and range of variation of river water temperatures are given in Table 2,4-11 for mean sea level (MSL), in Table 2.4-12 for -10 f t MSL, and Table 2.4-13 for -20 ft MSL. Additional river temperatures, from a longer period of sampling, are avail-able from measurements taken near Westwego, Louisiana, approximately 25 miles downstream of Waterford 3. Tabic 2.4-14 gives the monthly maximum, minimum, and average river temperatures for 1951 through 1978. 1 O O q ._ ,.- n . . . . v a Qu a< > 2.4-14 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER RE FERENCES

1) Public Af f airs Of fice, Mississippi River Commission, and US Department of the Army, Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi Valley.

Flood Control in the Lower Mississippi River Valley. March, 1976.

2) US Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi Valley Division, and MRC, in cooperation with North Central Division, Missouri River Division, Southwestern Division, and Ohio River Divi-sion.Mississippi River and Tributaries - Post-Flood Report 1973.

January, 1974.

3) Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi Valley Division. Water Resources Development in Louisiana.

1975.4) Personal Communication, US Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana. 1976.5) Personal Communication, US Geological Survey, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. March 3, 1977.

6) Neely, Braxtel, L Jr, US Geological Survey, " Floods in Louisiana, Magnitude and Frequency." Third Edition - Published b) Louisiana Department of Highways, Baton Rouge , Louisiana.

1976.7) Personal Commucication, US Geological Survey, Baton Rouge , Louisiana. March 3, 1977.

8) Everett, Duane, "llydrologic and Quality Characteristics of the Lower Mississippi River. " Technical Report No. 5.

Louisiana Department of Public Works. 1971.9) Ebasco Services, Inc, "Waterford Steam Electric Station, Summary of 1 Hydrologic Studies Performed in the Mississippi River for Louisiana Power & Light." 1974.10) Geo-Marine , Inc . , "First Operational Hydrothermal Study, Waterford S .E . S . , " S ep t-O c t , 1976. Conducted for Louisiana Power & Light Co. J a nua ry , 19 7 7.

11) Hosman, R L, " Ground-Water Resources of the Norco Area, Louisiana." US Geological Survey. Water Resources Bulletin No. 18.

1972.12) Rollo, J R," Ground-Water Resources of the Greater New Orleans Area, Louisiana." US Geological Survey. Water Resources Bulletin No. 9. 1966.13) Eddards, M L, Kister, L R, and Scarcia, G, " Water Resources of the New Orleans Area, Louisiana." US Geological Survey. Circular 374. 1955.14) Personal Communication, Shell Oil Company, Norco Refinery. 1977.ry m > -, es a u%.: A 2.4-15 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER 15) Personal Communics. tion, US Geological Survey, Water Resources Divi-sion, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 1974 and 1975.

16) Cardwell, G T, Forbes, M J, Jr, and Gaydos , M W, " Water Resources of the Lake Pontchartrain Area, Louisiana." US Geological Survey.

Uater Resources Bulletin No. 12. 1967.17) Smith, A B, " Channel SeCimentation and Dredging Problems, Mississippi River and Louisiana Gulf Coast Access Channels." Proc of the Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conf. US Department of Agriculture, Miscel-laneous Publication No. 970. 1963.18) Personal Communication, US Geological Survey, Baton Rouge , Louisiana. 1977.O O s.s. m 2.4-16 WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.4-2 (Sheet 1 of 2) STREAMFLOW IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER

  • 1900-1976**Daily Discharge (in 1000 cfs) 1 Year Maximum Minimum Mean 1900 796 157 434 1901 82 2 104 377 1902 8 61 198 461 1903 1206 116 639 1904 1018 119 465 1905 918 165 576 1906 1116 253 592 1907 1275 198 676 1908 1218 138 667 1909 1163 157 581 1910 853 130 473 1911 1007 174 459 1912 1499 198 646 1913 1272 167 584 1914 903 137 409 1915 934 298 653 1916 1327 157 641 1917 1218 110 510 1918 727 110 400 1919 960 154 602 1920 1223 181 657 1921 992 156 527 1922 1437 133 566 1923 1126 226 590 1924 928 154 549 1925 656 104 368 1926 813 143 477 1927 1779 173 867 1928 1035 236 601 1929 1301 163 643 1930 9 11 125 419 1931 672 119 283 1932 1244 158 516 1933 1076 130 522 1934 720 130 292 1935 1087 112 574 1936 973 92 346 1937 1467 128 514 1938 1062 131 511* 19 uo- 19 ti l Discharge at Red River Landing, Louisiana and 19 6 4- 19 / h Discharge at Tarbert Landing, Mississippi r1** Army Corps of Engineers Data , , ... o r -

,,d DeJ nid a Amendment%>.1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.4-2 (Sheet 2 of 2)

STREAMFLOW IN Tile MISSISSIPPI RIVER 1900-1976 Daily Discharge ** in 1000 cfs 1 Year Maximum Minimum Mean 1939 1124 75 445 1940 872 93 313 1941 749 146 376 1942 973 242 499 1943 1280 133 520 1044 1282 125 475 1945 1520 179 683 1946 1085 145 509 1947 898 114 426 1948 959 126 448 1949 1208 176 555 1950 1458 194 696 1951 986 221 625 1952 1011 107 466 1953 852 100 373 1954 583 121 262 1955 1022 120 363 1956 894 99 332 1957 994 180 548 1958 984 157 482 1959 765 130 382 1960 826 148 409 1961 1107 183 514 1962 1G81 151 475 1963 881 123 268 1964 1015 119 366 1965 936 168 417 1966 1154 155 372 1967 803 180 384 1968 8 57 160 434 1969 1064 186 460 1970 980 178 451 1971 1036 174 338 1972 938 218 480 1473 1498 204 721 1974 1174 187 586 1975 1216 230 563 364**e

  • d ki.i Amendment%.1, ( 9 / 7')) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.4-11 MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATER TEMPERATURE DATA SUfDIARY FROM THE CONTINUOUS WATER QUALITY MONITORING STATIONS FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1976 TO JUNE 1978 1 (Temperatures at zero mean sea level in degrees F) LOCATION LITTLE GYPSY WATERFORD (WEST BANK) MONTH MAX MIN RANGE MAX MIN RANCE 76 JUL 86.61 83.77 2.83 87.28 87.15.13 76 AUG 86.61 83.84 2.77 87.03 86.16.88 76 SEP 80.85 78.74 2.12 86.29 80.25 6.04 76 OCT 78.52 61.02 17.50 80.04 73.35 6.69 76 NOV 60.40 48.82 11.58 58.72 48.46 10.25 76 DEC 48.77 46.64 2.13 50.21 42.98 7.23 77 JAN 40.35 34 84 5.51 43.08 39.45 3.62 77 FEB 48.11 35.52 12.59 48.36 42.49 5.87 77 MAR 57.83 46.94 10.89 56.95 47.02 9.94 77 APR 64.16 58.10 6.06 67.34 57.52 9.82 7 7 MAY 78.26 74.23 4.03 78.99 67.74 11.25 7 7 JUN 85.02 78.27 6.76 84.76 79.01 5.75 77 JUL 86.22 84.50 1.72 , , , 77 NOV 59.57 54.79 4.78 , , , 77 DEC 50.15 39.87 10.28 , , , 78 JAN 39.83 35.56 4.27 36.46 34.47 1.99 78 FEB 41.24 35.47 5.76 41.43 33.67 7.76 1 78 MAR 46.51 41.77 4.74 46.31 41.24 5.08 78 APR 64.61 46.73 17.88 , ,***72.07 61.50 10.57 78 MAY 78 JUN 84.15 72.67 11.48 2 ,__ . . _ _Months bl.on the con t inuou s weiter qual i t y rion i t o r i n; stati i t, t not ope r.i t i n.: correctly, ( 9 / 7 ')) Anie nsi ai : i ,%8360 .,-.'e-.. ._..___*-4.... . .- -<.* "'.:. . ....-.- .....R- --------,... ..-J ,-o ,'9. " ,,.4 ,- /*3.s -, e4-'*..., ,. ...e.<., , s., , b..*'-m_'*a ' ;. ,..'$g' ". , ,., ,-_%~sa.2-.s -.. ...9. ..,-- .,.- ....,-., ,- .- ..-.-., .- ....1,.'"*. ' * . -..'d o'e...W , e ..-=, g~*.*t'.,. , e. .. .mewg,f5h$a$hlfi$b$$&$?85b$$'$w$$$$0$$$n$$n?;ww$w$ $e ,p % :..vve % rarM a/f t s&S a g s y m m ye. s y w ;g w nvzu sw wu W Yh h U 5IS$0$h Nl5E!!Mky$Nkk!m.. ,nq's.e.. m.ni. .hhh hs w.s.' a. a$! h Nib b b M h S M N5 b b u w:: me. .#'N'y r n# wwa ( % a& w*.3 n;
    • ps s z%ee y % ,. .:j':
    'e ;. . ..-%c s.r .~w.n.v -b'"&i'W '&.~ r},lr,v;;2,e $Dk4d:.~g, <- ..M c ty;'.aemm.BtWill!#mm=tMeie!!!asW $o-w us %ee a;gM kNbk N ,m m m!S aamii'me.wemy me em nR E st i nem san ea remw wwxwe epgew!N$khNkbhkh5E Nbfhb5$h NNkh A%*$+!$$$*k.k'--TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 5 m !!M yly BE I.li . '3 EM----1.25 1.4 I 1 16 4 6"=db??,*#{?:$k%,3 4,e, , o tp a, 4**kh+_ _k.h'TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0l#m BM y[3]ILE I.I['2 LE hl I.25 1.4 1.6=4 6" N+,iI4'4 db de 4,tb +w , o (4 WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.4-12 (SHEET 1 of 2) MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATER TEMPERATURE DATA

    SUMMARY

    FROM THE CONTINUOUS WATER QUALITY MONITORING STATIONS (Temperatures at minus 10 f t. mean sea level in degrees F)l FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1976 TO AUGUST 1978 1 LOCATION LITTLE GYPSY WATERFORD (WEST BAHT) MONTH MAX MIN RANGE MAX MIN RANGE 76 JUL 87.27 84.49 2.78 87.62 87.55.07 76 AUG 87.28 84.59 2.69 87.61 84.57 3.04 76 SEP 81.80 79.75 2.05 84.70 79.34 5.36 76 OCT 79.56 61.41 18.15 79.18 72.71 6.47 76 NOV 60.83 50.07 10.76 59.32 49.41 9.91 76 DEC 50.06 48.09 1.97 49.65 43.12 6.52 77 JAN 74.82 73.87.95 43.08 39.47 3.61 77 FEB 74.99 47.95 27.04 48.12 42.08 6.04 77 MAR 77.92 48.22 29.70 56.58 46.89 9.69 77 APR 79.73 66.74 12.99 80.07 57.17 22.90 77 MAY***82.60 77,80 4.80 77 JUN 81.67 49.41 32.26 80.58 79.79.79 77 JUL 81.77 80.46 1.31 77 NOV 81.91 79.82 2.09 77 DEC 81.15 41.54 39.61 7F J AN 41.46 36.37 5.09 36.03 34.0: 1.94 1 78 FEB 41.10 34.78 6.32 39 .77 33.25 6.52 78 MAR 45.92 41.54 4.38 46.75 40.10 6.64 78 APR 63.95 47.18 16.77 78 MAY 71.70 60.85 10.85* Months when the continuous water quality monitoring station was not operating correctly. J,._.o .s o ,J.yJ Lil Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.4-12 (Cont'd)(SHEET 2 0F 2) LOCATION LITTLE GYPSY WATERFORD (WEST BANK), MONTH MAX MIN RANGE MAX MIN RANGE 78 JUN***84.45 72.30 12.15 78 JUL 64.39 64.39.00 89.69 84.90 4.79 1 78 AUG 88.40 81.10 7.30 85.35 85.11.24 9* Months when the continuous water quality monitoring station was not operating correctly. 353000 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.4-13 MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATER TEMPERATURE DATA

    SUMMARY

    FR0!! Tite CONTINUOUS WATER QUALITY MONITORING STATIONS FOR Tile PERIOD JULY 1976 TO AUGUST 1978 1 (Temperatures at minus 10 f t. mean sea level in degrees F) LOCATION LITTLE GYPSY WATERFORD (WEST BAIX) MONTil MAX MIN RANGE MAX MIN RANGE 76 JUL 89.59 86.91 2.69 86.64 86.61.04 76 AUG 89.56 86.70 2.86 86.75 84.47 2.28 76 SEP 81.87 79.03 2.84 84.61 79.29 5.32 76 OCT 78.77 58.96 19.80 79.11 72.80 6.31 76 NOV 59.57 49 .77 9.80 59.81 49.91 9.89 76 DEC 50.15 47.61 2.54 50.10 43.54 6.56 77 JAN 41.92 36.21 5.72 43.43 39 .97 3.45 77 FEB 62.73 37.08 25.65 48.72 42.58 6.14 77 MAR 56.57 43.14 13.42 56.49 47.50 8.99 77 APR 62.31 56.85 5.47 67.33 57.08 10.25 77 MAY 77.05 73.35 3.71 78.21 67.70 10.51 77 JUN 85.03 77.14 7.88 83.56 78.24 5.32 77 JUL 86.29 84.59 1.70***77 NOV 79.60 77.96 1.64***77 DEC 78.89 42.18 36.71***78 JAN 42.22 37.31 4.92 35.57 33.66 1.91 I 78 FEB 48.92 35.78 13.14 39 .21 32.83 6.38 78 MAR 54.32 40.89 13.43 47.01 39 .74 7.27 78 APR 64.57 47.58 16.99***78 MAY***70.17 60.97 9.19 78 JUN***85.24 70.76 14.48 ,* Months when the continuous water quality monitoring station was not operating correctly. Ob.3 O O*?' Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 2.4-14 MONTHLY WATER TE!PERATURE DATA FROM THE , MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR WESTWEGO, LOUISIANA (1951-1978) Temperature ( F) Month Maximum Minimum Mean January 50 39 45 Februa ry 50 40 45.March 56 45 51'April 64 51 59-May 78 64 70 1 June 83 74 79 July 87*81 84 August 90 t 80 85 September 87 76 83 October 79 67 74 November 71 54 62 December 57 44 51* Measurements taken at Nineulle Point Generating Station, 25.6 miles dcwnstream from Waterford 3. 'N v . ,. 8 , , e a,4 %) v.1* ! d $1- )9 7/e 4 9 r-(u 1 ig 4 2 F.O 0 pN, N 0 O T 0 I E N 0 T M U D i 1 i B N I E i R M i A i 0 T n}0 I i 0 S D 2 i 0 l 0 5 l i.I)i E E P v T P.H i O Y A A i 0 N T T , W!/T L 0 ,4 T 1 T G E8 T G2 T 0 N 2 5 gR I 75 N U I D OE L A NM r2 L O R T T T E T R T A V T BI 0 E/(T R T 1 B TI R i/T i 9 T R TE T A AG T T E U T Y YO T.T CR S)T N N SP I I T MI H T (EN T ,A UO T T D QT G3 2 T O EA#j NG T T RB I I 0 T R D3 T F T E D N T P E AL T DN T LI T N OA M T R O T Ti U L RR EE i T F n E BV o R R RI n E R A(V i T T T 1 I r 1 R T 1 T r PI r P r I S i S I i S S I i M T T T 1 T 0 r1 i T T T 7 T r-w T T T T T i i A L 6 0 7;-5f___g;}___9 S,- -1 E 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S.-O S 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 A C 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 4 P 09 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 mn Ta o 1 F D O A i 1 H et R D N a t GS (V O z OI o ai O A AI t S C E lLd E H S r c oi R IU &f E r F V r t O O OR ec R L E al t e l D A ClT?,CCC'fCQ IR P a O WWE-O E H P P Al NOTE: COMBINED DATA FROM TARBERT LANDING AND RED RIVER LANDING 1930-1975. DATA UTILIZED FOR THIS CURVE IS BASED ON DAILY FLOWS. 1200 1100 -1000 -900 5 D 800 -8 9 Z 700 w a C y 600-8 5 500 -2 6:E 400 -300 -200 -100 1 1 I I I I I I I i 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 DURATION (% TIME) EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED 35300G.-.-._.-c... ..c,..._g 9 GHa 9Gs( A tv wf9 3 B.70% DmGg ie op s e LOUISI AN A Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. Waterford Steam MIS $1SSIPPI RIVER FLOW DURATION CURVE Electric Station 2.4 7 WSES 3 ER LIST OF lIGURES CHAPTER 3: THE STATION FIGURE TITLE 3.1-1 Vaterford 3 Building Layout 3.1-2 Profile Line of Sight from the North 3.1-3 Profile Line of Sight from the South 3.1-4 Waterford 3 - A* rial View 3.2-1 Pressurized Water Reactor Simplified uiagram 3.3-1 Schematic cf Water Flow, Waterford Unit 3 1 3.4-1 Circulating Water System General Plan 3.4-2 Circulating Water System Intake Canal 3.4-3 Circulating Water System Intake Structure 3.4-4 Circulating Water System Discharge Structure and Canal 3.4-5 Turbine Closed Cooling dater System - Flow Diagram 3.4-6 Component Cooling Water System - Flow Diagram 3.5-1 Fuel Pool System Simplified Block Flow Diagram 3.5-2 Chemical and Volume Control System Simplified Block Flow Diagram 3.5-3 Boron Management System Simplified Block Flow Diagram 3.5-4 Waste Management System Simplified Block Flow Diagram 3.5-5 Steam Generator Blowdow s System Simplified Block Flow Diagram 3.5-6 Gaseous Waste Management System Simplified Block Flow Diagram 3.5-1 Building Ventilation and Exhaust System Block Simplified Flow Diagram 3.6-1 Schematic Diagram Waste Treatment Facilitiet 353007.3-vii Amendment No. 1,(9/79) WSES 3 ER LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd) CHAPTER 3: THE STATION FIGURE TITLE 3.9-1 230 KV Transmission Line 3.9-2 230 KV Steel Tower Design 3.9-3 Diagram of Modi !ications to Waterford 230 KV Switchyard for Unit 3 Switchyard O O 3-viii , ' f 4 , g , i' *, WSES 3 ER 3.3 PLANT WATER USE 3.

    3.1 INTRODUCTION

    Water is used by Waterford 3 for various systems, such as the heat dis-sipation system, Potable and Sanitary Water System, chemical waste systems and process water systems. This section describes the anticipated maximum and average water flows to and f rom each system. Water uses under maximum power operation, minimum power operation and temporary thutdown conditions are also presented. In addition, the water use for fire protection is de sc ribed . 3.3.2 SOURCES OF WATER All the water required for the plant, except the potable water supply, vill be drawn from the Mississippi River at the average rate of about 1,003,274 y gpm (2235 cfs). Of this, the Circulating Water System, the Steam Generator Blowdown System heat exchangers and the Turbine Closed Cooling Water System will use 1,003,200 gpm (2235 cfs). The potable water supply, averaging abouq l 10,000 gallons per day (7 gpm), will be obtained f rom the St Charles Parish Waterworks. 3.3.3 WATER USE DIAGRAM The schematic flow diagram showing flows to ar.d from various plant sy s tems is presented in Figure 3.3-1. The indicated flows represent daily average rates under normal operating conditions. The flows in parenthesis indicate the maximum capacity of the system which can be utilized as and when needed (e.g. during initial start up or scart up after shutdown, etc.). Table 3.3-1 shows the water use rates for maximum power operation, minimum power opera-tion, and temporary shutdown conditions. 3.3.4 WATER USES AT WATERFORD 3 a)Heat Dissipation Systems - There are four pumps capable of pumping about 1,003,274 gpm of water from the Mississippi River for various l1 uses at the station. From this flow, 975,100 gpm is used in the Circulating Water System for dissipating heat in the condenser. The heat dissipation system is described in detail in Section 3.4. The heat dissipation system will also utilize 27,100 gpm of river water on the tube side of the heat exchangers that are part of the closed cooling systems used in the Turbine Closed Cooling Water System, and 1000 gpm for the Steam Generator Blowdown System heat exchangers. Treated, demineralized water is the coolant used within the closed portion of these systems. The Turbine Closed Cooling Water System, and the Component Cooling Water System are also discussed in Section 3.4. Demineralized water is used to makeup water losses in the closed cooling water systems. These water losses, if radioactive, are treated in the Waste Management System. The non-radioactive wastes are processed with other non-radioactive wastes. The Waste Manage-ment System is described in Section 3.5, and the other waste systems are described in Section 3.6 and 3.7. M v e_...t;- TQ 4; ,' -q ' . C 3.3-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER b)Supplementary Chilled Water System - The heating, air conditioning, and ventilation (HVAC) system serving the Reactor Auxiliary Building and the Service Building utilizca the Supplementary Chilled Water System.This system includes two cooling towers. Blowdown, after undergoing treatment, is released to the Mississippi River. The system requires a maximum makeup water rate of approximately 30 gpm. Prior to usage as system makeup, raw river water is filtered through a microstrainer. The

    rainer is flushed continuously with raw river water at a rate of 10 dpm.

    c)Plant Water Treatment - The plant water treatment system includes a Primary Water Treatment Plant and a Demineralized Water System. The Primary Water Treatment Plant consists of two filters, each of 350 gpm capacity. In the Demir.eralized Water System there are two inde-pendent trains each of 225 gpm capacity. The capacities of the Primary Water Treatment Plant and the Demineralized Water System were based on the requirements for startup operations. The normal require-ments as shown in Figure 3.3-1 are substantially less than the design capacities. Only one of the filters in the Primary Water Treatment Plant will be working at a time. The filter is flushed with raw water which is discharged with the circulating water. The raw water will be con-I tinuously chlorinated before filtration. A portion of the filtered water is demineralized and the rest is used for circulating water pump seale, screen wash pumps, vacuum pumps and fire protection. In the Demineralized Water System only one train will be in operation at a time. The demineralization process consists of cation exchanra, degasi-fication, and mixed bed ion exchange. The demineralized water is stored in the primary storage tank and the condensate storage tank. Water from the condensate storage tank is used as makeup water in the condenser hot well, the Reactor Coolant System, the Component Cooling Water System and other uses at Waterford 3. There is a provision for recycling water from the boric acid condensate tanks in the Boron Management System into the primary storage tank. This may result in tritium being present in the primary storage tank. The primary and secondary uses of water, noted in Figure 3.3-1, are related to a pres-surized water reactor (PWR) system only. Primary water uses are in tho se systems where water comes in direct contact with potential sour-ces of radioactivity, and include the Chemical and Volume Control System (CVCS), the Boron Management System, the Waste Management Sys-tem and the Fuel Pool System. Secondary water uses are in those sy s-tems where the water does not come in direct contact with any poten-tial sources of radioactivity. Tnese systems include the Steam Gener-ator, the Steam Generator Blowdown System and the Component Cooling Water System. Details of these systems are discussed in Section 3.5. Demineralized water is also used for making regeneration solutions for the demineralizers. The wastes from the regenerating processes are sent to the Waterford 1 and 2 waste treatment facilities, and treated as described in Section 3.6. {3gj;g()]llg 09 3.3-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER d)Potable Water Use - Potable water is obtained from the St Charles Parish Waterworks, District No. 2. The potable water is used for food preparation, drinking, and other sanitary purposes. The . icipated demand f or potable water will be about 10,000 gallons per day. The waste waters resulting from these uses are treated in two package-type extended aeration treatment plants, which are described in detail in Section 3.7. e)Equipment Needs - This includes water used for washing and cooling of the equipment which is not serviced by any of the systems mentioned above, for example, water used for machine shop opera-tions.f)Fire Protection - The pretreated water is stored in ;wo fire storage tanks, each of 260,000 gallon capacity. The se two .arns will be kept full.The makeup water supply to the storage tanks is c?pable of filling either tank within an 8 hour period. This makeup water supply is furnished f rom the filtered water clear well, which is a part of the Primary Water Treatment Plant and receives water from the filter. The St Charles Parish Waterworks system is also con-nected to the clear well and is available on a standby basis. Fire hydrants are located along the perimeter of the plant , at inter-vals of about 250 ft. 3.3.5 INTERNAL RECYCLING OF WATER Steam generator blowdown is treated and recycled as steam ger.erator makeup water.This recycling setves to reduce the consumptive use of water at the plant.3.3.6 SUtJICIENCY OF CGOLING WATER SUPPLY The rate of water withdrawal f rom the Mississippi River during normal station operation will be about 1,003,274 gpm, or 2235 cfs. This is about 1.1% of e typical low flow condition of 200,000 cfs. It is apparent that there will be no shortage of cooling water supply in the event of low flow conditions in the Mississippi River. The flow regime of the Mississippi River is described in detail in Section 2.4. 3.3-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) IC)13is!3()qqs WSES 3 ER TABLE 3.3-1 (Sheet 1 of 2 ) STATION WATER USE UNDER VARIOUS STATION CONDITIONS (spm)STATION CONDITION Max. Power Min. Power Tempo ra ry Water Operation Operation Shutdown System Condition Condition Condition 1.Circulating 975,100 575,000 0-575,000 , Cooling Water System (1,404,144) 2.Turbine Closed Cooling 27,100 27,100 0-27,100 Water System (39,024)3.Steam Generator 1,000 590 0-590 Blowdown System (1,440)llea t Exchangers 4.Supplementary Chilled 40 40 0-40 Water System (58)5.Demineralized Water 19 19 19 System ( 28)1 6.Cir. Water Pump Seals 68 54 40 (97)7.Screen Wash Pumps 6 6 6 (9)8.Vacuum Pure m 40 20 0-2C (58)9.Fire Protection 20 20 20 (29)10.Filter Flush 25 25 25 (36)gs r c)s .4 s e J, ,;r . .v. . L* Figures in parentheses indicate flow in 1,000 gal / day. Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 3.3.-1 (Sheet 2 of 2) STATION WATER USE UNDER VARIOUS STATION CONDITIONS (gpm)STATION CONDITION Max. Power Min. Power Temporary Water Oneration Operation Shutdown System Condition Condition Condition 11.Potable hater System 7 7 7 (St Charle.s Parish (10)*Waterworks) TOTAL 1,003,425 602,881 117 - 602,867 WATER 1 USE (1,444,933) @S33012*FiguA s in parentheses indicate flow in 1000 gal / day. Amendment No. 1, (9.79) . _ . .----MISSISSIPPI RIVER h"M UNIT 3 - CIRCULATING ( 1,444,648 j 1,404,144 WATER DISCHARGE DISCHARGE (1404144);()()l J k CANAL WATERFORD 3 --,;T 3 TURRINE 39,024'SLD COOi.ING =TER SYSTEM (39024)1.440 I-!N$$N-I" c 36 FILTER FLUSH WATER (180)UNIT 3 UNIT 3- r PRIMARYl2lMAP GErENT WATER USES SYSTEM BORON r MANAGEMENT 28 23 1!SYSTEM m{{48)UNIT 3 I 5 SECONDARY--~d"~~WATER USES b-100) WATER FOR STEAM GENERATOR- R EG EN E R ATION BLOWDOWN SYSTEM-REGENERATION AND WATERFORD 1 & 2-FILTER FLUSH WASTES, ETC. METAL CLEANING +=WASTE POND NOTES: 1 FLOWS IN THOUSAND G AL LONS PER D AY. MAX D AILY FLOW IN PAR ANTH ESIS.

    2. PRIMARY W ATER USE SYSTEMS ARE THOSE SYSTEMS WHERE WATER COMES IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH POTENTI AL SOURCES OF RADIOACTIVITY.

    'L SECONDARY WATER USE SYSTEMS ARE THOSE SYSTEMS WHERE THE WATER DISCHARGES TO DOES NOT COME IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH ANY POTENTI AL SOURCES OF _2 42 RA DIO ACTIVITY.

    1. UNIT 1 AND 2 4T CIRCU LATING WATER A WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND BORON MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TREAT DISCHARGE LIQUID R ADIOACTIVE WASTES. B ATCH RELE ASES FROM E ACH OF THESE

    _SYSTEMS IS ESTIMATED TO BE 20.000 GALLONS.

    5. FIRE STOR AGE AND Ti:C ASSOCI ATED SYSTEM DEMAND NOT SHOWN.

    MEN DMEN T NO. 1 I9.79'Figure WATER FLOW, WATERFORD UNIT 3 33301'3 3.3-1___________ _ _ , , _. . . . - . . . . - , - . . . . --- ---'- i MIS $l3SIFPI RIVER E'l~L 1,444,715 y 1,404,144 UNIT 3 o n-5 MAIN CONDENSER$M==$5 c Ur<a a 39,024$3z p g r CL-gq (39024)w g<c w 2g 1,440 STF ',M GENER ATOR BLOWDOWN d i<z N. cc SYSTEM HEAT EXCHANGERS $9$~2 0 164 m 35 EVAPORATI (164)(35)#4 HVAC COOLING TOWERS '(43)SEAL WATER FOR CIRCULATING WATER N' FILTER FLdSH PUMPS AND SCREEN " j WASH PUMPS g~/-%(_J l (180)mIf ST. CH AR LES 36+PRIMARY WATER ORKS -28 (648)TREATMENT/-----""*PLANT If I I MAKEUP g 3 7 37 DEMINERALIZE f WATER TURBINE BLDG. SERVICE ADMINISTRATION g_kO AND RE ACTOR BUILDING BUILDING Q~' ^ " FLOOR DR AINAGE SEWAGE TREAT. w'R DRAINAGE 2 SYSTEM PLANT SYSTEM i g"c I&E 1 r so y 5 s 22 z 8$YARD SERVICE (100)g OIL /WATE R BUILDING 8 m Oll/W ATER z SEPARATOR 4 SEPARATOR$w f147 50f II4 If I'TO THE 1 r 201 a l 40 ARPENT CANAL 10 1 r 23 I f 1 UNIT 3 UNIT 3 WATERFORD 1 10 10-POTABLE A. _s SEWAGE LOW VOLUME , , _p~SANITARY TREATMENT WASTE TREATME WATER SYSTEM PLANT FACILITY LOUISI AN A POWER & LIGHT CO. g Waterford Steam. SCHEMATIC Of o g(qq\Electric Station I s WSES 3 ER from the 600,000 gallon (maximum) refueling water storage pool. However,!1 since the stored energy it. this pool is small compared to that in the spent fuel pool, the evaporation rate will also be relatively smaller. HVAC ex-haust f rom the Turbine Building is also a less significant source due to a lower concentration of tritium in leakage, and the fact that la rge pools a water are not available for evaporation. 3.5.1.3 Fuel Pool System The Fuel Pool System is designed to remove decay heat produced by the fuel placed in the pool and to remove solv le and insoluble foreign matter f rom the spent fuel pool. Figure 3.5-1 presents a simplified block flow diagram of the Fuel Pool System. The detailed piping and instrument diagram is presented in Section 9.1 of the FSAR, along with the principal component design data. The radionuclide concentrations in the fuel pool during plant operations sad refueling are presented in Table 3.5-3. The values presented in Table 3.5-3 are based on the assumption that, upon shutdown for refueling, the Reactor Coolant System is cooled down for a period of approximately two days. During this period, the primary coolant is let down througa the purification filter, purification ion exchanger, and flash tank. This serves two purposes: removing the noble gases in the flash l1 tank avoids large activity releases to the Reactor Building following reactor vessel head removal, and the ion exchange and filtration reduce dissolved fission and corrosion products in the coolant which would oti erwise enter the Fuel Pool System and refueling water canal. At the end of th ts period, the coolant above the reactor vessel flange is partially drained. The reactor vessel head is unbolted and the refueling water cavity is filled with a mini-1 mus of 443,000 gallons of water from the refueling water storage pool. The remaining reactor coolant volume containing radioactivity is then mixed with water in the refueling cavity and the Fuel Pool System. After refueling, the Fuel Pool System is isolated and the water in the ~efueling cavity is returned to the refueling water storage pool. This series of events deter-mines the total activity to the Fuel Pool System. The specific activities of the radionuclides given in Table 3.5-3 are based upon a volume of 292,000 ga lle ..s . These values will be reduced by decay during refueling as well as by operation of the Fuel Pool System. The Fuel Pool System has two basis parts: a cooling subsystem and a puri-fication subsystem. The cooling subsystem of the Fuel Pool System is a closed loop system con-sisting of two halt-capacity pumps and one full capacity heat exchanger. The fuel pool water is withdrawn from the fuel pool near the surf ace and is circulated by the fuel pool pumps through the fuel pool heat exchanger, where heat is rejected to the Component Cooling Water System. The Component Co. ling Water System is described in Section 3.4. From the outlet of tbc fuel pool heat exchanger, the cooled fuel pool water is returned to the bottom of the fuel pool through a distribution header at the opposite end of the pool from the intake. This cooling system is controlled manually from the main control room.-rn vc 0.1.M.W.3 3.5-3 Amendment No. 1, ( 9/ 79) WSES 3 ER The clarity and purity of the water in the fuel pool, refueling canal, and refueling water storage pool are maintained by the purification subsystem of the Fuel Pool System. The purification loop consists of the fuel pool purification pump, ion exchanger, filter, strainers and surface skimmer. Most of the purification flow is drawn from the bottom of the f uel pool while a small f raction is drawn through the surface skimmer to remove surface debris. A basket strainer is provided in the purification line to remove any relatively large particulate matter. The fisel pool water is circulated by the pump through a filter which removes particulates larger than 5 microns, then through an ion exchanger to remove ionic material, and finally through a wye type strainer, which prevents resin beads f rom entering the fuel pool in the unlikely event of a failure of an ion exchanger retention element. Connections to the refueling water storage pool and the condensate storage pool are available to provide makeup water to the fuel pool through the purification loop. The refueling water storage pool and refueling canal are also provided with connections to the purifica-tion loop. Duri , plant operation the refueling water storage pool holds approximately 600,000 gallons (maximum) of water. At the time of refueling a minimum of 1 443,000 gallons of water are used to fill the reactor canal, fuel transfer canal, and refueling water cavity. The release rates of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents due to evaporation from the surface of the fuel pool and refueling canals during refueling and normal operation are presented in Table 3.5-3. The assumptions upon which these values are based are presented in Table 3.5-4. , 3.5.1.4 Ventilation System Exhausts Liquid and steam leakage from various coolant and process streams can result in small quantities of radioactive gases entering the building atmospheres. Except in the Turbine Building, this activity is collected, processed, and discharged to the environment via the building ventilation and exhaust systems.These systems are described in detail in Section 3.5.3.2. 3.5.2 LIQUID RADWASTE SYSTEM Liquid radioactive waste is processed in the Waste Management S ystem (WMS) . The Chemical and Volume Control System (CVCS), the Boron Management System (BMS) and the Steam Generator Blowdown System (SGBS) also process radioactive streams, po rtions of which may be discharged as processed radioactive liquid waste.The numerical design objectives for plant releases during normal operations, including anticipated operational occurrences, are based on guidelines given in Appendix I to 10CFR50. The design objectives are: a)The calculated annual total quantity of all radioactive materials in liquid effluents during normal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences, should not resuit in a dose or dose commit-ment from liquid effluents for any indi' idual in an unrestricted area r-.uS 4.)i).ht! Lke 3.5-4 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER 2)A change of the fur' pool purification filter twice per year. 3)A change of the preconcentrator filters 4 times per year. 4)A change of the waste filter once per year. 5)A change of the laundry filter once per year. 6)A change of the oil separator filter 10 times per year. d)Compressible Solids Contaminated waste will include polyethylene, paper rags, disposable clothing and other contaminated disposable solids. The amounts of input and of fsite shipment are given in Tables 3.5-6 and 3.5-10, respectively. Tables 3.5-7, 3.5-8 and 3.5-9 give the maximum activity for each isotope for the evaporator bottoms, spent resins, and filter cartridges, respectively, to be handled in the SUMS. 3.5.4.3 System Description A detailed flow diagram and system description of the StRS are given in Sec-tion 11.4 of the FSAR. The SWMS will be operated to cast liquid and solid radioactive wastes into a solidified waste product for offsite disposal. Before starting solidifi-cation procedures, the radioactive level and/or chemical canposition of the wastes will be determined. The SWMS provides interim storage of radwaste and processes batch quan-tities of waste. The system puts filter cartridges into disposable cask line rs , and uses portland cement and sodium silicate as a solidifying agent. Radwastes, such as resins and concentrates, are mixed with the solidifying 1 agent and discharged into cask liners. The cask liners are transferred to a storage area before shipping. The evaporator bottoms and spent resins are collected in the concentrate storage tank and spent resin tank, respectively. Concentrates or spent resins, or a combination of both these wastes, are pumped by positive dis-placement pumps, at controlled rates, to the in-line mixer where the wastes are mixed with dry cement. The in-line mixer assures a uniform mixture of lwaste and solidifying agent. The dewatering tank, which is used for waste processing and not for waste storage, is used to provide flexibility and control of the waste to be solidified. S pent resin from the spent resin te.nk is placed in the dewater-ing tank where it is then conditioned to the desired moisture content. Con-t rolled volumes from the concentrate storap,e tank can be metered into the de-watering tank or pumped directly to the mixer. After producing a desirable mixture of wastes in the dewatering tank, the operator can set the total amount and rate of feed by adjusting the rotary feed valve downstream of the solidifying agent t a nk .

    o. . or e u d yJ.,c :, 3.5-15 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)

    WSES 3 ER The temperature of both the dewatering tank and the concentrate storage tauk is automatically controlled at 149 F with adequate heating elements so that the concentrates, which may contain as much as 21,000 ppe boron by weight, do not solidify in the system. The temperature and liquid level in the de-waterinh teak and concentrate storage tank will be displayed on the control panel.A cement silo is provided for the storage of portland cement used as 1 the solidif ying agent. The portland cement is delivered to the site in bulk by a self-unloading truck carrier. A pipe connection is provided at the un-loading station for conveying the portland cement to the dust-tight bulk l1 storage silo. The entire system is vented through a Fuller Draco bag filter locat ed on the top of the silo, which results in an atmospheric exhaust from the bag filter of less than 0.22 grams per cubic f. ot of air. For ease in handling, the portland cement in the silo will be continuously fluidized by l1 a flow aerator located in the bottom of the silo. .A separate control panel for the cement handling subsystem is provided. This I panel will contain the bag filter, aeration blower and cement-level indi-cators.The SWMS has a single fill port for packaging all wastes. Interlocks ar2 provided which prevent system operation if no radwaste container is in place under the fill port or in the event of component malfunction. Tha fill port is equipped with a vented splash guard that seals the liner during filling. A mixer bypass is provided that permits direct discharge of wastes into the container, if desired. Since a completely mixed liquid stream of waste and cement flows into the .cntainer, there is no danger l1 f rom airborne contamination. Filling of the container is monitored by an ultrasonic level indicator that automatically stops the filling operation when the waste reaches a predetermined level in the drum. At the completion of each fill cycle the portions of the systems that have , contained the cement-waste mixture are thoroughly flushed with water. The i small volume of the mixer permits thorough cleaning with the production of a minimum of added waste. Provisions for fleshing are incorpor ted. The entire process (dewatering, mixing and filling) will be monitored and controlled from a completely equipped control console by a single operator, and personnel radiation exposures are kept at a minimum within the require-ment of 10CFR20 and 10CFR50. 3.5.4.4 Equipment Description Table 3.5-11 gives the list of system components, their capabilities, design pressure, design temperature, flow rates and materials of construction. 3.5.4.5 System Operation and Controls Automatic controls are provided which make the operator activate control, sequentially, because icterlocks only allow a control to be activated when the next previous control has been satisfied. A manual mode of operation is provided so that the automa*.ic mode can be bypassed to permit flexibility of operation when iaeded. In the manual mode, individual components are operated from the control panel. $ D}]3.5-16 Amendment No. 1, (9/76) WSES 'ER TABLE 3.5-6 QUANTITIES OF INPUT TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM lype of Waste Form Quantity (ft / year) _Spent Recins Chemical and Volume Control System Dewatered 108 Boron Management System Dewate red 72 Fuel Pool System Dewatered 72 Waste Manager. at System Dewatereo 36 Blowdown System Dewatered 260*Evaporator Bottoms Boron Recycle System and Liquid Waste Management System 21,000 ppm boron 2683 Blowdown Regenerative Waste and Filter Flush Waste 257. Na SO 100 2 4 Filters Spent Filter Cartridges 12 Cartridges 24 .2'011 Separator Filter Cartridges 10 Cartridges 10 Compressible Solids Plastic, Rags , 1500 Paper, etc.

    • This quantity represents one year's holdup capacity for the spent resin I tank for normally radioactive spent resin and includes Steam Generator Blowdown System resin (the spent resin tank has six months holdup capacity).
    • >N Y5}}[]

    Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TAB LE 3. 5-11 SOLID WASTE MANACDfENT SYSTD1 COMPONENT

    SUMMARY

    DATA Design Design Normal Operat-Normal Operat - Internal Pres su re Temp.ing Pressure ing Temp.Tanks Quant..y Code Volume (psig)( F)(psig)( F)Material S pe n t Resin 1 ASME Section 3200 gal 50 200 12 100 SA 240 Ta nk VIII Div. 1 Type 304 Resin Addition 1 None 114 gal Atm 100 Atm 100 SA 240 Ta nk Type 3 04 Dewatering Tank 1 ASME Section 100 ft At m 150 Ata 140 ASTM Vill Div. 1 A-240 Conce nt ra t e 1 ASME Section 3000 gal At m 150 Atm 140 ASTM Storage Tank VIII Div. 1 A-2 4 0 3 Cement Silo 1 None 500 ft Atm 140 Atm 0-120 ASTM A-36 (Portland Cement) 1 Sodium Silicate Tank 1 None 200 ft A.140 Atm 0-120 ASTM A-36 Design Design Design Motor Pressure Temp. Flow Seal Motor (Voltage / Pumps Quantit_1 Standards Type (psig)( F)gpm Material Tyge (HP)Pha se /llZ ) Condensate Storage 1 Manuf acturer 's Progres sing 100 18 0 3.6 SS 316 Mech.2 460/3/60 Tank Metering Pump S t anda rd Ca vi ty (0)Dewatering Tank 1 Manufacturer's Progres sing 100 18 0 3.6 SS 316 Mech.2 460/3/60 (,' 'Metering Pump Standard Cavi ty CO';Process Mixing 1 Manuf acturer 's Progressina 100 18 0 5 SS 316 M ec h .2 460/3/60['{y Pump S t anda rd Cavi ty rs**'Sodium Silicate Tank 1 Manufacturer's Progres sing 100 180 CS M ech .1 460/3/60 1 Pump Standard Cavity 7&;n.o e 3 61 EAT REFUELING REFUELING SPENT FUEL E X.WATER L CANAL FUEL TRANSFER CANAL STORAGE POOL ST ORAGE POOL 600,000 GAL COOLING d H SUBSYSTEM_r lf BASKET STRAINER if k-5$, FILTER 9'1I$Id ION EX M S i If WYE STRAINER (O C00 C.1 ,}NOT E: COMPONENT VALUES ARE FOR DESIGN CAPACITIES. AMENDMENT r.0, 1 (9/79) LOUISl AN A Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. FUEL POOL SYSTEM Waterford Steam SIMPLIFIED BLOCK FLOW DI AGRAM Electric Station 3.5-1____ PLANT STACK w 12' ABOVE R AB [200' REACTOR ABOVE GR ADE] @BUILDING REACTOR AUXILI ARY '20,000 cfm -FILTRATION SYSTEM i PURGE P H C%++jl ji"^AUXILIARY BUILDING =88' ABOVE GRADE b AT GRADE JL HVAC EXHAUST TURBINE BUILDING[GLAND G TURBINE 3 E STEAM N*NON CONDENSIBLE 3 E T R E A A]f T M O R T (j COND EN-MVP SER BLOWDOWN FLASH TAN"- NON-CONDENSIBLES 12' ABOVE GRADE LEGEND P-PREFILTER H=HIGH EF FICIENCY ^"*#HVAC EXAUST [HEPlfNtTE R C= CHAHCOAL FUEL ABSORBER HANDLING uve - MECHANICAL V ACUUM PUMP BUILDING g , y ,, jy, ,, , .y,%.<h - R ADI ATION MONITOR ,.,' " E$o"SEv!tu'ts'in's"'ron"oe750'aci$"r^v""'" AMEntMNT NO.1 (9/79) LOUISI AN A Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. BUILDING VENTIL ATION & EXHAUST SYSTEM Waterford Steam SIMPLIFIED BLOCK FLOW DI AGRAM 3.5 7 Electric Station WSES 3 ER 3.6 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE SYSTEMS '_, 3.

    6.1 INTRODUCTION

    During the operation of Waterford 3, chemical wastes will be generated from various systems and proc-sses such as the water treatment facilities, the corrosion control processes, laboratory analyses, the Boron Management System, the Potable and Sanitary Water System and launiry operations, etc. Depending on its source, a liquid chemical waste may be radioactive or non-radioactive. The liquid radioactive chemical wastes are processed through the Waste Management System, where they are collected , monitored, filtered, demineralized, evaporated, or otherwise treated. The details of the Waste Management System are given in Section 3.5. This section describes the sources and treatment of non-radioactive chemical wastes. 3.6.2 CHEMICAL WASTES The non-radioactive chemical wastewaters typically consist of demineralizer regenenerants, sanitary wastes, HVAC cooling tower blowdown and floor drainage. All of these wastewaters, wi t'i the exception of floor drainage, are conveyed to the Waterford 1 and 2 waste treatment facilities. In the t reatme nt facilities, wastes from Waterford 3 are combined and treated with wastes from Waterford 1 and 2. This treatment facility consists of a metal cleaning waste pond and the low volume waste treatment basins. The me tal cleaning waste pond provides treatment for all Waterford 3 process waste streams which have the potential to contain metals concentrations in excess of applicable ef fluent standards ar.d guidel!nes. Treated metal wastewaters are then conveyed to the low vol. ;e waste treatment facility. This facility consists of two basins in series which provide treatment for all Waterford 3 wastewaters requiring either pH neutralization and/or suspended solids re-moval.Treated wastes are then pumped to the discharge side of the Waterford I and 2 circulating water system for release to the Mississippi River, up-stream to the intake of Waterford 3. Figure 3.6-1 shows a schemat *c diagram of the above described waste treatment facili tie s . Contaminated floor drainage is treated in a separate treatment facilities. Table 3.6-1 presents a summary of the various chemical wastes and their sources, frequency, and concentration before and af ter treatment (if any). Table 3.6-2 shows the waste concentrations and applicable ef fluent limitations and State of Louisiana water quality etandards. Table 3.6-3 gives the frequency' of use of the.emicals, their purpose, and maximum and average quantities used annually. 3.6.2.1 Chemicals Released from the Primary Water Treatment Plant and the Demineralized Water System Mississippi River water is used as a raw water source for the plant. De-pending on its intended use, the water is directly used, pretreat ed and used , or pretreated and demiaeralized for use. q )<g ?w,%. n, sJ s . , * - 3.6-1 WSES 3 ER The Primary Water Treatment Plant provides the required pretreatment. This facility consists of two upflow filters, each having a capacity of 350 gpm. Only one filter will be working at a time. High molecular weight polyacry-lamide is mixed into the river water to induce adsorption so that microscopic particles are retained in the filter media. The raw water is also contin-1 uously chlorinated to a combined chlorine concentration of 0.5 ppm to oxidize organic matter and inhibit biological growth on the filters. Each filter is flushed as needed. The filter flush water is mixed with Waterford 3 circulating cooling water before it is discharged to the Mise.ssippi River. The flush water will contain suspended solids polyelectrolytes and residual chlorine. Their estimated concentrations in the wastewater, efore mixing with the circulating cooling water, are indicated in Table . 6-1. The Demineralized Water System consists of two cation exchange units, one degasifier, two mixed bed I units, and two mixed bed II units. The mixed bed I units are weak base anion, strong acid cation exchange units. The mixed bed II units, which are also called polishing units, are strong base anion and strong acid cation exchange units. These units conscitute two independent trains, each of 225 gpm capacity, and each capable of meeting the normal daily requirements. When the cation exchangers or the mixed bed units are exhausted, they are regenerated with solutions of sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide as follows: a)Cation Exchangers - The weak acid cation exchange resin is regenerated with a two percent solution of sulfuric acid. b)Mixed Bed I - The weak base anion exchange resin is regenerated with a four percent solution of sodium hydroxide. The strong acid cation exchange resin is regenerated with sulfuric acid in two steos; first with a two percent solution, then with a four percent soluti n. c)Mixed Bed II - The strong base anion exchange resin is regenerated with a four percent solution of sodium hydroxide. The strong acid cation exchange resin is regenerated with a three percent solution of sulfuric acid. The mineral constituents in' the river water which are removed by the ion exchange resins are in turn releasea f rom the resins by these washings with the acid and bydroxide solutione. The estimated concentration of total dissolved solids and sulfates in the regenerant waste will be up to 10,000 ppm and 5,000 ppm, re s pe c tively. The amount of sulf ate con-tained in the regenerant waste will be about 2000 lbs/ regeneration. This will increase the sulfate concentration in the circulating water of Water-ford 1 and 2 by 1.9 ppm, and in the Mississippi River by about 9.3 ppb (assuming complete mixing at a typical low flow condition of 200,000 cfs).The mean concentration of sulfate in the Mississippi River is 32.83 ppo as shown in Section 2.4, which also gives the concentrations of other chemicals found in the raw water drawn from the river. The spent regeneration vaste, about 50,000 gal / regeneration, flows to the waste collection basin for treatment and disposal, as shown in Figure 3.6-1.The spent regeneration waste is intermittent and will average aboutg 1 5000 gal / day. I 3.6-2 Amendment No. 1 (9/79) NM,Y-WSES 3 ER 3.6.2.2 Chemicals Released From Plant Corrosion Control Processes A number of chemicals are used for corrosion control in various plant systems, generally in small quantities under highly controlled conditions. The following chemicals will be used in various plant systems at Waterford 3: c)Hydrazine - Hydrazine is added to the condensau system to remove oxygen which causes corrosion probleme. The hydrazine concentra-tion is maintained at 10-50 ppb which is suffiaient to scavenge all the oxygen without ove r-f e e ding, the end products of the reaction between oxygen and hydrazine are free nitrogen gas and water. Hydrazine is also added to the primary, water system during start-up.b)Ammonia - Ammonia is used to maintair a pH of 8.2 to 0.2 in the steam generator and the condensate and feedwater system. dsually, a concentration of about 450 ppb results in the system.c)Lithium Hydroxide - A small amount (0.2 to 1 ppm) of lithium hy-droxide is used for pH adjustment in the Reactor Coolant System. Lithium hydroxide is removed from the coolant when it attaches to ion exchange resins, which, when exhausted, are packaged in drums for disposal as a radioactive solid waste. The handling of radioactive wastes is described in detail in Section 3.5. 7 Approximately 9 kilograms of lithium (Li ) will be used per year.d)Sodium Mitrite and Sodium Metasilicate - In the closed cooling l1 systems (Turbine Closed Cooling Water System and Component Cooling Water System), a mixture of sodium nitrite (85 percent) and sodium l1 metasilicate (15 percent) is used to inhibit corrosion. A con-centration of about 700 ppm will be maintained in these systems,l1 Fince the systems utilizing these chemicals are closed systems, there will act be any release of these chemicals to the environment. However, during equipment ma intenance, the water drained from the Turbine Closed Cooling Water System or the Component Cooling Water System will flow to the hold up tanks for later treatment in the Waste Management System or for later return to these systems for reuse. Table 3.6-3 lists thesa :nd other chemicals inidicating their use, frequency of usm and theft anr tal consumption. 3.6.2.3 Release of Chemicals from the Control Laboratory Wate ford 3 has a chemistry and radiation measurement laboratory equipped with all the chemicals and instrumentation needed for water and waste-water analyses. Some typical determinations done at the Waterford 3 laboratory will be: alkalinity, ammonia, boron, calcium, conductance, crud separation, fluoride, hydrogen, hardness, hydrazine, nitrcgen, iodine, iron, lithium, oxygen, pH , silica, strontium, sulfate, temperature, 3.6-3 Amendment No. 1 (9/79) ,.n..,..Yt$e)fot WSES 3 ER color, and turbidity. LP&L may contract with an outside laboratory to measure parameters such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total solids , oil and grease, fecal coliform, and copper. The drainage from the radio-chemical sinks and the water and wastewater analyses sinks is collected in the dre n tank and treated in the Waste Management System. 3.6.3 CHEMICALS RELEASED FROM THE EIOCIDE CONTROL SYSTEM Generally, chlorine is added to ci,culating cooling water to control fouling by biological growth inside the condensers. However, experience ct Little Gypsy and Waterford 1 and 2 has shcan that the heavy silt content of the Mississippi River water tends to cause a continuous scour in the condenser tubes, and thereby controls fouling from nuisance organisms. As a result, no routine chlorination is expected to be needed for circulating cooling water.However, chlorination facilities will be available , and will be utilized as needed. The free available chlorine at the condenser outlet will be controlled to restrict the concentration from 0.2 ppm to 0.5 ppm and will not be discharged more than 2 hours per day. 3.6.4 MISCELLANEOUS CHEMICAL WASTES a)Non-Radioactive Oil Waste In the Turbine Building, the floor drains , curbed oil area drains, and equipment drains will be combined into a common Industrial Waste System. Liquid from this system is directed to two internal industrial waste sumps, from where it is pumped to the yard oil separator. In all other build-ings, the equipment drains from equipment using oil as part of its function or process, as well as the floor drains in curbed oil areas, will be routed to that building's oil sump. Sump pumps in all buildings in the nuclear island will transport the oil waste to the Turbine Building industrial waste discharge header, where it combines and passes through a radiation monitor.If the waste is not radioactive, it flows to the yard oil separa-tor.The effluent from the oil separator is released to the Storm Water Drainage System, which discharges to the 40 Arpent Canal. Removed oil rill be collected in tanks for of fsite treatment and disposal. If the radiation monitor indicates radioactivity is present, the oil waste is routed to the Waste Management System. The treatment of radioactive wastes is described in Section 3.5. In the Service Building, the liquid drainaga from equipment using oil is routed through equipment drains and floor drains to the internal oil separator in this building. The clear ef fluent is re' ased to the Storm Water Jrainage Sys*.em and is subsequently discharged to the 40 Arpent Canal. The removed oil is collected in tanks for of fsite treatment and disposal. b)Floor Drains The Floor Drain System includes the floor drains in the Reactor Building, the Reactor Auxiliary Building, and the Fuel Handling Building. c.-e..v.3.6-4 a O n i-> *J :E k' WSES 3 ER Non-radioactive floor drainage is collected from the floor drain in the battery rooms and the electrical penetration and cable vault areas in th(mactor Auxiliary Building, emergency diesel generator rooms, and the Turbine Building. The floor drains in the battery rooms discharge to the local neutralizing canks for neutralization. The waste then flows to the sanitary sewers for further disposal. The floor drains in the electrical penetration and cable vault areas accept sprinkler discharge water in the event of sprinkler ,ystem activation and have been designed for a flow of 900 gpm. The discharge is routed by gravity directly to the Storn Water Drainage System for disposal. The emergency diesel generator rooms are provided with floor drains which discharge into an oil sump. Two 50 gpm sump pumps discharge the sump contents to the Turbine Building Industrial Waste System for further disposal.The Turbine Building is provided with floor drains to accept normal main-tenance washdown wastewater, as well as any potential discharges from a piping rupture. Like other Turbine Building drainage wastes under normal 'conditione, the floor drain discharges are routed to the Turbine Building industrial waste sumps for discharge through a radiation monitor to the yard oi! separator. c)Heating, Air Corditioning and Ventilation (HVAC) System Cooling Tower Blowdown and Microstrainer Flush Wastewater Blowdown from the Supplementary Chilled Water System for the Reactor Auxiliary Building and the Service Building HVAC Systems is released to the Waterford 1 and 2 waste collection basin for treatment and dis-posal.The system operates with two cooling towers at approximately five cycles of concentration, and is expected to generate a maximum daily average blowdown of 5.4 gpm. Water used for flushing the air conditioning system makeup microstrainer is discha;ged directly to the Waterford 3 Circulating Water System discharge. d)Preoperational Systems Hydrostatic Testing and Flushing Wastewater Since it is not anticipated that the preoperational cleaning of systems at Waterf ord 3 will require the use of acid or caustic reagents, there will not be any metal cleaning wastes. However, during the preoperational phase, systems conveying fluids will undergo flushing and/or hydrostatic y testing.Flushing consists of the high velocity flow of rotable or demin-eralized water through these systems for the purpose of removing construc-tion debris, dirt, etc which might have accumulated during construction. Hydrostatic testing is a procedure used to test for leaks. An EPA approved dye will be used duiing the condenser hydrostatic testing procedure. t~w n p*i)311rw 4 , 3.6-5 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Hydrazine and ammonia are expected to be added to the flush and hydrostatic testing water. In addition, some systems might require the use of a wet-ting agent to complete these procedures. The hydrostatic testing and flushing wastes are expected to be produced on a one time basis and are anticipated to produce a combined total volume of from 15 to 20 million gallons of wastewater. These wastewaters will be 1 collected in the holding pond at Waterford 3 where they will undergo primary sedimentation. Following primary sedimentation, the wastes will be conveyed to the Waterford 1 and 2 waste collection basin for secondary sedimentation and neutralization if required. Ultimate disposal will be via the Waterford 1 and 2 Circulating Water System discharge as shown in Figure 3.6-1. e)Periodic Discharge

    1) Hot Well Dumy Occasional releases of condensate may be required due to high water levels in the condenser hot well.

    This dump of con-densate would be conveyed to the Waterford 1 and 2 metal waste pond for treatment. ii) Steam Generator Blowdown Under normal operating conditions the steam generator blowdown (SGB) will be treated in the SGB System and reused by returning the water to the condenser. If under certain circumstances the steam generator blowdown is not returned to the condenser, the blowdown, if found to be non-radioactive, will be conveyed, to the Waterford 1 and 2 metal waste pond for treatment and di spo sal . 3530.:?8 9 3.6-6 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) O WEES 3 ER TABLE 3.6-1 CHEM: CAL WASTE DISCHARCE SLHMARY (Sheet 1 of 2) Estimated Average Estimated Concentration Frequency of Chemical and Concentration After Type of Waste Source Discharge Quantity Pollutant Content in Waste Treatment Released to: (gels /yr)(ppm)(ppm)Reactor Coolant ("} Boron Management Periodically 685,000(8) Boron 10 10 Wategrd3Circulat-l1 System ing Water System discharge Nonre overable Waste Management Periodically 400,000(") Dirt 10 10 Waterford 3 Circulating lI 3)Water System (Miscel-Water System discharge laneous Waste) Detergent Waste Waste Management Periodically 131,400(*) Detergent, Dirt 1000 30 Waterford 1 Circulating l1 System (Laundry Water System discharge Wastes)Regenerative Steam Generator Periodically 145,000 Total Dissolved Solids 0-10,000 0-10,000 MetalWastePond{ l3 Waterford I and Solutions (d) Blowdown System Sulfates 0-5,000 0-5,000lpH 5-9 6-9 Electromagne Steam Generator Periodically 20,000 Total Suspended Solids 0-1,000 30 Waterford gno 2 Metal Filter Flush Blowdown System Waste Pond i Turbine Building Condenser Feed-Da ily 60,000 hydrazine.05.05 Waterford 3 Circulating Drains water Equipment Ammonia 0-1 0-1 Water System discharge Drains II)h$Floor Drains Daily 67,000 Detergent, Dirt .1.1 Waterford 3 Storm Water [O.Oil & Grease 20 15 Drainage System Q Total Suspended Solidsa30 30 Regenerative (l) Demineralized Periodically 365,000 Total Dissolved Solids 0-10,000 0-10,000 Waterford I and 2 Low" * 'Solutions Water System Sulfates 0-5,000 0-5,000 VolumegsteTreatment -1 pil 5-9 6-9 Systea 2?d Filter Flush Primary Water Da ily 13,140.000 Total Suspended Solids 1,000 1,000 Waterford 3 circulatics E Water Treatment (2-3 times a day. Polyelectrolyte 1-2 1-2 Water System discharge !Plant each for 10 minutes) Residual Chlorine 0 .1 0 .1 S z Sanitary Station Sewage Continuous 3,650,000 Residual Chlorine 0 .5 0 .5 Waterford I and 2 Low .Treatment Plant BOD 250 30 VolumegsteTreatment 1 y Total Suspended Solids 250 30 System G Sanitary Administration Continuous 1,460 000 Residual Chlorine 0 .5 0 .5 Waterford 3 Storm Water D Building Sewage BOD 250 30 Drainage System 0 Treatment Plant Total Suspended Solids 250 30 WSES 3 ET.TABLE 3.6-1 CHEMICAL VASTE DISCHARGE SLMMARY (Sheet 2 of 2) Estimated Average Estimated Concentration Frequency of Chemical and Concentration After Type of Wa s t e Source Discharge Quantity Pollutant Content in Waste Trea t me nt Released to: (gals /yr)(ppm)(ppm)Chemical {yaning Secondary System (h) Once at 1,800,000 Hydrazine 50-90 Not known(k) Waterford 1 and 2 g Solutions the start Total Suspended Solids A 30 30 Low Volume Waste g)of plant Treatment System Ii HVAC Cooling Tower Supplementary Daily 2,097,000 Total Suspended Solids 650 30 Waterford 1 and 2 Blowdown Chilled Water Low Volume Waste g)g System (HVAC). Treatment System (a) This does not include 184,000 ga l . of wa s t e u..o ek-to-back cold shutdowns and startup at 85% of core life. Maximum of 144,000 gallons per day discharged (b) Normal Waterford 3 discharge flow is approximately 1,003,22 gpm.l1 Normal Waterf ord 1 and 2 circulating water flow is approximately 435,000 gpa.(c) Due to f uel burnup, het and cold shutdowns and refueling. Condensate from boric acid concentrator may be reused if it me et s plant chemist ry requireme nt s.(d) The regenerant wastes re 17000 gallons per regeneration.(e) The filter flush wastes are approximately 1000 gallons per flush (M*, L (f) includes leakage from Turbine Closed Cooling Water System. fO p (g) Hydrostatic :esting and flushing will be done during initial start-up

    • I p.(h) Volume of Seconda ry System is approximately 300,000 gallons.
    • -(1) Releases to these Waterford 1 and 2 treatment systems eventually go to Waterford 1 and 2 Circulating Water System Discharge.

    l1 E (j) This does not include spent regenerant from the steam generator blowdnwn demineralizer. $S (k) Not possible to predict. z.(1) The regenerant wastes are 50,000 gallons / regeneration. ~'(m) Maximum combined treated laundry (10,000 gallons per day) and Waste Management (60,000 gallons per day) lC3 daily discharge is 70,000 gallons l1 D$ WSES 3 ER TABLE 3.6-? SLTfARY OF CI:Dt! CAL UASTE CR!PLIANCE UITI: APPLICABLE STY;DARDS (Sheet 1 of 2) Estimated increase Estimated Averege EPA Effluent in Average Con-State of Loutstana centration of g - WaterQuagy Chemical and Concentration Limitations Waste Source Quantity Pollutant Content After Treatment (40 CFP 423) culating Water St a nda rds (gals /yr)(ppm)(ppm)(ppm)I-5 Boron Management System 685,000 Boron *)10-1.3x10 No standards -6 Waste Management S y s t er, 400,000 Detergent, Dirt 10 TSS-Avg- 30 7.6X10 No numerical criteria Max-100 laundry, Showers 131,400 Detergent, Dirt 30 TSS-Avg- 30 2.5x10 'No numerical criteria -*)-9 Condenser Feedwater 60,000 Hydrazi.05-5.7X10 No numerical criteria Equipment Drains Ammonta 0-1-1.2K10 No numerical criteria Floor Drains 67,000 Detergent, Dirt 0.1 (h)No numerical criteria 011 & Grease 15 O&C: Avg- 15 No numerical criteria Max 20 Total Suspended Solids 30 TSS: Avg- 30 No numerical criteria Max-100 0-10,000-3.8(d)400 pp TotalDigivedSolida') I Demineralized Water 365,000 System sulfates 0- 5,000-1.9 120 ppm S pit 6-9 6-9 No change 6.5-9.0 b Cl Prima ry Water Treatment 13,140,000 Suspended Solids 1000 TSS-Avg- 30 1.5(c)No numerical criteria .Plant Flush Water Max-100 ( ^I Polyelectrolyte (*) 1-2 ')-3.0x10 f-3(c)No numerical criteria ("-0 Residual Chlorine 0 .1 CL: Avg-0.2 1.5x10 No numerical criteria Max-0.5{', 4.7410}6 f Sewage Treatment Plant 3,650,000 Residual Chlorine 6-0.5-7.9X10 No numerical criteria No numerical criteria B0D 30 Avg- 30{g Total Suspended Solids 30 Max- 45 4.7X10-No numerical criteria S Administration Building 1,460,090 Residual Chlorine 0-0.5-(h)No numerical criteria f Sewage Treatment Plant Bod 30 Avg - 30 No numerical criteria 1 ,, Total Suspended Solids 30 Max 45 No numerical criteria -Preoperational Flushing 15,000,000-Hydrazine *} Not known-(g)No numerical criteria y.& Hydrostatic Testing 20,000,000 Total suspended Solids 30 TS S- Av g - 30 -(g)No numerical criteria s 3 Max - 100-Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 LR TABLE 3.6-2 (Cont'd)

    SUMMARY

    OF LHE*:ICAL WAS tu COM"LI ANCE WITH APPLi 'AP,LE STANDARDE (She?t 2 of 2) tst3 mated Increase Estimated Average E PA Effluent in Average Con-State of Louisiana Chemical and Concentration Limitations centration of -Water Qua y Waste Source Quantity Pollutant Content After Treatment (40 CFR 423) culating Water 9tanfarfs (gals /yr)(ppm)(ppm)(ppm).Preoperational Flushing pH 6- 9 6- 9 No Change 6.5-9.0 g& Hydrostatic Testing (Cont'd) Ii)S t e am Ge ne r a t o r 145,000 Total Dissolved Solids 0-10000-4.6 400 ppm blowdown Sys t em Salfates 0-5000-2.3 120 ppm Regenerative Solutions pt: 6-9 6.0-9.0 No Change 6.5-9.0 Steam Generator 20,000 Total Suspended Solids 30 30 6.9 X 10~3IU Na numerical criteria blowdown Syst em Electromagnetic Filter Flush HVAC Cooling 2,097,000 Total Suspended '9 30 3.7 X 10 '(Max.) No numerical criteria Tower Blowdown Solids 2.7 X 10- (Avg.)(a) Classification of Mississippi River in this reach is B (Secondary Contact Recreatinn). These s t anda rd s /c rit e r ia are applicable af ter the chemical waste mixes with river water.(Q (b) Nomal Waterford 3 discharge fl ow is approximately 1,003,350 gpm. Namal Water ford I and 2 circulating water flow is approximately 435,000 gpm. g'3, .s (c) Instantaneous concentration based on flush discharge of 90,000 gallons per hour. V C (d) Instantaneous concentration base.1 on r generative waste discharge of 10,000 gal!ons per hour. b (e) No EPA e f fluent limitations. Y g (f) There will be no perceptible chan e in pH.(g) Not po s s ib l e ta preliet.(h) Disenarged to the Storm Water Drainage System. 7 (i) Instantaneous concentration based on regenerative. waste discharge of 12,000 gallons per hour k (k) Instaneous concentration based on flush discharge of 6000 gallons pe- hour. 3-WSES 3 ER TASLr 3.6-1 CliPIICAL AD9ITIVES A*:n THEIR A?;NUAL CO'ML'1PTION (Sheet I of 2) Annual Consurption Cherical System h ved Use Frequency of Use Average::a x iv e 1.Joron Reactor Joolant Systen Reactivity control Intermittent 3240 pounds 2. iiydrazine Reactor Coolant System; Oxygen control Infrecuent 51 pounds 4600 pounds Secondary System Oxygen control Continuous 4000 pounds 3.Anmn ia Secondary System pil cont rol Continuous 305 pounds 4.Polyolectrolyte Prima ry Wate r Treatment Plant To induce adsorption Continuous 165 pounds 220 pounds 5.Corrosion Inhibitor Closed Cooling Uater Systems To inhibit corrosion At the start and 800 pounds 1 Sodium Nittiate 857. and then as needed Sodium metasilicate 157 6.rhlorine Sewage Treat ment Plant To kill disease-Continuous 3.9 tons-Priuary Water Treatment Plant causing organisms; to oxidire organic matter 7.Sulfuric Acid Demineralized Water System To regenerate cation Daily 10 tons (b) _& mixed hed units 8.Sodium Hydroxide Demineralized Water System To regenerate mixed Daily 10 ton,(b) _bed units 9.Li t hiuta Reactor Coolant System pH control Intermittent 9 kilograms -10. Nitrogen Various Primary Systems Cover ga s Intermittent 300,000 scf(C) -11. Hydrogen Reactor Coolant System Oxygen control Continuous 8,500 scf-12. Detergent Laundry Cleaning As needed 200 pounds ->3*13. Lorrosnan Inhibitor"l) Supplementary Chilled Corrosian Daily 215 pounds -'3 c!Water System (HVAC) inhibitor (Typical)a" Dispersing Agent (d) Supplementary Chilled Sequestering Daily 50 pounds-z 14..Water System (HVAC) and dispersing (Typical)7'agent-=? .=^m w., , , w f" s W WSES 3 ER TraLE 3.6-3 CHDlICAL ADDITIVES AND Tl!EID ANN 1'AL CONSl*!PTION (She 2 of 2)~Annual Consumption Cbemical Sy st en Served l's e Frequency of l*se Average!!ax t:aurs --_ _ _ _ .I}15. 81ocide Supplementary Chilled Bincide Weekly 200 pounds -Uater System (T:VAC)(Typical)(a)These quantities will be used only once at the start of the plant, and later only to compensate for losses. g (b)Short tons (2000 pounds = 1 ton).(c)Standard cubic f t.(d)Actual chemicals to be used have not been determined at time of printing.

    • %\ p/O e$9 m*s.3 sh ,*z.O W O e we I i e r, s i g ,.g o s su i m u m D2 1 RO E ONT fAS R A 1 E K T&A L E W A E T M U$W T 3 S LA o, D E T OW , 2 R s V 0,D A i L E O A Y WR R N T $F W OA E A E A R L.T 1 MW A E L T I T L~A 3 t T A N G~A W WW DA R$0 O D 0 I E 0 R T 0 E A 0 T 1 E A R i WT R E_, T A S W'W$A R G I-OR E D l L E O t L i I T ohL N S O M O__4 F J 3 OIC Rt AI DA F 6 N-S D E I GA RC L lTNWWi R 3 Y L O__L V R R AA E AG OP Ot AF 0 MSGN A H T T f H W__--4 DT 5 I f R fONI D N E ORI TS E.CE T DSU._--T WPHTF_IM A RVEL-T A- _A M x i E I E R H f T C-SE 5 A W o T N 5 O1 A I w N E s #W i T d O C f4$E T A$-E A WL A R O S--C E N E G-E R R tl-.E 2 E A T R$, E.A g W NA e M E'D 2 D N A 1 C D I T R S.O U F A.R C.E R E T A E V R-D X L W s.4 A f *-C E H A , M V TT SD u D s H Y R R AN UR 2Om S u A ALO2 WE lor A MFF o A L W HAFD YT RN T , F 3 CNRN RA Es R i, R$AE A AE T E U O DCA MR A a T T i 1 C I TI W L E O W R F T P.O C n,n T eo A i Hen N GS se t AI I$.ILd S r c o.U&f h r c ore LE tal e.,s e 4)*3)y ;N [, C C . %'WWE ('*O P WSES 3 ER 3.7 SANITARY AND OTHER WASTES 3.

    7.1 INTRODUCTION

    This section desc ribes the sanita ry wa stes and their t reatment, the Sto rm Water Drainage System, and waste emissions from the diesel engines and auxilia ry boile rs. Chemical Laboratory wastes, demineralize r regenera tive hoste, prima ry wate r treatment plant flush waste and chemical cleaning solution wastes a re described in Section 3.6. Simila rly, decontamination hustes and radioactive wastes from the laboratory and laundry are discussed in Section 3.5. 3.7.2 SANITARY WASTES Sanita ry wa stes will originate f rom food prepa ration facilities, rest rooms and shower facilitics located throughout the plant. The re a re t wo se wa ge t reatment plants which service Waterford 3 staf f. One station sewage t reat-1 ment plant services all sanitary wastes generated at Waterford 3 with the exception of the Administration Building sanita ry wa stes. The sanitary wastes generated in the Administration Building are treated in y the Administration Building sewage treatment plan t. Sanita ry wastes influent to the station sewc c treatment plant a re collected o in the station sehage treatment plant lift station. Sanita ry wastes are directed to this lif t station by either gravity or via pumping from the Reactor Auxilia ry Building lif t station. Sanita ry wa stes influent to the Administration Building sewage treatment I plant are conveyed by gravity to a separate lif t station. From this lift station, these sanita ry wastes are pumped to the Administration Building sewage t rea tment plant. 3.7.2.1 Cha racteristics of Sanitary Waste During commercial operation, the plant will be staf fed by approximately 200 people in..a administrative, operational and safety capacities. The ma-jority of these employees will be working during the day shif t. The t rea t-1 ment plants have a combined design capacity of 14,000 gallons per day, with an assumed BOD load of 0.105 lbs. pe r person per day, (i.e. , a total q BOD load of 2I lbs. per day). This loading corresponds to a normal sankta ry wa ste with a BOD concent ration of 250 ppm. The wa ste is expec-5 ted to be typical of sanita ry wastes, and will contain a high concentration of suspended solids and a low concent ration of dissolved oxygen. These design figures are based on sewage generation of 50 gallons / capita /shif t and therefore have provided some excess capacity in the treatment pla nt s . This excess capacity will enable the treatment plants to accommodate va riations in influent loads such as during plant refueling when additional personnel a re present at Waterford 3. c r + c , . . h. ,.3s)<. if t )3.7.2.2 Lift Sta tions There a re two lif t stations which convey sanita ry wastes to the station

    3. 7- 1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)

    WSES 3 ER s ewa ge t r - ',uie n t pla nt : the Reactor Auxiliary Building lif t station and the statio dbe t rea tment pla nt lift station. The Reacto r Auxilia ry T ilding 1 station is 5 f* in diamet - and 8 f t 6 in. high , and is 6 equipped with two subtre rsible pumping un. .s. Each of these is capable of pumping 80 gpm againr: a total dynamic head (TD!l) of 80 f t, a nd ca n pa s s 2 1/2 in. diameter s slids. The station semge treatment plant lift station has a diameter of 5 f t and a depth of 10 f t c inch, and is also equipped with two subme rsible pumps. Each of the t rea tment plant lift station pumps is capable of pumping .00 gpm against a TDil of 30 f t, and can pass 3 inch diamete r solids. Each pump within these two lif t stations is designed : a meet the mximum de-mand of that station and, consequently,100% standby pumping capacity will be ava ila ble . The pump cont rols at each of those stations will automatically a lte rna t e the lead pump and also energize both pumps at a station in case of eme rgency high m ter level. Povision for mnual operation exists on the cont rol panel. The cont rol panel at each of these lift stations is provided with indicator lights to show pump operation. 3.7.2.3 Semge Treatment Plants Both sewage t reatment plants a re factory-fabrica ted, package-type extended a e ra tion t rea tment plants with a capacity of 10,000 and 4,000 gallons per day for the station ar.d Administration Building facilities, respe ct ively. The I plants will achieve 85 to 90 percent removal of BOD and suspended solids from the e ste. Details of the va rious unit operatkons and processes at the t rea tment plants are given below in sequential order. a)Comminuto r - The t rea tme nt pla nt lift station pumps the sanitary waste into the channel ahead of the comminutor. The cotaminutor cuts and grinds solids in the mate meer to facilitate subsequent t rea tmen t p roc e s s e s . To pemit continued t rea lment plant operation during a tempo ra ry m lf unct ion o r rou t ine ma int ena nce of the com-minutor, a bypass channel, equipped with a ba r sc reen, has been provided a t the t reatment pla nt s. b)Aera tion - The comminuted mste flows into the aeratin tank which provides a retention time of 24 hours. The te'k is equipped with air dif fusers which a re lot ated across the wide.h of the ta nk , nea r the bottom to provide aera. ion and end roll. Suf ficient aeration will be provided to keep solids in suspension and t:nintain a dis-solved oxygen level of about 2.0 mg/1. During the extended aeration process, the biodegrade ole m terial is oxidized and the process operates in the endoget ous respiration phase. The < 3 ration tank will have enough activa ted sludge returned to it, by air lif ting f rom the final settling tank, that a mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentiation of 4,000 to 5,000 ppm will be maintained. The aeration tank will also be equipped with spray nozzles for foam suppression. O 3.7 2 Amena c t No. 1, (9/79) 8MjlN WSES 3 ER c)Final Settling - The mixed liquor fro: the aeration tank discharges into the final se.'tling tank where it is retained under quiescent conditions for about five hcurs. The settling tank operates at ar overflow rate of 200 gal / day /sq. ft. The activated sludge settler. to the bottc= and is returned to the aeration tank by airlifting. When the MLSS concentration in the aeration tank is more than 5,Cr0 ppa, a parr of the activated sludge is wasted to the sludge holding tank for digestion. The overflow frco the settling tank flows to the chlorine contact tank for disinf ection. d)Chlorination and Disposal - The effluent from the final settling tank is disinfected by the addition cf hypochlorite tablets to the chlorine contact t a nk . Baffles are provided in the chlorine contact tank to avoid short-circuiting of flow and provide thorough mixing of the chlorine solutien and the waste water. This ensures that a contact time of =cre than thirty minutes is achieved in order to kill pathogenic bacteria. The chlorinated secondary ef fluent, with residual chlorine concentration of approxicately 0.5 ppa, flcws a over a 7-notch weir prior to discharge. The station sewage treatment l1 plant effluent is conveyed to the Waterford 1 and 2 waste col-lection basin for ulti= ate disposal . The Administration Building sewage treat:ent plant effluent is discharged to the site drainage 1 syste: and ulti ately is drained to the 40 Arpent Canal. The average concentration of ECD and suspended solids in the final effluent 5 fec= both plants wilt not be greater than 30 ppa, and will meet applicable effluent and water quality standards. In the waate collection basin, the chlorinated effluent frc= the station sewage treatment plant is mixed with other wastes, such as decineralization regeneration waste and cleaninr solution vastes, from Waterford 1 and 2 and Waterford 3. The total wastewater then undergoes a treat:ent process, which is described in detail in Section 3.6. e)Sludge Treatrent and Disposal - The excess activated sludge frc= the settling tank will be wasted to the sludge holding tank. The sludge holding tank is equipped with air dif fusers for aerobic digestion of the sludge. An overficw pipe will convey the overflow fec the sludge holding tank to the aeration tank. The digested sludge will be re-coved by airlifting from the botte= of the sludge holding tank ap-proxi=ately once a year for offsite disposal. 3.7.3 STOEM WATER ERAINACE S torm water is collected through roof drains, leaders and catch basins into a network of underground concrete stor= sewers. These sewers discharge directly, without treatment or retention, into ditches leading to the a0 Arpent drainage canal. The ster: sewer system his been designed to acco=moda te a 50-vear recurrence sto rs. c x 3 ab--o ut r.t) .J L 3.7.4 OTHER WASTES Because Waterf ord 3 is a nuclear power plant, there will be no continuous release of combustion products to the at:0 sphere du-ing t'nor=al operation 3.7-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) _WSES 3 ER of the plant. There are, however, six scarces which will have temporary or intermittent emissions to the atmosphere. These are two diesel generating units, an auxiliary boiler, two diesel fire pu=ps, and a diesel generator for ecergency purposes. The two 4400 kW diesel engine driven generating units are part of an e=ergency generating system, and each diesel unit will require approxicately 325 gallons of No. 2 diesel fuel per hour, when operating at full capacity. While e=ergency use of these generators cannot be predicted, they will be operated for about one hour per conth for routine testing. The sulfur con-tent of the diesel fuel oil will be less than 0.7 percent. Table 3.7-1 gives the cecbustion products normal y released (in pounds per 1000 gallons of diesel fuel consu=ed). 'The aux 111ary boiler is sized to prcvide 75,000 lbs of steam per hour, at 200 psig, and is fired by No. 2 fuel oil. The auxiliary boiler will be available to provide steam to the Waste er Boron Managecent Systen concentra-tors, one of which will operate for approxi=ately three hours every three days during each shutdown. This will occur =2 inly during refueling, and boiler operation is anticipated for about 200 hours per year. In addition, each start up will require steam at an estimated 30,000 lbs per hour for the deaerator and 26,000 lbs per hour at 160 psig for the turbine stea seals. This steam is also to be provided by the auxiliary boiler. Finally, during the period preceding the initial plant start up, the auxiliary boiler will be used to provide steam for cleaning of varicus pisnt co=ponents. This preoperational cleanup is typically six to eight conths in duration. The expected waste emissions fro = the auxiliary boiler (in pounds per heur) are presented in Table 3.7-2. The two-150 hp diesel fire pumps are to be utilized during e:ergency condi-tions at the station. Each pu=p has a capability of pu= ping 2000 gpm, and requires approximately 11 gallens of No. 2 diesel fuel per hour, when operat-ing at full capacity. The puups are tested approxi=ately one hour per year. An 160 kW diesel generator is to be utilized for emergency purposes during periods of complete blackout at the station. The generator utili:es No. 2 diesel fuel, and requires approx 1=ately 11.0 gallons per hour, when cperating at full capacity. This generator is checked by operation for approximately one hour each month. The cecbustion products nor: ally released in pound = per 1000 gallons of diesel fuel consu=ed for both the diesel generator and the two diesel fire pu=ps are given in Table 3.7-1. c;d v;;ou q) ~t v g.u 3.7-4 A=en ment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 4.1-2 ESTIMATED AVERACE DAILY CONSTRUCTION WORKERS Workers *Year_, 1975 360 1976 1,050 1977 1,580 1978 2,560 19 79 2,950 1980 1,880 1 1981 150* Includes all craftsmen and subcontractors (msuual and non-manual). 33S 0/10 Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER Page 5.1 EFFECTS OF OPERATING HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM 5.1-1 5.1.1 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 5.1-1 5.1.2 PHYSICAL EFFECTS 5.1-1 5.1.2.1 Background 5.1-1 5.1.2.2 Predictive Modeling Approach 5.1-2 5.1.2.3 Model Input Data 5.1-2 5.1.2.4 Description of Tnermal Effects 5.1-3 5.1.2.5 Predicted Thermal Plume Effects and Water Quality Standards 5.1-4 5.1.3 BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS 5.1-5 5.1.3.1 Effects of Water Intake 5.1-5 1 5.1.3.2 Effects of Thermal Discharge 5.1-16 REFERENCES 5.1-22 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 5.1 5.2 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT FROM ROUTINE OPERATION 5.2-1 5.2.1 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS 5.2-1 5.2.2 RADIOACTIVITY IN THE ENVIRONMENT 5.2-3 5.2.2.1 Surface Water Models 5.2-4 5.2.2.2 Groundwater Models 5.2-5 5.2.3 DOSE RATE ESTIMATES FOA BIOTA OTHER THAN MAN 5.2-5 5.2.4 DOSE RATE ESTIMATES FOR liAN 5.2-6 5.2.4.1 Liquid Pathways 5.2-6 5.2.4.2 Caseous Pathways 5.2-6 5.2.4.3 Direct Radiation From Facility 5.2-6[3[3))k)'I - 5-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) CRAPTER 5: EFFECTS OF OPERATION Page 5.2.4.4 Annual Population Doses 5.2-6 5.2.5

    SUMMARY

    Of ANNUAL RADIATION DOSES 5.2-7 REFERENCES 5.2 . - -TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 5.2 5.3 EFFECT OF CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE DISCRARGES 5.3-1 5.

    3.1 INTRODUCTION

    5.3-1 5.3.2 MIXING AND 7ILUTION 5.3-1 5.3.3 EFFECT ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATER QUALITY 5.3-1 5.3.4 BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL DISCHARGE 5.3-1 5.3.5 BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF BIOCIDE DISCHARGE 5.3-2 REFERENCES 5.3-4 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 5.3 5.4 EFFECTS OF SANITARY WASTE DISCHARGE 5.4-1 5.

    4.1 INTRODUCTION

    5.4-1 5.4.2 MIXING AND DILUTION 5 . 4 -I 5.4.3 D4 PACTS ON THE WATER QUALITY OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER 5.4-1 5.5 EFFECTS OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS 5.5-1 5.6 OTHER EFFECTS 5.6-1 5.6.1 LAND USE AND CULTURAL EFFECTS 5.6-1 5.6.2 NOISE EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 5.6-1 5.6.2.1 Introduction 5.6-1 5.6.2.2 Acoustical Treatment of Plant Noise Sources 5.6-1 5.6.2.3 Plant Operation Sound Level Estimates-Methodology 5.6-2 StiDO W 5-11 WSES 3 ER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) CRAPTER 5: EFFECTS OF OPERATION Page 5.6.2.4 Plant Operation and Maintenance Noise Impact 5.6-4 REFERENCES 5.6-5 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 5.6 5.7 REEOURCES Cat 41TTED 5.7-1 5.7.1 MATERIALS CONSUMED IN THE NUCLEAR REACTION PROCESS 5.7-1 5.7.2 OTPER RESOURCES CCMMITTED DUE TO PIANT OPERATION 5.7-1 5.7.2.1 Land Resources 5.7-1 5.7.2.2 Water Resources 5.7-2 5.7.2.3 Aquatic Resources 5.7-2 RE FERENCES 5.7-4 , 5.8 DECOMMISSIONING AND DI94ANTLING 5.8-1 5.8.1 DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES 5.8-1 5.8.2 COST OF DEC0dMISSIONING 5.8-2 5.8.3 ENVIRONHENTAL EHPACT OF DECOMMISSIONING 5.8-2 REFERENCES 5.8-4 TABLES FOR SECTION 5.8.rs; ~ y s,s -> ss kl t) ' / ' 1' l 5-111 WSES 3 ER LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER 5: EFFECTS OF OPERATION TABLE TITLE 5.1-1 Input and Existing Conditions for Thermal Analysis - Typical Low Flow Conditions of about 205,000 CFS 1 and Extreme Low Flow Condition of 100,000 CFS 5.1-2 Input Conditions for Thermal Analysis - Average Flow Conditions 5.1-3 Characteristics of Thermal Plumes Measured in Previous Surveys of the Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy Discharges 5.1-4 Combined Thermal Impacts of Waterford 1, 2 and 3 and Little Gypsy Discharges 5.1-5 Intake Designs o. Waterford 1 and 2 W rsus Waterford 3 5.1-6 Percent of Time Average Monthly Mississippi River Stage Is 15 Ft 5.1-7 Selected Data on Plant Operation during Impingement Monitoring at Waterford 1 and 2 5.1-8 Percent of Mississippi River Flow Entrained by Waterford 3 5.1-9 Percent of Mississippi River Flows Entrained by Water-ford 1, 2 and 3 and Little Gypsy 5.1-10 Contribution of Cyanophyta to the Phytoplankton Community 5.2-1 Caseous Effluerit Concentrations Contributed to the Background 5.2-2 Relative Noble Gas Concentrations 5.2-3 Relative Radioiodine and Particulate Concentrations 5.2-4 Relative Deposition for Radioiodine and Particulates 5.2-5 Radionuclide Concentrations from Liquid Effluents from Routine Operation of Waterford 3 5.2-6-Annual Dose to Biota Other than Man from Liquid Effluents f rom Waterford 3 5.2-7 Estimated Yest 2000 Food Production 5.2-8 Annual Population-Integrated Doses (Man-Rem) from Waterford 3 5.2-9 Compliance with 10 CFR 56, Appendix I 5- iv Amendment No.1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER LIST OF TABLES (Cont 'd ) CHAPTER 5: EFFECTS OF OPERATION TABLE TITLE 5.3-1 Su= mary of Chemical Waste Concentrations above Ambient Concentrations in the Mississippi River for Average Winter Flow Conditions from Discharge by Waterford 3 !.3-2 Summary of Chemical Waste Concentrations above Ambient Concentrations in the Mississippi River for Average Spring Flow Conditions from Discharge by Waterford 3 5.3-3 Summary of Chemical Waste Concentrations above Ambient Concentrations in the Mississippi River for Average Summer Flow Conditions from Discharge b ' Waterford 3 5.3-4 Summary of Chemical Waste Concentrations above Ambient Concentrations ni the Mississippi River for Ave. rage Fall Flow Conditions from Discharge by Waterford 3 5.3-5 Effects of Chemical Discharges on Aquatic Organisms 5.3-6 Chlorine Dilution in the Waterford 3 Plume 5.6-1 Noise Sensitive Areas and Sound Pressure Levels Produced by Continuous Operation of Waterford 3 (dB( A)) 5.6-2 Noise Sensitive Areas and Sound Pressure Levels Produced by Intermittent Noise Sources of Waterford 3 (dB( A)) 5.8-1 Relative Costs of Decocsissioning Alternatives 5.8-2 Radiological Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning v d.) U>8 : ~ C . e.?\1e>5-v WSES 3 ER LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 5: EFFECTS OF OPERATION FIGURE TITLE 5.1-1 Mississippi River Depth Contours at Waterford 3 5.1-2 Predicted Excess Isotherms ( F) at the Surface, Combined Field - Average Winter River Flow Condition 5.1-3 Predicted Excess Isotherms ( F) at the Surface, Combined Field - Average Spring River Flow Condition 5.1-4 Predicted Excess Isotherms ( F) at the Surface, Combined Field - Average Sucner River Flow Condition 5.1-5 Predicted Excess Isotheras ( F) at the Surface, Combined Field - Average Fall River Flow Condition 5.1-6 Predicted Excess Isotherms ( F) at the Surface combined 1 Feild - Extreme Low Flow Fall Ccadition 5.1-7 Excess Isotherms ( F) at the Surface, Combined Field - l1 September 9, 1976 Low Flow Condition 5.1-8 Excess Isotherms ( F) at the Surface, Combined Field - l1 September 10, 1976 Low Flow Condition 5.1-9 Combined Thermal Plume Cross-Seccion at Little Cypsy for 1 Typical Low Flow Conditions 5.1-10 Combined Therual Plume Cross-Section at Little Gypsy (Rm 1 129.2) for the Extreme Lcw Flow Condition 5.1-11 Combined Thermal Plume Cross-Section at (Rm 128.5) for the 1 Extreme Low Flow Condition 5.1-12 Impingeme nt of River Shrimp (Macrobrachium) on the Screens lt of Waterford 1 and 2 (1976) over a 24 Hr. Period l1 5.1-13 Weight of Dominant Fish Impinged at Waterford 1 and 2 over a 24 Hr. Period 5.1-14 Number of Fish Impinged at Waterford 1 and 2 over a 24 Hr. h Pe riod l 5.1-15 Average Water Temperature in the Intake Pump Scraen Wells of Waterford 1 and 2 during Impingement Study Periods l1 5.1-16 Allowable Thermal Plume Temperatures for the Minimization of Cold Shock in the Event of Plant Shutdown 5.2-1 Radiation Exposure Pathways to Aquatic Organism es--.s.r,.j d1.J lb 5- v i Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd) CilAPTER 5: EFFECTS OF OPERATION FIGURL'TITLE 5.2-2 Radiation Exposure Pathways to Terrestr.itt Organisms 5.2-3 Radiation Exposure Pathways to M:in 5.3-1 Chlorine Time / Dilution Curves for Waterford 3 5.6-1 Plant Operation Sound Contours - Waterford 3 5.6-2 Noise Sensitive Land Uses Located witht, 10,000 Ft of Waterford 3 .-o%m ')y.lt$5-vil WSES 3 ER 5.1 EFFECTS OF OPERATING llEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM Waterford J, which is located at River Mile 129.4 on the west bank of the Mississippi River, is almost directly across the river from the existing Little Gypsey Generating Station (1229 MWe fossil-fueled) and about one-half mile downstream f rom Waterf ord 1 and 2 (822 MWe f ossil-fueled). The existing thermal loading conditions on the river are described in Appendix 5-1. The plant operating conditions for all three plants are described in Table 5.1-1 and 5.1-2. 5.1.1 EFFLUENT LLMITATIONS AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Power production by steam electric generation has unavoidable thermal effects on the environment. It is LP&L's corporate policy to give full consideration to these effects and to comply with all applicable Federal and State regulations. Therefore, in April 1979 LP&L filed an application, pursuant to Section 316(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-50u), demonstrating minimal impact on the environment, to request approval for the Waterford 3 Circulating Water System. The c Louisiana Water Quality Regulatians for the Mississippi River { cat at Waterford require that, outside of established mixing zones, the river tenperature will not be raised more than 5 F above ambient. As stated in the current regulations, "the mixing zone will be limited to no more than 1/4 of the cross-sectional area and/or volume of flow of the stream".5.1.2 P11YSICAL EFFECTS 5.1.2.1 Background The thermal characteristics of the Mississippi River at Waterford 3 depend upon river flow rate and plant discharges from Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy.The flow characteristics of the Mississippi River have been described in Section 2.4.3 and the flow characteristics used in this section are further desc ribed in Appendix 5-1. Monthly average river flows (measured at Tarbert and Red River Landings) varied between 105,000 and 1,470,000 cfs during the period of 1942 through 1976. Seasonal average flows for this same period are 580,000, 650,000, 280,000 and 240,000 cfs for winter, spring, summe r and f all, respectively. Since 1970, a hyirothermal field program has been conducted by LP&L to in-vestigate the thermal transport characteristics of the Mississippi River at Waterford. gsygsofthese field surveys were published in a series of summary of the thermal plume characteristics nine reports

    a surveyed is presented in Table 5.1-3.

    In general, the thermal effect of Little Gypsy is core extensive than that of Waterford 1 and 2. The thermal plumes from these existing plants appear to interact within the Mississippi River channel. The channel is depicted on Figure 5.1-1. Because of the NSOM3 5.1-1 WSES 3 ER large volumetric flow within the river channel, both plumes seem to be lim the chan-nel{gef)in lateralspreadingyi{gjnzonesoneithersideof The observed data indicate a wide range of variation in plume characteristics. This can be seen, for example, by comparing data taken on September 9 and September 10, 1976, which are presented in Table 5.1-3.5.1.2.2 Predictive Modeling Approach To establish the existing thermal characteristics of the river, thermal distributions resulting from operation of Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy were estimated under average seasonal, typical low, and extreme low fall river flow conditions. k) was utilized for the The Edinger and Polk f arfield mathematical model existing plants to estimate the thermal distributions under the average seasonal river flow conditions. Because of the availability of field mea-surements at typical low flow conditions, as well as the complexity of the flow regime near the Waterf ord site, it was determined to be appropriate and accura te to base the typical low flow thermal predictions for the existing plants on the field measurements. During the extreme low flow conditions, The Little Gypsy thermal discharge is expected to exhibit strong surface jet charac ggisgggs and therefore the Prych-Davis-Shirazi (PDS) nearfield jet model was utilized. Thermal plume predictions for Waterf ord 3 under both the typical low and the extreme low flow condi-tions were based on the PDS model. Both the Edinger and Polk and PDS models were employed to estimate the Waterford 3 thermal effects under the four average seasonal flow conditions. When the Waterf ord 3 discharge would have acted as a st rong sur f ace jet (river flows less than 300,000-350,000 cfs), the PDS model was applied; at higher flows, the jet would be weak and tl.2 Edinger and Polk model was therefore used. Ra t ionale s for model selection and a discussion of procedures used to calibrate the models can be f ound in Appendix 5-1. Because of the complexities involved !n prediction of thermal effects oc-curring at the river bend, steps were taken to develop a modeling approach that would yield representative, though conservative, results. For exam-ple, all plants were assumed operating at full load; the models were cali-brated against the largest plumes observed; and surf ace cooling was ne-glected.T he assumptions used to insu re medel conservatism are described in detail in appendix 5-1. %,%/} ,f)5.1.2.3 Model Input Data The combined thermai field was predicted using representative sets of river and plant discharge characteristics under average seasonal, typical low, and extreme low river flow conditions. The set of conditions, given l1 in Table 5.1-1, consists of the river flow and existing plant discharge conditions actually observed during the September 1976 survey. The river flow during the survey was about 200,000 cfs and was considered a typical low flow condition. The set of plant discharge conditions, given in Table 5.1-2, is at cverage seasonal river flow conditions. The river flows in-vestigated in the modeling effort varied between 100,00 and 650,000 cf s. 1 T he discharge rate of the Waterford 3 Circulating Water System CWS) was varied in accordance with expected pumping modes discosced (in 5.1-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Section 3 4.2.1. For example, the maximum pumping rate (2235 cfs) was used f or the r verage summer and the typical low flow conditions, when ambient 1 river temperatures were higher, while the average fall Waterford 3 CWS pumping rate (1831 cf s) was used for the extreme low flow condition. 5.1.2.4 Description of Thermal Effects Re su lt s of the thermal predictions are presented in Figures 5.1-2 through 5.1-10.The combined field plume descriptions are given in Table 5.1-4 and l1 summar ized below. The major features of the predictions are the following: a)Under typical low flow conditions, the cross-sectional area occupied by the 5F isotherm is only 4.2 percent of the river cross section. Under the extreme low flow conditions in the fall season, this cross-sectional area is less than 15 percent of the river cross section which represents an increase of about 7 percent over that predicted for the present discharge ef fects from Waterforu 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy during these extreme low flow conditions. River cross-sec-1 tions at the Littic Gypsy discharg location for these conditions are shown in Figures 5.1-9 and 5.1-10, re s pec t ively . Figure 5.1-11 presents the cross-sectional extent of the combined thermal dis-charges for the extreme low flow condition at River Mile 128.5. b)Based on the seasonal average, the combined thermal ef fect of all discharges is at a minimum level during the spring season and reaches a maximum during summer and fall. c)During both winter and spring seasons when river discharges are high, dispersion of the thermal plumes is expected to Se dominated by the ambient river flow. Therefore, plume distributtons on either side of the river would remain separated from each other. The Little Cygsy thermal plume, being in a relatively broad and o-. scent flow field located behind a river bend, displays the largess ilume dimensions. The thermal plume at Waterford 3 in contrast, ta kes ' narrow and lengthy shape. Th is is caused primarily by the swiftly moving river flow.d)For ri ve r flows less than about 300,000 cfs, plume dispersion at Waterf ord 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy is still expected to be dominated by river flow. The momentum ef f ect in the nearfield of the Little Gypsy discharge, however, is expected to be more pronounced than at higher flows. e)The Waterford 3 discharge at river flows less than 300,000 cf s is expected to exhibit surface jet characteristics. As such, the dilution of the discharged warm water with the cooler ambient river water is expected to be increased because of an increased rate of jet entrainment of the cooler water into the discharged water. The jet momentum, however, is also expected to transport the t he rma l discharge across the river channel and cause it to merge with the Little Gypsy and Waterford 1 and 2 plumes. f)In spite of identical station discharge and river flow conditions existing on both September 9 and 10, 1976, t he e x t e nt of the combined (r ' O f }f7 9)

    • ')#(9 5.1-3 Amendment No WSES 3 ER thermal distribution in the river was much less on September 10.

    Dif-ferences in weather conditions a re a possible explanation. 1 he re was 12.3 mph westerly a 6.3 mph southerly wind on September 9, which has a wind, which has a large down-river component. On September 10, there was a difference in wind speed and direction could have significantly af f ected plume dispersion, particularly in regions of relatively low river velocity (e.g. ofinhore of the Little Gypsy discharge ca na l ) . g)The maximum plume dimensions of the combined thermal field during the typical low flow condition, shown in Figure 5.1-7 are summarized below : MAXIMDI PLUMC _D_imensions 5 F Isotherm 10 F Isotherm Cross-sectional Area 4.2%1.1%Cross-St ream Extent full river width (1800 ft) 1100 ft Longitudinal Extent 7200 f t 2700 f t h)Thermal plumes predictions for the typical low flow condition are based on survey data, while predictive models were utilized f or the plume predictions of the other flow conditions. Because the pre-dictive models a re more conservative than estimates based on survey da t a , estimates of the combined field thermal plume distribution for the a ve ra ge fall season show slightly greater ef fects than the cor-responding typical low flow conditions. 1)Both the Waterford 3 and Little Gypsy discharges under the extreme 1 low flow condition of 100,000 c f s a re expected to exhthit surface jet characteristics. As such, the dilution of the discharged warm water with the cooler ambient river water is expected to be increased because of an increased rate of jet entrainment of the cooler river water into the discharged water. The jet momentum of the Little Cypsy discharge, toweve r , is aiso expected to transport the thermal d ischa rge across the river channel and cause t he me rging of all dis-charges on the Waterford side of the river. I 5.1.2.5 Predicted Thermal Plume Effects and Water Quality Standards The Louisiana Water Quality Regula tions limit the excess temperature to 5 F or le ss out side a mixing zone. The mixing zone is characterized as than 1/4 of the cross sectional area and/or ...llmited to no being st ream. . . " gre 1 For the extreme low river flow condition, a volume of the combined mixing zone (i.e., from Waterford I and 2 Waterf ord 3 and Little Gypsy) de f ined by the 5 F excess tempe ra tu re isotherm would only occupy a niximum of 15 ;creent of the river cross-sectional area, which is well below the allowable limit of 25 percent. For average seasonal flow conditions, the maximum fraction of the river cross section af f ected by the 5F excess t empe ra t u re isotherm would be about 6.6 percent during t he fall season.This 6.6 percent affected is slightly greater than the cross-sec-tional area a f f ec t ed du ri ng t he typical low flow condition. 1 As noted above in Section 5.1.2.4, the ave rage seasonal thermal plume bb.N51 S.1-4 Amendment W.1 (9/ib) WSES 3 ER predict ions are larger than those of the typical low flow because the a ve rage seasonal flows are based on a conservative modeling approach I for the Waterf ord 1 and 2, Waterford 3 and Little Gypsy discharges, whereas the typical low flow condition was based upon actual measurements at Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy, with the superimposition of the Waterford 3 plumes predicted by the model. 5.1.3 BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS f.1.3.1 Effects of Water Intake 5.1.3.1.1 Impingement '.mp i n ge me n t , the collision of an organism with the screen system as a result of intake flow, is a potential effect of plant operation. Impingement ratss are determined by a complex interaction of factors such as fish densitica, intake design and capacity, fish behavior, fish swimming abilities, physical and chemical environmental conditions, etc. Knowledge of the canner in which many of these f actors operate is either extremely limited or unavailable at this time. However, within these constraints, p red ic t ions of the effects of impingement f rom the operation of the Water-ford 3 Circulating Water System have be e n mad e . Fish Impingement rates have been forecasted for a proposed plant on Lake information and design and opera {{pg charac-Erie, using impingement rate teristics of existing power plants throughout the Great Lakes Fo r e-.hised on an observed relationship by{ggen approach velocity and casts were cooling water capacity and impingement. Gross showed that fish im-pingement rates f or power plants which were on the same water body and had simila r intake specifications could be adequately predicted from monitoring data on either station. Impingement da ta taken at Waterf ord 1 and 2 were used in an attempt to indi-cate what level of impingement might be expected at Waterford 3. Since the intakes for these stations are located within a short distance of each other, biological communities in the river ought to be t he sa me . Ilowever, intake designs and capacities are quite different, and the discussion that follows re la t es the design dif f erences to variations in impingement which may occur at Waterford 1 and 2 and Waterford 3. 5.1.3.1.1.1 Compa rison of Impingement Data The Wate rf ord I and 2 intake structures are located within about 0.5 mile of Waterford 3, as shown on Figure 2.1-4, on the same side of the Missis-sippi River. The Waterford 3 intake has similar approach velocities, similar velocities through the traveling screens, and intake ports located at approximately the sa me distance of f shore (indicated in Table 5.1-5). Differences in location and intake design among units which might result in differences in quantities and kinds of fish impinged include: withdrawal depth, po t e n t ia l for escape, velocity within the stru are, river te mpe ra - ture, and intake volume (capacity). Dif ferences which may create greater t.o ,>w.rt..e i e 5.1-5 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER or lesser impingement as well as the net impa c t on such impingement be tween Waterford 1 and 2 and Waterford 3 are treated below. a)Differences Which May Create Greater Impingement at Uaterford 3: 1)Current Velocity and Temperature Within the Intake Structure Velocities in the Waterford 3 Circulating Water System are 8 ven in Table 3.4-1. Velocities through the intake canal at 1 its entrance from the river vary from 1.09 - 1.78 fps (0.332 - 0.543 meters per sec). These velocities are a function of the number of pumps operat ing. Velocities through the traveling screens are 1.06 - 1. 82 f ps (0. 323 - 0. 555 meters per sec) de-pending on water level. However, the lower current velocity of 0.27 - 0.76 fps (0.082 - 0.232 meters per sec) in the wide section of the intake jo 1 of Waterford 3 may encourage fish to re ma in in that area relative to the river mainstem) "#can is 630 yd The vol me in this section of 3 ("6089.3 m ) at 3 (3540 m ) at MLW; and 7964 yd MilW.Some of the fish species collected at Waterford during the Environ-mental Surveillance Program, such as carp and buf f alo, prefer areas of low current (see Table 2.2-33). During periods of high river discharge (i.e., at stages greater than 15 ft MSL), the water level will be a bove the sheet pile hirriers of the Waterford 3 intake canal. Based on the river s t a ge records for Reserve, Louisiana, between 1967-1976 (Table 1 5.1-6), it is estimated this will occur during 20 percent of the year.Under these conditions, fish may swim either out of the canal entrance or over its sides, lessening the possibility of impingement. 2)Intake Volume (Capacity) Increased intake volume (capacity) of ten contributes to in - creased fish impingement. Intake volumes at Waterford 3 are higher than those at Waterford I and 2, as shown in Table 5.1-5.b)Differences Which May create Lesser Impingement at Waterford 3 1)Depth of the Intake Entrance The intake ports at Waterford 1 and 2 draw water from a single level located 28 feet below the surface (MLW), while the Waterf ord 3 intake canal, approximately 80 percent of the year, will draw from essentially the entire water column, except the small port ion blocked by the skimmer wall at the entrance to the canal. The composition of the Mississippi River fish community in the Waterford area ad the habits of its members would suggest that impingement at .s% rford 1 and 2 would be dominated by bottom species (drum a catfish), whereas impingement at Waterford 3 would prot.bly not. 5.1-6 Amendment So. 1, (9/79)c ~) s> g y mJskJ n ut WSES 3 ER 2)Potential for Escape The re is no possibili*v of escape once an organism is entrained into the intake conduits at Waterford 1 and 2 because water velocities reach 9.6 fps. Ilowever, entrance into the Waterford 3 intake canal will not necessarily result in impingement, since velocities throughout nost of the canal will range from only 0.27 to 0.76 fps. Also, during about 20 percent of an average year, the river level will rise above the top of the intake canal, creating an additional avenue of escape f or fish in the canal. 3)Intake Flow Orientation Another dif f erence between Waterf ord 1 and 2 and Waterf ord 3 is in the orient ation of the intakes. Flow into the Waterford 1 and 2 intake, which has an inverted bell-mouthed opening, ha s a large upward vertical component. Flow into the canal opening at Waterford 3 would not ha ve such a feature. It ha s been documented that fish do not respond well to vertical changes in current direction, gg do show an ability to avoid horizontal changes in currents 5.1.3.1.1.2 Impact of Impingement on the Lower Mississippi River Bearing in mind the limitations tid advantages cited above for assessing impingement at Waterf ord 3, an attempt tu made herein to ideatify the probable magnitude of such impact on the finfish and shellfish populations of the Mississippi River. a)River Shrimp The veight of river shrimp (Macrobrachium) impinged at Waterford 1 and 2 in 1976 was approximately 587 lbs (266 kg) (Figure 5.1-12). 1 Th is is equivalent to an average of 1.6 lbs (0.73 kg) per day. Assuming a direct relationship exists between capacity and impinge-nent, the three units together would be expected to take approxi-mately 1,761 pour js of shrimp per year (i.e. , capacity at Waterford 3 is approximately twice that of Weterford 1 and 2). Thus Waterford 3 could account for approximately 1200 lbs. HustonandAssociates{gpgof A large percen those animals might survive. Espey, found that shrimp collected at Waterford 1 and 2 were essentially uninjured. They had sometimes lost an appendage, but their exo-skeleton appeared undamaged except for an occasional loss of the rostrum.These appear to be the only data available for river shrimp impingement da ma ge . In the absence cf mortality information on this species, but recognizing the need to make an assessment of resource losses, an extremely conservative figure of 30 percent impingement nortality is used here. (The actual percentage of mortality will probably be much less.) At this rate, Waterford 3 would be estimated to result in a mortality of about 350 pounds of shrl=p per year due to impingement. c ..:e n t : A u s2s) U D 5.1-7 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Four thousand two hundred pounds of river shrimp were caught com-mercially in the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and the Gulf during 1975, as shown in Table 2.2-33. River shrimp are ubi- l 1 quitous in the lower Mississippi River; they are found as far up-stream I nois and Obit, and as far downstream as the Gulf of Mexico Therefore, the !!ississippi River near Waterford 'does not appear to be unique in regard to presence of river shrimp. althoug owled ge of the biology of the river shrimp is quite limited the small loss due to impingement would not be , expected to significantly affect the 'tississippi River shrimp popula t ton. b)Fish Appro:timately 8,700 pounds of fi.. ' ish per year (24 lbs/ day) were impinged on Waterf and 2 intake screens, according to estimates tu sed on 19 76 da ta Included were 3,600 pounds of catfish and 1,300 pounds of freshwater o rm. These were the two commercial species which dominated the wingement 2amples at Waterford 1 and 2 (Figures 5.1-13 and 5 1-14). Other species which were commonly found 1 to be impinged included threadfin shad and gizzard shad, which is of some value as a commercially marketed bait fish. Wa t e rf o rd 1 and 2 impinged roughly 1,400 pounds of gizzard shad in the 1976 study d to be a linear function of year.If impingement is again assume capacity, the number of fish impinged <er year at all three units would be approximately triple that presently obtained. Ilowever, this is a substantial oversimplification of the actual impingement effects.Considering impingement rates presented in Section 5.1.3.1.1.1, it is expected that a doubling of impingement could occur, but that impingement at Waterford 3 would affect fewer of the cammercially important bottom fish. In addition, there will be a sluice incorporated into the water intake facilitieo at Waterford 3. Fish washed from the screens will be sluiced into the river at a point downstream of the intake, as described in Section 3.4.2.3. h slutce has been designed to return fish to the river under all expected river flow conditions. Therefore, it is assumed for this analysis that the sluice will be effective in returning live fish to the river without significant added mortality. Actual fish survival rates during impingement and sluicing to the river cannot be accurately determined without suf f icient operational experience. It can be expected, however, that shad will be the species rest se ns it ive to the stresses from i mp ir.ne ce nt and sluicing. Mortality studies of fish impinged at the George Neal Station, which is located on the Missouri River and has an intake s t ructu re similar to Waterford 3, ind ica t ed that gizzard shad suf the highest mor-tality (68 percent) of any of the fisa impinged Cl%eids, such as gizzard shad, are pa rt icularly sensitive to handling. Freshwater drum incurred a 33.0 percent g ality rate, and channel 10 percegprtality rate A study of impinge-cat f ish had a revealed that no threadf in survived even ment of threadfin shad brief i gecent.The Louisiana Wildlif e and Fisheries Com-mission " noted that blue catfish observed at the mouth of the Mississippi River appeared to r ema in alive out of the water in warm 0 WhO 5.1-8 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER weather much longer than did channel catfish. This suggests that survival of blue catfish might be higher than that of channel catfish.Assuming that fish impingement by all three units could be triple that of Waterford 1 and 2 alone, then approxicately 26,100 pounds of fish would be impinged per year, including 10,800 pounds of catfish; 3,900 pounds of freshwater drum; and 4,200 pounds of gizza rd shad. At the sc reen motality ra tes given above , i=pingment would claim about 1,080 pounds of freshwater catfish; 1,287 pounds of drum; a nd 2,856 pounds of gizzard shad per year. The annual contribution of Waterford 3 to this loss would be 720 pounds of freshwater catfish; 860 pounds of freshwater drum; and 1,900 pounds of gizzard shad. This can be compared to approximately 1.5 million pounds of freshwater fish (excluding gizzard shad) caught commercially in 1975 in the lower Mississippi River f rom Baton Rouge to the Gulf, which included 1,198,400 pounds of catiish and 80,300 pounds of freshwater drum.Many of the fish impin6ed are juveniles, however, so that the loss of equivalent adult s might bc different than that suggested by weight or numbe rs alone. Adult f ish equivalent weight would depend upon both the growth and natural nortality rates of these species in the lower Mississippi River. Descriptions of Mississippi River fish populations in the vicinity of Waterford 3, as well as the iaf ormation available on swimming speeds of some of the common fish when compared to intake velocities at Waterford 3, generally would support the prediction that gizzard shad, threadfin shad, blue catfish, channel catfish and freshwater drum woald be vulnerable to i=pingecent on the Waterf ord 3 Circu-lating Water System intake sc re ens . Generally speaking, sr.all, weakly swimming fish are more susceptible to impingement than larger fish. Juvenile gizzard shad, threadfin shad, blue catfish and f reshwater drum are common in the Waterford area, and based solely on their presence in t he a rea they would be exposed to the possibility of being impinged at Waterford 3. Du ring low flows, gulf menhaden and bay anchovy could also b2 impinged (see Section 2.2.2.2.4). Of the common species found in the Waterford area during the Environmental Surveillance Program, only chanael catfish, threadfin shad, and carp have been 33$ as d test organisms in available studies of swimming speed. King f ound that ictalurids (in particular channel cat fish under 100 mm) swim at a maximum sustained rate of about 1.09 fps (20 m/ min); there was a direct linear relationship fork length g() fishes (les 'n 100 mm) and maximum between the swimming speed. Hocutt observed a cri. -1 swimaing speed (that speed at which a test specimen ca n no longer maintain an actively oriented position in a current) of 1.04 fps for small channel cat f ish (140-154 mm) when subjected to a drop in temperature froa 30 C to 15 c. These speeds represented a 50 percent de crea se in the swimming gg f ormance as observed at 30 C with no temperature drop. Bell reported that 30-inch ca rp have cruising, sustained and da rt ing speeds of 1.5, 4, api 8 5 fps ,, re-s r> +.r;ls i v . e 5.1-9 Amendnent No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER spect y.Cruising speed of th read fin shad (19-14 cm) was found to vary with tempe ra ture ( be tween 6. 5-20"C) according to the relationship: Y = 0.8597x + 4.4463 where : Y = cruising speed in cm/sec, and X = tempera ture in C.These studies suggest that thread fin shad and channel cat fish would probably be impinged at Waterford 3, especially during the colder months.During winter when temperatures are lowe r , fishggye re -duced swimming ability (B{g{} al, 195 ted in King Hocutt{g). et , Grif fith and Tomlj gg ich an d Waterford 1 and , 2 impingement data indicate greatest impingement during the winter (Figure 5.1-14 ) rega rdles s of intake flow ( gi sen in Table 5.5-7), fu r th er supporting the prediction of greatest impingement during the colder months. 5.1.3.1.1.3 Summary of 1mpingement E f fects Knowledge of species composition of the hj ological community in the vicini ty ot' Wate rford has been obtained from both t he preoperational En vi ronmental Surveillance Program and a re view of other ecological studies conducted in the lower Mississippi R i ve r . Calc ula t ions of impingement estimates were tu sed on the known biology of representatite species, a study of the inpinnement rate at Waterford 1 and 2, the impingement rate and impingement su r v i va l ra t e s at ot he r plant s located on similar water bodies, and a set of simpli fying assumptions. The estimate of total losses of coanercial or otherwise re p re s e n t a t i se species due to the operation of Waterford 3 is 3,8i)0 pounds , comprised of cat fish, i l zzard shad, drum, and shrimp. The conclusion that these losses would not significantly alter the balanced indigenous population (s) is based on com-pa r i son to the commercial fish ca tch in the lower Mississippi River, the ubiquitous nature of the af fected species, a nd e vidence that t he river in the Waterford area does not pro vi de unique apawning habit a t. 5.1.3.1.2 Entrainment Organisms su b jec t to entrainment (entering the intake wit h the water with-drawn from the ri ver and being pumped through t he condenser) into the Waterford 3 Circula t!ng Water System include ph y t o pla nk t on , z oo p la nk t on , ichthyoplankton, a nd jo ve ni le f i sh a nd in ve rt e brat es sma ll enough to pass through the 1/4 inch clear openings of the t ra w ling sc reens . Slender fishes up to 1-1/2 inches in length may also be entrained. Ilowe ve r , deeper-bodied fish such as shad would be impinged at smaller sizes. Stresses placed on o rga n isms once they are e n t ra i n ed into the plant a re thought to include thermal shock, velocity and pres sure changes, shee r stress, reduce d dissolved oxygen, and periodic boicide treatmenta. Some studies ha ve indicated that during entrainment, mechanical damage may gg nt for a greater pe rc e n t a ge of organism mortality than temperature Cp *JJs > q n n t vt ud 5.1-10 Amendmint M.1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER At Waterford 3, the total retention time, after the add it ion of heat , in the Circulating Water System ranges from 238 to 532 seconds (4-9 minutes) while total entrainment time ranges from 337 to 690 seconds (6-12 minutes)(shown in Table 3.4-2). Temperature elevation ( AT) would range from 26 F (14.4 C) at 2 pump operation to 16.1 F (8.9 C) at 4 pump operation (see Section 3.4.2.1). Free a vaila ble chlorine concent rations at the point of discharge are expected to reach 0.2-0.5 ppm for 2 hours / day when chlori-nation is necessary. Assuming that en t ra inme nt is nonselective and the distribution of organisms in the water body is homogeneous, then the relative number of organisms withdrawn from the community will be directly proportional to the relative amount of water withdrawn from the river. This assessment of the impact of entrainment on plankton communities in the lower Mississippi River is greatly influenced by the low pe rce n ta ge of river flow expected to be withdrawn by Waterford 3. As described in Section 2.4.2.2, the minimum expected river flow is 100,000 cfs. On a daily basis (see Table 2.4-2), flows of this order of magnitude might occur in any give year. However, sustained flows (i.e., 7 days) of 100,000 cfs occur only about every 36 years based on daily flow duration data obtained from the USCS for the period of record 1942-1976. As noted in dection 2.4, river ' lows of 200,000 cfs are more representative of average, long term (e.g., monthly) typical low river flow conditions. Therefore, flows of 200,000 cfs are considered to be more representative and probably provide a more realistic basis upon which to estimate impacts during low flow conditions. Never-1 theless, the ef fects of Waterford 3 operation are analyzed for both low flow conditions, herein. As presented on Figure 2.4-6, minimum river flows in the range of 200,000 cfs and and 100,000 cfs occur most frequently in the summer and fall seasons, re s pec t ively. Based on the ave ra ge seasonal river water tempera-ture and the CWS operating mode (presented in Section 3.4), the Waterford 3 Intake withdrawal ra te for the summer and f all seasons is 2235 cfs and 1831 cfs respectively. Therefore for the 200,000 cfs river flow condition, only 1.1 percent of the river flow is ent rained through the plant and for the 100,000 cfs case, 1.8 percent is ent ra ined. As shown in Table 5.1-8, flows are at a maximum during the spring when most fish spawn. Based on average spring flows (1942-1976), the pe rcen ta ge of river flow and/or organisms entrained would be only 0. 30 pe rcent . 5.1.3.1.2.1 Fhythoplankton The impact on phytoplankton ent rainment in cooling water systems appears to be due principally to temperature increases. Experiments conducted at In-dian River in Delaware showed that mech of entrainment had on Carbon-14 (gpical effects"C) uptake rates of phytoplank-relatively litt le effect ton, which is an indicator of algal producj"ivity. Hggver, thermal eleva-ton during entrainment greatly influenced C uptake'l.A 11.7 F (6.5C)AT,whenamb{gnt temperature were below 71.6 F (22 C), re - sulted in increased C uptake.A simila r oI, yhen ambient temperatures were above 71. 6 F (22 C), re sult ed in reduced"C uptake. At another location ( Lake Wylie , North Carolina) where intake temperatures U varied from 49 F (9.4 C) to 84 F( 28. 9 C ) , aT 's of 10 F , 20 F 5.1-11 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)Q )~?,ieJult) <3 un.3 WSES 3 ER and 30 8h.*Ingeneral, productivity *"" * ""#""""*intake t e n < led to decrease intake wheg", C uptake to temperatures Jacreased. For example , the ra t io of the test the control 'C uptake dropped f rom 0. 76 t o 0.35 with inc{yasing intake temperature. Mechanical stresses did not seem to af fect"C uptake. Diatoms, which were the most abundant phytoplankton group in t he river Waterford(seeSection2q).2.2.1),are at generally tolerant to te m-pergtures below 86 F (30 C)' Temperatures greater than 86"F .(30 ) would be expected to af fect diatom product ivity adversely. Based on average monthly ambient temperatures, given in Table 2.4-14, and the temperature elevations expected within the Waterf ord 3 Circulating Water System, water temperatures within the plant would be expected to exceed 86 F (30 C) 50 percent of the time i.e., when ambient river tempera-tures are greater than or equal to 68 F (20 -).Effects of phytoplankton entrainment lower Mississippi River energy flow on are expected to be insignificant, even if productivity was temporarily de-pressed during 50 percent of the year in less than 1.3 percent of the river flow.This is due to the following characteristics of the phytoplankton population: a)Phytoplankton communities in the vicinity of Waterford 3 are not diverse and occur la low density (see Section 2.2.1.1.2). b)It appears that detritus is more important than phytoplankton in the lower Mississippi River f ood chain. c)Phytoplankton have relatively short ge ne ra t io n times. Doubling time for Coscinodiscus sp, f or example , is approximately 30 hours (64.4"Fg.anddo ng time for Asterionella formosa is at 18 C 9.6 hours at 20 C (68 F) Therefore, it is likely that if .production is taking place in the river any phytoplankton losses would be compensated for within a sho rt distance of the Waterford 3 discharge. d)The pe rcentage of the total river flow entrained through the plant is low enough that changes in standing crop available to phyto-planktivorous organisms are expected to be inconsequential. 5.1.3.1.2.2 Zooplankton

    • Studies on the effects of entrainment on zooplankton show variable results.

    The impact of entrainment on zooplankton gheConnecticut Yankee Plant was primarily a result of thermal effects and it was foundtg , mechanical damage accounted for less than 1 percent of the impact.When discharge water temperat ires above 31.0 C (87.8 P), mortality of the zooplankton was 100 percent During cooler periods, most of .the zooplankton survived. When discharge te mpe ra t u res at the J M Stuart Station on the Ohio River reached 35-37.2 C (95-99 F), 100 cent of the entrained zooplankton were killed (Milburn as cited in ).Studies at Millstone Point Generating Station showed, on the contrary, that 70 per-cent of entrained copepods were ed by techanical or hydraulic stresses (Carpenter et a l , c i t ed by Ma rcy ).At the Zion Generating Station on Lake Michigan, it was also found that mortality of ent ra ined zooplankton 5.]-12 Amendment%.1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER (a ve ra i 8.7 percent) was primarily due to mechanical factors ().Cooley (3 found no inhibition of cladoceran feeding af ter passage through condensers . If it is assumed that zooplankton entrained in the Waterford 3 Circulating Water System will suf fer similar mortalities, lu0 percent of the entrained zooplankton would be expected to be killed when discharge temperatures reach 99 F. This would occur when ambient temperatures are 83 F or greater, which would be 25 percent of the year, as indicated in Table 2,4-14.During most of the year, howe ver, mortality of entrained zooplank-ton would be expected to be lower. The ef fect of zooplankton entrainment is not expected to be signi fica nt for se veral reasons. Zooplankton samples at Waterford generally show no variation by stat ion (Table 2.2-8) or depth Table 2. 2-9), and the re fore , entrainment should be proportional to percent of ri ver flow withdrawn. This is expected to be less than 1.3 pe rcent (on an a verage minimum monthly basis), as shown in Table 5.1-8. In addition, the relatively short generation times of most planktonic in ve rtebra te s allow populations to recover rapidly fr[363 ects of entrainment. For example, using a test pond, Hall et al estimated that ro t i fe rs ha ve a 3-fold turnover per week during summer. Studies conducted under natural conditions indicated relative ra te s of increase for rotifers of 8 percent per day (Keratella aculeata), and 34 percent per day (Aspla pridod-onta) (Colditz, 1914, and Ahlstrom 1933, cited by Edmondson ).Doubling times for small crustaceans such as copepods and cladocera range gg)to 2 days (Edmondson et al, 1962 and Hall, 1964, cited by Lauer from et al).The re fo re , e f fec ts of zooplankton entrainment by Waterford 3 on the lower Mississippi River are anticipated to be noticeable only in the immediate discharge area whe re densities may im slightly decreased when ambient temperature are abo ve 83 F. Deca pod la r vae appear in the ri ve r from May to September and are most abun-dant in June and July. Although larvae we re not identified to the generic le ve l during the Environmental Surveillance Program, they were probably ri ve r shrimp (Macrobrachium ohione). Sumner ent raliment is expected to affect an astrage of only 0.8 percent of the total ri ver vo lume , e ven though the volume entrained during summer is the hi ghe st of t he year. If it is assumed that the distribution of ri ser shrimp lar vae is uniform, as the distribution of zooplankton appears to be , t he percentage ot lar vae entrained would be the same as the pe rc e n t a ge of the ri ve r flow entrained. In Section 2.2.2.3.2 it was indicated that t he distribution of zooplankton appeared homogeneous based on statistical analysis of the monitoring program sampling data (Table 2.2-11 and 2.2-12). Thus, t he assumption that 1 the percentage of the zooplankton community ent rained by Water ford 3 should be eq ui va le nt to the pe rcen ta ge of ri ver flow entrained seems reasonable. An entrainment rate o f le s s than 1.0 pe rcent would not be anticipated to affect the ri ver shrimp populat ion significantly in the lower Mississippi Ri ve r .As described in Section 5.1.3.1.1.2, ri ver shrimp (including those carry ing eggs) ham been found t aughout the lower Mississippi River. The numbers of drif t mac r oin ve r t e b ra t e s entrained into the Circulating Water System are expected to be ext remely low be c au se o f t he low densities of benthos and the fact that the mos n mgan sms am not communities [3 p n generally fou nd in dri ft Numbe rs of insect la r vae col-5.1-13 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)n m.ris2 ritJ t)nL) WSES 3 ER lected in zooplankton sa mple s taken at Waterford were ext remely low (see Appendix 2-4). 5.1.3.1.2.3 Ichthyoplankton and Juwnile Fish Mortality of entrained ichthyoplankton and ju venile fish is generally high. Mortality from mechanical damage of fish ent rained by a plant ou Con-necticut Ri ve r has been estimated to be between 72 and 82 percent Of.the fish entrained, clupeids comprised 97.6 percent by number. Other studies ha ve also found mechanica mage to be the greatest single cause of entrainment mortality of fish Mechanical y, in general,.appears to increase with size of organism entrained Howe ve r , not all results in agreement on the source of ent rainment mortality. Kedl and Coutant found that fluid-induced st resses generated in a conden-ser tu be system, simulating that of a steam elec tric plant , resulted in minimal mortality of larval fish and Daphnia _. Although no studies ha w speci fically examined the effects of entrainment on speeles present in the Mississippi River at Wa t e r fo rd it can be assumed that mortality would be comparable to that described in other studies. To be co n se r va t i ve , mortalit. of entrained ju ve ni le fish, eggs a nd lar vae is assumed to be 100 percent in this analysis. Ichthyoplankton data from the Environmental Surveillance Program indicate that fish egg and larval densities in t he lower Mississippi Ri ver main-stem are low. Data from zooplankton sa mp le s collected in 1973-1974 showed that ichthyoplankton were present in May, June, August and November. In fac t , ichthyoplankton were probably present throughout the period extending from May through August. In 1974-1975, ichthyoplankton we re sampled in No vembe r , February, April and August. Greatest densities were encountered in August, 1975 (mgstly Centrachidae) and November, 1974 (mostly Clupeids) (0.024 and 0.027/m re s pe c t i ve ly ) . The 1975-1916 sa mp li n g showed that , ichthyoplankton were p re se nt fgom March through August, with densities 3 rang i ng from 0.002/m to 0.1/m .Other studies conducted in the lower Mississippi River mainstem reached similar findings. Alt hough 10 species of icht hyoplankt on we re commonly encountered near St F rancis ville ( RM 2 56-266), only [ e of these (chubs, carpsucke rs and drum) we re con fined to t he mainste other species were often more abundant in " extra ri ve rine areas" and may ha ve washed into the mainstem f rom such habita t s. Ma ximum dens i t ies of ichthyo-in the mainstem near St F ranc i s ville were be tw 50 and 90 fish / planktgn which occurred in areas of greatest turbulence Li fe 100 m ,.history in f o rma t i on presented in Appendix 2-3 suggests that most important fish species proba bly spawn largely within shallow backwater areas. The water withdrawn by the Circulating Water system from April through June is expected to be approximately 0.3 percent of the a ve ra ge r i ver flow, as shown in Table 5.1-8. Water withdrawal during a verage flow conditions in July and August would account f or approxima t ely 0. 7 percent o f t he ri ver discharge. Since la r val fish densities appear fa irly homogeneously dis-tributed throughout the wat er column (see Section 2.2.2.3.4), t he percent-age of fish la r vae should be the same as the pe rc en t a ge s g I wn abo ve . The pe r ce nt a ge of fish eggs entrained by the Ci rculat ing Water System would be 5.1-14 Amendment N

    1)

    WSES 3 ER expected to be lower than the percentage of water entrained since most of the importat - species found in the river near Waterford have demersal adhesive eggs. The only exception is the freshwater drum, which has buoyant pelagic eggs. Juvenile fish in the Mississippi River near Waterford would be subject to entrainment in the Circulating Water System when they are an inch or less in length. The smallest fish impinged during February 1976 to January 1977 Waterford1and{7 hich have 1/4 inch mesh traveling screens like at Waterford 3, were Gizzard shad 1.2 inches (31 mm) Threadfin shad 1.1 inches (27 mm) Blue Catfish 1.0 inch (26 mm) Freshwater Drum 0.79 inch (20 mm) Fish smaller than these would be expected to be entrained. The Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Prag am, using trawls, gill nets and electro-fishing, revealed only 8 juvenile blue catfish smaller than 30 mm (July 1973).Freshwater drum smaller than 30 mm were collected most abundantly in June 1976, July 1973 and 1976, and September 1973. Gizzard shad smaller than 40 mm as well as threadfinshadsmallerthan29mmwerecollectedmostl1 abundantly in July 19 73 (Table 2.2-23 ). During the months of June, July and September, Waterford 3 intake flows will withdraw approximately 0.4-1.0 percent of the total average river flow.Asdiscussg0$reviously, mechanical injury increases with size of entrained fish Also, the high suspended solids J mortality of ent rained fish by causing abrasion'ggg may further increase However,.entrainment of fewer than 1 percent of those juveniles present in the Waterford area would occur. This would not be expected to affect the fish population of the lower Mississippi River significantly even if 100 percent mortality of the entrained fish is assumed. As discussed in Section 2.2.2.2.4, th? Waterford area is not unique with respect to fish distribu-tion.5.1.3.1.2.4 Cumulative Effects of Entrainment in order to raore cotpletely assess the effect of withdrawal of river water by the Waterford 3 Circulating Water System on the lower :!Ississippi River plankton and fish populations, the effects of entrainment of Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy should also be considered. Under typical low flow conditions (200,000 cfs), the relative quantity of river flow withdrawn by the three Waterford units and Little Gypsy would be 2.3 percent if all units were operated at full capacity. Similarly, for the extreme low ficw conditions (100,000 cfs), about 4 percent of the river flow would be en-trained.This represents an increase of approximately one and one half 1 times the present cumulative entrainment rates during the extreme low flow cond Ltion at Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy. Table 5.1-9 presents the percent of the monthly average river flow predicted to be withdrawn by Waterford I and 2 and Waterford 3. bN{$5])?$ 5.1-15 Amendment No. 1, (9/ 9) WSES 3 ER As described in the preceeding sections, the effects of entrainment by the Waterford 3 Circulating Water System on phytoplankton, zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton on the lower Mississippi River ecosystem are expected to be insignificant. The cumulative water withdrawal of Waterford 1 and 2, Water-ford 3 and Little Gypsy also appear very low in relation to river flow. The low percentage of river flow withdrawn and the non uniqueness of the river in the Waterford area (eg, fish spawning is not concentrated in this area in preference to other areas) result in the cumulative effects of en-trainment also being insignificant to the lower Mississippi River ecosystem. 5.1.3.2 Effects of Thermal Discharge The predicted temperature changes which will occur in the lower Mississippi River as a result of the combined thermal discharges of Waterford 3, Water-ford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy, are presented in Table 5.1-4 and Figures ,1 5.1-2 through 5.1-11. 1 The ecological effects of the thermal discharge on the lower Mississippi River ecosystem are expected to be insignificant. This conclusion is based on the following factors: in the Waterford area of the Mississippi River, there are no threatened or endangered aquatic species; the dominant in-digenous species present have relatively high thermal tolerances; the habitats characterizing the area are not unique, there is a lack of criti-cal spawning areas; and the thermal plume is basically a surface phenomenon. 5.1.3.2.1 Effects of Thermal Discharge on Phytoplankton Communities in summer, when average river temperatures are 83-86 F (28.3-30 C), the optimum temperatures of the dominant phytoplankton in the Waterford area, diatoms (see Section 5.1.3.1.2.1), will be exceeded inside the 5F (2.8 C) isotherm of the plume. Anbient hmperatures will be expected to be above 82 F approximately 16 percent of the year. However, travel time through the plune would only be 64 minutes. The generally low den-sities of phytoplankton and the several factors limiting production (discussed in Section 2.2.2), indicate that this community would not be stressed or changed. Therefore, the impact of thermal discharge on the lower Mississippi River phytoplankton community would not be expected to be significant. In addition, nuisance species, such as some species of blue green algae (cyanophytes), are in low relative abundance within the present phytoplank-ton community, as shown in Table 5.1-10. Therefore, levels of nuisance species within the existing phytoplankton community are not anticipated to become a problem. The results of the Environmental Surveillance Program ha ve indicated that " algal blooms" in the sense that bloons are usually con-strued and noticeable as surface mats or odors variously described as" s e p t i c *' , " fishy', " grassy", etc. have never been observed. Based on river . 1 morphometry, river flows and the areas of high temperature increase and the travel time through the high temperature area of the plume; algal blooms would not he expected. Severtheless, during low flow conditions ex g e (100,000 cfs), phytoplankton doubling time data suggest that travel times thorough the combined glume created at such times (9 hours through the entire extent of the 3.6 f excess temperature isotherm) might cause <vo v ddq , )bo 5.1-16 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER a local increase in the productivity of some b'ue-green algae. In addition, it should be noted that the nine hour exposure to these excess tempe ra tures is toward the lower limit of the doubling time range and taking into con-sideration both the areas af fected and the nature of the ri verine habi t a t , it is unlikely that a situation where blue green growths due to the Waterford 3 discharge would create noticeable tastes or odors for downstream 1 use rs or a f fe ct dissolved oxygen concentrations in the plume area. Without the Waterford 3 discharge, the travel time through zones of excess temper-ature greater than 3.6 F created by the combined thermal plumes (Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy) during the extreme low flow condition is about eight hours. This eight hour travel time is only one hour less than the postulated situation with Waterford 3 operating. 5.1.3.2.2 Zooplankton P?ume temperatures in the immediate vicinity of the discharge (A T = 16 .1 F , 8.9 C) during the summer would exceed the lethal thresholds of some of the zooplankton species present in the Mississippi near Waterford (Table A2.2.2-1). The a verage ambient summer temperatu re within the river is 84.3 F (20.1 C) (Table SA-8). Howe ve r , the exposure time of zooplankton to ele vated temperatures at 100 F (37.3 C) would be short (less than 30 minu t e s ) , and the area within the 10 F (5.6 C) isotherm (which is much larger than the area which would be encompassed by a aT of 16.1 F) during summer a verage flow conditions, for example , comprises a maximum of only 2.2 percent o f t he cross sectional area of the ri ve r , as show- on Table 5.1 - 4 .During ext reme low flow conditions , the 10 F AT isotherm from Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy occupies a volume conservatively estimated at 230 acre-feet and a maximum of two percent of the ri ver cross-section. Addi-tion of the Waterford 3 discharge approximately doubles these figures.

    • Cumulative tra vel times , howe ve r , through the greater than 10 F excess te mpe ra t u re zones on the Waterford side of the ri ver , a re predicted to be i unchanged af ter the addition of the Water ford 3 discharges (i.e., 2 hours) .

    The re f o re , the addition of the Waterford 3 thermal discharges to those presently occurring does not significantly change the thermal impacts on the aquatic community near Waterford. Zooplankton densities in the lower Mississippi River are low, and many of the species present appear to be washed into the ri ver from other habitats (i.e., backwater areas, sloughs, etc.). Zooplankton productivity in the lower Mississippi River is probably limited (Section 2.2.2.2.2), and the potential ef fects of any changes in the zooplankton community resulting from thermal discharges are expected to be insignificant. 5.1.3.2.3 Eenthic In ve r t e b ra t e s Benthic in ve r te b ra t e s in most of the Waterford area would not be expected to be af fected by the combined thermal plume of Wate rford I and 2, and Waterford 3 and Little Gypsy since the 3.6 F (2 C) isotherm does not extend deeper than about 11 feet below t he su r f a ce during a ve rage seasonal flow conditions , or about 14 fe e t during typical low flow conditions (Table SA-11).Ilowe ver , the 3.6 F portion of the plume may touch submergeq bank areas of a cross-section of the ri ver at Waterford (up to 39,900 ft~, c:yp s udouw3 5.1-17 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER which represents 1.9 percent of wetted pe rimeter during a surage winter and spring flow conditions). During the typical low flow conditions (200,000 cfs), the 3.6 F (2 C) excess isotherm of the Waterford 1 and 2 thermal plume extends 3 ft (1 m) below the surface of the river and contacts up to 22,187 ft (appro ximate ly 1/2 acre) of river bottom. The addition of Waterford 3 will not signifi-cantly increase this exposure. During average spring and winter flow con-ditions, the addition of Waterford 3 will inc r ea se the area of bottom in contact wi_h the 3.6 F (2 C) AT isotherm by approximately 1 acre. Du ring the extreme low flow conditions of 100,000 c fs , 2 acres of benthic area on the Waterford shore would be a f f ac t ed by temperatures in e xce ss o f

    3. 6 F a bo ve ambient under present conditions (i.e. that af fected by the operation of Waterford 1 and 2, and Little Gypsy). Watet f ord 3 is esti-I mated to increase the total benthic area a f fected to 2.6 acres.

    Alto-gether, this is a very small portion of the a vailable benthic habitat in this area of the Mississippi River. Densities of benthic macroinvertebrates in the Waterford area were found to be extremely low (Section 2.2.2), and considering the low percentage of wetted perimeter af fected, no significant ef fect of thermal discharge on the benthic communi ty is expected. The dominant benthic taxa collected at the site were Corbicula and oligochaete worms. Corbicula has an upper tol-erance of approximately 93.2 F (34 C) (Table A2.2.2-1). Aquatic olig - ) chaetes also generally ha se high tolerances to environmental stresses .Therefore, no significant ef fect on these organisms is expected as a result of incorporation of organisms into the discharge plume. 5.1.3.2.4 Pelagic In ve r t e b ra t e s River shrimp (Macrobrachium ohione) is the only common commercial shellfish present in the Waterford area; it has an upper temperatu re tolerance which appears to be about 86 F (39 C) (Table A2.2.2-1). Under a verage summer seasonal flow conditions, when a mb ie nt terperatures a re greater than 81 F (27.2"C), temperatures within the 5F ST isotherm will exceed 86 F. A vera ge ambient temperatures a re abc se 81 F about 20 percent of an ave rage year. The 5 F $T isotherm would occupy 4.5 percent of the ri ver cross-sectional area during summer a verage flow conditions, to a maximum de p th o f 10 fee t , comprising 472 acre-feet. Tra vel time through the maxi-mum length of this isotherm would be approximately 1 hour. At other times of the year, the plume wlume exceeding 86 F would naturally be smaller. For e xamp le , 3 acre-feet would be affected when the 16.1 F AT is superlm-posed on ambient temperatures of 69.7 F (spring), and 450 acre-feet are I af fected by the 10 F AT isotherm if ambient tempe ra tu r es of 76 F and extreme low flows (100,000 cfs) happen to coincide. As indicated in Sections 2.2.2.3.3 and 5.1.3.1.1.2, the Mississip;;i Riser near the Waterford site is not unique in terms of habitat for M. ohione. Because the Waterford 3 discharge will affect only a small portion of its habitat, no significant e f fect on t he river shrimp population is expected. s.1-18 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)(2 <<-<2t)d)ybt)E) WSEE 3 ER 5.1.3.2.5 Fish 5.1.3.2.5.1 Thermal Tolerance As indicated in Section 2.2.2.4, most of the fish collected during the 1973 4976 Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program were ju venile blue ca t fish, jusenile gizzard shad, ju venile threadfin shad, ju venile fresh-water drum, and striped mullet. Thermal tolerances for these species are presented in table A2.2.2.-l . During most of the summer, temperatures within the 10 F (5.6 C) iso-thern would be close to but would probably not exceed the lethal thres-holds for mos t of these species, especially given the short exposure tiue (31 minutes) and gossibility of escape. Howe ver, when ambient temperatures drum {{)isothern would are abo ve 86 (30 C), temperatures within the 10 F small gizzard exceed tolerances of some fish (eg, freshwater , shad).This occurs during 2.5 percent of the year. Ne ve r t he le s s , a com-bination of factors would suggest that insignificant damage to juvenile and adult fish would occur as a result of ele suted summer temperatures. Prin-cipal among these are the small a rea a f fect ed by the 10 F ST isotherm (2.2 percent of the cross-sectional area), and the fact that the 10 F isotherm extends down to a depth of only approximately 7 feet as shown in Ta ble SA-ll. All of the commercial species, as indicated in Section

    2. 2. 2.4.1, a re primarily bottom feeders and should not be greatly af fected by a surface thermal plume.

    It is expected that most fish would a void areas of significantly unfa sorable temperature, irrespectise of their capa-bili t ie s to tolerate such ele vated tempera ture for limited time periods. 5.1.3.2.5.2 Cold Shock During the winter months (January, February, March), it would be expected that fish would be attracted to the warm water of the thermal plume. From 1951 through 1978, the a ve rage monthly Mississippi Riser water temterature y at the Ninemile Point Generating Station (25.6 miles dok astream of ' he Waterford site) was 45 F (7.2 C) in January and February, and 51 1 (10.6 C) during December, as given in Table 2.4-14. Minimum temperatures of 39 F(3.9 C) and 40 F (4.4 C) were reported for January and Feb-1 ruary, re s pe c t i ve l y. The U S En vironmental Protection Agency () has de veloped a graph to estimate allowable winter temperature increases such that cold shock will not occur. The graph is gi ven in Figure 5.1-16. In the immediate vicini t y of the Waterford 3 discharge, where aT's a re about 25 F in winter, the po t e n t ia l for cold shock will exist when ambient temperatures are le ss than 48 F (which occurs approximately 20 percent o f t he year). Howe ve r , an extremely small va l ute of water (about 2 acre-feet), would be af fected by a c a T greater tnan 25 F (13.9 C) and that should preclude extensise cold shock damage should it occur. Gizzard shad, one of the dominant fi sh species in the Vaterford area, would be especially suscept ible to cold shock.Table A;.2.2-1 cites a case of the J M Stuart Plant in Ohio where an instantaneous t e mpe ra tu re drop from 78 F (25.6 C) to 48 F (8.9 C) was implicated in the death of 7540 fi sh . Gizzard shad and threadfin shad in the i mmedia te vicinity of the discharge would probably suffer some mor-tality as a result of shutdown when ambient te mpe ra t u re s are below 48 F. 5.1-l9 Auendment a.1, (9/79)(n. . . , - . $NJ kJ 8 WSES 3 ER O Cat fish would be expected to survive a shutdown, although ju veniles night theoretically be su b je ct to increased predation in t he i mmedia te discharge vicinity (Table A2.2.2-1). Again, the small area in volved would eliminate the possibility of a significant number of fish being af fected by cold shock.5.1.3.2.5.3 Effect on Spawning Fish The :lississippi Riser in the vicinity of the Waterford 3 site does not pro-vi de a habitat suitable fcr spawning of most fish species. To t he extent that sheltered locations are available (including cans , snags, etc), a limited number of cat fish may spawr. near the Waterford 3 site. Other species that may be capable of spewning in this portion of the ri ve r in-clude freshwater drum, gizzard shad, thread fin shad, river carpsucker and skip jack herring, although the spawning habitat appears suboptimal e ven for these species. This is support ed by the low densities of ichthyoplankton taken as part of the Environmental Surveillance Program.

    tany of the ic h-thyoplankton found in the area a re probably washed out o f mo re fa serable spawning habitat in upstream areas.

    E xc e p t for the freshwater drum, whose eggs are buefant, those species ex-pected to spawn near the Waterford 3 site hase demersal and/or adhesive eggs.Because of the buoyant character of the thermal plume, most eggs a re not likely to be exposed (e ven briefly) to large increases in water temperature i f they remain intact in their expected habitat. No signifi-cant reduction in t he number cf adult freshwater drum is expected to result from exposure of younger life stages to the thermal discharge, b1 view of the low numbe rs of l a r vae collected in t he ri ver (Section 2.2.2.2.4) and the high f gygdity of the species (apprc :imately 200,000 to 350,000 eggs per female ).3.1.3.2.5.4 Zone of Passage The predicted extent of the thermal plume from the Little Gypsy and the Wa t e r fo rd 1 and 2, and Waterford 3 discharges for a verage flow conditions during each of four seascos is gi ven in Table 5.1-4 and Figures 5.1-2 through 5.1-5. These shew the 3.6 F (2 C) a T surface isotherm encom-pa s s es the entire width of the ri ver during a verage summer and fall flow conditions. Howe vet , the typical low flow cross sectional profile (Figure 5.1-9) indicates that la r ge zone of passage will exist beneath the plume l1 e ven during the typical low flow conditions. The depth of the 3.6 F isotherm will extend from approximately 6 to 11 fe e t during va rious pa rt s of the year. The isotherm extends deeper in summer and fa ll than in winter and spring. The zone of passage will represent 90 pe rcent of the ri ve r cross-sectional area in fall and 96.6 percent in spring. Figures 5.1-10 and 11 illustrate the predicted thermal plume cross-sec-1 tional pro file at river mile 129.2 and 128.5, re s pe c ti ve l y , for the extreme low flow condition. Each of these figures is ba sed on fu ll load operation of all the power generating units at both the Waterford and Little Gypsy stations.During these ra re occasions , (i.e., extreme low flow and all 1 units operat ing at peak load), t he zone of passage at the I.ittle Gypsy - Waterford transect (Riwr Mile 129.2) is conser vat i vely es t imated to be approximately 83 percent of the ri ver cross section. WXt\ 1 ms=> t)M)(dea e ./5.l-20 Amendment Na. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER 5.1.3.2.5.5 Discharge Canal Temperatures in the discharge canal are expected to be greater than or equal to 97 F (36 C) during 22 percent of the year. Extended exposure to such temperature should result in mortality of some species found in the Waterford area if they were confined to t he canal. Ilowe ve r , t he velo-city at the distal end of the discharge canal would be approximately 7.6 ft/sec. This velocity would pre vent organisms f rom entering the canal via the ri ver and would thus obviate exposure to lethal temperatures in the canal.T he fate of organisms entrained into the Circulat ing Water System and subsequently through the discharge canal is discussed in Section 5.1.3.1.2. During January and February, when n,onthly ambient ri ve r t e mpe ra tu re s a ve rage 45 F (7.8 C), temperatures in t he canal will approach 72 F (22.2 C) and selocities at the ri ver end of the canal will be 1.2 to 4.7 fps.These warmer temperatures and lower current velocit i es could result in fish being attracted to the canal, which, in the e vent of shutdown, could cause cold shock to fish in the discharge canal. This would be similar to that discussed for the immediate diccharge area in Section 5.1.3.2.5.2. That volume af fected within the canal (when water levels are not higher than the canal walls) would be 11,124 cubic yards (6.9 acre fe e t ) . 5.1.3.2.5.6 Oserall Effect of Thermal Plume on Fish Community ..s di scussed abo ve , discharge temperatures would not be expected to be lethal for most of the fish species found in the Waterford area during most of the year. This excess heat is quickly diesipated in the Missi-ssippi Ri ver , and t he e f fe ct of any impact which may result from the thernal discharge of Waterford 3 would be extremely localized. Further-more, since the river near the Waterford site is not unique when compared to other portions of the lower Mississippi River and because this area is not known to be critical and/or threatened habitat ty pe for any fish species, the thermal effects of the operation of Waterford 3 are not anti-cipated to be signi ficant. UbObG 5.1-21 Amendment u . 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER O REFEitENCE S 1.Louisiana Stream Control Commission, State of Louisiana Water Quality Criteria. 2.Te xa s Instruments, " A ppa re n t Surface Radiometric Temperature - Litt le Gypsy Plant * , Company Report. 1970.3.Ebasco Ser vices Inc. , "Ef fect of lleated Water Discharge on the Temperature Distribution of Mississippi River", Company Report, 1971. 4.Ebasco Se r vice s Inc.,' Interim Report - Waterford SES 11ydrographic Studies cn The Mississippi River", Company Report, 1973. 5.Geo-Marine, Inc., "3D Thermal Plume Measurements", Company Report . 1973.6.Geo-Marine, Inc., "3D Thermal Plume Measurements", Company Report . L974.7.E ba sco Services Inc., "Waterford SES - Summary of Hydrologic Studies", Company Report. 1974. 8.Geo-Marine, Inc., "First Operational llydrothermal Study - Waterford SES", Company Report. 1976. 9.Geo-Marine, Inc., 'Second Operational Hydrothermal Study, Water-ford SES", Company Report. 1977. 10.Geo-Marine, Inc."A Current Drogue Study in the Vicinity of Louisiana Power and Light's Little Gypsy and Waterford I and 2 Generating Stations *, Company Report . 1977. 11.J E Edinger and E M Polk, Jr, " Initial Mixing of The rmal Discharges into a Uniform Current" , Vanderbilt University Report #1. 1969. 12 . M A Shi ra z i an d L R Da vi s , " Workbook of Thermal Plume Prediction - Volume 2 - Sur face Discharge", En vironmental Protection Agency Re por t # EPA-R2-72-005b. 1974. 13.W E Dunn , A J Policastro and R A Paddock, " Surface Thermal Plumes: E valua t i on of Mathematical Models for the Near and Complete Field", Argonne National Laboratory Report #ANL/WR-75-3. 1975. 14.En virosphere Company, " Demons t ra'. ion o f Bes t Technology Available For Minimizing Adverse Environmentct Impa ct with Respect to Cooling Water Intake Design,' Lake Erie Generating Station, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp, Syracuse, N Y. 1977.15.Gross, A C," Comparison and Reduction of Fish Impingement Rates at Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Sites. Third ';ational Workshop on I:n t ra inmen t and Impingement, sponsored by Ecological _ Analysts Inc. 1975.470.3U0h.r, s -5.1-22 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER REFERENCE S 16 . U S Environmental Protection Agency, De ve lopment Document for Best Technology Available for the Location __yesign, Construccion and Capa-city of Cooling Water Intake Structures ics Minimizing Adverse Envi-ronmental Impact. EPA 440/1-76/015a. 1976.17 .Espey, iluston & Asscciates , Inc, Annual Data Report Water ford Power Station Units 1 & 2 Screen Impingement Studies - February 1976 - January 1977. Pre pa red for Louisiana Power & Light Company. May, 1977.18 . U S Atomic Energy Commission, Final Environmental Statement Related to_ Const,ruction of Grand Gulf Nuclear Stations Units 1 & J - Docket No. 50-416 and 417. August 1973. 19 . Reimer R D, K Strawn and A Dixon, " Notes on the River Shrimp, Macro-brachium ohione (Smith) 1874, in the Galveston Bay Sys tem o f Texas, Trans E Fish Soc, Vol. 103, No. 1.January 1974. 20.U S Environmental Protection Agency, Final Environmental Impact State-ment for George Neal Steam Electric Generating Station - Neal Unit 4. EPA-907/9 002. 1977.21.Griffith, J S and D A Tomljanovich, " Susceptibility of Thread fin Shad to Impingement. Proc. 29th Conf. o f the S E Assoc o_f Game and Fish Comm.1975.22.Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, Mimeo on the Life IIistory of the Blue Cat fish and Channel Cat fish. Undated.23.King L R," Swimming Speed for the Channel Cat fish, White Crappie, and other Warm Water Fishes f rom Conowingo Reser voir, Susquehana Ri ver, PA.Ichthyological Associate Bulletin 50 6.1969.24.Ilocut t , C 11, " Swimming Performance of Three Warmwater Fishes Exposed to Rapid Temperature Change. Chesapeake Science 14 (1): 11-16.1973.25.Bell, M C, Fisheries llandbook of E_ngineering Requirements and Biologi-cal Criteria - Fisheries - Engineering Research Program. Corps of Engineers, Nor th Paci fic Division , Portland, Oregon. 1973.26.Marcy, B C, Jr."Vulner ibility and Survival of Entrained Organisms at Water Intakes, with Emphasis on Young Fishes. American Society of Civil Engineers. Power Divisions Specialty Conference, Bo u lde r , Colorado - Session V - Environmental E f fec ts . 1974.27 .Brooks, A S,'Phytoplankton Entrainment Studies at the Indian River Estuary, De lawa re , in Cooling Water Studies for Elec t ric Power Re-search Institute - RP-49. Proceedings, of_the Second_ Workshop on En-trainment and Intake Sc re e n i n g Report No. 15 - John s llopkins Uni ver-sity.1974.b0fh()5.1-23 Amendment b.L, (9/79) WSES 3 ER REFERENCE S 28 .Curtz, M E and C M Weiss, " Response of Phytoplankton to Thermal Stress," in Cooling Water Studies for Electric Power Research Institute - RP-4 9 .Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Entrainment and Intake Screening - Johns nopkins University. 1974.29 . Lanza , G R and J E Cairas , Jr."Phy sio-Morphological Ef fects of Abruit Thermal Stress on Diatoms" Trans Amer Micros Society 91(3): 276-298.1972.30.Fogg, G E, Algal Cultures and Phytoplankton Ecology. The Uni versity of Wisconsin Press. 1905.31.Merriman, D and L M Thorpe, Introduction to The Connecticut Ri ver Study, The Impact of a Nuclear Power Plant. Monograph Number One, AGS.1976.32.Massengill, R R,"Entrainment of Zooplankton at the Connecticut Yankee Plant,' in The Connecticut River Ecological Study, The Impact of a Nuclear Power Plant. D Merriman and Lyle Thorpe , eds. Monograph Number One, AFS. 1976.33.Edsal, T A and T G Yocum, Re view of Recent Technical Information Con-cerning the Adverse Ef fects of Once-fhrough Cooling on Lake Michigan. U S Fish and Wildlife Service. 1972.34 .Nalco Environmental Sciences, " Compilation of Reports Relating to Entrainment and Impingement Studies at Zion Generating Station." Vol.1, 1976.35.Cooley, J M " Response of Natural Comnualties ( Phy t o p la nkt on , Zoo plank-ton, Ichthyoplankton) To Entrainment Experiences.' Paper presented at the Nineteenth Conference on Great Lakes Research, Uni sersity of Guelph.1976.36.Hall, D J, W E Cooper and E E Werner, ' An Experimental Approach to the Production Dynamics and Structure of Freshwate r Animal Communities." Limnology and Oceanography Vol. XV, No. 6.November, 1970. 37.Edmondson, W T " Factors in the Dynamics of Rotifer Populations." Ecol Mongr 16. 1946. 38 .Lauer, G J, et al, "Entrainment Studies on Hudson Riser Organisms.' Cooling Water Studies for Electric Power Re s;girch Inst itute RP-49. Proceeding _s of the Second Workshop on Entrainment and Intake Screening Report No. 15 - John Hopkins University. 1974.39 .Waters, T F,"The Drift of Stream Insect s" Ann Rev Entom: 253-272.1972.O 1"'s . wTn"I ^-

    )O.J u 3.1-24 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)

    WSES 3 ER REFERENCES 40.Marcy, B C," Planktonic Fish Eggs and Larvae of the Lower Connecticut River and the Effects of the Connecticut Yankee Plant Including En-trainment". In The Connecticut River Ecological Study, The Impact of a Nuclear Power Plant. D Merriman and Lyle M Thorpe, eds. Monograph Number One, AFS. 1975.41.Kedl, R J and C C Coutant, " Survival of Juvenile Fishes Receiving Thermal and Mechanical Stresses in a Simulated Power Plant Condenser". In Thermal Ecology II, Each and McFarlane, eds. NTIS Conference 750425.1976.42.Conner, J V," Observations on the Ichthyoplankton of the Lower Missis-sippi River" ASB Bulletin, Vol. 23, No. 2. April 1976. 43.Conner, J V, Personal Communication. April 7, 1977. 44.Pennak, R W, Freshwater Invertebrates of the U S. The Ronald Press Company, New York. 1953.45.Reutter, J M and Herdendorf C E," Thermal Discharge from a Nuclear Power Plant: Predicted Effects on Lake Erie Fish" The Ohio Journal of Science, Vol. 76 (1). 1976.46.Louisiana Power & Light Company, " Environmental Report, Construction Permit Stage, Waterford SES Unit No. 3, Docket No. 50-382." February 24, 1972. Table II-E-2-3. 47.U S Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Criteria for Water. 1976.48.Scott, k B and E J Crossman, Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa, 1973. n!. : ny u s2r.u] c .y 5.1-25 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) k'S ES 3 ER TABLE 5.1-1 IhP"JT AND EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR TbFPWJll AN ALYSIS TYPICAL LOh FLOW CONDITIONS OF ABOUT 205.000 CFSe I AND EXTPEME LOW FLOh CONDITION OF 100.000 CFS A.River Conditions i*River River A vera ge Discharge Rate Site Stage River Temp (cfs)(Ft)("F)LG W1 and 2 W3 LG W1 and 2 W3 205,000 2.3 85 14 14.5 17 .1 1.5 1.4 1.2 100,000 0.5 63 13 7 14.5 16.3 0.7 0.7 0.6 i B.Plant Discharge Conditions Velocity: V Velocity Ratio Outlet Depth Outlet Width Excess Temp (crs)(fps)(V /V,)(Ft)(Ft)( F)W h1 and 2 W3 LG W3 LG W3 W W3 w W3 w W1 and 2 W3 1448 963 2235 2.4 6.1 1.6 5.1 8.3 1.3 72.6 50 21.7 19.5 16.1 1 1444 956 1831 3.2 6.7 4.4 10.9 6.5 5.5 69.0 50.0 18.4 19 19 .7 Notesj Typical Low Flow condition parameters as obtained in Field Survey of September 1976. LC: At Little Gypsy Discharge WI and 2: At Waterford 1 and 2 Discharge W3: At Waterford 3 Discharge h EO a?g;-a.y%~v..G 3 s SCALE IN FEET kITTLE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 yp y!!I!I!!!!STADON UNIT 1, 2 & 3 DISCH ARGE EXCESS TEMP - 18.4*F VOLUME RATE < 1443.7 CFS 3.6 F Ng\g\SIMULATED%%RIVER BOUNDARY

    1. WATERFORD 1 AND 2 e.0F DISCH AR GE g 5o F g EXCESSTEMP 19 'F g 3.6 F ,VOLULE RATE - 955.8 C FS

    \10 F NQF-s%LOCATION OF CROSS-SECTION WATERFORD 3 \(TR ANSE CT) IL LUSTR ATE D DISCH ARGE IN FIGURE 5.110 EXCESS TEMP - 19.7 'F %VOLUME RATE = 1831 CFS \C)%L, O RIVER FLOW: 100,000 cf s C LOCATION OF CROSS-SECTION g!(TR ANSECTi lLLUSTR AT ED }IN FIGURE 5.1-11 MENDMENT NO.1 (9/79) LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. PREDICTED EXCESS ISOTHERMS ( F) AT THE SURF ACE Waterford Steam COMBINED FIELD - EXTREME LOW FLOW F ALL CONDITION 5.1 6 Electric Station

    y: RIVER FLOW - 205,000 cf s POWER LINE POWER LINE L j 150 LITTLE GYPSY STATION n IN TA K E -+-

    'g[..s A[ EXCESS TEMP ; 21.70 F

    t. .\0ISCHARGE

    '(VOL. RATE : 1448 CFS 3 so.Q-v.7 INTAXE f Iw4 S c.WATERFORD 5" I 10-%i INTAKE-10 1 AND 2 1. 5 o ,..*A" DISCHARGE OlSCHARGE 3 EXCESS TEMP. :19.5 F EXCESS TEMP: 16.1 F VOL. RATE : 963 CFS VOL. RATE : 223S CFS W AT E R FO R D STATION 1000 0 4000 Pe%M SC ALE IN FEET at, ,gg ,n, 1 (9ng) __LOUISlANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. EXCESS ISOTH ERMS (:F) AT THE SURF ACE Waterford Steam COMBINED FIELD - SEPTEMBER 9,1976 LOW FLOW CONDITION 5.1 7 Electric Station .y._<.N'-RIVER FLOW : 205,000 cfs POWER LINE POWER LINE I LITTLE GYPSY STATION o C ,IN T A K E -+ r: I.A EXCESS TEMP : 21 F.e."A 36 VOL RATE: 1448 CFS "7 INTAKE s.i ,\WATERFORD.So-3'N ..N j 1 AND 2;y',' ,3o['DISCHARGE INTAKE y EXCESS T EMP : 19.3 0F /VOL. R ATE : 963 CFS EXCESS TEMP : 16 I F W AT E R F OR D 3 VOL. RATE : 2235 CFS W AT E R FO R D STATION 1000 0 4000.m.SC ALE IN FEET ,g, , ,g,)LOUISlANA 9 POWER & LIGHT CO. EXCESS ISOTHERMS ( F) AT THE SURFACE Waterford Steam COMBINED FIELD - SEPTEMBER 10, 1976 LOW FLOW CONDITION 5.1-8 Electric Station DISTANCE ACROSS RIVER, FT. 0 500 1000 150n 1800 i I i i I.0- -- E L *2.3 F T (MSL) g_'3 6CF ISOTHERM $h~E AST BANK (LITTLE GYPSY) WEST B ANK (WATERFORD) =150-OtFTANCE ACROSS RIVER. FT. 0 500 1000 1500 10-[t , , j , , , , , WATER SURF ACE '_ - E L *2 3 F T. (MSLI o-O* F f M .6 3 RIVER FLOW: 200,000 ef s ,-10-20 30--40-5's , To@$2$3;,d m S.E g C I C i i!O e2 r Y N 3 E$-70--80-NO T E_ELE V ATION SC ALE OF LOWE R C90$% $ECitONAL PROFIL E EN AGGE R ATED -90 ~TO PE RMIT CEMONSTR ATION OF E XCE SS ISOTHE RM CROS$ $E CTIONS SE E UPPE R CROS$ SECTION AL PROFILE FOR RE L ATIVE DEPTH OF CROS$ SECT *0N E F F ECTED SOURCE-RIVE R CROSS SEC TION CONSTRUCTE D F ROM CON TOUR M AP F ROM U S CORP 5 OF F NGINE E R$ NE n ORL E ANS L A ' MLSSISSIPPI RivF R HYDROGR APHIC $URVE V - 19 F31975 8t ACK M Anst L A TO Hf AD OF P ASSE S L A 1976 -110-(.o . p < T; **) s,s d d '-] i 4- E L. -119 iT. (MSL) -120-AMENDMENT NO.1 (9/79) LOUISI AN A Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. COMBINED THERMAL PLUME CROSS-SECTION AT Waterford Steam LITTLE GYPSY FOR TYPICAL LOW FLOW CONDITIONS 5.l-9 Electric Station DISTANCE ACROSS RIVER, FT. 0 500 1000 1500 1800 i T i i I'.o_- E L + 0.5 FT. (MSL) ,_N 3.6*F ISOTHERM $h~E AST BANK (LITTLE GYPSY) WEST BANK (WATERFORD)

    • 150-DISTANCE ACROSS R!VER. FT.

    0 500 1000 1500 10-1li , , t , ,I , , , , , WATER SURF ACE- E L .0 5 FT. IMSL) O-igo, w 0 5F RIVER FLOW: 100000 CFS 0 3.6 F-10-_-20-30-40-9 t , b 8", e 3;$-~E -50 5[Y y$$z o=g Q d#z -s0-*;2-70--80-NOTE ELE V Af TON SCALE OF LOWER CROSS _SE CTION AL PROF aL E E X AGGE R ATE D TO PE RMIT DEMOASTR ATION OF EXCE SS ISOTHE RM CROSS SECTIONS SE L UPPE R CROSS SECTION AL PROFILE FOR RE LATIVE DEPTH OF CROS&SECTION EF F ECTED SOURCE- 00_Rivf R CROssSECTroN CoNsT RuCTEO FROu CON TOUR M AP F AOM U S CORPS OF ENGINE E RS. NE W O Ri E ANS. L A. "MiSSI551991 RIVf R HYOROGR APHaC SURVE y - 19731975 BL ACK NAWK. L A. TO ME AD OF PASSE S L A 1976 d s].n:b> ~c?p e.-.P'2.,,n-- E L. -119 FT. (MSL) -120-AMENDMENT NL. 1 (9/79) LOUISI AN A Fi ure 9 POWER & LIGHT CO. COMBINED THERMAL PLUME CROSS-SECTION AT oterf rd 3 team LITTLE GYPSY (RM 129.2) FOR THE EXTREME LOW FLOW CONDITION 5.1.10 Electric Station CROSS STREAM DISTANCE, FT 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 I I I i i i i i i i I I i WATER SURFACE (E L. 45 FT. MSL) 0--50-3.6 F ISOTHERM _IEE GYPSyj WEST DANK (WATERFORD) CROSS STRE AM DISTANCE, FT 0 200 400 600 800 1000 4200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 240\l I I I I i i I I I I WATER SURF ACE (E L 4 5 FT MSLI O-\g ,, p_ ,,,, 3o,,,,,_ ,_ _ -*~,,,,,,,__ -- ---10-3 6*F m E w-20-E#-30-b N Q^R$-40$%,-50-?'s,<R 8 e a-q g ~60 5'w-70 RIVER FLOW .-80-100000 CF S -100-NOTE: 1. ELEVATION TALE OF LOWER CROSS -110 SECTION AL Pe10 FILE E X AGGF R ATE D TO PE RMit OEMONSTR ATION OF- E XCESS ISOTHE RM CROSS SECTIONS. SEE UPPE R CROSS SECTION AL PROFILE FOR RELATIVE DEPTH OF CROSS SECTION E F F ECTE D.

    2. SEE FIGURE 14 FOR LOC ATION OF THIS LEGEND: PROFILE RELATIVE TO SURF ACE PLUME.
    BE FORE WATERFORD 3 OPER ATION SOURCE: RIVE R CROSSSECTION CONSTRUCTED FROM CONTOUR M AP F ROM U S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

    NEW ORLE ANS, L A. MISSISSIPPI RIVE R HYDROGR APHIC SL'RVEY - 19731975 BL ACK Q$'HAWK, LA. TO HE AD OF PASSES L A.1976 U AMENDHENT NO.1 (9'79)LOUISIANA Fi ure 9 POWER & LIGHT CO' COMBINED THERMAL PLUME CROSS-SECTION AT WOterford Stcom RM 128.5 FOR THE EXTREME LOW FLOW CONDITION 5.1-11 Electric StOtion (3000)-NUMBER 2200--- WElGHT (grams) (2750)~SOURCE: Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. i w (2500)~IlAnnual Data Report Waterford Power 2000 o Etatens Units 1 and 2 Screen empinge-I.I ment Studies - February 1976 - y$-Ig January 1977. Prepared for Louisiana 1800l1 Power and Light Company, May,1977. -(2250)~l l" i 1600 Q (2000)~f l i=.400~cf , y (1750)2 k k 1200;f (i500>-lg/g B 4 I 1\iooo y/(1250)~t E k/\f 800 0,000)~\\*t\/\/\g e ., d.\/\f\$soO~(cl-;k\sf I j (750)o , v 00 y!,k f 400\/(500)O'N/\l (250)~\l 200 g%t i i i i i 1 i FEB MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN 1976 AMEN 0 MENT NO.1 (9/79) 1977 LOUISI AN A Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. IMPINGEMENT OF RIVER SHRIMP (MACROBR ACHlUM) ON THE SCREENS Waterford Steam OF WATERFORD 1 AND 2 (1976) OVER A 21 HR. PERIOD 5.1-12 Electric Station . . . . . - - -'u.f MIMxHrR 50crr i ;: o.. .-9 o:-.e i i EG:#!B!I!k$$$0 6 . .' . .. i1'-.... -g...h\m 8.. .IK%\\%\'t:..i kANXANN% M

    .a.. .akAN%NNS3: ;m o.ZC--!,5i Il3M i;<<uu9-_EbRAM i~O"$---.... ,,-g*-,.. . .,~a-m a~hl.a Md ISSS: a e.: 3 oeS I E .['k..3 m -, a*3: j usv+.i -.2 3- ee*bfVf ly hAN j 3.i sf + \*~:<: E reaisua :mmss:_

    -*e e: Q< '"'":'*;;;::::t+-+ . 4: : _ , : : : : : : Axwww\x3 -"-._., a -.*!*!C 2 2 2 2 : 2 2 2 2 : Th\\\\\\\V {~,. : h3 CAAU Z e... .-2 s O o o 9 o O O O O O O O o O o o o o o o 2.o.o.o.O o o o o o 2?2 e i i i i 4-WEIGHT (g) ed.;0' 7-d_ - _ .ANENCHENT NO.1 (9/79) Figure D AT WATERFORD 1 AND 2 OVER A 24 HOUR PERIOD 5.1-13!,._ . _--._ _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. . . . . . +~ m e w ,.0 O i m :E :E{ggO A F"Ht*U " ' '#y-c TYRANNUS g- O (ATLANTIC MENHADENI w *- C ]g o TO Z ESh>N 3 a a O P AR AL ICH THY S ANGUIL L A 9 L E '. HOST IGM A ROSTR AT A (SOUTHERN FLOUNDERI 1AME RICAN E E L) 0 8 MUGIL CARPOIDES CEPHALUS CARPIO (ST RIPE D MULL E Tl tRIV E R C ARPSUC K E RI O E ANCHOA ICTALURUS MITCHILLI FURCATUS IBAY ANCHOVYi (BLUE CATFISH) DOR OSUM A DOROSOMA PENTENENSE CE PE DI ANUM ITHRE ADF IN SH ADI (G122 ARD SH AD) 3 k n2 y L.s o C b E>W~T ()7 ICTALURUS ALOSA*h PUNCTATUS CH R Y SOCHL OR IS

    • g*g Q (CH ANNEL CATFISH, (SKIPJACK HE RRING)

    E G.q o>c Z@,, H tZd>>>>m MORONE APL ON DINO TUS >'5 SA X ATILIS GRUNNIENS ,, I;;>>'6ST RIPE D tlASSI (FRESHWATE R DRUMI , , , ,e>>E A>>E Q 4*a _..:;-%q...------A.AAAA AA e ' : ms :5: .z: .1::.:.~.zc.sc.z;;.1c.1.~.1c.!;;.1::.1: m.1c.1.~.1c.1::.1.im.5 : : '*N: ::::::f-T4:l.:irl:?.?Ni47+ NBAf " '- .-" iv' " -s-v, . : .ng., ,37,L .rp' ;= L - , . - u: ... . + F G. ,.. s-., , - , . - , . - af o. - - - -sinww uL. .-w..--,-- ,.----.-um.3 ..'u ,..m,..-.gg , , , ,, m- - . .. . . _ . . _ . -, ?.t 'a .o.* **..* t .'.. .*. . .*.f P.".4:* 3 ,*. I ! .4.s - -. . . -. . J '. T, ; ' . "f ' ',' ' P

    ,..T++++PRI M ! M
    f.! M f.." 1"'..i','. ' -*.~'"; l.

    AJ . Z-' "- .'L h{.g~....................... -b.f , ,l*.'.g... -& Sl . ! g ohxx w :vs'7. ' '- '" - - '~ , ' ' '- '.i=;,., gg q::+::xNm:% }.. ';" ? .. ,. _M*~-':.?: BSMSSSR-*7,- -G-A h\\ ~4# # * ..a , h\s 5e 0 0 2 ' ~ .. - '*-.._e E ?N i: '- ' ' '-.= ..E.e sv - ;' - -_'a a e'- . - , _ . ^_ ' . ' ' . 5- - , , '- g*_.!.., ,-$'.I'*.G ., O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o o o o o o N W W C O T T m n N m--o Ni HSid 30 'ON cp , n bdO / ..1 AMENDMENT NO 1 (9/791 Figure ,T WATERFORD 1 AND 2 OVER A 24 HR. PERIOD 5.1 14 a -.e,,--, I500l.t*, T L. 3 b O i450.t os.0o. + w.<,,,,m.,.,<,,,o..~e.,+mEE.s i = = "* a a '** '".os'**o~91 m -r*omo n B p(., , ,,,, E } po g i400.....m,,,,. .n -w....o-o.,c_-,,,,,,,s.+........o..- e o., ~& 1.....o.,s,< +o -+i r9'i>1350+-en[r,, o.gg~-,+T..gt (1 a 5 5 ' "" 4<. '.O.. v i . s. .. ou ~.. ~e.1300*+,,!J*:.*.,~o.C. Pn.( vg Mi, C M 6 L t I +1250.s,...,0.,,u.,. . . ... ,~ +++E S*+12oo ,.m..,.-+,o.<.,os. uu .uvs.....t.,,,% we s, . .+4-++4 ss r- 3+iI50 I ,+4-..< . , - .<. .0, o,.. . . ~ ,., ,,..-....o.v.,,. +++*1I00 0+*...Pt, L ,u.US BL- T .L , ,. , U$jf ICM.4% L (.T 9 theep y/e 1050+-,,;;.,, t, -.-I ,+b'o4.d*: 1000+I*I N*k.N**,:i+.l: yy z 950+r....C*I+, *J*",*ll,j (i. .-%.CD+...<., rn.v.900 h.-g<,..x E, 4. .', J. :':a U*a,-Pf.+, . , ...,..N...n C.O 850+w...1 k*.I.]1.'I+.+k$E m 800+f j I:.g O+<*'$W+*b*)I'I O+5 E*730 , 7 33-DATA SOURCE: ESPEY , HUSTON 8 A SSOCI AT E S , INC. ANNUAL DATA REPORT-WATERFORD PO W E R ST ATIO N UNITS 1 AND 2 -SCREEti 30-IMPINGE MENT STUDIES - F EBRUARY 1976 THROUGH JANUARY 1977. PRE PAR ED FOR LP&L M AY 197 7 27-25.5 24-ll22.5;21-19.5 g ," 18-,ll-+Is-4l:j j ilfl?I w 13.5 3 12-l I 1'4'llql(e*10.5 w e e!*9-ll.t-1 e s: y+, , 6-Oli?g\4.5.Illk ,lp (.c 3-f"'+g,'. :3l.CO., ,$FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN u, 4 > 19 k g FISH IMPlNGED IN A 24 hr PERIOD AMENCNENT NO.1 (9/79) LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. AVERAGE WATER TEMPERATURE IN THE INTAKE PUMP SCPEEN WELLS OF Waterford Steam WATERFORD 1 AND 2 DURING IMPINGEMENT STUDY PERIODS 5.1 15 Electric Station 35(95)30(86)E?<t 25(77)5 9 w H-E 20(68)@Do$s e v>$15(59)[WARMWATER w FISH SPECIES /10(50) e e e e c e,/$9, COLDWATER/FISH SPECIES j ,/b'5(41) #CE 0(32)5(41)10(50)15(59)C AMBIENT TEMPERATURE CO (F )SOURCE: US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. QUALITY CRITERIA FOR WATER - 1976 LOUISl AN A Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. ALLOWABLE THERMAL PLUME TEMPERATURES FOR THE MINIMlZATION OF Waterford Steam COLD SHOCK IN THE EVENT OF PLANT SHUTDOWN 5.1 16 Electric Station WSES 3 ER individual have been calculated based on exposure to the concentrations in the Circulating Water System discharge. 5.2.2.2 Groundwater Models All plant liquid ef fluents will be released to the Mississippi River. In addition, because there is no utilization of shallow groundwater from wells as explained in Section 4.1.3.2, and Waterford 3 is isolated from deeper aquifers by nearly impervious sequences of stiff clay with interbedded dense sand , as explained in Section 2.5.2.1, the radiological impac t from groundwater is negligible. 5.2.3 DOSE RATE ESTIMATES FOR BIOTA OTHER THAN MAN Using the models outlined in NRC Technical Report WASH-1258, annual average radiation doses were estimated for terrestrial and aquatic organisms as-sumed to be living in the vicinity of Waterford 3. These are the organisms wi.ich are expected to receive the greatest ex po s ure s . Table 5.2-6 lists doses to biota associated with the river and shoreline env iro nmen t . It can be seen that all doses to organisms directly associated with the river environment are small . Animals not directly associated with the river environment , such as deer, would receive an external dose of less than 0.1 mrad /yr when continuously occupying areas close to the plant bound-ary.A slight additional thyroid dose may be received by animals grazing close to the plant from the deposition of radioiodines released in the plant's gaseous ef fluent. Numerous investigations have been made on the ef fects of radioactivity on biota.No ef fects have been observed at dose rates as low as those assoc-iated with the plant e f fl uent s . Investigations of Chironomid larvae, ( blood wo rm s) , living in bottom sediments near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where they were irradiated at the rate of about 230 to 240 rad /yr for mora than 130 generations, have shown no decrease in abundance , ev increased number of chromosome aberrations have occurred {p)though a slightly Studies on the Columbia River, Washington have shown that irradiation of salmon eggs and larvae at a rate of 500 mrad / day did not af fect the ocean or their ability to spawn {gy number of adult fish returning from Other studies were made on the ef fect of released radionuclides on spawning salmon in the Columbia River. These studies have shown that when all reac-tors at the Hanford facility were operating, salm range of 100 to 200 mrads/wk{g)have not been af fected by dose rates in the Thus, applying the results of the above-mentioned studies to include the Mississippi River biota, there should be no perceptible e f fect on biota from the radioactive material released by Waterford 3, since these releases will be many times less than those used in the se studies. c . n:' , n G O O .3 0 4 5.2-5 WSES 3 ER 5.2.4 DOSE RATE ESTIMATES FOR MAN 5.2.4.1 Liquid Pathways The calculated maximum individual doses from all aquatic pathways of exposure are based on radionuclide concentrations calculated to occur in the Circulating Water System discharge. These doses are presented in Table A-4 of Appendix 3-1. It should be noted that these are doses to a hy po t he t ical individual and that the maximum dose to a real individual will be less.The usage factors and dose calculational models were taken from NRC Regu-latory Guide 1.109, and a re provided in Appendix 5-2 of this report. 5.2.4.2 Caseous Pathways The calculated maximum individual doses from gaseous pathways of exposure are based on the atmospheric dispersion and deposition rate factors pre-se nt ed in Table A-3 of Appendix 3-1. The resultant doses are presented in Table A-5 of that same appendix. l1 The usage factors and dose calculational models were taken from NRC Regu-latory Guide 1.109, and are provided in Appendix 5-2 of this report. 5.2.4.3 Direct Radiation from Facility Since the area surrounding the pla nt to a distance of 914 meters 2 Ex-clusion Area) will be unoccupied, it is not expected that any memoer of the general public will be close to the plant site long enough to receive any measurable radiation f rom this pathway. In addition, all radioactive material within Waterford 3 will be shielded such that the radiat. ion level in all unrestricted areas will be kept below 0.25 mrem /hr. At f.he nearest residence, this will result in an annual dose from this pathway of less than 0.001 mrem. 5.2.4.4 Annual Population Doses The radiological impact on the general population will depend not only on the release of radiological material from Waterford 3, but also upon the land and water use of the region surrounding the site. Section 2.1.3 pre-sents a detailed discussion of land and water usage in the area. Based upon the data supplied there, conservative estimates have been made of the exposure of the general population to radiation. The population-integrated doses due to radioactive material in the plant 's liquid effluents have been evaluated f or internal exposure from the inges-tion of water and aquatic food products and external exposure from shore-line activity. The en*. ire population of about 2,129,568 for the year 200U (the mid point of the 40 year life of Waterford 3) residing downstream f rom the Waterf ord site was assumed to drink water from the Mississippi River containing the plant's liquid ef fluents. Fu r t he rmo re , all shoreline activities for this population 5.2 6 Amendment No.1, (9/79) bihbD8 WSES 3 ER TABLE 5.2-7 ESTIMATED YEAR 2000 FOOD PRODUCTION

    • Annu11 Vegetables Heat Milk (mile)(kg)ikyl ihjd, 0-5 8.9 (+5)7.8 (+5)0.0 5-10 2.0 (M)7.1 (+5)0.0 10-20 6.0 (%)1.3 (% )0.0 20-30 1.1 (+7)7.3 (4)6.0 (%)1 30-40 8.2 (4 )1.8 (+7)1.4 (+8)40-50 4.9 (%)2.4 (+7)1.6 (+8)Total 3.2 (+7)5.1 (+7)3.1 (+8)* Based on data in Section 2.1.3.
      • () denotes power of 10.

    30,00<50 WSES 3 ER TABLE 5.2-8 ANNUAL POPULATION - INTEGRATED DOSES (MAN-RDI) FROM WATERFORD 3 Type of Dose Whole Body Thyroid Liquid Effluents Fish Consumption 1.3(-2)*2.9(-3)Invertebrate Consumption 3.1(-6)3.7(-6)Drinking 6.8(-2)3.3(-1)., Shoreline Activities 3.8(-4)-Gaseous Effluents Subne rsion

    3. 2 (- 1)

    -Direct From Ground

    2. 5 (- 1)

    -Inhalation 7.4 (- 1)9. 6 (- 1) Ingestion - Vegetables 2.1(- 1)2. 8 (- 1 ) 1 Meat 1.9 (- 1)2. 0 (- 1) _Milk 6. 5 (- 1) 8.4 (- 1)Total 2.4 2.3* () Denotes power of 10 303030 Amendment No.1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 6: MONITORING PROGRAMS Page 6.1 PREOPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM 6.1.1-1 6.1.1 SURFACE WATERS 6.1.1-1 6.1.1.1 Physical and Chemical Parameters 6.1.1-1 6.1.1.2 Ecological Parameters 6.1.1-7 REFERENCES 6.1.1-15 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 6.1.1 6.1.2 GROUNDWATER 6.1.2-1 6.1.2.1 Introduction 6.1.2-i 6.1.2.2 Groundwater Monitoring During Construction 6.1.2-1 FIGURES FOR SECTION 6.1.2 6.1.3 PREOPERATIONAL METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM 6.1.3-1 6.1.3.1 Introduction 6.1.3-1 6.1.3.2 Equipment 6.1.3-1 6.1.3.3 Quality Control and System Maintenance 6.1.3-5 6.1.3.4 Data Analysis Procedures 6.1.3-6 7 6.1. 3. 5 - Models Used 6.1.3-6 6.1.3.6 Operational Meteorological Monitoring Program 6.1.3-9 I, REFERENCES 6.1.3-10 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 6.1.3 6.1.4 LAND 6.1.4-1 6.1.4.1 Geology and Soils 6.1.4-1 6.1.4.2 Land Use and Demographic Surveys 6.1.4-3 e.g .. n-u t} du k"i, s). 4.d.6-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) CHAPTER 6: MONITORING PROGRANS Page____6.1.4.3 Ecological Parameters 6.1.4-12 RE FE RENCES 6.1.4-16 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 6.1.4 6.1.5 RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING 6.1.5-1 6.1.5.1 Preoperational Phase 6.1.5-1 6.1.5.2 Operational Phase 6.1.5-4 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.1.5 6.1.5-9 TABLES AND FIGURES FOR SECTION 6.1.5 6.2 OPERATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM

    6. 2 -1 6.

    2.1 INTRODUCTION

    6.2-1 6.2.2 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM 6.2-1 6.2.3 OPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM 6.2-1 6.2.4 NON-RADIOLOGICAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS 6.2-2 O.6-11 WSES 3 ER LIST OF TABLES CHA"TER 6: MONITORING PROGRAMS TABLE TITLE 6.1.1-1 Sampling Stations for Preoperational Environmental Surveillance Program for Surface Waters 6.1.1-2 Sampling Dates, Preoperational Environmental Surveillance Program, 1973 to 1976 6.l.1-3 Parameters Sampled, Minimum Detectable Levels, Accuracy and Methods 6.1.1-4 Parameters Included in Effluent Limitation. and Water Quality Criteria 6.1.1-5 Description of Equipment, Continuous Water Quality Monitors, Preoperational Monitoring Program 6.1.1-6 Preoperational Monitoring Program - Aquatic Ecology Sampling Schedule 6.1.1-/Number of verifiable Fish Samples Taken at Each Station by Each Gear Type During Each Month 6.1.1-0 Number of Verifiable Benthic Samples Taken at Each Station on Each Sampling Date and Analyzed Using a Number 80 Sieve 6.1.1-9 Number of Verifiable Benthic Samples Taken at Each Station on Each Sampling Date and Analyzed Using a Number 10 and/or 30 Sieve 6.1.3-1 Su==ary of Meteorological Monitoring Program, Parameters Measured and Equipment Used During Periods of Monitoring 6.1.3-2 Waterford Onsite Meteorological Monitoring System y Overall System Accuracies of One Hour Averages 6.1.4-1 Summary Comparison of Demographic Methodologies 6.1.4-2 Correlation and Regression of Growth Rates Versus Development Suitability Within Five Miles of Waterford 3, 19/3-19// 6.1.4-3 Probability of Residential Develop =ent Within Different Levels of Development Suitability bdOO 6-111 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) CHAPTER 6: MONITORING PROGRAMS TABLE TITLE 6.1.5-1 Regional Background Radiological Characteristics 6.1.5-2-Monthly Fallout Deposition Collections, New Orleans, Louisiana 6.1.5-3 Airborne Particulate Activity, Miami, Florida 6.1.5-4 Preoperational Environmental Radiological Surveillance P rogr am 6.1.5-3 Operational Environmental Radiological Surveillance Program 6.1.5-o Det -crion capabilities for Environmental Sample Analysis 6.1.5-7 Locations of Nearest Dose Pathway Within a Five Mile Radius of Waterford 3 O O.6-iv WSES 3 ER 6.1 PREOPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM 6.1.1 SURFACE WATERS The operation of Waterford 3 necessitates the discharge of various liquid wastes to the Mississippi River. All liquid wastes generated are released to the river through the discharge canals of the Circulating Water Systems of either Waterford I and 2 or Waterford 3. The wastes to be discharged , as well as the treatment proces ses they undergo , are discussed in Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7.The physical and chemical changes that could occur in the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the Waterford site, and could af fn t iguat ic li fe inhabiting this portion of the river, are described in Sect ion 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4. The re f ore , a Preoperational Environmental Sur-veillance Program of the Mississippi River is being undertaken to establish the physical, chemical, and biological conditions in the river prior to the operation of Waterford 3. The information gathered from this surveillance prograr will provide a basis for both establishing the ef fects to the Miss-issipru River which are a result of the operation of Waterford 3, as well as estimat ing their magnitude and significance. i te Preoperational Environmental Surveillance Program of surf ace waters con-sists of t.o basic portions: first, a program to establish the present level of selected phyrical and chemical parameters in the waters of the Missis-sippi; and second, a program to determine the present ecological conditions of the river. To f acilitate analysis, both programs share a set of common sampling stations.Because the discharge canal of Waterford 3 is located at River Mile 129.4 on the west bank (right descending), and the discharge canal of Waterford I and 2 is located at River Mile 129.8 on the wast bank, five stations have been selected between River Miles 126 and 132 in order to establish conditions in the river both upriver and downriver of the point where Water f ord 3 will discharge its wastes. Table 6.1.1-1 identifies the sampling stations, gives their location, and discusses the rationale for their selection. Figure 6.1.1-1 locates the sampling stations on a map of the Mississippi River in the vicinity of Waterford 3. Figure 6.1.1-1 also summarizes the biological and water chemistry sampling ac-tivities undertaker at each station. In addition to these stations, two other stations were established to continuously monitor certain physical and chemical parameters. These stations are sho wn in Figure 6.1.1-2. 6.1.1.1 Physical and Chemical Parameters The present physical and chemical parameters of the Mississippi River are being established by a three part program. Sampling of an extensive variety of chemical constituents is being undertaken in a program of monthly and seasonal sampling from the stations identified in Figure 6.1.1-1, selected parameters are being sampled in a program of continuous water quality monitoring, and hydrographic surveys are being conducted to provide de-tailed data on the tempe rature distribut ion in the Mississippi River. OO.$b 6.1.1-1 WSES 3 ER 6.1.1.1.1 Stonthly and Seasonal Uater Quality Monitoring a)Sampling Schedule Because Wa?arford 1 and 2 and Waterford 3 are located adjacent to each other, and are becoming operational at different times, an extended sampling program is being conducted both to separate the ef fects of Waterford 1 and 2 from Waterford 3 and provide a basis to de t e rmine their interaction. In order to accomplish this objective, the Preoperational Environmental Surveillance Program utilizes the following schedule and frequency of water quality sampling: 1973-74: Monthly sampling to collect data prior to the operation of Waterford 1 and 2, and Waterford 3. 1974-75: Six seasonal samplings to provide continuity of information. 1975: Waterford 1 and 2 completed and begin commercial operation. 1975-76: Monthly sampling to assess the effects of Waterford 1 and 2, and establish a base-line condition of water quality prior to the operation of Waterford 3. 1976-80: Four seasonal samplings per y, ir to provide continuity l1 of infarmation prior to the start up of Waterford 3. 1980-81: Monthly sampling for one year immediately prior to l1 the operation of Waterford 3. The actual sampling dates for the first three years of the program (1973 to 1976) are given in Table 6.1.1-2. This sampling schedule will provide both extensive information on the physical and chemical properties of the Mississippi River from the three years of monthly sampling, and provide a hetter under-standing of the seasonal variations due to the seasonal sampling. b)Pzrameters Sampled The selection of the physical and chemical parameters to be sampled was responsive to criteria established by the expected waste constituents of the discharges from Uaterford 3, the requirements of various government permits and regulations, and known or suspected pollutants found in the Mississippi Diver which may hold potential for interaction with the discharges of Waterford 3. N S0.0099 6.1.1-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER in the vicinity of the Waterford 3 site, and will permit an accurate prediction of Waterford 3's contribution to the thermal regime and any ch ange s it may cause. 6.1.1.1.4 Spatial and Temporal Coverage The techniques, sampling locations, and sampling schedules discussed above are considered to pro-ide satisfactory spatial and temporal coverage of water quality condition; occurring in the Mississippi River in the vicinity of Waterford 3. Sampling is being undertaken both upstream and downstream of Waterford 3's discharge points and the information obtained will permit a conparison with data gathered during the Waterford 3 Operational Monitoring Program.The undertaking of sampling since 1973 will provide information during all periods when seasonal fluetuation of water quality parameters could be ex-pected to occur. This temporal coverage , combined with the spatial coverage of the sampling stations, will provide a comprehensive understanding of the water quality conditions of the Mississippi River prior to the operation of Waterford 3. 6.1.1.1.5 Analysis of Interactions of Effluents The sampling undertaken during the seasonal and monthly sampling program includes parameters which have the potential to interact with the dis-ch arge s of Waterford 3. This information will permit later analysis of any potential interactions of the generating station's ef fluents with the present chemical constituents of the river. The water quality monitoring done by the continuous water quality sampling stations provides an understanding of the short and long term water quality changes at the Waterford 3 site. The two continuous water quality monitor-ing stations are establishing the thermal and water quality regime of the river, within and outside the area affected by the discharges of Waterford 1 and 2.The hydtographic surveys are providing detailed water current and temperature distribution data coverage in the vicinity of the discharges of Waterford 1 and 2, Waterford 3 and Little Gypsy. Surveys conducted prior to the operation of Waterford 1 and 2, subsequent to Waterford 1 and 2 operation, prior to Waterford 3 operation, and subsequent to Waterford 3 operation form a basis from which the interactions of the discharges of these stations are being studied. 6.1.1.2 Ecological Parameters Prior to beginning the Preoperational Environmental Surveillance. Program, the effects of the operation of Waterford 3 on aquatic life were initially predicted on the basis of a literature review and a pilot sampling program which is described in the Construction Permit Environmental Report. The Environmental Surveillance Program is a mo re intensive sampling and analysis of the aquatic communities of the Mississippi River near Waterford 3, and is providing additional data necessary for a more accurate prediction of impact.Also, since the time of the pilot sampling program in 1971, other5 SMON 6.1.1-7 WSES 3 ER studies were conducted in the lower Mississippi, and became available tr this impact assessment. These studies are discussed in Section 2.2.2. This section describes the Preoperational Environmental Surveillance Program, conducted by Culf South Research Institute, New Iberia, La . , between April 1973 and September 1976. Future plans for continued monitoring are also discussed. 6.1.1.2.1 Sampling Schedule and Locations Preoperational aquatic geology data were collected on a monthly basis from April,1973 to May,1974 (Year I), and f rom October,1975 to September, 1976 (Year III), and on a seasonal basis from June, 1974 to August, 1975 (Year II). Sampling will be continued on a seasonal basis f om the summer of 1977 to the spring of 1980, and a year of monthly sampling is now planned for 1980 to 1981. The actual sampling dates for the first three years of 1 the program are given in Table 6.1.1-2. The sampling locations are given in Figure 6.1.1-1, which also summarizes the type of biological sampling conducted at each station. A description of each station and the rationale for its selection is given in Table 6.1.1-1.The important characteristics of each station, relative to the aquatic biology portion of the Environmental Surveillance Program, can be further described as follows: a)Station A- Habita t characterized by shallow depths and low

    1. velocity currents; used as control station

    .b)Station A- Habitat characterized by shallow depths and low velocity currents; affected by *:eated discharge from Waterford 1 and 2 c)Station B- Habitat characterized by deep, fast-current water; used as control station d)Station B- Habi t a t characterized by deep, fast-current wa te r; to be affected by heated discharge of Uaterford 3 e)Station B or Btl* - Habitat characterized by deep, fast-1 current water; to be affected by heated discharge of Waterford 3 (small teeperature changes). In discus-sions of Years II and III data, Btl* is referred to as B.1 6.1.1.2.2 Sampling Methodologies and Statistical Analysis for Years I-III The methodologies described below have been used in the sampling program completed to date. The schedule and methodologies of the aquatic ecologi-cal portion of the Environmental Surveillance Program are summarized in Table 6.1.1-6. 33303(i at 6.1.1-8 Amendment No.1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER a)Algae 1)Attached Algae The benthic and attached algae were surveyed seasonally. Attach-ed algae were collected from naturally occurring solid substrates at each station, while the benthic forms were taken from shallow water sediments. The algae obtained from these collections were preserved, labeled, and transported to the laboratory for identi-fication.2)Phytoplankton To sample phytoplankton, a 100 m1 subsample was extracted from each of three whole water samples and a 300 ed composite was formed from these subsamples. Samples were preserved with 3 percent buffered formalin. In the laboratory, slides were prepared from the samples using the method described by Sanford et al ( ) Each slide was .divided into forty fields, each with a diameter of 0.41 mm. Phytoplankton were identified and counted using a Zeiss RA research microscope. Keys used for the identification of the algae included: Hustedt, F - 1930. Bacillarlophyta (Diatomeae). In Pascher, A. ed. Die Susswasser. Flora Mittleuropas Hef t, 10. C Fischer, Jena, 466 p. Patrick, R and Reimer, C W - 1066."The diatoms of the United States, exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii, Vol I . Fragilariaceae , Eunctiaceae , Achmanthaceae , Naviculaceae". Acad Nat Sci Phil Monogr 13, 688 p. Patrick, R and Peimer, C W - 1975."The diatoms of the United States, exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii, Vol II . Entomoneidaceae, Cymbellaceae, Gomphonemaceae, Epithe-miaceac".Acad Nat Sci Phil Monogr 13, 213 p. Numerically dominant organisms were identified to genus and/or species whenever feasible. Algae and phytoplankton identifications were verified by Dr. Fichard A. Pecora, Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, La.3)Productivity Productivity was measured using *he C method ( ) The.priaury productivity bottles were incubated in the laboratory for four hours under high intensity light and arbient water tem-perature, which probably overestimated actual productivity in the Mississippi Piver. NOW Y 6.1.1-9 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER b)Zooplankton Five-minute tows to sample zooplankton were taken at surface, mid-depth and near the river bottom with a metered number six net, which has mesh openings of 0.243 mm. Until February 1975, a net with a raouth diameter of 0.3 meter was used; thereafter a 1/2 meter diameter net was used. The summer, fall and winter quarterly surveys for 1979 This 1 to 1980 will also use a number twenty net at station B .number twenty net has mesh openings of 0.076mm. A General Oceanics Model 2030 digital flowmeter, mounted eccentrically on the net, was used beginning in December 1074. However, since flowmeter data from the initial months were unavailable, the average reading for the other months sampled during 1973-1974 was applied to those initial samples. Each samole was preserved in a solution of 5 percent buffered formalin, labeled and transported to the laboratory. The analysis conducted by ene :ining ten 1/2 al aliquots frem each sample in was Sedgwick-Raf ter cells using a Wild compound microscope (12 Power nagnification). Determinations of the density of the zooplankton in the sampics were made. Identifications were made using the following references: Hyman , L H - 1940. The Invertebrates: Protozoa Through Ctenophora . Vol 3. McGraw Hill Book Co., NY. 726 p. Meglitsch, P A - 1972. Invertebrate Zoology. Oxford Univ Press, NY . 834 p. Pennak, Robert W - 1953. Freshwater Invertebrates of the United States. The Ronald Press Co., NY . 769 p. c)Benthic Invertebrates Beginning in June, 1973, benthic invertebrates were sampled with a Shipek sediment sampler (samples an area 0.04 m ). A Smith -McIntyre grab sampler (samples an area of 0.1 m') was used in addition tc the Shf pek during the Year II sampling progran (June, 1974 - August, 1975). The SmithMicIntyre was only used in August and November 1974, and in April and August 1975. In general, on e a c'.i sampling da te , six benthic samples were taken at each station. However, during August and November 1974, and in April and August 1975, 12 samples were taken (six with each sampler). The sa tples we re preserved with 10 percent buf fered formalin solu-tion, labeled and then transported to the laboratory. The macroin-vertebrate samples were filtered through a number 10 and/or 30 sieve, which have openings of 2 mm and 0.595 mm, respectively. Some samples were also filtered through a number 80 sieve (mesh openings of 0.177 mm) and used for microbenthic analysis. Invertebrate organisms were presorted with the aid of a dissecting microscope. Organisms were preserved in a 40 percent solution of isopropyl alcohol. They were % SOS 8 6.1.1-10 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER then classified to the lowest identifiable taxon using the following references: Hyman , L H - 1940. The Invertebrates: Protozoa Through Ctenophora. Vol 3. McGraw Hill Book Co. , Nv. 726 p. Meglitsch, P A - 1972. Invertebrate Zoology. Oxford Univ Press, NY . 834 p. Pennak, Robert W - 1053. Freshwater Invertebrates of the United States.The Ronald Press Co., NY. 769 p. In those cases where po s it ive identification could not he made, the organisms were shipped for verification to Dr H Dickson Hoese, a taxonomic specialist at the University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, La. The density of the benthic organisms in each sample was also deter-mined and the results were expressed as numbers per square meter. d)Fish Fish populations at each station were sampled by surface trawl, otter trawl, electrofishing and gill net. Midwater (mid-depth) trawls were conducted at all stations, except A and A because the water was Eo,o shallow. at these stations, during most seasons, In general, three five-minute otter (bottom), surf ace and midwater trawls were conducted at each sampling station (except at midwater depths at A and A on each sampling date . In July,1073, however, beEause fbw)er fish were being collected, the number of surface and otter trawls was increased to five trawls per station. Other exceptions in sampling frequency are noted in Table 6.1.1-7. The surface trawl was conducted using a circular net having a five foot opening. A 16 foot semi-balloon net was used for the otter 2 t rawl . The midwater trawl had a 64.56 f t opening and was 47.2 ft long. The body of the net had a 1 inch har mesh (1.5 inch stretch mesh) and the bag had 0.25 inch bar mesh and a 1 inch stretch mesh. Experimental gill nets, consisting of five 25 foot panels of 1 inch, 1.5 inch, 2 inch, 3 inch and 4 inch bar mesh, were set for 48 hours at each station. Experimental gill nets, which trap different size fish by snagging their gill covers or other body use panels of parts with appropriately sized mesh openings, different mesh sizes to catch a representative sample of fish living in the area being sampled. Electrofishing, which sends an electrical current through the water, thereby shocking fish and permitting their collection, was conducted using a high-voltage, pulsating, D C electric shocker. The actual shocking time, 2 hours, was controlled by a timer that is an integral part of the unit. Each collection was labeled and preserved in 10 percent formalin before being taken to the laboratory. In the laboratory, the fish SEOM 6.1.1-11 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER were sorted according to species, using: Douglas N - 1974. Freshwater Fishes of Louisiana. Claitors Publishing Company, Baton Rouge, La. 443 pp. Each specimen was weighed to the nearest tenth of a gram and measured to the nearest millimeter. The data were recorded on survey sheets. c)Ichthyoplankton During the 1973-1974 study (Year I), ichthyoplankton (drif ting fish eggs and larvae) were collected in the zooplankton samples. However, during Year II and Year III sampling, ichthyoplankton were also collected using a number zero (0.571 =m mesh opening) plankton net with a 1/2 meter diameter mouth opening. Five minute tows were conducted at the surf ace and bottom of stations A and A , and at the surface, bottom and mid-depth of stations Ec, Bt and B. Additional ichthyoplankton sampling was conducted twice monthly from June-August 1976. The samples were preserved and the densities of the ichthyoplankton in the samples were determined in the same manner as were zooplankton densities. Identifications of ichthyoplankton were made using: A Preliminary Key to the Identification of Larval Fishes of Oklahoma, with Particular Reference to Canton Peservoir, In-cluding a Selected Bibliography. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 42 pp. This was one of the few readily available keys at that time for identifying freshwater ichthyoplankton. Identification was made to the family level. f)Quality Assurance Quality Assurance checks of the Environmental Surveillance Program data were conducted. This revealed instances where reports of zero catch could not be substantiated by raw data. Therefore, portions of the data collected by the materials and methods presented in this section that were found to be suspect were not utilized quantitatively for describing the distribution and abundance of aquatic organisms in Section 2.2.2. However, these portions were used in developing complete species lists and are presented for information purposes in Appendix 2-5. 1 Fisheries data gained by electroshocking and gill netting were used to develop the fisheries catch per ef fort, given la Section 2.2.2.3.4. Uhere there were scattered instances of unverifiable shocking and gill net data, these were not used in the quantitative analyses. Because nu me rou s trawl samples collected in Years I and III could not be ve ri-fled, the information gathered f rom these techniques was also not used quant itat ively in Sect ion 2.2.2. The numbers of ve rifiable fish r;; v i : V) ."6.1.1-12 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER samples are shown in Table 6.1.1-7. Benthic data gathered with a No.80 sieve were verifiable for all three sampling years, as shown in Table 6.1.1-8. The great majority of the benthic data obtained with the larger meshed sieves (Nos. 30 and 10) was found to be verifiable for Years I and II of the Environmental Surveillance Program. Year III data, beginning in November 1975, were not verifiable, and consequently were not used in quantitative inter-pretations of the data. The number of verifiable data points is shown in Table 6.1.1-9, and the aquatic biological data, as a whole, are contained in Appendix 2-4. The three years of sampling during the Environmental Surveillance Program provided a substantial data base from which to develop the thorough description of the aquatic community in the Mississippi River, as discussed in Section 2.2.2 and to complete the assessment of the aquatic biological effects of the operation of Waterford 3, contained in Section 5.1.3. The continuation of the Preoperational Environmental Surveillance Program with three additional years of seasonal sampling and one additional year of monthly sampling, as described in Section 6.1.1.2.4, will significantly enlarge this data base.The total data from seven years of sampling will then be available, prior to the operation of Waterford 3, for refinement of the analyses contained in this Environmental Report, for determining the sensitivity of the analyses to the deletion of unverifiable data, and for providing a firmly established baseline of aquatic information upon which to evaluate the biological data gathered following the start of operation of Waterford 3. 6.1.1.2.3 Impingement Study at Waterford 1 and 2 In order to determine which species would be subject to impingement at Water-ford 3 and to develop a first approxime: ion of numbers and biomass of organisms which might be impinged there, a screen wash study was conducted at Uaterford 1 and 2, which are operative. The study was done from February 1976 to January 1077. It involved semi-monthly monitoring at the intake screening structures of Waterford 1 a.i 2. , A 24-hour pe riod wa s sampled on each sampling date. The screens were each period. Baskets were then rotated, washed and cleared at the outset or placed in series within the sluiceway carrying impinged organisms back to the waterbody, as shown in Figure 6.1.1-4. Two 1/4" expanded metal baskets were placed closest to the sc reens ; a 1/2' hardware cloth basket was placed behind them as a ba cku p. Collections were made when one or more screens were in operat ion during the 24-hour sampling period. All organisms collected during each sampling period were identified to species level, except when the organism's physical condition precluded identification. Physical injuries were noted. All fish and crustaceans were individually weighed and measured, with the exception of some bay anchovy and river shrimp samples. These were subsampled; i.e., measure-ments were taken on 25 randomly selected individuals. Total weights were computed for all species. Weights were measured on an 0 Haus Dial-0-Cram balance, with a precision of + 0.1 gram. (u %r c . . a. . %i 6.1.1-13 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Lengths of organisms were measured to the nearest millimeter. Fish were mea-sured in standard length; shrimp were measured from the tip of the ros t rum to the tip of the telson; blue crab were measured by the carapace width. During the sampling periods, physical and chemical data were collected from the Unit 1 West and the Unit 2 East intake pump screen wells at approximately six-hour intervals. Dissolved oxygen, water temperature and conductivity were measured in situ. Water samples were collected from the appropriate wells, and pl! was measured within 30 minutes of san ple collection. 6.1.1.2.4 Methodology of Sampling - Program Continuation (1477-19P0) 1 For the period 1977 through 1980, the quarterly surveys for the Environmental Surveillance Program of the aquatic ecology of the Mississippi River was and will be continued, utilizing essentially the same sampling locations, tech-niques, and methodologies that are described above. llowe ve r , there are some slight nodifications in order to comply more closely with the sampling pro-gram described in Supplement 6 to the Construction Permit Environmental Report for Waterf ord 3, which has been accepted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. These minor modifications are detailed in Appendix 6-2, included in this Environmental Report. O O O rJ Y' m s ? p r).$. b y 6.1.1-14 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER 6.1.3 pREOPERATIONAL METEOROLOGICAL !!ONITORING pROGRN! 6.1.3.1 Introduction An onsite meteorological monitoring program was initiated at Waterford 3 on June 11, 1971, in order to evaluate the diffusion climatology of the site. By June of 1975, sufficient meteorological data, gathered for more than 3 years, had been obtained to develop a representative site - specific diffusion climatology. At that time the monitoring program was temporarily discontinued. In February of 1977, the meteorological monitoring program was reactivated and continued in operation until February of 1978 in order to obtain a recent additional year of onsite data. Current and previous instr.centation for the Waterford 3 monitoring pro-gram is shown in Table 6.1. 3 -1. The system consists of a 130 foot instrumented tower and a temperature controlled shelter at its base, which houses the instrument signal condi-tioning equipment and the diglial and analog recording equipment. The installation is located approximately 2000 feet east cf the Reactor Building, in an agricultural field, as shown in Figure 6.1.3-1. The field has typically been planted with sugar cane in the past but most recently in soybeans. The field is an essentially flat area ranging in elevation from 12 to 15 feet, MSL. During most of the year, the surrounding field is clear of vegetation; however, during the late summer and early fall, vegetation may stand as high as 8 to 10 feet. During all seasons, an area approximately 30 feet in diameter around the tower is kept clear of all vegetation. The monitoring system is located close to the Waterford 3 facility and is in an area of essentially identical terrain and vegetation features. Thus it is able to provide information directly applicable to the evaluation of the dif-fusion climatology of the Waterford 3 site. 6.1.3.2 Equipment The onsite monitoring system consists of the following equipment: a)?!eteorological Tower Al l In s t ru me n t s except the rain gauge are mounted on a 130 foot guyed and grounded open lattice triangle tower measuring approxi-1 mately 12 inches on a side. The tower is a Tri-Ex ?!odel 15, modified by the installation of motorized instrument carriage assemblies. The movable carriage assemblies pe rmit lowering all instruments to ground level, which greatly facilitates their inspection, servicing, and calibration. During the pe r iod 1971-1975 the wind instruments at each level were mounted on a three foot crossarm at the end of a five foot long boom y which was oriented so that it pointed slightly south of west. The aspirated radiation shields were mounted on 2-1/2 foot long booms which pointed towards the northwest. With the addition of several ObO19?, Amendment No. 1, (9/79)6.1.3-1 WSES 3 ER meteorological sensors in 1977 a second five foot boom was added to each carriage assembly in place of the 2-1/2 foot boom. During the 1977-1978 period all wind sensors at each level were mounted on three I foot crossarms at the end of each boom and each of the four motor aspirated radiation shields were mounted on the sa me booms roughl y 2-1/2 feet from the tower. b)Wind Sensors The monitoring system was equipped with three wind measurement sen-sors throughout the period 1071 through 1975, as shown in Tabie 6.1.3-1; one at the 30 foot level and two at the 130 foot level. A fourth sensor was added at the 30 foot level in 1977. 1)Thirt y Foot Wind Sensors A WeatherMeasure Corporation, W1034 Low Threshold Recording Wind System is installed at the 30 foot level. This system is excellent for use in atmospheric diffusion studies, because it offers a low threshold, high response record of wind direction and wind speed, permitting reliable dif fusion estimates under light wind conditions. The system is composed of the following components: a) W103/6L low torque, high f requency tachometer, six cup anemometer, with a threshold response of 0.6 mph and a distance constant of five feet. b) 4104 Lightweight Vane. Response characteristics for the two-wiper vane are a zero degree dead band, 0.4 percent damping rat io, approximately 3.5 feet distance constant, and a 0. 75 mph threshold. c) W1034/540 Degree Translator. Signal conditioning, power stabilization, and ranging of the sensor outputs are , provided by a O to 540 degree translator. In order to record vertical and horizontal wind directional fluctuations, a Gill Bivane was installed at the 30 foot level in 1977.Only the directional vane port ion needed to be in-stalled as part of the monitoring system because of the avail-ability of the Low Threshold Recording Wind System. A descrip-tion of this Gill Bivane is included below. 2)One Gundred Thirty Foot Primary Wind Sensors From the period 1971 through 1975, wind direction and speed were recorded by a Gill Anemometer Bivane located at the 130 foot level. The Gill Anemometer Bivane is a modification of the widely-used Gill Bivane , and is f requently utilized in this type of s t ud y. While the characteristics of high sensitivity of the bivane to indicate wind direction have been retained, a N3101 6.1.3-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER wind speed sensor of comparable sensitivity was incorporated as an integral part of the basic instrument. The vane portion alone was used starting in 1977. The wind speed sensor has a four-bladed propeller of polystyrene f oam, molded in the form of a true helix, which prevides one re volu t ion for each foot of passing wind. Due to the extremely light weight of the propel-1er, it has almost negligible inertia and provides excellent dynamic r esponse during acceleration and deceleration. Thresh-old sensitivity is 0.3 - 0.5 mph, ye t the propeller is rugged enough to withstand winds in excess of 60 mph without being da mage d . The propeller drives a miniature, direct current, tachometer generator mounted in the counterweight section of the vane. The power generated by the tachometer generator is proportional to the wind speed, as measured by the propeller, and it generates a signal which is fed through two wires in the verti-cal shaft to a precision slip ring assembly in the lower sec-tion.The signal is then coupled to the digital data logger through calibrating and damping circuitry in the power supply translator. According to the manufacturer, tachometer life ex-pectancy is in excess of a billion revolutions, or three to four years of normal operation. Calibration of wind speed af ter installation of the system is done with a synchronous 110 volt, 60 hz external drive motor, which is supplied with the instrument. When the reactivation of the meteorological tower took place in February of 1977, a WeatherMeasure W1034 Low Threshold Record-ing Wind System was installed at the 130 foot level as the pri-mary wind sensor. This sensor is identical to the one discus-sed above for wind measurements at the 30 foot level, except that it has a three-cup anemometer with a distance constant of 7.3 feet.3)One llundred Thirty Foot Backup Wind Sensor From 1971 to 1975, a four-bladed WeatherMeasure Corporation, W101-P Skyvane One Wind Sensor was installed at the 130 foot level as a backup instrument to record wind speed and direc-tion.The starting speed of this instrument is approximately 1 mph with complete tracking beginning at approximately 3 mph. The distance constant, at a wind speed of 30 mph, is 6.2 feet with a time constant of 0.145 second. The accurac y is + 1 mph below 25 mph and + 5 percent above 25 mph. A 540 degree translator is used for signal conditioning. Uhen the meteorological program was ' reactivated in February of 1977, the Skyvane sensor was removed from the sensor system. c: na....:g- .3 6.1.3-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER c)Temperature Sensors Temperature dif ference between the 30 and 130 foot levels for the first four years of operation was measured by four WeatherMeasure Corporation TP ' B.i temperature probes. Two probes were housed at each level in stainless steel tubes. A WeatherMeasure Corporation IS6 Motor Aspirated Radiation Shield provided continuous aspiration for each probe. This solar radiation shield is constructed of aluminum and painted with white epoxy enamel for maximum reflection of radiant e ne rg y. For the first four years of operation, one of the temperature probes at each level was linked in an electrical bridge to yield primary temperature difference (AT) measurements. The other two probes measured temperature directly and were subtracted algebraically for backup AT measurements. ~ ten the system was re established in Feb-ruary 1977, two complete WeatherMeasure T621-TP20 AT systems (two pairs of probes bridged between the two levels) were installed. Am-bient temperature data were gathered electronically at the 30 foot level.The TP-18X temperature probe consists of a thermistor composite and a resistance composite of known resistance value. The sensor has an accuracy of + 0.09 F and a linearity of + 0.27 F for the range -2 2 F t o +212"F. When calibrated regularly, it satisfies the accuracy requirements for measurement of AT as specified in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23. For the final year of monitoring, new aT probes were installed to replace the previous probes, which were no longer operable. The new probes, which are designated T621-TP20, consist of three-thermistor composite elements. Each probe has an accuracy of + 0.18 F and a -22 F to + 212*F. When linearity of + 0.14 F over the range bridged and properly calibrated, the temperature measurement equip-ment satisfies the requirements of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23. d)Precipitatior Gauge A n'eatherMeasure P501-1 Remote Recording Rain Cauge was installed at the site in February of 1977. The gauge has an accuracy of 0.5% at a precipitation rate of 0.5 inches per hour, and is connected to both a long-te rm event recorder and a cumulative voltage output that is logged on both the magnetic tape and the ambient temperature re-corders.e)Data Acquisition System A WeatherMeasure M731 Digital Data Logger is used to scan, digitize, and record the input data. From 1971 to 1975, the data logger checked all sensors once every five minutes and recorded the data on punched paper tape. 6.1.3-4 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER In February 1973, an Analog Data Acquisition System was installed at the site as a backup for the Digital Data Logger System. The Analog System consists of two WeatherMeasure REW-2P-12V Potentiometric Re-corders and one WeatherMeasure REW-12-3 Potentiometric Recorder. The Analog Data Acquisition System continuously records wind speed, wind direction and temperature at the 30 and 130 foot levels and dif ferential temperature between the levels. In February 1977, when the system was reactivated, three important data acquisition changes were made. First, the paper tape recorder was replaced with a magnetic tape recorder. Second, averaging cards were placed in the wind circuitry (to yield a 1 minute running aver-age), and third, the scanning time of the data logger was changed f rom once every five minutes to once per minute. f)Power Supply Continuit y To insure continuous steady p ,aer to the system, an Cigard Uninter-ruptable Power Supply (UPS) was used. This system has two purposes: 1)"11minate fluctuations in the incoming power. 2)Supply AC power in the event of outside power failure. In such a case, the UPS takes over immediately without interruption and sapplies power for up to 15 minutes. g)Overall System Accuracies Table 6.1.3.2 presents the overall accuracies of the meteorological instrumentation at the Waterford Site. Included in this table are the accuracies of the signal conditioning and data recording equipment and the data processing procedures. These accuracies were determined by applying the root-sum of-the-square method to the accuracies of each 1 of the individual comgonents of each sensor-recorder system. Dif-ferences in accuracies shown for the same instruments between the pre-1977 and 1977-1978 systems are a result of a change in temperature probes and the addition of averaging circuits to the wind speed and wind direction measuring systems. 6.1.3.3 Quality Control and System Maintenance In order to assure the necessary data recovery of greater than 90 percent specified by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23, the monitoring system was inspected each workday (during system operation) by an employee of the Louisiana Power & Light Company. The inspector checked the operation of all system compo-nents and verified the agreement of the values indicated by the analog and digital data acquisition systems, as well as the primary and backup sensors. Necessary minor repairs or adjustments were made on the site. A daily log was kept of "as found" and "as left" conditions of all systems as well as any necessary adjustments which were made or maintenance undertaken. Addi-tionally, a more thorough check of all instruments, including minor calibra-tion of strip chart recorders, was made weekly. Strip charts were changed 42: n9oy DJJ1Us 6.1.3-5 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER biweekly and magnetic tapes on a four week schedule. The entire system was checked and calibrated on a regular 90-day schedule by a qualified vendor -representative. The 90-day calibration procedure consisted of: a) A F eliminary check of the electronics to identif y any major problems;b) A physical check of the conditions of all sensors; and c) Calibration of electronics based on the results of the physical check.Specit ic calibration procedures included: a) Verification of proper wind vane orientation; b) Temperature sensor calibration by immersion in ambient and 32 F water baths; and c) Removal of anemometers for wind tunnel certification and installatica of previously certified anemometers. Table 2.3-18 shows monthly data recovery for the four years - July, 1972 through June, 1975 combined with February, 1977 to February, 1978. In most months, well over 90 percent data recovery was achieved. 6.1.3.4 Data Analysis Procedures The meteorological data acquired at the site were placed on a computer disk flie.Af ter the data were received, they were examined by a trained mete-orologist who performed any required editing using a series of computer prograns. Erroneous or questionable data were disregarded. Whenever possible, data lost during periods of logger outage were replaced with data digitized from the strip charts. A magnetic tape with hourly averages of the meteorological parameters was then generated. A computer program was utilized to prepare the monthly and annual joint frequency distributions of wind direction and speed by stability class. 6.1.3.5 Models Used Two different types of diffusion models were used for estimating the relative concentration ( X/Q) referenced in this report. Relative con-cent rations which would occur during periods of up to 26 days following a theoretical accident are calculated with the short-term average model. The long-te rm model is used to estimate annual average X/Q values. 6.1.3.5.1 Sho r t -Te rm (Accident) Diffusion Model Short-term relative concentrations were calculated for this project using hourly onsite meteorological data for the four years between July 1, 1972 and June 30, 1975, and from February 10, 1977 to February 10, 1978. Th odel used the following form of the standard Caussian dif fusion equation

    N.6.1.3-6 Amendment No.

    1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER X/Q 1 4 1=u(ra a +cA)3u (r a a)(1)y z y z 3 where: X /Q= relative concentration, sec/m u= upper limit of wind speed class, m/s"y,#z= horizontal and vertical dispersion coefficients for given stability class, m c= building wake constant (assumed to be 0.5) A= minimum cross sectional area of the Reactor Building, m (2,469 m ) Hourly average aT values were used to assign a stability class to each hour of data in accordance with the criteria presented in Regulatory Guide 1.23. The horizontal and vertical dispersion coef ficients w re calculated for the riate stability class using the relationships (I presented in apr e F igur e s 6.1.3-2 and 6.1.3-3. The dispersion coef fi curves for Class followingrelationships{}$nt C were constructed from the

    1. 5'y(F)z(F)3==8z(G)3 8y(G)2 The wind speed measured at the 30-foot level was used in the calculations.

    Using the above equation and the available onsite joint frequency data, hourly 1/Q values were calculated for the Exclesion Area. These values were then sorted and ranked in a frequency distribution. Pesults obtained from these calculations are presented in the Waterford 3 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Hourly t /Q values were calculated for the outer boundary of the Low Popula-tion Zone for each of the sixteen primary compass directions, using the hourly onsite meteorological data and Equation (1), with"u" now equal to the hourly average wind speed, calms assigned a value of 0.18m/s, and stabili ty class determined in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23. These hourly X/Q values were used to develop running eight-hour average

    • /Q values for each direction, and these in turn were sorted and ranked in a frequency distribution. The results obtained from these calculations are also presented in the FSAR.

    To calculate the 1/Q running averages for the 16-hour, three and twenty six day periods, similar procedures were used, although the diffusion equation was modified somewhat to account for the long-te rm plume meander within each 22 1/2 sector.The equation used for these time periods is (1): o 1/2 ()l/2 2 O'.1-u d a .o c. nr A> X/Q" 2=.4 re Ea (2)r8-(a- 2 + cD )1/2 z u z y-6.1.1 7 knendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER 3 relative concentration, sec/m where: X/Q=#z vertical dispersion coefficient of the plume for the =given stability class, m downwind distance, m r =8 sector width, radians =hourly average wind speed, m/s u =building wake constant (assumed to be 0.5) =c height of structure creating building wake, m D=The results obtained from the calculations for these three time periods are also presented in the FSAR. The short-term model was developed in accordance with NP.C Regulatory Guid .4 (Revision 2, June 1974) using equations 15and17fromSagehk5'6)crrespondingtoequations (1) and (2) above. Cas tracer studies have shown that this model provides conserva-tive estimates of atmospheric dif fusion during stable conditions at low wind speeds. 6.1.3.5.2 Long-Term (Routine Operation) Dif fusion Model Estimates Onsite annual joint frequencies of wind direction, wind speed and stability class were determined from hourly averages of temperature dif ferences between the 30 foot and the 130 foot level and the wind speed and direction data at the 30 foot level of the tower. Four years of data were used: July, 1972 through June 1975 and February 1977 to February 1978. These parameters were used as input to a computerized Gaussian model which calculates annual average X/Q values for distances out to 50 miles from Waterford 3. The basic equation used in this diffusion model is: I[b (x) f l1 l 2.032{F X/Q u zjl=j g x ij (j j (3), where: X/Q annual average relative concentration =O[$b$.5.b downwind distance =x joint frguency of 1 wind speed F=class, j stability class, and given wind direction mid point of wind speed class for 30 foot wind level u=f{(x)vertical dispersion coefficient with a volumetric =zj correction for a release within the building cavity, at th a distance x, for the j stability class. In order to adapt the model to Waterford 3, the X /Q values, calculated using the model described above, were adjusted to reflect the results of an "RC analysis of the straight line trajectory model (NRC Regulatory Guide 6.1.3-8 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER 1.111, March 1976). This adjustment was accomplished by multiplying the X/Q values by the following correction factors which apply in areas with terrain ~--features similar to those at Waterford 3: Distance From Unit Correction Factor 61 mile 4.00 1 mile to 2 miles 2.00 2 miles to 3 miles 1.50 3 miles to 10 miles 1.25 A10 miles 1.00 Results of these calculations are presented in the Waterford 3 FSAR for the exclusion distance (914m), and for distances out to 50 miles from the plant in each of sixteen cardinal directions. In addition to the dispersion estimates discussed above, annual average depleted relative concentration values and annual average relative deposition values have been developed for the Waterford 3 project based on the three years of data collected during the period July 1972 through June 1975 and were submitted to the NRC on June 4,1976 as part of Louisiana Power & Light Company's response to the requirements of Section V.B.1 of Appendix I to 10 CFR 50. A description of the model used for the depleted */Q and deposition calculation was also included with that submittal. Contents of this submittal are included in this document as Appendix 3-1. 6.1.3.6 Operational Meteorological Monitoring Program The operational phase of the onsite meteorological monitoring program will be basically a continuation of the pre-operational program with certain modifi-cations. Most of these modifications were made in 1977 and described in Section 6.1.3.1. The program will be continued for the following reasons: a) To enable the use of current da ta from the onsite monitoring system in making decisions concerning the environmental impact of plant operations. b) To provide current data to be used as input for calculating radiological dif fusion estimates to describe the effects of an accidental release of radioactive material into the at-mosphere.c) To provide data to be combined with that previously collected in order to continually update the onsite meteorological record used in the development of long-term radiological dif fusion estimates for routine operations. d) To provide a correlation between atmospheric dif fusion condi-tions and the results of the environmental surveillance program. u i. n o + ..f U.a._t .t c 6.1.3-9 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER REFERENCES 1.Sagendorf, J. F. Nuclear Power Station Evaluation Program. National -Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Air Force Laboratories. 2.Personal communication. Member of Site Analysis Branch, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. May 29, 1973. 3.Gulf States Utilities Company." Dispersion of Tracer Gas at the Proposed River Bend Nuclear Power Station. " Preliminary Safety Analysis Report," Amendment No. 24, USAEC Docket Nos. 50-458, 50-459, 1974. 4.Sagendorf , J . F. and C. R. Dickson. Diffusion Under Low Windspeed, Inversion Conditions. NOAA, Air Resources Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, 89 p, 1974.5.Van der Hoven, I. "A Survey of Field Measurements of Atmospheric Dif fusion Under Low Windspeed Inversion Conditions." Paper submitted to Nuclear Safety, 1975. 6.Woodward, K. Atmospheric Diffusion Experiments with SF, Tracer Gas at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Under Low Wind Speed Inversion Conditions General Public Utilities, New Yor' .125 p, 1972. O., O hO E,5 A1** 6..3-10 WSES 3 ER TABLE 6.1.3-2 WATERFORD ONSITE METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING SYSTEM OVERALL SYSTEM ACCURACIES OF ONE 110UR AVERAGES Digital Data Acquisition Analog Data Acquisition Sensor PRE 1977 1977-1978 PRE 1977*1977-1978** W103 Wind Speed 0.03 mph 0.04 mph 0.35 mph 0.16 mph W104 Wind Direction 0.21 degrees 0.28 degrees 2.94 degrees 1.32 degrees Gill Bivane Wind Speed 0.03 mph N/A N/A N/A Gill Bivane 0.47 degrees 0.47 degrees N/A N/A Wind Direction Gill Bivane 0.13 degrees 0.13 degrees N/A N/A Elevation Angle W101-P Wind Speed 1.0 mph N/A 1.42 mph N/A W101-P Wind 0.80 degrees N/A 3.69 degrees N/A Direction 1 Ambient Temperature 0.05 F 0.03 F 0.27 F 0.13 F Delta Temperature 0.03 F 0.03 F 0.13 F 0.09 F F501 Rain Gage N/A 0.002 in./hr N/A 0.02 in./hr NO T E_:_N/A = Not Applicable

    • Since the method used to define each average depended on the specific parameter and the structure of the cha rt trace, the overall system accuracy presented here conservatively assumes one sample reading , , , de f ines the one hour average.
      • Since the method used to define each average utilized six to ten sam-p le readings, the overall system accuracy pre;:ented here co nse rva -

    tively assumes six sample readings de fines each one hour average. O'o&# d s).o 4 q.A. A N*Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 6.1.5-3 (Sheet 1 of 5) RATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM No.Location Sample Type Analysis Frequency Volume Samples

    • of Location No. of Significance 1 W-1 Composite river Tritium; ga ma Camma spectral analysis monthly, 10 liters 1 Intaka structure water spectral analysis tritium quarterly 2 W-3 Composite river Tritium; gamma spectral Camma spectral analysis monthly, 10 liters 1 10 maters downstream water analysis tritium quarterly 3 W-4 Composite river Tritium; gamma spectral Cama spectral analysis monthly, 10 liters 1 Background (2 mi g water analysis; I-131 tritium quarterly; I-131 semiannually upstream)r 4.W-7 Composite river Tritium; gamma spectral I-131 semimonthly, gamma spectral 10 liters 1 Union Carbide intake water analysis; I-131 analysis monthly, composite for (2 mi downstream) tritium quarterly 5 W-8 Composite river Tritium, gamma spectral I-131 semimonthly, gamma spectral 10 liters 1 St. Charles Parish Water water analysis; I-131 analysis monthly, composite for Works (4.5 mi downstream)

    I tritium quarterly 6 W-3 Bottom sediment Camma spectral analysis Semiannually 1 kg 1 10 meters downstream 3 7 W-4 Bottom sediment Camma spectral analysis Semiannually 1 kg 1 Background (2 mi upstream)8 W-5 Bottom sediment Camma spectral analysis Semiannually 1 kg 1 Sediment buildup 9 W-10 Bottom sediment Camma spectral anelysis Semiannually 1 kg 1 Shoreline buildup 10 W-3 Suspended Gamma spectral analysis Quarterly 10 g 1 10 meters down-sediment stream 11 W-4 Suspended Gamma spectral analysis Quarterly 10 g 1 Background (2 mi up-g sediment stream).h 12 W-3 Fish (separated Gamma spectral analysis Semiannually 1 kg 1 10 meters downstream 3 g"O by major species) " Q-p 13 W-4"q Fish (separated Camma spectral analysis Semiannually I kg 1 Background (2 mi , by major species) -pc upstream)1.k^Zooplankton; Camma spectral analysis Semiannually 100 g 1 10 meters down-14 W-3 3 Q na phytoplankton stream y and higher plants v 15 W-4 Z ooplankt on; Camma spectral analysis Semiannually 100 g 1 Background (2 mi phytoplankton upstream)and higher plants Notes on Sheet WSES 3 FR TABLE 6.1.5-5 (Sheet 4 of 5) OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL St'RVEILLANCE PROGRA't No. of Significance No.Location Sample Type Analysis Frequency volume Samples *of location 39 A-10 External TLD**Quarterly, semiannually and N.A.***2 Indicator (500' WNW) dosimetry annually intergrated 40 A-11 External TLD Quarterly, semiannually and N.A.2 Background (10 mi) dosimet ry annually integrated 41 A-12 External TLD Quarterly, semiannually and N.A.2 Background (10 mi) do s i me t ry annually integrated 42 A-13 External TLD Quarterly, semiannually and N.A.2 Norco (3 mi W) dosime t ry annually integrated 43 A-14 External TLD Quarterly, semiannually and N.A.2 Laplace dos ime t ry annually integrated 44 A-15 External TLD Qua rterly, semiannually and N.A.2 Cow (1 mi NW) dos ime t ry annually integrated 45 A-16 External TLD Quarterly, semiannually and N.A.2 Indicator (500' S) dosimetry annually integrated 46 A-17 External TLD Quarterly, semiannually and N.A.2 Indicator (500' NW) dosimet ry annually integrated 47 A-18 External TLD Quarterly, semiannually and N.A.2 Indicator (500' W) dos ime t ry annually integrated 48 A-19 External TLD Quarterly, semiannually and N.A.2 Cow (1 mi NE) dosime t ry annually integrated 49 A-20 External TLD Quarterly, semiannually and N.A.2 Cow (1.7 mi N) dos imet ry annually integrated a a k 50 A-21 External TLD Quarterly, semiannually and N.A.2 Goat (1.3 mi W) g3 3 dos imet ry annually integrated (i ;, h.OCowmilk 1-131; gamma spectral Semimonthly, as available (when on 4 liters 1 Cow (1 mi NW) 51 A-15.P^analysis pasture); monthly at other times ,,-[. .1 G 52 A-19 ([[ Cow milk I-131; gamma spectral Semimonthly, as available (when on 4 liters 1 Cow (1 mi NE) 3 analysis pasture); monthly at other times 8 53 A-20 Cow milk I-131; gamma spectral Semimonthly, as available (when on 4 liters 1 Cow (1.7 mi N) analysis pasture); monthly at other times Notes on Sheet 5 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) , WSES 3 ER TABLE 6.1. 5-5 (Sheet 5 of 5) OPERATIONAL ENVIRO 21 ENTAL RADIOLOGICAL SAMPLING PROGRAM No of Significance No.Location Sample Type ___ Analysis Frequency Volume Samples *of location 54 A-21 Goat milk 1-131; gamma spectral Semimonthly, as available (when on 4 liters 1 Goat (1.3 mi W) analysis pasture); monthly at other times 55 A-11 Cow milk 1-131, gamma spectral Semimonthly, as available (when on 4 liters 1 Background (10 mi) I analysis pasture); monthly at other times 56 A-15 3rass and Camma spectral analysis; Monthly when available 3 kg 1 Cow (1 mi NW) garden 1-131 ve ge t a ble s 57 A-19 Grass and Camma spectral analysis; Monthly when available 3 kg 1 Cow (1 mi NE) garden 1-131.vegetables 38 A-20 Crass and Gamma spectral analysis; Monthly when available 3 kg 1 Cow (1.7 mi N) garden 1-131 vegetables 59 A-21 Grass god Camma spectral analysis: Monthly when available 3 kg 1 Goat (1.3 mi W) garden 1-131 vegetables 60 A-ll Crass and Gamma spectral analysis; Monthly when available 3 kg 1 Background (10 mi) garden I-131 vegetables 61 A-4 Terrestrial Gamma spectral analysis Quarterly I kg 1 Indicator (1 mi SSW) mammal sai wa t e r'62 A-ll Terrestrial Gamma spectral analysis Quarterly I kg 1 Background (10 mi) mammat and wa t e rt owl k e I.w'$Groundwater Canna spectral analysis Quarterly 20 litera 1 Riverside of plant E 63 C-1 i Lv ., 64 6-2 (A)G r our.dwa t e r Tritium; gamma spectra! Quarterly 20 liters 1 Lake side of plant bc analysis 2 i. *.65 A-19]Beef Gamma spectral analysis Semiannually Ikd 1 Indicator (1 mi NE) ~(; 66 A-ll Beef Camma spectral analysis Semiannually 1 kg 1 Background (10 mi) D;c,* Duplicate samples should be taken periodically for a sample splitting quality control program.

    • *The rmo lumi ne s c e n t dos ime t ry .
        • Not Applicable.

    WSES 3 ER TABLE 6.1.5-6 (Sheet 1 of 3) DETECTION CAPABILITIES FOR EWIRONMENTAL SAMPLE ASALYhl$ LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION (LLD)ad Airborne Particulate Fish Hilk Food Products Sediment orGag Water Analysis (pCi/1)(pC1/e )(pC1/kg, wet)(pC1/1)(pC1/kg, vet)(pCi/kg. dry) b 1 x 10-2 gross beta A b 3 2000 (1000 ) g 54 15 130 n 59 , 30 260 7 58,60 15 130 Co 65 30 260 Zn 95 II Zr-Nb-2 131 1 7 x 10 1 60 7 134,137 15(10 ), 18 1 x 10-2 130 15c 60 150 b Cs 140 ,_g , 15*15" 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, "Draf t Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for PWR's", Source: NUREG 0472. Rev 3 March 1979. Table Notations defined on Sheets 2 of 3 and 3 of 3. V.'C.-?-b' '-.:1 i N g ,,.W 3 8 WSES 3 ER TABLE 6.1.5-6 (Sheet 2 of 3) TABLE NOTATION a.The LLD is the smallest concentration of radioactive material in a sample that will be detected with 95 percent probability with 5 percent probability of falsely concluding that a blank observation represents a "real" signal. For a particular measurement system (which may include radio-chemical separation): LLD =*b*E . V . 2.22 . Y . exp(-A AT) where LLD is the lower limit of detection as defined above (as pCi per unit mass or volume) s is the standard deviation of the background counting b rate or of the counting rate of a blank sample as appro-priate (as counts per minute) E is the counting ef ficiency (as counts per transforma-tion)V is the sample size (in units of mass or volume) 2.22 is the number of transformations per minute per picoeurie Y is the fractional radiochemical yield (when applicable) A is the radioactive decay constant for the particular radionuclide AT is the elapsed time between sample collection (or end of the sample collection period) and time of counting (for environmental samples, not plant effluent samples). The value of s used in the calculation of the LLD for b a detection system shall be based on the actual observed variance of the background counting rate or of the count-ing rate of the blank samples (as appropriate) rather than on an unverified theoretically predicted variance. In calculating the LLD for a radionuclide determined by gamma-ray spectrometry, the background shall include the typical contributions of other radionuclides normally present in the samples (e.g., potassium-40 in milk samples).Typical values of E, V, Y and AT should be used in the calculations. u d'a o <on a Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 6.1.5-6 (Sheet 3 of 3) TABLE NOTATION b.LLD for drinking water. 1 c.Total for parent and daughter. d.This does not mean that only the radionuclides in Table 6.1.5-6 are to be detected and reported. Other peaks which are measur-able and identifiable, together with the above nuclides, shall be identified and reported. z- Jaf.o , 11 c.d e..L*w. .#Amendment No. 1, (9/79) w.a ,, j..hs WJ/:s.1.e.[;. . 'e'<.., . '/s:;*/, ,,7 -:-,c;-,e i*': 9 ,a/\I,',' w_4 S:te: s'/[T.(AC)? ,: _n',./4,%.s'A-7 II .if-*.f s n ea*r,,W Rs.v:'W;51 >l.....*/p,'y 8l4: N//*/g#,a/, ' , G? lff%4'"'4 ,e: [-I,: ic.#,_ , O x*s r::.., .. :&,' 9C ' ,,./*e,@/,.G-1-.: A-. J' . ,l'*U[,s *s p /A-17-, c, p , B T

    • A-6 s s'U. . W-th.3.-N/s?A-1 a A-18 a'WATERFORD'A-1 g f a A-16 ,e ,/O m O n'G-2/,e-,..?s'\:*A-2 ,s.~e:*, A-4lf$*::: A-3*A*LOCATIONS NOT ylINDICATED ON MAP e~OFF. SITE AT LE AST 10 MILES

    [_TOWNS OF NORCO, L APLACE ,8 9..W SEDIMENT BUILD.UP LOC ATIONS

    • t[.W UNION CARBIDE DRINKING WATER INT AKE

    [g W8 . ST CHA9LES PARISH WATER PLANT /$W SHORELINE A NEAREST MILK COW !!A NEXT NE AR EST MILK COW 0 1500'/A NEAREST MILK GO AT { M,'.]MEN 0 HEN T N O. 1 (9/79) LOUISI AN A Figure POWER & LJGHT CO. ENVIRONMENTAL R ADIOLOGICAL SURVEILLANCE SAMPLING Waterford Steam LOC ATIONS OP ER ATION AL PH ASE 6.1.5-3 Electric Station WSES 3 ER B.1 dENdFITS This sect ion desc ribes the social and economic benefits associated with the ope ration of Waterf ord 3. The social and economic ef fects of p la re con-st ruction, as well as the re la t i ve be ne f i t s a nd c os t s of a lt e r na t i ve si te s , ge ne ra t i ng u nit s , and waste ma nageme nt processes, are discussed in detail in the Const ruction Permit E nvi ronme nta l Rep o rt f or Wate rf ord 3. As defined in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2, the primary be nefits a re those i nhe re nt in the value of the de ne ra ted e lect ricity de live red t o cus t ome rs . These be nefits inc lude the value of the ave rage innual kilowatt h ou rs of e lec t rica l e ne rgy ge ne ra ted, the impo rta nce of p ro viding a n adequate reserve margin for the MSU System, and the avoidance of an in-c rease in the pos.'ibility of power shortages with associated social and economic ef f ects. Seconda ry be nef it s of the operation of Wate rf ord 3 will i nc lude tax re ve nues ge ne rated, increased employment opportunitie. , i nc rease in the regiona l product , and inc reased knowledge as a resu lt of environmental resea rch. d.l.1 PRIMARY BdNEFITd Wate rf ord 3 will ge ne rate a net of 1104 uedawatts of elect rical power (hwe, net), a nd assuming operation at 8U pe rce nt capacity will dist ribute 7.736 billion kilowatt hou rs of elect rical energy to LP&L customers annually. Tab le 6.1-1 shows the dist ribution of this energy by user class, anl the annual {y ye nues p roduced by it s sa le , discounted to 196l, at an annual rate of 10%The need f or the poser to be ge ne rated by Wate rf ord 3 has been discussed in detail in Chapter 1. B riefly sumaa rized, this power is needed to atintain the re lia bi lity of the MSU System and to help ensure LP&L's ability to p rovide an adequate supply of electrical energy to meet the needs of its cus t ane rs . LP&L{ faced with an annual increase in the numbe r of custome rs of 3.5 pe r-In addition, yea rly p rojected peak dema rd inc rease is about ce nt.5.6 pe rce nt pe r yea r th rough 1979 a nd 8. 3 pe rce nt pe r yea r f rom 1980 1 th rough 1984. Fu rthe rmo re , the MSU System's annual net e ne rgy requi re-me nt s a re expected to grow at a n a ve rage ra te of approxicately 7.5 pe rce nt th rough 1984. The growth in maximum hou rly loads of LP&L a nd the MdU System are shown graphica lly in Figure 1.1-4, and demonst rate that new gene rati ng capacity must be on line by 1962 if this load is to be met.With Wate rf ord 3 as one of fi ve new generating facilities to be added to the MSU System by 1984, as shown i n Table 1.1-14, it rep rese nts a major portion of the capacity required to maintain system reliability in the 1980's. Impo rta nt also to the MSU System's reliability a nd f or the mai nte ru nce of an adequate rese rve margin is the addition of the ytand Gulf 1 f acility along with Waterf ord 3 in 1982. Rese rve ma rgi ns (Table 1.1-6) 1 assume the scheau le d inc o rpora t ion of these two ruclear facilities as major capacity additions to the MSU System in 1902. t i1 Wit hou t the addition of Wate rf ord 3 but with othe r capacity cha nge s , the MSb System's reserve ua rgin would decrease to 8.5 pe rce rt by 1983. This would be a significant short-f all f rom the Ib pe rce nt rese rve ma rgi n AMENDMENT No. 1 (9/79) 8.1-1 ot .,co4<u s) . w .< J. WSES 3 ER required by MSU Policy to ensure system reliability. A short-fall of this magnitude could result in insufficient generating capacity to draw from or to share within the MSU System as peak demand increases, which would there fore result in a greater possibility of power shortages. When the generat ing capacity of Waterford 3 and other capacity additions are included in the projected MSU System capability, an adequate reserve margin of about 16 percent is expected to be maintained in 1983. To predict the frequency of the demand for power exceeding the supply, the MSU System undertakes loss-of-load probability calculations as part of its planning process. This calculation for 1982 shows that , with Waterford 3 on line, the loss-of-load probability would be 0.100 days per year. Without Waterford 3 in operation, the probability of a loss-of-load for 1982 in-creases to 0.526 days per year. If the MSU System's reliability is not maintained, sporadic interruptions or shortages in the availability of electricity to customers could result. The social and economic consequences of interruptions and shortages would be likely to include impairment of commercial and industrial operations. The area LP&L serves has a heavy concentration of " continuous industrial process" plants. These plants are very dependent upon a reliable supply of power , and curtailment of electricity would be very disruptive, in-flicting a heavy economic burden on the industries of the area. Significant social costs to the citizens in the region would result from the decrease in employment opportunities as a consequence of reduced industrial pro-duc tivi t y and potential for future growth. Resident ial customers would also be seriously af fected by an increased frequency of power curtailments. These could, for example , result in a need to reduce the use of electrical appliances, especially air con-ditioners. The potential for maintaining the MSU System's reliability through alter-natives to adding new generating capacity is described in Chapter 1. LP&L considered the availability of power for purchase from other MSU System com-panies, the pote..tial for significant diversity interchanges, a reduction in the reserve margin, and the effect of future energy conservation ef forts on increrd ng demand. None of these alternatives to adding new generating capac.ci is capable of meeting the growing demand for elect ricity and ensuring that power shortages or interruptions are avoided. 8.1.2 SECONDARY BENEFITS The construction and operation of Waterford 3 will have a beneficial ef fect on both the local and regional economy. For purposes of this report , the local economy is referenced to the political ju-isdiction of St Charles Partsn.'he regional economy is referenced to the area within the New Orleans Sta idard Metropolitcn Statistical Area. In order to quantitatively assess the ef fect on the local and regional economy, inc ome and employaent multipliero can be used. The multipliers used in this section were prepared by the Federal Council of Economic Advisors and have bg used by the State of Louisiana Pepartment of Commerce in a study to identify the attractiveness of the state to 8.1-2 f..39,,o h d n,e9* WS ES 3 ER TABLE 12.1-1 (Sheet 1 of 2) LICENSES, PERMITS AND OTilER APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR THE OPERATION OF WATERFORD 3 WATER AGENCY AUT110RIZATION REQUIRED STATUTE OR AUTil0RITY STATUS United States Army Corps of Permit to Construct on a navigable River and Harbors Act Sect. 10 Pe rmi t granted 7/72, Revised 4/77. Engineers waterway 33 CIR 209 Permit to Discharge in waterway P.L. 92-500 Sect. 404 Permit granted 4/77. dredge and fill material Environmental Protection Agency Approval of State Certification of P.L. 92-500 Sect. 401 I e rmit granted 9/73. Compliance with Effluent Limitations National Pollutant Discharge P.L. 92-50C Sect. 402 Application submitted 10/78. Elimination System permit Approval of less stringent effluent P.L. 92-500 Sect. 316(a) Low Potential Impact Type llI limitation f or thermal pollution Demonstration submitted 4/79. 1 Approval of intake structure P.L. 92-500 Sect. 316(b) Demonstration submitted 4/79. technology Louiciana Stream Control Commission Permit to Discharge to adhere to Louisiana Revised Statutes Acts Pe rmi t granted 9/73. State Water Quality Standards 1975 No. 512 Section 1435, regulations State Certification that discharge P.L. 92-500 Sect. 401 Permit granted 9/73.( ," complies with Sections 301, 302,[g ]306 and 307 of P.L. 92-500 r.'.')Permit to establish private aid to 14 U.S.C. 81; 33 CFR 66 Application approved 10/77 United States Coast Guard l.navigation (annual)T l. '")20 2 4 3 Federal Aviation Administration Federal Air Navigation Approval 80 Statute 932; 14 CFR 77 Request f or approval to be submitted n 11/78.5 Louisiana Air Cont rol Commission Approval for construction / Louisiana Air Control Law Acts Submitted 8/79 to the Louisiana Air -;-operation of emission source 1964 No. 259 Section 1, Regula-Control Commission. tions Sect. 6.0 G$ %r, a., i 4 t g%...q:. ., WSES 3 ER APPENDIX 2-5 EVALUATION OF GILL NET, TRAWL, AND BENTHIC DATA NOT INCLUDED IN SECTION 2.2.2 BECAUSE OF UNVERIFIABLE DATA 1.INTRODUCTION Chapter 6 indicated that certain of the baseline monitoring data are not used in Section 2.2.2. The reasons for this were the unexplainable dis-crepancies between raw data and reduced data, and unverifiable blanks or zero values in the monitoring program report documents. In particular, it was found that zero values in the data base could have been used when:

    1) no organisms were found in a sample; 2)no sample was collected; or 3) samples we re damaged or otherwise lost.

    For these reasons, only those data sets which were verifiable are included in Section 2.2.2. For most data sets (e.g., benthos, electrofishing and gill netting) this approach probably re-sulted in a positive bias; for instance where six replicates were reported, including two unverifiable zero's (which could have meant that no organisms were found in one or two samples), a denominator of 4 results in a larger quotient than a denominator of 6 when taking averages. Thus , the baseline analysis was, in general, considered to present a conservative approach to estimating abundance of or8anisms. However, since it was possible that some useful information was contained in these data sets, assuming that all or part of the unverifiable data were in fact correct, it was felt that further analysis was appropriate in order to present all the facts and all the possible analytical outcomes relative to this 01ER assessment. In the fol'owing analysis, tables found in Section 2.2.2 were re con-structed, using al.1 data and assuming that zero values were real. Data sets rec < nstructed in this way included benthos for Year I,and fish electroshoCxing and gill net collections f or Years I and III. In addition, in order to determine the range of values for this data set, benthic data for Year III and trawl data f or Years I and III were analyzed with and without unverifiable data. None of these data were included in Sec-tion 2.2.2 because unverifiable data comprised a majority of the data base. 2.BENTH0S Table A.2.5-1 presents average densities of benthic invertebrates by major taxonomic g a :p and date of sample collection. This table appears in Section 2.2 as Table 2.2-15. Table A.2.5-2 is similar, but was constructed f rom data taken during Year III (1975-1976) studies. Table A.2.5-2 is not included in Section 2.2 because of the few verifiable samples which are included in Year III (Table 6.1.1-9), and because data f rom samples re-presenting each of the Stations were frequently not available. Tables A.2.5-1 and A.2.5-2 can be compared to Table A.2.5-3, which includes data which could not be verified. As can be seen, when differences among the tables are found, the values presented in Table A.2.5-3 are generally much lower than those in Table A.2.5-1 or A.2.5-2. Amendment No. 1, (9/79)cx :c 0 ': ' uddAMS WSES 3 ER APPENDIX 2-5 (Cont'd) Table A.2.5-4, which appears as Table 2.2-14, compares densities of benthic invertebrates among dates and stations. Table A.2.5-5 is a similar table compiled from verified Year III data. This table is not included in Section 2.2 because of the previrusly desccibed limitations of Year III benthic da ta. These tables can be compared to Table A.2.5-6 which uti?izes all data, including t'tose data points which could not be verified. In Section 2.2.2, Friedman's analysis of variance is used to determine if dif ferences in oligochaete densities among stations were significant (Table 2.2-19). Table A.2.5-7 presents results of similar calculations performed on the Years I and III, including unverified data sets (i.e.,"all da ta") . Table A.2.5-7 suggests that densities of oligochaetes were lower, in Year III, at Station Bc then at Stations Ac, At, Bt, and Btg (Figure 6.1.1.1) . It is possible that substrate composition and current velocity are involved, assuming that the unverifiable zeros included in this data set are correct. Present operation of Waterford 1 and 2 does not affect Station Bc. Corbicula densities in Year I were not significant-ly different among stations (Tables A.2.5-8 and A.2.5-9) but when all data were included for Year III, a difference was found (Table A.2.5-9). In this case Station Bc had higher concentrations. 3.FISil Fisheries data are presented in Tables A.2.5-10 to A.2.5-25 in a manner similar to that used f or the benthos. The even numbered tables are based on verified data, while the odd numbered tables include both verified and unverified data. Each pair of tables (e.g., Tables A.2.5-10 and A.2.5-11, A. 2.5-12 and A.2.5-13, etc) are thus similar in formats, but different as to data base. Tables A. 2.5-10 through A.2.5-17 present summaries of surf ace, midwater, and bot tom trawl data. Because so few of these data were verifiable, none are used in Section 2.2. Gill net and electroshocking data, most of which were presented in Section 2.2.2, are presented here as Tables A.2.5-18 through A.2.5-25, again in even/ odd pairs for verified / unverifiable data, respectively. Tables used in Section 2.2.2 are cross referenced according to numbers used in that section.As expected, tables summarizing verified data (even numbered tables) usually contained values greater than or equal to their counterparts among the odd numbered tables, which included all data. Friedman's analysis of variance was used to determine the significance of dif ferences among stations for the fish data (Tables A.2.5-26 through A.2.5-33). The even numbered tables were calculated from the verified data set while the data set f rom which the odd numbered tables were de-rived included data which could not be verified. The tables are organized 9 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)8Ni.$.b 2 WSES 3 ER APPENDIX 2-5 (Cont'd) in even/ odd pairs in the same manner as the tables of fish data. Tables A.2.5-26 and A.2.5-28 are identical to Tables 2. -26 and 2.2-27, respec-tively, in Section 2.2. Table A.2.5-34 is a summary of the results of all of these tests. As can be seen, only the trawl data exhibited dif ferences among sampling stations.In those cases, results suggest that channel stations (B's) have lower densities of channel catfish than shoal stations ( A's). It is poscible that gear efficiency was lower at the B stations; the present con-tractor indicates that these stations are dif ficult to sample (snags, current, etc) and in f act, gear loss is a problem. The fact that electro-fishing, gill netting, and trawl data suggest no dif ference in pelagic fish abundance in, or out of the Waterford 1 and 2 plume, and statistical dif-ferences are mainly related to catfish and drum abundance, supports the idea that sampling dif ficulty may be in part responsible for station dif-fe rence s . 4.CONCLUSIONS In Section 6.1.3, the impact assessment is based largely upon physical vari-ables, e.g., percentage of river flow drawn through the cooling system, cross sectional size of the discharge plume and the nature of the habitat and its lack of uniquene ss relative to other arena. Also, such factors as j thermal tolerances, impingement rates at Waterford 1 and 2, type of species y exposed to the plant, and absence of rare and endangered species, were con-sidered in evaluating the potential effects of Waterford 3. Monitoring data played an important role in identifying community species composition, in defining community interrelationships, and in assessing station similarities. However, the fact that all data could not be util-ized has required this addendum, for reasons of scientific completeness and objectivity. As a result of this ef fort, two needs have been satisfied: (1)comple te-ness of data reporting, and (2) demonstration, to the extent practicable, that analyses and interpretations based on the more limited verifiable data base (Sections 2.2.2 and 6.1.3) are not inconsistent with possible deriva-tions based on all of the available data, especially fish trawl data. ~.n r-*J t.l eJ s ,% ~~ 3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSE3 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-1 (ALSO 2.2-15) AVERAGE DENSITIES " OF BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES BY DATE IN SAMPLES COLLECTED BY SHIPEK SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 VERIFIED DATA BENTHIC CROUP DATE (X)RBICULIDAE DIPTERA EPHEMEROPTERA OLIGOCHAETES OTTER TOTAL YEAR I 73 JUN 08.00.00.00 350.00.00 350.00 73 JUL 11 .00 1.56.00 16.67 20.31 38.54 73 JUL 29(b) 40.00 5.00.00 85.00 10.00 140.00 73 AUC 22(*' .00.00 11.67.00 3.33 15.00 73 SEP 29 10.42 9.08 3.00 3.50 6.33 32.33 73 OCT 29( # .8)3.33.00 2.50 2.50 9.17 73 NOV 29 5.21 4.17.00 9.37 8.33 27.08 g 73 DEC 21.83 1.8).00 22.17 10.17 35.00 74 JAN 21.00 2.50.00*0.00.00 52.50 , 74 FE8 14.00.00.00.00.00.00 74 MAR 26.83.00.00.83.00 74 APR 24.00 4.17.00.00 1. 39.1.67 5.56 YEAR 11 74 JUN 26.00.83.00 106.00 6.00 112.83 74 AUC 20 * .00.00.00 99.17 5.83 105.00 74 NOV 13 3.33.00.00 8.33 2.50 I4.17 75 FEB 27 23.33 6.67.00 284.17 5.8)320.00 75 APR 22.83 1.67.00 260.00 1.67 264.17 75 AUC 07.00 3.33.00 55.83.00 59.17 ICI YEAR III 75 OCT 28 79.17 8.33.00 75.00.83 163.33 (O y (.._'(a)Densities espressed in terms of number /m [. +. ( b ) At least one sample taken on these dates was not verifiable (see Sections 6.1.1.2 P*and 2.2.2).,r-f (c)Samples taken on more than one date " (d)Other excluded adult and terrestrial insect s. esoskeletons and shell fragments Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program. emplained in Section 6.1.1.2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-2 AVERAGE DENSITIES ("}0F BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES BY DATE IN SAMPLES COLLECTED BY SHIPEK SAMPLES IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 FOR YEAR III, VERIFIED DATA BENTH0S GROUP DATE CORBICULIDAE DIPTERA EPHEMER0PTERA OLICOCHAETIS OTHER TOTAL 75 OCT 28 79.17 8.33.00 75.00.83 163.33 75 NOV 18 34.38 22.92.00 75.00 6.23 138.54 75 DEC 19 37.50 10.00.00 810.00 25.00 882.50 76 JAN 28.00 25.00.00 906.25.00 931.25 76 FEB 24 6.25 25.00.00 3531.25 18.75 3581.'.5 76 MAR 23.00 83.33.00 779.17 8.33 870.83 76 APR 27.00.00.00 252.08.00 252.08 76 MAY 25 14.58 33.33.00 1302.08 29.17 1379.17 76 JUN 22 4.17.00.00 96.46 4.17 104.79 76 AUG 08.00.00.00 81.25.00 81.25 76 SEP 25 137.50 2.08 4.17 50.42 6.25 200.42.(a) Densities expressed in terms of numbers /m , k Amendment No. 1, (9/79)

    1. _O r} a.:,a -

    n3 WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-3 AVERAGE DENSITIES (a) 0F BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES BY DATE IN SAMPLES COLLECTED BY SHIPEK SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 ALL DATA BENTHIC GROUP DATE CORBICULIDAE DIPTERA FPMFMFROPTFRA P1 f r.nf*H A FT F C nTHFm Tn T a r_73 JUN 08.00.00.00 175.00.00 175.00 73 JUL 11.00 1.56 00 18.75 17.19 37.50 73 JUL 29 33.33 4.17.U0 70.83 8.33 116.67 73 AVG 22.00.00 11 67.00 3.33 15.00 73 SEP 29 10.42 9.08 3.00 3.50 6.33 32.33 73 OC7 27.83 3.33 00 2.50 2.50 9 17 73 Nov 29*.17 3.33.UO 7.50 6.67 21.67 73 DEC 21.83 1.67.00 18.50 5.83 26.83 74 JAN 21.00 2 50 50.00.00 52.50 74 FEB 14.00.00.00.00.00 ,.74.M AR 26.83.00.83.00 1.67.74 APR 24 4.17.00.00 1.39 5.56.74 JUN 26.83.UU 106.00 6.00 112.83-74 AUG 20.00.00.00 99 17 5.83 105.00 74 NOV 13 3.33.00.00 8.33 2.50 14.17 75 FE8 27 23.33 6.67 00 284.17 5.83 320.00 75 APR 22.83 1.67*00 260.00 1.67 264 17 75 AUG 07.00 3.33.00 55.83.00 59.17 75 CCT 28 79.17 8.33.00 75.00.83 163.33 75 NOV 18 39.58 11.46.00 28.12 6.25 85.42 75 DEC 19 9.17 3.33 00 183.33 4.17 200.00 76 JAN 20.00.00.00.00.00.00 76 JAN 2u 27.50 9.17.00 150.00 4.17 190.83 16 FEs 2*16.67 5.83.00 550.83 2.50 575.83 76 MAR 23 47.00 24.17*00 250.00 2.50 323.67 76 APR 27 41.67.00.00 140.00.83 182.50 76 MAY 25 5.00 3.33.00 431.67 4 17 444.17 76 JUN 22 1.67.00 1.67 42.50 1.67 47.50 76 JUL 27 29.17.00.00 395 00 6 00 430 17 76 AUG 08 180.00.83 130.83 7.50 319.17 76 SEP 25 178.33.83 1.67 17.50 35.83 234.17.==......................................................................................(a) Density expressed in terms of number /m w m e p*ve. k w .Amendment No. 1, (9/79) Sheet 1 of 4 WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-4 (ALSO 2.2-14 ) DENSITY

    • OF BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED BY SHIPEK SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 BEFORE START-UP OF WATERFORD 1 AND 2 VERIFIED DATA Station TOTAL MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES Ac at sc ut sti DATE YEAR I 73 JUN 08.(a)350.00...73 JUL 11 **

    100.00 25.00 12.50 25.00.73 JUL 29 140.00...73 AUG 22 ** .00 29.17 37.50 4.17 4.17 73 SEP 29 12.50 15.00 55.00 62.50 31.25 73 OCT 27 ** 20.83 16.67 8.33.00 8.33 73 NOV 29 66,67 29,17 16,67 00 4,17 73 DEC 21 25,00 105,00 33,33 8,33 8,33 74 JAN 21 ,00 79,17 00 183,33 00 74 FEB 14 ,00 00 00 00 00 74 MAR 26 4,17 00 00 8,33 4,17 74 APR 24 25,00 15,00 ,00 , , YEAR II 74 JUN 26 00 500,00 25,00 4,17 35,00 74 AUG 20 25,00.00 37,50 58,33 416,67 74 NOV 13** 16,67 29,17 29,17 00.00 75 FEB 27 20,83 50,00 1258,33 91.67 191.67 75 APR 22 12,50 79,17 937,50 116,67 179,17 AVERAGE *** 21.73 63.50 175.99 52.12 60.53 Density expressed in terms of number /m2

        • Samples taken over more than one date
        • Density excluded adult and terrestrial insects, exoskeletons, and shell fragments (a) . = no sample collected bEh01EE5 Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, explained in Section 6.1.1.2 Amendment No.

    1, (9/79) Sheet 2 of 4 WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-4 (ALSO 2.2-14) DENSITY

    • OF BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED BY SHIPEK SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 BEFORE START-UP OF WATERFORD 1 AND 2 VERIFIED DATA DIPTERA ***

    STATION DATE Ac At Be Bt Btl 73 JUL 11** .00.00 6.25.00.73 JUL 29.(a)5.00...73 SEP 29 6.25 5.00 5.00 4.17 25.00 73 OCT 27** 8.33 4.17 4.17.00.00 73 NOV 29 16.67.00.00.00.73 DEC 21.00 5.00 4.17.00.00 74 JAN 21.00 4.17.00 8.33.00 74 APR 24 12.50.00.00..74 JUN 26.00.00.00 4.17.00 75 FEB 27.00.00 4.17 25.00 4.17 75 APR 22.00.00.00 8.33.00 AVERAGE 2.23 2.06 1.48 4.23 1.94 2 Density expressed in terms of number /m

        • Samples taken over more than one date Only dates with organisms collected are listed. For all dates
        • samples see Sheet 1 of this Table.(a) . = no sample collected Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, explained in Section 6.1.1.2 N'3132 Amendment No. 1 (9/79)

    Sheet 3 of 4 WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2 5-4 (ALSO 2.244)

    • DENSITY OF BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED BY SHIPET SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 BEFORE START-UP OF WATERFORD 1 AND 2 VERIFIED DATA OLIGOCHAETES***

    STATION Ac At Be Bt Bt1 DATE 73 JUN 08 (a)350.00....73 JUL 11** 50.00 16.67.00.00.73 JUL 29 85.00....73 SEP 29. 00 5.00. 00 12.50.00 73 OCT 27** .00 12.50.00.00.00 73 NOV 29 33.33. 00 4.17.00.73 DEC 21.00 90.00 4.17 8,33 8.33 74 JAN 21. 00 75.00.00 175.00.00 74 MAR 26.00.00.00 4.17.00 74 JUN 26. 00 475.00 25.00.00 30.00 74 AUG 20** 16.67.00 33.33 54.17 391.67 74 NOV 13 12.50 29.17.00.00.00-7 ) FEB 27 16.67 45.83 1120.83 50.00 187.50 75 APR 22 12.50 79. 17 929.17 104.17 175.00 AVERAGE 10.12 5 5 . 22 154.17 37.95 52.83 2 Density expressed in terms of number /m

    • Samples taken over more than one date
      • Only dates with organisms collected are listed.

    For all dates sampled,***see Sheet 1 of this Table.(a)= no sample collected .1 Source of datc: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, explained in Section 6.1.1.2 ,n_{Nh 0.?..<*E *1 Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-4 (ALSO 2.2-l' ) 4 DENSITY

    • OF BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED BY SHIPEK SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 BEFORE START-UP OF WATERFORD 1 AND 2 VERIFIED DATA CORBICULIDAE***

    STATION Ac At Bc Bt Etl DATE 73 JUL 29.(a)40.00...73 SEP 29.00.00 25.00 20.83 6.25 73 OCT 27** 4.17.00.00.00.00 73 NOV 29 4.17 8.33 4.17 4.17 73 DEC 21.00.00 4.17.00.00 74 tua 26.00.00.00 4.17.00 75 FEB 27.00.00 116.67.00.00 75 APR 22.00.00.00.00 4.17 AVERAGE 0.60 0.56 10.42 5.00 0.97 EPHEMEROPTERA*** STATION Ac At Bc Bt Btl DATE 73 AUG 22** .00 29.17 25.00 4.17.00 73 SEP 29.00.00 15.00.00.00 AVERAGE O 1.94 2.50 0.32 0 2 Density expressed in terms of number /m

    • Samples taken over more than one date
      • Only dates and stations with organisms collected are listed.
        • For all dates and stations sampled, see Sheet 1 of this Table.

    .(a). = no sample collected Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, explained in Section 6.1.1.2 v .e. s . . .e a O O O x.n Amendment No. 1, (9/79) Sheet 1 of 3 WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-5 AVERAGE DENSITIES (a) 0F BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED BY SHIFEK SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 YEAR III VERIFIED DATA TOTAL MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES Station Date Ac At Be Bt Btl Oct 28, 1975 25.00 58.33 220.83 237.50 275.00 ()Nov 18, 1975 116.67.00 437.50.00.Dec 19, 1975 600.00 1400.00 187.50 1675.00 550.00 Tan 28,1976 150.00.00 3375.00 200.00.Feb 24, 1976 575.00 12500.00.00 1250.00.Mar 23, 1976 837.50 1775.00.00..Apr 27, 1976 362.50 141.67...May 25, 1966 37.50 1275.00 2825.00..Jun 22, 1976 15.00 37.50 141.67 225.00.Aug 08, 1976 81.25....Sep 25, 1976 5,00 41.67 5.00 750.00., 2 (a)Density expressed in terms of number /m (b)= No sample taken .CU3.1bb Amendment No. 1 (9/79) Sheet 2 of 3 WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-5 AVERAGE DENSITIES (a) 0F BEN 1' HIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED BY SHIPER SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 YEAR III VERIFIED DATA OLICOCHAETES(a) Date Station_Ac At Ec Bt Btl Octo 28, 1975 12.50 41.67.00 45.83 275.00 (b)Nov 18, 1975 25.00.00 275.00.00.Dec 19, 1975 425.00 1375.00 75.00 1625.00 550.00 Jan 28, 1976 75.00.00 3375.00 175.00.Feb 24, 1976 550.00 12375.00.00 1200.00.hur 23,1976 812.50 1525.00....spr 27, 1976 362.50 141.67...May 25, 1976 6.25 1225.00 2675.00..June 22, 1976 15.00 37.50 116.67 216.67.Aug 08, 1976 81.25....Sept 25, 1976 5.00 16.67 5.00 175.00._(a)Density expressed in terms of number /m2 (b).= No samples taken @eusw.Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER Sheet 3 of 3 TABLE A.2.5-5 AVERAGE DENSITIES ("I 0F BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED BY SHIPEK dMfPLER IN THE VICINITY OF W TERFORD 3 YEAR III - VERIFIED DATA DIPTERA Station Date Ac At Be Bt Btl Oct 28, 1975 8.33 8.33 12.50 12.50.00 (b)Nov 13, 1975 91.67.00.00.00.Dec 19, 1975 .00.00 50.00.00.00 Jan 28, 1976 75.00.00.00.00 25.00 Feb 24, 1976 .00 50.00.00 50.00.Mar 23, 1976 25.00 225.00.00..May 25, 1976 .00 25.00 75.00..Sep 25, 1976 .00 8.33.00.00.CORBICULIDAE Oct 28, 1975 4.17 8.33 208.33 175.00.00. b).00.00 137.50.00 (::~v 18,1975 Dec 19, 1975 50.00 25.00 62.50 50.00.Feb 24, 1976 .00 25.00.00.00.May 25, 1976 18.75 25.00.00..Jun 22, 1976 00 00 16.67..Sep 25. 1976 00 00.00 550.00 , EPHDfEROPTERA Sep 25. 1976 16.67 ,(30._i$.I$*# __ _, (a) Density expressed in terms of number /m2 Amendment No. 1 (9/79)(b)= no sa=ple taken . WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-6 Sheet 1 of 4

    1. AVERACE DENSITIES OF BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES COLLECTFD BY SHIPEK SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 ALL YEARS - ALL DATA TOTAL MACROINVERTABRATES Station Date Ae Ar Be Bt Bei Jun 08, 1973

    .00 350.00...Jul 11, 1973 100.00 25.00 12.50 12.50.(b)116.67, Jul 29, 1973 ....Aug 22, 1973 .00 29.17 37.50 4.17 4.17 Sep 29, 1973 6.25 15.00 55.00 54.17 31.25 Oct 27, 1973 16.67 16.67 4.17.00 8.33 Nov 29, 1973 66.67 20.83 16.67.00 4.17 Dec 21, 1973 4.17 83.33 33.33 5.00 8.33 Jan 21, 1974 .00 79.17.00 183.33.00 Feb 14, 1974 .00.00.00.00.00 Mar 26, 1974 .00.00.00 8.33.00 Apr 24, 1974 16.67.00.00..Jun 26, 1974 .00 500.00 25.00 4.17 35.00 Aug 20, 1974 20.83.00 37.50 54.17 412.50 Nov 13, 1974 12.50 29.17 29.17.00.00 Feb 27, 1975 20.83 50.00 1250.00 87.50 191.67 Apr 22, 1975 12.50 79.17 933.33 116.67 179.17 Aug 07, 1975 .00.00 70.83 21C.67 8.33 Oct 28, 1975 25.00 58.33 220.83 237.50 275.00 Nov 18, 1975 58.33 116.67 145.83 20.83.Dec 19, 1975 100.00 466.67 62.50 279.17 91.67 Jan 20, 1976 .00....Jan 28, 1976 75.00 216.67 33.33 562.50 66.67 Feb 24, 1976 95.83 2083.33 87.50 312.50 300.00 Mar 23, 1976 279.17 887.50 235.00 216.67.00 Apr 27, 1976 200.00 120.83 220.83 300.00 70.83 May 25, 1976 337.50 1175.00 25.00 212.50 470.83 Jun 22, 1976 12.50 25.00 16.67 70.83 112.50 Jul.27, 1976 00 383.33 162.50 1605.00.00 Aug 08, 1976 475.00 54.17 445.83 350.00 270.83 Sep 25, 1976 4.17 20.83 1016.67 4.17 125.00 Obd.l.UO 2 (a) Density expressed in terms of number /m (b). = no sample taken Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE A 2 5-6 Sheet 2 of 4

    1. AVERACE DENSITIES OF BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED BY SHIPEK SAMPLER IN 2RE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 ALL TEARS
    • ALL DATA OLIGOCHAE*'ES Station Date Ac At Be Bt Bt1 Jun 08, 1573

    .00 350.00...Jul 11, 1973 50.00 25.00.00.00.. b)70.83 (Jul 29, 1973 ...Sep 29, 1973 .00 5.00.00 '12.50.00-Oct 27, 1973 .00 12.50.00.00.00 Nov.29, 1973 33.33.00 4.17.00.00 Dec 11, 1973 .00 75.00 4.17 5.00 8.33 Jan 21,1974 .00 75.00.00 175.00.00 Mar 26,1974 .03.00.00 4.17.00 Jun 26, 1974 .00 475.00 25.00.00 30.00 Aug 20, 1974 16.67.00 33.33 54.17 391.67 Nov 13, 1974 12.50 29.17.00.00.00 Feb 27, 1975 16.67 45.83 1120.83 50.00 187.50 Apr 12, 1975 12.50 79.17 929.17 104.17 175.00 Aug 07, 1975 .00.00 70.83 200.00 8.33 Oct 18, 1975 12.50 41.67.00 45.83 275.00 Nov 18, 1975 12.50.00 91.67 8.33.Dec 19, 1975 70.83 45&.33 25.00 270.83 91.67 Jan 28, 1976 37.50 87.50 4.17 562.50 58.33 Feb 24,1976 91.67 2062.50.00 300.00 300.00 Mar 23,1976 270.83 762.50.00 216.67.00 Apr 27, 1976 200.00 120.83 8.33 300.00 70.83 May 25,1976 337.50 1166.67 4.17 204.17 445.83 Jun 22, 1976 12.50 15.00 8.33 58.33 108.33 Jul 27, 197C .00 375.00.00 , 1600.00.00 Aug 08, 1976 .00 54.17 4.17 337.50 158.33 Sep 25, 1976 4.17 8.33 41.67 4.17 29.17$~^2'(a) Density expressed in terms of number /m (b)= no cample taken .c ;e.9 .,fs .> s) .J .:w O. ] Amendment No . 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER Sheet 3 of 4 TABLE A.2 5-6 AVERACE DENSITIES OF BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES

    1. COLLECIED BY SHIPEK SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 ALL YEARS - ALL DATA Station DIPTERA Date Ae At_Be Be Bel Tul 11, 1973

    .00.00 6.25.00.. b)4.17.00 (Jul 29, 1973 ..Sep 29, 1973 6.25 5.00 5.00 4.17 25.00 Oct 27, 1973 8.33 4.17 4.17 '.00.00 Nov 29, 1973 16.67.00.00.00.00 Dec 21, 1973 .00 4.17 4.17.00.00 Jan 21, 1974 .00 4.17.00 8.33.00 Apr 24, 1974 12.50.00.00..Jun 26, 1974 .00.00.00 4.17.00 Feb 27, 1975 .00.00 4.17 25.00 4.17 Apr 22, 1975 .00.00.00 8.33.00 Aug 07, 1975 .: 0.00 00 16.67.00 Oct 28, 1975 8.33 8.33 12.50 12.50.00 Nov 18, 1975 45.83.00.00.00.Dec 19, 1975 .00.00 16.67.00.00 Jan 28, 1976 37.50.00.00.00 8.33 Feb 24, 1976 8.33 8.33 12.50.00.Mar 23,1976 8.33 112.50.00.00.00 May 25, 1976 .00.00.00 4.17 12.50 Aug 08, 1976 .00.00.00.00 4.17 Sep 25, 1976 .00 4.17.00.00.00 , (a) Density expressed in terms of number /m (b).- no sample taken r }g , 3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-6 Sheet 4 of 4 AVERACE DENSITIES

    • OF BENTHIC MACR 0 INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED BY SHIPEK SAMPLER IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 ALL YEARS - ALL DATA EPREMEROPTERA Station_Date At Be Bt Aug 22, 1973 29.17 25.00 4.17 Sep 29, 1973

    .00 15.00.00 Jun 22, 1976 .00 8.33.00 Sep 25, 1976 8.33.00.00 YEAR I A"C 2.92 3.64 0.46 YEAR III AVG 0.69 0.69. 00'CORBICULIDAE Station Date Ac At Bc Bt Bei Jul 29, 1973 .(b)33.33...Sep 29, 1973 .00.00 25.00 20.83 6.25 Oct 27, 1973 4.17.00.00.00.00 Nov 29, 1973 4.17 8.33 4.17.00 4.17 Dec 21, 1973 .00.00 4.17.00.00 Mar 26, 1974 .00.00.00 4.17.00 Nov 13, 1974 .00.00 16.67.00.00 Feb 27, 1975 .00.00 116.67.00.00 Apr 22, 1975 .00.00.00.00 4.17 Oct 28, 1975 4.17 8.33 208.33 175.00.00 Nov 18, 1975 .00 112.50 45.83.00.Dec 19, 1975 8.33 8.33 20.83 8.33.00 Jan 28, 1976 .00 116.67 20.83.00.00 Feb 24, 1976 .00 4.17 79.17.00.00 Mar 23, 1976 .00.00 235.00.00.00 Apr 27, 1976 .00.00 208.33.00.00 May 25, 1976 .00 8.33 12.50 4.17.00 Jun 22, 1976 .00.00.00 8.33.00 Jul 27, 1976 8.03 137.50.00.00.Aug 08, 1976 475.00.00 412.50 8.33 4.17 Sep 25, 1916 .00 800.00.00 91.67.or . vse u d .) .:c t . 2 a) Density expressed in terms of number m Amendment No. 1 (9/79) b)= no sample taken . WSES 3 ER Sheet 1 of 2 TABLE A .2.5-7

    • TRIEDMAN'S 'NO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARI AtCE:

    TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H g EQUAL OLICOCHAETE CONCE1TTRATIOfG AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS YEAR I - ALL DATA Station Year I Ac At Be Bt Bt1 Aug 22, 1973 3 3 3 3 3 Sept 29, 1973 2 4 2 5 2 Oct 27, 1973 2.5 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Nov 29, 1973 5 2 4 2 2 Dec 21, 1973 1 5 2 3 4 Jan 21, 1974 2 4 2 5 2 Feb 14, 1974 3 3 3 3 3 March 20, 1974 2.5 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 Sum of Ranks 21 28.5 21 28.5 21 Sum of Ranks Squared 441 812.25 441 812.25 441 , X~=3.38 r Fail to reject H - i.e., Stations were not significantly different with respect to the number of oligochaete per sq. meter

    • Stations were ranked by date, according to the average number oligochaete per sq.

    meter (ties were averaged). Source: Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics For the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1956. r; " r s s , u d v..'t' Amendment No. 1 (9/79) WSES 3 ER Sh'*t 2 Uf 2 TABLE A*2 5-7

    • TRIEDMAN'S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VART ANCE-TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H )g o EQUAL OLICOCHAETE CONCEttrRATIONS AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS YEAR EE - ALL DATA Station Year III Ac A3 Be Bt Bt Oct 28, 1975 2 3 1 4 5 Dec 19, 1975 2 5 1 4 3 Jan 28, 1976 2 4 1 5 3 Feb 24, 1976 2 5 1 3.5 3.5? tar 23, 1976 4 5 1.5 3 1.5 Apr 27, 1976 4 3 1 5 2 May 25,1976 3 5 1 2 4 June 22,1976 2 3 1 4 5 July 27, 1976 2 4 2 5 2 Aug 08, 1976 1 3 2 5 4 Sept 25, 1976 1.5 3 5 1.5 4 Sum of Ranks 25.5 43 17.5 42 37 Sum of Ranks 650.25 1849 306.25 1764 1369 Squared , X' = 15.8 r Reject H i.e., Stations were significantly dif ferent with respect to o.the number of oligoch2ete per sq. meter, with fewer found at Stations Ac and Bc r, n v O .s . ;,, < 3 . ., F Stations were ranked by date, according to the average number oligochaete per sq. meter (ties were averaged).

    Source: Siegel S. Nonparameteric St.itistics For the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company. Inc 1956. e Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE A2.5 8 _ _ .FRIEDMAN'S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H ) 0F o EQUAL CORBICULIDAE CONCENIRATIONS AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS VERIFIED DATA - YEAR I Station Year I g g Be it;, Bt1 Aug 22, 1973 3 3 3 3 3 Sept 29, 1973 1.5 1.5 5 4 3 Oct 27, 1973 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Dec 21, 1973 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 2.5 Jan 21, 1974 3 3 3 3 3 Feb 14, 1974 3 3 3 3 3 March 26, 1974 2.5 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 Sum of Ranks 20 18 24 23 19.5 Sum of Ranks 400 324 576 529 380.25 Squared I2=0 r Fail to Reject H : i.e., Stations were not significantly different with respect to the number of co0biculidae per sq. meter. Stations were ranked by date, according to the average number corbiculidae per

    • sq. meter (ties were averaged).

    Sourc: Siegel S. Noncarametric Statistics For the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, In:. 1956. c -r, S.,a d i. h w t 6 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE A 2 5-94

    • FRIEDMAN'S 'IVO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIAICE ;

    TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H ) 0F EQUAL CORBICULIDAE CONCENTRATIONS AT 5 WATERFORD STATIO!G YEAR I - ALL DATA Station Year I Ac M B3 B_t, Bt1 Aug 22, 1973 3 3 3 3 3 Sept 29, 1973 1.5 1.5 5 4 3 Oct 27, 1973 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Nov 29, 1973 3 5 3 1 3 Dec 21, 1973 2.5 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Jan 21, 1974 3 3 3 3 3 Feb 14,1974 3 3 3 3 3 March 26, 1974 2.5 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 Sum of Ranks 23.5 25.5 24.5 24 22.5 Sem of Rarks 552.25 650.25 600.25 576 506.25 Squared K = 0.25 r Fail to reject H: i.e., Static were not significantly different with respect to the number of co?biculidae per sq. meter Stations were ranked by date, according to the average number corbiculidae per

    • sq. meter (ties were averaged).

    Source: Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics For the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1956. (: h r._v ., ev1 ) n.s t Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Sheet 2 of 2 TABLE A.2.5-9.

    • FRIEDMAN'S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H ) 0F g EQUAL CORBICULIDAE CONCE!TTRATIONS AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS YEAR III- ALL DATA Station Year III ,A_c, A,t, Bc, R Bt1 Oct 28, 1975 2 3 5 4 1 Dec 19, 1975 3 3 5 3 1 Jan 28, 1976 2 5 4 2 2 f Feb 24, 1976 2 4 5 2 2 Mar 23, 1976 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 2.5 Apr 27, 1976 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 2.5 May 25, 1976 1.5 4 5 3 1.5 June 22,1976 2.5 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 July 27, 1976 2 4 5 2 2 Aug 08, 1976 5 1 4 3 2 Sept 25, 1976 2 2 5 2 4 Sum of Ranks 27 33.5 50.5 31 23 Sum of Ranks 729 1122.25 2550.25 961 529 Squared.X= 14.09 r Reject 'f: 1.e Stations were significantly dif ferent with respect to the o number of corbiculidae per sq. meter, with more being found at Station Bc.
    • Stations were ranked by date, according to the average number corbiculidae per sq. meter (ties were averaged).

    Source: Sieg( 1 S. _Nonparppe t r_lc i S_ tat _ist it:s_ For _the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-llill Book Comp.iny, Inc. 1956. bb.' 33.'# k 1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) k'S Es 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-10 AVERACE NtNBER APO WEIOff PER (NIT EFITRr OF ItDRESENTATIVE SPfrIES OF FISH CCLLICTED EACH NOt!N [URING YEARS I,ll,Ill IN *thE VICINITY OF WN1114WD 3 VERavnED twTA Bt1E CATTISH FRISildATER DRtM CI!!AIO SilAD THRE&DFIIl 3HAD sOffH NUMBER WEICirf(gn) NtNBER WEIGHT (ge) PRM BER WEIClif (gs) NUMBER WF

    • Ciff (gn) 7380h(5)1.333 312.173

    .00 00 1. ass 2s8.lse 1.000 9.820 73 AUL(a)2.137 67.983 7.44)66.376 19.763 52.83s 15.830 20.668 73 AUG 4.321 248.88) 2.688 22.887 58.225 268.822 24.737 49.925 73 SEP(a)4.e33 246.s36 5.625 17.519.583 11.315 4.467 12.633 73 OCT s.233 2s9.397 4.133 6s.588 15.878 98.812 3 572 14.760 73 Nov 3.467 389.679 1.567 64.792 3.433 34.423 2.011 40.279*00 e.625 6.559 73 Der 3.15e 561.332 .883 23.845*h.00.00 74 4AN(L )).ess 4s2.21s 00 00~00*14 MAm 16.133 1.*367 22.'262 00 00.467 3 295 74APR([c)2.167 .267 7.6ss.333 16.s57.267 5.4s3 7.867 43.}00 178.327.00.00 00.00 00 a)1.sB3 24 74 eUH 14 tau.133.873.867.34s.467 2.247 19 333 435.442 75 Auc.733 13.873.00 00.4ss 4.ls?.400 336 75 Oct.s67 68.787.s67 24.5s7.00.00.067.947 15 Nov 56.267 471.9ss s.133 111.827 .978 57.853 4.644 11.442 75 otr(a)2.ssa 165.4s4 .333 4s.933.00 2.469.00.00.0 76 Fsm 6s5.933.333 76 MAa(a)2.857 .00.00*00.00.2ss 122.653 00.00 00.00 nn no 76 Asst (a 6.167 488.s25 7.25e 533.483 .25s 25.467 1.'dtib 7.MD 76 MAv(a 6.s89 77.s35 1.667 45.927.00.00 4.667 8.600 2.667 132.s24 4.ess 69.699 1.sse 3.193 2.444.966 76 sim(b)2.333 5s.688 15.333 45s.768 .367 1s.2s3 4.833 22.782 76sutg)s.167 12s.733.667 167.618 ,00 ,00 ,00 00 76Auc(D)6.ssa 76 SEP 134.465 1. sos 116.875 .00.00.500 4.hao e A unit effort representer 5 minate etter trawl 5 minute surface crewt 5 minute midwater trawl (a) represent s ot ter and surf ace trawls only ( b),,pr,,,,t e otte r t r.wl ly C (c) repre...t. ot t., ana iaw.t.r tr.wle only F.y#PS'" Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 , ER TABLE A.2.5-11 AVERME NtMBS Ato WElGrr PER (NIT EFIURT OF Rf3HESENTATIVE SNrlES Or FISif COLtJr11'D EACH PK2ml 11JRING YEARS I,II,Ill IN 11tE VICINI11f OF WAITRIORD 1 ALL DATA Bi1E CA1TISH FRf7JNA1TR IstM CIZZARD SHAD THREADFIN SHAD r(ND1 NUMBER WEICliT(gn) NUMBER WEICiff(gn) NUMBER WEICITT(gn) Mr15LM WE!Cirt(gn) 73 stN.5e8 187.428 00.00.25e 52.e37 500 4.910 73 DUL 2.137 67.983 7.'443 66.176 19.763 52.83e 15.830 20.668 73 AUG 4.321 248.803 2.688 22.887 58.225 268.822 24.737 49.925 73 SEP 3.958 241.319 5.608 17.587.408 8.ees 4.050 11.470 73 OCT 8.233 289.397 4.133 68.588 15.644 97.885 3 506 14.6 15 73 PAN 2.533 213.444 1.511 64.310 3.156 32.574 3.844 9.280 73 DEC 2.867 424.294.e67 19.876.00.00.833 3 290 74 DAN.133 53.628 ,00.00.00.00.00.00.144 2.497 74 MAR 1.889 7.691.556 9.888 00*00 74 AIR.367 66.978 00 00 00 00 00.00 74 stN.267 7.688.333 16.857.267 5.483 7.567 13.724 74 NOV.133.873 067.348.467 2.247 19 333 135.442 75 AUG.733 13.873 00.00.4se 4.307.400 336 75 OCT.067 68.787.867 24.587.00.00.067 947 75tKV 56.267 471.908 8.133 111.027 .978 57.053 4.644 41.442 75 00C.4ee 33.e88.e67 8.187 00.00.00.00.00 76 Fm 2.867 605.933 .00.00.333 2.467l00 00.00 76 NAR.200 122.653 00.00.00.00 76 AIR 12.200 274.126 5.900 426.787 .208 28.373.433 4.007 76 MAY 3.733 49.591.933 25.625.00.00 333 1.720 76 TUN 1.467 78.395 2.400 41.619.688 1.916.200. 485 76 4UL.933 20.275 6.133 186.387 .867 4.eg I.933 9. 413 76 Alvi 3.267 48.293.267 67.847.00 00.00-76 St.".888 17.929.133 15.583.00.00.067.251* A unit e f fort represente S sinute otter trew! 5 minute surface traw! 5 minute midwater trawl

    f. O CI O Amendment No. 1, (9/79)
    _o.pl/4 WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-12
    • ' ICTAL NUMSEPS AND WEImT CF FISH CCIIJrTED PER LNIT EFFORT EACH FONTH DURING YEAPS I II . III IN 'INE VICINITY OF WATEPI >RD 3 VERIFIED DATA FC! TIE NLMBER WEIGHT (gm) 73 4CN (a) 3.500 530.335 73 eUL (a) 48.227 218.369 73 AUG 95.767 692.315 73 SEP (3) 18.042 342.843 73 OCT 33.394 578.328 73 NOV 12.111 675.652 73 CEC 7.625 601.055 (b)74 (AN 1.000 402.210*(c)74 MAR 5.222 55.086 (,)74 APR 1.667 225.236 74 eUN 9.133 43.838 74 AUG.000.000 74 10V 20.333 161.680 75 FG.000.000 75 APR.000.000 75 ALC 1.667 38.802 75 OCT.267 100.680 75 TOV (,)67.978 717.060 75 CEC 3.667 212.933 76 Fm 3.267 609.040 76 MAR.267 240.580 76 APR I )26.000 1,193.733 76 MAY (a)10.944 415.194 76 SUN (a)10.222 211.818 76 UL (b)23.167 535.008 76 ALC (b)l3.000 336.912 76 SEP (b)65.000 364.410* A unit effort represents: 5 minute otter trawl 5 minute surface crawl 5 minute midvater trawl (a) represents otter and surface trawls only (b) represents otter trawl only (c) represente otter and midwater t rewis 'only g.,y ,9 d d os.* Y }

    Amendment No. 1, (9/79). WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-13

    • 'IUTAL NLMBERS AND WEIGHT CF FISII COLLEETED PER UNIT EFFORT EACH MON'III DURING YEARS I,II,III IN "EE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 ALL DATA M0tM NLMER WEIGHT'(gm) 73 SUN 1.333 164.463 73 sUL 48.227 218.369 73 ADG 95.767 692.315 73 SEP 16.717 332.195 73 OCT 33.094 577.176 73 NOV 10.433 495.105 73 DEC 4.600 450.347 74 qAN.133 53.628 74 FEB.000.000 74 MAR 2.622 26.046 74 APR.700 99.446 74 SUN 9.133 43.838 74 AUG.000.000 74 NOV 20.333 161.680 75 FEB.000.000 75 APR.000.000 75 AUG 1.667 38.802 75 OCT.267 100.680 75 NOV 67.978 717.060 75 DDC.667 42.173 76 EAN.000.000 76 FEB 3.267 609.040 76 MAR.267 240.580 76 APR 19.400 833.020 76 MAY 5.400 229.745 76 aCN 4.800 123.372 76 vUL 9.267 214.003 76 AUG 5.200 134.765 76 SEP 8.667 51.255* A unit e f fort represents: 5 minute otter trawl 5 minute surface trawl 5 minute midwater trawl OUO.$.:iG Amendment No. 1, (9/79)

    WSES 3 ER TABLE'A.2.5-14 .Nrl'fDt A)O WEICRT CP F5sumaTILT.'.SPfrIES CAPit; RED PER (NIT EFTCRT AT EACH STATICH LK. RING TDut5 I, II, IU IN '3it VICINITY CF AM 3 VER NIZD CATA FIsa BILT CATFISH FRESMATER ENEM CI::ARD SHAD THREADFIN SHAD SIATIW YEAR E2tAZ1 UEICHI (gn) gugazz mm(sm) IMGIA WEIm(gn) N CM(ER)AC I 5.826 385.317 3.184 48.539 3.675 37.786 3.491 18.933 3.833 15.824.856.283.556 4.758.833 2.151 IU 7.633 471.821 2.867 58.562.367 6.235 1.488 4.741 AT I 5.289 338.444 4.259 E1.184 12.557 68.563 14.17s 27.856 u.111 3.198.278 33.381.222 2.467 7.In 16.142'In 19.879 364.761 8.273 n3.sSS.788 34.476.676 2.992 BC I 3.214 446.248 1.274 23.812 21.298'88.843 6.545 11.458 00.a56 2.175 2.s56 13.688 II.00.00;gg 00.00.00.361 2.461 III.584 93.642..BT I 1.112 n.348 2.6as 9.776 16.898 79.661 6.4a3 17.3s7 n.00.00.00 00.a56.n7 4.289 29.456 In.417 13.542.s56 2s.422.00.00.972 6.972 BT1 I 2.332 92.198.757 1.872 12.884 124.948 5.962 14.544 u.00.00.00.00.a56.as 3.5as 26.4n III.a67 68.787.2sa 24.56a.883.4as.45a 3.422* A unit affort repressace : 5 minuca occer crawl -5 stoute surface crawl 5 minuta midwater trawl 'i< . o : h. ' p,._)t s;Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TAHLt. A.2.5-15 wtaEn Arc wtrarr or xrarsumTIvt s?TE OPTFE M 'N" N AT EAQi STATIO4 CCRING YEARS I, II, III IN 111E VICINITY CF WATEFJuw 3 AIL IntA BIIZ CATFISH F1tE5}kATER DREN GI:7.ARD SHAD '!HRIACFIN SHAD STATE N YEAR M'M RQ WEIGE(p) NUh3EA ggIgg (p) ym WElGE(p) gg ggIgg(p} AC I 3.874 241.888 2.532 39.787 2.353 26.688 2.477 7.4n II.833 15.824.856.283.556 4.750.833 2.151 III 6.258 391.149 2.361 41.331.306 5.196.889 3.848 AT I 4.852 215.656 3.848 56.352 9.717 45.827 9.382 18.371 U.111 3.598.278 13.381.222 2.467 7.111 16.142 III 27.885 353.862 7.556 329.417.556 38.369.139.544 BC I 1.652 239.836.674 18.424 9.489 37.955 3.932 6.892 II.00.00.00.00. ass 2.175 2.a56 13.6sa III.sS3 15.614.00.00.00.00.139.961 c I 1.833 34.399 2.880 6.528 8.777 48.738 3.638 9.488 n.00.00.00.00.e56.n7 4.389 29.456 III.sS3 3.999.s28 la.2n.00. 0 0..3s6 2.286 El I.785 14.868.248.372 4.634 33.268 2.294 5.624 H.00.00.00.00.s56.289 3.580 26.411 HI.c8 23.661.s28 3.4n.a28.133.nl.9u* A unit effort represents: 5 minute ocese crawl 5 minute surface crawl 5-u-- midnater crawl c.J 0 0.s.02.eg:-Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2 5-16

    • TOTAL NLMBER AND WEIGHT OF AIL SPECIES CAPTURED PER UNIT EFFORT AT EACH STATION DURING YEARS I, II, III IN TE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 VERIFIED DATA Station Year Number kk Ac I 17.829 475.891 II 2.444 39.830 III 12.950 573.815 At I 39.435 543.186 II 8.000 35.916 III 47.176 949.534 Bc I 34.476 634.404 II 2.167 17.031 III 1.172 98.261 Bt I 29.792 144.599 II 4.500 36.772 III 1.694 44.266 Bt I 22.348 431.738 1 II 3.611 29.633 III 1.017 104.852*A unit effort represents: 5 minute otter trawl 5 minute surface trawl 5 minute midwater trawl bsd d 9 *q

    -,.3->Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-17 TOTAL NUMBER AND WEIGHT OF ALL SPECIES CAPTURED PER UNIT EFFORT

    • AT EACH STATION DURING YEARS I,II,III IN TRE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 ALL DATA STATION YEAR NUMBER WEIGHT (gm)

    AC I 12.977 374.096 II 2.444 39.830 III 10.333 471.632 AT I 29.465 415.601 II 8.000 35.916 III 40.472 828.781 BC I 16.992 312.048 II 2.167 17.031 III.306 17.258 BT I 16.642 81.821 II 4.500 36.772 III.472 17.151 BT1 I 8.140 120.320 II 3.611 29.633 III.278 36.261* A unit effort represents: 5 minute otter trawl 5 minute surface trawl 5 minute midwater trawl Amendment No. 1, (9/79)_,*J d..'.s)'y WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-18 (alse 2.2 -22 ) TOTAL NLHBERS AND WEIGHTS OF FISH COLLECTED PER UNIT EFFORT

    • EACH MONTH DL' RING YEARS I, II, III IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 VERIFIED DATA-TEAR AftRACE AftRACE Ajro ponTu aunsta**wetenT***73 Art 1.000 379.650 73 JUE 14. 3 n 9.741.835 73 JUL (b) 12.600 897.08%73 AUC 25.350 4,875.939 73 SEP 92.400 12,754.379 T3 OCT 32.200 3,955.620 73 po?62.650 9.119.418 73 DE 27.100 5,968.735 74 JAN 19.533 4,687.806 74 FD 11.800 2,637.613 74 nA. (a)
    34. 3 n 8,7n . I n 74 APR 9&.600 10.572.528 74 JUn 41.400 8,209.660 74 AUG 33.400 11,743,622 74 NOV 139.400 16.274.412 75 FG 100.400 14,158.503 75 JUE 10.200 1,423.058 7 5 A'A 8.400 2,209.979 75 oct 48.200 9,845.217 75 EUr 25.000 6,699.745 75 Dec (b) 57.100 15,681.825 74 JAN 14.000 4.038.390 76 FEB 65.200 16,922.180 76 MAA 80.400 15.330.147 76 Art 42.500 11.375.545 76 MAT 26.100 5,945.482 76 Jun 15.100 5,953.477 76 JU.21.900 6,301.912 76 AUC 54.600 12,150.003 76 SEF 40.100 8,143.294* 2e 2 heure of electroshockle. and 48 hours of sitt metting
      • Sumber of ladlendeels
        • 8spressed le grene searce of date: waterford 3 Emettenmental 6erveillance Program, espleined La Sectlee 6.1.1.2 (a)48 hre s(11 settles sely (b) 2 hee electreehecklat only A:r endmen t No.

    1, (9/79)c ..n n'} d j d [j .' A WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-19 TOTAL NUMBERS AND WEI_GHTS OF FISH COLLECTED PER UNIT EFFORT

    • EAtti Mun ut Dudiw u:.ARS T,'~11, id,D 111 1h uit. VILINin OF WAU:.RFORD 3 ALL DATA....M NUMBER WEIGHT (gh) 73 APR (^)

    1.000 379.65d'73 SUN (b) 12.733 3,618.515 73 eUL 12.600 897.086 73 AUG 25.850 6,789.483 73 SEP 97.000 14,269.032 73 OCT 32.200 3,955.626 73 NOV 61.000 8,465.010 73 DEC 24.400 4,464.946 74 SAN 17.400 3,731.024 74 FEB 11.800 2,637.616 74 MAR (a) 34.333 8,791.187 74 APR 96.600 10,562.594 74 SUN 41.400 8,209.692 74 AUG 33.400 11,743.646 74 NOV 139.460 16,274.520 75 FE8 100.400 14,158.620 75 IGN 10.200 1,423.060 75 AUG 8.400 2,209.980 75 OCT 48.200 9,845.240 75 NOV 25.000 6,699.760 75 CEC 55.600 13,463.020 76 uAN 11.200 3,230.720 76 FEB 65.200 16,922.240 76 MAR 80.400 15,330.220 76 APR 42.500 11,375.370 76 MAY 21.600 3,997.886 76 8CN 13.200 5,684.142 76 quL 19.200 4,354.050 76 AUG 54.600 12,150.042 76 SEP 34.600 7,564.718* A unit effort represents: 48 hrs gill net set 2 hrs electroshocking .(a) 48 hrs gill netting only (b)2 hrs electroshocking only bob $db , Amendment No. 1, (9/79) k 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-20 t (Also 2.2-21) VERIFIED DATA AVERAGE NIHBER AND WEICllT FER UNIT EFFOR12 DF PEPRESENTATIVE SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED LACh NONTH DURING YEARS 1, II, 111 IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD l YEAR_ FLUE CATFISH FRESHJATER DRtN C12ZARD SHAD STRIPED HULLET THREADFIN SHAD a nd AVERAGE AVERACE AVERAGE AVERACE AV E RACE AVERACE A '.' E R A CE AVERACF AVERAGE AVERACE MONTH NtNBER**WEIGHT **NIN RtR WEIGHT NtHPER WEICPT N'N BER WEIGHT NtN B ER WEIGHT III 73 APR l.0 379.7 33).71 JtN 4 .0 926.4.3 26.4 4.0 476.P 7 23.7 1.3 11.4 73 JUL(2).8 1.2.8 3.0 3.0 254.0 2.6 253.3 2.4 5.1 73 ALU.5 457.9 1.5 832.6 12.0 1,387.5 4.0 827.0 1.6 7.7 73 SEP 3.0 741.2 4 120.6 53.4 3,926.1 19.4 4,680.4 6.0 48.3 13 OCT 6.6 322.6.8 122.7 9.8 637.2 3.6 1.039.8 2.0 12.6 13 NOV 1.8 692.9.3 46.6 49.6 4,952.4 4.0 983.4.2.9 73 DEC 8.3 3.200.9.2.2 15.4 2.584.0 1.2 55.4.4 1.3.74 JAN 5.2 1.134.8 12.3 2,306.7.6 81.3.2.7.4 1.3 14 FEH 2.4 475.7 7.4 1,230.0..y 74 MAR 2.0 542.8.1.7 288.6..16.3 1,033.1 74 APN 5.0 2,269.8 1.0 36.3 47.5 2,0I0.3 13.0 2.382.5 15.2 274.3 14 JON.4 199.2.8 IIR.0 17.4 837.6?12.0 2,300.3 1.8 29.8 74 AUG.8 1,251.3.6 116.3 3.8 206.6 20.2 5,996.4 1.6 4.7 74 NOV 7.2 1,055.6 1.0 96.1 67.6 4,433.7 38.8 4,931.2 4.4 33.3 15 FEB.2 45.3 1.0 99.2 65.0 9,264.1 26.4 1,633.1..75 JUN.8 298.0.2 46.3 1.0 86.4', l.6 227.7 4.8 2!.2 75 Ato 2.4 625.1.1.6 155.5.4 42.4.4 4.7 ,, 15 OC T l.6 669.5.27.6 5.475.5 11.0 3.1 04 .8 1.8 24.7 75 NOV 1.2 601.9 15.4 1,849.1 2.2 365.5..75 DEC 10.2 4,473.1 1.4 196.3 30.6 4.534.3 5.8 1,366.7.2 1.5 I}76 JAN.3 270.1 13.8 3,768.3....76 FEB 7.2 2,838.0.8 227.8 50.6 11,932.1.2 117.8 1.0 6.9 76 M AR 9.0 4,480.6.6 204.1 56.2 7,834.2 2.6 304.9 7.2 129.2 76 APR 4.3 2,661.6 1.9 619.7 8.3 72 7.3 15.0 2,008.6 6.9 124.9 76 MAY 1.4 65.4 1.3 131.6 4.0 672.9 6.6 705.3 6.2 63.7 76 JUN 2.5 2,174.5.2 50.3 3.7 569.1 6.2 789.0.5.3 76 JUL 1.7 1,621.5.5 88.8 1.1 253.6 12.0 1,801.1 2.8 26.9'76 AUG 3.2 2,855.4 1.0 421.8 4.4 1,340.4 23.2 4.812.6 4.2 58.2 76 SEP 4.3 2,065.1 2.0 462.0 5.4 2,045.4 12.0 1,830.1 3 .,0 78.9*In 2 hours of electroshocking and 48 hours of gilt netting

      • Numoet of individuals

    , 44-*=* Expressed in grams ('., (((1) 48 hre gilt netting only

    • . +b-(2) 2 nre electroshocking only

    %.(3) Species not found during sampling Source of dat a : Waterford 3 Environmental Surveil. lance Program, explained Amendment No. 1, (9/79)in Section 6.1.1.2. WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.b21 AVERAGE NUMBERS A';D WEICIITS PER UNIT EFFORT

    • OF REPRESENT /sTIVE SPECIES OF FISil COLLECTED EACil MONTil DURING YEARS I, II, AND III IN Tile VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 ALL DATA OLPMN NAJ1E 81M CITTISil F1tIENATra tam GIs1AIO SLAD

    $11LlitD 38222? 1BMMf DI StaAD SENDI tutart IIstcart(gs) IK8tata WICIT(ge) tit 24tzt WICK!(sm)InstBER WICIT(gn) pimsta WICET(am) 73 MS!.888 379.658 ........73 blat (b) 4.888 926.437 .333 26.448 8.888 476.778 .647 23.857 1.333 11.583 13 But..888 1.154.888 2.968 3.888 254.818 2.688 253.262 2.484 3.894 73 AUG.588 457.878 1.588 832.575 12.888 1387.526 4.488 827.844 1.680 7.628'73 Elf 3.888 141.198 .488 128.572 53.488 4588.762 23.488 5259.727 6.888 48.196 13 OCT 5.688 322.618 .888 122.712 9.888 637.218 3.688 1839.842 2.888 12.588 73 KV l.688 628.148. 288 31.244 48.888 4784.986 4.888 981.448 .288.862 13 LE 6.888 2112.996 .288.178 14.288 2168.866 1.288 55.412.488 1.292. * *.co 18,688 1684,822 .688 81.276.288.692 14 S AN 5.288 1834.848

      • 74 rin 2.488 475.746 00 7.488 1238.982.e e.o o.488 1.3I2 74 MARG 2.888 542.768. * *.c o I.667 288.616.oe.o o 16.333 1833.877 74 AIS 4.958 2269.845 1.088 36.297 47.458 2818.318 12.958 2182.527 15.158 274.258 74 8L84.488 799.288

    .888 117.968 17.488 837.622 12.888 2388.282 1.888 29.886 74 AUG.888 1251.318 .688 116.268 3.888 286.636 28.288 5996.457 1.688 4.748 14 laN 7.288 1855.568 1.888 96.148 67.688 4433.758 38.888 4931.258 4.488 33.348 15 Fra.208 45.348 1.088 99.168 65.888 9264.137 26.488 1633.148.ee.oo 75 8tas.888 298.848 .288 46.268 1.888 86.368 1.688 227.728 4.888 27.188 15 ALO 2.488 625.128 .**.**1.688 155.548 .488 42.388.48s 4.748 75 KT 3.688 669.548. * *.o*27.688 5476.535 11.888 3184.788 1.888 24.668 15 pan 1.288 681.948 00.**15.488 1849.880 2.288 345.528 .**.**15 (Mr 9.888 4284.938 3.488 196.328 38.688 4534.379 S.888 1344.788 .288 1.4W 16 8 Atl.288 216.868.co.co 11.868 3814.668

      • .oo.**.e *.16 Ita 7.288 2838.f.88

    .888 227.828 58.688 ******** .28 8 117.888 1.888 6.988 16 MAR 9.888 4488.398 .688 284.128 56.288 7834.234 2.688 384.928 7.288 129.168 76 AIS 4.380 2661.588 1.988 619.668 8.258 727.338 15.888 2888.668 6.858 124.885 16 MAY.888 48,878 1.088 258.984 2.288 325.866 6.688 185.278 6.288 63.684 76 8L84 2.488 2152.254 .288 58.262 3.288 536.928 5.888 641.446 .4te.258 76 Sut..888 66t.438 .200 35.518 1.488 155.824 12.888 1881.892 2.s38 26.928 76 Auc 3.288 2855.488 1.888 421.762 4 488 1348.418 23.288 4812.645 4.288 58.236 76 Ett 4.288 2862.644 2.888 462.832 5.888 1953.194 9.888 1573.772 2.488 63.188 48 hrs gill net set k, A unit effort represents: 2 hrs electroshocking C. -, . .{-] '(a) 48 hrs gill netting only >.(b) 2 hrs electroshocking only w rw w Amendment No. 1, (9/79) w 3 TAliLE A. 2.5-2 2 (also 2.2-22) NUMilER AND WEIGilT OF REPRESENTATIVE FISil SPECIES CAPTURED PER UNIT EFFORT

    • AT EACll STATION DURING YEARS I, II, AND III IN Tile VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 VERIFIED DATA SLUE CATFISH FRESHWATER DktH ClZZARD EHAD STRIPED MULI.ET THREADFIN SMAD YEARLY AVERAR YEARLY AVERAW YEARLY AVERAE YEARLY AVERAGE YEAuLY AVEuAGE STATION YEAR NL218ER**WEICHT***huMBEh WEICHT NthBER WE!GHT nth 8 t R h EICiti htitatR b t it.h T Ac I 5.4 898.3.5 141.4 24.5 19 74.0 2.4 527.3 1.5 16.5 11.3 138.2.2 31.2 7.2 452.7 9.8 2465 4 1.0 16.6 Ill 5.0 1612.6.4 76.2 20.1 1911.8 9.0 1901.0 3.0 40.7 At 1 5.2 1050.0.3 84.7 15.4 1814.4 4.1 974.3 7.8 224.7 11 2.3 601.8 8!!3.7 14.5 1646.4 10.2 1239.2 4.0 28.5 Ill 7.4 4979.7.9 29 6.5 10.6 2484.5 2.5 989.8 3.9 39 .4 Ec I 4.1 1768.5.3 67.5 25.9 2681.8 3.6 782.9 3.6 42.1 11.7 463.9.(a)63.3 5342.5 12.3 2707.1 1.7 17.8.Ill.9 561.5.5 164.4 37.2 8346.1 9.9 1470.0 3.6 82.9 8t 1 2.4 958.1 1.0 318.8 23.4 2140.8 12.0 2457.3 4.3 193.7 11 5.7 1657.6.7 73.1 18 . 0 2780.8 30.8 3245.7 3.0 12.8 Ill 6.0 2444.0.9 223.5 14.8 2320.8 11.1 1779.9 3.8 45.0 8t i 1.7 218.2.5 2.6 21.6 1737.5 3.1 645.6 2.9 94.6 g 11.8 534 0 1.3 174.6 17 .3 2264.3 19 .7 2952.0 1.2 7.5 lit 1.8 1936.5 1.6 420.3 11.4 2148.4 7.6 1894.9.9 6.8*la 2 teure of electroshocking and 48 hours of gilt netting
      • Number of Individuale
        • Espr essed in grase (C species not found at this station h5 Source of date: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Progree, supletand in Section 6.1.1.2.

    g p. o L'O Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2 5-2 3 NUMBER AND WEIGilT OF REPRESENTATIVE FISil SPECIES CAPIURED PER UNIT EFFORT

    • AT EACll STATION DURING YEARS I, II, AND Ili IN Tile VICINTIY OF WATERFORD 3 ALL DATA Bi1E CA17ISil FRm5dA1TR l@tM SdHARD DIAD SIB.IIG Mf ff H'P T11FEAfYIN St1AD STATION YI:AR N'EIClff (gs)

    NUMBER VEICirr(gn) ' tnJMBER

    • WEICiff(ge',*NUHBER WEICiff(ge)

    NUMBER WEICIE(gn) AC I 4.636 778.976.382 99.854 28.818 1912.625 4.191 768.584 1.364 15.88)II.333 138.167.167 35.167 7.167 452.783 9.833 2465.418 1.888 16.562 III 4.917 1571.891.417 73.617 28.583 1886.281 9.888 1888.236 3.880 48.511 AT I 4.545 869.688.258 64.743 13.515 1492.948 3.727 885.114 6.614 175.221 II 2.333 681.888.833 113.787 14.588 1646.363 18.167 1239.213 4.888 28.525 III 5.833 3899.941.667 222.349 8.588 1933.842 2.808 791.996 3.258 32.758 DC I 3.545 1486.521.273 55.973 23.273 2363.292 3.273 648.851 3.273 38.389 II.667 463.933.000.000 63.333 5342.559 12.333 27s7.s78 1.667 17.838 III.758 448.741.333!!5.217 36.883 8828.762 9.917 1469.957 3.5P3 82.886 BT I 2.873 786.391.873 238.914 28.782 1831.124 18.888 2211.688 3.488 142.922 II 5.667 1657.583.667 73.857 28.888 2788.881 38.833 3245.718 3.888 12.788 III 5.273 2194.668.917 223.484 14.689 2287.646 11.883 1779.684 3.883 45.888 BTl I 1.444 174.628.444 2.297 18.222 1294.688 2.667 565.558 2.111 54.948 II.833 533.983 1.333 174.568 17.333 2264.285 19.667 2951.956 1.167 7.467 III 1.588 1613.978 1.333 354.329 18.883 2397.611 6.917 1871.017.833 6.196* A unit effort represents: 48 hrs gill net set 2 hrs electroshocking CO E CO}.o C" O.Amendment No. 1, (9/79) . WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-24 (also 2.2-25 TOTAL NUMBER AND WEIGHT OF ALL FISH SPECIES CAPTURED PER UNIT EFFORT

    • AT EACH STATION DURINC YEARS I, II, III IN THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 VERIFIED DATA YEARLY YEARLY AVERACE AVERAGE STATION YEAR NUMBER **WEIGHT ***

    Ac I 43.7.6,924.4 11 25.3 8,243.7 III 50.6 10,585.1 At I 39.5 5,202.1 II 35.5 5,014.6 III 37.4 11,071.2 Be I 46.8 8,562.3 II 95.5 11,981.2 III 55.6 12,051.5 Bt I 47.9 9,229.0 II 74.0 9,731.7 III 39.3 7,893.9 Bt I 34.0 3,463.2 3 II 47.3 10,044.8 III 26.7 9,198.6*In 2 hours of electroshocking and 48 hours of gill netting

      • Number of individuals
        • Expressed in grams Source of data: Waterford 3 Environmental Surveillance Program, explained in Section 6.1.1.2 (g c, 9 , 4 a J v . ..U '-

    Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE A<2.5-25 TOTAL NUMBERS AND WEICHTS OF FISH CAPTURED PER UNIT EFFORT

    • AT EACH STATION DURING THE YEARS I, II AND III ld THE VICINITY OF WATERFORD 3 ALL DATA STATION YEAR NUMBER WEIGHT'(stm)

    AC I 38.882 6,178.071 II 25.333 8,243.753 III 50.083 10,253.695 AT I 34.288 4,334.847 II 35.500 5,014.588 III 30.167 8,666.472 BC I 41.727 7,397.515 II 95.500 11,981.343 III 53.833 11,439.246 BT I 42.936 8,290.283 II 74.069 9,731.738 III 38.242 7,568.430 BT1 I 28.900 2,622.264 II 47.333 19,844.842 III 23.667 7,866.587* A unit effort represents: 48 hrs gill nec set 2 hrs electroshocking 3 d3.!t.5.N-Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-26 (Also 2.2.-24) FRIEDi AN'S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; TESTING THE NULL HY:0 THESIS (H ) 0F g EQUAL CATCH / EFFORT

    • AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS YEAR I' VERIFIED DATA Cstch/ Effort STATION Ac ht Bc Bt Bt diue Catfish 5.429 5.233 4.089 2.375 1.700 Fresnwater Drum

    .486.322.322 1.042.500 Gizzard Shad 24.543 15.411 24.944 23.403 21.550 Striped Mullet 2.443 4.100 3.600 12.000 3.075 Thread fin Shad 1.500 7.800 3.600 4.431 2.900.Rank **Blue Catfish 5 4 3 2 1 Freshwater Drum 3 1.5 1.5 4 5 Gizzard Shad 4 1 5 3 2 Striped Mullet 1 4 3 5 2 Threadfin Shad 1 5 3 4 2 Sum of Ranks 14 15.5 15.5 19 11 Sum of Ranks 196 240.25 240.25 361 121 Squared X= 2.68#Fail to reject H ~b

      • " " " * * ^
    • E" I O different with respect to catch / effort
    • Per 48 hour gill net set and I hour electroshocking ef fort
      • Stations ranked according to catch /ef fort for species listed ( ties were averaged) .

    Source: Siegel S.Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1956. <; . o n. s.7 c .s.u -Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-27 FRIEDMAN' S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H,) 0F "*hCUAL CATCH / EFFORT AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS YEAR I -ALL DATA AVERAGE NUMBERS. Ac At Bc Bt Bt y Blue Catfish 4.636 4.545 3.545 2.073 1.444 Freshwater Drus 0.382.258 0.273 0.873 0.444 Gizzard Shaa 20.818 13.515 23.273 20.782 18.222 Striped Mullet 4.191 3.727 3.273 10.800 2.667 Threadfin Shad 1.364 6.614 3.273 3.400 2.111 RANK * *Ac At Be Bt Bt Blue Catfish 5 4 3 2 1 Freshweter Drum 3 1 2 5 4 Gizzard Shad 4 1 5 3 2 Striped Mullet 4 3 2 5 1 Threadfin Shad 1 5 3 4 2 s ,of Ranks 17 14 15 19 10 Sum of Kanks 289 196 225 361 100 Squared 3.68 X=r Fail to eject H : i.e., stations were not significantly different with respect to

    1. catch / effort
    • Per 48h gill net set and 1h electroshocking effort
    • Stations ranked according to catch /ef fort for species listed (ties were averaged).

    McGraw-Hil! Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Source: Book Company, Inc. 1956. e, c-o~a sJ rJ ss.a.ny r Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2.5-28 (Also 2.2-25) FRIEDMAN' S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H F O EQUAL CATCH / EFFORT

    • AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS YEAR III - VERIFIED DATA Catch 7 Effort

    -STATION Ac At Bc Bt Bt g Blue Catfish 5.015 7.389.875 6.000 1.773 Freshwater Drum .432.889.458.9 17 1.573 Gizzard Shad 20.697 10.622 37.167 14.845 11.355 Striped Mullet 9.030 2.456 9.9 17 11.083 7.600 Threadfin Shad 3.008 3.900 3.583 3.083.909 Rank **Blue Catfish 3 5 1 4 2 Freshwater Drum 1 3 2 4 5 Gizzard Shad 4 1 5 3 2 Striped Mullet I 1 4 5 2 Threadfin Shad 2 5 4 3 1 Sum of Ranks 13 15 16 19 12 Sum of Ranks 169 225 256 361 144 Squared X= 2.40 r Fail to reject H Stations were not significantly different =0 with respect to catch / effort.

    • Per 48 hour gill net sat and I hour electroshocking ef fort
      • Stations ranked according to catch / effort for species listed (ties were averaged)

    Source: Siegel S.Nonparameeric Statistics for th_e_ Behavorial Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1956 p -) s-)> .s < : -.LUd $s Amendment No. 1, (9/78) WSES 3 ER TABLE.A.2 5-29 FRIEDMAN' S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H O EQUAL CATCH / EFFORT *AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS YEAR III - ALL DATA STAT (0N AVERAGE NUMBERS 0 Ac At Bc Bt Bt Blue Catfish 4.197 5.833 0.750 5.273 1.500-Freshwater Drum 0.417 0.667 0.333 0.917 1.333 Gizzard Shaw 20.583 8.500 36.083 14.689 10.083 Striped Hu .let 9.000 2.000 9.917 11.083 6.917 Threadfin Shad 3.000 3.250 3.583 3.083 0.833**RANKS Ac At Bc Bt Bt y Blue Catfish 3 5 1 4 2 Freshwater Drum 2 3 1 4 5 Gizzard Shad 4 1 5 3 2 Striped Hullet 3 1 4 5 2 Threadfin Shad 2 4 5 3 1 14 14 16 19 12 Sum of Ranks 196 196 256 361 144 Sum of Ranks Squared X c 2.24 r. > . . ,..t't significantly different with respect to Fail to Reject H : i.e., statir.cs c2 , 0 catch / effort

    • Per 48h gill net set and ih electroshocking effort
      • Stations ranked according to catch / effort for species listed (ties were averaged).

    Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behav[ oral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Source: Book Company, Inc. 1956.OUSb.NU'Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE A.2 5-30 FRIEDMAN' S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TESTING IHE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H ) 0F g EQUAL CATCH / EFFORT *AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS YEAR'F - VERIFIED DATA STATION AVERAGE NUMBERS Ac At Bc Bt Bt Blue Catfish 5.026 5.309 3.214 1.812 2.333 Freshwater Drum 3.184 4.259 1.274 2.600 0.707 Gizzard Shad 3.675 12.557 21.098 16.898 12.884 Threadfin Shad 3.491 14.179 6.545 6.483 5.902 No Striped Mullet

    RANKS * *Ac At Be Bt Bt Blue Catfist 4 5 3 1 2 Freshuater Dr,tu 4 5 2 3 1 Gizzard Shad 1 2 5 4 3 Threadfin Shad 1 5 4 3 2 Sum of Ranks 10 17 14 11 8 Sum of Ranks 100 289 196 121 64 Squared.__%5=r Fail to Reject H :i.e., stations were not significantly different with respect to catch / effort
    • Unit effort represents: 5 min ottor trawl 5 min surface trawl 5 min midwater trawl
      • Stations ranked according to catch / effort for species listed (ties were averaged).

    Source: Siegel S.Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1956.(;" o 7 v d v .S ',n. O s Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE A*2 5-31 Fmm.AN' S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H_) 0F EQUAL . CATCH / EFFORT *AT 5 WATERFORD STAUCNS YEAR I - ALL DATA AVERAGE NUFBERS STATION Ac At Bc Bt Be Blue Catfish 3.874 4.052 1.652 1.033 0.785 Freshwater Dru:s 2.592 3.848 0.674 2.000 0.240 Gi==ard Shad 2.353 9.717 9.409 8.777 4.634 Threadfin Shad 2.477 9.382 3.932 3.638 2.294**RANKS Ac At Bc Bt Bt 1 Blue Catfish 4 5 3 2 1 Freshwater Drum 4 5 2 3 1 Giz=ard Shad 1 5 4 3 2 Threadfin Shad 2 5 4 3 1 Sum of Ranks 11 20 13 11 5 Sum of Ranks 121 400 169 121 25 Squared 11.6 I=r Reject H : 1.e., stations were significantly different with respect to catch / o effort, basically with more drum and catfish caught at"A" Stations* Unit effort represents: 3 min ottar trawl -5. min surface crawl 5 min midwater trawl

      • Stations ranked according to catch / effort for species listed (ties were averaged) .

    Source: Siegel S.gnoarametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1956.Odb bb Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TARLR a.2.5-32 FRIEDMAN' S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TESTING THE NULL HYFOTHESIS (H O EQUAL CATCH / EFFORT *AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS YEAR'III - VERIFIED DATE AVERAGE NUMENRS -._STATION AC At BC BC BC Blue Catfish 7.633 30.879 0.500 0.417 0.067 Frcshwater Drum 2.867 8.273 0 0.056 0.200 Gizzard Shad 0.367 0.788 0 0 0.083 Threadfin Shad 1.400 0.676 0.361 0.972 0.450**RANKS Ac At Bc Bt Bt Blue Catfish 4 5 3 2 1 Freshwater Drum 4 5 1 2 3 Gizzard Shad 4 5 1.5 1.5 3 1hreadfin Shad 5 3 1&2 Sum of Ranks 17 18 6.5 9.5 9 Sum of Ranks 289 324 42.25 90.25 81 , Squared[ = 10.65 r Reject Ho: f .e. , stations were significantly different with respect to catch / effort, basically with more drum and catfish caught at"A" Stations.* unit effert. represents:

    5. min ottar trawl 5.. min' surface trawl 5 min midwater trawl
      • Stations ranked according to catch /ef fort for species listed (ties were averaged).

    Source: Siegel S.Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1956.c..S4 n ij i)U.s.Us') Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE A 2 5-33 FRIEDMAN' S TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS (H O EQUAL CATCH / EFFORT *AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS YEAR III - ALL DATA AVERAGE NUMBERS

    rA r 10N Ac At Bc Bt Be Blue Catfish 6.250 27.805 0.083 0.083 0.028 Freshwater Drum 2.361 7.556 0 0.028 0.028 Gizzard Shad 0.306 0.556 0 0 0.028 Threadfin Shad 0.889 0. 139 0.139.306 0.111 9.9 36.1 0.2 0.4 0.1**RANKS Ac At Be Bt Bt Blue Catfish 4 5 2.5 2.5 1 Freshwater Drum 4 5 1 2.5 2.5 GLzzard Shad 4 5 1.5 1.5 3 Threadfin Shad 5 2.5 2.5 4 1~Sum of Ranks 17 17.5 7.5 10.5 7.5 Sum of Ranks 289 , 306.25 56.25 110.25 56W Squared 9.8 X=r Reject H
    1.e. , stations were significantly dif ferent with respect to catch /

    o effort, basically with more drum and catfish caught at"A" stations.* Unit effort represents: 5 min otter trawl 5 min surface trawl 5 min midwater trawl Stations ranked according to catch / effort for species listed (ties were averaged).

      • McGraw-Hill Source: Siegel S.

    Nonparametric Statistics for *_he Behavioral Sciences. Book Company, Inc. 1956.SUSL'O Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER T,ABI.E A 2.5-34

    SUMMARY

    OF RESULTS OF FRIELMAN'S IMO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TESTING FISil CATCH / UNIT EFFORT AT 5 WATERFORD STATIONS Failure to Data Type Year Reject ilo Reject ilo All Data, Electroshocking and Gill Net, I X 5 Most Abundant Species All Data, Electroshocking and Gill Net, III X 5 Most Abundant Species Verified Data, Trawls, 5 Most Abundant Species I X Verified Data, Trawls, 5 Most Abundant Species III X All Data, Trawls, 5 Mast Abundant Species I X All Data, Trawls, 5 Most Abundant Species III X Verified Data, Electroshocking and Gill Net, I X 5 Most Abundant Species (ER) Verified Data, Electroshocking and Gill Net, III X (p 5 Most Abundant Species (ER) CI (O Verified Data, Electroshocking and Gill Net, I Too Many Missing Data Points ba]Freshwater Drum [rd Verified Data, Electroshocking and Gill Net, III Too Many Missing Data Points Freshwater Drum Verified Data, Electroshocking and Gill Net, I Too Many Missing Data Points Blue Catfish Verified Data, Electroshocking and Gill Net, III Too Many Missing Data Points Blue Catfish Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER 6 APPENDIX 3-1 Introduction This appendix contains two analyses of compliance with 10CFR50, Appendix I f or Waterford Unit No. 3. The original analysis was prepared to demon-strate compliance with appendix I and is contained as an attachment to a letter to the NRC dated June 4, 1976. This original analysis was based on the following: three years of onsite meteorological data; Regulatory Guide 1.111, dated March 1976; Draf t Regulatory Guide 1.109 and the results of an April 1976 field survey which located critical receptors. The original analysis and the transmittal letter for this demonstration of compliance with Appendix I are contained in their entirety herein. 1 Also, in response to NRC Question No. 332.6 on the OLER, an updated field survey for the location of critical receptors was performed in June, 1979. It was considered necessary to incorporate the updated critical receptor information into the Appendix I compliance analysis. The updated analysis is based on: four years of meteorological data; Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1, dated July, 1977; Regulatory Guide 1.109 dated March, 1976 and the results of the June, 1979 critical receptor-location-field survey. The updated information is presented in Table A-Sa, A-3a and the results of the updated analysis of compliance with Appendix I do not change any of the conclusions of the original analysis. O' ~Q ? ino u d o.L. t o 1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TALLC A-3a* ATTACR*ENT 1 AT'lOSPHERIC DISPERSION AND DEPOSITI3N FACTORS (JUNE 1972-JUNE 1975 FEBRUARY 1977-FZBRUARY 1978) Mixed Release (Grnud Level Release ~ Annual Annual t!o Annual Anw . i A/y Annual}/Q Lepletgd Depoqition Annual 3/Q Depletej)De; ogt ion Distance ,,)#( se c /?1 (::)-sru Direction (Miles)( sec /" )( s ec h: )(M - )(see M )-7-I-5-6-0 Site Bounda ry ".0.8M 8.58 x 10-7 8.33 x 10 9.52 x 10 1.06 x 10 9,47 x 19 3.18 x 10-7-7-9-6-6-0 Milk Cows NW 0.9 7.53 x 10 7.33 x 10 7.44 x 10 7.91 x 10 6.99 x lu 2.34 x 10-7-5-6-0 Beef Cattle W 0.8 8.65 x 10-7 8.40 x 10 9.64 x 10-9 1.08 x 10 9.61 x 10 3.23 x 10? L'O.8 8.11 x 10-7 7.88 x 10-7 1.04 x 10-8 1.34 x 10-5 1.20 x 10-5 3.37 x 10-0 Milk Ccats t 3.1 7.24 x 10-8 7.09 x 10 1.77 x 10 3.74 x 10 2.95 x 10 4.68 x 10-10

    • -10-7-7-7'I-9-6-6-8 Vegetable Garden WNW 0.9 6.90 x 10 6.72 x 1 6.53 x 10 5.74 x 10 5.08 x 10 2.00 x 10 g NW 0.9 7.53 x 10-7 7.33 x 10 7.44 x 10-9 7.91 x 10 6.99 x 10 2.34 x 10-7-6-0-7-7-9-6-6-8 Nearest Pesidence W 0.9 7.53 x 10 7.33 x 10 7.44 x 10 7.99 x 10 6.99 x 10 2.34 x 10 I ) Source terms associated with mixed releases include gaseous effluents from all sources except the turbine building releases which are considered to be at ground level.( ) Receptor locat ions based on survey by Ebasco, June, 1979.
    • This table is not part of the original June,1976 submittal to the NRC. It is provided as an update to the original Table A-3 as a demenstration that the radiological evaluations and conclusions originally provided in June 1976 remain valid.

    I i CO 2 C'E O g M--J--9-- WSES 3 ER TABLE A-Sa* MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL DOSES FROM TERRESTRIAL PATHWAYS Air Dose Whole Body Thyroid Skin Pathway (mrad /yr)(mrem /yr)(mrem /yr)(mrem /yr) All Age Groups: Camma Air Dose It Site Boundary 2.2(-2)(2) Beta Air Dose At Site Boundary 4.7(-2)Tissue Dose From External Exposure 1.2(-2)1.2(-2)3.4(-2)Ground Shine Dose 6.7(-2)6.7(-2)7.8(-2)Adults: Inhalation Dose 2.4(-2)4.l(-2)2.3(-2)Ingestion Doses Leafy Vegetables 1.2(-1)2.2(-1)1.0(-1)Cow Milk 5.9(-2)4.4(-1)3.8(-2)1 Goat Milk 7.4(-3)1.7(-2)6.0(-3)Beef 3.0(-2)9.3(-2)2.6(-2)Teen: Inhalation Dose 1.3(-2)-2)1.3(-2)~Ingestion Doses Leafy Vegetables 1.3(-1)2.1(-1)1.1(-1)Cow Milk 6.8(-2)6.5(-1)4.8(-2)Goat Milk 8.4(-3)2.3(-2)7.0(-3)Beef 1.9(-2)3.1(-2)1.7(-2)Child: Inhalation Dose 1.3(-2)3.2(-2)1.3(-2)Ingestion Doses Leafy Vegetables 2.4(-1)3.6(-1)2.2(-1)(1) The location of c_ch pathway of exposure and the atmospheric dispersion and deposition factore used to obtain these values are presented in Table A-3a. (2)() denotes power of 10

    • This table is not part of the original June, 1976 submittal to the NRC.It is provided as an update to the original Table A-5 as a demonstration that the radiological evaluations and conclusions originally provided in June 1976 remain valid.

    333174 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER IAELE A-Sa (Cont'd) Air Dose Whole Body Thyroid Skin Pathway (mrad /yr)(mrem /yr)(mrem /yr)(mrem /yr) Cow Milk 1.1 (-1)1.3 (0)9.7 (-2)Goat Milk 1.4 (-2)4.4 (-2)1.3 (-2)Beef 3.0 (-2)5.0 (-2)2.8 (-2)1 Infant: Inhalation Dose 1.4 (-2)4.7 (-2)1.4 (-2)Ingestion Doses Leafy Vegetables N/A N/A N/A Cow Milk 2.0 (-1)3.0 (0)1.8 (-1)Goat Milk 2.4 (-2)9.9 (-2)2.3 (-2)Beef N/A N/A N/A su 9 q r,c-.i J 2.s.s. t J Amendment No. 1, (9/79) , 4000 3000 2000* JAN-FEB-MAR (WINTER) m a A PR - M AY - JU N (SPRING) , u x JUL - AUG-SEP (SUMMER) e eoo**$o OCT - NOV -DEC (FALL) m o o m o ALL MONTHS ".*o*8" .@ 1000 4 4*< 900_.m a ,: s800 ,, g;;--;" m*f 700 , m'*'-o..o L, i*j600 , , . " ,p' -o--,9 ,*, ,f-C' 500= = "-^o o.., = . . .,x o o 400 , , . -g n: g 8 3 p.=o g*mens x c,e o g 300 r. = "" o*. . g.i ,o , , xoo**.x a"*"a"'.a 200: o E o X XX'ogoIIX o o g"o f'" o CO o o#e Cl a o o o o o o c c.9$'01 0.0501 02 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.8 99.9 99.99 d.PROB A BILITY % FOR FLOW LESS TH AN OR EQU AL TO AMENDMENT NO.1 (9/79) LOUISIANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOW STATISTICS - BASED ON AVERAGE Waterford Steam MONTHLY FLOWS FOR PERIOD 1942 THROUGH 1976 SA 1 Electric Station WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.0 Argonne National Laboratory 301.1 Section 2.1.3 Please provide references 27, 28, 31, and 32. Response The requested reference material has been submitted to the NRC under separate cover. ., vdog>,,.: u. s e 301.1-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER question No. 301.2 See: ion 2.4 Please provide references 10, 11, 17, and 18. Response The requested reference material has been submitted to the NRC under separate cover. c ' n y >< < a u d s . a. ( U 301.2-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.3 Section 3.3.4c Specify the type of filtration media used in primary water treatment plant. Response The specf fications for the filter media in the primary water treatment plant are described below: Quantity - 2 filters !Diameter - 8 ft (50.3 sq ft) Material Size Depth Volume Sand 10-20 mesh 2'8" 3/4 117.5 cu ft Sand 8-12 mesh 2'8" 3/4 137.5 cu ft Gravel 3/8" x 5/8" l'7" 5/8 82.5 cu fe Total 7'1" 1/8 357.5 cu ft , G.J ,, a. t u). a.a 301.3-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.4 Section 3.6.2 Estimate the types of metals and concentrations in the influent to the Waterford 1 and 2 waste treatment facility from Waterford 3 preoperational cleaning wastes and process waste streams.Estimate percent removals of these metals by the Waterford 1 and 2 waste pond. Describe the method of solid waste disposal from the pond. Respontz The Waterford 3 preoperational cleaning waste will first flow to the Waterford 3 metal waste holding pond and af terwards to the Waterford 1 and 2 metal waste pond. Several Waterford 3 process waste streams, (e.g., from the steam generator blowdown system and the condenser hot well dump), will also flow to the Waterford 1 and 2 metal waste pond.The treated effluent will comply with the applicable EPA Ef fluent Limitations Guidelines. a)Preoperational Cleaning Wastes Re f e r to revised Section 3.6.4. b)Process Wastes 1)Steam Generator Blowdown Under normal operation, steam generator blowdown is treated and reused as a makeup to the steam cycle. As shown in Figure 3.5-5 of the OLER, the demineralizer regeneration waste and electromagnetic filter flush, if determined to have acceptable levels of radioac-tivity, flow to the Waterford '. and 2 metal waste po nd .Similarly, if the steam generator blowdown is not reused and if it is found to be within acceptable levels of radioactivity; it is conveyed to the Waterford 1 and 2 metal waste pond f or treatment and ultimate disposal. The metal constituents and concentratic ns of the above mentioned three waste streams are given below: n or cp s.s d ) . 's, Y ' 301.5-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Flows (gpm) Concentration (ppm) a) Electromagnetic 0-100 Iron 0-667 Filter Flush (600-1000 Copper 0-333 gallons /back-wash of filter) b) Regeneration 0-200 Iron *Waste (17,000 gal / Co pper *regeneration) Iron 0.1-1 c) Steam Generator 50-350 Copper 0.05-Blowdown ** 0.5*Normally iron and copper in the blowdown will be removed in the electromagnetic filter and therefore the chances of fi :ing iron and copper in the regeneration wastes are remote. However, if the electromagnetic filter is not in opera-tion, iron and copper may be f ound in the demine-ralizer regeneration waste stream. The deminera-lizer regenerant wastes and the electroaagnetic filter flush are conveyed through the same pipe to the waste treatment facility.

      • Normally there is no blowdown discharge.

    2)Hot Well Dump Occasional releases of condensate may be required due to high water levels in the condenser hot well. This condensate dump may range up to 500 gpm and would be conveyed to the Waterford 1 and 2 metal waste pond for treatment. The metal constituent con-centrations (which are the control limits) and the pH are given below: Constituent Concentration Iron Fe 4 10 ppb Copper Cu Z-5 ppb pH 8. 2 - 9.2 As the concentration of metals in the waste varies, it is not possible to estimate the pe rcentage removal efficiency in the treatment system but the treated effluent concentrations of iron and copper are both expected to be below 1 ppm and theref ore in compli-ance with the EPA Effluent Limitation Guidelines. 8bb.$Ib 301.4 2 Amendnent No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER The solid waste generated by the metal waste treatment facility is removed f or of f site disposal by a con-tr acted hauler. <;rev....< s.1. :r . a. ,J. . 301.4-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.5 Section 3.6.2.1 Estimate the frequency of chlorination of raw water prior to filtration (in days /yr) and approximate amount of chlorine needed during each application. Response Refer to revised Section 3.6.2.1. c,--.y r.n ros) ~> .:.. O ' ' ,. .301.5-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.6 Section 3.6.2.2 Estimate the volume of the corrosion inhibitor solution con-taining sodium nitrate

    • and sodium metasilicate to be applied during startup and operation and frequency of application dur-ing operation.

    Response The corrosion inhibitor solution is a mixture of sodium nitrite (85 percent) and sodium metasilicate (15 percent). The concentrations at startup are 700 ppm for sodium nitrite and 120 ppm for sodium metasilicate. This solution is circulated in the Component Cooling Water System (84,000 gal) and Turbine Closed Cooling Water System (32,000 gal). The amount of chemical used for both systems at startup is 800 lb. Since both systems are closed systems, no signific. ant depletion of nitrite is anticipated and thus no regular makeup is neces-s a ry , lloweve r , the Turbine Closed Cooling Water System and the Compo-nent Cooling Water System are partially drained when turbine repairs or internal inspection are necessary. The chemical ese for the Turbine Closed Cooling Water System and the Component Cooling Water System are expected to be 220 lb and 580 lb, res-pectively when the systems are completely drained. As noted in Section 3.6.2.2, when the Turbine Closed Cooling Water System or the Component Cooling Water System is drained, the water is conveyed to hold up tanks for later treatment in the Waste Management System or for later return to these systems for reuse.*The term sodium nitrate in the question should be replaced by sodium nitrite.a3 ? ~ cs c (71 s><)se...L3,2 301.6-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.7 Sections 3.6 and 3.7 Because of the known harmful ef fects of chlorine and the resulting chlorinated organic compounds, have any alternative methods, such as BrCl, been considered for biogrowth control disinfection and oxidation? Response As noted in Section 3.6.3 of the OLER, routine usage of a biocide is not expected as a result of the heavy silt load in the Mississippi River which tends to cause a continuous scour of the condenser tubes. Based on operating experience at Uaterf ord 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy, this scouring action is sufficient to control f ouling from nuisance organisms. The following alternative biocides were considered: Chlorination Ozonation Bromine Chloride Copper Sulf ate 1)Chlorination Chlorination is the most widely used method for the con-trol of biological f ouling in circulating cooling water systems for utilities. Biogrowth control in a cooling water system is typically achieved by adding sufficient chlorine to maintain a chlorine residual. At Waterf ord 3 the free residual chlorine concentration prior to discharge is expected to be 0.2 ppm average, and 0.5 ppm maximum. Chlorine is not expected to be dis-charged for more than 2 hours per day. The advantages related to the chlorination method are the following: a)It is a proven efficient and reliable method to con-trol condenser biofouling. b)A wide variety of types of equipment to adequately apply and control chlorine concentrations are cur-rently available. c;.c C) > .s t -.ta

    • e, 301.7-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/ 79)

    WSES 3 ER c)It is an economically competitive methed. d)Since the increase in chlorine concentration in the Mississippi River is very small, no harmful ef fects are anticipated. e)A dry chlorine manual feed system is amenable with the planned inf requent usage of a biocide at Water-ford 3.2)Ozonation Ozone is typically generated onsite by the application of an electrical discharge through dry air or oxygen. The germicidal properties may stem from the formation of oxygen when ozone is applied to water. Ozone has a biocidal action approximately twice that of chlorine and the contact time is also comparatively shorter. Ozonation was not the selected method because of the fol-lowing disadvantages: a)Ozone must be generated onsite which is not cost ef-fective especially in this case since it is anticipated that the system will be used very inf requently. b)Research is still required to find a parameter for controlling ozone dosage. c)The capital investment for onsite generation makes ozonation more expensive than chlorination. The capital cost is from three to six times highe this alternative as compared to chlorination { {or .d)An ozonation system would require a separate hand-ling and injection system. In addition, no full scale ozonation facilities are known to be operational to control biological fouling in circu-lating water systems for electric generating stations. 3)Bromine Chloride Bromine chloride is a chemical disinfectant which is similar to chlorine in its germicidal qualities. Ilowever, when compared to chlorine at the same dosages, bromamines are superior to chloramines in biocidal activity. Pilot plant evaluatiensshowtha{proggginesare less stable 'than chloramines in water Iloweve r , this method was not selected for the following reasons: 301.7-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79).ae e"t / s.h w LS L" s's WSES 3 ER a)The operational costs would be excessive when compared to the use of chlorine. Operational costs were developed during a field test program by the Public Service Electric and Cas Company. The yearly opera-tional cost to maintain a 0.5 ppm halogen residual is $11,000{pybrominechlorideand$4,000for chlorine b)To our knowledge this method is not comme rcially operational for use in once through condenser cooling systems.c)Additional research is required to establish a min-imum effective halogen residual. The toxicity of brominated organic compounds are generally greater than the corresponding chlorine compounds and additional studies will be required to determine the health effect consequences. d)The bramine chloride supplie grelimitedandwill remain so in the near future 4)Copper Sulfate Treatment Copper sulf ates are seldom used alone to control biologi-cal f ouling because it is primarily effective in control-ling algae and other chemicals must be used for the con-trol of bacteria and fungi. The uses of copper sulfate has also not been proven in operational use for biological control in large cooling water systems. References 1.Disinfection of Waste Water. Task Force Report. EPA-630/975-012, March 1976. 2.Wackenhuth, E C, E. Levine , " Experience for the Use of Bromine Chloride for Antif ouling at Steam Electric Generating Stations", presented at Johns Hopkins University, June 16 - 19, 1975. .c ..G%,'$$]301.7-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.8 Estimate the frequency of chlorine application to the circu-lating coolf ng water in days /yr. Response Based on recent operating experience at the nearby Little Gypsy Generating Station and Waterford 1 and 2, it is expected that chlorination would be practiced at Waterford 3 approximat ely twenty (20) days /yr. <;O s.i .n.uu

    c, y , 9*s 301.8-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)

    WSES 3 ER Question No. %301.9 Section 3.6.6 Identify the wetting agent to be used in the preoperational cleaning solution. Response The chemical name of the wetting agent to be used for preopera-tional cleaning is Alkyl-aryl polyether alcohol. It is manu-f actured by Rohm-Ilan s and has the following formula: CH-CH- (OCH CH ) - OH 8 17 64 2 2x$$$$$$ ?.lj{D 301.9-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.10 Section 5.1 Please provide reference 1. Response The requested reference material has been submitted to the NRC under separate cover. m.u v a'.za d ,k!> = '301.10-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.11 Supply any additiot.al Mississippi River wter temperature data acquired prior to or since that provided in Tables 2.4-11, 12, 13, and 14. Response Refer to revised Subsection 2.4 and revised Tables 2.4-11, 12, 13, and 14. v g'(a;4 va o.u . .301.11-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER yuestion No. 301.12 Please explain how the values of t he va riou s pa ra ne t e r s on Table 5.1-4 are determined. For example, the 5"F excess isotherm for summer and f all extend from river bank to river hank, cs shown in Figures 5.1-4 and 5.1-5, and yet the maxi-lateral spread listed on the Table 5.1-4 is only 1700 ft. mum For non-connected isotherms (e.g. 10 F). explain what the entry in fable 5.1-4 refers to (the sum, *he largest, etc.). .Response values in the Table 5.1-4 are either the di rec t results of the predictive model or are calculated from the results of the pre-dictive model. The following quantities are the direct results of the predic-tive model: Zm is the maximum vertical penetration of the 10 F, 5 F, or 3.6 F isotherm over the entire area of interest.Xm is the maximum longitudinal (along-stream) extent of the 10 F, 5 F or 3.6 F isotherm. Ym is estimated from the plet of surface plumes. It re-presents a maximum summed cross-sectional ext ent of a given a T across a river section. Tm is the maximum travel time through a plume to the downstream limits of the 10 F, 5 F and 3.6 F isotherms and is taicalated from the predicted plume length and the effective river velocity at each discharge site. It is true that the 5 F excess isotherms for summer and fall extend from river bank to river bank (Figures 5.1-4 and 5.1-5). Ilowe ve r , if the longest cross-sectional line is drawn as indi-cated in the accompanying Figure 301.12-1, the extent is seen to be 1700 feet. For non-connected isotherms, the maximum lat-eral extent as indicated in the accompanying Figure 301.12-2 for the 10 F isotherm, is 700 + 450 = 1150 feet (f.e., the sum).The following quantities are estiruated from the cross-section and the surface plumes predicted by the model: Ac/Ar is the maximum cross-sectional coverage of the 10 F, 5 F or 3.6 F isotherms (Ac) expressed as a f proportion of the total river section (Ar) at the Water-ford 3 discharge. 301.12-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) sss): c q n rnQ.A..1+s ge WSES 3 ER Vol is the total volumetric extent occupied by the 10 F, 5 F or 3.6 F isotherm. As is the total surf ace areal extent of the 10 F, 5 F or 3.6 F isotherm. @3-c c. q1 g.J .J . L " 5 301.12-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) _w--RIVER FLOW 30,000tes LITTL E GYPSY STATION UNIT l.2 8 3 015CH A RG E E XCESS TEMP 18 4'F YOLUME R ATE (443 T CF S 7 ,[1700 F E E T OlSCHARGE\d f.2w n ATED g,,, j\y_ JN E R 80tADA R Y E xCE SS IE MPil9'F \7*4-,'%S'S/VOLUME R ATE 955 8CFS F 3 ,,, , 3 ,, ,~~7 , ~ . , ,/-. f. ~ , _ . - . . . , ,*, . le AT E FF CR01 IN T AA E (,, 015 CH AR G E N EXCESS TE MP : it lJ F g, pj VOLUME R AT E : 2235 CFS .jag a AT E R F 0 4 0 STATION ry t000 0 1000 2000 3000 4 000 5000 W f'F-C H W-- - h SCALE IN FEET LOUISlANA p 9"POWER & LIGHT CO. PREDICTED EXCESS ISOTHERMS (oF) AT THE SURFACE Waterford Steam COMBINED FIELD - AVERAGE SUMMER RIVER FLOW CONDITION 301.12-1 Electric Station x\.kiv ER FLO, 650 000 c4 ulTTLE StP3V$'A'I:%, s%I*,2 3 3 [ ISCH A4 3E E u;E CS TE wP i64'8 ,0LUWE ESTE !44 3 7 :IS .. er: ...au 0*s's.E. ,'- 700 F E E T ,c , 0,s c < a s s E , s.'- ', 3,, m .,g ,;x,o s v. 4*E : -En:ESS TEwa-19"r )*.OLLwE 4 ATE : 9tt 9:FS

    • s' r/..__.##3'-453 FEET' . , s , ,. cur:s; 3

    's.%TASE Ol$ CHARGE ~,as EncE ss TE va o" ,0,y w! E AT E : 2!i3 9 FS ,,'rA" e&TEpF040 $TATIO% fl!y 0'XC Z>X DX 4'03 IXC.c a .~>-- m t;;s: ate i% FtE' t, c.*4%v.LOUISlANA Figure POWER & LIGHT CO. PREDlCTED EXCESS ISOTHERMS ( F) AT THE SURFACE Waterford Steam CCvBINED FIELD - AVERAGE SPR:NG RIVER FLO'a CONDITION 301.12-2 Electric Staton WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.13 For low river flow conditions, the predicted excess temperature distributions in Mississippi River due to thermal plume inter-action are questionable. In Appendix 5-1, no jus t i fica t ions were given for assuming that the combined excess temperature at a given point in the thermal field as a result of operating the three generating plants can be obtained by linea rly com-bining the excess temperature due to the independent ope ra t ion of each plant. Please discuss this in more detail. Response The Waterford 3, Waterford 1 and 2, and Little Gypsy discharges a re situated in a stretch of a major bend in t he river (see response to Question No. 301.15 for explanation of modeling technique for river bend), where non-uniform velocity distri-butions are encountered. An exacting mathematical analysis of temperature ef fects due to multiple discharges in such a flow regime is not possible with available plume models. For this reason, a conservative predictive method was used to evaluate temperature ef fects in the Mississippi River at Waterford. As mentioned in the OLER, available field data indicated that the Little Gypsy and Waterford 1 and 2 discharges, located on opposite sides of the river channel, were quite independent from each other. Howe ver, the Waterford 3 discharge during the average low flow seasons (a verage summer and average fall) is judged to be jet-like and can penetrate beyond the ri ver channel.Thus, during average low flow seasons, the Waterford 3 discharge can interact with the Little Gypsy discharge or 'he Waterford 1 and 2 discharge. Due to its location downstream from Waterford 1 and 2 and across t he ri ver from Little Gypsy, the Waterford 3 discharge can interact only wi th t he farfield regions of the other discharges. Therefore, the Waterford 3 discharge interacts with ambient water of varying excess temperature which originated from one or both of the other dir; charges. One characteristic of a jet-like discharge is to reduce the temperature of a thermal plume by entraining cooler ambient wa te r .Howe ve r , if the ambient receiving water temperature has been raised by other discharges, t he ef fectiveness of this cooling process will be reduced. A vaila ble the rmal models, such as the Pyrch-Davis-Shirazi (PDS) jet discharge model used for Waterford 3, do not allow for entrainment in a varying temperature field. Ad justme nt of these modele to accurately represent this process is not practicable. There-fore, the conservative approach of superposing temperature fields from the three discharges was utilized in the OLER.(r n ? or-ads)M2U 301.13-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER'Ihis approach to estimating the combined field ef fects is justified below by deriving an alternatim formulation that explicitly includes the effects of Waterford 1 and 2 thermal discharges on the receiving water temperature at the Waterford 3 discharge. A similar alternative formulat ion can be de veloped for the interaction between the discharges of Waterford 3 and Little Gypsy. Bis alternatiw formulation will be compared with the approach presented in the OLFR to show that the results based on the superposition principle are reasonable estimates of the combined temperature field at Waterford. For the purpose of this response, withdrawal of heated water by the Waterford 3 intake is ignored. The re f o re , the excess discharge temperature above the recei ving water temperature at the Waterford 3 outlet s t ruc tu re can be expressed as ( at - d'12) where at is the te mpe ra t u re rise across jo 30 the .vaterford 3 condenser and aL is the excess surface temperature contributedbytheWafe.,rford 1 and 2 discharge at the Waterford 3 discharge point. As a re su lt of jet entrain-ment and mixing with a cooler ambient water of excess temper-a tu re at this net d is char ge excess temperature will be l2, reduced to a lower combined excess te mpe ra tu re , at , at a distence downstream from the Waterford 3 outlet. TEis implies an ef fectiw dilution (D) of the magnitude: D = ( at- OE12)/ at .30 c The tra vel distance required to achie ve a given dilution is dependent on the jet Froude number. For the Waterford cape, it can be shown that the value of the je t Froude number for warmer receiving water temperatures is higher than that for a je t discharging into a cooler rece i ving water. Therefore, a shorter travel distance is required to achiew a given dilution when the receiving water temperature is ele vated - as in the Waterford 3 situation. In the following analysis, how-e ve r , this phenomenon is neglected; that is, the same dilution (D) is conservatively assumed to occur at the field point where the amount of dilution due to the Waterford 3 discharge alone 3 3), whe re at3 P'is gi ven by ( a t at" " * 'independent contr2bution of the Waterford 3 discharge at a point where the anount of dilution expected is D. Thus, D= ( at- d '12)! 0'c 30 3 0/ at" 30 or at at-1 O'12*-3--D Downs t ream of Water ford 3, the combined excess temperature abow the original receiving water te mpe ra tu re is obtained by adding this excess temperature, at to the excess ambient , WaterfoEd 3, at river water temperature at l2" If (O'12)represents an average value of the variable at al ng the l2'&.?.h;301.13-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Waterford 3 plume trajectory, the combined excess temperature can be expressed as: 4t ,j=<dtl2> + Ot at3 + F <4 tl2> =c where, OE3)I O E30* t" (OE F~30 The OLER presents an alternative formulation based on super-position to estimate the combined excess temperature field. In Section 4.4 of OLER Appendix 5-1, the conservation of local energy flux resulted in the combined excess temperature, dt wl2LG 4t at = dt W3 + (1+R=c,ER w3)Using the following changes in notation: = U'3 Aty3 - At3,Atwl2LG " A 12, R ) = U v3 w at e mes R3 R3 e,ER At 0 O~c,ER 3 u 12 R3 where F=," UR3 + U3 Table 301.13-1 was prepared using PDS model results for average summer and average fall river conditions. The alternative expressions for excess temperature distribution, At and at can be compared through the products Fudtl2

    • ER F<Sf l23 From the table , F At is consistently 12 and greater than Fgt p. Cc' responding values of At12 y (at y are taken from Table 301.14-2.

    This result demonstrates l than the combined field temperature ef fects presented in the OLER were indeed reasonable and conservative e stimates. Com-puted values of at which esplicitly take into account the eifect of entrainins darmer water, would be expected to ap-proximate the values of at presented in the OLER. c,ER As stated earlier, this explicit expression of the combined excess temperature field was not used in the OLER due to the necd for extensive modifications to the existing thermal models.r; ;-y, o v v a.m.dy 301.13-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 301.13-1 Comparison of Explicit Model with OLER Model Results (No Recirculation f rom Waterf ord 1 and 2 considered) U'3 at at 3 30 R 812!(fps)( F)( F)(fps)F F F(at )Average Summer 1.47 15.78 16.1 1.6.02.52 26.0 1.47 14.67 16.1 1.6.09.52 5.8 1.44 13.54 16.1 1.6.16.53 3.3 1.36 12.16 16.1 1.6.25.54 2.2 1.27 11.12 16.1 1.6.31.56 1.8 1.03 9.39 16.1 1.6.42.61 1.5.65 7.3 16.1 1.6.55.71 1.3.32 5.56 16.1 1.6.66.83 1.2.082 3.81 16.1 1.6.76.95 1.1 Average Fall 1.3 18.66 19.7 1.4.05.52 10.4 1.3 17 .22 19.7 1.4.13.52 4.1 1.28 16.27 19 .7 1.4.17. ,2 3.'1.21 14.43 19 .7 1.4.27.54 2.1.06 12.46 19.7 1.4.37.57 1.5.86 10.65 19.7 1.4.46.62 1.4.53 8.26 19.7 1.4.58.73 1.3.26 6.31 19 .7 1.4.68.84 1.1.11 4.89 19 .7 1.4.75.93 1.0 Where: U'3= increase in river velocity due to the Waterford 3 discharge At= excess field temperature contributed by Waterford 3 discharge 3 at= condenser rise of Waterford 3 plant 30 U= river vel city of Waterford 3 R3"(0}0 g)!#E]0 F~ OE t d d.uus at) es- e s 'i t r F=U (U R3 R3 U'3 301.13-4 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Questier. No. 301.14 The ef fects of recirculation between the Waterf ord 1 and 2 discharge and Waterford 3 intake under a wide variety of flow conditions were not clearly described in ER. Please provide a more comprehensive discussion. Response This response addresses the ef fects of recirculation between the Waterford 1 and 2 discharge and the Waterf ord 3 intake by: 1)Presenting conservative estimates of the excess temperature at the Waterford 3 intake resulting f rom the Waterford 1 and 2 discharge, 2)Presenting excess temperature values for the farfield region of the Waterford 3 thermal plume with and without considering the effects of recirculation from Waterford 1 and 2 under several river flow condi-tions, and 3)Showing that the analysis of recirculation presented in the OLER is reasonable. Water temperature at the Waterford 3 intake is influenced by the thermal discharge from Waterford 1 and 2. The contribution of excess temperature from Waterford 1 and 2 is expected to be more evident during summer and f all, than during the higher flow periods of winter and spring. The buoyancy of the Waterford 1 and 2 plume keeps much of the heated water within a top layer of the water column, while the Waterf ord 3 intake canal opening is located between - 1 ft and - 35 f t MSL. As a result, only a small f raction of the water withdrawn by Waterford 3 is comprised of heated water f rom Wr.terf ord 1 and 2. In addition, a skimmer wall, which is located at the entrance of the intake canal, could provide a barrier to the surface thermal plume of the Waterford 1 and 2 di scharge . The excess temperature at the Waterford 3 intake was calculated presented in Section 4.3.1 of using the expression f or At31 the OLER Appendix 5-1. It was derived from the Edinger and Polk model based on the conservative assumption of withdrawing from the entire water columns at the intake. The results of this calculation for each average season are shown in Table 301.14-1 as At The data indicate that the magnitude 31 At is quite small when compared to the Waterford 3 31, condenser rise,At and the excess temperature of the 30, receiving water at the Waterford 3 discharge location, contri-buted by the Waterford 1 and 2 discharge, At 1? 3d, At1 3d Ikmodel5fnegleckingany was obtained' from the Edinger and P 301.14-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)'5S200 d WSES 3 ER additional dilution resulting from heat transported upstream of Waterford 1 ano 2 by the back eddy. The data presented above show that the effect of recirculation from Waterford 1 and 2 is expected to increase the Waterford 3 discharge temperature by about 4-5% during the summer and fall seasons and by about 1-2% during winter and spring seasons. For example, Table 301.14-2 presents excess water temperatures at selected distances downstream of the Waterford 3 discharge during the summer and fall seasons. Figures in the column labelled at represent the excess tenperatures in the Waterford 3 tE$rm51 plume when tecirculation from the Waterford c 1 and 2 discharge to the Waterford 3 intake is explicitly in-cluded.The figures in the rightmost column represent the -0).elevated temperatures assuming no recirculation (at31 These increases indicate that recirculation from Waterford 1 and 2 into the Waterford 3 intake has a small effect on the Waterford 3 excess temperature distribution. This result supports the thermal analyses presented in the OLER, in which the effect of withdrawal of heated water at the Waterford 3 intake was assumed to have a negligible effect on the Water-ford 3 plume temperature. The reasonableness of the assumption'regarding recirculation made in the OLER is demonstrated below by employing a formula-tion similar to that presented in the response to Question No. 301.13, where the Waterford 3 intake temperature was not treated explicitly in the expression defining the combined field temperature. During average summer and fall river flow conditions, (280,000 and 240,000 cfs respectively), the Waterford 3 discharge is characterized by a jet-like behavior where the jet entrainment process quickly dilutes the thermal discharge with surrounding (ambient) water. Both the intake water temperature and ambient water temperature at the Waterford 3 outlet structure are raised by the Waterford 1-ad 2 discharge (see Table 301.14-1). Therefore, the excess temperature of the Waterford 3 discharge is raised from at 30 to at'30= at30 + at3 where at 31 is the depth-averaged increase intheinka,kewatertemperature due to the Waterford 1 and 2 discharge. The net excess discharge temperature from Waterford 3, account-ing for the excess temperature due to the Waterford 1 and 2 surface plume at the point of the Waterford 3 discharge 30 toat"30*030-at (at12,3d), is reduced from at l2,3d Following the procedure used in responding to Question No. 301.13, the excess temperature of the combined thermal field, at can be approximated by the expression recir, S$)tSOA.301.14-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER/Ot30)dt3+Ft <dt12 3 ate,recir " (1 + Ot31 in which the recirculation ef fect, at31, and the excess temp-erature of the receiving water, At17 , have been included ex-plicitly.The terms are defined in Table 301.14-3. Table 301.14-2 presents a comparison of this estimate of the excess temperature field to at the combined field temp- , erature presented in the OLER. 'NluesofAt for both ne-thods are tabulated for average summer and a6erage fall river flow conditions at several distances from the Waterford 3 out-let structure. The tabulated data show small differences be-tween At and At indicating that the combined temperatud distribut[$fihresented in the OLER for average summer and average fall conditions are reasonable and conser-vative.During average winter and average spring river flow conditions, the Waterford 3 discharge exhibits non-jet type behavior, with considerably less initial momentum than that in the previous case.Therefore, the Edinger and Polk model was used to esti-mate the combined temperature field. This approach produces conservative estimates because (1) placement of all passive sources at the shore (instead of actual offshore locations) increases the nearshore excess temperatures beyond those expected and (2). The passive point sources ignore the initial dilution that actually occurs. The conservativeness of this modeling approach can also be shown by treating at3 , the excess temperature at Waterford 3's intake, in an expkicit manner. The modeling results show that the ef fect of recirculation on the combined temperature field at the h'ther winter and spring flows is expected to be less than 2% ctMnge. EIYbN UQ 301.14-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 301.14-1 DISCIIARGE CilARACTERISTICS AT WATERFORD 3 Ot AU30 OE30 + Ot31 Ot"30 = dt'30 Ot12, 3d At30 31 AE 12, 3d Season ( F)( F)( F)( F)( F)Ave Winter 26 0.3 2.2 26.3 24 .1 Ave Spring 17 0.3 2.0 17 .3 15 .3 Ave Summer 16.1 0.7 4.4 16.8 12 .4 Ave Fall 19.7 0.8 5.0 20.5 15 .5 e 301.14-4 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)U O.1,E3 $ "3 , 4%;ER_TABLE 301.14-2 COMPARISON OF EXPLICIT MODEL RESULTS (INCLUDING RECIRCULATION EFFECTS) WITH OLER MODEL RESULTS Ax 12< 0'12 >O *3 O*O O OE~c, ER c, rectr c, recir, 31" (ft)( F)( F)( F)(OF)(OF)(OF)Average Sumer (At = 16.1 F. A t = 0. fF, U = 1.6 fps) 30 31 R3 31 4.34 4.34 15.78.52.020 18.0 16.5 15.9 33 4.33 4.34 14.67.52.089 16.9 15.7 15.1 37 4.33 4.33 13.54.53.16 15.8 14.8 14.2 44 4.31 4.33 12.16.54.25 14.5 13.7 13.2 51 4.30 4.32 11.12.56.31 13.5 12.9 12.5$." 72 4.27 4.31 9.39.61.42 12.0 11.6 11.2#e 0 133 4.17 4.29 7.3.71.55 10.3 10.0 9.7 270 3.96 4.25 5.56.83.66 8.8 8.6 8.3 719 3.41 4.16 3.81.95.76 7.0 7.2 7.0 9.F. At= 0.8% , UR3 " I*4 IP'} Average Fall (At =30 3i 29 4.93 4.93 18.66.52.053 21.2 19.7 19 .0 32 4.93 4.93 17.22.52.13 19.8 18.6 17.8 35 4.92 4.93 16.27.52.17 18.8 17.8 17 .1 42 4.91 4.92 14.43.54.27 17.1 16.3 15.8 57 4.88 4.91 12.46.57.37 15.2 14.8 14.3 81 4.83 4.9 10.0.62.46 13.6 13.3'12.9 158 4.69 4.87 8.26.73.58 11.7 11.4 11.1 333 4.4 4.81 6.31.84.68 10.0 9.8 9.6 i@659 3.95 4.72 4.80.93.75 8.6 8.6 8.4 C, o.lcit w-5 0' . -9.9-O D 3 WSES 3 ER TABLE 301.14-3 DEFINITIONS Ax= Distance from Waterford 3 outlet structure At= Local excess temperature caused by Waterford 1 and 2 g operation At= the excess temperature of the reco>ary water at 12,3d the Waterford 3 outlet, contributed directly by the Waterford 1 and 2 discharge < 4t12>= Averaged At along the Waterford 3 plume trajectory l2 At= Excess field temperature contributed by Waterford 3 3 discharge At- Condenser rise of the Waterford 3 station 30 At= excess temperature at Waterford 3 intake, 31 Fu=U ( R3 +3)R3 Ft= (At-Jt3)/0 E30 39 At= Combined field excess temperature predicted in c'ER OLER At= Combined field excess temperature expressed em explicitly in terms of At 3g U'3= Increase in river velocity due to Uaterford 3 operation U= River velocity at Waterford 3 R3 301.14-6 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)g32,.UU WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.15 The effect of river bend on thermal plume distribution was not included in the mathematical modelt selected for thermal pre-dictions for all three power stati ns. Please provide further analysis on this problem. Response The river bend at Waterford causes changes in the flow field characteristics which in turn affect the thermal plume dis-tribution. Hydrographic and hydrothermal field surveys have indicated that the downstream course of the river channel moves from the east bank area upstream of the river bend to the west bank area downstream of the bend. This results in a complex non-uniform velocity field ranging from a sheltered slow cur-rent area near the Little Gypsy discharge (east bank) to a swift current area where the major river flow takes its down-stream turn near the Waterford 3 outlet (west bank). These velocity variations, and resulting variations in the shear flow field, alter the structure of the turbulent motion from shore to shore and are a major force in dif fusing thermal dis-charges.Formulation of an accurate description of the turbulent dis-persion processes that exist in such a complex flow field is beyond the present state-of-the-art of modeling. The com-plexity is compounded since the Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy discharges are not passive point sources in a strict sense.They,all have their momentum effect on the already complicated flow field. A practical diffusion concept utilizes a semi-empirical approach based on the assumption that the gradient transport process of the classical molecular dif fusion theory is applic-able to the turbulent transport process. The associated dif-fusivity coefficients have been g own to depend on the river depth and velocity (e.g., Elder ).The proportionality constant for a given situation must be empirically determined. At the Waterf3rd site, however, this is not a real constant be-cause the river flow is not uniform. The variable nature of the proportionalit constant became a consideration in calibra-tir.g the Waterford a.3dels so that the predicted value s cor-responded as closely as possible with the field data. The effects of the river bend on the plume are inherent in the field data. In order to develop a conservative predictive model, it was therefore decided to include the river bend effect through calibration of the model parameters against field measurement data. The mos t consecvative set of calibra-tion parameters for each discharge was selected and utilized for the predictions. The use of dif ferent sets of parameters at each site indicates the fact that the observed pluces could p.w,,-,.A.h jnAh 301.15-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER not be entirely explained by two chosen physical parameters. Ilowever, the choice of the most conservative set was judged appropriate in not only increasing the conservatism but also in minimizing possible error due to natural processes not accounted for by the model. Reference Elder, J.W. " Dispersion of Marked Fluid in Turbulent Shear Flow", Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 5 No. 4, 1959. O.M 301.15-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.16 During high river flow conditions (greater than 500,000 cfs), the circulating water discharge becomes a submerged jet rather than a surface jet as considered in the ER. The thermal plume distribution resulting from a submerged discharge needs to be supplemented. Response A river discharge rate higher than 800,000 cfs is estimated to cause a river stage higher than 15 feet above mean sea level. At this water level, the outlet structures at Waterford 3 and Little Gypsy will be submerged. The outlet structure at Waterford 1 and 2 will not be s_omerged until the river stage exceeds 20 feet MSL, at which time the river flow will exceed 1,200,000 cfs. The river velocity when these outlet structures are submerged is expected to exceed 6 fps. This river velocity is far greater than the discharge velocity of Waterford 1 and 2, Waterford 3 and Little Gypsy. For example, the Waterford 3 outlet will have an effective port size of 44.5 ft x 52.2 ft while sub-merged and the corresponding discharge velocity will be less than 1 fps, even when the pumping rate is at a maximum 2235 cfs. Under these conditions, discharge temperature decay is primarily caused by the ambient dispersion characteristics rather than by jet characteristics. All three discharges are conservatively considered to be the farfield type when submerged. The same assumption was made in the OLER for evaluat tng impacts caused by discharges in the average winter and average spring seasons. Consequently, each discharge can be conside{yg as an "on-shore discharge" as discussed by Edinger and Polk For each.given isotherm, the maximum plume cross-sectional area (Ac), the surface areal extent of the plume (As), and the volumetric extent of the plume (Vol) can be derived analytically. In terms of the maximum longitudinal extent (X the maximum (Y ), and the maximum verticS), extent lateral extent 1 (Z,), Ac, As and Vol are given by: 0.79 (Y z) Ac=0.817 (X* Y ) As=Vol = 0.53 (X "y "z ) m m m The quantities X , Y , and Z can be expressed in terms of the plant and ri$er EischargE conditions by utilizing express-ions presented in Appendix 5-1 of the OLER. Their explicit dependence on the river discharge conditions (the river discharge rate Qr, the river velocity u, the average river depth H, and the river cross-sectional area Ar can be obtained as follows: <2 -) c o n ; ma r siss U e 301.16-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER 9 Ac/Ar 1/ r 5/6)(u /2 3 As 1/5/g), Vol 1/(u 11 lhese expressions indicate that river flows higher than those considered in the OLER (i.e. flows greater than 650,000 cfs) will yield smaller thermal plume extents. Smaller plume extents would result in decreased thermal impacts than the impacts associated with the conditions investigated in the OLER.For this reason, the discharge impacts during higher river flows were not presented.

    Reference:

    1.Edinger , JE , Di Polk, Jr , " Initial Mixing of Thermal Discharge into a Uniform Current", Vanderbilt University Report #1, 1969. O f9 e 301.16-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.17 Please supply the following references, if they are available and convenient to obtain: (a) ER pp. 2.2-33 through 2.2-35: Reference numbers: 9, 11, 12,14 (aquatic Sections only); 24, 32, 33.(b) ER pp. 5.1-20 through 5.1-23: Reference numbers 1,15, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28, 38, 42.(c) For Table A2.2.2-1. Reference number 33. Response The requested reference material has been submitted to the NRC under separate cover.(a r < t o f[. A/ LM A/Itd i 301.17-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.18 What were the important impacts of station construction (intakes; discharge; dredging; major buildings, etc.) on the river biota in the site area and downriver? Ilow severe were these impacts on the fish, zooplankton, and benthic commun-ities?Response Construction of intake and discharge structures and placement of sheet piling and mooring dolphins in the Mississippi River could result in several impacts to the local aquati: communi-ties of the Mississippi River. These include:

    1) alteration of a small area of benthic habitat due to placemen, of intake and discharge structures and 2) a short term increase in turbidity and suspended solids due to dredging operations and installation of mooring dolphins and sheet piling.

    Actual intake , structure fabrication took place within a coffer dam, limiting disturbances to the river. According to the present aquatic field survey ( }, no impacts have been observed in the river as a renuit of station con-struction. Any increases in suspended solids have been appa-rently very transitory and have had an insignificant impact to the ecology of the Mississippi River, especially in view of the high concentrations of suspended solids which occur naturally in the river. References 1)Personal Communication, Geo-Marine Inc., flay, 1979. , 32d/203 301.18_1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.19 ER page 2.2-28: Please provide names of any Waterford 3 area aquatic or terrestrial species of animals or plants that have become endangered, rare or threatened, particularly since the publication of the September 1976 Fish and Wildlife Service List.Response No aquatic species occuring in the Mississippi River or terrestrial species occurring in the vicinity of site have been listed as endangered since the publication of the 1976 list.333210 301.19-1 Amendmen t No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.20 Will the pipelines (Gas & Products) that cross the river south of the plant near Taft (Fig 2.1-13) significantly add thermal impact to the river, or inhibit heat loss? Re r,pon s e The following information applies to the pipelines referenced above: 1)The pipes are buried below the river bed 2)The physical characteristics of contents in four pipes are summarized below: Specific Flow Temperature Densit3)Heat (lb/ft (Btu /lb- F) Fluid Rate (cfs)( F)Natural Gas 1806 70 0.042 0.53 Natural Gas 1806 70 0.042 0.53 Butane 0.27 60 36.2 0.57 Propane 0.47 60 32.5 0.6 As shown in Figure 2.1-13 of the OLER, the pipelines are buried below the tiver bed at a distance of approximately one half mile (2640 feet) downstream of the Waterford 3 discharge. The existence of buried pipelines does not affect original river flow and thus does not inhibit the downstream convection and dispersion of neat discharged at Waterford 3. The possible heat input to the river from these pipes can be accurately evaluated if additional information on the heat con-ductivity of the river bed material and the film coef ficients of all pipe flows are available. Since the heat input from these pipes is expected to be small, conservative estimates of the heat input are presented below. They are based on the assumption that the temperature of the pipe contents will be completely equalized with a given ambient river temperature during the passage of the contents through the pipeline under the river. The net heat gain or loss by the pipe contents are assumed to be a net heat loss or gain entirely by the river water. c.e to v 4{h d d rU b

    • 301.20-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)

    S WSES 3 ER lleat exchange rates between pipe contents and river water are evaluated and presented on a seasonal basis as followa: Average Winter Season (Ambient River Water Tempera-ture is 47.7"F) Net lleat Gain by the River Water (Btu /second) = II R#o pipes (Density (lb/ft ), x Specific Ileat (Btu /lb

    1=i=1 F) x Flow (cfs) x T ( F) )g

    = (0.042) (0.53) (2 x 1806) (70 - 47.7) + (36.2) (0.57) (0.27) (60 - 47.7) + (32.5) (0.6) (0.47) (60 - 47.7) = 1974 (Btu /sec) Average Spring Season (Ambient River Water Tempera-ture is 69.7"F) II (seconO R= (0.042) (0.53) (2 x 1806) (70 - 69.7) + (36.2) (0.57) (0.27) (60 - 69.7) + (32.5) (0.6) (0.47) (60 - 69.7) = -119 (Btu /second) Average Summer Season (Ambient River Water Tempera-ture is 84.3"F) II (Btu /second) R= (0.042) (0.53) (2 x 1806) (70 - 84.3) + (36.2) (0.57) (0.27) (60 - 84.3) + (32.5) (0.6) (0.47) (60 - 84.3) = -1508 (Btu /second) Average Fall Season (Ambient River Water Tempera-ture is 63"F) II (Btu /second) R= (0.042) (0.53) (2 x 1806) (70 - 63) + (36.2) (0.57) (0.27) (60 - 63) + (32.5) (0.6) (0.47) (60 - 63) = 519 (Btu /second) 'lhe corgesponding chagggs intheryegambient tempegagures are 5 x 10 F, -3 x 10 F, -9 x 10 F, a nd 4 x 10 F, for the average winter, average spring, average summer and 301.20-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79).d cs r, , Y f# . i . s.1 WSES 3 ER average fall seasons, respectively. From this information it can be concluded that the thermal impacts of these pipelines are expected to be negligible. cc c:n , 4 0 s.w .t. 301.20-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.21 What measures will be used to pre vent asiatic clams from becom-ing established in the condensers and other heat transfer sys-tems at Waterford 3? What biocides will be used? Response It is not clear at this time that Asiatic clam production at Waterford 3 will become significant enough to warrant the kind of systematic, semicontinuous pre ventative treatment called for in other parts of the country. The Asiatic clams' opportun-istic nature and potential for population increase are recognized, but productivity and substrate instability in the Mississippi River at Waterford may limit its biotic potential in that habitat. The re fore , it is not anticipated that any pre-ventive measures are specifically required to control Asiatic clams at Waterford 3. Howeser, plant operating data (flows, pressures, etc) and operational environmental surveillance data (benthic) will be monitored at Waterford 3 and should there be any indication that Asiatic clams had a potential for becoming a real nuisance, a control program would be designed which would be based on state-of-the-art control methodology; operat-ing requirements; and environmental regulations on the dis-charge of any biocides which may be considered necessary. At the present time, two remedial control techniques seem viable for the remo val of these clams from the Waterford 3 condenser sur-faces: heat treatment and biocide addition. Asiatic clams are present in the river at Waterford, but ap-parently not in high enough densities to produce enough larvae to be a nuisance at power plants already operating in the vicinity of Waterford. Asiatic clams ha se occurred in the con-denser system of Little Gypsy 2, but not at Little Gypsy 1 or Waterford 1 and 2. In the case of Little Gypsy 2, removal of Asiatic clams was accomplished by heat addition in a process known as " steaming". This process consists of shutting off the circulating cooling water flow to a condenser section, letting the tube water temperature rise to about 110-120 F (thereby killing the cla.ns); and then hydro jetting the clams out of the tubes.This method could be used at Waterford 3 if necessary. At the present, the use of chlorine would be investigated if a blocide was warranted. Chlorine could be used either alone or in combination with " steaming" (thereby requiring lower heat additions for ef fectise " steaming"). Whether or not biocides would be needed to control Asiatic clams at some point in the lifetime of Waterford 3 is uncertain. It would be premature, based on a history of non problematical operation of the other units in t he a rea , the nature of the river there , and the present amount of research and de velopment being done 'on Asiatic c i'29)ntrol (particularly by the Tennessee Valley Authority to prescribe types and/or application rates 301.21-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79).e.<>+n e x b bd.A.* R Y WSES 3 ER of biocides which may be needed in the future. Re fe re nce s 1)Goss, L.B., J.M. Jackson, H.B. Flora, B.C. Isom, C. Gooch, S.A. Murran, C.G. Burton, and W. S. Bain , " Control Studies on Corbicula for Steam-Electric Generating Plants", unpub. manuscript, Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tenn, 37401, (undated). 2)Isom, B.G.,"Bicfouling - State-of-the-Art in Controlling Asiatic Clams (Corbicula Manilensis Philippi) and Other Nuisance Organisms at Power Plants", unpublished manuscript, TVA, Division of Environmental Planning, Muscle Shoals, Ala. , 1976. O 301.21-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)O__fami 5 %* WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.22 Were the data presented in ER Table 2.2-9 obtained at a dif-ferent time of day or f rom stations other than those used for data shown in Table 2.2-8? Does the term, "in the vicinity of Waterford-3" include all stations shown in Figure 6.1.1-17 Does this phrase consistently mean the same thing, i.e., does the definition remain constant throughout the aquatic Sections of the ER? Response These tables were constructed from the same zooplankton data base. The data were summarized in two different forms in order to highlight (1) station differences by date (averaged over depths - Table 2.2-8), and (2) depth differences by date (averaged over stations - Table 2.2-9). Ilowever, if the data in each of these tables are averaged, (unweighted) over sta-tions or depths, the numbers do not necessarily match exactly on each given date. This is due to the fact that these average densities represent different numbers of samples for the station and depth groupings and therefore a weighted average would be required. The term "in the vicinity of Waterford" (as well as "near Waterford", "Waterford area") refers to that area about Waterford which 1) is within the influence of the Waterford 3 intake and discharge, and 2) is described biologically by samples taken at the station shown in Figure 6.1.1.-l and at the Waterford 1 and 2 intake. As used in the OLER, the terms"in the vicinity", "near Waterford", etc. are synonymous and these terms retain the same definition throughout the OLER. Evidence of community differences among stations was not found, although there is a relatively greater shoal habitat just up-stream of Waterford 1 and 2 (i.e., typified by the"A" sta-tions). The data collected by the applicant revealed a typical warm water, major riverine community, probably char-acterizing much of the freshwater portion of the lower Mississippi River unless significant backwaters, marshes, or wetlands are present. u u s .9 4nu (o.o 301.22-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.23 In general, the evidence shows (e.g., p. 221, Qual. Criteria for Water, EPA, 1976) (sic) that the toxic impacts of chemical contaminants or. aquatic biota increases as the temperature of the water is raised. That is, the organisms under toxic stress are not as tolerant of temperature stress. To what extent will the chemical and physical contaminants in the river at Waterford 3 " sensitize" the biota, especially fish and zoopiankton, to the Waterford 3 thermal effluent?(a) Compared with similar fish and invertebrates in pristine waters, will the Waterf ord 3 river organisms be signifi-cantly more sensitive to the thermal effluent because of the present river pollution with chemical and physical contaminants? If so, can this increase in sensitivity be quantified? Response With the laboratory and field data available, it is impossible to quantify the increase in sensitivity of organisms living in the Mississippi River (as compared to pristine waters) to the appg{ gable work that can be Waterf ord 3 thermal plume. The most al , whose expe ri-found on this subject is by Cairns et ments indicate that exposu re to acutely sublethal toxicant con-centrations may reduce survival time when organisms are subse-quently exposed to acutely lethal concentrations of a second toxicant. However, neither prior nor concomitant exposure to acutely sublethal toxicant concentrations guarantees that the median survival time fg{)a lethal exposure will be significantly altered.Cairns et al worked with snails and rainbow trout. The subject of waterborne pollutant toxicity has received con-siderable attention, expecially over the past three decades. For any given species the literature may deal with acute toxi-city (usually 24, 48, or 96 hr LD 's , chronic toxicity (photosynthetic, growth, reproduchkve) inhibition), or specific physiological or behavioral modes of toxin activity (water-electrolyte balance , osmoregulation, predator avoidance , etc. ). Each test is conducted under a specific set of conditions, such as water quality (pil, alkalinity, hardness), temperature, duration of exposure, or introduction of toxin (static or flow-through). Therefore, it is difficult to find literature information directly applicable to given spe ies of interest, living in particular water quality environments, which may be exposed to new stresses f or portions of their lif e (whether that be one hour or an entire life history stage). The subject of toxicity of mixtures of pollutants is more com-plex.Are effects synergistic, additive, or antagonistic? How do the chemicals behave in dif f erent mixtures, and at different pH levels, alkalinities, and temperatures? The Mississippi 301.23-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)c ' ~ y r s en aJ M W.*..q WSES 3 ER River at Waterf ord is f airly well buf fered (alkalinity about 100 mg/1), which is a mitigating factor against toxicity of many chemicals, relative to leve which might he toxic in , softer water environments. In developing an answer for this question e large body of literature has been reviewed (2,3,4) i.. addition, the water , quality data for the Mississippi River at Waterford has been reviewed, and reference can be made to the Waterford plume characteristics described in the OLER and Question No. 301.25. The OLER (p. 2.2-31) suggests that water quality in the Mississippi River improved between 1973 and 1976, although mercury and cadmium levels exceeded water quality standards. Recent data collected in the Environmental Surveillance Pro-gram, Indicates that cadmium (at 3-313 ug/1), lead (at 70-10250 ug/1), and zine (at 38-1970 ug/1) are present in highest (but quite variable) {ggcentrations relative to national water quality criteria However, from an acute lethal standard (LD50), a survey of data reported in the three documents referenced above, indi-cates that cadmium, iron, zinc, copper (at 1-25 ug/1), chromium (6-70 ug/1), lead (at 3-30 ug/1), and mercury (at 0.1-0.2 ug/1) are probably not present at Waterford in amounts high enough to be acutely lethal to most aquatic organisms. Studies conducted on co'hinations of these metals suggest that the mixture of chemicals at Waterford is not necessarily acute-extensive in this ly lethal ei{g r, although study data are not area.Eaton determined a combined lethal threshold for f athead minnows of 145 ug/l copper + 320 ug/l cadmium + 5030 ug/l zinc. Values of each metal were roughly 40 percent of their individual acute lethal thresholds; thus there was evi-dence of additivity. These levels .re above those measured at Waterf ord for each metal. Based on the above, and the fact that the Waterford 3 aquatic community appears normal (i.e., species which might be expected are not conspicuous by their absence), it is assumed that heavy metals are not normally pre-sent in amounts which could be acutely lethal. It is possible that organisms in the Mississippi 71v.c at Waterford experience sublethal, chronic effects, including photosynthetic, growth, or reproductive inhibition, su:h that productivity could be less than it might be in "prist ine" en-vironments containing similar species. There is no concrete evidence of this other than bioassay work, since chemical vs physical stresses on the Waterford aquatic community cannot be empirically segregated, and good control areas where data might be available have not been uncovered. It is suspected that the lack of habitat diversity has a large influence on productivity a t Waterf ord. Assuming however, that organisms in the Missis-sippi River at Waterford are subject to some chronic effects, the real issue is the probability, based on behavior and dis-301.23-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)3 2 2.b WSES 3 ER t ribution, that these chronic effects would be agravated by the 9 Waterford 3 thermal plume. OLER Section 5.1.3.1.2 indicates that the planktonic organisms are distributed fairly homogeneously. Therefore, the percen-tage figure given in the OLER and Question No. 501.25 for various isotherms within the thermal plume should apply to percentages of the planktonic or drif ting populations af fected. In the OLER it was indicated that summer temperatures inside the A 10 F isotherm may be at lethal thresholds for some species, although that is a conservative statement considering that exposure timea to these conditions are 1-2 hr, as opposed to 24-96 hr exposures upon which lethal thresholds are usually based.If prior exposure to chronic ef fects of chemical pollu-tants decreases the time which a drifting organism could with-stand temperatures in the 4 1G"F isotherm, then the orga-nism might be considered " sensitized" sufficiently that expo-sure to the thermal plume might have an higher ef fect. The significance of this effect relative to the duration of expo-sure cannot be determined , but again reference must be made to the plume dimensions as a percentage of the river cross-section (Question No. 301.25). It is believed that neither the duration of exposure nor the percentages of the river cross-sectional area af fected suggest a significant impact on planktonic populations due to the thermal discharges of Water-ford 3 and/or the other units present in the area. Fish should be relative'y unaf fected by interactive ef fects of temperature and potential toxins, except perhaps in winter if if cold shock should occur. Cold shock has been treated in Section 5.1.3 of the OLER, and it could perhaps be hypothesized that in winter fish would be more sensitive to thermal shock at Waterford than they would be in pristine environmente at the s ame latitude. Nevertheless, the same principle should hold true for Waterford 1 and 2, and Little Gypsy, and there are no known recorded instances of heavy fish mortality such as that recorded in more northern latitudes. For the warmest times of the yea r, it is believed that survival times for po-tentially lethal temperatures would not be shortened due to chemical sensitization of fish at Waterford, since fish should likely avoid such zones. Whether or not the lethal threshold is lowered by such sensitization is unknown, but overt evidence (such as fish kills) of this effect due to the existing thermal discharge of Waterford 1 and 2 and Little Gypsy, has not been observed.Furthermore, considering average seasonal condi-tions, the available zone of passage at the Waterford-Little Gypsy t ransect (due to the combined thermal discharges of Waterf ord 1 and 2, Waterf ord 3 and Little Gypsy) of excess tem-peratures of 5 F or less is conservatively estimated at 93.6 percent. Even under the extreme low river flow condition (100,000 cfs), this zone of passage is conservatively estimated to be 83 percent. It is expected that fish will be able to avoid the areas of relatively high excess temperatures during t he wa rue r seasons (i .e. , summe r and f all). Finally, chronic -301.23-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)r.-, dd.5$/ 1,9 WSES 3 ER effects on growth and reproduction should not be affected since fish, or a portion of a fish popu-it is highly unlikely that a lation, would spend a significant portion of its life-cycle within the Waterford thermal plume. Overall, the question of thermal and chemical interactions is dif ficult to address in a definitive way.11owever, it is ex-pected that impacts due to the possible phenomena discussed should not be significant at Waterford based on the scale of the potential ef fect (concentration of toxins, volume, expo-sure-duration), the type of community in question, and the small river area to be affected. O 9 sum e 301.23-4 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER REFERENCES 1.Cairns, J. Jr. , W F Calhoun, M J McGinnis, and W Straka." Aquatic Organisms Response to Severe Stress Following Acutely Sublethal Toxicant Exposure", Water Resources Bull.12(6): 1233-1242, 1976. 2.Environmental Protection Agency," Quality Criteria for Water", EPA - 440/9-76-023, Wash. D .C . , 1976 3.Becker, C.D. and T.O. Thatcher, " Toxicity of Power Plant Chemicals to Aquatic Life", U.S. Atomic Energy Comm. , WASIl-1240, 1973 4.Oak Ridge Natioaal. Laboratory and Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. ," Chemical Ef f ects ci Poker Plant Cooling Water: An Annotated Bibliography". Elec Power Res Inst EA-1072, Palo Alto, Cal. ,1979. 5.Eaton, J.G. " Chronic Toxicity of a Copper, Cadmium, and Z1 c Mixture to the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas Rafinsque)", Water Res. 7:1723-1736, 1973. bbO,O[dj, 301.23-5 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.24 ER, p. 5.1-12 through 15; FES, P.V-14 and 15: On the basis of data obtained by the applicant, the distribution of the plankton, river shrimp, and fish in the river appear to be quite uniformly distributed at t he five stations of the Waterford Area. Have statistical verifications been made, and if so, are these organisms randomly distributed. Response Re fer to re vised Section 2.2.2.3.2 and 2.2.2.3.4. e.; N & (Ien t% f .4 .- a vv , r> s.1 301.24-1 Amendment No.1, 9/ 79 WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.25 ER, p 5.1-3, Section 5.1.2.4; p. 5.1-12 and 13: The collective thermal effluent impacts to the river biota f rom Little Gypsy, Waterford 1 and 2 and Waterford 3 will occur af ter the latter plant goes on-line. In addition, the present chemical and physical stresses will continue plus entrainment impacts in-duced by the four power stations. What will be the total im-pacts on fish, ichthyoplankton, zooplankton and river shrimp during the hottest months when low flows are likely? Will the monitoring programs detect significant impacts in the various biotic groups, and if so, how soon will the results be known? If the popula tions of , e.g. , fish, are significantly reduced, what corrective measures will be made ? Which river organisms (especially fish and zooplankton) will be most severely stressed?Response Section 5.1.3 of the OLER discusses the cumulative impacts on the river biota during the summer season (i.e. , July, August and September) when the river water temperatures are the highest.The months when the lowest river flow typically occur are mid-September to mid-December (i.e. , the fall season).Therefore, the months when the highest river tem-9 peratures occur do not usually coincide with the months when the lowe st river flows occur. The average river water tem-perature and flow during the summer season are 84.3 F and 280,000 cfs, respectively. For the average fall season, these values are 63 F and 240,000 cf s, respectively. River water temperatures in the low 80's are possible, if the low flow condition occurs in late summer (i.e., September). The impact analysis presented in the OLCR for the combined dis-charges f rom Waterford 1 and 2, Waterf ord 3 and Little Gypsy during the summer season utilizes the data shown in Table 5.1-4.For example, the data show that the percentages of the river cross-sectional area occupied by the 10 F, and the 5 F excess isotherms for the average summer season are, re-spectively 2.2 pe rcent and 4.5 percent. It can be concluded that these discharges af fect a relatively small percentage of the river cross-section, and that (1) at worst, a small pe r-centage of planktonic organisms might spend a maximum of one hour drif ting through the 10 F excess temperature area, and (2) with the large available zone of passage, fish and other mobile organisms should be able to avoid the area during the summer.With respect to the relative degree of stress, it would be expected that river shrimp and perhaps organisms with lit t le motili ty (i.e., zooplankton and benthos) would be most stressed.Based on literature reviewed and data obtained in the Environmental Serveillance Program, ichthyoplankton densi-ties are at a minimum during the summer season when these high temperatures occur. Therefore, ichthyoplankton communities 301.25 - 1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79).c n ce . 9Jdd6tuu WSES 3 ER are not expected to be severely stressed by high temperatures and low flows. The impacts associated with the extreme low flow expected in the Mississippi River (i.e. , 100,000 cf s) are examined in OLER Section 5.1.3. This flow is typically expected to occur in the fall when ambient river temperatures are generally lower than summer temperatures. OLER Figure 5.1-6 shows such a condition for the postulated combined discharges of Waterford 1 and 2, Waterfcr1 3 and Little Gypsy. OLER Figures 5.1-10 and 5.1-11 show reprecrntative river thermal plume cross-sections f or the combined (all units) plumes during the extreme low flow condi-tions. These figures are based on all units operating at peak load condition. Results show that the 10 F excess isotherm expands from 132 acre-feet under average f all river flow conditions (240,000 cfs) to about 450 acre-feet under the fall extreme low flow condition (100,000 cfs). The 10 F excess isotherm occupies a maximum of about 4 percent of the river cross-sectional area during the extreme low flow condition, or about 2 percent more than presently occurs for this condition. Travel times for the 100,000 cfs condition remain about two hours for the 10 F excess isotherm (before and af ter the Waterford 3 discharge), but Waterford 3 adds about one hour to the present flow-through time for the 3.6 F excess isotherms. As stated in the response to Question No. 301.29, the travel time through the combined thermal plume of Waterford 1 and 2, Waterford 3 and Little Gypsy is 9 hours which is toward the lower limit of the doubling time for blue-green algae. However, it is not expected that a situation would develop where blue-green cigae growths due to Waterford 3 discharges would result in noticeable tastes or odors f or downstream users or af fect dissolved oxygen concentrations in the area of the plume. Thermal modeling of the extreme low-flow situation (100,000 cf s) f or the months when the warmest river temperatures occur was not perf ormed since such flow and temperature occurrences are rare.However, if the total impacts on the aquatic communities are analyzed for the condition, the following considerations indicate what might happen: (1) Waterford 3 does not enlarge the area of significant temperatures very much compared to the existing excess thermal discharge condition for the 100,000 cfs case; (2 )Fish probably will avoid the area so as not to be exposed to either lethal temperatures or temperature plus water quality interactions (see re s ponse to Question No. 301.23);(3) A small percentage of the plankton populations are exposed for several hours to potentially lethal temperatures (f or some species); assuming that plankton enter the proximal end of the plume and travel straight through it, 301.25-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)p . - --v , 3 d Q U fW.a' t WSES 3 ER (4) Ichthyoplankton are not at peak levels when this con-dition would occur; and (5) Since all of the above presently occur to some degree without Waterford 3, it can be concluded that the aquatic community appears not to be affected over the long run.Nevertheless, if the specific organisms are rated according to the relative cegree of stress, it would be expected that organisms with little motility, sucn as zooplankton and benthos (mainly tubificids and patches of Corbicula) would be most stressed under these postulated law flow high temperature conditions. In regard to monitoring programs, the applicant is presently at a stage where a re-evaluation of the current monitoring pro-grams based on experience gained from previous programs is be-ing undertaken. Each monitoring method, and the various statistical designs and levels of replication will be examined to determine where changes to the program might he appropriate for detecting specific impacts. The accumulation of pre-operational and operational data from both control and impact areas of the river should enable the detection of major community changes or distribution areas. In addition, the frequency of the aquatic biology portion of the Environmental Surveillance Program will be increased to monthly surveys for a period of one year immediately preceding Waterford 3 Opera-tion . This intensive monthly sampling program should detect major impacts which could be attributable to the operation of Waterford 3. The implementation of corrective actions due to any adverse impacts f rom the collective thermal impacts f rom Waterford 1 and 2, Little Gypsy and Waterford 3 is not anticipated. Therefore it is impossible to say at this time what remedial measures would be taken if fish abundance (for example) decreased significantly at some point in the future and it was clear (i.e., vis-a-vis natural fluctuations in stock, extreme envi-ronmental conditions, etc.) that the therral discharges from Waterford 3 (alone or in combination with other units) were the root of the decrease. If it was shown that Uaterford 3 had a significant impact, then the mitigative solutions would depend on whether the impact was due to intake (entrainment/ impin8ement), or discharge (thermal) ef fects. Any mitigative changes in design, capacity, or operation of the unit would be contingent upon such an understanding. r; -*1L)y, ,...- sia - l)301.25-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79 WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.26 Chlorine concentrations p 5.1-0 [ sic]; Table 5.3-6; Figure 5.3-1: Chlorine is expected to reach 0.2-0.1 ppm sic for 2 hrs / day, when chlorination is necessary, at the point of discharge. Explain how the high concentrations of chlorine in the Waterford 3 plume can be reduced to 0.05[ sic] ppm as it flows into the river. Responsc The circulating cooling water at Waterford 3 will be chlorinat-ed to produce an average and maximum free available chlorine concentration of 0.2 ppm and 0.5 ppm, respectively, prior to discharge. Chlorine will not be discharged for more than two hours per day at Waterford 3. The total residual chlorine (TRC) concentrations utilized in both Table 5.3-6 and Figure 5.3-1 represent the addition of the combined residual chlorine concentration and the free available chlorine concentrations. The combined available chlorine concentrations are calculated by stoichiometrically converting the average Mississippi River ammon's concentrations into chloramines (i.e., combined residual chl- Ine). The ammonia concentration used in this calculati . is the average concentration from samples obtained in the Environmental Sur-veillance Program (see Subsection 6.1.1 of the OLER) from the summer and fall seasons only. These seasonal ammonia concen-trations are considered to be applicable since it is expected that chlorination, if required at all, will be practiced only in the summer and fall seasons. Routine chlorination of the circulating cooling water is not expected at Waterford 3 due to the heavy silt loading in the river water which tends to cause a continuous scour in the condenser tubes; thereby controlling fouling from nuisance organisms. All estimates of chlorine concentrations in the river are based on chlorine discharges at Waterford 3, only. In Table 5.3-6, the expected seasonal concentrations of TRC at the various isotherms are calculated by applying the appropriate dilution factors (presented in Tables 5.3-3 and 5.3-4 of the OLER) to the discharge TRC con-centration. The reduction in TRC concentrations in the river is based strictly on dilution and no allowance is made for the decay of free available chlorine (0.2 ppm average and 0.5 ppm maximum - both concentrations apply to the point of discharge), in the River. The assumptions utilized in these calculations are considered quite conservative since (1) it can be expected that a portion of the discharged free available chlorine concentration is reduced by the oxidation of chemical con-stituents in the river water and (2) the one-to-one stoichio-metric technique utilized does not account for the decay of chloramines to form nitrogen gas as would be expected f rom the break point chlorination theory. o m y ,; ., u O O.w o 301.26-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Figure 5.3-1 also utilizes the dilution factors presented in Tables 5.3-3 and 5.3-4 to determine the TRC concentrations at the various isotherms listed. The time estimated to reach the noted isotherms is calculated by dividing the seasonal longitudinal spread by the seasonal average velocity. The seasonal lateral spread and the seasonal average velocity are presented in Tables 5.1-2 and 5.1-4, respectively, of the OLER.O gr O G,w ev D ,-v , ,-<301.26-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.27 ER, pp, 5.1-17 and 18: Because of the southern location of Waterford 3 in the United States, cold thermal shock to fish does not appear likely or if it oc curs , it does not appear to be a significant threat. What has been the experience with cold shock at other power plants in the area, including Waterford 1, 2 and Little Gypsy? Does the applicant plan to shut Waterford 3 down gradually when a possibility of cold shock is present (except for emergency shutdowns)? Response Although field monitoring would have to be essentially con-tinuous in order to detect isolated incidences of cold shock, no reports of fish kills in the Waterford area have been dis-covered which, if occurring in winter, might be attributed to this phenomenon. Nevertheless, the cold shock potential exists in small areas of the Waterford 3 plume when river tem-perature is at its minimum of 39-40 F (4 C). As explained in Section 5.1.3.2.5.2 of the OLER, this potential could be realized only if an unscheduled emergency situation existed, because scheduled shutdowns , will be performed in a gradual manner. bbb2,28 301.27-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.28 Zooplankton sampling: ER, Table 6.1.1-6: The sampling gear for zooplankton during 1973-74 was done with #6 plankton nets (0.3m diameter) with 0.243mm mesh. Why was the diameter later chac3ed to 0.5m? Why was the mesh too large for the rotifers smaller than about 250mm? Response The diameter of the zooplankton net was changed to 0.5m meter in order to sample a larger volume of water and reduce the effects of contagion (patchiness) on estimates of zooplankton density (i.e., obtain a more representative sample). Increasing the length of time the net is towed, to get a larger sample, is not ususally effective in rivers such as .he Mississippi due to clogging. The mesh was not too large for rotifers smaller than 250mm; it was too large f : rotifers smaller than about 0.250mm (250 microns).In fe;t most rotifers range from about 100-500 mictons. These relatively large mesh sizes are used in rivers to reduce clogging due to detritis. In order to obtain a more representative sample of smaller forms of zooplankton, (i.e., rotifers), LP&L plans to add to the remaining 1979-80 environmental surveillance program quarterly field surveys, a paired and replicated zooplankton sampling study using #6 mesh and #20 mesh nets at Station Bt. The results from these plarkton tows will be compared for the purpose of determining the densities of zooplankton which are in the size range from 70 y to those taxa larger than 241u. The zooplankton tows in the present survey consist of a single

    1. 20 mesh tow.

    The results of these additional studies will document and quantify possible underestimates of rotifer populations. cremo u s1J ne . 301.28-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.29 From past experience at the Waterford site, does it appear that the station thermal input to the river will aggravate blue-green algal growth, and induce blooms? Response Refer to revised Section 5.1.3.2.1. 301.29-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/ 79 )c~u d. n 3.,Orsa WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.30 The intake velocity under the Skimmer Wall at the river is 1.8 ft/sec. Can this be reduced to better conform with the present-day state-of-the art? Response An intake canal type design was chosen for use at Waterford 3 due to the location of the intake on the outside of a bend in the Mississippi River. The potential exists for river traf fic (e.g. barges) to collide with the intake canal and thereby shutof f the flow of cooling water into the plant. The intake canal is designed to operate af ter suf fering minor damage. There are various engineering modifications to the intake canal which could lover the velocity at its entrance. It is not clear, however, whether a reduction in velocity would neces-sarily reduce the densities of fish in the intake canal. In fact, as presented in the 316(b) Demonstration, it can be con-cluded that the impingement of fish in the Wat rford 3 intake would not result in significant impacts to the l MississippiRiverfisheriesresourcesasawhole{wgr -Fur t he rmo re , it should be remembered that (1) this will be a moot point for roughly 20 percent of the average year, when the canal is submerged during high water levels and (2) the intake velocities are a function of the number of intake pumps in operation, which is dependent upon the intake water temperature. The following summarizes the average intake velocities for the various pump modes: Number of Average Annual % Intake Canal Intake Pumps of Time in Use* Entrance Velocity (FPS) 2 30 1.09 3 25 1.52 4 34 1.78*Waterford 3 shutdown estimated at eleven percent per year. Therefore, in light of the low expected impact on the lower Mississippi River fish populations as a result of the Waterford 3 intake operation and the considerations of safety, no engineering modifications to the existing intake canal are planned. Reference 1.Louisiana Power & Light Company, Demonstration Under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, Waterford Steam Electric Section Unit No. 3, 1979. 301.30-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)s2 U.t r:-3 ps <;e.Wat%.) .

    • WSES 3 ER Question No.

    301.31 Can the accumulation of high concentrations of fish in the intake canal be prevented? Response An estimate of impingement at Waterford 3, based on other generating stations in the Mississippi River Basin drawing from generally similar fish communities, is 800-2000 organisms per day.This is-within the range of impingement rates observed elsewhere in the basin, and the populations af fected (mainly shads and catfish) seem to be able to withstand t he pressure. Nevertheless, if, in any given reason, fish seem to be con-centrating at the intake in extr< ordinary numbers, it may be desirable for environmental and/or operating reasons to miti-gate against such accumulations. There are many generic possibilities for accomplishing this, including, but not limited to: 1)Fish pumps (to remove fish from the forebay before they are impinged) 2)Physical barriers (nets, sills, skimmers depending on the dominant species) 3)Behavioral barriers (electrical, air or water curtains) 4)Escape routes (removal of portions of the sheetpiling outside the intake). A fish pump system described by Eisele and Malaric(1) is , used to pump shad and other fishes out of the Monroe Gene-b Shad survival is 3 ay on Western Lake Erie. rating Station f about 75 percent Sills and skimmers could be of possible value in screening bottom and pelagic fish, respectively, if the impingement is due mainly to one type of fish or the other. About a 50:50 ratio of the two organism types is expected. A possible problem .with this sort of system is that impingement of one type may be reduced at the expense of the other (since velocities in-crease in the remainder of the open portion of the forebay). Velocity-reducing alterations which may also provide escape routes are possible, as discussed in the response to Question No. 301.30. TVA studies cited by Ray, et al( ) and experience of Wisconsin Electric Power Company of Point Beach suggest that clupeids (such as gizzard and threadfin shad) may be y elled by air bubble curtains. Similarly, Stone and Webster reported some encouraging results regarding deflection of alewives with water jet curtains. Since these sys+ ems 301.31-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)G r..s..*W o r W g,, WSES 3 ER are site specific, even though results with ahads appear posi-tive, the turbidity of the Mississippi L er may limit their effectiveness. Similatly, Hyman, et allI reported success in repelling catfish at Haddam Nech with a pulsed DC electrical barrier, but some experimentation would be necessary to demon-strate the success of the system at Waterford 3. Perhaps the most efficient, and cost-effective way of limiting fish concentration in the intake canal would be to place fish nets across its mouth, during periods when the entire structure is not submerged (approximately 80 percent of the year). At the Zion Station on Lake Michigan, installation of 2 inch stretch mesh net around a submerged offshore intake signifi-cantlyreducedthenumberof{gghimpingedontheZionscreens (NALCO Env On the Hudson River, liutchinson{3gnmental Science) .indicates that impingement of a large variety of fish was decreased significantly by placing small mesh nets across the mouth of an intake embayment. Recent installation of fixed wire mesh outside the mouth of the Brunswick Station intake canal has reduced menhaden imp significantly duringtheirpeakperiodofabundance{ggement Should an impinge-me nt problem actually be observed at Waterford 3, this method would seem to offer an effective and economical means for re-ducing fish concentrations in the canal. This, plus coatinuous operation of the travelling screens, as necessary, should be sufficient to mitigate against unusually high fish concentrations and impingement rates should they occur. Reference 1)Eiselle, P and J Malaric,"A Conceptual Model of causal factors regarding Gizzard Shad Runs at Steam Electric Power Plants," In: L Jensen, ed. Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. E. A. Communications Inc, Melville, NY, 1978. 2)Eisele, P. Personal Communication, Detroit Edison Co., Detroit, Mi, 1977. 3)Ray, S, R L Snipes, and D Tomjanovich,"A State-of-the-Art Report on Intake Technologies *, TVA Rept No. PRS-16 Prepared for USEPA, Wash, D.C, Rept No. EPA-600/7-76-020, 1976. 4)Stone and Webster Eng Co.," Final Report - Studies to Alleviate Fish Entrapment at Power Plant Cooling Water Intakes", For Niagara Mohawk Power Corp, SWEC, Boston, Ma, 1976.5)liyman, M M Mowbray , and S Sa ila , "The Effects of Two Electrical Barriers on the Entrainment of Fish at a Fresh-water Nuclear Power Plant", In: S Saila, ed. Fisheries and Energy Production; A Sumposium. Lexington Books, Lexington, Ma, 1975.,g.j s> U nst)'

    • 301.31-2 Auendment No. 1, (9/79)

    WSES 3 ER 6)NALCO Environmental Science, " Compilation of Reports Relating to Entrainment and Impingement Studies at Zion Generating Station", Vol. 1: pp 31-84, 1976. 7)Hutchinson, J. Personal Communication, Orange and Rockland Utilities Corp., Pearl River, NY, 1977. 8)llogarth, W. Personal Communication, Carolina Power & Light Co, Raleigh, NC, 1978. $bl5?5N:UIl- .301.31-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.32 Please list the location by annular sector (L), distance to site (D), and/or daily peak employment (DPE) for the following industries (ref: Section 2.1.2.3.3 and Figure 2.1-11): L D DPE Argus Chemical Company X X Shell Chemical Company X Sewell Plastics Co. X X X USAMEX X X X Witco Chemice'. Co. X X X Chevron Oil Co. X X General American Transporation X X Good Ilope Refinery X X Shell Oil Company X ADM Milling X X X Bayside Gran Elevator X X X Cargill X X X Coastal Canning Co. X X X St. Charles Grain Elevator Co. X X X Response Refer to revised Section 2.1.2.3.3. c -} & 6*tjn) n o..r-6J 301.32-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.33 What are the 1978 vacancy rates for each town listed in Section 2.1.2.1.17 Also, if available, list vacancy rates for the unincorporated areas in St John the Baptist Parish and St Charles Parish. Response In order to determine the 1978 vacancy rates for each town listed g Section 2.1.2.1.1, a housing analysis was per-formed This 1978 housing analysis investigates the total .number of housing units by examining the number of occupied housing units, the number of vacant units and the associated vacancy rates, for both St Charles Parish (Table 301.33-1) and St John the Baptist Parish (Table 301.33-2). In St Charles Parish, the estimated vacancy rate in 1978 for the communities listed on e 301.33-1 ranged f rom 4.1 percent in St Rose to 5.4 percent Most communities in St Charles Pari ad vacancy rates cf either 5.3 percent or 5.4 per-cent In neighbouring St John the Baptist rish the vacancy rate for 1978 ranged from 2.9 percent for L ce and Reserve and about 9.5 percent Edgard and Garyville Real estate agents in both St Charles and St John the Baptist parishes rt that a high housing turnover rate exists in all areas Reference 1.The housing analysis utilized information from the follow-ing data sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census Hous-13 (1970); U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports (Series P-25) Nos. 725 and 777; Century 21 Real Estate (Laplace); Electronic Realty Associates (La Place); Century 21 Real Estate (Luling): Reba Newlon Real Estate (Luling) and Ebasco Services Inc, Population Projections for St Charles and St John the Baptist Parish. The dis-cussions with the real estate agents took place on June 5, 1979.<z;<,n.v._6) L. f N $W O U 301.33-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 301.33-1 HOUSING IN ST. CHARLES PARISH - 1978 Community Occupied (Units) Vacant Units Rate %Total Units Luling 1,259 71 5.3 1,330 Boutte/Paradis 1,213 68 5.3 1,281 llahnville 1,129 64 5.4 1,193 Killona 347 19 5.2 366 Mimosa Pk 544 31 5.4 575 New Sarpy 508 29 5.4 537 St. Rose 764 33 4.1 797 Norco 1,435 81 5.3 1,516 Source: Ebasco Services, Inc. gm , ,s . . . 4 JO;W.it 301.33-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) TABLE 301.33-2 IIOUSING IN ST. J0llN Tile BAPTIST PARISil - 1978 Community Occupied Units Vacant Units Rate %Total Units Edgard 431 45 9.5 476 Laplace 2,126 63 2.9 2,189 Reserve 1,874 56 2.9 1,930 Garyville 690 72 9.5 762 Source: Ebasco Services, Inc. 301.33-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)g; g r ,. y r => d v /= t M '.z WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.34 Please furnish information on secondary educational facilities that provide education to the residents within 0-10 miles, to include: location and size. If applicable, list the institu-tions of higher learning (community colleges, universities) and vocational schools that are within the area of the site. Response serve the residents All public educational facilities that within a ten mile radius of the site were surveyed. For the purposes of this response, these educational facilities are grouped on the basis of the parish they are located in. Included in this response are the impacts of both construction and operational workers associated with the Waterford 3 project on the educational services in both St. Charles Parish and St. John the Baptist Parish. Throughout this response, these workers are referred co as immigrant workers or immigrant popu-lation which are defined as the workers and their households who have moved to within ten miles of the site, because of their involvement in the Waterford 3 project. In order to determine the impacts of these immigrant workers and their associated population on the educational services within ten miles of the site, a Construction Worker Survey was conducted on June 6 and 7,1979 and an Operational Worker Survey was conducted between May 1 to 15,1979 (see Question No. 301.35 Response). The results of these two surveys are used to predict the impacts of the immigrant population on these educational services from 1979 to 1982. Table 301.34-1 lists all public schools that are attended by residents living within ten miles of Waterford 3 in St. Charles Parish, along with current enrollment (1978-79), teacher levels and the excess or deficient teacher capacity. As shown in Table 301.34-1, all schools within the parish have a high degree of excess teacher capacity. Table 301.34-2 indicates the communi-ties which are served by elementary, middle , junior high or high schools within ten miles of the Waterford 3 site. Table 301.34-3 illustrates the impact on the St. Charles Parish Schools of school age children of immigrant workers, who moved within ten miles of Waterford 3. The survey results indicated that the immigrant population and school age children living within ten miles of the site in this parish are primarily located in Luling, Hahnville, Boutte and Paradis. For the survey analysis period (1979 to 1982), all the schools that a re impacted by the immigrant population's school age children are able to absorb their demand for teachers. Table 301.34-4 lists all schools that are within St. John the Baptist Parish, along with current (1978-79) enrollment, teacher level and the excess or deficient teacher capacities (ar cru am udvvo.J 301.34-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER within each school. For this Parish, only Reserve Junior High displays a deficiency of two (2) teachers, while all other schools within the Parish have ample excess capacities. Table 301.34-5 lists St John the Baptist Parish communities which are served by che schools within ten miles of the site. Table 301.34-6 presents the projected impacts on local schools of school age children of immigrant workers which the survey indicates will reside in Laplace and Edgard for the analysis period.Based upon this analysis, all affected schools will be able to absorb the immigrant population's school age children throughout the analysis period. There are no institutions of higher learning or vocational schools in St. Charles Parish or St. John the Baptist Parish. Table 301.34-7 lists all non public schools that are located within the two parishes. For the purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that all immigrant workers children would attend public schools. This analysis of impacts must be considered within the con-text of rapid growth which is taking place within ten miles of Waterford 3. This area, which has been the scene of a number of large construction projects in recent years, is growing in population by approximately 1.7 percent per year.Demands on educational facilities are therefore more likely to evolve from general growth in the area rather than as a result of the Waterford 3 project. .EJ J ';}O n N'k]..301.34-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 301.34-1 SC1100LS ATTENDED BY RESIDENTS LIVING WITilIN TEN MILES OF Tile WATERFORD 3 ST. CilARLES PARISil SC1100L SYSTEM Current Level (*) Excess / Deficient (**) School Location Students / Teachers Capacity (Teachers) Elementary / Middle Carver (4-6)(***) Hahnville 199/18+10 Hahnville (K-3) llahnville 219/16+5 Killona (K-6) Killona 123/14+8 Luling (K-6) Luling 646/36+5 Norco (K-6) Norco 529/36+12 Good flope (1-2) Good flope 112/7+1 St. Rose Primary (K-3) St. Rose 394/23+3 A.A. Songy (4-6) Luling 410/31+15 R.J. Vial (4-6) Paradis 319/26+13 St. Rose Middle (4-6) St. Rose 377/28+13 Allemands (K-3) Des Allemands 357/20+2 Mimosa Pk (K-3) Luling 569/31+3 Junior Iligh llahnville (7-9) Hahnville 565/35+12 J.B. Martin (7-9) Paradis 301/49+17 New Sarpy (7-8) New Sarpy 526/35+14 liigh School Destrehan (9-12) Destrehan 1062/71+29 llahnville (10-12) Boutte 1160/70+24 b [M$ U Notes:* The current levels (students) include the immigrant population's school-age children.

      • The plus (+) indicates an excess capacity and the minus (-)

    indicates a deficient capacity.

        • Numbers in parenthesis represent grades.

    Source: Ebasco Services Inc. and a personal communication with St. Charles Parish School Board, June 4, 1979. 301.34-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 301.34-2 SCHOOLS ATTENDED BY CHILDREN IN THE STUDY AREA C0ftMUNITIES ST. CHARLES PARISH Community Elementary Middle Junior High High School Luling Luling Elementary --Hahnv111e J.H. Ikhnv111e H.S. Boutte Mimosa Pk A.A. Songy J.B. Martin Hahnville H.S. Paradis Allemands R.J. bial J.B. Martin Hahnville H.S. Ikhnville Hahnville Elementary Carver Hahnville J.H. EMhnville U.S. Taft Hahnville Elementary or --thhnv111e J.H. thhnville H.S. K111ona Elementary y K111ona Killona Elementary --Ikhnville J.H. Hahnville H.S. " y Norco Norco Elementary --New Sarpy Destrehan$~New Sarpy Good Hope Norco Elemen ary New Sarpy Destrehan or St. Rose Middle St. Rose St. Rose Primary St. Rose Middle New Sarpy Destrehan (A Source: Personal communication with St. Charles Parish School Board, q June 4, 1979 (?5 T. i$L.'?i n>g EQ"?Y b 8 <w;us 3 ER Tt3LE 101.34-3 IMMIGRANT SCHOOL ACE CHILDR,EN, , IMPACT ON ST. CHARLES PARISal SCtlOOLS Community / Year 1979 1980 1981 1982 Luling- Luling Elementary Resident Requirement for teachers 25 (566)** 25 (556)25 (548)25 (548)Projected level in teachers 36 36 36 36 Excess / deficient capacity of teachers +11+11+11+11 Immigrant demanil for teachers 4 (80)4 (81)3 (71)2 (43)Ability to absorb Yes Yes Yes Yes- Ilahnv111e Junior High Resident Requirement for teachers 22 (554)20 (518)20 (492)20 (501)Projected level in teachers 35 35 35 35 Excess / deficient capacity of teachers +13+15+15+15 w*S Immigrant demand fc. teachers .44 (11).24 (6).08 (2)1 (33)Ability to absorb Yes Yes Yes Yes w T*- Hahnv111e High School Resident Requirement for teachers 46 (1160)45 (1129)44 (1110)42 (1038)Projected level in t' ache rs 70 70 70 70 e Excess / deficient capacity of teachers +24+25+26+28 Immigrant demand for tear.hers 0 0.08 (2).16 (4)Ability to absorb ND ND Yes Yes Rahnv111e- Ilahnv111e Elementary Resident Requirement for teachers 10 (203)10 (199)10 (196)10 (196)Projected level in teachers 16 16 16 16 Excess / deficient capacity of teachers +6+6+6+6 Immigrant demand for teache rs .80 (16).70 (14).70 (14).65 (13)Ability to absorb Yes Yes Yes Yes- Carver Middle School Resident kequirement for teachers 8 (191)8 (195)8 (192)8 (192)Projected level in teache rs 18 18 18 18 Excess / deft:1cnt capacity of teachers +10+10+10+10 Immigrant demand f or teachers .32 (8).24 (6).24 (6)0 Ability to absorb Yes Yes Yes ND>g Boutte ,, t 5 h 5- Mimosa Ptt ((R Re side n t Requirement for teachers 28 (566)28 (556)27 (548)27 (548)(.;z Projected level in teachers 31 31 31 31 ,,,.Excess / deficient capacity of teachers +3+3+4+4 Immigrant demand for teachers .15 (3).05 (1)0 0 f)*Ability to absorb Yes Yes ND ND~*E D 3 WSES 3 ER TABLE 301.34-3 (Cont'd) Community / Year 1079 1980 1981 1982- A.A. Songy Resident Requirement for teachers 16 (409)16 (402)16 (396)16 (396)Projected level in teachers 31 31 31 31 Excess / deficient capacity of teachers +15+15+15+15 Immigrant demand for teachers .04 (1).04 (1)0 0 Ability to absorb Yes ND ND ND- J.B. Martin Resident Requirement for teachers 32 (800)30 (749)28 (710)28 (723)Projected level in teachers 49 49 49 49 Excess / deficient capacity of teachers +17+19+21+21 Immigrant demand f or teachers .04 (1).04 (1)0.40 (10)Ability to absorb Yes ND ND ND Paradis$- Allemands I Resident Requirement for teachers 17 (341)17 (335)16 (330)16 (330)$Projected level in teachers 20 20 20 20 b Excess / deficient capacity of teachers +3+3+4+4 Immigrant demand for teachers .80 (16).60 (16).80 (16).80 (16)Ability to absorb Yes Yes Yes Yes- R.J. Vial Resident Requirement for teachers 12 (309)12 (303)12 (299)12 (299)Projected level in teachers 26 26 26 26 Excess / deficient capacity of teachers +4+4+4+4 Immigrant demand for teachers .40 (10).40 (10).40 (10)0 Ability to absorb Yes Yes Yes ND a.CJ?L?E?)El*?aa:" G O 3 WSES 3 ER TABLE 301.34-3 (Cont'd) Notes:* The terms shown in Table 301.34-3 a e defined as follows: Resident requirement in teachers - the level of teachers required by the resident population's school age children based on the school board's student-teacher ratios. Projected level in teachers - the number of teachers that will be teaching in a specific school. Excess / deficient capacity in teachers - a determination as to whether a school has an excess number of teacners or a deficient number of teachers based upon the school board student-teacher ratios. The plus (+) indicates an excess capacity and the minus (-) indicates a deficient capacity. Immigrant demand for teachers - this is the level of additional teachers required to meet the demand posed by the immigrant population's school age children. Ability to absorb - this means whether a specific service func-tion has the excess capacity to absorb the immigrant demand. ND - this means no immigrant demand for a specific public service. The resident requirements, excess / deficient capacities, and immigrant demand were obtained by utilizing the Operational and Capital Cost Submodel of the Ebasco Residential Model which is a part of the Ebasco Fiscal Impact Model. For Hahnville, the Junior High and High School data is included under the Luling section. For Boutte, the High School data is included under the Luling section. For Paradis, J. B. Martin School data is included under the Boutte section and the High School data is included under the Luling section.

      • The numbers in parenthesis represent the resident and the immigrant school age children.

    Sources: Ebasco Services Inc. and a personal communication .,ith the St. Charles Parish School Board, June 4, 1979. 5, p-)x - > s . r-O,u ht) ris 301.34-7 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 301.34-4 CURRENT SC1100LS WITIIIN Tile ST. JOIIN Tile BAPTIST SC1100L SYSTE!! Current Level Excess / Deficient School _Location Students / Teachers Cag.;lty (Teachers) Elementary / Middle .Garyv111e (K-2)( *) Garyville 156/8+2 Sixth Ward (3-6) Garyville 204/13+5 Reserve Rosenwald (4-6) Reserve 232/13+4 Godchaux Grammar (K-3) Reserve 367/18+4 Woodland (3-5) La Place 33C/17+5 1.a Place (K-2) La Place 373/18+4 Edgard (4-5) Edgard 172/10+4 I.ucy (K-3) Edgard 153/10+4 Junior Iliqh Godchaux (8-9) Reserve 832/46+13 Reserve (6-7) Reserve 692/26-2 W.St. John (6-8) Edgard 378/24+9 liigh School, E.St. John (10-12) Reserve 1,111/67+22 W.St. John (9-12) Edgard 321/29+16 Notes:* The current levels (students) include the immigrant population's school age children.

      • Numbers in parenthesis represent grades.

    The plus (+) indicates an excess capacity and the minus (-)

        • indicates a deficient capacity.

    Source: Ebasco Services Inc. and a personal communication with St. John the Baptist Parish School Board, June 5, 1979. < v c ,-s n .U sl0ld' $ .h 301.34-8 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 301.34-5 SC1100LS ATTENDED BY CHILDREN IN THE STUDY AREA COMMUNITIES - ST. J0!!N THE BAPTIST PARISil Community Elementary Middle Junior High High School Edgard Lucy--W. St. John W. St. John Edgard La Place La Place--Reserve E. St. John Woodland Godchaux Godchaux E. St. John Reserve Godchaux Grammar --Reserve Rosenwald Garyville Garyville and --Godchaux E. St. John Sixth Ward Sources: Personal communication with the St. John the Baptist Parish School Board, June 5, 1979. c s , :n c ):IP d'.l f aj t%.301.34-9 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) VSES 3 ER IABLE 301.34-6 IMMICHANT SCHOOL ACE CHILDRENS' I)IMPACT ON ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST SCH00LS Community / Year 1979 1980 1981 1982 La Place- La Place Elementary ,,)Resident Requirement for teachers 14 (367)13 (350)12 (313)11 (296)Projected level in teachers 18 18 18 18 Excess / deficient capacity of teachers +4+5+6+7 Immigrant demand for teachers .33 (9).33 (9).33 (9).33 (9)Ability to absorb Yes Yes Yes Yes- L'ocdland Elementary Resident Requirement for teachers 12 (325)12 (330)12 (330)12 (326)Projected level in teachers 17 17 17 17 Excess /deficitut capacity of teachers +3+5+5+5 Immigrant demand f or teachers .19 (5).19 (5).19 (5)0 g Ability to absorb Y9'Yes Yes ND." y- Reserve J.ll. 4 Re sident Requirement for teachers 28 (692)26 (658)25 (635)25 (623)c)Projected level in teachers 26 26 26 26 Excess / deficient capacity of teachers -2 0+1+1 Immigrant demand f or teachers 0 0 0.2 (5)Ability to absorb ND ND ND Yes Edgard- Lucy Elementary Re sident Requirement for teachers 6 (152)5 (139)5 (128)4 (120)Projected level in teachers 10 10 10 10 Excess / deficient capacity of teachers +4+5+5+6 Immigrant demand f or teachers .04 (1).02 (1).04 (1).04 (1)Ability to absorb Yes Yes Yes Yes$2 m R r .s s C .D-DJ-03 E4 3 C*n" e se WSES 3 ER TABLE 301.34-6 (Cont'd) 'The terms shown on Table 301.34-6 are defined as follows: Notes:*Resident requirement in teachers - is the level of teachers required by the resident population's school age children based upon the school boards student - teacher ratios. Projected level in teachers - are the number of teachers that will be teaching in a specific school. Excess / deficient capacity in teachers - is a determination as to whether a school has an excess number of teachers or a deficient number of teachers based upon the school board student - teacher ratios. The plus (+) indicates an excess capacity and the minus (--) indicates a deficient capacity. Immigrant demand for teachers - is the level of additional teachers required to meet the demand posed by the immigrant population's school age children. Ability to ebsorb - means whether a specific service function has the excess capacity to absorb the immigrant demand. ND - means no immigrant demand for a specific public service. The resident requirements, excess / deficient capacities and immigrant demand were obtained by utilizing the Operational and Capital Cost Submodel of the Ebasco Residential Model , which is a part of the Ebasco Fiscal Impact Model. There is no projected immigrant school age children demand for Godchaux Junior High and East St. John High School in La Place. There is no projected immigrant school age children demand for Edgard Elementary, West St. John Junior High and West St. John High School in Edgard.

      • The numbers in parenthesis represent the resident school aee children and the immigrant school age children.

    Sources: Ebasco Services Inc. and a personal communication with the St. John the Baptist School Board, June 5, 1979. < ;. -e:-t.r3 u s2s>rs y " 301.34-11 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 301.34-7 NON-PUBLIC SCilOOLS IN ST. CHARLES AND ST. J0llN THE BAPTIST PARISH Enrollment School Location (1978-1979)- St. Charles Parish Sacred Heart (K-8) Norco 333 St. Charles Borromeo (K-8) Destrehan 407- St. John the Baptist St. Joan of Arc (K-8) La Place 851 St. Peter (K-8) Re serve 453 Our Lady of Grace (1-8) Reserve 158 Riverside Academy (K-8) Reserve 604 St. Charles Borromeo High (9-12) La Place 409.Note:. Numbers within parenthesis represent grades. Source: Personal communications with the St. Charles Parish School Board, June 4,1979 and St. John the Baptist School Board, June 5,1979. bCbS[.5){} 301.34-12 Amendment No. 1, (9/ 79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.35 Please elaborate on the social services (i.e., police, fire, water, sewage, hospitals, medical services) offered to muni-cipal residents within 0-10 miles on the site. /si s o , include what services St. John the Baptist Parish and St. Charles Parish offer its citizenry. Response The discussion which follows presents a description of these social service functions and their associated service levels and an analysis of the adequacy of the current service levels to handle current and future demands. Since all the communities within ten miles are unincorporated areas and therefore have no provisions to provide public services, all services are provided by the parishes. The following public services were analyzed: general control-financial administration police sheriff-fire-water supply-sewer-sanitation , ,,,,, ,-library v d .;/4 t-health-hospitals The general control service consists of the parish administra-tion, planning, legal and judicial functions. In St. Charles Parish, the general control function serves the entire parish andgsacurrent (1979) service level of 31 full-time employ-ees For St. John the Baptist Parish, the general control .function also serves the entire parish gghasacurrent service level of 19 full-time employees The financial administration function handles all central financing agencies within the parish, including tax collector, treasurer, and central purchasing. Both the St. Charles Parish and the St. John the Baptist Parish financial administrations serve their entire parishes and have current service levels of24{yljtimeemployc; sand 15 full-time employees, respec-tively*The police function is the sherif f's department within each parish and includes not only uniformed forces, but also admini-strative, 21erical and other non-uniformed personnel. The St. Charles Parish Sheriff's Department serves the entire parish and currently has a service level of 69 full-time 301.35-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER lI)employees The St. John the Baptist Parish Sheriff's .Department, which also serves the entir rish, has a current service level of 51 full-time employees The fire service function consists of several community volun-teer fire departments within each parish. The available fire flow in gallons per minute (gpm) for communities within ten miles of the site ranges from 500 gpm (Killona) to 3,750 gpm (Laplace). The water supply function for residents located within ten miles of the site consists of two water works districts in each parish. The water supply system within St. Charles Parish consists of: Water Works District #1, which serves the East Bank of St. Charles Paris has a current capacity of 7.0 million gallons per day (mgd) and Water Works District #2, which serves the Wes ank of St. Charles Parish, has a current capacity of 6.0 St. John the Baptist Parish also has two water works mgd.districts: Water Works District #1 and #3. Water Works District

    1. 1 serv only a part of Reserve and has a present capacity of 0.5 mgd Water Works District #3 serves Edgard, Vacherie,.the remainder of Reserve, LaPlac (8 I"' "" 7**has a present capacity of 6.0 mgd Within ten miles of the site, the sewer function consists of two sewer districts in each parish.

    The sewer system in St. Charles Parish located within ten miles of the site is composed of: Sewer District #1, which encompasses the East Bank of St. Charles Parish and Sewer District #3 which encompasses the West Bank of St. Char g Parish. Sewer District

    1. 1hasacurrentcapacityof1.25mgfl0),w e wer strict#3 has a current capacity of 1.0 mgd In St. John the

    .Baptist Parish, the sewer system is also made up of two dis-tricts.Sewer Dist

    1. 1 serves only Reserve and has a current capacity of 1.3 mgd , while Sewer Distr 2, serving Laplace, has a current capacity of 1.0 mgd The sanitation service function only applies to trash collection in St. Charles Parish,whichisapgsh-wideservicewithacurrent service level of four trucks There is no public sanitation ser-

    .vice in St. John the Baptist Parish. The library service function is a parish-wide service in both St. Charles and St. John the Baptist Parishes. The St. Charles Pari ibrary currently has a collection of 95,840 vol-umes , while the St. John the st Library has a cur-rent collection of 40,823 volumes The health service function is also a parish-wide service in both Ct. Charles and St. John the Baptist Parishes, and is in-volved with the administration of public health programs, visiting nurse services, clinics, water and air pollution pro-grams and immunization programs. In St. Charle arish, the current service level is 12 full-time employees and St.Amendment No. 1, (9/79)301.35-2 C; wM vdOG WSES 3 ER service level of 10 full-John the Bapti g)Parishhasacurrent time employees The hospital service function consists of four hospitals which serve the two parishes. The West Bank of St. Charles Parish is annualcapeityof18,250patientdays{g)Lulingwithacurrent served by St. Charles Parish Hospital The East Bank of St. Charles Parish and Laplace in St. John the Baptist Parish areservedbyEastJeffersonGeneralHospitalin{gggiriewith a current annual capacity of 155,125 patient days The.West Bank of St. John the Baptist Parish is served by the West St. James Hospital in annual capacity of10,220patientdays{gggeriewithacurrent and the remaining portion of the , East Bank of St. John the Baptist Parish is served by St. James ParishHospitalinLut{pggwhichhasacurrentannualcapacity of 14,965 patient days Included in this response is the estimated effect of both con-struction and operational workers associated with the Waterford 3 project, on public services in both St. Charles Parish and St. John the Baptist Parish. Workers are referred to as immigrant workers or immigrant population, which are defined as the workers and their households who have moved within ten miles of the site because of their involvement in the Waterford 3 project. In order to determine the effect of these immigrant workers and their associated population on public services, a" Construction Worker Survey" was conducted on June 6 and 7,1979 and an " Operational Worker Survey" was conducted between May 1 to 15, 1979. The results of these two surveys are used to pre-dict the impact of the immigrant population upon public services from 1979 to 1982. Table 301.35-1 lists the various social services offered to residents within ten miles of the site. It also indicates if any excess capacity exist within each service function for the years 1979 to 1982. Therefore it can be determined whether a particular service function has the ability to absorb the service demand generated by the immigrant workers who reside or will reside within ten miles of the site for the years 1979 to 1982. The analys12 investigates these years because 1) in 1979, the immigrant work force is a maximum (maximum construc-tion work force year) and therefore the impacts on social services are a maximum and 2) in 1982, Waterford 3 will be operational and the immigrant worker impacts on social services are expected to be representative of the operational phase. All the service functions within St. Charles Parish exhibit excess capacities and have the ability to absorb the immigrant population's service demands. In St. John the Baptist Parish, all service functions, except for general control, Sewer Dis-trict #2, and the library, demonstrate excess capacities and have the ability to absorb the immigrant population's service demand.ty:: cen n uun& >301.35-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER In St. John the Baptist Parish, the general control service function has the ability to absorb the immigrant population's induced demand in 1979. For 1980 and 1981, the resident (not includinggigrantworker) requirement is for 19 full-time employees andtheprojectedserviggjevelforthesame time period is 19 full-time employees thereby requiring no additional employees to meet the projected demand. The immigrant populatioginduceddemandisquitesmall-0.05 full-time employ g in 1980 and 0.03 full-time employees in 1981 and 1982 Although the resident population places .this service function at its capacity, it is not expected that this small immigrant population demand will create a deficient capacity.Sewer District #2 has a 1.0 mgd capac nd a pre-mgdand1.345mgdgage)of1.292mgd dictegsident requirement 1.317 for la77, 1980 and 1981, respectively (in 1982, a parish-wide system will be in opera-tion). The result is a deficient capacity of 0.292 mgd in 1979, 0.317 mgd in 1980 and 0.345 mgd by 1981. The immigrant population's induced demand is an addit 0.006mgdin1980and0.004mgdin1981gl0.007mgd1,1979, which cannot be absorbed.However, in comparison to the total deficient capa-city, the immigrant population's portion is considered to be negligible. The St. John the Baptist Parish Library has a current resi-dent requiremen 53,468 volumes which will increase to 55,562 volu by 1982 The current collection is 40,823 vol- .umes(19), and is expected to increase to 49,085 volumes by 1982 ,whichwillreducethedeficiegg pacity from a current 12,645 volumes to 6,477 by 1982 The current and projected immigrant population's demand for volumes therefore cannot be absorbed without expansion of present facilities. The above' discussed analyses of impacts must be considered within the context of rapid growth which is taking place within 10 miles of Watarford 3. The area, which has been the scene of a number of large cui.ecruction projects in recent years is growing in population by approximately 1.7 percent per year. Demands on services are therefore much more likely to evolve from general growth in the area rather than as a result of Waterford 3, as shown (by the relatively small fraction of the total increase in service demands ganerated by the immi-grant population) in the preceding discussion on services within the St. John the Baptist Parish. g 353.3 4 301 o-4 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Reference 1.Personal communication with the St. Charles Parish Administrator, June 4, 1979.2.Personal communication with the St. John the Baptist Administrator, June 5, 1979. 3.Personal communication with the St. Charles Parish Department of Civil Defense, June 21, 1979. 4.Personal communication with the St. John the Baptist Parish Department of Civil Defense, June 21, 1979. 5.Personal communication with the Superintendent of the St Charles Parish Water Works District #1, June 6, 1979. 6.Personal communication with the Superintendent of the St. Charles Parish Water Works #2, June 6, 1979. 7.Personal communication with the Superintendent of the St. John the Baptist Parish Water Works District #1, June 8, 1979. 8.Personal communication with the Superintendent of the St. John the Baptist Parish Water Works District #3, June 8, 1979. 9.Personal communication with the Superintendent of the St. Charles Parish Sewer District #1, June 6, 1979.

    10. Personal communication with the Superintendent of the St. Charles Parish Sewer District #3, June 6, 1979.
    11. Personal communication with the Superintendent of the St. John the Baptist Sewer District #1, June 8, 1979.
    12. Personal communication with the Superintendent of the St. John the Baptist Sewer District #2, June 8, 1979.
    13. Personal communication with the Head Librarian of the St. Charles Parish Library, June 18, 1979.
    14. Personal communication with the Head Librarian of the St. John the Baptist Parish Library, June 18, 1979.
    15. Personal communication with the Administrator of the St. Charles Parish Hospital, June 4, 1979.
    16. Personal communication with the medical records department of East Jef f erson General Hospital, June 17, 1979.

    1/. Personal communication with the Administrator of West St. James Hospital, June 17, 1979. $ $ $ 2,5 301.35-5 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Reference (Cont'd)

    18. Personal communication witin the Administrator of St. James Parish llospital, June 17, 1979.
    19. Number of immigrant workers, and dependent populations, obtained from a survey of construction and operational workers at Waterford 3, June 6 - /, 1979.

    Public service impact derived from the Operational and Capital Cost Submodel of the Ebasco Residental Model which is a part of the Ebasco Fiscal Impact Model. O p ..c. < x& *JL2 cu.% , > 301.35-6 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 301.35-1 SERVICE LEVELS FOR ST. CHARLES PARIS 11 AND ST. JOllN Tile BAPTIST PARISH PARISH 1979 1980 1981 1982 SERVIC5 FUNCTION EXCESS CAPACITY A.A*EXCESS CAPACITY A.A EXCESS CAPACITY A.A EXCESS CAPCITY A.A St. Charles General Central Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Financial Administration Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Police (Sheriff) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fire Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Water District #1 Yes ND*Yes ND Yes ND Yes ND Water District #2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sewer District #1 Yes ND Yes ND Yes ND Yes ND Sewer District #3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sanitation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Health Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yet g Hospital Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Y U L St. John the Baptist General Central Yes Yes No No No N No No Financial Administration Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Police (Sheriff) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fire Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Water District #1 Yes ND Yes ND Yes ND Yes ND Water District #3** Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sewer District #1** Yes ND Yes ND Yes ND Yes ND Sewer District #2 No No No No No No Yes Yes Library No No No No No No No No Hea lt h Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Hospitals Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (O C ii c'e., t-s v.e h 7..~t e WSES 3 ER Notes

    • The following abbreviations are utilized in Table 1 A.A - Ability to absorb immigrant demand ND - No immigrant demand in that specific instance for service function.,** In 1982, St. John the Baptist Sewer District #2 will be expanded into parish-wide system, with Sewer District #1.

    Explanation of Methodology The number of immigrant construction and operational workers, and dependent population within 10 miles was determined from Ebasco's Construction Worker Survey (N=254) conducted on June 8, 1979 and June 9, 1979, and the Ebasco Operational Worker Survey (N=88) conducted between May 1, 1979 to May 15, 1979.The estimate of resident requirement on service levels or capacities, excess / deficient capacities and immigrant induced demand for specific service function were derived from the Operational and Capital Cost Submodel of the Ebasco Residential Model which is a part of the Ebasco Fiscal Impact Model. Sources: Ebasco Services Inc, Construction Worker Survey, June, 1979 and Operational Worker Survey, May, 1979. ca~. .. c<st)O,w,)i) 301.35-8 Amendment No. f, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.36 Approximately, how much money was generated by labor and pro-prietors income during 1978 for the following economic activ-ities: manuf acturir.,,; agriculture; forestry; and, retail / commercial services. This information should only involve the activities presented in Section 2.1.3.3, 2.1.3.5.2b, c, 2.1.3.5.3, and 2.1.3.5.4. Response Table 301.36-1 shows the income generated from manufacturing, agriculture, forestry and retail / commercial services in the two parishes immediately surrounding the project site for 1977, the most recent year for which data is presently available. The manufacturing sector contributed over two-thirds of the total income generated fr these activities in both parishes, while the retail / commercial sector contributed a large portion of the remainder. Due to a lack of reliable data, forestry could not be differ-entiated further than the category of " Agricultural Services, Forestry and Fisheries". However, the income this sector The 1976 generates is a small porti g)of each parish total." County Business Patterns" confirms this, listing only one small establishment in St John and two small establishments in St Charles Parish for this entire income source category. Reference 1.U S Department of Commerce, " County Business Patterns", Louisiana, 1976.<t-.or-6a.w.-.3dr .301.36-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 301.36-1 INCOME SOURCE BY PARISH FOR 1977 St Charles St John The Baptist % of Parish % of Parish Income Source $ (x 1000) Total S (x 1000) Total Totals Manufacturing 105,443 7/.5 33,874 71.9 139,317 Agriculture 1,025.8 4,231 9.0 5,256 Agriculture Service, Forestry and Fisheries 234.2 114.2 348 Retail / Commercial 29,219 21.5 8,882 18.9 38,101 Totals 135,921 100.0 4/,101 100.0 183,022 Source: Data extracted from the current Bureau of Economic Analysis," Regional Economic Information System" printout, Table 5.00, for both parishes, (includes 1977 data). .[3[.5[.s,$l$)(.) 301.36-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.3/Please present information on property taxes for 1977 and 1978 for each community within 0-10 miles of the site and St. John the Baptist Parish and St. Charles Parish. This information should include a breakdown of taxes into amounts collected by each taxing district. Response For both of these parishes, property taxes are collected on the basis of taxing wards. The tax wards combine several communities into each ward. Within a ten mile radius of Waterford there are seven tax wards in St. Charles Parish and six tax wards in St. John the Baptist Parish. The communities which comprise each tax ward are as follows: St Charles Parish Ward 1 - Hahnville, Taft and Killona Ward 2 - Luling and Ama Ward 3 part of Destrehan, part of Good Hope and New Sarpy Ward 4 - Des Allemands and Bayou Gauche Ward 5 - St Rose and part of Destrehan Ward 6 - Norco, Good Hope and part of Montz Ward 7 - Paradis and Boutte .St John the Baptist Parish Ward 1 part of Edgard and Lucy Ward 2 part of Edgara Ward 3 - the area between Vacherie and EDGARD Ua rd 4 - Laplace Ward 5 - Reserve Ward 6 - Garyville and Mount Airy Tables 301.37-1 and 301.37-2 present the property tax revenue from St. Charles Parish and St. John the Baptist Parish, respec-tively, for the years 1977 and 1978. gs,.,' s J u 1 '. 301.37-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 301.37-1 ST. CHARLES PARISH - PROPERIY I n.s acwthLE Taxing 1977 1978 District Rate Revenue Rate Revenue Wards (in" mills)(in mills) General Parish Tax 3.44$ 325,262.97 3.02 S 388,333.68 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 Libra ry 6.24 590,011.89 5.34 686,656.25 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 Public Courthouse 2.15 203,289.35 2.15 2/6,462.72 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 School Const. & Tmp. 4.30 406,578.71 3.78 486,060.04 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 School Maint. 4.30 406,578.71 3.78 486,060.04 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 School Bonds 17.50 1,654,680.79 16.07 2,066,398.09 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 School Constitutional 4.30 406,578.71 3.78 486,060.04 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 St. Charles Par. Hospital 3.87 365,920.84 3.23 415,337.03 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 Sheriff 9.39 881,854.44 8.25 1,060,845.32 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 Public Improvement Bonds 1.50 141,829.78 1.00 128,587.32 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 Road Lighting 1.29 119.406.25 1.12 143,223.03 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 w 3'Waterworks District #1 10.50 455,829.31 9.84 528,205.98 3-5-6 w Waterworks District #2 6.38 2/8,847.06 5.38 346,353.70 1-2-4-7 Y Road District #1 2.15 68,718.54 2.07 67,910.87 2-4-7" Road District #2 2.15 32,956.37 1.57 54,438.83 1-2 Road District 73 2.15 97,326.38 1.99 113,852.81 3-5-6 Drainage District #2 2.22 22,230.75 1.83 18.464.28 3-6.Pontchartrain Levee 4.30 195,882.07 3.66 710,347.30 3-5-6 Sewage District #1 3.50 88,816.95 3.20 96,641.93 3-6 Sewage District #3 4.00 78,478.96 4.41 77,340.67 2-7 Fine District #1 1.72 83,478.96 1.62 104,304.69 1-2-4-7 Total 6,910,818.89 8,241,884.62 Homestead Exemption Returred 651,725 645,851 Total Application Valuation$94,553,188 $128,L87,311 Source: St. Charles Parish - Tax Assessor, June 7, 1979 $a (?)i Cii a CC EiJ z o p*W'p.l\s-O b 3 , WSES Ea TABLE 301.37-2 ST. J0h:. T c ."~ ' - PROPERTY TAX REVENUE Taxing 1977 197g District Rate Revenue Rate Revenue Wards (in mills)(in mills) General Parish Tax 3.20$93,184.18 2.85 S 98,323.47 1-2-3-4-5-6 Libra ry 6.00 174,729.71 5.35 184,572.13 1-2-3-4-5-6 Public Courthouse 4.80 139,783.77 4.28 147,657.71 1-2-3-4-5-6 Schools 34.00 990,135.01 31.60 1,090,183.20 1-2-3-4-5-6 Sheriff 16.05 467,401.97 14.32 494,032.40 1-2-3-4-5-6 Parish Water Improvement Bonds 8.00 232,972.86 7.13 245,981.21 1-2-3-4-5-6 Public Improvement Bonds 1.25 36,492.02 1.25 43,124.34 1-2-3-4-5-6 Public Health Unit 1.20 34,945.94 1.07 36,914.43 1-2-3-4-5-6 Public Land and Buildings --2.10 72,448.89 1-2-3-4-5-6 Road Lights 1.60 46,594.59. 00 137,997.88 1-2-3-4-5-6 Lafourche Levee

    1-2-3 Ponchartrain Levee 4.00 106,945.31 3.66 117,583.06 4-5-6 8 Water Works District #2 3.20 6,492.66 3.41 6,904.67 1-2-3." Water Works District #3 1.75 41,296.57 1.56 43,813.67 4-5-6 d Sewage District il 6.00 44,762.24 6.29 44,024.17 5 i Sewage District #2 11.20 111.581.38 16.39 137,179.49 4 Fire District #2 6.00 57,273.94 8.91 66,014.39 4-5-6 Total 2,582,952.15 2,964,105.25 Homestead Exemption Returned 735,279.99 1,508,278.45 Total Applicable Valuation$29,121,618

    $34,499,469 Source: St. John the Baptist Parish - Tax Assessor, June 7, 1979 $B (0[Ci;g Q/34 r D G 2 .WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.38 Provide a detailed discussion of the field methods, analysis, and results of the limited survey on the plant prcperty and transmission carridor. Include a discussion of the chronology, structure, and tonction of all cultural resources found and evaluated during this study including surface and subsurface evidence.Include consideration of resources that may be important to the religious cultural rights and practices of Native Americans. Response The onsite field survey referred to in the OLER consisted of a visual inspection of portions of the plant site by Robert W Neuman, Curator of Anthropology, Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University. It included examina-tion of: 1)Road ditches and road construction spoil in the vicinity of the 230 KV lines south of the railroad tracks, 2)The river bank, the batture, and the profiles of structure excavations (approximately 12 feet in depth) near the intake and discharge structures, and 3)Several cultivated fields immediately upriver, downriver, and south of the railroad. No cultural resources were found during the course of the survey.< 3 s: , ,..w, , 4 Oa.~301.38-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 3L .39 Provide the same kind of data specified in Question No. 301.38 for other disturbed areas of the plant property where a field reconnaissance for locating surface and buried sites is still feasible.Response The field investigation covered all disturbed areas of the plant property where survey was still feasible. b582(ib 301.39-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.40 Provide a more specific discussion of the prehistory and history of the local area including information on the ethno-history.Provide available state and county lists or registers of important cultural resources, chronology, etc that have been listed. Response The prehistory of the general area of Waterford 3 is summarized in Table 2.6-1 of the OLER. Since no archaeological sites have been found in the immediate project area a more detailed dis-cussion is not possible. llistorical data about the project area was presented in the Construction Permit Environmental Report: "Somewhere between 1719-1722 while New Orleans itself was being settled by the French, a second settlement, founded by a German leader Commandant Karl Friedrich D'Arensbourg, called Karlstein was being developed at what is now the town of Killona. This area became known as the German coast. Later it became a center for the influx of Acadians and others who settled up and down the river on both banks.In the early 1800's, Karlstein became known as Freetown. Later, around the turn of the century Killona became the of ficial iame of the settlement. Killona was a name which had been given to a plantation in the area when it was purchased in the 1880's by Richard Milliken. Milliken was a native of Ireland and Killona is the Gaelic for Church of St John. This was a historical reminder of the fact that the first little chapel built by these first German settlers had been dedicated to St John.The little chapel was called "St Jean des Allema nds " . Today the site of the chapel is on Trinity Plantation. The original chapel served the Germans unt?1 1740 when a new church was erected at Destrehan and dedicated to St Charles Borromeo. Ilere residents from both sides of the river assembled for services. In 1772, St John the Baptist Church was erected at Edgard. The first German villages became known as Les Allemands-Aux Allemands. As the settlers expanded along the river on both sides, the whole area became known under the French as Cote Des Allemands. -.--gu.lse 0&n 30.1.40-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Under the Spanish it was called La Costa De Las Allemanes. After 1803 it was known simply as the German Coast. In 1804 a civil district was set up which was soon divided into the two parishes which today are known as St Charles and St John the Baptist." Detailed information on the ethnohistory of the area is con-tained in the following sources: (1) Swanton, John R (1911). Indian Tribes of the lower Mississippi Valley and Adjacent Coast of the Gulf of Mexico, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 43. (2) Swanton, John R (1942). Source Material on the History and Ethnology of the Caddo Indians, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 132. (3) Swanton, John R (1946). The Indians of the Southeastern United States, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 137. (4) Le Page Du Pratz, Antoine S (1758). Histoire de la Louisiane, Paris. (5) Kniffen, Fred B (1975)." Louisiana's Historic Indians", in Louisiana Archaeology: Bulletin of the Louisiana Archaeological Society No. 2. (6) Adair, James (1775). The History of the American Indian, Edward and Charles Dilly, London. The office of the State Archaeologist and the State Department of Art, Historical and Cultural Preservation have advised that there are no prehistoric or historic sites recorded in the project area. There are, in addition, no sites in the project area on, nominated to, or declared eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places. bdiUU7 0 301.40-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.41 Provide a monitoring / mitigation program for protecting the cultural resources that may remain on the plant property and in the transmission corridor. This program must consider both direct and indirect impacts. Response Mitigation programs (including monitoring) are appropriate only when cultural resources on, nominated to, or declared eligible for the National Register of Historic Places have been identi-fled in a project area. No such resources have been found on the Waterford 3 property. Indirect impact on resources outside the project arem cannot be made until a definition of the boundary of the indirect impact area has been made by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (36 CFR 800.2(o)). c ~ ; es? - c v s> O A,uv;; 301.41-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79). WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.42 Provide copies of all references used to prepare the environ-mental statement and respcnse to these questions. Response Copies of source material may ha consulted at the Louiciana State University Library, the Harvard-Peabody Museum Library, the library of the American liuseum of Natural History, and the LitJary of Congress. c c . n , c. sJ Y En An U-~,5 301.42-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 301.43 We need additional information about the wetlands portion of the site: a)What is carried in the pipelines that go through the wet-lands portion of the site? b)When was ea:h pipeline laid down? c)When was the transmission line that crosses this portion of the site built? d)Are the ROWS maintained free of trees and shrubs or are thef being permitted to return to their natural site? e)What types of treatment with herbicides, if any, and vegetation control program, if any, are in use? f)What are the plans to assesa the site wetlands ecology in the ROWS? g)Do either of the transects, shown in the figures of"Propcseu Modifications Terrestrial Ecology Monitoring Progrr.m," sent to Phil Cota, NRC, 2/23/79 cross any of the ROW's? If so, which ones? h)What monitoring practices are maintained to detect any leakage or seepage from the pipelines? Response Alttough the operation of these pipelines in the wetlands port. ion of the site are independent of the construction and operation of Waterford 3, a response to each item above is presented below for information purposes. a)The location and identification of the pipelines that go through the wetland portion of the site are shown in Figure 2.2-3 of the Waterford 3 - Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Table 2.2-6 (pp 2.2-68 through 2.2-71) of the FSAR contains information on the material trans-ported through these pipelines. b)The year which each of these pipelines was laid down is also presented in Table 2.2-6 of the FSAR. c)The transmission which crosses the wetlands portion of the site was constructed in 1971. d),e)The power line right-of-ways are being maintained free of undesirable brush by aerial application of EPA and state W$$lc0 301.43-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79). WSES 3 ER approved herbicides. This control allows for a ground cover of low growing vegetation, trees and shrubs. Vege-tation growth in the transmission line corridor is con-trolled by mowing. Herbicides and mowing are used to con-trol vegetation growth in pipeline ROW's. f)The Terrestrial Ecology Monitoring Program presently being conducted is designed to assess long term impacts on the floral and faunal components on the site as a result of contruction and subsequent operation of Waterford 3. As noted in items (d) and (e) above, the R0Ws are being maintained in an early successional stage. Consequently, it was not considered to be appropriate to evaluate the impacts of site construction and operation in these areas. Rather, the focus of the terrestrial ecology studies is in the natural swamp forest communities. g)The current terrestrial ecology monitoring program in-cludes a boat transect which crosses a R0W in the eastern portion of this site, h)The various pipelines which cross the wetlands portion of the site are monitored to oetect leakage or seepage. The owners of ther e pipelines all utilize visual inspection to monitor leaka;;e. In addition, some of the pipeline owners (Gulf Centra? , Texaco Natural Gas and Texas Brine Company) have instal'.ed remote automatic leakage detection systems. Ike following discussion describes these pipeline monitor-ing techniques: 1.Gulf Central All major lines in the system are monitored at a Gulf Central Facility in Tulsa. A pressure drop in the line causes a warning signal in the Tulsa Facility and the lines can be blocked by remote control. The Tulsa operator would arrange to have the manual valves closed. The pipelines are patrolled approxi-mately every two weeks by aerial reconnaissance. 2.Texaco Natural Gas and the LP&L Gas Pipeline Taxaco natural gas pipelines have automatic isolation valves actuated by sensing pipeline pressure. A sig-nificant drop in the line pressure causes the valves to close and, in the case of the ethane line, sig-nificant pressure increase will also cause valve closure.The natural gas pipeline branching to both LP6L and Union Carbide have manual valves. A drop in pressure in these pipes would be detected at =he Paradis plant, approximately 10 miles south of the Waterford site, and manual valve closure would be implemented. 301.43-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)30$1M WSES 3 ER The lines are nonitored aerially every two weeks. In addition, pipeline personnel typically drive in the vicinity of the pipeline during their normal work thereby increasing the frequency of visual inspec-tions.3.Texas Brine Company An automatic control system detects any leak in the line by telemetry and switches off the flow by remote control.In addition, patrols by helicopter and by foot are conducted twice a year. 4.Sugar Bowl Gas The pipelines are monitored monthly by aerial recon-naissance. In addition, workers drive by the area frequently and thereby provide additional inspec-tions. The valves are manually operated. A complete rupture would be detected by telemetry and the valves would be manually closed. It is estimated that a Sugar Bowl employee wecli require a maximum of two hours to get to the valve and shut it. 5.Transcontinental Pipeline Company The owner of the pipelines reports that these pipe-lines contain manual valves and that monitoring of these pipelines for leaks, ruptures, etc is in com-pliance with Federal Regulation 49, Part 192. b ,-sw4 ,2 - < % e ud.301.43-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 332.1 Provide data on the annual meat (Kg/yr), milk (liters /yr) and (2.1.3)agricultural crop production (Kg/yr) by sectors for the area within a radius of 50 miles from the station (similar to Table 2.1-1). Response Tables 332.1-1 through 332.1-3 present estimates of annual meat, milk and agricultural crop production, respectively, by annular sectors for the area within a 50 mile radius from the station for the year 1978. Tables 332.1-3 through 332.1-5 present the same data based on projections for the year 2000. These projections are obtained by analyzing recent trends for each of these items in the parishes located within a 50 mile radius of the site. Projections of these food pro-duction rates are presented for the year 2000 for the purpose of offering a comparison of these results with the projections utilized in the dosage pathway analysis presented la Section 5.2 of the OLER. The discuselon presents the methodology, assumptions and data sources utilized to develop these projections. Basically, the methodology consisted of obtaining available data on both food production and land use in each parish and then distributing the food production into the various annular sectors. A.Meat and Milk Production Data on cattle and milk cow populations for the individual parishes comprising the Louisiana Coastal Zone has been collected by the Agriculture Louisiana CooperativeExtensionService{ggnomicsDepartment, Th: Agriculture Economics De par tment lists total cattle product ion and milk cows. There-fore, to derive the beef cattle population, the number of milk cows in each parish is subtracted from the total cattle po p u-lation. Data for the years 1969-1974 was used in this analy-sis.Post 1974 figures are not used because this was a period ofherdliquidationinLouisiana,ag) populations for these years are considered to be atypical The present (i.e., 1978) and future cattle population estimate are based on the average annual rate of increase from 1969 to 1974 for each parish and for the entire Louisiana Coastal Zone. Both the present and future populations are conservatively pro-jected from 1974 figures for each parish at the average annual rate of increase for that parish or for the entire Coastal Zone, whichever is greater. Meat production is calculated by assuming that 50 percent of allherdsareslaughteredeachyear,andthak33heaverage dressed weight of a steer is 272 kg (600 lb) In terms.b. . . ,. n - 4 oadC D

    • 332.1-1 Amendment No.

    1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER of annual meat production, assuming that SG percent of the herd is slaughtered is clearly conservative since the population would not increase if half of all herds are annually slaughtered (one cow produces one calf per year). Tables 332.1-1 and 332-1-4 present the projection of meat (beaf) production for the study area by annular sector for 1978 and 2000, respec-tively. The year 2000 is utilized because dosage pathways were calculated for that year in Chapter 5 of the OLER. !! ilk is produced in only four of the parishes which are within 50 miles of tr.e site (East Baton Rouge, Livingston, St. Tamma ny , and Tangipahoa). Prec year production data are based on actual production data Deta for the years 1969 to 1978 are used to calculate the ual rate of increase in milk production for each averag a parish Future production is determined by projecting the

    • .1978 figures at the calculated average annual rate of increase for each parish. This production is multiplied by the percentage of each parish within each sector, as was done for meat produc-tion. Tables 332.1-2 and 332.1-5 respectively present the esti-mated milk production rates for each annular sector for 1978 and 2000.B.Agricultural Crop Production In considering agricultural crop production, only vegetables are analyzed because leafy vegetables are considered to be the most direct radioactive dosage pathway (see Section 5.3 of the OLER).Information on acreage devoted to vegetable production for each parish in, or partially within, 50 miles of the plant was ob-Cooperative Extension Service ] ,5*'d . This data tained for the years 1970, 19" *#"*indicates a consistent reduction in land area devoted to this function in the concerned parishes (e.g., 1970 = 8624 acres, 1977 = 5013 acres, 1978 - 4613 acres). The conservative assumption is made that the 1978 acreage vogld remain constant through the year 2000. A yield of 2 kg/m (as per NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109) is used to calculate the total production for each parish.

    Table 332.1-3 presents the estimated vegetable production for each annular sector for the year 1978 (and consequently for 2000).C.Allocation of Production Data to Annular Sector The allocation of parish-wide estimates and projections of agricultural production to annular sectors was accomplished as follows: 1.The areas within each parish falling inside the 50-mile study area are divided into agriculturally productive and non productive portions. It is assumed that the non-c p ',\-o v 'J 332.1-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER productive areas consisted of both urban, built-up areas (as defined by the U.S. Census, 1970) and areas of swamp, forest, marsh or water, (as indicated on U.S.G.S. 1:250,000 topographical maps). The remaining areas are assumed to be agriculturally productive. 2.The percentage of the agriculturally productive portion of each parish within each annular sector is calculated. Food production data for each parish is then multipled by the appropriate percentage figures to arrive at the allo-cation of each parish's food production to annular sec-tors.The production data within each annular sector is then summed to complete the allocation which is presented in Tables 332.1-1 through 332.1-5., - . . -SQfi,ui'i 332.1-3 Amendment No.1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER REFERENCES 1.Stallings, E F, T F Maher and D Manuel, "An Analysis of Agriculture, Forestry and Mariculture in the Coastal Zone of Louisiana", State of Louisiana, Coastal Resources Program, 1975. 2.Personal Communication, T Clement, Instructor of Animal Husbandry, University of Southern Louisiana, June 20, 1979. 3.Carpenter, John C," Producing Quality Beef with Grass and Grain", Louisiana State University, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 627, July 1978. 4.1978 Louisiana Agricultural Summary, Louisiana State University Cooperative Extension Service. 5.1977 Louisiana Agricultural Summary, Louisiana State University Cooperative Extension Service. 6.Unpublished data for 1970 on file at the Louisiana State University Cooperative Extension Service, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. O i , m , m c, gj a J G t La 332.1-4 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 332.1-1 ANNUAL MEAT PRODUCTION (kg/yr) WITHIN 50 MILES OF WATERFORD 3 FOR THE YEAR 1978 Total Inside 5 Miles = 397,440 kg Annuli Sectors 5-10 Mi 10-20 Mi 20-30 Mi 30-40 mi 40-50 Mi Total N 16,200 0 108,140 1,926,710 2,414,670 4,465,720 NNE O O 10,300 1,338,760 1,410,470 2,759,530 NZ 0 0 0 367,010 905,520 1,272,530 ENE O O O 34,300 435,610 469,910 E O 50,085 16,758 52,479 0 119,322 ESE 126,360 99,384 120,712 146,748 40,572 533,776 SE 143,640 24,300 16,611 34,034 84,480 303,065 SSE 60,480 102,600 101,640 319,440 65,340 649,500 S 12,960 110,940 627,990 182,050 0 933,940 SSW 0 159,720 626,780 353,320 47,520 1,187,340 SW 0 29,040 858,330 223,520 4,840 1,115,730 WSW 0 30,690 806,640 120,232 255,476 1,213,038 W 0 212,320 247,429 184,621 346,403 990,973 UNW 0 51,040 371,360 954,420 1,419,719 2,796,539 NW 0 0 185,360 862,540 2,315,300 3,363,200 NNW 0 0 193,000 467,060 544,260 1,204,320 TOTAL 359,640 870,319 4,291,050 7,567,244 10,290,180 23,775,873*

    • Includes total inside 5 miles

    ' bSc"lb 332.1-5 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 332.1-2 ANNL'AL MILK PRODUCTION (1/yr) WITilIN 50 MILES OF WATERFORD 3 FOR Tile YEAR i- ' 8_ Total Inside 5 Miles = 0 liters Annuli Sectors 5-10 Mi 10-20 Mi 20-30 Mi 30-40 Mi 40-50 Mi Total N O O 1,381,586 27,523,578 34,615,796 63,520,960 NNE O 0 150,765 16,335,231 12,086,135 28,572,131 NE O C 0 526,220 1,298,337 1,821,557 ENE O O 0 49,179 624,579 673,758 E O O O O O O ESE O 0 0 0 0 0 SE O 0 0 0 0 0 SSE O O 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 WNW 0 0 0 0 799,875 799,875 NW 0 0 74,900 757,078 3,787,001 4,618,973 NNW 0 0 312,085 755,247 880,081 1,947,413_TOTAL 0 0 1,919,336 45,946,533 54,091,797 101,954,667*

    • Includes total inside 5 miles bbb$hY$332.1-6 Amendment No. 1, (9/'9)

    WSES 3 ER TABLE 332.1-3 ANNUAL VEGETABLE PRODUCTION (kg/yr) WITilIN 50 MILES OF WATERFORD 3 FOR YEARS 1978 AND 2000 Total Inside 5 Miles = 892,211 kg Annuli Sectors 5-10 Mi. 10-20 Mi.20-30 Mi.30-40 Mi.40-50 Mi.Total N O O 103,258 1,946,312 2,487,857 4,537,427 NNE O O 10,538 1,117,020 779,807 1,907,365 NE O O O O 0 0 ENE O O O O 0 0 E 17,846 503,149 55,911 156,029 0 732,935 ESE 139,203 1,012,070 1,763,751 471,730 120,628 3,507,382 SE 158,239 29,744 0 177,979 398,790 764,752 SSE 66,627 113,028 228,888 719,363 147,142 1,275,048 S 14,277 130,567 1,414,203 524,517 0 2,083,564 SSW 0 359,682 1,475,277 1,353,905 185,312 3,374,176 SW 0 65,397 2,180,865 871,653 18,171 3,136,086 WSW 0 206,267 1,806,583 201,742 216,068 2,430,660 W 223,943 2,297,190 676,144 14,973 47,753 3,260,003 WNW 714,021 1,237,689 840,104 143,743 2,137 2,937,694 NW 600,427 77,893 48,910 200,253 139,519 1,067,002 NNW 29,210 0 105,217 254,626 371,311 760,364 Total 1,963,793 6,032,676 10,709,649 8,153,845 4,914,495 32,666,669*

    • Includes total inside 5 miles bbOkI20 332.1-7 Amendment No. 1, (9/ 79)

    WSES 3 ER TABLE 332.1-4 ANNUAL MEAT PRODUCTION (kg/yr) WITilIN 50 MILES OF WATERFORD 3 FOR Tile YEAR 2000 Total Inside 5 Miles = 780,160 kg Annuli Sectors 5-10 Mi. 10-20 Mi.20-30 Mi.30-40 Mi.40-50 Mi.Total N O 0 351,200 6,704,450 8,421,180 15,476,830 NNE O O 36,400 4,232,080 3,674,510 7,942,990 NE O 0 24,864 555,330 1,370,160 1,950,354 ENE O O O 51,900 659,130 711,030 E 31,800 89,330 444 79,254 0 200,828 ESE 248,040 17h,984 182,484 222,000 61,272 890,780 SE 281,960 53,000 0 51,540 127,872 514,372 SSE 118,720 0 208,486 576,400 117,900 1,021,506 S 25,440 216,620 1,133,150 308,120 0 1,683,330 SSW 0 288,200 1,119,620 538,250 71,820 2,017,890 SW 0 52,400 1,504,680 337,820 7,316 1,902,216 WSW 0 49,620 1,454,210 206,142 458,112 2,168,084 W 0 320,678 374,114 295,186 706,398 1,696,370 WNW 0 77,256 561,456 1,520,980 3,022,764 5,182,456 NW 0 0 70,800 1,408,860 4,443,620 5,923,280 NNW 0 0 295,000 713,900 831,900 1,840,800 Total 705,960 1,324,088 7,316,908 17,802,212 23,973,954 51,903,282*

    • Includes total inside 5 miles 353:080 332.1-8 Amendment No.

    1, (9/79 WSES 3 ER TABLE 332.1-5 ANNUAL MILK PRODUCTION (1/yr) WITilIN 50 MILES OF WATERFORD 3 FOR Tile YEAR 2000 Total Inside 5 Miles = 0 liters Annuli Sectors 5-10 Mi. 10-20 Mi.20-30 Mi.30-40 Mi.40-50 Mi.Total N O O 4,303,588 85,727,616 107,818,031 197,849,235 NNE O O 469,598 50,300,518 36,123,512 86,893,628 NE O O O 777,463 1,918,226 2,695,689 ENE 0 0 0 72,660 922,783 995,443 E O O O O O O ESE O O O O 0 0 SE O O O O O O SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0 0 0 C 0 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 WNW 0 0 0 0 1,623,507 1,623,507 NW 0 0 231,839 1,955,112 8,118,799 10,305,750 NNW 0 0 965,996 2,337,709 2,724,108 6,027,813 Total 0 0 5,971,021 141,171,078 159,248,966 306,391,065*

    • Includes total inside 5 miles 3G3281 332.1-9 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)

    WSES 3 ER Question No. 332.2 (5.2.4.2)The ref erenced Table A-4 should be Table A-5. Response Ref er to revised Section 5.2.4.2. c:-r,-n o v 0 & fs 0,*.* 332.2-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 332.3 How many pounds per year or Kg/yr of fish and invertebrates (5.2.4.4)were assumed to be eaten by the 50-mile population based on commercial and sport catches? What was the location used for the population (2,129,568) surface water drinking water intake downstream from the plant? Response This response is divided into two sections; Part A and Part B. Part A responds to the consumption of fish and invertebrates by the 50-mile population while Part B responds to the surface water drinking location. PART A - FISH AND INVERTEBRATE CONSUMPTION Estimates of the annual commercial and sport fish and inverte-brates caught and subsequentially consumed by the prpulation living within a 50-mile radius are presented he ein for the years 1978 and 2000. These estimates are obtained by analyzing recent trends for both commercial and sport catches in the parishes located within a 50-mile radius of the site. Estimates for the year 2000 are presented for the purpose of offering a comparison of these results with the projections utilized in the dosage pathway analysis presented in Section 5.2 of the OLER. The discussion which follows presents a description of the methodologies used to calculate the fish and invertebrate consumption, the assumptions made in performing these calcu-lations and the estimates of the consumption of commercial and sport fish. 1.Commercial For the purposec of this response, the conservative assumption is made that all commercial fish caught within the 50-mile radius of Waterford 3 are consumed by the 50-mile radius popu-lation. With respect to the commercial fishing industry, the state of Louisiana is divided into four districts - Eastern, Central, Inland and Western. Data on commercial fish and shellfish landings in these four districts are published by the National gitimeFisheriesServiceoftheU.S. Depart-ment of Commerce Of the four districts, the Eastern and Central districts consist entirely of parishes completely or partially within 50 miles of Waterford 3. Within the 50-mile radius, the Inland District contains nine parishes which are eartially within the fifty mile zone. None of the parishes within the Western District are within 50 miles of the plant. O In this analysis it is assumed that the entire production of the Eastern, Central, and Inland Districts is within the 50 mile Lone. WYbr$b0 332.3-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/29) WSES 3 ER Landings data for the years 1969 to 1977 la used to calculate an average annual rate of increase in catch size for fish and shellfish for each district. Menhaden and other unclassified fish used f or bait, reduction and animal food are excluded s l ic e these are not generally eaten by humans. Using 1977 as a base year, the average annual rate of increase of commercial catches for finfish and invertebrates in each district is then calculated to project landings data for the years 1978 and 2000.The estimated total finfish (saltwater and freshwater), and total invertebrates consumed by the 50-mile radius population (based on the data sources and assumptions previously mention-ed) for the year 1978 and 2000 are as follows: Annual Commercial Fish Consumption By Year 50-Mile Radius Population Finfish Invertebrates Total (kg)(kg)(kg)1978 9,767,368 51,277,992 61,045,360 2000 36,065,085 84,627,165 120,692,250 Sport Fisheries The Louisiana Fish and Wildlife Commission (LF&WC) advises that there is currently no official information on creel census for sport-fishing in the state. The LF6WC estimates that the average catch per effort for freshwater fish is 2.5 pounds.(averaging 1 pound each)[23 twater fishing is fifty fish The legal daily limit f l The Outdoor Recreation Plan prepared by the Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission reports that in 1974 the average person in Louisiana engaged in saltwater sport fishing 2.22gjyesperyear,andinfreshwatersport fishing 6.04 times These figures were compared with participation rates for 1968 (the first year previous to 1974 for which these values are available) to arrive at an annual rate of increase. This rate is projected through the year 2000, at which time participation rates are estimated to be 6.36 and 17.30 times per year for saltwater and freshwater fishing, respectively. If these rates are multiplied by the estimated (total) 50-mile population for the year 2000 (see OLER Section 2.1.2), and as-suming that the average catch per effort (i.e., per fishing day) remains constant at 2.5 pounds for freshwater and 50 pounds for saltwater fishing, the total sportfishing catch for the year 2000 for the 50 mile population would be 307,179,110 kg of saltwater fish and 50,133,949 kg of freshwater fish. It is assumed herein that this catch will be consumed by the popu-lation within 50 miles of Waterford 3. c a ") r?> <.>> A+.J r .3 r.a 332.3-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER PART B - LOCATION OF POPULATION DOWNSTREAM OF PLANT The population estimate of 2,129,568 persons given in the OLER-Section 5.2.4.4, dealing with surface water and drinking water intakes downstream of Waterford 3, is taken from Table 2.1-1, sheet 5, of the OLER. This represents the total estimated population of the area within 50 miles of Waterford 3 in the year 2000.. . ,n%$s .~~ QDf!332.3-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER REFERENCES 1.Louisiana Landings, Annual Summaries. Current Fisheries Statistics Nos. 5249, 6123, 6422, 6722, 6922, 7222, and 7520. National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1969 - 1977. 2.Personal Communication, Kenneth Smith, Louisiana Fish and Wildlif e Commission, July 2, 1979. 3.Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission, " Outdoor Recreation in Louisiana 1975 - 1980", June 1974. .O 000hl?$_O 3 3 2. 3 '+ Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 332.4 In Table 6.1.5-5, the control river water composite sample analysis should be the same as the indicator drinking water samples. The St. Charles drinking water intake should be used instead of Jef ferson Parish in Table 6.1.5-5, milk sample collection and analysis frequency will be semimonthly, when animals are on pasture (monthly at other times) for the operational monitoring program. Response Re fer to re vised Table 6.1.5-5 (Sheets 1, 4 and 5 of 5) and Figure 6.1.5-3. p._0UU,_5$S"l 332.4-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER..Question Ns. 332 5 The LLD'r in Table 6.1.5-6 should be based on the NRC Branch Technical Position (March 1978) Table 2, instead of the Referenced Regulatory Guide 4.8, Table 3. Response Refer to revised Table 6.1.5-6. It should be noted that Table 6.1.5-6 has also been updated based on NUREG-0472, Rev. 3, (March, 1979). , f f )*332.5-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 332 .6 Confirm that the land use in Table B-9, Table 6.1.5-2 and Table 2.1-13 through 17 has not changed since the 1976 based informa-tion.Table 6.1.5-7 and Table B-9 should be re ferenced in Section 5.2.4-2. Response Table 332.6-1 provides a comparison between the milk cow, milk goat, beef cattle (i.e., meat animal), garden and residence information presented in Table 6.1.5-2 and Tables 2.1-13 through 2.1-17 of the OLER and a survey of these parameters in June of 1979. The purpose of this survey, as well as the information contained in the OLER, is to locate the nearest milk cow, milk goat beef cattle, residence and vegetable garden (over 500 ft ) in each of the 16 annular sectors out to a fise mile radius from the center of the re a cto r . The original OLER data was obtained in a survey performed by Gulf South Research Institute in April of 1976. An explana-tion of their methodology and results is contained in Section 2.1.3.3 of the OLER. The June 1979 survey consisted of an aerial reconnaissance followed by a ground survey performed by driving all passable roads in a fise mile radius. Where pos s ible , local people were interviewed to aid in deter-mining the location of beef cattle, milk cows and milk goats. In addition, local seterinarians and feed tore operators were contacted to obtain information on livestoc in the area. Table 332.6-1 indicates that there ha se been some changes in the location of the parame te rs inves tiga ted in the referenced tables in the area. The 1979 survey indicates that the nearest location to Waterford 3 for each parameter is as follows : a)Milk Cows - 0.9 miles in the NW secte-b)Beef Cattle - 0.8 miles in the NW sector c)Milk Goats - 3.1 miles in the E sector d)Residence - 0.8 miles in the N and NE sector c)Vegetable Garden (500 square fee t or larger) - 0.8 miles to the NNE Generally milk production within the five miles radius is limited to individuals who own a few cows or goats. The milk produced is normally for individual consumption and not for sale.There is no large sca le productior. of milk within the five mile radius. c.V.: :49t(u O d e% u s)- q 332.6-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Large home vegetable gardens are prevalent in the area with the majority of the produce being consumed by the individual grower.Some individuals do sell what they grow at roadside farmstands. 'Ihe residences located in the SSE, SSW and SW sectors are located in wetland areas which were surveyed through aerial reconnaissance. It coald not be determined whether these are year round or seasoc h residences, but it is assumed that they are seasonal residences used for hunting, fishing, etc. O 9 s u so 332.6-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 332.6-1 LOCATION BY ANNULAR SECTOR OF PARAMETERS NEAREST TO WATERFORD 3 Vegetable Gardens Greater 2 Milk Cow Beef Cattle Milk Goat Residence than 500 Ft 1976(1) 1979(2) 1976(1) 1979(2) 1976(1) 1979(2) 1976(1) 1979(2) 1976(1) 1979(2) Sector N 1.7-1.7 3.6 4.6 3.9 1.6 0.8 1.6 1.1 3.7--1.1 0.8 1.1 0.8 NNE---hl: 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4--0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.6 1.4--0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1:NE-1: 2.4-4.6 2.5-3.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 l:SE 3.6-3.6 2.4--3.5 3.3 3.6 2.3 S!: 4.1 4.6 4.1 3.9--4.1 4.0 4.1 4.0:. J:-------3.1--3_________SSW-------2.7--SW-------2.7--WSW------4.1---1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 W--2.1 1.0 1.3-WNW------1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9--0.9 0.9 1.1 0.9 NW 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 N t;W 2.5 4.8 2.5 0.8 4.9 4.6 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 Source: (1) Gulf South Research Institute Survey performed in April of 1976. (2) Ebasco Services, Inc., survey performed in June, 1979. E?$N$.')]. 332.6-3 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 340.1 Sections 2.1.2.? and 2.1.3.5.3 Agricultural Lands Based upon consultation with the Soil Conservation Serv.ce, provide an estimate of the number of acres, if any, of " prime and unique f armlands" on the Waterford site.(Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 21, pp 4030-4033 January 31, 1978). Response The District Conservationist advises that 37 percent (1317.7 acres) of the 3561.3 acr's which comprise the entire Waterford property is prime farmi;nd. The Waterford 3 plant area which encompasses about 48 actes, is entirely prime farmland. In addition, approximately 59 percent of the Waterford property is classified as swamp. One percent of this swamp land is con-sidered f armland of state-wide importance. None of the land is classified as unique farmland. Source: 1) Personal Communication, D W Clement, District Conservationist, New Orleans, LA, April 17, 1979.

    2) Personal Communication, D W Clement, District Conservationist, New Orleans, LA, July 24, 1979.

    bb.$32E)2 340.01-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 371.01 The Staf f recognizes that the amount of water used consumptive-(5.7.2.2)ly by the plant will be small in relation to the flow of the Mississippi River. !!owever, to be complete, the water use rates should be shown. Accordingly, provide estimates of water use under various operating conditions. Response Table 3.3-1 of the OLER presents a listing of the anticipated water use rates at Wateford 3 for the major water use systems. This table contains water use rates for the following condi-tions: maximum power operation, minimum power operations and temporary shutdown conditions. Additionally, it should be noted that the Circulating Water System has three operational modes which correspond to the use of two, three or four circulating water pumps. The number of pumps in operation is a function of the ambient intake water temperature in the Mississippi River. Section 3.4.2.1 of the OLER describes these operating conditions of the Circulating Water System. With the exception of evaporation in the Supplementary Chilled Water System cooling towers, water consumption at Waterford 3 is expected to be small. The evaporation losses in this system are estimated at 35,000 gallons per day when the system is in operation. Other consumptive water losses would include bound water in evaporator bottoms, minor losses from evaporation within the Circulating Water System and human consumption. Altogether, it is not expected that the daily maximum consumption of water for these uses will exceed 60,000 gallons per day. r^- , , , . - , p 3fm) ?JJ O 371.01-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 371.02 There does not appear to be any means of monitoring the poten-(6.1.1)tial ef fects of deposition and/or erosion on the intake and discharge structures. Since the Mississippi River is constant-ly shif ting in the area of the plant, the re is the potential of ad versely af fecting these structutes. The re f ore , a program should be developed to monitor periodically aggradation and de grada t ion in the vicinity of the structures so that remedial action can be taken if necessary. Provide a monitoring program for the stated purposes, or the ba ses for your determination that such a program is not necessary. Response The Corps of Engineers - Section 10 Permit requires that any silt buildup on the batture on or in t he intake and discharge canal areas be removed before it exceeds fi ve fe et above exist-ing grade. The permit has no provisions concerning scour. Howe ve r , the potential for scour exists in the areas immediate-ly of fshore and downstream of the intake canal opening and around the edges of the tremie mat extending out from the discharge canal opening. The re fo re , in order to determine the ef fects of silt buildup or erosion on the structures, a monitoring program is proposed herein. To monitor the river bottom configuration in the in-take, discharge and batture areas, a series of shot lines ha se been established and are shown on Figure 371.02-1. These lines run perpendicular to the shoreline and are spaced approx-imately 60 feet apart. The lines around the intake and dis-charge structures (I-1 through 8 and D-1 through 7, respective-ly) extend from the toe of the le vee out to the -60 foot con-tour.Between these sets of lines, shorter lines (B-1 through

    4) co vering only the +15 foot ele vation batture area ha ve been inserted.The methods by which these areas are to be monitored can be either boat or land and boat-based depending on the availabil-ity of personnel and equipment.

    The ba t tu re can be su r veyed using standard land ele vation determination techniques during the la rge portion of each year when that area is exposed (i.e., during low flows). Otherwise, an echo sounder (sur sey type) should be used with a boa t and either electronic or range-stake positioning. The timing of the survey should re flect the seasonality of the ri ver flow. Initially, two surveys per year should be perform-ed , one in January or February followed by another in May or June af ter the low and high flow periods, r e s pe c ti vely. With in two years, there should exist su f ficient data on the sediment c31 csyt+n v Q.:x.nJw 371 .02-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER dynamics of the area to evaluate the effects of deposition and/ or erosion on these structures and to then re-evaluate the frequency and extent of the monitoring program. Subsequent to each survey, isopach maps showing differences in elevation from (1) the first survey and (2) a +15 foot plane in the batture area should be prepared and reviewed with respect to the Section 10 Permit requirements and any possible foundation problems which might arise as a result of the removal or accumulation of sediments next to a structure. O O ccA +371.02-2 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) , , o To zoo 390 1 FEET i-'_-.-), x_-_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ L-'-__a__,., ,}.-r ()(s t 3 7,--, ',=,;. _ - _ - - %gTURB.<}. cc o i i j-l$J_'I-]=~$4'g " 5'ag,'b?\,'i N , a_.I>s I s H.-a i e.=I l ,'s 40. uis t a 4rio~ a p2 '~. .n . __L- 3-.--b,:-> - . .=;;-"" " "*,-I o FiNeroR.:: b[!-i>#;--i i 8 i"V i>1m.2 i stc,1 i;.o-I ilt'-==a us v on.=i 1 a, fu ,,_j p" y;--t ., a g*x% %, I 5 g i;l.___--I" 3 ., . ~"" R I_ _ _ _ . _ ,- - .k'.y lh<N Ix.r so*\N 1 ,'o sc oncel/t B ut L DIM G

    • /~', ,_n cy cry e;.: sco st s Figure L ATING WATER SYSTEM

    .GENERAL PL AH 371.02-1 i g$-{'D.7 II t h'D6--'iil' Qi , D-5 y I-i , ( lll~s-lg ( < . , e -, 1 1l DISCHARGE 1 2 I D4 , , . . . . . . =klkCANAL'/1l.,.,x,_.o- > .)l0 i".w[,.N,,,,,,,,+2 ,;'%D-3 4 ,w ,k ,_ - -,- ,--.,- - .n,~ ~ -:-l'mj D-2 3 , ,;-i i]i T _-,.,.,.s , f! ?)i::./ y'3'5 , 8*;;1'**;h-,fy~'D-1-s r i' '2 4 i\/lDISCHARGE }B4 \.;s1l.-b$)'\-'1I s%fSTRUCTURE 4'-p ,, , al..\*~B-3:-! ,.\'p'u x ,-*B-2x l Access RoAo (N ,.-, a*N e-, , d I.]1-8 -, y\Q.,-'.m.-:. y n , . , -I I T R A NSITioN .--No s] [i[letocr m I-6 -l3 i!H/': N.l, l-5-o*.N . h ,, l -y , .'k---\(;l.c_N'-'l-4 g INTAKE~ ~ Q-K-\W N CANAL- --,~', N a ,s O i s g. ..., i kN *lh*_f--c i.3_@v s.%.lK (__ gl-R--~q I i.2<-4~ ~ '~'i'%ST R UC T U E L I1-G%, w A.w 3 i., q +-.,[_N%l-s:sl['.p%A" " '/.,_-_1 r i W% ,x 4.-i , e.i'I s'";i;'e.***';i 1-i:.'ol i-.,i a/f o i}E 7'-ogo o o o l , R. =.o l o=-",l;8s-'r p$j j j o',=.N h)ii l-g'S I {l\'k+.-'4 i I LOUI5 LANA , POWER & LIGHT CO. CIR z . -c. <J0;u.y ,i, i Waterford Steam. J j Electric Station WSES 3 ER Question No. 372.01 In reference to the National Weather Service Station at New Orleans International Airport, Audubon Park in downtown New Orleans and the cooperative weather station at Reserve, Louisiana, it was stated that "all of the offsite data are considered to be generally representative of site conditions".(Page 2.3.2). Compare the topographic and regional charecter-istics of the Waterford site to these of fsite stations to verify the above statement. Response Refer to revised Section 2.3.2. .bb3MO7 372.01-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 372.02 Provide of fsite wind speed and wind direction data from New Orleans International Airport f or July 1972 through June 1975 and February 1977 to February 1978. Compare these data to the 1951 through 1960 period of wind data f rom the New Orleans International Airport that have already been provided. Response Joint frequencies of 3-hourly wind speed and direction recorded at New Orleans International Airport during the period July 1972 through June 1975 and February 1977 to February 1978 are presented in Table 372.02-1. During this four year period southerly winds predominated (approximately 11 percent of the total hours) although several other directions occurred more than six percent of the time. During this period the average wind speed was 8.2 mph and calms occurred during 10.5 percent of the hours. During the 1951-1960 period of record at the New Orleans International Airport southerly winds also pre-dominated (nine percent of the total hours), the average wind speed was 9.0 mph and calms occurred 12 percent of the total hours .43JO G.JLr . -w r og .372.02- 1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER TABLE 372.02-1 NEW ORLEANS, LA MOISANT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES (July 1972-June 1975 I,)and Feb. 1977- Feb.1978) OF WIND DIRECTION AND SPEED HOURLY OBSERVATIONS OF WIND SPEED (**)(In Miles Per Hour) DIRECTIO;0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-32 32 Tf'TAL N O.8 2.7 3.6 2.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.6 NUE 0.3 2.1 2.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 NE 0.4 1.7 2.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 ENE 0.6 1.8 2.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 E 0.8 2.0 2.2 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.0 ESE O.5 2.1 2.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.7 SE 0.3 2.0 2.5 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.5 SSE 0.1 1.6 3.1 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 6.9 f!*jlS 0.3 2.6 4.3 3.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 10.8 o SSW 0.4 2.3 1.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.1 SW 0.4 1.6 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 WSW 0.5 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 (I 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.2 o W 0.9 h Cl 3 WNW 0.5 (^1.1 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 U o Nu 0.4 ,-1.0 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 2 I'*4*I'NNW 0.5 1.3 1.2 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.4 5"'G: CALM 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 2 TOTAL 17.9 29.1 32.3 18.5 1.8 0.4 0.0 100.0 (*)Subject to Computer Round-Off. (**)Number of annual observations = 11,868 WSES 3 ER Question No. 372.03 As discussed in Section 2.8 of UUDEG-0158, " Environmental Standard Review Plans for the Environmental Review of Construc-tion Permit Applications for Nuclear Power Stations" (Part 1, January 1977), onsite meteorological data should be available on magnetic tape. Having access to onsite meteorological data would facilitate the review of atmospheric dispersion charac-teristics. If available, provide onsite meteorological data for the period July 1972 through June 1975 and February 1977 to February 1978 in the form of hour-by-hour averages on magnet-ic tape using the enclosed format. Response The requested information has been furnished in response to Question No. 372.17 on the Waterford 3 FSAP. i 333300 372.03-1 WSES 3 ER Question No. 372.04 Snowf alls of 2 inches or more were reported for December 1963, January 1881, and February 1899 and 1895. Provide the depths of these snowf alls. Response Refer to revised Section 2.3.2.7. 3~3301 d 372.04-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 372.05 Provide the thickness of any ice and the duration for which it persisted as a result of the one glaze storm " reported in the region for the 28 year period between 1925-1953". Give similar information for glaze storms (if any) that have occurred since 1053 in the region of the Waterford site. Response Refer to revised Section 2.3.2.7. Sb'$.)OO 372.05-Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 372.06"During the period 1871-1963, 47 tropical storms or hurricanes passed within 100 nautical miles of the Waterford site". Pro-vide the number of tropical storms or hurricanes that have passed within 100 nautical miles of the Waterford site since 1963. Give the maximum vind speeds and gusts of any of these storms (except llurricane "Betsy", September 1665, which has already been described) that have exceeded wind velocities of 50 mph.Response Refer to revised Section 2.3.3.2. 8d300*1 372.06-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 372.07 Cive references and the data period considered for the state-ment on page 2.3-9, "there is an average of one tornado per year in the area". Response.Refer to revised Section 2.3.3.4. s<-<c, . < < 0 U ' c ouv 372.07-1 Amendment !!o . 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER.Question No. 372.08 Glee the average path length and width used to calculate the probability of a tornado striking the site. If the data period used for calculating the probability of a tornado strike does not go through the present, then examine any tornado occur-rences since the end of the original data period and compare their path lengths and widths with those from the original data period. Response Refer to revised Section 2.3.3.4. Ci3[5[$kN> 372.08-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) - WSES 3 ER Question No. 372.09 Provide estimates (with references) of the maximun wind speeds that were observed from tornadoes that have occurred in the vicinity of the Waterford site. Response Fefer to revised Section 2.3.3.4. .c . c . n r !O ., ddcio t 372.09-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 372.10 Studies have shown that wind sensors should be mounted an booms such that the sensors are at least one tower width away from an open-latticed tower and at least two stack or tower widths away from a stack or closed tower. For temperature sensors, mount-ing booms need not be as long as those for wind sensors, but the sensors must be unaffected 'v/ thermal radiation from the tower itself. Mounting booms for all sensors should be orien-ted normal to the prevailing wind at the site. Provide infor-mation on how the wind and temperature sensors are counted on the Waterford meteorological tower. Response Refer to revised Section 6.1.3.2. 33[I3fI2 372.10-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 372.11 It is stated on page 6.1.3-4 that "from 1971 to 1075, the data logger checked all sensors once every five minutes...in February 1977. . .the scanning time of the data logger was changed from once every five minutes to once per minute". Were these data values time averaged values or instantaneous values? Discuss any effects that may have occurred as a re-nult of changing the scanning time of the data logger from five to one minute. Response The change in the scanning time of the data logger from once every five minutes to once per minute was accompanied by the addition of averaging cards to the W1034 wind circuitry. The cards yield 60 second average rather than one minute instan-taneous values for the wind speed and direction data measured by these sensors. These changes provide a better representation of hourly condi-tions as the more rapid scanning rate of the data logger more closely approaches true integration of all the data. This ef-fect is further enhanced by the averaging cards used with the wind direction and the wind speed sensors since averages gene-rated by these circuits are based upon a sampling (scanning) rate of several times per second. <3r o n(;L) or/U t3 > c) 372.11-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 372.12 Regulatory Guide 1.23 idents fies recommended accuracies of the entire meteorological data collection and reduction system. The sensor specifications identified on pages 6.1.3-2 through 6.1.3-4 are for the meteorological sensors independent of the data recorders and data analysis procedures. Give overall system accuracies considering the sensors, data recorders and data analysis procedures together. Do these accuracies vary when using digitized analog strip chart data as a replacement for cdssing data? Response Raf ar to revised Section 6.1.3.2, and new Table 6.1.3-2.

    1. JU3303 372.12-1 Amendment No.

    1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 372.13 Provide the dates and times of significant ins t rument outage, the causes of the outage, and the corrective action taken. Response A summa ry of the most serious equipment problems encour 'ered at the Waterfored site during the four year monitoring pe _ad July 1973 through June 1975 and February 1977 through February 1978 is presented below: Waterford Onsi e Meteorological Monitoring System Summary of Major Equipment Problems Period Nature of Problem Corrective Action 9/72-10/72 F requent jamming of paper tape Punch replaced. punch in digital data acquisition system.10/73 Failure of 30 foot le"el wind Item replaced. direction sensor potentiometer. 8/2-8/8/74 Tower struck by lightning, ex-Damaged sensors tensive damage. and components replaced or re-paired.3/7-3/15/77 Wind direction sensor (30 foot Replacement of level) and circuit board failure. circuit board and sensor.4/12- i/11/77 Moisture in temperature (AT) probe Connectors dried connectors (intermittent problem). and sprayed with moisture inhibi-tor.5/2-6/30/77 F requent stopping of digital data Replacement of acquisition system. defective data logger compo-nents.1/78 Moisture in temperature connectors. Connectors dried Failure of radiation shield aspirator and sprayed with fans.moisture inhibi-tor.Aspirator fans replaced. OiE33}O 372.13-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question No. 372.14 Discuss how hourly values were determined by using data ob-tained from the data logger system. Also identify the criteria used to determine if sufficient data were available to consti-tute a " valid" hour for data collection. Response Af ter a quality control check, hourly averages were generated from the valid instantaneous or averaged data points taken during the hour. During the period 1971-1975 only those hours with a minimum of six instantaneous observations (taken at five minute intervals) of lower level wind speed, wind direction and temperature difference were considered as " valid" hours of data. Af ter 1977, when the meteorological system was upgraded, 60 data points taken once per minute were averaged to form hourly values. Only hours with a minimum of 15 ccusecutive minutes of temperature difference and lower level wind speed and direction data were considered " valid" during this period. One exception to this procedure occurred during several rela-tively brief periods of data logger malfunction when data were taken at ten minute intervals. Data from these perioda were considered valid provided that all six of the observations were evenly distributed throughout the hour; f urthe rmo re , it was consistent with the practice followed during the 1971-1475 monitoring per' ed of using a minimum of six observations to .represent an hour of valid data. ep o n 3 sa J.)u u. 372.14-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79) WSES 3 ER Question Mo. 372.15 cive the fraction of the meteorological data acquired through the data logger system that were then " replaced with data digitized from the strip charts". Response Less than 10 percent of the data collected during the 1972-1975 monitoring period was acquired by digitizing of strip charts. During the 1977-1978 monitoring period approximately 2 months (17 percent) of the hourly data were obtained from the analog data acquisition system. .<12 -d .>y. -} _s <> <. t a,, d 372.15-1 Amendment No. 1, (9/79)}}

    • Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19208A904&oldid=1874483"