ML20084F320

Suppl 8 to River Bend Station Environ Rept,Ol Stage

ML20084F320
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	04/30/1984
From:	GULF STATES UTILITIES CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20084F311	List: ML20084F320 RBG-17704, Forwards River Bend Station Environ Rept,Ol Stage. Affidavit of Svc Also Encl
References
ENVR-840430, NUDOCS 8405040080
Download: ML20084F320 (63)

Text

- .-

o RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE O STAGE

~N SUPPLEMENT 8 INN?d

== 7 !:3NTEW:'- a O

l

[sP2888"a!88,2je

= - - . , _ . _ _ _ - _ _ . , _

- = . _-. -._- -. -

Acknowledgement of Receipt of Supplement to Environmental Report -

) Operating License Stage River Bend Station Please sign, date, and return this sheet to:

L. L. Dietrich l

Lead Licensing Engineer Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation 3 Executive Campus P. O. Box 5200 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 I Receipt of Supplement 8 to the Environmental Report -

Operating License Stage is acknowledged.

My copy has been brought to current status and superseded pages have been removed and destroyed, as applicable.

Change my address as follows:

Please reassign this manual to:

4 O

i Signature Date Print name of person to whom ER-OLS is assigned Set Number 1

4 Y

y y . - . , . -, _ - - - - - - . - , - , , - - - -

]

1 RBS ER-OLS SUPPLEMENT 8 INSERTION INSTRUCTIONS RIVER BEND STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPERATING LICENSE STAGE i l

t The following instructions are for the insertion of Supplement 8 into the RBS ER-OLS. Remove the pages, tables, and/or figures listed in the REMOVE

column and replace them with the pages, tables, and/or figures listed in the INSERT column. Dashes (---) in either column indicate no action required.

Vertical bars have been placed in the margins of inserted pages and tables to indicate revision locations.

0

+

. V i

i I

i t

l C2/12210/6/2RH 1 l

- . - . - - , . . . - - _ , . .- . =. . . - - - - .

RBS ER-OLS VOLUME I REMOVE INSERT y Table 1.2-1, Sheets 1, 2, Table 1.2-1, Sheets 1, 2, and and 3 of 4 3 of 4 Q&R 1-i/- Q&R 1-i/-

Q&R 1.0-1/- Q&R 1.0-1/-

2-i/2-ii 2-i/2-ii 2.3-9/2.3-10 2.3-9/2.3-10  :

l l

1. O l

b.

k v

P i '

i t i a .,

4 f.

l- ,f i

4 l9 C2/12210/6/2RH 2 j-1 -- . - . .. - - .. . _ - . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ , - _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _

-= . . - . . _ __. .. . . - . _ _ _ _ _ - -

.i RBS ER-OLS VOLUME 2 REMOVE INSERT 2.5-13/2.5-14 2.5-13/2.5-14 2.5-14a/2.5-14b 2.5-21/- 2.5-21/-

Table 2.5-36, Sheet 1 of 2 Table 2.5-36, Sheet 1 of 2 l

O O C2/12210/6/2Ril 3

i. . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _. __ . _ _ . . _ _ . , _ _ . ._. _. _ _ _ _

RBS ER-OLS VOLUME 3 l

REMOVE INSERT Table Al-5 (of Attachment A to Table Al-5 (of Attachment A to j Appendix 2B) Appendix 2B)

Table 2C-4 Table 2C-4

Table 2C-9 Table 2C-9 Table 2C-10 Table 2C-10 Table 2C-11 Table 2C-11 Table 2C-12 Table 2C-12 l

Table 2C-13 Table 2C-13 I

Table 2C-14 Table 2C-14 Q&R 2-i/Q&R 2-ii Q&R 2-i/Q&R 2-ii Q&R 2.3-4a/Q&R 2.3-4b Q&R 2.3-4a/Q&R 2.3-4b Q&R 2.4-1/Q&R 2.4-2 Q&R 2.4-1/Q&R 2.4-2

) Q&R 2.4-3/- Q&R 2.4-3/-

3.6-4a/3.6-4b 3.6-4a/3.6-4b 4.1-3/4.1-4 4.1-3/4.1-4 4.3-3/4.3-4 4.3-3/4.3-3a O ---

4.3-3b/4.3-4 4.6-1/4.6-2 4.6-1/4.6-2

, 4.6-3/4.6-4 4.6-3/4.6-4 4.6-5/4.6-6 4.6-5/4.6-6

)

i l

t i

C2/12210/6/2RH 4

1 RBS ER-OLS 1

i VOLUME 4 f REMOVE INSERT j

! r

! 5.4-5/5.4-6 5.4-5/5.4-6 I i

5.5-3/5.5-4 5.5-3/5.5-4 '

5.5-4a/5.5-4b i i

7A-iii/7A-iv 7A-iii/7A-iv l-

! 7A.4-1/- 7A.4-1/-

Table 7A.4-1 (immediately following pg 7A.4-1)

Table 7A.6-3, sheets 1 Table 7A.6-3, sheets 1

and 2 of 2 and 2 of 2  !

i t

I 4

4 i

i 5

i i

u l

1 I

i t

i

@ 1

C2/12210/6/2RH 5 e

I

____.,,,_-,,,....___,,_-.-_....-_._,._-.___.-.._.,_.,.._.._._._._.~___.,4,-

,/ .

RBS ER-OLS TABLE 1.2-1 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AUTHORIZATIONS Authorization Date of Agency Reauired Autho ri ty Reauest Status U.S. GOVERNMENT Army Corps of Dredging and main- Section 10 of the 9/5/74 Permit No. LMNOD-SP Engineers tenance of a slip, Rivers and Ha rbors (Mississippi) 870 construction and Act of 1899 issued 10/15/76.

maintenance or (33 U.S.C 403): Extension granted 7/7/78.

Intake and dis- FWPCA Section 404 Additional extension charge structures, ( P. L.92-500, 86 granted 1/16/80.

and a barge dock Stat 816)

Construction of Section 10 of the 7/18/77 Permit No. LMNOD-SP transmission lines Rivers and Harbors (Mississippi River) 990 across Mississippi Act of 1899 issued 10/31/77. ls River Construction of Section 10 of the 8/2/79 Permit No. LMNOD-SP transmission lines Rivers and Harbors (Thompson Creek) 6 across Thompson Act or 1899 issued 2/13/80. (Route 11) l4 l8 Creek Construction of Section 10 of the 10/27/81 Permit No. LMNOD-SP transmission lines Rivers and Ha rbors (Thompson Creek) 7 across Thompson Act of 1899 issued 1/15/82.

C reek (Route lil) l8 Construction of Section 10 of the 8/25/81 Permit No. LMNOD transmission line Rivers and Ha rbors (Comite River) 6 across Comite Act or 1899 issued 4/8/82.

River Nuclear Limited Work Atomic Energy Act 6/25/75 issued 9/5/75.

Regu l a to ry Authorization of 1954 as amended, Commission and 10CTR50 Construction Atomic Energy Act 9/24/73 Construction Permit Pe rmi t of 1954 as amended, No. CPPR 145 and and 10CFR50 CPPR 146 issued 3/25/77.

Extension granted 12/27/82. l4 Supplement 8 1 or 4 April 1984

O O RBS ER-OLS TABLE 1.2-1 (Cont)

Autho riza t ion Date of Agency Reauired Authority Reauest Status Construction Per- Atomic Energy Act 10/26/79 C ra nted 10/3/80.

mit Amendment and of 1954 as amended, Unit 1 Joint and 10CFR50 Ownership Ope ra t ing Atomic Energy Act 4/81 Application submitted g License of 1954 as amended, and under review.

and 10CFR50 Special Nuclear Atomic Energy Act Six months Futu re Ma te r ia l s or 1954 as amended, prior to License and 10CFR70 delivery of i n-co re detectors.

By-P roduct Nuc l ea r 10CFR30 12/9/82 Application submitted ,

Ma teria l License and under review.

Federal Aviation River crossing 14CFR77 7/14/77 Approva l granted Admi n i st ra t i on by transmission 7/28/77.

towers Environmental NPDES permit for FWPCA Section 402 5/21/75 Permit No. LA0047112 Protection construction ( P. L.92-500) issued 12/18/75.

Agency Request for addi-tional discharge granted 4/29/76.

NPDES permit for FWPCA Section 402 9/5/74 Permit No. LA0042731 ope ra t ion ( P. L.92-500 ) issued 8/4/78.

Supercedes Permi t No.

LA0047112.

4 Tra ining Center FWPCA Section 402 6/30/82 Permit No. LAOO63886 ,

Sanita ry Waste ( P.L.92-500) issued 7/16/83.

Di scha rge Supplement 8 2 of 4 April 1984

O O O RBS ER-OLS TABLE 1.2-1 (Cont)

Autho ri za t ion Date of Agency Reauired Autho ri ty Reouest Status STATE OF TEXAS t

Public Utility Certificate of Article 1446C of 10/14/77 App rova l g ra nted Commission Public Conve- Vernons Annotated 3/21/78 under nience and Neces- Civil Statutes, Public Docket Number 857. Ig i I sity to construct, Utility Regulatory own, and ope rate Act Units 1 and 2 and transmission lines STATE OF LOUISlANA Stream Control Waste water dis- La. Revised 6/25/74 Approval g ra nted Commission (LSCC) charge permit Statutes of 1950, 10/25/74. Request

( Now Wa te r Po l - Title 56, for additional lution control Section 1439(5) discharge granted Division of 11/21/78.

Office of Envi-ronmental 1/5/83 Request for additional Affairs) outfalls submitted.

4 Tra ining Center La. Revised 6/30/82 Permit No. WPO302 Sanitary Waste Statutes of 1950, effective 11/23/82.

Di scha rge Title 56, Section 1439(5)

Certification for FWPCA Section 401 12/2/74 LSCC refused to EPA Permit ( P. L.92-500) act 12/13/74.

(Section 401 This constitutes Certification) waiver of Section 401 requ i remen ts.

Depa rtment of Industrial La. Sa n i ta ry 10/4/79 Approva l granted Na tu ra l landfill Code, Chapter X, 11/19/79. Interim Resources pa ra . 10.52 permits were rescinded e 1/28/83, due to State's determination of exclusion f rom regulation.

Hazardous waste Act 449, 1979 1/21/80 Granted 1/22/80.

generator identi- Leg i s la tu re, fication number and Hazardous Waste Management Program Rules and Regulations Supplement 8 3 of 4 April 1984

RBS ER-OLS I

CHAPTER 1 l QUESTION AND RESPONSES I

TABLE OF CONTENTS i NRC Supplement Q&R

.i Question No. No. Page No.

E100.1 8 1.0-1 l

i 1

Supplement 8 Q&R 1-1 April 1984 i

i

\

RBS ER-OLS QUESTION E100.1  !*

In addition to other requested information, provide a summary and brief discussion, in table form, by section, of differences between currently projected environmental effects (including those that would degrade and those that would enhance environmental conditions) and the effects discussed in the environmental report submitted at the construction permit stage.

RESPONSE

Refer to Section 1.3 and Table 1.3-1 for the information requested.

O Supplement 8 Q&R 1.0-1 April 1984

RBS ER-OLS

.r'N

) CHAPTER 2 (J

ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page

2.1 DESCRIPTION

OF THE STATION LOCATION 2.1-1 2.2 LAND 2.2-1 2.2.1 The Site and Vicinity 2.2-1 2.2.1.1 The Site 2.2-1 2.2.1.2 The Vicinity 2.2-2 2.2.2 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas 2.2-9 2.2.2.1 Transmission Corridor Routes 2.2-9 2.2.2.2 Land Uses Within the Corridors 2.2-10 2.2.2.2.1 Land Use Along Route I 2.2-10 2.2.2.2.2 Land Use Along Route II 2.2-11 2.2.2.2.3 Land Use Along Route III 2.2-12 2.2.2.3 Land Use Significance 2.2-13 2.2.2.4 Offsite Areas 2.2-13 2.2.3 The Region 2.2-14

/~' 2.2.3.1 Land Uses 2.2-14 k_,s) 2.2.3.2 Settlement Patterns 2.2-14 2.2.3.3 Transportation Networks 2.2-17 2.2.3.4 Agriculture 2.2-17 2.2.3.5 Institutions and Public Lands 2.2-18 2.3 WATER 2.3-1 2.3.1 Hydrology 2.3-1 2.3.1.1 Surface Water 2.3-1 2.3.1.2 Groundwater 2.3-7 2.3.1.2.1 Description of the Groundwater Flow System 2.3-7 2.3.1.2.2 Configuration of the Piezometric Surface in the Unconfined Aquifer 2.3-10 2.3.1.2.3 Aquifer Characteristics 2.3-10a 2.3.1.2.4 Surface Water / Groundwater 1 Interactions 2.3-11a 2.3.1.2.5 Historic Regional Decline in the Piezometric Surfaces of the Zone 3 Aquifer and the Upland Terrace l Aquifer 2.3-13 l 2.3.2 Water Use 2.3-15 2.3.2.1 Groundwater 2.3-15 e 2.3.2.1.1 Onsite Use 2.3-15

() Supplement 8 2-1 April 1984

RBS ER-OLS CHAPTER 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT)

Section T

_itle Page 2.3.2.1.2 Private and Municipal Wells Near the Plant Site Area 2.3-15 2.3.2.1.3 Drawdown Created by Pumping Wells at the Plant 2 -16 2.3.2.1.4 Drawdown in the Upland Terrace Aquifer Dae to Construction Dewatering 2.3-18 2.3.2.2 Surface Water Use 2.3-21 2.3.2.2.1 Public Supply 2.3-21 2.3.2.2.2 Industrial Supply 2.3-21 2.3.2.2.3 Irrigation 2.3-22 2.3.2.2.4 Water-Based Transportation 2.3-22 2.3.2.2.5 Water Use Restrictions 2.3-24 2.3.2.2.6 Lentic Waters 2.3-25 2.3.2.2.7 Recreational Water Use 2.3-25 2.3.2.2.8 Sport and Commercial Fisheries 2.3-26 2.3.3 Water Quality 2.3-27 2.3.3.1 Surface Water 2.3-27 2.3.3.1.1 Miscissippi River 2.3-27 2.3.3.1.2 Local Drainage Courses 2.3-31 2.3.3.1.3 Existing Surface Water 2 2.3-32 Quality Stresses 2.3.3.2 Groundwater Quality 2.3-32 2.4 ECOLOGY 2.4-1 2.4.1 Terrestrial Ecology 2.4-1 2.4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity 2.4-1 2.4.1.1.1 General Site Characteristics 2.4-1 2.4.1.1.2 Flora of the Site 2.4-2 2.4.1.1.3 Terrestrial Fauna of the Site 2.4-5 2.4.1.1.3.1 Mammals 2.4-5 2.4.1.1.3.2 Birds 2.4-7 2.4.1.1.3.3 Reptiles and Amphibians 2.4-13 2.4.1.1.4 Threatened or Endangered Species 2.4-17 2.4.1.1.5 Environmental Stress 2.4-17 2.4.1.1.6 Special Use Areas 2.4-19 2.4.1.1.7 Summary of Ecosystem Dynamics 2.4-20 2.4.1.2 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas 2.4-21 2.4.1.2.1 Flora of the Transmission Corridors 2.4-22 2.4.1.2.2 Fauna of the Transmission Corridors 2.4-25 2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology 2.4-27 2.4.2.1 Site and Vicinity 2.4-27 Supplement 2 2-ii March 1982

RBS ER-OLS At Clinton, located 32 km (20 mi) northeast of the site, p\m,/ there is about a 5-m (15-ft) hydraulic-head drop from water levels in Zone 1 to water levels in Zone 2. This difference in hydraulic head is believed to be due to heavy pumpage in the Baton Rouge area. Water in the sand units of Zone 1 has a lower sodium bicarbonate content than water in the sand units of Zones 2 and 3. The Zone 1 Aquifer is separated from the Upland Terrace Aquifer by several hundred feet of clay that contains some interbedded sand layers. This confining zone should prevent any vertical leakage between the two aquifers.

Zone 2 contains sand units of Pliocene and/or Miocene age which are believed to be equivalent to the "1,700-foot" sand and "2,000-foot" sand in the Baton Rouge area and to the Homochitto Member of the Pascagoula Formation in southern Mississippi 8') . The combined thicknesses of the sand units in Zone 2 range between 30 m (100 ft) near Norwood to 100 m (330 ft) near St. Francisville (Fig. 2.3-12)(.

At Clinton, there is about a 10-m (30-ft) hydraulic-head drop from water levels in Zone 2 to water levels in Zone 3.

This is believed to be due to heavy pumpage in the Baton Rouge area. The water in Zone 2 has an intermediate sodium bicarbonate content compared to water in Zones 1 and 3.

() The sand units in Zone 2 are separated from the sand units in Zone 1 by 46 to 61 m (150 to 200 ft) of clay.

Zone 3 consists of the deepest sand units containing fresh water (fresh water is considered to contain less than 250 Mg/l chloride). These Miocene deposits are believed to l8 be equivalent to the "2,400-foot" sand and the "2,800-foot" sand in the Baton Rouge area, and to the Hattiesburg Formation and part of the Catahoula Sandstone in southern Mississippi. The combined thicknesses of the sand units in this zone, excluding the sand unit of .the Catahoula Sandstone which underlies the "2,800-foot" sand, range from about 24 m (80 ft) near St. Francisville to 120 m (395 ft) at Slaughter (see Fig. 2.3-12).

At Clinton, Zone 3 is differentiated from Zone 2 by a hydraulic head that is 10 m (30 ft) lower and by a greater sodium bicarbonate' content. The sand units in Zone 3 are separated.from the sand units of Zone 2 by several tens- of feet of clay.

Supplement 8 2.3-9 April 1984 (A

%/

)

J

RBS ER-OLS 2.3.1.2.2 Configuration of the Piezometric Surface in the Unconfined Aquifer A network of 39 piezometers and observation wells was installed at the site for the purpose of monitoring fluctuations in groundwater levels in the Alluvial Aquifer, the Upland Terrace Aquifer, and the Tertiary Zone 1 and Zone 3 Aquifers. Water level and hydraulic-head measurements have been made in most of these installations since 1972. Table 2.3-6 lists the construction characteristics and depth of installation of each piezometer and observation well.

Water level and hydraulic-head data measured in piezometers and observation wells emplaced in the Upland Terrace Aquifer were used to construct a series of piezometric surface maps.

Fig. 2.3-13 shows the configuration of the piezometric surface in the Upland Terrace Aquifer on March 15, 1976.

This figure shows the normal configuration of the piezometric surface in the unconfined aquifer beneath the plant site at this time of year.

The hydraulic gradient in the Upland Terrace Aquifer, as shown in Fig. 2.3-13, slopes toward the Mississippi River at a rate of 2.7 m/km (14 ft/mi). This value represents the normal hydraulic gradient in the Upland Terrace Aquifer at the site at this time of year. l Hydraulic-head data will continue to be collected during the operation of the plant as necessary to monitor changes in groundwater levels.

The maximum recorded water level at the plant site is 59.4 ft above mean sea level, as recorded by piezometer T1, which is emplaced in the Upland Terrace Aquifer, as shown in Figure 8 of ESAR Appendix 2G. The maximum recorded water level in the Tertiary Zone 1 Aquifer is 69.1 ft above mean i sea level, as recorded in piezometer P9, located approximately 2,000 ft north-northeast of the plant site, as shown in Fig. 2.3-16. The maximum recorded water level in the Tertiary Zone 3 Aquifer is 34.1 ft above mean sea level, as recorded in observation well T14, located approximately 6,300 ft southwest of the plant site, as shown in Fig. 2.3-16. The maximum recorded water level in the Mississippi River Alluvial Aquifer is 38.7 ft above mean sea level, as recorded in piezometer B449, located approximately 11,300 ft west-southwest of the plant site, as shown in i Fig. 2.3-16.

Supplement 1 2.3-10 October 1981 1

RBS ER-CES "N and along Thompson Creek cn the West and East Feliciana Parish line(31).

Other recreational opportunities are available in West Feliciana Parish. These include bicycling, motor biking, hiking, and horseback riding. West Feliciana hosts the Louisiana Jambalaya, an annual pedal bike ride which attracts approximately 200 riders from a wide area. It is held the weekend af ter Thanksoiving in the St. Francisville area. Trail riding on motorbikes is permitted in the Angola vicinity and on Crown Ze11erbach land.

Popular hiking areas are located in the Tunica Hills northwest of St. Francisville, where the topcgraphy features h igh bluffs and waterfalls; Thompson's Creek; and Bayou Sara, north of Bains, LA. Horsetack riding is often permitted on Crown Zellerbach lands or along pipeline rights-of-way.

Although there are no designated scenic rivers in West Feliciana, the parish is traversed by the Great River Road, a state-designated scenic drive along US Highway 61. The Great River Road is envisioned as a national parkway along the Mississippi from its source to the mouth of the river at the Gulf of Mexicc(32),

L d

(

\_-

2.5-13 1

~I l

l

RBS ER-OLS 2.5.3 Historic and Archaeological Sites and Natural Landmarks 2.5.3.1 Historic Significance The ruins of a nineteenth century sugar mill were discovered on the River Bend site. The mill operated circa 1850 to 1862 and was part of the Magnolia Plantation, owned by William Johnston Fort. The mill site has been designated as 16WF-36 by the State Historic Preservation Officer. An investigative report'*8* concludes that it was fairly typical of the antebellum, steam-powered mills in Louisiana and that it does not meet the criteria for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The River Bend area contains several examples of the development of a primary agrarian culture from colonial, antebellum, Civil War, and reconstruction times to the present. There are numerous buildings of historic value, either because of associations with events or people of historic significance, or because of unique architectural characteristics defining particular areas of cultural development.

The National Register of Historic Places identifies 12 National Historic properties and 2 nominated properties within 16 km (10 mi) of the reactor site. Table 2.5-35, along with Fig. 2.5-17, identifies and locates these and other historic sites. Highly visited historic sites are described in the following paragraphs.

The Port Hudson Battlefield, a National Historic Landmark, is located about 11.8 km (7.4 mi) south-southeast of the site. Here, 6,500 Confederate troops held 30,000 Union troops from May 21 until July 6, 1863. Port Hudson was the last Confederate Mississippi River fort to fall to the Union. Two hundred fifty-eight ha (633 acre) of this site has been designated a State Commemorative Area due to its historical, cultural, and memorial significance. The Port Hudson National Cemetery is on the south central portion of the battlefield. The cemetery and State Commemorative Park are open daily to the public.

Oakley Plantation is the closest National Register property to River Bend Station. It is famed as the place where John James Audubon first became acquainted with the wildlife of the Feliciana country, and is now the site of the Audubon Memorial State Park. Oakley House, built in 1799, is a museum filled with memorabilia of the naturalist painter.

The museum is located on State Highway 965, 6.4 km (4 mi) east of St. Francisville and 5.6 km (3.5 mi) north-northeast of the site.

Supplement 8 2.5-14 April 1984

RBS ER-OLS Propinquity, in St. Francisville, is also about 5.5 km l

(3.4'mi) from the site. The house was built in 1809 by John-Mills, an American Revolutionary War soldier, who discovered Bayou Sara in 1790. Propinquity was restored in 1966 and now features guestrooms furnished with antiques.

l i

i i

i

]

i 1

.i I

i i

1 i

J l

1 Supplement 8 2.5-14a April 1984 h.

I

RBS ER-OLS O

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK O

Supplement 8 2.5-14b April 1984 0

RBS ER-OLS

33. Telephone conversation between Elizabeth Dart, President

[\-l' of the West Feliciana Historical Society, St.

Francisville, LA, and Loretta Garcia, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, January 21, 1980, 1 pm.

34. Neuman, Robert W. An Archaeological Survey of the River Bend Station, West Feliciana Parish, LA, December 1971.

Addendum, October 9, 1972. (For Gulf States Utilities Company, Beaumont, TX)

35. Louisiana Office of Tourism. A Traveler's Guide to Louisiana, pamphlet.

36. Louisiana Office of Tourism. Louisiana, What a Way to Get Away, 8th ed., tour guide.

37. Capital Economic Development District. Have a Capital Time in the Capital District, pamphlet, Fall 1974.

38. Neuman, Robert W. Cultural Resource Survey of the Gulf States Utilities Transmission Line Right-of-Ways, Louisiana, August 1978. (For Gulf States Utilities Company, Beaumont, TX)

A 39. Neuman, Robert W. An Archaeological and Historical Site 8

(_,1 Survey of River Bend Station Transmission Line B

[ Route I]. June 1978. (For Gulf States Utilities Company, Beaumont, TX)

40. Shuman, Malcolm K. and Orser, Charles E. Historical and Archaeological Investigation of the -Ruins of a 8

Nineteenth Century Sugar Mill (16WF-36) in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, February 10, 1984. (For Gulf States Utilities Company, Beaumont, TX)

(}

x_-

Supplement 8 2.5-21 April 1984

- O O 9BS ER-OLS 2

TABLE 2.5-36 ARC 9&EOLOGICAL AND HISTopICAL SITES WITHIN TRE RIVER BEND STATION TRANSMISSION SIS T EM Map Ref. Survey No.(1) No.can Site Name Location pesegigtion 1 16IY7 Mays Place Camp Approx 1.5 km east of Plain sherds found in Webre Substation earthen mound 8 l:

2 16IEF3 Spot Find No. 2 Approx 8.7 km east of Prehistoric campsite; ceramic is River Bend, under Route III fragments found a

3 16IEF2 Spot Find Fo. 1 Approx 5.4 km east of Gravel flakes and chips is River Bend on Route III on mound site 4 16VF19a ----- Combined switchyards Small concentrat ion of area, onsite sherds (cera ale pot s) 5 16EF19 b-d ----- Ocsite along old Three campsite spoil tras line, just north plies with many sherds of Route I.

6 16EF31 Riddle Cemetery SE of Point J, Cemetery with gravestones adjacent to Route II and unmarked graves 7 16EF4 Riddle Mounds Approx 1.5 km east of Two mounds with site 18 Point J collection done 8 16EF18 Port Hudson No. 2 Approx 300 m south of Civil War breastwork about (Commissary Hill) Sandy Creek on Route II 1 m high and 40 a long l8 9 16EF19 Port Hudson No. 3 Approx 1.5 km northwest Three Civil var breastworks 1 3 of Point L on Route II 3 to 4 a in height i 10 16EF7 Port Hudson Campsite West of Foster Creek Scattered Civil War debris 16IEF1 and Artillery Ridge, and east of Sandy sites etc Cr ee k, within 2 km NE of Route II 11 16EER47 Approx 300 a vest of Civil War breastwork, Route II and 700 m south 15 a long and 2 m high 2 of Point L 12 16PC31 Waterloo Just north of False River Ristoric Town and associated Chamael and Mississippi landing area, foundations River confluence, within and chimneys visible 2 km of Route I supplement 8 1 of 2 April 1984

RBS ER-OLS TABLE Al-5

(

STAFF GAUGE READINGS OF APRIL 1983 FLOOD Water Surface Elevation (ft-msl)

Low Point Upstream Downstream Crown-of River of of Zellerbach Day Road Culverts Culverts Bridges 4/22/83 '1,28 41.90 40.40 38.20 4/23/83 -

42.40 41.00 38.90 4/24/83 -

42.80 41.30 39.00 4/25/83 -

43.10 41.70 39.50 4/26/83 -

43.40 41.90 39.70 4/27/83 44.25 43.50 42.05 39.90

'2) 42.30 40.10 4/28/83 43.80 4/29/83 -

43.90 42.50 40.25 4/30/83 -

44.10 42.50 40.50 5/1/83 -

44.20 42.70 40.50 5/2/83 -

44.30 42.70 40.50 5/3/83 -

44.25 42.70 40.50 5/4/83 -

44.30 42.70 -

5/5/83 -

44.10 42.70 40.40 5/6/83 -

44.10 42.70 40.40 5/7/83 -

44.00 42.50 40.40 1 5/8/83 -

44.10 42.60 40.50 5/9/83 -

44.20 42.70 40.50 5/10/83 -

44.40 42.90 40.65 5/11/83 - - - -

5/12/83 45.40

<28 44.50 43.10 40.95 5/13/83 44.80 43.35 41.10 5/14/83 -

45.00 43.50 41.30 5/15/83 -

45.80 43.80 41.50 5/16/83 -

45.30 43.80 41.50 5/17/83 -

46.00 ta) 44.50 42.30 5/18/83 47.50 (2) <4>

45.10 43.00 5/19/63 43.70 5/20/83 - - - -

5/21/83 - - -

45.70 5/22/83 - - -

46.80 5/23/83 - - -

47.30 5/24/83'2' - - - -

le (18 Flow from river to Bayou at low point of River Road for the entire flood period.

<2' High floodwater precluded daily gauge reading.

(3) Water level above maximum reading of staff gauge.

(*) Water is covering road above culverts (>46.00 ft-msl).

(,,/ Supplement 8 1 of 1 April 1984

RBS ER-OLS TABLE 2C-4

[v) 2000 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 10 MILES OF RIVER BEND STATION Distance (miles) Total Direction 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 0-10 N O 109 103 37 444 622 1,315 NNE 15 291 34 48 7 280 675 NE 8 26 19 0 72 3,058 3,183 ENE O 36 19 25 76 1,543 1,699 l8 E 6 14 0 26 17 306 369 ESE 3 0 23 96 23 902 1,047 SE O O 5 0 148 2,710 2,863 SSE O O 3 0 0 492 495 S 0 5 0 0 0 1,199 1,204 SSW 0 0 0 9 333 1,207 1,549 SW 0 0 0 0 0 5,173 5,173 WSW 0 0 0 3 3 5,056 5,062 W 0 0 2 0 6 0 8 WNW 0 0 214 918 27 27 1,186 NW 25 24 117 1,216 520 485 2,387 NNW 19 164 103 40 36 549 911 h

( ,/ TOTAL 76 669 642 2,418 1,712 23,609 29,126 Supplement 8 1 of 1 April 1984

i i

RBS ER-OLS i

TABLE 2C-9

)

1980 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION

WITHIN 50 MILES OF RIVER BEND STATION I Distance (miles) Total Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 0-50 N 1,040 732 2,524 1,205 3,787 9,288

{' NNE 537 529 984 2,141 2,267 6,458 NE 2,383 2,403 3,173 2,710 3,209 13,878 i ENE 1,272 3,678 3,099 2,215 2,971 13,235

' E 276 2,831 5,059 3,116 12,575 23,857 ESE 766 16,151 17,095 9,386 11,375 54,773 SE 2,057 33,718 90,914 37,980 19,150 183,819 4

SSE 356 28,932 156,266 30,299 22,983 238,836 i S 984 2,798 6,378 12,500 4,410 27,070

.i SSW 1,270 2,923 3,978 2,429 6,046 16,646 i SW 4,245 3,599 2,378 5,202 17,203 32,627 i WSW 4,145 1,465 2,643 4,G75 35,262 48,390le 4

W 6 1,409 3,139 2,480 4,925 11,959 WNW 905 631 1,560 4,743 11,176 19,015 le NW 1,547 1,816 4,764 1,424 3,744 13,295 NNW 725 813 947 1,496 2,554 6,535

' O

( j TOTAL 22,514 104,428 304,901 124,201 163,637 719,681 1

l 1

)

1 Supplement 8 1 of 1 April 1984

. - , _ . - , . . %v.--. , _..,_..- -_, , . &, , . _- - . _

RBS ER-OLS TABLE 2C-10 ,

1985 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 50 MILES OF RIVER BEND STATION Distance (miles) Total Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 0-50 N 1,074 753 2,574 1,232 3,938 9,571 NNE 553 546 1,004 2,168 2,321 6,592 l s NE 2,533 2,561 3,252 2,732 3,234 14,312 ENE 1,353 3,920 3,301 2,254 3,050 13,878 E '295 3,025 5,536 3,151 13,471 25,478 ESE 828 17,872 19,161 11,262 13,417 62,540 SE 2,261 37,363 101,324 44,001 22,531 207,480 SSE 391 32,022 172,955 33,320 26,144 264,832 S 1,040 3,026 6,894 13,052 4,661 28,673 SSW 1,341 3,110 4,174 2,650 6,724 17,999 SW 4,477 3,796 2,532 5,705 19,203 35,713 WSW 4,364 1,544 2,772 5,090 36,892 50,662 W 6 1,483 3,289 2,592 5,150 12,520 WNW 967 662 1,643 5,034 11,864 20,170 NW 1,944 1,878 4,924 1,509 3,963 14,218 NNW 744 839 965 1,542 2,628 6,718

() TOTAL 24,171 114,400 336,300 137,294 179,191 791,356 Supplement 8 1 of 1 April 1984 l

RBS ER-OLS TABLE 2C-11 1990 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 50 MILES OF RIVER BEND STATION Distance (mij Total Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 0-50 N 1,117 782 2,669 1,278 4,116 9,962 NNE 574 568 1,041 2,227 2,391 6,801 NE 2,718 2,753 3,382 2,778 3,290 14,921 ENE 1,449 4,218 3,550 2,310 3,150 14,677 E 315 3,259 6,021 3,198 14,399 27,192 ESE 895 19,547 21,218 13,287' 15,609 70,556 SE 2,464 40,891 111,533 50,281 26,153 231,322 SSE 426 35,020 189,149 36,336 29,503 290,434 S 1,097 3,263 7,428 13,651 4,930 30,369 le SSW 1,412 3,307 4,383 2,886 7,454 19,442 SW 4,719 4,002 2,690 6,248 21,315 38,974 WSW 4,599 1,627 2,918 5,349 38,812 53,305 W 6 1,563 3,456 2,724 5,414 13,163 WNW 1,007 697 1,734 5,349 12,612 21,399 NW 2,030 1,956 5,129 1,602 4,202 14,919

. NNW 779 871 1,001 1,600 2,711 6,962 TOTAL 25,607 124,324 367,302 151,104 196,061 864,398 Supplement 8 1 of 1 April 1984

RBS ER-OLS TABLE 2C-12 2000 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION I

WITHIN 50 MILES OF RIVER BEND STATION Distance (miles) Total

Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 0-50 N 1,315 871 2,771 1,328 4,377 10,662 NNE 675 638 1,081 2,319 2,480 7,193 NE 3,183 3,221 3,597 2,900 3,433 16,334 ENE 1,699 4,935 4,151 2,415 3,352 16,552 E 369 3,810 6,983 3,254 16,285 30,701 l ESE 1,047 22,667 25,254 17,925 20,579 87,472 SE 2,863 47,403 130,981 63,761 33,889 278,897 4 SSE 495 40,540 218,957 41,898 36,149 338,039 3

S 1,204 3,664 8,332 14,566 5,390 33,156 i SSW 1,549 3,654 4,715 3,364 8,997 22,279 l SW 5,173 4,385 2,995 7,404 25,654 45,611 l8 WSW 5,062 1,784 3,206 5,889 42,799 58,740 W 8 1,719 3,803 2,998 5,967 14,495 WNW 1,186 777 1,903 5,967 14,074 23,907 NW 2,387 2,288 5,955 1,783 4,662 17,075 NNW 911 1,000 1,040 1,690 2,858 7,499

() TOTAL 29,126 143,356 425,724 179,461 230,945 1,008,612 i

1 l

l 1

1 i

Supplement 8 1 of 1 April 1984 O

t

RBS ER-OLS l

\ l l

TABLE 2C-13 l

}

4 2010 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION

< WITHIN 50 MILES OF RIVER BEND STATION Distance (miles) Total Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 0-50 4

N 1,504 996 3,175 1,518 4,832 12,025 NNE 772 730 1,237 2,583 2,689 8,011 NE 3,794 3,851 4,109 3,145 3,723 18,622 l ENE 2,025 5,902 4,960 2,600 3,646 19,133 E 440 4,536 8,008 3,395 18,348 34,727 ESE 1,219 25,656 29,265 23,091 26,065 105,296 SE 3,273 53,537 149,808 78,239 42,677 327,534 SSE 567 45,789 247,317 47,662 43,943 385,278 S 1,330 4,144 9,433 15,876 5,988 36,771 SSW 1,709 4,070 5,170 3,929 10,765 25,643 i SW 5,707 4,840 3,359 8,759 30,549 53,214 WSW 5,604 1,969 3,581 6,642 48,293 66,089 le W 9 1,904 4,267 3,381 6,727 16,288

, WNW 1,358 868 2,102 6,732 15,882 26,942 i NW 2,736 2,614 6,787 2,006 5,240 19,383 l NNW 1,046 1,145 1,187 1,867 3,081 8,326

() TOTAL 33,093 162,551 483,765 211,425 272,448 1,163,282 i

l 4

Supplement 8 1 of 1 April 1984 4

RBS ER-OLS TABLE 2C-14

(

2020 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 50 MILES OF RIVER BEND STATION Distance (miles) Total Direction 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 0-50 N 1,741 1,163 3,739 1,782 5,371 13,796 NNE 898 851 1,458 2,956 2,952 9,115 NE 4,546 4,621 4,802 3,489 4,127 21,585 ENE 2,422 7,088 5,958 2,838 4,008 22,314le E 524 5,414 9,067 3,571 20,540 39,116 ESE 1,417 28,455 33,222 28,862 32,156 124,112 SE 3,687 59,178 167,790 93,781 52,389 376,825 SSE 643 50,652 273,578 53,357 52,477 430,707 S 1,466 4,650 10,594 17,323 6,643 40,676 SSW 1,881 4,514 5,666 4,556 12,724 29,341 SW 6,278 5,323 3,756 10,281 35,875 61,513 WSW 6,191 2,164 4,016 7,544 54,860 74,775 W 9 2,104 4,813 3,840 7,637 18,403 WNW 1,570 969 2,315 7,588 17,905 30,347 NW 3,164 3,016 7,808 2,257 5,888 22,133 NNW 1,212 1,332 1,391 2,091 3,349 9,375

() TOTAL 37,649 181,494 539,973 246,116 318,901 1,324,133 Supplement 8 1 of 1 April 1984

_ _ - . - - . - . _ _ _ - . -. -. . =. .-. _ _.-..- . . - - -

RBS ER-OLS 4

CHAPTER 2

(}

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES TABLE OF CONTENTS l NRC Supplement Q&R l Question No. No. Page No.

E470.1 2 2.1-1 E310.7 6 2.1-2 E470.2 2 2.2-1 E290.6 2 2.2-2 E290.8 6 2.2-3 E240.1 1 2.3-1 E240.2 1 2.3-2 E240.3 8 2.3-3

} E240.4 1 2.3-6

E240.5 2 2.3-7

E240.6 1 2.3-8 i E240.7 1 2.3-9 E240.8 1 2.3-10 E240.9 2 2.3-11 l E240.10 1 2.3-12

! E240.11 1 2.3-13 i E240.12 1 2.3-14 l E240.13 1 2.3-15 E240.14 2 2.3-16 E291.1 2 2.3-17 E291.2 2 2.3-18 E291.3 2 2.3-19 I

E291.4 2 2.3-20 E291.12 2 2.3-21

' E240.27 2 2.3-22 l E240.28 3 2.3-23 i E240.34 3 2.3-24 E291.13 2 2.4-1 E290.9 8 2.4-2 E310.9 2 2.5-1 E310.10 4 2.5-2

! E451.1 1 2.7-1 E451.2 1 2.7-2 E451.3 2 2.7-3 a

Supplement 8 Q&R 2-1 April 1984 O

4 k .

,,.,..-,,_,,..,..,,,,.--..-n,.- .--w, ,.-,,-e , - . . - -e, . ,-,-.-c

RBS ER-OLS CHAPTER 2 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES TABLE OF CONTENTS NRC Supplement Q&R Question No. No. Page No.

E290.1 2 2.9-1 E290.2 4 2.9-2 E290.3 2 2.9-3 E290.4 2 2.9-4 E240.15 1 2B-1 E240.32 3 2B-3 E240.33 3 2B-4 O

Supplement 4 Q&R 2-11 February 1983 9

1 l

i RBS ER-OLS O 4) Most floodwaters in the upper Bayou are diverted to the Mississippi River over the low point of River Road, even in the natural condition. The existence

of River Access Road slightly increases the amount of overflow at the low point of River Road."

A portion of the Upper and Lower Bayou is not GSU property as indicated in Figure 4.3-1. Flood levels presented in Attachment A of Appendix 2B indicate that the offsite impact of flooding would be minimal.

As discussed in Section 4.2.1, "There are no significant hydrological alterations offsite or within the transmission corridors due to plant construction."

Other than normal debris loads during floods, there is no potential for offsite areas to be affected by debris generated onsite during floods, e

O Supplement 8 Q&R 2.3-4a April 1984

RBS ER-OLS ,

f O

l THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK O

l Supplement 7 Q&R 2.3-4b January 1984 f

1

_ _ - _ - . - . . . - .= . - _ - _ _ - _ - . _ _ - - - _ . . . . . . .

RBS ER-OLS QUESTION E291.13 (2.4)

References for Section 2.4 (p. 2.4-53). Provide copies of

, References 37, 38, and 39 for ER Section 2.4 or, if l previously submitted to NRC, provide date and other identifying information regarding their submittals.

! RESPONSE i

l Copies of these documents are provided under separate cover.

l i

1 l

i 1

i i

l 4

I I

i i

I i

1

.i Suppicment 2 Q&R 2.4-1 March 1982 i

1

RBS ER-OLS QUESTION E290.9 Mention is made in various places that natural resources of the River Bend site not needed for energy production will be managed (e.g., Table 2.4-5 certain forest will be maintained in a particular seral stage; page 2.4-9 an effort will be made to retain Needle Lake in a primitive condition, as wood duck habitat; page 2,4-19 deer herds onsite and vicinity are managed). Provide plans for management of these natural resource areas during plant operation.

RESPONSE

GSU has had a long-standing commitment to the concept of dedicating portions of the River Bend site not devoted to public utility use to educational and research purposes.

This commitment will be fulfilled by managing certain parts of the site in cooperation with university, state, and federal forestry and wildlife specialists. A long-term agreement will be established with the Louisiana State University (LSU) School of Forestry and Wildlife Management, which will provide for additional participation of the Lou-isiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, since a federal Cooperative Wild-life Research Unit exists at LSU.

The long-term availability of the site will be especially useful for extended time-series ecological research. To the extent possible, GSU will provide logistical and funding a support for the educational and research programs. Such programs would include, but are not limited to, studies of procedures for reforestation of construction-related spoil areas and methods for the management of unharvested deer herds.

The maintenance of diverse plant and animal communities is recognized as an overriding guideline in the natural resource management program. The upland forest communities are notably diverse, and a concerted effort will be made to maintain this variety (Table 2.4-5). For example, old growth southern pine (including loblolly) is generally rare in the area because of logging practices and fire suppression. Maintenance of at least some loblolly stands will involve selective removal of undesirable deciduous un-dergrowth and other competition (e.g., by controlled burning). Forest types which are rare in their mature state, such as bottomland hardwoods, will be permitted to succeed to their climax state.

Supplement 8 Q&R 2.4-2 April 1984 ll

RBS ER-OLS

() Populations of terrestrial game and non-game animals onsite will be managed to enhance population health and diversity.

The present population of deer will be maintained within the carrying capacity of the site. This is important for both the health of the deer themselves and the protection of vegetation. Deer herd maintenance efforts will be achieved, in part, through research activities, which will include developing methods for population control other than direct harvesting. Herd thinning methods, such as hunting, will only be used where GSU and LSU personnel determine that it is absolutely necessary.

Aquatic habitats will be managed to support diverse wildlife and to enhance their educational value. For example, the primary management approach for the floodplain slough known ,

as Needle Lake will be the maintenance of present hy-drological characteristics with as little interference as possible (Section 2.4.1.1.3.2). Waterfowl, especially wood ducks (Aix sponsa) will be managed at the site by providing sufficient feeding and nesting areas through creation of the Wildlife Management Lake in a natural state. Breeding sites could be provided by the creation of dead tree snags (through water level manipulation or girdling) and by the placing of wood duck nesting boxes. Many other species of waterfowl, as well as aquatic and amphibious tetrapods and fishes, will use these two water bodies.

(}

Supplement 8 Q&R 2,4-3 April 1984 g-~

(/

RBS ER-OLS

() 3.6.1.3.2 Biofouling Control Chlorination facilities are provided for biofouling control in the condenser cooling water and service water systems.

Chlorine will be either generated onsite by a sodium hypochlorite generating facility or purchased as e commercial-grade sodium hypochlorite solution, delivered to the plant by truck. The onsite generating facility includes a salt storage and dissolving system, electrolytic cell, hypochlorite solution tank, pumps, controls, and residual chlorine analyzers. Purchased hypochlorite will be loaded directly into the hypochlorite solution tank and diluted e

to a concentration suitable for controlled injection into the circulating and service water systems. The frequency and duration of chlorination of condenser cooling water and service water systems for each O

Supplement 8 3.6-4a April 1984

' RBS ER-OLS O

i i

1 i

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

\ O l

G

I RBS ER-OLS A portion of one corridor passes through Baker, Louisiana, paralleling the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad and

(

\_ Highway 19. Due to its location, some impacts (e.g.,

traffic congestion at intersections, slowing of trains) will possibly occur during construction. These impacts should be of short duration and minimal.

Since the transmission corridor routes are located within or adjacent to existing utility corridors and rights-of-way, existing access and local roads will be used for maintenance purposes. No significant modifications have or will occur in offsite areas as a result of transmission line construction.

4.1.3 Historic and Archaeological Sites 4.1.3.1 The Site and Vicinity No historic properties have been disturbed or destroyed during plant construction. The ruins of a nineteenth century sugar mill exist on the River Bend property and are discussed in Section 2.5.3.1. GSU has no plans to develop 8 the site on which it is located and will preserve it by limiting intrusion of the public. An archaeological investigation of the site and vicinity, discussed in Section 2.5.3.2, indicated that Indians traversed the site, ls fs but that archaeological remains did not indicate long-term

(~j village occupation. Therefore, nothing of archaeological significance has been disturbed or destroyed.

4.1.3.2 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas Section 2.5.3 discusses the historic and archaeological sites along the transmission rights-of-way. The sites which are within 2 km of the transmission corridors are Port Hudson Battlefield, Baker Heritage Museum, and 13 archaeological sites.

Prior to the construction of the original transmission lines near the Port Hudson Battlefield area, the GSU right-of-way department established the transmission line route in a manner that would minimize the impacts on the Port Hudson Battlefield and also maintain good engineering practices.

In accordance with 36CFR800, a Memorandum of Agreement has been executed between the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the NRC, and the State of Louisiana, Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism - Division of Archaeological Historic Preservation. The Memorandum sets forth the agreed-upon mitigation measures which GSU must follow in order to protect historic and cultural properties s

within the Port Hudson National Historic Landmark.

i,) Supplement 8 4.1-3 April 1984

RBS ER-CES Reference - 4.1

1. Louisiana State Planning Office. Land Use and Data Analysis Program, U.S. Geological Survey, 1972.

Released November 1975.

O i

4.1-4

RBS ER-OLS landfill exists onsite for the disposal of construction O' A debris and residue from incinerated solid waste. The landfill occupies approximately 6 ha (15 acres) adjacent to the primary spoil area for which no clearing was required.

Since the landfill and associated incinerator will be used a only for the construction period, these facilities are considered excluded from regulation by the Louisiana Solid Waste Management Division. The area occupied by the landfill will be revegetated when the facility is no longer needed.

With the return of vegetation in those areas not subject to frequent disturbance during plant operation, animal communities can be expected to reestablish themselves; soil invertebrates will likely be first, followed by birds and small mammals. The absence of forest-type cover and the early successional stage of the fields will discourage many birds and large mammals from living within the cleared areas. Areas to be maintained open and grass-covered (no reforestation) are likely to attract only a limited variety of wildlife except where such open areas adjoin forest, creating an ecotone habitat.

The permanent 13.8-ha (34-acre) Wildlife Management Lake will be created by damming a stream outlet in the old railroad tram near Alligator Bayou and filling the natural

("'S drainage area in the bluffs behind. The lake and its

( ,j environs should prove attractive to animals, especially waterfowl, amphibians, and some reptiles, partially offsetting the loss of habitat caused by the construction of the plant.

Species of special status at the River Bend Station site are discussed in Section 2.4. All of the commercially and recreationally important species are subject to the occasional removal of individuals from their population in the course of statewide hunting or population management programs. As such, the loss of a few additional individuals due to construction of River Bend Station shou?e not have a significant impact on these species.

Endangered or threatened species which might occur at the site include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),

Arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius), and American alligator (Alligator mississipiensis). Species of )

special scientitic interest include the worm-eating warbler l (Helmitherus vermivorus) and black and white warbler-  !

(Mmiotilta varia). Of these, only the alligator breeds onsite. With the addition of the Wildlife Management Lake to the site and the limited impact to prime alligator .

I Supplement 8 4.3-3 April 1984 l

{']/

s_ l

RBS ER-OLS habitat in Alligator Bayou, plant construction should have little or no impact on the alligator. There should be only a minimal impact on the remaining species due to the removal O

Supplement 8 4.3-3a April 1984 l

m# h. .., .,,-as .A+. a.:ma-- maa. -au.a- ----4 _y-. 4_ n__-w-- as-,aw a sm 1L - - m..am-m. _ _ _ *m- .. a._ .m-%a-. -- . .s,-.. a

._m-- ma+--s a.

RBS ER-OLS O

t THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 1

O t

l Supplement S 4.3-3b April 1984

BBS ER-CES of potential resting and feeding areas tecause of the infrequency of their visits and the availability of similar habitat in the area.

4.3.1.2 Transmission corridors and Offsite Areas 4.3.1.2.1 Impact on Vegetaticn Descripticns of the impacts of construction on the terrestrial ecosystems of the transmission line routes (corridors) for River Eend Staticn - Unit 1 are derived fron the literature and from field surveys conducted along the corridors (a,2). Data pertinent to the transmission routes and lines are presented in Tables 2.2-6 through 2.2-9 and Fig. 2.4-5 through 2.4-10.

4.3.1.2.1.1 Route I Segment __A tc_B The first 1.7 km (1. 07 mi) of Route I, Segment A to E (Fig. 2.4-5 and 2.4-6 and Table 2. 2- 6) is en River Bend property and is combined with the first part of Route II.

This combined segment required a corridor cleared to a width of 185.5 m (609 ft) (corridor widths are converted from feet to the nearest 0.5 m) and to a length of 1.2 km (0.73 mi) thrcugh forest land, requiring the clearing of 21.8 ha (53.89 acres) of wedium quality upland harduccd forest.

Segment E tc C From Pcint B to its junction with Big Cajun No. 2 (Point C)

(Fig. 2.4-6), Route I crosses 0.9 km (0.54 mi) of forest on the east bank of the Mississippi River and 0.2 km (0.14 mi) of willow (Salix nigra and S. interior) on the west side of the river. The height of towers used in crossing the Mississippi River permitted the wires to be strung above the forest cancpy and reduced the total area of clearing required to 1.6 ha (3.97 acres) cf upland hardwood. The remainder of this segment crosses mostly unimproved pasture, where no clearing was necessary.

Segment C tc__D From the switchyard at Big Cajun No. 2 (Point C) , Route I extends 3.0 km (1.9 mi) west and south to Point C (Fig. 2.4-6), crcssing 2.2 km (1.3 5 mi) of pasture and 0.8 km (0.48 mi) cf Icw quality bottomland hardwood forest.

This secticn required the clearing of 4.3 ha (10.59 acres) of forest.

4.3-4

RBS ER-OLS O 4.6 MEASURES AND CONTROLS TO LIMIT ADVERSE IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION An environmental monitoring program has been established and implemented at the River Bend Station site to check on the day-to-day effects of construction activities and to ensure compliance with laws, regulations and guidelines set by various regulatory agencies and with commitments made in licensing proceedings.

The environmental monitoring program is supervised by the Site Environmental Protection Officer. The program includes e frequent inspections of the site and meetings to discuss the results of the inspections and develop measures to mitigate the effects of planned or ongoing construction activities.

The results of inspections and meetings are documented and filed. Corrective measures are taken on out-of-compliance observations and checked for effectiveness.

An environmental audit program further ensures conformance with the environmental monitoring program and effectiveness of actions taken to resolve previous out-of-compliance audit items. A report is prepared after the audit describing the findings. The report includes a list of items requiring corrective or preventive action, a review of corrective pg action for items previously recorded, and recommendations.

(,,/ Deficiencies are held as open items until satisfactory corrective / preventive action has been completed. A file is maintained on all audit reports.

Impacts and/or potential impacts from River Bend Station construction are detailed in previous sections of this chapter. The following serves as a summary of these impacts and the mitigative and precautionary measures used to minimize adverse effects on the environment.

4.6.1 Noise The effect of site construction noise to the local area was reduced by restricting the operation of major noise sources to daytime hours, by using major internal combustion equipment equipped with mufflers, by constructing the North Access Road which minimizes construction traffic on State Highway 965, and by reducing the volume of truck traffic on US Highway 61 by trucking coarse fill over an extended period and stockpiling.

I Supplement 8 4.6-1 April 1984 I

l

RBS ER-OLS Objectionable offsite noise level, during the site preparation period, identified in Section 4.4 as the construction activity producing the greatest noise level, were not a significant or recurring problem. No explosives were utilized during construction.

4.6.2 Erosion Several erosion and storm water runoff control measures have been utilized throughout the construction period. The most effective form of erosion control has proved to be the reestablishment of vegetation on exposed soil. This is accomplished by reseeding and/or by natural recolonization.

Where possible, gentle slopes are formed and mulch applied to stabilize topsoil until revegetation occurred. Macadam, gravel, and crushed rock were laid in high volume traffic areas to control erosion.

Erosion control structures and biodegradable chemical stabilizers were used on the primary spoil pile and the excavation slopes, the predominant areas of erosion, and helped in reducing the quantity of eroded material. Despite the control measures taken, some erosion continued at the primary spoil pile. Sediment deposition due to runoff from the primary spoil pile has occurred in the Wildlife Management Lake. An assessment of this condition will be made and the appropriate mitigative measures will be implemented prior to lake construction. At the present time the sedimentation rate in the lake basin has been substantially reduced by the aforementioned control measures. Although detailed long-range plans for the uses 2 of the Wildlife Management Lake have yet to be made, any conceivable use would not be affected by the sediments already deposited in the basin. Once the lake is constructed, it will be necessary to ensure that erosion controls are effective.

Berms and terraces have been constructed to funnel construction runoff into drainage ditches and natural streams. Concrete mats, riprap, energy dissipators, and l other drainage control devices vere employed along some of these ditches and streams, and in areas of potentially severe erosion. These measures significantly contributed to the control of erosion.

Specific examples include the stilling basin placed near the mouth of East Creek and the relocation of West Creek to a Fabriform-lined channel. The stilling basin dissipates energy from the construction dewatering flow prior to its entry into Grants Bayou, thus lessening the stream's erosive Supplement 2 4.6-2 March 1982 lg

BBS ER-CES O than steep slopes and cultipacking in areas perpendicular to the slope. In crder to further reduce the running extent of erosicn, other control neasures are teing assessed for future use.

River bank erosion at the embayment area has been controlled by gentle sloping and by employing riprap.

Prior to plant operation the Army Corps of Engineers plans to construct a revetment compcsed of an articulated concrete mattress for stabilization of the east bank of the Mississippi River. The revetment will be tied into the enbayment slope protection and will extend upstream and downstrean for several niles.

Upon conpletion of Unit 1 construction, exposed tracts of land will be seeded to promote vegetaticn where practical.

At the conclusion of Unit 2 ccnstruction activities, the construction-related facilities utilized by both units and any additicnal facilities or laydown areas required during Unit 2 constructicn will te removed. The land will then undergo finai grading, seeding and landscaping. Grass cover also will be utilized to restore and stabilize areas affected by erosion and areas affected by deposition of eroded sedinents.

( 4.6.3 Cust Dust contrcl is accomplished by paving or applying asphalt binders to the construction roads and by water sprinkling.

No sprays were required tc prevent dust blowing from the coarse fill stockpile.

4.6.4 Traffic Ccnstruction of the North Access Road ccnnecting US Highway 61 and State Highway 965 has minimized both congestion and noise on State Highway 965. Truck traffic on US Highway 61 was reduced by transporting coarse fill over an extended period and stockpiling.

Rush hour traffic generated by the constructicn work force congests US Highway 61 where it intersects North Access Poad and State Highway 965, and the St. Francisville-New Road ferry crossing. These snarls are short-term and local residents have acclimated to the rush hcurs, generally avoiding travel at these times. A traffic light placed at the intersection 'of North Access Road and US Highway 61 has assisted in alleviating traffic ccngestion.

4.6-3

[vS I

RBS ER-OLS 4.6.5 Effluents and Wastes Construction activities result in temporary discharges into site water bodies and the Mississippi River. Effluents and wastes discharged into local streams comply with limits established in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, thus minimizing impact to the receiving body.

s l Effluent from the sewage treatment plant empties into East Creek near Grants Bayou. The low level of residual chlorine in the effluent stream is reduced by the time the effluent reaches East Creek; therefore, chlorine has no effect at the point of release into East Creek. Sanitary wastes from the chemical toilets are transported to an offsite disposal facility. Effluent from the toilet facility at the switenyard is treated in a septic tank and transmitted to tae soil through approved filter fields in the switchyard.

In order to comply with NPDES discharge criteria, waste water from the concrete batch plant is treated for suspended solids and high pH prior to its release into Upper West Creek.

Prior to plant operation, plant water conveyance and storage systems will be flushed. The final discharge will be in compliance with the limitations established by the EPA and the State of Louisiana.

River Bend Station will generate approximately 252,000 cu yd of construction wastes, 75 percent combustible and el 25 percent noncombustionible. Combustible wastes (paper, cardboard cartons and wood boxes) are burned onsite and the resulting ashes together with noncombustible wastes (metals, concrete, fire retardant materials and roofing insulation) unsuitable for salvage are buried in a landfill.

el The incinerator consist's of an above ground burn pit and an air curtain destructor. The air curtain destructor swirls a curtain of air into the pit increasing the burning rate 3 to 4 times that of open burning. The air curtain also tends to trap the resulting smoke until it is consumed by the intense a heat. A permit to operate the incinerator was obtained from the Louisiana Air Quality Control Division.

Supplement 8 4.6-4 April 1984 O

RBS ER-OLS Incineration residue is about 1 percent of the original

/~N waste volume. After incineration the ashes are removed, k) ms hauled to the landfill and buried. The landfill has the capacity to dispose of construction debris and residue from incinerated solid waste generated during the construction of a River Bend Station. Upon completion of construction the landfill will be revegetated.

Salvageable construction materials are accumulated in designated areas and disposed of as the job progresses.

4.6.6 Surface Water Construction activities have changed the site surface water hydrological setting but have not significantly altered drainage characteristics.

Design measures were taken to maintain pre-River Access Road construction flow patterns through Alligator Bayou. A culvert system consisting of fourteen 6-ft diameter culverts was placed in the road embankment. Comparison between the preconstruction and construction periods indicates only a slight variation in water levels upstream and downstream of the road during inundation of Alligator Bayou due to storm runoff (Appendix 2B). In addition, culverts were placed beneath roadways for stormwater runoff and for crossings of West Creek to provide passage for surface waters.

7-West Creek was relocated to a Fabriform-lined channel to reduce both erosion and plant flooding, due to local storms.

The channel will be cleaned of silt and debris as necessary to maintain its flow characteristics.

The cooling tower blowdown and clarifier sludge discharge pipelines will be buried so that they do not interfere with surface water flow in Alligator Bayou and West Creek.

The nature of the other setting alterations (Section 4.2) did not require any mitigative action to limit their hydrological impact.

A permanent storm drainage system is being installed in and around the site area to carry off storm water, thus preventing plant flooding and mitigating erosion. The system outfalls to East and West Creeks.

4.6.7 Groundwater Mitigative measures beyond that noted in Section 4.2.2.2 were not necessary. Dewatering activities are monitored to assure no adverse interference on other area wells. Shortly (3

, ,) Supplement 8 4.6-5 April 1984

BBS EB-CIS after termination, grcundwater levels in the Upland Terrace Aquifer are expected to return to predewatering levels.

4.6.8 Land Use 4.6.8.1 Site and Vicinity Land-Use Protection /Festoration The site has nc unique land-use or scenic value, as described in Sections 2. 2 and 4.1. However, some protective and restorative measures are teing taken. These are:

1. Fuch of the material excavated during the site preparation phase was reused for constructing the switchyard, roads, and cther structures. Excavated material will also be used in the ccnstruction of dikes for the Wildlife Management Lake and as tackfill in the main excavation area. Excavated material unsuitable for use will be spoiled in select areas and revegetated.

2. Chemicals required during ccnstruction are stored, received, transported, and used in a manner to ensure nc release to the environment.

3. A permanent fire protection system is being installed. The yard portion of the fire protection system has been operable since the site preparation period and will remain sc throughout the life of the plant.

4. A 13.8-ha ( 34. 2-acre) Kildlife Management Lake and visitor information center will be ccnstructed and nade available for educational purposes.

5. Vegetation will screen the plant from US Highway 61.

6. GSU is develcping plans for a comprehensive land (Table 2.4-5) and gane nanagement prcgram.

7. Use of the North and Fiver Access Foads by nearby i

prcperty owners is limited. Local residents are I allowed to travel the Fiver Access Poad when other l area roads are flooded.

1 The staticn has had only localized effects on the i surrounding parishes. No land-use prctection or restoration plans are being made for the Fiver Eend Station vicinity.

4.6-6

RBS ER-OLS 7

5.4.2.1 Radioactivity in Surface Waters x- For the preceding liquid pathways, a dilution factor of 11.4 (the near-field dilution factor) and a travel time of 0 hr were used to determine doses from ingestion of fish, invertebrates, and duck, and exposure from swimming, boating, and shoreline recreation activities. A dilution factor of 24,800 and a hold up time of 41.3 hr (includes 29.3 hr travel time to point of withdrawal, plus 12 hr processing / distribution time) were used to determine doses from potable water and irrigated vegetables.

Concentrations of radioactive effluents in water affected by operation of the plant were calculated according to the methods set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.113'38 The specific rationale is discussed in Section 5.3.2.1.1.

5.4.2.2 Radioactivity in Air Three points of gaseous release from the station were considered. These points and the mode of release are:

Release Point 1 - Radwaste Building, Continuous Release Release Point 2 - Plant Exhaust Duct, Continuous Release Release Point 3 - Plant Exhaust Duct, Intermittent Release

(^g The analysis for the gaseous pathways required specific

() meteorological dispersion (CHI /Q) and deposition factors for each of the above releases. Where CHI /Q and D/Q (D/Q) values are indicated in this section, a reference number (i.e., CHI /Q 1) is provided to indicate the release point being considered. The doses for the gaseous pathways were calculated by summing the doses from each release point.

Atmospheric dispersion factors (CHI /Q) and deposition factors (D/Q) utilized in evaluating the releases of gaseous effluents were calculated according to the methods set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.111(48 The specific rationale is discussed in Section 2.7.5. Table 5.4-1 presents the CHI /Q and D/Q atmospheric dispersion and depostion factors used in this analysis.

5.4.2.3 Radionuclide Concentrations 5.4.2.3.1 Liquid Effluents The radionuclides released with the liquid effluents are rapidly diluted in the receiving water. An annual average blowdown flow rate of 4,400 gpm for normal two-unit operation was used for the dose calculations. A dilution factor of 11.4 was calculated for activities taking place within the vicinity of the mixing zone. Table 5.4-2 k ,)

m 5.4-5

RBS ER-OLS presents the concentrations of various radionuclides in the discharge, closest accessible shoreline, edge of initial mixing zone, and the first public water intake (Bayou Lafourche, Peoples Water Service Co.). The dilution factors have been calculated using annual average effluent flow rates for two-unit operation and the annual average dilution for the receiving water. Dilution factors are calculated using the methodology in Regulatory Guide 1.113. A description of the hydrologic modeling is given in Section 5.3.2.1.1.

Bioaccumulation factors are used to calculate doses to primary organisms (fish, invertebrates, and aquatic plants) and subsequent doses to the secondary predatory animals.

With the exception of the site-specific bioaccumulation factors presented in Table 5.4-3, the bicaccumulation factors from Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 (fish and invertebrates), and Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. O, (algae),

were used to calculate the doses to man.

The Mississippi River is not used within 80 km of the station for irrigation, but this pathway was conservatively considered for maximum individual dose estimates. It was assumed that the first downstream water supply, Peoples Water Service Co., is used for irrigation and has a radionuclide concentration listed in Table 5.4-2. The maximum individual resident's garden was assumed to be irrigated each day during a continuous growing season at a rate equivalent to the area's average annual rainfall (0.104 1/sq m/hr). Maximum individual consumption rates of garden vegetation taken from Regulatory Guide 1.109(5) were used to calculate the estimated doses.

5.4.2.3.2 Gaseous Effluents Radionuclides emitted in the gaseous effluents accumulate on the ground throughout the life of the plant. Table 5.4-4 lists the ground plane concentrations of radionuclides at a point 1,260 m northwest of tne plant. The concentrations at this point represent the maximum offsite deposition at an occupied location. These concentrations are calculated using the approach outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.109, along with the assumption of a 20 yr midpoint of plant life.

Relative deposition rates are calculated using the methodology in Regulatory Guide 1.111. A descriptior of the atmospheric modeling appears in Section 2.7.5.

8 Supplement 8 5.4-6 April 1984 O

l RBS ER-OLS Effluent BOD (5-day) and <30 mg/l suspended solids The sanitary waste system will discharge an estimated 10,500 gpd (0.016 cfs) of secondary treated effluent into l the storm drainage system during normal station operation.

1 Nonradioactive and oil-stripped floor and equipment drainage will add an estimated 43 gpm (0.1 cfs - intermittent flow 4 expressed as continuous flow) to the storm sewer during normal operation. The treated effluent stream will frequently represent the total flow in Grants Bayou due to the intermittent nature of natural flow. It is estimated that station sanitary waste treatment plant effluent will comprise all or most (i.e., 50 percent or more) of the flow ,

in Upper Grants Bayou at least 70 percent of the time. For the remainder of the time (up to 30 percent), rainfall runoff from the upper bayou drainage area will exceed the treated effluent flow. The duration that this will occur will vary according to the length and intensity of each rainfall event.

During periods of high makeup water demand, the well water pumps will operate continuously and an intermittent overficw to the storm sewer system of excess well water is expected to occur at an estimated average continuous rate of 4 gpm.

The water quality of plant effluents discharged to local streams is expected to be within NPDES discharge limitations and will not violate state water quality critera.

Sludge resulting from clarification of the cooling system makeup water will be diluted to a solids concentration of 0.5 to 4.0 percent by weight and discharged to the Mississippi River at an average rate of 540 gpm (1.2 cfs).

The sludge censists of raw river water, coagulated suspended solids, and a small amount of cationic polymer which serves as the electrolyte during flocculation. Considering the composition of the blowdown, the-turbid nature of the river,.

and the presence of rapid mixing characteristics, it is estimated that the clarifier sludge discharge plume will be indistinguishable in the river within 61 to 91 m (200 to 300 ft) of the outfall. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the. Louisiana Stream Control Commission have approved the discharge of clarifier sludge to the Mississippi River at River Bend Station c2> ,

i Dredging may be required periodically in ~t he intake embayment due to the heavy sediment _ load in the Mississippi i River. Disposal will be the same as- for embayment l construction, that is, dredged material will be placed below Supplement 2 5.5-3 March 1982

RBS ER-OLS 1

l Mississippi River channel bed elevations deemed acceptable l by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

5.5.1.4 Effects on Aquatic Life As discussed in Section 3.6, there are several sources of liquid effluent from River Bend Station. The impact to biota resulting from the thermal component of these discharges is discussed in Section 5.3.2.2. The impact potential of the chemical constituents of these effluents is discussed here.

The largest plant effluent source is the cooling tower blowdown stream which discharges to the Mississippi River downstream of the intake embayment. The chemical makeup of this stream is determined by the ambient river water quality (as treated and concentrated in the cooling system), resulting and by from the addition of other effluent streams station operation.

Table 5.5-2 lists the composition of this blowdown stream based on cooling tower concentration of ambient river water, and significant additions to the stream. Table 5.5-3 compares estimated concentrations of selected dissolved in the station discharge to their biological 3l 2 constituents effect. For most constituents, maximum concentrations at the point of discharge are well below toxic levels. Only for iron, calcium, and copper are potentially harmful levels approached under conditions of maximum concentration. Since average concentrations of iron and calcium are below these levels, and the effluent is rapidly diluted to ambient levels, these constituents would have no effect on aquatic life.

Average copper concentrations during station operation slightly exceed the 96 hr TLM for bluegill (Table 5.5-3) at the point of discharge. However, because of the relatively high river velocities at the discharge (1.3 m/sec-4.3 ft/sec average), it is unlikely that a fish would remain at the point of discharge long enough to be affected. Rapid dilution takes place, so that within a short distance of the discharge, concentrations will be well below toxic levels.

Furthermore, only a minor portion (conservatively, less than one half) of the estimated copper discharge considered as dissolved in the blowdown stream will appear in the form 2

harmful to aquatic life (i.e., ionic form). This is based on research in regard to ionic copper removal processes and 3l field test data c2> ,

Supplement 8 5.5-4 April 1984

RBS ER-OLS O Copper concentrations above 2 mg/l (Table 5.5-3) could be discharged during the first few months of station operation, due to high initial erosion / corrosion rates of the condenser tubing. Elevated levels would also occur at other times during station operation when condenser tubing is replaced, but it is unlikely that the initial maximum concentration would be reached unless all condenser tubing is replaced at the same time. These high copper concentrations would be rapidly diluted to sublethal level. The 700 ug/l isopleth is estimated to be 2.6 m (8.5 ft) wide at the surface and would extend only 9 m (30 ft) downstream of the discharge under conditions of extreme low river flow. For average river flow the 700 ug/l isopleth would extend 10.4 m (34 ft) and would not reach the surface. Under no condition would the 700 ug/l isopleth be expected to contact the shoreline or the river bottom. Water velocities within this isopleth O

1 Supplement 8 5.5-4a April 1984 j I

RBS ER-OLS O

TIIIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK O

Supplement 2 5.5-4b March 1982, O

RBS ER-OLS APPENDIX 7A

(

LIST OF TABLES Table Number Title 7A.2-1 COMPARISON OF SYSTEM UNAVAILABILITIES BETWEEN PB2 AND RBS 7A.3-1 ACCIDENT SEQUENCE SYMBOLS 7A.3-2 SYSTEM SUCCESS COMBINATIONS FOR TRANSIENTS 7A.3-3 SYSTEM SUCCESS COMBINATIONS FOR LOCAs 7A.4-1 ACCIDENT SEQUENCE CONTAINMENT FAILURE MODE

• PROBABILITIES AND RELEASE CATEGORIES 7A.5-1 DOMINANT CORE MELT ACCIDENT SEQUENCE PROBABILITIES USING WASH-1400 SOURCE TERMS 7A.6-1 EXPOSURE IMPACT OF VARIOUS ISOTOPES 7A.6-2 CRAC2 DATA SOURCES 7A.6-3 CRAC2 COMPUTER CODE ISOTOPIC INPUT DATA e 7A.6-4 CRAC2 RELEASE PARAMETERS 7A.6-5 CRAC2 EVACUATION STRATEGIES 7A.6-6 CRAC2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION DATA (2010 PROJECTED) 7A.6-7 CRAC2 METEOROLOGICAL BIN DATA

SUMMARY

7A.6-8 CRAC2 RESULT SENSITIVITIES 7A.6-9 COMPARISON OF EARLY INJURY AND LATENT FATALITIES BETWEEN RBS AND OVERALL U.S.

Supplement 8 7A-iii April 1984

([3)  !

l 1

i

RBS ER-OLS APPENDIX 7A LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number Title 7A.3-1 RBS TRANSIENT EVENT TREE 7A.3-2 LOCA EVENT TREE 7A.4-1 MARK III PRIMARY CONTAINMENT 7A.4-2 CONTAINMENT EVENT TREE 7A.6-1 50-MI SITE REGION 7A.6-2 CRAC2 CONSEQUENCE MODEL SCHEMATIC 7A.6-3 ACUTE FATALITIES 7A.6-4 LATENT FATALITIES 7A.6-5 ACUTE INJURIES 7A.6-6 LATENT THYROID CANCER 7A.6-7 TOTAL COST (1980 DOLLARS) 7A.6-8 TOTAL WHOLE-BODY MAN-REM 7A.6-9 ACUTE FATALITIES - BWR COMPARISON 7A.6-10 LATENT FATALITIES - BWR COMPARISON 7A.6-11 CCDFs COMPARISON OF RBS VERSUS OVERALL U.S. NATURALLY OCCURRING EVENT FATALITIES RISK 7A.6-12 CCDFs COMPARISON OF RBS VERSUS OVERALL U.S. MAN-CAUSED FATALITIES RISK 7A.6-13 CCDFs COMPARISON OF RBS VERSUS OVERALL U.S. PROPERTY DAMAGE RISK Supplement 7 7A-iv January 1984 O

RBS ER-OLS

() 7A.4 The CONTAINMENT ANALYSIS RBS containment employs the BWR Mark III design (Figure 7A.4-1) as opposed to the Mark I design utilized by the RSS BWR. The Grand Gulf Generating Station also uses the Mark III design. The Grand Gulf containment is fully analyzed in the GG1 PRA(25 While both designs employ the pressure suppression concept, the major differences are that RBS uses the freestanding steel containment in lieu of the reinforced concrete containment, and does not require drywell vacuum breakers and containment sprays.

7A.4.1 Containment Event Tree containment event tree for the RBS analysis was The developed from the GG1 containment event tree. The contain-ment event tree is shown on Figure 7A.4-2.

a Containment failure probabilities for sequences Y', 6 , a , and shown in Figure 7A.4-2 were developed from GG-RSSMAP(2' probability data. Containment failure probabilities are listed by BWR release category in Table 7A.4-1.

O

RBS ER-OLS

() TABLE 7A.4-1 ACCIDENT SEQUENCE CONTAINMENT FAILURE MODE PROBABILITIES AND RELEASE CATEGORIES'88 1

Release Category Probabilities (per reactor-year)

S_equence 1 2 3 4'28 T PQI t a = 0. 01 6 = 1. 0 TasPQI a = 0. 01 6 = 1. 0 T tPQE Y = 0.5 6 = 0.5

T 23PQE Y = 0.5 6 = 0. 5 SI a = 0. 01 6 = 1. 0 T 3QW 6 = 1. 0 i

i TasQW 6 = 1. 0 TasC 6 = 1. 0 T iQUV Y = 0.5 6 = 0. 5 i

l 1

I j

i i

l l

l

'2' Reference 2, Table 5-4, pages 5-27 and 5-28.

(2) Sequence S in RSSMAP only contributed to release Category 4 at a rate of 0.007 per reactor-year.

For those dominant sequences at River Bend Station S is assumed to be a negligible contributor to

release Category 4 compared to 6.

I Supplement 8 1 of 1 April 1984 O

4 V

, . , . , , . _ . _- . . -~

l l I

RBS ER-OLS TABLE 7A.6-3

(}

CRAC2 COMPUTER CODE ISOTOPIC INPUT DATA (18 1 l

Quantity l Element Isotope (curies)

Cobalt Co-58(38 7.05x10s Co-6043) 2.62x105 l Krypton Kr-85 8.39x105

Kr-85m 2.08x107 Kr-87 3.47x107

Kr-88 5.21x107 Rubidium Rb-86(28 1.56x105 i

Strontium Sr-89 6.95x107

Sr-90(2) 1.08x107 i

Sr-91 8.68x107 Yttrium Y-90(28 1.11x107

. Y-91 8.97x107 l Zirconium Zr-95 1.30x10' Zr-97 1.33x10C Niobium Nb-95 1.30x10e Molybdenum Mo-99 1.48x108 Technetium Tc-99m 1.30x10e s Ruthenium Ru-103 1.27x10e

Ru-105 6.95x107 i Ru-106 4.63x107 i Rhodium Rh-105 6.95x107

! Tellurium Te-127 1.04x107

, Te-127m(28 1.05x108 Te-129 2.49x107 Te-129mc2: 4.19x108 Te-131m 1.24x107 Te-132 1.10x10e Antimony Sb-127 8.10x108 Sb-129 2.60x107 Iodine I-131 7.81x107 I-132 1.10x10' I-133 1.59x108 I-134 1.71x10e I-135 1.48x108 Xenon Xe-133 1.59x108 Xe-135 2.14x107 Cesium Cs-134(28 2.01x107 Cs-136<28 4.73x108 Cs-137 2> 1.42x107 Barium Ba-140 1.39x108 Lanthanum La-140 1.45x10e f Supplement 8 1 of 2 April 1984

RBS ER-OLS t

! TABLE 7A.6-3 (Cont)

Quantity

! Element Isotope (curies)

,' Cerium Ce-141 1.33x10s 4 Ce-143 1.19x108

. Ce-144 1.01x10s Praseodymium Pr-143 1.16x10' Neodymium Nd-147 5.21x107 Neptunium Np-239cz: 1.46x10'

, Plutonium Pu-238 2) 8 3.59x105

! Pu-23942> 2.94x104 i Pu-240<2) 5.02x104 Pu-241<2> 1.16x10' 1, Americium Am-241<25 1.80x104 i Curium Cm-242528 5.79x108

{ Cm-244c2> 7.96x105 i

lO  !

l.

i (1' Isotopic inventory provided by NSSS supplier, General Electric Company (Reference 44), adjusted to 2,894, MWt, ,

except as noted.

(2'NUREG/CR-3108 (Reference 38) data corrected to values consistent with an end-of-cycle 2,894_MWt BWR.

l (3'RSS data (Reference 1) corrected to values consistent l*

, with an end-of-cycle 2,894 MWt BWR. BWR 6-specific i data from GE was not available for these isotopes.

l

! Supplement 8 2 of 2- April 1984 i

i I

l

_ , . _ -- _ ,_ . _ _ - - - - . _ , _