ML073240735
| ML073240735 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1987 |
| From: | Corey J, Gladden J, Halverson N, Lower M, Mackey H, Specht W, Wilde E E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, US Dept of Energy (DOE) |
| References | |
| NL-07-2097, UC-11 DP-1739-1 | |
| Download: ML073240735 (98) | |
Text
DP-1739-1 Distribution category:
UC-11 COMPREHENSIVE COOLING WATER STUDY FINAL REPORT VOLUME I
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT
'J N. V. Halverson, Editor and Complier J. B. Gladden M. W.Lower H. E. Mackey, Jr.
W. L. Specht E. W. Wilde Approved by:
J. C. Corey, Research Manager Environmental Sciences Division Publication Date: OCtober 1987 E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
Savannah River Laboratory Aiken, SC 29808 PREPARED FOR lliE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY UNDER CONTRACT DE-AC09-76SROOOO1
/
ABSTRACT The Comprehensive Cooling Water Study (CCWS) was initiated in 1983 to evaluate the environmental effects of the intake and release of cooling water on the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems at the Savannah River Plant.
The initial report (Gladden et a1.,
1985) described the results from the first year of the study.
This document is the final report and concludes the program.
The report comprises eight volumes.
The first is a
summary of environmental effects.
The other seven volumes address water qual i ty, radionuc I ide and heavy metal transport,
- wetlands, aquatic ecology, Federally endangered species, ecology of Par Pond, and waterfowl.
FOREWORD This study was initiated in response to a
commitment by the U. S.
Department of Energy (DOE)
Savannah River Plant Operations Office to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee and the State of South Carolina.
The study was a joint effort undertaken by DOE, Du
- Pont, and the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory of the University of Georgia.
The broad scope of this project and size of the report necessitated that it be subdivided into smaller, coherent subject areas.
The resulting document contains eight volumes:
Volume Number I
II III IV V
VI VII VIII DP Number 1739-1 1739-2 1739-3 1739-4 1739-5 1739-6 1739-7 1739-8 Summary of Environmental Effects Water Quality Radionuclide and Heavy Metal Transport Wetlands Aquatic Ecology Federally Endangered Species Ecology of Par Pond Waterfowl Only Volume I is being generally distributed.
Readers desiring to obtain additional volumes may do so by writing to the National Technical Information Service.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors of this report are indebted to numerous individuals from the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory of the University of Georgia, the University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, the Du Pont Savannah River Laboratory, and to the Energy Measurements
- Group, EG&G, Inc.,
of Las
- Vegas, Nevada, who prepared draft material for incorporation into this report.
Contributors from the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory included:
J.
M.
- Aho, C.
S.
- Anderson, K.
L.
- Anderson, R.
- Bayer, P.
Bertsch, J.
D.
- Congdon, M.
C.
- Coulter, A.
Dancewicz, B. Davis, M.
A.
Elrashidi, T.
D.
- Fontaine, J.
W.
- Gibbons, J.
D.
- Haddock, F.
R.
- Hauer, R.
T.
- Hoppe, L.
F.
- Huenneke, R.
A.
- Kennamer, J.
L.
- Knight, J.
N.
- Knox, R.
- Lew, C. Loehle (now with the Du Pont Savannah River Laboratory),
J.
J.
- Mayer, M.Meader, R.. Mealy, G. Mills, S.
S. Morreale, R.
M. Muzika, M.
C.
Newman, S. S. Novak, S.
- Presnell, S.
S.
- Sandhu, R.
L.
Schneider, D.
E.
- Scott, R.
A.
- Siegel, R.
R.
- Sharitz, M.
H.
- Smith, and A.
L.
Towns.
Contributors from the Savannah River Laboratory included:
E.
J.
Christensen (now with EG&G),
D.
W.
- Hayes, and C.
F.
Muska (now with the Du Pont Savannah River Plant).
I.;'
L
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR ALL VOLUMES I.
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Executive Summary Page v
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Introduction Program Elements of the Comprehensive Cooling Water Study Savannah River Plant Site Literature Cited I-I 1-5 1-23 1-63 II.
WATER QUALITY Volume Summary II-I 11.1 II. 2 II. 3 11.4 II.5 II. 6 Introduction Historical Trends in Surface Water Quality:
Onsite Streams and the Savannah River Water Quality Analyses Conducted Under the CCWS Comparison of CCWS Water Quality Results with Water Quality Standards and Criteria Thermal Plumes in the Savannah River, 1984-1985 Literature Cited II-5 II-13 II-75 II-209 II-221 II-235 III.
RADIONUCLIDE AND HEAVY METAL TRANSPORT Volume Summary III-l III.1 III.2 III. 3 III.4 IlLS III. 6.
()
III.7
==
Introduction:==
Cooling Water Transport at SRP Analysis of Historic Sediment Data Offsite Transport of Radionuclides Analysis of Sediment Cores Collected Under the Comprehensive Cooling Water Study Development and Implementation of a Heavy Metal Transport Model:
Theoretical Transport, Fate and Persistence Effects of Reactor Effluent Releases on Radionuclide and Heavy Metal Distribution and Transport Literature Cited 1II-5 III-7 1II-33 1II-77 1II-285 III-355 III-357 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS, Contd IV.
WETLANDS Volume Summary Page IV-1 IV.1 IV.2 IV.3 IV.4 IV.s IV.6 Introduction Regional Wetlands Savannah River Plant Wetland Communities Effects of Cooling Water Releases on SRP Streams and the SRP Savannah River Swamp Factors Affecting Wetland Community Change Literature Cited IV-3 IV-s IV-9 IV-6s IV-147 IV-163 V.
AQUATIC ECOLOGY Volume Summary V-I V.l Introduction V-14 V.2 Study Area V-17 V.3 Lower Food Chain V-2s V.4 Fish Communities of the SRP Streams, Swamps, and the Savannah River V-24l V.s Literature Cited V-s49 VI.
FEDERALLY ENDANGERED SPECIES Volume Summary VI-l VI. 1 VI. 2 VI. 3 VI.4*
VI.S VI. 6 Introduction The Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)
The American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)
.Tl:ie *ShC:fftnose SturgeOn (Aciperiserorevirostrlim)
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Literature Cited VI-3 VI-4 VI-1l3 VI....14s VI-167 VI-179 VII.
ECOLOGY OF PAR POND Volume Summary VII-l VII.l VII. 2 VII. 3 VII.4 VII.s Introduction Primary Producer Communities Invertebrate Communities Fish Communities Literature Cited
- ii -
VII-s VII-IS VII-51 VII-97 VII-167
TABLE OF CONTENTS J Contd VIII.
WATERFOWL Volume Summary Page VIII-I
':l VIII. I VIII.2 VIII. 3 VIII. 4 VIII. S VIII.6 Introduction Waterfowl Use of the SRP Wood Duck Reproductive Ecology on the SRP Radionuclide and Mercury Contamination of Waterfowl Future of Waterfowl on the SRP Literature Cited
- iii -
VIII-S VIII-9 VIII-91 VIII-lOS VIII-Ill VIII-ll3
iv
\\.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The Savannah River Plant (SRP),
aU. S.
Government nuc lear materials production facility, was established in the early 1950's to produce plutonium and tritium for the United States weapons program.
The SRP has been continuously operated for the government (now the Department of Energy (DOE))
by E.
1.
du Pont de Nemours and Company.
SRP facilities related to the production of nuclear materials include a
fuel and target fabrication facility (in M Area),
five production reactors (in C,
K, L,
P, and R Areas) which utilize recirculating heavy water (D20) for moderating and primary
- cooling, two chemical separations facilities (F
and H Areas),
a heavy water production facility (in D Area),
and a
coal-fired power plant (Figure 1)
(also in D Area).
These facili-
- ties, primarily the
- reactors, utilize Savannah River water and onsite surface water for secondary cooling.
Heat exchangers in the reactors transfer heat from the primary
- coolant, D20, to the secondary cooling water.
The heated secondary cooling water is discharged into SRP streams or other onsite surface waters.
These streams return the thermal effluent to the Savannah River.
The intake and thermal discharge of cooling water for SRP operat ions have phys ically, chemically, and biologically modified the SRP streams and other onsite surface waters.
In
- 1983, DOE, Savannah River
'Operations, initiated a
two-year Comprehensive Cooling Water Study (CCWS) to determine the environmental impacts associated with SRP cooling water withdrawals and discharges, and to determine the significance of those impacts on the onsite and downriver environments.
The onsite environments studied included the Par Pond system; the SRP onsite streams, the SRP Savannah River
- swamp, and the Savannah River bordering the SRP site.
Streams and river segments both' upriver and downriver from the plant were studied for baseline and comparison purposes.
The study was a
necessary step toward evaluating mitigation alternatives for SRP thermal discharges.
The CCWS represents a joint effort by DOE, E.
1.
du Pont de Nemours and
- Company, and the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL) of the University of Georgia.
The study was initiated in response to a commitment made by DOE to the State of South Carolina and the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services.
This eight volume report summarizes the historical information and the results of the two-year CCWS program.
The laboratory and field data collected for the program were supplemented by results of several previously initiated studies to define current cooling water impacts on SRP surface waters and ecosys tems.
Much of the relevant literature available for SRP aquatic ecosystems was summarized, and results of several long-term monitoring programs on the SRP were included to provide historical perspective on environ-mental conditions of SRP surface waters.
Volume I
discusses the v
- fl
I Ir, SAVANNAH RIVER
~lANr FIGURE 1.
LEG END ROAOS RAILROAOS STREAMS 123456 KILGETERS The Savannah River Plant Site 33 00' 00' 81 25' 00' l.
0' objectives and design of the
- CCWS, as well as the history of the SRP site.
Volume II addresses the quality of SRP surface waters, and Volume III covers the radionuclide and heavy metal transport studies.
Results of studies on the wetland plant communities are reported in Volume IV.
The SRP aquatic habitats, especially the lower food chain and fisheries communities, are discussed in Volume V.
Volume VI presents the status of four threatened or endangered species utilizing the SRP site.
Volume VII is devoted to the Par Pond ecosystem studies.
- Finally, Volume VIII covers waterfowl utilization of SRP habitats.
Of the approximately 770 square kilometers compr~s~ng the SRP
- site, about 20% are classified as wetlands, including open water.
Bottomland hardwood
- forest, occurring mostly along the stream corridors and in the SRP Savannah River
- swamp, and cypress-tupelo fores t, found predominant ly in the
- swamp, account for about.78% of the site wetlands.
Surface waters on the SRP include more than 50 artificial impoundments, six tributaries of the Savannah River, and the Savannah River swamp.
Par Pond and L Lake are the largest of the artificial impoundments.
The tributaries are Upper Three Runs
- Creek, Beaver Dam Creek, Four Mile Creek, Pen Branch, Steel Creek, and Lower Three Runs Creek (Figure 1).
Pen Branch flow joins Steel Creek in the Savannah River swamp prior to discharging into the Savannah River.
Beaver Dam Creek and Four Mile Creek also discharge into the Savannah River via the SRP Savannah River swamp, a
3,800-hectare (ha) riverine swamp bordering the Savannah River and separated from it by a natural levee.
The swamp is contained within the plant boundaries.
Initially all five
- reactors, the heavy water production
- facility, and the power plant operated with a once-through cooling water
- system, using water pumped from the Savannah River and discharged into the nearest surface stream.
- However, numerous changes have occurred in the plant cooling water systems since the start-up of SRP operations.
The Par Pond system (Figure 2) was constructed in 1958 to provide a
recirculating secondary cooling water system for R Reactor, originally, and later for P Reactor.
Since R Reactor was placed on standby in
- 1964, P Reactor is the only reactor currently using Par Pond for cooling water.
In 1982 the heavy water production facility was placed on standby, reducing the volume and temperature of cooling water released to Beaver Dam Creek.
Then in June
- 1985, C
Reactor was placed in standby condition.
Also in 1985, L Lake, a 405-hectare cooling pond, was formed by damming the headwaters of Steel Creek.
L Reactor, which had been on standby since
- 1968, was restarted in the fall of 1985 and began releasing once-through cooling water to L Lake.
The average surface water use by the plant has varied depend-ing on the number of reactors operating and the corresponding reactor power levels.
Withdrawal generally constitutes approxi-mately 9% of the average annual Savannah River flow.
The maximum
- vii -
Lowe, Three Runs Creek I km FIGURE 2.
The Par Pond System
- viii -
amount of water withdrawn from the river during the period of the CCWS was about 37 m3 /sec.
This included approximately 11 m3 /sec to each of two reactors (C and K),
0.6 m3/sec pumped to Par Pond to compensate for seepage and evaporation, 2.8 m3 /sec to the D-Area power
- plant, and addit ional pumpage required for L-Reactor cold flow testing prior to L-Reactor startup.
After
- use, heated cooling water returns to the river via onsite streams.
During the period of the CCWS only Four Mile Creek (with C Reactor on
- standby, Four Mile Creek no longer receives reactor cooling water) and Pen Branch directly received cooling water.
Steel Creek and Lower Three Runs Creek received the over-
,flow from the L-Lake cooling pond (although L Reactor was not operating, yet) and the Par Pond system, respectively.
Beaver Dam
- Creek, a lesser drainage system, received power plant cooling water from D Area.
The intake and discharge of cooling water are the principal SRP activities affecting SRP surface water quality.
The CCWS water quality program which supplemented existing Du Pont Health Protection Department and SREL routine and nonroutine data, focused on the physical and chemical parameters of each component of the cooling water cycle:
the intake at the Savannah
- River, the discharge to the stream channel, and the flow through the river swamp to the river channel.
The 34 sampling stations covered nonthermal, post-thermal, and thermal sites along the SRP streams and the river swamp, as well as upriver and downriver locations on the Savannah River.
These stations were sampled biweekly for 20 parameters.
Special nonroutine studies addressed diel changes in thermally impacted and unimpacted streams, changes in water quality attributable to differing reactor operating conditions, swamp flow patterns and water residence times during different stages of river
- flooding, and thermal plume characteristics of the Savannah River.
Evaluation of the CCWS water quality data and previously gathered data indicated that the SRP-:surface waters complied gener-ally with applicable water quality standards, with the exception of temperature regulations.
The waters in nonthermal and post-thermal onsite streams and the Savannah River remained in compliance with Class B Water Classification Standards of the State of South Carolina.
Excursions in pH and dissolved oxygen measurements were attributed to natural stream fluctuations rather than to impacts associated. with SRP operations.
Streams thermally altered by reactor cooling water complied with Class B
pH standards, but compliance with dissolved oxygen standards ranged from 48 to 56%.
Water temperatures in thermal streams exhibited 26 to 52% compli-ance with Class B standards, exceeding the temperature standard by as tmlch as 40°C at the reactor cooling water discharge outfall.
When all SRP streams were considered, stream temperatures complied with the Class B standards with 88% frequency.
The water quality data demonstrated 100% compliance with water quality limits estab-lished by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for chlorides,
- ix -
- sulfates, nitrate-nitrogen, annnonia"'-nitrogen, total
Concentrations of priority organic contaminants such as
- volatile, acid, and base/neutral organics were below minimum detection limits using EPA-approved analytical regimes.
In contrast, mean site-wide compliance with the EPA alkalinity criterion was 22%.
- However, ambient stream waters exhibited alkalinity concentrations naturally lower than the EPA criterion, complying with the standard with only 0
to 13%
frequency.
Thermal plumes downriver of the Beaver Dam Creek, Four Mile
- Creek, and Steel Creek mouths generally complied with the allowable plume cross-sectional and surface area requirements during the period of the CCWS.
The CCWS also focused on the identification and evaluation of radionuclide and heavy metal deposition and transport in the onsite streams, the SRP Savannah River swamp, and the Savannah River.
The data collected through the routine radiological monitoring and water quality programs at SRP, including inventories of radioactive releases to onsite surface
- streams, was supplemented with addi-tional water quality studies initiated by the CCWS, plus extensive collections and analyses of sediments in depositional areas of the SRP streams and swamp, Par Pond, and the Savannah River.
Historically, the effluents discharged from the reactor areas to onsite streams have been the principal sources of
Data on radionuclide releases were compiled and compared with routine radiological moni-toring data to determine the contributions by the SRP to downstream heavy metal and radionuclide concentrations.
With the exception of tritium releases, the decay corrected releases during the 1981-1984 period were very small compared to total releases during the 1954-1984 period.
During all
- years, however, SRP liquid radioactive releases to onsite streams resulted in stream and river concentra-tions well within regulatory concentration guidelines.
Samples of raw and finished water collected at a water treatment plant down-river from SRP indicted that SRP operations had no measurable impact on.downriver.137Cs. and tiOCo *concentrationEJ..
'l'heaveI::.ageSRP contribution of 137Cs to finished water concentrations at downriver water treatment plants was 0.032 pCi/L, less than 0.02% of the EPA drinking water standard for 137Cs (200 pCi/L).
GOCo concentrations were below minimum detection limits in raw and finished water.
In
- addition, alpha concentrations in raw and finished water were near or below the minimum detectable concentration of 0.5 pCi/L.
Non-volatile beta concentrations upstream and downstream from SRP exhibited no significant differences.
Tritium was the only radio-nuclide attributable to SRP operations that was routinely detected downriver of the plant;
- x -
Sediment analyses were used to determine the locations and concentrations of radionuclide and heavy metal deposits.
Although radionuclides associated with reactor area effluent discharges have contributed to above-ambient concentration levels in onsite flood-plains, data indicated that these releases did not have significant offsite impacts.
Onsite thermal floodplain concentrations of the metals
- nickel, sodium, and zinc, were higher than onsite non-thermal and post-thermal floodplain concentrations, but lower than upriver floodplain concentrations.
Since the river water was rich in these elements compared to the nonthermal
- streams, the river water that was used as secondary coolant and discharged to the thermal streams contributed to the elevated concentrations of these metals in the thermal floodplains.
All concentrations,
- however,
- remained within typical soil abundance levels.
Concentrations of
- lead, mercury, and silver in the sediments of streams receiving cooling water discharges reflected upriver concentrations, but were not significantly different from concen-trations in nonthermal and post-thermal stream s~diments.
Thus the cooling water did not impact the sediment levels of these five trace elements.
All concentrations of these elements also remained within typical soil abundance levels.
Physical factors associated with the release of cooling water effluents to onsite
- streams, such as
- flooding, elevated water temperatures,
- erosion, and sedimentation have caused substantial canopy loss along the effluent stream corridors and in the swamp forests of the affected areas.
River flow conditions and local topography contributed to the relationship between swamp canopy loss and reactor activities by affecting the water movement patterns in the swamp.
Although a
precise relationship is
- unclear, variations in reactor cooling water discharges and volumes have affected canopy loss rates.
In
- general, increased flows and temperatures have resulted in increased canopy loss.
Canopy defoliation in the bottomland hardwood forests along the stream corridors became apparent one or two years after the reactors and D Area began discharging heated effluent.
In
- 1961, aerial photographs showed increased canopy losses throughout the length of the corridors, and the beginnings of cypress-tupelo canopy losses in the Savannah River swamp.
Over the next several years, canopy loss stabilized in the corridors, but swamp forest defoliation increased and swamp deltas continued to expand.
By 1985, 1020 ha of forested wetlands had been impacted by the thermal discharges.
- xi -
Following the shutdown of L Reactor early in
- 1968, wet land communities reinvaded Steel Creek.
Succession proceeded from herbaceous dominated to shrub dominated wetland communities.
A few woody species such as willow and buttonbush, which are typically found in the elevated or cooler regions of the thermal
- deltas, formed the basis for revegetation.
Cypress~tupelo revegetation was minimal and appeared to be mainly stump and root sprouts.
In
- general, plant community productivity recovered more rapidly than community biomass or species composition.
Results from the Steel Creek studies can be applied to post-thermal wetland areas, in general.
Reductions in thermal effluent flow and temperature result in recolonization of stream and delta areas by various herbaceous and scrub-shrub species.
These reduc-tions may also reverse the trend of canopy loss.
- However, the deposition of sediments and altered flow paths in the swamp delta
- areas, products of the former thermal discharges, might retard or prevent recovery of the original cypress-tupelo dominated swamp forest.
Although the types of vegetation might
- differ, food production for stream and swamp populations in post-thermal areas is likely to q~ comparable to food production in unimpacted areas.
Factors affecting aquatic food
- chains, including the plants and invertebrates, can ultimately affect fish populations.
Consequently, the aquatic ecology component of the CCWS focused not only on the distribution and abundance of fish in the SRP surface
- waters, but also on the abundance, composition, and dynamics of organisms in the lower trophic levels.
The CCWS examined and compared components of ecosystem structure.and function in non-
- thermal, thermal, and pos t-thermal streams on the
- SRP, as well as in the Savannah River.
Nonthermal streams on the Savannah River Plant include Upper Three Runs
- Creek, Meyers
- Branch, Lower Three Runs
- Creek, and the headwater reaches of Pen Branch and Four Mile Creek.
These streams are all coastal plain blackwater streams, with sand, silt, or clay substrates.
Water temperatures in the.streamsLyary.sg9!'lQnaJly, but:
usually remain below 33°C.
Large numbers of fallen logs and woody debris in the stream channels produce a
structurally complex environment that provides a
diversity of habitat types and increases the retent ion time of leaves and other organic mat ter upon which. many stream organisms feed.
The streams have closed
.canopies, which limit the amount of 1ight that reaches the stream channel and result in sparse periphyton growth that is dominated by diatoms.
Leaf litter inputs from terrestrial vegetation are high, and these inputs and other suspended organic material in the streams constitute the primary base of the food web in these streams.
During the period of the CCWS, macroinvertebrate communi-ties were diverse (56 to 70 taxa) and included pollution-sensitive taxa.
Fish communities in the upper reaches of the nonthermal
- xii -
streams were dominated by minnows and darters, while centrarchids,
- suckers, and catfish were dominant in the lower reaches.
The taxonomic composition of the fish larvae and egg (ichthyoplankton) collect ions differed among the nonthermal streams.
In Meyers Branch, darters and centrarchids were the dominant taxa collected; in Upper Three Runs
- Creek, spot ted
- sucker, crappie, and darters were
- dominant, while in Lower Three Runs
- Creek, centrarchids, crappie, darters, and brook silvers ide. predominated.
Ich thyoplank-ton of anadromous species (primarily blueback herring and American shad) were collected only in the creek mouths at the Savannah River.
Species dominance among the ichthyoplankton varied somewhat from year to year.
Ichthyoplankton densities in the nonthermal streams were
- low, except for Lower Three Runs
- Creek, where high numbers of ichthyoplankton occurred just below the Par Pond
- dam, probably as a result of transport over the spillway from Par Pond.
The thermal streams which received reactor effluent during the CCWS inc luded Four Mi Ie Creek and Pen Branch.
Temperatures in these streams could reach nearly 70:f at the reactoJ"_~ls~
gradually cooling as the water flowed to the river.
Temperatures at the mouth of Four Mile Creek were generally 10 to 20 D C above ambient.
The stream channels had been greatly altered by the thermal discharge.
Increased flow had enlarged and scoured the stream channels and removed much of the smaller woody debris, but large stumps and logs were more abundant than in the nonthermal streams.
Particulate matter. transport was high, but the seston had a
lower organic content than in the nonthermal stre~s _and was lar ely comprised of silt and sand particles.
Suspended solids J22rticles san an Sl t rom the...!lver and eroded sediment from t:..he stream Channel) in the (reaetoreff1uent) had been depos ited where the streams enter the Savannah River-swamp, forming large
~ttas-tnat were~arel devoid of woody vegetation.
~
phyton 10mass was low at the hottest stream sites, whi e at the cooler thermal
- sites, biomass was high and was dominated
~
plue-green 8 1gae.
Macroinvertebrate cOinmunities in the thermal streams had greatly reduced species richness, low biomass, and low densities of organisms, except for a
few heat-tolerant
- taxa, such as oligochaetes, nematodes, and some chironomids.
During reactor
- outages, however, the streams were rapidly recolonized by ma!!:y
- peeres of -,macroinvertebrates.
During reactor operation, the
!!!eams ~re IBrgely devoid of fish, except for mosguitofish, which inhabited some of the cooler J>a.ckW!lt~r areas and side channels.
Fish-entered the mouth of Four Mile Creek when temperatures permitted (durlng reactor outages and during the winter mon"fhs).
Redbreast sunfish, channel catfish, longnose and spotted gar, white
- catfish, and gizzard shad congregated in the mouths of the thermal creeks and in the river just below the creek mouths during the winter months.
Fish dens ities, for all species. combined, were awoximately twice' as high in thermal habi tats he non=
thermal habi tats during the
- winter, which indicated an overa
- xiii -
APT j1GnC70IL fifi..vaJT.(
w£!VV/A-C-f3PFI..-()G(l.J r.....
attraction to the thermal areas during the winter.
Limited spawn-ing took place in the thermal:
creeks.
Spawning in the mouth of Four Mile Creek occurred earlier than in the nonthermal creeks.
'7.)-<'>F During the
- CCWS, Beaver Dam Creek received the~malef.fluent from a coal-fired power plant, but temperatures in tsJk creek were much cooler than in the reactor streams (usually
<35°C).
Beaver Dam Creek also received overflow from a coal ash settling basin, as well as other minor effluents from the power plant.
Stream charac-teristics varied considerably from headwaters to mouth, with high water velocity and evidence of scouring near the effluent outfall.
The stream broadened and water velocity decreased in the midreaches of the
- stream, permitting the development of lush macrophyte beds and periphyton.
In the lower reaches, the channel narrowed, with resultant increases in water velocity and scouring.
The stream canopy was closed in the upper and lower reaches of the stream, but open in the midreaches.
Although macroinvertebrate dens ity in Beaver Dam Creek
~as comparable to densities in the nonthermal
- streams, biomass and taxa richness was somewhat lower,
except in areas containing macrophyte beds.
These differences appeared to be due more to differences in stream structure and habitat availabil-ity than to thermal effects.
The adult fish community was reason~
ably diverse.
Ichthyoplankton in Beaver Dam Creek exhibited low to moderate densities throughout the creek and showed no evidence of thermal impact.
Steel
- Creek, a
post-thermal stream during the study period, still showed some effects of reactor effluent more than 15 years after the cessation of thermal discharges.
Vegetation along the edges of the stream was altered from that of the nonthermal
- streams, in that large trees were absent, j;lnd most of the vegeta-tion consisted of small trees and shrubs.
The canopy was rela-tively open, and periphyton biomass and macrophyte development were greater than in the nonthermal streams.
Steel Creek contained less wood in the stream channel than the nonthermal streams, and most of the stream structure was provided by less permanent features, such as sticks and macrophytes.
In general, the higher water velocity SteeL Creek and "the lack of retentionstructures~resulted.~ina higher inorganic silt load.
Macroinvertebrate densities and taxa richness were similar to the nonthermal
- streams, indicating a
recovery of the macroinvertebrate community.
The fish community of Steel Creek was dominated by redbreast sunfish and other centrarchids, spotted
- sucker, channel catfish, and flat bullhead.
High ichthyoplankton densities occurred in the Steel Creek swamp and in the creek
- mouth, but densities were low upstream of the swamp.
The dominant ichthyoplankton taxa in the upper reaches of the creek were minnows and darters, while in the
- swamp, species composition was more diverse and was dominated by centrarchids,
- minnows, and darters.
Ichthyoplankton of anadromous species (blueback herring, American
- shad, and striped bass) occurred in varying densities in the mouth of Steel Creek at the Savannah River.
- xiv -
-,(
The Savannah River in the vicinity of the SRP contained an abundant and diverse fish community, with 75 species collected to date.
Shiners and brook silvers ide were the mos t abundant small forage
- fish, while redbreast sunfish and other centrarchids, spotted
- sucker, channel
- catfish, and flat bullhead were the dominant large species.
Fish spawning began earlier in the lower reaches of the
- river, and gradually increased in an upstream direction, as the upper reaches of the river reached suitable temperatures for spawning.
Subs tant ial differences were noted in the abundances of numerous ichthyoplankton taxa between the 1984 and 1985 collections.
These differences appeared to be related to differences in the magnitude and duration of river flooding.
Ichthyoplankton collections from the mouths of 33 streams, includ-ing the five SRP streams and all major tributaries of the Savannah River between Augusta and
- Savannah, Georgia indicated that Steel Creek was a
major contributor of ichthyoplankton to the Savan:nan-
~ver.
Steel Creek appeared to be an
~mportant producer of yellow perch and minnows..!.. both of which were relatively scarce in the ic_l:I~hYJlP.l.ank..t.on coll ections of the other c~
Studies conducted in the Savannah River in the vicinity of the SRP to determine the effects of SRP discharges on the river eco-system indicated no evidence of adverse impacts.
The only measur-able diff.erences that could be attributed t.o SRf _discharges were
.!ligher periphyton biomass immediately below Four Mile Creek
~d
~~~ of fish auri..ng the winter months in the thermal plumes immediatel~ downstream of Beaver Dam and Four Mile Creeks.
Impingement rates of adult and juvenile fish at SRP pumphouses were very
- low, averaging less than 18 fish per day.
Although at least 50 species of' fish had been
- impinged, the majority of the f~l5Tiiebackherring, threadfin shad, and gizzard shad) and sunfish.
The average combined weight of the fish impinged daily was approximately O~
~
The SRP entrained an estimated.13.4
- millioE, ichthyoplankton during 1984 and an estimated
,~9 million in 1985.
~se totals represented approx~ately 8.3%
and 12.1%
of the total number of ichth 0 lankton that drifted ast the SRP urn houses duri 1984
~d
- 1985, respect~ve y.
Ichthyoplankton typically have extremely high rates. of natural mortality and there was no evidence that entrainment losses adversely affected the Savannah River fishery.
Since Par Pond is the only recirculating cooling water system at
- SRP, the CCWS addressed the Par Pond ecosystem separately from other surface water ecosystems.
The major effects of P-Reactor operation on the aquatic ecology of Par Pond resulted from the thermal discharge into the Hot Arm of the pond, the introduction of Savannah River makeup water into the
- pond, and the pumping at the intake structure in the south arm of Par Pond (Figure 2).
xv -
Most thermal effects noted in the CCWS were restricted to the Hot Arm of Par Pond.
In the winter, the warmer temperatures in the Hot Arm attracted some species of fish more than others, thereby locally reducing species diversity.,
The mean Shannon-Weaver diversity index was L 11 at the sampling location in the Hot Arm, and ranged from 1.81 to 2.24 at
~~~her Par Pond sampling locations.
The elevated temperatures (4 to 6°C higher near the-Hot Dam than in the rest of Par Pond) also caused early spawning in some species in the Hot Arm.
The increased temperature in conj~nc tion with the chemical enrichment introduced into the Par Pond
!!.ystem bY the Savannah River makeup wate~ ~
llPpeared to be respon-sible for increased primary productivity in the Hot Arm (1.3 to -1.7 times greater than in other Par Pond sites).
As a result, more food was available for each level of the food chain.
Because of the greater availability of
- food, largemouth bass, black crappie, and bluegill congregated near the Hot Dam even during the
- summer, when wate; temperatures exceeded those preferred by these species.
In relation to lakewide populations, the estimated entrainment losses associated with the pumping of Par Pond water to P Reactor were minimal for phytoplankton (1.3%), zooplankton (1.3%), macroin-
-=--
~
vertebrate meroplankton (generally less than 5%),
and 1chthyoplank-ton (an estimated total of 1975.2 x
105 larvae and eggs over the entire study period).
Impingement losses were negligible.
- Overall, the CCWS determined that the P-Reactor cooling water system had no significant adverse impact on the Par Pond system.
The floral and faunal communities in Par Pond continued to flour-
- ish, remaining diverse, balanced, and representative of the region.
\\..
ttA Almost every body of water on the SRP site servesA habitat for waterfowl.. Throughout the study period, 1981 to 1985, mallards and wood ducks were the most abundant waterfowl species in the SRP Savannah River swamp.
The highest waterfowl count obtained during any single aerial survey of the swamp in the winter of 1984-1985 was 1,444 in January 1985.
In decreas ing order of abundance, lesser scaup, ringneck ducks, ruddy ducks, and buffleheads were the most common of the 20 species observed during aerial surveys of Par Pond.
Ruddy ducks were more common in the Hot Arm, while the other three species were more abundant in the West Arm.
On Pond B,
For the past 15 years, waterfowl research and surveys at SRP have focused on the following three elements:
the extent to which waterfowl use the SRP
- site, wood duck reproductive
- biology, and waterfowl wintering ecology.
During that
- time, 31 species of waterfowl were observed and documented on the SRP.
From January 1982 to January 1985, midwinter waterfowl numbers increased 73% on
.*. the~'SRP,while'numbers'decreased33%
in the Atlantic flyway and 70%
in South Carolina.
These trends indicated the importance of SRP as a waterfowl wintering refuge area.
- xvi -
- however, buffleheads were /most frequently
- sighted, followed by ruddy
- ducks, lesser scaup;;,
and ringneck ducks.
Waterfowl used Pond C primarily when P Reactor was not operating.
L Lake provided additional wintering habitat for fiv.e species, lesser scaup, ruddy
- ducks, buffleheads, American coots, and piedbilled grebes, without decreasing waterfowl use of Par Pond.
Nes t box surveys indicated that* the wood duck was the only waterfowl species to breed commonly on the SRP site.
The popula-
. tion size was estimated to be 29 to 63 breeding
- females, with a
recruitment rate of 10 to 37 females per year.
Currently, nest box surveys are being used to determine how restarting L
Reactor affected and will continue to affect wood duck nesting along Steel Creek.
Although increased water temperatures along the nesting sites do not appear to be a problem, the concurrent increased flow rates and water depths might affect nesting habitat, and. reduce forage and cover species in the Steel Creek Delta and corridor.
As a whole, SRP probably will become an increasingly important refuge for waterfowl in the future, with the continued drainage of wetlands and concurrent decline of waterfowl in the plains regions of western Canada and the United States.
While overall waterfowl numbers may decrease at
- SRP, also, the decrease should be less severe than in other areas because of the reduced human disturbance of waterfowl at the SRP site.
In addition, waterfowl use of L Lake is likely to increase and become more divers ified as the lake's floral and invertebrate faunal species increase.
The SRP site also acts as a
refuge for certain Federally endangered species..
The endangered species act requires that federal agencies, such as DOE, ensure that their own actions do not jeopardize,
- destroy, or adversely affect endangered or threatened species.
Federally endangered species that occur on,the SRP site include the wood stork, the shortnose sturgeon, the bald eagle, and the red-cockaded woodpecker.
The American alligator, also found on the SRP
- site, was previously classified as "endangered,"
but recently has been reclassified as "threatened by similarity of appearance."
Because the red-cockaded woodpecker nests and forages in old age upland pine
- forests, it is not likely to be affected directly or indirectly by SRP cooling water systems, and it was not included in the CCWS.
The effects of SRP activities on the other four threatened or endangered species were addressed in this study.
The Birdsville Colony, located approximately 45 kIn southwest from the SRP Savannah River swamp, is the source of the wood storks that have been observed in the Steel Creek, Beaver Dam Creek, Four Mile Creek, and Pen Branch Deltas.
Numbers of wood storks observed during CCWS aerial surveys were greates t in July
- 1983, when an average of 30 storks were observed per survey.
Studies initiated in 1983 determined that high cooling water effluent discharges from
- xvii -
SRP facilities probably limited woodstork use of the SRP Savannah River swamp by reducing forage fish availability.
Some habitat temporarily became available during reactor shutdowns, as evidenced by the wood storks observed foraging in the Pen Branch and Four Mile Creek Deltas during K-and C-Reactor shutdowns.
Additional foraging sites were available near the Beaver Dam Creek Delta.
But the replacement foraging sites
.constructed at Kathwood Lake provided substantial new habitat and more than compensated for any loss of foraging habitat due to restarting L Reactor.
As many as 72 wood storks have been observed in Kathwood Lake on a single day.
Shortnose sturgeon were not documented in the Savannah River until 1982 and
- 1983, when a
few larvae of this species were collected near the SRP site.
Based on information from the litera-ture and fisheries data for the Savannah River, SRP cooling water systems had low potential for effects on the shortnose sturgeon.
- Spawning, rearing, and foraging habitats of the species were not affected by the SRP operations.
Entrainment was unlikely due to the demersal, adhesive nature of the
- eggs, and the low density of larvae in the intake canals.
Previous studies showed no evidence of shortnose sturgeon juveniles or adults inhabiting the canals.
This information in conjunction with a comparison of swimming speed versus intake velocity indicated that impingement was unlikely.
Temperature-related effects also were considered minimal because the localized nature of the thermal plumes provided an adequate zone of passage for migration.
In contrast with the shortnose sturgeon, bald eagles have been sighted in the SRP area as far back as 1904.
Bald eagle observa-tions at SRP have been increasing over the last decade.
During the period fr:.om September 1984 through August 1985, 36 bald eagles were sighted.
Par Pond:
L
- Lake, and the SRP Savannah River swamp constituted inland foraging and roosting habitat for bald eagles, and were the primary locations of the sightings.
In 1986, a pair of bald eagles established a nest south of Par Pond.
The abundance of fish in Par Pond and the increase in the South Carolina bald eaglepopulat ion indicated the potential*for increased*foraging.and nesting of bald eagles on the SRP.
The SRP supports a
low to moderate alligator population, estimated by T.
M. Murphy (1981) to be 150 adults, primarily in the Beaver Dam. Creek De1t a, Par
- Pond, and the Stee1 Creek area.
SRP operations have affected the alligator population in various ways.
Moderately thermal habitats, such as Beaver Dam Creek Delta, might have promoted alligator usage during the winter months.
Studies indicated that alligators could avoid the stream areas warmed to above the critical thermal maximum temperature for American alligators.
Although elevated temperatures restricted alligator use of stream areas nearest the cooling water outfalls, the man-made reservoirs subs tant ially augmented the amount of naturally
- xviii -
/
available alligator habitat on the SRP site.
In addition, the SRP site offered the alligator refuge from indiscriminate killing and direct human disturbance.
The outlook for endangered and threatened species on the SRP is good.
The SRP should continue to provide refuge for, and should not have significant adverse impact on indigenous endangered and threatened species.
The alligator population at SRP should remain stable or increase with continuing cooling water operations.
Because of the abundance of fish in large impoundments on SRP, and the increase in the South Carolina bald eagle population, the potential exists for increased foraging and nesting of bald eagles on the SRP.
Although wood stork foraging is likely to continue to be limited in the SRP Savannah River swamp by high effluent dis-
- charges, the replacement habitat at Kathwood Lake should continue to compensate for the loss of natural habitat.
"~I
- Overall, the CCWS studies indicated that the cooling' water systems at the SRP had no significant adverse impacts on downriver water quality or radionuclide and heavy metal deposition.
Wetlands on the SRP site, however, bore signs of cooling water impacts.
The combined effects of thermal stress and sedimentation altered the physical and biological environment in the former creeks and floo?p~ain swamp.
,lanopy. losses alo~J th?
stream corridors have stab1.hzed, but the swamp l.mpact ~ ~ue to expand at a rate of 10 to 11 ha/vr.
Cessation of thermal discharges has resulted in revegetation ofdisturbed areas, although ~ ~ shrub dominated wetlands communities do not resemble the former cypress-tupelo forests.
In addition, cool1.ng water~1:r"arges have reduced the 4iversiy and
~ecies richnessof aquatic autotroph commun1.t1.es 1n thermal streams.
Autotrop-h communities in Par Pond, ]gwever, were-
- oalanced, diverse~ and rep-resentative of the region.
7 In
- general, fish communities showed similar responses to cooling water discharges *
.Par Pond fish communities were balanceg,
~iverse, and representative of the region.
The SRP Savannah River swamp supported feeding and growth of" adult
- fish, and provided suitable habitat for spawning and early growth.
In thermally altered streams. below reactor outfalls, fish communities exhibite~
~
~duced sped e~..tt-y-,_ abundance, and richness"
~nd had different_
relative abundances than in ambient streams.
Nonthermal tribu-tarIes to thermal streams, however, supported self-maintaining fish populations representative of the region.....
In addition, waterfowl and endangered species benefitted from the protect ion offered by the res tricted-access site.
The SRP should be an increas ingly important resource for waterfowl and endangered species in the future.
- xix -
- xx -
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR VOLUME
- E I.
SUMKARY OF ENVIBDNMENTAL EFFECTS Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Program Elements of the Comprehensive Cooling Water Study Pag,e v
I-I 1-5 I. 2.1 I. 2.2 Introduction Water Quali ty 1-5 1-5 I.2.2.1 I.2.2.2 Introduction Plan of Work 1-5 1-6 1.2.3 Radionuclide and Heavy Metal Transport 1-8 I.2.3.1 I.2.3.2 Introduct ion Plan of Work 1-8 1-8 I.2.4 Wetlands 1-10 I.2.4.1 I.2.4.2 Introduct ion Plan of Work 1-10 1-11 I.2.4.2.1 I.2.4.2.2 I.2.4.2.3 I.2.4.2.4 Wetlands Community Structure and Divers ity Primary Productivity Vegetation Mapping Waterfowl Use 1-11 1-12 r-13 1-13 1.2.5 Aquatic Ecology 1-14 I.2.5.1 I.2.5.2 Introduct ion Plan of Work 1-14 1-14 I.2.5.2.1 I.2.5.2.2 r.z".5.2.3 I.2.5.2.4 Ichthyoplankton Adult Fish Populations.
Macroinvertebrates, Periphyton, Macrophytes, Phytoplankton, and Zooplankton Impingement/Entrainment 1-15 1-15 1-16 1-17 1.2.6 Endangered Species 1-17 I.2.6.1 I.2.6.2 Introduction Plan of Work
- xxi -
1-17 1-19
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR VOLUME I, Contd 1.3.4 Surface Waters of SRP 1.4 Literature Cited Introduction Site Location Geologic History and Physiographic Regions 1.3.3.5.5 Page 1-19 1-20 1-20 1-21 1-21 1-23 1-23 1-23 1-27 1-27 1-27 1-29 1-29 1-31 1-31 1-32 1-32 1-32 1-37 1-39 1-42 1-49 1-49 I-53 I-53 I-54 I-55 I-55 I-58 I-58 1-63 Upper Three Runs Creek Beaver Dam Creek Four Mile Creek Pen Branch Steel Creek Lower Three Runs Creek and Par Pond SRP Savannah River Swamp River Water Use by the Savannah River Plant Surface Water Use by Nearby Industries Surface Water Use by Downriver Consumers Commercial and Recreational Uses of Savannah River Water SRP Cooling Water Intake Structures on the Savannah River American Alligator Wood Stork Shortnose Sturgeon Bald Eagle Savannah River Tributaries to the Savannah River on the SRP Site Geologic Structure of South Carolina Topography of SRP Site History of SRP Development Current Status of SRP Facilities History of Water Use 1.3.4.2.1 1.3.4.2.2 1.3.4.2.3 1.3.4.2.4 1.3.4.2.5 1.3.4.2.6 1.3.4.2.7 1.3.3.5.1 1.3.3.5.2 1.3.3.5.3 1.3.3.5.4 1.2.6.2.1 1.2.6.2.2 1.2.6.2.3 1.2.6.2.4 1.3.4.1 1.3.4.2 1.3.3.1 1.3.3.2 1.3.3.3 1.3.3.4 1.3.3.5
- 1. 3.5 Summary
- 1. 3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.2.7 Summary 1.3 Site History
- xxii -
LIST OF TABLES Page 1-3.1 Use of Water from the Beaufort-Jasper Water Authority 1-34 1-3.2 Use of Water from the Cherokee Hill Water Treatment Plant 1-35 1-3.3 Savannah River Plant Pumping Station Capacities 1-37 1-3.4 Intake Canal High-Flow Water Velocity (m/sec) 1-39 1-3.5 Partial List of the Savannah River Pollution Sources from the Augusta Area 1-46 1-3.6 Partial List of the Savannah River Pollution Sources from the North Augusta and Aiken County Areas 1-48 1-3.7 Savannah River Dredging Activities, 1964 Through 1974 (partial listing)
I-50
- xxiii -
xxiv
LIST OF FIGURES Page 1-1.1 1-3.1 1-3.2 1-3.3 1-3.4 1-3.5 1-3.6 1-3.7 1-3.8 1-3.9 1-3.10 1-3.11 1-3.12 1-3.13 Cooling Water Intake, Onsite Thermal Streams and Cooling Water Reservoir at the Savannah River Plant The Savannah River Plant Site The Savannah River Plant Production Complex Location of SRP Relative to Surrounding Population Centers Coastal Terraces on the Savannah River Plant SRP Reactor Cooling Water Flow, 1954-1980 Locations of Downriver Water Treatment Facilities SRP Pumping Stations and Nearby Reference Points on the Savannah River Velocity Profile of 1G Canal Velocity Profile of 3G Canal Counties Included Within the Savannah River Drainage Basin Major Tributaries and Physiographic Regions Included in the Savannah River Drainage Basin USGS Flow Recorders and Drainage Areas on the SRP Streams The Par Pond System xxv -
1-2 1-24 1-25 1-26 1-28 1-33 1-36 1-38 1-40 1-41 1-43 1-44 I-52 I-57
xxvi
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The U.S.
Department of
- Energy, Savannah River Operations
- Office, initiated a Comprehensive Cooling Water Study of Savannah River Plant (SRP) operations in 1983.
A public hearing was held in North
- Augusta, South Carolina on February 9, 1983 before the U.S.
Senate Armed Services Committee to assess the environmental consequences of the proposed restart of the L
Reactor at the Savannah River Plant (SRP).
In testimony presented at the meeting, Robert L.
Morgan, Manager of the Savannah River Operations Office of the U. S.
Department of Energy (DOE),
indicated that a compre.-
hensive study would be conducted to evaluate environmental impacts from the intake and discharge of cooling water at SRP.
Subsequent correspondence between U.S.
Senators Strom Thurmond and Mack Mattingly with Energy Secretary Donald P.
Hodel reaffirmed the cooling water study commitment.
Accordingly, beginning July 1, 1983, DOE-SR initiated a two-year comprehens ive cooling-water study to determine the environ-mental effects and significance as a result of operation of the SRP production reactors (C, K, L, and p) and the 40o-D Area coal-fired power plant.
Appropriate existing studies (e.g., historic water quality; radioactivity in floodplain sediment; physiochemical characteristics of floodplain and swamp sediments; fisheries) were incorporated into the Comprehensive Cooling Water Study.
Informa-tion from this environmental study is being used with existing data to assist in the evaluation and selection of alternative methods for cooling the thermal effluents from the SRP production reactors and the D-Area power house.
An internal technical coordinating committee directed and coordinated the cooling water study.
This committee was composed of representatives of the Department of Energy (Savannah River Operations Office), E. I.
du Pont de Nemours and Company (Savannah River Laboratory),
the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, the U.S.
Forest
- Service, and NUS Corporation (Savannah River Center).
The-State of South Carolina, the State of Georgia, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region IV), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Region IV), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (South Atlantic Division) participated in the study in a review and advisory capacity.
The area encompassed by the cooling water study included Par
- Pond, the SRP onsite
- streams, the Savannah River
- swamp, and the Savannah River (Figure 1-1.1).
Ons ite streams studied were Four Mile
- Creek, Beaver Dam
- Creek, Pen
- Branch, Indian Grave
- Branch, Steel Creek, Meyers Branch, Upper Three Runs Creek, and Lower Three Runs Creek.
Offsite streams upstream and downstream from the SRP site also were being studied for baseline and comparison purposes.
Wetland areas studied include the onsite stream corridors and swamp I-I
-JDII** -
FIGURE 1-1.1.
Cooling Water Intakes, Onsite Thermal Stre8B8 and Cooling Water Reservoir at tbe SavaDDab River Plant 1-2
adjoining the Savannah River on the SRP site.
While most of the efforts of this program were directed toward studying the various envirornnental components of onsite streams and
- wetlands, certain studies extend into farfield reaches of the Savannah River from River Mile 187.4 near Augusta, Georgia to about River Mile 30 near
1-3
1-4
1.2 PROGRAM ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE COOLING WATER STUDY 1.2.1 Introduction The CCWS had two primary objectives.
The first objective was t.£-de t ermine tbe.......e-nvi-];'onment-al-effect-s_Qf_8.RF_c-O_Q..ting_wa_ter wi t h:
drawals and discharges.
This objective was accomplished by evaluating the specific effects of SRP operations on water quality, wetlands, aquatic ecology, endangered species, and radionuclide and heavy-metal transport.
ThJL_second object ive w~tS to deLt_eJ:mi,p.e the significance of the cooling-water impacts on the onsite and dO!D-river environments as a necessary step toward evaluating mitigation alternatives for SRP thermal effluents.
The cooling water study initially contained the following program elements:
Water Quality, e
Radionuclide and Heavy Metal Transport, 1(9
- Wetlands,
~
Aquatic Ecology, and Endangered Species.
Two additional categories, Par Pond and Waterfowl, were added later.
The schedule for the study allowed for two ye ars of field and laboratory studies to develop sufficient technical data to define existing cooling water impacts.
The scope and plan of study for each of the original program elements is discussed below.
1.2.2 Water Quality 1.2.2.1 Introduction The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-500) and Amendments of 1977 (Clean Water Act) codified the national concern for the commitment to maintain national waterways in a
clean and healthy state.
While much of the impetus for this and previous water-related legislation was to prevent the degradation of waterways by high organic loadings, high organic loadings from reactor effluents are not considered a problem at the SRP.
- Rather, the operation of production reactors that release large volumes of heated water (30 to 70°C) is the primary act ivity affect ing the water chemistry of onsite surface waters.
1-5
The cycle of reactor cooling water at SRP is generally divisible into three limnologically distinct components with poten-tial changes in water quality attributable to each component.
The first component is the pumping of water from the Savannah River or from Par Pond to holding basins in each of the reactor areas where this water is chlorinated.
The cooling water is then passed through reactor heat exchangers where was te heat is removed from the primary cooling water and where the potential for leaching of metals from pipes is present and small amounts of radioactivity can be picked up.
In the second limnological component, water from C and K Reactors and the D Area power plant is released into surface streams that have been substantially altered over the past 30 years of operations (Gibbons and Sharitz, 1974; Smith et al.,
1981, 1982; Mackey et al., 1983).
Water passes several kilometers down these open, well-defined stream channels and then enters the third limnological component, the SRP Savannah River swamp.
The river swamp is dominated by cypress-tupelo and bottomland hardwood forest except at the points of entry for the thermal effluent streams where sedimentary deltas have formed.
Reactor effluent water travels through the river swamp before returning to the Savannah River.
Effluents from P Reactor are recyc led through Par Pond with a small volume of overflow into Lower Three Runs Creek.
Upper Three Runs Creek is the only major stream system on the SRP that has never received thermal effluents.
Monitoring data frOm this stream and headwater tributaries of thermally imEacte'd streams provide baseline infOrmation from which ecJilQgicalcQ~n~s
~urring in thermally affected onsite streams can be evaluated and
~ompar~d.
Details and results of the CCWS Water Quality sampling program are addressed in Volume II of the CCWS report.
1.2.2.2 Plan of Work Ongoing environmental and ecological monitoring programs over t he las t 30 ye ars result ed in the collect ion of a
substant ial amount of water quality data pertaining to the Savannah
- River, ona ite
- streams, and Par Pond.
These data were reviewed and a
historical water quality data base developed.
This data base was used to prQvide a perspect ive and to ident ify information needs so that additional data collections under the CCWS could be defined.
The existing program for monitoring water quality was supplemented with the current program in order to provide informa-tion for evaluating changes in the physical and chemical parameters occurring in each component of the cooling water cycle (i.e.,' pump-ing and reactor cooling
- system, stream
- channel, river swamp).
Thirty-one sampling locations representing thermal, nonthermal, and 1-6
post-thermal surface
- waters, were designated for this program.
Sampling locations were designated at the reactor water intakes, as near as is practicable to the point of entry of effluents into the receiving water body, at downstream locations prior to the conflu-ence of onsite streams with the river
- swamp, and at stream exit points from the river swamp into the Savannah River.
Where appli-
- cable, sampling stations were selected upstream of the point of reactor effluent input and on major undisturbed tributaries to facilitiate comparisons of reactor effluent effects with parameters in nonthermally impacted zones of onsite streams.
Additional sampling locations were established on the thermally unimpacted Upper Three Runs
- Creek, and upriver and downriver of the SRP.
These locations were sampled every two weeks (biweekly) for 20 parameters, including flow and temperature, standard water quality parameters, major ions, and nutrients.
Concentrations of 9 metals were measured in water samples collected at each station on a
monthly basis.
Approximately half of these stations were monitored on a limited basis since early 1983.
The full program was imple-mented at all locations in late 1983.
Data derived from fixed-location, fixed-time sampling designs have definite limitations in the evaluation of the status, func-
- tioning, and health of surface water systems (Sanders et al.,
1983).
Therefore, special studies addressed the following:
o Diel changes in water quality parameters in reactor effluent and unimpacted streams, o
Effects of differing reactor operational conditions on stream water quality, particularly relating to problems of organic and inorganic sediment transport, o
Patterns of water flow through the river swamp and changes in flow patterns and water residence times during different levels of flooding of the river swamp, and o
Thermal plume characteristics in the Savannah River and Par Pond.
Many of these studies were conducted parallel to efforts associated with the Radionuclide and Heavy Metal Transport Program Element of the CCWS (Volume III).
All sample collection, processing and analysis procedures conformed to Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 1979) and/or South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) approved techniques for certified laboratories.
Where such procedures are not specified by
- EPA, analytical procedures were taken from Standard Methods (APRA, 1980) or subsequently 1-7
amended EPA procedures.
procedures were adopted (USEPA, 1979).
Quality control and data handling according to EPA and SCDHEC guidelines Water quality data collected in this program were analyzed in a manner to facilitate direct comparisons between water bodies that are affected by cooling water releases and those that are not.
1.2.3 Radionuclide and Heavy Metal Transport 1.2.3.1 Introduction The Savannah River Plant has maintained an inventory of radionuclide quantities released to onsite surface streams and transported to the Savannah River by means of a routine radiologi-cal monitoring program es tablished prior to plant startup.
Radionuclide releases are within the limits of applicable regula-tory guides.
Work performed in this study assisted in the identification and evaluation of radionuclide and heavy metal deposition sites in sediments in SRP onsite streams, SRP wetlands areas and
- swamp, and the Savannah River as a consequence of SRP cooling water discharges.
The analysis and evaluation of integrated heavy metal and radionuc lide depos ition in SRP streams and the Savannah River was supported by data collected from the SRP routine radiological monitoring program and from water quality data collected from two separate water quality
- programs, one routine and one conducted under the CCWS.
Extensive collections of sediment in depositional areas of SRP stream-swamp sites, Par Pond, and the Savannah River were conducted for analysis of radionuclide and heavy metal concen-trations.
Results of this program are reported in Volume III.
Transport models were developed to aid in evaluating the potential
- for, and significance of remobilization and transport that might occur as a result of current or projected SRP operations.
1.2.3.2 Plan of Work The Radionuclide and Heavy Metal Transport program element encompassed simultaneous study in three areas:
(1)
SRP ons ite sediment core collect ion and analyses; (2) offsite Savannah River sediment core collection and analyses; and (3) sediment and finished water collection and analyses from downriver water treatment plant facilities.
The SRP onsite sediment collectio~ and analysis program began in Autumn 1983.
Sample site selection was based on the use of previous radiological overflight data produced by EG&G of SRP 1-8
streams to determine areas of maximum radionuclide deposition (Gladden, et al.,
1985)).
Following final site selection of more than 60 onsite sampling locations, two sediment cores of about one meter in length were collected in parallel at each site.
Cores were collected from each of the SRP streams which has received cooling water discharges from SRP operations.
Collection of sediment cores from the Savannah River flood-plain upriver of SRP were undertaken later in 1984.
Upriver cores provided a baseline comparison of river sediments unaffected by SRP cooling water operations.
Analysis of the river sediment cores followed arrangements outlined for onsite cores described below.
Beginning in April 1983, weekly low-level analyses for radio-nuclides in raw and finished water collected at the downriver Beaufort-Jasper and Port Wentworth water treatment facilities were performed to determine Cs-137 concentrations.
These analyses were continued for about 12 months after the L-Reactor restart.
Samplers and rain gauges were placed at the Beaufort-Jasper intake canal in May 1983 to quantify the dilution effect on radionuclide concentrations in the canal water.
Each of the sediment cores removed from onsite stream and swamp floodplain areas was sectioned prior to analysis in order to maximiz~ information of previous cooling water discharge impacts.
Cores were prepared for analysis of SRP-released radionuclides and naturally occurring radionuclides.
All sediment core subsamples were counted for gamma activity.
Samples containing the greatest amount of gamma activity were selected to undergo radiochemical analyses to quantify the levels of the more difficult to detect radionuclides (e.g., Pu, Cm, 1-129, Tc-99).
Initial characterization of all sectioned onsite floodplain samples included:
(1) textural analyses (sand,
- silt, and clay fractions);
(2) cation exchange capacity using EPA approved methods and an appropriate tracer; and (3) total carbon content using an EPA-approved induction furnace technique.
These three preliminary analyses supported the development of an elemental transport model.
Sediment subsamples were analyzed by a
certified offsite vendor for about 16 metals using EPA-approved methods by means of atomic absQrption and inductively coupled argon plasma spectrometer techniques.
Metals of interest for analysis included Cd, Cr, Fe, Hg, and Ni.
Uranium concentrations were determined at SRL using lasor fluorescence techniques.
Data collected from this program element and related program elements were used:
1-9
To determine SRP-released radionuc lide and heavy metal concen-t rations in stream,
- swamp, river, and river drinking water in order to assess the potential effects to human and biological communities; o
To identify sites and!or metals were contribute or may materials; an:!
and concentrations at depos ited and identify contribute to future which radionuclides how these sites now transport of these To develop a
transport model that will optimize the accurate predict ion' of elemental transport under a variety of stream and river flow rates.
1.2.4 Wetlands 1.2.4.1 Introduction Wetlands of the southeastern United States have been studied for the past several decades.
Previous studies provided data on the community structure and species composition of swamp forests (Monk,
- 1966, 1968; Wharton et aI.,
1976; Dabe1 and
- Day, 1977; Carter et* aI.,
1973; Conner et aI.,
1981) and on the funct ion of these wetland systems (Schlesinger, 1978; Odum et aI.,
1974; Odum and Ewe1, 1975; Nessel, 1978).
Increasing industrialization in the Southeast has resulted in increased disturbance and contamination of these wetland systems.
Therefore, recent research focused on the responses of stream and swamp communities to associated pertur-bation (Christy and Sharitz, 1980; Dickson et aI.,
1965;
- Kennedy, 1970) and corresponding swampland ability to regenerate following perturbation (Sharitz et a1., 1974a; Sherrod et a1., 1980).
Initial studies of the SRP Savannah River swamp (Sharitz et a1., 1974a, 1974b) revealed major differences in species compo-sition and diversity between areas receiving thermal effluents from reactor operations (Pen Branch. and Four Mile Creek), areas recover,:,:"
ing following the cessation of thermal effluent (Steel Creek),
and relatively unaffected portions of the SRP swamp (Upper Three Runs Creek).
Changes in plant community structure were reflected in the changes in the utilization by various animals such as aquatic insects (Howell
& Gentry, 1975) and birds (Straney et aI., 1975).
Recent studies of the Savannah River swamp on the SRP indicated continued degradation of the swamp forest canopy in areas receiving heated reactor effluents (Repaske, 1981).
Repaske (1981) suggested that changes in the hydrologic regime of the swamp as a result of cooling water input, as well as alterations of the flood pattern in the Savannah River due to construction of upstream reservoirs, perhaps had a long-term, chronic effect by limiting the regenera-tion of bald cypress' (Taxodium distichum),
one of the dominant 1-10
forest tree species in the swamp.
Studies evaluating the recovery of the swamp forest following reactor shutdown (Smith et al., 1981, 1982) indicated that 14 years after cessat ion of reactor effluent
- input, the Steel Creek swamp supported freshwater herbaceous marsh communities and scrub';"shrub wetlands dominated by willow (Salix spp.)
and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis).
Although these previous studies provided information on the responses of specific SRP swamp areas to reactor input, they do not provide a comprehen-sive evaluation of the long-term effects of SRP cooling waters on the extensive onsite wetland ecosystem.
This program element was designed to provide ecological and environmental data for assessing the effects of operating the SRP reactors and the D Area, coal-fired power plant on the SRP wetland ecosystem, including the swamp forest and its tributary streams.
Details and results of CCWS wetlands vegetation are addressed in Volume IV of the CCWS report.
Waterfowl studies are covered in Volume VIII.
1.2.4.2 Plan of Work A
program was initiated in 1981 to examine the potential effects of L-Reactor restart on the Steel Creek floodplain,
- delta, and surrounding swamp.
The CCWS expanded that program to include the stream and swamp areas influenced by C and K Reactors and the D-Area discharges.
The four major components of this.program element were cooling water effects on plant community structure and diversity, cooling water effects on community primary productivity, vegetation mapping of the SRP thermal areas including SRP
- swamp, stream floodplains and deltas, and studies of waterfowl habitat use.
Appropriate data gathering and analysis techniques were used for each of these program components.
Data were analyzed to facilitate comparison between swamp wetland and floodplain areas which are directly affected by cooling water
- releases, and those that.
are not.
Details of the four major areas of study in the wetlands program follow.
1.2.4.2.1
~etland8 Community Structure and Diversity Because of the heterogeneous array of plant community types within the SRP Savannah River swamp and associated wetlands (swamp for,ests to,herbaceous marsh),
the sampling design was tailored to the characteristics of the particular community type.
A nested quadrat sampling technique (Mueller-Dombois &Ellenberg, 1974), was used to provide data on community composition and structure.
Line-intercept transects and quadrats provided information on changes in 1-11
community composition, as necessary for verifying the accuracy of vegetation maps via field measurements.
Species-area analyses were completed for each major community type to determine optimum plot size to adequately sample the vege-tation.
Similar analyses were also used to determine the, adequacy of sampling in each community type.
Major sampling locations were determined from aerial photographs that discriminate between ther-mally affected, post-thermal recovery, and natural sections of the swamp.
Within each
- site, randomly located nested quadrats were used to sample
- trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species.
Sampling data included density and diameter at breast height (dbh) bf trees, dens ity and di~eter at one meter of
- shrubs, and presence or absence of herbaceous species.
Mathematical ordination techniques (Hill
& Gauch, 1980) were employed to discriminate major community types and examine their distributional relationships.
Correlations between ordination patterns and environmental measurements provided information on the major environmental factors along which the community types are distributed.
Long-term study was accomplished by the establishment of permanent quadrats in variously affected areas of the SRP swamp.
Individuals of the dominant swamp forest species were
- measured, marked, and outfitted with dendrometer ba.nds to provide data on mortality and growth rate.
Standing crop values were estimated from dbh and height, and these data were compared with existing regressions of dbh, height, and standing crop for individual swamp forest species.
Selected individuals were harvested,
- dried, and weighed as necessary to verify the accuracy of existing regression analyses for selecte,d species.
Community reproduction was evalu-a.ted by determining annual seed fall per individual species.
1.2.4.2.2 Primary Productivity Community productivity was investigated by estimating standing crop values determined in the community structure analysis combined with data on annual growth and litter production.
Permanent quad-rats in unimpacted and impacted areas of the SRP swamp were selected for this study.
Litterfall traps were used to determine litter production.
Selected individuals were harvested or sub-sampled to determine nutrient concentrations and to estimate the nutrient inventory in above-ground components of the wetland communities.
Soil cores have been taken for nutrient analysis.
These data were combined with water quality data and nutrient levels of surface and groundwaters to provide a mode 1 of nutrient turnover and cycling in natural and impacted wetland areas.
Cont inuous monitoring of water levels at several sites, combined with measurements of flow rates, permitted estimation of water flow rates in floodplains.
1-12
1.2.4.2.3 Vegetation Mapping High-resolution multi-spectral scanner data were used to map the distribution of wetland communities throughout the SRP Savannah River swamp.
Reflect ance data from the swamp vegetat ion were collected in 11 regions of the electromagnetic spectrum.
From a color infrared composite image, areas of known vegetative composi-tion were selected as training fields to calibrate the digital data.
A minimum distance classification algorithm was then applied to the swamp data set to map the distribution of these vegetation units (Jensen et a1., 1983).
Ground truth surveys utilizing line intercept sampling techniques and quadrats (MueI Ie r-Dombois Ellenberg, 1974) were employed to verify the accuracy of the vegetation mapping.
The pattern and rate of historic changes in wetlands vegeta-tion were determined by examining previous aerial photographs of the swamp delta regions.
Repaske (1981) provided preliminary data suggesting that the thermal delta areas are expanding at rates between 2 and 6.5 hectares per year.
Series. of photographs taken at intervals since the inception of the SRP were digitized into a GIS data base, and analyzed to determine the rate at which canopy degradation occurred.
Data analyses included:
S Quantitative comparisons of plant community composition, structure, and diversity between thermal and nonthermal areas, o
The distribution of wetland communities along water depth and temperature (perturbation) gradients to provide an evaluation of the relative influence of these environmental components on community structure, and o
The pattern and rate of historical changes in the vegetation of the thermal deltas in the SRP Savannah River swamp.
1.2.4.2.4 Waterfowl Use Standard sanpling techniques were used to determine the waterfowl use of wetland communities within the SRP Savannah River swamp so that general faunal responses to habitat changes could be assessed.
.Resident and migratory waterfowl species were censused throughout the swamp as they were in the Steel Creek Delta (Smith et a1., 1981, 1982).
Fixed wing aircraft were used for weekly or biweekly flights over the entire swamp to estimate the relative abundance of major waterfowl species.
A wood duck nest box research program included areas outside of the Steel Creek area.
1-13
Data analyses included quantitative comparisons of habitat use and relat ive abundances of waterfowl in thermal and nonthermal wetlands.
1.2.5 Aquatic Ecology 1.2.5.1 Introduction The direct and indirect effects of cooling water intake and thermal discharge on resident aquatic communities were assessed in this program* element.
Aquatic ecology of the SRP streams,wet-
- lands, and the Savannah River are discussed in detail in Volume V of this report.
Aquatic ecology of Par Pond is covered in Volume VII.
Data were gathered regarding icthyoplankton entrain-ment and impingement of adult fishes at the cooling water i~takes; thermal plume effects on anadromous and resident fishes, including overwintering
- effects, in the SRP swamp; locations of nursery grounds in ons ite streams and swamps by spawning fish from the Savannah River; and thermal impacts of cooling water discharges on other aquatic communities, including periphyton, macrophytes, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and macroinvertebrates.
Impacts from cooling water usage may be in the form of direct thermal impact s on organisms, such as fish kills due to thermally related physiological
- stress, or may be
- indirect, such as the effects result ing from increased disease and paras itism, habi tat loss, or disruption of the aquatic food chain.
1.2.5.2 Plan of Work The emphas is in this
- study, was placed on the monitoring of impingement and entrairnnent at the cooling water intakes on fish and icthyoplankton, and on quantifying the effects of SRP thermal discharges on aquatic communities in three study areas:
the Savannah River, SRP~t:.ream.sandwgtlands, and Par Pond.
Standard sampling methodologies were
- used, and information gleaned from previous Savannah River Laboratory and Savannah River Ecology Laboratory aquatic studies (Wilde and Tilly, 1985; Smith et ala, 1982) were incorporated.
Initially, studies in the onsite SRP streams and wetlands were concentrated in the Steel Creek/Meyers Branch system.
Steel Creek system studies were conducted in 1981 and 1982 to evaluate the effects of the L-Reactor restart on aquatic communities in the Steel Creek/Meyers Branch system.
Subsequently, these studies were expanded to include all SRP thermal and nonthermal streams.
1-14
As a
result of numerous' existing aquatic studies conducted since construction of Par
- Pond, an extensive data base already existed for Par Pond (Wilde & Tilly, 1985).
The first phase of the Par Pond cooling water assessment was to evaluate the existing data base and draw conclusions on thermal effects in Par Pond.
From this initial review, supplemental studies were developed to provide the additional data necessary to complete the evaluation of the effects of cooling water usage on the Par Pond system.
1.2.5.2.1 1cthyoplankton Savannah River.
Weekly icthyoplankton collections, using paired 505 llm mesh nets were from February through July 1984 and 1985 between the New Savannah River Bluff Lock and Dam and approxi-mately river mile 30 (river km 48).
Sampling locations included the following:
1984 1985 Onsite SRP river transects 13 14 Onsite SRP intake canal transects 2
2 0
Onsite SRP creek mouth stations 5
5 Offsite river transects 13 7
Offsite river oxbows 6
5 0
Offsite creek stations 28 10 SRP Streams and Wetlands.
Icthyoplankton collections were made at a total of 35 locations in Upper Three Runs Creek, Beaver Dam Creek, Four Mile Creek, Pen Branch, Steel Creek, Meyers Branch, and Lower Three Runs Creek in 1984.
In
- 1985, the program was expanded to include an additional 7
sampling stations.
Routine collections were made throughout the spawning season of both years (February - July).
Par Pond.
Icthyoplankton collections in Par Pond were made in the intake area, the' thermal plume, and at other reference stations in Par Pond and Pond B.
Samples were collected biweekly throughout the l8-month study period.
1.2.5.2.2 Adult Fish Populations Savannah River/SRP Creek Mouths.
Adult fish were collected quarterly at 12 locations in the Savannah River in
- 1984, and 13 locations in the river in
- 1985, as well as in the two intake
- canals, and in the mouth of the five SRP creeks using electrofish-ing and hoopnetting techniques.
Fish were identified,
- weighed, measured,
- tagged, and released in order to determine the community structure of the fish communities.
In
- addition, overwintering 1-15
studies were conducted in the Savannah River and in the mouths of selected SRP streams using e1ectrofishing, hoopnetting, and mark/
recapture methods to determine the effects of thermal discharges during the winter months on fish distribution, species composition, maturation, condition, parasitism, and disease incidence.
SRP Streams and Wetlands.
Adult fishes were collected quarterly by electrofishing at 15 onsite SRP stream and swamp sites in 1985 to determine species composition, relative abundance of fish within different habitat areas.
Par Pond.
Adult fish studies have been conducted at Par Pond for over 20 years (Wilde
& Tilly, 1985).
These studies addressed many of the questions concerning thermal effects on adult fish populations in Par Pond, including fish abundance, species composi-
- tion, movements, body temperatures, thermal tolerance
- limits, feeding
- habitats, growth, reproduction, and red-sore disease (Aeromonas).
Supplemental studies were initiated January 1, 1984.
Adult fish collections in Par Pond and Pond B were made monthly for 18 months using four collection techniques:
electrofishing, gill-netting, hoopnetting, and angling.
I.2.5.2.3 Macroinvertebrates, Periphyton, Macrophytes, Phytoplankton, and Zooplankton Savannah River.
Macroinvertebrates were sampled monthly in the Savannah River and in the mouths of the five SRP creeks, using mu1tiplate (Hester-Dendy type) samplers.
Ten river transects in the vicinity of the SRP were sampled during the 1983-1984 sampling
- year, while eight were sampled in 1984-1985.
Macroinvertebrate drift was collected quarterly at the same stations using 505-jJm mesh nets.
The studies were conducted to assess differences in macroinvertebrate community structure,
- density, biomass, and functional group composition attributable to SRP operations.
SRP-cStreams-andWet-1:ands-,;--**Macroinvertebrates.were.. collected monthly at 12 locations in 1983-1984 and 29 locations in 1984-1985 in SRP
- streams, using Hester Dendy mU1tiplate samplers to assess differences in community structure and function of macroinverte-brates in thermal, post-thermal, and ambient temperature streams.
Macroinvertebrate drift collections were made quarterly using drift nets in order to determine differences in drift density and species composition attributable to differences in habitat and to SRP operations.
Studies were also conducted to evaluate differences in primary producers (macrophytes and periphyton) and organic matter processing in nonthermal, thermal, and post-thermal streams.
1-16
Par Pond.
Exis t ing Par Pond studies, which inc1ude 20 years of thermal effects
- research, discuss cooling water effects on macroinvertebrates, macrophytes, periphyton, phytoplankton, and zooplankton in Par Pond.
Supplemental studies identified by the initial Par Pond literature review were incorporated into the Par Pond study starting January 1, 1984 and ending in June 1985.
1.2.5.2.4 Impingement/Entrainment Savannah River.
Impinged fishes were collected at the SRP 1G, 3G, and 5G pumphouse trash removal pipes 'on 100 rand0m dates each year.
Impinged fishes at the river pumphouse intakes were identi-
- fied, weighed and measured, and the sex and reproductive condition determined.
Icthyop1ankton collect ions were made at the SRP pump-house stations using paired 505-jlm mesh nets.
Samples were sorted and the fish eggs and larvae counted and identified.
Where possi-
- ble, samples were collected just below. the water surface and just above the bottom of the body of water.
The data were analyzed to provide estimates of annual entrainment rates.
Par Pond.
Assessments were made to evaluate merop1ankton entrainment and the impingement of fishes at* the Par '. Pond intake structure~
1.2.6 Endangered Species 1.2.6.1 Introduction This study addressed the impacts of cooling water discharges to SRP surface waters on the persistence of endangered species.
The four endangered or threatened species that potentially could be affected by SRP cooling water operations are the American alli-
- gatot, the wood stork, the shortnose sturgeon, and the bald eagle.
Because extensive research has been conducted on the American alligator on the SRP site (Jenkins and
- Provost, 1964; Murphy and
- Brisbin, 1975; Murphy and Fendley, 1975;
- Adams, Smith and Baccus, 1980;
- Murphy, 1981; Gibbons and Patterson, 1978;
- Murphy, 1977),
considerable information is available on alligator population
- ecology, distribution
- pattern, and behavior for SRP.
Alligators are abundant in the SRP reservoir system of Par Pond, but are less common in the swamp and streams.
Wood stork studies have been conducted in other regions (Ogden et aI.,
1978; Ogden et aI.,
1976;
- Kah1, 1964; Ogden and
- Nesbitt, 1979; Ogden and Patty, 1981),
but only limited research on this particular species had been carried out on the SRP prior to 1983 (Smith et a1.,
- 1981, 1982).
Wood storks nest in rookeries in 1-17
southern Florida in December 'and January, and in northern Florida from February through March.
Reproductive success is controlled by water level fluctuations which have a major influence on the popu-lation dynamics of the species.
Wood storks do not show clear migration patterns but do disperse throughout the southeast.
This species primarily inhabits coastal areas where shallow freshwater pools high in fish concentration are readily available for foraging.
The shortnose sturgeon is found on the east coast of North America in tidal rivers and estuaries.
Prior to
- 1982, this species had not been reported in the middle reaches of the Savannah River.
- However, shortnose sturgeon larvae were found in icthyo-plankton samples taken from the Savannah River in 'the vicinity of SRP (ECS, 1983), and from the pumphouse intakecanals (Matthews and
- Muska, 1983) as part of the Savannah River Biological Measurement Program.
Although little is known about the Savannah River short-nose populations, extensive studies have been conducted on northern populations (Dadswell, 1979; Taubert, 1980), and to a lesser degree on populations in South Carolina (Marchette
& Smiley, 1983),
and Georgia (Heidt & Gilbert, 1978).
Only a small number of larvae of the shortnose sturgeon have been collected from the Savannah River.
- Likewise, shortnose sturgeon research was conducted in SRP waters, although publications of regional and general work are available (Dadswell et al.,
1983; Heidt and
- Gilbert, 1978; Rulifson and
- Huish, 1982; Marchette and Smiley, 1983).
Informat ion on the original CCWS
- design, completeness.
bald eagle, although not included in the has been included in this report for The CCWS builds upon existing information regarding these species and expands the work into stream,
- swamp, and river areas presently or formerly potentially influenced by cooling water discharges in order to evaluate responses of these species to habitats impacted by thermal inputs.
1.2.6.2 Plan of Work The American alligator inhabits certain wetlands of the SRP site.
Extensive studies of the alligator populations in Par Pond and in the Steel Creek floodplain and adjacent swamp/wetland habitats have provided information on population size and distribu-
- tion, sex
- ratios, reproduction, survivorship, and growth rates.
Movements of alligators in and out of thermally affected areas have also been documented.
These studies were expanded to additional swamp localities to provide the basis for comparisons of onsite
- stream, swamp and Par Pond populations and relative habitat value.
1-18
The wood
- stork, which has been listed as an endangered
- species, has been sighted in the delta area of the Steel Creek swamp system.
These sightings have occurred during each summer since 1980, and indicate seasonal use of the Steel Creek Delta area for foraging.
Studies during the summer of 1983 were enlarged to include the entire SRP Savannah River swamp.
Evaluation of onsite and offs ite habitat was performed using parameters, such as water
- depth, water quality, vegetation characteristics, and fish density to evaluate the attractiveness of the SRP wetlands relative to other local foraging sites.
1cthyoplankton samples collected from the Savannah River in the vicinity of SRP and the pumphouse intake canals during the 1982 to 1983 spawning seasons contained shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon larvae.
From the location of the sampling
- stations, it was concluded that both species spawn upstream of the SRP site.
To
- date, 13 shortnose sturgeon larvae have been collected.
Prior to these collections, the shortnose sturgeon was not known to inhabit the upper reaches of the Savannah River.
Studies of all three species were expanded as indicated below.
1.2.6.2.1 American Alligator Studies of the current status of the Par Pond alligator population were conducted in accordance with the study design and procedures used in previous studies (Murphy and
- Brisbin, 1974;
- Murphy, 1977).
Alligator populations in thermal and nontherma1 swamp habitats were surveyed in a
manner similar to the ongoing surveys of the Steel: Creek alligators (Smith et al.,
- 1981, 1982).
Minimum population estimates of alligators in the stream, delta and swamp areas were provided to compare the use of thermally affected and normal temperature areas.
Survey methods included the following:
o Aerial and ground surveys were conducted regularly to estimate population size.
Daytime searches were conducted to locate major habitat areas and potential nests.
Surveys at night using eye-shining techniques were used to determine relative abundance of alligators in thermal and nonthermal portions of the reservoir.
Shoreline areas were examined for nests using ground searches or low altitude overflights.
o Observations of alligator distributions around thermally affected areas were made using night-shining techniques.
1-19
o Alligators near Four Mile
- Creek, Pen
- Branch, and Steel Creek were outfitted and tracked with external and internal radio transmitters.
Body temperatures were monitored.
Changes in movement patterns upon release of thermal effluents in the areas were recorded.
1.2.6.2.2 Wood Stork Extensive surveys determined wood stork use of SRP swamp wetlands and evaluated onsite and offsite feeding habitats.
It is likely that most wood storks visiting the SRP are from a nesting colony near Millen, GA.
Feeding flights of wood storks from the Millen Colony were monitored to identify local feeding habitats.
For each feeding flight the following data were recorded:
distance flown to first landing site, time of departure from the
- colony, duration of the
- flight, location of the feeding
- area, number of wood storks in the feeding flight, and association with other avian species.
Ground crews measured the following parameters at the wood stork feeding locations:
water quality (pH, dissolved oxygen,
- calcium, conductivity),
phys ical attributes of the habitat (water depth, distance to shore, turbidity, area of feeding location),
vegetative characteristics, and fish density (Kushlan,* 1981).
Data provided an evaluation of the extent to which wood storks feed in Steel Creek and the delta/swamp wetlands compared to other local areas.
1.2.6.2.3 Shortnose Sturgeon The collection of samples for ichthyoplankton populations and impingement estimates were noted above.
1cthyoplankton samples are important in identifying spawning seasons and spawning/nursery habitats.
- However, distinguishing shortnose larvae from Atlantic sturgeon larvae, which are also collected in Savannah River icthyo-plankton
- samples, is difficult.
Consequently, Mr.
Darrel E.
- Snyder, Curator and Technical Director of the Colorado.State University Larval Fish Laboratory, was contracted to prepare a
diagnostic key to differentiate shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon larvae.
The conclusions of the Biological Assessment of the effects of SRP operations on the shortnose sturgeon collections have been summarized by Matthews and Muska (1983).
Additional information on the shortnose sturgeon collections in the Savannah River is pre-sented in Volume VI of the CCWS report.
1-20
1.2.6.2.4 Bald Eagle Bald eagles have been reported from time to time on the SRP, especially near Par Pond.
In
- 1986, a nest was established at a
Carolina Bay south of the Par Pond dam.
Although not included in the original CCWS
- design, information on the bald eagle was included in the CCWS report for completeness.
1.2.7 Summary Studies implemented in the CCWS were designed to provide a
comprehensive evaluation of the effects of cooling water utiliza-tion on biota and on physiochemical parameters of both the Savannah River and the receiving water
- bodies, predominantly tributary streams of the Savannah River.
Generally, the questions addressed in the CCWS were the following.
o Water Quality.
What changes in water quality occur as Savannah River water passes through the cooling cycle?
In addition to temperature and
- flow, information was collected to determine changes in nutrient
- levels, major
- ions, and trace element concentrations.
All major SRP aquatic systems including Par
- Pond, nonthermal, post-thermal and thermal streams,
- swamps, and the Savannah River were studied.
The spatial distribution of thermal plumes in the Savannah River and onsite river swamp was evaluated under a variety of river discharge conditions.
o Radionuclide and Heavy Metal Transport.
Does the release of large volumes of cooling water affect the distribution or redistribution of radionuclides and heavy metals released during SRP operations?
Sediment cores were collected at many onsite and offsite floodplain areas to evaluate the distribution of heavy metals and radionuclides, while water at downstream water treatment facilities was analyzed to determine the magnitude of SRP contributions to radionuclide concentrations in domestic and industrial water supplies.
A predictive model was developed and parameterized to aid in evaluating the potential
- for, and significance of remobilization and transport of heavy metals and radionuclides as a result of current or future SRP operations.
Wetland~.
How does the release of heated effluents affect the ecology of species inhabiting wetland habitats on the SRP?
Remote sensing techniques were used to document the extent and general character of wetland habitats on the SRP, and determine the historical patterns of wetland change in relation to SRP activities.
Ground truth studies were conducted to evaluate the structure and dynamics of wetland community types including the factors influencing plant community changes.
Other studies 1-21
evaluated the relationships between distributions of waterfowl and the various wetland
- types, so that more general models of faunal responses to habitat change could be evaluated.
o Aquatic Ecology.
How do cooling water releases affect the structure and dynamics of aquatic communities?
Integrated studies of primary producer populations, macroinvertebrate consumers, and fish populations were conducted to evaluate relationships between aquatic habitat structure and primary productivity, and the structure, distribution, and dynamics of consumer populations.
These studies were conducted in Par Pond, onsite
- streams, the Savannah River
- swamp, and the Savannah River.
o Endangered Species.
Does cooling water use affect the persistence of endangered species?
Four endangered species use areas that are influenced by cooling water releases:
the American alligator, the wood stork, the shortnose sturgeon, and the bald eagle.
Studies of the ecology of these species on the SRP were conducted, especially with respect to potential impacts associated with the intake or release of cooling water.
1-22
1.3 SITE LOCATION AND HISTORY 1.3.1 Introduction The Savannah River Plant (Figure 1-3.1), operated for the U.S.
Department of Energy by E.
I.
du Pont de Nemours and Company, was established in the early 1950s to produce nuclear materials for the national defense.
Nuclear materials are produced at this site in large product ion reactors that are moderated and cooled by heavy water (D20).
Support facilities fabricate nuclear fuel and
- targets, dissolve the irradiated materials, and separate nuclear products from the radioactive byproducts (Figure 1-3.2).
Chemical processing of irradiated materials produces high-level radioactive waste that is currently stored in waste tanks.
Other products are made in the SRP reactors.
Plutonium-239 and tritium were the first nuclear products; the product list has since been expanded to include uranium-233, plutonium-238, curium-244, polonium-210, cobalt-60, and californium-252.
1.3.2 Site Location The Savannah River Plant (SRP) is located in southcentral South Carolina.
The plant occupies an almost circular area of about 770 square kilometers, bounded on its southwes tern side by the Savannah River.
Port ions of the counties of Barnwell (121,503 acres),
Aiken (66,665 acres),
and Allendale (4,155 acres),
South
- Carolina, lie within the SRP boundary.
The location of the SRP
- site, relative to surrounding populat ion centers within a 24D-km radius, is shown in Figure 1-3.3.
The closest principal population centers near the SRP site are
- Augusta, Georgia, and Aiken and Barnwell, South Carolina.
The locations of the various plant areas are shown in Figure 1-3.1, along with the five major stream systems that drain the site.
MOst of the plant areas drain toward the Savannah River, which is about 84 feet above sea level.
The SRP site is a controlled area with public access limited to US Highway 278, SRP Road 1,
through traffic on SC Highway 125 (SRP Road.A),
the Seaboard Coastline
- Railroad, approved tour
- groups, fores t management act ivities, and authorized enviromnental studies.
Access to the site also is permitted for organized deer hunts which began in 1965 to help control the size of the deer populat ion.
1-23
33 00' 00' al 25' 00' ROADS RAILROADS STREAMS 123456 KILCM:TERS i
i I I 0 SAVANNAH RIV[R PlANr I
...... I-I I
, I
! I I
L I i I I I
FIGURE 1-3.1.
The Savannah River Plaut Site 1-24
H*
N
\\JI FEED HEAVY WATER MATERIALS EXTRACTION REACTORS SEPARATIONS
~
WASTE PRODUCTS MANAGEMENT FIGURE 1-3.2.
The Savannah River Plant Production Complex
/
,1
\\/'
SOUTH CAROLINA r-'
\\
~)
A TLANTIC OCEAN
\\
J savannah*1
- Charlotte
.Aiken Augusta-
\\
\\
~:::~:::' _ Barnwell
":;:::'SRP 80 km
'\\~.
l<tl...
Greenville. ~---
GEORGIA 160 km Macon.
240 km Atlanta.
\\
\\
\\
\\...')
I>
I J
I J
(-
__--1----
Scale (kilometers)
~
o 50 100 150 200 ~ ~
l~~i!"~i~'iiiiiiiliiiiiiil FIGURE 1-3.3.
Location of SIP Relative to Surrounding Population centers 1-26
1.3.3 Geologic History and Physiographic Regions 1.3.3.1 Geologic Structure of South Carolina South Carolina is divided into two main geologic provinces:
(1)
The Piedm:>nt Plateau, which is underlain by igneous and meta-morphic
- rock, and (2) the Atlantic Coastal
- Plain, which is characterized by
- flat, mostly unconsolidated sediments of Cretaceous age or younger.
The relatively soft sediments of the Coas tal Plain are more eas ily eroded than the hard crystalline rocks of the Piedm:mt Plateau, and for this
- reason, the boundary between the two provinces is called the Fall Line.
The Fall Line is not a
sharp line of contact but a
zone of trans ition from the typical land forms of one province to those of the other.
It is difficult to determine from the ground surface where the PiedllDnt Plateau ends and the Coastal Plain begins.
However, in river beds the distinction is noticeable, as the change in rock formations causes waterfalls or rapids.
Studies have indicated that the Fall Line between these two provinces in South Carolina is located about 32 km northwest of the SRP near Augusta, Georgia (Dukes, 1984).
In South Carolina, the Atlantic Coastal Plain sediments thicken southeastward from the Fall Line-to the coas t where the depos it thicknes s exceeds 945 m (Rankin, 1977).
In the vicinity of the
- SRP, these sediments are approximately 320 m thick (Christl, 1964).
1.3.3.2 Topograpy of the SRP Site The SRP is located on the upper Coastal Plain.
On the site, two distinct physiographic subregions are represented (Figure 1-3.4), the Pleistocene Coastal Terraces (below 82 m in elevation),
and the Aiken Plateau (above 82 m
and ris ing to 122 m on the northwest boundary).
At least three terraces are recognizable within the Coastal Terraces subregion (Figure 1-3.4).
The lowest terrace (Wicomico, 30 m) is the floodplain of the Savannah River; it is covered with a
dense swamp forest.
The higher terraces (Sunderland, 52 m, and Brandywine, 82 m) have a
level-to-gently rolling topography and were cult ivated ext ens ively before the establishment of SRP in those areas where soils and drainage were favorable *.
The Aiken Plateau was once a relatively smooth, gently sloping area with a regional slope to the southeast.
However, the plateau has been deeply eroded by numerous tributaries.
Those interstream areas underlain exclusively by Cretaceous sediments are character-ized by gently rolling hills and few undrained areas.
Those interstream areas with a
thin cover of Tertiary sediments are characterized by plateaus with steep ravines and numerous undrained "sinks" or "Carolina Bays."
1-27
/
FIGURE 1-3.4.
Coastal Terraces on the Savannah River Plant 1-28 T. N.t
1.3.3.3 History of SRP Development The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC),
a predeces sor agency to the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE),
selected the location of the Savannah River Plant in November
- 1950, after studying more than 100 potential sites.
Criteria used in the selection of the site included low population density, accessibility to a large supply of cooling water of good quali ty, and low frequency of major floods and destructive storms.
The construction of most SRP facilities began in February
- 1951, and eventually involved more than
$1 billion in expenditures with a
peak construction force of 38,500 workers.
The construction of most major SRP facilities was completed in 1954.
Uranium fuel fabrication began in M Area and extraction of heavy water (deuterium oxide, D20) began in D Area in 1952.
The first production reactor (R) began operation in December 1953.
Other production reactors* began operation in February 1954 (p),
July 1954 (L), October 1954 (K), and March 1955 (C).
Reactors were placed in standby condition in June 1964 (R) and February 1968 (L).
The locations of these production facilities are indicated in Figure 1-3.1.
Theseparat ions areas began processing radioactive fuel assemblies from the reactor areas in November 1954 (F) and July 1955 (H).
Low-level, radioactive waste was first sent to the onsite burial ground in the first half of 1955, when waste uranium from fuel fabricat ion in M Area was disposed of in this faci li ty.
The first high-level waste tank was completed in March 19?4.
Waste discharges to the seepage bas ins and was te tanks began short ly after startup of the separations areas.
1.3.3.4 Status of SRP Facilities SRP act ivities in the product ion of nuclear materials to meet nat ional defense needs include material product ion and proces sing, waste management operations, heavy water production, and additional related production tasks.
SRP facilities include five production reactors (three in operation in C, K, and P Areas during the period of the
- CCWS, and two on standby in Rand L Areas),
two chemical separations facilities (F and H Areas),
a fuel and target fabrica-tion facility (M
Area),
a heavy water production facility (on standby in D
Area),
and various supporting facilities (Figure 1-3.1).
Onsite waste disposal facilities include waste tank farms near the chemical separations areas and a 195-acre burial ground for low-level solid radioactive waste.
The primary products of the SRP reactors are plutonium (239pu) and tritium (T or 3H).
These are produced by absorption of neutrons in uranium (238U) and lithium (6Li), respectively.
1-29
During reactor operation, neutrons cause uranium-235 atoms to split into lighter atoms.
In
- addition, each uranium-235 atom fissioned releases two to three neutrons.
This surge of released
- neutrons, which split more uranium-235 atoms, results in a chain react ion that generates* large amounts of heat.
This cont rolled fissioning continues for a designated period.
The fuel and target assemblies are then moved by remote control from the reactor core to a large pool of water in the reactor building to permit decay of short:"lived fission products before the assemblies are delivered to a chemical separations plant (F and H Areas) on site.
The reactors are moderated and cooled with recirculating heavy water (D20).
Secondary cooling is provided by a once-through flow of ordinary water (H20).
The combination of high moderating abili ty and low neutron absorption provided by D20 permits great flexibility in reactor-charge design, and full advantage of this is taken in designing different charges to produce a
variety of products.
The SRP reactors are production reactors.
They are designed specifically to generate excess neutrons which can be used to make the des ired isotopes.
They are not des igned to produce steam or electricity.
Modification for such production is not practical or economical.
~
Water from the Savannah River or Par Pond (a
man-made reservoir) is supplied to the reactor to cool D20 from the reactor coolant system.
The water is pumped into a 95-mi11ion-liter cool-ing water basin at the reactor area and pumped from the bas in to the reactor building where it extracts heat* from. the Dz.0 circu-lating through primary heat exchangers.
The effluent coo11ng water flows from the heat exchanger back to Par Pond by man-made channels and precoo1er ponds or to the Savannah River after flowing through onsite stream and swamp systems.
The river water is pumped to the C-,
K-,
and L-Reactor (L-Reactor was not operating during the CCWS) area cooling water bas ins through concrete lined steel pipes by two pumping stations located on the Savannah River (lGand3G).
-Individual lines supply each reactor area,and a1t.ernative tie lines provide for emergency supply of cooling water should the primary line fail.
A similar system supplies water from Par Pond to P
Reactor which also receives some river water since natural supply to Par Pond requires supplementation to maintain pond water levels.
Thermal discharges from L Reactor are released to L Lake on the Steel Creek.
Nominal secondary cooling water flow of up to 11 m3 (400 cfs) is estab-lisned prior to reactor startup and is maintained during reactor operat ions.
the two chemical separations plants (F
and H Areas) shielded "canyon" building for processing irradiated The plants dissolve the irradiated fuel and target and produce solutions containing the various products Each of has a
large materials.
materials 1-30
which have been decontaminated from fission products by solvent extraction and ion exchange processes.
Further processing is performed in unshielded facilities where the products can be converted from solution to solid form for shipment offplant.
The heavy water plant (Which was located in D Area) extracted heavy water from river water by a
hydrogen sulfide
- process, and further purified it by distillation.
At present, only the rework unit is operating to purify reactor moderator.
A coal-fired, power plant is also located in the D Area.
Cooling water for facilities at the D Area is provided from the 5G pumping station on the Savannah River.
Cooling water effluents from D Area are released into Beaver Dam Creek.
The facilities used in the production of defense nuclear materials occupy less than 5% of the total SRP land area.
Reser-voirs and ponds ons ite occupy approximately 4,000 acres or about 2%
of the total land area.
The remainder of the SRP is comprised predominantly of pine plantations and natural vegetation, which are managed by the U. S.
Fores t Service under a cooperat ive agreement with the Department of Energy.
1.3.3.5 History of Water Use The Savannah River forms the boundary between the States of Georgia and South Carolina (Figure C-3.3).
Upstream of the SRP the river supplies water for Augusta, Georgia and North Augusta, South Carolina.
The river receives
. treated waste water from these municipalities and from Horse Creek Valley (Aiken, South Carolina).
The Savannah River is a
Class B waterway used for
- fishing, both commercial and
- sport, and pleasure boating downstream from the Savannah River Plant.
Water withdrawn from the river is used for various SRP act ivities, but is used primarily to cool the product ion reactors.
It is also used as a drinking water supply after treatment at Port Wentworth, GA (Cherokee Hill Water Treatment Plant) for a consumer population of about 20,000, and at Hardeeville, SC (Beaufort-Jasper Water Treatment Plant),
for a
consumer population of approximately 51,000.
1.3.3.5.1 "River Water Use by the Savannah River Plant The SRP is a
major user of water from the Savannah River.
SRP could remove 41 m3 / s if all 26 river water pumps are in simultaneous use at the three river pump stations.
Under the wors t condi t ions, the removal of the full 41 m3 / s would consume about 23%
of the usual river minimum flow of about 181 m3 / s at SRP.
The 7-day, 10-year low flow for the Savannah River is 1-31
159 m3/s.
Figure 1-3.5 shows the cooling water pmnped from the river from 1954 to 1980.
During the period of the CCWS, the SRP withdrew a maximum of 37 m3/ s from the river; C and K Reactors each received about 11 m3/ s of cooling water, Par Pond received about 0.6 m3/s to compensate for seepage and evaporation, and the coal-fired power plant received about 2.8 m3/s.
After the river water is used as secondary coolant in C,
K, and L
- Reactors, it is discharged to Four Mile Creek, Pen Branch, and Steel Creek, respec-
- tively, which flow through an onsite swamp to the Savannah River.
Present operations typically remove about 9% of the average annual Savannah River flow at SRP of 295 m3/s.
Nearly all water withdrawn from the river is returned to the river.
The design and operation of the three Savannah River cooling water intake structures at the SRP is presented in Section 1.3.3.5.5.
1.3.3.5.2 Surface Water Use by Nearby Industries Two neighboring facilities use or plan to use Savannah River water for industrial cooling purposes.
The South Carolina Electric and Gas Company's Urquhart Steam Station, located upstream of the SRP, uses about 7.4 m3/s as once-through cooling water (DOE, 1984).
The Alvin W.
Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant, near Hancock Landing,
- Georgia, is now under construction.
When completed, it will use up to 2.8 m3/s of river water as make-up water for its recirculat-ing cooling towers.
1.3.3.5.3 Surface Water Use by Downriver Consumers Downstream
- from, SRP, the Beaufort-Jasper Water Authority in South Carolina (River Mile 39.2) withdraws about 0.23 m3/s to supply domestic water for a
population of about 51,000 (Table 1-3.1).
The Cherokee Hill Water Treatment Plant at Port Wentworth, Georgia (River Mile 29.0), withdraws about 1.35 m3/s the river to supply a business-industrial complex near Savannah which has an estimatedconsumer*.***populationof*****about20,000* (Table *1-3,,2),,-
The locations of both downriver water treatment plants prior to distribution to consumer populations are given in Figure 1-3.6.
1.3.3.5.4 *Comm.ercial and Recreational Uses of Savannah River Water Commercial fisheries in South Carolina and Georgia are important to the economy of the coastal region of both states.
- Shad, shrimp, blue
- crabs, and oysters are the most important commercial species.
Most fishing is confined to the marine and brackish waters of the coastal regions of South Carolina and Georgia.
The only commercial fish of significance near the SRP are the American shad, the channel catfish, and the Atlantic sturgeon (DOE, 1984).
1-32
Po, Pond Th,oughput Inc,eaHd t.,.Rlac.OI Shutdown*
Pump flow F,om Po, Pond I
I L
R-Rlactor Shutdown L******-1 L_,*..--------...-1-.....------------------1 Total Flow
- -- Effluent Flow 10 Rivlf
. Pump FIOW~
Inc,eased p;.----f'...
2000 500 u.1500 u-oa:
~ 1000 oS!
lL H
Iww O"--~__L_I..._~__L_~~__L_.&______L_.&__~__L_.&___L_.....A._.&___L___l_..L.__L___.L_..L.___L..___L___'
1954 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 FIGURE 1-3.5.
SIP Reactor Cooling Water Flow. 1954-1980
TABLE 1-3.1 Use of Water from the Beaufort-Jasper Water Authority Water Treatment Capacity:
Average use:
0.4 m3/s 0.23 m3/s South Carolina population served:
qropp Beaufort-Port Royal Naval installations Rural areas Total Population i
18,000 23,000 10,000 51,000 Average
.Consumption Rates Yetir m3Js Month in 1980 m3/s 1970 0.19 January 0.20 1971 0.19 February 0.19 1972 0.21 March 0.20 1973 0.24 April 0.19 1974 0.21 May 0.21 1975 0.20 June 0.27 1976 0.20 July 0.27 1977 0.21 August 0.27 1978 0.21 September 0.30 1979 0;22 October 0.23 1980 0.23 November 0.22 December 0.19 1-34
TABLE 1-3.2 Use of Water from the Cherokee Hill Water Treatment Plant Water Treatment Capacity:
2 m3/s Custome~s (Primarily Industrial)
Continental Can Corp. (paper plant)
Union Camp (paper plant)
American Cyanamid Kaiser Agricultural Chemical Co.
Savannah Electric Co.
American oil Co.
Georgia Port Authority*
Coca Cola Bottling Co.**
Royal Crown Cola Bottling Co.
Atlantic Creosoting Co.
Savannah Sugar Refinery Continental Roofing Co.
Johns Manville Co.
Chevron Oil Co.
Koppers Co.
Humson Battery Mfg. Co.
Total Estimated Number of Customers 7?
Industrial wOrkers Seamen (effective person-year users)
Beverages (effective person-year users)
Total m3/~
0.39 0.57 0.27 0.06 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.0005 0.002 0.03 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0006 0.0001 1.34 Persons 1,000 2,000*
17,000**
20,000
- Fresh water for ships entering Savannah Harbor.
One percent 'of water delivered is consumed by crewmen.
- Assumes 10% of water delivered is used for preparing bottled beverages.
1-35
BEAUFORT*
JASPER WATER TREATMENT PLANT.\\
PORT WENTWORTIi WATER TREATMENT PLANT lem 10 ZO 30 o
MJRnf AUGUSTA WA'l'ER TREA1MEN'r PLANT FIGURE 1-3.6.
Locations of Downriver Water Treatment Facilities 1-36
Recreational uses of the Savannah River are mostly upstream of SRP near Augusta or downstream of SRP near the coast.
Recreational act ivities include sport fishing and limited water contact act ivi-ties such as swimming or water skiing.
No uses of the Savannah River for irrigation have been identified in either South Carolina or Georgia (DOE, 1984).
1.3.3.5.5 SRP Cooling Water Intake Structures on the Savannah River SRP is on the middle reach of the Savannah River where it withdraws cooling water for production reactors, fossil fuel steam and electric generators, and other facilities.
SRP operates three plDnping stations on the Savannah
- River, as indicated in Figure 1-3.7.
Two of the river intake structures, 1G and 3G, are identical ten-plDnp units, located at the end of intake canals.
The third station 5G, operates six smaller pumps on a small inlet cove of the river.
The rated capacities of the pumping stations are given in Table 1-3.3.
Sixteen to 18 pumps in the 1G and 3G pumping stations are needed to supply cooling water for C, K, L, and P Areas when all four reactors are operating.
Historically, the U.S.
Corps of Engineers, has attempted to maintain a minimlDn flow of 181 m3/s at SRP (DOE, 1984).
TABLE 1-3.3 Savannah River Plant Pumping Station Capacities River Rated Pump Maximum Sustained Pumping Number
- Capacity, Station Flow Station of Pumps m3/s m3/ sec 1G 10 2.05 20.5 3G 10 2.05 20.5 5G 6
0.8 4.7 Total SRP capaCity 41.6 The 1G intake canal shown in Figure 1-3.7 is about 549 m long and is located at River Kilometer 252.8.
The Savannah River fluctuates about 4.3 m in elevation seasonally and the canal varies in width from 30 to 70 m in response to river level with a minimum depth of 2 m.
The 3G canal is located at River Kilometer 250.0 and is 410 m long, with a width which varies from 26 to more than 90 m and a minimum depth of 2 m.
The 5G intake is on a small cove about 1-37
~
lOa 1ft
"""'--l 100 1ft 1G Pumphouse Upper Three Runs Trash Dischal'ge Pipeline 1j!Sl!'-~~~!:..!-j~~;.\\- -- -
lG Canal FIGURE 1-3.7.
SIP Puaping Stations and Nearby Reference Points on the Savannah River
'I' 1-38
12 m wide and 10 m from the river.
The minimum depth of the cove is 2 m.
Water enters the 1G and 3G pumphouses through individual bays for each pump.
Water is drawn from each bay through a
rectangular gate, through a vertical trash screen, and enters the conduit to the pump.
All of the SRP pumping stations use vertical traveling screens to remove trash from the cooling water.
The screens are normally cleaned once per
- day, a
procedure requiring 15 to 30 minutes.
Water jets wash trash into a trough and to a 0.3-m-diameter pipe which empties into a swa1e ~
There is no opportunity for organisms impinged on the int ake screens to return to the river (Matthews, 1982).
Intake velocities for typical low flow and high flow condi-tibns for present operations are shown in Figures 1-3.8 and 1-3.9, and Table 1-3.4.
Higher velocity ranges would also occur as average river flow decreases below 295 m3/s.
Typically, six to eight pumps are operating in the 1G and 3G pumphouses at any given
- time, although a total of 12 pumps may be required at typical low river water flow (181 m3/s).
TABLE 1-3.4 Intake Canal High-Flow Water Velocity (m/sec)
Intake Canal 1G 3G Near Inlet, Mean 0.17 0.22 Mid-Canal, Mean 0.15 0.15 At Pumphouse, Mean 0.24 0.28 The design of the 1G and 3G intake canals dictates that cool-ing water is withdrawn primarily from the upper layers of the river.
Water is removed from the upper third of the water column at low river elevation, and from the upper two-thirds at high elevation.
The proximity of Upper Three Runs Creek (Figure 1-3.7) results in 45 to 95% of the creek discharge being drawn into the 1G canal, depending upon river flow rates.
The impingement and entrairnnent of fish and fish eggs/larvae at the river pumphouses is discussed in Volume V of the CCWS.
1.3.4 Surface Waters of SRP Most of the surface water at the Savannah River Plant (SRP) results from rainfall or from the water which is pumped from the Savannah River and is used for secondary cooling for the plant 1-39
o.
m/sec
<0.01
.01-.08 -
.09-.16
IIIID
.17-.24'
.25-.32) d.
b.
e.
c.
f.
FIGURE 1-3.8.
Velocity Profile of lG Canal Velocity profile of 1G canal at 7 pump, high flow (a-c) and at 2 pump, low flow (d-f).
Transects were located 100 m downstream from inlet (a,d) near canal midpoint (b,e) and immediately upstream of pumphouse training walls (c,f).
Measurements were taken 0.5 m below the surface and 0.5 m above the bottom at 5-m intervals along the transect.
1-40
a.
m/sec
<0.01
.01-.08.-.
.09-.16 ---
.17-.24....
.25-.32) d*
b.
c.
e.
f.
FIGURE 1-3.9.
Velocity Profile of 3G Canal Velocity profile of 3G canal at 7 pump, high flow (a-c) and at 2 pump, low flow (d-f).
Transects were located 100 m downstream from inlet (a,d) near canal midpoint (b,e) and immediately upstream of pumphouse training walls (c,f).
Measurements were taken 0.5 m below the surface and 0.5 m above the bottom at 5-m intervals along the transect.
1-41
reactors.
The rate of Savannah River water use by the SRP varies from about 8.5 m3/s to about 26 m3/s depending on the number of reactors operating and the corresponding reactor power levels.
After use, the heated cooling water is discharged to the river via one of the onsite streams or discharged to recirculate through Par Pond with overflow to Lower Three Runs Creek.
Almost all of the SRP site is drained by tributaries of the Savannah River.
Each tributary is fed by several small streams so that no location on the site is very far from a flowing stream.
Only one small stream in the northeastern sector of the site drains to the Salkehatchie River instead of the Savannah River.
In addition to these streams, surface water is held in more than 50 artificial impoundments totaling over 4,000 acres.
Par Pond is the largest with an area of about 2,700 acres and L Lake next with 1,000 acres.
Water is retained intennittently in wet-lands and in more than 200 natural basins, including some Carolina bays.
A large swamp (about 10,000 acres) borders the Savannah River and is crossed by several of the streams.
1.3.4.1 Savannah River The Savannah River drainage basin has a
total area of 27,388 km2 00,579 square miles) and encompasses all or part of 41 counties in
- Georgia, South
- Carolina, and North Carolina (Figure 1-3.10).
The Savannah River Basin is located in three physiographic regions:
the Mountain Province, the Piedmont, and the Coastal Plain (Figure 1-3.11).
The Mountain Province contains most of the major tributaries of the Savannah River, including the Seneca, Tugaloo, and Chattooga Rivers.
The region is characterized by a relatively steep gradient, ranging from about 1,676 to 305 m, and includes 5,235 km2 of the total drainage basin.
The Mountain Province lies in the Blue Ridge Mountains, and has a
bedrock composed of gneisses, granites, schists, and quartzites; the sub-soilis.composed of brown and red sandy clays.
In this region the Savannah River and its tributaries have the character of mountain
- streams, with shallow riffles, clear creeks, and a fairly steep gradient.
The stream bed is mainly sand and rubble, and the banks are sloping and grass-covered.
The Piedmont Region has an intennediate
- gradient, with elevations ranging from 305 to 61 m.
This region includes 13,548 km2 of the total drainage basin.
Soils in the Piedmont are primarily
- red, sandy, or silty
- clays, with weathered bedrock consisting of ancient sediments containing granitic intrusions.
The Piedmont is bordered by the Fall-Line, an area where the sandy soils of the Coastal Plain meet the rocky terrain of the Piedmont foothills.
The city of Augusta, GA, is located near this line.
1-42
\\.
NORTH.* CAROLINA H"'LI.I"'~11Qj JACKSON GEORGIA o,
20 MILSS SOUTH CAROLINA 40 FIGURE 1-3.10.
Counties Included Withia the Savannah Riyer Drainage Basin r-43
Scale in Miles Ii) 10 20 30 FIGURE 1-3.11.
Major Tributaries and Physiographic Regions Included in the Savannah River Drainage Basin 1-44
The Savannah River becomes more turbid in the Piedmont Region, picking up the majority of its silt load.
The river often
- meanders, and, despite the stabi lizing effect of Clarks Hill Dam, the outer banks on curves are relat ively uns table.
Sand bars are deposited downstream from many inside banks along the curves.
The Coastal Plain has a negligible gradient ranging from an elevation of 61 m to sea level.
The soils of this region are primarily stratified silts,
- clays, and sands
- The Coastal Plain contain,s 8,631 km2 of the tot al Savannah River drainage area (27,388 km2),
and includes the city of Savannah, Georgia.
In the Coastal Plain, the Savannah River is slow moving.
Tidal effects may be observed near the mouth of the river, and a
salt front extends upstream along the bottom of the riverbed.
The riverbed is often muddy, and the river proper floods surrounding swamps.
Low flows in the Savannah River typically occur during the fall while high water occurs in late winter and early spring.
Construction of upriver reservoirs and the new Savannah River Bluff Lock and Dam has stabilized the river flow at Augusta to a yearly average of 288.8 m3/sec (DOE, 1984).
The water quality of the Savannah River and its tributaries varies cons iderably, ranging from clean to heavily contaminated with industrial and domestic effluents.
Extensive discussion on river water quality is found in Volume II of this report.
Historically, the
- Augusta, North
- Augusta, and Aiken County areas have provided the major sources of pollution to the Savannah River in the area around the SRP.
The city of Augusta did not have a
secondary sewage treatment facility until 1975.
Prior to that time most domestic and industrial wastes were discharged untreated or inadequately treated into the Savannah
- River, or into Hawks Gully, Butler Creek, and Spirit Creek, which flow into the Savannah River (Table 1-3.5).
In the North Augusta and Aiken County area, domestic and industrial effluents entered the Savannah River directly and via Horse Creek and Little Horse Creek (Table 1-3.6).
Treatment facilities for the North Augusta and Aiken County area were not in operation until 1979.
The SRP also discharges was te water into the Savannah River.
These discharges are primarily thermal effluents, but also include domestic and industrial wastes.
Hartwell Dam was completed in June 1962 and is located about 105 km upstream from the Clarks Hill Dam.
A third large dam, the Richard B.
Russell Dam lies between the Clarks Hill and Hartwell dams.
Several other small dams are located along the
- river, including three near Augusta:
New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam (completed in 1937);
Stevens Creek Dam (completed in 1914);
and Augusta City Dam (rebuilt in 1863).
1-45
TABLE 1-3.5 Partial List of the Savannah River Pollution Sources from the Augusta Area Name of Industry Augusta Chemical Co.
Augusta Plating Co.
Augusta Waste Water Treatment Facility Const.
Date Type of Wastewater NA Organic, acidic, with sod ium salts 1966 Cd, Cr, Cu, ln, cyanide plating wastes 1969 Domestic sewage, textile finishing wastes, chemical manufacturers wastes, slaughter-house wastes Est. Vol.
of Waste-water (m3/s)
Prior to 1970 0.006 0.004 0.35 (1.0 max.
capicity)
Treatment prior to 1970*
Some neutral-ization None Primary and chlorination Receiving Stream Camille St.
ditch to Beaverdam ditch Oates Creek Butler Creek Babcock &Wilcox 1928 Oil, kaolin, sawdust 0.006 Settling tank Unnamed tributary to Rocky Creek Buckeye Cotton Oil Div. of Buckeye Cellulose Corp.
Burris Chemical, Inc.
Castleberry's Food Co.
1902 Suspended and 0.01 floating organics, oils 1969 Cooling water &
0.005 chloride solutions 1926 Organic NA None Retention area None Camille St.
ditch to Beaverdam ditch Savannah River City sewer to Oates Creek Columbia Nitrogen Corp.
(N.i~:~!:I~~cP l.~tt~.
1963 Contaminated NA cooling water
'_*****"~*la-mno*nla"r;*-- "._,..-~-
-.-"'-_...~-,
domestic wastes Containment Butler Creek and reuse,. pH.
neutraLiZatIon*
Columbia Nitrogen Corp.
1963 (Caprolactam Plant)
Continental Forest 1960 Industries Cool ing water domestic wastes oil stripper bottoms Kraft pulp mill effluent 0.02 0.02 None Savannah River (acti vated sludge in approx. 1975)
Settling Spirit Creek
- ponds, aeration
- Most Augusta industries currently direct their wastewaters to the Augusta Waste Water Treatment Facility, which was improved in 1975 to provide secondary treatment.
Columbia Nitrogen Corp. and Continental Forest Industries currently have their own secondary treatment facUity.
NA = not available 1-46
TABLE 1-3.5, Contd Est. Vol.
of Waste-Treatment Const.
water (m3/s) prior to Receiving Name of Industry Date Type of Wastewater Prior to 1970 1970*
Stream Eo 1. du Pont 1962 Inorganic caustics NA Settling Butler Creek*
de Nemours &Co.
ponds Graniteville Mills, 1870 Dye, slasher, and 0.01 None Water wheel Sibley Division domestic tailrace to Savannah River IMC (International 1908 Cool ing water and 0.00009 None Oates Creek Minerals &Chemicals) scrubber wastewater J. P. King Mfg. Co.
1881 Dye, slasher, and 0.001 None Water wheel domestic tailrace to Savannah River Monsanto Company 1962 Cooling water, 0.009 Cooling ditch Ditch to boiler blowdown Butler Creek Olin Corp.
1964 Hg, chloride 0.11 Hg recovery Savannah River and pH neutral ization Philadelphia Quartz NA Inorganic caustics 0.0004 Two holding Savannah River Co.
ponds Riverside Mills NA Organic acidic 0.01 None City sewer to Third Level Canal Scott Meat Packers, 1939 Blood, washwater 0.005 None Rocky Creek Inc.
Shapiro Packing Co.,
1940 Organic NA Grease trap Most of waste Inc.
to sanitary sewers, small amount to Camille Street Ditch Swift Fresh Meats Co.
1897 Organic NA Floor grates Second Level Canal Taylor-Piedmont Co.
NA Creosote, oils 0.04 None Rocky Creek 1-47
TABLE 1-3.6 Partial list of the Savannah River Pollution Sources fra. the North Augusta and Aiken County Areas*
Est. Vol.
of Waste-Treatment Const.
water (m3/s) prior to Receiving Name of Industry
~
Type of Wastewater Prior to 1970 1970*
Stream Aiken STP 1951 Domestic and 0.04 Secondary Kelly Creek (improved industrial wastes (trickling 1963) filter)
N. Augusta Sewer NA Domestic and 0.04 None Savannah River Outfall industrial wastes Bath Mill 1929 Domestic and 0.01 None Horse Creek industrial wastes Clearwater Finishing 1929 Finishing plant 0.2 None Little Horse and domestic. wastes Creek Graniteville Hill 1890 Finishing plant 0.2 None Horse Creek wastes, chromium Kimberly Clark 1968 Domestic and 0.3 Retention Savannah River industrial wastes lagoon Seminole Mills 1924 Boiler blowdown 0.002 None Little Horse air conditioning, Creek wastewater, domestic wastes J. P. Stevens Co.
1966 Domestic and 0.02 None Little Horse industrial wastes Creek wool scouring wastes Valchem Chemical Co.
1947 Domestic and 0.07 None Horse Creek industrial wastes
- chromium, ammonia-N Warrenville STP 1946 Domestic and 0.01 Secondary Kelly Creek industrial wastes (activated sludge)
- Most North Aug~sta and Aiken County industries currently direct their wastes to the Horse Creek Pollution Control Facility (constructed in 1979) for secondary treatment.
- 1
- -48
Dredging operations on the Savannah River have been conducted by the U.S.
Corps of Engineers.
This
- program, initiated in October 1958, was designed to dredge and maintain a 2.7 m naviga-tion channel in the Savannah River from the city of Savannah to Augusta.
A total of 61 sets of pile dikes were placed to constrict the river
- flow, thereby increasing flow
- rates, and a
total of 11,477 linear meters of wood and stone revetment was laid to reduce erosion on banks opposite from the dikes.
In addition, the channel was
- dredged, and 31 cutoffs were made, reducing the total river distance from Augusta to Savannah by about 24.1 kin.
The project was completed in July 1965; periodic dredging was cant inued to maintain the channel.
A table of dredging dates and locations is included in Table 1-3.7 1.3.4.2 Tributaries to the Savannah River on the SRP Site The six principal streams on the SRP site are Savannah River tributaries.
They arise on the Aiken Plateau and descend 30 to 61 m before discharging to the river.
On the plateau, the streams are clear except during periods of high water.
Rainfall soaks into the ground, and seepage from the sandy soil furnishes the streams with a rather constant supply (minimum 0.1 m3/s) of water through-out the year.
In addition, five of the onsite streams have histor-ically received thermal discharges from cooling water operations.
These discharges of thermal effluents, ranging from about 3
to 10 times the natural stream
- flows, have caused the streams to overflow their original banks along much of their length, cutting new and wider floodplains.
The six principal tributaries are Upper Three Runs
- Creek, Beaver Dam Creek, Four Mile Creek, Pen Branch, Steel Creek, and Lower Three Runs Creek.
1.3.4.2.1 Upper Three Runs Creek Upper Three Runs
- Creek, the longest of the plant
- streams, differs from the-other five onsite streams in two respects:
it is the only stream with headwaters arising outside the plant site, and it is the only stream that has never received heated discharges of cooling water from the production reactors or coal-fired powerhouse.
Upper Three Runs Creek drains an area of over 500 square kilometers (Figure 1-3.12).
Its significant tributaries are Tinker
- Creek, a rather lengthy headwater stream, and Tims
- Branch, which receives industrial wastes from the fuel fabrication facilities (M
Area) and the Savannah River Laboratory.
Typical surface discharges to Tims Branch from A and M Areas include nonprocess cooling water, steam condensates, process effluents, and treated groundwater effluents.
In
- addition, three tributaries of Upper 1-49
TABLE 1-3.7 Savannah River Dredging Activities, 1964 Through 1974 (Partial Listing)
Dates River'Mil~s Dredgeq
)
1964 Dec. 7-10 176.0 - 175.4 Dec. 10-12 175.2 - 174.8 Dec. 13 165.5 Dec. 14-17 158.4 - 159.0 Dec. 18-22 158.1 - 157.2 Dec. 23-30 141.3 - 140.8 Dec. 31 137.3 - 136.8 1965 Jan. 2-5 135.6 - 135.3 Jan. 5 129.2 Jan. 6 118.7 (Rt. 301 Bridge) 1966 April 22-25 173.8*
April 26 - May 2 162.0*
May 3-4 151.0*
May, 4-9 149.0*
May 9-10 144.0*
May 11-12 126.0*
May 12-13 124.5*
1967 June 3-5 197.9 - 179.8 June 6-16 179.8 - 175.0 June 17-22 175.0 - 174.3 June 22 - July 9 174.3 - 169.0 July 10 - Aug. 4 169.0 - 135.0 Aug. 4-10 135.0 - 134.4 Aug. 10 128.4 Aug. 11 59.4 1968 Sept. 8 Above 167.1 Sept. 9 167.1 Sept. 24-25 151.3 - 151.1 Sept. 26 144.2 - 144.1 Sept. 27 136.5 - 136.3 Sept. 26 - Oct. 4 129.3 - 128.9 Oct. 5-6 124.6 - 124.0 Oct. 6-7 114.5 - 114.2
- Only average river mile values were available.
I-50
TABLE 1-3.7, Contd Dates River.Miles. Dredged 1970 Aug. 21-27 179.7 Aug. 28 - Sept. 9 151.3 Sept. 10-23 150.8 Sept. 24-29 149.6 - 149.4 Sept. 30 - Oct. 8 149.3 - 149.0 Oct. 9-14 148.5 - 148.3 Oct. 15-22 146.6 - 146.2 Oct. 23-29 145.7 - 145.4 Oct. 30 - Nov. 12 128.4 - 128.2 Nov. 13-19 124.4 - 124.2 Nov. 20 78.6 -
78.4 1973 Oct. 30 187*
Oct. 31 - Nov. 2 183.1*
Nov. 3-6 151.3*
Nov. 7-24 149.4*
Nov. 25 148*
Nov. 26 - Dec. 1 146*
Dec. 2-4 144*
Dec. 5-7 136*
Dec. 8 117*
I-51
o
!5 mil**
1-1-"r-I'-"r--I--."""Ior,...................1 o
8km USGS Stream Gaging Station ISq. MI'J (Sq. Km.
FIGURE 1-3.12.
USGS Flow Recorders and Drainage Areas on SRP Streams I-52 t
N,
Three Runs Creek from the F and H Separations Areas carry ambient temperature cooling water, steam condensate, powerhouse washdown waters and ash disposal basin effluents.
Upper Three Runs Creek is designated as a National Hydrologic Benchmark Stream by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) of the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Mean flow rates generated by USGS flow recorders along Upper Three Runs Creek (Figure 1-3.12) during the' period 1972-1981 at US 278, SRPRoad C, and SRP Road A were 3.2, 5.5, and 7.5 m3/s, respectively.
The minimum flow rates recorded at these si~es during this ten-year period were 1.4, 3.2, and 3.7 m3/s, respectively.
The maximum flow rates associated with significant precipitation events during this ten-year period were 10.5, 19.9, and 25.7 m3/s, respectively (Lower, 1982).
1.3.4.2.2 Beaver Dam Creek Beaver Dam Creek was not identified in the 1951-1953 study of SRP streams by the University of South Carolina and may have been an intermittent flowing stream prior to SRP operation.
The stream is located 1.6 to 3.2
!<m west of Four Mile
- Creek, flowing in a southwes tern direct ion from the D Area through the swamp to the Savannah River.
Beaver Dam Creek formerly was the receiving water body for the effluent from both the heavy water product ion plant and the coal-fired generating station which supplies D Area steam and a large fraction of SRP-generated electrical power.
The heavy water production plant in D Area was placed on standby in 1982.
Currently Beaver Dam Creek receives condenser cooling water from the coal-fired powerhouse, neutralization waste
- water, sanitary waste
- water, ash basin effluent
- waters, and various laboratory waste waters.
Since June
- 1974, a
flow recorder located 1.6
!<m downs tream from 400-D Area in Beaver Dam Creek (Figure 1-3.12; drainage area 1.89 km2) has recorded a mean discharge of 2.4 m3/s and a range of flows of 1.2 to 5.6 m3/s for the period 1974-1982 (Lower, 1982).
1.3.4.2.3 Four Mile Creek Four Mile Creek follows a generally southwesterly path to the Savannah River for a distance of about 24!<m.
In the swamp along the river, part of the creek flow empties into Beaver Dam Creek, a much shorter stream that discharges into the river.
The remainder of the Four Mi Ie Creek flow discharges through an opening in the levee between the swamp and river, seeps through the levee into the river, or flows down the swamp and mixes with the flows from Steel Creek and Pen Branch.
I-53
Four Mile Creek and Beaver Dam' Creek together drain about 90 square kilometers and receive discharges from five plant areas.
From the Separations
- Areas, the upper rea.ch of Four Mile Creek receives powerhouse was te water, cooling water, steam condens ate, and sanitary treatment plant waste water discharges.
Reactor cool-ing water from C Area is discharged to Four Mile Creek.
Small quantities of ambient-temperature cooling water and automotive shop effluents are also discharged to Four Mile Creek from the Central Shops (CS) Area.
The average flow upstream. of any plant discharge is about 0.015 m3/s and is increased by F, H,
and Central Shops effluents and drainage to about 0.6 m3 / s just upstream from the confluence with the C-Reactor discharges.
After the junction with theC-Reactor cooling water,the creek flows about 11 kIn before entering the river swamp at flow rates exceeding 11 m3 / s during periods of C-Reactor operation.
1.3.4.2.4 Pen Branch Pen Branch fo llows a path roughly paralle1 to Four Mi Ie Creek unt i1 it enters the river swamp (Figure C-12).
The only signifi-cant tributary to Pen Branch is Indian Grave
- Branch, which flows into Pen Branch about 8
kIn upstream from the swamp.
Pen Branch enters the swamp about 5
kIn from the river, flows directly toward the river for about 2.4 km,and then turns and runs parallel to the river for about 8
kIn before discharging into Steel Creek about 0.8 km from its mouth.
Pen Branch with Indian Grave Branch drains about 56 square
. kilometers of watershed upstream from the swamp.
Indian Grave Branch receives the effluent cooling water from K
Reactor.
Upstream of K-Area discharges, Indian Grave Branch flow averages only about 0.03 m3/s and Pen Branch proper is also a small stream averaging 0.1 to 0.3 m3/s.
In addition to reactor cooling water effluents from K Area, discharges to Pen Branch proper and.to. Indian Grave Branch include nonprocess cooling
- water, ash basin effluent
- waters, powerhouse waste water, waste treatment plant overflow, reactor process waste water and sanitary waste water, all of which effluents are associ-ated with K-Area operations.
The only additional continuous surface di~~harge to Pen Branch is a small overflow from the sewage treatment basin at the Central Shops Area near the Pen Branch headwaters
- Since November 1976,
- a. USGS flow recorder has been maintained at SRP Road A-13.2 on Pen Branch (Figure 1-3.12; drain.age area 55 km2 ).
During the period 1976-:-1982, the flow at this station ranged from a minimmn of 0.6 m3/ s during a K-Reactor outage to a
maximmn of 26.9 m3/s during simultaneous K-Reactor operation and a I-54
heavy precipitation event.
During water-year 1982, the mean flow rate at this station was 10.8 m3/s, which indicates the magnitude of reactor cooling water discharges on result ing Pen Branch flow rates.
1.3.4.2.5 Steel Creek Steel Creek flows southwesterly for about 7.2 km, then turns to flow almos t due south for about 8.8 km, and enters the river swamp 3 to 5 km from the river.
In the swamp, it is joined by the flow from Pen Branch and part of the flow from the Four Mile Creek.
The drainage area of Steel Creek and its main tributary, Meyers
- Branch, is about 90 square kilometers.
Steel Creek has received cooling water discharges from two reactors.
It currently receives only about 0.4 m3/s of process waste waters and sanitary treatment was te waters at about natural temperature from P Area.
The discharge of cooling water effluent from P Reactor to Steel Creek was discontinued in 1963 when this reactor was switched to cooling with recirculated water from Par Pond; thermal discharge from L
Reactor ceased in 1968 when the reactor was placed in standby condition.
L Lake was constructed on Steel Creek in 1985 and thermal discharges from L Reactor were introduced into L Lake in the fall of 1985.
Discharges to Steel Creek at present result from P-Area, L-Area, and Railroad Yard (Y-Area) discharges.
These effluents are discharged to Steel Creek proper or to Meyers Branch, the principal tributary of Steel Creek.
Types of discharges to Steel Creek at present include ash basin effluent water, nonprocess cooling water, powerhouse waste water, reactor process effluents, sanitary treat-ment plant effluents, water treatment plant wastewaters, and vehicle wash waters.
Since March
- 1974, the USGS has maintained a continuous flow recorder on Steel Creek at Old Hattiesville
- Bridge, which is located about 0.8 km of the confluence with the ons ite swamp (Figure 1-3.12; drainage area 85 km2).
During the period 1974-1982, the minimum recorded flow was 0.24 m3/s and the maximum flow was 13 m3/s.
In water year 1982 the mean discharge at this station was 1.5 m3!s (Lower, 1982).
1.3.4.2.6 Lower Three Runs Creek and Par Pond Lower Three Runs Creek has the second largest watershed of these SRP streams (about 460 square kilometers).
Near its head-waters a
large impoundment, Par
- Pond, has been formed by the cons truct ion of an earthen dam.
The three main arms of the pond I-55
follow the stream bed and drainage areas of the upper reaches of Lower Three Runs Creek and its tributaries, Poplar Branch and Joyce Branch.
From the dam, Lower Three Runs Creek flows in a southerly, then southwes terly course for about 32 kIn to the Savannah River.
Several small tributaries arising off the plantsite flow into the creek in its lower reaches.
Before construction of Par Pond, effluent cooling water from R Reactor was discharged via Joyce Branch to Lower Three Runs Creek.
Following the completion of Par Pond construction in 1958, the overflow to Lower Three Runs Creek has varied, depending on the use of the pond cooling water system by Rand P Reactors.
In 1964, R Reactor was shut down and placed in standby condition.
Even when both Rand P Reactors were using the pond, the temperature of the pond overflow water was near ambient.
During periods of no over-
- flow, about 0.15 m3/s seeps through and under the dam to enter Lower Three Runs Creek (Jacobsen et al., 1972).
When the pond is thermally stratified (primarily during the warmer months) this seepage is usually several degrees cooler than the surface water in the pond.
The Par Pond impoundment covers 2,640 acres to an average depth of about 6 m.
The maximum depth near the dam is about 17 m.
A 14Q-acre portion is separated from the main body by a dam to form the Pond C "precooler",
which is part of the P-Reactor effluent canal system.
There are three major arms in Par Pond (Figure 1-3.13):
the north or upper arm; the middle arm; and the south or lower arm.
The canal systems for conducting the effluent cooling water from P and R Reactors to Par Pond are also shown in Figure 1-3.13.
The P canal system is currently in use, but the R system has not received thermal discharges since 1964.
From P Reactor there are 6.8 km of canals and 5 small impoundments.
The largest impoun4ment bes ides the 14Q-acre precooler covers 36 acres; the total surface area of the small impoundments and canals is 227 acres.
The now-
.unusedRcanalc.system,consists. of. about..5.6.kIlLof.. canals.and....two impoundments, 7.4 and 260 acres in size, respectively.
The total surface area of the system is 285 acres.
In addition to reactor cooling water effluents from P Reactor, Par Pond receives only minor effluents from the P-Area water treat-ment plant and the Par Pond Laboratories.
Ext ens ive discussion of Lower Three Runs Creek and Par Pond is found in Volumes II, III, and VII of this report.
Since May 1974, a USGS flow recorder has been maintained in Lower Three Runs Creek below the Par Pond overflow at SRP Road B.
During the period 1974-1982, the average flow at this station was 0.9 m3/s.
The maximum flow recorded at this location was 4.3 m3/s and the minimum flow was about 0.02 m3/s (Lower, 1982).
I-56
I km Lower Three Runs Creek FIGURE 1-3.13.
'l1le Par Pond System I-57
A second USGS gaging
'station has been maintained near Pattersons Mill on Lower Three Runs Creek (Figure 1-3.12) since March 1974.
During the period 1974-1982, the average flow at this station was 2.6 m3/s.
The maximmn flow recorded at this station was 20.8 m3 /s and the minimum flow was 0.4 m3/s (Lower, 1982).
1.3.4.2.7 SRP Savannah River Swamp On the SRP, a swamp lies in the floodplain along the Savannah River for a distance of about 16 km and averages about 2.4 km wide.
A small embankment or natural levee has built up along the north side of the river from sediments deposited during periods of flood-ing.
On the SRP site of the levee, the ground slopes downward, is
- marshy, and contains large stands of cypress-tupelo forest and bot tomland hardwoods.
During periods of high river level (about 27 m), river water overflows the levee and stream mouths and floods the entire swamp area, leaving only isolated islands that are also inundated during extremely high water levels.
When flow subsides, stagnant pools of water remain, but even with the pools and mean-dering channels, much of the substrate in the swamp is inundated to shallow depths.
Three breaches in the natural levee allow discharge of creek water to the river the mouths of Beaver Dam Creek, Four Mile
- Creek, and Steel Creek.
The Beaver Dam Creek discharge contains the effluent from the D Area coal-fired powerhouse plus part of the Four.Mile Creek flow.
A second break in the levee forms the mouth of Four Mile Creek.
During swamp flooding, the water from these streams flows through the swamp parallel to the river and combines with the Pen Branch flow.
Pen Branch does not discharge directly to the river, but flows through the swamp and joins Steel Creek about 0.8 km above the Steel Creek mouth.
- However, during river flooding
- events, flows from Steel Creek and Pen Branch are also diverted parallel to the
- river, flow across the offsite Creek Plantation swamp and ultimately join the Savannah River flow near Little* Hell Landing.*
Each of the program elements of the. Comprehens ive Cooling Water Study places extens ive focus on gathering ecological data from the onsite swamp system.
1.3.5 Summary The Savannah River Plant (SRP) was acquired by the U.S.
Goverrnnent in the early 1950s to construct a facility for produc-tion of nuclear materials for United States weapons programs.
Most major nuclear material production related facilities were completed and operational by 1954.
These facilities included a fuel fabrica-tion facility, five production reactors, two chemical separations I-58
facilities to remove and purify the required radioisotopes, a heavy water moderator production facility, and a coal-fired electricity/
steam generation facility.
Administrative and support facilities were also constructed.
Initially, all five production reactors, the coal-fired power
- plant, and the heavy water facility were cooled in a once-through mode using water pumped through three intake structures located on the Savannah River.
After passing through the reactor heat exchanger systems (where heat is passed from the primary coolant/
moderator systems to the secondary coolant),
the heated secondary cooling water was released into the nearest surface stream through an engineered discharge canal.
Both the volume of water pumped and the temperature of the discharged effluent tended to increase through the 1950s as reactor power levels were increased.
At peak power
- levels, SRP reactors discharge approximately 11 m3/sec of cooling water at 70 to 75°C.
Numerous changes in reactor operations occurred between 1958 and 1968 with respect to the withdrawal and release of Savannah River water for cooling purposes.
Par Pond was constructed in 1958 to provide recirculating cooling for R and subsequently P Reactors.
Previously, R
Reactor had discharged cooling water into Joyce Branch, a tributary of Lower Three Runs Creek.
An engineered canal
- system, including two precooler
- ponds, carried cooling water into the North Arm of Par Pond until 1964 when R Reactor was placed on standby.
P Reactor discharged cooling water into the upper portions of Steel Creek until 1963.
Beginning in
- 1963, cooling water from P Reactor was discharged into the Middle Arm of Par Pond after passing through a
series of canals and precooler ponds.
Both
- reactors, when operating, received cooling water from an intake structure in the south arm of Par Pond.
Currently, about 10%
of total reactor cooling water requirements must be pumped from the Savannah River to replace losses by evaporation and seepage through the Par Pond Dam into Lower Three Runs Creek.
L Reactor discharged cooling water into Steel Creek from its initiation of operations in 1954 until it was placed on standby in 1968.
- Thus, from 1954 until
- 1963, Steel Creek received cooling water effluents from both Land P Reactors.
Since the restart of L Reactor in October 1985, once-through cooling water is being dis-charged into a 405 hectare (ha) cooling pond (L Lake) constructed on the headwaters of Steel Creek.
After passing through the lake, L-Reactor discharge water follows the Steel Creek channel to the Savannah River.
I-59
K Reactor (1954) and C Reactor (1955) have discharged cooling water into Pen Branch and FourMile
- Creek, respectively, since their operations began.
The upstream portions of Four Mile Creek also receive nonthennal effluents from the separations facilities in F and H Areas.
Cooling water for the coal-fired power plant and heavy water production facilities in D Area was discharged into Beaver Dam Creek.
While the production reactors discharge approximately 11 m3/sec (400 ft 3/sec) at 70°C, combined discharges from the D Area are approximately 3 m3/sec (130 ft 3/sec) at approximately 30°C.
Discharge volumes and temperatures were reduced somewhat in 1982 when the heavy water production facility was shut down.
Beaver Dam Creek also receives surface runoff and possibly ground-water seepage from coal piles and fly ash basins associated with the power plant operation.
Four of the five major stream systems on the SRP have received reactor effluents.
Beaver Dam Creek, a lesser drainage system, has received cooling water releases of a smaller magnitude than those creeks associated with reactor operations (Four Mile
- Creek, Pen
- Branch, Steel Creek, Lower Three Runs Creek).
Only Upper Three Runs Creek has not received cooling water effluent.
Four SRP streams that have received cooling water releases drain into the SRP Savannah River swamp, a 3,800 ha riverine swamp forest border-ing the Savannah River and contained within the SRP boundaries.
Flows from Upper Three Runs and Lower Three Runs Creeks discharge directly into the Savannah River, but these streams have relatively little swamp forest development near the creek mouths.
Water flow, patterns through the SRP Savannah River swamp are complex and change depending on water levels in the Savannah River.
Flows from Beaver Dam and Four Mile Creeks are each associated with distinct breaks in the river levee between the swamp and the Savannah River.
Water temperatures are sometimes higher at the mouth of Beaver Dam Creek then they are upstream near D Area, suggesting that* some-ofthe'flow'fidtn'-the---nearby --Fotir'Mile-*'Creek merges with Beaver Dam Creek flow.
Mos t of the flow from Four Mile Creek ent ers the swamp and travels in a
generally southeas t direct ion before entering the Savannah River after an approximately 3
kilometer (kIn) traverse through the swamp.
As
- noted, a portion of this flow appears to enter the Savannah River along with Beaver Dam Creek water, and a portion of the Four Mile flow continues southeast through the swamp and exits through the next substantial break in the river levee near Steel Creek.
1-60
There is no break in the river levee associated with the flow of Pen Branch into the swamp.
- Rather, flows from Pen Branch enter the swamp and move southeasterly approximately 6-8 km to join with the flow from Steel Creek and exit the swamp.
Flow from Steel Creek enters the swamp and moves through numerous channels across the post-thermal delta for approximately 3
km before entering the Savannah River along with the flow from Pen Branch and part of the flow from Four Mile Creek.
These flow patterns for Beaver Dam Creek, Four Mile Creek, Pen Branch, and Steel Creek are substantially altered when the Savannah River is in flood stage (approximately 28 m above mean sea level).
When the Savannah River floods, water entering the swamp from these four creeks is forced along the northeastern, upland margin of the swamp and enters the Savannah River main channel downstre~ from Steel Creek near Little Hell Landing.
1-61
1-62
,c
1.4 LITEBATURE CITED FOR VOLUME I
- Adams, S. E., M. H.
Smith, and R.
Baccus.
"Biochemical Variation in the American Alligator."
ijerpetologica. 36: 289-296 (1980).
APHA 1980.
Standard Methods'fortheExaminationof Water and Wastewater, 15th Ed.
American MTI'~ Health' Association CAPRA),
Washington, DC (1980).
Carter, M. R., L.
A. Burns, T. R. Cavinder, K.
R. Dugger, P. L. Fore, D.
B.
- Hicks, H.
L.
- Revells, and T.
W.
Schmidt.
"Ecosystems Analysis of the Big Cypress Swamp and Estuaries." USEPA, Region IV, Atlanta, GA (1973).
Chris tl, R.
Beneath Nemours (1964).
J.
Storage of Radioactive Wastes in Basement Rock; the Savannah. River. Plant,
DP-844, E.
1.
du Pont de and Company,'
Savannah River Laboratory,
- Aiken, SC
- Christy, E.
J.
and R.
R.
Sharitz.
"Characteristics of Three Populations of a
Swamp Annual Under Different Temperature Regimes."
Ecology.
61:454-460 (1980).
- Conner, W. H., J.
G.
Gosselink, and R.
T. Parrondo.
"Comparison of the Vegetation of Three Louisiana Swamp Sites with Different Flooding Regimes."
Amer *.:!.~. 68 :320-331 (1981).
- Dabel, C.
V.
and F.
P.
Day.
"Structural Comparisons Communities in the Great Dismal Swamp, Virginia."
Bot. Club. 104:352-360 (1977).
of Four Plant Bu11. Torrey
- Dadswell, M.
J.
"Biology and Population Characteristics of the Shortnose
- Sturgeon, Acipenser b~evirostrum, Le
- Suer, 1918 (Osteichthyes; Acipenseridae); in the saint John. River Estuary."
New Brunswick, Canada, ~'.:!. ~' 57:2186-2210 (1979).
Dadswell, M. J. et a1.
"Synopsis of the Biological Data on Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)."
NOAA Technical
- Report, Sandy Hook, NJ ( 1983).
Dickson, R. E., J. E. Hosner, and N.
W. Hosley.
"The Effects of Four Water. Regimes Upon the Growth of Four Bot tomland Tree Species."
For. Sci. 11:299-305 (1965).
- Dukes, E.
K.
The "Savannah'River Plant Environment, DP-1642, E.
1.
du Pont de Nemours and
- Company, Savannah River Laboratory,
- Aiken, SC (1984).
1-63
- ECS, 1983.
Final Report on the Preliminary Biological Measurement Program in the Savannah River.
1 March Through 31 August 1982.
Environmental and Chemical Sciences, Inc.
Report No.
ECS-SR-2; E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Savannah River.Laboratory,
- Aiken, SC (1983).
- Gibbons, J.
W.
and R.
R.
Sharitz.
"Thermal Alteration of Aquatic Ecosystems."
Amer. sci. 62:660-670 (1974).
Gibbons, J.
W.
and K.
K.
Patterson.
The Reptiles and Amphibians of the Savannah River Plant.
Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Aiken, SC. 24 pp.
(1978).
- Gladden, J.
B.,
M.
W.
- Lower, H.
E.
- Mackey, W.
L.
- Specht, and E.
W.
Wilde.
Comprehensive Cooling Water Study Annual Report:
Volume I, Summary of Environmental Effects.
DP-1697-l, E.
1.
du Porit de Nemours and
- Company, Savannah River L~boratory,
- Aiken, SC (1985).
- Heidt, A.
P.
and R.
J.
Gilbert.
"The Shortnose Sturgeon in the Altamaha River Drainage, Georgia."
Proc. of Rare and Endangered Wildlife Symposium, August 1978.
Georgia Dept.
of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin WL4:54-60 (1978).
Hill, M. O. and H. G. Gauch, Jr.
"Detrended Correspondence Analyses:
an Improved Ordination Technique."
Vegetatio. 42:47-58 (1980).
- Howell, F.
G.
and J.
B.
Gentry.
"Effect of Thermal Effluent from Nuclear Reactors on Species Diversity of Aquat ic Insects."
In:
J.
W.
Gibbons and R.
R.
Sharitz (eds.)
Thermal Ecology, USAEC CONF 730505 (1975).
- Jacobsen, W.
R.,
et al.
Thermal Discharges from the Savannah River
- Plant, DPST-72-428, E.
I.
du Pont de Nemours and
- Company, Savannah River Laboratory, AIken, SC (1972).
- Jenkins, J.
H.
and E.
E.
Provost.
The Population Status of the Larger Vertebrates.. on.. the. Atomic
.. Energy-Commission...Savannah
. RiverPlintsite.
TID19562, p.
145 (1964).
-Jensen, J. R., E. J. Christensen, and R.
R. Sharitz.
"Inland Wetland Mapping Using High Resolution Multispectral Scanner Da.ta."
In:
P.
A*. Murtha and R.
A.
Harding (eds)
Application of Remote Sensing to Resource Management.
Amer.
Soc.
Photogrammetry (1983).
Kahl; M.
P.,
Jr.
"Food americana) in Florida."
Ecology of the Wood Stork (Mycteria Ecol. Monograph. 34:97-117 (1964).
1-64
- Kennedy, H. E., Jr.
"Growth 6fNewly Planted Water Tupelo Seedlings After Flooding and Siltation."
For. Sci.
16:250-256 (1970).
Kushlan,J.
A.
"Sampling Characteristics of Enclosure Fish Traps."
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
110:557-562 (1981).
- Lower, M.
W.
Water Flow Statistics:
- Streams, DPST-82-808, E. I.
du Pont de Nemours and Company, Savannah River Laboratory,
- Aiken, SC (1982).
- Mackey, H.
E.
Environmental Information
- Document, L-Reactor Reactivation:
Supplement Number 1.
DPST-83-470, E.
I.
du Pont de Nemours and
- Company, Savannah River Laboratory,
- Aiken, SC (1983).
Marchette, D.
E.
and R.
Smiley.
"Biology and Life History of Incidentally Captured Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in South Carolina."
(1983).
- Matthews, R.
A.
Biological Surveys on the Savannah River in the Vicinity of theSavanriah River Plant (1951-1976), DP-1531, E. I.
du Pont de Nemours and
- Company, Savannah River Laboratory,
- Aiken, SC (1982).
- Monk, C.
D.
"An Ecological Study of Hardwood Swamps in North Central Florida."
Ecology. 47:649-654 (1966).
- Monk, C.
D.
"Successional and Environmental Relationships of the Forest Vegetation of North Central Florida."
Amer.
Mid!.
Nat.
79:441-457 (1968).
Mueller-Dombois,
D.
tation Ecology.
and H.
Ellenberg.
Aims and Methods of Vege-John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY (1974).
- Murphy, P.
A.
"Ce les t ial CompassOrientat ion in Juveni Ie American Alligators (Alligator mississippiensis)."
Copeia.
1981(3):
638-645 (1981).
Murphy, T. M.
Distribution, Movement,andPopulation Dynamics of the American Alli ator in a Thermall Altered Reservoir.
Master's Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens 1977.
- Murphy, T.
M.
and I.
L. Brisbin, Jr.
"Distribution of Alligators in Responses to Thermal Gradients in a Reactor Cooling Reservoir."
In:
Thermal Ecology, J.
W.
Gibbons and R.
R.
Sharitz (eds.).
AEC Symposium Series (CONF-730505),
pp.
313-321 (1975).
- Murphy, T.
M.,
Jr.
and T.
T.
Fendley.
Trapping of Nuisance Alligators."
and Fish Corom.
27:308-311 (1975).
1-65 "A
New Technique for Live Proc.
Ann.
Conf.,
S.E.
Game
Murphy, T.M.
The Population-Status of the American Alligator at the Savannah River National Environmental Research Park.
SRP-NERP-4 Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Aiken, SC (1981).
- Nessel, J.
K.
Distribution and Dynamics of Organic Matter and Phos horus in a
Sewa e Enriched C press Swam.
M. S.
Thesis.
University of Florida, Gainesville 1978.
- Odum, H.
T.,
K.
C.
Ewe1,
J.
W.
- Ordway, M.
K.
- Johnson, and W.
J.
Mitsch.
"Cypress Wetlands for Water Management, Recycl-
- ing, and Conservation."
Annu~l Report to the Rockefeller Foundation and the National Science Foundation, RANN Division, Center of Wetlands, Unive:rs ity of Florida, Gainesville (1974).
- Odum, H.
T.
and K.
C.
Ewe1 (eds.) *
"Cypress Wet lands for Water Manageme~t, Recycling, andConservat ion. "
Second Annual Report to the Rockerfeller Foundation and the National Science Foundation, RANN Division.
Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville (1975).
- Ogden, J.
C.,J.
A.
Ku~hlan, and J.
T.
Tilmant.
"Prey Selectivity by the Wood Stork."
Condor.
78:324""330 (1976).
Ogden, J. C., J. A. Kushlan, and J. T. Tilmant.
"The Food Habits and Nesting Success of Wood Storks in Everglades National Park 1974."
U.S. Dept. of Interior, Natural Resources Report No.
16, 25 pp.
(1978).
Ogden, J.
C.
and S. A. Nesbitt.
"Recent Wood Stork Population Trends' in the United States."
Wilson Bull.
91:512-523 (1979).
Ogden, J.
C.
and B.
W.
Patty.
"The Recent Status of the Wood Stork in Florida and Georgia."
pp.97-101 In:
Proc.
Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Symposium, Aug.
13-14, 198I'":'""'
Georgia Game and Fish, Dir. Tech. Bull.
WL5 (1981).
Rank.in,.D.W.
Studies. Related.. to the Charleston,.SCEarthquakeof 1886 Introduction and Discussion.
U.S.
Geological Survey Prof. Paper 1028 (1977).
Repaske, W. A..
Effects of Heated Water Effluents on the Swamp Forest at th~
Savannah River
- Plant, South Carolina.
M.S.
- Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens (1981).
- Rulifson, R.
A.
and M.
T.
Huish.
"Anadromous Fish in. the South-eastern United States and Recommendations for Development of a Management Plan."
USFWS-US Dept.
of
- Interior, Washington, DC (1982).
1-66
- Sanders, T.,
et a1.
Design of Water Quality Networks.
State University, Ft. Collins, CO (1983).
Colorado Schlesinger, W.
H.
"Community Structure,
- Dynamics, Cycling in the Okefenokee Cypress Swamp-Forest."
48:43-65 (1978).
and Nutrient Ecol. Monog.
- Sharitz, R.
R.,
J.
W.
- Gibbons, and S.
C.
Gause.
"Impact of Production-Reactor Effluents on Vegetation in a
Southeastern Swamp Forest."
pp.
356-362 In:
R. R. Sharitz and J.
W. Gibbons (eds.),
Thermal Ecology.
A.E.C.
Symposium Series.
Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Aiken, SC (1974a).
- Sharitz, R.
R.,
J.
E.
Irwin; and E.
J.
Swamps Receiving Reactor Effluents."
Chris ty.
"Vegetat ion of Oikos. 25:7-13 (1974b).
- Sherrod, C.,
Jr.,
D.
E.
- Somers, and K.
W.
McLeod.
"Potential for Bald Cypress Establishment in Thermally Altered Streams."
Thermal Biology. 5:107-111 (1980).
Smith, M. H., R. R. Sharitz, Steel Creek Ecosystem L
Reactor.
Savannah SREL-9/UC-66e (1981).
Smith, M. H., R.R. Sharitz, Steel Creek Ecosystem L
Reactor.
Savannah SREL-12/UC-66e (1982).
and J. B. Gladden.
An Evaluation of the in Relation to the Restart of the River Ecology Laboratory,
- Aiken, SC and J. B. Gladden.
An Evaluation of the in Relation to the Restart of the River Ecology Laboratory,
- Aiken, SC
- Straney, D. 0.,
L.
A.
- Briese, and M.
H.
Smith.
Thermal Stress in a
Cypress Swamp."
In:
R. R. Sharitz (eds.), Thermal Ecology USAEC "Bird Divers i ty and J.
W.
Gibbons and CONF-730505 (1975).
- Taubert, B.
D.
"Reproduction of Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in Holyoke Pool, Connecticut River, MA.
- Copeia, 1980(1): 114-117.
U. S.
Department of Energy.
The Savannah River Plant, DOE-SR-0002, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC (1980).
U.S.
Department of Energy.
Environmental Impact Statement:
L-Reactor Operation, Savannah River Plant.
DOE/EIS-0108 (1984).
USEPA.
Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories.
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, EPA-600/4-79-019 (1979).
1-67
Wharton, C. H., H.
T.
- Odum, K~
C.
- Ewe1, M. Deuver, A. Lugo, R. Boyt, J.
Bartholomew, E.
DeBellevue, S.
- Brown, M.
- Brown, and M. Deuver.
"Forested Wetlands of Florida - Their Management and Use."
Final Report to the Division of State Planning.
Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville (1976).
- Wilde, E.
W.
and L.
J.
Tilly.
Influence of P-Reactor Operation on the Aquatic Ecology of Par Pond:
A Literature Review, DP-1698, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Savannah River Laboratory,
- Aiken, SC (1985).
I-68
~,'