ML18017B607

Baseline Monitoring Program Aquatic Biology Unit,1976 & 1977.

ML18017B607
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	07/31/1978
From:	Cullen M, Hobbs R, Sager D CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML18017B605	List: ML18017B604 ML18017B606 ML18017B607 ML18017B608 ML18017B609
References
NUDOCS 8202170483
Download: ML18017B607 (465)

Text

8202i70483' PDR ADQC K'05000~0~

P ANNUAL RE SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT BASELINE MONITORING PROGRAM AQUATIC BIOLOGY UNIT 1976 February, 1978 Prepared By:

Maureen Cullen Ron Hobbs Dave Sager Frank Panek Reviewed and Approved By:

William T. Hogarth Principal Scientist Aquatic Biology Unit

l, I

II' 4

'I

Table of Contents Page List of Tables List of Figures Fisheries Program 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Fisheries Sampling Locations 2.1 River Transects 2.2 Stream Stations 3.0 Cape Fear River Studies 3.1 Materials and Methods 3.2 Species Composition 3.2.1 Electrofishing Results 3.2.2 Fyke Net Results 3.2.3 Wire Basket Results 3.3 Indices of Faunal Similarity 10 3.4 Species Diversity and Equitability Estimates 12 4.0 Stream Studies 4.1 Materials and Methods 13 4.2 Species Composition 13 4.2.1 Thomas Creek Ichthyofauna 4.2.2 Cary Creek Ichthyofauna 23 4.2.3 Buckhorn Creek Ichthyofauna 24 4.3 Species Diversity and Equitability Estimates 26 5.0 Age and Growth Studies 26 5.1 Materials and Methods 26 5.2 Growth of Bluegill 34 5.3 Growth of Largemouth Bass 34 5.4 Growth of Snail Bullhead 34 6.0 Literature Cited 39

Table of Contents (cont'd.)

Page Periphyton Program 42 Introduction 42 Materials and Methods 43 Descriptions of Stations Established, June, 1975 46 Results and Discussion 47 Conclusions 98 Literature Cited 100 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Program 101 3.1 Introduction 101 3.2 Materials and Methods 102 3.3 Descriptions of Stations Established, June, 1975 105 3.4 Results and Discussion 106 3.5 Conclusion 123 3.6 Literature Cited 125 Program Recommendations 126

LIST OF TABLES Table Page Common and scientific names of fishes collected from the Cape Fear River and SHNPP site Comparisons of collections made from 1973 to 1976 in the Cape Fear River 16 List of species, numbers, and weights of fishes taken by electrofishing in the Cape Fear River along Transect A during 1976 17 List of species, numbers, and weights of fishes taken by electrofishing in the Cape Fear River along Transect BC during 1976 18 List of species, numbers, and weights of fishes taken by electrofishing in the Cape Fear River along Transect D during 1976 19 Number and weight (grams) of fishes caught in fyke nets per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of effort in the Cape Fear River at Transects A, BC, and D during 1976 20 Number and weight of fishes caught in wire baskets per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> effort in the Cape Fear River at Transects A, BC, and D during 1976 21 Diversity and equitability estimates for sampling locations in the study area during 1976 22 List of species found at Stream Stations BK-2, BK-3, CC-1, and LW-8 during 1976 28 10 List of species, numbers, and weights of fishes taken by electrofishing at Station LW-8 during 1976 29 List of species, numbers, and weights of fishes taken by electrofishing at Station CC-1 during 1976 30 12 L'ist of species, numbers, and weights of fishes taken by electrofishing at Station BK-2 during 1976 13 List of species, numbers, and weights of fishes taken by electrofishing at Station BK-3 during 1976 32

List of Tables (cont'd)

Table Page 14 Back calculated total length (mm at annulus formation for the bluegill from 1975 through 1976 33 15 Back calculated total length (mm) at annulus formation for the largemouth bass from 1975 through 1976 36 16 Back calculated total length (mm) at annulus formation for the snail bullhead from 1975 through 1976 37 Mean calculated total lengths at annulus formation for the bluegill, largemouth bass, and snail bullhead in the SHNPP site as compared with data collected from North Carolina lakes ,38 18 Numerically dominant taxa in the Cape Fear River and selected tributaries (June and December, 1975 and June, 1976) 48 19 Average diatom percentages from "Aufwuch" slides in the Cape Fear River, Transect A 51 20 Average diatom percentages from "Aufwuch" slides in the Cape Fear River, Transect B 56 21 Average diatom percentages'rom "Aufwuch" slides in the Cape Fear River, Transect C 61 22 Averages diatom percentages from "Aufwuch" slides in the Cape Fear River, Transect D 67 23 Average diatom percentages from "Aufwuch" slides in Thomas Creek, LW-8 72 24 Average diatom percentages from "Aufwuch" slides in Buckhorn Creek, BK-2 79 Average diatom percentages from "Aufwuch" slides in Buckhorn Creek, BK-3 84 26 Average diatom percentages from "Aufwuch" slides in Cary Creek, CC-1 89

List of Tables (cont'd)

Page 27 Species list of non-diatom algae found in the Cape Fear River and selected tributaries, April, 1975 June, 1976 95 I

28 Total number of species listed by family at the Cape Fear River transects and Stream Stations 97 3.1 Benthic taxa collected from Shearon Harris study area April, 1975 June, 1976 107 3 ' Total mean numbers of benthic organisms/m 2 of selected taxa collected at stations located on Transects A, B, and C, April and May, 1975 at SHNPP 114 3.3 Total mean numbers of benthic organisms/m 2 of selected taxa collected at stations located on transects A, B, and C, June 1975 to June 1976 at SHNPP 115 3.4 Total mean numbers of benthic organisms/m 2 of selected taxa at stations located on Transect D, April, 1975, to June, 1976, at SHNPP 117 3.5 Total number of benthic taxa listed by order collected at river transects and stream stations 120 3.6 2 Total mean numbers of benthic organisms/m of selected taxa at creek stations 121

LIST OF FIGURES

~F1 ere Page Locations of existing and proposed fishery sampling transects and stations Aquatic transects and sampling points Aquatic transects and sampling points 103

Fisheries Pro ram 1.0 Introduction Studies designed to evaluate the environmental impact of the construction and operation of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (Units //1, 82, /33, and 84) began in 1972 with the baseline biological surveys of Aquatic Control, Inc. These baseline studies provided data on the species composition, abundance, and distribution of fishes in the Buckhorn Creek-Mhiteoak Creek watershed and in the Cape Fear River (Aquatic Control, 1973, 1975, and 1976) . Prior surveys in the area were conducted by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Louder, 1963) and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (Huber, 1969).

In 1975 the Company delayed start-up of the plant until 1984; After realizing that sufficient baseline biological studies had been compiled by Aquatic Control, the Environmental Technology Section reconsidered the study program and developed an interim study program.

This program was designed to provide meaningful continuity between previous baseline studies and those studies scheduled to begin when construction resumed. This report summarizes the data collected during 1976 as part of this interim study and makes some recommendations for changes in the program for construction monitoring.

2.0 Fisheries Sam lin Locations In order to meet the ob)ectives of our study program, sampling locations were designated in the Cape Fear River and at selected stream stations. Th'ese sampling locations and a brief description of the habitat at each location is included below.

,2.1 'River Transects-'ransect A is located in Harnett County approximately 0.8 }an below the'outh of Daniels Creek, or 1.9 km south of the Chatham and Harnett county line. The transect is located just upstream of a small island. At this location'the river typically has slow to moderate flow. The'ubstrate is bedrock with',abundant boulders and rock-along with, some sandy areas.'ransect BC is located in Chatham and Lee counties, approxi-mately 0.1 km north of the confluence of Buckhorn Creek and the'ape Fear River. The area consists of some swift riffle zones and some extensive pool zones immediately downstream of these riffles. The substrate in the area is bedrock and large boulders.

Transect D is located in Chatham and Lee counties, just above Buckhorn Dam. The current is usually slow with water depths reaching 4.5 meters (Aquatic Control, 1975) . The habitat at this transect is more lentic than those areas downstream of the dam and the fisheries fauna of the area, as will be shown later, reflects these major habitat differences. Transect D is located in the region of the discharge canal of the Cape Fear Electric Plant.

2.2 Stream:Stations Stream station BK-2 is located on Buckhorn Creek in Chatham County approximately,3.0 Rm south of Corinth downstream of the proposed impoundment. The stream at this location is a slow-moving bottomlands creek with evidence of considerable silt loading. The bottom substrate is mostly sand with limited areas of gravel and rock.

Stream station BK-3 is located on Buckhorn Creek in Wake County on SSR 1116 approximately 2.8 km southwest of Holleman's Crossroads. This station is located in the upper headwater reaches of the stream which has a moderate gradient with rock and gravel

'substrates. The water rarely becomes turbid. This station functions as a control in that it is physically outside of any influence of plant construction and will not be inundated when the 4000-acre impoundment is flooded.

Stream station CC-1 is located on Cary Creek in Wake County on SSR 1127 approximately 1 km southeast of Holleman's Crossroads.

This small stream flows through pastureland and typically has a shallow gradient and low flow. Some riffle zones are interspersed among the shallow pools. The substrate is mostly sand with some rock and gravel present. This station is also considered as a control station for the evaluation of any impact resulting from construction activities, since it will not be inundated.

Stream station LW-8 is located on Thomas Creek in Wake County on SSR 1139 approximately 13.9 km northeast of Fuquay-Varina inside the proposed impounded area. This stream has steep shorelines that are rather heavily wooded and receives considerable run-off from the plant site. Log jams are abundant and probably resulted from prior extensive logging areas near this transect (Aquatic Control, 1976).'he substrates of Thomas Creek are primarily silt and sand.

Figure 1 illustrates the relative positions of these sampling locations to each other and to the plant site.

0 r+

o>T CC-1 B

~E u

TRANSECTS OBK

~ STATIONS D

Buckhor jn '

oem BC n 0 x I 2 SCALE IN IIILES CAROLINAPOWER 5 LIGHT COMPANY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POVlER PLANT UNITS 1,2,3 & 4 Locations of existing and proposed fisheries sanpling transects and stations.

- 4 FIGURE I

3.0 . Ca e'Fear:River 'Studies 3.1'aterials and Methods During February, May, and.November of 1976 samples of fishes present in, the'ape Fear River were collected't river Transects A, BC, and D. Each transect was sampled with a boat mounted Smith Root Type VI Electrofisher or a Type V Backpack.Electrofisher. Sampling effort was limited to thirty minutes't each transect. As a result of the low water levels present during February and November, it was necessary .to sample at river Transects A and BC using a backpack electrofisher.

In addition, each river transect was sampled with two (2) fyke nets and two (2) wire baskets for approximately 48,.hours. All fyke nets were four feet deep with a 20-foot center lead. The net was constructed of lg-inch bar mesh. Wire baskets were two feet in diameter and made of one-inch chicken wire.

All fishes collected and processed in the field were identified to the species, total length measurements made to the nearest millimeter and weight determined to the nearest gram. Large specimens were pro-cessed in the field, tagged with a numbered Floy 67F anchor tag, and released in order to provide data. on fish movement within the'ite area.

Small specimens and others requiring laboratory identification were in 10% formalin in the field. Weights of preserved specimens 'reserved were taken to,the'earest O.l gram.

3.2 S ecies Com osition Studies of the ichthyofauna of the Cape Feax River began in 1973 with the baseline studies of Aquatic Control, Inc. These studies and others conducted into 1976 have identified a total of 47 species of fishes from the Cap'e Fear River within the site area (Table 2).

A total of 62 species have been identified from the Cape Fear River and stream stations within the site area (Table 1). This high number of species reflect the location of the site area in the fall zone, the major tx'ansition area between the Piedmont and Coastal Plain provinces.

The ichthyofauna of the fall zone typically is species rich and includes species common to both upland habitats and coastal plain habitats. The presence of Buckhorn Dam provides for a semi-lentic habitat immediately upstream of the dam in contrast to the typically lotic stream habitat below the dam. This diversity in habitat resulting from the presence of the dam and the location of the site area in the fall zone, contributes to the high number of species in the area.

Studies completed during 1976 yielded a total of 38 species from the river. Species encountered during this survey that were not previously reported by Aquatic Control, Inc., included the whitemouth shiner (~Notro is alborus), spotted sucker (~Min trams ~melano s), yellow Of special interest is the presence of the flathead catfish (Table 1). Four specimens of flathead catfish were taken in fyke nets s

at Transect A during the May, 1976. sample. These catfish are. endemic to the Mississippi drainage;.however, they were stocked in the'ape Fear River by'he N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission during. the 1960's.

collected'uring 1974-1975 hy Aquatic Control and represented the only rare, endangered, or'threatened'pecies encountered in the study program. This species is endemic to this area having a very restricted distribution (Snelson, 1971) and is listed as an endangered species on the Preliminary List of Endangered Plant and Animal Species in North Carolina (1973).

A comparison of the species encountered in the three survey periods (1973-74, 1974-75, and 1976) illustrate that no major changes have occurred in the'chthyofaunal composition of the river (Table 2).

3.2.1 Electrofishin Results Electrofishing along Transect A yielded a total of 24. species representing 218 individuals and 23564 grams. Based upon the total yearly catch, the numerically dominant species present were the sandbar shiner, whitefin shiner, bluegill, green sunfish, spottail shiner, and redbreast sunfish (Table 3). Dominance, for purposes of this report, is defined as those species whose individuals comprise 5% or more of the total catch by number. These six dominant species represented 76.6% of the total number of fishes captured and 7.6% of the total biomass;'hose species that contributed the largest portion of the biomass- at this transect, were not numerically dominant, and included the carp, shorthead redhorse,

silver redhorse, longnose gar, and channel catfish (Table 3).

At river Transect BC, a total of 26 species were represented in the yearly catch. A total of 343 individuals were collected at this transect representing a combined weight of 44678 grams (Table 4).

The numerically dominant species included the spottail shiner, comely shiner, whitefin shiner, sanbar shiner, gizzard shad, American eel, snail bullhead, bluegill, redbreast, and green sunfish (Table 4). These species represented 78.7% of the total abundance and 28.6% of the total biomass of fishes collected. The dominant species by weight were not always numerically dominant and included the silver redhorse, shorthead redhorse, longnose gar, gizzard shad, and largemouth bass (Table 4) .

As indicated by these data (Tables 3 and 4), river Transects A and BC have ichthyofaunas typical of what would be expected in lotic environments. Numerically, the fish fauna of this region of the river is dominated by cyprinids and centrarchids. These results are in general agreement with results of previous studies (Aquatic Control, Inc., 1973, 1975, 1976) and indicate that very little if any changes have occurred to affect the species composition.

At river Transect D, above Buckhorn Dam, the habitat is considerably different from that at Transects BC and A and the species composition reflects this difference. A total of 17 species were collected at this transect during 1976 (Table 5) . The numerically dominant species included the bluegill, largemouth bass, redbreast sunfish, and gizzard shad. These species comprised 83.7% of the total number of fishes collected and 40.4% of the weight. The dominant species

by, weight't. this transect included'he',carp, largemouth.bass', gizzard shad, silver'edhorse, and bluegill. .As evidenced" in .the data in Table 5, the'auna above the dam is dominated by..centrarchids and differs from the cyprinid-centrarchid fishery prevalent below the dam.

Catches of fishes in fyke nets (Table -6) ranged from 0.25, to 16.26 fish/day during 1976 and were different from electrofishing data in that the" largest catches consistently occurred at Transect D. The highest catch of 16.26 fish/day occurred at this transect during a period of flood'onditions in January of 1976. This high catch may reflect the behavior of"fishes to seek areas of lowest flow along the'iver banks during flood conditions thus increasing the probability of capture in hoop nets. During this same, period the four hoop nets present at Transects A and BC below the dam were washed downstream and both the'ear and samples lost.

Ten species were taken from the nets at Transect D, 4 species at Transect BC, and 5 species at Transect A. Ictalurids dominated the catch at all transects. Species caught in hoop nets that were not present in electrofishing samples included the flathead catfish, black bullhead, white crappie, and black crappie.

3.2.3 Mire:Basket Results Catch of'fishes in the wire baskets was generally low with

the exception of'the January sample at Transect D. Five;species h

representing a catch of 2.75: fish/day and 60.35'rams/day were

'I taken't Transect D at this time (Table 7). This was the highest catch rate encountered during 1976 and occurred at the sampling station and time that an unusually high catch rate. occurred in the ryke nets. Wire basket" catches at other stations were either insignificant or absent.

The low sampling efficiency of these. baskets in the Cape Fear River r

suggests that they might be deleted from the sampling program with little or no consequences to the program.

3.3'ndices of"Faunal'Similarit Since electrofishing has been found to be probably the most efficient and least biased estimator'(except for ictalurids) of the Cape Pear River icthyofauna (Aquatic Control, 1976), comparisons of the species composition and abundances among transects were made using comparative indices of community similarity. The overlap index (C )

of Horn (1966) and Jaccard's Index (R) (Jaccard, 1908) were computed using the electrofisher data.

V The formula for computation of C are provided below.

s S E

i-1 xi 2

i1 E

yi y

x2 Y2 s

E

=

CX 2i 1 iyi (X

x +Ay )XY where:

s = number'f species individuals of the' th in 1

and y.i = number of species community X and Y X and Y total number of individuals in, the two communitiesnd g = measures of diversity' y

C = Index of faunal overlap Values of C range from 0 to 1 with values of zero indicating that the

'wo communities are completely dissimilar while a value of one indicates that the communities are identical. Jaccard's Index ranges from 0%

similarity to 100%. similarity and is calculated using the following relationship.

R C x 100 N "j N

where:

R ~ Jaccard's Index i

N. = number of species in population 1 N. = number of species in population 2 j .,

C = number of species in common between N and N As evidenced by the data presented below, Transects BC and A are very similar and both these transects were. quite different in faunal composi-tion from Transect D. This would be expected due to habitat differences

existing between'ransect D and other transects downstream of .Buckhorn Dam. These indices'ill be valuable as a basis of comparing the'hanges in the fauna of the'iver that might occur once construction commences.

Transects" A 'C 0.703 66.67 D 'A ,0.425 45.83 D 'BC 0. 421. 30'. 30 3.4 '. Diversit. 'and:E uitabilit 'Estimates Shannon-Weaver diversity (d), maximum diversity (d max), and equitability (e) were computed using river electrofishing data. Formulae and computations follow those reported in Weber, 1973. These values along. with the indices above will be used to delineate the differences in the species composition among transects. As evidenced by the data presented in Table 8, highest diversity occurred at Transect BC and the lowest at Transect D. Transects BC and A below Buckhorn Dam were similar with respect to diversity values (3.56 and 4.06 respectively) and both these areas different from Transect D. The diversity (d = 2.37).

at Transect D was considerably lower than predicted maximum value (d max = 8.20) . Deviation from d max was greater at Transect D than at any other Location in the study area.

Equitability, which is a measure of the distribution of individuals among species, was poorest at Transect D and best at Transect BC. It is probable that these- differences'n diversity'nd equitability'etween the'rea above the dam (Transect D) and those 12-

below (Transecta BC and A} reflect the. large differences in habitat type.

4.0*'Stream'Studies 4.1 "'Mater'ials 'and 'MetIiods During February, May, and November of 1976, samples of fishes present at Stream Stations BK-2, BK-3, CC-1, and LW-8 were collected using a Smith Root Type V Backpack Electrofisher. Collections were made in a 100-meter section of stream at each sampling location.

All fishes collected and processed in the field were identifed by species, total length measurements made to the nearest millimeter, and weight determined to the nearest gram. Large specimens were processed in the field, tagged with a numbered Ploy 67-P anchor tag, and released in order to provide data on fish movement within the site area. Small specimens and others requiring laboratory identification were preserved in 10/ formalin in the field. Weights of preserved specimens were taken to the nearest 0.1 gram.

4.2 S ecies Com osition A total of 1923 individuals representing 45 species were collected from Stations LW-8, CC-l, BK-2, and BK-3 during 1976. The number of species found at each station ranged from 12 at LW-8 to 30 species at BK-2 (Table 9).

Table 1: Common and scientific names of fishes collected from the Cape Fear River and SHNPP site Common Name Scientific Name Lepisosteidae

1. Longnose gar Le isosteus osseus Amiidae

2. Bowfin Amia calva Anguillidae

3. American eel An uilla rostrata Clupeidae

4. American shad Alosa sa idissima

5. Gizzard shad Dorosoma ce edianum Escocidae

6. Chain pickerel

7. Redfin pickerel E. americanus americanus Cyprinidae

8. Rosyside dace Clinostomus funduloides

9. Carp C rinus car io

10. Bluehead chub Nocomis le toce halus

11. Golden shiner Notemi onous cr soleucas

12. White shiner Notro is albeolus

13. Whitemouth shiner N. alborus

14. Highfin shiner

15. Comely shiner N. amoenus

16. Satinfin shiner N. analostanus

17. Crescent shiner N. cerasinus

18. Spottail shiner N. hudsonius

19. Whitetail shiner

20. Yellowfin shiner

21. Cape Fear shiner N. mekistocholas

22. Whitefin shiner N. niveus

23. Coastal shiner

24. Swallowtail shiner ~N. rocne

25. Sandbar shiner

26. Mimic shiner N. volucellus

27. Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Catostomidae

28. Highfin carpsucker Car iodes velifer

29. Northern hogsucker H entilium ni icans

30. Creek chubsucker Erim zon oblon us

31. Spotted sucker Min trema melano s

32. Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum

33. Shorthead redhorse M. macrole idotum

34. Striped jumprock M. ru iscartes Ictaluridae

35. Snail bullhead Ictalurus brunneus

36. White catfish I. catus

37. Black bullhead I. melas

- 14

38. Yellow bullhead I. natalis

39. Brown bullhead I. nebulosus

40. Channel catfish

41. Flat bullhead I. lat ce halus

42. Flathead catfish P lodictis olivaris

43. Tadpole madtom Noturus rinus

44. Margined madtom Cyprinodontidae

45. Northern studfish Fundulus catenatus

46. Speckled killifish F. rathbuni Poecilidae

47. Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis Centrarchidae

48. Mud sunfish Acantharcus omotis

49. Flier Centrarchus macro terus

50. Bluespotted sunfish Enneacanthus loriosus

51. Redbreast sunfish Le omis auritus 52.. Green sunfish

53. Pumpkinseed L. ibbosus

54. Warmouth

55. Bluegill L. macrochirus

56. Dollar sunfish

57. Redear sunfish L. microlo hus

58. Largemouth bass Micro terus salmoides

59. White crappie Pomoxis annularis

60. Black crappie P. ni romaculatus Percidae

61. Tessalated darter Etheostoma olmstedi

62. Piedmont darter Percina crassa Table 2: Comparisons of collections made from 1973 to 1976 in the Cape Pear River Species 1973-1974* 1974-1975* 1976 Le isosteus osseus X Z Z Amia calve X X X An uilla rostrata X X X Alosa sa ldisslma Z Dorosoma ce edianum X X

~csea 1 ec C rinus ca io X X Nocomis le tace halus X Notemi onus c soleucas X X LVotro is albeolus X N. alborus X

~a. *los annie X N. a oenus X X X N. analostanus R X X N. hudsonius X X X LV. mekistocholas X N. niveus X X X

~H. ececsonl X

~l. coc X X

~N. sce clc s X iC X LV. volucellus X Car iodes velifer Z X Noxostoma anisurum X macrole idotum X Z trema melano s X Ictalurus brunneus R X Z

l. cacus X X X

1. osl X

1. calle X Z. nebulosus X

~z. nscaccs X X P lodictis olivaris X Noturus insi nis X X X Gambusia affinis X Z Enneacanthus loriosus X Le omis auritus Z

~L. s ell X

~L. Lao X X

~Laos $ X L. macrochirus X

~L. aac la cos X X LVicro terus salmoides X Z Pomoxis annularis X X..

P. ni romaculatus R Ktheostoma olmstedi X Percina crassa X X Totals 35 31 38

• (from Aquatic Control, Inc. 1976)

Table 3: List of species, numbers and weights, of fishes taken by electrofishing the Cape Fear River along Transect A during 1976 Date: 2-19-76** 5-24-76* 11-4-76** Total No. Wgt(g) No. Wgt(g) No. Wgt(g) No. Wgt(g)

~Secies Le isosteus osseus 2580.0 4 2580.0 An uilla rostrata 42.0 240.0 493.4 9 775.4 Dorosoma ce edianum 3.9 2 3.9 C rinus car io 4800.0 1 4800.0 Notro is amoenus 16.0 7 16.0 N. analostanus 2.0 1 2.0 N. hudsonius 4 17.9 13 47.4 17 65.3 N. niveus 23 45.1 14 28.8 37 73.9 40 115.2 40 115.2 Car iodes car io 1 518.0 1 518.0 Min trema melano s 1134,0 1 1134.0 Moxostoma anisurum 2 3144.0 2 3144.0 H. macrole idotum 4 4276.0 4 4276.0 Ictalurus catus 1 1272.0 1 1272.0 I. brunneus 762.0 5 762.0 I. natalis 8.2 2 8.2 2 1582.0 2 1582.0 Le omis auritus 11 535 0

~ 220. 0 1 48.0 13 803.0 L. c anellus 1 1.8 23 39.5 24 41.3 21.0 1 21.0 L. macrochirus 643.0 12.0 26 40,6 36 695.6 Micro terus salmoides 746.0 1.0 3 120. 0 5 867.0 Etheostoma olmstedi 1.8 1 1.8 Percina crassa 6.7 2 6.7 Subtotal = 75 15427. 3 12 6058.0 131 2079.0 218 23564.3

• gear type Smith Root Type V backpack electrofisher

• • gear type Smith Root Type VI boat-mounted electrofisher

Table 4: List of species, numbers, and weights of fishes taken by electrofishing in the Cape Fear River along Transect BC during 1976.

-Date: 2-19-76** 5-26-76* 11-4-76** Total No. Wgt(g) No. Wgt (g) No. Wgt (g) No. Wgt (g)

~Neciee Le isosteus osseus 12 7261.0 12 7261.0 Amia calva 1 1418.0 1 1418.0 An uilla rostrata 2 37.0 17 504.0 2 33.3 21 574.3 Dorosoma ce edianum 10 5117.0 19 1130.0 29 6247.0 Notro us alborus 9 64.4 9 64.4 N. amoenus 14 46.5 5 5.7 19 52.2 N. hudsonius 6 39.4 35 194.0 41 233.4 N. niveus 7 23.1 12 20.8 19 43.9

~N. rocne 1 1.4 1 1.4 18 59.8 18 59.8 Moxostoma anisurum 6 8146.0 6 8146.0 M. macrole idotum 4 4188.0 4 4188.0 Ictalurus catus 1 1188.0 1 10.0 2 1198.0 I. brunneus 2 37. 0 21 1186.0 10 378. 0 33 1601.0 I. 1st ce halus 3 125.0 3 125.0 I. natalis 2 8.2 2 8.2 830.0 1 120. 0 1 964.0 4 1914.0 Noturus insi nis 1 4.6 1 4.6 Le omis auritus 424.0 4 321. 0 22 1547.5 31 2292.5 3 42. 9 19 45. 6 22 88.5 1 30.0 1 120.0 2 150.0 L. macrochirus 652. 0 27 467.0 7 464.9 37 1583.9 L. microlo hus 3 1554.0 3 1554.0-Micro terus salmoides 2726.0 2 3097.0 5 5823.0 Etheostoma olmstedi 1 1.3 1 1.0 2 2.3 Percina crassa 3.4 3 13.3 12 26. 2 16 42.9 Subtotal = 79 32136.4 92 2890.8 172 9651.4 343 44678.6

• gear type Smith Root Type V backpack electrofisher

• • gear type Smith Root Type VI boat-mounted electrofisher

Table 5: List of species, numbers, and weights of fishes taken by electrofishing in the Cape Fear River along Transect D during 1976.

Date: 2-19-.76 5-26-76 11-4-76 Total No. Wgt(g) No. Wgt(g) No. Wgt(g) No. Wgt(g)

~Secles Dorosoma ce edianum 1272.0 58.0 63 . 3948.3 68 5278.3 C rinus car io 15886.0 3 15886.0 Notemi onus cr soleucas 14 84.1 14 84.1 Notro is amoenus 4 1.7 4 1.7 N. hudsonius 1 1.1 1 1.1 N. niveus 2 3.2 2 3.2 Moxostoma anisurum 1 27.5 1 27.5 Ictalurus catus 1732.0 182.0 1 372.0 3 2286.0 I. nebulosus 420.0 1 420.0 Gambusia affinis 2.0 4 2.4 6 4.4 Enneacanthus loriosus 1 4.7 1 4.7 Le omis auritus 15 99. 7 15 99.7 L. c anellus 1 10. 0 1 10.0 157.0 2 29. 0 246. 8 10 432.8 1 32.0 1 32.0 L. macrochirus 12 296.0 15 453.0 120 420.0 147 1169.0 Micro terus salmoides 3 1240.0 2 2.0 12 5232.0 17 6472.0 Subtotal = 26 20583. 0 26 1188.0 243 10443.5 295 32214.5

Table 6: Number and weight (grams) of fishes caught in fyke nets per 24-hours of effort in the Cape Fear River at Transects A, BC, and D during 1976.

Transect A Date: 1-26-76 5-26-76 11-5-76

~Secures No. Mgt. No. Mgt. No. Ngt.

Ictalurus catus 0.96 897.4 2.40 2103.7 Pvlodictis olivaris I IN II 0.95 6053.2 Le amis auritus "Sample", 1.03 153.8 L. macrochirus 0.48 92.1 Total 4.79 9146.4 1.03 153.8 Transect BC Date: 1-26-76 5-26-76 11>>5-76

~secces No. Mgt. ho 1 gt. No. Ngt.

Le isosteus osseus 0.23 227.4 Ictalurus brunneus "No" 0.26 107.0 I catus "Sample" 0.23 148.1 Nictooterus salmoides 0.23 191.3 Total 0.69 566.8 0.26 107.0 Transect D Date: 1-29-76 5-27-76 11-5-76

~Secies No. Vgt. No. Vgt. No. t'gt.

s Ictalurus brunneus 0. 76 263. 2 I. catus 10. 51 4590.5 0.25 51.7 I. melas 0.25 105.1 6.05 2255.0 I. '5 I'at I.

nebulosus ce halus unctatus 2

0.50 1.25 1075.1 140.1 1308. 9.

0.25 117.0 Le o"is auritus 0.75 93.6 L. =acrochirus 1.51 197.1 Pomp@is annularis 0.50 90.8 P. ni ro aculatus 0.25 40.0 0.50 127.3 Total 16.26 7353.3 0.25 117.0 9. 57 2925.1 RP:bn 2/l/77

Table 7: Number and weight of fishes caught in wire baskets per 24-hours of effort in the Cape Fear River at Transects A, BC, and D during 1976.

Transect A Date: 1-26-76 5-26-76 11-5-76

~Sec ice No. Wt. (g) No. Wt. (g) No. Wt. (g) gear lost no catch no catch Transect BC Date: 1-26-76 5-26-76 11-5-76

, ~Secies No. Wt. (g) No. Wt. (g) No. Wt. (g)

Le omis c anellus gear lost 0. 23 5.36 no catch Total 0.23 5.36 Transect D Date: r 1-29-76 5-27-76 11-5-76

~Secies No. Wt. (g) No. Wt. (g) No. Wt. (g)

Notemi onus cr soleucas 0.25 21.5 no catch no catch Ictalurus brunneus 1.50 390.9 I. catus 0.50 130.6 I. lat ce halus 0.25 45 '

I. unctatus 0.25 15.0 Total 2.75 603.5

Table 8: Diversity and equitability estimates for sampling locations in the study area during 1976 River Transects Stream Stations BC LW-8 CC-1 BK-2 BK-3 d 3.56 4.06 2.37 3.39 3.13 3.89 4.43 dmax 7.77 8.42 8.20 6.25 8.69 9. 82 9.04 0.71 0. 92 0.41 1.15 0.63 0. 70 l. 23 218 343 295 76 414 905 528 24 26 17 12 19 30 26 WHERE: d = Shannon-Weaver Diversity Function dmax = Maximum Diversity e = equitability n = number of individuals in sample s = number of species in sample

4.2.1 Thomas Creek Ichth ofauna The dominant fishes found in Thomas Creek at Station LW-8 included the white shiner, creek chubsucker, pirate perch, flier, green sunfish, and pumpkinseed. These species accounted for 76/ of the total number of fishes collected (76 individuals representing 13 species) and 78.9/ of the total weight (Table 10). The results obtained during this survey were in general agreement with previous studies (Aquatic Control, 1975). The mud sunfish (Aoanthartus pomotis) was not pre-viously identified from this stream.. This creek is subject to varying water levels and remains turbid throughout the year. The poor water quality of this creek probably accounts for the low relative abundance and poor species composition of the ichthyofauna. Noticeably absent from the species list for this station are the usually large numbers and diversity of cyprinids common to other stations in the site area.

4.2.2 Car Creek Ichth ofauna A total of 414 individuals representing 19 species were accounted for in Cary Creek (CC-1) during 1976. The numerically dominant species included the highfin shiner, creek chubsucker, tesselated darter, white shiner, and redbreast sunfish. These species represented 71.3/ of the total number of fishes in the samples and 69.8/ of the biomass (Table ll). Station CC-1 is located in an area outside of any direct influence of plant construction and is a control station for monitoring construction effects on the ichthyofauna of the area. Cary Creek has a moderate to high gradient with little or no evidence of siltation'. Mater genexally runs clear over a substrate of bedrock, gravel, and coarse sand (Aquatic Control, 1972)..

4.2.3Buckhorn'Creek'Ichth'ofauna Samples from Buckhorn Creek contained the greatest number of species of any stxeam sampled during 1976. Collections at Buckhorn Creek are made at two very different stations, BK-2 and BK-3. Station BK-3 is 1ocated in the headwaters and functions as a control station in that it is outside of any influence of plant construction. This station has rock, gravel, and sand*substrates and consists of a series of riffle and pool zones. The gxadient at this station is moderate to steep. During 1976 a total of 528 individuals were collected representing 26 species. The numerically dominant species included the American eel, rosyside dace, bluehead chub, white shiner, red-breast sunfish, bluegill, and tesselated darter (Table 11). These species totaled 70.1% by number and 51.5% by weight of the fishes collected.

Station BK-2 which is near the confluence of Buckhorn Creek and the Cape Pear River, is in a lowland area downstream of the pro-posed dam site and upstream of a dike from a decommissioned hydro-electric plant. The waters of Buckhorn Creek were impounded in 1905 to provide a water supply for this hydroelectric plant. Mhen the plant was decommissioned in 1965, the river entrance to Buckhorn Creek was blocked by an earthen dam (Aquatic Control, 1973). This dam effectively blocks all migration of fishes from the main river into the creek. The stream at this location is heavily silted II and

has, a predominantly sand substrate. A total of 905, ipdiyiduals, representing 3Q. species mre collected at. this station'n 1976.

The dominant species at this station included the whitemouth shiner, highfin shiner, whitefin shiner, swallowtail shiner B sandbar shiner, yellowfin shiner, speckled killifis h , and redbreast sunfish able 12).

((Table These species totaled 75.2X, of the fishes collected and represented 39.1X of thee species s by weight. As evidenced by the data (Table 12) the ichthyofauna of Buckhorn Creek is pr inc ipally 1 composed of cyprinids and centrarcbids.s. This T is in general agreement with the baseline studies of Aq uat ic Control. Fifteen species of fishes taken in 1976 were not accounted for in previous surv eys. Th ese species included: white shiner h ighfin shiner, whitetail shiner, whitefin shiner, yellowfin shiner s'ilver redhorse, striped jumprock, white catfish, yellow bullhead, brown bullhead, flat bullhead t margined madtom, northern studfish, rosyside dace ace, an d the northern hogsucker (Table 12) .

rha saallostsil shiner (~Notro is ~rocne) in Bnckhorn Creak represents one of three knnown isolated populations in the Cape Fear drainage (Louder, 1963)), although fairly common in other North Carolina drainages. The speckled killifish is also uncommon and has a very limited distribution in the Cape F ear River (Louder, 1963).

The effects of plant construction may result in ser ous degradation of preferred habitat for t or these species and result in their elimination from the s y stem.. Since the creek's isolated e from t he Cape Pear River, displacement of p o p ulat fons and subsequent recolo n zai tions from'iver stocks is not expected.

I

4. 3 '

S ecies 'Diversit 'nd 'uitabilit Diversity of fishes at stream stations during 1976, as based upon'annual totals, ranged from 3.13 to 4.43 (Table 8). Buckhorn Creek (BK-2 and BK-3} had the highest species diversity of the three streams studied. The lowest diversity occurred at Cary Cxeek (CC-l).

The diversity of fishes at Thomas Creek (LW-8) was similar to that of I

Station CC-1. However, caution should be exercised in drawing any comparisons between the stations due to the rather small sample size at LW-8. Values of e greater than one probably reflect the inappropri-ateness of the model to reflect the true nature of species abundance.

Equitability (e) values of 1.15 and 1.23 were computed for stations LW-8 and BK-3 using the 1976 data.

5.0 A e'and Growth Studies 5.1 Materials and Methods Scales from largemouth and bluegills and pectoral spines from snail bullheads were collected in the field as available. Total length in millimeters and weight in grams were recorded along with the 4

appropriate locality 'k and gear type data.

In the laboratory scale impxessions were made on acetate cards with a 12-ton Carver press utilizing a combination of pressure and temperature. Scale impressions were read on an Eberbach Scale Projector at the appropriate magnification. Fish scales too small to adequately make acetate impressions +ere read directly under a dissecting micro-scope equipped" Mth. an ocular micrometer.

Catfish. pectoral spines <ere cleaned and then soaked in decalcifying fluid prior to sectioning. This decalcifying fluid consists of a solution of formic acid and sodium citrate. Thin sections cut from these decalcified spines were read with a dissecting microscope and ocular micrometer.

In both spine and scale analysis, measurements were made from the focus to the spine or scale margin and to each successive growth annuli. If at least two of three independent observers did not agree with the readings from a given sample, the sample was discarded and did not enter into any analysis of growth.

The relationship between fish length and I

either scale or spine length for each of the three species above was found to be linear but not directly proportional. Therefore, back calculations of total length (mm) at time of annulus formation were made using a modification of the direct proportionality method. The equation utilized for these computations was, S

n

( .f;c } (from Rfcker, 1970)

Where c is the intercept with the abscissa, g, n is the length at annulus formation, g, is the observed fish length, S is the measured radius to n

successive annuli marks, and s is the total scale radius. The intercept with the abscissa ('c) was obtained from a linear regression line of fish length a scale or spine radius.

Table 9: List of species found at Stream Stations BK-2, BK-3, CC-1, and LM-8 during 1976.

~Eecies BK-2 BK-3 CC-1

~An uilla rostrate Esox a. americanus E. ~ni er Clinostomus funduloides

~Notre 1s albeolus N. alborus N. amoenus N. analostanus s'

N. cerasinus niveus N. Eetersoni N. Erocne N. ~sce ticus Semotilus atromaculatus

~Erim zon ~chion us Hoxostoma anisurum Ictalurus brunneus I. catus I. natalis I. nebulosus Noturus ~tines N. ~insi nis Fundulus catenatus F. rathbuni Gambusia affinis Acantharcus Eomotis

~Le ernie auritus L. ~canellus L. Eibbosus L. Eulosus L. macrochirus Etheostoma olmstedi Percina crassa Centrarcidae ~hbrids Table 10: List of species, numbers, and weights of fishes taken by electrofishing at Station LW-8 during 1976.

Date: 1-22-76 5-28-76 11-2-76 Total No. Wgt(g) No. Wgt(g) No. Wgt(g) No. Wgt(g)

~Scales Esox a americanus 58.0 2 58.0 3 6.0 11. 0 4

~Notre is albeolus. 25.5 1 13.0 7 17.0'8.5

~Erin zon ~oblon us 62.0 12 436.0 13 498.0 Ictalurus natalis 58.0 1 6.0 2 64.0 25.0 1 5.0 16.0 8 46.0 Acantbarcus Eomotis 1 6.0 18.0 2 24.0 138.0 2 31.0 15.0 10 184.0

~Le amis ~canellus 43.0 3 143.0 113.0 10 299.0 L. Eibbosus 158.0 2 44.0 6.0 10 208.0 L. Eulosus 1 88.0 8.0 2 96. 0 L. macrochirus 21. 0 3 21. 0 Centrarchidae hybrid 3 63. 0 3 63.0 Subtotal = 35 588.5 18 405. 0 23 623.0 76 1616.5

f Table ll: List of species, numbers, and weights of fishes taken by electrofishing at Station CC-1 during 1976.

Date: 1-21-76 5-25-76 11-1-76 Total No. Mgt(g) No. Wgt(g) No. Mgt(g) No. Wgt(g)

~Eecies

~An uilla rostrate 41. 0 174.4 3 215.4 Esox a. americanus 32.0 49.0 63.0 13 144.0 E. ~ni er 46.0 1 46.0 1 49. 7 1 49.7

~Notre is albeolus 1 16.9 31 14. 1 32 31.0 N. alborus 3 37 3.8 39.5 8

122 10.5 28.2 ll 159 14.3 67.7 N. analostanus 36 108.4 36 108.4 12 17.3 12 17.3 N. procns 1.9 3 . 1.9 9 16. 9 9 16.9

~Erim zon ~chion us 13 522. 0 14 508. 3 23 597. 9 50 1628.2 Ictalurus natalis 1 130.0 1 130.0

-6 21.5 24. 7 46.2

~Le omi's auritus L. ~canellus ll1 700.0 60.0 7

9 514. 0 82.0 13 21 1296.0 2 10. 0 42.0 6 112.0 L. macrochirus 1 75.0 2 5.2 0.7 5 80.9 2 23.0 1 210.0 105.0 5 338.0 Etheostoma olmstedi 24 17.8 5 4.9 2.9 33 25.6 Subtotal = 1748.0 97 1452.9 206 1168.6 414 4369. 5

Table 12: List of species, numbers, and weights of fishes taken by electrofishing at Station BK-2 during 1976.

Date: 1-19-76 5-27-76 11-2-76 Total No. Wgt(g) No. Wgt (g) No. Wgt (g) No. Wgt(g)

~Eecies

~An uilla rostrate 12 488. 0 10 360.2 ll 373.3 33 1221.5 12.6 12.6 7 7

~Notre is albeolus 8 32.7 8 3207 N. alborus 24 20.5 85 88.7 109 109.2 79 120.0 79 120. 0 N. amoenus 4.2 2 4.2 s ""'"'.

3.2 2 3.2 niveus 56.9 51 56.9 N. Eetersoui 43 39.6 43 39.6 N. proces 92 107.2 92 107.2 N. ~sce ticus 22.9 118 249.2 129 272.1 61 87.7 61 87.7

~Erie zon ~oblon us 6.4 4 22.7 8 29.1 Moxostoma anisurum 22.0 5 30.6 8 52.6 Ictalurus brunneus 399.0 3 399.0 I. catus 2.0 1 2.0 I. natalis 2.0 1 2.0 85.0 1 85.0 Noturus ~inst nis 0.3 1 0.3 Fundulus catenatus 1 5.0 1 5.0 F. rathbuni 21 67. 3 13 34.0 68 162.8 102 264.1 Gambusia affinis 1 0.3 4 1.8 5 2.1

~Le omis auritus 28 504. 1 30 408. 7 58 912.8 L. ~canellus 2 25.0 1 55.0 4 69. 0 7 149 L. Eibbosus 5 17.0 7 48.3 5 66.0 17 131.3 L. Eulosus 1 4.0 1 4.0 L. macrochirus 4 9.8 14 120. 5 12 104.0 30 234.3 1 271.0 1 258.0 .2 21.3 4 550.3 Etheostoma olmstedi 10 9.8 27 23.3 37 33.1 Percina crassa 8.2 2 1.9 4 10.1 Subtotal = 189 1084.8 125 1951.6 591 1896.9 905 4933.3

Table 13: List of species, numbers, and weights of fishes taken by electrofishing at Station BK-3 during 1976.

Date: 1-21-76 5-28-76 11-2-76 Total No. Wgt(g) No. Wgt(g) No. Ngt(g) No. Wgt(g)

~gecies

~An uilla rostrate 39. 0 19 2405.0 16 936.9 40 3380.9 Esox a. americanus 1 4.0 1 4.0 Clinostomus funduloides 82 211. 0 82 211.0 61 337.9 55 791.9 116 1129.8

~Notro is albeolus 36 136.7 36 136.7 N. alborus 0.6 1 0.6 N. amoenus 16 23.8 16 N. cerasinus 23 68.9 23 23.8'8.9 Semotilus atromaculatus 4 45.1 4 45.1

~Erim zon ~oblon us 93.0 5 482.4 177.0 9 752.4 1 6.0 1 6.0 1foxostoma anisurum 17 249.1 17 249.1 146.6 4 146.6 Ictalurus nebulosus 73.0 2 73.0 98.0 1 98.0 Noturus glorious 4.0 6 -83. 6 7 87.6 N. ~insi nis Fundulus rathbuni 45.0 22.7 6 26. 8 4.2 ll 71.8 4 6 10 26.9

~Le ernie auritus L. ~canellus 163. 0 116. 0 ll 727.0 16 472.0 30 1362.0 6 185.0 2 74.6 15 375.6 L. Eibbosus 28. 0 10 167.0 6 172.0 17 367.0 L. Eulosus 2 23.5 2 29.0 4 52.5 L. macrochirus 85.2 14 315.3 14 344.9 36 745.4 5 672.0 3 378.0 8 1050.0 Etheostoma olmstedi 6.7 16 23.1 7 8.4 30 38.2 Percina crassa 5 11.8 2 5.4 7 17.2 Subtotal = 74 1023. 8 287 5855.1 167 3641.2 528 10520. 1

Table 14: Back calculated total length (mm) at annulus formation for the bluegill from 1975 through 1976.

CALCULATED TOTAL LKfGTH AT AGE MM Sample

~AGA Size 4 38 84 o9 91 108 105 129 154 98 127 158 179 Weighted ifean 90 114 155 179 Number of Pish 78 40 5.2', Growth:of 'Blue ills A total of 78 bluegills were aged".and subsequent measure-ments of growth annuli utilized to back calculate total length. at time of annulus formation. Calculated growth for successive age groups can be found in Table 14 along with the weighted means for the overall 4

analysis. Sample sizes for one and two year olds were sufficiently large to yield reliable estimates of growth, however, the small sample size of old fish preclude any reliability. A comparison of the weighted mean growth of bluegill in the site area with previous data collected by Aquatic Control and with data available from. North Carolina lakes (Carlander, 1972) (Table 17} suggests that growth of this species in the site area is good.

5.3 'Growth of Lar cmouth Bass Back calculated total lengths at time of annulus formation for 21 largemouth bass collected in the site area can be found in Table 15. Growth in the present study was found to be poorer than that of previous studies done by Aquatic Control and considerably poorer than the mean growth rate of largemouth bass in North Carolina lakes (Table 17). The sample size upon which the present analysis is based is small and precludes making any conclusions about the growth potential of this species in the site area. Additional samples are currently being collected and processed in order to expand this data base.

5.4 'Growth'of Snail Bullhead Back calculated growth of snail bullhead, based upon 34 samples, is presented in Table 16. The calculated growth of this species in the present study is slightly better at smaller sizes than that reported previously (Table 17}. Additional samples must be collected and processed before definitive conclusions can be reached on the growth of this species in the site area. No comparative growth data for this species has been located and very little life history data is available for the species (Yerger and Relyea, 1968).

35

4 Table 15: Back calculated total length (mm) at annulus formation for the largemouth bass from 1975 through 1976.

CALCULATED TOTAL LENGTH AT AGE Sample

~Ae Cr u St@

88 120 144 127 173 207 132 188 225 254 127 199 247 286 338 133 198 235 278 327 364 weighted Mean 120 176 219 272 332 364 Number oi Pish 21 17 14 Table 16: Beck calculated total length (am) at annulus formation for the snail bullhead from 1975 through 1976.

CALCULATED TOTAL LENGTH AT AGE MM Sanple

~AGro D Sf*

10 101 3,

2 4

18 4

2 106 105 150 173 131 204 168 195 Weighted Mean 105 152 192 195 Number of Fish 34 24 Table 17: Mean back calculated total lengths at annulus formation for the bluegill, largemouth bass, and smail bullhead in the SHNPP Site as compared with data collected from North Carolina lakes.

TOTAL LENGTH (MM) AT TIME OF ANNULUS FORMATION

~Be I II III IV V VI

~Blue ill Present study 90 114 155 179 Aquatic Control (1975) 83 112 142 158 169 Aquatic Control (1976) 51 86 129 159 179 191 N. C. Lakes (Carlander 1972) 75 110 138 162 173 170 Lar cmouth Bass Present study 120 176 219 272 332 364 Aquatic Control (1975) 134 199 259 315 377 416 Aquatic Control (1976) 128 217 282 318 344 N. C. Lakes (Carlander 1972) 128 232 310 376 433 469 Snail Bullhead Present study 105 152 192 195 Aquatic Control (1975) 82 132 164 195 230 272

- 38

6.0 Literature Cited Aquatic Control, Inc. 1973. Baseline biota survey of the Shearon Harris Study Area, North Carolina. Aquatic Control,, Inc., Seymour, Indiana.

1975. Baseline biota of the Shearon Harris Study Area, 1973-1974. Aquatic Control, Inc., Seymour, Indiana.

1976. Aquatic baseline biota of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Study Area, North Carolina 1974-1975. Aquatic Control, Inc., Seymour, Indiana.

Carlander, K. D. 1972. Manuscript material from the handbook of fresh-water fisheries, Vol. 2. Iowa State University.

Horn, H. S. 1966. Measurement of "overlap" in comparative ecological studies Amer. Nat. 100:419-424.

Huber, R. T. 1969. Preliminary biology investigation, Whiteoak Creek Watershed (CNI Watershed 3-14). Unpublished report, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Raleigh, N. C.

Jaccard, P. 1908. Nouvelles recherches sur la distribution florale.

Bull. Soc. Vaudoise Sci. Nat. 44:223-270.

Louder, D. E. 1963. Survey and classification of the Cape Fear River and tributaries, North Carolina. Final Report, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Job I-G, Project F-14-R, North Carolina Wildlife Res.

Comm., Raleigh, N. C.

North Carolina Endangered Species Committee, 1973. Preliminary list of endangered plant and animal species in North Carolina. Dept. of Natural and Economic Resources, State of North Carolina.

Ricker, W. E. (ed) 1970. Methods for assessment of fish 'production in fresh waters. IBP Handbook No. 3. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford and Edinburgh. 313 pp.

Standard Methods for the Examiniation of Water and Wastewater, 1975.

American Public Health Association, Washington, D. C. 1193 pp.

Weber, I. (ed) 1973. Biological field and laboratory methods for measuring the quality of surface waters and effluents. EPA 670/4-73-001.

Yerger, R. W. and K. Relyea, 1968. The flat-headed bullheads (Pisces:

Ictaluridae) of the southeastern United States, and a new species of Ictalurus from the Gulf Coast. Copeia 2: 361-384 39

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Peri h ton Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Site Introduction In the Cape Fear River monitoring, the algal community assumes great importance. These organisms are responsible for the primary production that forms the base of the aquatic food web. Species composition, distribution, and seasonal abundance are variable and are related to biological and physi'cal-chemical factors such as light, temperature, pH, current, substrate type, nutrients, competition, and predation (Hynes, 1970). These factors are affected by stresses accompanying the utilization of water sources; therefore, a survey of the algal flora is an investigation into natural and man-induced stresses.

These primary producers also affect higher trophic organisms by affecting the water quality parameters (Weber, 1973).

II Attached algae (periphyton), especially the diatom community, comprise the ma)or component of the primary producers. Many aquatic biologists have recognized that a satisfactory interpretation of phytoplankton data is rarely achieved when obtained from studies of widely separated river stations. Attempts to relate the quality and quantity of algae in grab water samples to known or suspected types of pollution in flowing waters are usually confounded by an ignorance of the origin and physiological condition of the organisms. In contrast, the presence of significant quantities of attached algae on natural or artificial substrates is strong evidence of the suitability of the water for growth of the organisms collected at a station. Inferences regarding water quality can be formulated with greater confidence when they are based on the composition and density of periphyton.

The purpose of this study is to determine existing algal populations of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant site in an attempt to evaluate ~ater quality prior to construction. Information collected during this study and future studies will establish a baseline for comparison with survey data that will be taken after the plant begins operation. These data may identify adverse environmental impact on water quality due to plant construction and operation.

This report contains algal data collected April, May, June, and December, 1975, and June, 1976. Except for one ma)or change in sampling design (to artificial substrates periphytometers), the study is a continuation of work initiated by Aquatic Control, Inc.,'eymour, Indiana (1973, 1974, and 1975).

Materials and Methods Periphyton were collected during the above mentioned dates in 1975 and 1976 at stations located on previously established transects on the Cape Fear River and selected creek stations. Physical-chemical data and water chemistry samples were collected in conjunction with algal sampling (Fig. 2 ).

During April and May, 1975, samples were taken according to methods employed by Aquatic Control, Inc. Transects A, B, C, and D were sampled at four points across the river's width. Phytoplankton and zooplankton net samples and whole water samples were taken, placed in plastic sample containers, and preserved in 3/ formalin. Thomas and Buckhorn Creeks were sampled in the same manner but only at one cf g

LW-8 CC 'I BK 3 R-3 TRANSECiS 9K-2

~ STATIONS OO 8uCItttO<nJ iiR Otm c

0 5 I SCALE IN MII.C$

CAROI.INAPOWER Ei UOIIT CO!AP ANY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS I. 2, 3 Za 4 AQUATIC TRAiNSECTS AGIO SAMPLING POINTS QA- PIQURt- 2

point. Samples were then transported back to the laboratory for enumeration and identification. All diatom and nondiatom counts were ascertained by scanning at 200X either one or two transects of a Sedgwick-Rafter chamber which contained a 1 ml subsample of phytoplankton.

In June, 1975, a major change in the sampling program took place. When it is desirable to collect diatoms in order to compare one section of a body of water with another section or two separate bodies of water, the diatometer is a very satisfactory means for obtaining the samples. Both benthic and planktonic forms of diatoms are collected (Patrick, et. al., 1954).

Therefore, periphyton samplers were set at three stations (10%, 50%, and 90% of the river width) across Transects A, B, C, and D.

These artificial substrates were also placed in Thomas Creek (LW-S),

Buckhorn Creek (BK-2), and two newly established creek stations, Buck--

horn Creek (BK-3) and Cary Creek (CC-1). Whole water and net samples for phytoplankton and zooplankton were continued at Transect D, located above Buckhorn Dam, to indicate what organisms may be found in the makeup water for the impoundment. Whole water samples were collected at the surface. Net samples were collected by straining 100 liters of surface water through a /320 Wisconsin plankton net. The purpose of the change was to increase sampling effort and to gain information on the periphytic community in the river and selected tributaries.

Throughout the study period (June, 1975 to June, 1976) samples were collected after an exposure period of approximately 4 weeks. Three microscope slides were chosen randomly and placed in Whirl-paks or Nalgene plastic bottles. The 10% formalin preservative was dripped over the area

of the microscope slide to prevent as much sloughing off of material

.as possible. In June, 19?6, a method of slide desiccation (i.e.,

preservation) presented by Patrick and Reimer (1966), was tested to determine whether this method would facilitate sample collection. All samples were returned to the

/

laboratory for enumeration and identification.

A subsample (i.e., one slide) is placed in a Sedgwick-Rafter counting chamber and nondiatoms are counted and identified as mentioned above. Whole water and net plankton samples from Transect D were also enumerated in a Sedgwick-Rafter counting chamber. Diatoms from two slides are scraped separately, each cleaned chemically (Reimer, 1974-personal communication) and permanently mounted on microscope slides in Hyrax mounting media. The desiccated slides were processed differently using 70X nitric acid (Pryfogle, 1976 - personal communication). Short counts consisting of the enumeration of 350 diatoms were made for each slide. The diatoms were identified with the aid of a Wild phase contrast microscope under oil immersion at 1250X. The algae were identified to the lowest taxon practical using suitable taxonomic keys and various other aids. Aliquots of samples were retained for reference. Following enumeration and identification the percentages of individual diatom species were calculated.

Descri tions of Stations"Established'June'975 Station BK-3 is located on Buckhorn Creek approximately 80 meters downstream of bridge SR 1116. At this point, Buckhorn Creek can be 46

characterized by riffles and pools. Creek width at BK-3 is 2-3 meters and depth of water ranged from 0.2m (low flow) to 1.5m. Substrate is sand, pebbles, and small rocks covered with diatom growth.

Station CC-1 is located on Cary Creek approximately 30 meters upstream of bridge, SR 1127. At this point, Cary Creek can be characterized by riffles and pools. Creek width at CC-1 is 2 meters while water depth ranged from O.lm (low flow) to 1.0m. Substrate is sand, pebbles, and some small rocks.

Results and Discussion Over 10,000 diatoms were counted and identified from collections of periphyton from portions of the Cape Fear River and selected tributaries.

A total of 175 taxa were recorded from the periphyton slides. The numerically dominant taxa compiled for the last three sampling periods are presented in Table 18.

By comparison of the data shown in Table 18, it is seen that numerically dominant diatoms collected downstream of Buckhorn Dam (i.e.,

Transects A, B, and C) are similar (e.g., Achnanthes lanceolata var.

The total number of taxa collected at these transects ranged from 73 to 102. Diatoms collected upstream of the dam (i.e., Transect D) were number of taxa collected at Transect D was 96. The differences in taxa are primarily due to the sampling of two different habitats. Transect D is characterized by low flow, relatively deeper water and an overall Table 18.

Numerica13.y Dominant Taxa in the Cape Fear River and Selected Tributaries.

(June and December 1975 and June 1976)

A B C D BK-2 BK-3 CC-1 LW-8*

Bacillariophyta Tabellaria.Cenestrata

~Sudra ulna Achnanthes lane eolata P A. lanceolata var. dubia P P P P A. linearis Cocconeis fluviatilis P P

P P P P P P P P P

G. ~arrulum

~Cballa minura Nitzschia obtusata H. ualaa p ~ present

• Dominance of taxa based on low numbers present in sample.

lentic habitat. Transects A, B, and C are characterized by generally shallow water, constant current, abundance of substrate (i.e., rocks),

and an overall lotic habitat. The dominant diatoms collected from creek stations BK-3 and CC-1 are basically the same (i.e., Tabellaria fenestrata, Achnanthes lanceolata and A. linearis). These two creek stations have similar habitats characterized by shallow water variable flow. Substrate-is sand, pebbles, and cobble-sized rocks. Creek stations BK-2 and LW-8 seemed to support a similar diatom population (i.e., Navicula and Gomphonema). Both creeks are characterized by low flow, fairly shallow ~ater and a sand-silt substrate.

The data for April and May, 1975, will not be presented in this report. Before initiation of- the new sampling program in June, 1975, samples. from the April-May collection were analyzed according to the methods employed by Aquatic Control, Inc. It was found that the phyto-plankton population consisted of 90X diatoms and 10/ other algae.

Asterionella formosa appeared to be the dominant diatom at the sampling stations throughout this two-month period. Asterionella formosa is abundant in the plankton during spring (Whitford, 1973).

Tables 19 - 26 represent number of diatoms of each species expressed as a percent of the total number of diatoms collected.

The most abundant diatoms at Transect A belong to the family Achnanthaceae (Monoraphidinae). The members of this group are generally adapted to an epilithic or epiphytic habitat and are able to adhere tightly to the substrate. These diatoms (i.e., Achnanthes and Cocconeis) are characterized by having a raphe on only one valve of the frustule.

The substrate at Transect A is bedrock with scattered areas of sand, silt, and cobblestones behind boulders.

The morphology of the frustule of these members is particularly t

suited to the above habitat. Cocconeis is flattened and broad along the transverse and transapical axes enabling it to adhere tightly to a substrate with little surface area perpendicular to the current. Achnanthes may adhere to the substrate either by raphe valve or by a gelatinous stalk.(Table 19)

Of the five most dominant diatoms present at Transect B, three species belong to the family Achnanthaceae. The stations are character-ized by shallow riffles and the substrate is bedrock, cobble and large gravel which- accounts for the suitability for growth of these diatoms.

and adheres to the substrate by raphe valves or by a gelatinous stalk.

form. C. seudostelli era was observed in high numbers at Transect D.

It is likely that thip diatom was carried downstream and this could explain high numbers found at Transect B (Table 20 ).

The substrate at Transect C is bedrock and large boulders.

I Three members of the family Achnanthaceae dominate the diatom population.

parvulum was also prevalent at the stations attaching itself firmly to the thee current is not too swift. Since the flow at C is generally rapid, one would assume that this diatom was carried downstream from Transect D and settled in small protected pool areas behind the boulders. This is indicative of the proximity of Transect C to Transect D (Table 21 ).

50 -.

Table 19

'verage Diatou Percentages From "Aufvuch" Slides in the Cape Fear River Transect A 1 oe 19 1975 ret. 16 1975 June 7, 1976 Stations 1 2 3* 1 2* 3 1 2 3 Bacillariophyta Centrales Coscinodiscaceae

~nl e lla ~fhi a 3 7 <1 <1 <1 C. seudostelli era <1 <1 1

t. ~srellf r <1 <1 Cvclotella spp.

Ml sf a~Wi M.i

',I.

olt Sr*nulat var a

~nstfssf a <1 varians <1 2 2 Thalassiosira fluviatilis Biddulphiaceae

~nfdduf 1 a 1 e fs 1 <1

~ndte e ctltt tt I <1 Anaulaceae tarp fn e ausf Pennales Tabellariaceae Tabellaria fenestrata T. flocculosa Fragilariaceae

~p* fl*rf breW arse F. crotonensis F. vauchariae <1 <1 F. virescens

~Sad s s S. delicatissitfa S. r s <1 <1 S. t57 s ar Immffe.ides S. so cia S. ulna

~Sdr sp. 1

~Sdr spp Euniotiaceae Eunotia arcus E. curvate E. 5

~fff E. forfaica E.

tf alia E. Ee etfnaffs E o eia sp. 1 var afoer.

E o ti spp.

Athnanthateae Achnanthes ~exi ua <1 .

A. lanceolata 1 1 1 <1 <1 2 A. lanceolata var. dubia 13 14 35 37 1 8 14 A. linearis 1 5 Table 1'9 (cont'd)

S J ce 19 1975 D*c. 16 1975 J I 1976 Stations Taxa 2 3* 1 2* 3 2 3 Bacillariophyta Pennales Achnanthaceae Achnanthes linearis f. curta 1 1 A. minutissima A. ~ra alii Achnanthes sp. 1 Achnanthes sp. 2 ~

<1 Achnanthes spp. <1 Cocconeis fluviatilis 15 8 2 3 4 1 1 C /II II tI Il 3 2 1 1 <1

c. Cl c ot la var ~elute 2 4 2 1 25 16 8 C. Clacentnl* var lfn.eat 40 53 49 53 69 63 51 C. scutellum 3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Rhoicosohenia curvata <1 Naviculaceae

~atohf 1 ra ell cfd Cal fs b cfll <1 <1 D. puella Entomoneis ornata Prustulia rhomboides 7 hboide.s var. caoft*t*

P. veinholdii Prustulia sp. 1 (asymmetrica )2 Cvr SXIY *allis C. ob tus stum C. ~se if <1<1

~Cr~rosi Ja spp.

Navicula accomoda N. aikenensis 1 II ~ste

~ft r <1 N

N.

N N.

N.

~s confervacea

~thl

~thl var *ta.

<1

<I <1 N. decussis N. ~lf N. Nfbh s sls N 5 ctlllldf N. Nr* floid a 1 2 N. lanceolata N. latelon itudinalis laterostrata luzonensis minima Table 19 (cont'd)

June 19, 1975 Dec. 16, 1975 June 7, 1976 Stations Taxa 2 3* 1 2* 3 Bacillariophyta Pennales Naviculaceae Navicula miniscula muralis <1 N. mutica <1 <1 N. mutica var. cohnii N. mutica var. ~sti N. ucfca var crm f.ca'.

notha N. ~uula N. radiosa <lt <1 1 N. ~rh ce hla 3 < 1 1 4 salinarum N. ~tri ucctata N. viridula N. viridula var. linearis <<1 Navicula sp. 1 Navicula sp. 2 Navicula spp.

Neidium bisculatum N. iridfs Neidium sp. 1 pf ula f.* ~ba eu is var . subundulata P. ~bite s P. bfc u 1 fIeter.s if P. braunii Pinnularia branny. var. amo hiceohla P. latevittata

p. 1 e vfctata ar ~dM

• sf P. ~fa P. maior

~sf* c P. microstauron Pinnularia sp. 1 Pinnularia spp.

Stauroneis ~ance s

i. ~ce s f. Nra life S. anceos f. linearis S. smithii Gomphonemaceae h *a suet

~C*

C G.

~atua dichotomum C ~ref sffle C NtII Tabie 19 (cont'd)

J e 19 1975 De . 16 1975 J e 7 1976 Stations 2 3* 1 2* 3 Tax'acillariophyta Pennales Gomphonemaceae Gomohonema intricatum <1 1 <1 1 G. olivaceum C. parvcl <1 3 G. t run ca turn C. t e c var ~cftata Gomnhonema spp.

Gomnhoneis sp. 1 Cymbellaceae

~C bella affinis C. ~as era C. hebridica C ~Mero s hla C. minute racilis C. naviculiformis

c. ~crfIIII lcc C. tumida C. ~tfd 1

~Calla sp. 1 A bra te Epfthaafaceae

~Ef th oI *doaea E. ~ar us Nitzschiaceae Hantzschia anphios~s Ni tzschia acicularis <1 <1 II.

N.

~tl Nfe*s hf

~ft

~ahfbf ta 11 ea

<1 1 cV. dissinata V~ fonticola N. 5 flf*

Va . linearis obtuse var. seal e lliformis N. bt s e

c. 5 I N. ~si N ~sf of de N. sublinearis N. trlblfocell Nitzschia sp. 1 Nitzschia sp. 2 life* hf spp.

Table 19 (cont'd)

June 19, 1975 Dec. 16, 1975 June 7, 1976 Stations Taxa 2ds 3 1 2 3 Bacillariophyta Pennales Bacillariaceae 1 adll rd S radara Surirellaceae S 1 11 ~ll at ta S. ~1* a S. ovata 1 1. 11* St tatla S. Sat 11* var. a a S. robusta S. tenera var. nervosa Surirella sp. 1 Surirella" spp.

• Sample lost- due to vandalism and/or adverse Meather conditions.

Table 2n.

Average Diaton Percentages Frocl Auf53uch Slides in the Cape Fear River, Transect B J 18 1975 8 . 17 1975 J

• 8 1976 Stations Taxa 1 2* 3 1 2 3* 1 2* 3 Bacillariophyta Centrales Coscinodiscaceae Ctalotella otoimht n 2 2 1 1 cl C. seudostelli era 20 47 <1 C ~stetlt 9 1 Clelotall* spp. 13 6 M 1 tra ~Bt M.Sr le

'.t. 8 n 1 r. var ~nttssto 3 M. varians 10 2 5 Thalassiosira fluviatilis 3 Biddulphiaceae

~stdd1

~Hares tat ate

~trt *tt

<1 <1 cl 1 <<1 Anaulaceae 7 tp1

• 1 Pennales Tabellariaceae Tabellaria fenestrata T. flocculosa Fragilariaceae

~rtt *1 5 Wst ta F. crotonensis F. vauchariae 1 F. virescens

~sd a aus 2 S. delicatissitta S. usa one S. ru

• S. s 1*

ar. ~ta fl td S. ulna 1 1 8 dr sp. 1 S d spp.

Hunt ti ease Eunotia arcus E ~ curvata E. fort3ica E. ~** sift <<1 E. 8 tt 11 <1 8 Sotto lt var.. etn r <1 E oti sp. 1 <1 8 ti spp Achnanthaceae Achnanthes ~evi ua A. lanceolata 1 <1 2 1 1 A. lanceolata var. dubia 1 3 68 8 14 5 A. ltoe ls 1 (1 (1 1 Table 20 (cont'd)

J e 18 1975 8 e. 17 1975 June 8 1976 8c cl s 1 2* 3 1 2 le 1 2* 3 Bacillariophyta Pennales Achnanthaceae Achnanthes linearis f. curta A. minutissima A. ~er sill Achnanthes sp. 1 Achnanthes sp. 2 Achnanthes spp.

Cocconeis Eluviatilis 1 1 C. 772 nt 1*

c.'371acentula var ~e 1277rn <1 <<1 1 18 35 C. 81 aantula var line.ata 10 2 18 50 54 C. scutellum 1 <<1 <1 6 1

<1 Naviculaceae

~auhl I r 9 iield <1 Caloneis bacillum <<1 <<1 D. ~uella Entomoneis ornate Frustulia rhomboides 9 Ch & Cd s .ar. ~alt*ca F. veinholdii.

Frustulia sp. 1 (asymmetzfca )2 <1

~ur sl suc allis G. obtusatmn <<1 G. soencerii 1 1 <I

~Gro~si 3a spp.

Navicula accomoda CV. aikenensis N ~SC N. c clr ta II cure c N. ~cn er s N. CC1CCC hl 1

,i. Ccrc@el ar. et <1 <<1 N. dc ss N. ~el lna sls N. Nlhh s N. 8 ttl ndl <1 N. Nr ctlold s 18 N. lanceolata N. latelon itudinalis laterostrata N. luronensis N. minima Table 20 (cont'd)

June 18, 1975 Dec. 17, 1975 June 8, 1975 Stations Taxa 2* 3 1 2 3* 1 2* 3 Bacillariophy ca Pennales Naviculaceae Navicula miniscula 1 <1 N. muralis N. mutica N. mutica var. cohnii N. mutica var. ~sti a N. tfe var. rro fc N. notha N. ~uula N. radiosa (1 1 N ~rh a e eels 2 4 4 N. salinarum 3 N. ~trf ct ta <1 <1 2 viridula 3 <1 ll. virid 1 ar lfne r.is N Mc la ap. 1 <1 <1 Navicula sp. 2 Navicula spp.

Neidium bisculatum N. iridis Neidf sp. 1 Pfn larf ~ha e fs var subundulata P. biceos P ~hf s f Nat re off P. braunii Pinnularia braunii var. am ohiceohla P. latevittata P. latevittata P. ~fe ~en var. domin is

<1 1

P. maior P. ~*s le t P. microstauron Pinnularia sp. 1 Pinnularia spp.

S ~ ~s Stauroneis S. ~ance s

~ance

~

s f fr*caffe

f. linearis S. smithii Gomphonemaceae

~dho eaa a osfn t C

C.

~st dichotomum e

C.~tile G. Nr o <1 1 Table 20 (cont d)P June 18, 1975 Dec. 17, 1975 June 8, 1976 Stations 2* 3 2* 3 Bacillariophyta Pennales Gomphonemaceae Gomohonema intricatum <1 1 G. olivaceum 1 C H reel <<1 1 29 G. truncatum C. tr c c var. s ltsta

~to hs c cpp Gomohoneis sp. 1 Cymb ellaceae C nbella af finis C. ~as era C. hebridica C. ~at ra hlc C. minuta C. minute var. seudo C. naviculiformis <1 C ~trd 1 <1 C. tumida <1 <1 C. ~add&

CZmbella sp. 1

~ca br* e e Epithemiaceae

~cdtheal d ae E. ~ar us Nitxschiaceae Hate*a hds ~ht xh Nitzschia acicularis Nit=schia amohibia N.ut its ll. ~act llaca N ~ddccd sts <1 N. fonticola <1 N. H ills <1 ll. 11 *ls <1 <<1 N. ht s var. s *1

11. at c el lifotmis <1 N. dc 1 2 2 N. ~si N. ~st ld <1 N. sublinearis <1 1 N. trvblionella <1 <1 <<1 Nitsschia sp. 1 Nit=schia sp. 2 1 Nit"schia spp. 4 Table 20 (cont '1)

June 18, 1975 Dec. 17, 1975 June 8, 1976 Stations 1 2* 3 I 2 3* 2* 3 Bacillariophyta Pennales Bqcillariaceae 1 eall rd Surirellaceae lr d a r 1 lla ~er ra 1 1

a. ~el a S. ovata 1 rlr 11 ~angell 1

S.

lrobusta della var D 1 .<1 S. tenera var. nervosa Surirella sp. 1 Surfrella spp.

• Sample lost Table 21.

~ Average Diatom Percentages from "Aufuuch" Slides in the Cape Fear River, Transect C June 18, 1975 Dec. 17, 1975 June 8, 1976 Stations 2 3 1 2 3 1* 2 3 Bacillariophyta Centrales Coscinodiscaceae

~elotella C. seudostellicera f tmhf na <1 7

<1 4 6 1

<1

<1'1

<1 <1

t. ~t*llf t* <1 <1 Cvclotella spp.

M lost ~anhf 1 1 M. Er 1 M.

M.

Era varians 1 ta rar ~tfssf <1 1

<1

<1 1

4 3 23 Thalassiosira fluviatilis Biddulphiaceae

~nfdd 1 I 1

• fs <1 1 <1 <1 <1 2 1 1

~ndte Y ~ttf Stt <1 <1 1 <1 2 1 Anaulaceae riel *fee Pennales Tabellariaceae Tabellaria fenestrata T. flocculosa Fragilariaceae

~Ptl rf hreWstr t*

F. crotonensis F. vauchariae 3 <1 3 F. virescens <1

~E*dr ae s <1 <1 1 S. delicatissima <1 E. Ynane s 2 <1 2 E. ra~en ar, frwrffofd s <1 1 S. so cia <1 S. ulna 1 <1 2'1 E dr sp. 1

~atd

• epp < 1 Euniotiaceae Eunotia arcus E. curvata E. fo ref E. ~na lff E~ E tfo lfs E E tf lfs vst ttf <1 <1 E rf sp. 1 E tf spp Achnanthaceae Achnanthes exieua A. lanceolata 2 1 1 1 1 1 <1 A. lanceolata var. dubia 39 13 5 5 28 19 7 1 A. lfn*arfs 1 1 <1 <1 ri Table 21. (cont'd)

June 18, 1975 Dec. 17, 1975 June 8, 1976 Stations Taxa 1 2 3 1* 2 3 Bacillarfophyta Pennales Achnanthaceae Achnanthes linearis f. curta A. minutfssima A. ~era alit Achnanthes sp. 1 Achnanthes sp. 2 Achnanthes spp.

Cocconeis fluvfatilis rl <1 <1 1 1 C. blatant 1 1 1 C. Clatter la var. ~1 Nta 6 13 21 38 C. Nice etula var. lln ae 46 73 66 1 1 5 54 57 C. scutellum 2 1 <1 <1

<1 Naviculaceae

~acoht le ell lde Cele el* b cllluo D. ~uella Entomoneis ornata Prustulfa rhomboides

p. rh sboldes var. c ltata P. veinholdif Prustulfa sp. 1 (asymmetzfcs"'l2 C~ro 1 ad Ada <1 <1 C. obtusatum C. e rtl <1 <1 1

~or attn spp.

Vavicula accomoda N

N.

,I

~t N. afkenensfs c

c elect tetr

<1 <1 1 3 II.

N.

~er

~rv eo s

hl 2 2 <1 <1 2 N. crrot hla ar. anat 1 <1 <1 Il. d c ls N ~ltn sls II. Ntbb s N. Nottl N. g N.

cll lanceolata dlc lde

<1. <1 12 23 8

< 1 1 '1 N. latelon itudinalis laterostrata N. luzonensfs N. minfma Table 21 (cont'd)

June 18, 1975 Dec. 17, 1975 June 8, 1976 Sc Lio Taxa I 2 3 1 2 3 1* 2 3 Bacillariophyta Pennales Naviculaceae Navicula miniscula 1 1 I N. muralis N. mutica N. mutfca var. cohnii N. mutfca var. ~stf a N o cic vst'cro ica N. notha N. ~uula N. radfosa <1 <1 <1 1 N. ~rh c c hla 1 <1 <1 4 2 5 cN. salfnarum <1 N. trfnunctata <1 1 1 N. virid la N. Wrfd \ v r. linearis Nevi cula sp. 1 Navicula sp. 2 Navicula spp.

Neidium bisculatum N. iridis Nfdf neo. 1 pi o l*rfa ~ah ecsf s ar subundulata P. ~bfce s P

P.

~hfc braunii a 2 2 tc a fi Pinnularfa braunfi var. arne hiceohla P.

P P ~

lt W.tt latevittata

~f e var ~df nsfs P. maior P. ~*f P. microstauron e*

Pinnularia sp. 1 Pfnnularfa spp.

Stauroneis anceos S. o 2 .3* fifa.

S. anceos f. linearis S. sMthtf Goaphoneoaca e Gomohonema acuminatum G

G.

~st dichotomum t 17 1 2

. G~flce G 3 ovff 1 < 1 Table 21. (cont 'd)

June 18, 1975 Dec. 17, 1975 June 8, 1976 Stations Taza 1 2 3 1" 2 3 1* 2 3 Bacillarfophyta Pennales Gomphonemaceae

~po h fntrfc*t <1 G. olivaceum 0 1 1 G. E vuf 2 <1 46 33 6 '2 G. truncatum G. truncat o var. soft*a

~Co hone spp.

~co II n fs sp. 1 Cymbellaceae

~C bella affinis C. ~as era C. hebridica C. ~aftra a hla C.M t <1. <1 racilis C. naviculiformis C.~tMn I C. tumid C ~tf

~C>ella sp.

a dale 1

aah ra ta Epfthenfaaeae

~Ef chenf d e E. ~ar us Nirzschiaceae H e*a ah 1 ~hf Nitzschia acicularis s

Nf a=a hf.o ~hfhfa N. ufc 1st N.

N.

~frail dfssf e c*

N. f* efa I N. Er fifa II. 11 rfs N. ht N. Ijt t r.s*l llifozmis II. ~ala N. ~si a

< 1 1 2

<1 2; <1 N. ~sf fd N. sublinearis <1 <1 <1 II. trial donall <1 Nitzschia sp. 1 Nitzschia sp. 2 Nitzschia spp.

Table 21. (cont 'd)

June 18, 1975 D'ec. 17, 1975 June 8, 1976 Stations 2 3 1 2 3 1* 2 3 Bacillariophyta Pennales Bncfllariaceae B lll rl B daxa cl d 1 ll'~ala Surirellaceae S r lr 1 1 S ~al a r ( 1 S. ovata S Mrarl* B r Bra S B r S. robusta ll* var ~ara S. ra a var. rv a S rl all ap. 1 Surirella spp.

• Sample lost.

Transect D is wide, deep, and slow flowing. The substrate type is silt and sand 6 meters from the shoreline and bedrock toward midstream.

of centric species at this transect may be related to the increased water retention time at the stations. Many centric diatoms are euplanktonic (Hutchinson, 1967) and conditions for their development are more prevalent at Transect D. Achnanthes lanceolata and A. lance-olata var. dubia were found to be dominant here. These periphytic species may have been attached to floating debris often observed at live on the substrata. They possess raphes and are able to move about. They may live in shallow or deep water dependent on light penetration, temperature and other chemical factors. This flora is often well-developed in lakes and ponds, and in streams and rivers in places where the current is not too swift (Patrick and Reimer, 1966).

The lentic conditions prevailing at Transect D could indeed explain the presence of this taxon (Table 22 ) .

Table 23 represents data collected from creek station LW-S.

this station consists of silt and sand. Log gams were frequent. The epilithic and epiphytic forms as Achnanthes and Gomphonema were probably sloughed off the logs or off plants located on the steep wooded banks.

- 6'6-

Table 22 Diatom Percentages

'verage from "Aufvuch" Slides in the Cape Fear River, Transect D June 17, 1975 Dec. 15, 1975 June 2, 1976 Stations Taxa 2 3 1 2* 3 ]* 2* 3 Bacillariophyta Centrales Coscinodiscaceae SV I a lla o immh1*oo 1 14 C. seudostelli era 6 9 49 1 C. ~st 111 er* 1

~Col tells spp.

H I elva ~bf II. Er I t* 1

.I. Er I ta var tI .stfssf 1 1 <1 M. varians 10 Thalassiosira fluviatilis Biddulphiaceae

~sfdd I Iu I

• is

~Hdr e t'ri *tt'a Anaulaceae

~Tssf *esi Pennales Tabellariaceae Tabellaria fenestrata T. Elocculosa Fragilariaceae

~pra il F. crotonensis 1 breviser ta F. vauchariae <1 <1 F. viresccns

~ssd s S. delicatissima S. rumpens S ~ru S. socia s r ~Er* fl id S. ulna

~sd sp. 1

~sedr spp.

Euniotiaceae Eunotia arcus E. e t*

E. I 1 E. tIelff E. E E. Ee E

tf lfffss ti elis oti* sp. 1 var $1 o. <<1 1 o tl ssp.

Achnanthaceae Achnanthes ~equi ua 1 2 <1 A. lanceolata 37 1 1 <1 <<1 A. lanceolata var. dubia 78 55 15 10 2 A. 11 vis 1 4 2 2 Table 22 (contpd)

June 17, 1975 Dec. 15, 1975 June 2, 1976 Stations Taxa 1 2* 3 1* 2* 3 Bacillariophyta Pennales Achnanthaceae Achnanthes linearis f. curta <1 1 A. minutissima A. ~ra 111 Achnanthes sp. 1 Achnanthes sp. 2 Achnanthes spp.

Cocconeis fluviatilis C. Mlacentula

c. place t 1 ar. ~ qllfcc <1 <1 C. Mfacentula var lies*.ta 2 3 2 2 C. scutellum <1 <1 Rhoicosohenia curvata 1 <1 <1 Naviculaceae

~fuohf 1 p 11 ciao Caloneis bacillum 2 1 D. ~uella Entomoneis ornata Frustulia rhomboides P ra*ah i.das var. c aft co F. weinholdii Frustulia sp. 1 (asymmetricali7

~Groat eMlfs obtusatum G.

C. ~srff

~G't s1 spp Navicula accomoda N. aikenensis M. ~not*

N. c f.tote I ft c II. ~cn e

~tv t

• hl N

II. ~eve N. d ssf ohla var eet. 5 1

5 2

N. ~el in nels N. Mfbb s N. 1 ttlandi M. Atr cll ides 19 13 37 N. lanceolata N. lateloncitudinalis N. laterostrata N. luzonensis N. minima

Table 22 (cont'd)

June 17, 1975 Dec. 15, 1975 June 2, 1976 Stations 1 2* 3 2* 3 Bacillariophyta Pennales Naviculaceae Navicula miniscula 1 1 1 1 N. muralis 1 3 <1 1 1 N. mutica 1 <1 N. mutica var. cohnii 'I

<1 N. mutfca var. ~sti <1 N cd c tilt ~ f rre c N. notha N. ~uula <1 N. radfosa 1 3 1 <1 1 <1 N. ~rb e bla <1 1 17 10 29 N. salinarum N ~crf Ictctt <1 1 N. viridula ll. virid la var. lfnearfs Nevi 1 sp. 1 N vie 1 sp. 2 N 1 1 tpp Neidium bisculatum N. iridis Nefdf sp. 1 Pfn 1 ria ~ab c enate var subundulata P. ~bice s P ~ ~bfc s i. Petets Ilff P. b 11 Pftn 1 rfa br 11 ar. hiceohla P. latevittata P. 1 Cadet e var ~dnf ansi P. ~f PE maior P. mesoleota P. microstauron Pinnularia sp. 1 Pinnularia spp.

Stauroneis ~ance s S. ~ce f. 2 fit S. ~ance s f. linearis S. smithii Comphonemaceae Comohonema acuminatum C. ~an tat C. dichotomum C.~re 1 1 d Nrc vll

Table 22 (cont'd)

June 17, 1975 Dec. 15, 1975 June 2, 1976 Stations Taza 1 2* 3 2* 3 Bacillariophyta Pennales Gomphonemaceae Gomohonema intricatum G. olivaceum G Nerval ,<1 1 4 1

1 1

1 1

i<1 5

'1 11 1

G. truncatum G. tra at var. it ta G abate spp. 1 1 Gomohoneis sp. 1 <1 Cymbellaceae

~C bella affinis C asoera C. hebridica C. ~tGar e hla C. minuta racilis naviculiformis C. ~rrt 1 C. tumida C. ~er %dna C bell sp.

a chars e er Epithesiaeeae

~ESCh8 ia do 1 E. ~ar s Nitzschiaceae N ot-s hi* ~hi rl Nit schia acicularis 2 Nitzschia amohibia <1 N. Stt 1*t ll. ~trail*t N. ~dts 1 t N. fonticola <1 ll. Era 111* <1 N. linearis 1 N. obtusa var. seal e lliformis <1 N. btas ra N.EE 1 1 3 9 4 N. ~si N. ~st id <1 1 N. sublinearis 1 2 2 1 N. tttbli 11 <1 <1 Nitzschia sp. 1 Nitzschia sp. 2 Nitzschia spp.

Table 22 (cont 'd)

June 17, 1975 Dec.'5, 1975 June 2, 1976 Stations Taxa 2 3 1 2* 3 1* 2* 3 Bacillariophy ra Pennales Bgcillariaceae a aallarla p do Surirellaceae a lrella ~en et ta

t. ~1* n S. ovata <1 rl a

a. 1

)la ~atella t 11 rar.

S. rob us ta

~a 1

<1 1

S. tenera var. nervosa Surirella sp. 1 Surirella spp.

• Sample lost Table 23 Average Diatom Percentages from "Aufwuch" Slides in Thomas Creek, LV-8 June 20, 1975 *+Dec. 16, 1975 **June 1, 1976 Stations Taxa Bacillariophyta Centrales Coscinodiscaceae A~el t 11 ~enf hf C. seudostelli era

c. ~stefff s

~tcf sell spp.

Mel fr* ~hf a M. E 1 ca M. Er M. varians 1 ta var ~stf Thalassiosira fluviatilis Biddulphiaceae

~hfdd 1 1 1 vfs Ed s ra~feetr Anaulaceae Eerhsfnoe a sfc Pennales Tabellariaceae Tabellaria fenestrata T. flocculosa Pragilariaceae

~E11 rf hr vf tr c P. crotonensis P. vauchariae P. virescens

~edra ae s S. delicatissima S. r S. rco s s ar. ~fr S. s 1 fl fd s S. ulna Svned sp. 1

~fdr spp.

Euniotiaceae E ef E. e Ec E.

E. E

~tiff formica tf lfs.

E. pe sfnalfs var. nf r E cfa sp. 1 E nots spp.

Achaanrhacaae Achnanthes ~exi ua A. lanceolata <1 24 A. lanceolata var. dubia 1 A. linearis <1 72-

Table 23 (cont'd)

June 20, 1975 <<*Dec. 16, 1975 **June 1, 1976 Stations Bacillariophyta Pennales Achnanthaceae Achnanthes linearis f. curta A. ninutissina A. ~era alii Achnanthes sp. 1 Achnanthes sp. 2 Achnanthes spp.

Cocconeis fluviatilis C. Nl cent l*

C. Nia ent l var. ~elxpts

c. Nlaeent la ar. line ta 3 C. scutellun Bhoicosohenia curvate Naviculaceae

~dnehd l ra Nell edda <1 C lo eis bacill o 2 D. puella Entononeis ornate Frustulia rhonboides 2 P. rh aboides var. caeit ta 10 P. veinholdii <1 Frustulia sp. 1 (asynnetrical)7

~Cr~rosi na exilis C. obtusatun C. ~seerff na Natl* espp.

~Cross%

d C. aiba sis N. ~sto N. ~ada*t Vh.

N N.

~rs confervacea

~co hl 1

<1 N. tpbcoc hla ar. octa N. d e sis <1 V. ~ldoensts N. Nibb s

r. p ttlandica N. Nr iloid s N. lanceolata N. latelon itudinalis V. laterostrata N. luzonensis Vi . ninina

Table 23 (cont'd)

June 20, 1975 *"Dec 16, 1975 **June 1, 1976 Stations Taxa 1 Bacil)ariophyta Pennales Naviculaceae Navicula miniscula <1 N. muralis N. mutica N. mutica var. cohnii N. mutica var. ~sti a N. o efca ar. areal

• N. notha N. punula <1 N. radiosa 2 1 N. ~rh c e hla 4 4 14 V. salinarum <1 N ~crf ullct ca N. vfrfd 1 N. Wrfd la er 11 e .rfs Navicula sp. 1 <<1 Navicula sp. 2 Navicula spp.

Neidium bisculatum N. iridis Neidium sp. 1 Pf o larf ~ba s1s ar sbu.ud lets. 1 P. ~bice s P. ~bfce s f. p terseaff P. braunii <1 Pf 1 rfa b ucff vsr. ~ashf e hla P. latevittata p 1 e vise e var ~dMo sfs P. ~1 1 P. maior <1 P

P.

~al I microstauron

<1 Pinnularia sp. 1 Pinnularia spp.

Stauroneis anceos 1 ~ o P. Nt cd le <1 S. ~ance s f. linearis 1 S. smithii Gomphonemaceae

~Go II aa to c G. ~ac se t G. dichotomum G ~ref 1*

G pro ff Table 25 (conc'd)

June 20, 1975 "*Dec. 16, 1975 *"June 1, 1976 Stations Texa Bacillariophyta Pennales Comphonemaceae

~Go h a 1 t fr tca <1 Cc olivaceum 1 C pars 1 1 17 Gc Cruncacum C. t c c ar. ~eft ta

~Co h app baal fs sp. 1 Cymbellaceae Crebell *filets C. ear C. hebridica C ~Mero hl C. minuca racilis C. naviculiformis C. ~ltfIIII 1UN C. tumid a

c. ~efd&a

~cb 11 sp. 1

~Ah ra eta Epithemiaceae

~at ah ef cd ta E, ~ar us Nitzschiaceae Hanczschia amohioxvs 1 Nitzschia acicularis 1 Nitzschia amohibia <1 N. SIfs lilt*

I ~cf calf t 5 N. dissfo t 1 N. 1 r1 1 8 N. Nra ill* 1 N. linearis 1 N. obtusa var. seal e lliEozmis 4 N. bt s ca 15 N. 1I 1 12 N. ~si N. ~sf id N. sublinearis N. trlbll Nitzschia sp.

ll 1

Nitzschia sp. 2 Nitzschia spp.

Table 23 (cont'd)

June 20, 1975 "*Dec. 16, 1975 **June 1, 1976 Stations Taxa Bacillariophyta Pennales Bacillariaceae I nail rl Sar I

• Surirellaceae I rlr Ila ~sarsen S. ~eIe ns S. avata I rlrella dnrsll S. S I lla S. robusta ar ~ne *rl. <1 1

1 S. rInes var rve.

I rlr 11 sp. I Surirella spp.

• Sanple lost

• enot enough dlatosLs presenc on slides to equal a full count. Percentages still based on the full count number.

present in this, shallow stream. Nltzschia ohtnsata and N. ~ales are epipelic (living on mud). Nitzschia is able to utilize organic compounds and is tolerant to organic pollution. It is noted that these species were found in high numbers in June 1975, but decreased sharply in December, 1975, and June, 1976, (i.e., decreased to the degree that it was impossible to get a 350 count for each replicate sample taken). Station LW-8 is located in a portion of Thomas Creek that receives large deposits of sand, silt, and clay. These deposits appear to be from runoff associated with clearing for future construction of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant.

In June, 1975, LW-8 could have been subject to small amounts of organic loading (e.g., decayed leaves and vegetation washed down from the banks) but data to support this indication were not available. During the last two sampling periods the creek appeared more turbid and seemed to contain more sand and silt deposits replacing or burying any organic material that had been deposited. This would explain the low numbers of diatoms found (e.g., Nitzschia) during December, 1975, and June, 1976.

This theory, however, is highly dependent on other factors. For example, weather conditions play an important role in determining nutrients and solids present in the system. Station LW-8 is the only station with Nitzschia present as a dominant form.

were dominant at, station BK-2 where a sand and silt substrate prevails.

Sandbars with vegetation are evident during normal flow. Again we see

probably growing on shoreline, sandbar vegetation or bottom vegetation being dislodged from the natural substrate and attaching firmly to the artificial substrate. The Navicula species are epipelic and motile.

This would explain the high numbers found in the stream (Table 24 ).

Tables 25 and 26 represent data collected from stream stations BK-3 and CC-l. Dominant diatoms common to both creeks were Tabellaria fenestrata, Achnanthes lanceolata, and A. linearis. ~S edra ulna and These two creek stations have the same substrate type. It is characterized by sand, pebbles and small rocks among riffles and pools. Tabellaria and ~snedra are common to small cool streams. They may be free-floating or epiphytic. Achnanthes is expected to be found in large numbers on the rocky substrate. Navicula may be found on the substrate in the pool areas. The above diatoms are highly representative of these tributaries.

Table 24 Average Diatom Percentages fron "Aufwuch" Slides in Buckhorn Creek, BK2 June 19, 1975, Dec. 17, 1975 June 1, 1976 ECRCA o$

T8XQ Bacillariophyta Centrales Coscinodiscaceae,

~eltll C.

a idhi seudostelli era a

'cl tells C.

M*108'1

~seallf er

~WR spp.

a

,'I. Er lass M Er 1 1 vat ~sais 1o

'7

<1 <1 M. varians 3 3 Thalassiosira fluviatilis Biddulphiaceae

~aids 1 1 1 vi Hdr r ~trs *ta Anaulaceae E<<rosin o sic Pecnales Tabs llariaceae Tabellaria fenestrata T. flocculosa Fragi.lariaceae

~ril F.

Wa crotonensis h Rhett ta F. vauchariae F. virescens

~sd a ao s S. delicatissirpa s.

S.

~e

~r

• s ar. ~ir il id s S. socia S. ulna

~adr sp 1 iv dr spp <<1 nletiace e Eunotia arcus E. curvata E. fortpica E. ~*1$$

E E cta lis E. H etio 11 var. Ci r E osis sp 1 E n t1a spp Achnanthaceae Achnanthes ~exi ua A. lanceolata A. lanceolata var. dubia A. 11 e ris Table 2g (cont 'd)

June 19, 1975 Dec. 17, 1975 June', 1976 Stations Taxa Bacillariophyta Pennales Achnanthaceae Achnanthes linearis f. curta A. minutissima 3

1. ~ees alla <1 Achnanthes sp. 1 Achnanthes sp. 2 ~

Achnanthes spp. 2 Cocconeis fluviatilis <1 C.Nlaotl C. Nla e t 1 ust. ~el ea

c. Nl a nt I at. 11n ea 57 26 C. scutellum 1 I Naviculaceae

~dacha leuta Nsllutads Caloneis bacillum D. ~uella Entomoneis ornata Frustulia rhomboides N h tlttdnotes ~uit ts F. ueinholdf.i Frustulia sp. 1 (asymmetrica )2

~Gro~si ma exilis G. obtusatum C. ueo aa Gvro~si aa spp.

1Vavicula accomoda N. aikenensis N ~sn sea N ~sat te N

N.

~es

~to f

N. con ervacea hl

<1 1

N. crvotoceohla var. veneta 1 d sl N. ~lan sls II. Nlhh*s ll. N ttl dle N. N Ilold N. 1anceo late latelon itudinalis VI. laterostrata N. luzonensis N. minima Table 24 (contpd)

June 19, 1975 Dec. 17, 1975 June 1, 1976 Stations Taxa Bacfllariophyta Pennales Naviculaceae

'Navicula miniscula N. aaralfs N. utfca mutfca var. cohnfi N. mutfca var. ~stf a N etc vct ~cto te'.

notha CV. ~uula <1 N. radiosa 1 <1 1 N. ~vh nc c hie 4 3 14 N. salinarum N~ ~ctf lalct ca N. viridula ll. MMd la var. Ifnear1s Nvl I sp. I N I le ep. I Navicula spp.

Neidium bisculatum N. iridis Neidium sp. 1 Pfnnulorf* ~chs ens1s var subundulata P. ~bice s

p. ht eos 1 Pt .rs 11 P. braunfi Pinnularfa braunii var. arne hiceohla P. Iatevittata

p. I*eevftt e sr. ~CM P. ~I P. mafor P ~ev I*

P. microstauron Pinnularia sp. 1 Pinnularia spp.

Stauroneis anceos S. ~nc s f. Nracflfs S. ~ance s f. linearis S. sa1ehtf Gcuphoneneceae

~Gh c I t G.

G.

~st df tua chotomum 26 G.~rufle G. I olr1 Table 2td (cont 'd)

June 19, 1975 Dec. 17, 1975 June 1, 1976 Stations Taxa Bacillariophyta, Pennales Gomphonemaceae

~lab tot 1 at G. olivaceum G E trill Ge truncatum G. tr at eat. strata

~aha e spp Gomuhoneis sp. 1 Cymbellaceae C. ~as era C. hebridica C. ~staret hl C minute racilis C. naviculiformis C. ~tate lee C. tumid a C. ~tr 'Idlll

~bella sp. 1 la h ra et Epttheataaeae

~Etch Ma dates Be ~ar us Nitzschiaceae N et ht ~hi rt Nitzschia acicularis <1

'Nttasahta ethtbta 2 N. ut late II. ~strait e E. Gtsste e N. I t1 I N. E atlas II. 11 ar1s liformis N. bt s ta N. E 1*e N. ~si N. ~st Idee N. sublinearis N. ~tblfoo lls Nitzschia sp. 1 N i t zs chi a sp. 2 Nitzschia spp.

Table 24 (cont'd)

June 19, 1975 Dec. 17, 1975 June 1, 1976 Stations Taxa Bacillariophyta Pennales Bgcillariaceae Bealll rla dt ad xa Surirellaceae S ti S. ~le tla e

~at ta S. ovata S rlrell S t 11 S. patella tar ~ner1 S. robusta S. tenera var. nervosa Surirella sp. 1 Surirella spp.

Table Average Diatom Percentages from Aufwuch Slides in Buckhorn Creek, BK3 June 19, 1975 Dec. 15, 1975 June 2, 1976 Stations Bacillariophyta Centrales Coscinodiscaceae Avcf t C.

lla ~ihf seudostelli era a

C. ~calif e

~CCICC*11 Spp M lc lta ~hf M. Er n 1

,'f. EY 1 e* vsr ~nstfssf M. varians Thalassiosira fluviatilis Biddulphiaceae Biddulolua laevis

~adv s r ~cM Ilcr Anaulaceae Yerhsf e slee Pennales Tabellariaceae Tabellaria fenestrata 25 T. flocculosa Fragilariaceae ll

~pi 1 rrf* hrsvfstr P. crotonensis t*

F. vauchariae F. virescens

~sad

~

S. delicatissima S. rubens S.

S. socia S. ulna 1 d sp.

S v

1

r. ~fra fl fd 19

~ac d II spp.

Euniotiaceae Eunotia arcus E. Ste E. Fc AC E. ~a*iff E.

E fIsatf li tfo lfs vst af E

E otf* sp. 1 E ti spp Achaaathaceae Achnanthes ~exi ua A. lanceolata 4 7 43 A. lanceolata var. dubia 5 2 5 A. lfoe 21 7 1

Table 25 (cort'd) a June 19, 1975 Dec. 15, 1975 June 2, 1976 Stations Taxa-Baclllariophyta Pennales Achnanthaceae Achnanthes linearis f. curta A. minutissima A. ~ra 111 Achnanthes sp. 1 Achnanthes sp. 2 Achnanthes spp.

Cocconeis fluviatilis C. Nl t la

c. Nl cant 1 var. e I~1 ta C. Nlacent la v r lane .ta 2 9 C. scutellum <1 <1 Naviculaceae

~dn h1 1 r Nell cede C lcoels b clllnn D. puella Entomoneis ornate Prustulia rhomboides N. rhnab ides var caalr.ata F. veinholdii Frustulia sp. 1 (asymmetrica )?

~cvr a1 evl sells G. obtusatum C. ~eared rosi<~

Nvlnl spp.od

~G N. 1k coals

.I ~en st ac*At I N. c nts aces N ~ar II. ~tc hla a

N. ICCIt c alllo N. d c ls vsr nt*.

I ~linsosls N. Nlbb s*

N. N etlaodl N. Nr ctlotd N. lanceolata N. latelon itudinalis N. laterostrata N. luzonensis, N. minima Table 25 (cont d)P June 19, 1975 Dec. IS, 1976 June 2, 1976 Stations Bacillariophyta Pennales Naviculac sac Navicula miniscula N. muralis N. mutica N. mutica var. cohnii N. mutica var. ~sti a N. tits vat. t e ita'.

notha N. ~uoula 2 N. radiosa 1 1 N. ~rh cute hla 13 2 N. salinarum N. ~ert uuetata N. vdrtdula

'.I. virid la ar. 11 e ri NeM la sp. 1 Navicula sp. 2 Navicula spp Neidium bisculatum N. iridis Neidium sp. 1 Piet la ia P. ~bice s

~ba s1s var . subundulata P. ~bde s 1 PI ter.s 11.

P. braunii Pillll 1 ia b 11 er P. latevittata P I e ltt Io v r ~d P. maior P. ~1 P. microstauron Pinnularia sp. 1 Pinnularia spp.

Stauroneis s S. ~uee s 1 Nr S. ~ance s  !.

~ance ilia.

linearis N. Ctehii Comphonemaccae.

Comohonema acuminatum C ~IVI at t C.

C.

~dl*

G. dichotomum Table 25 (cont'd)

June 19, 1975 Dec. 15, 1975 June 2, 1976 it*sf Taxa Bacillarlophyta Pennales Gomphonemaceae Gomohonema intricatum 1 G. olivaceum <1 G. p rvul 2 G truncatum

b. trunaar var. ofa a*

Gooob spp.

~oo h efs sp 1 Cymbellaceae

~Cbulls fff is C. ~as era C. hebridica C.~of ra hl C tn le racilis C. naviculiEormis C. ~tri 1 C. tumida C ~lr fd la C Well sp. 1

~aohr eat Epi themiaceae EoftheM do ta E ~tr oo Nitzschiaceae Hantzschia amphio>~s Nitzschia acicularis Nia*s hf* ~hfbf N. aoi loca N.

N.

~ftoff dfssio ea r

ll. fontf *la 2 <1 ll. Nr oflfs <1 <1 N. linearfs < 1 N. obtusa varo seal e lliformis N. obtusata N. ~ales N. ~si a ll.

N.

~ffd sublinearis

<1 1

N. tzibff ell <1 Nitzschia sp. 1 Nitzschia sp. 2 Nitzschia spp.

- S7-

Table 25 (cont'd)

June 19, 1975 Dec. 15, 1975 June 2, 1976 Stations Taxa Bacillariophyta Pennales Bacillariaceae S Sllssla Saradoxa Surirellaceae s

S.

ir 11

~lns ~st t*

ST ovata S Ss isa sssell S.Sells sr. e sS S. robusta S. tenera var. nervosa Surirella sp. 1 Surirella spp.

Table 26 Average Diatom Percentages from "Aufwuch" Slides in Cary Creek, CC-1 June 20, 1975 Dec. 16, 1975 June 1, 1976 Stations Taxa Bacillariophyta Centrales Coscinodiscaceae e~elotefla ~enfn nf n C. seudostelli era C. ~st llf e

~tl M 1$ 1 e 11 spp a ~CWi I Bt 1 c M

M.

Et varians 1 ca v t ~ttf*cf Thalassiosira fluviatilis Biddulphiaceae

~Bfddnl 1 a 1 avis

~Edr s * ~cr1 errc Anaulaceae Terll 1

• ccl 1 Pennales Tabellariaceae Tabellaria fenestrata 14 T. flocculosa 3 Fragilariaceae

~pra f1* fa n arise *t F. crotonensis F. vauchariae F. virescens S dr am S. d lie*tfssf S ~ t S.

S. Ci s ar. ~fa fl fd s S. ulna S ed sp.

~a*dr spp.

Euniotiaceae Eunotia arcus E tr t Crnf.

E E.

E

~clif sfllalls B

E. p cti 11$ vat. M r Eunotia sp. 1 Eunotia spp.

Achnanthaceae Achnanthes ~exi ua A. lanceolata 54 '9 80 A. lanceolata var. dubia 6 10 7 A. linearis 1 3 1 Table 26 (cont'd)

June 20, 1975 Dec. 16, 1975 June 1, 1976 Stations Taxa Bacillariophyta Pennales Achnanthaceae Achnanthes linearis f. curta A. minutissima

- A. ~era alii Achnanthes sp. 1 Achnanthes sp. 2 Achnanthes spp.

Cocconeis fluviatilis C. Cl ent 1 C. Cinsect la var. ~ec 1 its

c. Cl e at la var line.ea 1 C. scutellum <<1 Naviculaceae

~hi el ra Nell Caloneis bacillum id*

D. ~uella Entomoneis ornate Frustulia rhomboides <1 r thank ide.s er. aait e <1 F. veinholdii <1 Frustulia sp. 1 (asymmetrica )?

CWTsi rills G. be s t a C. ~acrid gGr~iosi ma spp.

Nvi 1 d

'I. Ak* osis I

N.

~st

~it*ra N.

N.

~e N. confervacea N. ~ctv t c hl

~teehl var eats.

10 N. d sis N ~line sis Il. Ntbb s N. d ttl odica N. AL eileides N. lanceolata N. latelon itudinalis AV. laterosrrata N. luzonensis V. minima

Table 26 (cont'd)

June 20, 1975 Dec. 16, 1975 Stations Taxa Bacillariophyta Pennales Naviculaceae Navicula miniscula N. muralis N. mutica N. mutica var. cohnii N. mutica var. ~sti a N. cfc vac ~ cteDf a N. notha N. ~uula N. radiosa N. ~rh vnachcla N. salinarum N. ~cr\ ctaca N. viridula N. vfrfd 1 ar. lfna rfs NWCC sp.l Navicula sp. 2 Navicula spp.

Neidium bisculatum N. iridis Nefdf sp. 1 Pfnn la 1 ~ba nsfs var . subundulata P. ~bice s P. bf Ds f fne r .enff P. braunii Pfnn 1 rf b ff var. ~hi ca >his P. 1 tevfte r P 1 e vltt ea vat'. ~dnf

• sf

~fe

~

P.

P. maior P. ~sle r*

P. microstauron Pinnularia sp. 1 Pinnularia spp.

Stauroneis ~ance s S. ~aoc f. Nr fife S. anceos f. linearis S. smithii Comphonemaceae C ~ct Comohonema acuminatum C. dichotomum C.~rf1 C.

Table 26 (cont'd)

June 20E 1975 Dec. 16, 1975 June 1, 1976 Stations Bacillariophyta Pennales Gomphonemaceae Gomohonema intricatum 1 G. olivaceum , <1 G E av 1 1 1 G. truncatum <<1 G. t react at. c Ddtata

~dc h ata Gomohoneis sp. 1 Cymbellaceae C. ~as era C. hebridica C. ~erdc hle C. minute racilis C. naviculi formis C ~cf1 1st C. tumid a C. ~tr fd&

EadtheNtaceae Eclat el d ea E ~t Nitzschiaceae Hantzschia amphiox~s Nitzschia acicularis Nle"-*chl tlthib1*

N.

N.

~dl

~dt 11 ta t

N. ~ddsst ts N. fonticola ll. Er clice N. 11 ea ls E.

N. cbt bc s

ar. s 1 lliformis N. E le N. ~si a N. ~sd atda <1 N. sublinearis <1 N. trrbll ella <1 Nitzschia sp. 1 Nit"schia sp. 2 Nltzschia spP.

Table 26 (cont'd)

June 20, 1975 Dec. 16, 1975 June 1, 1976 Stations Taxa Bacillariophyta Pennales Bacillariaceae Bacillaria oaradoxa Surireliaceae S rlr lla ~a stats S. ~l* as ST ovata 1 rt sll Sat 11 S. S t SS S. robusra var ~*art S. tenera var. nervosa Surirella sp. 1 Surirella spp.

Table 27 represents a list of nondiatom algae in the Cape Fear River and selected tributaries (i.e., compiled from the S-R count on periphyton slides for each station and whole water and net samples from Transect D). The lentic habitat of Transect D created by Buckhorn Dam, is suitable for growth of plankton. The nondiatom phytoplankton com-ponent consisted almost entirely of true planktonic forms, an assemblage commonly associated with the phytoplankton of sluggish rivers or reservoirs such as exhibited at D. Components of the planktonic community are delivered over the dam and are distributed to downstream transects..

Hynes (1970) and Prescott (1962) stated that the phytoplankton taxa

,(e.g., from Table 27) are commonly found in or originate from euplanktonic habitats, though many are also found caught among filamentous algae and other vegetation (tychoplankton). The euplanktonic nature of these organisms 'give further evidence that the plankton of Transects A, B, and C originated at Transect D. Numerical analysis of data for plankton

'pecies will not be presented in this report.

Table 28 represents the total number of taxa found at each transect. Et appears that the total number of species found at the river transects is similar to the total number of species found at the stream stations. Comparison of stream flora with river flora data indicates similar major taxonomic groups including Coscinodiscaceae, Fragilariaceae, Eunotiaceae, Achnanthaceae, Naviculaceae, Gomphonemaceae, Cymbellaceae, Nitzschiaceae, Bacillariaceae, and Surirellaceae. Tt should be noted that although the flora collected at station LW-8 consisted of 76 taxa (i.e., comparable in number to other stations) these species were collected in extremely low numbers. The decreased number of diatoms collected at LW-8 appears to be a direct reflection of adverse effects from considerable sand and silt runoff present in the stream.

94

Table 27.

Species list of nondiatom algae found in the Cape Fear River and selected tributaries, April 1975 June 1976 Chlorophyta Volvocales Chlamydomonadaceae Lobomonas sp.

Volvocaceae Eudorina ~ele ans Palmellaceae Chaetophoraceae Sti eoclonium spp.

Chlorococca es Micratiniaceae Golenkinia radiata Micractinium ~usillum Dictyosphaeriaceae Characiaceae Schroederia ~seri era Oocystaceae Ankistrodesmus convolutus A. falcatus Kirchneriella obese var. ~a erta K. obese var. ~ma or Selenastrum gracile S. westii Tetraedron ~tri onum Scenedesmac eae Act inastrum hantzschii Lauterborniella sp.

Scenedesmus acuminatus S. ~bi us S. ~bX'u a var. alternans S. ~dimor his S. ~obli uus 9"

Scenedesmus spp.

Tetrastrum Slabrum Zygnematales Zygnemataceae

~Mou cutis spp.

Desmidiaceae Cosmarium spp.

Table 27(cont'd)

Closterium spp.

Micrasterias spp.

S. ~aradoxum var. ~ein ulum Staurastrum spp.

Chrysophyta Ochromonadales Dinobryonaceae D~inobr on spp.

Cryptophyta Cryptomonadales Cryptomonadaceae Cyanophyta Chroococcales Chroococcaceae Chroococcus multicoloratus Chroococcus spp.

Oscillatoriales Oscillatoriaceae Oscillatoria limnetica

0. limosa Unidentified Oscillatoriaceae Nostocaceae Anabaena spp.

Miscellaneous invertebrates Chironomid larvae

~Difflu ia sp.

Hydroid polyps Keretella sp.

Nauplii larvae Unidentified Rotifera Total number of species listed by Family at the Cape Fear River Transects and Stream Stations Families A B C D LW8* BK2 BK3 Ccl Coscinodiscaceae 6 7 6 6 2 4 2 1 Biddulphiaceae 2 2 2 Anaulaceae 1 1 1 Tabellariaceae 1 1 Fragilariaceae 5 4 ll 5 1 Eunotiaceae 1 4 1 2 6 5 4 3 Achnanthaceae 14 10 11 12 6 10 8 7 Naviculaceae 25 37 22 36 31 32 27 19 Gomphonemaceae 6 7 6 8 4 4 7

'Cymbellaceae 3 10 2 3 5 5 4 Epithemiaceae 1 1 Nitzschiaceae 8 12 10 15 16 8 11 Bacillariaceae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Surirellaceae 2 6 4 5 4 4 2 1 73 102 77 96 76 79 74 55 I

• Collected in extremely low numbers It is next to impossible to compare this data with data Aquatic Control, Inc., collected during 1973, 1974, and 1975. The sampling methods employed are completely different. Aquatic Control, Inc. was sampling the phytoplankton community and those diatoms that were scoured off the substrate. Our sampling method initiated in June, 1975, collects true periphytic organisms that are representative of the river water at the appropriate station. However, some species of diatoms and some species of planktonic algae collected by CPGL appeared to be similar in nature to those collected by Aquatic Control, Inc.

Conclusions

1. Periphyton was periodically sampled at four transects in the Cape Fear and selected tributaries. During the sampling 175 species of diatoms and 67 species of nondiatom algae were collected.

2. The numerically dominant diatoms collected downstream of Buckhorn Dam included representatives of the family Achnanthaceae while upstream of the dam the flora consisted of the families Coscinidis-caceae and Naviculaceae. Diatoms collected at stream stations BK-3 and CC-1 consisted of the families Tabellariaceae and Achnanthaceae while diatoms collected at BK-2 and LV-8 consisted of members of Naviculaceae and Gomphonemaceae.

3. Similar major taxonomic groups of diatoms were collected at the river stations and creek stations.

4. Phytoplankton were supplied to downstream transects from Transect D.

5. In June, 1976, the method of slide desiccation presented by Patrick and Reimer (1966) was tested. It appears from the data that this method is not suitable for diatoms in the Cape Fear River. Therefore, future studies conducted should use the method employed during the months of June and December, 1975.

6. The amount of current greatly influences the kinds of diatoms which may be present. In fast-flowing streams only those forms which can attach themselves can survive (lotic forms). Where the current is not great (e.g., along the edges and on the stream bed or in little pools) a benthic flora will develop (lentic forms) .

7. The diatom flora at station LW-8 was adversely affected by silt runoff from land clearing for future construction of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. The LW-8 diatom flora consisted of 76 taxa but those were collected in extremely low numbers in December, 1975, and June, 1976. It is expected to recover as construction activities cease.

99

Literature Cited Aquatic Control, Inc. 1975. Aquatic Baseline Biota of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Study Axea, N.C. 1973-1974. Seymour, Indiana.

Hutchinson, G. E. 1967. A treatise on limnology. Vol. II. Introduction to lake biology and the limnoplankton. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,

New York.

Hynes, H. B. N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Patrick, R., H. H. Hohn, and J. H. Wallace. 1954. A new method for determining the pattern of the diatom flora. Notulae Naturae of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, No. 259, 12 pp.

Patrick, R. and C. W. Reimer. 1966. The diatoms of tne United States.

Vol. l. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 'monograph No. 13.

Prescott, G. W. 1962. Algae of the Western Great Lakes Area (revised edition).

Brown Publ., Dubuque, Iowa.

Weber, C. I. (ed.). 1973. Biological field and laboratory methods for measurina the quality of surface waters and efzluents. 'Office of Research and Development. U. S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-670/4-73-001.

Whitford, L. A. and G. J. Schumacher. 1973. A manual of Fresh-Water Algae.

'Sparks Press. Raleigh, North Carolina.

100-

3.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Pro ram 3.3.1 Introduction Benthic macroinvertebrate communities are composed of-assemblages of organisms living at least part of their life cycle upon or within the available substrate (e.g., bottom sediments, debris, vascular plants, filamentous algae, etc.) of aquatic habitats.

These communities, when present .in lotic environments, are frequently capable of utilizing large quantities of allochthonous organic matter as a food source. A portion of- the energy contained in this organic matter is converted to benthic biomass which is utilized as food by vertebrates and is a major source of energy for many species of fish.

This important flow of energy from terrestrial environments to higher aquatic life forms would be seriously reduced without the presence of benthic communities.

Benthic communities, in general, contain organisms participating in the aquatic .food web at several trophic levels including omnivores, herbivores, and carnivores (Weber, 1973) . The degree of organization that is present in the structure and composition of the component species participating in this aquatic food web may indicate the general water quality of an aquatic environment. Aquatic macroinvertebrates, according to Resh and Unzicher (1975) have proven to be extremely useful in water quality monitoring in two different methods of investigation; studies of diversity which indicate the degree of community organization and use as indicator organism.

- 101-

The purpose of this study is to examine benthic community organization and organism presence or absence prior to construction of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant in an attempt to evaluate water quality in drainage basins in or near the plant site. Data collected during this study and possible future studies will identify adverse environmental impact on water quality, if any, due to plant construction and/or operation.

This report contains benthic macroinvertebrate data collected, April, May, June, and December, 1975, and June, 1976. Except for minor changes in sampling design, the present study is a continuation of work initiated by Aquatic Control, Inc., Seymour, Indiana (1973, 1974, and 1975).

3.3.2 Materials and Methods Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected during the above mentioned dates (i.e., 1975, 1976) at specific stations located on established transects on the Cape Fear River and selected tributaries.

Figure 3 indicates the locations of river transects and stream stations.

During April and May, 1975, Transect D was sampled at two points, one on each side of the river. A petite 'Ponar grab sampler (15 x 15 centimeters [em]) was utilized to take three replicate samples at each point. Samples were washed on station using a U. S. Standard No. 30 mesh sieve. The sample residue was immediately placed in a plastic container and preserved with 10/ formalin solution containing biological stain. Samples were transported to the laboratory for enumeration and 102-

'+

0 LW-8 S-B OgY.

S-5 CC-1 ch BK-3 S-3 S-2 R-3 TRANSECTS BK-2

~ -

STATIONS 0> )

8ucfchor/n R-2 Dam ~C 4 R-1 n

o SCALE IN MILES CAROLINA POWER 5 LIGHT COMPANY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 1, 2, 3 & 4 AQUATIC TRANSECTS AND SAMP LING POINTS gA- - 103 FIGU=.E 3

identification. Thomas and Buckhorn Creeks were sampled in the same manner but only at one point station.

Downstream of Buckhorn Dam four established stations were sampled on each of Transects A, B, and C. Artificial substrate samplers of the type described by Jacobi (1971) were used to sample benthic macroinvertebrates. Six unlapped Porox porcelain balls of uniform diameter (7.62 cm) were used as artificial substrates and were contained in cylindrical stainless barbecue baskets (18 x 27 cm.).

In June, 1975, the following changes were made in the above mentioned sampling program: Two replicate benthic samples were collected at each of three stations (10/, 50/, and 90/ of river width) located on Transects A, B, and C, artificial substrate samplers (Jacobi, 1971) were used at all stations including those located on Transect D and in Thomas and Buckhorn Creeks, the number of stations on Transect D was increased from two to three (10/, 50/, and 90/ of river width), and two creek Stations BK-3 and CC-1 were established. The purpose of these changes was to increase sampling effort at each station, to use one method of collection at all stations and to gain additional information on benthic communities associated with selected tributaries in the study area.

.Throughout the study period (April, 1975, to June, 1976), all basket samplers were located on station for approximately four weeks during each sampling period, then collected using a standardized technique.

As the basket was raised from the substrate, a plastic pan was held under the sampler to prevent loss of organisms. The porcelain balls were

- 104-

removed and cleaned of adhering organisms. Samples and appropriate labels were placed in Whirl-paks (Fisher Scientific Glass Co.) and preserved with approximately 10/ formalin. The leaves, sticks, algae, and associated organisms which accumulated on the baskets between sample periods were removed and preserved for qualitative analysis.

A Samples were returned to the laboratory where organisms were enumerated and identified.

In the laboratory most organisms were identified with the aid of a dissecting microscope; however, some small specimens or organisms difficult to taxonomically key were mounted on slides and identified with a compound microscope. Suitable taxonomic keys and other aids were utilized during the identification process. Since the taxonomy and biology of many benthic species occurring in the Southeast is poorly known (Parrish, 1968), many positive identifications to species level were not possible. In such cases identifications were left at a higher taxonomic level. Following enumeration and identification of organisms a Correction Factor was applied converting raw numbers of organisms to numbers per square meter.

3.3.3 Descri tions of Stations Established June 1975 Station BK-3 was located on Buckhorn Creek approximately 75 meters downstream of the SR 1116 bridge. At this point, Buckhorn Creek can be characterized by the riffle-pool regime of flow. Stream width at the station was approximately 2 m while depth of water ranged from approximately 0.2 m at low flow to 1.2 m during spates. Substrate con-sisted of sand, pebbles, and cobble sized rocks.

105

Station CC-1 was located on Cary Creek approximately 30 meters upstream of the SR 1127 bridge. At this point, Cary Creek can be characterized as a riffle-pool regime stream. Stream width at the station was approximately 1.5 m, while depth ranged from 0.1 m to 1.0 m. Substrate consisted of sand and pebbles.

3.3.4 Results and Discussion During this investigation benthic macroinvertebrate samples from a selected portion of the Cape Fear River and four tributaries contained 153 taxa representing: Insecta, Nollusca, Tubellaria, Hirundinae, Oligochaeta, Polychaeta, Nematoda, Amphipoda, Coelenterata, Decapoda and Hydrozoa. Table 3.1 presents a list of the organisms from the river and selected tributaries, and lists the following data for each kind of animal: (1) the river transect or stream station where the animal was collected, and (2) the type of sampler used for collection.

By comparison of the data shown in Table 3.1, it is readily seen that samples collected upstream of Buckhorn Dam (Transect D) were conspicuously different from samples collected downstream of the dam (i.e., Transects A, B, and C). For example, the total number of taxa collected at Transects A, B, and C ranged from 94 to 77 with a majority of the organisms representing Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera, Diptera, Coeloptera and Mollusca, while 47 taxa dominated by Oligochaeta and Diptera were collected at Transect D. These differences are primarily due to the sampling of two markedly different habitats with the area upstream of the dam (i.e., Transect D) characterized by a relatively

- 106

Table 3 1 Benthic Nacroinvertebrate Taxa collected from Shearon Harris study area April, 1975 June, 1976 River Transects Creek Stations Taxa B D LW-8 BK-2 BK-3 CC-1 Plecoptera

'erlidae Acroneuria sp. B Perlesta sp. B

~ca itata Perlodidae Zsoperla/~Dl lo ela

~lso erma sp.

Taeniopterygidae Nemouridae Nemoura sp.

• Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis sp. a B GA* B Baetis sp. b B

• A Pseudocloeon sp.

• Callibaetis sp. **

Heptageniidae Stenonema sp. B B B GB B B Siphlonuridae

~leon chia sp.

• Ephemerellidae Tricorythidae GB Caenidae Caccia sp.

• Trichoptera Hydropsychidae B B GB Cheumato s che sp.b B B B B B B

• • B B B Macronemum sp. B B G GB

• A 107-

River Transects Creek Stations TGXG B LW-8 BK-2 BK-3 CC-1 Leptoceridae Oecetis sp. A* B B

• Q**

Psychomyiidae GB B B B B B B

~Cnnellus sp. B Hydroptilidae A~ra lea sp.

Statobiella sp. GB B B GB Leucotrichia sp.

Rhyacophilidae Limnephildae N~en h lax sp.

Lepidoptera Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae Q*

Procladius sp. GB Q* Q* B B B B GB Q* GB B B GB B Pentaneura sp.

Psectrotan Tanvnus sp

"'PZ Cricotopus sp.

'rthocladiinae us sp.

B B GB B Eukiefferiella sp. B B QB Trichocladius sp. B GB Brillia sp.

UlD orthocladiinae B lianocladius sp. B Cardiocladius sp. B Diplocladius sp.

Hydrobaenus sp.

Rheocricotopus sp.

Trissocladius sp.

Thienemanniella sp.

Microcricotopus sp.

Paracricotopus sp.

Orthocladius sp.

Diamesinae Chironominae

'Aicrotendipes sp.

Endochironomus sp.

Cladotanytarsus sp. B G B Dicrotendipes sp. B GP ** QB

- 108

River Transects Creek Stations Taxa A 'B 'C D LM-8 BK-2 BK-3 CC-K Chironomidae Chironominae Rheotan tarsus sp. B B ** Q* GB B B

• B G* GB B B B B B GB GP GB B B Cr tochironomus sp. GB G G B Stenochironomus sp. G Pseudochironomus sp. **

Chironomus sp. GB Psectrocladius sp. B Tribelos sp. B Labrundinia sp. **

Parachironomus sp.

B Harnischia sp.

Paralauterborniella elachista Strictochironomus sp.

Simuliidae Gimulium ~annie si Simulium fibrinflatum Tipulidae

~Tl ula sp.

Dolichopodidae Cullicidae Chaoborus sp.

Heleidae Bezzia/Probezzia GB Q* Q

• P I.U.D. Ephydridae B Q**

.Empididae Hemerodromia sp. GB Psychodidae

~ps choda sp.

Coleoptera Chelonariidae Chelonarium sp.

I.U.D. Curculionidae Dytiscidae Oreod tes/Deronectus Gyrinidae Dineutus sp. GB *

~Grimes sp. ,** * **

109

River Transects Creek Stations Taxa B C D LW-8 BK-2 BK-3 CC-1 I.U.D. Elmidae Elmidae Ordobrevia sp.

Stenelmis sp. B Btenelmis ~1u eri Stenelmis lateralis Zaitzevia sp.

Neoelmis sp.

Psephehidae Acneus sp.

~Pse henus sp.

Dryopidae

~Anor on x ~varle ata Hydrophilidae Berosus sp.

~Hdrobius Odonata Zygoptera Agrionidae Ischnura sp.

~Ensile ma sp.

~Aria sp.

Calopterygidae Libellulidae Neurocordulia sp.

Dorocordulia sp.

Gomphidae

~Gom hus sp.

Mac romiidae Macromia Aeshnidae

~Bo eris sp.

Aeshna sp.

Neuroptera Sialoidae

~Cor dalus sp.

• Sialis sp.

• p

~Nf ronia sp.

Hemiptera Pleuroceriidae Goniobasis sp. B B B Margaritiferidae

~Elli tio sp.

- 110-

River 'Transects Creek Stations Taxa A B C D 'LW-8 BK-2 BK-3 CC-1 Hemiptera Corbiculidae Corbicula sp.

Viviparidae

~Lio lax sp.

~pivi arus sp.

Physidae

~Ph sa sp.

• B B

• Spaeriidae

~Shaerlum sp. B B B GB Pisidium sp.

• B B B Pilidae Pomacea sp.

Bulmidae Amnicola sp. *

• B B B Planorbidae

~Graulus sp. * **

• Helisoma sp. B B B Aneylidae

~Laeva ox sp. **

Tubellaria Planariidae

~Du asia sp. *

• Hirundinae Glossiphonidae Helobdella sp.

Helobdella ~Sta als G Batrachobdella sp.

G ra Placobdella ornata Placobdella sp.

Erpobdellidae Oligochaeta Naididae Pristina sp.

Dero sp.

Nais sp.

Slavina sp.

~St laria sp.

Tubificidae Peloscolex spp.

Brauohiura ~sowerb Limnodrilus i

cia aredeiannus Limnodrilus sp.

UID tubificide B B

River Transects Creek Stations Taxa A D LW-8 BK-2 BK-3 CC-1 Lumbriculidae Polychaeta Nemata Nematoda B GB Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus sp.

~Hallela azteea Coelenterata Decapoda Astacidae sp.

Hydrazao B B

• Organisms collected from qualitative portion of basket sampler.

• • Organisms collected from quantitative portion of basket sampler.

B Organisms collected from qualitative and quantitative portions of basket sampler.

G Organisms collected with Ponar grab sampler.

Organisms not present in sample.

- 112

slow flow and silty substrate, while the river immediately downstream of the dam (i.e., Transects A, B, and C) can be characterized as a series of rapids and runs with cobble to boulder sized rocks. Since a greater number and variety of habitats may be available in a.riffle, rapid, or run than in a slow flowing section of water, the higher diversity of taxa collected downstream of the dam is not unusual. The marked difference in the fauna upstream of the dam is probably a reflection of the limited number of habitats available to colonization.

These differences in habitat make any comparison of Transect D with other transects difficult; therefore, such a comparison will not be presented in this report.

The numerically dominant taxa collected at Transects A, B, and C are presented in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 which indicate the total 2

numbers of organisms/m . The dominant organisms collected during April spp. and the midges, Rheotan tarsus spp. and Eukieferiella spp. (Table 3.2). Organisms representing the two caddisflies, mentioned above, build small meshed nets which are fished for food sources including microscopic detrital particles, plants, and animals carried along by the current. Since the nets do not fish efficiently in slow-flowing waters, the net-building caddisflies are usually associated with riffle or run habitats. The two midges, mentioned above, may be collected from a variety of habitats including streams, rivers, and lakes; their presence, therefore, at Transects A, B, and C is not unusual. Previous studies of the area (Aquatic Control, inc., 1973, 1974 and 1975) indicated

-113-

Table 3.2. Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benthic taxa collected at stations located on Transects A, B, and C. April and May 1975. SHNPP.

Taxa Stations A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4* C-l* C-2 C-3 C-4 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae 146 621 329 1023 146 37 37 1370 219 292 146 731 676 219 183 73 183 2303 1645 Macronemum ~s 347 73 Psychomyiidae 110 110 37 73 73 37 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stonomena ~s 219 128 146 73 37 183 Caenidae Caenis ~s 36 Tricorythidae 36 146 Baetidae Baetis ~s 73 36 146 36 36 Ephemerellidae 36 Diptera Chironomidae 73 36 294 128 36 73 292 36 36 128 36 Orthocladiinae Eukiefferiella ~s 36 256 183 36 I 164 329 146

• Samplers Lost

Table 3.3. Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benthic taxa collected at stations located on Transects A, B, and C. June 1975 to June 1976 SHNPP.

Taxa Stations A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-l C-2 C-3 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae 128 2158 131 ~ 183 2741 292 219 2010 1363 Cheumato s che ~s 164 585 281 62 2119 475 73 914 731 Macronemum ~s 128 146 366 2193 18128 5409 Psychomyiidae 73 73 804 73 110 1608 256 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stonomena ~s 292 183 183 420 73 73 110 366 37 Caenidae Caenis ~s 37 Tricorythidae 37 146 Baetidae Baetis ~s 73 37 73 73 37 - 877 548 Ephemerellidae 37 73 91 37 457 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 219 219 402 146 73 257 110 Rheotan tarsus ~s 73 210 548 486 255 146 511 55 366 Orthocladiinae Eukiefferiella ~s 329 183 37 548 74 183 55 238, Plecoptera Taeniopterygidae Taeniopteryx spp. 493 91 183 329 110 219

were common in collections. The data presented in Table 3.2 doee not indicate the'se organisms were common during April and May, 1975. The low numbers of organisms observed may indicate that insufficient numbers of samples were collected or that the organisms were present in a life stage (i.e., egg or adult) which was not sampled by the collecting methods employed.

Following the May, 1975, collections, sampling effort was increased as mentioned above. The numerically dominant benthic macroinvertebrates collected with the additional effort are presented spp. were the dominant benthic organisms collected at Transects A, B, and C. By comparison of the data presented in Table 3.3 with previously reported studies (Aquatic Control, Inc., 1974 and 1975) it is readily seen that the numerical abundance and species composition of dominant organisms observed during the study presented in this report is similar to the previously reported findings.

The macroinvertebrate community upstream of the dam appears to be typical of those associated with standing or slow flowing waters with silty substrates located in the Southeast. Table 3.4 indicates the numerically dominant organisms were worms (i.e., Oligochaeta) and

- 116-

Table 3.4. Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benthic taxa collected at stations located on Transect D. April 1975 to June 1976 SHNPP.

Taxa Stations D-1 D-1 D-3 D-3

(*Grab (**Basket (*Grab (**Basket

~Sam les) ~Sam less) ~Sam les) ~Sam les)

Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 21 0 90 37 Cr tochironomus ~s 16 73 33 37 Chironomus ~s 21 0 23 0 Tanypodinae 36 0 0 0 Procladius ~s 91 190 63 0 14 55 21 0 49 80 51 585 Oligochaeta 2576 1016 1306 347

• Samples collected April and Hay 1975

• • Samples collected June and December 1975 and June 1976

were collected in relatively large numbers, the limited number of collections made during the study period precludes any discussion of midge ecology or life history.

The data does indicate, however, that basket samplers collected fewer generaof dominant organisms than grab samplers. For example, seven taxa were collected at Station D-3 from Ponar samplers while four were collected from baskets. At Station D-l, grab samplers contained eight dominant taxa compared to five in the basket samplers. Although the basket samplers collected fewer numerically dominant taxa, basket samplers appear to collect organisms which may not be collected efficiently in grab samplers as indicated in Table 3.1. These taxa may prove to be valuable indicator organisms; therefore, plans for future studies should include the use of both grab and basket samplers at Transect D so that a more representative portion of the benthic community may be monitored.

Except for Station LW-8, all habitats sampled in the tributaries were similar in flow regimes and substrate types. Station LW-8 was located in a portion of Thomas Creek which receives large deposits of sand, silt, and clay. These deposits, which appear to be due to run-off associated with construction of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant dictate substrate and habitat types available at LW-8 while the availability of habitats influence the abundance and species diversity of the benthic community. The taxa collected from all stream stations

- 118

including Station LW-8 are listed in Tables.3.1 and 3.5. Although comparisons of the stream benthic faunae with the river fauna yield little information unless conducted at the species level, the data indicate similar major taxonomic groups including Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera, Coleoptera, and Mollusca were collected from both river and stream habitats (Table 3.5).

By comparison of the data shown in Table 3.6, it is readily seen that the numerically dominant taxa present at Stations BK-2, BK-3, and CC-1 were similar to those collected from the river down-stream of the dam. Benthic macroinvertebrates collected in relatively high numbers at Stations CC-1 and BK-3 include the caddisflies, at Station BK-2 may reflect the shifting sand substarte which is probably not suitable for construction of the organisms'ishing nets.

collected in relatively high numbers at Station BK-2 and in low numbers at Stations BK-3 and CC-l. An explanation for these differences was not readily apparent from this study. Other animals collected in relatively high numbers at Station BK-2 and in low numbers at Station CC-1 and BK-3 119-

Table 3.5. Total number of benthic taxa listed by order collected at river transects and stream stations.

River Transects Stream Stations A B C D LV-8 BK-2 BK-3 CC-1 Order Plecoptera 5 7 2 1 0 3 7 2 Ephemeroptera 7 6 8 2 0 8 4 4 Trichoptera 14 14 15 5 2 14 5 8 Diptera 29 27 26 19- 15 29 21 23 Lepidoptera 1 Coleoptera 12 4 4 2 7 Odonata 4 2 2 1 Neuroptera 2 1 1 Hemiptera 1 Mollusca 13 10 10 5 4 Tubellaria 1 1 1 1 1 Hirundlinae 3 5 3 3 2 Oligochaeta 5 5 5 4 1 Polychaeta 1 1 Nematoda 1 1 Amphipoda 1 2 Colelenterata 1 1 1 Decapoda Hydrazoa 1 Total 96 84 77 49 29 63 47 57 Total taxa collected from all stations 153

- 120

I 2

Table 3.6. Total mean numbers of organisms/m of selected benthic taxa collected at creek stations.

Taxa Stations LM-8 LW-8 BK-2 BK-2 BK-3 Cc-l

(*Grabs) (**Basket) (*Grabs) (**Basket) (*Grabs) (**Basket)

Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae 80 55 14 1645 351 37 Macronemum ~s 73 Psychomyiidae 73 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stonomena ~s 14 330 168 91 Caenidae Caeais ~s 182 Tricoryrhidae 28 146 Baetidae Baetis ~s 224 37 95 Ephemerellidae 73 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 1008 265 70 37 133 256 117 256 28 Chironomus ~s 154 109 Tanytarsus spp. 187 484 61 329 2248 6Q12 515 190

Table 3.6. . (cont'd).

Taxa Stations LW-8 LW-8 BK-2 BK-2 BK-3 CC-1

(*Grabs) (**Basket) (*Grabs) (**Basket) (*Grabs) (**Basket)

Tanypodinae Procladius ~s 213 37 0 402 37 14 0 438 338 55 Orthocladiinae Psectrocladius ~s 37 Eukiefferiella ~s 14 329 862 . 1242 73 Oligochaeta 494 109 56 110 73

high numbers of these midges at Station BK-2 was not apparent from this study, however, the sand substrate and the slower fl'ow of water present at this station may offer a more favorable habitat than the habitats available at Stations CC-1 and BK-3.

The benthic fauna collected at Station LW-8 consisted of 29 taxa with the midges, Chironomus spp. and Procladius spp. and the Oligochaeta being numerically dominant. Organisms representing Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera were either collected in low numbers or were not observed at this station. The decreased numbers of taxa (i.e., 29) at Station LW-8 compared with 63 taxa at BK-2, 47 at BK-3, and 57 at CC-1, and the relatively low numbers of organisms collected at LW-8 is a direct reflection of the adverse effects of the sand-silt runoff present in this portion of the stream. The major effect of the sand-silt runoff into the stream is either to bury the benthic organisms or to scour them from all unprotected habitat; thus the fauna collected at LW-8 can be characterized by the relatively low numbers of organisms representing a few taxa which are capable of living in the sediments or otherwise adapting to the sand-silt habitat present.

3.3.5 Conclusion

1. Benthic macroinvertebrates were periodically sampled at four transects in the Cape Fear River and four selected tributary stations. During the sampling 153 taxa were collected; these included Insecta, Mollusca, Tubellaria, Hirundinae, Oligochaeta, Polychaeta, Nematoda, Amphypoda, Coelanterata and Decapoda.

123-

2. The numerically dominant organisms collected downstream of Buckhorn Dam included representatives of the Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera, Diptera, and Trichoptera while upstream of the dam like fauna was dominated by Diptera and Oligchaeta.

3. Similar taxonomic groups of benthic organisms were collected at Stations CC-1, BK-2 and, BK-3 with the numerical dominant organisms representing taxa of Trichoptera, Ephemeroptera, and Diptera.

4. The benthic fauna at Station LW-8 was adversely effected by siltation possibly due to runoff from clearing operations for the t

Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Diptera and Oligochaeta were the numerically dominant organisms collected at this station, while organisms representing Pleoptera, Ephmeroptera and Trichoptera either were collected in low numbers or were absent from samples. It is expected that some taxa representing Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera, and Trichoptera will recolonize the stream near Station LW-8 once clearing operations have been completed; however, the species composition may not be comparable to that observed at Stations BK-3 and CC-1 until large quantities of silt have been removed from the area near LW-8 by spates. The removal of this silt may require an. undetermined period of time, possibly years.

124-

3.3.7 Literature Cited Aquatic Control. 1975. Baseline biota of the Shearon Harris Study Area, North Carolina, 1973-1974. Aquatic Control, Inc.,

Seymour, Indiana.

1976. Baseline biota of the Shearon Harris Study Area, North Carolina. 1974-1975. Aquatic Control, Inc.,

Seymour, Indiana.

Jacobi, G. Z. 197 . A quantitative artificial substrate sample for benthic macroinvertebrates. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 100: 136-138.

Parrish, F. K., 1968. Introduction. Pages A 1-6 in F. K. Parrish, ed., Keys to water quality indicative organisms (Southeastern United States). FWPCA, U. S. Dept. of Interior.

Resh, V. H. and J. D. Unzicker. 1975. Water quality monitoring and aquatic organisms: the importance of species identification.

Journ. Water Poll. Cont. Fred. 47: 9-19.

Weber, C. L., ed. 1973. Macroinvertebrates in Biological field and laboratory methods for measuring the quality of surface water and effluents. EPA 670/4-73-001, U. S. Environ. Prot. Agency; 38 pp 125

Pro ram Recommendations

1. Since wire baskets were generally inefficient in the Cape Fear River, this gear type will be deleted from future monitoring.

2. Very few specimens of snail bullhead have been obtained during the current survey for age-growth studies and a rather poor data base exists on growth of bottom feeders. Brown bullhead are quite common in Fyke net catches and it is recommended that pectoral spines from this species be used in age-growth studies in addition to spines obtained from snail bullhead.

3. Since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission have expressed concern over the excessive siltation of Thomas Creek and Whiteoak Creek, it is suggested that a program be initiated to monitor the siltation in the study area.

4. Once the construction permit is granted and construction commences, it will be necessary to increase both the frequency of collection and the number of stream stations in order to evaluate any impact.

Quarterly sampling by electrofishing at the following stations is recommended: CC-l, LW-8, LW-2, BK-2, BK-3, TJ-l, and W-3 (see Aquatic Control 1973 and Figure 1 for locations).

Data generated from this program will be compared to baseline preconstruction data (Aquatic Control, 1973).

- 126

ANNUAL REPORT SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT BASELINE MONITORING PROGRAM AQUATIC BIOLOGY UNIT 197 7 July, 1978 Prepared By:

Maureen Cullen Ron Hobbs Dave Sager Reviewed and Approved By:

William T. Hogarth Principal. Scientist Aquatic Biology Unit

Table of Contents Page List of Tables List of Figures 1.0 Fisheries Program 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Fisheries Sampling Locations 1.2.1 River Transects 1.2.2 Stream Stations 1.3 Cape Fear River Studies 1.3.1 Materials and Methods 1.3.2 Species Composition 1.3.2.1 Electrofishing Results 1.3.2.2 Fyke Net'esults 1.4 Stream Studies 1.4.1 Materials and Methods 1.4.2 Species Composition 10 1.4.2.1 Thomas Creek Ichthyofauna 10 1.4.2.2 Cary Creek Ichthyofauna 1.4.2.3 Buckhorn Creek Ichthyofauna 1.4.2.4 Proposed Stream Stations 12 1.5 Faunal Similarity and Diversity Indices 13, 1.5.1 Indices of Faunal Similarity 13 1.5.2 Diversity and Equitability Estimates 15a 1.6 Species of Special Interest 15b.

1.7 Age and Growth Studies 15c 1.7.1 Materials and Methods 15c 1.7.2 Growth of Bluegill 17 1.7.3 Growth of Largemouth Bass 17 1.7.4 Growth of Snail Bullhead 17 1.8 Literature Cited 36

2. 0 Peri'phyton 37 2.1 Introduction 37 2.2 Materials and Methods 37

Table of Contents (cont'd)

Page 2.3 Results and Discussion 37 2.3.1 River Transects 37 2.3.2 Stream Stations 40 2.4 Conclusions 43 2.5 Literature Cited 44 3.0 Benthic Macroinvertebrates 71 3.1 Introduction 71 3.2 Materials and Methods 71 3.3 Results and Discussion 71 3.3.1 River Transects 71 3.3.2 Stream Stations 76 3.4 Conclusions 77 3.5 Literature Cited 79

LIST OF TABLES Table ~Pa e Common and scientific names of fishes collected from the Cape Fear River and SHNPP site. 20 1.2 Comparisons of collections made from 1973 to 1977 in the Cape Fear River. 22 1.3 List of species, numbers, and total weight (grams) of fishes taken by electrofishing in the Cape Fear River along Transect A during 1977. 23 1.4 List of species, numbers, and total weight (grams) of fishes taken by electrofishing in the Cape Fear River along Transect BC during 1977. 24 1.5 List of species, numbers, and total weight (grams) of fishes taken by electrofishing in the Cape Fear River along Transect D during 1977.

1.6 Numbers and weight (grams) of fishes caught in fyke nets per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of effort in the Cape Fear River at Tran-sects A, BC, and D during 1977. 26 1.7 List of fish species collected at the creek stations during 1977. 27 1.8 List of species, numbers, and weights (grams) of fishes taken by electrofishing at Stations CC-1 and LW-8 during 1977. 28 1.9 List of species, numbers, and weights (grams) of fishes taken by electrofishing at Station BK-2 during 1977. 29 List of species, 'numbers, and weights (grams) of fishes taken by electrofishing at Station BK-3 during 1977. 30 1.11 List of species, numbers, and weights (grams) of fishes taken by electrofishing at Stations W-l, W-3, LW-2, and TJ-1 during December, 1977. 31 1.12 Diversity and equitability estimates for sampling loca-tions in the study area during 1977. 32 1.13 Back calculated total length (mm) at annulus formation for the bluegill from 1976 through 1977.. 33

Table ~Pa e 1.14 Back calculated total length (mm) at annulus formation for the laxgemouth bass from 1976 through 1977.

1.15 Hean back calculated total lengths at annulus formation for the bluegill, laxgemouth bass, and snail bullhead in the SHNPP site as compared with data collected from North Carolina lakes. 35 2.1 Relative abundance of the diatoms from the "Aufwuchs" slides in the Cape Fear River, Transects A, B, C, and D collected during Februaxy of 1977. 46 2.2 Relative abundance of the diatoms from the "Aufwuchs" slides in the Cape Fear River, Transects A, B, C, and D collected during June of 1977. 52 2.3 Relative abundance of the diatoms from the "Aufwuchs" slides in the Cape Fear River Creek Stations; Thomas Creek (LW-8), Buckhorn Creek (BK-2), Buckhorn Creek (BK-3), and Cary Creek (CC-1), collected during February of 1977. 58 2.4 Relative abundance of the diatoms from the "Aufwuchs" slides in the Cape Fear River Creek Stations; Thomas Creek (LW-8), Buckhorn Creek (BK-2), Buckhorn Creek (BK-2), Buckhorn Creek (BK-3), and Cary Creek (CC-1),

collected during June of 1977. 64 3.1 Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benthic taxa collected at stations located on Transects A, B, and C February of 1977 SHNPP. 80 3.2 Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benthic taxa collected at stations located on Transects A, B, and,C - June of 1977 SHNPP.

3.3 Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benthic taxa collected at stations located on Transects A, B, and C December of 1975 SHNPP. 82 3.4 Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benthic taxa collected at stations located on Transects A, B, and C June of 1976 - SHNPP. 83

Table Page 2

3.5 Total mean numbers of organisms/m of selected benthic taxa collected on Transect D February of 1977 SHNPP. 84 3.6 Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benthic taxa collected at stations located on Transect D-December of 1975 SHNPP.

3.7 Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benthic taxa collected at stations located on Transect D-June of 1976 SHNPP. 86 3.8 Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benthic taxa collected at stations located on Transect D-June of 1977 SHNPP. 87 3.9 Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benthic taxa collected at creek stations February of 1977. 88 3.10 Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benthic taxa collected at creek stations - December of 1975. 89 3.11 Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benthic taxa collected at creek stations June of 1976. 90 3.12 Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benthic taxa collected at creek stations - June of 1977. 91

List of Figures Page Figure l. Locations of existing and proposed fisheries sampling transects and stations. 19

1.0 Fisheries Pro ram 1.1 Introduction Studies designed to evaluate the environmental impact of the construction and operation of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (Units 8'1, f/2, /f3, and 84) began in 1972 with the baseline biological survey of Aquatic Control, Inc. These baseline studies provided data on the species composition, abundance, and distribution of fishes in the Buckhorn Creek-Whiteoak Creek watershed and in the Cape Fear River (Aquatic Control, 1973, 1975, and 1976). Prior surveys in the area were conducted by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Louder, 1963) and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (Huber, 1969).

In 1975 the Company delayed start-up of the plant until 1984. ,Realizing that sufficient baseline biological studies had been compiled by Aquatic Control, the Environmental Technology Section reconsidered the study program and developed an interim study program (CP&L, 1977). This program was designed to provide meaningful continuity between previous baseline studies and those studies scheduled to begin when construction resumed. This report summarizes the data collected during 1977 as part of this interim study.

1.2 Fisheries Sam lin Locations Sampling locations (Figure 1) were 'designated in the Cape Fear River and at selected stream stations to provide meaningful data

prior to construction. These sampling locations and a brief description of the habitat at each location is included below.

1.2.1 River Transects Transect A is located in Harnett County approximately 0.8 km below the mouth of Daniels Creek, or 1.9 km south of the Chatham and Harnett county lines. The transect is located just upstream of II a small island. At this location the river typically has slow to moderate flow. The substrate is bedrock with abundant boulders and rock along with some sandy areas.

Transect BC is located in Chatham and Lee counties, approx-imately O.l km north of the confluence of Buckhorn Creek and the Cape Fear River. The area consists of some swift riffle zones and some extensive pool zones immediately downstream of these riffles. The substrate in the area is bedrock and large boulders.

Transect D is located in Chatham and Lee counties, just above Buckhorn Dam. The current is usually slow with water depths reaching 4.5 meters (Aquatic Control, 1975). The habitat at this transect is more lentic than those areas downstream of the dam and the fisheries fauna of the area, as will be shown later, reflects these major habitat differences. Transect D is located in the region of the discharge canal of the Cape Fear Electric Plant.

1.2.2 Stream Stations Stream station BK-2 is located on Buckhorn Creek in Chatham

County approximately.3.0 km southof Corinth downstream of the proposed impoundment. The stream at this location is a slow-moving bottomlands creek with evidence of considerable silt loading. The bottom substrate is mostly sand with limited areas of gravel and rock.

Stream station BK-3 is located on Buckhorn Creek in Wake County on SSR 1116 'approximately 2.8 km southwest of Holleman's Crossroads. This station is located in the upper headwater reaches of the stream which has a moderate gradient with rock and gravel substrates.

The water rarely becomes turbid. This station functions as a control in that it is physically outside of any influence of plant construction and will not be inundated when the 4000-acre impoundment is flooded.

Stream station CC-1 is located on Cary Creek in Wake County on SSR 1127 approximately 1 km southeast of Holleman's Crossroads.

This small stream flows through pastureland and typically has a

~ shallow gradient and low flow. Some riffle zones are interspersed among the shallow pools. The substrate is mostly sand with some rock and gravel present. This station is also considered as a control station for the evaluation 'of any impact resulting from construction activities, since it will not be inundated.

Stream station LW-8 is located on Thomas Creek in Wake County on SSR 1139 approximately 13.9 km northeast of Puquay-Varina inside the proposed impounded area. This stream has steep shorelines that are rather heavily wooded and receives considerable runoff from the plant site. Log gams are abundant and probably resulted from prior extensive logging areas near this transect (Aquatic Control,

1976). The substrates of Thomas Creek are primarily silt and sand.

These conditions result in. the normally turbid condition of the water at the station.

The following creek stations were sampled as possible collection sites during the preimpoundment construction period; LW-2, W-l, W-3, and TJ-1. The location and description for each station is given below (Figure 1).

F Stream station LW-2 is located on Little Whiteoak Creek in Wake County on SSR 1127 approximately 1.5 km northwest of Holleman's Crossroads. The stream is of low gradient with a predominant run-pool type flow. The substrate and water conditions range from sand with clear water to silt in pools and sand runs with clear to murky water.

This station will be inundated by the proposed impoundment.

Stream station W-1 is located on Whiteoak Creek in Chatham County on SSR 1914 approximately 3.6 km southwest of Holleman's Cross-roads. The creek at this site is a riffle-run-pool area. The substrate varies from well-washed sand and small gravel in the riffles, to silty, heavily-organic materials in the pools. The station will be flooded by the proposed impoundment.

Stream station W-3 is located on Whiteoak Creek in Wake County on SSR 1127 approximately 1 km northwest of Holleman's Cross-roads. The creek is mainly a run-pool habitat type in this area (upstream of W-1) with a fine sand substrate. This station will be inundated by the proposed impoundment.

Stream station TJ-1 is located on Tom Jack Creek in Wake County on SSR 1132 approximately 2 km southeast of Merry Oaks. The creek is mainly a pool-riffle type with substrates varying from silt in pools, to washed clay and sand in riffles. The water is murky with.

a low flow rate. This station will also be inundated by the proposed impoundment.

1.3 Ca e Fear River Studies 1.3.1 Materials and Methods During June and December of 1977, samples of fishes present in the Cape Fear River were collected at river transects A, BC, and D.

Each transect was sampled with a boat mounted Smith Root Type Vl Electrofisher or a Type V Backpack Electrofisher (except Transect A from which samples were unable to be obtained in December). Sampling effort was limited to 30 minutes at each transect. As a result of the low water levels present during June, it was necessary to sample at river transects A and BC using a backpack electrofisher.

ln addition, each river transect was sampled with two (2) fyke nets for approximately 48 hours. All fyke nets were four feet deep with a twenty-foot center lead. The net was constructed of 14-inch bar mesh.

All fishes collected and processed in the field were identi-fied to the species, total length measurements made to the nearest millimeter, and weight determined to the nearest gram. Large game

specimens were processed in the field, tagged with a numbered Floy 67F anchor tag, and released in order to provide data on fish movement within the site area. Small specimens and others requiring laboratory identification were preserved in 10% formalin in the field. Weights of preserved specimens were taken to the nearest 0.1 gram.

1.3.2 S ecies Com osition Studies of the icthyofauna of the Cape Fear River .began in 1973 with the baseline studies of Aquatic Control, Inc. These studies and others conducted into 1977 have identified a total of 49 species of fishes from the Cape Fear River within the site area (Table 2). A total of 68 taxa have been identified from the Cape Fear River and stream stations within the site area (Table 1). This high number of species reflect the location of the site area in the fall zone, the major transition area between the piedmont and coastal 'plain provinces.

The ichthyofauna of the fall zone is typically species rich and includes fishes common to both upland and coastal plain habitats.

The presence of Buckhorn Dam provides for a semilentic habitat immediately upstream of the dam in contrast to the typically lotic habitat prevalent below the dam. This diversity in habitat, resulting from the presence of the dam, and the location of the site area in the fall zone contribute to the high number of species in the area.

Studies completed during 1977 yielded a total of 32 species from the river (Table 2). A species encountered during this survey

that was not previously. reported by Aquatic Control, Inc. and CP6L A comparison of the species encountered in the four survey periods (1973-74, 1974-75, 1976, and 1977) illustrate that no major changes have occurred in the ichthyofaunal composition of the river (Table 2). The decrease in taxa collected this year might be a result of the samples lost below the dam during December, 1977, when the river flooded and swept away some sampling gear.

1.3.2.1 Electrofishin Results Electrofishing along Transect A yielded a total of 12 species representing 64 individuals and 726.8 grams. Based upon the total catch, the numerically dominant species present were the longnose gar, highfin shiner, swallowtail shiner, snail bullhead, redbreast sunfish, tesselated darter, and piedmont darter (Table 3).

Dominance, for purposes of this report, is defined as those species whose individuals comprise 5% or more of the total catch. These seven dominant species represented 78% of the total number of fishes captured and 94% of the total biomass. These results reflect only fish taken during June since December samples were not obtained from Transect A.

At Transect BC, a total of 22 species were represented in the yearly catch. A total of 168 individuals were collected at this transect representing a combined. weight of 15524.76 grams (Table 4). The numerically dominant species included the snail

bullhead, redbreast sunfish, and bluegill. These species represented 58% of the total abundance and 47% of the total biomass of fishes collected. The dominant species by weight were not always numerically dominant and included the gizzard shad, shorthead redhorse, and largemouth bass (Table 4).

As indicated by these data (Tables 3 and 4), Transects A and BC have ichthyofaunas typical of what would be expected in lotic environments. Numerically, the fish fauna of this region of the river is dominated by cyprinids and centrarchids. These results are in general agreement with results of previous studies (Aquatic Control, Inc., 1973, 1975, 1976, and CPGL, 1977) indicate that very little if any changes have occurred to affect the species composition.

At river Transect D, above Buckhorn Dam, the habitat is considerably different from that at Transects BC and A and the species composition reflects this difference. A total of ll species were collected at this transect during 1977 (Table 5). The numerically dominant species included gizzard shad, bluegill, and redear sunfish.

These species comprised 85% of the total number of fishes collected and 46% of the weight. The dominant species by weight at this transect included the American eel, gizzard shad, carp, bluegill, redear sunfish, and largemouth bass (Table 5). As evidenced in the data in Table 5, the fauna above the dam is dominated by centrarchids

and differs from the cyprinid-centrarchid fishery prevalent below the dam.

Catches of fishes in fyke nets (Table 6) ranged from 3.26 to 22.05 fish/day during 1977 and were different from el'ectrofishing data in the largest catch occurred at Transect D. The highest catch of 22.05 fish/day occurred at this transect during a period of flood conditions in December of 1977. This high catch may reflect the behavior

~

of fishes to seek areas of lowest flow along the river banks during flood conditions thus increasing the probability of capture in hoop nets. During this same period, the hoop nets present below the dam were washed downstream and both the gear and samples lost.

Eight species were taken from the nets at Transect D, six species at Transect BC, and five species at Transect A. Ictalurids dominated the, catch at all transects (except at Transect A where bluegills were also dominant). Species caught in hoop nets that were not present in electrofishing samples included the flathead catfish, brown bullhead, and channel catfish.

1.4 Stream Studies 1.4.1 Materials and Methods During June and December of 1977, samples of fishes present at Stream Stations BK-2, BK-3, CC-1, and LW-8 were collected using

a Smith Root Type V backpack electrofisher. Collections, were made in a 100-meter section of stream at each sampling location. Similar samples were also taken at proposed Stream Stations LW'-2, TJ-1, W-l, and W-3 during December, 1977.

All fishes collected and processed in the field were identi-fied by species, total length measurements made to the nearest milli-meter, and weight determined to the nearest gram. Large game specimens were processed in the field, tagged with a numbered Floy 67-F anchor tag, and released in order to provide data on fish movement within the site area. Small specimens and others requiring laboratory identification were preserved in 10/ formalin in the field. Weights of preserved specimens were taken to the nearest O.l gram.

1.4.2 S ecies Com osition A,total of 497 individuals representing 35 species were collected from Stations LW-8, CC-1, BK-2, and BK-3 during 1977.

The number of species found at each station ranged from 10 at LW-8 and CC-1 to 23 species at BK-3 (Table 7).

1.4.2.1 Thomas Creek Ichth ofauna The dominant fishes found in Thomas Creek at Station LW-8 included the redfin pickerel, creek chub, golden shiner, pirate perch, green sunfish, pumpkinseed, bluegill, and redear sunfish. These species accounted for 95/ of the total number of fishes collected and 96/ of the total weight (Table 8). The results obtained during this survey were in general agreement with previous studies (Aquatic Control, 1975, and CPGL, 1977). The pooi water .quality of this creek probably accounts for the low relative abundance and species composition of the ichthyofauna. Noticeably absent from the species list for this station are the usually large numbers and diversity of cyprinids common to other stream stations in the site area.

1.4.2.2 Car Creek Ichth ofauna A total of 59 individuals representing 10 species were accounted for in Cary Creek (CC-1) during December, 1977. The June sample was not obtained at CC-1 due to the unwillingness of the landowner of that time to allow sampling. The numerically dominant species included the creek chub, highfin shiner, creek chubsucker, and redbreast sunfish. These species represented 88% of the total number of fishes in the samples and 66% of the biomass (Table 8).

1.4.2.3 Buckhorn Creek Ichth ofauna Samples from Buckhorn Creek contained the greatest number of species of any stream stations sampled during 1977. Collections at Buckhorn Creek are made at two very different stations, BK-2 and BK-3.

Station BK-3 is located in the headwaters and functions as a control station in that it is outside any influence of plant construction.

During 1977 a total of 189 individuals were collected representing 23 species. The numerically dominant species included the American eel, bluehead chub, white shiner, highfin shiner, margined madtom,

speckled killifish, redbreast sunfish, and tesselated darter (Table 10).

These species totaled 77/ by number and 62/ by weight of the fishes collected.

Station BK-2 which is near the confluence of Buckhorn Creek and the Cape Fear River, is in a lowland area downstream of the proposed dam site and upstream of a dike from a decommissioned hydro-electric plant. When the plant was decommissioned in 1965, the river entrance to Buckhorn Creek was blocked by an earthen dam (Aquatic Control, 1973). This dam effectively blocks all migration of fishes from the main river into the creek. A total of 212 individuals repre-L senting 17 species were collected at this station in 1977.

The dominant species at this station included the American eel, satinfin shiner, swallowtail shiner, sandbar shiner, speckled killifish, and redbreast sunfish (Table 9). These species totaled 87/ of the fishes collected and represented 77/ of the total weight.

As evidenced by the data (Tables 9 and 10), the ichthyofauna of Buckhorn Creek is principally composed of cyprinids and centrarchids.

This is in general agreement with the baseline studies of Aquatic Control and CP&L.

1.4.2.4 Pro osed Stream Stations The additional stream stations, sampled during December, 1977, (LW-2, TJ-1, W-l, W-3) are proposed stations for the preimpoundment construction biological monitoring program. The'four established 12

stream stations plus three of the four proposed stations will be the stream stations sampled during the preimpoundment construction.

Six fishes (Table ll) were collected at Little Whiteoak Creek (LW-2) in December, 1977. These fishes consisted of five species:

golden shiner, creek chubsucker, redbreast sunfish, pumpkinseed, and bluegill.

Only one fish (crescent shiner) was collected in Tom Jack (TJ-1) during December, 1977.

Of the two stations on Whiteoak Creek (W-1 and W-3) collections at the station most downstream (W-1) had the largest number of species (10) and individuals (29). While the W-3 collection had 6 species and 20 individuals (Table 11).

The December stream collections were hampered by high water levels causing turbid water and swift currents thereby decreasing the efficiency of the fish collections. This helped to contribute to the lower number of fishes captured during this year of sampling. Two species of fishes taken in 1977 were not obtained in the stream stations on earlier studies. These species are the bluespotted sunfish (Enneatanthus ~lorlosus) and the northern swamp darter (Etheostoma Fusiforme).

1.5 Faunal Similarit and Diversit Indices 1.5.1 Indices of Faunal Similarit Since electrofishing has been found to be probably the most efficient and least biased estimator,(except for ictalurids} .of the Cape Fear River icthyofauna, comparisons of the species composition and abundances among river transects were made using comparative indices of community similarity. The overlap index (C) of Horn (1966) and Jaccard's Index (R) (Jaccard, 1908) were computed using the electrofisher data. The formula for computation of C are provided below.

s s E 2 2

x i1 Xi y E

ii Y2 s

E i=i ii (X +A )XY where:

s = number of species xi and y.i = number of individuals of the ith species in community X and Y X and Y = total number of individuals in the two communities X

and" A = measures of diversity y

C index of faunal overlap Values of C range fr'om 0 to 1 with values .of zero indicating that the two communities are completely dissimilar while a value of one indicates that the communities are identical. Jaccard's Index ranges from 0/ similarity to lOOX similarity and is calculated using the following relationship.

R = ( C ) x 100 Ni+ jN C where:

R ~ Jaccard's Index N = number of species in population 1 N = number of species in population 2 C = number of species in common between N and N.

j As evidenced by the data presented, below, Transects BC and A are similar and both these transects were quite different in faunal composition from Transect D. This would be expected due to habitat differences existing between Transect D and other transects downstream of Buckhorn Dam. Any further conclusions drawn from the analysis for this year would be suspect due to the lost sample at Transect A. These indices will be valuable as a basis of comparing the changes in the fauna of the river that might. occur once construction commences.

15

'Transects 'R(X)

A'BC ,0.467 36.00 D A 0.012 g. 52 D BC .0.155 17.86 1.5.2 Diversit and E uitabilit 'Estimates Shannon-Weaver diversity (d), maximum diversity (d max), and equitability (e) were computed using river electrofishing data. Formulae and computations follow those reported in Weber, 1973. These values along with the indices above will be used to delineate the differences in the species composition among transects. As evidenced by the data presented in Table 12, highest'diversity occurred at Transect BC and the lowest at Transect D. Transects BC and A below Buckhorn Dam were similar with respect to diversity values (3.46 and 3.42 respectively) and both these areas different from Transect D. The diversity (d ~ 2.15) at Transect D was considerably lower than predicted maximum value (d max ~ 3.46). Deviation from d max was greater at Transect D than at any other location in the study area.

Equitability, which is a measure of the distribution of individuals among species, was poorest at Transect D and best at Transect A.'t is probable that these differences in diversity and equitability between the area above the dam (Transect D) and those below (Transects BC and A) reflect the large differences in habitat type.

Diversity of fishes at four established stream stations during 1977 as based upon annual totals, ranged from 2.23 to 3.67 15a

(Table 12). Buckhorn Creek (BK-2 and BK-3) had the highest species diversity of the four stations studied. However, caution should be exercised in drawing any comparisons between the stations due to the lack of one sample at CC-1. Values of e greater than one probably reflect the inappropriateness of the model to reflect the true nature of species abundance. Equitability (e) values of 1.10 and 1.20 were computed for stations LW-8, W-3, and LW-2 using the 1977 data.

The single collections at the proposed stream stations (LW-2, TJ-1, W-l, and W-3) gave diversities ranging from 0.00 to 2.95 (Table 12),

and high equitability values, probably due to small sample sizes.'.6 S ecies of S ecial Interest Of special interest for this area of the river is the presence (Notropis mekistocholis) (Table 1) . Four specimens of flathead catfish were taken in fyke nets at Transect A during May, 1976,and five specimens at Transect BC during June, 1977. These catfish are endemic to the Mississippi drainage; however, they were stocked in the Cape Fear River by the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission during the 1960's. The Cape Pear shiner (~Notro is meklstocholais) was present only in samples collected during 1974-1975 by Aquatic Control, Inc., and represented the only rare, endangered, or threatened species encountered in the study program. This species is endemic to this area having a very restricted distribution (Snelson, 1971) and is listed as an

endangered species on the Preliminary List of Endangered Plant and P

Animal Species in North Carolina (1973).

The swallowtail shiner (Notropis procne) in Buckhorn Creek represents one of three known isolated, populations in the Cape Fear drainage (Louder, 1963), although fairly common in other North Carolina drainages. The speckled killifish is also uncommon and has a very limited distribution in the Cape Fear River (Louder, 1963). The effects of plant construction may result in serious degradation of preferred habitat mainly through siltation for these species and result in their elimination from the system. Since the creek is isolated from the Cape Fear River, displacement of populations and subsequent recolonizations from river stocks is not expected.

1.7 A e and Growth Studies 1.7.1 Materials and Methods Scales from largemouth bass and bluegills and pectoral spines from bullheads (snail and brown) were collected in the field as available.

Total length in millimeters and weight in grams were recorded along with the appropriate locality and gear type data.

In the laboratory scale impressions were made on acetate 1

cards with a 12-ton Carver press utilizing a combination of pressure and temperature. Scale impressions were read on an Eberbach Scale Projector at the appropriate magnification. Fish scales too small to adequately make acetate impressions were read directly under a 15c

dissecting microscope equipped with an ocular micrometer.

Catfish pectoral spines were cleaned and then soaked in decalcifying fluid prior to sectioning. This decalcifying fluid consists of a solution of formic acid and sodium citrate. Thin sections cut from these decalcified spines were read with a dissecting microscope and ocular micrometer.

In both spine and scale analysis, measurements were made from the focus to the spine or scale margin and to each successive growth annuli. If at least two of three independent observers did not agree with the readings from a given sample, the sample was discarded and did not enter into any analysis of growth.

The relationship between fish length and either scale or spine length for each of the three species above was found to be linear but not directly proportional. Therefore, back calculations of total length (mm) at time of annulus formation were made using a modification of the direct proportionality method. The equation utilized for these computations was,

.n g =

Sn S

(R c) + c (From Ricker, 1970) where c is the intercept with the abscissa, n is the length at annulus g,

formation, g, is the observed fish length, S is the measured radius to n

successive annuli marks, and s is the total scale radius. The intercept with the abscissa (c) was obtained from a linear regression line of fish length a scale or spine radius.

16-

'N 1.7.2 Growth of Blue ills A total of 16 bluegills were aged and subsequent measurements of growth annuli utilized to back calculate total length at time of annulus formation. Calculated growth for successive age groups can be found in Table 12 along with the weighted means for the overall analysis.

Sample sizes for one and two year olds were sufficiently large to yield reliable estimates of growth, however, the small sample size of old fish causes scepticism about the results. A comparison of the weighted mean growth of bluegill in the site area with previous data collected by Aquatic Control and with data available from North Carolina lakes (Carlander, 1972) (Table 14) suggests that growth of this species in the site area is good.

1.7.3 Growth of Lar cmouth Bass Back calculated total lengths at time of annulus formation for three largemouth bass collected in the site area can be found in Table 13. Growth in the present study was found to be comparable to that of previous studies done by Aquatic Control and the mean growth rate of largemouth bass in North Carolina lakes (Table 14). The sample size upon which the present analysis is based is small and precludes making any major conclusions about the growth potential of this species in the site area.

1.7.4 Growth of Snail Bullhead and Brown Bullhead The small number of samples obtained for snail and brown bullheads resulted in inaccurate growth curves (negative slope) and 17-

back calculations so this data has.been eliminated from the, report for this year. Age growth studies, of these species will continue with a larger data base hopefully yielding accurate growth. calculations.

18

~

n\ 0 7C LLY-8 pP.

CC-1 cY.

gc OK-3 OI" TRANSECTS e STATIONS BC 0

SCALE IH I1ILES CAROI INA POWER & LIGHT COI IPANY SHEARON HAR RIS NUCLEAR PQWf R PLANT QNlTS 1,2.3 6 4 Locations of existing and proposed fisheries sampling transects and stations.

- 19 FIGURE 1

Table 1.3 Common and scientific names of fishes collected from the Cape Fear River and SHNPP site Common Name Scientific Name Lepisosteidae

1. Longnose gar Amiidae

2. Bowfin Amia calve Anguillidae

3. American eel ~An uilla rostrate Clupeidae

4. American shad

5. Gizzard shad m'%l' Escocidae

6. Chain pickerel Esox ~ni er

7. Redfin pickerel E. americanus americanus Cyprinidae

8. Rosyside dace Clinostomus funduloides

9. Carp ~Crlnus ~car io

10. Silvery minnow

11. Bluehead chub

12. Golden shiner

13. White shiner ~Notre is albeolus

14. Vhitemouth shiner N. alborus

15. Highfin shiner

16. Comely shiner N. amoenus

17. Satinfin shiner N. analostanus

18. Crescent shiner N. cerasinus

19. Dusky shiner

20. Spottail shiner N. hudsonius

21. Whitetail shiner z

22. Yellowfin shiner

23. Cape Fear shiner N. mekistocholas

24. Whitefin shiner N. niveus

25. Coastal shiner N. Eetersoni

26. Swallowtail shiner N. ~tocne

27. Sandbar shiner N. sce P ticus

28. Mimic shiner N. volucellus

29. Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Catostomidae

30. Highfin carpsucker ~Car fades vellder

31. Northern hogsucker

32. Creek chubsucker ~Erim zon ~oblon us

33. Spotted sucker ~Min trams ~melano s

34. Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum

35. Shorthead redhorse M. macrole idotum

36. Striped jumprock Common Name Scientific Name Ictaluridae

37. Snail bullhead Ictalarus brunneus

38. White catfish I. catus

39. Black bullhead I. melas

40. Yellow bullhead I. natalis

41. Brown bullhead I. nebulosus

42. Channel catfish l. Eunctatus

43. Flat bullhead

44. Ictalurus sp.

45. Flathead catfish

46. Tadpole madtom Noturus Elrinus

47. Margined madtom N. ~Ansi nis Aphredoderidae

48. Pirate perch

49. Northern studfish Fundulus catenatus

50. Speckled killifish F. rathbuni Poecilidae

51. Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis Centrarchidae

52. Mud sunfish Ancantharcus ~omotis

53. Flier

54. Bluespotted sunfish Enneacenthus Elorlosus

55. Redbreast sunfish ~Le ernie auritus

56. Green sunfish L. ~canellus

57. Pumpkinseed L. Eibbosus

58. Warmouth L. Eulosus

59. Bluegill L. macrochirus

60. Dollar sunfish

61. Redear sunfish

63. Largemouth bass

64. White crappie Pomoxis annularis

65. Black crappie P. ni romaculatus Percidae

66. Swamp darter Etheostoma fusiforme

67. Tessalated darter E. olmstedi

68. Piedmont darter Percina crassa 21

Table l 2 Comparisons of collections made from 1973 to 1977 in the Cape Fear River Species 1973-1974* 1974-1975* 1976 1977 X X Amia calva X X

~An uilla rostrate X X

• X X X Esox ~ni er X Cvrrinus ~car io X X X

X X

~Notre is albeolus N. alborus X

N. amoenus X X X N. analostanus X X X X N. hudsonius X X X X N. mekistocholas X N. niveus X N. Eetersoni X N. ~recce Z X X N. ~sce ticus X X X N. volucellus X X

~Car kodes velifer X X Moxostoma anisurum X X X Z X Z X X

~Min trams ~melano s Z X Ictalurus brunneus X X X I. cetus X X X I. males X I. natalis X I. nebulosus X X Z X

I. Eunctatus X X X X Noturus ~insi nis X X X X Gambusia affinis X X X Enneacanthus Eioriosus X

~Le ernie auritus X X L. ~canellus X X L. ~ibbosus X X X L. Eulosus X X L. macrochirus X X X

X Z X X X X Pomoxis annularis X X X X X Etheostoma olmstedi X X X Percina crassa X X X Totals 35 31 38 32

• (from Aquatic Control, Inc. 1976)

Table l 3 List of species, numbers and total veight (grams) of fishes taken by electrofishing in the Cape Fear River along Transect A during 1977.

Date: June 1977 December 1977 Total

~Secies No. . Wt. No. ~Av . Wt. No. Wt.

9 331.29 331.29 6 1.50 1.50 N. analostanus 3 10.11 10.11 N. ~rocne 8 4.00 4.00 N. ~sce ticus 3 10.00 No 10.00 Moxostoma macrole idotum 1 0.90 Sample 0.90 Ictalurus brunneus 284.00 284.00 I'p,

~Le ernie auritus 7

6 13.48 37.50 13.48 37.50 3 7.11 7.11 Etheostoma olmstedi 8 5.44 5.44 Percina crassa 6 21.48 21.48 Subtotal 64 726.80 64 726.80 23

Table 1.4 List of species, numbers and total weight (grams) of fishes taken by electrofishing in the Cape Fear River along Transect BC during 1977.

Date: June 1977 December 1977 Total

~

~Sanies No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt.

~An uilla rostrate 4 67.00 4 67. 00 3 1045.00 3 1045.00

~K'4'.

5 5.80 5 5.80 analostanus 4 6.72 3 7.80 7 14.52 N. hudsonius 4 4.90 4 16.92 8 21.82 N. hiveus 2 15.00 2 15.00 N. ~sce ticus 4 10.60 4 10.60 N. volucellus 1 7.30 1 7.30

~Min trams ~melano s 1 25.70 1 25.70 Moxostoma anisurium 1 68.00 1 68.00 M. macrole idotum 4 2275.00 4 2275.00 Ictalurus brunneus 54 3486.78 54 3486.78 I. catus 4 135.00 4 135.00 2 245.00 2 245.00 Noturus ~Ansi nis 2 13.00 2 13.00

~Le ernie auritus 39.00 25 1638.00 29 1677.00 L. ~canellus 2 60.00 2 60.00 L. macrochirus 14 2126.04 14 2126.04 7 3976.98 7 3976.98 1 218.00 1 218.00 Etheostoma olmstedi 7 10.92 7 10.92 Percina crassa 5 20.30 5 20.30 Subtotal 101 4184.72 67 11340.04 168 15524.76 Table 1.5 List of species, numbers and total weight (grams) of fishes taken by electrofishing in the Cape Fear River along Transect D during 1977.

Date: June 1977 December 1977 Total

~Sanies No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt.

~An uflla rostrate 1 568.00 1 568.00 12 2034.96 30 1082.10 42 3117.06 Cyrrrnus ~car Ao 1 3062.00 1 3062.00 1 7.80 1 7.80 1 4.00 1 4.00 Ectalurus catus 2- 222.00 2 222.00

~Le arnis ~ibbosus 2 102.00 2 102.00 L. macrochirus 10 164.00 22 427.02 32 591.02 1 37.00 6 556.98 7 593.98 1 190.00 3 780.00 4 970.00 2 26.00 2 26.00 Subtotal 30 6379.96 65 2883.90 95 9263.86

- 25

Table 1.6 Number and weight (grams) of fishes caught in fyke nets per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of effort in the Cape Fear River at Transects A, BC, and D during 1977.

Transect A Date: June 1977 December 1977

~secies No. Wt. No. Wt.

0.52 1136.20 Ictalurus ~unctatus 2.58 2334.77 No

~Le ernie auritus 0.52 62.40 Sample L. macrochirus 5.67 868.53 0.52 138.32 Total 9.81 4540.22 Transect BC 1.01 2660.88 Ictalurus catus 2.53 3585.52 I. ~unctatus 6.54 7743.84 No 2 . 5.1 9199.65 Sample

~Le ernie auritus 2.51 335.84 L. macrochirus 4 . 28 579.94 Total . 19.38 24105.67 Transect D

~Crinus ~car io 0.47 959.27 Ictalurus catus 0.93 351.54 6.86 2520.54 I. nebulosus 11.27 1727.48 0.49 250.88 I. Iunctatus 0.98 528.22

~Le ernie macrochirus 0.98 128.38 0.93 351.54 0.93 144.15 1.47 218.54 Total 3.26 1806.50 22.05 5374.04 26

Table 1.7 List of fish species collected at the creek stations during 1977.

BK-2 BK-3 CC-1 LW-8 LW-2 W-1 W-3 TJ-1

~An uilla rostrate X X X X Esox a. americanus X X X X

Semotilus atromaculatus X X X X X

~Notre is albeolus X X N. alborus X X X X X N. amoenus N. analostanus X X X

N. hudsonius X N. Nrocne X X N. ~sce ticus X X N. cerasinus X X

~Erin zon ~oblon us X X X X X X Noxostoma anisurum X X

Ictalurus brunneus X X Noturus ~insi nis X X X

Fundulus rathbuni X X Enneacanthus Eloriosus X

~Le ernie auritus X X X X X X L. ~canellus X X X L. Eibbosus X X L. Eulosus X X L. macrochirus X X X X X X X X X

~Le omis hybrid. X X

Etheostoma olmstedi X X X E. fusiforme Percina crassa Total 17 23 10 10 5 10 6 1 Table 1.8 List of species, numbers and weights (grams) of fishes taken by electrofishing at Stations CC-1 and LW-8 during 1977.

Station CC-1 Date: June 1977 December 1977 Total

~Eecies No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt.

~An uilla rostrate 1 33.00 1 33.00 Esox a. americanus 1 52.00 1 52.00 Semotilus atromaculatus 3 4.80 3 4.80

~Notre is alborus 1 1.40 1 1.40 No 28 17.36 28 17.36 N. cerasinus Sample 1 0.70 1 0.70

~Erim zon ~chion us 15 136.95 15 136.95

~Le ernie auritus 6 18.00 6 18.00 L. macrochirus 2 5.00 2 5.00 Etheostoma olmstedi 1 0.50 1 0.50 Subtotal 59 269.71 59 269.71 Station LW-8 Esox a. americanus 2 212.00 2 212.00 Semotilus atromaculatus 3 3.30 3 3.30 6 46.80 1 5.70 7 52.50

~Erim zon ~oblon us 1 2.50 1 2.50 2 18.00 2 10.80 4 28.80

~Le ernie ~canellus 5 34.00 3 26.49 8 60.49 L. Eibbosus 6 34.02 1 10.10 7 44.12 L. macrochirus 2 7.00 2 7.00 2 4.00 2 4.00

~Le omis hybrid 1 14.10 ,1 14.10 Subtotal 23 351.82 14 76.99 37 428.81 Table 1.9 List of species, numbers and weights (grams) of fishes taken by electrofishing at Station BK-2 during 1977.

Date: June 1977 December 1977 Total

~aecies No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt.

~An uilla rostrate 17 585. 14 17 585.14 2 12.90 2 12.90 Semotilus atromaculatus 4.59 . 3 4.59

~Notre is albeolus 2 10.20 2 10.20 N. alborus 6 5.22 6 5 '2 N. analostanus ll 19.47 29 20.30 40 39.77 N. hudsonius 2 17.50 2 17,50 N. ~ronne 16 12.80 18 13.90 N. ~sce ticus 24 42.00 25 45.00 Ictalurus brunneus 4 148.00 4 148.00 Noturus ~insi nis 1 2.30 1 2.30 Fundulus rathbuni 32 49.60 9 9. 18 41 58.78

~Le omis auritus 34 273.36 10 87.90 44 361.26 L. ~canellus 2 74,00 2 74.00 L. macrochirus 1 1.40 1 1.40 1 43.00 1 43.00 Etheostoma olmstedi 3 3.90 3 3.90 Subtotal 152 1295.57 60 131.29 212 '426.86

- 29

Table 1.10 List of species, numbers and weights (grams) of fishes taken by electrofishing at Station BK-3 during 1977.

Date: June 1977 December 1977 Total

~Eecies No. No. Mt. No.

~An uilla rostrate 9 550.00 390.00 10 940.00 Esox a. americanus 2 96.00 55.00 5 151.00 26 261.04 6.12 35 267.16

~Notre is albeolus 20 139.20 20 139.20 N. alborus 1 1.80 1 1.80 16 19.68 16 19.68 N. analostanus 1 1.80 1 1.80 1 0.20 1 0.20 N. ~sce titus 1 0.50 1 0.50

~Erim zon ~oblon us 1 104.00 2 28.30 3 132.30 Moxostoma anisurum 2 25.20 2 25.20 1 2.80 1 2.80 Ictalurus brunneus 140.00 2 153.00 5 293.00 Noturus ~fnsi nis 82.44 3 22.71 12 105.15 11.00 3 34.50 4 45.50 Fundulus rathbuni 3.80 12 27.12 14 30.92

~Le ernie auritis 97.80 15 199.20 19 297.00 L. ~canellus 34.00 3 34.00 L. ~ulosus 1 54.00 1 84.00 3 238.00 L. macrochirus 6 153.00 6 153.00 1 18.00 1 18.00 Etheostoma olmstedi 15 24.45 4 1.80 19 26.25 Percina crassa 6 20.58 1 5.10 7 25.68 Subtotal 121 1741.59 68 1206.55 189 2948.14 Table 1.11 List of species, numbers and weights (grams) of fishes taken by electrofishing at Stations W-l, W-3, LW-2, and TJ-1 during December, 1977.

Station: W-1 W-3 LW-2 TJ-1

~Secies No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt.

~An uilla rostrate 1 56.00 Esox a. americanus 13.00 2.60 1 5.90

~Notro is amoenus 0.30 N. cerasinus 1 7.00 N. Erocne 2.40

~Erim zon ~chion us 2.10 7 7.42 1 61.80 25.62 Enneacanthus Eloriosus 2 5.50

~Le ernie auritus 10 87.90 5 28.00 1 46.00 L. Eibbosus 2 26.60 L. Eulosus 19.00 L. macrochirus 1.80 1 36.00 1 10.00 Etheostoma fusiforme 0.20 E. olmstedi 4 5.72 Total 29 154.92 20 138.64 6 150.30 1 7.00 31

Table l.12 Diversity and equitability estimates for sampling locations in the study area during 1977.

River Transects Stream Stations BC LW-2 LW-8 CC-1 TJ-1 BK-2 BK-3 W-1 W-3 d 3.42 3.46 2.15 2.25 2.29 2.23 0.00 3.13 3.67 2.26 2.95, dmax 3.58 4.46 3.46 2.32 3.32 3.32 0.00 4.09 4.58 2.58 3.32 1.25 0.73 0.55 1.20 1.10 0.60 1.00 0.71 0.75 1.00 1.10 n 64 169 95 37 59 1 212 189 20 21 s 12 22 10 10 17 10 WHERE: d = Shannon-Weaver Diversity Function dmax = Maximum Diversity e = equitability n = number of individuals in sample s = number of species in sample

Table 1.13 Back calculated total length (mm) at annulus formation for the bluegill from 1976 through 1977.

Calculated Total Len th at A e (mm)

Age Sample

~Gro u Size 96 82 112 87 123 153 79 144 167 Weighed Mean 85 117 151 167 Number of Fish 16 33

Table 1.14 Back calculated total length (mm) at annulus formation for the largemouth bass from 1976 through 1977.

Calculated Total Len th at A e (mm)

Age Sample

~Gree Size 155 213 130 190 257 315 163 233 290 369 Weighed Mean 149 212 273 342 434 Number of Fish

Table 1.15 Mean back calculated total lengths at annulus formation for the bluegill, largemouth bass, and snail bullhead in the SHNPP Site as compared with data collected from North Carolina lakes.

TOTAL LENGTH (MM) AT TIME OF ANNULUS FORMATION A e I II III IV V VI

~Blue ill Present study 85 "117 151 167 CP&L (1977) 90 114 155 179 Aquatic Control (1975) 83 112 142 158 169 Aquatic Control (1976) 51 86 129 159 179 191 N.C. Lakes (Carlander 1972) 75 110 138 162 173 170 Lar cmouth Bass Present study 149 212 273 342 434 CP&L (1977) 120 176 219 272 332 364 Aquatic Control (1975) 134 199 259 315 377 416 Aquatic Control (1976) 128 217 282 318 344 N.C. Lakes (Carlander 1972) 128 232 310 376 433 469 Snail Bullhead CP&L (1977) 105 152 192 195 Aquatic Control (1975) 82 132 164 195 230 272 35

1.8 Literature Cited Aquatic Control, Inc. 1973. Baseline biota survey of the Shearon Harris Study Area, North Carolina. Aquatic Control, Inc., Seymour, Indiana."'975.

Baseline biota of the Shearon Harris Study Area, 1973-1974. Aquatic Control,. Inc., Seymour, Indiana.

1976. Aquatic baseline biota of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Study Area, North Carolina 1'974-1975. Aquatic Control, Inc., Seymour, Indiana.

Carlander, K. D. 1972. Manuscript material from the handbook of fresh-water fisheries, Vol. 2. Iowa State University.

Carolina Power & Light Co. 1977. Aquatic Biology Monitoring Report:

1976 (Annual). CP&L, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Horn, H. S. 1966. Measurement of "overlap" in comparative ecological studies. Amer. Nat. 100:419-424.

Huber, R. T. 1969. Preliminary biology investigation, Whiteoak Creek Watershed (CNI Watershed 3-14). Unpublished report, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Raleigh, N. C.

Jaccard, P. 1908. Nouvelles recherches sur la distribution florale.

Bull. Soc. Vaudoise Sci. Nat. 44:233-270.

Louder, D. E. 1963. Survey and classification of the Cape Fear River and tributaries, North Carolina. Final Report, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Job I-G, Project F-14-R, North Carolina Wildlife Res.

Comm., Raleigh, N. C.

North Carolina Endangered Species Committee, 1973. Preliminary list of endangered plant and animal species in North Carolina. Dept. of Natural and Economic Resources, State of North Carolina.

Ricker, W. E. (ed) 1970. Methods for assessment of fish production in fresh waters. IBP Handbook No. 3. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford and Edinburgh. 313 pp.

Snelson, F. F. Jr., 1971. ~Notre is mehistocholas, a new herbivorous cyprinld fish endemic to the Cape Fear River Basin, N. C. Copeia 3:449-462.

Weber, I. (ed) 1973. Biological field and laboratory methods for measuring the quality of surface waters and effluents. EPA 670/4-73-001.

Yerger, R. W. and K. Relyea, 1968. The flat-head bullheads (Pisces:

Ictaluridae) of the southeastern United States, and a new species of Ictalurus from the Gulf Coast. Copeia 2:361-384.

36

2.0 Peri h ton Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Site 2.1 Introduction This report contains diatom data collected at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant site during February and June, 1977. These data are a continuation of the interm semiannual sampling program initiated by Carolina Power & Light Company in June, 1975. Material contained in this report represents the conclusion of the interim study.

2.2 Materials and Methods The materials and methods presented in this report have been previously discussed (The SHNPP Aquatic Biology Monitoring Program, 1976 Annual Report. Carolina Power & Light Co.).

2.3 Results and Discussion Over 7,000 diatoms were counted and identified from collections of periphyton from portions of the Cape Fear River and selected tributaries during the above mentioned dates. The data yielded 185 taxa of periphytic organisms.

2.3.1 River Transects The most abundant diatoms at Transects A, B, and C during February, 1977, (the regularly scheduled December, 1976, semiannual sampling was postponed until February, 1977, due to high stream discharges), belong tu the family Fragiliaceae ~(S nedra fulchella, S. ~rum ene, and S. ulna) 37

G. farvulum). The FraSilariaceae are common to cool streams and may be free-floating or epiphytic. These species frequently exhibit population maxima in the winter. The Gomphonemaceae are epilithic and would be expected to be found in large numbers at these transects. The family Surirellaceae (Surirella ~an ustata) also increased in abundance.

A comparison of winter, 1976, (CP&L, 1976) with 1977 data indicates a slight shift in species dominance with the Achnanthaceae being replaced by the Fragilariaceae. The Gomphonemaceae was dominant at Transects B and C during the winter months of 1976 and 1977. This family increased to dominance at, Transect A during 1977, however, this increase in dominance was not observed during the 1976 collections.

~Snedra ~ulchella became codominant with S. ~rum ens and S.

ulna during the winter. Since materials and methods have not changed, the data does not indicate why a previously not observed species became codominant during 1977 (Table 2.1).

The numerically dominant diatoms at Transects A, B, and C during June, 1977, belong to the family Achnanthaceae (Achnanthes RmE of this group are generally adapted to an epilithic or epiphytic habitat 2

lineata had the highest relative abundance in this family while C. fluviatilis had the smallest. A comparison of summer, 1976, (CP&L, 1976) diatom data with 1977 diatom data indicates that these dominant organisms remained the same for both years. It was also observed in 38

graciloides were numerically dominant at these transects. In 1977, they decreased in abundance with a concomitant increase in numbers of the dominant genera Achnanthes and Cocconeis (Table 2.2).

The February, 1977, data collected for Transect D is presented vaucheriae, ~Sedra ~ulchella, S. ~rum ena, and S. ulna), Gomphonemeceae the dominant species found at Transects A, B, and C during the winter. It was observed from the winter 1976, data that the dominant species which occurred at Transect D were different than those which occurred downstream.

A possible explanation is that the colonized planktonic species populations which appeared at D and some of the downstream stations in fall, 1976, were decreased during winter, 1977, due to high stream discharge and that conditions may not have been appropriate for population densities to increase to previously observed levels. Therefore, the periphytic forms that were collected at D may have been previously attached to floating debris and then were sloughed off. These forms were then available to colonize artificial substrates in relatively high numbers.

Two species of Navicula also appeared at Transect D in high numbers but were not dominant. These are bottom diatoms that live on the substrata. They were present in numbers in the winter, 1976, data and were expected to be found in 1977.

The data collected at Transect D in June, 1977, is presented in Table 2.2. The numerically dominant species belong to the families Achnanthaceae (Achnanthea lanceolata var. dubia and A. linearia),

The Achnanthaceae has the highest relative abundance and the dominants that are present at D from this family are also present at downstream transects. These species were probably sloughed off debris at Transect D like those organisms were in February. The Naviculaceae and Nitzschiaceae are benthic forms and the* lentic conditions prevailing at Transect D would explain the presence of these taxa.

C. seudostelli era, a true. planktonic form, may be initially observed and subsequently be expected to increase in population densities during periods of low summer discharge. These increases in population densities peak during the late summer and early fall. It is observed from a comparison of summer, 1976, data with the summer, 1977, data that planktonic, epipelic, and epiphytic forms found exhibited the above mentioned seasonal cycle of increased summer/fall population densities during 1976/1977.

Non-diatom algae samples were taken in the Cape Fear River and selected tributaries (i.e., compiled from S-R counts on slides and whole water and net samples from Transect D). The non-diatom phytoplankton species composition appears to be similar to that in 1976 (CP&L, 1976).

2.3.2 Stream Stations Table 2.3 represents data collected from four Cape Fear River tributaries; LN-8, BK-2, BK-3, and CC-1 during February, 1977. The sampler at BK-2 was desiccated to the extent that the sample was considered lost. The sampler could not be set out on personal property at CC-l.

Because of these obvious reasons, the data from these two stations could not be reported or be compared to the winter, 1976, data.

The dominant diatoms at Thomas -Creek (LW-8) belong to the and the Nitzschiaceaa (Nitzschla ~alea and Nitzschia spp.). A comparison of winter, 1976, data with the winter, 1977, data indicates that numbers both years. Again, this is probably due to the sloughing off of organisms colonized on logs and macrophytes. Nitzschia appeared dominant both years. These species are epipelic and the conditions present at LW-8 (CPGL, 1976) are suitable for the growth of these pollution tolerant organisms. Meridion circulare form flat-floating filaments. This diatom often develops in abundance in cool, flowing freshwater of stony streams and semi-permanent pools (Blum, 1959). This species represented 52X of the relative abundance at LW-8. Meridion was the most dominant r

organism during winter, 1977, although the data does not indicate why a previously not observed species became overwhelmingly dominant during this period. Possible explanations could be related to weather conditions, nutrients, and solids present in the system, current, substrate type, light and temperature, pH, and predation. The proper combinations of the above factors could possibly have created an ecological niche that Meridion circulare would occupy. This theory, however, is highly dependent on many related factors.

The numerically dominant diatoms at Buckhorn Creek (BK-3) belong to the families Tabellariaceae (Meridion circulare), Fragilariaceae 41-

(Synedra ~rum ens and S. ulna), Achnanthaecaae (Achnanthes linearis) and substrate type common to all the dominant organisms. In comparing the 1977 winter data with the 1976 winter data, it is'bserved that the dominants remained similar except for an increase in numbers of Meridion circulate, a species not previously collected. ~S edra, as stated before, are common to small cool streams and exhibit a population peak in the winter. They are epiphytic or free-floating and would be expected epilithic and are expected to be found in large numbers on the rocky substrate. These species are typical of small brooks (Blum, 1959).

Again, the data does not indicate why a species not previously observed would codominate in numbers though Meridion does develop on the bottom of cool stony streams.

The data collected from the four creek stations in June, 1977, is presented in Table 2.4. The sampler set at BK-2 was vandalized and the sampler could not be set at stream station CC-1.

The dominant species at Thomas Creek (LW-8) belong to the Eunotiaceae (Eunotia curvate and E. ~nae lii), Achnanthaceae (Cocconeis Nitzschiaceae (Nitzschia obtuse var. seal elliformis and N. Sales). A comparison of summer, 1976, data with summer, 1977, data indicates another increase in numbers of diatoms. The Achnanthaceae and Gomphonemaceae again appear as codominants. Due to their epiphytic nature they were probably sloughed off available natural substrates to become dominants in the population. The Nitzschiaceae also appeared again and due to its ubiquitous nature became a major component of the diatom population.

\

42

The Eunotiaceae were the most numerically dominant in 1977 replacing the Naviculaceae. Eunotia are free-floating or epiphytic, and solitary or in filamentous colonies. This species is more abundant in soft water than in hard water and is of frequent occurrence in pools and ditches (Smith, 1950). Whitford (1973) states that high light tends to inhibit some species of Eunotia. LW-8 receives large deposits of sand, silt, and clay. Due to the amount of suspended solids in the system, light penetration is inhibited. This explanition and other related physical-chemical factors would account for the high occurrence of Eunotia during 1977.

Since the diatom population density appears to have increased in June, 1977, perhaps this is an indication of improved water quality and decreased sediment loading from the SHNPP clearing operations.

The dominant diatoms at Buckhorn Creek (BK-3) in June, 1977, belong to the family Achnanthaceae (Achnanthes lanceolata, A. lanceolata var. dubia, and A. linearis). A comparison of June, 1976, data with June, 1977, data indicates similar dominants. The Tabellariaceae in the summer, 1976, data seems to have been replaced with increased numbers of the Achnanthaceae in the summer, 1977, data. Due to its epiphytic and epilithic nature Achnanthes is expected to dominate the population.

2.4 Conclusions

1. Periphyton was semiannually sampled at four transects in the Cape Fear River and selected tributaries. During the sampling, 185 species of diatoms were collected.

2. The numerically dominant diatoms collected downstream of Buckhorn Dam included representatives of the families Fragilariaceae, Achnanthaceae, and Gomphonemaceae. The flora

- 43

collected upstream of the dam consisted of the above mentioned families in addition to the Surirellaceae, Naviculaceae, Coscinodiscaceae, and Nitzschiaceae. The similarity between diatoms upstream of the dam and downstream of the dam can be attributed to the fact that planktonic diatoms normally dominant at Transect D were decreased due to high discharge and did not have appropriate conditions to recolonize before the next sampling period. The attached forms normally found downstream were found at D due to the sloughing off of organisms from natural substrates. Diatoms collected at stream stations LW-8 and BK-3 consisted of the families Tabellariaceae, Achnanthaceae, Nitzschiaceae, Eunotiaceae, Gomphonemaceae, and Fragilariaceae.

Samples at BK-2 and CC-1 were lost both months.

3. Similar major taxonomic groups of diatoms were collected at the river and creek stations.

4. The diatom population densities at LW-8 increased in June, 1977. This could be an indication of improved water quality and decreased sediment loading due to the SHNPP clearing operations.

2.5 Literature Cited Blum, J. L. 1959. Algal populations in flowing waters.

In: The Ecology of Algae. C.A. Tryon, Jr. and R. T. Hartman, eds. Special Publication Number 2.

Pymatuning Laboratory of Field Biology. University of Pittsburgh.

Carolina Power & Light Co. 1976. The SHNPP Aquatic Biology Monitoring Report (Annual).

Smith, G. M. 1950. Freshwater Algae of the United States.

McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York. 719 pp.

Whitford, L. A. and G. J. Schumacher. 1973. A Manual of Fresh-water Algae. Sparks Press. Raleigh, North Carolina. 324 pp.

45-

Table 2el Relative Abundance of the Diatoms from the "Aufwuchs" 'lides in the Cape Fear River, Transects A, B, C, and D Collected During February of 1977**

A Feb. 16 B Feb. 15 C Feb. 15 D Feb. 14 1 2 3 ]* P* 3 P* 3* 1 2 3 Taxa Bacillariophyta Centrales Coscinodiscaceae 1 3 C. seudostelli era 1 P

Helosira ~ambi ua N. ~ranulata 1 P

H. varians 1 P 2 1 2 6 Thalassiosira fluviatilis Biddulphiaceae

~Hdrosera ~trl uetra Anaulaceae

~Ter sinoe musica Pennales Tabellariaceae Tabellaria fenestrata T. flocculosa Meridion circulare P 2 P 5 1 Fragilariaceae P 1 P . P F. crotonensis F. vaucheriae 1 4 4 1 2 4 1 F. virescens P P P P

~Snedra acus P P P 1 S. delicatissima P 2 P P P 1 1 S. arasitica P S. ~ulchella 3 9 4 2 3 1 S. ~rum ens 4 13 8 7 19 3

A Feb. 16 B Feb. 15 C Feb. 15 D Feb. 14 1 2 3 1* 2* 3 ] 2A 3* 1 2 3 Taxa P P P S. socia P 1 1 1 P 1 1 S. ulna 63 35 13 14 57 10 12 9

~Enedra sp. 1

~Enedra spp. 3 2 2 Eunotiaceae Eunotia arcus E. curvata E. formica 2'""

E. ~nae alii P P sp. 1

'unotia Eunotia spp.

Achnanthaceae Achnanthes ~exi ua A. lanceolata P 1 P 2 1 A. lanceolata var. dubia P 1 1 1 2 2 A. linearis P P A. linearis f. curta A. minutissima P P A. ~era alii Achnanthes sp. 1 Achnanthes sp. 2 Achnanthes spp.

Cocconeis fluviatilis s "'"'" ' P 1

"" 1 1 P P 2 4 3 C. scutellum P P P 2 P P Naviculaceae mm' 2 P Caloneis bacillum 1 P

A Feb. 16 B Feb. 15 -C Feb. 15 D Feb. 14 1 2 3 1* 2* 3 2A 3* 1 2 3 Taxa C. ventricosa var.  ?

D. ~cells Entomoneis ornata Frustulia rhomboides P 1 P. rhomboides var. ~ca itata P F. weinholdii P Frustulia sp. 1 (asymmetrical)?

GVVrosi ma exil1s P 1 G. obtusatum P P G. ~sencerfi P 1 P P P 1 Gvvrosi ma spp.

Navicula accomoda P N. aikenensis 1 N. ~an lice var. subsalsa N. ~an usta P.

N. ~ca itata P N. confervacea P

1 1 2 1 1 3 P P 1 P N. ~cus idata var. ~ma or P N. decussis N.

3'"'"

N. ~ibbosa s "

lanceolata P P

1 N. latelon itudinalis N. laterostrata P P N. luzonensis P P P N. minima P P P 1 N. miniscula P 1 P P 1 N. muralis 1 1 P 1 1 P 1 N. mutica 1 1 P

A Feb. 16 B Feb. 15 C Feb. 15 D Feb. 14 1 2 3 ]* 2A 3 2* 3* 1 2 3 Taxa N. mutica var. cohnii N. mutica var. ~sti ma N. mutica var. ~tro ica N. notha P 1 N. ~uula P P P -1 N. radiosa P 1 1 1 3 2 1 P 6 N. salinarum P P 1

N. viridula 1 1 N. viridula var. linearis Navicula sp. 1 Navicula sp. 2 Navicula spp.

N. bisculatum N. iridis Neidium sp. 1 P

P. ~bite s P P. braunii P. latevittata P. ~le umen P P. maior P P. ~mascle ta P P P. microstauron P Vinnularia sp. 1 P P Pinnularia spp. P 2 Stauroneis ~ance s S. ~ance s f. ~rac11ia S. ~ance s f. linearis S. smithii

A Feb. 16 B Feb. 15 C Feb. 15 D Feb. 14 1 2 3 gA 2* 3 2* 3* 1 2 3 Taxa Gomphonemaceae P

4 3 4 6 21 1 G. brasiliense G. dichotomum P P 1 P G. Ersciie P P P G. Erunowli P P P G. intricatum P 1 1 P P G. olivaceum 1 8 3 3 5 2 G. parvulum 3 2 6 3 11 9 G. truncatum P P 1 G. truncatum var. ~ca itata Cymbellaceae

~Cmbella af finis C. ~as era C. hebridica P

C. minute P 1 1 2 P P 1 racilis P C. naviculiformis P P P P C. tumida P P P P P C. ~tur idula

~Cmbella sp. l

~Am horn veneta Epithemiaceae

~Elthemia adnata E. ~ar us Nitzschiaceae Eantzschia ~am hiox s Nitzschia acicularis P Nitzschia amphibia 1 P P

A Feb. 16 B Feb. 15 C Feb. 15 D Feb. 14 1 2 3 1* P* 3 ] 2* 3'k 1 2 3 Taxa N. ~aiculata P P P P P 1 N. ~dissi ata P P 1 N. fonticola P 1 P P P N. Sracilis P N. linearis P P 1 N. obtusata N. Sales 2 P 1 P P 4 N. ~sl ma P P P P P N. ~si moidea P N. sublinearis P 1 1 P 1 P 1 P P P P Nitzschia sp. 1 P P Nitzschia sp. 2 Nitzschia spp. 1 2 1 1 3 Bacillariaceae Bacillaria ~aradoxa P 3 Surirellaceae P P Surirella ~an ustata 6 9 8 31 1 5 S. ~ele ans 1 P S. ovata 1 3 10 1 1 Surirella Nacelle 1 S. ~stella var. ~neu aueri. 3 3 l. 3 - P 1 S. robusta S. tenera var. nervo sa Surirella sp. 1 Surirella spp.

• Sample lost due to high or extremely low water, vandalism.

• • The arabic numerals represent the mean percent of the replicate counts in that collection that taxon represented. Presence only (P) denotes that taxon represented less than 1X of the total diatom population.

Table 2.2 Relative Abundance of the Diatoms from the "Aufwuchs" Slides in the Cape Fear River, Transects A, B, C, and D Collected During June of 1977**

A June 15 B June 16 C June 16 D June 16 1 2 3 1 2 3* 1* 2 3 2* 3*

Taxa Bacillariophyta Centrales Coscinodiscaceae P

C. seudostelli era P P -'P 1 Melosira ~ambi ua M. Srsnulata H. varians Thalassiosira fluviatilis Biddulphiaceae P 2 3 H~~drosera ~tri uetra P 2 Anaulaceae

~Ter since musica Pennales Tabellariaceae Tabellaria fenestrata T. flocculosa Heridion circulare Fragilariaceae F. crotonensis F. vaucheriae F. virescens

~Snedra acus S. delicatissima S. arasitica S. ~ulchella S. ~rum ens

A June 15 B June 16 C June 16 D June 16 1 2 3 1 2 3* 1* 2 3 ] P* 3*

Taxa S. socia S. ulna 1

~dnedra sp. l P P P

~Enedra spp.

Eunotiaceae Eunotia arcus E. curvata E. formica E. ~nae alii Eunotia sp. 1 Eunotia spp.

Achnanthaceae Achnanrhes ~ext na P 3 A. lanceolata 1 P P A. lanceolata var. dubia 1 1 3 10 3 27 22 39 A. linearis P P P 10 A. linearis f. curta

• P P P A. minutissima

'e A. ~era alii Achnanthes sp. 1 Achnanthes sp; 2 Achnanthes spp.

Cocconeis fluviatilis 2 '""'"

5 2 3 4 1 1 P

~

2 6 10 3 6 1 P 18 13 15 8 31 9 18 70 75 65 57 57 49 44 C. scutellum 4 1 2 8 1 5 2 Naviculaceae H

bacillum"'aloneis

A June 15 B June 16 C June 16 9 June 16 1 2 3 1 2 3* 1* 2 3 2* 3*

Taxa C. ventricosa var.  ?

D. puella Entomoneis ornata Frustulia rhomboides

p. rhomboides var. ~ca itata F. weinholdii Frustulia sp. 1 (asymmetrical)?

~Grosi ma exilis P G. obtusatum P P P G. ~sencerii 1 P GVVrosi ma spp.

Navicula accomoda N. aikenensis P N. ~an lice var. subsalsa P N. ~an usta N. ~ca irate N. confervacea N. ~cus idata var. ~ma or N. decussis N.

s' s'"'"

N. Nibbosa lanceolata N. latelon itudinalis N. laterostrata N. luzonensis N. minima N. miniscula N. muralis N. mutica

A June 15 B June 16 C June 16 D June 16 1 2 3 1 2 3* 1* 2 3 2* 3*

Taxa N. mutica var. cohnii N. mutica var. ~sti ma N. mutica var :~tro ica N. notha N. ~uula N. radiosa N. salinarum 1 P N. viridula P P P P N. viridula var. linearis Navicula sp. 1 Navicula sp. 2 Navicula spp.

N. bisculatum N. iiidis Neidium sp. 1 P. ~hfce s P. braunii P. latevittata P. ~le umen P. maior P. ~mascle ta P. microstauron Pinnularia sp. 1 Pinnularia spp.

Stauroneis ~ance s S. ~ance s f Sracllia.

S. ~ance s f. linearis S. smithii

A June 15 B June 16 C June 16 D June 16 1 2 3 l. 2 3* 1+ 2 3 P* 3*

Taxa Gomphonemaceae G. an ustatum P P G. brasiliense P P P G. dichotomum 1 G. ~rac11e P G. Erunowii G. intricatum G. olivaceum G. Harvulum P P G. truncatum G. truncatum var. ~ca itata Cymbellaceae

~Cbella affinis C. ~as era C. hebridica C. minuta racilis C. naviculiformis C. tumida C. ~tur idula

~Cmbella sp. 1

~Am hors veneta Epithemiaceae

~Eithemia adnata E. ~ar us Nitzschiaceae Hantzschia ~am hiox s Nitzschia acicularis Nitzschia ~am hibia 1 4 14

A June 15 B June 16 C June 16 D June 16 1 2 3 1 2 3* 1* 2 3 2* 3*

Taxa N. ~alculata N. ~dissi ata N. fonticola p p N. Nracliie N. linearis p p lliformis N. obtusata N. ~alea p p N. ~si ma N. ~si moidea N. sublinearis p p p p p

Nitzschia sp. 1 Nitzschia sp. 2 Nitzschia spp.

Bacillariaceae Sacillaria paradoxa p p Surirellaceae Surirella ~an ustata S. ~ele ans S. ovata Surirella patella S. patella var. ~neu aueri S. robusta S. tenera var. nervosa Surirella sp. l Surirella spp.

• Sample lost due to high or extremely low water, vandalism.

+* The arabic numerals represent the mean percent of the replicate counts in that collection that taxon represented. Presence only (P) denotes that taxon represented less than 1% of the total diatom population.

• • • Not permitted on personal property to sample creek.

Table 2.3 Relative Abundance of the Diatoms from the "Aufwuchs" Slides in the Cape Pear River Creek Stations; Thomas Creek (LW-S),

Buckhorn Creek (BK-2), Buckhorn Greek (BK-3), and Cary Creek (CC-1),

Collected During February of 1977**

LW-8 Feb. 17 BK-2 Feb. 16 BK-3 Feb. 16 CC-1 Feb. 1'6 Taxa Bacillariophyta Centrales Coscinodiscaceae C. seudostelli era Melosira ~ambi ua s='""

varians M. Hranulata Thalassiosira

'r '.

fluviatilis Biddulphiaceae

~Hdrosera ~trl uetra Anaulaceae

~Ter since musica Pennales Tabellariaceae Tabellaria fenestrata 1 T. flocculosa 1 Meridion circulare 52 15 Fragilariaceae F. crotonensis P. vaucheriae P. virescens

~Snedra acus S.

S.

m "'

delicatissima 2ulcbella S. ~rum ens

LW-8 Feb. 17 BK-2 Feb. 16 BK-3 Feb. 16 CC-1 Feb. 16 Taxa S. socia P P S. ulna 1 10

~Snedra sp. l

~Snedra spp.

Eunotiaceae Eunotia orcus E. curvate E. formica P E. ~nae eli.i.

2'"" " ""

Eunotia sp.

Eunotia spp.

1 P

P P

Achnanthaceae Achnanthes ~exi ua P A. lanceolata 1 A. lanceolata var. dubia 2 A. linearis 10 A. linearis f. curta A. minutissima A. ~era alii Achnanthes sp. 1 Achnanthes sp. 2 Achnanthes spp.

Cocconeis fluviatilis 2 "'"'"

placentula var.

~eu r~l~ta C. scutellum P

Naviculaceae Caloneis bacillum

LW-8 Feb. 17 BK-2 Feb. 16 BK-3 Feb. 16 CC-1 Feb. 16 Taxa C. ventricosa var.  ?

D. ~uella Entomoneis ornata Frustulia rhomboides 1 P. rhomboides var. ~ca itata P F. weinholdii 1 Frustulia sp. 1 (asymmetrical)?

GVVrosi ma exilis G. obtusatum G. ~sencerii

~Grosi ma spp.

Navicula accomoda N. aikenensis N. ~an Iica var. subsalsa N. ~an usta N. ~ca itata N. confervacea N. ~cus idata var. ~ma or N. decussis N. ~ibbosa N. lanceolata N. latelon itudinalis N. laterostrata N. luzonensis N. minima N. miniscula N. muralis P N. mutica P

LW-8 Feb. 17 BK-2 Feb. 16 BK-3 Feb. 16 CC-1 Feb. 16 Taxa N. mutica var. cohnii N. mutica var. ~sti ma N. mutica var. ~tro ica N. notha N. ~uula P P N. radiosa P P 1 1 N. salinarum N. viridula N. viridula var. linearis Navicula sp. 1 Navicula sp. 2 Navicula spp.

N. bisculatum P N. iridis P

. Neidium sp. 1 P. ~bice s P. braunii P. latevittata P. ~le umen P. maior P. ~mascle ta P. microstauron Pinnularia sp. 1 Pinnularia spp.

Stauroneis ~ance s S. ~ance s f. graciiie S. ~ance s f. linearis S. smithii

LU-8 Feb. 17 BK-2 Feb. 16 BK-3 Feb. 16 -

CC-1 Feb. 16 Gomphonemaceae G. brasiliense G. dichotomum G. gracile G. grunowii G. intricatum 2 G. olivaceum 4 G. Earvulum 12 G. truncatum G. truncatum var. ~ca itata Cymbellaceae

~Cbella affinis C. ~as era C. hebridica C. minuta C. naviculiformis C. tumida C. ~tur idula

~Cbella sp. l

~dm horn veneta Epithemiaceae

~Eithemia adnata E. ~ar us Nitzschiaceae Hantzschia ~am hiox s P

Nitzschia acicularis P Nitzschia ~am hibia P P

LM-8 Feb. 17 BK Feb. 16 BK Feb. 16 CC-1 Feb. 16 Taxa N. ~aiculata N. ~dissi ata N. fonticola P N. Sracilis P N. linearis 1 N. obtusata P N. ~alee 3-N. ~si ma 1 N. ~si moidea P N. sublinearis 1 1

Nitzschia sp. 1 Nitzschia sp. 2 Nitzschia spp.

Bacillariaceae Bacillaria ~aradoxa Surirellaceae Surirella ~an ustata S. ~ele ans S. ovata Surirella ~stella S. patella var. ~nau aueri S. robusta S. tenera var. nervosa Surirella sp. 1 Surirella spp.

• Sample lost due to high or extremely low water, vandalism.

• • The arabic numerals represent the mean percent of the replicate counts in that collection that taxon represented. Presence only (P) denotes that taxon represented less than 1% of the total diatom population.

• • • Not permitted on personal property to sample creek.

Table 2s4 Relative Abundance of the Diatoms from the "Aufwuchs" Slides in the Cape Fear River Creek Stations; Thomas Creek (LW-8),

Buckhorn Creek (BK-2), Buckhorn Creek (BK-3), and Cary Creek (CC-l),

Collected During June of 1977**

LW-8 June 17 BK-2 June 17 BK-3 June 17 CC-1 June 17 Taxa Bacillariophyta Centrales Coscinodiscaceae C. seudostelli era r "" ml"=

Melosira ~ambi ua M. Sranulata M. varians Thalassiosira fluviatilis Biddulphiaceae

~)i drosera ~equi uetra Anaulaceae

~Ter since musica Pennales Tabellariaceae Tabellaria fenestrata T. flocculosa Meridion circulare Fragilariaceae F. crotonensis F. vaucheriae F. virescens

~Snedra acus S. delicatissima S. ~ulchella S. ~rum ens

LM-8 June 17 BK-2 June 17 BK-3 June 17 CC-1 June 17 Taxa S. socia S. ulna

~Snedra sp. 1

~Snedra spp.

Eunotiaceae Eunotia arcus 1 E. curvate 34 E. formica 1 E. ~nae alii 19 2 1 2 1 Eunotia sp. 1 Eunotia spp.

Achnanthaceae Achnanthes ~eri ua P A. lanceolata 38 A. lanceolata var. dubia 46 A. linearis 6 A. linearis f. curta A. minutissime A. ~era alii Achnanthes sp. 1 Achnanthes sp. 2 Achnanthes spp.

Cocconeis fluviatilis M~ 1 10 C. scutellum P Naviculaceae Caloneis bacillum

LW-8 June 17 BK-2 June 17 BK-3 June 17 CC-1 June 17 Taxa C. ventricosa var.  ?

D. Fuella Entomoneis ornata Frustulia rhomboides P F. rbomboides var. ~ca itata P F. weinholdii P Frustulia sps 1 (asymmetrical)?

GVVrosi ma exilis G. obtusatum G. ~sencerii

~Grani ma spp.

Navicula accomoda N. aikenensis N. ~an lice var. subsalsa N. ~an usta N. ~ca itata P N. confervacea 1

P N. ~cus idata var. ~ma or N. decussis P P

N. ~ibbosa II II N. lanceolata N. latelon itudinalis N. latero unctata N. laterostrata N. luzonensis N. minima N. miniscula N. muralis N. mutica

f' LM-8 June 17 BK-2 June 17 BK-3 June 17 CC-1 June 17 Taxa N. mutica var. cobnii N. mutica var. ~sti ma N. mutica var. ~tro ica N. notha N. ~uula P N. radiosa P N. salinarum N. viridula N. viridula var. linearis Navicula sp. 1 Navicula sp. 2 Navicula spp.

N. bisculatum N. iridis Neidium sp. 1 P. ~bite s P. braunii P. latevittata P. ~le umen P. maior P. ~mascle ta P. microstauron Pinnularia sp. 1 Pinnularia spp.

Stauroneis ~ance s S. ~ance s f. ~rac11ia S. ~ance s f. 11nearis S. smithii

LM-8 June 17 BK-2 June 17 BK-3 June 17 CC-'1 June 17 Taxa Gomphonemaceae G. brasiliense G. dichotomum G. Eracile G. Erunowii.

G. intricatum G. olivaceum G. Earvulum G. truncatum G. truncatum var. ~ca itata Cymbellaceae

~Cmbella affinis C. ~as era C. hebridica C..minuta racilis C. naviculiformis C. tumida C. ~tur idula

~Cmbella sp.

hors veneta l

~dm Epithemiaceae

~Eithemia adnata E. ~ar us Nitzschiaceae Hantzschia ~am hio s Nitzschia acicularis Nitzschia ~am hibia

LW-8 June 17 BK-'2 June 17 BK-'3 June 17 'C-1 'une 17 Taxa N. ~aiculata p p

N. ~dissi ata 1 N. fonticola p N. Srsciils N. linearis

.8 N. obtusata p N. Bales 2 N. ~si ma 1 N. ~si moidea 1 N. sublinearis p Nitzschia sp. 1 Nitzschia sp. 2 Nitzschia spp.

Bacillariaceae Bacillaria Baradoxa Surirellaceae Surirella ~an ustata p S. ~ele ans p S. ovata Surirella Natella S. Natella var. ~neu aueri S. robusta S. tenera var. nervosa Surirella sp. 1 Surirella spp.

• Sample lost due to high or extremely low water, vandalism.

• • The arabic numerals represent the mean percent of the replicate counts in that collection that taxon represented. Presence only (P) denotes that taxon represented less than 1% of the total diatom population.

~** Not permitted on personal property to sample creek.

Il THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

I 3.0 Benthic Macroinvertebrates Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Site 3.1 Introduction This report contains benthic macroinvertebrate data collected semiannually during February and June, 1977, in or near the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant site. The data presented in this report represents the continuation of an interim semiannual sampling program initiated by Carolina Power 6 Light Company during June, 1975.

The purpose of this report is to summarize data collected during the final year of the interim sampling program.

3.2 Materials and Methods The materials and methods employed during the 1977 semiannual sampling are the same as those previously presented (CPGL, 1976). Due to the high incidence of artificial substrate vandalism at Transect D, sampling effort was increased during June, 1977, to include collection of three replicate petite Ponar grab samples in addition to two replicate barbecue basket samplers at each station (D-l, D-2, and D-3). The materials and methods for the collection of petite Ponar grabs have been presented in a previous report (CPSL, 1976) .

3.3 Results and Discussion 3.3.1 River Transects The numerically dominant taxa collected at Cape Fear River Transects during February and June, 1977, are presented in Tables 3.1

and 3.2, respectively. Data contained in these tables are expressed 2

as the total mean number of organisms/m collected from two replicate barbecue samplers located at each station on transect. Benthic macro-invertebrates collected during February, 1977, (the regularly scheduled December, 1976, sampling was postponed until January-February, 1977, due to exceptionally high stream discharges) included Cheumato s che spp.,

A, B, and C (Aquatic Control, Inc., 1974, 1975, and CP&L, 1976) these taxa in addition to others listed in Table 3.1, have been observed to be the numerically dominant taxa collected downstream of Buckhorn Dam. A comparison of data presented in Table 3.1 with data collected December, 1975, (Table 3.3) indicate six numerically dominant taxa were collected during February, 1977, while eleven taxa were collected in December, which was collected in February, 1977, but not in December, 1975, higher numbers of organisms representing each taxa were collected downstream of Buckhorn Dam during 1975 than during 1977. For example, the mean 2

number/m of- Cheumato s che spp. collected at Transects A, B, and C 2 2 2 during December, 1975, was 55/m at station A-3, 27/m at B-l, 55/m 2

at C-l, 137/m at C-2 and 27/m 2 at C-3, while 27/m 2

were collected at Stations A-2, A-3, respectively in and C-1 December, during February, 1977.

/ 2 Other examples include 1975, while ranging from 27 at Station B-3 2

/

from 27 to 1261/m 2 at Stations C-3 and A-3, respectively in 1975 2

while in February, 1977, the range was 27 at Station A-1 to 137/m at station C-3. These lower numbers of taxa and decreased mean- numbers of organisms per taxa during February, 1977, collections appear to indicate that barbecue basket artificial substrate samples were less suitable for benthic organism colonization during winter, 1977, than during winter, 1975. Variations in flow rate and total stream discharge during the 1975 sampling period and the 1977 sampling may explain year to year differences in substrate suitability. A review of data collected by Aquatic Control, Inc. (1975, 1976) indicates that organisms with life histories previously reported to include immature stages during the winter were absent from samplers or collected in low densities December through February, 1975. These data may indicate a seasonal decrease in substrate colonization suitability from summer-fall (low stream discharge periods) to winter-spring (high stream discharge periods). This decrease in substrate suitability may have been due to increased stream discharge and associated substrate scouring which commonly occurs in this area during the winter or spring. With increased stream discharge, barbecue baskets may vibrate off the stream substrate, may be dragged several meters downstream by the current, or may be scoured by suspended material in the water column. This movement or scouring of substrate could cause the migration of benthic organisms due to behavioral avoidance or various forms of passive dislodgement. Data collected indicate barbecue samplers seriously underestimated the densities of some benthic organisms collected for the SHNPP study during winter, 1977, and to a lesser extent during winter,

)

J

1975. The apparent underestimate of benthic abundance associated with the decreased suitability of substrates during periods of high discharge precludes anyfurther comparisons of data collected at Transects A, B, and C during February, 1977, with data collected during winter, 1975. Benthic macroinvertebrate data collected at Transects A, B, an'd C during June, 1977, are oresented in Table 3.2.

The data indicate organisms collected in relatively large numbers spp., the mayflies (Ephemeroptera) Baetis spp. and Stenonema spp. and data appear similar to data collected during June, 1976, (Table 3.4) with the following exception: Hacronemum spp. and Rheotan tarsus spp.

were collected in larger numbers in June, 1976, than in June, 1977.

It cannot be determined from these data whether the observed decreases indicate population density shifts or are an artifact of sampling efficiency.

As was mentioned in a previous report (CP&L, 1976), barbecue artificial substrate sampling replaced petite Ponar grab samples at Transect D in an attempt to use one collection method at all river and stream stations. The data for numerically dominant taxa collected from artificial substrates at Stations D-l, D-2, and D-3 during February, 1977, are presented in Table 3.5. These data indicate that worms (Oligochaeta) were the numerically dominant taxa collected along the and Procladius spp. at Stations D-1'and D-3, Chironomus spp., at Stations

- 74 .

similar to the data collected from barbecue samplers during December, 1975 (Table 3.6). Since current velocities may be lower, in general, upstream of Buckhorn Dam than downstream, estimates of organism abundance using artificial substrate samplers at Stations D-l, D-2, and D-3 may not be as severely underestimated as was reported above for downstream transects.

Due to the high incidence of artificial substrate vandalism at 'Transect D, additional sampling effort was employed with the collection of petite Ponar grabs in June, 1976, and 1977 (Tables 3.7 and 3.8, respectively). During both sampling periods the data indicate that Oligochaeta were the dominant organisms collected from grab samples at Transect D. Ho apparent changes in organism density or community composition of numerically dominant benthic organisms were observed from petite Ponar grabs collected during June, 1976, and 1977. A comparison of data collected from artificial substrates (June, 1976, large numbers during June, 1976, while Oligochaeta was the numerically dominant taxa collected during June, 1977. It is not clear if this decrease in numbers of numerically dominant taxa collected (June, 1977) indicates sampling inefficiency or other factors not apparent from this study.

3.3.2 Stream Stations Benthic macroinvertebrate data collected during February, 1977, at stream Stations LW-8, BK-2, and BK-3 (CC-1 could not be collected due to posted property) are presented in Table 3.9. The 2

relatively low numbers of organisms/m and taxa collected during the winter, 1977, appear to indicate poor colonization of substrate samplers at Stations LW-8, BK-2, and BK-3 possibly indicating increased stream discharges and substrate scouring. Due to the relatively low numbers of organisms collected, a comparison of February, 1977, data with December, 1975, data (Table 3.10) does not appear to be appropriate.

During June, 1977, artificial substrates at Station BK-2 were apparently vandalized while samplers at Stations LW-8 and BK-3 were collected. Data collected from LW-8 and BK-3 during June, 1976, and 1977, is presented in Tables 3.11 and 3.12, respectively. Numerically dominant benthic organisms collected for LW-8 during June, 1976, include 1977 samples. In addition, organisms representing Cheumato s che spp.,

Cheumato s che spp., and Baetis spp. were not collected at Station LW-8 during 1976, the reappearance of these organisms in June, 1977, may indicate these forms are recolonizing this area. If this apparent recolonization is successful, it may indicate improved water quality and decreased suspended sediment loading due to SHNPP clearing operations.

The numerically dominant benthic macroinvertebrate collected at Station BK-3 during June, 1976 and 1977, was frequently observed to occur in relatively high

'I numbers in riffle collected during both June (1976 and 1977) sampling periods. Organisms collected in June, 1977, but not in June, 1976, include Psectrocladius June, 1977. It is not apparent from this study if the year to year changes in presence/absence of organisms mentioned above indicate slight shifts in community structure or are artifacts of the sampling methods employed.

3.4 Conclusions

l. Benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled during February and June, 1977, at four Cape Fear River transects and three selected tributary stations. During this sampling, animals were collected from the following taxa: Insecta, Hollusca, Turbellaria Niadinae, Oligochaeta, Polychaeta, Nematoda, Amphipoda, Coelenterata, and Decapoda.

2. The numerically dominant organisms collected downstream of Buckhorn Dam included representatives of the Trichoptera, 77

Kphemeroptera, Diptera, Mollusca, and Plecoptera; while upstream of the dam, the benthic fauna was dominated by Diptera and Oligochaeta.

3. Data collected from Station LV-8 during June, 1977, Baetis spp. may have recolonized the area. This apparent recolonization may reflect improved water quality and decreased suspended sediment loading.

4. The data appear to indicate barbecue basket samplers underestimate benthic organism abundance during periods of high stream discharge and increased substrate scouring.

78

3.7 Literature Cited Aquatic Control. 1975. Aquatic Baseline biota of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Study Area, North Carolina, 1973-1974. Aquatic Control, Inc., Seymour, Indiana.

1976. Aquatic Baseline biota of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Study Area, North Carolina. 1974-1975.

Aquatic Control, Inc., Seymour, Indiana.

Carolina Power 6 Light Company. 1976. The SHNPP Aquatic Biology Monitoring Program, 1976 Annual Report.

Table 3.1. Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benthic taxa collected at stations located on Transects A, B, and C - February of 1977 SIIIIPP.

Taxa Stations A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-l. C-2 C-3 lnsecta Tricltoptera llydropsychidac

~sd s l ~s 27 27 27 Macronemum ~s Psychomyiidae

~lt* t'c It sts ~s Ephemeroptera Ileptagcniidae Stenoncma ~s 27 Caenidac Caenis ~s Tricorytltidae A

~rt r rh*dcs ~s dtl m

Bactidac 0th Baetis ~s Ephcmcrcllidae

~Eh sr ll 27 27 Diptcru Cliironomidae Chironominac

~P*1 st 1 27 Orthocladiinae Eukiefferiella ~s

~Ct *\* s ~s 274 27 27 82 Plecoptera Tacniopterygidac Tacniopteryx spp.

Molluscs Bulimidae Somatogyrus 27 110 27 82 137

2 Table 3.2. Total mean numbers of organisms/m of selected benthic taxa collected ac stations located on Transects A, B, and C - June of 1977 - SBHPP.

Taxa Scations A-2 A-3 8-1 B-2 B-3 C-l C-2 C-3 Insects Trichopcera llydropsychidae I 8 8 Ch*~8 82 165 82 165 329 192 1618 2742 192 905 686 1097 658 4141 713 Macronemum ~s 27 27 82 55 27 466 Psychomyiidae

~HC 'Cll $ 88 ~$ 27 27 466 27 219 Ephcmeropcera lleptageniidae Scenoncma ~s 165 1096 165 82 329 367 27 Caenidae Caenis ~s 55 Tricorythidae

~TI rchd 27 Beet idee Baecis ~s 55 302 192 932 27 110 658 Ephemerellidae

~hh '1'IIII ~8 82 27 137 Diptera Chironomldae Chironominae

~PI dl1 82 110 137 302 576 850 192 55 55 192 Orthocladiinae Eukiefferiella ~s 55 27 55 1426

~CI 8 55 55 192 137 219 Plccoptcra Taeniopterygidae Tacniopceryx spp.

Molluscs Bulimidao Somatogyrus 630 247 27 55 2002 6609 247

Table 3s 3 Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benthic taxa collected at stations located on Transects A, B, and C December of 1975 - SllHPP.

Taxa Stations A-2 A-3 B-l 8-2 B-3 C-l C-2 C-3 Insects Trichoptcra Bydropsychidae

~ll dr Cs 27 192 137 165 27 82

~s 55 27 55 137 27

't Hacronemum ~s Psychomyiidae

~ll sts md, 165 27 27 Ephemcroptcra Beptagcniidae Stcnonema ~s 137 219 27 Cacnidae Caenis ~s Tricorythidac

~rrt r r.s d s ~s Baetidae Bactis ~s 27 Ephemerellidae

~SI slid nd, Dlptera Chironomidae Chironominae

~st d 11 27 768 27 Orthocladiinac 55 55 27 Eukicfferiella ~s 55 302 55

~crts c s 878 27 Plccuptera Taenioptcrygidae Taeniopteryx spp. 27 740 137 274 55 165 329 Hollusea Bulimidae 27 1261 55 411 165 Somatogyrus

1'

)

2 Table 3.4. Total mean numbers of organisms/m of selected benthic taxa collected at stations located on Transects A, B, and C - June of 197G - SllNPP.

Taxa Stations A-1 A-2 A-3 B-l B-3 C-l C-2 C-3 Insects Trichoptcra Hydropsychidae

~ES 1 s ~s 165 1645 82 ,27 4168 219 27 2880 27 521 165 55 1G73 357 1453 Hacronemum ~s 27 27 82 1645 27 7761 Psychomyiidae

~sss 11 ls ~s 110 &2 82 137 Ephcmcroptera Neptageniidae Stcnoncma ~s 27 27 55 55 Caenidae TEE OE Tricorythidae

~TS *s El*i*

Tn Balstidae Baetis ~s 27 27 55 55 823 Ephemerellidac

~ES s 11 ~s 27 27 137 27 686 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae

~ST Sll 219 27 110 274 55 192 55 27 192 192 165 Orthocladiinae Eukiufferiella ~s 137 411 55 329

~csl 1* 27 27 82 Plecoptcra Tacnlopterygidae Taeniopteryx spp.

Hollusca Bulimldac Somatogyrus 137 27 302 686 165 1399

Table 3.5. Total 2 mean numbers of organisms/m of selected benthic taxa collected at stations located on Transect D-February of 1977 - SllNPP.

Taxa Stations D-l D-1 D-2 D-2 D-3 D-3 Basket Ponar Basket Ponar Basket Ponar Sampler Grab Sampler Grab Sampler Grab Insects Diptcra Chironomidae Chi ronominae

~P1 di 1 55 55 Cr tochironomus ~s CA Chironomus ~s B

'0 55 82 A

Tanypodinae t Yl 04 g0

~N fl o4 Procladius Ct f1

~s 82

~Ablabcs t ~s o

I n 329

~C11 t n 137

~s A n A rl n Oligochaeta 384 CL 357 m n 2496

Table 3.6 Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benthic taxa collected at stations located on Transect D ~

December of 1975 SIINPP.

Taxa Stations D-1 D-1 D-2 D-2 D-3 D-3 Basket Ponar Basket Ponar Basket Ponar Sampler Grab Sampler Grab Sampler Grab Insects Diptera Cliironomidae Chironominae

~II '111 27 Cr tochironomus ~s Chironomus ~s 82 m

8

'0 Tanypodinae

~CI 1 o4 ffs Procladius ~s 27 ft x

~sbl b' ~s

~Cl III 1 S ~S 192 878 n0 m 00 Ib Oligochaeta 878 It Ib n 521 fb o

m ft 0 m A Q

Table 3.7. Total mean numbers of orBanisms/m 2 of selected benthic taxa collected at stations located on Transect D ~

June of 1976 - S llHP P.

Taxa Stations D-1 D-1 D-2 D-2 D-3 D-3 Basket Ponar Basket Ponar Basket Ponar Sampler Crab Sampler Grab Sampler Crab Insec'ta Diptcra Chironomidae Chironominae

~sl d ii 15 55 15 Cr tochironomus ~s 44 44 Chironomus ~s 104 Tanypodlnae ddd

~doslota s md. 8 8

'o 29 Procladius ~s o 133 I m 178 302 59

~AI lal aa I X 27

~tli ta s ~s 59 27 59 m

Olifochaeta OQ 6852 1954 686 1051

Table 3 '. Total mean numbers of organisms/m onne of 1977 SBBPP.

2 of selected benthic taxa collected at stations located on Transect. D-Stations D-1 D-l D-2 D-2 D-3 D-3 Basket Ponar Basket Ponar Basket Ponar Sampler Grab Sampler Grab Sampler Grab insects Diptera Chironomidae Chiro nominee Polvtestt 15 Cr tochironomus ~s 15 Chironomus ~s Tanypodinae Oh Os

~Cel t s ep, 'u8 m Procladius ~s m 548 163

~Ahl h' X 29 Ã

~Ctle t s ~s 148 m

m Oli8ochaeta OCh 1820 00 503 55 147

F Table 3.9. Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benchlc taxa collected at creek stations February of 1977.

Ta xa Scatlons LH-8 BV;2 BK-3 CC-1

~*sa k ~t (" B eked (**B k~t (**Basket}

Insects Trlchoptera llydropsychldae I~bc uB

~CI e aat Hacronemum u ~s he ~s 27 II'*llsls uk, Psychomyiidae Ephemeroptera lluptageniidae Stonomena shih. 55 Caenidae Caenis ~s Tricorythldae

~TI el *les Baetldae Baetls Ephemerellidae s~

~th lls JBS.

Dlpcera Chironomldae Chironomlnae

~DI r*te al Pol~edilum ~s

~Cr gkcacl>fronomus ~s

~TS rs 8 III thea I rs Tanypodlnae Orthocladllnae Psectrocladlus ~s Eukiefferiella ~s Crlc~oto us ~s 27 Ollgochaeca 55 27

Table 3.10, Total mean numbers of nrBanisms/m of selected beni.hic caxa collected at creek stations - December of 1975 '

Taxa Scatlons Lil-8 BK-2 BK-3 Cc-l

~>Ba eked ("*Bask~et ~++Ba~skec ~s>Basket/

Insecca Trichopcera llydropsychidae

~ll dr~os che ~s 27 82 82 Cheumat~osvche ~s 768 27 Hacronemum ~s 55 Psychomyiidae

~sr cll l ~s Ephemeroptera llepca8eniidae Sconomena ~s 549 27 Caenidae Caenls ~s Tricorythidae Triter Baecidae thodes Baucis ~sl ~ 55 Ephemerellidae 82 l)iptera Chironomidae Chironominae ill ~cs Sl P 1~sill 27 192 411

~Cr tachironomus ~s Tan~tarsus ~s 1069 110 Tanypodinae Ablabes~mia ~si Orthocladiinae l'sectrocladius ~s Eukiefferiella ~s C r'~ssrM

~sr 55 0118ochaeta 55 82

I Table 3,11, Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected benthic tuxa collected at creek stations ~ June of 1976 Taxa Stations LM-8 BK-2 BK-3 CC-1

~*BS k t. ~*B k et ~*B k t ~aas sk t Insects Trichoptera Ilydropsychidae

~dd e h 274 165 1234 55 ILicronemum ~s 27 Psychomyiidae

~BC 1 1 ate 27 55 Ephemeroptera lleptageniidau Stonomena ~s 439 165 27 Cae'ni dec Caenis ~s Tricorythhdae

~TI th d 165 Baetidae Baetis ~s 1 ~

27 27 Ephemerellidae

~kh ~

11 ~s 27 Mptera Chironomidae Chironominae

~ht S*te dl e.

439 82

~P*t edit 137 Cr tachironomus ~s Chironomus ~s

~Tee s 8 mtt, 302 27 192 3977 603 549 Tanypodinae Procladius ~s

~Aht'e t ~s 110 27 Orthocladiinae Psectrocladius ~s Eukiefferiella ~s 137

~etta*le s ~$ 27 Oligochaeta 137 137 27

Table 3.12, Total mean numbers of organisms/m 2 of selected b<<nthlc taxa collect<<d at crcck stations - June of 1977, Taxa Stations LH-8 BK-2 BK-3 CC-1

<<*B k a) ~*B kaa ~a*a sk s ~asa k a insects Trichoptcra Bydropsychidae

~ll dro~sche ~s 110 55 Ch a~ato Hacronemum ha uh, 55 137

~s

~all Psychomyiidae Is ~s Vh Ephcmeroptera 8

'cj llcptagcniidae dh Stonomcna H

~s 27 P+

Cacnidae Caenis ~s m Tricorythidae m Tsl *a~ah d dm Baetidae Baetis ~s 27 55 Ephemdarcllidae

~Ehemcrella ~sh Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Dicrotcnd~i es ~s

~PI dll ~s 55 Cr tachironomus ~s Chironomus ~s

~Ta l s ~s 658 Tanypodinae Procladius ~s 82

~Ahlsh s Ia ~s Orthocladiinae Pscctrocladius ~s Eukiefferiolla ~s 27

~CI *I* a ~a 55 Oligochaeta 27 27

P I

r l

i

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400

) 401 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power ) 402 Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4) ) 403 APPLICANT' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW IN THE FORM OF A SUPPLEMENTAL 'INITIAL DECISION (CONSTRUCTION PERMITS)

April 17'979

I I

TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa<ac PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF T HE RECORD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 II. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Carolina Power s Light Company's Experience in Nuclear Power Plant Construction and Operations S B. Carolina Power a Light Company ' Management Organs.zatz.on................................. 10 C. Quality Assurance............................ 12 D. Construction Program......................... 15 E. Training Programs............................ 17 F. Plans For the Harris Plant Organization and S taffxng....'................................. 19 G. Mr. Cantrell's Allegations................... 21

1. Applicant's Perspective on Mr.

Cantrell'llegations.............................

22

2. Mr. Cantrell's Specific Allegations CPGL's Responseso ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 26 (a) Senior Reactor Operator License Desirable for Brunswick Management Positions........................... 26 (b) Turnover at, the Brunswick Plant.....

(c) Licensee Event Reports.............. 31 (d) Noncompliances...................... 32 (e) Reactor Core Isolation Cooling S ys tern o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 33

( f) Diesel Generator Lubricating Oil.... 34 3.

I (g) High Pressure Coolant Injection System Differential Temperature Isolation....... 36 (h) HPCI Room Doors.......................... 38 (i) Augmented Off-Gas System................. 39

3. CPGL's Long-Term Response to the Root Cause of Operating Problems............................ 41 (a) Lessons Learned........................-. 41 (b) CPGL's Long-Term Response to Problems.... 43 H. Improvement in Performance at Robinson and B runswick...................................... ~ ~ ~ 44 I. Carolina Power s Light Company's Commitment to Safe Operations............................ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 44 J. Technical Qualifications...................... ~ ~ ~ ~ 45 III- CONCLUSIONS OF LAN ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~ ~ ~ -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - 46 IV. ORDER t ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 46 ATTACHMENT A: LIST OF EXHIBITS 3.3.

I l

I

April 17, 1979 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEiVSING BOARD In the Matter of CAROLINA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-400 50-401 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 50-402 Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4) 50-403 APPLICANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN THE FORM OF A SUPPLEMENTAL INITIAL DECISION (CONSTRUCTION PERMITS)

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD

'I

l. On January 23, 1978, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in this proceeding ("the Board" ) issued an initial decision authorizing construction permits for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4,

(" Harris" or "the Harris Plant" ). 7 NRC 92 (1978).

Construction Permits (CPPR-158, 159, 160 and 161) were thereafter issued to Carolina Power 6 Light Company ("CP&L" or l

"Applicant" ) on January 27, 1978. 43 Fed. Rece. 4465 (February 2, 1978). On August 23, 1978, the initial decision was affirmed by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board ("the Appeal Board" ) in ALAB-490. 8 NRC 234 (1978).

1 The Appeal'oard deferred decision with respect to the

I I.

l

2. In ALAB-490, the Appeal Board addressed its having been advised by NRC Staff counsel by letter dated April 18, 1978, that one of the NRC line inspectors at Applicant's two-unit Brunswick Plant believed that "his views on the management capability of Applicant to staff and operate the Harris facility, had not adequately been presented to the Licensing Board." 8 NRC at 242. NRC Staff counsel forwarded to the Appeal Board the line inspector's handwritten notes dated September 16, 1977 (which the line inspector had furnished to his supervisors to assist them in preparation of testimony ). Staff Counsel stated in the April 18, 1978 letter that he had reviewed both the notes and the testimony and had concluded that the testimony "adequately reflected the factual content" of the notes. While the Appeal Board found the testimony in the context of the line inspector'.s notes to be "troublesome", it affirmed the Board's initial decision, noting both its concern that the Licensing Board had not inquired into (continued) environmental impacts of the release of radon-222, and its effect on the Board's cost benefit balance. The Appeal Board noted that it anticipates reaching the radon issue after disposing of the issue in one or more of the cases in which it is contested. 8 NRC at 242.

2 The testimony in question is that of Virgil L. Brownlee and Hugh C. Dance following Tr. 2076 (reprinted in Licensing Board Exhibit 10 at 11-39) offered in the 1977 construction permit proceeding,. The handwritten notes of the line inspector are found in Licensing Board Exhibit 10 at 42-51. The April 18, 1978 letter from NRC Staff counsel to the Appeal Board is also found in Licensing Board Exhibit 10 at 40-41.

j I

, l I

I I

the matter at the hearings and its expectation that the Commission's Office of Inspection and Enforcement ("IGE") will undertake and maintain surveillance of the construction and operation of the Shearon Harris facility to insure that remedial measures are adopted by Applicant to rectify the problems identified in the testimony. 8 NRC at 244.

3. In a letter dated August 30, 1978, the members of the Board advised .the Commission that they did not perceive that they had jurisidiction to pursue. the matter, but that they "agree[d] with the line inspector that his views were not adequately presented." The Board was not aware of the cause for the omission of the concerns of the line inspector from the written and oral testimony of nis supervisors; however, it was the Board's view that "[w] hatever the cause, the result was misleading . "

4. On September 5, 1978, the Commission remanded this proceeding ~to the Board for a further hearing on "the management capabilities of CP&L to construct and operate the proposed Shearon Harris facility without undue risk to the health and safety of 'the public." Further, the -Commission directed the Office of Inspector and Auditor ("OIA") to conduct a thorough inquiry into the basis for, and seriousness of, the alleged omission of the concerns of the line inspector from the 3 The August 30, 1978 letter to the Commission is reprinted in Licensing Board Exhibit 10 at 4-10.

written and oral testimony of the [NRC] staff." CLI 78-18, 8 NRC 293 (1978).

5. The Board conducted a telephone conference with the parties on November 14, 1978. Participating were counsel for all parties to the proceeding: Applicant; NRC Staff

(" Staff" ); State of North Carolina (represented by the Office of the Attorney General)("Attorney General" ); and joint intervenors, Conservation Council of North Carolina and Wake Environment, Inc. ("Intervenors"). By Memorandum and Order dated November 15, 1978, the Board established a schedule for filing of written testimony and proposed exhibits.

6. By Memorandum and Order dated November 22, 1978, the Board reported that NRC OIA had issued a three volume report of its "Inquiry into the Alleged Omission of a Line Inspector's Views from the Shearon Harris Construction Permit Hearing." See Licensing Board Exhibits 9, 10 and ll. All parties were afforded an opportunity to comment on what bearing, if any, the facts disclosed in the inquiry have on the management capability of Applicant. 4

7. The Board received three letters dated respectively November 7, 27 and 29, 1978, from Mr. Wells 4 OIA concluded "the only significant information not presented to the [Board] was [the line inspector's] conclusion with respect to placing a condition in the Shearon Harris CP."

It was OIA's opinion "that the exclusion of [the line inspector's] conclusion from the written and oral testimony did not constitute a serious omission." Licensing Board Exhibit 9 at 15.

I I

Eddleman of Durham, North Carolina, s eking to intervene in this proceeding on behalf of himself and the Kudzu Alliance of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The Board treated all three letters as a petition to intervene. Staff and Applicant opposed their intervention. By Order dated January 10, 1978, the Board deni d Mr. Eddleman and Kudzu Alliance 's petition to intervene as untimely and unjustified, taking into consideration the factors to be balanced under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1). The Appeal Board rejected an appeal by Mr.

Eddleman and the Kudzu Alliance, and affirmed: the Board's denial of the petition to intervene in ALAB-526. 9 NRC (February 13, 1979).

8. Pursuant to a Notice of Continuation of Hearing 5 dated January 24, 1979, sessions of the remanded evidentiary hearing were held in Raleigh, North Carolina, on February 27 through March 2, and March 6 through March 8, 1979. The conduct of the hearing was pursuant to various memoranda and orders of the Board prior to the hearing which established the order of presenting evidence, requested both Applicant and Staff to produce additional witnesses and documents, and requested that the line inspector, Mr. Floyd S. Cantrell, Jr.,

be present at the entire hearing to listen to the testimony of Applicant's witnesses.

5 44 Fed. Rece. 6533 (February 1, 1979).

I I

I I

I I

I

9. Only Staff and Applicant presented evidence, altnough both the Attorney Gen ral and Intervenors appeared at, and participated in, the hearing. The record of the hearing includes the testimony of the witnesses 6 for the parties and exhibits. A list identifying the exhibits marked for identification and either received into evidence, rejected or withdrawn, is set forth in Attachment A, which is appended to this Supplemental Initial Decision.

6 Staff witnesses included: Charles E. Murphy, Chief, Reac-tor Construction and Engineering Support Branch, Region II, I&E; Francis J. Long, Acting Deputy Director, Region II, I&E; Hugh C. Dance, Chief, Reactor Project Section No. 1, Operations Branch, Region II, I&E; Virgil L. Brownlee, Quality Assurance Engineer, Operations Branch, Region II, I&E; Charles McFarland, Principal Inspector, Projects Section, Reactor Construction and Support Branch, Region II, I&E; Allan Herdt, Chief, Projects Section, Reactor Construction and Support Branch, Region II, Z&E; Jack Bryant, Chief, Engineering Support Section No. 1, Reactor Construction and- Support Branch, Region II, I&E; Paul J. Kellogg, Chief, Nuclear Support Section No. 2, Operations Branch, Region II, I&E; William A. Ruhlman, Lead Quality Assurance Inspector, Nuclear Support Section No. 2, Operations Branch, Region II, I&E; Richard Wessman, Reactor Inspector, Operations Branch; Region II, I&E; Howard A. Wilber, Senior Reactor Inspection Specialist, Division of Reactor Operations Inspection, I&E; Frederick R. Allenspach, .Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ("NRR"); Walter P. Haass, Chief, Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Project Management, NRR; Albert Schwencer, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No. 1, Division of Operating Reactors, NRR; Sidney Miner, Senior Project Manager, Division of Project Management, NRR; and Floyd S. Cantrell, Jr., Acting Section Chief, Reactor Projects Section No. 2, Operations Branch, Region II, I&E (the "line inspector" previously referred to). Applicant's witnesses were all CP&L employees as follows: J. A. Jones, Executive Vice-President/

Chief Operating Officer; Edwin E. Utley, Senior Vice-President, Power Supply; M. A. McDuffie, Senior Vice-President, Engineering and Construction; Harold R. Banks, Manager, Nuclear Generation; Samuel McManus, Manager, Corporate Nuclear Safety and Quality Assurance Audit Section; and Leonard I. Loflin, Manager, Engineering Pool.

I I

I

10. Opportunity for the presentation of written limited appearance statements, and where the statements were confined to the issue of Applicant's management capability, for oral limited appearance statements pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

$ 2.715(a), was afforded several times during the hearing. Mr.

Eddleman submitted a number of written limited appearance statements and was permitted to make an oral limited appearance statement on behalf of himself and the 'r(udzu Alliance. Tr.

2381-2403; 2531-2535. He was also allowed to sit at counsel table and serve as an advisor to Intervenors and the Attorney General. Tr. 2405-2406.

II. Findin s of Fact

11. There are no formal contested issues concerning Applicant's management capability to construct and operate the Harris Plant before us. In that this remanded hearing was ordered as a result of certain allegations 'concerning Applicant's capabilities made by Mr. Cantrell, the NRC I&E inspector formerly assigned to Applicant's Brunswick Plant, the testimony and our inquiry at the hearing tended to focus on those allegations. Similarly, our findings also tend to focus on the, issues raised by Mr. Cantrell. The evidence in the record of this proceeding, however, is much broader in scope, dealing with such fundamental issues as Applicant's:

management organization; depth of experience in nuclea'r plant construction and operation; staff and consultant's technical

qualifications; quality assurance program; nuclear training program; construction experience at the Harris site; and plans for plant organization and staffing for Harris operations. The fact that we have tended to deal with these broader, and clearly more fundamental, issues in a summary manner reflects only on the fact that the evidence convinces us that there is no need to dwell on those issues.

A. Carolina Power & Li ht Comtian 's Ex erience in Nuclear Power Plant Construction and 0 erations

12. CP&L was one of the earliest utilities to commit to nuclear power. CP&L's involvement in nuclear power dates back to 1956 when the Carolinas-Virginia Nuclear Power Associates, composed of CP&L and three neighboring utility companies, was formed to build and operate a prototype reactor a Parr Shoals, South Carolina. Several of the CP&L personnel involved in that project are still Company employees. CP&L's 7 The Board defined the question for the remanded proceeding (while disclaiming that this was a binding legal ruling) to be whether the "operating experience of Carolina Power & Light in other plants, nuclear plants, brings into question its technical competence to" construct and operate Shearon Harris; particularly was all available evidence considered by this Board when it issued the initial decision authorizing the construction p'ermit and, even more particularly, were dissenting or differing opinions of certain members of NRC staff excluded improperly from our consideration." Tr. 2168.

We considered whether we should reverse our earlier findings regarding Applicant's technical qualifications as a result of the additional information provided for our consideration in the remanded proceedings. We found th'at the additional evidence in the record confirmed our earlier findings. See Findings 66 and 67 infra.

I I

I

first Company employees. CP&L's first commercial nuclear unit, Robinson Unit 2, a 665 Mwe Westinghouse pressurized water reactor ("PWR"), has operated successfully since being placed i:n commercial operation in 1971, and has generated over thirty-two billion kilowatt,-hours ("kwh") of electricity.

This represents the fourth largest total output of electricity I

from a nuclear plant in the U.S. The Robinson Plant's cumulative capacity factor of 72.1% through 1978, is one of the best in the country. Brunswick Unit 2, a 790 Mwe General Electric boiling water reactor ("BNR"), was placed in commercial operation in 1975 and has generated over ten billion kwh of electricity. Its sister unit, Brunswick Unit 1, was declared commercial in 1977 and has generated over eight billion kwh of electricity. During 1978, Unit 2 operated at a capacity factor of 69.3%; Unit 1's capacity factor during the same period was 74'.0%. Direct Testimony of Edwin E. Utley and Harold R. Banks on Behalf of Applicant, following Tr. 3502

("Utley-Banks Testimony" ) at 18-19.

13. Vi RC Region II, I&E, has been inspecting CP&L facilities for over ten years. Direct Testimony of Panel I Long, Murphy, Dance, Brownlee on Behalf of Staff, following Tr.

2198 (" Panel I Testimony" ) at Appendices A F; Staff Exhibit

16. Mr. Frank J. Long, Acting Deputy Director, Region II, I&E, was an inspector at the Robinson Plant during the construction phase and has been involved with the Robinson and Brunswick

I plants during both construction and operations. Panel I r

Testimony at 2. Mr. Long believes that CP&L has taken full advantage of its many years of experience in the nuclear business. Tr. 3040-3041.

B. Carolina Power & Li ht Com an 's Mana ement Or anization

14. Carolina Power & Light Company has divided its corporate organization into two main areas, administration and operations. Mr. J. A. Jones, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer for CP&L, testified as to the overall organizational structure of the Company and to the philosophy behind the present structure. Direct Testimony of J. A. Jones on Behalf of Applicant, following Tr. 3494 ("Jones Testimony" )

at 9-11, 26-29. Reporting to Mr. Jones are three Seni'or Vice Presidents (M. A. McDuffie, Engineering & Construction Group; E. E. Utley, Power Supply Group; and W. J. Ridout, Customer &

Operating Services Group) and a Depar tment Head (W.,W. Morgan, Systems Planning & Coordination Department) . Jones Testimony at 13-15; see Applicant Exhibit GG. Mr. Utley described the Power Supply Group and its organizatiori and functions, particularly with respect to management of the Company's nuclear program. Utley-Banks Testimony at 5-8. Mr. Harold R.

Banks, CP&L's Manager Nuclear Generation, described the organizational structure of CP&L's two operating nuclear power plants, H. B. Robinson Plant (" Robinson Plant" or "Robinson" )

and Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (" Brunswick Plant" or l

I I

"Brunswick" ). Utley-Banks Testimony at 11-15. Mr. McDuffie described the major functions and the basic organization of the Engineering & Construction Group as it relates to the nuclear porgram, and in particular to construction of the Harris Plant.

Direct Testimony of M..A. McDuffie on Behalf of Applicant, following Tr. 3505 ("McDuffie Testimony" ) at 3-8. Messrs.

Jones, Utley, McDuffie and Banks, testifying as a panel, provided an opportunity for the Board and the parties to question Applicant's senior management directly concerning its control of nuclear plant operations and construction activities. Lines of communication and delegation of responsibility appear to be adequate and consistent with the safe and effective management of a large nuclear program.

15. Xn reviewing Applicant's application for a construction permit to construct the Harris Plant, NRC Staff evaluated Applicant's organizational structure to design and construct the facility. Direct Testimony of S. Miner, W. Haass and A. Schwencer on Behalf of Staff, following Tr. 3260 (" Panel IV Testimony" ) at 9. Every utility organizes somewhat differently and the Staff's judgment with respect to the adequacy of an organization is subjective. Tr. 3336-3337 (Allenspach). Staff found Applicant's organizational structure provides clear lines of authority and division of responsibility for the Harris project and is acceptable. Panel XV Testimony at 10. Staff was not aware of any negative

I I

I I

I I

factors with respect to Applicant's organizational structure to design and construct Harris, and sees no difficulties with regard to Applicant's organizational structure to operate the Harris Plant once it is built. Tr. 3263 (Panel IV); 3271 (Haass). The Board finds that Applican't's organizational structure is acceptable in providing clear lines of authority and division of responsibility for design, construction and operation of the Harris Plant.

C. Qualit Assurance

16. Mr. Jones stated it is Applicant's philosophy that "quality assurance is .absolutely essential to the safe engineering, construction, and operation of nuclear plants."

Furthermore, Applicant views quality assurance ("QA") as "the essential management tool for economically building and operating nuclear plants." Jones testimony at 20. Ne find no reason to doubt this serious commitment to QA at the senior management level. Applicant has established a pervasive Corporate Quality Assurance Program in three separate areas engineering and construction of nuclear power plants; operation and maintenance of nuclear power plants; and nuclear fuel quality assurance to implement the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B. Jones Testimony at 17-18; Direct Testimony of Samuel McManus on Behalf of Applicant, following Tr. 3769 ("McManus Testimony" ) at 12-14.

17. In its initial decision the Board found that Applicant's QA programs "describe adequate QA,procedures, I

I I

I I

I I

requirements, and controls demonstrating that quality-r lated activities will be conducted [at Harris] in accordance with the requirements of Appendix B of 10 C.F.R. Part 50." 7 NRC at 108 (finding 54). The record amply demonstrates that QA and quality'ontrol ("QC") functions are being performed successfully at Harris. QA/QC functions and organizations at Harris were described in great detail. McDuffie Testimony at 23-29, 31-33; Direct Testimony of Panel II Murphy, Bryant, Herdt, Brownlee, McFarland on Behalf of Staff, following Tr.

2539 (" Panel II Testimony" ) at 9-13. The effectiveness of Applicant's QA/QC program at Harris has been validated by NRC IGE inspections, Corporate Quality Assurance Audit Section audits, and surveillances by the CP&L Engineering and Construction Quality r

Assurance Section (both on-site and general office units). McDuffie Testimony at 44-48. Staff witnesses testified that the QA program in effect at Harris meets requirements that are significantly more stringent than were in effect during the construction of the Brunswick and Robinson plants. The Staff concluded that CPGL Management has been effective in controlling the quality of construction at CPGL's nuclear facilities. Panel II Testimony at 5; see Panel II Testimony at 4-6, 17-18, 48, 54-57; Panel IV Testimony at 14-15.

18. Both Applicant's and Staff's witnesses testified concerning CP&L's QA record at its operating nuclear plants.

I I

I I

Utley-Banks Testimony at 70-73; Direct Testimony of Panel III Long and Dance on Behalf of Staff, following Tr. 2937 (" Panel III Testimony" ) at 3-11; Tr. 2950-2952 (Long ); 3649-3652, 3705-3706 (Jones, Utley, Banks). Messrs. Kellogg and Ruhlman testified concerning the most recent in-depth QA inspection at the Brunswick Plant. Tr. 2629-2730; Staff Exhibit 15. The inspection discussed by Kellogg and Ruhlman and reported in Staff Exhibit 15 was performed by a'new permanent QA inspection team at Region II, IGE, and was the first inspection at a CPGL nuclear plant which focused on QA in as much detail and emphasis. Tr. 2714-2715. Although, the findings reported in Staff Exhibit 15 indicate areas in the Brunswick Plant's QA program which require significant upgrading 8 , there was no indication of a programmatic failure of the QA program.

Tr. 2717-2718. Messrs. Kellogg and Ruhlman noted the number of QA discrepancies at the Brunswick Plant was consistent with the average number of discrepancies found at other utilities inspected in NRC Region II. Tr. 2638; 2720.

19. Messrs. Long and Dance testified that CPGL's ability in QA at operating plants has steadily improved over the years. Panel III Testimony at 9. CPGL has increased its managerial involvement in QA/QC programs at its operating 8 By letter dated March 19, 1979, Applicant forwarded to the Board and tne Parties CP&L's response to Staff Exhibit 15, committing to upgrade its QA program on a specified timetable.

I I

I I

I

plants, and has made significant increases in QA staffing.

Panel III Testimony at 7-8. Staff believes CPGL will establish a QA/QC program for operations at Harris and has no concerns about CPGL's ability and responsibility to manage and operate Harris after it is built. Tr. 3049 (Dance); Panel III Testimony at 68-69.

20. The Board finds that Applicant has stablished QA/QC programs which are p'roviding the requisite quality assurance and quality control to ensure that Harris will be constructed properly according to all specifications and requirements. Applicant's QA/QC programs at the Harris site and at its operating plants're established and implemented in accordance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B.'he Board finds that Applicant's experiences with QA/QC at its operating plants demonstrate its ability to establish and conduct effective QA/QC programs for operations at the Harris Plant.

0. Construction Pro ram 1

21. CPGL's approach to construction of the Harris Plant is significantly different than the approaches taken at Robinson and Brunswick. CP&L is the construction manager, responsible for job coordination and communication, planning, cost control, inspection, quality assurance, accounting, warehousing, procurement, field engineering, milestone scheduling, and establishing and monitoring th master I

schedule. Thus the real burden and control of construction management remains with CPSL rather than bei'ng d 1 gated to a constructor, as was the case with Robinson and Brunswick. The advantages of this degree of control were discussed in detail by Applicant's witnesses. One especially significant advantage is that CPGL performs its own quality assurance and quality control of construction activities. NcDuffie Testimony at 9-13; Panel II Testimony at 10-14; Tr. 3724 (blcDuffie).

I

22. Since the issuance of the construction permits for Harris, construction has proceeded in three main areas: (1) plant site, (2) main reservoir, and (3) west auxiliary reservoir. The major effort has been directed to placing reinforcing steel and concrete in the lower elevations=of the II>

Unit 1 power block. The main reservoir and west auxiliary reservoir have been cleared and work is in progress on the dams for the reservoirs. Unit 1 was 14% complete at the time of the evidentiary hearing, while Units 2, 3 and 4 were less than 1%

complete. NcDuffie Testimony at 41-44; Tr. 2740 (Herdt).

23. Staff witnesses from Region II, I&E, and from'RR have been satisfied with construction and licensing activities at the Harris Plant site. See enerall Panel II Testimony and Panel IV Testimony. Applicant's enforcement A

record at the Harris Plant has been good. HcDuffie Testimony at 44-48; Panel II Testimony at 51-52; Tr. 2540-2542 (Panel II). Staff witness s noted that CP&L has been cooperative with I&E's enforcement program, has kept the principal inspectors f

informed of management concerns, has made engineering and quality assurance documents readily available to the construction inspectors, and nas been responsive to the findings of I&E inspections and to enforcement actions. Panel II Testimony at 6, 13; Tr. 2542-2545 2741-2744 (Panel II).

Each Staff witness involved with inspections and enforcement of CP&L's construction activities at Harris stated that he had no concern with respect to CP&L's ability to construct the Harris Plant. Tr. 2615-2619 (Panel II).

E. Trainin Pro rams

24. Applicant has made substantial improvements in its training programs and facilities. Utley-Banks T stimony at 73-76. In anticipation of the large numbers of technical and craft persons which will be required by CP&L for the Harris Plant and other plants in the future, CP&L has established a centralized training facility at the Harris Energy &

Environmental Center located near the Harris Plant site.

Utley-Banks Testimony at 91. Applicant submitted a synopsis of the long-range training plans for the Generation Department and the schedule of implementation of its training program.

Applicant Exhibit HH. A PWR simulator has been installed at the Harris Energy & Environmental Center. Operations personnel from the Robinson Plant are presently receiving "hot" license training and retraining on the PWR simulator; this simulator I

I I

I I

I

will be used extensively in training personnel for the Harris Plant. Utley-Banks Testimony at 75. Staff witnesses testifi'ed that inspectors who have seen the Harris training facilities are favorably impressed. Tr. 2947; 3218 (Long).

25. At the Harris site CPGL has provided a craft training coordinator whose full-time assignment is to coordinate and monitor the on-site training programs. At the time of the hearing 468 craftsmen had completed training and 165 more were enrolled. With CP&L's approval and encouragement, Daniel International has also established training in several craft ar as. CP&L's direct participation in craft training is an improvement over the situation at the Brunswick Plant where formal training was limited to welding, which was under contractor control. McDuffie Testimony at 38-39, Appendix 6.

26. Staff has reviewed Applicant's proposed training program and has found it adequate to assure tnat a qualified and capable operating staff will be available. Panel IV Testimony at 19. Training for the Harris Plant operations personnel was one of the concerns raised by Mr. Cantrell in his 1977 memorandum. See Licensing Board Exhibit 10 at 153; Cantrell testimony at 10. Mr. Cantrell now believes that CPGL has developed plans that will assure the Staff for Harris will be properly trained. Tr. 3350. The Board finds that Applicant's proposed training program is adequate to assure a qualified and capable operating staff will be available for Harris Plant operations.

I I

I I

I I

I

F. Plans for the Harris Plant Or anization and Staffin

27. Applicant described its plans for the Harris Plant organization and its staffing requirements. The projected Harris Plant organization is based on detailed analyses of the activities required for safe and reliable operation of the four nuclear units. Utley-Banks Testimony at 84-90. The plans submitted by Applicant are substantially t

revised from CPGL's earlier projections considered by the Board prior to the initial decision. See 7 NRC at-109 (finding 56).

Upon completion of Unit 4, Applicant now projects a total Harris Plant staff of 755. Utley-Banks Testimony at 90. This compares with approximately 200 personnel earlier estimated by Applicant. SER g 12.1.

28. Applicant also described a permanent startup organization for the Harris Plant which will be maintained throughout the startup of all four Harris units. An experienced manager has been appointed as Superintendent-Startup, who has begun to recruit the Harris startup staff.

CPGL projects a Harris startup staff of 33 engineers and technicians, exclusive of contract personnel. Utley-Banks Testimony at 90-91; Tr. 3708-3709 (Utley). The schedule for startup of the Harris units has been designed such that only one unit will be in preoperational testing or startup at a time. Tr. 3709-3711 (McDuffie, Banks).

29. Applicant also described its recruitment program for Harris. CPGL has developed a recruiting program at

colleges, universities and technical schools. The first class of forty students is presently undergoing training at CP&L's Harris Energy & Environmental Center, leading toward eventual licensing as nuclear plant operators. CP&L plans to graduate two classes of students from this extensive program prior to the beginning of the "cold" license program for Harris to establish a pool of experienced operations personnel for the startup and initial operations of the Harris Plant.

Utley-Banks Testimony at .93-97.

30. CP&L has demonstrated its ability to attract and-,

retain qualified professionals and technically trained employees. CP&L has doubled in size since 1968 and has been able to meet its staffing needs. It is CP&L's policy to pay competitive wages with other utilities operating in adjacent areas and with other local business concerns. Utley-Banks Testimony at 97-98; Tr. 3527-3529 (Jones). The numbers of professionals and technical personnel applying for, and accepting offers of, employment each year is indicative of CP&L's recruiting success. Jones Testimony at 29; Tr.

3643-3645 (Jones, Utley). Six hundred applications were received for the forty trainee positions in CP&L's nuclear operator training program which commenced in February, 1979.

Tr. 3748 (Utley).

31. NRR has no quantitative requirements for nuclear plant staffing. Applicant must develop a plant staff, qualified and trained to accomplish all requirements of preoperational testing and startup. Tr. 3332-3333 (Haass).

Plant staffing and training will be looked at more closely by NRR and I&E prior to issuance of the operating license for the Plant. Tr. 3271-3272 (Panel IV). Staff witnesses were of the opinion that CP&L will exercise the management necessary to staff Harris adequately. Tr. 2940-2942 (Dance, Long);

3271-3272, 3333-3334 (Miner, Haass). While Mr. Cantrell earlier raised concerns with respect to staffing of the Harris Plant,. he now believes that CP&L has developed plans for a Harris staff of sufficient number to ensure the safe and reliable operation of the Plant. Tr. 3350. The Board finds that Applicant has developed plans which are reasonable to ensure an adequate staff will be recruited for the Harris Plant operations.

G. Mr. Cantrell's Alle ations

32. Mr. Cantrell was Region II, I&E, principal I

operations inspector at Applicant's Brunswick Plant for a period of three years between August, 1974 and July, 1977.

Direct Testimony of F.S. Cantrell on behalf of Staff, following Tr. 3347 ("Cantrell Testimony" ) at 1. In Mr. Cantrell's handwritten memorandum which he provided to his supervisor in September, 1977 (for use in preparing I&E's testimony for the 1977 Harris construction permit proceeding), Mr. Cantrell identified certain concerns and problems with CP&L's performance at the Brunswick Plant. Licensing Board Exhibit 10 at 151-160. Applicant does not deny that the Brunswick Plant faced some problems during the period of time during which Mr.

Cantrell was the principal inspector. Jones Testimony at 4; Tr. 3614-3615 (Jones). Mr. Cantrell believed, however, that

~

the concerns he raised were symptomatic of a failure of CP&L management to commit "the required manpower and financial resources to assure that plant problems are identified promptly, the problems are analyzed by a person(s) knowledgeable in that area, that corrective action is initiated, and that the corrective action is followed up to assure the action is timely and appropriate." Mr. Cantrell concluded that the NRC should require specific improvement in Applicant's management as a condition of the construction permit for Harris. Licensing Board Exhibit'0 at 151-152.

Neither Applicant nor the other staff witnesses agreed with Mr.

Cantrell's conclusion in this regard. This issue is now moot, however, in that Mr. Cantrell no longer recommends attaching a I

condition to the Harris construction permit. Cantrell Testimony at 35; Tr. 3350.

l. A licant's Pers ective on Mr. Cantrell's Alle ations

33. Applicant's disagreement with Mr. Cantrell is over the root cause of the concerns and problems identified and the implications to be drawn from them regarding CP&L management's attitudes. From his perspective as an inspector Mr. Cantrell viewed the problems he encountered as evidence of I

I

lack of concern or attention on the part of CPGL management.

Applicant explained that the problems were the inevitable consequence of a set of problems, many of which were beyond its control, which began much earlier. Company witnesses demonstrated that during the time. Mr. Cantrell viewed as a period of management inattention, CPGL's management was deeply involved in dealing with, and resolving, the-root causes of many of the problems surrounding th construction and startup of the Brunswick Plant a period which both tested and proved the Company's management abilities. Jones Testimony at 4; Tr.

3590-3591 (Jones).

34. Applicant described in detail the problems that

'I were encountered during the construction and startup of Brunswick. While many of the problems were typical of the types of problems which might be encountered in the construction and startup of any major industrial facility the magnitude and cumulative impact of design, engineering and construction problems in a fluid and rapidly developing regulatory climate led to a 'staffing problem that was unforeseeable. Utley-Banks Testimony at 33-53. Faced with a pressing deadline for obtaining an operating license for Brunswick Unit 2, 9 Brunswick personnel worked long, hard hours 9 In October, 1974, Applicant was advised that if the Brunswick operating license were not issued before December 28, 1974, a significant delay in obtaining the operating license would be incurred, since NRC's ECCS I

to avoid a substantial delay. Id. at 46-48. As a result CP&L management was in the position of having to establish priorities and do a good deal of shuffling and reorganizing of plant staff in order to cope with the sorts of problems which Brunswick faced. Jones T stimony at 4-5. NRC worked with CP&L to meet the regulatory deadline facing the licensing of Unit 2-and assisted Brunswick plant management in establishing priorities for the work that was accomplished. Utley-Banks Testimony at 48; Tr. 3592-3593 (Jones).

35. To place the specific concerns identified by Nr.

Cantrell to which he felt CP&L was slow in responding in perspective, it should be noted that they were not violations, infractions or deficiencies in performance as measured against NRC regulations and technical specifications. 10 (continued )

rule required an approved Final (as opposed to Interim)

Acceptance Criteria for ECCS analysis for all plants obtaining an operating license after December 28, 1974. In the fall of 1974, CP&L's load forecast for the summer of 1975 indicated a peak reserve level of only 10.1% without Brunswick Unit 2. A delay in obtaining the operating license for Brunswick Unit 2 was viewed by CP&L management, at that time, as having a potentially adverse impact on CP&L's ability to adequat ly serve its customers during 1975. Utley-Banks Testimony at 46-47.

10 Items of noncompliance with NRC requirements are categorized as violations, infractions or deficiencies.

Panel I Testimony at 11-17. Simply put, a violation is an item of immediate safety consequence, an infraction has a potential for a safety consequence, and a deficiency represents a noncompliance with NRC requirements although the safety implication is somewhat remote. Tr. 2215 (~lurphy).

Additionally, during inspections, I&E inspectors may raise

I I

I I

I I

I

36. The problems with which CPGL contended during the Brunswick plant startup period were interconnected., Tr.

3614 (Jones). One of the most significant impacts, and perhaps the least foreseeable, was due to the changing r gulatory requirements ncountered during the construction and startup of Brunswick. Utley-Banks Testimony at 41-51. The evolution of interpretations and application of Quality Assurance Criteria, Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, resulted .in significantly increased personnel requirements to administer the required QA/QC programs. Id. at 41-43. The issuance of proposed Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, which provided numerical guidelines for the AEC's policy of "as low as practicable" for radioactivity releases, resulted in extensive design reviews and the addition of several new systems to the Brunswick Plant in order to meet the new requirements. Id. at 41, 43-44.. New security regulations required installation of the security system and implementation of additional administrative controls. Id. at 41-42, 44-46. The impact of the new ECCS rule in compressing the schedule for completion of construction and preoperational testing of Brunswick Unit 2 has already been discussed. 'See note 9. The effect of regulatory changes was (continued) concerns or "unresolved items" which are not items of noncompliance. Tr. 2524-2525 (Long). The problems to which Mr. Cantrell referred were generally either "unresolved items" or concerns that were not even designated as "unresolved items".

I I

I I

I I

I

a dramatic increas in the number of man-hours required to complete the startup of the Brunswick Plant. The cumulative impact of the regulatory requirements coupled with the design/engineering/construction problems was a staffing problem. Some work was backlogged. Personnel worked long hours. The employee turnover rate was higher than desired by CPGL. Id. at 49-53; Tr. 3584-3585 (Jones); 3596, 3613 (Utley).

37. Staff witnesses agreed that regulatory requirements were changing during the period of the Brunswick Plant startup and that the 'changes and increases in regulation required additional plant staffing. Tr. 2307-2308 (Long);

3295-3305 (Panel IV); Panel IV Testimony at Appendix D. The Board notes that Applicant's description of the more basic problems and concerns that it was facing during the Brunswick Plant startup provides an essential context for a complete understanding of the specific allegations, made by Mr. Cantrell.

The Board now turns to a brief discussion of each allegation and CP&L's response.

2. Mr. Cantrell's Specific Alle ations CPaL's Res onse (a) Senior Reactor 0 erator License Desirable for Brunswick Mana ement Positions

38. The technical specifications for the Brunswick Plant identify eignt senior management positions for which "a Senior Reactor Operator's ("SRO") License is desirable, but is not required." Utley-Banks Testimony at 102-104; Panel III Testimony at 51; Tr. 2795 (Wessman); Mr. Cantrell felt this I

I I

I I

meant that "at least a majority of the personnel filling the above [eight] positions should hold an SRO license or have the training and exper ience equivalent to that normally required for an SRO license on that ~facilit or a similar facilit Cantrell Testimony at 13. He believed that the effect of these personnel not holding an SRO license "was that key persons failed to recognize problems that should have been obvious, or was to put the problem on the 'back burner,'ither because of lack of familiarization or due to overwork." Id. at 14. Mr.

Cantrell raised this issue og a number of occasions with his superiors at Region II, I&E, and again in the 1977 memorandum.

Cantrell Testimony at 12, Attachments 3, 5; Licensing Board Exhibit 10 at 153.

39. There is no requirement in the Brunswick technical specifications, the NRC's Regulatory Guide or ANSI N18.1-1971 (Licensing Board Exhibit 12) for otherwise qualified personnel in the eight plant management positions to possess an SRO license, nor do other plants in Region II of NRC have such requirements. Tr. 2799-2800, 2815-2818 (Wessman); 3308-3309 (Allenspach). A special I&E inspection of Brunswick Plant management initiated as a result of Mr. Cantrell's concern revealed Brunswick Plant management personnel met all k

qualification requirements. Staff Exhibit 18 at Attachment 7 (p. III-2). Staff witness Long observed from his experience the standards on qualifications are conservative in their bias.

I I

I I

I

Tr. 2957-2959. NRR Staff witnesses testified that the SRO desirable notation actually ended up in the technical specifications by mistake and that NRR had recently recommended that the notation be deleted from the technical specifications for the Brunswick Plant. Tr. 3315 (Allenspach). Indeed, Mr.

Cantrell was unable to establish a causal relationship between the fact that Brunswick Plant managers did not possess an SRO license and the specific technical problems that he identified.

See e.cC. Tr 3359-3361; 3401; 3406-3407.

40. Mr. Jones testified that the origin of the SRO desirable notation was his decision to indicate on the Brunswick Plant organizational chart the desirability of an SRO license in senior management positions at the Brunswick Plant as an incentive to professional employees to take advantage of available nuclear training. This would give the Company more flexibility in moving plant supervisory personnel into a position wher an SRO license was required. There was never any intention to establish an SRO license as a position requirement, nor was it expected that SRO training'ould be undertaken immediately by personnel in these positions. Tr.

3516-3520; 3631-3632 (Jones).

41. At the Brunswick Plant there are presently thirty SRO licensed personnel and six additional personnel who have equivalent training on the Brunswick facility. A minimum of ten SRO's are required for plant operations. Tr. 3520-3521 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

(Banks) . At the Brunswick Plant presently, six of the eight management positions are filled by personnel with an SRO or equivalent training. Tr. 3632-3633 (Banks). Mr. Jones believes that the original intent in establishing the SRO desirable notation has been accomplished. Tr. 3521-3522.

(b) Turnover at the Brunswick Plant

42. Mr. Cantrell was concerned about the turnover of middle- and upper-level management personnel at the Brunswick Plant during the three years while he was principal inspector.

Lic'ensing Board Exhibit 10 at 153. He believed that the" turnover left less experienced persons in key jobs and had the effect of requiring additional effort from the remaining plant staff. ,Cantrell Testimony at 11. Mr. Wilber had also expressed concern about the turnover. Tr. 2839. Mr. Cantrell believed the turnover was caused by "transfers, promotions, extended work weeks without any expectation of relief in the near future and/or inadequate compensation." Cantrell Testimony at ll. Messrs. Long and Dance speculated the turnover was due to long hours, low pay scale, and location. Panel III Testimony at 50. Mr. Wessman speculated that the turnover was attributed to long hours, some attrition, and perhaps some changes in organization. Tr. 2809-2810.

43. As a result of the concerns raised by Messrs. Cantrell and Wilber concerning the turnover at Brunswick and the potential impact on the qualifications of Plant staff, the special inspection previously referred to was

. conducted by Mr. Nessman in January, 1977. Mr. Wessman found that personnel in the Brunswick Plant management, positions were qualified. Staff Exhibit 18 at Attachment 7 (p. III-2).

44. Applicant agreed that during the period of time of the Brunswick Plant startup and initial operations, turnover of supervisory personnel was greater than is desirable.

Utley-Banks Testimony at 55. At the came time, only five supervisors among those holding the top plant management positions have ever resigned from the Brunswick Plant staff.

These resignations occurred between 1974 and 1977. Tr.

3618-3619 (Banks) . Mr. Utley admitted that the long working hours and location of the plant contributed to the resignation I

of employees. Tr. 3624-3625. Some of the turnover of personnel in Brunswick Plant staff positions was due to changes in personnel in order to strengthen the Plant organization, which was necessitated in part by the additions of new plant management positions. Utley-Banks Testimony at 69; Tr. 3200-3201 (Long); 3529-3535 (Utley). Staff witnesses agreed that some of the changes in personnel and additions of new plant positions were indeed responsive to I&E concerns expressed to CP&L management. Tr. 3200-3201. (Long).

Replacements for personnel on the Brunswick staff were, without exception, well-qualified individuals who met all of the established requirements. Utley-Banks Testimony at 55; II I

I I

I

Tr. 3529-3535, 3621 (Utley). In general the Brunswick Plant staff has been stable. Tr. 3529 (Utley). The continuing improvement in the operations at Brunswick would indicate that .

the changes in personnel have been prudent moves on the part of CP&L management. Tr. 3626 (Utley).

(c) Licensee Event Re orts

45. Licensee Event Reports ("LER's") are required reports to the NRC designed to provide information to both the licensee and the NRC on problems and potential problems in C

plant safety equipment or procedures. They include reports on a great many routine administrative and maintenance type items.

Utley-Banks Testimony at 57. There is a wide variation in LER reports among licensees due to the variation in the reporting requirements. Additionally, licensees interpret reporting requirements differently. Tr. 2287-2289 (Murphy); 2498-2499 (Long). There was considerable discussion concerning the trend in the numbers of. LER's at Brunswick and Robinson. Utley-Banks Testimony at 61-62; Panel III Testimony at 28-30, 32-33; Tr.

2287-2289 (Murphy); 2297-2298, 2498-2499 (Long); 3681-3687, 3690-3698 (Utley, Banks). Applicant appears to have taken steps to reduce the numbers of LER's. Utley-Banks Testimony at 58-61; Panel III Testimony at 29-30, 32; Tr. 3690-3695, 3697-3698 (Utley, Banks). NRC does not keep comparative statistics on LER's among licensees. Because of the wide variation in reporting requirements and reporting practices among licensees, comparative statistics would not be useful in comparing licensees. Tr. 2288-2289 (Murphy).

I I

I I

46. The Board finds that it has no basis on which to draw any conclusions from the numbers of LER's. Applicant has developed an adequate program for identifying and submitting LER's and for following-up on the event reported. See Utley-Banks Testimony at 58-59; Tr. 3683-3687 (Utley, Banks).

(d) Noncom liances

47. There was also considerable evidence presented concerning Applicant's enforcement history at its operating plants. Staff Exhibit 16; Panel III Testimony at 28-33; Utley-Banks Testimony at 62-64; Tr. 2953-2957, 3019-3022, 3025-3027, 3175, 3188-3193 (Panel III). A noncompliance is a failure to comply with a specific regulatory requirement, including technical specifications. See note 10. Technical specifications vary from plant to plant. Tr. 2286 (Murphy).

The numbers of noncompliances appear to be directly proportional to the number of inspection-hours. Tr. 2290-2291 (Murphy). Furthermore, the safety significance of any given noncompliance varies greatly. Thus, the numbers of noncompliances alone provide no basis for comparison of licensee performance.

ll A licensee, for example, could receive an infraction for discarding a weld rod into a trash can rather than returning it to an issuing station. That same licensee could receive an infraction if the janitor picked up the welding rod and started welding on the primary loop piping. Obviously, the two incidents have vastly different safety significance. Tr. 2501 (Murphy).

12 One attempt to account for some of the differences is I

48. Generally the numbers of noncompliances at CPaL's Brunswick and Robinson plants have either decreased or remained level over the years, notwithstanding the increases in regulatory requirements against which the plants are being inspected and the increased numbers of inspection-hours.

Tr. 2953-2957,'175 (Dance). Because of the interaction between IGE and a licensee in interpreting, clarifying and defining new regulations (inevitably producing differences in opinion which I&E expresses in citing the licensee for a noncompliance), it is probably unrealistic to expect that a licensee can eliminate all noncompliances. Utley-Banks Testimony at 64; Tr. 3636-3637 (Jones) 3754-3757 (Banks, Murphy). The Board finds that Applicant's enforcement history at its operating plants fails to provide grounds for concluding that CPGL lacks the necessary management capability to safely construct and operate the Harris Plant.

(e) Reactor Core Isolation Coolin S stem

49. The Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System

("RCIC") provides reactor cooling during a shutdown if the normal feedwater system has been isolated. This system (continued) to weight the noncompliances by severity and plot the weighted numbers versus the number of inspection hours.

While the validity of this measure of comparison among licensees is not established, it is worthy of note in passing that Robinson and Brunswick compare very favorably with other licensees in such a comparison. Licensing Board Exhibit' at Tab 8; Tr. 3188-3193 (Dance).

I I

I I

consists of a steam driven turbine-pump unit with associated valves and piping. RCIC is not an ECCS System, but it is a partial backup for the High Pressure Coolant Injection ("HPCI")

System which is an ECCS system. The problem with RCIC mentioned by Mr. Cantrell involved the turbine speed controller. The RCIC oump tripped out on overspeed when started after sitting idle for several days. Utley-Banks Testimony at 64-65; Panel III Testimony at 58; Cantrell Testimony at 15.

50. Mr. Cantrell suggested that CP&L initiated corrective action only after the problem was identified to Brunswick Plant management after an inspection. Cantrell Testimony at 16; Tr. 3388-3389. However, Applicant demonstrated that corrective action had been initiated prior to Mr. Cantrell's inspection. Applicant Exhibits JJ and EK; Tr.

3388-3396. At Nr. Cantrell's suggestion, RCIC was t sted daily at Brunswick. Tr. 3396. Two separate oroblems were identified by CP&L, working with its vendors, and resolved by eventual hardware modification. Utley-Banks Testimony at 65.

(f) Diesel Generator Lubricatin Oil

51. Mr. Can'trell discussed an incident which occurred on October 2, 1975, when waste diesel fuel oil was inadvertently added to Ol and 52 diesel generators'ubricating oil. Mr. Cantrell indicated that corrective action was not properly taken until he questioned the Brunswick Plant staff I

l I

about the incident several days later. Cantrell Testimony at 17-18; Tr. 3361-3363. Applicant demonstrated, that proper corrective actions were taken by the Brunswick Plant management immediately upon discovery by plant maintenance personnel of the addition of fuel oil to the diesels'ubricating oil. All oil in the most significantly affected 52 diesel was changed.

Oil addition records were checked to verify that no oil had been added to 53 and j4 diesels while waste fuel oil had been improperly stored. The Mobil Oil Corporation Lubrication Engineer was contacted to determine the extent of the problem.

Oil was ordered to change out Nl diesel and sample bottles were ordered to sample all diesels, which actions were, both accomplished after receipt of the oil and sample bottles.

Utley-Banks Testimony at 66-67; Applicant Exhibit II; Tr.

3556-3557 (Banks).

52. During cross-examination Mr. Cantrell admitted that corrective action had been taken at the time of the incident and that the action taken by Brunswick Plant management was responsible. Tr. 3373; 3377-3384. Mr. Cantrell suggested, however, that oil for gl diesel might have been obtained more quickly and the other diesels might have been sampled immediately rather than waiting for sample bottles from Mobil Oil Corporation. Tr. 3378; 3384. Mr. Banks explained that the Brunswick Plant staff had verified waste fuel oil had not been added to the other diesels by chec'king oil addition I

records [Utley-Banks Testimony at 66; Tr. 3557], that the change in the viscosity of the oil would have been slight in any event due to the small amount of dilution (the system is designed for some fuel oil leakage into the lubricating oil)

[Tr. 3557-3558], and that Mobil was under contract to do all of the oil analyses for the Brunswick Plant using specially sized and cleaned sampling bottles [Tr. 3556-3558]. It .was CP&L's judgment that the action taken assured the availability of the diesels and the safe operation of the plant. See Utley-Banks Testimony at 66-67; Tr. 3556-3558. Mr. Cantrell admitted that he was not an expert in the field and did not know what effects, if any, differences in oil viscosity in lubricating oil would 'have on the operation of diesel generators. Tr.

3386. Under the circumstances we do not find that CPGL delayed unreasonably in taking corrective action, or that corrective action was taken primarily at the Inspector's urging.

(g) Hi h Pressure Coolant In'ection S stem Differential Tem erature Isolation

53. HPCI is that portion of the emergency core cooling system designed to cope with small breaks in the reactor coolant system'hen the reactor is at pressure. False indications of a steam leak occurred at Brunswick during cold weather due to a high differential temperature between the HPCI room inlet and outlet ventilation. This resulted in isolation of HPCI due to a safety circuit designed to isolate the HPCI system when a high differential temperature due to a steam leak I

I

occurred. Panel III Testimony at 56-57. Mr. Cantrell initiated NRC review of this problem on February 12, 1976, recommending that the isolation function on differential temperature be eliminated and replaced by an alarm. Cantrell Testimony at Attachment 16. After prolonged internal NRC review, the suggestion that the isolation function be replaced by an alarm was rejected, but it was recommended that CP&L initiate a technical specification change to modify the HPCI isolation system to reduce spurious isolations caused by high differential temperatures. 'See Cantrell Testimony at Attachments 17-21. On August 4, 1976, CP&L requested such a technical specification change which was not approved by NRR until April 28, 1977. Mr. Cantrell took the position that the change should have been effected by CP&L within a couple of days thereafter (notwithstanding the fact that NRC had been considering the issue for over a year before taking action).

Tr. 3412; 3416.

54. Applicant's explanation of why the change nad not been implemented in June, 1977, when Mr. Cantrell brought it to the attention of the Brunswick Plant staff, was that it was not a high priority item for the Plant, staff in that the problem which the change was designed to correct would not occur until the winter months. Utley-Banks Testimony at 68.

The change in technical specifications was a permissive removal of a safety function and did not require immediate implementation. Tr. 3558-3559 (Banks). Nr. Cantrell admitted that there was not immediate need for the change to be made except that it was a "listing problem" that was "cluttering up the unresolved items to be corrected." Tr. 3417; 3419.

(h) HPCI Room Doors

55. Nr. Cantrell identified a reoccurring problem at the Brunswick Plant concerning the bulkhead doors between the HPCI room and the Residual Heat Removal System rooms. Cantrell Testimony at 18-20. Considerable testimony was taken with respect to the effectiveness and timeliness of CP&L's commitment to ensure that the HPCI doors remain closed when the HPCI room is unoccupied by personnel. See e.ce. Panel III Testimony at 61-63; Utley-Banks Testimony at 67; Tr..3034-3039, 3046-3047, 3197-3199, 3240-3250 (Dance); 3406-3412, 3435-3451, 3474-3475 (Cantrell); 3543-3546, 3669-3679, 3780-3781 (Banks).

Open doors were first discovered by Nr. Cantrell and brought to the Brunswick Plant staff's attention in December, 1976.

Cantrell testimony at 19.'P&L responded to the "unresolved item" by posting notices on the doors requiring that they be kept closed and requiring an auxiliary operator to check the doors to verify they are clos d once per shift. Utley-Banks Testimony at 67. Subsequently, the doors were again found open by Nr. Cantrell in February and July, 1977. Cantrell Testimony at 19. CPGL agreed to add the HPCI doors to the list of doors required to be annunciated as part of the fire protection l

~

I

study. Tr. 3449-3450; 3473-3475 (Cantrell); Staff Exhibit 21 at Z-7, 1-8. The doors on both Brunswick units were alarmed during normally scheduled outages in November, 1978 and February, 1979. Tr. 3046 (Dance).

Cantrell stated that CPGL was remiss in not

'6.

Mr.

having installed the alarms in a more timely manner. Cantrell Testi.'mony at 20. Mr. Banks explained what was involved in alarming the HPCX doors. He stated that alarming the HPCI doors was not a high priority item because the administrative controls were working and other safety related work at the ~

Brunswick Plant had a higher priority. He noted that there were, ways to detect flooding between the rooms if it occurred and to take other corrective action prior to"flooding presenting a significant problem. Tr. 3543-3547; 3670-3671.

Staff witnesses agreed that the administrative controls, although not foolproof, had been effective. Tr. 3034, 3198-3199 (Dance'; 3408 (Cantrell).

(i) Au mented Off-Gas S stem

57. Mr. Wilber testified concerning an inspection he performed at Brunswick in 1976 after an explosion in the off-gas system stack house. Tr. 2838, 2844-2853; Staff Exhibit 18 at Attachment 1. Wilber stated that CPaL behaved in a very responsible manner in investigating the incident and responding to the problems discovered. Tr. 2850. Mr. Banks described the present operation of the off-gas system which meets technical l

specification limitations with respect 'to releases of radioactivity that are more stringent than most operating BWR technical specifications. Tr..3259, 3280-3283 (Schwencer);

3547-3549 (Banks).

58. Mr. Banks also described 'the separate Augmented Off-Gas system ("AOG") which has never successfully been placed in operation. Tr. 3547-3552. The AOG system, designed to bottle-up radioactive gases, would p rmit plant operations even in the event of a significant fuel failure. Tr. 3283-3284 (Schwencer). Each time CP&L attempted to place the AOG System in service, a hydrogen explosion occurred with a flame burning in the system piping. Tr. 3550 (Banks). The AOG System has been a problem generally on BWR's of 'Brunswick's vintage. Tr.

3293-3294 (Schwencer). Mr. Cantrell expressed concern that the AOG problem had not been resolved. Cantrell Testimony at 24.

59. CP&L has been inv stigating recombiner systems to replace the AOG System. CP&L committed to NRR to propose a schedule for resolution of this problem by May 1, 1979 and to provide a technical 'description by August 1, 1979. CP&L believes that it will have the equipment delivered and be able to install it during the refueling outage in 1981. NRR believes this schedule is reasonable. Tr. 3260 (Schwencer);

Tr. 3552 (Banks).

60. In summary, CP&L's response to the 'concerns raised by Mr. Cantrell may not have been as prompt or as l

I

thorough as it could have been in every instance. It appears, however, that CPaL managem nt was responsive to all of the concerns and problems detailed by Mr. Cantrell, and in some cases considerably more responsive than Mr. Cantrell initially suggested. In the context of the difficult situation which CPGL faced in accomplishing all that was required during the startup of the Brunswick Plant given the staffing problems and manpower 1'imitations Brunswick Plant management had to establish priorities on the work to be accomplished. Nith the benefit of hind-sight it might be possible to second-guess management decisions in isolated instances; however, certainly no pattern of improper or inattentive management of Applicant's Brunswick Plant has been established. The Board is not in a position to determine, even after the considerable evidence in the record, whether, for example, it was reasonable for CPGL to take as long as it did to alarm the HPCI door. Nor is it necessary for this decision to resolve that issue and each of the other specific allegations made by Mr. Cantrell one way or the other, since the evidence in the record demonstrates that CPGL satisfied NRC requirements and operated the Brunswick Plant in a responsible manner during the start-up period in question.

3. CPaL's Lon -Term Res onse to the Root Cause of 0 eratin Problems (a) Lessons Learned

61. CPGL demonstrated that it has learned from its past experiences, both good and bad, in nuclear plant

~

Qi 5

gi

~

I

construction and operations. This experience has resulted in significant improvements in nuclear plant operations over the years and is being taken into consideration in planning for the Harris startup and operations. Messrs. Utley and Banks described some of the lessons learned from the Robinson startup which were taken into account in plans for Brunswick.

Utley-Banks Testimony at 31-33. CP&L's experience in the startup of Brunswick Unit 1 demonstrates the benefits of lessons learned from the Unit 2 startup. Xd. at 54-55. The experiences from both Robinson and Brunswick are reflected in the plans for Harris. CP&L has assumed greater responsibility and control of the construction of Harris. McDuffie Testimony at 9-11. CP&L also is more involved in engineering and design of Harris. Xd. at 48-50. A number of significant indicators suggests that CP&L's approach to Harris is producing the desired results in the quality of construction to date, while adhering to the construction schedule with minimal overtime and low personnel, turnover. Id. at 50-52.

62. CP&L has already taken significant management actions to effect a smooth, orderly transition from construction, through startup, to operation of the Harris units. Messrs. McDuffie, Utley and Banks described the degree of planning and coordination taking place within the Company, in part, to avoid some of the problems experienced at Brunswick. McDuffie Testimony at 52-56; Utley-Banks Testimony

at 79-84. A Superintendent Startup has been appointed and he is presently recruiting his staff, preparing for fu 1 loading of Harris Unit 1 in 1983. Id. at 90-91. Applicant notes that in planning for the Harris startup, CPGL is considerably further advanced than was the case at a comparable time with respect to either Robinson or Brunswick. Id. at 84.

(b) CP&L's Lon -Term Res onse to Problems

63. CPGL management has taken significant, considered actions to attack the root cause of problems at its operating plants. New supervisory positions were added to plant management organizations to improve supervisor responsibility. Utley-Banks Testimony at 69. Personnel changes were made to strengthen the management at the plants.

Utley-Banks Testimony at 69; Tr. 3529-3535 (Utley). Plant staffs have steadily increased in size to deal with the additional work load. Utley-Banks Testimony at 20-28.

Additional training programs have been established to enhance the capability of plant staffs. Id. at 73-76. New management control systems have been developed and implemented at the plants to improve management control of nuclear plant operations. For example, a computer based Periodic Test Scheduling System has been implemented, a Maintenance Management Program is being instituted and a Records Management System, to deal with the up to 40 million records generated during the lifetime of a nuclear power plant, is being studied.

~

Qi 5

5

Id. at 76-79. The Board finds considerable evidence in the record of Applicant's commitment to 'enhance management control of nuclear plant operations.

H. Im rovement in Performance at Robinson and Brunswick

64. The best test of management capability is performance. Tr. 2767 (Murphy). Applicant notes that the record reflects continuing improvement in the performance of its operating plants. Tr. 3628 (Utley). CPGL points with pride to the favorable capacity factors of its nuclear units. Utley-Banks Testimony at 19. Messrs. Long and Dance repeatedly pointed to improvements in CP&L's performance at its operating plants. Panel III Testimony at 42, 48-49, 60-61, 69, 72; Tr. 2489. Mr. Cantrell stated that he had changed his mind about recommending a condition to Applicant's license due to "significant improvements in the operations at both Brunswick and Robinson...."

Cantrell Testimony at 7, 35. The Board finds that the trend in CPGL's performance at its nuclear plants has been in the direction of steady improvement. The continuing improvement in nuclear plant operations reflects very positively on Applicant's management capability.

I. Carolina Power G Li ht Com an 's Commitment .to Safe 0 erations

65. A less tangible, but also important element of management capability, is motivation. Tr. 3337-3339 (Miner).

Mr. Cantrell's allegations were directed more at his perception

I of CP&L's attitude or motivation than at CP&L's technical capability. Again the evidence in the record demonstrates that CP&L management has a positive attitude toward safe operation of its nuclear power plants. Panel IV Testimony at 13; Panel III Testimony at 72. Messrs. Long and Dance listed some actions being taken at the present by CP&L, that were not Y,

required by the NRC, but were responsive to potential safety concerns. Panel III Testimony at 67. The Board had an opportunity to question senior CP&L management at length and we

'll are satisfied that they expressed a sincere and emphatic commitment to comply with regulatory requirements, and more importantly to the safe operation of their plants. See e.cC.

Tr. 3636 (Jones); 3701-3702 (Utley). CP&L management has accepted their ultimate responsibility in ensuring the safe operation of their nuclear plants. Tr. 3638 (Jones).

J. Technical Qualifications

66. The testimony and evidence received in this remanded proceeding has confirmed the earlier finding of the Board that Applicant, its contractors, and its consultants are collectively technically qualified to design, construct, and manage the Shearon Harris Plant. See 7 NRC at 107 (finding 51); Panel II Testimony at 14-16; Panel IV Testimony at 20.

CP&L has employed an experienced Staff of professional engineers and technical personnel, both in-house, at the operating plants and at the Harris construction sit . See

Jones Testimony at 29; Utley-Banks Testimony at 8-9, 19-23, 102-109; McDuffie Testimony at 33-34, Appendix 3. Mr. Cantrell testified that CP&L management is technically competent.

Cantrell Testimony at 8-9. The Staff's NRR witnesses testified to the specific items evaluated in determining Applicant's technical competence. NRR's overall finding of technical competence is in part based on the experience of Applicant's contractors and consultants. Panel IV Testimony at 7-9, 16-18; see McDuffie Testimony at 36-37; NRR finds Applicant to be technically competent. Panel IV Testimony at 4-14.

67. The Board continues to find Applicant, its contractors, and its consultants are collectively technically I

qualified to design, construct and manage the Shearon Harris Plant.

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

68. The Board has considered all documentary and oral evidence presented by the parties. Based upon a review of the entire record in this proceeding and the foregoing discussion and findings of fact, the Board concludes that Applicant has the requisite technical and management capabilities to construct and operate the'roposed Shearon Harris facility without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

IV. ORDER

69. Based upon the Board's findings and conclusions, and pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and I

I

/

the Commission's regulations, IT IS ORDERED, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5g 2.760, 2.762, 2.785 and 2.786, that this Supplemental Initial Decision snail be effective immediately and shall constitute the final action of the Commission thirty (30) days after the date of issuance hereof, subject to any review pursuant to the above cited rules. Exceptions to this Supplemental Initial Decision may be filed by any party within

/

ten (10) days after service of this Supplemental Initial Decision. 'ithin thirty (30) days thereafter (forty (40) days in the case of the Staff) any party filing such exceptions shall file a brief in support thereof. Within thirty (30) days of the filing and service of the brief of the appellant (forty (40) days in the case of the Staff), any other party may file a brief in support of, or in opposition to, the exceptions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

\

Respectfully submitted, SHAN g PITTMAN g POTT & TROWBRIDGE org F. Tr ri ge Jo n H. O'eill, Jr.

nsel for Applicant 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Dated: Apr il 17, 1979 Telephone: (202) 331-4100 l

g l

ATTACHPDNT A - EXHIBITS NRC STAFF Staff Exhibit 12 Computer Printout Summary of Inspections at Robinson, Brunswick and Shearon Harris Facilities, July 1975 through August 1978, marked "or iden"ificat"'on only Tr. 2179 (cited as,"Staff Exhibit 12").

S"aff Exhibit 13 Computer Printou" Summary of Licensee Event Reports at Robinson and Brunswick Facilities, 1969 to October 1, 1978, marked for ident'cation only Tr. 2179 (cited as "Staff Exhibi" 13") .

Staff Exhibit 14 NRC CP&L correspondence regarding the civil penalty assessed in 1975, marked for identif'cation only Tr. 2179 (cited as "Staff Exhibit 14").

Staff Exhibit 15 Letter from R. C. Lewis, Acting Chief, Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch, Region II, NRC IGE, to J. A. Jones, Executive Vice President, CPGL, dated Februa v 21, 1979 forwarding Brunswick Inspection Report 50-324/79-2,. 50-325/79-2, received in evidence Tr. 2631 (cited as "Stazf Exnibit 15" or "Brunswick Inspection Report 79 2 II)

Stazf Exhibit 16 Chronology of operations inspections Brunswick Units 1 and 2 1976 1978, marked for identificat'on only Tr. 2497 (cited as "Staf Exhibit 16").

I Staff Exhibit 17 Responses to a memorandum to VRC I&E Region II Reactor Construction &

Engineering Support Branch Staff from C. E. Murphy, Branch Chiez, regarding inspection findings at Shearon Harris nuclear plant and other CP&L facilit's, received in evidence Tr. 2538 (cited as "Staff Exhibit 17").

Staff Exhibit 18 Attachmen s to preziled testimony of Howard Nilber, received in evidence Tr. 2841 (cited as "Stazf Exhibi" 18") .

Staff Exhibit 19 Letter from H. R. Banks, CP&L Manager Nuclear Gene ation, to J. P. O'Reilly, Director NRC I&E Region II, dated September 20, 1978, regarding CP&L's response to an infraction identified in I&E Inspection Report 50-324/78-17, 50-325/78-17, marked zor identification only Tr. 3243 (cited as "Staff Exhibit 19") .

Stafz Exhibit 20 Letter from.B. J. Furr, CP&L Manager Generation Department, to J. P. O'Reilly, Director NRC I&E Region II, dated August 18, 1978, regard'ng CP&L's response to an infraction identified. in. I&E Inspection Report 50-324/78-15, 50-325/78-15 marked for identification only Tr. 3243 (cited as "Staff Exhibit 20<c )

Staf f Exhibit 21 Letter from F. J. Long, Chief, Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Brancn, NRC I&E Region II, to J. A. Jones, Executive Vice President, CP&L, dated August 5, 1977, enclosing .

I&E Inspection Report 50-324/77-13, 50-325/77-13 rece'ved 'n evidence Tr. 3446 (c'ted as "Staf Fxhibit 21").

I' I

I

~

LICENSING BOARD Licensing Board Exhibit 8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Board No"ifica-tion Licensee Regulator Performance Evaluation (February, 1979), marked for identification only Tr'. 2353 (cited as "Licensing Board Exhibit 8").

Licensing Board Exhibit 9 NRC Ozfice of Inspector IE Auditor, Zncuir into the Al le ed Omission of a Line Zns ector's Views from tne Shearon Harris Construction Permit Hearing Volume I Summar Re ort (November, 1978), received in evidence Tr. 2452 (cz.ted as "Licensing Board Exhibit 9").

Licensing Board Exhibit 10 .NRC Office of Inspector &

Auditor, Zn uir into the Alleged Omission of a Line Zns ector's Views from the Shearon Harris Construction Permit Hearing Volume ZZ Enclosures (November, 1978),

received in Evidence Tr.

2452 (crted as "Licensing Board Exhibit 10").

Licensing Board Exhibit 11 NRC Office oz Inspector &

Auditor, Inquiry into the Alle ed Omission oz a Line Inspector s Vz.ews zrom the Shearon Harris Construction Permit Hearin Volume IZZ Interviews (November, 1978),

received in evidence Tr.

2452 (cited as "Licensing Board Exhibit 11").

Licensing Board Exhibit 12 American National Standard "Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel" (ANSI ~18 1 - 1971) I received in evidence Tr. '961; 3309 (cited as "Licensing Board Exhibit 12" or "ANSI N18.1-1971")

APPLICANT Applicant Exhibit GG CPGL, "Operations Groups Organization" (January, 1979)(Operations Group Organizational:lanual),

received in evidence Tr. 3494 (cited as "Applicant Exhibit GG") .

Applicant Exhibit HH CP&L, Generation Department, "Technical and Craft Training Program" (revised through January 11, 1979), received in evidence Tr. 3502 (cited as "Applicant Exhib't HH").

Applicant Exhibit II CP&L Brunswick Plant Incident Report No. 75-50 dated October 3, 1975, received in evidence Tr. 3423 (cited as "Applicant Exhibit II Applicant Exhibit JJ Three CPGL Brunswick Plant

. Licensee Event Reports, BSZP AO 106 I BS P'O 107 I BSEP AO-108 (all dated October 31, 1975) received in evidence Tr. 3424 (crted as "Applicant Exhibit JJ").

I Applicant Exhibit KZ General Electric field work order for Brunswick Unit 2 (Reactor Core Zsolat on Cooling System Turbine) dated October 2, 1975, received in evidence Tr. 3425 (cited as "Applicant Exhibit zz").

Applicant Exhibit LL Letter from J. P. O'Reilly Director, NRC I&E, Region EZ, to J. A. Jones, Executive Vice President CP&L, date'd December 27, 1977, received in evidence Tr. 3523 (cited as "Applicant Exnibit LL") .

Applicant Exhibit MM CP&L Corporate Quality Assurance Policy Statemen" dated January 20, 1977, received in evidence Tr. 3538 (cited as "Applicant Exhibit

~") .

Applicant Exhibit NN CP&L Corporate Nuclear Safety Policy Statement dated November 17, 1977, received in evidence Tr. 3538 (cited as "Applicant Exnibit NN") .

Applicant Exhibit OO CP&L Corporate Health Physics Policy Statement dated June 17, 1977,,received in evidence Tr. 3538 (cited as "Applicant Exhibit OO").

I I

I' I

~sr

~ Y~ J Pp>>

H

)'I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-400 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) 50-401

) 50-402 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, ) 50-403 Units 1, 2, 3=and 4)

STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN THE FORM'OF A SUPPLEMENTAL INITIAL DECISION CONSTRUCTION PERMITS May 10, 1979 Edwin J. Reis Counsel for NRC Staff

INDEX

~Pa e Preliminary Statement and Description of the Record .

CP&L's guality Control and Training Structure . 4 HRR'.s Review of CP8L's guality Control and Management Capabi 1 i ty. 9 IV. Office of Inspection and Enforcement Functions. 18 V. I&E Experience With the Construction of CP&L Huclear Facilities. 22 VI. 'I8E Experience With the Operation of CP&L Huclear Facilities. 35 VII. Views of Individual I8E Inspectors. 57 VIII. Ranking Utilities Having Huclear Power Facilities . 74 IX. Conclusions of Law. 75 X. 0 rder . 76 Note: The record citation to testimony are given to transcript pages by the notation Tr., or to the pages of 'prefiled testimony by the notation p. or pp. This prefiled testimony appears after the following transcript pages:

Licensee's witness-Jones - Tr. 3494 Utley and 8anks - Tr. 3502 McDuffie - Tr. 3505 McMannus - Tr. 3769

NRC Staff Hitnesses-Staff Panel I (Long, Murphy, Dance - Tr. 2198 and Brownlee)

Staff Panel II (Murphy, Bryant, Herdt, - Tr. 2539 Brownlee and McFarland)

Staff Panel III (Long and Dance) - Tr. 2937 Staff Panel IV) (Miner, Haass, Schwencer - Tr. 3260 and Allenspack)

Milber - Tr. 2836 Cantrell - Tr. 3347

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-400 CAROLINA POWER 5 LIGHT COMPANY ) 50-401

) 50-402 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power ) 50-403 Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4) )

STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAN IN THE FORM OF A SUPPLEMENTAL INITIAL DECISION CONSTRUCTION PERMITS I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND DESCRITPION OF THE RECORD

l. On January 23, 1978, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in this proceeding ("the Board" ) issued an initial decision authorizing constructiqn permits for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4,

(" Harris" or "the Harris Plant" ). 7 NRC 92 (1978). Construction Permits (CPPR-158, 159, 160 and 'i61) were thereafter issued to Carolina Power 8 Light Company ("CP8L" or "Applicant" ) on January 27, 1978. 43 Fed. Rece.

4465 (February 2, 1978). On August 23, 1978, the initial decision was affirmed by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board ("the Appeal Board" ) in ALAB-490.~ 8 NRC 234 (1978).

'~The Appeal Board deferred decision with respect to the environmental impacts of the release of radon-222, and its effect on the Board's cost-benefit balance. The Appeal Board noted that it anticipates reaching the radon issue after disposing of the issue in one or more of the cases in which it is contested. 8 NRC at 242.

2. In the course of former proceedings before the Licensing Board, the Licensing Board had addressed a series of questions on January 23, 1975 and August 30, 1977, to the NRC Staff and CP8L. The questions asked the Staff were:

I. What is the Staff's evaluation of the management capa-bilities of CP8L which have been observed during con-struction and operation of CP8L's other nuclear plants?

How does CP8L compare with other licensees?

2. What particular experiences, both good and bad, have CPSL had with management of nuclear plants? How have these experiences been utilized to improve the management capabilities of CP8L?

3. Have sufficient additional personnel been added to CP8L to adequately manage the Harris plant?

4. (Directed to CP8L).

5. Are wri tten procedures available and personnel trained to follow these procedures if a safety-related incident How're the occurs? Who reviews these procedures?

results audited? How does CP8L discover incipient problems before the incipient problems become an incident? Do employees who report incipient problems receive rewards in some manner? How?

6. Whether the delay in this proceeding has had a significant effect upon the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Materials stored therein.

Testimony was presented by Hugh Dance and James Brownlee of the Region II Office of Inspection and Enforcement of NRC in answer to these questions (Tr. 2074-2079). On this basis and material in the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and the Safety Evaluation, the Licensing Board found the

Applicant technically qualified and indicated it was satisfied with the responses to its questions regarding management and quality control (Fdgs. 47-55, 7 NRC 106-109).

3. On April 18, 1978, Staff counsel advised the Appeal Board, before whom the Licensing Board's determination was pending for review that " It has come to our attention ghat one of the inspectors at Applicant's Brunswick facility felt his views on the management capability of Applicant to staff and operate the Harris facility had not adequately-been presented to the Licensing Board." 8 NRC at 242. NRC Staff counsel forwarded to the Appeal Board the line inspector's handwritten notes dated September 16, 1977 (which the line inspector had furnished to his supervisors to assist them in preparation of testimony). Staff counsel stated in the April 18, 1978 letter that he had reviewed both the notes and the testimony and had concluded that the testimony "adequ'ately reflected the factual content" of the notes. Mhile the Appeal Board found the testimony in the .context of the line inspector's notes to be "troublesome," it affirmed the Board's initial decision, noting both its concern that the Licensing Board had not inquired into the matter at the hearings and its expectation that the Commission's Office of Inspection and Enforcement ("I&E") will undertake and maintain surveillance of the construction and operation of the Shearon Harris facility to insure that remedial measures are adopted by Applicant to rectify the problems identified in the testimony. 3 NRC at 244.

4 4-11. The NRC Staff adopts the Licensee's proposed findings 3 through 10.

12. In support of its di rect case the Staff presented as witnesses the inspectors and their supervisors who inspected the Applicant's Robinson and Brunswick nuclear generating units from their inception and Harris as so far con-structed as well as Washington based NRR personnel who dealt with these units. Computer printouts summarizing all inspection and all Licensee Event Reports of the Carolina Power and Light Company's (CP&L) nuclear facilities were introduced as evidence. The Applicant offered as witnesses its personnel familiar with the nuclear units from its Executive Vice President to its manager, corporate nuclear safety and quality assurance audit section. Floyd S. Cantrell the I&E inspector who previously felt his views were hot adequately set forth was a witness. All witnesses were extensively questioned by the Board, all parties, and the North Carolina Attorney General's Office.

II. CP&L'S UALITY CONTROL AND TRAINING STRUCTURE

13. Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) has divided its corporate organization into two main areas, administration and operations. J. A. Jones is Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer for CP&L. (Jones following Tr. 3494, pp. 9-11, 26-29). Reporting to Mr. Jones are three Senior Vice Presidents (M. A. McDuffie, Engineering & Construction Group;

E. E. Utley, Power Supply Group; and W. J. Ridout, Customer & Operating Services Group) and a Department Head (W. W. Morgan, Systems Planning

& Coordination Department). (Jones, pp. 13-15). Mr. Utley described the Power Supply Group and its organization and functions, particularly with respect to management of the Company's nuclear program. (Utley-Banks following Tr. 3502, pp. 5-8). Mr. Harold R. Banks, CP&L's Manager-Nuclear Generation, described the organizational structure of CP&L's two operating nuclear power plants, H. B. Robinson Plant ("Robinson Plant" or "Robinson" ) and Brunswick Steam Electric 'Plant ("Brunswick Plant" or "Brunswick" ). Utley-Banks, pp. 11-15. Mr. McDuffie described the major functions and the basic organization of the Engineering & Construction Group as it relates to the nuclear program, and in pa'rticular to construction of the Harris Plant. (McDuffie following Tr. 3505, pp. 3-8).

14. Quality Assurance (QA) and quality control activities in the CP&L are conducted at three levels - the corporate level, the senior Vice-President level and the plant or construction site level. On the corporate level by a Manager for Corporate Nuclear Safety and Quality Assurance who reviews and audits all of CP&L's other quality assurance activities, its nuclear facility construction and operations, and reports to CP&L's President and Executive Vice President for Operations through the CP&L Vice-President for Administration, independently of the Senior Vice-

"- President for Construction and Engineering and the Vice-President for Power Supply {McMannus following Tr. 3769: Jones following Tr. 3494, pp. 17-20).

15. Under the Senior Vice-President for Power Supply, who oversees the operating plants, there is an Operations guality Assurance Section which conducts surveillance of plant operations independent of the plant managers and provides technical advice on operating and regulatory matters (Utley and Banks, following Tr. 3502, pp. 70-72; Staff Panel III (Long 5 Dance) following Tr, 2937, pp. 3-11). It has 5 of the 424 employees directly under this Senior Vice-President (Utley 8 Banks, p. 9). At each operating plant there are also quality assurance organizations independent of other activities to see that quality is maintained and nuclear safety codes are followed (Utley 5 Banks, p. 70-72). At the Robinson plant this group has five of approximately 200 employees at the plant and at Brunswick it has 7. employees of the 348 employees at the plant ( Ibid., pp. 27, 28, 102, 105, Tr. 3652; Long 8 Dance, p. 4-5). At Harris when the 4 projected units are operated it is projected that the quality assurance staff will consist of 16 out of 755 employees (Utley, Tr. 3707).

16. Under the senior Vice-President for Construction and Engineering, who oversees the construction of Harris there is also a quality assurance unit 17 of whose employees spend some time being concerned with the Harris project (McOuffie following Tr. 3505, pp. 23-30, 47; Staff Panel II (Murphy, Bryant, Herdt, Brownlee and McFarland, following Tr. 2539, pp. 9-13). At the Harris site there is a separate quali ty assurance group of 40 employees (McOuffie, pp. 27,. 47-48).

17. CP&L is engaged in active training programs to train people both to construct and operate the Harris facility (Utley 5 Banks following Tr. 3502, pp. 73-76; Mc0uffie following Tr. 3505, pp. 38-36. Further, Applicant is engaged in substantial efforts to recr ui t an adequate staff to operate Harris (Utley 8 Banks, pp. 84-97).

18. CP8L has made substantial improvements in its training programs and facilities. (Utley-Banks, pp. 73-76, F. Tr. 3492). In anticipation of the large numbers of technical and craft persons which will be required by CPSL for the Harris Plant and other plants in the future, CP8L has F

established a centralized training facility at the Harris Energy 5 Environmental Center located near the Harris Plant site (Utley-Banks,

p. 91). CPSL submitted a synopsis of the long-range training plans for the Generation Department and the schedule of implementation of its training program. (CPSL Exhibit HH). A PWR simulator has been installed at the Harris Energy 5 Environmental Center. Operations personnel from the Robinson Plant are presently receiving "hot" license training and retraining on the PWR simulator; this simulator will be used extensively in training personnel for the Harris Plant. (Utley-Banks, p. 75). Staff witnesses testified that inspectors who have seen the Harris training facilities are favorably impressed. (Long, Tr. 2947, 3218).

19. At the Harris site CPSL has provided a craft training coordinator whose full-time assignment is to coordinate and monitor the on-site training programs. At the time of the hearing 468 craftsmen had completed training and 165 more were enrolled. (lith CPSL's approval and encouragement, Daniel International has also established training in several craft areas. CPSL's direct participation in craft training is an, improvement over the situation at the Brunswick Plant where formal training was limited to welding, which was under contractor control. (McDuffie,

p. 38-39, Appendix 6, Tr. 3492). The Staff has reviewed Applicant's proposed training program and has found it adequate to assure that a qualified and capable operating staff will be available. (Staff Panel IV,

p. 19).

20. CPSL management testified that it is committed to quality control and that it was the duty of all its senior personnel to see that all NRC require-ments were followed and we believe them (Jones, p. 20, Utley, Tr. 3627,

(

3702). Senior management of CP&L were and are concerned with safety and quality control, and follow-up to see action is taken toward these goals (Utley, Tr. 3736, 3737; McMannus, Tr. 3771, 3776). However, the CPKL's concern with safety is not the same as the NRC's (Utley, Tr. 3627, 3637; Staff Panel III, following Tr. 2937, p. 11; Dance, Tr. 2930; Long. Tr.

3015-3016, 3050-51). For example; although the Senior Vice President for Power Supply receives power generation reports each day and im-mediate reports on units put out of service all of which create pressure

to operate, he does not receive all licensee event reports sent to the NRC but only monthly LER tread reports with which he is not particularly familiar (Utley & Banks, p. 16-17; Utley, Tr. 3652-3, 3698). The attitude of CP&L toward the resolution of problem and taking corrective action can be characterized as "conservative," not in a safety but in a financial sense. (Long, Tr. 3008-3012). It will strongly insist that any NRC pressure on them to change operations in a way that might increase costs without clear indication that there was a positive contribution to safety or a regulatory base for the change (Long & Dance, Tr. 2971-2976; 3015-3016).

Once convinced the matter is necessary for safety or required by regulations, CP&L does take the required action ( Ibid.). However, none of these matters affect the conclusion that CP&L should be. licensed, and that there is no need to condition that license (see, e.g., Long, Tr. 2478, 2479, 2487-2489; Staff Panel III, pp, 70-72).

III. NRR'S REVIEW OF CP&L'S QUALITY CONTROL AND f1ANAGB1ENT CAPABILITY

21. Under 10 CFR 550.40(b) the Staff is required to determine whether an applicant for a construction permit is technically qualified to engage in the proposed activities which, at this stage, are the design and construction of the proposed facility. The technical and managerial capability of an applicant needs to have within his own organization varies over a broad range depending upon several factors. These are the utilization of previous designs, the development of new or unique design

features, and the degree to which the utility either retains internally or contracts for design, engineering and construction services and specialized consultants to undertake the details of the design and construction of the proposed facility. (Staff Panel IV (Miner, Schwencer, Haass & Allenspack following Tr. 3260, p. 6)). A review of these matters is done through the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) (Ibid).

22. Accordingly, the Staff must evaluate each utility individually and make a determination rega'rding the technical qualifications of that utility to undertake the activities that would be authorized by a construction permit. A finding by the Staff on this subject is subjective and judgmental in nature, and no specific quantitative guidelines are avail-able for making this determination. However, the Staff has identified and defined the factors that provide the basis for making the overall judgment regarding the applicant's technical qualifications (Staff Panel IV, pp. 1-7). The specific items which were considered by NRR in evaluating CPSL's technical capability are:

1. the applicants organizational structure to design and construct the facility;

2. the experience and capability of the applicant's technical staff;

3. the applicant's performance during the licensing process in resolving problems and meeting NRC requirements;

4. the applicant's quality assurance program;

5. the applicant's past experience in the design and construction of nuclear plants or in activities of similar scope and complexity;

6. the past experience of the applicant's principal contractors; and

7. the applicant's organizational structure to operate the plant once it is built. (Staff Panel IV, p. 9).

23. NRR believes CP8L's structure provides clear lines of authority and divisions of responsibility for the Shearon Harris project and is thus acceptable in this regard. The CP8L Engineering and Construction Group, under a Senior Vice-President, has the primary responsibility for the design and construction of the Shearon Harris facility. The functions of the Engineering and Construction Group are implemented through several departments as shown. The Power Plant Engineering Department implements CP8L's responsibility for the design of the Shearon Harris facility. The Power Plant Construction Department, implements CP8L's responsibility for the construction of the Shearon Harris facility. The Technical Services Department implements CP8L's responsibility for nuclear licensing and quality assurance activities for engineering, design and construction activities for the Shearon Harris facility. (Staff Panel IV, p. 10).

24. NRR has reviewed the personnel qualifications of key personnel associated with the Shearon Harris project. NRR finds these persons have extensive experience in their fields, including experience in nuclear power plant projects. It concluded in its judgment, that the manpower levels currently assigned, the availability of additional personnel, and the experience levels of key personnel are adequate for CP&L to carry out its responsibility for the Shearon Harris project. At the time of the NRR survey of CPSL the Power Plant Engineering Department had a current roster of approximately 62 professionals of which about 13 are currently assigned to the Shearon Harris. project. Approximately 31 additional professionals are assigned to the project on an as needed basis. The Technical Services Department had a current roster of approximately 94 professionals of which about 38 are currently assigned to the Sh'earon Harris project. Approximately 46 other professionals are assigned to the project on an as needed basis.

The Power Plant Construction Department had a current roster of approximately 112 professionals of which about 56 are currently assigned to the Shearon Harris project. Approximately 21 other professionals are assigned to the project on an as needed basis. (Staff Panel IY, pp. 8-11).

25. CP8L, in the view of NRR, also showed capability in the licensing process.

There have been two specific indications that NRR has observed during review of the Shearon Harris application that demonstrate that CPSL takes

an active role in its relationships with its principal contractors. The first is the degree to which CP8L handles the discussions during its technical meetings with the Staff. CPSL personnel led and participated fully in all technical meetings with the Staff, except those dealing with the most specialized technical areas. As a result, NRR believes that the CP8L personnel involved had a full understanding of the technical issues that were being discussed. (Staff Panel IV, p. 12).

26. A second indication of CP&L's active role wi'th its principal contractors is the manner in which CPKL personnel approached technical issues with the Staff. During review of an application, situations arise'n which the Staff requires that an applicant conform to, or propose acceptable alternatives to numerous technical positions on various aspects of the design that affect the safety of the plant. CP8L personnel have actively pursued the bases and background of the Staff positions in order to obtain a clear understanding of the Staff concerns so that they could respond appropriately. In a number of cases CP8L disagreed with the Staff technical positions and proposed alternatives to the positions for Staff consideration.

These actions were for the most part taken in a timely manner such that resolution was reached in a manner acceptable to the Staff on almost all such issues. This positive attitude and approach to the understanding and resolution of safety issues displayed by CPSL personnel during review of the

application are an important indication of the overall CPSL capability.

In addition, it is reasonable to assume that CP8L personnel have and will continue to have this same attitude and approach in their reviews and audits of the design and construction activities of their principal contractors. (Staff Panel IY, p. 13).

27. The Applicant's quality assurance (gA) program for the design and con-struction of the plant must meet the provisions of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and should satisfy the guidance given in pertinent Regulatory Guides and endorsed standards. The NRR staff has reviewed and approved the Applicant's gA program. A description of the Staff's evaluation of this program is presented in Section 15.0 of the Safety Evaluation Report and Supplement No. 2. Since the issuance of these documents, CP8L has further strengthened its program by making commitments in later PSAR amendments to numerous Regulatory Guides on gA that were subsequently published.

A further strengthening of the gA commitment over and above those which appeared earlier in the PSAR have been the commitments made by Ebasco and Westinghouse to implement the gA provisions of their topical reports on gA; namely, Report Nos. ETR-001 titled "Ebasco Nuclear equality Assurance t1anual" and WCAP-8370 titled "Westinghouse Water Reactor Division guali ty Assurance Plan." These reports include commitments relative to more recent Regulatory Guides in the gA area. (Staff Panel IY, pp. 14-15).

28. By letter dated October 23,'978, CPSL stated that they intend to make minor changes in their corporate gA program. The functional responsibility for performance of gA- audits of. Mestinghouse and its vendors, Ebasco and its vendors and other outside contractors will be shifted from the Corporate Nuclear Safety and guality Assurance Audit Section to the Engineering and Construction guality Assurance Section. NRR has reviewed this change and finds that it satisfies Staff requirements and is therefore.

acceptable. To summarize, NRR has found and continues to find CPKL's commitments on gA in'Section 1.8 ofthe PSAR to be acceptable. (Staff Panel IV, pp. 9-15).

29. NRR considers a utility's past experience in the design and construction of nuclear power plants and its past experience in activities 'of similar scope and complexity. CP8L has been active in the nuclear field since 1956 when the company, in conjunction with several other utilities, formed the Carolina-Virginia Nuclear Power Associates, and built and operated the Parr Nuclear Plant which was a prototype of a comnercial size plant. In 1966, CP&L began work on the H. B. Robinson Nuclear Plant that went into commercial operation in 1971. In 1968 CPSL began work on the Brunswick Steam Electric Station. The two-unit Brunswick Steam Electric Station went into commercial operation in 1975 and 1976. As a result of its experience with these plants CPSL has strengthened their management and gA control for

r the Shearon Harris Project. NRR considers CP&L to be a utility with considerable experience in the design and construction of nuclear power plants. (Staff Panel IV, p. 16).

30. Applicant's principal subcontractors, Mestinghouse, Ebasco and Daniels similarly have wide experience in the design, fabrication and construction of nuclear facilities., The past experience of these principal contractors should indicate a capability to undertake a project of this magnitude and complexity. (Staff Panel IV, pp. 17-18).

31. In NRR's view, CPSL's organizational structure to operate the nuclear facility, at the construction permit stage should indicate that adequate plans have been developed to assure that a qualified and capable operating staff will be available. The Staff reviewed CPKL's proposed plans for selection and training of the personnel for the Shearon Harris facility.

NRR conclusions are reported in Sections 12.1 and 12.2.of the. Safety Evaluation Report and Section 12.2.1 of Supplement No. 3 to the Safety Evaluation Report. At the construction permit stage NRR reviewed the applicant's proposed plant staff organization, the qualification require-ments for those plant staff positions, and the proposed training program for the plant staff members. At the operating license stage the NRR staff

will review the CPSL organizational structure and in particular the plant staff organization to assure that it will provide an adequate organizational arrangement and operating staff. This review will include the organizational structure for the plant staff, the on-going training program, qualification requirements, and qualifications for key plant staff personnel. Adequacy of staffing for initial operation is a responsibility of NRR. ISE, of course, verifies that the staffing is being carried out in accord with requirements. (Staff Panel IV, p. 19).

32. At the operating license stage NRR will also r eview CP8L's gA program for operations to assure that the program provides for a comprehensive system of planned and systematic controls such that quality-related activities for operations will be conducted in accordance without require-ments. NRR has concluded that the CPSL has developed plans at the con-struction permit stage of review that provide reasonable assurance that a qualified and capable staff will be available for the operation of the Shearon Harris facility. During the operating license review, NRR will evaluate the applicant's technical qualifications to operate the facility (Staff Panel IV, p. 19).

33. Based on NRR's evaluation as previously described, it is their conclusion that CPSL possesses the technical qualification to carry out its responsibilities with regard to the design and construction of the Shearon Harris facility. NRR has reviewed the informa> 'on regarding "" :'.r, j ': "nc

of CP&L on the Shearon Harris and other CP&L projects as described in Shearon Harris testimony prepared by the Region II staff of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement and NRR's conclusions with regard to CP&L's technical qualifications remain the same. (Staff Panel IV, pp. 16-20).

34. Based on the substantial, probative and uncontradicted evidence of NRR personnel, the Board affirms the conclusions of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation as expressed above.

IV. OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS

35. The Commission's basic information regarding the actual construction and operation of a nuclear power plant is derived from inspection of the facility conducted by NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement (I&E).

Those inspections in the case of CP&L are conducted by the Atlanta, Georgia, I&E regional office (Region II), which also reviews all Licensee Event Reports prepared by Licensees (Staff Panel I (Long, Murphy, Dance and Brownlee) following Tr. 2198, pp. 4-5).

36. Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 - guali ty Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants, describes a management control system, or guality Assurance Program (gAP), which each licensee must develop and implement. The aim of this program is a pyramid control system which,

at the bottom assures through detailed inspection and test programs, that all safety significant actions are properly accomplished by craftsmen using approved procedures. These detailed verification programs require up to 100/ inspection by the licensee's quality control personnel of a multitude of individual quality verifications. ISE's inspection of an applicant's or licensee's gAP is a major function of the NRC's inspection program. (Staff Panel I, p. 6).

37. ISE seeks to assure that the licensee's programs meet NRC requirements, including those in 10 CFR, and any license, amendment, or technical specification. In doing this, I&E performs selective inspection, but does not attempt to perform a 100 ~ verification of all phases of the licensee's program. This inspection of hardware, observation of testing, review of organization, procedures, records and all other inspection activities are not aimed at approval of individual components, actions, or procedures, but rather, at evaluating whether or not the licensee's management control systems are working. (Staff Panel I, p. 6).

38. The Headquarters'taff of IEE has the responsibility for the overall management and direction of the organization including the establishment of inspection and enforcement policies, programs and guidance. Headquarters also has the responsibility for implementing escalated enforcement actions.

There are five Regional Offices which have the responsibility for implementing

the inspection and enforcement programs. These responsibilities include the conduct of routine inspections, investigations and inquiries and taking enforcement actions as appropriate (Staff Panel I, p. 6).

39. In Region II, where CPSL operates, the operational branches most concerned with CP&L are the Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch (RC8ESB), and the Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch (RONS).

There are also a Security and Safeguards Branch, and a Fuels Facilities and Materials Safety Branch. The RC8ES Branch inspects all the licensee's activities associated with the construction of the facility including design controls, procurement, vendor audits, site construction, the functioning of the management control systems and the gAP of facilities within Region II. The Construction Branch follows up on problems identifed by the licensee and which by regulation are reported to the NRC. The Branch also participates in investigations of allegations and inquiries into licensee's activities. The responsibilities of the RES Branch are similar to those of RC8ESB except that they relate to the preoperational testing, startup testing and operation of nuclear reactor facilities (Staff Panel I, pp. 7-8).

40. During all phases of inspections, whenever deficiencies are identified, I8E requires licensee action to prevent recurrence as well as to correct the specific deficiencies. If the results of a single inspection, or a

sequence of inspections, indicate a deterioration in the performance of the licensee's program, in-depth inspection will be conducted to upgrade the degree of control exercised at the highest level of the control system pyramid to assure that deterioration is checked and the program as a whole returned to a satisfactory level of quality (Panel I, p. 8).

41. IKE conducts a sampling insoection program, but it is not a statistically random sample. The specific areas reviewed in detail are selected from those considered to be the most important from a nuclear safety standpoint. By a specific spot checking and sampling review of gC actions I8E tests whether a licensee's gA program is really working. Review of the overall program gives considerable confidence that spot checking and sampling reivew provides an accurate assessment of the licensee's performance in meeting regulatory requirements {Staff Panel I, p. 9).

l

42. Inspection of the implementation of'he licensee's guality Assurance Program is a key element in the determination of its adequacy. This inspection activity, still a non-random sample, involves checking whether actual work activities are in accordance with procedures, license requirements, technical specifications, plant and code requirements. I&E inspectors question craftsmen and operators to determine if they understand, and are adhering to applicable limits and requirements. The inspectors observe operating instruments and recorder charts to determine what operations are being

conducted within regulatory requirements. They observe instruments being calibrated. Observations are made as equipment is star'ted up, shut down, or otherwise changed in operating mode. These observations and individual discussions with, and questioning of, people actually doing the work provide a basis for determjning how well the licensee is actually implementing its guality Assurance Program (Staff Panel I, p. 9).

43. I&E does not determine the requirements which licensees are to meet. NRR reviews licensee's p'lans (Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and Final Safety Analysis Report (SAR)) and determines that these plans meet current require-ments. I8E then inspects to determine that the licensees are conforming to the corrmitments and/or requirements as described in the SAR. Inspectors do not have authority to impose requirements on licensees. Stated somewhat differently, if the licensee is not meeting requirements I&E takes enforcement action; if the requirements have not been properly defined, I&E refers the problem to Headquarters for resolution or clarification (Staff Panel I,

p. 27).

V. I&E EXPERIENCE 'llITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF CP&L NUCLEAR FACILITIES

44. The Staff presented witnesses who inspected the construction of the CP&L nuclear facilities and their supervisors as well as summaries of all

inspections of all CP8L nuclear facilities (Staff Panel II (murphy, Brownlee, HcFarland, Herdt and Bryant), following Tr. 2539). Inspection of the Quality Assurance Program has not revealed major examples of repetitive or systematic probIems. Such failures would be indicative that the management control system was not functioning properly and would be cause for escalated actions on the part of I&E. Although I&E has discovered individual failures to perform as identified by the licensee or by the NRC, though indicating a need for corrective actions, they do not indicate failures in management.

The Atlanta Regional Office of I&E has concluded that CP&L manage-ment has been effective in controlling the quality of construction at their facilities. The Quality Assurance Program in effect at Harris meets requirements that are significantly more stringent than were in effect during the construction of Brunswick and Robinson and our inspections to date indicate that this program has been satisfactorily supplemented.

Region II of I8E felt that CP8L management is capable of constructing the Shearon Harris facility in full compliance wi th NRC requirements (Staff Panel II, p. 5). There being no evidence to the contrary, this Board affirms this conclusion.

45. Based on a review of the findings by Region II of I&E construction inspections of the licensee's QA/QC programs and the implementation of those programs; the licensee's response to enforcement matters; the licensee's response to reportable construction deficiencies; and

discussions with Region II ISE construction management and inspector personnel, the Staff concludes that the licensee's management capabilities have been adequate to implement the QA/QC programs and management control systems to give reasonable assurance of quality during construction; and there is no basis for the Staff to believe that CP&L will not con-tinue to provide adequate management capability during future construction phase activities at Shearon Harris. Region II of ISE has reviewed CPSL's current overall construction QA/QC program and procedures, the corporate audits and the engineering and construction QA surveillance reports of activities by CPSL engineering, the nuclear steam system suppliers, the architect engineers and the CPSL contractors for services and hardware.

Routinely the inspectors have observed work related to the above construction activities and records (including nonconformance reports and deficiency and disposition reports), periodic management reports by both CP5L and the constructors. The Staff concludes that CPSL has maintained an adequate managerial ability during construction phase activi ties at its nuclear sites (Staff Panel II, pp. 4-6; Tr. 2542).

46. CPSL constructed three nuclear facilities before Harris-Robinson (Unit 2) and Brunswick (Units 1 and 2). Construction Permit No. CPPR-26 was issued to H. B. Robinson-2 on April 13, 1967 and Operating License No. OPR-23 was issued on July 13, 1970, and during the construction period the NRC

spent 325 mandays performing thirty-six site, corporate and vendor inspections of construction related activities. The main deficiencies were:

a. Corrosion of containment building tendon test bars.

b. Cracks discovered in the welds of the containment penetration frame after installation.

c. Non-separation of redundant electrical cables.

Each of these items were corrected by the licensee or its contractors in a timely manner, and none considering the magnitude and complexities of problems and their solutions and the fact that the project was being built as a turnkey project by Westinghouse for CP8L, reflect adversely on CPSL (Staff Panel II, pp. 30-36).

47. During construction of Robinson the term "non-compliance" was not used.

Items were entered into reports as "construction deficiencies" or "non-conformances" with the PSAR or the codes. There were 16 items whi'ch were identified as non-conformances or construction deficiencies in Robinson inspection reports. Sy current standards several of these would not have been cited as non-compliances. Further, also'some of these were listed when there was insufficient evidence to determine compliance or non-compliance. By current standards they would not have progressed beyond the "unresolved item" category. Converse1y, there may be items within the docket file for Robinson which were not cited, but which would be cited by today'." s are::r"..s. ,"'".:"~;~, . all prob;e!qs however identified items whether

were satisfactorily resolved prior to the issuance bf the operating license.

The noncompliances were random in nature and are not indicative of failures in CP8L's management. The safety significance of these items was individually analyzed by CP8L and, in turn, by the NRC. In each case it was CPSL that identified the corrective actions and measures taken to preclude recurrence. The corrective actions were confirmed through HRC inspections (Staff Panel II, p. 38).

48. The construction permits for Brunswick were'applied for on July 31, 1968 with the Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-67 and CPPR-68 issued on February 7, 1970, Commencing on i~lay 29, 1969, there were forty-nine inspectiorrs-of construction related activi ties at the site, corporate offices and vendors performed on Unit 1 and forth-six inspections of construction related activities at the site, corporate offices and vendors performed on Unit 2.

To accomplish this program, 27 I8E inspectors spent approximately 480 mandays at the construction site, contractor offices and vendor manu-facturing facilities (Staff Panel II, p.40 ).

49. A major problem during the construction of Brunsiwck was the high turnover of welders. Ouring the year 1972, the welder turnover rate was 1975. Welders must be qualified in accordance with ASME specifications. The licensee dis-covered that a majority of the welders did not maintain the requirements to continue welding in accordance with these specifications. In addition, welders are a travelling craft and will work where the salary including

overtime is the greatest, all things being equal. The licensee's corrective actions were to retain a welding consultant, improve the welding school since some welding involved "newer" materials that the average welder was not familiar with or may have never welded before, and increase the welding quality control staff. Trend analysis was also instituted so that welders having problems with certain material or weld configurations could be identified and more'raining ini tiated (Staff Panel II, p. 40).

50. Another problem at Brunswick involved voids between the Unit 2 steel torus liner and the concrete placed around the liner. Yoids were subsequently found under the Unit 1 torus liner also. The void areas were mapped and repaired by pressure grouting with epoxy resin. Grout holes drilled through the torus liner were later weld repaired and leak tested. On June 1, 1974, CP&L reported that some epoxy grout under the Unit 1 torus had failed to harden. This was indicated by mixing pot samples taken during the grouting process. Tests were performed to determine the effects of these. voids on the structural integrity of the torus. NRC has conducted numerous inspections of procedures, repair work, QA/QC activities and test operations. NRC has examined the engineering analysis and CP8L's final report and has no further concerns (Staff Panel II, p. 40).

51. Other deficiencies at Brunswick, identified in the Staff testimony were discussed in full (Staff Panel II, pp. 12, 41-44). The Staff concludes tha" these ."'.= i ie: cits ~~:i:;-oi indicate pcor .::=nagement by PGL, and the Board concurs.

52. Using present classification terminology, there were 20 infractions and 6 deficiencies during the construction of Brunswick. The Staff is satisfied that proper remedial action was taken by. CP&L and their randomness is indicative of no systematic weakness in CP&L management. Using its "lessons learned," CP&L during the latter part of construction at Brunswick 2, increased their on-site participation in on-site construction and QA meetings. CP&L management also provided increased QA/QC manpower and contracted for special consultants for on-site work as needed (Staff Panel II, pp. 46-47).

53. Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) filed an application for authorization to construct and operate four pressurized water nuclear reactors known as the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Station, Units No. 1 through 4 in North Carolina on September 7, 1971. The construction permit exemptions which authorized limited work at the site was issued on January 14, 1974. NRC inspectors began inspection of construction activities on February ll, 1972. On May 7, 1975, CP&L informed NRC of the extended construction delay. On January 27, 1978, Construction Permit No. CPPR-158, 159, 160 and 161 were issued (Staff Panel II, p. 49).

54. CP&L has developed and is implementing a new site QA/QC program and pro-cedures for Harris. The procedures are being written and reviewed by

QA personnel who have Brunswick or other nuclear plant construction experience. The procedures are written to implement and verify Ebasco specifications and PSAR commitments. These changes have proven to be effective for that work completed and the work that is presently in process. I&E inspection reports reflect that procedural control for that work completed, and that the work in process at Harris is acceptable.

(Staff Panel II, p. 48).

55. Region II has verified that at the Harris facility, CP8L is managing site construction and QA/QC surveillance survey functions. CP8L site QA Unit and Engineering Units performs the acceptance inspection functions at Harris. CP8L's manager of engineering and construction QA (Raleigh Offices) performs site QA surveillance functions. CP8L corporate QA audit section performs site audits. Ebasco provides architect-engineering services. Daniel Construction Company provides labor and direct labor supervision. Permanent facilities are constructed in accordance with the A-E's engineering documents (Staff Panel II, p. 10; t1c0uffie, p. 8-12, 24, 46-47).

56. I8E inspection further shows that in order to assure QA/QC compliance at Harris, the manager, Corporate QA Audit Group, who reports to the Vice President of System Planning, and Coordinating Department, who in turn reports to the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, is responsible for auditing of all QA program activities within CP8L (Enaineerinq, Con-struction QA) and external activities or -;he inarch'itect-cnuii i:.', .....:

Steam System Supplier and the vendors. Upper level management reviews these reports and has obtained timely actions where required. This program meets NRC requirements (Staff Panel II, pp. 10-12, murphy, Tr. 2543).

57. CP8L presently has a program to identify safety-related problems and it is an integral part of their gA program. It conducts corporate level audits, engineering and construction gA surveys, site gA unit surveys, trend analysis of nonconformance reports, and gC inspection. Additionally, CPSL routinely performs an engineering review of matters described in the NRC Inspection and Enforcement Bulletins and Circulars, project

'design changes and construction work. All the CPSL construction engineers, inspectors and site gA examination, inspection and test personnel have authority or access to stop work authority or to reject work or materials, and in fact they have done so. Region II inspection personnel have reviewed reports, verified actions and witnesses specific cases where work was stopped or rejected and corrective actions taken (Staff Panel II, p. 21).

58. To check and determine that these problems are dealt with, CP8L has adopted nonconforming report system and audit or survey system which requires identification, corrective action and verification of corrective action. They employ nonconformance reports (NCR's) to handle routine and minor problems. Deficiency and Disposition Reports (DDR's) are used to'ocument major problems or engineering document deviations requiring

engineering evaluations. CP8L employees are trained to consider generic implications of related problems. The system works and provides a mechanism for identifying, documenting and correcting the specific problems and make necessary changes to the gA program procedures. to minimize future recurrence (Staff Panel II, p. 22).

59. In the past CPEL has had some problems in obtaining and retaining site workers, but this has not adversely affected the construction schedules nor compromised the quality of work. CPEL has established an active recruitment unit and should be able to continue to employ adequate personnel (Staff Panel II, p. 21).

60. During the period February 11, 1972 through October, 1978, Region II conducted 24 inspections related to Harris construction activities both at the site and corporate offices. Included are seven inspections, from July 1, 1975 through September 1, 1977, related to the extended construction delay, which includes site storage facilities, facilities maintenance, equipment storage and records. The 24 construction inspections

have employed 21 inspectors for approximately 150 mandays at the con-struction site, corporate offices and vendor manufacturing facilities.

thajor components including reactor vessels and steam generators for the construction of these units are in storage at the site. Current activities have consisted of the placement of the containment buildings concrete base mats for Unit 1 and the erection of the containment liner {Staff Panel II,

p. 49).

61. Three items of noncompliance have been identified through inspection of the Harris work. One item involves the placement of concrete for the power block structure. This item related to sampling inspection of concrete during placement when pumps and other conveyances are being used. A second item of noncompliance involves a site contractor's con-tainment welding program and it related to documentation for electrode control. The third item of noncompliance involves the gA program per-taining to control of documentation. This item involved control of revised drawings with outstanding field change requests. (Staff Panel II,

p. 51).

62. An analysis of the three items of noncompliance identified during con-struction of this four unit facility indicates that two items were identified as infractions. That is, if they had remained uncorrected, they could have resulted in the failure of a Seismic Category I system

or structure in such a manner that the safety function or integrity would be impaired. These noncompliances are randon in nature and are not indicative of failures in CP8L's management, nor inadequacies in the QA program. The safety significance of these items was individually analyzed by CP8L and, in turn, by the HRC. In each case, CP8L has identified the corrective actions and initiated measures to preclude recurrence. The corrective actions were confirmed through NRC inspections (Staff Panel II,

p. 52).

63. Region II's construction inspection and enforcement history with CP8L does not indicate a lack of managerial capability to construct the facilities. The inspections have disclosed no facts indicating present need for CP8L to improve its QA/QC programs in the construction of Shearon Harris. The specifications, QA Manuals and procedures are current with work being done and Region II of I8E inspection reports reflect that CP8L is implementing the overall QA/QC program commitments of the PSAR. Region II's construction inspection and enforcement history does not indicate a lack of control of the QA/QC programs for construction.

CP8L is implementing the overall QA/QC program commitment of the PSAR.

CP8L has developed, implemented and manned a construction QA/QC program F

that encompasses corporate, engineering and design and construction activities which are commensurate with the status of project (Staff Panel II, pp.'4-17).

64. As this Board was previously informed, a "minor geologic fault" was found during excavations at the site. NRR concluded this fault was not capable within the meaning of Appendix A to Part 100 of 10 CFR. NRC Staff in-spection of Applicant's geologic map and discussions with the Applicant's architect-engineers have not shown any adverse condition significant to nuclear safety. A possible foundation anomaly was also discovered in excavation for the spillway of the main dam. Although this is not a Category I safety structure, a safety study is being made by the NRC Staff geologists and the Applicant has been r'equested to do further mapping (Staff Panel II, p. 51).

65. It is the I&E's view that CP&L has demonstrated no lack of technical quali-fication or ability to construct Harris. Moreover, CP&L has supplemented their own in-house capabilities with the capabilities of their consultants, an architect-engineer, a nuclear steam system supplier and a construction supervisor, who have had previous experience on several nuclear plants.

Additionally, CP&L has hired experienced personnel to manage site con-struction and engineering and construction QA activities. Engineering support, drawings, specifications and QA/QC programs and procedures have been developing for an extended period of time. CP&L has demonstrated effective capability for meeting quality requirements for work already completed and that work which is in process at Shearon Harris. For problems outside the scope of expertise of CP&L, Ebasco, and Daniel, CP&L can hire consultants (Staff Panel II, pp. 11, 25).

66. The Staff believes that CPEL and its constructor have and will continue to have, sufficient, properly trained management and QA/QC people in the construction of Shearon Harris. Appropriate NRC enforcement action will be taken to assure this level is maintained. (Staff Panel II, pp. 21, 54).

67. There is reasonable assurance that CPGL can construct and the equipment can be installed in accordance wi th PSAR commitments and the regulations, the license and the technical specifications. The licensee has previously demonstrated his commitment to construction QA at the Robinson and Brunswick Nuclear Stations by expanding his involvement in the construction program.

This includes taking corrective actions on identified deficiencies and by staffing construction engineers and QA/QC inspectors at the construction site. (Staff Panel II, pp. 49-57).

VI. ISE EXPERIENCE WITH THE OPERATION OF CP8rL NUCLEAR FACILITIES

68. I&E has verified that CPKL QA activities for their operating nuclear plants is governed by three QA organizations, each with independent missions but all charged with providing QA services. These organizations are the plant QA organization, the Operations QA Section (based in the corporate office and reporting to Department f1anager, Generation), and the Corporate QA Audit Section (Staff Panel III (Long & Dance) following Tr. 2937, p. 4).

69. The Corporate QA Audit Section performs audits of activities at the corporate office and at the Brunswick and Robinson facilities. Audit findings and resolutions thereto are reported to the CP8L chief operating officer.

The Operations QA Section performs audits at the Robinson and Brunswick facilities approximately twelve times yearly at each facility. Audit findings are identified to the Department Manager, Generation and to the plant manager. Personnel in, this section are assigned to specialty areas of audit responsibility (such as maintenance, health physics, or operations),

and they conduct pre-planned audits in accordance with established CPSL plans and procedures. The Operational QA section also reviews HRC cor-respondence to further identify problem areas and track NRC-unresolved items (Staff Panel III, pp. 4-5).

70. The plant QA organizations at Robinson and Brunswick are similar. They perform both QA and QC functions in accordance with policies established in the Plant Quality Assurance Manual. The plant QA supervisor reports to the plant manager and has a communications link to the Manager, Operations QA Section. The Brunswick plant QA staff has a supervisor of six personnel assigned; the Robinson plant QA staff has a supervisor of four personnel assigned. In addition to the routine QA/QC functions in areas such as maintenance activities,'rocurement, and design modification; the Plant QA group performs audits at the request of plant supervision or management.

It provides monthly reports of all outstanding items (e.g., NRC, corporate

or plant identified) to the plant manager. The Plant QA group is audited by both the Operations QA Section and the Corporate QA Audit Section (Staff Panel III, p. 5).

71. I&E inspections related to plant operations and in the QA/QC areas at Brunswick and Robinson date from September 1974. The initial inspection revealed 20 discrepancies at the first Brunswick unit to be licensed (1974) and the initial inspection of operations QA on the second Brunswick unit to be licensed revealed only 2 discrepancies. The initial-inspection of Robinson QA for operations (1975) revealed 13 discrepancies. Recent inspections of on-going QA activities revealed one discrepancy at Robinson and 1T items of noncompliance at Brunswick (Staff Panel III, pp. 8, ll; Staff Exh. 15; Dance, Tr. 2931).

72. CPSL management ability in nuclear QA activities has steadily improved over the years. CP8L was slow, as were most licensees,. in implementing the QA program for operations at their first facility. Me are aware of the early determination by CPGL to get involved in QA. They were very active in ANSI work groups who developed the principal QA standards for QA program auditing and qualifications of QA personnel. They have been tough in dealing with the issues that tend to create an expansion of manpower requirements, such as quality assurance. Nevertheless, significant increases in staffing of vital positions and realignment of key management personnel pai ti ".1~ in ':--."-,"- "" """. c".."coi tus "re i~";" tant factors in forming this opinion (Stai'r Panel Iil, p. 9).

73. Operating License Ho. DPR-23 was issued for Robinson on July 31, 1970.

Overall some 150 inspections pertaining to operations of Robinson have been conducted. This includes 30 inspections and one corporate meeting since September 1, 1977 when the testimony for the 1977 Harris Construction Permit Hearing was written. The initial management inspection of administrative controls affecting quality and operations at Robinson was made in 1971. The'first in-depth inspection of the CP&L gA program supporting plant operations was in July 1975. This was subsequent to the issuance of the CP&L gA program topical report (The CP&L Cor orate gualit Assurance Pro ram - Part 2 and 3) dated December 19, 1974. This inspection revea'led 13 discrepancies, most of which were linked to program weaknesses.

CP&L was responsive to these findings and most were resolved within three months. In December 1972 and again in December 1974 meetings with CP&L management were held pertaining to improving the management of Robinson.

The AEC was critical of the slowness in developing a gA program and repetition of similar items of noncompliance. Subsequently, management performance continually strengthened. (Staff= Panel III (Long & Dance) following Tr. 2937, pp. 12-13, App. B.2, C.2).

74. gA activities at Robinson are inspected several times a year. On-going inspections have revealed that most discrepancies are centered in the areas of maintenance, training, design changes and modifications, and document/

records control. In the three years that gA activities have been followed, no evidence of overall programmatic weakness has been pinpointed for Robinson.

The management staff at Robinson is experienced, and responsive to NRC concerns as evidenced by the December 1977 boron injection tank thermo-couple failure investigation and the current upgrading of facility procedures and administrative controls (Staff Panel III, pp. 12-13).

75. Operating License Ho. DPR-62 was issued for Brunswick 2 on December 27, 1974 and Operating License No. OPR-71 was issued for Brunswick 1 on September 8, 1976. Overall about 110 inspections pertaining to operation, including preoperational testing, of Unit 2 and about 80 inspections pertaining to operations of Unit 1 have been conducted. This includes 31 joint inspections and one corporate meeting since September 1, 1977 when the testimony for the 1977 Harris Construction Permit Hearing was written. Since September 1976 all but two inspections have pertained to activities of both units. (Staff Panel III, p. 13).

76. ISE conducted the first comprehensive inspection of the CPSL gA program necessary to support operation several months prior to the operating license issue for Unit 2 (the first of the Brunswick units to be licensed).

This inspection was in September 1974. This inspection identified 20 unresolved items with at least one item in each area inspected. The pro-gram was found to be "fragmented" and failing to fully meet FSAR commit-lllbllI 4 0 1

=.

IM l ~ ~

g 4 lI

~~- -.: '. "'-."d ">>"4

\ IN4

""~ in""."ec~ors "did not see M ~ ~

those management controls that are necessary to assure . . . that the plant will be operated safely and in compliance with license requirements."

A reinspection was held in December 1974, which confirmed numerous program-matic changes to the Brunswick program and resolved most of the initial NRC findings in gA. The program was found to be acceptable by the time the Unit 2 license was issued. A similar in-depth inspection of gA in June 1976, prior to licensing of Brunswick Unit 1, identified one item of noncompliance and five discrepancies. As stated, a thorough inspection of the Brunswick gA program in January 1979, identified eleven items of noncompliance (Staff Panel III, p. 14; Dance, Tr. 2932).

77. Brunswick management in the years from late 1974 to early 1977 had numerous operating problems and issues. The significant upgrading of the gA program in late 1974, the starting up of two units in 1974 and 1976, the many repetitive reportable occurrences and noncompliances, and the loss of four senior plant management personnel due to resignations are examples. As we later detail, in February 1976 following an off-gas explosion, HRC management met with CPSL management to discuss our concerns of their operation including the time-liness, the quality, and history of reportable occurrenc'e reports and to reemphasize requirements to follow emergency instructions. Shortly thereafter management moves were made at the corporate and plant levels.

In the fall of 1976, recognizing the need for additional training of supervisors, a short training course on Bl<R operations was conducted on-site. In January 1977 Region II confirmed management qualification met

- 41-ANSI H18.7 and technical specification requirements although it met with CPSL in March 1977 to discuss maintenance controls and turnover of supervisory personnel. Continued upgrading of personnel training, qualifications, and responsiveness to NRC concerns has been demonstrated. Today the Staff considers the management staff at Brunswick to be qualified and continually being strengthened by the inhouse SRO training. Supervisory staff turnover has been minimal since January 1977. One superintendent was transferred to Robinson as Plant Manager in November, 1977. In sum, although no significant QA progr'am weaknesses have been identified by the Staff in the on-going inspection of QA at Brunswick, the QA inspection of January 1979 did identify 27 programmatic matters requiring corrections Additionally, implementation of maintenance administrative controls has been an area of weakness, as evidenced by continued ISE findings of noncompliance in this area (Staff Panel III, pp. 14-15, Attachments B.l, C.l; Dance, Tr. 2933-2934).

78. I&E also looks at how CPSL handled problems involving radiation protection, security and inservice inspections and also examines CPSL's Licensee Event Reports, and their noncompliance record. From January 1975 through October 6, 1978, 14 inspections by the I8E Radiation Support Section were made at Robinson, resulting in 21 noncompliance items being cited. Other program weaknesses in this area have been identified and classified as open or unresolved items. The problem areas found that were considered significant because o, repo.titio~ nr ~~>>nt~a1 imoact were: radiation exposure control, internal exposure co." rol and evaluation, ef-luent monitor testing, health

physi'cs controls and continuing problems involving the posting, labeling and control of high radiation areas. Additional problems in this area have been identified from the licensee's license event reports (Staff Panel III, pp. 16-10).

79. From mid-1975 through October 6, 1978, 13 radiation support inspections were made at Brunswick resulting in 14 items of noncompliance. Additional problems have been identified as the result of LER's from the licensee and unresolved items or open items identified by the inspectors. In addition to these problems, a major problem area is presently being negotiated between CP&L and NRR regarding the operability of the Off-Gas System. Major areas identified which could adversely influence the radiation protection program are:

A. Pos tin Label in and Control Failure to post and control high radiation areas per the Technical Specifications were twice cited in 1976. The failure to control high radiation areas was cited again in 1978. The licensee's response to this item was received in November 1978. The action proposed by CPSL to control the high radiation areas appears reasonable. However, the fact that additional examples were identified approximately two months after the latest citation seems to indicate that adequate corrective actions were not immediately taken.

B. Testin of Effluent Monitors In 1975 three citations were made concerning the failure to perform tests of effluent monitors as required by the Environmental Technical Sepctifications. In 1978 it also was noted that the corporate quality assurance gr.u:: ': .~ i.::i: i'c. th:;".;"unccio:.al tests of effluent monitors had not been performed as required. Actions taken will be reviewed during continuing ISE inspections.

C. ~Off 6<<-<<

The Off-Gas system is presently not operable due to hydrogen ignition problems. Discussions and correspondence have been taking place between CPSL and NRR concerning corrective actions and the time frame for such actions. CP&L has projected that approximately 8 years will be required to make the system operable. NRR is presently considering Technical Specification revisions until such time as the system is operable. This is on-going. In the interim, the inoperability of the system could have an adverse effect on radioactive gaseous re-leases depending on fuel integrity. See Proposed Finding 123.

D. Control of Abnormal Situations A traveling incore pr'obe was retracted through the shield, resulting in an unidentified and uncontrolled high radiation area. This single event resulted in four citations in 1976 involving failure to follow procedures, fai lure to perform surveys and failure to maintain survey records. Subsequently, a deviation was cited because the licensee did not take all corrective actions as stated in his reply. Additionally, a management meeting was held with CPSL on this matter. This was a significant problem area at that time (Staff Panel III, pp. 19-20).

80. Based on the operating history of the Brunswick facility the principal concern of the Staff with CPSL's ability to construct and operate the I,'ri" -~i'i .v ..'" '" -'~-"- o'~dia .ion p~otecti~n and radioactive

44-waste management is the ability to maintain an adequate staff in the Environmental and Radiation Control group (ESRC). Under the organization at Brunswick and H. B. Robinson, the EKRC group is responsible for radiation protection (dosimetry, contamination and exposure control, respiratory protection program, survey instrument calibration, etc.),

chemistry, radiochemistry, radioactive effluent control and records and radiological and nonradiological environmental monitoring (sample collection, some sample analysis, etc.). The work of the ESRC group is carried out by Radiation Control and Test technician's-(RCPT technicians).

(Staff Panel III, p. 21).

81. Since the startup of the Brunswick facility, there has been an attrition of both RC&T technicians and foremen. While some of these people have gone to other offices in CPSL, others have left the utility. Foremen generally have been promoted from the technician level. Replacements for the technician positions have been hired but generally as trainees whereas losses of technicians are occurring at the journeyman level. The net effect has been to lower the overall capability of the technicians, both in training and experience (Staff Panel III, pp. 21-22).

82. The ESRC group formerly had two professionals on the staff (one health one chemist). The two individuals who filled these positions 'hysicist, have left; one was reassigned to the corporate office, the other left

the company. The only professional presently in the E&RC group (other than the E8RC supervisor) is a recent college graduate employed at the Junior Engineer level. Again, this has resulted in a decrease in the level of training and experience at the plant level (Staff Panel III, pp 22).

83. In considering the capability of CPEL to operate the Harris facility it is necessary to consider the ability adequately to staff Harris without further reducing the ability to perform the responsibilities at Brunswick and H. B. Robinson. The ESRC group responsibilities at Harris will begin with the preoperational test program with chemistry control and syst'm flushing and testing and will continue on through preoperational testing and startup with increasing responsibilities for chemistry, radiochemistry, health physics and environmental monitoring. As the responsibilities grow with one unit, they will begin on subsequent units. This will impose an increasing workload wi th expanding responsibilities. The ESRC group will need to be staffed to cover this workload over a period of years; the use of overtime to provide coverage will solve short-term problems but cannot be looked upon as an alternative for adequate staffing, both in terms of number of people and experience, for a situation which will cover a period of years. At the present time both Brunswick and Robinson are adequately staffed in the area of radiation protection (Staff Panel III, p. 16 8 22).

84. A potential weakness in management's implementation of the requirements in the radiation control area has been identified due to the fact that there have been eleven noncompliances in the radiation control area during the past twelve months. NRC inspection efforts have been modified to focus attention on the radiological controls areas in order to identify and correct specific weaknesses (Staff Panel III, p. 29); However, based on the results of radiation protection inspections at both the H. B. Robinson and Brunswick Steam Electric Plants, the Staff remains of the view that Carolina Power and Light Company is capable. of operating an additional nuclear generating station in accordance with the regulations and without creating a hazard to the public health and safety. This matter will be reviewed again at the operating license stage where NRR headquarters personnel will review the Staff's requirements prior to issuance of any operating licenses (Staff Panel III, p. 23).

85. From April 1976 through June 1978, four security inspections have been conducted at Robinson. These inspections resulted in three items of noncompliance (two infractions and one deficiency). There were no repeat items of noncompliance. The most recent inspections have indicated significant improvements. Based on the inspections and in the opinion of security inspectors, Robinson is considered an average plant when measured against all other Region II facilities and the ISE Inspection Program (Staff Panel III, p. 23).

86. From Harch 1976 through September 1978, seven security inspections have been conducted at Brusnwick. These inspections resulted in sixteen items of noncompliance (eleven infractions and five deficiencies). Two of the items, both infractions, were repeat items of noncompliance. Based on the ISE's inspections and in the opinions of inspectors who have been involved in recent security inspections, Brunswick can be said to be average when measured against other Region II facilities and the overall IRE Inspection Program. The differences between the numbers of non-compliance items identified at Brunswick and the number identified at Robinson are largely due to the'reater complexity of the Brunswick security system (Staff Panel III, pp. 23-24).

87. A civil penalty was assessed for four items of plant security noncompliance at Brunswick for failure to implement access control requirements. During three separate inspections Brunswick received noncompliances in security areas per-taining to access control and a meeting between CPSL and NRC was held on this matter prior to the inspection that resulted in the civi 1 penalty. The recur-ring items of noncompliance involving the security program reflected upon management's apparent inability or reluctance to take corrective action.

In general the civil penalty appeared to be more related to the management program than the gA/gC program. CPSL's security record has improved since 1975, perhaps the penalty having served a useful purpose (Staff Panel III,

p. 25).

88. Inservice inspection nondestructive testing of the Robinson facility vessel, piping and piping components has been contracted to Mestinghouse.

The inspection activities are coordinated by Carolina Power and Light (CP&L) inservice inspection coordinators at the corporate office and site level. CPSL has shown a great deal of concern for proper implementation of the inservice inspection requirements at Brunswick and Robinson and CPKL management has been responsive to inspection findings by both CPEL and NRC audits and inspections'(Staff Panel III, pp. 26-28).

89. CPSL's noncompliance history for Robinson has been:

1975 1976 1977 1978 Violations 0 0 Infractions 23 10 Deficiencies 9 5 Deviations 6 1 (Staff Panel III, p. 28, Dance, Tr. 3026).

At Brunswick it has been:

1975 1976 1977 1978 (through September)

Violations 0 0 0 0 Infractions 31 20 17 13 ation Deficiencies 4 13 5 7 Deviations 2 2 3 1 (Staff Panel III, p. 30)

Generally, although the exact definitions are complex, a violation is an item of immediate safety consequence, an infraction is one with a potential iol a sa ety ',."" e~>i i',": ~ .l ": '"

e iici '""c'j i s a vi0 I a of t, requirements whose safety consequence is remote (murphy, Tr. 2215; see also Staff Panel I, pp. 11-16).

90. As previously indicated, on January 8-12, 15 and 16, 1979, shortly before this hearing an inspection was made looking into the quality assurance program at the Brunswick facilities. This was part of a new series of in-depth inspections of a quality assurance program that is being conducted of licensees by the NRC Staff. No prior audit of quality assurance to this depth has been conducted at Brunswick (Ruhlman 8 Kellogg, Tr. 2714-2715).

As a result of this inspection--7 infractions and 4 deficiencies were reported (Staff Exhibit 15). These mainly dealt with the failure to set up or carry out programs or procedures that would assure quality control. None of the matters discovered were considered hazardous to health or safety, although the inspection revealed that the Brunswick plant's gA program requires significant upgrading (Ruhlman, Tr. 2714, 2717-2718).

Considering the depth of the inspection--Brunswick appeared, in regard to its quality assurance program in the areas inspected, an average utility (Ruhlman, Tr. 2638, 2700-2706).

91. Noncompliances at Robinson have decreased from a high in 1975, and have been relatively stable in the past three years. A detailed r eview of the licensee event reports and noncompliance from September 1977 through August 1978 indicate that H. B. Robinson management has implemented changes in facility operation and administrative controls which provide improved compliance with NRC regulations. Specifically, corrective actions taken for licensee event reports and noncompliances have been directed to permanent corrective measures

necessary to prevent recurrences. These corrective measures include:

comprehensive revision to plant operating procedures and administrative controls, indoctrination and training of personnel in identified problem areas, and investigations of occurrences for generic potential. Improved procedural controls and personnel performance is reflected by the fact that licensee event reports caused by personnel or procedural error have decreased from ten in 1977 to four in 1978 (Staff Panel III, p. 29).

92. Significant reportable occurrences during the past year -besides the 11 in the radiation control area, include a failure of boron injection tank thermowell and a plant battery fire. Robinson management's iirimediate and long-term corrective actions were responsive. Investigation and evaluation of the boron injection tank event resulted in replacement of the boron injection tank. The evaluation of the battery fire included a request for vendor assessment of the occurrence to determine potential generic significance (Staff Panel III, p. 29-30). See Proposed Finding ..114.

93. A significant improvement in noncompliance of all levels at Brunswick can be seen from the 1975-1976 period. During the period from October 1, 1977 through September 30, 1978 there have been 27 items of noncompliance--

18 infractions and 9 deficiencies. The general areas of noncompliance are:

Areas of Noncom liance Infractions Deficiencies

"'ecurity .3 Radiation Protection 0

."n/1 r("r.. " .a:

~ 3 Administrative and Procedural 3

In addition there were the noncompliances found in January 1979 in the quality assurance area'(see Proposed Finding 90). Brunswick management has been responsive in addressing and initiating corrective actions for identified enforcement i tems, and noncompliances have generally been decreasing (Staff Panel III, p. 31).

'4. At Brunswick safety-related problems are identified and followed by a limiting condition for operation (LCO) sheet and trouble ticket. There is a program in addition to a corrective maintenance trouble ticket, whereby they are identified and tracked to completion and reviewed by maintaining an LCO status described in plant procedures. The problem is then reported to and reviewed by the appropriate senior staff and/or the Plant I'luclear Safety Committee. Problems related to safety that keep the plant from operating are given immediate attention. Some problems which have a lesser safety significance are handled less expeditiously. An example of this latter type is the accumulation of water in safety-related areas which has been a chronic problem and still exists (Staff Panel III, 'pp. 25-53). Action to correct problems is tracked in a number of different ways but must generally appear on an outstanding items list with periodic reviews of due dates. Repetition of certain items may indicate that the solution was ineffective. The Staff feels the system works. Infrequently, IKE inspectors have found items not properly tracked or remedial actions not promptly taken such as the HPCI delta temperature isolation circuit modification was a case where action was not taken promptly (Staff Panel III, p. 36).

95. CPSL has a program to identify incipient problems in operations, including start-up operations, before they develop. The program requires CP8L to perform periodic tests, gA audits, preventative maintenance and inservice inspections on a routine schedule at operating plants. They also review circulars and bulletins issued by the NRC and evaluate those applicable to their facilities. Corrective action is taken where problems are identified. This, of course, does not apply to Harris as it does not now have an operating license (Staff Panel III, p. 42). At operating plants, problems are identified and followed by maintenance trouble tickets. Once identified and reported, the licensee's supervisors and/or higher plant management has the responsibility for evaluating the matter. Problems of a major nature are referred to the site engineering staff for evaluation.

Corporate engineering assistance can also be requested. Consultants can also be called in. CPSL does have the means to evaluate identified problems.

gualifications of plant staff and nondestructive testing personnel are routinely checked to assure that they are qualified. Matters which are safety,-related are reviewed by the Plant Nuclear Safety Committee (PNSC). They have the authority to make the necessary decisions. The program appears to work.

I5E routinely confirms that the PNSC reviews safety-related matters.

Examples are reportable occurrences, plant modifications, and noncompliances.

CP8L gA reviews all periodic tests and maintenance requests to see that the work has been completed and that there are no indicated problems at Brunswick. At Robinson gA audits the periodic tests and reviews the maintenance requests. This program s~e~~ to b~ workino. (St~ff Panel III, pp. 43-44).

96. Robinson has been in operation since 1970 and has been relatively stable in its turnover of upper and middle management. Brunswick had units starting up in 1975 and 1976, and had a high turnover. In the past year managerial employment at both facilities has been relatively stable (Staff Panel III, p. 47).

97. If one compared the management organization of Brunswick from 1975 to the present, overall management control is better, It is better because of the additional experience gained in operating the plant, -the emphasis placed upon additional training, and the refinements made in administrative procedures. The Staff notes that the changes in job positions since January 1976 were required by the resignation of four staff members and the reassignment within CP8L of others. In Hay 1975 and, as we stated, in February 1976, the management of NRC Region II met with CP8L management and were critical of CPSL's past operational performance at Brunswick (Staff Panel III, p. 48 and App. 8.1, C.l). As indicated, shortly. after...the,1976 meeting several management moves were made at the plant and corporate level, and a lcm'~ course for short supervisory BMR operation was= started at Brunswick. By March of 1977, two of the nine plant staff in training for SRO's were plant supervisors. This training has continued to the present. The above coupled with a more refined and developed QA/QC program has resulted in an improved management. The Staff is of the view that IEE's actions directly precipitated improvements in CP8L's management of y

~ -.<1 Trr n nnb

98. Since January 1977 the turnover rate at both plants has been stable. At Brunswick one superintendent was transferred (ll/77) to Robinson as Plant t1anager and a second maintenance supervisor was added when the maintenance responsibilities were split. The vacancies created were filled from within the Brunswick organization. The outgoing Robinson plant manager was transferred to other corporate responsibilities. Any loss of experience during a program expansion is always felt. In the long term, however, management moves accompanied by the recognition of increased training requirements have re'suited in a more informed staff (Staff Panel III, p.49).

99. In the 1976-1977 period the people in the middle and upper management positions at the CPSL operating plants met the requirements for the positions they held which are defined in American National Standard Institute Code N18.1 and the facility Technical Specifications, and they are currently so qualified. Currently there are 14 SRO's and 12 RO's at Robinson and 27 SRO's and 13 RO's at Brunswick. .This is indicative that CPSL is aware of their expanding licensed requirements of multi-plant operation. CPSL has in operation a PMR simulator at the Harris facility and Robinson personnel are actively taking training. (Staff Panel III, pp. 50-52). The Staff considers Brunswick and Robinson to be adequately staffed now and has no knowledge of regular extended work weeks for personnel there. Extended work weeks can be expected at Harris when

it goes operational but only to a limited degree. Based on the Brunswick experience CPSL management is more fully aware of the requirements of a start-up program and should factor in overtime versus experience of personnel (Staff Panel III, p. 54).

100. CPSL applies sufficient resources to deal wi th the health and safety concerns. In marginal nonsafety cases, CP8L has sometimes been slow in applying resources. However, there has been continued improvement in plant management training, reduced repetitious occurrences, and trends in LER's and noncompliances (Staff Panel III, p. 68).

101. An operational program is not now necessary to deal wi th problems expected to arise ai Sharon Harris. Some two to three years prior to expected fuel loading is the normal time for a heavy involvement of operational personnel. Training of operating personnel should be well underway prior to the initiation of preoperational testing which is some one to two years prior to fuel. load. The Staff has no present questions of the adequacy of the size of CPSL's gA/gC staff. It is consistent with their units in oper ation, and HRC requir'ements, and the personnel are adequately trained (Staff Panel III, p. 36).

102. In preparation for these hearings, surveys were taken of all I&E inspectors in all Branches in Region II to see if any had:

- any evidence on the capability of CP&L management to construct or operate Shearon Harris

- any matters which would assist the Licensing Board in considering these matters

- an opinion co'ncerning CP&L's capability to construct and operate Shearon Harris. (Staff Panel III, App. A; Staff Exh. 17).

Generally the inspectors replied that they had no evidence, no opinion 4

or a positive opinion on CP&L's capability to construct and operate Shearon Harris. However, some inspectors in the operating area, in contrast with those who inspect construction, indicated that CP&L had grudgingly met Commission gA and other requirements before Oecember 1976, but had improved since then (Staff Panel III, pp. 38-40, App. A). CP&L was not satisfied with its quality control at Brunswick in this period either. (Utley, Tr. 3530-3531, 3599). The Regional office supervisior personnel has considered the positions of these inspectors in its testimony and concluded that CP&L's reliability is acceptable and is improving. The I&E supervisory

opinion is based on CPSL's continually improving management stability and involvement, the QA/QC program, the trend in decreasing enforcement items, and periodic involvement with management (Staff Panel III; p. 41).

103. The Staff feels, based upon personal inspections and NRC records that CPSL has demonstrated their ability to manage and operate nuclear plants.

Overall trends indicate continued improvement. CP8L is presently properly using its resources in seeing that its nuclear facilities are operated safely. The Regional Office has no cause to presently Selieve that CPSL will not operate Shearon Harris consistent wi th the public health and safety once it is constructed. In sum the Staff concludes that CP&L's management of the Robinson and Brunswick facilities has evolved for the better over the years (Staff Panel III, pp. 69-70).

VII. VIEWS OF INDIVIDUAL ISE INSPECTORS 104. Floyd S. Cantrell was the principal IEE operations inspector at the Brunswick plant for 3 years from August, 1974 to July, 1977 (Cantrell, Tr. 3347, at p. 1). tir. Cantrell's view on the operating experience at Brunswick were solicited in September 1977 in preparing IEE's testimony for the

1977 hearing in this proceeding and were incorporated in a hand-written memorandum of September 16, 1977 to his supervisor Hugh Dance.

(See Cantrell following Tr. 3347, Attachments 1 and 2), As we'have indicated, it was Hr. Cantrell's view that his views were not fully presented to the Licensing Board, which precipitated this hearing.

Generally, Hr. Cantrell felt that the facts set out in the testimony given to the Board, properly reflected the facts set out in his memorandum to Hr. Dance (Cantrell, p. 6). However, he did not agree with the opinions and conclusions in that testimony. He felt'he testimony indicated that CP8L willingly adopted a QA/QC program and management control required to assure quality, whereas he felt they did not. He felt that the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program was required as a condition of the licensing of -Brunswick Uni't No. 2 in 1974, and that Region III of 18f had required improvements in management control in 1975, 1976, and 1977 because of the number of noncompliances and reportable occurrences, and problems in taking effective action. He further felt at the time of wri ting the memorandum that the construction permits for Harris should be pre-conditioned to require a recruitment and training program that would avoid staffing shortages and training inadequacies that he perceived occurred at Brunswick (Cantrell, following Tr. 3347, pp. 7 and 10). In his memorandum of September 19, 1977, he stated:

The following information is submitted in response to your request to provide information on the operating experience at Brunswick. CP8L possibly can obtain the technical m~~~~ "o.r. ~~~ ~~v~>o~ the m<~nanemo.nt needed for

' + '." ~ ~ r ~ ~

I q'es >~)eel T ic lllifirovIng as a cc,'nu lV. eon oi cno t lcc.nse ~ A7.

Brunswick they apparently underestimated the problems and the need for people. As a result

personnel were assigned extended work weeks that continued from weeks to months, and in some cases to years. This apparently contribute to the turn-over of some of the personnel. This shortage of manpower undoubtly contributed to some of the problems that were identified.

CP8L management still does not appear to have com-mitted the required manpower and financial resources to assure that plant problems are identified promptly, the problems are analyzed by a person(s) knowledge-able in that area, that corrective action is initiated, and that the corrective action is fol-lowed up to assure the action is timely and appropriate. The following are some examp'les of the bases for the above conclusions. (Cantrell, Attachments 1 & 2, pp. 1-2).

He then detailed in the memorandum problems he perceived in (1) per.-

sonnel training and experience; (2) the number of reportable occurrences (Licensee Event Reports) (LER's); (3) the enforcement history; and (4) technical problems (Cantrell Attachments 1 and 2, pp. 4-10). The technical problems he emphasized were RCIC (reactor core isolation cooling) system trips; contamination of lubricating oil in the diesel generators; repeated isolation of the HPCI (High Pressure Coolant Injection) system; and failing to'keep HPCI room bulkhead doors closed to prevent common flooding. Other problems were also mentioned, and in concluding ter. Cantrell stated:

From the number of citations for failure to have and/or follow procedure (20) the plant does not appear commi ted to the procedures required by their technical specifications. This could be the result of management attitude, or ineffective gA program . . . , [Cantrell, Attachments 1 and 2,

p. 10].

105. Ouring the period Hr. Cantrell was principal inspector at Brunswick, August, 1974 to July, 1977, CPSL did not have sufficient staff at Brunswick, and the turnover of senior and middle management personnel at Brunswick was too high (Utley 8 Banks following Tr. 3502, pp. 50-53, Utley, Tr. 3584-3586, 3587-3588). It was caused in part at least by these officials having to work long weeks of 55 to 70 hours8.101852e-4 days <br />0.0194 hours <br />1.157407e-4 weeks <br />2.6635e-5 months <br />, and even 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br />, for extended periods from at least August, 1974 unti 1 late'976. (Utley 8 Banks, p. 52, Utley, Tr. 3624). Ouring that period 6 of the 8 top or middle management positions at Brunswick had three incumbents. (Cantrell following Tr. 3347, p. 11, Bd. Exh. 11, p. 114). CPSL has conceded that its manpower needs for this period far exceeded its estimates and that it did not have sufficient staff (Utley and Banks, pp. 50-51, 53). The large turnover of supervisory personnel caused an undesirable discontinuity of experience at the plant; and although qualified replacements were hired for those who left or were transferred it was not always possible to hire employees as qualified as those who left or who had the desired boiling water reactor experience (Utley 8 Banks, p. 51-55, Cantrell, Tr. 3476-3478; Utley, Tr. 3625).

106. Concurrently, in the 1974-1975 period during the start-up of Brunswick Ho. 2 reactor, CPKL was engaged in an "earnings improvement program" (Jones, Tr. 3565-3566, 3590). It cut salaries and ceased hiring, at the same time it was calling on its supervisory employees to put in

very long hours and incur personal hardships so Brunswick No. 2 unit could receive an operating license by December 27, 1974 (Jones, Tr. 3572, 3578; Utley, Tr. 3623-24). It iv'ished to recei ve the license by that date because after that time it would have to meet new ECCS requirements that would thereafter be in effect (Jones, Tr. 3581-3582; Utley, Tr. 3600). The General Electric analysis of the ECCS system on which CP&L hoped to rely to meet the new NRC requirements to be in effect after December 27,'974, was not approved and the operation of Brunswick Unit No. 2 would have been sub-stantially delayed pending proof of compliance with the new standards, if Brunswick could not become licensed under the old standards (Utley, Tr. 3578-3579, 3668-3669; Utley & Banks, pp. 49-43). Thus, CP&L viewed it as essential to have its Brunswick Unit No. 2 licensed by December 27, 1974, in order to minimize its costs (Jones, Tr. 3581). As a result the Brunswick plant staff developed a very narrow focus on "the critical path" for plant licensing and start-up, and all work not viewed as directly necessary for those goals was deferred (Utley & Banks, p. 52; Cantrell, p. 8).

107. CP&L was not satisfied and knew that it had to improve its quality assurance program in this period (Utley, Tr. 3530-3531). However, CP&L was proud of the job it did in this period to get the plant licensed by December 28, 1974 (Utley Tr. 3590-3591; Jones, Tr. 3597).

108. The turnover described also decreased the number of these CP&L official working at Brunswick who had reactor operators (RO) or senior reactor operators (SRO) licenses, or who had the equivalent experience or training necessary to obtain those licenses. Neither the Brunswick's NRC license nor ANSI (American Nuclear Standards Institute) 18.1 - 1971, referenced in the applicable NRC Regulatory Guide 1.8, requires such a license or equivalent training of plant officials other than the plant manager or the operations supervisor (Staff Panel III, pp. 50-51). The Brunswick plant's operating license indicated that these qualifications were also "desirable" for eight other supervisory officials at the plant (Staff Panel III, p. 51).

Mhile this may not be an appropriate license condition because it is-unenforceable, it is desirable, but not mandatory, that these officials have these qualifications (Jones, Tr. 3631-32; Cantrell, pp. 12-13; Hilber, Tr. 2839, 2856-2857; Allenspack, Tr, 3306-3308; Minor, Tr. 3317-3318).

Such training does make the officials more versatile, increases organizations flexibility, and gives them greater knowledge of the operations of the facility. (Jones, Tr. 3631-3632, Cantrell, pp. 12-13; Panel III, p. 49-53). Further, the top officials at Brunswick served on the Plant Nuclear Safety Committee (PNSI) which among other things reviewed plant procedures, tests, changes to systems and equipment, and reviewed operations to detect potential safety hazards. If a majority of these officials had had the license or the training or experience for a license for boiling water

- reactor plants, they might have been more alert to and conscious of safety and ouality control nro"1~ms (l.~ntroll. nn. 13-1<, Cantrell. Tr. 3359-3362, 33"9, 3-:Ul; Staf)'nei !Ii, pp.52-53j.

109. CP7L while admitting it was understaffed and had large upper and middle management turnover, set forth the increase in NRC regulations as its primary excuse for problems encountered in the 1974-1975 period during the start-up of Brunswick Unit Ho. 2. It stated that it could not foresee increased iNRC regulations and requirements (Utley-Banks, pp. 33-53). However, much of the requirements, particularly as to the quality assurance program, had been promulgated or announced years before (Utley, Tr. 3638-3641, 3600, Utley 8 Banks, pp. 42-43).

110. The off-gas generating system problems were cited in the record as indicative of management control at Brunswick. After an explosion of hydrogen in the off-gas system at Brunswick on January 19, 1976, Howard kiilber, the principal inspector for verification of the preoperational tests at Brunswick, investigated the incident and its causes. He found several examples of failure to perform proper design reviews and improper internal CP8L inspections. These were cited in an inspection report sent to CP8L on February 18, 1976. (Staff Exh. 18, Att. 1, p. I-6; Nilber, Tr. 2833).

As a result of these explosions in January and other problems with CP&L's performance, a meeting, previously mentioned, was held in February 1976 with CPSL officials to press them to take corrective action (Cantrell, Tr. 3464-3465; Staff Panel III, Att. B.l, C.l; Bd. Exh. 11, p. 99). CP8L on triarch 17, 1976, replied that although the defects found by the inspector on'nvestigation of the off-gas explosion indeed existed, there was no

failure in CP&L's quality control procedures as those procedures did not call for checking the particular facet of the improper equipment that led to the explosion and because the failure to conform to specifications were caused by its employees'cts after quality contro'l inspections were made (Milber, Tr. 2383, Staff Exh. 18, Att. 2; Utley, Tr. 2655-3663).

Neither of these excuses show that quality control was presert.

111. On June 21, 1976, Floyd Dance, the principal I&E inspector at Brunswick, wrote a memorandum to Frank Long, his supervisor, calling attention to the high turnover in management at Brunswick, the general lack of experience of those people and their lack of BMR experience (Cantrell, Att. 3, see Utley, 3616-7). He recommended that the matter be called to the attention of CP&L and it be determined what plans they had to stabilize their work force (Cantrell, Attachment 3). In September 1976 I&E Principal Inspector, Howard Milber, responsible for verification of the preoperational test program at CP&L, found that CP&L's (}A personnel had only observed 2 or 3 of the numerous preoperational tests. (Milber, Tr. 2839-2838, 2855-56; Bd. Exh. 11, p. 25; Staff Exh. 18, Att. 4, p. I-2), Although such observation was not specifically required, it was good practice. (Milber, Tr. 2859-2869).

Again later in "test condition III" when Brunswick was starting up, Nr. Milber's inspection revealed that the CP&L site gA period had not observed this phase h

of the start-up, although that would be expected. (Bd. Exh. 11, p. 25; Mi lber, Tr. 2838).

112. In January, 1977, I&E Inspectors, Floyd Cantrell and Howard Wilber, met with their supervisor Hugh Dance and expressed concerns about the high I

turnover of personnel at Brunswick and lack of any in-depth BNR experience (Bd. Exh. 11, p. 26; Wi lber, Tr. 2839, 2857). This was also expressed in a memorandum of Cantrell to Dance of January 4, 1977, where he urged these matters be discussed with CP&L (Cantrell, Att. 5, Tr. 3469). The Test and Start-up Superintendent had left CP&L, and the new plant manager did not have experience with boiling water reactors (Bd. Exh. 11, p. 26).

As a result of inspe'ctor's request, I&E Inspector, Richard llessman was assigned to evaluate Brunswick Plant supervisory activities (Bd. Exh. 11, pp. 26, 113). He did this from January 17-21, 1977, and provided in--a memorandum to Hugh Dance an appraisal of the plant's senior staff's quali-fications and involvement in plant activities. He surveyed activities during the beginning two weeks of January. He found that two of the four most senior supervisory personnel had not been in the plant during the period and had not attended plant planning meetings, and that other senior super-visors were in the plant rarely (Bd. Exh. 11, pp. 113-116). He further found that only 2 of the 10 senior supervisors had any training for boiling water reactors other than a shor t 36-hour course, four of those 10 had no training in quality assurance but what given in that course, and 3 of the 4 most senior super-visors had only been on site but seven months and had never participated in emergency plan drills (Bd. Exh. 11, p. 114). He further concluded that the licensee's senior supervisory personnel were not paying sufficient attention

to quality control or plant malfunctions to see that proper corrective measures were taken and procedures modified to avoid repetition of reported incidents. (Bd. Exh. 11, pp. 115-116; Wessman, Tr. 2799-2800). Although these may not have been violations, infractions or deficiencies, they were indicative of problems in CP8L's management of the Brunswick facility (Wessman, Tr. 2814-2825; cf. Utley, Tr. 3530-3531, 3633, 3584-3585, Utley E Banks, pp. 50-55).

113. As a result of these memoranda, another meeting was held- on March 17, 1977, between CPSL officials and Region II of I&E to discuss maintenance controls and the turnover of CPSL supervisory personnel (Cantrell, Attachment 8; Staff Panel III, Appendix B.l, C.l).

114. Licensee Event Reports (LER's) are reports by licensees to the NRC of potential or actual problems in plant safety equipment or procedures (Utley and Banks, p. 57). Mr. Cantrell was concerned with what he.,viewed as an excess number of these reports in his memorandum of September 16, 1977. The LER's reported for the CPSL nuclear facilities were:

Brunswick Brunswick Year Unit 1 Unit 2 Combined Robinson 1975 2 172 174 18 1976 13 166 160 18 1977 117 71 187 30 1978 96 84 185 30 Utley and Banks, pp. 61-62).

At Brunswick an LER is not lightly issued, but must go through as many as seven levels of review (Ibid., p. 58-60, Utley, Tr. 3683-3686).

It is noted Brunswick Unit No. 1, did not become operational until 1977.

Therefore, a decreasing trend in LER's appears at Brunswick, although not at Robinson.

115. In 1975, CPSL became aware that it was submitting a large number of LER's for Brunswick ( Ibid., p. 58). In the 1975-1977 period 120 LER's were caused by instrument problems including over-conservative setpoints. By modification of these setpoints, the number of instrument problems LER's was reduced to 5 in 1978. Similarly, the containment atmosphere control system .caused many LER's until modifications to the system were made in 1978 (Utley and Banks, p. 61). The LER's in other areas have apparently increased in 1978, as there has been no general decrease in their number.

116. The enforcement history for Brunswick is set out in finding 89, above .

Generally, as Burnswick Unit No. l.did not start to operate until 1977, there has been a marked reduction in citations for Brunswick.

117. b1r. Cantrell's concern with the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System (RCIC) involves a system that provides feedwater when the normal feed-water system has been isolated during a shutdown. It is not an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS), but is a partial back up for the High Pressure

p. 15, Utley, Tr. 3703). The RCIC would "trip out" as if running at over-speed if it was started after it sat idle for a few days (Utley and Banks, pp. 64-65; Cantrell, Tr. 15-16; Staff Panel III, p. 59). This problem was first identified in July, 1975, and first considered to be caused by an electronic overspeed trip being set too low. (Cantrell, Att. 1 and 2,

p. 6, Attachment 11; Utley and Banks, p. 65). However, this was not the cause and the system was not corrected until the following year when the hydraulic system on its governor mechanism was modified (Utley and Banks,

p. 65; Cantrell, Tr.'488).

118, Another failure of CP8L maragement control, cited by Mr. Cantrell, involved the addi tion of. waste diesel oil instead of lubricating oil to emergency diesel generators on October 2, 1975. This was caused by CP5L improperly storing the waste diesel oil in drums labelled lubricating oil in the diesel generator building and the failure to check what was in the drums before it was added to the lubricating oil in the generators (Utley 8 Banks, p. 66; Cantrell, Tr. 3486; Utley, Tr. 3680). The licensee realized this error when adding this waste oil instead of lubricating oil to Diesel Generator No. 3 (Cantrell, Tr. 3369-3370). It estimated that 110 gallons of waste diesel oil had been added to the 1000 gallon lubricating oil tank on Diesel Generator No. 2, and 55 gallons to the 1000 gallon tank on Diesel Generator No. l. After speaking wi th representatives of Mobil Oil Co., it replaced the lubricating oil

in Diesel Generator No. 2 with the correct oil from sealed containers (Cantrell, Tr. 3370). From the information given that only 55 gallons of waste oil were added to the lubricating oil tank for Diesel Generator No. 1, tlobil'Oil Co. advised there was no need to immediately replace that oil. (Cantrell, Tr. 3370, 3386-7). However,.CPSL did not immediately sample oil from that Generator or Diesel Generators No. 3 or 4, to see if waste oil had been put in their lubricating systems of this emergency equipment prior to the incident on October 2, 1975, although it should have and could have .done so. (3378, 3387-8, 3558, 3680 (Banks)). No one at CPSL could tell how long the lubricating oil drums with waste diesel oil had been stored in the diesel generator building, or could verify whether waste oil had been added to the diesels on other occasions (Cantrell, Tr. 3378-3383, pp. 16-18; cf. Utley and Banks, pp. 66-67).

119. The High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) problem cited by t1r. Cantrell involved part of the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) used to supply water to the reactor in an emergency when the low pressure cooling system would not work (Cantrell, p. 21-22, Utley and Banks, pp. 67-68). The system penetrates the secondary containment and was designed to be auto-matically isolated in the event of a line break. One of the systems to sense such a break and activate the isolation was the occurrence 50-degree difference between inlet and outlet ventilation air tempera.ures for the HPCI room (Staff Panel III, p, 56). Sudden temperature changes, particularly during th winter, would also cause the isolation to occur, rendering the system inop'able until reset (Canire ii, p. cia.

120. CPGL requested a change to its technical specifications on August 4, 1976, to correct this problem. The change was not granted by the NRC until April 28, 1978 (Utley and Banks, p. 68; Cantrell, Tr. 3412-3420). The change was not made until June, 1977, and CP&L tests to assure the HPCI system would still operate with normal ventilation shutdown were not made until September 3, 1977, as the spurious isolations were only viewed as a cold weather problem (Cantrell, Attachments 1 and 2, p. 8; Utley and Banks, p. 68). CP8L sought to explain its delay conducting the tests until September because it needed hot weather to perform them (Utley and Banks, p, 68). However, these weather conditions existed in July and August (Utley, Tr. 3704).

121. The problems involving the bulkhead doors between the HPCI and the separate rooms housing the dual Residual Heat Removal (RHR) systems was another matter relevant to management control at Brunswick that Mr. Cantrell called attention to in his memorandum to Mr. Dance of September 16, 1977 (Cantrell, Attachments 1 and 2, p. 9). CPSL indicated to the NRC during license review this ECCS equipment was to be located in separate watertight compartments to prevent loss of redundancy in the case of flooding. The dual RHR systems are located in two separate rooms with the HPCI system, also an ECCS system, in a room between them. The safety-related RCIC system is also in one of the RHR rooms. To provide access to

- 71 the )lPCI system there are watertight bulkhead doors. The watertightness of each of the compartments must remain secure, as recognized by CP&L in the license review, so there could be no common failure of equipment from a single cause. CP&L did not understand that leaving the doors open so that flooding could occur in all compartments in an emergency would make the equipment of little use in such a situation (Utley, Tr. 3546, 3673). Common flooding of compartments would lead to loss of redundancy necessary in emergency situations. (Banks, Tr. 3675-3676). Further, the bulkhead doors must be kept closed .in order to maximize the effectiveness of the fire suppression system for HPCI turbine fires (Cantrell, p. 9).

122. On December 1, 1976, both bulkhead doors were found open and unattended.

(Banks, Tr. 3669). The latching mechanism on one was jammed so it could not be closed. CP&L repaired the door, posted a sign to keep the doors closed, and instituted a system to check that they were kept closed on each shift. Again on February 1, 1977, the doors were found open. CP&L reviewed with all its employees the need to keep the doors closed. On July 21, 1977, one of the doors was again found open. There was no alarm to tell if the doors were open (Banks, Tr. 3673). A few days later, CP&L agreed to install annunciator alarms on the doors that would signal in the control room when the doors were open. This was confirmed by a CP&L letter of October 5, 1977. (Cantrell, pp. 18-19, Att. 12, 13, 14, 15; Cantrell, Tr. 3407-11, 3446-9, 3474; Staff Panel III, p. 62). This change ~ias not completed until 15 months later in February 1979 (Otley and Banks, p. 67).

123. Another problem cited at the hearing involved the augmented off-gas system (Cantrell, p. 23-24 following Tr. 3347; Cantrell, Att. 1 E 2, p, 10; Cantrell, Tr. 3429-3430). The inoperability of this system could have an adverse effect on radioactive gas releases in the case of loss of fuel integrity (Staff Panel III, p. 20; Dance, Tr. 3184-3186), However, this augm nted system was designed to bring releases below the design limits of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and CPEL's technical specifications, which the Brunsviick system novi meet (Schwencer, Tr. 3258-3259, Dance, Tr, 3185). It is not the off-gas system Mr. Hilber's testimony referred to (Dance, Tr. 3184), The problem did not arise until April 1977 vihen the licensee attempted to put this system into operation (Cantrell, pp. 23-24) ~

When the licensee attempted to put the presently designed augmented off-gas system there viere hydrogen explosions in the system and it will not work (Banks, Tr. 3550). .The licensee is investigating a recombiner to re-place the augmented system vihich will recombine oxygen and hydrogen to form viater, and proposes to do this viork in 1981 (Banks, Tr. 3552). As any increased radioactive releases caused by fuel failure could be con-trolled by either reducing power or shutting the plant down and since the licensee is presently meeting requirements, the Staff has not objected to the licensee's proposed schedule (Schwencer, Tr. 3280-3286).

124. Neither NRP, nor Region II of ISE nor Floyd S. Cantrell,viho originally thought so, be'lieves the CP8L license to construct Harris should be

conditioned upon improving its staffing, manpower practices or training (Staff Panel IV, pp. 4, 6-8, 19-20; Staff Panel III, pp. 2-4, 41-42, 68-72; Miner, Tr. 3271-3272, Haass, Tr. 3331-3334; Cantrell, p. 35, following Tr. 3347; Cantrell, Tr. 3428,3455-3456; see also Hilber, Tr. 2879; Bd.

Exh. 11, p. 27 (Milber); 'ltessman, Tr. 2802-2803, 2806; Bd. Exh. 11, p. 112 (Hessman); Kellogg & Ruhlman, Tr. 2709-2712; Cantrell, p. 30-31). CP&L's operations have considerably improved since Mr. Cantrell recommended that the license be conditioned (Cantrell, pp. 30, 35; Cantrell, Tr. 3455-3459; Staff Panel III, pp. 69-72).

125. NRR will require CP&L to develop a plant staff capable and trained to accomplish all preoperational testing and start-up of each unit of Harris, and to operate that unit before recommending operating license for that unit (Haass, Tr. 3331-334). Plant staffing and training will be looked at closely by NRR and I&E prior to recommendations to issue operating licenses for the Harris units, and the Staff presently has no reservations that CP&L will provide staff and training necessary to operate those units (Haass, Tr. 3271-3272). CP&L offered extensive testimony on its present training, its training plans, and its projected staffing .of the Harris units (Utley

& Banks, pp. 73-76, 91). At present the NRC Staff has reviewed these plans for proposed training, and found them adequate to provide a basis to develop a qualified and capable operating staff for the Harris units (Staff Panel IV,

p. 19).

126. On the basis of the evidence recounted in the preceding findings, the Board concluded that CPKL has adequate plans which should result in the proper staffing and start-up of the Harris units. On the same basis no additional condition, relevant to the issues litigated in this supplemental proceeding, should be attached to CPSL's construction permit for the Harris units. The Board further finds on the basis of preceding findings that CP&L is equipped to observe and agrees to observe the safety standards to protect health and to minimize danger to life and property as the Commission may establish (See Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 5103(b)(2); 42 U.S.C. 2133(b)(2).

V I I I. RANKING UTILITIES HAVING NUCLEAR POMER FACILITIES 127. At the opening of the remanded hearing (Tr. 2172), Staff counsel provided copies of a Draft Report An Evaluation of the Nuclear Safety-Related Management Performance on NRL Operating Reactor Licensees During 1976, February 1977 (Draft Report) (Board Exhibit 8). There is great interest, by the government, industry and the general public in rating or ranking the performance of utility companies having nuclear units up to their performance. The Draft Report is an effort in that direction. It was extensively discussed among Board members and the Staff's ISE witnesses, Tr; 2280-2301, 2320-2328, 2330-2332, 2353, 2419-2421. The Board concludes,

based on its discussion with the witnesses and based upon its own expertise after examining the methodology of the Draft Report; that methods of evaluating licensees set out in the Draft Report were not shown to be reliable in this hearing, and that the Draft Report is not competent evidence of the quality of performance of licensees, but only a first step in such a process as the 'report itself recognizes (see Bd. Exh.

8, Tab. 2).

IX. CONCLUSIOi'(S OF LAW 128. The Board finds the evidence presented by the Staff and CPSL to be sub-stantial, probative and unimpeached by other evidence or by cross-examination.

On the basi's of that evidence, the Board finds that Carolina Power and Light Company, together with its contractors and consultants to be technically qualified to design and construct the Shearon Harris facility, and further meets the standards of Section 103(b)(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2133(b)(2), as CP&L is equipped to observe and agrees to observe such safety standards to protect health and to minimize danger to life or property as the Commission may establish. The Board further finds no further conditions, ai this time, need be attached to the construction permits for the Harris facility dealing with issues litigated in this proceeding.

X. ORDER 129. Based upon the Board's findings and conclusions, and pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations, IT IS ORDERED, in accordance with 10 CFR 552.760, 2.762, 2.785 and 2.786, that this supplement to the Initial Decision shall be effective immediately and shall constitute the final action of the Commission thirty (30) days after the date of issuance hereof, subject to any review pursuant to the above cited rules. Exceptions to this Supplemental Initial Decision may be filed by any party within ten (10) days after service of this Supplemental Initial Decision. Within thirty (30) days thereafter (forty (40) days in the case of the Staff) any party filing such exceptions shall file a brief in support thereof. Within thirty (30) days of the filing and service of the brief of the appellant (forty (40) days in the case of the Staff), any other party may file a brief in support of, or in opposition to, the exceptions.

130. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Respectfully submitted,

~ /7 Edwin J. Reis Counsel for HRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, t1aryland, h'>4 J~qg o f,'.1iix '1 07Q 4

h .~ 1

UNITED STATE5 QF AHEP,I CA NUCLEAR REGULATOR'( COi'ilISS IOH

'BEFORE THE ATOf1IC SAFETY'AHD LICEHSIHG BOARD In the tlatter of CAROLINA POWER AHD LI'GHT COMPANY' Docket Hos. 50-400 50-401 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, ) 50-402 Units 1, 2, 3 and 4) ) 50-403

'CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CON-CLUSIONS OF LAW IH THE FORi~i OF A SUPPLEMENTAL INITIAL DECISION (CONSTRUCTION PERtlITS)" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an t

asterisk by deposi in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission internal mail system this 10th day of May, 1979:

Ivan W. Smi th, Esq., Chairman* Thomas Erwin, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing 115 West Morgan Street Board Panel Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board*

Hr; Glenn 0. Bright* U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Board Panel U.S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Board Panel*

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. J. V. Leeds, Jr. Washington, D.C. 20555 10807 Atwell Drive Houston, Texas 77096 Docketing and Service Section*

Office of the Secretary Richard E. Jones, Esq. U.S. Huc ear Regul a tory Cor si s s i on 1

Associate General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 Carolina Power 8 Light Company 336 Fayetteville Street Wake County Public Library Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 104 Fayettevi lie Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27601

George F. Trowbridge, Esq.

t t ShavI, P i tman, Po ts 5 Trowbri dge 1800 f1 Street, H.M, 4'ashington, D.C. 20036 Dennis P. Myers Attorney General's Office State of Horth Carolina P. 0. Box 629 Raleigh, Horth Carolina 27602 Ed~jin J. leis Counsel +or HRC Staff

P F

(

1 l