ML18017B931

Forwards Response to Final Environ Rept Review Questions. Hydrologic Engineering Branch Questions 240.1 Through 240.10 Will Be Addressed in Conjunction W/Questions Resulting from 820406-07 Hydrologic Site Visit

ML18017B931
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	06/03/1982
From:	Mcduffie M CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML18017B932	List: ML18017B931 ML18017B933
References
NUDOCS 8206070574
Download: ML18017B931 (93)

Text

--REGULA'~ Y INFORMATION DISTR IBUTIO~SYSTEM (R IDS)

AOCESSION-NBR:820607057u DOC.DATE: 82/06/03 NOTARIZED: No DOCKET FACIL:50 000 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power PlantP Uni,t is Carolina 05000400 50"001 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Planti Unit 2i Carolina 05000001

'AUTH INANE AUTHOR AFFILIATION MCDUFFIEEMBAs Carolina .Power 8 Light Co ~

lR BC IP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION DENTONEH ~ Rs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulationi Director V

final environ rept review, questions.

~

SUBJECT:

Forwards response,to Hydrologic Engineering Branch Questions 240 F 1 "through 240. 10 will be addressed in conjunction w/questions resulting from 820406-07 hydrologic site visit ~

DISTRIBUTION CODE: COOIS COPIES RECEIVED:LTR,.l ENCL, SIZE:.. $ XX)

TITLE: Environ. Report Amendments 8 Related ICorrespondence NOTES: ~e< "8'2 &<VI ~o ~ttevltle Street o P. O. Box 1551 o Raleigh, N. O. 275M

- la v g$

Q

~J' P

C~

8gj06070S7 '

ER QUESTION 100. 1 (Section 3. 9)

In addition to other requested information, provide a summary and brief discussion, in table form, by section, of differences between currently projected environmental effects (including those that would degrade and those that would enhance environmental conditions) and the effects discussed in the environmental report and environmental hearings associated with the construction permit review. On a similar basis, indicate changes in plant or plant component design, location, or operation that have been made or planned since the construction permit review.

Response: Three major changes in the design of the SHNPP have been made since the construction permit review that will alter the projected environmental effects. These changes are:

1. The cancellation of Units 3 and 4

2. The cancellation of the Harris-Harnett 500 kV transmission line ti

3. The cancellation of the Cape Pear River makeup water pump station and pipeline.

l 0

The Environmental Report has undergone an amendment as a result of the cancellation of Units 3 and 4. This updating will be substantially completed by June, 1982 and will be reflected in the June amendment.

Additionally, reference to the 500 kv Harris-Harnett line will be deleted from the ER in the June amendment. Further details on the Cape Fear River Makeup System will be provided along with our response to the NRC Hydrology Site Visit Questions.

The environmental effects of SHNPP operation discussed in OL-ER Section 5.0 generally will be reduced by these three major changes (see attached table). No changes have been made that will increase anticipated environmental effects.

4 jl

) '

f f ~ 4 g P I II

CHANGES IN ENVIRONMENTALEFFECTS OF SHNPP DUE TO. MA3OR CHANGES IN STATION DESIGN OL-ER Section h Environmental Effect 5.1 Units 3 R 0 Cancellation The environmental effects of the heat dissipation system will be reduced. The amount of heat to be dissipated will be reduced, thus reducing the volume of makeup water and the resulting cooling tower blowdown. Without Units 3 R 0 the Cape Fear River makeup water pump station will not be needed.

5.1 Cape Fear River Makeup The effects of introducing nutrient-rich Cape Fear River water into Harris Reservoir will Water Pump Station be eliminated, thereby reducing the probability of eutrophication. Potential algae blooms Cancellation and infestations of aquatic vegetation (e.g., ~Hdrilla) and Asiatic clams will be minimized.

5.2 Units 3 R 0 Cancellation Radiological impacts associated with Units 3 R 0 will be eliminated.

5.2 Units 3 i'. 0 Cancellation The chemical and biocide discharges associated with Units 3 k 0 will be eliminated.

Therefore, any environmental effects of the chemical and biocide discharges will be further minimized.

5.3 Cape Fear River Makeup By eliminating the introduction of nutrient-rich Cape Fear River water into Harris Water Pump Station Reservoir, the potential for biofouling of the circulating and service water systems will be Cancellation reduced. Therefore, the frequency and duration of chlorination of these systems will be reduced.

5.5 Harris-Harnett 500 kV All environmental effects that would have resulted from constructing and operating this Line Cancellation line will be eliminated.

5.7 Units 3 R 0 Cancellation The. amount of U 35 fuel needed for the 00-year life of the plant will be reduced by approximately one-half.

290 .0 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES Provide any additional information not reported in the OL-ER on sightings of the bald eagle and red-cockaded woodpecker at the site or in the immediate vicinity of the site (i.e., within five miles) .

~Res esse: The OL-ER reported three separate sightings of individual bald eagles near the SHNPP . Since that time two additional sightings have been made. Both were observed in 1981, one in April and the other in August. Of the five eagles sighted since 1972, four were observed near the Cape Fear River and one was observed at the newly created SHNPP reservoir.

Spring and summer observations of bald eagles in the Raleigh-Durham area are not rare occurrences, particularly with the development of sevaral large impoundments such as the Harris Reservoir, the B. Everett Jordan Reservoir, and the Falls of the Neuse Reservoir. Me expect that, with the filling of the Harris Reservoir, more eagle sightings will be made as the reservoir will provide an attractive feeding and resting area for migrant or wandering bald eagles .

The status of the red-cockaded woodpecker on the SHNPP site remains essentially the same as reported in the OL-ER. However,

iit ir' It l

II t t

two additional observations of red-cockaded woodpecker activity near the SHNPP have been recorded. An inactive red-cockaded woodpecker cavity tree was located in New Hill, North Carolina, along SR 1411 (within five miles of the plant). The location of this tree was reported to biologists at North Carolina State University who are undertaking a statewide survey of red-cockaded woodpecker occurrence. The NCSU biologists reported that an individual woodpecker had been sighted during the winter of 1979 near the Chatham-Harnett county line (approximately five miles from the SHNPP) .

This additional information indicates that red-cockaded woodpeckers occur, or did occur, in areas surrounding the SHNPP . However, no evidence of this species has been found on the SHNPP site and only marginally suitable habitat for this woodpecker species existed before project construction.

t1, ~

C t

N i

I ~'s C

h

ER QUESTION 290.2 (Section 3.4.2.5)

Provide concentration isopleths for solids deposition from cooling tower drift. Show amounts deposited in kg/ha/yr and during the summer months (April-September).

Response: A concentration isopleth based on four (4) 950 MW Units was prepared by our A. E. in converting from a once-through cooling scheme to cooling towers. This isopleth shows that salt deposition is not expected to be a problem. The maximum deposition calculated for 4 units would be about 0.8 lb per acre per year.

With the cancellation of Units 3 and 4, salt deposition is expected to be reduced further. A copy of the isopleth based on 4 units is attached.

n y '

1'

Prom: EBASCO Inc. Environmental Impact of Natural Draft Cooling Tower Operation for Carolina Power & Light Company.

New York, New York. September 1973. EXHieiT 6 Sq

'e 454 BOWSAL Sco 0.4 0.2 0.

"0.8 0.4 KG 0.8 0

/

/

0.

0.2 HOLL. IAAHS GROS R OADS 0.8 0.6 0.4 r

0.2 ANNUAI qA E pF SALT DEPpSITIQN (Ib PER ACRE PER YEAR)

SHEARQN HARRIS--4 95Q MV5t UNITS

Provide an updated map(s) showing the transmission line system. Also provide information on the construction status of each line.

~Res ense: Attached are updated Figures 3 .9 .0-1 through 3.9.0-4 showing those transmission lines associated with the SHNPP. Also attached is new Table 3.9 .0-1 giving the current status (May 1982) of all SHNPP transmission lines. Table 3 .9 .0-1 will be included in the June amendment to the ER.

II, I

If e

/ '///zr

( ~

)I Z h4

/

'b (

z

(.i r>

~4zg Qn

~ih r $ o c~/'

,:p,W*'/<

<~c~

0r z,i sz

/i

!Jh -

@'/'c t ton E

~,-'- C z z z(

/r c

C

~

/

y>

Jz C

e <</ / ~ //

c

-'Ra \ Ciy C"

O o r

• 0 o> z 0

4 l

J Cap .ear I

/ /

~ 4 6

~O 1

I i C r 'r o

5 5 SHEARON HARRIS FIGURE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT HARRIS- CARY SWITCHING 230 kv LINE Carolina and Power 5 Light Company HARRIS - CAPE FEAR 230 kv LINE 3.9.0 - 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

~I

~

$ r +QP, ~

<<N 0/y I .,: . 44'rr yI NARROW CORRIDORS INDICATE PROPOSED LINE ROUTE

~ I 'J' "25Jrr/

sssO I

C- ~

<</ rr<<, SCALE: /r'NCH ~ 1 1/IILE r/>>

/ ~

S rrs.fI 0 1 2 3 4 MILES II 8 'ANTrr J- \ r ~

s I /,sa~ > /r//

<<s

// ~a i

<<r VSr r V'xw fr, L r s Cj

~ )

I<<r, 5 g r~

n \

/

~ /.~//~ . st)

J

)> 'n/ 'J./ l l<r c4) ~

III/

i

':/l

>rp ISO n/

/r V 4'

<<IC'"'" ~g.

SHEARON HARRIS FIGURE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT HARRIS-LILLINGTON-ERWINSOUTH 5 Carolina HARRIS-FUQUAY-ERWIN NORTH 230KV: 3.9.0 - 2 Power 8c Light Company PROPOSED'LINE LOCATIONS ENVIRONMENTALREPORT

r ~~ I r) YL

'I ~ JI

~ %(hccar550 iK ? ~ h .Ql hI'ARROW

'S'~ '

CORRIDORS INDICATE PROPOSED LINE ROUTE Ila W <)d ). I

~ ~ I lg, I -' r ,,rr

'Irg 0 I ) I lr'

( ~ air I, SCACEI ElffCII-farltE wo

( 4 0 f 2 a C(J' JL hr

// rh E lrrrr J)

,(c 0

~ r 1 I crc AIC d'

fa. g+ ~r

't) rl J

((

.3~/ (

a(A KT(LSI( I P)iAT(La w. I I'u III

( r E

'g+1 r+ goal'I I rfo gr(to( J~

Pr cc I ~ I ~

I\

~, 2 EJ c.

0 l ) ~

~ Jr r )ofay

(ro(fall

" ~ I . ~ ', I l '

yJ I, ~

( (

4 rf J+// rJ

'rr~, gj. ,)I I/0

~

Jla' l r' ((r()00 r ~

~

p. I h f rr &(roro ~~ ) < a(ra a

/ .~ f l l

ra) v I ~ jq 0 5 0 . 0I

~

Sc 0'- oooo' I ( 44 I

/

~ JI j, c)

I r r I I I( 000 ~

~,

'i u<gtarC, I 0 C., c hor Iaa

'P'= ~ Ar

' ~ ~ I

'l P)q-Harhor)C)h

'ioo r'

~ I( I ,1 ~ ra I

~ IJ

r. l. 0 l

I IJJ , ) 1 I v (ai SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT I Carolina Power 8( Light Company U(c TY al o).IC( . l ENVIRONMENTALREPORT It) ,c

?

1 ro ~I ~

t ~

'ar h(rr))no f HARRIS ASHEBORO 230KVI

'f5(aoh) ~Ill f PROPOSEO LINE LOCATION

c. S; ~ . ~

FIGURE "3(h.rl 3

.X/ ~ '4. g ~ I 1

NARROW CORRIDORS INDICATE PROPOSED LINE ROUTE SCALE:

1 XINCI/

2 J I NILE 4

IIEE.

1 $ '5 ) gv 1 o

1 Ii, E<j/rv I 0

)~~,

/4

~" w Vrq ~q)

E i/

\ ~

~ - t

,t ~, ~ S

'I

,I 1 r o 4 I 4,1 4/'EP4) r, 4 I'"

~

/Irt', '.-" ..

'p

~

/

(a

'g C

SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POVVER PLANT Carolina Power 5 Light Company ENVIRONMENTALREPORT HARRIS FAYETTEVILLE230KV I PROPOSED LINE LOCATION FIGURE 3.9.0-4

TABLE 3.9.0-1 STATUS" (MAY 1982) OP ALL SHNPP TRANSMISSION LINES Line Name Current Status Construction Date Harris-Cary Switching Constructed (Pormerly Method)

Harris Cape Pear Constructed Harris Asheboro Partially Constructed September 1982 (5.4 miles) (remainder)

Harris - Fayetteville Partially Constructed January 1983 (7 miles) (remainder)

Harris - Lillington- 1987 (Subject Erwin South to change)

Harris - Fuquay- Constructed Erwin North

d I 5 ffl L

J >kt)ri "Bt '

The ten-year frequency drought drawdown is expected to lower the Main Reservoir level approximately 4-5 ft. The drawdown would likely occur during the period October-December and would expose some 750-800 acres of likely the'eservoir bottom. Where are the exposed areas to occur'? Provide a description of any existing or anticipated wetland vegetation occurring in the drawdown areas. Provide a bathymetric map of the Main Reservoir to sufficiently depict contour intervals in the areas to be impacted by drawdown.

~Res onse: During the predicted ten-year frequency drought drawdown, the exposed areas generally will be restricted to the shallow headwater regions of the White Oak and Buckhorn Creek arms of the Harris Reservoir and to a narrow strip around the entire reservoir. Figure 2 .1 .3-2 of the OL-ER depicts the Harris Reservoir at the normal pool elevation of 220" above msl and also shows the 10-ft contour intervals within the reservoir.

The areas to be exposed during a 4-5 ft drawdown can be approximated from this figure.

Existing wetland vegetation in the predicted drawdown areas occurs along the streams that flow through it and in or adjacent to the small pools and depressions that were created by heavy equipment used to clear the reservoir. Most of this vegetation, which is composed of rushes (Juncus effusus), black willow (Salix ~ni ra), bulrush (Scirpus arrovirens), and various species

of sedge (Carex spp.), will be submersed and eliminated as the reservoir fills to normal pool elevation. After the reservoir fills, various species of submergent and emergent aquatic vegetation probably will colonize the shallow areas of the reservoir near the shoreline, especially in protected coves and .

in the headwater regions.

P' ( I', glpf

)Xu~

ER QUESTION 290.6 (Section 5.5.3)

Provide a copy of the Erosion Control Plan to be f

filed with the State of North Carolina prior to initial transmission line maintenance.

Response: The 500 kv Harris Harnett Transmission Line will not be constructed. Therefore, erosion controls associated with this line will not be required and an Erosion Control Plan will not be filed with the State of North Carolina.

(" f% ~ 'it% I qVM II t 8 t

~

~

<<4 ~ ~ ~~ i~a+

~, ~ ~ ~ Ah ~p 4 ,4 II t P tI t

~ ~ ~

,I

~ 5 4

291.0 AQUATIC RESOURCES ER QUESTION 291.10 (Section 3.4.2)

Indicate whether chlorine biocide application in the circulating and service water systems is expected to be necess'ary all year round and whether any of these additions is expected to be needed continously. If biocide application is expected to be required for only part of the year, indicate the approximate times when this application will be needed.

Response: Chlorination of the circulating water system will be determined by plant operating experience; however, we will be in compliance with the NPDES permit which is a maximum of two hours/day/unit. We anticipate chlorinating only one cooling tower at a time for no more than one hour per day. The frequency of application may be somewhat less than this during winter.

Chlorination of the service water system will be at least two hours/day/unit. However, depending upon such factors as the presence of Asiatic clams, it may be necessary to use low-level continuous chlorination. Due to the small amounts of water involved in the service water system compared to the circulating water system, we do not expect to measure a residual from the service water system even if it is chlorinated continuously.

ttR ft

~'

ER QUESTION 291.11 (Section 3.4.2)

Provide an estimate, with bases, of the maximum expected total residual chlorine concentration in the station blowdown (i.e., in the discharge line itself) during chlorination and between chlorination periods for the circulating water system for summer and winter (i.e., maximum and minimum seasonal) conditions.

~Res oese: As stated in the RFES, "The applicant (CPSL) will, as a design objective, provide for the control of the use of chlorine such that total residual chlorine concentrations in water discharged to the makeup reservoir do not exceed 0.2 ppm for intermittent discharge periods not to exceed a total of two hrs/day" until 1987. After this period, the proposed NPDES limit is 0.14 ppm.

Testimony prepared by Mr. James M. Sell (CPSL) for hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in 1977 stated that "Although precise limits will be set in the NPDES permit to be issued by the state, we do not expect to exceed 0.2 mg/R total residual chlorine at the point of discharge to the lake itself, the concentration previously recommended by the NRC in the revised FES. Without even taking into account the chlorine demand in the receiving waters, we estimate that the 0.2 mg/R will be diluted to .Ol mg/ R within the water column lying below five surface acres in the area of discharge. As previously pointed out in the Harris ER, we anticipate chlorinating only

4 4

4 ll A

one tower at a time for no more than one hour per day. During periods of chlorination, blowdown from the tower being chlorinated will be suspended or chlorination will be regulated so that total residual chlorine in the blowdown does not exceed an average of 0.2 ppm at the point of discharge to the lake."

Although Mr. Sell's testimony applies to chlorine residuals during chlorination of the circulating water system in both summer and winter, the frequency of chlorination during winter will likely be less than during summer. Between chlorination periods, the total residual chlorine in the blowdown will always be less than 0.2 ppm.

0

'I

>>f

~ It l l 1

ER Question 291.12 (Section 3.4)

Indicate the expected control scheme to be employed at the Harris site should the Asiatic clam become established in the Harris Reservoir.

Response: In response to NRC IE Bulletin 81-03, "Flow Blockage of Cooling Mater to Safety System Components by Asiatic Clams and Mussels,"

CP&L thoroughly examined the potential for the occurrence of Asiatic clams in the Harris Reservoir. Although the Asiatic clam is not presently known to inhabit the Harris Reservoir, its introduction from the nearby Cape Fear River or another source is inevitable.

The chlorination systems presently designed for the circulating and service water system are believed adequate to control potential biofouling by Asiatic clams. In addition, CP&L will proceed with the development of the concept of chlorinating the emergency service water, fire protection, and cooling tower makeup systems by utilizing chlorination equipment that was intended for Units 3 & 4 service.

4 k

lt, j t

II I

k

ER Question 291.14 (Section 3.3)

Provide a copy of the FMPCA Section 401 Mater Quality Certification for the station.

Response: Attached is a copy of the $ 6'CA Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the SHNPP.

A North Carolina Department of Natural

~

I P", gV Resources 8 Community Development James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Howard N. Lee, Secretary September 14, 1977 Mr. M. A. McDuffie Senior Vice President Engineering and Construction Carolina Power 8t Light Company P. 0. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina

Subject:

Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Hater Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Hake County

Dear Mr. McDuffie:

Attached hereto are two (2) copies of Certification No. 1198 issued to Carolina Power and Light Company dated September 14, 1977.

If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, H. E. Knight Director Attachment cc: Mr. Stan Taylor, NCFO Hilmington Dist. Corps of Engineers Mr. J. H. Reid P. O. Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 An Equcrl Opportunity Arfirmotivc Action Employer

NORTH CAROLINA WAKE COUNTY CERTI FI CATION THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Public Law 92-500 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Environmental'anagement Regulations in 15NCAC2H, Section .0500 to Carolina Power and Light Company pursuant to the application filed on the 22nd day of July, 1977 for the discharge of fill material into Buckhorn Creek and tributaries; construction of the make-up water intake structure on the Cape Fear River and other miscellaneous construction activities requiring placement of culverts and fill; and the discharges of wastewaters resulting from the operation of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.

The Carolina Power 8 Light Company application and the Environmental Report Amendment No. 69 provide adequate assurance that the increase of the cold side cooling tower blowdown rate from 10.1 MGD to 60 MGD will not violate applicable water quality standards outside of the 200-acre mixing zone determined applicable by Carolina Power 8 Light Company or as may be

~

delineated in the State-NPDES Discharge Permit upon issuance. Further, this Certification recognizes the necessity of maintaining the avai lability

~ ~ ~ ~

of the auxiliary reservoi r free from ice formation as expressly stated in

~ ~

the May 2, 1974 letter from the Director of the Division of Environmental Management to Carolina Power & Light Company. Thus, the State of North Carolina certifies that the discharge; resulting from the construction and operation of the Harris Nuclear Power Plant will not violate Sections 301, 302, 306 and 307 of the 1972 Amendments, PL 92-500 if conducted in accordance with the application, supporting documentation, and any conditions herein set forth.

Condition of Certification:

1. That the discharges of wastewater from the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant be conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions to be imposed in the State-NPDES Permit.

Violation of any -of the conditions herein set forth shall result in

~

revocation of this Certification.

~ ~ ~ ~

~

This the 14th day of September, 1977.~

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT W. E. Knight, Director WgC 81198

ER Question 291.16 Provide estimates of the potential harvests (in kilograms per year) via recreational and commercial fisheries in Harris Reservoir and in receiving waterbodies to a downstream distance of 80 kilometers from the Harris Plant site.

Response: Virtually no commercial fishery exists in the vicinity of the SHNPP, and none is expected to develop atHarris Reservoir. A small number of anadromous species is harvested from the Cape Fear River below Lillington, North Carolina, but this catch is insignificant when compared to the overall North Carolina commercial harvest (SHNPP OL-ER Amendment No. 1, p.2 '.3-2).

Access to the Cape Fear River is limited within the 80 km distance downstream of SHNPP and fishing pressure is limited to accessible reaches.

The sport fishing in the Harris Reservoir should be similar to other piedmont North Carolina'nd southeastern United States reservoirs. Creel data for sport fishing are available from a variety of sources, including Jenkins and Morais (1971) and others summarized in the attached table. Based on these data, the Harris Reservoir should yield about 13.7 kg/ha/yr or a total of 22,200 kg/yr for the entire 1620 ha (4000 ac) reservoir.

Also from the attached table, the sport fish harvest from the Cape Fear River to a distance of 80 kilometers downstream of SHNPP is estimated to be 500 kg/year.

's.l ~ ~ \ > 1;>fll C':2!i 34l '-

.if)

P'ls "

~

-" s c('L~~

if( '<<" c"= <<3

'j C)l,,[ f, 4 p C~ f 4 "s J N~

g r, J ()

"<<'1< J< ('] sy

~ '1

(

!'.)P

<g ( ~ ' gt) g"g rp A. 0

Estimated Potential Fish Harvests from the Harris Reservoir and for the Cape Fear River to a Distance of 80 Kilometers Downstream of SHNPP.

Source Harvest (K /ha/ r) Comments Jenkins and Morais 1971 16.0 Mean of 103 U.S. reservoirs Degan, Harrell, and Johnson (in prep.) 35.0 L. Wylie, NC/SC 5.3 L. Norman, NC L. Badin, NC 8.2 L. Hartwell, SC 1.5 L. Keowee, SC

'8.7 L. Murray, SC Mean of above 13.7 Harris Reservoir: Based on mean harvest at 13.7 kg/ha/yr and a reservoir area of 1620 ha (0000 ac), the estimated total harvest will be about 22,200 kg/yr.

Fish 1968; Jenkins R Morais 1971 -92.5 Ca e Fear River: Based on 225 g/fish average weight for sunfish and crappie, 5.0 fish hour (from Fish 1968), 76.1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />s/ha (from Jenkins and Morais 1971 for reservoirs), 501 ha area of Cape Fear River (from Fish 1968), and 1% of this stretch of river being accessible to anglers, the estimated total harvest will be 500 kg/year.

ER Question 310.8 0 Are there any substantial changes in the station external appearnace or layout which have been made subsequent to the description in the OL-ER't If so, please describe.

Response: During December 1981, CP&L cancelled construction of Units 3 and

4. Therefore, all structures associated with those units, including two natural draft cooling towers, will not be built.

The construction of the Cape Pear River makeup water pump s tation and pipeline and the Harris-Har net t 500 kV transmission line also have been cancelled. Subsequent amendments to the OL-ER Section 3.1 will provide details of the changes.

ER Question 310.9 Are there any new roads, transmission corridors, or rail lines or relocations of roads, transmission corridors, or rail lines near the plant which have been proposed subsequent to the description in the OL-ER? If so, please describe.

Response: There are no new off-site roads, railroads, or transmission corridors nor are any proposed near the plant. However, there will be some minor changes in the locations of the on-site roads and rail lines due to the cancellation of Units 3 and 4. Also, one transmission line, the Harris-Harnett 500 kV line, has been cancelled.

e t

h 4

ER Question 310.10 On page 12-9 of the FES-CP a copy of a memorandum from the State Historian to R. Hendricks of the Clearinghouse and Information Center is reproduced. The document refers to "the old Dupree house," the Burke house, and the Ragan house. The first was to be moved and preserved while the latter two were said to be of "some local historical value and their preservation should be considered." What is their present status2

~Res sess: The Burke house was sold to Dr. Warren Utley and moved to Fuquay-Varina, N.C. The old Dupree house was dismantled and mov'ed; part of it has been incorporated into Edwards Mill in Durham County. The Ragan house remains intact, is inhabitated, and is not on CP&L property.

I" 4

A

ER Question 310.11 Please expand on the statement in Section 2.1.3 (ER-OL) that "...there will be some recreational usage of CPEL's property." Please provide more specific information as to the type of recreation and the number of recreation visitors expected on the property. The latter information may be added to Section 2.1.2.3, Transient Population.

Response: Recreational usage of the SHNPP site and reservoir at the present time includes some hunting in the fall and winter months. When the reservoir is full, the major recreational usage will be boating and fishing and this usage will be greatest in the spring and summer months. At this time there is no basis for predicting actual number of users. Because the Harris Reservoir is smaller and will have fewer facilities than the nearby B. Everett Jordan Reservoir, its recreational usage is not expected to approach that of the Corps'eservoir. In fact, the B. Everett Jordan Reservoir will likely attract potential recreational users away from the Harris Reservoir.

(f ih k

ER Question 310.12 Section 2.1.2.3, Transient Population, describes the "high concentrations of people at sporting events and at functions at the various universities in the area." Please identify the various universities, their location with respect to the plant, their enrollment, and the maximum attendance at the major sporting and other events held on their campuses. Also identify how many times these events occur during the year.

Response: The major universities in the area are North Carolina State University (NCSU) located in Raleigh, Duke University located in Durham, and the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill. NCSU is located approximately 19 miles ENE of the SHNPP. UNC is located approximately 18 miles NRC of the SHNPP, and Duke is located approximately 24 miles north of the SHNPP. Their enrollments for 1981 (fall semester) and maximum attendance at ma)or sporting .events are listed below.

Maximum Attendance at Enrollment Ma or S orting Events*

Duke 9,059 38,525 NCSU 21,554 56,200 21,575 53,611

• These events occur about 5 or 6 times a year, usually in the fall, as these maximum crowds are associated with the football season.

~ t t t II tt

~ ~

tIt I t I' t IP'l S

">f t' ill o' I t I' t i f I f "r l r "I t

,t t

1 f

rl t ~

t t t I

II C

t t I I'

t

ER Question 310.13 Please provide copies of the references cited in Section 2.6 of the OL-ER. In those cases where the complete reference does not deal exclusively with either the historic, archeological, architectural, scenic, cultural, or natural features, copies of the relevant sections will suffice.

Response: Copies of References 2.6-1, 2.6-2, and 2.6-3 are attached.

References 2.6-4, 2.6-5, 2.6-6, and 2.6-7 pertain to the cancelled Harris-Harnett 500 kV transmission line and are no longer relevant to the OL-ER. Section 2.6 will be amended to reflect these changes.

O 1'.

T

'v; l,' ( H I

r, e I'* l

~ E t W

>>h 4

IIl

~

II 0 C " I)

SHNPP OL-ER Reference 2.6-2 (Part 1)

MQR TO: Dr. Joffre X. Coe FROM: Trawick Ward

SUBJECT:

Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of the Carolina Power and I i.ght Shearon Harri.s Nuclear Power Plant Main Dam Site, Intake Pump Station and Makeup Watex System.

DATE: June 18, 1977 Chatham County south of the SR 1915 bridge and immedi.ately north of the Norfolk Southern Rai.lroad cxossing. It will be approximately 1500> long, stretching between two steep bluffs on either side of the creek, and average roughly 350'ide. The intake pump station will be located on the north bank of the Cape Feax River, immediately northwest of the exi.sting Buckhorn Dam. It will measure approximately 137> long and 35'ide. The makeup water system will consist of approximately 4.6 miles of buri.ed pipe and open channel. There will be some two miles of pipe, eight feet in diameter, running from the intake structure to the site of the Norfolk Southern Rai.lroad relocation. Prom this point, an open channel, a li.ttle i

less than three miles in length, will be cut to the Tom Jack Creek area where the system will terminate by emptying into the proposed Shearon Harris Reservoir. The impact cone of the makeup watex'ystem varies in width depending upon whethex the pi.pe is laid or the channel is cut. Variation in topography will also affect the width. After discussing this matter with engineers at the plant site, it was determined that a survey area 100'ide along the pipe line would more than cover the potentiaL construction impact while a corridor 150< wide would be sufficient for the channel route.

site, the most likely location for significant prehistoric or historic sites was the crests of the bluffs flanking the creek. The bluff top on the spill-way side had been cleared, making surface visibility excellent. This area was carefully walked over, and although a considerable amount of vein quartz was present, none showed any evidence of having been modified or used by prehistoric people. A logging road ran parallel to the long axis of the dam, down the steep bluff slope to the creek bed. Here, too, surface visi-I bility was good, but no prehistoric or historic remains were in evidence.

The bluff top on the opposite side of the creek was partially cleared and could also be adequately assessed by surface inspection. The slope down the side of the bluff to the creek channel was forested; however, there were several gulleye and cleared patches bared by erosion. All areas were Care-fully checked with negative results. The topography at the main dam site is such that even if prehistoric or historic archaeological remains had been encountered, it is extremely doubtful that any meaningful contextual relationships could have been preserved.

Enitially the makeup water system route was walked over to appraise its archaeological potential. The entire corridor was forrested, and the tpog-raphy was marked by moderate to steep hills and valleys. Except at the intake pump station site on the Cape Pear River and the terminus at Tom Jack Creek, there were no nearby water sources. Because of the topography, the general lack of available water sources, and the dense ground cover, it was decided to concentrate the survey efforts in locations that offered the highest potential for producing archaeological sites. These areas included

the crests of the hills, the expanse around the intake pump station, and the terminus site at Tom Jack Creek. To supplement this coverage, all road crossings were also investigated. All these areas were intensively surveyed, and where necessary the surface was raked clear to provide adequate visi-bility. Only one small site, Ch 332, was discovered which was located on a bluff north-northeast of the existing Buckhorn dam. The site produced a light scatter of severely disturbed nondiagnostic debitage probably dating to the Late Arche'ic Period (2000 B.C.) ~

Approximately one acre around the intake pump station was investigated.

Here the ground was low and swampy and partially covered by heavy grass and weeds. However, a logging road and a relatively large area that had been cleared for a boat dock were clear. A surface inspection of the entire site failed to produce any evidence of archaeological remains.

3. Recommendations. Because of the total absence of historic sites and the bmaaa, disturbed nature of Ch 332, no significant cultural resources will be adversely affected by the construction of the main dam on Buckhorn Creek, the intake pump station, or. the makeup water system. Consequently, approval for all prospects is recommended.

NORTH CAROLINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY Site No.. Ch"332 Sttte Name....:......................

~g N

Photo Nos........................

Location Site is situated 750 feet north-northeast 'of existing Buckhorn 0am Generating Station, on toy of a '."i~< '~. 500 feet south of Buckhorn Creek and...109...feet..west..of...58...1g5 1.....Recorded on . Chatham..County...Highway...index......

Owner Carol ina Power..g LightAddress.

Local history Plowing history Ti pe pf spil mottl ed tan .cl ay overlying red cl ay Vegetation .SCrt? b..l?3.??As..........:.....

mode?'.ate ................

Erpsipn 4

A slight scatter of flakes was found in a 75 by 100 foot area. This site probably represents a short-term encampment during the Archaic Period.

iVo deposition has occured in the site vicinity, therefore no material is 4

likely to be found in situ; no further investigation of this site is required.

Sketch Map C.PgL qg Z~r&,K L.tAE.~

~

p

~

'gv93Z Show re)ationship to nearby sites, access roads, streams. and major landmarks.

Observer Trawi.ck Hard..and..Kichae2...Tr> nk1.ey....................... Date...6 .14 71.

4 SHNPP OL-ER s%

s) Reference 2.6-2 (Part 2)

FROM: Trawick Ward

SUBJECT:

Re-Survey of a Segment of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Makeup Water System DATE: December 4, 1979

1. The ~Pro ect. The makeup water system was originally surveyed in June, 1977. At this time the entire corridor had not been staked out, and all the impact. zone was ensconced by heavy woods. Recently a segment of the corridor extending from the. Cape Fear River to N.C. 42 was cleared. Because of the adverse conditions encountered during the initial survey, it was felt that a re-survey of this area, particularly the bluffs along the Cape Fear River and Buckhorn Cieek, would be beneficial.

2.~ The Survev.~ The cleared segment was walked by a two-man team, and the t

surface was inspected for evidence of aboriginal or historic activity.

Although rye grass had been sowed, surface visibility was good because of erosion and the recent frosts. Conditions were significantly better'than those encounteied during the first survey.

3. Survey Results Sur.prisingly only one small lithic scatter consisting of 4 random rhyolite flakes was found. A careful inspection of the high bluffs between Buckhorn Creek and the Cape Fear River failed to turn up any traces of prehistoric activity. The one site that was found was located on the flank of a fairly wide bluff west of and adjacent to S.R. 19213 overlooking the Buckhorn Creek bottoms. This sparse evidence of prehistoric activity was predicted from the results of the original survey, however, it

was believed that the improved ground surface conditions would lead to the discovery of more than one small lithic scatter.

The reason for the lack of sites may be attributed to the fact that vein quartz outcrops were everywhere exposed creating a rocky, uneven surface. It has been noted in other areas that there is usually a negative l

correlation between such outcrops and the location of prehistoric sites. Either the quartz indicates severe erosion, and most of the cultural materials have been scoured out and re-deposited elsewhere or such areas were simply not attractive to aboriginal populations--for whatever reasons.

3. Recommendations. Because of the failure to uncover additional, significant sites, the original recommendations are reinforced and further investigations are not warranted.

SHNPP OL-ER Reference 2.6-3 CPH NROLlNk ENT 3F March 9, 1978 )>>

)leigh.

orth Carolina Mr. Ralph L. Sanders, Manager

$ 611 Environmental Technology Carolina Power and Light Company P 0. Box 1551 Raleigh, N+C. 27602 Res Shoaron Harris Nuclear Plant rrake and Chatham Counties g Xnauixy Dear Hx'~ Sandersc

~ Il No have reviewed the survey report concerning the Sheaxon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Lake Roservoir in Hake and Chatham counties, and have tho follow'ing comments:

As you are aware, an axcheological reconnaissance survey was conducted by Hr. Txawick Raxd under the direction of Dr. Joffxo L. Coe of the Univorsity of Worth Carolina at Chapel Hill. During the course of the survey, ono historic poriod site and thirty-six prehistoric period sites were located.

None of the sites locatodt however, are considered to bo significant in terms of the criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, due to damage and destruction'aused by erosional processes.

Mr. Nard has recommended that no further archeological investigations be conductod for this portion of the proposed power plant Ho concur with his rocommendations and find that the Cooling Lake Reservoir will have no advorso effect upon significant archoological resouxcos.

Thank you fox'our cooperation and consideration. Zf you have question's concoxning these comments, ploaso cont:act Ms. P Langdon Edmunds, Envixon-montal Review Coordinator> at 93.9/733"4763 Sin oly, rry . Tao State Historic Preservation Officer LETcslw cci Carolyn Andoxaon, Scientist~ CP&L V

~ j

)I

'I /rr\

~

~ ~ ~ @44

ER Question 310.14 Section 8.1.2.2 of the ERAL analyzes taxes and tax effects of plant operation and lists the ad valorem taxes to be'paid to government agencies. Please identify these agencies and the amount of taxes they will receive. Also, what amount of their total ad valorem tax revenues will the plant account for7 Response: The ad valorem taxes are paid to and distributed by Wake County.

The 1981 taxes on SHNPP property as of 12/31/81 were $ 6,336,418 all paid to Wake County.

All CP6L property is reported for valuation purposes to the North Carolina Department of Revenue. They determine an assessed value and report it to each t

of the counties. The counties then bill CPGL directly based on the individual tax rate assigned to them. The only change in tax base associated with SHNPP becoming operational will be due to depreciation and will be shared by all N. C. counties in the CPSL system.

'6f .9 f3 IF I,( )

r I',F () ~

~ n.=;

ER Question 470.11 Provide the following site-specific information:

1. Update Tables 2.1.3-1 and 5.2.2-1 to include any changes noted during the latest land use census conducted.

Response: An updated Table 2.1.3-1 is attached. Although there are a few minor changes in the distances to nearest receptors, there were no decreases in distances to receptors in the N 6 NNE sectors, which together with the NE sector consititute the three most probable wind directions. On the basis of this information, no revision of Table 5.2.2-1, Critical Receptor Locations, is necessary.

2. For the area surrounding the site, give most recent data on:

a. The grazing seasons (give dates)

Response: According to the North Carolina Crop & Livestock Reporting Service, the grazing season for the four counties surrounding the site (Make, Chatham, Harnett, and Lee Counties) is March to November.

b. The fractions of daily intake of milk cows, meat animals (beef cows, hogs, and chickens) listed in Table 2.1.3-3 and the milk goat(s) listed in

C l

\

Table 2.1.3-1, derived from pasture or fresh green chop during the grazing season.

Response: Site-specific information is unavailable. Por dose calculations in the ER fpt, the fraction of the year that animals graze or pasture, and fs, the fraction of daily feed that is pasture grass when the animal grazes on pasture, were both set equal to one. These parameters appear in Equation C-11 of Regulatory Guide 1.109. This approach is extremely conservative in that it assumes the animals derive 100 percent of their annual food intake from pasture grass which maximizes the contribution of these pathways to human exposure.

c. Praction of year leafy vegetables are grown.

Response: According to the North Carolina Crop & Livestock Reporting Service, leafy vegetables (collards, in particular) are grown throughout the year in the four counties surrounding the site.

It should be noted that green leafy vegetables were not included in population dose assessments since there is no significant commercial production in the vicinity of SHNPP. Por the maximum individual t , the period of leafy vegetable exposure during the season, e'rowing was.set equal to 1440 hours0.0167 days <br />0.4 hours <br />0.00238 weeks <br />5.4792e-4 months <br /> (60 days) based on Table E-15 of Regulatory Guide 1.109 for use in Equation C-5 of the guide. The fact that collards are grown all year is not directly relevant since dose is controlled by t and the maximum individual's ingestion rate for leafy vegetables.

I' r

d. Fraction of ingestion rates of producd and leafy vege-tables that are produced in the garden of interest.

Response: Site-specific data is unavailable. For individual dose calculations fg, fraction of produce from the garden of interest ingested, was set equal to 0.76 and f1, the fraction of leafy vegetables from the garden of interest ingested, was set equal to 1.0. These values were taken from Table E-15 and used in Equation C-13 of Regulatory Guide 1.109.

3. The nearest present and known future locations were an individual can obtain aquatic food.

Response: The nearest present and known future locations where an individual can obtain aquatic food are both approximately 0.4 miles NE from the centerline of Unit 1. This location is on the shore of the Harris Reservoir.

4. The nearest present and known future aquatic areas that an individual can use for recreation purposes. Also, provide a breakdown of usage (person-hours per year) by activity (shoreline activity, swimming, and boating).

Response: These locations are identical to those given in Response 3 above. Site-specific usage factors are not available. Values used to calculate doses to the maximum adult, the age group found to receive the highest dose, were as follows: shoreline, 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />s/year; swimming, 100 hour0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br />s/year; boating, 52

' ~ f 1 yah y 2 lg

~'

A 4

• f$ "'y jf,( ~ y y $ i y 4

hours/year. The shoreline usage factor was taken from Table E-5 of Regulatory Guide 1.109. Swimming and boating usage factors are contained in NRC's LADPOT code which was used to calculate doses from liquid pathways. These factors may also be found in MASH-1258.

5. For the locations identified in 3 and 4 above, the transit time of each plant discharge stream containing liquid radwaste discharge from the point where the stream enters an unrestricted area to the identified location and the estimated stream dilution at that location.

Response: Stream dilution is not applicable for SHNPP since discharge is to the Harris Reservoir and not to a free-flowing stream.

Nuclide concentrations in the reservoir were estimated using the closed-loop completely mixed model (see Regulatory Guide 1.113). In this model, the steady-state concentrations are a function of reservoir letdown rate and volume and nuclide half-life. The letdown rate is 35-cubic feet per second, and the reservoir volume, assuming 80% mixing is 61,440 acre-feet. The steady-state concentration of a particular nuclide can be calculated using Equation 45 of Regulatory Guide 1.113.

6. For each liquid radwaste discharge, the transit time from input to a plant discharge stream to'the point where the stream enters an unrestricted area.

I 5

~Res ense: This data is given in Table 3.5.2-5 of the RR. Relevant values appear in the column labeled "Decay Time." A copy of this table is attached.

7. For the five (5) sectors given in Table 2.1.3-3 (p. 2.1.3-16) of ER/OL give:

a. Present annual meat production (kg/yr).

Response: Annual meat production by sector is:

Sector (miles) Meat Production (k /yr)*'**

Oto 10 15,764,000 0 to 20 53,027,000 0 to 30 106,0831000 0 to 40 180,828,000 0 to 50 268,077,000

• Includes beef cows, heifers that have calved, hogs, and chickens. For cattle and hogs, it is assumed that all animals are slaughtered.

• • The number of chickens given on page 2.1.3-16 of Table 2.1.3-3 is based on layers; however, meat production is based on broilers.

~4

~

p fw )

t<<I f/44

<<4$ fiI' ld<<

(1$

44"

'4 e <<N ~"

4 4 itiI, iI

~ 5 <<I I 1 ' )4 IL I ~ <<it<<J, I I II

See the attached unnumbered table for a breakdown of meat production by type.

b. Present annual milk productioin (liter/yr).

Response: Annual milk production by sector is:

Sector (miles) Milk Production (k /yr)*

0 to 10 7,067,000 0 to 20 25,911,000 0 to 30 60,975,000 0 to 40 110,991,000 0 to 50 15477637000

• Based on milk cows and heifers that have calved.

8. The amount of sport fish and invertebrate catch consumed (in kg/yr) within 80 km of the plant; transit time for the point were the discharge stream enters an unrestricted area to each major catch location, the estimated dilution at each location, and the basis for calculating transit time and dilution.

~Res oese: Virtually no commercial fisheries exist or are expected to develop in the vicinity of the Harris Reservoir. A small number of anadromous species are harvested from the Cape Pear River below Lillington, North Carolina, but the catch is insignificant

when compared to the overall North Carolina commercial harvest. It has been assumed that there is no invertebrate catch within 80 km of the site. The sport fish catch from the Harris Reservoir after its completion is estimated to be 22,200 kg/yr. The estimated sport fish catch from the Cape Pear River to a distance of 80 km below SHNPP is 500 kg/yr.

Por catches from the Harris Reservoir, transit time was assumed to be zero and dilution is a function of nuclide half-life (see Response 5). Since the blowdown rate from the reservoir is small (35 cubic feet per second), transit times and dilution factors at points downstream on the Cape Fear River were not estimated. Based on average flow rate of the Cape Fear River at Lillington of 3364 cfs (see Table 2.4.2-4), a dilution factor of about 96 is estimated.

9. For present and known future drinking water intake locations within 80 km of the plant radwaste discharge (downstream or radius): the transit time and estimated dilution at each major location, the basis for calculating transit time and dilution, the populations served, and the daily water consumption at each location.

Response: This information has not been developed since the Harris Reservoir is a closed-loop system (discharge is only 35 cfs); and well water from the Reservoir will not be used for drinking or irrigation.

10. Unusual animals, plants, agricultural practices, game harvests, or food processing operations having the potential of contributing on the order to 10% or more to either individual or population doses (examples are Asiatic clams found in the surface-water intake of a municipality; growing sweet potatoes in excess of any other food crop; producing most of the region's Irish potatoes in the general vicinity of the reactor; and producing deer in a game management area in quantities comparable to beef and pork production) and food processing operations involving large quantities of water, e.g., breweries and bottling plants; their annual production and water supply sources.

Response: No such operations or activities have been identified within 10 miles of SHNPP.

SHNPP ER Table 2.1.3-1

~ ~ Distance within five miles of centerline of first operational unit to nearest station property boundary, residence, garden, milk cow, milk

~

goat, and meat animai.~

Distance (miles)

Station Property

~Boun dar Residence Garden Milk Cow Milk Goat Meat Animal N 1.3 2.2 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.3 1.7 1.8 0.3 3.1 NE 1.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.3 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.0 1.8 2.1 ESE 1.3 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 SE 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 SSE 2.0 2.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 SW 1.5 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.3 2.8 2.8 3.0 WNW 1.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 NW 1'. 3 1.8 1.9 1.7 NNW 1.3 1.5 1.0 0.6 1.7 As of May 12, 1982 2.1.3-0

SHNPP ER TABLE 3.5.2-5 ASSUMPTIONS USED TO CALCULATE RADIOACTIVE LIQUID EFFLUENTS Collection Decay Flow Rate Fraction Fraction Time Time Stream (Gal/Day) Of POA ~Dischar ed (Days) ~(Da s)

Shimbleed Rate 8. 64E+02 1. 000 0. 100 49.000 1.000 Equipment Drains 2. 05E+02 1. 000 0 100 49.000 1.000 Floor Drains 9.50E+02 0. 070 0.100 21.000 2.200 S.W. Low Cond. 8.40E+02 0. 000 0.100 1.000 0.083 Blowdown 4 '2E+05 0.000 0.000 0.000 Regenerant Sols 4.80E+03 0.100 '1000 0.560 Stream Decontamination Factors I CS Others Shimbleed 1. OOE+03 1.00E+04 1. OOE+04 Equipment Drains 1. OOE+03 1. OOE+04 1. OOE+04 Floor Drains l. OOE+01 1 ~ OOE+01 1. OOE+01 S.W. Low Cond. 1. OOE+04 2. OOE+02 1. OOE+04 Blowdown Regenerant Sols 1 ~ OOE+00 1.00E+04 1 ~ OOE+00 1 ~ OOE+05 '.

1. OOE+00 OOE+05

3. 5. 2-22

BREAKDOWN OR MILK 6 MEAT PRODUCTION Sector Milk Beef Hogs Chicken (Miles) (k /yr) (k /yr) (k /yr) Broilers (k /yr) E s (8) 0 to 10 7,067,000 1,388,000 1,092,000 13$ 284$ 000 30,024,000 0 to 20 25,911,000 5,440,000 4,535,000 43,052$ 000 102,240,000 0 to 30 60,975,000 12,464,000 11,585,000 82,034$ 000 207,159,000 0 to 40 110,991,000 21,877$ 000 -23,291,000 135,660,000 372,204,000 0 to 50 154,763,000 32,716,000 41,995,000 195,366,000 638,420,000 Based on milk cows and heifers that have calved.

Based on beef cows and heifers that have calved.

c Assumes that all animals are slaughtered.

II 4

I *I k) k II

/

4 4 f

r.

4 4 t g1

/I ~ C'fh 4 II l /

a

/ I 4 4 j I

t 4

C 4

4 ~ t 4 4 I,'.

fhh W

ER Question 470.12 (Section 5.2.5)

Revise Table 5.2.5-2 to specify the doses due to reactor Units 1 & 2. The September 4, 1975 Annex, Guidelines doses presented in current Table 5.2.5-2 are for the SHNPP site of four reactor units.

Response: Since the change from four to two reactors involves a two-fold reduction in source term with no change in release points and critical receptors, Table 5.2.5-2 can be revised by simply dividing the SHNPP exposures by two. A copy of the revised table is attached.

e l,

~ 0 f, I't t P

a o~

c ' ll

SHNPP ER TABLE 5.2.5-2 COMPLIANCE V/ITH 10CFR50 APPENDIX I September 0, 1975 SHNPP T of Dose A. LIQUID EFFLUENTS Dose to whole body (mrem/yr) 1.58 from all pathways Dose to any organ (mrem/yr) 2.16 from all pathways Total quantity of radioactivity 20 released in liquid effluents (except H-3 and dissolved gases) (curies)

B. GASEOUS EFFLUENTS Gamma air dose (mrad/yr) 10 0.52 Beta air dose (mrad/yr) 20 1.20 Dose to whole body (mrem/yr) of an individual Dose to skin on an (mrem/yr) 15 1.36 individual Iodine-131 released to the 0.09 atmosphere (curie)

Resulting dose to any organ 15 5.2 (mrem/yr) from all pathways

ER Question 470.13 Verify that the data in Tables 6.1.5-7 and 6.1.5-8 are consistent with currently available information.

Response: The data in Table 6.1.5-7 is correct. Table 6.1.5-8 has been revised to be consistent with Table 2.3.3-1. A copy is attached. The revision of Table 6.1.5-8 includes a change in reference point from the center of the four unit site to the centerline of the first operational unit.

0 I'

0'I p

4 8 1

SHNPP ER Table 6.1.5-8

~ ~ Distance (miles) within five miles of centerline of first operational unit to nearest site boundary, residence, garden, milk cow, milk goat, and meat animal as of May 12, 1982. ~

Station Property

. Boundary Residence Garden Milk Cow Milk Goat Meat Animal N 1.3 2.2 2.2 1.8 NNE 1.3 1.7 1.8 0.3 3.1 NE 1.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 ENE 1.3 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.0 1.8 2.1 ESE 1.3 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 I

SE 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 SSE 2.0 S 2.2 SS'iV 1.5 0' 0.0 0.3

, SiV. 1.5 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.3 2.8 2.8 3.0 V/NhV 1.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 NV/ 1.3 1.8 1.9 1.7 NNV/ 1.3 1.5 1.0 0.6 1.7 6.1.5-27

~ 1 C