Text
REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION S)
EN (RIDS)
AOCBSSION NBR:8210200032 DVC,DATE: 82/10/15 NOTARIZED:
NO FACIL:50-400 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plantp Unit ir Carolina 50"401 Snearon Har ris Nuclear Power Plant~ Unit 2> Carolina AUTH,NAHE AUTHVR AFFILIATION tlCOUFFIE<M,A, Car ol ina'ower L Light Co ~
RECIP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION OENTONtH ~ R ~
Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regul ationr Director
SUBJECT:
Forwards responses to environ rept review Questios 240'i 291.13 8 291<15icomparing environ impact on Suckhorn Creek of operation of one unit w/o Cape Fear River Makeup Sys to impact previously analyzed for four unit operation>
DOCKET 05000400 05000401 DISTRIBUTION CODE:
C001S COPIES RECEIVED:LTR
/ ENCL
/
SIZE:.
TITLE: Licensing Submi ttal: Environmental Rept Amcjt L Related Corr espondence NOTES:
REC IP IENT IO CODE/NAME NRR LB3 BC 18 LICITRAe N ~
04 INTERNAL; ELD/HOS1 NRR/OE/EEO 06 NRR/DE/SAB 07 NRR/DS I/RAB 09 RGN2 COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 1
1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME NRR LB3 LA 19 NRR/OE/AEAB 08 NRR/DE/HGEB 8
REG FILE COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 EXTERNAL; ACRS NRC PDR NTlS 20 02 LPOR 1
1 NSIC-1 1
03 05 1
1 1
1 TOT AL NUMBER OF COP IES REQUlRED ~
L~TTR 22 ENCL 2 1
P k" e ~ ii)i i
~
~
$ kk
3 CSQ0 Carolina Power & Light Company October 15, 1982 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT NOS.
1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-400 AND 50-401 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT REVIEW QUESTION RESPONSES
Dear Mr. Denton:
Carolina Power ij'ight Company's (CPAL) responses to the Shear on Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) Environmental Report (ER) review questions numbered 240.3, 291. 13 and 291. 15 are attached.
In addition, responses to ER review questions 100. 1, 290.4, 310.8 and 470.11 transmitted by our letter of June 3,
1982, review question 240.6 transmitted by our letter of August 17,
- 1982, and review question 4 transmitted by our letter of September 8,
1982 have been revised as indicated on the replacement pages attached.
A correction of a typographical error in the response to ER review questions 240.7 and 240.8 transmitted by our letter of August 17, 1980 is also attached.
These responses which are included in Amendment 4 to the SHNPP ER transmitted under separate cover letter on October 15,
- 1982, complete our responses with respect to the reservoir reanalysis.
This letter and Amendment 4 to the SHNPP ER document the results of the reservoir reanalysis for SHNPP Units 1 and 2.
The results show that the Cape Fear River Makeup System is not needed to support one unit operation.
The most critical low flow period of record, 1980 to 1981, and the 100 year return period drought for Buckhorn Creek inflow alone were analyzed for one unit operation without makeup.
The analyses indicate that the reservoir water level remains well above the shutdown level during the worst drought of record and during the 100 year drought.
In addition, the environmental impact of the operation of one unit without makeup is significantly less than the environmental impact previously analyzed in the ER and FSAR for four unit operation.
Supporting analyses or conservative comparisons to four unit operation have been provided in the responses to these questions and/or in Amendment 4 to the Environmental Report.
8210200oak 411 Fayetteville Street
~ P. 0. Box 1551 o Raleigh, N. C. 27602
't 1 If<<,t'FV 1
If>>- I
'PR FV,V 1
'1
, I II ~
~
1 Ih VD>>tt,
~ f'All "-3<<<<'I'l I'<
>I I
1 g
I'lit>>~
bs l<<R>>
R 1>1 ',
h,'"
b ~,It' f$
V)g>>
Dr) dll i, ~.F, t I
~bJ b>>0 9P, <<BC'Bfl- -h F)D~)b'D~ POfi
'lO "".<<9>>'.: '
' "9'IllA VO Rf<<9'j4 OS'l lb f'
>>~n
< R.q~'C ana r.
'~ dr>':
1 b
h'I'
<<I'f n O:.;r; <.'.'<,'b
. Cr>:i '1O -..~0,")A ~t>'d nn8 r
W ~ bl '
')",)~i;li<ts
'D
'Ds<<
It I
IR I
U>>
1 Q Dtl Ill I lies 1f 1
I
'll h
~,, PWF<<
I.
r, I I
I b
<<I, b I ~ R I
Ff I tt I Rt I t>>>>b(t s,/st,,
1<<
=
~'I b IF<<>>
I ~"
h F
sl
~ R
~
II 1
~
I 1
F R
'F'
(
111
~
Iv I'I F>> 'IA F
I' Fl
~:
1<<
't.l RID R
1
~I h.
Ill<< l s<<vv f 1 f I 'l I.'>>
<<1 VRD Vl<<
DS
~ I
' FP
~
~ b est
<R FD D~ l
~
I'Pyle R
I
<<1' ).I
<<Fl 1 yt, P-,
I 1>><<f ft I'
1 I>>
I 1 <<1
'I<<
I
('
<>I lt Dsv.<<t b "b.vr
Mr. Denton 2>>
October 15, 1982 During severe droughts of record, analyses indicated that the water supply for two unit operation may be marginal when only Buckhorn Creek inflow is considered.
Therefore, for two unit operation the Cape Fear River Makeup System will be installed.
Additional analyses have been performed to prove the adequacy of the makeup system for two unit operation.
These analyses include studies of the 1951-1952 and 1980-1981 drought periods and a normal reservoir operation study for two unit operation.
- Analyses, including those presently in the ER, indicate that the reservoir water level remains well above the shutdown level during severe drought periods of record and during the 100 year drought for two unit operation with makeup.
Again, the environmental impact of two unit operation is significantly less than the impact previously analyzed in the ER and FSAR and supporting analyses or conservative comparisons to four unit operation have been provided to support this conclusion.
Please contact us if you have any questions.
Yours very truly, M.
A McDuffie Senior Vice President Engineering 5 Construction LJM/cr (5521C4T4)
Attachments ccr Mr. Prasad Kadambi (NRC)
Mr. G. F. Maxwell (NRC-SHNPP)
Mr. J.
P. O'Reilly (NRC-RII)
Mr. Daniel F.
Read (CHANGE/ELP)
Mr. Travis Payne (KUDZU)
Od'j'>> l)ff'j hjrfj)
"-' V j'r<<SP)O.'r D~r>>'Iu)'rr)Adfl')VQ'lj" u ~
"*'f. ".
r.:."<>> j ~.~~~~.~
.)j) ~<<j) l ~..'r:")C;".
~
'r h *
~
t g Q r%*~ ~ 'v, I
Irh lt r
j)'4'~'jg 0," f)r)',jO ",~ >>f) tfj'f jj)f.)'<f'" 0 )c~t>.r.G ujj
.r.P.
Q.r 'L.')Dli
~ ffjh )
~ >j'180't
'< (jj" 0>'
r)0 ". Nrj jA~IV.
I!
h r
~,trv
>r>>'4)It f;, I [
rtf>-,'rrl ) ~ f rf' l,r* rh,;.,
,I-, ~ ~ > ~,
r>ff vr'Iu r
'u vr
)rh 0 rur',<
'f~)hurd h t, grhrt ru rjv I.
I ~
~ f rr
>g I'7>4 ~r.-r rr WI~ r
)I v>>>
It
~
v r ~
V.hr
~ rt r>> If)
II'I Ihth>>
I f rhtpg>>,
t I
4 Ivy) pyr r),
h rh l-r hrh,
~ p l>t ~ rh) L)~ a r
h rv>
" vf tr frr)
'h
~
tt ~ '
lf
- ftht, qjrv>
~ Ivr hht,ur I
>ttr<+I jht!-
- 4 yJ t; ~~
I
~ >>>>I p ru ti Iqur vrh" 'tt'ht
'r
~
j
~ r 'hea r,hjvg>>"h f'p utah iyr)f I' V
~ f'rj rvr ~ f <
r t)jrfrft Ihrr
+,h>r )ffht,rhrh r I h>>rtt l, t fjIv) )
"v
' rtt g Ihjgf+V I
II
~
4 jur>>
p, rh If ~J 4
f'f 'I fj,t Ittr r! 4 (fth'j lt",)',.~ '")
>> '" '<<t v>ru >w 0
'ftjt)j Ifttll> Ch,
')I ')r
~t t r>CI
.e yj'<
II t) f."."'<-zAh)
~ '?
),).>>,XSi)f.<AH'>>
'~f~.
)
"~>
~ )u ~f, lu ~ It lf II hp It
~ r
ER Question 240.3:
a)
For one unit operation, will there be a minimum release from the main reservoir into Buckhorn Creek during periods of low flow, and, if so, for how many days per year, on the average, will this minimum release constitute the only streamflow in Buckhorn Creek below the main dam'P b)
If there is to be no minimum release criteria, provide an outflow duration curve for releases from 0 to 100 cfs.
c)
Provide a listing of the average release and the 100 year drought release by month.
d)
Provide the one unit load factor assumed in your responses to the above questions.
If it is assumed to vary by month, provide the monthly variation.
~Res ense:
240.3 a)
There will be no minimum release criteria for discharge from the main reservoir into Buckhorn Creek during periods of low flow.
240.3 b
8 c)
To determine the outflow duration curve for the main reservoir during normal operating conditions, an inflow/outflow reservoir operation study was conducted using the 7-year daily streamflow sequence of October 1973 through September 1980.
Data at USGS Station of Buckhorn Creek at Corinth, N.C., are utilized for this analysis.
No make-up pumping from Cape Fear River was considered.
The resulting outflow duration curves are shown on ER Figures 2.4.2-10a and 2.4.2-10b,
- attached, for outflows ranging from 1 to 500 cfs and 0 to 100 cfs, respectively.
It was also determined that the reservoir would reach a
minimum level of 216.3 ft msl during the above 7-year simulation.
This level was conservatively-utilized as the starting reservoir level for the 100-year drought to determine the corresponding monthly release which, together with the average release computed in the above 7-year simulation, is listed on Table 2.4.2-33, attached.
240.3 d)
The load factor assumed in our responses to the above question is 75$ loading for all months of the year.
Normal monthly evaporation conditions were assumed for the 7-year simulation while worst conditions were used for the 100-year drought simulation.
n tie PI 4 1
t I
I n
ie ni se I
~
= 4VF4 Ir-4 PV IFV ttf 4
~
enIVI4 Pv
. 4 J ~,
r
~ (
I,V I )VFFI 4
n et
~ VP Q~bngnr ten f PI nf,VV I,t Il t
n re n
V ('ll rryV il vt,,
( I'fei" ~
Il I
q It I
'I i
4",
P fy I~
In 4
~ '
r.*n n
sII~
PV, i ng 41 'IfsfIn
~ '
>>F'I-e Ipv,p e14 4 n,,f yII4 v 4 j +
'I ~ )I>> ~ ~
tg ~ I rn
I e
<
pnf'e
", ~ 4th
~, ~
tgvI
<<p << '
I I I, tt t 4,
F i
svelter
- IsiI, I
I>er I *~,t 4
~
nnr V
~
ee Fnsl I 1 f~
r "
pbsvI ~ v Inn
~
i nIAI..I
'F>>
tntnqrltt pI I
I rerePFt ggg't IPI,F ~ Fi tn ~nen br<
IIF
~
~
FV t
~ I,PI '
F Vn. tl
~
F tnn
~ Feg I
F F 4
pI ~
~ n>>tre er
~
ll
= pn r r~'P p(
~y I
~
F
'rfle 4 1-FF
'I I
gn, r,cV S, ~ I el ~ ~V
'I n I",, ~
4Q II ll t
'vf'IV-'
II V
I
~ I'
~V PII F
II r
F,vs,sn, le 4 Fn +Let *Vfn I' p
AFIIS In, I
~ I f.,n I'tfr* II'I n
II
~ 'Attn I
I=
~ F'4 4
re 1
n v
I
~n n
I, n ~
ng pIIP4 t vf,lt"1 tvtf* I 4 jpi
~
F V
I ~
0 cD Z p m I.
Z ~
>n r o mm g
4>
O
~+
ZCO CO Ifllm 22 O
Zl g) mO OZ f'g m~
Xl I~ CO Z
0 CII C Z~Q
~r0
~0.
~QC CH I 0'mmm ChmO~
(n OCOZ
(
m CIrl Pl Kl Cil CI Kl CI Tl ICI CI Pl OC C)
Pl Pl Cl Pl CI 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 NOTES:
1.
TWO-UNIT NORMAL OPERATION 2.
NORMAL FORCED AND NATURAL EVAPORATION RATES USED 3.
ANALYSIS BASED ON USGS DAILY STREAMFLOW RECORDS OF BUCKHORN CREEK AT CORINTH N.C.
AND CAPE FEAR RIVER AT LILLINGTON, N.C.
FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1980 M
t4 C) mZ0 z
z0 10 100 MAIN RESERVOIR OUTFLOW, AC-FT/DAY (=0.5 CFS) 1000
lllz(
CI C0 Z p m r Z ~
~o r o 0
~~
zCO COz mm 2 ~
o zl~
mO Oz lll~
x'x Qm I+ CO z
U m
X7 100 90 80
-.NOTES:
1.
ONE-UNIT NORMAL OPERATION 2.
NORMAL FORCED AND NATURAL EVAPORATION RATES USED 3.
ANALYSIS BASED ON USGS DAILY STREAMFLOW RECORDS OF BUCKHORN CREEK AT CORINTH, N.C.
FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1980 0
I
+<0 ZOZ cI C m
+CZ z00 zO mom CII C g7 m g) +
0
~ Z Cll CDoo CII C) m X7 Vl Pl Kl CI Kl C)
ICI C)
OC C) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 z0 z
z0 0
10 100 MAIN RESERVOIR OUTFLOW, AC-FT/DAY (=0.5 CFS) 1000
SHNPP ER TABLE 2.4.2-33 ONE-UNIT OPERATION MONZHLY MAIN RESERVOIR RELEASE-AVERAGE AND 100-YEAR DROUGHT CONDITIONS Month January February March April Avera e in CFS 76.7 102. 7 119.7
- 66. 5 100-Year Drou ht in CFS
- 54. 6 June July August September October November December
- 11. 0 14.7 2.2 21.3 19.1 21.2
- 15. 2 0
- 2. 4. 2-66 Amendment No.
4
ER Question 291.13:
(ER Sec.
3 3) 3.4) 5.1, 5.3)
Based on the reduction in project size from four units to two units, provide revised ER Sections 3.3 Station Water Use, 3.4 Heat Dissipation System,
- 5. 1 Effects of Operation of Heat Dissipation System and 5.3 Effects of Chemical and Biocide Discharges.
Where possible, the information should be provided for both one and two unit operation.
~Res esse:
ER Sections 3.3, 3.4,
- 5. 1 and 5.3 have been reviewed and revised as necessary to incorporate the reduction in project size from four units to three units and the reanalysis of the SHNPP reservoirs.
The major changes in the text are as follows:
1 ~
The total consumptive water use in the operation of the cooling towers and makeup reservoir has decreased from 106 cfs to 46.3 cfs for two unit operation under average meteoro-logical conditions and from 125 cfs to 51.5 cfs for two unit operation under extremely adverse meteorological conditions
'with the plant operating at 100 percent capacity.
A list of the average and maximum consumptive water use for one and two unit operation by month is provided in Table 3.4.2-4.
2 ~
The maximum release rate of cooling tower blowdown has decreased from 60 MGD to 30 MGD for two unit operation and 15 MGD for one unit operation.
3 ~
Flow through the condensers in the closed cycle cooling tower system is reduced from 4300 cfs to 2150 cfs for two unit operation and 1075 cfs for one unit operation.
4.
The maximum size of the mixing zone in the reservoir due to cooling tower blowdown decreases from 200 acres to 120 acres in the winter and from 90 acres to 20 acres in the summer for 2 unit operation.
5.
Note that in SHNPP ER Section 3.4.2.5, "Drift and Drizzle of Cooling Towers", the total drift rate from the cooling towers is estimated at 10 gpm for two units.
6.
Due to the 'reduction in project size from four to two units, the portion of the Emergency Service Water and Cooling Tower Makeup Water Intake Structure that was intended to serve Units 3 and 4 will not be completed.
Only the three cooling tower makeup pumps serving Units 1 and 2 will be installed.
Therefore, there will be one cooling tower makeup pump per unit with one spare for the two units.
The three cooling tower makeup pumps are connected to a header which supplies both Cooling Towers.
With two units operating at maximum makeup rates, only two of the three pumps will be operating
e I'VW I
~
~
I I
I'
'I
~ >>
~
~
e JI
)'
$J P 'I I
<tf PV) p
~
jfV R
I I I
It
~
R e
f
~
V, J
~
t ~
I'I -',rp e
v
~
PRP e
S F
Pft' P
f lr)
)VIP P f
Pf P>>
r ff+
ep, f
) c jf<
R,p 4,
) t )R,'I
)cer P
l.
)$ >>p I
'R)'v I
e I
Rl J
P "I r
~ ~ ">>,* )j,g
= vp+S
),ISPPVPJ
~
fj'f )fr I f
+J...
JP 1
)
C I
R p
I, f"
c S ),
~
>> I'F e)
P RP
) ~ P Qe)/e g IC C
~ I, ),
)Ie)
,I I'Sf I'I)
Pt f
'f C
'ft
)ted
~
-,S,r).
r'I >>I rf>>PPS+
)
p I'>>
r I Qfpp" I-M
-.. 'fp c,
v p,; r>>>> ~'f<<>>)gv, I
~ R>>
p p
v e
v-r Vfe I e pr tv, p) tp>>"
>> e:>>I Sf I'rtl"\\
IVR<)
~ ",'
- ~
I t ~
(
Pl I
FJIPSJ tv vrs c e ~
le<re
')Ir f)r p
e
~
~
.1 I,
lj CS)ef C
JV ef>>,
R ef e=
'I
~ P
)
g)C
~ e t'
PC r
~,e Ih I-
)
I '
S
)t f)>>P, I)) g.f; '
.,i CP Pl
>>I rg>>
r<
Q f tff >>&
I
, RJCS
)pf 'e
~
I I
f>>
ft' Sy P
()
JIR r)
~, '[,>>
pe,,
f
)'
~
tytpg I
I refrr T
PR e
)rpe RJ
'I >>
)II>>V"V't
~ Sfv, re/If Ff ~ )
I
~
t, h)'Irf)
>>pvf>>e,epf,'l S i, f>> >
r e
I gf r vf>>)
I
simultaneously.
Any two of the three pumps will supply that amount of makeup water required for the Circulating Water System.
The withdrawal requirements for one and two unit operation are about 46 cfs and 92 cfs, respectively.
The cooling tower makeup pumps also supply makeup water to the plant water treatment facility at the rate of 600 gpm.
Each cooling tower makeup pump is located in a separate bay of the intake structure.
Note that the intake structure bay traveling screens measure 10 ft. wide rather than the 9 ft.
given in the ER.
Each traveling screen extends from the floor of the intake structure through the top deck where the drive mechanism and screen washing equipment is located.
The traveling screens are fabricated of 14 gauge wire (0.08 in.
diameter) with clear openings 3/8 in. square.
7.
Analyses of liquid radioactive effluent movement in the environment have been revised to address one and two unit operation.
In addition, new dose estimates for the maximum individual dose have been included in ER Amendment 4.
8.
9.
The subject sections reflect the decision to utilize a Cape Feat'iver makeup system for two unit operation only.
(
The cooling tower blowdown system description has been revised to reflect the new design, i.e.,
a single port jet discharge.
II 10.
Cooling tower evaporative water losses per unit have been provided in ER Table 3.4.2-2.
11.
An analyses predicting new mixing zones and isotherms for two unit operation has been included in ER Section 5. 1.2.
~PIC.
1
~ I
~ Ph I,. gfr, h
hf
~ I PPPC,'PPi fl' th Pg, ~
f rg 'PIP KI P-'
'Fh hht,)
g K
'LQ, I
h I
'1 CI ff$
~
KPI Lih" ih~ q PI I hh I, I ffFP P>>
PPP
'PP'1 P,,PCC I
I Ch 'hfth P
IKC L"
fPL g
q g h,, ~ P(J 1
C'>> '1 IP IP
, hgt I'ht V CI It
- gCP, q~ ~
f'-;
If t-r,ff'trl f
I "C
h "Ihh Ch
'I ~
PC I 1
~
g, I "Pg hl I
PWQ "f (ff'",
I I
If f',
1" "II ChhCf"PP f
~
I i".
~
>C P
1 P
Ch PfP
(
h P J I
KC
'1 K,IF
'CK fIIPIII Ch P, F,tg P Crt*q ( Ch,, l$ "f ~
P,P Chthl h
~ KF FC AQ I"'t K ~F,K PF Pt ~
ff'P,P P
P I Ig() 'CC ytg I'+P f hy~ I'ChfI Khi I' 1"
Ph Pftffi ff hti h P
h(hQ
~I,)P) hC I h I'PIFIf
'P)P 1
-h -
h QPf:
Qhh-P P
F}Ci,'f y$
PPCI I
.PP,PLC
. hqI
~ ~ P, ff i Pht fIyC Iq'j Fth L,F
~
'I P f'
I 1
FCCII gfiPP
'f F
I l
P ~
KF g QJI
<<1 'f P <<g>>
Ph" P
W ggC
~
~
I =f 0
FL CI'gFPPIf FPPCP P
~
Fh
'0 ht PKP,<<h P, 1 rl "hgF I PLKF ~
hgh I
KP t
C
~
Pi If
~'yl,~ q,h[PPh
~
~
~ ft PQ h Cil 'PPP\\
) ~ KI P,g thh)rr,t
~P
,"CQ 1
~
hg 1
"IIPh,'
~
1
~ 1 1'
hh iqt '1 glftiff1 IK hh O'
I h
Phth hPP Pt I
SHNPP ER TABLE 3.4. 2-2 COOLING TOWER EVAPORATIVE WATER LOSSES (Per Unit, 75 Percent Power)
Ambient Dry Bulb Temperature (F)
AVERAGE Dew Point Temperature (F)
Evaporation (GPM)
January 41.6 32.0 6,487 February 43;0
- 31. 0 6,599 March 49.5 35.0 6,966 April.
59.3
- 45. 0 7,427 May 67.6
- 56. 0 7,698 June 75.1
- 64. 0 7,986 July 77.9
- 68. 0 8,110 August
- 76. 9
- 67. 0 8, 023 September
'1.2 61 0 7,794 October
- 60. 5
- 50. 0 7,385 November
- 50. 0 38.0 6,945 December
- 41. 9
- 30. 0 6, 546 Annual Average
- 59. 5
- 48. 1 7,330 Amendment No.
4
TABLE 3.4.2-4 PLANT CONSUMPTIVE WATER USE - UNITS I II, 2 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM ONE UNIT OPERATION TWO UNIT OPERATION Forced Evaporative Other Plant Water Total One Unit Forced Evaporative Other Plant Water Total Two Unit Cooling Tower Loss Consumption Consumption Cooling Tower Loss Consumption Consumption (I)
(I )
AVG MAX AVG MAX AVG MAX AVG MAX AVG MAX AVG MAX JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH 20,0 21 0 20,1 21 2 21.0 21.9 2,0 5,3 2,1 5.3 2.1 5.5 22.0 26,3 22.2
- 26. 5 23.1 27.4 40.0 42,0 40,2 42 4 42.0 43.8 2,0 5.3 2,1 5.3 2,1 5,5 42,0 47,3 42,3 47,7 44,1 49,3 APRIL 22 2 22,5 2.2 5.6 24,4 28, I 44,4 45,0 2.2 5,6 46,6 50.6 MAY 23,1 23:8 2,3 6 0 25 4 29.8 46,2 47,6 2,3 6,0 48.5 53.0 JUNE JULY 23.8 24,4 24,1 24.6 2,4 6.1 2,4 6 2 26,2
- 30. 5 26,5 30 8 47,6 48.8 48,2 49.2 2,4 6,1 2.4 6.2 50,1 54,9 50.4 55.4 AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER 23,9 24 5 23,4 24,1 22, I 23,3 21,0 22,2 19,9 21 I
2,4 6,1 2,3 6,0 2,2 5,8 21 56 2,0 5,3 26 3 30.6 25,7 30,1 24,3 29, I 23,1 27,8 21 9 26,4 47,8 49,0 46,8 48,2 44,2 46,6 42,0 44,4 39,8 42,2 2,4 6,1 2.3 6,0 2,2 58 2.1 5.6 "2,0 5,3 50 I
55.1 49,1 54,2 46,4 52,4 44 ~ 1 50,1 41 8 47,5 (I)
Conservatively assumed to be 10$ of one unit forced evaporation rate.
Operation of units at 100$ power.
(2)
ER Question 291.15:
Provide a discussion of the expected frequency and duration of discharges from Harris Lake to downstream Buckhorn Creek.
- Also, describe the discharge capabilities of the Harris Lake Dam (i.e.,
elevation, maximum flow rates).
~Res esse:
To determine the frequency and duration of discharges from the reseroir during normal operating conditions, an inflow/outflow reservoir operation study was conducted for two unit operation using the 7-year daily streamflow sequence of October 1973 through September 1980.
Data at both USGS Stations of Cape Fear River at Lillington, N.C. and Buckhorn Creek at Corinth, N.C. are utilized for this analysis.
Average streamflows from October 1973 through September 1980 for the Cape Fear River at Lillington and for Buckhorn Creek at Corinth, N.
C.
are 3733 cfs and 79 cfs, respectively.
These flows are close to the long term (1924 through 1981) annual averages of 3354 cfs and 81 cfs.
The results indicate that the average outflow is 48 cfs.
The reservoir experiences discharges for 54$ of the time.
The average duration of discharge events is 24 days while that of no-discharge events is 20 days.
The longest period the reservoir experiences no discharge is 186 days.
The discharge has been assumed to occur only as flows over the spillway without using the low level release system described below.
The discharge capabilities of the reservoir are provided by a 50-feet long uncontrolled spillway with crest at 220 ft. msl.
A discharge rating curve is shown on ER Figure 2.4.2-31.
In addition, a low level release system releasing water from the reservoir into the Buckhorn Creek has been incorporated into the Main Dam spillway. It consists of'hree (3) Howell Bunger valves located in the control pier and side abutments of the spillway.
The valves have intakes in the reservoir at different elevations and locations.
The arrangement is shown in FSAR Figures 2.5.6-1, 3.8.4-34 and 3.8.4-36 and the discharge capacity curves are shown in Figure 2.4.2-42.
The Howell Bunger valve in the central pier is a 24-inch valve with center line at EL. 206.7 ft.
A 36-inch diameter steel pipe with intake at EL. 195.0 ft in the reservoir conveys water to the valve.
The valves in the two abutments of the spillway are 36-inch valves with center lines at EL. 213.0 ft.
The intake for the West abutment valve is in the abutment at EL. 213.0 ft, whereas the East abutment has its intake inside the reservoir at EL. 180.0 ft, connected to the valve by a 48-inch diameter steel pipe.
ev P
s,vl>>
I If>'si 0
1 ~
4 If Ev>>'I 1 v<<svt I
'h Plh 4
'gh>4 's" hv gi 1
R I Eh>
~ I 1 'hef EI P>>
',, yr >>eh,!LE>>sv
~ I "'>>r 4 Rv
~
~
PIF i t'4 I
VE)
I It
~,
"'I PQ 1
II<<v
~ =!
~
Vh PP
~Eh' ISh
> rh f h
f
~ PL P I> II!4
~
1 I 4
st>>i If
~
q ~ J!
lent'
! ~
1!, e
~.
~ 't 4'
'II,>PIL 4>p php>>
>>pl
~
<<vs>>le p p,v s
e>>rt
>>" s '<<L ~
I hsqiv 1
sr f'el'I h
e<<
I
~ I" p 1
"'R-RPRI>
'1 r
~ P
~
EV>> or 4
~ 4 ",Ii I f>>>-
eg sit I.vesta 1
sg
! "v>>,
e 4v 1/ re,
'IR I>
Eh>>
Ver~
FIP, ~ r
~
l Ifh ~ 1' Ij
>>>>>> Rl
<< 'I 1
4
~
I I
(
~
4 4
PL,L.'
y,e 11
~
I, ~ R>i
~ 'f' thee t
~
Fi thi 1
II E'irl I I I'It,
~
IQP>>
1+
IEv 4 h Rr. 4>>
>0
~ >>v h
v I'
ev 1,1 1
<<h tf>RLR>
~ -
~
1
~
~
r th ~'I 4
I fl fv
'4 I
id E>R
~
I,
~
tl lr I I' 14 I Rh>>th. ~
Rl QQ
~ >, I>>I'lI'v'4 P
1\\1 p
~'
( rv E>>vp-'I ~
>eh rh>><<v
>>eh gr
~ I F'
~ -
~E y i'g y Elvr 4
~
>vr
~ [
L 4
~ >>v I
44 lv
~ er R>IR
I>> ehh>R
~ ~,4
<> I I '<<';I,
~
t>>>h t
~
t 1
1 vre rf, E I
'vii ~
EL 225.0 0
EL 220.0 Z
EL 215.0 UJ EL 210.0 CENTER PIER - 24"4 H.B. VALVE WITH INTAKEAT EL 195.00 EAST ABUTMENT-36"$
H.B. VALVEWITH INTAKE AT EL 180.00 WEST ABUTMENT-36"Q H.B. VALVEWITH INTAKE AT EL 213.00 EL 205.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 CFS NOTE: VALVESARE NOT TO BE OPERATED WHEN SPILLWAYIS IN OPERATION.
AMENDMENTNO. 4 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Carolina Power 5 Light Company ENVIRONMENTALREPORT MAINDAM DISCHARGE THRU HOWELL BUNGE R VALVES FIGURE 2.4.2-42
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 may have been made or planned since the construction permit review.
~Res onse:
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.
3.
The delay of the Cape Fear River makeup water pump station and pipeline until operation of Unit 2.
The Environmental Report has undergone an amendment as a result of the cancellation of Units 3 and 4.
This updating was substantially completed by June, 1982 and the majority of the revisions were submitted in the June amendment.
Additionally, reference to the 500 kV Harris<<Har nett line was deleted from the ER in the June amendment.
The Cape Fear River Makeup System will be installed prior to fuel load for Unit 2.
Analyses provided in the October 15, 1982 amendment to the SHNPP Environmental Report (ER) support the conclusion that the makeup system is not needed for one unit operation.
In addition, less makeup water will be required for two unit operation than was originally stated for four unit operation.
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.
'F fi))(cd ry 4 cv.
I
~
I lr," j',
c r
I )
f
>>(C I
c 4
vfj
'(
VJf!tvl )
rr I
f f I I
I
'I f)c
('T 4,
f<<
I
1 4
I
~ >
I'I,,
(I, Ir,\\ jf
~,-, v-, ) 4, (p )
I.
S]
4 rel l 4 ~
IQC I '
~)F 4
I
)F) rl(r II I
4 svpF>c" I c rv (f f )
~
Fc) Sf I g()
~
).Ii
~
I 1 4 f)F( ~
"p
) Sjf rv I
cc r
ffc Igt >
tc f ci v,c lc,"f
<<c (y i,, '",, ~,
~
(c
~
I I
IT'
)
f
~
! i
'E
~
I
)
"Cll, 4
II c
c (
' c)
C I
)1 c, g- ~
<<Ip
~ 'T ~ r<<r F,*) c,
.(VS(NTgl,
'I
~
4 c) I IT ih 1
I )
jf I
II F(
I r
ij'$
s) l r
<< I
<<vc 4 ~
) )F)jflf -
i)(t) f)
c
"<1%
) I-(TW
>TI 4
I I
ir(,, I
~ I, Q
) )
I F)
If I
14 lt I
>>g ~
r 4
1'I vcr" r ~ ~ ~ i<<'
I
'a) c V
rvfjc) 'I!
fv I
V>> t>T r r
~ lf"I '
r(F)f f'
'I
~)rr'f )I
<<<4
~ I
~ rv I ~ F f(C'<<T!
~-
~
4
~
rg
~
4
'rrc r)
T f(VM
)
(
SI 4
<<)
rl,
~
~
~ ~fj<
~
~ T c,)
g
~
~ '<<*
s, l c p >I(vc pp >c 4 "
f I
TrSVCT ~ Tr)
~ ~
CHANGES IN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SHNPP DUE TO MAJOR CHANGES IN STATION DESIGN OL-ER SECTION DESIGN CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT 5.1 Units 3
& 4 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.
5.1 Cape Fear River Makeup Water Pump Station Delay The short-term effect of delaying the Cape Fear makeup into the Harris Reservoir may decrease the likelihood of occurrence of eutrophication;
- however, the long-term potential for eutrophicatio remains.
Because of the complexity of the eutrophication phenomena, prediction of a definite time frame when the problem will occur is not feasible.
- However, a monitoring program is currently under way to identify the onset of eutrophication.
If eutrophic conditions are
- detected, corrective measures will be initiated to rectify the problem.
The potential for Corbicula (Asiatic clam) invasion may be minimized by delaying the Cape Fear makeup system.
- However, infestation by the Asiatic clam is still likely due to transport from other areas by boat and wildlife usage of the reservoir.
5.2 5.2 Units 3 & 4 Cancellation Units 3
& 4 Cancellation Radiological impacts associated with Units 3
& 4 will be eliminated.
The chemical and biocide discharges associated with Units 3
& 4 will be eliminated.
Therefore, any environmental effects of the chemical and biocide discharges will be further minimized.
5.3 Cape Fear River Makeup Water Pump Station Delay The delay and reduction in the volume of water pumped from the Cap Fear River into the Harris Reservoir will not affect the proposed chlorination system.
Natural occurring plankton and bacterial populations will create the potential for biofouling.
The frequency
-and duration of chlorination will not change appreciably but will relate to seasonal periodicities in plankton levels.
5.5 5.7 Harris-Harnett 500 kV Line Cancellation Units 3 & 4 Cancellation All environmental effects that would have resulted from constructing and operating this line will be eliminated.
The amount of U fuel needed for the 40~ear life of the plant will 235 be reduced by approximately one-half.
(5521C4T4a)
ER Question 290.4 (Section 3.3):
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 the reservoir bottom.
Mhere are the exposed areas likely 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, based on four unit operation, the exposed areas generally will be restricted to the shallow headwater regions of the Mhite 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 during a 4-5 ft drawdown can be approximated from this figure.
The drawdown predicted for four unit operation is conservative for one or two unit operation.
Drawdowns and therefore, environmental
- impacts, are less for one or two unit operation.
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 (Juncos ef'fusus),
black willow (Salix ~ni ra), bulrush
(~Soir us abrovirens),
and various species of sedge (Carex spp.), will be submersed and eliminated as the reservoir fills to normal'ool 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.
ftr VV I 1
F'
~
>> f
') V i:
~ r<<,<<(f<<f 1 L, r<<>> t s 1>>
I t)(q
'f y f la S<<>> Vf I'I,<<1st tr<<(
= >><<<<tl 1'
~ 1
(>>
g(t>>
t)
I rva'a>>
" a>t<<
ff V
1'l(
(
lyf tgt I
4(<>l) ( s l I(
'f):>>'f'f)'if't)"ff>>>>)~lf
'.'f'V
~ r ~
~ t<<lr 1,
>> tr<<<< ~ <<t <<
<<1i
~ <<
f((1<<
at ra t<<s j
t sar) Ill t
/<<tv I
v II a>>f ~
SV ) (r>><<s Vtff Ill <<
'V I y',SI*
V I
>>S(
IL
! <<f<<y ~ I ')f1 I 1)"
( Ivf r'1 s>>
~
il
~
at a
1 V I Vl<<a I)rliI l
I litt I I I
1 s
'irt 4(f V
1 V
~-
(1' SV y('r
-1(>>a, s ', '
tj a>>[ a(
~ I(F
~
I F
s- 'll I
~ 1<<'<<V}a t i!<>>
r Vf
- ~
IV 0 1 ~ ~
Ill I I
al ~r<<
, 'air
'I VS<<
Vl<<,s Vast<<
r 1<<
(
~
~>>'Vt>>f q
<<1 }
~ t
'I
'll"ifrr F l'I
'fi" ( f1 tr I
t>>l ~
i
>> +t)t},ff>> V f<<(<<+((t(
.Pf Ita I tf)"
1f f<< f t'<<l'1(f, II "
V
~
f
~f(
vr s>>e
~f I
tr S I ~lS<<t t
~ r<<i st SI V F<<y'}sl ti
~((i rl ff;t(avt) l)lv rvl>> 0'kl"
(j'+Ca>>f
~
($
rrt>> ( t) gab
~ f
~ (
~
I
(
I t r>>1)ytt VV>>SIV a +
r<<
h
- saF, t)
V's "ff la I
~'
1
( <<<<Vl'i}
~\\
}r>>s-s l vr>>
a s
ti I
14 V
I I >> t ) r 1 y'v(
ttv/g fv l ff(>>
t" f s>> ~ fa>>" ~
i f'f) fff ff" tf lf" ()f68>>()5'f d+ '" "}"
ER Question 310.8:
Are there any substantial changes in the station external appearance or layout which have been made subsequent to the description in the OL-ER? If so, please describe.
~Res ense:
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 Harris-Harnett 500 kV transmission line also has been cancelled.
h 4
I fl
~ '
"SV 1+(
<8 4
II
'l h
S7 I'1 ini~ - >
I L
ER Question 470. 11:
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 eneters an unrestricted area to the identified location and the estimated stream dilution at that location.
~Res ense:
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.
Assumptions for letdown rates and reservoir volume for the operation of one unit without makeup and two units with makeup are provided in ER Amendment No.
4 to Section 5.2.
The steady-state concentration of a particular nuclide can be calculated using Equation 45 of Regualtory Guide 1. 113.
A
'f lh 1
4g
~
1 0
I 4
4 ll
'C
ER Ques tion 240. 6 (3. 4. 2. 2):
Provide a listing, by month, of the expected average and maximum consumptive water use for one unit generation.
Response
Table 3.4.2-4 provides the requested information.
This information is incorporated in Amendment 4 to the SHNPP ER.
TABLE 3.4.2-4 PLANT CONSUMPTIVE WATER USE - UNITS I 8, 2 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM ONE UNIT OPERATION TWO UNIT OPERATION Forced Evaporative Other Plant Water Tote I One Unit Forced Evaporative Other Plant Water Total Two (hit Cooling Tower Loss Consumption (I)
Consumption Cool lng Tower Loss Consumption Consumption (I)
AVG MAX AVG MAX AVG MAX AVG MAX AVG MAX AVG MAX JANUARY FEBRUARY 20 0 21,0
- 20. I 21.2 21,0 21,9 2.0 5,3 2,1 5.3 2.1 5.5 22 0 26,3 22,2
- 26. 5 23 I 27,4 40,0 42 0 40.2 42,4 42.0 43.8 2,0 5,3 2,1 5.3 2.1 5,5 42 0 47 3 42.3 47,7 44,1 49.3 APRIL 22.2 22,5 2.2 5.6 24,4 28.
1 44.4 45,0 2.2 5,6 46.6 50.6 MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER 23,1 23 8 23.8 24.4 24 I
24.6 23.9 24.5 23,4 24 I
- 22. I 23,3 21 0 222 19,9 21 ~ I 2,3 6.0 2,4 6
I 2,4 6.2 2,4 6
I 2,3 6,0 2,2, 5,8 2,1 5 6 2,0 5,3 25 4 29 8 26.2 30,5 26.5 30,8 26.3 30 6 257 30 1
24,3 29, I 23,1 27 8 219 264 46,2 47.6 47.6 48.8 48.2 49.2 47,8 49,0 46,8 48.2 44,2 46,6 42 0 44,4 39,8 42 2 2,3 6,0 2,4 6.1 2,4 6,2 2,4 6,1 23 6,0 2,2 5,8 2.1 5,6 20 5,3 48,5 53 0 50,1 54,9 50,4 55 4 50,1 55 I 49,1 '4.2 46,4 52,4 44,1 50,1 41,8 47 5 (I)
Conservatively assumed to be 10$ of one unit forced evaporation rate.
Operation of units at 100$ power, (2)
ER Question No. 4:
Provide a more detailed description of the model and input data used to calculate the isotherms shown on Figures 5. 1.2-2 and 5. 1.2-3.
~Res ense:
The methodology used to generate the isotherms shown on Figures 5. 1.2-2 and 5.1.2-3 is described in Section 5. 1.2 of the Environmental Report. It is assumed that two units are operating, that there is an absence of significant currents in the reservoir, and no credit is taken for dilution or diffusion.
This simplified methodology results in the uniform circular nature of the plume isotherms.
Thus, with the given heat load, the area within the isotherms is dependent on the heat of evaporation and the heat of conduction from the water surface.
The heat of evaporation and the heat of conduction for cooling pond surfaces were calculated by the method outlined in the publication, "The Capacity of Cooling Ponds to Dissipate Heat," by W. D. Patterson, J. L. Leoporati, and M. J. Scarpa, for presentation at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the American Power Conference, held in. Chicago, Illinois during April 1971.
The following are excerpted from this publication:
1.
Heat of Conduction Hc
=.26(73
+ 7.3W) (Ts - Ta) (P/760) BTU/ft2/day where:
Hc
= heat of conduction in BTU/ft /day W = wind speed in MPH Ts
= pond surface temperature in degrees F
Ta
= dry bulk air.temperature in degrees F
P
= station atmosphere pressure in mm Hg.
This equation relates heat lost by conduction to heat lost by evaporation and was first explored by I. S.
Bowen in "The Ratio of Heat Losses by Conduction and Evaporation from any Water Surface, "Ph sical Review 27", No. 2, June 1926.
fVt
'V 1
1 e
~
~
et LV te y'I tqy ',.
1 e,ee 0'd<ef gtjf f
y E
~ "(>.y.i.".4
"', f "
I et r e
re I
1, epttt 1
lt t tt
~
r
),V, "tt re fprf
- e. If f "eyi 4,
f A 'fyf I e+r eq,
~ e, qrf "Ij gy lect e P e
v e
~
1 1
I I,
lt I lt vg'<"
f 'i~".
." '> f!) "'f j
e F
r -ll eet e
vt" r1 1
r)...g A.
e I
(
I A
F t
1 ~
I ~ te
- age, e '1, e
A e FqeVet te1 I Fe I
e) y k
y "VII,l
~f e
A ~ =
~ 1
~ 1 I
r'1 V ~(If ttt f,t 1,,
f'e I et
~,
t, FI e
'I
~
,Ve lee -r We ~.
r A
~
I It It I
ef't V
h t' 1
de+ '
~
~
V
'I
~
Fe A
, + re t e e'
w
~
't (g tre
/ ',
(le l',
~ 1 '
re 'I )f
'f <<)ff "
I" f'f'J P ';'f)!>J 9P
> f Ice/
tt ette) 1 Fe, (t
et I'V VV
\\
Fere e
e ee
, ~
f t
e e
F)
I
~ y
~"
yl V
~
r 4 Cy "et
240.7 6
240.8 (2.4.2)
(Cont'd) 500~r. flood levels in the Cape Fear River.
Consequently, the flood level shown on Figure 240.7-1 represents both the pre-construction and post-construction conditions.
The 100~r.
and 500-yr floodplains adjoining the Cape Fear River in the vicinity of the Buckhorn Creek are shown in Figure 240.7-1.
The corresponding plains for the Buckhorn Creek and the makeup reservoirs adjacent to the plant island are shown in Figure 240.7-2.
The flood profiles in the Cape Fear River are based on the following data provided by the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Reference 240.7-1):
Location 100~r.
Flood Water Level (Ft. above MSL)
Standard Project (approx.
500 yr) Flood Water Level (Ft. above MSL) 10,000 ft. Upstream of Buckhorn Dam 168. 5 186. 5 Upstream Side of Buckhorn Dam 165. 5 182. 0 Downstream Side of Buckhorn Dam 159.5 182.0 4 miles Downstream of Buckhorn Dam 147. 0 172. 0 The flood water level profile slopes uniformly between the two locations upstream of the Buckhorn Dam as well as between the two locations downstream of the Buckhorn Dam.
The pr'e-construction flood profiles of Buckhorn Creek for the 100~r.
and 500~r. floods were calculated using the HEC-2 computer program (Ref. 240.7-2).
The 100-yr.
and 500~r. flood flows in the Buckhorn Creek before plant construction were obtained from SHNPP ER Figure 2.4.2-28 as 9,900 cfs and 16,000 cfs, respectively, at its confluence with the Cape Fear River.
Based on these flows, the corresponding flows in the tributaries of the Buckhorn Creek were estimated according to their drainage area ratios.
Since the normal creek channel is rather shallow, the creek cross-sections for the flood flows were principally scaled from a 1/12000 scale map at 1000 to 2000 feet intervals.
In addition, available project construction maps of the area adjacent to the Cape Fear River were also used.
Manning's n-values of 0.04 and 0.045 were selected for the main and flood channels, respectively, in the flood profiles computation.
The flood plains adjoining the Buckhorn Creek and its tributaries were delineated from the 1/12000 contour map as shown in Figure 240.7-2.
