ML18018A592
| ML18018A592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 07/05/1983 |
| From: | Hurford W CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0972, RTR-NUREG-972 LAP-83-290, NUDOCS 8307070083 | |
| Download: ML18018A592 (20) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE 4
Carolina Power
~s Light Company SERIAL:
LAP-83-290 July 5, 1983 Mr. Dzrrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing 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
RESPONSE
TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
Dear Mr. Eisenhut:
Carolina Power
& Light Company (CP&L) hereby provides comments on the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) Draft Environmental Statement (DES) (NUREG-0972).
A listing of the comments is attached.
Also attached are seventeen (17)
DES pages that have been marked for typographical errors and minor comments.
Please contact my staff if you have any questions.
Yours very truly, W.
ur or Manager Technical Services WJH/tda (726 2NLU)
CC Mr. N. Prasad Kadambi (NRC)
Mr. G. F. Maxwell (NRC-SHNPP)
Mr. J.
P. O'eilly (NRC-RII)
Mr. Travis Payne (KUDZU)
Mr. Daniel F.
Read (CHANGE/ELP),
Chapel Hill Public,Libra'ry Wake County Public Library Mr. Wells Eddleman Dr. Phyllis Lotchin Mr. John D. Runkle Dr. Richard D. Wilson Mr. G.
O. Bright (ASLB)
Dr. J.
H. Carpenter (ASLB)
Mr. J. L. Kelley (ASLB)
PDR ADOCK 05000400 D
'S eVilte Street
~ P, O. BCX >55*
~ Reteign.
N. C. 27502
Comm'ents on the SHNPP-DES (NUREG-0972)
CPL 1:
1.
The North Carolina Eastern Hunicipal Power Agency (NCEMPA) should be added as a co-applicant for the SHNPP Operating License on page 1-1.
CPL 2:
CPL 3:
2.
The SHNPP Environmental Report correctly indicates 47 cfs as the maximum blowdown for two unit operation in Table 3.4.2-3 as opposed to the value of 54 cfs cited on page 4-2 of the DES.
3.
A clarification should be included with the third paragraph of DES Section 4.2.3.4 (page 4-3).
The last sentence of this paragraph should read:
The rate of biocide application for this type of treatment has not been finalized; however, NPDES permit limitations would not be exceeded.
CPL 4:
The concentration limit for chlorine stated on page 4-11 of the DES should be clarified to indicate that the "concentration will not,exceed a
'daily average of 0.2 mg/1 and an instantaneous maximum of 0.5 mg/l."
5.
The dominant lowland forest species listed on page 4-22 of the DES should be corrected to include only the following species:
American elm, sweet gum, red maple, American sycamore, and river birch.
Also, the last sentence of section 4.3.4.1 should indicate that the "borrow areas and laydown areas were planted with pines in 1981 and 1982."
CPL 6:
6.
There will be no commercial fishery allowed in'he Harris reservoir contrary to the statement on page 4-25 and elsewhere in the DES.
All references to commercial fishing should be deleted'from the DES.
CPL 7
7.
On page 4-26 of the DES, Hydrilla is represented as "likely to occur in the Shearon Harris reservoir, if it is not already present."
However, recent surveys have found-no ~idence of Hydrilla in the reservoir through June 15, 1983.
Please indicate that no evidence of Hydrilla has been found in the reservoir as of this date.
CPL 8:
8.
The three Wake County lakes listed on page 4;27 of the DES should be Lake Wheeler, Lake Anne, and Reedy Creek Lake (rather. than Big Lake).
CPL 9:
9.
A red-cockaded woodpecker has been sighted more recently than the DES reports (page 4-29).
A red-cockaded woodpecker was observed on November 1,
1982 on CP&L land approximately 1.5 miles NNE of the station.
At that location (NW of US Highway 1),
two pine trees containing den cavities showing current evidence of use were found.
The tract of land where the woodpecker was found is not required for pro)ect development and has been dedicated as a refuge and management area for the red-cockaded woodpecker.
CPL 10:
10.
Contrary to the last sentence of Section 4.3.6.1 on page 4-29 of the DES, natural reproduction of pre-existing fish has adequately populated the main reservoir.
No stocking is planned or needed at this time.
Thus, the phrase "when stocked with fish" should be deleted.
CPL 11:
CPL 12:
11.
Currently, there are approximately 240 people employed at the Harris Energy and Environmental Center as opposed to the number of 125 cited on page 4-30.
f 12.
The first paragraph of Section.5.2 on page. 5-1 of the DES should be clarified to indicate that both "hunting" and "no-hunting" areas are to be designated on CP&L property outside the site exclusion boundary.
CPL 13:
13.
The last sentence of Section 5.5.1 on page 5-12 should be corrected to read:
Of this, approximately 1741 ha (4300 acres) is needed for the main and auxiliary reservoirs and 40 ha (100 acres) is occupied by plant buildings, cooling towers,
- roadways, sidewalks, etc.
CPL 14:
14.
Please provide 'the references implied in Section 5.5.1-2 by the sentence beginning, "Based on the staff's knowledge of drift studies at plants having freshwater natural draft cooling towers...."
CPL 15:
15.
The last paragraph of Section 5.5.2.3 on page 5-20 of the DES should be corrected to read:
Reservoir drawdown will temporarily reduce cover for wildlife....
'CPL 16:
16.
The first paragraph on page 5-55 should be clarified by adding to the sentence which begins, "Recreational use of land" the limiting clause "with the exception of hunting."
CPL 17:
17.
Corrections are necessary in Appendix I, "Fishery Estimates of Harris Reservoir and Cape Fear River in the Vicinity of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant,."
Fish species of the Hississippi drainage differ from those of the Atlantic Coast drainage.
Therefo~ the comparisons between the SHNPP reservoir and the Tennesse Valley reservoirs in paragraphs (1) and (2) on page I-1 are invalid.
Also, there is no justification for predicting the sport fish harvest on the basis of Tennesse data on Page I-2.
In the listing of sport fish, carp should not be included, and smallmouth bass, spotted
- bass, and walleye are not expected in the Harris reservoir.
As stated earlier, there will be no commercial fishing allowed in the Harris reservoir and the references to commercial fishing should be deleted.
CPL 18'.
18.
Attached are pages marked with miscellaneous typograpical errors and minor comments.
CPL 18A is located on page 4-3 of typos CPL 18B is located on page 4-6 of typos CPL 18C is located on page 4-18 of typos CPL 18D is located on page 5-71 of typos
1 INTRODUCTION
- 1. 1 Resume I
The proposed action is the issuance of operating licenses (OLs) to Carolina Power and Light Company (CP8L, the applicant) for startup and operation of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant knits 1 and 2 (Docket. Nos.
50-400 and 50-401).
Each unit will use a pressurized-water reactor
'(PWR} and will have an initial gross electrical output, capacity of 900 MW.
Condenser cooling during normal operations will be accomplished by a closed cycle system with cooling towers, with a man-made reservoir serving the needs for makeup and blowdown.
In addition to the main cooling sys em, the plant contains an emergency service water system (ESWS) to provide cooling to critical components if the normal service water system is not available.
The ESWS uses cooling water from the auxiliary reservoir created by a separate dam.
The applicant has indicated that water from Cape Fear River will be drawn into the main reservoir, if necessary, when both Units 1'and 2
are operational.
For the period during which Unit 1 is operational but Unit 2 is under construction, no need for water from Cape Fear River is 'anticipated.
1.2 Adm-inistrative Histor In September
- 1971, CPEL filed an application with the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), for permits to construct Shearon Harris Units 1, 2, 3, and 4.
The.conclusions resulting from the staff's environmental review were issued as a Revised Final Environmental Statement-Construction Phase (RFES-CP) in'arch 1974.
Following reviews by the AEC regu-latory staff and its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safetyguards, public hearings were held before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Construction permits for Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 (CPPR-158,
- 159, 160, and 161) were issued on January 27, 1978.
In response to applications for operating licenses for the Shearon Harris plants, NRC performed an acceptance review and, on November 25,
- 1981, issued a letter accepting the applications.
On December 18,
- 1981, the applicant informed NRC that Units 3 and 4 had been cancelled, and on January 7,
1982 the applicant requested that Units 1 and 2 be considered concurrently for operating licenses.
The Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) was docketed on December 22, 1981.
The applicant has informed the staff. that as of February 1983 construction of
,Unit 1 was about 76Ã complete, that Unit 2 was about 4X complete, and that the
-fuel loading date for Unit 1 was projected to be June
'1985.
F 983 On February 1, ~,
NRC issued a Draft Safety Evaluation Report that presented the current state of the staff safety review.
- 1. 3 Permits and Licenses The applicant has provided in Section 12 of the Environmental Report-Operating License Stage (ER-OL) a status listing of environmentally related permits, approvals, and 'licenses required from Federal and state agencies in connection Shearon Harris DES
with the proposed project.
The staff has reviewed the listing and other infor-mation and is not aware of any potential non-RRC licergng di-ficolties that would significantly delay or preclude the proposed operation of'the plant.
Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Mater Act of 1977, the issuance of a water quality certification, or waiver therefrom, by the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NCONRCD) is a necessary prerequisite to the issuance of an operating license by the NRC.
This certification was received by the applicant on September 14, 1977.
The NCONRCD issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Mater Act of 1977, to the applicant on July 12, 1982 (reproduced in Appendix G of this report).
Shearon Harris DES
-".. 2. 3. 3 Groundwater Use There will be no withdrawal of groundwater for use by the Shearon Harris plant.
4.2.3. 4 Mater Treatment The planned treatment of water for use in the Shearon Harris plant has changed somewhat from that presented in the RFES.-CP.
Mater for the plant condenser and service water cooling systems will be treated with biocide to control biofouling, but it is not. likely to be treated with sulfuric acid, as planned in the RFES-CP.
This change is a result of %he reduction in concentration factor in the condenser circulating water system.
The remainder of the water withdrawn for use in the Shearon Harris plant will be routed to the primary filtered makeup water system and to the demineralized water system.
In'assing through these
- systems, the water will be filtered, disi nfected, or demineralized, as appropriate, for use in the plant's primary and secondary water systems and in the potable water sys-tem.
These pretreated waters will be treated further to control corrosion in
~ the condensate, feedwater, reactor coolant,,
and closed water coolant systems.
The chemicals proposed for use are the same as those indicated in the RFES-CP:
namely hydrazine,
Annual chemical usage is shown in Table 4.2.
The estimated amounts of Cpt ]gh chemicals to be used in plant systems have changed
+
RFES-CP as described below.
V The applicant plans to use a
'oluti to control blofouling in the condenser circulating and service water systems.
Chlorination of the cool- >~>~
ing tower/condenser water system is the same as proposed in the RFES-CP:
two gg, approximately 30-minute per day per unit applications, with smaller application frequencies or durations possible during the cooler months of the year, depend-ing on biofouling severity (responses to staff questions E291.10 and E291.11).
The design objective for this system is the attainment of a 0;5 mg/1 free avail-able chlorine (FAC) concentration in the condenser effluent during the chlorina-tion cycle.
It is anticipated that the biocide application requirement will be about 3 to 5 mg/1.
These values are the same as those presented in the RFES-CP.
The application points for this system are in the cooling 'tower makeup intake structure and in the cooling tower intake structure.
On1y one unit will be chlorinated at a time.
The plant service water system will also be chlorinated on an 'intermittent basis.
Chlorination is planned for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> per day per unit at the service water system pumps drawing water from either of the plant cooling towers.
The applicant has indicated that continuous low level chlorination of the service
~ water system may prove to be necessary, should Asiatic clams become established
.in the main reservoi r (response to staff question E291. 10).
The rate of biocide application for this type of treatment has not been finalized.
The average amount of chlorine biocide to be used has been esti'mated at 330 to 550 kg per day per unit (725-1200 lb per day per unit),
as compared to 454.5 kg per day per unit (1000 lb per day per unit) estimated in the RFES-CP.
Shearon Harris DES 4-3
I I
AESEAVOIA ll FOIE FAOTECTION ~ ItONCVN I A.t tinpot.t 36 63 YARD AUNOF F Allf Altl Ot I II~
Mht I i>I EVAF LOSSES LAKE
~ LOW DOWN CADIlttO TOWER MAKE. UP CODLING TOWER SLUDOE DEWATEAltlO SEAVICE WATEA IT FAEIAEATWATEA EI CIEAAWELL 3I FOTAOLE WATfA I3 LAUNDIIY~ I IS SAtllIARYWASIl 66 WAIEATATA'IMINI J
I C)>IV COtlDENSE A NON COt TAMltlATED WASTE AtlD FLO A DAAINS IO CIIEMIGAL WASTE TAEA'FMENT METAL CLEANINO WAS IE FLUSII EIECOII LAO 32 MAKE UP AtlD FOLISIIINO DEMINEAALIZEAS STEAM OENEAATOA WASTE TREATMENT
>c,p JCA. +
(p7 SECONDARY 3l CONOINSAIE SIOAAOE 35 35 AEACTOA 36 AADWASTE PAOCESSINO SYSTEM II W SOI IIIlthSI I Figure l.l Station water use (Source:
-ER-OL Figure 3.3-1)
- 4. 2. 4 Cooling Systems
- 4. 2. 4. 1 Intake Systems The locations of intake systems on the Cape Fear River and the main reservoir are the same as described in the RFES-CP.
The designs are essentially the same except for a reduction in size of the cooling tower makeup intake as a result of the cancellation of Units 3 and 4.
The portion of the emergency service water and cooling tower makeup water intake structure that was intended to serve the cancelled units will not be completed.
The volumes of water estimated to be required as.makeup to the main reservoir and the cooling towers have decreased.
because of the cancellation of Units 3
and 4.
It is now projected that the Cape Fear River intake will not be used until both Units 1 and 2 are in operation.
NE The Cape Fear River intake will be located on the ~ bank of the river imme-diately upstream of Buckhorn Dam.
The intake system will consist of four pumps with a total capacity of 9. 1 m~/sec (320 cfs).
Two of the pumps each have a
capacity of 1.3 m /sec (45 cfs),
and the other two each have a capacity of
~ 3. 25 ms/sec (115 cps).
Spare locations on ei ther end of the structure are pro-vided for future installation of two additional pumps to increase the capacity of the total intake to 14.2 m /sec (500 cfs), if greater capacity is needed.
The applicant does not propose to use the larger provisional pumping capacity;
- thus, the staff has not considered withdrawals of greater than 9. 1 m~/sec (320 cfs) in its assessment.
The structure is made up of 10 bays, each provided with a coarse
- screen, stop log guides, 3/8-in.
mesh traveling screen, and guides for two fine screens.
The two center bays each serve one of the smaller pumps.
Each of the two larger pumps and the two provisional pumps wi 11 be served by two adjoining bays.
The applicant estimates a maximum velocity of 0. 12 m/sec (0.39 fps) through the screens serving the smaller pumps and 0. 3 m/sec (0. 98 fps) through one of the two redundant screens serving the larger pumps.
In the latter case, one of the screens is assumed to be completely blocked.
At the position of the stop log
- guides, the mean intake velocity is (0. 15 m/sec (0.5 fps) at low water level conditions.
The cooling tower makeup intake system is located at the end of a short approach channel off the Thomas Creek arm of the reservoir.
The system is equipped with three makeup pumps (one per unit and one spare).
Each pump is sized for
- 1. 6 m~/sec (26,'000 gpm or
- 57. 9 cfs) capacity.
Makeup requirements for one-unit and two-unit operation are about
- 1. 3 m /sec (46 cfs) and 2.. 6 m /sec (92 cfs),
respectively (ER-OL, Section 3.4.2.9).
The pumps supply, for two units, an additional
- 0. 04 m~/sec (600 gpm or 1. 3 cfs) of water to the plant water treat-ment facility.
Each pump is served by a separate bay with.inflowing water pas-sing through similar screening structures as described for the Cape Fear River intake.
The intake was designed to achieve an approach vel'ocity (0. 15 m/sec (0. 5 fps) at the stop log guides.
The applicant has estimated veTocities through the 3/8-in.
mesh traveling screens at low water to be 0. 22 m/sec (0. 73 fps), with flow of 1. 8 m~/sec (63 cfs)
(ER-OL Section
- 3. 4. 2. 9).
Shearon Harris OES
Trash removed a'oth intake structures will be deposited in.a landfill located on site.
No special provisions are incorporated in the designs to return live fish to the river or reservoir because minimal impingement of fish is anticipated (see Section 5.5.2).
4.2.4.2 Discharge System Cooling tower blowdown will be discharged to the main reservoir through a single port jet at a point approximately 5.6 km (3.5 miles) south of the plant and about 1.6 km (1 mile) north of the main reservoir dam (see Figure 4.13.
Both the loca-tion and discharge design ave different from those given in. the RFES-CP (Sec-tion 3.3).
The new location is about l. 6 km (1, 0 mile) farther south of the plant than the old location.
Mater depths at the new location are
- 12. 2 to 13. 7 m
(40 to 45 ft), as compared to depths of 6. 1 to 7.6 m (20 to 25 ft) at the old location.
The discharge design reviewed in the RFES-CP consisted of two 14-in.-diameter pipelines and submerged multiport diffusers.
The present design consists of og48-in.-diameter pipe.
The centerline of the pipe opening is at el 182 ft, oY'11.6 m (38 ft) deep with respect to normal reservoir water level at el 220 ft.
The pipe is parallel (zero slope) with respect to the lake bottom at the point of discharge.
Discharge velocities for one-unit and two-unit opera-tion are 0.58 m/sec (1.9 fps) and
- 1. 12 m/sec (3.7 fps), respectively; corres-pondin~
maximum blowdown rates are 0.66 m /sec (15 mgd or 23.2 cfs) and 1.31 m /sec (30 mgd)
(ER-OL Section 3.4.2.7).
- 4. 2. 5
'Radioactive-Maste-Management System Under requirements set by Part 50.34a of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regula-tions (10 CFR 50.34a),
an application for a permit to construct a nuclear power reactor must include a preliminary design for equipment to keep levels of'radio-active materials in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA).
The term ALARA takes into account the state of technology and the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety and other societal and socioeconomic considerations and in relation to ihe utilization of atomic energy in the public interest.
Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 provides numerical guidance zn.mediation dose design objectives for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors (LMRs) to meet the requirement that radioactive materials in effluents released to unrestricted areas be kept ALARA.
To comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50. 34a, the applicant provided final designs of radwaste systems and effluent control measures for keeping levels of
. radioactive materials in effluents ALARA within the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR 50.
The quantities of radioactive effluents from the Shearon Harris'lant were estimated by the staff,-based on the descri'ption of the radwaste system and its mode of operation.
The staff utilized the calculative model of NUREG-0017 to project releases from the plant.
Shearon Harris will include a fluidized bed dryer as a part of its solid radwaste system.
The dryer will be utilized to reduce the volume of solid radwaste that will be shipped from the plant to a low-level waste burial site.
The operation of this equipment will result in airborne effluents and an additional source to the liquid rad-waste system with corresponding liquid effluents.
The calculative model of NUREG-0017 does not have the capability to calculate the effluents resulting Shearon Harris DES
- 4. 3.2.'1 One-Uni t Operati on For one-unit operation, the applicant performed a simulation study of reservoir ooeration over a 7-year period from 1973 o 1980.
During this period, the aver-age flow in Buckhorn Creek was nearly identical to the synthesized average stream flow in Buckhorn Creek for the period 1924 to 1981.
For this simulation
- study, no makeup cap'ability from the Cape Fear River was assumed.
The forced evaporation amounts assumed for one-unit operation, which are based on a load factor of 75, are tabulated in the ER-llL.
ZZi 8 (ajt~~a aA.a-II )
For the one-unit operation simulation, the re ervoir level was found to fluc-tuate over a range of 1.7 m (5.5 ft) during e 7-year period.
The minimum and maximum water levels were 216.3 ft msl and.. ft msl, respectively, and the average reservoir level was 219.4 ft msl.
The mean inflow and outflow rates over the period were 1.9 and 1.2 cms (67.6 and 43 cfs), respectively.
The staff considers the assumption of a 75K load factor during the driest and probably hotest months to be nonconservative.
However, increasing the load factor to 10(
during the drought period would increase the maximum drawdown by less than 0.3 m (1 ft).
To determine the maximum expected drawdown over the life of the plant, the applicant used the 100-year drought flow for Buckhorn Creek.
This was deter-mined during the CP stage analysis using synthesized flows for Buckhorn Creek for the period '1924 to 1969.
The minimum starting reservoir level at the begin-ning of the drought period was assumed to be the lowest level determined during the 7-year normal flow period (el 216.3 ft msl).
The minimum water level deter-mined from the 100-year drought analysis was el 211.0 ft msl.
The reservoir did not release any flow over the spillway during the 1-year design drought simulation.
The applicant also did a simulation study using historical measured flows during the period May 1980 to May 1982, which had flo~s in Buckhorn Creek between August 1980 and July 1981 that approached the monthly flows determined for the 100"year drought.
As with the 100-year drought simulation, the appli-cant used el 216. 3 ft msl as the starting elevation for the reservior.
The minimum reservoir water level determined for this critical.2-year period was el 209.4 ft msl, which is lower than that determined for the 100-year drought simulation.
The staff does not accept the applicant's 100-year drought simulation study as indicative of the maximum drawdown to be expected from a drought that has a
'robabi lity of occurrence of 0. 01 per year.
The reason is that the period of record used to provide data for the low flow frequency analysis was not updated to include the low flo~s occuring in 1980 and 1981.
If these had been included, the staff concludes that the calculated 100-year drought flo~s would have been
~ lower than those determined by the. applicant, especially because simulation of those years
{1980 and 1981) resulted in lower reservoir level.
However, the staff does accept the applicant's analysis of the flow period Hay 1980 to May 1982 as being indicative of the drawdown resulting from a drought having an annual probability of no more than 0.02 (50-year recur rence interval).
The staff accepts this because the lowest flows determined from a period of 58 years can be expected to have a 69K probability of containing a flow with at least a
'0-year recurrence interval.
In addition, the applicant assumed an artifically low reservoir level at the start of the analysis rather than the actual reser-vo'ir level, which, according to the applicant's 7-year simulation study, would have been normal pool level (el 220 ft msl).
Shearon Harris OES 4-17
The evaporation rates used by the applicant are termed "worst monthly" in the ER-OL.
In comparing these evaporation rates with those used by the applicant for the simulation study of average conditions, the staff concludes tnat they approximate a load factor of about 81'nder normal meteorological conditions.
This is considered by the staff to be a reasonable value for evaporative losses during a severe drought period but not necessarily a conservative value.
The staff concludes that normal inflow from Buckhorn Creek is sufficient for one-unit operation without makeup from the Cape Fear River.
The staff also'oncludes that without zdditiona) makeup from the Cape Fear River, fluctuation in water level of around 3.3 m (10 ft) may be expected to occur over a 40-year
- operating period.
Additionally, the staff 'concludes that the reservoir level would not fall below el ~~ ft msl (minimum operating level) except during the occurrence of an unusually severe drought (more severe than the drought of record) coupled with high power demand.
4.3.2.2 Two-Unit Operation ZO5 V CPL lBC The applicant's analysis for two units under average conditions is similar to that performed for one-unit operation except that the evaporation from two units (at 75K load) is used to determine water
- loss, and makeup pumping from the Cape Fear River is used to augment Buckhorn Creek natural inflow.
The same 7-year period used for the one-unit study was also used for the two-unit study, although the Cape Fear River flows for that period were slightly above average.
The effect of the above-average flows on the simulation 'is minor, however, because the makeup pumps withdraw only a small percentage of the water that is actually available.
Pumping from the Cape Fear River was assumed to be limited, as specified in the applicant's NPDES permit, not to exceed 25K of the river flow nor reduce the river flow to below 17.04 cms (600 cfs),
as measured at the Lillington gage.
The maximum pumping capacity assumed was 8.5 cms (300 cfs).
Although the applicant did not state assumptions regard-ing pumping schedule, the analyses indicate that pumping was assumed to occur whenever water was available and the reservoir was below normal operating level.
For the two-unit operation simulation, the reservoir level was found to fluc-tuate over a range of 1. 28 m (4.2 ft) durin'g the 7-year period.
The minimum and maximum water levels were el 217.7 ft*msl and el 221.9 ft msl, respectively.
The mean inflow and outflow rates were 2.6 cms (90 cfs) and 1.6 cms (48 cfs),
respectively.
For two-unit operation simulation, the reservoir would have been releasing water from the spillway approximately 54~ of the time.
To determine the maximum expected drawdown during a coincident 100-year drought in both Buckhorn Creek and the Cape Fear River, the applicant"presented the analysis for four-unit operation at a 100K load factor, which is described in the RFES-CP.
The lowest reservoir level determined from this analysis is el 205.7 ft msl, which is
~a ~ the lowest operating level of the reservoir.~
The applicant also performed a drawdown analysis for various historical drought
- periods, which were determined from a examination of the simulated monthly flow record.
This latter analysis was updated in the ER-Ol to include the low flow period of August 1980 to July 1981.
The worst historical period considering Shearon Harris OES 4-18
both Bucknorn Cre k and Cape Fear River flows was found to be February 1925 to January 1926.
During this simulation, the reservoir fell to el 214.6 ft msl, under what the applicant refers to as "worst monthlv" evaporation rates for four units.
These rates were examined by the'staff and found to be somewhat different on a
per-unit basis than those also termed "worst monthly" and used in the one-unit analysis.
The average annual water use per unit is about the same.
These rates are roughly equivalent (on a per-unit basis) to a
75M load factor under normal meteorological conditions for most of the year and a 93~ load factor under nor-mal meteorological conditions for the. months of June, July,, and August.
- However, the fact that the actual evaporative loss volumes used in the analysis are based on four-unit operation rather than two-unit operation makes the overall analysis conservative.
The staff does not accept the applicant's 100-year drought analysis as com-pletely valid because the frequency analyses were not updated to include recent
.low flows in Buckhorn Creek.
However, there is conservatism in assuming that the 100-year low flow in Buckhorn Creek is coincident with the 100-year low flow in the Cape Fear River.
This is demonstrated by the fact that the draw-downs determined for historical low flow periods do not even approach
.the extreme drawdown resulting from the 100-year drought simulation.
Also, the assumption of four-un-It-evaporation losses at a
100.". load factor adds consider-able conservatism to the applicant's
- analysis, The staff concludes that the water supply including the Cape Fear River makeup system is adequate for two-unit operation at the site.
There appears to be little likelihood that the plant will'ave to shut down or that the reservoir will experience severe drawdown as a result of droughts.
4.3.3 Mater equality Data on the surface ater quality of the Cape Fear River in the vicinity of Buckhorn Dam and on the Buckhorn and Mhiteoak Streams were presented as part of the applicant's bas line water quality monitoring program for the period February
. 1972 to February l~
This information was supplemented by the applicant with the water quality and water chemistry portion of the aquatic baseline program until 1977 and by the similar portion of the construction monitoring program beginning in 1978.
This program is projected to continue throughout the,con-struction period and into the operational period, terminating at the end ofthe first year after both units are in commercial operation (ER-OL Section 6.2. 1).
This plan is consistent with the staff recommendations.
The water quality and water chemistry studies collected data from 15 stations located on the Cape Fear River and. on the streams of the Buckhorn/Mhiteoak water'shed in the vicinity of the plant and reservoir sites.
Data from the stream stations are not available for the time period after December
- 1980, when the main reservoir dam was closed and reservoir filling began (water level in the main reservoir was at or above the proposed minimum operating level during 1982).
Data from the stream stations during the construction period indicate noticeable effects on water quality parameters from the station construction and reservoir/site clearing activities.
. Shearon Harris DES 4-19
Table 4.4 Mater quality character sties of the Cape Fear River (February 1978-December 1980)
Characteristics Mean Min Max pH (standard units)
Dissolved oxygen Total alkalinity Chloride Hardness Ammonia Kjeldahl nitrogen Nitrate-N Total phosphate-P Total orthophosphate-P Total organic carbon Chemical oxygen demand Total suspended sol'ids Total dissolved solids Turbidity (NTU).
Silica Sul fate al ci um Sodium Aluminum Magnesium Manganese Iron Copper Chromium Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Zinc Arsenic NA NA 23 9
29
- 0. 08
- 0. 51
- 0. 58
- 0. 24 0.'17 7.9 22 31 137 28 7.8 12 6.6
- 14. 8 1.3 2.8
- 0. 11
- 1. 57
- 0. 04 (0. 05 (0. 05 (0. 001
<0. 05
- 0. 01
. (0.05
<%01 5.1 0.2 5
3 9
- 0. 01
- 0. 07 (0. 05 (0. 01
- 0. 005 2.6 5
66 2
0.5 3.1 4.5 0.1 1.9-
- 0. 02
- 0. 27
(,0. 02 (0. 05 (0.05 (0. 001 (0. 05 (0. 01 (0. 05 (0. 01
. 8.5
- 13. 8 65 23 42
- 0. 44
- 1. 30
- 1. 90
- l. 12
- 0. 71
- 20. 3 68 116 235 160 20 27
- 12. 4
- 44. 6 6.6 4.'3
- 0. 44
- 7. 33
- 0. 05
<O. 05 (0. 05
- 0. 001 (0. 05
- 0. 01
- 0. 12" (0. 01 Note:
all values in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
"Sample thought to be contaminated during transport or analysis.
Shear on Harris DES 4"21
diversity oi iisn species at Buckhorn Creek sampling stations was highest oi all the stream s ations sampled.
This finding reilects a diversity'f stream habitat.
Harris Reservoir - Filling of the main reservoir began in November 1980 (ER-OL page 2.4. 1-1, though some accumulation of water in the lower part of the basin is indicated to have taken place as early as July 1980 as a result of construc-tion activity at the main dam (CP8 L, 1982a).
By September 30,
- 1982, the water level was at el 218.5 ft, and a normal operating level of el 220 ft was expected to be reached in March 1983 under average inflow conditions or by early 1985 under drought conditions (ER-OL Table
- 2. 4. 1-1).
As previously noted, all available data through 1980 are representative of pre-impoundment conditions.
Stations Wl, LM8, and TJl are located in areas that will be flooded when the reservoi r" reaches normal pool level; station BK3 is located at the boundary between normal pool and headwater regions; and CCl is upstream of the boundary.
Station Ml is in the immediate vicinity of the cool-ing tower blowdown discharge, and station LM8 is at the mouth of the cooling tower makeup channel.
With.the filling of the reservoi r, biota characteristic of small stream habitats will be replaced in domin'ance by biota that can adapt to reservoir conditions.
Phytoplanktonic species will increase as the periphytic and epiphytic diatoms decline.
Zooplankton adaptive to r
ervoir habitat will increase.
Stream benthos such as caddisflies and sto lies will be replaced by worms, midges, and possibly Corbicula..
The fish c munity is expected to change in numerical dominance from ah>nero,
- darters, and chubsuckers to gizzard shad (as a forage base),
centrarchids (sunfishes,
- crappies, and largemouth bass),
and catfishes.
As expected of a "young" reservoir, an attractive sport fishery should develop for species such as sunfishes., ochi~ crappie, largemouth bass,'nd catfish.
As the reservoir
- ages, forage fish (gizzard shad) and rough fish (carp) are expected to increase in biomass dominance.
Ichthyoplankton of the mature r eservoir should be dominated by gizzard shad.
Potential fishery harvests from Harris Reservoir and segments of the Cape Fear River have been estimated by both the happ&.cant and the staff.,
The staff's estimate of the maximum annual harvest from the reservoir and an'0-km river segment is 46,600 kg per year (see Appendix I).
Of this total, about 45,000 kg per year are projected f'r the reservoir and 1600 kg per year'or the 80-km river segment immediately downstream from the reservoir.
The
~ reservoir harvest is made up of 18,600,kg per year from the sport fishery and 26,400 kg per year from the commercial fishery.
The harvest from the river segment is all expected to come from sport fishing.
No harvesting of shellfish is expected in the vicinity of the Shear on Harris site.
The applicant has estimated the sport fishing har vests to be 22,200 kg per year from the reservoir, 500 kg per year in an 80-km river segment, and 7000 kg per year in the next river segment (from 80 km to 176 km downstream of the site).
The commercial fish and shellfish catch is judged by CP&L to be negligible from waters within 80 km of the station discharge (ER-OL Section
- 2. 1.3).
The appli-cant has included estimates of the commercial catch of fish and shellfish from Shearon Harris OES 4-25
public education and research and control of aquatic
- weecs, including hydrilla according to the March 17, 1983 personal communication between Dr. Billups and Mr. J.
Stewart.
The Council's Research Committee is directing field studies i
three Make County Lakes (Lake Mheeler, Lake Anne, and Big Lake) according to personal communications between Dr. Bi llups and Mr. Stewart on March 17,
- 1983, and Dr., Billups and+.
G. J.
- Davis, East Carolina University, March 15, 1983.
The council is directing a systems study of the possible combined control of hydrilla via physical (water level drawn down), biological (introduction of herbivorous exotic fish such as the grass carp and T lapia),
and chemical (herbicides)
- methods, according to a personal communi ation between Dr. Billup:
and Dr.
Ronald Hodson, assoCiate director of the Univ rsity of North Carolina Sea Grant Program,
- Raleigh, March 18, 1983.
Observations in the three Make County lakes'uring 1982 indicate that hydri lla growth is limited to water depths of 3 m (10 ft) and that the major controllin~
factor is turbidity (acting to limit light penetration).
During October throu< i
- December, fragmentation of hydri lla was noted to occur under windy conditions.
Subsequently, there has been major winter die-back of hydri lla in the three lakes under study, according to the March 15, 1982 personal communication between Dr. Billups andgr.
Davis.
Ex rapolation of the information from the three lakes under study to the Shearon Harris reservoirs would suggest that growth of hydri lla would also be limited to water depths of 3
m or less.
Turbidity is expected to be a gr eater limiting factor on light penetration in the "younger" reservoirs associated with the Shearon Harris plant; thus, growth of hydri lla may be limited to even shallower depths during the early years of plant operation.
Additional discus-sion of the control of hydrilla, if it should appear at the Shearon Harris site is in Section 5.5.2.
4.3.5 Meteorology The Shearon Harris site is in a zone of transition between the Coastal Plain ar the Piedmont Plateau.
Climatological data are available at the Raleigh-Durham Airport, which is about 32 km (20 miles) north-northeast of the site.
Only mir r
. variations in climate between these locations can be expected, and the Raleigh-Durham data may be considered as represen~ive.
The climate in this region is fairly moderate as a result of the moderating influence of the mountains to the west and the ocean to the east.
The moun-tains partially shield the region from eastward-moving cold air masses in win-ters; consequently, the mean January air temperature seldom drops below -6.7'C
.(20 F) on individual days.
The last freeze occurs. around the first week in April, and the first freeze in the fall occurs about the first of November.
Summer weather is dominated largely'y tropical air, which results in fairly high temperatures and humidities.
Mean monthly air temperatures (at the Raleigh-Durham Airport) and extreme values are given in Table 4.5.
The mean daily maximum temperature for July is 31'C (87.7'F).
However, the mean daily minimum for the period is 19.5 C (67.2 F), demonstrating the typical diurnal temperature cycle in the summer hot days and fairly cool nights.
The monthly pattern of rainfall varies from year to year.
Much of the rainfall in the sum-me'r is from thunderstorms, which may be accompanied by strong winds, intense
- rain, and hai l.
Approximately 62 thunderstorms per year are recorded at the Shearon Harris G=S 4" 27
wastes hat will be treated before re(ease to meet an estaDlished EPA effluent guideline or state water quality standard, the applicant has designed a
physical/chemical treatment scheme that is expected to produce effluenis in compliance with the applicable requir ements before release to the blowdown line.
Provisions have been made for holdup and sampling of these effluents before release to the blowdown line to ensure compliance with applicable limita-tions.
The staff believes that the effluent concentrations will be within the limits set by the NPDES permit.
The use of chlorine for-biofouling control will result in the discharge of chlorine-containing compounds in the cooling tower blowdown (Section
- 4. 2. 6. 2).
The applicant plans to contro'l the addition of chlorine to the cooling systems or alter the blowdown from the unit being chlorinated so that the total residual chlorine (TRC, the sum of the free available chlorine and the combined available chlorine) concentration in the blowdown will not exceed
- 0. 2 mg/1 (Response to s aff question E291. 11).
The applicant estimates that this concentration will
~
be reduced to about 0.01 mg/1 {a di lution factor of 20) by the time the effluent waters reach the edge of a,circular surface area encompassing 2 ha (5 acres).
The state-issued NPOES permit currently limits only the free 'available chlorine (FAC) concentration in the cooling tower blowdown of each unit, as measured in the cooling tower basin.
The stated limit (0.2 mg/1 FAC average concentration;
- 0. S mg/1 FAC maximum concentration) allows higher levels of residual chlorine i n the blowdown than those expected by the applicant (the applicant's planned maximum concentration is the same as that, recommended by the staff in the RFES-CP to avoid adverse impacts on receiving water quality).
Available data from operating power plants indicates that residual chlorine in cooling tower blowdown is nearly exclusively comprised of combined available chlorine.
The.
staff believes that the NPDES permit concentration level will be met and that FAC concentrations will likely be below detectable limits in the blowdown from the unit being chlorinated 1) ecause hlorine biocide addition will be con-trolled by measurement of res>dual concentration in the condenser outlet water-box; (2) the chlorinated cooling water will be exposed to air, sunlight, and biological growths in the cooling towers; and (3) the chlorinated water will be sampled in the cooling tower basin prior to discharge (with provision -to ter-minate blowdown from the unit being chlorinated until the residual chlorine concentration falls within the NPDES limit).
The state-issued NPOES permit prohibits the discharge of detectable residual hlo ine from either unit for more than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> in any 1 day, unless a demon-stration is made by the permitee that the units cannot operate within the restriction.
The applicant's. current plans for the chlorination of the con" denser circulating cooling water system are for intermittent 30-minute biocide additions for a total of 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> per day per unit.
The releases from this system
{blowdown and drift) are much-less than the circulating, water flow rate, and the system volume is large compared to the blowdown volume dur ing the application A f ite time beyond the termination of biocide addition is required to completely change the contents of the system.
- Thus, assuming comple e mix' t
in of a substance added to the system, its presence, although at a reduced concen-tration, could be expected in the blowdown and drift for periods beyond the time of its addition to the system.
Because the practicable field detection limit for residual chlorine is about 0. 1 mg/1 and the nature of chlorine biocide is nonconservative (i;e., reactive),
and assuming the period of addition and expected'concentration are as discussed
- above, the staff believes that it is reasonable to expect that the plant will be able to comply with'his discharge Shearon Harris DES
1
~
P 5
4/i -
~
Pr 55 5I
(
)
~
5 P
/ '..
o.
I I5,P P J
'l '
r 5
>LRoh.
r ~Station
- ~..
~
~.. /J5 JP5<<P Y'
~
/
i/,
5
~
~
~
5 i
5
,5' I /
J J
~
~
"p
~ <<5 P,
~
~
~
- ~9
.: 'arry Plant I5
+i)+
~
~
qf4 r
g:
c~
I 5 5
~
PP
.c. W 4I J
e
'I
'V g PPJ
~
J
, ~ ~
// 1.
~
~ ~ Pl
~ L 1
~-
~ 4r iles-
~ II+
~
~ I 5'
~
'Va r.
45 ~
~
J.
5JI5 P
Figure 5.2 Harris-Car y switching 230-kV line and Harris-Cape Fear 230-kV line (Source:
Environmental
- Report, Figure 3.9J0-1, Amendment 3)
Shearon Harris OES 5-14
C/l fD CV CDD r~8>oloq',e I
yyy5.8yl y f~iyyyyyly Probability of. impact per reactor-year 1O-'ersons Persons exposed exposed over 200 rems over 25 rems Population
- exposure, millions of person-Early
- rems, 00-km (50-mi) fatalities total 0/0 Latent"
- cancers, 80-km (50-mi) total 0/0 Cost. of offsite mitigating
- actions,
$ mill.ious Cjl I
Ch 1O-'
x 10-6 10-6 10-7 1O-'elated Figure 670 11000 39000 5.9 6000 57000 130000 2yI0000 5.9 0.'10 4200 11 0.0013/0.0015
- 2. 6/0. 3 10.5/25.7
- 20. 4/52. 5
- 27. 7/S7. 0
- 5. 10 0/0 260/640 1200/1900 2800/1 000 4200/4000
- 5. 12 500 1200 2000 3000
- 5. 13 "Consists of fatal latent cancers of all organs.
There would be a larger number of nonfatal cancers.
Genetic effects would be approximately twice the number of latent cancers.
Note:
Please refer to Section 5.9.4.5(7) for a discussion of uncertainties in risk es'timates.
"typical," but they represented no real sites in particular.
The discussion in this section is a
summary of an analysis performed to determine whether or not the liquid pathway consequences of a pos ulated core-melt accident at the Shearon Harris site wou1d be unique when compared to the generic land-based site adjacent to a small river considered in the LPGS.
0 The Shearon Harris site is located on the northwest shore of 162-ha (400A acre) cooling tower makeup reservoir constructed by the applicant on uc4horn Creek.
The dam is about 4.0 km (2.5 miles) north of the confluence of Bu with the Cape Fear River, and the plant is about 7.2 km (4.5 miles) north of (P-the dam.
r~C
+r Groundwater at the site exists primarily. in the Triassic rocks.
The thin layer of overburden overlying the Triassic rocks consists of clayey soils and sapro-lite that yield little or no usable groundwater.
Because of compaction and cementation of individual rock layers, the Triassic rocks can be regarded only as a minor aquifer.
The principal areas of groundwater storage are found near diabase dikes that have intruded the Triassic sediments..
The Triassic rocks exhibit very low permeability (3
m (10 ft) per day) for groundwater storage and movement.
Another component of permeability,
- however, exists from fractures that have resulted from stress release.
It is this per-meability component (150 m (500 ft) per day) that was measured by the applicant during pumping tests at the site.
The fractures are common to depths of about 30 m (100 ft).
In the event of a core-melt accident there could be a release of radioactivity to the water in the Triassic rocks underlying the plant.
The radioactivity would then move downgradient toward the reservoir.
From there it could even-tually reach downstream water users on the Cape Fear River.
There is no nearby groundwater usage that, could be affected by groundwater contamination at the plant.
Contaminated groundwater from a core melt in Unit 1 would have to move about 550 m (1800 ft) downgradient toward the southeast to reach the Thomas Creek arm of the reservoir; contaminated groundwater from a core melt in Unit 2 would have to move about 730 m (2400 ft) before reaching the'ame arm of the reservoir.
However, the groundwater gradient between Unit 1 and the reservoir is 0.022 and the gr'adient between Unit 2 and the reservoir is 0.036;-thus the travel time from Unit 2 to the reservoir is shorter even though the pathway is longer.
Based on the fracture permeability and gradients described above and on a con-servatively assumed effective porosity of 0. 05,
- 8. 2 years and 6. 7 years, respec-tively, would be required for groundwater moving from Units 1 and 2 to reach the reservoir.
This compares with 0. 61 year for the generic site in the LPGS.
The LPGS demonstrated that for holdup times on the order of years virtually all the liquid pathway population dose results from Sr-90 and Cs-137.
Therefore only these two r adionuclides are considered in the remainder of this analysis.
The radionuclides Sr-90 and Cs-137 would move much more slowly than groundwater because of, sorption on the geologic media.
Based on the porosity and bulk den-sity of the Tri'assic rocks and their distribution coefficients for the various Shearon Harris DES 5-71
Table 6.1 Benefit-cost summary Primary impact and effect on population or resources quantity (Section)
Impacts BENEFITS Oirect Electri cal'nera~
Additional capacity 9000 x 10'Mh/yr (Units 1 and 2) 1800 x 10'M Large Large COSTS Environmental Damage suffered by other water users Surface water consumption Surface water contamination Groundwater consumption Groundwater contamination Pl 1.2 ms/sec (42 ft~/sec)
(Section 5.3.2)
(Section 5.3.2)
(Section 4.3.2)
Small Small None None Damage to aquatic resources Impingement and entrainment Thermal effects Chemi ca 1 di scharge Cooling lake drawdown 1
Damage to terrestrial resources Station operations Cooling tower emissions Cooling lake drawdown Transmission line maintenance (Section 5.5.2)
(Section 5.3.2)
(Section 5.3.2)
(Section 5.5.2)
(Section
- 5. 5; 1)
(Section 5.5.2)
(Section 5.5. 1)
Small Small Small Small Small Small Small Snearon Harris DES 6-2