ML18230A972

Letter Submitting List of Questions on Deficiencies Related to the Changes of the Cooling Water System from Once-Through to Closed Cycle with Natural Draft Cooling Towers

ML18230A972
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	12/11/1973
From:	Dicker G US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
To:	Jackie Jones Carolina Power & Light Co
References
Download: ML18230A972 (8)

Text

Docket Mos.

400 50-401,

,50- 02, 50-403 gE0 g 1 ]973 Carolina Po'ver and Iight Company ATXH: Hr. J. A. Jones Senior Vice President 336 Payetteville Stxeet Raleigh, Horth Carolina 27602 Gentlemen:

On November 5>> 1973, ue received Amendment 28 to the Envixonmenta1 Report for the Shearoa Harris Plant in ghich you described the environmental considerations xe1ated. to the changes of the cooling Mater system from "once-thxough" to closed cycle trLth natural draft cooling to@era.

This amendment has 'been revered by the ~C staff and has been found to be deficient in several areas that me aust addxess in, a neu'raft Envixonnental Statement.

Ve have compQcd a list of comments and questions related to these deficiencies and this liat is enclosed for your information Although an official schedule has not been established fox oux environm"ntal xevies, ve axe anticipating an abbreviated effort that ldll concentrate on the changes in the cooling system and ~r&1 result in a Draft Statement. very early in J'anuary 1974.

Inasmuch another formal site visit is not planned,

~re request that any clarigication of.our comments and questions that you may require be handled by telephone Please let us Rnmr ifall responses cannot be provided rrlthin one rvcefc of receipt of this letter.

Sincerel'y>>

priginal signed by Qordon K. Dlckef-Gordon 'K. Dicker>> ChM Environmental, Pro)ects Branch 2

Directorate of Licensing

Enclosure:

List of Comments and creations xelated to Amendment 28 to the Environmental Report for Shearon Harris Plant OFACK~

SUAHA4C~

OAYf~

Poeaa ARCS)S IRev. 9 53) ARCH OX40 O>>O C4>>

15 61405 1

445 OV>>

d hl I

1 t

4 ~

~

~

I k

r 1'

Ek ar ar*~

~ a-,

~ ~

a k

I

~

~ E,e.,<<

k / I /,-rr k II a ~ g ~ 3 tkd'

cc! Ih'.- George P. Trowbridge, Esp< Sham, Pithnan, Potts 6 TrogbrMge 910 47th Streot, N.W, Washington, D.C. 20006 DISTRIBUTION AEC PDR Local PDR Docket Fil~ EP-2 Redding RP Reading L Reading A. Giambusso, DDRP D.R. Muller, ADEP GKDicker, EP-2

WRoss, EP-2

ICNelson, BMX R.F.Foster',BMX

JScinto, OGC

CBarth, OGC

JCutchin, RP DVassallo, RP RCDeYoung,ADPWR

HDenton, TR DSchrieber, TR 0

PFF IC~E SURINAM PAlE~ 12/7/73 >>Du>> 'DEP 2 ~73 ponn ~IN IRev, 9 $3) AECM 0340 I OtO C4$ l5 6'l415 t 44'10

II I ~ k lj ' ~ $ 11) 41* 'r ... ~ 4' I I 4 jj I >> 1-Ij c lj ll, FF 0 v PP F.)III j',', 4 111 4 -0 i 4 I U I l, p r I 14 Fl I c' 'C'" l k., I

A uatic Ecolo Please provide any new information acquired from pre-constiuction biological studies that has not been reported previously. 2. In order that we might have a better appreciation of the stabilized condition of the future make-up pond, please furnish a table that identifies the types and concentrations of ions and particulates that are expected. 3 ~ 4, Please supply a copy of the North Carolina Hater Quality Standards and all other criteria that relate numerically to the ions listed in //2. You will also need to furnish us evidence of compliance with Section 401 of HB'CA related to Hater Quality 'Certification. Please provide sketches of the new intake and discharge structures with sufficient detail to permit assessment of impacts on the aquatic 'cosystem. Please supply the concentration factor associ:ated with blowdown.

Also,

~ please furnish information related to the source and amount of particulates that will be derived from the cooling towers (slime, algae, etc.) 6. Discuss the implications of the statement on page 3.6.11 related to the temperature of the. water in the Cape Pear River in time of drought. Is it possible that the temperature of the,'make-up pond will also exceed 90'P under natural conditions not associated with the operation of the plant. 7. Please elaborate on the utilization of chlorine and the possiblity of buildup of high concentrations of toxic chloramines in the closed " ,cycle system and blowdown. 8. He are concerned about the potential degradation of the quality of the 4000 acre lake through concentrations of chemicals and radio-nuclides from the aqueous effluents. He cannot start our assessment until we have a list of ions, and their concentrations, that are expected to be discharged into the makeup pond including those chemicals that will be used as corrosion inhibitors and slime preventers in the cooling towers. 9. There is no information on which to base evaluations of the impacts that might occur in the 325 acre auxiliary reservoir. Please remedy this deficiency.

. ~ ~Hdrolo ~r 1. Discuss intent to pump from Cape Fear River when the flow at Lillington is less than 600 cfs (P 2.2-13). 2. Describe the intake more thoroughly-giving low and normal water elevation. Provide sketch of diffuser showing relationship to bottom profile. Include exist velocities and cost of system. 3. Provide monthly pumping schedule under 100-year drought on both streams and during (simultaneously) the filling of the New Hope Reservoir. 4. Clarify the apparent discrepancy in total consumptive use. (113 cfs on p.3.2-4 and 106 to 125 cfs on p. 3.3-2).- Provide monthly avexage releases to Cape Fear. 5. Please define "adverse meteorological data" on p.3.2-4a. 6. Provide correct rates for inflow and loss of water in the make-up pond. Include computations and reference. 7. Pxovide up-to-date information on the following questions that were submitted during the initial environmental review: o a) A description of the load cycle expected for the Harris plant over a 24-hour period and the associated circulating water temperature fluctuations. b) Detailed diagrams or plans of the circulating water system intake and discharge structures. c) Describe the program that will be used to monitor thermal patterns in the Harris Reservoir during plant operation. d) Provide data related to suspended sediment that is available for Buckhorn Creek and the Cape Fear River in the vicinity of Buckhorn Dam. e) The variation, by month, of the following reservoir energy budget components fox the presently proposed system under meteorological conditions. (1) natural evaporation (2) forced evaporation .(3) natural heat conduction to the atmosphere (4) forced heat conduction to the atmosphere

8. Is blowdown rate of 10 cfs for per unit? V 9. What is blowdown concentration all 4 units combined or is it factor? 10. Is the blowdown diffuser a surface or submerged diffuser? ll. If diffuser is submerged, does it have a single round port, multiple round ports, or slotted ports? ll 12. What is the diameter of the diffuser jet? 13. Hhat is the discharged angle relative to the horizontal?

14. If the diffuser is multiple port, what is the jet spacing?

15. What is the distance between the discharge and the bottom? 16. Vhat is the jet velocity? 17. For the isotherms presented in Fig. 3.3-4 and 3.3-5, what ambient temperature and/or density stratifications were assumed in the mixing zone?

• 4 18.

Has a stagnant mixing zone assumed in deriving the isotherms (Figs. 3.3-4 and 3.3-5) or was an ambient current assumed? Xf the latter, what value was assumed? 4 19. Provide the bases for the lake levels assumed in Fig. 3.3-4 and 3.3-5? 20. For these lake levels, provide the average, minimum and. maximum water depths in the mixing zone.'1. On p. 3.3-2 last paragraph, describe (including bases) the makeup pond current patterns. 22. "On p. 3.2-4, 2nd paragraph, provide bases for the value of 94 cfs average annual forced evaporation. 1feteorolo 1. The discussion of drift is considered to be insufficient. Please describe the source of the number used for "drift rate fraction" on p.3.3-6. Also.discuss the possibility of salt:-laden fallout on agriculture crops (especially tobacco) in the environs of the plant

2. Please supply an artist's sketch of the station that will'permit assessment of visual and aesthetic impacts of the cooling towers. 3. Please supply a set of performance curves for the cooling towers plots of wet-bulb intake temperatures vs wet bulb exhaust temperatures as a function of relative humidity; 4. Elaborate on the geographical location at which the meteorological data (especially relative humidity) was acquired. 5. Supply data on humidity as a function of wind speed. General 1. Please furnish information (including a sketch) that describes the boundaries and acreage of the site. Comment on the statement on

p. 3.1.1 relating to acquisition of land around the auxiliary reservoir to an elevation of +260 if the berm of the auxiliary dam is also +260 feet (p. 2.2-12).

2. Elaborate on the amount and source of rock and earth that willre- 'sed to construct the two dams. 3. Describe more completely the extent to which vegetation will be removed from the 'future lake bed so that we. might assess ~fhe value C , of the lake bed for ecological production as well as potentials for erosion and siltation. Cost Benefit 1. Please update Table 4.1-2. 2. Discuss the accuracy with which the description of alternative sites (pp. 4.4-5 thru 4.4-7) reflect the potential impacts for the cooling tower system. 3. The cost information on p. 8.4-8 is not clear and appears to disagree in part with that on P.E. 4-1. Please clarify. The table on E.4-1 should also include mechanical draft towers. ,4. Please explain more completely the nature of land limitations restric-tions on mechanical draft towers at the Buckhorn Creek site. 5. t4e believe the discussion of spray ponds as alternative cooling system is now insufficient if once-through cooling is eliminated as the choice.}}