ML19261A655

Applicants Response & Objections to Intervenors Request for Production of Documents,Interrogatories, & Request to Admit.W/Encl Documents & Certificate of Svc

ML19261A655
Person / Time
Site:	Perkins
Issue date:	01/16/1979
From:	Lansche J DUKE POWER CO.
To:
References
NUDOCS 7902060001
Download: ML19261A655 (55)

Text

1

.S W.5 e'

%J.yh s

f F ' n =...

./

w=

R_

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS

. C' POOR QUAllTY PAGES U rITED STATES OF AxIRICA l '. !

JAh,' [c,:

e

~~

11'C LEAR REGULATORY C0:01ISSION v'

p' N

In the Matter of

)

~

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. STN 50-488

)

50-489 i

(Perkins Nuclear Station,

)

50-490 Units 1, 2 and 3)

)

APPLICANT' S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS' REQUEST FOR PRO-DUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST TO ADMIT 1.

Attachment Nos. la through it are Xerox copies of the requested documents.

Applicant admits the genuineness of the documents and notations thereon and admits that all of the statements and notations contained in the documents were made by its officers or employees in the conduct of their work responsibilities.

2(a).

Applicant denies that its existinc " rule o f thumb" is 1.7 acres for fossil and 2.5 acres nuclear per nie.

It does not have at this time any " rule o f thumb" concerning the surface area required to support the lake cooling alternative for baseload thermal power stations.

2 (b).

Applicant admits only that the State of North Carolina assigned a 5 F,

3500-acre mixing zone for the McGuire Nuclear Station.

7902oeogo$

2.

2 (c).

Applicant cannot respond for the State of North Carolina.

2 (d).

Applicant denies that a " rule of thumb" 1.46 acres per nuclear MWe is acceptable at the Lake Norman McGuire Station.

2(e).

Applicant cannot speak for EPA or the State of North Carolina.

3.

As previously stated on the record, Applicant participated in Appalachian Power v. Train, 9 ERC 1033, and in Utility Water Act Group activities.

4.

Applicant has no firm plans for the use of Sites "D" or "E" on Lake Norman.

5.

Applicant does not now have a planned size in MNe for utilization at Sites "D" and "E".

6.

Applicant believes that question number 6 is not relevant for the reason that the Atemic Safety and Licensing Soard has previously ruled on the need for pcwer.

7.

Applicant has not performed any engineering studies to determine the projected effect on water levels at Lake Norman or on the production of hydroelectric energy from Cowans Ford Hydro Station which would be caused by the operation of a thermal generating station at Lake Norman Site "N-18".

3.

8.

Applicant's response to Interrogatory No. 8 is the same as its response to Interrogatory No.

7.

9.

Applicant does not at this sttge of the siting study propose to construct a Carter Creek type reservoir for use in connection with a thermal station as the "N-18" Site.

Applicant har no document in its fil es other than those previously submitted showing that a Carter Creek type reservoir would not be required at Site "N-18".

10. 0 is a copy of the requested large map.

Applicant did not respond to the previous question 3 (w) as stated in the Interrogatory.

Information which Applicant has concerning the "N-18" Site has been made available and reviewed by the Intervenors.

11.

Applicant has previously responded to the Staff concerning the methodologies, constraints and necessary decisions and Intervenor is directed to our filing of August 31, 1978.

12.

Applicant's previous response to Interrogatories Nos.

3(bb) and 3 (cc) remains accurate.

Contrary to the factors advanced by Intervenors in this interrogatory, the factors considered by Applicant are set forth in the documentation previously furnished to the Board and parties.

4.'

13.

Applicant objects to this question.

It is beyond the scope of interrogatories.

14.

Applicant did not remove in the coarse selection process the "N-18" Site.

The "N-18" Site was excluded from further evaluation in the final analysis as described in the Phase I Siting Study Summary Report.

15.

Based on reconnaissance level information, both sites have acceptable water quantity characteristics for the proposed development.

Requirements imposed by the State necessitated a change in the original plans and the construction of a supple-mental storage reservoir at the Perkins site.

The same may be true for the "N-18" Site.

The reallocation of upstream and down-stream hydroelectric resources may offset the capital cost of a new reservoir.

16.

Based on reconnaissance level information Applicant admits that the "N-18" Site would require less new railroad right-of-way clearing than would development of rail access into the Perkins Site.

Applicant cannot determine that the "N-18" Site is clearly superior in this regard.

17.

Based on reconnaissance level information Applicant believes that the "N-18" Site is not clearly superior to the Perkins Site in regard to location of new transmission lines.

5.

The Perkins Site requires approxinately 16 miles of transmission lines and the Lake Norman "N-18" Site requires apprcximately 29 miles.

18.

Applicant denies tnat the "N-18" Site is clearly superior to the Perkins Site in regard to population density in that, based upon reconnaissance level information, the population within 50 miles of the Perkins Site is 1.5 million and the population within 5 miles is approximately 4500, whereas the population within 50 miles of the Lake Norman "N-18" Site is 1.4 million and the population within 5 miles is estimated to be 11,500.

19.

Applicant denies that the "N-18" Site is clearly superior to the Perkins Site in regard to reliable water supply in that based upon reconnaissance level information the Lake Norman "N-18" Site can operate satisfactorily with a recurrence of the historic drought as can the Perkins Station with Carter Creek.

20.

Applicant denies that the "N-18" Site is clearly superior to the Perkins Site in regard to the control over water supply.

Applicant proposes to construct for commitment to the Perkins Station adequate water supplies and has adequate water supplies available to carry the "N-18" Site through a recurrence of the historic drought.

6.

21.

Applicant denies that the "N-18" Site is clearly superior to the Perkins Site in regard to location of nearest large population center since Statesville is 6.5 miles north-east of the "N-18" Site and Winston-Salem is 17 miles north-northeast of the Perkins Site 22.

Based upon its reconnaissance level information concerning subsurface conditions and site excavations, Applicant cannot determine whether there is any superiority of the "N-18" Site over the Perkins Site.

Applicant knows that excavations at the Perkins Site will approach 50 feet and that excavations at the "N-18" Site will be to at least 60 feet.

23.

Applicant denies that the "N-18" Site is clearly superior to the Perkins Site in regard to site-opening costs.

Current detailed site-opening cost estimates for the "W-18" Site have not been made.

24.

Based upon reconnaissance level information Applicant denies that the "N-18" Site is clearly superior to the Perkins Site in regard to water eutrophication in that both sites are located adjacent to major Piedmont Carolina rivers with similar water quality characteristics.

25.

Applicant has no documents concerning the offect of

7.

its proposed "N-18" plant site on property development and real estate sales on Lake Norman.

Cated:

January 16, 1979 Respectfully submitted, N

6 0

fwl c Jp,hnE. Lansche Assistant General Counsel Duke Power Company P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242

STATE OF NORTH CAROLIMA

)

)

COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG

)

Donald B.

Blackmon, first being duly sworn, deposes and says:

That he is a Design Engineer, Design Engineering Depart-ment, Duke Power Company, and that he has read the attached responses made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740b and that they are true, except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters he believes them to be true.

I $2J M l/

A) LlL6k -

Donald B.

Blackmon SWOPS to and subscribed before me PP this

[b~. day o f January, 1979.

1

-1 J

Notary Public My Commission expires: 6//7/(: j (Notarial Seal)

I

k )(Il(l'* l'()\\Y I,I k

).$ I I '[(.N I e e sei n n i;i:x t:lt 11. iiieleli :.s

" ' " " * " ^ " ^ " '

422 5 UTM C H II R C N IIS(ff 373 4C11

( 's 1 A 1 t 1.O'l l'l?..N. ( '.

• S:.!-I *d J

a lia rch 29, 1978 hr. Richard G. S toll, Jr.

Of fice of General Counsel Environmental Protection Agency LOl M Street, SW Washington, D. C. 20460 Re:

E f fl uen t Guidelines and Standards S team E lectric Genera t ing Point Scurce Ca tegory Duke Power Con' pony Comen ts EPA Pronosed 7.ulemaking 40CFR Part 423 F' l e flo:

F-29.3

Dear Sir:

Duke Power Company has reviewed the re forenced rulemaking published in the March 3, 1973 Federal Regis ter and would like to commend the EPA in i ts e f forts to incorporate cost bene fi t s team electric generating pointevaluations in the consiceraticn of reques ts by sources for variances pursuant to the Clean Wa ter Act.

In addition, we believe that EPA should make it emphatic, to states with per-mitting authority, envi ronmen tal pro tec t ion.*TEic8cI",~ Et' 'i s our cp inionthat ccenomic facto that a State which has pdYm Tt - lis'u i ng o'"u t t$o r i t y eval ua t ing va riance reques ts, reali zing thatshoul_d_ be requi red to cons ide r ec the $idt'e iay~impos'e more stringent limfTaTicns tn'an rcouired under Federal law.

We hece that as responsive s tewards of our resources ECA will pursue f ulness of the Cos t bencfi t analysis in all areas where -devcicOnent and eval-the use-uation of practical s tandards and guidelines is the goal.

Duke Power Comnany appreciates this opportunity to sucmi t wri t ten consen ts for your consideration on the proposed rulemaking.

Very truly yours, L. C. Dail, Chief Engineer Civil-Environmental Division f /l N b 'b By:

R. 5. Crowell Technical Associate RSC:cs

.1, I rS.D

. t.-

J...

DIVISION OF ENVI2CIC.*N. TAL.w).NAGM August 16, 1978 i

prp -

4 1

i

}

\\

Duka Power Co=pany g'

General Offices AUG 2 E 93 422 South Church Street

,,,,,.. 3 -

,JiY.

Charlotta, North Carolina 28242

' '.,..'..~ J, ;;;G C.

.a E"'""~

• - ' 1 ".......;

Attantion S. 3. Eager, Chief Engineer Civil - Invirec= ental Division SUBJEC:': McGuire Muelear Station li? DES Per=1t Mo. NC0024392 316(a) Demonstration Gentlemen:

Duka Power Cc=pany's study plan for conducting a 316(a) demonstration for the McGuire Nuclear Station has been reviewed and evaluated by depart = cut personnel.

The study, as proposed by Duka Power Company, does address the requirements as specified in the McGuire ;FDES Per=1t.

Our approval of the study is being based on correspondence dated June 27, 1978, subject being McGuire :iuclear Statien 316(a) demonstratien, in conjunction with correspondence between Depart =ent of Natural Rasources and C u ity Develop =ent staff and Duke Power Co=pany's environ = ental personnel. We also believe the proposed program sufficient to determine the e= tent, if any, of interaction between McGe. ire and Marshall staticus located on Lake 'ior=an.

The repartment vill expect quarterly neetings with designated personnel to review data to allev continual evaluation of the progrs=.

Sincerely, L. P. Benton, Chief Vater Quality Section ec:

Mr. Charles A. Dewey, Jr. /

Dr. Dave Anderson Mr. Robert A. Carter Mr. A. F. McRoria Mr. Charles Kaplan, EPA Mr. Rex Gleason s

e

~Z Dure POWER CO3Gm E

W^

E P. O. Box 2178 W

U._.C w i e *"

in Gn mo r rr. N. G. ce242 w _, - y A..'s.L

.g uc c..

....s..

' 'f W.,

May 4, 197F Ka*

% Yo*o 1975 l 1.0l

FC.'=d C%

I

~

• I Clw'l Elly~ gd.'!S!C//

Mr. A. F. McR=rie j

Acting Director North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Cc=:r.inity Development P. O.

Ecx 27687 Raleigh, Nc:-th Carolina 27611 Re:

Per=it Nc. NC0024392 Duke Power Company McGuire Nuclear Station

Dear Mr. McRorie:

Duke Pewar Company received the above-referenced SPDES pe_ it f== the McGuire Nuclear Station en Friday afterncen, April 7, 1978.

Duke has reviewed its centents and submits the fellcwing cc ents:

Part I A.

(1) specifies monitering recuirecents for cut-fall Serial No. 001-once through ecoling water.

In order to implement the==nitoring required by Part I A.

(1) of the McGuire NPDES permit, we will perform the fellowing monitoring:

(1) cccling water flew thrcugh the condenser, (2) discharge temperature at the effluent, and (2) temperature rise acrers the condenser.

We will repcrt this monitoring as specified

'in Part I C.

(2).

The remaining =cnitcring specified in Part I A. (1) will be ie.cluded in the 316 (a) demonstration.

Part I A.

(3) specifies a weekly average of 22,500 GPD for Serial No. 003-demestic wastewater treatment.

Since this permit was written, certain construction changes have been made which will result in a weekly average cf 28,500 GFD.

This change has been coordinated with the Regional Engineer and his staff.

We suggest that the permit be changed te reilect construction changes.

e Mr. A.

F. McRorie May 4, 1978 Page 2 Cur ccm:aents contained herein reflect Duke's understanding of the per::it.

Should you have any questions, please advise.

Very truly yours,

[

M William S. Lee WSL/fhb

4 3 Y'W~

s.

_ y

(

M-(,,J;JSh v,,... - [ M

. 'I V

15,'1977 g f, ji r.

f,{ W November 3

//lzj l

.f i

C. A. Dewey, J r.

i Re: McGuire Nuclear Station

{J V

Lake Norman MIT Numerical Model

\\ b Simulations for 1976 through August, 1977 fl "

jM File No: MC-14L4.00 l

-/

Lake Noman water temperatures with both McGuire and Marshall operational have

[il s

been simulated for January 1976, through August, 1977. This period encompasses the extreme warm weather experienced in July, 1977, and the extremely cold 1976-1977 winter. Worst case capacity f actors for Marshall and McGuire, and lake surface elevations for Lake Norman as presented in the ER-OLS for McGuire (Table 5.1.1-1) were used as Inouts to the model.

Comoarison of significant re=ults f rom this simulation (1976 - August, 1977) wi th those f rom the ER-OLS twenty-year simulation (1951-1970) are presented in the following table:

IC76-Auo.lo77 Simulation McGuire :4-OLS 20-Yr. Simulation ucGuire Marshall McGuire Marshal!

Max. Discharge Temperature *95* F(35.0* C) 93*F(33.9'C) 96*F(35.5'C) 96* F(35. 5* C)

Max. 5*F (2.8*C) Above 3000 1200 2900 1100 Background isothem Acreage

• Max. 90* F (32.2* C) I sotherm 700 100 1300 500 Acreage *

• Monthly Average Values 5

'.d.

it is noted that neither McGuire nor Marshall would have violated thei r respective permits.

If there are any cuestions concerning these results please advise.

,Q?D56

.t.~.

W. J. McCabe Asst. Design Engineer

.L y h'. c';

WJM/cs g )y pug w

..J >

940. h cc:

R. F. Edmonds p

)y Mc w' -

' ~~~~

%,/%1 k

k!c&> %*.= k 2 d"-

Ei%.

.d

-^

^

November 16,1977

f. -

^l s

Memo to:

L. C. Dail d.

V Attn:

D. W. Anderson

/ V Subj ect: McGuire Nuclear Station 316(a) Demonstration g b '{' M

\\

f RC 70D o, m.-704;'12

/ b c, - t u ; ' w-v,

/>

! u

• G.0 *12.o mY s_.-

We have reviewed your memo of 27 October 1977 and are aware that a 316 demonstration will be required for McGuire Nuclear' Station. While we can understand the desire to leave the permit as it is, we have pointed out two things:

1) that submittal of the 316(a) prior to the aquisition of at least a full year's data with both units operational will be almost meaningless and will surely result in a need to write a full report once both units have operated for a period of time; this duplication of effort will mean a si:able investment in manpower, and 2) writing a 316(a) without enough data and/or time to analyce and evaluate the results runs the risk of pro-ducing an inadequate report with severe consequences. A definition of exactly when a recort must be filed is needed so we can plan accordingly.

We do not believe that it is too eariv to begin planning for a 316 demons ration:

this is what we have been doing sinc; we started on the McGuire studies f.ve years ago. While not planning a 316 demonstration per se, we were designing anc imple-menting a scientifically acceptable program to define the impact of the operation of McGuire upon the aquatic populations. While our programs were initially aimed at pre-construction and preoperational questions, our current programs are based upon meeting the NRC's. Technical Specification requirements. McGuire's Tech Specs and Environmental Program Instructions (copy of each enclosed).have been under review by the NRC since April 1977; this is one of the first Tech Specs using the revised 4.8 Guide. No comments regarding the Tech Specs have been received f rom the NRC to date. A revision to Chapter 6 of the Environmental Report is planned which will reflect the final version of the Tech Specs.

(Depending on legal deci-sions, a letter describing our preoperational and operational program may be written in lieu of a revision to Chapter 6). We don't believe a joint review of our environ-mental cor:mitments to regulatory agencies is necessary. A thorough within-Uni review (enclosed) of our status regarding various commitments was performed last y ea r.

Currently a compu:ericed commitment index (copy attached) is routinely issued by licensing.

Also, the annual McGuire compliance visit by the NRC ins::ector for environmental items was completed recently; all items relating to our responsi-bility were in complete compliance. The regulatory commitments of which we are aware are found in the Environmantal Report, Construction Farmit, NPDES Permit, and draft Environmental Tech Specs.

In response to the four points for which you requested information be assemoled, please see the already referenced information enclosed. We nave been in the crocess A

of writing a more current description of our monitoring effort on Lake Norman.

final version of this is expected to be available in February 1978. The general format of these descriptions is also enclosed.

November 16, 1977 L.'C. Dail Attn:

D. W. Anderson Page 2 Regarding the basic siological data componen:s which will be needed in the 316 demonstration, these components were identified and agreed upon in our join:

meeting over a year ago in preparation for writing the predictive 316 demonstration.

We assume that the future 316 demonstration will have similar components, bu: we would be haopy to review the components and a scheduling scheme with you.

Mr. Ed Hogan is the oroject leader for McGuire, and he should be tne contact person for the 316 demonstration.

One.very imoortant question remains to be addressed. The question is--what do Company (Design Engineering, Legal, Licensing, Steam Production, upper management, etc.) people think should be done to define the imcact of compe:i: ion / cumulative impact of McGuire and Marshall upon Lake Norman? This should also consider needs for information for the next 316 at Marshall.

While we have develooed a minimal sampling program to address this question, we would like a clear statement of what should be done so that we can oevelop a mare definite program. A meeting of various departments may be necessary to decide on the statement of need.

In addition, thought should be given to the information required to meet Mr. Lee's goal of determining if the results obtained will serve as a foundation for considering other sites for large thermal plants on Lake Norman.

If you have any questions regarding the information enclosed, contact J. Ed Hogan.

Contact J. Ed Hogan, also, when meetings are arranged to discuss the mat::rs noted above.

W. A. Haller, Manager Technica as ~nvironmental Services Group

(

by:

R. Fred Gray, Manager Scientific Services Sec. n WDA:JEH/sm Enclosures cc:

W. S. Lee w/o at:ach.

W.

L. Porter C. A. Dewey K. S. Canady W. D. Adair

8. E. Davis J. E. Hogan w/ attach.

October 31, 1977 John Lansche Re:

McGuire NPDES Permit The draft of subject permit attached to your letter of October 28 properly reflects my negotiations with Page Benton, and for the reasons outlined to you in my letter of October 11, I recommend we accepc the permit subject to a typographical and detailed check by Richard Crowell.

W S Lee 4tuMijkf44ms,.l; y h

v...1

%..I Not 3A1977 sj WSL/s

, OR CCl,tp;p;y cc C A Dewey C L

Y DIVistop;

~ ~ ~ea l 1

/

O e

O t

y:

M. Le.

/

October 27, 1977 y/

./g

(~

~g W. A. Haller Attn:

W. D. Adalr Re: McGuire Nuclear Station 316(a) Demonstrat ton,

File Nos:

MC-1407.08, F-29, MC-1415.00 Duke has conTnitted to doing a full scale 316(a) demonstration for the McGuire Nuclear Station (see attached mem from W. S. Lee to J. S. Lansche). The 316(a) demonstration will be submitted to NCDNRC&CD "no later than the expiration of the per=lt" which, as it stands new, will be in 1982. While I realize it may seem Inordinately early to begin planning for this effort now, I do feel it is prudent to do so since the consequences of our not making a successful derrenstration will be significant not only for McGuire but also for any future sites on the lake, in addition, the 316(a) effort should be closely coordinated with any technical specificattens or other commitments which have been, or will be, made by Duke.

To insure that we make the best practical effort possible in making this dem-enstration, I feel it woulo be appropriate for us to jointly review the current status of all our environmental cc::mitments for McGuire at this time and agree as to the basic biological data components which will be needed in the demon-stration.

In order to proper v plan our strategy for this 316(a) demon.tration, I would like to request the following information be assembled for our,.oint review:

1) a listing of sampling locations, sampling programs (frequency of samp1-Ing, gear, etc. for each study segment - phytoplankton, fisherles, etc.)

done for McGuire in obtaining the construction permit and Indicating commitments at that time to AEC/NRC, FPC, EPA and NCDNER (now NCONR&CD);

2) the same for the current operating lleense stage; 3) the same for technical $pecifications Monitoring; L) the status of these programs to date.

Based on our joint review of this information we will develop a comprehensive organt:ational/ study plan which will trost effectively incorporate existing data as well as data which will be generated during plant operations to ins e we will make a successful demonstration.

Once we have such a 316(a) demon-stration plan in hand, we can place priorities on the complete and up-to-date processing of data collections essential to the demonstration.

In terms of organ!:Ing and coordinating our work effort you might give some thought to our forming a McGuire 316(a) team who would be charged with putting the deeu-rent together... 1Ike the Gn!!ka, Hogan and McCabe team who worked-uo our earlier " predictive" study effort.

While i recognize that compiling the information requested is a formidable task, the ulti ate importance of escaping cooling tower benefits at McGuire dictates that we proceed at this time in a well organized and coordinated manner.

~

October 27, 1977 W. A. !!al ler Attn:

V. D. Adair Page 2 Picase contact rne If you have any questions relative to this request or require any assistance In this effort.

L. C. Dall, Chief Engineer Civil-Environmental Division By:

D. W. Anderson Ecologist DVA/cs yn :i e, c :Urp7 n[mp Attachmen t J!

cc:

.. C. Dall C. A. Dewey D. B. Blackmon A. Gnilka R. F. Edmonds E. Hogan V. M. McCabe e

!~

E

(

f bb T /v s /- eau x

0 [:/ } p N~N r a Li i

Y p.Y f'4 h)-, $~~ W W 'R g

_Q '-

im njW y.)

I T D,r7 KSa S.t w e ;

D,n..) I O,

);.

~. Y %.,

tbs M4 October 11, 1977 O C'i' 12 m

<" l

a..

.l@a CUE POWER CO?.'PAl y i

0,1 g civit/ENv. ofvis:o::

/'

1 John Lansche Re:

McGuire NPDES Permit Confirming our conversation with regard to your letter of October 7, I realize there are some risks involved with the language of the McGuire permit as agreed to.

I do not believe that it is necessary to add the words "if then legally recuired."

It would cause suspicion in the minds of the state agency as to our motivations.

Even without those words, if the laws or regulations change between now and permit expiration, we can make an effective argument to that point.

With respect to the other risks that we might iet be able to demonstrate certain things, I and many others tre convinced that McGuire's use of Lake Norman can be proven to be less harmful to the environment than any alternative way of providing con-denser cooling.

This is based upon our repeated studies beginning as early Ls 1958.

h1 are coing to want to undergj:e W 1 secpe 316a-vce. demonstration to_not only crove this b1t J.,lso serve a_s a,oundation for censidering other sites :or large thermaa. pla:;ts on Lake Norman.

W

/

When the permit ccces out with the language as agreed upon,

/

please take those steps necessary to accept the permit.

Many thanks for bringing to my attention those risks that are involved in this step.

W S Lee WSL/s cc

,.y

,'r

.r October 7, 1977 Mr. W.

S. Lee

'l s

i

./

Re:

Mc'Guire NPDES Permit On October 5, 1977, Mr. W.

S. Lee met with Mr. Page 3enton, DNR, to discuss the problem of the therral discharge requirements in the proposed permit.

At that time, the following language was agreed to:

No later than ths expiration of this permit, Permittee will submit the results of a 316 (a) demonstration similar to those which Permittee has submitted for its other power plants or a demonstration of best available technology.

Such demonstrations will include operational effects of McGuire and of interaction between McGuire and Marshall on water quality, fish, periphyton, plankton, benthos, phytoplankton and =coplankten.

In addition, the Permittee will submit to the Department of Natural Re-sources and Community Development the Annual Operating Reports for the McGuire Nuclear Station when it submits the same to the Nuclear Regulatory Cc==ission.

While this language is a great i= prove =ent over that which the Scate had previousiy insisted upon, there are still some cencerns whicP ycu should be aware of:

1.

If no regulations era in effect at the time the permit is renewed, the words "deaanstratien of BAT" infer that Duke will have the Burden of proof.

This is a shift from the usual situation where the State has the burcen of proving what is SAT.

However the language is interprece?, Duke must still take sc=e affirmative action which may limit our rights b'j relieving the State frc= some of its respcasibilities.

2.

If regulations in effect at the time the permit is renewed approve open-cycle ecoling, Duke will still be required to submit a demonstration even though it could not be required to do se otherwise.

Duke has, in effect, cenceded that it cannot avail itself of the CWAG regulations.

In addi icn, if

Mr.

W.

S. Lee Page Two October 7, 1977 Duke should choose to make the SAT demonstration, there is the chance that the State could rule adversely and Duke would be forced to install cooling towers even though the regulations did not require them.

3.

If final regula:icns require closed-cycle cooling, the proposed language is acceptable.

4.

The proposed language, by requiring specific action, may preclude Duke frc= making a 301(c) case (a variance from BAT because of economic fac crs] [ regulations are now being formulated to i=plement this sectioni.

Ecwever, it might be difficult for a utility to prevail on an economic argument.

5.

If final regulations require cicsed-cycle cooling, we could preceed through the following steps to attempt to secure approval for open cycle:

case by case determination of SAT, 301(c) case, cooling towers unnecessary because of a 316 (a) demonstration.

The proposed language, however, may preclude Duke from availing itself of all three mechanisms.

6.

The pre osed lanc.uac.e mav. preclude Duke from re-r questing a 3AT determination if we f ail the 316 (a).

In order to protect all of Duke's alternatives, it is suggested that after che word " submit" we add "if then legally required".

This then will modify both " 316 (a) " and "demonstra-tien of SAT" so that they will not be required if UNAG is successful in getting open-cycle ecoling approved by the Couru.

If acccmplished, this small change will protect all of Duke 's alternatives and legal rights and bases the State's require-ments en a legal basis.

If the above change cannot be accc=plished for any reasen, Duke still has the choice of accepting the five-year permit as is, or, accepting the State's offer of a three-year permit with no thermal limitations.

The three-year permit would, of ccurse, expire between the start-up of Units 1 and 2.

But, there would be sc=e advantages also.

The EPA regulations.are expected Oc be effective by that time and the State and Duke could react accordingly.

If open-cycle were appreved, there would be no problem: if only closed-cycle were app:cved, we would have data en one uni to submit a 316 (a) de= castration and could predict the results with both units.

Also, if we have to litigate the 316 (a), we would have =cre time te install cccling Ocwers before the 1933 statu: cry deadline than if we had to install them at the expira:icn cf the f _ve-year permit.

e

Mr.

W.

S. Lee Pace Three Ocicber 7, 1977 We should also keep in mind that Congress is studying the FWPCA and any anendments which are implemented could have effects en future Per=its.

It is anticipated that the Conference Cc=mittee will meet within the next three weeks so that we will know if the 1983 deadline will be extended.

o

??

[JohnI. Lansche JEL:ph

d DUEE Powrn Goyem a7

.-i LEGAL DEP.LRmh" P. O. Box 227a mg.e ~ ~ ;9

.1 a

Gn m orTz, N. G. 2a242 a--c.unsc-c j

\\

~

July 8, 1977

\\COj,7 P.r. L. P. Senton, Jr.

Division of Environ = ental Management Department of Natural and Economic Resources P. O. Ecx 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Re:

McGuire NPDES Permit

Dear Mr. Benten:

On June 22, 1977, the Department of Natural and Economic Resources and Duke Power Cc=pany met at your office to dis-

cuss,

• ~ang cther items, the McGuire NPDES permit.

At that meeting, you suggested that the folicwing language he included in Part A(2) for cutfall serial nu=her 001:

Unless a successful 316(a) demonstration is made within 15 calendar months after both units have been ec==issioned for com=ercial service, offstream cooling or other operating controls shall be required within 24 calendar =enths of final deter-mination by the Depar*. men'.: ef Natural and Econcmic Resources.

At that ti=e, we expressed our belief that these requirements are not now applicable under existing State and Federal laws t 1 regulations.

We were told that a five year permit wculd, nevertheless, he conditioned upon Duke's acceptance of these conditions or si 41ar conditiens.

O a

w me -

Mr. L.

P.

Benton, Jr.

July 8, 1977 Page 2 Based upon a review of the proposed permit condition as above written, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision and remand in A :alachian Power Co. v. Train, 9 ERC 1033, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, and North Carolina law and applicable regulations, Duke cannot accept the proposal.

While we cannot agree to the suggested language, Duke continues to share your concern for the protection of Lake Norman.

Since its construction, Lake Norman has been thoroughly studied and monitored; Duke will continue its commitment to protect the environmental integrity of the lake.

As a result, Duke proposes that the following he substituted in Part A(2) :

The Permittee will submit within 120 days of the effective date of this permit an Operational Binlogical Monitoring Program which shall define studies on water quality, fish, periphyton, plankton, benthos, phyto-plankton and =coplankton.

In addition, the Permittee will suball to the Department of Natural and Economic Resources the Annual Operating Reports for the McGuire Nuclear Station when it submits the same to the Nuclear Regulatory Cor i ssion.

Duke is agreeing to conduct this type of monitoring and report-ing at this ti=e to evaluate the operation of the McGuire Nuclear Station.

Additionally, Duke believes that it will have the added advantage of sharing environmental data and analyses with the Department of Natural and Economic Resources so that all parties will be equally infor=ed when the subject permit is to be renewed.

We are enclosing a copy of the Semiannual Report for the Oconee Nuclear Station, dated Dece=her 31, 1975 for your review.

Your attention is directed to Section I which describes the ongoing norradiological environ = ental surveillance at Oconee.

The Annual Report for McGuire will be quite similar.

e

Mr. L.

P.

Benton, Jr.

July 8, 1977 Page 3 Duke is confident that our continuing studies, as previously noted, will de=enstrate the co=patibility of the McGuire Nuclear Station with Lake Nor=aa.

We believe that the State has the ultimate responsibility and authority in Part 3.4 of the permit to control and evaluate permitted discharges.. This p:ovision assures that any discharge which causes da= age to the environ =ent may be modified, suspended or revoked in order to prouect the lake.

Duke requests that you review our proposal and the attached document and contact us at your earliest convenience.

We are anxious to finalise the McGuire per=it as soon as possible.

Very truly yours,

,o

_2_ /- ----

f o

John E. Lansche JEL/fhb Attachment bc:

Mr. L. C.

Dail Mr. C. A. Dewey Mr.

D.

3. Blackmon Mr.

R.

F.

Edmonds Mr. R.

S. Crowell Mr. 3.

E. Davis e

h

>1

[f LL June 27, 1977 YP 7 *

w.: J Y/

J. E. Lansche

~.. F,,,.; q,

- -:. _:,_h Re: McGuire Nuclear Station File No.

MC-lM4.00 in reply to your June 22, 1977 letter concerning our meeting with NCDNER, C. A.

Dewey and I have the following comments.

1) The thermal conditions of the Selews Creek permit appear satisf actory.

It is our understanding that B. E. Davis and R. S. Crowell are evaluating the monitoring and other asoects of the permit.

2)

Our understanding of the legal status of the 316(a) is that although this requirement has been rescinded on a federal level (EPA) it still exists in the N.C. Statutes, whicn embrace EPA's former regulations, if this is true, then N.C. can requi re 316 (a).

3) Regardless of our decision on accepting the permi t conditions for McGui re it is cur understanding that it will be necessary to repuest the extension of all present discharge permits at McGuire for some period of time.

[ 4) Ve have serious reservations about comitting to a 316(a) demonstratien at some future date due to:

(a) the potential legal and public hearing entanglements invariably associated with 316 demonstrations, (b) the uncertainty over what a 316(a) demonstration may entall five years f rom now, or (c) whether the 316(a) option will even exist at that time, in lieu of the "316(a) requi rertent" we suggest saying " Duke will submit a report based on plant opera:Ing, environmental and biological data which will demons trate the ef fect of McG.uire's heated discharge on the protection and propogation of a balanced, indigenous peculation of fish, shellfish and wildlife in and en the waters of Lake Norman." Cbviously this wording is li f ted f rom the 316(a) demons tration documen t; however, it does not tie us down to :ne 316 (a) route. We also suggest that we strike the language stating "permi: tee has requested that a 316(a) demonstration be allowed."

5) We suggest changing the wording of the proposed permit language to read

".... offstream cooling, operating controls, cr other appropriate acticn

...." Such wording would allow the possibility of backfitting Marshall with controls or cooling towers in lieu of restrictions on McGuire.

6) We think that, based on the aoove concerns, and the possibility of further postponements in McGuire's construe:icn schedule, serious consideration should be given to requesting a construction NPDES permit, superseding f[

present discharge cermits, which would be replaced by an ocerating permit at Duke's recuest.

i

J. E. Lansche June 27, 1977 Page Two

7) Our definition of daily and monthly CCW discharge temperatures, which were present in the previous draft, were omitted f rom this draf t.

L. C. Dall, Chief Engineer Civil-Environmental Division By:

R. F. Edmonds Design Engineer RFE/ds cc:

C. A. Dewey, Jr.

9

. M.-

NPD ES McGUIRE RE:

CC0 ING TOWERS

', {,

,L&

Duke's Preferred Comoliance Schecule

[

/N' f

I

}-

i' FOR INCLUSION AS PART OF COMMENTS TO NCONER ON ORAFT PERMIT DATE EVENT 5-1-78 Unit 1 start Up 5-1-79 Unit 2 5-1-79 Start 316(a) for 12 months 11-1-80 Submit 316(a) document (18 months) 12 months data + 6 rrenths analyses & preparation of document 11-1-80 issue C/T Specifications t

2-1-81 316(a) Decision -

- ft*

J O. '7 b e

Upon f ailure to Obtain 316(a):

y.

q

1. y"+

l 3-1-81 Award c/T contract

$[?

7-1 -s't Start c/T construction f

zN>

WJO g!f,c. t. '

Ql s

y.

f/73 y

e,r i-i-84 rinish c/ Tis u

er

,L' i. #

,v n k~ '. R i *,U A y.D} f l

t j

3 d

pV' t; V y

.\\W O

if T,3g

,p u o ce;

,y c.sc:.

.f ; -

..y 3 If.t Jrh/77 fja "3tCa-y["*.,

f 17 D'1 ~$'i"soplk'~

~

uco cAo ad 7/7l%

+

h J

6/14/76

[/w -

7'Igf f

k.cUkb

+! aw cas/ s e. mu q w m c. v:1 & m

a

~ IO June 22, 1977

~

Mr.

C. A.

Dewey j

4 4 e

',,l

~g,,.

...e Mr. B. E. Davis

7. "

Mr. R. F.

Edmonds

[..,c

'~,,, -

's,.

,a L:", ' ~ '.

.m,.. ;/e "~

Mr. William L. Porter

\\

e" w m...m

}f 6...

The meeting with DNER was held on June 21, 1977 at NY'"

2:00 p.m.

in Raleigh and in attendance were Page Benton,

,(.g,

/ j..;

Bob Carter, Bill Mills and Bill Puette.

The following

'l" items were discussed:

(1)

Belews Creek - DNER is ready to issue the Belews Creek NPDES permit by June 28, 1977.

Attached is a copy of the proposed permit.

Buddy Davis and Bob Edmonds should review the same to make sure that all limitations and monitoring requirements are acceptable to us.

Please consult with Richard Crowell and Raj Bhatnagar in this regard and let me have your comments by 10:00 a.m.,

Monday, June 27, 1977.

This permit will not again be sent out for public notice because DNER does not consider that any major changes have been implemented.

We discussed the requirement that low volume wastes and material storage runoff be routed to the ash basin by July 1 and further explained to DNER that the pumps which are presently installed can handle a once in 5-year rainfall but not the required once in 10-year rainfall.

Senton expressed the idea that DNER will keep " hands off."

We requested a consent order, but Puette and Benton decided that it would be better administratively to send us an Enforcement Deferral letter instead of the proposed consent order.

Larry Porter and I drafted the proposed letter for Puette's signature and he assured us that the letter would be issued simultaneously with the permit.

(2)

McGuire - DNER is ready to issue the McGuire permit for a period of five vears if Duke will agree in the permit to conduct a 316(a) demonstration.

Benton stated that the

2.

five years was contingent upon our accepting the 316 (a) condition and agreeing not to adjudicate the same even though they could not legally impose that condition.

The suggested permit language reads as follows:

"Unless a successful 316(a) demonstration is made within 15 calendar months after both units have been commissioned for commercial service, offstream cooling or other operating controls shall be required within 24 calendar months of final deter-mination by DNER."

"harlie Dewey, Bob Edmonds and Buddy Davis should make all necessary inquiries within their respective sections to determine if Duke could comply with these requirements.

Larry Porter and I will review the same from a legal stand-point.

Please send me by 10:00 a.m.,

Monday, June 27, your written comments on the same.

Enclosed is a copy of the draft permit for McGuire.

Please review the same and let me have your comments.

(3)

Ash Basin Equivalenev Studv - North Carolina has verbally agreed to our Ash Basin Equivalency Studs,- and Page Benton is sending us a letter to that effect.

All NPDES permits which have been issued by EPA will remain EPA permits and only EPA can modify the same.

Should any EPA permits need to be reissued, then, North Carolina will issue them.

V.D C.

Am^

John E. Lansche JEL/fhb cc:

Mr. Steve C.

Griffith, Jr.

Mr. L. C.

Dail Mr. R. S. Bhatnagar Mr. R.

S. Crowell Mr.

D.

W.

Andersen

.d.

c 9

Lake Normen will receive the heated discharge f rem the McGuire conder.ser coolir.g water sys tem. A typical North Piedmont sof t-water lake, Lake Norman was impounded by Cowan's Ford Dam in ICc3 h.~.... : : ':.....

's

.:_f' : :' :

.'u 10-million kill watts of thermal cooling capaci ty.

/

Surface waters generally flow in a southwesterly direction into the Catawba River. The Catawba River, a fresh water river, flows south until it reaches a terminus in the Atlantic Ocean.

North Carolina has classi fied this segment of the Catawba as A-ll waters.

,r

/

t p...

~ ' ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~""'

~~

' ' ~

f p i

--?-

i l.s,' s' j- (

~

~

~y

~

?'

.i

.)

.L u k, -

, j'!,

.<;o)/ - 7 s

J I

/

J

(;' w y

yb -.

u.

' I Duke's engineering and environmen:al studies

^J a Before Lake Norman was built, (Allen, Riverbend) resulted in the establish-on similar lake cooling sites ment of a " rule of thumb" cool,Inc.:apacity allowance f actor of '.7 acres

~b.

generated.e* 32,500. Asst Lake Norman could very conservatively As for Nuclear, per MW, support the 17,000 acres estimated for 10,000 MW, Fossil.For McGui re, the N C tuke's " rule-of-thumb" assigned 2.5 Acres per MWe, Department of Water & Air Resources assigned a mixing of 3500 acres for Based on these prescribed physical limitations, nominally 2L+C0 MWe.

Lake Norman reservoir was concluded to be capable of supporting more than 9-1

9 e

-4

-'-* f *);.

. Cn..w..,n.

.. CO. A,

r

.A..

n. s w n.7R r.:Ow.:..- m -,. S.

zwnn.R,.r:-

.e n. :

s nn, - sa

=.

e_n..-

e, e...-,=.,

7...d.u s -'_ a _' '.'!a s '. a s,.-- C'.'- =_- #a s. =. s

... - _ w. u~_ s.-w. s_-,. e t.

....a

~.

'a, Os.na. a'.'..=.u..=s a c c.. d.an c.=..d.'s.

• k.a.

-.v'. s i.. 7 s c '. n'.-.*...' a. 2_1.- #

w...= g.=.-

P y

-.=c"_.'..3_....,

c.:.u...as C a_._' _'...= a s amend =. d., and. c 5e-ayy'*.'"'a. 7a..s, u_'a.s w.."

.u

.A 3

P r- _,.L,eo-_s u,l.5 h.-. :>y u.2 u... :s, 2 O 1

r Duke Power Cc=pany 1.icGuire Nuclear Station wcwans.n..a,

,-._5 C.m. 2...,.

e i..

rvR in:

construction and operatien of a 2.84 3.G.C. cccline water systec,

'.w.1 ev e_ wa*.=- '.n'.s_ke s a. 0..a..s

.._ d.

c-.s ' s+.4.7, c #. '."._-a.=.

( o-'f 1

we w.. gr.., -* e wa. =.-.c an *... e.-aed.'.=. e

_1 =.v el_ _i =..% e '..,k =

a..

y.,

a

.n,.

e

- y

..s s._.J.,, e..-.l.. e wi w..a s.. __ acx s,

t...p s, c.

_-c1.,

e.

w i

a warm wacer dischar:e threuch an effluent canal inte Lake Nc:=an en the Catauta River, October 9 71 d in in a ccc: dance with the application dated -----------------, 19 ---, an conic mity with cne plans, specificatiens and other supperting data, all of rehich

'he Cea -...ers'. c #. *a'.=._- and n' i__.* e -"-_-. a s and. a_... n s _' d. =_- = d.-. a.-.

a

. _. e..'.' e d wi.'h.

ya u.

n. :.._w s..s Pe.- a..

This Pe: it shall be effective f:cm the dace of its issuance until :::::::

c:1.-?;"

n.r=-w.

t 1-

,.d. s5.'.' ".e su'j e c'..c '.5

1. .c1 ' cw'...,

s y e c' #_4. d.

.r. d _*.2.n.s

.7d _i _' _' '=_" c.s -

= _ __..

-'..i. s, e '_'. sk..a.' _'

b_ e c.m.. a. voi.d u...' e s s

'.h. a.

'. '_ ' _' ".- = s a_ =..-.n s._-". -..= d.

..a.

...,.,a..w w,

- - v a.c ^y.' an s an". e - =. '_ #. '_ ca.'. -.. a.d

..". a. _- e"....-.'..,

d..e. a

.s...d

. - - =.

.y y

-. a v '.. '. 6, -. =.-.~. ' s.=..= _ v, e.... ' e.ed a.d.

t a e d *.. c y.. a.'....

-a.. c. " e #. -. a.

a y_--

be amended.

2. s. :. c. 4.v e e.,,/ w _ +.w.. e. - a. c'..e

• =. na.._- =. '_..... -

..c s..= s 4

-. 4 s y-

.4.

n.

.y An_

4 d a. s e_ _8 ".ed..i.n '..". =. a y l '. c =."..e n,

a-.d.

'..h. a. - su yc

• ._d.., - = ^.. =.

=

=- = " -=s ac --

.- y. _ a ' = d h e

.# a ci..' *..' a. s.= *. a.i.' b a.

e # #.= c'.i v a..' y ai "*.a.' n s. d. a-d.

c.

u

-o.

2.

s.ay...=.....=._-

..=.3..- _=._.._y,._.=...,-3 w

.: E.c

2..m...

3.,. 3 e.. s., __4,

. e.

a.

.....g3...w.

.,3..-n_.....g

..c..

..n y......

_.3

.s..g_g.

g... J. g. e

?.....

' 2.1

_ag.

g Ws4 ly

.s y a..=. ;.

g g

.-..a.

g.=.... < 4..

.m.

.a 2 {.*.:.. 3. 3 c e =.g4 w...,

.... ~

s..a a........._6...

. r. a a c....=a

. -... J 4._. ; s

w. 3 3

. s..

o. 4 _ A. 4 n

= 2. 4_

..e..

g

=..c..

y.

a

.y

.._4 4....._.4...;

.w. a...' a. g. b...'.

."4.

• .-.42....=.-

_'...4.,,

^

e c

c.

w.

..s

=

.:. 14 m.g

.i g.4 n. ; $.-... k

... <.. o

. m....- e. a.

_ 2......;.2.,

7..

' 5.,

4...1

..A n.X.. a..a....;

e..y. %.

- * :,,- - t

s. e. e...

v Y

s...A

.a. z :.. s.-...

t.

. _.. s e. =.

'.. a..s..a

4... s.

..a_

.c...

a k..m.. a. g w.__

. k. a.

s e _ a.-m..

T g.. a

..a

...w...

a

-. ?.T o -a.#..*.

u,.d...L.'.1

..W..s.'1..'.=.

'., =.. a. s..e.s.# *=".7 s.:

c

.. j y g -

.s....*y._t...**.

'. %. s.

...S.. s..- t.

a.

.. a.

..._%._3..

..3...-g.

n.&.

.3y w

.u.

e May 6, 1970 To:

U. J. Fh*fer Refer ncc:

Pl sr.: McGuire Cooli.1g Va cr Study -

LP'.+ Perman Confirming our con'.erserion earl:er this weei:, picane consider this letter a request for assistance oy the Computer Progra9 ming Group in deve!cping a mathaa.a:ical.t.odel of the Lake Nnrect.icter rescarce.

This model is to censider Marsha!! Steam Station, the McGuire Station, future seations e.t trio 4dditional sites plus inflo.vs, outflows enc hydree'ectric opers:!cns.

The discharge f rom the thermal st: icns is to be tres:ed, where aepropric:0, in a fashion sirailar :n.the studies made on cur Belews Orack projec. Y.cre specificall7, t.* e assistenca dcs!.ad is es foll;ws:

1.

Since the snr ing of Ic66, censiderable dcta hcVe been taken in the vicinity of tursha!i Steam $tation en i.ske Nor. man tc evaluate the effect of Marshall's cperation.

Data nave been recorde: continueusly et four stations and ucekly syncpric ob: r/a:!cns Scve been taken at approximctely 20 stations within the lake, exclusive of the mete:rolegical data. Tcese data, cl ng with the meteorclcgical data, hr.v2 been regularly sent to Johns Hopkins University whera they are new on a ec.mputer race.

Scmples of :ne form used in submit:Ing d :: to Johns Hopkins are attached. The coscrva-tions and dat: su:mittal have been the responsibility of R.

Fred ray in the Stasm 07partment.

Preliminary :

the ceve l ou.acn: cf the mathematical model, it is..acessary th:t we have ret.dy access to the extensive data presently cvali-eble. Tc ccc:mplish this it would be cos: nelpfui if all of our Leke Norman limnological cata c:uld be s:crec en tape so that m:nthly avarage water tempera:ure profiles, etc., will be readily availcble.

2.

A prelimioary definitica of the prepcsec marhama:ical mecal is attachec.

I would like to suggest that we discuss this cc.mputer task, at your convenience, ia orcer te better define precisely what must be conc in order : eccenplich cur ccois.

Very truly ycurs,

/,

I'\\1.

!' L :ts g Q s

,v.... u )

ss -

Environmental Englineer Charles

.A.

Dewey, Jr.

Principc!

CA0Jr'tw At t ach.r.cn t s cc:

'r.

. O*cn

n

=

v'-

S wf o-

.d,. n, o w

5ITE "H" - PLANT "Y" COOLING WATEP. STUDY LAKE N 0f0 M N OA.1/,

, 9tA 1*.[ 2 )

6 %-

I.

05 JECT Q y.L., ML p.uj

^

0&

Sc ed en historical and expected lake temperature profiles, ignoring eccnomics, compute withdrawal rates and depths to cceply with the following limits and assumptiens:

Condenser dischargo temperatures to not exceed 93*F anytirae a.

fj during year xn-(8000 Acre Ft/ Day) m" b.

Station cooling water requirements of 4C0 tfs A;,

c.

Maximum withdrawal of 2000 cfs through ex.iting hypolimnetic

.fd'd).#

O' O ' ' p*

4 intake (Mean elevation 664')

d.

Minimum elevation of lake surface assumed to 745 feet.

fOfe. Multi-leve epillmnetic intake withdrawal - water a: any level

~

4 ej.:..-p-L E.

7202

, j G,,,;.c t

a.:.ilu 10.

f.

Condenser discharge minimum temperature of 84*F (l" ABP on p ' f *.,

[y:.,,

turbine ts= 79'F + 5' condenser terninal difference

,' y 84* F). This constraint will require removal of circulating ji

~

pumps from service plus flow regulation provision to maintain f ASP up to 1.00" Hg during colder months.

The advantage lies in conserving cool water in lake by always

.Q

..Q

/

assuring that the condenser discharge temperature is well above the natural water equilibriu= temperature. This procedure maximizes the benefits of surface cooling as a means of heat rejection ecmpared to the alternative of warming large quantities of water to within several degrees F of ecuilibrium temperature.

This latter, in failing to maximi:e surface cooling gradually I

warms large quanti:ics of cool water which will be needed later ici the year.

2 g.

A condenser rise of IS* F during sum.mr is p referred; however, a rise as icw as 12* F can be censidered if advantagecus in meeting W

r~

m U.WJ SO..r maximum.

- rv -

h.

Outflow f rom Cowans Ford Hyd. o, as well as inflow f rom l e kou t on a monthly basis, will be consicered as layers of water (output

[

1 r-'c-a and input) at temperatures appropriately identifying each.

' '. g

,s v

h v.s

.~

i.

Results of these studies will dictate further courses of action.

.~~ L. ' m.,

y

(/,.,t h! J" ! C

YY~

'? ~

i 4

z, lI.

METHOD

-,s

- Il MEMoD A

d

/.

..j6U9.5AC.Ef..._.

. _.__.. L y,,, g, w g,

[-.bg.. -

(,

r -

p

~

g I

h

= _ _

57 A Tio /4

... A I S / 2 *tT-

- _q%

q v

9 L A-, * - f

.4.-.

= ( - ].d $

-/

.-'~ g C C e

JA e

l eI s

b g _

_c

. L

\\

fClIVTO Cd

}--

7. E !, (, b 4 '.-. _._......._..

U

. f..., <.h' b ', f.

. x.s.,,,. 's

,,r.

s.

SKETCH ASCVE CUTLINES FLOW C IRCUlT OF OCCLING WATER.

s 3

A ccmouter orceram u!11 be written to ccmpute monthly Withdrawal quantities icentifying these cuentities by eleva:Icn a.

limits, en brackets, and by mean temperature cf.a:ar layer.

b.

Condenser inlet and outle: wate r temperatures (=ct:hly means) c.

Final mean month laks water temperature orofile, i.c.

the historical for expected inflow, Cowans Ford cxecc:ed epcra:icn, profile _adj"e:q($

ft1NCL):,/

q 7, jj f impact of plant heat rej ection and surf ace cccling ef fect.

Effect of precipita:icn will not be censidered.

d.

Equilibrium temperature for mcnth.

rJ.

em pq 1. < -

Inout data to ecmputer program is y

Lake temperature profile (natural of historical) in a tabular form.

a.

b.

1.

Probable meteorology 2.

Extreme metecrclogy (From Charlotte Essa long range records) c.

1.

Expected inflow quantities and temperatures en same basis as "a" above 2.

Expected outflew (Ccwan's Ford) quan:ities Coeration of Cem= uter Procram a.

Computer will translate temperature profile in:e volumes of water of finite thicknesses and discrete temperatures - this is defined as an inventory of water resources.

b.

Calculate the probable monthly equilibrium tercerature basec en meteorology.

(This is the temperature arcund whien :ne major surface heat transfer fac: ors pivot.)

c.

Within the limits, or constraints, for the month being stucias the compu:er will:

1.

Calculate wi:hdrawal quan:ities result ing f rem mir inum lake involvement ccmmensurate with maximum surface cooling.

The

. c.

1.

(Con t i nued)

Scal here is to always place all pessible burden of nea: rej ec t ion on surface cooling mechanisms to conserve lake hea sink pc:entials for use during summer months.

This maximum wculd be up to limits specified in program - for exampla- -h.

Ed = Equil. temp + 10' but o: to exceed 90*F (cendenser discharge) 2.

Construct a temperature profile reflecting influence of plant, etc.

for the month at hand.

For example, in the month of May two profiles will exist:

s (H i s t o r i ca 1 Y.,-- ! A 'b b

a.

Natural b.

Natural adjusted for impact of station, etc., hereafter called Adiusted Profile.

d.

Prin* mit dar ired resul ts.

e.

Proceeding to next consecutive month, two sets of data representing temperature profiles are to be input data.

Tnese are:

1.

Natural (historical) profile for month uncer consideration.

2.

Adjusted profile for preceding month.

Computer will adjust natural (historical) prefile "1" to ecmper. sate for cperation of plant during preceding month.

Profile 1 above will be adjusted by profile 2 above since 'f' is evolutionary in develep-ment of representative profile for month under consideration.

f.

Computer input data will be required for each month and cceputatiens

. will proceed until desired period is ccvered.

If this program proves censervatively the prospects of meeting tempera:ure limits, the program could be transferred to :he plan: ccmou:er.

The stati4n cceputer could then optimize the economics (ther odynamics) of the set 1imits.

k,sAA ; A.t.

This is a ecod j eb for a cceputer. - h. J /v M e

N 9.d

/. " P--

w/

DUKE Powzn GoxPm

!%,P '~9 '% S... ; I LE G.il DE P.tETMEh I l; 'y -

. 4..,.

.t P.O. Box c17a GTr ATrT-o rrE, N. G. 2e242 Sc_i-9 G75 g,.........,,...,t.n. q '

ws

-ma6cs s.c*aten September 9, 1976 n r. a..

a"*-<-

C..... ! :...., C,,,.,. 2,.. l

.4,....

Daniel C. Oakley, Esq.

Associate Attorney General Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Re:

Mc~.luire Nuclear Station Draft NPCES Per.it Dehr Can:

During our meeting concerning the McGuire Nuclear Station draft NPCCS permit from the Stite of North Carolina, yeu requested that I forward to you a memorandum outlining the position of Duke Power Company on the effect of the UWAG decision (Appalachian Power Company v. Train, Fourth Circuit) on the McGuire permit.

Our basic position is that the decision of the Fourth Circuit shc 21d control and modify the regulations in 40 CFR Part 423 unless stayed or reversed by the U.

S. Supreme Court.

The court specifically set aside and remanded the regula-t_W

-ef

-'E 422.12 ti --ands =Ls.k.

Sut; _ ;; ion -(l) contained the requirement that "there shall be no discharge c f. heat.. fror'. the main condensers excep t

." while su"-

-' n

,f

,f

(.;

l w. += '>- W eien o & paragraph (13-becomes e f.f ec tive. o n Julyn.--l'L81.

The present McGuire draft permit requires that cooling towers be constructed and in operation by July 1, 1981 based on these two provisions of the regule.tions.

ALw.. _--these--t.wo-pros. isions.

.S tat e. Pa - ' : No.

1977, issued March 4,- 1971 by the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Rescurces, would control and provide th-nermal h..._

1;ione-ep bied to this -generating s,ta tio% That S t a.:e perm _Wussigned. a mixing cone.with prescribed boundaries.-end s=ecified that the discharce should meet the State water rualitv standards of 90*F and/or 5'F temperature differential at the

~

Daniel C. Oakley, Esq.

September 9, 1976 Page 2 boundary of the mixing zone.

Additionally, the permit specilied that "at no time shall the heated water discharge increase the temperatu,re of the waters at any point within the lake in excess C

of 95 F, as a monthly average."

Duke Power is satisfied with the thor =al limitations specified above and is confident that we can operate the station to conform to those limitations.

These limitations.are also included in the conditions of the construction permit issued by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission for McGuire.

During the meeting on the draft permit the point was raised that adoption of the regulations in Part 423 by the Environmental Management Cc==ission may have given those regulations an independent existence and source of authority under State law, our position would be that G.S. 143-215(c) should control.

That section specifies that the Environmental Management Com-mission "shall be guided by the same considerations and criteria set forth.

in federal law for the guidance of federal agencies administering the Federal Water Pollution Control Program" in adopting effluen: guidelines and standards.

Clearly, if the Commission is to be guided by these same principles and the Fourth Circuit has ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency was incorrect in applying those principles in the adoption of Part 423, the Environmental Management Commission and the Civision of Environ = ental Management should be guided by the Fourth Circuit as the controlling authority in applying the provisions of Public Law 92-500 to the steam electric generating point source category.

Further, subsection (c) also states as foll:ws:

"It is the intent of the General Assembly that the effluent standards and limitations adopted hereunder shall be no more restrictive than the most nearly applicable federal effluent standards and limitations."

Clearly, the continued existence of 423.13 (l' (m) under

~

State law would violate the intent of the Gens issembly expressed above.

This result flows from the fam: that unless

~

Daniel C. Oakley, Esq.

September 9, 1976 Page 3 the decisien of tha Fourth Circuit is stayed or reversed by the U. S. Supreme Court, th - -^

'a d a " 1

-gri:ations... I __ ;W 3 would -contad - ace m ri h..s w.=the-discharpr~cC

..w--- -f-rcr unles :.n ede~e ~ _

',c i Subcahy Therefore. it is our view that as -isoon as the ques?dH'Wf an appu. o ;-tt:e-WAG decision by de Environmental--2rotection Agenef-is' resolved, if the pertierr.! CJr-decision relating,.ccm46-CFr44a.c.@Wd (mr -is corrtinued in--force, the Environmental Management Cc= mis-sion should modify Part 423, as adopted by the State, by eliminating these two provisions.

Thus, our position is that unless the UWAG decisicn is stayed er reversed, the McGuire per=ir should.he. issued with the tha -'1 conditi---

s

-- t a.t e Permit No. 1977 as the only-ther=al limitations.

If you have any questiens or would like to discuss this further, please call me.

Very truly yours, W

h. h~tbx)

Charles S. Carter

-Q

.rm CSC/fhb cc:

Mr. William Puette Mr. L.

Page Senton Mr. William L. Porter Mr.

L.

C.

Call Mr. C. A.

Dewey e

.d.RS l 7 05 September 8, 1976 W. O.

Pcrker Attn. W.

A. Haller Re:

McGuire NPDES 316(a)

File Nos:

MC-1444.00, F-29 MC-1415.00 A decision has been made to proceed with development of a predictive 316 (a) document for McGuire Nuclear Station.

The important chrencl-ogy is as follows:

April 1, 1977 - Formally file 316 (a) document with the Department of Environmental Management of NCDNER.

NCDNER grants or denies 316 (a).

Aug. 1, 1977 Unit No. 1 Startup.

May 1, 1978 May 1, 1979

- Unit No. 2 Startup.

July 1, 1981

- Date upon which both McGuire units must be equipped with cooling towers if on August 1, 1977 NCDNER denies 316(a).

You will note that if cooling towers are required, the above sched-ule affords essentially four years during which tower specifications can be written, a manufacturer selected, construction ecmpleted and towers placed in service.

You are a' ware of the recent UNAG-4th Circuit Court decision which, among other findings, could exempt McGuire from the ecoling tower requirement.

Unfortunately, no one can be certain what course EPA will take on these matters.

To assume that a 315 ( a) will not be re-quired is to run a serious risk since NCDNER in ne legal " Jungle" may decide at some future date that N. C.

still embraces EPA's guidelines and they, M.

C., require a 316(a) and the July 1, 1991 deadline.

Such a late decisien could be very costly to Duke Pcwer.

On the other hand, preparing a 316 (a) document at this time is no trivial task.

We have 316 (a) experiences; however, this is to be predictive and being prognostic in nature wi11 likely require mere exper :se than required at Allen or Marshall.

If EPA and/cr NCDNER should advise later en that McGuire is " free" frem cocling cwers, then our 316 (a) effort will certainly not be entirely wasted.

As a matter of fact, we should find the 316(a) effort c be of substantial value during the McGuire hearings lead as well as in Technical Specifica icn negotiations.

As in cther N? DES p cceedings, Cesign Engineering will take the lead in cocrdinatien, document publicatic '., etc.; however, ob-viously, we must depend largely upon certain very know_edgeable

W. O. Parker Attn. W. A.

Haller September 8, 1976 Page Two biologists in your group to furnish much of the expertise.

Dr.

David Anderson, Ext. 4976, has been designated to head the McGuire 316(a) effort in Design.

Dave will contact you regard-ing the individuals in Steam P:oduction you choose to assign to this effort.

If you care to discuss, please do not hesitate to call me.

L. C.

Dail, Chief Engineer Civil-Environmental Division ILLh u Q,

Sy:

C. A.

Dewey, Jr.

Principal Environmental Engineer cc:

R. S. Shatnagar M 'Crowell R. F. Edmonds D. W. Anderson A. Gnilka

?..

F. Gray T. W.

Yocum W.

D. Adair C. S. Carter W.

L.

Porter W. J. McCabe e

Elle T

g r-July 19, 1976 g

JUL 1n 9' 7o

' ~ -

,i Cs..,

Mr.

W.

S. Lee gg,*:e gi ;Sg'l~..L ge ~a.g "J,.,.

n Mr. L. C.

Cail Mr.

C.

A.

Dewey Dr.

W.

A. Haller Re:

Thermal Recuirements on McGuire Nuclear Station The question was recently raised concerning the basis for requiring a 316 (a) demonstration at McGuire as a condition of the NPDES permit to be issued for this facility.

This require-ment is based on the authority granted to EPA under the FWPCA Amendments of 1972.

Under the authority of the Act, EPA promulgated on Oc'tober 8, 1974, effluent guidelines and. standards for the steam electric power industry at 40 CFR Part 423.

Subpart A, Generating Unit Subcategory, i.? poses certain requirements on the discharge of effluents from those generating units of greater than 500 megawatt net generating capacity which are placed into service after January 1, 1970.

Section 423.13(1) states that "there shall be nc discharge of heat from the main condensers" except for six stated exceptions to this no discharge requirement.

However, none of the six exceptions is directly applicable to McGuire.

The no discharge requirement is required to be implemented by July 1, 1981.

Based on this no discharge requirement, we would be required to provide offstrea= cooling.in the form of cooling towers by the date specified unless we can demonstrate that this requirement is more stringent than necesscry to protect the biota under the provisions of Section 316 (a).

Therefore, unless this regulation is overturned by the Fourth Circuit in the pending UWAC appeal, Duke must make a satisfactory 316(a) demonstration or provide offstream cocling at McGuire.

m ) - L --

__&(

PL Charles S.

Carter CSC/fhb cc:

Mr. William L.

Porter

(

f*-f July 1, 1976 Memo to Fi le Re:

NPDES Permits McGuire and Selews Creek File No. F-29 On June 29, 1976, C.

A.

Dewey, Jr., D. W.

Anderson, Henry Teeter, and R.

F.

Ecmonds met with Bob Carter, Russell Radford, Bill Mills, Rex Gleason, and Ralph Whitsell of NCONER to discuss craf t NPDES permi ts for Selews Creek and McGuire. The primary topic of discussion was Cuke's letters of June 17 con-taining comments and proposed changes to the draf: permits, in general, the major changes whien Duke had requested were in conflict with North Carolina's self-nonitoring regulations, and very li ttle headway was made concernine mon-i toring cnanges.

Specific areas of discussion on the two permits was as fol-lows:

Belews Creek c mit e

1.

Serial 001, Concenser Cooling water - was accepted as we proposed.

2.

Serial 002, Low-Volume Wastes - was moved to Part 111.

3 Serial 003, Metal Cleaning Wastes - They were receptive to our recommenca-tions and were of the opinion that monitoring should be performed at the end of the holdup /sett. ling basin.

However, they agreed to include our op-tion of performing an ash basin equivalency demonstration.

Rather than roni toring one time cer batch for coccer and i ron, they will recuire us to take a comoosite sample over the perioc of each cleaning or rinse.

4 Serial 004, Ash Pond Oi scharge Through June 30, 1977 - They were not recep-tive to our monitoring recommendations. They will c:nsicer granting relief from the :emocrature, dissolved oxypr, anc se::leacle mat:er if we furnisn accrocri ate ca:a. This may be historical da:a proviced ne wastes wnien will be routed to the ash pond uncer tne permit have been going in:o :ne ash pond during :ne hi storical period.

The flow recuiremen:s in North Carolina's monitoring regulations require continuous sampling for Serial 004 Boo Carter will attempt to remove this requirement after talking to Page Sen:on; but if he is unsuccessful, we will be requi red to moni tor and submi t a recues t for a waiver.

The 96-c.our T'.M recui rements were droceed f rom the permi t.

5.

Serial 000, Ash Basin Discharge July 1,1977 to Exci ra:icn - Set:leasle ma:-

ter, t emt e ra :u r e, and dissolved oxygen moni:oring will s:ay in, including

~

Memo to File F-29 July 1, 1976 Page Two tne limitation of 0.1 mi per 1 settleable solids.

Again, we can recuest waiver of these limitations at a later cate.

It was agreed tha t CCW intake could be used as the downstream monitoring point for ash basin discharges, and the CCW discharge could serve as up-stream monitoring point for certain requirements.

Our recommended paragraph concerning net /grost credit was taken under ad-visement pending approval by EPA.

6.

Serial 005, Sewage Treatment Plant - They coul d not change these recui rements due to N.

C. Reg. 2-71.

They agreed to review this regulation and ecssibly give us relief en flow measurement recuirements.

As a note, anmenium nitro-gen is now required on all monitoring in lieu of Kjelcahl.

7.

Serial 006, Material Storage Runoff - was moved to Part 111.

8.

They accepted our recernended schedule of compliance including the revisec reporting dates.

9.

We will be allowed 45 days to prepare all monitoring reports.

10.

Par: III, Section H - Our reccemendation on reporting of biocides was oc-

cepted, 11.

Part til, Section 1 - The paragraph.cncerning limits of heat cischarge fr:m Sel ews Lake wi l l be changed to

..ce ' the exact 4ording o f cu r vari ance for Selews i.ake.

12.

We were advised by DNF - at no comments were received en Selews Creek cur-ing the Public Notice sed.

McGuire Permit 1.

Je were aavised that no comrents were received f rom :ne cuolic en eitner the a01 or the 402. The inquiry frorn N.

C. Wildlife was adequately handled in a meeting with Duke Pcwer, and Wildli fe subsequently wi thdrew thei r corment.

In additien, we were advised by Bill Mills that he plans to issue the 402 (NPDES permi t; on or about July 15 The 401 is planned for issuance as seen as bookkeecing, including payment to The Charlo::e Cbserver for the acver-tisement is comcleted.

Sill Mills ex:ects :nis to be in abou: ten days.

From DMER's comments thr0ugncu: the meeting. it accears ina: C. S. Kaplan is still acting as principal advisor on the McGuire permi:.

2.

Serial 001, CCW Discharge - We are ajvised that the state c:ulc net ex:end the July 1,1981 ceadline for cccling :cwer cons: rue: ion i? recuired since e

Memo to File F-29 July 1, 1976 Page Three the l aw provides r.o reli ef f rom tni.s date. However, North Carolina is flexible concerning timing of the 316 demonstration provided reasonable time is alicwed for construction of cooling towers prior to July 1, 1981.

Mills pointed out that EPA suggests we do a 316a demonstrat ion based on our NRC Ensironrental Report and then validate this with operational ex-perience.

It was not clear whether DNER was in agreement with this,. but

hey said they would not grant a "no strings attached" 316 that is not based on actual ocerational field data, it copears that any option Duke takes will involve an initial predictive 316 and a validation under oper-ating conditions before we will be in the clear, in any event, due :

the projected unit startup schedule, a final determination cannot be mace in time : allow reasonable time for ceoling cower construction prior to the July 1, 1981 deadline.

DNER clans to define further the daily and monthly average temperatures as used on Serial 001. They will also point out tha: :he Cowans Forc tailrace is not inside the assignec mixing :ene, in addition, Our recem-mendations for deleting dissolved oxygen was accepted although settleable matter will have to remain due to N. C. Reg. 2-71.

Monitoring for pH will not be required.

3 Serial 002, Conventional Waste Water System, and 003, Waste Water Collec-tion Basin - Will have to be monitered separately ra:her tnan combined as we proposed. The rationale for this apparently came frem Kaplan since ONER was concerned with dilution of one stream with another.

4 Serial 004_. Comestic Waste Water Treatment Plant - Moni toring recui rements fer flow 300, TSS and fecal coliform will be repuired; however, all others will be eliminated since 004 discharges into ano:her wa:er bocy prior to

~

entering the river.

5 Serial 005, Metal Cleanine Wastes - Our recemrencations were acce::ec wi:h the exttp:icn of TSS and Oil and Grease, wnich they contenc :neir moni:Or-ing plan requires.

6.

Sill Mills acvisec us :nat a cermit page concerning c:nstruction runcff will be added. He also stated that Kaplan had remestec Ouke0 supply him with any information we have concerning construction runof f measuremen:s.

7 Part !!! will be revised to add a section concerning PC3's, biocide usage, and deletion of certain monitoring af:er six months' data is collected.

After discussing the material covered in our mee:ing wi th ONER, I callec Sill Mills yes:erday to recues: until nex: Tuesday to give him acdi:ional ecmmen:s

Memo to Fi l e F-29

..y 1,

1976 Page Four bi phc.ie so that Budey Davis and Charles Carter will have an opportunity to re-view these permit Mills agreed to this request.

L. C. Dail, Chief Engineer Civil-Environmental Division

(/

f By:

R.

F. Edmonds Asst. Design Engineer RFE:sd cc:

C. A.

Dewey, Jr.

D. W. Anderson

',R. 5. Crowell W.

A. Haller, Attn-

3. E. Davi s, R. H. Teeter L. C. Dall C. S. Carter

NPDES ficGUIRE RE:

C00 Lit!G TOWERS Duke's Preferred Compliance Schedule FCR INCLUSION AS PART OF COMMENTS TO NCDriER ON ORAFT PERMIT CATE EVENT 5-1-75 Unit i Start Up 5- -7o Unit 2 5-I-79 start 316(a) for 12 months 11-1-80 Submi t 316(a) document (18 months) 12 months data + 6 months analyses & preparation of co cument 11-1-80 i ssue C/T Speci fications 2-1-81 316(a) Cecision -

Upon failure to Obtain 316(a):

3-1-81 Award C/T Contract 7-I-81 S tart C/T Cons truction 1-1-84 Finish C/T's "I

, -, j,.,

LCD CAD 6/1k/76

. _, * ~ ~

--.a

~

edib.

d N March 24, 1976

's#

v

,,4 --

g'

,g.

b,

/t a-gF,>,, t" g,A Mr. L.

C.

Dail Mr.

C. A. Dewev ef. W 4 g- \\./

r

.e Dr.

W.

A.

Haller t

Mr.

W.

S. Lee t

Re:

McGuire Nuclear Station NPDES Permit At the Environmental Breakfast on March 22, Charlie Dewey gave a brief report en his conversations with Page Benten of NCDNER during the previous week.

With respect to the McGuire permit, Charlie indicated that Page's position was that a 316(a) demonstration will probably be required.

His position is based on the regulations governing effluent limitations for steam electric power plants set forth in 40 CFR Part 423.

Soecifically, Section 423.13(1) specifies that "there shall be no discharge of Leat frem the main condensers" for units which are placed into cperation after January 1, 1974.

The regulation does provide for six exceptions to this ne discharge rule.

Five of tncse exceptions are not in any way applicable to McGuire.

The sixth allows the discharge of heat from a eccling pond or lake which was in service er under

,+,

construction as of the effective date of the regulation, w~_c2 was'

,.. ~, -

Never2er 7, 1974.

.af y

p.,.6

,., S 'n s

During discussions with Page in Decerter in Ral'eigh, M' '

,-l,)

N p

a v- -

s>. /g s,

-.n. -

succested that this excection should be acclicable to McGuife..q..

N ~.,. e. \\s.

s c

based en the fact : 1>. Lake Ncrman was in use as a eccl'ine* ake

2.

in November, 1974 by Marshall.

Apparently, Page did not agree with this formulation.

I expect that EPA also would not be amenable to accepting this position, particularly since they stated at the Marshall hearing in July that they do not consider Lake Norman to be a cooling lake within the scope of the definition set forth in the regulations.

However, we may want to raise this issue again after we receive a draft permit from the State.

One other point to consider is that cur agreement to do a 316(a) may be necessary for Zeller to reject Kaplan's interpretation of Permit No. 1977 issued by the State for McGuire.

We should be able to get a better feel for this once we have a draft in hand and can enter into mere detailed discussions with the State.

b G

J- -

A Charles S. Carter Legal Department CSC/fhb cc:

Mr. William L.

Porter O

(,, b.

s

f..a e tcp. e UNIT 0 07ATIS

,<; t NUCla!.A AeCULI OM cCMMissic.'J

i : S-i 3

.m-.sc n. c. :. :csss

*. S4 9 ;i

'.., -y N. r i vy Docket Ilcs. 50-359 and 50-370 LJ

% ;g.

Mr. Lewis R. Martin, Cirector Division of Envircnmental s

'o h

Manage ent S ',

M'?) F g [8 M

r7 State of flerth Carolina P. O. Sex 2758/

Raleigh, Morth Carolina 27511 E.p Caar Mr. itartin:

On March 4,1971, the State of Ilor:h Car: lina Depart en: of Water and Air Resources forwarded to Duke P0 wee Cem;any, Permit ilo.1977, for the con-struction and cperation of a 2.54 3.G.J. :: cling water system for the Hilliam B. McGuire fiuclaar 5:ati:n, Uni s 1 and 2.

In Permit No. 1977 the following condition was placed en.ne ".cGuire facility:

"The facilities shall be effectively naintained and operated at all times so as to mee: Se tsecerature standards of 5'? increase above natural water tem:erature and a :aximum of 90*F, measured as a daily average one foot belcw the water surface except within a mi'.ing :ene :entaining an area of. ot more than 3,500 acres and lying south of a line cri;inatinc :n the west bank of !!. C.

Coordinates E-1, 415, 900 and 71-533, 500 and extending south 70* -CO' eas: intersecting :ne point of land on the eastarn shcre, but at no time shall the heated.vas:e disenarge increase the temperature of the watars at any ;cint witnin the Lake in excess of 95'F, as a men:bly average.

As a cer=ent en cur Draft Envir:Cmental 5 a ament (CIS) relatad to the operation of William 3. McGuire flu lear 5:ation, L' nits 1 and 2, the U. S.

Environmental Protecti:n Agency (I?A), :.a;i:n IV, indicated their inter, e taticn of Permit lio.1977 is cat ... al2 ugh ne afxing :One allocated in tha permit all:wed f:e c;erati:n heir; extrace climatic c:nditions (which have a very 1:w Or::abili y Of :::u rence), the aspifcant was 1.imited by the terms of ne par :: :: ::erati:-.-in ';ould as:ure =0n$ly avarage discharge rperatur9s N *: Ereater ~~a-33.?? W'ing CC'" al Cl Imatic tenditions

% :::y of these ::- ents is 5.:l:se: for y:ur inf rmati:n.

.o.. o.. r. 4. n 2

s..

.a he E;.4 bises their ositi:n :n :ne fact the ;ermit states that the pennit i2, r =.7. =. d.

" i n *. -.a. r d. > *. ". =....e'.'.7*..*.=.

a. r. *: i..= -. i s'.1 c . 's. d ". '.- h. =. ". C., l o.7. 0 an~d a

.g v

i conformity with ne ;iins s:ecificati:ns and supporting data, all of

.-hi:n are filed with the :e:ar ment of. inter and Air

. sources and all c:nsider"1 a part of this Fermit," and as a part of the su;;orting data a.'.m i "s..' d. *] '..'..= a - ' i s.=.. ', indi-

.c..3

.11., a n :..., i.- =. =.. *...,.:. = u-..

er cating this proposed c; era-ing scheme and the thermal discharge temperature ar.d.mixin; zone recuirerents. The applicant's schece provided for main-taining the r.cnthly average discharge temperature no higher than 90.0*F daring n:rmai clima-ic ::ndi:icns, and under extrece conditions, for aintaining the ncnthly avera;e discharge temperature no higher than g5.0*F.

~t

+, len is ses a +w on.

.n:, p,..e...i +.

,Je.::,....

~%e. a.,s.:.

z. a a...., a.

I aia....

s...

5'F above na ural water E ;erature with a maximum of gC*F, measured as a :aily average, and that the permi: aisc established the thermal mixing

..e t: be a eaximum of 3,5:0 surface acres in which the water temperature a: a.'.v :cint shall net be ade to exceed 95*. as a result of the heated p.in: e--luen:, r.easured as a enta. ly average.

In Order f;r the :iRC staff to accurately reflect the actual conditions of Fermi: :io.1977, it is assantial that the true limitations, their meaning and inten, be determined.

he Je;ar: cent of ::a: ural and E:encaic Resources is the agency within the State Of :; r h Carolina.,ni:n is authori:ed to issue such permits.

It is nus 1:g1:a1 for the de:ar: cent :: be the a:pr:;riate body to interpret

erait

nditions. Ac:Ordiagiy, ycu are recuested : advise us of your i terpre a-icn of :ne permi ::nci icns regarding the above, especially the c:asicera:icn of ner ai vs. extrece cli atic c:ndi:icns indicated by tne Envir:cmentai ? rote::i:n Agency.

Y:ur res:ense.,ould :e a; reciated by February 25, 1975 in order that we a/ in:iuce ne apor:cria a linita:icns in Our Final Envir:nmental Statamen;

n. n

.,. u.. a.a l r.., n. a.. a...

m

• . ' -..a '...= r, y l = 2 =...n..= '. M.. n.1'.ver D. ~i.

j.) ' = Y =. =..n]'.". =. s. d.... s..a.

a 2

..a

"~

y j r.r..-s..e.

, ?.

... s C'. "..= n = ". r, '.* /* - S.i =. "h. Cn *. C".. f.F'I ) *4^J :. 0. 0.

..d w

r.

g J I....,.

w..,

.s....

Sincerely, a

f o

j,/.,,'/ i.

Q,yR.~V ~

~

d i

-,/,

ll

. W. Re;an, J r..'. Ch ief/

..,, j..... =.,..

,4

-, :.._.3 n. r,.a...h

...v.

d'yjJ..r.

,:.3.

9

.n d 4

.4 4

... : ?. j., g. @.

e..,4

m..q., "3

..*......g.

....a

=:..'

,..s.,e..

i. s.i r. a. n.

....s..

f '

- e.

..s f. *

• a

• 9 i s.m

-:. e..s e.

.t a. t e.-

Q

.~..

n...$ s.. =../ s. e

f. = = = n o j

7...........w

.., g s..

... s...

P.. s. e.T. m. =. =. s,

• =e=..a. '. s e=

• 2

• s.

• 39**.

sa a

.e.t e. -s.e r.,j

= m e,e. s. e,

=..

d*

I C a..n e s..e,

.L. 3. l

• P. s.

2 /.*..? * = a*

=

F I. " O.r/,s V E S. S

.9 d a.,

g e.

S l.

M.

1./*/

I,..

5 01 ='..s

.. a $.W. 3sra.an, J'.

• * *

• a.

es.

y u

,s

s. $s. !..

a

-. s. s../,., e s 5 *... " ".

'6.A. s.r..a pw } 4 s 4

T.f..e. r.....r.

s.

.R...,.f a

a..

C..e a.. p w

C.=... s n.. t s./. -3# s a.s w w Ch o f 's w *.*..n.

'.t'..,..

a.

• 797 s

m s e.

... i

/

p.-

/%

p.

f T:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4*~

NQ" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

.O

~'

Y, ks 9,, t,34' In the-] Matter o f

)

A

-S's

)

b.

DUKE' POWER COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. STN 50-488 50-489

)

50-490 (Perkins Nuclear Station,

)

Units 1, 2 and 3)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Response and Objections to Intervenors' Request for Production of Docu-ments, Interrogatories, and Request to Admit,' dated January 16, 1979 in the captioned matter, have Seen served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 16th day of January, 1979:

Elizabeth S.

Bowe rs, Esq.

Charles A.

Barth, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety Counsel for NRC Regulatory and Licensing Board Staff U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Of fice of the Executive Legal Directo r Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Donald P.

desylva Washington, D.

C.

20555 Associate Professor of William A.

Raney, Jr.,

Esq.

Marine Science Rosens tiel School of Marine Special Deputy Attorney General and Atmospheric Science State of North Carolina University of SEami Department of Justice Miami, Florida 33149 P.O.

Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive William G.

P f e f f erkorn, Esq.

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 2124 Wachovia Building Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 J. SEchael McGarry, III, Esq.

Cebevoise & Liberman 1200 17th Street, N.W.

Mrs. Mary Apperson Davis Washington, D. C.

20036 Route 4 Sox 261 Mocksville, North Carolina 27025

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Was hing ton, D. C.

20555 Mr. Chase R.

Stephens Docketing and Service Section Of fice of the Secretary U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 M NJ John E.

La ns d'ne