ML20039B096

To Environ Rept

ML20039B096
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	12/16/1981
From:	DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20039B094	List: ML20039B093 ML20039B096
References
ENVR-811216, NUDOCS 8112220286
Download: ML20039B096 (94)

Text

r December 16, 1981 DUKE POWER COMPAEY APPLICATION FOR LICENSES DOCKET NOS.

50-413, -414 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT REVISION 4 CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS:

Please remove and insert pages in accordance with the following tabulations.

Remove These Pages:

Insert These Pages:

Volume 1 ER-iii, iv ER-lii, iv ER-ix, x ER-ix, x ER-xi, xii ER-xi, xii ER-xiii, xiv ER-xiii, xiv ER-xv. xv1 ER-xv, xvi ER-xvii, xviii ER-xvii, xviii ER-xxi ER-xxi ER-2v, 2vi ER-2v,'2vi ER-2vii, 2viii ER-2vii, 2viii ER-2.4-1, 2.4-2 ER-2.4-1, 2.4-2 ER-2.4.3, 2.4-4 ER-2.4.3, 2.4-4 ER-2.4-5, 2.4-6 ER-2.4-5, 2.4-6 ER-2.4-7, 2.4-8 ER-2.4-7, 2.4-8 ER Table 2.1.3-1, 2. l. v-2 ER Table 2.1.3-1, 2.1.3-2 ER Table' 2.4.1-1, 2.4.1-2 ER Table 2.4.1-1, 2.4.1-2 ER Table 2.4.1-3, 2.4.1-4 ER Table 2.4.1-3, 2.4.1-4 2.4.1-5, 2.4.1-6 Volume 2 ER-lii, iv ER-lii, iv

~

ER-ix, x ER-ix, x ER--xi, xii ER-xi, xii ER-xiii, xiv ER-xiii, xiv

.ER-xv, xvi ER-xv, xvi ER-xvii, xviii ER-xvii, xviii ER-xxi-ER-xxi ER-3111, 31v ER-3111, 31v ER-3.6-1, 3.6-2 ER-3.6-1, 3.6-2 ER-3.6-3 ER-3.6-3

~

ER'-3. 7.1, 3. 7-2 ER-3.7-1, 3.7-2 ER-Siii, Siv ER-Siii, Siv ER-5.1-7, 5.1-8 ER-5.1-7, 5.1-8

,..ER-5.3-1, 5.3-2 ER-5.3-1, 5.3-2 ER Table 5.3.1-1 Xs ER Figure 5.1.4-3 ER-12.1-1, 12.1-2 ER-12.1-1, 12.1-2 ER-12.1-3 8112220286 811216 ER-12.1-3 05000413 PDR ADOCK PDR C

~

,j

Catawba Nuclear Station Environmental Report - Revision 4 December 16, 1981 Page Two Remove These Pages:

Insert These Pages:

Appendix 6 Cover Letter thru 14 of 14 Cover Letter thru 14 of 14 Request For Additional Information RAI-1 thru RAI-ll RAI-l t.hru RAI-13 l

l 1

k l

n

____.-__.__m____

r O

TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED O

Section Py 3.5.5 PROCESS AND EFFLUENT RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING SYSTEM ER 3.5-16 3.6 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE WASTES ER 3.6-1 3.6.1 CHEMICAL EFFLUENTS ER 3.6-1 3.6.2 COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN ER 3.6-2 3.6.3 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND REC 0VERY ACT ER 3.6-3 3.7 SANITARY AND OTHER WASTE SYSTEMS ER 3.7-1 3.7.1 TEMPORARY SANITARY WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS ER 3.7-1 3.7.2 PERMANENT SANITARY WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM ER 3.7-2 3.7.3 OTHER WASTE SYSTEMS ER 3.7-2 3.8 REPORTING 0F RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT ER 3.8-1 3.9 TRANSMISS:0N FACILITIES ER 3.9-1 O

3.9.1 DESCE!.PTION OF THE LINES ER 3.9-1 3.9.2 LAND USE ALONG THE LINES ER 3.9-2 3.9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE TRANSMISSION FACILITIES ER 3.9-2 3.9.4 230 kV SWITCHING STATION ER 3.9-3 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION, STATION ER 4.1-1 CONSTRUCT'ON, AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION 4.1 SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION ER 4.1-1 4.1.1 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES EP, 4.1-1 4.1.2 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY ER 4.1-2 4.1.3 AQUATIC ECOLOGY ER 4.1-3 4.2 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTICN ER 4.2-1 4.2.1 CONSTRUCTION OF THE CATAWBA TRANSMISSION ER 4.2-1

(

4.2.2 MODIFICATION OF THE EXISTING TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ER 4.2-3 4.3 RESOURCES COMMITTED ER 4.3-1 l

Rev. 4 ER iii

'l

TfRI E OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED O

Section Pagq 4.3.1 CATAWBA SITE ER 4.3-1 4.3.2 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ER 4.3-1 4.3.3 TRANSMISSION 5R 4.3-1 4.4 RADIATION ER 4.4-1 a

4.4.1 INTERIM CONSTRUCTION WORKER DOSES ER 4.4-1 4.5 CONSTRUC' ION IMPACT CONTROL PROGRAM FR 4.5-1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF STATION OPERATION ER 5.1-1 5.1 EFFECT OF OPERATION OF HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM ER 5.1-1 5.1.1 EFFLUEN1 LIMITATIONS AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ER 5.1-1 5.1.2 PHYSICAL EFFECTS ER 5.1-1 5.1.3 BIOLOGICA? EFFECTS ER 5.1-3 5.1.4 EFFECTS OF HEAT DISSIPATION FACILITIES ER 5.1-4 5.2 RADIOLOGICAL IMDACT FROM RULTINE OPERATION ER 5.2-1 5.2.1 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS ER 5.2-1 5.2.2 RADIOACTIVITY IN THE ENVIRONMENT ER 5.2-4 5.2.3 DOSE RATE ESTIMATES FOR BIOTA OTHER THAN PEOPLE ER 5.2-8 5.2.4 00SF RATE ESTIMATES FOR PF0PLE ER 5.2-10 5.2.5

SUMMARY

OF ANNUAL RADIATION DOSES ER 5.2-17 5.3 E_FfECTS OF CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE DISCHARGES ER 5.3-1 5.3.1 APPLICABLE WATER STANDARDS ER 5.3-1 5.3.2 EFFECTS Oh RECEIVING WATERS ER 5.3-1 5.3.3 INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL WASTES ER 5.3-1 5.3.4 COOLING TOWER DRIFT ER 5.3-2 5.4 EFFECTS OF SANITARY WASTE DISCHARGE ER 5.4-1 O

Rev. 1 ER iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED Section Page 12.2.3 SOUTH CAROLINA WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION (SCWRC)

ER 12.2-2 12.2.4 OTHER STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES ER 12.2-2 12,3 STATUS OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AUTHORIZATIONS ER 12.3-1 I

t l

i 4

l O

s Rev. 4 ER ix t

3 i

LIST OF TABLES O

Table No.

Title 1.1.1-1 Historical and Forecast Load Data - Duke System 1.1.1-2 Historical and Corecast Load Data - VACAR Subregion of SERC 1.1.1-3 Historical and Forecast Monthly Peak Load and Energy - Duke

Systen, 1.1.1-4 Load Management Goals:

1980-1990 1.1.1-5 Program Elements of Load Management 1.1.1-6 Comparison of Forecast Peaks and Energy Duke System 1.1.2-1 Capacity Installed on Duke System at Time of 1973 Peak 1.1.2-2 Duke System Load and Capacity - MW (1973-1990) 1.1.2-3 Member Companies of SERC 1.1.2-4 VACAR Load and Capacity - MW (1973-1989) 1.1.2-5 Unit Additions Duke System 1981-1990 0

1. 3.1-1 First Year of Proposed Operating Replacement Energy Costs for Unit 1 Not Being in Service 1.3.1-2 First Year Operating Production Costs 1.3.1-3 Normal Locd Growth and Catawba In Service 1.3.1-3a No Load Growth and Catawba In Service 1.3.1-4 Normal Load Growth and Catawba Not In Service 2,1.2-1 1977 Population 0-5 Miles (0-8 km) 2.1.2-2 1970 Fopulation Distribution 0-10 Miles (0-16.1 km) 2.1.2-3 1980 Projected Population Distribution 0-10 Miles (0-16.1 km) 2.1.2-4 1981 Projected Population Distribution (Year of Plant Start-Up) 0-10 Mi1es (0-16.1 km) 2.1.2-5 1990 Projected Population Distribution 0-10 Miles (0-16.1 km) 2.1.2-6 2000 Projected Population Distribution 0-10 Miles (0-16.1 km) 2.1.2-7 2010 Projected Population Distribution 0-10 Miles (0-16.1 km) 2.1.2-8 2020 Projected Population Distribution 0-10 Miles (0-16.1 km)

Rev. 3 ER x

LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED Table No.

Title 2.1.2-9 1970 Population Distribution 0-50 Miles (90-80.4 km) 2.2.2-10 1980 Projected Population Distribution 0-50 Miles (0.80.4 km) 2.1.2-11 1981 Projected Population Distribution (Year of Plant Start-up) 0-50 Miles (0-80.4 km) 2.1. ' 12 1990 Projected Population Distribution 0-50 Miles (0.80.4 km) 2.1.2-13 2000 Projected Population Distribution 0-50 Miles (0-80.4 km) 2.1.2-14 2010 Projected Population Distribution 0-50 Miles (0-80.4 M 2.1.2-15 2020 Projected Population Distribution 0-50 Miles (0-80.4 km) 2.1.2-16 1977 Seasonal Recreational Transient Population 2.1.2-17 1977 Average Daily Recreational Transient Population 2.1.2-18 1977 Daily Industrial Transient Population OO 2.1.3-1 Location of Closest Milk Cow, Milk Goat, Garden, Residence, and Site Boundary by Sector Within 5 Miles 2.1.3-2 Truck Farming Production 2.1.3-3 Milk Production 2.1.3-4 Meat Production 2.1.3-5 Surface Water Users 2.1.3-6 Groundwater Users 2.1.3-7 River Bank Wells 2.1.3-8 Major Dischargers 2.2.1-1 Approximate Acreage of Vegetation Communitics Cleared During Construction 2.2.2-1 Phytoplankton Taxa Composition from Station 215.0 2.2.2-2 Phytoplankton Taxa Composition from Station 220.0 2.2.2-3 Lake Wylie Phytoplankton Densities and Cell Volume 2.2.2-4 Zooplankton Species List 2.2.2-5 Estimated Zooplankton Densities Rev. 3 ER xi

LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED Table No.

Title 2.2.2-6 Percentage Composition of Important Zoeplankton 2.2.2-7 Checklist of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa 2.2.2-8 Mean Density (No./m ) of Important Benthic Macroinvertebrates 2

per Sampling Period 2.2.2-9 Mean Density (No./m ) of Important Benthic Macroinvertebrates 2

per Sampling Location 2.2.2-10 Fish Species Collected from Lake Wylie near Catawba Nuclear Station 2.2.2-11 Percent Composition of Fish Collected from Lake Wylie near Catawba Nuclear Station 2.2.2-12 Recreational Harvest from Lake Wylie 2.2.2-13 Estimated Recreational Harvest Taken by all Fishermen on Lake Wateree 2.2.2-14 Recreational Harvest in Kg Round Weight - Lakes Marion and Moultrie 2.2.2-15 Commercial Harvest in Kg from the Santee River Below Wilson Dam 2.2.2-16 Commercial Harvest in Kg from the Cooper and Ashley Rivers Below Penopolis Dam 2.2.2-17 Commercial Harvest in Kg from Wando River 2.2.2-18 Number of Fish Sampled and Calculated Total Number of Dead Fish a 1973 Fish Kill 2.3.0-1 Vicinity Climatology 2.3 0-2 Wind Occurrences (40 m) 2.3.0-3 Wind Occurrences (10 m) 2.3.0-4 Relative Frequency Distribution 2.3.0-5 Climatic Comparison 2.3.0-6 Annual Average X/Q Values at Intake Vents Dilution Factors for Routine Releases 2.3.0-7 Dilution Factors for Accident Releases 2.4.1-1 Flood Peak Return Period 2.4.1-2 Lake Wylie Minimum Surface Water Elevations Rev. 4 ER xii

[G3 LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED Table No.

Title 2.4.1-3 Lake Wylie Maximum Surface Water Elevations

2. 4.1-4 Lake Wylie Minimum and Maximum Average Monthly Surface Water Elevations 2.4.1-5 Lake Wylie Water Quality (1974-78) 2.4.1-6 Lake Wylie Water Quality (1978-80) 2.4.2-1 Summary of 00 and 800 Measurements Below Wylie Dam 2.4.4-1 Summary of Residential Well Survey Data Immediate Vicinity of Site 2.4.4-2 Regional Groundwater Users 2.4.4-3 Regional River 6ank Groundwater Users 2.4.4-4 Packer Permeability Test Results 2.4.4-5 Constant and Variable Head Permeability Test *.esults 3(V 2.4.4-6 Constant Discharge Pumping Test Results, Well A-85TW 2.4.4-7 Constant Discharge Pumping Test Results, Well -48TW 2.4.4-8 Results of Physical and Chemical Tests on Groundwater 2.6,0-1 Historic Sites Within 5 Miles (8 km) and National Register Sites Within 10 Miles (16.1 km) 3.3.1-1 Station Water Use f

3.4.1-1 Condenser Cooling Water System (Summer Design Conditions) 3.4.1-2 Cooling Tower Estimated Monthly Maximum Evaporation 3.4.1-3 Cooling Tower Drift Droplet Size Distribution

3. 5.1-1 Primary and Secondary Activity During Normal Operation 3.5.1-2 Parameters Used ir Calculating Normal Primary and Secondary Coolant Activities 3.5.1-3 Reactor Coolant Sy; tem Nitrogen-16 Activity 3.5.1-4 Tritium Source Terms b

V 3.5.1-5 FSAR Cross-References for Systems Important to Radwaste Release Considerations Rev. 4 ER xiii

.. ~..

3 LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED O

Table No.

Title 3.5.2-1 Estimated Radioactive Releases in Liquid Effluent 3.5.2-2 Normal Expected Daily Flows to Liquid Radwaste System (2 Units) 3.5.3-1 Estimated Annual Airborne Effluent Releases 3.5.4-1 Estimated Maximum Specific Activities Input to Nuclear Solid Waste Disposal System 3.5.4-2 Estimated Maximum Volumes 0:scharged from Solid Radwaste System (Two Units) 3.5.5-1 Liquid Process Radiation Monitoring Equipment 3.5.5-2 Airtiorne Process Radiation Monitoring Equipment 3.6.1-1 Conventional Waste Water Treatment System Effluent Analysis 3.6.1-2 Waste Water Discharge 3.6.1-3 Annual Chemical Usage and Disposition of Waste 3.7.1-1 Sanitary Waste System 3.9.1-1 Transmission Line Additions 4.1.1-1 Highlight Construction Sch dule 4.1.1-2 Construction Manpower Requirements 4.5.0-1 Program to Monitor Activities That Can Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Impact - Construction Department 4.5.0-2 Program to Monitor Activities That Can Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Impact - Transmission Engineering Department 5.1.2-1 Isotherm Acreages 5.2.2-1 Waterborne-Related Radionuclide Concentrations 5.2.2-2 Water Pathway Equilibrium Relative Concentration Factors 5.2.2-3 Bioaccumulation Factors for Aquatic Plants and Organisms 5.2.2-4 Airborne Released Related Radionuclide Concentrations 5.2.3-1 Biota Dose Estimates Rev. 4 ER xiv i

~ _.

LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED Table No.

Title 5.2.3-2 Principal Parameters and Asssumptions Used'for Estimating the

' i Cow Thyroid Dose from' Ingestion.of Pasture Grass 5.2.4-1 Appendix I Conformance Summary Tat,le 5.2.4-2 Summary of Calculated Liquid Pathway Doses Breakdown By Pathway of Significant Nuclide Contribution to Maximum Total Body and Critical Organ Doses for Liquid Effluents 5.2.4-3 Summary of Calculated Airborne Pathway Doses Breakdown By Pathway of Significant Nuclide Contribution to Maximum Total Body and Critical Organ Doses for Gaseous Effluents 1

5.2.4-4 Input Data for Liquid Population Dose Calculations 5.2.4-5 Integrated Population Dose Summary 5.2.4-6 Human Exposure Pathway Usage Factors and Transport Times 5.3.1-1 Aerial Distribution Salt Deposition 6.1.1-1 Monitoring Program for First Year Preoperational Study (1973-1974) 6.1.1-2 Sampling Locations for the Water Quality Studies-6.1.1-3 Interim Monitoring Program (1974-1977) 6.1.1-4 Interim Monitoring Program-(1977 to Beginning of Second Year Preoperational Program) 6.- l.1-5 Second Year Preoperational Monitoring Program 6.1.1-6 Summary of Non-radiological Second Year Preoperational Aquatic Monitoring Program 6.1.5 1 Preoperational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 6.1.5-2' Detection Capabilities for Environmental Sample Analyses 6.2.2-1 Proposed Chemical. Effluent Monitoring Program l

6.4.1-1 Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program Annual Summary l

7.1.1-1 Summarf of'Raciological Consequences of Postulated Accidents 7.1.1-2 General Assumptions for Accident Release Calculations

~

7.1.1-3 Radioactivity Inventory for an Averace Fuel Assembly l

Rev. 4.

ER xv j

LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED Table No.

Title 7.1.2-1 Radioactivity Sources From Waste Gas Storage Tank Release Accident 7.1.2-2 Radioactivity Sources From Liquid Storage Tank Release Accident 7.1.2-3 Radioactivity Sources From Off Design Transient Accident 7.1.2-4 Radioactivity Sources From Steam Generator Tube Rupture Accident 7.1.2-5 Radioactivity Sources From fuel Bundle Drop Inside Containment Accident 7.1.2-6 Radioactivity Sources From Object Drop Onto Fuel In Core Accident 7.1.2-7 Radioactivity Sources From Fuel Assembly Drop In Fuel Storage Pool Accident 7.1.2-8 Rt.Jioactivity Sources From Heavy Object Drop Onto Fuel Rack Accident 7.1.2-9 Radioactivity Sources From Fuel Cask Drop Accident 7.1.2-10 Radioactivity Sources From Loss-of-Coolant Accident (Small Break) 7.1.2-11 Radioactivity Sources From Loss-of-Coolant Accident (Large Break) 7.1.2-12 Radioactivity Sources From Rod Ejection Accident 7.1.2-13 Radioactivity Sources From Steamline Break Accident 8.1.1-1 Benefits from Catawba Nuclear Station 8.1.2-1 Internal Costs 8.1.2-2 Tax Impact Based on 1977 8.1.2-3 Comparison of Construction and Operating Forces Impact on York County, South Carolina 8.2.1-1 Catawba Fossil Alternative Internal Costs 8.2.1-2 Estimated Costs of Electrical Energy Generation 9.3.1-1 Site-Plant Alternatives Capital Costs 9.3.1-2 Site-Plant Alternatives Environmental Factors 9.3.2-1 Economic Benefits of Nuclear vs. Fossil Fuel at Catawba 9.4.0-1 Cost of Alternative Generation Methods Rev. 4 ER xvi

l LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED Table No.

Title 10.1.1-1 Comparison of Closed Cycle Mectianical Draft vs. Natural Draft Towers 10.1.1-2 Cooling System Alternatives 10.1.1-3 Cooling Tower Details 10.2.1-1 Comparison of Intake Structures 10.9.0-1 Basic Tabulation to be Used in Comparing Alternative Plant Systems 12.3.0-1 Federal, State, and Local Authorizations i

j 1

i O

Rev. 4 ER xvii t

. ~

1 LIST OF FIGURES O

Figure No.

Title 1.1.1-1 Load Duration Curve For the Year 1985 1.1.1-2 Load Duration Curve For the Year 1986 2.1.1-1 Regional Area 2.1.1-2 Site Location 2.1.1-3 Site Area 2.1.1-4 Release Points 2.1.1-5 Non Radiological Release Point 2.1.2-1 Significant Population Groupings 0-10 Miles 2.1.2-2 Significant Population Groupings 10-50 Miles 2.1.3-1 5 Mile Topography 2.1.3-2 Comprehensive 5 Mile Area 2.1.3-3 Zoning and Game Management Areas Within 5 Miles 2.1.3-4 Surface Water Users 2.1.3-5 Groundwater Users 2.1.3-6 Riverbank Wells 2.1.3-7 Major Discharges 2.2.1-1 Major Plant Communities 2.1.2-1 Ecological Sampling Locations 2.2.2-2 Catawba River Systom from the Catawba Nuclear Station Site to the Atlantic Ocean 2.2.2-3 Zones of Lake Wylie 2.3.0-1 Tornadoes 1916-1955 2.3.0-2 Vicinity lopography Profile 2.4.1-1 Major Hydraulic Features of the Catawba River Drainage Basin 2.4.1-2 Lake Wylie Area-Volume Curve 2.4.1-3 Lake Wylie Bed Topography Rev. ^

ER xviii

~

m.

LIST OF FIGURES - CONTINUED (b

Figure No.

Title 5.1.4-3 Sound Analysis 5.2.1-1 Examples of Radiation Exposure Pathways to Biota 5.2.1-2 Examples of Radiation Exposure Pathways to People 6.1.1-1 Non-Radiological Sampling Locations on Lake Wylie 6.1.2-1 Schematic Equipmant Arrangement for Rock Permeability Testing 6.1.2-2 Schematic Equipment Arrangement for Soil Permeability Testing 6.1.2-3 Pumping Test No. 1 A85-TW (1 of 2)

Pumping Test No. 2 A48-TW (2 of 2) 6.1.2-4 Location of Observation Wells 6.1.3-1 Site Earthwork 6.1.32 Relative Elevations of Meteorological Instrcments

[G

')

6.1.3-3 Positions of Fog Study Sites 6.1.3-4 Fog Observation Form 6.1.5-1 Radiological Sampling Locations 6.1.5-2 TLD Sites 9.2.1-1 Service Area and Loao Generation Regions 10.1.1-1 Plant Layout with Rectangular Mechanical Draft Towers 10.1.1-2 Plant Layout with Natural Draft Towers

\\s' Rev. 4 ER xxi L

m i

r LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED 1

Table No.

Title 2.1.3-5 Surface Water Users 2.1.3-6 Groundwater Users 2.1.3-7 River Bank Wells 2.1.3-8 Major Dischargers 2.2.1-1 Approximate *.creage of Vegetation Communities Cleared During Constructior.

2.2.2-1 Percentage Composition of Total Phytoplankton for Important Species from Station 215.0 2.2.2-2 Percenta;;c Composition of Total Phytoplankton for Important Species from Station 20.0 2.2.2-3 Lake Wylie Phytoplankton Densities and Cell Volumes 2.2.2-4 Zooplankton Species List b

2.2.2'i Percentage Composition of Total Zooplankton 2.2.2-6 Zooplankton Density (Organisms /m3) from Bottom Depth to Surface 2.2.2-7 Checklist of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa 2.2.2-8 2

Mean Density (No./m ) of Important Benthic Macroinvertebrates per Sampling Period for all Sampling Locations 2.2.2-9 2

Mean Density (No./m ) of Important Benthic Macroinvertebrates per Sampling Location 2.2.2-10 Fish Species Collected from Lake Wylie near Catawba Nuclear Station 2.2.2-11 Percent Composition of Fish Collected from Lake Wylie near Catawba Nuclear Station 2.2.2-12 Recreational Harvest From Lake Wylie, by Zone from Summer 1979 through Spring 1980 2.2.2-13 Estimated Recreational Harvest Taken by All Fishermen on Lake Wateree 2.2.2-14 Recreational Harvest in Kg Round Weight - Lakes Marion and Moultrie (3

/y 2.2.2-15 Commercial Harvest in Kg From the Santee River Below Wilson Dam Rev. 3 ER 2v

LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED O

Table No.

Title 2.2.2-16 Commercial Harvest in Kg from the Cooper and Ashley Rivers Below Penopolis Dam 2.2.2-17 Commercial Harvest in Kg From the Wando River 2.2.2-18 Number of Fish Sampled and Calculated Total Number of Dead Fish in a 1973 Fish Kill on Catawba River 2.3.0-1 Vicinity Climatology 2.1.0-2 Wind Occurrences (40 m) 2.3.0-3 Wind Occurrences (10 m) 2.3.0-4 Relative Frequency Distribution 2.3.0-5 Climatic Comparison 2.3.0-6 Annual Average X/Q Values at Intake tents Dilution Factors for Routine Releases Offsite 2.3.0-7 Dilution Factors for Accident Releases 2.4.1-1 Flood Peak Return Period 2.4.1-2 Lake Wylie Minimum Surface Water Elevations

2. 4.1-3 Lake Wylie Maximum Surface Water Elevations 2.4.1-4 Lake Wylie Minimum and Maximum Average Monthly Surface Water Elevations

2. 4.1-5 Lake Wylie Water Quality (1974-78) 2.4.1-6 Lake Wylie Water Quality (1978-80) 2.4.2-1 Summary of 00 and BOD Measurements Below Wylie Dam 2.4.4-1 Summary of Residential Well Survey Data Immediate Vicinity of Site 2.4.4-2 Regional Groundwater Users 2.4.4-3 Regional River Bank Groundwater Users 2.4.4-4 Packer Perme.ei,*ty Test Results 2.4.4-5 Constant and Variable Head f'ermeability Test Results 2.4.4-6 Constant Discharge Pumping Test Results, Well A-85TW Rev. 4 ER 2vi

LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED Table No.

Title 2.4.4-7 Constant Discharge Pumping Test Results, Well A-48TW 2.4.4-8 Results of Physical and Chemical Tests on Groundwater 2.6.0-1 Historic Sites Within 5 Miles (8 km) and National Register Sites Within 10 Miles (16.1 km) i O

O Rev. 4 ER 2vii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure No.

Title 2.1.1-1 Regional Area 2.1.1-2 Site Location 2.1.1-3 Site Area 2.1.1-4 Release Points 2.1.1-5 Non Radiological Release Point 2.1.2-1 Significant Population Groupings 0-10 Miles 2.1.2-2 Significant Population Groupings 10-50 Miles 2.1.3-1 5 Mile Topography 2.1.3-2 Comprehensive 5 Mile Area 2.1.3-3 Zoning and Game Management Areas Within 5 Miles 2.1.3-4 Surface Water Users 2.1.3-5 Groundwater Users 2.1.3-6 Riverbank Wells l

2.1.3-7 Major Dischargers 2.2.1-1 Major Plant Communities 2.2.2-1 Ecological Sampling Locations 2.2.2-2 Catawba River System from the Catawba Nuclear Station Site to the Atlantic Ocean 2.2.2-3 Zones of Lake Wylic 2.3.0-1 Ternadoes 1916-1955 2.3.0-2 Vicinity Topography Profile 2.4.1-1 Major Hydraulir Features of the Catawba River Drainage Basin 1

2.4.1-2 Lake Wylie Area-Volume Curve

2. 4.1-3 Lake Wylie Bed Topography 2.4.3-1 SNSWP Area-Volume Curves Rev. 3 ER 2viii

2.4 HYDROLOGY 2.4.1 SURFACE WATERS 2.'. 1.1 Hydrological Properties i

The main hydrologic features influencing the' station are the Catawba River and Lake Wylie.

The headwaters of the Catawba River are the Blue Ridge Divide (Eastern Continental Divide) near Old Fort, North Carolina.

The river flows east and then south where it joins the Wateree River at Lake Wateree near Camden, South Carolina.

The Catawba River is 240 mi (386 km) long and-has a drainage area of 4750 mi2 (12296 km ).

There are six hydroelectric dams on the 2

Catawba River upstream from the site.

Figure 2.4.1-1 shows the major hydro-logic features of the Catawba River drainage basin.

Lake Wylie is the station water supply.

To serve Catawba there are two intake structures in the lake, one for the nuclear service water system and one for makeup water, conventional mvice water and other water needs.

The station discharges (which include r a ear service water and conventional service water blowdown) are returned to Lake Wylie.

The average annual flow recorded for the Catawba River at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) gage number 1460 near Rock Hill, South Carolina, 3.5 mi (5.6 km) downstream from Wylie Dam is 4547 cfs (128.7 m /s).

The period of 3

record for this gage is 1895 to JM03 and 1942 to 1977.

The average monthly flow of 4,527 cfs, the maximum monthly flow of 22,230 cfs, and the mimimum 240*5

]

monthly flow of 721 cfs were recorded at the Rock Hill gaging station from 1895 to 1903 and 1942 to 1979.

The drainage area for.this gage is 3050 mi2 (7896 2

km ).

This corresponds to an average flow at Wylie Dam of approximately.4500 3

2 cfs (124.5 m /s) with a drainage area of 3020 mi2 (7819 km ).

Due to upstream hydroelectric dams there is no consistent seasonal variation in river flow.

Wylie Hydro Station and Mountain Island Hydro Station (upstream from Lake Wylie) operate in the peak portion of Duke's load curve.

Normally, these stations operate in the mornings and afternoons of the weekday which is typi-cally the peak period. Weekend generation occurs to prevent spillage and wasted generation or replace generation due to mechanical problems of other system vaits.

Each of the four units at Mountain Island can pass up to 2480 3

cfs (67.9 m /s) of water at maximum output. Water output of the four Wylie a

Hydro units can range from 0-2800 cis (0-79.2 m /s) at mas.imum generation.

The intake opening elevation range for Wylie Hydro is from 509.4 f t (155.3 m) to 548.4 ft (167.2 m) msl.

The maximum flow recorded at the USGS gage (number 1460) is 151,000 cfs (4273 3

m /s) on May 23, 1901.

The period of record for the gage is 1895 to 1903 and 1942 to the present.

Two major floods not-recorded by the gaga are the flood of 1916 with an estimated flow at Wylie Dam of 299,400 cfs (8473 m /s) and the 3

3 flood of 1940 with a flow of 169,160 cfs (4748 m /s).

Table 2.4.1-1 presents.

the flood return period.

The one percent chance flood and floodplain evaluation defined by Executive Order 11988 are not practical for the Catawba site.

All major structures 240*3 j

necessarily requiring placement in the floodplain (i.e., intake structures and discharge structures) were completed prior to the Order's being issued in May, Rev. 4 ER 2.4-1 CNS-OLS

1977.

Furthermore, because of the large amount of storage and control that the six upstream dams provide, it is impractical to consider conditions other than FO those discussed in the Catawba FSAR, Section 2.4.

The structures placed in the j floodplain will cause no adverse impacts due to their location.

The minimum instantaneous flow recorded at the USGS gage (number 1460) is 102 3

cfs (2.89 m /s), October 31, 1961.

The minimum daily flow recorded at the gage is 490 cfs (13.9 m /s), October 21, 1954.

Nater inflow to Lake Wylie is from 3

Mountain Island Lake (Catawba River), the South Fork Catawba River and tributary creeks which contribute approximately 50, 25 and 25 percent, respectively, of 240 1 the total flow.

The FERC license for the Catawba-Wateree Project, No. 2232, requires a minimum average daily release of 314 cfs (8.89 m /s) from Mountain 3

Island Dam and 411 cfs (11.6 m /s) f rom Wylie Dam.

To calculate the low flow 3

entering /s) required release from Mountain Island Dam and the remainder of the Lake Wylie, it is assumed the Catawba River contributes the 314 cfs (8.89 m" basin contributes a flow equivalent to the 7Q10 yield per square mile for the South Fark Catawba River.

The total flow entering the lake based on these assumptions is about 516 cfs (14.6 m /s).

3 Lake Wylie extends north from Wylie Dam up the Catawba River 28 mi (45 km) to Mountain Island Dam.

The lake also extends 5 mi (8.0 km) up the South Fork Catawba River.

At full pond elevation 569.4 ft (174 m) msl, Lake Wylie has a surface area of 12,455 ac (5000 ha), a shoreline of 325 mi (523 km), a volume a

of 281,900 ac-ft (3.46 x 108m ) and a mean depth of 22.5 ft (6.9 m).

Area-volume curves for Lake Wylie are presented in Figure 2.4.1-2 and a map showing lake bed bottom topogranhy in Figure 2.4.1-3.

The design basis flood elevation for Lake Wylie is 592.2 ft (180.5 m) msl.

This is the maximum water level calculated for the station assuming the Standard Project Flood and the r,imul-taneous failure of Cowans Ford Dam.

Table 2.4.1-2 presents a 22 year period of the lowest lake levels recorded for Lake Wylie.

The lowest level ever rocorded for the lake occurred on October 23, 1952 at elevation 559.9 (9.5 ft (2.9 m) drawdown).

The lake was inten-i tierclly lowered to permit work on the connecting canal at the upstream Plant Allen.

A water budget has not been developed for Lake Wylie.

Such a water budget would be of questionable value due to the availability of six water gg storage impoundments upstream having a total of 1.5 raillion acre-feet of storage.

Table ?.4.1-3 presents the highest lake levels recorded for Lake 240. 7 Wylle.

Also, Table 2.4.1-4 presents the minimum and maximum average monthly lake levels recorded.

240.1 Defining a " drought period" on the Catawba River is difficult because of the high degree of regulation from storage irtpoundments.

For example, note that at tne times of the lowest recorded flows at the USGS gage below Wylie dam described above do not correspond with the occurrence of the lowest recorded lake level for that year.

These low flows occurred because of choice of operation as opposed to drought conditions.

From the records of the rainfall station at the Wylie Dam, two months out of 336 that have been recorded as having no rainfall (or roughly 1 month in fourteen years with no rainfall).

These months are Septenber, 1947 and October, 1963.

The dryest year on reccrd at this station is 1966 recording only 32.09 81.5 cm) inches.

[The annuai average for the period of record is 45.77 inches Rev. 4 ER 2.4-2 CNS-OLS

]

(116.3 cm).] The lowest lake elevation for 1966 was 564.4 [5.0 ft (1.52 m) drawdown].

Average natural evaporation for Lake Wylie is approximately 42 inches (107 cm) per year.

Forced evaporation for Plant Allen is calculated to be 11 cfs (0.31 m /sec); and for Catawba, it is 59 cfs (1.67 m/sec).

The maximum permissible 3

drawdown permitted by the FERC is 10 ft (3 m).

ii,e nuclear service and con-ventional service water intake pumps are designed to operate in this 10 ft 240.1 drawdown range.

Based on the FERC requirements, the large storage volume of water above Lake Wylie, and Duke's operational control of the lake and upstream impoundments, it is anticipated that the lake level would not be below the operationE level of the intake pumps at any time over the life of the plant.

However, c ould an extreme event cause a drawdown greater than 10 ft (3 m),

proper instrumentation is in place to notify the operators to shut down and use the SNSW panel to maintain cold shutdown.

2.4.1.2 Physical and Chemical Properties Physical, chemical and biological data indicate that Lake Wylie is comprised of three distinct water systems:

The Catawba River, a well mixed river environ-ment; the South Fork Catawba River, a permanently stratified system resulting from the flow of ambient South Fork water beneath the Allen Station thermal effluent; and the main body of Lake Wylie, a seasonally stratified lake system (Reference 3).

Levels of major chemical constituents in Lake Wylie reflect the geology and O

mineralogy of the drainage system.

Highest values of most parameters including turbidity, fecal coliform bacteria, aquatic nutrients and trace metals occur in ambient South Fork waters (Refereace 3).

Lake Wylie is a warm monomictic reservoir (References 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) with thermal stratification typical of Carolina Piedmont reservoirs (Reference 8).

Thermal stratification extends from May through September.

Highest surface temperatures (usually near 30 C (86 F)) typically occur in August while minimum surface temperatures (usually near 6 C (43 F)) occur in January or February (References 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7).

Surface dissolved oxygen concentrations range from 7 mg/l to 11 mg/l (Reference 3).

During stratified periods, hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen approaches zero (Reference 4).

Within the main body of Lake Wylie, very little spatial difference exists for temperature or dissolved oxygen other than natural stratification.

Table 2.4.1-5 and Table 2.4.1-6 presents descrintive statistics for water quality constituents in Lake Wylie.

These statistical constituents represent spatial averages (i.e., various lake stations and depth composites together) from eight locations for Table 2.4.1-5 290.21 and from 12 locations from Table 2.4.1-6.

Lake Wylie is typically a bicarbonate system (Reference 4).

Specific conduc-tance and total dissolved solids (T.O.S.) values in the main body of the lake fluctuate slightly around baseline values of 75 achms/cm and 60 mg/l respec-tively (Reference 3).

In general, specific conductance and T.D.S. values vary inversely with turbidity and flow, with values in the Lake Wylie sector being intermediate in both variability and magnitude between the Catawba River and r

the South Fork Catawba River.

Alkalinity concentrations generally inversely

(

reflect flcw conditions of incoming streams, with thinimum concentrations Rev. 4 ER 2.4-3 CNS-0LS

occuring during maximum flow.

Total alkalinity values average about 15 mg CaC0 /1.

3 The pH for Lake Wylie has an average value of 6.9.

Turbidity and total iron values follow similar trends in each of the three sectors of the lake.

These parameters are substantially affected by surface water runoff.

The lowest values occur in the fall when incoming stream flow is generally the lowest.

Large quantities of geologically derived iron give the water a reddish-brown color characteristic of piedmont waters (References 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7).

Based on both inorganic NP ratios and bioassay result 3, Lake Wylie is phos-phorus limited (References 2, 3, 4 5, 6 and 7).

Total phospnorus concentra-1 tions are highest in the South Fork sector of the lake and appear to vary with turbidity.

Heavy metals have not been extensively studied.

The existing data indicate a great degree of heterogeneity in spatial and temporal variations.

There have not bee, any recorded detrimental effects to aquatic life in Lake Wylie from heavy metal concentrations.

2.

4.2 BACKGROUND

POLLUTANTS The location of major industrial waste discharges to the Catawba River drainage in the vicinity of the station are presented in Figure 2.1.3-7, and available information is presented in Table 2.1.3-8.

The physical and chemical proper-ties of Lake Wylie are addressed in Subsection 2.4.1.2.

A summary of dissolved oxygen (00) and biological oxygen demand (BOD) data from four stations downstream of Wylie Dam is presented in Table 2.4.2-1.

On the basis of D0 and BOD the Catawba River immediately below Wylie Dam is relatively unpolluted.

2.4.3 SITE IMPOUNDMENTS Tne only water impoundment to be constructed for Catawba Nuclear Station is the Standby Nuclear Service Water Pond (SNSWP).

This pond is to serve as an ultimate heat sink during a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) to dissipate waste heat from the Nuclear Service Water System.

The pond is located north of the plant yard.

At full pond elevation of 571.0 ft (174.0 m) msl the pond has a surface area of 2

46 ac (0.19 km ) and a volume of 560 ac-ft (6.9 x 10s a).

The area-volume n

curves for the pond are presented in Figure 2.4.3-1.

Runoff and groundwater flow are the main source of water for the SNSWP.

The 2

area of the drainage basin at the dam is approximately 450 ac (1.82 Km ).

A 3

2 typical average drainage basin yield for this area is 1 cfs/mi2 (0.007 m /sec/km ),

3 which provides the pond with an average inflow of 0.7 cfs (0.02 m /sec).

The average evaporation is estimated to be 38 in (97 cm) per year which corresponds to roughly 0.2 cfs (6.3 x 10 a m"/sec).

The maximum drawdown for the pond is elevation 570.0 ft (173.7 m) (Reference FSAR Section 9.2.5-4).

A ten year study completed in 1971 was made by the USGS8 to adequately measure 24 reservoir evaporation on a continual basis for a period of several years so Rev. 4 ER 2.4-4 CNS-OLS

that evaporative losses during critical periods could be understood and accounted

-j for in water supply management in the southeast U.S.

This study was performed on Lake Michie near Durham, N.C., and the findings are considered representative for the Duke Power Service area.

Findings of this study state "... frequency studies indicate that over 16 inches of net evaporation may occur during a six month period every 50 years, on the average" From the above study and findings, it is anticipated that the $NSW pond would 240.2 need to be replenished once over the life of the plant by a source of water other than natural inflow.

The plant can supply this make-up by aligning two valves from the control room to shut off normal discharge to Lake Wylie and open the SNSW discharge pipe to allow this normal discharge to flow to the $NSW pond until it is full.

Filling in the above manner can be done only if Lake Wylie is maintained above elevation 559.4 ft (170.5 m) msl to allow proper operation of the NSW and conventional service water intake pumps.

For a oiscussion of maintaining Lake Wylie above this elevation, reference ER Section 2.4.1.1.

An iMake to allow direct piping of water from the lake to the SNSWP is not available.

Discharge from the SNSWP into Lake Wylie is through an overflow standpipe in i

the pond with the invert at elevation 571.0 ft (174.0 m) msl.

2.4.4 GROUNDWATER 2.4.4.1 Groundwater Aquifer The Catawba site lies within the Piedmont Groundwater Province.

Groundwater recharge in this area is derived entirely from infiltration of local precipi-tation.

The surface materials in many locations are relatively impermeable with the result that only 10 in (25 cm) to 15 in (38 cm) of the average 45 in (114 cm) of annual precipitation percolate to the water table.

Groundwater is c.ontained in the pores that occur in the weathered material (residual soil-saprolite) above the relatively unweathered rock and in the fractures in the igneous and metamurphic rock.

There are numerous localized perched water tables as well as very localized artesian aquifers.

Present groundwater use in the area is limited to domestic use.

Flowrates generally range from 3 to 150 gallons per minute (11 to 568 1/ min).

Figure 2.4.4-1 shows the locations of wells and one spring in the vicinity [approxi-mately 1 mi (1.6 km) radius] of the site and Table 2.4.4-1 is the available information.

Regional groundwater users are listed in Tables 2.4.4-2 and 2.4.4-3.

2.4.4.2 Groundwater Levels in the region of the site, groundwater rarely occurs at depths more than 300 ft (91 m) below ground surface, and usually occurs in significant quantities at depths less than 150 ft (45 m).

Observations of groundwater elevations at about 60 locations in the immediate vicinity of the site are used to make a contour map of the preconstruction water table as shown in Figure 2.4.4-2.

p This map shows that the preconstruction elevation of the groundwater varies Q

from about 10 to 40 ft ( 3 to 12 m) below the natural ground surface near the location of the reactors and that it approaches the surface elevation of Lake Rev. 4 ER 2.4-5 CNS-OLS

Wylie near the lake shore.

Thus, groundwater movement is from the plant area toward the lake coves which cut into the peninsula to the north and to the south of the site.

A permanent groundwater drainage system is installed to maintain a normal groundwater level near the base of the foundation mat and basement walls for the Auxiliary and Reactor Buildings.

This decreases the groundwater gradient and groundwater movement away from the site is therefore decreased.

Experience in the region is that the groundwater level normally declines during the late spring, summer and early fall months as a result of evapotranspiration and when rainfall is low.

The groundwater level then rises in late fall, winter and early spring.

The USGS monitors the groundwater level in a well across Lake Wylie from the station.

This well is 700 ft (213 m) in depth with the upper 50 ft (15 m) cased.

The surface elevation is about 600 ft (183 m) msl.

Figure 2.4.4-3 shows the monthly groundwater hydrograph from October 1973 to September 1977 for the well.

The maximum groundwater change since the well has been monitored is 6.64 f t (2.02 m).

2.4.4.3 Groundwater Hydraulics Several types of tests are performed to evaluate the hydraulic characteristics of the subsurface materials at the site.

Packer permeability tests are used in estimating rock permeability.

Rcsults from 62 tests performed in 13 borings show the permeability to range from 0.0 to less than 500 ft (152 m) per year, with an exception being observed in one boring where a permeability of 1761 ft (537 m) per year is measured.

Test results are presented in Table 2.4.4-4.

To evaluate the horizontal permeability in soil-saprolite and weathered rocks the constant-head permeability test is used.

Results, shown in Table 2.4.4-5, indicate a very low permeability, less than the packer tests in rock.

Vertical soil permeability is neasured by laborr. tory variable-head tests on undisturbed samples.

The laboratory tests can be divided into two categories:

(1) tests made under conditions designed to simulate the overburden pressure present under field conditions, and (2) tests made without overburden pressure.

Test results are presented in Table 2.4.4-5.

The tests made under simulated field conditions yield permeabilities significantly lower than those tests for which overburden pressure is not applied.

Also, the vertical permeabilities determined under simulated field conditions are significantly smaller than the horizontal permeabilities measured in the field.

Values range from less than 1.0 ft (0.3 m) per year up to 378 ft (115 m) per year.

Constant-discharge pumping tests are conducted to determine average values of horizontal permeability, transmissivity and storage coefficient of the aquifer.

The results of the constant discharge pumping tests are summarized in Tables 2.4.4-6 and 2.4.4-7.

Values of the drainable porosity of the aquifer or storage coefficient computed from the two pumping tests range from 1.6 x 10 2 to 2.8 x 10 1 The geometric means of the storage coefficients are 4.6 x 10 2 and 7.9 x 10 2 Permeabilities calculated from the pumping tests range from 31 f t/yr (9 m/yr) to 1017 f t/yr (310 m/yr).

Rev. 4 ER 2.4-6 CNS-OLS

~'

Groundwater flow, based on preconstruction data, is from the site to the lake coves north and south of the site.

Using Darcy's Law with the permeability of 1761 ft/yr (537 m/yr), the porosity of 0.05 and the gradient of 0.03, the ve-locity is calculated to be about 1100 ft/yr (335 m/yr).

The travel time is computed to be less than one year by dividing the length of the assumed criti-cal path, 750 ft (229 m) by the groundwater velocity.

Thece are no domestic wells along the groundwater path of travel.

The gradient after plant construc-k tion is not conducive to any groundwater movement from the powerhouse towards the lake.

2.4.4.4 Groundwater Quality The chemical and bacteriological groundwater quality in the vicinity of the site is high and satisfactory for domestic use without treatment.

Results of chemical and physical tests are presented in Table 2.4.4-8.

1 g

i 9

O Rev. 4 ER 2.4-7 CNS-OLS

REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.4 1.

NC Department of Natural and Economic Resources.

Water Quality Management Plan.

Catawba Ri'er Basin.

Environmental Management Ccmmission, Raleigh, NC.

1976.

2.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Report on Lake Wylie, York County, South Carolina, and Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, North Carolina, EPA Region IV.

Working Paper No. 441 USEPA, Corvallis, OR.

1975.

3.

Industrial Bio Test Laboratories, Inc.

A Baseline-Predictive Environmental Investigation of Lake Wylie.

Peport to Duke Power Company.

Industrial Bio Test Laboratories Inc., Northbrook, IL.

1974.

4.

Duke Power Company.

Catawba Nuclear Station.

Interim Monitoring Study.

1974-1977.

Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC.

1977.

5.

Duke Power Company.

Catawba Nuclear Statie.,

Interie Fonitoring Study.

1977-1}78.

Duke Power Company, Charlotte, SC.

1978.

~

6 Duke Power Company.

Catawba Nucle _ar Station.

Interim Monitoring Study.

1978-1979.

Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC.

1979.

7.

Duke Power Company.

Catawba Nuclear Station.

Interim Monitoring Study.

1979-1980.

Cuke Power Company, Charlotte, NC.

1980.

8.

Bowling, T. J. and Flowe, M. B. Chemical Characteristics of Piedmont Lakes.

Workshop in Aquatic Ecology in the Southeast.

Augusta, GA.

October 14, 1977 sponsored by Southeastern Section of ESA.

9.

U.S. Envi onmental Protection Agency.

Quality Criteria for Water.

EPA 440/9-76-023.

U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.

1976.

,r Rev. 3 ER 2.4-8 CNS-OL5

O ER Table 2.1.3-1 (j

Catawba Nuclear Station Location of Closest Milk Cow, Milk Goat, Garden, Residence, & Site Boundary By Sector Within 5 Miles (0-8 kmj

>500 ft2 SECTOR MILK C0W MILK G0AT RESIDENCE VEGETABLE GARDEN SITE B0UNDARY Miles Km Miles Km Miles Km Miles Km Miles Km N

.7 1.1

.8 1.3

.4

.6

^

NNE

.6

1. 0 2.8 4.5

.1

.2 NE

.7 1.1

1. 3 2.1

.2

.3 ENE

.7 1.1 2.9 3.2

.2

.3 E

1.0

1. 6 2.5 4.0

.2

.3 ESE

.8 1.3 3.9 6.2

.3

.5 SE 1.2

1. 9 2.7 4.3

.4

.6 f-}

SSE 1.0 1.6 2.0

3. 2

.3

.5 S'

.6

1. 0

.5

.8

.2

.3 Y

'dSW

,:3. 5 5.6

.9 1.4 1.8 2.9

.2

.3 j

SW

' 2. 8 4.5

.6 1.0

1. 8

2. 9

.2

.3

~

WSW f

1. 0 1.6

2. 2

3. 5

.3

.5 W ".'

1.1 1.8 1.1

1. 8

.4

.6

,s WNW

~ -

1. 2 1.9

1. 2 1.9

.4

.6 NW 1.4 2.2 1.6 2.7

.8

1. 3 NNW 3.1 5.0 1.1 1.8 2.2 3.5

.7 1.1

' Nqte:

The cl,osest dairy is located 5.7 mi (9.2 Km) SW.

Source:

Fiel,d survey November, 1981

_l-m w

'd a

e

/

v e-

ER Table 2.1.3-2 Catawba lluclear Station Truck Farming Production (Thousands) kg/yr SECTDF 0-I l-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 IC 20 20-30 30-40 40-50 OT N

48 286 640 812 1,092 2,878 NNE 25 29 184 158 17 413

=

NE 1

1 10 1

6 10,250 10,158 20,427 ENE 1

2 2

229 277 22,091 22,602 E

228 191 1,814 1,774 4,007 ESE 254 1,724 1,451 2,635 6,064 SE 938 1,814 113 1,184 4,049 I

SSE 938 938 L

1,834 4

1,838 SSW 9

9 SW 938 938 1

2 1,879 WSW 938 938 628 3,145 5,649 W

938 1

4,706 5,645 WNW 1,313 6,014 10,739 4,036 22,102 NW 5

1,098 3,866 11,933 9,761 26,663 NNW 48 358 1,720 6,599 2,047 10,772 TOTAL 1

1 1

138 10,093 18,274 44,775 62,652 135,935

ER Table 2.4.1-1 9

Catawba Nuclear Station Flood Peak Return Period U.S.G.S. Gage #1460 Near Rock Hill, South Carolina D.A. 3050 Square Miles Period of Record 1942-1969 Return Period Annual Peak Flow Years Cfs (m3/sec) 2 36,300 (1027) 5 52,500 (1486) 10 61,900 (1752) 20 71,700 (2029) 25 75,600 (2139) 1 1 O O

B um mM 4m

ER Table 2.4.1-2 240.6 Catawba Nuclear Station Lake Wylie Minimum Surface Water Elevations!

i Date Gage Reading 2 i

l September 8, 1950 93.0 July 13, 1951 92.2 October 23, 1952 90.5 November 1, 1953 92.9 i

June 5, 1954 94.8 feptember 12, 1955 95.0 February 1, 1956 95.1 December 14, 1957 95.9 January 11, 1958 94.5 l

October 11, 1959 94.8 i

May 3, 1960 94.1 May 31, 1961 94.9 January 22, 1962 94.6 March 26, 1963 95.3 February 29, 1964 95.5 l

February 24, 1965 95.1 l

October 7, 1966 95.0 October 14, 1967 95.9 i

April 2, 1968 95.4 October 24, 1969 95.4 July 27, 1970 94.6 1

l July 24, 1971 95.7 September 28, 1972 95.2 i

Se p t 'mt>e r 29, 1973 95.2 November 13, 1974 95.0 January 1, 1975 95.5 February 29, 1976 94.8 July 26, 1977 95.3 November 6, 1978 94.7 January 8, 1979 96.0 September 22, 1980 95.4 September 29, 19813 95.1 1

1Taken from records of Duke Power Company's Operating Department 2100.0 on the gage corresponds to Elevation 569.4 Ft (173.6 m) msl 3 Records through September, 1981 1

O Rev. 4

O 240.6 ER Table 2.4.1-3 C/

Catawba Nuclear Station Lake Wylie Maximum Surface Water Elevations Date Gage Reading 2 May 16, 1971 100.0 January 12, 1972 100.0 February 3, 1973 100.0 April 5, 1974 100.0 March 14, 1975 100.0 December 8, 1976 100.0 i

March 31, 1977 100.0 January 27, 1978 99.9 March 5, 1979 100.0 April 16, 1380 99.9 February 22, 19813 98.3 ITaken fror,i records of of Duke Power Company's Operating Department 2100.0 on the gage corresponds to Elevation 569.4 ft. (173.6m) msl 3 Records through September, 1981 p.

k q

v Rev. 4 mi e

m

ER Table 2.4.1-4 Catawba Nuclear Station Lake Wylie Minimum and Maximum Average Monthly Surface Water Elevationsi Minimum Maximum Date (Minimum, Maximum)

Gage Reading 2 Gage Reading 2 1971 (August, June) 96.5 98.0 1972 (October, July) 95.7 98.2 i

1973 (October, June) 95.8 98.8 l

1974 (November, February) 95.5 98.7 l

1975 (February, May) 96.9 98.8 1

1976 (Fagruary, December) 96.0 97.8 1977 (August, November) 95.9 98.7 i

1978 (November, January) 95.2 98.4 1979 (September, March) 96.9 99.0 1980 (Septemoer, April) 95.8 98.9 l

19813 (September, June) 96.3 97.6 2Taken from records of Duke Power Company's Operating Department 2100.0 on the gage corresponds to Elevation 569.4 ft. (173.6m) msl 3 Records through September, 1981 I

t i

O i

Rev. 4

p p

(~

d k.)

U ER Table 2.4.1-5 Catawba Nuclear Station Lake Wylie Water Quality (September 1974 Through March 1978)

South Carolina U.S. EPA Water Quality Water Quality Constituent Mean Maximum Minimum Standards Criteria Temperature 19.4 32.9 3.3 32.2 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 6.7 14.0 0.0

}5.0

>5.01 pH 6.9 9.1 5.7 6.0-8.0 675-9.01 Alkalinity (mg/l CACO )

15 27 5

>203 3

Turbidity (JTU) 37 580

1. 0 Nitrate-Nitrite (mgN/1) 0.28

1. 6 0.01 Ammonia (mgN/1) 0.19

1. 0 0.01 Orthophosphate (mgP/1) 0.023 0.14 6 005 Total phosphorus (mgP/1) 0.056 0.49 0.010 Silica (mgSi/1) 4.2 7.1 2.8 l

Organic Carbon (mgC/1) 3.1 9.5 1.2 l

Specific conductance (umhos/cm) 62 114 38 l

Calcium (mg/1) 3.5 6.3 0.27 Magnesium (mg/1) 1.5 2.1 0.76 Hardness (mg/l CACO )

15 21 7.1 3

l Iron (mg/1) 1.2 97 0.01 1.01 Aluminum (mg/1) 1.6 19 0.1 0.05 l

Sodium (mg/1) 7.3 13 3.0 Potassium (mg/1)

1. 8 2.9

1. 0 Chloride (mg/1) 6.5 12 3.8 Cadmium (pg/1) 0.96 50

<0.1 102 0.41 Chromium (pg/1) 6.2 38 0.5 1001 Copper (pg/1) 4.9 2.!

0.5 10002 501 Lead (pg/1) 2.5 9.0 0.1 502 Nickel (pg/1) 11 100 0.1 Zinc (pg/1) 19 120 0.5 Manganese (mg/1)

.18 4.0 0.01

.052 1 USEPA water quality criteria for freshwater aquatic life 2 USEPA water quality criteria for domestic water supplies USEPA water quality criteria for freshwater aquatic life, except where natural concentrations aie less 3

Rev. 4

1 I

ER Table 2.4.1-6 l

l Catakoa Nuclear Station

]

Lake Wylie Water Quality (September 1978 Through March 1980) i 4

j Constituent Mean Maximum Minimum l

Temperature ( C) 18.2 37.7 3.7 l

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 7.9 12.9 0.0 j

pH 6.8 8.6 5.1 i

0xidation-Reduction Potential (mv) 337 510

-110 i

Specific Cor.ductance (mmhos/cm) 76 220 30 l

Alkalinity (mg-CaCOa/1) 13 46 2

1 Turbidity (NTU) 23 210 2

i Nitrate-Nitrite (mq-N/1) 0.26 0.85 0.028 Am*.onia (mg-N/l) 0.16

1. 3 0.010 Orthophosphate (mg-P/1) 0.022 0.22 0.005 Total Phosphorus (mg-P/1) 0.053 0.38 0.006 Silica (mg-Si/1) 4.7

7. 3

3. 3 Calcium (mg/l) 3.5 6.9

1. 9 Magnesium (mg/l)

1. 4 2.1

1. 0 Hardness (mg-CACO /1) 15 26 9.0 3

i Iron (mg/1) 0.9 5.2 0.1 l

Aluminum (mg/1) 0.9 10 0.1 Sodium (mg/1) 7.6 17 3.6 Potassium (mg/1)

1. 8 2.8 1.4 Chloride (mg/1) 7.6 27 3.0 Cadmium (mg/1) 0.3

1. 0 0.1 Copper (mg/1) 3.2 96

1. 0 Lead (mg/1)

1. 3 200 0.1 Zinc (mg/l) 9.2 290 0.7 Manganea (mg/1) 0.09 2.8 0.01 l

Rev. 4 O

O O

TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED Section Pm 3.5.5 PROCESS AND EFFLUENT RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING SYSTEM ER 3.5-16' 3.6 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE WASTES ER 3.6-1 3.6.1 CHEMICAL EFFLUENTS ER 3.6-1-'

3.6.2 COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN ER 3.6-2 3.6.3 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND REC 0VERY ACT ER'3.6-3 3.7 SANITARY AND OTHER WASTE SYSTEMS ER 3.7-1 3.7.1 TEMPORARY SANITARY WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS ER 3.7-1 3.7.2 PERMANENT SANITARY WASTE-TREATMENT SYSTEM ER 3.7-2 3.7.3 OTHER WASTE SYSTEMS ER 3.7-2 3.8 REPORTING OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT ER 3.8-1 3.9 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES ER 3.9-1 3.

9.1 DESCRIPTION

OF THE' LINES ER 3.9-1 3.9.2 LAND USE ALONG THE LINES ER 3.9-2 3.9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE TRANSMISSION FACILITIES ER 3.9-2 3.9.4 230 kV SWITCHING STATION ER 3.9 3 l-4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION, STATION ER 4.1-1

(

CONSTRUCTION, AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION

(

4.1 SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION ER 4.1-1.

-4.1.1 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ER 4.1-1 4.1.2 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY ER 4.1-2 i

4.-l. 3 AQUATIC ECOLOGY ER 4.1-3 4.2 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION ER 4.2-1~

4.2.1 CONSTRUCTION OF THE CATAWBA TRANSMISSION ER 4.2-1 ha 4.2.2 MODIFICATION OF THE EXISTING TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ER 4.2-3

,1 4.3 RESOURCES COMMITTED ER 4.3-1 Rev. 4 ER iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED O

Section g

l 4.3.1 CATAWBA SITE ER 4.3-1 4.3.2 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ER 4.3-1 4.3.3 TRANSMISSION ER 4.3-1 4.4 RADIATION ER 4.4-1 4.4.1 INTERIM CONSTRUCTION WORKER DOSES ER 4.4-1 4.5 CONSTRUCTION IMPACT CONTROL PROGRAM ER 4.5-1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF STATION OPERATION ER 5.1-1 5.1 EFFECT OF OPERATION OF HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM ER 5.1-1 5.1.1 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ER 5.1-1 5.1. 2 PHYSICAL EFFECTS ER 5.1-1 5.1.3 BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS ER 5.1-3 5.1.4 EFFECTS OF HEAT DISSIPATION FACILITIES ER 5.1-4 5.2 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT FROM ROUTINE OPERATION ER 5.2-1 5.2.1 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS ER 5.2-1 5.2.2 RADIOACTIVITY IN THE ENVIRONMENT ER 5.2-4 5.2.3 DOSE RATE ESTIMATES FOR BIOTA OTHER THAN PEOPLE ER 5.2-8 5.2.4 DOSE RATE ESTIMATES FOR PEOPLE ER 5.2-10 5.2.5

SUMMARY

OF ANNUAL RADIATION DOSES ER 5.2-17 5.3 EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE DISCHARGES ER 5.3-1 5.3.1 APPLICABLE WATER STANDARDS ER 5.3-1 5.3.2 EFFECTS ON RECEIVING WATERS ER 5.3-1 5.3.3 INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL WASTES ER 5.3-1 3.3.4 COOLING TOWER DRIFT ER 5.3-2 5.4 EFFECTS OF SANITARY WASTE DISCHARGE ER 5.4-1 O

Rev. 1 ER iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED Section P e 12.2.3 SOUTH CAROLINA WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION (SCWRC)

ER 12.2-2 12.2.4 OTHER STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES ER 12.2-2 12.3 STATUS OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AUTHORIZATIONS ER 12.3-1 O

O Rev. 4 ER ix

LIST OF TABLES O

Table No.

Title 1.1.1-1 Historical and Forecast Load Data - Duke System 1.1.1-2 Histarical and Forecast Load Data - VACAR Subregion of SERC 1.1.1-3 Historical and Forecast Monthly Peak Load and Energy - Duke System 1.1.1-4 Load Management Goals:

1980-1990 1.1.1-5 Program Elements of Load Management 1.1.1-6 Comparison of Forecast Peaks and Energy Duke System 1.1.2-1 Capacity Installed on Duke System at Time of 1973 Peak 1.1.2-2 Duke System Load and Capacity - MW (1973-1990) 1.1.2-3 Member Companies of SERC 1.1.2-4 VACAR Load and Capacity - MW (1973-1989) 1.1.2-5 Unit Additions Duke System 1981-1990 0

1.3.1-1 First Year of Proposed Operating Replacement Energy Costs for Unit 1 Not Being in Service 1.3.1-2 First Year Operating Production Costs 1.3.1-3 Normal Load Growth and Catawba In Service 1.3.1-3a No Load Growth and Catawba In Service 1.3.1-4 Normal Load Growth and Catawba Not In Service 2.1.2-1 1977 Population 0-5 Miles (0-8 km) 2.1.2-2 1970 Population Distribution 0-10 Miles (0-16.1 km) 2.1.2-3 1980 Projected Population Distribution 0-10 Miles (0-16.1 km) 2.1.2-4 1981 Projected Population Distribution (Year of Plant Start-Up) 0-10 Miles (0-16.1 km) 2.1.2-5 1990 Projected Population Distribution 0-10 Miles (0-16.1 km) 2.1.2-6 2000 Projected Population Distribution 0-10 Miles (0-16.1 km) 2.1.2-7 2010 Projected Population Distribution 0-10 Miles (0-16.1 km) 2.1.2-8 2020 Projected Population Distribution 0-10 Miles (0-16.1 km)

Rev. 3 ER x

LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED Table No.

Title 2.1.2-9 1970 Population Distribution 0-50 Miles (90-80.4 km) 2.2.2-10 1980 Projected Population Distribution 0-50 Miles (0.80.4 km) 2.1.2-11 1981 Projected Popult. tion Distribution (Year of Plant Start up) 0-50 Miles (0-80.4 km) 2.1.2-12 1990 Projected Population Distribution 0-50 Miles (0.80.4 km) 2.1.2-13 2000 Projected Population Distribution 0-50 Miles (0-80.4 km) 2.1.2-14 2010 Projected Population Distribution 0-50 Miles (0-80.4 km) 2.1.2-15 2020 Projected Population Distribution 0-50 Miles (0-80.4 km) 2.1.2-16 1977 Seasonal Recreational Transient Population 2.1.2-17 1977 Average Daily Recreational Transient Population 2.1.2-18 1977 Daily Industrial Transient Population

~

s"j 2.1.3-1 Location of Closest Milk Cow, Milk Goat, Garden, Residence, and Site Boundary by Sector Within 5 Miles 2.1.3-2 Truck Farming Production 2.1.3-3 Milk Production 2.1.3-4 Heat Production 2.1.3-5 Surface Water Users 2.1.3-6 Groundwater Users 2.1.3-7 River Bank Wells 2.1.3-8 Major Dischargers 2.2.1-1 Approximate Acreage of Vegetation Communities Cleared During Construction 2.2.2-1 Phytoplankton Taxa Composition from Station 215.0 2.2.2-2 Phytoplankton Taxa Composition from Station 220'.0 2.2.2-3 Lake Wylie Phytoplankton Densities and Cell Volume

/V; 2.2.2-4 Zooplankton Species List 2.2.2-5 Estimated Zooplankton Densities Rev. 3 ER xi

LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED O

Table No.

Title 2.2.2-6 Percentage Composit. ion of Important Zooplankton 2.2.2-7 Checklist of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa 2.2.2-8 2

Mean Density Dio./m ) of Important Benthic Macroinvertebrates per Sampling Period 2.2.2-9 2

Mean Density (No./m ) of Important Benthic Macroinvertebrates per Sampling Location 2.2.2-10 Fish Species Collected from Lake Wylie near Catawba Nuclear Station 2.2.2-11 Percent Composition of Fish Collected from Lake Wylie near Catawba Nuclear Station 2.2.2-12 Recreational Harvest from Lake Wylie 2.2.2-13 Estimated Recreational Harvest Taken by all Fishermen on Lake Wateree 2.2.2-14 Recreational Harvest in Kg Round Weight - Lakes Marion and Moultrie 2.2.2-15 Commercial Harvest in Kg from the Santee River Below Wilson Dam 2.2.2-16 Commercial Harvest in Kg from the Cooper and Ashley Rivers Below Penopolis Dam 2.2.2-17 Commercial Harvest in Kg from Wando River 2.2.2-18 Number of Fish Sampled and Calculated Total Number of Dead Fish a 1973 Fish Kill

.. 3.0-1 Vicinity Climatology 2.3.0-2 Wind Occurrences (40 m) 2.3.0-3 Wind Occurrences (10 m) 2.3.0-4 Relative Frequency Distribution 2.3.0-5 Climatic Comparison 2.3.0-6 Annual Average X/Q Values at Intake Vents Dilution Factors for Routine Releases 2.3.0-7 Dilution Factors for Accident Releases 2.4.1-1 Flood Peak Return Period 2.4.1-2 Lake Wylie Minimum Surface Water Elevations Rev. 4 ER xii

(G')

LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED Table No.

Title 2.4.1-3 Lake Wylie Maximum Surface Water Elevations 2.4.1-4 Lake Wylie Minimum and Maximum Average Monthly Surface Water Elevations 2.4.1-5 Lake Wylie Water Quality (1974-78) 2.4.1-6 Lake Wylie Water Quality (1978-80) 2.4.2-1 Summary of D0 and B0D Measurements Below Wylie Dam 2.4.4-1 Summary of Residential Well Survey Data Immediate Vicinity of Site 2.4.4-2 Regional Groundwater Users 2.4.4-3 Regional River Bank Groundwater Users 2.4.4-4 Packer Permeability Test Results 2.4.4-5 Constant and Variable Head Permeability Test Results fs V)

(

2.4.4-6 Constant Discharge Pumping Test Results, Well A-85TW 2.4.4-7 Constant Discharge Pumping Test Results, Well -48TW 2.4.4-8 Results of Physical and Chemical Tests on Groundwater 2.6.0-1 Historic Sites Within 5 Miles (8 km) and National Register Sites Within 10 Miles (16.1 km) 3.3.1-1 Station Water Use 3.4.1-1 Condenser Cooling Water System (Summer Design Conditions) 3.4.1-2 Cooling Tower Estimated Monthly Maximum Evaporation 3.4.1-3 Cooling Tower Drift Droplet Size Distribution 3.5.1-1 Primary and Secondary Activity During Normal Operation 3.5.1-2 Parameters Used in Calculating Normal Primary and Secondary Coolant Activities 3.5.1-3 Reactor Coolant System Nitrogen-16 Activity 3.5.1-4 Tritium Source Terms (3

()

3.5.1-5 FSAR Cross-References for Systems Important to Radwaste Release Considerations Rev. 4 ER xiii

LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED Table No.

Title 3.5.2-1 Estimated Radioactive Releases in Liquid Effluent 3.5.2-2 Normal Expected Daily Flows to Liquid Radwaste System (2 Units) 3.5.3-1 Estimated Annual Airborne Effluent Releases 3.5.4-1 Estimated Maximum Specific Activities Input to Nuclear Solid Waste Disposal System 3.5.4-2 Estimated Maximum Volumes Discharged from Solid Radwaste System (Two Units) 3.5.5-1 Liquid Process Radiation Monitoring Equipment 3.5.5-2 Airborne Process Radiation Monitoring Equipment 3.6.1-1 Conventional Waste Water Treatment System Effluent Analysis 3.6.1-2 Waste Water Discharge 3.6.1-3 Annual Chemical Usage and Disposition of Waste 3.7.1-1 Sanitary Waste System 3.9.1-1 Transmission Line Additions 4.1.1-1 Highlight Construction Schedule 4.1.1-2 Construction Manpower Requirements 4.5.0-1 Pr ogram to Monitor Activities That Can Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Impact - Construction Department 4.5.0-2 Program to Monitor Activities That Can Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Impact - Transmission Engineerina Department 5.1.2-1 Isotherm Acreages 5.2.2-1 Waterborne-Related Radionuclide Concentrations 5.2.2-2 Water Pathway Equilibrium Relative Concentration Factors 5.2.2-3 Bioaccumulation Factors for Aquatic Plants and Organisms 5.2.2-4 Airborne Released Related Radionuclide Concentrations 5.2.3-1 Biota Dose Fstinates Rev. 4 ER xiv

(a' LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED Table No.

Title 5.2.3-2 Principal Parameters and Asssumptions Used for Estimating the Cow Thyroid Dose from Ingestion of Pasture Grass 5.2.4-1 Appendix I Conformance Summary Table 5.2.4-2 Summary of Calculated Liquid Pathway Doses Breakdown By Pathway of Significant Nuclide Contribution to Maximum Total Body *d Critical Organ Doses for Liquid Effluents 5.2.4-3 Sumnary of Calculated Airborne Pathway Doses Breakdown By l

Pathway of Significant Nuclide Contribution to Maximum Total Body and Critical Organ Doses for Gaseous Effluents 5.2.4-4 Input Data for Liquid Population Dose Calculations 5.2.4-5 Integrated Population Dose Summary 5.2.4-6 Human Exposure Pathway Usage Factors and Transport Times 5.3.1-1 Aerial Distribution Salt Deposition

~

n v

6.1.1-1 Monitoring Program for First Year Preoperational Study (1973-1974) 6.1.1-2 Samp.ing Locations for the Water Quality Studies 6.1.1-3 Interim Monitoring Program (1974-1977) 6.1.1-4 Interim Monitoring Program (1977 to Beginning of Second Year Preoperational Program) 6.1.1-5 Second Year Preoperational Monitoring Program 6.1.1-6 Summary of Non-radiological Second Year Preoperational Aquatic Monitoring Program 6.1.5-1 Preoperational Radiological Environmerital Monitoring Program 6.1.5-2 Detection Capabilities for Environmental Sample Analyses 6.2.2-1 Proposed Chemical Effluent Monitoring Program 6.4.1-1 Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program Annual Summary 7.1.1-1 Summary of Radiological Consequences of Postulated Accidents O

7.1.1-2 General Assumptions for Accident Release Calculations v

7.1.1-3 Radioactivity Inventory for an Average Fuel Assembly Rev. 4 ER xv

LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED O

Table No.

Title 7.1.2-1 Radioactivity Sources From Waste Gas Storage Tank Release Accident 7.1.2-2 Radioactivity Sources From Liquid Storage Tank Release Accident 7.1.2-3 Radioactivity Sources From Off Design Transient Accident 7.1.2-4 Radicactivity Sources From Steam Generator Tube Rupture Accident 7.1.2-5 Radioactivity Sources From Fuel Bundle Drop Inside Containment Accident 7.1.2-6 Radioactivity Sources From Object Drop Onto Fuel In Core Accident 7.1.2-7 Radioactivity Sources From Fue? Assembly Drop In Fuel Storage Pool Accident 7.1.2-8 Radioactivity Sources From Heavy Object Drop Onto Fuel Rack Accident 7.1.2-9 Radioactivity Sources From Fuel Cask Drop Accident 7.1.2-10 Radioactivity Sources From Loss-of-Coolant Accident (Small Break) 7.1.2-11 Rei,os-tivity Sources From Loss of-Coolant Accident (Large Break) 7.1.2-12 Radioactivity Sources From Rod Ejection Accident 7.1.2-13 Radioactivity Sources From. Steamline Break Accident 8.1.1-1 Benefits frtm Catawba Nuclear Station 8.1.2-1 Intenal Costs 8.1.2-2 Tax Impact Based on 1977 8.1.2-3 Comparison of Construction and Operating Forces Impact on York County, South Carolina 8.2.1-1 Catawba Fossil Alternative Internal Costs 8.2.1-2 Estimated Costs of Electrical Energy Generation 9.3.1-1 Site-Plant Alternatives Capital Costs 9.3.1-2 Site-Plant Alternatives Environmental Factors 9.3.2-1 Economic Benefits of Nuclear vs. Fossil Fuel at Catawba 9.4.0-1 Cost of Altern6tive Generation Methods Rev. 4 ER xvi

LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED Table No.

Title 10.1.1-1 Comparison of Closed Cycle Mechanical Draft vs. Natural Draft Towers 10.1.1-2 Cooling System Alternatives 10.1.1-3 Cooling Tower Details 10.2.1-1 Comparison of Intake Structures 10.9.0-1 Basic Tabulation to be Used in Comparing Alternative Plant Systems 12.3.0-1 Federal, State, and Local Authorizations O

1 O

Rev. 4 ER xvii

LIST OF FIGURES O

Figure No.

Title 1.1.1-1 Load Duration Curve For the Year 1985 1.1.1-2 Load Duration Curve For the Year 1986 2.1.1-1 Regional Area 2.1.1-2 Site Location 2.1.1-3 Site Area 2.1.1-4 Release Points 2.1.1-5 Non Radiological Release Point 2.1.2-1 Significant Population Groupings 0-10 Miles 2.1.2-2 Significant Population Groupings 10-50 Miles 1

2.1.3-1 5 Mile Topography 2.1.3-2 Comprehensive 5 Mile Area 2.1.3-3 Zoning and Game Management Areas Within 5 Miles 2.1.3-4 Surface Water Users 2.1.3-5 Groundwater Users 2.1.3-6 Riverbank Wells 2.1.3-7 Major Discharges 2.2.1-1 Major Plant Communities 2.2 2-1 Ecological Sampling Locations 2.2.2-2 Catawba River System from the Catawba Nuclear Station Site to the l

Atlantic Ocean 2.2.2-3 Zones of Lake Wylie 2.3.0-1 Tornadoes 1916-1955 2.3.0-2 Vicinity Topography Profile 2.4.1-1 Major Hydraulic Features of the Catawba River Drainage Basin

2. 4.1-2 Lake Wylie Area-Volume Curve 2.4.1-3 Lake Wylie Bed Topography Rev. 3 ER xviii l

l

LIST OF FIGURES - CONTINUED Figure No.

Title 5.1.4-3 Sound Analysis k

5.2.1-1 Examples of Radiation Exposure Pathways to Biota 5.2.1-2 Examples of Radiation Exposure Pathways to People 6.1.1-1 Non-Radiological Sampling Locations on Lake Wylie 6.1.2-1 Schematic Equipment Arrangement for Rock Permeability Testing 6.1.2-2 Schematic Equipment Arrangement for Soil Permeability Testing 6.1.2-3 Pumping Test No. 1 A85-TW (1 of 2)

Pumping Test No. 2 A48-TW (2 of 2) 6.1.2-4 Location of Observation Wells 6.1.3-1 Site Earthwork 6.1.3-2 Relative Elevations of Meteorological Instruments O(/

6.1.3-3 Positions of Fog Study Sites 6.1.3-4 Fog Observation Form 6.1.5-1 Radiological Sampling Locations 6.1.5-2 TLD Sites 9.2.1-1 Service Area and Load Generation Regions 10.1.1-1 Plant Layout with Rectangular Mechanical Draft Towers 10.1.1-2 Plant Layout with Natural Draft Towers Rev. 4 ER xxi

(]

TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED V

Section P_ age 3.5.4.5.2 Spent Filter Cartridges ER 3.5-16 3.5.4.5.3 Compacted Wastes ER 3.5-16 3.5.4.6 Shipment ER 3.5-16 3.5.5 PROCESS AND EFFLUENT RADIOLOGJCAL MONITORING SYSTEM ER 3.5-16 3.5.5.1 Design Bases ER 3.5-16 3.5.5.2 Release Point Monitor ER 3.5-17 3.5.5.2.1 Waste Liquid Discharge Monitor ER 3.5-17 3.5.5.2.2 Unit Vent Airborne Monitor ER 3.5-17 3.5.5.3 Liquid Monitoring ER 3.5-18 3.5.5.3.1 Turbine Building Sump Monitor ER 3.5-18 3.5.5.3.2 Steam Generator Blowdown Monitor ER 3.5-18

(>

3.5.5.3.3 Steam Generator Water Sample Monitor ER 3.5-19 v

3.5.5.3.4 Containment Ventilation Unit Condensate Drain Tank ER 3.5-19 (CVUCDT) Monitor 3.5.5.3.5 Nuclear Service Water (NSW) Monitors ER 3.5-19 3.5.5.3.6 Component Cooling Water Monitors ER 3.5-19 3.5.5.3.7 Boron Recycle Evaporator Condensate Monitor ER 3.5-19 3.5.5.3.8 Reactor Coolant Monitor ER 3.5-20 3.5.5.3.9 Clean Area Floor Drains Discharge Monitor ER 3.5-20 3.5.5.4 Airborne Monitoring ER 3.5-20 3.5.5.4.1 Containment Airborne Monitor ER 3.5-20 3.5.5.4.2 Auxiliary Building Ventilation Monitor ER 3.5-21 3.5.5.4.3 Fuel Building Ventilation Monitor ER 3.5-21 3.5.5.4.4 Centrol Room Air Intake Monitors ER 3.5-21

/7

()

3.5.5.4.5 Waste Gas Discharge Monitor ER 3.5-21 Rev. 1 ER 3iii b

TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED O

Section Page 3.5.5.4.6 Condenser Air Ejector Exhaust Monitor ER 3.5-21 3.5.5.4.7 Annulus Monitor ER 3.5-22 3.5.5.5 Alarms, Indication and Interlocks ER 3.5-22 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.5 ER 3.5-23

3. 6

_C TjlCAL AND BIOCIDE WASTES ER 3.6-1 3.6.1 CHEMICAL EFFLUENTS ER 3.6-1 3.6.2 COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWS ER 3.6-2 3.6.3 RESOURCE CONSERVA1!CN AND RECOVERY ACT ER 3.6-3 3.7 SANITARY AND OTHER WASTE SYSTEMS ER 3.7-1 3.7.1 TEMPORARY SANITARY WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS ER 3.7-1 3.7.2 PERMANENT SANITAW WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM ER 3.7-2 3.7.3 OTHER HASTE SYSTEMS ER 3.7-2 3.7.3.1 Non-Radicactive Solid Waste ER 3.7-2 3.7.3.2 Diesel Generator Engine Exhaust ER 3.7-2 3.7.3.3 Auxiliary Boilers ER 3.7-3 3.8 REPORTING OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT ER 3.8-1 3.9 TPANSMISSION FACILITIES ER 3.9-1 l

3.9.1 CESCRIPTION JF THE LINES ER 3.9-1 i

l 3.9.2 LAND USE ALONG THE LINES ER 3.9-2 3.9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE TRANSMISSION FACILITIES ER 3.9-2 3.9.4 230 kV SWITCHING STATION ER 3.9-3 i

l O

Rev. 4 ER 3iv

3.6 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE WASTES b

v 3.6.1 CHEMICAL EFFLUENTS All chemical wastes are collected, treated, and the effluent discharged into Lake Wylie (Figure 3.6.1-1).

The treatment systems for all chemical wastes from Catawba are different from those described in the Construction Stage Environmental Report.

Instead of a single pond for waste treatment, a new four basin Conventional Waste Water Treatment System is planned.

Non-radioactive turbine building drains, water treatment system filter backwashes, and demineralizer regeneration wastes are routed through this system prior to discharge to Lake Wylie.

This system utilizes a physio-chemical treatment regime rather than biological methods.

Wastes are initially directed to a concrete lined initial holdup pond where primary sedimentation occurs.

This 300,000 gallon (1200 kl) capacity reservoir has a retention time of from 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and acts as a surge tank to prevent overloading and subsequent degradation of effluent quality throughout the remainder of the sy tem.

A sludge accumulation rate of approximately 2.6 ft/yr (.79 m/yr) is in this pond and removal to an approved landfill is accom-plished once every one to three years.

Provisions for temporarily varying and routing of the influent and in process waste waters provides ample opportunity for sludge removal if the accumulation begins to interfere with pond performance.

The initial holdup pond is followed by parallel stream settling ponds.

These (3) eonipped for recircu.ation.

'ane pond is in service while the other is on

/

two 5 million gallon (1.9E4 kl) ponds are lined with compacted clay and are stcndby.

Coagulant aids are likely to be used in these ponds for settling lighter solids along with the pH adjustment to precipitate various chemical compounds.

Holdup time for each of these basins ranges from 6 to 12 days.

The waste water then flows by gravity to the final holdup pond where it is aerated; retention time for this basin is 3 to 5 days.

This final pond is used to remove any persistent oxygen demand of the wastes.

Final precipitation of compounds could occur in this basin; however, it is not likely that the system would be operated in such a manner to make this a significant occurrence, since there is presently no provision for removing such precipitates from the basin prior to discharge.

The pmd has a capacity of 1 million gallons (3800 kl).

Its contents may be pumped to the head of the settling basins or back to its own inlet for recirculation if the effluent does not meet the established discharge limits.

The holdup ponds are lined with 30-mil ilexseal (TM) hypalon 290.22 lining material that is impermeable.

The system is designed to provide adequate treatment within basin holdup time, to allow intrabasin and interbasin recirculation and to be equipped with complete monitoring of effluents from each basin in the system.

With these provisions built into the system, consistent effluent quality is expected with the following characteristics shown in Table 3.6.1-1.

Table 3.6.1-2 lists the expected chemical waste discharges from Catawba and the resultant downstream incremental concentrations.

Annual chemical usage and

, O disposition is given in Table 3.6.1-3.

U Rev. 4 ER 3.6-1 CoS-OLS l

t

l 3.6.2 COOLING TOWER BLUWDOWN Makeup water for the cooling towers is supplied by the conventional service water system (see Figure 3.3.1-1) at a maximum rate of about 31,000 gpm (117 3

3 m / min). Evaporation and drift consume about 26555 gpm (100 m / min) of this, 3

and the blowdown is about 3,000 gpm (11 m / min).

Because of the concentrating effect of the evaporation, the cool:ng tower water and consequently the blow-down water have a dissolved solids concentration about Len times that of the intake water.

Pilot studies indicate that the optimum operation for the cooling towers will result when the blowdown is approximately eight cycles of cor.centrat i on.

At this value chemical usage and pumping costs are belanced 290.15 with water usage.

Operation of cooling towers should be at a high cycle of concentration.

At values greater than 10, however, it becomes dif ficult to maintain the proper water chemistry as the blowdown rate decreases.

Operation may not always be at 10 cycles of cor. centration.

The controlling parameter for determining cycles of concentration will be silica.

Silica concentration in the cooling water will be closely monitoreo and compared to that of the makeup water.

If the makeup water silica concentration is 10 ppm or less, then 10 cycles of concentration may be maintained.

However, if the silica concentra-tion is greater than 10 ppm in the makeup water, then the cycles of concentration will be less than 10.

The silica concentration in the cooling water must not exceed 100-115 ppm since scaling of the condenser tubes will occur and the efficiency of the unit will be reduced.

(The condenser cooling tubes are of stainless steel which is highly resistant to water corrosion.

Therefore, no significant amounts of corrosion products are expected to be released to Lake Wylie).

Based on the anticipated quality of makeup water, it is estimated that the system will average 7 cycles of concentration.

Table 3.6.1-2 was, there-fore, based on the anticipated long term average cycles of concentration even tiough operation will be maintained at as high a value as possible.

Various chemicals are added to the cooling tower circula'.ing water system.

For control of biological growth, shock clorination will be conducted on a daily basis using sodium hypoclorite generated on site.

Tre Na0C1 will initially be fed into the system at a high rate to meet the chlor.ne demand of the water then at a slower rate to maintain a free chlorine residual for one to two r

hours.

Application of 600 lb. [(272 Kg) of chlorine daily per unit (1200 lb/ day 290.9 total (544 Kg/ day)] over a period of about 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> will obtain a free chlorine residual corresponding to a chlorine demand of approximately 3-4 ppm.

The free chlorine residual will vary depending on the season.

A free res: dual of 1.5 ppm will be maintained in the summer and 0.5 ppm in the winter.

Blowdown from the cooling towers will be halted during this period of shock chlorination and sufficient time allowed for free and total chlorine residual to decompose before discharging to Lake Wylie.

The blowdown will be combined with the Low Pressure Service Water and Nuclear Service Water discharge into Lake Wylie thereby diluting any remaining free and total chlorine residual.

The biocide in the combined service water to the lake will be kept below 0.1 ppa total T

chlorine residual (ER Table 3.6.1-3)

The amount of time required for the decay process varies according to the water quality, the air and water temperatures, the time of the year and the amount of sunlight.

It is estimated to tak" from 2 to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> to decay below 0.1 ppm in 290.10 the summer and 4 to 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> in the winter.

Combining the blowdown with the combined service water before uitcharge should ensure the discharge into Lake Wylie is below 0.1 ppm total chlorine residual.

Rev. 3 ER 3.6-2 CNS-OLS

To optimind chlorine effectiveness and thereby minimize chlorine usage, v

sulfuric acid is used to control the pH by the continuous addition of 1350 lb/ unit daily (612 Kg/ unit) or 2,700 lb (555 Kg) total.

In conjunction with this water treatment, aminomethylenephosphonate (AMP), a dispersant formula-tion, may be used for deposit control.

It is expected that this formulation would not be used routinely.

If chlorine resistant organisms require control, an organic biocide may be used.

At the present time no final decisions as to type, frequency, and amount of organic biocide to be used has been made.

Final selection will be an GPA-approved organic biocide for the problem being experienced.

3.6.3 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT The sludge generated within the CCW System Ponds will be tested to reveal if the sludge is hazardous or not by virtue of the Extraction Procedure results or the hazardous waste list (40 CFR Part 261).

Previous operating experience with these type ponds at Oconee and McGuire have revealed that these sludges are not hazardous.

Any waste determined as hazardous will be transported, stored 290.23 and/or disposed in accordance with RCRA regulations (40 CFR Part 263, 264, and 265 respectively).

Sanitary wastes ge erated at Catawba Nuclear Station are classified as " Domestic.

Waste" under RCRA and are therefore exempt from RCRA regulations.

AN.]

O Rev. 4 ER 3.6-3 CNS-OLS

O 3.7 SANITARY AND OTHER WASTE SYSTEMS L) 3.7.1 TEMPORARY SANITARY WASTE TREATEMENT SYSTEMS During the plant construction period, all domestic sewage from construction toilets, field office toilets, and permanent buildings amounts to a maximum total of 50,200 gallons per day (1.9 x 105 1/ day).

The average effluent flow from the temporary system will increase from 1976 to an expected maximum in 1978 and will remain high through 1980.

It will then decrease until a few months after the startup of Unit 2 when it will be receiving wastes only from permanent building systems.

X-Ray film waste drains to a silver recovery unit that removes almost all of the silver in a small photographic laboratory.

The photographic wastes, which are biodegradable, and rinse water are normally only 1 percent to 2 percent if construction period domestic waste.

The waste water is treated in a 50,000 gpd (1.9 x 105 1/ day) aerated-faculta-tive lagoon, preceeded by a comminutor and followed by an effluent polishing basin.

The comminutor cuts and shreads large solids into smaller particles which are more easily digested in the aeration lagoon.

A bar screen is located just downstream from the comminutor to ensure that any large particles, which may overflow the comminutor, do not pass directly into the lagoon.

The aeration lagoon is a 170 feet x 190 feet (51.8 m x 57.9 m) lined basin with a normal working depth of 8 feet (2.44 m).

The lagoon is divided into four sections with subsurface aeration throughout, and provides a 25.6 day retention time at design capacity.

Sewage is in complete suspension in the first section (3) and in partial suspension in the final three sections.

A small portion of the water from the final section is returned to the first section by an air-assisted recirculation system.

Air from the aeration system is bubbled up through a vertical' pipe inducing a flow of water through connecting tubing.

Aerobically decomposed and digested sewage flows from the aeration lagoon by gravity to the effluent polishing basin.

The effluent polishing basin is U-shaped, each arm being 20 feet wide (6.1 m) and 110 feet long (33.5 m), providing a total length of approximately 220 feet (67 m).

The arms are separated by a 90-foot barrier cil fitted with a walkway.

The basin is divided into three main compartments. The first, on the inlet side, contains aquatic macrophytes.

Provision has been made for the placement of up to four moveable partitions at 25-foot (7.6 m) intervals to control the spread of plants and permit the segregation of different species of macrophytes should that become desirable.

The chambers are also separated frcm each other by a " pedestal" which extends one foot above and below the mud-water interface.

Communication between chambers exists through one-foot gap between the bottom of the barrier and top of the pedestal.

The second, and longest, compartment is open water.

The third is fitted with aeration tubing and divided into three subchambers by partitions identical to those used in the first charaber.

The first two of these chambers are 20 feet (6 m) long.

The last (just before the discharge) is only 10 feet (3 m) long.

This short length greatly reduces the retention time in the final chamber and the possibility of an algal bloom developing in it.

f7)

The plants (macrophytes and algae) and animals (zooplankton and fish) in the

\\~

basin treat the contents of the influent wastewater (nitrates, phosphates and coliform bacteria) as nutrients and incorporate them, either directly or Rev. 1 ER 3.7-1 CNS-OLS

indirectly, into living tissue which can then be harvested and disposed of.

~

The growth of aquatic macrophytes especially aids in reducing total suspended solids.

Although most of the suspended matter discharged from the aeration lagoon will settle out, a new source will arise within the basin itself:

plankton.

Aquatic plants will compete with algae for both nutrients and light and help prevent the development of bloom conditions.

Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis will be stocked to help check the growth of insect larvae.

Biological oxygen demand of the influent waters will be met by the phoco-synthetic activity of plants and phytoplankton in the lagoon, and by aeration.

Fecal coliform bacteria will decrease in numbers along the length of the basin for several reasons, including exposure to uv radiation, and predation by zooplankton or bottom dwelling organisms.

Neither BODS nor fecal coliform should present any problem in the basin effluent.

The temporary sewage treatment facilities meet all applicable standards of the state of South Carolina.

Approval of their construction and operation has been obtained from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (Table 3.7.1-1).

The temporary sewage systems are operated under the supervi-sion of a trained operator who is certified by the state of South Carolina.

3.7.2 PERMANENT SANITARY WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM All domestic sewage from the station is estimated to total 17,000 gallons per day (6.4 x 104 1/ day) plus an estimated 150 gallons per month (568 1/ month) of total processing waste from X-Ray film.

A trace of silver as a silver thio-290.24 sulfate complex may be present in the waste.

It will be collected and treated in the same equipment as the temporary sanitary waste treatment systems.

The 290 effluent drains to the station discharge canal.

Figure 2.1.1-5 indicates the sanitary waste treatment system discharge into Lake Wylie.

The permanent sanitary sewage treatment system meets all applicable standards of the state of South Carolina.

Approval of their construction and operation has been obtained from the South Carolina Department of Health Environmental Control.

The permanent sanitary sewage treatment system operates under the supervision of a trained operator who is certified by the state of South Carolina.

3.7.3 OTHER WASTE SYSTEMS 3.7.3.1 Non-Radioactive Solid Waste Disposition of non-radioactive solid waste, including garbage and trash, during normal plant operation will be to onsite land fills.

3.7.3.2 Diesel Generator Engine Exhaust Two 7000 kW, 9770 BHP diesel generator engine sets per unit are provided to supply emergency power generation for station use.

The diesel engines operate under two conditions:

during periodic performace and maintenance testing (manual start), and during loss of normal station power (automatic start).

Routine testing is performed once every 31 days for at least 60 minutes; with loss of offsite power, diesel engine operation is automatically initiated to supply power to all essential safety equipment required to bring the reacter to a safe shutdown condition or until power is restored.

Rev. 2 ER 3.7-2 CNS-0LS

,P LIST OF TABLES

~

Tab N No.

Title s

, Isotherm Acreages 5.le2-1(,

r 5.2.2-1 '-

Waterborne-Related Radionuclide Concentrations 5.2.2-2 Water Pathway Equilibrium Relative Concentration Factors 5.2.2-3' Bioaccumulation Factors for Aquatic Plants and Organisms

~ ~

5.2.2-4 Airborne Released Related Radionuclide Concentrations S. 2.' 3-l~

Biota Dose Estimates 5.2.3-2

- Principal Parameters and Assumptions Used for Estimating Aquatic Pathway Biota Doses 5.2.3-3 Principal Parameters and Assumptions Used for Estimating the Cow Thyroid Dose from Ingestion of Pasture Grass 5.2.4-1 Appendix 1 Conformance Summary Table

,^

5.2.4-2 Summary of Calculated Liquid Pathway Doses

(-')

Breakdown By Pathway of Significant Nuclide Contribution to Maximum Total Body and ritical Organ Doses for Liquid Effluents 5.2.4-3 Summary of Calculated Airborne Pathway Doses Breakdown By Pathway of Significant Nuclide Contribution to Maximum Total Body and Critical Organ Doses for Gaseous Effluents 5.2.4-4 Input Data for Liquid Population Dose Calculations 5.2.4-5 Integrated Population Dose Summary 5.2.4-6 Human Exposure Pathway Usage Factors and Transport Times 5.3.1-1 Aerial Distribution Salt Deposition

/3

(. J Rev. 4 ER Siii

.l i

LIST OF FIGURES i

Figure No.

Title 5.1.2-1 Isotherm Acreages-Winter 5.1.2-2 Isotherm Acreages-Spring 5.1.2-3 Isotherm Acreages-Fall 5.1.4-1 Visible Plume Length Frequency (%) (June-November) 5.1.4-2 Visible Plume Length Frequency (%) (December-May) 5.1.4-3 Sound Analysis 5.2.1-1 Examples of Radiation Exposure Pathways to Biota i

5.2.1-2 Examples of Radiation Exposure Pathways to People i

O P

O Rev. 4 ER Siv i

~

~ -

4 O

~

parameter of 3.93 x 102m4 sec. 3 An enhancement factor is applied, as a function of plum rise, as suggested by Briggs to account for augmented rise by virtue of the cluster effect (6 towers) (Reference 14).

Evaporation rate from all towers is taken from design conditions at about 62 CFS (see Table 3.4.1-2).

Maximum ground-level absolute humidity / downwind distance is determined as a function of wind speed assuming proportional growth of the plume in vertical and crosswind directions.

Terrain is assumed level in these cases.

Relative humidity increase is calculated as a function of absolute humidity and tempera-ture.

For typical daytime conditions, temperatures range from about 5 C to 30 C due to seasonal variation with wind speeds on the order of 4 m/sec in the lower 2000 feet (Reference 6).

This implies a maximum increase in surface relative humidity of about 5% at a downwind distance in the range 5-10 miles.

Relative humidity during the day is characteristically 50-60% in winter and 60-70% in the summer (Reference 6).

Typical nighttime conditions should not give rise to appreciable increase in surface relative humidity due to stable thermal stratification in the lower layers resulting from surface radiational cooling (Reference 6).

Nighttime cloudiness or moderate to high wind conditions, however, do result in relative humidity increases at the surface.

For a wind speed of 8 m/sec in the lower 2000 feet, mavimum surface relative humidity increases are about 5% during summer and 10% during the winter at a downwind distance of about 3-5 miles.

Background relative humidity at the surface is likely to be moderately high during cloudy conditions, but in any event the comparative increases appear O

minimal.

Near maximum effect on relative humidity at the surface occurs in high wind conditions, a relatively infrequent phenomenon (Reference 15).

An assumed wind speed of 16 m/sec in the lower 500 feet implies maximum surface relative humidity increases on the order of 15-30% at about 1-2 miles downwind for winter temperatures, the season most likely to produce sustained high winds.

High winds in warmer conditions result in much less increase in surface rela-tive humidity.

Background relative humidity for high wind winter cases is likely to be moderately low, (Reference 15) again with little or no perceptible change from increases due to the cooling towers.

Tower drift effects, assessed in studies at the construction permit stage, are not significant, and therefore are not addressed in Section 5.1.4.

Preopera-tional and postoperational terrestrial monitoring, however, is to be undertaken.

Section 2.7 details the results of an extensive ambient noise study.

Figure 2.7.0-1 shows the sampling locations which are defined as homogeneous acoustic areas.

Long-term sound level statistics are independent of where the measure-ments are made accounting for topography, ground cover, and land use in selecting 290.16

-these sampling areas.

Noise-sensitive land use areas and points are shown in Figure 2.7.0-2.

Figure 2.7.0-3 shows variations in sound level distributions for the different monitoring locations.

Figures 2.7.0-4 through 2.7,0-6 shows O

Rev. 4 ER 5.1-7 CNS-OLS

the stnmary of observation:.

This ambient noise data includes the effect of 290.18 on going construction at Catawba.

The mechanical draft cooling towers will have a certain level of noise associated with their operation.

Maximum noise levels which the cooling tower manufacturer must meet are as follows:

1)

The sound levels at any location on the fan deck or any cell (near field) shall not exceed 90 db when measured on the "A" scale of a standard sound level meter at slow response with all fans in operation.

2)

The combined sound pressure levels measured at a distance of 250 feet from any point on the outer casing in any direction shall not exceed the following values:

Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 SPL, cb, re 0.0002 Microbars 84 77 72 69 69 65 65 65 The levels presented above are design maximum specifications.

Figure 5.1.4-3 is the cooling tower manufacturers Sound Analysis for Catawba.

This data represents predicted levels for " ground" wave with source and receiver in 290.18 direct line of sight, accounting for no reductions due to terrain features, flora or structures.

Distances are measured to the nealest tower louver face.

290.16 From this data, the total corrected A-weighted sound levels for the 2,500 and 10,000 foot distances are 48.0 and 35.3 (dB), respectively.

These projected sound levels compare favorably to the ambient sound levels detailed in Section

2. 7.

Consequently, offsite noise will not be a problem.

Presently there are no plans to provide other than existing natural screening for the attenuation of plant generated noise.

There are no plans to make a comprehensive operation phase noise level study 290 17 until such time as circumstances warrant.

O l

Rev. 4 ER 5.1-8 CNS-OLS

5. 3 EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE DISCHARGES 5.3.1 APPLICABLE WATER STANDARDS Effluent limitations for steam electric power plant discharges have been pro-mulgated for the State of South Carolina.

Any discharge into Lake Wylie must meet the currently applicable State Water Quality Standards for class A waters and the appropriate EPA standards.

The Catawba Nuclear Station is designed so that chemical and biocide discharges will meet the current standards.

Duke will comply with these standards a:ri federally approved effluent limitations.

5.3.2 EFFECTS ON RECElVING WATERS Cooling towers for Catawba Nuclear Station will blowdown approximately 3000 gpm 3

(7 cfs) (.189 m /sec) at a concentration of 10 times background (See Section 3.6.2).

The blowdown will be initially diluted with the plant's service water discharge just prior tc entering Lake Wylie.

The approximate summer and winter service water discharges are 54,000 gpm (120 cfs) (3.41 m /sec) and 18,000 gpm 3

a (40 cfs) (1.14 m /sec), respectively.

This results in blowdown discharges into the lake that are concentrated 1.5 and 2.3 times background for summer and winter, respectively.

A rectr.ngular buoyant jet analysis was employed to determine dilution as the discharge enters the lake and rises to the surface.

Mixing zone acreage nec-essary to achieve designated dilutions are presented below:

Season Concentration (X background) 2.0 1.5 3

Summer

<5 acres (<2.0 ha)

<5 acres (<2.0 ha)

Winter

<5 acres (<2.0 ha) 50 acres (20.2 ha) 5.3.3 INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL WASTES Wastes which are released by the Catawba Nuclear Station into Lake Wylie are l

within regulation limits and consist of irregular small quantities of primary recirculating cooling water system chemicals such as boric acid, potassium chromate, hydrazine, ammonia, commercial detergents and miscellaneous reagent chemical (used in laboratory analysis).

All of these chemical species receive treatment in the Radioactive Liquid Waste Recycle System by reutralization, evaporation and demineralization.

Concentrates are drummed for offsite disposal.

Distillates are then either recycled or, if of a low enough activity, released at a controlled rate.

The intermittent nature of the release of these chemicals to the lake, the small total volume of release and the resultant small concen-trations seen in the receiving water combine to make this waste source insigni-ficant.

In any case, the treatment received by the wastes prior to disposal represents effective treatment.

The remainder of the chemical industrial wastes from the station outlined in 4

Section 3.6.1 receive physio-chemical treatment consisting of flow equalization, coagulation / sedimentation, pH adjustment and aeration with treatment scheme is in excess of the minimum required regulations.

2 Rev. 2 ER 5.3-1 CNS-0LS

5.3.4 COOLING TOWER DRIFT Evaluation of the probable impact of cooling tower drift on surrounding vege-tation and soils at the Catawba site incorporates in-house analysis plus applicable patterns from an operating mechanical draft tower at Duke's Cliff-side Steam Stal. ion.

Assuming conservative meteorological parameters, average station capacity fac-tors, and typical make-up water conditions, sectors within 950 ft (290 m) receive the maximum percentage of the deposition from the cooling tower drift.

The enclosed site boundary for the Catawba station is 2000 f t (610 m) and should provide a buffer zone for the drift deposition.

The remaining drift deposition is minimal in quar.tity and should disperse equally over the area surrounding the station.

Annual rainfall and moisture carried over as drift dilute the solid deposition even further.

The area surrounding the plant, largely tree covered and classified as rural, non-farm, receives salt deposits from many sources that are more concentrated than the deposits from the tower drift.

Research indicates that crops having low to medium tolerance limits can absorb water that contains 640-1280 mg/l of dis-solved salts.

The Catawba cooling towers will be operated with a maximum total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of 10 times the TDS in make-up water from the low pressure service water system (0LS-ER, Section 3.6.2).

Based on an operating range of 7 to 10 cycles of concentration in the tower and a TDS concentration of 45 - 50 mg/l in Lake Wylie water (Industrial Biotest 1974), TDS in drift droplets leaving the towers may be expected t 291'4 fall in the range of 350 to 500 mg/1.

These values are below the guidelines suggested for safe application to low salt tolerant crops and vegetation.

Therefore, no damage to vegetation is expected within the section specified above.

Drift deposition rate calculations are discussed in Catawba Construction Stage ER, Section 2.4.1.

Table 5.3.1-1 presents racalculated values (Kg/ha/yr) at 350 and 500 mg/l TDS in drift.

In summary, cooling tower drift effects are largely localized to the plant site exclusion boundary, and environmental effects to surrounding croplands, forests, gardens, or other plantings beyond the plant site boundary are not significant.

Section 5.1.4 also discusses effects of cooling tower drift to a lesser degree and can be referred to for additional information.

O Rev. 4 ER 5.3-2 CNS-OLS I

I t

}

ER Table 5.3.1-1 l

Catawba Nuclear Station Aerial Distribution Salt Deposition I

Deposition Rate l

(Kg/ha/yr)

Distance from Tower Solid Concentrations f t (m) 350 mg/l 500 mg/l 163,680 (49,890) 0.001 0.002 f

105,600 (32,187) 0.011 0.016 l

42,240 (12,875) 0.028 0.04 18,480 (5,633) 0.112 0.16 l

13,200 (4,023) 0.504 0.72 7,504 (2,897) 0.616 0.88 6,864 (2,092) 1.40 2.00 5,808 (1,770) 2.80 4.00 5,280 (1,609) 6.69 9.56 4,752 (1,448) 5.03 7.19 l

3,696 (1,127) 10.6 15.2 l

1,848 (563) 28.0 40.0 j

1,162 (354) 78.4 112.0 l

0-950 (0-289) 826.0 1180.0 O

i l

f f

1

~

i i

l l

l

\\

O 8

l New l

i Rev. 4.

L

\\

l

... - -.. -. - - ~ _. -. _. -.. -. - -..

.=

I I

l l

O t

i l

1 4

l

)

63 125 250

$C3 1000 2000 4000 E300 1%*

J q.

110 i

7 z

}

if g

100 -

m u

L

)

E S0-4 1

o

.p o,

^

1, i

O

.}.

.j.

~

~

3 p

^_

~

250' y

N I

q: y l

S N.

.if

[,ggg, 7-o

~..

2500,

-]

1N N1

(_:

T f

{

}

D 2N h /.1[

10000'

-y.

_. f.

/

m x

x I

h

_ \\ b b

k

~

5.

f

^

~

. g

/

. N N

63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 OCTAYE BAND CENTER FREQUENCIES t

[g< se, SOUND ANALYSIS CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION seu ro

'M ER Figure 5.1.4-3 Revision 4 New Figure i

12.0 ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATIONS 12.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES 12.1.1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC)

(Formerly Atomic Energy Commission)

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, under authority through the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, has regulatory jurisdiction over design, construction and operation of the plant, specifically with regard to the nuclear aspects re-lating to assurance of public health and safety.

The application for a construction license includes submittal of the Pre-liminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) covering the preliminary design and safety aspects of the proposed generating facility.

Also, an Environmental Report - Construction Stage is prepared in support of the license authorization to construct.

Application was filed for Construction Permits for both Catawba units in July, 1972.

After exhaustive hearings on environmental and safety issues, construction stoppage, and additional hearings on need for power and other financial considerations, construction permits were issued in August, 1975.

The application for an operating license includes submittal of a Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and Environmental Report - Operating License Stage prior to issuance of the license authorizing Duke to load fuel and begin power O

operation of the reactors.

On an appropriate schedule, applications are filed for.new fuel storage, byproduct materials licenses, operator licenses, etc.

Surveillance of construction, operation and maintenance is performed routinely by the NRC.

The environmental impact of the plant is assessed by the NRC in accordance with 10CFR51.

12.1.2 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC)

(Formerly Federal Power Commission)

FERC, under the Federal Power Act as amended, has licensing jurisdiction over the Catawba Dam (also known as Wylie Dam) and Lake Wylie which it impounds.

The license for Project 2232 was issued September 17, 1958, and included Catawba Dam plus ten other hydro-electric plants on the Catawba-Wateree River in North and South Carolina.

The Catawba development (constructed in 1904 and redeveloped in 1925) is located at river mile 138.5 on Catawba River near Fort Mill, South Carolina.

The original license reserved seven sites for thermal electric generating stations, three of which are located on Lake Norman and one on Lake Wylie which is the site of the present development, Catawba Nuclear Station.

Any major modifications to the Catawba-Wateree development covered by Project 2232, including Catawba Dam are subject to approval ot FFRC.

Further, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is authorized to issue

['

licenses for the construction and operation of dams, power houses, etc.,

l

(

necessary for the development of navigation and power in any stream over which Congress has jurisdiction.

Rev. 1 ER 12.1-1 CNS-OLS

In August, 1973, Duke submitted an application to the Federal Power Commission to amend its license for the Catawba Wateree Development (Project 2232) to permit changes in the project boundary and water withdrawals from Lake Wylie.

Subsequent revisions to the project license are requested as appropriate for construction of subimpoundments, changes in project boundary, conveyance of land rights, etc.

12 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 created the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (Section 402, Public Law 92-500, October 18, 1972),uthorizing the regional administrator of EPA to issue permits for the discharge of any pollutant into the navigable waters of the U.S. subject to

" certification" (Section 401, Public Law 92-500) from the state having jurisdic-tion that the " discharge will comply with all applicable water quality standards" Under the FWPCA of 1972, States could be authorized to administer the NPDES program in lieu of EPA.

In the interim an NPDES application was to be sub-mitted pursuant to Sections 401 and 402 of the Act.

Duke filed a formal NPDES application to the S.C. Pollution Control Authority (now S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control) in March, 1973, and subsequently amended that application to reflect the switch from once-through cooling to closed cycle cooling.

Final NPDES authorization was issued by the EPA in August, 1976.

On June 29, 1981, SCDHEC issued the NPDES permit for Catawba (see Appendix 6).

This permit subsequently expired June 30, 1981, and is currently under extension awaiting finalization of the EPA Consolidated Permit Regulations.

Duke filed notico requesting an adjudicatory hearing on this NPDES permit.

The issues upon wnich this hearing request were made are:

1) discharge limits for serial number 002 (Waste Water Treatment System) including mass limits, 2) the definition of metal cleaning wastes in discharge, serial number 006, and

3) the monitoring point for free available chlorinc discharged to Lake Wylie from the ctcling towers, serial number 001.

Duke is requesting that mass limits be 290.19 removed from the permit; that metal cleaning wasters be defined as wasters derived from chemical cleaning compounds which react chemically with the metal surface; finally, that chlorine monitoring be prior to discharge to Lake Wylie.

Duke is complying with all provisions of the NPDES permit issued in June, 1981, except those items being adjudicated which are governed by stipulations of the original permit issued in August, 1976.

The State of South Carolina received authorization to administer the NPDES program in April, 1975, and presently holds enforcement / compliance responsi-bility for all NPDES permits issued for facilities operating in S.C. Application for renewal of the NPDES permit was filed with the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) on June 11, 1979.

Copies of both the original (August, 1976) and new NPDES permits, and Section 401 certi ficatian are included in Appendix 6.

The Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L.95-217) will require Duke to continue itt close working relationship with Region IV-Environmental Protection Agency and the State of South Carolina with regard to future NPDES licensing.

The Clean Air Act of 1970 authorized EPA to a*,sure that national air quality standards are maintained under State Implementation Plans (SIPS) fe' the control of air pollution.

The S..

Air Quality Implementation Plan was adopted Rev. 4 ER 12.1-2 CNS-OLS

i 1

pursuant to Section 110 of the Clean Air Act and approved and later amended in d

1973 by the Administrator of EPA.

The recent Clean Air Amendments of 1977 (P.L. 95-95) mandate far reaching environmental conditions for industrial growth.

Regulations arising from the legislation are being followed closely by Duke as it affects future electric power development in the Piedmont Carolinas.

12.1.4 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (U.S. COE)

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972 (P.L.92-500) established a permit program under Section 404 to be administered by the i

Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers and regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material into " navigable waters".

Prior to 1972, Corps jurisdiction extended only over " navigable waters of the U.S.".

This definition with the passage of P.L.92-500 was administra""ely defined and broadened to include "the waters of the U.S.".

Applications for Section 404 permits are evaluated by using guidelines developed by the Administrator of EPA in conjunction with the Secretary of the Army.

Duke held initial discussions with the Army Corps Of Engineers relative to a dredge and fill permit under Section 404 of the FWPCA in late 1975. An appli-cation covering the dredge and fill activities for Catawba was tiled in February, 1976.

Final authorization was issued in February, 1977.

12.1.5 OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES During the planning and development of Catawba, Duke will continue to cooperate with a number of federal agencies having specific areas of environmental interest.

Examples include the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, the Geological Survey, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Forest Service, and the Soil Conservation Service.

l O

Rev. 4 ER 12.1-3 CNS-OLS

. ~.

n

n - r. o s%

I N /~N,A i

c-V.. n. C rrr:n vb d

1 C.! V l I 4

4.,, n... c ~..r

. m..

ur.,n

.u P mp

< - p o p - m yl

.e..ran Se:re:vy i ve w ce.

{

,i y

.. -... s i.. -

.3. c.a,4. j. %.

y ya:r;e a br: ram s c; s 2

I m m ;rh

.rm Q-

, i /. i.,. c,

'i L Cd I ! vi i 5,.::;.3 s.. esse i

i i

• m r..m m mi h ; mr

___ p / y} d i i :V I dCd CC '.' '.' S E. C N 5 0 ml I

u..,. :

a x-.

y.

..i m

/

Arm tTO]

5 a r :et C,C1 j jyj

__, ;..n....

...c.

Femi: No. SCD004273 A..-.Cm,., A.

u,,.i 10 D. S u,-.., e.,

,J',..,

cin 2

L n.-t vt

. a c c.

in:

NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISC' GCE ELDi' NATION SYSTri

n ec cliance with :he provisions of the ? llutica Centrol Act of Scura Carolina (S.C. Sections 43-1-10 g sec., 1976) and eith the provisions of the Feder _ Clean

,. 0.,es

._.t 1, an.,

.n-

..c...

.. ter AC:

'r, 9.,-2u0, as atenced.oy.3L 90- w,,,,

a

.1 1251 _et seq., the "Act,"

Duke Po' er Cenpany/ Catawba Nuclear Station a.. h m.

.. _ d.., u. a c.. u-. a, o.

a

.e,c4., 4..,

n w

4-m u.

..a.._.

o i

Lake Uv11e, ' fork County, South Carolina 1

i I

o.eceiving caters.nared Lahe l'ylie in accc dance v;;h affluent licita: ions, acni: ring requirements and other canci:icns se for:n in Parts I, II, and I

hereof.

2.is pe r-.i: shall :ecome effec: ire en JUN 2 91981 Sis pe ni and the authorization Oc dischar;e shall ex; re a

-ilng~.:,

.T u ne 30, 1081 1

'JUN 2 91981 n.:ne a :

A,-

Er<

d

/ -

/. (ky.0 I.

/'..! lod d- /. C -

tsteeater inc 5:redt 3ureau e p,G od.'.a..

.,.6

• /

.L n.=.

i lHLUElli t lHIIhl10ilS AilD [MllIURl[IG IWOUIklnl:rils t.

thir lig; the in.t I o.1 1.eg i o n I n g on the effective date anl 1aniInn tb nuph the expiration date, L

the poimit t ee in nothorized to diocharge fton entfall(n) ucclat number (n) 001, cooline teuer blowdown and other once t

through non-contact ccolinp water (service v:lter) discharr,ed to Lake vlie.

"nch ill ocha rgen shal! be 1imit ed nud non f i ot ed by the poimittee no nperIfled below:

F.ffinent t:ba t :n;t e r I n t Ic liinch tige 1.lmitationn finn i t ni i ng P_c.pil i nmeni n_

1:n/ day ( t h n /.l a y )

Other limite ('ipec i f y )

Ilea air ement

!;.n: p l o f

Dally Avg flaf1y ll.ix.

lin f l y Avg flafly flax.

Il e<pienr y Iype i

I'inu-n /lia y (flGli)

Hourl)

Pecorder or Pur, 3

l Tempe r a t ure C (CF) 1/'.'eek Grah &/cr calcy i

1/L'ee k Mul t i ! >

Chlorine Pesidual See 2"1 1.

After start up fret a.itlable chlorine shall not exceed an avera?.e concentratien of 0.2 rr/1 and a naxinun instantanecu.

concentration of 0.5 m 'l :.: the ecoline ta'ier discharce.

?:cither f ree avrilable chlorine nor total residual chlorine may be discharged frca any unit for

.c ' than two hcurs in any one dav and not more than ene u it nay discharge free avail,ble or total residual chlorine at an one t ir e unle,s t' pe =itte-can deranctrate to the E C.D.d.E.C.

that the unit (s) cannot operate effect: vel-at or below this Ic.

of chlorination.

1 Pe rni t r e c si,1] corduct an internal evaluation of practicable nethedr to reduce total residual chlorine.levelr

.l fronthe cen.ne? di;e m,. of coolir re..r blowdern, corventional sorrice enter and t.uclear w r '. i c e w;:ter.

A e

=

&.!n serrary of this e.el: 'tica < T!! be nubmitted to'the S.C.

Departrent of Health F.

Envirerrentil Ctr. trol u'

the 4 t-e r.nv i r e r ental Proteutic- *rency fifteen conths after

comerc al cperat io i of Unit I.

i

.. ro 6

'l l n-pli stia ll noi oc senn tonn 6.0 n t n n.l.o.1 u n i t o no s p.i c a t e s th.ni 0.0 <:t :nnt.ii.! un i t s and nball t.o n' >

l f

fi n.

im >n f t ut e.!: enre per.ce s

!: gre :x p' e.

e

'thric chalI 1, " n o d l a c ha r p.e of Ilontlug on!Idn ni vinthin Iorna in uthet t h in t i.n e amount n.

g-fJ

'huop t e n taken in rurpitance wi t h t he imin i t o r i ng in i: lie.

n'.

v.p.

I f l. il a l.or e chall im talen at i h.-

?!

fo u l n r. loent inn (n). Chinrine at the diccha:

fr the coslir to:rer print to ni '.

• with otht : 'inste 4

4

O i

t I

LITl_llElli 1.lMII At 10ilS Afill Holli10lliflG lti:0Ull(1.11]Ils 1

S.

ami t ant Ing t hr ongle the expiration date, I

nomhes(n) 002, V wtewater treattnent system cischarged t per toil beginning on the ef f ective date thirlin; the ant lior ir.ett to <l f orharge f r om out f all(n) nerin t Lake Wylie.

the peimittee in Such ilischargen oL.11 he ! !mi t ed nnil imin i t ored liy the peri It tre no supecif ied below:

i

!!onit or ing tje. ui s ement a q

l>lucharge Limitationn f

Effluent Characterlatic Ot her lhilt f.

(Specify) l< g /ita y (llin /ilay )

Ilea sur ement

!knup l e-Itally Avg.

Dai l y flax.

Ilolly Avg.

I ally llan.

I'r e.'[n e nc y Type f

f I' low-m /ttay (11c16) 1/ Week Weir or Rec.

l f

3 Oil and Crease (: g/1)

.,16. 3 ( 36. 0) 21.8(48.ri) 15 rng/l 20 cc,/1 2/Nonth Grab i

30 mg/l 100 mg/l 2/ Month Grah t

Total Suspended Solids 32.7(72.0) 109(240) i

)

i t

q I

r I

l i

?

o o c a,

.. n e j <o Is tu e'

u i>^

l

9. 0 r: t.nnla t.1 un l I n anil *if ste l l he

'l l u-pil steall not 1.e lenn Lliati 6.0 nton+ laid unitu nos l',s en t e s than l

n

n

!") * **

f per ucch b'; gr;b na-m'...

8,_.

j innu l t oi vil: once all lie no dracharge or flontin: n.liau... v i n il,l e f.,am In

,,th..,

l i.. n i i n. e nmount..

o+

1 i

C-f4 i hei c av f;le te I I lee ( ;tl g*te ;t { l lse*

.$'littp i e n t *11 en 1n et861p I I In fle s? U I l 11. l lle lit.ett l [ tig l gig g erges l g. t'u ngs) 3 3;gneg-l ( l s d nlstyyp folloring toent lon(n):

dinkt: Pe fre the vaste. iter treatreut-sw;t er pr ior to rMxin.2 with any

... =

.. - ~

l

C n.

l

(

f C

• [

O

n

.c.

.o f

- t o, 1

i c

cs

,-.. r...

eg.o, we,7 3

-r

.i a -

er u

u u

c 3,

-g C

e e

c w<

u b

b

• '3 e.'

O 1

w tn

-l w

gi o

L L

L 10 x

C C

C u

C.

.C*

sJ u

u o

C

=- -

u p

L C

e r-O C

C D

D 0

H O

C.

1

?.

C. '

C C'

.- -~.

. y

's.

u c'

e-4 H

H e-4

_O !

~

a, C

t, u

O C a

u L H

e-C u x

H m

c E

L.

O C

=

tt E

H C

t~ *~

x b

U C

C C C *--*

u.

x C

l g.,'.s.3 to t/3 H

't i

o e

N C.

u C

'1

.Z C

r-L i

p as, q.-

A

(

'". r* C*. ;

C w

XC U l

GC n

=

m I

,J, m.

s.,

H u,.,,

>~

~

~

C G.)

t.

.o

,,.~

i p.

(

- *~

f-p

~-

J C

.. I..

C C

C C

'~

- L

'~.. -~~

1 :

m M

~

- h

^

I :

.. =.

e,.-

, !. ~

c u

.~.

C e

cs

=

=-

C

.=s,

=:

.~.

J, y

z-

~;

.L 7

Ci.

x

^

+

- L v

==

C

~, '*

0_

4.,, :

E l

1 I

l C -

..?^

X

_v w.

.x

-\\

e, x.

• ~

U.

d

~

C.

~-

~

~.

k.

4 ee y

O..

v e.

• =.

4 w e,

w

,w e.J e

s, u.

C N..

s

' = -

s.

y

+-

e.

c.

W

-e v

W WOH

'. ' c u

~,.'-

8"*

.i C ej M

v

~

.s eu U

kne

• =.,

e.s.

C, f

d'

- p W

M C,

M u

- C E,.

~

p A

m

..o

, s.

.m.

k 6

Q b.

p,

~- -

.i.

r *

.e I.-

l (a

'y

• H

",, n X

c L

~.

. '.m n.

s

• +

ct e-pe 1 d)

F.

I W

.C.

p

-j

&s

+*

",,, l e

m s.

_a c.

I

'd

.g O

C

,. e a=-

E

_L.

C w

e p...

"h,

,Y y

g O

.W.

)'

G.

• r4 1

r' C

e 8.-=*

U n

y-4

=*

h l

J ga O'

(,e

• ,l.

m

=.*

_ ~

.J.

~

2

-l sn rj r;

,: :~

r ~

~

C u

U 5~

t5 y

w o

o g

,4.e Q

h

..d Ll b.

e

I l

e e

e i

i I:ITLUElli LIfil flii10flS Aill) [10lliIUl(IIRi Ill.~0llll(l:IllillS IlusIng the gie s' l oil beg i nn ing on the ef fective date aint lautinn through the expiration date.

nnnher(n) 005, Radwaste system discharged to Lake Wylic l

t lic i.ermlitee In antiner t zeil t o ill ncle.ii ne fiom out f all(n) nerial i

i via 001.

f Such allocha r nen niial l !>e limit eil unit moul toreil by tin' gici mit tee nn ogiec if icil below:

s regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Conmission and is monitored and reported to the Nuclear l

l This discharge i Regulatory Cornission.

l l

)

I i

i i

t l

t l

\\

i e

l l

.d

.......v lb 08 D

hl N I

.-i es 4

swe ey I

mg.o..

0

)

Sw 4-m.

5 m

'-myw---r+4 WFW=m e-TMITC---9"'N-

-"-N--N'N'=:-P'"-

C'*=ui

"-'r'w~'-**

WP*um"***f-w w?S*'""'-MN-

• n'NN

• • -r'"' " - ' ' ^ ' - ' * ^^- ^ ^ - - - - - - - - - - -

'l l

i

)

1

)

I 1:ITI.ll[Ill I.lilli Ai 10ilS Aill) lluilIIUltifl0 lil.Ullil(1 fil.filS i

1 l

lhe r liy; tin-pe r t oil I" n i nn l ey; on the ef f ect ive date an.1 l an t liy; t h r oup.h the expiratien date, i

the peimitiec In anIinir!ze.1 tu dlorbarne f i ori i iet f a lI(n) uertal ninches (o) 00M - ! fetal cleaning diccharged free station j

sett11nr basin (s)

(Diccharge 002).

j Such dlncharge9 nhall be l im i t e.1 noil mon i t o r eil I,y the pi e nit t ec nn npec il ical below:

I J

Cffincut Clia r ac t er l o t Ic til uc h in ge I.im i t a t ionn lion t t oi l ng Ip;.pil i e yieni g 4

Daily Ave.

Daily :!ax l

e Ile.i :ie r ciiu n S.nnpIo l

l'sc.pirin y Type i

i l' I ow - ml/ i>a y (f li:1))

1/ Batch Instantaneous and/or calculai 1

l Copper Quantities shall not exceed 1.0 nt/]

1.0 rg/l 1/ Batch Grab the concentrations shown to Iron the right nultiplied by the 1.0 rg/l 1.0 rn/1 1/ Catch C ra >

l' flow.

,c o l

?:etal cleanin3' wastes shall mean any cleaning compounds, rinse waters, or any other war.crborne residues derived l

f rom cleanin3; and retal process equiprent including, but not lirilted to steam r,enerator tube.

San :les taken in conpliance with the monitoring rrcu'rerents specified aLove shall be taken at the fo11 cuing lo-cation (s):

Settlinr basin (s) discharre prior t o n..ine, vith tiny other waste streans.

l

• Serial n r.ber ansi:;ned f or monit oring ar.d identification purposer.

l l

i

• o*a

• t:

.iU.. fis

• TN ti.o i

i.

g e*

et 3

e -.

O q

e 4

i n,

a 3-3 -

L~

PJ N

CD l

O O

O

. _. _i, 1

I e

i.

t l

r dKl i

i

?.a ge 7

of 14 Permit No. SC0004278 O

i, f

SCHEDULE OF COMPLIAN.CE

1. -

ae pe ci::ee shall achieve c:epliance

'.~th the effluent Li=.i:a:icne, specified i

~

1 o

l

c cisenarges in a::orcance s". h the :. llowing schecule:

1 i

i.

li l

N/A

.i 4

j i

i 1

li i

i I

l, 4

t t

l i

I 4

e i

r

=

i i

1 i

I I

}

l

[

i i

!i I

i i

l I

l

.c. o a.e

..,..g a 3,.,. s : c, ~ n...<.

> a..,

a. s. e.. < : s......e:.

a

. e

e. u.,..,.,.

...3 i

s..,g;u e a.: e..,<..,

. u..,

p.,.

.a..,e s

>n

.a.

,, :.. u,. g -,, c.... :

..a....,

~.

, : g.. i.: a......a.

s.,,.

-.agg

m., g,. 3.: g,y c e.s.: < s.

a. e e. g 8,.<....

.,q..<.,:

y t

3 a.<..,...,.<,s....,.,n,,.

n o. c.

p.... c,.,.

1..

. e.a

,ee.

.o.

..w i

...e

...e n.,..

w..

r-

' *-* 3..,.

.0-.,.--

i

,...e

..73

. a.. s.,.

. o

---

***d

,,,ga...

. y. g

.1a.eX.. S w. y,. w,., A.

,,,.a..,.,..

j

...g

%.. e,.. z,.

3.

. s =

e

.3..u....

.w C

1 t

G l'

s

v.

PART I Pare M of 14 Permit No. Scon04278 i

C.

M0ilITORIllG Aim REPORTIliG h

1.

Rwtescat.se sa=pung

}

Sa:pler and ceasure ent; taken as required herein shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge.

2.

Rcp0 Ming Monitoring results obtained durir.g the previous 1 months shall be summarizec

'for each conth and reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA 50.

3320-1), post:arked no later than the 28th day of the conth following the cc:.-

plet<d ceporting period.

The first report is due on OCT 2 81981 Duriie,te signed. copies of these, and all other reports required herein shall 1.: s omitted to the state at the following address:

South Carolina Departcent of IIcalth and Enviornmental Control ATTN:

NPDES Permits Section 2600 Bull Street Columbia, S.C.

29201 3.

Dcfirl.ticas i

a.

The " daily average" discharge = cans the total discharge by weight during a calendar conth divided by the number of days in the conth that the pro-duction or concercial facility was operating. Enere less than daily sa -

pling is required by this permit,- the daily average discharge shall be determined by the su=ation of all the acasured daily discharc,es by weight divided by the nutber of days during the calendar month when the measure-ments were made.

b.

The "dail:, taxi =us" discharge = cans the total discharge by weight during any calendar day.

4.

Test P.tocaiu.tes Test procedures fer the analysis of pollutants shall confc = to regulations pu lished pursuant to Section 304(g) of the Act, under which such procedures may be required.

S.

Reco' ding of Results For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this pert the permittee shall record the following inf or ation:

a.

The exact place, date, and tir:e of sacpling; b.

The dates the analyses were perforced; c.

The person (s) who performed the analyses;

Page 9 of 14

~

Permit No. SC0004278 d.

The, analytical techniques at aethods used; and The results of all required analyses.

e.

6.

Addi.Clon1L Moritaring bt) PetunLttee If the permittee monitors any pollutant at the location (s) designated herein core frequently than required by this permit, using approved analytical ccch-l ods are specified above, the reruits of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the values required in the Discharge F.oni-toring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1).

Such increased frequency shall also be indicated.

7.

Reccitd5 Retention All records and information resulting from the monitoring activitics requirce

'by this permit including all records of analyses perfor:cd and calibration an

'caintenance of instrumentation and recordings frca continuous conitoring in-stru=cntation shall be retained for a minimum of three (3) years, or longer a requested by the Department of Health and Environ = ental Centrol.

G 4

r O

,.-~.,-.-.--,,-,.,---.-,._,...-:-,,,,--..-.,---.~---

_. __.~___ __ ___

m._

tWJ11

.i page 10 of l 'i i

(

i permit No SC0004278 i

I/m yr C d i d;T "hp;'_. [I3 9u

'r t r m~

t u

l 1.

CMege in Mcimge i

All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the tems and conditions of this pemit.

The discharge of any pollutant identified in this permit more frequently than or at 3cvel in excess.of that author-a I

1:ed shall constitute a violation of the parait.

Any anticipated facility expansions, production increasts, or process modifications which will resul'-

I I

in new, different, or increased discharges of pollutants must be reported by subnission of a new NPDES application or, if such changes will not siolate the effluent limitations specified in this permit, by notice to the permit issuing authority of such changes.

Following such notice, the permit may bc modified to specify and limit any pollutants not previously limited, r

i 2.

NCnCCrylidn:C NC$lficcLCiCn If, for any reason, the permittee does not comply with or will be unable to cocply with any daily taximum effluent limitation specified in this pemit, the permittee shall provide the Department of acalth and Environmental Centrol with the following infornation, in writing, within five (5) days of beco ing aware of such condition:

A description of the discharge and cause of noncomplianec, and a.

b.

The period'of nonecapliance, including exact dates and times: or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncc=pliance is expected to centinue, and steps being taken to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the nonce plyin?

discharge.

3.

Faci 444Lc5 Cpcu tiCn The permittee shall at all times caintain in good working orde. and operate l

as ef ficiently as possible all treatment or control f acilities or systens installed or used by the permittee.

i 4

Ad w tSc Irt;2c.t The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to mininize any adverse impact to navigable waters resulting frcn nonce:pliance with any effluent limitations specified in this permit, including such accelerated or additional conitoring as necessary to detemine the nature and i. pact of the noncomplying discharge.

l S.

Syptading l

l Any diversion f rc, or bypass of f acilities necessary to maintain compliance i

with the terms and conditions of t!.is permit is prohibited, except (1) whe re unavoidable to prevent loss of life or severe property damage, or (ii) where exce.,siv' stor~ drainage or runoff would danage any facilities necessary for compliance eith the effluent limitations and prohibitions of thin pernit.

The penittee shall prc ptl-notify the Department of licalth and Environmental Control in writins of each such diversion cr hypass.

PART 11 Page 13 of-14 Permit No. SC0004278 6.

Remove:i Sub.it.:stcc.5

~

Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutan:s re=oved in the course of :: cat =ent or control of wastewaters shall be discosed of in a manne-such as to prevent any pollutant frc= such =aterials :ro= entering navigaole waters.

7.

Powcr Fa.41ste.5 1

In order to =aintain co=pliance with the effluent ld destions and prohibi-tions of this per=it, the per=ittee shall either:

a.

In accordance vi:h the Schedule of Co=pliance contained in Par: I, pro-vide an alternative power source sufficient to operate the wastewa a-I control facilities; l

1 or, if such alternative power source is not in existance, and no date for its i=ple=entation appears in Par: 1, b.

Ealt, reduce or otherwise control production and/or all' discharges upon the reduction, loss, or failure of the pri=ary source of power to the wastewater control facilities.

I I

sRRcP0ilSIaIIIT,IE,S R

y w

1.

Right of Eacty The per:1 ee shall allow the Co==issioner of the Depart =ent of Health and l

Environ =en:al Control, the Regional Ad=inistrator, and/or 'their authorized representatives, upon the presentation of credentials:

a.

To enter upon the per=ittee's pre =ises where an ef fluent source is lo-l cated or in which any records are required to be kept under the ter=s l

and conditions of this permit; and l

b.

At reasonable ti=es to have access to and copy any recorcs required to f

be kept under the terms and condi: ions of this per=it; to inspect any nonitoring equipcent or =enitoring ce: hod required in this per:i:; and to sa=ple any discharge of pollutants.

j r

1.

Ttxt.5 f er of Gene.thh.ip o.t ConctDL

. the 2 vent of any change in control or ownership of facilities fro = which the authori:cd d'ischarges e= anate, the per=it:ee shall notify the succeecing owner or controller of the existence of this permit by letter, a cony of vnich shall be f orwarded tc the Departnent of Heal:h and Environmental _ Con-trol.

3.

Avail:Ci4LCf of RapotC5 i

Except for data deter =ined :: be confiden:ial under Section 305 of :he Act, l

all reports prepared in accordance with the :er s ef. this per=i: shall be available for public i

ul m

-~

~

C. -,.

l

• s A

.\\l e

p a,r 2,n a.+.

3.,.

a e

pC.

4

."n n

c 9

a Cg n, gs, c 7 8 j

i 4~t,..,..

. L. p C.s c.4

,3 S C.

.k.e

• .eepa co.

C.

.u. e a.1. t, a..;

I 4

.n...

4

- e

.a.1 t o

-1

.ar.....

m.

w u..

l on

.ne. e,,.e- -.1.w:

..s.

a.C AS a

,. C,3,d 2 A.

. k..e

.3..,.,

s

- a.. c.1 1 v

e L.... C..

Co-.-.a w..

h. o.

.4 A 3

, A.

C,e

..J.4.A Lv.,.

.' 3.1

~. n g...

.1.,

a c'. 4.. - aCv. a.1S c S. a. o_.c*....

uo es u uss u....

+

g y g

w.

r uo-n 3.-.tyv

-.a).

. C S L,.1 - 43.hc.i Od.4.4. C., O.4 C

4. 4 -. 1 je.,1.4...da-35 3,n,.4 4

s r - ' ' A.

O.

w y

u

. m..s.

4. 3

.e.> t o. 43..v-s V' a. O.c,

. k.. e

,*m-.

l 4

u

.i.J. w. J.,%

I) g,e.,

..A,b I

• % d.,e d.ud 4e l

I d.4.g.

-.4 3

3.A O..-..d C 4,.-

0 d

'U d d J.3,

-***S d - ~ ~4 -

41 K ', ~- O'A 4 4 4-- C -

t b4 A

ww..

u, rr. -.

-/

• • oo r

s g u g p, n w,4 4.

t

..k. u C ' o.

C.

., a.,. d,w,

• S

.C-4 4

e, v.

....0L,

• • • Cdb. 3 0 4 -

1,. a..,,

tu y

.w

.**6

- " *

• w - -* ta e k.,k 7

,4.oA.

E n' o.

.iO.1 1.. 4 3,.

g O..

s ow, w.

.e.

I a.

"v.4

• a. 4.

w.J w w. ~. 4

., q C.#

. 6..f., O - ~4

-4s.....

.c e

a.g w.

.. u a

w.

a r

~'

(

b.

QL..- -.e 3.,-. L. e. g pp.

4.

k,y

.4S o,. -. 3 S c... a-. 4..

v, 43.4.' J' ' A.

w.# * * ' v" 5 0

.# " '.' V, a.' '

v m

y..

..v a s..

.w 39 C....,.

3,-.S.

C

)

l l

b C.

d u..a

, p

4..

u...-.

a 4. 4. v.,

.6 8, L,., d A 0.4. k.. C.

u.

u. 43.

.,,,..j.

.3 3

p d

-.. d.,....

.t yv a 3

a w.

,A..-.e,..

u,. a.1 4 4 -,

a.n

.:. k.e u-u... k.O 4

e A.

A nd

.m.

u w

w.

w.i.ouna e.

.i.~..

i

.g 5.

> ::u.:. e n,:m.*:.s I

.e. O... i -. -,, u;.e_.g

.c..

p-

...auu a_ w-u %., C. e,

24 a.._..;,

<3.:.:.._.e.,.

L

.. a C _,

,A O

.,. O.. 4..,,., C a.

u r.

(.,.,,...gw..-

!.) b.. b,.2,w.,,. YJ, V.

%w.1.,.,,,,%,.'

..J J.s % s m

,.. o. e e.3,,,.

A C..,

J.A..A.4 c.,,,

, a

....c

... a w w.,.3

./

..W

.L.

wd.4

.s n..,..,.-,.......,

.a a_ r.. a w,

. a u tw,, u.. w..,,

a,.3,,,,..6,.,.,.

7, I(a O-

4. t. A..

O.

r. -,.. *.

.,r..-

e..

3 m e a

.,11....

w w.s. u es....

., 'i,..:-k

-.,..ez..2c..

a, e k. o.

s G.4 - - %,,., a_

2

• S U,, a'

.A c.a m o~

A O.

e. O n.a k.a i..O, ca

.t a

C u

y ac~.o u

s.

.u s

g.

s,.,3..,.

.L..,.,

1

..,. 4,,.,.

.t s u, b.

y 31.1 U. 3.,. 4 4.e,

g, e.,

• h.. 4 e

., e ~...

s,

...g...

o..y c

i.,,

..w Aw on y -..

a w.

y a.. ~.7 L,

,. 3.. e. a, v.

~%.4.:.4t.: A

.s,

..a.6

. L. C C.I.c.',o, c..

..,..Aa.4 O.

m -- Canrp

...u s.

c.

t w.

s.

.w....

L...a s.,.,,

u.. A.

. L. L.,

4..Ed SO nC.34. C A..

4 3

w w

.*wn yL r

..w

~

C.3.. w? w..J. "::.. :

.!, L',.n..s;,.~A,

. - w u. s i...,.

s.

,.,. 4.,

g g.

"k.

33-.-,"

/ *: 3.

T..,

n. :, ) a C'

.w.A

7. o_

a gs.

,c

- ~,..

a s

s. o r..w

-wu

...v m

yfr a....,

s.

u

" %. v.. g,.

...':'-..7.J. O c "

m.

3.

T.*.,

.t.

i ), n 0. w 4 A.,

.e

. L. 4 s

..... 3 u

o.

.,. Sn a..

s,,_.,,, S.., EA.-

a y.

.w..

.v

.2.1 s. e.. C

.-Q e

4..,e r,, e.. C a

v.s.

3..i C o a.

4. r,. S

.-.. C,u, r,, 'p.i.,.3..,,. L3 s

.u y

y s.

-w

,. 4

.L

.. ~.i ~s

.,m.

--t,...,

.s..,d.,s..2sJ 4

e.

w u.

u.

". %,.6..,.,3,

&n A....:- p g. -.,.

4 a t. u.1 1 c.,

x, C., o, c...J C,.,..,,

-o, 3.,.,

...,:e

6.. e 4. a-c.J a

v.

ua.

o g.

u

....wu 1g,. u-1 a".'.'"..

O '." **

.I.'.' '. c "u

'd ~. 4**t_.#**-"

.wm

"..o. S ".'. ".. a" '. h.,.#.'.' * *. d. S,

.'.#J '.'.' # * ' a. a*,

20

' 3 'I

. y w

o-

^* 9 d " a *'

• 4 ' s"

'a' " A w' "

4

• h 4

~ ' j" bC 5"',..

".".,"u'".

.Ee *. *..' ' 3

.l. '.' ^ #.

-C

i' '- - ' *

• C a 5

C.

D r

w.

r w

.., L, A s-.

^

h..,

i...t t..

s s n.u m

.o

. u :... ~... _ -..

u.

e,

,., 1..s up A.,

.,,,...e,

. a, e ;..e.. :......i.... C:

a..,.

C m., e u t,s w - m s. c....

a.m..

v..a..

.v 1t i., *., a -

1 d....,s.e..

3

.'*g

• • '7 9

u.

v.

t. s,

• • .A.

-v'.

• "."..**..*.,6

• -9

• a."*'r'*,*.*e9**--***C"**

'*]"^****~$

• • 4 c

y C.. u. '.,, c

... ;a C S e -.,* 4, ',

L'

b.. e. 3 -

• e..

~

t o,-

v*.#

• 5m

.13.*.*^o

eam.

s

.c

-u

', ' ' ' " r r..JC a-h.1 a.

' - +

0e-.p

.a r

w p

...fc,.

%',,.4.,.

.,. o. e., t,

. p A

'3,.;

$e, 4,

3

.~.1Q v,.:

. k. o A,v..

.w.

y.

.w

... ~. - ~. - -

PART II

? age 13 cf 14 Q

?arit,Nc. SC0004278 7.~.: pop M;h.a The issuance of.his per=i: does no: :: vey any proper:7 righ:s in ei:.cr re.'.1 cr persc al pr:per:7, or any esclusive privileges, act de,es 1: autherize any injur7 :s private pr:per:7 or a=y invasica ci personal righ:s, ::: any inir:. ge-men: ci Federal, Sta:e er 1cca.1 1s.s er regula:icas.

Szuv-Wiq Tae previsi::s of :his pe:_-i: are severable, and il any provisi:n of this perni:, er :he. applica: ice of any previsica cf this pe-'-

any

' - -"" - ~ - '

• is held invalid, :he app- -'c of such provision :o c:her cir =.s:::ces, and

he :>-ad:dar cf this per=i:, shall no be affected :hereby.

PART III OTHER REQUI.E ENTS This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and reissued, to co= ply A.

with any applicable effluent standard or limitation issued or approved under sectior 301 (b) (2) (C),' and (D), 304 (b)(2), and 307 (a) (2) of the Clean %'ater Act, if V

the effleunt standard or lir.itation so issued or approved:

(1)

Contains different conditions or is otherwise more stringent than any effluent limitation in the per=it; or (2)

Controls any pollutant not limited in the permit.

The permit as modified or reissued under this paragraph shall also contain any othe:

require =ents of the Act then applicable.

D.

In the event that waste streams from various sourtes are combined for treatment or discharge, the quantity of each pollutant or pollutant property attributabic to each controlled waste source shall not exceed the specified limitation for that waste source.

C.

If the perinittee, af ter monitoring for at least six months, determines that he is connistently rnect inn the ef fluent IJmits contained herein, the permittee nay request of the S.

C. D. !!. 1:. C.

that the monitorinn requirements he reduced to a lesse:

f requency or be climinated.

D.

There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated hyphenyl compounds such as thor.e com-monly used for trarisformer fluid.

E.

The company shall' notify the S. C. D. II. E. C.

in writinn not later than sixty (60) days prior to Instituting use of any additional biocide or chemical used in

]

cooling systems, other than chlorine, which may be toxic to aquatic 1ife other than

~/

those previously reported to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Such notification shall include-L-

P.O.UI III P Ac,E 14 or 14 PER:!IT t:0. SCoqnt.278 1.

I;ane and general composition of blocide of chemical.

2.

Frequency of use.

3.

Quantities used.

4.

Preposed effluent limitations.

5.

EPA registration number.

F.

Intake screen wash water may be discharged without limitations or nonitoring re-quirements.

I G.

Copies of Environmental Reports required by the Iuclear ilenulatory Connission which are pertinant to water quality in Lake b'ylie or the Catawba niver shall be submitted to the Regional Administrator and the State.

i II.

Yard drains nay be discharged without limitations or mcnitoring requirenents, i

l I.

Lm volume wastes (wastewater fron all sources except those for which specific limitations are otherwise required in this pernit, including, but not linited to waste waters from wet scrubber air pollution control systems, ion exchanne water treatment systems, water treatment evaporator blewdown, laboratory and sannlinn streans, floor drainane, cooling tower basin cicaning waste:, and blowdown f ron recirculating house service water systens) shall be discharred to the wastowater treatment svstem.

Per.ittee shall continue established procedures designed te mininize oil and grease discharges, l'

(

O

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 240.1 The description of low flow periods on the Catawba River at Lake Wylie does not give an adequate picture of the effects of drou0 ts on plant h

operation.

Provide analysis of droughts, including at least the drought of record, showing the effects on water levols in Lake Wylie in relation to minimum required levels at the intake structures.

The analyses should include both the frequency and duration of shutdowns of the plant due to inadequate water supply or low water levels.

(Refer also to Section 3.3.2)

Response

Section 2.4.1.1 240.2 Provide your estimate of the frequency of the assumed drought for the SNSWP.

Also, Section 2.4.1.1 seems to indicate that an intake from Lake Wylie to the SNSWP is provided, but Section 2.4.3 does not discuss this.

Please clarify and if makdup can be provided, provide this range of water levels at which the intake can operate.

Response

Section 2.4.3 240.3-a Provide descriptions of the floodplains (as defined in Executive Order 11988) of all water bodies, including intermittent water courses; within or adjacent to the site.

On a suitable scale map, o

provide delineations of those areas that will be flooded during the one percent chance flood in the absence of plant effects (i.e.,

pre-construction floodplain).

Response

Section 2.4.1.1 240.3-b Provide details of the methods used to determine the floodplains in response to a. above.

Include your assumptions of and bases for the pertinent parameters used in the computations of the one percent flood flow and water elevation.

If studies approved by Flood Insurance Administration (FIA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or the Corps of Engineers are available for the site or adjoining area, the details of analysis need not be supplied.

You can instead provide the reports from which you obtained the floodplain information.

Response

Section 2.4.1.1 240.3-c Identify, locate on a map, and describe all structures, construction activities, and topographic alterations in the floodplains.

Indicate the status of each such structure, construction activity and topo-graphic alteration (in terms of start and completion dates) and work presently completed.

Response

Section 2.4.1.1 240.3-d Discuss the hydrologic. effects of all items identified in c. above.

i Discuss the potential for altered flood flows and levels, both j

upstream and do'.cnstream.

Include the potential effects of debris

RAI-1

[

l 4

accumulating on the plant structures.

Additionally, discuss the effects of debris generated from the site on downstream facilities.

Response

Section 2.4.1.1 240.3 e Provide the details of your analysis used in response to d. above.

The level of detail is similar to that identified in item b. above.

Response

Section 2.4.1.1 240.3-f Identify non-floodplain, alternatives for each of the items (structures, construction activities and topographic alternations) identified in c. above.

Alternately, justify why a specific item must be in the floodplain.

Response

Section 2.4.1.1 24i.3 g For each item in f. above that cannot be justified as having to be in the floodplain either show that all non-floodplain alternatives are not practicable or commit to relocating the structures, construc-I tion activity or topographic alternation out of the floodplain.

Response

Section 2.4.1.1 1

240.4 Calculate the radiological consequences of a liquid pathway release from a postulated core melt accident.

The analysis should assume, unless otherwise justified, that there has been a penetration of the reactor basemat by the molten core mass, and that a substantial portion of radioactively contaminated sump water was released to the ground.

Doses should be compared to those calculated for the Liquid Pathway Generic Study (NUREG-0440, 1978) small riversite.

Provide a summary of your analysis procedures and the values of parameters used (such as permeabilities, gradients, population affected, water use).

It is suggested that meetings with the Staff of our Hydrologics Engineering Section be arranged so that we may share with you the body of information necessary to perform this analysis.

f

Response

To be submitted in subsequent revisions.

240.5 The average annual flow of the Catawba River at the USGS gaging l

station 1460 near Rock Hill, South Carolina is given in Paragraph 3, page 2.4-1.

Please provide the average monthly, maximum monthly and minimum monthly flows recorded at the Rock Hill gaging station.

j

Response

Section 2.4.1.1 l

l 240.6 Please update Table 2.4.1-3, Lake Wylie Minimum Surface Water l

Elevations, to include period from 1973 to present.

Response

Table 2.4.1-2 l

9 l

Rev. 4

RAI-2

l

~

Provide a table similar to Table 2.4.1-3 giving the annual maximum recorded Lake Wylie water surface elevations.

Response

Table 2.4.1-3 240.7 Please provide a table showing the minimum and maximum average monthly Lake Wylie water surface elevations during the period of record.

Response

Table 2.4.1-4 240.8 Please develop a water budget for Lake Wylie using average and minimum inflows, required discharges from Wylie Dam, natural and forced evaporation, and present and projected consumptive water use.

Response

Section 2.4.1.1 290.1 Provide a short narrative describing the present status of the application of renewal for the NPDES permit filed with the S. C.

Department of Health and Environmental Control on June 11, 1979.

Response

Table 12.3.0-1 290.2 Make available for examination during the site visit one copy of aerial photographs used to determine forest and land use types along the Catawba transmission corridors.

Response

Photos were made available at time of site visit.

290.3 The intake structure has been significantly redesigned'since issuance of the CP-EIS.

Provide the intake bay cross sectional area under both full pond and maximum drawdown conditions, the size mesh.

of the traveling screens, a description of traveling screen operation and the purpose and functioning of the pullout screen bay.

Discuss impact of new design relative to impact of CP stage design.

Response

Section 3.4.3 290.4 The discharge structure has been significantly redesigned since issuance of the CP-EIS.

Provide a description of and purpose of the proposed design change.

Response

Section 3.4.4 290.5 In addition to other requested information, provide a summary and brief discussion in table form, by section, of differencey between currently projected environmental effects (including those that would.

degrade, and those that would enhance environmental conditions) and' the effects discussed in the environmental report submitted at the construction' permit stage.

Response

Table I-1

v Rev. 4

.RAI-3

.--,.-.e

)

i 1

290.6 Provide an estimate of the maximum probable yearly recreational t

l harvest of finfish, shellfish and molluscs harvested from waters l

downstream of the station to the Atlantic Ocean that potentially could be contaminated by radionuclides due to a maximum probable accident.

The harvest estimates should be summarized by species and location of capture (water body segment) and provide an explanation of how the estimate was obtained.

Response

Section 2.2.2, Tables 2.2.2-12 through 2.2.2-14, Figures 2.2.2-2 and 2.2.2-3 290.7 Using data from the last 5 years from the National Marine Fisheries Service provide an estimate of the maximum probable of yearly commer-cial harvest of finfish, shellfish, and molluscs harvested from waters downstream of the station that potentially could be contami-nated by radionuclides due to a maximum probable accident.

The harvest estimates should be summarized by species and location of capture (water body segment).

Provide a generalized explanation of how the estimate was made.

Response

Section 2.2.2, Tables 2.2.2-15 througn 2.2.2-17, Figures 2.2.2-2 and 2.2.2-3 290.8 Provide a copy of the following references from Section 2.2; 2, 7, 21, 59.

Response

Copies were made available at site visit.

290.9 (ER-OL Sec. 3.6.2) Discuss the plant operational practices or plant design features that will result in planned 0.1 mg/ liter maximum total residual chlorine concentration in p hnt blowdown discharge.

Response

Section 3.6.2 290.10 (ER-OL Sec. 3.6.2)

Estimate the time duration that residual chlorine will be present in the plant discharge (for other than sanitary waste discharge) after each application to the cooling towers.

Response: Section 3.6.2 290.11 (ER-OL Sec. 3.6.2) Provide additional information nn the type, amount, and frequency of use of the organic biocide control of chlorine resistant organisms.

Identify changes in planned usage from that evaluated at the CP Stage.

Response

Section 3.6.2 290.12 (ER-OL Sec. 3.7.1)

Indicate on a diagram of the site the location of the outfalls from the temporary and permanent sewage treatment systems into Lake Wylie.

Response

Figure 2.1.1-5 Section 3.7.2 O

Rev. 4

RAI-4

C

1 290.13

-(Table 3.3-1) The average flows cited for station water use do not j

add up to the total withdrawal cited for the intake from Lake Wylie.

Also, a source of the average flow values in the table (e.g., LPSW intake, sanitary and potable water) do not coincide with those shown in Figure 3.3.1-1.

Please clarify these discrepancies.

Response

Table 3.3.1-1 4

290.14 (Table 3.6.1-1) Indicate the source of the limits cited in the table.

Response

Table 3.6.1-1 I

290.15' (Table 3.6.1-2) The average chemical concentration values cited in the table-are based on 7 cycles of concentration.

It is stated in the text that the plant will operate at 10 cycles of concentrations but that optimum value is 8.

Indicate the basis for the determina-tion that 8 cycles is the optimum value.

Resolve the discrepancy between the table and text values, based on your projected actual operating mode and revise table 3.6.1-2 to reflect the anticipated cycles of concentration.

Response

Section 3.6.2 290.16 (ER-OL Sec. 5.1) Indicate whether and where vegetative screening will be used on-site for alteration of plant generated noise.

O

Response

Section 5.1.4 i

L/

290.17 (ER-0L Sec. 5.1)

Identify and provide a discussion of the operational phase noise levels and expected impacts on nearby noise sensitive lands and sampling. locations, identified in Sec. 2.7.

Response

Section 5.1.4 290.18 Provide the bases for the statement in Section 5.1.4 of the ER that

"...offsite noise will not be a problem."

Indicate the specific receptor areas considered, and the consideration given in the analysis to ambient and plant noise levels (indicate the levels for 3

these noises that were used in the analysis).

Response

Section 5.1.4 s

290.19 Indicate the current status of the NPDES permit for the Catawba Nuclear Station.

Indicate those limitations which are being adjudicated and the applicable limits presently in effect and the alternate limits which are being requested.-

Response

Section 12.1.3

-290.20 Provide a copy of the chlorit>

i

' tion analysis which has been performed for the Catawba Nuci or u.

.;n by Duke Power Company.

V) -

Response

Was provided to USNRC September 23, 1981.

Rev. A

RAI-5

290.21 Lake Wylie water quality data is provided in Tables 2.4.1-2 and 2.4.1-4.

Indicate whether these data represent conditions over a l

time at particular lake location or conditions at several lake locations.

Also indicate whether the data are surface measurements only, or are depth composites.

Response

Section 2.4.1.2 290.22 Indicate the thicknesses and permeabilities of the linings of the Conventional Waste Water Treatment System (CWWS) ponds.

Response

Section 3.6.1 290.23 Discuss the classification of the various wastes from the station l

I (e.g., sanitary wastes, waste water discharged to the CWWS) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Indicate the testing, disposal and monitoring provisions currently planned or to be required to assure compliance with RCRA.

Response

3.6.3 290.24 Indicate whether the operational phase sewage treatment system will be the same as the presently installed system or will be of another i

design.

If the system will be of another design, describe its design and operation.

Response

Section 3.7.2 291.1 Describe your method of grounding fences and other metal objects in the along the station's rights-of-way.

Response

Section 5.5 291.2 Discuss the anticipated effect of the cooling tower plume on the formation of fog and ice in the vicinity of the station.

Response

Section 5.1.4 291.3 On page 2.2.1-1, Table 2.2.1-1 is missing.

Provide the missing table.

l

Response

Table 2.2.1-1, Section 4.1.1 1

291.4 ER-5.3-2 gives drift in mg/1.

Convert to kg/ha/yr and indicate location of hignest drift depostion.

Response

Section 5.3.4 310.1 Are there any substantial changes in the station external appearance or layout which have been nade subsequent to the description in the O L-E R?

If so, please describe.

Response

Section 3.1 9

Rev. 4

RAI-6

310.2 Are there any new roads, transmission corridors or rail lines or

,)

relocations of roads, transmission corridors, or rail lines near the plant which have been proposed subsequent to the description in the OL-ER?

If so, please describe.

Response

Section 3.9.1 310.3 Section 2.1 of the FES-CP identifies new housing developments around the site included Tega Cay and River Hills Plantation.

Both develop-ments are estimated to have about 2,500 people living in each when completed.

Have these developments been completed and have their populations been included in the 1980 and later population forecasts of the ER-OL (Table 2.1.2-3 through 2.1.2-8)?

Response

Section 2.1.2.1 Are there any additional housing development planned or in existence within ten niiles of the site which have not been included in the FES-CP or ER-OL?

Response

Section 2.1.2.1 If so, have the estimated populations of these developments been included in the population forecast in the ER-OL?

Response

Section 2.1.2.1 7-ss 310.4 Section 2.1.3 of the ER-OL included a discussion of the Concord Cemetary which is located within the exclusion boundary of the site.

Are friends and relatives of those buried there able to visit the graves? Are funerals still held at the cemetary?

If so, please identify the arrangements necessary for visitors to gain access to the cemetary.

Response

Section 2.1.3 310.5 Transient populations are discussed in Section 2.1.2-3.

That discussion mentions the annual and average daily attendance figures for Carowinds Theme Park.

The data indicates that the park is not open year round.

Please identify the usual operating dates for the park.

Response

Section 2.1.2.3 310.6 The first paragraph of page 2.1-4 describes the " existing land use within 5 mi of the site" as " predominately rural nonfarm with residen-tial and recreational development bordering Lake Wylie." Please present the extent of the land use categories within 5 mi of the site by percentage of the area.

Response

Section 2.1.3 l

8,

'Rev. 4

RAI-7

310.7 It is astimatad that the purchase of local and regional products and services averaged $2,000,000 a year during construction (8.1.2.2.3).

Please provide information on local purchases of goods and services expected to be made by the plant during a typical year of operation.

(For these purposes, local may be defined as either the host county or the host county and one or more contigerous counties.) To the extent possible, identify specific types of dollar amot.nts of these purchases.

If it appears that there will be no signifidcant local ourchases, explain why.

Resi :se:

Section 8.1.2.2.3 310.8 Section 8.1.2.2 estimates that 846 full-time employees will be required to operate the station.

The same section reports that 17%

of the construction workers moved into York County, 23% were local laborers and 55% commute from beyond York County.

Are the operating workers expected to have the same commuting patterns?

If so, please give a more detailed estimate of domiciles for those residing outside of York Cour,ty.

If not, please provide new estimates for the op v at-ing workers.

Response

Section 8.1.2.2.2 During operation, are my contractual workers expected to be employed at the site along with the other employees?

If so, please provide their number and average annual operating payroll.

Response

Section 8.1.2.2.2 310.9 The sections covering tax revenues (8.1.2.2.1 and 11.2.2.1) speak of

" payments made in lieu of taxes" Please define these payments and their calculations.

Response

Section 0.1.2.2.1 320.1 Please provide production cost analysis which show system operating cost associated with both the availability and unavailability of the proposed nucleer facility costi resulting from this type of analysis generally represent the variaide or incremental expenditures (fuel, operation, and maintenance) necessary to supply system load.

If, in your analysis, other factors influence the cost of energy production, explain in detail.

a.

The analyses should assume electrical energy grows at (1) the system'3 latest forecasted growth rate, and (2) zero growth from the latest annud energy load experience.

b.

The analysis should provide results on an annual basis covering the period from initial operation of the first unit through five full years of operation of the last unit.

1 O

RAI-8

h c.

For each year (and for each growth rate scenario), the following

, Q results should be clearly stated:

(1) system production costs

+

with the proposed nuclear addition available as scheduled; (2) system production costs without the proposed nuclear addition; (3) the average fuel cost and variable 0&M for the nuclear addition ar.d the sources of replacement energy (by fuel type) -

both expressed in mills per kwh; and (4) the proposition of replacment energy assumed to be provided by coal, oil, gas, etc.

d.

Where more than one utility shares ownership in the proposed nuclear addition, the analysis should include results for the aggregate of all participants.

e.

All underlying assumptions should be explicitly identified and explained.

Response

Section 1.3 451.1-a To expedite the meteorological review, provide hour-by-hour meteorological data from the onsite measurements program for the period 1975-1977 on magnetic tape using the enclosed guidance on 2

format and tape attributes.

Additional data collected since 1977 should also be included if available.

Response

Section 6.1.3 h

451.1-b One year of hour-by-hour meteorological data are necessary for N.~l evaluating the environmental consequences of Class-9 accidents.

From the period of record of hour-by-hour meteorological data provided on

~

magnetic tape, select a representative continuous one year period where data recovery for wind direction, wind speed, atmospheric stability indicator, and precipitation are high. (All missing data should be properly identified on the magnetic tape.) Substitutions are necessary for each of the four parameters missing for any hour during the selected one year period.

Substituted data sholiTd not be incorporated into the magnetic tape, but rather provided as a separate listing.

The listing of substituted data should identify the date, time and the value of the parameter to be substituted.

Also identify the source of the substituted data, and provide a brief description of the bases for selecting the substituted data.

In the selection of substitutions for long periods of missing data, the dirumal and i

synoptic cycles should be considered.

Response

Section 6.1.3 451.2 Explain the statement made on page 2.3-2 that " changes in the numerical values of X/Q and D/Q estimates result from the correction of a coefficient in the calculation of stable plume rise pertaining to the respective codes used for these purposes", what X/Q and D/Q values have changed? What computer cOes were previously incorrect?

Response

Section 2.3 D-i Rev. 4 RAl-9

-,.-,n

r i

451.3 Identify the sources and periods of record of the data presented in Table 2.3.0-1.

Update extreme values as appropriate to reflect meteorological events occurring since 1960.

Response

Section 2.3 451.4 Tables 2.3.0-2 and 2.3.0-3 are somewhat misleading.

Althoyh the tables are entitled "1975-1977" wind occurrences" for the 40 m and 10 m levels, respectively, implying 3 years of data, examination of the tables indicates the data are for just 2 years.

Identify the period of record for Tables 2.3.0-2 and 2.3.0-3.

Response

Tables 2.3.0-2 and 2.3.0-3, Section 2.3 451.5 Table 2.3.0-3 indicates that wind speed less than 5.5 mph occur about 58% of the time at the 10 m level; however, only about 0.7%

apparently can be classified as " calm" Define the threshold for calm windc and indicate the reasonableness of such a small fraction of calm conditions.

Response

Section 2.3 451.6 The first part of Table 2.3.0-6 identifies annual average X/Q values at various intake vents around the site.

Provide the distance and direction from the release points to each intake for distances less than 100 m, describe how appropriate 0 values were determined.

7 Response.

Section 2.3 451.7 The second part of Table 2.3.0-6 identifies a single population X/Q value to 50 miles from int plant.

Explain the significance of such a single value of X/Q to represent are directions out to a distance of 50 miles.

Provide arrays of annual averc.ge X/Q and D/Q values by distance and direction out to 50 miles from the plant for use in determining population exposure from routine releases of radioactive material to the atmosphere.

Response

Section 2.3 451.8 The analyses of atmospheric effects of the mechanical draft cooling towers at Catawba are apparently based solely on empirical data from "a mechanical draf t cooling tower at the Duke Cliffside Plant" (p. 5.1-4) a.

Discuss the validity of extrapolating from observations of the operation of one tower to six considering differences in number of tower units, tower shape, orientation, topography, meteorology, heat load, and evaporation.

Response

Section 5.1.4 b.

Figures 5.1.4-1 and 5.1.4-2 depict frequencies of visible plumes estimated in the vicinity of the Catawba site for summe" and winter.

Annual mean values at meteorological parameters considered Rev. 4 RAI-1C

p representative of the Cliffside and Catawba facilities are Q

presented on pages 5.1-5 and 5.1-6.

Discuss seasonal variation in meteorological conditions at the Cliffside and Catawba facilities, and indicate how seasonal differences were consid-ered in developing Figures 5.1.4-1 and 5.1.4-2.

Response

Section 5.1.4 451.9 An inconsistency appears to exist between the preoperational meteorological measurement program described in Section 6.1.3 and the preoperational program described in_Section 6.1.3 and the preopera-tional program described in Section 6.2.4 "which will centinue during the operational program" (page 6.2-2) with respect to monitoring of visibility.

Describe the preoperational program designed to provide

" baseline" measurements of meteorological conditions affected by operation of the mechanical draft cooling towers, and describe the operational program to assess the affects of the cooling towers.

Identify the type (s) and locations of visibility monitoring equip-ment, data reduction procedures, and calibration and maintenance-schedules.

Response

Section 6.2.4 451.10 Describe the status of the onsite meteorological measurements program since December, 1977.

O

Response

Section 6.1.3 L

451.11 Assuming that meteorological measrements are made on or near the microwave tower identified in Figure 6.1.3-1, the measurements are made at a distance of about 700 feet from the Western edge of Unit 1 Turbine Building, about 1100 feet from the Solthwestern edge of the Unit 1 Reactor Building, and about 1400 feet West of the' Mechanical draft cooling tower complex.

Provide the heights of these structures and discuss possible building influence on meteorological measure-ments.

Also,' discuss the possible effects of the condensate plume, humidity plume, and drift from the cooling towers on meteorological sensors and data recovery.

Response

Section 6.1.3.1 451.12 Provide the percent recovery for each of the following parameters for the period December 17, 1975 to December 16, 1977:. wind speed at the 40 and 10 m levels; wind direction at the 40 m and 10 m levels delta temperature (10 m and 40 m); dry bulb temperature and dew point temperature at 10 m; and precipitation.

Responsa:

Sections 2.3, 6.1.3 451.13 The discussion of the rationale for not adjusting the straightline Gaussian dispersion model to consider spatral and temporal variations in airflow (page 6.1-14) requires further elaboration: a) Explain how A) measurements made at an elevation 90 feet above Lake Wylie and 70 ty~

feet above plant grade on nearly the highest elevation near t;ie plan Rev. 4

RAI-11

l can be expected to identify nocturnal downslope airflow, b) The definition of stagnation (i.e., winds less than 1 mph) appears to be unnecessarily restrictive.

Stagnation conditions can be accompanied by wind speeds considerably higher than 1 mph.

Wind speeds less than 5.5 mph occur nearly 60% of the time at the 10 m level of the onsite meteorological measurement program.

Discuss the behavior of effluent plumes in the vicinity of the Catawba site during conditions with wind speeds less than 5.5 mph, and indicate if " recirculation" of the plume is possible during these conditions.

Response

Section 6.1.3 451.14 The starting threshold for the wind direction and wind speed sensors are 0.7 mph and 0.6 mph, respectively (page 6.1-8).

However, in the discussion of minimum wind speed to be used in dispersion calcula-tions, a value of 0.45 m/sec (1.0 mph) is selected.

Discuss this inconsistency.

Response

Section 6.1.3.2 451.15 Discuss the rationale for using meteorological data from the 40 m level (762' elevation) in the calculation of annual average atmos-pheric dispersion conditions when the height of the station vent is at an elevation of 719 feet.

Response

Section 6.1.3.2 451.16 The onsite meteorological meastres.ents program used to previ'ie data for the Construction Permit Review was apparently -

, different location than the present program.

Identify on Figure 6.1.3-1 the i

location (including base elevation) of the meteorological towers used to provide data for the CP review, and compare data from the period 7/71-6/72 with more recent data from the present measurements program.

Data from the earlier period showed strong secondary airflow from the northeast which is not discernable from data presented in the ER.

Discuss the rationale for siting the current neteorological measure-ments system in its present lacation, and discuss the representative-ness of t..e data collected at this location.

Response

Figure 6.1.3-1, Section 6.1.3 470.1 Although Table 5.2.4-1 of the ER compares tm estimated doses from the Catawba Station with the Appendix I dose design oi>jectives, it does not compare the estimated quantities of non-tritium liquid effluents and I-131 airborne releases with the curie limits contained in the Annex to 10CFR50 Appendix I.

If a cost benefit analysis is not going to be performed, then the estimated quantities of the preceeding effluents should be compared with the curie limits in the Annex to 10CFR50 Appendix I.

Response

Table 5.2.4-1 4

Rev. 4

RAI-12

470.2 Section 5.2.4.4.1 of the ER discusses population doses from f~).

s (O

ingestion of drinking water.

However, the population data used in s 5.2.4.4.1 is not consistent with the population data in ER Table 2.1.3-5.

Forexample, Table 2.1.3-5 lists 330,00gpersonsusingthe Catawba River as a drinking water site, whereas s 5.2.4.4.1 lists only 210,000 persons for all populations served by Lake Wylie and the Catawba River.

Resolve this apparent discrepancy and provide the population size ingesting water from the major sources of water.

Response

Table 2.1.3-5, Section 5.2.4.4.1 470.3 On p. 5.2-10 of the ER, it is stated that the GASPAR and LADTAP computer codes were used to estimate doses from exposur-s to radio-active effluents.

Provide-a listing of input parameters that were used in the GASPAR and LADTAP computer runs.

Response

Parameters were provided at site visit 470.4 ER Table 2.1.3-5 lists the locations of surface water users in terms of rivet distance miles.

Please provide the locht. ion of the plant dischar9e point in river distance miles.

Response

Table 2.1.3-5 470.5 ER liable 2.1.3-1 lists the location of the nearest milk cow, milk goat, garden, residence and site boundary.

Since these locaticas p) are based on a survey several years ago, confirm and/or update ER g,

Table 2.1.3-1.

In a similar fashion, provide the location of the nearest meat animals within 0-8 Km for the 16 sectors.

Response

Suhn.itted to NRC December, 1981, Table 2.1.3-1 4

O V

Rev. 4

RAI-13

.