ML20076J626
| ML20076J626 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 09/01/1983 |
| From: | Carrow H CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20076J582 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8309070272 | |
| Download: ML20076J626 (16) | |
Text
3 z
HE!ATED COHHESPONDENC3 DOCMETED
, ussac
- 13 SP -6 P1 :26 September 1,1983 H ~~->
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (c;;i@;: ;
n= c:ih'( Q3- 7' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . ..,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
' In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY ) 50-401 OL
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 & 2) )
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 83/84 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.749 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice, the Applicants hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for summary disposition of Eddleman Contention 83/84. Applicants rely upon the pleadings, discovery, attached affidavit of William T. Hogarth, and other documents filed in this proceeding as demonstrating that thefe is no. genuine issue of material fact to be heard
- with respect to Eddleman 83/84 and the contention should be disposed of as a matter of law.
IldRODUCTION Eddleman 83/84 as admitted in this proceedingI addresses three separate but
~
timilar concerns: 1) that chemical discharges from SHNPP will interact to form carcinogenic compounds, and the Environmental Report (ER) and Draft Environmental I For convenience a copy of the admitted contention is attached.
009070272 830901 PDR ADOCK 05000400 C PDR
.9 v l Statement -(DES) do 'not addriss this point;- 2) that organic carcinogens and other .
chemicals in Cape Fear river water may interact with SHNPP discharges to;become
- I carcinogens or more carcinogenie, and the ER and DES do not discuss this; and 3) that . l
' heavy metals in the Cape Fear- may become mobilized by . interaction with SHNPP discharges to more readily enter Cape Fear food chains, and neither CP&L nor the NRC has analyzed any such possible health effects.
In the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following' Prehearing Conference), dated September 22,_1982, at 62 (hereinafter 9/22/82 - Memorandum and - Order), the Board . characterized' Eddleman i
Contention 83/84 as alleging "that the environmental impact of chemical releases from Shearon Harris Plant has not been adequately assessed."
This motion will show that the undisputed facts on the issue demonstrate that .
SHNPP discharges will comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
- (NPDES) permit limitations established by the EPA and the State of North Carolina.
Because federal and state NPDES standards were established on the basis of substantial i research and analysis of environmental impacts of chemical and wastewater discharges
. and NPDES limitations were, in turn, set to str ngent i yl protect aquat ci resources an ad ll lifeforms associated therewith, there can be no rational basis for concluding- that compliance with those standards would result in any significant environmental impacts.
Applicants' ability, which the Applicants have shown and which the Staff has independently evaluated, to comply with NPDES limitations, demonstrates that there is no significant environmental impact which would tip the Staff cost-benefit analysis l .
against the Applicants. NRC jurisdiction is limited in this operating license proceeding i
to an assessment of the environmental impacts.of the SHNPP discharges and factoring those into its cost-benefit analysis. The NRC Staff has performed these tasks in the t
- - ~ . , , , _ . , _ . - . . . . - - - - , , - , , - - - , . , . . - , - - , - - - - . _ , . , - . - - - , , , , . _ . ,- , - - , _ . . .. - - . - - - --
l i
DES. Beyond that, the Staff h'as analyzed p,ossible " carcinogenic" compound formation resulting from SHNPP discharges and has found them to'be well within safety limits to protect fish,' animal, and human health. Thus, NEPA responsibilities have been fulfilled and the environmental analyscs are adequate. Accordingly, as a matter of . law, Applicants' motion for summary disposition should be granted.
I.
APPLICANTS' UNCONTESTED ABILITY TO COMPLY WITH NPDES PERMIT LIMITATIONS FOR SHNPP DISCHARGES DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NRC STAFF'S NEPA COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS Applicants have previously addressed chemical and wastewater discharges in the ER at section 5.3 and 5.4 and have shown them to come within limitations prescribed in the Harris NPDES permit issued by the State of North Carolina. ER at 3.3-4. The NRC .
Staff has done a similar independent analysis and has reached the same conclusion. DES at 5-3 to 5-8. The fact that discharges from SHNPP will meet the requirements of the NPDES permit are nowhere in dispute.
Under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (FWPCA) of 1972 (PL 92-500), the State of North Carolina in 1975 became one of the
, ~
some 30 states to be delegated authority by the EPA for writing and overseeing enforcement of NPDES permits. See Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated October 19, 1975. On September 14, 1977, the North' CaroiiIta Division of Environmental Management (DEM) issued to Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) a Certification Pursuant to Section i 401 of the FWPCA Amendments of 1972 (S 401 Certification) stating that "the discharges
- resulting from the construction and operation of the Harris Nuclear Power Plant will not violate Sections 301, 302, 306 and 307 of the 1972 Amendments, if conducted in accordance with the application, supporting documentation, and any conditions herein set 4
9
~
- forth.2 The only condition of certification .was that SHNPP wastewater discharges be conducted in:accordance with terms and conditions imposed in the state NPDES Permit.
See also Carolina Power & Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4) LBP-78-4, 7 N.R.C. 92,115 (1978); Applicants' Response to Supplement to Petition to Intervene by Wells Eddleman, dated June 15,1982 at 49.
Subsequently, on July 12, 1982, NPDES Permit No. NC0039586 was issued by DEM for the Shearon Harris Plant. See DES, Appendix G. The permit contains specific discharge limitations and monitoring requirements for coohng tower blowdown, sanitary waste treatment, metal cleaning wastes, and low volume waste. Id. Said permit requires compliance with NCGS S 143-215.1, N.C. Environmental Management Commission rules and regulations, and the FWPCA.
The Applicants have provided substantial uncontroverted documentation that all SHNPP chemical discharges will fall within EPA /DEM NPDES permit restrictions for the protection of aquatic resources and associated lifeforms. ER at Taole 3.6.2-2; Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1,2,3 and 4) LBP-78-4; 7 N.R.C. at 92,115 (1978); Applicants' Response to Supplement to Petition to Intervene by Wells E6dleman, dated June 15, 1982; Applicants' Answers to Wells Eddleman's General Interrogatories and Interrogatories on ' Contentions 22 A, 22B, 75, 80,83/84 and 132 (First Set) dated April 28, 1983.3 ER Section 5.3 discusses chemical discharges and Section 5.4 analyzes wastewater discharge effects. The attached affidavit of William T. Hogarth provides further detailed description _of Applicants' abilities to adhere to all NPDES 2
A copy of this certification is attached hereto as Attachment 2.
- 3 To Mr. Eddleman's Interrogatory 83-84(1)(d), which asks ". . . will CP&L admit that the SHNPP will discharge chemicals into its lakes . . . which . . . can by themselves or through reactions, become carcinogenic or be carcinogenic?", Applicants responded that "All discharges of chemicals from SHNPP will meet the applicable federal and state limits as to species, quantity, and concentration imposed by law or regulation."
t
discharge limitations. Also, th6 DES of the NRC Staff at SS 5.3.1.2.2 and 5.3.1.2.3 has done a thorough independent analysis of the environmental impacts of SHNPP discharges including an ' assessment of the Applicants' capabilities of meeting the NDPES discharge standaMs. The Staff concludes those discharge standards .will be met. This fact is nowhere disputed by Mr. Eddleman.
Those discharge standards have been established to protect aquatic resources, aquatic lifeforms and animal and human health.4 In setting the limitations in the SHNPP NPDES permit, EPA and the state have determined that the federally approved North Carolina water quality standards for the Buckhorn Creek Class C waters will not be contravened. Underlying the development of the North Carolina water quality standards are EPA's Quality Criteria for Water (as amended in 45 Fed. Reg. 79318 (November 1980)). See generally North Carolina Water Quality Standards, N.C. Administrative .
Code, Title 15, Ch. 2, Subch. 2B, SS .0100 et seq. If these standards are met,it follows that no ,significant adverse environmentalimpacts will result.
The facts show that Applicants' SHNPP discharges will meet NPDES limitations and that those limitations are established to protect aquatic and animallifeforms and human health. There is no genuine issue as to either of these facts. These facts taken together demonstrate that there can be no rational, basis for any other conclusion than that compliance by SHNPP discharges with NPDES restrictions would not cause any significant environmental impacts which would tip the balance of the NRC Staff cost-benefit analysis against the Applicants._
Assessing environmental impacts and factoring them into the cost-benefit analysis constitutes the limit of NRC jurisdiction over this aspect of an operating license 4
N.C. Gen. Stat. S 143-211 states in part:
StandaMs of water. . . purity shall be designed to protect human health, to prevent injury to plant and animal life,. . .and to secure. . .the beneficial uses of these. . . resources.
~
proceeding.
EPA substantiv'ly e regulates water pollution and has responsibility for
-establishing effluent limitations 'and water quality criteria.
The re'spective roles of the NRC' and EPA in nuclear power plant. operating proceedings was specifically set forth by the Atomic Safety and licensing Appeal Board in Tennessee Valley Authority (Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant,-Units 1 and 2) ALAB 515,8
~ N.R.C. 702 (1978) (" Yellow Creek"). The question in Yellow Creek was whether the NRC
~
Staff could impose an additional water quality monitoring requirement on the Applicant as a license condition. The Appeal Board denied the additional monitoring condition based on Section 511(cX2)5 of the FWPCA and on the Seabrook proceeding.6 The Appeal Board stated:
To be sure, in deciding whether to license specific projects, each agency must continue to weigh any resulting degradation of water quality in its NEPA cost-benefit balance. Section 511(cX2) does not change this obligation. Rather, its intendment is to limit those agencies' NEPA roles to that balancing, leaving the substantive regulation of water pollution in EPA's hands.
& at 713.
i 5
Specifically, section 511(eX2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 [33 U.S.C. 51371(cX2] contains the following language:
(2) Nothing in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852) shall be deemed to-(A) authorize any Federal agency authorized to license or permit the conduct of any activity which may result in the discharge of a pollutant into the navigable waters to review any effluent limitation or other requirement established pursuant to this chapter or the adequa_cy of any certification under section 1341 of this title; or ,
~
j (B) authorize any such agency to impose, as a condition precedent to the issuance of any license or permit, any effluent limitation other than any such limitation
~
established pursuant to this chapter.
6
__ Public Service.Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-422, 6 N.R.C. 33 (1977), aff'd, CLI-78-1, 7 N.R.C.1 (1978), aff'd sub nom. New England Coalition v. NRC, 582 F. 2d 87, 98-99 (1st Cir.1978). ("There is no dispute that NEPA requires the NRC to factor any anticipated marine pollution into its cost-benefit analysis of the Seabrook application. . . . The NRC. . . .can properly limit its concern to deciding whether permits should be issued given the aquatic impact as determined by EPA and other environmentalimpacts as determined by the NRC.")
The Licensing Board is in agreement with ' the Yellow Creek decision. In its Memoranduni and Order (Ruling on Wells Eddleman's Contentions on the Staff Draft Environmental Statement), dated August 18,1983 at 12 ("8/18/83 Memorandum and Order") the Board states that "The rationale underlying Section 511(cX2) is that the EPA has primary expertise in water pollution matters. Therefore, other federal agencies should neither duplicate EPA's analyses nor second-guess their judgements."
Thus, it is clear that EPA, not NRC, has sole authority to regulate the discharge by Appli, cants of any and all chemicals from SHNPP into the plant reservoir. The EPA has set effluent limitations after much scientific study at a point where the environment will not be harmed. The NRC must rely on the expertise of the EPA in this regard. The NRC cannot review those effluent limitations or Applicants' S 401 Certification (33 U.S.C. S 137(e)(2)(A)) and cannot go beyond EPA requirements and add discharge or monitoring conditions of its own. 33 U.S.C. S 1371(eX2XB). The NRC must limit itself to assessing environmental impacts and ' costs and factoring them into the cost-benefit analysis required by NEPA. The Staff's DES meets this requirement.
To the extent that Eddleman 83/84 would require the NRC to assess impacts which the EPA has already evaluated, such action is beyond NRC jurisdiction. For example, though Mr. Eddleman does not dispute Applicants' abilities to meet SHNPP NPDES discharge limitations, he does contest the entire regulatory scheme concerning chemical discharges. He calls into question the actual permit limitations - not only as they apply to Applicants but as they_ apply to U industries and other permittees. This generic nature of his concerns is evidenced by his answers contained in Wells Eddleman's Response to Applicants Fourth Set of Interrogatories, re Eddleman 75 and 83/84, dated August 4,1983. When-asked in Applicants' Interrogatory 83/84(4th)-12(a) what discharges of chemicals from SHNPP did Mr. Eddleman recommend as safe, the response was "None." As a basis for this answer Mr. Eddleman stated that "one molecule's too much."
In several other instances, in referring to substances which Mr. Eddleman alleges are 7-
..-n--.... - . . , . - , . _ , - - . , - - , . - - , - - . - - . - - - - - , , -
- - . , . . . - - , n - - ,,- -
carcinogenic and which will be discharged or formed by discharges, Mr. Eddleman claims that one molecule of any of them can cause cancer.
The attitudinal or philosophical basis of this entire line of responses is found in Mr.
Eddleman's response to Interrogatory 83/84(4th)-3(b) where Mr. Eddleman discourses concerning dioxins (which will. not be discharged by SHNPP) and says, ". . . the EPA
~
unacceptable risk' level-[for dioxinl is about 1000 molecules per milliliter. We [Mr.
Eddleman and his expert] think one molecule of a chlorinated dioxin is an excessive risk." It is clear that Mr. Eddleman is not contesting whether Applicants' discharges will meet federal and state chemical and wastewater discharge regulations, rather-he is contesting ' the very regulations themselves. However, an NRC operating license proceeding is not the proper forum in which to raises such issues. The subject should be heard by the EPA or by a court with the authority to overturn EPA regulations. .
The fact remains that ~ Applicants' demonstration, and ' NRC's independent concurrence therewith, that all chemical discharges from the Harris plant will be in compliance with their NPDES permit limitations remains unchallenged and because the limitations themselves were established at levels necessary to avoid significant adverse environmental impacts, it follows that there is no basis for contending that the Harris discharges could possibly have a material effect on the cost-benefit balance in this case.
II.
REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 (NEPA) WITH REGARD TO THE SHNPP COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS HAVE BEEN MET IN THE DR AFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT NEPA requires that Federal agencies. assess the economic and technical benefits of planned actions on a case-by-case basis, then balance those benefits against both the environmental costs entailed and the advantages of alternate courses of action.
42 U.S.C. S4332(C). See Calvert Cliffs' Coord. Comm. v. AEC, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir.1971); . Yellow Creek', supra, ALAB-515, 8 N.R.C. at 709; Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act 1 Amendments of 1972, H.R. Doc. No. 93-1, 93rd Cong.,1st Sess., 825-26 and 1394 (1973). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission obviously is obligated to conduct such a balancing with regard to construction and operation of nuclear power plants. Yellow Creek, supra.
However, as discussed above, with regard .to analyses of ag 'atic and related environmentalimpacts, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has had its ocligations under NEPA significantly reduced (Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-366, 5 N.R.C. 39, 49, aff'd, CLI-77-8, 5 N.R.C. 503, 508-09 (1977)) to the role of factoring anticipated water pollution into its cost-benefit analyses on proposed nuclear plants." Yellow Creek, ALAB-515, 8 N.R.C. at 706.
In Section 5.3 of its Draft Environmental Statement, the NRC Staff has set forth extensive evaluations and analyses of water quality impacts and specifically the chemical impacts of blowdown discharge (S 5.3.1.2.2) and sanitary wastes impacts (S 5.3.1.2.3).7 The required cost-benefit analysis has been performad and is set forth in Table 6.1. The environmental costs in terms of damage to aquatic resources are shown to be small, and no significant environmental costs are expected from operation of the plant. DES at 6-2 and 6-3. The Staff's independent study of SHNPP discharges concludes that all NPDES effluent limitations will be met. DES at 5-2 to 5-9.
Beyond that, the Staff DES also contains in-depth analysis of possible chlorinated organic compound formation by SHNPP discharges (DES at 5-6 to 5-8) which specifically addresses Mr. Eddleman's concern that plant discharges can and will interact to form what he terms carcinogenic compounds with resulting detrimental environmental effects. See Eddleman Contention 83/84. .The most likely chlororganics to be formed 7
Applicants provided the NRC Staff with extensive analysis of these points as required by Reg. Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, NUREG 0099, and for use in preparation of the DES.
See a.ttached affidavit of William T. Hogarth.
l
are trihalomethanes (THM) (D$S at S-6)'and the Staff focusses its analysis on those 1
.compound s. p After examining THM formation in North Carolina- waters (id_.) and at other operating nuclear plants (id. at 5-7), the Staff reviews EPA's THM standartis which "
'when not exceeded, reasonably protect human health and aquatic life.' " Id. The Staff concludes that:
The likely concentration of trihalomethanes in the Shearon Harris discharge and equilibrium concentration in the main reservoir cannot be predicted at this time. The results to date of the NRC research program on trihalomethane concentrations in the discharges of operating closed-cycle nuclear power plants indicate concentrations about an order of magnitude lower than the most restrictive of the [ EPA] criteria given above. The-studies of North Carolina drinking water systems could be interpreted to indicate that Shearon Harris discharge concentrations could be somewhat higher than those at power plants in other parts of the country. The staff
- believes that these levels will not be so much greater than those found to i
date that the EPA water quality criteria would be exceeded, even .
immediately beyond the plant discharge pipe.
Id. (emphasis added).
The Staff analysis has been pmsented in reviewable form with thorough documentation and explanation. The Staff has addressed in detail the issue raised by Eddleman Contention 83/84 and arguably moots that contention. Environmentalimpacts have been found to be small and have been factored into the cost benefit analysis.
Thus, statutory obligations under NEPA have been fully met. This fact is not at issue (see Wells Eddleman's Response to Staff DEIS, dated June 20, 1983) and should be accepted by the Board for purposes of Applicants summary disposition motion, i ._
~
CONCLUSION Accottlingly, since Applicants and Staff have performed adequate analyses of environmental impacts of chemical discharges,- and have met their NEPA requirements, and since there are no genuine issues of material facts in regards thereto, Applicants are, l therefore, entitled to a granting of summary disposition of Eddleman Contention 83/84 as a matter of law. Wherefore, Applicants request that their motion for summary
F disposition of Eddleman Contention 83/84 be' granted.
This the l# day of , 1983.
Hill Carrow
, Attorney Carolina Power & Light Company
' Post Office Box 1551
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-6839 Attorneys for Applicants:
Thomas A. Baxter John H. O'Neill, Jr.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 .
Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
.(919) 836-6517
= ,
-e 1-l e
! _11_
Q' EDDLEMAN 83,84 ,
A. CP&L's ER (and the DEIS and FES of NRC) take no account of the formation of carcinogenic chemicals resulting from CP&L's' discharges into the Harris cooling lake, which include chlorine, ammonia, hydrazine, etc. (See ER 5.3). These discharges can and willintcraet to form carcinogenic compounds including NCl3 , NHCl 2 and NH2Cl among others. These compounds will pose a risk to anyone swimming in the lake, and anyone eating fish from the lake (due to concentration of carcinogens in the lake food chain).
Any discharges of water from the lake into the Cape Fear River will put these water from the river (e.g. Lillingto'1, etc.) and into the river food chains and fish stocks in the river and off the NC coast where the Cape Fear empties into the sea.
B. Surveys by the Haw River Assembly and others have demonstrated that substantial amounts of organic chemicals including dyes and phenol-based chemicals that become more carcinogenic after reactions with chlorine (and with chlorine, ammonia and hydrazine) are discharged into waters feeding the Cape Fear. The data compiled by UNC-CH (see, e.g. letter of May 11,1982, Prof. Charles M. Weiss to Christina Meshaw of Corps of Engineers, Wilmington NC) do not adequately test for levels of most of these chemicals, nor does the State of NC (see printout of Haw River monitoring stations,5-26-82, data) test for most of them. Tmis, neither CP&L nor anyone else has established the actual levels of numerious organic carcinogens in Cape Fear water, nor considered the interaction of these carcinogens and other chemicals with the SHNPP discharges (e.g.
chlorine, hydrazine, ammonia and other chemicals listed in E.R. section 5.3) in forming carcinogens in drinking water, and in putting carcinogens into food chains which culminate in edible fish, mussels, seafood, (e.g. oysters, clams, shrimp) etc. taken by individuals or commercial fishing from the Cape Fear or the ocean where the Cape Fear empties (i.e. fisheries off Cape Fear, around the mouth of the river, and other places Cape Fear water, around the mouth of the river, and other places Cape Fear water
disperses to).' The health effects of these carcinogens, including those formed by interaction with SHNPP discharge and those made more hazardous by interaction with same, transferred to humans who swim, wash, drink Cape Fear water, or who' eat food and seafood wherein such carcinogens are concentrated biologically, has not been considered in the ER (and EIS and DEIS). Such consideration is necessary to protect the health and safety of the public.
C. - State of NC water monitoring has established heavy metals in the Haw which feeds the Cape Fear River. (5/26/82 printout includes arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel, zine; also Al, Cu, Fe). Interaction of SHNPP chlorine, hydrazine and other discharges with these metals could chemically mobilize them (as chlorides, hydrazides, etc.) so they will be more readily absorbed by living creatures in the food chain, and by humans drinking the water or eating the fish, seafood, etc. in said food chains in the Cape Fear and sea fisheries near its discharge (within 150 miles or wherer Cape Fear water is discernibly present, i.e. incompletely mixed). The health effects of such mobilized toxic metals in drinking water, washing water, bathing water and food on humans have not been properly analyzed or taken into account, by CP&L or NRC Staff.
O .
1 g *W em M 6 S I 9
9
9 4 . g a. e~
9
- Attachment 2 g
/ 3 Norm Caroina Jeoar~merr o~ Natura t- ( "j7. James Resources &Communi~y Jeveoomerr B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Howard N. Lee, Secretary p
,c September 14, 1977 41 Y(
Mr. M. A. McDuffie Senior Vice President Engineering and Construction Carolina Power & Light Company P. O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina
Subject:
Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal ' Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,
. Wake County
Dear Mr. McDuffie:
{
Attached hereto are two (2) copies of Certification No.1198 issued to Carolina Power and Light Company dated September 14, 1977.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
e Sincerely.
- M W. E. Knight
- ~
Director Attachment .
cc: Mr. Stan Taylor, NCF0
_ Wilmington .Dist. Corps of Engineers Mr. J. W. Reid ,.
I k.
P. O. Box 27637 Raleigh. North Carolina 27611 An Caual Opporru mty Attumstne Action I'mrinyct
.- ....=.....- . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . ..:.... . ... ... _ _. _. _ ___. _ .. ...
.a ..
(. WAXE COUNTY CERTIFICATION
~
THIS CEltTIFICATION is issued in confomity.with the requirements of Public Law 92-500 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina-Division of Environmental Management Regulations in 15NCAC2H, Section .0500 to Carolina Power and Light Company pursuant to the application l filed on the 22nd day of July,-1977 for.the discharge of fill material into Buckhorn .
. Creek and tributaries; constructica of the make-up water intake structure on the Cape Fear River and other miscellaneous construction activities requiring placement of culverts and fill; and the discharges of wastewaters
. resulting from the operation of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.-
The Carolina Power & Light Company application and the Environmental Report Amendment No. 69 provide adequate assurance that the increase of the cold side cooling tower blowdown rate from 10.1 MGD to 60 MGD will not violate applicable water quality standards outside of the 200-acre mixing zone determined applicable by Carolina Power & Light Companj or as may be
( delineated in the State-NPDES Discharge Permit upon issuance. Further, this Certification recognizes the necessity of maintaining the availability of the auxiliary reservoir free from ice formation as expressly stated in the May 2,1974 letter from the Director of the Division of Environmental Management to Carolina Power & Light Company. Thus, the State of North Carolina certifies that the dischTrges resulting from the construction and operation of the Harris Nuclear; Power Plant will not violate Sections 301, 302, 306 and 307 of the.1972 Amendments, FL 92-500 if conducted in accordance with the application, supporting documentation, and any conditions herein set forth. ._
Condition of Certification:
- 1. That the discharges of wastewater from the Shearon Harris Nuclear Pcwer Plant be conducted i.n accordance .with the terms and-conditions to be imposed in the State-NPDES .
I Pennit.
t
./
l w .
l
=c ,
1__. Violation of any of the conditions herein set forth shall result in revocationiof this Certification. -
This th*e 14th day of September,1977.
- DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
.Y
. x-v 7::. - W. E. Knight, Director WQC fl198 e e .
( .: .
. -e
..:~~ -
4 :-
..W 8 e
m # 4 sy 4
b mn 4 .
- 9
(
.