ML20080G037
| ML20080G037 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1984 |
| From: | Hogarth W CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080G006 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8402130246 | |
| Download: ML20080G037 (35) | |
Text
- _ - - _ _ _
n February 6,1934 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
' ' 'd bb NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,q -
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B % D g g Er In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN - ) ,
MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
) Docket Nos. 50-400 CL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, ) 50-401 OL Units 1 & 2) )
AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM T. HOGARTH IN SUPPORT OF
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 83/84B County of Wake )
)
State of North Carolina )
WILLIAM T. HOGARTH being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says as follows:
- 1. I am Manager - Environmental Technology Section Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) and give this affidavit in support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 83/84B. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth h tein and believe them to be true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. A summary of my professional qualifications and experience is attached as an exhibit to my affidavit included in Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 83/84, dated September 1,1983.
2.. In its Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motions for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contentions 29/30, 64(f), 75, 80 and 83/84), dated November 30, 1983
(" November 30 Order"), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board stated at page 27 that my' Affidavit included in Applicants' previously filed Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 83/84 did not address the issue of possible effects of "halogenated 8402130246 840207 PDR ADOCK 05000400 PDR 0
1
- . . . -. . .=. -
4 organic compounds that are carcinogenic as a result of the chlorination of cooling waters in the Harris Plant."
- 3. Since the time of the above referenced Memorandum and Order, on December i 21, 1983, the Board of Directors of Carolina Power & Light Company approved the cancellation of Unit 2 of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. The conceuation of
- Unit 2 means that the Cape Fear make-up structure also will not be completed since Cape Fear River water is not needed as make-up for one-unit operation of the Shenron Harris Plant. Therefore, no water whatsoever from the Cape Fear River will be entering the Harris reservoir. Thus, the only possible interaction of Harris plant discharges with 4
Cape Fear River water would be where Harris lake discharges, mixed with and diluted by Buckhorn Creek flow, enter the Cape Fear River downstream of Buckhorn Dam.
i
- 4. A study was begun prior to cancellation of Harris Unit 2 to determine the chemical makeup of discharges from CP&L's Cape Fear Plant upstream of the Harris Plant. This study will not conclude until after normal chlorination practices at the plant are studied through the peak summer season, probably in August 1984 (the plant does not chlorinate during the winter under normal operation). The results of this study will be j reported at that time but should have absolutely no bearing on this contention since 1)
Unit 2 has now been cancelled and no Cape Fear water will enter Harris reservoir, and
- 2) the analysis of Dr. James A. Fava and Mr. Hans Plugge, included in Applicants' Motion, and summarized below, concludes that discharges of possible carcinogenic compounds from SHNPP will be so extremely minimal that no measurable increase in health risk will be caused regardless of the chemical constituents of the Cape Fear River.
- 5. In light of the new development as to Harris Unit 2 and in preparation for the environmental hearing previously scheduled in this proceeding for January 1984, I
I Applicants had two further studies conducted of the health effects issue raised by part B i
l of Eddleman Contention 83/84. The purpose of this Affidavit is to demonstrate that 1
Applicants have now adequately addressed those human health effects,if any, associated with SHNPP discharges. The results of this assessment support the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman 83/84B.
- 6. The first study which Applicants had performed on this issue was one by Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS) where mathematical modeling was done to determine possible concentrations of chlorine by-products in the plant, in the reservoir, and at the Cape Fear River.
- 7. In that study, estimates of free availaDie and total residual chlorine concentrations that could be discharged into the Harris reservoir were made. Estimates of total residual chlorine concentrations were done using calculations which incorporated plant design specifications, planned chlorination practices, and lake hydrodynamics and chemistry. These results are presented in Exhibit "A."
- 8. The LMS study predicts that no free available chlorine, the form of chlwine most likely to react with chemical constituents in a water body, is expected to be discharged to the reservoir or the Cape Fear River.
- 9. Some concentrations of total residual chlorine are expected to be discharged.
Concentrations of total residual chlorine were conservatively estimated to be 4.0 ppb when using a 5 acre mixing zone in Harris reservoir (as referred to by the NRC Staff in the Final Environmental Statement),1.0 ppb in the 200-acre mixing zone allowed under the Harris Plant NPDES permit, and 0.006 ppb in the Cape Fear River at the confluence of Buckhorn Creek.
- 10. The second study which Applicants had performed was one in which Dr. James A. Fava, Vice President, and Mr. Hans Plugge, Senior Scientist of Ecological Analysts, Inc., utilized the mathematical models to determine concentrations of possible carcinogenic compounds in the Harris reservoir and Cape Fear River. Using the report of' Dr. Roger M. Bean, referred to by the Licensing Board in its November 30 Order, Dr.
Fava and Mr. Plugge determined which possibly carcinogenic compounds were most likely
to be discharged from the Harris plant. Relying on mathematical models of LMS and appropriate dilution factors, concentrations of these carcinogens in the Harris reservoir and at the Cape Fear River were calculated. Finally, the possible human health effects of these concentrations was thoroughly analyzed. The conclusion of Dr. Fava and Mr.
Plugge was that the concentrations would cause no measurable increase in adverse human health effects. The analysis of Dr. Fava and Mr. Plugge appears as an affidavit included in support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 83/84B.
- 11. Therefore, Applicants have now adequately addressed the health effects of chlorinated discharges from SHNPP under the regulations, guidelines, and recommendations of the EPA and NRC and as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
This is theIday of Ghrwg ,1984 WA=A U-William T. Hogtfrth Sworn to and subscribed before me this4#^~5!ay of.iPehruary,1984.
fii:57'"'**cn' .;: ja.,
i v.. gy7. *,; .5
),1 -
Nota,rgubli,c, L.s - ; u, l
My c$;.inm12siorrexhiksi Y-/ -M
- .];C;',i.. b
l -
I l
L
Exhibit A Lawler.
l .Matuskv e~c-- a= i.seeac a emo'a c'ao c--i= a==
F Skdlly '
)
Ennine'ers a .. - . m . _ . _ m s.. ,c,.,
(9141 735 8300 TWX:LMSE PERL 710477 2782 L- =.:c.:r.1
, :==_.
... . _=._. .
~^'~*". 26 January 1984' File No. 340-022 Or. William T. Hogarth
.' Manager of Environmental Technology Carolina Power & Light Company The Harris E&E Center Route 1, Box 327 New Hill, NC 27562 4
Dear Dr. Hogarth:
This letter summarizes the results of Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineer's
~
(LMS) studies on the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
Specifically, we evaluated the effect of chlorination on the cooling reservoir and its sub-sequent discharge to the Cape Fear River. The f ate of residual chlorine and
- chlorination by-products was investigated, as well as the general effects on the aquatic community.
- The important assumptions and results are presented in this letter. Attach-ment A describes in detail the model development, assumptions, input data, and results. Attachment B summarizes the aquatic effects of chlorination, and Attachment C contains the references.
. General Acoroach j Although several models are in existence to simulate the reaction of free j
chlorine with ammonia and other nitrogenous compounds, to date none include any of the chlorination by-products, such as trihalomethanes and halogenated
, phenols. Therefore, we decided to structure the modeling effort to account I for total chlorine, and then relate these results to the various by-products, 5 using knowledge of the partitioning of these compounds (Bean 1983a and b).
Three models were developed. The plant, the cooling lake, and the Cape Fear
] River were analyzed independently so that the results of one model could be a
used in another, or so that given any chlorine input (1b/ day) to a model, results could be obtained.
b e$ ..
J . . . .
l .' .
1 Dr. William T. Hogarth .
26 January 1984 Page......... 2 Carolina Power & Light Company
? The plant model is divided into three sections: the cooling tower basin, the i
~
circulating water piping, and the cooling tower itself. For a given chlorin-ation schedule, the model computes total chlorine concentrations at the three e
sections and the poundage that is released through .the blowdown. The model accounts for the immediate inorganic demand and other " losses" of chlorine 3 via first-order decay and evaporative removal by the cooling tower. The removal coefficient, which is the least definitive parameter, was determined by calibration to data observed at other plants. ,
j Each plant section is formulated as a completely mixed reactor - conservative j for the basin, and conservative in the extreme for the cooling tower and the.
J piping. The latter, particularly the piping, are much closer to plug flow The behavior, which will yield lower outlet residual chlorine values.
j immediate chlorine demand is simulated in the model and removes some of the j chlorination dose. The remaining total chlorine is then modeled using reaction rates based on combined residualFirst, chlorine (CRC).
studies This have is reasonhole shown that the for this analysis for several reasons.
reaction rates for free available chlorine (FAC) are much f aster than for CRC (LMS 1983). Second, few plants with cooling tower systems ever observe FAC in the blowdown (NRC 1983). Third, the immediate demand is assumed to remove
.i tained through the condenser and into the cooling tower, it will be consumed by the immediate demand in the basin. Fourth, we have not accounted for the
+ removal of cnlorine by the slime on the piping walls, i.e., removal due to biocidal action. Fif th, some of the chlorination by-products may be lost in the plant at a f aster rate than CRC - volatilization of chloroform, for example (Jolley et al.1981; Aaberg et al.1983). Sixth, for the observed chemistry - planned dosage and lake demand - much of the dose will be con-
- verted to chloramines by organic nitrogen. and ammonia present in the lake water.
The plant model is also conservative in that we maintain a constant and maximum design dose over the chlorination period. In reality, this would be adjusted (from discharge water box measurements) to minimize chlorine use.
The lake model takes the total chlorine output from the plant blowdown L
(ib/ day) and computes an average completely mixed concentration in a speci-fied volume. We have chosen the 200-acre mixing zone as conservatively J representative of the mixing volume. The choice of a completely mixed system
-is overly conservative; a plug . flow representation would result in concen-trations of effectively zero, because of the long retention time in the
~ . mixing zone. If the 72,000 acre-f t lake was used, the concentrations of chlorine would also be zero, even with the completely mixed assumption.
- Losses during travel time from plant to lake have been considered.
m 4.
Lawler, Matusky 5' SkcIly Engineers u
6,, , ,. , , , ,
] Dr. William T. Hogarth Carolina Power & Light Company 26 January 1984 Page......... 3 w
The river model takes the concentration output from the lake, includes losses
.' traveling down Buckhorn Creek, and mixes the flow with the Cape Fear River flow to obtain an incremental total chlorine concentration.
Sources of Data
, Plant physical and operating characte.-istics were taken from three sources:
the Shearon Harris Environmental Report -
Operating License Stage (CP&L 1982), conversations with CP&L engineering personnel, and the Harris Plant's Final Environmental Statement (NRC 1983). Chlorine information was taken from several sources, including a recent chlorination study (LMS 1983) and
, the four-volume set of Water Chlorination conferences (Jolley 1978; Jolley et al. 1978; Jolley et al. 1980; Jolley et al. 1983).
Some minor differences in reported flow values were noted in the ER, particu-larly in the makeup, blowdown, and evaporative flows. In the analysis, we used the flows presented in Table 3.3-1 under maximum power; makeup, blow-down, and evaporation were 50, 27, and 23 cfs, respectively. However, in
< several locations, the maximum blowdown rate is reported as 23.2 cfs (15 MGD). The higher value was used to be conservative.
. The chlorine dose of 3 mg/l is based on the measured lake chlorine demand.
This is greater than the maximum capability of the current chlorination system. At I hr per day for 309 days per year, the plant would use 112 tons of chlorine per year.
All calculations are done using one unit. The river and lake calculations assume that the plant releases chlorine to the lake every day, and do not account for downtime or reduced load.
Results A complete discussion is presented in Attachment A. Using all the conser-vative assumptions mentioned, the following results are obtained:
[ Total chlorine (TC) used by the plant 725 lb/ day
. (when chlorinated at a maximum rate greater than present design)
TC release to the lake 6.3 lb/ day Average TC concentration over a 5-acre 1 zone (as mentioned in the FES) 2.6 ppb Average TC concentration over a 200-acre l mixing zone (completely mixed model) 0.07 ppb Average TC concentration discharged to the Cape Fear 0.04 ppb or less
( Average incremental TC in the Cape Fear 0.0005 ppb or less Lawice, Matusky S' SkcIly Engineers
. Dr. William T. Hogarth 26 January 1984
' .,; Carolina Power & Light Company Page......... 4
'I The above levels are indicative of CRC. A conservative estimate for halo-forms, using the same decay rate, would be 0.2% of the above CRC concen-
. trations; for halogenated phenols, 0.08%. Bote that the above numbers for total chlorine are well below the drinking water standards for total tri-halomethanes (100 ug/1). Also, the lower limit of detection by ampercmetric titration is 1.8 ppb in freshwater (Jolley and Carpenter 1982).
If the plant model is ignored, i.e., haloforms as 0.2% of the foregoing no longer applies, and it is assumed that 0.1% of the total plant dose goes to haloforms (TTHM) and is released to the lake, the following results are
. obtained:
., TTHM released to the lane 0.7 lb/ day
.J Average TTHM concentration over a 5-acre mixing zone 0.3 ppb Average TTHM concentration over a 200-acre mixing zone 0.01 ppb 3
Average incremental TTHM in the Cape Fear 0.0001 ppb Biological Effects Attachment B presents our summary of the review of the literature. Tables
, B-1 and B-2 contain selected toxicity, uptake, and depuration data for aquatic organisms. Table B-3 indicates some of the potential human health a effects of chlorinated compounds.
~) The effects of chlorine and its by-products are discussed in Attachment B for
, specific aquatic species. To summarize the results, the levels of total l residual chlorine, free chlorine, chloramines, trihalomethanes, other halo-
- methanes, and chlorophenols found to cause acute and chronic toxicity to fish species are generally well above the levels of total chlorine predicted to
^
occur in the S-acre mixing zone (2.6 ppb at maximum chlorination and no
, initial demand on CRC'af ter discharge).
- - Closure The models, results, and biological effects are discussed in detail in the
, attachments. We have enjoyed working with you on this project. Please call if~you require more information.
,s A ,
i i)rer
'* 'Y r; n P. Law er Lawler.Matusky & GkcIly Engineers
^d a
ATTACHMENT A
- MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION OF MODELS 1
To determine the effect of the Harris plant chlorine use on the Cape Fear River, three mathematical models were developed. The first, and most complex, represents the plant itself. The second model takes the results of the first and computes chlorine levels in the lake. The third takes the results of the lake model and deter-mines chlorine levels in the Cape Fear River (caused by the Harris plant discharge).
Several conservative assumptions incorporated into the above models will be noted in the description of model development.
The models do not directly account for the various by-products of chlorination; rather, they are based -on total chlorine use. The f
~
resulting numbers (whether concentrations or pounds discharged per day) are broken down into various chlorine components by using known fractions (by-products / dose).
The total chlorine (TC) reactions are simulated using combined i
residual chlorine (CRC) parameters. This is conservative because other reactions that cause the disappearance of by-products (such as the volatilization of chloroforin) generally occur at the same rates as the decay of CRC (Jolley et al 1981; Aaberg et al 1983).
Thus, the TC results are deemed indicative of CRC and can adequately represent the other by-products.
All of the models begin with a general form of the conservation of mass equation:
{
Accumulation = Inflow - Outflow + Sources - Sinks (1)
A-1 Lawler. .\latinsky S' SkcIly Engineers
.' a
/
=
4 .
$. L, ,
,In (h'e case of chlorine, sources include the circulating water dose (in the , p) ant) and the j pl ant to the 1 ake. The service water 8
' system, 10% of;ttiejcirculating water flow, is not considered in
- h. this analysis. Sinks, of chlorine include the immediate demand, l first-order decay, and stripping in the cooling tower.
- The conservation of mass equation is rewritten:
- /
, "E Oin C in'~ E Oout Cout + (NC ~>ND ) - KVC - other sinks (2)
S
' 4 2 .
r .
where ->
f V = control volume about which the equation is written C = average concent?ation of chlorine in V '
9 '2 " Q in j ,= flow intoj'!, - .
p,, Cin = chtorine' f i Jncentration in Qin ,
j." Q,j = flow out if V -
/ j C out.
= chlorine concentration in Qout /'
,W -
C ",cMo;ine dose into V
- b. ~
WD = immediate chlorine demand on CD K = first'-order decay rate
/
. .. </. , -
Of course, th'e appropriate units must be maintained in the above equat (on. ; ..
t
- / M$delingChlori.ieinthePlant ;
) !? .
,e The Herri[s, plant is, divided into three zone:i: the circulating water
/ <
piping}(i.nc[ludini s condenser tubes), the cooling tower, and the cooling', tower basin. Total residual chlorine 'is modeled separately f -
e
]s in eackzond,,whil.e the de:tand is modeled considering the system as
- i' .a j a
awhole'( .
e
'.p s f ..
,,s
- b- Figure. ,~ A-1 shows a[ schematic The
. + repre.sentation of the pl ant .
foTlowing' equations arc.gritten: '
L i
, ,i
- , f ,
A-2
,~ ,' . i. - "[* /- Lawler,Matusky 7 Skelly Engineers
~
Me ., w 4
FIGURE A-1 SCHEMATIC OF HARRIS PLANT CHLORINATION MODEL A
F Vt Ct l,
I j Qc C -
)
.I Kt Vt Ct j
i
)
6 TOWER
- L 1
1 e s (ac - c.) Cs
]
i y 1
oc C.
< K. V. C.
I h A A om C, BASIN cs c.
< Or (Cd - 0)
' Gm Dm V Cb D J
~
A-3 9
i ...
q .
I I
, For the basin, assuming it is completely mixed:
dC 3
V 3 ag = Q, C, + ( QR-O)CT-08 e
C 3-K3 3 V C3-QR CS (3) where 3
V3 = volume of basin (ft )
C3 = average concentration of chlorine in basin (mg/1) ,
Q, = makeup flow (cfs)
C, = makeup chlorine concentration (mg/1)
QR = circulating water flow (cfs)
Q, = evaporative flow (cfs)
CT = cooling tower chlorine concentration (mg/1)
QB = bicwdown flow (cfs)
K 3 = decay coefficient in basin (sec-1)
For the piping:
dC V
R dt "O R C3+ Q R (CD -0) - ORC R-KR YR CR (4) where VR = v lume of piping (ft 3) p ,
CR = average concentration of chlorine in piping (mg/1) j CD = chlorination dose (mg/1)
D = immediata chlorine demand (mg/1)
K R = decay coefficient in piping (sec-1)
P l
)
g For the cooling tower:
dC V
T dt "O R C R- fYTCT - (OR-O)CT-KT e
YT CT (5) b l
A-4 I.awler..Niatinsky 't Gkelly Engineers t .
~
I. .
{
c where 3
VT = volume (effective) of cooling tower (ft )
.CT = c.hlorine concentration in tower (mg/1) f = rate {o account for chlorine loss in cooling tower (sec~ )
K T = decay coefficient in tower (sec-1)
I For chlorine demand in the system:
V h = Q, D, - Q RD - Qg D during chlorination, and (6a)
Vh=Q,D,-QD B after chlorination. (6b) 1 j where i V = total volume of system (f t3)
. D = chlorine demand of system (mg/1)
, D, = chlorine demand in makeup water (mg/1)
. Several points should be addressed about the above equations. All
, assume complete mixing in each section. This is a valid assumption in the basin and is overly conservative in the piping and cooling
] tower, where plug flow would result in much lower computed concen-trations. The term QR (CD - D) in Equation 4 is used only during I the active chlorination procedure; it represents the dose less any J
immediate demand. This phenomenon appears as -Qg D in the demand
.] equation; again, it is used only during chlorination. The model 3
makes appropriate adjustments if the dose, C, D is less than the demand, D. The effective volume, V T
, in the cooling tower is not i the total volume; it is computed by multiplying the flow through the
. tower (QR ) by the residence time in the tower.
i A-5
, Lawler,.Niatusky 3' OkcIly Engineers
o ..
)~t The f actor f is used to account for the loss of chlorine as the i
circulating water flow passes through the cooling tower. This has been described as flashing. The exact mechanism is not known, although it may be vaporization, reaction with cooling tower pack-ing, or some process associated with evaporation. Various authors
' (Draley 1973; Nelson 1973) have estimated this value to range from 0.3 to 0.5. However, these studies have used the formula fQ CRT
-to account for the loss, meaning it is dependent upon the circulat-ing water rate. This may not be valid as it implies that, as the water flow increases, the loss through the cooling tower increases.
It would seem that this loss should be more dependent upon the
]
characteristics of the cooling tower (airflow, packing, etc.).
Thus, we have used the formula fVT C T and lef t the value of f subject to calibration. The data used for calibration were those
' collected by Zielke and Moss (1980), which showed the TRC concen-tration leaving the cooling tower to be 50% of the concentration
< entering the cooling tower (also shown by Draley 1973). The Zielke and Moss study was a calibration of a chlorine model to actual data taken at a plant similar to Harris. When CT/Cp = 0.5 during the chlorination period, f is deemed calibrated.
A computer program was written to calculate the solutions of Equa-tions 3-6. The demand equation is solved analytically, with the resulting value used in Equation 4. The remaining chlorine equa-tions are a set of three simultaneous linear differential equations 1
that are solved using a centered finite difference technique. Test I cases were run to ensure analytical accuracy and numerical stabil-
, ity, i
L The following gives timates of some of the model parameters and 1
- their sources
Qg = 1075 cfs Om = 50 cfs Environmental Report (CP&L 1982, Qg = 27 cfs p. 3.3-3), based on maximum power.
Q = 23 cfs -
e , A-6 Lawler,Matusky ? Gkelly Engineers
F
?
[' 3 V3 = 792,000 ft Based on telephone conversation 3 with Rogar Stewart, Project Engineer, VR = 287,110 f t CP&L 3
, V T= 10,750 ft Based on 10-sec travel time through cooling tower Initial chlorine levels in the plant and the makeup water were assumed to be zero. (To see any chlorine in the makeup water, the plant would have to release several tons / day in the blowdown.)
Makeup water demand was 1.3 or 2.0 mg/l, from the following CP&L
- ,- measurements taken for this study (all in mg/1)
i a
p DOSE FAC CRC TRC OEMAND 3.0 0.4 1.3 1.7 1.3 5.0 1.3 1.7 3.0 2.0 l'
l Initial demand in the plant water was estimated at 1.85 times makeup demand (the ratio of makeup to blowdown flow).
The dose, Cg , was taken to be 3 mg/l for 30 min, based on the aforementioned demand measurements and a requirement of some FAC to
, knock out the slime in the system. This is 725 lb of chlorine
. use for 1 hr of chlorination per day. The current chlorination system is designed for a feed rate of 10,000 lb/ day, or 417 lb for 1 hr. This would result in a circulating watcr dose of 1.7 mg/1, which may not be enough to remove the immediate and nitrogenous demands in the system. To be conserv:tive, this study used the higher rate of 725 lb throughout. In the case of real-world plant operations, the existing chlorination system may be sufficient. If the total demand in the plant at the start of chlorination is 164 lb (1.85 times 1.3 mg/l times the total volume), and 208 lb of chlorine is injected over 30 m'in, there may be some FAC available for biocidal action.
A-7 -
Lawler,.NIatusk * ? Okcily Engineers a ~ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4 s
(
, .The decay rate was estimated using a formula by Kim and Lin (1982) that accounts for pH and temperature effects. Using a pH of 7 and a temperature of 30*C, a rate of 4.0/ day was ccmputed. This is at the low end of the ranges for both FAC and CRC (LMS 1983). The same decay rate was used in all sections of the plant.
The model was run at both demand levels' with a constant, maximum dose of 3 mg/l and varying f from 0.1 to 0.5. The following results were obtained:
l CHLORINE CONCENTRATION (mo/1) AT THE END OF CHLORINATION DEMAND = 1.3 DEMAND = 2.0 f C T C, CTICP C T C, CTICo 0.1 1.63 3.24 0.50 1.33 2.64 0.50 0.3 0.70 2.78 0.25 0.59 2.34 0.25 0.5 0.44 2.64 0.17 0.38 '2.26 0.17 Based on the above results, the model runs using an f of 0.1 were chosen for analysis. In addition to the reasons presented earlier, these runs are conservative because the dose is maintained at 3.0 mg/1. In practice, monitoring equipment is employed so that the residual (FAC) through the condenser is 0.5 mg/1. After the first few minutes of dosing at 3.0, the dose can usually be reduced and still maintain the same residual. Even though the plant specifica-tions ask for FAC residual, studies have shown that CRC can also be i an effective biocide, which would enable the dosage to be decreased l further.
Using the background demands of 1.3 and 2.0 mg/l and f = 0.1 results in a total chlorine discharge in the blowdown of 4.7 and 3.3 lb, i respectively, over a 2-hr period (with 75% being discharged in i
A-8 Lawler .\tatusky 5' Gkelly Engineers
)- t the first hour af ter initiation of chlorination). These mass loadings correspond to average 2-hr TC levels in the blowdown stream at the sump of 0.4 and 0.3 mg/1, respectively. This is all presumed to be CRC for several reasons. The FAC, when in the
~
circulating system, will be consumed by the slime on the walls and the remaining immediate demand in the cooling tower basin (ignored i in this model). Several studies have validated the lack of FAC in d'
cooling tower blowdown, as noted also by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) s for this plant (NRC 1983).
Because chlorination occurs twice per day, the above numbers (pounds) should be doubled. The higher value, 9.4 lb/ day, will be used for subsequent calculations.
j The plant discharge to the lake occurs through a 48-in diameter pipe about 3.5 miles long. Since the discharge port is the point where NPDES permit limitations are applied, the decay during the travel o through the pipe should be accounted for. With the discharge of 27 cfs, the travel time is 2.4 hrs. Then, using the same 4 per day decay rate, the discharge to the lake is reduced to G7% of the levels at the plant. This results in a release to the lake of 6.3 lb/ day of CRC, or an average 2-hr CRC level of 0.27 mg/l (per 30 min j chlorination period), or a daily (24 hr) average CRC of 0.04 mg/1.
) The aforementioned CRC level of 0.27 mg/l is more than t'n e value of O.2 mg/l mentioned in the FES (NRC 1983). This may be due to the
? f act that previous analyses were based on two units, with the chlorinated discharge being diluted by the unchlorinated discharge.
j This difference should not be an issue because (1) the lake is a providing the dilution instead of the second unit, (2) the total pounds from each unit is still the same, regardless of the concen-
- tration, and (3) the discharge to the lake has been cut in half.
f A-9 Lawler..\tatusky ? OkcIly Engineers
=
i t
. .i j7 Current regulations (EPA 1982) on cooling tower blowdown limit the discharge of FAC to a daily average of 0.2 mg/l for no more than 2-hr per day per unit. For the reasons previously mentioned, there will be no problem in meeting these regulations. There is no limitation on CRC. Even if the same limitation applied to CRC, the standard would be met, based on the '24-hr average level of 0.04 mg/l (6.3 lb/ day in a 27 cfs discharge).
. Modeling Chlorine Levels in the Lake Assuming (conservatively) no immediate demand on the chlorine released to the lake, the following equation is written:
dC V
L dt L
/5.39 - KLVLCL~OL CL (7) where VL = v lume of the lake available for mixing (ft3)
CL = lake chlorine concentration (mg/1)
WL = amount of chlorine released to the lake (lb/ day)
K g = lake decay coefficient (sec-1)
QL = lake outflow (cfs) 5.39 = unit conversion factor Assuming complete mixing and steady state, we obtain:
} WL / 5.39 OL*KL YL (8) i
)
Wg has been determined to be 6.3 lb/ day. The average discharge from the lake, QL, is 43 cfs (CP&L 1982, p. 2.4.2-10). A decay of 4.0 per day will still be used to represent the breakdown of chlorine
)
and chlorinated by-products, although the decay rate increases in j the presence of sunlight. The only remaining parameter to estimate
,. is the volume, Vg , used for mixing.
. A-10
t J
.i The volume of the lake - 72,000 acre-f t - could be used. However, this would be guaranteed only if the plant discharge were at the g
upstream end of the lake. The whole lake may take part, but in
.l general, the mixng is only partial, and some short-circuiting may occur. A conservative assumption would be to use the volume of the
^
mixing zone. This not only uses substantially less volume than is available but also enables the prediction of CRC levels at the edge of the zone. Using a depth of 40 ft in the 200-acre mixing zone gives a volume of 3.5 x 10 8 ft 3. With the parameters already mentioned, Equation 8 can be written as:
CL (mg/1) = 0.000011 Wg (lb/ day)
With a 6.3 lb/ day plant release, the computed level at the lake
< discharge or edga of the mixing zone is 0.07 ppb (note the unit change). Equation 9 can be used for any parar.1eter that has a decay rate of 4 per day; for other rates, use Equation 8.
4 Most of this large decrease is due to residence time and decay.
As a sensitivity analysis, the decay coefficient is decreased by a factor of 10. The resulting concentration is then 0.7 ppb. Then, when the mixing zone area is cut down to five acres, the resulting
~
concentration is 14 ppb. Using the original decay rate and a 5-acre zone, the concentration is 2.6 ppb.
I
-l The above numbers are conservative for several reasons.
e No sedimentation has been incorporated; several chlorinated by-products have an affinity for particulates that will settle out of the water
} column, and eventually be buried and removed from
- active participation in the lake ecosystem.
I_
e No immediate demand in the lake has been consid-ered, which could be exerted on CRC.
i s
q A-ll i Lawler,Matusky ? Skelly Engineers
w .
e The assumption of complete mixing is very conserv-ative, particularly since steady state is also assumed.
Consider the alternative of plug ficw. This is not an unreasonable assumption, given the location and direction of the discharge port, and the use of a 200 acre mixing zone versus the whole lake. Since
< a small, localized area of the lake is being used as a mixing zone, plug flow is more likely to occur. The lake discharge concentration
, would be:
1 8
C4=CD (10) where Cg = lake discharge concentration (mg/l)
CD = blowdown concentration (mg/1)
T = travel time (= VLIOL)
For a 200-acre mixing zone and a flow of 43 cfs, the travel time is 94 days. A decay rate of 4 per day results in a Cj of effectively zero. A very low decay rate of 0.4 per day and a blowdown concen-tration of 0.27 mg/l computes to a lake discharge concentration of 1 x 10-17 mgfj, Modeling Chlorine Levels in the Cape Fear River The concentrations in the Cape Fear River just downstream of Buckhorn Dam would be:
- C g *e (11) 1 A-12
- Lawler,5tatusky 5' Gkelly Engineers
- . __. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _-___U
p ..
P J where .
] C CF = Cape Fear concentrations (same units as CL)
QCF = Cape Fear river flow (cfs)
{.
T = Travel time down Buckhorn Creek n
d Buckhorn Creek is about 2.5 miles in length. A velocity of 1 fps, a
' normal stream velocity under pre-impoundment conditions, results in a trav21 time of 3.7 hr. This velocity is conservative, probably a being lower due to the formation of Harris Lake. If the decay rate of 4 per day is still used, the concentrations leaving Buckhorn Creek and entering the Cape Fear are 54% of those leaving Harris
! Lake.
Q has an average value of 3125 cfs at Buckhorn Dam, making CF Equation 11:
.i CCF = 0.0076 CL (12)
In other words, the river level is less than 1% of the lake concen-tration. The 0.07 ppb lake level thus reduces to 0.5 parts per trillion (ppt) in the river.
J Determination of Chlorine Components J
Up until now, tot al chlorine levels characterized by combined residual reactions have been examined. The following table, taken J
from Bean (1983a), summarizes the breakdown of chlorine under mild I (<20 mg/1) doses:
le i
l i
l A-13
'l Lawler,Statusky ? Gkelly Engineers t
4 LOW-LEVEL CHLORINATION OF NATURAL WATERS
, (Where Does the Chlorine Go?)
. PERCENTAGE OF PROCESS CHLORINE tlSED Haloform formation 0.5-5 Organic oxidation to CO 50-80 2
Haloacetonitriles 0-5 Nonhaloform organic halogen 1-6
'l (e.g., trihalomethane precursors depolymerized organohalogen)
Halogenated phenols ~ 0.1 These values were based on laboratory studies and have recently been upd ated . A newer publication studied actual power plant chlorin-ation. Data were obtained at the following 3 natural draft cooling-tower facilities (Bean 1983b):
i CHLORINE HALOFORM5 HALOPHENOLS l ADDED DISCHARGED DISCHARGED o FACILITY (kg) (g) (% of dose) (g) (% of dose)
, Arkansas 57 70 0.12 17 0.03 Unit 2 Beaver Valley 114 67 0.06 22 0.02 u Unit 1 Troj an 114 120 0.11 75 0.07
,, Average 95 86 0.10 38 0.04 a
Using these values, 0.1% of the total dose goes to haloforms. A total dose of 725 lb/ day results in a haloform discharge of 0.7 lb/ day. Plugging this number into Equation 8 gives a lake level of 0.01 ppb of halofonns for 200 acres and 0.3 ppb over 5 acres. The incremental Cape Fear concentration would then be 0.1 ppt, using Equation 12. This approach is extremely conservative as it accounts A-14 Lawler.Matusk 3 &* Skelly Engineers
w -
for no losses within the plant (Jolley et al. [1983] observed a loss of 84% through a cooling tower) or the l ak e. Again, this also assumes that the decay rates for the haloforms are the same at that used for CRC. The levels of halophenols will be lower than the haloforms.
The Bean table can also be used to partition the results from the plant model. However, this table is based on total dose, whereas LMS values include the removal of chlorine by inorganic demand.
Since the LMS values are representative of CRC, the highest ratio of haloforms to oxidants in Bean's table (0.1%/50% = 0.2%) should be used to be conservative. In other words, since the model results
. are indicative of CRC, and Bean has a minimum of 50% of the dose as oxidants (CRC), the amount of haloforms, as a fraction of CRC, is double the numbers presented' in the tab le, or 0.2%. Using the computed lake level of 0.07 ppb results in a haloform level of l9 0.1 ppt in the lake.
Summary I
As already mentioned, several conservative assumptions were used in i developing the three chlorine model: to determine the effect of the Harris piant discharge on the cooling lake and the Cape Fear
, River. The following results were obtained:
Total chlorine (TC) used (maximum rate) 725 lb/ day Total chlorine released from the cooling tower 9.4 lb/ day Total chlorine released to lake 6.3 lb/ day Average TC concentration over a completely- 2.6 ppb mixed 5-acre zone Average TC concentration over a completely- 0.07 ppb mixed 200-acre mixing zone l
Average TC concentration discharged to Cape Fear 0.04 ppb or less Average incremental TC concentration in Cape Fear 0.05 ppt or less d
, A-15
. Lawler,NIatusky F Okelly Engineers I
The above levels are indicative of CRC. A conservative estimate of haloforms would be 0.2% of the above concentrations; for halogenated phenold, 0.08%.
f' The current lower detectability limit of residual chlorine in freshwater is 1.8 ppb by amperometric titration (Jolley and Carpenter 1982), which implies an immeasurable value at the edge of the 200 acre mixing zone.
a 1
6 1
1 1
1 1
'l 1
i
,1 3
1 A-16 Lawler. htatusky G' Skelly Engineers
} ..
ATTACHMEf4T B AQUATIC EFFECTS OF CHLORIf1E Tables B-1 and B-2 contain selected toxicity, uptake and depuration
} data for aquatic organisms. Table B-3 indicates some of the poten-tial human health effects of chlorinated compounds .that have been
} identified from chlorinated waters. The information contained in these tables by no means exhausts the extensive data base concerning 1 the effects of chlorinated compounds on the aquatic environment and human health. Where possible, data for species indigenous to the Cape Fear system or for closely related species were chosen.
Data on salmonids were not included except where little or no other j information existed. Among fish species, salmonids are the most sensitive to chlorinated water, and because they are cold-water
} fishes would not be expected to occur in the Cape Fear system.
The levels of total residual chlorine, free chlorine, chloramines, trihalomethanes, other h alome thanes, and chlorophenols found to cause acute and chronic toxicity in fish species are above the i
1 maximum levels of total chlorine predicted to occur in the 5-acre mixing zone (0.0026 mg/l). The lowest level of any chlorine species causing an effect on fish species was chloramine (Table B-1).
Arthur and Eaton (1971) found that at 0.016 mg/l total chloramine
} reproduction, measured as number of eggs produced, was reduced in fathead minnows (Pimechales promelas). Although not an indigenous
}
species, this was the only long-term chronic test where such a sublethal effect was measured.
! For invertebrates, acute toxicity levels for the various chlorine species were above the 0.0026 mg/l total chlorine concentration pre-dicted for the 5-acre mixing zone. However, the chronic no-effect 1
B-1 fJ Lawler..\tatusk i 5' Gkelly Engineers
]} -
.1 level for the scud, Gammarus pseudolimnaeus, exposed continuously for 15 weeks to chloramines is estimated to be <0.003 mg/l total chloramine. This result is based on reduced production of young.
} While the no-effect concentration for this species is the same as the conservatively predicted level for the 5-acre mixing zone, it is greater than the predicted level for the 200-acre mixing zone, the discharge to the Cape Fear River, and the Cape Fear River itself.
)
Brungs (1973), in a r,eview of the effects of residual chlorine on aquatic life, suggested that, for areas receiving waste treated continuously with chlorine, total residual chlorine should not
] exceed 0.01 mg/l for the protection of the more resistant organisms or 0.002 mg/l for the protection of most aquatic organisms. As a result, disch arge of chlorinated cooling tower blowdown is not expected to have any measurable effect on the aquatic biota beyond the 5-acre mixing zone.
Chlorine interactions with both temperature and metals have been reported. In general, chlorine toxicity increases with temperature.
The data presented in Table B-1 reflect the highest temperature tested, with the exception of Heath (1977) for bluegill, where the lowest 96-hr toxicity value was chosen. Chloramine toxicity to
) golden shiners (Notemiconus crysoleucas) and channel catfish (Icta-lurus punctatus) decreased with temperature (Table B-1). These data are an exception to the general trend and no reason is evident. The
} reported studies on chlorine-metal inter actions (Dickson et al .
1974; Crumley et al.1980) were all conducted at levels well above
] those predicted for the 5-acre mixing zone, so any synergistic effects between metals and chlorine will probably be negligible.
Data are relatively sparse on bioconcentration factors (BCF) and depuration rates fo r chlorine species in fish and shellfish.
Neither chloroform nor bromoform bioconcentrates much above levels 1
1 B-2 J Lawler.htatusky F Oke!!y Engineers
found in the water (Table B-2). For chloroform, the BCF ranged from 2-6; for bromoform the BCF for molluscs was ~1, indicating little or no accumulation above water concentrations. For shrimp and menhaden, the BCF ranged from 3-50; however, the data indicate a steady-state level of 0.04 ug/g (ppm) in tissue at the higher exposure concentrations, which is similar to that found in organisms exposed to lower water concentrations (Gibson et al.1981).
The highest BCFs were for chlorophenols (83-1300). However, chloro-j phenols are expected to be present only at 0.1% of the total chlor-ine, so any bioaccumulation will be slight.
1 In all cases depuration rates are rapid. For the trihalomethanes, the half-life is one day or less; for chlorophenols, half-life is on a the order of 1-10 days, depending on the organism and form of
, phenol.
Data on carcinogenic potential al so include oncogenecity which is defined as tumor-forming. It should be noted that not all tumors
~
are malignant. Of the compounds listed in Table B-3, only chloro-form and 2,4,6 chlorophenol are currently regulated by EPA as
{- carcinogens.
h L
i r-L l
[
~
k
[ B-3
_ Lawler, Matusky 5' Gkelly Engineers
innad haind land W M Laimial Wia biased Land W inumme n== mms w numme' W tume'. W M.
TABLE B-1 (Pap I cf 2)
T0x! CITY DATA FOR CHLORINATED COMPOUNDS
- CCF70UND 5PLCIL5 itSI DtFL f 0h RESULT 5 (mg/1) SOURCE TRIHALOMETHANES Chlorofona Lepunis macrochirus acute LC50 96 hrs 110 Lepomis macrochirus acute LC50 96 hrs 13.3-22.3 Anderson and Lusty 1980 MicropTerus salmoides acute LC50 96 hrs 45.4-55.8 TctiTurus pusctatus acute LC50 96 hrs >75 Brosofona Brevoortia tyrannus acute LC50 % hrs 12 l Penaeus aztecus acute LC50 96 hrs 26 Gibson et al.1981 l Percenaria mercenaria !
Erassostria virginica
~
acute LC50 96 hrs 30-40 Gibson et al. 1981 1 Prot 6tlaca st.sninea I Lepotnis macrochirus acute LC50 96 hrs 29.3 I
Dipihii m acute LC50 96 hrs 46.5 OTHER HALOMETHANES Dichloronethane Lepomis macrochirus acute LC50 96 hrs 220 Methylene Daphnii magna acute LC50 96 hrs 224 chloride tepomis macrochirus acute LC60 95 hrs 224 tipiisodonvariegatus acute LC50 96 hrs 331 Pimcphales promeias acute LC50 96 hrs 193 Nthyl l'e W s macrochiius acute LC50 96 hrs 550 chloride Menidia beryllina acute LC50 96 hrs 270 Methylbroside tegomis macrochirus acute LC50 96 hrs 11 Han f3Ii beryllina acute LC50 96 hrs 12 CHLORAMINES mnachlorantne Notropis atherinoides acute LC50 9 0.35 Brooks and Seegert 1978 30*C (as total residual chlorine)
-N. cornutus acute LC50 0 0.45 Brooks and Seegert 1978 30*C (as total residual chlorine)
-N.
spilopterus acute LC50 9 0.41 Brooks and Seegert 1978 30*C (as total residual chlorine)
Lepornis macrochirus acute LC50 9 1.23 Brooks and Seegert 1978 30*C (as total residual chlorine)
Cyprinus carpio acute LC50 9 1.50 Brooks and Seegert 1978 30*C (as total residual bchlorine)
Ganinarus pseudollmnaeus chronic-life 15 wks <0.003 Arthur and Eaton 1971 cycle Pimephales promelas chronic-life 21 wn s (0.016 b Arthur and Eaton 1971 cycle Notemigonus crysoleucas acute LC50 9 5*C % hrs 0.72 Iteath 1978 9 24 *C % hrs 0.93 ileath 1978 Ictaturus punctatus acute LC50 9 5*C 96 hrs 0.28 Ikath 1978 924*C 96 hrs 0.33 ikath 1978
Sused M M M hdied himlO M tumud hund W anname um-s tesumes w M w M M Q TABLE 8-1 (Page 2 of 2) -
T0XICITY DATA FOR CHLORINATED COMPOUNDS UPf6dND SPECIE 5 IE5T DURATTEN RESULT 5 (eg/1) 5OURCE CHLOROPHENOLS 2-chlorophenol Lepomis macrochirus acute LC50 96 hrs 8.15" Pimephales promelas chronic early life stage test 30 days >3.9
- 4. chlorophenol Lepomis macrochirus acute LC50 96 hrs 3.8 firassTus auratus acute LC50 24 hrs 9.0 firissTiis aurafui acute LC54 8 hrs 6.3 3-chlorophenol Salmo galrdnert d acute 48 hrs 10.0 4-chloro- Pimephales promelas acute LC50 96 hrs 0.03 3-methyl pheno) 2,4,6-trichloro- Daphnia ma2na acute LC50 96 hrs 2.6 pt. enol Pimephales promelas acute LC50 96 hrs 9.0 P_imephales promelas chronic early 30 days 0.7 Ilfe stage test Lepomis macrochirus acute LC50 96 hrs 0.3 FREE CHt0RINE Notemigonus crysoleucas acute LC50 96 hrs 0.19' Heath 1978 0 24 *C Ictalurus punctatus acute LC50 96 hrs 0.06* Heath 1978 9 24 *C Lepomis macrochirus acute LC50 96 hrs 0.39' Heath 1978 9 25'C TOTAL RESIDUAL Alosa aestivalis (egg) acute LC50 80 hrs 0.33 I
Morgan and Prince 1977 (HLGiME ATosa aestfviris 7Tirvae-1-2-diys old) acute LC50 24 hrs 0.28-0.32 Morgan and Prince !977 Alosa aestivalls
~ITirvae-I!73iys old) acute LC50 48 hrs 0.24-0.25 Horgan and Prince 1977 Alosa aestivalls
--[3 day oldTIFvae) acute LC50 24 hrs ~ 0.10-0.12 Morgan and Prince 1971 ball data complied fron 1980 EPA water quality docisnents unless other wise noted.
No ef fect Concentration based on reduced production of young.
d kwetric mean of all values for the species.
' Lowest concentration that killed 50% or more.
Measured as IRC at the peak of the chlorination pulse with free chlorine representin9 >50%.
At (0.26 mg/l THC,1.6% of larvae that hatched had vertebral abnormalities; at 0.31-0.38 mg/l about 15% were abnormal.
W~W med M M haded nahad w hmms4 hummi M TOLE B-2 B10 CONCENTRATION FACTORS (BCF)
AND DEPURATION RATES FOR CHLORINATED COMPOUNDS COWUlIND SPECIES BCF TI5SbE DEPURATION RATE SOURCE 1p! hat 0 METHANES Chlorofona Lepomis macrochirus 6 Whole body t 1/2 <1 dayb Velth et al.1930 Lepomis macrochirus 2-3 Wole body t1/2<20hrg Anderson and Lusty 1980 Ricropterus salmoldes 2 Wole body t 1/2 <4 hrs Anderson and Lusty 1980 Ictalurus punctatus 3 t 1/2 < 2 hrs b Anderson and Lusty 1980 Branoform Mercenaria mercenanta Wole body Crassostrea virginira 1 Wole body Gibson et al.1981 Protothaca sGinei ' Wole body Penceus aztecus 1 3-50 Whole body Gibson et al.1981 Br(voortTITyrinnus J Whole body CHLOROPHENOLS 2-chloropheno) Lepomis macrochirus 214 g Wole body t 1/2 <1 day Velth et al. 1980 2,4,5-tric hloro- 110 phenol 2,4,6-trichloro- Salmo galrdnert t 1/2 (10 day Landner et al. 1977 phenol Mylus edults 35-60, Soft body Geyer et al. 1982 Iquafic organics 150 Edible portion
- BROPOORGANICS 2,4,6-tribromo- Pimephales promelas 83 Whole body Kuehl et al. 1978 pheno) 2,4,6-tribromo- Pimephales promelas 1300 Whole body Kuehl et al. 1978 anisole .
"All data complied frora 1980 EPA water quality criteria documents unless otherwise noted.
Estimated frora data tables.
" Calculated BCF (EPA 1980)
Ithd W MLI M M EiiaI I~mial Erund W W M temW W W aummus enemmus TABLE B-1 (Pcge 1 of 2) 10XICIIT DATA FOR 8
- CHt0RlhATED COMPOUNDS
[0MPOUh0-- SPECIES TEST DURATf0N 7 E5DLTs (mg/1) D IE' T R IHAt O*,E THANE S Chloroform Lepornis macrochirus acute LC50 % hrs 110 Lepanis macrochirus acute LC50 96 hrs 13.3-22.3 Anderson and Lusty 1980 MTcrdpTeFus salmoides acute LC50 96 hrs 45.4-55.8 -
Ictalurus punctatus acute LC50 96 hrs >15 j Brosofona Brevoortia tyrannus- acute LC50 % hrs 12 1 Penaeus aztecus xute LC50 96 hrs 26 Gibson et al. 1981 Hercenariainercenaria riassostrea virgine:a acute LC50 96 brs 30-4 0 Gibson et al.1981 Protothaca sEninea Lepoints macioThTrus acute LC50 96 hrs 29.3 Diphrifi magna acute LC50 96 brs 46.5 OTHER HALOMETHANES Dichloromethane Lepants macrochirus acute LC50 % hrs 220 Met hylene Daphnia magna acute LC50 % hrs 224 chloride Lepornis macrochirus acute LC50 96 hrs 224 Cylirin~odon y variegatus acute LC50 96 hrs 331 PiiililiiTes promelas acute LC50 96 hrs 193 tiet hyl fepomis madiscTiiriis acute LC50 96 hrs 550 chloride Menidia beryllina acute LC50 96 hrs 210 Met hylbrornide [eWii macrocliirus acute LC50 % hrs 11 Ksiidii beryllina acute LC50 96 hrs 12 CHtORAMINES Monachloranine Notropis atherinoides acute LC50 0 0.35 Brooks and Seegert 1918 30*C (as total residual chlorine) acute LC50 9 0.45 Brooks and Seegert 1918
-N. cornutus 30*C (as total residual chlorine) spilopterus acute LC50 0 0.41 Brooks and See9ert 1913
~N.
30*C (as total residual chlorine)
Lepomis macrochirus acute LC50 9 1.23 Brooks and Seegert 1978 30*C (es total residual chlorine)
Cyprinus carpio acute LC50 9 1.50 Brooks and seegert 1913 30*C (as total residual chlor b %e)
Gammarus pseudollanaeus chronic-life 15 wks <0.003 Arthur end Eaton 1911 cycle Pimephales promelas chronic-life 21 .ks (0.016b Arthur and [aton 1971 cycle Notemjonus crysoleucas acute LC50 ,
lleath 1978 9 5'C 96 hrs 0.12 9 24 "C % hrs 0.93 tieath 1918
-Ictalurus punctatus acute 1C50 9 5*C 96 hrs 0.28 Heath 1913 924*C 96 hrs 0.33 Ik'ath 1978 E
IM M M M M M N W W W M huud bumumi huuud buuuG W W %
TAf!LE B-1 (Pcge 2 cf 2) 10XIClif DATA FOR CHLORINATED COMP 0tINDS O
CONFollND SPTrif5 TEST VtilfATI6N RESULT 5 (mg/l) SOUfCE CHLOROPHINOL 5 2-chlorophenol Lepomis macrochirus acute LC50 96 hrs 8.15' PisiciFiles promelas chronic early ,
life stage test 30 days >3.9 4-chlorophenol Lepaals macrochirus acute LC50 96 hrs 3.8 i Carassius auratus acute LC50 24 hrs 9.0 l i CirisTius auratus acute LC54 8 hrs 6.3 d
- 3. chlorophenol Salmo gatroneri acute 48 hrs 10.0
. 4-chloro. Pimephales promelas acute LC50 96 hrs 0.03 3-methyl phenol 2.4.6-trichloro- Daphnia magna acute LC50 96 hr$ 2.6 phenol Pise W ies promelas acute LC50 96 hrs 9.0 Pimephales promelas chronfc early 30 days 0.7 life stage test tepomis macrochirus acute LC50 % 'rs n 0.3 FREE CHt0RINE Notemigonus crysoleucas acute LC50 96 hrs 0.19' Heath 1978 9 24 *C Ict alurus punctatus acute LC50 96 hrs 0.06' Heath 1978 to 24 *C Lepomis macrochirus acute LC50 96 hrs 0.39' Heath 1978 0 25*C g TOTAL RESIDUAL Alosa aestivalis (egg) acute LC50 80 hrs 0.33 Morgan and Prince 1977
~ Cili CAIsE AIOIa aest M fis 7Tirvae-I-2-diys old) acute LC50 24 hrs 0.28-0.32 Morgan and Prince 1977 Alosa aestivalls
~TTarvae-U2 Jiys old) acute LC50 48 hrs 0.24-0.25 Mor9an and Prince 1977 Alosa aestivalls
-(3 day old lifvae) acute LC50 24 hrs ~ 0.10-0.12 Morgan and Prince 1977 b
All data compiled from 1930 EPA water quality docannents unless other wise noted.
No ef fect concentration based on reda.ced production of young.
'Ge(nactric mean of all values for the species.
d tnwest concentration that killed 50*; or more.
'wasured as THC at the peak of the chlorination pulse with free chlorine representing >50%.
At (0.26 mg/l IWC 1.6% of larvae that hatch (d had vertebral abnormalities; at 0.31-0.38 mg/l about 151 were abnormal.
E
huhd W M Lawd hansJ hah 43 Esiid Miiia had smand W M N- tuned w ,4 w wpw TABLE B-2 BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS (BCF)
AND DEPURAi!0N RATES FOR CHLORINATED COMPOUNDS C6Mf5tTND SPECIES TCT T155UT DEPURATION RATE SOURCE" TR!HALOMITHANES
- Chloroform Leoomis macrochirus b 6 Whole body t 1/2 <1 day b Velth et al. 1980 l Lepomis macrochirus 2-3 Whole body t 1/2 <20 hrg Anderson and Lusty 1980 111cropterus salmoides 2 Whole body t 1/2 <4 hrs b Anderson and lusty 1980 l TcTaTurus punctatus 3 t 1/2 < 2 hrs Anderson aW Lusty 1980 l Bromofonn Mercenaria mercendnla Whole body Erassostrea jvirinica 1 Whole body Gibson et al.1981 Pro ~totTicTst aninea Whole body
, PFnceus aztecus } 3 50 Whole body Gibson et al.1981
{ Brevoortia tyrannus J Whole body CHLOROPHENOLS 2-chlorophenol tepomis macrochirus 214 Whole body t 1/2 <1 day Velth et al. 1980 C
2,4,5-trichloro- 110 phenol 2,4,6-t r ic hloro- Salmo gairdnert t 1/2 <10 day Landner et al. 1977 phenoi Mytilus edults 35-60 C
Sof t body Geyer et al. 1982 AquaITc organics ISO Edible portion -
SROMOORGANICS 2,4,6-tribromo. Pimephales promelas 83 Whole body Kuehl et al.1978 phenol .
2,4,6-t r ib rano- Pimephales prorr.elas 1300 Whole body Kuehl et al.1978 anisole "All data compiled from 1980 EPA water quality criteria documents unless otherwise coted.
Estimated from data tables.
C Calculated BCF (EPA 1980) l l
1 l
1 l
l l
l l
N tem Bund naml muid amIf n.ar ,,
TABLE 8-3 a
CARCIN0 GENIC AND ONC0 GENIC POTENTIAL OF SOME CHLORINATED COMP 0UNDS COMPOUND CARCINOGENIC ONCTGElllC SOUTCE TRillALOMETHANES Chlorofonn +
Bromofonn + Simmon and Tardiff 1978 Bromod ichoromethane Suspected Simmon and Tardif f 1978 and EPA 1980 CHLORAMINES b
Monochloramine Suspected OTHER HALOMETHANES b
Dichloromethane Suspected Simmon and Tardiff 1978 and EPA 1980 CHLOR 0PilEt10LS 2-chlorophenol +C + Exon and Koller 1983 and EPA 1980 3-chlorophenol +c 2,4,5-trichlorophenol +c Severn 1980 2,4,6-trichlorophenel +
'All data compiled from 1980 EPA water quality criteria documents unless otherwise noted.
Being tested.
c '
Exhibits promoter activity only. .
l
-wa
c ATTACHMENT C REFERENCES CITED AND LITERATURE REVIEWED Aaberg, R.L., R.A. Peloquin, D.L. Strenge, and P.J. Mellinger.
1983. An aquatic-pathways model to predict the fate of phenolic compounds. Pacific Northwest Laboratory Report PNL-4202.
Anderson, D.R. , and E.W. Lusty. 1980. Acute toxicity and bioac- .
cumulation of chloroform to four species of freshwater fish.
Arthur, J.W. , and J.G. Eaton. 1971. Chloramine toxicity to the amphipod Gammarus pseudolimnaeus and the fathead minnow (Pime-I phales promelas). J. Fisn. Res. Bd. Canada 28(12):1841-TTE.
j Bean, R.M. 1983. Recent progress in the organic chemistry of I water chlorination, p. 843-850. In R.L. Jolley, W. A. Brungs, J.A. Cotruvo, R.B. Cumming, J.ST Mattice, and V.A. Jacobs (eds.), Water chlorination: environmental impact and health I effects.
Arbor, MI.
Vol. 4. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann l Be an , R . 'M . , C.I. Gibson, and D.R. Anderson. 1981.
products in aquatic environments. CUREG/CR-1300.
Biocide by-Brooks, A.S., and G.L. Seegert. T. preliminary look at the I 1978.
effects of intermittent chlorination on selected warmwater fishes, p.95-109. In R.L. Jolley, H. Gorchev, and P.H. Hamil-
- q ton Jr. (eds.), Wate7 chlorination: environmental impact and
'j health ef fects. Vol. 2. Proceedings of the second conference on the environmental impact of water chlorination, Gatlinburg, TN, October 31-November 4, 1977. Ann Arbor Science Pubiishers,
,l Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
Brungs, W.A. 1973. Effects of residual chlorine on aquatic life.
J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 45(10):2180-2193.
} ,
Buikema, A.L. Jr., M.J. McGinniss, and J. Cairns Jr. 1979. Phen-m olics in aquatic ecosystems: A selected review of recent ig literature. Mar. Environ. Res. 2:87-181.
Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). Shearon Harris 1982.
j Nuclear Power Plant environmental report, operating license
- stage. Revision 5.
4 Crumley, S.C. , Q.J. Stober, and P. A. Dinnel . 1980. Esaluation of 1 factors affecting the toxicity of chlorine to aquatic organisms.
3 C-1 Lawler, .\tatusky 5' SkcIly 1:ngineers e
i
8 ATTACHMENT C REFERENCES CITED ANC LITEPATURE REVIEWED (Continueo)
Dickson, K.L., A.C. Hendricks, J.S. Crossman, and J. Cairns Jr.
I 1974. Effects of intermittently chlorinated cooling tower blowdown on fish and invertebrates. Environ. Sci. Technol.
8:845-849.
Chlorination experiments at the John E., Amos Draley, J.E. 1973.
P1 ant of the Appalachian Power Company: April 9-10, 1973.
ANL/ES-23.
l Exon, J.H. , and L.D. Koller. 1983. Alteration of transplacental 1 carcinogenesis .by chlorinated phenols, p. 1177-1188. In R.L.
i Jolley, and V.A. W.A. Brung(s, Jacobs J. A.Water eds.), Cotruvo, R.B. Cumming, chlorination: J.S. MEtice, environmental impact and health effects. Vol . 4. Ann Arbor Science Pub-j . lishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
Geyer, H., P. Sheehaa, D, Vsotzias, D. Freitag, and F. Korte. 1982.
i Prediction of ecotoxicological behavior of chemicals: relation-I ship between physico-chemical properties and bicaccumulation of organic chemicals in the mussel Mytilus edulis. Chemosphere 11(11):1121-1134.
Q Gibson, C.I., F.C. Tone, P. Wilkinson, J.W. Bl aylock , and R.E.
u Schirmer. 1981. Toxicity, bicaccumulation and depuration of bromoform in five marine species. NUREG/CR-1297.
Haag, W.R., and M.H. Lietzke. 1980. A kinetic model for ;:redicting the concentrations of active halogen species in chlorinated saline cooling. water, p. 415-426. In R.L. Jolley, W.A. Brungs, and R.B. Cumming (eds.), Water cliTorination: environmental impact and health effects. Vol'. 3. Ann Arbor Science Publish-ers Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
Hall, L.W. , G.R. Helz, and 0.T. Burton. 1981. Power plant chlor- .,
ination: a biological and chemical assessment. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI. [EPRI Report EA-1750.]
Heath, A.G. 1978. Influence of chicirine form and ambient temper-ature on the toxicity of intermittent chlorination to freshwater l -
fish, p. I'23-134. In R.L. Jolley, H. Gorchev, and P.H. Hamilton
. (eds.), Water chlorination: environment al impact and health effects. Vol. 2. Proceedings of the second conference on the
- environmental impact of water chlorination, Gatlinburg, TN, October 31-November, 1977. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.,
Ann Arbor, MI.
C-2 Lawier.Matu. sky O' Okelly Engineers
F' q. ,
L r
i ATTACHMENT C REFERENCES CITED AND LITERATURE REVIEWED r
(Continued) 2 Jolley, R.L. (ed.). 1978. Water chlorination: environmental impact and health effects. Vol. 1. Proceedings of the confer-ence on the environmental impact of water chlorination, Oak .
Ridge National Lab., Oak Ridge, TN, October 22-24, 1975. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
O4 5 g
Jolley, R .L. , W. A. Brungs, J. A. Cotruvo, R.B. Cumming, J.S. Mat-tice, and V.A. Jacobs. 1983. Water chlorination: environ-mental impact and health effects. Vol. 4. Proceedings of the fourth conference on water chlorination: environmental impact and health effects, Pacific Grove, CA, October 18-23, 1981. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
Jolley, R.L. , W. A. Brungs, and R.B. Cumming. 1980. Water chlorina-tion: environmental impact and health effects. Vol. 3.
Proceedings of the third conference on water chlorination:
I environmental impact and health effects, Colorado Springs, CO, October 28-November 2, 1979. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, l Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
1 Jolley, R.L., and J.H. Carpenter. 1982. Aqueous chemistry of I chlorine: chemistry, analysis, and environmental fate of reactive species. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ORNL/TM-7788.
Jolley, R.L., H. Gorchev, and 0.H. Hamilton Jr. 1978. Water chlorination: environmental impact and health effects. Vol. 2.
Proceedings of the second conference on the environmental impact of water chlorination, Gatlinburg, TN, October 31-November 4, 1977. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, !!I.
Jolley, R.L., W.W. Pitt, F.G. Taylor Jr. , S.J. Hartmann, G. Jones Jr., and J.E. Thompson. 1978. An experimental assessment of
- halogenated organics in water from cooling towers and once-V through systems. In R.L. Jolley, H. Gorchev, and P.H. Hamilton Jr. (eds.), Water chlorination: environmental impact and
$ health effects. Vol. 2. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.,
Ann Arbor, MI.
Katz, B.M. 1977. Chlorine dissipation and toxicity presence of h nitrogenous compounds. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 49(7):
h 1627-1635.
Kim, 8.R., and Yin-Sin Lin. 1982. Decay and transport of mono-
) chloramine in river. Georgia Institute of Technology, School of g Civil Engineering Report SCEGIT-82-103. [ Prepared for the fg Tennessee Valley Authority.]
e Lawler.Matusky 5' Okelly Engineers
~
o,
- s. ? p ATTACHMENT C
- REFERENCES CITED AND LITERATURE REVIEWED
, (Continued)
Keuhl, D.W., G.D. Veith, and E.N. Leonard. 1978. Brominated
!. 0 ctmpounds found in waste treatment effluents and their capacity to bicaccumulate, p. 175-194. In Jolley, R.L. (ed.), Water chlorination: environmental Impact and health effects.
t Vol. 1, Proceedings of the conference on the environmental imp 2ct of water. chlorination, Oak Ridge National Lab., Oak x Ridge, TN, October 22-24, 1975. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, j
Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
. Landner, L.,'K. Lindstrom, M. Karlsson, J. Nordin, and L. Sorensen.
1977. Bioaccumulation in fish of chlorinated phenols from Kraft pulp mill .bleachery effluents. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
18(6):U.h673. ,
Lawler. Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1983. Chlorine plume 3 -
mooeling' study. Prepared for the Utility Water Act Group.
3 -
LMSE-83/0091&356/003. April 1983.
)' Lietzke, M.H. 1978a. A kinetic model for predicting the ccmposi-tion of chlcrincted water discharged from power plant cooling systems, p.> 367-378. In R.L. Jolley (ed.), Water chlorination:
l ,
environmental impact aTd health effects. Vc l . 1. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
Lietzke, M.H. 1978b. A kinetic model for predicting the composi-tion of chlorinated water discharged from power plant cooling systems, p. 707-716. In R.L. Jolley, H. Gorchev, and D.H.
Hamilton Jr. (eds.), WatE chlorination: environmental impact and health effects. Vol. 2. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.,
Ann Arbor, MI.
Mattice, J.S., and H.E. Zittel. 1976. Site-specific evaluation of power plant chlorination. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed.
1 48(10):2284-2308.
. Morgan, R.P., II, and R.D. Prince. 1977. Chlorine toxicity to eggs 1 -
and larvae of five Chesapeake Bay fishes. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
106(4):380-385.
Nelson, G.R. 1973. Predicting and controlling residual chlorine in cooling tower blowdown. EPA-R2-73-273, July 1973.
] Peoples, 1979.
A.J., C.D. Pfaffenberger, T.M. Shafik, and H.F. Enos.
Determination of volatile purgeable halogenated hydro-carbons in human adipose tissue and blcod serum. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Tox ol. 23(1/2):244-249.
Lawler,Matusky F Okelly Engineers
l l ' ,.
ATTACHMENT C REFERENCES CITED AND LITERATURE REVIEWED l (Continueo) l Punzi, V.L. 1979. Modelling and predicting free and combined l
residual chlorine concentrations in cooling tower systems.
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the require-me'nts for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Chemical Lngineer-ing) at the Polytechnic Institute of New York. June 1979.
Severn, D.J. 1980. Assessment of human exposure and body burdens of chlorination by-products, p. 55-61. In R.L. Jolley, W.A.
Brungs, and R.B. Cumming (eds.), Water chTorination: environ-mental impact and health effects. Vol. 3. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
l a Simmon, V.F. , and R.G. Tardif f. 1978. The mutagenic activity of j halogenated compounds found in chlorinated drinking water, p.
41.7-432. In R.L. Jolley, H. Gorchev, and P.H. Hamilton (eds. ),
l Water chlo7Ination: environment al impact and health effects.
I l
Vol. 2. Proceedings of the second conference on the environ-mental impact of water chlorination, Gatlinburg, TN, October 31-November, 1977. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. , Ann Arbor, MI.
} U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1980. Ambient water H quali ty criteria for halomethanes. Environmental Protection Agency, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC.
fl I
EPA-440/5-80-051.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ambient water
} quality criteria for chloroform. Environmental Protection 1980.
Agency, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC.
EPA-440/5-80-033.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1980. Ambient water quality criteria for 2-chlorophenol. Environmental Protection i Agency, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC.
EPA-440/5-80-034.
)+ U.S. Environmental Protection Agene.y (EPA). 1980. Ambient water quality criteria for chlorinatel phenols. Environmental Protec-tion Agency, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC.
EPA-440/5-80-032.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1982. Steam electric power generating point source category; effluent imitations I guidelines, pretreatment standards, and new source performance standards. 47FR52290.
C-5 l Lawler, .\tatusky ? Gkelly Engineers
(_
,o r
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING OARD' u ,:
In the Matter of ) N'jjji;["
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL )
POWER AGENCY )
) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, ) 50-401 OL Units 1 & 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants'. Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 83/848," " Applicants' Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue to be Heard," " Affidavit of James A. Fava and Hans Plugge" and " Affidavit of William T. Hogarth" were served this 7th day of February,1984 by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the parties on the attached Service List.
This is the 7^ day of /
l *
/
NY Hill Carrow Attorney Carolina Power & Light Company Post Ofnce Box 1551 l Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-6839
. Dated: February 7,1984 f
('
SERVICE LIST James L. Kelley, Esquire John D. Runkle, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Conservation Council of North Carolina U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 307 Granville Road Wcshington, D. C. 20555 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Glenn O. Bright M. Travis Payne, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Edelstein and Payne U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 12643 Washington, D. C. 20555 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Dr. James H. Carpente" Dr. Rfchard D. Wilson Atomic Safety and Lietnsing Board 729 Hunter Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatocy Commission Apex, North Carolina 27502 W:shington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Wells Eddleman Charles A. Barth, Esquire 718-A Iredell Street Myron Karman, Esquire Durham, North Carolina 27705 Office of Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thomas A. Baxter, Esquire Wcshington, D. C. 20555 John H. O'Neill, Jr., Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Docketing and Service Section 1800 M Street, N.W.
Office of the Secretary Washington, D. C. 20036 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wtshington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Phyllis Lotchin 108 Bridle Run Mr. Daniel F. Read, President Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Group Effort Bradley W. Jones, Esquire 5707 Waycross Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 Region II 101 Marietta Street Dr. Linda Little Atlanta, Georgia 30303 G:vernor's Waste Management Board 513 Albemarle PWiding Robert P. Gruber 325 Salisbury Street Executive Director Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Public Staff North Carolina Utilities Commission Ruthanne G. Miller, Esquire Post Office Box 991 Atomic Safety and Licensing Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
. _ , _ , , _ , _ _ . _ _ _ _..______ . .- - --- --