ML20215K971

Environ Protection Plan 1985 Aerial Remote Sensing Vegetation Communities. W/24 Photographs & . Photographs Available in Aperture Card File

ML20215K971
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	12/31/1985
From:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
References
NUDOCS 8610280405
Download: ML20215K971 (65)

Text

ATTACHMENT 1 j i

6 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION 4

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN 1985 AERIAL REMOTE SENSING VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES I

J J

BA "888R 8sA88b PDR a R

sf Y\

, ATTACHMENT 1 Catawba Nuclear Station Vegetation Monitoring 1983-1985 Introduction The Catawba Nuclear Station Non-Radiological Environmental Protection Plan requires that vegetative communities of the Catawba site be monitored for possi-ble 6ffects of cooling tower drift following operation of Catawba Units 1 and 2.

This monitoring is to be accomplished beginning the first September following operation of Unit 1 and is to continue in alternate years for three monitoring periods following operation of Unit 2. Unit 1 generation began in January 1985.

This report describes the results of the monitoring program for the period 1983 through 1985.

The Catawba Environmental Report (ER) indicated that the area within the NE and SW sectors approximately 950 feet fiom the center of the cooling tower yard would receive maximum drift deposition. Total dissolved (TDS) in the drif t were pro-jected to be in the range of 350 to 500 mg/t, based on the influent make-up water TDS of 60 mg/t and an operating range of 7 to 10 cycles of concentration.

Drift deposition rate calculations in the Catawba ER predicted deposition rates of 2-3 kg/ha/ month (2-3 lb/ acre / month) based on 350 to 500 mg/t of TDS in drift.

, The Catawba FES suggests that thresholds for visible leaf damage in some plants fall in the range of 10 to 20 kg/ha/ month (9 to 18 lb/ acre / month). Thus, the drift was not expected to produce adverse impacts in site vegetation.

l 1

i t

ATTACHMENT 1 Materials and Methods The condition of Catawba Nuclear Station site vegetation has been monitored by color infrared aerial photography, supplemented by ground level visual inspec-tion of site vegetation. Aerial photography was performed in September 1983 and 1984 (preoperational) and in September 1985 (first operational growing season). Ground level observations will be made beginning in spring and summer of 1986 to supplement observations based on aerial photography. The conclu-sions in this report are based on inspection of the IR photographs obtained to date.

Aerial IR photography was obtained on 6 September 1983, on 2 September 1984, and on 14 September 1985, using Kodak IR Type 2443 film at 1:6000 (1 in = 500 ft) scale. Vegetation shown in the photographs within a radius of approximately 1 km of the cooling tower yard was inspected for evidence of dead or damaged foliage which could be related to cooling tower operation, using information provided by Murtha (1972, 1984) as a guide.

Results Operation of the Catawba cooling towers negan in January 1985, but significant levels of operation relative to drift production and possible effects on vege-tion did not occur until March-April and June-August 1985 (Table 1). The towers first operated at a load producing maximal evaporative water loss during July and August 1985, preceding aerial photography in September 1985. There-fore, vegetation in the vicinity of the towers has experienced drift deposi-tion at near-maximal rates over much of the 1985 growing season (April-August).

Inspection of the IR photographs did not reveal any evidence of damage to vege-tation in the vicinity of the cooling towers. Forested areas located within 2

. ATTACHMENT 1 1 km of the tower consist of mixed pine, hardwoods, loblolly pine plantations, mixed shortleaf-Virginia pine stands, and mixed hardwoods. These stands are described in Duke Power (1975).

Color variations apparent in the IR photographs are related to the differences in species composition among the various stands. The pine stands tend to pre-sent a darker magenta to bluish-magenta image due to shadowing caused by the elongated needles. Hardwood foliage is brighter magenta to purple-red due to the more extended reflective leaf surfaces (Murtha 1972). No evidence of dead foliage (yellowish images) or defoliated branches (green, blue, or silvery images) was apparent, nor do the variations in color images suggest the pre-sence of physiologically damaged (but not dead) foliage (violet to bluish images). Color variations between stands of differing composition, and within stands of a given composition, are consistent in appearance between the 1983, 1984, and 1985 photographs. Therefore, the photographs do not suggest the pre-sence of any progressive response of the vegetation to influence of cooling tower drift as of September 1985.

Conclusion It is concluded that the IR photography for 1983, 1984, and 1985 does not indi-cate the occurrence of any response in vegetation to cooling tower drift deposi-

, tion during the first growing season following operation of the Unit 1 towers in 1985. Ground level observations to confirm the appearance of the IR images will be undertaken in 1986 and will be reported in the 1987 annual report, along with the results of the 1986 IR photography.

l l

3 L

. ATTACiiMENT 1 Table 1. Evaporative losses for Catawba Nuclear Station cooling towers,1985

, (millions of gallons, MG).

5 MONTH MG January 26.64 I February 32.58 March 247.09 April 215.71 May 0.19 June 160.87 July 459.48 August 548.03 September 563.83 October 240.42 November 108.54

, December 427.60 1

-. - _ , _ , - _ ____ _ ._ _ ___..__ ,-,_ .__.-,,_,.._, ___.__---.,-,_--_ ,._.._. _ , , , _ . , - , . , _ _ - - _ --___--,__,_,.m._,, _ _ , . . .

ATTACHMENT 1 References Duke Power Company. 1975. Catawba Nuclear Station Terrestrial Studies (Submitted to U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Directorate of Licensing, January 31,1975).

Murtha, P. A. 1972. A Guide to Air Photo Interpretation of Forest Damage in Canada. Canadian Forestry Service Publication No. 1292. Canadian Forestry Service, Ottawa. 62 pp.

Murtha, P. A. 1984. Vegetation Damage Detection and Assessment: The Photo-graphic Approach. Pp. 337-354 in: Renewable Resources Management:

Application of Remote Sensing. Proceedings of the RNRF Symposium on the Application of Remote Sensing to Resource Management, Seattle, Washington.

American Society of Photogrammetry, Falls Church, VA.

. .m_.- . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __ ._.

. Attachment 2 - Noise Survey 1

l 1

i i

i i

4 1

i

) CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION i

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN 1985 NOISE SURVEY i

i j

i i

1

.i I

e t.

Attachment 2 - Noise Survey Introduction Duke Power Company is required, by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), to submit an annual environmental operating report documenting the impact of Catawba Nuclear Station (CNS) on the environment.

As stated in the Catawba Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Duke Power Company will conduct an operational phase ambient noise survey as part of the report. This report documents the current status of the Catawba Nuclear Station Noise Survey and presents the data collected in the summer of 1985.

Materials and Methods The methodology used in this study is described in the Environmental Study Design Document titled - Catawba Nuclear Station Noise Survey (Keener 1985).

Results Appendix A lists the continuout noise data collected for each site by date.

The data consist of hourly A-weighted L99, L90, L50, L10, L1, and Lmax noise l

levels for sites A, B, C, D, and E (Figure 1). At Site B, only 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> of continuous data are presented. Initial sampling at Site B was conducted from l

l 7/11/85 through 7/13/85. After careful analysis of both the data and the BBN i

614 noise monitor, it was determined that there was an improper ground within the microphone jack, which resulted in higher residual noise levels. This was t

corrected and, on 9/19/85, the noise monitor was returned to the field at site 1

l i

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

, Attachment 2 - Noise Survey B. The monitor's chart drive mechanism hung up after 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />, damaging the CPU board and requiring major repairs. Only the first 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> were salvageable and are recorded in Appendix A.

EPP Requirements The requirements of EPP Section 4.2.2 were adhered to with respect to sampling methodology and analysis. The requirement that the plant be operating near peak capacity and at its design water flow rates during the noise survey was achieved (Figure 2).

Data Analysis and Discussion A-weighted sound pressure levels that statistically exceed 90% (L90),10%

(L10), and 1% (L1) during a one-hour time period are plotted for the continuous monitoring sites (Figure 3). The L1 values indicate the sound levels exceeded 1% in a given hour for a particular site. These values are i

influenced by intermittent noise sources such as aircraft, automobiles, animals, boats, etc. The L10 is considered a measure of intruding noise levels. The sources of these levels can be the same as the sources of the L1 levels which are intermittent in character. The L90 sound levels are considered the background noise levels. Sources of these values are continuous, such as cooling tower fans.

In Figure 3, hour-to-hour variation in the L1, L10, and L90 values for Site A i show a distinct pattern that can be explained by human activity. The expected pattern for the L1 and L10 values would be a higher hour-to-hour variation in 2

Attachment 2 - Noise Survty sound levels between 0700 and 2200, hours corresponding to human activity around the site. More compact and lower sound levels are expected during the night, when human activity is at a minimum. This diurnal pattern is most noticeable in the L10 values and can be seen in the data for Sites A, C, D, and E. Noise emanating from a continuous source, such as cooling tower fans, is expected to impact the background (L90) levels especially at night, when outside intermittent sources are at a minimum. Site A, the nearest to the plant, shows L90 noise levels around 40 db(A) during the sampling period. The L90 noise levels for Sites C, D, and E show a wider range of values, but all fall in the 30-50 db(A) range.

In 1979, The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) established new 2

standards for noise exposure for new housing construction. The new standards were based on the day-night equivalent sound level or Ldn. The Ldn is calculated by adding the A-weighted sound levels between 0700-2200 (day) and 2200-0700 (night) hours. The nighttime noise levels, which are considered more annoying, are penalized 10 db(A). HUD divided Ldn levels into three categories - acceptable (not exceeding 65 db), normally unacceptable (above 65 but not exceeding 75 db), and unacceptable (above 75 db).

The Ldn values calculated for 24-hour periods during the summer of 1935 and October-November 1978 pre-operational noise surveys are listed in Tables 1 and

2. The data indicate that during both sampling periods, sound levels did not exceed the existing HUD criteria. Comparison of the 1985 to 1978 Ldn values, by s i te , shows that Site A appears to have a slight increase in the Ldn levels. This slight increase at Site A, which is closest to the cooling towers, may be attributed to the cooling towers.

3

, Attachment 2 - Noisa Survey A further comparison of summer, 1985, L90 and L10 values to 1978 October-November data is presented in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. Sites C and D show very little difference between the two surveys in terms of trends .

or plant noise impacts. Site E measured an increase in both L90 and L10 ,

values from 1978 to 1985. They can be explained by the increase in housing construction which was noted during the 1985 summer survey. In fact, all three of these sites are dominated primarily by traffic and other neighborhood influences. Site A, because of its proximity to the plant, would be expected to show a difference in the acoustic environment between 1985 and 1978. A close inspection of the L10 comparison for Site A indicates that L10 values, which are dominated by intermittent sources common around construction projects, were higher .in 1978 than in the summer of 1985 (Figura 5). The L90 comparison for Site A is similar to the other sites.

i Pure Tones One of the requirements of the CNS EPP is to include, as part of the noise survey, sound level data which identify pure tones (definable noise sources) associated with the operation of the plant. This was accomplished by taking short-term sound measurements at Locations 1 through 12 (Figure 1). A GenRad Model 1565 hand-held noise monitor was used to obtain these measurements by sampling and listening at the same time. Thus, measured sound levels can be assigned a source description, and the pure tone for the source is obtained at i that location. During the summer, pure tone measurements were taken when the meteorological conditions indicated the sound emanating from the cooling towers would be audible. The following sound levels are typical of the pure i . tones associated with the cooling towers:

4

Attachment 2 - Noise Survay Location db(A) Source 1 40 Cooling Towers 2 49 Cooling Towers 3 49 Cooling Towers 10 40 Cooling Towers Pure tones could not be determined from the data collected at any other locations.

Conclusion Data collected during the summer of 1985, in accordance with the CNS EPP, indicated that plant-related noise impacts to the surrounding community were barely discernible. Continuous noise levels at Site A and pure tone i

measurements at Locations 1, 2, 3, and 10 show that noise levels, associated with cooling tower operations, were less than 50 db(A). At no location did noise levels exceed HUD noise criteria.

A preliminary comparison of continuous L90 and L10 data between 1985 and 1978 indicate that there has been no identifiable plant-related noise

! impact on the surrounding community. However, monitoring will continue in January 1986, to obtain winter data for comparative purposes.

5

Attachment 2 - Noise Survsy References

1. Keener, R. N. Environnental study design document: Catawba Nuclear Station noise survey. Duke Power Co. , Prod. Environ. Serv. Res. Rept.

PES /85-14. 1985; 6p.

2. Barnes, J. 1979. Ambient acoustic environment of the Catawba Site.

Bolt Beranck, and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, Ma., Report t'o. 3986.

Prepared for Duke Power Co.

4 6

Attachment 2 - Noise Survey A

'T n -N C. s

,1

^ , '{r ,. ; v 1

\ I' { .

U C * \

./*

• a -

.- 'Y

• C -

5 t h .' tai- ^

l

g. , , ').'-- ,#

.N' .^! =, j /; ~ '

+- yh y(;v */[

7 r

[ N. efe ~ -

' 6 $ ,. #$5('/' ,

1

, > , , A -=

'\

/

' fl'. a /

(

e V n --

,'^ ,. .. ^ & '

.;~ ( ., 'o .  :

.c.'

.l -3+C, p.- fv - hy -/

ya j ,.

v' e , < w,.,- -.. t A. 4 g ,, l. -p -A ',

.f ,

7, Q l f * ' _* % ,

q,. , .

/,' -

• ? (N,% ,  %,

~ . ,a 3-*f Q' '

s>

![, s, l

,- _ *-e - .f '\

.~

y ,/ , '. ( ;7, -)

.., ,s

• 5

-*3

~.g seK. .y :7

\ ~

o -., f -~ .

t o.~ ,-

,~ $ "'E - .

- - - / .,.

s

-: w -.

s' a r

, . a r

}.

. %s '. .s , ' '

~, + ..

- ' + ~

it^ ~

l \,\ [r.f .; ( .. gg, ~ . p

s. c-

~

. t s- -

, X 8+ea., - .

.r

. , l

'g Sg

y. r.

8 J

' -J-w y

' f3 ag -; . r- *-

-s*'

• - en - . j t- ,, .

s - ,~: /

4

,. , ., .p,s. -.- . l '- -Q e .a

. i,c ~ i-g (/,. ' ' u- . ,\ a s .

-_ .A ' .

N

\, *t v-.. .. , > v t 3,

W. n.' _ _' fp' 'h. x,

s-3, 4 y, ,

. >s i . ..

g ,-

f. j  % p

.( \s ~~,. i

, \<.

,4 ': ,y

.,s ,

, -pe .S ,7 ,J./ ..

g

/ f'  ; .

M-\

, -j

/, -- .,

,(

y._ :({ , , ,

- N f.;y. a -

- M.g

.,.i'.E .G I .

.: 4 ,

~'.A */ ;( e

(. ,,se t, W (g c I

_. , L. , ,g ,

~

• __j , e 7.,. J. ., . 3

• b (. ,

~

A '

l f

.,a , _,

, . . ,3 . ... .>~ /

,' "s.

e jw- o - o ~ A

, s .o . , . ,7 a . y * ~

% , . I' e f(j -o-

,  : }

\

- ,L '.

n ,

h .1 w u

. ,i c ,

Q .[k,,.c, .. .- /* ?

e'.,-

i

.q, c ,t

,/

, \,'*,',* u

v. t.

c s ..

.o

'"' -' g

~

, ,/

..J .* .. c g h'. ;l

<? - \. .,

. .:. ,. e W C,, e.

. m'w 1 ,*' -

t

4

v. ) .

,--~.s s'

~ s. ", '

7 i ,h r=.;. .

,  ;:Pt. Q 2).

~h *h ^{?f _&t-}/$*, ( Q 3 *'

b .

Y

,. . s

)*i', '*

N'f,,,, / ( t , ' , ~= ...r:

,/

\

- f L 4 +. . 't sf > e g.r i y/ .< , , . ~ . - ~ . -

\.N. a:A

. e

\. ;,.* (pma

-(

=- -l.

N

^ m .

n..

~

f*'.b-

=;:.s i t. ; .

@y. ..p . l

'.". n ~ v M :{'* C o {sa a

n;. ,. A

~ 11  !},f I ' ' l; ,.

. - . ~

S w-r . .. h .

,- .( ", -

/

O / %y, / q 5 ..c

~

- v.

v~,

f  ; ' .-- -

. m s .. .x ,- . a,, /.-= ;.~ r,- k,+. n.

/ - - -

.. -w-.

~

m. .

j-. c,C- h .

• b ..xc, (d ', .

/y , _ , - d p .jg .q,/.

., s.  %.

<' o -,- 1. ,

4. .. .,

f i i -

\ - .T . ,{

f.---

, - -. L . M. ,, - -

i ~~

2_w _ . ' - - . -

g ',,. .-) .

./f /. P": /, .:q

=

s 4 "'.-.i > ,

.wv.; u . ,. ./

i.. / -

~

K,-@r-r::. ,

s -

.u r e O 24-.sou,moni,,,i. ,,,,,

-= so_oo __sooo em G Ressdential Measurements 4 Figure 1. Measurement locations near Catawba Nuclear Station (Barnes 1979).

7

Attachment 2 - Noise Survey 1

)

i Catawba Unit i Average Daily Capacity Factor 1985 1,200-1,000--

800 i

600 l

400q

, 200J 0-l - - - -

m 6/24 6/25 6/26 7/1 7/2 7/3 7/5 7/6 7/7 7/8 7/9 7/10 9/19 ,

Continuous Noise Monitoring Sampling Dates Figurc 2. Average daily capacity factors for CNS Unit I with a water flow rate of 655 kgpm and a rated maximum capacity factor of 1145 MW. Data obtained from the CNS Unit 1 OAC.

l 8

Attachment 2 - Noise Survey Site A. S/24/es-0/M/se Site 8. 9/19/05 SQLM) LEvfL la (All 50 LAC LEVEL le(A))

70- 70-50- L10 ,

L1 40 - L90 40 -

30 -

30 20 - 20 -

10- 10 -

0 , , , , , , , , , 0 , , , , , , , ,

t800 2100 0200 0700 1200 t700 2200 0300 0000 1000 t100 t200 1300 gde0 iSee 1800 t700 1000 3000 Hes-fe-How Vrietten in Sound Levels How-fe-How Wrtetten in Soung Levels Site C, 7/5/05-7/7/05 ggg, gg yfgfg.yf3fg, I# I

" '00'-

E Sound g_el {0hlAll 70 - LI 80- ggg sa- ^--^ - L1 L10 S0-90 -

4~

40 '

30 -

L8 38"

[ L'O 20 - M-10- 30 O; , , , , , , , , , 0 , , , , , , , , ,

1500 2000 0100 0000 1100 1000 2l00 0200 0700 370s age 6300 0000 1380 tese 3380 edes 8500 Hee-fe-How vrietten in Seune Levels Her-To 40er Vrietten In test Levets

$1te E, 7/0/85-7/10/05 SQLsc VEL la0(A))

( 50 t

l

.0 - s LOG 30 -

l l 20 10 -

8 . .

1700 2200 0300 Oset 3300 1000 2300 0400 0900 Her-To-Hop vytetten in Seunt Levels l

l l Figure 3. Variation in L90, L10, and L1 Sound Level Distribution for CNS Noise i Monitoring Sites A, B, C, D, and E.

l 9

Attachment 2 - Noise Survey m,-fe-=, sw La,ei Distriwtion . ,-te m sewne Levei Distri% tion For $tte A-L M For $tte CA M SSMI level le (All 50M3 LEVEL (de(all SJ-Se-40 - 40 -

m. 30 -

20 - 20-10- 10-0 , , , , , , . . . 0 , , , , , , i i i i , i i tese 24e Osse toes 130e 2000 Otoe 0000 14001000 teet 2006 220e 240s 0200 0400 0000 00001000 taes Hour-few Seune Level Distributtons Hour to Hour Soupe Level 01stenbutten For $1te 0-L M For Site E s M SQLN) LEVEL laIAll 5320 LEVEL Im(All H- 50 -

50 - g, 40-30 -

20 -

20 -

10-to-0 , , , , , , , , 0 , , , , , , ,

1900 2400 0900 1000 1900 2006 0100 0000 1900 2400 0500 1000 1500 2000 0100 0000 1100 Figure 4. Comparison L90 Sound Levels between 1978 and 1985 for Sites A, C, D, and E. Key: + 1978 x 1985 10

Attachment 2 - Noise Survey

, r.-w s.one t...: cistrinoti., w-r.-w s.une .... Distrimtisa sit. A s io site c-u0 s3JC LEVEL (40(All stMC LEVEL (m(All 60 - 70 30 60 -

50 -

40 -

40 -

30 -

30 -

n-10" 10-0 , , , , , , , . i . 0 , , , . i i i i 4 i i a 13001500 !?00 tM0 2100 2300 0100 0300 0500 0700 00001100 140010001000 2000 2200 2400 0200 One 0000 000010001200 Mee-fe-+esur S.une Le.el Otetributton Hour-To-Hour sound Level Olstelbutten site 0410 site E-L10 30We LivfL in(All M Leva la(All 70 -

00-50 -

90 -

40-m-

30-30-gg . 20-10- 10-0 . . .

i i 0 , ,

t800 2300 0400 0000 t400 1000 M00 0100 0000 tt00 t600 2100 0200 0700 Figure 5. Comparison of Sound Levels between 1978 and 1985 for Sites A, C, D, and E. Key: +.1978 x 1985 11

l Attachment 2 - Noise Survey TABLE 1. Day-Night Equivalent (Ldn) Sound Levels for 1985 Summer Survey Site Date Ldn db(A)

A 6/24/85 51 A 6/25/85 54 8 - -

C 7/5/85 57 C 7/6/85 57 0 7/1/85 -

D 7/2/85 59 E 7/8/85 52 E 7/9/85 55 TABLE 2. Day-Night Equivalent (Ldn) Sound Levels for 1978 October-November Survey Site Date Ldn db(A)

A 10/31/78 47 A 11/2/78 50 A 11/3/78 47 B 10/31/78 54 C 11/5/78 58 D 11/1/78 56 0 11/4/78 53 D 11/5/78 52 E 11/2/78 48 E 11/3/78 52 12

Attachment 2 - Noise Survey Appendix A. - 1985 summer continuous noise data - hourly values of L99, L90, L50, L10, L1, and LMAX.

l 13

r Attachment 2 - Noise Survey i.

Site A Date Hour L99 L90 L50 L10 L1 Lmax 6/24/85 1200 36 36 38 48 60 72 Monday 1300 36 36 40 50 64 72 1400 36 37 40 49 55 60 1500 37 38 41 48 61 68 1600 36 38 41 49 63 70 1700 38 39 43 48 55 59 1800 39 40 46 54 64 73 1900 38 40 43 51 57 62 2000 40 41 45 50 55 60 2100 41 41 44 47 52 63 2200 41 42 45 47 55 64 2300 39 41 43 44 57 61 2400 38 39 41 44 47 50 6/25/85 0100 42 43 45 48 50 57 Tuesday 0200 44 45 48 50 51 52 0300 39 42 46 49 51 52 0400 35 36 40 43 47 60 0500 37 38 40 47 48 50 0600 39 45 49 52 54 59 l 0700 40 42 45 48 56 70 0800 44 45 47 48 53 72 1

0900 38 39 44 49 57 73 1000 39 41 45 58 67 85 l

1100 37 40 43 49 59 66 l

14 t

Attachment 2 - Noise Survey Site A Continued Date Hour L99 L90 L50 L10 L1 Lmax 1200 37 38 41 48 55 64 1300 37 38 40 49 63 70 1400 36 37 42 55 63 67 1500 36 37 39 46 55 70 1600 36 36 39 47 60 66 1700 36 37 40 48 57 64 1800 36 38 42 51 62 66 1900 37 38 42 48 52 60 2000 38 40 45 57 62 68 2100 38 39 42 48 58 59 2200 39 40 43 51 59 73 2300 41 42 44 48 54 64 2400 39 40 42 44 46 71 6/26/85 0100 36 36 37 43 45 52 Wednesday 0200 37 38 42 46 47 62 0300 37 38 42 46 47 62 0400 41 43 45 47 49 50 0500 37 39 45 48 49 51 0600 34 35 41 48 52 79 0700 41 42 44 50 65 75 0800 39 41 45 49 55 62 0900 38 39 43 52 63 69 15

Attachment 2 - Noise Survey Site B Date Hour L99 L90 L50 L10 L1 Leax i

9/19/85 1000 37 40 48 58 62 65 1100 34 36 40 48 54 62 1200 35 37 42 49 59 66 1300 33 35 39 47 60 69 1400 33 35 39 51 60 64 1500 32 33 36 41 48 55 1600 33 34 39 47 60 69 1700 33 34 36 44 55 63 1800 32 34 39 50 61 66 1900 31 33 37 43 53 58 16

Attachmtnt 2 - Noise Survey Site C I

Date Hour L99 L90 L50 L10 L1 Lmax 7/5/85 1100 35 39 50 61 74 81 1200 35 39 48 60 67 74 1300 34 38 46 59 66 78 1400 35 38 46 58 65 71 1500 32 36 44 58 65 73 1600 34 39 47 59 66 72 1700 37 42 53 61 67 81 1800 35 38 47 58 64 73 1900 34 37 44 58 62 71 i 2000 32 35 43 57 61 67 2100 31 33 40 56 61 65 2200 33 37 45 55 59 64 2300 44 46 48 54 60 71 2400 39 43 46 51 59 62 7/6/85 0100 34 35 43 50 60 70 0200 32 33 34 41 58 80 0300 32 33 33 40 55 63 0400 32 33 37 41 57 66 j 0500 32 32 34 38 55 66 0600 32 33 36 42 57 62 0700 33 35 39 53 60 68 0800 33 34 38 53 61 69 l

l 0900 32 34 39 55 61 73 i

1000 31 33 40 55 62 68 1100 31 34 41 57 62 70 i

17

Attachment 2 - Noise Survey Site C Continued Date Hour L99 L90 L50 L10 L1 Lmax 7/6/85 1200 32 35 43 58 63 68 1300 33 36 44 57 62 71 1400 35 37 46 57 62 70 1500 33 36 46 58 62 67 1600 31 34 43 58 63 69 1700 29 32 41 57 62 71 1800 30 33 43 58 62 69 1900 33 36 45 59 64 84 2000 30 33 41 57 62 69 2100 28 31 39 56 62 81 2200 33 37 47 56 64 77 2300 44 48 49 55 68 83 2400 38 46 48 54 60 70 7/7/85 0100 43 45 46 51 60 65 0200 30 31 35 45 59 70 0300 30 31 32 40 57 66 0400 30 31 32 37 55 67 0500 30 30 31 33 50 60 0600 31 31 36 41 58 63 0700 33 34 39 53 61 68

0800 31 32 36 49 61 70 0900 32 34 38 53 62 66 1000 32 34 39 54 60 66 1100 31 34 42 56 61 70 18

, Attachment 2 - Noise Surysy 1

Site D 1

Date Hour L99 L90 L50 L10 L1 Lmax 7/1/85 1300 35 39 45 56 69 79 1400 38 41 45 55 67 74 1500 39 42 47 57 65 70 1600 37 40 47 56 62 72 1700 39 42 50 57 63 73 1800 39 41 48 57 62 71 1900 35 38 45 55 62 71 2000 36 39 45 54 60 74 2100 36 39 45 54 60 74 I

2200 36 39 43 50 56 77 2300 34 34 37 41 51 55 2400 32 33 34 37 51 59 7/2/85 0100 31 32 33 37 48 56 0200 30 31 33 37 41 52 0300 30 31 33 36 42 51 0400 31 32 48 62 66 78 0500 34 35 41 47 50 59 0600 33 33 35 51 58 67

! 0700 34 36 40 54 62 71 0800 36 38 44 55 63 67 0900 35 37 43 54 62 82 1000 35 38 45 58 64 72 1100 35 39 46 55 63 67 1200 36 39 48 57 65 79 1300 39 46 53 61 67 71 19

l Attachm2nt 2 - Noise Survay l

• l Site D Continued Date Hour L99 L90 L50 L10 L1 Lmax 7/2/85 1400 45 48 53 60 66 71 1500 47 51 56 62 66 72 1600 51 54 58 63 70 74 1700 51 53 57 63 66 71 1800 45 50 57 63 66 72 1900 40 42 52 58 65 78 2000 38 41 50 60 66 69 2100 39 43 50 59 64 71 2200 39 42 46 53 58 63 2300 38 39 41 47 54 59 2400 36 37 39 42 47 61 7/3/85 0100 36 36 38 43 53 57 0200 36 36 39 41 48 54 0300 39 40 42 45 53 57 0400 36 38 40 43 45 51 0500 32 33 35 38 56 68 0600 33 33 38 52 67 73 0700 38 40 47 57 66 73 0800 36 40 46 55 62 72 0900 36 38 46 58 65 71 l

f l

1 20 1

Attachm nt 2 - Noisa Survay Site E Date Hour L99 L90 L50 L10 L1 Lmax 7/8/85 1300 37 38 42 50 60 63 1400 38 40 45 50 59 63 1500 38 43 48 53 58 68 1600 41 42 46 52 60 70 1700 42 44 47 52 57 62 1800 42 44 48 53 57 60 1900 45 47 49 52 56 61 2000 44 46 49 54 58 61 2100 43 45 49 53 57 63 2200 42 43 46 51 62 69 2300 41 42 43 46 56 64 2400 41 41 42 46 54 59 7/9/85 0100 39 41 42 43 59 67 0200 39 40 42 43 47 65 0300 37 38 39 41 43 69 0400 35 37 38 40 57 62 0500 35 37 37 38 40 71 0600 34 36 37 41 60 68 0700 35 36 40 51 68 75 0800 35 37 41 50 55 62 0900 37 39 42 51 56 61 1000 37 39 43 53 67 77 1100 38 41 47 53 57 67 1200 47 49 51 53 58 64 21 I

J., ,

Attachmant 2 - Noise Survey Site E Continued Date Hour L99 L90 L50 L10 L1 Lmax 7/9/85 1300 43 44 47 52 62 71 1400 45 46 48 52 62 71 1500 46 48 51 55 64 68 1600 42 44 48 53 62 68 1700 42 45 50 56 64 70 1800 45 47 51 57 62 69 1900 42 45 49 55 63 69 2000 43 45 48 53 57 64 2100 40 42 47 54 63 68 2200 41 42 45 53 60 67 2300 41 42 43 47 55 66 2400 41 41 42 44 51 63 7/10/85 0100 39 39 41 43 55 63 0200 38 38 39 40 41 45 0300 36 38 39 40 46 55 0400 35 36 38 44 70 79 0500 35 36 38 41 51 61 0600 35 38 40 42 44 54 0700 36 36 39 45 55 77 0800 36 37 40 47 53 62 0900 37 38 41 48 56 63 1000 36 38 42 52 67 75 1100 39 42 47 54 63 72 22

,<s q a Attachment 3 - FOG MONITORING

~

f.

December 5, 1985

&pMerg

<

• Cog 4

M W 1L lL o'

O-N. A. Rutherford, Jr. .

ggt'r Attn: R. O. Sharpe Re: Ca'tawba Fog Study Definition of Study Plan File Nos: CN-1108.01, CN-1412.06, CN-1415.00 Ir. recent discussions with Mr. Jim Fairovent, NRC Meteorologist, the scope of the Catawba Fog Study has been better defined to comply with the language in the Catawba Environmental Protection Plan. Attached is the Fog Study Plan for Catawba based on these discussions. Mr. Fairovent has reviewed and approved the plan in telephone conversations.

If you have any questions about the study plan or the conversations with Mr.

Fairovent, please don't hesitate to call me at 3-8331.

S. B. Hager, Chief Engineer Civil / Environmental Division R.1 A. 4 By: Mark A. Casper Scientist I MAC/mde Attachment cc w/att: D. W. Anderson S. T. Apple J. H. Miller L. E. Parker CentralRecorp J. S. Carter

Attachment 3 - FOG MONITORING Fog Study Plan As part of the licensing process of the Catawba Nuclear Station, the NRC has required that a study be performed to assess the effects of the station heat dissipation system on the intensity and frequency of ground fog. Emphasis is on identifying measurable changes in fog characteristics which may have potential adverse economic and/or aesthetic impacts on Lake Wylie and the surrounding com-munities. The study is designed to address the impact of increased surface water temperatures from plant discharges; increased atmcspheric moisture from vapor due to cooling tower plume downwash, plume dispersion, or drift evapora-tion; and increased fog condensation nuclei from cooling tower drift.

The preoperational phase of the study is completed and consists of two years of data (August 10, 1977 - August 9,1979). The data includes visiometer and sur-face water temperature measurements conducted at the following two locations:

Location 1, about 800 m north of the cooling towers near the plant cooling water intake; and Location 2, about 250 m south of the cooling towers near the plant cooling water discharge. Daily morning fog observations at Location 2 taken by trained security personnel were taken during the same time period. The obser-vations compare conditions at Location 2 to prevailing conditions on adjacent land and water. Trained personnel at Wylie Hydro Station (located about 6 km east-southeast of the plant) similarly described visibility conditions over the lake and land areas visible from the dam. When atmospheric conditions were con-

.ducive to the formation of steam fog, Duke Power Company Meteorologists conduct-ed qualitative observations of the horizontal and vertical extent of the fog, as well as transport of the fog off the lake. Observation locations included visio-meter Locations 1 and 2, Wylie Hydro Station, Ebenezer Boat Landing (located approximately 4 km southeast of the plant), I-77 at the Catawba River Crossing, Tega Cay residential community (3 km southeast of the plant), the municipal air . -

port (located about 8 km south of the plant) and a nearby firetower giving a total view of the lake. The extent of the fog situation can be assessed at all communities on Lake Wylie from these locations ini:luding the community 1.6 km east of the plant.

The operational phase of the study will consist of the same components as the preoperational program. Visiometer and surface water temperature measurements began September 1,1985 at the same locations. Daily morning fog observations 1

[ Attachment 3 - FOG MONITORING by Catawba security and Wylie Hydro personnel began September-1,1984 using the same criteria and observation locations as the preoperational study. In addi-tion, a cooling tower plume questionnaire is filled out by Catawba security during the fog observations when tne towers are operational. The plume ques-tionnaire is designed to document the characteristics of the cooling tower plume itself in terms of visibility, drift and icing on surrounding public and private lands. Qualitative observations by company meteorologists will continue at the same locations as in the preocerational study when fog conditforis w' arrant.

The operational monitoring program will conclude one year after startup and con-tinued operation of Unit 2. At the conclusion of the monitoring period a final report shall be submitted as part of the Annual Environmental Operating Report.

The report will include:

- a complete description of the Catawba Fog Study Program noting similarities and differences between the operational and preoperational programs;

- quantitative and qualitative results;

- interpretative analyses of the frequency and intensity of ground fog induced by plant operation, particularly at .the nearby residential community and municipal airport, using comparisons of the results of the preoperational and operational monitoring programs; and

.- a discussion of the need for continued monitoring and/or mitigating actions to lessen the atmospheric impac't of plant operation.

2

WR &

Duxn Powen GOMPANY P.O. HOX (K)180 CIIAHLOTTE, N.C. 28242 HAL H. TUCKER TELEPHONE wwm reeminent (704) 3N531 stuum emonettma April 29, 1986 Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II L 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 ~2 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 -:

en

Subject:

Catawba Nuclear. Station, Unit 1  :)

Docket No. 50-413 P ~

E5 lAnnual'~NoE-Radiclogidal~EnvironmenEa1OpEEIEin(Report'

ru La

Dear Dr. Grace:

Enclosed please find a copy of the Annual Non-Radiological Environmental Report for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit I covering the period from January 1, 1985 through December 31, 1985. The report is being submitted in accordance with the Catawba Nuclear Station Environnental Protection Plan, Appendix B to Operating license NPF-35.

Very truly yours,

//J /xs Ital B. Tucker WI.H/jgm i Attachments xc: Document Control Desk i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station h

f I \

O r.  !.

-9fil < ,T 7. i bi M" /; i

' '. O ' '

4 l 3d' h2

Summaries and Analyses of Results of Activities required Dy the EPP

(

Section 4.2.1 - Aerial Remote Sensing Pre-Operational infrared photographs were obtained in 1983 and 1984. Data was obtained again in 1985. The photographs and report are in Attachment 1, Aerial Remote Sensing. To date, no damage to vegetation in the vicinity of the cooling tower has been observed with infrared photographs.

Section 4.2.2 - Sound Level Survey Operational Sound Level surveys were conducted in 1985 and compared to preoperational data. Noise attributed to cooling tower operation has not exceeded H.U.D. noise level criteria. The Sound Level Report is found in Attachment 2.

The following complaints were received in reference to noise. Note that complaints were not related to cooling tower fans.

Complaint 1:

On March 12, 1985, Ms. Edith Montgomery of Rt. 2, York, SC contacted the station at 10 am. She reported loud noises coming from the plant site that sounded like steel dropping, for approximately a half-hour duration. The residence is located one-half to one mile north of plant.

The noise was identified as construction related noises. Nothing unusual was identified on site.

The noise description was not related to operation of the cooling towers.

Complaint 2:

On September 4, 1985 Mrs. C.L. Vaugharr of 5350 Crepe Myrtle Drive, contacted the station at 12:30 pm. She reported a roaring noise which was identified as steam generator blowdown being vented to the atmosphere. Unit 1 was at 100% and Unit 2 was in hot functional testing. Station management took immediate steps to reduce the noise by rerouting the S/G blowdown on Unit 2.

NOTE: This event occurred during hot functional testing of Unit 2 and will not be a condition of normal operation.

--__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i

4.2.3 - Fog Monitoring The status of the fog monitoring is reviewed in Attachment 3. A report will be submitted at the conclusion of the monitoring period in the Annual Environmental Operating Report.

5. 4.1 (1) - List of EPP Noncompliance There were no non-compliances.

5. 4.1 ( 2 ) -

Changes in Station Design or Operation, Tests, and Experiments which Involve a Potentially Significant Unreviewed Question There were no changes identified which involved a potentially significant Unreviewed Question.

5.4.1(3) -

Nonroutine reports submitted in accordance with Subsection 5.4.2 of EPP.

There were no nonroutine events identified.

5.4.1(4) - NPDES Reports Related to Matters Identified in Section 2.1 of the EPP Discharge Monitoring Reports:

Date Submitted Period Covered Submittals on: January 25, 1985 Oct - Dec 1984 April 23, 1985 Jan - Mar 1985 July 24, 1985 Apr -June 1985 October 25, 1985 July - Sept 85 Non-Compliance Notification SCDHEC was notified on October 25, 1985, reporting oil and grease concentration of 280 mg/L at the radwaste discharge (004) , exceeding the permit limit of 20mg/L. The exceedence occurred on August 22, 1985.

DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF PAGES:--

ACCES$10N NUMBER (5):

h/OkROVOS -o/ .

+hna-2Y APERTURE CARD /MARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVM:E5 BRANCH,TIDC FT5 492 = 3939 ii ,, i a ..,m. -

2 . .. --