ML18018A412

Forwards Responses to FSAR Hydrologic Engineering Safety Review Questions.Aperture Cards Available in PDR

ML18018A412
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	11/04/1982
From:	MCDUFFIE M A CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	DENTON H R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8211090128
Download: ML18018A412 (42)

Text

RESULATORQNRORNATION DISTRIBUTION STEN (RIDS)ACCESSION NBR;8211090128 DOC~DATE: 82/11/04 NOTARIZED:

NO FACIL:50-400 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Planti Unit ii Carolina 50-401 Shearon Har r is Nucl ear Power Pl ant r Uni t 2i Car ol ina AUTH BYNAME AUTHOR AFF ILI ATION MCDUFFIEiM

~A, Carolina Power 8 Light Co~REC IP, NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION DENTONEH+R

~Office" of Nuclear Reactor Regulationi Director DOCK 0 05000401

SUBJECT:

Forwards responses to FSAR hydrologic engineering safety review questions, Aperture cards available in PDR, DISTRIBUTION CODE: 8001S COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:~J'TITLE: Licensing Submittal:

PSAR/FSAR.Amdts 8, Related Correspondence NOTES: RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME NRR/DL/ADL NRR LB3 LA COPIES RECIPIENT LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAMIE 1 0'RR L83'C 1 0 LICITRAEM, 01 COPIES LTTR ENCL 1 0 ,1 1 INTERNAL: ELD/HDS1 IE/DEP EPDS.35 NRR/DE/AEAB NRR/DE/EQB 13 NRR/DE/HGEB 30 NRR/DE/MTEB 17 NRR/DE/SAB 24 NRR/DHFS/HFEB40 NRR/DHFS/OLB 34 NRR/DSI/AEB 26 NRR/DSI/CSB 09 NRR/DSI/I CSB 16 NRR/DSI/RA 8 22 I-04 RM/MI/MI 8 EXTERNAL: ACRS 41 DMB/DSS (AMDTS)LPDR 03 NSIC 05 1 0 1 1 1 0 2'1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1'1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6, 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 IE FILE IE/DEP/EPI B 36 NRR/DE/CEB 11 NRR/DE/GB 28 NRR/DE/MEB 18 NRR/DE/QAB 21 NRR/DE/SEB 25 NRR/DHFS/LQB 32 NRR/DL/SSPB NRR/DSI/CP8 10 NRR/DS I/ETSB 12 NRR/DSI/PSB 19 NRR/DS I/RSB 23 RGN2 BNL(AMDTS ONLY)FEMA REP DIV 39 NRC PDR 02 NTIS 1 1 3'3 1 1 2 2 1 1'1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRkD: LTTR 52 ENCL 45

.sA f Il~lI'Ih,/N c Iil r(c)I II I A(l i'lI psA f (lit f aOla>or Ii i'(>r f,fhsV>7'h(s"ll 0 h cil g I (I la.lsqt, N h g ll (I (~\ih~I I~, g I (y ll hs(s A(r($/I(l f sS(the))g;S r f Sgc(IhlI,,A

'fh f f((<tish'h c1t('II(h I,'(Ii's~r~)~Ii:)yf(," hl tl'h I'I')l tt")ff'A IIA Ilf l:,'[<t(f~'A<<" f s s.~(t;(4(,i(ry,<'.

l.<tI(r>f sfC">: 3 jf>t."(<I fh'S~f II g)l.i'I g;T t I l<1 (I I C 1 ri II 0",:I lII f f h'hh Ai (('AI S s (i ll<~K P'Igt J I li IS (k o'sh'rt I 1 g (s,I lith Whh<<4I g hth l,i rrr'r0 CÃQE Carolina Power&Light Company gy)4.)sag Mr.Harold R.Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT NOS~1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS.50-400 AND 50-401 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT REVIEW QUESTION RESPONSES HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING

Dear Mr.Denton:

Carolina Power&Light Company's responses to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP)FSAR Hydrologic Engineering Safety Review Questions numbered 240.4, 240.5, 240.6, 240.7, 240.8, 240.9, 240.10, 240.11, 240.12, 240.13, 240.14, 240.15, 240.16, 240.17 and 240.18 are attached.This completes our response to the 240 series questions.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Yours very truly, LJW/ce (4401ARQT2)

Attachments M.A.McDuffie Senior Vice President Engineering

&Construction cc: Mr.Prasad Kadambi (NRC)Mr.G.F.Maxwell (NRC-SHNPP)

Mr.J.P.O'Reilly (NRC-RII)Mr.Daniel F.Read (CHANGE/ELP)

Mr.Travis Payne (KUDZU)~"pDQ*DQCQ 0/000~00'.,), ttevllle Street~P.O.Box 1551 4 Raleigh, N.C.27602'211090128 821.104 PDR FSAR estion 240.4 (Section 2.4.1.2)The Construction Permit review was performed under the assumption that the water inventory would be augmented by pumping from the Cape Fear River.Although the FSAR still discusses Cape Fear River pumping, it is our understanding that this pumping is no longer planned.Please.confirm this change in water sources and make the necessary documentation changes to the FSAR.Also confirm as to whether the Cape Fear River pumping system will be constructed and maintained in a back-up mode.If not describe the potential effects on safety-related water supply.Response: The reservoir reanalysis for SHNPP Units 1 and 2 has been completed.

The results show that the Cape Fear River Makeup System was not needed to support one unit operation.

The most critical low flow period of record, 1980 to 1981, and the 100 year return period drought for Buckhorn Creek inflow alone were analyzed for one unit operation without makeup.The analyses indicate that the reservoir water level remains well above the shutdown level during the worst drought of record and during the 100 year drought.Supporting analyses or conservative comparisons to four unit operation have been or will be provided in the responses to SHNPP ER review questions, Amendment 4 to the Environmental Report, and in a future amendment to the SHNPP FSAR.During severe droughts of record, analyses indicate that the water supply for two unit operation may be marginal when only Buckhorn Creek inflow is considered.

Therefore, for two unit operation the Cape Fear River Makeup System will be installed.

Additional analyses have been performed to prove the adequacy of the makeup system for two unit operation.

These analyses include studies of the 1951-1952 and 1980-1981 drought periods and a normal reservoir operation study for two unit operation.

Analyses, including those presently in the ER and FSAR, indicate that the reservoir water level remains well above the shutdown level during severe drought periods of record and during the 100 year drought for two unit operation with makeup.Supporting analyses or conservative comparisons to four unit operation have been provided in Amendment No.4 to the ER and will be provided in a future amendment to the FSAR to support this conclusion.

FSAR estion 240.5 (Section 2.4.1.2)The CPGL Brunswick Plant should be included in Table 2.4.1-5 (Downstream Industrial Water withdrawals) along with corresponding values of location, drainage area, withdrawal and discharge.

Response: Carolina Power&Light Company's Brunswick Plant, located 19 miles south of Wilmington at Southport, N.C., nominally withdraws cooling water from the Cape Fear River.However, this user is not included in FSAR Table 2.4.1-5 since the withdrawal is within the tidal reaches of the river and does not constitute a consumptive use of river flow.The outfall of the Brunswick Plant is located on the Atlantic Ocean.The drainage area at the plant is 9090 square miles, and the withdrawal and discharge are both 1900 mgd.

FSAR estion 240.6 (Section 2.4.2.2)Provide the design bases, including references, for the riprap slope protection on the downstream face of the main dam.Response No specific design basis exists for downstream slope protection of the Main Dam.The rockfill shell does not require special slope protection because the Cape Fear River 500-year-flood backwater effect on Buckhorn Creek near the downstream face of the Main Dam is not expected to result in wave action on the dam.This is due to protection afforded by a small downstream fetch which severely limits the size of wind-generated waves.There is an oversize rock zone on the downstream face of the Main Dam.During construction of the Main Dam, oversize rocks were plucked from each of the rockfill lifts and placed near the downstream face in order to reduce handling of oversize material and to provide additional protection to the downstream face.The Main Dam is designed as a Seismic Category I structure.

As discussed in Section 2.5.6.5, the side slopes are designed to provide adequate factors of safety under static and dynamic loadings~

FSAR Question 240.7 (Section 2.4.2.3)In your discussion of the effects of local intense precipitation, the potential for ponding of water on the roofs of safety related buildings is not addressed.

Describe the roofs of safety-related buildings including the heights of curbs or parapets surrounding the roofs and the dimension and locations of scuppers or other openings in the parapet walls that will limit the maximum depth of ponding during a local intense PMP event.Assuming that regular roof drains are plugged, determine the maximum depth of water that could pond on the roofs of safety related structures during a PMP event.Also state the resulting roof loads and whether the roofs are designed to accept these loads.Response: All safety related buildings other than the emergency service water intake structure, screen structure and discharge structure have structural features surrounding their roofs that would impound rainwater on the roofs assuming that the roof drains are plugged.In general, the ponding is caused by curbing whose height varies depending on the roof but is a maximum of one (1)foot above the high point of the surrounded roof.In addition to curbing around roof edges, the portions of the Reactor Auxiliary Building roofs which wrap around the west side of the containment.

buildings are partially surrounded by taller structures.

Also, each tank building has two areas without roofs where walls enclose the tanks.The roof plans of all safety related buildings where ponding can occur are shown in Figure 240.7-1.Top elevation of the curbs and high points of each roof are also indicated in the figures.No scuppers or openings have been provided in the curbs.If the regular roof drains are assumed to be plugged during a local intense PMP event the storm water will pond on the roof and overflow the curbs.For the local intense PMP event as given in Table 2.4.2-5 of the FSAR, the water level on all roofs will exceed the top of the surrounding curb by less than three (3)inches except for some areas of the Reactor Auxiliary Building roof which are surrounded by higher walls.In these areas the accumulated water depth will exceed the top elevation of the curb by a maximum of 1/2 feet.The maximum water levels, including the cascade flow from higher roof levels, are indicated on Figure 240.7-1.The open areas of the Tank Building which are surrounded by 25 foot high walls (See FSAR Figure 1.2.2-84)do not overflow, however rainwater will accumulate to a depth of 23.36 feet.The floor of the unroofed areas of the Tank Building and the roofs of all safety related buildings where water accumulates are strong enough to withstand the ponding loads in addition to other dead and live loads that can reasonably be expected to occur coincident with the PMP.The varying depths of water on a given roof due to the slope of the roof were accounted for in determining the structural adequacy.

27 7/C.CURb EL'X07o50 4l 45 v(c.evan i v/c.cup Ezea7.so n.p.Et.'ELZC3:25 a(:~.24 TANK bLDEz F~kOCno WA'TER't.'282.'5'2 T/C.CURb EL207,00 WATER EL204-SE EL%CIAO tSD IL 2CL.LO T/C.CUR b QL 5ZO.50 HP EL 31'5.50 T/C.CUItb'LL 5OC.50 T/C.CUR0 EL522.50 LLP.EL52I.53-T/c cuRE TzL 022.00 T/C CURb W P Ib L'I'tb1'50 H.P EL SZI.50 T/C CUR0 EL301.00~+WA'TER EL'2 bb.O 7/C.CUR0 ELS22o00 HA.EL 32I+35-Z/C.CUR6 EL'522e50 T/C.UR 6 ELZ 7.50 7/C.CUItb EL351.50 RP.EL H P.30C EL 530 SO YJC.CURb L558.0O ILP EL057o504 F.H.5 T/C.CURb EL33b 50 EC20 Rb.60 H.P'El 20C 50 T/C.CUP b EL'557.50 H.P bt WATER.QL53Coso Pal'2 00.06 T/C.CURI5 QL'207 50 T/C.CUR6 EL'537.50 UHLOAblH~AREA H.'P EL55C.SO HS'L EL27li25 DIE5EL FUEL OIL 07ORACE TANK L 0LDCa QC.CLIRP 7/C CUtzb EL304 Et WATER ILL 205.00/c..cu~H.P.'EL bblbobo33 20 C.50 CONT.bLOS UNIT+1 7/Ca CLZPL5 4L287.H.P.I DOMlk HEEL ZOC.SO COI4T.OLDS UNIT"E T/C.CURb EL557e50 T C CURb~'7.6E>z EL 445.50 I'T/C.CUR 0%L5OQ%0 EL 317.00 7/C.CUAb CL32530-H.P EL330.50-)-T/C.CURb EL531.50~liL 44 b.5O K5O".8'0 ELSIT.OO WAL.L EL ZOC.OO TANK bLPC 2--FU EL RT.OO 5I 7.00 7/CCURb EL jOC.30 ILP El 3'20.53'T CCU I.5OC.50 HJ El 3 EO.0'5/cce CLSLI.EltCI.OO Ift WA'TER.EL Z8Z.SZ T/C.CUR6 EL'2 07.OO+WA'TER EL.Ze54.biz R.A.b UNITS I 42 H.P.EL 524.50 T/C.CUR b E 525obO EL 2r I 5"o".4o A 5 UNIT tt Hop EL 505,50'bl Z, IO RAN UNIT~I Hr: Et.sos.so LLJ EL 524.50 HX EL 524ibo H.P EL T/C.CUR0 15.50'EL'520.50

---5 T/C.CURb T/C.CURb LL 5'54 l7(TYP)EL.52I.50 HP.El 3I5 50(7'r+T/C.CURS, ELSLse50 T/C.C UR0 bl SOC.50 T/C.CUIILb EL'525.50 HP EL 335 l7 (7'YP)B.l'l 5'54.l7 (VVP)H.P EL.527.5 g T/C.CURb EL 275.5O LEGEND CUKlb HP EL~5I2.50 71,6 lb H.P EL 274oS0 T/C egg t7'r p5 ROOF-l t WH N T.'+NOTE': MAXIMOH WATER LEVEL WILL.bE 5 HIEzHER THAN TOP OFGUR6 IN ALL AREAS UNI 655 OTHQRWISK NOTSE5 AND MARKED WITH ASTERISK.QE)SflEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Carolina Power Ez Light Company LIATDL LEVELS OII GOOFS OF GULLGIIE3 Fon PRP III TII ROOF GAAIIIS CLOCOEG FIQNE 240 7 I FSAR Question 240.8 (Section 2.4.3.1)Explain why the time distribution for the PMP's in Tables 2.4.2-5 and 2.4.3-2 are different.

Response: As stated in FSAR Section 2.4.3.1, the one hour rainfall increments needed to compute the PMF were drived from a.six hour rainfall distribution curve given as Figure 18 in"Design of Small Dams" (Reference 2.4.3-4).These increments were then rearranged in accordance with the criteria recommended in Hydrometeorological Reports Nos.33 (Reference 2.4.3-2)and 40 (Reference 2.4.3-5)to arrive at the PMP distribution shown on FSAR Table 2.4.3-2.Precipitation losses were accounted for by using the HEC-1 computer program,'herefore, the time distribution of the PMP was important in determining the PMF.However, in estimating the accumulation of water on the ground in the plant island area, it was conservatively assumed that no precipitation losses occurred.Only designed drainage functioned in reducing accumulated water depth and the time distribution of the PMP increments was inconsequential.

The rainfall increments determined from Reference 2.4.3-4 were therefore, not rearranged as was done in determining PMF.Thus Tables 2.4.2-5 and 2.4.3-2 show different time distributions.

Table 2.4.2-5 may be revised to conform to the distribution on Table 2.4.3-2, as shown on the attached markup of Table 2.4.2-5, however the maximum accumulated water does not change (9.68 inches).

~~

0 SHNPP FSAR TABLE 2'.2-5 PLANT AREA WATER ACCUMULATION FOR AUXILIARY RESERVOIR DESIGN STORM CONDITIONS*(D.A~2 43 s.mi.)Time (HR)Incremental Rainfall (in)Incremental Plus Accumulated Rainfall (in.)Design Net Accumulated 3 3.29 z.9o Z."t 0 W-.68 2.%O 2..IO+2m~8~9~e Z'bo-~e Z.'7~3.Zq 5.12 18 21 24 27 (0-y 4 8 SA'I~6'.3 f I"l5-e-.ee-I, o Z~0-O.7&o.(I~8-o.95'.+>0.36 l+.GB t+.i l-4-.95-l1.S&8.3 I-8-.70-O.76-e~o.(l o.H<o+~0.36 5.00 5.00~e 8.31%.5'+~70-O.7(g.bi.g.+5 e-.ee-~+>0.36 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 g, J'7 (5'&30 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.0 33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.0 36 0.30 36.32 0.30 n.30 0.0

Reference:

"Seasonal Variation of the Probable Maximum Precipitation East of the 105th Meridian for Areas 10 to 1000 Square Miles and Durations of 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />" Hydromet.Report No.33, U.S.Weather Burea+April 1956.*10 sq.mi.PMP intensity without basin correction.

2.4.2-9

FSAR Question 240.9 (Section 2.4.3.6)Reference No.2.4.3-10 (and 2.4.5-3), Engineer Technical Letter No.110-2-8 is outdated.It has been superseded by the following reference:

U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Technical Letter No.110-2 221, November 29, 1976.Reevaluate your wave runup analyses using the current reference.

In your response, please note any significant changes in wave runup values and whether or not there will be any effect on safety related structures.

Response: Wave runup analyses have been reevaluated using the Corps of Engineers ETL No.110-2-221 and the Shore Protection Manual 1977.The first reference is used to determine the wave characteristics, while the second reference is employed in computing wave runup.The results are reflected in revised Tables 240.9-1 and 240.9-2, attached.There are no significant changes in the wave runup values which would have an effect on safety related structures.

The largest increment of wave runup is 0.8 ft, which occurs along fetch 7;however, this increment does not govern the critical case of the water level in the Auxiliary Reservoir.

Since no long term wind records are available for the plant site, the maximum wind velocity charts in the Corps of Engineers ETL No.110-2-221 were utilized to determine the design wind velocity shown in Tables 240.9-1 and 240.9-2.The PMH wind speed was taken from FSAR Section 2.4.5.1.

TAELE 240,9-1 WAVE RUNUP PARAMETERS FOR STRUCTURES PROTECTED BY RIPRAP Safety Related Fetch(a)Structure Maximum St I I I Water Level (f t MSL)'\Ef f ect I ve Average Sign If I cant Max lmum Sign I f I cant Max l mum Wl nd Fetch Water Wave Wa ve Wa ve Wa ve~.Wa ve Wa ve Speed Wind Length Depth He I ght Ke I ght Length Per I od Runup Runup (mmh)Direction (ft)(ft)(ft.)(ft.)(ft)(sec)(ft.)(ft)l (1%F-WATER LEVEL IN THE RESERVOIR)

Max lmum Wa ve Wa ter Setup Level (ft.)(ft.I Aux I I I ary Dame 238.9(b)50.2 5930 I Ma ln Damd 238 9(b)50 4~N-~-4720 2 Aux l I I ary Dame 256.0(b)52.9 NW 2120 30 1530 2,4 1,6 2.7 4,0 40.1 2,7 24 8 4,5.46.1 2,8 2.2'.0 3 3 1.8 3,2 4,1 0,1 243 1(c)1.9 0,1 258.0(c)3,6 0,2 242,7(c)(NOfNAL OPERATION W,L, IN RESERVOIRS) 7 Aux I I I ary Dame 123 Nd 1285 IO 3.2 5 4 50,8 3,2 3.6 Notes: (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)See FSAR Figure 2.4.2-38 See FSAR Section 2.4'.3.4 Maximum Water Leve I~Maximum Stl I I Water Level+Maximum Wave Runup+Wind Setup Top of Main Dam~260 ft, MSL Top of Auxiliary Dam 260 ft.MSL TAELE 240,9-2 WAVE RUNUP PARAMETERS FOR PLANT ISLAND Saf ety Related Fetch(a)Structure MaxImum Still Water Level (f t MSL)Ef f ectIve Average S igni f leant Maximum Wind Fetch Water Wave Wave Speed Wind Length Depth Height Height (mmh)Direction (f t.)(f t.)(f t.)(f t.)Wave Wave Length Period (f t.)(sec)S igni f I cant Maximum Maximum Wa ve Wa ve Wa ve Wa ter~Runup Runup Setup Level (ft)(ft)(ft)(ft.MSL (PMF-WATER LEVEL IN THE RESERVOJRS) 4 Natura I 256,0(b)54,0 NMf 5 Sacr If I cia I 238.9(b)51.8 SSE Spol I FI I I 1410 4060 17 29 I~3 2.2 2,2 19 5 2,0 3,7 37,3 2,7 1.0 I 3 0,1 257 4(c)1,2 0,1 240,2"'Natural 256 0(b)54,4 l 8 Sacr If I c I a I 238.9(b)50.9 Spol I Fl I I S.2000 3740 19 29 I 6 2,1 2,6 23.9 2,2 3.5 34.6 2.6 I~4 09 I~6 0, I 257,7 (c)I~I 01 2404 (NORMAL OPERATION W L~IN RESERVO IRS)5 Sacrificial 220 Spo I I Fl I I 123 SSE 1970 16 4 0 6,7 62,7 3 5 1,8 2,0 0,5 222,5 6.Natural 252 123 710 15 2 8 4,7 401 28 2,4 ,2,7 0,2 254,9(c)(a)FSAR Figure 2,4,2-38 (b)See FSAR Section 2.4.2.3.4 (c)hbxlmum Water Level=Maximum Still Water Level+Maximum Wave Runup+Wind Setup (d)Plant Grado~260 ft MSL FSAR estion 240.10 (Section 2.4.8)Discuss the inspection program that will be established for safety-related water control structures such as dams, canals, intakes, etc.List the structures to be inspected, what is to be looked at, the frequency of inspection, and to what extent the guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.127 will be followed.Also describe the inspection program, if any, required by the State of North Carolina on the two dams on site.Response: Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant complies with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.127 (Section 1.8)and Ebasco Specification CAR-SH-CH-24,"Reservoir, Dams and Dike Instrumentation Program (Non-Nuclear Safety)." In addition, the North Carolina Utilities Commission requires a dam inspection program involving private consultants.

The corporate designated authority for dam inspections is the Fossil Plant Engineering and Construction Department (FPE&CD).As a minimum, the inspection program will include the water-control structures discussed in Section C.2 of Regulatory Guide 1.127.The Nuclear Operations Department will perform periodic monitoring of embankment instrumentation.

FSAR Question 240.11 (Section 2.4.8)It is our understanding that plant site drainage, along with overland runoff, flows into the intake and discharge canals of the essential service water system (ESWS).Sediment could therefore build up in canals and auxiliary reservoir during operation, especially if any heavy construction is still in progress.Describe your program, if any,,for monitoring sediment buildup in the FSWS canals and the auxiliary reservoir.

Responses:

Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant complies with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.127.Guidance in Sections C.2.d.(2)and C.2.d.(1), which discusses inspections for excessive sedimentation and changes leading to excessive sedimentation, and inspections of cooling water channels, is included in the on-site inspection program.Significant changes in the reservoir and channel profiles as a result of sedimentation will be evaluated with respect to hydraulic and hydrologic capacity at that time.Also note the following:

The ESWS discharge is above the water level of the discharge canal;therefore, sedimentation cannot affect discharge capability.

The intake and discharge canals have been designed as.Seismic Category I structures and can withstand the static and dynamic water pressures resulting from the maximum wave runup and wind setup as discussed in FSAR Section 2.5.6.Local erosion due to wave action was considered in the design of the side slopes of the channels.Vegetation will be utilized for control of runoff.Also design and construction of the emergency service water system (ESWS)reservoir and channels were undertaken assuming that four nuclear power plant units would be constructed at this site.This results in conservative water capacity features for the 2 units presently planned.

FSAR Question 240.12 (Section 2.4.11)You have not demonstrated that the reservoir is adequate for two unit operation without Cape Fear River makeup.Provide analyses similar to those presented in Tables 2.4.11-4 to 2.4.11-9.If the reservoir is not adequate describe the action to be taken.Also, in addition to the other three selected droughts, the worst drought period for Buckhorn Creek, February 1951 through January 1952, should be analyzed for two unit operation.

Response: The Cape Fear River Makeup System will be installed for two unit operation since the reservoir reanalysis indicates that during severe droughts of record the water supply for two unit operation may be marginal.The analyses presented in Tables 2.4.11-4 thru 2.4.11-9 are, therefore, conservative for two unit operation; since the analyses assume four unit forced evaporation rates with all other factors the same or more conservative for two unit operations.

In addition to these analyses, the 1950-51 and 1980-81 drought periods were analyzed for two unit operation.

See Tables 240.12-1 and 240.12-2, attached.The results of the new analyses show that the reservoir water supply is adequate for two unit operation when supported by the Cape Fear River Makeup System.

TABLE 240,12-1 RESERVOIR ANALYSIS NORMAL OPERATION-TWO UNITS CRITICAL PERIOD-FEB.1951-JAN.1952 CREEK INFLOW DA~79.5 YEAR Mp.CFS AUXILIARY RESERVOIR OPERATION CREF.K NEf RWL (s NET DIR NET INFLOW EVAP.EHD OF EVAP RAIN EVAP DA.RATIO MONTH In.In.In.CFS hcFt FTMSL MAIN RESERVOIR OPERATION CFEEK PUMP ALLOW AVAIL.INFLOW Tp AUX.I'Ol'AKEUP DA.RES.SEEP.CAPE RATIO FEAR CFS CFS CFS AcFt AcFt Ac hcFr.AcFt AcFt AcFt HMSL TOTAL AVE.NET ,FORCED IHC.TOTAL RWL g AVAIL.SURF.EVAP.EVAP.

STpR, STOR.END;OF WATER AREA (2)USE USE MONTH RE/.PUMP CAPE FEAR AcFt A.Worst Honthly Evaporation Condition 1951 F M h M J J A S 0 H D 1952 J 54.4 72.5 90.6 24.9 10.2 11.3 13.6 3.4 2.3 6.8 19.3 47.6 2.44 4.41 6.28 7.70 8.21 9.23 8.51 6.30 4.64 2.99 1.54 1.42 1.86 0.58 2.47 1.94 4.49 1.79 1.77 5.93 3.43 4.78 4.69 4.54 4.03 4.48 1.38 4.92 2.90 1.74 2.71 0.28 3.24-1.70 4.51-3.09 1.27 15.5 250.2 1.69 52.2 250.4 2.11 48.6 250.6 0.58 161.0 250.2 0.24 128.0 250.0 0.26 121.0 250.0 0.32 119.0 250.0 0.08 131.0 250.0 0.05 46.4 250.0 1.16 7.5 250.0 0.45-45.5 250.3 1.11-84.1 250.8 41.9 55.9 69.8 19.2 7.9 8.7 10.5 2.6 1.8 5.3 14.8 36.7 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0.80 5 1.70 5 1.62 5 2.12 5 0.70 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 16600 18000 17900 9130 7210 4240 6290 0 0 1390 10700 17700 18650 21130 21756 10000 7335 4263 6529-269-240 1408 11303 19649 4100 197 4100 659 4100 610 4100 1980 4100 1590.4050-1530 3990 1490 3910 1600 3720 540 3590 83 3690-523 3960-1020 3375 0 3835 0 3874 0-.4223 0 5243 0 5585'2852 5467 428 4177 6046 4165 4945 3807 2482 3662-8168 3625"8585 0 0 0 0 0 2852 3280 9326 14271 16753 8585 0 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 219.2 219.1 217.5 216.I 215.4 217.7 220.0 1515 1365 632'5343 6713.4240(1)629O(1)p(1)(l(1)1390(1)lo7oo(1)9241 Normal Monthly Evaporation Condition 1951 F M h M J J S'H D 1952 J 54.4 72.5 90.6 24.9 10.2 11.3 13.6 3.4 2.3 6.8 19.3 47.6 2.08 1.86 0.22 3.91 2.47 1.44 5.52 4.49 1.03 6.77 1.77 5.00 7.28 3.43 3.85 7.23 4.69 2.54 6168 4.03 2.65 5.50 1.38 4.12 3.55 2.90 0.65 2.31 2.71<<0.4 1.33 3.24-1.91 1.19 4.51-3.32 1.27 5.9 250.2 1.69 38.8 250.4 2.11 28.1 250.8 0.58 136.0 250.4 0.24 104.0 250.1 0.26 67.9 250.0 0.32 70.7 250.0 0.08 110.0 250.0 0.05 17.3 250.0 0.16-10.7 250.1 0.45-51.3 250.3 1.11-90.7 250.9 41.9 55.9 59.8 19.2 7.9 8.7 10.5 2.6 1.8 5.3 14.8 36.7 0 0 0 0 0 0.12 0.83 1.77 0.23 0 0 0 16600 18000 17900 9130 7210 4240 6290 0 0 1390 10700 17700 18650 21130 21756 10000 7383 4460 6577-248-211 1408 11303 19649 4IOO 75 4100 490 4100 352 4100 1680 4100 1280 4070 862 4050 894 3970 1360 3800 206 3690-123 3810-606 4020-1112 3097 0 3656 0 3803 0 4106 0 5103 0 5325 1727 5285-400 4024 5632 3897 4314 3561 2030 3388-8465 3388-4838 0 0 0 0 0 1727 1327 6959'11273 13303 4S38 0 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 219.5 219.6 218.1 216.9 216.3 218.7 220.0 1123'016 4916 6210 424o(l)6290(1)p(1)p(1)I3go())I I7oo(>>5165 Kcy: (I)Limited to available makeup.(2)Forced evaporation rates are conservatively based on four unit operation for comparability to ER TableS 2.4.2-11, 2.4.2-12, and 2.4.2-13.

TABLE 240.12-2 RESERVOIR ANALYSIS ttORMAL OPERTATIOH

-TWO UNITS CRITICAL PERIOD AUCUST 1980-JULY 1981 AUXILIARY RESERVOIR OPERATION ttAItt RESERVOIR OPERATION CREEK INFLOW DA"79.5 YEAR Mo.CFS NET EVAP In.In.In.crs CREEK DIR NET INFLOW RAIN EVAP DA.RATIO AcFt FTIISL NET RWL e EVAP.EHD OF MONTH CFEEK INFLOW DA.RATIO CFS PUMP To AUX.RES.CFS ALLOW AVAIL.FOR MAKEUP SEEP.CAPE FEAR CFS AcFt TOTAL AVE.NET FORCED INC.TOTAL RWL e AVAIL.SURF.EVAP.EVAP.

STOR 7 STOR.EHD OF WATER AREA (2)USE.USE: MottTN AcFt Ac AcFt AcFt AcFt AcFt FTMSL PUMP CAPE FEAR AcFt 1980 A S 0 H D 1981 J F tl A tl J J 1980 A S 0 H D 1981 J F M A M J J 5.2 5.5 18.9 20.5 40.0 34.1 123.0 44.4 24.1 11.2 6.0 4.4 5.2 5.5 18.9 20.5 40.0 34.1 123.0 44.4 24.1 11.2 6.0 4.4 8.51 6.30 4.64 2.99 1.54 1.42 2.44 4.41 6.28 7.70 6.21 9.23 6.68 5.50 3.55 2.31 1.33 l.19 2.08 3.91 5.52 6.17 7.28 7.23 0.76 7.75 3.62 2.68 2.19 2.45 2.38 0.61 1.70.-0.16 1.04 0.38 3.53-1.09 1.33 3.08 1.04 5.24 2.37 5.33 1.13 7.08 2.90 6.33 0.76 5.92 3.62 1.88 2.19 1.36 2.38-0.07 1.70-0.37 1.04 0.15 3.53-1.45 1.33 2.58 1.04 4.48 2.37 4.40 1.13 6.15 2.90 4.33 0.12 0.13 0.45 0.48 0.94 0.81 2.91 1.05 0.57 0.27 0.14 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.45 0.48 0.94 0.81 2.91 1.05 0.57 0.27 0.14 0.10 207 72 65 16-4 10-30 86 144 144 189 169 158 50 36-2-10 4-40 73 125 120 165 115 A.Worst Monthly Evaporation Condition 250 250 250 250 250.3 250.4 251.0 251.0 250.6 250.2, 250 250 4.09 4.34 14.80 16.00 31.30 26.70 96.30 34.80 18.90 8.78 4.70 3.43 3.23 1.07 0.61 0 0 0 0~0 0 0 2.13 2.64 5 246 5 849 5 2910 5 6130 5 6850 5 6620 5 15700 5 15900 5 11800 5 4420 5 8250 5 9660-9 74G 3475 7385 8467 7954 20771 17732 12627 4652 8105 9401 250 250 250 250.1 250.3 250.5 251.1 251.t 250.8 250.5 250 250 4.09 4.34 14.80 16.00 31.30 26.70 96.30 34.80 18.90 8.78 4.70 3.43 2.44 0.71 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O.ll).77 246 849 2910 6730 6850 6620 15700 15900 IISOO 4420 8250 9660 40 768 3505 7385 8467 7954 20771 17732 12627 4652 8226 9455 B.Hormal Monthly Evaporation Condition 3960 25GO 3760 839 3680 750 3720 189 3855-50 3995 127 4100-371 4100 1040 4100 1760 4080 1810 4065 2398 4100 2162 3970 1960 3790 594 3740 424 3785-22 3925-121 4050 50 4110-497 4100.873 4100 1500 4080 1496 4080 2090 4100 I440 5467 8126 4177 4270 4165 1440 3807-3389 3662-4855 3625-4202 3375 1390 3835 0 3874 0 4223 1381 5243-464 5585 917 5285 7205 4024 3850 3897 818 3561-3846 3388-5200 3388"2825 3097 0 3656 0 3803 0 4106 950 5103-950 5325 0 8126 12396 1383G 10447 5592 1390 0 0 0 1381 917 0 7205 1105 11871 8025 2825 0 0 0 0 950 0 0 217.8 216.6 216.2 217.3 218.5 219.7 220.1 22O.O 220.0 219.6 219.9 220.0 218.0 217.0 216.8 217.8 219.2 220.0 220.2 220.0 220.0 219.7 220.0 220.0 246 849(l)2910(1)6730(1)6850(1)6620(1)0 3280 4800 442o(1)8250(I)8932(1)2910 6730(13 GSSO(" 4913 0 3390 4480 4420 8167 6970 Key: (I)(2)Limited to available makeup.Forced evaporation rates are conservatively based on four unit operation for comparability to ER TableS 2.4.2-11, 2.4.2-12, and 2.4.2-13.

FSAR estion 240.13 (Section 2.4.11.2)In Amendment 2 of the FSAR, the 100-year return period Buckhorn Creek low flows were increased over what was presented in the original FSAR.Please explain the basis for this change.Response: Amendment 2 of the FSAR presents Buckhorn Creek low flows at the Cape Fear River (DA=79.5 sq.mi.).The original FSAR presented flows at the Main Dam (DA 71.0 sq.mi.).Both will be included in the next FSAR Amendment.

Buckhorn Creek 100 yr.(cfs)Low Flow average 4 mo.low flow average 7 mo.low flow averge 12 mo.low flow CFR 4.1 7.7 26.0 Main Dam 30 7 6.9 23.2 FSAR estion 240.14 (Section 2.4.11.7)Will Tables 2.4.11-14 and 2.4.11-15 (Main and Auxiliary Reservoir Operation) be revised as a result of your decision to ask only for a license to operate two units7 If not, provide a discussion that confirms that the analyses summarized in the tables are conservative.

In Table 2.4.11-15, are values for rainfall, pumped make-up, and Buckhorn Creek inflow assumed to be zero over the four~onth period?In the top line on page 2.4.11-8, should the table referred to be Table 2.4.11-14, rather than 2.4.11-4'!

Response: Tables 2.4;11-14 and 2.4.11-15 are conservative for both one unit and two unit operation for the following reasons.The beginning low water level 205.7 ft., was the predicted low level for four unit operation during a 100 year drought.This is conservative for two unit operation.

For one unit operation during a 100 year drought the predicted low water level will be 211.0 ft as indicated on Table 240.14-1.Tables 2.4.11-14 and 2.4.11-15 also assume normal shutdown loads in three units.All other factors in these analyses are the same or conservative for one or two unit operation.

Values for rainfall, pumped makeup and Buckhorn Creek inflow are assumed to be zero over the four month period analyzed in Table 2.4.i1-15.

The table referred to in the top line of page 2.4.11-9 is Table 2.4.11-14.

RESERVOIR ANALYSIS NORMAL OPERATION-ONE UNIT 100-YEAR DROUGHT AUXILIARY RESERVOIR OPERATION HAIN RESERVOIR OPERATION CREEK INFLOW DA$79.5 HO.CFS H 51.6 J 12.5 J 12.5 A 12.5 S 4.1 0 4.1 N 4.1 D 4.1 J 51.6 F 51.6 H 51.6 A-51.6 NAT.EVAN In.7.70 8.21 9.23 8.51 6.30 4.64 2.99 1.54 1.42 2.44 4.41 6.28 2.16 1.17 1.72 4.88 0.67 0.72 1.20 0.75 1.44 2.51 1.63-4.33 5.54 7.04 7.51 3.63 5.63 3.92 1.79 0.79-'0.02-0.07 2.78 1.95 DIR: NET RAIN EVAP.In.In.CREEK INFLOW DA.RATIO CFS 1.25 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 1.25 1.25 1.24 1.24 NET EVAP.Ac.Ft.148 188 200 97 150 105 48 21-1-2 75 53 RWL'8 END OF HONT11 FT.MSL 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250.3 250.5 250.5 250.6 CREEK INFLOW DA.RATIO CFS 40.8 9.92 9.95 9.97 3.25 3.25 3.26 3.26 41.50~41.40 41.40 41.40 PUMP TO AUX RES CFS 1.15 2.85 2.95 1.27 2.42 1.60'.70 0.24 0 0 0 0 AI.LOW FOR SEEP.CFS 2131 123 123 228-248-206-145-122 2244 2022 2238 2166 3660 3580 3467 3736 3282 3184 3124 3084 3080 3120 3147 3163 TOTAL AVERAGE AVAII.RES.SURF.WATER AREA Ac.Ft Ac NET EVAP.Ac.Ft 1690 2100 2170 1020 1540 1040 466 203-5-18 729 514 FORCED EVAP.Ac.Ft.1090 1090 1140 1130 1080 1070 988 959 953 872 1000 1020 INCR.STD R.USE Ac.pt 649 3067 3187 1922 2868 2316 1599 1284-1296-1168-509-632 TOTAL STOR.USE Ac.Ft 14099 17166 20353 22275 25143 27459 29058 30342 29046 27879 27369 26737 RWL 8 END OF HOW Tll FT.HSL 216.1 215.2 214.3 213.6 212.7 212.0 211.5 211.0 211.5 211.9 212.0 212.2 NOTES: (1)Worst monthly evaporation rates used (2)No makeup pumping from Cape Fear River (3)Starting level~216.3 FT MSL for Main Reservoir 250.0 FT MSL for Auxiliary Reservoir (4)Creek inf lou and rainfall data from ER Table 2~4,2-15 FSAR Question 240.15 (Section 2.4.12)Your analysis of a failure of the radwaste storage tanks does not appear conservative in that you are assuming complete mixing with the volume of water in the reservoir at the time of the release.Furthermore, your analysis does not state tank volume released or provide a dilution factor or reduction in concentration at the nearest point of surface water use.Please provide these details.Responses:

Any accidental releases into the Main Reservoir are afforded dilution by the Main Reservoir, Buckhorn Creek, and the Cape Fear River before reaching Lillington, the location of the closest downstream surface water user (see SHNPP FSAR Tables 2.4.1-5 and 2.4.1-6).Any spillage from the plant island would enter the reservoir in its northern reaches and would discharge into the Cape Fear River over the main dam spillway at the reservoir's extreme southern end.Any spillage would essentially achieve complete mixing before being discharged since the flow through the reservoir is relatively slow.Even though it is not considered likely, if the entire contents of the RWST (470,000 gals, see SHNPP FSAR Table 6.2.2-9)were released to the lake instantaneously, the dilution provided by the volume of water in the Main Reservoir, conservatively chosen to be 62,000 acre feet (volume of the Main Reservoir when two ft.below normal operating level), would be on the order of 10.5 Also, note that the following assumptions add to the conservatism of the analysis.The radionuclide content in the RWST was maximized by assuming the reactor coolant activity to be based on 1%failed fuel.Further, it was assumed that the Spent Fuel Pool Filtration System was not operating during refueling.

The instantaneous mixing of the tank contents in the reservoir is also a conservative assumption.

The RWST is located approximately 1500 ft.from the reservoir inside the Tank Building.Even assuming the failure of the Tank Building and its internal compartments, the spilled liquid would have to travel 1500 ft overland where some absorption and retention of radionuclides in the soil would take place.Instantaneous mixing removes from consideration the travel time (and consequently the radioactive decay)for the water to migrate to the reservoir and neglects the possibility that portions of the waste would be prevented from reaching the reservoir by retention in the soil.If the real case were analyzed, absorption and retention would lessen the amount of activity present in the reservoir at any given moment.Specific concentrations at Lillington are provided in Table 240.15-1 for two cases.Case one presents the results of one unit operation with no contre/led Main Reservoir makeup (reservoir volume-2.92 x 10 f t and reservoir discharge=43 cfs), and case two presents the results of two uni)op~ration with controlled make-up (reservoir volume-3.14 x 10 ft and reservoir discharge=48 cfs).The reservoir flows for each case were diluted by the minimum annual average flow of 1350 cfs (1981)ER Table 2.4.2-1 in the Cape Fear River.Any natural runoff into Buckhorn Creek Between the Main Dam and its confluence with the Cape Fear River was conservatively assumed to be negligible.

It can be seen from Table 240.15-1 that the C/MPC at Lillington for both cases of operation are well below the allowable concentrations of 10 CFR 20.

Table 240.15-1 Concentration and C/MPC in the Cape Fear River Mater at Lillington Following a Tank Rupture Case 1*2k*I-131 Cs-134 Cs-137 Conc (~Ci/cc)8.79 x 10 2.06 x 10 1~06x 10 c/m c 2.93 x 10 2.29 x 10 5.28 x 10 Conc (uCi/cc)/Unit 9~15x 10 2.13 x 10 1.09 x 10 C/m C 3.04 x 10 3 2.37 x 10 5.47 x 10 Total 3.69 x 10 3.82 x 10*1 unit operation with no controlled reservoir make-up**2 unit operation with controlled reservoir makeup-up FSAR Question 240.16 (Section 2.4.13.3)In your analysis of the groundwater pathways for an accidental tank failure, you assumed an aquifer porosity of 30 percent.Provide the basis for this assumption.

Furthermore, if this is total porosity, then provide values for effective porosity.It is the later parameter that should be used in calculating groundwater travel time.Also, your analysis is incomplete in that you have not provided dilution factors or reductions in concentrations at the potential points of water use.Please provide the details of such an analysis, including the bases for assumed coefficients such as bulk density and dispersion, dispersivity and distribution coefficients.

Response: The analysis of groundwater movement has been revised as follows.The value for porosity in the groundwater movement analysis is based on a measured value of permeability for the fracture system of the intrusive-rock dike between wells 13 and 15 (Figure 240.16-1)in the revised analysis.Inasmuch as hard-rock fracture systems are heteorogeneous and anisotropic, hydraulic characteristics for these systems can be grouped only in a broad category.In the system betwee~wells 13 and 15, the measured permeability value of 2841 gpd/ft compares with the lower part of the scale of values for gravel as given in Walton, pp..33-36 (Reference 240.16-1).

Values were estimated for porosity and"effective porosity" (specific yield)by using the same relative position as"permeability" on scales of these values given in that publication.

The range of values for permeability of gravel is 1,000 to 15,000 gpd/ft.Proportionally, the value of total porosity is 2 estimated at 31 percent and the value of ef f ective porosity (same as specific yield in Walton, 1970)is estimated at 17 percent.Assuming the maximum parameters, it is established that the minimum time required for the groundwater to reach the closest community downstream from the plant would be about 144 years.This time estimate is based upon the following parameters:

Corinth is the nearest town, approximately five miles to the southwest, where residents have wells of minimal production from the Triassic, Newark Group (FSAR Figure 2.3.2-18).

The maximum measured site coefficient of permeability is 520 ft./yr.(FSAR Table 2.4.13-7).

The maximum measured site hydrologic gradient is 0.06 ft/ft towards the SE from the Waste Processing Building (FSAR Figure 2.4.13-2).

The effective porosity is 0.17.The effective travel time of radionuclides which may contaminate the aquifer following a tank rupture would be considerably greater due to absorption and ion exchange on the underlying rock.The distribution coefficients (Kd)for cesium and strontium, the critical radionuclides, are=assumed to be 20 and 2, respectively.

These values were taken from Table VII 3-7 of Appendix VXI of HASH 1400 and are conservative when compared to values reported in the literature (Reference 240.16-2).

The calculated retention factors using these values for Kd, an effective potosdty of 0.17 and a)nlk dty weight density of 2.6 (FSAR Table 2.5.4-1;162.8 lbs/ft)are 307 for cesium and 32 for strontium.

Using these retention factors, the travel time for Cs-137 and Sr-90 for transport to the nearest community would be: Cs-137 (144 yrs)(307)=4.4 x 10 yrs Sr-90 (144 yrs)(321)4.6 x 10 yrs Assuming tritium to be in the form of water, the effective travel time for tritium would be 144 years.Based upon these effective travel times, radioactive decay would reduce the amount of tritium, CS-137 and Sr-90 which could potentially reach Corinth to negligible levels.References; 240.16-1 Walton, W.C.1970.Groundwater Resource Evaluation New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.;664 pp.240.16-2 NUREG/CR-0912 1981.Geoscience Data Base Handbook for Modeling a Nuclear Waste Repository.

FIRE POND 2IT.I LEGEND PIEZOMETER CR WELL 8 WATER LEVEL 257.I CONTOUR OF WATER SURFACE ELEVATION(msl)

/'INTRUSvE DIKE FAlAT TRACE 0 U-UPTHROWN SIDE D-DOWNTHROWN SIDE (THOMAS CREEK)MAIN RESERVQR WATER SURFACE ELEV.=2I5.5 ON JUNE l7, l982 0 O O+LPIO 2I29 LPI6 2IM lO lO 0 GRAPHIC SCALE I 4 5 FEET x IOO Ej~(OFF SHT.aT S.840.JUNE l7 l982 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Corolino Power&Light Company PIEZQKNIC NAP OF THE PuIHT VICINITY OH JUNE I 7~I%82 Figure 240.16-1 N N 25iOO II 22Q3 LPI I4 2R2 2ll.0 LP2 258.l/O U D~LP5 IT8.6 22 200 Igo EXCAV ELE TED TO I80/4/O lA/g)CaIIaL-LPI2 l92.2 PI3 I893 EI.EV.245 IgQ 2'29 dp/p PIEZOMETRIC MAP OF THE PLANT ISLAND VICINITY (

FSAR Question 240.17 (Section 2.4.13.4)Identify which piezometers and wells will be retained during plant operation for monitoring purposes.Also, please describe the operational monitoring data that will be obtained, the methods and frequency of measurement, the methods for processing and analyzing the data, and associated reporting and quality assurance procedures.

Response: Fourteen piezometers that were installed in November, 1979, as well as two premonstruction peizometers and one new well, are available at the plant site.The piezometers and site wells provide data on water levels, hydraulic gradient, and direction of flow.Water levels in piezometers and site wells are measured periodically and analyzed to assess the effect of construction on the site groundwater regime.Mater samples from three wells were analyzed to determine baseline water quality parameters (SHNPP FSAR Table 2.4.13-8, attached).

Once the plant begins operation, the groundwater data collection program will be modified to provide data on recharge to the aquifer, movement of water and changes in chemical quality of the ground water.Current plans are to maintain a basic network of 12 wells to provide periodic data from the aquifer.These wells are: LP-1;LP-2, LP-8;LP-12, LP-13, LP-16;PZ-2;Well 4;Hell 7-A;Mell 8;Mell 8-A and Hell 13, Wells 4, 7-A, and 8 will be sampled periodically to monitor the chemical properties of the water.The locations of these wells are shown on Figure 240.17-1.Water levels in all network wells will be measured monthly by hydrologists or trained technicians using electric water-level sensing tapes.At least'ne well will be equipped with a continuous water-level recorder, such as a Stevens, Type F.Mater samples will be taken at 3~onth intervals from Wells 4, 7-A and 8 for chemical analyses.Water-level and chemical data will be sent to the company's hydrologists for synthesis and evaluation.

The hydrologists will maintain up-to-date files on the data and will prepare brief periodic reports on the hydrologic condition of the aquifer.Periodic summary reports or FSAR updates as appropriate, will also be prepared and will discuss hydrologic changes in the aquifer, apparent effects of the reservoir on ground water and any potential ground-water related problems at the plant.The operational monitoring program may be modified as the long term data base is established and as recommended by CPSL hydrologists.

TABLE 2.4.13-8 CHEMICAL QUALITY OF SITE GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS PARAMETER WELL NO.2 WELL NO+4 WELL N0.7A Color pH Alkalinity CaCO>Total Hardness Iron Manganese Turbidity Si02 Acidity CacO>(hloride Sodium Potassium Fluoride Arsenic Cadmium Chromium+6 Copper Lead Zinc Calcium Magnesium 7'107 72 0.13 0.24 23 35 2.0<0.10<0.01<0.01<0.'05<0.05<0.05 0.40 14.8 7.5 7.0 134 106 0.35 0.38 22 30 1.6<0.10<0.01<0.01<0.05<0.05<0.05<0.05 21.0 11.0 7.9 140 137 0.95 0.29 21 19<0.10<0.01<0.01<0.05<0.05<0.05<0.05 26.5 15.4 Note: Analyses performed during March 1973 by N.C.Board of Health, Laboratory Division, Raleigh, North Carolina.All results are expressed in parts per million except the parameters of color and pH.

O IA O OJ NC.GRID EX PL ANAT I ON THOMAS CREEK FAULT U, UPTHROWN SIDE D,DOWNTHROWN SIDE DIABASE DIKE PERMANENT MONITOR WELL 00 PZ2 LP I6 Dl MAKEUP INTAKE CANAL2I5,5 AMENDMENT NO.4 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Carolina Power 8 Light Company PERMANENT MONITOR WELL NETWORK Figure 240.17-1 i~~O O 0 E 2)OIO,OOO~,: O~O~Ql E 2)01,000 E 2sOI2,000 E 2,0I5,000

FSAR Question 240.18 (Section 2.4)General Comment: Since the completion of Unit 2 will take place after Unit 1 is in operation, provide a discussion of all hydrologic engineering safety-related aspects of constructing Unit 2 while Unit 1 is in operation.

For example, what effects will having an open excavation at Unit 2 have on groundwater levels and drainage at Unit 1?Response: As stated in FSAR Section 2.4.13 the subsurface portions of Seismic Category X structures on the plant island are designed for hydrostatic loading with the water table at Elevation 251 feet msl.The post-construction water table elevation at the plant is not expected to recover above the 236-ft.to 240-ft.elevation because of the topographic and drainage alterations made during construction.

Xt has been noted that there has been no significant inflow of ground water into the plant excavation during the past or current construction operations.

There are no hydrologic reasons to believe that these conditions will be significantly altered during the construction of Unit 2.Because of the low permeability (0.2 gpd/ft or less)of the soil and saprolite at the plant island, and the absence of intrusive dikes in the immediate area of construction, no hydrologic problems are anticipated with the open excavation at Unit 2 while Unit 1 is in operation.

Surficial runoff into the pit will be essentially eliminated by grading to direct surface drainage away from'the excavation.

Any water that may accumulate in the excavation will be removed by a sump pump.Additional excavation that may be needed in conjunction with the construction of Unit 2 will intercept groundwater movement toward Unit 1 and thereby, will retard the recovery of the water table around Unit 1.

~~~i<<\$4 O N 25i00 5.I FIRE POND 5 231.l I LlEGEND I PIEZOMETER OR WELL 8 WATER LEVEL CONTOUR OF WATER SURFACE ELEVATION(msl)

LP I I4 2R2'll.20p L9p LP2 258.l I~O j 2I7.I/IN TRUSIVE DIKE uT TRACE U-UPTHROWN SIDE D-DOWNTHROWN SIDE (THOMAS CREEK)MAIN RESERVQR WATER SURFACE ELEV.=2I5.5 ON JUNE l7, l982~LP5 178.6 EXCAV TED TO ELE l80 0 0 O+I.8 LPI2 l922~9p LPIO 2l29 PI3 l893 CANAL-ELEV.245 20p 2/p 2+p LPI6 2IM GRAPHIC SCALE I 4 FEET x IOO dp/pp~IE'5+00 S PIEZOMETRIC MAP OF THE PLANT ISLAND VICINITY ON ZQ~, 6(~(OFF SHT.AT S.84O.JUNE l7 l982 9A 2I20 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Carolina Pawer 8 Light Company PIEZQKMIC NAP OF THE PUNT VICINITY ON JQK 17, 1982 Figure 240.16-1

N 688000 O OJ 0 Ol ul OJ O Ol~l3 0 THOMAS CREEK lO O Ol NC.EXPLANAT I ON FAULT U, UPTHROWN SIDE O',DOWNTHROWN SIDE DIABASE DIKE o PERMANENT MONITOR WELL N.687,000~LP2 686)000 LP'l 0ISCHARGE L~u hq 0 0 N 685,000~7A f I 5(PZ2 684 000 t I I D4 D5 Cg'45 4 LP'l2 ALP'Q DS LP I6 MAKEUP INTAKE CANAL2I5.5 I'l AhKNDMENT N0.4 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Carolina Pawer 8 Light Company PERMANENT MONITOR WEL'L NETWORK Figure'40.17;1 la