ML20052A427
| ML20052A427 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1982 |
| From: | DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052A423 | List: |
| References | |
| ENVR-820423, NUDOCS 8204280325 | |
| Download: ML20052A427 (225) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:1 DUKE POWER COMPANY APPLICATION FOR LICENSES O DOCKET NO. 50-413 & 415 AMENDMENT NO: 26 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT i i Revision 5 CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS: . Please remove and insert pages in accordance with the following tabulations: Remove These Pages Insert These Pages Volume 1 ER iii, iv ER iii, iv ER xi, xii ER x1, xii ER xv thru xviii ER xv thru xviii ER 1.1-1 thru 1.1-7 ER 1.1-1 thru 1.1-7 ER 1.3-1, 1.3-2 ER 1.3-1, 1.3-2 ER Table (s) 1.1.1-1 thru 1.1.1-4 ER Table (s) 1.1.1-1 thru 1.1.1-4 ER Table (s) 1.1.2-2 (1 of 2) thru ER Table (s) 1.1.2-2 (1 of 2) thru O 1.1.2-5 ER 2.1-3, 2.1-4 ER 2.3-1 thru 2.3-3 1.1.2-5 ER 2.1-3, 2.1-4 ER 2.3-1 thru 2.3-3 ER 2.5-1 ER 2.5-1 ER Table (s) 2.1.3-1, 2.1.3-2 ER Table (s) 2.1.3-1, 2,1.3-2 ER Table (s) 2.3.0-1 (1 of 2 & 2 of 2) ER Table (s) 2.3.0-1 (1 of 2 & 2 of 2) ER Table (s) 2.3.0-3 (1 of 7 & 2 of 7) ER Table (s) 2.3.0-3 (.1 of 7 & 2 of 7) ER Table (s) 2.3.0-5 thru 2.3.0-7 ER Table (s) 2.3.0-5 thru 2.3.0-7 ER Table (s) 2.4.1-5, & 2.4.1-6 ER Table (s) 2.4.1-5, & 2.4.1-6 ER Figure (s) 2.1.2-1, 2.1.2-2 ER Table (s) 2.1.2-1, 2.1.2-2 ER Figure (s) 2.4.3-1, 2.4.4-1 ER Table (s) 2.4.3-1, 2.4.4-1 Volume 2 ER 3111, 31v ER 3111, 31v ER 3vii ER 3vii ER 3.3-1, 3.3-2 ER 3.3-1, 3.3-2 ER 3.4-1 thru 3.4-4 ER 3.4-1 thru 3.4-4 ER 3.5-11, 3.5-12 ER 3.5-11, 3.5-12 ER 3.6-1 thru 3.7-2 ER 3.6-1 thru 3.7-2 ER 3.8-1 ER 3.8-1 ER Table (s) 3.3.1-1 (1 of 2 & 2 of 2) ER Table (s) 3.3.1-1 (1 of 2 & 2 of 2) ER Table (s) 3.6.1-2 thru 3.6.1-3 (2 of 2) ER Table (s) 3.6.1-2 thru 3.6.1-3 (2 of 2) ER Table (s) 3.7.1-1, 3.9.1-1 ER Table (s) 3.7.1-1, 3.9.1-1 ER 5.1-1 thru 5.1-10 ER 5.1-1 thru 5.1-10 ER 5.3-1 thru 5.4-1 ER 5.3-1 thru 5.4-1 ER Table (s) 5.1.2-1, 5.2.2-1 (1 of 2) ER Table (s) 5.1.2-1, 5.2.2-1 (1 of 2) 82 0 4 28 0%$
y '! ,
'Rcmove These Pages Insert These Pages ER 6111, 61v ER 6111, 61v ER 6.1-7 thru 6.2-3 ER 6.1-7 thru 6.2-3 ER 6.4-1 ER 6.4-1 ER Table 6.2.2-1, Notes to Table ER Table 6.2.2-1, Notes to Table 6.2.2-1 6.2.2-1 ER Table (s) 6.4.1-2 (1 of 5) thru 6.4.1-3 (5 of 5)
ER 7.1-1 thru 7.1-16 ER 7.1-1 thru 7.1-16 ER 8.1-1, 8.1-2 ER 8.1-1, 8.1-2 ER 8.2-1, 8.2-2 ER 8.2-1, 8.2-2 ER 9.1-1 thru 9.2-2 ER 9.1-1 thru 9.2-2 ER 9.3-1, 9.3-2 ER 9.3-1, 9.3-2 ER 101, 1011 ER 101, 1011 ER 10.1-1 thru 10.4-2 ER 10.1-1 thru 10.4-2 ER 10.6-1, 10.6-2 ER 10.6-1, 10.6-2 ER Table (s) 10.1.1-1, 10.1.1-2 (1 of 6) ER Table (s) 10.1.1-1, 10.1.1-2 (1 of 6) Appendix 7 Cover Sheet thru pg. 7 RAI 1 thru 6 RAI 1 thru 6 RAI 11 thru 13 RAI 11 thru 14 11 x 17 Figures
~
Figure 3.3.1-1 Figure 3.3.1-1 Figure 6.1.3-1 O Figure 6.1.3-1 O
fm DUKE POWER COMPANY f., APPLICATION FOR LICENSES DOCKET No. 50-413 & 415 AMENDMENT NO: 26 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Revision 5 CIIANGES AND CORRECTIONS: Please remove and insert pages in accordance with the following tabulations: Remove These Pages Insert These Pages Volume 1 ER iii, iv ER iii, iv ER xi, xii ER xi, xil ER xv thru xviii ER xv thru xviii ER 1.1-1 thru 1.1-7 ER 1.1-1 thru 1.1-7 ER 1.3-1, 1.3-2 ER 1.3-1, 1.3-2 pT i, ER Table (s) 1.1.1-1 thru 1.1.1-4 ER Table (s) 1.1.1-1 thru 1.1.1-4 ER Table (s) 1.1.2-2 (1 of 2) thru ER Table (s) 1.1.2-2 (1 of 2) thru 1.1.2-5 1.1.2-5 ER 2.1-3, 2.1-4 ER 2.1-3, 2.1-4 ER 2.3-1 thru 2.3-3 ER 2.3-1 thru 2.3-3 ER 2.5-1 ER 2.5-1 ER Table (s) 2.1.3-1, 2.1.3-2 ER Table (s) 2.1.3-1, 2.1.3-2 ER Table (s) 2.3.0-1 (1 of 2 & 2 of 2) ER Tabic (s) 2.3.0-1 (1 of 2 & 2 of 2) ER Table (s) 2.3.0-3 (1 of 7 & 2 of 7) ER Table (s) 2.3.0-3 (1 of 7 & 2 of 7) ER tab 1c(s) 2.3.0-5 thru 2.3.0-7 ER Table (s) 2.3.0-5 thru 2.3.0-7 ER Table (s) 2.4.1-5, & 2.4.1-6 ER Table (s) 2.4.1-5, & 2.4.1-6 ER Figure (s) 2.1.2-1, 2.1.2-2 ER Table (s) 2.1.2-1, 2.1.2-2 ER Figure (s) 2.4.3-1, 2.4.4-1 ER Table (s) 2.4.3-1, 2.4.4-1 Volume 2 ER 3111, 31v ER 3111, 31v ER 3v11 ER 3vil ER 3.3-1, 3.3-2 ER 3.3-1, 3.3-2 ER 3.4-1 thru 3.4-4 ER 3.4-1 thru 3.4-4 ER 3.5-11, 3.5-12 ER 3.5-11, 3.5-12 ER 3.6-1 thru 3.7-2 ER 3.6-1 thru 3.7-2 ER 3.8-1 ER 3.8-1 ER Table (s) 3.3.1-1 (1 of 2 & 2 of 2) ER Table (s) 3.3.1-1 (1 of 2 & 2 of 2) ER Table (s) 3.6.1-2 thru 3.6.1-3 (2 of 2) ER Tabic (s) 3.6.1-2 thru 3.6.1-3 (2 of 2) [ ER Table (s) 3.7.1-1, 3.9.1-1 ER Table (s) 3.7.1-1, 3.9.1-1
\s ER 5.1-1 thru 5.1-10 ER 5.1-1 thru 5.1-10 ER 5.3-1 thru 5.4-1 ER 5.3-1 thru 5.4-1 FR Table (s) 5.1.2-1, 5.2.2-1 (1 of 2) ER Table (s) 5.1.2-1, 5.2.2-1 (1 of 2)
l Remove These Pages Insert These Pages ER 6111, 61v ER 6111, 61v ER 6.1-7 thru 6.2-3 En 6.1-7 thru 6.2-3 ER 6.4-1 ER 6.4-1 ER Table 6.2.2-1, Notes to Table ER Table 6.2.2-1, Notes to Table 6.2.2-1 6.2.2-1 ER Table (s) 6.4.1-2 (1 of 5) thru 6.4.1-3 (5 of 5) ER 7.1-1 thru 7.1-16 ER 7.1-1 thru 7.1-16 ER 8.1-1, 8.1-2 ER 8.1-1, 8.1-2 ER 8.2-1, 8.2-2 ER 8.2-1, 8.2-2 ER 9.1-1 thru 9.2-2 ER 9.1-1 thru 9.2-2 ER 9.3-1, 9.3-2 ER 9.3-1, 9.3-2 ER 101, 1011 ER 101, 1011 ER 10.1-1 thru 10.4-2 ER 10.1-1 thru 10.4-2 ER 10.6-1, 10.6-2 ER 10.6-1, 10.6-2 ER Table (s) 10.1.1-1, 10.1.1-2 (1 of 6) ER Table (s) 10.1.1-1, 10.1.1-2 (1 of 6) Appendix 7 Cover Sheet thru pg. 7 RAI 1 thru 6 RAI 1 thru 6 RAI 11 thru 13 RAI 11 thru 14 i O O
i l* ? ! l l TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUE 0 i ! Section M l 3.5.5 PROCESS AND EFFLUENT RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING SYSTEM ER 3.5-16 [ 3.6 CHEMICAL AND BIOC10E WASTES ER 3.6-1 f i t j 3.6.1 CHEMICAL EFFLUENTS ER 3.6-1 l 3.6.2 COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN ER 3.6-2 t ! l l 3.6.3 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND REC 0VERY ACT ER 3.6-3 l l l l 3.7 5ANITARY AND OTHER WASTE SYSTEMS ER 3.7-1 3.7.1 TEMPORARY SANITARY WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS ER 3.7-1 3.7.2 OTHER WASTE SYSTEMS ER 3.7-2 ! 3.8 REPORTING OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT ER 3.8-1 i l 3.9 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES ER 3.9-1 ; ! 3.
9.1 DESCRIPTION
OF THE LINES ER 3.9-1 3.9.2 LAND USE ALONG THE LINES ER 3.9-2 ; 1 I l 3.9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE TRANSMISSION FACILITIES ER 3.9-2 3.9.4 230 kV SWITCHING STATION ER 3.9-3 j 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION, STATION ER 4.1-1 I l CONSTRUCTION, AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION l 4.1 SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION ER 4.1-1 l 4.1.1 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ER 4.1-1 4.1.2 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY ER 4.1-2 4.1.3 AQUATIC ECOLOGY ER 4.1-3 l 4.2 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION ER 4.2-1
- 4.2.1 CONSTRUCTION OF THE CATAWBA TRANSMISSION ER 4.2-1 4.2.2 MODIFICATION OF THE EXISTING TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ER 4.2-3 t
i 4.3 RESOURCES COMMITTED ER 4.3-1 l l h Rev. 5 ER iii j i
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED Section M 4.3.1 CATAWBA SITE ER 4.3-1 4.3.2 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ER 4.3-1 4.3.3 TRANSMISSION ER 4.3-1 4.4 RADIATION ER 4.4-1 4.4.1 INTERIM CONSTRUCTION WORKER DOSES ER 4.4-1 4.5 CONSTRUCTION IMPACT CONTROL PROGRAM ER 4.5-1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF STATION OPERATION ER 5.1-1 5.1 EFFECT OF OPERATION OF HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM ER 5.1-1 5.1.1 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ER 5.1-1 5.1.2 PHYSICAL EFFECTS ER 5.1-1 5.1.3 BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS ER 5.1-3 5.1.4 EFFECTS OF HEAT DISSIPATION FACILITIES ER 5.1-4 5.2 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT FROM ROUTINE OPERATION ER 5.2-1 5.2.1 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS ER 5.2-1 5.2.2 RADIOACTIVITY IN THE ENVIRONMENT ER 5.2-4 5.2.3 DOSE RATE ESTIMATES FOR BIOTA OTHER THAN PEOPLE ER 5.2-8 5.2.4 DOSE RATE ESTIMATES FOR PEOPLE ER 5.2-10 5.2.5
SUMMARY
OF ANNUAL RADIATION DOSES ER 5.2-17 5.3 EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE DISCHARGES ER 5.3-1 5.3.1 APPLICABLE WATER STANDARDS ER 5.3-1 5.3.2 EFFECTS ON RECEIVING WATERS ER 5.3-1 5.3.3 INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL WASTES ER 5.3-1 5.3.4 COOLING TOWER DRIFT ER 5.3-2
- 5. 4 EFFECTS OF SANITARY WASTE DISCHARGE ER 5.4-1 O
Rev. 1 ER iv
N, LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED f 9 Table No. Title 2.1.2-9 1970 Population Distribution 0-50 Miles (90-80.4 km) 2.2.2-10 1980 Projected Population Distribution 0-50 Miles (0.80.4 km) 2.1.2-11 1981 Projected Population Distribution (Year of Plant Start-up) 0-50 Miles (0-80.4 km) 2.1.2-12 1990 Projected Population Distribution 0-50 Miles (0.80.4 km) 2.1.2-13 2000 Projected Population Distribution 0-50 Miles (0-80.4 km) 2010 Projected Population Distribution 0-50 Miles (0-80.4 km)
~
2.1.2-14 2.1.2-15 2020 Projected Population Distribution 0-50 Miles (0-80.4 km) 2.1.2-16 1977 Seasonal Recreational Transient Population 2.1.2-17 1977 Average Daily Recreational Transient Population 2.1.2-18 1977 Daily Industrial Transient Population b) V 2.1.3-1 Location of Closest Milk Cow, Milk Goat, Garden, Residence, and Site Boundary by Sector Within 5 Miles 2.1.3-2 Truck Farming Production ' 2.1.3-3 Hilk Production 2.1.3-4 Heat Production 2.1.3-5 Surface Water Users 2.1.3-6 Groundwater Users 2.1.3-7 River Bank Wells 2.1.3-8 Major Dischargers 2.2.1-1 Approximate Acreage of Vegetation Communities Cleared During Construction 2.2.2-1 Phytoplankton Taxa Composition from Station 215.0 2.2.2-2 Phytoplankton Taxa Composition from Station 220.0 2.2.2-3 Lake Wylie Phytoplankton Densities and Cell Volume 2.2.2-4 Zooplankton Species List 2.2.2-5 Estimated Zooplankton Densities Rev. 3 ER xi
LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED Table No. Title 2.2.2-6 Percentage Composition of Important Zooplankton 2.2.2-7 Checklist of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa 2.2.2-8 Mean Density (No./m 2
) of Important Benthic Macroinvertebrates per Sampling Period 2.2.2-9 Mean Density (No.hr2 ) of Important Benthic Macroinvertebrates per Sampling Location 2.2.2-10 Fish Species Collected from Lake Wylie near Catawba Nuclear Station 2.2.2-11 Percent Composition of Fish Collected from Lake Wylie near Catawba Nuclear Station 2.2.2-12 Recreational Harvest from Lake Wylie 2.2.2-13 Estimated Recreational Harvest Taken by all Fishermen on Lake Wateree 2.2.2-14 Recreational Harvest in Kg Round Weight - Lakes Marion and Moultrie 2.2.2-15 Commercial Harvest in Kg from the Santee River Below Wilson Dam 2.2.2-16 Commercial Harvest in Kg from the Cooper and Ashley Rivers Below Penopolis Dam 2.2.2-17 Commercial Harvest in Kg from Wando River 2.2.2-18 Number of Fish Sampled and Calculated Total Number of Dead Fish a 1973 Fish Kill 2.3.0-1 Vicinity Climatology 2.3.0-2 Wind Occurrences (40 m) 2.3.0-3 Wind Occurrences (10 m) 2.3.0-4 Relative Frequencv si iration 2.3.0-5 Climatic Comp,,
2.3.0-6 Annual Average X/Q Values at Intake Vents - Offsite 2.3.0-7 Dilution Factors for Accident Releases
- 2. 4.1- 1 Flood Peak Return Period
- 2. 4.1- 2 Lake Wylie Minimum Surface Water Elevations O Rev. 5 ER xii
LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED 7 E \ L;' Table No. Title 5.2.3-2 Principal Parameters and Asssumptions Used for Estimating the Cow Thyroid Dose from Ingestion of Pasture Grass 5.2.4-1 Appendix I Conformance Summary Table 5.2.4-2 Summary of Calculated Liquid Pathway Doses Breakdown By Pathway of Significant Nuciide Contribution to Maximum Total Body and Critical Organ D ses for Liquid Effluents 5.2.4-3 Summary of Calculated Airborne Pathway Doses Breakdown By Pathway of Significant Nuclide Contribution to Maximum Total Body and Critical Organ Doses for Gaseous Effluents 5.2.4-4 Input Data for Liquid Population Dose Calculations 5.2.4-5 Integrated Population Dose Summary 5.2.4-6 Human Exposure Pathway Usage Factors and Transport Times
- 5. 3.1- 1 Aerial Distribution Salt Deposition 6.1.1-1 Monitoring Program for First Year Preoperational Study (1973-(G) 1974) 6.1.1-2 Sampling Locations for the Water Quality Studies 6.1.1-3 Interim Monitoring Program (1974--1977) 6.1.1-4 Interim Monitoring Program (1977 to Beginning of Second Year Preoperational Program) 6.1.1-5 Second Year Preoperational Monitoring Program 6.1.1- 6 Summary of Non-radiological Second Year Preoperational Aquatic Monitoring Program 6.1.5-1 Preoperational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 6.1.5-2 Detection Capabilities for Environmental Sample Analyses 6.2.2-1 Proposed Chemical Effluent Monitoring Program 6.4.1-1 Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program Annual Summary 1979
- 6. 4.1-2 Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program Annual Summary 1980 6.4.1-3 Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program Annual Summary 1981 p}
t 7.1.1-1 Summary of Radiological Consequences of Postulated Accidents Rev. 5 ER xv
l LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED Title O Table No. 7.1.1-2 General Assumptions for Accident Release Calculations 7.1.1-3 Radioactivity Inventory for an Average Fuel Assembly 7.1.2-1 Radioactivity Sources From Waste Gas Storage Tank Release Accident 7.1.2-2 Radioactivity Sources From Liquid Storage Tank Release Accident 7.1.2-3 Radioactivity Sources From Off Design Transient Accident 7.1.2-4 Radioactivity Sources From Steam Generator Tube Rupture Accident 7.1.2-5 Radioactivity Sources From Fuel Bundle Drop Inside Containment Accident 7.1.2-6 Radioactivity Sources From Object Drop Onto Fuel In Core Accident 7.1.2-7 Radioactivity Sources From Fuel Assembly Drop In Fuel Storage Pool Accident 7.1.2-8 Radioactivity Sources From Heavy Object Drop Onto Fuel Rack Accident 7.1.2-9 Radioactivity Sources From Fuel Cask Drop Accident O 7.1.2-10 Radioactivity Sources From Loss-of-Coolant Accident (Small Break) 7.1.2-11 Radioactivity Sources From Loss-of-Coolant Accident (Large Break) 7.1.2-12 Radioactivity Sources From Rod Ejection Accident 7.1.2-13 Radioactivity Sources From Steamline Break Accident 8.1.1- 1 Benefits from Catawba Nuclear Station 8.1.2-1 Internal Costs 8.1.2-2 Tax Impact Based on 1977 8.1.2-3 Comparison of Construction and Operating Forces Impact on York County, South Carolina 8.2.1-1 Catawba Fossil Alternative Internal Costs 8.2.1-2 Estimated Costs of Electrical Energy Generation 9.3.1-1 Site-Plant Alternatives Capital Costs 9.3.1-2 Site-Plant Alternatives Environmental Factors Rev. 5 ER xvi
1
- l l
I LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED
- . Table No. Title j 9.3.2-1 Economic Benefits of Nuclear vs. Fossil Fuel at Catawba '
9.4.0-1 Cost of Alternative Generation Methods ] l 10.1.1-1 Comparison of Closed Cycle Mechanical Draft vs. Natural Draft ! Towers
- 10.1.1-2 Cooling System Alternatives i 10.1.1-3 Cooling Tower Details l 10.2.1-1 Comparison of Intake Structures i 10.9.0-1 Basic Tabulation to be Used in Comparing Alternative Plant i Systems
- 12.3.0-1 Federal, State, and Local Authorizations -
i i i i 9 O
-Rev. 5 ER xvii
LIST OF FIGUC : Figure No. Title 1.1.1-1 Load Duration Curve For the Year 1985 1.1.1-2 Load Duration Curve For the Year 1986 2.1.1-1 Regional Area 2.1.1-2 Site Location 2.1.1-3 Site Area 2.1.1-4 Release Points 2.1.1-5 Non Radiological Release Point 2.1.2-1 Significant Population Groupings 0-10 Miles 2.1.2-2 Significant Population Groupings 10-50 Miles 2.1.3-1 5 Mile Topography 2.1.3-2 Comprehensive 5 Mile Area 2.1.3-3 Zoning and Game Management Areas Within 5 Miles 2.1.3-4 Surface Water Users 2.1.3-5 Groundwater Users 2.1.3-6 Riverbank Wells 2.1.3-7 Major Discharges 2.2.1-1 Major Plant Communities 2.2.2-1 Ecological Sampling Locations 2.2.2-2 Catawba River System from the Catawba Nuclear Station Site to the Atlantic Ocean 2.2.2-3 Zones of Lake Wylie 2.3.0-1 Tornadoes 1916-1955 2.3.0-2 Vicinity Topography Profile 2.4.1-1 Major Hydraulic Features of the Catawba River Drainage Basin 2.4.1-2 Lake Wylie Area-Volume Curve 2.4.1-3 Lake Wylie Bed Topography Rev. 3 ER xviii
1.1 SYSTEM DEMAND AND RELIABILITY Information is presented in this section relative to the need for power on the Duke system based on past and projected load growth, reserve margins, and the reliability of the bulk power supply. Both the Duke system and the other power systems in the same geographic region are considered in the presentation. Detailed statistical information relative to the Duke system may be found in
" Uniform Statistical Report - Year Ended December 31, 1980".
1.1.1 LOAD CHARACTERISTICS Listed in Table 1.1.1-1 are the actual territorial peak loads and annual energy requirements for the Duke system from 1968 through 1981, and the fore-cast values from 1982 through 1991. Also listed in Table 1.1.1-2 are the actual territorial peak loads and annual energy requirements for the Virginia-Carolinas (VACAR) subregion of the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council (SERC) from 1973 through 1981, and the forecast values from 1982 through 1991. The Council and its subregions are described in Subsection 1.1.2. A tabulation of Duke system monthly peak loads and energy from October, 1972, through January, 1982, is presented in Table 1.1.1-3. Investigation of the historical load data indicates a decrease in both peaks and energy beginning after the Arab oil embargo in 1973. This period of 1974-75 has been followed by the recovery years of 1976-79 and into 1980's. Duke's most recent forecast '1981) contains a 3.8 percent annual compound b] growth rate which remains fairly constant over the time in question. Duke's prior forecast (1979) set forth a growth rate which averaged 4.8 percent annually compounded over the entire period. The present forecast reflects a lower growth rate in the first years when compared to the previous forecast and a hi0h er rate in the latter ones. Such an occurrence is attributable to several factors. First, the industrial sector has taken fairly stringent conservation measures more rapidly than anticipated, which accounts for the j reductions in the early years. Second, Duke is of the opinion that the major contributing factors to the reduction of growth, that is conservation and load l management, will have had their greatest impact by the mid-1980's, and there-l af ter the peak load should grow 't a rate not significantly impacted by addi-tional load management. The expected annual load duration curve for 1985 and 1986 are presented in Figure 1.1.1-1 and Figure 1.1.1-2. These years are the proposed first two years of commercial operation of Catawba 1 and the first year for commercial operation of Catawba 2. In making the forecast, two trends are included: That of the base portion of the load, and that of the temperature responsive component of load. The base load portion of the forecast is trended from historical base loads determined ( Rev. 5 ER 1.1-1 CNS-0LS l l L
by correlating daily peak loads with temperature variables as expressed in the equation y = a + bxt where y = load at 4 P.M. EST a = base load xi = 12 noon load to 4 P.M. cumulative hours (base 69 degrees F - summer 60 degrees F - winter) Summer loads used for correlation were those observed on Mondays through Thursdays for the month of June, July, and August, excluding specific days such as July 4 and industrial vacations during the years 1967-1980. The trends of the two expressions in the above equation, the base load compo-nent, a, and the temperature sensitive component, bxi, are determined inde-pendently, and the sum of the two components establishes the forecast. The forecast is based on "most probable" weather conditions at the time of the peak; that is, an equal probability of the temperature being greater or less than assumed, based on 20 years' history. The most probable temperature at the time of the summer peak is determined to be 95 degrees F, and the extreme which might be experienced under unusual conditions to be 104 degrees F. A similar procedure is followed in developing a winter peak forecast, using winter parameters rather than summer. The most probable temperature at the time of the winter peak is 19 degrees F, with an extreme of 5 degrees F. As a rising cost industry, Duke recognizes that there are advantages today in evaluating alternatives to the construction of generating facilities. As these costs continue to rise, the advantages will be even more beneficial. Through a Load Management Program, Duke feels that the future need for gene-ration can be reduced and that the rates will, therefore, be lower than they otherwise would have been. The Load Management Program is dedicated to the reduction in the growth rate of the peak and incorporates not only a reduction in demand but also a reduc-tion in energy. The activities of this program encompass all sectors of our busi-ness - resiuential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and resale. Table 1.1.1-4 is a summary of projected load management goals from 1980 through 1990. These figures have been incorporated in the company's overall forecast. Duke anticipates there will be at least two additional benefits other than reduc-tion of peaks and energy usage. One will be a better utilization of natural resources through a better informed consuming public, and the second a more satisfied customer as a result of his improved and wiser use of electricity. Table L.l.1-5 lists activities currently planned indicating MW savings of each activity in the years 1985 and 1990. In Table 1.1.1-6 are listed earlier forecasts for the Duke system in 1977 and 1980 with deviations. For 1977, the actual load has occurred with deviations from earlier forecasts based on that load. For the 1980 forecast, deviations are based on the most recent forecast of 1979. Both tabulations indicate decreases in the forecast which can be attributed to conservation and load management results since the Arab oil embargo in 1973-74 and the following recession years. Rev. 5 ER 1.1-2 CNS-OLS
1.1.2 SYSTEM CAPACITY The installed generating capacity on the Duke system at the time of the 1973 summer peak is listed by units in Table 1.1.2-1. At'that time, the total installed capacity on the Duke system was 8,171.6 MW, to which was added 813 MW of purchased capacity, giving a load carrying capability of 8,984.6 MW for the 1973 summer peak of 8,236 MW. This left a reserve margin of 748.6 MW, or 9.1 percent. A summary of the Duke system loads and load-carrying capability from 1973 through 1981, and projected through 1991, is shown in Table 1.1.2-2. The
" Adjustment in Hydro Capability" shown in 1974 in that table represents the reduction in firm Catawba River hydro capability caused by operating cen-straints on draw-down and water release. Presently the firm conventional hydro capability is 842 MW, with Jocassee pumped storage at 610 MW, which gives a tatal hydro capability of 1,452 MW.
Duke has a number of interchange agreements with neighboring systems. These are generally based on capacity only, energy repayment being made "in kind", by cash settlement, or by some other agreed-upon means. The only firm energy purchase made by the Duke system is for 75,000 MWh annually from the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, the contract for which expired in 1980. Several other energy purchases which total approximately 19,000 MWh annually are obtained from several small hydro projects, the actual annual energy being determined by their stream flow. Historically, Duke has actively pursued a policy of strong interconnections
) with neighboring systems and today is a part of a highly interconnected high voltage transmission network which covers the eastern half of the United l States. Following the formation of the National Electric Reliability Council
- (NERC) in 1968, Duke became a member of the Southeastern Electric Reliability i Council (SERC) when it was established in 1970. The purpose of the SERC Agreement was four-fold
i (a) encourage the development of reliability agreements among the systems within the region; (b) exchange information with yespect to planning and operating matters relating to the reliability of belk power supplies; (c) review periodically activities within the region and reliability; (d) provide information with respect to matters considered by the Council, where appropriate, to the Federal Power Commission and to other Federal and state agencies concerned with reliability. Because of the large geographic area included -- the entire southeastern quadrant of the United States -- SERC was divided into four subregions each of which formed a logical geographic entity for the purpose of carrying out the objectives of SERC. The four subregions established were Florida, the Southern Company area, the TVA area, and the Virginia-Carolinas (VACAR) area, of which Duke is a part. The systems comprising SERC are listed by subregions in Table O 1.1.2-3. ! Rev. 5 ER 1.1-3 CNS-OLS L
Detailed maps of the four subregions comprising SERC and other relevant data may be found in the document " Coordinated Bulk Power Supply Program 1982-2001" dated March, 1982, which was filed by SERC in response to the U. S. Department of Energy request. A tabulation of loads and generating capacity for the VACAR subregion of SERC from 1973 through 1981, projected through 1991, appears in Table 1.1.2-4. Individual units are not listed because of the great number of small units among the various companies. All units are listed in the above mentioned " Coordinated Bulk Power Supply Program 1982-2001". Table 1.1.2-5 is a tabulation of projected dates for the planned nuclear generating units to be installed on the Duke system through 1991. Also listed is the expected capacity factor range for the individual units. This range of capacity factors was obtained from production simulations on the Duke system for the years 1980-1990. Economic considerations, refuel outages, maintenance schedules, and outage rates were utilized in arriving at the capacity tactor ranges. 1.1. 3 RESERVE MARGINS As discussed in Subsection 1.1.1, there is a large block of load on the Duke system which is responsive to the ambient temperature. Peak load forecasts are based on the "most probable" temperature at the time of the peak, but planned reserve capacity must include tne possibility of extreme weather as well as unit outages and forecast error. Further, experience shows that at any given time a certain portion of the total generating capacity may be out of service due to reductions in unit capability caused by outages of pumps, fans, mills, etc. All of these factors combine to establish what is considered a necessary minimum reserve requirement. This is illustrated in the following calculation for the year 1986, one year following installation of Catawba 2. Calculation Of Reserve Requirements Forecast 1986 Summer Peak Load 12,338 MW Add For Extreme Temperature 938 Add for loss of Largest Unit on System 1,180 Add for Miscellaneous Capacity Reductions 650 Total Capacity Required 15,106 MW Reserve over forecast Peak 2,768 MW Reserve expressed as percent 22.4 When nuclear units constitute a significant part of the total system capabil-ity, nuclear unit refueling will become a major factor in evaluating reserves. Although nuclear units are not to be scheduled for refueling during the peak periods of the year, ideal conditions seldom exist in real life, and there are any number of factors which can totally upset a planned maintenance or refuel-ing program, and force such an outage during the peak period. An outage of two large units during a peak period will not be unusual. The effect of this addltional f actor in the computation of minimum reserve requirements is illu-strated here, using 1986 so that a comparison is made with the calculation of reserve requirements shown previously. Rev. 5 ER 1.1-4 CNS-OLS
I p) Q . Calculation of Reserve Requirement Including the Effect of Nuclear Unit Refueling Forecast 1986 Summer Peak Load 12,338 MW
-Add For Extreme Temperature -938 Add For Loss of largest Unit on System 1,180 Add For Miscellaneous Capacity _ Reductions 650 Add For Nuclear Unit Refueling 1,180 Total Capacity Required 16,286 MW Reserve over Forecast Peak 3,948 MW Reserve expressed as percent 32.0 It is evident that reserve margins in 1973 and 1974 were very low, even when purchases from outside sources are included. Capacity added since that time has raised reserve margins to an acceptable level. As shown in the reserve calculations above, Duke system reserves will be above minimum' requirements until the late 1980's. Because the current Duke forecast is predicated on the successful future implementation of a comprehensive load management program for which no precedent has been established to date, generating capacity additions have been scheduled to provide a degree of flexibility commensurate with the unknown effectiveness of the load management program. - As experience is acquired -
with the effectiveness of load management, the flexibility built into the construction schedule of future units can be utilized and the system built more closely to minimum reserve requirements. From the relationship between peak loads and installed capacity in the VACAR region of SERC, it is evident that reserves in 1973 and 1974 were low, but recent capacity additions have raised the reserve margins to an acceptable level. Future capacity additions are scheduled which will maintain these acceptable levels during the 1980's. Under the concept of SERC, however, minimum reserve requirements are established within the companies comprising SERC, and not by that organization itself, so that the tabulation does not reflect a specific reserve policy of SERC, but rather a summation of the requirements of the component systems. Since Duke is not a member of a pool or group involved in capacity, planning for the pool or group, interconnections have been investigated for their benefits in times of emergencies. Periodic studies are done to insure that interconnec-tions now and for the future will be adequate for normal and emer gency situations. However, Duke will plan for its own capacity requirements and not be influenced by interconnection capabilities. Any piece of machinery, regardless of how well made, is subject to removal from service for either scheduled or unscheduled maintenance. There is always a finite probability that this can happen at any time. This theory of proba-bility can be applied to the generating units on a power system. There is always a finite probability, which can be calculated,.that at any given moment the simultaneous unscheduled outage of generating components can result in having insufficient generating capacity to meet the load requirements and result in a loss of load. This is the concept of " loss of load probability". s/ Where as in reality such a deficit is overcome by importing power from neigh-boring utilities, nevertheless this theoretical probability of losing load has Rev. 5 ER 1.1-5 CNS-0LS
considerable value in comparing the reliability of one alternative plan of expansion with that of another. That plan of development which yields the lower probability of losing load is construed as providing the more reliable service. There is no firm loss-of-load probability number below which a system can automatically be declared reliable. An acceptable loss of-load probability for a given system is a function of the size of the system with respect to its neighbors, the size of the units with respect to the peak load, the number and capacity of interconnections with neighboring systems, the coincidence of its peak period with those of its neighbors, and the characteristics of the load itself. What might have been an acceptable loss-of-load probability for the Duke system in the past may not now be acceptable, in the light of Duke's own growth and its relationship with its neighbors. Further, the determination of the loss-of-load probability is totally depen-dent on the performance characteristics of the generating units which comprise the total generation mix. Since the units Duke is projecting for the future have not yet been built, there is no way of ascertaining what the performance characteristics of these units will be. Any loss of-load probability determi-nation for the future, therefore, is premised on estimates, and not meaning-fully related to past system performance. Finally, loss of-load probability calculations are very sensitive to the shape of the system load curve. As stated previously, the effectiveness of load management and load control in the future is not known. Therefore, the shape of the load curve may be changed. A loss-of-load probability based on load shapes experienced in the past, therefore, would not necessarily bear any relationship to the calculated loss-of-load probability the future may see. Loss-of-load probability is used in the planning process, therefore, not as an absolute index of reliability to which the system is designed, but as a relative measure of reliability when comparing one plan of expansion against another, in which the estimated input parameters are the same for both alternatives. Duke does compare the loss-of-load probability of its future plans with that which has been experienced historically, but such a comparison serves only as a means for identifying future periods when system reliability might become a problem. The following is a brief description of the techniques currently used in scheduling individual generating unit outages on the Duke system: (1) Information is requested from the appcopriate department as to the projected sequence of turbine, boiler, and chemical cleaning outages. (2) Nuclear units are assigned a projected capacity factor which is primarily based on prior operational experience. Information as to the numbe- M effective full power days 3er fuel cycle is requested. Nine-week refueling outages are assumed 3etween periods of operation, and the refueling outages are scheduled accordingly. There are no other defined scheduled outages for nuclear units. (3) Monthly peak load projections are plotted and maintenance outages are scheduled in such a manner as to levelize the reserve requirements throughout the year. Rev. 5 ER 1.1-6 CNS-OLS t
(4) The resulting schedule is then analyzed for potential conflicts (manpower shortages, acid wash equipment which is shared between (] U stations, material shortages, etc.) and small adjustments are made to the schedule to compensate. 1.1.4 EXTERNAL SUPPORTING STUDIES Load and capacity data for the VACAR Subregion of SERC are discussed in Sub-section 1.1.2. It is evident in the tabulation that the entire VACAR Subregion had a low level of reserves in 1973 and 1974 Capacity additions since that time along with a decrease in growth of peak demand have raised reserve margins to a more acceptable level. As noted in Subsection 1.1.2, the purpose of the SERC Agreement is to encourage the development of reliability agreements among the systems in the region and to exchange information with respect to planning and operating matters relating to the reliability of bulk power supplies. The values shown do not reflect a specific reserve policy of SERC, but rather a summation of the policies of the component systems. There is no statement in the SERC Agreement relative to a minimum reserve requirement. It should be noted, also, that the transmission interconnections which have been built between the Duke system and neighboring systems are in keeping with stated SERC objectives, and not intended for the transfer of large blocks of fira power. Additional high voltage interconnec-tions would have to be built should that objective be sought. Reference has been made in Subsection 1.1.2 to the March, 1982, document p) x
" Coordinated Bulk Power Supply Program 1982-2001". That document contains a summary of peak and energy forecasts and scheduled capacity additions for SERC as a whole and for the Subregions within the SERC framework. There is, how-ever, no statement as to any minimum reserve requirements, or reference to the adequacy of reserves within the council. The rationale upon which this policy is based is found in the Preamble to the SERC response:
Caution must be exercised in utilizing the data herein since most peak loads are highly weather sensitive and there is a high probability that peaks in excess of those reported are likely to occur. It is felt normal weather forecasts better suit the purpose of this and other reports when comparing day-to-day operations and reserves. It is the very strong belief that an expression of reserves in percent of load is not of itself a valid measure of adequacy or reliability of power supply. Those using this report should recognize summer and winter ratings of generators are not precise since actual capability depends upon cooling water temperatures, air temperatures, hydro reservoir levels, cleanliness of heat transfer devices, quality of fuel, and other factors. Combustion turbine ratings are particularily sensitive to ambient air temperature. Since SERC covers such a large geographical area and its subregions of ten include wide ranges of temperature, a simple summation of load and capa-bility of months or seasons can lead to erroneous conclusions because diversity of peaks is not analyzed in the statistics. O> w Rev. 5 ER 1.1-7 CNS-OLS
1.3 CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY O V It is not possible to predict at this time the long-range effect of energy conservation on load growth, nor the duration of financial constraints on construction. The proposed schedule of capacity additions, therefore, is based on the best information available at present and, because of the tight money market, represents a minimum capital investment. To delay any unit beyond the proposed schedule can seriously jeopardize service to the system as a whole. For the year 1984, minimum reserve requirements are calculated to be: Forecast 1984 Summer Peak Load 11,476 MW Add For Extreme Temperature 903 Add For loss of Largest Unit on System 1,180 Add For Miscellaneous Capacity Reduction 642 Total Capacity Required 14,201 MW Reserve Over Forecast Peak 2,725 MW Reserve expressed as percent 23.7 In 1984 summer with Catawba 1 delayed one year, the following is calculated: Reserve Total Capacity Load FM % p Q 14,532 FM 11,476 FM 3,056 26.6 The above comparison indicates that total reserves with Catawba delayed one year would be above the minimum requirements. The following is a calculation of reserves on the Duke system if Catawba is delayed for 2 years and 3 years: Two-Year Delay Year Capacity Load Reserve % 1985 14,532 MW 11,882 MW 2,650 MW 22.3 Three-Year Delay Year Capacity Load Reserve % 1986 14,532 MW 12,338 MW 2,194 MW 17.8 It is apparent that the reliable operation of the Duke system would not be seriously endangered with a one year delay in the installation of Catawba. However, if Catawba is delayed more than one year, reserve requirements are not adequate to insure reliable operation of the Duke system. First year of proposed operation replacement energy costs for Unit 1 and first year operation production costs are given in Tables 1.3.1-1 and 1.3.1-2, respectively. Rev. 5 ER 1.3-1 CNS-0LS
Simulations of the Duke system were performed on a probabilistic production costing model for the years 1984 through 1990. Economic scheduling considera-tions, refuel outages, maintenance schedules, and forced outage rates were utilized in the calculations. ER Table 1.3.1-3 is a tabulation of total system production costs along with Catawba Nuclear Station's capacity factor for each unit, fuel cost, and variable 0 & M costs. In this scenario, Duke's load is assumed to be as the latest forecast indicates. ER Table 1.3.1-3a is a similar tabulation with the except-ion that Duke's load is held constant during the study years. The value used was the load experienced during 1980. ER Table 1.3.1-4 is a tabulation of total system production costs if Catawba 320*1 should not be in operation during the study period of 1984 through 1990, and loads are as in the latest forecast. Sources of replacement energy, cost of replacement energy, and variable 0 & M are also tabulated in this table. ER Table 1.3.1-4 Sheet 2 is an identical type tabulation for the study period with the assumption that Duke's load is held constant at the value experienced during 1980. This condition is evident with normal growth expected and also should no growth above the 1980 level occur. Catawba Nuclear Station is owned by more than one entity, but the production simulations described previously integrate the plant into the Duke system. The results then are the aggregate of all participants. O O Rev. 5 ER 1.3-2 CNS-0LS
.. _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _..__.._ _.__ _ -- ~ - ..-..- ...__ ~ __ _ - _ _ - _ -.--
)
ER Table 1.1.1-1 i i Catawba Nuclear Station - Historical and Forecast Load Data - Duke System ! Territorial Load YEAR MW MWh ; l 3 i ACTUAL 1968' 5 364 31 032 220 1969 5 614 33 900 973 , 1970 6 284 36 641 199 ! 1971 6 621 39 575 576 ! 1972 7 450 42 989 614
- 1973 8 236 46 282 918
- 1974 8 058- 45 240 161 l 1975 8 422 45 476 692 1976 8 601 48 779 147 1977 9 487 51 486 239 l
1978 9 690 53 395 073
- 1979 9 844 53 727 117 l 1980 10 530 56 039 612 j 1981 10 602 57 529 783 FORECAST 1982 11 232 58 300 000 1983 11 430 60 546 000 1984 11 802 63 060 000 12 198 65 393 000 9 1985 1986 1987 12 633 13 085 68 004 000 70 819 000 1988 13 571 74 003 000 1989 14 075 77 142 000 1990 14 684 80 607 000 1991 15 290 84 128 000 Rev. 5 0
ER Table 1.1.1-2 Catawba Nuclear Station Historical and Forecast Load Data - VACAR Subregion of SERC Territorial Load YEAR MW MWh ACTUAL 1973 23 618 119 016 000 1974 22 426 118 382 000 1975 23 513 120 417 000 1976 23 395 129 272 000 1977 26 425 137 770 000 1978 26 251 143 026 000 1979 27 489 145 012 000 1980 28 929 153 351 000 1981 30 024 156 913 000 FORECAST 1982 30 385 160 472 000 1983 31 521 167 710 000 1984 32 276 174 204 000 1985 33 464 180 864 000 1986 34 407 187 025 000 1987 35 564 194 186 000 1988 36 834 201 787 000 1989 38 138 209 394 000 1990 39 471 217 256 000 1991 40 731 224 941 000 Rev. 5 9
370252224063 _ 385556715457 . . . . . . . . . . . H 164045240386 H 399611625329 _ W 194739809436 W 101866754838 _ G 6,7,9,6,7,9,1,3,7,9,2,5, G 4,6,7,1,3,1,3,1,5,4,4,0, O 6 7 9 1 433333443344 1 8 9 1 544445554445 000000000000 _ 639214026032
. . . . . . . . . . . . .~057090729965 2
040605223767 390921503091 _ d 095098791939 W f o K 6,7,4,8,5,6,3,1,5,6,3,5, M 5,3,9,9,9,5,5,6,2,4,7,6, 5 _ 008770009889 . . 1 877667887788 11 111 . v e e _ g m R _ a e - P t 632321180928 767821029391 . s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . y H 351554342703 H 120233094118 . S W 383944467573 W 069215621846 _
.G 8,3,6,3,6,7,9,3,7,7,7,2, G 0,8,6,0,2,3,1,3,7,3,4,8,. _
e _ k 333333343334 544444554444 u 5 0 D 7 8 .
- 9 9 y 1 g
1 043277500874 000000000000 _ r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e 134707027969 220124490588 n W 498659127800 W /98898639336 E M 3,3,3,4,1 6,9,4,0,5,4,3, M 0 8,8,6,9,7,3,2,5,8,0,0,_ _ d 777677788678 998778009799 _ n 11 .. a . _. d a 895943034448 195127980054 n o k' L o . . . . . . . . . H 716926567159 W 529904853921 G 8,6,6,4,8,7,0,1,6,6,6,8, H 611123294526 W 951317217859 G 2,7,4,9,2,2,5,0,1,2,2,5, 3ia 1aP
.t te 4
7 333333443333 9 7 544344454444 1Sy 9 9 _ - . l 1 1 1rh /03734367770 000000000000 O at . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . een 424786177441 466330630063 ll o M 690000256768 M 452981638941 bcM F 2,4,1,7,0,6,9,0,5,9,0,5, F 8,7,5,2,5,2,1,8,7,5,9,2, au - 998778998789 tnt 777677787677 s _ Raa Ebc we . ar to aF 026220837883 H 669956982017 222055901554
. H 922072589557 C W 146048418096 W 196107787344 _
d G 1,7,7,5,6 8,0,3,8,8,6,8, G 1,5,3,8,1,4,5,9,3,1,1,6, n l a a 3 7 433333443333 8 7 S44344444444 i c r 9 1 /05986760306 9 1 820172985' 961 e 570318351342 909832229378 _ t M 844633630599 W 396927905159 _ s F 1 2,7,6,4,2,7,2,6,7,8,2, K 4,6,3,3,8,4,3,3,1 6,1,0, , i H 776667787667 998779999789 668 824918185313 _ 438 H 533768988473 H W G 598 5,6,7, W 401115947702 G 1,1,0,7,0,2,5,7,1' , 9,1,6, 2 333 7 b44344444344 7 7 9 1 157 9 1 210676021283 J K 798 425 4
/69769954318 85S551394642 K 4,7,6,0,4,5,3,9,5,4,9,9, 4,8,2, _
667 987778988778 _ O yr ra y r e bree tmebb rr yr ra y r e b ree tmebb rr _ auhl sebmm auhl sebmm urci eyut oee urci eyut cee nbrrynl gpt vc nb rrynl gpt vc aeapauuuecoe aeapauuuecoe JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND _
Page 2 of 2 ER Table 1.1.1-3 Catawba Nuclear Station Historical and Forecast Monthly Peak load and Energy - Duke System 1982 1983 MW GWH MW GWH January 11 145 5 463.9 11 232 5 773 February
- 9 982 4 740 10 357 4 918 March 9 135 4 782 9 496 4 971 April 8 257 4 366 8 762 4 633 May 8 413 4 565 8 822 4 787 June 9 829 4 771 10 107 4 906 July 10 346 5 112 10 688 5 281 August 11 041 5 338 11 430 5 533 September 9 238 4 639 9 835 4 797 October 8 391 4 550 8 686 4 710 November 9 370 4 686 9 702 4 852 December 10 012 5 197 10 374 5 385
- Begin forecast data O
Rev. 5
j i ER Table-1.1.1-4 : O Catawba Nuclear Station Load Management Goals: 1980-1990 -i f ANNUAL SUMMER WINTER' ENERGY- -i l i l REDUCTION . REDUCTION REDUCTION l YEAR (MW) (MW) (MWH) 1980 481 749 ' 642 i 1981 671 1 041 2 183 {' 959 1 334- 2 741 1982 j 1 519 3 275 i 1983 1 023 [ 1934 1 242 1 796 3 830 , i ! 1985 1 494 2 122 4 512 1 1986 1 744 2 447 5 229 , 1987 1 992 2 773 5 902 ! 1988 2 204 3 110 5 574 1989 2 426 3 449 7 287 1990 2 643 3 789 7 984 l Rev. 1 i
f% -. ER Table 1.1.2-2 Catawba Nuclear Station Page 1 of 2 Duke System Load and Capacity - Rd (1973-1990) CAPACITY TYPE OF FUNCTION OF INSTALLED TOTAL PEAK RESERVE UNIT ADDITIONS OF UNITS UNITS UNITS CAPACITY PURCHASE CAPABILITY LOAD M4 PERCENT I 1973 j from ER Table 1.1.2-1 8 171.6 813 8 984.6 8 236 748.6 9.1 I 1974 l Jocassee 1, 2 305 Pump Hydro Peak l Belews Creek 1 060 Convent. Coal Base
- Adjust. In Hydro (165.9 Hydro Peak Retirements (105.7 Hisc. Peak 9 265 293 9 558 8 058 1 500 18.6 1975 UEonee 2, 3 1 742 Nuclear Base Jocassee 3, 4 305 Pump Hydro Peak Retirements (91) Misc. 11 221 169 11 390 8 422 2 968 35.2 1976 EsTsws Creek 2 1 100 Convent. Coal Base Belews Creek 1 Uprate 40 Convent. Coal Base 12 361 169 12 530 8 601 3 929 45.7 1977 D E River Diesel Removal (7) Diesel Peak Adiustments to Oconee 1, 2, 3 (33) Nuclear Base Belews Creek 1, 2 Uprate 80 Convent. Coal Base Misc. Adjustments (84) Misc. Peak 12 317 139 12 456 9 487 2 969 31.3 1978 RdUirn Lee 4C to Service 30 Ccmb. Turb. Peak Retire Urquhart 4G (25) Comb. Turb. Peak 12 322 129 12 451 9 690 2 761 28.5 (Feb.)
1979 None 12 322 129 12 451 9 844 2 607 26.5 1980 None 12 048 114 12 162 10 364 1 798 17.3 (July) 1981 McGiiire 1 1 180 huclear Base 13 234 143 13 377 11 145 2 232 20.0 (Jan. '82) 1982 None 13 234 118 13 352 11 232 2 120 18.9 1983 REGiiire 2 1 180 Nuclear Base 14 414 118 14 532 11 415 3 117 27.3
ER Table 1.1.2-2 Catawba Nuclear Station Page 2 of 2 Duke System Load and Capacity - 11W (1973-1990) CAPACITY TYPE OF FUNCTION OF INSTALLED TOTAL PEAK RESERVE UNIT ADDITICNS OF UNIT 5 UNITS UNITS CAPACITY PURCHASE CAPABILITY LOAD FM PERCENT 1984 CiaTiwba 1 1 145 Nuclear Base 15 559 118 15 677 11 476 4 201 36.6 1985 None 15 559 118 15 677 11 882 3 795 31.9 1986 CIIsaba 2 1 145 Nuclear Base 16 704 118 16 822 12 338 4 484 36.3 1987 i Ncne 16 704 118 16 822 12 840 3 982 31.0 1988 l None 16 704 118 16 822 13 414 3 408 25.4 i 1989 i None 16 704 118 16 822 14 030 2 792 19.9
! 1990 i HiJ Creek 1, 2 500 PS-Hydro Peak , 17 204 118 17 322 14 684 2 638 18.9 l
! 1991 i HiTCreek 3, 4 500 PS-Hydro Peak 17 704 118 17 822 15 290 2 532 16.6 1 i I i
.i Rev. 5
ER Table 1.1.2-3 Catawba Nuclear Station O Member Compaines of SERC Florida Subregion: Florida Power & Light Company Florida Power Corporation Fort Pierce Utilities Authority Gainesville/Alachua County Regional Utilities Board City of Homestead Jacksonville Electric Authority City of Kissimmee lake Worth Utilities Authority City of Lakeland New Smyrna Beach Utilities Commission Orlando Utilities Commission Sebring Utilities Commission Seminole Electric Cooperative City of Tallahassee Southeastern Power Administration Tampa Electric Company City of Vero Beach Southern Companies Subregion: Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. Alabama Power Company Crisp, County Power Commission - Georgia Power Company Gulf Power Company Mississip)i Power Company Savannah Electric & Power Company Southeastern Power Administration South Mississippi Electric Power Assoc. Tennessee Valley Subregion: Nantahala Power & Light Company Tapoca, Inc. Tennessee Valley Authority Virginia-Carolinas Subregion: Carolina Power & Light Company Duke Power Company South Carolina Electric & Gas Company South Carolina Public Service Authority Southeastern Power Administration Virginia Electric & Power Company Yadkin, Inc. Rev. 5 O d
1 F O O O ,
.ER Table 1.1.2-4 Catawba Nuclear Station Page 1 of 2 i
i VACAR Load And Capacity - MW (1973-1991) l CAPACITY TYPE OF FUNCTION OF OWNERSHIP INSTALLED TOTAL RESERVE Percent OF UNIT 5 UNITS UNIT 5 OF UNITS CAPACITY PURCHASE CAPACITY PEAK LOAD MW UNIT ADDITIONS 1973 FF6iii VI. CAR Data 25 173.1 537 25 710.1 22 617.6 3 092.5 13.7 , 1974 t a DiFTington 468 Comb. Turb. Peak CP&L Jocassee 1, 2 305 Pump. Hydro Peak Duke. I Belews Creek 1 1 060 Convent. Coal Base Duke Adjust. In Hydro 165.9) Hydro Peak Duke Retirements 105.7) Misc. Peak Duke r Adj.ust. In Capacity 146.0) Misc. Peak SCEG l Hilton Head 20 Comb. Turb. Peak' SCPSA Myrtle Beach 17.5 Comb. Turb. Peak SCPSA Yorktown 3 818 Convent. Oil . Base VEPC0 27 444 328 27 772 22 426 5 346 23.8 l 1975 ' DiFTington 104 Comb. Turb. Peak :P&L Brunswick 2 790 Nuclear Base CP&L Oconee 2, 3 1 742 Nuclear Base Duke Jocassee 3, 4 305 Pump. Hydro Peak Duke Retirements (91) Misc. Peak Duke Winyah 1 280 Convent. Coal Base SCPSA , Myrtle Beach 5 28 -Comb. Turb. Peak. SCPSA Possum Point 5 805 Convent. Oil Base VEPC0 31 407 325 31 732 23 513 8 219 35.0 ; l 1976 [ Ee'Tews Creek'2 1 100 Convent. Coal Base Duke i Belews Creek 1 Uprate 40 Convent. Coal Base Duke 32 547 325 32 872 23 295 9 477 . 40.5 ! 1977 DconeeAdjust. (33) Nuclear Base Duke Belews Creek Uprate 80 Convent. Coal Base Duke Misc Adjust. (91) Misc. Misc. Duke Brunswick 1 790 Nuclear Base CP&L Winyah 2 280 Convent. Coal Base SCPSA 33 573 325 33 898 26 425' 7 473 28.3 1978 RTsc. Adjust. & Retirements (281) Sutton 3 Increase 35 Convent. Coal Base CP&L Roxboro 3 Increase 70 Convent. Coal Base CP&L Fairfield 240 Pump Hydro Peak SCEG 33 637 225 33 862 26 251 7 611 29.0 1979 FiTrfield 240 Pump. Hydro Peak SCEG .
, 35 100 North Anna 1 B98 Nuclear Base VEPC0 34 800 300 27 489 7 611 27.7 i
Rev. 5 i _ _ _ _ , _ . _ - . . _ . _ . . _ . - . . . _ _ _ _ - _ . . . _ - _ . _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ - . . _ - . - _ ._ _.._______.____.____-__.__-__.---_a
ER Table 1.1.2-4 Catawba Nuclear Station Page 2 of 2 VACAR Load And Capacity - MW (1973-1931) CAPACITY TYDE CF FUNCTICN OF CWNERSHIP INSTALLE0 TOTAL RESERVE UNIT ACDITICNS CF UNITS 'ITS UNITS OF UNITS CAPACITY PURCHASE CAPACITY PEAK LOAD MW Percent 1930 Wi'Hiah 3 280 Ccnvent. Coal Base SCPSA 35 080 300 35 380 28 929 6 451 22.3 1931 RoiEoro 4 650 Coal Base CP&L North Anna 2 870 Nuclear Base VEPC0 36 600 300 36 900 30 024 6 876 22.9 l 1982 j Winpah 4 280 Convent. Coal Base SCPSA McGuire 1 1180 Nuclear Base Duke 37 500 1 034 38 534 30 385 8 149 26.8 1983 5Eser 900 Nuclear Base SCEG Mayo 1 720 Coal Base CP&L 39 131 449 39 580 31 521 8 059 25.6 1 1984 McGUire 2 1 180 Nuclear Base Duke Catawba 1 1 145 Nuclear Base Duke Hartwell 40 Hydro Peak SEPA Cross 450 Coal Base SCPSA 41 948 449 42 397 32 276 10 121 31.4 1985 RUussell 150 Hydro Peak SEPA 42 098 459 42 557 33 464 9 093 27.2 1986 RaFFis 1 900 Nuclear Base CP&L Bath County 1, 2, 3 525 PS-Hydro Peak VEPC0 Catawba 2 1 145 Nuclear Base Duke 44 743 164 44 907 34 407 10 500 30.5 Russell 150 Hydro Peak SEPA 1987 Halli County 4, 5, 6 525 PS-Hydro Peak VEFC0 45 343 169 45 512 35 564 9 948 28.0 1988 Cross 2 450 Coal Base SCPSA 45 793 409 46 202 36 834 9 368 25.4 1989 R3rFis 2 900 Nuclear Base CP&L Cope 1 550 Coal Base SCEG 47 243 1B4 47 427 38 138 9 289 24.4 1990 N6FIh Anna 3 907 Nuclear Base VEPC0 48 650 184 48 834 39 471 9 363 23.7 Bad Creek 1, 2 500 P5-dydro Peak Duke 1991 Rip 3 2 720 Coal Base CP&L 50 870 189 51 059 40 731 10 328 25.4 Cope 2 550 Coal Base SCEG Cross 3 450 Coal Base SCPSA Bad Creek 3, 4 500 PS-Hydro Peak Duke Rev. 5 O O e
i l h ER Table 1.1.2-5 Catawba Nuclear Station Unit Additions Duke System ' j 1981-1991 t l Capacity Expected . j Year Unit FM Capacity Factor i l 1981 McGuire 1 1,180 52 - 71% i ! 1982 McGuire 2 1,180 53 - 75% l l i 1984 Catawba 1 1,145 50 - 70% ; 4 i 1985 Catawba 2 1,145 50 - 70% l i 1990 Bad Creek 1, 2 500 10 - 20% ! l 1991 Bad Creek 3, 4 500 10 - 20% i O l i 1 1 \ f I I i Rev. 5 - . . - - - - _ _ - - - . _ _ - _ - - . . - - - . . - ~ . -_. - - - - . - . .-. -- 2
2.1.2.2 Population Between 10 and 50 Miles Places of significant population groupings in the area from 10 mi (16.1 km) to 50 mi (80.4 km) of the station are shown on Figure 2.1.2-2. Tables 2.1.2-9 through 2.1.2-15 detail the 1970 and projected population distributions. The 10 mi (16.1 km) to 50 mi (80.4 km) age distributions for the year 2000 are approximately 266,807, 172,640, and 1,130,008 for ages 0 to 12 years, 12 to 18 years, and greater than 18 years, respectively. 2.1.2.3 Transient Population Transient population within 5 mi (8 km) of Catawba is primarily recreational on and along the shores of Lake Wylie. Industrial facilities in the northeastern quadrant and in the southeastern quadrant are the major sources of transient population between 5 and 10 mi ( 8 to 16.1 km). Carowinds Theme Park, located approximately 8 mi (12.8 km) to the east-northeast, is the largest recreational area within 50 mi (80.4 km) of the site. Carowinds attendance in 1978 was 1,041,000 with a daily average attendance of 10,014. Projected 1979 attendance is 1,150,000 (Reference 3). Carowinds operates approximately 110 days each year normally beginning the last weekend in March through mid-October. The 310.5 theme park is open on weekends only until the first of June and after mid-August. From early June to mid-August, the park is open 6 days per week and closed on Fridays. Tables 2.1.2-16 and 2.1.2-17 show 1977 seasonal and average daily recreational n v transient population distribution within 10 mi (16.1 km) of the station. Table 2.1.2-18 shows the daily industrial transient population distribution within 10 mi (16.1 km) of the site. No large industries or businesses providing job opportunities are located within 5 mi (8 km) of the site. A reduction of daily population in the vicin-ity of the station due to workers commuting to population centers where job opportunities exist is expected. 2.1.3 USES OF ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS Topographic features within a 5 mi (8 km) radius of Catawba are shown on Figure 2.1.3-1. The site area map, Figure 2.1.1-3, shows the locations of station facilities, exclusion boundary, adjacent and utility properties, and the station perimeter. Figure 2.1.3-2 shows the location of residences, water bodies, settlements, industries, public facilities, recreational areas, and transportation routes within 5 mi (8 km) of the station. The total acreage owned by Duke and that part occupied or modified by the station and station facilities is: ( i Duke Owned Land = 1036 ac (415 ha) Area Within Site Boundary = 391 ac (158 ha) Permanent Station Facilities = 129 ac (52 ha) O b Rev. 3 ER 2.1-3 CNS-OLS l i L
Two areas within the exclusion boundary are devoted to uses other than station operation. These are the 1 ac (0.4 ha) Concord Cemetery and the approximately 2 ac (0.8 ha) visitors' overlook area, shown on Figure 2.1.1-3. By agreement with the Concord Cemetery Association, the cemetery property may be used solely as a shrine and for the purpose of conducting memorial and burial 310.4 services. Visitors may gain access to the cemetery by contacting station security personnel. Visits to the cemetery property consist of relatively small numbers of people. The visitors' overlook is a limited-use picnic area. Attendance at the overlook averages 27 visits per day excluding security patrols. Table 2.1.3-1 gives the distance and direction from the centerline of the station to the nearest milk cow, milk goat, residence, station property line, and vegetable garden greater than 500ft 2 (46.5 m2 ) within a 5 mi (8 km) radius. Dairy operations are noted. Existing land use within 5 mi (8 km) of the site is predominately rural nonfarm with residential and recreational development bordering Lake Wylie. Small amounts of land are used to support beef cattle and farming. Few indus-trial or business facilities are located within 5 mi (8 km) as shown on Figure 2.1.1-2. Land use in the area remains relatively constant with no abnormal 310.6 trends or changes in either population or industrial patterns (References 4 and 5). Current land use within 5 mi (8 km) is approximately 6% Urban,12% Water, 21% Agricultural, and 61% Forest. Zoning within 5 mi (8 km) is shown on Figure 2.1.3-3. Zoning in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is predominately residential within 5 mi (8 km) of the g station. There is no zoning outside of the city limits in York County, South Carolina (References 4 and 5). Tables 2.1.3-2 through 2.1.3-4 provide data on annual truck farming, milk, and meat production within a 50 mi (80.4 km) radius of the station. The type, quantity, and yield of crops grown within 50 mi (80.4 km) are given in Catawba ER Table 4.4-2. The grazing season for beef and dairy animals within a 50 mi (80.4 km) radius of the station is 12 months per year with supplements to the diet during the mid-winter months (December-February). Feeding regimes for cattle consist of pasture grass, small grains, hay and corn silage, and grain sorghum. Pasture grass density is approximately 59.9 lbs/ac. (1.05 kg/m-), and approximate yield statistics for harvested forage crops are: hay - 15.6 lbs/ac. (.28 kg/m2 ), corn - 123 lbs/ac. (2.21 kg/m2 ), and small grains - 75.3 lbs/ac. (1.35 kg/m2) (Reference 6). Commercial and recreational fishing on Lake Wylie is addressed in Catawba ER Subsection 2.2.2, and pages 610 thru 612 of Baseline Predictive Environmental Investigation of Lake Wylie (Reference 7). Additional information on these 290.6 Tisheries in Late VyTie and downstream waters to the Atlantic Ocean is 290*7 presented in Tables 2.2.2-12 through 2.2.2-18, and in Figures 2.2.2-2 and 2.2.2-3. Estimation techniques are located in References 65-69. O Rev. 5 ER 2.1-4 CNS-OLS 1
2.3 METEOROLOGY n O Meteorology is evaluated for use in structural design aid in consideration of environmental safeguards for gaseous releases. The following paragraphs summarize the atmospheric characteristics pertinent to these design bases. Synoptic features during winter effect rather frequent alternation between mild and cool periods with occasional outbreaks of cold air. Such intrusions of cold air,-however, are modified in the crossing and descent of the Appalachian Mountains. Summers, noted for their greater persistence in flow pattern, experience fairly constant trajectories from the the south and southwest with advection of maritime tropical air. Wintertime precipitation occurs primarily in connection with migratory low pressure systems. Recurrence and. areal distribution, therefore, are reasonably uniform. Summer rains, on the con-trary, are associated more with showers and thundershowers of the air mass variety, occasioned by intense and uneven heating of the earth's surface. Local meteorological (site) conditions are in general dominated by synoptic scale processes. Winter conditions, as a rule, are not conducive to the development of major snow storms. Long-term records for the area show highest 24 hour snowfall near 18 in. (Winston Salem, N.C., December, 1930) (Reference 1). The ice storm, a much more frequent occurrence, does effect considerable damage over limited areas and is expected several times a year. Typical accumulations range between one quarter to one-half inch. Spring, summer and autumn storms, phenomena of widespread consequence, are the major bearers of severe weather. For the area of North Carolina, South Carolina and their coastal waters, an average of one~ tropical storm per year
'and one hurricane every other year is computed based on a period of record of' 63 years (1901-1963) (Reference 2). Within this period, seven years are void of any activity while nine years produce a combined total of three storms per 3 year. Highest winds over the area are 110 miles per hour (fastest mile, Cape Hatteras, N.C., September, 1944) along the coast and near 80 miles per hour (fastest mile, Wilmington, N.C. , October,1954) for inland maxima (Reference
! 1). Maximum 24 hour rainfalls, again higher for coastal stations, are recorded. i near 15 in. along the ocast (Cape Hatteras, N.C., June, 1949) to near 9 in. inland (Wilmington, N.C., September, 1938) (Reference 1). Figure 2.3.0-1 relates tornado frequency to two degree squares for the period 1916-1955 (Reference 3). For the site area a total of 50 tornados are shown per two degree square (square area about 125 miles by 125 miles). Put in terms of~ probability for a point (nuclear station), such a translation predicts a L recurrence interval of 4405 years (Reference 4). Thunderstorms, with greater frequencies during the summer, oc' cur about 46 days per year (from Charlotte, N.C., period of record 73 years) (Reference 1). Thunderstorm occurrence by season averages: 11 for s fall (September-November) and pring (March-May), 1 for winter 29 for summer (December-February) (June-August), (Reference 5). 5f Associated hail is expected about one day per year over inland areas as indi- , cated in Reference 6. Air pollution over the Carolinas is of greatest potential during the fall. An average of ten episode - days per year is computed for a period of five years i n v (from upper air observations at area Weather Service Stations, i.e., Athens, Georgia; Greensboro, N.C.; Cape Hatteras, N.C.; and Charlestion, S.C.) (Reference
- 7).
[ Rev. 1 ER 2.3-1 CNS-OLS l L:
Table 2.3.0-1 depicts normal and extreme values for the following parameters: 451.3 temperature, rain, sleet and snow, fog, relative humidity, dew point and wind 451.12 direction and speed. To provide the necessary wind and stability information for some calculations, a joint stability-wind distribution is generated which displays the joint frequencies of wind direction and speed by atmospheric stability type as they were observed onsite at the 40 m level (see Table 2.3.0-2). A similar joint frequency distribution is generated for data at the 10 m level for other considerations (see Table 2.3.0-3). Data recovery for both summaries is 92%. 415.2 Regarding definition of calm winds, hourly average winds speeds less than 1 mph 11 5.5 are categorized as calm. In the manual reduction of wind speed, periods with speeds below instrument threshold are taken to have wind speed of 0.3 mph. An average for the hour is then derived as discussed in Section 6.1.3.1. The distribution of speeds summarized in Tables 2.3.0-2 and 2.3.0-3 result from these reduction procedures. The period of record for these tables is from December 17, 1975 to December 16, 1977. 451.4 STAR processing of Charlotte Airport data has been accomplished for the period of onsite data (1976-1977) in addition to a five year period (1969-1973); see Table 2.3.0-4. Comparison of wind direction and speed, and of stability type forms the basis of judging the representativeness of data for the period 1976-1977, with respect to long-term conditions, as for the period 1969-1973; see Table 2.3.0-5. The 1976-1977 period is taken on balance to be reasonably representative of long-term conditions at the site. Figure 2.1.1-1 shows general topography in plan view to 50 mi; Figure 2.1.3-1 is a detailed pian view, as modified by the plant to 5 mi. Figure 2.3.0-2 depicts maximum elevation versus distance to 5 mi for each of the sixteen 22.5 g sectors. Table 2.3.0-6 is a summary of X/Q and D/Q values for critical receptors both onsite and of fsite, appropriate for evaluation of controls on routine releases. Distance and direction from release points to each onsite intake location are included on ER Table 2.3.0-6. Values of a for distances less than 100 m were 451.6 interpolatedassumingalinearformfromtfiereleasepointto100m(i.e.,an extrapolation from the 100 m value with a power law exponent of 1.0). Changes in the numerical values of X/Q and D/Q estimates result from the correction of a coefficient in the calculations of stable plume rise pertaining to the respective codes used for these purposes. Specifically, these changes pertain to computer codes described in Section 2.3.5 of the Catawba FSAR. They affect X/Q and 0/Q estimates in: FSAR Tables 2.3.5-1, 2.3.5-2, 2.3.5-4, and 2.3.7-2; and ER Table 2.3.0-6, p. 3 of 3. FSAR Tables 2.3.5-1, 2.3.5-2, and 2.3.5-4 are arrays of annual average X/Q and D/Q values by distance and direction out to 50 451.2 miles from the plant for use in detarmining population exposure from routine 451.7 releases of radioactive material; FSAR Table 2.3.7-2 and ER Table 2.3.0-6 p. 3 of 3 are a summary of critical of fsite receptors. The second part of these tables, listing a single population X/Q, is simply a population weighted annual average X/Q value for the purpose of determining average population doses from routine releases within 50 miles of the plant. Table 2.3.0-7 is a summary of X/Q values for critical receptors, appropriate for evaluation of accident releases. O Rev. 5 ER 2.3-2 CNS-OLS
, . 1
I REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.3 \j 1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Science Services Administration, Climate of the States: Climate of North Carolina (Climatography of the United S U tes No. 60-31, WashingE n, D.C., Revised ed. 1970), pp. 11-13.
- 2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Tropical 1 C clones of the North Atlantic Ocean (Technical Paper No. 55, Washington,TC,~T9EJ,
- p. 30
- 3. U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Tornado Occurrence in the United States (Technical Paper No. 20, Washington, D.C., 1960). -
- 4. Thom, H.C.S. " Tornado Probabilities," Monthly Weather Review, Oct. -
Dec., 1963, pp. 730-736.
- 5. U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Mean Number of Thunderstorm in the United States (Technical Paper No I9, WashinF on, D.C.,
- 6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Severe Local Storm Occurrence, 1955-1967 (Technical Memorandum WBRM-FCST FI2, Washington, D.C.,1969).
- 7. Holzworth, George C., Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throu[hout the Contiguous United 5tates (office of p Air Programs Publication bo. APM1, Research Iriangle Park, N.C. , Office V of Technical Information and Publications, Office of Air Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1972), pp. 26-35.
O Rev. 5 ER 2.3-3 CNS-OLS
2.5 GE0 LOGY Studies of regional and site geology have been made to identify the general and specific features surrounding and underlying the site and to determine the suitability of the site for construction of the pcwer plant. The site is located in the Charlotte belt within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The Charlotte belt is comprised of medium to high rank metamorphic rocks (mainly schists and gneisses of the amphibolite facies) intruded by a complex sequence of plutonic rocks that range in composition from granite to gabbro. The major tectonic structure in the region is the Gold Hill - Silver Hill fault complex that parallels the boundary between the Charlotte belt and the Carolina slate belt. It is located approximately 17 miles (27.4 km) east of the site. Other major faults within the region are the Brevard fault zone and the Eastern Piedmont fault system. None of the known faults in the Piedmont have been active since the end of the Triassic Period, about 180 millions years ago. Figure 2.5.0-1 shows the location of the site and the major fault zones. Over 100 soil test and rocks core borings and 9500 feet (2896 m) of seismic refraction traverses have been made at the site for the PSAR studies to deter-mine subsurface conditions under the major structures, and the suitability of those underlying materials. A detailed geologic investigation was performed after the discovery of brecciated zones in some excavations. The most abundant rock at the site is a well-foliated to massive adamellite. f The adamellite is cut by mafic dikes and both have been metamorphosed to the ('m) amphibolite facies. Brecciated zones were discovered in the excavations at the plant site. Shearing and brecciation along the faults at the site occurred under geologic conditions that are different from those currently existing at the site. The last movement along the shear-breccia zones occurred at least 56 million years ago and probably closer to 150 million years ago. Therefore, these zones cannot be considered to be " capable faults " under the criteria of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100. There are no features in evidence, which might present problems to the future operation and safety of the plant. Section 2.5, FSAR and the " Final Geologic Report on Brecciated Zones" describes the geology and seismology in detail. i l l O V l Rev. 5 ER 2.5-1 CNS-OLS
i i l ER Table 2.1.3-1 l (y Catawba Nuclear Station (j Location of Closest Milk Cow, Milk Goat, Garden, Residence, & Site Boundary By Sector Within 5 Miles (0-8 km) l >500 ft2 STATION l SECTOR MILK COW M'.LK G0AT RESIDENCE VEGETABLE GARDEN PROPERTY LINE Miles Km Miles Km Miles Km Miles Km Miles Km N - - - -
.7 1.1 .8 1.3 .61 .98 NNE
.6 1.0 2.8 4.5 .45 .73 NE - - - -
.7 1.1 1. 3 2.1 .45 .73 ENE - - - -
.7 1.1 2.9 3.2 .47 .76 E
- 1. 0 1. 6 2.5 4.0 .47 .76 ESE - - - -
.8 1. 3 3.9 6.2 .47 .76 SE - - - -
1.2 1.9 2.7 4.3 .47 .76 SSE - - - - 1.0 1. 6 2.0 3.2 .45 .73 1 rs Q S
.6 1. 0 .5 .8 .46 .73 SSW 3.5 5.6 - -
.9 1.4 1.8 2.9 .46 .73 SW 2.8 4.5 - -
.6 1.0 1.8 2.9 .49 .79 WSW - - - -
1.0 1.6 2.2 3.5 .49 .79 W - - - - 1.1 1.8 1.1 1.8 .60 .97 WNW - - - - 1.2 1.9 1. 2 1.9 1.11 1.78 l NW - - - - 1.4 2.2 1. 6 2.7 .97 1.55 NNW 3.1 5.0 - - 1.1 1. 8 2.2 3.5 .79 1.27 Note: The closest dairy is located 5.7 mi (9.2 Km) SW. l Source: Field survey November, 1981 l Rev. 5 I u
ER Table 2.1.3-2 Catawba lluclear Station Truck Farming Production (Thousands) kg/yr SECTOF 0-I l- 2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5 -10 10 - 2 0 20-30 30-40 40-50 h0T N - - - - - 48 286 640 81 2 1,092 2,878 25 29 184 158 17 413 NNE 1 - 1 10 1 6 10,250 10,158 20,427 NE 1 - 2 2 229 277 22,091 22,602 ENE - - - 228 191 1,814 1,774 4,007 E - - 254 1,724 1,451 2,635 6,064 ESE - - - - - 938 1,814 113 1,184 4,049 SE - - - - - - 938 - - - 938 SSE - - -
- - - - - - 1,834 - - 4 1,838 S
- - - - 9 - - 9 SSW -
938 938 1 2 1,879 SW - - - - -
- - - - - 938 938 628 3,145 5,649 WSW -
938 4,706 5,645 W - - - - - - 1 -
- 1,313 6,014 10,739 1,036 22,102 WNW - - - - -
- - 5 1,098 3,866 11,933 9,761 26,663 NW 48 358 1,720 6,599 2,047 10,772 NNW 62,652 135,935 1 1 1 138 10,093 18,274 44,775 TOTAL -
J
\
ER Table 2,3.0-1 Page 1 of 2 j Catawba Nuclear Station 451.3 i Vicinity Climatolorly
- j Temperature Precipitation Snow-Sleet Foa Humidity Wind s s
@ s i x x u w 6 W
- 5 '
e T - -* 2 2 S 2 8 % T 1 Y 3 m *
- 7 s # 1 { 5 # E E u o O M I I .E ? o 2' f. Z .E Z j ? F 5
- 1 5
* " E" a , & E- ; E E E w g g g g * * * "
w x 2 ? ? -% a e a e m % ? ? O C U 8 8 t' 7 c 7 7 % %% % C 5 8 8 l 3 a 2 a a a 2 2 2 2 2 1 E i k i a a Month j January 52.1 32.1 42.1 78 -3 3.51 7.44 1.24 3.57 11.7 10.2 4 32 8.0 SW WNW/3 56 NE l February 54.9 33.1 44.0 81 -5 3.83 7.59 0.74 2.92 14.9 16.5 3 32 8.4 NE --- 54 SW ! March 62.2 39.0 50.6 90 4 4.52 8.76 2,11 3.83 19.3 8.0 2 37 8.9 SW --- 49 SW l April 72.7 48.9 60.8 93 24 3.40 7.64 0.30 3.20 T T 1 46 8.9 5 SW/3 53 NW May 80.2 57.4 68.8 100 32 2.90 12.48 0.11 3.67 0.0 0.0 1 57 7.6 SW --- 48 NW June 86.4 65.3 75.9 103 45 3.70 8.26 0.67 3.77 0.0 0.0 1 63 7.0 SW --- 57 NW ! July 88.3 68.7 78.5 103 53 4.57 16.55 0.82 6.59 0.0 0.0 1 67 6.6 SW 55W/2 59 NW August 87.4 67.9 77.7 102 53 3.96 9.98 0.61 4.52 0.0 0.0 2 67 6.5' S 54 NW 5eptember 82.0 61.9 72.0 104 39 3.46 10.89 0.02 4.74 0.0 0.0 2 62 6.8 NE -~ 47 NW October 73.1 50.3 61.7 98 24 2.69 8.33 T 5.34 0.0 0.0 2 51 7.0 NNE NNE/4 47 NW f November 62.4 39.6 51.0 11 2.74 8.17 0.46 2.79 2. 5 2.5 3 33 7.3 SSW --- 47 NW December 52.5 32.4 42.5 77 2 3.44 7.41 0.43 2.87 7.5 7.5 4 ~ 31 7.4 SW --- 57 NE Year 71.2 49.7 60.5 104 -5 42.72 12.48 T 6.59 19.3 16.5 26 48 7.5 $W --- 59 NW ) r Period of 1941- 1941- 1941- 1940- 1940- 1941- 1940- 1940- 1940- 1940- 1940- 1940-1946-1950-1967-1951 .1950- 1950- l Record 1970 1910 1970 1990 1980 1970 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1965 1960 1980 1960 1980 1980 i a a a a a a a a a b a a b a a i suurce a a a
- Number of days of heavy fog (visibility equal to Or less than % mile)
**5 peed based on fastest mile of air Note Temperature and dew point in 'F, precipitation and snow-sleet in inches (i indicates trace of precipi- ,
tation), wind speed in miles per hour.
- 4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Environmental Data and Information Service, National Climatic Center,
" Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data. 1980 Charlotte, N. C.", Washington, D. C.
- b. U. S. Department of Commerce Environmental Science Services Administration, Environmental Data Service, Climatic Atlas f '
of the United States, Washington, O. C., 1968, pp. 57-58. Rev. 3 ; I P l l- .
- ~ . _ . - _ _ -. . - . - _ _ .
I ER Table 2.3.0-1 Page 2 of 2 Catawba Nuclear Station Onsite Data January 1,19/6 - December 31, D77 , Month Mean Temoerature( F) % Fecovery Mean Dew Point ( F) % Recovery Mean 10m Wind Speed (mph) % Recovery January 35 100 23 94 5.5 84 February 47 98 30 97 6.6 86 March 56 93 43 93 6.2 97 j April 63 99 46 98 5. 8 93 1 May 68 94 56 93 5.5 l 100 l June 73 100 63 100 5.5 84 l July 79 100 66 99 4.8 91 i 1 August 77 100 66 99 5.8 98 September 71 100 62 84 4.9 100 I October 57 100 45 73 6.3 100 November 49 100 38 96 5. 9 99 December 41 31 99 5.2 89 i Year 60 99 48 94 5.7 93 i
~5' ev.
9 O O
-- - ~ - ~ - - ~ - - - -~ ..- . . - - -
CM ' e CE - O \ t so
\ rw I
Q j e4 EN m CO!OO DO CO O CO l CO l CO ' C0O 00 O COfCOlCO DO O DO O DO O ege4 O co-4 Q o OI Ot O Qt Qt O e. OI Ot O r ee et e e et et e e et et e e e e e e
- ru Oi Og O O Op C ii O ' Q Q ct Og Q Q O O O O a *ul '
i ll 1 i I t i g > e4 o-i g 'i i i t g
& W Nrt I t i 4 e r Q AAi g 9 m m CL e i F W rur AA' t ut g e7 mru QO DO DO DO QO DO CO .CO g e4A CO DO enA ween a g42 g%
de i O O Q og Q .DO O. O Q Q Q i 08 O O Q Q Q l Oo A at rur . e i e eii eg e . e e e e eg e0 e e e e e Q tt Qi. Ot Q Ot O Q Q Q Q O9 0t Oi O Q Q Q Om
** enul t t Z P- W ee . j g o Ze re -
I C i = Wet e4 I i i i I il 1 F UO 4 , i t e i <t a Or 'i t -i I t t . rru g uJ er iAA X fu mru i QQtCO CO QQ CO QC CC g enru t c0 00 rud fua sfu . dL re Q Q ' O i O9 Q Q Q Q Q OI Qt Q O O Q O i en,4 W e caso e e en e e e o e eII og e e1 e e e e v1 m g 4ui I Q 'i Q' oli O I O O Q Q" Q Q - Q Qi O O D: O O Qm o 3 ee f u Jr%i i _a U e4 at O w t-r er ruet c4fs soul CO QO .rm OO mru o e 00 CO CD rua utm Xfu W1m rui moJ > 0 Je . O r4Q Q Q O O Q Q Q Q0 Cl Q Q O O Q uim Z rers e e e e e e e o e og el e e e e e e
- ti O O O O Q O Q Q O Q1 Ot O O Q O O O Ju1 g g M ee i i 9
m XJ.. g
*1 e4 3 0
.J l l 1' y Wir 9 i e2 acu1 f%eg e4m rUA e4A CC CO fuen inrU ent% m3 t mru fnru t% 2 ru1 ru1 1' v2 ut O 2
- O c4c4 rue 4 Q Q O O O O e4C 1 ibes t O O O O O ucars m uJ e4J : o e o e o e o e e ei eI o e e o e i .4 e cg
. uJ lI : O O O O O O Q O O Oi' OI O O O O O i O J j CL e 7u1 ;' i t li e4 m us e e u I l 4 ruul I 4 l
^ + Jc4 4 E u e e o & mr' t Z f% e O O e2 tur% Xu1 JO ruen e rA CD 00 mru t% 2 r%r r%g* 8 eat % aCut E%en r%en 3ri 1110 Q
> Wru o . e4C fuce e4c4 O O O O O O Q : c4A r4e4 e4C 1 ll rus =
f 2ru 9 e4Q w ! 2ru v Wegui e e e o e e o- e e i e ei e e. e e e fu * > 7* W CL t 1 Q Q O O O O Q O O Q1 Q C Q Q C O e4 et O
- m mceus l >
m[M sq @ > 0C71 ee I 1 I g W OH b m i n 8 m
+mL .Z A e n g m 3 m mer , .
g g o yQU uJ es man r%m mru ena rc 20* DJ 2ru c rue 4 Fru f%M e4m rg* Jru i ruJ , ace 4 sul r%r4 ruf4 0 ear wo U Oe ego a O O fnru ruce f% s ears e sru i e4A ! rues eac4 I e4C utr% O wJ Z eg y e e e o e e o e e o c4 o t eI e i e ot e ye .
-sOV uJ t8 i O O O O O Q O O Q Ql C1 01 Q i O OI C ru .J er Q 2 .5
- 2 g
a e u1 se l I t l i, q D f% m l i l Cr al $ v U l l .J w4 m i i 4 4 e- O F: 8 . r,wrur car ao s ruf% Oso my ruru ; acr6 . g%,4 ru1 l u1J Q Qe ag O e e-Q m,4 Ar m.4 fue4 sui ru,4 uir AC Jru m,u mA r%s emlJO t usru . a,cO m mm ru 4 A O mo - I'M I * * * * * * * * *I *8 *8 * * '
- J' m .Z. O' Q O O Qi O O i O l
O l Q t '*e4 I OI Cli O D' i. Q- s Iii I 3 Ju19 \\ t l l: l 11
**I I I i II
, utru 3 i i I l l C 0 1 1 0 t I r i i uty sus Mr mu uiga s,4 Ju1 rg* stu , so u1en i3D Can ad JC rut acut i i Jac ee rud m,4 mru e4Q fMru u1fM f% X acut J2 Fru .JF me4 rPru ,ac4 O Q 1 fuac u1ru e e- e o e o e e e o e. e- e e e e i Je i t O Q Q Q Q- Q Q O O Q- O Q - O Q Q Q m mui g ee I 1 ma' t i 3 !I i 8 J , I u i l i W li e t I ru Ir*n rus li uim iCOIJ2 Fru r% fin 2 I iCJ QJiN2i f%2 I acui t acui g mmo: mru g MA a 1
,e,4I g r%Q u1 W ee u O i Qt I Qt O OO O e4C . e40 i Oi OI CO OIcQl Oe O, Ot t 5"J e J mA i e o e ee e e ei eii eg eI ef e i ee eg e e e f%
90 0- O O i Og O O O1 Oll C1 O9 OI C i OI O4 O O O 34 Out i t i li e 1 3 i 0 l C e7 ' 1 i 8 8 $ I e I I J.J / oi ' I I l I 1 i 1 1 1 i s I , . i. I , e t . . O
*E== l t e i e t 1 I I I I W
.o us 1 ,
i W 4 30 Q4 gee NN 1 mm Jm As CD 70 mm #1 As 20 NA @ri CN '<@t<N Marc a e 4e >> t f%s utg- i mac wim r%s acui rueC ace 4 fvtso , ue acts r,Pr% 23* :CJ i r%2 9 .E2 4 cc e de .4 e e e o de de de e de ru.f%
- s. . Ao e O.u1C ,u e da We O Q O O O O Q A O A N O O Q O O ONS O V W l l ** Z u i I am Q l l 3
> lOF CH OF CH Ok CW op Cp Cp OFiOHeOH' CW6CF Ck' CH CHQs W t a - izo zu zu zu zuCL zu zuCL zua zuCL zulzutzvizulzo'zu zu a
zuzo e 1 as o= l CL CL (L & CL I a1 CL 3 CL t CL I IL 1 41 CL a ed N E I t 1 I l m K 1 0 1 B I i W D E e 0 t 0 i > e OO ' O ui 9 OtImi O ut i C0 i ut t O mI9OO I ui 0 0C 0mi ' O I L u* I . i .J *E zh I e$ eW eW euJ e1 . oW eW *W ei e3 0 e3 I e3 0 ei i e3 e3 e31 E *E
== O lO2 ruz u12 NZ C &L' rLe Vus f% e Ce rt ut i Vul 9 he i C3 9 fuZ mZ sl f6 2 I J >-
3W GJG I tb2 JW r9 'eeuJ re t We aC $ Ce i rL 9 0 2 3 0 r% 0 55 3 =4 I t rrZ l <3 O e Im 1 l21 -l 8 . es i en esai re ' fu a I fu 1 ru 1 1 ru I fu 6 i re i fM I 1O t-
trl e o tlt no f% A
% A E%
am 'OO DO O O DO O 00l00l00l00f00fDO Of Qi Of O! Os O DO i O 0C!00000!DO Of 01 OB D DO Q rud O ' t O t rud O E e e * .
*4 e '
ee e ei e o et *$ ei e e e t e g fu l O u O O Ot O - Ou O'! Og O O Of O4 Ot O O O i 9 O em il i i I t I l i 1 e 0 0 0 e.s k e4 e i a t g i i g e G at rur l l s e es O AA I e 2
# 1
" CL i 9 u l i 2 w fur B e 1 I i m a e s s ence : rud OO 00 00 00 00 00 Coaco 00.CogCO end end : dei lJ2 r4 e4 * [ O O u u u u o u Wl O e O U1 Q O Oi- Uu l O d a rur i e *I ei eu ou e i eo e es e- *3 e ei et *u o O I et Ou Oe Di O. Oe oB C' O ;B Dt O' O Oe Ou Oi Oe o i a m eim I I i 1 6 0 4 i 1 Z
'W e 4'l 0 e e e i e i I O ZF reo' te $ $ il i g 3 1 9 i ,
e l w W4 e4 0 0 0 I e i e s 0 i e i e i e i e > UC 0 0 I e i e i a e e I e 0 -i e t at a 004 I i 4 e t I t 9 4 i t i e > W es I rud 6 sru i dd ' CDtCO300tOOgCO DO300ge9d$COgOOgCO DO l rud g DJ cc a r el Og Q4 O l 06 Ol Of Og 01 Q4 Os Of Ol as O Og og AO w e e9aD 4 et og e - et et el og og og el *1 *$ el *U el of e e a I eDg l Of Of Qi C- Da De C1 Ol Os Os Os Os Os 0 1 Og 01 O e er 0 8 1 1 1 8 0 t t 0 i u 1 4 i l O 3 e et 3 i i e e a e i n i e 1 e i V J f% 0 8 0 0 i i 1 1 8 il 6 a O e4 0 0 t I i 4 1 4 4 4 O I 6 4 1 9 I i 4 > Nrl i i I f 0 O m m i sru 9 O O il C O t C O 01 0 0 1 e e s t rud end e4d 6 mru mru i rud 00 e4A mm em I i raO r O .,il s e O Q. Of Og of Ol C O Of C. O'i Oi O Di 01 Ci o mru Z rats I e e ee e; eI eg ei e ee oe ei ei e- e ee o e
- tif G O Oi 01 Of Of C Og Ol Ol C i O O O . De O O Jmi 6 4 0 1 i' I e i . i .
t m e *8 0 t I I i e t i e i . I e m sJ1 4 I I e I 1 0 8 1 f 4 0 at e4 a i I t i 1 e e e a e I e 4 4 t J 0 0 0 t i 1 4 I i i i 8 0 1 U mrt 4 . t 6 6 0 4 5 0 $ $ 6 es i srue r m ' rm 100 0 CO t CO 6 e94 4 mru c aem CJ l mac 4 Nd cedgCD mm $ aru a u tue m O 2 e0 OI O' Oi OI Ol O$ O4 OI C e40 0 e40 0 OU OI O .I Q4 0t Jm m W dJi el el el el et el el el *1 el *I et et et et et e c4 W 4 0 t OI O0 01 04 O8 Ot C4 Of O6 04 04 Of O6 DI OI Ci O J a M*WD I I I I I 8 0 t i I I I i 1 0 e ce e e o ei e e a e I g 1 1 6 g i e e a 1 6 e 4 rum 0 0 6 4 4 1 0 4 0 0 0 6 4 I I 6 I E + Je9 ' 8 I i 0 0 1 0 e I I e e i t 1 U i 8 i 1 0 8 6 8 0 9 4 4 4 8 9 m O E mrt i I 9 4 0 0 0 . I e i I f I I I Z C O t- O wrues ee scr i Fru. s da l 6,r%c4 de e ace 3 rers a ada reds10C01 tOs end04e rueQ-m i mm e co m I ms ru 4 l cad g s ru 1 r%s i sr I i rue se .O. O t rue = t ruca i Oi 01 QI C l e40 s 7 e O Waml *1 et *l et eI el el et *l e6 *1 el el et *6 *g e4 e > O@ W CL 1 0i O6 OI O8 O1 OI On OI OI O- O4 Of Q4 O9 0t OI Oe O 4
~ u e mdml 1 0 0 0 e 8 i t i e i e i i >
MH e el i t i og 1 l g , t e I e 3 e
> C076 i t i w
- d. m*[[ L g e e i
1 6 e t, L e ZH . .I .t . .I e e i 4 i , m
- m. w u"3 m 30r1
- 6 1 8 I I e I i j .l 4 0 c0 4 9 4 9 1 1 u i 1 6 I I O N
y9 'A g w O
*7eace4ef%r4ir m icars e mm i 00 6 sru p mm O e I r ace I rues e reru i, caO1 mm a mru j mru e rneo i pru t CJ t a04 mad 01 O6 OI O1 0 0 reru 6 mru i ego I O 4 e4C 6 ced Ior e40 t 22 O aOV 2 479 el et et 86 e1 *4 et *e et el el *e *1 *t e et N* -
cn 7 C w I Ii OI C0 O6 O6 O8 Ol C* I OI C6 O9 Ot OI OI OI O OI eg J
- L M **" 4d 6 3 m rmi l l I t I t i e 8 0 0 0 I l 4 oet e i e i g g I t t j t e i e >
3 r%m 1 i i i l I i i a $ rs. U wa i 4 I 6 I I 1 e i 1 s e 5 4 e 4 1 I i 6 i I J
=t m u I I t I e i e 4 0 t I i 3 e i 8 air H-O Cl I 6 I i 1 9 I i t i I i 1 8 6-
*f a02 6 emm 6 Jru 6 aCO 4 2m I rus t JJ t afu 9 men g er g som a acru sm e acm 0 CJ l Oru g sr mitt O U W O e e e rue 4 9 f"ru 9 3m I ruee 6 fue* 1 OI O t c40 $ Mru i J7 ru.e t g A O grud ie4C i Jru H Jg Z r$m i ei ei e et e Oe .6 el et et et ei el O. 6 et .I er me
- i ll 04 Os Oi Qi C .i Ol Cl O. 00 04 Oi Of Of Cl Ol CI N I J#6 8 1 1 I t t 0 0 t t I I I I i 1 1
* *I I e 1 1 e t t t I t t 4 0 6 0 t I Wru t t t i e a e I t t a 3 I I e i e t I t 0 i t t e t 0 1 0 t 1 0 t i t I t t I I i 1 8 9 t 6 0 8 8 6 0 rt 9 i t i e e 0 e I t I B B t i i mstedgmmlJN0CNisatrNtOctomtsdtNNO2OirNtWWidNthdtd&t Isd e o t ese a e ruee g mru g rud g mru g race g efn e g feru g mfu g mm 1 J 2 9 e4A g NA l e4C t cod t 40 t mru l *j el et el el et el el ee og el og et el et el mao.
t i l Of Os of 01 Og 01 Of Os 09 Ot Os Os Of as 03 Og N mmt t I i t 1 I I O 0 t I i f I I I eef I t 0 I t e i 1 e t i t i 9 8 i mdi t 1 0 t t 1 0 1 I 1 i i I t i I 0 t i I e t I t i I t 0 0 0 0 6 J t t t I e I t t t t 0 0 0 t t t I W lt" t 9 i 9 1 8 8 9 9 4 I i 1 4 0 t i J
> ru3 t som 3 3 ru l 3% J t Jrb I f%e4i som e Itm i fure $ 0 e4rw t t% 2 6 caf% e rLea e O _119 acme C O erue43 i Tr% O W e ee Ot Ot Ot O I e44 l 0 e 40 l r O t e4C e O e e4C e O g e.ec e Ot Ol Ot I tur% e a fMee t et eI et et ee og ee et et e1 og et es ea et of gae 9%
t f t Of Cl Of Of Og 04 08 Os of Os 04 Of Of 09 Og 00 s 0 10 Ostt e e e 1 I i 1 l 0 t e e e t I e I e O e20 t e i e i e i I B e a e t i e e J.J e4 ei t i I l 3 0 i e e I i e 9 e g 9 J f 9 I e I t I I e i I I e I I f I C
*8 " l e e i t t i 0 0 I t t t t 4 1 I W C &> I t I t 0 1 0 0 t i l 0 0 4 0 0 t W 30 C =1 e som i e nd I rr 3 Om I rr a rcO t mre 9 mc t rte t Jm i ace I so a caru e mac # fem a
*E m Fb 1 sctn I fe e0 g mEr i r% : t r%s g fem e mm i J 7 0 fs 2 $ JO t c4m 3 J2 g mm t 3ru l f%s ! a0N 1 Comr t- *E UO t sJ29 CreaC m
- t e*
- t e* of al et el et el e l e*
- t rb
- 1 *t *l el et et *2 e da wF t 04 Of 01 Cl Of Qi Of Of Og 40 de Cl Cl at Ot C8 Ode O V m i i t I f 9 I i t t t i l i e i 6 Z E t t 6 4 t I i t I 6 I f 6 6 I I I =
0 I I e i e e t t t 4 5 I a 6 l 1 0 2 Y t t t I e I I I I e 0 0 t 0 0 t t
> W t09 4 06- t 06- t OH 1 CH t OF e O>- 0 OF 0 OF I Os I Ot- t Os i OF 6 OF e CW l 06- t 06-O>- w (u F 120920 tZuIZui2032Ut20tZUtZUtZUlZO820tZUt20IZUtZUtZUZO O 4 ~ 1 a1 CL t CL 6 CL t CL e al CL 1 ae at a1 &e ai CL e aI CL 9 ae a a 4 Y t t 8 l 9 I I t t i 1 i 6 9 4 I I g I l 9 0 9 9 4 6 i I f 1 0 t t t t i E 3 a e i e t t t t I l t t t t t i I t >
m 00 0C Iml int imito let IOlimilO tet lOl lmt 50 Imlictiml 0 a 4 Z >- I ei 4 *W I aw I ow I ei 4 ew ew 0 ew I e e i e31 *21 e39 ei e e3 e e2 0 e2i T as "U l O2 9 rt 2 I m2 i f% Z t CW t rte i mm i r% m ? Om i rte i mm I t%e 0 D3 i rLZ l mZ t f5 Z a e IW 9JI t rt Z l 2 9 tJwirI leewimt twelet I Ce t fu l 3 2 3 f f% l 8 r3 f ee t i mZ - ,4 O m I rn I I e t te s ,a t t ,a s ce e s ,e emosm o m o e ni emaem omei .
-_ .- . = ..
4 O ER Table 2.3.0-5 Catawba Nuclear Station
- Charlotte, N. C. - Climatic Comparison
- Wind Direction Distribution Frec.uency (%) Frecluency (%)
Direction 1969-1972 1976-19/7 Direction 1969-1972 1976-19// N 8.8 7.1 5 8.0 10.1 NNE 8.4 5.6 SSW 7.7 5.4 NE 6.4 7.5 SW 9.0 10.0 ENE 5.5 5.3 WSW 5.9 6.8 E 7.3 6.3 W 6.0 6.9 ESE 4.2 4.3 WNW 3.3 4.4 l SE 3.8 5.6 NW 5.5 5.3 , SSE 4.1 4.6 NNW 6.0 4.7
; Calms 4.3 9.6 Stability Class Frequency Distribution (%)
l Stability Class Period A B C D E F G l 1969-1973 078 6T8 1274 4475 13T4 1572 679 , 1976-1977 1.0 8.0 13.4 39.4 13.2 15.9 9.2 i Wind Speed Frequency Distribution (%) Wind Speed Category (Knots) Period 0-3 4-6 7-10 11-16 17-21 >21 1969-1973 E3 K0 32 I T3 5- 1. 0 ITI f 1976-1977 19.7 36.4 31.7 11.5 0.6 0.1 1 i lO l k Rev. 5
ER Table 2.3.0-6 Page 1 of 3 Catawba Nuclear Station fanual Average X/Q Values at Intake Vents h From Unit #1 Direction Distance X/Q Receptor (to 16 points) (m) (sec/m3)
- 1. Unit 1 Control Room 11 44 4.9 x 10 6
- 2. Unit 2 Control Room 16 105 1.5 x 10 6
- 3. Unit 1 Fuel Handling 6 50 4.0 x 10 6
- 4. Unit 2 Fuel Handli g 2 100 2.2 x 10 6
- 5. Aux. Bldg. Radwr. ate Supply 4 62 2.6 x 10 6
~
- 6. Aux. Bldg. Supply (North) 1 46 2.7 x 10 6
~
- 7. Aux. Bldg. Supply (South) 2 24 4.2 x 10 6
~
- 8. Diesel Generator 16 152 4.8 x 10 7
- 9. Unit 1 Turbine Bldg. (East) 13 64 1.9 x 10 6
- 10. Unit 1 Turbine Bldg. (South) 12 125 2.0 x 10 6
- 11. Unit 1 Turbine Bldg. (West) 13 180 1.5 x 10 6
- 12. Unit 2 Turbine Bldg. (East) 15 102 5.3 x 107
~
- 13. Unit 2 Turbine Bldg. (North) 15 190 6.9 x 10 7
- 14. Unit 2 Turbine Bldg. (West) 14 204 7.0 x 10 7
- 15. Service Bldg. (North) 14 137 1.8 x 10 7 7
- 16. Service Bldg. (South) 13 130 5.6 x 10
- 17. Administration Bldg. 13 232 1.8 x 107
- 18. Machine Shop 13 232 1.8 x 10 7 O
Rev. 5
O ER Table 2.3.0-6 Page 2.of 3 Catawba Nuclear Station Annual Average X/Q Values at Intake Vents From Unit #2 Direction Distance X/Q Receptor (to 16 points) (m)- (sec/m3 )
- 1. Unit 1 Control Room 10 105 3.1 x 10 6
- 2. Unit 2 Control Room 15 44 5.9 x 106
- 3. Unit 1 Fuel Handling 8 100 1.6 x 10 6
- 4. Unit 2 Fuel Handling 4 50 4.1 x 10 6
- 5. Aux. Bldg. Radwaste Supply 7 67 1.7 x 10 6
- 6. Aux. Bldg. Supply (North) 8 24 4.1 x 106
- 7. Aux. Bldg. Supply (North) 9 46 3.2 x 10 6
- 8. Diesel Generator 16 82 8.5 x 10 7
- 9. Unit 1 Turbine Bldg. (East) 11 100 2.0 x 10 6
- 10. Unit 1 Turbine Bldg. (South) 11 170 1.5 x 10 6
- 11. Unit 1 Turbine Bldg. (West) 12 204 1.2 x 10 6
- 12. Unit 2 Turbine Bldg. (East) 13 64 1.9 x 10 6
- 13. Unit 2 Turbine Bldg. (North) 14 125 1.2 x 106
- 14. Unit 2 Turbine Bldg. (West) 13 180 1.5 x'10 6
- 15. Service Bldg. (North) 13 130 5.6 x 10 7
- 16. Service Bldg. (South)_ 12 137 7.6 x 10 7
- 17. Administration Bldg. 13 232 1.8 x 10 7
'18. Machine Shop 13 232 1.8 x'10 7 O
Rev. 5
ER Table 2.3.0-6 3 of 3 Catawba Nuclear Station Annual Average X/0 Values - Offsite No Plume Depletion With Plume Deletion Type of Release X/Q(sec m-3) Distance X/Q(sec m-3) Distance D/Q (m 2) Distance 1 Year (Highest) 2.5 x 107 762 m NNE 2.4 x 10 7 762 m NNE 1 Year (Cow) 6.7 x 10 8 2100 m NW 6.2 x 108 2100 m NW 5.7 x 10 1 2100 m NW 1 Year (Goat) 6.7 x 10 8 2200 m NW 6.2 x 10 8 2200 m NW 5.4 x 10 1 2200 m NW 1 Year (Garden) 1.8 x 107 3900 m NNE 1.7 x 107 3900 m NNE 1.3 x 10 7 2400 m SSW 1.3 x 10 ? 2400 m SSW 7.7 x 10 1 2400 m SSW 1 Year (Residence) 3.5 x 107 1100 m NNE 3.5 x 107 1100 m NNE 3.5 x 10 8 1100 m NNE 1 Year (Meat Animal)1.3 x 10 7 5630 m NNE 1.2 x 10 7 5630 m NNE 4.8 x 10 1 5630 m NNE Annual Man - X/Q to 50 Miles 5.0 x 10 8 sec m 3 (based on 2000 population estimate) Rev. 5 O O O
V ER Table 2.3.0-7 Catawba Nuclear Station Dilution Factors for Accident Releases Distance X/Q Percentile (sec/m )3 Value Release (m) 4 95 762 (EAB) 5.5 x 10 0-2 hr - 1.3 x 10 4 50 0-2 hr 762 5 95 0-2 hr 6095 (LPZB) 3.0 x 10 6 50 0-2 hr 6095 6.6 x 10 3.8 x 10~5 100 0-8 hr 6095 0-8 hr 6095 1.8 x 10 ~5 95 6 50 0-8 hr 6095 6.2 x 10
) -
100 8-24 hr 6095 2.1 x 10 s 5 95 8-24 hr 6095 1.2 x 10 6 50 8-24 hr 6095 5.4 x 10 6 100 1-4 day 6095 5.7 x 10 6 95 1-4 day 6095 4.3 x 10 6 50 1-4 day 6095 2.5 x 10 6 100 4-30 day 6095 1.2 x 10 6 95 4-30 day 6095 1.2 x 10 4-30 day 6095 9.7 x 10 ~7 50
\
sq Rev. 5
O O O ER Table 2.4.1-5 Catawba Nuclear Station
' Lake Wylie Water Ouality (September 1974 Through March 1978)
South Carolina U.S. EPA-Water Quality Water Quality Maximum Minimum Standards Criteria Mean Constituent 19.4 32.9 3.3 32.2 Temperature 14,0 0.0 }5.0 15.01 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 6.7 6.5-9.01 6.9 9.1 5.7 6.0-8.0
-pH 27 5 >203 Alkalinity (mg/1' CACO3 ) 15 37 580 1. 0 Turbidity (JTU) 1. 6 0.01 Nitrate-Nitrite (mgN/1) 0.28 0.19 1. 0 0.01 Ammonia (mgN/1) 0.005 0.023 0.14 Orthophosphate (mgP/1) 0.49. 0.010 Total phosphorus (mgP/1) 0.056 4.2 7.1 - 2.8 Silica (mgSi/1) 3.1 9.5 1.2 Organic Carbon (mgC/1) 114 38 Specific conductance (pmhos/cm) 62 3.5 6.3 0.27 -Calcium (mg/1) 2.1- 0.76
- 1. 5 Magnesium (mg/1) 21 7.1 Hardness (mg/l CACO3 ) 15 1.01 1.2 97 0.01 Iron (mg/1) 0.1 0.05 Aluminum (mg/1) 1.6 19 7.3 13 3.0 Sodium (mg/1) 2.9 1.0 Potassium (mg/1) 1.8 6.5 12 3.8 Chloride (mg/1) 50 < 0.1 102 0.41 Cadmium (pg/1) 0.96 1001 6.2 38 0. 5 .
Chromium (pg/1) 0.5 10002 501 Copper (pg/1) .4.9 24 502 2.5 9.0 0.1 Lead (pg/1) 100 0.1 11-Nickel (pg/1) 120 0.5 19 Zinc (pg/1) .18 4.0 0.01 .052 Manganese (mg/1) 1 USEPA water quality criteria for freshwater aquatic. life 2 USEPA. water quality criteria for domestic water, supplies 3 USEPA water quality criteria for freshwater aquatic life, except where natural concentrations are less Rev. 4
ER Table 2.4.1-6 Catawba Nuclear Station Lake Wylie Water Quality (April 1978 Through June 1980) Maximum Minimum Mean Constituent 37.7 3.7 Temperature ( C) 18.2 0.0 7.9 12.9 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 8.6 5.1 6.8 -110 pH 510 337 30 0xidation-Reduction Potential (mv) 76 220 Specific Conductance (pmhos/cm) 46 2 Alkalinity (mg-CaC03 /1) 13 2 23 210 Turbidity (NTU) 0.85 0.028 Nitrate-Nitrite (mg-N/1) 0.26 0.010 0.16 1.3 Ammonia (mg-N/1) 0.22 0.005 Orthophosphate (mg-P/1) 0.022 0.006 9.053 0.38 Total Phosphorus (mg-P/1) 7.3 3.3 Silica (mg-Si/1) 4.7 1.9 3.5 6.9 Calcium (mg/1) 2.1 1.0 1.4 9.0 Magnesium (mg/1) 26 Hardness (mg-CACO 15 0.1 3 /1) 5.2 Iron (mg/1) 0.9 0.1 0.9 10 Aluminum (mg/1) 17 3.6 Sodium (mg/1) 7.6 1.4 1.8 2.8 Potassium (mg/1) 27 3.0 Chloride (mg/1) 7.6 0.1 0.3 1.0
/1) 96 1.0 Cadmium ( g/1) 3.2 0.1 1.3 200 Copper lead (pg (p/ ) 290 0.7 Zinc (pg/1) 9.2 0.01 0.09 2.8 Manganese (mg/l)
Rev. 5
- O e
N ( E o **
+ ',
8
$! ~
CLOVER
#s e
PINEVILL - s
- 3 b '
I
% FORT MILL Y' s \ YORK 3 *' ,~s '
snu L. i to (, , 4 Mi s- e 6 KM lu S Mt 8 KM N- t s' N rs[I g s,
\ I r_/,, ROCK HILL) \
S Sw to us. ln * ') 16 KM. ! S ) i i ! SIGNIFICANT POPULATION GROUPINGS 0-10 MILES j l ) O - CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION ER Figure 2.1.2-1 Revision 1
N ON 'kNg
+e 4 KANNAPOLt is s
C ORD
)
d N SHEL G T04A N CHARLOTTE ( ' j,? l
' s S ,'
G AFF NEY g
's,7 SITE MONROE 3 y N ~;7 SPARTAN! URG ' ROCK HILL sa
'h
, 10
\
\
/:6Kt 20 Mi \
\ Q g
32 KY i , _ UNION
/ J \
\\ /
E 48 KM
\ '
Jos 64KM S Sy 30 yt 956 8 KM S SIGNIFICANT POPULATION l ' GROUPINGS 10-50 MILES t\ CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION ER Figure 2.1.2-2 Revision 1 l L
IN T ! 3 I!! 3 L T ! ! I
! I ' ;
F I* ^ i i I i
, % 9
- t*'*L p . #
j!> y
!l p .-4 7 6 . . - . , . . _
',7
- ~
j '--+' f--* y *-+~, j gr-
, ; i r , - . - --
r - 1 r i :
--*T*-* i.
- - .q ~
+
, t- iH F (: -
1 i y LdM % ,
-,- -+-
4 4%. 6% - ; .9 ;
- , ,,_ w{ , , . , .
-9. .. ..i.7, h- < .e.= - -w -o- d_ --.-< 4-.
-i
.. . -& !' >-t<3
. . _+ ;
~
_. . 9, , . . _7._ . , _ m9 . . .-g
- + _ , .
r. _p p.
+ .-
._q. .. .
,, .., e,+ v, a.._ t.-..- @.
......w. -Q.
.:~ .. } , . .
7.f &...-
,~.e...
8 M h .. 4< l ..4 -L 4..~ 5.t 4 - M+fI"+ -
.. _4 + . .
..L. q'_ _-;-
-+*---+-+-
- t *~_L . , . _ . ._-*/g.
- 7. . >. y 3
7_
. ,- ..- 4 : :
7
-. f ,
Q - - .
. . 1..i.4 I ; i 47 . Q .j -
.4 a-4 m7. {a+.. - _ : p.
. 4% e. . .
..4 [
L_ O .
%..-..-4 . .
~ . _ . . E H,.7 y
..7. - _
g
.a
.- , s . .
w..L.~.-,a.
.-~. ,
--..n.
[ Q - _,4 g .4 . , 7 4 . . . .
*<_ _. .. ,p __- 1.1_.
m ,i. 2 . . _ 4 .+; . . i4 .
. _ . ~ 7p..p._... q. ~ t
._ _ 4 y . .._ . LJ
-... , a ,
8
+-y . .-
t
, . ..-. p _yy..~
---.4.-...
, r.9. . - . -,.y.-..
7 4-w ,--r ..
..-+.-
+:...
l .
%,-~-
-+- g p.. 4 4 ,-
d M .~ n+, i n h l
. i--
~n- t f
+-+
r.
'. 1 j -+.y 4
,' ) a i
~
F
-tj ~*t+
j,
^i t
! ;y i ;
- : ~ T~~t-
- i. { -+- +'
14- ( i J p., 9....,g
.# .. .._ p :
> {
-yp ..__L...._ ._,_.
#3 -, - 4_ y__ .. 4.-..
7_ ; 4. . Fa. . , . . . . _4_ s.
._.*f.'4- re _
_. - . . L. 4, . ' -
-.., ,.- , . _ _ , . 1-,-_+. - _
r
- I t
,h, 1-_h - . ---~-., kp,
._ ~.*-* ._ v 8
-p r. ..q. ... _ , _
. . 4_ +, _ _ . . _ , . .
7 .-
. j.
4
- . . g . -. - i t- t E*---'L-* -
s. 4 ,. .w. .+ f'. _-. - .* _ - .. . . . * ~ . .
.,p..... .
._.._, . 7- _9 , . - - . . , _ ....., _. _
. _. 4 ,
.p..-.__,%. .. $ . + . ~ .
. . t . . . - - _ , . ...e -
e , . e_. O - -
': i- "" +- - - - - - -- - - - * - - 4--
~ ~* *- '
' ~ " ~
' + . . , .. -' .. . '. . '
O m'. ' - -
.. , . . - , . - . , .. . - - , . . n, ,
, 4 <o-. e --p..
..-7.-
.p.. -+9_-
r- s. +- .,4
.,~_&-
~- w. .-4._ 4+
. 4 ' -. 5 l
.. w.
^
. . p9y a
.-,_.,_a.. p._e.._.p_..._..!.
M1_._1 L .1 1 i. i _t . L41.. f i'i I O O O o O O
- 0) 00 N e D 4
.D D .D D D D NOI.LVATG SNSWP AREA - VOLUME CURVES
( CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION ER Figure 2.4.3-1
N g ) ( l
\
!m I
fi
- d. .
! ,e
# /
w
== *g.x
. s s -
i s 2 E g > to w e-s Legend $USGS Observation Well LOCATION OF GROUNDWATER e Private Well WELLS IN THE SITE VICINITY o Spring (M" y') (g, CATAW8A NUCLEAR STATION ER Figure 2.4.4-1 Revision 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED 9 Section Page f 3.5.4.5.2 Spent Filter Cartridges ER 3.5-16 l 3.5.4.5.3 Compacted Wastes ER 3.5-16 1 f 3.5.4.6 Shipment- ER 3.5-16 3.5.5 PROCESS AND EFFLUENT RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING SYSTEM ER 3.5-16 l 3.5.5.1 Design Bases ER 3.5-16 l ! 3.5.5.2 Release Point Monitor ER 3.5-17 i l 3.5.5.2.1 Waste Liquid Discharge Monitor ER 3.5-17 3.5.5.2.2 Unit Vent Airborne Monitor ER 3.5-17 3.5.5.3 Liquid Monitoring ER 3.5-18 3.5.5.3.1 Turbine Building Sump Monitor ER 3.5-18 3.5.5.3.2 Steam Generator Blowdown Monitor ER 3.5-18 3.5.5.3.3 Steam Generator Water Sample Monitor ER 3.5-19 3.5.5.3.4 Containment Ventilation Unit Condensate Drain Tank ER 3.5-19 (CVUCDT) Monitor 3.5.5.3.5 Nuclear Service Water (NSW) Monitors ER 3.5-19 3.5.5.3.6 Component Cooling Water Monitors ER 3.5-19 3.5.5.3.7 Boron Recycle Evaporator Condensate Monitor ER 3.5-19 3.5.5.3.8 Reactor Coolant Monitor ER 3.5-20 3.5.5.3.9 Clean Area Floor Drains Discharge Monitor ER 3.5-20 3.5.5.4 Airborne Monitoring ER 3.5-20 3.5.5.4.1 Containment Airborne Monitor ER 3.5-20 3.5.5.4.2 Auxiliary Building Ventilation Monitor ER 3.5-21 3.5.5.4.3 Fuel Building Ventilation Monitor ER 3.5-21 3.5.5.4.4 Control Room Air Intake Monitors ER 3.5-21 g 3.5.5.4.5 Waste Gas Discharge Monitor ER 3.5-21 1 Rev. 1 ER 3iii l I
TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED Section Page 3.5.5.4.6 CondenserAirEjectorExhaustMonitor ER 3.5-21 3.5.5.4.7 Annulus Monitor ER 3.5-22 3.5.5.5 Alarms, Indication and Interlocks ER 3.5-22 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.5 ER 3.5-23 3.6 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE WASTES ER 3.6-1 3.6.1 CHEMICAL EFFLUENTS ER 3.6-1 3.6.2 COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN ER 3.6-2 3.6.3 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT ER 3.6-3 3.7 SANITARY AND OTHER WASTE SYSTEMS ER 3.7-1 3.7.1 TEMPORARY SANITARY WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS ER 3.7-1 3.7.2 OTHER WASTE SYSTEMS ER 3.7-2 3.7.2.1 Non-Radioactive Solid Waste ER 3.7-2 3.7.2.2 Diesel Generator Engine Exhaust ER 3.7-2 3.7.2.3 Auxiliary Boilers ER 3.7-3 3.8 REPORTING OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT ER 3.8-1
- 3. 9 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES ER 3.9-1 3.
9.1 DESCRIPTION
OF THE LINES ER 3.9-1 3.9.2 LAND USE ALONG THE LINES ER 3.9-2 3.9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE TRANSMISSION FACILITIES ER 3.9-2 3.9.4 230 kV SWITCHING STATION ER 3.9-3 8 9 Rev. 5 ER 3iv
1 ; I, I 1 ; i 1 I LIST OF FIGURES - CONTINUED l i O Figure No. Title 1 ! 3.9.2-1 Game Management Areas Located Within Two Miles of the Proposed l Transmission-Lines l> i
- 3.9.4-1 230 kV Switching Station Cross Section l' i
3.9.4-2 Schematic of Switching Station Buses and Equipment 1 3.9.4-3 230 kV Switching Station Interconnection With 230 kV Network 3.9.4-4 Typical 230 kV Switching Station l l i I I l l c \ O - I i l l t l O Rev. 5 ER 3vii
3.3 STATION WATER USE 3.3.1 SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS A schematic flow diagram of station water use is depicted in Figure 3.3.1-1. Figure 3.3.1-1 indicates average and maximum flow rates at key points in the ressed in gallons per minate. Average figures 3 diagram with the flow rates exp% thermal load factor for the station and the for water usage represent a 100 average of meteorological conditions for typical winter and summer conditions. Maximum figures for water Table usage3.3.1-1 represent indicates ;verage and maximum flow a 100% thermal load factor and design meteorological conditions.
' rates for the various plant systems in gallons per minute and in liters per minute. However, the station is expected to operate at an annual capacity factor of seventy-six percent (76%) or 100% thermal load factor for 76% of the time. A water usage flow rate is difficult to calculate from the 76% capacity factor. The 100% factor is a more logical choice Average for calculation purposes and and maximum flow rates offers a more conservative approach as well.
from Table 3.3.1-1 correspond to the flow rates from Figure 3.3.1-1. Flow estimates do not include the effects of rainfall runoff, evaporation, or seepage for the Nuclear Service Water Pond and Conventional Waste Treatment 3 System because calculations show seepage to be negligible and rainfall runotf gains and evaporation losses tend to counter-balance one another. All water for the Station's units is withdrawn from Lake Wylie. Trash racks and traveling screens will remove trash and prevent debris from entering the pumps. Accumulated trash is cleaned from the racks by hand and from the screens by a backwash system. The backwash water is returned to Lake Wylie ' O after usage. All trash and debris collected from the trash racks and intake screens will be transported to a licer. sed sanitary landfill. In addition to the Low Pressure Service Water System, the Nuclear Service Water, and the intake backwash water, Lake Wylie supplies filtered make-up water and fire protection water. However, the Fire Protection System is not normally in service except for testing puraoses because of new fire protection insurance codes. These codes state that tie Fire Protection System is not to be used in conjunction with any continuous source of cooling water. Also because of earthquake regulations, a gravity-flow system cannot be utilized for a fire protection system. Electric pumas for the system must be utilized with l l power provided by diesel generators. 11e total capacity of the fire protection system is 2500 GPM (9500 1/ min) per pump. l Filtered water for Catawba use will be supplied by two-675 gallon per minute Polyelectrolyte (2555.15 liters / minute) Roberts-Boze-Up-Flow Sand filters. coagulants, and occasionally alum (aluminum sulfate), will be used in conjunction ' with this particular process. Sodium hypochlorite or chlorine will be utilized as a biocide. The spent waste material from the filtration process will be flushed periodically to the Conventional Waste Water Treatment System j (See Section 3.6 for description) where the solids are allowed to settle. i The filtered water is the supply for sanitary and potable water, vacuum pump seals, and demineralizer makeup. O ER 3.3-1 CNS-OLS Rev. 5
Two-475 gallon per minute (1798.07 liters / minute) mixed-bed demineralizers will provide high purity water for make-up to the primary and secondary systems and for lab usage. With normal demineralized water requirements, regeneration of one demineralizer occurs approximately every three and one-half to four days. One demineralizer is normally in use while the other is being regenerated or is on standby. Sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid are used for regeneration of the demineralizers, and the regenerate wastes ire flushed to the Conventional Waste Water Treatment System. Further detail on the quantity and disposal of these chemicals is presented in Section 3.6. The Sewage Treatment System (treatment is provided by a tubular aeration lagoon followed by an aquaculture lagoon) is described fully in Section 3.7. Effluent from these systems is ultimately discharged to Lake Wylie. Low-level radioactive liquid waste water from the station is processed through the Liquid Radwaste System and either returned to the Reactor Coolant System, deposited into the Solid Radwaste System, or released under controlled condi-tions with proper dilution into Lake Wylie (See Section 3.5). 3.3.2 WATER SOURCLS The Standby Nuclear Service Water Pond is a 46 ac (19 ha) impoundment capable of supplying approximately 560 ac-ft (6.9 x 10 5m3 ) of emergency cooling water storage for the station. The pond will not be used as a heat sink for other than emergency shutdowns. The only exception will be during testing, but the heat addition should not be significant. The pond will not contain spray modules. The Lake Wylie irrpoundment supplies all water demands for the Catawba systems. The intake structure for the station is designed to continue to withdraw water from the lake to a pool elevation of 559.4 msl or ten feet (3.0 meters) below the maximum pool level of 569.4 feet msl. The current Federal Energy Regula-tory Commission license permits a maximum drawdown of ten feet (3.0 meters) bolow full pond elevation. Thic ten feet (3.0 meter) drawdown will be strictly observed during future operation of the lake and station. Duke Power characteristically allows the lake level on most of its lakes to drop to a minimum level during the late fall and early winter months. Heavy seasonal (winter and spring) rains and melting snows are more easily contained without widespread downstream flooding when the basins are not completely filled. The runoff tron the drainage areas refill the lakes to their maximum level. The lakes usually remain close to full pond elevation during the spring and summer months for recreational purposes. However, if low lake levels should occur on Lake Wylie because of drought or evaporation losses, supplemental waters could be released from upstream hydroelectric impoundments to augment the depleted water source. Therefore, the probability of station outages and emergency system usages resulting from insufficient supply of operating waters is minimal. O Rev. 5 ER 3.3-2 CNS-0LS
3.4 HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM The Catawba is designed to convert approximately 32 percent of the thermal energy generated by nuclear fission into electrical energy. The remaining thermal energy is handled by the heat dissipation system which includes the Main Condenser Cooling Water System, Nuclear Service Water System, and Low I Pressure Service Water System (including the Make-up Water System). The flow paths of all water systems within Catawba are shown schematically in Figure 3.3.0-1. The flow rates, frequency of flows, and dilution for all systems are incorporated into Figure 3.3.0-1. Organic fouling control including Asiatic clam control is achieved by a series of design and operating features. To prevent the introduction of clams into the system from the lake via the NSW System intake structure, the water is filtered and discharged from each pump through a strainer with 1/32 inch openings. Provisions have also been made to allow backflushing in the redundant heat exchanger trains and piping to remove any clams in the safety related components and piping. Sufficient flow elements have been provided in the NSW System to allow verification of adequate NSW flow to safety related heat exchangers during performance monitoring programs. The makeup flow to the Fire Protection System is through two 25 pmjockey pumpswhichpumpchlorinatedfilterwater(drinkingwaterqualit)tomaintain pressure in the system. A larger 200 gpm jockey pum) can also supp y chlorinated filter water or lake water from the LPSW System disc 1arge header. he main fire pumps on the intake structure are equipped with basket strainers on the pump suctions which prevent mature Asiatic clams from being pumped into the system. O Periodic operational testing of the main fire pumps will detect any blockage of the pump suction screens and verify acce) table pump performace. The exterior fire hydrants, the main fire protection leaders, and the transformer deluge systems are flow tested. Fire protection strainers on deluge and sprinkler systems are checked visually during maintenance. The LPSW System intake structure is equipped with traveling screens and trashracks which will prevent the entrance of unwanted organic debris. Inservice inspection and maintenance are also used for controlling the presence of fouling mechanisms. Chlorine will not be used in once through systems, so releases of chlorine to Lake Wylie will not be made in organic fouling control. 3.4.1 CONDENSER COOLING WATER SYSTEM { lhe condenser cooling water (CCW) system includes the main steam condenser, cooling towers, pumps, valves, and piping. Figures 3.4.1-1 thru 3.4.1-4 show a schematic representation of the CCW system. The closed-cycle mechanical-draft cooling tower system has been evaluated and found environmentally acceptable j, (FES Section 3.4). l Table 3.4.1-1 shows temperature, pressure, and equivalent elevation at various points in the CCW system at design summer conditions with 100% load conditions. At these specified conditions the cooling towers are designed to dissipate 7.9 x 109 Blu/hr. (8.33 x 1012 J/hr) per unit. O v l Rev. 5 ER 3.4-1 CNS-0LS u
The combined length of the condenser tubes for the three condenser shells is approximately 126 ft (38.4 m). There are 23,506 tubes per condenser shell. lhe design velocity for the water through the tubes is 8 fps (2.4 m/s). The condenser tubes are 3 1/2 in. (3.2 cm) outside diameter, 22 gauge, 304 stainless steel. The tubes are rolled into a tube sheet on both ends of the condenser shell. Condenser cleaning is accomplished by injecting spong rubber balls (Amertap Balls) into the condenser inlet (see Figure 3.4.1-3). These balls are slightly larger than the condenser tube inside diameter and clean the tubes as they are forced through them by the water flow. The Balls are recaptured at the conden-ser outlet for reuse (see Figure 3.4.1-3). Steel plate for the pipe shell and flanges conforms to ASTM Specification A-283, Grade C. Steel plate for pipe stiffness and for reinforcement of specials conforms to ASTM Specification A-36. The closed-cycle mechanical draft circular cooling towers are approximately 66 ft. (20 m) tall with an outside diameter of approximately 272 ft. (83 m) (Figure 3.4.1-5). Table 10.1.1-3 (circular mechanical draft) gives other cooling tower details. Cooling tower evaporation is estimated in Table 3.4.1-2. Cooling tower drif t droplet size distribution is given in Table 3.4.1-3. The cooling tower performance curve is shown in Figure 3.4.1-6. The cooling towers are constructed of concrete with PVC fill. The cooling tower blowdown release is maintained as required to prevent dis-solved solids buildup and subsequent scaling in the CCW system. Dissolved solids concentrations in the cooling water are maintained at a maximum level approximately ten times (Section 3.6.2) greater than that of makeup water. Blowdown of the cooling water flow is extracted from the condenser cooling water pipes (Figure 3.4.1-2), and is discharged into the lake through the LPSW discharge structure. The LPSW discharge structure is located at the end of the discharge ceve (Figure 2.1.1-3). The facility is designed to allow warm discharge wa'er to float on the surface of the lake with a minimum amount of mixing. This type of discharge facilitates cooling and minimizes the affected area. Details of the discharge structure are shown on Figure 3.4.4-1. Consumptive water use is only that portion of the CCW lost due to evaporation and drift. Therefore, at full load maximum consumption water use would be 28,110 gpm (1.77 m3 /s). 3.4.2 LOW PRESSURE SERVICE WATER The Low Pressure Service Water (LPSW) system supplies cooling water for various functions on the secondary side of the plant, including the main turbine oil coolers, the generator stator cooler, and the generator hydrogen cooler. The LPSW is drawn from the Catawba River arm of Lake Wylie and discharges into Allison Creek (Figure 2.1.1-3). The service water experiences an approximate temperature rise of 15 F (8.3 C) during the winter. Water quantities are shown on Figure 3.3.0-1 and Table 3.3.0-1. O Rev. 5 ER 3.4-2 CNS-OlS
The Makeup Water system replaces water that is lost in the cooling towers due to evaporation and blowdown. Average makeup water requirements are ex d be 30,915 gpm (1.95 3 m /s), operating at seven cycles of concentration.pected to 3.4.3 INTAKE STRUCTURE The location of the intake structure is shown on Figure 2.1.1-3. The structure is located on the east side of the intake cove and serves as a platform for supporting various pumps, trashracks, and screens. The structure was origi-nally designed with three bays, each containing a LPSW pump traveling screen and trashrack. During the detailed design, a fourth bay was added to house the main fire pumps and an associated trashrack and pullout screen. This feature was required to meet fire protection insurance codes requiring the fire protec-tion system to be completely independent of and isolated from the continuous source of cooling water. The LPSW pumps are protected from debris by the trashbacks and traveling screens. The fixed racks are bars spaced 4 inches apart that prevent large objects from entering the pump bay. Each motor driven traveling screen has a group of trays that revolves in a continuous, ve*tical loop. As the screen revolves, debris is deposited on the 3/8 inch wire mesh covering the trays. The backwash system washes the debris from the screens and deposits it in a trough on the top of the structure where it flows by gravity into the trash basket. The fire pumps are protected from debris by similar features. In this bay, however, the traveling screen is re) laced by a stationary pullout screen. This s screen must be removed and cleaned )y hand. 290.3 1 All collected debris is transmitted to a sanitary landfill. The intake structure is shown on Figure 3.4.3-1. The structure is designed for a maximum water velocity of 0.5 fps (0.15 m/sec) in front of the trashracks/ screens at maximum drawdown. Listed below are the design velocities for the conditions. and locations as noted: Full Pond W.S. Elev. 569.4 Area Velocity Gross Opening (306.0 f t2) 0.24 fps (0.07 m/s) . Thru Trashracks (224.3 ftz) 0.33 fps (0.10 m/s) l Thru Screens (158.6 f t2) 0.47 fps (0.14 m/s) !O Rev. 5 ER 3.4-3 CNS-OLS
Maximum Drawdown W.S. Elev. 559.4 Area Velocity Gross Opening (194.3 ft2 ) 0.38 fps (0.12 m/s) Thru Trashracks (141.9 ft2) 0.53 fps (0.16 m/s) 290.3 Thru Screens (100.7 ft2) 0.74 fps (0.23 m/s) Since the only revision to the original intake structure concept was the addition of fire pumps, the environmental impact of the existing design is not significantly different from the environmental impact of the CP-stage design. 3.4.4 DISCHARGE STRUCTURE The location of the LPSW discharge structure is shown on Figure 2.1.1-3. From this discharge structure the NSW, cooling tower blowdown, liquid radwaste and LPSW systems are discharged to Lake Wylie. This facility is designed to allow warm discharge water to float on the surface cf the lake with a minimum amount of mixing. This type of discharge facilitates cooling and minimizes the affected area. The CP stage concept of four 42 inch diameter pipes was based on early prelimi-nary information. Due to refinements in the hydraulic design for the LPSW system, the preliminary piping concept evolved into the current concept of two 290.4 54 inch diameter pipes. The supporting concrete structure was appropriately changed and refined to accomodate the final piping arrangement. The discharge ' structure is shown in Figure 3.4.4-1. 3.4.5 NUCLEAR SERVICE WATER SYSTEM The Nuclear Service Water (NSW) system supplies cooling water to various heat loads in both the primary and secondary portions of each unit. The NSW is drawn from the Catawba River arm of Lake Wylie and discharges into Allison Creek. The maximum flow is 68,000 gpm (4.14 3m /s) with the average flow being 25,000 gpm (1.52 am /sec) (Figure 3.3.1-1 and Table 3.3.1-1). The Standby Nuclear Service Water Pond (SNSWP) at Catawba is responsible for meeting requirements for the reliable ultimate heat sink as outlined in Regu-latory Guide 1.27. The maximum flow to and from the SNSWP is 68,000 gpm (4.14 m3 /s) and the average flow is 0 gpm (0 m 3
/s) since the pond is not used in normal operation.
O Rev. 5 ER 3.4-4 CNS-OLS
I 3.5.2.3.2 Dilution Factors low Pressure service water will provide dilution for liquid wastes with a flow that will vary depending, among other things, on the station power output and Lake Wylie water temperatures. For the purpose of dose evaluations, an average dilution with 54,000 gpm (2.04 x 10 51/ min) is assumed. Estimates of near-field j and far-field dilution are discussed in Section 5.2.2.1. l l The_ upper limit release rate'of radioactive discharges will be based on the available dilution and the concentrations of 10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II. 3.5.3 WASTE GAS SYSTEM l This section describes, in brief, the design and operating features of the l Waste Gas System. The purpose of the Waste Gas System is to remove fission , l product gases from radioactive fluids. Decay tank are provided to contain j these gases for a relatively long period of time. Also, the system is designed , to reduce the fission product gas concentration in the reactor coolant, whici will minimize the escape of radioactive gases during maintenance operations or from equipment leaks. For greater detail, refer to Section 11.3 of the Catawba FSAR. ' 3.5.3.1 Design Bases ; The principal design objectives and design criteria of the Waste Gas System , are , To protect the plant personnel, the general public, and the environment by insuring that gaseous releases of potentially radioactive materials both in plant and to the environment are in accordance with 10CFR20 (assuming operation at design basis fuel leakage), and are as low as is reasonably ( achievable in accordance with 10CFR50. To provide a means for collecting, storing, sampling, and monitoring poten-tially radioactive gaseous wastes from the two nuclear units during plant operation, in accordance with 10CFR50 - Appendix A, Criterion 60-64. These gaseous wastes may contain radioactive noble gases, halogens, and other radionuclides which usually appear in particulate form. To provide a plant ventilation system to protect the 31 ant personnel, the general public, and the environment in accordance witi 10CFR20 and 10CFR50. To provide instrumentation and alarms to preclude the buildup of an explosive mixture. Inotrumentation and control for Waste Gas System are given in FSAR , Section 11.3.2.4. Annual quantities released from the WG System, listed by radionuclide are shown in Table 3.5.3-1. The resulting doses to individuals at or beyond the , site boundary are discussed in Sections 5.2.4 and 5.2.5. Figure 3.5.3-1 is a ! block diagram illustrating gaseous effluent flow paths. Component design ! parameters are shown in FSAR Table 11.3.2-1. Design codes, seismic design and ANS Safety Classes for the components are given in FSAR Chapter 3. Rev. 5 ER 3.5-11 CNS-OLS i L
3.5.3.2 General Description The Waste Gas System is a closed loop comprised of two waste gas compressors, O two catalytic hydrogen recombiners, six (6) gas decay tanks for normal power service and two gas decay tanks for service at shutdown and startup. The system is shared between Catawba 1 and 2. All of the system equipment is located in the Auxiliary Building. Piping and Instrumentation diagrams which indicate system interconnections and seismic and quality group interfaces for the Waste Gas System are given on FSAR Figures 11.2.2-1 through 11.3.2-4. The Waste Gas System transfers, receives, processes, and contains the fM 1 0wing radioactive gases: mixed fission / hydrogen gas purge from the volume control tank prior to cold shutdown, waste gases from the recycle and waste evapora-tors, gases from the degasification of the reactor coolant in the reactor coolant drain tanks, and gases vented from undec the diaphragm of the recycle holdup tanks and waste drain tank. The Waste Gas System has the capacity to process gaseous wastes during periods whenmajorprocessingequipmentmaybedownformaintenance(singlefailure) and during periods of excessive waste generation. 3.5.3.3 Estimated Radioactivity Releases The estimated gaseous releases from plant sources during operation, including anticipated operational occurrences are shown in Table 3.5.3-1. The total annual average concentration is 1.3 E-11 pCi/ml at the exclusion area boundary, or .006% of the 10CFR20, Appendix B limit. Doses from these releases are well below the numerical design objectives of 10CFR50, Appendix I as shown in Table 5.2.4-1. The acceptable release rates and criteria are discussed in FSAR Chapter 16. The bases for the estimated plant release are contained in Appendix 3. All assumptions used are consistent with those of NUREG-0017 with the excep-tion of (1) the volume control tank stripping fraction which is discussed in FSAR Section 11.1.1.2 and (2) tritium is procaced as described in Section 3.5.1.1.4 and (3) a two-control volume model was used for calculating con-tainment releases. 3.5.3.3.1 Release Points Gaseous effluents are released for the most part through the unit vent with relatively small quantities released through the Turbine Building vents. Release vents are described in Appendix 3. The release points are shown in Figurea 2.1.1-4, and 3.1-4. O Rev. 1 ER 3.5-12 CNS-OLS
- 3. 6 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE WASTES 3.6.1 . CHEMICAL EFFLUENTS 'l
\
All chemical wastes are collected, treated, and the effluent discharged into ,
. Lake Wylie (Figure 3.6.1-1). l' s
i The treatment systems for all chemical wastes from Catawba are different from those described in the Construction Stage Environmental Report. Instead of a single pond for waste treatment, a four basin Conventional Waste Water ; Treatment System will be used. Nan-radioactive turbine building drains, water l treatment system filter backwashes, and demineralizer regeneration wastes are ! routed through this system prior to discharge to Lake Wylie. This system l utilizes a physio-chemical treatment regime rather than biological methods. i Wastes are initially directed to a concrete lined initial holdup pond where l primary sedimentation occurs. This 300,000 gallon (1200 kl) capacity reservoir i nas a retention time of from 12 hours to 24 hours and acts as a surge tank to. j prevent overloading and subsequent degradation of effluent quality throughout the remainder of the system. A sludge accumulation rate of approximately 2.6 I f t/yr (.79 m/yr) is in this pond and removal to an approved landfill is accom- ! plished once every one to three years. Provisions for temporarily varying and ! routing of the influent and in process waste waters provides ample opportunity ! for sludge removal if the accumulation begins to interfere with pond performance. The initial holdup pond is followed by parallel stream settling ponds. These two 5 million allon (1.9E4 kl) ponds are equipped for recirculation and with ; O
- aeration capab lity. One pond is in service while the other is on standby.
I Coagulant aids may be used for settling lighter solids along with the pH adjust-ment to neutralize or to precipitate various chemical compounds. Holdup time ! for each of these basins ranges from 6 to 12 days. ! The waste water then flows by gravity to the final holdup pond where it is aerated; retention time for this basin is 3 to 5 days. This final pond is used ( to remove any persistent oxygen demand of the wastes. Final precipitation of , compounds could occur in this basin; however, it is not likely that the system- ! would be operated in such a manner to make this a significant occurrence, since ! there is presently no provision for removing such precipitates from the basin [ prior to discharge. The pond has a capacity of 1 million gallons.(3800 kl). ! Its contents may be pumped to the head of the settling basins or back to its l own inlet for recirculation if the effluent does not' meet the established discharge limits. The final holdup pond is lined with 30 mil Flexseal (TM) 290.22 hypalon lining material that is impermeable. The system is designed to provide adequate treatment within basin holdup time, ; to allow intrabasin and interbasin recirculation and to be equipped with- . complete monitoring of effluents from each' basin in the system. With these l provisions built into the system, consistent effluent quality is expected with ! the characteristics shown in Table 3.6.1-1. Table 3.6.1-2 lists the expected chemical waste discharges from Catawba and the ! resultant downstream incremental concentrations. Annual chemical usage and " l disposition is given in Table 3.6.1-3. ER 3.6-1 CNS-OLS Rev. 5 i w.
i 4 3.6.2 COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN Makeup water for the cooling towers is supplied by the conventional service water system (see Figure 3.3.1-1) at an average rate of about 31,000 3 gpm (117 m3 / min). Evaporation and drift consume about 26555 gpm (100 m / min) of this, and the blowdown is about 4,360 gpm (16 m3 / min). Because of the concentrating ef fect of the evaporation, the cooling tower water and consequently the blow-down water have a dissolved solids concentration about ten times that of the intake water. The theoretical optimum operation for the cooling towers will result when the blowdown is approximately eight cycles of concentration. At this value chemical usage and pumping costs are balanced with water usage. Operation of cooling towers should be at a high cycle of concentration. . Actual cycles of concentration is a function of intake water quality. At 290.15 values greater than 10, however, it becomes difficult to maintain the proper water chemistry as the blowdown rate decreases. The anticipated maximum is, therefore, 10 cycles of concentration. Based on the anticipated quality of makeup water, it is estimated that the system will average 7 cycles of concentration. Table 3.6.1-2 was therefore based on the anticipated long term average cycles of concentration even through operation will be maintained at as high a value as possible. The controlling parameter for determining cycles of concentration will be silica. The silica concentration will be controlled to approximately 100-115 ppm to assure scaling of the condenser tubes is prevented and the efficiency of the units will not be reduced. (The condenser cooling tubes are of stainless steel which is highly resistant to water corrosion. Therefore, no significant amounts of corrosion products are expected to be released to Lake Wylie.) Various chemicals are added to the cooling tower circulating water system. For control of biological growth, shock clorination will be conducted on a daily basis using sodium hypoclorite generated on site. The Na0C1 will initially be fed into the system at a high rate to meet the chlorine demand of the water then at a slower rate to maintain a free chlorine residual for one to two hours. Application of 600 lb. ((272 Kg) of chlorine daily per unit (1200 lb/ day total (544 Kg/ day)] over a period of about 1 hour will obtain a free chlorine residual corresponding to a chlorine demand of approximately 3-4 ppm. The free chlorine residual will vary depending on the season. Normally, a free residual of 1.5 ppm will be maintained in the summer and 0.5 ppm in the winter. Blowdown from the cooling towers will be halted during this period of shock 290.9 chlorination and suf ficient time allowed for free and total chlorine residual to decompose before discharging to Lake Wylie. The blowdown will be combined with the Low Pressure Service Water and Nuclear Service Water discharge into Lake Wylie thereby diluting any remaining free and total chlorine residual. The biocide in the combined service water to the lake will be kept below 0.1 ppm total chlorine residual (ER Table 3.6.1-3) The amount of time required for the decay process varies according to the water quality, the air and water temperatures, the time of the year and the amount of 290.10 sunlight. It is estimated to take from 2 to 4 hours to decay below 0.1 ppm in the summer and 4 to 7 hours in the winter. Combining the blowdown with the combined service water before discharge should ensure the discharge into Lake Wylie is below 0.1 ppm total chlorine residual. O Rev. 5 ER 3.6-2 CNS-OLS
i To optimize chlorine effectiveness and thereby minimize chlorine usage, , , sulfuric acid is used to control the pH by the continuous addition of 1350 l lb/ unit daily (612 Kg/ unit) or 2,700 lb (1,227 Kg) total. Inconjunctionwith !
- his water treatment, aminomethylenephosphonate (AMP), a dispersant formula- I
- t. ion, or similar compounds, may be used for deposit control. It is expected !
that this formulation would not be used routinely. ; ! If chlorine-resistant organisms require control, an organic biocide may be l used. At the present time no final decisions as to type, frequency, and amount of organic biocide to be used has been made. Final selection will be an ' ! EPA-approved organic biocide for the problem being experienced. l 3.6.3 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT The sludge generated within the CCW System Ponds will be tested to reveal if i the sludge is hazardous or not by virtue of the Extraction Procedure results or j the hazardous waste list (40 CFR Part 261). Previous operating experience with j l these type ponds at Oconee and McGuire have revealed that these sludges are not i j hazardous. Any waste determined as hazardous will be transported, stored 290 23
- and/or disposed in accordance with RCRA regulations (40 CFR Part 263, 264, and
l 265 respectively). !
~
Sanitar Waste"under y wastes RCRAgenerated at Catawba and are therefore exemptNuclear from RCRA Station are classified as " Domestic regulations. ;
- i. I I ;
O I i l f I i i l i I e ! Rev. 5 ER 3.6-3 CNS-OLS _ _ . ,l
-3.7 SANITARY AND OTHER WASTE SYSTEMS-3.7.1 SANITARY WASTE TREATEMENT. SYSTEM All domestic sewage from construction toilets, field office toilets, and permanent (1.9 x 105 1/buildings day) plus is anexpected estimatedto average 150 gallons 50,000 gallons per month (568 1per day / month) of total processing waste from X ray film. X-Ray film waste drains to a silver recovery unit that removes almost all of the silver in a small photographic laboratory. A trace of silver thiosulfate complex may be present in the waste. The photographic wastes, which are biodegradable, and rinse water comprises approximately 1 percent to 2 percent of the domestic waste.
The waste w. 'r is treated in a 50,000 gpd (1.9 x 105 1/ day) aerated-faculta-tive lagoon, preceeded by a comminutor and followed by an effluent polishing (aguaculture) basin. The comminutor cuts and shreds large solids into smaller particles which are more easily digested in the aeration lagoon. A bar screen islocatedjustdownstreamfromthecomminutortoensurethatanylargeparticles, which may overflow the comminutor, do not pass directly into the lagoon. The aeration lagoon is a 170 feet x 190 feet (51.8 m x 57.9 m) lined basin with a normal working depth of 8 feet (2.44 m). The lagoon is divided into four sections with subsurface aeration throughout, and provides a 25.6 day retention time at design capacity. Sewage is in complete suspension in the first section and in partial suspension in the final three sections. A small portion of the water from the final section is returned to the first section by an air-assisted recirculation system. Air from the aeration system is bubbled up through a O vertical pipe inducing a flow of water through connecting tubing. Aerobically decomposed and digested sewage flows'from the aeration lagoon by gravity to the effluent polishing basin. The effluent polishing basin is U-shaped, each arm being 20 feet wide (6.1 m) and 110 feet long (33.5 m), providing a total length of approximately 220 feet (67 m). The arms are separated by a 90-foot _ barrier wall fitted with a walkway. The basin is divided into three main compartments. The first, on the' inlet side, contains aquatic macrophytes. Provision has been made for the placement of up to four moveable partitions at 25-foot (7.6 m) intervals to control the spread of plants and permit the segregation of different species of macrophytes should that become desirable. The chambers are also separated from each other by a " pedestal" which extends one foot above and below the mud-water interface. Communication uetween chambers exists through one-foot gap between the bottom of the barrier and top of the pedestal. The second, and longest, compartment is open water. The third is fitted with aeration tubing and divided into three subchambers by partitions identical to those used in the first chamber. The first two of these chambers are 20 feet (6 m) long. Thelast(justbefore the discharge) is only 10 feet (3 m) long. This short length greatly reduces the retention time in the final chamber and the possibility of an algal bloom developing in it. The plants (macrophytes and algae) and animals (zooplankton and fish) in the basin treat the contents of the influent wastewater (nitrates, phosphates and coliform bacteria) as nutrients and incorporate them, either directly or Rev. 5 ER 3.7-1 CNS-0LS w -
indirectiy, into living tissue which can then be harvested and disposed of. The growth of aquatic macrophytes especially aids in reducing total suspended &W solids. Although most of the suspended matter discharged from the aeration lagoon will settle out, a new source will arise within the basin itself: plankton. Aquatic plants will compete with algae for both nutrients and light and help prevent the development of bloom conditions. Mosquitofish (Gambusla affinis)will be stocked to help check the growth of insect larvae. Biochemical oxygen demand of the influent waters will be met by the photo-synthetic activity of plants and phytoplankton in the lagoon, and by aeration. Fecal coliform bacteria will decrease in numbers along the length of the basin for several reasons, including exposure to uv radiation. and predation by zooplankton or bottom dwelling organisms. Neither LODs nor fecal coliform should present any problem in the basin effluent. The effluent drains to the station discharge canal. Figure 211-5 indicates the sanitary waste treatment 290.12 system discharge into Lake Wylie af ter chlorination via a Senuril Chlorinator. The sewage treatment facility meets all applicable standards of the state of South Carolina. Approval for construction and operation has been obtained from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (Table 3.7.1-1). The sewage treatment system is operated under the supervision of a trained operator who is certified by the state of South Carolina. 3.7.2 OTHER WASTE SYSTEMS 3.7.2.1 Non-Radioactive Solid Waste Disposition of no'1-radioactive solid waste, including garbage and trash, during normal plant operation will be to onsite land fills. 3.7.2.2 Diesel Generator Engine Exhaust Two 7000 kW, 9770 BHP diesel generator engine sets per unit are provided to supply emergency power generation for station use. The diesel engines operate under two conditions: during periodic performace and maintenance testing (manual start), and during loss of normal station power (automatic start). Routine testing is performed once every 31 days for at least 60 minutes; with loss of offsite power, diesei engine operation is automatically initiated to supply power to all essential safety equipment required to bring the reactor to a safe shutdown condition or until power is restored. Each diesel engine consumes 481 gph (1821 1/hr) of number 2-D fuel oil, which has a maximum sulfur content of 1.05%. It is assumed that the total sulfur content will be released as 502 in the exhaust gas, and N0X will be released at a rate of 9.5 grams per BHP-hour. 3.7.2.3 Auxiliary Boilers Steam for the station heating system is provided by two electric boilers; therefore, no exhaust gases will be released. The boiler blowdown wastes are released through the conventional waste water treatment system via the Service Building sump. O Rev. 5 ER 3.7-2 CNS-OLS l
m 3.8 REPORTING OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT i The nuclear hel will consist of U02 pellets contained in Zircaloy-4 tubes. There will be 264 rods per assembly, each 12 feet (3.66 m.) long. Approxi-mately 67,726 pounds (30,748) of fresh fuel will be loaded per year and an equal quantity removed from the reactor. The assemblies are 17 x 17 square arrays constructed with 6 Zircaloy-4 grids and 2 Inconel grids. Fuel enrichments will be: First Core; Region 1 - 2.1 weight percent, Region 2
- 2.6 weight percent, Region 3 - 3.1 weight percent; Equilibrium Reload -3.72 l weight percent maximum. The average fuel burnup is 36,000 megawatt days per metric ton.
Fresh fuel is wrapped in polyethylene and cardboard inside a metal container with shock mounting. There will be at least 17 shipments of fresh fuel for the initial core of each Catawba-unit and 5 to 8 shipments of fresh fuel for each reload. Usually each shipment will contain 12 fuel assemblies weighing approxi-mately 16,536 pounds (7,507 kg.). On occasion shipments of less than 12 assemblies are required to round out an initial core or a reload region. Shipments of irradiated fuel to or from Catawba will be made in NRC licensed casks. Truck casks hold from one to three irradiated fuel assemblies and rail casks hold from three to twelve. Therefore, the number of shipments depends upon the type of cask used. If single element truck casks are used for ship-ping from Catawba, there will be a range of 60 to 92 shipments during the time period between refuelings. This time period may vary from one year to eighteen months. Shipments of irradiated fuel are expected to be made to reprocessing s' facilities, research facilities, federal disposal facilities and/or other interim storage facilities in the event that reprocessing or federal disposal is not available. In this latter case, Duke's interim olan could include the shipment of irradiated fuel to Catawba from Oconee and icGuire Nuclear Stations. it is expected that the nunber of fresh Over the life ofplus fuel shipments the Catawb1 facility,ipments irradiated fuel sh to the facility will be equal to the number from the facility. Estimates of the maximum annual volume of radioactive waste materials to be shirred from the plant are given in Table 3.5.4-2. Transportation of fuel and waste to and from Catawba as described in the preceding paragraphs, is within the scope of 10 CFR 51.2f', paragraph (g). The routine exposure to the public from the transportation of irradiated fuel in NRC licensed casks is considered invariant to increases in enrichment and i burnup. Therefore the valves in Table S-4 of 10CFR51 adequately describe the transportation of these materials. A \ b Rev. 5 ER 3.8-1 CNS-OLS L
ER Table -1 Page l'of 2 Catawba Nuclear Station Station Water'Use Average Maximum (1) Title GPR Liter / min GPM Liter / min Intahs from Lake Wylie I. Nuclear Service Water Intake: Nuclear Service Water System 16,500 62,400 68,000 257,000 Nuclear Service Water Pond (Regulated) 0 0 68,000 257,000 Total 16,500- 62,400 68,000 257,000 ; II. Low Pressure Service Water Intake: A. Intake Screen Backwash 0 0 560 2,100 B. Fire Protection 0 0 2,500 9,500 t C. Conventional LPSW System i
- 1. Condenser Circulating Water System Cooling Tower Evaporation 26,500 100,000 28,000 106,000 :
Cooling Tower Orift 55 210 .110 420 Cooling Tower Blowdown 4,360 16,500 28,000 106,000 ; Subtotal 31,000 117,000 56,000 212,000
- 2. Filtered Water System
- a. Pump Seals 55 210 150 570
- b. Demineralized Water System '70 260 950 3,600
- c. Sanitary and Potable Water 13 50 160 610 i Subtotal 140 530 3,275'(5) 12,400 (5) i 3. LPSV Heat Removal and Service Loads 34,900 132,000 64,700 245,000 Total for.. Conventional Low Pressure Service 66,000 250,000 99,000(2) 375,000-(2)
Water .(C.1+C.2+C.3) Total for Low Pressure Service Water Intake 66,000 250,000 102,000 38E,000 (A+B+C) Total for Intake From Lake Wylie ~82,000 310,000 ~170,000 640,000 (Nuclear Service Water plus Low Pressure Service Water Intakes) Rev. 5
- - .__,~. - ,,,, ,,,----.- - _-, - - _ - - .--- --__, _ _ .. _ _ -. .. . _ . - ~ ~ - - - - - - . - - _ _
ER Table 3.3.1-1 Page 2 of 2 Catawba Nuclear Station Station Water Use Average Maximum (1) Title (GPM) Liter / min (GPM) Liter / min Discharges to Lake Wylie I. From LPSW and NSW Intake From Cooling Towers 4,360 16,500 28,000 106,000 From NWS System 16,500 62,500 68,000 257,000 From Liquid Radwaste System 10 38 100 380 From Conventional LPSW System 34,900 132,000 64,700 257,000 Subtotal ~56,000 ~212,000 (3) ~139,000 ~526,000 (4) II. From Sewage Treatment System 35 132 55 208 III. From Final Holdup Pond 200 760 300 1,100 Total Discharges to Lake Wylie ~56,000 ~212,000 ~139,000 ~526,000 (I+II+III) NOTES:
- 1. Maximum Flows may not occur simultaneously
- 2. Based on design capacity of all LPSW pumps
- 3. Average intake differs from discharge due to cooling tower atmospheric losses
- 4. Maximum intake differs from discharge due to cooling tower atmospheric losses.
Also, flows from Fire Protection and Intake Screen Backwash are not included.
- 5. Filter system backwash flow included in subtotal Rev. 5 O O O
ER Table 3.6.1-1 Catawba Nuclear Station O Conventional Waste Water Treatment System Effluent Analysis Design Parameter Units Normal Range Limit pH 7.0-8.0 6.0-9.01 Total Suspended Solids, <30 1001 mg/l Biological Oxygen Demand, <5 102 mg/l Chemical Oxygen Demand, <10 202 mg/l Dissolved Oxygen, 15 42 mg/l Fe, mg/l <1 11 Cu, mg/l <1 11
.Mn, mg/l <0.5 0.52-1 40 CFR 423 - EPA effluent guidelines and standards for steam electric power 290.14 generating 2 Design Criteria i
( i i r [ i l O Rev. 2
ER Table 3.6.1-2 Catawba Nuclear Station Waste Water Discharge Parameter Incremental Concentrations Conc. Average Cooling Tower Blowdown Conventional Waste Water Treatment Dis. Cove Lake Wylie Units Intake Max.(1) Avg.(1) Average Max. lbs/ day Avg. Ibs/ day Avg. Conc. Avg. Conc. Max Conc. Avg. Conc. Conc. lbs/ day lbs/ day Conc. (3) (4) (5) (6) Alkalinity as CACO 3 mg/l 15 10086 968(2) 24(2) 154 24 1.5 0.28 Boric Acid as B, 10 .04 pg/l 50 30 12.5 44.3 .01 -- Hardness as CACO 3 mg/l 16 10760 4514 112 182 29 12 6.7 1.3 Calcium, Ca, mg/l .19 3.5 2353 987 25 40 6 2.5 1.5 0.29 .04 Magnesium, Mg, mg/l 1. 5 1009 423 10.5 17 0.6 Sodium, Na, 3 1. 3 0.12 .02 mg/l 7. 3 5770 2921 72 2030 167 70 4.6 0. 9 .13 Potassium, K, mg/l 1.8 1210 508 13 21 1. 3 0.8 Aluminum, Al, 3 0.15 .02 mg/l 1.6 1076 452 11 18 5 2.1 0.7 0.13 .02 Iron, Fe, mg/l 1. 2 807 338 8.4 14 2 0.8 0.5 0.10 Manganese, Mn, .01 mg/l 0.18 121 51 1.3 2 0.3 0.12 0.1 0.01 -- Cadmium, Cd, pg/l 1. 0 0.67 0.28 7 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- Chromium, Cr, pg/l 6 4.03 1. 7 42 -- -- --
- 2. 5 0.5 --
Copper, Cu, pg/l 5 3.36 1.41 35 -- -- -- 2.1 0.4 -- Lead, Pb, pg/l 3 2.0 0.85 21 -- -- -- 1.3 -- -- Nickel, Ni, pg/l 11 7. 4 3.1 77 -- -- -- 4.6 0.9 -- Zinc, 2n, pg/l 19 12.85 5.4 134 0.22 -- -- 8.0 1.6 -- Ammonia, N, mg/l 0.19 128 54 1. 3 4.1 2.6 1.1 0.1 0.01 -- Nitrate-Nitrite, N, mg/l 0.28 188 79 2.0 10.7 4.8 2 0.1 0.02 -- Chloride, Cl, mg/l 6.5 3513 3160 78 203 37 15 4.7 0.9 .13 Fluoride, F, mg/l 0.15 101 42 1.0 1.7 0.3 0.12 0.1 0.01 -- Phosphorus, Total P. pg/l 56 38 15.8 392 2. 8 1.4 0.6 25.4 5 -- Silicon, Si, mg/l 4. 2 2824 1185 29 48 8 3.3 1.8 0.34 .05 Sulfate, 50 4, mg/l 10 5262 7817(2) 194 4180 339 141 12.1 3.3 .34 Suspended Solids mg/l 10 5724 2821 70 180 38 16 4.2 0.82 .12 Dissolved Solids mg/l 60 44400 24200 600 6930 760 317 36.9 7 1. 0 Total Organic Carbon mg/l 3.1 2085 875 22 73 22 9 1.3 0.26 .04 Detergents pg/l 17 13 5.4 19.2 -- -- Ethylene Glycol pg/1 1.7 1.3 0.5 1. 9 -- -- Hydrazine ug/l 3.6 2.4 1. 0 3.5 -- --
- 1. Maximum is at design load, 2 cycles concentration, and average June meteorology. Average is at 76% capacity factor, 7 cycles, and annual average meteorology.
- 2. Alkalinity is treated with sulfuric acid.
- 3. Maximum lbs/ day is for 2 regenerations/ day of makeup demineralizers and 12 wet layups/ year.
- 4. Average lbs/ day is for 115 regenerations/ year, with caustic recycle, and 8 wet layups a year. Average mg/l is based on average Ibs/ day in-cluding sanitary sewage 35 gpm average flow.
- 5. Incremental concentrations in the discharge cove estimates average station wastes in a flow of 56,200 gpm (125.2 cfs).
- 6. Incremental concentrations in Lake Wylie are based on average station waste discharges and a flushing flow through the reservoir.
The maximum incremental concentration is based on the 7-Q-10 flow of 648 cfs, and average incremental concentration is based on the average flow of 4445 cfs. Rev. 5 m
ER Table 3.6.1-3 -Page 1 of.2 Catawba Nuclear Station [ Annual Chemical Usage and Disposition of Waste Material Usage Total Pounds / Year- Disposition (kilograms / Year) Ammonia Solution Secondary pH 11,600'NH 3 VS, CWWTS (5262) Boric Acid Primary Systems 36,000 RLWRS (16,329) Borax Ice Condenser 4,000(1) RLWRS (1814) Detergent Liquid Maintenance and 7,070 CWIS Plant Floors (3207) Detergent Compound Decontamination & 3,200 RLWRS Laundry (1451) Ethylene Glycol Diesel Aux. & Ice 670 RLWRS, CWWTS Condenser (304) Polystyrene Resin RLWRS Solidification 100,000 RLWRS (DOW Solidification (45,359) Media) Hydrazine Secondary 02 4,000 VS, CWWTS (1814) Lithium Hydroxide Primary pH 22 RLWRS (10) Potassium Chromate Pri. Closed Cooling 15 RLWRS (7) Reagent Chemicals Laboratory <100 RLWRS, CWWTS (<45) Sodium Bisulfate RLWRS Solidification 1,000 RLWRS (454) Sodium Hydroxide Demineralizer & 106,000 CWWTS Neutralization (48,080) Sodium Hypochlorite Cooling Towers, Water 450,000 CWWTS System (204,000) O Rev. 5
ER Table 3.6.1-3 Page 2 of 2 Catawba Nuclear Station Annual Chemical Usage and Disposition of Waste Total Pounds / Year Disposition Material Usage (kilograms / Year) Secondary Closed Cooling 2,400 CWTS Sodium Nitrite-Borax (1090) 600 CWTS Sodium Phosphate Cleaning Equipment (272) 140,000 CWWTS Sulfuric Acid Demineralizer & Neutralization (63,500) CPD is Condensate Polishing Demineralizers CWWIS is Conventional Waste Water Treatment System RLWRS is Radioactive Liquid Waste Recycle System VW is Vent System to atmosphere (1) 2000 pounds / unit or.e time only. O O Rev. 5
I O in p,
% %)
- ER Table 3.7.1-1 Catawba Nuclear Station Sanitary Waste Systems SERVICE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NUMBER DESIGN PARAMETERS South Carolina Type Capacity BODS / day Chlorine Effluent 1 Department of Health & gal / day Influent Feed BODS mg/L Environmental Control (2/ day) Capacity acity Average lbs. Cap lbs / day (kg) (kg/ day)
Const. 4675 Unit 1 Extended 20,000 41.7 3.3 15 Office Aeration (75,708) (18.6) (1.5) (Temporary) Const. 4675 Unit 2 Extended 7,500 15.6 1.2 15 Toilets Aeration (28,390) (7.1) (0.5) (Temporary) Const. 4675 Unit 3 Extended 13,000 27.1 2.2 15 Aeration (13,210) (12.3) (1.0) Plant 6583 Station Aerated 50,000 25.0 2.0 15 Sanitary lagoon (189,270) (11.3) (0.9) Sewage & aqua-(Permanent) culture basin 1 Designed for 90% reduction in 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand, however the tertiary aquaculture treatment basin provides further reduction. Daily maximum effluent concentration is 30 mg/L. Rev. 5
ER Table 3.9.1-1 Catawba Nuclear Station Transmission Line Additions Catawba- Catawba-Newport Newport Catawba- Catawba- Catawba- (Allison (Newport Allen Ripp Pacolet Creek B&W) BLW) Totals Total R/W Length-mi(km) 10.9(17.5) 24.4(39.3) 41.3(66.5) 5.2(8.3) 5.2(8.3) 86.9(139.8) New R/W Length-mi(km) 1.3(2.1) 24.4(39.3) 1.2(1.9) 0.7(1.1) 0.7(1.1) 28.4(45.7) Total R/W-ac(ha) 197.6(80.0) 426.2(172.5) 750.7(303.8) 93.6(37.9) 72.6(29.4) 1540.7(623.6) Total New R/W-ac(ha) 23.8(9.6) 426.2(172.5) 22.2(9.0) 12.7(5.1) 10.2(4.1) 495.1(200.3) Forest-ac(ha) 11.5(4.6) 323.5(130.9) 10.4(4.2) 7.7(3.1) 5.9(2.4) 359.0(145.2)
-% of Total New R/W 48.2 75.0 46.8 60.5 57.8 72.5 Pasture & Agriculture -ac(ha) 0 94.2(38.1) 1.6(0.6) 0 0 95.8(38.7) -% of Total New R/W 0 22.1 7.0 0 0 19.3 Cleared for Catawba Nuclear -ac(ha) 12.4(5.0) 8.5(3.4) 10.3(4.2) 4.2(1.7) 3.6(1.5) 39.0(15.8) -% of Total New R/W 51.8 2.0 46.2 32.9 35.4 7.9 Water Crossings-ac(Sa) 0 0 0 0.8(0.3) 0.7(0.3) 1.5(0.6) -% of Total New R/W 0 0 0 6.6 6.8 0.3 Total New Cleared R/W -ac(ha) 11.5(4.6) 323.5(130.9) 10.4(4.2) 7.7(3.1) 5.9(2.4) 359.0(145.2)
Man-Made Structures Removed 0 2 0 0 0 2 R/R Crossings on New R/W-# 1 2 1 0 0 4 Hwy. Crossings on New R/W-# 0 5 0 0 1 6 O O O L
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF STATION OPERATION A U 5.1 EFFECT OF OPERATION OF HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM 5.1.1 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Water Classi-fication Standards System was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, pursuant to Section 303(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-i ments of 1972, on April 18, 1977. These standards provide for the classifi-cation of Lake Wylie located in South Carolina as Class A waters. The applicable thermal standards for Lake Wylie are as follows: All waters of lakes and reservoirs of the State shall not exceed a weekly average temperature of 32.2 C (90 F) after adequate mixing of heated and normal waters as a result of heated liquids, nor shall a weekly average temperature rise above natural temperatures exceed 2.8 C.(5 F) as a result of the discharge of heated liquids unless an appro)riate temperature criteria or mixing zone, as provided below, has been establisled. The water temperature at the inside i boundary of the mixing zone shall not be more than 10 C (18 F) greater than
- that of water unaffected by the heated discharge. The appropriate temperature criteria or the size of the mixing zone will be determined on an individual
- project basis and will be based on biological, chemical, engineering and physical considerations. Any such determination shall assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous lopulation of. shellfish, fish and p) s_
wildlife in and on a body of water to whic1 the heated discharge is made and shall allow passage of aquatic organisms. Duke will comply with these regulations concerning_the discharge of heated liquids. This discharge will not adversely affect the_ quality of water in Lake Wylie located in South Carolina or waters of-any other state. 5.1.2 PHYSICAL EFFECTS l Conventional Service Water (CSW) and Nuclear Service Water _(NSW) for Catawba will be drawn from the Catawba River arm of' Lake Wylie and discharged into the Allison Creek arm of the lake. Cooling tower blowdown will be discharged with i the service water. The service water experiences a temperature rise prior to lake discharge which depends on the CSW.flowrate. The CSW and NSW Systems are discussed in Section 3.4. Thermal plume areas (Table 5.1.2-1) resulting from the combined service water
- and cooling tower blowdown releases are computed for the following winter and summer conditions:
Season e Flow Temperature Rise Discharg/s) gpm (1 F (C) Winter 19,000(1199) 15.5 (8.6) , (Oct - Mar) Summer 56,000 (3533) 8.5(4.7) Rev. 5 ER 5.1-1 CNS-OLS ~ .
The CSW and NSW System flows are temperature controlled, thus a variety of operating conditions are possible depending on station load, cooling water temperature, etc. Typical winter and summer release conditions were used for analysis purposes. The near field dilution of the heated effluent is modeled using a submerged rectangularbuoyantjetanalysis. The discharge structure shown in Figure 3.4.4-1 consists of two adjacent 54 in (4.5 ft) diameter pipes. This configura-tion is approximated for modeling purposes by a rectangular discharge 9 ft x 4.5 ft whose centerline is at Elevation 555.4 ft msl. The heated plume enters the lake and entrains surrounding water as it rises to the lake surface. When the plume reaches the lake surface, the jet analysis is terminated and a simple slug flow analysis is employed. Presented below is the slug flow equation which describes exponential cooling of the heated plume over the lake surface area: T j -T e KA.
= exp o e where: T5 = temperature of the isothorm enclosing Ai area Te = equilibrium temperature Tg :- discharge temperature K = surface heat exchange coefficient water density p=
Cy = specific heat of water Q = plume flow Aj = area enclosed by the Tj isotherm The effect of the thermal plume on Lake Wylie is expressed in terms of lake area possessing a temperature higher than ambient lake temperature. Since the slug flow plume model is based on equalibrium temperature it is necessary to develope a relationship between lake ambient temperature and equilibrium temperature. Monthly average intake temperatures at the Allen Steam Station (located 11 mi (17.7 km) upstream of Catawba), representing ambient lake temperature, are compared to monthly average equilibrium temperatures computed from Charlotte's Douglas Municipal Airport meteorological data for the period 1961-1970. Following is a list of the resulting monthly average ambient temperature / equilibrium temperature relationships: Month Lake Wylie Ambient Temperature January Te + 7F February Te + 2F March T e Rev 5 ER 5.1-2 CNS-OLS
A pril T, q May T, June T e July Te + 1F August Te + 2F September Te + 5F October Te + 7F November Te + 7F December T + 9f e Monthly average surface heat exchange coefficients for use in the exponential cooling model are computed for a twenty-five year period (1951-1975) from Douglas Municipal Airport meteorological data. The lowest monthly average exchange coeffiecient (lowest heat transfer) computed for each month over the twenty-five year period in conjunction with a maximum lake drawdown of 10 ft (3 m) is used to compute the worst case monthly average suface temperature alumes. Average thermal plume conditions are com)uted using the average surface leat exchangecoeffiecientinconjunctionwit1fullpondlakeelevation. f) Acreages, enclosed by the 5 F (2.8 C) above ambient isotherm and the 90 F V (32.2 C) isotherm, with the percent of lake surface area affected are presented in Table 5.1.2-1 for average and worst conditions. Computation of the 90 F (32.2 C) isotherm area was based on the average and warmest ambient tempera-tures as determined from monthly average intake temperatures experienced at Allen Steam Station over a ten year period (1961-1970). Schematics of the 5 F (2.8 C) above ambient isotherm for the worst case winter (February), and spring (April) conditions are shown in Figures 5.1.2-1 and 5.1.2-2, respectively. Fi worst case summer (August)gure conditions. 5.1.2-3 shows the 90 F (32.2 C) isotherm fo 5.1.3 BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS The biological effects of operation of the Catawba heat dissipation system can be grouped into three areas: (1) impingement of fish at the intake screens; (2) entrainment of planktonic organisms through the system; and (3) effects of the heated ef fluent discharged into Lake Wylie. 5.1.3.1 Fish Impingement on Intake Screens Based on field and laboratory studies of fish impingement at steam stations (References 1 and 2) in the Piedmont Carolinas, it is unlikely that impingement at Catawba will have any significant effect on the Lake Wylie fishery. The intake is designed such that the velocity of water through the screens Subsec-tion 3.4.3) is low enough to allow most fish to swim away from the intake x structure (Reference 2). Threadfin shad (Dorosoma pentenense) are sensitive to Rev. 3 ER 5.1-3 CNS-0LS
c,ld water temperatures and winter die-offs can occur (References 3 and 4). This species is expected to be impinged in moderate numbers during the winter, but impingement of other species is expected to be minimal throughout the year. 5.1.3.2 Entrainment of Planktonic Organisms Phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish eggs and fish larvae are all essentially " free-floating" organisms, and since they are small enough to pass through the intake screens, some of them will be entrained through the cooling systems at Catawba. A 100 percent mortality is expected for those organisms which are in the cooling tower make up water (about 25 percent of total station intake flow). Organisms which are in the service water flow are subjected to physical and thermal stress, but some survival is expected. Since the total Catawba intake flow is a small fraction (about seven percent) of the average flow through Lake Wylie, the effect of entrainment on the aquatic community of Lake Wylie should be negligible. 5.1.3.3 Effects of the Heated Effluent As described in Subsection 5.1.27 theprojectedacreagesandpercentagesof Lake Wylie influenced by Catawba s heated effluent are minimal. Even under " worst case conditions", only about 105 acres (42.5 ha) or one percent of Lake Wylieisprojectedtobemorethan5F(2.8C)aboveambienttemperature. Some species of fish will likely be attracted to the discharge area during the winter months, and some species may avoid this area for one or two months during the summer. Heat or cold shock effects on the fishes of Lake Wylie should be minimal. As mentioned above some attraction to the discharge during the winter and avoidance during part of the summer may occur but should not result in significant mortalities. Since only about one percent of the lake will be more than 5 F above ambient temperature during " worst case conditions," fish can readily migrate to and from this area as thermal preference dictates. The EPA has established ruidelines for maximum weekly average temperature of plumes for various ambient temperatures (Reference 5); according to these data, plume temperatures may exceed ambient temperatures by substantially more than 5 F with no harmful effects. Overall, however, the heatei effluent is not expected to have any significant effect on the biota of Lake Wylie. 5.1. 4 EFFECTS OF HEAT DISSIPATION FACILITIES The operation of closed-cycle mechanical draft cooling towers for waste heat dissipation in the condenser cooling water system at Catawba is viewed from the standpoint of conaensate plume ef fects, humidity plume effects and tower drift effects (see Figure 3.9.4.3). Figures 5.1.4-1 and 5.1.4-2 depict frequencies of condensato plumes by length and direction from the plant for summer and winter, respectively. Percentage occurrence is cumulative, is representative of mechanical draft towers and is without regard to height of the plume. Frequencies are derived from 0800 observations (August 1972 - July 1973) of plume length and direction for two mechanical draft cooling towers at the Duke Power Cliffside Plant, nominally a 600 MWe station located 40 miles (64km) northwest of Catawba. Application of measured plume parameters at Cliffside Steam Station to represent plume behavior for mechanical draft cooling towers Rev. 5 ER 5.1-4 CNS-OLS
at Catawba involves: 1) the extrapolation of observed lengths at Cliffside to account for a different evaporation rate, 2) the redistribution direction-wise O of length by direction frequencies to coincide with observed 130 ft (40 m) level wind directions at the Catawba site and 3) the translation of length by direction frequencies as observed at 0800 to frequencies representing all hours of the day. No account is taken of increased initial dilution due to plume geometry and plume rise. Evaporation rate is adjusted from the difference in total heat load from all towers, assuming the proportions of sensible and latent heat released are the same at both plants. Total heat load at Cliffside is approximately 820 MWt; at Catawba it is approximately 4630 MWt. A factor then of five is applied to the evaporation rate at Cliffside for estimation of the additional d'lution required at Catawba in the dissipation of condensate plumes. To develop frequencies - applicable to the Catawba towers for the 0800 observation period, extrapo-lation was made for this increased evaporation rate under the assumption that no significant difference exists between Cliffside and Catawba with respect to diffusion and background moisture at plume level. (Since frequencies for Catawba were developed from observations at Cliffside over an annual cycle, season to season variations at plume level are inherent in the method.) From examination of synoptic influences and topographical effects, the two sites are taken as essen-tially sub at night, ject to theofsame in profiles climatology turbulence regarding and moisture to aboutboundary the depthlayer conditions, and of maximum daytime mixing. Regarding similarity in conditions at plume level for the 0800 observation period forsurface-based to penetrate nightime the respective plants, p(lumes inversions Cliffsideinplumes both cases are taken observed to 541.8 penetrate strong nocturnal inversions from early morning helicopter soundings). Q v Further, for any condition of early morning stability, differences in calculated plume rise do not suggest significant differences in diffusion or background moisture, given general similarity in profiles of turbulence and moisture as postulated above. As a further consideration, with respect to this assumed similarity, certain average quantities are compared from nearby airports. Inferences from these comparisons only serve as a rough indicator of validity here and certainly are not taken as conslusive in and of themselves. The following annual values represent typical differences for any season: Mean Maximum Mean Minimum Mean Wind Temperature ( F) Temperature ( F) Speed (mph) Charlotte Airport 71.3 49.6 6.9 (Reference 6) Greenville Airport 70.5 51.5 8.2 (Reference 7) Mean Maximum Mean Surface Mixing Height (Meters) Dew Point ( F) (Reference 8) (Reference 9) Cliffside 1500 47 Catawba Plant 1500 48 O Rev. 5 ER 5.1-5 CNS-OLS
Extrapolation of observations at Cliffside does not account for turbulence level or height above ground in each individual case. Instead, for simplicity calculation is made from the least favorable combination of stability and plume rise depending on observed plume length (not necessarily physically consistent) where alternatives are limited to plume rise of either 500 ft. or 1000 ft. and stability conditions of either near-neutral or very stable. A gaussian material distribution is assumed for the instantaneous plume and continuous-release diffusion coefficients are used to approximate instantaneous spread rates (Reference 10). 541.8 The redistribution of wind direction maintains the percentage breakdown of plume lengths within each sector as reported at Cliffside but changes the wind direction distribution to that at the Catawba site. This direction redistribu-tion involves only minor changes in direction frequencies. In translating length frequencies by direction as observed at 0800 to fre-quencies representing occurrences based on total time or all hours of the day, persistence is assumed for 24 hours following each 0800 observation. This leads to an overstatement of the frequency of extended plume lengths in that early morning is a favored time for long plume occurrences. Fogging due to cooling tower operation is not expected to be a problem. For mechanical draft towers, based on one year of experience from the Cliffside towers, ground contact is limited to within 0.5 mile (0.8 km) of the plant, occurring at a combined frequency of less than one percent for all temperatures and wind directions. This estimate for the extent of mechanical draft cooling towers at Catawba, 0.5 mile (ground-level to 0.8 fogging km), is based on thefrom observation of ground level fogging from the Cliffside towers. All cases of cooling tower plumes at ground level were reported to occur within 1000 ft (300 m) of the towers. All plumes at ground level were observed to "take off" from the ground (buoyant rise) instead of dissipating from the action of atmospheric 291.1 turbulence. Consideration of the differences in tower shape (circular at Catawba with cross-sectional area approximately 13,500 ft2 (1250 m2)/ tower; rectangular at Cliffside with maximum cross-sectional area approximately 21,000 ft2 (1950 m2 / tower), and in heat load per tower (about 775 FNt at Catawba to 410 FMt at Cliffside) suggests some amelioration of ground-level fogging at Catawba; low pressure wake effects would be lessened while plume buoyancy would be increased. A 1000 ft (300 m) distance criterion has been used in design considerations with regard to the positioning of electrical equipment in the station yard. Since the nearest highway, S.C. 274, is approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 km) from the cooling tower yard, no effect on ground transportation is expected. Humidity plume effects are evaluated for more or less typical conditions and for a near maximum impact set of conditions. Calculation of ground-level absolute humidity assumes a gaussian material distribution in the plume utilizing diffusion coefficients from Smith for a neutrally stratified atmosphere (Reference 11). A point source is assumed with no correction for area of the cooling tower yard. Plume rise is from Briggs (Reference 12). The buoyancy flux parameter is derived from sensible heat transfer / tower at design conditions which is 13% (Reference 13) of the total heat rejection / tower (775 FM) or about 101 FN. This yields a buoyancy flux 0 Rev. 5 ER 5.1-6 CNS-OLS
~
parameter of 3.93 x 102 m4 sec 3 An enhancement factor is applied, as a function of plume rise, as suggested by Briggs to account for augmented rise by O virtue of the cluster effect (6 towers) (Reference 14). Evaporation rate from all towers is taken from design conditions at about 62 CFS (see Table 3.4.1-2). Maximum ground-level absolute humidity / downwind distance is determined as a function of wind speed assuming proportional growth of the plume in vertical and crosswind directions. Terrain is assumed level in these cases. Relative humidity increase is calculated as a function of absolute humidity and tempera-ture. For typical daytime conditions, temperatures range from about 5 C to 30 C due to seasonal variation, with wind speeds on the order of 4 m/sec in the lower 2000 feet (Reference 6). This implies a maximum increase in surface relative humidity of about 5% at a downwind distance in the range 5-10 miles. Relative humidity the summer during the day)is (Reference 6. characteristically 50-60% in winter and 60-70% in Typical nighttime conditions should not give rise to appreciable increase in surface relative humidity due to stable thermal stratification in the lower layers resulting from surface radiational cooling (Reference 6). Nighttime cloudiness or moderate to high wind conditions, however, do result in relative humid",y increases at the surface. For a wind speed of 8 m/sec in the lower 2000 feet, maximum surface relative humidity increases are about 5% during summer and 10% during the winter at a downwind distance of about 3-5 miles. Background relative humidity at the surface is likely to be, moderately high during cloudy conditions, but in any event the comparative increases appear minimal. Near maximum effect on relative humidity at the surface occurs in high wind conditions, a relatively infrequent phenomenon (Reference 15). An assumed wind speed of 16 m/sec in the lower 500 feet implies maximum surface relative humidity increases on the order of 15-30% at about 1-2 miles downwind for winter temperatures, the season most likely to produce sustained high winds. High winds in warmer conditions result in much less increase in surface rela-tive humidity. Background relative humidity for high wind winter cases is likely to be moderately low (Reference 15), again with little or no perceptible change from increases due to the cooling towers. Tower drift effects, assessed in studies at the construction permit stage, are ! not significant, and therefore are not addressed in Section 5.1.4. Preopera-tional and postoperational terrestrial monitoring, however, is to be undertaken. Section 2.7 details the results of an extensive ambient noise study. Figure 2.7.0-1 shows the sampling locations which are defined as homogeneous acoustic areas. Long-term sound level statistics are independent of where the measure-ments are made accounting for topography, ground cover, and land use in selecting these sampling areas. Noise-sensitive land use areas and points are shown in Figure 2.7,0-2. Figure 2.7.0-3 shows variations in sound level distributions for the different monitoring locations. Figures 2.7.0-4 through 2.7.0-6 shows 290.1 O Rev. 5 ER 5.1-7 CNS-0LS
the summary of observations. This ambient noise data includes the effect of 290.18 on going construction at Catawba. The mechanical draft cooling towers will have a certain level of noise associated with their operation. Maximum noise levels which the cooling tower manufacturer must meet are as follows:
- 1) The sound levels at any location on the fan deck or any cell (near field) shall not exceed 90 db when measured on the "A" scale of a standard sound level meter at slow response with all fans in operation.
- 2) The combined sound pressure levels measured at a distance of 250 feet from any point on the outer casing in any direction shall not exceed the following values:
Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 SPL, db, re 0.0002 Microbars 84 77 72 69 69 65 65 65 The levels presented above are design maximum specifications. Figure 5.1.4-3 is the cooling tower manufacturers Sound Analysis for Catawba. This data represents predicted levels for " ground" wave with source and receiver in 290.18 direct line of sight, accounting for no reductions due to terrain features, flora or structures. Distances are measured to the nearest tower louver face. 290.16 From this data, the total corrected A-weighted sound levels for the 2,500 and 10,000 foot distances are 48.0 and 35.3 (dB), respectively. These projected sound levels compare favorably to the ambient sound levels detailed in Section
- 2. 7. Consequently, offsite noise will not be a problem. Presently there are no plans to provide other than existing natural screening for the attenuation of plant generated noise.
There are no plans to make a comprehensive operation phase noise level study 290.17 until such time as circumstances warrant. O Rev. 4 ER 5.1-8 CNS-OLS
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.1 O Edwards, T. H., Hunt, W. H. Miller, L. E., and Sevic, J. J., An Evaluation Q- 1. of the Impingement of Fishes at Four Duke Power Company Steam Generating FacTTities, In: Escii, G. W. andWarlane, R. W. , eds. Ibermal Ecology g pp. 373-380. ERDA Symposium Series, Conf-750425,1976.
- 2. Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc. 1974. A baseline / predictive environmental investigation of Lake Wylie. September 1973-August 1974.
Volume II. Report submitted to Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC. Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Northbrook, IL. pp. 678-742.
- 3. W. D., The Threadfin Shad in North Carolina Waters, North McNaughton,ldlife Carolina Wi Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Job X-A and X-B, Proj F-16-R-2, Raleigh, 1966.
- 4. Strawn, K. , " Resistance of Threadfin Shad to low Temperatures", Proc. Ann.
Conf. S. E. Assoc. Game and Fish Commrs., 17, pp. 290-293, 1963.
- 5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality criteria for water.
EPA-440/9-76-023. 501 pp.
- 6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Science Services Administration, Climate of the States: North Carolina (Climatography of the United States No. 60-3 U E ised ed., Washington D.C., 1970) pp. 11-13.
- 7. U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Science Services Administration, p Climate of the States: South Carolina (Climato No. 60-38 E ised ed., Washington, D.C., 1970) , p. graphy of the United States d 11.
- 8. Holzworth, G. C., Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States (Office of Air Programs Publications No. AP-lDI- Research Iriangle Park N.C., Office of Technical Information and Publications, Office of Air Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,1972), pp. 26-35.
- 9. U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Science Services Administration, Environmental Data Service, Climatic Atlas of the United States, Washington,
~~-
D.C., 1968, pp. 57-58.
- 10. Turner, D. B., Workbook of Atmos)here Dispersion Estimates (Office of Air Programs Publication No. AP-26, Revised ed., Research Iriangle Park, N.C. , Office of Technical Information and Publications, Office of Air Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1970), pp. 8-9.
- 11. Smith, M. E., ed., Recommended Guide for the Prediction of the Dispersion of Airborne Effluents, New York, N. Y., lhe American Society of Mechanical Eiigineer 1968, pp. 45-46.
- 12. Briggs, G. A., Plume Rise, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Report TID-15075, Springfield, Virginia, National Technical Information Service, 1969, pp.
27-59. f Q) - 13. Farrell, J. S., The Marley Company, personal communication, 1980. t Rev. 5 ER 5.1-9 CNS-0LS p- , . m,-,y - -,w,-s- -
--y- -w, y v - - -
r,-g e---
- 14. Briggs, G. A., " Plume Rise From Multiple Sources", to be in the proceedings of Cooling Tower Environment - 1974, Symposium, March 1974, (AIDL Contribu-tion No. 91, Oak Ridge, lennessee, Air Resources Laboratories, Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Laboratory, NOAA, 1974).
- 15. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, " Plume Study by Stability Classes", (TDF 1440, Asheville, N.C., National Climatic Center, 1973).
) ) O l l { I O Rev. 5 ER 5.1-10 CNS-OLS
5.3 EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE DISCHARGES O. V 5.3.1 APPLICABLE WATER STANDARDS Effluent limitations for steam electric power plant discharges have been pro-mulgated for the State of South Carolina. Any discharge into Lake Wylie must meet the currently applicable State Water Quality Standards for class A waters and the appropriate EPA standards. The Catawba Nuclear Station is designed so that chemical and biocide discharges will meet the current standards. Duke will comply with these standards and federally approved effluent limitations.
~
5.3.2 EFFECTS ON RECEIVING WATERS Cooling towers for Catawba Nuclear Station will blowdown approximately 4360 gpm (10 cfs, .189 m 3/sec) at a concentration of 7 times background (See Section 3.6.2). The blowdown will be initially diluted with the plant's service water dischargejustpriortoenteringLakeWylie. The approximate avera e summer and winter service water discharges are 56,000 gpm (125 cfs, 3.53 m /sec) and 3 18,000 gpm (40 cfs, 1.14 m /sec), respectively. This results in blowdown discharges into the lake that are concentrated 1.5 and 2.3 times background for summer and winter, respectively. A rectangular buoyant jet analysis was employed to determine dilution as the discharge enters the lake and rises to the surface. Mixing zone acreage nec-essary to achieve designated dilutions are presented below: Season Concentration (X background) U 2.0 1.5 Summer <5 acres (<2.0 ha) <5 acres (<2.0 ha) Winter <5 acres (<2.0 ha) 50 acres (20.2 ha) 5.3.3 INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL WASTES Wastes which are released by the Catawba Nuclear Station into Lake Wylie are within regulation limits and consist of irregular small quantities of prinary recirculating cooling water system chemicals such as boric acid, potassiun chromate, hydrazine, ammonia, commercial detergents and miscellaneous reagent chemical (used in laboratory analysis). All of these chemical species receive treatment in the Radioactive Liquid Waste Recycle System by neutralization, evaporation and demineralization. Concentrates are drummed for offsite disposal. Distillates are then either recycled or, if of a low enough activity, released at a controlled rate. The intermittent nature of the release of these chemicals to the lake, the small total volume of release and the resultant small concen- < trations seen in the receiving water combine to make this waste source insigni-ficant. In any case, the treatment received by the wastes prior to disposal represents effective treatment. The remainder of the chemical industrial wastes from the station outlined in Section 3.6.1 receive physio-chemical treatment consisting of flow equalization, coagulation / sedimentation,pHadjustmentandaeration. O O Rev. 5 ER 5.3-1 CNS-OLS
5.3.4 COOLING TOWER DRIFT Evaluation of the probable im3act of cooling tower drift on surrounding vege-lus tation and soils at the Catawaa site ir.corporates in-house analysis p's Cliff-applicable patterns from an operating mechanical draft tower at Duke side Steam Station. Assuming conservative meteorological parameters, average station capacity fac-tors, and typical make-up water conditions, sectors within 950 ft (290 m) receive the maximum percentage of the deposition from the cooling tower drift. The enclosed site boundary for the Catawba station is 2000 ft (610 m) and should provide a buffer zone for the drift deposition. The remaining drift deposition is minimal in quantity and should disperse equally over the area surrounding the station. Annual rainfall and moisture carried over as drift dilute the solid deposition even further. The area surrounding the plant, largely tree covered and classified as rural, non-farm, receives salt deposits from many sources that are more concentrated than the deposits from the tower drift. Research indicates that crops having low to medium tolerance limits can absorb water that contains 640-1280 mg/l of dis-solved salts. The Catawba cooling towers will be operated with a maximum total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of 10 times the TDS in make-up water from the low pressure service water system (0LS-ER, Section 3.6.2). Based on an operating range of 7 to 10 cycles of concentration in the tower and a TOS concentration of 60 mg/l (see Table 3.6.1-2) in Lake Wylie water (Industrial Biotest 1974), TOS in drift droplets leaving the towers may be expected to fall in the range of 350 to 500 mg/1. These values are below the 291.4 guidelines suggested for safe application to low salt tolerant crops and vegeta-tion. Therefore, no damage to vegetation is expected within the section specified above. Drift deposition rate calculations are discussed in Catawba Construction Stage ER, Section 2.4.1. Table 5.3.1-1 presents recalculated values (Kg/ha/yr) at 350 and 500 mg/l TDS in drift. In summary, cooling tower drift effects are largely localized to the plant site exclusion boundary, and environmental effects to surrounding croplands, forests, gardens, or other plantings beyond the plant site boundary are not significant. Section 5.1.4 also discusses effects of cooling tower drift to a lesser degree and can be referred to for additional information. O ER 5.3-2 CNS-OLS Rev. 5 a
l 5.4 EFFECTS OF SANITARY WASTE DISCHARGE The sanitary waste treatment system currently in operation is described in detail in Section 3.7.1. Biochemical oxygen demand and fecal coliform count should not present any problem in the lagoon effluent to Lake Wylie. The lagoon effluent is currently being chlorinated with a Sanuril Chlorinator before discharge into Lake Wylie basin. Measurements using procedures outlined in Standard Methods show a free chlorine concentration of 0.5-0.8 ppm at the lagoon discharge outlet. Rapid dilution of this chlorine level in the discharge canal is expected such that no unique effects are anticipated anywhere in Lake Wylie. O O Rev. 5 ER 5.4-1 CNS-OLS
O O - O ER Table 5.1.2-1 Catawba Nuclear Station Isotherm Acreages
- Average Conditions Worst Case Conditions
! Area to 5F(2.8C) Area to 90F(32.2C) Area to 5F(2.8C) Area to 90F(32.2C) i Above Ambient Above Ambient ! Isotherm Isotherm Isotherm Isotherm Acres % Total
- Acres % Total
- Acres % Total ** Acres % Total **
Month (Hectares) Lake Area (Hectares) Lake Area (Hectares) Lake Area (Hectares) Lake Area 1 Jan. 60(24) 0.5 0 0 75(30) 0.8 0 0 Feb. 75(30) 0.6 0 0 85(34) 0.9 0 0 Mar. 80(32) 0.6 0 0 90(36) 1. 0 0 0 Apr. 5(2) 0.1 0 0 50(20) 0.5 0 0 Mcy 5(2) 0.1 0 0 45(18) 0.5 0 0 June 5(2) 0.1 0 0 35(14) 0.4 0 0 July 5(2) 0.1 5(2) 0.1 30(12) 0.3 30(12) 0. 3 T-- Aug. 5(2) 0.1 5(2) 0.1 30(12) 0.3 100(40) 1.1 Sept. 5(2) 0.1 0 0 25(10) 0.3 0 0 Oct. 40(16) 0.3 0 0 50(20) 0.5 0 0 Nov. 50(20) 0.4 0 0 60(24) 0.7 0 0 Dec. 55(22) 0.4 0 0 65(26) 0.7 0 0
- Based on full pond surface area of 12,445 ac (5036 ha).
** Based on maximum drawdown (10 ft) area of 9,203 ac (3724 ha).
Rev. 5
ER Tablo 5.2.2-1 Page 1 of 2 Catawba Nuclear Station Waterborn :-R11at;d Radionuclide Conc:ntrations Isotope Annual Station Releases (Ci/yr) Cr 51 8.0E-4 Mn 54 1.6E-4 Fe 55 8.4E-4 Fe 59 4.6E-4 Co 58 7.7E-3 Co 60 1.0E-3 Br 83 1.3E-4 Br 84 7.7E-6 Br 85 1.2E-7 Rb 86 8.0E-5 Rb 88 4.3E-4 Sr 89 1.6E-4 Sr 90 9.7E-8 Y 90 2.1E-8 Sr 91 6.4E-6 Y 91 3.3E-5 Y 91m 5.0E-6 Y 93 3.1E-7 Zr 95 2.9E-5 Nb 95 2.8E-5 Mo 99 1.0E-2 Tc 99m 9.8E-3 Ru 103 4.8E-7 Rh 103m 9.8E-7 Ru 106 9.7E-8 Rh 106 2.3E-7 Te 125m 2.4E-7 Te 127m 1.4E-4 Te 127 1.5E-4 Te 129m 6.1E-4 Te 129 4.1E-4 I 130 2.9E-4 Te 131m 1.5E-4 Te 131 3.3E-5 I 131 9.6E-2 Te 132 3.6E-3 I 132 7.9E-3 I 133 7.0E-2 1 134 2.4E-4 Cs 134 3.6E-2 I 135 1.7E-2 Cs 136 1.0E-2 Cs 137 2.6E-2 Ba 137m 2.5E-2 Ba 140 7.2E-5 La 140 8.0E-5 Ce 141 3.1E-5 Ce 143 5.4E-7 Pr 143 4 9E-7 Ce 144 4.8E-7 Pr 144 5.5E-8 Np 239 1.3E-4 H3 1.4E+3 Rev. 1
i LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title 6.' 1.1- 1 Monitoring Program for First Year Preoperational Study (1973-1974)
-6.1.1-2 Sampling Locations for the Water Quality Studies 6.1.1-3 Interim Monitoring Program (1974-1977) 6.1.1-4 Interim Monitoring Program (1977) To Beginning of Second Year Preoperational Program) 6.1.1-5 Second Year Preoperational Monitoring Program 6.1.1-6 Summary of Non-radiological Second Year Preoperational Aquatic Monitoring Program 6.1.5-1 Preoperational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 6.1.5-2 Detection Capabilities for Environmental Sample Analyses 6.2.2-1 Proposed Chemical Effluent Monitoring Program 6.4.1-1 Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program Annual Summary 1979 6.4.1-2 Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program Annual Summary 1980 6.4.1-3 Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program Annual Summary 1981 o
Rev. 5- ER 6iii
. _ ~ . _. _ , _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ __ __ _ .. _. _ - _ _ _., _ __._ _ ._ _ _ _ _. _
LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Title 6.1.1-1 Non-Radiological Sampling Locations on Lake Wylie 6.1.2-1 Schematic Equipment Arrangement for Rock Permeability Testing 6.1.2-3 Pumping Test No. 1 A85-TW (1 of 2) Pumping Test No. 2 A48-TW (2 of 2) 6.1.2-4 Location of Observation Wells 6.1.3-1 Site Earthwork 6.1.3-2 Relative Elevations of Meteorological Instruments 6.1.3-3 Positions of Fog Study Sites 6.1.3-4 fog Observations Form 6.1.5-1 Radiological Sampling Locations 6.1.5-2 TLD Sites O l t O Rev. 2 ER 6iv
x estimate species abundance, composition, and standina crop. Rotenone collec-tions are made in a cove near location 215. Data concerning the abundance and species composition of larval fish is collec-ted with an ichthyoplankton trawl. Trawling is initiated prior to the onset of fish spawning and continues on a biweekly basis through the peak spawning period. Larval samples are collected in the vicinity of Locations 210, 215, and 220. Laboratory Procedures Adult fishes will be identified using standard references (References 4, 5, 6, and 7). Larval fishes will be identified on the basis of taxonomic literature currently available (Reference 8). Life history studies on sacrified fishes include age and growth and food habit analyses. Age and growth for a fish species will be calculated by standard methods (References 9 and 10). Stomach contents will be analyzed by numeric, gravimetric, and percent occurrence methods (Reference 11). Larval fish samples will be preserved in formalin. Larval fish will be sorted, identified, and lengths (mm) measured and recorded. Larval fish abundance will be expressed as either number of individuals per unit volume or per unit surface area of Lake Wylie. Data Analysis Data will be analyzed for differences between locations and seasons using standard statistical procedures. 6.1.2 GROUNDWATER To evaluate groundwater conditions at the station, observation wells with water level recorders are installed, tests are performed to determine hydrologic properties of the water-bearing materials, and water quality from core borings and private wells is analyzed. Packer permeability tests are performed in borings to determine permeabilities of the rocks underlying the site. Figure 6.1.2-1 presents the test arrangement and description. Constant head field permeability tests are performed in selected borings to determine horizontal permeabilities of saprolite soils. Figure 6.1.2-2 presents the test arrangement and description. Vertical soil permeability is measured by laboratory tests according to ASTM D 2434 on undisturbed samples. Constant discharge pumping tests are conducted to deter-mine average values of horizontal permeability, transmissivity, and storage coefficient of the aquifer. The layout of the pumping tests is shown in Figure 6.1.2-3. For these tests, the wells are drilled to a depth of 70 ft (21 m) and 4 in. (10 cm) PVC pipe is installed. The pipe is slotted with 0.030 in. (0.076 cm) openings in the lower 65 ft (20 m) of the well. The annular space between the drilled well and the slotted pipe is filled with pea gravel. Eight observa-tion wells of 2 in. (5 cm) PVC pipe are installed. Test well A85-TW was pumped for 168 hr at 5.0 gpm (19 1/ min); well A48-TW was pumped for 145 hr at 1.5 gpm O (5.7 1/ min). Rev. 3 ER 6.1-7 CNS-0LS
Groundwater elevations, made at about 60 locations in the immediate vicinity of the site, are used to make a contour map of the water pre-construction table. A water level recorder was installed in boring A-33 and then moved to boring A-62 to obtain groundwater level fluctuation data. Data are also obtained from a USGS well as described in Subdivision 2.4.4.2. Twelve permanent groundwater wells are installed in the zoned wall filter around the perimeter of the Reactor / Auxiliary Building walls. Continuous monitoring devices will be installed in six of the twelve wells to monitor the groundwater level in the zoned wall filter. In addition to the continuous monitoring devices, each of the six wells have three points of alarm to alert the plant operator to a rise in groundwater. The remaining six wells without monitoring devices will be available to dewater the zoned wall filter in the unlikely event of a rise in groundwater. The location of the twelve ground-water wells is shown in Figure 6.1.2-4. 6.1. 3 AIR Data bases for predicting impact of the plant on the local atmospheric environ-ment and for predicting atmospheric transport and diffusion processes are taken from a cooling tower plume observation program at the Duke Power Cliffside Steam Station (August 1972 - July 1973), a nominally 6 N MWe station located 40 miles (64 Km) northwest of Catawba and onsite meteorological measurements made from December 17, 1975 to December 16, 1977. Visibility and water temperature measurements were made from August 10, 1977 to August 9, 1979. 451.1 Onsite data is provided hour-by-hour on magnetic tape with substitute data for 451. ' missing hours. Subsequent data collection has been in a test mode, as site 451. topography remains essentially unchanged (excavation, lake level, etc.). 6.1.3.1 Meteorology Onsite meteorological measurements include wind direction and speed, horizontal wind direction fluctuation, temperature, vertical temperature gradient, dew point, visibility, surface water temperature, and rainfall. The instrument 451.9 shelters are environmentally controlled; that is, they are heated and air condi- 451.11 tioned. Relative positions of diffusion instruments with respect to station 451.16 yard are noted in Figure 6.1.3-1. Relative elevations of both surface levels and instrument levels are depicted in Figure 6.1.3-2. The locations of both wind measuring systems, the resistance thermometers, and the dew point instrument are clearly indicated. Relative positions of fog study sites with respect to the station yard are shown in Figure 6.1.3-3. Visibility and surface water temperature measurements are taken at both fog sites. Locations of towers for the measurement of a 10 m wind and delta-temperature at the Cf review stage also are shown on Figure 6.1.3-1. Base elevation for both towers was 645 ft. MSL. Additional details are available in PSAR Figures 2.3-4, 2.3-5 and 2.3-6. Comparison of 10 m wind direction frequencies for the earlier data base with those from present measurements (see Table 2.3.0-3 and PSAR 451.11 Table 2.3-2) reveals notable shi+ts which are ascribed to synoptic based 451.16 variations in direction preferences. The following information is provided regarding the present siting of meteoro-logical instraments. Nominal distances between plant structures and the diffusion measurement system are determined from Figure 6.1-3 as 1100 ft. for Unit #1 Reactor Building, 700 ft. for Unit #1 Turbine Building and 1400 ft. for the cooling Rev. 5 ER 6.1-8 CNS-0LS
Heights of these structures from Figures 6.1.3-2, 3.1.0-7, and ( o tower yard.i 3.4.1-5 are nominally 135 ft. for Unit #1 Reactor Building,100 ft. for Un d Turbine Building and 65 ft. for the mechanical draft cooling towers. Height to distance ratios here suggest minimal interference with meteorological measure-ments from mechanically generated turbulence associated with these structures. Although the orientation of cooling towers with respect to the measurement site, for the observed distribution of wind direction yields a low occurrence of cooling 451'11 tower effluent transport in the direction of meteorological instruments, little 451*16 impact is otherwise expected. Typical plume rise results in transport of the condensate / humidity plume well clear of the 40 m tower. Plume centerline heights are on the order of 1000 ft. as determined by methods used in Section 5.1.4. Drift effects, addressed at the CP Stage, were estimated to be highly localized with affected area essentially within 1000 ft. of the towers. Deposi-tion rates are presented in PSAR Table 2.3-5. On balance instrument exposure appears reasonably representative of vicinity topography and an appropriate basis for plant effluent transport / diffusion estimates. Wind measurements are made with the Packard Bell Model WS 101B Series Wind Direction - Speed System with starting thresholds of 0.7 and 0.6 mph for direction and speed respectively. Temperature and delta-temperature measurements are made with a Leeds and Northrup 100 Ohm Resistance Temperature Device with Packard Bell Model 327 Thermal Radiation Shields. Visibility measurements are Visometer Model 1580A which has a made minimum with the Meteorolog% accuracy of 15 of reading plusy 1 Research, Inc. Fog %Surface of full scale voltage water temperature measurements are taken from a Yellow Springs Instrument Thermister which is waterproofed and placed in a shaded location 2-3" below the N water surface. Dew Point is taken from the EG&G Dew Point Hygrometer Model 110 {d S-M; and rainfall is measured with the Belfort Weighing Rain Gage Model 5-780. Wind direction and speed are recorded in the instrument shelter on Esterline-Angus Model A 601C Stria Chart Recorders with a system accuracy of 5.4 F for direction and 0.45 mp1 for speed. Temperature, delta-temperature, dew point, surface water temperature, and visibility are recorded on the Leeds and Northrup Speedomax W Recorder with a system accuracy of 0.85 F for temperature at the 451.9 10 m level, and surface water temperature of 0.18 F for delta-temperature (40 m level referenced to the 10 m level) and of 0.85 F for dew point at the 10 m level. Measured rainfall is accurate to 0.03 in. and 0.06 in. for 0 to 5 inch totals and for 5 to 10 inch totals respectively. All measurement systems comply with the recommendations of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23. The following calibration - maintenance schedule is extracted from the Duke Power Company manual, Schedule and Procedures for Calibration and Maintenance of Meteorological Instruments, as pertains to Die care of these instruments. Schedule for Calibration and Maintenance of Meteorological Instruments Weekly The following field checks are to be performed each week before old charts are replaced and pens re-inked: O V Rev. 5 ER 6.1-9 CNS-OLS
1
- a. Wind Direction (1) Recorder time accuracy (2) Recorder zero (3) Translator zero and full scale
- b. Wind Speed (1) Recorder time accuracy (2) Recorder zero (3) Translator zero
- c. Temperature, Delta-Temperature, Dew Point, Visibility, Surface Water Temperature and Rainfall (1) Recorder time accuracy Semiannually The following field checks are to be performed twice each year:
- a. Temperature, Delta Temperature, and Surface Water Temperature 451.9 (1) Electronic simulation to transmitter (over total range of temperature) g
- b. Dew Point (1) Dew point control unit calibration check (electronically simulated input as furnished by manufacturer)
- c. Rainfall (1) Check rain gage with manufacturer's certified weight
- d. Visibility (1) Internal optical / mechanical calibration check (operated manually at the instrument)
As Required The following laboratory checks are to be performed as required:
- a. Wind Direction (1) Refined linearity (2) Transmitter starting torque O
Rev. 5 ER 6.1-10 CNS-OLS
- b. Wind Speed O
V (1) Electronic simulation to translator '.over total range of speeds) (2) Transmitter starting torque (3) Transmitter shaft end play All data are reduced manually and keypunched for storage on magnetic tape.
- Procedures for data reduction are as follows
Wind direction and speed are averaged over 30 minute intervals preceding each hour and logged on the hour. Wind range is measured during 30 minute intervals
- preceding each hour and logged on the hour. Wind direction and speed are averaged with a transparent straight edge making a visual integration by equal area apportionment. Wind range is measured by counting direction intervals between extreme directions, eliminating momentary peaking. This 30 minute averaging time has been determined as the optimum recorder trace length which can be analyzed accurately by the chart readers.
Temperature, delta-temperature, and surface water temperature are averaged over one hour intervals, 30 minutes before and after each hour and logged on the hour. Temperature is recorded for the low level (10 meter) sensor. Delta 451.9 temperature is the difference in the reading between the high and low sensors (30 m separation). p Temperature, delta temperature, and surface water temperature are all averaged by the equal area technique employed in reduction of wind data. Dew point is averaged over one hour intervals, 30 minutes before and after each hour and logged on the hour. Averaging again is made by the equal area tech-nique. Rainfall is noted for each hour (by taking the difference in total rainfall between successive hours) and logged on the hour. ! Fog visiometer data are averaged over one hour intervals, 30 minutes before and after each hour, and logged on the hour. The data are averaged by the same t equal area technique. Visibility data are read as percent of full scale to the nearest 0.5% as various definitions of visibility are available for analysis. With respect to the Cliffside Plant cooling tower plume observation program, observations made at 0800 include: plume rise, length, and direction of drift to eight compass points. Rise characteristics are assessed by reference to a 150meterstackadjacenttothecoolingtowers. Length and direction are estimated from an area map provided with range markers. Three helicopter flights were made at observation times during the period of record to ascertain the adequacy of ground based observations and assess other factors relating to plume behavior; e.g., effects of elevated and ground based inversions on plume dissipation. Daily morning fog occurrence observations are taken in conjunction with the visiometer data by security personnel near fog site #2 and by personnel at Wylie flydro Station. The observations are broken down into fog over land and fog over Rev. 5 ER 6.1-11 CNS-OLS ! +
water and include visibility, top of fog, and fraction of fog. A sample fog observation form is shown in Fig. 6.1.3-4. Meteorologists also personally observe episodes of steam fog on Lake Wylie to identify the extent of the fog, transport of the fog off the lake, and elevation of the base of the steam fog. Visibility and surface water temperature instrumentation (Figure 6.1.3-3) are located to take into account two effects of cooling tower operation. Under prevailing wind situations, the instruments, are located to confirm potential 451.9 maximum down wash effects of cooling tower condensate plume. They also are to be used to assess the enhancement of steam fog near the plant due to cooling tower blowdown. Daily morning fog observations are taken to assess the enhance-ment of steam fog with respect to residential areas surrounding the plant. Observations of steam fog episodes on Lake Wylie are taken to assess potential steam fog impact on the Rock Hill Airport, located about four miles South of the plant. 6.1.3.2 Models Long-term models were used to assess dispersion / deposition characteristics to 50 miles and to evaluate near-field dispersion for the reactor building complex area. Average dilution factors are computed from onsite data, covering the stated period of record, for angular intervals of five degrees at ten distances to 50 miles utilizing a gaussian diffusion model which stores and accumulates suc-cessive hourly values. These estimates are assumed to represent annual con-ditions. Hourly values are calculated to distances of i 20 degrees frem observed wind directions. Points beyond 20 degrees for any one hour are assumed at zero relative concentration for that hour. Releases from the 38 meter vent stacks are considered partially elevated and partially ground level releases. The fraction of the plume material which remains elevated depends on the ratio of exit velocity to wind speed at release height. This fraction has been calculated from equations 7 and 8 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1 (Reference 13): F = 2.58 - 1.58 oW for 1<Wo < 1.5 9 T T and W F = 0.3 - 0.06 o for 1.5<Wo < 5.0 9 T T where F = fraction of the time the release is considered to occur at the ground.9 Wg = exit velocity (m/sec) U = wind speed from the 40 m sensor (m/sec) F e
=I~I g where F e
fraction of the time the release is considered to be elevated. O Rev. 5 ER 6.1-12 CNS-OLS
f s Plume height for elevated releases is calculated from Sagendorf (Reference 14). Effective stack height is determined from H=h s +h pp , where H = effective stack height (m) I h s
= Ph ysical stack height (m) h pr = plume rise (m)
Plume rise is calculated using formulas from Briggs (Reference 15). The station is assumed to have a cold plume, so the heat emission rate is zero, and the plume rise is calculated from the momentum equations. For neutral or unstable conditions: h pr
- l 44 ( )! ()! D (a) i i
where X = downwind distance (m) i D = inside stack diameter (ra) l When the exit velocity is less.than 1.5 times the wind speed, a correction for l downwash is subtracted (Reference 14): r C=3(1.5-[)D-I where C is the value to be subtracted, and the other terms are defined above. ! The result is compared with I-1 y h pr
=
3 ([) D (b) and the more conservative value is used. For stable conditions, the result I from (a) or (b) is compared with the results from the following two equations: h pp
=
4([F )2/4 h pr = 1.5( )/ S' I O
'Rev. 5 ER 6.1-13 CNS-OLS
and the smallest value cf h P is used. Above, F (m4 /sec2) is the momentum flux parameterasS(sec2)isa[tabilityparameter@here: F m
" N o ()
g 80 S = T Wi where g = 9.8 m/sec2 and T = temperature ( K) 00 - vertical gradient of potential temperature ( K/m) Dz S = 8.7 x 10 4, 1.75 x 10 3, and 2.45 x 10 3 (sec-2) for E, F, and G stabilities, respectively. Plume height is computed from the exit velocity (22.4 m/sec), stack diameter (2.1 m), and stack height (38 m) employing the wind speed from the 40 meter sensor. The effect of terrain on effective plume height is included according to Egan (Reference 16). If all heights are referenced to plant grade, H is the effective plume height without terrain correction, and h is the height of the terrain feature; then the corrected plume height is H - it/2 above local terrain. An exception noted is that plume height is constrained to remain between H and H/2 above local terrain. The ht values represent the highest terrain in the vicinity of the receptor within the 22.5 sector after Sagendorf (Reference 14); h values are taken to be equal to or greater than zero according to NRC RegulaboryGuide1.111, Revision 1(Reference 13). The equation employed for each hourly X/Q calculation for the ground release portion is (Reference 17): F (X/Q)g
= y **P b2(o CA/n)] Eqn. 6.1.3-1
(" y z + CA) The equation employed for the elevated portion is (Reference 17): (X/Q)e u o exp [h + 2 H
] Eqn. 6.1.3-1 yz y z where X/Q = normalized concentration at plume centerline (sec/m3 )
ay= crosswind concentration distribution standard deviation (m) oz = vertical concentration distribution standard deviation (m) C = containment structure shape factor = 0.5 A = cross sectional area of containment structure normal to the wind .
= 1616 m2 H = the plume height considering all corrections as discussed above (m)
Rev. 5 ER 6.1-14 CNS-OLS
s un and u m/sec).2Aare minimum the low level value andm/sec of 0.45 high islevel average assumed. wind This speeds, minimum valuerespectively derives O (from precendent in other licensing reviews and is taken as acceptable in view 451.14-of the low incidence of wind speeds less than 0.45 m/sec. High level winds 451.15 (40m) seem to be appropriate for elevated material where momentum plume rise tends to balance the disparity in absolute elevation of physical vent and the 40m wind system. yi and y2 are the lateral distances of the receptor from the wind direction vectors ut and u2, respectively (m). Crosswind and vertical standard deviations are those suggested by D. B. Turner (Reference 12). Stability categories are determined by vertical temperature gradient according to the following schedule: Stability Class Vertical Temperature Gradient G Greater than +2.1 F in 100 ft F +0.9 to +2.1 F in 100 ft E -0.2 to +0.8 F in 100 ft D -0.8 to -0.3 F in 100 ft B-C -1.0 to -0.9 F in 100 ft A less than -1.0 F in 100 ft The factor (o o + CA/n) is a measure of plume spread. This factor is restric-ted to be no Guide 1.XXX,frdaterthan(3a%o)asrecommendedintheNRCDraftRegulatoryAtmos Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants." The building wake factor, CA, is entered in the exponential as suggested by Davidson (Reference 17). ForannualaverageX/Qinputtoradioiodinedosage,the(X/Q)8sitionof$le- and (X/Q) values are modified to account for plume depletion by dry dep mental radioiodine. The method employed is as recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1 (Reference 13). Output for both undepleted and depleted X/Q is summarized in terms of sector averages from the 5 grid point values. Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1 (Reference 13), suggests that long-term X/Q values be adjusted to account for variations in plume trajectory over time scales on the order of one day, which would otherwise not be considered by the straight-line trajectory models. The adjustment factor for this station is taken as 1.0; that is, no such variations are significant. This fact is demonstrated in the following analysis: Factors which would cause an adjustment greater than 1.0 are a) systematic flow reversals,b)stagnantpoolingofair,c)systematiccurvedtrajectoriessuch as terrain-induced channeling, and d) randomly curved trajectories under some O- conditions. Rev. 5 ER 6.1-15 CNS-0LS
Flow reversals would yield higher doses because a repeated passage of the effluent would effect longer dwell times and would cause higher air concen-trations by introducing contaminated background air. Nocturnal downslope flows at the plant site could be a mechanism for such recirculation. Inspection of Figures 2.3.0-2 and 2.3.0-3 reveals that no significant bias in wind direction during stable conditions is evident to support appreciable occurrence of such a flow. Downslope wind possibilities are assessed for near vent levels in that most releases are assumed elevated by the method described in Section 6.1.3.2. Stagnation of contaminated air would cause higher doses since the model assumes contamination only in the downwind direction. Stagnation at the plant would 451.13 result from winds at stack release height which are presistently low. The frequency of winds less than 1.0 mph during any stability condition is 0.17 percent. This low frequency should not contribute to a significantly higher annual average dose from stagnation. Wind speeds equal to or greater than 1.0 mph at the 40m level are assumed associated with individual parcel trajectories which on the average have a net away-from-the plant component (for a period of one hour) that is constant with the downwind distance. The time mean mass distribution in the along wind direction, then, is constant and equal to Q/u (Ci/m) (for low wind speeds greater than 1.0 mph, it is certainly recognized that the individual parcels would be expected to follow an exaggerated meandering path). Even so, the motion field descirbed precludes a pooling offect in time averages. The position is of course a matter of judgement and subject to equally valid alternative options. Systematic curved trajectories would effect higher doses in some direction if flow, induced by terrain or any other source, exposes a receptor more fre-quently or to higher concentrations than the straight-line trajectory assump-tion. Channeling of winds by the valley walls at Catawba, or pronounced drainagt winds at night could cause such an underestimation by the model. It is evident that the gentle terrain variations within the valley (see Figure 2.1.1-1) do not channel the winds. Also, the absence of significant drainage is addressed above. With respect to curvature which is random by direction, when direction fre-quency is inhomogeneous and dispersion conditions are homogeneous from one sector to another, the effect of course, is to reduce the annual average X/Q or D/Q value in the high frequency sector. Only when there exist severe differences in direction frequency, or a positive correlation between poor dispersion conditions and high frequency is evident, are noticable changes likely to occur in the long term X/Q or D/Q fields. Inspection of the high frequency southwest wind directions indicates neither the relative frequency of wind direction nor the relative proportion of poor dispersion conditions from one sector to another is unduly biased in the sense discussed above (see Tables 2.3.0-2 and 2.3.0-3). In the high frequency north wind directions, there is no significant bias. In summary, there exists no apparent cause for systematic flow reversals, systematic trajectory curvature or stagnation of contaminated air; and the conditions for which random curvature is a problem do not exist at the site. O Rev. 5 ER 6.1-16 CNS-OLS
The model for the calculation of the annual average D/Q(m 2) is described in p Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1 (Reference 13). The D/Q values account for terrain according to Egan as described above. Also, they consider the fractional V breakdown of elevated and ground level plume contributions to 0/Q, and plur.e rise in the same manner as in the calculation of X/Q values above. Wind direction, speed, and stability frequencies for these calculations were obtained from the high-level (40 m) joint frequency distribution of hourly onsite meteorology for the period of record (Table 2.3.0-2). These estimates are assumed to represent annual conditions. Adjustment conditions for the straight-line trajectory deposition model are identical to those addressed above for relative concen-trations. Average dilution factors are computed from onsite data covering the stated period of record, for selected intake vents on or near plant structures, a second straight-line gaussian model. Many features present in the utilizing X/Q and D /Q models above are incorporated here.In this model a crosswind intcgrated form of the equations is used with output in terms of a sector average. These estimates are assumed to represent annual conditions. The treatment of plume rise and that of partial entrainment by the building wake cavity are identical to those employed in the X/Q and D/Q models already discussed. Contribution from the ground portion is taken as the higher of: F g (2/n)b I [7(u,2 0 2 + Wo 202) !' 3 Eqn. 6.1.3-3 (X/Q)g = I Rt(3)4 4 or
= F g (2/n)b I {f [u1(o 2z+ CA/n)b]- } Eqn. 6.1.3-4 (X/Q)9 R$ f Contribution from the elevated portion is taken as:
exp ( -H2 ) i (gjg = Fe (2/n)4 y 2 Loz "
- U'/4I ] Eqn. 6.1.3-5 R$ f (u22 g Z2 + W2D2/4)1 0
where f = the frequency of occurrence of the wind and stability category R = the distance from the containment to the receptor (m) 4 = the greater of 22.5 or the angle intercepted by the reactor building as seen by an observer at the receptor (for ground portion) (rad)
+ = 22.5 (for elevated portion) (rad)
All other parameters are as previously defined. Rev. 5 ER 6.1-17 CNS-0LS 1 l
In-stack dilution is calculated analogous to the building wake mixing (Refer-ence 17); both are entered as suggested by Davidson (Reference 17). The limit on building wake dilution in the ground portion calculation is based on recom-mendations for limits on the volumetric correction of vertical plume spread in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.111 (Reference 13). The effective stack height, H, is adjusted as before by accounting for height of the terrain feature but here the correction is H-h where h is now the height of ths highest building near the receptor. Thisahplicatic1isnottakentorepresentflowbehaviorinresponse to terrain variation as it was before, but is a means of accounting for differ-ences in receptor height for a more or less constant H relative to an absolute frame. The summation of frequencies is for categories in Table 2.3.0-2, taken from the high-level (40 m) system. The number n of 22.5 sectors contributing to f is extracted from Figure 1 of Murphy (Reference 18) where n is a function of s/d, the ratio of containment - receptor distance to containment diameter. 6.1. 4 LAND 6.1. 4.1 Geology and Soils The methodology and results of geologic studies are described in Section 2.5 of the FSAR, and in the " Final Geologic Report on Brecciated Zones" (submitted to the NRC in March, 1976). 6.1.4.2 Land Use and Demographic Surveys Demographic and land use methodology and results are presented in Chapter 2, Subsections, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3, respectively. 6.1.4.3 Ecological Parameters The methods used to survey the terrestrial biota during the preconstruction phase are described in " Catawba Nuclear Station, Terrestrial Studies", sub-mitted to the NRC January 31, 1975. 6.1.5 PREOPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM The preoperational phase of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program for Catawba provides data on the existing environmental radioactivity levels, and their variations, along the anticipated critical exposure pathways in the vicinity of the station. The results of the preoperational phase also provide a basis for evaluating the station's contribution, if any, to increases in environmental radioactivity levels in the site vicinity after the station begins operation. The design of the Preoperational Program includes the guidance of the EPA report ORP/SID 72.2, Environmental Radioactivity Surveillance Guide, in estab-lishing proper sampling methods and analytical procedures. Ihe Branch Tech-nical Position on Regulatory Guide 4.8 has provided guidance in the selection of sample types, locations, and collection and analysis frequencies. Local site characteristics, such as meteorology, hydrology, land use and population density have been examined to determine the critical exposure pathways to man and then applied to the general program criteria set forth in the Branch Technical Position. The resulting program thus establishes a reasonable and adequate level of environmental radiation surveillance in the station environs. Rev. 5 ER 6.1-18 CNS-OLS
In general, the exposure pathways identified in the area surrounding the station are the same as those recommended in the Branch Technical Position. (9/
/
) However, certain local conditions exist for the Catawba site which render inappropriate two types of recommended sampling media. These are ground water and food products (crops). Ground water monitoring is deemed necessary by the Branch Technical Position only when the local hydraulic gradients and recharge properties are suitable for contamination by liquid effluent releases. In the vicinity of the station, however, the hydraulic gradients, and thus ground water movements, are toward the lake (i.e., the discharge canal). Ground water recharge is by precipitation only. Sampling of local food products from any area which is irrigated by water in which liquid plant wastes have been dis-charged is also recommended. However, no such irrigation is found in the vicinity of the station. Therefore, since the Branch Technical Position takes these aspects into consideration, sampling of ground water and food products will not be routinely performed. Additionally, since the I-131 dose calculated for the consumption of drinking water in the Catawba environs is less than 1 mrem per year, low level I-131 analyses of drinking water will not be performed routinely. Table 6.1.5-1 provides a tabular summary of the Preoperational Program, listing the pathways and types of samples to be collected, sampling location criteria, collection and analysis frequencies, and the analyses to be performed on each sample. The map presented in Figure 6.1.5-1 shows the physical orientation of the sampling locatiors and lists each location as a function of direction and distance from the site. It should be noted that the Preop 7 rational Program outlined here represents a substantial change in design from the original program described in the Catawba Nuclear Station Environmental Report - Construction Permit Stage. The shift in program design criteria--from that set forth in the EPA report ORP/SID 72.2, Environmental Radioactivity Surveillance Guide, to the recommendations supplied by the Branch lechnical Position on Regulatory Guide 4.8--is reflected in the current program's emphasis toward more conservative selection of sampling locations (i.e., closer to effluent release points) and the collection and analysis of only those environmental media within each critical exposure pathway which form the most direct link to human exposure. The sampling of more remote media associated with the existing pathways, such as aquatic vegetation, rain and settled dust, lake bottom sediment, soil, and raw water supplies, is thus no longer considered necessary. The first phase of the Preoperational Program will begin at least two years prior to the commercial operation of th:it 1, with monitoring of direct radia-tion (TLD), fish, broad-leaf vegetation, and shoreline sediment. The remainder of the program, including air particulates, surface and drinking water, and milk will go into effect at least one year prior to commercial operation of Unit 1. Special analysis for airborne radioiodine and iocine in milk will commence at least 6 months prior to commercial operation of Unit 1. (v) Rev. 5 ER 6.1-19 CNS-0LS
The Operational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program will be identical to the Preoperational Program in regard to sample media, locations and analyses. However, collection and analysis frequencies will increase for certain sample media in the operational phase as follows: 1.a) Airborne radiciodine and particulates will be sampled continuously, with weekly collection and analyses. 3.a,b) Surface and drinking water will be composited over the monthly collection period. 4.a) Milk samples will be collected and analyzed semi-monthly when animals are on pasture. 4.c) Broad-leaf vegetation will be collected and analyzed monthly. The Operational Program will be modified as necessary, to reflect any changes in local population growth, land use or availability of samples identified as a result of preoperational experience. Detection capabilities (analytical sensitivity) for the environmental sample analyses performed as part of the Preoperational (and Operational) Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program are ex)ressed in terms of the lower Limit of Detection (LLD, as defined in the Branca Technical Position). Table 6.1.5-2 lists the LLD values for various radionuclides in each sample type. The ability to achieve the above LLD values in environmental samples depends upon the available sample quantity, external background conditions, additional radionuclides present in the sample and other environmental conditions. The detection capability for direct radiation (TLD) measurements will be that specified by Regulatory Guide 4.12, Revision 1. O Rev. 5 ER 6.1-20 CNS-OLS
s REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.1
- 1. Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., A Baseline / Predictive Environmental Investigation of Lake Wylie. September 1973-August 1974.
Report submitted to Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC. October, 1974.
- 2. Duke Power Company. Catawba Nuclear Station Interim Monitoring Study
- September 1973 - June 19//. Duke Power Company. Charlotte, NC 1977.
- 3. Weber, C. I. (Ed.), Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring theQualityofSurfaceWatersandEffluents. U. S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency EPA-670/4-72-001. Cincinnati, Ohio, July,1973.
- 4. Bailey, R. M., Fitch, J. E., Herald, E. S., Lachner, E. A., Kindsey, C. C.
Robins, C. R., and Scott, W. B., A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada, third edition American Fisheries Society, Washington, D. C., 1970, 150 pp.
- 5. Eddy, S. How to know the Freshwater Fishes, second edition, Wm. C. Brown Co., Dubuque, 1969, 286 pp.
- 6. Menhinnick, E. F., The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina, Press of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, 1975, 177 pp.
- 7. Moore, G. A., Fishes, p). 21-165, In: W. F. Blair ed. Vertebrates of the United States. McGraw iill, New York,1968.
- 8. Hogue J. J. Jr., R.'Wallus, and L. K. Kay, Pre,iminary Guide to the IdentificationofLarvalfishesintheTennesseeRiver,TennesseeValley River Technical Note B19, Norris, 1976.
- 9. Lagler, K. F., Freshwater Fishery Biology, W,. C. Brown Co., Dubuque, 1956, 421 pp.
- 10. Tesch, F. W. Age and Growth, pp. 98-130, In: W. E. Ricker, ed., Methods for Assessment of Fish Production in Fresh Waters, International Bio-logical Programme, London.
l i 11. Hynes, H. B. N. , "The Food of Freshwater Sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus l and Pygosteus puncitius with a review of methods used in studies of the food of fishes", t. Anim. Ecol. 19, pp. 36-58, 1950. l
- 12. Turner, D. Bruce, Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates (Office of Air Programs Publication NoTAP-26, Revised ed., Research Iriangle Park,
- N.C. , Office of Technical Information and Publications, Office of Air l
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1970), pp. 8-9.
- 13. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi n, Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Watei Cooled Reactois (U.S. Nuclear ReguTatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.111, Ravision 1, Washington, D.C., Division of 3
Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977), pp. 9-12. l Rev. 5 ER 6.1-21 CNS-OLS
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.1 (Continued)
- 14. Sagendorf, J.F., A Program for Evaluating Atmospheric Dispersion From a-Nuclear Power StaEion (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum ERL ARL-42, Idaho Falls, Idaho, Air Resources Laboratory,1974), pp. 5-7.
- 15. Briggs, G. A., Plume Rise, (USAEC Report TID-15075. Available from Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information National Bureau of Standards, U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22151,1969) pp. 27-59.
- 16. Egan, B. A., " Turbulent Diffusion is Complex Terrain", Lectures on Air Pollution and Environmental Impact Analyses, American Meteorological Society, pp. 123-124, 1975.
- 17. Stade, D.H., ed., Meteorology and Atomic Energy - 1968, (USAEC Report TID-24-190, Environmental Science Te7 vices Administration, 1968) pp 99, 112, and 221-232.
- 18. Murphy, K. G., and Campe, K. M., " Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Venti-lation System Design for Meeting General Criterion 19," in 13th AEC Cleaning Conference, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, T C.,
August, 1974. O O Rev. 5 ER 6.1-22 CNS-OLS
6.2 APPLICANT'S PROPOSED OPERATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM The baseline studies discussed in Section 6.1 are providing initial data necessary to determis die physical, chemical, and biological variables which are likely to be affected by station construction and operation. The proposed monitoring program to be used during station operation is outlined in this section. As station construction nears completion and operation approaches, the detailed information now being gathered will be used to more fully perfect the operational monitoring program. 6.2.1 OPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM I The Operational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program provides data to support and verify the results of detailed effluent monitoring which is neces-sary to evaluate individual and population exposures that result from station operation. The elements of the Operational Program are identical to those of the Preoper-ational Program in regard to sample media, locations, and analyses certain media frequencies will be increased as described in Section 6.1.5. Collection and analysis frequencies for certain sample media will be as follows in the operational phase: a) Airborne radioiodine particulates will be sampled continuously, with weekly collection and analyses; b) Surface and drinkin water samples will be composited overthemonthlyco$lectionperiod; c) Milk samples will be collected and analyzed semi-monthly when animals are on pasture; d) Broad leaf vegetation will be collected and analyzed monthly; e) Shoreline sediment samples will be collected and analyzed semi-annually; f) Fish samples, particularly bass and catfish, will be collected and analyzed semi-annually; g) The Thermoluminescent Dosimeter (TLD) monitoring, program will be l expanded from its present 11 instruments to now include 40 instruments. 1 Thirty-two of the instruments will be located within the 16 compass sectors at various distances from the plant and 8 will be sited at random locations such as schools and hospitals around the site. l These samples will be collected and analyzed quarterly. Additionally, the operational phase will include an annual census to determine the location of the nearest milk animal in each of the 16 meteorological sectors within a distance of 5 miles (8 km) of the site. As provided for in the Branch Technical Position on Regulatory Guide 4.8, broad-leaf vegetation i O. sampling will be performed at the site boundary. This sampling is in lieu of the annual garden census. Rev. 5 ER 6.2-1 CNS-OLS
The Operational Program will be modified, as necessary, to reflect any changes required as a result of pre-operational and operational experience, local population growth, annual census data, and appropriate regulations. 6.2.2 CHEMICAL EFFLUENT MONITORING The chemical effluent monitoring program will be established to comply with requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The permit will be issued by the the State of South Carolina. Table 6.2.2-1 indicates the parameters of the NPDES permit and also reflects the sampling requirements that Duke monitors. 6.2.3 THERMAL EFFLUENT MONITORING The thermal effluent monitoring program will include, as a minimum, weeklj monitoring in the discharge canal of any blowdown discharged to the river. Sampling will also be conducted monthly as specified in Subsection 6.1.1. Calculated temperature rises from the cooling tower blowdown and the affected zones are presented in Section 5.1.2 and in Table 5.1.2-1. Other thermal effects on the water quality are also addressed throughout Section 5. Modeling studies have shown that the percentage of the total lake area effected by thermal conditions is minimal. No plans have been formulated at this time to conduct thermal plume mapping within Lake Wylie. Detection of trends is the object of the continuing biological monitoring program and should unfavorable conditions develop, and such conditions are not irreversible, then appropriate corrective action would be taken by Duke. No such trends are expected since closed-cycle cooling towers will be used to dissipate heat for Catawba. 6.2.4 METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING Onsite meteorological measurements for wind direction and speed, horizontal wind direction fluctuation, temperature, vertical temperature gradient, dew point, rainfall, and visibility (for the purpose of assessing the possibility of fog characteristics at the site) are monitored in a preoperational program and will continue during the operational program. All sampling techniques, including field and laboratory procedures for the meteorological programs, are described in more detail in Subsection 6.1.3.1 and in accompanying figures and tables. The operational meteorological monitoring program will be identical to the preoperational study prior to the start up of Unit 1 except for two minor differences. The first difference involves data reduction of all parameters except visi-bility. Prior to plant operation, a unit will be installed to provide for automatic data reduction while maintaining parallel strip chart recorders. The digital system will sample sensor signals once every 5 seconds and have an output of 15 minute averages which will be used as hourly average values. O Rev. 5 ER 6.2-2 CNS-0LS
._ - -- - - = _ - . - _ . . -- _ - _ - -
Compliance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23 will be maintained. Real time ' p v average quantities will be available in the control room as well as strip chart recorder output. The other difference involves the length of the sampling period for the visi-bility measurements. All other meteorological programs will be performed
- indefinitely. However, the establishment of onsite and near vicinity charac-teristics of visibility with respect to fog will be determined for at least a period of one year prior to the operation of the cooling towers and for at least a period of one year after the initial start-up and continued operation of the station and towers. The Catawba fog study is designed to assess the effects of plant heat dissipation on the frequency and intensity of ground fog. 451.9 4
The combination of visiometer and surface water temperature measurements, fog observations, and observations made at Charlotte's Douglas Airport will be used to describe the preoperational climatology of fog around Lake Wylie. Similar i data collection will resume during plant operation. Both preoperational and operational data will be normalized by a comparison of simultaneous Charlotte Airport observations with long-term climatological data. 6.2.5 EC0 LOGICAL MONITORING The operational ecological monitoring program will be as dictated by the approved technical specifications for Catawba. The proposed program will be based on critical review of the results of the programs outlined in Subsection 6.1.1. Analytical instrumentation and methodology will be constantly reviewed and updated as feasible when better techniques are available. Sample stations and frequency will be adjusted according to the findings of Subsection 6.1.1 O, and consideration of operating conditions. The tentative ecological program for the operational phase is the same as proposed for the second year pre-operational study (SLbsection 6.1.1). 4 6.2.6 EFFECTS OF COOLING TOWER DRIFT ON TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION Two permanent terrestrial monitoring areas are established near the site, within the corridors of the most frecuent wind direction (Fig"ure 2.2.1-1). The general features of these areas are cescribed in the report, Catawba Nuclear Station, Terrestrial Studies," submitted to the NRC in January 1975. i A series of permanent study plots is established in each area. The plots re-present as many of the common species as possible. Quantitative and qualita-tive aspects are recorded. Data include photographic records, species counts, and visual analysis for leaf burn and discoloration. If extensive visual damage is observed, then an analysis of soil and leaf tissue can be conducted to determine the cause(s) of damage. Visual observations are also made in other appropriate areas (closer to the towers) if such areas are available. 4 4 1 O Rev. 5 ER 6.2-3 CNS-OLS
---, ,. _.,_ r+ - _ .
_ . , _ . .___..,_.--.s.,..._r.----e -
.- y.. - , .
6.4 PRE 0PERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING DATA Results of the first phase of the Preoperational Radiological Monitoring Program as described in Section 6.1.5 for the years 1979, 1980, and 1981 are given in Tables 6.4.1-1, 6.4.1-2, and 6.4.1-3 respectively. Fish samples were collected in 1979 but were omitted from the collection schedule in 1980 and 1981. Samples now being collected include surface water, shoreline sediment, broadleaf vegetation and TLD's. In the second quarter 1982, TLD locations will be increased from 10 to 40, and collection of fish samples will resume. Since commercial operation of Unit 1 is scheduled for 1984, the remainder of the program will not begin until 1983. O G I V Rev. 5 ER 6.4-1 CNS-OLS
ER Table 6.2.2-1 (',) u Catawba Nuclear Station Chemical Effluent Monitoring Programt Sampling Point Frequency 2 Analysis Min Am Max. Cooling Tower Blowdown 1/ week Free available ---
.2 mg/l .5 mg/l Discharge )rior to cholrine3 mixing wit 1 streams 1/ week pH 6.0 SU4 ---
9.0 504 Hourly FlowL --- --- --- 1/ week Temperature c ___ __ ___ Waste Water Treatment 1/ day? Flow 8 --- --- --- System Discharge 2/ month Oil and --- 15 mg/l 20 mg/l Grease 2/ month Total Sus- --- 30 mg/l 100 mg/l pended Solids 1/ week pH 6.0 504 --- 9.0 504 Sewage Treatment 1/ day? Flow'd --- --- --- Plant Discharge 1/ quarter B005 --- 30 mg/l 45 mg/l 1/ quarter Total Sus- --- 90" mg/l 135" mg/l pended Solids 1/ quarter Fecal Coliform --- 200 400 TOUm1 IUUm1 1/ week pH 6.0 SU4 --- 9.0 SU4 Metal Cleaning 1/ batch Flowl0 --- --- --- Discharge 1/ batch Copper, --- 1.0mg/l 1.0mg/l Total 1/ batch Iron, Total --- 1.0mg/l 1.0mg/l C'i V Rev. 5 i
Footnotes for ER Table 6.2.2.1 3 Monitoring program revised to reflect requirements of NPDES permit issued June 29, 1981. 2 Monitoring performed more frequently than required by permit is reported and included in the average. 3Neither free available chlorine nor total residual chlorine may be discharged from any unit for more than two hours in any one day and not more than one unit may discharge free available chlorine or total residual chlorine at any one time. 45U = Standard Units 5 Flow shall be monitored by recorder or pump logs prior to discharge into Lake Wylie. 6 Temperature shall be monitored by grab and/or calculations prior to discharge into Lake Wylie. 71/ Day means eVery day eXCept Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays. 3 Flow shall be monitored by weir or recorder. '3 Flow shall be monitored during sampling and prior to mixing of sewage treatment plant discharge with any other waste stream. 1" Flow shall be monitored instantaneously and/or by calculation. llEffective April 1, 1982. O Rev. 5
p) (g A e-j w) r i : V '%./
, t. ER Table 6.4.1-2 Page 1 of 5 Catawba Nuclear Station Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program Annual Summary Catawba Nuclear Station Docket Number 50-413,414 York County, South Carolina January , 1980 - December 31, 1980 Location w/ highest Ann. Mean No. of All Indicator Non-Medium Type & Total Locations Name Mean (F) Control Locations Routine Sampled No. of Analyses Means (F) Dist/. Range Mean (F) Report Units Performed (LLD) Range Oirection Range Meas.
Surface Water PCI/L 3 Locations MN-54 36 15.00 3.75E-01(2/24) 208 7.48E-01(1/12) 6.49E-01(0/12) 5.76E 00-- 6.38E 00 5.76E 00-- 5.76E 00 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 FE-59 36 30.00 -5.02E-01(1/24) 208 -2.34E-02(0/12) -4.18E-01(0/12) 1.14E 01-- 1.14E 01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.0ud-01 C0-58 36 15.00 7.55E-01(0/24) 211 1.02E 00(0/12) -1.30E 00(0/12) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 CO-60 36 15.00 6.03E-01(0/24) 211 1.06E 00(0/12) 1.45E 00(/12) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 ZN-65 36 30.00 -5.08E-01(0/24) 208 7.58E-02(0/12) -3.97E-01(0/12) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 ZRNB-95 36 10.00 2.70E-01(1/24) 208 1.23E 00(0/12) 9.01E-03(0/12) 5.65E 00-- 5.65E 00 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 1-131 36 15.00 1.28E 00(0/24) 208 2.03E 00(0/12) 8.53E-01(0/12) 0.00E-01--0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 CS-134 35 15.00 -6.86E-01(0/24) 211 -5.64E-01(0/12) 4.46E-02(0/12) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 CS-137 36 15.00 S.65E-01(2/24) 211 2.73E 00(2/12) 2.59E-00(0/12) 6.87E 00-- 8.63E 00 6.87E 00-- 8.63E 00 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 BALA-140 36 15.00 -1.41E-01(0/24) 211 -P.54E-02(0/12) -4.21E-01(0/12) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 Mean based upon all net activity measurements Range based upon detectable activity measurements only Zero range indicates no detectable activity measurements Fraction of detectable activity measurements at specified locations is indicated in parentheses, (F) Rev. 5
ER Table 6.4.1-2 Page 2 of 5 Catawba Nuclear Station Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program Annual Summary Docket Number 50-413,414 Catawba Nuclear Station January 1, 1980 - December 31, 1980 York County, South Carolina Location w/ highest Ann. Mean No. of Non-All Indicator Routine Medium Type & Total Locations Name Mean (F) Control locations Dist/ Range Mean (F) Report No. of Analyses Means (F) Sampled Meas. Units Performed (LLD) Range Direction Range l Surface Water PCl/L 3 Locations 1.87E 02(4/4) H-3 12 330.00 1.83E 02(8/8) 208 1.90E 02(4/4) 1.30E 02-- 2.70E 02 1.30E 02-- 2.70E 02 1.60E 02-- 2.00E 02 Mean based upon all net activity measurements Range based upon detectable activity measurements only Zero range indicates no detectable activity measurements Fraction of detectable activity measurements at specified locations is indicated in parentheses, (F) Rev. 5 O O O
l 9 9 9 ' l ER Table 6.4.1-2 Page 3 of 5 Catawba Nuclear Station Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program Annual Summary Catamta Nuclear Station Docket Number 50-413,414 York County, South Carolina January 1, 1980 - December 31, 1980 Location w/ highest Ann. Mean No. of All Indicator- Non- , Medium Type & Total Locations Name Mean U) Control Locations Routine l Sampled No. of Analyses Means (F) Dist/ Range Mean (F) Report r Units Performed (LLD) Range Direction Range Meas. ! Shoreline ! Sediment ! PCI/KG (Dry) ! 3 Locations j K-40 6 0.00 2.01E04(4/4) 208 2.01E 04(2/2) 2.47E 04(2/2) 1.75E 04-- 2.27E 04 1.75E C4-- 2.27E 04 2.20E 04- 2.73E 04 MN-54 6 0.00 1.27E 01(1/4) 268 2.19E 01(1/2) 2.66E 01(0/2) 6.10E 01-- 6.10E 01 6.10E 01-- 6.10E 01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 FE-59 6 0.00 9.08E 00(0/4) 210 1.82E 01(0/2) -2.10E 01(0/2) ' 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01--0.00E-01 C0-58 6 0.00 2.79E-01(0/4) 208 5.98E 00(0/2) -5.36E-01(0/2) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.J0E-01 0.00E-01--0.00E-01 C0-60 6 0.00 -4.12E-01(0/4) 210 1.47E 00(0/2) 8.87E 00(0/2) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 ZN-65 6 0.00 2.28E 00(0/4) 210 2.70E 01(0/2) -7.41E 00(0/2) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E ZRNB-95 6 0.00 2.73E 01(1/4) 208 4.15E 01(1/2) 4.47E 00(0/2) 8.93E 01-- 8.93E 01 8.93E 01-- 8.93E 01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 I-131 6 0.00 -1.86E 01(0/4) 210 -9.8/E 00(0/2) 4.03E 01(0/2) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 CS-134 6 150.00 -9.74E00(0/4) 210 -1.64E 00(0/2) -1.95E 00(0/2) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 CS-137 6 150.00 3.23E01(0/4) 210 3.92E 01(0/2) 6.62E 01(1/2) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 7.12E 01-- 7.12E 01 BALA-140 6 0.00 1.50E 01(0/4) 210 2.12E 01(0/2) -1.03E 00(0/2) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 Mean based upon all net activity measurements Range based upon detectable activity measurements only Zero range indicates no detectable activity measurements Fraction of detectable activity measurements at specified locations.is indicated in parentheses, (F) Rev. 5
ER Table 6.4.1-2 Page 4 of 5 Catawba Nuclear Station Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program Annual Summary Catawba Nuclear Station Docket Number 50-413,414 York County, Scuth Carolina January 1, 1980 - December 31, 1980 Location w/ highest Ann. Mean No. of All Indicator Non-Medium Type & Total Locations Name Mean (F) Control Locations Routine Sampled No. of Analyses Means (F) Dist/ Range Mean (F) Repcrt Units Performed (LLO) Range Direction Range Meas. Broad-Leaf Vegetation PCI/KG (Wet) 2 Locations MN-54 8 0.00 1.87E 01(0/4) 201 1.87E 01(0/4) -2.88E 00(0/4) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 FE-59 8 0.00 -2.95E 01(0/4) 201 -2.95E 01(0/4) -7.73E 00(0/4) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 C0-58 8 0.00 4.60E 01(1/4) 201 4.60E 01(1/4) -1.44E 01(0/4) 1.60E 02-- 1.60E 02 1.60E 02-- 1.60E 02 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 CO-60 8 0.00 2.71E 01(1/4) 201 2.71E 01(1/4) -2.03E 00(0/4) 5.11E 01-- 5.11E 01 5.11E 01-- 5.11E 01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 ZN-65 8 0.00 -2.20E 01(0/4) 201 -2.20E 01(0/4) -3.66E 01(0/4) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 ZRNB-95 8 0.00 6.73E 01(1/4) 201 6.73E 01(1/4) 6.34E 01(1/4) 2.54E 02-- 2.54E 02 2.54E 02-- 2.54E 02 2.06E 02-- 2.06E 02 I-131 8 60.00 -1.52E 01(0/4) 201 -1.52E 01(0/4) -5.25E-01(0/4) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 CS-134 8 80.00 -2.88E 00(0/4) 201 -2.88E 00(0/4) -1.87E 01(0/4) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0,00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 CS-137 8 80.00 7.99E 01(2/4) 201 7.99E 01(2/4) 2.11E 01(0/4) 4.62E 01-- 1.27E 02 4.62E 01-- 1.27E 02 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 BALA-140 8 0.00 9.52E 00(0/4) 201 9.52E 00(0/4) 3.33E 01(0/4) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 Mean based upon all net activity measurements Range based upon detectable activity measurements only Zero range indicates no detectable activity measurements Fraction of detectable activity measurements at specified locations is indicated in parentheses, (F) Rev. 5 O O O
J > G G G ER Table 6.4.1-2 Page 5 of 5 Catawta Nuclear Station Environmental Radiological Monitoring Prugram Annual Summary Catawta Nuclear Station Docket Number 50-413,414 York County, South Carolina January .,1980 - December 31, 1980' Location w/ highest Ann. Mean No. of-All Indicator Non-Medium Type & Total Locations Name Mean (t) . Control Locations Routine Sampled No. of Analyses Means (F)- Dist/ Range. Mean(F) Report Units Performed (LLD) Range Direction -Range Meas. ILD's MR/ HOUR 10 Locations . MR/ HOUR 39 0.00 1.09E-02(35/35) 202 1.23-02(4/4) 7.25E-03(4/4) 9.00E-03-- 1.30E-02 1.20E-02-- 1.30E-02 7.00E-03-- 8.00E-03 Mean based upon ali net acttv1ty measurements Range based upon detectable activity measurements only Zero range indicates no detectable activity measurements Fraction of detectable activity measurements at specified locations is indicated in parentheses, (F) i Rev. 5 1
+
e mm wwww = me re - rw- e e=m - ww meww- e ,ewm m n--1*mw_ _
-e rmee-seeee== - ew=e,-me-en--e--- *e -_ w - - - - , - - -
ER Table 6.4.1-3 Page 1 of 5 Catawba Nuclear Station Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program Annual Summary Catawba Nuclear Station Docket Number 50-413,414 York County, South Carolina January 1, 1981 - December 31, 1981 Location w/ highest Ann. Mean No. of All Indicator Non-Medium Type & Total Locations 7 ame Mean (t) Control Locations Routine Sampled No. of Ar.alyses Means (F) Dist/ Range Mean (F) Report Units Performed (LLO) Range Direction Range Meas. Surface Water PCI/L 3 Locations MN-54 36 15.00 3.75E-01(2/24) 208 7.48E-01(1/12) 6.49E-01(0/12) 5.76E 00-- 6.38E 00 5.76E 00-- 5.76E 00 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 FE-59 36 30.00 -5.02E-01(1/24) 208 -2.34E-02(0/12) -4.18E-01(0/12) 1.14E 01-- 1.14E 01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 CO-58 36 15.00 7.55E-01(0/24) 211 1.02E 00(0/12) -1.30E 00(0/12) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 CO-60 36 15.00 6.03E-01(0/24) 211 1.06E 00(0/12) 1.45E 00(0/12) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E01 ZN-65 36 30.00 -5.08E-01(C/24) 208 7.58E-02(0/12) -3.97E-01(0/12) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 ZRNB-95 36 10.00 2. 70E-01(1/24) 208 1.23E 00(0/12) 9.01E-03(0/12) 5.65E 00-- 5.65E 00 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 1-131 36 15.00 1.28E 00(0/24) 208 2.03E 00(0/12) 8.53E-01(0/12) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 C5 134 36 15.00 -6.86E-01(0/24) 211 -5.64E-01(0/12) 4.46E-02(0/12) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 CS-137 36 15.00 9.65-01(2/24) 211 2.73E 00(2/12) 2.59E-01(0/12) 6.87E 00-- 8.63E 00 6.87E 00-- 8.63E 00 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 BALA-140 36 15.00 -1.41E-01(0/24) 211 -2.54E-02(0/12) -4.21E-01(0/12) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 Mean based upon all net activity measurements Range based upon detectable activity measurements only Zero range indicates no detectable activity measurements Fraction of detectable activity measurements at specified locations is indicated in parentheses, (F) Rev. 5 O O O
l G G
~
G ER Table 6.4.1-3 Page 2 of-5 Catawba Nuclear Station Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program Annual Summary Catawba Nuclear Station Docket Number 50-413,414 York County, South Carolina January 1, 1981 - December 31, 1981 , Location w/ highest Ann. Mean No. of All Indicator Non-Medium Type & Total Locations Name. Mean (U : Control Locations Routine. Sampled No. of Analyses Means (F)' Dist/ Range Mean (F) Report Units Performed (LLD) Range Direction Range Meas. Surface Water Composite PCI/L 3 Locations H-3 12 330.00 1.83E02(8/8) 08 1.90E 02(4/4) 1.87E 02(4/4) 1.30E 02-- 2.70E 02 1.30E 02-- 2.70E 02 1.60E 02-- 2.00E 02 Mean based upon all net activity measurements Range based upon de'ectable activity measurer.ents only Zero range indicates no detectable activity measurements Fraction of detectable activity measurements at specified locations is indicated in parentheses, (F) i 1 i l l _Rev. 5
i! f '! t' l' $ ! ,i: ; , ! e 5 f nt , oirs f ntoa 5
- o .oupe oNoeM .
3 N RR v 1 e e 8 R 9 g 9 a 1 P 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s - - - - - - - - - r n E E E E E E E E E E E e o n 4b 1 m i t) ) 3 0 0 0 0
- 7. )0. )0. )0. ) 0. )0. )0. )0. )0. )1. )0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4, ce aF c( e 2220202020202020202720
/ / / / / / / / / / /
3e o g 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 1D Lnn ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - 4 aa 4411111101010111011101
- - l eR 0000000000000000000000 0 oM - - - - - - - - - -
51 r EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 8 t 70600060701070305J2230 r9 n 4260103080404000906100 e1 o . o C m , 2220205080704040106710 u1 N y tr ea k u cn oa DJ 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 a F - - - - - - 0 - e ( e E E E E E E E E E - E y M g 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 E 0 r nn a m n
. aa eR
) 2. )1. )0. )0. )0. )0. )9. )0. )0. )020)0 2226202020202820202 0
m n M / / / / / / / / / /0/ u A 2 - 1- 0 0- 0 0 0 0- ) S ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - F t 4411110101111101011 - 11 ( l s 000000000000000000C100 a e - - - - - - 0 - , u h EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE - EE s n g 1590208070005370402020 e n i 0711809040701980609010 s A h . e
/ 2126105010204890103020 h
. m w - - t n a n r n o e nc o i r oo i e t a r t m/c p 3a itP a c at e Nsr 8 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 n 8 t g o ii 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 i n L DD 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1Si. rr 2 d e 4.a o t 6et l uo bNM a Tal li ecn ba ic i d a n s 9 R wc 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i E ai tg 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- s ao E E E E - E E E E E E n Cl 7 0 0 0 E 0 3 0 0 0 0 o id o
r o
) 2. )1.) 0. )0. )0 424640404 .404840404040 0
)0. )9. )0. )0. )0. )0 it a
- R a t s) anF
/ / / / /0/
4 0 0 1 0 0 -
/ / / / / c o
co( e g ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - ( - l l 4411011111011111011111 a iidtsn 0000000000000000000000 d _ t n e nana I car oe EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 1570809020803360403000 ynf se ti _ m lLM l 0721007010207980702050 ei n o A 2116902040202810903010
. lnmc oee -
r - - - rp i sus - v t s n nat E eea smm t e s n r yt -
) eut n D m si e L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 eavm
( L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r ei e s umt r cu 5 5 ayas 1 1 et a mi e e vl m - yi b tt ay ictt s vaci e i ev - a l s 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 t eti n ay cl et i tl d abdc l cae a a no T nm 0 tto or A r 5 4 ecne a & o 9 4 7 1 ne l itC a eor f f 0 4 5 9 5 8 5 0 6 5 6 S
- 1 3
3 1 3 1 A l t sb eea t h p e 4 - - - - - N 1 - - L l dtt St y .P - N E 0 0 N R - 5 5 A a ac T o K M F C C Z Z 1 C C B nce ah r N noit o pd e pund e , u lcy ut N n ao
- b. C u
me d ul s e rtOi in i eGa emK c yn ro s t deeo b esg sann abao dif e ri t 9- - ak pt ri/o ngoc t r ao CY idui e MSU n odIL h eC SSP 3 anra eaer MRZF
,l4iIlliilll1li
f' r p D ( ; ER Table 6.4.1-3 Page 4 of 5 - Catawba Nuclear Station Environmental Radiological Monitorino Program Annual Summary Catawta Nuclear Station Docket Number 50-413,414 - York County, South Carolina January 1, 1981 - December 31, 1981
~
Location w/ highest Ann. Mean No. of All Indicator non- ! Medium Type & Total Locations Name Mean (F) Control locations Routine i Sampled No. of Analyses Means (F) Dist/ Range Mean (F) Report Units Performed (LLD) Range Direction Range Meas. Broad-Leaf Vegetation PCI/KG (Wet) , 2 Locations MN-54 6 0.00 -8.60E00(0/3) 201 -8.60E 00(0/3) 1.84E 00(0/3) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 FE-59 6 0.00 -1.22E 01(0/3) 201 -1.22E 01(0/3) 2.41E 01(0/3) j 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 C'1-58 6 0.00 8.09E 00(0/3) 201 8.09E 00(0/3) -4.24E 00(0/3) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 C0-60 6 0.00 1.57E01(1/3) 201 1.57E 01(1/3) 1.62E 00(0/3) 5.11E 01-- 5.11E 01 5.11E 01-- 5.11C 01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 ZN-65 6 0.00 -3.06E 00(0/3) 201 -3.06E 00(0/3) -1.92E 01(0/3) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 ZRNB-95 6 0.00 5.06E00(0/3) 201 5.06E00(0/3) 1.60E 01(0/3) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 1-131 6 60.00 1.39E 01(0/3) 201 1.39E 01(0/3) -1.53E 01(0/3) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 CS-134 6 80.00 3.84E 00(0/3) 201 -3.84E 00(0/3) -1.49E 01(0/3) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 CS-137 6 80.00 5.91E01(2/3) 201 5.91E 01(2/3) 5.63E 00(0/3) 4.62E 01-- 1.27E 02 4.62E 01-- 1.27E 02 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 BALA-140 6 0.00 2.41E 01(0/3) 201 2.41E01(0/3) -4.19E 00(0/3) 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 0.00E-01-- 0.00E-01 t Mean based upon all net activity measurements Range based upon detectable activity measurements only Zero range indicates no detectable activity measurements Fraction of detectable activity measurements at specified locations is indicated in parentheses, (F) Rev. 5 i
-.,-__m
I i l ) 1 i l ER Table 6.4.1-3 Page 5 of 5 ' Catawba Nuclear Station Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program Annual Summary ! Catawba Nuclear Station Docket Number 50-413,414 I York County, South Carolina January 1, 1981 - December 31, 1981 l j Location w/ highest Ann. Mean No. of
- All Indicator non-
! Medium Type & Total Locations Name Mean (F) Control Locations Routine l Sampled No. of Analyses Means (F) Dist/ Range Mean (F) Report
.; Units Performed (LLD) Range Direction Range Meas. f ILD's l MR/ HOUR
! 10 Locations i MR/ HOUR 38 0.00 1.09E-02(35/35) 202 1.23E-02(4/4) 7.00E-03(3/3) 9.00E-03-- 1.30E-02 1.20E-02-- 1.30E-02 7.00E-03-- 7.00E-03 l Mean based upon all net activity measurements j Range based upon detectable activity ceasurements only l
Zero range indicates no detectable activity measurements i Fraction of detectable activity measurements at specified locations is inc'cated in parentheses, (F) l'ev. 5 l I l l l l l l O O O
3 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACC_IDENTS
- \.)
7.1 PLANT ACCIDENTS INVOLVING kAyION'!IVITY 7.1.1 GENERAL The environmental consequences of a spectrum of postulated accidents involving radioactive releases have been evaluated for Catawba Nuclear Station. Table 7.1.1-1 lists the results of these evaluations. Accidents evaluated in this report are chosen to encompass a wide spectrum of postulated accidents; the environmental consequences of other accidents may be evaluated by comparison. The principal line of defense against accidents is prevention through correct design, manufacture, operation and maintenance. Chapter 15 of the Catawba FSAR contains accident analyses performed to established the design bases for plant safety systems. These analyses use conservative assumptions and their purpose is to assure that the health and safety of the public is protected should an accident occur which may release radioactivity to the environment. This section contains an evaluation of accidents for the purpose of deter - mining their potential environmental effects. The assumptions used to de-scribe accidents here, are more realistic than those used in the FSAR. This is because design basis assumptions are too conservative for use in deter-mining expected consequences. The accident events considered and the principal assumptions used to perform dose calculations are primarily those outlined in NRC Regulatory" Guide 4.2,
" Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations . They have been chosen to include a broad range of accident type and severity so that accidents not analyzed here are adequately represented.
7.1.1.1 Accident Classification Seven of the nine classes of accidents that are listed in Chapter 4 of Regula-tory Guide 4.2 will be examined. Class 4 accidents are not considered because-they apply only to Boiling Water Reactors (BWR's). Class 9 accidents are not considered credible and are discussed in Regulatory 4.2 as follows:
"The occurrences in Class 9 involve sequences of postulated successive failures more severe than those postulated for establishing the design basis for protective systems and for site evaluation purposes. Their consequences could be severe. However, the probability of their occur-rence is so small that their environmental risk is extremely low.
Defense in depth (Multiple physical barriers), quality assurance for design, manufacture, and operation, continued surveillance and testing, and conservative design are all applied to provide and maintain the required high degree of assurance that potential accidents in this class are and will remain sufficiently remote in probability that the environ-mental risk is extremely low." p However, due to a backlog of applications, the NRC requested the applicant to calculate the radiological consequences of a liquid pathway release. This Q evaluation is contained in Appendix 7. Rev. 5 ER 7.1-1 CNS-OLS 1
The accident classes are defined in Regulatory Guide 4.2 as follows: CLASS NUMBER DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT CLASS 1 Trivial accidents 2 Small releases outside the Containment 3 Radwaste System failures 4 Fission product releases to the Primary System (BWR) 5 Fission product releases to the Primary and Secondary Systems (PWR) 6 Refueling accidents 7 Spent fuel handling accidents 8 Accident initiation events considered for design basis evalua-tions in the FSAR. Regulatory Guide 4.2 suggests that probability or frequency of occurrence be evaluated for those accidents (of greater probability than Class 9) found to have adverse environmental consequences. This is to enable environmental risk or cost estimates to be made for such accidents. Because the realistic evalu-ation of accidents which follow indicates that no significant effects result from them, no probabilities of occurrence are presented. 7.1.1.2 Release and Dose Considerations Although there are over one-hundred radionuclides produced in reactor fuel or coolant during power operation, only the most volatile, i.e. , the noble gases (kryptons and xenons) and radioiodines are considered for release and dose consequences evaluated in this section. This is consistent with current h regulatory practice (see, e.g., Regulatory Guide 1.4) and with the fact that the accident events analyzed in this section result in releases only to the airborne environment. Discussions and analyses of the dose consequences from airborne releases of other radionuclides may be found in the literature (e.g., References 1, 2, 3 and 4). For accidents of the type and severity considered below, noble gases and radioiodines are the only significant contributors to dose. The dose receptors considered include an individual at the exclusion area boundary (762m), and one at the outer boundary of the low population zone (6096 m). External total body doses (gamma dose) from submersion in a cloud of noble gases and iodines; and thyroid doses from inhalation of iodines to adult dose receptors are calculated. The time of exposure for most accidents considered is assumed to be two hours for the exclusion area boundary (EAB) receptor, and the course of accident release period for the low population zone (LPZ) dose calculation. Catawba has numerous design features to prevent unintentional release of liquid radwaste to the water environment including stainless steel lined sumps in building areas housing liquid radwaste components (FSAR Section 11.2.2.2.4), and radiation monitors to terminate unintentional discharges (Section 3.5.5). Because of these features, no unintentional release of liquid radwaste is expected and water pathway doses are not evaluated in this section. Sections 3.5.2 and 5.2.4 evaluate, respectively, radioactivity releases and doses Rev. 5 ER 7.1-2 CNS-OLS
expected from routine releases in liquid effluents while FSAR Section 15.7.3 addresses an upper limit case.
/-sV) 7.1.2 SOURCES OF RADI0 ACTIVITY This section discusses the origins of pre-accident radioactivity inventories.
The basis for and quantities of radioactivity actually released to the environ-ment by the various accidents analyzed in this chapter are described in Section 7.1.3, below. As noted above (Section 7.1.1.2) only radioactive iodines and noble gases are considered for evaluating the environmental impact of accidents in Section 7.1.3. However, the discussion which follows is general and applies to all radionuclides. The principal reservoirs of radioactivity considered for evaluating airborne releases from accident events at pressurized water reactor (PWR) facilities are the reactor fuel, itself, the reactor coolant and, to a lesser extent, the secondary coolant, and the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems. The reactor fuel, the heat source which drives the power cycle, contains radioactivity created by the fission (and particle activation) process. This radioactivity resides primarily in the fuel pellets themselves, although some radioactivity which has, e.g., diffused from the pellets, also resides in the helium filled gap (gas gap) which separates the pellets from the fuel cladding. The reactor coolant transfers the heat generated by the reactor fuel to the secondary coolant via tubes in the steam generators. It contains radioactivity O originating in the fuel from fission product diffusion through minute fuel clad defects (when present), and from neutron activation of reactor coolant U! constituentsincludingnaturalconstituents(e.g., nitrogen, oxygen), chemical additives (e.g. , boron, lithium), and corrosion product impurities (e.g. , cobalt, iron, manganese, chromium). The secondary coolant upon receiving heat from reactor coolant in the steam generators is turned into the steam which drives the turbine generators to produce the station's power output. It contains radioactivity if there are defects in steam generator tubes carrying reactor coolant such that primary to secondary leakage can occur. The evolution of radwaste system radioactivity is discussed in detail in Section 3.5. Sources of radioactivity are discussed in greater detail below (see also Section 3.5.1 and FSAR Section 11.1). Fuel pellet inventories are based on fuel burnup and fission yield considerations as discussed below. Gas gap inventories are based upon Regulatory Guide 4.2. NUREG-0017 (Reference 5) forms the basis for establishing primary and secondary coolant radioactivity inventories. 7.1.2.1 Reactor Fuel Inventories The reactor core fission product inventory for loss of coolant accidents, and the inventory of an average fuel assembly for fuel handling accidents are pl s V determined for all but the long lived isotope Kr-85, by summing the products of the fission rates and fission yields for Uranium-235, Uranium-238, Plutonium-Rev. 5 ER 7.1-3 CNS-OLS
239 and Plutonium-241 fuels. The resulting inventories are equilibrium values. Since Kr-85 does not build up to an equilibrium value during the fuel burnup period, which is short compared with the 10.76 year half life of this isotope, its inventory is obtained using the total fissions which have occurred at the end of core life and the fission yields, for each of the fuels. Fission rates and total fissions are determined from the following considera-tions. Fuel design information is used to model the reactor core in OCELOT, a version of the industry standard code LEOPARD (Reference 6). OCELOT is used to calculate instantaneous and average power sharing fractions as a function of burnup and power density for all the significant isotopes of plutonium and uranium. This data along with appropriate power levels, burnups, peaking factors and isotope physics information is then input into a Duke code (FISSION) which calculates the fission rates and total fissions occurring (by isotope) for either a single assembly or a three region core at the instant before shutdown. The noble gas and iodine radioactivity inventories for an average burnup core and single fuel assembly may be found in Table 7.1.1-3. 7.1.2.2 Reactor Fuel Gas Gap Inventories Radioactivity inventories in the gas gap between fuel pellets and fuel pin cladding are based on Regulatory Guide 4.2. Gas gap fractions are shown in Table 7.1.1-3. 7.1.2.3 Reactor Coolant Inventories The radiological consequences of all accidents analyzed below (except refuel-O ing accidents) depend importantly on reactor coolai ' radiciodine and noble gas concentrations. These may be found in Table 3.5.1-1 and are based upon para-meter values shown in Table 3.5.1-2 including a fuel defect level of 0.12 percent which is representative of current reactor operating experience (Reference 5 and 7). 7.1.2.4 Secondary Coolant Inventories Radiciodines in Secondary System fluid streams (i.e., steam generator water, main steam, condensate /feedwater) also contribute (in addition to primary coolant noble gases and iodines) to events involving the secondary side, e.g., a main steam line break, etc. Operating experience indicates that an annual average primary to secondary coolant leakage rate of 100 pounds per day (45.4 kg/ day) is reasonable for evaluating routine effluent release doses (Reference 5). This same value is used to establish pre-accident radiciodine inventories in the secondary system. Secondary coolant radioactivity concen-trations may be found in Table 3.5.1-1 and are based upon parameter values listed in Table 3.5.1-2. A further elaboration of routine release source terms may be found in Section 3.5.1.1 and Appendix 3. O Rev. 5 ER 7.1-4 CNS-OLS
7.1.3 METEOROLOGY f \ V' Atmospheric dilution factors (X/Q) are used for estimating the concentration of radioactivity in the environment, X, when the release rate, Q, is known (see Section 7.1.4). The X/Q's used for estimating the environmental consequences of accidents are derived from on-site meteorological data appro-priately weighted by wind frequency and direction as discussed in Section 2.3 and FSAR Section 2.3. 3 A 50th percentile X/Q = 1.3E-04 sec/m is the atmospheric dilution factor used for calculating the 0-2 hr doses at the exclusion area boundary (762m). The methodology used to determine short-term (e.g., 0-2 hr) atmospheric dilution is discussed in detail in FSAR Section 2.3.4. A 50th percentile X/Q at the low population zone boundary for 0-8 hours is 6.2E-06 sec/m3 for 8-24 hours, 5.4E-06 sec/m3 , for 1-4 days, 2.5E-06 sec/m3 , and for 4-30 days, 9.7E-07 sec/ma , 7.1.4 DOSE CALCULATIONS Two types of doses have been calculated for purposes of analyzing the conse-quences of postulated accidents; external whole body doses from submersion in noble gases and iodines, and internal doses to the thyroid from inhalation of iodines. The submersion dose conversion factors are based upon the infinite cloud equations used in USNRC Regulatory Guides and described in Reference 8. The thyroid inhalation dose conversion factors are based upon a model des-cribed in Reference 3. The discussions which follow describe the basic approaches used. 7.1. 4.1 General Approach to Calculating Doses The dose is established from the following: N D=It j DCF j i=1 Where: 0 = The underDose received rem) consideration by(an individual from the postulated accident N 1 = The summation of the dose contribution from each isotope i=1 i = the ith isotope o N = the total number of isotopes considered O Rev. 5 ER 7.1-5 CNS-OLS
1 '.
= The concentration-time integral. If it is assumed that the time over which the dose is received is equal to the time over which the &
release of the radioactivity occurs, then W Tj = A j ' (X/Q) A. I
= The amount of activity of the ith isotope released from the postu-lated accident under consideration (Curies)
=
x/Q The atmospheric accident dilution factor under consideration (sec/corresponding)to cubic meter the postulated DCF. = A dose conversion factor for the ith isotope (further described I below) (rem / Curie-sec/ cubic meter) The dose calculations apply to the point that the X/Q used applies. Results may be found in Table 7.1.1-1. 7.1.4.2 External Doses from Cloud Submersion The dose to the total body from submersion in a hemispherical infinite cloud may be expressed as follows: N D = 5 C.I 0.25E9'- i=1 Where for the ith isotope: 0 = The underdose received rem) consideration by(an individual from the postulated accident ? - The concentration-time integral as defined in Section 7.1.4.1 I (Ci-sec/m3 ) 0.25 = A constant which converts the airborne volumetric gamma source strength (in Mev/m3 -sec) into tissue dose from submersion in a hemispherical, infinite (with respect to range of gammas) cloud of gamma emitters. This constant includes the density of air, a geom-etry factor of 0.5 to describe the semi-spherical nature of the source (because of the grand plane), the conversion from Mev to rem and the tissue to air electron density ratio. E qj
= The average gamma energy per disintegration (Mev/ dis) 7.1.4.3 Internal Thyroid Dose from Inhalation of Radioiodines The dose to the thyroid from inhalation of radioiodines may be expressed as follows:
N D = BR jfy Tj RPC 5 Rev. 5 ER 7.1-6 CNS-OLS
L Where for the ith radiciodine: O
-V_ D = The thyroid dose received by an individual from' the postulated accident under consideration (rem)_
BR = The breathing rate of the dose receptor (m3 /sec) 9 I
= The concentration-time integral as defined in Section 7.1.4.1 (Ci-sec/m3 )
RPC;
= The thyroid inhalation dose factor (rem /Ci) 7.1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION 7.1.5.1 Trivial Incidents Trivial incidents pose no risk to the general population and are considered to be minor perturbations of normal operating conditions; therefore, they are included in Chapter 5.
7.1.5.2 Small Releases Outside Containment Like trivial incidents, incidents of this category are included under routine releases in Chapter 5. 7.1.5.3 Radwaste System Failure O) ( 7.1.5.3.1 Release of the Contents of a Waste Gas Storage Tank There are six waste gas decay tanks in the Waste Gas System available for station use during operation at power. These tanks are shared by the two reactor units. Waste gas is fed to these tanks from each unit's volume con-trol tank where gas stripping of the reactor coolant letdown stream occurs. For purpose of estimating activity buildup, it has been assumed that only one waste gas decay tank is being used (on line) at any one time which is the expected mode of operation. Each tank is sequentially filled, then isolated. The Waste Gas System is described briefly in Section 3.5.3 and in greater detail in FSAR Section 11.3. Release of the contents of a waste gas decay tank to the environment might occur from, e.g., equipment malfunctions such as valve failure, tank or pipe rupture. System design ensures that failures or malfunctions, should they occur, will not release the contents of more than one gas tank. The environmental source term for this accident appears in Table 7.1.2-1 and is based upon the following assumptions:
- 1) The tank ruptured contains 50% of the technical specification limit of Xe 133 dose equivalent curies.
- 2) The contents of one waste gas tank are released.
- 3) Only noble gases are considered in this source term. The radioiodine v content of tank under consideration is negligible.
Rev. 5 ER 7.1-7 CNS-OLS
- 4) The released radioactivity is transported by the Auxiliary Building Ventilation System (FSAR Section 9.4.3) to the Unit 1 unit vent and then discharged to the environment.
The dose consequences for this accident appear in Table 7.1.1-1. They are based upon the methods described in Section 7.1.4, meteorological considera-tions discussed in Section 7.1.3, and the general assumptions listed in Table 7.1.1-2 in addition to the assumptions described above. 7.1.5.3.2 Release of the Contents of a Liquid Storage Tank Release of the contents of a liquid storage tank is evaluated so as to encom-pass a variety of postulated accidents. The release is assumed to result from the rupture of the floor drain tank, although such an event is highly unlikely. This tank is located in the Auxiliary Building which has no liquid release paths to the environment, thus any spills are not released from the plant without appropriate treatment. Only those radionuclides which become airborne are released. The Liquid Radwaste System is described briefly in Section 3.5.2, and in greater detail in FSAR Section 11.2. FSAR Section 11.2.2.1.5 provides details concerning the Floor Drain Tank Subsystem. The environmental source term for this accident appears in Table (7.1.2-2) and is based upon the following assumptions:
- 1) The floor drain tank is non-seismic.
- 2) Floor drain tank volume is 10,000 gallons (37,8541)
- 3) The tank radioactivity concentrations are at 2% of reactor coolant concen-trations shown in Table 3.5.1-1.
- 4) Floor drain tank fluid is aerated and accordingly the dissolved noble gas content is negligible.
- 5) The only environmental release is airborne radiciodines.
- 6) The fraction of total tank radioiodine inventory released (i.e., the iodine partition factor) is 7.5E-03.
- 7) The released radioactivity is transported by the Auxiliary Building Ventilation System, (FSAR Section 9.4.3 and Figure 3.5.3-1) to the Unit 1 unit vent, and then discharged to the environment.
- 8) No filter removal credit is assumed.
The dose consequences for this accident appear in Table 7.1.1-1. They are based upon the methods described in Section 7.1.4, meteorological considera-tions discussed in Section 7.1.3, and the general assumptions listed in Table 7.1.1-2 in addition to the assumptions described above. O Rev. 5 ER 7.1-8 CNS-OLS
q 7.1.5.4 Fission Products Released to the Primary and Secondary Systems O 7.1.5.4.1 Fuel Cladding Defects with Steam Generator Tube Leaks Minor fuel cladding defects with steam generator tube leaks are included in routine release considerations: environmental source terms in Section 3.5.3 and dose consequences in Sections 5.2.4 and 5.2.5. 7.1.5.4.2 Off-Design Transients that Induce Fuel Failure Above that Expected, Concurrent with Steam Generator Tube Leaks An off-design transient'such as reactor coolant flow blockage or a neutron flux maldistribution can result in elevated reactor coolant and secondary coolant activities because of increased releases from the fuel to the coolant. Such an event would require unit shutdown because of the the potential for high releases from, e.g., the condenser air ejectors and component leakage outside the Containment. Station Technical Specifications (FSAR Chapter 16) delineate conditions for which shutdown is required. The environmental source term for this accident appears in Table 7.1.2-3 and is based on the following assumptions:
- 1) Core noble gas and iodine inventories are those shown in Table 7.1.1-3.
- 2) 0.02% of the core inventory of noble gases and iodines are releaced to the coolant as a consequence of the transient.
- 3) Pre-event primary and secondary coolant inventories are based upon Table
- 3.5.1-1 concentrations and Table 3.5.1-2, parameter values.
- 4) Offsite power is available for the course of the accident allowing the main condenser to be used for unit cooldown.
- 5) Primary to secondary systein leakage (and release to environment) is assumed to stop 8 hours following unit shutdown.
- 6) No filter removal credit is assumed.
- 7) The iodine partition factor in the steam generators during the accident is 0.01.
- 8) All noble gases leaked into the Secondary System are released to the environment.
- 9) The iodine partition factor in the condenser is 0.15. All releases are via the air ejectors (FSAR Section 10.4.2) to the Auxiliary Building ventilation system filters (FSAR Section 9.4.3 and Figure 3.5.3-1) then to the atmosphere via Unit 1 unit vent.
The dose consequences for this accident appear in Table 7.1.1-1. They are based upon the methods described in Section 7.1.4, meteorological considera-p tions di: cussed in Section 7.1.3, and the general assumptions listed in Table () 7.1.1-2 in addition to the assumptions described above. Rev. 5 ER 7.1-9 CNS-OLS
7.1.5.4.3 Steam Generator Tube Rupture The primary and secondary systems are separated in the steam generator by the tubes and tube sheet. Should a leak develop in a steam generator tube, Primary System coolant passes directly into the Secondary System; and, if that primary coolant contains dissolved fission product gases these gases are available for release from the condenser air ejector to the unit vent. Because steam generator tube material is highly ductile, it is more likely that minor tube leaks (evaluated in Chapc.er 3 and 5) rather than a tube rup-ture would be the means of tube failure. However, should a tube rupture occur, it would be identified from a low pressurizer pressure alarm in combi-nation with a high steam generator level alarm from the affected steam gene-rator. Additionally, with radioactivity in the Secondary System, steam gene-rator blowdown liquid monitors as well as the condenser air ejector monitor would alsc alarm. The reactor would then be shutdown and the affected steam generator tube would be plugged prior to putting the unit in service again. The environmental source term for this accident appears in Table 7.1.2-4 and is based on the following assumptions:
- 1) Pre-event primary and secondary coolant inventories are based upon Table 3.5.1-1 concentrations and Table 3.5.1-2 parameter values.
- 2) Offsite power is available for the course of the accident allowing the main condenser to be used for unit cooldown.
- 3) The mass of reactor coolant released to the defective steam generator is 102,259 lbs.
- 4) The mass of steam released is negligible because the main condenser is available for steam dump.
- 5) The defective steam generator is isolated in 30 minutes.
- 6) The duration of plant cooldown by the Secondary System after start of the accident is 8 hours (after which release to the environment terminates).
- 7) All noble gases leaked into the Secondary System are released to the environment.
- 8) The iodine partition factor in the steam generators during the accident is 0.01.
- 9) The iodine partition factor in the condenser is 0.15.
- 10) No filter removal credit is taken.
- 11) All releases are via the main condenser air ejector to the Auxiliary Building Ventilation System filters (pre, absolute, and charcoal) (FSAR Section 9.4.3 and Figure 3.5.3-1), then to atmosphere via the Unit 1 unit vent.
O Rev. 5 ER 7.1-10 CNS-0LS
The dose' consequences for this accident appear in Table 7.1.1-1. They are O based upon the methods described in Section 7.1.4, meteorological considera-tions discussed in Section 7.1.3, and the general assumptions listed in Table 7.1.1-2 in addition to the assumptions described above. 7.1.5.5 Refueling Accidents Fuel handling structures, equipment and tools have been designed to assure that refueling operation can be accomplished in a safe manner. Structures are designed to prevent crane derailment even under earthquake conditions. Hoist load handling capacity is established using conservative safety factors. Fuei hoist load support is accomplished with redundant cables and there are passive restraints as backup in the event of primary support failure. In addition, fuel handling hoists have interlocks which prevent them from operating with loads in excess of 115 percent of a fuel assembly's weight. These design features are expected to prevent a fuel assembly from being damaged during handling. Furthermore, fuel handling tools are designed to prevent their inadvertent decoupling from crane hooks, thus preventing heavy objects from dropping onto fuel. An evaluation of Fuel Handling System safety appears in FSAR Section 9.1.4. Although the' Fuel Handling System has been designed with safety as an im)or-tant consideration, the sections which follow assume system failure so tlat potential environmental consequences can be evaluated. The following assumptions are applicable to all the refueling accidents dis-cussed below:
- 1) Maximum fuel rod pressurization is = 1200 psig.
- 2) The minimum water depth between the top of damaged fuel rods and reactor cavity, and spent fuel pool water surface is ~ 23 feet.
- 3) The fuel assembly inventory is that appearing in Table 7.1.1-3. It is
- for an average assembly which has experienced a radial peaking factor
! of 1.
- 4) Activity released to pool water is only that contained in the gas gap of the ruptured fuel pins. Table 7.1.1-3 contains gas gap fractions.
j 5) The iodine gas gap inventory is 100% elemental. i 6) The pool water decontamination factor is 500 for iodines and 1.0 for noble gases.
- 7) The charcoal filter iodine removal efficiencies for the Containment Purge 1 Ventilation System filters (FSAR Section 9.4.5 and Figure 3.5.3-1) and for the Fuel Handlin i
and Figure 3.5.3-1)is g99%. Area Ventilation System filters (FSAR Section 9.4.2 ' 8) No credit is taken for decay due to holdup in building atmospheres or during transport in the environment. , Rev. 5 ER 7.1-11 CNS-OLS l L
7.1.5.5.1 Fuel Handling Accidents Inside the Containment For these accidents, the Containment Purge Ventilation System is assumed to be in operation during refueling activities, and that all hatches connecting the Containment to the environment are closed. A puff release of activity is assumed to result in an instantaneous release to the environment. No credit is taken for release reduction due to isolation of the ventilation system. Accident-specific environmental source term assumptions are discussed below. Dose consequences for these accidents may be found in Table 7.5.1-1. They are based upon the methods described in Section 7.1.4, meteorological considera-tions discussed in Section 7.1.3, and the General cssumptions listed in Table 7.1.1-2. 7.1.5.5.1.1 Fuel Bundle Dropped Inside t',e Containment An average fuel assembly is inadvertently dropped during transfer inside the containment causing the rupture of an outside row of fuel pins. Since the fuel elements are never removed from the water, any damage to the fuel pins would occur well below the surface of the water. The environmental source term for this accident appears in Table 7.1.2-5 and is based on the following assumptions in addition to those outlined above in Section 7.1.5.5.
- 1) The decay time between plant shutdown and the accident event is 168 hours (i.e. 1 week).
- 2) The noble gas and iodine gas gap activity released to the water from the ruptured pins is 17/264 of the average assembly gap activity shown in Table 7.1.1-3. That is, the fuel pins forming the outer row of the fuel assembly are damaged.
- 3) The release is from the fuel gas gaps, to reactor cavity / refueling canal water, to the Containment Purge Ventilation System filters (FSAR Section 9.4.5 and Figure 3.5.3-1), and then to the airborne environment via Unit 1 unit vent.
7.1.5.5.1.2 Heavy Object Dropped Onto Fuel in the Reactor Core A heavy object is assumed to fall onto the fuel in the reactor vessel, causing damage to the fuel and releasing activity into the water in the reactor cavity and refueling canal. The environmental source term for this accident appears in Table 7.1.2-6 and is based on the following assumptions in addition to those outline above in Section 7.1.5.5:
- 1) The decay time between plant shutdown and the accident event is 100 hours.
- 2) All of the pins in one average assembly are damaged, releasing their gap activity (Table 7.1.1-3) to the pool water.
Rev. 5 ER 7.1-12 CNS-0LS
i i I l l
- 3) The release is from the fuel gas gaps to the reactor cavity / refueling [
l._ canal water, to the Containment Purge Ventilation System filters (FSAR !' t Section 9.4.5 and Figure 3.5.3-1), and then to the airborne environment , via Unit 1 unit vent. l 7.1.5.5.2 Fuel Handling. Accidents Ins'ide the Fuel Building j i for these accidents, the Fuel Handling Area Ventilation System is assumed to ; be in operation during refueling activities so that radioactivity released during the accident is' filtered prior to release. Accident-specific enviornmeatal source term assumptions are discussed below. ! ! Dose consequences for these accidents are based upon methods described in Section 7.1.4, meteorological considerations discussed in Section 7.1.3,.and
- the general assumptions listed in Table 7.1.1-2. !
I i l 7.1.5.5.2.1 Fuel-Assembly Dropped in Spent Fuel Storage Pool i ( An average fuel assembly is assumed to be dropped inside the spent fuel storage ! pool resulting in the rupture of an outside row of fuel pins. { The environmental source term for this accident appears in Table 7.1.2-7 and ; is based on the following assumptions in addition to those outlined above in : Section 7.1.5.5: !
- 1) The decay time between plant shutdown ~and the accident event is 168' hours i (i.e., I week). !
- 2) The noble gas and iodine gas gap activity released to the water from the ruptured pins is 17/264 of the average assembly gap activity shown in Table 7.1.1-3. This is, the fuel pins in the outer row of the fuel assembly are dama0ed.
- 3) The release is from the fuel gas gap to spent fuel pool water, to the Fuel Handling Area Ventilation System filters (FSAR Section 9.4.2 and Figure 3.5.3-1), and then to the environment via Unit 1 unit vent. !
7.1.5.5.2.2 Heavy Object Dropped Onto Spent Fuel Storage Racks A large object is assumed to fall onto the fuel in the spent fuel storage racks damaging it to the extent that the entire gap activity of one average j fuel assembly is released to fuel pool water, j lhe environmental source term for this acc.ident is shown in Table 7.1.2-8 and j is based upon the following assumptions in addition to those outlined above in ' Section 7.1.5.5:
- 1) The dec1y time between plant shutdown and the accident event is 30 days. .l t
- 2) All of the pins in one average assembly are damaged, releasing their gap i activity (Table 7.1.1-3) to the pool water.
O Rev. 5 ER 7.1-13 CNS-OLS i l
l l l
- 3) The release is from the fuel gas gap to spent fuel pool water, to the Fuel Handling Area Ventilation System filters (FSAR Section 9.4.2 and Figure 3.5.3-1), and then to the environment via Unit 1 unit vent.
7.1.5.5.3 Fuel Cask Drop i A spent fuel cask containing ten average assemblies is dropped while being loaded on a railroad car for shipment. The environmental source term for this accident is shown in Table 7.1.2-9 and is based upon the following assumptions:
- 1) The decay between plant shutdown and the accident event is 150 days.
- 2) All of the noble gas and iodine gap activity from 10 fuel assemblies (Table 7.1.1-3) is released directly into the atmosphere.
Dose consequences are based on methods described in Section 7.1.4, meteor-ological considerations discussed in Section 7.1.3, and the general assump-tions listed in Table 7.1.1-2. 7.1.5.6 Safety Analysis Report Design Basis Accidents The accidents described below are among the principal events considered for establishing the design basis for plant safety systems (fuel handling acci-dents and the steam generator tube rupture accident are also design basis accidents). These accidents are not expected to take place, but are postu-lated because their occurrence could lead to significant radioactivity releases to the environment. They thus represent limiting design cases. FSAR Chapter 3 describes station design criteria in detail and FSAR Section 15.4 presents conservative case analyses of the consequences of the design basis accidents. The analysis which follows addresses realistic dose assessments. 7.1.5.6.1 Loss-of-Coolant Accidents A loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) would occur if a Reactor Coolant System pipe were to crack or rupture. The design basis LOCA is a double ended (guil-lotine) cold leg break. FSAR Section 5.2 addresses, in detail, the provisions for assuring the integrity of the Reactor Coolant System pressure boundary so that this event does not take place. Loss of-coolant accidents are divided here, for convenience, into two cate-gories. A small loss-of-coolant accident is the release to the Containment or a reactor coolant system inventory of activity. The large loss-of-coolant accident, which is the Safety Analysis Report design basis accident, is the loss of one reactor coolant volume of primary coolant plus some fraction of the core activity inventory to the Containment. The environmental source terms for the small and large LOCA's are shown in Tables 7.1.2-10 and 7.1.2-11 and are based on the following assumptions:
- 1) Pre-event primary and secondary coolant inventories are based on Table 3.5.1-1 concentrations and Table 3.5.1-2 parameter values.
Rev. 5 ER 7.1-14 CNS-OLS
- 2) All of the noble gases and iodines contained in the primary coolant are released to the Containment.
J
- 3) Small and large breaks are evaluated in the same manner, except a large break is assumed to cause the additional release of 2% of the core inven-tory to the coolant (and thus, to the Containment atmosphere) during the cause of the accident.
- 4) The Containment atmosphere leak rate to the annulus is 0.05% per day of Containment airborne radioactivity (0-24 hr) and 0.025% per day, there-after (1-100 days).
- 5) Containment leakage bypassing the annulus (i.e., bypassing holdup for decay, and filtration via the Annulus Ventilation System filters) is 7%
of the above Containment atmosphere leak rate (i.e., 0.0035% per day from 0-24 hr and 0.00175% per day, thereafter.
- 6) Containment-to-annulus leakage is fully mixed in the annulus prior to filtration and exhaust or recirculation.
- 7) The Annulus Ventilation System is described fully in FSAR Section 9.4.9, and associated operating parameters are described in FSAR Section 6.2.3.3.
- 8) Electric hydrogen recombiners (redundant) areLassumed to function to control post-LOCA hydrogen buildup. Accordingly, it is assumed that no Containment-to-annulus purge for hydrogen control i.s required.
t' (3',) 9) A 20% release reduction credit is taken to account for the effects of plate out, Containment spray and ice condenser removal.
- 10) The Annulus Ventilation System Charcoal filter iodine removal efficiency is 99%.
- 11) The releases to the environment are primarily from Containment, to annulus,
! through the Annulus Ventilation System filter train, to the Unit 1 unit vent, and on to the environment. Containment bypass leakage is directly ( to the environment. l 7.1.5.6.2 RodEjectionAccident An ejection of a rod cluster control results in a loss of coolant accident, l although it is less severe than the large one described above. The environ-mental consequences are calculated in the same manner as the large loss of coolant accident except that only 0.2 percent of the core inventory is re-leased to the coolant at the time of the accident. The resulting consequences
- are proportionally smaller. Descriptions of design features intended to l
prevent this accident from occurring may be found in FSAR Section 4.5.1 and l 15.4.8. l The environmental source term for this accident may be found in Table 7.1.2-12. Dose consequences may be found in Table 7.5.1-1,. They are based on methods p described in Section 7.1.4, meteorological considerations discussed in Section j 7.1.3, and the general assumptions listed in Table 7.1.1-2. G Rev. 5 ER 7.1-15 CNS-OLS t
7.1.5.6.3 Steam Line Break This analysis includes any accident which results in an uncontrolled steam release from a steam generator. The release can occur due to a break in a pipe line or due to a valve malfunction. A steamline rupture would have environmental consequences only if there were primary to secondary leakage prior to the accident. A primary to secondary leak results in the buildup of radionuclides in the Secondary System. The steam line rupture accident would result in release to the environment of at most the contents of one steam generator prior to isolation of the affected steam generator. FSAR Section 10.3.6 describes the materials used in the Main Steam System to prevent this accident from occurring. The environmental source term for this accident may be found in Table 7.1.2-13 and is based on the following assumptions:
- 1) Pre-event primary and secondary coolant inventories are based upon Table 3.5.1-1 concentrations and Table 3.5.1-2 parameter values.
- 2) No fuel failure is caused by the event.
- 3) Accident release duration is 8 hours.
- 4) The initial steam and water release from the defective steam generator is 175,700 lbs. (0-30 minutes).
- 5) The iodine partition factor for the initial steam release from the faulted steam generator is 1.0.
- 6) The faulted steam generator is isolated in 30 minutes.
- 7) The steam release from the unfaulted steam generators is 403,650 lbs.,
from 0-2 hr, and 968,638 lbs., from 2-8 hrs.
- 8) The iodine partition factor for releases from the non-defective steam generators is 0.01.
- 9) All noble gases leaked to the Secondary System are released to the environ-ment.
- 10) No filter removal credit is taken.
- 11) Releases to the environment occur: directly out the break, to the environ-ment; out mainsteam safety and/or power operated relief valves at the doghouse outside of the Reactor Building, directly to the environment.
The dose consequences for this accident appear in Table 7.1.1-1. They are based on the methods described in Section 7.1.4, meteorological considerations discussed in Section 7.1.3, and the general assumptions listed in Table 7.1.1-2. O Rev. 5 ER 7.1-16 CNS-OLS
8.1 BENEFITS b) Ns The benefits of Catawba can be categorized into direct and indirect benefits. Direct benefits are those derived from the value of the generated electricity delivered to customers. Indirect bcnefits include improved system reliability, and social and economic benefits: including tax or payments made in lieu of tax revenues, employment, regional product, and public education facilities. 8.1.1 DIRECT BENEFITS The fundamental measure of benefits to be derived from Catawba is the energy generated and delivered to the customers. Expected net capacity of the proposed units when fully operational is 1145 Mwe per unit, or 2290 Mwe for the total station. The expected annual generation of the facility, assuming a 76 percent load factor, is 15,245,000 net Mwh of elactrical output. The 76 percent capacity factor is an assumed capacity factor based on a mature generating station. It is difficult to quantify the secondary effects that follow the availability of electrical energy from the Catawba units, since it is impossible to distin-guish such effects from those traceable to the availability of electric power from numerous other Duke generating facilities. However, an estimate of the ultimate use of power by certain classes of Duke service area customers based on recent usage is shown in Table 8.1.1-1. South Carolina requires, by statute, that all public utility rates must be just m and reasonable and be set by the South Carolina Public Service Commission. Because Duke's rates are set by regulatory commissions serving South and North Carolina, the effects of a single generating station or unit on the electric rate cannot be estimated. 8.1.1.1 Value of Delivered Products The generating capacity of Catawba is made available through the entire Duke service area. Assuming that revenue contributions by class of customer remain constant until the commercial operation of the Catawba units and that rates for electrical energy remain unchanged, then the approximately 15.2-billion kilowatt hours of electricity produced annually have revenues estimated at $484 million as shown in Table 8.1.1-1. 8.1. 2 INDIRECT BENEFITS Primary benefits other than electricity produced by the facility such as the 4 sale of steam or the use of waste heat for industrial or agricultural uses are not applicable to Catawba. There are other benefits, social and economic, which will affect various political jurisdictions or interests to a greater or - lesser degree. 8.1. 2.1 System Reliability ,
- The importance of Catawba in providing adequate capacity to assure reliability of the Duke system has been considered in Sections 1.1.2 and 1.1.3.
Rev. 5 ER 8.1-1 CNS-OLS
8.1.2.2 Social and Economic Benefits 8.1.2.2.1 Tax Revenues Under present law in South Carolina, new industry is exempt from propery tax, excluding school taxes, for various periods of time depending on the size of the investment. Considering the investment in Catawba, this exemption from property taxes, except for school taxes, will continue for five years. Each year, the York County tax rate is set to bring in revenues sufficient to cover the county's budgeted expenses. In 1981, the property tax millage rate for York County District 2 was $17.81 per $100 assessed value. This millage rate, 178.1, includes 55.4 mills other than the school rate of 122.7 mills. Therefore, tax payments will amount to approximately $20.1 million annually in local taxes for the first five years and approximately $29.2 million thereafter, based on 1981 tax rates. The investment of $2,738,351,000 (Table 8.1.2-1) in generating and transmission 310.9 facilities at Catawba creates approximately $154 million annually in new tax revenues (Table 8.1.2-2). All state and local taxes other than property taxes would go to the State of South Carolina in the form of a franchise tax, power tax, income tax, and several minor taxes. Based on Federal Power Commission data, the estimated State and local taxes (after five years) would be $70.9 million annually. The estimated Federal income tax would be $82.9 million annually. The justification for using + had of determining taxes is that stated in the FPC publications. Experm .e nas shown a significant correlation between the amount of plant investment and the amount of state and local taxes. 8.1.2.2.2 Employment Duke's construction and operating experience provides the necessary background information needed to estimate the socio-economic effects associated with increased employment for Catawba. A 1979 survey of the Catawba construction work force indicates that approxi-mately 17 percent or 518 workers movad into York County as a result of employ-ment at the station. Approximately 849 or 28 percent were hired from the local labor force and 1628 or 55 percent cortmute to the station from outside York County. Table 8.1.2-3 gives the numbers of new resident employees and the associated socio economic impacts of this influx. Amajorportionofthe N skilled labor force it Catawba, drawn from unskilled laborers hired locally, are to be trained under Duke's in-house training program. Duke's experience in training indicates that about 44 percent of the skilled labor force at a job is locally hired and Duke trained (Section 4.1.1.2).
- The estimated total construction labor cost is $607,167,000 as detailed in
. Table 8.1. 2-1. It is anticipated that the majority of this money will be spent in the area.~ -
( l Approximately 846 full-time employees including security, quality assurance, traininc., and maintenance personnel are expected to be needed to operate the station in 194. The annual opfrating payroll is expected to be approximately &
$14,500,000. .
W Rev.~5 ER 8.1-2 CNS-0LS
% 6
i k 8.2 COSTS Catawba represents an expenditure in excess of $2.0 billion in construction costs and approximately $36.9'million annually in station aperating costs. These costs will be borne by Duke and their customers. Additionally, temporary and long-term costs will be borne mainly by area residents and recreational users. 8.2.1 PRIMARY INTERNAL COSTS The primary internal costs.are those expenditures resulting from the construc-tion, operation, and decommissioning of Catawba. 8.2.1.1 Construction Costs Construction costs for the nuclear station and associated facilities are estimated to cost $2,738,357,000 and are detailed in Table 8.1.2-1. Construc-tion costs for a fossil-fueled alternative are presented in Table 8.2.1-1. 8.2.1.2 Operating Costs Duke has developed operating costs (1984 dollars) for Catawba from experience at Oconee Nuclear Station of $36.9 million. 8.2.1.3 Decommissioning Costs s Duke Power t1ree a cammercial Com)any is conducting unit PWR a decommissioning nuclear power station (0conee Nuclear Station This information is extrapolated to a two unit PWR such as Catawba. Three
, alternatives ranging in cost from $34 to $41 million (per unit) are selected in the study as most practical: mothballing-delayed removal / dismantling, entombing-delayed removal / dismantling, and prompt removal dismantling. However, because of the changing regulatory climate and societal pressures, it is assumed that the decommissioning alternative used is prompt removal dismantling.
- Oconeeisestimatedtocost$41million(1977 dollars)perunitforprompt removal dismantling. Because Oconee does not employ cooling towers and Catawba
- - does, it is estimated $4 million (1977 dollars) per unit additional is necessary
- to complete decommissioning. Thus the total cost for decommissioning at Catawba are expected to be less than $100 million (1977 dollars).
- 8.2.1.4 Cost of Generating Electric Energy The estimated cost of generating electric energy in mills per kilowatt-hour for Catawba and a fossil-fueled alternative station are presented in Table 8.2.1-2.
8.2.2 EXTERNAL PROJECT COSTS 8.2.2.1 Temporary External Costs Shcrt-term external costs with'a duration paralleling construction activities l have been relatively minor. The temporary external costs of the project have been insignificant in the areas of housing shortages _, inflationary rentals or prices, noise and temporary aesthetic disturbances, overloading of water supply l Rev. 5 ER 8.2-1 CNS-OLS
and sewage treatment facilities, crowding of local schools, hospital or other public facilities, and overtaxing of community services. No permanent resi-dences were to moved (Catawba Section 4.4-la). Congestion of local streets and highways has occurred at the Catawba site at times of work shift changes, but is minimized by workers commuting in car pools. Also some road rebuilding was necessary. 8.2.2.2 Long Term External Costs The most significant long term external cost would be the impairment of recrea-tion values or alternatives from the Catawba site. The impact of Catawba on the scenic and aesthetic values would be difficult to determine monetarily, but will not be a significant impact. Catawba will employ 846 full-time employees when commercial operations begin. There will be some increase in local traf fic from pre-construction levels, but this will not be a significant impact on the average daily traffic levels. O O Rev. 3 ER 8.2-2 CNS-OLS
i 9.1 ALTERNATIVES NOT REQUIRING THE CREATION OF NEW GENERATING CAPACITY O The three alternatives discussed below, while not viable alternatives to construction of the proposed project, are necessary considerations which must be made in evaluating the project. 9.1.1 PURCHASED ENERGY Purchased energy, as a general principal, is not considered a viable alter-native to the construction of new generation because it does not provide any new capacity to the area, but serves only to shift the site of the new capacity from one system to another. The cost of additional transmission losses and heavy conductor loading, often incurred by wheeling a large block of power from one system to another, work against the objective of utilizing facilities in an optimum manner. The total reserve capcity in the VACAR Subregion of SERC during the summer of 1984, when the first Catawba unit is scheduled for operation, will be 10,121 MW if all facilities scheduled go in service on time. This reserve margin, 31.4 percent, would drop to 8,976 MW, 27.8 percent, if the Catawba unit is not built. In the years following, 1985 and 1986, total reserve in the VACAR Subregion would drop to 7,948 fN, 23.8 percent, and 8,210 IN , 23.9 percent, should the Catawba units not go in service during this period of time. Transmission interconnections among the companies in SERC are based on cri-teria established by SERC for operating' security and reliability of service (^j' * "" '" '" ' "" " " ' " ' " '" ' 5 ' ' ' ' " " "" " ' large block of energy is being transmitted on a firm basis from one system to another within the region. Consequently, additional high voltage interconnec-tions must be built if one company were to purchase such energy. The environ-mental impact of these transmission facilities could be substantial. Due to the nature of the interconnected transmission network, a portion of all transactions between companies in the southeastern quadrant of the United States may appear on the Duke system. In addition, Duke may be a party to these transactions either as an importer of power for its own use or as an exporter of power to other companies. Hence, the specific amount of power which can be wheeled by Duke at any time is a function of the transactions in effect among other companies at that time. Duke historically is able to install generating capacity on its own system at a lower cost than any other system in the southeast. It is not in the best interest of Duke Power Company to nurchase energy from a neighboring system and pay a higher production cost for that energy than it could have been produced on the Duke system, to which would be added the cost of losses and possible wheeling charges. 9.1.2 UPGRADING OLDER PLANTS The two largest coal-fired plants on the Duke system, the 1,900 IN Plant Marshall and the 2,240 IN Belews Creek Station, are expected to operate in or fm near the base portion of the load curve idenfinitely. This is due not only to their low heat rate, but also to the super-critical design of the two larger Q units at Marshall (1,260 IN) and the Belews Creek units. This super-critical Rev. 5 ER 9.1-1 CNS-0LS
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. J
design is not conducive to load-following operation. The largest of the remaining coal-fired plants on the Duke system, the 1,100 MW Plant Allen, is approximately one-half the rating of the proposed Catawba Nuclear Station. Upgrading an older plant as an alternative to building a new station is not feasible for the following reasons: (1) The two largest plants on the Duke system which conceivably could be upgraded due to their size, Marshall and Belews Creek, are already committed to base load operation for the foreseeable future. (2) Plant Allen, the largest of the remaining older plants, is severly restricted by existing site constraints, and could not physically be expanded to triple its present size. In addition, the entire trans-mission system emanating from Plant Allen, and in the general area of the plant, would have to be rebuilt to include not only much heavier conductor on existing lines, but also a number of new cir-cuits in an area of the system where rights-of-way are extremely difficult and expensive to acquire. (3) Similar conditions would prevail at the other remaining older sites except that two or more of these sites would have to be rebuilt simultaneously to provide the necessary capacity to equal the one Catawba site. (4) A need exists on the Duke system for a major block of generation to operate the load-following portion of the load curve. This large block of energy is supplied by the intermediate pressure steam plants which have that capability. To upgrade these units to base-load operation would deprive the system of an important segment of the generation mix it must have for efficient operation. 9.1.3 BASE LOAD OPERATION OF AN EXISTING PEAKING FACILITY Duke's peaking capacity includes hydro, combustion turbines, and small, older, conventional steam units. Hydro capacity, because of streamflow limitations, can be operated for peaking service only. Combustion turbines, which typically have heat rates in a range of 15,000 to 17,000 BTU per kWh, are far too expensive to operate as base load units in view of the high cost of No. 2 fuel oil and the substantial increase in maintenance required for operation in that mode. The older, conventional coal-fired units, normally used for peaking and for following the daily load cycle, have operating costs ranging from 25 percent to 50 percent higher than base load coal-fired units. Also, as in the case of combustion turbines, the maintenance required for base load operation of these older units would be substantially higher than in their present mode of operation. This would reduce the reliability of the system as a whole as well as increase the cost of operation. O Rev. 1 ER 9.1-2 CNS-OLS
L 9.2 -ALTERNATIVES REQUIRING THE CREATION OF NEW SENERATING CAPACITY As described in Section 1.1, system planning studies show that substantial amounts of additional generation are needed in the 1983-1985 period in order to meet predicted future load requirements and maintain adequate reserve margins. Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), solar power, tidal power, fusion and other sources l of energy are reviewed as alternatives to Catawba. Based on the time of need
- i of this additional generation, none of these sources provides a practical alternative. Coal and nuclear are the only reasonably viable alternatives to
- consider. Duke continues to review these other energy sources for their
~
availability and practicality for future generation needs. I 9.2.1 SELECTION OF CANDIDATE AREAS Due to projected demands and needs of neighboring utilities, transmission cost, etc., there is no economic or environmental advantage to consider sites outside the Duke Service Area. As shown in Figure 9.2.1-1, the Duke Power Company Service Area covers approx- , imately 20,000 square miles (5.18 X 106 ha) in the Piedmont sections of North t i and South Carolina. The major load areas are served by a transmission network i throughout this total area. Whenever the generalized location or region ' within the service area is considered for a possible power plant site, a major criterion is the relationship of the site to the transmission network. In order to minimize environmental effects and capital costs of required new transmission lines, the future capacity, together with that in operation and under construction, is analyzed in detail with relation to the existing and predicted loads. Also, since all modern base-load generation requires large supplies of cooling water, a second major criterion for initial location of
- potential sites for further study is the availability of cooling water. For l this purpose, the entire service area is considered as being divided into the j following four " Load-Generation Regions"
- 1. Greenville-Anderson (Savannah River)
J 2. Spartanburg-Shelby (Broad River) j 3. Hickory-Charlotte (Catawba River) ! 4. Winston-Salem-Durham (Yadkin River) Approximate boundaries for geographical areas comprising these regions gener- i ally correspond with the four major river basins in the service area as shown on Figure 9.2.1-1. Duke's transmission system is developed to allow installation of new generation on an economic basis considering the entire service area. The economic advan-l tages of continuous construction at any given new site, may require any of the i four candidate areas to become a net exporter or importer of energy for reason-able periods of time. Overbuilding in any area as a continuous practice is
- uneconomic because transmission facilities must be increased to maintain the l same degree of system reliability.
i The following is a brief description of the composition and extent of each j region including their relative location, major water resources, the nearby Rev. 1 ER 9.2-1 CNS-OLS I e ,.,------.--_-_n~-,, ,--. , . . . , .-----, +.,-._ n. =-.-n,--_,,--n..- --,r.c-. - , -, - , - . . . - , . , , -n., . - - , ,
load centers considered to be served within their designated area, and the primary generation capacity located in the area:
- 1. Greenville-Anderson Region - (Savannah River) The area is on the south-western end of the service area comprising portions of the Savannah, Keowee, and Saluda River basins. Major load centers are Anderson, Seneca, Greenville, Greenwood, and Laurens, S. C. Existing or under construction primary generation plants in this region are:
Lee Steam Station (Coal) 323 FN Keowee Hydro Station 140 FN Oconee Nuclear Station 2580 MW Jocassee Pumped Storage Station 610 FN Total 3653 MW (by 1985)
- 2. Spartanburg - Shelby Region - (Broad River) Adjacent to the Greenville-Anderson Region on the east. The Green, Broad and Pacolet Rivers are drainage areas in this region. MajorcentersservedareHendersonville and Shelby, N. C., and Spartanburg, Gaffney, Union, and Chester, S. C.
Thermal generation in this region consists of the following: Cliffside Steam Station (Coal) 770 FN Total 770 FN (by 1985)
- 3. Hickory-Charlotte Region (Catawba River) The region is a sprawling, highly populated industrial and commercialized complex near the center of the service area which approximately coincides with the Catawba River drainage basin in both North Carolina and South Carolina. Majorregion load centers are Marion, Morganton, Hickory, Statesville, Concord-Kannapolis, Monroe, Gastonia, and Charlotte 7 N. C., and Rock Hill and Lancaster, S. C. The major portion of Duke s generation capacity is located in this Region:
Marshall Steam Station (Coal) 1900 MW Allen Steam Station (Coal) 1100 FN Riverbend Steam Station (Coal) 448 FN McGuire Nuclear Station 1981-1983 2360 MW Cowans Ford Hydro Station 372 FN Total 6180 FN (By 1985)
- 4. Winston-Salem-Durham Region - (Yadkin River) This region is the northern-most and largest of the four with heavy industrial, commercial, and residential loads. Main river basins are the Yadkin and Dan Rivers with only upper portions of the Neuse and Cape Fear basins within Duke Service Area. The major load centers scattered through the region include Elkin, Mount Airy, Salisbury, Albemarle, Lexington, Winston-Salem, High Point -
Greensboro, Reidsville, Leaksville, Burlington and Durham, North Carolina. The primary generation stations in this region are: O Rev. 5 ER 9.2-2 CNS-OLS
9.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON OF CANDIDATE SITE-PLANT ALTERNATIVES Following reconnaissance level site plant selection, site plant alternatives aresubjectedtoamorerigorousdetailedanalysis. This analysis addresses both economic and environmental costs associated with each alternative. Many ofthesecosts,orcriteria,aresubjectiveandnonquantifiable. 9.3.1 SITE-PLANT ALTERNATIVES Because of the differing economic and environmental costs associated with cooling systems, fuel alternatives, etc., separation of site alternatives from plant alternatives is impractical. Resulting from rules promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency in October, 1974, and at the suggestion of the then Atomic Energy Commission and now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Catawba design was modified to permit the use of closed cycle cooling towers. Resulting from the above decision, the only alteratives considered utilize cooling towers with waste heat dissipation. Table 9.3.1-1 is an economic comparison of the site plant alternatives con-sidered. Table 9.3.1-2 is an environmental comparison of these same alterna-tives. The location and description of these sites is given in Section 9.2. 9.3.2 FUEL ALTERNATIVES Coal is the only viable alternative to uranium as a fuel for the Catawba units. Oil and natural gas are already considered to be in limited supply; s use of these fuels would serve to increase the expenditure of already limited supplies of these fuels causing imports to increase. Other energy sources such as solar, geothermal, MHD, etc. do not yet have the technical capability for the capacity of the Catawba units. A comparison of fossil vs. nuclear economics is given in Table 9.3.2-1. When compared to coal, a nuclear plant also offers several environmental advantages. Fission releases the necessary heat needed to generate steam instead of using a combustion process; therefore there is no significant air pollution generated by a nuclear unit. Both old and new coal units are closely scrutinized for proper air pollution control. The addition of precipitators and flue gas desulfurization is common; installing this equipment on aew units is con-sidered mandatory. Water used for transporting these wastes must be completely recycled or properly treated before release, either of which involves additional expensive equipment beyond today's plant needs. In addition, the wastes collected as a result of these processes must be disposed of which results in devoting many acres of land to this purpose. Not only is this environmently disadvantageous, but this pollution control equipment is quickly closing the gap between nuclear and fossil capital costs. Operating and maintenance costs for nuclear and coal alternatives are also getting closer since flue gas desulfurization equipment has so far proven to be costly to operate. The radioactivity released to the environment in either alternative is well within permissible limits. b a Rev. 5 ER 9.3-1 CNS-OLS
Catawba requires about 11 truck shipments of new fuel per year. The coal-fired altornative requires about 150 train cars of fuel per day. The nuclear alternative, assuming a reprocessing alternative is allowed, generates about 189 cubic feet (5.4 m3) of highly radioactive wastes per year that must be stored and isolated from the environment. In addition, some liquid radio-active wastes are released to the reservior. These relases are well within permissible limits. The coal-fired alternative generates about 33 million cubic feet (9.3 X 105 m3) of virtually useless ash per year. No estimates are available for the additional amount of scrubber sludge that would have to be disposed of. Ash and sludge storage conflict with other beneficial land uses. No credit is taken for the difference in environmental impact between nuclear and fossil transportation of fuel and waste. It is estimated that Catawba will utilize 250,000 pounds (113,500 Kg) of uranium per year; however the spent fuel assemblies will contain retrievai;1e fissile material that can be reprocessed should this alternative be pursued. If Catawba were a coal-fired station of the same capacity, it would consume about 5 million tons (5 million metric tons) of coal annually. The risk to the health and safety of the general public from an accident which releases radioactivity may be greater for a nuclear station than for a conven-tional coal-fired alternative. The spectrum of possible accidents that release radioactivity ranges from insignificant to serious. In each case, the design features and administrative procedures for nuclear stations work to reduce the probability of accidents and their associated environmental consequences. There is no credible accident, that when evaluated realistically, significantly affects the health and safety of the public. O Rev. 5 ER 9.3-2 CNS-OLS
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ; Section Page 10.0 PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ER 10.1-1 l 10.1 COOLING SYSTEMS ER 10.1-1 10.1.1 CLOSED-CYCLE COOLING TOWERS ER 10.1-1 I 10.1.1.1 Circular Mechanical Draft Towers (Selected System) ER 10.1-1 1 10.1.1.2 Rectangular Mechanical Draft Towers ER 10.1-1 -i 10.1.1.3 Natural Draft Towers ER 10.1-1 10.1.2 _ OPEN CYCLE COOLING TOWERS. ER 10.1-1 10.1.3 DRY COOLING TOWERS ER 10.1-2 10.1.4 LAKE COOLING ER 10.1-2 ! 10.1.4.1 Once Through Cooling ER 10.1-2 l 10.1.4.2 Once Through Cooling With A Holding Pcnd ER 10.1-3 ! 10.1.4.3 Sparger System ER 10.1-3 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 10.1 - ER 10.1-4 10.2 INTAKE SYSTEMS ER 10.2-1 ! 10.2.1 BANKSIDE OF COVE STRUCTURE (SELECTED SYSTEM) ER 10.2-1 i' 10.2.2 END-0F-C0VE STRUCTURE ER 10.2-1 10.2.3 MOUTH-0F-C0VE STRUCTURE ER 10.2-1 10.2.4 SEPARATE SERVICE WATER AND MAKE-UP STRUCTURE ER 10.2-1 10.2.5 PERFORATED PIPE INTAKE WITH OFF-RIVER PUMP STRUCTURE ER 10.2-2 [ 10.2.6 INFILTRATION BED INTAKE WITH OFF-RIVER PUMP STRUCTURE ER 10.2-2 10.3 DISCHARGE SYSTEMS ER 10.3-1 10.3.1 MULTIPORT DISCHARGE STRUCTURE ER 10.3-1
-10.3.2 PIPE DISCHARGE INTO LAKE ER 10.3-1 10.4 CHEMICAL WASTE TREATMENT - ER 10.4-1 0 10.5 BIOCIDE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES ER 10.5-1 Rev. 5 ER 10i e
+--,--,---,--+..-~.-,,,--e.,,----.n.-,,---,~w-a .- --,,w ,- , , ..--,.+,,,,no ,- ---v---- , - ---------,n.m w-
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page 10.6 SANITARY WASTE SYSTEM ER 10.6-1 10.6.1 SEPTIC TANK, SAND FILTER, AND DRAIN FIELD ER 10.6-1 10.6.2 SEWAGE LAGOON ER 10.6-1 10.7 LIQUID RADWASTE SYSTEMS ER 10.7-1 10.8 GASEOUS RADWASTE SYSTEMS ER 10.8-1 10.9 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES ER 10.9-1 O i 1 1 1 1 1 O\ l ER 10ii
- 1
em ' 10.0 PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES / Q)s 10.1 C0OLING SYSTEMS The design of Catawba Nuclear Station, located on a peninsula extending into Lake Wylie hydroelectric impoundment, considers several alternative cooling systems for rejecting waste heat from the condenser cooling water. These systems include the proposed system, circular mechanical draft cooling towers, and alternative systems: rectangular mechanical draft towers, natural draft towers, open cycle cooling towers, dry cooling towers, and lake cooling. 10.1.1 CLOSED-CYCLE COOLING TOWERS A cost comparison of the circular mechanical draft, rectangular mechanical draft, and natural draft towers is given in Table 10.1.1-1. The costs include majorequipmentcost,constructioncost,andpumpingandperformancepenalties. Environmental cost of these three closed cycle cooling alternatives is given in Table 10.1.1-2. Supplemental details are presented in Subdivisions 10.1.1.1, 10.1.1.2, and 10.1.1.3. 10.1.1.1 Circular Mechanical Draft Towers (Selected Systems) The Catawba cooling system, as described in Section 3.4, is composed of cir-cular mechanical draft cooling towers. These towers are induced draft, cross-flow 3 type towers with a base diameter of about 254 ft (78 m) and a height of 70 ft (V (21 m). A plant layout showing the circular mechanical draft towers is shown in Figure 2.1.1-3. Tower details are given in Table 10.1.1-3. 10.1.1.2 Rectangular Mechanical Draft Towers Rectangular mechanical draft towers are an alternative for the proposed cooling system described in Section 3.4. The rectangular towers are induced draft, crossflow type towers with base dimensions of about 87 ft by 500 ft (27 m by 152 m) and a height of about 64 ft (20 m). A plant layout with rectangular mechanical draft towers is shown in Figure 10.1.1-1. Tower details are given in Table 10.1.1-3. 10.1.1.3 Natural Draft Towers Natural draft towers are an alternative for the proposed cooling system des-cribed in Section 3.4. Natural draft towers operate by the induced flow of air caused by density differences between the warm air inside the tower and cooler air outside. These large hyperbolic towers rise about 426 ft (130 m) in height. A plant layout showing the natural draft is shown in Figure 10.1.1-2. Tower details are given in Table 10.1.1-3. 10.1.2 OPEN CYCLE SUPPLEMENTAL COOLING TOWERS Consideration is given to open cycle mechanical towers to provide supplemental o cooling to lake cooling during critical seasons of the year. Supplemental Q towers are assumed to remove 68 percent of the rejected heat at a 91 percent plant factor. Rev. 5 ER 10.1-1 CNS-OLS
The winter months are the critical design months for the operation of supple-mental towers. The use of towers for winter helpers is not economically favorable compared to closed cycle towers due to the higher tower first cost, higher fan capacity cost, and higher fan operating and maintenance cost. Due to the higher cost for winter operating conditions the open cycle supplemental cooling towars are not a viable alternative to the proposed cooling system at Catawba. 10.1.3 DRY COOLING TOWERS Dry cooling towers are not considered as an alternative for Catawba for the following reasons: a) The turbine exhaust pressure is predicted as 6 to 8 in. Hg (15 to 20 cm Hg) absolute during the summer months. The turbine manufacturers presently do not market a 1200 MW nuclear unit for these exhaust pressures. To operate at these pressures would require multiple units with all the associated equipment for multiple turbine generators. b) The investment cost for a mechanical draft dry tower is approximately three times greater than a mechanical draft wet tower (Reference 1). c) With dry cooling towers, generation costs are approximately 16 percent higher than with wet cooling towers. This results from a much higher capital cost for the dry cooling equipment, plus the high capacity and energy penalties (Reference 2). 10.1.4 LAKE COOLING 10.1.4.1 Once Through Cooling Catawba as originally sited on Lake Wylie could utilize the impounded waters of Wylie Hydro Station for the dissipation of rejected heat. This alternative requires construction of an underwater weir upstream of Wylie Hydro Station to prevent the discharge of the cooler hypolimnetic waters thorugh the hydro station, and a skimmer wall at the Catawba intake cove, Thus the cooler waters are retained for intake into Catawba during extreme weather conditions when the thermal discharge may produce higher than desireable lake temperatures. For this alternative, water is drawn into the plant from the Catawba River arm of Lake Wylie. The water passes under a skimmer wall equipped with movable gates to allow condenser cooling water to be drawn from the surface layers during normal operation. During extreme weather conditions when the upper water is warm enough to produce discharge temperatures higher than acceptable, the skimmer wall can be adjusted so that cool low-level water is drawn through an intake cove to the intake structure and into the condenser. With lake cooling, heat added to Lake Wylie from the operation of Catawba is eventually transferred to the atmosphere by a combination of three processes: radiation, conduction, and evaporation. The increased evaporation caused by this heat load is estimated based on work of Derek Brady of Johns Hopkins University (Reference 3) which concludes that 56 percent of the added heat will be lost by evaporation. Rev. 1 ER 10.1-2 CNS-OLS
- The full load cooling water requirement of Catawba is 4500 cfs (127 m3 /sec) at a 16 F (9 C) condenser rise. By using the latent heat of vaporation, the percentage of heat lost by evaporation, and an assumed station load factor of 80 percent, the induced evaporation for lake cooling would be h cfs (0.9 m3 /sec). This compares to an average evaporation from cooling towers of 47 cfs (1.3 m3 /sec) for a station capacity factor of 80 percent. The lake cooling alternative offers significant cost advantages, due to elemination of large tower structures with associated operation and maintenance expense and reduced consumptive water requirements uue to evaporation. However, the alternative of cooling towers is recommended for Catawba by government regulatory agencies and is selected to assure the licensability of Catawba in a timely manner to meet electrical power generation needs.
10.1.4.2 Once Through Cooling With A Holding Pond By construction of a dike across Big Allison Creek, and a connecting canal between Big Allison Creek and Little Allison Creek additional surface area is made available for heat dissipation. This alternative is not a viable alter-native for Catawba cooling system because of two negative considerations. These are: 1) Construction cf a dike across Big Allison Creek would seriously hamper boat access to a large number of vacation and permanent homes along the creek, and 2) Big Allison Creek cove upstream of the dike would be heated sufficiently to adversely affect fishing, swimming, and other recreational activities. Little Allison Creek cove due to its narrowness would be similarly affected. 10.1.4.3 Sparger System A sparger system uses a series of sprinklers to spray the warmed water dis-charged from the condenser up out of the lake. The proposed location for this system is the Big Allison Creek arm of the lake, and along the Catawba River shore of the site peninsula. During the critical winter months a sparger canal about 26,000 ft (7925 m) long containing approximately 640 spargers would be required to meet water quality standards. The sparger is not considered a viable alternative to the Catawba cooling system because it is still in a developmental stage and is not known to have been reliably proven on a large generating plant of the size of Catawba. Also, the sparger units are likely to create a fine water spray causing object-ionable fogging and icing conditions adversely affecting recreational activities in this general area of the lake. l O I Rev. 5 ER 10.1-3 CNS-OLS
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 10.1 (1) R. M. Jimeson and G. G. Adkins, " Waste Heat Disposal in Power Plants," presented at a symposium on Cooling Towers, American Institute of Chemical Engineers at Houston, Texas. (2) K. A. Oleson, G. I. Silvestri, V. S. Ivins, S. W. W. Mitchell " Dry Cooling Affects More Than Costs, " Electrical World, July 1, 1972. (3) Derek K. Brady, " Principles of Heat Dissipation and Thermal Plumes in Three Dimensions," presented at the Westinghouse School of Environmental Management, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado, July 19, 1971. O O ER 10.1-4 CNS-OLS
10.2 INTAKE SYSTEM 10.2.1 BANKSIDE-OF-C0VE STRUCTURE (SELECTED SYSTEM) The Catawba plant is oriented to take advantage of existing inlets of f of Beaver Dam Creek and Big Allison Creek coves of Lake Wylie for location of the plant intake and discharge structure, respectively. This orientation allows minimization of land areas disturbed during construction, minimization of surface water and lake bottom disturbed by dredging and minimization of piping cost for the intake and discharge system. Redesign of the Catawba cooling water system from a once through system to_a closed cycle system with mechanical draft cooling towers reduces the maximum required intake flow from about 4500 cfs (127 m3 /sec) to about 220 cfs (6.2 m3
/sec). This reduction in withdrawal requirement from Lake Wylie significantly reduces the potential environmental impact of the Catawba intake system.
The selected intake structure is located on the east side of the intake canal. The structure is oriented with its face in line with the vertical wall of the intake canal and is designed in accordance with the "best available technology" for conventional cooling water intake structure as proposed by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The intake structure serves as a support platform for the intake pumps, trash racks, and screens. Details of the intake structure are discussed in Section 3.4. Land area distrubed by the system would be approximately 2.8 ac (1.1 ha). Comparison of the alternative intake systems is summarized in Table 10.2.1-1. 10.2.2 END-0F-C0VE STRUCTURE An intake structure similar to the selected structure described in Section 3.4, located at the end of the intake cove is an alternative to the proposed system. This structure would require approximately 300 ft (30.5 m) less of piping with only slightly greater dredging requirements. This alternative, however, is rejected as unacceptable due to the potential for greater fish im-pingement. This potential exists with a structure located where fish are directed by the sides of the canal and currents to swim directly toward the structure. 10.2.3 MOUTH-OF-COVE STRUCTURE An intake structure similar to the selected structure described in Section 3.4 located at the mouth of the intake cove is an alternative to the proposed system. This system requires approximately 4800 ft (1463 m) of additional piping. The design and orientation of the intake at this location does not offer any environmental advantages to the proposed system. Therefore, the additional piping and pumping cost prohibits selection of this alternative. 10.2.4 SEPARATE SERVICE WATER AND 'MAKE-UP STRUCTURES An alternative to the proposed intake structure is to construct separate intake structures for the station service water and for cooling tower make up Rev. 5 ER 10.2-1 CNS-OLS m
requirements. This is not considered a viable alternative due to the added capital cost, with no consequent environmental advantage of an additional structure. 10.2.5 PERFORATED PIPE INTAKE WITH OFF-RIVER PUMP STRUCTURE The perforated pipe intake structure consists of pipes perforated with 3/8 in (9.5 mm) slotted openings located on the bed of the intake channel, piping to ) a pump structure, and intake water pumps including piaing to backwash the perforated pipes. The pipes are anchored to the bed ay a thick concrete mat. The advantage to this type of system is that very low intake velocities may be maintained to minimize impingement of organisms. The perforated pipe system requires frequent backwashing as the slotted open-ings in the perforated pipe become clogged with silt and debris. In the lake environment at Catawba there are minimal natural currents in the intake canal to carry this backwashed sediment away from the intake structure. This operational constraint eliminates the perforated pipe system as a viable alternative for Catawba. Also, this type structure has the environmental 2 dis-advantage of requiring permanent disturbance of approximately 1700 ft (158 m2 ) of lake bottom. 10.2.6 INFILTRATION BED INTAKE WITH OFF-RIVER PUMP STRUCTURE The infiltration bed intake consists of an infiltration bed of sand or gravel over perforated pipes, piping to the pump structure and intake water pumps including piping for backwashing the infiltration bed. This system has the environmental advantage of maintaining negligible intake velocities to minimize impingement and entralnment of organisms. The infiltration bed system requires frequent backwashing as the infiltration bed becomes clogged with silt and debris. In the lake environment at Catawba there are minimal natural currents in the intake canal to carry this backwashed material away from the intake structure. Due to this operational constraint, the infiltration bed system is not a viable alternative for Catawba. Also, this type structure has the environmental disadvantage of requiring permanent disturbance of approximately 64,000 ft2 (5946 m2 ) of lake bottom. I l O Rev. 5 ER 10.2-2 CNS-OLS
10.3 DISCHARGE SYSTEM 10.3.1 MULTIPORT DISCHARGE STRUCTURE (SELECTED SYSTEM) The Catawba closed cycle cooling system, utilizing circular mechanical draft cooling towers, is described in Section 3.4. Evaporation from the cooling towers is discharged to the atmosphere. Blowdown from the cooling towers is combined with the conventional service water and nuclear service water prior to discharge into Lake Wylie as described in ER Section 3.4. The blowdown discharge is in accordance with a NPDES permit pursuant to applicable state and federal regulations. Redesign of the Catawba cooling water system from a once-through system to a closed cycle system with mechanical draft cooling towers reduces the maximum discharge through the discharge structure from about 4,000 cfs (113 m3 /sec) to 178 cfs (5 ma /sec). This reduction in discharge into Lake Wylie significantly reduces the potential environmental impact of the Catawba discharge system. The Catawba discharge structure is a dual port structure with two 54 in (137 cm) diameter pipes discharging onto a concrete apron. The structure discharges into an inlet of the Big Allison Creek arm of Lake Wylie. The structure is design to allow warm discharge water to float on the surface of the lake with a minimum amount of mixing. This design facilitates cooling and minimizes the affect area (Section 5.1). 10.3.2 Plt t DISCHARGE INTO LAKE An alternative to the proposed near surface discharge to the lake is to dis-G charge the water below the lake surface. This alternative requires the placement of approximately 4400 ft (1341 m) of additional piping along the lake bottom to discharge the water at the center of Big Allison Creek arm of Lake Wylie. Discharging of the water well below the lake surface causes additional mixing of lake waters and slower waste heat removal. This alternative has no en-vironmental advantages over the selected system. It has the environmental disadvantages of disturbing a larger area of lake bottom to place piping, and slower waste heat removal. Considering these environmental disadvantages, the cost of additional piping and the small thermal discharge effect due to the use of mechanical draft cooling towers (Section 5.2) this alternative is not selected. O Rev. 5 ER 10.3-1 CNS-OLS l
. = _ _ - . ---
i l l 10.4 CHEMICAL WASTE TREATMENT l W Water use plans and resulting chemical discharges are discussed in Sections
- 3.3 and 3.6. Effects of these discharges are discussed in Section 5.3. Al-though the present waste disposal methods insure protection of the environment,
! alternative chemical waste treatment systems are being studied. Possible alternatives include: A. Floculation and Filtration: This process could be used to treat the eff-luent from the Conventional Waste Water Treatment System. Chemical additions l l would form a sludge which would settle out and be reduced to a filter cake for dry disposal. If a ferric sulfate {Fe2(SO )3} 4 compound is added to the water treatment floculation process, many of the trace heavy metals are reduced to a low concentration. The net effect would be to reduce the suspended solids in the water. The benefits of such treatment (reduction of the total suspended solids count) are questionable if one considers that the effluent is cleaner than the source of water for discharge. Since the suspended solids concentration is already low (100 mg/l maximum), any reduction is inconsequential in comparison to the increase in other areas of treatment including dissolved solids. l B. Reverse Osmosis, Demineralization, and Vapor Compression Distillation: A system using these processes could be designed to take the effluent from the Conventional Waste Water Treatment System and produce a recyclable make-up water and concentrated waste for landfill disposal. However, for complete efficiency, the floculation and filtration treatment listed as alternative A would have to be a preliminary treatment procedure and would need to accompany this method. Station make-up requirements would be reduced by approximately ( - 190,000 gpd (720,000 1/ day). Hold-up capacity similar to the Conventional Waste Water Treatment System would still be required to allow for waste water ! flow variations. The technological ability to combine these processes into a reliable power station system has been demonstrated. The Vapor Compression Distillation process would require a tremendous amount of electrical power to treat all of the water. The costs alone for this process are out of reason. Evaporation is similar to the vapor compression distillation method but is only applicable in the southwestern regions of the United States. In the l southeast, evaporation and precipitation approximately equal one another. Also serious problems in solid waste disposal of the concentrate without adverse environmental consequences must be considered. Capital and operating costs of these alternative are not currently available. l However, Alternative A is very costly and would provide little if any environ-mental advantage. Alternative B is obviously expensive with the need for huge electrical demand. When Alternative A is included for preliminary treatment and combined with B, the cost is prohibitive. Since the discharge released under the present system produces no significant adverse environmental effects, l more elaborate treatment systems are not justified. l The set of four treatment ponds was selected as the desirable alternative in comparison with individual treatment of the waste streams. With this central l treatment concept, the wastes tend to neutralize themselves thus eliminating l unnecessary addition of acid or caustic for pH control. Since addition of acid or caustic would add to the total dissolved solids load, the basin has economic Rev. 5 ER 10.4-1 CNS-OLS
and environmental advantages over individual treatment. The normal retention time of the system will also allow adequate time for precipitation and set-tling of solids in the waste streams. The Steam Generator Blowdown Recycle System allows cleanup of the secondary side concurrent with Steam Generator Tube Leaks without excessive radioactive discharge to the environment. Slowdown is recycled through powdered resin condensate polishing demineralizers, which remove impurities. When the resins l collect any radioactivity, they will be disposed of through the radioactive Estimates of resin activity Solid Rad Waste System (see FSAR Section 10.4.6.2). resulting from a 100 lb/ day (45 Kg/ day) primary to secondary leak rate may be found in ER Appendix 3, Table 3-1. Although the system is designed for continuous blowdown recycle, it is expected that normally no tube leaks would exist and the blowdown could, if necessary, be discharged by means of the Turbine Building drains (Section 3.5.2.2 Item H) and thence to Lake Wylie through the CWWIS. Monitoring and interlocks are provided to assure that discharges will be consistent with Technical Specifications. O O ER 10.4-2 CNS-OLS Pev. 5
10.6 SANITARY WASTE SYSTEM 10.6.1 SEPTIC TANK, SAND FILTER, AND DRAIN FIELD A septic tank, sand filter, and drain field is one alternative to the extended aeration lagoon and aquaculture lagoon. However, this alternative is dismissed because the size of the plant staff, the operating force, and the refueling personnel dictate that other possibilities be investigated. A septic tank, sand filter, and drain field work efficiently for approximately one hundred fifty people. As the number of personnel are increased and wide fluctuations in flow are experienced, the overall efficiency decreases using this method of treatment. A septic tank, sand filter, and drain field system also give a poorer quality effluent than an extended aeration lagoo.. and aquaculture lagoon unless a regular maintenance procedure is followed. Originally, primary treatment utilizing a septic tank, sand filter, and drain field was satisfactory in the processing of sanitary wastes. However, recent legislation dictates that all sanitary wastes receive primary, secondary, and, in some instances, tertiary treatment. In order to attain this higher degree of treatment capability, the extended aeration lagoon and an aquaculture lagoon were selected. Although the economic feasibility comparing the two alternatives is a viable means of evaluation, this investigation is not the determining factor in the final decision. The earlier statements regarding the overall loading capacity of the network by the station personnel and the requirements to discharge an r 3 effluent that has been processed through primary, secondary and tertiary V treatment are the determining factors in the final decision. The economic analysis will only be introduced into the evaluation if the other factors become more balanced. 10.6.2 SEWAGE LAG 0ON An alternative to the tubular aerated lagoon sanitary system is the multiple package plants sanitary waste treatment system. In the overall evaluation, this alternative is competitive with the aerated lagoon in several aspects. The treatment efficiency from the two systems are basically equivalent with both systems treating domestic wastes to secondary treatment levels. This secondary effluent is further treated to tertiary limits in the aquaculture lagoon (see Section 3.7 for a description of the aquaculture system). However, there are distinct advantages and disadvantages to both systems and these are discussed below. One area of consideration for both systems is the flexibility aspect. The tubular aerated lagoon is not a movable system. The basic construction of the lagoon, involving an earthen dike with a polymer lining, produces a system that is stationary and virtually permanent. The installation of the package plants, although somewhat more flexible than the lagoon, are also awkward systems and are not conducive for moving. Considerations must be made concerning the location of the inflow and outflow piping, the hook-ups to the system, and also suitable landscaping areas. All of these features are basically permanent. O Therefore, neither system exhibits a definite cdvantage over the other in Qi terms of flexibility although the package plants are easier to move if required. Rev. 5 ER 10.6-1 CNS-OLS
Leakage from the systems could also present some problems. The possibility always exists that leakage from either system could cause some groundwater contamination. Leakage from a package plant would be noticed immediately and repaired quickly. Leakage from an aerated lagoon would not be as easily N l l recognizable. Detection might take weeks or months. However, with proper construction of the aerated lagoon basin and t.,e installation of an appropri-ate type of liner material leakage from this system could be expected to be minimal. Therefore, even though leakage is possible from either system, the event is highly improbable and the consequences would be miner. One important consideration of any system is the treatment efficiency on the influent prior to discharge. Regulations dictate the amount of treatment required. Treatment efficiency is dependent on many factors including the amount of waste to the system. Power plants commonly have highly variable j flow patterns. High flows could be predicted during daylight hours and over-time work. Low flow patterns could be expected at night and on weekends. A tubular aerated lagoon is not affected by highly variable flows. With proper design and construction of the lagoon, the tubular aerated lagoon could be expected to handle any variation of waste loading, either 10.. or high. Package plants and septic tanks are not designed for these flow variations and are most efficient at stable flows. If a package plant or septic tank were selec-ted as a treatment system, then an equalization basin would also need to be installed. Another important aspect is the maintenance. The tubular aerated lagoon requires little basic upkeep. The aeration tubes need to be cleansed periodi-cally and the basin should be raked of all floating debris. The package plants, on the other hand, require regular daily maintenance. The annual operating costs of the package plants are somewhat more expensive to operate than other systems because of this aspect. The main objective of the Sanitary Treatment System at Catawba is to achieve a consistent polished effluent with minimal maintenance, manpower, and cost. Originally the package plants were already installed at the site and served as the primary and secondary treatment system. However, when all the factors were considered, the package plants were removed and the extended aeration lagoon was selected as the better treatment alternative. O Rev. 5 ER 10.6-2 CNS-OLS
ER Table 10.1.1-1 Catawba Nuclear Station Comparison of Closed Cycle Mechanical Draft VS Natural Draft Towers MECHANICAL DRAFT NATURAL DRAFT A. Technical Data Rectangular Circular
- 1. Rejected Heat (Btu / hour) 15.8 X 109 15.8 X 109 15.8 X 109
- 2. Tower Range ( F) 24 24 28
- 3. Approach ( F) 12 12 18
- 4. Wet Bulb Temperature ( F) 76 76 76
- 5. Condenser Temperature Difference TD ( F) 6 6 6
- 6. Turbine Maximum Back Pressure 3.35 3.35 4.3 (in, of Hg)
- 7. Condenser Cooling-Water Flow (GPM) 1.32 X 106 1.32 X 106 1.1 X 106
- 8. Ccndenser Delta T. ( F) 24 24 28 B. ECONOMICS (1984 DOLLARS) $ X 1000 $ X 1000 $ X 1000
- 1. Condenser First Cost 6678 6678 6011
- 2. Condenser Erection Cost 814 814 733
- 3. Tubes First Cost 7446 7446 6715
- 4. Tubes Installation Cost 257 257 232
- 5. Towers including yard grading and 21668 24097 20331
; ; basin K_) 6. Electrical connections and motors 7894 7894 3947
- 7. Pumps 3790 3868 2853
- 8. Piping and Valves 11378 8614 8116
- 9. Pump Capacity Cost l 12199 12477 9203
- 10. Pump Operating Cost including 6773 6927 5110 maintenance 2
- 11. Fan Capacity Cost 3 10562 9563 -
- 12. Fan Operating Cost Including 5864 5309 -
Maintenance
- 13. Capacity Penalty Due to Higher Back 47137 44608 86146 Pressure 4
- 14. Fuel Penalty Due to Higher Back Pressure 5 2598 2598 5197 Total 145,058 141,150 154,594 Difference 3,908 0 13,444 Notes:
(1) Pump BHP for 75 ft head and 78% overall efficiency, capacity at $903/KW. (2) Fuel and powerhouse operation and maintenance costs $374/hp, including operation and maintenance at 50% of fuel cost. (3) Capacity penalty at $903/KW.
'^
(4) Capacity penalty at $903/KW.
,) (5) Capitalized cost of fuel for 2 months in a year at maximum heat rate.
Rev. 1 l
ER Table 10.1.1-2 fage 1 of 6 Catawba Nuclear Station Cooling System Alternatives A B C Rectangular Mechanical Draft Natural Draft Proposed Cooling Tower Cooling Tower Base 3,908,000 13,444,000 Incremental Cost (See Table 10.1.1-1) Capacity Factor .76 .76 ./6 Environmental Costs Units
- 1. Natural Surface Water Body None Same as Proposed Same as Proposed 1.1 Impingement or entrapment by cooling water intake structure 1.1.1 Fish l
I
- 1. 2 Passage through or retention in cooling system Same as Proposed 1.2.1 Phytoplankton Numbers per day No Adverse Effects Same as proposed Zooplantkon Numbers per day I 1.2.2 Fish - adults Same as Proposed Same as Proposed ichthyoplankton No Adverse Effects l
- 1. 3 Discharge area and thermal plume 1.3.1 Water quality, excess heat, Higher due to Higher winter conditions (Jan., isotherms 5 F 75 Same as Proposed Feb., March), maximum drawdown acres, 5 F 85 approach temperature 5 F 90 acre-feet Same as Proposed Same as Proposed 1.3.2 Water quality, oxygen avail- None ability <5 mg/l Rev. 5 e e 4
3 4 1 1 -l r l i APPENDIX 7 l t i Radiological Consequences of l a Liquid Pathway Release l 4 l I I l i i l L 6 k i I l l , I i l l l l
,._.m.. . _ . _ _ _ . - _ . - _ _ . - . . . . - . _ _ _ - . - - . -
8:
)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On June 2,1981, D. G. Eisenhut, NRC/0NRR, transmitted Question 240.4, from the Hydrologic Engineering Branch, which reads as follows:
" Calculate the radiological consequences of a liquid pathway release from a postulated core melt accident. The analysis should assume, unless otherwise justified, that there has been a penetration of the reactor basemat by the molten core mass and that a substantial portion of the radioactively contaminated sump water was released to the ground. Doses should be compared to those calculated in the Liquid Pathway Generic Study (NUREG-0440, 1978). Provide a summary of your analysis procedures and the values of parameters used (such as penne-abilities, gradients, populations affected, water use). It is suggested that meetings with the staff of the Hydrologic Engineering Section be arranged so that we may share with you the body of infonnation necessary to perform this analysis."
Subsequently, a meeting was held in Bethesda between members of the NRC Staff and representatives of Duke. At this meeting it was stated explicity, by members of the H.ydrologic Engineering Branch, that no complex modeling tech-niques were expected. The Staff indictated that hand calculations using standard techniques would be adequate for the level of detail they were seeking. O O 1
2.0 ACCIDENT SCENARIO The PWR-7 scenario from WASH-1400 utilized in this analysis, hypothesizes the following accident beyond the design bases. N a) Loss of Coolant Accident caused by a double ended pipe break on the cold < leg. b) Emergency Core Cooling System fails to cool the core. c) Core melt through reactor vessel and basemat. d) Migration of radionuclides via the groundwater to nearest water body (i.e. Lake Wylie). e) Population doses from drinking contaminated water. In addition, the assumption is made that 100% of the Cesium and 24% of the Strontium in the core inventory is released. (LPGS, Table A-8) A permanent Category I groundwater drainage system is installed to create and pemanently maintain a nomal groundwater level at or near the base of the foundation mat and basement walls thus eliminating the uplift and hydrostatic forces. This groundwater drainage system consists of foundation underdrains and continuous exterior wall drains. The foundation underdrain consists of a grid of interconnected flow channels at the top of the excavated rock or at the top of fill concrete on approximately 20 foot centers. Combined with the foundation underdrain is a continuous exterior wall drain. This exterior wall drain consists of a 2 foot minimum thickness zoned sand and stone filter placed vertically from the bottom of the excavation up to an elevation of 589+0 msl and a 12 inch diameter perforated corrugated metal pipe which is continuous horizontally around the c :terior wall near the bottom of the:oned filter. Both filter layers conduct seepage to the perforated drain pipe. The foundation underdrains and the exterior wall drains discharge into three sumps located adjacent to the Auxiliary Building. Groundwater collected in these sumps is pumped to the yard storm drainage system. Consequently, a core melt accident as postulated above coulo quickly release radionuclides to the environment by discharging contaminated groundwater through the yard drain system. To prevent an accidental pumping of contaminated water into Lake Wylie radiation monitors can be installed on the underdrain sumps. l. O 2
y t' 'Y 3.0 Af1ALYSIS , WASH-1400 postulates that the core melt will penetrate downward through the basemat into the underlying rock formations forming a cylinder of rubble' l i 70 feet.(21.3m) in diameter and 50 feet (15.2m) deep. From the Catawba FSAR, Lf Figures 2.5.1-16, 2.5.1-18, 2.5.1-21, and 2.5.1-12A the elevation of the 1 ; bottom of the basemat in the area around the Reactor Building is given as 538.5 feet. Thus, the rubble zone extends from elevation 538.5 to elevation li 488.5 The rock formation affected by this postulated meltdown is medium grained faintly foliated adamellite. At the onset of the postulated meltdown, the operation of the underdrain system could be discontinted, eventually rendering the site similar to the land, - based case in the Liquid Pathway Generic Study (flVREG-0440). ,$ Once operation of the underdrain system is discontinued, groundwater wou d l begin to recharge the area around the station. For the purposes of this I study, it is assumed that a complete recharge occurs and the piezometric level I of the groundwater rises to elevation 585.0 before penetration of the basemat i by the molten core occurs. After penetration of the basemat, water will flow l into the Reactor Building in order to equalize the piezometric level of the l groundwater oustide of the structure and the level inside the containment. l Once this is complete, it is possible for the contaminated groundwater to l commence migrating toward Lake Wylie in a radial configuration. Travel would' ; l be fastest along the path having the highest permeability. According to the~ l permeability tests at the site, the highest value is 1761 f t/ year (1.7x10~5 O N cm/sec)(FSAR Table 2.4.13-4).
\!'
It can be assumed that thetotime necessary forcan thebegroundwater levels inside'Y ' [ and outside the containment reach equilibrium be added to the ' migration time, since no groundwater will be flowing away from the stationN > until the Reactor Building has been filled to the water table. However, .for *i conservatism, the time necessari-for this condition to occur has been omitted ~ T from the calculations, thereby assuming an instantaneous release consistent - - , with the analysis scheme used in fiUREG-0440. After the equilibrium condition has occurred, the groundwater will move at i a speed dependent on the hydraulic gradient. The hydraulic gradient (i) is ' the difference between the elevations of the lake and the station yard ' l groundwater elevation divided by the distance to the lake. From the FSAR, Section 2.4, the elevation of the lake is given as 569.4 ft msl (173.6m). The equilibrium elevation of the site groundwater is given as 585 f t msl (178.4 m) and the shorest distance to the lake is given as 750 ft (228.7m). I i = (585.0 - 569.4)/750
= .0208 With an effective porosity of .05 and a permeability of 1761 f t/ year (FSAR 2.4) the groundwater velocity is: ,
V=Kh i/SY l O = (1761 ft/yr)(.0208)/.05-
= 732.58 f t/ year (7.08x10 cm/sec) !
3 - - I
Therefore, the time for the groundwater to migrate the 750 f t is 1.02 years. The rate of mcvement of radioactive contaminants depends on the composition of the waste, composition of the soil and the rate of movement of the groundwater. The radioactive contaminant will move slower than the ground,;ater because ft will be absorbed to some degree, by soil particles. A relationship has been developed which provides an estimate of the effect of ion absorptien on the travel time of a radioactive contaminant. This relationship may be expressed as: tc = l_ + l_9)Kd tn tc = Travel . time 8 = Bulk density ='l.925 g/ml P = Porosity = .30 Vd = Distribution coefficient (ml/g) Tw = Time of Travel for groundwater The distribution coefficients for the three radionuclides under consideration are 10 for Stronium-90, O foe T ri ti ut', and 83 fcr Cesium-137. With these factors, the travel times are: 5trontium 90 46 years Cesium 137 '374 years Tri tium 1 year Source terms for these isotopes are taken from Tables A-7 and A-8 of the Liquid Pathway Generic Study (NUREG-0440) and are 24 percent of the initial inventory for SR-90 (6.1x10 , curies), and 100 percent of the initial inventory for Cs-163 6 (8.6x10 6 curries), and for tritium (5.9x10' curies). A
=
Ini/t Using half life <abes of 28.1 years for Sc-90', 30 years for Cs-137, and 12.3 years for H-3, the decay constants are.
~2 A = .0247 years Sr-90 M
>cg_33, = .0231 years
= .0564 years -
'H-3 Therefore, the values of decayed activity are:
A=Aeo -Atc A = (6.1x106)(.24)(e( .0247)(46))= 4.7x10 5 curies Sr-90 A = (8.6x10 6 curies
)(1.0)(e( .0231)(37)) = 1.5x103 Cs-137 H-3 = (5.9x104)(1.0)(e( .0564)(1)) = 5.6x10" curies A
Travel times for these isotopes are greater than the travel times listed in the land based case as shown in Table 6.2.1 of the LPGS. O 4
Computations of dose were made using LADTAP I. The largest contribution to the dose was the drinking water pathway, with all other pathways being very small by comparison. In the event of a postulated core melt accident, fishing and swimming near the plant would be prohibited until such time as the dose was within limits. Due to these prohibitions, it is reasonable to consider only the drinking water pathway. Parameters used for the LADTAP I run include the following: a) Adult population of 151,200 (72% of 210,000) b) Average consumption of 37 liters / year per Regulatory Guide 1.109 c) Intake at Rock Hill, South Carolina d) Dose factors per Regulatory Guide 1.109 e) Transit time of 12 hours per Regulatory Guide 1.109 O f i O
4.0 INTERDICTION There are primarily two viable options for interdicting the radio-isotopes following a core meltdown: T a) Pump water out of the ground around the Reactor Building. This way, radio isotopes can be drawn out of the ground and recovered. Possible alternatives include pumping out of the Reactor Building basement into the Auxiliary Building or by sinking wells in strategic locations around the station to create a cone of depression to retard the groundwater migration. In any event, because of the slow travel times, there will be sufficient time to initiate actions that will prevent the radion-nuclides from reaching the lake, b) Due to extremely long travel times for the radio isotopes to move through the soil and rock fonnations, it appears that a feasible option is to allow the ion absorption, characteristics of the soil and rock to reduce the effect of the postulated accident. In the event that this option is exercised, it would be necessary to monitor the movement of the radio-nuclides and groundwater. c) Due to inherant low permeabilities of site soils and rock we conclude that an expensive and time consuming process of installing slurry walls or other type cut-off methods will not provide any significant additional assurance of minimizing flow of containment to the lake. The most effective means for intercepting and removal of contaminents is to pump to a hold up area from existing sumps or wells which can be drilled in a matter of days. O 6
9 5.0
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSION In the event of a Class 9 Accident at the Catawoa site, the travel times for SR-90, Cs-137, and H-3 (45, 374,and 1 year respectively) via the liquid path-way are either greater than or equal to the travel timee estimated Doses in the for this Liquid Pathway Generic Study for the land based river case. postulated accident, therefore, are also less than or equal to those given in the LPGS for comparable sites. Interdiction of this postulated accident will depend on the exact condition of the event but at the very least can include shutting down the underdrain Other options system to prevent radionuclides from being pumped to the lake. can be exercised to further minimize the consequences of the postulated accident.
,/
l t
,f h
)
x 7
-_._ __ _ __ _ _ - - ~ _ _ _ _ . _
7___- i i e,x lk j / REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 240.' The description of low flow periods on the Catawba River at Lake Wylie
- does not give an adequate picture of the effects of droughts on plant
! operation. Provide analysis of droughts, including at least the l drought of record, showing the effects on water levels in Lake Wylie [ in relation to minimum required levels at the intake structures. The l analyses should include both the frequency and duration of shutdowns i of the plant due to inadequate water supply or low water levels. (Refer also to Section 3.3.2) , Response: Section 2.4.1.1
- 240.2 Provide your estimate of the frequency of the assumed drought for
- the SNSWP. Also, Section 2.4.1.1 seems to indicate that an intake i from Lake Wylie to the SNSWP is provided,'but Section 2.4.3 does not l discuss this. Please clarify and if makeup can be provided, provide this range of water levels at which the intake can operate.
Response: Section 2.4.3
'240.3-a Provide descriptions of the floodplains (as defined in Executive Order 11988) of all water bodies, including intermittent water courses; within or adjacent to the site. On a suitable scale map, provide delineations of those areas that will be flooded du'ing the i one percent chance flood in the absence of plant effects (i.e., {
~ pre-construction floodplain). l Response: Section 2.4.1.1 240.3-b Provide details of the methods used to determine the floodplains in response to a. above. Include your assumptions of and bases for the i pertinent parameters used in the computations of the one percent - !
flood flow and water elevation If studies approved by Flood Insurance l Administration (FIA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or the l CorpsofEngineersareavailableforthesiteoradjoiningarea,the ! details of analysis need not be supplied. You can instead provide the reports from which you obtained the floodplain information. Response: Section 2.4.1.1 1 Identify, locate on a map, and describe all structures, construction ! 240.3-c activities, and topographic alterations in the floodplains. Indicate ! the status of each such structure, construction activity and topo-graphic alteration (in terms of start and completion dates) and work l presently-completed. , Response: Section 2.4.1.1 ! i 240.3-d Discuss the hydrologic effects of all items identified in c. above. Discus.s the potential for altered flood flows and levels, both f} v upstream and downstream. Include the potential effects of debris ! I i RAI-1 l u.... .. .
accumulating on the plant structures. Additionally, discuss the effects of debris generated from the site on downstream facilities. Response: Section 2.4.1.1 240.3-e Provide the details of your analysis used in response to d. above. The level of detail is similar to that identified in item b. above. Response: Section 2.4.1.1 240.3-f Identify non-floodplain, alternatives for each of the items (structures, construction activities and topographic alternations) identified in c. above. Alternately, justify why a specific item must be in the floodplain. Response: Section 2.4.1.1 240.3 g For each item in f. above that cannot be justified as having to be in the floodplain either show that all non-floodplain alternatives are not practicable or commit to relocating the structures, construc-tion activity or topographic alternation out of the floodplain. Response: Section 2.4.1.1 240.4 Caiculate the radiological consequences of a liquid pathway release from a postulated core melt accident. Thc analysis should assume, unless otherwise justified, that there has been a penetration of the reactor basemat by the molten core mass, and that a substantial portion of radioactively contaminated sump water was released to the ground. Doses should be compared to those calculated for the Liquid Pathway Generic Study (NUREG-0440, 1978) small riversite. Provide a summary of your analysis precedures and the values of parameters used (such as permeabilities, gradients, population affected, water use). It is suggested that meetings with the Staff of our Hydrologics Engineering Section be arranged so that we may share with you the body of information necessary to perform this analysis. Response: Section 7.1.1.1 Appendix 7. 240.5 The average annual flow of the Catawba River at the USGS gaging station 1460 near Rock Hill, South Carolina is given in Paragraph 3, page 2.4-1. Please provide the average monthly, maximum monthly and minimum monthly flows recorded at the Rock Hill gaging station. Response: Section 2.4.1.1 240.6 Please update Table 2.4.1-3, Lake Wylie Minimum Surface Water Elevations, to include period from 1973 to present. Response: Table 2.4.1-2 O Rev. 5 RAI-2
i Provide a table similar to Table 2.4.1-3 giving the annual maximum t i recorded Lake Wylie water surface elevations. Response: Table 2.4.1-3 240.7 Please provide a table showing the minimum and maximum average monthly Lake Wylie water surface elevations during the period of record. Response: Table 2.4.1-4 240.8 Please develop a water budget for Lake Wylie using average and minimum inflows, required discharges from Wylie Dam, naturai and forced evaporation, and present and projected consumptive water use. Response: Section 2.4.1.1 290.1 Provide a short narrative describing the present status of the application of renewal for the NPDES permit filed with the S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control on June 11, 1979. Response: Table 12.3.0-1 290.2 Make available for examination during the site visit one copy of l aerial photographs used to determine forest and land use types along the Catawba transmission corridors. Response: Photos were made available at time of site visit. 290.3 The intake structure has been significantly redesigned since issuance of the CP-EIS. Provide the intake bay cross sectional area under both full pond and maximum drawdown conditions, the size mesh of the traveling screens, a description of traveling screen operation and the purpose and functioning of the pullout screen bay. Discuss impact of new design relative to impact of CP stage design. Response: Section 3.4.3 290.4 The discharge structure has been significantly redesigned since issuance of the CP-EIS. Provide a description of and purpose of the proposed design change. Response: Section 3.4.4 290.5 In addition to other requested information, provide a summary and brief discussion in table form, by section, of differences between currently projected environmental effects (including those that would ' degrade, and those that would enhance environmental conditions) and the ef fects discussed in the environmental report submitted at the construction permit stage. Response: Table I-1 O Rev. 4 RAI-3
290.6 Provide an estimate of the maximum probable yearly recreational harvest of finfish, shellfish and molluscs harvested from waters downstream of the sta', ion to the Atlantic Ocean that potentially could be contaminated by radionuclides due to a maximum probable accident. The harvest estimates should be summarized by species and location of capture (water body segment) and provide an explanation of how the estimate was obtained. Response: Section 2.2.2, Tables 2.2.2-12 through 2.2.2-14, Figures 2.2.2-2 and 2.2.2-3 290.7 Using data from the last 5 years from the National Marine Fisheries Service provide an estimate of the maximum probable of' yearly commer-cial harvest of finfish, shellfish, and molluscs harvested from waters downstream of the station that potentially could be contami-nated by radionuclides due to a maximum probable accident. The harvest estimates should be summarized by species and location of capture (water body segment). Provide a generalized explanation of how the estimate was made. Response: Section 2.2.2, Tables 2.2.2-15 through 2.2.2-17, Figures 2.2.2-2 and 2.2.2-3 290.8 Provide a copy of the following references from Section 2.2; 2, 7, 21, 59. Response: Copies were made available at site visit. 290.9 (ER-OL Sec. 3.6.2) Discuss the plant operational practices or plant design features that will result in planned 0.1 mg/ liter maximum total residual chlorine concentration in plant blowdown discharge. Response: Section 3.6.2 290.10 (ER-OL Sec. 3.6.2) Estimate the tine duration tirat residual chlorine will be present in the plant discharge (for other than sanitary waste discharge) after each application to the cooling towers. Response: Section 3.6.2 290.11 (ER-OL Sec. 3.6.2) Provide additional information on the type, amount, and frequency of use of the organic biocide control of chlorine resistant organisms. Identify changes in planned usage from that evaluated at the CP Stage. Response: Section 3.6.2 290.12 (ER-OL Sec. 3.7.1) Indicate on a diagram of the site the location of the outfalls from the temporary and permanent sewage treatment systems into Lake Wylie. Response: Figure 2.1.1-5 Section 3.7.1 O Rev. 5 RAI-4
f 1 290.13 (Table 3.3-1) The average flows cited for station water use do not add up to the total withdrawal cited for the intake from Lake Wylie. Also, a source of the average flow values in the table (e.g., LPSW intake, sanitary and potable water) do not coincide with those shown in Figure 3.3.1-1. Please clarify these discrepancies. Response: Table 3.3.1-1 290.14 (Table 3.6.1-1) Indicate the source of the limits cited in the table. Response: Table 3.6.1-1 290.15 (Table 3.6.1-2) The average chemical concentration values cited in the table are based on 7 cycles of concentration. It is stated in the text that the plant will operate at 10 cycles of concentrations , but that optimum value is 8. Indicate the basis for the determina- l tion that 8 cycles is the optimum value. Resolve the discrepancy ( between the table and text values, based on your projected actual l operating mode and revise table 3.6.1-2 to reflect the anticipated ; cycles of concentration. , t Response: Section 3.6.2 290.16 (ER-OL Sec. 5.1) Indicate whether and where vegetative screening will be used on-site for alteration of plant generated noise.
- Response: Section 5.1.4 290.17 (ER-OL Sec. 5.1) Identify and provide a discussion of the operational phase noise levels and expected impacts on nearby noise sensitive lands and sampling locations, identified in Sec. 2.7.
Response: Section 5.1.4 290.18 Provide the bases for the statement in Section 5.1.4 of the ER that
.offsite noise will not be a problem." Indicate the specific receptor areas considered, and the consideration given in the analysis to ambient and plant noise levels (indicate the levels for these noises that were used in the analysis).
Response: Section 5.1.4 290.19 Indicate the current status of the NPDES permit for the Catawba Nuclear Station. Indicate those limitations which are being adjudicated and the applicable limits presently in ef fect and the alternate limits which are being requested. Response: Section 12.1.3 290.20 Provide a copy of the chlorine minimization analysis which has been performed for the Catawba Nuclear Station by Duke Power Company. f '; Response: Was provided to USNRC September 23, 1981. Rev. 4 RAI-5 1
--._--_wa- __,____..__,_.w-e, , _ _ _ . .._ _ , ,9
290.21 Lake Wylie water quality data is provided in Tables 2.4.1-2 and
- 2. 4.1-4. Indicate whether these data represent conditions over a s time at a narticular lake location or conditions at several lake locations. Also indicate whether the data are surface measurements only, or are depth composites.
Response: Section 2.4.1.~2 290.22 Indicate the thicknesses and permeabilities of the linings of the Conventional Waste Water Treatment System (CWWS) ponds. Response: Section 3.6.1 290.23 Discuss the classification of the various wastes from the station (e.g. , sanitary wastes, waste water discharged to the CWWS) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Indicate the testing, disposal and monitoring provisions currently planned or to be required to assure compliance with RCRA. Response: 3.6.3 290.24 Indicate whether the operational phase sewage treatment system will be the same as the presently installed system or will be of another design. If the system will be of another design, describe its design and operation. Response: The operational design will be similar, but it is designed for a higher fluctuation of flow than the temporary system 1s. 291.1 Describe your method of grounding fences and other metal objects in the along the station's rights-of-way. Response: Section 5.5 291.2 Discuss the anticipated effect of the cooling tower plume on the formation of fog and ice in the vicinity of the station. Response: Section 5.1.4 291.3 On page 2.2.1-1, Table 2.2.1-1 is missing. Provide the missing table. Response: Table 2.2.1-1, Section 4.1.1 291.4 ER-5.3-2 gives drift in mg/1. Convert to kg/ha/yr and indicate location of highest drift depostion. Response: Section 5.3.4 310.1 Are there any substantial changes in the station external appearance or layout which have been made subsequent to the description in the OL-ER? If so, please describe. Response: Section 3.1 Rev. 5 RAl-6
representative of the Cliffside and Catawba facilities are presented on pages 5.1-5 and 5.1-6. Discuss seasonal variation in meteorological conditions at the Cliffside and Cataba facilities, and indicate how seasonal differences were consid-ered in developing Figures 5.1.4-1 and 5.1.4-2. Response: Section 5.1.4 451.9 An inconsistency appears to exist between the preoperational meteorological measurement program described in Section 6.1.3 and the preoperational program described in Section 6.1.3 and the preopera-tional program described in Section 6.2.4 "which will continue during the operational program" (page 6.2-2) with respect to monitoring of visibility'. Describe the preoperational program designed to provide
" baseline measurements of meteorological conditions affected by operation of the mechanical draft cooling towers, and describe the operational program to assess the affects of the cooling towers.
Identify the type (s) and locations of visibility monitoring equip-ment, data reduction procedures, and calibration and maintenance schedules. Response: Section 6.2.4 451.10 Describe the status of the onsite mateorological measurements program since December, 1977.
'M Response: Section 6.1.3 451.11 Assuming that meteorological measrements are made on or near the microwave tower identified in Figure 6.1.3-1, the measurements are made at a distance of about 700 feet from the Western edge of Unit 1 Turbine Building, about 1100 feet from the Southwestern edge of the Unit 1 Reactor Building, and about 1400 feet West of the Mechanical draft cooling tower complex. Provide the heights of these structures and discuss possible building influence on meteorological measure-ments. Also, discuss the possible effects of the condensate plume, humidity plume, and drift from the cooling towers on meteorological sensors and data recovery.
Response: Section 6.1.3.1 451.12 Provide the percent recovery for each of the following parameters for the period December 17, 1975 to December 16, 1977: wind speed at the 40 and 10 m levels; wind direction at the 40 m and 10 m levels delta temperature (10 m and 40 m); dry bulb temperature and dew point temperature at 10 m; and precipitation. Response: Sections 2.3, 6.1.3 451.13 The discussion of the rationale for not adjusting the straightline Gaussian dispersion model to consider gatral and temporal variations e in airflow (page 6.1-14) requires fur'.her elaboration: a) Explain how i measurements made at an elevation 90 feet above Lake Wylie and 70 feet above plant grade on nearly the highest elevation near the plan Rev. 4 RAI-11
can be expected to identify nocturnal downslope airflow, b) The definition of stagnation (i.e., winds less than 1 mph) appears to be unnecessarily restrictive. Stagnation conditions can be accompanied by wind speeds considerabiy higher than 1 mph. Wind speeds less than 5.5 mph occur nearly 60% of the time at the 10 m level of the onsite meteorological measurement program. Discuss the behavior of effluent plumes in the vicinity of the Catawba site during conditions with wind speeds less than 5.5 mph, and indicate if " recirculation" of the plume is possible during these conditions. Response: Section 6.1.3 451.14 The starting threshold for the wind direction and wind speed sensors are 0.7 mph and 0.6 mph, respectively (page 6.1-8). However, in the discussion of minimum wind speed to be used in dispersion calcula-tions, a value of 0.45 m/sec (1.0 mph) is selected. Discuss this inconsistency. Response: Section 6.1.3.2 451.15 Discuss the rationale for using meteorological data from the 40 m - level (762' elevation) in the calculation of annual average atmos-pheric dispersion conditions when the height of the station vent is at an elevation of 719 feet. Response: Section 6.1.3.2 451.16 The onsite meteorological measurements program used to provide data for the Construction Permit Review was apparently in a different location than the present program. Identify on Figure 6.1.3-1 the location (including base elevation) of the meteorological towers used to provide data for the CP review, and compare data from the period 7/71-6/72 with more recent data from the present measurements program. Data from the earlier period showed strong secondary airflow from the northeast which is not discernable from data presented in the ER. Discuss the rationale for siting the current meteorological measure-ments system in its present location, and discuss the representative-ness of the data collected at this location. Response: Figure 6.1.3-1, Section 6.1.3 451.22 A preliminary analysis of hour-by-hour onsite meteorological data for the period 12/17/75 - 12/16/77 indicates a substantial fraction of suspect information. For example, extremely stable (Pasquill type "G") and moderately stable (Pasquill type "F") are frequently recorded during the day when such stability conditions should only be observed between sunset and sunrise. Extremely stable conditions were also recorded for extraordinarily long periods (e.g., for 20 consecutive hours ending Julian day 363 1975 at 1600 hours). Neutral (Pasquill type "0") conditions were also recorded for long periods of time, up to 69 consecutive hours ending Julian Day 015 1977 at 1800 hours. Extreirely intense inversions (with lapse rates from +10 C/100 m 59
+20 C/100 m) were recorded during 14 consecutive hours ending Julian day 059 1976 at 0900 hours. Persistence of wind direction may also Rev. 5 RAI-12
indicate suspect data. For example, in a 45 hour period in December 1975, winds from the northeast at the 10 m level were recorded for 28 hours, in periods of 12 and 16 consecutive hours. Another example is that in a 23-hour period ending Julian Day, 03/ 1977 at 0900 hours, southwest winds (at the 10 m level) were recorded for 19 hours, in periods of 7 and 12 consecutive hours. Some precipitation data is also suspect. For example, precipitation was recorded for periods of 10 or more consecutive hours for periods ending: Julian Day 360 1975 I at 0600 hours; Julian Day 027 1976 at 1500 hours; Julian Day 122 1976 at 0700 hours; Julian Day 259 1976 at 0500 hours; and Julian Day 283 1976 at 0500 hours. Precipitation was also recorded for 61 consecutive hours ending Julian Day 348 1976 at 0200 hours and for 70 consecutive hours ending Julian Day 160 1977 at 1600 hours.
- a. Because of the substantial fraction of suspect data indicated by preliminary quality check of the hour-by-hour data provided on magnetic tape, provide a new magnetic tape of corrected hour-by-hour meteorological data for at least the two year period 12/17/75 - 12/16/77 and preferably for several additional years.
All invalid data should be properly identified.
- b. Provide a detailed description of the quality control checks used to identify invalid hourly data. Indicate the frequency of data checks during the preoperational phase of the onsite meteorological measurements 3rogram, and discuss procedures for quality control checks for t7e operational program, s
! c. Provide information on the persistence of atmospheric stability conditions at the Catawba site, and discuss the validity of a stability class persisting for the long periods identified above. Also, provide a discussion of the validity of occurrences of mcderately stable and extremely stable during daylight hours, the validity of temperature gradient measurements exceeding the auto-convectionlapserate,andthevalidityofintenseinversions such as those exceeding a lapse rate of +10 C/100 m.
- d. Provide information on the persistence of wind direction (see R.G.1.70), including local or synoptic-scale airflow patterns which cause long periods of winds coming from a single 22h sector at the Catawba site.
- e. Provide a discussion of the validity of precipitation measurements at the Catawba site, particularly with respect to long periods of recorded precipitation and extraordinary amounts of precipita-tion recorded in a single hour.
Response: Section 6.1.3.1, Information provided to the UShRC December 2, 1981. 470.1 Although Table 5.2.4-1 of the ER compares the estimated doses from the Catawba Station with the Appendix I dose design objectives, it o does not compare the estimated quantities of non-tritium liquid . i effluents and I-131 airborne releases with the curie limits contained in the Annex to 10CFR50 Appendix I. If a cost benefit analysis is Rev. 5 RAI-13
not going to be performed, then the estimated quantities of the l preceeding effluents should be compared with the curie limits in the Annex to 10CFR50 Appendix I. Response: Table 5.2.4-1 470.2 Section 5.2.4.4.1 of the ER discusses population doses from s ingestion of drinking water. However, the population data used in s 5.2.4.4.1 is not consistent with the population data in ER Table 2.1.3-5. Forexample, Table 2.1.3-5 lists 330,00gpersonsusingthe Catawba River as a drinking water site, whereas s 5.2.4.4.1 lists only 210,000 persons for all populations served by Lake Wylie and the Catawba River. Resolve this apparent discrepancy and provide the population size ingesting water from the major sources of water. Response: Table 2.1.3-5, Section 5.2.4.4.1 470.3 On p. 5.2-10 of the ER, it is stated that the GASPAR and LADTAP computer codes were used to estimate doses from exposure to radio-active effluents. Provide a listing of input parameters that were used in the GASPAR and LADTAP computer runs. Response: Parameters were provided at site visit 470.4 ER Table 2.1.3-5 lists the locations of surface water users in terms of river distance miles. Please provide the location of the plant discharge point in river distance miles. Response: Table 2.1.3-5 h 470.5 ER Table 2.1.3-1 lists the location of the nearest milk cow, milk goat, garden, residence and site boundary. Since these locations are based on a survey several years ago, confirm and/or update ER Table 2.1.3-1. In a similar fashion, provide the location of the nearest meat animals within 0-8 Km for the 16 sectors. Response: Submitted to NRC December, 1981, Table 2.1.3-1 O Rev. 5 RAI-14
P se a to w I, saneTAn y , . .
& POTaeLE g ,
48e POND e A'E
- ea ee e ce a ea sa escoe a es.0cce ea CHEW CAL 6 v0LOME
#E ACTOR 46W CC4eTROL & -
SYS'EW DORON RECYCLE
$737EM
$Y5fEWS &
eense a
** 000 *
.s s to D te.90e a NSe se too e #A00UU giqTag (1 ARE ATORS COND prA iSynae fj
't wo i !
CONDE N%tg ea L,, g , ,gg o a ma _l m M DeaM sao e tvm o **** leATE R Sv$ tE M SY S T E M F kRC f(TAffE SCIEEh ea L P$# 0 a #, c a e--- - PerTECT088 s BaCreL90 eso m INTAWE F%cu gg yyy #900 # en 000 4 SS A teoot u eso e SE ALS CONVENTi0hAL tpse 4o a , FILTEFED eartR ea S YS TE M str5 m SYSTg u erst e se.mo a f me.,oo a
-l CostDE N5E R
...,,0.
E
._-___.su_~---------------------~~
SYSTEM i e i i I t i L Art efL8f
- e
,'_ 8 se. con s MM f 4,9sc a TOeER5 e s,ecos as too a se a am en e vo n f arsimarcis eferf t
a
- a. V. -
f i; t 1 scusse . p
- : La.g gvug TREAT.utNr sv vg3 . . .
.. . t l l uu,e,,, . ... i m.. %. .. w % . j
,er see.cas . E, "'T.77, M.%, '" >
a A . .. .
.Eath uT W se e .et.r r.h.g . g '
- .u .oo s i...
ca ta.a a.c i anm.ersu . , g-:
.r .o ' -
t w uc=r ... rwsw maria 'a - ic , %,
._. ao=...,
- - . . ... vi...
,.,,;y .
# Aats 0 toA.CTrVE SLU+CiteG l
i
,. ucuio ,
s..t g,..
. a. u.= w #ACWA5?E g.w .OOu SYSTE M uai . u, a ,
. .u .
l
.. . wu.
pam m* a 50uo l < . _ _ _ _ _ _'s t ____y m
-o. w
. T., . /,'
.-a
---a l
i ' 5ft AM a w aaro,, I - - ao.s,s, ,,
-- q I
Tupeist l - BusLDam G .l 3 sv. !
, , , , , wrm !
m'D '"'* f senne F___ gu1LD NG ' l
~
l p _ _. _ _ s l_ _l l Sf f W SE f ?L.dG l pose a awo e p a i t.
.L '
. . a'o*
ne STATION WATER'USE
- CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION , )
ER Figure 3.3.1-1 Revision 5 t
- n. ,
F-
/ - L,m =, _.,_ _ w____ .
r y l E' , 3,.7 i'.,',,,. , .y- fx s%b ,; ["
\
g ; y g, -
\ ' t'.~..~
l , .'s \ s i , l l t, , i \ ') i
..,d..',
,,p_ >-l,,',-'p ,
i i /
/ ,l *
,-~.
%,} 'jl: ; ,'l u /f'~~~ p ljj*-
- :l ll\ \
\
, ' ' 's y,,
I l,-----~~- l \ '~ ~
/ ' ,,
Yfs
-: ; ', ! . , ,,' _ l
- p -, ./,',, - - - - ,
x _ m,
,,.'\pd
- y_-,
4" *** %.,, ,4 ,e p** \
,/
'* A*
\
' / *..*,e
-- ) , ,- g - . . s~ .,
l l r o a cx,e i m r -
"N ,
, , , -[ N >
~,
** , ', 7~ - - l.
,.Sf{V. . . . . .,,,' j f 4'u._. \, _ ,,- ' . ;,- 2 l g',, l e, ;,g.s
,. ,_ ,.--- ... ,,s*-
~~ ,
~ m..
_ wp* .< --- ss i m c.3 t u, i se ., s
- - - + - -
u
- r. I r1' e j a
i
,i . ',~
,, . - - 'm g ; : -l, , . . '--l i ,_ l '*...!
! l ,v - l l 5 ,
l' ' ,
- E-l-- ,L, ,
A ,, c. (' , '-'.$b.I'~,) *'- , ; .'- ~~ ' ~,, %, l',,~,r
, o , , ,- i;
'#?
s l' l *',, Y \. l{ ~, f, ',[.- ,,u l l.:, j/ i $ s*
. s, ll j ,' ) ..
! ,* 1 -,;s ,s l ,)!, ,- ie s' g' , an ** ! f '
r,a** l _. s O
--.,Y f'. ...... . ,.' \ ,- ,
m[t; m, r 'A.. .: - -%e- ' -
,/ lt' .
- ,.;y,,, m. n ,.=
,s l , -~~ y. a t. '
*[a7e*NUsar f'
- g. >l. s
, , k,,, # N. 1g ',"
r-
,.. .g--.,.
1 (
.=..- ;/
i
. - - - - l, ,
i i, ,
. , .s g y- .
g '.~t:1; m
.s-.. .- - n
,Qay[
,_ .,,/ ~ ~ ~ ' . -
.\ :.'.' ; x, e-
; 6 W at*kS i[ ~ ]{;y. .
, . . p riq. s ,. ;
# f-
.' T---
; ggg ,
uw" *m
! .=
/ <
e j e,' s ; - a. , ,c 5
,. F-m..
r
.y ( .)7%,
g ;
! i
/ , ~'/m~ %
k2-'*y '...... ' /[ 'f ,g,, v'j 1 ur'%p A pe o A: .,--+-f i . L ..
, Je I' . ,.,-W , a . ...,,u.l.3, m.
- i es as
" ' * " - * " * ' , * * =
- i E p
! ,gl' -l
.Dk 's ~~" '
G' .\%D
~1bx5wb
. ~ ;' ^
T - : > W O W' m,,v. W
~ ..r-
,= %-- - -
..c--
b~ m- [
\ . arwe eme[f n
#'g -
N .a *
.se vs ie M h< .p {}l . -m .T..6 3
~'
4 '
\
\hV /
s Jl / j
. p
.tpH'*
k
}
y.'
- \ 'a ' N ~. l w .a.4 .
I s,
' \ i . , . , _
- \ /%
~
L* 'o
] r\) '
.e p
('- N s ss
) , . _,, , -
f; t u
/
. , J ;
' ~
e. i
'O ,x m p .-
a y*. . d.=* . 3
.e - 3
- e p **), e 1 ,f k
\ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - -
I ~ f)7 (4 U'" f 3 ' l . 1"1.*.N.. " ' q ., ! ,- = 3 [ , % E' , . ' ,h -
. . y _ ?,}
I h
, \
h p f2
~
\j \1 !
dT kD[ ___)x _.
/
A N. , '4 hv , . N / I s l 1,
's g / l, l
rj l l
" " ~ '
I M p 4(
} -)
i . a ~ L __-; r}. _
,.. 'i .
s
). Q
~
,?'
$ ~- * * ~ j '" s.4 -
?..Q! . ^ $ (: ~, /..
..n
- ) -_>; .;--- ..- e_ . -_y f~ m' 'v
_l '..
- Jf -
, ,,,9 .
N? ; i ,'/ , k /, - Y A*
. cp,h C%~Y e
'?s N . ,
t O
~
~-
R ._ s pPk/ ,
"{ ,
L{> w..
%l ' .., .. '
, Q, s =.r.=-f L .
9- -f
') j f (bn y -
vn
,, . r
,h A f I
_ _ _ [ f *%
=:-= %- \ # g, s j- g 4 ,
f
'N SITE EARTHWORK \
f s ' g . - pf ._,. y aut h*IN CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION
-' ER Figure 6.1.3-1 Revision 5
_ _ _ _}}